1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

2: 

3: \usepackage{axodraw}

4: \usepackage{feynarts}

5: %\usepackage{epsf}

6: 

7: \voffset -1cm   % for hep-ph submission

8: 

9: \hfuzz .5pt

10: 

11: %\setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}

12: \setlength{\clubpenalty}{10000}

13: \setlength{\widowpenalty}{10000}

14: \setlength{\displaywidowpenalty}{10000}

15: 

16: \arraycolsep 2pt    % 5  pt

17: %\footnotesep 14pt   % 8.4pt

18: 

19: \makeatletter

20: 

21: \oddsidemargin 00pt \evensidemargin 00pt

22: \topmargin 00pt \headheight 00pt \headsep 00pt

23: %\footheight 12pt \footskip 30pt

24: \textheight 232mm \textwidth 160mm

25: \setcounter{secnumdepth}{4}

26: \renewcommand{\theparagraph}{(\roman{paragraph})}

27: \def\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}{+2.00ex plus

28:  +1ex minus +.2ex}{1.5ex plus .2ex}{\it\normalsize}}

29: 

30: \def\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}{+3.0ex plus +1ex minus

31:   +.2ex}{2.3ex plus .2ex}{\normalsize\bf\boldmath}}

32: \def\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}{+2.5ex plus +1ex

33: minus +.2ex}{1.5ex plus .2ex}{\normalsize\bf\boldmath}}

34: \def\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}{+3.25ex plus

35:  +1ex minus +.2ex}{1.5ex plus .2ex}{\normalsize\it}}

36: %\def\thesubsubsection{(\roman{subsubsection})}

37: 

38:  \expandafter\ifx\csname mathrm\endcsname\relax\def\mathrm#1{{\rm #1}}\fi

39: 

40: % Equation Numbering

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

42: \newcounter{saveeqn}

43: \newcommand{\alpheqn}{\setcounter{saveeqn}{\value{equation}}%

44:    \addtocounter{saveeqn}{1} \setcounter{equation}{0}%

45:    \renewcommand{\theequation}%

46:    {{\thesection.\arabic{saveeqn}\alph{equation}}}}

47: \newcommand{\reseteqn}{\setcounter{equation}{\value{saveeqn}}%

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

49: 

50: \@addtoreset{equation}{section}

51: 

52: \newcount\@tempcntc

53: \def\@citex[#1]#2{\if@filesw\immediate\write\@auxout{\string\citation{#2}}\fi

54:   \@tempcnta\z@\@tempcntb\m@ne\def\@citea{}\@cite{\@for\@citeb:=#2\do

55:     {\@ifundefined

56:        {b@\@citeb}{\@citeo\@tempcntb\m@ne\@citea

57:         \def\@citea{,\penalty\@m\ }{\bf ?}\@warning

58:        {Citation `\@citeb' on page \thepage \space undefined}}%

59:     {\setbox\z@\hbox{\global\@tempcntc0\csname

60: b@\@citeb\endcsname\relax}%

61:      \ifnum\@tempcntc=\z@ \@citeo\@tempcntb\m@ne

62:        \@citea\def\@citea{,\penalty\@m}

63:        \hbox{\csname b@\@citeb\endcsname}%

64:      \else

65:       \advance\@tempcntb\@ne

66:       \ifnum\@tempcntb=\@tempcntc

67:       \else\advance\@tempcntb\m@ne\@citeo

68:       \@tempcnta\@tempcntc\@tempcntb\@tempcntc\fi\fi}}\@citeo}{#1}}

69: 

70: \def\@citeo{\ifnum\@tempcnta>\@tempcntb\else\@citea

71:   \def\@citea{,\penalty\@m}%

72:   \ifnum\@tempcnta=\@tempcntb\the\@tempcnta\else

73:    {\advance\@tempcnta\@ne\ifnum\@tempcnta=\@tempcntb \else

74: \def\@citea{--}\fi

75:     \advance\@tempcnta\m@ne\the\@tempcnta\@citea\the\@tempcntb}\fi\fi}

76: 

77: \def\co{\relax}

78: \def\co{,}

79: \def\nl{\nonumber\\}

80: \def\nlc{\co\nonumber\\}

81: \def\nln{\\*[-1ex]}

82: \def\eqskipcorr{\vspace{-\abovedisplayskip}

83:                 \vspace{\abovedisplayshortskip}}

84: \newcommand{\lsim}

85: {\mathrel{\raisebox{-.3em}{$\stackrel{\displaystyle <}{\sim}$}}}

86: \newcommand{\gsim}

87: {\mathrel{\raisebox{-.3em}{$\stackrel{\displaystyle >}{\sim}$}}}

88: \def\asymp#1%

89: {\mathrel{\raisebox{-.4em}{$\widetilde{\scriptstyle #1}$}}}

90: \def\Nlim#1{\mathrel{\raisebox{-.4em}

91: {$\stackrel{\disp\longrightarrow}{\scriptstyle#1}$}}}

92: \def\Nequal#1%

93: {\mathrel{\raisebox{-.5em}{$\stackrel{=}{\scriptstyle\rm#1}$}}}

94: \newcommand{\dsl}[1]{\not \hspace{-0.7mm}#1}

95: \def\dsl{\mathpalette\make@slash}

96: \def\make@slash#1#2{\setbox\z@\hbox{$#1#2$}%

97:   \hbox to 0pt{\hss$#1/$\hss\kern-\wd0}\box0}

98: 

99: % Abbreviations for environments

100: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}

101: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}

102: \def\beqar{\begin{eqnarray}}

103: \def\eeqar{\end{eqnarray}}

104: \def\barr#1{\begin{array}{#1}}

105: \def\earr{\end{array}}

106: \def\bfi{\begin{figure}}

107: \def\efi{\end{figure}}

108: \def\btab{\begin{table}}

109: \def\etab{\end{table}}

110: \def\bce{\begin{center}}

111: \def\ece{\end{center}}

112: \def\nn{\nonumber}

113: \def\disp{\displaystyle}

114: \def\text{\textstyle}

115: \def\fs{\footnotesize}

116: \def\arraystretch{1.2}

117: 

118: % shorthands for greek letters

119: \def\al{\alpha}

120: \def\be{\beta}

121: \def\Ga{\Gamma}

122: \def\ga{\gamma}

123: \def\de{\delta}

124: \def\De{\Delta}

125: \def\eps{\epsilon}

126: \def\veps{\varepsilon}

127: \def\ka{\kappa}

128: \def\La{\Lambda}

129: \def\la{\lambda}

130: \def\om{\omega}

131: \def\Om{\Omega}

132: \def\si{\sigma}

133: \def\Si{\Sigma}

134: \def\vth{\vartheta}

135: \def\ieps{\ri\epsilon}

136: 

137: % new commands for cross referencing

138: \def\refeq#1{\mbox{(\ref{#1})}}

139: \def\refeqs#1{\mbox{(\ref{#1})}}

140: \def\refeqf#1{\mbox{(\ref{#1})}}

141: \def\reffi#1{\mbox{Figure~\ref{#1}}}

142: \def\reffis#1{\mbox{Figures~\ref{#1}}}

143: \def\refta#1{\mbox{Table~\ref{#1}}}

144: \def\reftas#1{\mbox{Tables~\ref{#1}}}

145: \def\refse#1{\mbox{Section~\ref{#1}}}

146: \def\refses#1{\mbox{Sections~\ref{#1}}}

147: \def\refapp#1{\mbox{App.~\ref{#1}}}

148: \def\citere#1{\mbox{Ref.~\cite{#1}}}

149: \def\citeres#1{\mbox{Refs.~\cite{#1}}}

150: 

151: %physical units

152: \newcommand{\TeV}{\unskip\,\mathrm{TeV}}

153: \newcommand{\GeV}{\unskip\,\mathrm{GeV}}

154: \newcommand{\MeV}{\unskip\,\mathrm{MeV}}

155: \newcommand{\pba}{\unskip\,\mathrm{pb}}

156: \newcommand{\fb}{\unskip\,\mathrm{fb}}

157: 

158: % roman symbols

159: \newcommand{\ri}{{\mathrm{i}}}

160: \newcommand{\rd}{{\mathrm{d}}}

161: \newcommand{\rU}{{\mathrm{U}}}

162: \newcommand{\rL}{{\mathrm{L}}}

163: \newcommand{\rT}{{\mathrm{T}}}

164: 

165: % calligraphic symbols

166: \newcommand{\Ord}{\mathswitch{{\cal{O}}}}

167: \newcommand{\Oa}{\mathswitch{{\cal{O}}(\alpha)}}

168: \newcommand{\Oaa}{\mathswitch{{\cal{O}}(\alpha^2)}}

169: \newcommand{\Oaaa}{\mathswitch{{\cal{O}}(\alpha^3)}}

170: \renewcommand{\L}{{\cal{L}}}

171: \newcommand{\M}{{\cal{M}}}

172: %\newcommand{\V}{{\cal{V}}}

173: %\newcommand{\B}{{\cal{B}}}

174: 

175: %physical particles

176: \def\mathswitchr#1{\relax\ifmmode{\mathrm{#1}}\else$\mathrm{#1}$\fi}

177: \newcommand{\Pf}{\mathswitch  f}

178: \newcommand{\Pfbar}{\mathswitch{\bar f}}

179: \newcommand{\PV}{V}

180: \newcommand{\PW}{\mathswitchr W}

181: \newcommand{\Pw}{\mathswitchr w}

182: \newcommand{\PZ}{\mathswitchr Z}

183: \newcommand{\PA}{\mathswitchr A}

184: \newcommand{\Pg}{\mathswitchr g}

185: \newcommand{\Ph}{\mathswitchr h}

186: \newcommand{\PH}{\mathswitchr H}

187: \newcommand{\Pe}{\mathswitchr e}

188: \newcommand{\Pne}{\mathswitch \nu_{\mathrm{e}}}

189: \newcommand{\Pnebar}{\mathswitch \bar\nu_{\mathrm{e}}}

190: \newcommand{\Pnmu}{\mathswitch \nu_{\mu}}

191: \newcommand{\Pnmubar}{\mathswitch \bar\nu_{\mu}}

192: \newcommand{\Pd}{\mathswitchr d}

193: \newcommand{\Pdbar}{\bar{\mathswitchr d}}

194: \newcommand{\Pu}{\mathswitchr u}

195: \newcommand{\Pubar}{\bar{\mathswitchr u}}

196: \newcommand{\Ps}{\mathswitchr s}

197: \newcommand{\Psbar}{\bar{\mathswitchr s}}

198: \newcommand{\Pc}{\mathswitchr c}

199: \newcommand{\Pcbar}{\bar{\mathswitchr c}}

200: \newcommand{\Pb}{\mathswitchr b}

201: \newcommand{\Pbbar}{\mathswitchr{\bar b}}

202: \newcommand{\Pt}{\mathswitchr t}

203: \newcommand{\Ptbar}{\mathswitchr{\bar t}}

204: \newcommand{\Pep}{\mathswitchr {e^+}}

205: \newcommand{\Pem}{\mathswitchr {e^-}}

206: \newcommand{\Pepm}{\mathswitchr {e^{\pm}}}

207: \newcommand{\Pmup}{\mathswitchr {\mu^+}}

208: \newcommand{\Pmum}{\mathswitchr {\mu^-}}

209: \newcommand{\Pmupm}{\mathswitchr {\mu^{\pm}}}

210: \newcommand{\PWp}{\mathswitchr {W^+}}

211: \newcommand{\PWm}{\mathswitchr {W^-}}

212: \newcommand{\PWpm}{\mathswitchr {W^{\pm}}}

213: 

214: % particle masses

215: \def\mathswitch#1{\relax\ifmmode#1\else$#1$\fi}

216: \newcommand{\Mf}{\mathswitch {m_\Pf}}

217: \newcommand{\Mff}{\mathswitch {m_{\Pf'}}}

218: \newcommand{\Ml}{\mathswitch {m_\Pl}}

219: \newcommand{\Mq}{\mathswitch {m_\Pq}}

220: \newcommand{\MV}{\mathswitch {M_\PV}}

221: \newcommand{\MW}{\mathswitch {M_\PW}}

222: \newcommand{\MWZ}{\mathswitch {M_{\PW,\PZ}}}

223: \newcommand{\MA}{\mathswitch {\lambda}}

224: \newcommand{\MZ}{\mathswitch {M_\PZ}}

225: \newcommand{\MH}{\mathswitch {M_\PH}}

226: \newcommand{\Me}{\mathswitch {m_\Pe}}

227: \newcommand{\Mmy}{\mathswitch {m_\mu}}

228: \newcommand{\Mta}{\mathswitch {m_\tau}}

229: \newcommand{\Md}{\mathswitch {m_\Pd}}

230: \newcommand{\Mu}{\mathswitch {m_\Pu}}

231: \newcommand{\Ms}{\mathswitch {m_\Ps}}

232: \newcommand{\Mc}{\mathswitch {m_\Pc}}

233: \newcommand{\Mb}{\mathswitch {m_\Pb}}

234: \newcommand{\Mt}{\mathswitch {m_\Pt}}

235: \newcommand{\GW}{\Gamma_{\PW}}

236: \newcommand{\GWZ}{\Gamma_{\PW,\PZ}}

237: \newcommand{\GZ}{\Gamma_{\PZ}}

238: \newcommand{\GV}{\Gamma_{\PV}}

239: \newcommand{\GH}{\Gamma_{\PH}}

240: \newcommand{\Gt}{\Gamma_{\Pt}}

241: 

242: % shorthands for SM parameters

243: \newcommand{\rw}{\mathswitchr w}

244: \newcommand{\sw}{\mathswitch {s_\rw}}

245: \newcommand{\cw}{\mathswitch {c_\rw}}

246: \newcommand{\swbar}{\mathswitch {\bar s_\rw}}

247: \newcommand{\cwbar}{\mathswitch {\bar c_\rw}}

248: \newcommand{\Qf}{\mathswitch {Q_\Pf}}

249: \newcommand{\Ql}{\mathswitch {Q_\Pl}}

250: \newcommand{\Qq}{\mathswitch {Q_\Pq}}

251: \newcommand{\vf}{\mathswitch {v_\Pf}}

252: \newcommand{\af}{\mathswitch {a_\Pf}}

253: \newcommand{\gesi}{\mathswitch {g_\Pe}^{\sigma}}

254: \newcommand{\gem}{\mathswitch {g_\Pe}^-}

255: \newcommand{\gep}{\mathswitch {g_\Pe}^+}

256: \newcommand{\GF}{\mathswitch {G_\mu}}

257: \newcommand{\VA}{\mathrm{\{V,A\}}}

258: \newcommand{\V}{\mathrm{V}}

259: 

260: % line characterizations for figure captions

261: \def\solid{\raise.9mm\hbox{\protect\rule{1.1cm}{.2mm}}}

262: \def\dash{\raise.9mm\hbox{\protect\rule{2mm}{.2mm}}\hspace*{1mm}}

263: \def\dashed{\dash\dash\dash\dash}

264: \def\ddashed{\dash\hspace*{-.5mm}\dash\hspace*{1mm}\dash\hspace*{-.5mm}\dash}

265: 

266: % various abbreviations

267: \def\ie{i.e.\ }

268: \def\eg{e.g.\ }

269: \def\cf{cf.\ }

270: 

271: \newcommand{\se}{self-energy}

272: \newcommand{\ses}{self-energies}

273: \newcommand{\ct}{counterterm}

274: \newcommand{\cts}{counterterms}

275: \newcommand{\cs}{cross section}

276: \newcommand{\css}{cross sections}

277: 

278: \newcommand{\br}{{\mathrm{br}}}

279: \newcommand{\QCD}{{\mathrm{QCD}}}

280: \newcommand{\QED}{{\mathrm{QED}}}

281: \newcommand{\LEP}{{\mathrm{LEP}}}

282: \newcommand{\SLD}{{\mathrm{SLD}}}

283: \newcommand{\SM}{{\mathrm{SM}}}

284: \newcommand{\Born}{{\mathrm{Born}}}

285: \newcommand{\DPA}{{\mathrm{DPA}}}

286: \newcommand{\IBA}{{\mathrm{IBA}}}

287: \newcommand{\Coul}{{\mathrm{Coul}}}

288: \newcommand{\born}{{\mathrm{Born}}}

289: \newcommand{\corr}{{\mathrm{corr}}}

290: \newcommand{\onel}{{\mathrm{1-loop}}}

291: \newcommand{\weak}{{\mathrm{weak}}}

292: \newcommand{\cut}{{\mathrm{cut}}}

293: \newcommand{\SB}{{\mathrm{SB}}}

294: \newcommand{\unpol}{\mathrm{unpol}}

295: \newcommand{\CMS}{{\mathrm{CMS}}}

296: \newcommand{\WW}{{\mathrm{WW}}}

297: \newcommand{\ZZ}{{\mathrm{ZZ}}}

298: \newcommand{\CC}{{\mathrm{CC}}}

299: \newcommand{\NC}{{\mathrm{NC}}}

300: \newcommand{\virt}{{\mathrm{virt}}}

301: \newcommand{\soft}{{\mathrm{soft}}}

302: \newcommand{\coll}{{\mathrm{coll}}}

303: \newcommand{\sub}{{\mathrm{sub}}}

304: \newcommand{\sing}{{\mathrm{sing}}}

305: \newcommand{\finite}{{\mathrm{finite}}}

306: \renewcommand{\min}{{\mathrm{min}}}

307: \renewcommand{\max}{{\mathrm{max}}}

308: \newcommand{\Ncf}{N_f^{\mathrm{c}}}

309: \newcommand{\had}{\mathrm{had}}

310: \newcommand{\ew}{\mathrm{ew}}

311: \newcommand{\Lz}{\L_0}

312: \newcommand{\Lc}{\L_{\mathrm{c}}}

313: \newcommand{\Ln}{\L_{\mathrm{n}}}

314: \newcommand{\Lnt}{\tilde \L_{\mathrm{n}}}

315: \newcommand{\Lzt}{\tilde \L_0}

316: \newcommand{\az}{a_0}

317: \newcommand{\ac}{a_{\mathrm{c}}}

318: \newcommand{\an}{a_{\mathrm{n}}}

319: \newcommand{\ant}{\tilde a_{\mathrm{n}}}

320: \newcommand{\azt}{\tilde a_0}

321: \newcommand{\aWphi}{\mbox{$\alpha_{\mathrm{W}\phi}$}}

322: \newcommand{\aBphi}{\mbox{$\alpha_{\mathrm{B}\phi}$}}

323: \newcommand{\aW}{\mbox{$\alpha_{\mathrm{W}}$}}

324: \newcommand{\dkag}{\Delta\kappa_{\gamma}}

325: \newcommand{\lag}{\lambda_{\gamma}}

326: \newcommand{\ffp}{\mathswitch{\mathrm{f\/f}'}}

327: \newcommand{\mfp}{\mathswitch{\mathrm{mf}'}}

328: \newcommand{\mmp}{\mathswitch{\mathrm{mm}'}}

329: \newcommand{\NWA}{\mathswitch{\mathrm{NWA}}}

330: \newcommand{\FSR}{\mathswitch{\mathrm{FSR}}}

331: \newcommand{\LL}{\mathswitch{\mathrm{LL}}}

332: \newcommand{\LLFSR}{\mathswitch{\mathrm{LLFSR}}}

333: 

334: \newcommand{\U}{\mathrm{U}}

335: \newcommand{\SU}{\mathrm{SU}}

336: 

337: % mathematical functions

338: \def\atn{\mathop{\mathrm{arctan}}\nolimits}

339: \def\Li{\mathop{\mathrm{Li}_2}\nolimits}

340: \def\bLi{\mathop{\overline{\mathrm{Li}_2}}\nolimits}

341: \def\cLi{\mathop{{\cal L}i_2}\nolimits}

342: \def\Re{\mathop{\mathrm{Re}}\nolimits}

343: \def\Im{\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}\nolimits}

344: \def\sgn{\mathop{\mathrm{sgn}}\nolimits}

345: \def\lra{\mathop{\mathrm{\leftrightarrow}}\nolimits}

346: 

347: \hyphenation{brems-strah-lung}

348: 

349: \marginparwidth 1.2cm

350: \marginparsep 0.2cm

351: 

352: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{1.0}

353: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1.0}

354: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.2}

355: \renewcommand{\floatpagefraction}{0.7}

356: 

357: % commands for this paper

358: \newcommand{\ggz}{\gamma\gamma\PZ}

359: \newcommand{\gww}{\gamma\PW\PW}

360: \newcommand{\gzz}{\gamma\PZ\PZ}

361: \newcommand{\zzz}{\PZ\PZ\PZ}

362: \newcommand{\gphiw}{\gamma\phi\PW}

363: \newcommand{\ggww}{\gamma\gamma\PW^+\PW^-}

364: \newcommand{\gzww}{\gamma\PZ\PW\PW}

365: \newcommand{\ggzz}{\gamma\gamma\PZ\PZ}

366: \newcommand{\ggvv}{\gamma\gamma\PV\PV}

367: \newcommand{\AQGC}{{\mathrm{AQGC}}}

368: \newcommand{\ggffff}{\gamma\gamma\to 4f}

369: \newcommand{\eeffff}{\Pep\Pem\to 4f}

370: \newcommand{\eewwffff}{\Pep\Pem\to\PW\PW\to 4f}

371: \newcommand{\eeffffff}{\Pep\Pem\to 6f}

372: \newcommand{\ggffffg}{\ggffff\ga}

373: \newcommand{\eeffffg}{\eeffff\ga}

374: \newcommand{\ggffffkg}{\ggffff(\ga)}

375: \newcommand{\ggtoww}{\gamma\gamma\to \PW\PW}

376: \newcommand{\eetoww}{\Pep\Pem\to \PW\PW}

377: \newcommand{\ggwwffff}{\gamma\gamma\to \PW\PW\to 4f}

378: \newcommand{\ggvvffff}{\gamma\gamma\to \PV\PV\to 4f}

379: 

380: % special definitions for this paper

381: \newcommand{\RacoonWW}{{\sc RacoonWW}}

382: \newcommand{\Whizard}{{\sc Whizard}}

383: \newcommand{\Madgraph}{{\sc Madgraph}}

384: \newcommand{\HDECAY}{{\sc Hdecay}}

385: \newcommand{\FeynHiggs}{{\sc FeynHiggs}}

386: \newcommand{\CompAZ}{{\sc CompAZ}}

387: 

388: % modifications for drafts

389: \newcommand{\mpar}[1]{{\marginpar{\hbadness10000%

390:                       \sloppy\hfuzz10pt\boldmath\bf#1}}%

391:                       \typeout{marginpar: #1}\ignorespaces}

392: \marginparwidth 1.2cm

393: \marginparsep 0.2cm

394: \def\draftdate{\relax}

395: \def\mda{\relax}

396: \def\mua{\relax}

397: \def\mla{\relax}

398: \def\Mda{\relax}

399: \def\Mua{\relax}

400: \def\Mla{\relax}

401: \def\draft{

402: \def\thtystars{******************************}

403: \def\sixtystars{\thtystars\thtystars}

404: \typeout{}

405: \typeout{\sixtystars**}

406: \typeout{* Draft mode!

407:          For final version remove \protect\draft\space in source file *}

408: \typeout{\sixtystars**}

409: \typeout{}

410: \def\draftdate{\today}

411: \def\mua{\marginpar[\boldmath\hfil$\uparrow$]%

412:                    {\boldmath$\uparrow$\hfil}%

413:                     \typeout{marginpar: $\uparrow$}\ignorespaces}

414: \def\mda{\marginpar[\boldmath\hfil$\downarrow$]%

415:                    {\boldmath$\downarrow$\hfil}%

416:                     \typeout{marginpar: $\downarrow$}\ignorespaces}

417: \def\mla{\marginpar[\boldmath\hfil$\rightarrow$]%

418:                    {\boldmath$\leftarrow $\hfil}%

419:                     \typeout{marginpar: $\lra$}\ignorespaces}

420: \def\Mua{\marginpar[\boldmath\hfil$\Uparrow$]%

421:                    {\boldmath$\Uparrow$\hfil}%

422:                     \typeout{marginpar: $\uparrow$}\ignorespaces}

423: \def\Mda{\marginpar[\boldmath\hfil$\Downarrow$]%

424:                    {\boldmath$\Downarrow$\hfil}%

425:                     \typeout{marginpar: $\downarrow$}\ignorespaces}

426: \def\Mla{\marginpar[\boldmath\hfil$\Rightarrow$]%

427:                    {\boldmath$\Leftarrow $\hfil}%

428:                     \typeout{marginpar: $\lra$}\ignorespaces}

429: \overfullrule 5pt

430: \oddsidemargin -15mm

431: \marginparwidth 29mm

432: }

433: 

434: \def\stars{\strut\leaders\hbox{*}\hfill\strut}

435: \def\starline{\hfil\strut\hfil\hbox to \textwidth {\stars}\hfil}

436: 

437: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.5}

438: 

439: %\draft

440: 

441: \begin{document}

442: \thispagestyle{empty}

443: \def\thefootnote{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

444: \setcounter{footnote}{1}

445: \null

446: \draftdate\hfill MPP-2005-24\\

447: \strut\hfill PSI-PR-06-05\\

448: \strut\hfill hep-ph/0604011\\

449: \vspace{1.5cm}

450: \begin{center}

451: {\Large \bf\boldmath

452: Precise predictions for the Higgs-boson decay 

453: \\[.5em]

454: $\PH\to\PW\PW/\PZ\PZ\to4\,$leptons

455: \par} 

456: \vspace{1cm}

457: %

458: {\large

459: {\sc A.\ Bredenstein$^1$, A.\ Denner$^2$, S.\ Dittmaier$^1$ 

460: and M.M.\ Weber$^3$} } \\[1cm]

461: %

462: $^1$ {\it Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Physik

463: (Werner-Heisenberg-Institut), \\

464: %F\"ohringer Ring 6,

465: D-80805 M\"unchen, Germany}

466: \\[0.5cm]

467: %

468: $^2$ {\it Paul Scherrer Institut, W\"urenlingen und Villigen,

469: \\

470: CH-5232 Villigen PSI, Switzerland} \\[0.5cm]

471: %

472: $^3$ {\it Fachbereich Physik, Bergische Universit\"at Wuppertal,

473: \\

474: D-42097 Wuppertal, Germany}

475: \par \vskip 2em

476: \end{center}\par

477: \vfill {\bf Abstract:} \par The decay of the Standard Model Higgs

478: boson into four leptons via a virtual W-boson or Z-boson pair is one

479: of the most important decay modes in the Higgs-boson search at the

480: LHC. We present the complete electroweak radiative corrections of

481: ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ to these processes, including improvements beyond

482: ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ originating from heavy-Higgs effects and

483: final-state radiation.  The intermediate W- and Z-boson resonances are

484: described (without any expansion or on-shell approximation) by

485: consistently employing complex mass parameters for the gauge bosons

486: (complex-mass scheme).  The corrections to partial decay widths

487: typically amount to some per cent and increase with growing Higgs mass

488: $\MH$, reaching about 8\% at $\MH\sim500\GeV$.  For not too large

489: Higgs masses ($\MH\lsim400\GeV$) the corrections to the partial decay

490: widths can be reproduced within $\lsim2\%$ by simple approximations.

491: For angular distributions the corrections are somewhat larger and

492: distort the shapes.  For invariant-mass distributions of fermion pairs

493: they can reach several tens of per cent depending on the treatment of

494: photon radiation.  The discussed corrections have been implemented in

495: a Monte Carlo

496: event generator called {\sc Prophecy4f}.%

497: \footnote{The computer code can be obtained from the authors upon request.}%

498: \par

499: \vskip .5cm

500: \noindent

501: March 2006 

502: \null

503: \setcounter{page}{0}

504: \clearpage

505: \def\thefootnote{\arabic{footnote}}

506: \setcounter{footnote}{0}

507: 

508: \section{Introduction}

509: 

510: The primary task of the LHC will be the detection and the study of the

511: Higgs boson. If it is heavier than $140\GeV$ and behaves as predicted

512: by the Standard Model (SM), it decays predominantly into gauge-boson

513: pairs and subsequently into four light fermions.  From a Higgs-boson

514: mass $\MH$ of about $130\GeV$ up to the Z-boson-pair threshold $2\MZ$,

515: the decay signature $\PH(\to\PW\PW)\to2\,$leptons + missing

516: $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ \cite{Glover:1988fn,Dittmar:1996ss} has the highest

517: discovery potential for the Higgs boson at the LHC \cite{Asai:2004ws}.

518: For higher Higgs masses, the leading role is taken over by the

519: ``gold-plated'' channel $\PH\to\PZ\PZ\to4\,$leptons, which will allow

520: for the most accurate measurement of $\MH$ above $130\GeV$

521: \cite{Zivkovic:2004sv}.  More details and recent developments

522: concerning Higgs studies at the LHC can be found in the literature

523: \cite{atlas-cms-tdrs,Assamagan:2004mu,SMH-LH2005}.  At a future

524: $\Pe^+\Pe^-$ linear collider

525: \cite{Aguilar-Saavedra:2001rg,Abe:2001wn,Abe:2001gc}, the decays

526: $\PH\to4f$ will enable measurements of the $\PH\to\PW\PW/\PZ\PZ$

527: branching ratios at the level of a few to 10\% \cite{Meyer:2004ha}.

528: 

529: A kinematical reconstruction of the Higgs boson and of the virtual W

530: and Z~bosons requires the study of distributions defined from the

531: kinematics of the decay fermions.  Thereby, it is important to include

532: radiative corrections, in particular real photon radiation. In

533: addition, the verification of the spin and of the CP properties of the

534: Higgs boson relies on the study of angular, energy, and invariant-mass

535: distributions \cite{Nelson:1986ki,Choi:2002jk}.  In particular, the

536: sensitivity of the angle between the two Z-decay planes in

537: $\PH\to\PZ\PZ\to4\,$leptons has been frequently emphasized in the

538: literature.  As a consequence a Monte Carlo generator for

539: $\PH\to\PW\PW/\PZ\PZ\to4\,$fermions including all relevant corrections

540: is needed.

541: 

542: The theoretical description of the decays of a SM Higgs boson into W-

543: or Z-boson pairs started with lowest-order formulas for the partial

544: decay widths.  The first calculations \cite{Pocsik:1980ta} that

545: include off-shell effects of the gauge bosons made the approximation

546: that one of the W or Z~bosons was still on shell, an approximation

547: that turns out to be not sufficient.  Later calculations

548: \cite{Cahn:1988ru} dealt with the situation of two intermediate

549: off-shell gauge bosons.  The various approaches are compared, e.g., in

550: \citere{Djouadi:2005gi}.  We note that the program

551: \HDECAY~\cite{Djouadi:1997yw}, which is frequently used in practice,

552: calculates the partial decay widths for $\PH\to\PW\PW/\PZ\PZ$ with on-

553: or off-shell gauge bosons depending on $\MH$.  Distributions of the

554: decay fermions have been considered in

555: \citeres{Nelson:1986ki,Choi:2002jk}, but still in lowest order of

556: perturbation theory.

557: 

558: In the past the electroweak ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ corrections to decays

559: into gauge bosons, $\PH\to\PW\PW/\PZ\PZ$, were known

560: \cite{Fleischer:1980ub,Kniehl:1991xe} only in narrow-width

561: approximation (NWA), i.e.\ for on-shell W and Z~bosons.  In this case,

562: also leading two-loop corrections enhanced by powers of the top-quark

563: mass \cite{Kniehl:1995tn,Kniehl:1995at} or of the Higgs-boson mass

564: \cite{Ghinculov:1995bz,Frink:1996sv} have been calculated.  However,

565: near and below the gauge-boson-pair thresholds the NWA is not

566: applicable, so that only the lowest-order results exist in this $\MH$

567: range.  Recently electroweak corrections to the processes

568: $\PH\to\PW\PW/\PZ\PZ\to4f$ with off-shell gauge bosons have been

569: considered. Progress on a calculation of the electromagnetic

570: corrections to $\PH\to\PZ\PZ\to4\,$leptons has been reported at the

571: RADCOR05 conference by Carloni Calame \cite{CarloniCalame:2006vr}.

572: There we have also presented first results of our calculation of the

573: complete ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ corrections to the general

574: $\PH\to4\,$leptons processes \cite{axel-talk}.

575: 

576: In this paper we describe the details of our calculation of the ${\cal

577:   O}(\alpha)$ corrections and of the included improvements beyond this

578: order.  The involved Feynman diagrams are closely related to the ones

579: of the production process $\Pep\Pem\to\nu\bar\nu\PH$, whose

580: electroweak ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ corrections have been evaluated in

581: \citeres{Belanger:2002me,Denner:2003yg}.  Therefore, we proceed in the

582: algebraic reduction of the one-loop diagrams as described in

583: \citere{Denner:2003yg}.  On the other hand, the resonance structure of

584: the decays $\PH\to\PW\PW/\PZ\PZ\to4f$ is practically the same as in

585: $\Pep\Pem\to\PW\PW\to4f$, which was treated at the one-loop level in

586: \citere{Denner:2005es}.  Thus, we apply the ``complex-mass scheme''

587: \cite{Denner:2005es,Denner:1999gp}, where gauge-boson masses are

588: consistently treated as complex quantities.  This procedure fully

589: maintains gauge invariance at the price of having complex gauge-boson

590: masses everywhere, i.e.\ also in couplings and loop integrals. For a

591: numerically stable evaluation of the latter we employ the methods

592: described in \citeres{Denner:2002ii,Denner:2005nn}.  The combination

593: of virtual and real photon corrections is performed in the dipole

594: subtraction approach \cite{Dittmaier:2000mb,Bredenstein:2005zk} and

595: checked by the alternative of phase-space slicing.  The whole

596: calculation has been implemented in a Monte Carlo generator called

597: {\sc Prophecy4f}.

598: 

599: The paper is organized as follows.  In \refse{se:conv-lo} we fix our

600: conventions and give explicit results for the tree-level amplitudes of

601: the processes $\PH\to\PW\PW/\PZ\PZ\to4f$.  Section~\ref{se:virt}

602: contains a description of our calculation of the virtual one-loop

603: corrections; the real photon corrections are considered in

604: \refse{se:real}.  Some details on the employed Monte Carlo techniques

605: are given in \refse{se:MC}.  In \refse{se:IBA} we construct an

606: ``improved Born approximation'' (IBA) which approximates our

607: state-of-the-art prediction for partial decay widths within $\lsim2\%$

608: for not too large Higgs masses, $\MH\lsim400\GeV$.  Our numerical

609: results are discussed in \refse{se:numerics}, comprising partial decay

610: widths of several representative $\PH\to\PW\PW/\PZ\PZ\to4l$ channels

611: as well as differential cross sections for selected channels in

612: invariant masses of lepton pairs and in various angles.  A comparison

613: with results obtained from \HDECAY\ for the partial widths is also

614: performed there.  Section~\ref{se:concl} contains our conclusions.

615: 

616: \section{Conventions and lowest-order results}

617: \label{se:conv-lo}

618: 

619: We consider the lowest-order processes 

620: \beq\label{process-H4f}

621: \PH(p)

622:  \;\longrightarrow\;

623: f_1(k_1,\si_1) + \bar f_2(k_2,\si_2) + f_3(k_3,\si_3) + \bar

624: f_4(k_4,\si_4),  

625: \label{eq:h4f}

626: \eeq

627: where the momenta and helicities of the external particles are

628: indicated in parentheses. The helicities take the values

629: $\sigma_i=\pm1/2$, but we often use only the sign to indicate the

630: helicity. The masses of the external fermions are neglected whenever 

631: possible; they are only taken into account in the mass-singular

632: logarithms originating from collinear final-state radiation (FSR).

633: The matrix elements can be constructed from the generic diagram shown in

634: \reffi{fi:H4f-born-diag}.

635: \bfi

636: \begin{center}

637: \setlength{\unitlength}{1pt}

638: \begin{picture}(190,100)(-20,0)

639: %\Vertex(-20,0){2.0}

640: %\Vertex(-20,100){2.0}

641: %\Vertex(170,0){2.0}

642: %\Vertex(170,100){2.0}

643: \DashLine(15,50)(60,50){3}

644: \Photon(60,50)(90,20){-2}{5}

645: \Photon(60,50)(90,80){2}{5}

646: \Vertex(60,50){2.0}

647: \Vertex(90,80){2.0}

648: \Vertex(90,20){2.0}

649: \ArrowLine(90,80)(120, 95)

650: \ArrowLine(120,65)(90,80)

651: \ArrowLine(120, 5)( 90,20)

652: \ArrowLine( 90,20)(120,35)

653: \put(-20,47){$\PH(p)$}

654: \put(62,70){$V$}

655: \put(62,18){$V$}

656: \put(125,90){$f_a(k_a,\si_a)$}

657: \put(125,65){$\bar f_b(k_b,\si_b)$}

658: \put(125,30){$f_c(k_c,\si_c)$}

659: \put(125,5){$\bar f_d(k_d,\si_d)$}

660: \end{picture}

661: \end{center}

662: \caption{Generic lowest-order diagram for $\PH\to 4f$ where $V=\PW,\PZ$.}

663: \label{fi:H4f-born-diag}

664: \efi

665: \newcommand{\cmhs}{\mu^2_\PH}

666: \newcommand{\cmt}{\mu_\Pt}

667: \newcommand{\cmvs}{\mu^2_V}

668: \newcommand{\cmws}{\mu^2_\PW}

669: \newcommand{\cmzs}{\mu^2_\PZ}

670: \newcommand{\cmv}{\mu_V}

671: \newcommand{\cmw}{\mu_\PW}

672: \newcommand{\cmz}{\mu_\PZ}

673: \newcommand{\csw}{\mathswitch {s_\rw}}

674: \newcommand{\ccw}{\mathswitch {c_\rw}}

675: \newcommand{\cZ}{\mathcal{Z}}

676: 

677: Using the conventions of \citeres{Denner:1993kt,Denner:1994xt} we denote 

678: the relevant couplings in the following by

679: \beqar

680: g_{\gamma ff}^\pm &=& -\Qf, \qquad

681: g_{\PZ ff}^+ = -\frac{\sw}{\cw}\Qf, \qquad

682: g_{\PZ ff}^- = -\frac{\sw}{\cw}\Qf + \frac{I^3_{\rw,f}}{\cw\sw},

683: \nn\\

684: g_{\PW ff'}^- &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\sw}, \qquad

685: g_{\PW ff'}^+ = 0,

686: \nl

687: g_{\PH\PZ\PZ}&=&\frac{\cmw}{\cw^2\sw},\qquad g_{\PH\PW\PW}=\frac{\cmw}{\sw},

688: \label{eq:couplings}

689: \eeqar

690: where $\Qf$ is the relative charge of the fermion $f$, and

691: $I^3_{\rw,f}=\pm{1}/{2}$ the third component of the weak isospin of

692: the left-handed part of the fermion field $f$.  The CKM matrix has

693: been consistently set to the unit matrix, which has no sizeable

694: effects on our results.  In \refeq{eq:couplings} we have already

695: indicated that we use complex gauge-boson masses $\cmv$ everywhere,

696: \beqar\label{eq:complex-masses}

697: \cmvs&=& M_V^2 - \ri M_V\Ga_V, \qquad V=\PW,\PZ,

698: \eeqar

699: where $M_V$ and $\Ga_V$ denote the real pole-mass and

700: width parameters. Accordingly the sine and cosine of

701: the weak mixing angle are fixed by

702: \beq\label{eq:defcw}

703: \cw^2 = 1-\sw^2 = \frac{\cmw^2}{\cmz^2},

704: \eeq

705: i.e.\ $\cw$ and $\sw$ are complex quantities.

706: More details about the complex-mass scheme are given in

707: \refse{se:cms}.

708: 

709: In order to express the amplitudes in a compact way, we use the

710: Weyl--van der Waerden (WvdW) spinor technique as formulated in

711: \citere{Dittmaier:1998nn}. The spinor products $\langle\dots\rangle$

712: are defined by

713: \beq

714: \langle pq\rangle=\epsilon^{AB}p_A q_B

715: =2\sqrt{p_0 q_0} \,\Biggl[

716: {\mathrm{e}}^{-\ri\phi_p}\cos\frac{\theta_p}{2}\sin\frac{\theta_q}{2}

717: -{\mathrm{e}}^{-\ri\phi_q}\cos\frac{\theta_q}{2}\sin\frac{\theta_p}{2}

718: \Biggr],

719: \eeq

720: where $p_A$, $q_A$ are the associated momentum spinors for the light-like

721: momenta

722: \beqar

723: p^\mu&=&p_0(1,\sin\theta_p\cos\phi_p,\sin\theta_p\sin\phi_p,\cos\theta_p),\nl

724: q^\mu&=&q_0(1,\sin\theta_q\cos\phi_q,\sin\theta_q\sin\phi_q,\cos\theta_q).

725: \eeqar

726: 

727: In the notation of \citere{Dittmaier:1998nn} the generic lowest-order 

728: amplitude reads

729: \beq\label{eq:MHffff}

730: \M_0^{VV,\si_a\si_b\si_c\si_d}(k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d) =

731: 2e^3g^{\si_a}_{Vf_af_b}g^{\si_c}_{Vf_cf_d}g_{\PH VV} \,

732: \de_{\si_a,-\si_b}\de_{\si_c,-\si_d}

733: %\frac{1}{(k_a+k_b)^2-\cmv^2} \,

734: %\frac{1}{(k_c+k_d)^2-\cmv^2} \,

735: %\nn\\ && {} \times 

736: A_{\si_a\si_c}^{VV}(k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d),

737: \eeq

738: or more specifically for the case of Z-mediated and W-mediated

739: decays

740: \beqar\label{eq:MHffff-spec}

741: \M_0^{\ZZ,\si_a\si_b\si_c\si_d}(k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d) &=&

742: \frac{2e^3g^{\si_a}_{\PZ f_af_b}g^{\si_c}_{\PZ f_cf_d}\cmw}{\cw^2\sw} \,

743: \de_{\si_a,-\si_b}\de_{\si_c,-\si_d}\,

744: A_{\si_a\si_c}^{\ZZ}(k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d),

745: \nl

746: \M_0^{\WW,\si_a\si_b\si_c\si_d}(k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d) &=&

747:  \frac{e^3\cmw}{\sw^3} \,

748: \de_{\si_a,-}\de_{\si_b,+}\de_{\si_c,-}\de_{\si_d,+}\,

749: A_{--}^{\WW}(k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d).

750: \eeqar

751: The auxiliary functions are given by

752: \beqar\label{eq:Mhffffaux}

753: A_{--}^{VV}(k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d) &=& 

754: \frac{\langle k_b k_d\rangle^*\langle k_a k_c\rangle}

755: {[(k_a+k_b)^2-\cmv^2] [(k_c+k_d)^2-\cmv^2]},

756: \nl

757: A_{+-}^{VV}(k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d) &=& A_{--}^{VV}(k_b,k_a,k_c,k_d),\nl

758: A_{-+}^{VV}(k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d) &=& A_{--}^{VV}(k_a,k_b,k_d,k_c),\nl

759: A_{++}^{VV}(k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d) &=& A_{--}^{VV}(k_b,k_a,k_d,k_c),

760: \eeqar

761: and obey the relations

762: \beqar\label{eq:MHffff-rel}

763: A_{-\si_a,-\si_c}^{VV}(k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d) &=& 

764: \Bigl(A_{\si_a\si_c}^{VV}(k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d)\Bigr)^*

765: \Bigr|_{\cmv\to \cmv^*},\nl

766: A_{-\si_a,\si_c}^{VV}(k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d) &=& 

767: A_{\si_a\si_c}^{VV}(k_b,k_a,k_c,k_d), \nl

768: A_{\si_a,-\si_c}^{VV}(k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d) &=& 

769: A_{\si_a\si_c}^{VV}(k_a,k_b,k_d,k_c), \nl

770: A_{\si_a\si_c}^{VV}(k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d) &=& 

771: \Bigl(A_{\si_a\si_c}^{VV}(k_b,k_a,k_d,k_c)\Bigr)^*

772: \Bigr|_{\cmv\to \cmv^*},\nl

773: A_{\si_a\si_c}^{VV}(k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d) &=& 

774: A_{\si_c\si_a}^{VV}(k_c,k_d,k_a,k_b).

775: \eeqar

776: The relations between the $A^{\dots}_{\dots}$ functions that differ in

777: all helicities result from a P transformation. Those where only one

778: fermion helicity is reversed are related to C symmetry.  The last but

779: one is due to CP symmetry, and the last one results from a symmetry

780: under the exchange of the two fermion pairs.  The replacements

781: $\cmv\to \cmv^*$ in \refeq{eq:MHffff-rel} ensure that the vector-boson

782: masses remain unaffected by complex conjugation.

783: 

784: From the generic matrix element

785: $\M_0^{VV,\si_a\si_b\si_c\si_d}(k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d)$ the matrix elements

786: for the specific processes can be constructed as follows.  To write

787: down the explicit matrix elements for the different final states, we

788: denote different fermions ($f\ne F$) by $f$ and $F$, and their

789: weak-isospin partners by $f'$ and $F'$, respectively:

790: \begin{itemize}

791: \item $\PH\to f\bar f F\bar F$:

792: \beqar

793: \M_0^{\si_1\si_2\si_3\si_4}(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)&=&

794: \M_0^{\ZZ,\si_1\si_2\si_3\si_4}(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4),

795: \label{eq:zz}

796: \eeqar

797: \item $\PH\to f\bar f' F\bar F'$:

798: \beqar

799: \M_0^{\si_1\si_2\si_3\si_4}(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)

800: &=&\M_0^{\WW,\si_1\si_2\si_3\si_4}(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4),

801: \label{eq:ww}

802: \eeqar

803: \item $\PH\to f\bar f f\bar f$:

804: \beqar

805: \M_0^{\si_1\si_2\si_3\si_4}(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)&=&

806: \M_0^{\ZZ,\si_1\si_2\si_3\si_4}(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)

807: \nl&&{}

808: -\M_0^{\ZZ,\si_1\si_4\si_3\si_2}(k_1,k_4,k_3,k_2),

809: \label{eq:zzsym}

810: \eeqar

811: \item $\PH\to f\bar f f'\bar f'$:

812: \beqar

813: \M_0^{\si_1\si_2\si_3\si_4}(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)

814: &=&\M_0^{\ZZ,\si_1\si_2\si_3\si_4}(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)

815: \nl&&{}

816: -\M_0^{\WW,\si_1\si_4\si_3\si_2}(k_1,k_4,k_3,k_2).

817: \label{eq:mixed}

818: \eeqar

819: \end{itemize}

820: The relative signs between contributions of the basic subamplitudes to

821: the full matrix elements account for the sign changes resulting from

822: interchanging external fermion lines.

823: 

824: The matrix elements of \refeq{eq:zz} and \refeq{eq:ww} can be extended

825: to the case of semi-leptonic or hadronic final states by simply

826: multiplying the squared matrix element by a colour factor 3 or 9,

827: respectively.  On the other hand, care has to be taken in the cases of

828: \refeq{eq:zzsym} and \refeq{eq:mixed} for hadronic final states

829: (semi-leptonic final states do not exist) owing to the non-trivial

830: colour interferences.  Summing over the colour degrees of freedom, we

831: have

832: \begin{itemize}

833: \item $\PH\to q\bar q q\bar q$:

834: \beqar

835: \lefteqn{\left|\M_0^{\si_1\si_2\si_3\si_4}(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)\right|^2 =}

836: \qquad

837: \nl&&

838: 9\left|\M_0^{\ZZ,\si_1\si_2\si_3\si_4}(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)\right|^2 

839: +9\left|\M_0^{\ZZ,\si_1\si_4\si_3\si_2}(k_1,k_4,k_3,k_2)\right|^2

840: \nl&&{}

841: -6\Re\left\{\M_0^{\ZZ,\si_1\si_2\si_3\si_4}(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)

842: \left(\M_0^{\ZZ,\si_1\si_4\si_3\si_2}(k_1,k_4,k_3,k_2)\right)^*\right\},

843: \hspace*{3em}

844: \label{eq:hadzzsym}

845: \eeqar

846: \item $\PH\to q\bar q q'\bar q'$:

847: \beqar

848: \lefteqn{\left|\M_0^{\si_1\si_2\si_3\si_4}(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)\right|^2 =}

849: \qquad

850: \nl&&

851: 9\left|\M_0^{\ZZ,\si_1\si_2\si_3\si_4}(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)\right|^2

852: +9\left|\M_0^{\WW,\si_1\si_4\si_3\si_2}(k_1,k_4,k_3,k_2)\right|^2

853: \nl&&

854: {}-6\Re\left\{\M_0^{\ZZ,\si_1\si_2\si_3\si_4}(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)

855: \left(\M_0^{\WW,\si_1\si_4\si_3\si_2}(k_1,k_4,k_3,k_2)\right)^*\right\}.

856: \hspace*{3em}

857: \label{eq:hadmixed}

858: \eeqar

859: \end{itemize}

860: Here $q$ denotes any quark of the first two generations and $q'$ its

861: weak-isospin partner.

862: 

863: Having constructed the matrix elements, we can write the lowest-order 

864: decay width $\Ga_0$ as

865: \beq

866: \int\rd\Ga_0 = \frac{1}{2\MH} \int \rd\Phi_0 \,

867:  \sum_{\si_1,\si_2,\si_3,\si_4=\pm\frac{1}{2}}  

868: |\M^{\si_1\si_2\si_3\si_4}_0|^2,

869: \label{eq:hbcs}

870: \eeq

871: where the phase-space integral is defined by

872: \beq

873: \int \rd\Phi_0 =

874: \left( \prod_{i=1}^4 \int\frac{\rd^3 {\bf k}_i}{(2\pi)^3 2k_i^0} \right)\,

875: (2\pi)^4 \delta^{(4)}\Biggl(p-\sum_{j=1}^4 k_j\Biggr).

876: \label{eq:dPS}

877: \eeq

878: For the case $\PH\to f\bar f f\bar f$, which involves two pairs of

879: identical particles in the final state, we implicitly include a factor

880: $1/4$ in the phase-space integral, without making this factor

881: explicit in the formulas.

882: 

883: \section{Virtual corrections}

884: \label{se:virt}

885: 

886: \subsection{Survey of one-loop diagrams}

887: 

888: The virtual corrections receive contributions from self-energy,

889: vertex, box, and pentagon diagrams. The structural diagrams

890: containing the generic contributions of vertex functions are

891: summarized in \reffi{fi:gendiagrams}.  

892: \begin{figure}

893: \centerline{\footnotesize  \input{paper-vertex}}

894: \vspace{-2.0em}

895: \caption{Generic contributions of different vertex functions to 

896: $\PH\to\PW\PW/\PZ\PZ\to4f$, where the blobs stand for one-particle-irreducible

897: one-loop vertex functions.}

898: \label{fi:gendiagrams}

899: \end{figure}%

900: Here and in the following we omit all diagrams that vanish in the

901: limit of vanishing external fermion masses from the beginning.  For

902: charged-current processes the generic field $V$ stands for the W-boson

903: field, for neutral-current processes we have $V=Z,\gamma$, where the

904: photon is absent in couplings to the Higgs boson.  The generic

905: diagrams cover all structures relevant for electroweak corrections to

906: arbitrary four-fermion final states, including quarks.  Note, however,

907: that some four-quark final states receive corrections from diagrams

908: with intermediate gluons on tree-like lines (quark-loop-induced

909: $\PH\Pg\Pg$ vertex).  Possible QCD corrections for quarks in the final

910: state will not be considered in the following lists of diagrams.

911: 

912: The pentagon diagrams are shown in \reffis{fi:pent_nc} and

913: \ref{fi:pent_cc}, respectively.

914: \begin{figure}

915: \centerline{\footnotesize  \input{paper-pent-nc}}

916: \vspace{-2.0em}

917: \caption{Pentagon diagrams for $\PH\to\PZ\PZ\to f\bar f F\bar F$,

918:   where $f$ and $F$ are different fermions with respective

919:   weak-isospin partners $f'$ and $F'$. The fermion arrows in the

920:   diagrams involving W~bosons apply to the case where both $f$ and $F$ have

921:   weak isospin $I^3_{\rw,f}= +1/2$; for fermions with $I^3_{\rw,f}=

922:   -1/2$ the corresponding fermion arrows have to be reversed.}

923: \label{fi:pent_nc}

924: %\end{figure}

925: %

926: \vspace*{1em}

927: %\begin{figure}

928: \centerline{\footnotesize  \input{paper-pent-cc}}

929: \vspace{-2.0em}

930: \caption{Pentagon diagrams for $\PH\to\PW\PW\to f\bar f' F\bar F'$,

931:   where $f$ and $F$ are different fermions with respective

932:   weak-isospin partners $f'$ and $F'$. The fermion arrows apply to the case 

933:   where $f$ and $F$ have weak isospin $I^3_{\rw,f}= +1/2$ and

934:   $I^3_{\rw,F}= -1/2$, respectively; for fermions with opposite weak

935:   isospin the corresponding fermion arrows have to be reversed.}

936: \label{fi:pent_cc}

937: \end{figure}

938: The specific subdiagrams of loop-induced 4-point functions have been

939: shown in \citere{Denner:2003yg}, where the process class

940: $\Pep\Pem\to\nu\bar\nu\PH$ was analyzed at one loop. They involve

941: 4-point vertex functions of the type $\nu_l\bar{\nu}_l\PZ\PH$,

942: $\nu_l\bar{\nu}_l\gamma\PH$, $l^-l^+\PZ\PH$, $l^-l^+\gamma\PH$, and

943: $l^\mp\mathord{\stackrel{{\scriptscriptstyle(}-{\scriptscriptstyle)}}{\nu}}_l\PW^\pm\PH$

944: with $l=\Pe,\mu,\tau$ denoting any charged lepton.  The diagrams for

945: the $l^-l^+\gamma\PH$ vertex function can be obtained from those for

946: the $l^-l^+\PZ\PH$ vertex function by replacing the external \PZ~boson

947: by a photon and omitting the diagram where the photon couples to

948: neutrinos.  The 3-point loop insertions in the $\PH\nu_l\bar{\nu}_l$,

949: $\PH l^-l^+$, $\PH\PW\PW$, $\PH\PZ\PZ$, and $\PH\PZ\ga$ vertices have

950: also been listed in \citere{Denner:2003yg}; the one-loop diagrams for

951: the $\PH\gamma\gamma$ vertex follow from the $\PH\PZ\PZ$ or

952: $\PH\PZ\gamma$ case by obvious substitutions and omissions.  Most of

953: the diagrams for the self-energies and the $\nu_l \bar{\nu}_l\PZ$,

954: $l^-l^+\PZ$, and

955: $l^\pm\mathord{\stackrel{{\scriptscriptstyle(}-{\scriptscriptstyle)}}{\nu}}\!_{l}\PW^\mp$

956: vertex functions can be found in \citere{Hollik:1988ii}.

957: 

958: All pentagon and box diagrams as well as the $\PH\gamma\gamma$ vertex

959: function are UV finite; also the $\PH\nu_l\bar{\nu}_l$ and $\PH

960: l^+l^-$ vertex functions are UV finite since we neglect the masses of

961: the light fermions everywhere apart from the mass-singular logarithms.

962: For the other vertex functions, $\PH\PW\PW$, $\PH\PZ\PZ$, $\PH\PZ\ga$,

963: $\nu_l \bar{\nu}_l\PZ$, $l^-l^+\PZ$,

964: $l^\pm\mathord{\stackrel{{\scriptscriptstyle(}-{\scriptscriptstyle)}}{\nu}}\!_{l}\PW^\mp$,

965: and for the relevant self-energies the corresponding counterterm

966: diagrams have to be included.

967: 

968: \subsection{Calculation of the one-loop corrections}

969: 

970: \subsubsection{Algebraic reduction of diagrams and standard matrix elements}

971: \label{se:alg1loop}

972: 

973: The algebraic part of the two calculations has been carried out in the

974: same way as in the one-loop calculation of

975: $\Pep\Pem\to\nu\bar\nu\PH$ described in \citere{Denner:2003yg}.

976: This means that 

977: we separate the fermion spinor chains from the rest of the

978: amplitude by defining standard matrix elements (SME).  

979: To introduce a compact notation for the SME, the tensors 

980: \beqar

981: \Gamma^{ab,\si}_{\{\al,\al\be\ga\}} &=&

982: \bar u_{f_a}(k_a)\left\{\ga_\al,\ga_\al\ga_\be\ga_\ga\right\}

983: \omega_\si v_{\bar f_b}(k_b),

984: \nn\\

985: \Gamma^{cd,\tau}_{\{\al,\al\be\ga\}} &=&

986: \bar u_{f_c}(k_c)\left\{\ga_\al,\ga_\al\ga_\be\ga_\ga\right\}

987: \omega_\tau v_{\bar f_d}(k_d)

988: \eeqar

989: are defined with obvious notations for the Dirac spinors $\bar

990: u_{f_a}(k_a)$, etc., and $\omega_\pm=(1\pm\gamma_5)/2$ denote the

991: right- and left-handed chirality projectors.  Here and in the

992: following, each entry in the set within curly brackets refers to a

993: single object, i.e.\ from the first line in the equation above we have

994: $\Gamma^{ab,\si}_{\al} = \bar u_{f_a}(k_a)\ga_\al \omega_\si v_{\bar

995:   f_b}(k_b)$ and $\Gamma^{ab,\si}_{\al\be\ga} = \bar

996: u_{f_a}(k_a)\ga_\al\ga_\be\ga_\ga \omega_\si v_{\bar f_b}(k_b)$,

997:  etc. Furthermore, symbols like $\Gamma_p$ are used as

998: shorthand for the contraction $\Gamma_\mu\, p^\mu$. 

999: We define the 52 SME

1000: \newcommand{\Msme}{\hat\M}

1001: \beq

1002: \def\arraystretch{1.5}

1003: \begin{array}[b]{rclcrcl}

1004: \Msme^{abcd,\si\tau}_{\{1,2\}} &=&

1005: \Ga^{ab,\si}_{\al} \; \Ga^{cd,\tau,\{\al,\al{k}_a{k}_b\}},

1006: & \qquad &

1007: \Msme^{abcd,\si\tau}_{\{3,4\}} &=&

1008: \Ga^{ab,\si}_{\al k_c k_d} \; \Ga^{cd,\tau,\{\al,\al{k}_a{k}_b\}},

1009: \\

1010: \Msme^{abcd,\si\tau}_{\{5,6\}} &=&

1011: \Ga^{ab,\si}_{k_c} \; \Ga^{cd,\tau,\{{k}_a,{k}_b\}},

1012: & \qquad &

1013: \Msme^{abcd,\si\tau}_{\{7,8\}} &=&

1014: \Ga^{ab,\si}_{k_d} \; \Ga^{cd,\tau,\{{k}_a,{k}_b\}},

1015: \\

1016: \Msme^{abcd,\si\tau}_{\{9,10\}} &=&

1017: \Ga^{ab,\si}_{\al\be k_c} \; \Ga^{cd,\tau,\{\al\be {k}_a,\al\be {k}_b\}},

1018: & \qquad &

1019: \Msme^{abcd,\si\tau}_{\{11,12\}} &=&

1020: \Ga^{ab,\si}_{\al\be k_d} \; \Ga^{cd,\tau,\{\al\be {k}_a,\al\be {k}_b\}},

1021: \\

1022: \Msme^{abcd,\si\tau}_{13} &=&

1023: \Ga^{ab,\si}_{\al\be\ga} \; \Ga^{cd,\tau,\al\be\ga}.

1024: &&&&

1025: \end{array}

1026: \eeq

1027: The SME are evaluated within the WvdW spinor technique, similar to the

1028: lowest-order amplitudes described in the previous section.  The

1029: tree-level and one-loop amplitudes $\M^{abcd,\si\tau}_0$ and

1030: $\M^{abcd,\si\tau}_1$, respectively, for the generic four-fermion

1031: final state $f_a\bar f_b f_c\bar f_d$ can be expanded in terms of

1032: linear combinations of SME,

1033: \beq

1034: \M^{abcd,\si\tau}_n = 

1035: \sum_{i=1}^{13} F^{abcd,\si\tau}_{n,i} \Msme^{abcd,\si\tau}_i,

1036: \qquad n=0,1,

1037: \eeq

1038: with Lorentz-invariant functions $F^{abcd,\si\tau}_{n,i}$.

1039: In this notation the lowest-order amplitudes \refeq{eq:MHffff-spec}

1040: read

1041: \beqar

1042: \M_0^{\ZZ,\si_a\si_b\si_c\si_d}(k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d) &=&

1043: \frac{e^3g^{\si_a}_{\PZ f_af_b}g^{\si_c}_{\PZ f_cf_d}\cmw}{\cw^2\sw} \,

1044: \de_{\si_a,-\si_b}\de_{\si_c,-\si_d}

1045: \nn\\ && {} \times

1046: \frac{1}{[(k_a+k_b)^2-\cmz^2] [(k_c+k_d)^2-\cmz^2]}\,

1047: \Msme^{abcd,\si_a\si_c}_1,

1048: \nl

1049: \M_0^{\WW,\si_a\si_b\si_c\si_d}(k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d) &=&

1050:  \frac{e^3\cmw}{2\sw^3} \,

1051: \de_{\si_a,-}\de_{\si_b,+}\de_{\si_c,-}\de_{\si_d,+}

1052: \nn\\ && {} \times

1053: \frac{1}{[(k_a+k_b)^2-\cmw^2] [(k_c+k_d)^2-\cmw^2]}\,

1054: \Msme^{abcd,--}_1.

1055: \hspace{2em}

1056: \eeqar

1057: For the one-loop amplitudes in general all invariant functions receive

1058: contributions, in particular, they contain the loop integrals.  The

1059: one-loop amplitudes for the various final states are constructed from

1060: the amplitudes for $\PH\to f\bar f F\bar F$ and $\PH\to f\bar f' F\bar

1061: F'$ as described in \refeq{eq:zz} to \refeq{eq:mixed} for the lowest

1062: order.  The one-loop correction to the partial decay widths, finally,

1063: reads

1064: \beq

1065: \int\rd\Ga_{\mathrm{virt}} = \frac{1}{2\MH} \int \rd\Phi_0 \,

1066:  \sum_{\si_1,\si_2,\si_3,\si_4=\pm\frac{1}{2}} 

1067: 2\Re\left\{ \M^{\si_1,\si_2,\si_3,\si_4}_1

1068: (\M^{\si_1,\si_2,\si_3,\si_4}_0)^* \right\}.

1069: \label{eq:vcs}

1070: \eeq

1071: 

1072: The actual calculation of the one-loop diagrams has been carried out

1073: in the 't~Hooft--Feynman gauge. The Feynman graphs are evaluated in

1074: two completely independent ways, leading to two independent computer

1075: codes. The results of the two codes are in good numerical agreement

1076: (i.e.\ within more than 10 digits for non-exceptional phase-space

1077: points).

1078: 

1079: In the first calculation, the Feynman graphs are generated with {\sl

1080:   Feyn\-Arts} version 1.0 \cite{Kublbeck:1990xc}.  With the help of

1081: {\sl Mathematica} routines the amplitudes are expressed in terms of

1082: SME and coefficients of tensor integrals. The output is processed into

1083: a {\sl Fortran} program for the numerical evaluation.  This

1084: calculation of the virtual corrections has been repeated using the

1085: background-field method \cite{Denner:1994xt}, where the individual

1086: contributions from self-energy, vertex, and box corrections differ

1087: from their counterparts in the conventional formalism. The total

1088: one-loop corrections of the conventional and of the background-field

1089: approach were found to be in perfect numerical agreement.

1090: 

1091: The second calculation has been made using {\sl FeynArts} version~3

1092: \cite{Hahn:2000kx} for the generation and {\sl FormCalc}

1093: \cite{Hahn:1998yk} for the evaluation of the amplitudes.  The

1094: analytical results of {\sl FormCalc} in terms of Weyl-spinor chains

1095: and their coefficients have been translated to {\sl C++} code for the

1096: numerical evaluation.

1097: 

1098: \subsubsection{Gauge-boson resonances and complex-mass scheme}

1099: \label{se:cms}

1100: 

1101: The description of resonances in (standard) perturbation theory

1102: requires a Dyson summation of self-energy insertions in the resonant

1103: propagator in order to introduce the imaginary part provided by the

1104: finite decay width into the propagator denominator. This procedure in

1105: general violates gauge invariance, \ie destroys Slavnov--Taylor or

1106: Ward identities and disturbs the cancellation of gauge-parameter

1107: dependences, because different perturbative orders are mixed (see, for

1108: instance, \citere{Grunewald:2000ju} and references therein).

1109: 

1110: In both of our two calculations we employ the so-called ``complex-mass

1111: scheme'', which was introduced in \citere{Denner:1999gp} for

1112: lowest-order calculations and generalized to the one-loop level in

1113: \citere{Denner:2005es}.  In this approach the W- and Z-boson masses

1114: are consistently considered as complex quantities, defined as the

1115: locations of the propagator poles in the complex plane.  To this end,

1116: bare real masses are split into complex renormalized masses and

1117: complex counterterms.  Since the bare Lagrangian is not changed,

1118: double counting does not occur.  Perturbative calculations can be

1119: performed as usual, only parameters and counterterms, in particular

1120: the electroweak mixing angle defined from the ratio of the W- and

1121: Z-boson masses, become complex. Since we only perform an analytic

1122: continuation of the parameters, all relations that follow from gauge

1123: invariance, such as Ward identities, remain valid. As a consequence

1124: the amplitudes are gauge independent, and unitarity cancellations are

1125: respected.  Moreover, the on-shell renormalization scheme can

1126: straightforwardly be transferred to the complex-mass scheme

1127: \cite{Denner:2005es}.

1128: 

1129: The use of complex gauge-boson masses necessitates the consistent use

1130: of these complex masses also in loop integrals. The scalar master

1131: integrals are evaluated for complex masses using the methods and

1132: results of Refs.~\cite{'tHooft:1978xw,Beenakker:1988jr,Denner:1991qq}.

1133: 

1134: We also treat the width of the top quark in the complex-mass scheme,

1135: \ie we introduce a complex top-quark mass $\cmt$ via

1136: $\cmt^2=\Mt^2-\ri\Mt\Gt$.

1137: 

1138: \subsubsection{Numerically stable evaluation of one-loop integrals}

1139: 

1140: The one-loop calculation of the decay $\PH\to4f$ requires the

1141: evaluation of 5-point one-loop tensor integrals.  We calculate the

1142: 5-point integrals by directly reducing them to five 4-point functions,

1143: as described in \citeres{Denner:2002ii,Denner:2005nn}. Note that this

1144: reduction does not involve inverse Gram determinants composed of

1145: external momenta, which naturally occur in the Passarino--Veltman

1146: reduction \cite{Passarino:1979jh} of tensor to scalar integrals. The

1147: latter procedure leads to serious numerical problems when the Gram

1148: determinants become small.

1149: 

1150: Tensor 4-point and 3-point integrals are reduced to scalar integrals

1151: with the Passarino--Veltman algorithm \cite{Passarino:1979jh} as long

1152: as no small Gram determinant appears in the reduction. If small Gram

1153: determinants occur, two alternative schemes are applied

1154: \cite{Denner:2005nn}.  In one method, we evaluate a specific tensor

1155: coefficient, the integrand of which is logarithmic in Feynman

1156: parametrization, by numerical integration. Then the remaining

1157: coefficients as well as the standard scalar integral are algebraically

1158: derived from this coefficient.  This method is used in the first loop

1159: calculation described in \refse{se:alg1loop}.  The second, alternative

1160: method, which is used in the second loop calculation described in

1161: \refse{se:alg1loop}, makes use of expansions of the tensor

1162: coefficients about the limit of vanishing Gram determinants and

1163: possibly other kinematical determinants. In this way, all tensor

1164: coefficients can be expressed in terms of the standard scalar

1165: functions.

1166: 

1167: The whole procedure for the evaluation of the scalar and tensor

1168: one-loop integrals has been taken over from the one-loop calculation

1169: of $\Pep\Pem\to4\,$fermions \cite{Denner:2005es}.

1170: 

1171: \subsubsection{Input-parameter scheme}

1172: \label{se:inputscheme}

1173: 

1174: We use the ``\GF{} scheme'', where a large universal part of the $\Oa$

1175: corrections is absorbed into the lowest-order prediction.  In this

1176: scheme the electromagnetic coupling constant $\al=e^2/(4\pi)$ is

1177: derived from the Fermi constant $\GF$, the muon decay constant,

1178: according to

1179: \beq\label{eq:al-GF}

1180: \alpha_{\GF}=\frac{\sqrt{2}\GF\MW^2}{\pi}\left(1-\frac{\MW^2}{\MZ^2}\right). 

1181: \eeq

1182: This procedure takes into account the running of the electromagnetic

1183: coupling constant $\al(Q^2)$ from $Q^2=0$ to the electroweak scale and

1184: also accounts for universal corrections related to the $\rho$

1185: parameter in the coupling of the W~boson to fermions.  

1186: 

1187: In order to avoid double-counting, the corrections absorbed in the

1188: lowest-order prediction by the use of $\alpha_{\GF}$ have to be

1189: subtracted from the explicit $\Oa$ corrections. To this end, we

1190: subtract the weak corrections to muon decay $\Delta r$

1191: \cite{Denner:1993kt,Sirlin:1980nh} from the corrections in the

1192: $\alpha(0)$ (on-shell) scheme.  This can be done by redefining the

1193: charge renormalization constant as

1194: \beq

1195: \de Z_e\Big|_{\GF} = \de Z_e\Big|_{\al(0)} - \frac{1}{2} (\Delta

1196: r)_{\mbox{\scriptsize 1-loop}},

1197: \eeq

1198: where $(\Delta r)_{\mbox{\scriptsize 1-loop}}$ is the one-loop

1199: expression for $\Delta r$ evaluated in the complex-mass scheme.

1200: 

1201: \subsection{Leading two-loop corrections}

1202: \label{se:gf2mh4}

1203: 

1204: Since corrections due to the self-interaction of the Higgs boson

1205: become important for large Higgs masses, we have included the dominant

1206: two-loop corrections to the decay $\PH\to\PV\PV$ in the

1207: large-Higgs-mass limit which were calculated in

1208: \citeres{Ghinculov:1995bz,Frink:1996sv}.  They are of order

1209: $\Ord(\GF^2\MH^4)$ and read

1210: \beq\label{eq:GF2MH4}

1211: \int\rd\Gamma_{\GF^2\MH^4} = 

1212: 62.0308(86) \left(\frac{\GF\MH^2}{16\pi^2\sqrt{2}}\right)^2

1213: \int\rd\Gamma_0,

1214: \eeq

1215: where the numerical prefactor has been taken from

1216: \citere{Frink:1996sv}.  The error of this factor is far beyond other

1217: uncertainties and, thus, ignored in the numerics.

1218: 

1219: We do not include any higher-order corrections proportional to a power

1220: of $\GF\Mt^2$ since we already see at the one-loop level that the

1221: heavy-top limit does not provide a sound approximation of the

1222: corrections from closed fermion loops.  In particular, for Higgs

1223: masses near and above the $\Pt\bar\Pt$ threshold, $\MH\gsim2\Mt$ the

1224: large-$\Mt$ limit is not appropriate.

1225: 

1226: \section{Real photon corrections}

1227: \label{se:real}

1228: 

1229: \subsection{Matrix element for $\PH\to4f\gamma$}

1230: \label{se:calcrcs}

1231: 

1232: The real photon corrections are induced by the process

1233: \beq

1234: \PH(p)

1235:  \;\longrightarrow\;

1236: f_1(k_1,\si_1) + \bar f_2(k_2,\si_2) + f_3(k_3,\si_3) + \bar

1237: f_4(k_4,\si_4) + \gamma(k,\lambda),  

1238: \label{eq:h4fa}

1239: \eeq

1240: where the momenta and helicities of the external particles are

1241: indicated in parentheses.

1242: 

1243: As for the lowest-order process, we consistently neglect fermion

1244: masses. However, we restore the mass-singular logarithms appearing in

1245: collinear photon emission as described in \refse{se:softcoll}.

1246: 

1247: The matrix elements for the radiative process can be constructed in

1248: the same way as for the lowest-order process \refeq{process-H4f} 

1249: from the set of generic diagrams that is obtained from

1250: \reffi{fi:H4f-born-diag} by adding a photon line in all possible ways to

1251: the charged particles 

1252: (including possible new graphs involving would-be Goldstone-boson 

1253: exchange).

1254: 

1255: We have evaluated the generic helicity matrix elements

1256: $\M^{\si_a\si_b\si_c\si_d\la}_\ga(k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d,k)$ of this process

1257: again using the WvdW spinor technique in the formulation of

1258: \citere{Dittmaier:1998nn}.  The amplitudes generically read

1259: \beqar\label{eq:MEH4fa}

1260: \lefteqn{\M^{VV,\si_a\si_b\si_c\si_d\la}_{\ga}(Q_a,Q_b,Q_c,Q_d,k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d,k) =} 

1261: \qquad\\

1262: &&

1263: 2\sqrt{2}e^4\,

1264: g^{\si_a}_{Vf_af_b}g^{\si_c}_{Vf_cf_d}g_{\PH VV} \,

1265:  \de_{\si_a,-\si_b}\de_{\si_c,-\si_d}\,

1266: A_{\si_a\si_c\la}^{VV}(Q_a,Q_b,Q_c,Q_d,k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d,k),\nn

1267: \eeqar

1268: or more specifically for the case of $\PZ$-mediated and $\PW$-mediated

1269: decays

1270: \beqar

1271: \lefteqn{\M^{\ZZ,\si_a\si_b\si_c\si_d\la}_{\ga}(Q_a,Q_b,Q_c,Q_d,k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d,k) =} 

1272: \qquad\nl

1273: &&

1274: \frac{2\sqrt{2}e^4g^{\si_a}_{\PZ f_af_b}g^{\si_c}_{\PZ f_cf_d}\cmw}{\cw^2\sw} \,

1275: \de_{\si_a,-\si_b}\de_{\si_c,-\si_d}\,

1276: A_{\si_a\si_c\la}^{\ZZ}(Q_a,Q_b,Q_c,Q_d,k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d,k),

1277: \nn\\[.5em]

1278: \lefteqn{\M^{\WW,\si_a\si_b\si_c\si_d\la}_{\ga} (Q_a,Q_b,Q_c,Q_d,k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d,k) =} 

1279: \qquad\nl

1280: &&

1281:  \frac{\sqrt{2}e^4\cmw}{\sw^3} \,

1282: \de_{\si_a,-}\de_{\si_b,+}\de_{\si_c,-}\de_{\si_d,+}\,

1283: A_{--\la}^{\WW}(Q_a,Q_b,Q_c,Q_d,k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d,k).

1284: \eeqar

1285: The auxiliary functions are given by

1286: \beqar\label{eq:MEH4faaux}

1287: \lefteqn{A_{---}^{VV}(Q_a,Q_b,Q_c,Q_d,k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d,k) =}\qquad\nl&&

1288: \langle k_b k_d\rangle^*\Biggl[

1289: \frac{\langle k_a k_b \rangle^* \langle k_a k_c\rangle

1290:       +\langle k k_b   \rangle^* \langle k k_c  \rangle}

1291: {[(k_a+k_b+k)^2-\cmvs][(k_c+k_d)^2-\cmvs]}\nl*

1292: &&\qquad \times\left(\frac{Q_a}{\langle k k_a   \rangle^* \langle k k_b

1293:     \rangle^*}

1294: +\frac{Q_a-Q_b}{(k_a+k_b)^2-\cmvs}

1295: \frac{\langle k k_a \rangle}{\langle k k_b \rangle^*}

1296: \right)

1297: \nl&&{}-

1298: \frac{\langle k_c k_d \rangle^* \langle k_c k_a\rangle

1299:       +\langle k k_d   \rangle^* \langle k k_a  \rangle}

1300: {[(k_a+k_b)^2-\cmvs][(k_c+k_d+k)^2-\cmvs]}\nl

1301: &&\qquad \times\left(\frac{Q_c}{\langle k k_c   \rangle^* \langle k k_d

1302:     \rangle^*}

1303: +\frac{Q_c-Q_d}{(k_c+k_d)^2-\cmvs}

1304: \frac{\langle k k_c \rangle}{\langle k k_d \rangle^*}

1305: \right)

1306: \nl&&{}+

1307: \frac{Q_a-Q_b}

1308: {[(k_a+k_b)^2-\cmvs][(k_c+k_d)^2-\cmvs]}

1309: %\nl&&\qquad \times 

1310: \frac{\langle k_b k_d \rangle^* \langle k_a k_c \rangle}

1311:      {\langle k k_b \rangle^* \langle k k_d \rangle^*}

1312: \biggr],

1313: \hspace{6em}

1314: \nl

1315: \lefteqn{A_{+--}^{VV}(Q_a,Q_b,Q_c,Q_d,k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d,k) = 

1316: A_{---}^{VV}(-Q_b,-Q_a,Q_c,Q_d,k_b,k_a,k_c,k_d,k),}\qquad\nl

1317: \lefteqn{A_{-+-}^{VV}(Q_a,Q_b,Q_c,Q_d,k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d,k) = 

1318: A_{---}^{VV}(Q_a,Q_b,-Q_d,-Q_c,k_a,k_b,k_d,k_c,k),}\qquad\nl

1319: \lefteqn{A_{++-}^{VV}(Q_a,Q_b,Q_c,Q_d,k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d,k) = 

1320: A_{---}^{VV}(-Q_b,-Q_a,-Q_d,-Q_c,k_b,k_a,k_d,k_c,k),}\qquad\nl

1321: \lefteqn{A_{\si_a\si_c+}^{VV}(Q_a,Q_b,Q_c,Q_d,k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d,k) = }\qquad\nl&&

1322: \Bigl(A_{-\si_a,-\si_c,-}^{VV}(Q_a,Q_b,Q_c,Q_d,k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d,k)\Bigr)^*

1323: \Bigr|_{\cmv\to \cmv^*},

1324: \eeqar

1325: and obey the relations

1326: \beqar

1327: \lefteqn{A_{-\si_a,-\si_c,-\la}^{VV}(Q_a,Q_b,Q_c,Q_d,k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d,k) = }\qquad\nl&&

1328: \Bigl(A_{\si_a\si_c\la}^{VV}(Q_a,Q_b,Q_c,Q_d,k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d,k)\Bigr)^*

1329: \Bigr|_{\cmv\to \cmv^*},\nl

1330: \lefteqn{A_{-\si_a,\si_c,\la}^{VV}(Q_a,Q_b,Q_c,Q_d,k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d,k) = }\qquad\nl&&

1331: A_{\si_a\si_c\la}^{VV}(-Q_b,-Q_a,Q_c,Q_d,k_b,k_a,k_c,k_d,k), \nl

1332: \lefteqn{A_{\si_a,-\si_c,\la}^{VV}(Q_a,Q_b,Q_c,Q_d,k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d,k) = }\qquad\nl&&

1333: A_{\si_a\si_c\la}^{VV}(Q_a,Q_b,-Q_d,-Q_c,k_a,k_b,k_d,k_c,k),\nl

1334: %\lefteqn{A_{\si_a,\si_c,-\la}^{VV}(Q_a,Q_b,Q_c,Q_d,k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d) = }\qquad\nl&&

1335: %\Bigl(A_{\si_a\si_c\la}^{VV}(-Q_b,-Q_a,-Q_d,-Q_c,k_b,k_a,k_d,k_c,k)\Bigr)^*\Bigr|_{\cmv\to \cmv^*}

1336: %,\nl

1337: \lefteqn{A_{\si_a,\si_c,-\la}^{VV}(Q_a,Q_b,Q_c,Q_d,k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d,k) =}\qquad\nl&&

1338: -\Bigl(A_{\si_c\si_a\la}^{VV}(Q_d,Q_c,Q_b,Q_a,k_d,k_c,k_b,k_a,k)\Bigr)^*\Bigr|_{\cmv\to \cmv^*},

1339: \nl

1340: \lefteqn{A_{\si_a\si_c\la}^{VV}(Q_a,Q_b,Q_c,Q_d,k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d,k) = }\qquad\nl&&

1341: %\Bigl(A_{\si_c\si_a\la}^{VV}(Q_c,Q_d,Q_a,Q_b,k_c,k_d,k_a,k_b,k)\Bigr)

1342: A_{\si_c\si_a\la}^{VV}(Q_c,Q_d,Q_a,Q_b,k_c,k_d,k_a,k_b,k)

1343: .

1344: \eeqar

1345: The relations between the $A^{\dots}_{\dots}$ functions that differ in

1346: all helicities result from a P transformation. Those, where only one

1347: fermion helicity is reversed are related to C symmetry.  

1348: The last but one is due to CP symmetry, and the last one results from a

1349: symmetry under the exchange of the two fermion pairs.

1350: The charges of the fermions are related by

1351: \beq

1352: Q_a-Q_b+Q_c-Q_d=0.

1353: \eeq

1354: 

1355: For the $\PZ$-mediated decays, where $Q_a=Q_b$ and $Q_c=Q_d$, the

1356: auxiliary function \refeq{eq:MEH4faaux} simplifies to

1357: \beqar

1358: \lefteqn{A_{---}^{\ZZ}(Q_a,Q_a,Q_c,Q_c,k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d,k) = }\qquad\nl*

1359: \qquad&& \langle k_b k_d\rangle^*\Biggl[

1360: \frac{\langle k_a k_b \rangle^* \langle k_a k_c\rangle

1361:       +\langle k k_b   \rangle^* \langle k k_c  \rangle}

1362: {[(k_a+k_b+k)^2-\cmvs][(k_c+k_d)^2-\cmvs]}

1363: %\nl&&\qquad \times

1364: \frac{Q_a}{\langle k k_a   \rangle^* \langle k k_b

1365:     \rangle^*} 

1366: \nl\qquad&&{}-

1367: \frac{\langle k_c k_d \rangle^* \langle k_c k_a\rangle

1368:       +\langle k k_d   \rangle^* \langle k k_a  \rangle}

1369: {[(k_a+k_b)^2-\cmvs][(k_c+k_d+k)^2-\cmvs]}

1370: %\nl&&\qquad \times 

1371: % changed by Axel according to symmetry

1372: %\frac{Q_d}{\langle k k_c   \rangle^* \langle k k_d

1373: \frac{Q_c}{\langle k k_c   \rangle^* \langle k k_d

1374:     \rangle^*}

1375: \biggr].

1376: %\nl

1377: %\lefteqn{A_{-\si_a,-\si_c,-\la}^{\ZZ}(k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d,k) =

1378: %\Bigl(A_{\si_a\si_c,\la}^{\ZZ}(k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d,k)\Bigr)^*,} \qquad \nl

1379: %\lefteqn{A_{-\si_a,\si_c,\la}^{\ZZ}(k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d,k) =  \left.

1380: %A_{\si_a\si_c\la}^{\ZZ}(k_b,k_a,k_c,k_d,k)\right|_{Q_a\rightarrow-Q_a},}

1381: %\qquad \nl

1382: %\lefteqn{A_{\si_a,-\si_c,\la}^{\ZZ}(k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d,k) =  \left.

1383: %A_{\si_a\si_c\la}^{\ZZ}(k_a,k_b,k_d,k_c,k)\right|_{Q_d\rightarrow-Q_d},}

1384: %\qquad \nl

1385: %\lefteqn{A_{\si_a,\si_c,-\la}^{\ZZ}(k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d) = \left.

1386: %\Bigl(A_{\si_a\si_c\la}^{\ZZ}(k_b,k_a,k_d,k_c,k)\Bigr)^*

1387: %\right|_{Q_a\rightarrow-Q_a,Q_d\rightarrow-Q_d},}

1388: %\qquad \nl

1389: %\lefteqn{A_{\si_a,\si_c,-\la}^{\ZZ}(k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d) = \left.

1390: %-\Bigl(A_{\si_c\si_a\la}^{\ZZ}(k_d,k_c,k_b,k_a,k)\Bigr)^*

1391: %\right|_{Q_a\leftrightarrow Q_d}.}

1392: %}\nl

1393: %\lefteqn{A_{\si_c,\si_a,\la}^{\ZZ}(k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d,k) = \left. 

1394: %A_{\si_a\si_c\la}^{\ZZ}(k_c,k_d,k_a,k_b,k)

1395: %\right|_{Q_d\leftrightarrow Q_a}.}

1396: %\qquad 

1397: \eeqar

1398: 

1399: From the generic matrix element

1400: $\M_\ga^{VV,\si_a\si_b\si_c\si_d\la}(k_a,k_b,k_c,k_d,k)$ the matrix

1401: elements for the specific processes can be constructed in complete

1402: analogy to the process without photon as in

1403: \refeq{eq:zz}--\refeq{eq:mixed}.

1404: 

1405: The squares of the matrix elements \refeq{eq:MEH4fa} have been

1406: successfully checked against the result obtained with the package 

1407: {\sc Madgraph} \cite{Stelzer:1994ta} numerically.

1408: 

1409: The contribution $\Ga_\gamma$ of the radiative decay to the total

1410: decay width is given by

1411: \beq

1412: \int\rd\Ga_\gamma = \frac{1}{2\MH} \int \rd\Phi_\gamma \,

1413:  \sum_{\si_1,\si_2,\si_3,\si_4=\pm\frac{1}{2}}

1414: \, \sum_{\lambda=\pm 1} \,

1415: |\M^{\si_1\si_2\si_3\si_4\la}_\gamma|^2,

1416: \label{eq:hbcsga}

1417: \eeq

1418: where the phase-space integral is defined by

1419: \beq

1420: \int \rd\Phi_\gamma =

1421: \int\frac{\rd^3 {\bf k}}{(2\pi)^3 2k^0} \,

1422: \left( \prod_{i=1}^4 \int\frac{\rd^3 {\bf k}_i}{(2\pi)^3 2k_i^0} \right)\,

1423: (2\pi)^4 \delta^{(4)}\Biggl(p-k-\sum_{j=1}^4 k_j\Biggr).

1424: \label{eq:dPSg}

1425: \eeq

1426: Without introducing soft and collinear regulators this phase-space integral 

1427: diverges in the soft ($k^0\to0$) and collinear ($kk_i\to0$) regions.

1428: The applied solutions are outlined in the next section.

1429: 

1430: \subsection{Treatment of soft and collinear divergences}

1431: \label{se:softcoll}

1432: 

1433: In the combination of virtual and real photon corrections, the

1434: fermion-mass effects have to be restored in the phase-space

1435: regions of collinear photon radiation off charged fermions, and the IR

1436: regularization for soft-photon emission has to be implemented. To this

1437: end, we employ the dipole subtraction formalism for photon radiation

1438: \cite{Dittmaier:2000mb} as well as the more conventional phase-space

1439: slicing approach.

1440: 

1441: The actual calculation exactly follows the one described in

1442: \citere{Bredenstein:2005zk}, where electroweak corrections to the

1443: related process $\ga\ga\to\PW\PW\to4f$ have been calculated.

1444: The structure of soft and collinear singularities of this process 

1445: is exactly the same as in the decay $\PH\to4f$ considered in this work,

1446: because both processes involve the same pattern of charged particles

1447: in the initial and final states. Consequently, apart from obvious

1448: substitutions for the 

1449: flux factors all formulas given in Section~4 of \citere{Bredenstein:2005zk}

1450: for cross sections literally carry over to our decay widths.

1451: 

1452: In the matching of real and virtual corrections the issue of

1453: collinear safety of observables is crucial.

1454: We speak of collinear-safe observables

1455: if a nearly collinear system of a charged fermion and a photon is treated

1456: inclusively, i.e.\ if phase-space selection cuts

1457: (or histogram bins of distributions)

1458: depend only on the sum $k_i+k$ of the nearly collinear

1459: fermion and photon momenta. In this case the energy fraction

1460: \beq

1461: z_i=\frac{k^0_i}{k^0_i+k^0}

1462: \label{eq:zi}

1463: \eeq

1464: of a charged fermion $f_i$ after emitting a photon in a sufficiently

1465: small cone around its direction of flight is fully integrated over,

1466: because it is not constrained by any phase-space cut (or histogram bin

1467: selection in distributions).  Thus, the Kinoshita--Lee--Nauenberg

1468: (KLN) theorem \cite{Kinoshita:1962ur} guarantees that all

1469: singularities connected with FSR cancel between the virtual and real

1470: corrections, even though they are defined on different phase spaces.

1471: The full phase-space integration in $\PH\to4f(+\ga)$, which leads to

1472: partial decay widths, is trivially collinear safe.  More generally, a

1473: sufficient inclusiveness is achieved by the photon recombination

1474: described in \refse{se:input}, which treats outgoing charged fermions

1475: and photons as one quasi-particle if they are very close in angle.

1476: The original version of the dipole subtraction formalism for photon

1477: radiation \cite{Dittmaier:2000mb} deals with collinear-safe situations

1478: only.  The generalization to the non-collinear-safe FSR is described

1479: in \citere{Bredenstein:2005zk}.

1480: 

1481: Figures~\ref{fig:sliWW} and \ref{fig:sliZZ} illustrate the agreement

1482: between the subtraction and slicing methods for the partial decay

1483: widths of the two decay channels $\PH\to\Pne\Pep\mu^-\bar\nu_\mu$ and

1484: $\PH\to\Pem\Pep\mu^-\mu^+$.

1485: \begin{figure}

1486: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}

1487: \centerline{

1488: \begin{picture}(7.7,8)

1489: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=deltae.170.nue.e.mu.num.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

1490: \end{picture}

1491: \begin{picture}(7.5,8)

1492: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=deltath.170.nue.e.mu.num.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

1493: \end{picture} }

1494: \caption{Dependence of the relative corrections $\de$ to the partial

1495:   decay width on the energy cutoff $\Delta E$ (l.h.s.)\ and on the

1496:   angular cutoff $\Delta\theta$ (r.h.s.)\  in the slicing approach for

1497:   the decay $\PH\to\Pne\Pep\mu^-\bar\nu_\mu$ with $\MH=170\GeV$. For

1498:   comparison the corresponding result obtained with the dipole

1499:   subtraction method is shown as a $1\si$ band in the plots.}

1500: \label{fig:sliWW}

1501: %\end{figure}

1502: \vspace*{2em}

1503: %\begin{figure}

1504: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}

1505: \centerline{

1506: \begin{picture}(7.7,8)

1507: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=deltae.170.e.e.mu.mu.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

1508: \end{picture}

1509: \begin{picture}(7.5,8)

1510: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=deltath.170.e.e.mu.mu.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

1511: \end{picture} }

1512: \caption{Same as in \reffi{fig:sliWW} but for the decay

1513: $\PH\to\Pem\Pep\mu^-\mu^+$.}

1514: \label{fig:sliZZ}

1515: \end{figure}

1516: These results were obtained with $5\cdot10^7$ events.

1517: In the slicing approach, the phase-space regions of soft or collinear

1518: photons are defined by the auxiliary cutoff parameters 

1519: $\De E\ll\GW$ and $\De\theta\ll1$.  

1520: The region $k^0<\De E$ is treated in soft-photon

1521: approximation, the regions $\theta_{\ga f}<\De\theta$, $k^0>\De E$

1522: ($\theta_{\ga f}$ is the emission angle from any fermion $f$) are

1523: evaluated using collinear factorization. In the remaining regular

1524: phase space no regulators (photon and fermion masses) are used.

1525: Therefore, the slicing result is correct up to terms of ${\cal O}(\De

1526: E)$ and ${\cal O}(\De\theta)$.  For decreasing auxiliary parameters

1527: $\De E$ and $\De\theta$, the slicing result reaches a plateau, as it

1528: should be, until the increasing statistical errors become large and

1529: eventually underestimated.  In the plateau region the slicing and

1530: subtraction

1531: results are compatible within statistical errors, but the subtraction

1532: result shows smaller integration errors although the same number of

1533: events is used.

1534: 

1535: \subsection{Higher-order final-state radiation}

1536: \label{se:fsr}

1537: \newcommand{\isrscale}{M}

1538: 

1539: Photons that are emitted collinear off a charged fermion give 

1540: rise to corrections that are enhanced by large logarithms of the form

1541: $\al\log{m_f^2/\isrscale^2}$, where $m_f$ is a fermion mass and $\isrscale$ is some

1542: typical energy scale. If the photons are treated fully inclusively, as

1543: it is the case if the photons are recombined with the corresponding

1544: fermion, these logarithms cancel due to the KLN theorem

1545: \cite{Kinoshita:1962ur}.  If, however, distributions like in the

1546: invariant mass of two fermions, as discussed in \refse{se:numerics},

1547: are to be considered without recombining collinear photons, then these

1548: logarithms do not cancel and yield large effects.  Thus, corrections

1549: of this origin should be taken into account beyond $\Oa$.  This can be

1550: achieved in the structure-function approach \cite{sf} which is based

1551: on the mass-factorization theorem. According to this theorem the decay

1552: width including the leading-logarithmic FSR terms can be written as

1553: \beq

1554: \int\rd\Ga_{\LLFSR} = \prod_{i=1 \atop Q_i\ne 0}^4\left[\int_0^1\rd z_i\, 

1555: \Ga_{ii}^{\LL}(z_i,\isrscale^2)\right]\int\rd\Ga_0\,

1556: \Theta_{\mathrm{cut}}(\{z_jk_j\}).

1557: \label{eq:FSR}

1558: \eeq

1559: The function $\Theta_{\mathrm{cut}}(\{z_jk_j\})$ 

1560: generically denotes all histogram routines or phase-space cuts. 

1561: It depends on the fermion momenta $z_jk_j$ 

1562: which, in the case of 

1563: charged fermions, may be reduced by the factor

1564: $z_j$ due to collinear photon emission. 

1565: For neutral fermions we have $z_j=1$. 

1566: The structure functions including terms up to $\Oaaa$, 

1567: improved by the exponentiation of the soft-photon parts, read

1568: \cite{Beenakker:1996kt}

1569: \newcommand{\rE}{\mathrm{E}}

1570: \beqar

1571:   \Gamma_{ii}^{\LL,\mathrm{exp}}(z,\isrscale^2) &=&    

1572:     \frac{\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}\beta_i\gamma_{\rE} +

1573:         \frac{3}{8}\beta_i\right)}

1574: {\Gamma\left(1+\frac{1}{2}\beta_i\right)}

1575:     \frac{\beta_i}{2} (1-z)^{\frac{\beta_i}{2}-1} - \frac{\beta_i}{4}(1+z) 

1576: \nn\\

1577: &&  {} - \frac{\beta_i^2}{32} \biggl\{ \frac{1+3z^2}{1-z}\ln(z)

1578:     + 4(1+z)\ln(1-z) + 5 + z \biggr\}

1579: \nn\\

1580: &&  {} - \frac{\beta_i^3}{384}\biggl\{

1581:       (1+z)\left[6\Li(z)+12\ln^2(1-z)-3\pi^2\right] 

1582: \nn\\

1583: && \quad\quad {}

1584: +\frac{1}{1-z}\biggl[ \frac{3}{2}(1+8z+3z^2)\ln(z) 

1585: +6(z+5)(1-z)\ln(1-z)

1586: \nn\\

1587: && \quad\quad\quad {}

1588: +12(1+z^2)\ln(z)\ln(1-z)-\frac{1}{2}(1+7z^2)\ln^2(z)

1589: \nn\\

1590: && \quad\quad\quad  {}

1591: +\frac{1}{4}(39-24z-15z^2)\biggr] \biggr\}

1592: \label{eq:GammaFSR}

1593: \eeqar

1594: with $\gamma_{\rE}$ and $\Gamma(y)$ denoting Euler's constant and

1595: the Gamma function, respectively. The mass-singular logarithm

1596: \beq

1597: \beta_i = \frac{2Q_i^2 \alpha(0)}{\pi} 

1598: \left[\ln\biggl(\frac{\isrscale^2}{m_i^2}\biggr)-1\right]

1599: \eeq

1600: involves a scale $\isrscale$, which is not fixed in leading

1601: logarithmic order and should be set to a scale typical for the process

1602: under consideration. We use $\isrscale^2=\MH^2$ in our evaluations.

1603: The appropriate coupling in the leading-logarithmic terms is $\al(0)$,

1604: since these originate from real or virtual soft or collinear photons.

1605: As the function $(1-z)^{\frac{\beta_i}{2}-1}$ is difficult to

1606: integrate numerically, an appropriate mapping has to be chosen.

1607: 

1608: In order to study the influence of the higher-order terms we

1609: alternatively expand the exponential up to terms of $\Oaaa$,

1610: yielding

1611: \beqar

1612: \Gamma_{ii}^{\LL}(z,\isrscale^2) &=&    

1613:   \delta(1-z)

1614:  +\Biggl[\, \frac{\beta_i}{4}\frac{1+z^2}{1-z}

1615: \nn\\

1616: &&  {} +\frac{\beta_i^2}{32} \biggl\{\frac{1+4z+z^2}{1-z}  -\frac{1+3z^2}{1-z}\ln(z)

1617:     + 4\frac{1+z^2}{1-z}\ln(1-z)\biggr\}

1618: \nn\\

1619: &&  {} + \frac{\beta_i^3}{1536}\biggl\{

1620: \frac{15+24z+15z^2}{1-z} 

1621: - 4\pi^2\frac{1+3z^2} {1-z}

1622: -6\frac{1+8z+3z^2}{1-z} \ln(z)

1623: \nn\\

1624: && \quad\quad {}

1625: + 24\frac{1+4z+z^2}{1-z}\ln(1-z) 

1626:       -24(1+z)\Li(z)

1627: + 48\frac{1+z^2}{1-z}\ln^2(1-z)

1628: \nn\\

1629: && \quad\quad {}

1630: -48\frac{1+z^2}{1-z}\ln(z)\ln(1-z)

1631: +2\frac{1+7z^2}{1-z}\ln^2(z)

1632: \biggr\}\,

1633: \Biggr]_+,

1634: \label{eq:FSRreexpand}

1635: \eeqar

1636: where the $[\dots]_+$ prescription is defined as usual,

1637: \beq

1638: \int_0^1\rd z\, \Big[f(z)\Big]_+ g(z) \equiv

1639: \int_0^1\rd z\, f(z) \left[g(z)-g(1)\right],

1640: \eeq

1641: 

1642: We convolute the lowest-order width according to \refeq{eq:FSR} and

1643: add this to the result for the  $\Oa$-corrected width.  

1644: In order to avoid double counting, 

1645: we have to subtract

1646: \beq

1647: \int\rd\Ga_{\LLFSR,1} = \int\rd\Ga_0 + 

1648: \int\rd\Ga_0\sum_{i=1\atop Q_i\ne0}^4

1649: \left[\int_0^1\rd z_i\,\Ga_{ii}^{\LL,1}(z_i,\isrscale^2)

1650:    \Theta_{\mathrm{cut}}(z_ik_i,\{k_{j\ne i}\})\right],

1651: \label{eq:Oafsr}

1652: \eeq

1653: i.e.\ the leading logarithmic terms up to $\Oa$, from 

1654: $\int\rd\Ga_{\LLFSR}$. They are defined by 

1655: \beqar\label{eq:Oasf}

1656:   \Ga_{ii}^{\LL,1}(z,\isrscale^2) &=&

1657:   \frac{\beta_{i,\GF}}{4} \left(\frac{1+z^2}{1-z}\right)_+ .

1658: \eeqar

1659: Note that we have to subtract the $\Oa$ terms according to the scheme

1660: that is applied for the virtual corrections.  Since we work in the

1661: $\GF$ scheme, $\beta_{i,\GF}$ is proportional to $\al_{\GF}$, as

1662: defined in \refse{se:numerics}.

1663: 

1664: \section{Final prediction and Monte Carlo integration}

1665: \label{se:MC}

1666: 

1667: Summarizing all contributions to the differential decay width,

1668: \refeq{eq:hbcs}, \refeq{eq:vcs}, \refeq{eq:GF2MH4},

1669: \refeq{eq:hbcsga}, \refeq{eq:FSR}, and \refeq{eq:Oafsr},

1670: we get the following prediction,

1671: \beq

1672: \int\rd \Ga =

1673: \int\rd \Ga_0

1674: +\int\rd \Ga_{\mathrm{virt}}

1675: +\int\rd \Ga_{\GF^2\MH^4}

1676: +\int\rd \Ga_\gamma

1677: +\int\rd \Ga_{\LLFSR}

1678: -\int\rd \Ga_{\LLFSR,1}.

1679: \eeq

1680: 

1681: The phase-space integrations are performed using

1682: the multi-channel Monte Carlo technique

1683: \cite{Berends:1994pv} where the integrand is flattened by choosing

1684: appropriate mappings of the pseudo-random numbers into the momenta of

1685: the outgoing particles.  In more detail, the Monte Carlo part of {\sc

1686:   Prophecy4f} builds upon the existing generators {\sc RacoonWW}

1687: \cite{Denner:1999gp,Denner:2002cg} and {\sc Coffer$\gamma\gamma$}

1688: \cite{Bredenstein:2005zk,Bredenstein:2004ef}.  The results obtained

1689: with the multi-channel technique have been checked against a second

1690: integration program based on the adaptive integration program {\sc

1691:   Vegas} \cite{Lepage:1977sw}.

1692: Although {\sc Vegas} already performs some adaption to the integrand

1693: structure a further improvement of the numerical error has been

1694: achieved by using mappings of the integration variables designed to

1695: flatten the resonances.

1696: 

1697: The numerical results presented below have been obtained using $5\cdot

1698: 10^7$ events except for the plots showing the decay width as a

1699: function of the Higgs mass which were calculated using $2\cdot 10^7$

1700: events per point.  Since the virtual corrections (rendered finite by

1701: adding the soft and collinear singularities from the real

1702: corrections), and also their statistical error, are at least a factor

1703: 10 smaller than the lowest-order values for moderate Higgs masses, we

1704: only evaluated the virtual corrections every 100th time, which

1705: improves the run-time of the program but does not deteriorate the

1706: overall statistical error. Soft and collinear singularities were

1707: treated with the subtraction method in the results shown below.

1708: 

1709: \section{Improved-Born Approximation}

1710: \label{se:IBA}

1711: 

1712: The electroweak corrections contain large contributions of universal

1713: origin.  Besides final-state radiation, which is discussed in

1714: \refse{se:fsr}, these consist, in particular, of the corrections

1715: associated with the running of $\al$, corrections proportional to

1716: $\Mt^2/\MW^2$, and corrections proportional to $\MH^2/\MW^2$. By

1717: suitable parametrization of the lowest-order matrix elements, 

1718: some of these

1719: universal corrections can be incorporated in the lowest order, thus

1720: reducing the remaining corrections. This does not only reduce the

1721: $\Oa$ corrections but in general also the higher-order corrections.

1722: Corrections associated with the running of $\al$, and corrections

1723: related to the $\rho$ parameter in the W-boson--fermion coupling are

1724: incorporated in the lowest-order prediction by using the $\GF$ scheme.

1725: 

1726: Some loop diagrams involving top quarks lead to corrections that are

1727: enhanced by a large coupling factor $\GF\Mt^2$ in the limit of a large

1728: top-quark mass $\Mt$. For the $\PH\PZ\PZ$ and $\PH\PW\PW$ vertices 

1729: this type of corrections was considered even up to two-loop order

1730: in \citere{Kniehl:1995at}. However, the pure heavy-top limit

1731: $\Mt\to\infty$ is only applicable for $\MH\ll2\Mt$.

1732: Since we are also interested in $\MH$ values near and above the 

1733: $\Pt\bar\Pt$ threshold, we instead consider the more general

1734: limit $\Mt,\MH\gg\MW,\MZ,m_{f\ne\Pt}$, 

1735: i.e.\ we do not assume any hierarchy between

1736: the Higgs and the top-quark masses.

1737: We evaluate all closed fermion loops in this limit and keep only

1738: contributions that are enhanced by $\Mt^2$ times any function

1739: of the ratio $\MH/\Mt$. The numerical analysis shows that this

1740: procedure yields a very good approximation for the sum of all

1741: closed fermion loops in the $\GF$ scheme.

1742: In order to approximate the remaining bosonic corrections,

1743: the leading one- and two-loop corrections to the $\PH\PV\PV$ vertices

1744: in the large-Higgs-mass limit, 

1745: which are proportional to $\GF\MH^2$ and $\GF^2\MH^4$, respectively, 

1746: are included in the IBA; these corrections are taken from

1747: \citeres{Ghinculov:1995bz,Frink:1996sv}. 

1748: Moreover,

1749: for $\PH\to\PW\PW\to 4f$ we include the leading effect $\de_{\Coul}$ of

1750: the Coulomb singularity as calculated in \citere{Fadin:1993kg}, 

1751: which originates from soft-photon exchange

1752: between the two slowly moving W~bosons near the WW~threshold.  

1753: Finally, we take into account the QCD corrections to the gauge-boson

1754: decays if quarks are involved in the final states.

1755: The remaining corrections are expected to be widely independent of

1756: Higgs mass $\MH$ and of the choice of the $4f$ final state.

1757: 

1758: Our IBA for the partial decay widths, which is constructed 

1759: according to these lines, reads

1760: \beqar

1761: \int\rd\Gamma_{\IBA}^{\PH\to\PZ\PZ\to 4f}&=&

1762: \frac{1}{2\MH}\int\rd\Phi_0\,\sum_{\si_1,\si_2,\si_3,\si_4=\pm}

1763: |\M^{\ZZ,\si_1\si_2\si_3\si_4}_0|^2

1764: \nl&&\qquad{}

1765: \times \Re\left\{1+

1766: \frac{\GF\cmt^2}{8\sqrt{2}\pi^2}

1767: %\frac{\al}{16\pi\sw^2}\frac{\cmt^2}{\cmw^2}

1768: \Biggl[1-\frac{6\cw}{\sw}

1769: \left(\frac{Q_{f_1}}{g^{\si_1}_{\PZ f_1 f_1}}

1770: +\frac{Q_{f_3}}{g^{\si_3}_{\PZ f_3 f_3}}\right)

1771: +\tau_{\PH\PZ\PZ}\left(\frac{\MH^2}{\cmt^2}\right)

1772: \right]

1773: \nl&&\qquad\qquad{}

1774: +\frac{\GF\MH^2}{8\sqrt{2}\pi^2}

1775: \left(\frac{5\pi^2}{6}-3\sqrt{3}\pi+\frac{19}{2} \right)

1776: +62.0308(86) \left(\frac{\GF\MH^2}{16\pi^2\sqrt{2}}\right)^2

1777: \nl&&\qquad\qquad{}

1778: +\de_{\PZ\to f_1\bar f_2}^{\QCD}

1779: +\de_{\PZ\to f_3\bar f_4}^{\QCD}

1780: +c_{\PH\PZ\PZ}

1781: \Biggr\},

1782: \nn\\[1em]

1783: \int\rd\Gamma_{\IBA}^{\PH\to\PW\PW\to 4f}&=&

1784: \frac{1}{2\MH}\int\rd\Phi_0\,

1785: |\M^{\WW,-+-+}_0|^2

1786: \nl&&\qquad{}

1787: \times \Re\Biggl\{1+

1788: \frac{\GF\cmt^2}{8\pi^2\sqrt{2}}

1789: %\frac{\al}{16\pi\sw^2} \, \frac{\cmt^2}{\cmw^2}

1790: \left[-5 +\tau_{\PH\PW\PW}\left(\frac{\MH^2}{\cmt^2}\right)

1791: \right]

1792: \nl&&\qquad\qquad{}

1793: +\frac{\GF\MH^2}{8\sqrt{2}\pi^2}

1794: \left(\frac{5\pi^2}{6}-3\sqrt{3}\pi+\frac{19}{2} \right)

1795: +62.0308(86) \left(\frac{\GF\MH^2}{16\pi^2\sqrt{2}}\right)^2

1796: \nl&&\qquad\qquad{}

1797: +g(\bar\beta)

1798: \de_{\Coul}\left(\MH^2,(k_1+k_2)^2,(k_3+k_4)^2\right) \, 

1799: \nl&&\qquad\qquad{}

1800: +\de_{\PW\to f_1\bar f_2}^{\QCD}

1801: +\de_{\PW\to f_3\bar f_4}^{\QCD}

1802: +c_{\PH\PW\PW}

1803: \Biggr\},

1804: \label{eq:IBA}

1805: \eeqar

1806: where the terms proportional to a charge factor $Q_f$ are absent if

1807: $f$ is a neutrino.  The phase-space integral was defined in

1808: \refeq{eq:dPS}.  The auxiliary functions $\tau_{\PH\PV\PV}$, which

1809: appear in \refeq{eq:IBA}, are given by

1810: \beqar

1811: \tau_{\PH\PZ\PZ}\left(\frac{\MH^2}{\cmt^2}\right) &=&

1812: 20+6\beta_{\Pt}^2+3\beta_{\Pt}(\beta_{\Pt}^2+1)\ln(x_{\Pt})

1813: +3(1-\beta_{\Pt}^2)\ln^2(x_{\Pt}),

1814: \nn\\

1815: \tau_{\PH\PW\PW}\left(\frac{\MH^2}{\cmt^2}\right) &=&

1816: 8+12\beta_{\Pt}^2+3\beta_{\Pt}(3\beta_{\Pt}^2-1)\ln(x_{\Pt})

1817: +\frac{3}{2}(1-\beta_{\Pt}^2)^2\ln^2(x_{\Pt}),

1818: \eeqar

1819: where

1820: \beq

1821: \beta_{\Pt} = \sqrt{1-\frac{4\cmt^2}{\MH^2}}, \qquad

1822: x_{\Pt} = \frac{\beta_{\Pt}-1}{\beta_{\Pt}+1}.

1823: \eeq

1824: They have the property $\tau_{\PH\PV\PV}(0)=0$, i.e.\ they quantify

1825: the deviation of the $\Mt^2/\MW^2$-enhanced corrections from the pure

1826: heavy-top limit, which are made explicit in \refeq{eq:IBA}.  Note that

1827: we consistently use the complex top mass $\cmt$ instead of $\Mt$.  The

1828: correction factor $\delta_{\Coul}$ containing the Coulomb singularity

1829: reads \cite{Fadin:1993kg}

1830: \beqar

1831: \delta_{\Coul}(s,k_+^2,k_-^2) &=& \frac{\alpha(0)}{\bar\beta}

1832: \Im\left\{\ln\left(\frac{\beta-\bar\beta+\Delta_M}

1833:         {\beta+\bar\beta+\Delta_M}\right)\right\},\nl

1834: \bar\beta &=& \frac{\sqrt{s^2+k_+^4+k_-^4-2sk_+^2-2sk_-^2-2k_+^2k_-^2}}{s},\nl

1835: \beta &=&  \sqrt{1-\frac{4\cmw^2}{s}}, \qquad

1836: \Delta_M = \frac{|k_+^2-k_-^2|}{s},

1837: \eeqar

1838: with the fine-structure constant $\alpha(0)$.

1839: The auxiliary function 

1840: \beq

1841: g(\bar\beta) = \left(1-\bar\beta^2\right)^2

1842: \eeq

1843: restricts the impact of $\delta_{\Coul}$ to the WW~threshold region where 

1844: it is valid.

1845: The QCD corrections $\de_{\PV\to f_i\bar f_j}^{\QCD}$

1846: to the gauge-boson decays are given by

1847: \beq

1848: \de_{\PV\to l_i\bar l_j}^{\QCD} = 0, \qquad

1849: \de_{\PV\to q_i\bar q_j}^{\QCD} = 

1850: \frac{\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}}{\pi},

1851: \eeq

1852: according to whether $f_i \bar f_j$ is a lepton

1853: ($l_i\bar l_j$) or a quark ($q_i\bar q_j$) pair, respectively.

1854: Finally, the ``constants'' $c_{\PH\PV\PV}$ have been introduced to

1855: account for a sizeable, but widely $\MH$-independent offset in the relative

1856: corrections to the $\PH\PV\PV$ vertices

1857: that is induced by non-leading corrections.

1858: In practice, it is often sufficient to set $c_{\PH\PV\PV}$ to a

1859: numerical constant, which can be determined from a comparison with

1860: the full correction to the $\PH\to\PV\PV\to4f$ process.

1861: For the input parameters given in \refse{se:input} we find

1862: that the choice

1863: \beq

1864: c_{\PH\PZ\PZ} = 3\%, \qquad

1865: c_{\PH\PW\PW} = 4\%

1866: \eeq

1867: is appropriate.  The values of $c_{\PH\PV\PV}$ will certainly not

1868: change significantly if the input parameters of \refse{se:input} vary

1869: within their experimental uncertainties.

1870: 

1871: When defining the IBA for the final states $f\bar f f\bar f$ and 

1872: $f\bar f f'\bar f'$ we make use of the fact that the two 

1873: subamplitudes in \refeq{eq:zzsym} and \refeq{eq:mixed} have

1874: a very small interference. Therefore, we define the IBA for

1875: the squared matrix element from the IBA of the corresponding

1876: squared subamplitudes and take into account the interference

1877: in lowest order without modification.

1878: 

1879: 

1880: In deriving the contributions enhanced by $\Mt^2$ in (6.1), we used a

1881: double-pole approximation and implicitly assumed an integration over

1882: all decay angles. Without this assumption, corrections to angular

1883: correlations are induced by the interference of the two relevant

1884: formfactors describing the $\PH\PV\PV$ vertices. Hence, the IBA (6.1)

1885: is in first place constructed for partial widths.

1886: 

1887: \section{Numerical results}

1888: \label{se:numerics}

1889: 

1890: \subsection{Input parameters and setup}

1891: \label{se:input}

1892: 

1893: We use the following set of input parameters \cite{Eidelman:2004wy},

1894: \beqar

1895: \begin{array}[b]{r@{\,}lr@{\,}lr@{\,}l}

1896: G_{\mu} &= 1.16637\times 10^{-5}\GeV^{-2}, \qquad &

1897: \al(0) &= 1/137.03599911, \qquad & \alpha_{\mathrm{s}} &= 0.1187,\\

1898: \MW^{\LEP} &= 80.425\GeV, & \GW^{\LEP} &= 2.124\GeV, && \\

1899: \MZ^{\LEP} &= 91.1876\GeV,& \GZ^{\LEP} &= 2.4952\GeV, && \\

1900: \Me &= 0.51099892 \MeV, & \Mmy &= 105.658369 \MeV, 

1901: &\Mta &= 1.77699\GeV,\\

1902: \Mu &= 66 \MeV, & \Mc &=1.2 \GeV, & \Mt &= 174.3\GeV, \\

1903: \Md &= 66 \MeV, & \Ms &=150 \MeV, & \Mb &= 4.3\GeV.

1904: \end{array}

1905: \eeqar

1906: 

1907: The masses of the light quarks are adjusted to reproduce the hadronic

1908: contribution to the photonic vacuum polarization of

1909: \citere{Jegerlehner:2001ca}. As discussed in \refse{se:inputscheme},

1910: we use the $\GF$ scheme, \ie we derive the electromagnetic coupling

1911: constant from the Fermi constant according to \refeq{eq:al-GF}.

1912: We use $\alpha_{\GF}$ everywhere except for the couplings of the

1913: collinear photons, as described in \refse{se:fsr}. In this case we use

1914: $\al(0)$, because this reflects the coupling behaviour of real

1915: photons.

1916: 

1917: Using the complex-mass scheme, we employ a fixed width in the resonant

1918: W- and Z-boson propagators in contrast to the approach used at LEP to

1919: fit the W~and Z~resonances, where running widths are taken.

1920: Therefore, we have to convert the ``on-shell'' values of $M_V^{\LEP}$

1921: and $\Ga_V^{\LEP}$ ($V=\PW,\PZ$), resulting from LEP, to the ``pole

1922: values'' denoted by $M_V$ and $\Ga_V$ in this paper. The relation between

1923: the two sets of values is given by \cite{Bardin:1988xt}

1924: \beq\label{eq:m_ga_pole}

1925: M_V = M_V^{\LEP}/

1926: \sqrt{1+(\Ga_V^{\LEP}/M_V^{\LEP})^2},

1927: \qquad

1928: \Ga_V = \Ga_V^{\LEP}/

1929: \sqrt{1+(\Ga_V^{\LEP}/M_V^{\LEP})^2},

1930: \eeq

1931: leading to

1932: \beqar

1933: \begin{array}[b]{r@{\,}l@{\qquad}r@{\,}l}

1934: \MW &= 80.397\GeV, & 

1935: \MZ &= 91.1535\GeV.

1936: %\MW &= 80.397\GeV, & \GW &= 2.123\GeV, \\

1937: %\MZ &= 91.1535\GeV,& \GZ &= 2.4943\GeV.

1938: \label{eq:m_ga_pole_num}

1939: \end{array}

1940: \eeqar

1941: We make use of these mass parameters in the numerics discussed below,

1942: although the difference between using $M_V$ or $M_V^{\LEP}$ would be

1943: hardly visible.  The widths of the gauge bosons W and Z, $\GW$ and

1944: $\GZ$, are calculated from the above input including $\Oa$

1945: corrections, but using real mass parameters everywhere.

1946: Alternatively, the experimental widths calculated from

1947: \refeq{eq:m_ga_pole} could be used, but the procedure pursued here

1948: ensures that the ``effective branching ratios'' of the W's and Z's,

1949: which result from the integration over their decays, add up to one if

1950: all decay channels are summed over.  The gauge-boson widths depend on

1951: the Higgs mass only weakly.  For the Higgs masses

1952: $\MH=140,170,200\GeV$ the corresponding values are given in

1953: \refta{tab:width}.  These values are used everywhere in the complex

1954: masses, \ie we also

1955: apply the $\Oa$-corrected W and Z~widths for the lowest-order

1956: predictions.

1957: 

1958: In order to improve the corrections for partial Higgs decay widths for

1959: a Higgs mass near the $\Pt\bar\Pt$ threshold ($\MH\sim2\Mt$), we

1960: evaluate loop diagrams with internal top quarks with a complex

1961: top-quark mass $\cmt=\sqrt{\Mt^2-\ri\Mt\Gt}$. To this end, we set the

1962: top-quark width to its lowest-order prediction in the SM,

1963: \beq

1964: \Gt = \frac{\GF(\Mt^2-\MW^2)^2(\Mt^2+2\MW^2)}{8\pi\sqrt{2}\Mt^3}

1965: = 1.54\GeV,

1966: \eeq

1967: where the simplifications $\Mb=0$ and $V_{\Pt\Pb}=1$ are used.

1968: 

1969: The angular distributions in \refse{se:angdistr} are defined in the

1970: rest frame of the Higgs boson.  All observables are calculated without

1971: applying phase-space cuts, and, if not stated otherwise, a photon

1972: recombination is performed.  More precisely, if the invariant mass of

1973: a photon and a charged fermion is smaller than $5\GeV$, the photon

1974: momentum is added to the fermion momentum in the histograms.  If this

1975: condition applies to more than one fermion the photon is recombined

1976: with the fermion that yields the smallest invariant mass for the

1977: resulting fermion--photon pair.

1978: 

1979: All but the lowest-order predictions contain the higher-order FSR as

1980: described in \refse{se:fsr} as well as the two-loop corrections

1981: proportional to $\GF^2\MH^4$ given in \refse{se:gf2mh4}.

1982: 

1983: \subsection{Results for partial decay widths}

1984: 

1985: In \refta{tab:width} the partial decay width including $\Oa$

1986: corrections is shown for different decay channels and different values

1987: of the Higgs mass.

1988: \begin{table}

1989: \centerline{

1990: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

1991: \hline

1992: & $\MH[\GeV]$ & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$140$} 

1993:  & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$170$} 

1994:  & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$200$} 

1995:  \\

1996: \hline

1997: \hline

1998: & $\GW[\GeV]$ & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$2.09052...$} 

1999:  & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$2.09054...$} 

2000:  & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$2.09055...$} 

2001:  \\

2002: \hline

2003: & $\GZ[\GeV]$ & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$2.50278...$} 

2004:  & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$2.50287...$} 

2005:  & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$2.50292...$} 

2006:  \\

2007: \hline

2008: \hline

2009: $\PH\;\to$& & $\Gamma [\MeV]$ & $\delta[\%]$ & 

2010: $\Gamma [\MeV]$ & $\delta[\%]$ & $\Gamma [\MeV]$ & $\delta[\%]$\\

2011: \hline

2012: $\mathrm{e^- e^+}\mu^-\mu^+$                                     

2013:  & corrected

2014:  &    0.0012628(5)

2015:  & 2.3

2016:  &    0.020162(7)

2017:  & 2.7

2018:  &    0.8202(2)

2019:  & 4.4

2020:   \\

2021:  &

2022:  lowest order

2023:  &    0.0012349(4)

2024:  &

2025:  &    0.019624(5)

2026:  &

2027:  &    0.78547(8)

2028:  &

2029:   \\\hline

2030: ${l^- l^+}{l^- l^+}$                               

2031:  & corrected

2032:  &    0.0006692(2)

2033:  & 2.1

2034:  &    0.010346(3)

2035:  & 2.7

2036:  &    0.41019(8)

2037:  & 4.4

2038:   \\

2039:  $l=\Pe,\mu$ &

2040:  lowest order

2041:  &    0.0006555(2)

2042:  &

2043:  &    0.010074(2)

2044:  &

2045:  &    0.39286(4)

2046:  &

2047:   \\\hline

2048: $\nu_\mathrm{e}\mathrm{e^+}\mu^-\bar\nu_{\mu}$                   

2049:  & corrected

2050:  &    0.04807(2)

2051:  & 3.7

2052:  &    4.3109(9)

2053:  & 6.2

2054:  &   12.499(3)

2055:  & 5.0

2056:   \\

2057:  &

2058:  lowest order

2059:  &    0.04638(1)

2060:  &

2061:  &    4.0610(7)

2062:  &

2063:  &   11.907(2)

2064:  &

2065:   \\\hline

2066: $\nu_l {l^+} {l^-}\bar\nu_{l}$     

2067:  & corrected

2068:  &    0.04914(2)

2069:  & 3.7

2070:  &    4.344(1)

2071:  & 6.1

2072:  &   14.133(3)

2073:  & 5.0

2074:   \\

2075:  $l=\Pe,\mu$ &

2076:  lowest order

2077:  &    0.04738(2)

2078:  &

2079:  &    4.0926(8)

2080:  &

2081:  &   13.458(2)

2082:  &

2083:   \\\hline

2084: \end{tabular} }

2085: \caption{Partial decay widths for $\PH\to4\,$leptons including 

2086: \Oa{} and ${\cal O}(\GF^2\MH^4)$ corrections and corresponding

2087: relative corrections for various  decay channels and different Higgs

2088: masses.} 

2089: \label{tab:width}

2090: \end{table}

2091: In parentheses the statistical error of the phase-space integration is

2092: indicated, and $\delta=\Ga/\Ga_0-1$ labels the relative corrections.

2093: The first two channels, $\mathrm{e^- e^+}\mu^-\mu^+$ and ${l^-

2094:   l^+}{l^- l^+}$, $l=\Pe,\mu$, result from the decay

2095: $\PH\to\PZ\PZ\to4f$. The partial widths for only electrons or muons in

2096: the final state are equal in the limit of vanishing external fermion

2097: masses, since for collinear-safe observables, such as the partial

2098: widths, the fermion-mass logarithms cancel. The corresponding

2099: lowest-order matrix elements are given in \refeq{eq:zz} and

2100: \refeq{eq:zzsym}, respectively.  The width for $\PH\to{l^- l^+}{l^-

2101:   l^+}$ is typically smaller by a factor 2, because it gets a factor

2102: $1/4$ for identical particles in the final state and it proceeds in

2103: lowest order via two Feynman diagrams that are related by the exchange

2104: of two outgoing electrons and that have only a small interference.

2105: The channel $\nu_\mathrm{e}\mathrm{e^+}\mu^-\bar\nu_{\mu}$

2106: \refeq{eq:ww} results from the decay $\PH\to\PW\PW\to4f$, while the

2107: last channel

2108: %$\nu_\mathrm{e}\mathrm{e^+}\mathrm{e^-}\bar\nu_{\mathrm{e}}$

2109: $\nu_l l^+ l^-\bar\nu_l$

2110: \refeq{eq:mixed} receives contributions from both

2111: the decay into W and into Z~bosons.  The larger the Higgs mass, the

2112: larger is the decay width, because the available phase space grows.

2113: 

2114: In the two upper plots of \reffi{fig:sqrtsww} we show the partial 

2115: decay width for the final state $\Pne\Pep\Pmum\Pnmubar$ as 

2116: a function of the Higgs mass. 

2117: \begin{figure}

2118: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}

2119: \centerline{

2120: \begin{picture}(7.7,8)

2121: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=sqrts.nue.e.mu.num.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2122: \end{picture}

2123: \begin{picture}(7.5,8)

2124: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=sqrts.nue.e.mu.num.700.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2125: \end{picture} }

2126: \centerline{

2127: \begin{picture}(7.7,8)

2128: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=sqrts.nue.e.mu.num.rel.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2129: \end{picture}

2130: \begin{picture}(7.5,8)

2131: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=sqrts.nue.e.mu.num.rel.700.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2132: \end{picture} }

2133: \caption{Partial decay width for $\PH\to\Pne\Pep\Pmum\Pnmubar$ 

2134:   as a function of the Higgs mass. The upper plots show the absolute

2135:   prediction including $\Oa$ and ${\cal O}(\GF^2\MH^4)$ corrections,

2136:   and the lower plots show the comparison of the corresponding

2137:   relative corrections with the NWA and IBA.}

2138: \label{fig:sqrtsww}

2139: \end{figure}

2140: The lower plots show the corrections relative to the lowest-order

2141: result. As already explained, we always normalize to the lowest-order

2142: result that already includes the $\Oa$-corrected gauge-boson width in

2143: the complex masses of the gauge bosons.  A large fraction of the $\Oa$

2144: corrections is transfered to the lowest-order decay width by applying

2145: the $\GF$ scheme. Thus, the corrections are at the order of 2--8\% for

2146: moderate Higgs masses.  However, for large Higgs masses the

2147: corrections become larger and reach about 13\% at $\MH=700\GeV$. In

2148: this region the leading two-loop corrections already amount to about

2149: 4\%.  Around the $\PW\PW$ threshold at $160\GeV$ the Coulomb

2150: singularity, which originates from soft-photon exchange between the

2151: two slowly moving W~bosons, is reflected in the shape of the curve.

2152: The influence of diagrams with a Higgs boson splitting into a virtual

2153: Z-boson pair (ZZ~threshold) is visible at $\MH\sim2\MZ$.  At about

2154: $2\Mt$ the $\Pt\Ptbar$ threshold is visible.

2155: 

2156: For stable W or Z~bosons, \ie in the limit $\Ga_V\to 0$ ($V=\PW,\PZ$),

2157: it is possible to define a narrow-width approximation (NWA) where the

2158: matrix elements factorize into the decay $\PH\to\PV\PV$ and the

2159: subsequent decay of the gauge bosons into fermions. By definition the

2160: NWA is only applicable above the WW or ZZ~threshold. However, its

2161: analytical structure and evaluation is considerably simpler than in

2162: the case of the full decay $\PH\to\PW\PW/\PZ\PZ\to4f$ with off-shell

2163: gauge bosons.  Therefore, above threshold the NWA allows for an

2164: economic way of calculating relative $\Oa$ corrections to the

2165: integrated decay width, while the lowest-order contribution may, of

2166: course, still take into account unstable gauge bosons.  Following this

2167: line of thought, we define

2168: \beq

2169: \Ga^{\NWA} = \Ga_0 \, \frac{\Ga^{\NWA}_1} {\Ga^{\NWA}_0},

2170: \eeq

2171: with

2172: \beq

2173: \Ga^{\NWA}_1 = \Ga_{\PH\PV\PV,1}\, \frac{\Ga_{\PV f_1\bar f_2,1}

2174: \Ga_{\PV f_3\bar f_4,1}}{\Ga_{\PV,1}\Ga_{\PV,1}},

2175: \eeq

2176: and

2177: \beq

2178: \Ga^{\NWA}_0 = \Ga_{\PH\PV\PV,0}\, \frac{\Ga_{\PV f_1\bar f_2,0}

2179: \Ga_{\PV f_3\bar f_4,0}}{\Ga_{\PV,1}\Ga_{\PV,1}}.

2180: \eeq

2181: The indices ``0'' and ``1'' label lowest-order and $\Oa$-corrected

2182: results, respectively.  The Higgs-mass-enhanced two-loop terms,

2183: described in \refse{se:gf2mh4}, have also been included in

2184: $\Ga_{\PH\PV\PV,1}$.  In order to be consistent we again use the

2185: $\Oa$-corrected total width for the gauge bosons in the denominators

2186: of the branching ratios in $\Ga^{\NWA}_0$.  We note that we have

2187: rederived all necessary $\Oa$ corrections entering the NWA; the

2188: hard-photon corrections to the decay $\PH\to\PW\PW$ have been

2189: successfully checked against the expression given in

2190: \citere{Kniehl:1991xe}.  The NWA is evaluated with real gauge-boson

2191: and top-quark masses.

2192: 

2193: A few GeV above the corresponding gauge-boson-pair threshold the NWA

2194: agrees with the complete corrections within 1\%.  Near

2195: $\MH=2\MZ\sim180\GeV$ the loop-induced ZZ~threshold can be seen in the

2196: relative corrections to $\PH\to\PW\PW\to\Pne\Pep\Pmum\Pnmubar$ shown

2197: in \reffi{fig:sqrtsww}.  In the NWA this threshold leads to a

2198: singularity visible as a sharp peak; in the off-shell calculation in

2199: the complex-mass scheme this singular structure is smeared out,

2200: because the finite Z-boson width is taken into account.  Since the ZZ

2201: threshold corresponds to the situation where two Z~bosons become on

2202: shell in the loop, the latter description with the singularity

2203: regularized by a finite $\GZ$ is closer to physical reality.  An

2204: analogous situation can be seen near $\MH=2\Mt\sim350\GeV$ for the

2205: $\Pt\bar\Pt$ threshold with top quarks in the loops. Again the

2206: inclusion of the top decay width $\Gt$, as done in the off-shell

2207: calculation, yields the better description.  In \reffi{fig:sqrtsww} we

2208: show also the relative corrections obtained in the IBA of

2209: \refeq{eq:IBA}. The Coulomb singularity and the $\Pt\bar\Pt$ threshold

2210: are well described, and the full corrections are reproduced within

2211: $\lsim2\%$ for Higgs masses below $400\GeV$.

2212: 

2213: The plots in \reffi{fig:sqrtszz} show the decay width and the 

2214: relative correction for the final state $\Pem\Pep\Pmum\Pmup$. 

2215: \begin{figure}

2216: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}

2217: \centerline{

2218: \begin{picture}(7.7,8)

2219: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=sqrts.e.e.mu.mu.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2220: \end{picture}

2221: \begin{picture}(7.5,8)

2222: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=sqrts.e.e.mu.mu.700.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2223: \end{picture} }

2224: \centerline{

2225: \begin{picture}(7.7,8)

2226: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=sqrts.e.e.mu.mu.rel.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2227: \end{picture}

2228: \begin{picture}(7.5,8)

2229: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=sqrts.e.e.mu.mu.rel.700.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2230: \end{picture} }

2231: \caption{Partial decay width for $\PH\to\Pem\Pep\Pmum\Pmup$ 

2232:   as a function of the Higgs mass. The upper plots show the absolute

2233:   prediction including $\Oa$ and ${\cal O}(\GF^2\MH^4)$ corrections,

2234:   and the lower plots show the comparison of the corresponding

2235:   relative corrections with the NWA and IBA.}

2236: \label{fig:sqrtszz}

2237: \end{figure}

2238: The corrections are between 2\% and 4\% for moderate Higgs masses and

2239: rise to more than 10\% for large Higgs masses.  At a Higgs mass of

2240: about $160\GeV$ the influence of the $\PW\PW$ threshold can be

2241: observed.  As explained above, the behaviour of the corrections as a

2242: function of the Higgs mass is smooth, because the finite W-boson width

2243: is also used in the loop integrals.  In contrast to the decay

2244: $\PH\to\Pne\Pep\Pmum\Pnmubar$, there is no Coulomb singularity in this

2245: channel because the Z~boson is electrically neutral.  The NWA

2246: reproduces the complete result within $0.5\%$ not too close to the

2247: threshold. The IBA agrees with the complete calculation to better than

2248: 2\% for not too large Higgs masses.

2249: 

2250: \subsection{Comparison of partial widths with \HDECAY}

2251: 

2252: Predictions for the partial decay widths of the Higgs boson can also

2253: be obtained with various program packages, such as

2254: \HDECAY~\cite{Djouadi:1997yw}.  \HDECAY{} contains the lowest-order

2255: decay width for $\PH\to\PV^{(*)}\PV^{(*)}$ and the leading one-loop

2256: corrections $\propto\GF\MH^2$ and two-loop corrections $\propto

2257: \GF^2\MH^4$.  In order to obtain the decay width for

2258: $\PH\to\PW\PW/\PZ\PZ\to 4f$, we define

2259: \beq

2260: \Ga^{\mathrm{HD}} = \Ga_{\PH\PV\PV}^{\mathrm{HD}} \,

2261: \frac{\Ga_{\PV f_1f_2,0}}{\Ga_{\PV,1}} \,

2262: \frac{\Ga_{\PV f_3f_4,0}}{\Ga_{\PV,1}},

2263: \label{eq:HD}

2264: \eeq

2265: where $\Ga_{\PH\PV\PV}^{\mathrm{HD}}$ is the decay width from \HDECAY.

2266: In \refeq{eq:HD} the branching ratios of the gauge bosons are

2267: normalized in the same way (lowest order in the numerator, corrected

2268: total width in the denominator) as the effective branching ratios of

2269: our lowest-order predictions for the $\PH\to VV\to4f$ partial widths;

2270: otherwise a comparison would not be conclusive.

2271: 

2272: The comparison in \reffi{fig:sqrts_hdec}, where $\Ga^{\mathrm{HD}}$ is

2273: shown relative to our complete lowest-order prediction, shows that

2274: \HDECAY{} agrees with our lowest-order prediction below the decay

2275: threshold quite well.

2276: \begin{figure}

2277: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}

2278: \centerline{

2279: \begin{picture}(7.7,8)

2280: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=sqrts.nue.e.mu.num.rel.hdec.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2281: \end{picture}

2282: \begin{picture}(7.5,8)

2283: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=sqrts.nue.e.mu.num.rel.700.hdec.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2284: \end{picture} }

2285: \centerline{

2286: \begin{picture}(7.7,8)

2287: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=sqrts.e.e.mu.mu.rel.hdec.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2288: \end{picture}

2289: \begin{picture}(7.5,8)

2290: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=sqrts.e.e.mu.mu.rel.700.hdec.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2291: \end{picture} }

2292: \caption{Predictions for the partial decay widths for

2293:   $\PH\to\Pne\Pep\Pmum\Pnmubar$ and $\PH\to\Pem\Pep\Pmum\Pmup$

2294:   obtained with the program \HDECAY\ normalized to the complete

2295:   lowest-order decay width.  The corrections shown in

2296:   \reffis{fig:sqrtsww} and \ref{fig:sqrtszz} are included for

2297:   comparison.}

2298: \label{fig:sqrts_hdec}

2299: \end{figure}

2300: In this region $\Ga_{\PH\PV\PV}^{\mathrm{HD}}$ consistently takes into

2301: account the off-shell effects of the gauge bosons.  Above the

2302: threshold \HDECAY\ neglects off-shell effects of the gauge bosons.

2303: For large $\MH$ it follows our corrected result within a few per cent,

2304: because the dominant radiative corrections $\propto\GF\MH^2$ and

2305: $\propto\GF^2\MH^4$, which grow fast with increasing $\MH$, are

2306: included in both calculations.  In the threshold region, off-shell

2307: effects are, however, very important.  Here, the difference between

2308: the complete off-shell result and the Higgs width for on-shell gauge

2309: bosons amounts to more than 10\%.  In detail, \HDECAY{} interpolates

2310: between the off-shell and on-shell results within a window of

2311: $\pm2\GeV$ around threshold.  The maxima in the \HDECAY\ curves near

2312: the WW and ZZ~thresholds in the upper and lower left plots of

2313: \reffi{fig:sqrts_hdec}, respectively, are artifacts originating from

2314: the on-shell phase space of the W or Z~bosons above threshold.

2315: Approaching the threshold from above, the on-shell phase space, and

2316: thus the corresponding partial decay width, tends to zero.  This

2317: feature is avoided in \HDECAY\ by the interpolation.  The described

2318: maxima in the \HDECAY\ curves have nothing to do with the maximum of

2319: the correction near the WW~threshold in the upper left plot, which is

2320: due to the Coulomb singularity.

2321: 

2322: \subsection{Invariant-mass distributions}

2323: \label{se:invmassdistr}

2324: 

2325: In \reffi{fig:winv} we study the invariant-mass distribution 

2326: of the fermion pairs resulting from the decay of the W~bosons 

2327: in the decay $\PH\to\Pne\Pep\Pmum\Pnmubar$. 

2328: \begin{figure}

2329: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}

2330: \centerline{

2331: \begin{picture}(7.7,8)

2332: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=winv34.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2333: \end{picture}

2334: \begin{picture}(7.5,8)

2335: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=winv.rel.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2336: \end{picture} }

2337: \centerline{

2338: \begin{picture}(7.7,8)

2339: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=winv34.140.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2340: \end{picture}

2341: \begin{picture}(7.5,8)

2342: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=winv.140.rel.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2343: \end{picture} }

2344: \caption{Distribution in the invariant mass of the $\Pmum\Pnmubar$

2345:   (l.h.s.)\ pair and relative corrections to the distributions in the

2346:   invariant masses of the $\Pne\Pep$ and $\Pmum\Pnmubar$ pairs

2347:   (r.h.s.)\ in the decay $\PH\to\Pne\Pep\Pmum\Pnmubar$ for

2348:   $\MH=170\GeV$ and $\MH=140\GeV$.}

2349: \label{fig:winv}

2350: \end{figure}

2351: The plots on the l.h.s.\ show the distribution for $\Pmum\Pnmubar$

2352: including corrections for $\MH=170\GeV$ and $\MH=140\GeV$, i.e.\ for

2353: one value of $\MH$ above and one below the WW~threshold.  The plots on

2354: the r.h.s.\ compare the relative corrections for $\Pne\Pep$ and

2355: $\Pmum\Pnmubar$ both with and without photon recombination.  The

2356: invariant mass $M_{f\bar f'}$ is calculated from the sum of the

2357: momenta of the fermions $f$ and $f'$. If no photon recombination is

2358: applied, always the bare momenta are taken. In the case of photon

2359: recombination the momentum of recombined photons is included in the

2360: invariant mass as described in \refse{se:input}.

2361: 

2362: For $\MH=170\GeV$, where the width is dominated by contributions where

2363: both intermediate W~bosons are simultaneously resonant, the shape of

2364: the curves in \reffi{fig:winv} can be understood as follows.  If one

2365: of the fermions resulting from the decay of a resonant W~boson emits a

2366: photon, the invariant mass $M_{f\bar f'}$ is reduced, giving rise to

2367: an enhancement for small invariant masses.  Without photon

2368: recombination these positive corrections are large due to the

2369: appearance of logarithms of the small fermion masses. As the electron

2370: mass is smaller, the corresponding logarithms yield a larger

2371: contribution.  If photon recombination is applied, events are

2372: rearranged from small invariant masses to large invariant masses.  In

2373: this case, the observable is inclusive, i.e.\ the fermion mass

2374: logarithms cancel owing to the KLN theorem, and the $\Pne\Pep$ and

2375: $\Pmum\Pnmubar$ distributions do not differ.  The analogous phenomenon

2376: has, e.g., been discussed for the related resonance processes

2377: $\Pep\Pem\to\PW\PW\to 4\,$leptons

2378: \cite{Denner:2000bj,Beenakker:1998gr} and $\ga\ga\to\PW\PW\to 4f$

2379: \cite{Bredenstein:2005zk}.

2380: 

2381: For $\MH=140\GeV$, \ie below the threshold, only one W~boson can

2382: become on shell. Thus, there is still a resonance around $M_{f\bar

2383:   f'}\sim\MW$, but also an enhancement below an invariant mass of

2384: $\MH-\MW\sim60\GeV$, where the other decaying W~boson can become

2385: resonant.  Near the resonance at $M_{f\bar f'}\sim\MW$ the corrections

2386: look similar to the doubly-resonant case discussed for $\MH=170\GeV$

2387: above.  The same redistribution of events from higher to lower

2388: invariant mass due to FSR happens as explained above.  Between $\MW$

2389: and $\MH-\MW$ none of the W~bosons is resonant, and the contribution

2390: to the lowest-order width is small. Therefore, owing to the

2391: redistribution of events via photon emission the relative corrections

2392: are large in this regime.  Below $\MH-\MW$, where the other W~boson

2393: can become resonant, qualitatively the same FSR effects are visible as

2394: in the vicinity of the resonance at $\MW$: apart from a constant

2395: positive off-set in the relative corrections, events are distributed

2396: from the right to the left of the maximum.

2397: 

2398: Figure~\ref{fig:zinv} shows the corresponding invariant-mass distributions 

2399: for the decay $\PH\to\Pem\Pep\Pmum\Pmup$ with $\MH=200\GeV$ and $\MH=170\GeV$. 

2400: \begin{figure}

2401: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}

2402: \centerline{

2403: \begin{picture}(7.7,8)

2404: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=zinv34.200.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2405: \end{picture}

2406: \begin{picture}(7.5,8)

2407: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=zinv.200.rel.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2408: \end{picture} }

2409: \centerline{

2410: \begin{picture}(7.7,8)

2411: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=zinv34.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2412: \end{picture}

2413: \begin{picture}(7.5,8)

2414: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=zinv.rel.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2415: \end{picture} }

2416: \caption{Distribution in the invariant mass of the $\Pmum\Pmup$ pair 

2417:   (l.h.s.)\  and relative corrections to the distributions in the

2418:   invariant masses of the $\Pem\Pep$ and $\Pmum\Pmup$ pairs (r.h.s.)\

2419:   in the decay $\PH\to\Pem\Pep\Pmum\Pmup$ for $\MH=200\GeV$ and

2420:   $\MH=170\GeV$.}

2421: \label{fig:zinv}

2422: \end{figure}

2423: The generic features of the plots are similar to the decay into

2424: W~bosons.  For $\MH=200\GeV$, \ie above the ZZ~threshold, there is a

2425: resonance region around $\MZ$, and the corrections become large in the

2426: non-collinear-safe case.  Photon recombination rearranges the events,

2427: so that the fermion logarithms cancel.  For Higgs masses below the

2428: ZZ~threshold, such as for $\MH=170\GeV$, one Z~boson or the other is

2429: resonant for $M_{f\bar f}\sim\MZ$ or $M_{f\bar f}\lsim \MH-\MZ$,

2430: respectively. The shape and the large size of the corrections are due

2431: to collinear FSR as explained above.  In \citere{Choi:2002jk} it was

2432: pointed out that the kinematical threshold near $\MH-\MZ$ where the

2433: other Z~boson can become on shell, which is at $M_{f\bar f}\sim80\GeV$

2434: in \reffi{fig:zinv}, can be used to verify the spin of the Higgs

2435: boson. While the rise of the width near this threshold is proportional

2436: to $\be\propto\sqrt{[1-(\MZ+M_{f\bar f})^2/\MH^2][1-(\MZ-M_{f\bar

2437:     f})^2/\MH^2]}$ for a spin-0 particle, it would be proportional to

2438: $\be^3$ for a spin-1 particle.  Figure~\ref{fig:zinv} shows that the

2439: radiative corrections influence the slope at the kinematical

2440: threshold.

2441: 

2442: Finally, in \reffi{fig:fsr} we investigate the influence of the

2443: contribution $\de_{\mathrm{FSR}}$ of higher-order FSR to the complete

2444: relative correction $\de$ on the invariant-mass distribution of

2445: $\Pmum\bar\Pnmu$ and $\Pmum\Pmup$ in the decays

2446: $\PH\to\Pne\Pep\Pmum\Pnmubar$ and $\PH\to\Pem\Pep\Pmum\Pmup$. The

2447: invariant mass is defined via the momenta of the fermions alone, i.e.\ 

2448: without photon recombination.  If photon recombination was applied,

2449: the leading logarithmic FSR corrections, as described in

2450: \refse{se:fsr}, would vanish completely.  Subtracting the $\Oa$ terms

2451: \refeq{eq:Oafsr} with \refeq{eq:Oasf} from \refeq{eq:FSR} with the

2452: structure functions \refeq{eq:GammaFSR} yields the contribution that

2453: is beyond $\Oa$. In \reffi{fig:fsr} the impact of this contribution is

2454: studied revealing corrections of up to $4\%$ in regions where the

2455: lowest-order result is relatively small.  Figure~\ref{fig:fsr} also

2456: shows the comparison between the structure function with and without

2457: the exponentiation of the soft-photon parts in \refeq{eq:GammaFSR} and

2458: \refeq{eq:FSRreexpand}, respectively.  The difference is beyond

2459: $\Oaaa$ and turns out to be tiny.

2460: 

2461: \begin{figure}

2462: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}

2463: \centerline{

2464: \begin{picture}(7.7,8)

2465: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=winv.rel.fsr.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2466: \end{picture}

2467: \begin{picture}(7.5,8)

2468: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=zinv.rel.fsr.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2469: \end{picture} }

2470: \caption{Influence of the leading logarithmic terms of FSR

2471: on the invariant-mass distribution of $\Pmum\bar\Pnmu$ and 

2472: $\Pmum\Pmup$ in the decays $\PH\to\Pne\Pep\Pmum\Pnmubar$ 

2473: and $\PH\to\Pem\Pep\Pmum\Pmup$. The different curves correspond to 

2474: the result with exponentiation, without exponentiation, and 

2475: to the sum of $\al^2$ and $\al^3$ terms, which are labelled ``beyond $\Oa$''.}

2476: \label{fig:fsr}

2477: \end{figure}

2478: 

2479: \subsection{Angular distributions}

2480: \label{se:angdistr}

2481: 

2482: The investigation of angular correlations between the fermionic decay

2483: products is an essential means of testing the properties of the Higgs

2484: boson. In \citeres{Nelson:1986ki,Choi:2002jk} it was demonstrated how

2485: the spin of the Higgs boson can be determined by looking at the angle

2486: between the decay planes of the Z~bosons in the decay $\PH\to\PZ\PZ$.

2487: This angle can be defined by

2488: \beqar

2489: \cos{\phi'} &=& 

2490: \frac{({\bf k}_{12}\times{\bf k}_1)({\bf k}_{12}\times{\bf k}_3)}

2491:      {|{\bf k}_{12}\times{\bf k}_1||{\bf k}_{12}\times{\bf k}_3|},

2492: \nn\\

2493: \sgn(\sin{\phi'}) &=& 

2494: \sgn\{{\bf k}_{12}\cdot[({\bf k}_{12}\times{\bf k}_1)\times

2495:                         ({\bf k}_{12}\times{\bf k}_3)]\},

2496: \label{eq:phipr}

2497: \eeqar

2498: where ${\bf k}_{12}={\bf k}_1+{\bf k}_2$.  The l.h.s.\ of

2499: \reffi{fig:phi} shows the differential decay width for

2500: $\PH\to\Pem\Pep\Pmum\Pmup$ as a function of $\phi'$ revealing a

2501: $\cos{2\phi'}$ term. As was noticed in

2502: \citeres{Nelson:1986ki,Choi:2002jk}, this term would be proportional

2503: to ($-\cos{2\phi'}$) if the Higgs boson was a pseudo-scalar.

2504: \begin{figure}

2505: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}

2506: \centerline{

2507: \begin{picture}(7.7,8)

2508: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=phi.200.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2509: \end{picture}

2510: \begin{picture}(7.5,8)

2511: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=phi.200.rel.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2512: \end{picture} }

2513: \caption{Distribution in the angle between the $\PZ\to l^-l^+$

2514:   decay planes in the decay $\PH\to\Pem\Pep\Pmum\Pmup$ (l.h.s.)\ and

2515:   corresponding relative corrections (with photon recombination)

2516:   (r.h.s.)\ for $\MH=200\GeV$.}

2517: \label{fig:phi}

2518: \end{figure}

2519: 

2520: Note that for non-photonic events 

2521: the definition of $\phi'$ coincides with the definition given in 

2522: \citere{Denner:2000bj} where ($-{\bf k}_{34}\times{\bf k}_3$) 

2523: with ${\bf k}_{34}={\bf k}_3+{\bf k}_4$ was used instead of 

2524: (${\bf k}_{12}\times{\bf k}_3$). 

2525: Explicitly, $\phi$ was defined by

2526: \beqar

2527: \cos{\phi} &=& 

2528: \frac{({\bf k}_{12}\times{\bf k}_1)(-{\bf k}_{34}\times{\bf k}_3)}

2529:                 {|{\bf k}_{12}\times{\bf k}_1||-{\bf k}_{34}\times{\bf k}_3|},

2530: \nn\\

2531: \sgn(\sin{\phi}) &=& 

2532: \sgn\{{\bf k}_{12}\cdot[({\bf k}_{12}\times{\bf k}_1)\times

2533:                            (-{\bf k}_{34}\times{\bf k}_3)]\}.

2534: \label{eq:phi}

2535: \eeqar

2536: However, this definition yields large negative contributions at

2537: $\phi=0^{\circ}$ and $\phi=180^{\circ}$. As was explained in

2538: \citere{Denner:2000bj}, this is an effect of the suppressed phase

2539: space in the real corrections. At $\phi=0^{\circ}$ and

2540: $\phi=180^{\circ}$ the phase space for photonic events shrinks to the

2541: configurations where the photon is either soft or lies in the decay

2542: plane of the gauge bosons. Thus, the negative contributions from the

2543: virtual corrections are not fully compensated by the real corrections.

2544: Using ${\bf k}_{12}\times{\bf k}_3$ as in \refeq{eq:phipr} avoids this

2545: suppression and gives rise to a smooth dependence of the corrections

2546: on $\phi$ as can be seen on the r.h.s.\ of \reffi{fig:phi} which shows

2547: the relative corrections for $\phi$ and $\phi'$ in the decay

2548: $\PH\to\Pem\Pep\Pmum\Pmup$.  Since the difference of $\phi$ and

2549: $\phi'$ is only due to photons, this, again, emphasizes the 

2550: influence of the photon treatment.

2551: 

2552: In contrast to the invariant-mass distribution of \reffi{fig:winv},

2553: photon recombination does not produce any significant effect for the

2554: observables $\phi,\phi'$. This is because adding a soft or collinear photon

2555: to a fermion momentum does not change its direction significantly and,

2556: thus, has only a small influence on the angles $\phi,\phi'$.

2557: 

2558: The distribution in the decay angle of the $\Pmum$ relative to the

2559: corresponding Z~boson in the decay $\PH\to\Pem\Pep\Pmum\Pmup$ is shown

2560: in \reffi{fig:th}.

2561: \begin{figure}

2562: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}

2563: \centerline{

2564: \begin{picture}(7.7,8)

2565: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=th.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2566: \end{picture}

2567: \begin{picture}(7.5,8)

2568: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=th.rel.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2569: \end{picture} }

2570: \centerline{

2571: \begin{picture}(7.7,8)

2572: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=th.200.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2573: \end{picture}

2574: \begin{picture}(7.5,8)

2575: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=th.200.rel.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2576: \end{picture} }

2577: \caption{Distribution in the angle between the $\Pmum$ and the 

2578:   corresponding Z~boson in the rest frame of the Z~boson (l.h.s.)\ and

2579:   corresponding relative corrections with and without photon

2580:   recombination (r.h.s.)\ in the decay $\PH\to\Pem\Pep\Pmum\Pmup$ for

2581:   $\MH=170\GeV$ and $\MH=200\GeV$.}

2582: \label{fig:th}

2583: \end{figure}

2584: The angle is defined in the rest frame of the Z~boson.  Since the

2585: Z~bosons resulting from Higgs decay are preferably longitudinally

2586: polarized, the distribution involves a component proportional to

2587: $\sin^2\theta_{\PZ\Pmum}$.  The relative corrections which are shown

2588: in the plot on the r.h.s.\ reveal a strong enhancement in the forward

2589: and backward direction if no recombination is applied.  This

2590: enhancement is due to events where the $\Pmup$ emits a collinear

2591: photon and has only a small energy left. Since the momentum of the

2592: Z~boson is defined via its decay fermions, it has almost the same

2593: momentum as the $\Pmum$. This configuration is enhanced by collinear

2594: logarithms which are not compensated by virtual contributions.  After

2595: applying photon recombination, the momentum of the Z~boson is defined

2596: via the sum of the fermion and photon momenta.  Thus, the $\Pmum$ is

2597: not necessarily collinear to the Z~boson anymore, and events are

2598: rearranged to smaller $|\cos\theta_{\PZ\Pmum}|$ giving rise to a

2599: flatter distribution.

2600: 

2601: Next, we consider the distribution in the angle between two fermions.

2602: In the case of $\PH\to\PW\PW$ the angle between the charged fermions

2603: can be used to discriminate the Higgs signal events from background

2604: events \cite{Dittmar:1996ss}, because the fermions are emitted

2605: preferably in the same direction. This can be understood as follows.

2606: At leading order, the only non-vanishing helicity amplitudes for

2607: $\PH\to\PW\PW$ are those with equal-helicity W~bosons.  Since W~bosons

2608: only couple to left-handed particles and due to angular momentum

2609: conservation, particles (anti-particles) are emitted preferably in the

2610: forward direction of transverse W~bosons with negative (positive)

2611: helicity, and anti-particles (particles) in the backward direction.

2612: As, close to threshold, 2/3 of the W~bosons are transverse and as the

2613: W~bosons fly in opposite directions, a particle and an anti-particle

2614: of their decay products will be emitted preferably in the same

2615: direction, resulting in small angles between these particles.

2616: 

2617: In the decay $\PH\to\Pne\Pep\Pmum\Pnmubar$ neither the Higgs-boson nor

2618: the W-boson momenta can be reconstructed from the decay products.  The

2619: distribution in the angle between the $\Pep$ and $\Pmum$ can, thus,

2620: only be studied upon including the Higgs-production process.  If the

2621: Higgs boson was, however, produced without transverse momentum, or if

2622: the transverse momentum was known, the angle between $\Pep$ and

2623: $\Pmum$ in the plane perpendicular to the beam axis could be studied

2624: without knowledge of the production process.  We define the transverse

2625: angle between $\Pep$ and $\Pmum$ in the frame where ${\bf

2626:   k}_{\PH,\mathrm{T}}=0$ as

2627: \beqar

2628: \cos\phi_{\Pe\mu,\mathrm{T}} &=& 

2629: \frac{{\bf k}_{2,\mathrm{T}}\cdot{\bf k}_{3,\mathrm{T}}}

2630: {|{\bf k}_{2,\mathrm{T}}|{|\bf k}_{3,\mathrm{T}}|},

2631: \nn \\

2632: \sgn(\sin{\phi_{\Pe\mu,\mathrm{T}} }) 

2633:        &=& \sgn\{{\bf e}_z\cdot({\bf k}_{2,\rT}\times{\bf k}_{3,\rT})\},

2634: \eeqar

2635: where ${\bf k}_{i,\mathrm{T}}$ are the transverse components of the

2636: fermion momenta w.r.t.\ the unit vector ${\bf e}_z$, which could be

2637: identified with the beam direction of a Higgs production process.

2638: 

2639: The corresponding distribution, together with the influence of the 

2640: corrections, is shown in \reffi{fig:phitr}. 

2641: \begin{figure}

2642: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}

2643: \centerline{

2644: \begin{picture}(7.7,8)

2645: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=phitr.140.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2646: \end{picture}

2647: \begin{picture}(7.5,8)

2648: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=phitr.140.rel.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2649: \end{picture} }

2650: \centerline{

2651: \begin{picture}(7.7,8)

2652: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=phitr.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2653: \end{picture}

2654: \begin{picture}(7.5,8)

2655: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=phitr.rel.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2656: \end{picture} }

2657: \caption{Distribution in the transverse angle between $\Pep$ and 

2658:   $\Pmum$ including corrections (l.h.s.)\ and corresponding relative

2659:   corrections (r.h.s.)\ with and without applying photon recombination

2660:   in the decay $\PH\to\Pne\Pep\Pmum\Pnmubar$ for $\MH=140\GeV$ and

2661:   $\MH=170\GeV$.}

2662: \label{fig:phitr}

2663: \end{figure}

2664: The enhancement for small angles, which was explained above, is

2665: transferred to the distribution of the transverse angle

2666: $\phi_{\Pe\mu,\mathrm{T}}$. Since the photon recombination does not

2667: change the direction of the fermions, it does not have any visible

2668: effect on the relative corrections.

2669: 

2670: Finally, we investigate the distribution of the angle between $\Pem$

2671: and $\Pmum$ in the decay $\PH\to\Pem\Pep\Pmum\Pmup$.  We prefer to

2672: choose the angle between two fermions with the same charge because

2673: this constitutes an unambiguous choice in the decay

2674: $\PH\to\Pmum\Pmup\Pmum\Pmup$.  Figure~\ref{fig:th13} shows the

2675: tendency that the fermions are emitted in opposite directions for the

2676: same reason as explained above.

2677: \begin{figure}

2678: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}

2679: \centerline{

2680: \begin{picture}(7.7,8)

2681: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=th13.200.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2682: \end{picture}

2683: \begin{picture}(7.5,8)

2684: \put(-1.7,-14.5){\special{psfile=th13.200.rel.eps hscale=100 vscale=100}}

2685: \end{picture} }

2686: \caption{Distribution in the angle between $\Pem$ and 

2687:   $\Pmum$ including corrections (l.h.s.)\ and corresponding relative

2688:   corrections (r.h.s.)\ with and without applying photon recombination

2689:   in the decay $\PH\to\Pem\Pep\Pmum\Pmup$ for $\MH=200\GeV$.}

2690: \label{fig:th13}

2691: \end{figure}

2692: However, this feature is not as pronounced as in

2693: $\PH\to\Pne\Pep\Pmum\Pnmubar$, because Z~bosons do also couple to

2694: right-handed fermions so that one Z~boson might decay into a

2695: left-handed fermion and the other into a right-handed fermion.

2696: The radiative corrections tend to reduce the enhancement in forward

2697: direction and do not depend on photon recombination.

2698: 

2699: \section{Conclusions}

2700: \label{se:concl}

2701: 

2702: The decays of the Standard Model Higgs boson into four leptons via a

2703: W-boson or Z-boson pair lead to experimental signatures at the LHC

2704: that are both important for the search for the Higgs boson and for

2705: studying its properties. To exploit this possibility a Monte Carlo

2706: event generator for the decays $\PH\to\PW\PW/\PZ\PZ\to4\,$leptons is

2707: needed that properly accounts for the relevant radiative corrections,

2708: in order to achieve the necessary precision in predictions.  {\sc

2709:   Prophecy4f} is an event generator dedicated to this task.  We have

2710: shown first results of this generator and described the underlying

2711: calculation.

2712: 

2713: In detail, we have presented the complete electroweak radiative

2714: corrections of ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ to the decays $\PH\to4\,$leptons,

2715: supplemented by corrections beyond ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ originating from

2716: heavy-Higgs effects and final-state radiation.  The intermediate W-

2717: and Z-boson resonances are treated in the so-called complex-mass

2718: scheme, which fully preserves gauge invariance and does not employ any

2719: type of expansion or on-shell approximation for the intermediate

2720: gauge-boson resonances. Consequently, the calculation is equally valid

2721: above, in the vicinity of, and below the WW and ZZ~thresholds.

2722: 

2723: The corrections to partial decay widths typically amount to some per

2724: cent and increase with growing Higgs mass $\MH$, reaching about 8\% at

2725: $\MH\sim500\GeV$. This statement, however, applies only if the

2726: lowest-order decay widths are already evaluated with the full

2727: off-shell effects of the intermediate W and Z~bosons, in particular

2728: near and below the WW and ZZ~thresholds.  The on-shell (narrow-width)

2729: approximation for the corrections is good within $0.5{-}1\%$ of the

2730: width for Higgs masses sufficiently above the corresponding

2731: gauge-boson pair threshold, as long as the lowest-order prediction

2732: consistently includes the off-shell effects of the gauge bosons.  For

2733: $\PH\to\PW\PW\to4f$ the narrow-width approximation fails by about 10\%

2734: for Higgs masses that are only $2\GeV$ above the $\PW\PW$ threshold,

2735: because the instability of the W~bosons significantly influences the

2736: Coulomb singularity near threshold.  Only a calculation that keeps the

2737: full off-shellness of the W and Z~bosons can describe the threshold

2738: regions properly.  We have given a simple improved Born approximation

2739: for the partial widths that reproduces the full calculation within

2740: $\lsim2\%$ for Higgs masses below $400\GeV$. In this regime our

2741: complete calculation has a theoretical uncertainty below 1\%. For

2742: larger Higgs masses we expect that unknown two-loop corrections that

2743: are enhanced by $\GF\MH^2$ deteriorate the accuracy.  Finally, for

2744: $\MH\gsim700\GeV$ it is well known that perturbative predictions

2745: become questionable in general.

2746: 

2747: For angular distributions, which are important in the verification of

2748: the discrete quantum numbers of the Higgs boson, the corrections are

2749: of the order of $5{-}10\%$ and distort the shapes.  For invariant-mass

2750: distributions of fermion pairs, which are relevant for the

2751: reconstruction of the gauge bosons, the situation is similar to

2752: gauge-boson pair production processes such as

2753: $\Pep\Pem\to\PW\PW\to4\,$fermions, i.e.\ the corrections can reach

2754: several tens of per cent depending on the treatment of photon

2755: radiation.

2756: 

2757: In its present version the Monte Carlo event generator {\sc Prophecy4f}

2758: deals with fully leptonic final states, a situation most relevant for

2759: the LHC. The generalization to semi-leptonic and hadronic final states,

2760: including a proper description of QCD corrections, will be described

2761: in a forthcoming publication.

2762: 

2763: \section*{Acknowledgements}

2764: 

2765: We thank M. Spira for helpful discussions about \HDECAY.

2766: 

2767: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

2768: \frenchspacing

2769: \newcommand{\ap}[3]{{\sl Ann.~Phys.} {\bf #1} (19#2) #3}

2770: \newcommand{\zp}[3]{{\sl Z.~Phys.} {\bf #1} (19#2) #3}

2771: \newcommand{\np}[3]{{\sl Nucl.~Phys.} {\bf #1} (19#2) #3}

2772: \newcommand{\pl}[3]{{\sl Phys.~Lett.} {\bf #1} (19#2) #3}

2773: \newcommand{\pr}[3]{{\sl Phys.~Rev.} {\bf #1} (19#2) #3}

2774: \newcommand{\prl}[3]{{\sl Phys.~Rev.~Lett.} {\bf #1} (19#2) #3}

2775: \newcommand{\fp}[3]{{\sl Fortschr.~Phys.} {\bf #1} (19#2) #3}

2776: \newcommand{\jp}[3]{{\sl J.~Phys.} {\bf #1} (19#2) #3}

2777: \newcommand{\cpc}[3]{{\sl Comput.~Phys.~Commun.} {\bf #1} (19#2) #3}

2778: \newcommand{\ijmp}[3]{{\sl Int.~J.~Mod.~Phys.} {\bf #1} (19#2) #3}

2779: \newcommand{\nim}[3]{{\sl Nucl.~Instr.~Meth.} {\bf #1} (19#2) #3}

2780: \newcommand{\nc}[3]{{\sl Nuovo Cimento} {\bf #1} (19#2) #3}

2781: \newcommand{\mpl}[3]{{\sl Modern Physics Letters} {\bf #1} (19#2) #3}

2782: \newcommand{\vj}[4]{{\sl #1} {\bf #2} (19#3) #4}

2783: 

2784: %\cite{Glover:1988fn}

2785: \bibitem{Glover:1988fn}

2786:   E.~W.~N.~Glover, J.~Ohnemus and S.~S.~D.~Willenbrock,

2787:   %``Higgs Boson Decay To One Real And One Virtual W Boson,''

2788:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 37} (1988) 3193;\\

2789:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D37,3193;%%

2790: %

2791: %\cite{Barger:1990mn}

2792: %\bibitem{Barger:1990mn}

2793:   V.~D.~Barger, G.~Bhattacharya, T.~Han and B.~A.~Kniehl,

2794:   %``Intermediate Mass Higgs Boson At Hadron Supercolliders,''

2795:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 43} (1991) 779;\\

2796:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D43,779;%%

2797: %

2798: %\cite{Barger:1994zq}

2799: %\bibitem{Barger:1994zq}

2800:   V.~D.~Barger, R.~J.~N.~Phillips and D.~Zeppenfeld,

2801:   %``Mini - jet veto: A Tool for the heavy Higgs search at the LHC,''

2802:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 346} (1995) 106

2803:   [hep-ph/9412276];\\

2804:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9412276;%%

2805:   %%Cited 12 times in SPIRES-HEP

2806: %

2807: %\cite{Rainwater:1999sd}

2808: %\bibitem{Rainwater:1999sd}

2809:   D.~L.~Rainwater and D.~Zeppenfeld,

2810:   %``Observing $H \to W^{(*)}W^{(*)} \to e^\pm \mu^\mp /\!\!\!{p}_T$ in weak

2811:   %boson fusion with dual forward jet tagging at the CERN LHC,''

2812:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 113004

2813:   [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 61} (2000) 099901]

2814:   [hep-ph/9906218];\\

2815:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9906218;%%

2816: %

2817: %\cite{Kauer:2000hi}

2818: %\bibitem{Kauer:2000hi}

2819:   N.~Kauer, T.~Plehn, D.~L.~Rainwater and D.~Zeppenfeld,

2820:   %``H $\to$ W W as the discovery mode for a light Higgs boson,''

2821:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 503} (2001) 113

2822:   [hep-ph/0012351].

2823:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012351;%%

2824: 

2825: %\cite{Dittmar:1996ss}

2826: \bibitem{Dittmar:1996ss}

2827:   M.~Dittmar and H.~K.~Dreiner,

2828:   %``How to find a Higgs boson with a mass between 155-GeV to 180-GeV at the

2829:   %LHC,''

2830:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55} (1997) 167

2831:   [hep-ph/9608317].

2832:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9608317;%%

2833: 

2834: %\cite{Asai:2004ws}

2835: \bibitem{Asai:2004ws}

2836:   S.~Asai {\it et al.},

2837:   %``Prospects for the search for a standard model Higgs boson in ATLAS  using

2838:   %vector boson fusion,''

2839:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 32S2} (2004) 19

2840:   [hep-ph/0402254];\\

2841:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402254;%%

2842: %

2843: %\cite{Abdullin:2005yn}

2844: %\bibitem{Abdullin:2005yn}

2845:   S.~Abdullin {\it et al.},

2846:   %``Summary of the CMS potential for the Higgs boson discovery,''

2847:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 39S2} (2005) 41.

2848:   %%CITATION = EPHJA,C39S2,41;%%

2849: 

2850: %\cite{Zivkovic:2004sv}

2851: \bibitem{Zivkovic:2004sv}

2852:   L.~Zivkovic,

2853:   %``Measurements of the standard model Higgs parameters at ATLAS,''

2854:   Czech.\ J.\ Phys.\  {\bf 54} (2004) A73.

2855:   %%CITATION = CZYPA,54,A73;%%

2856: 

2857: %\cite{atlas-cms-tdrs}

2858: \bibitem{atlas-cms-tdrs}

2859: ATLAS Collaboration, Technical Design Report, CERN--LHCC 99--14

2860:  (May 1999);

2861: CMS Collaboration, Technical Proposal, CERN--LHCC 94--38 (Dec.~1994).

2862: 

2863: %\cite{Assamagan:2004mu}

2864: \bibitem{Assamagan:2004mu}

2865:   K.~A.~Assamagan {\it et al.}  [Higgs Working Group Collaboration],

2866:   %``The Higgs working group: Summary report 2003,''

2867:   proceedings of the 3rd Les Houches Workshop: ``Physics at TeV Colliders'', 

2868:   Les Houches, 2003, 

2869:   hep-ph/0406152.

2870:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406152;%%

2871: 

2872: \bibitem{SMH-LH2005}

2873: C.~Buttar {\it et al.} [SMH Working Group Collaboration]

2874: QCD, EW, and Higgs working group report of the workshop

2875:   ``Physics at TeV Colliders'', Les Houches, May 2005, hep-ph/0604120.

2876: 

2877: %\cite{Aguilar-Saavedra:2001rg}

2878: \bibitem{Aguilar-Saavedra:2001rg}

2879: J.~A.~Aguilar-Saavedra {\it et al.},

2880: TESLA Technical Design Report Part III: Physics at an $\mathrm{e^+e^-}$

2881: Linear Collider,

2882: hep-ph/0106315.

2883: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106315;%%

2884: 

2885: %\cite{Abe:2001wn}

2886: \bibitem{Abe:2001wn}

2887: T.~Abe {\it et al.}  [American Linear Collider Working Group Collaboration],

2888: %``Linear collider physics resource book for Snowmass 2001,''

2889: in {\it Proc. of the APS/DPF/DPB Summer Study on the Future of

2890:   Particle Physics (Snowmass 2001) } ed. R.~Davidson and C.~Quigg,

2891: SLAC-R-570, {\it Resource book for Snowmass 2001},

2892: [hep-ex/0106055, hep-ex/0106056, hep-ex/0106057, hep-ex/0106058].

2893: 

2894: %\cite{Abe:2001gc}

2895: \bibitem{Abe:2001gc}

2896: K.~Abe {\it et al.}  [ACFA Linear Collider Working Group Collaboration],

2897: %``Particle physics experiments at JLC,''

2898: ACFA Linear Collider Working Group report,

2899: [hep-ph/0109166].

2900: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109166;%%

2901: 

2902: %\cite{Meyer:2004ha}

2903: \bibitem{Meyer:2004ha}

2904:   N.~Meyer and K.~Desch,

2905:   %``Determining resonance parameters of heavy Higgs bosons at a future linear

2906:   %collider,''

2907:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 35} (2004) 171.

2908:   %%CITATION = EPHJA,C35,171;%%

2909: 

2910: %\cite{Nelson:1986ki}

2911: \bibitem{Nelson:1986ki}

2912:   C.~A.~Nelson,

2913:   %``Correlation Between Decay Planes In Higgs Boson Decays Into W Pair (Into Z

2914:   %Pair),''

2915:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 37} (1988) 1220;\\

2916:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D37,1220;%%

2917: %

2918: %\cite{Soni:1993jc}

2919: %\bibitem{Soni:1993jc}

2920:   A.~Soni and R.~M.~Xu,

2921:   %``Probing CP violation via Higgs decays to four leptons,''

2922:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 48} (1993) 5259

2923:   [hep-ph/9301225];\\

2924:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9301225;%%

2925: %

2926: %%\cite{Chang:1992tu}

2927: %%\bibitem{Chang:1992tu}

2928: %  D.~Chang and W.~Y.~Keung,

2929: %  %``CP violation in the decay of neutral Higgs boson into t - anti-t and W+-

2930: %  %W-,''

2931: %  Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 305} (1993) 261

2932: %  [hep-ph/9301265];\\

2933: %  %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9301265;%%

2934: %

2935: %\cite{Chang:1993jy}

2936: %\bibitem{Chang:1993jy}

2937:   D.~Chang, W.~Y.~Keung and I.~Phillips,

2938:   %``CP odd correlation in the decay of neutral Higgs boson into Z Z, W+ W-, or

2939:   %t anti-t,''

2940:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 48} (1993) 3225

2941:   [hep-ph/9303226];\\

2942:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9303226;%%

2943: %

2944: %\cite{Skjold:1993jd}

2945: %\bibitem{Skjold:1993jd}

2946:   A.~Skjold and P.~Osland,

2947:   %``Angular and energy correlations in Higgs decay,''

2948:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 311} (1993) 261

2949:   [hep-ph/9303294];\\

2950:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9303294;%%

2951: %

2952: %\cite{Barger:1993wt}

2953: %\bibitem{Barger:1993wt}

2954:   V.D.~Barger, K.M.~Cheung, A.~Djouadi, B.A.~Kniehl and P.M.~Zerwas,

2955:   %``Higgs bosons: Intermediate mass range at e+ e- colliders,''

2956:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49} (1994) 79

2957:   [hep-ph/9306270];\\

2958:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9306270;%%

2959: %

2960: %\cite{Arens:1994wd}

2961: %\bibitem{Arens:1994wd}

2962:   T.~Arens and L.~M.~Sehgal,

2963:   %``Energy spectra and energy correlations in the decay H $\to$ Z Z $\to$ mu+

2964:   %mu- mu+ mu-,''

2965:   Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 66} (1995) 89

2966:   [hep-ph/9409396];\\

2967:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9409396;%%

2968: %

2969: %\cite{Buszello:2002uu}

2970: %\bibitem{Buszello:2002uu}

2971:   C.~P.~Buszello, I.~Fleck, P.~Marquard and J.~J.~van der Bij,

2972:   %``Prospective analysis of spin- and CP-sensitive variables in H $\to$ Z Z

2973:   %$\to$ l(1)+ l(1)- l(2)+ l(2)- at the LHC,''

2974:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 32} (2004) 209

2975:   [hep-ph/0212396].

2976:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212396;%%

2977: 

2978: %\cite{Choi:2002jk}

2979: \bibitem{Choi:2002jk}

2980: S.~Y.~Choi, D.~J.~Miller, M.~M.~M\"uhlleitner and P.~M.~Zerwas,

2981: %``Identifying the Higgs spin and parity in decays to Z pairs,''

2982: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 553} (2003) 61

2983: [hep-ph/0210077].

2984: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210077;%%

2985: 

2986: %\cite{Pocsik:1980ta}

2987: \bibitem{Pocsik:1980ta}

2988:   G.~Pocsik and T.~Torma,

2989:   %``On The Decays Of Heavy Higgs Bosons,''

2990:   Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 6} (1980) 1;\\

2991:   %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C6,1;%%

2992: %

2993: %\cite{Rizzo:1980gz}

2994: %\bibitem{Rizzo:1980gz}

2995:   T.~G.~Rizzo,

2996:   %``Decays Of Heavy Higgs Bosons,''

2997:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 22} (1980) 722;\\

2998:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D22,722;%%

2999: %

3000: %\cite{Keung:1984hn}

3001: %\bibitem{Keung:1984hn}

3002:   W.~Y.~Keung and W.~J.~Marciano,

3003:   %``Higgs Scalar Decays: H $\to$ W+- X,''

3004:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 30} (1984) 248.

3005:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D30,248;%%

3006: 

3007: %\cite{Cahn:1988ru}

3008: \bibitem{Cahn:1988ru}

3009:   R.~N.~Cahn,

3010:   %``The Higgs Boson,''

3011:   Rept.\ Prog.\ Phys.\  {\bf 52} (1989) 389;\\

3012:   %%CITATION = RPPHA,52,389;%%

3013: %

3014: %\cite{Kniehl:1990yb}

3015: %\bibitem{Kniehl:1990yb}

3016:   B.~A.~Kniehl,

3017:   %``The Higgs Boson Decay H $\to$ Z G G,''

3018:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 244} (1990) 537;\\

3019:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B244,537;%%

3020: %\cite{Grau:1990uu}

3021: %\bibitem{Grau:1990uu}

3022:   A.~Grau, G.~Panchieri and R.~J.~N.~Phillips,

3023:   %``Contributions Of Off-Shell Top Quarks To Decay Processes,''

3024:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 251} (1990) 293;\\

3025:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B251,293;%%

3026: %

3027: %\cite{Gross:1994fv}

3028: %\bibitem{Gross:1994fv}

3029:   E.~Gross, G.~Wolf and B.~A.~Kniehl,

3030:   %``Production and decay of the Standard Model Higgs boson LEP-200,''

3031:   Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 63} (1994) 417

3032:   [Erratum-ibid.\ C {\bf 66} (1995) 321]

3033:   [hep-ph/9404220].

3034:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9404220;%%

3035: 

3036: %\cite{Djouadi:2005gi}

3037: \bibitem{Djouadi:2005gi}

3038:   A.~Djouadi,

3039:   %``The anatomy of electro-weak symmetry breaking. I: The Higgs boson in  the

3040:   %standard model,''

3041:   hep-ph/0503172.

3042:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503172;%%

3043: 

3044: %\cite{Djouadi:1997yw}

3045: \bibitem{Djouadi:1997yw}

3046: A.~Djouadi, J.~Kalinowski and M.~Spira,

3047: %``HDECAY: A program for Higgs boson decays in the standard model and its  supersymmetric extension,''

3048: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\  {\bf 108} (1998) 56

3049: [hep-ph/9704448].

3050: 

3051: %\cite{Fleischer:1980ub}

3052: \bibitem{Fleischer:1980ub}

3053:   J.~Fleischer and F.~Jegerlehner,

3054:   %``Radiative Corrections To Higgs Decays In The Extended Weinberg-Salam

3055:   %Model,''

3056:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 23} (1981) 2001;\\

3057:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D23,2001;%%

3058: %

3059: %\cite{Kniehl:1990mq}

3060: %\bibitem{Kniehl:1990mq}

3061:   B.A.~Kniehl,

3062:   %``Radiative Corrections For H $\to$ Z Z In The Standard Model,''

3063:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 352} (1991) 1;\\

3064:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B352,1;%%

3065: %

3066: %\cite{Bardin:1991dp}

3067: %\bibitem{Bardin:1991dp}

3068:   D.Y.~Bardin, P.K.~Khristova and B.M.~Vilensky,

3069:   %``Calculation of the decay width of the Higgs boson: Bosonic decay modes,''

3070:   Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf 54} (1991) 833

3071:   [Yad.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 54} (1991) 1366].

3072:   %%CITATION = SJNCA,54,833;%%

3073: 

3074: %\cite{Kniehl:1991xe}

3075: \bibitem{Kniehl:1991xe}

3076:   B.A.~Kniehl,

3077:   %``Radiative corrections for H $\to$ W+ W- (gamma) in the standard model,''

3078:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 357} (1991) 439.

3079:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B357,439;%%

3080: 

3081: %\cite{Kniehl:1995tn}

3082: \bibitem{Kniehl:1995tn}

3083:   B.~A.~Kniehl and M.~Spira,

3084:   %``Low-energy theorems in Higgs physics,''

3085:   Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 69} (1995) 77

3086:   [hep-ph/9505225];\\

3087:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9505225;%%

3088: %

3089: %\cite{Kniehl:1995br}

3090: %\bibitem{Kniehl:1995br}

3091:   B.~A.~Kniehl and M.~Steinhauser,

3092:   %``Virtual top effects on low mass Higgs interactions at next-to-leading order

3093:   %in QCD,''

3094:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 365} (1996) 297

3095:   [hep-ph/9507382];\\

3096:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9507382;%%

3097: %

3098: %

3099: %\cite{Djouadi:1997rj}

3100: %\bibitem{Djouadi:1997rj}

3101:   A.~Djouadi, P.~Gambino and B.~A.~Kniehl,

3102:   %``Two-loop electroweak heavy-fermion corrections to Higgs-boson  production

3103:   %and decay,''

3104:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 523} (1998) 17

3105:   [hep-ph/9712330].

3106:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9712330;%%

3107: 

3108: %\cite{Kniehl:1995at}

3109: \bibitem{Kniehl:1995at}

3110:   B.~A.~Kniehl and M.~Steinhauser,

3111:   %``Three loop O (alpha-s**2) G(F) M**2(t) corrections to Higgs production and

3112:   %decay at e+ e- colliders,''

3113:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 454} (1995) 485

3114:   [hep-ph/9508241].

3115:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9508241;%%

3116: 

3117: %\cite{Ghinculov:1995bz}

3118: \bibitem{Ghinculov:1995bz}

3119: A.~Ghinculov,

3120: %``Two loop heavy Higgs correction to Higgs decay into vector bosons,''

3121: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 455} (1995) 21

3122: [hep-ph/9507240].

3123: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9507240;%%

3124: 

3125: %\cite{Frink:1996sv}

3126: \bibitem{Frink:1996sv}

3127: A.~Frink, B.~A.~Kniehl, D.~Kreimer and K.~Riesselmann,

3128: %``Heavy-Higgs lifetime at two loops,''

3129: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54} (1996) 4548

3130: [hep-ph/9606310].

3131: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9606310;%%

3132: 

3133: %\cite{CarloniCalame:2006vr}

3134: \bibitem{CarloniCalame:2006vr}

3135:   C.~M.~Carloni Calame, M.~Moretti, G.~Montagna, O.~Nicrosini, F.~Piccinini and A.~D.~Polosa,

3136:   %``Impact of QED corrections to Higgs decay into four leptons at the LHC,''

3137:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 157} (2006) 73

3138:   [hep-ph/0604033].

3139:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0604033;%%

3140: 

3141: \bibitem{axel-talk}

3142: %A.\ Bredenstein,

3143: %%Electroweak corrections to {${\rm H}\to{\rm WW}/{\rm ZZ}\to4$} fermions

3144: %talk given at the RADCOR05 conference, Shonan Village, October 2005.

3145: A.\ Bredenstein, A. Denner, S. Dittmaier and M.M. Weber,

3146:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 157} (2006) 63

3147:   [hep-ph/0604033].

3148: 

3149: %\cite{Belanger:2002me}

3150: \bibitem{Belanger:2002me}

3151: G.~B\'elanger, F.~Boudjema, J.~Fujimoto, T.~Ishikawa, T.~Kaneko, K.~Kato and Y.~Shimizu,

3152: %``Full O(alpha) corrections to e+e- $\to$ nu nu-bar H by GRACE,''

3153:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 116} (2003) 353

3154:   [hep-ph/0211268] and

3155: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211268;%%

3156: %

3157: %\cite{Belanger:2002ik}

3158: %\bibitem{Belanger:2002ik}

3159: %G.~Belanger, F.~Boudjema, J.~Fujimoto, T.~Ishikawa, T.~Kaneko,

3160: %K.~Kato and Y.~Shimizu,

3161: %``Full one-loop electroweak radiative corrections to single Higgs  production in e+ e-,''

3162:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 559} (2003) 252

3163:   [hep-ph/0212261].

3164: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212261;%%

3165: 

3166: %\cite{Denner:2003yg}

3167: \bibitem{Denner:2003yg}

3168: A.~Denner, S.~Dittmaier, M.~Roth and M.~M.~Weber,

3169: %``Electroweak radiative corrections to single Higgs-boson production in  e+ e- annihilation,''

3170: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 560} (2003) 196

3171: [hep-ph/0301189] and

3172: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0301189;%%

3173: %\cite{Denner:2003iy}

3174: %\bibitem{Denner:2003iy}

3175: %A.~Denner, S.~Dittmaier, M.~Roth and M.~M.~Weber,

3176: %``Electroweak radiative corrections to e+ e- $\to$ nu anti-nu H,''

3177: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 660} (2003) 289

3178: [hep-ph/0302198].

3179: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0302198;%%

3180: 

3181: %\cite{Denner:2005es}

3182: \bibitem{Denner:2005es}

3183:   A.~Denner, S.~Dittmaier, M.~Roth and L.~H.~Wieders,

3184:   %``Complete electroweak O(alpha) corrections to charged-current e+ e- $\to$

3185:   %4fermion processes,''

3186:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 612}, 223 (2005)

3187:   [hep-ph/0502063] and

3188:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0502063;%%

3189: %

3190: %\cite{Denner:2005fg}

3191: %\bibitem{Denner:2005fg}

3192: %  A.~Denner, S.~Dittmaier, M.~Roth and L.~H.~Wieders,

3193:   %``Electroweak corrections to charged-current e+ e- $\to$ 4 fermion processes:

3194:   %Technical details and further results,''

3195:   Nucl.\ Phys.\  B {\bf 724} (2005) 247

3196:   [hep-ph/0505042].

3197:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0505042;%%

3198: 

3199: %\cite{Denner:1999gp}

3200: \bibitem{Denner:1999gp}

3201: A.~Denner, S.~Dittmaier, M.~Roth and D.~Wackeroth,

3202: %``Predictions for all processes e+ e- --> 4fermions + gamma,''

3203: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 560} (1999) 33

3204: [hep-ph/9904472].

3205: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904472;%%

3206: 

3207: %\cite{Denner:2002ii}

3208: \bibitem{Denner:2002ii}

3209:   A.~Denner and S.~Dittmaier,

3210:   %``Reduction of one-loop tensor 5-point integrals,''

3211:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 658} (2003) 175

3212:   [hep-ph/0212259].

3213:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212259;%%

3214: 

3215: %\cite{Denner:2005nn}

3216: \bibitem{Denner:2005nn}

3217:   A.~Denner and S.~Dittmaier,

3218:   %``Reduction schemes for one-loop tensor integrals,''

3219:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 734} (2006) 62

3220:   [hep-ph/0509141].

3221:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0509141;%%

3222: 

3223: %\cite{Dittmaier:2000mb}

3224: \bibitem{Dittmaier:2000mb}

3225: S.~Dittmaier,

3226: %``A general approach to photon radiation off fermions,''

3227: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 565} (2000) 69

3228: [hep-ph/9904440].

3229: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904440;%%

3230: 

3231: %%\cite{Roth:1999kk}

3232: %\bibitem{Roth:1999kk}

3233: %M.~Roth,

3234: %%``Precise predictions for four-fermion production in electron positron

3235: %%annihilation,''

3236: %PhD thesis, ETH Z\"urich No. 13363 (1999),

3237: %hep-ph/0008033.

3238: %%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0008033;%%

3239: 

3240: %\cite{Bredenstein:2005zk}

3241: \bibitem{Bredenstein:2005zk}

3242: A.~Bredenstein, S.~Dittmaier and M.~Roth,

3243: %``Four-fermion production at gamma gamma colliders. II: Radiative corrections

3244: %in double-pole approximation,''

3245: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 44} (2005) 27

3246: [hep-ph/0506005].

3247: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0506005;%%

3248: 

3249: %\cite{Denner:1993kt}

3250: \bibitem{Denner:1993kt}

3251: A.~Denner,

3252: %``Techniques for calculation of electroweak radiative corrections at the one loop level and results for W physics at LEP200,''

3253: Fortsch.\ Phys.\  {\bf 41} (1993) 307.

3254: %%CITATION = FPYKA,41,307;%%

3255: 

3256: %\cite{Denner:1994xt}

3257: \bibitem{Denner:1994xt}

3258:   A.~Denner, S.~Dittmaier, and G.~Weiglein 

3259:   %``Application of the background field method to the electroweak standard

3260:   %model,''

3261:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 440} (1995) 95

3262:   [hep-ph/9410338].

3263:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9410338;%%

3264: 

3265: %\cite{Dittmaier:1998nn}

3266: \bibitem{Dittmaier:1998nn}

3267: S.~Dittmaier,

3268: %``Weyl-van-der-Waerden formalism for helicity amplitudes of massive

3269: %particles,''

3270: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59} (1999) 016007

3271: [hep-ph/9805445].

3272: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9805445;%%

3273: 

3274: %\cite{Hollik:1988ii}

3275: \bibitem{Hollik:1988ii}

3276: W.~F.~L.~Hollik,

3277: %``Radiative Corrections In The Standard Model And Their Role For

3278: %Precision Tests Of The Electroweak Theory,''

3279: Fortsch.\ Phys.\  {\bf 38} (1990) 165.

3280: %%CITATION = FPYKA,38,165;%%

3281: 

3282: %\cite{Kublbeck:1990xc}

3283: \bibitem{Kublbeck:1990xc}

3284: J.~K\"ublbeck, M.~B\"ohm and A.~Denner,

3285: %``Feyn Arts: Computer Algebraic Generation Of Feynman Graphs And Amplitudes,''

3286: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\  {\bf 60} (1990) 165;

3287: %%CITATION = CPHCB,60,165;%%

3288: H.~Eck and J.~K\"ublbeck, {\it Guide to FeynArts 1.0\/},

3289: University of W\"urzburg, 1992.

3290: 

3291: %\cite{Hahn:2000kx}

3292: \bibitem{Hahn:2000kx}

3293: T.~Hahn,

3294: %``Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with FeynArts 3,''

3295: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\  {\bf 140} (2001) 418

3296: [hep-ph/0012260].

3297: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012260;%%

3298: 

3299: %\cite{Hahn:1998yk}

3300: \bibitem{Hahn:1998yk}

3301: T.~Hahn and M.~Perez-Victoria,

3302: %``Automatized one-loop calculations in four and D dimensions,''

3303: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\  {\bf 118} (1999) 153

3304: [hep-ph/9807565];\\

3305: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807565;%%

3306: %

3307: %\cite{Hahn:2000jm}

3308: %\bibitem{Hahn:2000jm}

3309: T.~Hahn,

3310: %``Automatic loop calculations with FeynArts, FormCalc, and LoopTools,''

3311: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 89} (2000) 231

3312: [hep-ph/0005029].

3313: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005029;%%

3314: 

3315: %\cite{Grunewald:2000ju}

3316: \bibitem{Grunewald:2000ju}

3317: M.~W.~Gr\"unewald {\it et al.},

3318: in {\it Reports of the Working Groups on Precision Calculations

3319: for LEP2 Physics}, eds.\ S.~Jadach, G.~Passarino and R.~Pittau

3320: (CERN 2000-009, Geneva, 2000), p.~1

3321: [hep-ph/0005309].

3322: 

3323: %\cite{'tHooft:1978xw}

3324: \bibitem{'tHooft:1978xw}

3325: G.~'t Hooft and M.~Veltman,

3326: %``Scalar One Loop Integrals,''

3327: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 153} (1979) 365.

3328: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B153,365;%%

3329: 

3330: %\cite{Beenakker:1988jr}

3331: \bibitem{Beenakker:1988jr}

3332: W.~Beenakker and A.~Denner,

3333: %``Infrared Divergent Scalar Box Integrals With Applications In The Electroweak Standard Model,''

3334: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 338} (1990) 349.

3335: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B338,349;%%

3336: 

3337: %\cite{Denner:1991qq}

3338: \bibitem{Denner:1991qq}

3339: A.~Denner, U.~Nierste and R.~Scharf,

3340: %``A Compact expression for the scalar one loop four point function,''

3341: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 367} (1991) 637.

3342: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B367,637;%%

3343: 

3344: %\cite{Passarino:1979jh}

3345: \bibitem{Passarino:1979jh}

3346: G.~Passarino and M.~Veltman,

3347: %``One Loop Corrections For E+ E- Annihilation Into Mu+ Mu- In The Weinberg Model,''

3348: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 160} (1979) 151.

3349: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B160,151;%%

3350: 

3351: %\cite{Sirlin:1980nh}

3352: \bibitem{Sirlin:1980nh}

3353:   A.~Sirlin,

3354:   %``Radiative Corrections In The SU(2)-L X U(1) Theory: A Simple

3355:   %Renormalization Framework,''

3356:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 22} (1980) 971.

3357:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D22,971;%%

3358: 

3359: %\cite{Stelzer:1994ta}

3360: \bibitem{Stelzer:1994ta}

3361:   T.~Stelzer and W.F.~Long,

3362:   %``Automatic generation of tree level helicity amplitudes,''

3363:   Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\  {\bf 81} (1994) 357

3364:   [hep-ph/9401258].

3365:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9401258;%%

3366: 

3367: %%\cite{Bohm:1993qx}

3368: %\bibitem{Bohm:1993qx}

3369: %  M.~B\"ohm and S.~Dittmaier,

3370: %  %``The Hard bremsstrahlung process e- gamma $\to$ W- electron neutrino

3371: %  %gamma,''

3372: %  Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 409} (1993) 3 and

3373: %  %%CITATION = NUPHA,B409,3;%%

3374: %%

3375: %%\cite{Dittmaier:1993da}

3376: %%\bibitem{Dittmaier:1993da}

3377: %%  S.~Dittmaier and M.~Bohm,

3378: %  %``The Hard bremsstrahlung process e- gamma $\to$ e- z gamma,''

3379: %  Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 412} (1994) 39;\\

3380: %  %%CITATION = NUPHA,B412,39;%%

3381: %%

3382: %%\cite{Baur:1998kt}

3383: %%\bibitem{Baur:1998kt}

3384: %  U.~Baur, S.~Keller and D.~Wackeroth,

3385: %  %``Electroweak radiative corrections to W boson production in hadronic

3386: %  %collisions,''

3387: %  Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59} (1999) 013002

3388: %  [hep-ph/9807417].

3389: %  %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807417;%%

3390: 

3391: %\cite{Kinoshita:1962ur}

3392: \bibitem{Kinoshita:1962ur}

3393: T.~Kinoshita,

3394: %``Mass Singularities Of Feynman Amplitudes,''

3395: J.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 3} (1962) 650; \\

3396: %%CITATION = JMAPA,3,650;%%

3397: %\cite{Lee:1964is}

3398: %\bibitem{Lee:1964is}

3399: T.~D.~Lee and M.~Nauenberg,

3400: %``Degenerate Systems And Mass Singularities,''

3401: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf 133} (1964) B1549.

3402: %%CITATION = PHRVA,133,B1549;%%

3403: 

3404: \bibitem{sf}

3405: %\cite{Kuraev:1985hb}

3406: %\bibitem{Kuraev:1985hb}

3407: E.~A.~Kuraev and V.~S.~Fadin,

3408: %``On Radiative Corrections To E+ E- Single Photon Annihilation At

3409: %High-Energy,''

3410: Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf 41} (1985) 466

3411: [Yad.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 41} (1985) 733];\\

3412: %%CITATION = SJNCA,41,466;%%

3413: %

3414: G.~Altarelli and G.~Martinelli, in {\it Physics at LEP},

3415: eds. J.~Ellis and R.~Peccei, (CERN 86-02, Geneva, 1986), Vol.~1, p.~47;\\

3416: %

3417: %\cite{Nicrosini:1986sm}

3418: %\bibitem{Nicrosini:1986sm}

3419: O.~Nicrosini and L.~Trentadue,

3420: %``Soft Photons And Second Order Radiative Corrections To E+ E- $\to$ Z0,''

3421: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 196} (1987) 551 and

3422: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B196,551;%%

3423: %

3424: %\cite{Nicrosini:1987sw}

3425: %\bibitem{Nicrosini:1987sw}

3426: %O.~Nicrosini and L.~Trentadue,

3427: %``Second Order Electromagnetic Radiative Corrections To E+ E- $\to$ Gamma*, Z0

3428: %$\to$ Mu+ Mu-,''

3429: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 39} (1988) 479;\\

3430: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C39,479;%%

3431: %

3432: %\cite{Berends:1987ab}

3433: %\bibitem{Berends:1987ab}

3434: F.~A.~Berends, W.~L.~van Neerven and G.~J.~H.~Burgers,

3435: %``Higher Order Radiative Corrections At Lep Energies,''

3436: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 297} (1988) 429

3437: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 304} (1988) 921].

3438: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B297,429;%%

3439: 

3440: %\cite{Beenakker:1996kt}

3441: \bibitem{Beenakker:1996kt}

3442:   W.~Beenakker {\it et al.},

3443:   in Physics at LEP2 (Report CERN 96-01, Geneva, 1996),

3444:   eds. A. Altarelli, T. Sj\"ostrand and F. Zwirner, Vol. 1, p.3,

3445:   %``WW Cross-sections and Distributions,''

3446:   hep-ph/9602351.

3447:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9602351;%%

3448: 

3449: %\cite{Berends:1994pv}

3450: \bibitem{Berends:1994pv}

3451: F.~A.~Berends, R.~Pittau and R.~Kleiss,

3452: %``All electroweak four fermion processes in electron - positron collisions,''

3453: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 424} (1994) 308

3454: [hep-ph/9404313] and

3455: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9404313;%%

3456: %

3457: %\cite{Berends:1995xn}

3458: %\bibitem{Berends:1995xn}

3459: %F.~A.~Berends, R.~Pittau and R.~Kleiss,

3460: %``Excalibur: A Monte Carlo program to evaluate all four fermion processes at LEP-200 and beyond,''

3461: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\  {\bf 85} (1995) 437

3462: [hep-ph/9409326];\\

3463: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9409326;%%

3464: %

3465: %\cite{Berends:gf}

3466: %\bibitem{Berends:gf}

3467: F.~A.~Berends, P.~H.~Daverveldt and R.~Kleiss,

3468: %``Complete Lowest Order Calculations For Four Lepton Final States In Electron - Positron Collisions,''

3469: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 253} (1985) 441;\\

3470: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B253,441;%%

3471: %

3472: %\cite{Hilgart:1992xu}

3473: %\bibitem{Hilgart:1992xu}

3474: J.~Hilgart, R.~Kleiss and F.~Le Diberder,

3475: %``An Electroweak Monte Carlo for four fermion production,''

3476: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\  {\bf 75} (1993) 191.

3477: %%CITATION = CPHCB,75,191;%%

3478: 

3479: %\cite{Denner:2002cg}

3480: \bibitem{Denner:2002cg}

3481:   A.~Denner, S.~Dittmaier, M.~Roth and D.~Wackeroth,

3482:   %``RACOONWW 1.3: A Monte Carlo program for four-fermion production at e+ e-

3483:   %colliders,''

3484:   Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\  {\bf 153}, 462 (2003)

3485:   [hep-ph/0209330].

3486:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209330;%%

3487: 

3488: %%\cite{Dittmaier:2002ap}

3489: %\bibitem{Dittmaier:2002ap}

3490: %  S.~Dittmaier and M.~Roth,

3491: %  %``LUSIFER: A LUcid approach to SIx FERmion production,''

3492: %  Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 642} (2002) 307

3493: %  [hep-ph/0206070].

3494: %  %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206070;%%

3495: 

3496: %\cite{Bredenstein:2004ef}

3497: \bibitem{Bredenstein:2004ef}

3498:   A.~Bredenstein, S.~Dittmaier and M.~Roth,

3499:   %``Four-fermion production at gamma gamma colliders: I. Lowest-order

3500:   %predictions and anomalous couplings,''

3501:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 36} (2004) 341

3502:   [hep-ph/0405169].

3503:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405169;%%

3504: 

3505: %\cite{Lepage:1977sw}

3506: \bibitem{Lepage:1977sw}

3507:   G.P.~Lepage,

3508:   %``A New Algorithm For Adaptive Multidimensional Integration,''

3509:   J.\ Comput.\ Phys.\  {\bf 27} (1978) 192.

3510:   %%CITATION = JCTPA,27,192;%%

3511: 

3512: %\cite{Fadin:1993kg}

3513: \bibitem{Fadin:1993kg}

3514:   V.~S.~Fadin, V.~A.~Khoze and A.~D.~Martin,

3515:   %``On W+ W- production near threshold,''

3516:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 311} (1993) 311;\\

3517:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B311,311;%%

3518: %

3519: %\cite{Bardin:1993mc}

3520: %\bibitem{Bardin:1993mc}

3521:   D.~Y.~Bardin, W.~Beenakker and A.~Denner,

3522:   %``The Coulomb singularity in off-shell W pair production,''

3523:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 317} (1993) 213.

3524:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B317,213;%%

3525: 

3526: %\cite{Eidelman:2004wy}

3527: \bibitem{Eidelman:2004wy}

3528: S.~Eidelman {\it et al.}  [Particle Data Group Collaboration],

3529: %``Review of particle physics,''

3530: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 592} (2004) 1.

3531: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B592,1;%%

3532: 

3533: %\cite{Jegerlehner:2001ca}

3534: \bibitem{Jegerlehner:2001ca}

3535: F.~Jegerlehner,

3536: %``The effective fine structure constant at TESLA energies,''

3537: hep-ph/0105283.

3538: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105283;%%

3539: 

3540: %\cite{Bardin:1988xt}

3541: \bibitem{Bardin:1988xt}

3542: D.~Y.~Bardin, A.~Leike, T.~Riemann and M.~Sachwitz,

3543: %``Energy Dependent Width Effects In $E^+E^-$ Annihilation  Near The $Z$ Pole,''

3544: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 206} (1988) 539; \\

3545: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B206,539;%%

3546: %\cite{Wackeroth:1996hz}

3547: %\bibitem{Wackerot::1996hz}

3548: D.~Wackeroth and W.~Hollik,

3549: %``Electroweak radiative corrections to resonant charged gauge boson  production,''

3550: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55} (1997) 6788

3551: [hep-ph/9606398];\\

3552: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9606398;%%

3553: %\cite{Beenakker:1996kn}

3554: %\bibitem{Beenakker:1996kn}

3555: W.~Beenakker {\it et al.},

3556: %``The fermion-loop scheme for finite-width effects in e+ e- annihilation  into four fermions,''

3557: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 500} (1997) 255

3558: [hep-ph/9612260].

3559: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9612260;%%

3560: 

3561: %\cite{Denner:2000bj}

3562: \bibitem{Denner:2000bj}

3563: A.~Denner, S.~Dittmaier, M.~Roth and D.~Wackeroth,

3564: %``Electroweak radiative corrections to e+ e- --> W W --> 4fermions in  double-pole approximation: The RACOONWW approach,''

3565: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 587} (2000) 67

3566: [hep-ph/0006307].

3567: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006307;%%

3568: 

3569: %\cite{Beenakker:1998gr}

3570: \bibitem{Beenakker:1998gr}

3571:   W.~Beenakker, F.~A.~Berends and A.~P.~Chapovsky,

3572:   %``Radiative corrections to pair production of unstable particles: Results

3573:   %for e+ e- $\to$ 4fermions,''

3574:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 548} (1999) 3

3575:   [hep-ph/9811481].

3576:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811481;%%

3577: 

3578: \end{thebibliography}

3579: 

3580: 

3581: \end{document}

3582: 

3583: