1: \documentstyle[12pt,graphicx]{article}
2:
3:
4:
5: \begin{document}
6:
7: \title{\bf The rational parts of one-loop QCD amplitudes I: The general
8: formalism}
9:
10: \author{Zhi-Guang Xiao\thanks{E-mail: zhgxiao@itp.ac.cn} $^{1,2}$,
11: Gang Yang\thanks{E-mail: yangg@itp.ac.cn} $^{2}$and Chuan-Jie
12: Zhu\thanks{E-mail: zhucj@itp.ac.cn} $^{2,3}$ }
13:
14: \maketitle
15:
16: \medskip\centerline{$^1$The Interdisciplinary Center of Theoretical
17: Studies, Chinese} \centerline{Academy of Sciences, P. O. Box 2735,
18: Beijing 100080, P.~R.~China}
19: \medskip
20: \centerline{$^2$Institute of Theoretical Physics, Chinese Academy
21: of Sciences} \centerline{P. O. Box 2735, Beijing 100080, P. R.
22: China}
23: \medskip
24: \centerline{$^3$Center of Mathematical Science, Zhejiang
25: University} \centerline{Hangzhou 310027, P. R. China}
26:
27: \begin{abstract}
28:
29: A general formalism for computing only the rational parts of
30: one-loop QCD amplitudes is developed. Starting from the Feynman
31: integral representation of the one-loop amplitude, we use tensor
32: reduction and recursive relations to compute the rational parts
33: directly. Explicit formulas for the rational parts are given for
34: all bubble and triangle integrals. Formulas are also given for box
35: integrals up to two-mass-hard boxes which are the needed
36: ingredients to compute up to 6-gluon QCD amplitudes. We use this
37: method to compute explicitly the rational parts of the 5- and
38: 6-gluon QCD amplitudes in two accompanying papers.
39:
40: \end{abstract}
41: \newpage
42:
43: \section{Introduction}
44: The forthcoming experimental program at CERN's Large Hadron
45: Collider (LHC) requires many computations at the
46: next-to-leading order (NLO) or one-loop with many particles as final
47: states \cite{Salam}. However the analytic computation of the
48: matrix elements is very difficult. Only for special helicity configurations
49: \cite{BCDK,BDDK,Mahlon} or special models \cite{BinothYukawa},
50: some analytic results are known for higher point amplitudes. The
51: current state of the art in NLO computation is 5-point for QCD
52: processes and 6-point for electroweak processes
53: \cite{FivePoint,BernKosower,Denner}. The recent development in
54: tackling the multi-leg amplitudes by semi-numerical/analytic
55: methods shows promise for improving traditional capabilities
56: \cite{RKEllis,Glover,BinothA,PittauB, Passarino, Soper,
57: Anastasiou, Rest}. All helicity configurations for the 6-gluon
58: amplitude are evaluated for a single-space point \cite{RKEllis}.
59: These results are used to check the available analytic results
60: \cite{BDKA}.
61:
62: Following Witten's twistor string theory \cite{Witten}, the CSW
63: approach \cite{CSW} and the use of maximally-helicity-violating
64: (MHV)\footnote{The 2 dimensional origin of the MHV amplitudes in
65: gauge theory was first given in \cite{Nair}} vertices
66: \cite{ParkeA,ParkeR}, there has been spectacular progress
67: \cite{Zhu,Khoze,WuZhu,BernSome,CSWA,BST,Cachazo,Rozali,BBST,BCFW,
68: Dunbar, BDKBoot, BernA, BernB, Luo, BoFengA, BoFengC, BoFengSix,
69: CachazoP, AMST, SuWu, Abe, CSWB, FordeKosower, Scratch} in the
70: perturbative QCD computations in the last two years or so, by
71: using the unitarity cut method of Bern, Dunbar, Dixon and Kosower
72: \cite{BDDK,BDKB,BDK} and the spinor-helicity formalism
73: \cite{Berends,ChineseMagic} (see \cite{Dixon} for a review). In
74: particular, Bedford, Brandhuber, Spence and Travaglini
75: \cite{BST,BBST} applied the MHV vertices to one-loop
76: calculations. Britto, Buchbinder, Cachazo, Feng and Mastrolia
77: \cite{BoFengA, BoFengC, BoFengSix} developed an efficient technique
78: for evaluating the rational coefficients in an expansion of the
79: one-loop amplitude in terms of scalar box, triangle and bubble
80: integrals (the cut-constructible part, see below and Sect.~4). By
81: using their technique, it is much easier to calculate the
82: coefficients of box integrals without doing any integration.
83: Recently, Britto, Feng and Mastrolia completed the computation of
84: the cut-constructible terms for all the 6-gluon helicity
85: amplitudes \cite{BoFengSix}.
86:
87: In order to complete the QCD calculation for the 6-gluon
88: amplitude, the remaining challenge is to compute the rational
89: part of the amplitude with scalars circulating in the loop,
90: commonly called the $N=0$ case in a supersymmetric decomposition
91: of QCD amplitudes:
92: \begin{equation}
93: A^{QCD} = A^{N=4} - 4 A^{N=1~{\rm chiral}} + A^{N=0~{\rm or~
94: scalar}} .
95: \end{equation}
96: The above strategy of splitting the computation of the QCD amplitude
97: into various supersymmetric parts plus a scalar part is quite
98: fruitful. By using a theorem of Bern, Dunbar, Dixon and Kosower
99: \cite{BDK}, the supersymmetric parts are cut-constructible,
100: meaning that these amplitudes can be determined completely by
101: using 4-dimensional unitarity. Even for the scalar part which is
102: not cut-constructible, we can still split it into two parts: a
103: cut-constructible part and a rational part. As we said before, the
104: recent development inspired by twistor string theory has lead to
105: very efficient techniques to compute the cut-constructible part
106: \cite{BoFengA, BoFengC, BoFengSix}. To complete the program it is
107: quite important to have efficient and powerful methods to compute
108: the rational part.
109:
110: There are various ways to compute the rational part. The first
111: approach \cite{BDKB} is to use the factorization properties by trial
112: and error. This is a quite effective method if the final result is
113: simple enough. The difficulty with this approach is that we do not
114: know how to automate the method to make effective use of the
115: advances in computer industry. The correctness of the obtained
116: result is almost guaranteed by checking factorizations for all
117: channels. For higher point amplitudes, the complexity of the
118: analytic results makes this method impractical.
119:
120: The second approach uses the unitarity relation. In principle the
121: rational part can be constructed by using the $D$-dimensional
122: unitarity method \cite{BernMorgan,BDK,BDKC,AMST}. The problem with
123: this approach is that too much information is kept and tree
124: amplitudes in $D$-dimension are even more difficult
125: \cite{DixonRecent}. In fact this approach loses the simplicity of
126: 4-dimensional helicity amplitudes as given by the MHV formula.
127:
128: The third approach is the bootstrap recursive approach of Bern,
129: Dixon and Kosower \cite{BDKBoot}. This approach is quite
130: promising and powerful. It is a streamlined approach of the first
131: one by adding the insights of the recent tree-level recursive method
132: of Britto, Cachazo, Feng and Witten \cite{BCFW}. This approach has
133: already produced a wealth of general results for special helicity
134: configurations, notably the ``split-helicity" configurations
135: \cite{BDKBoot, FordeKosower,BDKA}. It can also be used to compute
136: one-loop QCD amplitudes with general helicities as outlined in
137: \cite{BDKA}.
138:
139: Given the complexity of the results for the cut-constructible part
140: of the 6-gluon amplitude \cite{BoFengSix} and its important
141: applications to LHC related experiments, it is quite worthy and
142: even mandatory to have other methods to compute the rational part
143: of the QCD amplitude. In particular one would like to bypass the
144: need of using the cut-constructible part and have an independent
145: method to compute the rational part. Of course, the testing ground
146: for any method is a complete computation of the 6-gluon QCD
147: amplitude where only partial results for some helicity
148: configurations exist. The present status for the marching to one
149: loop 6-gluon QCD amplitude were summarized in
150: \cite{DixonRecent,BernRecentA}. For more recent developments, we
151: refer the reader to \cite{BernRecentB,KosowerRecent}.
152:
153: In this paper we will study the problem of computing the rational
154: parts of one-loop amplitudes directly from Feynman integral
155: representations. These integrals can be written down directly by
156: drawing all Feynman diagrams and by using the Feynman rules. With
157: the present technology these can be done quite effectively by
158: using the various packages like GRACE \cite{GRACEFeynman},
159: FeynArts \cite{FeynArts} and Qgraf \cite{Qgraf} et. al. (See
160: \cite{Steinhauser,GRACEFeynman} for reviews.) Fortunately these
161: powerful methods are not needed to compute up to the 6-gluon
162: amplitude. For computing higher point amplitudes or 6-parton
163: amplitudes they may be a necessity.
164:
165: It is easy to imagine that the rational part is already contained
166: in the integral representation of the amplitude. If one could
167: obtain the complete rational coefficients by doing tensor
168: reduction to scalar box, triangle and bubble integrals, one can
169: simply get the rational part by making an expansion with the
170: dimension $D$ around 4 ($D=4-2\epsilon$ is the parameter of
171: dimensional regularization). This is extraordinarily difficult
172: because of the complexity of tensor reduction for $N\ge5$. However
173: if one only needs to compute the rational part, it is not
174: necessary to know the complete coefficients from tensor
175: reductions. By the BDDK theorem \cite{BDDK}, we know that many
176: terms simply do not contribute to the rational part. Following
177: this path of thought, the remaining problem is: is there an
178: efficient way to compute these rational parts in one-loop QCD
179: amplitudes directly from Feynman integrals?
180:
181: In this paper we show that there is actually a quite efficient and
182: powerful method to compute the rational part directly from Feynman
183: integrals. Because we are concerned only with the rational part of
184: the amplitude, there is no need for tensor reduction all the way
185: down to scalar integrals. We only need tensor reduction to reduce
186: the degree of the numerator by 2. So the original complexity of
187: tensor reduction is bypassed in the computation of the rational part.
188:
189: In our approach of computing the rational part, we will exploit
190: the theorem of Bern, Dunbar, Dixon and Kosower \cite{BDDK} and
191: directly extract the rational part from the one-loop Feynman
192: integrals. We also use the simple tensor reduction by using
193: spinors as developed in \cite{BDKB,PittauA,Weinzierl1}. We point
194: out that the tensor reduction formulas used in our computations
195: are actually quite simple, as one can see from
196: eqs.~(\ref{eqreduction}) and (\ref{eqreductiona}) in Sect.~3.
197:
198: As we will demonstrate in this paper, the computation of the
199: rational part is reduced to tree-level like calculations. As our
200: method also applies to massive theory and theories with fermions,
201: we envisage wider applications of our method in the
202: computation of one-loop amplitudes, in combination with the $D=4$
203: unitarity method \cite{BDDK, BDKB} and the efficient technique for
204: computing generic unitarity cuts \cite{BoFengA}. The once most
205: difficult part of the one-loop amplitude can actually be attacked
206: by the traditional technique.
207:
208: In this paper and the accompanying two papers \cite{xyzii,xyziii},
209: we will develop our method and apply it to the computation of the
210: rational parts of the one-loop 5- and 6-gluon QCD amplitudes. This
211: paper mainly deals with the general theoretical formalism of the
212: method. In \cite{xyzii}, we show the efficiency of the method by
213: computing the rational parts for the 5-gluon amplitudes for the two
214: MHV helicity configurations by giving most of the intermediate
215: steps. In \cite{xyziii}, we will present the results for the
216: rational parts of the 6-gluon amplitudes for the two MHV and two
217: NMHV helicity configurations. The rational parts of the 6-gluon
218: amplitudes for the ``split helicity" configurations are known
219: already \cite{BDKBoot,BDKA}. Recently all one-loop maximally
220: helicity violating gluonic amplitudes were computed by Berger,
221: Bern, Dixon, Forde and Kosower \cite{BDKE}. We refer the reader to
222: \cite{BDKE,xyziii} for details about the explicit analytic results
223: and comparisons.
224:
225: This paper is organized as follows: in Sect. 2 we set up our notation
226: for spinor products and composite currents for sewing trees to
227: the loop. Some simple tensor reduction formulas are given in Sect.
228: 3. Starting from Sect. 4, we begin to develop the method of
229: extracting the rational parts of Feynman integrals. We use the
230: recursive approach to compute any Feynman integral as developed in
231: \cite{BDKReduction}. In Sect. 6 and 7 we give explicit results for
232: triangle and box integrals. In Sect.~8 we compute the correction
233: terms to the naive $D=4$ tensor reduction of box and
234: triangle integrals, which arise from the ultra-violet divergent
235: part of the box and triangle amplitudes.
236:
237: \section{Notation}
238: We mainly follow the notation of BDK \cite{BDKBoot} and the
239: QCD-literature convention for the square bracket $[i\,j]$. By
240: abusing of notation the product between 2 holomorphic spinors or 2
241: anti-holomorphic spinors is formed by a round bracket:
242: \begin{equation}
243: (\lambda_i, \lambda_j) = \langle i \, j \rangle, \qquad \qquad
244: (\tilde\lambda_i, \tilde\lambda_j) = [i \, j ] .
245: \end{equation}
246: The scalar product between 2 vectors (written either in 4d vector
247: notation or in 2 spinor notation) is also denoted by a round
248: bracket. We have
249: \begin{eqnarray}
250: (\lambda_{i_1}\tilde\lambda_{j_1},\lambda_{i_2}\tilde\lambda_{j_2} ) & = &
251: (\lambda_{i_1}, \lambda_{i_2})\, (\tilde\lambda_{j_2},\tilde\lambda_{j_1}) =
252: \langle i_1\,i_2\rangle [j_2\, j_1] ,
253: \\
254: 2 \, k_i \cdot k_j & = &(\lambda_{i} \tilde\lambda_i, \lambda_{j} \tilde\lambda_j)
255: = \langle i\, j \rangle\, [j\, i] .
256: \end{eqnarray}
257: For spinor strings, we simply use $\langle \lambda_i|(k_a+k_b)|\lambda_j
258: \rangle$ or $\langle i|(k_a+k_b)|j]$ to denote $\langle
259: i^-|(a+b)|j^-\rangle$:
260: \begin{eqnarray}
261: \langle \lambda_i|(k_a+k_b)|\tilde\lambda_j \rangle & = & \langle i|(k_a+k_b)|j]
262: = \langle i|( a+ b)|j]
263: \nonumber \\
264: & = & \langle i^-|(a+b)|j^-\rangle = \langle i
265: \,a\rangle \, [a\,j] + \langle i\,b\rangle \, [b\,j] .
266: \end{eqnarray}
267: We do not use gamma matrix traces. Instead we use bra and ket
268: notation with multiple insertions of momenta:
269: \begin{equation}
270: \langle i|k_1\, k_2 \cdots k_n|j\rangle = \left\{
271: \begin{array}{ll}
272: \langle i\, 1\rangle [1\, 2] \cdots [n\, j], & n = {\rm odd}, \cr
273: \langle i\, 1\rangle [1\, 2] \cdots \langle n\, j\rangle, & n = {\rm even}.
274: \end{array}
275: \right.
276: \end{equation}
277: Sometimes we also write $\langle i |K | j \rangle $ for $\langle i
278: |K | j ] $, with the understanding that sometimes the last $j$
279: should actually stand for $\tilde\lambda_j$ and with the bracket
280: $]$. For example we have
281: \begin{equation}
282: \langle i|k_1\, k_2\, k_3|j] = \langle i\, 1\rangle \,
283: [1\, 2] \, \langle 2 \, 3\rangle \, [3 \, j] .
284: \end{equation}
285: For $i=j$ the above notation is just the gamma matrix trace.
286: For simplicity we will not write the slash:
287: \begin{equation}
288: \langle i|k_1\, k_2\, k_3|i] = {\rm tr}_-( k_i\, k_1\, k_2\, k_3)
289: .
290: \end{equation}
291: We note that the above notation only happens for an odd number of
292: momenta inserted between 2 spinors (one holomorphic and one
293: anti-holomorphic). Of course the momentum can be either massless
294: or a sum of several massless momenta.
295:
296: The sums of cyclicly consecutive external momenta are denoted
297: generically by $K_i$ in a Feynman diagram. In our explicit
298: computation we use $k_{12}=k_1+k_2$ and $k_{234}=k_2+k_3+k_4$,
299: etc. The kinematic variables are denoted as $s_{12}=(k_1+k_2)^2$
300: and $s_{123}=(k_1+k_2+k_3)^2$ in a self explaining notation. For
301: 6-gluon case we also have $s_{123}=(k_4+k_5+k_6)^2$ by momentum
302: conservation.
303:
304: \begin{figure}[ht]
305: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=2.5cm]{3p.eps} } \caption{The
306: composition of 3 external particles in tree amplitudes.}
307: \label{One}
308: \end{figure}
309:
310: \begin{figure}[ht]
311: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=4.5cm]{4p.eps} } \caption{The
312: composition of 4 external particles in tree amplitudes. The blob
313: denotes an expansion as given in Fig.~\ref{One}. The explicit
314: expression of $\epsilon_{i (i+1)(i+2)(i+3)}$ will not be given.}
315: \label{Two}
316: \end{figure}
317:
318: For sewing trees to the loop, we define the following composite
319: currents or polarization vectors:
320: \begin{eqnarray}
321: \epsilon_{i (i+1)} & = & P(\epsilon_i,k_i; \epsilon_{i+1},k_{i+1})
322: \equiv
323: {1\over (k_i+k_{i+1})^2 } \Big(
324: (\epsilon_{i}, k_{i+1})\, \epsilon_{i+1} \nonumber \\
325: &-& (\epsilon_{i+1}, k_{i})\, \epsilon_{i} +
326: {1\over 2} (\epsilon_i,\epsilon_{i+1}) \,
327: (k_i - k_{i+1}) \Big) , \\
328: \epsilon_{i(i+1)(i+2)} & = & P(\epsilon_{i(i+1)},k_{i(i+1)};
329: \epsilon_{i+2},k_{i+2}) + P(\epsilon_i
330: ,k_{i};\epsilon_{(i+1)(i+2)},k_{(i+1)(i+2)})
331: \nonumber \\
332: & & \hskip -2cm + {1\over s_{i(i+1)(i+2)} }\, \left(
333: (\epsilon_i,\epsilon_{i+2}) \, \epsilon_{i+1} - {1\over2}\,
334: (\epsilon_i,\epsilon_{i+1}) \, \epsilon_{i+2} - {1\over2}\,
335: (\epsilon_{i+1},\epsilon_{i+2}) \, \epsilon_{i } \right) ,
336: \end{eqnarray}
337: where $s_{i(i+1)(i+2)} = (k_i+k_{i+1} + k_{i+2})^2$. The above
338: procedure is a simplified version of the general recursive
339: calculation of the tree-level $n$-gluon amplitudes
340: \cite{BerendsGiele}. We note that $\epsilon_{i(i+1)}$ is
341: anti-symmetric and $\epsilon_{i(i+1)(i+2)}$ is symmetric under the
342: reversing of the order of the particles. This generalizes to
343: composite currents with more legs, which we have not written down explicitly. The
344: diagrammatic representations of $\epsilon_{i(i+1)(i+2)}$ and
345: $\epsilon_{i(i+1)(i+2)(i+3)}$ are given in Figs.~\ref{One} and
346: \ref{Two}.
347:
348: In the formalism of \cite{ChineseMagic} (see \cite{Dixon,ParkeR} for reviews), the gluon polarization vectors are defined as
349: \begin{equation}
350: \varepsilon_\mu^{(+)}(k;q)={\langle q^-|\gamma_\mu|k^-\rangle\over \sqrt{2}\langle q^-|k^+\rangle}\,,
351: \hspace{1cm}
352: \varepsilon_\mu^{(-)}(k;q)={\langle q^+|\gamma_\mu|k^+\rangle\over \sqrt{2}\langle k^+|q^-\rangle}\,,
353: \end{equation}
354: where $k$ is the momentum of the polarization null vector
355: and $q$ is the reference null vector.
356: In terms of the holomorphic and anti-holomorphic spinors
357: ( $k=\lambda \tilde{\lambda}$ and $q=\eta\tilde{\eta}$), these polarization vectors
358: can be recast as
359: \begin{equation}
360: \varepsilon_{\alpha\dot{\beta}}^{(+)}(k;q)={\sqrt{2}\,\eta_\alpha\tilde{\lambda}_{\dot{\beta}}\over \langle\eta \lambda\rangle}\,,
361: \hspace{1cm}
362: \varepsilon_{\alpha\dot{\beta}}^{(-)}(k;q)={\sqrt{2}\,\lambda_\alpha\tilde{\eta}_{\dot{\beta}}\over [\lambda\eta ]}\,.
363: \end{equation}
364: In our notation, we will use $\epsilon$ to denote the polarization vectors,
365: and the relations between $\epsilon$ and $\varepsilon$ is $\varepsilon=\sqrt{2}\,\epsilon$.
366: The troublesome $\sqrt{2}$ will be absorbed in the overall coefficient of the amplitude.
367: Given this notation, the bracket product of polarizations is more natural than the dot product :
368: \begin{equation}
369: (\epsilon_j^-(k_j;q_j),\epsilon_l^-(k_l,q_l))=\varepsilon_j^-(k_j;q_j)\cdot\varepsilon_l^-(k_l,q_l)
370: ={\langle j\,l\rangle[q_lq_j]\over [j\,q_j][l\,q_l]}\,.
371: \end{equation}
372: In our calculations, it is also convenient to omit the denominators in the definition
373: of the polarizations, and reinstate them in the last step.
374:
375: \section{Tensor reduction of the one-loop amplitudes}
376:
377: There is a vast literature on this subject. The original
378: Passrino-Veltman approach \cite{PassarinoVeltman} is quite general
379: but it is not quite practical to obtain compact analytic results.
380: In fact the tensor reduction relations we will use for our
381: calculations of the 5- and 6-gluon amplitudes are quite simple. It
382: is based on the BDK trick \cite{BDKB} of multiplying and dividing
383: by spinor square roots. To make more effective use of this trick,
384: we have purposely chosen the reference momenta to make the tensor
385: reduction simple. See \cite{xyziii} for further details about the
386: specific choices of the reference momenta and the tensor reductions
387: involved in the computation of (the rational parts of) the 6-gluon
388: amplitudes.
389:
390: \begin{figure}[ht]
391: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=2cm]{4preduce.eps} }
392: \caption{The tensor reduction for two adjacent same helicities
393: generally gives three terms.} \label{Three}
394: \end{figure}
395:
396: There are basically only two different cases to consider. As shown
397: in Fig.~\ref{Three}, the two polarization vectors have the same
398: helicity. If we choose the same reference momentum (denoted by
399: the spinor $\eta$), we have
400: \begin{eqnarray}
401: (\eta\tilde\lambda_1, p)\, (\eta\tilde\lambda_2, p) & = & - {
402: (\eta\tilde\lambda_{k_{12}}^{(\eta)}, p + k_1) \over \langle 1\, 2
403: \rangle }
404: \, I^{(2)} \nonumber \\
405: & + & {\langle\eta\, 1\rangle \over \langle 1\, 2 \rangle } \,
406: (\eta\tilde\lambda_1, p) \, I^{(3)} + {\langle\eta\, 2\rangle
407: \over \langle 1\, 2 \rangle } \, (\eta\tilde\lambda_2, p) \,
408: I^{(1)} , \label{eqreduction} \\
409: \tilde\lambda_{k_{12}}^{(\eta)} & = & \langle\eta\, 1\rangle
410: \tilde\lambda_1 + \langle\eta\, 2\rangle \tilde\lambda_2,
411: \end{eqnarray}
412: where $I^{(1)} =(p+k_1)^2$, $I^{(2)} = p^2$ and
413: $I^{(3)}=(p-k_2)^2$ are various inverse propagators. The above
414: tensor reduction formula is shown diagrammatically in
415: Fig.~\ref{Three}, omitting the relevant factors.
416:
417: In deriving eq.~(\ref{eqreduction}), we assumed that $p$ is a four-dimensional vector.
418: Because pentagon and higher point one-loop amplitudes are ultra-violet convergent,
419: the use of the above formula in tensor reduction is correct in dimensional
420: regularization up to infinitesimal terms. However one must be quite careful to apply the
421: above formula to the tensor reduction of the box and triangle tensor integrals because the
422: difference is a finite rational part. Some correction terms must be included for
423: tensor reduction with box and triangle tensor integrals. This also applies to the following
424: tensor reduction formulas given later in this section.
425: We will compute these correction terms later in Sect.~8.
426:
427: \begin{figure}[ht]
428: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=4cm]{4preduce2.eps} }
429: \caption{For two adjacent same helicities, the tensor reduction for
430: the combination of two diagrams is even simpler by a judicious
431: choice of the reference momenta.} \label{Four}
432: \end{figure}
433:
434: An even simpler version of the above tensor reduction relation is
435: to consider a combination of two diagrams together as shown in
436: Fig.~\ref{Four}. The reduction formula is:
437: \begin{eqnarray}
438: {(\epsilon_1,p+k_1)(\epsilon_2,p ) \over (p+k_1)^2
439: p^2(p-k_{2 })^2} & + & { (\epsilon_{12}, p+k_1) -
440: (\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2)/2 \over (p+k_1)^2 (p-k_{2})^2}
441: \nonumber \\
442: & = & - {1\over p^2} + { {1/ 2}\over (p+k_1)^2} + {{1/2}\over
443: (p-k_{2})^2} , \label{eqreductiona}
444: \end{eqnarray}
445: for $\epsilon_1 = \lambda_1\tilde\lambda_2$ and $\epsilon_2=
446: \lambda_2\tilde\lambda_1$. All the factors appearing on the
447: left-hand side of the above equations are read off directly from
448: Feynman rules. These tensor reduction relations show quite clearly
449: the simplicity of the diagrams when there are adjacent particles
450: with the same helicity.
451:
452: \begin{figure}[ht]
453: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=3cm]{5p.eps} } \caption{For
454: three adjacent same helicities, the tensor reduction for the
455: combination of these four diagrams is also quite simple if we
456: choose the reference momenta appropriately.} \label{Five}
457: \end{figure}
458:
459: For three adjacent particles with the same helicity gluons, we
460: choose the following polarization vectors (omitting an overall
461: factor for each polarization vector):
462: \begin{equation}
463: \epsilon_4 = \lambda_5\tilde\lambda_4, \qquad \epsilon_5 =
464: \eta\tilde\lambda_5, \qquad \epsilon_6 = \lambda_5\tilde\lambda_6.
465: \end{equation}
466: Then we have
467: \begin{eqnarray}
468: \epsilon_{45} & = & - \eta\tilde\lambda_4 + \frac{1}{2}\,
469: \frac{\langle\eta\, 5\rangle}{\langle4\, 5\rangle}\, k_{45},
470: \\
471: \epsilon_{56} & = & \eta\tilde\lambda_6 - \frac{1}{2}\,
472: \frac{\langle\eta\, 5\rangle}{\langle6\, 5\rangle}\, k_{56} ,
473: \end{eqnarray}
474: and
475: \begin{eqnarray}
476: (\epsilon_{45}, p-k_{45}) - \frac{1}{2}(\epsilon_4,\epsilon_5) & = & - (\eta
477: \tilde\lambda_4, p - k_{45}) + \frac{1}{2} \,
478: \frac{\langle\eta\, 5\rangle}{\langle4\, 5\rangle} \, (I^{(4)} - I^{(6)}) , \\
479: (\epsilon_{56}, p-k_{4}) - \frac{1}{2}(\epsilon_5,\epsilon_6) &
480: = & (\eta
481: \tilde\lambda_6, p - k_{4}) - \frac{1}{2} \,
482: \frac{\langle\eta\, 5\rangle}{\langle6\, 5\rangle} \, (I^{(5)} - I^{(*)}) ,
483: \end{eqnarray}
484: where $I^{(4)} = p^2$, $I^{(5)} = (p-k_4)^2$, $I^{(6)} =
485: (p-k_{45})^2$ and $I^{(*)} = (p-k_{456})^2$ are inverse
486: propagators.
487:
488: Now considering the three terms coming from the first 3 Feynman
489: diagrams shown in Fig.~\ref{Five}, we have:
490: \begin{eqnarray}
491: A_{456} & = & (\epsilon_4, p-k_4)(\epsilon_5,p-k_4)(\epsilon_6,p-k_4) \nonumber \\
492: & + & ((\epsilon_{45}, p-k_{45}) -
493: \frac{1}{2}(\epsilon_4,\epsilon_5)) (\epsilon_6, p-k_4)
494: \, I^{(5)} \nonumber \\
495: & + & (\epsilon_4, p-k_4) ((\epsilon_{56}, p-k_{4}) -
496: \frac{1}{2}(\epsilon_5,\epsilon_6)) \, I^{(6)}
497: \nonumber \\
498: & = & ((\lambda_5\tilde\lambda_4, p-k_4)(\eta\tilde\lambda_6,
499: p-k_4) -
500: (\eta\tilde\lambda_4, p-k_4) (\lambda_5\tilde\lambda_6,p-k_4)) \, I^{(6)}
501: \nonumber \\
502: & + & \frac{1}{2} \frac{\langle\eta\, 5\rangle}{\langle4\,
503: 5\rangle} \, \, (\lambda_5\tilde\lambda_6,p-k_4)\, (I^{(4)} -
504: I^{(6)}) \, I^{(5)}
505: \nonumber \\
506: & - & \frac{1}{2} \frac{\langle\eta\, 5\rangle}{\langle6\,
507: 5\rangle} \, \, (\lambda_5\tilde\lambda_4,p-k_4)\, (I^{(5)} -
508: I^{(*)}) \, I^{(6)} ,
509: \end{eqnarray}
510: by doing tensor reduction with $k_{45}$ for the first term. This
511: can be further simplified by expressing $\eta$ in terms of a
512: linear combination of $\lambda_{4,5}$. The final result is:
513: \begin{eqnarray}
514: A_{456} & = & \frac{1}{2} \frac{\langle\eta\, 5\rangle}{\langle4\,
515: 5\rangle} \, \, (\lambda_5\tilde\lambda_6,p-k_4)\, I^{(4)} \,
516: I^{(5)} + \frac{1}{2} \frac{\langle\eta\, 5\rangle}{\langle6\,
517: 5\rangle}
518: \, (\lambda_5\tilde\lambda_4,p-k_4)\, I^{(*)} \, I^{(6)}
519: \nonumber \\
520: & + & I^{(5)} \, I^{(6)} \, \langle\eta\, 5\rangle \,
521: \left[ [4\,6] - \frac{1}{2} (\lambda_5( {\tilde\lambda_4\over \langle6\, 5\rangle} +
522: {\tilde\lambda_6\over \langle4\, 5\rangle}) , p-k_4) \right] \nonumber \\
523: & = &
524: \frac{1}{2} \frac{\langle\eta\, 5\rangle}{\langle4\, 5\rangle}
525: \, (\lambda_5\tilde\lambda_6,p-k_4)\, I^{(4)} \, I^{(5)} +
526: \frac{1}{2} \frac{\langle\eta\, 5\rangle}{\langle6\, 5\rangle}
527: \, (\lambda_5\tilde\lambda_4,p-k_4)\, I^{(*)} \, I^{(6)}
528: \nonumber \\
529: & + & \frac{1}{2} \, I^{(5)} \, I^{(6)} \, \langle\eta\, 5\rangle \,
530: \left[ [4\,6] + \frac{1}{\langle4\, 5\rangle \langle6\, 5\rangle}
531: (\lambda_5 \tilde\lambda_{k_{456}}^{(5)}, p ) \right] ,
532: \label{adjacentthree}
533: \end{eqnarray}
534: which has a nice symmetric property under the flipping operation $4
535: \leftrightarrow 6$. The last term in eq.~(\ref{adjacentthree})
536: actually cancels the contribution from the last Feynman diagram in
537: Fig.~\ref{Five}.
538:
539: For the case of different neighboring helicities, we can use the
540: following reduction formulas:
541: \begin{eqnarray}
542: (\lambda_1\tilde\eta, p) \, (\lambda_1\tilde\lambda_2, p) & = &
543: {\langle\lambda_1 |p\,k_2\, K\, k_1\, p|\tilde\eta\rangle \over
544: \langle 2 |K | 1 \rangle } \nonumber \\
545: & & \hskip -2cm = {1\over \langle 2 |K_4| 1 \rangle } \, \Big(
546: I^{(1)} \, ( \lambda_1\tilde\lambda_2, p)\,
547: \langle2|(K_4+k_1)| \tilde\eta\rangle \nonumber \\
548: & & \hskip -2cm + I^{(2)} \, \langle 1|(p-k_2)(K_4k_1 -
549: k_2K_4)|\tilde\eta\rangle - I^{(3)} \, \langle 1| p \,
550: K_4|1\rangle [1\, \tilde\eta] \nonumber \\
551: & & \hskip -2cm - I^{(4)} \, (\lambda_1\tilde\lambda_2,p)\,
552: \langle2\, 1\rangle [1\, \tilde\eta] + (K_4+k_1)^2\,
553: (\lambda_1\tilde\lambda_2, p)\, \langle2\, 1\rangle [1\,
554: \tilde\eta]\Big), \label{boxtensora}
555: \\ (\lambda_1\tilde\lambda_2, p) \, (\eta\tilde\lambda_2, p) & = &
556: {\langle\eta |p\,k_2\, K\, k_1\, p|\tilde\lambda_2\rangle \over
557: \langle 2 |K | 1 \rangle } \nonumber \\
558: & & \hskip -2cm = {1\over \langle 2
559: |K_3| 1 \rangle } \, \Big( I^{(1)} \, \langle\eta| k_2\,K_3\, p | 2
560: \rangle \nonumber \\
561: & & \hskip -2.5cm + I^{(2)} \, \langle \eta|(K_3k_1
562: -k_2K_3)(p+k_1)|2\rangle - I^{(3)}\, \langle \eta|(k_2 +
563: K_3)|1\rangle (\lambda_1\tilde\lambda_2, p) \nonumber \\
564: & & \hskip -2.5cm + I^{(*)} \, (\lambda_1\tilde\lambda_2,p)\,
565: \langle\eta\, 2\rangle [2\, 1] - (k_2 + K_3)^2\,
566: (\lambda_1\tilde\lambda_2, p)\, \langle\eta\, 2\rangle [2\, 1]
567: \Big), \label{boxtensor}
568: \end{eqnarray}
569: where $I$'s are the various inverse propagators:
570: \begin{eqnarray}
571: & & I^{(1)} = (p+k_1)^2, \qquad I^{(2)} = p^2, \qquad I^{(3)} =
572: (p-k_2)^2, \\
573: & & I^{(4)} = (p+k_1+K_4)^2, \qquad I^{(*)} = (p-k_2-K_3).
574: \end{eqnarray}
575: In eqs.~(\ref{boxtensora}) and (\ref{boxtensor}), the momentum $K$
576: can be chosen as one of the nearby momenta to avoid the spurious
577: pole associated with a composite momentum. For two-mass-hard box, $K$
578: can only be chosen as one of the composite momenta.
579:
580: Because of the complexity of the above tensor reduction formula
581: for different neighboring helicities, it is better not to use them directly.
582: Luckily we are able to avoid using them directly for tensor
583: reduction with 5- and 6-point diagrams by a judicious choice of
584: reference momenta for all the polarization vectors. The details
585: will be given in \cite{xyziii}. For two-mass-hard box integrals, we
586: must use the above general tensor reduction in order to obtain
587: comparatively compact analytic expressions. We will use a slightly
588: different reduction formula in Sect.~7.4 to compute the rational
589: part of the two-mass-hard box integral.
590:
591: The above is just the first step for the tensor reduction. Of
592: course this procedure can be applied recursively. By a rough
593: examination of this recursive method, one immediately finds two
594: problems: 1) the association of the resulting polarization vector
595: with an external (composite) momentum may not satisfy the physical
596: conditions; 2) the above formula is no-longer applicable if one
597: has a massive external momentum (a composite one arising from the
598: reduction or a pinched line by sewing the tree to the loop). There are
599: other methods to do further tensor reduction, some involving Gram
600: determinants. Exactly because of these problems, tensor reduction
601: is usually the most difficult part and the bottleneck for directly
602: computing the one loop amplitude. Quite elaborate methods are
603: developed to tackle these problems. See, for example,
604: \cite{Denner,BinothZ}.
605:
606: Because of the complexity of doing further tensor reduction, we
607: immediately see the problem why directly computing the amplitude
608: by using Feynman rules is an extraordinarily difficult task for
609: higher point amplitudes. There are mainly two difficulties to
610: overcome: too many diagrams and the complexity for tensor
611: reduction (especially at a later stage of tensor reduction as
612: mentioned in the above). By using computers it is not too difficult
613: to manage the numerous Feynman diagrams (of the order 1000). But the
614: complexity of tensor reduction with the appearance of spurious
615: poles is actually the bottleneck for analytic computation. Tensor
616: reduction is also the bottleneck for doing numerical calculations.
617: See, for example, \cite{GRACEFeynman}.
618:
619: In contrast we also see that why it is possible to compute the
620: rational part by using the conventional Feynman integrals. First
621: by using the supersymmetric decomposition, the number of Feynman
622: diagrams is about 50 (1 hexagon, 6 pentagons, 15 boxes, 20
623: triangles and 15 bubbles) by only computing the scalar loop
624: contributions. Second by computing only the rational part, it is
625: not necessary to do tensor reduction all the way down to scalar
626: integrals. One needs only to do tensor reduction to reduce the
627: degree by 2 (see next section). So tensor reduction does not
628: complicate the analytic expressions significantly. In fact for
629: special helicity assignments, there is an almost mutual
630: cancellation between higher point diagrams and lower point
631: diagrams, as we demonstrated in eqs.~(\ref{eqreduction}) and
632: (\ref{eqreductiona}). This is a manifestation of gauge invariance.
633: This property can be used to check and to organize the results of
634: our calculation. It is very important to have some ``local''
635: cancellations before adding all the results together in order to
636: obtain relatively compact analytic results for the rational parts
637: of QCD amplitudes.
638:
639: \section{The BDDK theorem and the structure of one-loop amplitudes}
640:
641: \begin{figure}[ht]
642: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=4cm]{general.eps} } \caption{A
643: generic one-loop diagram with external momenta $K_1$, $\cdots$,
644: $K_m$. $p$ is the internal momentum between the external lines
645: $K_1$ and $K_m$.} \label{Six}
646: \end{figure}
647:
648: A generic $m$-point one-loop Feynman diagram shown in
649: Fig.~\ref{Six} and its integral is given as follows (by using
650: Feynman rules):
651: \begin{equation}
652: I_m^D[f(p)] = \int { {\rm d}^D p \over i\,\pi^{D/2}} \, { f(p)
653: \over p^2 (p-K_1)^2 \cdots (p+K_m)^2} ,
654: \end{equation}
655: where $f(p)$ is a polynomial function of the internal momentum
656: $p$. For phenomenologically interesting models and by choosing a
657: suitable gauge, the degree of $f(p)$ is always not greater than
658: $m$. $f(p)$ also depends on the external momenta $k$ ($K_i$'s are
659: sums of cyclicly consecutive external momenta $k$'s) and the
660: polarization vectors $\epsilon_i$. For $f(p)=1$ it is called the
661: scalar integral. The strategy of computing $I_m^D[f(p)]$ is to
662: reduce it recursively into lower degree polynomials and/or lower
663: point integrals. It is a well-known result that $I_n^D[f]$ can be
664: generically written as:
665: \begin{eqnarray}
666: I_m^D[f] & = & \sum_i c_{4,i}(\epsilon,k; D) \, I_4^{D(i)}[1]
667: \nonumber
668: \\
669: & + & \sum_i c_{3,i}(\epsilon,k; D) \, I_3^{D(i)}[1] + \sum_i
670: c_{2,i}(\epsilon,k; D) \, I_2^{D(i)}[1], \label{imfp}
671: \end{eqnarray}
672: up to infinitesimal terms arising from tensor reduction from
673: pentagon or higher point diagrams. Here $c_{j,i}$'s are rational
674: functions of the external momenta when all polarization vectors
675: are written in terms of spinor products. We note that these
676: coefficients also depend on the (arbitrary) space-time dimension
677: $D$ in dimensional regularization (in the FDH scheme \cite{FDH}).
678:
679: A brute-force computation of these coefficients from Feynman
680: integrals is an impossible task for 6 or higher point amplitudes.
681: The 5-point case was computed by string-inspired method by using a
682: table for all Feynman parameter integrals (see below)
683: \cite{BernKosower}. However the string-inspired method is still
684: not powerful enough to compute even the 6-gluon amplitude due to
685: the complexity of the Feynman integrals and the intermediate
686: expressions.
687:
688: For physical application what we actually need is an expansion in
689: $\epsilon$ of the above formula for $D= 4 - 2 \epsilon$, up to
690: finite terms. If we forget the infrared divergence for the moment,
691: there are only simple pole ($1\over\epsilon$) terms in the scalar
692: integrals $I_{4,3,2}^D[1]$ with rational coefficients. So we can
693: write the $n$-gluon amplitude (addition of all contributing
694: $I_m^D[f(p)]$ from all Feynman diagrams) as follows:
695: \begin{eqnarray}
696: {\cal A}_n & = & \sum_i c_{4,i}(\epsilon,k; 4) \, I_4^{D(i)}[1]
697: + \sum_i c_{3,i}(\epsilon,k; 4) \, I_3^{D(i)}[1] \nonumber \\
698: & + & \sum_i c_{2,i}(\epsilon,k; 4) \, I_2^{D(i)}[1] +
699: (\hbox{rational function}) + O(\epsilon) . \label{namplitude}
700: \end{eqnarray}
701:
702:
703: For supersymmetric theories, Bern, Dixon, Dunbar and Kosower
704: \cite{BDDK} proved a theorem which states that the rational
705: function is exactly zero. This is due to the better ultra-violet
706: behaviour of one-loop amplitudes in supersymmetric theories.
707: So we need only to compute the rational coefficients (called the
708: cut-constructible part hereafter) exactly at $D=4$. What
709: they proved is actually a more general theorem: if $f(p)$ is a
710: polynomial (in $p$) of degree $m-2$ or less, the rational part for
711: $I_m^D[f(p)]$ arising by expanding in $\epsilon$ is exactly zero.
712: Generally speaking, the rational part is non-vanishing for degree
713: $m$ and $m-1$ polynomials.
714:
715: For a non-supersymmetric theory like QCD we also need to compute the
716: rational function (called the rational part hereafter). In a
717: series of papers \cite{BDDK,BDKB,BDK}, Bern, Dunbar, Dixon and
718: Kosower have developed a method of computing the
719: cut-constructible part, i.e., the coefficients $
720: c_{j,i}(\epsilon,k; 4)$, from 4-dimensional unitarity. The nicety
721: of 4-dimensional unitarity is that all the ingredients in the
722: unitarity relation are on-shell quantities. However 4-dimensional
723: unitarity loses all information about the rational function part
724: in eq.~(\ref{namplitude}). One must use some other methods to
725: compute the rational part. In \cite{BDKB}, they use the
726: factorization properties with trial and error. The difficulty
727: of computing the rational function prevents the wider application
728: of the unitarity method to calculate more general amplitudes. As we
729: mentioned in the introduction, the rational function part could be
730: computed by going to $D$-dimensional unitarity \cite{BDK, AMST}.
731: %but too much information is needed and it is even harder.
732:
733: In our papers, the precise definition of the rational part $R_n$ of the QCD amplitude
734: is as follows.
735: The $n$-point one loop color-ordered partial amplitude $A_{n;1}^{[0]}$ defined in eq. (2.10)
736: in the second paper of \cite{BDKBoot} can be decomposed as
737: \begin{eqnarray}
738: A_{n;1}^{[0]} & = &{(4\pi)^\epsilon\over 16\pi^2}\bigg( \sum_i c_{4,i}(\epsilon,k; 4) \, I_4^{D(i)}[1]
739: + \sum_i c_{3,i}(\epsilon,k; 4) \, I_3^{D(i)}[1] \nonumber \\
740: & + & \sum_i c_{2,i}(\epsilon,k; 4) \, I_2^{D(i)}[1] +
741: 2 R_n + O(\epsilon) \bigg)\,,
742: %\\ r_\Gamma & = & {\Gamma(1+\epsilon)\Gamma^2(1-\epsilon)\over \Gamma(1-2\epsilon)}\,,
743: \end{eqnarray}
744: where $R_n$ is the rational part for one real scalar circulating in the loop.
745: % Since $r_\Gamma=1+O(\epsilon)$, it can also be omitted.
746: We will use notations like $R(--++++)$ to denote $R_n$ in different cases in
747: \cite{xyzii} and \cite{xyziii}.
748:
749: In the following sections we will exploit the BDDK theorem to
750: compute the rational part directly from the Feynman integrals.
751: By using the recursive relations satisfied by the tensor integrals we
752: will derive the recursive relations for the rational parts by
753: making an expansion in $\epsilon$. Our integration method of
754: computing the rational part may also be used to compute the
755: rational part by using $D$-dimensional unitarity.
756: We use then
757: recursive relations to derive explicit formulas for the rational
758: parts of all bubble and triangle integrals in Sect.~6. In Sect.~7,
759: we derive the formulas for box integrals up to two-mass-hard boxes.
760: Formulas for 3-mass and 4-mass box integrals can also be derived.
761: %and will be given elsewhere.
762: They are much more complicated than
763: the two-mass-box formulas. Fortunately they are not needed in the
764: computation of 6-gluon amplitudes and will not be given here.
765: We note that the recursive
766: relations for tensor integrals and the rational parts can also be
767: derived for massive internal loop and/or external fermion lines.
768: For simplicity all formulas are given only for the cases with vanishing internal
769: masses.
770:
771: \section{The recursive relations of one-loop amplitudes}
772:
773: In this section we study the recursive relations of one-loop
774: amplitudes \cite{BDKReduction,BinothZ,Denner}. By using Feynman
775: parametrization we have
776: \begin{eqnarray}
777: I_n^D[1] & \equiv & \int { {\rm d}^D p \over i \pi^{D/2}} \, {
778: 1 \over p^2 (p-k_1)^2 \cdots (p+k_n)^2} \nonumber \\
779: & = & (-1)^n\, \Gamma(n-D/2) \, \int { {\rm d}^n a} \, { \delta( 1
780: - \sum_i a_i) \over ( a \cdot S \cdot a )^{n -{D\over 2}} } ,
781: \end{eqnarray}
782: where
783: $$a \cdot S \cdot a = \sum_{i,j=1}^n a_i\,a_j\, S_{ij}$$
784: and the matrix $S$,
785: \begin{equation}
786: S = - {1\over 2} \, \left(
787: \begin{array}{ccccc}
788: 0 & k_1^2 & (k_1+k_2)^2 & \cdots & (k_1+k_2+\cdots k_{n-1})^2 \cr
789: * & 0 & k_2^2 & \cdots & (k_2+k_3+\cdots k_{n-1})^2 \cr
790: \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \cr
791: * & * & * & 0 & k_{n-1}^2 \cr
792: * & * & * & * & 0
793: \end{array}
794: \right) ,
795: \end{equation}
796: is an $n\times n$ symmetric matrix of external kinematic variables
797: (extension to massive loop is straightforward). For tensor
798: integral $I_n^D[f(p)]$ it is given by the Feynman parameter integral with an
799: extra polynomial of $a$ in the numerator\footnote{We note that
800: the difference between Feynman parameter integral $\hat{I}_n[g(a)]$
801: and $I_n[f(p)]$ is only the $(-1)^n$ factor. For even $n$ and $f(p)=g(a)=1$,
802: they are the same and we will not distinguish them in this case.
803: }:
804: \begin{eqnarray}
805: \hat{I}_n^D[g(a)] = \Gamma(n-D/2) \, \int { {\rm d}^n a} \, { \delta( 1
806: - \sum_i a_i) \, g(a) \over ( a \cdot S \cdot a )^{n -{D\over 2}} } .
807: \end{eqnarray}
808: The degree of $g(a)$ is the same as the degree of $f(p)$ in $p$.
809:
810: As explained in \cite{BDKReduction},
811: a set of recursive relations for these tensor integrals can be
812: derived by performing the following integration:
813: \begin{eqnarray}
814: F & = & \Gamma(\alpha) \int_0^1 {\rm d} a_{n-1} \int_{0}^{1-a_{n-1}} {\rm d}
815: a_{n-2} \cdots \int_0^{ 1- a_1-a_2 - \cdots- \hat a_m - \cdots - a_{n-1}} {\rm d} a_m \,
816: \cdots \nonumber \\
817: & & \times \, {\partial \over \partial a_m}\left[ \left.
818: {f(a) \over ( a\cdot S \cdot a )^\alpha}\right|_{a_n = 1- a_1 -\cdots - a_{n-1}}
819: \right] ,
820: \end{eqnarray}
821: in two ways: one by partial integration and one by direct differentiation. Then we
822: obtain the following recursive relation:
823: \begin{eqnarray}
824: & & \hskip-2cm
825: - 2 \Gamma(\alpha+1) \,\int_0^1{\rm d}^na \delta(1-a) \, { f(a)( (S\cdot a)_m -
826: (S\cdot a)_n ) \over (a\cdot S\cdot a)^{\alpha+1} } \nonumber \\
827: & = & \Gamma(\alpha) \int_0^1 {\rm d}^na \delta(1-a)\, \left. {f(a) \over
828: (a\cdot S\cdot a)^{\alpha } }\right|_{a_n=0} \nonumber \\
829: & & -
830: \Gamma(\alpha) \int_0^1 {\rm d}^na \delta(1-a)\, \left. {f(a) \over
831: (a\cdot S\cdot a)^{\alpha } }\right|_{a_m=0} \nonumber \\
832: & & - \Gamma(\alpha)\,
833: \int_0^1 {\rm d}^na \delta(1-a)\, {\partial_m f(a) - \partial_n f(a) \over
834: (a\cdot S\cdot a)^{\alpha } } .
835: \end{eqnarray}
836: By carefully examining the composition of $ a\cdot S\cdot a $ for
837: $a_m=0$ one recognizes that this corresponds to a pinching limit
838: of the original Feynman diagram: $k_{m-1},~k_m \rightarrow
839: k_{m-1}+k_{m}$. By setting $\alpha = n-1-{D\over2}$ and using the
840: definition for $\hat{I}_n^D[f]$, the above recursive relation translates
841: into the following form:
842: \begin{eqnarray}
843: & & \hskip -1cm \hat{I}_n^D[-2f(a)( (S\cdot a)_m - (S\cdot a)_n)] \nonumber \\
844: & = &
845: \hat{I}_{n-1}^{D(n)}[f(a)] - \hat{I}_{n-1}^{D(m)}[f(a)] -
846: \hat{I}_n^{D+2}[\partial_mf(a)] + \hat{I}_n^{D+2}[\partial_nf(a)] .
847: \label{recursiveBernA}
848: \end{eqnarray}
849: Here $\hat{I}_{n-1}^{D(i)}[f(a)]$ denotes the $(n-1)$-point one-loop Feynman integral obtained
850: by pinching $k_{i-1}$ and $k_{i}$.
851: Coupled with one more equation from the delta function:
852: \begin{equation}
853: \sum_{i=1}^n \hat{I}_n^D[ f(a) a_i ] = \hat{I}_N^D[f(a)],
854: \label{recursiveBernB}
855: \end{equation}
856: we can solve $\hat{I}_n^D[ f(a) a_i]$ in terms of $\hat{I}_{n-1}^{D(m)}[f(a)]$,
857: $\hat{I}_{n}^{D+2}[\partial_mf(a)]$ and $\hat{I}_{n}^{D }[f(a)]$:
858: \begin{eqnarray}
859: \hat{I}_n^D[ f(a) a_i ] & = & c_{ij}^{(n)} \hat{I}_{n-1}^{D(j)}[ f(a) ] +
860: d_{ij}^{(n)} \hat{I}_n^{D+2}[ \partial_j f(a)] + c_i^{(n)}\hat{I}_n^D[f(a)] .
861: \end{eqnarray}
862: The above reasoning goes through so long as we can invert the relevant matrix. This matrix
863: is
864: \begin{equation}
865: \left[
866: \begin{array}{ccc}
867: & -2(S_{ij} - S_{nj}) & \cr
868: 1 & \cdots & 1
869: \end{array}
870: \right]
871: \end{equation}
872: and it is singular for $n\ge 6$. For our purpose of computing the
873: rational part we will only need these recursive relations for
874: $n\le4$. Higher point tensor integrals are reduced directly in
875: $D=4$ as we have done in the last section. For further discussions
876: about the tensor reduction and its close relation with the above
877: recursive relation, we refer the reader to \cite{BinothZ,Denner}.
878:
879: The above recursive relation is not symmetric for all $a_i$. The symmetric recursive
880: relation can be obtained by firstly solving $\hat{I}_n^D[f(a)(S\cdot a)_n]$ and substituting
881: it back to the system of equations. By taking $f= g_l(a)\, a_m$
882: ($g_l(a)$ is a homogeneous polynomial of degree $l$ in $a$), we can
883: solve $\hat{I}_n^D[g_l(a)\, (S\cdot a)_n]$ to get:
884: \begin{equation}
885: 2 \hat{I}_n^D[ g_l(a)\,(S\cdot a)_n] = \hat{I}_{n-1}^{D(n)}[g_l(a)] +
886: (n-1-l-D)\, \hat{I}_n^{D+2}[g_l(a)] + \hat{I}_n^{D+2}[\partial_ng_l(a)] .
887: \end{equation}
888: Substituting this back into eq.~(\ref{recursiveBernA}) and
889: multiplying both sides of the equation by $S^{-1}_{i\,m}$ and then
890: summing over $m$, we have \cite{BinothZ}:
891: \begin{eqnarray}
892: \hat{I}_n^D[g_l(a)\, a_i] & = & {1\over2}\, (n-1-l-D)\,\gamma_i\, \hat{I}_{n}^{D+2}
893: [g_l(a)] \nonumber \\
894: & + &
895: {1\over2}\, \sum_j {S_{ij}^{-1}}\, \hat{I}_{n-1}^{D(j)}[g_l(a)] +
896: {1\over2}\, \sum_j {S_{ij}^{-1}}\, \hat{I}_{n}^{D+2}[\partial_j g_l(a)],
897: \label{higherD}
898: \end{eqnarray}
899: where
900: \begin{equation}
901: \gamma_i = \sum_j S_{ij}^{-1} .
902: \end{equation}
903: One can check that the above recursive relation is equivalent to the
904: following recursive relation:
905: \begin{eqnarray}
906: \hat{I}_n^{D }[ a_i f(a) ] & = & P_{ij}\, \left( \hat{I}_n^{D (j)}[f(a)] +
907: \hat{I}_n^{ D+2 } [\partial_jf(a) ] \right) +
908: {\gamma_i\over \Delta} \, \hat{I}_n^D[f(a)] , \label{recursivesymm}\\
909: P_{ij} & = &
910: {1\over 2}\, \left( S_{ij}^{-1} - {\gamma_i\, \gamma_j \over \Delta }\right),
911: \qquad
912: \Delta = \sum_i\gamma_i .
913: \end{eqnarray}
914: The good point of this recursive relation is that all coefficients
915: have no explicit dependence on the space-time dimension $D$ and so
916: it is well suited to compute the rational part.
917:
918: We note that the above reasoning would go through if $S$ is invertible.
919: In the two-mass and one-mass
920: triangle cases, $S$ is not invertible. Nevertheless we can still
921: use the above formulas by taking a limit from the general 3-mass
922: triangle case. The point is that all we need is to have a
923: well-behaved limit for the quantity $P_{ij}$ and ${\gamma_i\over
924: \Delta}$. We have verified that directly taking the massless limit
925: gives the same result as one would obtained by solving the
926: non-singular system of equations (\ref{recursiveBernA}) and
927: (\ref{recursiveBernB}).
928:
929: From eq.~(\ref{recursivesymm}) we see that higher dimensional
930: integrals also appear in the recursive relations. These higher
931: dimensional tensor integrals can be reduced to even higher and/or
932: lower point tensor integrals by using these recursive relations
933: repeatedly. At the end only scalar integrals are left. These
934: higher dimensional scalar integrals can be reduced to lower
935: dimensional and lower point scalar integrals by using the
936: following recursive relation:
937: \begin{equation}
938: \hat{I}^{D+2}_n[1] = {1\over (n-1-D)\, \Delta} \, \left[ 2 \, \hat{I}_n^D[1] -
939: \sum_j
940: \gamma_j \, \hat{I}_{n-1}^{D(j)}[1] \right] . \label{higherDD}
941: \end{equation}
942: This equation is derived from eq.~(\ref{higherD}) by setting
943: $g_l(a)=1$ and summing over $i$. The explicit dependence on the
944: space-time dimension $D$ in eq.~(\ref{higherDD}) is very
945: important. Otherwise all the rational coefficients in
946: eq.~(\ref{imfp}) would have no explicit dependence on $D$ and there
947: would be no rational part.
948:
949: To be more specific, we give some explicit examples for bubble and
950: triangle integrals in what follows.
951:
952: For bubble integral we have
953: \begin{equation}
954: I_2^D[ f(p) ] \equiv \int { {\rm d}^D p \over i \, \pi^{D/2} } \,
955: { f(p) \over p^2\, (p + K)^2} ,
956: \end{equation}
957: where $K$ is the sum of momenta on one side of the bubble diagram.
958: For $K^2=0$ this integral is 0 in dimensional regularization. So
959: we will assume $K^2\neq 0$ hereafter. By direct computation we
960: have the following results ($D=4-2\epsilon$):
961: \begin{eqnarray}
962: I_2^D[ 1 ] & = & {r_\Gamma \over \epsilon(1-2\epsilon) }\, (-K^2)^{-\epsilon},\hspace{1cm}
963: r_\Gamma={\Gamma(1+\epsilon)\Gamma^2(1-\epsilon)\over \Gamma(1-2\epsilon)}\,,
964: \\
965: I_2^D[p^\mu] & = & - {K^\mu \over 2}\, I_2^D[ 1 ] , \\
966: \hat{I}_2^D[ a_1^2 ] & = & \hat{I}_2^D[a_2^2] = {2 - \epsilon \over
967: 2(3-2\epsilon) } \, I_2^D[1] . \label{bubbleaa}
968: \end{eqnarray}
969:
970: The recursive relation (\ref{higherDD}) becomes:
971: \begin{equation}
972: I_2^{D+2}[1] = {K^2 \over 2(D-1)}\, I_2^D[1] .
973: \label{bubbleD}
974: \end{equation}
975: This can be applied recursively to compute arbitrarily higher
976: dimensional bubble integrals.
977:
978: \begin{figure}[ht]
979: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=4cm]{general3.eps} }
980: \caption{A generic three-mass triangle diagram. The 2-mass
981: triangle diagram is obtained by setting one of momentum to be
982: massless, for example $K_1=k_1$ and $k^2_i=0$. } \label{Seven}
983: \end{figure}
984:
985: A generic triangle diagram is shown in Fig.~\ref{Seven} and the
986: integral is\footnote{A minus sign is not included in the
987: definition of $I_3^D[ f(p) ]$.}
988: \begin{equation}
989: I_3^D[ f(p) ] \equiv \int { {\rm d}^D p \over i \, \pi^{D/2} }
990: \, { f(p) \over p^2\, (p - K_1)^2\, (p+K_3)^2 } . \label{ithreemass}
991: \end{equation}
992: This integral is finite (free of ultra-violet (for degree 3 or
993: less polynomial $f(p)$) and infrared divergences) for generic
994: external momenta (i.e., $K_i^2\neq 0$, $i=1,2,3$). The explicit
995: formula can be found in \cite{BDDK}. For degenerate cases we have
996: \begin{eqnarray}
997: I_3^D[1] & = & - {1\over \epsilon^2} \,
998: {\Gamma(1-\epsilon)^2\Gamma(1+\epsilon)\over \Gamma(1-2\epsilon)}
999: \, { (-K_2^2)^{-\epsilon} - (-K_3^2)^{-\epsilon} \over (-K_2^2) -
1000: (-K_3^2) }, \quad K_1^2 = 0 ,
1001: \\
1002: I_3^D[1] & =& - {1\over \epsilon^2} \,
1003: {\Gamma(1-\epsilon)^2\Gamma(1+\epsilon)\over \Gamma(1-2\epsilon)}
1004: \, { (-K_3^2)^{-1-\epsilon} }, \qquad K_1^2 = K_2^2 = 0 .
1005: \end{eqnarray}
1006:
1007: In the next section we will use these results and the more general
1008: recursive relations to derive the rational parts of the bubble,
1009: triangle and box integrals by making an expansion in the
1010: space-time parameter $\epsilon$.
1011:
1012: \section{The rational parts of the triangle integrals}
1013:
1014: \subsection{$\epsilon$-expansion and the rational parts:
1015: the bubble integrals}
1016:
1017: The $\epsilon$-expansion of the scalar bubble integral is:
1018: \begin{eqnarray}
1019: I_2^D[1] & = & {1\over \epsilon} + O(1) .
1020: \end{eqnarray}
1021: By using this result in eq.~(\ref{bubbleD}) we have
1022: ($D=4-2\epsilon$):
1023: \begin{eqnarray}
1024: I_2^{D+2}[1] & = & {K^2 \over 6}\, I_2^D[1] + \, {K^2\over 9} + O(\epsilon), \\
1025: I_2^{D+4}[1] & = & {(K^2)^2 \over 60}\, I_2^D[1] + \, {4
1026: \,(K^2)^2\over 225} + O(\epsilon) .
1027: \end{eqnarray}
1028: We note that the first term on the right-hand of the above two
1029: equations still depends on $D$ through the scalar integral $
1030: I_2^D[1]$. What is important is the second term which is a pure
1031: rational function and does not depend on the space-time dimension
1032: $D$. This is the rational function part we need to keep track of
1033: later.
1034:
1035: By making an expansion in $\epsilon$ for eq.~(\ref{bubbleaa}), we
1036: have:
1037: \begin{equation}
1038: \hat{I}^D_2[a_1^2] = \hat{I}^D_2[a_2^2] = {1\over 3} \, {I}^D_2[1] + {1\over
1039: 18} + O(\epsilon).
1040: \end{equation}
1041: From this equation we read off the rational part of $
1042: \hat{I}^D_2[a_1^2]$ and $\hat{I}^D_2[a_2^2]$ as $1\over18$. Translating back
1043: to the momentum integral the result is:
1044: \begin{eqnarray}
1045: I_2^D[ (\epsilon_1, p)\,(\epsilon_2 , p) ] & = & \left(
1046: {(\epsilon_1,K)\,(\epsilon_2,K)\over 3} -
1047: {K^2 \, (\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2) \over 6} \right)\, I_2^D[1] \nonumber \\
1048: & + & {1 \over 18} \, ( (\epsilon_1, K) \, (\epsilon_2, K) - 2 \,
1049: K^2\, (\epsilon_1, \epsilon_2) ).
1050: \end{eqnarray}
1051: This result has already appeared in \cite{BDK} (eq.~(31) on
1052: p.~133). We interpret the second term in the above equation as the
1053: rational part. If we discard the first term we can simply write:
1054: \begin{equation}
1055: I_2[ (\epsilon_1, p)\,(\epsilon_2, p) ] = {1 \over 18} \, (
1056: (\epsilon_1, K) \, (\epsilon_2, K) - 2 \, K^2\, (\epsilon_1,
1057: \epsilon_2) ),
1058: \end{equation}
1059: by dropping also the explicit dependence of $I_2$ on $D$.
1060: However we still retain this dependence for higher dimensional
1061: Feynman integrals and simply drop all the cut-constructible parts.
1062: Explicitly we have:
1063: \begin{eqnarray}
1064: I_2[1] & = & 0 ,\\
1065: \hat{I}_2[a_1^2] & = & \hat{I}_2[a_2^2] = - \hat{I}_2[a_1\, a_2] = {1\over18}, \\
1066: I_2^{D+2}[1] & = & {K^2\over 9}.
1067: \end{eqnarray}
1068:
1069: \subsection{The rational parts of the higher-dimensional scalar
1070: integrals}
1071:
1072: For higher dimensional scalar integrals we can use the recursive
1073: relation eq.~(\ref{higherDD}) to derive their rational parts.
1074:
1075: For three-mass triangle the explicit recursive relation is:
1076: \begin{eqnarray}
1077: \hat{I}_3^{3m\, (D+2)} [1]& = & {1\over (2-D) \, \Delta} \, \left[
1078: 2\,s_1\,s_2\,s_3\,\hat{I}_3^{3m } + s_2(s_1+s_3-s_2)\, I_2^{ (1)} \right. \nonumber \\
1079: & + & s_3\,(s_1+s_2-s_3)\, I_2^{ (2)} +
1080: \left. s_1\,(s_2+s_3-s_1)\, I_2^{ (3)} \right] , \\
1081: \Delta & = & s_1^2 + s_2^2 + s_3^2 -2(s_1\,s_2+
1082: s_1\,s_3+s_2\,s_3) , \label{trianglerecursive}
1083: \end{eqnarray}
1084: where $s_i = K_i^2$, $i=1,2,3$.
1085:
1086: For 3-mass triangle integral $I_3^D[1]$ is regular as $D\to 4$. By
1087: using the $\epsilon$-expansion of $I_2^D$ we have:
1088: \begin{eqnarray}
1089: \hat{I}_3^{3m\,(D+2)}[1] & = & - {1\over 2 \, \Delta} \, \left[
1090: 2\,s_1\,s_2\,s_3\,\hat{I}_3^{3m } + s_2(s_1+s_3-s_2)\, I_2^{ (1)} \right. \nonumber \\
1091: & & \hskip -2cm + s_3\,(s_1+s_2-s_3)\, I_2^{ (2)} + \left.
1092: s_1\,(s_2+s_3-s_1)\, I_2^{ (3)} \right] + {1\over2} +
1093: O(\epsilon). \label{trianglerational}
1094: \end{eqnarray}
1095: So the rational part of (the Feynman parameter integral)
1096: $\hat{I}_3^{D+2}[1]$ is $ {1\over2}$. This result
1097: also applies to the two-mass and one-mass triangle, although there are
1098: intricacies of infrared divergences. This can be explicitly checked by
1099: using the following explicit recursive relations for the
1100: two-mass and one-mass triangle integrals:
1101: \begin{eqnarray}
1102: \hat{I}_3^{2m\, (D+2)}[1] & = & {1\over D-2}\, \left( {s_1\over s_1 - s_2}
1103: \, I_2^{ (3)} -
1104: {s_2\over s_1 - s_2} \, I_2^{ (1)} \right), \label{I32m}\\
1105: \hat{I}_3^{1m\, (D+2)}[1] & = & {1\over D-2}\, \, {I}_2^{ (3)} , \label{I31m}
1106: \end{eqnarray}
1107: and the explicit formulas for $I_2^{D(i)}$'s. We note that the
1108: above recursive relations can be derived either by taking the
1109: limit $s_1=K_1^2\to0$ (2-mass) or $s_{1,2}=K_{1,2}^2\to 0$ (1-mass)
1110: or by solving eqs.~(\ref{recursiveBernA}) and
1111: (\ref{recursiveBernB}). In above eqs. (\ref{I32m}) and (\ref{I31m}), the terms with
1112: infrared divergences really do not appear. This is because the
1113: coefficients of the infrared divergent terms in eq. (\ref{trianglerecursive}) are
1114: automatically zero. The infrared divergences also do
1115: not contribute to the rational parts in the four point cases, which can be
1116: checked by explicit calculations. A heuristic argument
1117: is that since higher dimensional integrals are free
1118: of infrared divergences, we expect that there
1119: should not be infrared divergence in the square bracket on the right hand side
1120: of eq. (\ref{higherDD}) like in eq. (\ref{I32m}) and (\ref{I31m}), and hence the
1121: infrared divergences do not contribute to the rational part.
1122:
1123: The end result of the above analysis is
1124: \begin{equation}
1125: \hat{I}_3^{D+2}[1] = {1\over 2} + c(s) \, \hat{I}_3^D[1] +
1126: \sum_i c_i(s) I_2^{D(i)}[1] + O(\epsilon),
1127: \end{equation}
1128: where $c(s)$ and $c_i(s)$'s are (rational) functions of the
1129: external kinematic variables $s_i$ and the polarization vectors.
1130: This formula applies to all
1131: possible triangle integrals. This shows explicitly that the
1132: rational part of the higher dimensional scalar integral
1133: $\hat{I}_3^{D+2}[1]$ is a purely ultra-violet effect.
1134:
1135: Setting the cut-constructible part to 0, we can effectively write
1136: the following formula for the rational part:
1137: \begin{equation}
1138: \hat{I}_3^{D+2}[1] = {1\over 2}.
1139: \end{equation}
1140:
1141: We have also studied in detail the box integrals by using the
1142: explicit formulas of \cite{BDDK}. We checked all the degenerate cases.
1143: The results can be simply stated as follows:
1144: \begin{eqnarray}
1145: I_4^{D+2 }[1] & = & \hat{I}_4^{D+2}[a_i] = 0 , \\
1146: I_4^{D+4 }[1] & = & {5 \over 18},
1147: \end{eqnarray}
1148: by dropping all the cut-constructible part. For 5-point integrals
1149: we have
1150: \begin{eqnarray}
1151: \hat{I}_5^{D+2}[1] & = & \hat{I}_5^{D+2}[a_i] = \hat{I}_5^{D+2}[a_i\,a_j] =0, \\
1152: \hat{I}_5^{D+4} [1] & = & \hat{I}_5^{D+4} [a_i] = 0, \\
1153: \hat{I}_5^{D+6}[1] & = & {13\over 144},
1154: \end{eqnarray}
1155: although they are not used in the computation of the QCD
1156: amplitudes.
1157:
1158: The rational part for the tensor integral is computed by first
1159: transforming it into Feynman parameter integrals and then using the
1160: recursive relations. The recursive relation for the rational part
1161: is exactly the same as for the complete Feynman integral. However
1162: all lower degree ($m-2$ or less for $m$-point) Feynman integrals
1163: can be set to zero by BDDK theorem. Effectively the recursive
1164: relations are truncated.
1165: %The general structure for the box and
1166: %triangle recursive relations was shown in Fig.~5 and Fig.~6.
1167: In the next few sections we compute explicitly the rational parts
1168: for triangle and box integrals. From hereafter all Feynman
1169: integrals will mean their rational parts, except explicitly stated otherwise.
1170:
1171: \subsection{The triangle integrals: the general case}
1172:
1173: For triangle integrals we will consider 2 cases: the two-mass
1174: triangle and the three-mass triangle, although the two-mass case can be
1175: obtained simply by setting one of the masses to be 0. The reason for
1176: doing this is that the formulas simplify greatly for the two-mass
1177: triangle integral. For some computations one may only need the
1178: simplified formulas (for example the 5-gluon amplitudes in
1179: \cite{xyzii}). We will first give the formulas for the general
1180: three-mass triangle integrals.
1181:
1182: The three-mass triangle diagram is shown in Fig.~\ref{Seven} and the
1183: external momenta are denoted by $K_i$ ($i=1,2,3$). We use the
1184: convention of denoting a light-like momentum by a lower case $k$,
1185: i.e. $k^2=0$.
1186:
1187: We will give the rational parts for both the degree 3 and degree 2
1188: polynomials\footnote{It is also possible to derive the rational
1189: parts for higher degree polynomials but they have no practical
1190: usage in application to computations in the electroweak theory and
1191: QCD.}. First we make the following definitions:
1192: \begin{eqnarray}
1193: I_3(\epsilon_1, \epsilon_2, \epsilon_3 ) & \equiv & \int { {\rm
1194: d}^D p \over i \pi^{D/2} } \, { (\epsilon_1 ,p) \, (\epsilon_2 ,
1195: p-K_1) \,
1196: (\epsilon_3 ,p+K_3) \over p^2 (p-K_1)^2 (p+K_3)^2 } , \\
1197: I_3 (\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2 ) & \equiv & \int { {\rm d}^D p \over
1198: i \pi^{D/2} } \, { (\epsilon_1,p) \, (\epsilon_2,p) \over p^2
1199: (p-K_1)^2 (p+K_3)^2 } .
1200: \end{eqnarray}
1201: The actual computation of the rational part is done by using Feynman parametrization
1202: and we have:
1203: \begin{eqnarray}
1204: I_3(\epsilon_1, \epsilon_2, \epsilon_3 ) & = & - \hat{I}_3
1205: [(\epsilon_1, a)\, (\epsilon_2,a)(\epsilon_3,a)] \nonumber \\
1206: & + & \sum_{i=1}^3 (\epsilon_i,\epsilon_{i+1})
1207: \hat{I}_3^{D+2}[(\epsilon_{i+2},a) ] , \label{thrermassaaa}
1208: \\
1209: I_3(\epsilon_1, \epsilon_2) & = & - \hat{I}_3 [(\epsilon_1,a)\,
1210: (\epsilon_2,a) ] + {1 \over 2}\, (\epsilon_1,\epsilon_{2}),
1211: \label{thrermassaaaa}
1212: \end{eqnarray}
1213: by using the previous result for $\hat{I}_3^{D+2}[1]$. In the above we
1214: have used the following shortened notation:
1215: \begin{eqnarray}
1216: (\epsilon_1 , a) & = & (\epsilon_1 , K_1) \, a_2 - (\epsilon_1 ,
1217: K_3) \, a_3,
1218: \\
1219: (\epsilon_2 , a) & = & (\epsilon_2 , K_2) \, a_3 - (\epsilon_2 ,
1220: K_1) \, a_1,
1221: \\
1222: (\epsilon_3 , a) & = & (\epsilon_3 , K_3) \, a_1 - (\epsilon_3 ,
1223: K_2) \, a_2,
1224: \end{eqnarray}
1225: where $a_i$'s are Feynman parameters as used in Sect.~5. In order
1226: to give compact formulas for the various quantities appearing in
1227: eqs.~(\ref{thrermassaaa}) and (\ref{thrermassaaaa}), we first
1228: define the following functions:
1229: \begin{eqnarray}
1230: F_0(s_1,s_2,s_3) & \equiv & - \hat{I}_3 [ a_1 a_2 a_3] \nonumber \\
1231: & = & {10 \, s_1 s_2 s_3 \over 3 \Delta^2 } + {
1232: (s_1 + s_2 + s_3) \over 6 \Delta}, \\
1233: F_1(s_1,s_2,s_3) & \equiv & - \hat{I}_3 [ a_1 a_2(a_2+ a_3)] \nonumber \\
1234: & = & {5 \, (s_1 + s_2 - s_3)\, s_2 s_3 \over 3
1235: \Delta^2 } + {(s_1 - s_3) \over 3 \Delta}, \\
1236: F_2(s_1,s_2,s_3) & \equiv & - \hat{I}_3 [ a_2 a_3(a_3+a_1)] \nonumber \\
1237: & = & {5 \, (s_2 + s_3 - s_1)\, s_3 s_1 \over 3
1238: \Delta^2 } + {(s_2 - s_1) \over 3 \Delta}, \\
1239: F_3(s_1,s_2,s_3) & \equiv & - \hat{I}_3 [ a_3 a_1 (a_1+a_2)] \nonumber \\
1240: & = & {5 \, (s_3 + s_1 - s_2)\, s_1 s_2 \over 3 \Delta^2 } +
1241: {(s_3 - s_2) \over 3 \Delta} .
1242: \end{eqnarray}
1243: where $s_i = K_i^2$ and $\Delta =s_1 ^2+s_2 ^2+s_3 ^2-2 (s_1 s_2 +
1244: s_2 s_3+ s_3 s_1)$ is the ``Gram determinant" for the triangle
1245: diagram.
1246:
1247: By using these functions we have
1248: \begin{eqnarray}
1249: & & \hskip -1cm \hat{I}_3 [(\epsilon_1,a)\,(\epsilon_2, a)\,(\epsilon_3
1250: , a) ] =
1251: F_0(s_1, s_2, s_3) ( (\epsilon_1, K_1) \, (\epsilon_2,
1252: K_1) \, (\epsilon_3, K_2) \nonumber \\
1253: & & + (\epsilon_1, K_3) \, (\epsilon_2, K_2)\, (\epsilon_3, K_2)
1254: +(\epsilon_1, K_3) \, (\epsilon_2, K_1)
1255: \, (\epsilon_3, K_3) \nonumber \\
1256: & & +(\epsilon_1, K_3) \, (\epsilon_2, K_1)\,(\epsilon_3, K_2
1257: )-(\epsilon_1, K_1)\, (\epsilon_2, K_2)\, (
1258: \epsilon_3, K_3) ) \nonumber \\
1259: & & + \sum_{i=1}^3 (\epsilon_1, K_i)\, (\epsilon_2, K_i)\,
1260: (\epsilon_3, K_ i) \, F_i(s_1, s_2, s_3)
1261: \nonumber \\
1262: & & + {1\over 2 \, \Delta} \Big( (s_1 - s_2 - s_3) \,
1263: (\epsilon_1, K_1) \, (\epsilon_2, K_1) \, (\epsilon_3, K_3)
1264: \nonumber \\
1265: & & + \, (s_2 - s_3 - s_1) \, (\epsilon_1, K_1) \, (\epsilon_2,
1266: K_2) \, (\epsilon_3, K_2)
1267: \nonumber \\
1268: & & + \, (s_3 - s_1 - s_2) \, (\epsilon_1, K_3) \, (\epsilon_2,
1269: K_2) \, (\epsilon_3, K_3) \Big),
1270: \end{eqnarray}
1271: \begin{eqnarray}
1272: \hat{I}_3^{D+2 }[ (\epsilon_1 , a)] & = & (\epsilon_1, K_1 - K_3) \left(
1273: {7 \over 36} + { s_2(s_3 + s_1 - s_2) \over 12 \Delta}
1274: \right) \nonumber \\
1275: & & + (\epsilon_1, K_2)\, {(s_1-s_3) (s_3+s_1 - s_2) \over 12
1276: \Delta} , \\
1277: \hat{I}_3^{D+2 }[ (\epsilon_2 , a)] & = & (\epsilon_2, K_2 - K_1) \left(
1278: {7 \over 36} + { s_3(s_1 + s_2 - s_3) \over 12 \Delta}
1279: \right) \nonumber \\
1280: & & + (\epsilon_2, K_3) \, {(s_2-s_1) (s_1+s_2 - s_3) \over 12
1281: \Delta} , \\
1282: \hat{I}_3^{D+2 }[ (\epsilon_3 , a)] & = & (\epsilon_3, K_3 - K_2) \left(
1283: {7 \over 36} + { s_1(s_2 + s_3 - s_1) \over 12 \Delta}
1284: \right) \nonumber \\
1285: & & + (\epsilon_3, K_1) \, {(s_3-s_2) (s_2+s_3 - s_1) \over 12
1286: \Delta} ,
1287: \end{eqnarray}
1288: and
1289: \begin{eqnarray}
1290: \hat{I}_3[(\epsilon_i , a) \, (\epsilon_j , a) ] & = & {1\over 2\,
1291: \Delta} \, \Big( s_1 \, ((\epsilon_i , K_2) \, (\epsilon_j , K_3)
1292: + (\epsilon_i , K_3) \, (\epsilon_j , K_2)) \nonumber \\
1293: & + & s_2 \, ((\epsilon_i , K_3) \, (\epsilon_j , K_1)+
1294: (\epsilon_i , K_1) \, (\epsilon_j , K_3)) \nonumber \\
1295: & & \hskip -1cm + s_3 \, ((\epsilon_i , K_1) \, (\epsilon_j ,
1296: K_2) + (\epsilon_i , K_2) \, (\epsilon_j , K_1)) \Big) .
1297: \end{eqnarray}
1298: We note that some formulas (and also the function $F_i$) in the above are related by
1299: permutations. We purposely wrote down the complete formulas in order to see the pattern.
1300:
1301: \subsection{The triangle integrals: the two-mass case}
1302:
1303: For two-mass triangle we set $K_1 = k_1$. Then we can derive the
1304: simplified formulas in the two-mass triangle case by setting $s_1=0$
1305: in the above formulas. Also we redefine $(\epsilon_3,a) $ to be
1306: $(\epsilon_3, k_1)\, a_2 - (\epsilon_3,K_3) \, a_3$. This
1307: corresponds to the change of $(\epsilon_3, p+K_3)$ to
1308: $(\epsilon_3, p)$. This gives a more symmetric form for the
1309: result, as one can see from the Feynman integral representation by
1310: doing the transformation $2 \leftrightarrow 3$. We list all the
1311: explicit formulas here because they are used heavily in the
1312: actual computation of the 6 particle amplitudes. This is necessary
1313: to obtain compact analytic formulas for the rational part of the
1314: amplitude. We have:
1315: \begin{eqnarray}
1316: \hat{I}_3 [(\epsilon_1, a)\, (\epsilon_2 , a)\,(\epsilon_3 , a) ] & = &
1317: {(s_2 + s_3) \over
1318: 6(s_2 - s_3)^2} \, (\epsilon_1 , K_2) \, (\epsilon_2 , k_1) \,
1319: (\epsilon_3 , k_1)
1320: \nonumber \\
1321: & & \hskip -2cm + {(\epsilon_1 , K_2)\over 6(s_2 - s_3)} \, (
1322: (\epsilon_2 , k_1)\, (\epsilon_3 , K_3) - (\epsilon_2 , K_2)\,
1323: (\epsilon_3 , k_1)) .
1324: \end{eqnarray}
1325: \begin{eqnarray}
1326: \hat{I}_3^{D+2}[(\epsilon_1, a)] & = & {1 \over 9} \, (\epsilon_1 , K_2), \\
1327: \hat{I}_3^{D+2}[(\epsilon_2, a)] & = & -{7\over 36} \, (\epsilon_2 ,
1328: k_1) + {1\over 9} \, (\epsilon_2 , K_2) - {(s_2+s_3)\, (\epsilon_2
1329: , k_1)
1330: \over 12(s_2 - s_3) }, \\
1331: \hat{I}_3^{D+2}[(\epsilon_3 , a)] & = & {7\over 36} \, (\epsilon_3 ,
1332: k_1) - {1\over 9} \, (\epsilon_3 , K_3) - {(s_2+s_3)\, (\epsilon_3
1333: , k_1) \over 12(s_2 - s_3) }.
1334: \end{eqnarray}
1335: \begin{eqnarray}
1336: \hat{I}_3 [(\epsilon_i, a)\, (\epsilon_j , a) ] & = & - \, {(s_2 + s_3)
1337: \over
1338: 2 (s_2 - s_3)^2} \, (\epsilon_i , k_1) \, (\epsilon_j , k_1) \nonumber \\
1339: & - & {((\epsilon_i , k_1) \, (\epsilon_j , K_2- K_3) +
1340: (\epsilon_j , k_1) \, (\epsilon_i , K_2- K_3) ) \over 4 \, (s_2
1341: - s_3) } .
1342: \end{eqnarray}
1343: We note that in the last formula the double pole term is absent if
1344: one of the polarization vectors is associated with the first
1345: momentum $k_1$ and satisfies the physical condition $(\epsilon,
1346: k_1)=0$.
1347:
1348: By using the above results we have
1349: \begin{eqnarray}
1350: I_3 (\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2) & \equiv & \int {{\rm d}^D p \over i
1351: \pi^{D/2}} \,
1352: { (\epsilon_1, p) \, (\epsilon_2 , p) \, \over p^2(p-k_1)^2
1353: (p+K_3)^2} \nonumber \\
1354: & = & {1\over 2}\, (\epsilon_1, \epsilon_2) +
1355: {(K^2_2 + K^2_3)\over 2 (K^2_2-K^2_3)^2 }
1356: \, (\epsilon_1, k_1) \, (\epsilon_2, k_1) \nonumber \\
1357: & + & {( (\epsilon_1, K_2)\,(\epsilon_2,k_1) -(\epsilon_1, k_1)\,
1358: (\epsilon_2, K_3) ) \over 2(K^2_2-K^2_3)}
1359: , \\
1360: I_3 (\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2) & = &
1361: {1\over2}\, (\epsilon_1, \epsilon_2) + { (\epsilon_1, K_2) \,
1362: (\epsilon_2, k_1) \over 2(K_2^2-K^2_3)} , \qquad (\epsilon_1,
1363: k_1) = 0,
1364: \end{eqnarray}
1365: and
1366: \begin{eqnarray}
1367: I_3 (\epsilon_i) & \equiv & \int {{\rm d}^D p \over i \pi^{D/2}}
1368: \,\,
1369: { (\epsilon_1, p) \, (\epsilon_2 , p-k_1) \, (\epsilon_3, p) \,
1370: \over p^2\, (p-k_1)^2 \, (p+K_3)^2}
1371: \nonumber \\
1372: & = & {1\over 36} \Big( (\epsilon_2, 4\,K_2 -7\, k_1)\,(\epsilon_1,
1373: \epsilon_3) -(2 \leftrightarrow 3) + 4 (\epsilon_1, K_2)\,
1374: (\epsilon_2, \epsilon_3) \Big) \nonumber \\
1375: & - & {(K^2_2 + K^2_3) \over 6\,(K^2_2-K^2_3)^2 } \, (\epsilon_1,
1376: K_2) \, (\epsilon_2, k_1) \, (\epsilon_3, k_1)
1377: \nonumber \\
1378: & - & {(\epsilon_1, K_2)\, ((\epsilon_2, k_1)\,
1379: (\epsilon_3, K_3) - (\epsilon_2 , K_2)\, (\epsilon_3, k_1))\over
1380: 6\, (K^2_2-K^2_3)}
1381: \nonumber \\
1382: & - & { (K^2_2 + K^2_3) \over 12\, (K^2_2-K^2_3) } \, (
1383: (\epsilon_1, \epsilon_2)\, (\epsilon_3, k_1) + (\epsilon_1 ,
1384: \epsilon_3)\, (\epsilon_2, k_1) ) .
1385: \end{eqnarray}
1386: The above formula is anti-symmetric under the exchange $2
1387: \leftrightarrow 3$ by noting $(\epsilon_1, K_2) = -( \epsilon_1,
1388: K_3)$. For later application we denote the two-mass rational part of
1389: $I_3$ by $I_3^{2m(i)}$ where $i$ denote the massless external
1390: line. To distinguish the two possible two-mass triangle diagrams
1391: with the same massless external line in the 6-gluon amplitude
1392: case, we put a tilde on $I_3^{2m}$ for one of the two-mass triangle
1393: integrals with 1, 3 and 2 external momenta in a clockwise
1394: direction. Referring to Fig.~\ref{Seven}, $I_3^{2m(i)}$ has
1395: external momenta $\{ k_i, k_{i+1}+k_{i+2},
1396: k_{i+3}+k_{i+4}+k_{i+5}\}$, whereas $\tilde I_3^{2m(i)}$ has
1397: external momenta $\{ k_i, k_{i+1}+k_{i+2}+k_{i+3},
1398: k_{i+4}+k_{i+5}\}$.
1399:
1400: \section{The rational parts of the box integrals}
1401:
1402: A generic box diagram is shown in Fig.~\ref{Eight}. The kinematic
1403: variables $s$ and $t$ are defined by following the standard
1404: notation:
1405: \begin{equation}
1406: s = (K_1 + K_2)^2 = (K_3+K_4)^2, \qquad t = (K_2 + K_3)^2 = (K_4+K_1)^2 .
1407: \end{equation}
1408: For our purpose of computing up to 6-gluon amplitudes, we need to
1409: consider up to two-mass boxes. There are two kinds of two-mass
1410: boxes: the two-mass-hard box and two-mass-easy box. By a judicious
1411: choice of reference momenta the two-mass-hard box does not show up in
1412: the computation of MHV amplitudes. So we will discuss only the two-mass
1413: case here and set $K_1 = k_1$, etc. by following the
1414: convention of writing the light-like momenta in lower case $k$.
1415: The one-mass box case is obtained as a special case of the two-mass-easy
1416: box case by setting further $K_2 = k_2$. We will list the
1417: explicit formula for one-mass box for quick reference and the ease
1418: of use.
1419:
1420: \begin{figure}[ht]
1421: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=4.5cm]{general4.eps} }
1422: \caption{A generic box diagram. $p$ is the internal momenta
1423: between $K_4$ and $K_1$. Other internal momenta are also shown
1424: explicitly.} \label{Eight}
1425: \end{figure}
1426:
1427: \subsection{The box integrals of degree 3 polynomials: the two-mass-easy case}
1428: Generally we need to compute the rational part of the following
1429: box integral:
1430: \begin{equation}
1431: I_4 (\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2, \epsilon_3) \equiv
1432: \int { {\rm d}^D \over i \pi^{D/2}}
1433: \, { (\epsilon_1, p) \, (\epsilon_2 , p) \, (\epsilon_3 , p)
1434: \over p^2(p-K_1)^2 (p-K_1-K_2)^2 (p+K_4)^2} .
1435: \end{equation}
1436:
1437: The complete rational part in the general case is quite
1438: complicated and should be avoided. From our experience it is
1439: always the case that at least one of the polarization vectors
1440: satisfies the physical condition for one of the massless external
1441: momenta $k_1$ or $k_3$. In fact one can always expand an arbitrary
1442: 4-dimensional vector in terms of the 2 independent spinors of the
1443: two external massless momenta. So we can assume that
1444: $\epsilon_1$ satisfies the physical condition: $(\epsilon_1,
1445: k_1)=0$. To be specific we can take $\epsilon_1 = \eta\tilde{\lambda}_1$.
1446: The negative helicity case can be obtained from this case (the
1447: positive helicity one) by conjugation. If one of the polarizations
1448: satisfies the physical condition for $k_3$ we can rotate the two-mass-easy
1449: box diagram by $\pi$ and relabel $k_3$ as $k_1$.
1450:
1451: By explicit computation, we found that if the reference momentum
1452: of $\epsilon_1$ is $k_3$, the rational part becomes quite simple
1453: and is given as follows:
1454: \begin{eqnarray}
1455: I_4 (\lambda_3\tilde\lambda_1,\epsilon_2, \epsilon_3) =
1456: {\langle 3 |K_2|1 ] \over 2} \, \left[ { (\epsilon_2 , k_3) \,
1457: (\epsilon_3 , k_3) \over (K_2^2 - t) (K_4^2 - s) } -{ (\epsilon_2
1458: , k_1) \, (\epsilon_3 , k_1) \over (K_2^2 - s) (K_4^2 - t) }
1459: \right] .
1460: \end{eqnarray}
1461: By using this result, the computation of the rational part of the
1462: degree 3 polynomial can be proceeded by changing the reference
1463: momentum of $\epsilon_1$ to $k_3$. This is equivalent to expanding
1464: the spinor in terms of $\lambda_{1,3}$:
1465: \begin{equation}
1466: \eta = { \langle \eta \, 3\rangle \over \langle 1 \, 3 \rangle
1467: }\, \, \lambda_1 + { \langle \eta \, 1\rangle \over \langle 3\,
1468: 1 \rangle } \, \, \lambda_3.
1469: \end{equation}
1470: In so doing we also generate 2 triangle diagrams which have been
1471: computed in last subsection. Explicitly we have:
1472: \begin{eqnarray}
1473: I_4 (\eta \tilde\lambda_1,\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3 ) & = & { \langle
1474: \eta \, 1\rangle \over \langle 3\, 1 \rangle } \,
1475: {\langle 3 |K_2|1 ] \over 2} \, \left[ { (\epsilon_2 , k_3) \,
1476: (\epsilon_3 , k_3) \over (K_2^2 - t) (K_4^2 - s) } -{ (\epsilon_2
1477: , k_1) \, (\epsilon_3 , k_1) \over (K_2^2 - s) (K_4^2 - t) }
1478: \right] \nonumber \\
1479: & + & { \langle \eta \, 3 \rangle \over \langle 1 \, 3\rangle }
1480: \, \left[ \tilde I_3^{2m} (\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3 ) - I_3^{2m}
1481: (\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3 )\right] , \\
1482: \tilde I_3^{2m}(\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3 ) & = &
1483: {1\over 2}\, (\epsilon_2, \epsilon_3) +
1484: {(K^2_2 + t)\over 2 (K^2_2- t)^2 }
1485: \, (\epsilon_2, k_3) \, (\epsilon_3, k_3) \nonumber \\
1486: & + & {( (\epsilon_2, k_3)\,(\epsilon_3,K_2) -(\epsilon_3, k_3)\,
1487: (\epsilon_2, K_4+k_1) ) \over 2(K^2_2-t)}, \nonumber \\
1488: I_3^{2m} (\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3) & = &
1489: {1\over 2}\, (\epsilon_2, \epsilon_3) +
1490: {(K^2_4 + s)\over 2 (K^2_4-s)^2 }
1491: \, (\epsilon_2, k_3) \, (\epsilon_3, k_3) \nonumber \\
1492: & + & {( (\epsilon_2, k_3)\,(\epsilon_3,K_4) -(\epsilon_3, k_3)\,
1493: (\epsilon_2, k_1+K_2) ) \over 2(K^2_4-s)} .
1494: \end{eqnarray}
1495: Taking
1496: into account the anti-symmetric property of the product
1497: $(\lambda_3\tilde\lambda_1, K_2) = - (\lambda_3\tilde\lambda_1,
1498: K_4)$, the above formulas are actually symmetric (which must be the
1499: case) under the interchange $1\leftrightarrow 3$ and $2
1500: \leftrightarrow 4$ (the polarization vectors are kept fixed
1501: because they should be invariant under the permutation by themselves).
1502:
1503: \subsection{The box integrals of degree 3 polynomials: the two-mass-hard case}
1504:
1505: For the two-mass-hard box case, we follow the same strategy. For
1506: $\epsilon_1 = \lambda_1\tilde\lambda_2$ or
1507: $\lambda_2\tilde\lambda_1$, we have
1508: \begin{eqnarray}
1509: I_4^{2mh}(\lambda_1\tilde\lambda_2, \epsilon_2,\epsilon_3) & = & { \langle 1 | K_3 | 2 ]
1510: \over 4 \, \delta } \, I_4(\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3) , \\
1511: I_4^{2mh}(\lambda_2\tilde\lambda_1, \epsilon_2,\epsilon_3) & = & { \langle 2 | K_3 | 1 ]
1512: \over 4 \, \delta } \, I_4(\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3) ,
1513: \end{eqnarray}
1514: where
1515: \begin{eqnarray}
1516: I_4(\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3) & = & (\epsilon_2, k_1)(\epsilon_3,
1517: K_4) + (\epsilon_2, K_4)(\epsilon_3, k_1) +
1518: (\epsilon_2, k_2) (\epsilon_3, K_3) \nonumber \\
1519: & + & (\epsilon_2, K_3)(\epsilon_3, k_2)
1520: - { 1\over \Delta} \left[ 2 \, ( K_3^2 K_4^2 - t^2 + \delta )
1521: (\epsilon_2, k_{12}) (\epsilon_3 , k_{12}) \right. \nonumber \\
1522: & + & (K_3^2 + K_4^2 - s - 2\, t) \, ( (K_3^2 - K_4^2 + s)
1523: (\epsilon_2 , K_4) (\epsilon_3 , K_4) \nonumber \\
1524: & & \left. + (K_4^2 - K_3^2 + s) \,
1525: (\epsilon_2 , K_3) (\epsilon_3 , K_3) ) \right] \nonumber \\
1526: & + &
1527: {K_4^2 + t \over K_4^2 - t} \, { (\epsilon_2 , k_1) (\epsilon_3 , k_1) } +
1528: {K_3^2 + t \over K_3^2 - t} \, { (\epsilon_2 , k_2) (\epsilon_3 , k_2) } ,
1529: \end{eqnarray}
1530: and %where $k_{12} = k_1 + k_2$
1531: \begin{eqnarray}
1532: \delta & = & K_3^2 \, K_4^2 - (K_3^2 + K_4^2 )\, t + (s + t)\, t, \\
1533: \Delta & = & \Delta(k_{12}^2,K_3^2,K_4^2), \\
1534: \Delta(s_1,s_2,s_3) & = &
1535: s_1^2 + s_2^2 + s_3^2 - 2(s_1s_2+ s_2s_3 + s_3s_1),
1536: \end{eqnarray}
1537: are functions of the external momentum invariants. In particular
1538: $\Delta$ is the Gram determinant of the three-mass triangle
1539: integral arising from the tensor reduction of the two-mass-hard
1540: box integral.
1541:
1542: The general case is obtained by changing the reference momentum:
1543: \begin{eqnarray}
1544: I_4 (\eta \tilde\lambda_1,\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3 )
1545: & = & { \langle \eta \, 1 \rangle \over \langle 2 \, 1 \rangle }\,
1546: I_4 (\lambda_2\tilde\lambda_1,\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3 ) \nonumber \\
1547: & + & { \langle \eta \, 2 \rangle \over \langle 1
1548: \, 2\rangle } \left[ I_3^{2m} (\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3 ) - I_3^{3m}
1549: (\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3 ) \right] , \label{twomasshard} \\
1550: I_3^{2m} (\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3 ) & = &
1551: {1\over 2}\, (\epsilon_2, \epsilon_3) +
1552: {(K^2_3 + t)\over 2 (K^2_3- t)^2 }
1553: \, (\epsilon_2, k_2) \, (\epsilon_3, k_2) \nonumber \\
1554: & + & {( (\epsilon_2, k_2)\,(\epsilon_3,K_3) -(\epsilon_3, k_2)\,
1555: (\epsilon_2, K_4+k_1) ) \over 2(K^2_3-t)} ,
1556: \end{eqnarray}
1557: and $I_3^{3m} (\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3 )$ is the three-mass triangle
1558: integral with external momenta $\{k_{12}, K_3,K_4\}$. There are
1559: two triangle diagrams from this reduction and one is a three-mass
1560: triangle diagram.
1561:
1562: \subsection{The box integrals of degree 4 polynomials: the two-mass-easy case}
1563:
1564: Now we discuss the computation of the rational parts for degree
1565: 4 polynomials. First we define
1566: \begin{equation}
1567: I_4 (\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2, \epsilon_3, \epsilon_4) \equiv
1568: \int { {\rm d}^D p \over i \pi^{D/2}}
1569: \, { (\epsilon_1, p) \, (\epsilon_2 , p-K_1) \, (\epsilon_3 , p
1570: - K_{12})\, (\epsilon_4, p+K_4) \over p^2(p-K_1)^2 (p-K_{12})^2
1571: (p+K_4)^2} ,
1572: \end{equation}
1573: where $K_{12} = K_1 + K_2$. By using Feynman parametrization we
1574: have
1575: \begin{eqnarray}
1576: I_4 (\epsilon_i) & = & \hat{I}_4[(\epsilon_1,a)(\epsilon_2,a)
1577: (\epsilon_3,a)(\epsilon_4,a)] -
1578: \sum_{i<j}(\epsilon_i,\epsilon_j)\hat{I}_4^{D+2}[
1579: (\epsilon_k,a)(\epsilon_l,a)] \nonumber \\
1580: & & \hskip -1cm + ( (\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2)
1581: (\epsilon_3,\epsilon_4) + (\epsilon_1,\epsilon_3)
1582: (\epsilon_2,\epsilon_4) + (\epsilon_1,\epsilon_4)
1583: (\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3) ) \, I_{4}^{D+4}[1] .
1584: \end{eqnarray}
1585: We also assume that $\epsilon_{1,3}$ satisfy the physical
1586: conditions in the two-mass-easy box integral and $\epsilon_{1,2}$
1587: satisfy the physical conditions for the 2-mass-hard box integral.
1588: As we said before this can always be done by expanding all
1589: polarization vectors in terms of the 2 spinors from the 2 massless
1590: momenta.
1591:
1592: The direct calculation of the rational part of the two-mass-easy
1593: box integral gives rather complicated formulas for generic
1594: polarization vectors (even after using the physical condition for
1595: $\epsilon_{1,3}$). By choosing appropriate reference momenta for
1596: $\epsilon_{1,3}$, the result simplifies greatly. In particular
1597: the reference momentum of $\epsilon_1$ should be $k_3$ and the
1598: reference momentum of $\epsilon_3$ should be $k_1$. In some sense
1599: this is equivalent to the tensor reduction with the two factors
1600: $(\epsilon_1,p)(\epsilon_3,p-k_1-K_2)$. The explicit results are
1601: given as follows:
1602: \begin{eqnarray}
1603: I_4(\lambda_3\tilde\lambda_1, \epsilon_2,\lambda_1\tilde\lambda_3,
1604: \epsilon_4) & = & - {1\over 4} \left( {K_2^2 + s \over K_2^2 - s } +
1605: {K_4^2 + t \over K_4^2 - t }\right) \,(\epsilon_2,k_1)(\epsilon_4,k_1)
1606: \nonumber \\
1607: & & \hskip -1.5cm
1608: - {1\over 4} \left( {K_2^2 + t \over K_2^2 - t
1609: } + {K_4^2 + s \over K_4^2 - s }\right)
1610: \,(\epsilon_2,k_3)(\epsilon_4,k_3)
1611: - {5\over 9} \, (k_1,k_3)( \epsilon_2, \epsilon_4) \nonumber \\
1612: & + & {4\over 9}\, \Big( (\epsilon_2,k_1)(\epsilon_4,k_3) +
1613: (\epsilon_2,k_3)(\epsilon_4,k_1) \Big) , \\
1614: I_4(\lambda_1\tilde\lambda_3, \epsilon_2,\lambda_1\tilde\lambda_3,
1615: \epsilon_4) & = & {5\over 9}\, \langle 1|\epsilon_2|3] \, \langle1|\epsilon_4|3]
1616: \nonumber \\
1617: & & \hskip -2cm + {\langle1|K_2|3]^2 \over 3}\, \left[
1618: {(\epsilon_2,k_1)\,(\epsilon_4,k_1) \over (K_2^2 - s) \, (K_4^2 - t)} +
1619: {(\epsilon_2,k_3)\,(\epsilon_4,k_3) \over (K_2^2 - t) \, (K_4^2 - s)} \right] .
1620: \end{eqnarray}
1621: Other cases can be either obtained by conjugation or by relabelling
1622: $k_{1,3}$. In fact $I_4(\lambda_1\tilde\lambda_3, \epsilon_2,\lambda_3\tilde\lambda_1,
1623: \epsilon_4) = I_4(\lambda_3\tilde\lambda_1, \epsilon_2,\lambda_1\tilde\lambda_3,
1624: \epsilon_4)$ as it is invariant under conjugation.
1625:
1626: For the general case, we use the reduction formula by changing the
1627: reference appropriately. For example we have:
1628: \begin{eqnarray}
1629: I_4(\eta_1\tilde\lambda_1,\epsilon_2,\eta_3\tilde\lambda_3,\epsilon_4)
1630: & = & { \langle \eta_1 \, 3\rangle \over \langle 1\, 3\rangle }
1631: \, I_4 (k_1, \epsilon_2, \epsilon_3, \epsilon_4) + {\langle
1632: \eta_3 \, 1\rangle \over \langle 3\, 1\rangle } \, I_4
1633: (\epsilon_1, \epsilon_2, k_3, \epsilon_4) \nonumber \\
1634: & - & {\langle \eta_1 \, 1\rangle \, \langle \eta_3 \, 3\rangle \over \langle 1\,
1635: 3\rangle^2} \, I_4 (\lambda_3\tilde\lambda_1, \epsilon_2,
1636: \lambda_1\tilde\lambda_3, \epsilon_4) \nonumber \\
1637: & + & {\langle \eta_1 \, 3\rangle \, \langle \eta_3 \, 1 \rangle
1638: \over \langle 1\, 3\rangle^2} \, I_4 (k_1, \epsilon_2, k_3,
1639: \epsilon_4) .
1640: \end{eqnarray}
1641: By using the explicit result of the 2-mass triangle integral we have
1642: \begin{eqnarray}
1643: & & \hskip - 2cm I_4(\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2,k_3,\epsilon_4)
1644: = { K_2^2 + s \over 6 ( K_2^2 - s)^2} \,
1645: (\epsilon_1, K_2)(\epsilon_2,k_1)(\epsilon_4,k_1) \nonumber \\
1646: & + & { K_4^2 + t \over 6 ( K_4^2 - t)^2} \,
1647: (\epsilon_1, K_4)(\epsilon_2,k_1)(\epsilon_4,k_1)
1648: \nonumber \\
1649: & + & {1\over 12}\, \left( {K_2^2 + s \over K_2^2 - s }
1650: +{ K_4^2 + t \over K_4^2 - t } \right)
1651: \, ((\epsilon_1, \epsilon_2) (\epsilon_4,k_1) +
1652: (\epsilon_1, \epsilon_4)(\epsilon_2,k_1) \nonumber \\
1653: & + &
1654: { (\epsilon_1, K_2) \over 6 ( K_2^2 - s) } \,(\epsilon_2,k_1)(\epsilon_4,k_3)
1655: +{ (\epsilon_1, K_4) \over 6 ( K_4^2 - t) } \,
1656: (\epsilon_2,k_3)(\epsilon_4,k_1) \nonumber \\
1657: & + & \left[ {(\epsilon_1,K_2)\over 6\,(K_2^2 - s)} -
1658: {(\epsilon_1,K_4)\over 6\,(K_4^2 - t)}
1659: \right] \, ( (\epsilon_2,k_1)\,(\epsilon_4,K_4) -
1660: (\epsilon_2,K_2)\,(\epsilon_4,k_1) ) \nonumber \\
1661: & + & {1\over 9} ( (\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2)(\epsilon_4,k_3) +
1662: (\epsilon_1,\epsilon_4)(\epsilon_2,k_3) +
1663: (\epsilon_2,\epsilon_4)(\epsilon_1,k_3) )\nonumber \\
1664: & + & {1\over2} \, (\epsilon_2,k_1)\,(\epsilon_4,K_4)\, \left[
1665: {(\epsilon_1, K_4)\over K_4^2 - t } - {(\epsilon_1, K_2)\over
1666: K_2^2 - s } \right] .
1667: \end{eqnarray}
1668: Except for the last term, this formula is invariant under the
1669: interchange $2 \leftrightarrow 4$ ($ s\leftrightarrow t$). By
1670: setting $\epsilon_1 = k_1$ we get
1671: \begin{equation}
1672: I_4(k_1,\epsilon_2,k_3,\epsilon_4) = {1\over 18}( 2 (k_1,k_3)(\epsilon_2,\epsilon_4) - (
1673: (\epsilon_2,k_1)(\epsilon_2,k_3) + (\epsilon_2,k_3)(\epsilon_2,k_1) ) ) .
1674: \end{equation}
1675: This agrees with the result by direct computation by first doing the tensor reduction
1676: and then using the result for bubble integrals. These formulas are quite useful for
1677: obtaining compact analytic formulas for QCD amplitudes.
1678:
1679: For easy reference we also give here the relevant formulas in terms of
1680: Feynman parameters:
1681: \begin{eqnarray}
1682: & & \hskip -1cm \hat{I}_4
1683: [(\tilde\epsilon_1,a)(\epsilon_2,a)(\tilde\epsilon_3,a)(\epsilon_4,a)]
1684: \nonumber \\
1685: & = & {(\tilde\epsilon_1, K_2)\,(\tilde\epsilon_3 ,
1686: K_2) \over 3} \, \left( {(\epsilon_2, k_1) \, (\epsilon_4, k_1)
1687: \over (K_2^2 - s)(K_4^2 - t)} + {(\epsilon_2, k_3) \, (\epsilon_4,
1688: k_3)
1689: \over (K_2^2 - t)(K_4^2 - s)} \right) \nonumber \\
1690: & & \hskip -1cm \hat{I}_4^{D+2}[(\epsilon_2,a)(\epsilon_4,a)] = {1\over
1691: 6(K_2^2 + K_4^2 - s- t) }\Big[ (\epsilon_2, k_1)\, (\epsilon_4 ,
1692: k_3) +
1693: (\epsilon_2, k_3)\, (\epsilon_4 , k_1) \nonumber \\
1694: & - & (K_2^2 \, K_4^2 - s\, t)\Big( { (\epsilon_2, k_1)\,
1695: (\epsilon_4 , k_1) \over (K_2^2 - s)(K_4^2 - t)} +{ (\epsilon_2,
1696: k_3)\, (\epsilon_4 , k_3) \over (K_2^2 - t)(K_4^2 - s)} \Big)\Big]
1697: .
1698: \end{eqnarray}
1699: All other $\hat{I}_4^{D+2}[(\epsilon_i,a)(\tilde\epsilon_j,a)]$'s are
1700: identically zero. In the above formulas $\tilde\epsilon_{1,3}$
1701: satisfy 2 conditions: $(\tilde\epsilon_i,k_{1,3})=0$, i.e. the
1702: reference momentum of $\tilde\epsilon_1$ is $k_3$ and the
1703: reference momentum of $\tilde\epsilon_3$ is $k_1$. We also note
1704: when $(\tilde\epsilon_1,\tilde\epsilon_3)$ is not equal to 0, it
1705: cancels with the factor $(K_2^2 + K_4^2 - s - t) = (k_1,k_3) = -
1706: (\tilde\epsilon_1, \tilde\epsilon_3)$.
1707:
1708: \subsection{The box integrals of degree 4 polynomials: the two-mass-hard case}
1709:
1710: As before, the direct computation of the rational part of the two-mass-hard
1711: box gives very complicated algebraic expressions. In
1712: fact it gives the most complicated formula up to now. Changing the
1713: reference momenta simplifies a little bit, but the resulting
1714: formula is still not intelligible. The main complication comes from
1715: the presence of the 3-mass triangle integrals. To organize the
1716: final result, we proceed to do tensor reduction one more time. To begin
1717: with let us define the integral we want to compute:
1718: \begin{eqnarray}
1719: I_4^{2mh}(\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3,\epsilon_4;c_3,c_4) & & \nonumber \\
1720: & & \hskip -4cm \equiv I_4[ (\epsilon_1,p)
1721: (\epsilon_2,p-k_1)((\epsilon_3, p+K_4)+c_3)((\epsilon_4, p+K_4)+c_4)] \nonumber \\
1722: & & \hskip -4cm = \int{ {\rm d}^Dp \over i \pi^{D/2}} \, {
1723: (\epsilon_1,p) (\epsilon_2,p-k_1)((\epsilon_3,
1724: p+K_4)+c_3)((\epsilon_4, p+K_4)+c_4) \over p^2\, (p-k_1)^2\,
1725: (p-k_{12})^2\, (p+K_4)^2 } . \nonumber \\
1726: \end{eqnarray}
1727: The external momenta are $k_1$, $k_2$, $K_3$ and $K_4$ as shown in
1728: Fig.~\ref{Eight} by setting $K_1=k_1$ and $K_2 =k_2$. $k_{1,2}$
1729: are the two massless external legs and $K_{3,4}$ are the two
1730: massive external legs. We set $t=(k_2 +K_3)^2=(K_4+k_1)^2$. We
1731: also require that $\epsilon_{1,2}$ satisfy the physical condition,
1732: i.e. $(\epsilon_1,k_1)=0$ and $(\epsilon_2,k_2)=0$. The formula
1733: for generic $\epsilon_{1,2}$ is beyond the scope of this paper.
1734: ($\epsilon_{3,4}$ are arbitrary 4-dimensional polarization
1735: vectors.)
1736:
1737: There are 4 possible cases for $\epsilon_{1,2}$. In the same helicity
1738: cases, the box integrals can be easily reduced to triangle integrals
1739: by using the reduction formulas eq. (\ref{eqreduction}) and (\ref{eqreductiona}) in Sect. 3.
1740: So we will only consider the difficult cases
1741: where $\epsilon_{1,2}$ have different helicities. To be definite
1742: we set $\epsilon_1 = \lambda_1 \tilde\eta_1 $ and $\epsilon_2 =
1743: \eta_2\tilde\lambda_2$. The opposite case can be obtained from
1744: this one simply by conjugation. We will give the explicit formula
1745: for this case at the end of this subsection.
1746:
1747: To do tensor reduction for the factors associated with the two
1748: massless external legs, we have:
1749: \begin{eqnarray}
1750: T^{-+} & = & (\epsilon_1,p)\,(\epsilon_2,p-k_1) =
1751: {\langle\eta_2|(p-k_1)\,k_2\,K_3\,k_1\,
1752: (p-k_1)|\tilde\eta_1\rangle\over \langle 2| K_3 |1]}.
1753: \end{eqnarray}
1754: The middle factor in the above can be decomposed by moving the
1755: first factor of $(p-k_1)$ towards the second $(p-k_1)$. Explicitly
1756: we have:
1757: \begin{eqnarray}
1758: & & \hskip -2cm (p-k_1)\,k_2\,K_3\,k_1\, (p-k_1) = T_1 + T_2, \\
1759: T_1 & = & I^{(1)} \, (p-k_1)k_2K_3 + I^{(2)}\,(K_3k_1-k_2K_3) p + I^{(3)}K_4k_1 p,
1760: \\
1761: T_2 & = & p_{-2\epsilon}^2 k_2K_3k_1 + (I^{(4)}- t) k_2k_1 p \nonumber \\
1762: & + & I^{(1)}( - I^{(2)}K_3 + I^{(3)}(k_2+K_3) - (I^{(4)} - t)
1763: k_2) .
1764: \end{eqnarray}
1765: Omitting the factor $\langle 2| K_3 |1]$, we now compute the
1766: various terms. We have:
1767: \begin{eqnarray}
1768: \langle\eta_2| T_2|\tilde\eta_1\rangle
1769: & = & p_{-2\epsilon}^2 \langle\eta_2| k_2K_3k_1|\tilde\eta_1\rangle \nonumber \\
1770: & + & (I^{(4)}- t) (
1771: \langle\eta_2\, 2\rangle \, [\tilde\eta_1\, 1] (\lambda_1\tilde\lambda_2,p) -
1772: I^{(2)} \, \langle\eta_2|k_2| \tilde\eta_1 \rangle )
1773: \nonumber \\
1774: & + & I^{(1)}\, ( I^{(3)}\, \langle\eta_2|(k_2+K_3)|
1775: \tilde\eta_1 \rangle -
1776: I^{(2)} \, \langle\eta_2|K_3| \tilde\eta_1 \rangle ) .
1777: \end{eqnarray}
1778: This gives the following rational terms:
1779: \begin{eqnarray}
1780: A_2 & = & - \frac{1}{6} \, \langle\eta_2|
1781: k_2K_3k_1|\tilde\eta_1\rangle \, (\epsilon_3,\epsilon_4) -
1782: t\,\langle\eta_2\,2\rangle \, [\tilde\eta_1\,1] \,
1783: I_4^{2mh}(\lambda_1\tilde\lambda_2,\epsilon_3,\epsilon_4)
1784: \nonumber \\
1785: & + & t \, \langle\eta_2|k_2|\tilde\eta_1 ] \,
1786: I_3^{3m}(\epsilon_3,\epsilon_4) + \langle\eta_2\,2\rangle \,
1787: [\tilde\eta_1\,1] \left( {1\over 2}
1788: (\langle1|\epsilon_3|2] \, c_4 + \langle1|\epsilon_4|2] \, c_3) \right. \nonumber \\
1789: & & \left. + {1\over 18} (\langle1|\epsilon_3|2] \, \epsilon_4 +
1790: \langle1|\epsilon_4|2] \,
1791: \epsilon_3, 7\,k_1+2\,k_2 + 9\,K_4)\right) \nonumber \\
1792: & + & {1\over18}\, \langle \eta_2\,2\rangle \,[\tilde\eta_1\,2]
1793: \, ( (\epsilon_3,k_{12})\,(\epsilon_4,k_{12}) - 2 \, s_{12} \,
1794: (\epsilon_3,\epsilon_4) ) \nonumber \\
1795: & + & \frac{1}{18}\, \langle\eta_2|(k_2+K_3)|\tilde\eta_1] (
1796: (\epsilon_3, k_2+K_3)(\epsilon_4,
1797: k_2+ K_3) - 2 \, t\, (\epsilon_3, \epsilon_4) ) \nonumber \\
1798: & - & \frac{1}{18}\, \langle\eta_2|K_3|\tilde\eta_1] \, (
1799: (\epsilon_3, K_3)(\epsilon_4, K_3) - 2
1800: K_3^2(\epsilon_3,\epsilon_4))
1801: \end{eqnarray}
1802: The explicit formulas for the other 3 terms in $T_1$ are not quite
1803: illuminating and we refrain from writing the explicit results here. We
1804: can write the result in terms of the rational parts for the three-mass
1805: and two-mass triangle integrals arising from the tensor reduction.
1806: We have:
1807: \begin{eqnarray}
1808: A_{1 } & = & \langle 2|K_3|\tilde\eta_1\rangle (
1809: I_3^{2m}(\eta_2\tilde\lambda_2,
1810: \epsilon_3,\epsilon_4) \nonumber \\
1811: & + & I_3^{2m} (\eta_2\tilde\lambda_2,
1812: (c_3-(\epsilon_3,K_3))\epsilon_4 + (c_4
1813: + (\epsilon_4,K_4+k_1)) \epsilon_3) ) \nonumber \\
1814: & + & I_3^{3m}(v, \epsilon_3,\epsilon_4) + I_3^{3m}(v,
1815: (c_3-(\epsilon_3,K_3))\epsilon_4 + c_4\epsilon_3 ), \\
1816: & + & \langle\eta_2|K_4|1]\, ( \tilde I_3^{2m}(\lambda_1\tilde\eta_1,\epsilon_3,
1817: \epsilon_4)\nonumber \\
1818: & + &\tilde
1819: I_3^{2m}(\lambda_1\tilde\eta_1,(c_3-(\epsilon_3,k_2+K_3))\epsilon_4+
1820: (c_4+(\epsilon_4,K_4))\epsilon_3 ),
1821: \end{eqnarray}
1822: where
1823: \begin{equation}
1824: v = \langle\eta_2|K_3|1] \lambda_1\tilde\eta_1 +
1825: \langle\eta_2|K_3|2] \lambda_2\tilde\eta_1
1826: -(k_2,K_3)\eta_2\tilde\eta_1 .
1827: \end{equation}
1828: Combining the above results together we have:
1829: \begin{equation}
1830: I_4^{2mh}(\lambda_1\tilde\eta_1,\eta_2\tilde\lambda_2,\epsilon_3,\epsilon_4;
1831: c_3,c_4) = {A_1 + A_2 \over \langle 2| K_3 |1]} .
1832: \end{equation}
1833: For the opposite helicity case the formula is:
1834: \begin{eqnarray}
1835: & & \hskip -1cm
1836: I_4^{2mh}(\eta_1\tilde\lambda_1,\lambda_2\tilde\eta_2,\epsilon_3,\epsilon_4;
1837: c_3,c_4) = {1
1838: \over \langle 1| K_3 |2]} \left[
1839: - \frac{1}{6} \, \langle\eta_1| k_1K_3k_2|\tilde\eta_2\rangle
1840: \, (\epsilon_3,\epsilon_4) \right.
1841: \nonumber \\
1842: & - & t\,\langle\eta_1\,1\rangle \, [\tilde\eta_2\,2] \,
1843: I_4^{2mh}(\lambda_2\tilde\lambda_1,\epsilon_3,\epsilon_4)
1844: + t \, \langle\eta_1|k_2|\tilde\eta_2 ] \, I_3^{3m}(\epsilon_3,\epsilon_4) \nonumber \\
1845: & + & \langle\eta_1\,1\rangle \, [\tilde\eta_2\,2] \left( {1\over
1846: 2}
1847: (\langle2|\epsilon_3|1] \, c_4 + \langle2|\epsilon_4|1] \, c_3) \right. \nonumber \\
1848: & & \left. + {1\over 18} (\langle2|\epsilon_3|1] \, \epsilon_4 +
1849: \langle2|\epsilon_4|1] \,
1850: \epsilon_3, 7k_1+2k_2 + 9K_4)\right) \nonumber \\
1851: & + & {1\over18}\, \langle \eta_1\,2\rangle \,[\tilde\eta_2\,2]
1852: \, ( (\epsilon_3,k_{12})\,(\epsilon_4,k_{12}) - 2 \, s_{12} \,
1853: (\epsilon_3,\epsilon_4) ) \nonumber \\
1854: & + & \frac{1}{18}\, \langle\eta_1|(k_2+K_3)|\tilde\eta_2] (
1855: (\epsilon_3, k_2+K_3)(\epsilon_4,
1856: k_2+ K_3) - 2 \, t\, (\epsilon_3, \epsilon_4) ) \nonumber \\
1857: & - & \frac{1}{18}\, \langle\eta_1|K_3|\tilde\eta_2] \, (
1858: (\epsilon_3, K_3)(\epsilon_4, K_3) - 2
1859: K_3^2(\epsilon_3,\epsilon_4)) \nonumber \\
1860: & + & \langle\eta_1|K_3|2] (
1861: I_3^{2m}(\lambda_2\tilde\eta_2,
1862: \epsilon_3,\epsilon_4) \nonumber \\
1863: & & + I_3^{2m} (\lambda_2\tilde\eta_2,
1864: (c_3-(\epsilon_3,K_3))\epsilon_4 + (c_4
1865: + (\epsilon_4,K_4+k_1)) \epsilon_3) ) \nonumber \\
1866: & + & I_3^{3m}(\tilde v, \epsilon_3,\epsilon_4) +
1867: I_3^{3m}(\tilde v,
1868: (c_3-(\epsilon_3,K_3))\epsilon_4 + c_4\epsilon_3 ), \\
1869: & + & \langle1|K_4|\tilde\eta_2\rangle\, ( \tilde I_3^{2m}(\eta_1\tilde\lambda_1,\epsilon_3,
1870: \epsilon_4)\nonumber \\
1871: & & + \left. \tilde
1872: I_3^{2m}(\eta_1\tilde\lambda_1,(c_3-(\epsilon_3,k_2+K_3))\epsilon_4+
1873: (c_4+(\epsilon_4,K_4))\epsilon_3 ) \right] ,
1874: \end{eqnarray}
1875: where
1876: \begin{equation}
1877: \tilde v =\langle1|K_3|\tilde\eta_2\rangle \,\eta_1\tilde\lambda_1
1878: + \langle2|K_3|\tilde\eta_2\rangle \, \eta_1\tilde\lambda_2
1879: -(k_2,K_3)\eta_1\tilde\eta_2 .
1880: \end{equation}
1881:
1882: \section{Extra terms for box and triangle tensor reduction}
1883:
1884: \subsection{Extra terms for box tensor reduction}
1885:
1886: In order to get a comparatively compact analytic formula for the
1887: two-mass-hard box integral, it is necessary to do tensor reduction
1888: because a direct computation of the rational part by the recursive
1889: method gives a very complicated formula. It would be a better idea
1890: to organize it into lower degree and lower point integrals. A naive
1891: tensor reduction directly in $D=4$ would give an incorrect result
1892: because the box integral is ultra-violet divergent for a degree 4
1893: polynomial of momenta in the numerator. It turns out that the
1894: difference between the $D=4$ tensor reduction and the correct
1895: tensor reduction is just a rational function. In this subsection
1896: we will compute this extra rational function explicitly.
1897:
1898: For a degree 2 polynomial $g(\epsilon,k,p)$ in the internal momentum $p$,
1899: the general form of the $D=4$ tensor reduction we used is as follows:
1900: \begin{equation}
1901: g(\epsilon, k, p) = \tilde g(\epsilon,k, p)
1902: - p^2\, f(\epsilon,k) . \label{extra}
1903: \end{equation}
1904: We assume that all polarization vectors $\epsilon$ and momenta $k$
1905: are 4-dimensional and the above relation is derived by assuming
1906: $p$ is also a 4-dimensional momentum. We also assume that $g$ and
1907: $\tilde g$ depend on the momentum $p$ through scalar products
1908: $(\epsilon,p)$ and/or $(k,p)$. Because we use FDH regularization
1909: \cite{FDH}, $p$ is actually promoted to be in $D=4-2\epsilon$
1910: dimensions in our later calculations of the rational part. This
1911: affects only the last term in eq.~(\ref{extra}). For arbitrary
1912: dimensional internal momentum $p$, the above formula is still
1913: valid if we make the substitution:
1914: \begin{equation}
1915: p^2 \rightarrow p^2 - p^{2}_{D-4}.
1916: \end{equation}
1917: That is, the extra dimensional part ($ D-4 = - 2\epsilon$) of the
1918: momentum $p$ must be subtracted from $p^2$ which actually stands
1919: for the scalar product in $D$ dimensions in the subsequent
1920: computation in the four-dimensional helicity regularization scheme.
1921: Because pentagon and hexagon diagrams are ultra-violet convergent
1922: we can safely discard this term in the tensor reduction for 5- or
1923: 6-point diagrams. This term does give a non-vanishing
1924: contribution to the rational parts for box and triangle integrals.
1925:
1926: For box integral we have
1927: \begin{eqnarray}
1928: A_{\rm box} & = & I_4^{D=4-2\epsilon}[ p^2_{-2\epsilon}
1929: \, (\epsilon_3,p) \, (\epsilon_4,p) ]
1930: \nonumber\\
1931: & = & \int_0^1 {\rm d}^4 a_i \delta(1 - \sum_i a_i) \,
1932: \int_0^\infty{\rm d}T \, T^3
1933: \nonumber \\
1934: & & \times
1935: \int { {\rm d}^D p \over i \pi^{D/2} } \, p^2_{-2\epsilon} \,
1936: (\epsilon_3, p) \,
1937: (\epsilon_4, p) \, {\rm e}^{ p^2 T - T \, a\cdot S\cdot a},
1938: \end{eqnarray}
1939: by transforming it into a Feynman parameter integral and omitting terms
1940: which are vanishing in the limit $\epsilon \to 0$.
1941:
1942: The integration over the momentum $p$ can be done easily by splitting it into a $D=4$
1943: part and a $(-2\epsilon)$-dimensional part. We have then
1944: \begin{equation}
1945: A_{\rm box} = \epsilon\, ( - (\epsilon_3, \epsilon_4) ) \,
1946: I_4^{D+4}[1] =
1947: - { 1\over 6} \, (\epsilon_3, \epsilon_4) + O(\epsilon).
1948: \end{equation}
1949: By using this result the correct formula for computing the
1950: rational part of the box tensor integral is:
1951: \begin{eqnarray}
1952: I_4[ g(\epsilon, k, p)\,
1953: ( (\epsilon_3,p) +c_3)\, ((\epsilon_4, p) + c_4)) ]
1954: & = &
1955: I_4[ (\tilde g(\epsilon,k,p) - p^2\, f(\epsilon,k) ) \,
1956: \nonumber \\
1957: & & \hskip -6cm \times ( (\epsilon_3,p) +c_3)\, ((\epsilon_3, p) + c_4)) ] -
1958: { 1\over 6} \, f(\epsilon, k) \, (\epsilon_3,
1959: \epsilon_4) .
1960: \end{eqnarray}
1961:
1962: \subsection{Extra terms in triangle tensor reduction}
1963: For triangle integrals, using the same reduction formula as given
1964: in eq.~(\ref{extra}) also gives incorrect results. The extra terms
1965: are given by the following formula ($p$ is the internal momentum
1966: between the external legs $K_1$ and $K_2$):
1967: \begin{eqnarray}
1968: I_3[ g(\epsilon, K, p)\,
1969: ( (\epsilon_3,p) + c_3) ]
1970: & = & I_3[ ( \tilde g(\epsilon, K, p) - p^2\, f(\epsilon,k) ) \,
1971: \nonumber \\
1972: & & \hskip -4cm \times ( (\epsilon_3,p) +c_3) ] - f(\epsilon,k)\left[
1973: {1\over 2} \, c_3 + {1\over 6} \, (\epsilon_3, K_1-K_3) \right] .
1974: \end{eqnarray}
1975: We note that the rational part $I_3[g(\epsilon, K, p)\,
1976: ( (\epsilon_3,p) + c_3) ]$ is defined by the Feynman integral without
1977: the usual minus sign, just as we did before in eq.~(\ref{ithreemass}).
1978:
1979: \section{Conclusion}
1980:
1981: The calculation of multi-leg one-loop amplitudes in QCD is highly motivated
1982: through the need of precise predictions for
1983: multi-particle scattering at TeV colliders like the
1984: Tevatron and the LHC. Whereas unitarity based methods
1985: are very successful to provide the cut-constructible
1986: parts of one-loop amplitudes, the evaluation of
1987: rational terms which are not defined by the cuts alone,
1988: is a much harder question. Recently the bootstrap recursive proposal of Bern,
1989: Dixon and Kosower \cite{BDKBoot} has been made for their evaluation. (It was used
1990: to do real QCD calcuations \cite{BDKBoot,BDKE}.)
1991: In this paper we have developed a general formalism targeting only the computation of
1992: the rational terms by using Feynman diagrammatic
1993: methods.
1994:
1995: In comparing with the previous use of diagrammatic
1996: methods in the computation of multi-leg one-loop amplitudes, the computation of the
1997: rational
1998: terms only is greatly simplified by using the BDDK theorem \cite{BDDK}. By using this
1999: theorem and
2000: a thorough analysis of the recursive relations we derived recursive relations also
2001: for the rational terms.
2002: Quite explicit results are given for all bubble and triangle integrals, and box
2003: integrals up to two-mass cases.
2004: These results are all the ingredients for computing up to the 6-gluon one-loop
2005: amplitudes in QCD.
2006: We will compute the (rational parts of the) 5-gluon and 6-gluon amplitudes in
2007: \cite{xyzii} and \cite{xyziii}
2008: respectively.
2009:
2010: By using the recursive relations it is straightforward to derive the rational terms
2011: of the 3-mass and 4-mass
2012: (tensor) box integrals. The formulas obtained are quite complicated. It may only be
2013: useful for implementing numerically.
2014:
2015: The method developed in this paper
2016: can be extended to the cases with massive internal particles
2017: and internal (massive) quarks.
2018: Our method complements the twistor-inspired approach quite nicely. We envisage
2019: that an automatic implementation of both approaches could push the present limit of
2020: 6-gluon to about 8-gluon or higher.
2021:
2022:
2023: \section*{Acknowledgments}
2024:
2025: We would like to thank Carola F. Berger, Zvi Bern, Lance J. Dixon,
2026: Darren Forde and David A. Kosower for sending us their results
2027: prior to publication \cite{BDKE}, and for discussions, reading the
2028: paper, comments and assistance in comparing our six-gluon results
2029: with theirs. We also thank them for checking the NMHV results by
2030: using their factorization check program. CJZ would like to thank
2031: J. -P. Ma for constant encouragements, helpful discussions and
2032: careful reading of the paper. His (financial) support (to buy a
2033: computer which was still in use today) actually goes back to the
2034: much earlier difficult times when I did not have enough grants from
2035: other sources. What is more important is that there are no strings
2036: attached to his support and it is up to the last author to explore
2037: what he wants to. CJZ would also like to thank R. Iengo for
2038: encouragements and his interests in this work, helpful discussions
2039: and comments; to Z.~Chang, B.~Feng, E.~Gava, H.~-Y.~Guo,
2040: K.~S.~Narain, K.~Wu, Y.~-S.~Wu, Z.~Xu and Z.~-X.~Zhang for
2041: discussions and comments; to Prof.~X.~-Q.~Li and the hospitality
2042: at Nankai University where we can have good food; and finally to
2043: Prof.~S.~Randjbar-Daemi and the hospitality at Abdus Salam
2044: International Center for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy. This
2045: work is supported in part by funds from the National Natural
2046: Science Foundation of China with grant number 10475104 and
2047: 10525522.
2048:
2049: \begin{thebibliography}{[20]}
2050:
2051: \bibitem{Salam} G. P. Salam, ``Developments in
2052: perturbative QCD," Invited talk at 22nd International Symposium on
2053: Lepton-Photon Interactions at High Energy (LP 2005), Uppsala,
2054: Sweden, 30 Jun - 5 Jul 2005, hep-ph/0510090.
2055:
2056: \bibitem{BCDK} Z. Bern, L. Dixon and D. A. Kosower, ``New QCD Results
2057: from String Theory,"
2058: talk presented by Z. Bern at Strings 1993, May 24-29, Berkeley CA,
2059: USA, hep-th/9311026; Z. Bern, G. Chalmers, L. Dixon and D. A.
2060: Kosower, ``One-Loop N Gluon Amplitudes with Maximal Helicity
2061: Violation via Collinear Limits," Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 72} (1994)
2062: 2134-2137, hep-ph/9312333.
2063:
2064: \bibitem{BDDK} Z. Bern, L. Dixon, D. C. Dunbar and D.A.
2065: Kosower, ``One-Loop n-Point Gauge Theory Amplitudes, Unitarity and
2066: Collinear Limits," Nucl. Phys. {\bf B425} (1994) 217-260,
2067: hep-ph/9403226; ``Fusing Gauge Theory Tree Amplitudes Into Loop
2068: Amplitudes," Nucl. Phys. {\bf B435} (1995) 59-101, hep-ph/9409265.
2069:
2070: \bibitem{Mahlon} G. Mahlon, ``One Loop Multiphoton Helicity
2071: Amplitudes," Phys. Rev. {\bf D49} (1994) 2197-2210,
2072: hep-ph/9311213; ``Multigluon Helicity Amplitudes Involving a Quark
2073: Loop," Phys. Rev. {\bf D49} (1994) 4438-4453, hep-ph/9312276.
2074:
2075: \bibitem{BinothYukawa} T. Binoth, J. P. Guillet,
2076: G. Heinrich and C. Schubert, ``Calculation of 1-loop Hexagon
2077: Amplitudes in the Yukawa Model," Nucl. Phys. {\bf B615} (2001)
2078: 385-401, hep-ph/0106243.
2079:
2080: \bibitem{FivePoint} For a summary of the present status, see, for example,
2081: C. Buttar, S. Dittmaier, et. al., ``Les Houches Physics at TeV
2082: Colliders 2005, Standard Model and Higgs working group: Summary
2083: report," hep-ph/0604120
2084:
2085: \bibitem{BernKosower} Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon and D. A. Kosower, ``One Loop
2086: Corrections to Five Gluon Amplitudes," Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 70}
2087: (1993) 2677-2680; Z. Bern, ``String based perturbative methods
2088: for gauge theories," TASI 92 lectures, hep-ph/9304249.
2089:
2090: \bibitem{Denner} A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, M. Roth and L. H. Wieders, ``Complete
2091: electroweak $O(\alpha)$ corrections to charged-current $e^+e^- \to
2092: 4$ fermion processes," Phys. Lett. {\bf B612} (2005) 223-232,
2093: hep-ph/0502063; ``Electroweak corrections to charged-current
2094: $e^+e^- \to 4$ fermion processes - technical details and further
2095: results," Nucl.Phys. {\bf B724} (2005) 247-294, hep-ph/0505042; A.
2096: Denner and S. Dittmaier, ``Reduction schemes for one-loop tensor
2097: integrals," Nucl. Phys. {\bf B734}, B734 (2006) 62-115,
2098: hep-ph/0509141.
2099:
2100: \bibitem{RKEllis} R. K. Ellis, W. T. Giele and G.
2101: Zanderighi, ``The one-loop amplitude for six-gluon scattering,"
2102: JHEP {\bf 0605} (2006) 027, hep-ph/0602185; ``Semi-Numerical
2103: Evaluation of One-Loop Corrections," Phys. Rev. {\bf D72}, 054018
2104: (2005), hep-ph/0508308;
2105:
2106: \bibitem{Glover} W. T. Giele and E. W. N Glover, ``A calculational formalism for
2107: one-loop integrals," {JHEP} {\bf 0404} (2004) 029, hep-th/0402152.
2108:
2109: \bibitem{BinothA} T.Binoth, J.Ph. Guillet, G. Heinrich, E. Pilon and C. Schubert,
2110: ``An algebraic/numerical formalism for one-loop multi-leg
2111: amplitudes," JHEP {\bf 0510} (2005) 015, hep-ph/0504267;
2112:
2113: T.~Binoth, G.~Heinrich, and N.~Kauer, ``A numerical evaluation of
2114: the scalar hexagon integral in the physical region," {Nucl.
2115: Phys.} {\bf B654} (2003) 277-300, hep-ph/0210023;
2116:
2117: T. Binoth, M. Ciccolini and G. Heinrich, ``Towards LHC
2118: phenomenology at the loop level: A new method for one-loop
2119: amplitudes," hep-ph/0601254.
2120:
2121: \bibitem{PittauB} F. del Aguila and R. Pittau, ``Recursive numerical calculus of
2122: one-loop tensor integrals,'' JHEP {\bf 0407} (2004) 017,
2123: hep-ph/0404120.
2124:
2125: \bibitem{Passarino}
2126: A.~Ferroglia, M.~Passera, G.~Passarino, and S.~Uccirati,
2127: ``All-Purpose Numerical Evaluation of One-Loop Multi-Leg Feynman
2128: Diagrams," {Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B650} (2003) 162--228,
2129: hep-ph/0209219.
2130:
2131: \bibitem{Soper} Z.~Nagy and D.~E. Soper, ``General subtraction method for
2132: numerical calculation of one-loop QCD matrix elements," JHEP {\bf
2133: 0309} (2003) 055, hep-ph/0308127.
2134:
2135: \bibitem{Anastasiou} C.~Anastasiou and A.~Daleo, ``Numerical evaluation of loop
2136: integrals," hep-ph/0511176.
2137:
2138: \bibitem{Rest} M. Kramer and D. E. Soper, ``Next-to-leading order numerical
2139: calculations in Coulomb gauge," Phys. Rev. {\bf D66} (2002)
2140: 054017, hep-ph/0204113;
2141:
2142: M. Czakon, ``Automatized analytic continuation of Mellin-Barnes
2143: integrals," hep-ph/0511200.
2144:
2145: \bibitem{BDKA} C. F. Berger, Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, D. Forde and D. A. Kosower,
2146: ``Bootstrapping One-Loop QCD Amplitudes with General Helicities,"
2147: hep-ph/0604195.
2148:
2149: \bibitem{Witten} E.~Witten, ``Perturbative gauge theory as a string
2150: theory in twistor space,'' Commun.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 252}
2151: (2004) 189-258, hep-th/0312171.
2152:
2153: \bibitem{CSW} F.~Cachazo, P.~Svr\v{c}ek and E.~Witten, ``MHV
2154: vertices and tree amplitudes in gauge theory,'' JHEP {\bf 0409},
2155: (2004) 006, hep-th/0403047.
2156:
2157: \bibitem{Nair} V. Nair, ``A Current Algebra For Some Gauge Theory
2158: Amplitudes," Phys. Lett. {\bf B78} (1978) 464.
2159:
2160: \bibitem{ParkeA} S. J. Parke and T. R. Taylor, ``An amplitude for N gluon
2161: scattering," Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 56} (1986) 2459; F. A. Berends
2162: and W. T. Giele, ``Recursive Calculations For Processes With $N$
2163: Gluons,'' Nucl. Phys. {\bf B306} (1988) 759.
2164:
2165: \bibitem{ParkeR} M. Mangano and S.~J. Parke,
2166: ``Multiparton Amplitudes In Gauge Theories,'' Phys. Rep. {\bf 200}
2167: (1991) 301, hep-th/0509223.
2168:
2169: \bibitem{Zhu} C. -J. Zhu, ``The googly amplitude in gauge theory,"
2170: JHEP {\bf 0404} (2004) 032, hep-th/0403115.
2171:
2172: \bibitem{Khoze} G. Georgiou and V. V. Khoze, ``Tree Amplitudes in Gauge Theory
2173: as Scalar MHV Diagrams," JHEP {\bf 0405} (2004) 070,
2174: hep-th/0404072;
2175:
2176: G. Georgiou, E. W. N. Glover and V. V. Khoze, ``Non-MHV Tree
2177: Amplitudes in Gauge Theory," JHEP {\bf 0407} (2004) 048,
2178: hep-th/0407027;
2179:
2180: V. V. Khoze, ``Gauge Theory Amplitudes, Scalar Graphs and Twistor
2181: Space," in ``From Fields to Strings: Circumnavigating Theoretical
2182: Physics'', in memory of Ian Kogan, vol. 1, 622-657,
2183: hep-th/0408233;
2184:
2185: S. D. Badger, E. W. N. Glover and V. V. Khoze, ``MHV Rules for
2186: Higgs Plus Multi-Parton Amplitudes," JHEP {\bf 0503} (2005) 023,
2187: hep-th/0412275;
2188:
2189: S.D. Badger, E. W. N. Glover, V. V. Khoze and P. Svrcek,
2190: ``Recursion Relations for Gauge Theory Amplitudes with Massive
2191: Particles," JHEP 0507 (2005) 025, hep-th/0504159;
2192:
2193: S. D. Badger, E. W. N. Glover and V. V. Khoze, ``Recursion
2194: Relations for Gauge Theory Amplitudes with Massive Vector Bosons
2195: and Fermions," JHEP {\bf 0601} (2006) 066, hep-th/0507161;
2196:
2197: V. V. Khoze, ``Amplitudes in the beta-deformed Conformal
2198: Yang-Mills, JHEP {\bf 0602} (2006) 040, hep-th/0512194.
2199:
2200: \bibitem{WuZhu} J.-B.~Wu and C.-J.~Zhu, ``MHV Vertices And Scattering
2201: Amplitudes In Gauge Theory,'' JHEP {\bf 0407}, 032 (2004),
2202: hep-th/0406085 ; ``MHV vertices and fermionic scattering
2203: amplitudes in gauge theory with quarks and gluinos," JHEP {\bf
2204: 0409}, 063 (2004), hep-th/0406146.
2205:
2206: \bibitem{BernSome}
2207: I. Bena, Z. Bern and D. A. Kosower, ``Twistor-Space Recursive
2208: Formulation of Gauge-Theory Amplitudes," Phys. Rev. {\bf D71}
2209: (2005) 045008, hep-th/0406133;
2210:
2211: D. A. Kosower, ``Next-to-Maximal Helicity Violating Amplitudes in
2212: Gauge Theory," Phys.Rev. {\bf D71} (2005) 04500768,
2213: hep-th/0406175;
2214:
2215: I. Bena, Z. Bern, D. A. Kosower and R. Roiban, ``Loops in
2216: Twistor Space," Phys. Rev. {\bf D71} (2005) 106010,
2217: hep-th/0410054;
2218:
2219: Z. Bern, V. Del Duca, L. J. Dixon and D. A. Kosower, ``All
2220: Non-Maximally-Helicity-Violating One-Loop Seven-Gluon Amplitudes
2221: in N=4 Super-Yang-Mills Theory," Phys. Rev. {\bf D71} (2005)
2222: 045006, hep-th/0410224;
2223:
2224: S. J. Bidder, N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, L, J. Dixon and D. C. Dunbar,
2225: ``N=1 Supersymmetric One-loop Amplitudes and the Holomorphic
2226: Anomaly of Unitarity Cuts," Phys. Lett. {\bf B606} (2005)
2227: 189-201, hep-th/0410296;
2228:
2229: Z. Bern, D. Forde, D. A. Kosower and P. Mastrolia,
2230: ``Twistor-Inspired Construction of Electroweak Vector Boson
2231: Currents," Phys.Rev. {\bf D72} (2005) 025006, hep-ph/0412167;
2232:
2233: Z. Bern, N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr and D. C. Dunbar, ``Inherited
2234: Twistor-Space Structure of Gravity Loop Amplitudes," JHEP {\bf
2235: 0505} (2005) 056, hep-th/0501137;
2236:
2237: Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon and D. A. Kosower, ``All
2238: Next-to-Maximally-Helicity-Violating One-Loop Gluon Amplitudes in
2239: N=4 Super-Yang-Mills Theory," Phys. Rev. {\bf D72} (2005) 045014,
2240: hep-th/0412210.
2241:
2242: \bibitem{CSWA} F. Cachazo, P. Svrcek and E. Witten, ``Twistor Space Structure
2243: Of One-Loop Amplitudes In Gauge Theory," JHEP {\bf 0410} (2004)
2244: 074, hep-th/0406177.
2245:
2246: \bibitem{BST} A.~Brandhuber, B.~Spence and G.~Travaglini, ``One-Loop
2247: Gauge Theory Amplitudes In N = 4 Super Yang-Mills From MHV
2248: Vertices,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 706} (2005) 150-180,
2249: hep-th/0407214; ``From Trees to Loops and Back," JHEP {\bf 0601}
2250: (2006) 142, hep-th/0510253.
2251:
2252: \bibitem{Cachazo} F. Cachazo, ``Holomorphic Anomaly Of Unitarity Cuts And
2253: One-Loop Gauge Theory Amplitudes," hep-th/0410077.
2254:
2255: \bibitem{Rozali} C. Quigley and M. Rozali, ``One-Loop MHV Amplitudes in
2256: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories," JHEP {\bf 0501} (2005) 053,
2257: hep-th/0410278.
2258:
2259: \bibitem{BBST} J. Bedford, A.~Brandhuber, B.~Spence and
2260: G.~Travaglini, ``A Twistor Approach to One-Loop Amplitudes in N=1
2261: Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theory," Nucl. Phys. {\bf B706} (2005)
2262: 100-126, hep-th/0410280; ``Non-Supersymmetric Loop Amplitudes
2263: and MHV Vertices,'' Nucl. Phys. {\bf B712} (2005) 59-85,
2264: hep-th/0412108; ``A recursion relation for gravity amplitudes,"
2265: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B721} (2005) 98-110, hep-th/0502146.
2266:
2267: \bibitem{BCFW} R. Britto, F. Cachazo and B. Feng, ``New Recursion Relations for
2268: Tree Amplitudes of Gluons," Nucl. Phys. {\bf B715} (2005) 499-522,
2269: hep-th/0412308;
2270:
2271: R. Britto, F. Cachazo, B. Feng and E. Witten, ``Direct Proof Of
2272: Tree-Level Recursion Relation In Yang-Mills Theory," Phys. Rev.
2273: Lett. {\bf 94} (2005) 181602, hep-th/0501052.
2274:
2275: \bibitem{Dunbar} S. J. Bidder, N.E.J. Bjerrum-Bohr, D. C. Dunbar and W. B.
2276: Perkins, ``Twistor Space Structure of the Box Coefficients of N=1
2277: One-loop Amplitudes," Phys. Lett. {\bf B608} (2005) 151-163,
2278: hep-th/0412023;
2279:
2280: S. J. Bidder, N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, D. C. Dunbar and W. B.
2281: Perkins, ``One-Loop Gluon Scattering Amplitudes in Theories with
2282: $N < 4$ Supersymmetries," Phys. Lett. {\bf B612} (2005) 75-88,
2283: hep-th/0502028;
2284:
2285: N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, D. C. Dunbar and H. Ita, ``Six-Point
2286: One-Loop N=8 Supergravity NMHV Amplitudes and their IR behaviour,"
2287: Phys. Lett. {\bf B621} (2005) 183-194, hep-th/0503102.
2288:
2289: \bibitem{BDKBoot} Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon and D. A. Kosower, ``On-Shell Recurrence
2290: Relations for One-Loop QCD Amplitudes," Phys. Rev. {\bf D71}
2291: (2005) 105013, hep-th/0501240. ``Bootstrapping Multi-Parton Loop
2292: Amplitudes in QCD," Phys. Rev. {\bf D73} (2006) 065013,
2293: hep-ph/0507005; ``The Last of the Finite Loop Amplitudes in QCD,"
2294: Phys. Rev. {\bf D72} (2005) 125003, hep-ph/0505055.
2295:
2296: \bibitem{BernA} Z. Bern, N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, D. C. Dunbar and H. Ita,
2297: ``Recursive Calculation of One-Loop QCD Integral Coefficients,"
2298: JHEP {\bf 0511} (2005) 027, hep-ph/0507019.
2299:
2300: \bibitem{BernB} Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon and V. A. Smirnov, ``Iteration of Planar
2301: Amplitudes in Maximally Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theory at Three
2302: Loops and Beyond," Phys. Rev. {\bf D72} (2005) 085001,
2303: hep-th/0505205.
2304:
2305: \bibitem{Luo} M. -X. Luo and C. -K. Wen, ``One-Loop Maximal
2306: Helicity Violating Amplitudes in N=4 Super Yang-Mills Theories,"
2307: JHEP {\bf 0411} (2004) 004, hep-th/0410045; ``Systematics of
2308: One-Loop Scattering Amplitudes in N=4 Super Yang-Mills Theories,"
2309: Phys. Lett. {\bf B609} (2005) 86-94, hep-th/0410118; ``Recursion
2310: Relations for Tree Amplitudes in Super Gauge Theories," JHEP {\bf
2311: 0503} (2005) 004, hep-th/0501121; ``Compact Formulas for Tree
2312: Amplitudes of Six Partons," Phys. Rev. {\bf D71} (2005) 091501,
2313: hep-th/0502009.
2314:
2315: \bibitem{BoFengA} R. Britto, F. Cachazo and B. Feng, ``Generalized Unitarity
2316: and One-Loop Amplitudes in N=4 Super-Yang-Mills," Nucl.Phys. {\bf
2317: B725} (2005) 275-305, hep-th/0412103;
2318:
2319: R. Britto, F. Cachazo and Bo Feng, ``Coplanarity In Twistor Space
2320: Of N=4 Next-To-MHV One-Loop Amplitude Coefficients," Phys. Lett.
2321: {\bf B611} (2005) 167-172, hep-th/0411107;
2322:
2323: R. Britto, B. Feng, R. Roiban, M. Spradlin and A. Volovich, ``All
2324: Split Helicity Tree-Level Gluon Amplitudes," Phys. Rev. {\bf D71}
2325: (2005) 105017, hep-th/0503198.
2326:
2327: \bibitem{BoFengC}
2328: R. Britto, E. Buchbinder, F. Cachazo, B. Feng, ``One-Loop
2329: Amplitudes Of Gluons In SQCD," Phys. Rev. {\bf D72} (2005) 065012,
2330: hep-ph/0503132.
2331:
2332: \bibitem{BoFengSix} R. Britto, B. Feng and P. Mastrolia, ``The Cut-Constructible Part
2333: of QCD Amplitudes," Phys. Rev. {\bf D73} (2006) 105004,
2334: hep-ph/0602178.
2335:
2336: \bibitem{CachazoP} F. Cachazo and P. Svrcek, ``Lectures on Twistor Strings and
2337: Perturbative Yang-Mills Theory," PoS {\bf RTN2005} (2005) 004,
2338: hep-th/0504194.
2339:
2340: \bibitem{AMST} A. Brandhuber, S. McNamara, B. Spence and G. Travaglini,
2341: ``Loop Amplitudes in Pure Yang-Mills from Generalised Unitarity,"
2342: JHEP {\bf 0510} (2005) 011, hep-th/0506068.
2343:
2344: \bibitem{SuWu} X. Su and J. -B. Wu, ``Six-Quark Amplitudes from Fermionic
2345: MHV Vertices," Mod. Phys. Lett. {\bf A20} (2005) 1065-1076,
2346: hep-th/0409228.
2347:
2348: \bibitem{Abe} Y. Abe, V. P. Nair and M. Park, ``Multigluon amplitudes, ${\cal
2349: N}=4$ constraints and the WZW model," Phys. Rev. {\bf D71} (2005)
2350: 025002, hep-th/0408191.
2351:
2352: \bibitem{CSWB} C. Schwinn and S. Weinzierl,``Born amplitudes in
2353: QCD from scalar diagrams," hep-th/0510054; ``SUSY Ward identities
2354: for multi-gluon helicity amplitudes with massive quarks," JHEP
2355: {\bf 0603} (2006) 030, hep-th/0602012; ``Scalar diagrammatic rules
2356: for Born amplitudes in QCD," hep-th/0503015.
2357:
2358: \bibitem{FordeKosower} D. Forde and D. A. Kosower, ``All-Multiplicity One-Loop
2359: Corrections to MHV Amplitudes in QCD," Phys. Rev. {\bf D73} (2006)
2360: 061701, hep-ph/0509358.
2361:
2362: \bibitem{Scratch}
2363: Yu-tin Huang, ``N=4 SYM NMHV Loop Amplitude in Superspace," Phys.
2364: Lett. {\bf B631} (2005) 177-186, hep-th/0507117;
2365:
2366: K. Risager, ``A direct proof of the CSW rules," JHEP {\bf 0512}
2367: (2005) 003, hep-th/0508206;
2368:
2369: C. Quigley and M. Rozali, ``Recursion relations, Helicity
2370: Amplitudes and Dimensional Regularization," JHEP {\bf 0603} (2006)
2371: 004, hep-ph/0510148;
2372:
2373: A. Gorsky and A. Rosly, ``From Yang-Mills Lagrangian to MHV
2374: Diagrams," JHEP {\bf 0601} (2006) 101, hep-th/0510111;
2375:
2376: P. D. Draggiotis, R. H. P. Kleiss, A. Lazopoulos, C. G.
2377: Papadopoulos, ``Diagrammatic proof of the BCFW recursion relation
2378: for gluon amplitudes in QCD," hep-ph/0511288;
2379:
2380: H. Kunitomo, ``One-Loop Amplitudes in Supersymmetric QCD from MHV
2381: Vertices," hep-th/0604210;
2382:
2383: \bibitem{BDKB} Z. Bern, L. Dixon and D. A. Kosower, ``One-loop
2384: amplitudes for $e^+e^-$ to four partons," Nucl. Phys. {\bf B513}
2385: (1998) 3--86, hep-ph/9708239.
2386:
2387: \bibitem{BernMorgan} Z. Bern and A. G. Morgan, ``Massive Loop Amplitudes from
2388: Unitarity," Nucl. Phys. {\bf B467} (1996) 479-509, hep-ph/9511336.
2389:
2390: \bibitem{BDK} For review see: Z. Bern, L. Dixon and D. A. Kosower,
2391: ``Progress in One-Loop QCD Computations," Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part.
2392: Sci. {\bf 46} (1996) 109-148, hep-ph/9602280; ``Unitarity-based
2393: Techniques for One-Loop Calculations in QCD," Nucl. Phys. Proc.
2394: Suppl. {\bf 51C} (1996) 243-249, hep-ph/9606378.
2395:
2396: \bibitem{Berends} F.~A.~Berends, R.~Kleiss, P.~De Causmaecker,
2397: R.~Gastmans and T.~T.~Wu, ``Single Bremsstrahlung Processes In
2398: Gauge Theories,'' Phys. Lett. {\bf B103} (1981) 124; P.~De
2399: Causmaeker, R.~Gastmans, W.~Troost and T.~T.~Wu, ``Multiple
2400: Bremsstrahlung In Gauge Theories At High-Energies. 1. General
2401: Formalism For Quantum Electrodynamics,'' Nucl. Phys. {\bf B206}
2402: (1982) 53; R.~Kleiss and W.~J.~Stirling, ``Spinor Techniques For
2403: Calculating P Anti-P $\to$ W+- / Z0 + Jets,'' Nucl. Phys. {\bf
2404: B262} (1985) 235; R.~Gastmans and T.~T. Wu, {\it The Ubiquitous
2405: Photon: Helicity Method For QED And QCD} Clarendon Press, 1990.
2406:
2407: \bibitem{ChineseMagic} Z. Xu, D.-H. Zhang and L. Chang, ``Helicity Amplitudes For
2408: Multiple Bremsstrahlung In Massless Nonabelian Theories,'' Nucl.
2409: Phys. {\bf B291} (1987) 392.
2410:
2411: \bibitem{Dixon} L.~J.~Dixon, ``Calculating Scattering Amplitudes
2412: Efficiently," hep-ph/9601359.
2413:
2414: \bibitem{BDKC} Z. Bern, L. Dixon, D. C. Dunbar and D.A. Kosower, ``One-Loop
2415: Self-Dual and N=4 Super Yang-Mills ," Phys. Lett. {\bf B394}
2416: (1997) 105-115, hep-th/9611127.
2417:
2418: \bibitem{DixonRecent} L. Dixon, ``On-Shell Recursion Relations for QCD Loop Amplitudes,"
2419: presentation at ``From Twistors to Amplitudes'' at QMUL, 3-5 Nov.
2420: 2005.
2421:
2422: \bibitem{BernRecentA} Z. Bern, N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, D. C. Dunbar and H. Ita,
2423: ``Recursive Approach to One-loop QCD Matrix Elements,"
2424: hep-ph/0603187.
2425:
2426: \bibitem{BernRecentB} Z. Bern, ``A bootstrap approach to loop amplitudes,"
2427: presentation at ``8th DESY Workshop on Elementary Particle Theory
2428: -- Loops and Legs in Quantum Field Theory", Eisenach, 23-28 April,
2429: 2006.
2430:
2431: \bibitem{KosowerRecent} D.~A.~Kosower, ``Complete QCD amplitudes,"
2432: presentation at ``8th DESY Workshop on Elementary Particle Theory
2433: -- Loops and Legs in Quantum Field Theory", Eisenach, 23-28 April,
2434: 2006.
2435:
2436: \bibitem{PassarinoVeltman} G. Passarino and M. J. G. Veltman, ``One-loop Corrections for
2437: $e^+e^-$ annihilation into $\mu^+\mu^-$ in the Weinberg modes,"
2438: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B160} (1979) 151-207.
2439:
2440: \bibitem{BDKReduction} Z. Bern, L. Dixon and D. A. Kosower,
2441: ``Dimensionally Regulated One-Loop Integrals," Phys.Lett. {\bf
2442: B302} (1993) 299-308, Erratum-ibid. {\bf B318} (1993) 649,
2443: hep-ph/9212308; ``Dimensionally Regulated Pentagon Integrals,"
2444: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B412} (1994) 751-816, hep-ph/9306240.
2445:
2446: \bibitem{BinothZ} T. Binoth, J.Ph. Guillet, G. Heinrich,
2447: ``Reduction formalism for dimensionally regulated one-loop N-point
2448: integrals," Nucl.Phys. {\bf B572} (2000) 361-386, hep-ph/9911342.
2449:
2450: \bibitem{GRACEFeynman} G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, J. Fujimoto,
2451: T. Ishikawa, T. Kaneko, K. Kato and Y. Shimizu, ``Grace at
2452: One-Loop: Automatic calculation of 1-loop diagrams in the
2453: electroweak theory with gauge parameter independence checks,"
2454: hep-ph/0308080.
2455:
2456: \bibitem{FeynArts} R. Mertig, M. B\"ohmvand A. Denner,
2457: Comp. Phys. Commun. {\bf 64} (1991) 345;
2458:
2459: T. Hahn and M. Perez-Victoria, ``Automatized One-Loop Calculations
2460: in 4 and D dimensions," Comp. Phys. Commun. {\bf 118} (1999)
2461: 153-165, hep-ph/9807565;
2462:
2463: T. Hahn, ``Generating Feynman Diagrams and Amplitudes with
2464: FeynArts 3," Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 140} (2001) 418-431,
2465: hep-ph/0012260.
2466:
2467: \bibitem{Qgraf} P. Noguerira, J. Compt. Phys. {\bf 105} (1993) 279.
2468:
2469: \bibitem{Steinhauser} R. Harlander and M. Steinhauser, ``Automatic computation
2470: of Feynman diagrams," Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 43} (1999)
2471: 167-228.
2472:
2473: \bibitem{PittauA} R. Pittau, ``A simple method for multi-leg loop calculations,"
2474: Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 104} (1997) 23--36, hep-ph/9607309;
2475: ``A simple method for multi-leg loop calculations 2: a general algorithm,"
2476: Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 111} (1998) 48-52, hep-ph/9712418.
2477:
2478: \bibitem{Weinzierl1} S. Weinzierl, ``Reduction of multi-leg loop integrals,"
2479: Phys. Lett. {\bf B450} (1999) 234--240, hep-ph/9811365; ``The art
2480: of computing loop integrals," hep-ph/0604068.
2481:
2482: \bibitem{xyzii} X. Su, Z. -G. Xiao, G. Yang and C. -J. Zhu, ``The rational parts of
2483: one-loop QCD amplitudes II: The 5-Gluon case," hep-ph/0607016.
2484:
2485: \bibitem{xyziii} Z. -G. Xiao, G. Yang and C. -J. Zhu, ``The rational parts of one-loop
2486: QCD amplitudes III: The 6-Gluon case," hep-ph/0607017.
2487:
2488: \bibitem{BDKE} C.~F.~Berger, Z.~Bern, L.~J.~Dixon, D.~Forde and D.~A.~Kosower,
2489: ``All One-loop Maximally Helicity Violating Gluonic Amplitudes in
2490: QCD," hep-ph/0607014.
2491:
2492: \bibitem{BerendsGiele} A. Berends and W.~T.~Giele,
2493: ``Recursive Calculations For Processes With N Gluons," Nucl. Phys.
2494: {\bf B306} (1988) 759.
2495:
2496: \bibitem{FDH} Z. Bern, A. De Freitas, L. Dixon and H. L.
2497: Wong ``Supersymmetric Regularization, Two-Loop QCD Amplitudes and
2498: Coupling Shifts," Phys. Rev. {\bf D66} (2002) 085002,
2499: hep-ph/0202271.
2500:
2501: \end{thebibliography}
2502:
2503: \end{document}
2504: