1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{a4wide,epsfig}
3:
4: \usepackage{slashed}
5:
6: \voffset0cm
7: \hoffset0cm
8: \oddsidemargin0cm
9: \evensidemargin0cm
10: \topmargin0cm
11: \textwidth16.cm
12: \textheight22cm
13: \setlength{\arraycolsep}{0.5mm}
14:
15: \newcommand{\agt}{\rlap{\lower 3.5 pt \hbox{$\mathchar \sim$}} \raise 1pt
16: \hbox {$>$}}
17: \newcommand{\alt}{\rlap{\lower 3.5 pt \hbox{$\mathchar \sim$}} \raise 1pt
18: \hbox {$<$}}
19:
20: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
21: %The following macro is from world_sci.sty, originally written for DPF91
22:
23: \catcode`@=11
24: % Collapse citation numbers to ranges. Non-numeric and undefined labels
25: % are handled. No sorting is done. E.g., 1,3,2,3,4,5,foo,1,2,3,?,4,5
26: % gives 1,3,2-5,foo,1-3,?,4,5
27: \newcount\@tempcntc
28: \def\@citex[#1]#2{\if@filesw\immediate\write\@auxout{\string\citation{#2}}\fi
29: \@tempcnta\z@\@tempcntb\m@ne\def\@citea{}\@cite{\@for\@citeb:=#2\do
30: {\@ifundefined
31: {b@\@citeb}{\@citeo\@tempcntb\m@ne\@citea\def\@citea{,}{\bf
32: ?}\@warning
33: {Citation `\@citeb' on page \thepage \space undefined}}%
34: {\setbox\z@\hbox{\global\@tempcntc0\csname b@\@citeb\endcsname\relax}%
35: \ifnum\@tempcntc=\z@ \@citeo\@tempcntb\m@ne
36: \@citea\def\@citea{,}\hbox{\csname b@\@citeb\endcsname}%
37: \else
38: \advance\@tempcntb\@ne
39: \ifnum\@tempcntb=\@tempcntc
40: \else\advance\@tempcntb\m@ne\@citeo
41: \@tempcnta\@tempcntc\@tempcntb\@tempcntc\fi\fi}}\@citeo}{#1}}
42: \def\@citeo{\ifnum\@tempcnta>\@tempcntb\else\@citea\def\@citea{,}%
43: \ifnum\@tempcnta=\@tempcntb\the\@tempcnta\else
44: {\advance\@tempcnta\@ne\ifnum\@tempcnta=\@tempcntb \else
45: \def\@citea{--}\fi
46: \advance\@tempcnta\m@ne\the\@tempcnta\@citea\the\@tempcntb}\fi\fi}
47: \catcode`@=12
48: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
49:
50: \begin{document}
51:
52: \title{
53: \vskip-3cm{\baselineskip14pt
54: \centerline{\normalsize DESY 06-235\hfill ISSN 0418-9833}
55: \centerline{\normalsize hep-ph/0612184\hfill}
56: \centerline{\normalsize December 2006\hfill}}
57: \vskip1.5cm
58: Two-loop virtual top-quark effect on Higgs-boson decay to bottom quarks}
59:
60: \author{Mathias Butensch\"on, Frank Fugel, Bernd A. Kniehl\\
61: {\normalsize II. Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Hamburg,}\\
62: {\normalsize Luruper Chaussee 149, 22761 Hamburg, Germany}
63: }
64: \date{}
65:
66: \maketitle
67:
68: \begin{abstract}
69: In most of the mass range encompassed by the limits from the direct search and
70: the electroweak precision tests, the Higgs boson of the standard model
71: preferably decays to bottom quarks.
72: We present, in analytic form, the dominant two-loop electroweak correction, of
73: $\mathcal{O}(G_F^2m_t^4)$, to the partial width of this decay.
74: It amplifies the familiar enhancement due to the ${\cal O}(G_Fm_t^2)$ one-loop
75: correction by about $+16\%$ and thus more than compensates the screening by
76: about $-8\%$ through strong-interaction effects of order
77: ${\cal O}(\alpha_sG_Fm_t^2)$.
78:
79: \medskip
80:
81: \noindent
82: PACS numbers: 11.10.Gh, 12.15.Ji, 12.15.Lk, 14.80.Bn
83: \end{abstract}
84:
85: \newpage
86:
87: The standard model (SM) of elementary-particle physics, whose fermion and
88: gauge sectors have been impressively confirmed by an enormous wealth of
89: experimental data, predicts the existence of a last undiscovered fundamental
90: particle, the Higgs boson $H$, whose mass $M_H$ is a free parameter of the
91: theory.
92: The direct search for the Higgs boson at the CERN Large Electron-Positron
93: Collider LEP~2 led to a lower bound of $M_H>114$~GeV at 95\% confidence
94: level (CL) \cite{Barate:2003sz}.
95: On the other hand, high-precision measurements, especially at LEP and the SLAC
96: Linear Collider SLC, were sensitive to the Higgs-boson mass via electroweak
97: radiative corrections, yielding to the value
98: $M_H=\left(85^{+39}_{-28}\right)$~GeV together with an upper limit of
99: $M_H<166$~GeV at 95\% CL \cite{LEPEWWG}.
100: The vacuum-stability and triviality bounds suggest that
101: $130\alt M_H\alt 180$~GeV if the SM is valid up to the grand-unification scale
102: (for a review, see Ref.~\cite{Kniehl:2001jy}).
103: If the Higgs mechanism of spontaneous symmetry breaking, as implemented in the
104: SM, is realized in nature, then we are now being on the eve of a
105: groundbreaking discovery, to be made at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC),
106: which will go into operation in a just few months from now.
107: After finding a new scalar particle, the burning question will be whether it
108: is in fact the Higgs boson of the SM, or lives in some extended Higgs sector.
109: Therefore, it is indispensable to know the SM predictions for the production
110: and decay rates of the SM Higgs boson with high precision.
111: Its decay to a bottom-quark pair, $H\to b\overline{b}$, is of paramount
112: interest, as it is by far the dominant decay channel for $M_H\alt140$~GeV
113: (see, {\it e.g.}, Ref.~\cite{Kniehl:1993ay}).
114: On the other hand, the inverse process, $b\overline{b}\to H$, was identified
115: to be a crucial hadroproduction mechanism, appreciably enhancing the yield due
116: to gluon fusion \cite{Maltoni:2003pn}.
117: Precise knowledge of the bottom Yukawa coupling is also requisite for reliable
118: predictions of associated hadroproduction of Higgs bosons and bottom quarks
119: \cite{Dawson:2003kb}.
120:
121: The purpose of this Letter is to fill a long-standing gap in our knowledge of
122: the quantum corrections to the partial width $\Gamma_b$ of the
123: $H\to b\overline{b}$ decay, by providing, in analytic form, the dominant
124: two-loop electroweak correction, of ${\cal O}(G_F^2m_t^4)$, where $G_F$ is
125: Fermi's constant and $m_t$ is the top-quark mass.
126: This correction also applies to the cross section of $b\overline{b}\to H$.
127: Surprisingly, it turns out to be more than twice as large as the
128: ${\cal O}(\alpha_sG_Fm_t^2)$ one, which is formally enhanced by one power of
129: the strong-coupling constant $\alpha_s$.
130: In the discussion of virtual top-quark effects, it is useful to distinguish
131: between universal corrections, which are independent of the produced fermion
132: flavor, and non-universal corrections, which are specific for the
133: $H\to b\overline{b}$ decay because bottom is the weak-isospin partner of top.
134: Here, we have to consider both types.
135:
136: Prior to going into details with our calculation, we briefly review the
137: current status of the radiative corrections to $\Gamma_b$ in the intermediate
138: mass range, defined by $M_W<M_H<2M_W$.
139: As for effects arising solely from quantum chromodynamics (QCD), the full
140: $m_b$ dependence is known in ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$ \cite{Braaten:1980yq}.
141: In ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$, the leading \cite{Gorishnii:1991zr} and
142: next-to-leading \cite{Surguladze:1994gc} terms of the expansion in
143: $m_b^2/M_H^2$ of the Feynman diagrams without top quarks are available.
144: Those involving top quarks either contain gluon self-energy insertions or
145: represent cuts through three-loop double-triangle diagrams;
146: the former contribution is exactly known \cite{Kniehl:1994vq}, while the
147: four leading terms of the expansion in $M_H^2/m_t^2$ are known in the latter
148: case \cite{Chetyrkin:1995pd}.
149: In ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$, the diagrams containing only light degrees of
150: freedom were evaluated directly \cite{Chetyrkin:1996sr}, while those involving
151: the top quark were treated in the framework of an appropriate effective field
152: theory \cite{Chetyrkin:1997vj}.
153: As for purely electroweak corrections, the one-loop result is completely known
154: \cite{Kniehl:1991}.
155: At two loops, the dominant universal correction, of ${\cal O}(G_F^2m_t^4)$,
156: was already studied in Ref.~\cite{Djouadi:1997rj}, while the non-universal one
157: is considered here for the first time.
158: As for mixed corrections, the universal \cite{Kniehl:1994ph} and non-universal
159: \cite{Kniehl:1994ju} ${\cal O}(\alpha_sG_Fm_t^2)$ terms at two loops and the
160: universal \cite{Kniehl:1995br} and non-universal \cite{Chetyrkin:1996ke}
161: ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2G_Fm_t^2)$ terms at three loops are available.
162:
163: We now outline the course of our calculation and exhibit the structure of our
164: results.
165: Full details will be presented in a forthcoming communication \cite{long}.
166: For convenience, we work in 't~Hooft-Feynman gauge.
167: As usual, we extract the ultraviolet divergences by means of dimensional
168: regularization, with $D=4-2\epsilon$ space-time dimensions and 't~Hooft mass
169: scale $\mu$.
170: We do not encounter ambiguities related to the treatment of $\gamma_5$ in $D$
171: dimensions and are thus entitled to use the anti-commuting definition.
172: %We adopt the electroweak on-mass-shell renormalization scheme, which uses the
173: %fine-structure constant and the particle masses as basic parameters.
174: %Owing to the decoupling theorem \cite{Appelquist:1974tg}, the former does not
175: %receive power corrections in $m_t$ and goes unrenormalized to the orders
176: %considered here.
177: We adopt Sirlin's formulation of the electroweak on-shell renormalization
178: scheme \cite{Sirlin:1980nh}, which uses $G_F$ and the physical particle masses
179: as basic parameters.
180: We take the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa quark mixing matrix to be unity, which
181: is well justified because the third quark generation is, to good
182: approximation, decoupled from the first two \cite{pdg}.
183: For convenience, we renormalize the Higgs sector by introducing counterterm
184: vertices involving tadpole and Higgs-boson mass counterterms, $\delta t$ and
185: $\delta M_H$, respectively \cite{Denner:1991kt}.
186: Specifically, $\delta t$ is adjusted so that it exactly cancels the sum of all
187: one-particle-irreducible tadpole diagrams.
188:
189: Detailed inspection reveals that, to the orders considered here, the amputated
190: matrix element of $H\to b\overline{b}$ exhibits the simple structure
191: \begin{equation}
192: \mathcal{A}=A+B\left(\slashed{p}-\slashed{\overline{p}}\right)\omega_-,
193: \end{equation}
194: where $\omega_\pm=(1\pm\gamma_5)/2$ are the helicity projection operators,
195: $p$ and $\overline{p}$ are the four-momenta of $b$ and $\overline{b}$,
196: respectively, and $A$ and $B$ are Lorentz scalars.
197: Including the wave-function renormalizations of the external particles and
198: employing the Dirac equation, we find the transition matrix element to be
199: \begin{equation}
200: \mathcal{T}=\sqrt{Z_H}\left(\sqrt{Z_{b,L}Z_{b,R}}A+m_bZ_{b,L}B\right)s,
201: \end{equation}
202: where $s=\overline{u}(p,r)v(\overline{p},\overline{r})$, with $r$ and
203: $\overline{r}$ being spin labels.
204: Owing to parity violation, the left- and right-handed components of the
205: bottom-quark field, $b_{L,R}=\omega_\mp b$, participate differently in the
206: electroweak interactions and thus receive different wave-function
207: renormalizations, $Z_{b,L/R}$.
208: At tree-level, we have $A^{(0)}=-m_b/v$ and $B^{(0)}=0$, where
209: $v=2^{-1/4}G_F^{-1/2}$ is the Higgs vacuum expectation value.
210: Here and in the following, superscripts enclosed in parentheses denote the
211: loop order.
212: In Sirlin's formulation of the electroweak on-shell scheme, where Fermi's
213: constant is introduced to the SM through a charged-current process, namely
214: muon decay, the SU(2) gauge coupling $g=2M_W/v$ does not receive power
215: corrections in $m_t$, so that \cite{Consoli:1989fg}
216: \begin{equation}
217: \frac{M_{W,0}}{v_0}=\frac{M_W}{v}
218: \end{equation}
219: to the orders considered here, which implies that the renormalization of $v$
220: is reduced to the one of $M_W$.
221: Here and in the following, bare quantities carry the subscript 0.
222: It hence follows that we need to perform a genuine two-loop renormalization of
223: $Z_H$, $m_b$, $Z_{b,L/R}$, and $M_W$, while a one-loop renormalization of
224: $M_H$ and $m_t$ is sufficient.
225: As usual, we denote the sums of all one-particle-irreducible $H$, $f$
226: ($f=b,t$), and $W$ self-energy diagrams at four-momentum transfer $q$ as
227: $i\Sigma_H(q^2)$,
228: $i[\slashed{q}(\omega_-\Sigma_{f,L}(q^2)+\omega_+\Sigma_{f,R}(q^2))
229: +m_{f,0}\Sigma_{f,S}(q^2)]$, and
230: $-i[(g^{\mu\nu}-q^\mu q^\nu/q^2)\Sigma_{W,T}(q^2)
231: +(q^\mu q^\nu/q^2)\Sigma_{W,L}(q^2)]$, and
232: split the bare masses as $M_{H/W,0}^2=M_{H/W}^2+\delta M_{H/W}^2$ and
233: $m_{f,0}=m_f+\delta m_f$.
234: Imposing the on-shell renormalization conditions on the dressed propagators
235: then yields
236: \begin{eqnarray}
237: \delta M_H^2&=&\Sigma_{H}(M_H^2),
238: \nonumber\\
239: Z_H&=&\frac{1}{1+\Sigma_H^\prime(M_H^2)},
240: \nonumber\\
241: \frac{\delta m_f}{m_f}&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{f(m_f^2)}}-1,
242: \nonumber\\
243: Z_{f,L/R}&=&\frac{1}{\left(1+\Sigma_{f,L/R}(m_f^2)\right)
244: \left(1-m_f^2\frac{f^\prime(m_f^2)}{f(m_f^2)}\right)},
245: \nonumber\\
246: \delta M_W^2&=&\Sigma_{W,T}(M_W^2),
247: \label{eq:ren}
248: \end{eqnarray}
249: where
250: \begin{equation}
251: f(q^2)=\frac{(1-\Sigma_{f,S}(q^2))^2}{(1+\Sigma_{f,L}(q^2))
252: (1+\Sigma_{f,R}(q^2))}.
253: \end{equation}
254: Relations that, to the order of our analysis, are equivalent to
255: Eq.~(\ref{eq:ren}) were found in Ref.~\cite{Faisst} using an alternative
256: approach.
257:
258: Performing a loop expansion and eliminating all bare masses, we thus obtain
259: \begin{eqnarray}
260: \lefteqn{\frac{\mathcal{T}^{(0)}}{s}=A^{(0)},}
261: \nonumber\\
262: \lefteqn{\frac{\mathcal{T}^{(1)}}{s}=A^{(1)}+m_bB^{(1)}
263: +A^{(0)}\left(\delta_u^{(1)}+X^{(1)}\right),}
264: \nonumber\\
265: \lefteqn{\frac{\mathcal{T}^{(2)}}{s}=A^{(2)}+m_bB^{(2)}
266: +A^{(1)}X^{(1)}+m_bB^{(1)}\delta Z_{b,L}^{(1)}}
267: \nonumber\\
268: &&{}+\left(A^{(1)}+m_bB^{(1)}+A^{(0)}X^{(1)}\right)
269: \left[\delta_u^{(1)}
270: +2(1-\epsilon)\frac{\delta m_t^{(1)}}{m_t}
271: \right.
272: \nonumber\\
273: &&{}-\left.\frac{\delta M_W^{2(1)}}{M_W^2}\right]
274: +A^{(0)}\left[\delta_u^{(2)}+X^{(2)}
275: +\frac{1}{2}\,\frac{\delta m_b^{(1)}}{m_b}
276: \left(\delta Z_{b,L}^{(1)}
277: \right.\right.
278: \nonumber\\
279: &&{}+\left.
280: \left.\delta Z_{b,R}^{(1)}\right)
281: -\frac{1}{8}\left(\delta Z_{b,L}^{(1)}-\delta Z_{b,R}^{(1)}\right)^2
282: \vphantom{\frac{\delta m_b^{(1)}}{m_b}}\right],
283: \end{eqnarray}
284: where
285: \begin{eqnarray}
286: \delta_u^{(1)}&=&\frac{1}{2}\delta Z_H^{(1)}
287: -\frac{1}{2}\,\frac{\delta M_W^{2(1)}}{M_W^2},
288: \nonumber\\
289: \delta_u^{(2)}&=&\frac{1}{2}\delta Z_H^{(2)}
290: -\frac{1}{2}\,\frac{\delta M_W^{2(2)}}{M_W^2}
291: +\delta_u^{(1)}\left[-\frac{1}{2}\delta_u^{(1)}
292: +2(1-\epsilon)
293: \vphantom{\frac{\delta M_W^{2(1)}}{M_W^2}}\right.
294: \nonumber\\
295: &&{}\times\left.\frac{\delta m_t^{(1)}}{m_t}
296: -2\frac{\delta M_W^{2(1)}}{M_W^2}\right]
297: -\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\delta M_W^{2(1)}}{M_W^2}\right)^2
298: \end{eqnarray}
299: are the universal corrections and
300: \begin{equation}
301: X^{(i)}=\frac{\delta m_b^{(i)}}{m_b}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta Z_{b,L}^{(i)}
302: +\delta Z_{b,R}^{(i)}\right).
303: \end{equation}
304:
305: The Feynman diagrams contributing to $A_0^{(2)}$ and $B_0^{(2)}$ are depicted
306: in Fig.~\ref{DiaHbb2loop}.
307: They are generated and drawn using the program \texttt{FeynArts}
308: \cite{Hahn:2000kx} and evaluated using the program \texttt{MATAD}
309: \cite{MATAD}, which is written in the programming language \texttt{FORM}
310: \cite{FORM}, by applying the asymptotic-expansion technique (for
311: a careful introduction, see Ref.~\cite{Smirnov}).
312: Here, $\chi$ and $\phi$ denote the neutral and charged Higgs-Kibble ghosts
313: with masses $M_Z$ and $M_W$, respectively.
314: The crosses in Figs.~\ref{DiaHbb2loop}(s) and (t) indicate the insertions of
315: the Higgs-boson mass and tadpole counterterms $i\delta t/v_0$ and
316: $-i\left(\delta t/v_0+\delta M_H^2\right)/v_0$ in a $\phi$-boson line and a
317: $H\phi\phi$ vertex, respectively.
318: In the soft-Higgs limit, $M_H\ll m_t$, which is underlying our analysis, the
319: diagrams in Figs.~\ref{DiaHbb2loop}(a)--(s) can also be evaluated by applying
320: a low-energy theorem (see Ref.~\cite{let} and references cited therein) to the
321: corresponding $b$-quark self-energy diagrams that emerge by removing the
322: external Higgs-boson line.
323: This provides a powerful check for our calculation.
324: Apart from the diagrams in Fig.~\ref{DiaHbb2loop}, we also need to calculate
325: the relevant one-particle-irreducible $H$, $b$, and $W$ self-energy diagrams
326: at two loops.
327: Furthermore, we need to expand all the relevant one-loop diagrams through
328: $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon)$.
329: \begin{figure}[ht]
330: \begin{center}
331: \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{DiaHbb2l_5x4.eps}
332: \end{center}
333: \caption{\label{DiaHbb2loop}Diagrams contributing to $H\to b\overline{b}$ at
334: $\mathcal{O}(G_F^2 m_t^4)$.}
335: \end{figure}
336:
337: We are now in a position to present our final results for the universal
338: correction parameter $\delta_u$ and the relative correction to $\Gamma_b$.
339: They read
340: \begin{eqnarray}
341: \lefteqn{\delta_u=x_tN_c\frac{7}{6}
342: +x_t^2N_c\left(\frac{29}{2}-6\zeta(2)+N_c\frac{49}{24}\right)}
343: \nonumber\\
344: &&{}+x_t\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}C_FN_c
345: \left(\frac{19}{12}-\frac{\zeta(2)}{2}\right),
346: \label{eq:del}\\
347: \lefteqn{\frac{\Gamma_b}{\Gamma_b^{(0)}}=x_t\left(-6+N_c\frac{7}{3}\right)
348: +x_t^2\left[-20+N_c(29-12\zeta(2))
349: \vphantom{\frac{49}{9}}\right.}\nonumber\\
350: &&{}+\left.N_c^2\frac{49}{9}\right]
351: +x_t\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}C_F
352: \left[-36+N_c\left(\frac{157}{12}-\zeta(2)\right)\right],
353: \qquad\label{eq:gam}
354: \end{eqnarray}
355: where $N_c=3$ and $C_F=(N_c^2-1)/(2N_c)=4/3$ are color factors,
356: $x_t=(G_Fm_t^2)/(8\pi^2\sqrt{2})$, $\zeta(2)=\pi^2/6$, and
357: \begin{equation}
358: \Gamma_b^{(0)}=\frac{\sqrt{2}N_cG_FM_Hm_b^2}{8\pi}
359: \left(1-\frac{4m_b^2}{M_H^2}\right)^{3/2}.
360: \label{eq:tree}
361: \end{equation}
362: If we convert Eq.~(\ref{eq:del}) to a mixed renormalization scheme which uses
363: the on-shell definitions for the particle masses and the definitions of the
364: modified minimal-subtraction ($\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$) scheme for all other
365: basic parameters, then we find agreement with Eq.~(15) for $x=0$ in the
366: paper by Djouadi et al.\ \cite{Djouadi:1997rj}.
367: However, the corresponding result for the electroweak on-shell scheme
368: presented in their Eq.~(27) for $x=0$ disagrees with our Eq.~(\ref{eq:del}).
369: We can trace this discrepancy to the absence in their Eq.~(25) of the
370: additional finite term $\hat{\delta}_{u}^{(1)}\Delta\rho^{(1)}$ which arises
371: from the renormalization of the one-loop result in their Eq.~(7) according to
372: the prescription in their Eq.~(18).
373: The $\mathcal{O}(G_F^2m_t^4)$ term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:gam}) represents a new
374: result.
375:
376: In Eqs.~(\ref{eq:del}) and (\ref{eq:gam}), we have also included the two-loop
377: $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_sG_Fm_t^2)$ corrections
378: \cite{Kniehl:1994ph,Kniehl:1994ju}, which we reproduced using our
379: calculational techniques.
380: As for the QCD renormalization, it is understood that $m_b$ appearing in
381: Eq.~(\ref{eq:tree}) is defined in the $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$ scheme as
382: $m_b=\overline{m}_b(M_H)$, while the electroweak part of the
383: renormalization remains in the on-shell scheme.
384: This modification ensures that large logarithms of the type
385: $\ln\left(M_H^2/m_b^2\right)$ that would otherwise appear already at
386: $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)$ and spoil the convergence behavior of the
387: perturbation expansion are properly resummed according to the
388: renormalization group (RG) \cite{Braaten:1980yq}.
389: Since we wish to treat $m_t$ on the same footing as $m_b$, we adopt this mixed
390: scheme for $m_t$ as well.
391: The analysis at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2G_Fm_t^2)$
392: \cite{Kniehl:1995br,Chetyrkin:1996ke} reveals that Eqs.~(\ref{eq:del}) and
393: (\ref{eq:gam}) may be further RG-improved by taking $m_t$ and $\alpha_s$ to be
394: $m_t=\overline{m}_t(m_t)$ and $\alpha_s=\alpha_s^{(6)}(m_t)$, respectively.
395:
396: Finally, we explore the phenomenological implications of our results.
397: Adopting from Ref.~\cite{pdg} the values $G_F=1.16637\times10^{-5}$~GeV$^{-2}$,
398: $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.1176$, $M_Z=91.1876$~GeV, and
399: $m_t^\mathrm{pole}=174.2$~GeV for our input parameters, so that
400: $\alpha_s^{(6)}(m_t)=0.1076$ and $m_t=166.2$~GeV, we evaluate
401: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:del}) and (\ref{eq:gam}) to $\mathcal{O}(G_Fm_t^2)$,
402: $\mathcal{O}(G_F^2m_t^4)$, and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_sG_Fm_t^2)$.
403: For comparison, we also evaluate the relative corrections to $\Gamma_l$ and
404: $\Gamma_q$, where $l=e,\mu,\tau$ and $q=u,d,s,c$, which, to the orders
405: considered here, are given by
406: \begin{eqnarray}
407: \frac{\Gamma_l}{\Gamma_l^{(0)}}&=&(1+\delta_u)^2-1,
408: \\
409: \frac{\Gamma_q}{\Gamma_q^{(0)}}&=&(1+\Delta_\mathrm{QCD})(1+\delta_u)^2-1,
410: \label{eq:q}
411: \end{eqnarray}
412: where \cite{Braaten:1980yq}
413: \begin{equation}
414: \Delta_\mathrm{QCD}=\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}C_F\frac{17}{4}
415: \end{equation}
416: is the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$ correction in the limit $m_q\ll M_H$.
417: %, with $m_q=\overline{m}_q(M_H)$.
418:
419: The results are listed in Table~\ref{tab:num}.
420: We observe that the ${\cal O}(G_F^2m_t^4)$ correction to $\Gamma_b$ increases
421: the enhancement due to the ${\cal O}(G_F m_t^2)$ one by about 16\% and has
422: more than twice the magnitude of the negative ${\cal O}(\alpha_sG_Fm_t^2)$
423: one.
424: Also in the case of $\Gamma_l$, the ${\cal O}(G_F^2m_t^4)$ correction exceeds
425: the ${\cal O}(\alpha_sG_Fm_t^2)$ one.
426: The situation is quite different for the case of $\Gamma_q$, which is due to
427: the additional appearance of the sizeable product term
428: $2\Delta_\mathrm{QCD}\delta_u^{(1)}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:q}).
429: \begin{table}[t]
430: \begin{center}
431: \caption{\label{tab:num}Relative corrections to $\Gamma_\tau$, $\Gamma_c$, and
432: $\Gamma_b$ at $\mathcal{O}(G_Fm_t^2)$, $\mathcal{O}(G_F^2m_t^4)$, and
433: $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_sG_Fm_t^2)$.}
434: \begin{tabular}{|c|ccc|}
435: \hline
436: Order & $\Gamma_\tau/\Gamma_\tau^{(0)}$ & $\Gamma_c/\Gamma_c^{(0)}$ &
437: $\Gamma_b/\Gamma_b^{(0)}$ \\
438: \hline
439: $\mathcal{O}(G_Fm_t^2)$ & $+2.021\%$ & $+2.021\%$ & $+0.289\%$ \\
440: $\mathcal{O}(G_F^2m_t^4)$ & $+0.064\%$ & $+0.064\%$ & $+0.047\%$ \\
441: $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_sG_Fm_t^2)$ & $+0.060\%$ & $+0.452\%$ & $-0.022\%$ \\
442: \hline
443: \end{tabular}
444: \end{center}
445: \end{table}
446:
447: In conclusion, we analytically calculated the dominant electroweak two-loop
448: correction, of order ${\cal O}(G_F^2m_t^4)$, to the $H\to b\overline{b}$ decay
449: width $\Gamma_b$ of an intermediate-mass Higgs boson, with $M_H\ll m_t$.
450: We performed various checks for our analysis.
451: The ultraviolet divergences cancelled through genuine two-loop renormalization.
452: Our final result is devoid of infrared divergences related to infinitesimal
453: scalar-boson masses.
454: We reproduced those $Hb\overline{b}$ vertex diagrams where the external Higgs
455: boson is coupled to an internal top-quark line, which we had computed
456: directly, through application of a low-energy theorem.
457: After switching to a hybrid renormalization scheme, our ${\cal O}(G_F^2m_t^4)$
458: result for the universal correction $\delta_u$ agrees with
459: Ref.~\cite{Djouadi:1997rj}.
460: Using our computational techniques, we also recovered the
461: ${\cal O}(\alpha_sG_Fm_t^2)$ corrections to $\delta_u$ and $\Gamma_b$.
462: The ${\cal O}(G_F^2m_t^4)$ correction to $\Gamma_b$ amplifies the familiar
463: enhancement due to the ${\cal O}(G_Fm_t^2)$ correction by about $+16\%$ and
464: thus more than compensates the screening by about $-8\%$ through QCD effects
465: of ${\cal O}(\alpha_sG_Fm_t^2)$.
466:
467: We like to thank Paolo Gambino and Matthias Steinhauser for fruitful
468: discussions.
469: This work was supported in part by the German Federal Ministry for Education
470: and Research BMBF through Grant No.\ 05~HT6GUA and by the German Research
471: Foundation DFG through Graduate School No.\ GRK~602 {\it Future
472: Developments in Particle Physics}.
473:
474: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
475:
476: \bibitem{Barate:2003sz}
477: ALEPH Collaboration, DELPHI Collaboration, L3 Collaboration,
478: OPAL Collaboration and The LEP Working Group for Higgs Boson Searches,
479: R.~Barate {\it et al.},
480: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 565}, 61 (2003).
481:
482: \bibitem{LEPEWWG}
483: LEP Electroweak Working Group, D.~Abbaneo {\it et al.},
484: Report No.\ LEPEWWG/2005-01; see also
485: URL: {\tt http://lepewwg.web.cern.ch/LEPEWWG/}.
486:
487: \bibitem{Kniehl:2001jy}
488: B.A.~Kniehl,
489: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 17}, 1457 (2002).
490:
491: \bibitem{Kniehl:1993ay}
492: B.A.~Kniehl,
493: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 240}, 211 (1994);
494: M.~Spira,
495: Fortsch.\ Phys.\ {\bf 46}, 203 (1998).
496:
497: \bibitem{Maltoni:2003pn}
498: F.~Maltoni, Z.~Sullivan, and S.~Willenbrock,
499: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 093005 (2003);
500: R.V.~Harlander and W.B.~Kilgore,
501: {\it ibid.}\ {\bf 68}, 013001 (2003);
502: A.~Belyaev, P.M.~Nadolsky, and C-P.~Yuan,
503: JHEP {\bf 0604}, 004 (2006).
504:
505: \bibitem{Dawson:2003kb}
506: S.~Dawson, C.B.~Jackson, L.~Reina, and D.~Wackeroth,
507: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 074027 (2004);
508: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 94}, 031802 (2005);
509: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 20}, 3353 (2005);
510: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 21}, 89 (2006);
511: E.~Boos and T.~Plehn,
512: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 094005 (2004);
513: S.~Dittmaier, M.~Kr\"amer, and M.~Spira,
514: {\it ibid.}\ {\bf 70}, 074010 (2004);
515: F.~Maltoni, T.~McElmurry, and S.~Willenbrock,
516: {\it ibid.}\ {\bf 72}, 074024 (2005).
517:
518: \bibitem{Braaten:1980yq}
519: E.~Braaten and J.P.~Leveille,
520: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 22}, 715 (1980);
521: N.~Sakai,
522: {\it ibid.}\ {\bf 22}, 2220 (1980);
523: T.~Inami and T.~Kubota,
524: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B179}, 171 (1981);
525: M.~Drees and K.~Hikasa,
526: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 240}, 455 (1990);
527: {\bf 262}, 497(E) (1991).
528:
529: \bibitem{Gorishnii:1991zr}
530: S.G.~Gorishny, A.L.~Kataev, S.A.~Larin, and L.R.~Surguladze,
531: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 5}, 2703 (1990);
532: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 43}, 1633 (1991).
533:
534: \bibitem{Surguladze:1994gc}
535: L.R.~Surguladze,
536: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 341}, 60 (1994).
537:
538: \bibitem{Kniehl:1994vq}
539: B.A.~Kniehl,
540: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 343}, 299 (1995).
541:
542: \bibitem{Chetyrkin:1995pd}
543: K.G.~Chetyrkin and A.~Kwiatkowski,
544: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B461}, 3 (1996).
545:
546: \bibitem{Chetyrkin:1996sr}
547: K.G.~Chetyrkin,
548: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 390}, 309 (1997).
549:
550: \bibitem{Chetyrkin:1997vj}
551: K.G.~Chetyrkin and M.~Steinhauser,
552: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 408}, 320 (1997).
553:
554: \bibitem{Kniehl:1991}
555: J.~Fleischer and F.~Jegerlehner,
556: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 23}, 2001 (1981);
557: D.Yu.~Bardin, B.M.~Vilenski\u\i, and P.Kh.~ Khristova,
558: Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 53}, 240 (1991)
559: [Sov.\ J. Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 53}, 152 (1991)];
560: B.A.~Kniehl,
561: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B376}, 3 (1992);
562: A.~Dabelstein and W.~Hollik,
563: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf 53}, 507 (1992).
564:
565: \bibitem{Djouadi:1997rj}
566: A.~Djouadi, P.~Gambino, and B.A.~Kniehl,
567: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B523}, 17 (1998).
568:
569: \bibitem{Kniehl:1994ph}
570: B.A.~Kniehl and A. Sirlin,
571: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 318}, 367 (1993);
572: B.A.~Kniehl,
573: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50}, 3314 (1994);
574: A.~Djouadi and P.~Gambino,
575: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 51}, 218 (1995).
576:
577: \bibitem{Kniehl:1994ju}
578: B.A.~Kniehl and M.~Spira,
579: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B432}, 39 (1994);
580: A.~Kwiatkowski and M.~Steinhauser,
581: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 338}, 66 (1994);
582: {\bf 342}, 455(E) (1995).
583:
584: \bibitem{Kniehl:1995br}
585: B.A.~Kniehl and M.~Steinhauser,
586: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B454}, 485 (1995);
587: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 365}, 297 (1996).
588:
589: \bibitem{Chetyrkin:1996ke}
590: K.G.~Chetyrkin, B.A.~Kniehl, and M.~Steinhauser,
591: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 78}, 594 (1997);
592: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B490}, 19 (1997).
593:
594: \bibitem{long}
595: M.~Butensch\"on, F.~Fugel, and B.A.~Kniehl (in preparation).
596:
597: \bibitem{Sirlin:1980nh}
598: A.~Sirlin,
599: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 22}, 971 (1980).
600:
601: \bibitem{pdg}
602: Particle Data Group, W.-M.~Yao {\it et al.},
603: J. Phys.\ G {\bf 33}, 1 (2006).
604:
605: \bibitem{Denner:1991kt}
606: A.~Denner,
607: Fortsch.\ Phys.\ {\bf 41}, 307 (1993).
608:
609: \bibitem{Consoli:1989fg}
610: M.~Consoli, W.~Hollik, and F.~Jegerlehner,
611: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 227}, 167 (1989).
612:
613: \bibitem{Faisst}
614: M.~Faisst,
615: Diploma thesis, University of Karlsruhe, 2000.
616:
617: \bibitem{Hahn:2000kx}
618: T.~Hahn,
619: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 140}, 418 (2001).
620:
621: \bibitem{MATAD}
622: M.~Steinhauser,
623: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 134}, 335 (2001).
624:
625: \bibitem{FORM}
626: J.A.M.~Vermaseren,
627: {\it Symbolic Manipulation with FORM},
628: (Computer Algebra Netherlands, Amsterdam, 1991).
629:
630: \bibitem{Smirnov}
631: V.A.~Smirnov,
632: {\it Applied Asymptotic Expansions in Momenta and
633: Masses}, (Springer, Heidelberg, 2001).
634:
635: \bibitem{let}
636: B.A.~Kniehl and M.~Spira,
637: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf 69}, 77 (1995);
638: W.~Kilian,
639: {\it ibid}.\ {\bf 69}, 89 (1995).
640:
641: \end{thebibliography}
642:
643: \end{document}
644: