text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

The measurement of the forward-backward asymmetry $`A_{\text{FB}}^b`$ for $`b`$-quark production in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions at the Z peak provides one of the most precise determinations of the weak mixing angle $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}`$. It can be determined with an error at the per mille level if the computations of $`A_{\text{FB}}^b`$ are at least as accurate as the present experimental precision of about two percent . This implies, in particular, that perturbative and non-perturbative QCD corrections to the lowest order formula for $`A_{\text{FB}}^b`$ must be controlled to this level of accuracy.

As far as perturbative QCD corrections to this observable are concerned, the present knowledge is as follows. The order $`\alpha _s`$ contributions had been computed first for massless and then for massive quarks in ref.  and ref. , respectively. These calculations, which used the quark direction for defining the asymmetry were later modified  to encompass the asymmetry with respect to the thrust axis, which is more relevant experimentally. The coefficient of the order $`\alpha _s^2`$ correction was computed first in ref. , for massless quarks using the quark axis definition, by numerical phase space integration. This result was recently corrected by a completely analytical  and by a numerical calculation . In the latter reference the second-order corrections were also determined for the thrust axis definition.

For future applications to measurements at proposed linear $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders the attained theoretical precision so far will not suffice. The forward-backward asymmetry will be a key observable for determining the electroweak couplings of the top quark above threshold – a fundamental task at a linear collider as far as top quark physics is concerned. Needless to say all radiative corrections must be determined for non-vanishing top quark mass. Moreover, there may be the option to run such a collider at the Z peak, aiming to increase the precision attained at LEP1/SLC significantly. For instance one may be able to measure $`A_{\text{FB}}`$ for $`b`$ and $`c`$ quarks to an accuracy of order 0.1 $`\%`$. (For a recent discussion, see ref. .)

Here we are concerned with the second-order QCD corrections to $`A_{\text{FB}}`$ for massive quarks $`Q`$. It is convenient to obtain this asymmetry by computing the individual contributions of the parton jets . This break-up may also be useful from an experimental point of view, as the various contributions can be separately measured . To order $`\alpha _s^2`$ the asymmetry is determined by the 2-, 3-, and 4-jet final states involving $`Q`$. The 4-jet contribution to $`A_{\text{FB}}`$ involves the known parity-violating piece of the Born matrix elements for $`e^+e^{}4`$ partons involving at least one $`\overline{Q}Q`$ pair (see, e.g. ref. ). The phase-space integration of these matrix elements in order to get $`(A_{\text{FB}})_{\text{4-jet}}`$ for a given jet-resolution algorithm can be done numerically in a rather straightforward fashion. The computation of $`(A_{\text{FB}})_{\text{3-jet}}`$ is highly non-trivial. Within the phase space slicing method , which we will use here, it amounts to determining first the parity-violating piece in the fully differential cross section for the reaction $`e^+e^{}3`$ resolved partons to order $`\alpha _s^2`$. This will be done in this paper. (For the definition of ‘resolved partons’ see section IV.) In addition the contribution to $`(A_{\text{FB}})_{\text{3-jet}}`$ from $`e^+e^{}4`$ resolved partons is needed. It can be obtained from the known leading order matrix elements by a numerical integration in 4 space-time dimensions which incorporates a jet defining algorithm. This will be discussed elesewhere. The computation of $`(A_{\text{FB}})_{\text{2-jet}}`$ for heavy quarks is beyond the scope of this work and remains to be done in the future.

Our paper is organized as follows. In section II we review the kinematics of the reaction and leading-order results, and define the 3-jet forward-backward asymmetry. In section III we discuss the calculation of the virtual corrections. In particular, the ultraviolet divergences, the infrared divergences, and the renormalization procedure is discussed. In section IV the singular contributions from the real corrections are calculated and the cancellation of the infrared divergences is checked. In section V we summarize our results and end with some conclusions.

## II Kinematics and leading-order results

The leading order differential cross section for

$$e^+(p_+)e^{}(p_{})Q(k_Q)\overline{Q}(k_{\overline{Q}})g(k_g)$$
(II.1)
can be written in the following form444 We neglect the lepton masses and do not consider transversely polarized beams.:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\varphi d\mathrm{cos}\vartheta dxd\overline{x}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^3}}\sigma _{pt}\{(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta )F_1+(13\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta )F_2+\mathrm{cos}\vartheta F_3`$ (II.2)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{sin}2\vartheta \mathrm{cos}\varphi F_4+\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta \mathrm{cos}2\varphi F_5+\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \mathrm{cos}\varphi F_6\},`$
with

$$\sigma _{pt}=\sigma (e^+e^{}\gamma ^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{})=\frac{4\pi \alpha ^2}{3s}.$$
(II.3)
In eq. (II.2), $`\vartheta `$ denotes the angle between the direction $`𝐩_{}`$ of the incoming electron $`e^{}`$ and the direction $`𝐤_Q`$ of the heavy quark $`Q`$. The angle $`\varphi `$ is the oriented angle between the plane defined by $`e^{}`$ and $`Q`$ and the plane defined by the quark anti-quark pair. The functions $`F_i`$ depend only on the scaled c.m. energies $`x=2kk_Q/s`$ and $`\overline{x}=2kk_{\overline{Q}}/s`$, and on the scaled mass square $`z=m^2/s`$ of the heavy quark and anti-quark, where $`k=p_++p_{}`$ and $`s=k^2`$. Note that the leading order differential cross section for a final state with $`n4`$ partons can be written in an analogous way in terms of the two angles $`\vartheta `$, $`\varphi `$ and $`3n7`$ variables that involve only the final state momenta. In higher orders absorptive parts give rise to three additional functions $`F_{7,8,9}`$ (cf. ref. ). The four functions $`F_{1,2,4,5}`$ are parity even. In particular, the 3-jet production rate is determined by $`F_1`$. In the case of massive quarks next-to-leading order results for $`F_1`$ were given in references . The two functions $`F_3`$ and $`F_6`$ are induced by the interference of a vector and an axial-vector current. In particular, using the quark-axis, the 3-jet forward-backward asymmetry is related to $`F_3`$ in leading order in the following way:

$`(A_{\text{FB}})_{\text{3-jet}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_0^1d\mathrm{cos}\vartheta _\pi ^\pi 𝑑\varphi _{D(y_{\mathrm{cut}})}𝑑x𝑑\overline{x}\frac{d\sigma }{d\varphi d\mathrm{cos}\vartheta dxd\overline{x}}_1^0d\mathrm{cos}\vartheta _\pi ^\pi 𝑑\varphi _{D(y_{\mathrm{cut}})}𝑑x𝑑\overline{x}\frac{d\sigma }{d\varphi d\mathrm{cos}\vartheta dxd\overline{x}}}{_1^1d\mathrm{cos}\vartheta _\pi ^\pi 𝑑\varphi _{D(y_{\mathrm{cut}})}𝑑x𝑑\overline{x}\frac{d\sigma }{d\varphi d\mathrm{cos}\vartheta dxd\overline{x}}}}`$ (II.4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{_{D(y_{\mathrm{cut}})}𝑑x𝑑\overline{x}F_3(x,\overline{x})}{_{D(y_{\mathrm{cut}})}𝑑x𝑑\overline{x}F_1(x,\overline{x})}},`$
where $`D(y_{\mathrm{cut}})`$ defines, for a given jet finding algorithm and jet resolution parameter $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$, a region in the $`(x,\overline{x})`$ plane. Analogously, the function $`F_6`$ induces an azimuthal asymmetry

$`A_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_0^{\pi /2}𝑑\varphi _1^1d\mathrm{cos}\vartheta _{D(y_{\mathrm{cut}})}𝑑x𝑑\overline{x}\frac{d\sigma }{d\varphi d\mathrm{cos}\vartheta dxd\overline{x}}_{\pi /2}^\pi 𝑑\varphi _1^1d\mathrm{cos}\vartheta _{D(y_{\mathrm{cut}})}𝑑x𝑑\overline{x}\frac{d\sigma }{d\varphi d\mathrm{cos}\vartheta dxd\overline{x}}}{_0^{\pi /2}𝑑\varphi _1^1d\mathrm{cos}\vartheta _{D(y_{\mathrm{cut}})}𝑑x𝑑\overline{x}\frac{d\sigma }{d\varphi d\mathrm{cos}\vartheta dxd\overline{x}}+_{\pi /2}^\pi 𝑑\varphi _1^1d\mathrm{cos}\vartheta _{D(y_{\mathrm{cut}})}𝑑x𝑑\overline{x}\frac{d\sigma }{d\varphi d\mathrm{cos}\vartheta dxd\overline{x}}}}`$ (II.5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{_{D(y_{\mathrm{cut}})}𝑑x𝑑\overline{x}F_6(x,\overline{x})}{_{D(y_{\mathrm{cut}})}𝑑x𝑑\overline{x}F_1(x,\overline{x})}}.`$
Note that final states with two partons do not contribute to $`A_\varphi `$. The electroweak couplings appearing in $`F_{3,6}`$ can be factored out as follows:

$$F_{3,6}=g_a^Q(1\lambda _+\lambda _{})\left[Q_Q\mathrm{Re}\chi (g_a^ef(\lambda _+,\lambda _{})g_v^e)+g_v^Q|\chi |^2(f(\lambda _+,\lambda _{})(g_v^{e2}+g_a^{e2})2g_v^eg_a^e)\right]\stackrel{~}{F}_{3,6}.$$
(II.6)
In eq. (II.6),

$`g_v^f`$ $`=`$ $`T_3^f2Q_f\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W,`$
$`g_a^f`$ $`=`$ $`T_3^f,`$
$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W}}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{sm_Z^2+im_Z\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z}},`$
$`f(\lambda _+,\lambda _{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{}\lambda _+}{1\lambda _{}\lambda _+}},`$ (II.7)
where $`T_3^f`$ is the third component of the weak isospin of the fermion $`f`$, $`\theta _W`$ is the weak mixing angle, and $`\lambda _{}`$ denotes the longitudinal polarization of the electron (positron). In next-to-leading order in $`\alpha _s`$, additional contributions to $`F_{3,6}`$ with electroweak couplings different from those in eq. (II.6) are induced which we will not consider here. They are either proportional to $`\mathrm{Im}\chi `$ and thus suppressed formally in the electroweak coupling or generated by the triangle fermion loop diagrams depicted in figure 1(l), 1(m). The contribution of the triangle fermion loop is gauge independent and UV and IR finite. It was calculated some time ago in ref. .

The functions $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{3,6}(x,\overline{x})`$ may be expressed in terms of functions $`h_6`$, $`h_7`$ which appear in the decomposition of the so-called hadronic tensor as performed for example in references .

$`\stackrel{~}{F}_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\sqrt{x^24z}h_6(x,\overline{x})+\sqrt{\overline{x}^24z}\mathrm{cos}\vartheta _{Q\overline{Q}}h_7(x,\overline{x})\right],`$
$`\stackrel{~}{F}_6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\overline{x}^24z}\mathrm{sin}\vartheta _{Q\overline{Q}}h_7(x,\overline{x}),`$ (II.8)
where $`\vartheta _{Q\overline{Q}}`$ is the angle between $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ in the c.m. frame and we have

$$\mathrm{cos}\vartheta _{Q\overline{Q}}=\frac{2(1x\overline{x}+2z)+x\overline{x}}{\sqrt{x^24z}\sqrt{\overline{x}^24z}}.$$
(II.9)
It would seem pointless to trade $`F_{3,6}`$ for $`h_{6,7}`$ if it were not for the relation (which follows from CP invariance):

$$h_7(x,\overline{x})=h_6(\overline{x},x).$$
(II.10)
The objective of this paper is to provide explicit expressions for the virtual corrections and for the singular parts of the real corrections to the function $`h_6`$. These corrections make up the complete contribution from three resolved partons at NLO, $`h_6^{\text{3 res., NLO}}`$, which is ultraviolet and infrared finite. We regulate both infrared und ultraviolet singularities by continuation to $`d=42ϵ`$ space-time dimensions. In this context one may wonder whether the above kinematics relations, in particular eq. (II) have to be modified for $`d4`$. This is however not necessary if we consistently keep the momenta of electron and positron as well as the polarization vector of the photon/Z-boson in $`d=4`$ dimensions throughout the calculation. Note that this prescription still corresponds to the usual dimensional regularisation. In addition this prescription is compatible with the ‘t Hooft-Veltman prescription for $`\gamma _5`$ as we discuss later.

We finish this section by giving the Born result for $`h_6`$ in $`d=42ϵ`$ dimensions:

$`h_6^{\text{LO}}(x,\overline{x})=16\pi \alpha _s(N^21)B\left(2x(x\overline{x}+\overline{x}^2+24\overline{x})ϵ4{\displaystyle \frac{x_g}{1x}}z\right)`$ (II.11)
with

$$B=\frac{1}{(1x)(1\overline{x})},$$
(II.12)
and the scaled gluon energy

$$x_g=\frac{2kk_g}{s}=2x\overline{x}.$$
(II.13)
Note that the terms proportional to $`ϵ`$ in eq. (II.11) depend on the prescription used to treat $`\gamma _5`$ in $`d`$ dimensions. To derive the above equation we have used the prescription $`\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\frac{i}{3!}\epsilon _{\mu \beta \gamma \delta }\gamma ^\beta \gamma ^\gamma \gamma ^\delta `$ . We will discuss this issue in more detail in the next section together with the ultraviolet (UV) renormalization.

## III Virtual corrections

In this section we will give analytic expressions for the virtual corrections to $`h_6`$, isolate the ultraviolet and infrared singularities, carry out the renormalization procedure, and discuss the treatment of $`\gamma _5`$.

We work in renormalized perturbation theory, which means that the bare quantities (fields and couplings) are expressed in terms of renormalized quantities. By this procedure one obtains two contributions: one is the original Lagrangian but now in terms of the renormalized quantities, the second contribution are the so-called counterterms:

$$(\mathrm{\Psi }_0,A_0,m_0,g_0)=(\mathrm{\Psi }_R,A_R,m_R,g_R)+_{ct}(\mathrm{\Psi }_R,A_R,m_R,g_R).$$
(III.1)
The first contribution yields the same Feynman rules as the bare Lagrangian but with the bare quantities replaced by renormalized ones. In the following we renormalize the quark field and the quark mass in the on-shell scheme, but treat the gluon field and the strong coupling in the modified minimal subtraction ($`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$) scheme , taking into account the Lehmann–Symanzik–Zimmermann residue in the S-matrix element. Note that the conversion of the on-shell mass to the frequently used $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass can be performed at the end of the calculation. The quark mass in the on-shell scheme will be denoted in the following simply by $`m`$ for notational convenience.

While in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme the renormalization constants contain only UV singularities, in the on-shell scheme they contain also infrared (IR) divergences555 Note that the cross section at hand is inclusive enough so that no uncancelled collinear singularities survive. For simplicity we thus call soft and collinear singularities just IR singularities.. Although at the very end all the divergences cancel it is worthwhile to distinguish between UV and IR singularities so that one can check the UV renormalization and the IR finiteness independently.

To start with let us discuss the contribution of the one-loop diagrams before renormalization, that is the contribution from $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_R,A_R,m_R,g_R)`$. Although tedious the calculation of the one-loop diagrams shown in figure 1 is in principle straightforward. We do not discuss here the contribution from diagrams l) and m) as mentioned earlier. Without going into the details we just review some techniques used in the calculation of the remaining diagrams. To calculate the one-loop corrections we decided to work in the background field gauge  with the gauge parameter set to one. In this gauge the three-gluon vertex is simplified which leads to a reduction of the number of terms encountered in intermediate steps of the calculation. To reduce the one-loop tensor integrals to scalar one-loop integrals we used the Passarino-Veltman reduction procedure . From the diagrams shown in figure 1 one can immediately read off the scalar box-integrals one encounters in the calculation. These integrals are

$$D_0^{d,l}=\frac{1}{i\pi ^2}d^dl\frac{(2\pi \mu )^{(2\epsilon )}}{(l^2+i\epsilon )((l+k_g)^2+i\epsilon )((l+k_Q+k_g)^2m^2+i\epsilon )((lk_{\overline{Q}})^2m^2+i\epsilon )},$$
(III.2)
$$D_0^{d,sl,1}=\frac{1}{i\pi ^2}d^dl\frac{(2\pi \mu )^{(2\epsilon )}}{(l^2+i\epsilon )((l+k_Q)^2m^2+i\epsilon )((l+k_{Qg})^2m^2+i\epsilon )((lk_{\overline{Q}})^2m^2+i\epsilon )},$$
(III.3)
$$D_0^{d,sl,2}=D_0^{d,sl,1}|_{k_Qk_{\overline{Q}}},$$
(III.4)
with $`k_{Qg}=k_Q+k_g`$. Note that only the real parts of the one-loop integrals contribute to $`h_6`$ since we neglect terms in the electroweak couplings $`\mathrm{Im}\chi `$. For simplicity we will leave out in the following the prescript Re in front of the integrals. All the lower-point integrals are defined with respect to the box-integrals. We adopted the notation from Passarino and Veltman  in which capital letters $`A`$, $`B`$,$`\mathrm{}`$ are used to define one-point, two-point,$`\mathrm{}`$ integrals. The kinematics is specified by denoting as argument the propagators which are kept with respect to the defining box-integrals. For example $`C_0^l(1,2,3)`$ which originates from $`D_0^l`$ is given by

$$C_0^l(1,2,3)=\frac{1}{i\pi ^2}d^dl\frac{(2\pi \mu )^{(2\epsilon )}}{(l^2+i\epsilon )((l+k_g)^2+i\epsilon )((l+k_Q+k_g)^2m^2+i\epsilon )}.$$
(III.5)
We have substituted the scalar box integrals in $`d`$ dimensions by box integrals in $`d+2`$ dimensions using the relation

$$D_{27}^d=\frac{1}{2\pi }D_0^{d+2},$$
(III.6)
where $`D_{27}^d`$ is the coefficient of $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ in the decomposition of the four-point tensor integral $`D_{\mu \nu }^d`$ (cf. eq. (F.3) in ref. ), which in turn can be expressed as a linear combination of the scalar box integral $`D_0^d`$ and scalar triangle integrals $`C_0`$ in $`d`$ dimensions. Since the box integrals are finite in 6 dimensions, all IR singularities reside in triangle integrals after this substitution. As a gain, the coefficients of the triangle integrals become much simpler. This is clear, since the coefficient that multiplies the sum of all IR singular terms has to be proportional to the Born result.

We may group the diagrams shown in figure 1 according to their colour structure in terms of the colour matrices $`T_a`$ of the SU(N) gauge group. In particular, we distinguish between contributions which are dominant in the number of colours (‘leading-colour’) and contributions which are suppressed in the number of colours (‘subleading-colour’). The different colour structures are separately gauge independent. The diagrams a, b, c are proportional to $`N(T_a)_{c_Qc_{\overline{Q}}}`$ where $`a`$ is the colour index of the gluon and $`c_Q`$ $`(c_{\overline{Q}})`$ the colour index of the (anti-) quark. The diagrams h, j, k, l are proportional to $`1/N(T_a)_{c_Qc_{\overline{Q}}}`$. They are purely sub-leading in the number of colours. The diagrams d, e, f, g are proportional to $`(N1/N)(T_a)_{c_Qc_{\overline{Q}}}`$. These diagrams contribute to the leading as well as to the subleading parts.

To organize the next-to-leading order virtual corrections $`h_6^{\text{virt., NLO}}`$ for $`h_6`$ it is convenient to separate them into different contributions. First we split the result into a contribution from the loop diagrams (figure 1) and a contribution from the renormalization procedure $`h_6^{\text{virt., ren.}}`$. The contribution from the loop-diagrams is further decomposed into a UV divergent ($`h_6^{\text{virt., UV div.}}`$), a IR divergent ($`h_6^{\text{virt., IR div.}}`$) and a finite part ($`h_6^{\text{virt., fin.}}`$). We thus arrive at the following decomposition:

$$h_6^{\text{virt., NLO}}=h_6^{\text{virt., UV div.}}+h_6^{\text{virt., IR div.}}+h_6^{\text{virt., fin.}}+h_6^{\text{virt., ren.}}.$$
(III.7)
We define the singular contribution by taking only the pole-part of the loop-integrals but keeping the $`ϵ`$-dependence in the prefactors.

### III.1 UV singularities

All the UV singularities in a one-loop calculation appear in the scalar one- and two-point integrals. Defining the finite contributions $`\overline{A}(m^2)`$, $`\overline{B}_0(i,j)`$ of these integrals by

$`A(m^2)`$ $`=`$ $`r_\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{4\pi \mu ^2}}\right)^ϵm^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}+\overline{A}(m^2),`$
$`B_0(i,j)`$ $`=`$ $`r_\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{4\pi \mu ^2}}\right)^ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}+\overline{B}_0(i,j),`$ (III.8)
where $`r_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the usual one-loop factor:

$$r_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+ϵ)\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(1ϵ)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(12ϵ)},$$
(III.9)
the contribution from the pole-part of these integrals is given by

$`h_6^{\text{virt., UV div.}}`$ $`=`$ $`r_\mathrm{\Gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{4\pi \mu ^2}}\right)^ϵ\{{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}C_Fh_6^{\text{LO}}+24\alpha _s^2(N^21)C_F\delta h_6`$ (III.10)
$`+`$ $`8\alpha _s^2(N^21)C_FBϵ(1+x2\overline{x}+(1\overline{x}){\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}}{x}}`$
$`+`$ $`z[2B((\overline{x}^22x)(1x)+(23x)(1\overline{x}))+g_1{\displaystyle \frac{x^24z}{x(1x)}}+4zB(2{\displaystyle \frac{(1\overline{x})^2}{1x}}+x_g)])`$
$`+`$ $`16\alpha _s^2C_FBϵ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_g}}(x\overline{x}4\overline{x}+2+\overline{x}^2)2zx_gB(x\overline{x}))+O(ϵ^2)\}`$
with

$`\delta h_6`$ $`=`$ $`B^2([2(x^23x\overline{x}^2x+3x\overline{x}+2\overline{x}^24\overline{x}+2)x_g(\overline{x}^2+x\overline{x}4\overline{x}+2)ϵ]z`$ (III.11)
$`4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1x}}(5\overline{x}3x+2\overline{x}^2+4+x^2+x\overline{x})z^2),`$
and

$$g_1=\frac{(1x)(x2\overline{x})}{(x^24z)^2}(x(\overline{x}+x)2(1x_g)).$$
(III.12)
The finite contributions involving $`\overline{A}`$, $`\overline{B}_0`$ are given in section III.3. The cancellation of the UV singularities by the renormalization procedure will be discussed in sec. III.4.

### III.2 Soft and collinear singularities

To start with let us consider the soft and collinear singularities appearing in the leading-colour contribution. As mentioned earlier we use the box-integral in $`62ϵ`$ dimensions rather than in $`42ϵ`$ dimensions. The one- and two-point integrals encountered in this calculation and the box integrals in $`62ϵ`$ dimension do not contain IR singularities. As a consequence all IR singularities appear in the triangle integrals. Using the results for the integrals given in ref.  we see that only $`C_0^l(1,2,3)`$ and $`C_0^l(1,2,4)`$ are IR divergent. The contribution from the two integrals is given by

$`h_6^{\text{virt., IR div.}}|_{\text{lead. colour}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}Nh_6^{\text{LO}}\left\{(1\overline{x})sC_0^l(1,2,3)+(1x)sC_0^l(1,2,4)\right\}.`$ (III.13)
Using ref.

$`(1\overline{x})sC_0^l(1,2,3)`$ (III.14)
$`=`$ $`r_\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \mu ^2}{m^2}}\right)^ϵ\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{t_{Qg}}{m^2}})+\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{t_{Qg}}{m^2}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{7}{12}}\pi ^2\mathrm{Li}_2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}(\beta )^2\}+O(ϵ)`$
$``$ $`r_\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \mu ^2}{m^2}}\right)^ϵ\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{t_{Qg}}{m^2}})\right\}+(1\overline{x})s\overline{C}_0^l(1,2,3)`$
with

$$\beta =\frac{1\overline{x}+z}{z},t_{ij}=2k_ik_j,$$
(III.15)
and $`C_0^l(1,2,3)\stackrel{x\overline{x}}{}C_0^l(1,2,4)`$ we obtain for the singular part

$`h_6^{\text{virt., IR div.}}|_{\text{lead. colour}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}r_\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \mu ^2}{m^2}}\right)^ϵNh_6^{\text{LO}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{t_{Qg}}{m^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{t_{\overline{Q}g}}{m^2}})\right\}.`$ (III.16)
In the sub-leading colour contribution only $`C_0^{sl,1}(1,2,4)`$ contains singularities. The contribution from $`C_0^{sl,1}(1,2,4)`$ is given by

$$h_6^{\text{virt., IR div.}}|_{\text{subl. colour}}=\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }\frac{1}{N}h_6^{\text{LO}}(x+\overline{x}2z1)sC_0^{sl,1}(1,2,4).$$
(III.17)
Using ref.

$`(x+\overline{x}2z1)sC_0^{sl,1}(1,2,4)`$
$`=`$ $`r_\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \mu ^2}{m^2}}\right)^ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{1+\omega ^2}{1\omega ^2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\mathrm{ln}(\omega )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}^2(\omega )+2\mathrm{Li}_2(1\omega )\pi ^2\right\}+O(ϵ)`$
$``$ $`r_\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \mu ^2}{m^2}}\right)^ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{1+\omega ^2}{1\omega ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\mathrm{ln}(\omega )+(x+\overline{x}2z1)s\overline{C}_0^{sl,1}(1,2,4)`$
with

$$\omega =\frac{1\sqrt{1\frac{4z}{x+\overline{x}1}}}{1+\sqrt{1\frac{4z}{x+\overline{x}1}}}$$
(III.19)
we obtain

$`h_6^{\text{virt., IR div.}}|_{\text{subl. colour}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}h_6^{\text{LO}}r_\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \mu ^2}{m^2}}\right)^ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\omega ^2}{1\omega ^2}}\mathrm{ln}(\omega )`$ (III.20)
for the singular part. There are additional IR singular contributions from the counterterm diagrams. They will be discussed in section III.4. Furthermore we note that $`h_6^{\text{LO}}`$ in the equations above is the result in $`d`$ dimensions. This follows immediately from the general properties of soft and collinear limits in QCD. This is the reason why no ‘$`\gamma _5`$-problem’ arises from the IR singularities: Given the fact that the IR singularities from the real corrections are also proportional to the Born result in $`d`$ dimensions, finite contributions which would be sensitive to the $`\gamma _5`$-prescription cancel together with the IR singularities, as long as one uses the same $`\gamma _5`$-prescription for the virtual and the real corrections.

### III.3 Finite contributions

Given the divergent contributions shown in eq. (III.10), eq. (III.16) and eq. (III.20) we obtain the following result for the finite parts:

$$h_6^{\text{virt., fin.}}=\alpha _s^2C_FN^2h_6^{\text{virt., fin.}}|_{\text{lead. colour}}+\alpha _s^2C_Fh_6^{\text{virt., fin.}}|_{\text{subl. colour}},$$
(III.21)
with

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4B}}h_6^{\text{virt., fin.}}|_{\text{lead. colour}}=`$
$`8\{x(1x_g)+zB[x^3+5x^2\overline{x}6x^2+10x+5x\overline{x}^216x\overline{x}+12\overline{x}10\overline{x}^24+3\overline{x}^3]`$
$`4Bx_gz^2[{\displaystyle \frac{(1\overline{x})^2}{1x}}+x_g]\}s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}D_0^{d=6,l}`$
$`+\{2B[1+4\overline{x}(1\overline{x})+x(\overline{x}2)\overline{x}+2(1\overline{x})^2\overline{x}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}(1\overline{x})(1+2\overline{x}(1\overline{x})){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}]`$
$`+z[8B(2{\displaystyle \frac{(1\overline{x})^2}{1x}}+x_g)+{\displaystyle \frac{x^2\overline{x}+8\overline{x}7x\overline{x}6x^2+24x22}{(1x+z)(2x)(1x)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}^2+\overline{x}4}{(1\overline{x}+z)(1\overline{x})}}`$
$`+8g_1{\displaystyle \frac{x^24z}{(2x)(1x)x^2}}]\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}\overline{A}(zs)`$
$`+\left\{610x6(1x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{x}}}+z\left[1\overline{x}+4x+g_2(1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\overline{x}}})4{\displaystyle \frac{1+x4z}{1\overline{x}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}^2+\overline{x}4}{1\overline{x}+z}}\right]\right\}\overline{B}_0^l(1,3)`$
$`+\{16xz[g_2+3g_1x+B(5x^2\overline{x}+11x^255x+52x\overline{x}13x\overline{x}^2+64(1\overline{x})33\overline{x}(1\overline{x}))`$
$`(4x^3x^2(2+3\overline{x})+x(4\overline{x}4\overline{x}^2)+210\overline{x}+14\overline{x}^24{\displaystyle \frac{1\overline{x}}{1x}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^24z}}]`$
$`32Bz^2[1x+{\displaystyle \frac{(1\overline{x})^2}{1x}}]\}\overline{B}_0^l(2,3)`$
$`\{2\overline{x}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}2\overline{x}(1x_g){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}+z[3+3g_1(2x)x+4\overline{x}{\displaystyle \frac{8\overline{x}}{1x}}`$
$`+(10+2\overline{x}+10\overline{x}^2x^2(4+3\overline{x})x(2+\overline{x}+4\overline{x}^2)+4x^38{\displaystyle \frac{1\overline{x}}{2x}}+4{\displaystyle \frac{1\overline{x}}{1x}}8(1x_g){\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}}{x^2}}8{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}^2}{x}}`$
$`){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^24z}}{\displaystyle \frac{(x^2\overline{x}+8\overline{x}7x\overline{x}6x^2+24x22)}{(2x)(1x+z)}}]+{\displaystyle \frac{16z^2}{1x}}\}\overline{B}_0^l(2,4)`$
$`+2\{x3(1x_g){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{x}}}+(1\overline{x})\overline{x}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}\overline{x}(1+\overline{x}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}+z[3g_1+g_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{x}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8x_g}{1x}}`$
$`+(2+6\overline{x}2x^2x(3\overline{x})+4{\displaystyle \frac{1\overline{x}}{1x}}+4(1\overline{x})\overline{x}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}4\overline{x}(1+\overline{x}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^24z}}]\}\overline{B}_0^l(3,4)`$
$`8(1\overline{x})\left\{x{\displaystyle \frac{2x_gz}{1x}}\right\}s\overline{C}_0^l(1,2,3)8(1x)\left\{x{\displaystyle \frac{2x_gz}{1x}}\right\}s\overline{C}_0^l(1,2,4)`$
$`+2z(1\overline{x})\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_2+7+2x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+\overline{x})\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{1x}}\right]+8z\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\overline{x}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2x_g}{(1x)^2}}\right]\right\}sC_0^l(1,3,4)`$
$`2z\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}g_1(1x)x{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+3x+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x^2+4{\displaystyle \frac{1x^2}{1\overline{x}}}2x\overline{x}8z[1+2{\displaystyle \frac{1x}{1\overline{x}}}]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[18x\overline{x}^214\overline{x}^24\overline{x}^2x^2+2x^2\overline{x}+6\overline{x}9x\overline{x}3x^3\overline{x}+4x^4`$
$`+2(1x)(1+3x^2)]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^24z}}\}sC_0^l(2,3,4)`$
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4B}}h_6^{\text{virt., fin.}}|_{\text{subl. colour}}=`$
$`2\left\{2(1\overline{x})+z\left[\overline{x}2{\displaystyle \frac{12x}{1\overline{x}}}4{\displaystyle \frac{zx_g}{(1\overline{x})^2}}\right]\right\}\overline{B}_0^l(1,3)`$
$`+4z\{B(2x^2+3x\overline{x}5xx\overline{x}^2+32\overline{x})+2zB^2(x\overline{x})x_{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{(1x)(x2\overline{x})}{x^24z}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{x}2)x_g}{1x_g4z}}\}\overline{B}_0^l(2,3)`$
$`+2\left\{2\overline{x}{\displaystyle \frac{1x}{x}}+z\left[4\overline{x}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}}{1x}}4{\displaystyle \frac{zx_g}{(1x)^2}}2\left\{2(1+\overline{x})x4{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}}{x}}\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{1x}{x^24z}}\right]\right\}\overline{B}_0^l(2,4)`$
$`+4\left\{\left[x^2\overline{x}(\overline{x}2)(2+(\overline{x}2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}})2(1x_g)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}+2z{\displaystyle \frac{(x2\overline{x})(1x)}{x(x^24z)}}\right\}\overline{B}_0^l(3,4)`$
$`4\left\{\left[\overline{x}(\overline{x}+x)2(1x_g)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}+z{\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{x}2)x_g}{1x_g4z}}\right\}\overline{B}_0^{sl,1}(2,4)`$
$`z(1\overline{x})\left\{g_2+1+4x+3\overline{x}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}(1x)}{1x_g4z}}\right\}sC_0^l(1,3,4)`$
$`+2z\left\{\overline{x}(1+\overline{x})+4(1x_g)+4z{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}x}{1\overline{x}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}}{(1x_g4z)B}}\right\}sC_0^{sl,1}(1,2,3)`$
$`+8(x+\overline{x}2z1)\left\{x{\displaystyle \frac{2x_gz}{1x}}\right\}s\overline{C}_0^{sl,1}(1,2,4)`$
$`+2z\{2[3(1x)\overline{x}(1x)+{\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{x}2)(1\overline{x})}{1x}}2{\displaystyle \frac{(1x^2)}{(1\overline{x})}}+B{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}(1\overline{x})^2}{1x_g}}]`$
$`+8zB\left[x_g(1+x_g)(1x)x{\displaystyle \frac{1\overline{x}}{1x_g}}\right]+2{\displaystyle \frac{(x2\overline{x})(1x)^2}{x^24z}}`$
$`[x(4\overline{x})\overline{x}2{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}(1\overline{x})}{1x}}]{\displaystyle \frac{1\overline{x}}{1x_g4z}}\}sC_0^l(2,3,4)`$
$`+2z\{2(1\overline{x})[x_g(12{\displaystyle \frac{1x_g}{(1\overline{x})^2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{43\overline{x}}{1x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{x}(1x)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1x_g)\overline{x}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1\overline{x})^2}{(1x)^2}}+4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_g}}]`$
$`8zB\left[1+x_gx{\displaystyle \frac{1x}{1\overline{x}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1\overline{x})^2}{1x}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{x_g(1\overline{x})}{1x_g}}`$
$`[4\overline{x}\overline{x}{\displaystyle \frac{1x}{1\overline{x}}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}2}{1x}}+2\overline{x}{\displaystyle \frac{1\overline{x}}{(1x)^2}}]{\displaystyle \frac{x_g(1\overline{x})}{1x_g4z}}\}sC_0^{sl,1}(2,3,4)`$
$`2z\{[6+5\overline{x}+{\displaystyle \frac{x(2+x_g)(2\overline{x})}{1\overline{x}}}+2\overline{x}{\displaystyle \frac{1\overline{x}}{1x}}]{\displaystyle \frac{1\overline{x}}{1x_g}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4z}{1x_g}}\left[x6+4\overline{x}{\displaystyle \frac{(1\overline{x})(23\overline{x})}{1x}}\right]`$
$`+[x(4\overline{x})\overline{x}2\overline{x}{\displaystyle \frac{1\overline{x}}{1x}}]{\displaystyle \frac{1\overline{x}}{1x_g4z}}\}sC_0^{sl,2}(1,3,4)`$
$`+2\{2(xx_g)(1x_g)`$
$`+z[14(1x)2\overline{x}(4x_g)4x{\displaystyle \frac{1x}{1\overline{x}}}+8z{\displaystyle \frac{x_g}{1\overline{x}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}(1x)(x\overline{x})}{1x_g4z}}]\}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{\pi }}D_0^{d=6,sl,1}`$
$`+2\{2(\overline{x}x)(1\overline{x})2x+z[2\{138\overline{x}2xx_{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\overline{x}{\displaystyle \frac{(1\overline{x})^2}{(1x)^2}}`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}(43\overline{x})}{1x}}{\displaystyle \frac{x(3+x)}{1\overline{x}}}+4zx_g\{(2\overline{x})B+{\displaystyle \frac{1\overline{x}}{(1x)^2}}\}\}{\displaystyle \frac{1\overline{x}}{1x_g}}`$
$`\{46\overline{x}+x(4\overline{x})+\overline{x}^24{\displaystyle \frac{1\overline{x}}{1x}}+2\overline{x}{\displaystyle \frac{(1\overline{x})^2}{(1x)^2}}\}{\displaystyle \frac{1\overline{x}}{1x_g4z}}]\}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{\pi }}D_0^{d=6,sl,2}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4B}}\left\{a\overline{A}(zs)+b_{13}\overline{B}_0^l(1,3)+b_{23}\overline{B}_0^l(2,3)+b_{24}\overline{B}_0^l(2,4)+b_{34}\overline{B}_0^l(3,4)+c_{234}C_0^l(2,3,4)\right\},`$
with $`g_1`$ defined in eq. (III.12),

$`g_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{x}^24z}}(12(1x)3\overline{x}^36x\overline{x}^2+13\overline{x}^220\overline{x}+16x\overline{x}),`$ (III.24)
and $`B`$ defined in eq. (II.12). The coefficients $`a,b_{13},\mathrm{}`$ of the loop-integrals in the last line of eq. (III.3) are the same as the coefficients of the corresponding integrals in eq. (III.3).

### III.4 Renormalization

In figure 2 we show the Feynman diagrams which arise from $`_{ct}(\mathrm{\Psi }_R,A_R,m_R,g_R)`$ in eq. (III.1).

The ‘mass counterterm’ shown in the diagrams a, d is given by

$$i((Z_\mathrm{\Psi }1)k/(Z_01)m_R)i(\delta Z_\mathrm{\Psi }k/\delta Z_0m_R)=i\delta Z_\mathrm{\Psi }(k/m_R)+i(\delta Z_\mathrm{\Psi }\delta Z_0)m_R,$$
(III.25)
with the momentum counted in the direction of the fermion flow. The first term will result in contributions proportional to the tree amplitude, while the second term will generate a new structure which is not proportional to the tree amplitude. This term should not contain infrared divergences. Inserting the explicit results for $`\delta Z_\mathrm{\Psi }`$, and $`\delta Z_0`$ it can be easily checked that this term is indeed IR finite. The other contribution from the remaining counterterms (diagrams b, c, e, f) are proportional to the tree amplitude. Using the relation $`Z_g=(Z_A)^{1/2}`$  valid in the background field gauge as long as one uses the MS or $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme for the gluon field and coupling, we find that the gluon renormalization enters only through the residue $`𝒵_A`$ of the renormalized gluon propagator. The contribution from the counterterms is thus given by

$$(2\delta Z_\mathrm{\Psi }\delta Z_\mathrm{\Psi })𝒯^{\text{tree}}+\stackrel{~}{𝒯}^{\text{ct, a+d}}=\delta Z_\mathrm{\Psi }𝒯^{\text{tree}}+\stackrel{~}{𝒯}^{\text{ct, a+d}}$$
(III.26)
with $`\stackrel{~}{𝒯}^{\text{ct, a+d}}`$ the contribution from the insertion of $`i(\delta Z_\mathrm{\Psi }\delta Z_0)m_R`$. For the squared amplitude we get

$`2\delta Z_\mathrm{\Psi }h_6^{\text{LO}}32\pi \alpha _s(N^21)(\delta Z_\mathrm{\Psi }\delta Z_0)\delta h_6.`$ (III.27)
In the on-shell scheme we have

$`\delta Z_\mathrm{\Psi }^{\text{on}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}r_\mathrm{\Gamma }C_F\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{4\pi \mu ^2}}\right)^ϵ\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ_{\text{IR}}}}4\right\}+O(ϵ)`$ (III.28)
and

$`\delta Z_\mathrm{\Psi }^{\text{on}}\delta Z_0^{\text{on}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}C_Fr_\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{4\pi \mu ^2}}\right)^ϵ\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{ϵ}}+4\right\}+O(ϵ).`$ (III.29)
To distinguish between infrared and ultraviolet singularities we have introduced $`ϵ_{\text{IR}}`$ by $`d=4+2ϵ_{\text{IR}}`$. This allows us to check separately the cancellation of the UV and IR singularities. To finish the renormalization procedure we must include the contribution from the residue of the gluon propagator $`𝒵_A^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$:

$$(𝒵_A^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}})^{\frac{1}{2}}𝒯^{\text{tree}}$$
(III.30)
which amounts to

$$2((𝒵_A^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}})^{1/2}1)|𝒯^{\text{tree}}|^2$$
(III.31)
at the level of the squared matrix element. (In the on-shell scheme the residue $`𝒵_\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of the renormalized quark propagator is one by definition.) We have

$`𝒵_A^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(4\pi \right)^ϵ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ϵ)}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ_{\text{IR}}}}(2n_f^l11N)2{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_i^2}{\mu ^2}}\right]+O(ϵ)1\delta 𝒵_A^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}},`$ (III.32)
where $`n_f^l`$ is the number of massless flavours and the $`m_i`$ are the masses of the massive quarks, including the flavour of eq. (II.1), that contribute to the gluon self energy. We can now write down the entire contribution from UV renormalization:

$`h_6^{\text{virt., ren.}}|_{\text{UV}}`$ $`=`$ $`(2\delta Z_\mathrm{\Psi }^{\text{on}}\delta 𝒵_A^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}})h_6^{\text{LO}}32\pi \alpha _s(N^21)(\delta Z_\mathrm{\Psi }^{\text{on}}\delta Z_0^{\text{on}})\delta h_6`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}r_\mathrm{\Gamma }C_F\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{4\pi \mu ^2}}\right)^ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}h_6^{\text{LO}}24\alpha _s^2(N^21)C_Fr_\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{4\pi \mu ^2}}\right)^ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\delta h_6`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}r_\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{4\pi \mu ^2}}\right)^ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ_{\text{IR}}}}\left\{4C_F{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(2n_f^l11N\right)\right\}h_6^{\text{LO}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(2n_f11N)\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_i^2}{m^2}}8C_F\right\}h_6^{\text{LO}}32\alpha _s^2(N^21)C_F\delta h_6.`$
Comparing this result with eq. (III.10) it follows immediately that all the UV singularities cancel. In addition it can be seen that the factor $`\mu ^{2ϵ}`$ in front of the UV singularities cancels together with the singularities. As we will show in section IV.3 the same is true for the $`\mu `$-dependence in front of the IR singularities. The remaining $`\mu `$-dependence is thus given by

$$\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }\beta _0\mathrm{ln}(\frac{\mu ^2}{m^2})h_6^{\text{LO}}\text{with}\beta _0=\frac{1}{3}(11N2n_f)$$
(III.34)
as it should be according to the renormalization group equation. However this is only true as long as we renormalize the mass parameter in the on-shell scheme.

We close this subsection with some remarks concerning the treatment of $`\gamma _5`$. Since we perform the computation of $`h_6`$ in $`d`$ dimensions, we have to give a prescription how to treat $`\gamma _5`$. We use the following substitution in the axial vector current (remember that $`\mu `$ is a 4-dimensional index) :

$$\gamma _\mu \gamma _5Z_5^{ns}\frac{i}{3!}\epsilon _{\mu \beta \gamma \delta }\gamma ^\beta \gamma ^\gamma \gamma ^\delta ,\text{with}Z_5^{ns}=1\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }C_F+𝒪(\alpha _s^2).$$
(III.35)
The finite ‘counterterm’ $`(Z_5^{ns}1)`$ induces a contribution

$$h_6^{\text{virt., ren.}}|_{\gamma _5}=\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }C_Fh_6^{\text{LO}}.$$
(III.36)
This term is necessary to restore the chiral Ward identities, which can be checked in the present case by verifying the following relation:

$$h_6^{VA}(m=0)=h_6^{AV}(m=0).$$
(III.37)
Here, the index $`VA(AV)`$ denotes the contribution to $`h_6`$ from the interference of the Born (1-loop) vector current with the 1-loop (Born) axial vector current. We have checked that after inclusion of the term given in eq. (III.36) the relation shown in eq. (III.37) is indeed satisfied.

### III.5 Checks of the calculation

The finite parts of the loop contributions to the virtual corrections are given by the rather complicated expressions eq. (III.3) and eq. (III.3). It is important to perform some checks to ensure their correctness. To this end it is useful to realize that the decomposition in terms of (coefficients)$`\times `$(one-loop integrals) is unique in the sense that in the massless case the coefficients of the loop-integrals can be uniquely reconstructed from the coefficients of specific logarithms even after having inserted the analytic expressions for the loop-integrals.

Most of the coefficients are highly constrained due to the general properties of infrared finiteness and renormalizability. As already mentioned above, only the $`A`$ and $`B_0`$ integrals contain UV singularities. Therefore the fact that all UV singularities cancel after inclusion of the counterterms is an excellent check of the coefficients of the one- and two-point integrals, which are each quite involved but combine to give the rather simple expression eq. (III.10). As discussed in section III.2, all IR singularities reside in three-point integrals. They are given explicitly in eq. (III.16) and eq. (III.20). Therefore the coefficients of the IR divergent $`C_0`$ integrals are constrained by the requirement that the IR singularities in the virtual corrections cancel against the IR singularities from the real emission processes. We will see in the next section that this cancellation really takes place (cf. eq. (IV.33) and eq. (IV.34)). Note that only the coefficients of the IR finite $`C_0`$ integrals are not tested by the consideration above. (The coefficients of the box-integrals enter the coefficients of the divergent $`C_0`$ integrals and are thus also tested.) Since all coefficients of the loop integrals are computed simultaneously by one code, the above considerations provide already a quite powerful check.

We can, however, perform an additional test by comparing our result in the limit $`m0`$ with the known massless result for $`h_6`$ given in references , and . In these references the loop-integrals are substituted by their analytic expressions in terms of logarithms and dilogarithms. As mentioned above we can reconstruct the coefficients of the loop-integrals from the coefficients of specific logarithms and dilogarithms. For example in the massless case the dilogarithm appears only in the box-integrals. As a consequence the coefficient of the function $`r(x,y)`$ defined in eq. (4.11) of ref.  must be proportional to the coefficients of the box-integrals in our result, if we consider the massless case. Note that the massless case cannot be derived by simply taking the massless limit, because the massless limit of the loop-integrals does not exist in general. However we can still compare the coefficients of the loop integrals with the massless result by setting $`z=0`$ in the coefficients and checking which logarithm/dilogarithm in the results of ref.  are generated from which loop-integrals if one calculates the integrals for massless quarks. We do not need to worry about the additional collinear singularities which are present in the loop-integrals for massless quarks, as long as we want to check only the coefficients of the loop-integrals.

In this way we can compare our result for example to the one given in eq. (4.9) and eq. (4.10) of ref. . The definition of $`H_{6,7}`$ in ref.  differs by a factor of 2 from ours due to a different convention in the definition of the electroweak couplings. Taking this into account, we find complete agreement of our result with the coefficients of the $`\mathrm{ln}^2`$, $`\mathrm{ln}`$ and $`r(x,y)`$ functions in eq. (4.10) of ref. . We also can reproduce their rational function, but only up to a multiple of the Born result. This is not surprising, since the massless limit induces additional divergent and finite terms and since we use a different method to isolate the IR divergences in the real emission processes. For the leading contribution in the number of colours we find agreement of our coefficients with those of eq. (4.9) in ref.  up to an overall factor $`(1)`$. This is most probably caused by a typographical error which is also present in ref. , but not in ref.  with which we fully agree.

## IV Singular contributions from real emission

In this section we discuss the cancellation of the soft and collinear singularities appearing in the loop corrections in particular eq. (III.16), eq. (III.20) and eq. (LABEL:eq:ren-contr). To cancel them we must include the singular contributions from the real emission processes, in particular $`e^+e^{}Q\overline{Q}q\overline{q}`$ and $`e^+e^{}Q\overline{Q}gg`$, with $`q`$ denoting a light quark. The reactions $`e^+e^{}Q\overline{Q}Q^{}\overline{Q}^{}`$ and $`e^+e^{}Q\overline{Q}Q\overline{Q}`$ do not yield a singular contribution. As a consequence these contributions can be integrated numerically in 4 dimensions. In $`e^+e^{}Q\overline{Q}Q^{}\overline{Q}^{},Q\overline{Q}Q\overline{Q}`$ the collinear singularities which would appear for massless quarks are regulated by the quark mass and give rise to $`\mathrm{ln}(m^2)`$ terms. To a certain extend these logarithms cancel in the sum of virtual and real contributions. On the other hand in tagged cross sections one encounters in general the situation where uncancelled logarithms remain in the final result. For example in $`e^+e^{}Q\overline{Q}q\overline{q}`$ it can be easily seen that such logarithms will be produced when the heavy quark pair is produced by a gluon emitted from the light quarks. Due to the fact that this contribution is proportional to the couplings of the light quarks to the Z boson it can never be cancelled by the virtual contributions. In the presence of several scales of different orders of magnitude these logarithms may spoil the convergence of fixed order perturbation theory and indicate a sensitivity to long distance phenomena. (Because of these logarithms it is for example not longer possible to take the massless limit!) The uncancelled logarithms may need a treatment by renormalization group techniques which goes beyond the fixed order perturbation theory. In particular they should be absorbed into the appropriate fragmentation functions. These contributions can also be isolated by experimental cuts .

To cancel soft and collinear singularities several algorithms have been developed in the past . In this work we use the phase space slicing method which was modified to include mass effects in $`e^+e^{}3`$ jets in references  and generalized to treat massive quarks in arbitrary jet cross sections in ref. . Here we restrict ourself to the singular parts from the real emission processes. The finite contributions which can be calculated by numerical integration of the existing leading order matrix elements will be discussed elsewhere. The idea of the phase space slicing is to split the phase space of the real emission contributions into regions where all the partons are hard and not collinear (resolved regions) and the remaining regions where two partons are collinear or a parton is soft (unresolved regions). The separation into resolved and unresolved regions can be performed by introducing appropriate Heaviside functions. In the unresolved regions one can make use of the soft and collinear factorization to approximate the matrix elements. Due to this simplifications it is possible to perform the integrations analytically over the unresolved regions.

To fix the notation and to define as clearly as possible resolved and unresolved contributions we outline in the next two sections the phase space slicing method applied to the problem at hand.

### IV.1 Singular contribution from $`Q\overline{Q}q\overline{q}`$

The matrix element for $`e^+e^{}Q(k_Q)\overline{Q}(k_{\overline{Q}})q(k_q)\overline{q}(k_{\overline{q}})`$ is singular in the limit $`k_q||k_{\overline{q}}`$. Defining $`t_{ij}=2k_ik_j`$ we may introduce the following slicing:

$$|𝒯(Q(k_Q)\overline{Q}(k_{\overline{Q}})q(k_q)\overline{q}(k_{\overline{q}}))|^2=[\mathrm{\Theta }(t_{q\overline{q}}s_{\text{min}})+\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{\text{min}}t_{q\overline{q}})]|𝒯(Q(k_Q)\overline{Q}(k_{\overline{Q}})q(k_q)\overline{q}(k_{\overline{q}}))|^2,$$
(IV.1)
where $`s_{\text{min}}`$ denotes an arbitrary mass scale squared which separates between collinear and resolved regions. The resolved contribution

$$d\sigma _R=\mathrm{\Theta }(t_{Q\overline{Q}}s_{\text{min}})|𝒯(Q(k_Q)\overline{Q}(k_{\overline{Q}})q(k_q)\overline{q}(k_{\overline{q}}))|^2dR^d(k_Q,k_{\overline{Q}},k_q,k_{\overline{q}})$$
(IV.2)
is free of collinear singularities and can thus be integrated numerically in 4 dimensions.
Here $`dR^d(k_Q,k_{\overline{Q}},k_q,k_{\overline{q}})`$ denotes the four particle phase space measure in $`d`$ dimensions:

$$dR^d(k_1,\mathrm{},k_n)=\frac{1}{𝒩}(2\pi )^d\delta ^{(d)}(K\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}k_i)\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{d^{d1}k_i}{(2\pi )^{d1}2k_i^0}.$$
(IV.3)
($`𝒩`$ is a symmetry factor.) For small $`s_{\text{min}}`$ the second term in eq. (IV.1) can be approximated using the factorization of amplitudes in the collinear limit:

$`\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{\text{min}}t_{q\overline{q}})|𝒯(Q(k_Q)\overline{Q}(k_{\overline{Q}})q(k_q)\overline{q}(k_{\overline{q}}))|^2`$ (IV.4)
$`\stackrel{k_q||k_{\overline{q}}}{}`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{\text{min}}t_{q\overline{q}})|𝒯(Q(k_Q)\overline{Q}(k_{\overline{Q}})g(k_q+k_{\overline{q}}))|^2g_s^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{t_{q\overline{q}}}}P_{q\overline{q}g}(z)`$
where $`P_{gq\overline{q}}(z)`$ is the Altarelli-Parisi kernel  (in conventional dimensional regularization)

$$P_{q\overline{q}g}(z)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{z^2+(1z)^2ϵ}{1ϵ}$$
(IV.5)
and $`z`$ denotes the momentum fraction in the collinear limit:

$$k_q=z(k_q+k_{\overline{q}}).$$
(IV.6)
Using in addition the factorization of the phase-space measure in the collinear limit :

$`dR^d(k_Q,k_{\overline{Q}},k_q,k_{\overline{q}})\stackrel{k_q||k_{\overline{q}}}{}dR^d(k_Q,k_{\overline{Q}},P)dR_{\text{coll.}}(k_q,k_{\overline{q}})`$ (IV.7)
with

$$dR_{\text{coll.}}(k_q,k_{\overline{q}})=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\frac{\left(4\pi \mu ^2\right)^ϵ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ϵ)}dt_{q\overline{q}}dz[t_{q\overline{q}}z(1z)]^ϵ$$
(IV.8)
the unresolved contribution to the cross section after integration over the collinear region is given by

$`d\sigma _U(Q(k_Q)\overline{Q}(k_{\overline{Q}})q(k_q)\overline{q}(k_{\overline{q}}))=d\sigma (Q(k_Q)\overline{Q}(k_{\overline{Q}})g(k_g))𝒞_{q\overline{q}}`$ (IV.9)
with

$`𝒞_{q\overline{q}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ϵ)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \mu ^2}{s_{\text{min}}}}\right)^ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z[z(1z)]^ϵP_{q\overline{q}g}(z)`$ (IV.10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ϵ)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \mu ^2}{s_{\text{min}}}}\right)^ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{1ϵ}{32ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(1ϵ)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(22ϵ)}}.`$
In eq. (IV.9) we have identified the sum of momenta $`k_q+k_{\overline{q}}`$ with the momentum $`k_g`$ of the outgoing ‘recombined’ gluon. In particular the singular contribution to $`h_6`$ is given by $`𝒞_{q\overline{q}}\times h_6^{\text{LO}}.`$ We get the same contribution for each massless quark flavour. This results to an overall factor $`n_f^l`$ with $`n_f^l`$ the number of light flavours.

### IV.2 Singular contribution from $`Q\overline{Q}gg`$

The singular behavior of the matrix element for $`e^+e^{}Q(k_Q)\overline{Q}(k_{\overline{Q}})g(k_1)g(k_2)`$ is far more complicated than that discussed in the previous section. While in $`e^+e^{}Q\overline{Q}q\overline{q}`$ only collinear singularities appear we have now both: soft and collinear singularities. In addition only the colour ordered sub-amplitudes show a simple factorization in the soft limit. So we may start with the colour decomposition of the amplitude which reads

$$𝒯(Q(k_Q)\overline{Q}(k_{\overline{Q}})g(k_1)g(k_2))=(T_{a_1}T_{a_2})_{c_Qc_{\overline{Q}}}S_1+(T_{a_2}T_{a_1})_{c_Qc_{\overline{Q}}}S_2.$$
(IV.11)
Here $`c_Q`$ ($`c_{\overline{Q}}`$) is the colour index of the (anti-) quark, and $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$ are the colour indices of the gluons. In our conventions the colour matrices satisfy $`\text{Tr}[T_aT_b]=\delta _{ab}`$. The amplitudes $`S_1`$, $`S_2`$ are the so called colour ordered sub-amplitudes. The squared amplitude in terms of the sub-amplitudes is given by

$$\underset{\text{colour}}{}|𝒯(Q(k_Q)\overline{Q}(k_{\overline{Q}})g(k_1)g(k_2))|^2=(N^21)\left(N(|S_1|^2+|S_2|^2)\frac{1}{N}|S_1+S_2|^2\right).$$
(IV.12)
Note that the sub-amplitudes are gauge independent. We can thus study the soft and collinear limits independently for $`|S_1|^2`$, $`|S_2|^2`$ and $`|S_1+S_2|^2`$. The contribution $`|S_1+S_2|^2`$ is essentially QED-like. It is therefore free of collinear singularities in the limit that the two gluons become collinear. The amplitude $`S_2`$ can be obtained from $`S_1`$ by exchanging the two gluon momenta. So let us start with the treatment of $`S_1`$. The appropriate invariants for the phase space slicing are $`t_{Q1}`$, $`t_{12}`$ and $`t_{2\overline{Q}}`$. We start with the following identity:

$`1`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathrm{\Theta }(t_{Q1}s_{\text{min}})+\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{\text{min}}t_{Q1})][\mathrm{\Theta }(t_{12}s_{\text{min}})+\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{\text{min}}t_{12})]`$ (IV.13)
$`\times [\mathrm{\Theta }(t_{2\overline{Q}}s_{\text{min}})+\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{\text{min}}t_{2\overline{Q}})]`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(t_{Q1}s_{\text{min}})\mathrm{\Theta }(t_{12}s_{\text{min}})\mathrm{\Theta }(t_{2\overline{Q}}s_{\text{min}})`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(t_{Q1}s_{\text{min}})\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{\text{min}}t_{12})\mathrm{\Theta }(t_{2\overline{Q}}s_{\text{min}})\text{ 1,2 collinear}`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(t_{Q1}s_{\text{min}})\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{\text{min}}t_{12})\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{\text{min}}t_{2\overline{Q}})\text{ 2 soft}`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{\text{min}}t_{Q1})\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{\text{min}}t_{12})\mathrm{\Theta }(t_{2\overline{Q}}s_{\text{min}})\text{ 1 soft}`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(t_{Q1}s_{\text{min}})\mathrm{\Theta }(t_{12}s_{\text{min}})\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{\text{min}}t_{2\overline{Q}})\text{ }\overline{Q}\text{,2 collinear}`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{\text{min}}t_{Q1})\mathrm{\Theta }(t_{12}s_{\text{min}})\mathrm{\Theta }(t_{2\overline{Q}}s_{\text{min}})\text{ Q,1 collinear}`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{\text{min}}t_{Q1})\mathrm{\Theta }(t_{12}s_{\text{min}})\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{\text{min}}t_{2\overline{Q}})\text{ Q,1 collinear and }\overline{Q}\text{,2 collinear}`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{\text{min}}t_{Q1})\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{\text{min}}t_{12})\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{\text{min}}t_{2\overline{Q}})\text{ 1 and 2 soft}`$
The first line in the decomposition above corresponds to the resolved region: both gluons are hard and not collinear to each other. Combined with the squared matrix element this contribution can be integrated numerically in 4 dimensions. The next three lines describe the single unresolved regions which yield a singular contribution after phase space integration. There are also single unresolved contributions when one of the two gluons becomes ‘collinear’ to the heavy quark or anti-quark. These contributions do not yield a singular contribution after phase space integration, because of the mass of the quarks. In principle they should be of order $`s_{\text{min}}`$. In fact for small enough values for $`s_{\text{min}}`$ these contributions vanish, because the quark mass serves already as a cutoff. This can be checked by including them in the numerical integration procedure. The last two lines describe ‘double unresolved’ contributions. As long as we restrict ourself to three-jet quantities, these terms do not contribute. The above slicing of the phase space differs slightly from the one used in our previous work  and corresponds to the one used in ref. . For the leading colour contributions the slicing (IV.13) is more convenient than the one used in references , because the soft factor (see below) is more compact and the separation of soft and collinear regions is simpler, facilitating the numerical implementation. We have checked numerically that the two slicing methods are equivalent.

Let us now discuss the contributions from the soft regions, for example the region where momentum $`k_1`$ is ‘soft’:

$`\delta d\sigma _U=\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{\text{min}}t_{Q1})\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{\text{min}}t_{12})\mathrm{\Theta }(t_{2\overline{Q}}s_{\text{min}})|S_1|^2dR^d(k_Q,k_{\overline{Q}},k_1,k_2)`$ (IV.14)
Using the soft factorization of the squared matrix element

$`N(N^21)|S_1|^2\stackrel{\text{1 soft}}{}g_s^2{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}f(k_Q,k_1,k_2)|𝒯(Q(k_Q)\overline{Q}(k_{\overline{Q}})g(k_2))|^2`$ (IV.15)
with

$`f(k_i,k_s,k_j)={\displaystyle \frac{4t_{ij}}{t_{is}t_{sj}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4k_i^2}{t_{is}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4k_j^2}{t_{js}^2}},`$ (IV.16)
together with the soft factorization of the phase space measure

$$dR^d(k_Q,k_{\overline{Q}},k_1,k_2)dR^d(k_Q,k_{\overline{Q}},k_2)\frac{1}{2}dR_{\text{soft}}$$
(IV.17)
(the factor 1/2 is the symmetry factor for the two identical gluons) we arrive at

$$\delta d\sigma _U=\frac{N}{2}S(m,0,t_{Q2})|𝒯(Q(k_Q)\overline{Q}(k_{\overline{Q}})g(k_2))|^2dR^d(k_Q,k_{\overline{Q}},k_2)$$
(IV.18)
with

$$S(m_i,m_j,t_{ij})=\frac{g_s^2}{2}𝑑R_{\text{soft}}f(k_i,k_s,k_j)\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{\text{min}}t_{is})\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{\text{min}}t_{sj}),\text{for}k_i^2=m_i^2.$$
(IV.19)
Explicitly ,

$`S(m,0,t_{Q2})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ϵ)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \mu ^2}{s_{\text{min}}}}\right)^ϵ\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_{Q2}}{s_{\text{min}}}}\right)^ϵJ(m,0,t_{Q2}),`$ (IV.20)
where

$`J(m,0,t_{Q2})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(t_{Q2}m^2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2ϵ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_{Q2}}{m^2}}\right)^ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2ϵ}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_{Q2}}{m^2}}\right)^ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\zeta (2)+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{t_{Q2}}}\right]`$ (IV.21)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(m^2t_{Q2})\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_{Q2}}{m^2}}\right)^ϵ\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2ϵ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\zeta (2)+1\right].`$
The case that gluon 2 becomes soft can be treated in the same way. To finish our discussion of the singular contribution from $`S_1`$ let us discuss the contribution from the collinear region. Here the same procedure as in the massless case applies. For details we refer to the previous section or to ref. . So we quote only the final result:

$`\mathrm{\Theta }(t_{Q1}s_{\text{min}})\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{\text{min}}t_{12})\mathrm{\Theta }(t_{2\overline{Q}}s_{\text{min}})|S_1|^2dR^d(k_Q,k_{\overline{Q}},k_1,k_2)`$ (IV.22)
$``$ $`N𝒞_{gg}|𝒯(Q(k_Q)\overline{Q}(k_{\overline{Q}})g(k_g))|^2dR^d(k_Q,k_{\overline{Q}},k_g)`$
with

$`𝒞_{gg}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ϵ)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \mu ^2}{s_{\text{min}}}}\right)^ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle _{z_1}^{1z_2}}𝑑z[z(1z)]^ϵP_{ggg}(z)`$ (IV.23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ϵ)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \mu ^2}{s_{\text{min}}}}\right)^ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}I_{ggg},`$
and

$`I_{ggg}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(z_Q)^ϵ}{ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(z_{\overline{Q}})^ϵ}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{3(1ϵ)(43ϵ)}{2ϵ(32ϵ)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ϵ)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(22ϵ)}}`$
where $`z_Q`$ and $`z_{\overline{Q}}`$ are defined as follows:

$$z_Q=\frac{s_{\text{min}}}{t_{Qg}},z_{\overline{Q}}=\frac{s_{\text{min}}}{t_{\overline{Q}g}}.$$
(IV.25)
For $`|S_2|^2`$ we may apply the same procedure as for $`|S_1|^2`$. The soft singularities appearing in $`|S_1+S_2|^2`$ can be treated in a similar way as the singularities in $`S_1`$. Since the amplitude $`S_1+S_2`$ is a QED-like contribution with massive quarks, it does not induce collinear singularities. The soft singularities can be isolated most easily by using the following identity:

$`1=[\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{\text{min}}t_{Q1}t_{\overline{Q}1})+\mathrm{\Theta }(t_{Q1}+t_{\overline{Q}1}s_{\text{min}})][\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{\text{min}}t_{Q2}t_{\overline{Q}2})+\mathrm{\Theta }(t_{Q2}+t_{\overline{Q}2}s_{\text{min}})].`$ (IV.26)
If we expand this expression we obtain

$`1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{\text{min}}t_{Q1}t_{\overline{Q}1})\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{\text{min}}t_{Q2}t_{\overline{Q}2})`$ (IV.27)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{\text{min}}t_{Q1}t_{\overline{Q}1})+\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{\text{min}}t_{Q2}t_{\overline{Q}2})`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(t_{Q1}+t_{\overline{Q}1}s_{\text{min}})\mathrm{\Theta }(t_{Q2}+t_{\overline{Q}2}s_{\text{min}})`$
The first term describes a double unresolved contribution: both gluons must be soft to satisfy the Heaviside functions. This term does not contribute to a three-jet observable. The next two terms describe the situation in which gluon 1 or gluon 2 is soft. It is still allowed that both gluons are soft, this explains the minus sign in the first line that avoids over-counting. The last term denotes the resolved contribution which can be calculated numerically in 4 dimensions. Using the slicing given in eq. (IV.27) we thus obtain for the soft contribution from $`|S_1+S_2|`$:

$`[\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{\text{min}}t_{Q1}t_{\overline{Q}1})+\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{\text{min}}t_{Q2}t_{\overline{Q}2})]({\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}})(N^21)|S_1+S_2|^2dR^d(k_Q,k_{\overline{Q}},k_1,k_2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}S(m,m,t_{Q\overline{Q}})|𝒯(Q(k_Q)\overline{Q}(k_{\overline{Q}})g(k_g))|^2dR^d(k_Q,k_{\overline{Q}},k_g)`$ (IV.28)
where we have used the factorization in the soft region which now takes the form:

$$\frac{1}{N}(N^21)|S_1+S_2|^2\stackrel{\text{1 soft}}{}\frac{1}{2N}g_s^2f(k_Q,k_1,k_{\overline{Q}})|𝒯(Q(k_Q)\overline{Q}(k_{\overline{Q}})g(k_g))|^2.$$
(IV.29)
Note that we have once again identified the momentum of the remaining hard gluon with $`k_g`$. The explicit result for $`S(m,m,t_{Q\overline{Q}})`$ is

$`S(m,m,t_{Q\overline{Q}})={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ϵ)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \mu ^2}{s_{\text{min}}}}\right)^ϵ\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_{Q\overline{Q}}+2m^2}{s_{\text{min}}}}\right)^ϵJ(m,m,t_{Q\overline{Q}}),`$ (IV.30)
where

$`J(m,m,t_{Q\overline{Q}})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\omega }{1\omega }}\mathrm{ln}(\omega )+{\displaystyle \frac{1+\omega ^2}{1\omega ^2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\mathrm{ln}(\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}^2(\omega )2\mathrm{Li}_2(1\omega )\right\}+O(ϵ)`$ (IV.31)
and $`\omega `$ was defined in (III.19). Combining all singular contributions from $`|S_1|^2`$, $`|S_2|^2`$, and $`|S_1+S_2|^2`$ we obtain the following result for the unresolved contribution:

$`\left\{NS(m,0,t_{Qg})+NS(m,0,t_{\overline{Q}g})+N𝒞_{ggg}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}S(m,m,t_{Q\overline{Q}})\right\}d\sigma (Q(k_Q)\overline{Q}(k_{\overline{Q}})g(k_g))`$ (IV.32)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ϵ)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \mu ^2}{s_{\text{min}}}}\right)^ϵ\times \{N[\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_{Qg}}{s_{\text{min}}}}\right)^ϵJ(m,0,t_{Qg})+\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_{\overline{Q}g}}{s_{\text{min}}}}\right)^ϵJ(m,0,t_{\overline{Q}g}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}I_{ggg}]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_{Q\overline{Q}}+2m^2}{s_{\text{min}}}}\right)^ϵJ(m,m,t_{Q\overline{Q}})\}d\sigma (Q(k_Q)\overline{Q}(k_{\overline{Q}})g(k_g))`$
To get the singular (unresolved) contribution to $`h_6`$ one has simply to replace $`d\sigma (Q(k_Q)\overline{Q}(k_{\overline{Q}})g(k_g))`$ by $`h_6^{\text{LO}}`$. Note that both quantities $`d\sigma (Q(k_Q)\overline{Q}(k_{\overline{Q}})g(k_g))`$ and $`h_6^{\text{LO}}`$ are evaluated in $`d`$ dimensions. As we will show in the next subsection the same structure is obtained from the virtual corrections. After the cancellation of the IR singularities we thus need $`d\sigma (Q(k_Q)\overline{Q}(k_{\overline{Q}})g(k_g))`$ or equivalently $`h_6^{\text{LO}}`$ only in 4 dimensions.

### IV.3 Infrared and collinear finiteness

We close this section by demonstrating that the singular contributions discussed in the previous subsections indeed cancel the singularities encountered in the virtual corrections.

Combining eq. (III.16), eq. (III.20), and eq. (LABEL:eq:ren-contr) we obtain for the IR singularities of the virtual corrections the following result:

$`h_6^{\text{virt., IR div.}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}r_\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \mu ^2}{m^2}}\right)^ϵ\{N[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{t_{Qg}}{m^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{t_{\overline{Q}g}}{m^2}})]`$ (IV.33)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\omega ^2}{1\omega ^2}}\mathrm{ln}(\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}[2C_F{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(2n_f^l11N)]\}h_6^{\text{LO}}`$
The singular parts of the real emission processes are given by (eq. (IV.9), eq. (IV.32)):

$`h_6^{\text{real, unres.}}|_{\text{div}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ϵ)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \mu ^2}{m^2}}\right)^ϵ`$ (IV.34)
$`\times `$ $`\{N[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_{Qg}}{m^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_{\overline{Q}g}}{m^2}}\right)]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\omega ^2}{1\omega ^2}}\mathrm{ln}(\omega )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}[2C_F{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(2n_f^l11N)]\}h_6^{\text{LO}},`$
where we have used the expansions

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_{Qg}}{s_{\text{min}}}}\right)^ϵJ(m,0,t_{Qg})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2ϵ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2ϵ}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_{\text{min}}}{m^2}}\right)+j(m,0,t_{Qg})+O(ϵ)`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_{Q\overline{Q}}+2m^2}{s_{\text{min}}}}\right)^ϵJ(m,m,t_{Q\overline{Q}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\omega ^2}{1\omega ^2}}\mathrm{ln}(\omega )+j(m,m,t_{Q\overline{Q}})+O(ϵ),`$
$`I_{ggg}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{11}{6}}\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{s_{\text{min}}}{t_{Qg}}})\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{s_{\text{min}}}{t_{\overline{Q}g}}})`$
$`+`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}^2({\displaystyle \frac{s_{\text{min}}}{t_{Qg}}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}^2({\displaystyle \frac{s_{\text{min}}}{t_{\overline{Q}g}}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{67}{18}})ϵ+O(ϵ^2),`$
$`n_f^l{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}I_{q\overline{q}g}`$ $`=`$ $`n_f^l{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{9}}n_f^l+O(ϵ),`$ (IV.35)
with $`j(m,0,t_{Qg}),j(m,m,t_{Q\overline{Q}})`$ denoting the order 1 contributions in the expansion. They are given by

$`j(m,0,t_{Qg})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_{\text{min}}}{m^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_{\text{min}}}{m^2}}\right)+1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\zeta (2)`$ (IV.36)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(t_{Qg}m^2)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_{Qg}}{m^2}}\right)+\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_{Qg}}{m^2}}\right)1+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{t_{Qg}}}\right\},`$
$`j(m,m,t_{Q\overline{Q}})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_{Q\overline{Q}}+2m^2}{s_{\text{min}}}}\right)\left\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{1+\omega ^2}{1\omega ^2}}\mathrm{ln}(\omega )\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\omega }{1\omega }}\mathrm{ln}(\omega )`$ (IV.37)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+\omega ^2}{1\omega ^2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}^2(\omega )+2\mathrm{Li}_2(1\omega )\right\}.`$
Note that we have not expanded the factor $`\mu ^ϵ`$ to show explicitly the cancellation of this factor as it was promised in section III.4. Comparing eq. (IV.33) and eq. (IV.34) one sees immediately that the singular contribution from the real corrections cancel exactly the IR divergences from the virtual corrections.

## V Summary and conlusions

In this work we have calculated the virtual corrections to the parity-violating functions $`F_3`$ and $`F_6`$ of the fully differential cross section eq. (II.2) for $`e^+e^{}Q\overline{Q}g`$. We have given results for the UV and IR singularities as well as for the finite contributions. We have shown explicitly the cancellation of the UV singularities after the renormalization has been performed. In addition we have calculated also the singular contribution from real corrections using the phase space slicing method. We checked that this contribution cancels exactly the IR singularities in the virtual corrections. Together with our comparison to the known results for massless quarks the cancellation of the IR and UV singularities serves as an important check of our calculation.

We have given our next-to-leading order results in terms of one function $`h_6`$, from which $`F_3`$ and $`F_6`$ can be reconstructed using eq. (II.6)–eq. (II.10). The final result for the contribution from three resolved partons, $`h_6^{\text{3 res., NLO}}`$, can be obtained from the following formula:

$$h_6^{\text{3 res., NLO}}=h_6^{\text{virt., fin.}}+h_6^{\text{rest}}+h_6^{\text{real, unres.}}|_{\text{fin.}},$$
(V.1)
where $`h_6^{\text{virt., fin.}}`$ is given in eq. (III.21). The contribution $`h_6^{\text{rest}}`$ is given by

$`h_6^{\text{rest}}`$ $`=`$ $`h_6^{\text{virt., UV div.}}+h_6^{\text{virt., IR div.}}|_{\text{lead. colour}}+h_6^{\text{virt., IR div.}}|_{\text{subl. colour}}`$
$`+`$ $`h_6^{\text{virt., ren.}}|_{\text{UV}}+h_6^{\text{virt., ren.}}|_{\gamma _5}+h_6^{\text{real, unres.}}|_{\text{div.}}`$
$`=`$ $`8\alpha _s^2(N^21)C_FB(1+x2\overline{x}+(1\overline{x}){\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}}{x}}`$
$`+`$ $`z[2B((\overline{x}^22x)(1x)+(23x)(1\overline{x}))+g_1{\displaystyle \frac{x^24z}{x(1x)}}+4zB(2{\displaystyle \frac{(1\overline{x})^2}{1x}}+x_g)])`$
$`+`$ $`16\alpha _s^2C_FB({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_g}}(x\overline{x}4\overline{x}+2+\overline{x}^2)2zx_gB(x\overline{x}))`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(2n_f11N)\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_i^2}{m^2}}8C_F\right\}h_6^{\text{LO}}32\alpha _s^2(N^21)C_F\delta h_6{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}C_Fh_6^{\text{LO}},`$
where $`g_1`$ was defined in (III.12). The finite contribution from unresolved partons is given by

$`h_6^{\text{real, unres.}}|_{\text{fin.}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}\{N[j(m,0,t_{Qg})+j(m,0,t_{\overline{Q}g})({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}^2({\displaystyle \frac{s_{\text{min}}}{t_{Qg}}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}^2({\displaystyle \frac{s_{\text{min}}}{t_{\overline{Q}g}}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{67}{18}})]`$ (V.3)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}j(m,m,t_{Q\overline{Q}}){\displaystyle \frac{5}{9}}n_f^l\}h_6^{\text{LO}}.`$
The functions $`j(m,0,t_{Qg})`$, and $`j(m,m,t_{Q\overline{Q}})`$ are given in eq. (IV.36) and eq. (IV.37), respectively. Note that $`h_6^{\text{real, unres.}}|_{\text{fin.}}`$ depend on the method used to combine virtual and real corrections. Furthermore we can set $`d=4`$ in $`h_6^{\text{LO}}`$ in eq. (V.3) because all singularities are cancelled.

The results presented in this paper comprise the whole contribution of three ‘resolved partons’. Parity-violating three-jet observables can be computed using these results together with the contribution from four ‘resolved partons’. The latter does not contain IR singularities and can, for a given jet algorithm, be calculated numerically in a rather straightforward fashion using known results of the matrix elements for the 4-parton final states . In particular one can determine the 3-jet and 4-jet forward-backward asymmetries $`A_{\text{FB}}`$ for massive quark jets to order $`\alpha _s^2`$ in the QCD coupling, for instance for $`b`$ quark jets at the $`Z`$ peak.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Charged Higgs bosons ($`H^\pm `$) are predicted in many extensions of the Standard Model (SM), in particular the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM). Their phenomenology  has received much attention both at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders  and at hadron colliders , ,. At $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders production proceeds via the mechanism $`e^+e^{}\gamma ^{},Z^{}H^+H^{}`$, with higher order corrections evaluated in , and detection is possible for $`M_{H^\pm }`$ up to approximately $`\sqrt{s}/2`$. The combined null–searches from all four LEP collaborations derive the lower limit $`M_{H^\pm }77.3`$ GeV $`(95\%c.l)`$ .

In recent years an increasing amount of work has been dedicated to the physics possibilities of $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ colliders , . Such colliders offer novel ways of producing Higgs bosons, and much attention has been given to the study of neutral Higgs bosons produced as resonances in the s-channel ,.

The phenomenology of $`H^\pm `$ at $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ colliders has previously been considered to be more or less identical to that at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders. This is because the pair production processes of $`e^+e^{},\mu ^+\mu ^{}H^+H^{}`$ have been assumed to have the same rate at both colliders. This is the case in the MSSM, where the Higgs mediated s-channel diagrams have been shown to be negligible at a $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider . The single production of $`H^\pm `$ via the process $`e^+e^{}H^\pm W^{}`$ , which proceeds dominantly via loops, has relatively small rates. An analysis in the context of the LHC has been covered in . At a muon collider this process can have a much larger cross-section because the tree-level diagrams, which are suppressed by $`m_e^2`$ in the $`e^+e^{}`$ case, are proportional to $`m_\mu ^2`$, and become by far the dominant contribution.

The mechanism $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}H^\pm W^{}`$ was first considered in  and subsequently developed in . It possesses several advantages over the conventional pair production process, $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}H^+H^{}`$. In particular, $`H^\pm `$ may be produced on-shell for $`M_{H^\pm }\sqrt{s}M_W`$, which compares favourably with the kinematic reach for pair production ($`M_{H^\pm }\sqrt{s}/2`$). In addition, backgrounds are expected to be relatively small, since for $`H^\pm tb`$ decays the main background would be from $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}t\overline{t}`$ production which has a cross-section of 700 fb at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV. In  an analysis in the context of the MSSM showed that sizeable cross-sections ($`20`$ fb) can be attained for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 40`$. In this paper we consider the general (non-SUSY) Two Higgs Doublet Model (2HDM), which has the added advantage of allowing CP-violation in the tree-level Higgs potential. In contrast to the MSSM, all the Higgs masses may be taken free parameters and so one would expect larger cross-sections, as well as CP asymmetries in the rates for $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}H^+W^{},H^{}W^+`$. We will show that such a production mechanism may provide a copious source of $`H^\pm `$ as well as offering a novel way of probing CP violation in the Higgs sector, the latter not being possible in the standard mechanism $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}H^+H^{}`$.

Our work is organized as follows. In Section 2 we introduce the 2HDM potential, and section 3 derives explicit formulae for the cross-sections. In Section 4 we present our numerical analysis while section 5 contains our conclusions.

## 2 2HDM Potential

The most general 2HDM potential which violates CP and only softly breaks (by dimension 2 terms) the discrete symmetry $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ contains 8 free parameters at tree-level . We will follow the notation of . The potential is given as follows.

$$V(\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_2)=V_{symm}+V_{soft}$$
(1)
where

$`V_{symm}=\mu _1^2\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mu _2^2\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_2+\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_1)^2+\lambda _2(\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_2)^2+`$
$`\lambda _3(\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_1)(\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_2)+\lambda _4|\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_2|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\lambda _5(\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_2)^2+h.c]`$ (2)
and

$$V_{soft}=\mu _{12}^2\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_2+h.c$$
(3)
CP violation, either spontaneous or explicit, requires the presence of $`V_{soft}`$ which breaks the discrete symmetry softly. If all the parameters are real, spontaneous CP violation can still occur provided that:

$$\left|\frac{\mu _{12}^2}{\lambda _5v_1v_2}\right|1.$$
(4)
CP violation will be explicit if Im($`\mu _{12}^4\lambda _50`$). In the CP conserving case one finds two CP even neutral scalar eigenstates, $`h^0,H^0`$, and a CP odd eigenstate $`A^0`$. In the CP violating case, mixing is induced between the CP even and CP odd neutral scalar fields, resulting in three mass eigenstates $`H_1,H_2,H_3`$ with no definite CP quantum numbers. In the MSSM, such mixing may be induced when one considers the 1-loop effective scalar potential. This would also lead to a rate asymmetry in the processes $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}H^+W^{},H^{}W^+`$ and this will be addressed in . The neutral scalar mass squared matrix $`_S^2`$ is diagonalized by the matrix $`O_{ij}`$:

$$O^T_S^2O=diag(M_{H_1}^2,M_{H_2}^2,M_{H_3}^2)$$
(5)
We will parametrize the matrix $`O_{ij}`$ by using three Euler angles as follows.

$$O_{ij}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}c_{13}& s_{12}s_{13}& s_{13}\\ s_{12}c_{23}c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}& c_{12}c_{23}s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}& s_{23}c_{13}\\ s_{12}s_{23}c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}& c_{12}s_{23}s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}& c_{23}c_{13}\end{array}\right]$$
(6)
The CP conserving limit is obtained by taking two of the Euler angles equal to zero, and so the eigenstates of $`_S^2`$ become pure CP eigenstates, $`h^0,H^0`$ and $`A^0`$. This results in a potential with 6 free parameters, $`V_{symm}`$. The condition for maximum CP violation was considered in .

## 3 $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}H^\pm W^{}`$

Single $`H^\pm `$ production may proceed via an s–channel resonance mediated by $`H_i`$, and by $`t`$-channel exchange of $`\nu _\mu `$ (see Fig. 1). We will present explicit formulae for the processes $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}H^+W^{}`$ and $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}H^{}W^+`$ by adapting the formulae presented in , to which we refer the reader for a detailed explanation of our notation. As explained in , model II type couplings are required for this production mechanism to have an observable rate.

The CP violation originates from the $`s`$-channel diagrams and the $`st`$ interference, and is caused by the elements of $`O_{ij}`$ which mix the pure CP even and CP odd scalar fields. In the $`s`$-channel diagrams the couplings at the vertices ($`g_{H_iH^+W^{}},g_{H_i\overline{\mu }\mu }`$), which are either purely real or purely imaginary in the CP conserving case, possess both a real and imaginary part. We will show that this induces a difference in the rates for $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}H^+W^{}`$ and $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}H^{}W^+`$. The CP violating couplings are as follows:

$`g_{H_iH^\pm W^{}}`$ $`:`$ $`(O_{2i}\mathrm{cos}\beta O_{1i}\mathrm{sin}\beta ,O_{3i})`$
$`g_{H_i\overline{\mu }\mu }`$ $`:`$ $`(O_{1i},O_{3i}\mathrm{sin}\beta ),`$ (7)
where $`i=1,2,3`$.

We now present the formulae for the matrix elements for for $`H^+W^{}`$ and $`H^{}W^+`$ production. The matrix element squared for $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}H^+W^{}`$ is as follows:

$`||^2(\mu ^+\mu ^{}H^+W^{})={\displaystyle \frac{sg^4m_\mu ^2}{32M_W^4}}[`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda (s,M_{H^\pm }^2,M_W^2)}{\mathrm{cos}^2\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}g_{H_iH^\pm W^{}}g_{H_jH^\pm W^{}}^{}S_{H_i}S_{H_j}^{}\mathrm{Re}\left\{g_{H_i\overline{\mu }\mu }g_{H_j\overline{\mu }\mu }^{}\right\}`$
$`+`$ $`2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta S_F^2(t)(2M_W^2p_T^2+t^2)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}\beta }{\mathrm{cos}\beta }}S_F(t)(M_{H^\pm }^2M_W^2sp_T^2t^2){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\{g_{h_iH^\pm W^{}}g_{H_j\overline{\mu }\mu }S_{H_i}+c.c\}]`$
Where $`p_T^2=\lambda (s,M_{H^\pm }^2,M_W^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta /4s`$, $`S_F(t)=1/t`$, and the propagators $`S_{H_i}`$ are given by:

$$S_{H_i}=\frac{1}{sM_{H_i}^2+iM_{H_i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{H_i}}$$
(9)
The matrix element squared for $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}H^{}W^+`$:

$`||^2(\mu ^+\mu ^{}H^+W^{})={\displaystyle \frac{sg^4m_\mu ^2}{32M_W^4}}[`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda (s,M_{H^\pm }^2,M_W^2)}{\mathrm{cos}^2\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}g_{H_iH^\pm W^{}}^{}g_{H_jH^\pm W^{}}S_{H_i}S_{H_j}^{}\mathrm{Re}\left\{g_{H_i\overline{\mu }\mu }^{}g_{H_j\overline{\mu }\mu }\right\}`$
$`+`$ $`2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta S_F^2(t)(2M_W^2p_T^2+t^2)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}\beta }{\mathrm{cos}\beta }}S_F(t)(M_{H^\pm }^2M_W^2sp_T^2t^2){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\{g_{h_iH^\pm W^{}}^{}g_{H_i\overline{\mu }\mu }^{}S_{H_i}+c.c\}]`$
The origin of the CP violation is the interference between the weak phases (phases in the $`g_{H_iH^\pm W^{}}`$ and $`g_{H_i\overline{\mu }\mu }`$) and absorptive phases (phases in the $`S_{H_i}`$), as can be seen in (8) and (10).

The differential cross–section for $`\sigma (\mu ^+\mu ^{}H^\pm W^{})`$ may be written as follows:

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}(s,M_{H^\pm }^2,M_W^2)}{64\pi ^2s^2}||^2$$
(11)
The total cross-section, $`\sigma _{tot}`$, is defined by:

$$\sigma _{tot}=\sigma (\mu ^+\mu ^{}H^+W^{})+\sigma (\mu ^+\mu ^{}H^{}W^+)$$
(12)
In the CP conserving case the $`g_{H_iH^\pm W^{}}`$ are $`g_{H_i\overline{\mu }\mu }`$ are either purely real or purely imaginary and the two rates are the same. In the CP violating case one can define a rate asymmetry as follows:

$$\frac{\sigma (\mu ^+\mu ^{}H^+W^{})\sigma (\mu ^+\mu ^{}H^{}W^+)}{\sigma (\mu ^+\mu ^{}H^+W^{})+\sigma (\mu ^+\mu ^{}H^{}W^+)}$$
(13)
Although this is a measure of the magnitude of the CP violation, analogous to the direct CP asymmetry in the partial widths of B hadron decays, the difference in the rates ($`\sigma _{diff}`$) is of more use experimentally:

$$\sigma _{diff}=\sigma (\mu ^+\mu ^{}H^+W^{})\sigma (\mu ^+\mu ^{}H^{}W^+).$$
(14)
## 4 Numerical results

We will present results for the CP violating 2HDM. For the CP conserving 2HDM, $`\sigma _{tot}`$ is usually very close in value to that of the CP violating case (for the same choice of Higgs masses and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$), and so we do not explicitly show results. The mass splittings of the Higgs bosons contribute to the $`\rho `$ parameter at the 1-loop level, and these extra contributions are constrained by $`0.0017\mathrm{\Delta }\rho 0.0027`$ . Therefore in our numerical analysis we impose the formulae for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ in , which are valid for the CP violating 2HDM. We will assume integrated luminosities of the order 50 fb-1 per year.

Measurements of $`bs\gamma `$ strongly restricts the allowed values of $`M_{H^\pm }`$ in the 2HDM with Model II type couplings. Recent measurement suggest $`M_{H^\pm }200`$ GeV for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 1`$ .

We show in Fig. 2a and 2b $`\sigma _{tot}`$ and $`\sigma _{diff}`$ as a function of $`\sqrt{s}`$, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =4,20,50`$. We have fixed the Euler angles such that the values $`O_{21}=O_{22}=O_{23}=1/\sqrt{3}`$ are reproduced, and the masses of $`H_1,H_2,H_3`$ are fixed at $`100,400,700`$ GeV respectively; we also take $`M_{H^\pm }=200`$ GeV. In Fig. 2a one can clearly see the large rises in $`\sigma _{tot}`$ when $`\sqrt{s}M_{H_i}`$, which corresponds to the familiar resonance effect. Such an enhancement is never possible in the MSSM case  since $`M_AM_HM_{H^\pm }`$, and so the conditions for on-shell production ($`\sqrt{s}M_{H^\pm }+M_W`$), and the resonance condition ($`\sqrt{s}=M_{H_i}`$) can never simultaneously be satisfied. Fig. 2a shows that $`\sigma _{tot}`$ is maximized at the resonance ($`\sqrt{s}M_{H_i}`$) and large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. In such cases $`\sigma _{tot}1000`$ fb is possible, and represents a copious source of $`H^\pm `$.

In Fig. 1b we can see that $`\sigma _{diff}`$ is maximized with the same conditions that maximized $`\sigma _{tot}`$, and is always negative for the input parameters considered. Values of $`\sigma _{diff}`$ up to 150 fb are possible for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. With the expected luminosities of order 50 fb-1, even $`\sigma _{diff}2`$ fb would lead to a mismatch of $`100`$ events in the rates for $`H^+W^{}`$ and $`H^{}W^+`$.

In Fig. 3 we fix two Higgs masses almost equal ($`M_{H_2}=400`$ GeV, $`M_{H_3}=410`$ GeV), and show the dependence of $`\sigma _{tot}`$ and $`\sigma _{diff}`$ on $`\sqrt{s}`$. We take $`M_{H_1}=280`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$ and the Euler angles are the same as in Fig.2. In this case the cross-sections are strongly peaked at the resonance, where $`\sigma _{tot}4700`$ fb and $`\sigma _{diff}1200`$ fb, and this corresponds to an asymmetry (eq.(13)) of $`26\%`$. Away from resonance the cross-sections fall sharply with $`\sqrt{s}`$, in contrast to the case in Fig. 2a and 2b where sizeable values for $`\sigma _{tot}`$ and $`\sigma _{diff}`$ were possible over a wide range of $`\sqrt{s}`$.

In Fig. 4a we plot $`\sigma _{diff}`$ as a function of $`O_{23}`$, for the same Higgs mass input parameters as used in Fig. 2. We fix $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$ and $`\sqrt{s}=400`$ GeV, and vary 2 Euler angles in order to explicitly show the dependence of $`\sigma _{diff}`$ on $`O_{ij}`$. One can see that the maximum value of $`\sigma _{diff}`$ arises when $`O_{23}=1/\sqrt{3}`$, which is the maximum CP violation condition applied in Fig. 2. Note that $`\sigma _{diff}`$ may be both positive and negative. The inner dots are eliminated by the $`\rho `$ parameter constraint, while the thicker dots survive. We note that the latter points include the points that maximally violate CP. The $`\rho `$ parameter constraint has a strong effect on the magnitude of $`\sigma _{tot}`$, and rules out a sizeable parameter space where $`\sigma _{tot}`$ exceeds 3000 fb. This is shown is Fig. 4b, where one can see that the points which correspond to the largest values of $`\sigma _{tot}`$ are eliminated by the $`\rho `$ parameter constraint.

## 5 Conclusions

We have considered the mechanism $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}H^\pm W^{}`$ in the context of the CP violating 2HDM, which proceeds via Higgs mediated s-channel diagrams and $`\nu _\mu `$ exchange in the t-channel. We showed that large values are possible for both the total cross-section ($`\sigma _{tot}`$) and the difference in the cross-sections ($`\sigma _{diff}`$) for $`H^+W^{}`$ and $`H^{}W^+`$. The latter represents a novel way of probing CP violating effects in the Higgs sectors. The CP violation originates from the interference between the weak phases in the vertices ($`H_iH^\pm W^{},H_i\overline{\mu }\mu `$) and the strong phases in the propagators. We showed that both $`\sigma _{tot}`$ and $`\sigma _{diff}`$ are maximized for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and for $`\sqrt{s}M_{H_i}`$, the latter corresponding to the familiar resonance effect. Values of $`\sigma _{tot}4000`$ fb are possible at resonance for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$, and this provides a copious source of $`H^\pm `$. Large values of $`\sigma _{diff}`$ provide a clear way of observing CP violation, and we found that $`\sigma _{diff}1000`$ fb is possible. Even $`\sigma _{diff}2`$ fb would correspond to a mismatch of $`100`$ in the number of $`H^+W^{}`$ and $`H^{}W^+`$ events, which should be readily observable.

## Acknowledgements

A.G. Akeroyd was supported by the Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS). S. Baek was supported by Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF). We thank C. Dove for reading the manuscript.

### Figure Captions

* $`\sigma _{tot}`$ as a function of $`\sqrt{s}`$ for various values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. We take $`M_{H_1}=100`$ GeV, $`M_{H_2}=400`$ GeV, $`M_{H_3}=700`$ GeV.
* $`\sigma _{diff}`$ as a function of $`\sqrt{s}`$ for various values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. For $`M_{H_i}`$ we use the values in Fig.2a.
* $`\sigma _{tot}`$ and $`\sigma _{diff}`$ as a function of $`\sqrt{s}`$. We take $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$ and $`M_{H_i}`$ as displayed in the figure.
* $`\sigma _{diff}`$ as a function of $`O_{23}`$. We fix $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$ and $`M_{H_i}`$ are the same as in Fig.2a. The thin dots violate the $`\rho `$ parameter constraint.
* Same as Fig.4a but for $`\sigma _{tot}`$.

Figure. 2a

Figure. 2b

Figure. 3

Figure. 4a

Figure. 4b