text:
# Reduction of the Bethe-Salpeter equation for the scattering amplitude of the particles with spin 1 to system of the integral equations for invariant functions

## 1

The Bethe-Salpeter equation was initially formulated in quantum electrodynamics  to describe the bound two-body states in the case where neither particle could be treated as an external-field source. The applicability of this equation was not, however, limited to the quantum electrodynamics framework. The Bethe-Salpeter equation can be formulated in other renormalized models of quantum field theory, such as $`\varphi ^3`$, $`\varphi ^4`$ and scalar electrodynamics . In addition, this equation is applied to describe strong interactions such as the $`\pi N`$ and $`NN`$ scattering , the $`NNN\mathrm{\Delta }`$ reactions , and other processes that do not fall within the framework of renormalized theories. This equation is also used in describing the electromagnetic interaction of hadrons, in particular, electron scattering on a deuteron . The properties of scalar and vector mesons within the constituent quark model can also be interpreted in terms of the Bethe-Salpeter equation . A most frequent application of the Bethe-Salpeter equation is for the spin-0 and spin- $`\frac{1}{2}`$ particle reaction amplitudes . This work considers the Bethe-Salpeter equation for the scattering-reaction amplitude of the vector particles $`1^{}+1^{}1^{}+1^{}`$. Mainly, it aims at transforming the Bethe-Salpeter equation for the spin-1 particle scattering amplitude to a system of integral equations for invariant functions. Spin-1 particle scattering corresponds to e.g. vector-meson interactions, vector-meson scattering on a deuteron, or elastic deuteron scattering. The paper is arranged as follows. Section 2 gives a general expression for the $`P`$ and $`T`$ invariant amplitude of the reaction $`1^{}+1^{}1^{}+1^{}`$. In Section 3, the Bethe-Salpeter equation is reduced to a system of integral equations for invariant functions using the coefficients of the helicity amplitude transformation to invariant functions. Section 4 presents the partial extension of a system of $`4D`$ integral equations to obtain a system of $`2D`$ integral equations. In Section 5, an alternative system of $`2D`$ integral equations is given for partial helicity amplitudes. Appendix provides the coefficients of helicity amplitude transformation to invariant functions and the matrix of the system of $`2D`$ integral equations for partial helicity amplitudes.

## 2

Let us now consider the general structure of the scattering-reaction amplitude for two spin-1 particles and with a negative intrinsic parity $`1^{}+1^{}1^{}+1^{}`$. Let the initial particle momenta be $`k_1`$ and $`q_1`$, the final momenta be $`k_2`$ and $`q_2`$, the 4-vector amplitudes of the initial particle be $`u`$ and $`v`$, and those for the final ones $`u^{^{}}`$ and $`v^{^{}}`$. To reveal the amplitude symmetry with respect to the spatial reflection and time inversion, it is convenient to make use of a symmetrical and antisymmetrical combination of momenta:

$`P=k_1+q_1=k_2+q_2,p_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(k_1q_1),p_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(k_2q_2).`$ (1)
The invariant variables $`s,t`$ and $`u`$ are expressed via $`P,p_1`$, and $`p_2`$ in the following way:

$`s=P^2,t=(k_1k_2)^2=(p_1p_2)^2,u=(k_1q_2)^2=(p_1+p_2)^2,`$
$`s+t+u=2m_1^2+2m_2^2.`$ (2)
Let us assume the interaction between the particles to be $`P`$ and $`T`$ invariant. A general expression for the reaction amplitude with arbitrary spins will then be:

$`T(p_2,p_1;P)={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}f_i(s,t)R^i(p_2,p_1;P),`$ (3)
where $`f_i(s,t)`$ are the invariant functions depending on the initial- and final-particle 4-momenta via the invariant variables $`s`$ and $`t`$ only, and $`R^i(p_2,p_1;P)`$ are the invariant combinations made of 4-momenta and wave functions of all particles participating in the reaction. To construct the reaction amplitude, we need to determine the number of independent invartiant functions entering Eq. (3). It is equal to the number of independent helicity reaction amplitudes taking into account the $`P`$ and $`T`$ invariance. The total number of the helicity amplitudes of the reaction $`1^{}+1^{}1^{}+1^{}`$ is equal to $`(2s_1+1)(2s_2+1)(2s_3+1)(2s_4+1)=81`$. These amplitudes are related in a manner determined by the $`P`$ invariant interactions

$`T(\lambda _3,\lambda _4;\lambda _1,\lambda _2)=\eta (1)^{(\lambda _1\lambda _2)(\lambda _3\lambda _4)}T(\lambda _3,\lambda _4;\lambda _1,\lambda _2),`$ (4)
where $`\eta =\eta _1\eta _2\eta _3\eta _4(1)^{s_3+s_4s_1s_2},`$ $`\eta _i,`$ and $`s_i`$ are the intrinsic parity and spin of the particles. It is clear that the number of independent helicity amplitudes decreases down to 41. Further restrictions on the number of independent spiral amplitudes follow from the $`T`$ invariance of the interaction. For elastic processes, the $`T`$ invariance gives rise to the following relations between the helicity amplitudes:

$`T(\lambda _3,\lambda _4;\lambda _1,\lambda _2)=(1)^{(\lambda _1\lambda _2)(\lambda _3\lambda _4)}T(\lambda _1,\lambda _2;\lambda _3,\lambda _4).`$ (5)
In this case, the number of helicity amplitudes is decreased to 25. The following helicity amplitudes can be selected as independent ones:

$`T(1,1;1,1),T(1,1;1,0),T(1,1;1,1),T(1,1;0,1),T(1,1;0,0),T(1,1;0,1),`$
$`T(1,1;1,1),T(1,1;1,0),T(1,1;1,1),T(1,0;1,0),T(1,0;1,1),T(1,0;0,1),`$
$`T(1,0;0,0),T(1,0;0,1),T(1,0;1,1),T(1,0;1,0),T(1,1;1,1),T(1,1;0,1),`$
$`T(1,1;0,0),T(1,1;0,1),T(1,1;1,1),T(0,1;0,1),T(0,1;0,0),T(0,1;0,1),`$
$`T(0,0;0,0).`$ (6)
Now, we have to identify 25 independent invariant spin combinations $`R^i(p_2,p_1;P)`$ entering into Eq.(3). Since $`s,t`$ and $`u`$ are $`P`$ and $`T`$ invariant, then $`f_i(s,t)`$ is also $`P`$ and $`T`$ invariant. The values $`R^i(p_2,p_1;P)=u^{}_{}{}^{}\mu v^{}_{}{}^{}\nu R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^iu^\alpha v^\beta `$, where $`u^{},v^{},u,v`$ are the 4-vector polarizations of final and initial particles, should, therefore, be also $`P`$ and $`T`$ invariant. The following set of the 4th rank 4-tensors satisfying the $`P`$ and $`T`$ invariance could be selected as:

$`R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^1=p_{1\mu }p_{1\nu }p_{2\alpha }p_{2\beta },R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^2=p_{1\mu }P_\nu p_{2\alpha }p_{2\beta }+p_{1\mu }p_{1\nu }p_{2\alpha }P_\beta ,R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^3=P_\mu p_{1\nu }p_{2\alpha }p_{2\beta }+p_{1\mu }p_{1\nu }P_\alpha p_{2\beta },`$
$`R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^4=P_\mu P_\nu p_{2\alpha }p_{2\beta }+p_{1\mu }p_{1\nu }P_\alpha P_\beta ,R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^5=p_{1\mu }P_\nu p_{2\alpha }P_\beta ,R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^6=p_{1\mu }P_\nu P_\alpha p_{2\beta }+P_\mu p_{1\nu }p_{2\alpha }P_\beta ,`$
$`R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^7=P_\mu P_\nu p_{2\alpha }P_\beta +p_{1\mu }P_\nu P_\alpha P_\beta ,R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^8=P_\mu p_{1\nu }P_\alpha p_{2\beta },R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^9=P_\mu P_\nu P_\alpha p_{2\beta }+P_\mu p_{1\nu }P_\alpha P_\beta ,`$
$`R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^{10}=P_\mu P_\nu P_\alpha P_\beta ,R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^{11}=g_{\mu \nu }p_{2\alpha }p_{2\beta }+p_{1\mu }p_{1\nu }g_{\alpha \beta },R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^{12}=g_{\mu \nu }p_{2\alpha }P_\beta +p_{1\mu }P_\nu g_{\alpha \beta },`$
$`R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^{13}=g_{\mu \nu }P_\alpha p_{2\beta }+P_\mu p_{1\nu }g_{\alpha \beta },R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^{14}=g_{\mu \nu }P_\alpha P_\beta +P_\mu P_\nu g_{\alpha \beta },R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^{15}=p_{1\mu }g_{\nu \beta }p_{2\alpha },`$
$`R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^{16}=P_\mu g_{\nu \beta }p_{2\alpha }+p_{1\mu }g_{\nu \beta }P_\alpha ,R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^{17}=P_\mu g_{\nu \beta }P_\alpha ,R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^{18}=g_{\mu \beta }p_{1\nu }p_{2\alpha }+p_{1\mu }g_{\nu \alpha }p_{2\beta },`$
$`R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^{19}=g_{\mu \beta }P_\nu p_{2\alpha }+p_{1\mu }g_{\nu \alpha }P_\beta ,R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^{20}=g_{\mu \beta }p_{1\nu }P_\alpha +P_\mu g_{\nu \alpha }p_{2\beta },R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^{21}=g_{\mu \beta }P_\nu P_\alpha +P_\mu g_{\nu \alpha }p_\beta ,`$
$`R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^{22}=g_{\mu \alpha }p_{1\nu }p_{2\beta },R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^{23}=g_{\mu \alpha }P_\nu p_{2\beta }+g_{\mu \alpha }p_{1\nu }P_\beta ,R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^{24}=g_{\mu \alpha }P_\nu P_\beta ,`$
$`R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^{25}=g_{\mu \alpha }g_{\nu \beta }.`$ (7)
From Eqs.(4) and (5), it is evident that the relations of the $`P`$ and $`T`$ invariance between the helicity amplitudes for the elastic scattering reaction between the spin 1 - particles coincide, provided the product of their internal parities $`\eta _1\eta _2\eta _3\eta _4`$ equals unity. Note that the number of independent helicity amplitudes also coincides. Hence, the 4-tensor set (Eq. 7) can be used to construct amplitudes for the reactions $`1^++1^+1^++1^+,1^++1^+1^{}+1^{},1^++1^{}1^++1^{}`$.

The 4-tensor set (Eq.7) is not the only possibility. Consider now an invariant spin combination $`R^{25}(p_2,p_1;P)=u^{{}_{}{}^{}}uv^{{}_{}{}^{}}v`$. A question arises as to why there are no $`u^{{}_{}{}^{}}v^{{}_{}{}^{}}uv`$ or $`u^{{}_{}{}^{}}vv^{{}_{}{}^{}}u`$ spin combinations among the invariant spin combinations (Eq.8) similar to $`R^{25}(p_2,p_1;P)`$. The answer to this question lies in the fact that these spin combinations are not independent, which can be proved using Gram’s determinant. It is well known that in a $`4D`$ space any five 4-vectors are linearly related. In our case this implies the Gram’s determinant is zero:

$$G\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}u,& u^{{}_{}{}^{}},& P,& p_1,& p_2\\ v,& v^{{}_{}{}^{}},& P,& p_1,& p_2\end{array}\right)=0,$$

which contains the polarization vectors of all the particles participating in the reaction, and all the 4-momenta entering the expression for the 4-tensors $`R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^i`$. Now, one has to determine the number of independent relations conditioned by Gram’s determinants. Due to the symmetry properties of Gram’s determinants , any vector permutations within the upper or lower rows are possible - this may result in a change of their common sign only. It is the vector permutation from the upper or lower rows in Gram’s determinant that could give rise to essentially new relations. It should be noted that the permutation between the $`P,p_1,p_2`$ vectors from the upper and lower rows cannot result in new couplings either, since for any such permutation, there will be two similar 4-vectors in the upper and lower rows, which would result in a identically zero Gram’s determinant. Thus, the remaining permutations are those in the group $`\begin{array}{cc}u,& u^{{}_{}{}^{}}\\ v,& v^{{}_{}{}^{}}\end{array}`$. With regard to the symmetry properties of Gram’s determinant, the following permutations occur:

$$\begin{array}{cc}v,& u^{{}_{}{}^{}}\\ u,& v^{{}_{}{}^{}}\end{array},\begin{array}{cc}u,& v\\ u^{{}_{}{}^{}},& v^{{}_{}{}^{}}\end{array}.$$
(8)
Thus, three Gram’s determinants are equal to zero:

$`G\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}u,& u^{{}_{}{}^{}},& P,& p_1,& p_2\\ v,& v^{{}_{}{}^{}},& P,& p_1,& p_2\end{array}\right)=0,G\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}v,& u^{{}_{}{}^{}},& P,& p_1,& p_2\\ u,& v^{{}_{}{}^{}},& P,& p_1,& p_2\end{array}\right)=0,`$ (13)
$`G\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}u,& v,& P,& p_1,& p_2\\ u^{{}_{}{}^{}},& v^{{}_{}{}^{}},& P,& p_1,& p_2\end{array}\right)=0.`$ (16)
Removing brackets, we obtain a homogenous system of three linear equations. This system is, however, of the second rank, since the third linear equation appears to be equal to the difference between the first and second equations. There are two linearly independent relations between the invariant spin combinations, which allows expressing $`u^{{}_{}{}^{}}v^{{}_{}{}^{}}uv`$ and $`u^{{}_{}{}^{}}vv^{{}_{}{}^{}}u`$ in terms of $`R^1R^{25}`$:

$`u^{{}_{}{}^{}}v^{{}_{}{}^{}}uv={\displaystyle \frac{4R1}{t\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R4\left(4m^2s\right)}{st\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{R5\left(4m^2+s+2t\right)}{st\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{R6}{t\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R7}{4m^2s+s^2+st}}{\displaystyle \frac{R8\left(4m^2+s+2t\right)}{st\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{R9}{s\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{R10\left(s4t\right)}{4st\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{R11\left(4m^2s\right)}{t\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{R12\left(4m^2+s+2t\right)}{2t\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R13\left(4m^2+s+2t\right)}{2t\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{R14\left(s^2+4m^2\left(s4t\right)+4st+4t^2\right)}{4st\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R15\left(4m^2+s+2t\right)}{t\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{R16\left(4m^2s\right)}{2t\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{R17\left(s^24m^2\left(s4t\right)2st4t^2\right)}{4st\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R22\left(4m^2+s+2t\right)}{t\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{R23\left(4m^2+s\right)}{2t\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{R24\left(s^24m^2\left(s4t\right)2st4t^2\right)}{4st\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}+R25.`$ (17)
$`u^{{}_{}{}^{}}vv^{{}_{}{}^{}}u={\displaystyle \frac{2R5\left(2m^2+t\right)}{st\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2R6\left(2m^2+s+t\right)}{st\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R7\left(4m^2s\right)}{st\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2R8\left(2m^2+t\right)}{st\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{R9\left(4m^2s\right)}{st\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{R10\left(4m^2+s+2t\right)}{st\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R15\left(4m^2+s+2t\right)}{t\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{R16\left(4m^2s\right)}{2t\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R17\left(s^24m^2\left(s4t\right)2st4t^2\right)}{4st\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{R18\left(4m^2+s+2t\right)}{t\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{R19\left(4m^2s\right)}{2t\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{R20\left(4m^2+s\right)}{2t\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R21\left(s^2+6st+4t^24m^2\left(s+4t\right)\right)}{4st\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}+`$ (18)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{R22\left(4m^2+s+2t\right)}{t\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{R23\left(4m^2+s\right)}{2t\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R24\left(s^24m^2\left(s4t\right)2st4t^2\right)}{4st\left(4m^2+s+t\right)}}+R25.`$
When constructing the amplitude Eq.(3), use can be made of the spin combinations $`u^{{}_{}{}^{}}v^{{}_{}{}^{}}uv,u^{{}_{}{}^{}}vv^{{}_{}{}^{}}u`$ instead of any other two spin combinations $`R^i`$ from Eqs.(10) and (11).

Let us write a general expression for the $`P`$ and $`T`$ invariant helicity amplitude of the reaction $`1^{}+1^{}1^{}+1^{}`$:

$`T_{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2}(p_2,p_1;P)=u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}p_1v_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}p_1u_{\lambda _1}p_2v_{\lambda _2}p_2f_1+`$
$`+(u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}p_1v_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}p_1u_{\lambda _1}p_2v_{\lambda _2}P+u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}p_1v_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}Pu_{\lambda _1}p_2v_{\lambda _2}p_2)f_2+`$
$`+(u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}p_1v_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}p_1u_{\lambda _1}Pv_{\lambda _2}p_2+u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}Pv_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}p_1u_{\lambda _1}p_2v_{\lambda _2}p_2)f_3+`$
$`+(u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}p_1v_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}p_1u_{\lambda _1}Pv_{\lambda _2}P+u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}Pv_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}Pu_{\lambda _1}p_2v_{\lambda _2}p_2)f_4+`$
$`+u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}p_1v_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}Pu_{\lambda _1}p_2v_{\lambda _2}Pf_5+(u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}Pv_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}p_1u_{\lambda _1}p_2v_{\lambda _2}P+`$
$`+u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}p_1v_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}Pu_{\lambda _1}Pv_{\lambda _2}p_2)f_6+(u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}p_1v_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}Pu_{\lambda _1}Pv_{\lambda _2}P+`$
$`+u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}Pv_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}Pu_{\lambda _1}p_2v_{\lambda _2}P)f_7+u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}Pv_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}p_1u_{\lambda _1}Pv_{\lambda _2}p_2f_8+`$
$`+(u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}Pv_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}p_1u_{\lambda _1}Pv_{\lambda _2}P+u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}Pv_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}Pu_{\lambda _1}Pv_{\lambda _2}p_2)f_9+`$
$`+u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}Pv_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}Pu_{\lambda _1}Pv_{\lambda _2}Pf_{10}+(u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}p_1v_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}p_1u_{\lambda _1}v_{\lambda _2}+u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}v_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}u_{\lambda _1}p_2v_{\lambda _2}p_2)f_{11}+`$
$`+(u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}p_1v_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}Pu_{\lambda _1}v_{\lambda _2}+u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}v_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}u_{\lambda _1}p_2v_{\lambda _2}P)f_{12}+`$
$`+(u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}Pv_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}p_1u_{\lambda _1}v_{\lambda _2}+u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}v_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}u_{\lambda _1}Pv_{\lambda _2}p_2)f_{13}+`$
$`+(u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}Pv_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}Pu_{\lambda _1}v_{\lambda _2}+u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}v_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}u_{\lambda _1}Pv_{\lambda _2}P)f_{14}+u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}p_1v_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}v_{\lambda _2}u_{\lambda _1}p_2f_{15}+`$
$`+(u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}p_1v_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}v_{\lambda _2}u_{\lambda _1}P+u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}Pv_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}v_{\lambda _2}u_{\lambda _1}p_2)f_{16}+u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}Pv_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}v_{\lambda _2}u_{\lambda _1}Pf_{17}+`$
$`+(u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}v_{\lambda _2}v_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}p_1u_{\lambda _1}p_2+u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}p_1v_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}u_{\lambda _1}v_{\lambda _2}p_2)f_{18}+(u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}v_{\lambda _2}v_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}Pu_{\lambda _1}p_2+`$
$`+u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}p_1v_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}u_{\lambda _1}v_{\lambda _2}P)f_{19}+(u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}v_{\lambda _2}v_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}p_1u_{\lambda _1}P+u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}Pv_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}u_{\lambda _1}v_{\lambda _2}p_2)f_{20}+`$
$`+(u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}v_{\lambda _2}v_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}Pu_{\lambda _1}P+u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}Pv_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}u_{\lambda _1}v_{\lambda _2}P)f_{21}+u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}u_{\lambda _1}v_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}p_1v_{\lambda _2}p_2f_{22}+`$
$`+(u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}u_{\lambda _1}v_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}p_1v_{\lambda _2}P+u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}u_{\lambda _1}v_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}Pv_{\lambda _2}p_2)f_{23}+u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}u_{\lambda _1}v_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}Pv_{\lambda _2}Pf_{24}+`$
$`+u_{\lambda _3}^{{}_{}{}^{}}u_{\lambda _1}v_{\lambda _4}^{{}_{}{}^{}}v_{\lambda _2}f_{25},`$ (19)
where $`\lambda _3,\lambda _4`$ and $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2`$ are the helicities of the vector particles in their initial and final states.

## 3

The Bethe - Salpeter equation is a relativistic relation for the two-body Green function $`G(x_1^{},x_2^{};x_1,x_2)`$:

$`G(x_1^{},x_2^{};x_1,x_2)=I(x_1^{},x_2^{};x_1,x_2)+{\displaystyle K(x_1^{},x_2^{};x_3,x_4)G(x_3,x_4;x_1,x_2)d^4x_3d^4x_4},`$ (20)
where $`x_1,x_2,x_1^{},x_2^{}`$ are the initial and final $`4D`$-coordinates of a particle.

Thus, the Bethe-Salpeter equation relates the total Green function for two particles $`G(x_1^{},x_2^{};x_1,x_2),`$ representing a sum of all the Feinman diagrams (Fig. 1, left) to a certain topologically derived part of this function $`I(x_1^{},x_2^{};x_1,x_2)`$ (Fig. 1 the first term in the right side) , which is a sum of all two-body irreducible diagrams in the $`s`$ channel , i.e. , the diagrams that could not be split into two linked parts containing points $`x_1,x_2`$ and $`x_1^{},x_2^{}`$ by breaking two lines in the direction of the $`s`$ channel. The kernel $`K`$ of the Bethe - Salpeter equation is explicitly expressed through the sum of two-body irreducible diagrams $`I`$ and single-body Green functions for the scattering particles. In Fig. 1, the second term in the right side corresponds to the integral term in Eq.(13). The kernel of the Bethe - Salpeter equation is based on Lagrangian particle interaction. Thus, Eq.(13) provides an expression for the total Feinman diagrams via their two-body irreducible part. Since the kernel and the inhomogeneous term of the equation are derived using the approaches of the perturbation theory, they may only be approximated. That is why it is an approximated equation resulting, when one reduces the manipulations in the sum of irreducible diagrams to the lowest perturbation theory orders, where between the two interacting particles there is a single quantum exchange, which is often taken for the Bethe-Salpeter equation. This approximation is called a ladder approach. In a momentum space, the Bethe - Salpeter equation (13) has the form of an integral equation for the two-body scattering amplitude $`T(p_2,p_1;P)`$:

$`T(p_2,p_1;P)=I(p_2,p_1;P)+{\displaystyle K(p_2,p^{};P)T(p^{},p_1;P)\frac{d^4p^{}}{(2\pi )^4}},`$ (21)
where $`I`$ and $`K`$ are the inhomogeneous term and the kernel of the equation. Equation (14) for the vector-particle scattering amplitude can be written as follows:

$`T_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }(p_2,p_1;P)=I_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }(p_2,p_1;P)+{\displaystyle }I_{\mu \nu ϵ\eta }(p_2,p^{};P)G^{ϵ\gamma }({\displaystyle \frac{P}{2}}+p^{})G^{\eta \delta }({\displaystyle \frac{P}{2}}p^{})\times `$
$`\times T_{\gamma \delta \alpha \beta }(p^{},p_1;P){\displaystyle \frac{d^4p^{}}{(2\pi )^4}},`$ (22)
where $`I`$ is the sum of two-body irreducible diagrams and $`G`$ are the vector particle propagators. In Eq. (15), the 4-vector particle polarizations are omitted, and the sequence of the 4-indices corresponds to the motion opposite the lines shown in Fig. 1. Let us express the amplitude $`T_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ and the sum of two-body irreducible diagrams $`I_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ as an expansion in tensors $`R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^i`$:

$`T_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }(p_2,p_1;P)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{25}{}}}f_i(p_2,p_1;P)R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^i(p_2,p_1;P),`$ (23)
$`I_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }(p_2,p_1;P)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{25}{}}}g_i(p_2,p_1;P)R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^i(p_2,p_1;P).`$ (24)
Now, proceed from the 4-tensors $`T_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ to the helicity amplitudes:

$`T_{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2}(p_2,p_1;P)=v_{}^{}{}_{\lambda _3\lambda _4}{}^{\mu \nu }(p_2;P)T_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }(p_2,p_1;P)v_{\lambda _1\lambda _2}^{\alpha \beta }(p_1;P),`$ (25)
where the $`v_{}^{}{}_{\lambda _3\lambda _4}{}^{\mu \nu }(p_2;P)`$ and $`v_{\lambda _1\lambda _2}^{\alpha \beta }(p_1;P)`$ are the products of the helicity 4-vector polarizations of the final and initial particles

$`v_{}^{}{}_{\lambda _3\lambda _4}{}^{\mu \nu }(p_2;P)=u^{}_{}{}^{}\mu ({\displaystyle \frac{P}{2}}+p_2,\lambda _3)v^{}_{}{}^{}\nu ({\displaystyle \frac{P}{2}}p_2,\lambda _4),`$
$`v_{\lambda _1\lambda _2}^{\alpha \beta }(p_1;P)=u^\alpha ({\displaystyle \frac{P}{2}}+p_1,\lambda _1)v^\beta ({\displaystyle \frac{P}{2}}p_1,\lambda _2).`$ (26)
As the independent helicity amplitudes let us choose amplitudes given in Eq.(6) and proceed to the center mass system. Opening brackets for the scalar products in Eq.(18), we obtain a system of 25 linear equations with respect to 25 invariant functions $`f_i(p_2,p_1;P)`$. This system of linear equations was solved by the Gauss approach using a Mathematica software package. As a result of these manipulations, the invariant functions can be expressed as linear combinations of helicity amplitudes:

$`f_i(p_2,p_1;P)={\displaystyle \underset{\{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2\}}{}}u_{i,\{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2\}}(p_2,p_1,P)T_{\{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2\}}(p_2,p_1;P),`$ (27)
whose transformation coefficients $`u_{i,\{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2\}}(p_2,p_1,P)`$ are given in the Appendix. In Eq. (20), the symbol $`\{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2\}`$ denotes that summation is not done over all helicity amplitudes but with respect to 25 independent helicity amplitudes only that are given in Eq.(6). The invariant functions $`g_i(p_2,p_1;P)`$ entering into Eq.(17) can be presented in a similar manner:

$`g_i(p_2,p_1;P)={\displaystyle \underset{\{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2\}}{}}u_{i,\{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2\}}(p_2,p_1,P)I_{\{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2\}}(p_2,p_1;P).`$ (28)
Having derived the matrix for the helicity amplitude transformation to invariant functions, we may write the Bethe - Salpeter equation (15) as a system of integral equations for the invariant functions $`f_i`$:

$`f_i(p_2,p_1;P)=g_i(p_2,p_1;P)+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{25}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2\}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{25}{}}}u_{i,\{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2\}}(p_2,p_1,P)v_{}^{}{}_{\lambda _3\lambda _4}{}^{\mu \nu }(p_2;P){\displaystyle }g_k(p_2,p^{};P)\times `$
$`\times R_{\mu \nu ϵ\eta }^k(p_2,p^{};P)G^{ϵ\gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{P}{2}}+p^{}\right)G^{\eta \delta }\left({\displaystyle \frac{P}{2}}p^{}\right)R_{\gamma \delta \alpha \beta }^j(p^{},p_1;P)f_j(p^{},p_1;P){\displaystyle \frac{d^4p^{}}{(2\pi )^4}}v_{\lambda _1\lambda _2}^{\alpha \beta }(p_1;P).`$ (29)
In this equation, the invariant functions $`g_i`$ and the vector particle propagators are calculated using the perturbation theory based on a Lagrangian interaction, i.e., they may be obtained to a certain approximation. The system of equations (22) can be presented in a more concise form:

$`f_i(p_2,p_1;P)=g_i(p_2,p_1;P)+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{25}{}}}{\displaystyle K_{ij}(p_2,p^{},p_1;P)f_j(p^{},p_1;P)\frac{d^4p^{}}{(2\pi )^4}},`$ (30)
where the kernel $`K_{ij}(p_2,p^{},p_1;P)`$ is a 4-scalar quantity:

$`K_{ij}(p_2,p^{},p_1;P)={\displaystyle \underset{\{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2\}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{25}{}}}u_{i,\{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2\}}(p_2,p_1,P)v_{}^{}{}_{\lambda _3\lambda _4}{}^{\mu \nu }(p_2;P)g_k(p_2,p^{};P)\times `$
$`\times R_{\mu \nu ϵ\eta }^k(p_2,p^{};P)G^{ϵ\gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{P}{2}}+p^{}\right)G^{\eta \delta }\left({\displaystyle \frac{P}{2}}p^{}\right)R_{\gamma \delta \alpha \beta }^j(p^{},p_1;P)v_{\lambda _1\lambda _2}^{\alpha \beta }(p_1;P).`$ (31)
Thus, the Bethe-Salpeter equation for the vector-particle scattering amplitude has been reduced to a system of integral equations for the invariant functions $`f_i(p_2,p_1;P)`$.

## 4

In the system of equations (23), integration was carried out over four independent variables $`d^4p^{}=dp_0^{}dp_1^{}dp_2^{}dp_3^{}=dp_0^{}p^2dp^{}d\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$. Using a partial expansion of the invariant function $`f_i`$, we can integrate with respect to the solid angle $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ and reduce the system of $`4D`$ integral equations , Eq.(23), to a system of $`2D`$ integral equations for the coefficients of invariant function expansion with respect to the spherical harmonics. Let us assume that the $`z`$-axis of the center mass system is directed along the initial vector $`𝐩_1=\frac{1}{2}(𝐤_1𝐪_1)`$ and the final vector $`𝐩_2=\frac{1}{2}(𝐤_2𝐪_2)`$ corresponds to scattering at an angle $`\theta `$ in a plane with a zero azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$. The invariant functions $`f_i(p_2,p_1;P)`$ depend on the 4-vectors $`p_1,p_2,P`$ via the invariants $`s`$ and $`t`$ only that are independent of the azimuthal scattering angle $`\varphi `$. The expansion of the invariant functions $`f_i(p_2,p_1;P)`$ and $`g_i(p_2,p_1;P)`$ with respect to spherical harmonics will have the form:

$`f_i(p_2,p_1;P)={\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|𝐩_2|}}f_i^l(p_{20},|𝐩_2|,p_{10},|𝐩_1|;P)Y_{l}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}(\theta ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}),`$
$`g_i(p_2,p_1;P)={\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|𝐩_2|}}g_i^l(p_{20},|𝐩_2|,p_{10},|\stackrel{}{p_1}|;P)Y_{l}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}(\theta ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}).`$ (32)
Although the values $`p_{10},|𝐩_1|`$ and $`p_{20},|𝐩_2|`$ are not independent for free particles, they are written in an explicit form in the arguments of $`f_i^l`$ and $`g_i^l`$ for the case where 4-momenta of the particles are located off the mass surface. The expansion of the kernel $`K_{ij}(p_2,p^{},p_1;P)`$ with respect to spherical harmonics has the form:

$`K_{ij}(p_2,p^{},p_1;P)={\displaystyle \underset{l,l^{}m^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|𝐩_2||𝐩^{}|}}K_{ij}^{l0,l^{}m^{}}(p_{20},|𝐩_2|,p_0^{},|𝐩^{}|,p_{10},|𝐩_1|;P)Y_{l}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}(\theta ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})Y_l^{}^m^{}(\theta ^{},\varphi ^{}).`$ (33)
In this case, as above, we have written the temporal components of the 4-momenta $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ as the arguments of $`K_{ij}^{l0,l^{}m^{}}`$, which are independent variables when the 4-momenta are not located on the mass surface. Having substituted the expansions over the spherical harmonics for $`f_i,g_i`$ and $`K_{ij}`$ into the system of equations Eq.(23), taking into account that the invariant functions $`f_j(p^{},p_1;P)`$ do not depend on the azimuthal angle $`\varphi ^{}`$ of the intermediate momentum $`p^{}`$, we will arrive at a system of $`2D`$ integral equations for $`f_i^l`$:

$`f_i^l(p_{20},|𝐩_2|,p_{10},|𝐩_1|;P)=g_i^l(p_{20},|𝐩_2|,p_{10},|𝐩_1|;P)+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{l^{}}{}}{\displaystyle K_{ij}^{l0,l^{}0}(p_{20},|𝐩_2|,p_0^{},|𝐩^{}|,p_{10},|𝐩_1|;P)f_j^l^{}(p_0^{},|𝐩^{}|;p_{10},|𝐩_1|;P)\frac{dp_0^{}d|𝐩^{}|}{(2\pi )^4}}.`$ (34)
## 5

The functions $`f_i^l`$ entering into Eq.(27) are related to the partial reaction amplitudes $`T_{L^{},S^{};L,S}^J,`$ where $`J`$ is the total momentum, and $`L,S`$ and $`L^{},S^{}`$ are the orbital momentum and the total spin of the initial and final states, respectively. The formalism for the helicity  is, therefore, more preferable since it makes it possible to obtain a system of equations for the partial helicity amplitudes of the reaction $`1^{}+1^{}1^{}+1^{}`$. The partial helicity amplitudes of the reaction $`T_{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2}^J`$, unlike the function $`f_i^l`$, possess a direct physical meaning.

Let us express the spin-1 particle scattering tensor as an expansion over the helicity amplitudes:

$`T_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }(p_2,p_1;P)={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4}{}}T_{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2}(p_2,p_1;P)u_\mu ^{^{}}({\displaystyle \frac{P}{2}}+p_2,\lambda _3)v_\nu ^{^{}}({\displaystyle \frac{P}{2}}p_2,\lambda _4)\times `$
$`\times u_\alpha ^{}({\displaystyle \frac{P}{2}}+p_1,\lambda _1)v_\beta ^{}({\displaystyle \frac{P}{2}}p_1,\lambda _2),`$ (35)
where summation is carried out over 81 helicity amplitudes. The same representation will be valid for the tensor $`I_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$, which is the sum of two-body irreducible diagrams:

$`I_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }(p_2,p_1;P)={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4}{}}I_{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2}(p_2,p_1;P)u_\mu ^{^{}}({\displaystyle \frac{P}{2}}+p_2,\lambda _3)v_\nu ^{^{}}({\displaystyle \frac{P}{2}}p_2,\lambda _4)\times `$
$`\times u_\alpha ^{}({\displaystyle \frac{P}{2}}+p_1,\lambda _1)v_\beta ^{}({\displaystyle \frac{P}{2}}p_1,\lambda _2).`$ (36)
Upon contraction of the scattering tensor, Eq.(28), with the helicity 4-vectors of the initial and final particles, due to orthogonality of the latter, we will readily obtain the desired helicity amplitudes. Contrary to the invariant functions $`f_i(p_2,p_1;P),`$, the helicity amplitudes $`T_{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2}(p_2,p_1;P)`$ depend not only on the invariants $`s`$ and $`t`$ but also on the azimuthal scattering angle $`\varphi `$. As shown before, only 25 (Eq.(6)) out of 81 helicity amplitudes are independent, taking into account the $`P`$ and $`T`$ invariance restrictions. Equations (28) and (29) can, therefore, be written in the form:

$`T_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }(p_2,p_1;P)={\displaystyle \underset{\{\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4\}}{}}T_{\{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2\}}(p_2,p_1;P)U_{\{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2\}\mu \nu \alpha \beta }(p_2,p_1;P),`$
$`I_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }(p_2,p_1;P)={\displaystyle \underset{\{\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4\}}{}}I_{\{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2\}}(p_2,p_1;P)U_{\{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2\}\mu \nu \alpha \beta }(p_2,p_1;P),`$ (37)
where summation is performed over 25 helicity amplitudes given in Eq.(6), while the tensors $`U_{\{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2\}\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ are the sum products of the helicity vector polarizations of the initial and final particles including the $`P`$ and $`T`$ invariance relations, Eqs.(4) and (5). For instance, the tensor $`U_{\{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1\hspace{0.17em}1}\}\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ is equal to

$`U_{\{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1\hspace{0.17em}1}\}\mu \nu \alpha \beta }=u_\mu ^{^{}}(1)v_\nu ^{^{}}(1)u_\alpha ^{}(1)v_\beta ^{}(1)+u_\mu ^{^{}}(1)v_\nu ^{^{}}(1)u_\alpha ^{}(1)v_\beta ^{}(1).`$ (38)
The other tensors $`U_{\{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2\}\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ in Eq. (30) can be presented in the same way. In this formulation, the tensors $`T_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ and $`I_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ will satisfy the requirements on the $`P`$ and $`T`$ invariance.

Let us take the following vectors as the helicity 4-vectors of polarization:

$`u^\mu (k,1)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}}\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )(0,\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )+i\mathrm{sin}(\varphi ),i\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\mathrm{sin}(\varphi ),\mathrm{sin}(\theta )),`$
$`u^\mu (k,0)=({\displaystyle \frac{|𝐤|}{m}},{\displaystyle \frac{k_0\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )\mathrm{sin}(\theta )}{m}},{\displaystyle \frac{k_0\mathrm{sin}(\theta )\mathrm{sin}(\varphi )}{m}},{\displaystyle \frac{k_0\mathrm{cos}(\theta )}{m}}),`$ (39)
$`u^\mu (k,1)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}}\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )(0,\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )+i\mathrm{sin}(\varphi ),i\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )+\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\mathrm{sin}(\varphi ),\mathrm{sin}(\theta )),`$
where $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are the polar and azimuthal angles of the vector particle 4-momentum. For arbitrary 4-momenta, not necessarily lying on the mass surface, these 4-vectors of polarization satisfy the relation

$`ku(k,\lambda )=0,u(k,\lambda )u^{}(k,\lambda ^{})=((1+N(k))\delta _{\lambda \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}1)\delta _{\lambda \lambda ^{}},`$ (40)
where $`N(k)={\displaystyle \frac{|𝐤|^2k_0^2}{m^2}}.`$ From these formula it is clear that 4-vectors of polarization, Eq.(32), are orthogonal, and for $`\lambda =\pm 1`$ they are normalized with respect to -1. It is only in the case of longitudinal polarization $`\lambda =0`$ that 4-vectors of polarization are normalized to $`N(k)`$ that is equal to -1, if the 4-momentum of the particle is located on the mass surface.

For this choice of the helicity 4-vectors of polarization, the scattering tensor $`T_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ satisfies the relations:

$`T_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }k_1^\alpha =0,T_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }q_1^\beta =0,`$
$`T_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }k_2^\mu =0,T_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }q_2^\nu =0,`$ (41)
where $`k_1,q_1,k_2,q_2`$ are the 4-momenta of the initial and final particles. From Eq. (34) it follows that the fraction of the vector particle propagator proportional to the product of its 4-momenta $`k^\mu k^\nu `$ will become zero when being contracted with the tensors $`T_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ and $`I_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$. Hence, upon convolution with $`T_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ and $`I_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$, the contribution will come only from a fraction of the propagator that is proportional to $`g^{\mu \nu }`$. Note that the Bethe-Salpeter equation now acquires the following form:

$`T_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }(p_2,p_1;P)=I_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }(p_2,p_1;P)+{\displaystyle }I_{\mu \nu ϵ\eta }(p_2,p^{};P)T_{\alpha \beta }^{ϵ\eta }(p^{},p_1;P)\times `$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{D(\frac{P}{2}+p^{})D(\frac{P}{2}p^{})}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p^{}}{(2\pi )^4}},`$ (42)
where $`D(\frac{P}{2}+p^{})`$ and $`D(\frac{P}{2}p^{})`$ are the renormired denominators of the vector particle propagators. Using the representations of Eq.(28) and (29) for the tensors $`T_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ and $`I_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ and the relations of orthonormalization of Eq. (33) for the 4-vectors of polarization, we may write Eq.(35) as

$`T_{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2}(p_2,p_1;P)=I_{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2}(p_2,p_1;P)+{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ^{},\lambda ^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle }I_{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda ^{}\lambda ^{\prime \prime }}(p_2,p^{};P)T_{\lambda ^{}\lambda ^{\prime \prime },\lambda _1\lambda _2}(p^{},p_1;P)\times `$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{((1+N(\frac{P}{2}+p^{}))\delta _{\lambda ^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}1)((1+N(\frac{P}{2}p^{}))\delta _{\lambda ^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}1)}{D(\frac{P}{2}+p^{})D(\frac{P}{2}p^{})}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p^{}}{(2\pi )^4}}.`$ (43)
In Eq. (36), there is no summation with respect to the 4-indices, instead, the summation is carried out over the intermediate-particle helicities. This allows us to move from the $`4D`$ system of integral equations (Eq.(36)) to a $`2D`$ system of integral equations via the expansion of the helicity amplitudes with respect to the partial spiral amplitudes and integration over the angles. The above-mentioned expansion has the following form: :

$`T_{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2}(p_2,p_1;P)={\displaystyle \underset{JM}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2J+1}{4\pi }}D_{\lambda _3\lambda _4,M}^J(𝐧_2)D_{\lambda _1\lambda _2,M}^J^{}(𝐧_1)\times `$
$`\times T_{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2}^J(p_{20},|𝐩_2|,p_{10},|𝐩_1|;P).`$ (44)
$`I_{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2}(p_2,p_1;P)={\displaystyle \underset{JM}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2J+1}{4\pi }}D_{\lambda _3\lambda _4,M}^J(𝐧_2)D_{\lambda _1\lambda _2,M}^J^{}(𝐧_1)\times `$
$`\times I_{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2}^J(p_{20},|𝐩_2|,p_{10},|𝐩_1|;P).`$ (45)
In these expressions, the $`D`$ function arguments are taken as

$$D_{\mathrm{\Lambda }M}^J(𝐧)=D_{\mathrm{\Lambda }M}^J(\varphi ,\theta ,0)=e^{iM\varphi }d_{\mathrm{\Lambda }M}^J(\theta ),$$
(46)
where $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are the polar and azimuthal angles of the unit vector $`𝐧`$. Using the orthogonality properties of the $`D`$ functions, we may integrate with respect to the angular variables in Eq.(36). As a result, the system of $`4D`$ integral equations for the helicity amplitudes, Eq.(36), will be reduced to a system of $`2D`$ integral equations for the partial helicity amplitudes:

$`T_{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2}^J(p_{20},|𝐩_2|,p_{10},|𝐩_1|;P)=I_{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2}^J(p_{20},|𝐩_2|,p_{10},|𝐩_1|;P)+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ^{}\lambda ^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle }I_{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda ^{}\lambda ^{\prime \prime }}^J(p_{20},|𝐩_2|,p_0^{},|𝐩^{}|;P)T_{\lambda ^{}\lambda ^{\prime \prime },\lambda _1\lambda _2}^J(p_0^{},|𝐩^{}|,p_{10},|𝐩_1|;P)\times `$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{((N(\frac{P}{2}+p^{}))\delta _{\lambda ^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}1)((N(\frac{P}{2}p^{}))\delta _{\lambda ^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}1)}{D(\frac{P}{2}+p^{})D(\frac{P}{2}p^{})}}{\displaystyle \frac{|𝐩^{}|^2dp_0^{}d|𝐩^{}|}{(2\pi )^4}}.`$ (47)
The partial spiral amplitudes satisfy the relations for the $`T`$ and $`P`$ invariance:

$`T_{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2}^J=\eta _1\eta _2\eta _3\eta _4(1)^{s_3+s_4s_1s_2}T_{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2}^J,`$
$`T_{\lambda _3\lambda _4,\lambda _1\lambda _2}^J=T_{\lambda _1\lambda _2,\lambda _3\lambda _4}^J.`$ (48)
This is the reason why only 25 out of 81 partial helicity amplitudes with this $`J`$ will be independent. Let us select the partial helicity amplitudes with the same helicity as in Eq.(6) as 25 independent amplitudes and number them from 1 to 25. Now, the system of $`2D`$ integral equations can be written in terms of 25 independent partial amplitudes as follows:

$`T_i^J(p_{20},|𝐩_2|,p_{10},|𝐩_1|;P)=I_i^J(p_{20},|𝐩_2|,p_{10},|𝐩_1|;P)+`$ (49)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{25}{}}}{\displaystyle K_{i,j}^J(p_{20},|𝐩_2|,p_0^{},|𝐩^{}|;P)T_j^J(p_0^{},|𝐩^{}|,p_{10},|𝐩_1|;P)\frac{|𝐩^{}|^2}{D(\frac{P}{2}+p^{})D(\frac{P}{2}p^{})}\frac{dp_0^{}d|𝐩^{}|}{(2\pi )^4}}.`$
The values $`K_{i,j}^J`$ are expressed via $`I_{i,j}^J`$ and the normalization multipliers $`N`$. Their explicit representation is given in Appendix.

This work was supported by the Russian Basic Research Foundation (grants N N 01-02-17276 and 02-02-06866) and the RF Ministry of Education (grant N E00-3, 3-110).

Appendix
In the general case, the matrix for the transformation of 25 helicity amplitudes to 25 invariant functions has 625 elements. Some of these elements are considered to be cumbersome mathematical expressions. In this appendix we present the transformation matrix elements for scattering of the vector particles having equal masses $`m_1=m_2=m`$. In this case, out of 625 elements, 361 are equal to zero, and the remaining 264 non-zero elements are related by numerous symmetry relations. The non-zero elements may be classified into 63 groups with their elements differing in the constant factors only. For the sake of space, the spiral amplitude indices corresponding to Eq.(6) were numbered from 1 to 25. Given below are the explicit expressions for the non-zero transformation matrix elements $`u_{ij},`$ where $`i`$ is the index of the invariant function $`f_i,`$ and $`j`$ is the helicity amplitude index.

$`u_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}1}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}3}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}7}}=u_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}9}}=u_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}3}}=u_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}7}}=u_{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}3}}=u_{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}7}}=2u_{\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}3}}=2u_{\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}7}}=2u_{\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}3}}=`$
$`=2u_{\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}7}}={\displaystyle \frac{8\mathrm{csc}(\theta )^2}{\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}1}}=u_{\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}9}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2}{8m^2s+2s^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{5\hspace{0.17em}1}}=u_{\mathrm{8\hspace{0.17em}1}}={\displaystyle \frac{\left((4m^2+s+(4m^22s)\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2\right)}{2s\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}1}}={\displaystyle \frac{(4m^2+s\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2}{2s\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}1}}=u_{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}1}}={\displaystyle \frac{(1+3\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2}{4\left(4m^2ss^2\right)}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}1}}={\displaystyle \frac{\left(\left(8m^48m^2s+3s^2+2\left(4m^2s\right)s\mathrm{cos}(\theta )+4\left(2m^44m^2s+s^2\right)\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )\right)\right)}{8s^2\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}}\times `$
$`\times \mathrm{csc}({\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}})^2\mathrm{sec}({\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}})^2,`$
$`u_{\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}1}}=u_{\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}9}}=u_{\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}17}}=u_{\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}21}}=u_{\mathrm{18\hspace{0.17em}1}}=u_{\mathrm{18\hspace{0.17em}9}}=u_{\mathrm{18\hspace{0.17em}17}}=u_{\mathrm{18\hspace{0.17em}21}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2}{8m^22s}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{12\hspace{0.17em}1}}=u_{\mathrm{12\hspace{0.17em}9}}=u_{\mathrm{12\hspace{0.17em}17}}=u_{\mathrm{12\hspace{0.17em}21}}=u_{\mathrm{13\hspace{0.17em}1}}=u_{\mathrm{13\hspace{0.17em}9}}=u_{\mathrm{13\hspace{0.17em}17}}=u_{\mathrm{13\hspace{0.17em}21}}=u_{\mathrm{19\hspace{0.17em}1}}=u_{\mathrm{19\hspace{0.17em}9}}=u_{\mathrm{19\hspace{0.17em}17}}=`$
$`=u_{\mathrm{19\hspace{0.17em}21}}=u_{\mathrm{20\hspace{0.17em}1}}=u_{\mathrm{20\hspace{0.17em}9}}=u_{\mathrm{20\hspace{0.17em}17}}=u_{\mathrm{20\hspace{0.17em}21}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2}{16m^2+4s}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{14\hspace{0.17em}1}}=u_{\mathrm{14\hspace{0.17em}9}}=u_{\mathrm{14\hspace{0.17em}17}}=u_{\mathrm{14\hspace{0.17em}21}}=u_{\mathrm{21\hspace{0.17em}1}}=u_{\mathrm{21\hspace{0.17em}9}}=u_{\mathrm{21\hspace{0.17em}17}}=u_{\mathrm{21\hspace{0.17em}21}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(\theta )^2\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2}{32m^2+8s}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{15\hspace{0.17em}1}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_{\mathrm{15\hspace{0.17em}3}}=u_{\mathrm{15\hspace{0.17em}17}}=2u_{\mathrm{16\hspace{0.17em}1}}=u_{\mathrm{16\hspace{0.17em}3}}=2u_{\mathrm{16\hspace{0.17em}17}}=u_{\mathrm{22\hspace{0.17em}1}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_{\mathrm{22\hspace{0.17em}7}}=u_{\mathrm{22\hspace{0.17em}17}}=2u_{\mathrm{23\hspace{0.17em}1}}=u_{\mathrm{23\hspace{0.17em}7}}=`$
$`=2u_{\mathrm{23\hspace{0.17em}17}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2}{4m^2+s}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{17\hspace{0.17em}1}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_{\mathrm{17\hspace{0.17em}3}}=u_{\mathrm{17\hspace{0.17em}17}}=u_{\mathrm{24\hspace{0.17em}1}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_{\mathrm{24\hspace{0.17em}7}}=u_{\mathrm{24\hspace{0.17em}17}}={\displaystyle \frac{\left((4m^2+s+(4m^2+2s)\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2\right)}{4s\left(4m^2+s\right)}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{25\hspace{0.17em}1}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_{\mathrm{25\hspace{0.17em}3}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_{\mathrm{25\hspace{0.17em}7}}=u_{\mathrm{25\hspace{0.17em}9}}=u_{\mathrm{25\hspace{0.17em}17}}=u_{\mathrm{25\hspace{0.17em}21}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{5\hspace{0.17em}2}}=u_{\mathrm{5\hspace{0.17em}8}}=2u_{\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}2}}=2u_{\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}4}}=2u_{\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}6}}=2u_{\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}8}}=4u_{\mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}8}}=u_{\mathrm{8\hspace{0.17em}4}}=u_{\mathrm{8\hspace{0.17em}6}}=4u_{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}6}}={\displaystyle \frac{8\sqrt{2}m\mathrm{csc}(\theta )}{\sqrt{s}\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}2}}=u_{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}4}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}m\left(8m^23s\right)\mathrm{csc}(\theta )}{s^{\frac{3}{2}}\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}4}}=u_{\mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}6}}=u_{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}2}}=u_{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}8}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}m\mathrm{csc}(\theta )}{s^{\frac{3}{2}}\left(4m^2+s\right)}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}2}}=u_{\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}4}}={\displaystyle \frac{8\sqrt{2}m\left(3m^2s\right)\mathrm{cot}(\theta )}{s^{\frac{3}{2}}\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{12\hspace{0.17em}2}}=u_{\mathrm{12\hspace{0.17em}8}}=u_{\mathrm{12\hspace{0.17em}11}}=u_{\mathrm{12\hspace{0.17em}15}}=u_{\mathrm{13\hspace{0.17em}4}}=u_{\mathrm{13\hspace{0.17em}6}}=u_{\mathrm{13\hspace{0.17em}18}}=u_{\mathrm{13\hspace{0.17em}20}}=u_{\mathrm{16\hspace{0.17em}4}}=u_{\mathrm{16\hspace{0.17em}6}}=`$
$`=u_{\mathrm{16\hspace{0.17em}18}}=u_{\mathrm{16\hspace{0.17em}20}}=u_{\mathrm{19\hspace{0.17em}2}}=u_{\mathrm{19\hspace{0.17em}8}}=u_{\mathrm{19\hspace{0.17em}11}}=u_{\mathrm{19\hspace{0.17em}15}}=u_{\mathrm{20\hspace{0.17em}4}}=u_{\mathrm{20\hspace{0.17em}6}}=u_{\mathrm{20\hspace{0.17em}18}}=u_{\mathrm{20\hspace{0.17em}20}}=u_{\mathrm{23\hspace{0.17em}2}}=`$
$`=u_{\mathrm{23\hspace{0.17em}8}}=u_{\mathrm{23\hspace{0.17em}11}}=u_{\mathrm{23\hspace{0.17em}15}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}m\mathrm{csc}(\theta )}{\sqrt{s}\left(4m^2+s\right)}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{14\hspace{0.17em}2}}=u_{\mathrm{14\hspace{0.17em}4}}=u_{\mathrm{14\hspace{0.17em}6}}=u_{\mathrm{14\hspace{0.17em}8}}=u_{\mathrm{14\hspace{0.17em}11}}=u_{\mathrm{14\hspace{0.17em}15}}=u_{\mathrm{14\hspace{0.17em}18}}=u_{\mathrm{14\hspace{0.17em}20}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_{\mathrm{17\hspace{0.17em}4}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_{\mathrm{17\hspace{0.17em}6}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_{\mathrm{17\hspace{0.17em}18}}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_{\mathrm{17\hspace{0.17em}20}}=u_{\mathrm{21\hspace{0.17em}2}}=u_{\mathrm{21\hspace{0.17em}4}}=u_{\mathrm{21\hspace{0.17em}6}}=u_{\mathrm{21\hspace{0.17em}8}}=u_{\mathrm{21\hspace{0.17em}11}}=u_{\mathrm{21\hspace{0.17em}15}}=u_{\mathrm{21\hspace{0.17em}18}}=u_{\mathrm{21\hspace{0.17em}20}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_{\mathrm{24\hspace{0.17em}2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_{\mathrm{24\hspace{0.17em}8}}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_{\mathrm{24\hspace{0.17em}11}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_{\mathrm{24\hspace{0.17em}15}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}m\mathrm{cot}(\theta )}{\sqrt{s}\left(4m^2+s\right)}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{5\hspace{0.17em}3}}=2u_{\mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}3}}=u_{\mathrm{8\hspace{0.17em}7}}=2u_{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}7}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}m\mathrm{cot}(\theta )}{\sqrt{s}\left(4m^2+s\right)}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{5\hspace{0.17em}7}}=2u_{\mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}7}}=u_{\mathrm{8\hspace{0.17em}3}}=2u_{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}3}}={\displaystyle \frac{(4m^2+s+(4m^2+2s)\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2}{s\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}3}}=u_{\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}7}}={\displaystyle \frac{(4m^2+s+4m^2\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))(4m^2+s+(4m^2+2s)\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2}{4s^2\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{15\hspace{0.17em}7}}=2u_{\mathrm{15\hspace{0.17em}7}}=2u_{\mathrm{15\hspace{0.17em}21}}=2u_{\mathrm{16\hspace{0.17em}7}}=4u_{\mathrm{16\hspace{0.17em}9}}=4u_{\mathrm{16\hspace{0.17em}21}}=u_{\mathrm{22\hspace{0.17em}3}}=2u_{\mathrm{22\hspace{0.17em}9}}=2u_{\mathrm{22\hspace{0.17em}21}}=2u_{\mathrm{23\hspace{0.17em}3}}=4u_{\mathrm{23\hspace{0.17em}9}}=`$
$`=4u_{\mathrm{23\hspace{0.17em}21}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2}{4m^2+s}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{17\hspace{0.17em}7}}=2u_{\mathrm{17\hspace{0.17em}9}}=2u_{\mathrm{17\hspace{0.17em}21}}=u_{\mathrm{24\hspace{0.17em}3}}=2u_{\mathrm{24\hspace{0.17em}9}}=2u_{\mathrm{24\hspace{0.17em}21}}={\displaystyle \frac{(4m^2+s+4m^2\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2}{2\left(4m^2ss^2\right)}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}5}}={\displaystyle \frac{32m^416m^2s}{\left(4m^2s+s^2\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{14\hspace{0.17em}5}}=u_{\mathrm{14\hspace{0.17em}19}}=u_{\mathrm{17\hspace{0.17em}22}}=u_{\mathrm{17\hspace{0.17em}24}}=u_{\mathrm{21\hspace{0.17em}12}}=u_{\mathrm{21\hspace{0.17em}14}}=u_{\mathrm{24\hspace{0.17em}10}}=u_{\mathrm{24\hspace{0.17em}16}}={\displaystyle \frac{4m^2}{4m^2s+s^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}6}}=u_{\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}8}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_{\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}13}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_{\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}23}}={\displaystyle \frac{8\sqrt{2}m^3\mathrm{cot}(\theta )}{s^{\frac{3}{2}}\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{5\hspace{0.17em}10}}=u_{\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}14}}=2u_{\mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}10}}=2u_{\mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}14}}=u_{\mathrm{8\hspace{0.17em}22}}=2u_{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}14}}=2u_{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}22}}={\displaystyle \frac{8m^2\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2}{s\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}9}}={\displaystyle \frac{(8m^48m^2s+s^22(4m^2s)s\mathrm{cos}(\theta )8m^4\mathrm{cos}(2\theta ))\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2}{8s^2\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}10}}=u_{\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}22}}={\displaystyle \frac{2m^2(4m^2s+(4m^22s)\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2}{s^2\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{5\hspace{0.17em}9}}=u_{\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}9}}=u_{\mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}9}}=u_{\mathrm{8\hspace{0.17em}9}}=u_{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}9}}={\displaystyle \frac{(4m^2+s4m^2\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2}{2s\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}11}}=u_{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}20}}=2u_{\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}11}}=2u_{\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}20}}={\displaystyle \frac{16\sqrt{2}m(\mathrm{cot}(\theta )\mathrm{csc}(\theta ))\mathrm{csc}(\theta )^2}{\sqrt{s}\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{5\hspace{0.17em}11}}=2u_{\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}11}}=2u_{\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}20}}=u_{\mathrm{8\hspace{0.17em}20}}={\displaystyle \frac{4\sqrt{2}m\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2\mathrm{tan}(\frac{\theta }{2})}{\sqrt{s}\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}11}}=u_{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}20}}={\displaystyle \frac{m(8m^23s+(8m^2+s)\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^3}{\sqrt{2}s^{\frac{3}{2}}\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}20}}=u_{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}11}}={\displaystyle \frac{m(4m^2s+(4m^23s)\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^3}{\sqrt{2}s^{\frac{3}{2}}\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}11}}=u_{\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}20}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}m\mathrm{cos}(\theta )(2m^2s+2m^2\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^3}{s^{\frac{3}{2}}\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{5\hspace{0.17em}16}}=u_{\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}12}}=2u_{\mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}12}}=2u_{\mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}16}}=u_{\mathrm{8\hspace{0.17em}24}}=2u_{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}12}}=2u_{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}24}}={\displaystyle \frac{8m^2\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2}{s\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}12}}={\displaystyle \frac{4m^2(4m^2+s+(4m^22s)\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2}{\left(4m^2s+s^2\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}15}}=u_{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}18}}=2u_{\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}15}}=2u_{\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}18}}={\displaystyle \frac{16\sqrt{2}m\mathrm{csc}(\theta )^2(\mathrm{cot}(\theta )+\mathrm{csc}(\theta ))}{\sqrt{s}\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{5\hspace{0.17em}15}}=2u_{\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}15}}=2u_{\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}18}}=u_{\mathrm{8\hspace{0.17em}18}}={\displaystyle \frac{4\sqrt{2}m\mathrm{cot}(\frac{\theta }{2})\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2}{\sqrt{s}\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}15}}=u_{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}18}}={\displaystyle \frac{m(1+3\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^3\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})}{\sqrt{2}\sqrt{s}\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}18}}=u_{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}15}}={\displaystyle \frac{m(4m^2+s+(4m^2+s)\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^3\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})}{\sqrt{2}s^{\frac{3}{2}}\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}13}}=u_{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}13}}={\displaystyle \frac{16\sqrt{2}m^3\mathrm{csc}(\theta )}{s^{\frac{3}{2}}\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}14}}={\displaystyle \frac{4m^2(4m^2s+4m^2\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2}{s^2\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}15}}=u_{\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}18}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}m\mathrm{cos}(\theta )(2m^2+s+2m^2\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^3\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})}{s^{\frac{3}{2}}\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}16}}=u_{\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}24}}={\displaystyle \frac{2m^2(4m^2+s+4m^2\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2}{\left(4m^2s+s^2\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}17}}={\displaystyle \frac{(3+\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^4}{\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}17}}=u_{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}17}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^4}{\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}17}}={\displaystyle \frac{(4m^23s+(4m^2+s)\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^4}{4s\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{5\hspace{0.17em}17}}=u_{\mathrm{8\hspace{0.17em}17}}={\displaystyle \frac{(2m^23s\mathrm{cos}(\theta )+(2m^2+s)\mathrm{cos}(2\theta ))\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^4}{4s\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}17}}={\displaystyle \frac{(8m^25s+2(4m^2+s)\mathrm{cos}(\theta )s\mathrm{cos}(2\theta ))\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^4}{8s\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}17}}=u_{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}17}}={\displaystyle \frac{(12m^2+s+8(2m^2+s)\mathrm{cos}(\theta )(4m^2+s)\mathrm{cos}(2\theta ))\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^4}{16s\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}17}}={\displaystyle \frac{((4m^416m^2s+3s^2)\mathrm{cos}(\theta )+(8m^44m^2s+3s^2)\mathrm{cos}(2\theta ))\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^4}{16s^2\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(4(2m^43m^2s+s^2m^4\mathrm{cos}(3\theta ))\right)\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^4}{16s^2\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}19}}={\displaystyle \frac{32m^2\mathrm{csc}(\theta )^2}{s\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}19}}=u_{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}19}}={\displaystyle \frac{16m^2\mathrm{cot}(\theta )\mathrm{csc}(\theta )}{s\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}19}}={\displaystyle \frac{16m^2(m^2+s+m^2\mathrm{cos}(2\theta ))\mathrm{csc}(\theta )^2}{s^2\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}21}}={\displaystyle \frac{(3+\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^4\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2}{\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}21}}=u_{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}21}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^4}{\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}21}}={\displaystyle \frac{\left((4m^2+3s+(4m^2+s)\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^4\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2\right)}{}}4s\left(4m^2+s\right)^2,`$
$`u_{\mathrm{5\hspace{0.17em}21}}=u_{\mathrm{8\hspace{0.17em}21}}={\displaystyle \frac{(2m^2+s+3s\mathrm{cos}(\theta )+2m^2\mathrm{cos}(2\theta ))\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^4\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2}{4s\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}21}}={\displaystyle \frac{\left((8m^2+s+(8m^2+6s)\mathrm{cos}(\theta )+s\mathrm{cos}(2\theta ))\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^4\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2\right)}{8s\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}21}}=u_{\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}21}}={\displaystyle \frac{(4m^2+s+(4m^2+s)\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^4}{4s\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}},`$
$`u_{\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}21}}=((4m^4+s^2)\mathrm{cos}(\theta )+(8m^4+4m^2s+s^2)\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )+`$
$`+2(4m^42m^2s+s^2+2m^4\mathrm{cos}(3\theta ))){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{csc}(\frac{\theta }{2})^4\mathrm{sec}(\frac{\theta }{2})^2}{16s^2\left(4m^2+s\right)^2}}`$
$`u_{\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}25}}={\displaystyle \frac{16m^4}{\left(4m^2s+s^2\right)^2}}`$
In these formulas $`\theta `$ is the scattering angle and $`s`$ is the squared total energy in the center of mass system.

Out of 625 elements of the matrix $`K_{i,j}^J,`$ 420 appear to be equal to zero. Presented below are 205 non-zero elements of the $`K_{i,j}^J`$. The order of numbering corresponds to the order in which the helicity amplitudes are given in Eq. (6).

$`K_{1,1}^J=I_1^J,K_{1,2}^J=N_2I_2^J,K_{1,3}^J=I_3^J,K_{1,4}^J=N_1I_4^J,K_{1,5}^J=N_1N_2I_5^J,K_{1,6}^J=N_1I_6^J,K_{1,7}^J=I_7^J,`$
$`K_{1,8}^J=N_2I_8^J,K_{1,9}^J=I_9^J;`$
$`K_{2,2}^J=I_1^J,K_{2,8}^J=I_9^J,K_{2,10}^J=N_2I_2^J,K_{2,11}^J=I_3^J,K_{2,12}^J=N_1I_4^J,K_{2,13}^J=N_1N_2I_5^J,`$
$`K_{2,14}^J=N_1I_6^J,K_{2,15}^J=I_7^J,K_{2,16}^J=N_2I_8^J;`$
$`K_{3,3}^J=I_1^J,K_{3,7}^J=I_9^J,K_{3,11}^J=N_2I_2^J,K_{3,15}^J=N_2I_8^J,K_{3,17}^J=I_3^J,K_{3,18}^J=N_1I_4^J,`$
$`K_{3,19}^J=N_1N_2I_5^J,K_{3,20}^J=N_1I_6^J,K_{3,21}^J=I_7^J;`$
$`K_{4,4}^J=I_1^J,K_{4,6}^J=I_9^J,K_{4,12}^J=N_2I_2^J,K_{4,14}^J=N_2I_8^J,K_{4,18}^J=I_3^J,K_{4,20}^J=I_7^J,`$
$`K_{4,22}^J=N_1I_4^J,K_{4,23}^J=N_1N_2I_5^J,K_{4,24}^J=N_1I_6^J;`$
$`K_{5,5}^J=I_1^J+I_9^J,K_{5,13}^J=N_2(I_8^JI_2^J),K_{5,19}^J=I_3^J+I_7^J,K_{5,23}^J=N_1(I_6^JI_4^J),K_{5,25}^J=N_1N_2I_5^J;`$
$`K_{6,4}^J=I_9^J,K_{6,6}^J=I_1^J,K_{6,12}^J=N_2I_8^J,K_{6,14}^J=N_2I_2^J,K_{6,18}^J=I_7^J,K_{6,20}^J=I_3^J,`$
$`K_{6,22}^J=N_1I_6^J,K_{6,23}^J=N_1N_2I_5^J,K_{6,24}^J=N_1I_4^J;`$
$`K_{7,3}^J=I_9^J,K_{7,7}^J=I_1^J,K_{7,11}^J=N_2I_8^J,K_{7,15}^J=N_2I_2^J,K_{7,17}^J=I_7^J,K_{7,18}^J=N_1I_6^J,`$
$`K_{7,19}^J=N_1N_2I_5^J,K_{7,20}^J=N_1I_4^J;`$
$`K_{8,2}^J=I_9^J,K_{8,8}^J=I_1^J,K_{8,10}^J=N_2I_8^J,K_{8,11}^J=I_7^J,K_{8,12}^J=N_1I_6^J,K_{8,13}^J=N_1N_2I_5^J,`$
$`K_{8,14}^J=N_1I_4^J,K_{8,15}^J=I_3^J,K_{8,16}^J=N_2I_2^J;`$
$`K_{9,1}^J=I_9^J,K_{9,2}^J=N_2I_8^J,K_{9,3}^J=I_7^J,K_{9,4}^J=N_1I_6^J,K_{9,5}^J=N_1N_2I_5^J,K_{9,6}^J=N_1I_4^J,`$
$`K_{9,7}^J=I_3^J,K_{9,8}^J=N_2I_2^J,K_{9,9}^J=I_1^J;`$
$`K_{10,2}^J=I_2^J,K_{10,8}^J=I_8^J,K_{10,10}^J=N_2I_{10}^J,K_{10,11}^J=I_{11}^J,K_{10,12}^J=N_1I_{12}^J,`$
$`K_{10,13}^J=N_1N_2I_{13}^J,K_{10,14}^J=N_1I_{14}^J,K_{10,15}^J=I_{15}^J,K_{10,16}^J=N_2I_{16}^J;`$
$`K_{11,3}^J=I_2^J,K_{11,7}^J=I_8^J,K_{11,11}^J=N_2I_{10}^J,K_{11,15}^J=N_2I_{16}^J,K_{11,17}^J=I_{11}^J,K_{11,18}^J=N_1I_{12}^J,`$
$`K_{11,19}^J=N_1N_2I_{13}^J,K_{11,20}^J=N_1I_{14}^J,K_{11,21}^J=I_{15}^J;`$
$`K_{12,4}^J=I_2^J,K_{12,6}^J=I_8^J,K_{12,12}^J=N_2I_{10}^J,K_{12,14}^J=N_2I_{16}^J,K_{12,18}^J=I_{11}^J,K_{12,20}^J=I_{15}^J,`$
$`K_{12,22}^J=N_1I_{12}^J,K_{12,23}^J=N_1N_2I_{13}^J,K_{12,24}^J=N_1I_{14}^J;`$
$`K_{13,5}^J=I_8^JI_2^J,K_{13,13}^J=N_2(I_{16}^JI_{10}^J),K_{13,19}^J=I_{11}^J+I_{15}^J,K_{13,23}^J=N_1(I_{14}^JI_{12}^J),`$
$`K_{13,25}^J=N_1N_2I_{13}^J;`$
$`K_{14,4}^J=I_8^J,K_{14,6}^J=I_2^J,K_{14,12}^J=N_2I_{16}^J,K_{14,14}^J=N_2I_{10}^J,K_{14,18}^J=I_{15}^J,K_{14,20}^J=I_{11}^J,`$
$`K_{14,22}^J=N_1I_{14}^J,K_{14,23}^J=N_1N_2I_{13}^J,K_{14,24}^J=N_1I_{12}^J;`$
$`K_{15,3}^J=I_8^J,K_{15,7}^J=I_2^J,K_{15,11}^J=N_2I_{16}^J,K_{15,15}^J=N_2I_{10}^J,K_{15,17}^J=I_{15}^J,K_{15,18}^J=N_1I_{14}^J,`$
$`K_{15,19}^J=N_1N_2I_{13}^J,K_{15,20}^J=N_1I_{12}^J,K_{15,21}^J=I_{11}^J;`$
$`K_{16,2}^J=I_8^J,K_{16,8}^J=I_2^J,K_{16,10}^J=N_2I_{16}^J,K_{16,11}^J=I_{15}^J,K_{16,12}^J=N_1I_{14}^J,K_{16,13}^J=N_1N_2I_{13}^J,`$
$`K_{16,14}^J=N_1I_{12}^J,K_{16,15}^J=I_{11}^J,K_{16,16}^J=N_2I_{10}^J;`$
$`K_{17,3}^J=I_3^J,K_{17,7}^J=I_7^J,K_{17,11}^J=N_2I_{11}^J,K_{17,15}^J=N_2I_{15}^J,K_{17,17}^J=I_{17}^J,K_{17,18}^J=N_1I_{18}^J,`$
$`K_{17,19}^J=N_1N_2I_{19}^J,K_{17,20}^J=N_1I_{20}^J,K_{17,21}^J=I_{21}^J;`$
$`K_{18,4}^J=I_3^J,K_{18,6}^J=I_7^J,K_{18,12}^J=N_2I_{11}^J,K_{18,14}^J=N_2I_{15}^J,K_{18,18}^J=I_{17}^J,K_{18,20}^J=I_{21}^J,`$
$`K_{18,22}^J=N_1I_{18}^J,K_{18,23}^J=N_1N_2I_{19}^J,K_{18,24}^J=N_1I_{20}^J;`$
$`K_{19,5}^J=I_3^J+I_7^J,K_{19,13}^J=N_2(I_{11}^J+I_{15}^J),K_{19,19}^J=I_{17}^J+I_{21}^J,K_{19,23}^J=N_1(I_{20}^JI_{18}^J),`$
$`K_{19,25}^J=N_1N_2I_{19}^J;`$
$`K_{20,4}^J=I_7^J,K_{20,6}^J=I_3^J,K_{20,12}^J=N_2I_{15}^J,K_{20,14}^J=N_2I_{11}^J,K_{20,18}^J=I_{21}^J,K_{20,20}^J=I_{17}^J,`$
$`K_{20,22}^J=N_1I_{20}^J,K_{20,23}^J=N_1N_2I_{19}^J,K_{20,24}^J=N_1I_{18}^J;`$
$`K_{21,3}^J=I_7^J,K_{21,7}^J=I_3^J,K_{21,11}^J=N_2I_{15}^J,K_{21,15}^J=N_2I_{11}^J,K_{21,17}^J=I_{21}^J,K_{21,18}^J=N_1I_{20}^J,`$
$`K_{21,19}^J=N_1N_2I_{19}^J,K_{21,20}^J=N_1I_{18}^J,K_{21,21}^J=I_{17}^J;`$
$`K_{22,4}^J=I_4^J,K_{22,6}^J=I_6^J,K_{22,12}^J=N_2I_{12}^J,K_{22,14}^J=N_2I_{14}^J,K_{22,18}^J=I_{18}^J,K_{22,20}^J=I_{20}^J,`$
$`K_{22,22}^J=N_1I_{22}^J,K_{22,23}^J=N_1N_2I_{23}^J,K_{22,24}^J=N_1I_{24}^J;`$
$`K_{23,5}^J=I_6^JI_4^J,K_{23,13}^J=N_2(I_{14}^JI_{12}^J),K_{23,19}^J=I_{20}^JI_{18}^J,K_{23,23}^J=N_1(I_{24}^JI_{22}^J),`$
$`K_{23,25}^J=N_1N_2I_{23}^J;`$
$`K_{24,4}^J=I_6^J,K_{24,6}^J=I_4^J,K_{24,12}^J=N_2I_{14}^J,K_{24,14}^J=N_2I_{12}^J,K_{24,18}^J=I_{20}^J,K_{24,20}^J=I_{18}^J,`$
$`K_{24,22}^J=N_1I_{24}^J,K_{24,23}^J=N_1N_2I_{23}^J,K_{24,24}^J=N_1I_{22}^J;`$
$`K_{25,5}^J=2I_5^J,K_{25,13}^J=2N_2I_{13}^J,K_{25,19}^J=2I_{19}^J,K_{25,23}^J=2N_1I_{23}^J,K_{25,25}^J=N_1N_2I_{25}^J.`$
In these formulas $`N_1={\displaystyle \frac{|𝐤^{}|^2k_{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{2}}{m^2}},`$ and $`N_2={\displaystyle \frac{|𝐪^{}|^2q_{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{2}}{m^2}}`$ are the normalization coefficients for the vector particles whose 4-momenta are $`k^{}=(k_{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{},𝐤^{})`$ and $`q^{}=(q_{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{},𝐪^{}).`$


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is fair to say that the recently announced first results of the Kamioka Liquid scintillator Anti-Neutrino Detector (KamLAND) experiment  constitute a highly anticipated milestone in our understanding and resolution of the three decade old solar neutrino problem. The origins of this puzzle lie in the early deficit measurements of the solar neutrino flux in the pioneering Homestake chlorine experiment. This discrepancy between the expected rate, as predicted by increasingly refined solar model calculations  and the measured one has been subsequently confirmed and buttressed over the years by results from the $`{}_{}{}^{71}Ga`$ experiments SAGE, GALLEX and GNO , the Kamiokande and the Super-Kamiokande experiments (SK) , and most recently from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) . In particular, SK has provided valuable zenith angle and energy spectrum information in addition to total rate measurements of the high energy Boron flux, and SNO has provided crucial neutral current (NC) and charged current (CC) rate data along with spectrum results. Over the years, these experimental results have been culled together with our understanding of neutrino mass, mixing and resonant matter oscillations to obtain the allowed parameter space in terms of the mixing angle $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ and mass-squared difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ of the neutrino states. The analysis of global solar data carried out by various groups favours the LMA solution based on MSW resonant matter oscillations  as the most probable resolution of the solar neutrino problem .

KamLAND  is a 1 kton liquid scintillator neutrino detector, designed specifically to test the LMA solution. It is located at the earlier Kamiokande site in the Kamioka mine in Japan. Its main objective is to look for oscillation of $`\overline{\nu _e}`$ coming from Japanese nuclear power reactors situated at distances ranging from $``$ $`80`$ km to $`800`$ km. The bulk ($`79\%`$) of the measured flux is however from reactors which are at distances between 138 km to 214 km. The $`\overline{\nu }_e`$s are detected via the inverse beta decay reaction $`\overline{\nu }_e+pe^++n`$. Both the scintillation emitted by the positron as it moves through the detection medium, and its subsequent annihilation with an electron are recorded. The delayed coincidence of the positron with the 2.2 MeV $`\gamma `$-ray from the capture of the neutron constitutes a largely background free signal. The total visible energy ($`E_{vis}`$) corresponds to $`E_{e^+}+m_e`$, where $`E_{e^+}`$ is the total energy of the positron and $`m_e`$ the electron mass. The positron energy is related to the incoming antineutrino energy as $`E_{e^+}=E_\nu \overline{E}_{rec}(m_nm_p)`$ MeV ($`m_nm_p=1.293`$MeV is the neutron–proton mass difference). $`\overline{E}_{rec}`$ is the average neutron recoil energy calculated here using . The energy resolution is $`\sigma (E)/E=7.5\%/\sqrt{E}`$, $`E`$ is in MeV.

The first data from KamLAND gives the ratio of the observed number of events to the expected number of events to be

$`R_{KL}=0.611\pm 0.085(stat)\pm 0.041(syst)`$ (1)
for an exposure of 162 ton-yr and a visible energy above 2.6 MeV 666Below this energy the background due to the geophysical neutrinos dominate.. They have also presented the observed positron energy spectrum.

In a pre-KamLAND analysis  we have shown that an energy integrated rate in the range 0.3 -0.8 will provide confirmation for the LMA solution. In particular the solar LMA best-fit predicted a KamLAND rate of 0.65 which is close to the observed rate. This is the first confirmation of the LMA solution to the solar neutrino problem using terrestrial neutrino sources. We also showed that for a rate below 0.9 the LOW solution to the solar neutrino problem is disallowed at more than 3$`\sigma `$. Hence in this paper we focus on the LMA solution and perform a global analysis which combines
(i)KamLAND rate and global solar data
(ii)KamLAND spectrum and global solar data
We find the allowed area from each of the above analyses and discuss their contributions in sharpening our knowledge of neutrino mass and mixing parameters. The current KamLAND and global solar data split the allowed LMA region in two parts – a low $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ region (low-LMA) and a high $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ region (high-LMA), which has less (by $`2\sigma `$) statistical significance. A more precise determination of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ should be possible with increased statistics and reduced systematics of the spectral data from KamLAND . We demonstrate the potential of 1 kton-yr spectral data in discriminating between the two allowed regions and further constraining the parameter values by simulating the spectrum at different values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ selected from the allowed area of the global solar+KamLAND analysis. We find that if the true spectrum corresponds to that simulated at points in the low-LMA region then with 1 kton-yr exposure the high-LMA part can be further disfavoured. For spectrum simulated at high-LMA values however the ambiguity between the two zones persists.

## 2 Analysis and Results

The total event-rate/sec in the KamLAND detector is given as

$`N_{KL}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑E_\nu \sigma (E_\nu )N_p\underset{i}{}S_i\frac{P_i(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e)}{4\pi d_i^2}}`$ (2)
where $`\sigma (E_\nu )`$ denotes the cross-section; $`S_i`$ denotes the spectrum from a given reactor $`i`$ and involves the neutrino spectrum from the fission of a particular isotope, the characteristic energy released per fission by the isotope and the fractional abundance of the isotopes. For further details of the spectrum, cross-section, fuel composition etc. we refer the reader to . $`N_p`$ denotes the number of target protons. The declared KamLAND data corresponds to a fiducial mass of 408 ton, resulting in 3.46 $`\times `$ 1031 free target protons. Relative fission yields for the various fuel isotopes are also taken in accordance with , as is the integrated thermal power flux of 254 Joule/cm2. $`P_i(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e)`$ is the two-generation survival probability for the antineutrinos from each of the reactors $`i`$ and $`d_i`$ is the distance of reactor $`i`$ to KamLAND in $`km`$. In addition, we include the event selection criteria used by the KamLAND collaboration corresponding to an efficiency of $`78.3\%`$ .

We first do a statistical analysis of the KamLAND rate and global solar data. For KamLAND rate we define the $`\chi ^2`$ as

$$\chi _{KL}^2=\frac{(R_{KL}^{expt}R_{KL}^{theory})^2}{\sigma ^2}$$
(3)
where $`\sigma =\sqrt{\sigma _{syst}^2+\sigma _{stat}^2}`$, $`\sigma _{syst}`$ and $`\sigma _{stat}`$ being the total systematic and statistical error in the KamLAND data respectively (cf. Eq.(1)).

$`R_{KL}={\displaystyle \frac{N_{KL}}{N_{KL}^0}}`$ (4)
$`N_{KL}^0`$ is obtained from Eq.(2) with $`P(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e)=1`$.

For the solar analysis we define the $`\chi ^2`$ function in the “covariance” approach as

$`\chi _{}^2={\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(R_i^{\mathrm{expt}}R_i^{\mathrm{theory}})(\sigma _{ij}^2)^1(R_j^{\mathrm{expt}}R_j^{\mathrm{theory}})`$ (5)
where $`R_i`$ are the solar data points, $`N`$ is the number of data points (80 in our case) and $`(\sigma _{ij}^2)^1`$ is the inverse of the covariance matrix, containing the squares of the correlated and uncorrelated experimental and theoretical errors. We use the data on total rate from the Cl experiment, the combined rate from the Ga experiments (SAGE+GALLEX+GNO), the 1496 day data on the SK zenith angle energy spectrum and the combined SNO day-night spectrum. For further details of our solar analysis we refer the reader to .

The $`\chi ^2`$ for the combined solar and KamLAND rate analysis is defined as

$$\chi ^2=\chi _{}^2+\chi _{KL}^2$$
(6)
The best-fit after including the KamLAND data comes at $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=6.06\times 10^5`$ eV2 and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =0.42`$. Thus the best-fit point does not change significantly with respect to that obtained from only solar analysis . In Figure 1 we draw the 90%, 95%, 99% and 99.73% C.L. allowed area in the LMA region from a combined solar+KamLAND rate analysis. Superimposed on that we show the $`3\sigma `$ (99.73% C.L.) allowed area from solar data alone. Large area within the LMA regions is seen to remain allowed.

Apart from the data on energy integrated total rates, KamLAND collaboration has also provided the observed positron visible energy spectrum, albeit with low statistics. We incorporate this in our analysis to extract the shape information from this data as the spectral distortion is a very sensitive probe of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$. For the KamLAND spectral data, we perform our analysis using a definition of $`\chi _{klspec}^2`$ assuming the data to be Poisson-distributed which is appropriate for data with low statistics. For this case

$`\chi _{klspec}^2={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left[2(X_nS_{KL,i}^{theory}S_{KL,i}^{expt})+2S_{KL,i}^{expt}\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{S_{KL,i}^{expt}}{X_nS_{KL,i}^{theory}}})\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{(X_n1)^2}{\sigma _{sys}^2}}`$ (7)
where $`\sigma _{sys}`$ is taken to be 6.42%  and a normalisation factor $`X_n`$ is allowed to vary freely. The sum is over the 13 KamLAND spectral bins. In  the errors for the shape distortion are attributed to energy scale, energy resolution, $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ spectrum and fiducial volume. A more refined statistical analysis would involve evaluating the systematic errors in each bin due to these sources at each $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ as well as taking into account of the background events and their errors in each bin. This will be possible as and when more detailed information will be available.

For the spectrum analysis we get the best-fit values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ to be $`7.17\times 10^5`$ eV2 and 0.64 respectively. This is close to that obtained by the KamLAND collaboration but our best-fit $`\theta `$ is not maximal as in . Apart from the above there are other minimas with reduced statistical significance. In Table 1 we present the best-fit values and $`\chi _{min}^2`$ for the global minima and the second minima which is obtained at a higher $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ value. In Figure 2 we present the allowed areas in $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ plane from KamLAND spectrum analysis. This is understandably slightly different from what KamLAND has obtained in . The KamLAND data analysis procedure as outlined in  is somewhat different and the full details are not known to us.

Next we do a combined analysis of KamLAND spectral data together with the global solar data. The $`\chi ^2`$ for the combined analysis is defined as the sum of the individual contributions. We present the results in Table 1. The best-fit comes at $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=7.17\times 10^5`$ eV2 and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =0.43`$. From Table 1 we also see that there is a second minima at a higher $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ with a reduced statistical significance by about 2$`\sigma `$ with respect to (w.r.t.) the global minima.

In Figure 3 we show the combined allowed area with the solar and KamLAND spectrum analysis superimposed on the 3$`\sigma `$ solar contour. The allowed area is seen to be much constricted with the inclusion of the KamLAND spectral data. At 90% C.L. only a small region about the best-fit point remains allowed. At 99% C.L. however there are two distinct allowed zones – one around the global best-fit point (low-LMA) and the other around the higher $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ corresponding to the second minima (high-LMA). The former is preferred by the KamLAND data and to a greater extent by the global solar data. At 99.73% the demarkation between the two zones disappear.

In Table 2 we show the allowed ranges of the values of the parameters at 99% C.L. obtained from the global analysis including the solar and KamLAND spectrum data. The allowed range of $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ is not reduced in the preferred low-LMA zone with the inclusion of KamLAND data, although in the high-LMA zone it is somewhat restricted.

For the LOW solution we get $`\chi _{min}^2=97.28`$. This implies that LOW is now ruled out at 4.4$`\sigma `$ w.r.t. the LMA solution. The maximal mixing solution ($`\chi _{min}^2=88.89`$) is disfavored at 3.4$`\sigma `$ (w.r.t. LMA) from the combined KamLAND + solar analysis.

## 3 Projected Analysis

In this section we explore whether the future KamLAND spectrum data would be able to determine the allowed zones more precisely. In particular, it would be interesting to see whether KamLAND , either by itself or in conjunction with the solar data, can choose between one of the two allowed islands, and pin down the values of the mass and mixing parameters unambiguously. We try to look into this by doing a statistical analysis of the projected 1 kton-yr KamLAND data. We choose sample values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$, from the allowed zones obtained from the global solar+KamLAND analysis (cf. fig.3) and simulate the spectrum at these points for 1 kton-yr of data (approximately 2.5 years of KamLAND live-time ), using a randomizing procedure which takes care of the fluctuations. We use these simulated spectra in a $`\chi ^2`$ analysis and reconstruct the allowed regions in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$$`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ plane. In Figure 4 we display these reconstructed allowed regions from 1 kton-yr projected KamLAND spectrum alone. Figure 5 shows the 1 kton-yr simulated spectrum with errorbars at the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ corresponding to each of the panels of Figure 4. In Figure 6 we present the allowed regions from a combined analysis of global solar data and 1 kton-yr KamLAND spectrum data, simulated at the same set of points as in the previous two figures. The dashed lines in Figures 4 and 6 give the current 99% C.L. allowed regions. For the analysis with the projected KamLAND spectra we assume Gaussian statistics, which is more appropriate in this case.

First let us make a note on the rationale of the representative values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ chosen to simulate the spectrum. Panel 1 corresponds to the KamLAND spectrum simulated at the low-LMA best-fit while panel 7 corresponds to that generated at the high-LMA best-fit. These are the two favored points from the current data. We also simulate the 1 kton-yr KamLAND spectrum at few other points deviated from the best-fits. In panel 2(3) we have chosen $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ corresponding to the low-LMA best-fit but a lower(higher) value of $`\theta `$. Similarly panel 8 is for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ corresponding to the high-LMA best fit but at a higher value of $`\theta `$. The panels with same $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ but different $`\theta `$ are chosen to demonstrate the impact of $`\theta `$ on the reconstructed regions. We choose $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ values lower(higher) than the low(high)-LMA best-fit in panels 4(5). Panels 6 and 8 display the reconstructed regions for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ values lower and higher than the high-LMA best-fit respectively. These set of values give adequate coverage for studying the projected sensitivity of the reconstructed regions on the choice of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and $`\theta `$ currently allowed at 99% C.L..

Figure 4 addresses the issue if future KamLAND data can by itself make a sharper demarkation between the two allowed islands and the dependence of this on the oscillation parameters. The figure shows that if we choose the simulation point at higher $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ values (panels 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9) then there are large allowed regions from the spectrum data, extending upto $`10^3`$ eV2. The Figure 5 shows that for these values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ the spectral suppression tends to become flat (undistorted) leading to increased fuzziness. The same is also true for lower values of $`\theta `$. The lesser distortion at low values of $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ is due to a diminished energy dependence resulting from a small oscillatory term in the survival probability . This also leads to an increase in allowed area (cf. panel 2) although to a lesser extent as compared to the panels with high $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ values discussed earlier. There are also some allowed regions at $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ values lower than that allowed by the current 99% C.L. contour in panels 5, 6, 7 and 9. However the figure reveals that the allowed $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ range around the low-LMA and high-LMA zones get reduced in most of the panels. With 1 kton-yr KamLAND spectrum data the region around $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^210^4`$ eV2 present in Figure 3 gets disallowed in all the panels and the low-LMA and high-LMA regions get bifurcated even at 3$`\sigma `$ level. In general, tighter constraints in the Figure 4 are associated with spectra with a shape significantly different from the no oscillation spectrum. For the KamLAND baselines this corresponds to a lower $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ than the present best-fit. Panel 4, which is at the global solar best-fit, shows that for such cases just the 1 kton-yr spectrum data from KamLAND can pick out a sharply defined allowed zone around the simulation point unambiguously.

In Figure 6 we show the C.L. allowed regions from a combined analysis of the global solar + CHOOZ + 1 kton-yr KamLAND simulated spectrum data. Through these plots we investigate the impact of the current solar data to resolve the ambiguity still admitted by the 1 kton-yr projected KamLAND spectrum data. We find that the solar data is instrumental in ruling out a large part of the parameter space allowed by the 1 kton-yr KamLAND only analysis. A comparison of the panels 1, 2, 3 and 5 in the figures 4 and 6 shows that for spectrum simulated in the low-LMA region the inclusion of the solar data reduces the statistical significance of the high-LMA zone. It also disallows the high $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ regions above $`2\times 10^4`$ eV2. In these regions the solar data requires a $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ flux normalisation factor ($`f_B`$) $``$ 0.8 which is in conflict with the SNO NC measurement of $`f_B1.0`$, thus disfavoring these zones. For spectrum simulated in the high-LMA region in panels 6 to 9, even though the large allowed regions beyond $`2\times 10^4`$ eV2 as well as the allowed regions at low $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ get mostly removed by the solar data, the ambiguity between the allowed islands remain. In fact a comparison with Figure 4 reveals that for these panels the inclusion of the solar data increases the statistical significance of the low-LMA allowed regions. The KamLAND spectral data allows the low-LMA region only at 99% C.L. in panels 7, 8 and 9, and at 99.73% C.L. in panel 6. However with the inclusion of the solar data in the analysis, these regions become allowed at 90% and 99% C.L. respectively, as the solar data prefers the low-LMA zone. Therefore to remove the ambiguity for the spectrum corresponding to the high-LMA zones, one would require KamLAND data with higher statistics, which will be able to determine the spectral shape and hence $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ more precisely.

## 4 Conclusions

In conclusion, we have investigated the impact of the first results from KamLAND on neutrino mass and mixing parameters in conjunction with the global solar neutrino data. KamLAND is completely consistent with the LMA solution, to the extent that the observed KamLAND rate is close to that predicted by the best-fit point of the LMA solution to the solar neutrino problem. As a result the combined analysis of the solar and KamLAND rates data allows a large area within the solar LMA region and the global solar best-fit does not change much with inclusion of KamLAND rates. The constraining capabilities of the spectrum data is much stronger and with only 145 days observed spectrum KamLAND can exclude certain parts of the LMA parameter space. After including the spectral data the allowed LMA zone consists mainly of two disconnected regions, one around the best-fit and another at a higher $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$. The two zones merge at $`3\sigma `$. Maximal mixing though allowed by the KamLAND alone, is found to be still disfavored by the combined solar and KamLAND data at more than $`3\sigma `$. The LOW solution which was allowed at $`3\sigma `$ from the global solar data and which predicts null oscillations in KamLAND is now disfavored at almost $`5\sigma `$ w.r.t the LMA solution.

With LMA now confirmed, the next focus of KamLAND would be a more accurate determination of the mass parameter by distinguishing between the two allowed sectors in the LMA region. We have explored this through a projected analysis with 1 ktyr simulated data. With 1 kton-yr projected spectrum data the allowed $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ ranges around both low-LMA and high-LMA zones decrease in size and they get separated at 3$`\sigma `$ by the spectrum data itself. The inclusion of the solar data disfavours(favours) the high(low)-LMA zone if the spectrum is simulated in the low(high)-LMA area. Thus the allowed areas become more precise for low-LMA spectrum while ambiguity between the two zones remains for high-LMA spectrum. A higher statistics from KamLAND is expected to resolve this ambiguity. A more precise determination of the mixing angle will be possible from a more accurate measurement of the CC/NC ratio at SNO.

Acknowledgment  We acknowledge S. Pakvasa for useful discussions. RG would like to thank John Beacom for a helpful discussion. SC acknowledges discussions with S.T. Petcov.