text:
# Two-loop QCD corrections to gluon-gluon scattering11footnote 1 Work supported in part by the UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council and by the EU Fourth Framework Programme ‘Training and Mobility of Researchers’, Network ‘Quantum Chromodynamics and the Deep Structure of Elementary Particles’, contract FMRX-CT98-0194 (DG 12 - MIHT), in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG02-95ER40896 and in part by the University of Wisconsin Research Committee with funds granted by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation. M.E.T. acknowledges financial support from CONACyT and the CVCP. We thank the British Council and German Academic Exchange Service for support under ARC project 1050.

## 1 Introduction

Accurate perturbative calculations beyond leading order in quantum chromodynamics (QCD) are an important ingredient in improving our understanding of jet production in current and future high energy collider experiments at the Tevatron and LHC. At present, next-to-leading order calculations have become standard and are used to make comparisons with experimental data. For example, the next-to-leading order $`𝒪\left(\alpha _s^3\right)`$ predictions for jet production in $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions  based on the one-loop matrix elements computed by Ellis and Sexton  have been successfully compared with a wide variety of experimental observables using data from the Tevatron and the CERN S$`p\overline{p}`$S. To date these comparisons have been limited by both experimental and theoretical uncertainties at the 10% level. However, improvements in detector technology, as well as the expected large increases in the luminosity of the colliding particles, should significantly improve the quality of the experimental data and will require more accurate theoretical calculations either to claim new physics or to refine our understanding of QCD.

The theoretical prediction may be improved by including the next-to-next-to-leading order perturbative predictions. This has the effect of (a) reducing the renormalisation scale dependence and (b) improving the matching of the parton level theoretical jet algorithm with the hadron level experimental jet algorithm, because the jet structure can be modeled by the presence of a third parton. The improvement in accuracy expected at next-to-next-to-leading order can be estimated using the renormalisation group equations together with the existing leading and next-to-leading order calculations and is at the 1-2% level for centrally produced jets with a transverse energy, $`E_T`$, of around 100 GeV.

The full next-to-next-to-leading order prediction requires the knowledge of the two-loop $`22`$ matrix elements as well as the contributions from the one-loop $`23`$ and tree-level $`24`$ processes. At large transverse energies, $`E_Tm_{\mathrm{quark}}`$, the quark masses may be safely neglected and we therefore focus on the scattering of massless partons. Techniques for computing multiparticle tree amplitudes for $`24`$ processes, and the associated crossed processes, are well understood. For example, the helicity amplitudes for the six gluon $`gggggg`$, four gluon-two quark $`\overline{q}qgggg`$, two gluon-four quark $`\overline{q}q\overline{q}^{}q^{}gg`$ and six quark $`\overline{q}q\overline{q}^{}q^{}\overline{q}^{\prime \prime }q^{\prime \prime }`$ have been computed in Refs. . Similarly, amplitudes for the one-loop $`23`$ parton sub-processes $`ggggg`$, $`\overline{q}qggg`$, $`\overline{q}q\overline{q}^{}q^{}g`$, and processes related to these by crossing symmetry, are also known and are available in  respectively.

Although the two-loop contribution for gluon-gluon scattering in $`N=4`$ supersymmetric models has been known for some time , the evaluation of the two-loop $`22`$ contributions for QCD processes has been a challenge for the past few years. This was mainly due to a lack of knowledge about planar and crossed double box integrals that arise at two-loops. In the massless parton limit and in dimensional regularisation, analytic expressions for these basic scalar integrals have now been provided by Smirnov  and Tausk  as series in $`ϵ=(4D)/2`$, where $`D`$ is the space-time dimension, together with algorithms for reducing tensor integral to a basis set of known scalar (master) integrals . This makes the calculation of the two-loop amplitudes for $`22`$ QCD scattering processes possible.

Following on from the pioneering work of Bern, Dixon and Ghinculov  who completed the two-loop calculation of physical $`22`$ scattering amplitudes for the QED processes $`e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`e^+e^{}e^{}e^+`$, we have studied the $`𝒪\left(\alpha _s^4\right)`$ contributions arising from the interference of two-loop and tree-level graphs for the QCD processes of quark-quark  and quark-gluon  scattering. In these papers we presented analytic expressions for the infrared pole structure (that ultimately cancels against contributions from the $`23`$ and $`24`$ processes), which agrees with that anticipated by Catani , as well as the finite remainder.

To complete the set of two-loop contributions to parton-parton scattering requires the study of (non-supersymmetric) gluon-gluon scattering. Bern, Dixon and Kosower  were the first to address this process and provided analytic expressions for the maximal-helicity-violating two-loop amplitude. Unfortunately, this amplitude vanishes at tree level and does not contribute to $`22`$ scattering at next-to-next-to-leading order $`𝒪\left(\alpha _s^4\right)`$. It is therefore the goal of this paper to provide analytic expressions for the $`𝒪\left(\alpha _s^4\right)`$ two-loop corrections to gluon-gluon scattering

$$g+gg+g.$$
(1)
As is in Refs. , we use the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ renormalisation scheme to remove the ultraviolet singularities and conventional dimensional regularisation, where all external particles are treated in $`D`$ dimensions. We provide expressions for the interference of tree-level and two-loop graphs. The infrared-pole structure agrees with that obtained using Catani’s general factorisation formulae . The finite remainders are the main new results presented in this paper and we give explicit analytic expressions valid for the gluon-gluon scattering process in terms of logarithms and polylogarithms that are real in the physical domain. For simplicity, we decompose our results according to the powers of the number of colours $`N`$ and the number of light-quark flavours $`N_F`$.

Our paper is organised as follows. We first establish our notation in Sec. 2. Analytic expressions for the interference of the two-loop and tree-level amplitudes are given in Sec. 3. In Sec. 3.1 we adopt the notation used in Ref. , to isolate the infrared singularity structure of the two-loop amplitudes in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme in terms of the one-loop bubble integral in $`D=42ϵ`$ and the one-loop box integral in $`D=62ϵ`$. Analytic formulae connecting these integrals in the various kinematic regions are given in Appendix A. We demonstrate that the anticipated singularity structure agrees with our explicit calculation. The finite $`𝒪\left(ϵ^0\right)`$ is given in Sec. 3.2 in terms of logarithms and polylogarithms that have no imaginary parts. Finally we conclude with a brief summary of the results in Sec. 4.

## 2 Notation

For calculational purposes, the process we consider is

$$g(p_1)+g(p_2)+g(p_3)+g(p_4)0,$$
(2)
where the gluons are all incoming with light-like momenta, satisfying

$$p_1^\mu +p_2^\mu +p_3^\mu +p_4^\mu =0,p_i^2=0.$$

The associated Mandelstam variables are given by

$$s=(p_1+p_2)^2,t=(p_2+p_3)^2,u=(p_1+p_3)^2,s+t+u=0.$$
(3)
The gluons also carry colour indexes, $`a_i`$, in the adjoint representation.

We work in conventional dimensional regularisation treating all external quark and gluon states in $`D`$ dimensions and renormalise the ultraviolet divergences in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme. The renormalised four point amplitude in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme can be written

$`|`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \alpha _s\left[|^{(0)}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}\right)|^{(1)}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}\right)^2|^{(2)}+𝒪\left(\alpha _s^3\right)\right],`$
where $`\alpha _s\alpha _s(\mu ^2)`$ is the running coupling at renormalisation scale $`\mu `$ and the $`|^{(i)}`$ represents the colour-space vector describing the renormalised $`i`$-loop amplitude. The dependence on both renormalisation scale $`\mu `$ and renormalisation scheme is implicit.

We denote the squared amplitude summed over spins and colours by

$$|=|(g+gg+g)|^2=𝒟(s,t,u).$$
(5)
which is symmetric under the exchange of $`s`$, $`t`$ and $`u`$. The function $`𝒟`$ can be expanded perturbatively to yield

$`𝒟(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`16\pi ^2\alpha _s^2\left[𝒟^4(s,t,u)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}\right)𝒟^6(s,t,u)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}\right)^2𝒟^8(s,t,u)+𝒪\left(\alpha _s^3\right)\right],`$
where

$`𝒟^4(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`^{(0)}|^{(0)}`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`16VN^2(1ϵ)^2\left(3{\displaystyle \frac{ut}{s^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{us}{t^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{st}{u^2}}\right),`$
$`𝒟^6(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(^{(0)}|^{(1)}+^{(1)}|^{(0)}\right),`$ (8)
$`𝒟^8(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(^{(1)}|^{(1)}+^{(0)}|^{(2)}+^{(2)}|^{(0)}\right),`$ (9)
where $`N`$ is the number of colours and $`V=N^21`$. Expressions for $`𝒟^6`$ are given in Ref.  using dimensional regularisation to isolate the infrared and ultraviolet singularities.

In the following sections, we present expressions for the infrared singular and finite two-loop contributions to $`𝒟^8`$

$$𝒟^{8(2\times 0)}(s,t,u)=^{(0)}|^{(2)}+^{(2)}|^{(0)}.$$
(10)
We defer the self-interference of the one-loop amplitudes

$$𝒟^{8(1\times 1)}(s,t,u)=^{(1)}|^{(1)},$$
(11)
to a later paper.

As in Refs. , we use QGRAF  to produce the two-loop Feynman diagrams to construct $`|^{(2)}`$. We then project by $`^{(0)}|`$ and perform the summation over colours and spins. It should be noted that when summing over the gluon polarisations, we ensure that the polarisations states are transversal (i.e. physical) by the use of an axial gauge

$$\underset{\mathrm{spins}}{}ϵ_i^\mu ϵ_i^\nu =g^{\mu \nu }+\frac{n_i^\mu p_i^\nu +n_i^\nu p_i^\mu }{n_ip_i}$$
(12)
where $`p_i`$ is the momentum, $`ϵ_i`$ is the polarisation vector and $`n_i`$ is an arbitrary light-like 4-vector for gluon $`i`$. For simplicity, we choose $`n_1^\mu =p_2^\mu `$, $`n_2^\mu =p_1^\mu `$, $`n_3^\mu =p_4^\mu `$ and $`n_4^\mu =p_3^\mu `$. Finally, the trace over the Dirac matrices is carried out in $`D`$ dimensions using conventional dimensional regularisation. It is then straightforward to identify the scalar and tensor integrals present and replace them with combinations of the basis set of master integrals using the tensor reduction of two-loop integrals described in , based on integration-by-parts  and Lorentz invariance  identities. The final result is a combination of master integrals in $`D=42ϵ`$ for which the expansions around $`ϵ=0`$ are given in .

## 3 Two-loop contribution

We further decompose the two-loop contributions as a sum of two terms

$$𝒟^{8(2\times 0)}(s,t,u)=𝒫oles(s,t,u)+inite(s,t,u).$$
(13)
$`𝒫oles`$ contains infrared singularities that will be analytically canceled by those occurring in radiative processes of the same order (ultraviolet divergences are removed by renormalisation). $`inite`$ is the remainder which is finite as $`ϵ0`$.

### 3.1 Infrared Pole Structure

Following the procedure outlined in Ref. , we can write the infrared pole structure of the two loop contributions renormalised in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme in terms of the tree and unrenormalised one-loop amplitudes, $`|^{(0)}`$ and $`|^{(1,un)}`$ respectively, as

$`𝒫oles=2Re[`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}^{(0)}|𝑰^{(1)}(ϵ)𝑰^{(1)}(ϵ)|^{(0)}{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta _0}{ϵ}}^{(0)}|𝑰^{(1)}(ϵ)|^{(0)}`$ (14)
$`+^{(0)}|𝑰^{(1)}(ϵ)|^{(1,un)}`$
$`+e^{ϵ\gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(12ϵ)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ϵ)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _0}{ϵ}}+K\right)^{(0)}|𝑰^{(1)}(2ϵ)|^{(0)}`$
$`+^{(0)}|𝑯^{(2)}(ϵ)|^{(0)}]`$
where the Euler constant $`\gamma =0.5772\mathrm{}`$. The first coefficient of the QCD beta function, $`\beta _0`$, for $`N_F`$ (massless) quark flavours is

$$\beta _0=\frac{11C_A4T_RN_F}{6},C_A=N,T_R=\frac{1}{2},$$
(15)
and the constant $`K`$ is

$$K=\left(\frac{67}{18}\frac{\pi ^2}{6}\right)C_A\frac{10}{9}T_RN_F.$$
(16)
Note that the unrenormalised one-loop amplitude $`|^{(1,un)}`$ is what is obtained by direct Feynman diagram evaluation of the one-loop graphs.

It is convenient to decompose $`|^{(0)}`$ and $`|^{(1,un)}`$ in terms of $`SU(N)`$ matrices in the fundamental representation, $`T^a`$, so that the tree amplitude may be written as

$$|^{(0)}=\underset{P(2,3,4)}{}\mathrm{Tr}\left(T^{a_1}T^{a_2}T^{a_3}T^{a_4}\right)𝒜_4^{\mathrm{tree}}(1,2,3,4),$$
(17)
while the one-loop amplitude has the form

$`|^{(1,un)}`$ $`=`$ $`N{\displaystyle \underset{P(2,3,4)}{}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(T^{a_1}T^{a_2}T^{a_3}T^{a_4}\right)𝒜_{4;1}^{[1]}(1,2,3,4)`$ (18)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{Q(2,3,4)}{}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(T^{a_1}T^{a_2}\right)\mathrm{Tr}\left(T^{a_3}T^{a_4}\right)𝒜_{4;3}^{[1]}(1,2,3,4)`$
$`+`$ $`N_F{\displaystyle \underset{P(2,3,4)}{}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(T^{a_1}T^{a_2}T^{a_3}T^{a_4}\right)𝒜_{4;1}^{[1/2]}(1,2,3,4).`$
In these expressions $`_{P(2,3,4)}`$ runs over the 6 permutations of indices of gluons $`2`$, 3 and 4 while $`_{Q(2,3,4)}`$ includes the three choices of pairs of indices, as it is further detailed in Eq. (3.1). We note that the tree subamplitudes are further related by cyclic and reflection properties as well as by the dual Ward identity  and more general identities , while the subleading-colour loop amplitudes $`𝒜_{4;3}^{[1]}`$ are related to the leading-colour amplitudes $`𝒜_{4;1}^{[1]}`$ . Some of these relationships are made explicit using an alternative basis in terms of $`SU(N)`$ matrices in the adjoint representation .

To evaluate Eq. (14) we find it convenient to express $`|^{(0)}`$ and $`|^{(1,un)}`$ as nine-dimensional vectors in colour space

$`|^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`(𝒯_1,𝒯_2,𝒯_3,𝒯_4,𝒯_5,𝒯_6,0,0,0)^T,`$ (19)
$`|^{(1,un)}`$ $`=`$ $`(_1,_2,_3,_4,_5,_6,_7,_8,_9)^T,`$ (20)
where $`()^T`$ indicates the transpose vector. Here the $`𝒯_i`$ and $`_i`$ are the components of $`|^{(0)}`$ and $`|^{(1,un)}`$ in the colour space spanned by the (non-orthogonal) basis

$`𝒞_1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left(T^{a_1}T^{a_2}T^{a_3}T^{a_4}\right),`$
$`𝒞_2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left(T^{a_1}T^{a_2}T^{a_4}T^{a_3}\right),`$
$`𝒞_3`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left(T^{a_1}T^{a_4}T^{a_2}T^{a_3}\right),`$
$`𝒞_4`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left(T^{a_1}T^{a_3}T^{a_2}T^{a_4}\right),`$
$`𝒞_5`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left(T^{a_1}T^{a_3}T^{a_4}T^{a_2}\right),`$
$`𝒞_6`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left(T^{a_1}T^{a_4}T^{a_3}T^{a_2}\right),`$
$`𝒞_7`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left(T^{a_1}T^{a_2}\right)\mathrm{Tr}\left(T^{a_3}T^{a_4}\right),`$
$`𝒞_8`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left(T^{a_1}T^{a_3}\right)\mathrm{Tr}\left(T^{a_2}T^{a_4}\right),`$
$`𝒞_9`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left(T^{a_1}T^{a_4}\right)\mathrm{Tr}\left(T^{a_2}T^{a_3}\right).`$ (21)
The tree and loop amplitudes $`𝒯_i`$ and $`_i`$ are directly obtained in terms of $`𝒜_4^{\mathrm{tree}}`$, $`𝒜_{4;1}^{[1]}`$, $`𝒜_{4;3}^{[1]}`$ and $`𝒜_{4;1}^{[1/2]}`$ by reading off from Eqs. (17) and (18). As we will see, the amplitudes themselves are not required since we compute the interference of tree and loop amplitudes directly.

In the same colour basis, the infrared-singularity operator $`𝑰^{(1)}(ϵ)`$ introduced by Catani  has the form

$`𝑰^{(1)}(ϵ)={\displaystyle \frac{e^{ϵ\gamma }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ϵ)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _0}{Nϵ}}\right)`$ (31)
$`\times `$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}N\left(𝚂+𝚃\right)& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& \left(𝚃𝚄\right)& 0& \left(𝚂𝚄\right)\\ 0& N\left(𝚂+𝚄\right)& 0& 0& 0& 0& \left(𝚄𝚃\right)& \left(𝚂𝚃\right)& 0\\ 0& 0& N\left(𝚃+𝚄\right)& 0& 0& 0& 0& \left(𝚃𝚂\right)& \left(𝚄𝚂\right)\\ 0& 0& 0& N\left(𝚃+𝚄\right)& 0& 0& 0& \left(𝚃𝚂\right)& \left(𝚄𝚂\right)\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& N\left(𝚂+𝚄\right)& 0& \left(𝚄𝚃\right)& \left(𝚂𝚃\right)& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& N\left(𝚂+𝚃\right)& \left(𝚃𝚄\right)& 0& \left(𝚂𝚄\right)\\ \left(𝚂𝚄\right)& \left(𝚂𝚃\right)& 0& 0& \left(𝚂𝚃\right)& \left(𝚂𝚄\right)& 2N𝚂& 0& 0\\ 0& \left(𝚄𝚃\right)& \left(𝚄𝚂\right)& \left(𝚄𝚂\right)& \left(𝚄𝚃\right)& 0& 0& 2N𝚄& 0\\ \left(𝚃𝚄\right)& 0& \left(𝚃𝚂\right)& \left(𝚃𝚂\right)& 0& \left(𝚃𝚄\right)& 0& 0& 2N𝚃\end{array}\right)`$
where

$$𝚂=\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{s}\right)^ϵ,𝚃=\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{t}\right)^ϵ,𝚄=\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{u}\right)^ϵ.$$
(33)
The matrix $`𝑰^{(1)}(ϵ)`$ acts directly as a rotation matrix on $`|^{(0)}`$ and $`|^{(1,un)}`$ in colour space, to give a new colour vector $`|X`$, equal to $`𝑰^{(1)}(ϵ)|^{(0)}`$, $`𝑰^{(1)}(ϵ)𝑰^{(1)}(ϵ)|^{(0)}`$ or $`𝑰^{(1)}(ϵ)|^{(1,un)}`$.

The contraction of the colour vector $`|X`$ with the conjugate tree amplitude obeys the rule

$$^{(0)}|X=\underset{\mathrm{spins}}{}\underset{\mathrm{colours}}{}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{9}{}}𝒯_i^{}X_j𝒞_i^{}𝒞_j.$$
(34)
In evaluating these contractions, we typically encounter $`_{\mathrm{colours}}𝒞_i^{}𝒞_j`$ which is given by the $`ij`$ component of the symmetric matrix $`𝒞𝒞`$

$$𝒞𝒞=\frac{V}{16N^2}\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}C_1& C_2& C_2& C_2& C_2& C_3& NV& N& NV\\ C_2& C_1& C_2& C_2& C_3& C_2& NV& NV& N\\ C_2& C_2& C_1& C_3& C_2& C_2& N& NV& NV\\ C_2& C_2& C_3& C_1& C_2& C_2& N& NV& NV\\ C_2& C_3& C_2& C_2& C_1& C_2& NV& NV& N\\ C_3& C_2& C_2& C_2& C_2& C_1& NV& N& NV\\ NV& NV& N& N& NV& NV& N^2V& N^2& N^2\\ N& NV& NV& NV& NV& N& N^2& N^2V& N^2\\ NV& N& NV& NV& N& NV& N^2& N^2& N^2V\end{array}\right),$$
(35)
with

$$C_1=N^43N^2+3,C_2=3N^2,C_3=3+N^2.$$
(36)
Similarly, we find that the interference of the tree-level amplitudes $`_{\mathrm{spins}}𝒯_i^{}𝒯_j`$ is given by $`𝒯𝒯_{ij}`$, where

$$𝒯𝒯=\frac{64(1ϵ)^2(t^2+ut+u^2)^2}{s^2t^2u^2}𝒱^T𝒱,$$
(37)
and the vector $`𝒱`$ is

$$𝒱=(u,t,s,s,t,u,0,0,0),$$
(38)
while the interference of the tree-level amplitudes with one-loop amplitudes $`_{\mathrm{spins}}𝒯_i^{}_j`$ is given by $`𝒯_{ij}`$, where

$$𝒯=𝒱^T𝒲,$$
(39)
and the vector $`𝒲`$ is

$$𝒲=((s,t),(s,u),(u,t),(u,t),(s,u),(s,t),𝒢,𝒢,𝒢).$$
(40)
Here the function $`(s,t)`$ is symmetric under the exchange of $`s`$ and $`t`$, while $`𝒢`$ is symmetric under the exchange of any two Mandelstam invariants, so that

$`(s,t)`$ $`=`$ $`f_1(s,t,u)+f_1(t,s,u),`$ (41)
$`𝒢`$ $`=`$ $`f_2(s,t,u)+f_2(s,u,t)+f_2(t,s,u)+f_2(t,u,s)+f_2(u,s,t)+f_2(u,t,s).`$
Here $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ are given in terms of the one-loop box integral in $`D=62ϵ`$ dimensions and the one-loop bubble graph in $`D=42ϵ`$,

$`f_1(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16N(12ϵ)}{s^2t^2}}\left[2(1ϵ)^2\left(s^4+s^3t+st^3+t^4\right)+3(15ϵ)s^2t^2\right]\mathrm{Box}^6(s,t)`$ (43)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8N_F(12ϵ)}{st}}\left[(1ϵ)^2\left(s^2+t^2\right)+ϵ(1+3ϵ)st\right]\mathrm{Box}^6(s,t)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16N(1ϵ)}{s^2t^2uϵ(32ϵ)}}[(1222ϵ+12ϵ^2+2ϵ^3)s^4+(2458ϵ+50ϵ^26ϵ^32ϵ^4)s^3t`$
$`+\left(3699ϵ+93ϵ^224ϵ^32ϵ^4\right)s^2t^2+(1ϵ)\left(2450ϵ+23ϵ^2\right)st^3`$
$`+4(1ϵ)(12ϵ)(32ϵ)t^4]\mathrm{Bub}(t)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16N_F}{st^2u(32ϵ)}}[(412ϵ+16ϵ^24ϵ^3)s^3+(310ϵ+23ϵ^28ϵ^3)s^2t`$
$`+(615ϵ+21ϵ^28ϵ^3)st^2+(1ϵ)(56ϵ+2ϵ^2)t^3]\mathrm{Bub}(t),`$
$`f_2(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{32(12ϵ)}{u^2}}\left[4(1ϵ)^2st+3(15ϵ)u^2\right]\mathrm{Box}^6(u,t)`$ (44)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{32(1ϵ)}{ϵsu^2}}[4(12ϵ)(1ϵ)t^2+(817ϵ)(1ϵ)ut`$
$`+(620ϵ+15ϵ^2+ϵ^3)u^2]\mathrm{Bub}(s).`$
Series expansions around $`ϵ=0`$ for the one-loop integrals are given in Appendix A.

Finally, the last term of Eq. (14) that involves $`𝑯^{(2)}(ϵ)`$ produces only a single pole in $`ϵ`$ and is given by

$$^{(0)}|𝑯^{(2)}(ϵ)|^{(0)}=\frac{e^{ϵ\gamma }}{4ϵ\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ϵ)}H^{(2)}^{(0)}|^{(0)}$$

where the constant $`H^{(2)}`$ is

$$H^{(2)}=\left(2\zeta _3+\frac{5}{3}+\frac{11}{36}\pi ^2\right)N^2+\frac{20}{27}N_F^2+\left(\frac{\pi ^2}{18}\frac{89}{27}\right)NN_F\frac{N_F}{N},$$
(45)
and $`\zeta _n`$ is the Riemann Zeta function with $`\zeta _2=\pi ^2/6`$ and $`\zeta _3=1.202056\mathrm{}`$ We note that $`H^{(2)}`$ is renormalisation-scheme dependent and Eq. (45) is valid in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme. We also note that Eq. (45) differs from the corresponding expressions found in the singularity structure of two-loop quark-quark and quark-gluon scattering. This is due to double emissions from the gluons. In fact, we note that $`H^{(2)}`$ for quark-gluon scattering is the average of the $`H^{(2)}`$ for gluon-gluon scattering and quark-quark scattering, as may be expected by counting the number of different types of radiating partons.

It can be easily noted that the leading infrared singularity in Eq. (14) is $`𝒪\left(1/ϵ^4\right)`$. It is a very stringent check on the reliability of our calculation that the pole structure obtained by computing the Feynman diagrams directly and introducing series expansions in $`ϵ`$ for the scalar master integrals agrees with Eq. (14) through to $`𝒪\left(1/ϵ\right)`$. We therefore construct the finite remainder by subtracting Eq. (14) from the full result.

### 3.2 Finite contributions

The finite two-loop contribution to $`𝒟^8(s,t,u)`$ is defined as

$$inite(s,t,u)=𝒟^{8(2\times 0)}(s,t,u)𝒫oles(s,t,u),$$
(46)
where we subtract the series expansions of both $`𝒟^{8(2\times 0)}(s,t,u)`$ and $`𝒫oles(s,t,u)`$ and set $`ϵ0`$. As usual, the polylogarithms $`\mathrm{Li}_n(w)`$ are defined by

$`\mathrm{Li}_n(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^w}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}\mathrm{Li}_{n1}(t)\mathrm{for}n=2,3,4`$
$`\mathrm{Li}_2(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^w}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}\mathrm{log}(1t).`$ (47)
Using the standard polylogarithm identities , we retain the polylogarithms with arguments $`x`$, $`1x`$ and $`(x1)/x`$, where

$$x=\frac{t}{s},y=\frac{u}{s}=1x,z=\frac{u}{t}=\frac{x1}{x}.$$
(48)
For convenience, we also introduce the following logarithms

$$X=\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{t}{s}\right),Y=\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{u}{s}\right),S=\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{s}{\mu ^2}\right),$$
(49)
where $`\mu `$ is the renormalisation scale.

We choose to present our results by grouping terms according to the power of the number of colours $`N`$ and the number of light quarks $`N_F`$, so that

$$Finite(s,t,u)=V\left(N^4A+N^2B+N^3N_FC+NN_FD+N^2N_F^2E+N_F^2F\right),$$
(50)
where

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`\{(48\mathrm{Li}_4(x)48\mathrm{Li}_4(y)128\mathrm{Li}_4(z)+40\mathrm{Li}_3(x)X64\mathrm{Li}_3(x)Y{\displaystyle \frac{98}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_3(x)`$ (51)
$`+64\mathrm{Li}_3(y)X40\mathrm{Li}_3(y)Y+18\mathrm{Li}_3(y)+{\displaystyle \frac{98}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_2(x)X{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_2(x)\pi ^218\mathrm{Li}_2(y)Y`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{37}{6}}X^4+28X^3Y{\displaystyle \frac{23}{3}}X^316X^2Y^2+{\displaystyle \frac{49}{3}}X^2Y{\displaystyle \frac{35}{3}}X^2\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{38}{3}}X^2{\displaystyle \frac{22}{3}}SX^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{20}{3}}XY^39XY^2+8XY\pi ^2+10XY{\displaystyle \frac{31}{12}}X\pi ^222\zeta _3X+{\displaystyle \frac{22}{3}}SX+{\displaystyle \frac{37}{27}}X`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{6}}Y^4{\displaystyle \frac{41}{9}}Y^3{\displaystyle \frac{11}{3}}Y^2\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{22}{3}}SY^2+{\displaystyle \frac{266}{9}}Y^2{\displaystyle \frac{35}{12}}Y\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{418}{9}}SY+{\displaystyle \frac{257}{9}}Y`$
$`+18\zeta _3Y{\displaystyle \frac{31}{30}}\pi ^4{\displaystyle \frac{11}{9}}S\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{31}{9}}\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{242}{9}}S^2+{\displaystyle \frac{418}{9}}\zeta _3+{\displaystyle \frac{2156}{27}}S`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{11093}{81}}8S\zeta _3){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{s^2}}`$
$`+(256\mathrm{Li}_4(x)96\mathrm{Li}_4(y)+96\mathrm{Li}_4(z)+80\mathrm{Li}_3(x)X+48\mathrm{Li}_3(x)Y{\displaystyle \frac{64}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_3(x)`$
$`48\mathrm{Li}_3(y)X+96\mathrm{Li}_3(y)Y{\displaystyle \frac{304}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_3(y)+{\displaystyle \frac{64}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_2(x)X{\displaystyle \frac{32}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_2(x)\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{304}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_2(y)Y`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{26}{3}}X^4{\displaystyle \frac{64}{3}}X^3Y{\displaystyle \frac{64}{3}}X^3+20X^2Y^2+{\displaystyle \frac{136}{3}}X^2Y+24X^2\pi ^2+76X^2{\displaystyle \frac{88}{3}}SX^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}XY^3+{\displaystyle \frac{104}{3}}XY^2{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}XY\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{176}{3}}SXY{\displaystyle \frac{136}{3}}XY{\displaystyle \frac{50}{3}}X\pi ^248\zeta _3X`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2350}{27}}X+{\displaystyle \frac{440}{3}}SX+4Y^4{\displaystyle \frac{176}{9}}Y^3+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}Y^2\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{176}{3}}SY^2{\displaystyle \frac{494}{9}}Y\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{5392}{27}}Y`$
$`64\zeta _3Y+{\displaystyle \frac{496}{45}}\pi ^4{\displaystyle \frac{308}{9}}S\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{200}{9}}\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{968}{9}}S^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8624}{27}}S{\displaystyle \frac{44372}{81}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1864}{9}}\zeta _332S\zeta _3){\displaystyle \frac{t}{u}}`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{88}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_3(x){\displaystyle \frac{88}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_2(x)X+2X^48X^3Y{\displaystyle \frac{220}{9}}X^3+12X^2Y^2+{\displaystyle \frac{88}{3}}X^2Y+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}X^2\pi ^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{88}{3}}SX^2+{\displaystyle \frac{304}{9}}X^28XY^3{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}XY\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{176}{3}}SXY{\displaystyle \frac{77}{3}}X\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1616}{27}}X`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{968}{9}}SX8\zeta _3X+4Y^4{\displaystyle \frac{176}{9}}Y^3{\displaystyle \frac{20}{3}}Y^2\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{176}{3}}SY^2{\displaystyle \frac{638}{9}}Y\pi ^216\zeta _3Y`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{5392}{27}}Y{\displaystyle \frac{4}{15}}\pi ^4{\displaystyle \frac{308}{9}}S\pi ^220\pi ^232S\zeta _3+{\displaystyle \frac{1408}{9}}\zeta _3+{\displaystyle \frac{968}{9}}S^2{\displaystyle \frac{44372}{81}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{8624}{27}}S){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{u^2}}`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{44}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_3(x){\displaystyle \frac{44}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_2(x)XX^4+{\displaystyle \frac{110}{9}}X^3{\displaystyle \frac{22}{3}}X^2Y+{\displaystyle \frac{14}{3}}X^2\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{44}{3}}SX^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{152}{9}}X^210XY+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{2}}X\pi ^2+4\zeta _3X{\displaystyle \frac{484}{9}}SX{\displaystyle \frac{808}{27}}X+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{30}}\pi ^4{\displaystyle \frac{31}{9}}\pi ^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{9}}S\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{418}{9}}\zeta _3{\displaystyle \frac{242}{9}}S^2{\displaystyle \frac{2156}{27}}S+8S\zeta _3+{\displaystyle \frac{11093}{81}}){\displaystyle \frac{ut}{s^2}}`$
$`+(176\mathrm{Li}_4(x)+88\mathrm{Li}_3(x)X168\mathrm{Li}_3(x)Y{\displaystyle \frac{206}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_3(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{206}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_2(x)X`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{65}{6}}X^4{\displaystyle \frac{40}{3}}X^3Y{\displaystyle \frac{295}{9}}X^315X^2Y^2+{\displaystyle \frac{115}{3}}X^2Y+{\displaystyle \frac{29}{3}}X^2\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{670}{9}}X^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{242}{3}}SX^2+{\displaystyle \frac{64}{3}}XY\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{209}{3}}XY+44SXY{\displaystyle \frac{1811}{36}}X\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8983}{27}}X`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1870}{9}}SX18\zeta _3X+{\displaystyle \frac{31}{20}}\pi ^4{\displaystyle \frac{361}{18}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{517}{18}}S\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1331}{9}}S^2+{\displaystyle \frac{12452}{27}}S`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1543}{9}}\zeta _3{\displaystyle \frac{129475}{162}}44S\zeta _3)\}+\{ut\},`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`\{(288\mathrm{Li}_4(x)+480\mathrm{Li}_4(y)288\mathrm{Li}_4(z)+240\mathrm{Li}_3(x)X144\mathrm{Li}_3(x)Y`$ (52)
$`+224\mathrm{Li}_3(x)+144\mathrm{Li}_3(y)X432\mathrm{Li}_3(y)Y224\mathrm{Li}_3(y)+48\mathrm{Li}_2(x)X^2`$
$`224\mathrm{Li}_2(x)X176\mathrm{Li}_2(x)\pi ^2+48\mathrm{Li}_2(y)Y^2+224\mathrm{Li}_2(y)Y16X^4+112X^3Y`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{556}{3}}X^348X^2Y^2+180X^2Y40X^2\pi ^2+220X^232XY^392XY^2`$
$`16XY\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{376}{3}}XY16X\pi ^280X+96\zeta _3X+8Y^4+{\displaystyle \frac{292}{3}}Y^332Y^2\pi ^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{284}{3}}Y^2+16Y\pi ^2+80Y96\zeta _3Y+{\displaystyle \frac{38}{5}}\pi ^418\pi ^2){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{s^2}}`$
$`+(576\mathrm{Li}_4(x)+384\mathrm{Li}_4(y)1152\mathrm{Li}_4(z)+1056\mathrm{Li}_3(x)X768\mathrm{Li}_3(x)Y`$
$`+448\mathrm{Li}_3(x)+768\mathrm{Li}_3(y)X768\mathrm{Li}_3(y)Y+896\mathrm{Li}_3(y)192\mathrm{Li}_2(x)X^2`$
$`448\mathrm{Li}_2(x)X544\mathrm{Li}_2(x)\pi ^2384\mathrm{Li}_2(y)XY896\mathrm{Li}_2(y)Y28X^4+144X^3Y`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{320}{3}}X^3336X^2Y^2224X^2Y40X^2\pi ^264X^232XY^3+128XY^2`$
$`64XY\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1888}{3}}XY288X\pi ^2+160X1248\zeta _3X240Y^2\pi ^2928Y\pi ^2`$
$`+768\zeta _3Y+{\displaystyle \frac{1216}{15}}\pi ^4{\displaystyle \frac{1912}{3}}\pi ^2448\zeta _3){\displaystyle \frac{t}{u}}`$
$`+(384\mathrm{Li}_4(y)384\mathrm{Li}_4(z)+384\mathrm{Li}_3(x)X384\mathrm{Li}_3(x)Y+384\mathrm{Li}_3(y)X`$
$`192\mathrm{Li}_2(x)X^2192\mathrm{Li}_2(x)\pi ^2384\mathrm{Li}_2(y)XY8X^432X^3Y176X^3`$
$`192X^2Y^2+352X^2Y80X^2\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{752}{3}}X^232XY\pi ^2176X\pi ^2384\zeta _3X`$
$`96Y^2\pi ^2352Y\pi ^2+384\zeta _3Y+56\pi ^4{\displaystyle \frac{968}{3}}\pi ^2){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{u^2}}`$
$`+(192\mathrm{Li}_4(x)+192\mathrm{Li}_3(x)X96\mathrm{Li}_2(x)X^24X^432X^3Y+88X^3`$
$`+12X^2Y^288X^2Y+48X^2\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{376}{3}}X^248XY\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{376}{3}}XY`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{64}{15}}\pi ^4+18\pi ^2){\displaystyle \frac{ut}{s^2}}`$
$`+(48\mathrm{Li}_3(x)X+144\mathrm{Li}_3(x)Y+672\mathrm{Li}_3(x)48\mathrm{Li}_2(x)X^2672\mathrm{Li}_2(x)X+16X^4`$
$`32X^3Y{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}X^3+24X^2Y^2+12X^2Y192X^2\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1444}{3}}X^2+72XY\pi ^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{80}{3}}XY624X\pi ^2+80X288\zeta _3X+{\displaystyle \frac{509}{15}}\pi ^4707\pi ^2362800\zeta _3)\}`$
$`+\{ut\},`$
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`\{(24\mathrm{Li}_4(x)+24\mathrm{Li}_4(y)+112\mathrm{Li}_4(z)44\mathrm{Li}_3(x)X+56\mathrm{Li}_3(x)Y+{\displaystyle \frac{74}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_3(x)`$ (53)
$`56\mathrm{Li}_3(y)X+44\mathrm{Li}_3(y)Y22\mathrm{Li}_3(y){\displaystyle \frac{74}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_2(x)X+{\displaystyle \frac{32}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_2(x)\pi ^2+22\mathrm{Li}_2(y)Y`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{25}{4}}X^426X^3Y+4X^3+14X^2Y^2{\displaystyle \frac{37}{3}}X^2Y+7X^2\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{27}{2}}X^2+5SX^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{22}{3}}XY^3+11XY^24XY\pi ^211XY+{\displaystyle \frac{31}{6}}X\pi ^2+12\zeta _3X{\displaystyle \frac{637}{27}}X{\displaystyle \frac{26}{3}}SX`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{19}{12}}Y^4{\displaystyle \frac{16}{9}}Y^3+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{3}}Y^2\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{221}{18}}Y^2{\displaystyle \frac{7}{3}}SY^2{\displaystyle \frac{25}{6}}Y\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{175}{9}}Y12\zeta _3Y`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{98}{9}}SY+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}\pi ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}S\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{203}{54}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}\zeta _3{\displaystyle \frac{88}{9}}S^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4849}{162}}{\displaystyle \frac{386}{27}}S){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{s^2}}`$
$`+(224\mathrm{Li}_4(x)+48\mathrm{Li}_4(y)48\mathrm{Li}_4(z)88\mathrm{Li}_3(x)X24\mathrm{Li}_3(x)Y+{\displaystyle \frac{124}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_3(x)`$
$`+24\mathrm{Li}_3(y)X48\mathrm{Li}_3(y)Y+{\displaystyle \frac{280}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_3(y){\displaystyle \frac{124}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_2(x)X+{\displaystyle \frac{64}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_2(x)\pi ^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{280}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_2(y)Y{\displaystyle \frac{31}{6}}X^4+6X^3Y{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}X^33X^2Y^2{\displaystyle \frac{56}{3}}X^2Y{\displaystyle \frac{55}{3}}X^2\pi ^22SX^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{70}{3}}X^26XY^326XY^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}XY\pi ^2+4SXY+{\displaystyle \frac{148}{3}}XY{\displaystyle \frac{22}{3}}X\pi ^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{124}{3}}SX+{\displaystyle \frac{938}{27}}X+64\zeta _3X+{\displaystyle \frac{32}{9}}Y^33Y^2\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{32}{3}}SY^2{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}Y\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1096}{27}}Y`$
$`+24\zeta _3Y{\displaystyle \frac{829}{90}}\pi ^4{\displaystyle \frac{10}{9}}S\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{356}{27}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{352}{9}}S^2{\displaystyle \frac{1544}{27}}S{\displaystyle \frac{388}{9}}\zeta _3+{\displaystyle \frac{9698}{81}}){\displaystyle \frac{t}{u}}`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_3(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_2(x)X+{\displaystyle \frac{40}{9}}X^3{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}X^2Y+{\displaystyle \frac{22}{9}}X^2+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}SX^2{\displaystyle \frac{32}{3}}SXY`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{14}{3}}X\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{224}{27}}X{\displaystyle \frac{352}{9}}SX+{\displaystyle \frac{32}{9}}Y^3+{\displaystyle \frac{32}{3}}SY^2+{\displaystyle \frac{116}{9}}Y\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1096}{27}}Y+{\displaystyle \frac{56}{9}}S\pi ^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{340}{27}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1544}{27}}S+{\displaystyle \frac{9698}{81}}+{\displaystyle \frac{32}{9}}\zeta _3{\displaystyle \frac{352}{9}}S^2){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{u^2}}`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_3(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_2(x)X{\displaystyle \frac{20}{9}}X^3+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}X^2Y{\displaystyle \frac{11}{9}}X^2{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}SX^2+11XYX\pi ^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{112}{27}}X+{\displaystyle \frac{176}{9}}SX{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}S\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{203}{54}}\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{88}{9}}S^2{\displaystyle \frac{4849}{162}}+{\displaystyle \frac{386}{27}}S+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}\zeta _3){\displaystyle \frac{ut}{s^2}}`$
$`+(136\mathrm{Li}_4(x)68\mathrm{Li}_3(x)X+120\mathrm{Li}_3(x)Y+{\displaystyle \frac{206}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_3(x){\displaystyle \frac{206}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_2(x)X{\displaystyle \frac{71}{12}}X^4`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{14}{3}}X^3Y{\displaystyle \frac{68}{9}}X^3+15X^2Y^2+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}X^2Y{\displaystyle \frac{29}{3}}X^2\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{973}{18}}X^2+{\displaystyle \frac{77}{3}}SX^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{62}{3}}XY\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{139}{6}}XY8SXY{\displaystyle \frac{317}{18}}X\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1375}{27}}X{\displaystyle \frac{626}{9}}SX+4\zeta _3X`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{47}{30}}\pi ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{3799}{108}}\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{47}{9}}S\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{484}{9}}S^2{\displaystyle \frac{2825}{27}}S+{\displaystyle \frac{932}{9}}\zeta _3+{\displaystyle \frac{70025}{324}})\}`$
$`+\{ut\},`$
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`\{(24\mathrm{Li}_4(x)24\mathrm{Li}_4(y)+88\mathrm{Li}_4(z)52\mathrm{Li}_3(x)X+36\mathrm{Li}_3(x)Y{\displaystyle \frac{46}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_3(x)`$ (54)
$`36\mathrm{Li}_3(y)X+52\mathrm{Li}_3(y)Y+{\displaystyle \frac{46}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_3(y)4\mathrm{Li}_2(x)X^2+{\displaystyle \frac{46}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_2(x)X+{\displaystyle \frac{44}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_2(x)\pi ^2`$
$`16\mathrm{Li}_2(y)XY+4\mathrm{Li}_2(y)Y^2{\displaystyle \frac{46}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_2(y)Y+{\displaystyle \frac{79}{12}}X^4{\displaystyle \frac{82}{3}}X^3Y+{\displaystyle \frac{817}{18}}X^3+3X^2Y^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{184}{3}}X^2Y+{\displaystyle \frac{13}{3}}X^2\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{545}{6}}X^2+{\displaystyle \frac{38}{3}}XY^3+{\displaystyle \frac{136}{3}}XY^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}XY\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{155}{3}}XY`$
$`10X\pi ^232\zeta _3X+{\displaystyle \frac{76}{3}}X{\displaystyle \frac{35}{12}}Y^4{\displaystyle \frac{529}{18}}Y^3+3Y^2\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{235}{6}}Y^2+10Y\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{76}{3}}Y`$
$`+32\zeta _3Y{\displaystyle \frac{11}{30}}\pi ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}\pi ^2+8\zeta _3+2S{\displaystyle \frac{55}{6}}){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{s^2}}`$
$`+(176\mathrm{Li}_4(x)48\mathrm{Li}_4(y)+48\mathrm{Li}_4(z)104\mathrm{Li}_3(x)X+32\mathrm{Li}_3(x)Y{\displaystyle \frac{92}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_3(x)`$
$`32\mathrm{Li}_3(y)X+64\mathrm{Li}_3(y)Y{\displaystyle \frac{184}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_3(y)8\mathrm{Li}_2(x)X^2+{\displaystyle \frac{92}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_2(x)X+{\displaystyle \frac{160}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_2(x)\pi ^2`$
$`+16\mathrm{Li}_2(y)XY16\mathrm{Li}_2(y)Y^2+{\displaystyle \frac{184}{3}}\mathrm{Li}_2(y)Y{\displaystyle \frac{23}{6}}X^410X^3Y{\displaystyle \frac{385}{9}}X^3+19X^2Y^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{161}{3}}X^2Y17X^2\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{80}{3}}X^2{\displaystyle \frac{14}{3}}XY^387XY^2{\displaystyle \frac{26}{3}}XY\pi ^2260XY`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{215}{3}}X\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{152}{3}}X+168\zeta _3X+7Y^2\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{545}{3}}Y\pi ^2+8Y32\zeta _3Y{\displaystyle \frac{571}{90}}\pi ^4`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{742}{3}}\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{188}{3}}\zeta _3{\displaystyle \frac{110}{3}}+8S){\displaystyle \frac{t}{u}}`$
$`+(32X^364X^2Y{\displaystyle \frac{310}{3}}X^2+32X\pi ^2+64Y\pi ^2+8Y+{\displaystyle \frac{352}{3}}\pi ^2+8S`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{110}{3}}+32\zeta _3){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{u^2}}`$
$`+\left(16X^3+16X^2Y+{\displaystyle \frac{155}{3}}X^2{\displaystyle \frac{155}{3}}XY{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}\pi ^28\zeta _32S+{\displaystyle \frac{55}{6}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{ut}{s^2}}`$
$`+(64\mathrm{Li}_4(x)20\mathrm{Li}_3(x)X108\mathrm{Li}_3(x)Y46\mathrm{Li}_3(x)12\mathrm{Li}_2(x)X^2`$
$`+46\mathrm{Li}_2(x)X+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{12}}X^410X^3Y{\displaystyle \frac{401}{18}}X^3{\displaystyle \frac{21}{2}}X^2Y^2{\displaystyle \frac{34}{3}}X^2Y{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}X^2\pi ^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1303}{6}}X^2{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}XY\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{11}{6}}XY+{\displaystyle \frac{340}{3}}X\pi ^2+104\zeta _3X{\displaystyle \frac{52}{3}}X{\displaystyle \frac{67}{20}}\pi ^4`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2981}{12}}\pi ^2+11S+{\displaystyle \frac{1166}{3}}\zeta _3{\displaystyle \frac{461}{12}})\}+\{ut\},`$
$`E`$ $`=`$ $`\{({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}X^3{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}SX^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}X^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}X\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}SX{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}X+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}Y^3+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}Y^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}SY^2`$ (55)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}Y\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}SY+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}Y+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{27}}\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}S^2){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{s^2}}`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}X^3{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}X^2Y+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}X^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}SX^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}XY^2{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}SXY+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}X\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}SX`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}X{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}Y\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{52}{27}}\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}S\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{32}{9}}S^2){\displaystyle \frac{t}{u}}`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{16}{9}}X^2+{\displaystyle \frac{32}{9}}SX{\displaystyle \frac{40}{27}}\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{32}{9}}S^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{u^2}}`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}X^2{\displaystyle \frac{16}{9}}SX{\displaystyle \frac{2}{27}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}S^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{ut}{s^2}}`$
$`+(X^32SX^2+{\displaystyle \frac{26}{9}}X^22X\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{10}{3}}X+{\displaystyle \frac{52}{9}}SX{\displaystyle \frac{43}{27}}\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{44}{9}}S^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+4S)\}+\{ut\},`$
$`F`$ $`=`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(X+Y)(3X^24XY14X+3Y^26Y+2\pi ^2+4){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{s^2}}`$
$`+\left(4X^3{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}X^2Y{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}X^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}XY^2+{\displaystyle \frac{80}{3}}XY4X\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}X{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}Y\pi ^224\pi ^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{t}{u}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{32}{3}}\left(X^2+\pi ^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{u^2}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}X^2+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}XY\right){\displaystyle \frac{ut}{s^2}}`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}X^3+2X^2Y+20X^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}XY{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}X\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}X{\displaystyle \frac{64}{3}}\pi ^2)\}+\{ut\}.`$
## 4 Summary

In this paper we presented analytic expressions for the $`𝒪\left(\alpha _s^4\right)`$ QCD corrections to the $`22`$ gluon-gluon scattering process due to the interference of the tree-level diagrams with the two-loop graphs in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme. Throughout we employed conventional dimensional regularisation.

The renormalised matrix elements are infrared divergent and contain poles down to $`𝒪\left(1/ϵ^4\right)`$. The singularity structure of one- and two-loop diagrams has been thoroughly studied by Catani  who provided a procedure for predicting the infrared behaviour of renormalised amplitudes. The anticipated pole structure agrees exactly with that obtained by direct Feynman diagram evaluation. In fact Catani’s method does not determine the $`1/ϵ`$ poles exactly, but expects that the remaining unpredicted $`1/ϵ`$ poles are non-logarithmic and proportional to constants (colour factors, $`\pi ^2`$ and $`\zeta _3`$). We find that this is indeed the case, and the constant $`H^{(2)}`$ is given in Eq. (45). Its origin is in double emissions from the final state partons. It is related to that found for quark-gluon and quark-quark scattering in a straightforward way and therefore provides a very strong check on the reliability of our results.

The pole structure of the two-loop contribution is described by Eq. (14) while analytic formulae for the finite part according to the colour decomposition of Eq. (50) are given in Eqs. (51) to (3.2). The one-loop contributions to the two-loop pole structure are expressed in terms of the one-loop bubble graph in $`D=42ϵ`$ dimensions and the one-loop box graph in $`D=62ϵ`$ dimensions for which series expansions around $`ϵ=0`$ are provided in Appendix A.

The results presented here, together with those previously computed for quark-quark scattering  and quark-gluon scattering  form a complete set of two-loop hard scattering matrix elements for parton-parton scattering at $`𝒪\left(\alpha _s^4\right)`$. They are vital ingredients for the next-to-next-to-leading order predictions for jet cross sections in hadron-hadron collisions. However, they are insufficient to make physical predictions and much work remains to be done. A major task is to establish a systematic procedure for analytically cancelling the infrared divergences between the tree-level $`24`$, the one-loop $`23`$ and the $`22`$ processes for semi-inclusive jet cross sections. Recent progress in determining the singular limits of tree-level matrix elements when two particles are unresolved  and the soft and collinear limits of one-loop amplitudes , together with the analytic cancellation of the infrared singularities in the somewhat simpler case of $`e^+e^{}\mathrm{photon}+\mathrm{jet}`$ at next-to-leading order , suggest that the technical problems will soon be solved for generic $`22`$ scattering processes.

A further complication is due to initial state radiation. Factorization of the collinear singularities from the incoming partons requires the evolution of the parton density functions to be known to an accuracy matching the hard scattering matrix element. This entails knowledge of the three-loop splitting functions. At three-loop order, the even moments of the splitting functions are known for the flavour singlet and non-singlet structure functions $`F_2`$ and $`F_L`$ up to $`N=12`$ while the odd moments up to $`N=13`$ are known for $`F_3`$ . The numerically small $`N_F^2`$ non-singlet contribution is also known . Van Neerven and Vogt have provided accurate parameterisations of the splitting functions in $`x`$-space  which are now starting to be implemented in the global analyses .

Finally, and most importantly for phenomenological applications, a numerical implementation of the various contributions must be developed. The next-to-leading order programs for three jet production that have already been written provide a first step in this direction . We are confident that the problem of the numerical cancellation of residual infrared divergences will soon be addressed thereby enabling the construction of numerical programs to provide next-to-next-to-leading order QCD estimates of jet production in hadron collisions.

## Acknowledgements

M.E.T. acknowledges financial support from CONACyT and the CVCP. We gratefully acknowledge the support of the British Council and German Academic Exchange Service under ARC project 1050. This work was supported in part by the EU Fourth Framework Programme ‘Training and Mobility of Researchers’, Network ‘Quantum Chromodynamics and the Deep Structure of Elementary Particles’, contract FMRX-CT98-0194 (DG-12-MIHT), in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG02-95ER40896 and in part by the University of Wisconsin Research Committee with funds granted by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.

## Appendix A One-loop master integrals

In this appendix, we list the expansions for the one-loop box integrals in $`D=62ϵ`$. We remain in the physical region $`s>0`$, $`u,t<0`$, and write coefficients in terms of logarithms and polylogarithms that are real in this domain. More precisely, we use the notation of Eqs. (48) and (49) to define the arguments of the logarithms and polylogarithms. The polylogarithms are defined as in Eq. (47).

We find that the box integrals have the expansion

$`\mathrm{Box}^6(u,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{ϵ\gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+ϵ\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1ϵ\right)^2}{2s\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(12ϵ\right)\left(12ϵ\right)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{s}}\right)^ϵ\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(XY)^2+\pi ^2]`$ (57)
$`+2ϵ\left[\mathrm{Li}_3(x)X\mathrm{Li}_2(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}X^3{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{2}}X\right]`$
$`2ϵ^2[\mathrm{Li}_4(x)+Y\mathrm{Li}_3(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}X^2\mathrm{Li}_2(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}X^4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}X^3Y+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}X^2Y^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{4}}X^2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}XY{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^4}{45}}]+(ut)\}+𝒪(ϵ^3),`$
and

$`\mathrm{Box}^6(s,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{ϵ\gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+ϵ)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ϵ)^2}{2u\mathrm{\Gamma }(12ϵ)(12ϵ)}}({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{u}})^ϵ\{(X^2+2i\pi X)`$ (58)
$`+ϵ[(2\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_3(x)+2X\mathrm{Li}_2(x){\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}X^3+2YX^2\pi ^2X+2\zeta _3)`$
$`+i\pi (2\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_2(x)+4YXX^2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}})]`$
$`+ϵ^2[(2\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_4(z)+2\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_4(y)2Y\mathrm{Li}_3(x)2X\mathrm{Li}_3(y)+(2XYX^2\pi ^2)\mathrm{Li}_2(x)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}X^4{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}X^3Y+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}X^2Y^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\pi ^2X^22\pi ^2XY+2Y\zeta _3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\pi ^4)`$
$`+i\pi (2\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_3(x)2\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_3(y)+2Y\mathrm{Li}_2(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}X^32X^2Y+3XY^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}Y+2\zeta _3)]\}+𝒪(ϵ^3).`$
$`\mathrm{Box}^6(s,u)`$ is obtained from Eq. (58) by exchanging $`u`$ and $`t`$.

Finally, the one-loop bubble integral in $`D=42ϵ`$ dimensions is given by

$$\mathrm{Bub}(s)=\frac{e^{ϵ\gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+ϵ\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1ϵ\right)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(22ϵ\right)ϵ}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{s}\right)^ϵ.$$
(59)


format: text

text:
# Binary Masses as a Test for Pre–Main-Sequence Tracks

## 1 Introduction

Pre-main-sequence stars derive their luminosity from the gravitational contraction they experience prior to hydrogen ignition. Within the HR diagram, they descend evolutionary tracks that start from the birthline and end at the zero-age main sequence. Although these objects emit vigorous winds and undergo disk accretion, especially at earlier times, the net change in mass during the contraction phase appears to be relatively small (e.g., Hartmann et al. 1998). Thus, it is still appropriate to consider the ensemble of tracks parametrized by the stellar mass.

The masses and ages derived by placing stars on the tracks are fundamental data, not only for characterizing individual objects, but for assessing the mass distribution and history of formation activity within clusters and associations. Following the initial calculations of the 1960s, Cohen & Kuhi (1979) compiled a set of tracks that were used for many years. Swenson et al. (1994) and D’Antona & Mazzitelli (1994) then offered new sets that utilized different phenomenological theories of convection. These later results not only differed substantially from each other, but also led to problematic distributions of stellar masses and ages (e.g. Green & Meyer 1995; Hillenbrand 1997). A number of authors have reinvestigated the problem, in part to resolve these differences (Martín & Claret 1996; Chabrier & Baraffe 1997; Baraffe et al. 1998; D’Antona & Mazzitelli 1998; Siess et al. 1999). Our own recent calculation (Palla & Stahler 1999) utilized standard mixing-length theory for convection, along with modern determinations of the equation of state and low-temperature opacities.

How are we to gauge the accuracy of pre-main-sequence tracks? One test is the position of the birthline, i.e., the upper envelope to the distribution of pre-main-sequence stars. Stahler (1983) first predicted this locus theoretically by combining a protostellar mass-radius relationship with the Cohen & Kuhi tracks. Palla & Stahler (1990) then extended the curve into the regime of intermediate-mass objects. Thus far, the predicted birthline does seem to match the observed envelopes in both T associations and groups containing Herbig Ae/Be stars (e.g., Chen et al. 1997; van den Ancker et al. 1998; Luhman 1999). This result attests to the essential validity of both protostar theory (leading to the mass-radius relation) and the pre-main-sequence tracks themselves.

For a more precise check, one should compare the stellar masses obtained using the tracks with those that can be derived empirically. On the observational side, there has been some attempt to derive masses from spectroscopically determined surface gravities (MacNamara 1975; 1976), but the precision of the latter is rather poor. Bonnell et al. (1998) suggested using the infall speed of circumstellar matter, as gauged from the redshifted absorption of selected emission lines. The presumption here is that the detected motion occurs along magnetic flux tubes linking the inner edge of a disk to the stellar surface. Quantitatively, however, one faces not only the problem of geometric projection along field lines of unknown topology, but also the complication that the physical velocities may not be truly free-fall. The most reliable technique is to use rotational speeds. Here, one may employ the radial velocities of spectroscopic binaries (e.g., Lee 1992), or else molecular-line observations of disks around binaries (White et al. 1998) or single stars (Simon et al. 2000).

In this paper, we employ both spectroscopic binaries and circumbinary disks to gauge the accuracy of our own pre-main-sequence tracks. We begin, in §II below, by verifying the endpoints of these tracks, through observations of main-sequence systems. We then consider, in §III, a number of younger pairs. We focus initially on eclipsing, spectroscopic binaries, for which individual masses can be obtained with high accuracy. We analyze several systems that contain at least one pre-main-sequence member. Mass ratios, as opposed to individual values, are available for double-lined spectroscopic binaries, from the relative amplitudes of the individual velocity curves. This ratio may be compared with pre-main-sequence theory, provided one can also assess the luminosities and effective temperatures of the binary components. We finally consider the special case of GG Tau, where combined stellar masses can be derived from the rotational velocity of the circumbinary disk.

Our conclusion, as presented in §IV, is that the pre-main-sequence tracks in question are indeed reliable, in the sense that they generally predict masses or mass ratios in excellent agreement with empirical values. Moreover, we find that the derived ages within a pair are usually very similar. Close binaries thus appear to be coeval, a tendency already adduced for wider systems (Hartigan et al. 1994; Brandner & Zinnecker 1997). We find two anomalous systems, NTTS 162814$``$2427 and P1540, for which both the mass ratios and ages seem discrepant. The fault, we suggest, lies in the determination of the surface temperatures and luminosities, a conclusion reinforced by other observations.

## 2 Main-Sequence Binaries

Binary stars have traditionally been the main source of accurate stellar masses and radii, and are employed to calibrate the mass-dependence of the main sequence (Andersen 1991). Most useful in this regard are the detached, double-lined, eclipsing systems. Here, one exploits both the radial velocity and light curves to obtain not only the masses of the individual components, but also their luminosities and effective temperatures.

Figure 1 shows a portion of our pre–main-sequence tracks in the HR diagram, with masses from 0.1 to 1.2 $`M_{}`$. Toward the upper end we have placed the components of two eclipsing systems with primaries of roughly solar mass, EW Ori and HS Aur. It is evident that the measured luminosities and effective temperatures indeed place all four stars close to the end of our tracks. From Table 1 of Andersen (1991), the masses of the EW Ori components are 1.19 and 1.16 $`M_{}`$. For comparison, the interpolation from our tracks yields values of 1.14 and 1.11 $`M_{}`$, respectively. For HS Aur, the measured masses are 0.90 and 0.88 $`M_{}`$, while our tracks give corresponding values of 0.94 and 0.90 $`M_{}`$, respectively.

The number of known systems with lower-mass components diminishes rapidly. Until recently, there were only two observed eclipsing binaries with subsolar primaries, YY Gem and CM Dra. The latter has a metallicity from a third to half of solar (Leggett et al. 2000), and thus cannot be studied using our tracks. (For the effect of reduced metallicity on evolutionary tracks of low-mass stars, see, e.g., D’Antona & Mazzitelli 1998, Siess et al. 2000). Delfosse et al. (1999) have discovered a third system, GJ 2609, a quadruple whose more massive component is itself an eclipsing binary. No estimates for effective temperature are yet available.

The measured masses of YY Gem are 0.60 and 0.59 M (Leung & Schneider 1978; Ségransan et al. 2000). We display the positions of both components in Figure 1. Note the large uncertainties in effective temperature, a well recognized problem at these masses (Allard et al. 1997). Our adopted Teff-values for YY Gem (3806 and 3742 K) come from Chabrier & Baraffe (1995). These nominal values, together with the measured luminosities, again place the stars close to, but not precisely at the ends of our tracks. Our inferred masses, 0.57 and 0.49 $`M_{}`$ for YY Gem are also discrepant than for solar-mass systems, although the error is still under 20% percent. Such declining accuracy at the lowest masses is expected, as our models lack the refined equation of state and atmosphere calculations needed for accurate treatment in this regime (eg, Chabrier & Baraffe 1995).

## 3 Younger Systems

### 3.1 Rs Cha

This eclipsing, double-lined spectroscopic binary belongs to the recently discovered open cluster $`\eta `$ Cha. The group itself contains about 50 members, and lies at a distance of just 97 pc (Mamajek et al. 1999). Strong X-ray emission from these stars identifies them as pre-main-sequence (Mamajek et al. 2000). For the RS Cha system, which has a period of 1.7 days, the spectroscopic and photometric analysis of Andersen (1991) yielded primary and secondary masses of 1.86 $`M_{}`$ and 1.82 $`M_{}`$, respectively, with an associated mass ratio of $`M_1/M_2q=1.02`$. Although this value is very close to unity, we have included the system in our sample because its eclipses allow accurate determination of individual masses.

Jordi et al. (1997) obtained effective temperatures of 7810 K and 7295 K for the two components. Mamajek et al. (2000) used these results, along with the stellar radii determined by Clausen & Nordström (1980), to find corresponding luminosities of 15.2 $`L_{}`$ and 13.9 $`L_{}`$. We show the two stars within the HR diagram in Figure 2a. Our derived masses of 1.88 $`M_{}`$ and 1.80 $`M_{}`$ agree well with the empirical ones. Our theoretical $`q`$-value is 1.04. Finally, the derived ages for the primary and secondary are $`5.0\times 10^6`$ yr and $`4.3\times 10^6`$ yr, respectively.

As an aside, we note that the stellar parameters of the two components place them near the regime of pulsational instability determined by Marconi & Palla (1998). Fig. 4 shows that the secondary falls securely within the theoretical instability strip, indicated by the two parallel lines. This object should therefore be pulsating in the fundamental or first overtone. Any pulsation of the primary, however, would be of higher order. Andersen (1975) observed, in fact, a periodic variation (of the $`\delta `$ Scuti type) in the composite light curve. Further comparison between theory and observation should prove instructive.

### 3.2 EK Cep

This system lies at a distance of 150 pc, and does not appear to be associated with other young stars (Popper 1987). Ebbighausen (1966) showed it to be an eclipsing, double-lined binary of low eccentricity ($`e=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.09}`$) and relatively short period (4.4 days). From the radial velocity curves, the mass ratio is 1.81. Tomkin (1983) derived an orbital inclination $`i`$ of $`89^{}`$, and thereby found primary and secondary masses of $`2.03M_{}`$ and $`1.12M_{}`$, respectively.

The primary is a ZAMS star of spectral type A1 and effective temperature 9000 K (Hill & Ebbighausen 1984; Popper 1987). Its luminosity, as determined photometrically, is $`15L_{}`$. Martín & Rebolo (1993) detected lithium absorption in the secondary, establishing its pre-main-sequence nature. The effective temperature for this component is 5700 K and its luminosity $`1.5L_{}`$ (Popper 1987).

After locating both stars in the HR diagram (Figure 2b), we confirm that the primary lies on the ZAMS, and find a mass of $`2.0M_{}`$. For the secondary, we derive $`M_{}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.1}M_{}`$, so that our $`q`$-value is 1.7. The isochrone passing through the secondary’s position gives it an age of $`2\times 10^7`$ yr. This figure exceeds the contraction time of $`8\times 10^6`$ yr for a $`2M_{}`$ star to reach the ZAMS. Thus, the stars could have formed at the same time, $`2\times 10^7`$ yr in the past.

### 3.3 TY CrA

The Herbig Be star TY CrA is the brightest member of a young, embedded cluster in the Corona Australis dark cloud complex, at a distance of 130 pc (Marraco & Rydgren 1981). Photometric and spectroscopic observations reveal an eclipsing, double-lined spectroscopic system (Kardopolov et al. 1981; Corporon et al. 1994; Casey et al. 1995). Analysis of the radial velocity curves gives a period of 2.89 days, and shows the orbit to be nearly circular ($`e=0.02`$). From the relative amplitudes of the velocities, the mass ratio $`q`$ is 1.93. The system also contains a third component, at a distance of about 1 AU from the close binary (Casey et al. 1995; Corporon et al. 1996).

Casey et al. (1998) have conducted a detailed investigation of the stellar properties of the binary components. (For earlier work, see Beust et al. 1997.) They assign the primary an effective temperature of $`1.2\times 10^4`$ K, consistent with the estimated spectral type of B8 (Lagrange et al. 1993). For the secondary, they find $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4900}`$ K. Gauging the luminosities is more difficult, both because of the third star and the presence of reflection nebulosity. Casey et al. find primary and secondary luminosities of $`67L_{}`$ and $`2.4L_{}`$, respectively. Both the temperature and luminosity estimates utilize an estimated $`A_V`$ of 3.1 mag.

Figure 2c shows the location of both components in the HR diagram. The primary evidently falls close to the ZAMS, and has a theoretically derived mass of $`2.9M_{}`$. For the secondary, we infer a mass of $`1.6M_{}`$. These figures may be compared with the masses of $`3.16M_{}`$ and $`1.64M_{}`$ obtained by Casey et al. (1998) from the known orbital inclination of $`i=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}83}^{}`$. Our theoretical mass ratio, $`q=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.8}`$, differs by less than 10 percent from the empirical value.

Since the primary may already have settled onto the main sequence, a contraction age may not be appropriate. A star of $`3M_{}`$ reaches the ZAMS in $`2\times 10^6`$ yr, according to our tracks. As seen in Fig. 2c, the corresponding isochrone passes close to the secondary, indicating near coevality. However, the nominal contraction age that best fits the secondary’s position in the diagram is $`3.9\times 10^6`$ yr. The location of the primary in the diagram is, of course, also consistent with this latter age.

### 3.4 BM Ori

The faintest member of the Trapezium is $`\theta ^1`$ Ori B, also known as BM Ori. It has long been recognized as the primary of an eclipsing binary, with a period of 6.5 days and a circular orbit (Hartvig 1920; Popper & Plavec 1976). More recently, near-infared studies have demonstrated that this spectroscopic binary is actually part of a hierarchical, pentuple system. There is a wide binary whose components lie $`0.^{\prime \prime }94`$ and $`1.^{\prime \prime }02`$ from the brightest star (Petr et al. 1998; Weigelt et al. 1999), and a single star at a displacement of $`0.^{\prime \prime }9`$ (Simon et al. 1999).

Within the spectroscopic binary, the primary appears to be a normal B3-type star lying close to the ZAMS (Popper 1980; Hillenbrand 1997). The secondary, however, shows a large infrared excess, and its spectral classification has been uncertain for a long time (e.g., Popper & Plavec 1976). Vitrichenko & Plachinda (2000) employed CCD spectrophotometry during the primary minimum and recovered a G2-type spectrum for the secondary. Antokhina et al. (1989) had earlier obtained a luminosity of 31 $`L_{}`$ for this component.

Figure 2d displays the two stars within the HR diagram. The primary, as expected, lies close to the ZAMS, and has an inferred mass of $`6.2M_{}`$. The secondary lies very close to the birthline, shown by the dashed curve. We derive a secondary mass of $`2.7M_{}`$ and a $`q`$-value of 2.3, the highest of any system we have analyzed. Since the primary also lies close to the birthline, the binary components are coeval, with nominal ages less than about $`10^5`$ yr.

Obtaining the masses from the light curve is not straightforward, because of the peculiar nature of the system. Even during primary minimum, the B star continues to be visible (Hall & Garrison 1969; Doremus 1970). The current interpretation is that the eclipse in this phase is produced by a disk surrounding the secondary (Vitricenko 1998). The disk is also presumed responsible for the infrared excess. In any case, a more conventional light-curve analysis yields masses of 6.3 and $`2.5M_{}`$, respectively, for the primary and secondary, and a $`q`$-value of 2.5. A refined study, accounting for the disk geometry, could alter these numbers.

### 3.5 V773 Tau

We next consider non-eclipsing, spectroscopic binaries. Our first system is located in the B209 (L1495W) dark cloud, at an astrometric distance of 148 pc (Lestrade et al. 1999). The primary is a weak-lined T Tauri star that exhibits strong X-ray activity (Feigelson et al. 1994). It is also the most luminous radio source in Taurus-Auriga (O’Neal et al. 1990), with giant loops of nonthermal emission (Feigelson et al. 1994).

Near-infrared imaging by Leinert et al. (1993) and Ghez et al. (1993) revealed a wide companion. These two groups found the separation to be 19 AU and 29 AU, respectively, while Ghez et al. (1997) lowered the figure to 12 AU. In any case, Martín et al. (1994) and Welty (1995) demonstrated that the system is actually a triple, since the brightest source is a spectroscopic binary. The analysis of the velocity curves by Welty shows the orbit to be eccentric ($`e=0.267`$), and yields a mass ratio of $`M_1/M_2q=1.32`$. Welty then fit the composite optical spectrum with K2 and K5 photospheres, weighted to match the observed flux ratio at 0.65 $`\mu `$m. He finally determined luminosities for the two components by requiring that their spectral energy distributions sum to the empirical one, within the optical and near-infrared regime. His derived luminosities, scaled to the recent, astrometric distance, are $`L_1=3.01L_{}`$ and $`L_2=1.90L_{}`$.

These values for luminosity and temperature, in combination with our pre-main-sequence tracks, yield primary and secondary masses of $`1.73M_{}`$ and $`1.26M_{}`$, respectively. Their ratio is 1.37, in good agreement with the dynamical value. In contrast, Welty used the tracks of D’Antona & Mazzitelli (1994) and found a theoretical ratio of 1.78.

Welty’s derivation of the luminosities neglected any contribution to the optical or near-infrared fluxes from the wide companion. This assumption, however, may not be justified. Ghez et al. (1997) studied the companion photometrically, and assigned it a spectral type of K3 and a luminosity of $`1.33L_{}`$. They then subtracted its spectral energy distribution from the total, assuming the remainder stems from the spectroscopic binary, at least for optical and near-infrared wavelengths. Adopting Welty’s spectral types and near-infrared flux ratio for the binary components, they derived new luminosities of $`L_1=2.31L_{}`$ and $`L_2=1.39L_{}`$.

Figure 3a shows the two components of the spectroscopic binary in the HR diagram, using the stellar parameters of Ghez et al (1997). Also shown are portions of our pre-main-sequence tracks and isochrones. Our derived masses are now $`1.53M_{}`$ and $`1.19M_{}`$, yielding a mass ratio of 1.29. The ages are $`4.1\times 10^6`$ yr and $`2.8\times 10^6`$ yr for the primary and secondary, respectively.

### 3.6 NTTS 162814$``$2427

The primary of this system was discovered as an X-ray source in the Scorpius-Ophiuchus region (Montmerle et al. 1983), and later classified as a naked T Tauri star (Walter et al. 1988). Mathieu et al. (1989) demonstrated that the star is actually a double-lined spectroscopic binary, with a period of 36.0 days and a mass ratio $`q`$ of 1.09. It’s measured eccentricity of 0.48 is one of the highest values known among pre-main-sequence binaries.

Although the ultraviolet and infrared excesses in the composite spectrum are relatively small, they foiled the attempt by Mathieu et al. to deconvolve the component stars. This problem was alleviated by Lee et al. (1994), who used high-dispersion spectroscopy both to gauge the stars’ relative brightness and to assign a plausible range of spectral types (see also Lee 1992). For each pair of spectral types, Lee et al. reconstructed the stellar luminosities by applying a bolometric correction to the dereddened $`I`$-band fluxes. Here, they utilized a visual extinction $`A_V`$ of 1.9.

The closed areas in Figure 3b represent the four pairs of luminosity and effective temperature offered by Lee et al. (1994). The effective temperatures derived by these authors correspond to spectral types of K4 and K5, after using the conversion scale of Cohen & Kuhi (1979). Comparison with our pre-main-sequence tracks shows that both masses are slightly above $`1M_{}`$, and that the theoretical $`q`$-values range from 1.04 to 1.18. These figures neatly bracket the empirical one of 1.09. Fig. 3b also includes three selected isochrones. Although none of these intersects both rectangular areas, the data are consistent with a common age near $`5\times 10^6`$ yr.

### 3.7 P1540

This double-lined, spectroscopic binary is located $`10^{}`$ west of the Trapezium, just outside the Orion Nebula cluster (Hillenbrand 1997). Marschall & Mathieu (1988) analyzed the radial velocities, and found the system to have a relatively long period (34 days) and high eccentricity ($`e=0.12`$). The derived mass ratio, $`q=1.32`$, matches that of V773 Tau. As in that case, the components are both weak-lined T Tauri stars, and exhibit enhanced X-ray emission. The system is notable for its high space motion. While the center-of-mass radial velocity of 26 km s-1 is consistent with membership in the Orion Id association, the measured proper motion is much too great (Jones & Walker 1988). Marschall & Mathieu conclude that the system is a runaway, possibly ejected through dynamical interaction within the Trapezium region.

Observational determination of the component luminosities and effective temperatures is still incomplete. Lee et al. (1994) have suggested four pairs of values, in which the spectral types lie in the range from K4 to K5 and the luminosities are between 6.0 and 11.5 $`L_{}`$. The analysis was similar to that of NTTS 162814$``$2427. That is, a high-resolution spectrum was compared to comnbinations of standard templates in order to assess both the individual spectral types and the flux ratio, here in the $`I`$-band. After using photometric observations of color excess to correct for extinction, Lee et al. applied a main-sequence bolometric correction to obtain the stellar luminosities.

The quadrangles in Figure 3c show the regions demarcated by these four solution pairs in the HR diagram. It is evident that the system is extremely young, with the stellar parameters placing both components close to the birthline. The derived mass ratios range from 1.0 to 1.37, and thus are ostensibly compatible with the observational value. However, it is evident from the figure that none of the pairs are even roughly coeval. This peculiarity was emphasized by Marschall & Mathieu (1988), who based their analysis on the Cohen & Kuhi (1979) tracks.

Both components of P1540 exhibit strong lithium absorption, another indication of youth. Lee et al. (1994) employed stellar atmosphere models to determine the actual lithium abundances of five pre-main-sequence binaries, including this one. In general, the derived abundance in a star is sensitive to both the effective temperature and surface gravity, and hence the stellar luminosity. For all four luminosity-temperature pairs, P1540 had lithium abundances for both components higher by a factor of 3–7 than the canonical interstellar value. Moreover, this was the only system to exhibit such an anomaly. Lee et al. suggested that the result stemmed from incorrect stellar parameters. In particular, a lowering of both spectral types by several subclasses appears to be compatible with the spectroscopic data (Martín 2000, personal communication). Lowering the spectral types would also decrease the masses, in concordance with the relatively high lithium abundances. A detailed reexamination of this interesting system is clearly warranted.

### 3.8 GG Tau

The GG Tau system is a hierarchical quadruple, consisting of two binary stars (Leinert et al. 1993). The tighter pair, designated GG Tau A, has a projected separation of $`0.^{\prime \prime }25`$, or 35 AU at the Taurus distance. This system is $`10.^{\prime \prime }1`$ north of a wider binary (GG Tau B), with a separation of $`1.^{\prime \prime }48`$ (207 AU). Thus, neither pair is a spectroscopic binary. However, the system is of interest for testing pre-main-sequence models because of the presence of a large, low-mass disk around GG Tau A. This structure has been imaged in both millimeter lines and continuum, and in near infrared scattered light (Dutrey et al. 1994; Roddier et al. 1996). Following the initial study by Dutrey et al. (1994), Guilloteau et al. (1999) have fit the disk’s velocity profile to a Keplerian rotation low, thus finding the total mass of GG Tau A to be 1.28 $`M_{}`$.

White et al. (1999) have obtained optical spectra for all members of the quadruple. They confirm that the components are T Tauri stars or brown dwarfs, with spectral types ranging from K7 to GG Tau Aa to M7 for GG Tau Bb. They further derive effective temperatures for all the stars, and estimate their luminosities by applying a bolometric correction to the $`I`$-band fluxes. Figure 3d places the components in the HR diagram. The two most luminous stars belong to GG Tau A, and our derived masses are 0.78 $`M_{}`$ for the primary and 0.54 $`M_{}`$ for the secondary. The total is $`1.32M_{}`$, in close agreement with the dynamical value. Both components of GG Tau B lie below our tracks, and we can only place upper limits of $`0.1M_{}`$ on their masses. Note finally that all four stars appear to be approximately coeval. Our derived ages for GG Tau Aa and GG Tau Ab are, respectively, 2.3 and 1.5$`\times 10^6`$ yr.

## 4 Discussion

Table 1 conveniently summarizes essential properties of all the systems covered in this paper. We first list empirical values for the effective temperature and luminosity of each component, including uncertainties given in the literature. We next give the observationally determined mass ($`M_{\mathrm{dyn}}`$) for all eclipsing systems, as well as the total value for GG Tau A. In the fifth column, we tabulate our own masses ($`M_{\mathrm{PS}}`$), as obtained by comparison with the pre-main-sequence tracks. The next two columns list the mass ratios, both the observational ones ($`(M_A/M_B)_{\mathrm{dyn}}`$) and our derived values ($`(M_A/M_B)_{\mathrm{PS}}`$). The final column presents our derived ages, again including uncertainties, for each component that appears to be pre-main-sequence.

A more graphic presentation of the same results is given in Figure 5. The upper panel compares the mass ratios, as derived both empirically (vertical axis) and from our tracks (horizontal axis). For both values, we include the uncertainties listed in Table 1. While the empirical mass ratios are known quite accurately, we note the relatively large uncertainties in the theoretical values, especially for P1540 and V773 Tau. Both systems lie in regions of the HR diagram where the tracks are especially crowded, so that modest changes in effective temperature translate into large mass shifts. The overall agreement between theoretical and empirical ratios is good, but there is a systematic drift from unity for higher-mass systems. We attribute this trend to the difficulty in determining the secondary properties when the primary is a luminous, massive star. On the other hand, we have not considered the effect of convective overshooting, which could be an important physical process to include in more realistic models of higher-mass stars (e.g., Ribas et al. 2000).

We have also obtained absolute mass values for the sample of stars recently investigated by Simon et al. (2000). These authors used interferometric, molecular-line observations of disks around 9 stars in Taurus-Auriga. Assuming the disks to be in Keplerian motion, they were able to ascertain the masses of the central objects. We have placed all these objects in the HR diagram, and find masses that agree with those of Simon et al. to within 8 percent. Two exceptions, where we find substantially lower mass-values, are the single star BP Tau and the binary UZ Tau. In both cases, the molecular-line observations are problematic, as discussed in detail by Simon et al.

An interesting dividend from our study is the determination of contraction ages for each object above the ZAMS. As seen in the lower panel of Figure 4, there is a remarkably close match between the ages of the primary and secondary star within each binary. We stress that there is no reason a priori to expect such agreement, and there is no generally accepted theory of binary formation that predicts coevality. Nevertheless, our finding extends the important, earlier investigations by Hartigan et al. (1994) and Brandner & Zinnecker (1997), which demonstrated a similar trend in visual binaries. The implication of all these studies is that the individual components of binaries are born in situ at the same time, regardless of their eventual configuration. Now the widest pre-main-sequence binaries have separations of order $`10^4`$ AU (e.g., Mathieu 1994), a distance comparable to the sizes of dense cloud cores (Myers & Benson 1983). It is an attractive hypothesis, therefore, that both components form through protostellar collapse within the same cloud fragment. A question of key importance for theory is how the structure and evolution of these molecular structures promotes simultaneous density buildup in at least two internal locations.

Returning to the stellar mass determinations, the tally of double-lined spectroscopic binaries is richer than that studied here. We have omitted a number of systems with mass ratios very close to unity, since they do not provide stringent tests on the accuracy of our tracks. These binaries include DQ Tau ($`q=`$1.03; Mathieu et al. 1997), W134 ($`q=`$1.04, Padgett & Stapelfeldt 1994), and V826 Tau ($`q=`$1.02, Lee et al. 1994). Adopting the quoted luminosities and temperatures for each star, we concur that the component masses all match to within 10 percent. We have also omitted the equal-mass, eclipsing binary GG Ori in the Orion OB1 association. Our mass estimate of $`2.36M_{}`$ for each component is very close to the value of $`2.34M_{}`$ found by Torres et al. (2000). Finally, we have not analyzed RXJ 0529.4+0041, an eclipsing binary in the Orion OB1a subgroup (Covino et al. 2000). The measured masses are $`1.30`$ and $`0.95M_{}`$, but the luminosity and temperature of the secondary are not yet firmly established. Our own value for the primary mass is $`1.26M_{}`$, in close agreement with the observational finding.

Our study by no means represents a thorough empirical test of pre-main-sequence tracks. Future investigations would do well to concentrate on lower-mass stars, and on systems with larger mass ratios than those considered here. As we have discussed, the largest uncertainties in modeling are for objects near the brown dwarf limit. Traditional studies of spectroscopic binaries have also emphasized nearly equal-mass systems, simply because of the practical difficulty in detecting a relatively dim companion. This purely observational bias has misled theorists considering the question of binary origin (e.g., Boss 1988, 1993). Recently, Mazeh et al. (2000) have stressed the utility of near-infrared observations for ascertaining the properties of lower-mass secondaries. With a wider range of binary systems in hand, we may look forward to a more complete assessment of current pre-main-sequence tracks, and to the eventual refinement of the underlying theory.

We are grateful to E. Covino, S. Shore, and H. Zinnecker for very useful discussions on young binaries. We also thank the referee, I. Baraffe, for a very thoughtful report. The funding of F. P. was partially supplied by ASI Grant ARS 98-116 to the Osservatorio di Arcetri. Support for S. S. was through NSF grant AST-9987266. This work has made extensive use of the SIMBAD and ADS data bases.