text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Five dimensional models with warped geometries have played a significant role in high energy physics and cosmology during the past few years. Many puzzles in four dimensions can been tackled by extending space-time to five dimensions. In most settings the fifth dimension is either an interval in models inspired by the Horava-Witten theory or a half-line with an AdS geometry for the Randall-Sundrum proposal. The phenomenological applications are numerous ranging from the hierarchy problem to the cosmological constant problem.

Another guise of five dimensional models has been motivated by the AdS/CFT correspondence( for a review see ). The search for a supersymmetric version of the RS scenario has led to the concept of supergravity in singular spaces. A particularly interesting class of supergravity models coupled to boundaries emerges from the compactification of M-theory on Calabi-Yau three-folds. In five dimensions this leads to gauged supergravity theories with background fluxes. The origin of the background fluxes springs from the modification of the Bianchi identities due to the Horava-Witten boundaries and the inclusion of five-branes in the bulk. The fluxes lead to the existence of potential terms for the vector multiplets.

The five dimensional solutions of the supergravity equations of motion have been widely studied (for a review see ). In particular one finds BPS configurations preserving $`N=1`$ supersymmetry in four dimensions. It also conspicuous to find cosmological solutions with a time dependent background . These solutions should have some relevance to the physics of the early universe.

Recently non-BPS configurations have been extensively studied both from a theoretical and phenomenological point of view and might eventually lead to a better understanding of the origin of supersymmetry breaking. One of the purpose of the present letter is to consider non-BPS configurations in the context of the strongly coupled heterotic string theory. In particular we shall be concerned with unstable configurations resulting from the presence of five-branes wrapping non-supersymmetric cycles in the bulk.

In a first section we recall the necessary ingredients of five dimensional supergravity and its link to heterotic M-theory. We describe the BPS situation with five-branes wrapping supersymmetric cycles. We pay particular attention to the boundary conditions and show that the BPS property guarantees that the junction conditions are automatically satisfied. We then break supersymmetry by wrapping five-branes around non-supersymmetric cycles. After recalling the topological features of such configurations, we show that the modified boundary action on the five-branes leads to an instability. We find explicit solutions of the equations of motion where the five-branes move towards the boundary walls. The collision occurs within a time proportional to the fifth-dimension radius.

## 2 Bulk Five-Branes and BPS Configurations

We compactify M-theory on a Calabi-Yau three-fold with background fluxes switched on. The compactification of eleven dimensional supergravity on a Calabi-Yau threefold with Hodge numbers $`(h^{(1,1)},h^{(2,1)})`$ leads to an N=2 D=5 supergravity theory with $`h^{(1,1)}1`$ vector multiplets and $`h^{(2,1)}+1`$ hypermultiplets. In particular there is always one universal hypermultiplet containing the volume of the Calabi-Yau manifold $`Y`$. The other hypermultiplets belonging to a quaternionic moduli space will not play a role here. Switching on background fluxes leads to a potential for the vector multiplets. The resulting supergravity is gauged with the axion field charged under a $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry. One can introduce five-branes spread along four of the five non-compact directions and two of the internal dimensions. For five-branes wrapping holomorphic curves the resulting configuration is BPS and breaks half of the supersymmetries.

Let us now be a bit more specific. The compactifying manifold $`Y`$ lives along the $`x_A,A=5\mathrm{}10,`$ coordinates while space time is along $`x_i,i=0\mathrm{}3,`$ and $`x_5`$. The $`x_5`$-axis is a Z2 orbifold under $`x_5x_5`$ that we identify with the interval $`[0,+\pi \rho ]`$. We also include $`N`$ five-branes $`M_5^i`$ extended along the four non-compact dimensions $`x_i`$ and wrapped around holomorphic curves $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^i`$ in $`Y`$. The Bianchi identity for the four form $`G_4`$ of eleven dimensional supergravity is modified due to the presence of the five-brane

$$dG_4=4\sqrt{2}(\frac{\kappa }{4\pi })^{2/3}[\delta _{M_5}\delta _0dx_5J^{(1)}\delta _{\pi \rho }dx_5J^{(2)}]$$
(1)
with

$$J^{(i)}=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}(\text{Tr}(F^{(i)}F^{(i)})\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}(RR)).$$
(2)
Due to supersymmetry preservation each of the Horava-Witten planes carries a holomorphic vector bundle characterized by the two forms $`F^{(i)},i=1,2.`$ We will choose $`F^{(2)}=0`$ and consider the first plane at $`x_5=0`$ as our brane-world. The fundamental class $`\delta _{M_5}`$ is defined by

$$_{M_5}f=_{M_{11}}f\delta _{M_5}$$
(3)
and can be written as

$$\delta _{M_5}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\delta _{x_0^i}dx_5\delta _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^i}$$
(4)
where $`x_0^i`$ are the coordinates of the five-branes. In appropriate units $`\delta _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^i}`$ has dimension three in eleven dimensional Planck units.

Due to the compactness of the $`x_5`$ direction there is a topological condition to be satisfied

$$\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}(\text{Tr}(F^{(1)}F^{(1)})\text{Tr}(RR))$$
(5)
as cohomology classes where $`\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }=_{i=1}^N\delta _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^i}`$. This explicitly determines the homology class of the two dimensional surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

An explicit solution to the Bianchi identity is then

$$G_4=2\sqrt{2}(\frac{\kappa }{4\pi })^{2/3}\underset{i=0}{\overset{N}{}}ϵ_{x_0^i}\delta _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^i}$$
(6)
where $`ϵ_{x_0^i}`$ jumps from -1 to 1 at $`x_0^i`$ and we have used the notation

$$\delta _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}(\text{Tr}(F^{(1)}F^{(1)})\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}(RR)).$$
(7)
In each interval separating the $`i`$-th and the $`(i+1)`$-th five-branes there are background magnetic charges defined by

$$\alpha _I^i=\frac{\sqrt{2}ϵ_S}{\rho }_{C_I}\underset{j=0}{\overset{i}{}}\delta _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_j}$$
(8)
where the four-manifolds $`C_I`$ are Poincaré duals to the the $`\omega _I`$’s forming a basis of the $`h^{(1,1)}`$ holomorphic two-forms. We have introduced the expansion parameter $`ϵ_S=(\frac{\kappa }{4\pi })^{2/3}\frac{2\pi \rho }{v^{2/3}}`$ and $`v`$ is the volume of $`Y`$. The effective action obtained by substituting in the eleven dimensional supergravity action depends crucially on these magnetic charges.

The vector multiplets follow from the expansion of the Kahler form $`\omega `$

$$\omega =t^I\omega _I.$$
(9)
The volume modulus of the Calabi-Yau manifold is given by

$$𝒱=\frac{1}{6}_Y\omega \omega \omega .$$
(10)
Defining

$$t^I=𝒱^{1/3}X^I$$
(11)
the scalars in the vector multiplets parameterize the solutions of

$$C_{IJK}X^IX^JX^K=6$$
(12)
where $`C_{IJK}`$ are the intersection numbers $`_Y\omega _I\omega _J\omega _K`$. The volume modulus belongs to the universal hypermultiplet. The low energy bosonic action takes the form of a non-linear sigma model with the metric defined by

$$G_{IJ}=\frac{1}{2}C_{IJK}X^K+\frac{1}{8}(C_{ILM}X^LX^M)(C_{JPQ}X^PX^Q).$$
(13)
In the Einstein frame $`ds_E^2=𝒱^{2/3}ds_{str}^2`$ the action for the $`i`$-th interval reads

$$S_{bulk}^i=\frac{1}{2\kappa _5^2}d^5x\sqrt{g_E^{(5)}}(R+G_{IJ}_\mu X^I^\mu X^J\frac{1}{2𝒱^2}(𝒱)^2\frac{1}{2𝒱^2}\alpha _I^i\alpha _J^iG^{IJ}(X)).$$
(14)
The last term is the potential for the scalars in the vector multiplets.

Let us now consider the boundary actions. The boundary wall action reads

$$S_B^0=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\kappa _5^2}d^4x\sqrt{g_E^{(4)}}\frac{\alpha _I^0X^I}{𝒱}$$
(15)
in the Einstein frame. The action on the three branes resulting from the bulk five-branes depends on the nature of the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. For BPS configurations the BPS bound for five-branes is saturated implying the equality between the central charge and the five-brane tension. This leads to the action for each five-brane

$$S_B^i=T_5\sqrt{g_{str}^{(4)}}\text{Vol}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^i)$$
(16)
in the string frame. Now using

$$T_5=\frac{2\pi }{(4\pi \kappa )^{2/3}}$$
(17)
and

$$\text{Vol}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^i)=v^{1/3}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^i}\omega $$
(18)
one obtains the boundary action

$$S_B^i=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\kappa _5^2}d^4x\sqrt{g_E^{(4)}}\frac{[\alpha _I^i]X^I}{𝒱}$$
(19)
with $`[\alpha _I^i]=\alpha _I^i\alpha _I^{(i1)}`$. Notice that this boundary action has the same functional form as the boundary wall action up to a factor of two. In the following section we will concentrate on the solutions of the equations of motions with a particular emphasis on the junction conditions.

## 3 Non-BPS Configurations

Before describing the non-BPS configurations we analyse the solutions of the equations of motions in the BPS case. Let us concentrate on the following warped geometry

$$ds^2=e^{2A(x_5)}dx_{//}^2+dx_5^2$$
(20)
and consider $`x_5`$-dependent fields only. From the action one can read off the junction conditions at the origin

$`[{\displaystyle \frac{d𝒱}{dx_5}}]_0=2\sqrt{2}(\alpha ^0.X)|_0`$
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{dA}{dx_5}}]_0={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha ^0.X)}{𝒱}}|_0`$
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{dX_I}{dx_5}}]_0={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{𝒱}}(\alpha _I^0{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(\alpha ^0.X)X_I)|_0`$
where in the last equation we have used a Lagrange multiplier to impose the constraint (12). Similarly the junction conditions at the one of the bulk five-branes read

$`[{\displaystyle \frac{d𝒱}{dx_5}}]_{x_0^i}=\sqrt{2}([\alpha ^i].X)|_{x_0^i}`$
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{dA}{dx_5}}]_{x_0^i}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{([\alpha ^i].X)}{𝒱}}|_{x_0^i}`$
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{dX_I}{dx_5}}]_{x_0^i}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}𝒱}}([\alpha _I^i]{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}([\alpha ^i].X)X_I)|_{x_0^i}`$
where the latter differ from the former by a factor of two. Due to the $`Z2`$ action one has $`[f]_0=2f|_0`$ relating the jump at the origin to twice the value at the origin.

One of the features of BPS configurations is that the junctions conditions are automatically satisfied. This can be seen from the BPS equations deduced from the fermionic supersymmetry variations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d𝒱}{dx_5}}=\sqrt{2}(\alpha ^i.X)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dA}{dx_5}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha ^i.X)}{𝒱}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dX_I}{dx_5}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}𝒱}}(\alpha _I^i{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(\alpha ^i.X)X_I)`$
in each interval. Combining these equations one gets

$$\frac{d(𝒱^{1/3}X_I)}{dx_5}=𝒱^{2/3}\frac{\alpha _I^i}{\sqrt{2}}$$
(24)
from which we deduce that in each interval

$$C_{IJK}t^Jt^K=2\sqrt{2}𝒱^{1/3}\alpha _I^iy+C_I$$
(25)
where we have introduced $`dy=𝒱^{2/3}dx_5`$. Inverting (25) for $`t^I`$ gives

$$𝒱=\frac{1}{6}C_{IJK}t^It^Jt^K$$
(26)
and the metric

$$ds^2=𝒱^{1/3}dx_{//}^2+𝒱^{4/3}dy^2.$$
(27)
The position of the five-branes is not constrained reflecting the no-force condition.

The non-BPS configurations appear when the cohomology class $`\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ given by (5) is not effective, i.e. when the expansion

$$\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }=\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}a_i\delta _{C^i},$$
(28)
in terms of the classes $`\delta _{C^i}`$ of holomorphic curves $`C^i`$, contains both positive and negative integers. This implies that there is no holomorphic curve whose class coincides with $`\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. This topological characterization of non-supersymmetric cycle has several physical consequences. On the one hand the no-force condition between BPS five-branes is no longer valid. Writing

$$\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }=[A][B]$$
(29)
where $`[A]`$ and $`[B]`$ are effective cycles, i.e. there exist holomorphic curves $`A`$ (resp. $`B`$ ) whose classes are $`[A]`$ (resp. $`[B]`$), one expects that separating the five-branes wrapped around $`A`$ from the anti-five-branes wrapped around $`B`$ is energetically disfavoured. Therefore we will consider that the five-branes coincide and wrap a single surface in the class $`\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Within the homology class dual to $`\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ we consider the surface $`S`$ whose volume is minimum. As the brane tension is minimal this configuration is stable for a given Calabi-Yau manifold $`Y`$, i.e. the five brane wrapped around $`S`$ gives rise to a stable non-BPS brane. The BPS bound states that the tension of the five brane wrapped around $`S`$ is bounded from below by the central charge

$$|Q|=T_5v^{1/3}d^4x\sqrt{g_{str}^{(4)}}|_\mathrm{\Sigma }\omega |.$$
(30)
Equality would imply that $`S`$ is a calibrated surface, i.e. a holomorphic curve, realizing a BPS configuration. Such stable non-BPS branes are sensitive to deformations of the Calabi-Yau manifold $`Y`$.

Let us denote by $`T>1`$ the ratio beween the tension and the central charge. This leads to the boundary action

$$S_B^i=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\kappa _5^2}d^4x\sqrt{g_E^{(4)}}\frac{[\alpha _I]X^I}{𝒱}T$$
(31)
with

$$\alpha _I=\frac{\sqrt{2}ϵ_S}{\rho }_{C_I}\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$
(32)
The effect of supersymmetry breaking is to modify the boundary action. In particular the bulk equations of motion are still the same as before supersymmetry breaking. Therefore the solutions of the bulk equations of motion are not modified by the supersymmetry breaking mechanism. We first assume that $`T`$ is independent of $`𝒱`$ and $`X^I`$. The only effect of supersymmetry breaking is to alter the boundary conditions

$`[_n𝒱]_{x_0}=\sqrt{2}T([\alpha ].X)|_{x_0}`$
$`[_nA]_{x_0}={\displaystyle \frac{T}{3\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{([\alpha ].X)}{𝒱}}|_{x_0}`$
$`[_nX_I]_{x_0}={\displaystyle \frac{T}{\sqrt{2}𝒱}}([\alpha _I]{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}([\alpha ].X)X_I)|_{x_0}`$
where $`_n`$ is the normal derivative. The boundary conditions deduced from the bulk solutions do not match with the boundary conditions arising from the non-BPS brane action. Such a discrepancy has already been analysed in the context of supergravity in singular spaces . In particular we expect that the presence of a non-BPS brane destabilizes the vacuum. The perfect balance between the gravitational and scalar forces disappears and the non-BPS brane moves towards the boundary walls.

We can generate time-dependent conformally flat solutions from the static solutions. This is most easily achieved by using a boost along the $`x_5`$ direction. To do so we first introduce conformal coordinates so that the metric becomes

$$ds_5^2=a^2(u)(dx^2+du^2).$$
(34)
where

$$a^2=𝒱^{1/3},du=𝒱^{1/2}dy.$$
(35)
Under a boost and a rescaling the new solutions of the bulk equations of motions are

$`\stackrel{~}{A}(u,\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`A(u+h\eta ,{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _I^i}{\sqrt{1h^2}}})`$
$`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(u,\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`𝒱(u+h\eta ,{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _I^i}{\sqrt{1h^2}}})`$
$`\stackrel{~}{X}_I(u,\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`X_I(u+h\eta ,{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _I^i}{\sqrt{1h^2}}})`$
where $`\eta `$ is the conformal time. We have displayed the explicit dependence on the magnetic charges $`\alpha _I^i`$. One can now use the BPS equations satisfied by $`(A,𝒱,X_I)`$ to deduce that

$`_n\stackrel{~}{𝒱}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{1h^2}}}(\alpha ^i.\stackrel{~}{X})`$
$`_n\stackrel{~}{A}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}\sqrt{1h^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha ^i.\stackrel{~}{X})}{\stackrel{~}{𝒱}}}`$
$`_n\stackrel{~}{X}_I={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\sqrt{1h^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{𝒱}}}(\alpha _I^i{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(\alpha ^i.\stackrel{~}{X})\stackrel{~}{X}_I)`$
(37)
in each of the two intervals. Evaluating the jumps at $`u_0`$, the fixed coordinate of the non-BPS brane, and using (37) one finds that the boundary conditions are automatically satisfied provided that

$$h=\pm \frac{\sqrt{T^21}}{T}.$$
(38)
Notice that this requires $`T1`$. This is exactly the BPS bound with a static solution only in the BPS case.

After applying the boost the two boundary walls are moving and the non-BPS brane is static. By reverting to the original coordinates one finds that the solution describes a moving non-BPS brane surrounded by two static boundary walls. As the bulk equations of motions are not modified by the presence of the non-BPS brane the boundary conditions at the two boundary walls are automatically satisfied. The moving non-BPS brane eventually hits the boundary walls in a finite time determined by the speed $`h`$. For a generic supersymmetry breaking parameter the life-time of the non-BPS brane is of the order of the size of the fifth dimension.

When the supersymmetry breaking $`T`$ depends on $`𝒱`$ and $`X^I`$, the bulk equations are still satisfied but the boundary conditions cannot be simply fulfilled by applying a boost in the fifth direction. In  the case where supersymmetry is broken in this fashion by one of the boundary walls was considered. It has been shown that static solutions would require a fine-tuning of the radius of the extra dimension and of the magnetic charges. The latter being unlikely because this requires tuning continuous and discrete variables. From our point of view the reason for the non-existence of static solution follows from the absence of balance between the forces on the non-BPS brane. It seems likely that an appropriate change of variables performed on the bulk solutions will imply the matching of the boundary conditions in this more general setting. The time dependence of the resulting solution would describe the motion of the non-BPS brane towards the boundary walls.

Let us now briefly discuss the fate of the non-BPS brane after hitting one of the boundary walls. First of all the case of BPS five branes merging with the boundary walls has been extensively studied. In particular one finds small instanton transitions where the gauge bundle is modified. In the non-BPS case the flux conservation condition indicates that supersymmetry configurations such as the standard embedding case can spontaneously appear after the collision. This leads to a restoration of supersymmetry.

## 4 Conclusion

We have described the sharp difference between BPS and non-BPS configurations in heterotic M-Theory. In particular we have explicitly shown that the absence of balance between the gravitational and scalar forces leads to the motion of the non-BPS five-branes towards the boundary walls. Due to the finite size of the fifth dimension the life-time of the non-BPS configuration is measured in units of the eleven dimensional Planck length. Nevertheless one may use the resulting configuration in a phenomenological way by considering that the size of the extra dimension is large. Indeed the BPS condition on the boundary walls guarantees the absence of a radion potential and therefore allows to consider an arbitrarily large extra dimension. Moreover by tuning the supersymmetry breaking scale one may consider the speed of the extra dimension to be sufficiently small to allow for an adiabatic treatment. The resulting scenario might be useful in order to study the supersymmetry breaking induced by non-BPS branes in brane-world models.

## 5 Acknowledgements

I would like to thank C. Grojean and D. Waldram for many suggestions and useful comments.


format: text

text:
# The Influence of Shape on Ordering of Granular Systems in Two Dimensions

## I Introduction

Granular materials are studied in materials science, geology, physics, and engineering. Their unusual dynamical behavior has attracted much recent attention, but even their most basic static properties are not yet understood German ; Cumberland . For example, a collection of uniform spheres in three dimensions reaches a final arrangement known as random close packing (RCP). The RCP density is 0.64, substantially smaller than the 0.74 density of the fcc and hcp lattices. The RCP density is robust to changes in the vibration method, or to using uniaxial or hydrostatic pressure to push the grains together 3Dexpt . Computer simulations also agree well with physical experiments simJodrey . The structure of RCP arrangements is thoroughly documented by experiments and simulations, but neither the arrangements nor their density is understood from fundamental principles. The only algorithms for generating an RCP configuration involve a simulated shaking procedure. Even attempts to derive the RCP density begin from experimentally measured correlation functions Berryman .

As a further complication, direct applications of packing densities often deal with non-spherical particles, or mixtures of shapes or sizes. In mixing dyes, the highest possible percentage of colorant depends on the RCP density for the molecule’s shape dyes . In making ceramics, particles form clusters whose shape affects the final density ceramics . Particle shape influences packing densities in complicated ways. The ideal maximum packing density, as well as the RCP density, depends on shape and is unknown in most cases. Furthermore, the density observed in a given experiment also depends on how easily particles move past each other into optimal positions. Interparticle friction can be large when a shape has flat sides, and multiple contacts can eliminate much of the particles’ rotational freedom. Cubes, for example, have maximum packing density of 1 but reach a density of only 0.68 on deposition cubes . On the other hand, irregularly shaped particles are less dense than spheres on initial deposition but compress particularly well with vibration shapedep .

Theoretical work has concentrated on packings of hard spheres simJodrey ; Berryman , with generalizations to hard ellipsoids ellipseCuesta ; ellipseVB ; ellipseBuchalter ; ellipseSherwood  or mixtures of sphere sizes simKausch ; simClarke . For ellipsoids, simulations find several phases as a function of particle density. Theory has rarely dealt with other shapes, even “simple” ones such as regular polygons and polyhedra. Without understanding the mechanisms by which such particles move into position, the utility of simulations is unclear.

For many physics issues, solving an analogous problem in two dimensions can provide insight to the full three-dimensional question. However, there is no stable random configuration of circles in two dimensions. Uniform spheres confined to a single layer easily form a triangular lattice, the densest possible packing. Experiments and simulations do suggest a transition between random and ordered configurations near a density of 0.80 Turnbull ; QT ; Kierlik . Density increases much more slowly beyond this point. The number of touching disks in the configuration also changes sharply with density near 0.80. However, without a better definition of a “random” arrangement, pinpointing the exact transition and analyzing two-dimensional random close-packed configurations is impossible.

Not only spheres, but even unusual shapes such as regular pentagons anneal to their densest known packing in two dimensions Troadec . The arrangement for pentagons is a double lattice, in which translates of a two-pentagon unit cover the plane. Computer simulations find an analogous double lattice for heptagons as well heptagon . Thus these shapes too are impractical for studying random close packed structures.

Here we study several shapes in two dimensions. A main goal is to find shapes that remain disordered, which would lend themselves to studies of random arrangements. In addition, we may better understand the dependence of ordering properties on shape. Finally, packing in two dimensions is important in its own right in the behavior of films and monolayers.

All our shapes are clusters of spheres welded into triangular lattice positions. This guarantees that the densest packing is always a triangular lattice of the component spheres. The point contacts between clusters minimize friction and blocking effects as the shapes move past each other. Another advantage is that comparison with computer experiments is possible, since overlaps are easy to check with spheres. Visualizing the entire arrangement is also far easier in two dimensions than in three.

## II Procedure

We welded together $`\frac{1}{8}`$-inch diameter carbon steel ball bearings with a Unitek 60 welder set at its maximum power, 60 Watts. During the welding the balls were held in a bakelite mount machined to give the desired final shape. The shapes made were doubles, triples (three balls in a straight line), triangles of three or six balls, diamonds of four balls, trapezoids of five balls, and hexagons of seven balls. The welding appears not to distort the balls. One of the most stringent tests is that, as we shall see, several of the welded shapes order into perfect triangular lattices of their individual balls. A significant distortion from the welding would destroy the long-range order.

A schematic of our shaking apparatus is shown in Figure 1. Two pieces of plexiglas separated by 0.135-inch spacers confine balls inside to a single layer. The container is placed at an angle to the horizontal so that gravity pulls the balls towards one side. We typically fill a 9 inch by 4 inch region with ball clusters. Roughly 2500 single balls fit in this space. After putting the shapes in, we shake the box roughly to create a disordered initial state. An aluminum plate, connected to the plexiglas by a spring, serves as a hammer. Rotating spokes pull back and release the aluminum plate. On release, it strikes the bottom of the container and shakes the balls. A hit occurs once every three seconds for one hour. The balls stop moving completely between hits. The configuration changes substantially during the first few shakes, and negligibly at the end of the hour, but we have not investigated quantitatively the rate of ordering.

We vary both the maximum spring extension and the angle of the container. These parameters change the relative strengths of three physical forces: the hit magnitude, the component of gravity pulling the balls together, and the friction force between the balls and the plexiglas. Friction and effective gravity depend only on the angle, with friction decreasing as the angle becomes steeper and gravity increasing. We use eighteen different settings involving three spring extensions and seven angles between 20 and 50.

The hit magnitude depends on both spring length and angle, since the weight of the striking plate itself changes the equilibrium length of the spring by an angle-dependent amount. A very hard hit destroys the memory of the situation, and each time the balls settle from scratch. Furthermore, very strong hits can break the weld joints. On the other hand, a hit so light that the displacement of the balls is small compared to the ball diameter makes rearrangement difficult and slow. In addition, for light hits at the smallest angles shapes occasionally stop moving in positions that clearly should be unstable, held in place only by friction. Thus we might expect an optimum hit magnitude, not necessarily the same for different shapes. Using a range of parameters lets us determine not only whether but also how easily different shapes order.

When the shaking finishes, we photograph the final configuration with an Olympus 340R digital camera and transfer the image to a computer. The computer scans the photograph for local bright spots, which appear near the center of each ball. We refine the positions with a weighted average of the pixels surrounding the bright spots. Figure 2 shows the computer’s identification of an initial state and a well-ordered final state. To locate the balls successfully by this method, a single bright light source is used when taking the photograph. Multiple sources can lead to several bright spots on a single ball, or spots far from the ball center. A significant systematic error comes from warping of the photograph by the camera lens itself. To eliminate the warping, we generate a perfect triangular lattice of black dots on white paper and photograph it. We then find the displacement from ideal lattice sites of each photographed dot and interpolate to get the displacement at other points in the picture. Figure 3 shows the resulting vector field of displacements. We adjust the position of each ball center in the photographs to compensate for the warping. The maximum correction is comparable to one ball diameter.

After each trial we sort the shapes and verify that less than 7% of the shapes broke. The amount of breakage correlates strongly to both hit strength and shape. There is usually no breakage until mid-level hits and less than 3% on all but the hardest few settings. Shapes such as 3-ball triangles, with each ball welded to two neighbors, are strong. Triples, with two balls held by a single weld, break much more easily. Breakage seems to have little effect on the ordering. For all shapes, the run with the most breakage was not the one with the best ordering. Even for triples, where broken shapes become singles and doubles, which both order easily, high breakage did not correlate to good order. A few settings for triples and 6-ball triangles, and one for doubles, were omitted because of large amounts of breakage.

## III Results

As we vary the shaking parameters, all shapes except trapezoids and triples form domains comparable in size to the container itself, but they do so under increasingly restrictive hit conditions. Figure 4, which shows final configurations for parameters away from optimum, reveals the substantial differences among shapes and illustrates many of the trends we find. The arrangements all come from a 40 angle and the middle of the three spring settings. Singles, doubles and hexagons can form essentially perfect lattices, with a few large domains oriented by the container walls. For triangles and diamonds, small domains always appear in addition to the large ones. Domain sizes for triples and trapezoids are always substantially smaller than the container size, suggesting an absence of long-range order. Usually the best ordering occurs at an intermediate hit power. Trapezoids are an exception, with the degree of order nearly independent of hit settings.

In all the arrangements of Figure 4, the individual balls composing the shapes form ordered domains with sharp boundaries. The configurations have progressively decreasing domain sizes. As the domains shrink, interstitial clusters and regions that appear “random” increase in size and number. Much of the configuration for trapezoids, the least ordered shape, has ordered regions no more than 6 balls (or two trapezoids) across. This small domain size suggests that trapezoids approach a regime of stable random arrangements. We stress that our notion of “order” involves only the arrangement of the individual spheres. Identifying which balls are welded together is difficult. We have done so for a few cases and find no long-range orientational order beyond the requirement that the individual balls lie in a lattice. Thus we are really studying the packing of disks in a plane subject to certain constraints.

The shapes also differ in the voids that appear. Triples give rise to fewer holes than do the non-linear shapes. Larger shapes support larger holes, sometimes with characteristic shapes. For example, hexagon packings regularly show hexagonal holes, and the large (6-ball) triangles often have three balls missing in a triangular pattern. Hexagons frequently have rows of holes, as on the far left of Figure 4, as well as substantial void regions at crystallite boundaries.

## IV Large-scale order

We quantify the degree of order in several ways. Density, shown in Table 1, measures the state of the entire system. We use a large rectangle and calculate the total ball area inside, contributed both by balls completely inside and by balls on the boundary. Our biggest source of error in the density calculation comes from the lengths of the rectangle’s sides in units of ball diameters.

The densities confirm the qualitative discussion on the relative ordering of the different shapes in Figure 4. Of the two main defects in our arrangements, holes and grain boundaries, holes have a much larger effect on density, particularly for the largest shapes. Revised densities, treating holes in an otherwise crystalline region as filled, are shown in parentheses in Table 1. Small triangles pack slightly better than large triangles, although the difference decreases when holes are counted as filled. The similar behavior of the two sizes of triangles, particularly after discounting holes, shows that the ordering behavior is not completely dominated by size-dependent effects such as the container size or hit power.

The density of a perfect triangular lattice, and the maximum possible density for all of our shapes, is 0.9069. (That the densest packings for doubles in Table 1 apparently exceed this value is merely a consequence of the uncertainty in the density calculation. There may be a systematic error of less than 0.5% toward larger density, perhaps because the container height is slightly larger than the ball diameter and the balls may not lie perfectly flat.) For packing of spheres in two dimensions, a transition from random to ordered structures occurs near 0.80. In one experiment a gradual, uniform contraction of a rubber sheet increases the density of disks lying on the sheet QT . After the disks come into contact, they slide across the sheet under further contraction. The disk motion from sliding causes hexagonal crystals to form at a density of about 0.82. Another technique Turnbull  shakes a fixed-density system to find the most probable configurations. Repeating with a series of densities shows a change in behavior near 0.75, with large lattice regions forming above this density. Computer simulations of a liquid-solid interface have put a hard-sphere liquid near a two-dimensional lattice of attractive sites and find a possible first-order transition due to packing effects at a density 0.72 Kierlik . The restriction to lattice sites naturally reduces the transition density.

Interestingly, our lowest densities, found for trapezoids, are very close to the transition density, and qualitatively there appear to be only small domains in these packings. The agreement of the trapezoid density with the previously observed hard-disk transition density supports the idea of using final trapezoid arrangements as models of two-dimensional RCP configurations. Although the exact configurations attained by trapezoids would be unstable as arrangements of unwelded single balls, the maximum random density should be similar for the two cases. The perfect alignment of the balls within each trapezoid increases the maximum random density, but the larger holes in trapezoid packings decrease the density.

The comparison with the less well-ordered configurations also illustrates how easily different shapes order. Even with very light taps, doubles order reasonably well, for instance. Not surprisingly, the degree of order under light taps has strong correlation to the size of the shapes used.

To identify a length scale for the domains in each arrangement, we calculate a two-ball correlation function. We consider the distance between each pair of balls and construct a histogram of these distances, with about 320 bins per ball diameter. This is equivalent to finding the number of ball centers in annuli of fixed width centered at a single ball. For a perfect lattice, the result is sharp peaks at spacings characteristic of the triangular lattice: 1,$`\sqrt{3}`$, 2, etc. diameters. Imperfections, both in the identification of the ball centers and in the lattice itself, broaden the peaks and raise the heights of the intervening values. Figure 5 shows the histograms corresponding to the lattices of Figure 2.

Geometrical considerations determine the average shape of the histogram. The linear increase in average amplitude with distance at small separations corresponds to the increase in the circumference of a circle with its diameter. The average amplitude in the histogram falls off at larger distances because of the finite size of our sample. We calculate the exact distribution of separations for two balls randomly positioned in a rectangle, as follows.

Let $`a`$ and $`b`$ be the lengths of the rectangle’s sides, with $`ab`$. The region of phase space corresponding to choosing two points at random in the rectangle has volume $`(ab)^2`$. Now calculate the volume of the subset with point separation between $`r`$ and $`r+dr`$. With the rectangle oriented as in Figure 6, the first point lies below and to the left of the second point one quarter of the time. Let $`\theta `$ be the angle between the line connecting the points and the rectangle’s short side. If $`rab`$, the first ball can lie anywhere inside the shaded rectangle, of sides $`ar\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ and $`br\mathrm{sin}\theta `$. Integrating over $`\theta `$, the volume corresponding to separation $`r`$ to $`r+dr`$ is

$`rdr`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\pi /2}}𝑑\theta 4(ar\mathrm{cos}\theta )(br\mathrm{sin}\theta )`$
$`=[2\pi ab4(a+b)r+2r^2]rdr.`$
For $`arb`$, the same integral applies, except that not all angles are allowed. The result is

$`4r`$ $`dr{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{cos}^1\frac{a}{r}}^{\pi /2}}𝑑\theta (ar\mathrm{cos}\theta )(br\mathrm{sin}\theta )=`$ (2)
$`[2\pi ab4ab\mathrm{cos}^1{\displaystyle \frac{a}{r}}2a^24b(r\sqrt{r^2a^2})]rdr.`$
Finally, for $`abr\sqrt{a^2+b^2}`$, there is an additional restriction on the allowed $`\theta `$, giving

$`4rdr`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{cos}^1\frac{a}{r}}^{\mathrm{sin}^1\frac{b}{r}}}𝑑\theta (ar\mathrm{cos}\theta )(br\mathrm{sin}\theta )=`$ (3)
$`[4ab(\mathrm{sin}^1{\displaystyle \frac{b}{r}}\mathrm{cos}^1{\displaystyle \frac{a}{r}})+4a\sqrt{r^2a^2}`$
$`+4b\sqrt{r^2a^2}2(a^2+b^2+r^2)]rdr.`$
These formulas, divided by $`(ab)^2`$, give the probability that two points are separated by a distance between $`r`$ and $`r+dr`$. For a region containing $`N`$ balls, the average value of the pair correlation function is this function times the number of pairs, $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{2}\right)`$. The white lines of Figure 5 are the average values calculated in this way.

The two parts of Figure 5 differ most obviously in the extent of the structure. In the upper graph, peaks give way to noise near 4 ball diameters, whereas the lower graph retains structure to 40 diameters. To measure the long-range correlations, we begin by taking the difference between the observed histogram and its calculated average value. We average the 50 highest values within a window 2 ball diameters wide, and also the 50 lowest values. Then we take the difference between the two. As the window moves to larger distances, this difference generally decreases. It approaches 50 for the largest distances, with extremely disordered lattices reaching this value within a few ball diameters. To assign a length scale to a configuration, we set a cutoff of 80. The best lattices drop below 80 near 30 ball diameters, which is comparable to the system size in one direction. Even primarily crystalline arrangements often have two or three domains, aligned with the different walls of the container, and the length scale we find depends on the relative sizes of these domains. The length scales for several different configurations are shown in Table 2.

## V Local order

To further characterize the appearance of holes and grain boundaries in the different shapes, we analyze short-range order using methods sensitive to each type of imperfection. Domain boundaries strongly influence the short-distance region of the two-ball correlation function, while coordination numbers are more sensitive to voids.

We use the correlation function out to 3 ball diameters. We add the heights of the first five peaks, and divide by the sum of the first and third valley heights. We omit the second and fourth valleys because they lie between closely spaced peaks and give less consistent results. This quotient $`D`$ is larger for better ordered configurations. For perfect order, no balls lie in the valleys and the ratio is infinite. For the most disordered system we can engineer, the value is about 20. Using a ratio means that the exact number of balls used for each shape is unimportant.

Values for best, worst, and initial arrangements appear in Table 3. This probe is very sensitive to grain boundaries. The two most ordered runs of doubles have a single crystal spanning the entire container. The third run has two regions with a grain boundary between them, which greatly reduces the peak-to-valley ratio. The best hexagon run has one large domain and a small second domain, while the other runs have several small domains in addition to the large one. In fact, as shown in Figure 7, for systems with a single domain boundary the peak-to-valley ratio is proportional to the length of the boundary. With more than two domains this linear relationship fails, but the high sensitivity of the peak-to-valley ratio to boundaries remains.

Voids, interstitials, and other imperfections generally have much less effect than boundaries. One exception is that in nearly perfect lattices, the first few valleys drop so close to zero that any disorder changes their relative levels substantially; this causes the wide variation in the numbers shown for doubles. A second exception is that occasionally, particularly with doubles, a square lattice forms in a small area. This produces a peak on the histogram at $`\sqrt{2}`$ diameters, which is close to the center of the first valley and can have a particularly large effect.

Doubles and hexagons show the best ordering, as they do by the long-range measures. Once again, the two sizes of triangles are very similar in both the best and worst order displayed. One of the clearest indications of the sensitivity of this index to grain boundaries is the noticeable difference between diamonds and triples. The two shapes have comparable densities once voids are filled in, and have visually similar amounts of ordering. However the triples definitely have more grain boundaries, with fewer interstitials, which is reflected here.

Properly normalizing for the order inherent in the different shapes is a difficult problem. Resolving the effect of internal correlations among the balls composing a shape is particularly difficult with this measurement. The initial ordering corresponds well to cluster size, suggesting that the internal correlations are important here. However, this correlation disappears after shaking, even for the least effective hit parameters. We emphasize the similarities between the two triangle shapes as evidence that this factor is unimportant in the results from the final configurations.

As a complementary local order indicator, we calculate the Voronoi region of each ball. The Voronoi region of a ball consists of the points closer to that ball than to any other. The edges of the region are perpendicular bisectors of the lines connecting the ball to its neighbors, so for a perfect triangular lattice every Voronoi region would be a regular hexagon. Pentagonal or heptagonal regions signify defects in the lattice. To measure order, we find the percentage of balls with six-sided Voronoi regions. This tells us how many balls are in the interior of some domain.

The highest percentage of hexagonal Voronoi regions ranges from over 98% for doubles to 78% for trapezoids. The highest, lowest, and initial percentages for each shape appear in Table 4. These three numbers differ by at most 3.5% for a single shape, and usually by less than 1%. For comparison, the values for a typical initial configuration and for the most disordered final arrangements are also shown. Doubles order the most easily. Hexagons achieve the next highest order, although at the poorest hit settings they remain more disordered than triangles. Of the remaining shapes, triples and diamonds have six nearest neighbors with about the same frequency. Trapezoids have significantly more irregular Voronoi regions.

We next address the issue of correlations within the larger shapes. The initial configurations given in Table 4 show no trend of higher order for larger clusters. The differences among the final configurations also exceed correlation effects. For example, each hexagon has a center ball with six nearest neighbors, and centers account for 14.3% of all balls. For the three most ordered hexagon configurations, on average 94.5% of the balls have six nearest neighbors, so 5.5% do not. Since all the center balls do, 6.4% of the non-centers must have imperfect Voronoi regions, a change of less than 1% in the number with hexagonal Voronoi regions. The difference between hexagons and triangles is several times this large, so the perfect arrangement around the center balls cannot explain the entire difference. The more complicated effects involve the outer balls. For a hexagon, each of the six outer balls has three nearest neighbors perfectly positioned. A large triangle has three balls with four nearest neighbors, and three others with two. Without determining precisely the implications for the Voronoi region’s shape, we posit that the effect should be much smaller than that of the central ball of the hexagon, and that we can reasonably ignore it in distinguishing among shapes. Also note that the hexagons form a very poorly ordered initial state, despite the automatically proper coordination number of the center balls.

The percentage of hexagonal Voronoi regions is particularly sensitive to holes. A single missing ball in a perfect lattice creates six pentagonal Voronoi regions, with larger holes disturbing more Voronoi regions. Slight lattice imperfections, such as those introduced by the ball center identification, usually reduce the number of non-hexagonal Voronoi regions around a single void to four. Grain boundaries have less effect, with typically one imperfect Voronoi region per ball of boundary length. Interstitials have little effect beyond the balls that compose them, since the balls at the surface of a grain already have irregular Voronoi regions.

The coordination number, the number of balls touching a given ball, is an indicator related but not identical to the Voronoi region shape. No coordination number can exceed six, although a Voronoi region can have more than six sides. Coordination numbers are also far more sensitive than Voronoi regions to small displacements of balls, for example from noise in identifying the ball centers. In Figure 8 we show the distribution of coordination numbers for the configurations of Figure 4. For random sphere arrangements in three dimensions, the coordination number distribution varies more than other properties 3Dexpt , including the pair correlation function. Balls are taken as touching when their computer-identified centers lie within 1.08 ball diameters. We choose this as a cutoff because at longer distances significant asymmetry appears in the first peak of the two-ball correlation function.

Earlier two-dimensional experiments found a sharp change in average coordination number near the random-ordered transition QT . Although our coordination numbers are larger due to correlations introduced by the welds, they decrease abruptly near the same density. The similar behavior gives further encouragement to the possibility of studying random arrangements in two dimensions.

## VI Rotational symmetry

We find that rotational symmetry is an excellent guide for predicting the degree of order that a shape supports. Figure 9 shows both the average of the three highest peak-to-valley ratios $`D`$ (Table 3) for each shape, and also the order of the rotational axis. Except for doubles, the correspondence is excellent. The various other measures of order would give similar results. The correspondence between ability to order and rotational symmetry suggests that domains grow around the edges. To join the ordered portion, a shape must have the correct orientation. Its rotational symmetry sets a limit on the maximum angle through which it needs to rotate to reach this orientation. On the other hand, the rotational symmetry has little correlation to the degree of order in the initial configurations, which do not depend on growth at domain edges.

Several features of the final packings make sense when considering domain growth. For some shapes, any stable position near a growing crystal is part of the lattice. For example, stability for doubles under gravity requires at least three contacts, not all on the same ball. At the edge of a crystalline region, only lattice sites satisfy this criterion. By contrast, triples do have a stable off-lattice location, as illustrated in Figure 10. Trapezoids and large triangles also have stable nonlattice positions for a single particle added to an existing lattice, but our other shapes do not. This may account for the significantly longer length scale of small triangles compared to large ones. For diamonds, also illustrated in Figure 10, clusters positioned incompatibly may lead to voids, explaining the large number of voids in diamonds (see Table 1). Finally, doubles can generally join an ordered region in any of three distinct orientations, allowing them to order easily despite their lack of much rotational symmetry.

## VII Conclusions and further work

We have studied how several shapes composed of welded spheres pack in two dimensions. Our goals were to understand how particle shape affects packings, and especially to identify two-dimensional random close-packed configurations. Constructing shapes as sphere clusters avoids issues of maximum density and interparticle friction changing with shape, and permits detailed comparison of the configurations reached by different shapes. One consequence is that we find a strong correlation between the rotational symmetry of a particle and its short-range order. In addition, the defects in long-range order relate to geometry. Shapes where at least one side is three balls long produce more grain boundaries, while voids are common with large nonlinear shapes.

In keeping with the tendency of shapes to order in two dimensions, most of our clusters can anneal into configurations with long-range order of the individual spheres. Even under conditions where no long-range order appears, the shapes form small domains with sharp boundaries, qualitatively different from the random configurations that appear in three dimensions. Trapezoids are the one exception. All their packings remain random or nearly so, with typical domain sizes of only two trapezoids. Interestingly, the onset of ordered domains occurs near the packing density 0.8, where previous experiments on disks already showed evidence for a transition between random and ordered states.

Finding shapes such as trapezoids with stable random arrangements in two dimensions allows comparison to the packing behavior of spheres in three dimensions. We plan to pursue the similarities further by studying the time dependence of trapezoid configurations during annealing. The data on rotational symmetry suggest that examining elongated shapes with little symmetry may identify other shapes that do not crystallize. However, because of difficulties with breakage and with system size, this work is better done through computer simulations. The data presented here provide a series of test cases on the realism of any simulations.

Although our artificial particles are convenient for comparisons among the shapes, the unusual surface geometry clearly changes some behavior from that of similar but convex shapes. The irregular surfaces allow neighboring particles to lock together, leading to the high void densities for our larger shapes. More significantly, only the constituent spheres form ordered structures, not the larger shapes. For example, two-dimensional simulations of prolate ellipses under the influence of gravity find orientational but not translational long-range order Buchalter2D . By contrast, our doubles have no long-range orientational order. Instead, the dimples in the shapes’ sides allow neighboring doubles to interlock and overcome the effect of gravity. A further project would deform doubles gradually into ellipsoids by filling in the dimples, while tracking changes in the characteristic arrangements. Once again, this project is most practical through simulations.

We are continuing work along other lines as well. Time dependence measurements for shapes that do crystallize may help in understanding how non-spherical particles move into position. Finally, we plan to extend the measurements towards three dimensions by varying the container thickness to accommodate more layers of balls.

## VIII Acknowledgements

We thank J.D. Lawton for help in setting up the apparatus. This work is supported by the National Science Foundation under DMR-9733898.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The search for the light neutral Higgs boson is a crucial test of Supersymmetry that can be performed with the present and the next generation of accelerators. The prediction of a relatively light Higgs boson is common to all supersymmetric models whose couplings remain in the perturbative regime up to a very high energy scale . Finding the Higgs boson is thus one of the main goals of high-energy physics. Possible indications for a Higgs boson with a mass around $`115\mathrm{GeV}`$ have recently been observed in the LEP analysis . As a second step, once a scalar particle has been found, it is necessary to measure the dominant production cross sections as well as the decay widths and branching ratios of the main decay channels to a high accuracy. Such precise measurements of Higgs–gauge-boson and Higgs–Yukawa couplings allow to experimentally investigate the details of the Higgs mechanism. Finally, also the Higgs self-couplings will have to be measured in order to reconstruct the Higgs potential. A future linear $`e^+e^{}`$ collider with high luminosity  can provide a sufficiently clean environment to measure both the Higgs couplings to other particles as well as its self couplings  with high precision, allowing to distinguish between a standard and a non-standard Higgs boson. In this paper we concentrate on the production of the neutral Higgs bosons of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations and provide results for the production cross sections for general model parameters, together with a detailed numerical study.

In the MSSM, the mass of the lightest Higgs boson, $`M_h`$, is bounded from above by $`M_h\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}135}\mathrm{GeV}`$, including radiative corrections up to two-loop order . The most promising channels for the production of the supersymmetric neutral Higgs particles at LEP2 energies and in the first phase of future $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders are the Higgs-strahlung process

$$e^+e^{}Zh(H),$$
(1)
and the associated production of a scalar and a pseudoscalar Higgs boson

$$e^+e^{}Ah(H).$$
(2)
We compute the MSSM predictions for the cross sections of both channels in the Feynman-diagrammatic (FD) approach using the on-shell renormalization scheme. We take into account the complete set of one-loop contributions, thereby keeping the full dependence on all kinematical variables. The one-loop contributions consist of the corrections to the Higgs- and gauge-boson propagators, where the former contain the dominant electroweak one-loop corrections of $`𝒪(G_Fm_t^4)`$, and of the contributions to the 3-point and 4-point vertex functions . We combine the complete one-loop result with the dominant two-loop QCD corrections of $`𝒪(G_F\alpha _sm_t^4)`$  and further sub-dominant corrections. In this way the currently most accurate results for the cross sections are obtained.

Furthermore we show analytically that the Higgs-boson propagator corrections with neglected momentum dependence can be absorbed into the tree-level coupling using the effective mixing angle from the neutral $`𝒞𝒫`$-even Higgs-boson sector. We compare our results for the cross sections with the approximation in which only the corrections to the effective mixing angle, evaluated within the renormalization-group-improved one-loop Effective Potential approach, are taken into account. For most parts of the MSSM parameter space we find agreement better than 10% for the highest LEP energies, while for $`\sqrt{s}=500\mathrm{GeV}`$ the difference can reach 25%.

The paper is organized as follows: in section 2 the basic formulae are presented and it is shown analytically how the Higgs-boson-propagator corrections with neglected external momenta are related to the effective mixing angle in the Effective Potential approach (EPA). Section 3 contains the numerical analysis for the production cross sections and the comparison of our full result with the EPA. The conclusions can be found in section 4.

## 2 Cross sections for Higgs-particle production in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions

### 2.1 Classification of radiative corrections

The two Higgs-field doublets giving rise to electroweak symmetry breaking within the MSSM accommodate five physical Higgs bosons . At the tree-level, two input parameters (besides the parameters of the Standard Model (SM) gauge-sector) are needed to describe the Higgs sector. We choose them to be $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the ratio of the two vacuum expectation values, and $`M_A`$, the mass of the $`𝒞𝒫`$-odd Higgs boson. The $`𝒞𝒫`$-even neutral mass eigenstates are obtained from the interaction eigenstates by the rotation

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}H_1\\ H_2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}H\\ h\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\alpha & \mathrm{sin}\alpha \\ \mathrm{sin}\alpha & \mathrm{cos}\alpha \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _1^0\\ \varphi _2^0\end{array}\right)$$
(3)
with the tree-level mixing angle $`\alpha `$ related to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`M_A`$ and $`M_Z`$ by

$$\mathrm{tan}2\alpha =\mathrm{tan}2\beta \frac{M_A^2+M_Z^2}{M_A^2M_Z^2},\frac{\pi }{2}<\alpha <0.$$
(4)
Two main sources for the production of supersymmetric Higgs particles in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions are the Higgs-strahlung process

$$e^+e^{}ZH_i,i=1,2$$
(5)
(using the compact notation of eq. (3)) and the associated production of scalar and pseudoscalar Higgs bosons,

$$e^+e^{}AH_i,i=1,2.$$
(6)
We do not discuss here the possibility of Higgs-particle production by bremsstrahlung off heavy quarks (e.g. $`e^+e^{}\overline{b}bH_i`$, which can be significant for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ ), or by $`W^+W^{}`$ fusion, which becomes important for center of mass system (CMS) energies of $`𝒪(500`$ GeV) .

The set of diagrams taken into account for Higgs-strahlung $`e^+e^{}hZ`$ is schematically shown in Fig. 1, where a) is the tree-level diagram. The shaded blobs summarize the loops with all possible virtual particles, except photons in the $`Ze^+e^{}`$ vertex corrections111 These virtual IR-divergent photonic corrections constitute, together with real-photon bremsstrahlung, the initial-state QED corrections, which are conventionally treated separately and are the same as for the SM Higgs-boson production. . More details can be found in Refs. . An analogous set has been evaluated for the second process, $`e^+e^{}hA`$.

For completeness, in Fig. 1 also contributions are shown (e.g. the $`A,G`$$`Z`$ mixing contributions and the longitudinal parts of the $`Z`$ and $`\gamma `$$`Z`$ self-energies) that are proportional to the electron mass or vanish completely after contraction with the polarization vector of the $`Z`$ boson. The different types of corrections can be summarized as follows:

* Corrections to the $`e`$, $`Z`$, $`\gamma `$ and $`\gamma `$$`Z`$ self-energies on the internal and external lines and to the (initial state) $`Ze^+e^{}`$ and $`\gamma e^+e^{}`$ vertices, b) – g).
* Corrections to the scalar and pseudoscalar propagators, h).
* Corrections to the $`ZZH_i`$ ($`ZAH_i`$) vertex, i).
* Box-diagram contributions and $`t`$-channel-exchange diagrams, j) – l).

The corrections (i)-(iv) have a different relative impact:

* Electroweak corrections of type (i) are typically of the order of a few percent (like in the Standard Model) and do not exhibit a strong dependence on any SUSY parameters.
* The main source of differences between the tree-level and higher-order results are the corrections to the Higgs-boson self-energies (ii). They are responsible for changes in the physical masses $`M_h`$ and $`M_H`$ and the effective mixing angle $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ (via contributions to the renormalization constants, $`𝒵^{\mathrm{ext}}`$, for the external Higgs particles in the $`S`$-matrix elements, see Sect. 2.2) predicted for given values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`M_A`$. At the one-loop level these propagator corrections constitute the only source for the large correction of $`𝒪(G_Fm_t^4)`$. At the two-loop level they exclusively give rise to contributions of $`𝒪(G_F\alpha _sm_t^4)`$ and of $`𝒪(G_F^2m_t^6)`$. In this sense the propagator corrections define a closed subset of diagrams, being responsible for a numerically large contribution.
* Corrections to the final-state vertices (iii) are typically larger than those of type (i), but smaller than the Higgs-boson propagator corrections. At LEP2 energies they can reach at most 7-10%  for very low or very large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, when the Yukawa couplings of the top or bottom quarks become strong.
* Finally, the box-diagram contributions (iv) depend strongly on the center-of-mass energy. They are of the order of 2-3% at LEP2 energies and may reach 20% for $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV .

It should be noted that initial-state QED corrections as well as finite-width effects (allowing for off-shell decays of the Higgs and the $`Z`$ boson) are not included in our calculation. However, by incorporating our result into existing codes, e.g. HZHA , QED corrections and finite-width effects can automatically be taken into account222 The implementation of our calculation into HZHA is currently investigated ..

### 2.2 Higgs-boson masses and wave function renormalizations

Radiative corrections induce mixing between the $`𝒞𝒫`$-even Higgs bosons, even if their mass matrix has been diagonalized at the tree level333 We do not consider here possible $`𝒞𝒫`$-violating mixing between neutral Higgs bosons, which can occur if the MSSM Lagrangian contains complex parameters . . In the FD approach the higher-order corrected Higgs-boson masses, denoted by $`M_h,M_H`$, are derived by finding the poles of the $`h,H`$-propagator matrix, which is given by

$$\widehat{𝐃}_S=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }_H& \mathrm{\Delta }_{hH}\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{hH}& \mathrm{\Delta }_h\end{array}\right)=i\left(\begin{array}{cc}q^2m_H^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{HH}(q^2)& \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}(q^2)\\ \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}(q^2)& q^2m_h^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hh}(q^2)\end{array}\right)^1.$$
(7)
Here the $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(q^2)`$ denote the renormalized Higgs-boson self-energies (throughout the paper we denote tree-level mass parameters by small letters and physical masses by capital letters). For these self-energies we take the result of the complete one-loop on-shell calculation of Refs.  together with the dominant two-loop correction of $`𝒪(\alpha \alpha _s)`$ obtained in Refs.  and the sub-dominant corrections of $`𝒪(G_F^2m_t^6)`$ .

Determining the poles of eq. (7) corresponds to solving the equation

$`\text{Re}\left[\left(q^2m_h^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hh}(q^2)\right)\left(q^2m_H^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{HH}(q^2)\right)\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}(q^2)\right)^2\right]=0.`$ (8)
The wave function renormalization factors for the scalar Higgs bosons $`H_i`$ are denoted as $`𝒵_{\mathrm{S}i}^{\mathrm{ext}}`$. They are the finite residues of the $`H`$ and $`h`$ propagators, respectively,

$`𝒵_{\mathrm{S}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}^{\mathrm{ext}}𝒵_{\mathrm{S}H}^{\mathrm{ext}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+\text{Re}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{HH}^{}(q^2)\text{Re}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}^2(q^2)}{q^2m_h^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hh}(q^2)}}\right)^{}\right)^1|_{q^2=M_H^2},`$
$`𝒵_{\mathrm{S}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}^{\mathrm{ext}}𝒵_{\mathrm{S}h}^{\mathrm{ext}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+\text{Re}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hh}^{}(q^2)\text{Re}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}^2(q^2)}{q^2m_H^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{HH}(q^2)}}\right)^{}\right)^1|_{q^2=M_h^2},`$ (9)
where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}(q^2)\frac{}{q^2}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(q^2)`$.

For a diagram with no mixing on the outgoing Higgs-boson line, $`H_i`$, the $`S`$-matrix element is given by the amputated on-shell Green’s function multiplied by the $`\left(𝒵_{\mathrm{S}i}^{\mathrm{ext}}\right)^{1/2}`$. In the presence of mixing, i.e. $`hH`$ on the external line (with the scalar $`i`$ being the final state particle) the respective factor reads:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}(q^2)\left(𝒵_{\mathrm{S}i}^{\mathrm{ext}}\right)^{1/2}\left(q^2M_{H_i}^2\right)}{\left(q^2m_H^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{HH}(q^2)\right)\left(q^2m_h^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hh}(q^2)\right)\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}(q^2)\right)^2}}|_{q^2=M_{H_i}^2}.`$ (10)
Therefore, in this case, the amputated Green’s function is effectively multiplied by ($`i^{}`$ denotes the index of the “supplementary” Higgs boson: $`i^{}=2(1)`$ for $`i=1(2)`$; formally $`i^{}=3i`$)

$$\left(𝒵_{\mathrm{S}i}^{\mathrm{ext}}\right)^{1/2}\frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}\left(M_{H_i}^2\right)}{M_{H_i}^2m_{H_i^{}}^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{i^{}i^{}}\left(M_{H_i}^2\right)}\left(𝒵_{\mathrm{S}i}^{\mathrm{ext}}\right)^{1/2}𝒵_{\mathrm{S}i}^{\mathrm{mix}}.$$
(11)
Exactly analogous equations hold for the pseudoscalar constants $`𝒵_{\mathrm{P}i}^{\mathrm{ext}}`$ and $`𝒵_{\mathrm{P}i}^{\mathrm{mix}}`$. Their effects, however, are numerically much less important. Appropriate formulae for the inclusion of the $`𝒵`$ factors into the higher-order corrected vertices can be found in the Appendix.

### 2.3 The $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ approximation

The inclusion of the $`𝒵`$ factors on the external Higgs lines in the on-shell calculation reproduces, in the approximation of the neglected momentum dependence of the Higgs self-energies, the effect of using the higher-order corrected angle $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ in an improved Born approximation of the cross sections (see also Ref. ).

The dominant contributions for the Higgs-boson self-energies (of $`𝒪(G_Fm_t^4)`$ at the one-loop level) are obtained for $`q^2=0`$. Approximating the renormalized Higgs-boson self-energies by

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(q^2)\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(0)\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}$$
(12)
yields the Higgs-boson masses by re-diagonalizing the dressed mass matrix

$$\widehat{𝐌}_{\mathrm{Higgs}}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_H^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{HH}& \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}\\ \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}& m_h^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hh}\end{array}\right)\stackrel{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_H^2& 0\\ 0& M_h^2\end{array}\right),$$
(13)
where $`M_h`$ and $`M_H`$ are the corresponding higher-order-corrected Higgs-boson masses. In Ref.  it has been shown that in the approximation with neglected external momentum the $`𝒵^{\mathrm{mix}}`$ factors can be written as follows in terms of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha `$, which is the angle required for the re-diagonalization in eq. (13):

$`𝒵_{\mathrm{S}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}^{\mathrm{mix}}𝒵_{\mathrm{S}H}^{\mathrm{mix}}`$ $`\stackrel{q^2=0}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}}{M_H^2m_h^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hh}}}=+\mathrm{tan}\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha ,`$ (14)
$`𝒵_{\mathrm{S}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}^{\mathrm{mix}}𝒵_{\mathrm{S}h}^{\mathrm{mix}}`$ $`\stackrel{q^2=0}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}}{M_h^2m_H^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{HH}}}=\mathrm{tan}\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha .`$ (15)
It is important to note that, although it is not immediately visible, both eqs. (14,15) yield the same angle $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha `$ :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =\mathrm{arctan}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2+\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2)^2+4\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}^2}}{2\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}},$$
(16)
where

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2(m_H^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{HH})(m_h^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hh}).`$ (17)
The $`𝒵^{\mathrm{ext}}`$ factor can be expressed as

$`𝒵_{\mathrm{S}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}^{\mathrm{ext}}`$ $`\stackrel{q^2=0}{}𝒵_{\mathrm{S}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}^{\mathrm{ext}}`$ $`\stackrel{q^2=0}{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\mathrm{tan}^2\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }}=\mathrm{cos}^2\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha .`$ (18)
The consequences for the couplings are demonstrated for $`Zh`$ production in the following example for the $`ZZh`$ vertex. The Born coupling $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{ZZh}\mathrm{sin}(\alpha \beta )`$ is changed by the loop corrections, in terms of the $`𝒵`$ factors, according to

$`\stackrel{~}{V}_{ZZh}`$ $``$ $`\left(𝒵_{\mathrm{S}h}^{\mathrm{ext}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\mathrm{sin}(\alpha \beta )𝒵_{\mathrm{S}h}^{\mathrm{mix}}\mathrm{cos}(\alpha \beta )\right]`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha \left[\mathrm{sin}(\alpha \beta )(\mathrm{tan}\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha )\mathrm{cos}(\alpha \beta )\right]`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(\alpha \beta +\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha )`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}\beta ).`$
Analogous results hold for all Higgs vertices, including the $`AH_i`$ vertices. Therefore, the $`𝒵`$ factors effectively shift the tree-level angle $`\alpha `$ by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha `$, yielding a loop-improved angle

$$\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}=\alpha +\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha $$
(20)
in this approximation.

While the $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ approximation, i.e. using an improved Born result for the cross sections where the tree-level angle $`\alpha `$ is replaced by $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$, incorporates the dominant one-loop and two-loop contributions, it is obvious from the discussion above that this approximation neglects many effects included in a full FD calculation. These are contributions from the full spectrum of the MSSM particles, the momentum dependence of the Higgs-boson self-energies, the gauge-boson and the fermion self-energy corrections, and in particular the process-specific vertex and box corrections.

### 2.4 Cross sections

In this section analytical formulae are presented for the cross sections for the on-shell production of the Higgs bosons $`e^+e^{}ZH_i`$, $`e^+e^{}AH_i`$ including the corrections (i)-(iii). Box diagrams (iv) give another, more complicated, set of formfactors that make the expressions quite lengthy and are hence are omitted here; more details can be found in Ref. . However, we include the box-diagram contributions, as described in Ref. , in our numerical programs  and in the figures presented in this paper.

The presented formalism for cross sections is general enough to accommodate corrections of any order to 2- and 3-point vertex functions. Beyond the one-loop level, however, currently only two-loop corrections to the scalar propagators have been calculated . Therefore, in the cross section calculations we include all possible types of one-loop corrections and the available two-loop corrections to scalar self-energies. This is well justified because, as discussed above, propagator corrections constitute a closed subset of the leading $`𝒪(G_F\alpha _sm_t^4)`$ and $`𝒪(G_F^2m_t^6)`$ contributions. Therefore, these two-loop corrections are of particular relevance and interest.

The cross sections (in the CMS) for both processes (5) and (6) have the form:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{Z(A)H_i}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda (s,M_{Z(A)}^2,M_{H_i}^2)}{64\pi ^2s^2\left|D_Z(s)\right|^2}}\left(𝒜_1+𝒜_2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{\mathrm{CMS}}\right),`$ (21)
where $`\lambda `$ is the standard phase space factor,

$`\lambda (s,m_1^2,m_2^2)=\sqrt{s^2+m_1^4+m_2^42sm_1^22sm_2^22m_1^2m_2^2},`$ (22)
and $`𝒜_1,𝒜_2`$ are defined by

$`𝒜_1+𝒜_2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{\mathrm{CMS}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{pol}{}}\left(^{}\right),`$ (23)
with $`_{ZS}`$ and $`_{PS}`$ as given below. In the following, $`\theta _{\mathrm{CMS}}`$ denotes the scattering angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{CMS}}=<)(e^{},H_i)`$ in the CMS. The momenta of the incoming electron and positron are denoted as $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$, respectively. The momentum of the outgoing $`h,H`$ is labeled with $`q`$, whereas the outgoing $`Z,A`$ momentum is denoted as $`p`$, see Fig. 1a. The matrix elements for the Higgs-strahlung process and the associated Higgs production read (in the approximation of neglected box diagrams)

$`_{ZS}^i=e\overline{v}(k_2)\gamma ^\nu \left[\stackrel{~}{V}_{ZZS}^{\mu \nu i}\left(\widehat{c}_V\widehat{c}_A\gamma ^5\right)+\stackrel{~}{V}_{\gamma ZS}^{\mu \nu i}{\displaystyle \frac{D_Z(s)}{D_\gamma (s)}}\stackrel{~}{V}_{ZZS}^{(0)\mu \nu i}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\gamma Z}^T(s)}{D_\gamma (s)}}\right]u(k_1)ϵ_\mu (p),`$ (24)
$`_{PS}^i=e\overline{v}(k_2)\gamma _\mu \left[\stackrel{~}{V}_{ZPS}^{\mu ij}\left(\widehat{c}_V\widehat{c}_A\gamma ^5\right)+\stackrel{~}{V}_{\gamma PS}^{\mu ij}{\displaystyle \frac{D_Z(s)}{D_\gamma (s)}}\stackrel{~}{V}_{ZPS}^{(0)\mu ij}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\gamma Z}^T(s)}{D_\gamma (s)}}\right]u(k_1).`$ (25)
For the corresponding expressions for the box contributions see Ref. .

In the above expressions $`u(k_1)`$ and $`v(k_2)`$ are spinors of the incoming electron-positron pair, $`ϵ_\mu (p)`$ is the polarization vector of the outgoing $`Z`$. $`\widehat{c}_V,\widehat{c}_A`$ are the renormalized vector and axial couplings of the $`Z`$ boson to an electron positron pair, at the one-loop level $`\widehat{c}_A=1/4s_Wc_W+\widehat{c}_A^{(1)}`$, $`\widehat{c}_V=\left(1+4s_W^2\right)/4s_Wc_W+\widehat{c}_V^{(1)}`$, $`c_W^21s_W^2M_W^2/M_Z^2`$. $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_Z^T(s)`$, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\gamma (s)`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\gamma Z}^T(s)`$ denote the renormalized photon and transverse $`Z`$ boson self-energies. $`D_Z(s)`$ and $`D_\gamma (s)`$ are the inverse $`Z`$ and photon propagators defined as

$`D_Z(s)=sM_Z^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_Z^T(s),`$
$`D_\gamma (s)=s+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\gamma (s).`$ (26)
Finally, $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ denotes the effective neutral Higgs–gauge-boson vertices with the one-loop form factors. The explicit expression for those vertices and for the matrix elements for Higgs-strahlung and associated Higgs production can be found in the Appendix and in Ref. .

## 3 Numerical results

### 3.1 Parameter choice

In the following we present numerical examples for the dependence of the neutral Higgs-boson couplings and cross sections on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`M_h`$, and the mixing in the scalar top sector. In all plots, as a typical example, the set of parameters listed in Table 1 has been used, if not stated differently.

$`m_t`$ and $`m_b`$ in Table 1 are the quark pole masses. $`M_{\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{l}}`$ denote the soft SUSY-breaking parameters in the scalar quark and lepton sector, respectively (in the following we also use the notation $`M_{SUSY}M_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$) and $`M_3m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ denotes the gluino mass. The mixing in the scalar top sector, which plays a prominent role in the physics of the MSSM Higgs sector, is controlled by the off-diagonal term in the scalar-top mass matrix, $`m_tX_tm_t(A_t\mu \mathrm{cot}\beta )`$, in the convention of Ref. . In our analysis we have focused on two different values of $`X_t`$ leading to two extreme values of the physical Higgs-boson mass $`M_h`$, as suggested by Refs. . The lightest MSSM Higgs-boson mass as a function of $`X_t/M_{SUSY}`$ has a minimum at $`X_t/M_{SUSY}0`$, denoted in the following as “no mixing” case. A maximum value is reached at $`X_t/M_{SUSY}2`$, denoted further as “maximal mixing”. For the sbottom sector we assume a universal trilinear coupling, $`A_b=A_t`$. These values and the parameters in Table 1 are understood to be input parameters for the diagrammatic calculation in the on-shell renormalization scheme.

Below we will also perform comparisons with results obtained in the framework of the RG improved one-loop EPA, where the input parameters are understood as $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ quantities. To ensure consistency, in the latter case we have transformed the on-shell SUSY input parameters into the corresponding $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ values as discussed in Ref. . The results shown below for the higher-order corrected Higgs-boson masses and the mixing angle within the RG improved one-loop EPA have been obtained with the Fortran program subhpole (based on Refs. ).

### 3.2 2-loop corrections to masses and effective couplings

The dependence of the physical neutral Higgs-boson masses on the MSSM parameters at the 2-loop level has been extensively discussed in the literature . As an illustration, we present in Fig. 2 the dependence of $`M_h`$ on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for a relatively low $`M_A`$ value, $`M_A=120\mathrm{GeV}`$. The two-loop FD result is compared with the RG improved one-loop EPA and also with the one-loop FD result in the no-mixing and in the maximal-mixing scenario in the left and in the right plot of Fig. 2, respectively. In both scenarios $`M_h`$ shows a similar behavior: a minimum is reached around $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 1`$, maximum values are reached for the largest $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values444One should keep in mind, however, that for fixed $`m_t=174.3\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`M_{SUSY}\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}`$ TeV $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ around 1 is already excluded  via Higgs-boson searches. . In the no-mixing scenario the FD result is always smaller than the RG improved one-loop EPA value for $`M_h`$, with a maximum difference around $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =1`$ of up to $`5\mathrm{GeV}`$. In the maximal-mixing scenario both result mostly agree. Note, however, that this behavior changes for larger values of $`M_A`$, where the maximum value of $`M_h`$ obtained in the FD approach is a few GeV larger than the corresponding RG improved one-loop EPA value .

Approximate results for the cross sections have often been obtained in the literature on the basis of improved Born results, where the effective mixing angle $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$, see eq. (20), and the higher-order corrected Higgs-boson masses $`M_h`$ and $`M_H`$ have been evaluated within the RG improved one-loop EPA. We will in the following compare our FD result for the cross sections with this approximation, to which we will refer as “RG $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ approximation”. As mentioned above, the results in the RG $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ approximation have been obtained using the program subhpole (based on Refs. ).

In order to disentangle the effect of different contributions in this comparison, we first discuss the results for the effective $`Z`$–Higgs-boson couplings in the two approaches. In Sect. 2.3 we have shown that the contribution of the wave function renormalization factors of the Higgs bosons is given by the effective mixing angle $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ evaluated in the FD approach, if the momentum dependence of the Higgs-boson self-energies is neglected. However, in the actual cross-section calculation in the FD approach the momentum dependence is included at the available (currently one-loop) level. Therefore, for a better comparison of the quantities actually entering the cross section calculation in the two approaches, we formally define $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ in the FD approach as (in analogy to eq. (15))

$`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^h=\mathrm{arctan}𝒵_{\mathrm{S}h}^{\mathrm{mix}},`$ (27)
where the $`𝒵_{\mathrm{S}h}^{\mathrm{mix}}`$ is given by the exact expression (11) (with Higgs self-energies calculated at $`q^2=M_h^2`$), not by the $`q^2=0`$ approximation of eq. (15)555 It should be noted that $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^H`$ defined as $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^H=\mathrm{arctan}𝒵_{\mathrm{S}H}^{\mathrm{mix}}`$ slightly differs from $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^h`$..

Using this definition, in Fig. 3 the dependence of $`\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}\beta )`$ on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`M_h`$ is shown in both approaches, for $`M_A=100,120,150\mathrm{GeV}`$ and the no-mixing scenario, $`X_t=0`$. Since $`M_h`$ is a derived quantity and not an input parameter in our approach, the parameter that is actually varied in the plots shown as function of $`M_h`$ is $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. For simplicity, i.e. in order to avoid a non-functional behavior, in all plots shown as function of $`M_h`$ in this paper we restrict the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >1.6`$ (as mentioned above, for $`m_t=174.3\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`M_{SUSY}\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}`$ TeV $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values around 1 are already excluded  via Higgs-boson searches.)

As can be seen in Fig. 3, the agreement between the FD two-loop result for $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^h`$ and the result within the RG improved one-loop EPA is in general remarkably good (while large deviations can appear compared to the FD one-loop result, see e.g. the middle plots in Fig. 3). For most of the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ range the FD two-loop result and the result within the RG improved one-loop EPA differ by not more than 5%, larger deviations can be observed only for $`M_A=100\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >10`$ (left upper plot in Fig. 3), where $`\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}\beta )`$ itself is small. Even in this case the $`\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}\beta )`$ values in both approaches agree very well with each other when expressed in terms of the physical Higgs mass $`M_h`$. For the maximal-mixing case, $`X_t/M_{SUSY}=2`$, the differences between the effective couplings obtained in both methods are even smaller.

It should be noted that the behavior of $`\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}\beta )`$ in the limit of large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is quite different for small and large pseudoscalar masses. This behavior changes for $`M_A`$ between 100 and 150 GeV; the actual value depends on the stop mixing parameter $`X_t`$ (see also Fig. 9 in Ref. .)

### 3.3 Results for the cross sections

Differences in the Higgs-production cross sections between our FD result (containing the complete one-loop result and the dominant two-loop corrections) and the RG $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ approximation have a two-fold origin: the different predictions for the values of $`M_h`$ and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$, which we compared in the previous section, and the additional contributions contained in the FD result (i.e. the one-loop 3- and 4-point vertex functions and the 2-point contributions that are not contained in $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$).

In Fig. 4 we present the cross sections for the two production channels for a LEP2 energy of $`\sqrt{s}=206`$ GeV, in the no-mixing and the maximal-mixing scenario, as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Fig. 5 shows the same results as a function of $`M_h`$. At LEP2 energies, the box diagram contributions are small, of the order of 2-3% , and do not modify the cross section behavior in a significant way.

As can be seen from both figures, the cross sections for the Higgs-strahlung process corresponding to the FD result and the RG $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ approximation are close to each other, with differences of the order of a few per cent. The only exception occurs at $`X_t0`$ and large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. In this case the difference can amount up to 50% when the cross sections are expressed as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, but is considerably reduced when they are calculated in terms of $`M_h`$. The two-loop result in the FD calculation is always above the one-loop result; the difference can be sizable, but is then mostly due to the kinematical effect that the values for $`M_h`$ at one-loop are much larger than at the two-loop level. This effect is especially pronounced at the kinematical endpoints, i.e. for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

Associated $`Ah`$ production is of interest at LEP2 energies only for sufficiently low $`M_A120`$ GeV, otherwise it is kinematically forbidden. Therefore we restricted our plots for $`\sigma _{Ah}`$ in Figs. 4 and 5 to $`M_A=100\mathrm{GeV}`$. The difference between the FD result and the RG $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ approximation is larger than for $`\sigma _{Zh}`$ and may reach about 20% for not too large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values. The result of the two-loop FD calculation is mostly above the one-loop result, but the differences are much smaller than for the Higgs-strahlung process.

For both processes, the differences between the FD result and the RG $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ approximation are not particularly pronounced, however visibly larger than those induced by the modifications of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ only. For LEP2 energies they can be attributed mostly to the vertex corrections to the $`ZZh`$ and $`ZhA`$ couplings .

The dependence on the $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ mixing is depicted in Fig. 6. The main effect on $`\sigma _{Zh},\sigma _{Ah}`$ is kinematical and arises from the change of $`M_h`$ with $`X_t/M_{SUSY}`$. This effect leads to a visible (additional) asymmetry in the two-loop FD results, whereas the RG $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ approximation and the one-loop FD result show a weaker asymmetry in $`X_t/M_{SUSY}`$. As can be seen from the figure, the differences between the methods are much larger (typically more then 10%) when associated production is considered, with the above-mentioned “kinematical” asymmetry further increased by the inclusion of the vertex corrections.

In Fig. 7 the cross sections for the Higgs-strahlung process and the associated production are shown for a typical Linear Collider energy, $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV , in the maximal-mixing scenario (in the no-mixing scenario similar results have been obtained). In addition to the previous plots we also show the result for the two-loop FD calculation where the box contributions have not been included, in order to point out their relative importance for high-energy collisions. For $`\sqrt{s}=500\mathrm{GeV}`$ the differences between the FD result and the RG $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ approximation are larger than in the low-energy scenario, an effect that is more pronounced for the higher value of $`M_A`$. For $`M_A=200\mathrm{GeV}`$, typically they are of the order of 10-15% for $`\sigma _{Zh}`$ and even up to 25% for $`\sigma _{Ah}`$ (for $`M_h\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}90}\mathrm{GeV}`$). The difference between the two-loop and one-loop FD result can be sizable. The two-loop result for $`\sigma _{Zh}`$ is in general larger than the one-loop value, again increasing with $`M_A`$, where for $`M_A=200\mathrm{GeV}`$ the difference can amount up to 15%. $`\sigma _{Ah}`$, on the other hand, is decreased at the two-loop level for $`M_A=200\mathrm{GeV}`$ and the difference may be sizable.

The box contributions become more important for higher $`\sqrt{s}`$ and change the total cross section by 5-10%. This result remains unchanged even if sleptons are significantly heavier than $`M_{\stackrel{~}{l}}=300`$ GeV used in our numerical analysis, as the dominant contributions to box diagrams are given by $`W`$ and Higgs boson exchanges , which do not depend on $`M_{\stackrel{~}{l}}`$. Also, one should recall that box contributions lead to an angular distribution of the final-state particles different from the effective Born approximation and thus give much larger corrections to the differential rather than to the total cross section, at least for some range of the scattering angle. Therefore, the box diagrams have a significant effect at Linear Collider energies and thus have to be included. The same conclusions can be drawn for $`\sqrt{s}=500\mathrm{GeV}`$ in the no-mixing scenario, which we do not show here. The differences between the FD result and the RG $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ approximation are only slightly smaller than in the maximal-mixing case.

In Fig. 8 the results for $`\sigma _{Zh}`$ and $`\sigma _{Ah}`$ are shown as a function of $`\sqrt{s}`$ in the no-mixing scenario for $`M_A=100,200\mathrm{GeV}`$. Besides the obvious kinematical drop-off of the cross sections, one can observe that the relative differences between the FD two-loop result and the RG $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ approximation grow with $`\sqrt{s}`$. The differences remain almost constant or even increase slowly in absolute terms, whereas the full cross sections decrease. $`\sigma _{Ah}`$ becomes very small for large $`M_A`$, as can be seen in more detail in Fig. 9. There we show the dependence of $`\sigma _{Zh}`$ and $`\sigma _{Ah}`$ on $`M_A`$ in the no-mixing scenario for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$. For $`\sigma _{Zh}`$, the $`A`$ boson decouples quickly; the dependence on $`M_A`$ becomes very weak for $`M_A\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}250}\mathrm{GeV}`$, when $`\sigma _{Zh}`$ is already practically constant (compare e.g. Ref. ). In the same limit, $`\sigma _{Ah}`$ goes quickly to zero due to suppression of the effective $`ZhA`$ coupling, which is $`\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}\beta )`$; also the kinematical suppression plays a role, but this becomes significant only for sufficiently large $`M_A`$, $`M_A>350\mathrm{GeV}`$. For large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the decoupling of $`M_A`$ is even more rapid. The differences between the FD two-loop result and the RG $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ approximation for the Higgs-strahlung cross section tend also to a constant, but they increase with $`M_A`$ for the associated production. The latter can be explained by the growing relative importance of 3- and 4-point vertex function contributions compared to the strongly suppressed Born-like diagrams. As can be seen from Fig. 9, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$ and $`M_A300\mathrm{GeV}`$ the FD two-loop result is almost an order of magnitude larger than the result of the RG $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ approximation, and starts to saturate. This can be attributed to the fact that the (non-decoupling) vertex and box contributions begin to dominate the cross section value. However, such a situation occurs only for very small $`\sigma _{Ah}`$ values, $`\sigma _{Ah}10^3`$ fb, below the expected experimental LC sensitivities.

## 4 Conclusions

Using the Feynman-diagrammatic approach we have calculated the production cross sections for $`e^+e^{}hZ,hA`$. The Higgs-boson propagator corrections have been evaluated, including besides the full one-loop result also the dominant and subdominant two-loop corrections. In addition we have included also the full set of one-loop vertex and box corrections.

We have also investigated an improved Born approximation based on the effective mixing angle, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$, in the neutral $`𝒞𝒫`$-even Higgs sector. We have shown analytically that this approximation corresponds to taking into account the Higgs-boson propagator corrections with neglected external momentum at one-loop and two-loop order.

While the previous results available in the literature neglected the large two-loop corrections in the case of the Feynman-diagrammatic approach and were restricted to an improved Born approximation in the case of the renormalization-group improved one-loop Effective Potential approach, our new result combines the dominant two-loop corrections with the complete Feynman-diagrammatic one-loop result and thus represents the presently most precise prediction for the production cross sections for $`e^+e^{}hZ,hA`$.

Specifically we have numerically analyzed the effect of the two-loop contributions incorporated in our result, which turned out to be sizable. We have furthermore compared our full Feynman-diagrammatic results for $`\sigma _{Zh}`$ and $`\sigma _{Ah}`$ with the approximation where $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`M_h`$ are evaluated within the renormalization-group improved one-loop Effective Potential approach (RG $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ approximation). For LEP2 energies, $`\sqrt{s}=206\mathrm{GeV}`$, the difference between the Feynman-diagrammatic result and the RG $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ approximation stays mostly at the per cent level in the parameter space allowed by the LEP2 exclusion limits for $`M_h`$. At energies reachable at an $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider, e.g. $`\sqrt{s}=500\mathrm{GeV}`$, the difference between the Feynman-diagrammatic result and the RG $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ approximation can reach 10-15% for $`\sigma _{Zh}`$ or even 25% for $`\sigma _{Ah}`$. The box contributions play an important role for high $`\sqrt{s}`$ and can amount up to 10%. Therefore in a precision analysis for a high energy $`e^+e^{}`$ collider the two-loop propagator corrections as well as the complete diagrammatic one-loop contributions should be included666 A public Fortran code for the production cross sections is in preparation . .

## Acknowledgements

Parts of the calculation have been performed on the QCM cluster at the University of Karlsruhe, supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Forschergruppe “Quantenfeldtheorie und Computeralgebra”). This work has been supported in part by the Foundation for Polish-German Collaboration grant number 3310/97/LN and by the Polish Committee of Scientific Research under the grant number 2 P03B 052 16, 1999-2000 (S.H. and J.R.). We express our gratitude to K. Desch, P. Janot and A. Quadt for helpful discussions.

## Appendix Appendix Explicit expressions for the cross sections

Performing the sum over polarization states in eq. (23) one gets for the associated scalar and pseudoscalar production:

$`𝒜_{1PS}^i=𝒜_{2PS}^i={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8}}\lambda ^2(s,M_A^2,M_{H_i}^2)\left(\left|a_{PS}^i\right|^2+\left|b_{PS}^i\right|^2\right),`$ (A.1)
where

$`a_{PS}^i`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{c}_V\left(2\stackrel{~}{V}_{ZPS}^{(0)i1}+\stackrel{~}{F}_P^{i1}+\stackrel{~}{F}_S^{i1}\right)2\stackrel{~}{V}_{ZPS}^{(0)i1}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\gamma Z}^T(s)}{D_\gamma (s)}}+\left(\stackrel{~}{G}_P^{i1}+\stackrel{~}{G}_S^{i1}\right){\displaystyle \frac{D_Z(s)}{D_\gamma (s)}},`$
$`b_{PS}^i`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{c}_A\left(2\stackrel{~}{V}_{ZPS}^{(0)i1}+\stackrel{~}{F}_P^{i1}+\stackrel{~}{F}_S^{i1}\right),`$ (A.2)
and $`\lambda `$ as given in eq. (22). The corresponding expressions for the Higgs-strahlung process are more complicated:

$`𝒜_{2ZS}^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\lambda ^2(s,M_Z^2,M_{H_i}^2)}{32M_Z^2}}\times `$ (A.3)
$`\times `$ $`\left[\right|2a_{ZS}^i(s+M_Z^2M_{H_i}^2)b_{ZS}^i|^24sM_Z^2|b_{ZS}^i|^2+`$
$`+`$ $`|2c_{ZS}^i(s+M_Z^2M_{H_i}^2)d_{ZS}^i|^24sM_Z^2|d_{ZS}^i|^2],`$
$`𝒜_{1ZS}^i=e^2s\left(\left|a_{ZS}^i\right|^2+\left|c_{ZS}^i\right|^2\right)𝒜_{2ZS}^i,`$ (A.4)
where

$`a_{ZS}^i`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{c}_V\left(\stackrel{~}{V}_{ZZS}^{(0)i}+\stackrel{~}{F}_1^i\right)\stackrel{~}{V}_{ZZS}^{(0)i}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\gamma Z}^T(s)}{D_\gamma (s)}}+\stackrel{~}{G}_1^i{\displaystyle \frac{D_Z(s)}{D_\gamma (s)}},`$
$`b_{ZS}^i`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{c}_V\left(\stackrel{~}{F}_3^i\stackrel{~}{F}_4^i\right)+\left(\stackrel{~}{G}_3^i\stackrel{~}{G}_4^i\right){\displaystyle \frac{D_Z(s)}{D_\gamma (s)}},`$
$`c_{ZS}^i`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{c}_A\left(\stackrel{~}{V}_{ZZS}^{(0)i}+\stackrel{~}{F}_1^i\right),`$
$`d_{ZS}^i`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{c}_A\left(\stackrel{~}{F}_3^i\stackrel{~}{F}_4^i\right).`$ (A.5)
The quantities $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ denote effective Higgs–gauge-boson vertex form factors. They can be defined as follows. At the tree level the relevant Higgs-boson vertices read (the assignment of momenta is given in Sect. 2.4):

$`V_{ZZS}^{(0)\mu \nu i}=iV_{ZZS}^{(0)i}g^{\mu \nu },`$ (A.6)
$`V_{ZPS}^{(0)\mu ij}=V_{ZPS}^{(0)ij}\left(pq\right)^\mu ,`$ (A.7)
where $`V_{ZZS}^{(0)i}`$ and $`V_{ZPS}^{(0)ij}`$ can be written in matrix form as (index $`j`$ numerates CP-odd Higgs bosons: $`AP_1`$, $`GP_2`$):

$`V_{ZZS}^{(0)i}={\displaystyle \frac{eM_Z}{s_Wc_W}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill \mathrm{cos}(\alpha \beta )\\ \hfill \mathrm{sin}(\alpha \beta )\end{array}\right),`$ (A.10)
$`V_{ZPS}^{(0)ij}={\displaystyle \frac{e}{2s_Wc_W}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{sin}(\alpha \beta )& \hfill \mathrm{cos}(\alpha \beta )\\ \hfill \mathrm{cos}(\alpha \beta )& \hfill \mathrm{sin}(\alpha \beta )\end{array}\right).`$ (A.13)
After including one-loop vertex corrections the renormalized vertices have the form:

$`V_{ZPS}^{\mu ij}=p^\mu \left(V_{ZPS}^{(0)ij}+\widehat{F}_P^{ij}\right)q^\mu \left(V_{ZPS}^{(0)ij}+\widehat{F}_S^{ij}\right),`$ (A.14)
$`V_{ZZS}^{\mu \nu i}=i\left[g^{\mu \nu }\left(V_{ZZS}^{(0)i}+\widehat{F}_1^i\right)+p^\mu p^\nu \widehat{F}_2^i+q^\mu q^\nu \widehat{F}_3^i+p^\mu q^\nu \widehat{F}_4^i+q^\mu p^\nu \widehat{F}_5^i\right],`$ (A.15)
where $`\widehat{F}_a`$’s are the renormalized vertex form factors.

Next, we define the respective quantities with tilde which are obtained by inclusion of the one-loop corrections on the external lines. For instance, the complete vertices read (in the following: $`i^{}=3i,j^{}=3j`$.):

$`\stackrel{~}{V}_{ZPS}^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(𝒵_{\mathrm{S}i}^{\mathrm{ext}}𝒵_{\mathrm{P}j}^{\mathrm{ext}}\right)^{1/2}\left(V_{ZPS}^{ij}+𝒵_{\mathrm{S}i}^{\mathrm{mix}}V_{ZPS}^{i^{}j}+𝒵_{\mathrm{P}j}^{\mathrm{mix}}V_{ZPS}^{ij^{}}+𝒵_{\mathrm{S}i}^{\mathrm{mix}}𝒵_{\mathrm{P}j}^{\mathrm{mix}}V_{ZPS}^{i^{}j^{}}\right),`$ (A.16)
and

$`\stackrel{~}{V}_{ZZS}^i=\left(𝒵_Z^{\mathrm{ext}}𝒵_{\mathrm{S}i}^{\mathrm{ext}}\right)^{1/2}\left(V_{ZZS}^i+𝒵_{\mathrm{S}i}^{\mathrm{mix}}V_{ZZS}^i^{}\right),`$ (A.17)
where

$`𝒵_Z^{\mathrm{ext}}=\text{Re}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{}{q^2}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_Z^T(q^2)|_{q^2=M_Z^2}\right)^1.`$ (A.18)
The vertices $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{ZPS},\stackrel{~}{V}_{ZZS}`$ can be decomposed into $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{ZPS}^{(0)},\stackrel{~}{F}_P,\stackrel{~}{F}_S`$ etc. (as in eq. (A.14,A.15)) where e.g. $`\stackrel{~}{F}_1^i=\left(𝒵_Z^{\mathrm{ext}}𝒵_{\mathrm{S}i}^{\mathrm{ext}}\right)^{1/2}\left(F_1^i+𝒵_{\mathrm{S}i}^{\mathrm{mix}}F_1^i^{}\right)`$ etc.

To include photon exchange in the $`s`$-channel one needs to know also the renormalized vertices $`V_{\gamma PS}`$ and $`V_{\gamma ZS}`$ (which vanish at the tree level):

$`V_{\gamma PS}^{\mu ij}=p^\mu \widehat{G}_P^{ij}q^\mu \widehat{G}_S^{ij},`$ (A.19)
$`V_{\gamma ZS}^{\mu \nu i}=i\left[g^{\mu \nu }\widehat{G}_1^i+p^\mu p^\nu \widehat{G}_2^i+q^\mu q^\nu \widehat{G}_3^i+p^\mu q^\nu \widehat{G}_4^i+q^\mu p^\nu \widehat{G}_5^i\right].`$ (A.20)
The vertices $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{\gamma PS},\stackrel{~}{V}_{\gamma ZS}`$ are defined similarly as shown in eqs. (A.16A.17).

The explicit expressions for the one-loop corrections to the vertices $`V_{ZPS}`$, $`V_{ZZS}`$, $`V_{\gamma PS}`$ and $`V_{\gamma ZS}`$ can be found in Ref. .