arXiv:hep-ph/0501246 v1 26 Jan 2005
Electroweak Physics ∗
W. Hollik
Max-Planck-Institut für Physik, D-80805 Munich
and
A. Accomando, F. del Aguila, M. Awramik, A. Ballestrero,
J. van der Bij, W. Beenakker, R. Bonciani, M. Czakon,
G. Degrassi, A. Denner, K. Diener, S. Dittmaier, A. Ferroglia,
J. Fleischer, A. Freitas, N. Glover, J. Gluza, T. Hahn,
S. Heinemeyer, S. Jadach, F. Jegerlehner, W. Kilian,
M. Krämer, J. Kühn, E. Maina, S. Moretti, T. Ohl,
C.G. Papadopoulos, G. Passarino, R. Pittau, S. Pozzorini,
M. Roth, T. Riemann, J.B. Tausk, S. Uccirati,
A. Werthenbach, G. Weiglein
NSCR Democritos Athens, CERN, Univ. Granada, Univ. Durham, DESY,
Univ. Edinburgh, Univ. Freiburg, Univ. Karlsruhe, Univ. Katowice,
HNINP Krakow, Max Planck Institut für Physik München, Univ. Nijmegen,
Univ. Roma 3, Univ. Southampton, Univ. Torino, PSI Villigen, Univ. Würzburg
Work on electroweak precision calculations and event generators for
electroweak physics studies at current and future colliders is summarized.
PACS numbers: 12.15.Lk, 13.66.Jn, 14.70.Fm, 14.70.Hp
1. Introduction
Apart from the still missing Higgs boson, the Standard Model (SM)
has been impressively confirmed by successful collider experiments at the
particle accelerators LEP, SLC, and Tevatron during the last decade with
high precision, at the level of radiative corrections. Future colliders like
the upcoming LHC or an e+ e− International Linear Collider (ILC), offer an
even greater physics potential, and in turn represent a great challenge for
∗
Presented by A. Denner at the final meeting of the European Network “Physics at
Colliders”, Montpellier, France, September 26-27, 2004.
(1)
2
Electroweak Physics
theory to provide even more precise calculations. Accurate predictions are
necessary not only to increase the level of precision of SM tests, but also to
study the indirect effects of possible new particles.
With increasing energies many new processes with heavy particle production will be accessible. Such heavy particles are unstable, so that their
production leads to many-particle final states, with e.g. four or six fermions.
Predictions for such reactions should be based on full transition matrix elements, improved by radiative corrections as far as possible, and call for
proper event generators.
Joint work done within the network is reviewed here; more details can
be found also in previous studies for future colliders [1, 2, 3].
2. Precision observables and multi-loop calculations
2.1. Muon lifetime and W –Z mass correlation
The precise measurement of the muon lifetime, or equivalently of the
Fermi constant Gµ , sets an important constraint on the SM parameters,
πα(0)
Gµ = √
(1 + ∆r),
2 s2
2MW
w
(1)
2 /M 2 , where the quantity ∆r comprises the
with s2w = 1 − c2w = 1 − MW
Z
radiative corrections to muon decay (apart from the photonic corrections in
the Fermi model). Solving this relation for the W-boson mass MW yields
a precise prediction for MW that can be compared with the directly measured value. Recently the full electroweak two-loop calculation has been
completed, with the contributions from closed fermion loops [4, 5], from
bosonic loops involving virtual Higgs-bosons [4], and the complete bosonic
corrections [6, 5]. The two-loop fermionic contributions influence the MW
prediction at the level of ∼ 50 MeV, the two-loop bosonic corrections by
1−2 MeV.
The predictions at the two-loop level have been further improved by
universal higher-order contributions to the ρ-parameter. The terms of the
order O(G2µ m4t αs ) and O(G3µ m6t ) have been obtained in [7] and were found
to change MW at the level of 5 MeV and 0.5 MeV, respectively. The leading
three-loop bosonic contribution to the ρ-parameter in the large Higgs mass
4 , is opposite in sign to the leading
limit [8], yielding the power MH4 /MW
2
2
two-loop correction ∼ MH /MW . The two terms cancel each other for a
Higgs boson mass around 480 GeV. This interesting new result stabilizes
the perturbative expansion and makes a strongly interacting Higgs sector
very unlikely in view of the electroweak precision data.
The prediction for MW , including the above-mentioned two-loop and
leading three-loop effects, carries, besides the parametric uncertainty, an
Electroweak Physics
3
intrinsic theoretical uncertainty, which is estimated to be of 3−4 MeV [9, 10],
which has to be compared with the aimed precision of 7 MeV in the MW
determination at a future ILC [3].
2.2. Precision observables at the Z resonance
In order to describe the Z-boson resonance at LEP1 within satisfactory precision it was possible to parametrize the cross section near the
resonance in such a way [11, 12] that a Born-like form with generalized
“effective” couplings is convoluted with QED structure functions modeling initial-state radiation (ISR). From these effective Z-boson–fermion couplings so-called “pseudo-observables” were derived, such as various asymmetries, the hadronic Z-peak cross section, partial Z-decay widths, etc. The
precisely calculated pseudo-observables are implemented in the programs
Zfitter and Topaz0 [13]. A critical overview on high-precision physics at
the Z pole, in particular focusing on the theoretical uncertainties, can be
found in [14]. The status of precision pseudo-observables in the MSSM is
summarized in [15].
Following the formal tree-level like parametrization of the couplings, an
“effective weak mixing angle”, sin2 θfeff , was derived for each fermion species.
Among these parameters the leptonic variable sin2 θℓeff plays a particularly
important role, since it is measured with the high accuracy of 1.7 × 10−4
and is very sensitive to the Higgs-boson mass. Quite recently, a substantial
subclass of the electroweak two-loop contributions, the fermionic contributions to sin2 θℓeff , were calculated [16]; they reduce the intrinsic theoretical
uncertainty to ∼ 5 × 10−5 .
Whether the pseudo-observable approach will also be sufficient for Zboson physics at the high-luminosity GigaZ option remains to be investigated carefully. In any case, substantial theoretical progress will be needed
to match the aimed GigaZ precision on the theoretical side, e.g. for the
expected experimental accuracy in sin2 θℓeff of about 1.3 × 10−5 . A full control of observables at the two-loop level, improved by leading higher-order
effects, seems indispensable.
An important entry for the precision observables with a large parametric uncertainty is the photonic vacuum polarization at the Z scale. The
hadronic part is determined via a dispersion relation from the cross section
for e+ e− → hadrons with experimental data as input in the low-energy
regime. Possible scans with the radiative-return method require a careful
theoretical treatment to reach the required precision [17].
4
Electroweak Physics
2.3. Deep-inelastic neutrino scattering
An independent precise determination of the electroweak mixing angle in
terms of the MW /MZ ratio has been done in deep-inelastic neutrino scattering off an isoscalar target by the NuTev Collaboration [18], yielding a
deviation of about 3 standard deviations from the value derived from the
global analysis of the other precision observables. A new calculation of the
electroweak one-loop corrections was performed [19] to investigate the stability and size of the quantum effects, showing that the theoretical error of
the analysis in [18] was obviously underestimated. The new theoretical result is now being used for a re-analysis of the experimental data (see also [20]
for another recent recalculation of the electroweak radiative corrections).
2.4. At the 2-loop frontier
Although there are no complete next-to-next-to-leading (NNLO) predictions for 2 → 2 scattering reactions and 1 → 3 decays (with one truly
massive leg) available yet, significant progress was reached in this direction
in recent years.
Complete virtual two-loop amplitudes for (massless) Bhabha scattering
[21] and light-by-light scattering [22] have been worked out. Also first steps
have been made towards massive Bhabha scattering
In Ref. [23] the coefficient of the O(α2 log(s/m2e )) fixed-order contribution to elastic large-angle Bhabha scattering is derived by adapting the
classification of infrared divergences that was recently developed within dimensional regularization, and applying it to the regularization scheme with
a massive photon and electron.
The subset of factorizable corrections, resulting from one-loop subrenormalization, is considered in [24]. This requires the evaluation of one-loop
diagrams in arbitrary dimension d = 4 − ε. The ε-expansion covering the
orders 1/ε and ε, in particular for the box graphs needed in Bhabha scattering, was performed in [25], based on the work of [26] 1 . For the genuine
two-loop QED corrections to Bhabha scattering, the master integrals for
the box with the fermionic loop were calculated [28], and the cross section
with the corrections at two loop resulting from these diagrams [29].
A complete set of master integrals for massive two-loop Bhabha scattering has been derived in the meantime [30], and for form factors with massless [31] and massive propagators [32]. Moreover, two-loop QCD corrections
for the electroweak forward-backward asymmetries were obtained [33]. Also
two-loop master integrals and form factors from virtual light fermions were
derived and applied to Higgs boson production and decays [34].
1
Techniques applied in the latter work have also been used in [27] for the analytic
calculation of Higgs boson decay into two photons.
Electroweak Physics
5
2.5. Electroweak radiative corrections at high energies
Electroweak corrections far above the electroweak scale, e.g. in the TeV
range, are dominated by soft and collinear gauge-boson exchange, leading to
2 ) with M ≤ 2N . The leading terms
corrections of the form αN logM (s/MW
(M = 2N ) are called Sudakov logarithms. At the one-loop (N = 1) and
two-loop (N
√ = 2) level the leading and subleading corrections to a 2 → 2
process at s ∼ 1 TeV typically amount to [35]
α
s
log2 ( 2 ) ≃ −26%,
2
πsw
MW
s
3α
∼ + 2 log( 2 ) ≃ 16%,
πsw
MW
α2
s
∼ + 2 4 log4 ( 2 ) ≃ 3.5%,
2π sw
MW
3α2
s
∼ − 2 4 log3 ( 2 ) ≃ −4.2%,
π sw
MW
1−loop
∼ −
δLL
1−loop
δNLL
2−loop
δLL
2−loop
δNLL
(2)
revealing that these corrections become significant in the high-energy phase
of a future ILC. In contrast to QED and QCD, where the Sudakov logarithms cancel in the sum of virtual and real corrections, these terms need
not compensate in the electroweak SM for two reasons. The weak charges
of quarks, leptons, and electroweak gauge bosons are open, not confined,
i.e. there is (in contrast to QCD) no need to average or to sum over gauge
multiplets in the initial or final states of processes. Even for final states
that are inclusive with respect to the weak charges Sudakov logarithms
do not completely cancel owing to the definite weak charges in the initial
state [36]. Moreover, the large W- and Z-boson masses make an experimental discrimination of real W- or Z-boson production possible, in contrast to
unobservable soft-photon or gluon emission.
In recent years several calculations of these high-energy logarithms have
been carried out in the Sudakov regime, where all kinematical invariants
(pi pj ) of different particle momenta pi , pj are much larger than all particle
masses. A complete analysis of all leading and subleading logarithms at the
one-loop level can be found in [37]. Diagrammatic calculations of the leading
two-loop Sudakov logarithms have been carried out in [35, 38]. Diagrammatic results on the so-called “angular-dependent” subleading logarithms
have been presented in [35]. All these explicit results are compatible with
proposed resummations [39, 40] that are based on a symmetric SU(2)×U(1)
theory at high energies matched with QED at the electroweak scale. In
this ansatz, improved matrix elements M result from lowest-order matrix
6
Electroweak Physics
elements M0 upon dressing them with (operator-valued) exponentials,
M ∼ M0 ⊗ exp (δew ) ⊗ exp (δem ) .
(3)
Explicit expressions for the electroweak and electromagnetic corrections δew
and δem , which do not commute with each other, can, for instance, be
found in [35]. For 2 → 2 neutral-current processes of four massless fermions,
also subsubleading logarithmic corrections have been derived and resummed
[40] using an infrared evolution equation that follows the pattern of QCD.
Applications to vector-boson pair production in proton–proton collisions
can be found in [41].
In supersymmetric models the form of radiative corrections at high energies has also been worked out for a broad class of processes [42]. Based
on one-loop results their exponentiation has been proposed.
2.6. Higher-order initial-state radiation
Photon radiation off initial-state electrons and positrons leads to large
radiative corrections of the form αN logN (m2e /s). These logarithmic corrections are universal and governed by the DGLAP evolution equations. The
solution of these equations for the electron-photon system yields the structure functions, generically denoted by Γ(x) below, which can be used via
convolution to improve hard scattering cross sections σ̂(pe+ , pe− ) by photon
emission effects,
σ(pe+ , pe− ) =
Z
0
1
dx+ Γ(x+ )
Z
1
0
dx− Γ(x− ) σ̂(x+ pe+ , x− pe− ).
(4)
While the soft-photon part of the structure functions (x → 1) can be resummed, resulting in an exponential form, the contributions of hard photons have to be calculated order by order in perturbation theory. In [43]
the structure functions are summarized up to O(α3 ). Ref. [44] describes a
calculation of the (non-singlet) contributions up to O(α5 ) and of the small-x
terms [α log2 (x)]N to all orders (for previous calculations see papers cited
in Ref. [44]).
3. Radiative corrections to 2 → 3, 4, . . . processes
3.1. Four-fermion final states and W-pair production
Four-fermion final states in e+ e− collisions, which involve electroweak
boson pair production, are of special interest since they allow the mechanism
of spontaneous symmetry breaking and the non-Abelian structure of the
Standard Model to be directly tested by the experiments. Moreover they
provide a very important background to most searches for new physics.
Electroweak Physics
7
LEP2 has provided in this respect an ideal testing ground for the SM.
The W profile has been measured with great accuracy, new bounds on
anomalous trilinear gauge-boson couplings have been set, and single W,
single Z, ZZ, and Zγ cross sections have been determined for the first time.
These studies will be continued with much higher statistics and energy at a
future e+ e− Linear Collider.
In this context, the MonteCarlo four fermion generator WPHACT 2.0 has
been completed [45], adapted to experimental requests and used for simulation of the LEP2 data [46]. WPHACT 2.0 computes all Standard Model
processes with four fermions in the final state at e+ e− colliders, it makes
use of complete, fully massive helicity amplitude calculations and includes
the Imaginary Fermion Loop gauge restoring scheme2 . Thanks to these
features and new phase space mappings, WPHACT has been extended to all
regions of phace space, including kinematical configurations dominated by
small momentum transfer and small invariant masses like single W, single Z,
Zγ ∗ and γ ∗ γ ∗ processes. Special attention has been devoted to QED effects,
which have a large numerical impact, with new options for the description
of Initial State Radiation (ISR) and of the scale dependence of the electromagnetic coupling. Moreover, there is the possibility of including CKM
mixing, and to account for resonances in q q̄ channels.
The theoretical treatment and the presently gained level in accuracy in
the description of W-pair-mediated 4f production were triggered by LEP2,
as it is reviewed in Refs. [43, 48]. The W bosons are treated as resonances
in the full 4f processes, e+ e− → 4f (+ γ). Radiative corrections are split
into universal and non-universal corrections. The former comprise leadinglogarithmic corrections from ISR, higher-order corrections included by using
appropriate effective couplings, and the Coulomb singularity. These corrections can be combined with the full lowest-order matrix elements easily.
The remaining corrections are called non-universal, since they depend on
the process under investigation. For LEP2 accuracy, it was sufficient to
include these corrections by the leading term of an expansion about the two
W poles, defining the so-called double-pole approximation (DPA). Different versions of such a DPA have been used in the literature [49, 50, 51].
Although several Monte Carlo programs exist that include universal corrections, only two event generators, YFSWW [50] and RacoonWW [51, 52],
include non-universal corrections, as well as the option of anomalous gauge
couplings [53].
In the DPA approach, the W-pair cross section can be predicted within
a relative accuracy of ∼ 0.5%(0.7%) in the energy range between 180 GeV
(170 GeV) and 500 GeV, which was sufficient for the LEP2 accuracy of ∼ 1%
2
In [47] the incorporation of the fermion-loop corrections into e+ e− → n fermions is
discussed in terms of an effective Lagrangian approach.
8
Electroweak Physics
√
for energies 170−209 GeV. At threshold ( s <
∼ 170 GeV), the present stateof-the-art prediction results from an improved Born approximation based
on leading universal corrections only, because the DPA is not reliable there,
and thus possesses an intrinsic uncertainty of about 2%, which demonstrates
the necessary theoretical improvements for the threshold region. At energies
beyond 500 GeV, effects beyond O(α), such as the above-mentioned Sudakov
logarithms at higher orders, become important and have to be included in
predictions at per-cent accuracy.
At LEP2, the W-boson mass has been determined by the reconstruction of W bosons from their decay products with a final accuracy of about
30 MeV. In [54] the theoretical uncertainty is estimated to be of the order
of ∼ 5 MeV. Theoretical improvements are, thus, desirable.
The above discussion illustrates the necessity of a full one-loop calculation for the e+ e− → 4f process and of further improvements by leading
higher-order corrections.
3.2. Single-W production
The single-W production process e+ e− → eνe W → eνe + 2f plays a particularly important role among the 4f production processes at high scattering energies. The process is predominantly initiated by eγ ∗ collision, where
the photon is radiated off the electron (or positron) by the Weizsäcker–
Williams mechanism, i.e. with a very small off-shellness qγ2 .
Consequently the cross section rises logarithmically with the scattering energy
√ and is of the same size as the W-pair production cross section
around s = 500 GeV; for higher energies single-W dominates over W-pair
production.
Theoretically the dominance of photon exchange at low qγ2 poses several
complications. Technically, qγ2 → 0 means that the electrons (or positrons)
are produced in the forward direction and that the electron mass has to be
taken into account in order to describe the cross section there. Moreover,
the mere application of s-dependent leading-logarithmic structure functions
does not describe the leading photon-radiation effects properly, since ISR
and final-state radiation (FSR) show sizeable interferences for forward scattering. Thus, the improvement of lowest-order calculations by leading radiation effects is more complicated than for s-channel-like processes. Finally,
the running of the electromagnetic coupling α(qγ2 ) has to be evaluated in the
region of small momentum transfer (qγ2 < 0) where the fit for the hadronic
part of the photon vacuum polarisation [55] should be used.
The Monte Carlo generator KoralW [56] has been updated to include
the ISR-FSR interference effects as well as the proper running of α(qγ2 ).
Therefore, this program now has reached a level of accuracy similar to
Electroweak Physics
9
the other state-of-the-art programs for single-W production: Grc4f [57],
Nextcalibur [58], Swap [59], Wphact [60, 45], and Wto [61]. It should
be kept in mind that none of these calculations includes non-universal electroweak corrections, leading to a theoretical uncertainty of about ∼ 5% in
cross-section predictions. Although the final solution for a high-energy Linear Collider certainly requires a full O(α) calculation of the 4f -production
process, a first step of improvement could be done by a careful expansion
about the propagator poles of the photon and W boson. The electroweak
O(α) corrections to the process eγ → νe W, which are known [62], represent
a basic building block in this calculation.
3.3. Progress for multi-particle production processes
One-loop integrals become more and more cumbersome if the number
N of external legs in diagrams increases. For N > 4, however, not all external momenta are linearly independent because of the four-dimensionality of
space-time. As known for a long time [63], this fact opens the possibility
to relate integrals with N > 4 to integrals with N ≤ 4. In recent years,
various techniques for actual evaluations of one-loop integrals with N = 5, 6
have been worked out [64, 65] (see also references therein for older methods
and results). The major complication in the treatment of 2 → 3 processes
at one loop concerns the numerical evaluation of tensor 5-point integrals;
in particular, the occurrence of inverse Gram determinants in the usual
Passarino–Veltman reduction to scalar integrals leads to numerical instabilities at the phase-space boundary. A possible solution to this problem was
worked out in [65] where the known direct reduction [63] of scalar 5-point
to 4-point integrals was generalized to tensor integrals, thereby avoiding
the occurrence of leading Gram determinants completely. More work on
one-loop N -point integrals can be found in [66].
In the evaluation of real corrections, such as bremsstrahlung, a proper
and numerically stable separation of infrared (soft and collinear) divergences
represents one of the main problems. In the phase-space slicing approach
(see [67] and references therein) the singular regions are excluded from the
“regular” phase-space integration by small cuts on energies, angles, or invariant masses. Using factorization properties, the integration over the singular
regions can be done in the limit of infinitesimally small cut parameters. The
necessary fine-tuning of cut parameters is avoided in so-called subtraction
methods (see [68, 69, 70] and references therein), where a specially tuned
auxiliary function is subtracted from the singular integrand in such a way
that the resulting integral is regular. The auxiliary function has to be chosen
simple enough, so that the singular regions can be integrated over analytically. In [68] the so-called “dipole subtraction approach” has been worked
10
Electroweak Physics
out for massless QCD. and subsequently extended for photon emission off
massive fermions [69] and for QCD with massive quarks [70].
Applications were performed for complete one-loop calculations of electroweak radiative corrections for specific 2 → 3 processes of special interest
for a future ILC, e+ e− → ν ν̄H [71, 72] and e+ e− → tt̄H [73, 74, 75]. In
[72, 73, 75] the technique [65] for treating tensor 5-point integrals was employed. While [71, 73, 74] make use of the slicing approach for treating
soft-photon emission, the results of [72, 75] have been obtained by dipole
subtraction and checked by phase-space slicing for soft and collinear bremsstrahlung. Analytic results for the one-loop corrections to e+ e− → ν ν̄H are
provided in [76].
The Yukawa coupling of the top quark could be measured at a future
ILC with high energy and luminosity at the level of ∼ 5% [2] by analyzing
the process e+ e− → tt̄H. A thorough prediction for this process, thus, has to
control QCD and electroweak corrections. Results on the electroweak O(α)
corrections of Refs. [74, 75] show agreement within ∼ 0.1%. The results of
the previous calculation [73]
√ roughly agree with the ones of Refs. [74, 75]
at intermediate values of s and MH , but are at variance at high energies
(TeV range) and close to threshold (large MH ).
4. Event generators for multi-particle final states
4.1. Multi-purpose generators at parton level
The large variety of different final states for multi-particle production
renders multi-purpose Monte Carlo event generators rather important, i.e.
generators that deliver an event generator for a user-specified (as much
as possible) general final state based on full lowest-order amplitudes. As
results, these tools yield lowest-order predictions for observables, or more
generally Monte Carlo samples of events, that are improved by universal radiative corrections, such as initial-state radiation at the leading-logarithmic
level or beamstrahlung effects. Most of the multi-purpose generators are
also interfaced to parton-shower and hadronization programs. The generality renders these programs, however, rather complex devices and, at present,
they are far from representing tools for high-precision physics, because nonuniversal radiative corrections are not taken into account in predictions.
The following multi-purpose generators for multi-parton production, including program packages for the matrix-element evaluation, are available:
• Amegic [77]: Helicity amplitudes are automatically generated by the
program for the SM, the MSSM, and some new-physics models. Various interfaces (ISR, PDFs, beam spectra, Isajet, etc.) are supported.
The phase-space generation was successfully tested for up to six particles in the final state.
Electroweak Physics
11
• Grace [78]: The amplitudes are delivered by a built-in package, which
can also handle SUSY processes. The phase-space integration is done
by BASES [79]. Tree-level calculations have been performed for up
to (selected) six-fermion final states. The extension of the system to
include one-loop corrections is the Grace-Loop [80] program.
• Madevent [81] + Madgraph [82]: The Madgraph algorithm can
generate tree-level matrix elements for any SM process (fully supporting particle masses), but a practical limitation is 9,999 diagrams. In
addition, Madgraph creates Madevent, an event generator for the
requested process.
• Phegas [83] + Helac [84]: The Helac program delivers amplitudes
for all SM processes (including all masses). The phase-space integration done by Phegas has been tested for selected final states with
up to seven particles. Recent applications concern channels with sixfermion final states [85].
• Whizard [86] + Comphep [87] / Madgraph [82] / O’mega [88]:
Matrix elements are generated by an automatic interface to (older
versions of) Comphep, Madgraph, and (the up-to-date version of)
O’mega. Phase-space generation has been tested for most 2 → 6
and some 2 → 8 processes; unweighted events are supported, and a
large variety of interfaces (ISR, beamstrahlung, Pythia, PDFs, etc.)
exists. The inclusion of MSSM amplitudes (O’mega) and improved
phase-space generation (2 → 6) are work in progress.
• Alpgen [89] is a specific code for computing the perturbative part of
observables in high energy hadron–hadron collisions, which require a
convolution of the perturbative quantities with structure or fragmentation functions that account for non-perturbative effects.
Tuned comparisons of different generators, both at parton and detector
level, are extremely important, but become more and more laborious owing
to the large variety of multi-particle final states. Some progress to a facilitation and automization of comparisons are made by MC-tester project [90]
and Java interfaces [91].
4.2. Event generators and results for e+ e− → 6f
Particular progress was reached in recent years in the description of
six-fermion production processes. Apart from the multi-purpose generators
listed in the previous section, also dedicated Monte Carlo programs and
generators have been developed for this class of processes:
12
Electroweak Physics
• Sixfap [92]: Matrix elements are provided for all 6f final states (with
finite fermion masses), including all electroweak diagrams. The generalization to QCD diagrams and the extension of the phase-space
integration for all final states is in progress.
• eett6f [93]: Only processes relevant for tt̄ production are supported
(a new version includes e± in the final state and QCD diagrams); finite
fermion masses are possible.
• Lusifer [94]: All 6f final states are possible, including QCD diagrams
with up to four quarks; representative results for all these final states
have been presented. External fermions are massless. An unweighting
algorithm and an interface to Pythia are available.
• Phase [95]: All Standard Model process with six fermions in the final
state at the LHC. It employs the full set of tree-level Feynman diagrams, taking into account a finite mass for the b quark. An interface
to hadronization is provided.
A comparison of results for some processes e+ e− → 6f relevant for tt̄ production for massless external fermions reveals good agreement between the
various programs [96], where minor differences are presumably due to the
different treatments of the bottom-quark Yukawa coupling, which is neglected in some cases.
A tuned comparison of results obtained with Lusifer and Whizard for
a large survey of 6f final states has been presented in Ref. [94].
5. Other developments
5.1. Automatization of loop calculations
Once the necessary techniques and theoretical subtleties of a perturbative calculation are settled, to carry out the actual calculation is an algorithmic matter. Thus, an automization of such calculations is highly desirable, in order to facilitate related calculations. Various program packages
have been presented in the literature for automatized tree-level, one-loop,
and multi-loop calculations. A comprehensive overview can, e.g., be found
in [97]; in the following we have to restrict ourselves to a selection of topics,
where emphasis is put on electroweak aspects.
The generation of Feynman graphs and amplitudes is a combinatorial
problem that can be attacked with computer algebra. The program packages FeynArts [98] (which has been extended in [99] for the MSSM) and
Diana [100] (based on Qgraf [101]) are specifically designed for this task;
Electroweak Physics
13
also the Grace-Loop [80] system automatically generates Feynman diagrams and loop amplitudes. Moreover, the task of calculating virtual oneloop and the corresponding real-emission corrections to 2 → 2 scattering
reactions is by now well understood. Such calculations are widely automated in the packages FormCalc combined with LoopTools [102], and
Grace-Loop [80].
An illustrating example was provided for the differential cross section
for e+ e− → tt̄ in lowest order as well as including electroweak O(α) corrections. A program FA+FC [103] was obtained from the output of the
FeynArts and FormCalc packages and makes use of the LoopTools
library for the numerical evaluation. Another program, Topfit [103, 104],
was developed from an algebraic reduction of Feynman graphs (delivered
from Diana) within Form; for the numerics LoopTools is partially employed. A completely independent approach has been made by the Sanc
project [105]. The Sanc program contains another independent calculation
of the O(α) corrections to e+ e− → tt̄, the results of which are also included
in [103]. More details on comparisons, including also other fermion flavours,
can be found in [96, 103, 106]. The agreement between the numerical results
at the level of 10 digits reflects the enormous progress achieved in recent
years in the automatization of one-loop calculations.
The one-loop calculation for the process e+ e− → tt̄(γ) including hard
bremsstrahlung was originally performed in [104] without full automatization; it was repeated in later course (apart from the hard bremsstrahlung
part) as an example for automatization in [107] . The extension of Diana
towards full automatization in terms of the package a ı̊Talc is a new development [107, 108]; automatization of the full calculation is performed
including renormalization and the creation and running of a FORTRAN
code. Applications to the calculation of the processes e+ e− → f f¯(γ) for
various final fermions: t, b, µ, e and also sb̄, ct̄, µτ̄ are performed. For further work in automatization see [109, 110].
5.2. Numerical approaches to loop calculations
Most of the various techniques of performing loop calculations share the
common feature that the integration over the loop momenta is performed
analytically. This procedure leads to complications at one loop if five or
more external legs are involved, since both speed and stability of programs
become more and more jeopardized. At the two-loop level, already the evaluation of self-energy and vertex corrections can lead to extremely complicated higher transcendental functions that are hard to evaluate numerically.
An idea to avoid these complications is provided by a more or less purely
numerical evaluation of loop corrections. There are two main difficulties in
14
Electroweak Physics
this approach. Firstly, the appearing ultraviolet and infrared divergences
have to be treated and canceled carefully. Secondly, even finite loop integrals
require a singularity handling of the integrand near particle poles, where
Feynman’s iǫ prescription is used as regularization.
In [111]-[115] a method for a purely numerical evaluation of loop integrals is proposed. Each integral is parametrized with Feynman parameters
and subsequently rewritten with partial integrations. The final expression
consists of a quite simple part containing the singular terms and another
more complicated looking part that can be integrated numerically. The actual application of the method to a physical process is still work in progress.
There are five papers in a series devoted to the numerical evaluation
of multi-loop, multi-leg Feynman diagrams. In [111] the general strategy is
outlined and in [112] a complete list of results is given for two-loop functions
with two external legs, including their infrared divergent on-shell derivatives.
Results for one-loop multi-leg diagrams are shown in [113] and additional
material can be found in [114]. Two-loop three-point functions for infrared
convergent configurations are considered in [115], where numerical results
can be found.
Ref. [113] presents a detailed investigation of the algorithms, based on
the Bernstein-Tkachov (BT) theorem [116], which form the basis for a fast
and reliable numerical integration of one-loop multi-leg (up to six in this
paper) diagrams. The rationale for this work is represented by the need
of encompassing a number of problems that one encounters in assembling
a calculation of some complicated process, e.g. full one-loop corrections
to e+ e− → 4 fermions. Furthermore, in any attempt to compute physical
observables at the two-loop level, we will have to include the one-loop part,
and it is rather obvious that the two pieces should be treated on equal
footing.
All algorithms that aim to compute Feynman diagrams numerically are
based on some manipulation of the original integrands that brings the final
answer into something smooth. This has the consequence of bringing the
original (Landau) singularity of the diagram into some overall denominator
and, usually, the method overestimates the singular behavior around some
threshold. In these regions an alternative derivation is needed. Instead of
using the method of asymptotic expansions, a novel algorithm is introduced
based on a Mellin-Barnes decomposition of the singular integrand, followed
by a sector decomposition that allows one to write the Laurent expansion
around threshold.
Particular care has been devoted to analyze those situations where a
sub-leading singularity may occur, and to properly account for those cases
where the algorithm cannot be applied because the corresponding BT factor
is zero although the singular point in parametric space does not belong to
Electroweak Physics
15
the integration domain.
Finally, a description of infrared divergent one-loop virtual configurations is given in the framework of dimensional regularization: here both the
residue of the infrared pole and the infrared finite remainder are cast into
a form that can be safely computed numerically. The collection of formulas that cover all corners of phase space have been translated into a set of
FORM codes and the output has been used to create a FORTRAN code
whose technical description will be given elsewhere.
Ref. [117] addresses the problem of deriving a judicious and efficient way
to deal with tensor Feynman integrals, namely those integrals that occur in
any field theory with spin and non trivial structures for the numerators of
Feynman propagators. This paper forms a basis for a realistic calculation
of physical observables at the two-loop level.
The complexity of handling two-loop tensor integrals is reflected in the
following simple consideration: the complete treatment of one-loop tensor
integrals was confined to the appendices of [118], while the reduction of
general two-loop self-energies to standard scalar integrals already required
a considerable fraction of [119]; the inclusion of two-loop vertices requires
the whole content of this paper. The past experience in the field has shown
the encompassed convenience of gathering in one single place the complete
collection of results needed for a broad spectrum of applications. In recent
years, the most popular and quite successful tool in dealing with multiloop Feynman diagrams in QED/QCD (or in selected problems in different models, characterized by a very small number of scales), has been the
Integration-By-Parts Identities method [120]. However, reduction to a set
of master integrals is poorly known in the enlarged scenario of multi-scale
electroweak physics.
In [121] another new method is presented in which almost all the work
can be performed numerically: one-loop tensor integrals are numerically
reduced to the standard set of one-loop scalar functions and any amplitude
is calculated simply contracting the numerically computed tensor integrals
with the external tensors. To this aim, a recursion relation is introduced that
links high-rank tensor integrals to lower-rank ones. Singular kinematical
configurations give a smoother behaviour than in other approaches because,
at each level of iteration, only inverse square roots of Gram determinants
appear.
6. Electroweak effects in hadronic processes
In Refs. [122, 123, 124, 125, 126] (see also [127]) it was proved the importance of electroweak one-loop corrections to hadronic observables, such
as bb̄, ‘prompt photon + jet’ and ‘Z + jet’ production at Tevatron and LHC
16
Electroweak Physics
and jet and bb̄ production in linear colliders, which can compete in size with
QCD corrections. Their inclusion in experimental analyses is thus important, especially in view of searches for new physics. In case of ‘Z + jet’
production they can rise to O(15 − 20%) at large transverse momentum at
the LHC, while being typically half the size in case of ‘photon + jet’ production. As these two channels are the contributors to the Drell-Yan process,
and since the latter is envisaged to be used as one of the means to measure the LHC luminosity, it is clear that neglecting them in experimental
analyses would spoil the luminosity measurements.
Ref. [128] emphasised the importance of NLO electroweak effects in
three-jet production in e+ e− scattering at the Z-pole (SLC, LEP and GigaZ),
showing typical corrections of O(2 − 4%) (e.g. in jet-rates and thrust), comparable to the SLC and LEP experimental accuracy and certainly larger
than the one expected at GigaZ. They also introduce sizable parity-violating
effects into the fully differential structure of three-jet events in presence of
beam polarisation, which are of relevance as background to new physics
searches in SLC and GigaZ data.
The complete set of electroweak O(α) corrections to the Drell–Yanlike production of Z and W bosons have been studied in [129, 130, 131].
These corrections are phenomenologically relevant both at the Tevatron
and the LHC. It is shown that the pole expansion yields a good description of resonance observables, but it is not sufficient for the high-energy tail
of transverse-momentum distributions, relevant for new-physics searches.
Horace and Winhac are Monte Carlo event generators [132], developed
for single W production and decay, which in their current versions include
higher-order QED corrections in leptonic W decays, a crucial entry for precision determination of the W mass and width at hadron colliders.
Production of vector-boson pairs is an important probe for potential nonstandard anomalous gauge couplings. In order to identify possible deviations
from the SM predictions, an accurate knowledge of the electroweak higherorder contributions is mandatory as well, in particular for large transverse
momenta. A complete electroweak one-loop calculation was performed for
γZ production [133]; for other processes like γW, .... the large logarithms in
the Sudakov regime were derived [41].
A further aspect that should be recalled is that weak corrections naturally introduce parity-violating effects in observables, detectable through
asymmetries in the cross-section. These effects are further enhanced if polarisation of the incoming beams is exploited, such as at RHIC-Spin [134, 135]
and will be used to measure polarised structure functions.
Electroweak Physics
17
7. Conclusions
During the recent years there has been continuous progress in the development of new techniques and in making precise predictions for electroweak
physics at future colliders. However, to be prepared for the LHC and a
future e+ e− linear collider with high energy and luminosity, an enormous
amount of work is still ahead of us. Not only technical challenges, also
field-theoretical issues such as renormalization, the treatment of unstable
particles, etc., demand a higher level of understanding. Both loop calculations as well as the descriptions of multi-particle production processes with
the help of Monte Carlo techniques require and will profit from further improving computing devices. It is certainly out of question that the list of
challenges and interesting issues could be continued at will. Electroweak
physics at future colliders will be a highly exciting issue.
REFERENCES
[1] G. Altarelli, M. Mangano (Eds.), Proc. of the CERN Workshop on Standard
Model Physics (and More) at the LHC, CERN 2000-004.
[2] J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra et al., TESLA Technical Design Report Part III:
Physics at an e+ e− Linear Collider [hep-ph/0106315].
T. Abe et al. [American Linear Collider Working Group Collaboration], in
Proc. of the APS/DPF/DPB Summer Study on the Future of Particle Physics
(Snowmass 2001) ed. R. Davidson and C. Quigg, SLAC-R-570, Resource
book for Snowmass 2001 [hep-ex/0106055, hep-ex/0106056, hep-ex/0106057,
hep-ex/0106058].
K. Abe et al. [ACFA Linear Collider Working Group Collaboration], ACFA
Linear Collider Working Group report, [hep-ph/0109166].
[3] U. Baur et al., in Proc. of the APS/DPF/DPB Summer Study on the Future
of Particle Physics (Snowmass 2001) ed. N. Graf, hep-ph/0111314 and hepph/0202001.
[4] A. Freitas, W. Hollik, W. Walter and G. Weiglein, Phys. Lett. B 495 (2000)
338, E: ibid. B 570 (2003) 260 [hep-ph/0007091] and Nucl. Phys. B 632
(2002) 189, E: ibid. B 666 (2003) 305 [hep-ph/0202131].
[5] M. Awramik and M. Czakon, Phys. Lett. B 568, 48 (2003) [hep-ph/0305248].
[6] M. Awramik and M. Czakon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 241801 [hepph/0208113].
A. Onishchenko and O. Veretin, Phys. Lett. B 551 (2003) 111 [hepph/0209010].
M. Awramik, M. Czakon, A. Onishchenko and O. Veretin, Phys. Rev. D 68,
053004 (2003) [hep-ph/0209084].
[7] J. van der Bij, K. Chetyrkin, M. Faisst, G. Jikia and T. Seidensticker, Phys.
Lett. B 498 (2001) 156 [hep-ph/0011373].
18
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
Electroweak Physics
M. Faisst, J. H. Kühn, T. Seidensticker and O. Veretin, Nucl. Phys. B 665,
649 (2003) [hep-ph/0302275].
R. Boughezal, J.B. Tausk and J.J. van der Bij, hep-ph/0410216.
W. Hollik, in proceedings of the Zeuthen workshop Electroweak Precision
Data and the Higgs Mass, Zeuthen, 2003, eds. S. Dittmaier and K. Mönig,
DESY-PROC-2003-01 and MPP-2003-50.
M. Awramik, M. Czakon, A. Freitas and G. Weiglein, Phys. Rev. D69 (2004)
053006 [hep-ph/0311148].
F.A. Berends et al., in Z Physics at LEP 1, eds. G. Altarelli, R. Kleiss and
C. Verzegnassi (CERN 89-08, Geneva, 1989), Vol. 1, p. 89;
W. Beenakker, F. A. Berends and S. C. van der Marck, Z. Phys. C 46 (1990)
687;
A. Borrelli, M. Consoli, L. Maiani and R. Sisto, Nucl. Phys. B 333 (1990)
357.
D. Y. Bardin et al., hep-ph/9709229, in Precision Calculations for the Z
Resonance, D. Bardin, W. Hollik, G. Passarino (Eds.), CERN 95-03.
D. Y. Bardin and G. Passarino, hep-ph/9803425;
G. Montagna, O. Nicrosini, F. Piccinini and G. Passarino, Comput. Phys.
Commun. 117 (1999) 278 [hep-ph/9804211];
G. Montagna, F. Piccinini, O. Nicrosini, G. Passarino and R. Pittau, Comput. Phys. Commun. 76 (1993) 328;
G. Montagna, F. Piccinini, O. Nicrosini, G. Passarino and R. Pittau, Nucl.
Phys. B 401 (1993) 3;
D. Y. Bardin, M. Grünewald and G. Passarino, hep-ph/9902452;
D. Y. Bardin et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 133 (2001) 229 [hepph/9908433].
Contributions of W. Hollik, W. van Neerven, and G. Passarino to the proceedings of the Zeuthen workshop Electroweak Precision Data and the Higgs
Mass, Zeuthen, 2003, eds. S. Dittmaier and K. Mönig, DESY-PROC-2003-01
and MPP-2003-50.
S. Heinemeyer, hep-ph/0406245.
M. Awramik, M. Czakon, A. Freitas and G. Weiglein, hep-ph/0407317.
M. Awramik, M. Czakon, A. Freitas and G. Weiglein, hep-ph/0408207.
H. Czyz, J. H. Kühn and G. Rodrigo, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 116 (2003)
249 [hep-ph/0211186].
J. Gluza, A. Hoefer, S. Jadach and F. Jegerlehner, Eur. Phys. J. C 28 (2003)
261 [hep-ph/0212386].
H. Czyz, A. Grzelinska, J. H. Kühn and G. Rodrigo, Eur. Phys. J. C 33
(2004) 333 [hep-ph/0308312].
G. P. Zeller et al. [NuTeV Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 091802
[Erratum-ibid. 90 (2003) 239902] [hep-ex/0110059].
K. P. O. Diener, S. Dittmaier and W. Hollik, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 073005
[hep-ph/0310364].
A. B. Arbuzov, D. Y. Bardin and L. V. Kalinovskaya, hep-ph/0407203.
Electroweak Physics
19
[21] Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon and A. Ghinculov, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 053007
[hep-ph/0010075].
[22] Z. Bern et al., JHEP 0111 (2001) 031 [hep-ph/0109079].
[23] E.W.N. Glover, J.B. Tausk and J.J. van der Bij, Phys. Lett. B 516 (2001)
33 [hep-ph/0106052].
[24] J. Fleischer, T. Riemann, O.V. Tarasov and A. Werthenbach, Nucl. Phys.
Proc. Suppl. 116 (2003) 43 [LC-TH-2003-082, hep-ph/0211167].
[25] J. Fleischer, T. Riemann and O.V. Tarasov, Acta Phys. Polon. B 34 (20003)
5345.
[26] J. Fleischer, F. Jegerlehner and O.V. Tarasov, Nucl. Phys. B 672 (2003) 303,
[hep-ph/0307113].
[27] J. Fleischer, O.V. Tarasov and V.O. Tarasov, Phys. Lett. B 584 (2004) 294,
[hep-ph/0401090].
[28] R. Bonciani, A. Ferroglia, P. Mastrolia, E. Remiddi and J. J. van der Bij,
Nucl. Phys. B 681 (2004) 261 [hep-ph/0310333].
[29] R. Bonciani, A. Ferroglia, P. Mastrolia, E. Remiddi and J. J. van der Bij,
hep-ph/0405275 (to appear in Nucl. Phys. B).
[30] M. Czakon, J. Gluza and T. Riemann, hep-ph/0406203.
[31] T.G. Birthwright, E.W.N. Glover and P. Marquard, JHEP 0409, 042 (2004)
[hep-ph/0407343].
[32] U. Aglietti and R. Bonciani, Nucl. Phys. B 668, 3 (2003) [hep-ph/0304028].
U. Aglietti and R. Bonciani, hep-ph/0401193.
[33] R. Bonciani, P. Mastrolia and E. Remiddi, Nucl. Phys. B 690, 138 (2004)
[hep-ph/0311145].
[34] U. Aglietti, R. Bonciani, G. Degrassi and A. Vicini, hep-ph/0407162.
U. Aglietti, R. Bonciani, G. Degrassi and A. Vicini, Phys. Lett. B 595, 432
(2004) hep-ph/0404071].
[35] A. Denner, M. Melles and S. Pozzorini, Nucl. Phys. B 662 (2003) 299 [hepph/0301241].
[36] M. Ciafaloni, P. Ciafaloni and D. Comelli, Phys. Lett. B 501 (2001) 216
[hep-ph/0007096].
[37] A. Denner and S. Pozzorini, Eur. Phys. J. C 18 (2001) 461 [hep-ph/0010201]
and Eur. Phys. J. C 21 (2001) 63 [hep-ph/0104127].
[38] W. Beenakker and A. Werthenbach, Phys. Lett. B 489 (2000) 148 [hepph/0005316] and Nucl. Phys. B 630 (2002) 3 [hep-ph/0112030];
M. Melles, Phys. Lett. B 495 (2000) 81 [hep-ph/0006077];
M. Hori, H. Kawamura and J. Kodaira, Phys. Lett. B 491 (2000) 275 [hepph/0007329].
[39] V. S. Fadin, L. N. Lipatov, A. D. Martin and M. Melles, Phys. Rev. D 61
(2000) 094002 [hep-ph/9910338];
J. H. Kühn, A. A. Penin and V. A. Smirnov, Eur. Phys. J. C 17 (2000) 97
[hep-ph/9912503];
M. Melles, Phys. Rept. 375 (2003) 219 [hep-ph/0104232] and Eur. Phys. J.
C 24 (2002) 193 [hep-ph/0108221].
20
Electroweak Physics
[40] J. H. Kühn, S. Moch, A. A. Penin and V. A. Smirnov, Nucl. Phys. B 616
(2001) 286 [Erratum-ibid. B 648 (2003) 455] [hep-ph/0106298].
[41] E. Accomando, A. Denner and S. Pozzorini, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 073003
[hep-ph/0110114].
E. Accomando, A. Denner and A. Kaiser, hep-ph/0409247.
[42] M. Beccaria et al., Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 053016 [hep-ph/0104245];
Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 093007 [hep-ph/0112273]; LC-TH-2002-005 [hepph/0203254]; hep-ph/0212167; LC-TH-2002-017 [hep-ph/0212247]; hepph/0304110 and Nucl. Phys. B 663 (2003) 394 [hep-ph/0304175].
[43] W. Beenakker et al., in Physics at LEP2, eds. G. Altarelli, T. Sjöstrand and
F. Zwirner (CERN 96-01, Geneva, 1996), Vol. 1, p. 79 [hep-ph/9602351].
[44] J. Blümlein and H. Kawamura, Acta Phys. Polon. B 33 (2002) 3719 [hepph/0207259].
[45] E. Accomando, A. Ballestrero and E. Maina, Comp. Phys. Comm. 150 (2003)
166 [hep-ph/0204052].
[46] A. Ballestrero, R. Chierici, F. Cossutti, E. Migliore, Comp. Phys. Comm. 152
(2003) 175 [hep-ph/0210208].
[47] W. Beenakker, A. P. Chapovsky, A. Kanaki, C. G. Papadopoulos and R. Pittau, Nucl. Phys. B 667, 359 (2003) hep-ph/0303105].
[48] M. W. Grünewald et al., in Reports of the Working Groups on Precision
Calculations for LEP2 Physics, eds. S. Jadach, G. Passarino and R. Pittau
(CERN 2000-009, Geneva, 2000), p. 1 [hep-ph/0005309].
[49] W. Beenakker, F. A. Berends and A. P. Chapovsky, Nucl. Phys. B 548, 3
(1999) [hep-ph/9811481];
Y. Kurihara, M. Kuroda and D. Schildknecht, Nucl. Phys. B 565 (2000) 49
[hep-ph/9908486] and Phys. Lett. B 509 (2001) 87 [hep-ph/0104201].
[50] S. Jadach et al., Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 113010 [hep-ph/9907436]; Phys.
Rev. D 65 (2002) 093010 [hep-ph/0007012]; Comput. Phys. Commun. 140
(2001) 432 [hep-ph/0103163] and Comput. Phys. Commun. 140 (2001) 475
[hep-ph/0104049].
[51] A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, M. Roth and D. Wackeroth, Phys. Lett.
B 475 (2000) 127 [hep-ph/9912261]; LC-TH-2000-014 [hep-ph/9912447];
Nucl. Phys. B 587 (2000) 67 [hep-ph/0006307]; hep-ph/0101257 and hepph/0209330.
[52] A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, M. Roth and D. Wackeroth, Nucl. Phys. B
560 (1999) 33 [hep-ph/9904472] and Eur. Phys. J. C 20 (2001) 201 [hepph/0104057].
[53] A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, M. Roth and D. Wackeroth, hep-ph/0110402.
[54] S. Jadach et al., Phys. Lett. B 523 (2001) 117 [hep-ph/0109072].
[55] F. Jegerlehner, LC-TH-2001-035 [hep-ph/0105283].
[56] S. Jadach et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 119 (1999) 272 [hep-ph/9906277]
and Eur. Phys. J. C 27 (2003) 19 [hep-ph/0209268].
[57] J. Fujimoto et al., hep-ph/9603394 and Comput. Phys. Commun. 100 (1997)
128 [hep-ph/9605312].
Electroweak Physics
21
[58] F. A. Berends, C. G. Papadopoulos and R. Pittau, hep-ph/0002249 and
Comput. Phys. Commun. 136 (2001) 148 [hep-ph/0011031].
[59] G. Montagna el al., Eur. Phys. J. C 20 (2001) 217 [hep-ph/0005121].
[60] E. Accomando and A. Ballestrero, Comput. Phys. Commun. 99 (1997) 270
[hep-ph/9607317];
E. Accomando, A. Ballestrero and E. Maina, Phys. Lett. B 479 (2000)
209 [hep-ph/9911489] and Comput. Phys. Commun. 150 (2003) 166 [hepph/0204052].
[61] G. Passarino, Comput. Phys. Commun. 97 (1996) 261 [hep-ph/9602302];
hep-ph/9810416 and Nucl. Phys. B 578 (2000) 3 [hep-ph/0001212].
[62] A. Denner and S. Dittmaier, Nucl. Phys. B 398 (1993) 239;
M. Böhm and S. Dittmaier, Nucl. Phys. B 409 (1993) 3.
[63] D. B. Melrose, Nuovo Cimento XL A (1965) 181.
[64] J. Fleischer, F. Jegerlehner and O. V. Tarasov, Nucl. Phys. B 566 (2000) 423
[hep-ph/9907327];
T. Binoth, J. P. Guillet and G. Heinrich, Nucl. Phys. B 572 (2000) 361 [hepph/9911342];
F. Tramontano, Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 114005 [hep-ph/0211390];
T. Binoth, G. Heinrich and N. Kauer, Nucl. Phys. B 654 (2003) 277 [hepph/0210023].
[65] A. Denner and S. Dittmaier, Nucl. Phys. B 658 (2003) 175 [hep-ph/0212259].
[66]
[66] W. T. Giele and E. W. N. Glover, JHEP 0404, 029 (2004) hep-ph/0402152].
S. Dittmaier, Nucl. Phys. B 675, 447 (2003) [hep-ph/0308246].
[67] B. W. Harris and J. F. Owens, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 094032 [hepph/0102128].
[68] S. Catani and M. H. Seymour, Nucl. Phys. B 485 (1997) 291 [Erratum-ibid.
B 510 (1997) 291] [hep-ph/9605323].
[69] S. Dittmaier, Nucl. Phys. B 565 (2000) 69 [hep-ph/9904440].
[70] L. Phaf and S. Weinzierl, JHEP 0104, 006 (2001) [hep-ph/0102207];
S. Catani, S. Dittmaier, M. H. Seymour and Z. Trócsányi, Nucl. Phys. B 627
(2002) 189 [hep-ph/0201036].
[71] G. Bélanger et al., Phys. Lett. B 559 (2003) 252 [hep-ph/0212261].
[72] A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, M. Roth and M. M. Weber, Phys. Lett. B 560 (2003)
196 [LC-TH-2003-008, hep-ph/0301189] and Nucl. Phys. B 660 (2003) 289
[LC-TH-2003-007, hep-ph/0302198].
[73] Y. You et al., Phys. Lett. B 571, 85 (2003) hep-ph/0306036].
[74] G. Bélanger et al., Phys. Lett. B 571, 163 (2003) [hep-ph/0307029].
[75] A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, M. Roth and M. M. Weber, Phys. Lett. B 575, 290
(2003) [hep-ph/0307193].
[76] F. Jegerlehner and O. Tarasov, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 116, 83 (2003)
[hep-ph/0212004].
22
Electroweak Physics
[77] F. Krauss, R. Kuhn and G. Soff, JHEP 0202 (2002) 044 [hep-ph/0109036];
A. Schalicke, F. Krauss, R. Kuhn and G. Soff, JHEP 0212 (2002) 013 [hepph/0203259].
[78] T. Ishikawa et al., [Minami-Tateya Collaboration], KEK-92-19;
H. Tanaka et al., [Minami-Tateya Collaboration], Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A
389 (1997) 295;
F. Yuasa et al., Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 138 (2000) 18 [hep-ph/0007053].
[79] S. Kawabata, Comput. Phys. Commun. 88 (1995) 309.
[80] J. Fujimoto el al., Acta Phys. Polon. B 28 (1997) 945.
[81] F. Maltoni and T. Stelzer, JHEP 0302 (2003) 027 [hep-ph/0208156].
[82] T. Stelzer and W. F. Long, Comput. Phys. Commun. 81 (1994) 357 [hepph/9401258];
H. Murayama, I. Watanabe and K. Hagiwara, KEK-91-11.
[83] C. G. Papadopoulos, Comput. Phys. Commun. 137 (2001) 247 [hepph/0007335].
[84] A. Kanaki and C. G. Papadopoulos, Comput. Phys. Commun. 132 (2000)
306 [hep-ph/0002082].
[85] T. Gleisberg, F. Krauss, C. G. Papadopoulos, A. Schaelicke and S. Schumann,
Eur. Phys. J. C 34, 173 (2004) [hep-ph/0311273].
[86] W. Kilian, LC-TOOL-2001-039.
[87] A. Pukhov et al., hep-ph/9908288.
[88] M. Moretti, T. Ohl and J. Reuter, LC-TOOL-2001-040, hep-ph/0102195.
[89] M.L. Mangano, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini, R. Pittau and A.D. Polosa, JHEP
0307, 001 (2003) [hep-ph/0206293];
M.L. Mangano, M. Moretti and R. Pittau, Nucl. Phys. B 632 (2002) 343;
F. Caravaglios, M.L. Mangano, M. Moretti and R. Pittau, Nucl. Phys. B
539, 215 (1999);
F. Caravaglios and M. Moretti, Phys. Lett. B 358 (1995) 332.
[90] P. Golonka, T. Pierzchala and Z. Was, Comput. Phys. Commun. 157, 39
(2004) [hep-ph/0210252].
[91] M. T. Ronan, LC-TOOL-2003-015 [physics/0306019].
[92] G. Montagna, M. Moretti, O. Nicrosini and F. Piccinini, Eur. Phys. J. C 2
(1998) 483 [hep-ph/9705333];
F. Gangemi et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 9 (1999) 31 [hep-ph/9811437] and Nucl.
Phys. B 559 (1999) 3 [hep-ph/9905271];
F. Gangemi, hep-ph/0002142.
[93] K. Kolodziej, Eur. Phys. J. C 23 (2002) 471 [hep-ph/0110063] and Comput.
Phys. Commun. 151 (2003) 339 [hep-ph/0210199];
A. Biernacik and K. Kolodziej, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 116 (2003) 33 [hepph/0210405].
A. Biernacik, K. Kolodziej, A. Lorca and T. Riemann, Acta Phys. Polon. B
34 (2003) 5487 [hep-ph/0311097].
[94] S. Dittmaier and M. Roth, Nucl. Phys. B 642 (2002) 307 [hep-ph/0206070].
Electroweak Physics
23
[95] E. Accomando, A. Ballestrero and E. Maina, hep-ph/0404236.
[96] S. Dittmaier, hep-ph/0308079.
[97] R. Harlander and M. Steinhauser, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 43 (1999) 167
[hep-ph/9812357].
[98] J. Küblbeck, M. Böhm and A. Denner, Comput. Phys. Commun. 60 (1990)
165;
T. Hahn, Comput. Phys. Commun. 140 (2001) 418 [hep-ph/0012260].
[99] T. Hahn and C. Schappacher, Comput. Phys. Commun. 143 (2002) 54 [hepph/0105349].
[100] M. Tentyukov and J. Fleischer, Comput. Phys. Commun. 132 (2000) 124
[hep-ph/9904258].
[101] P. Nogueira, J. Comput. Phys. 105 (1993) 279.
[102] T. Hahn and M. Perez-Victoria, Comput. Phys. Commun. 118 (1999) 153
[hep-ph/9807565];
T. Hahn, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 89 (2000) 231 [hep-ph/0005029].
[103] J. Fleischer, T. Hahn, W. Hollik, T. Riemann, C. Schappacher and
A. Werthenbach, LC-TH-2002-002 [hep-ph/0202109].
[104] J. Fleischer, A. Leike, T. Riemann and A. Werthenbach, Eur. Phys. J. C 31
(2003) 37 [hep-ph/0302259]
[105] A. Andonov el al., hep-ph/0209297;
A. Andonov el al., hep-ph/0202112 and Phys. Part. Nucl. 34, 577 (2003)
[Fiz. Elem. Chast. Atom. Yadra 34, 1125 (2003)] hep-ph/0207156].
[106] T. Hahn, W. Hollik, A. Lorca, T. Riemann and A. Werthenbach, LC-TH2003-083 [hep-ph/0307132].
[107] J. Fleischer, A. Lorca and T. Riemann, hep-ph/0409034.
[108] A. Lorca and T. Riemann, hep-ph/0407149.
[109] M. Tentyukov and J. Fleischer, Comput. Phys. Commun. 160 (2004) 167,
[hep-ph/0311111].
[110] J. Fleischer, A. Lorca and M. Tentyukov, Diana and applications to fermion
production in electron positron annihilation, to appear in the proceedings of
ACAT03, December 1993.
[111] G. Passarino, Nucl. Phys. B 619 (2001) 257 [hep-ph/0108252].
[112] G. Passarino and S. Uccirati, Nucl. Phys. B 629 (2002) 97 [hep-ph/0112004].
[113] A. Ferroglia, M. Passera, G. Passarino and S. Uccirati, Nucl. Phys. B 650
(2003) 162 [hep-ph/0209219].
[114] A. Ferroglia, G. Passarino, S. Uccirati and M. Passera, Nucl. Instrum. Meth.
A 502 (2003) 391.
[115] A. Ferroglia, M. Passera, G. Passarino and S. Uccirati, Nucl. Phys. B 680
(2004) 199 [hep-ph/0311186].
[116] F. V. Tkachov, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 389 (1997) 309 [hep-ph/9609429];
L. N. Bernstein, Functional Analysis and its Applications, 6 (1972) 66.
24
Electroweak Physics
[117] S. Actis, A. Ferroglia, G. Passarino, M. Passera and S. Uccirati, hepph/0402132.
[118] G. Passarino and M. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B 160 (1979) 151.
[119] G. Weiglein, R. Scharf and M. Böhm, Nucl. Phys. B 416 (1994) 606 [hepph/9310358].
[120] G. ’t Hooft and M. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B 44 (1972) 189;
F. V. Tkachov, New methods for evaluation of multi-loop Feynman diagrams,
PhD thesis, INR, Moscow, March 1984;
F. V. Tkachov, Phys. Lett. B 100 (1981) 65;
K. G. Chetyrkin and F. V. Tkachov, Nucl. Phys. B 192 (1981) 159.
[121] F. del Aguila and R. Pittau, JHEP 0407 (2004) 017;
R. Pittau, hep-ph/0404120.
[122] E. Maina, S. Moretti, M. R. Nolten and D. A. Ross, hep-ph/0401093.
[123] E. Maina, S. Moretti and D. A. Ross, hep-ph/0403050.
[124] E. Maina, S. Moretti, M. R. Nolten and D. A. Ross, hep-ph/0407150.
[125] E. Maina, S. Moretti, M. R. Nolten and D. A. Ross, Phys. Lett. B 570 (2003)
205 [hep-ph/0307021].
[126] J. H. Kühn, A. Kulesza, S. Pozzorini and M. Schulze, hep-ph/0408308.
[127] M. Dobbs et al., hep-ph/0403100.
[128] E. Maina, S. Moretti and D. A. Ross, JHEP 0304 (2003) 056 [hepph/0210015] and hep-ph/0403269.
[129] O. Brein, U. Baur, W. Hollik, C. Schappacher, D. Wackeroth, Phys. Rev. D
65 (2002) 033007 [hep-ph/0108274].
[130] S. Dittmaier and M. Krämer, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 073007 [hepph/0109062].
[131] U. Baur and D. Wackeroth, hep-ph/0405191.
[132] C. M. Carloni Calame, S. Jadach, G. Montagna, O. Nicrosini and W. Placzek,
Acta Phys. Polon. B 35, 1643 (2004) [hep-ph/0402235].
[133] W. Hollik and C. Meier, Phys. Lett. B 590 (2004) 69 [hep-ph/0402281].
[134] C. Bourrely, J.P. Guillet and J. Soffer, Nucl. Phys. B 361 (1991) 72.
[135] J.R. Ellis, S. Moretti and D.A. Ross, JHEP 0106 (2001) 043 [hepph/0102340].