text:
# 1 Feynman diagrams contributing to 𝑂(𝛼_{𝑒𝑤}𝑚_{𝑡(𝑏)}²/𝑚_𝑊²) Yukawa corrections to 𝑔𝑏→𝑡𝐻⁻: (𝑎) and (𝑏) are tree level diagrams; (𝑐)-(𝑣) are one-loop diagrams. The dashed lines represent 𝐻,ℎ,𝐴,𝐻^±,𝐺⁰ and 𝐺^± for diagrams (𝑐) and (𝑓); 𝐻,ℎ,𝐴 and 𝐺⁰ for diagrams (𝑚),(𝑝),(𝑡) and (𝑢); 𝑡̃,𝑏̃,𝐻,ℎ,𝐴,𝐻^±,𝐺⁰ and 𝐺^± for (𝑖) and (𝑘), where the solid lines represent charginos and neutralinos if the dashed lines represent squarks. For diagrams (𝑑) and (𝑔), the solid lines in the loop represent 𝜒̃⁰ and 𝜒̃⁺ and the dashed lines represent squarks.

1. Introduction

There has been a great deal of interest in the charged Higgs bosons appearing in the two-Higgs-doublet models(THDM), particularly the minimal supersymmetric standard model(MSSM), which predicts the existence of three neutral and two charged Higgs bosons $`h,H,A,`$ and $`H^\pm `$. When the Higgs boson of the Standard Model(SM) has a mass below 130-140 Gev and the h boson of the MSSM is in the decoupling limit (which means that $`H^\pm `$ is too heavy anyway to be possibly produced), the lightest neutral Higgs boson may be difficult to distinguish from the neutral Higgs boson of the standard model(SM). But charged Higgs bosons carry a distinctive signature of the Higgs sector in the MSSM. Therefore, the search for charged Higgs bosons is very important for probing the Higgs sector of the MSSM and, therefore, will be one of the prime objectives of the CERN Large Hadron Collider(LHC). At the LHC the integrated luminosity is expected to reach $`L=100fb^1`$ per year in the second phase. Recently, several studies of charged Higgs boson production at hadron colliders have appeared in the literature. For a relatively light charged Higgs boson, $`m_{H^\pm }<m_tm_b`$, the dominate production processes at the LHC are $`ggt\overline{t}`$ and $`q\overline{q}t\overline{t}`$ followed by the decay sequence $`tbH^+b\tau ^+\nu _\tau `$. For a heavier charged Higgs boson the dominate production process is $`gbtH^{}`$. Previous studies showed that the search for heavy charged Higgs bosons with $`m_{H^\pm }>m_t+m_b`$ at a hadron collider is seriously complicated by QCD backgrounds due to processes such as $`gbt\overline{t}b,g\overline{b}t\overline{t}\overline{b}`$, and $`ggt\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$, as well as others process. However, recent analyses indicate that the decay mode $`H^+\tau ^+\nu `$ provides an excellent signature for a heavy charged Higgs boson in searches at the LHC. The discovery region for $`H^\pm `$ is far greater than had been thought for a large range of the $`(m_{H^\pm },\mathrm{tan}\beta )`$ parameter space, extending beyond $`m_{H^\pm }1TeV`$ and down to at least $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 3`$, and potentially to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 1.5`$, assuming the latest results for the SM parameters and parton distribution functions as well as using kinematic selection techniques and the tau polarization analysis. Of course, it is just a theoretical analysis and no experimental simulation has been performed to make the statement very reliable so far.

The one-loop radiative corrections to $`H^{}t`$ associated production have not been calculated, although this production process has been studied extensively at tree-level. In this paper we present the calculations of the $`O(\alpha _{ew}m_{t(b)}^2/m_W^2)`$ supersymmetric(SUSY) electroweak corrections to this associated $`H^{}t`$ production process at both the Fermilab Tevatron and the LHC in the MSSM. These corrections arise from the quantum effects which are induced by potentially large Yukawa couplings from the Higgs sector and the chargino-top(bottom)-sbottom(stop) couplings, neutralino- top(bottom)-stop(sbottom) couplings and charged Higgs-stop-sbottom couplings which will contribute at the $`O(\alpha _{ew}m_{t(b)}^4/m_W^4)`$ to the self-energy of the charged Higgs boson. In order to get a reliable estimate this process has to be merged with the related gluon splitting contribution $`ggH^{}t\overline{b}`$. This leads to a suppression by about $`50\%`$ at LO. However, the complete one-loop QCD corrections are probably more important, but not yet available.

2. Calculations

The tree-level amplitude for $`gbtH^{}`$ is

$$M_0=M_0^{(s)}+M_0^{(t)},$$
(1)
where $`M_0^{(s)}`$ and $`M_0^{(t)}`$ represent the amplitudes arising from diagrams in Fig.1$`(a)`$ and Fig.1$`(b)`$, respectively. Explicitly,

$`M_0^{(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{igg_s}{\sqrt{2}m_W(\widehat{s}m_b^2)}}\overline{u}(p_t)[2m_t\mathrm{cot}\beta p_b^\mu P_L+2m_b\mathrm{tan}\beta p_b^\mu P_Rm_t\mathrm{cot}\beta \gamma ^\mu \mathit{}P_L`$ (2)
$`m_b\mathrm{tan}\beta \gamma ^\mu \mathit{}P_R]u(p_b)\epsilon _\mu (k)T_{ij}^a,`$
and

$`M_0^{(t)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{igg_s}{\sqrt{2}m_W(\widehat{t}m_t^2)}}\overline{u}(p_t)[2m_t\mathrm{cot}\beta p_t^\mu P_L+2m_b\mathrm{tan}\beta p_t^\mu P_Rm_t\mathrm{cot}\beta \gamma ^\mu \mathit{}P_L`$ (3)
$`m_b\mathrm{tan}\beta \gamma ^\mu \mathit{}P_R]u(p_b)\epsilon _\mu (k)T_{ij}^a,`$
where $`T^a`$ are the $`SU(3)`$ color matrices and $`\widehat{s}`$ and $`\widehat{t}`$ are the subprocess Mandelstam variables defined by

$$\widehat{s}=(p_b+k)^2=(p_t+p_H^{})^2,$$

and

$$\widehat{t}=(p_tk)^2=(p_H^{}p_b)^2.$$

Here the Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix element $`V_{CKM}[bt]`$ has been taken to be unity.

The SUSY electroweak corrections of order $`O(\alpha _{ew}m_{t(b)}^2/m_W^2)`$ and $`O(\alpha _{ew}m_{t(b)}^4/m_W^4)`$ to the process $`gbH^{}t`$ arise from the Feynman diagrams shown in Figs.1(c)-1(v) and Fig.2. We carried out the calculation in the t’Hooft-Feynman gauge and used dimensional reduction, which preserves supersymmetry, for regularization of the ultraviolet divergences in the virtual loop corrections using the on-mass-shell renormalization scheme, in which the fine-structure constant $`\alpha _{ew}`$ and physical masses are chosen to be the renormalized parameters, and finite parts of the counterterms are fixed by the renormalization conditions. The coupling constant $`g`$ is related to the input parameters $`e,m_W,`$ and $`m_Z`$ by $`g^2=e^2/s_w^2`$ and $`s_w^2=1m_w^2/m_Z^2`$. The parameter $`\beta `$ in the MSSM we are considering must also be renormalized. Following the analysis of ref., this renormalization constant was fixed by the requirement that the on-mass-shell $`H^+\overline{l}\nu _l`$ coupling remain the same form as in Eq.(2) of ref. to all orders of perturbation theory. Taking into account the $`O(\alpha _{ew}m_{t(b)}^2/m_W^2)`$ Yukawa corrections, the renormalized amplitude for the process $`gbtH^{}`$ can be written as

$`M_{ren}`$ $`=`$ $`M_0^{(s)}+M_0^{(t)}+\delta M^{V_1(s)}+\delta M^{V_1(t)}+\delta M^{s(s)}+\delta M^{s(t)}+\delta M^{V_2(s)}`$ (4)
$`+\delta M^{V_2(t)}+\delta M^{b(s)}+\delta M^{b(t)}M_0^{(s)}+M_0^{(t)}+{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\delta M^l,`$
where $`\delta M^{V_1(s)},\delta M^{V_1(t)},\delta M^{s(s)},\delta M^{s(t)},\delta M^{V_2(s)},\delta M^{V_2(t)},\delta M^{b(s)}`$, and $`\delta M^{b(t)}`$ represent the corrections to the tree diagrams arising, respectively, from the $`gbb`$ vertex diagram Fig.1(c)-1(d), the $`gtt`$ vertex diagram Fig.1(f)-1(g), the bottom quark self-energy diagram Fig.1(i), the top quark self-energy diagram Fig.1(k), the $`btH^{}`$ vertex diagrams Figs.1(m)-1(n) and Figs.1(p)-1(q), including their corresponding counterterms Fig.1(e), Fig.1(h), Fig.1(j), Fig.1(l), Fig.1(o), and Fig.1(r), and the box diagrams Figs.1$`(s)1(v)`$. $`_l\delta M^l`$ then represents the sum of the contributions to the Yukawa corrections from all the diagrams in Figs.1(c)-1(v). The explicit form of $`\delta M^l`$ can be expressed as

$`\delta M^l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig^3g_sT_{ij}^a}{4\sqrt{2}\times 16\pi ^2m_W}}C^l\overline{u}(p_t)\{f_1^l\gamma ^\mu P_L+f_2^l\gamma ^\mu P_R+f_3^lp_b^\mu P_L+f_4^lp_b^\mu P_R+f_5^lp_t^\mu P_L`$ (5)
$`+f_6^lp_t^\mu P_R+f_7^l\gamma ^\mu \mathit{}P_L+f_8^l\gamma ^\mu \mathit{}P_R+f_9^lp_b^\mu \mathit{}P_L+f_{10}^lp_b^\mu \mathit{}P_R+f_{11}^lp_t^\mu \mathit{}P_L`$
$`+f_{12}^lp_t^\mu \mathit{}P_R\}u(p_b)\epsilon _\mu (k),`$
where the $`C^l`$ are coefficients that depend on $`\widehat{s},\widehat{t}`$, and the masses, and the $`f_i^l`$ are form factors; both the coefficients $`C^l`$ and the form factors $`f_i^l`$ are given explicitly in Appendix A. The corresponding amplitude squared is

$$\overline{}|M_{ren}|^2=\overline{}|M_0^{(s)}+M_0^{(t)}|^2+2Re\overline{}[(\underset{l}{}\delta M^l)(M_0^{(s)}+M_0^{(t)})^{}],$$
(6)
where

$`\overline{{\displaystyle }}|M_0^{(s)}+M_0^{(t)}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2g_s^2}{2N_Cm_W^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\widehat{s}m_b^2)^2}}[(m_t^2\mathrm{cot}^2\beta +m_b^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta )(p_bkp_tk`$ (7)
$``$ $`m_b^2p_tk+2p_bkp_bp_tm_b^2p_bp_t)+2m_b^2m_t^2(p_bkm_b^2)]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\widehat{t}m_t^2)^2}}[(m_t^2\mathrm{cot}^2\beta +m_b^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta )(p_bkp_tk+m_t^2p_bk`$
$``$ $`m_t^2p_bp_t)+2m_b^2m_t^2(p_tkm_t^2)]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\widehat{s}m_b^2)(\widehat{t}m_t^2)}}`$
$`\times `$ $`[(m_t^2\mathrm{cot}^2\beta +m_b^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta )(2p_bkp_tk+2p_bkp_bp_t2(p_bp_t)^2`$
$``$ $`m_b^2p_tk+m_t^2p_bk)+2m_b^2m_t^2(p_tkp_bk2p_bp_t)]\},`$
$`\overline{{\displaystyle }}\delta M^l(M_0^{(s)})^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^4g_s^2}{64N_C\times 16\pi ^2m_W^2(\widehat{s}m_b^2)}}C^l{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{12}{}}}h_i^{(s)}f_i^l,`$ (8)
and

$`\overline{{\displaystyle }}\delta M^l(M_0^{(t)})^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^4g_s^2}{64N_C\times 16\pi ^2m_W^2(\widehat{t}m_t^2)}}C^l{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{12}{}}}h_i^{(t)}f_i^l.`$ (9)
Here the color factor $`N_C=3`$ and $`h_i^{(s)}`$ and $`h_i^{(t)}`$ are scalar functions whose explicit expressions are given in Appendix B.

The cross section for the process $`gbtH^{}`$ is

$$\widehat{\sigma }=_{\widehat{t}_{min}}^{\widehat{t}_{max}}\frac{1}{16\pi \widehat{s}^2}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}|M_{ren}|^2𝑑\widehat{t}$$
(10)
with

$`\widehat{t}_{min}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2+m_H^{}^2\widehat{s}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{(\widehat{s}(m_t+m_H^{})^2)(\widehat{s}(m_tm_H^{})^2)},`$
and

$`\widehat{t}_{max}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2+m_H^{}^2\widehat{s}}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{(\widehat{s}(m_t+m_H^{})^2)(\widehat{s}(m_tm_H^{})^2)}.`$
The total hadronic cross section for $`ppgbtH^{}`$ can be obtained by folding the subprocess cross section $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ with the parton luminosity:

$$\sigma (s)=_{(m_t+m_H^{})/\sqrt{s}}^1𝑑z\frac{dL}{dz}\widehat{\sigma }(gbtH^{}\mathrm{at}\widehat{s}=z^2s).$$
(11)
Here $`\sqrt{s}`$ and $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$ are the CM energies of the $`pp`$ and $`gb`$ states , respectively, and $`dL/dz`$ is the parton luminosity, defined as

$$\frac{dL}{dz}=2z_{z^2}^1\frac{dx}{x}f_{b/P}(x,\mu )f_{g/P}(z^2/x,\mu ),$$
(12)
where $`f_{b/P}(x,\mu )`$ and $`f_{g/P}(z^2/x,\mu )`$ are the bottom quark and gluon parton distribution functions.

3. Numerical results and conclusion

In the following we present some numerical results for charged Higgs boson production in association with a top quark at both the Tevatron and the LHC. In our numerical calculations the SM parameters were taken to be $`m_W=80.41GeV`$, $`m_Z=91.187GeV`$, $`m_t=176GeV`$, $`\alpha _s(m_Z)=0.119`$, and $`\alpha _{ew}(m_Z)=\frac{1}{128.8}`$. And we used the running b quark mass $`3GeV`$ and the one-loop relations from the MSSM between the Higgs boson masses $`m_{h,H,A,H^\pm }`$ and the parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, and chose $`m_{H^\pm }`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ as the two independent input parameters. And we used the CTEQ5M parton distributions throughout the calculations. Other MSSM parameters were determined as follows:

(i) For the parameters $`M_1,M_2`$, and $`\mu `$ in the chargino and neutralino matrix, we put $`M_2=300GeV`$ and then used the relation $`M_1=(5/3)(g^2/g^2)M_20.5M_2`$ to determine $`M_1`$. We also put $`\mu =100GeV`$ except the numerical calculations as shown in Fig.6(b), where $`\mu `$ is a variable.

(ii) For the parameters $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Q},\stackrel{~}{U},\stackrel{~}{D}}^2`$ and $`A_{t,b}`$ in squark mass matrices

$`M_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_{LL}^2& m_qM_{LR}\\ m_qM_{RL}& M_{RR}^2\end{array}\right)`$ (15)
with

$`M_{LL}^2=m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}^2+m_q^2+m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta (I_q^{3L}e_q\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W),`$
$`M_{RR}^2=m_{\stackrel{~}{U},\stackrel{~}{D}}^2+m_q^2+m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta e_q\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W,`$
$`M_{LR}=M_{RL}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A_t\mu \mathrm{cot}\beta \hfill & (\stackrel{~}{q}=\stackrel{~}{t})\hfill \\ A_b\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta \hfill & (\stackrel{~}{q}=\stackrel{~}{b})\hfill \end{array}\right),`$ (18)
to simplify the calculation we assumed $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}^2=m_{\stackrel{~}{U}}^2=m_{\stackrel{~}{D}}^2`$ and $`A_t=A_b`$, and we put $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}=500GeV`$ and $`A_t=200GeV`$. But in the numerical calculations of Fig.6(a) $`A_t=A_b`$ are the variables.

Some typical numerical calculations of the tree-level total cross sections and the $`O(\alpha _{ew}m_{t(b)}^2/m_W^2)`$ SUSY electroweak corrections as the functions of the charged Higgs boson mass, $`A_t=A_b`$ and $`\mu `$, respectively, for three representative values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ are given in Figs.3-6.

Figures 3(a) and 4(a) show that the tree-level total cross sections as a function of the charged Higgs boson mass for three representative values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. For $`m_{H^\pm }=200GeV`$ the total cross sections at the Tevatron are at most only $`0.7`$ fb and $`0.1`$ fb for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2,30`$ and $`10`$, respectively, and for $`m_{H^\pm }=300GeV`$ the total cross sections are smaller than $`0.15`$ fb for all three values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. However, at the LHC the total cross sections are much larger: the order of thousands of fb for $`m_{H^\pm }`$ in the range $`100`$ to $`240GeV`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$ and $`30`$; and they are hundreds of fb for the intermediate value $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$. When the charged Higgs boson mass becomes heavy($`<500`$ GeV), the total cross sections still are larger than $`100`$ fb and $`10`$ fb for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2,30`$ and $`10`$, respectively. For low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the top quark contribution is enhanced while for high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the bottom quark contribution becomes large. These results are smaller than ones given in ref. because we used the running b quark mass $`3GeV`$ in the numerical calculations. We have confirmed that if we chose $`m_b=4.5GeV`$, our results will agree with ref..

In Figs. 3(b) and 4(b) we show the corrections to the total cross sections relative to the tree-level values as a function of $`m_{H^\pm }`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2,10,`$ and $`30`$. For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$ the corrections decrease the total cross sections significantly, which exceed $`13\%`$ for $`m_{H^\pm }`$ below $`300GeV`$ at the both Tevatron and the LHC. But the corrections decrease as $`m_{H^\pm }`$ increase. For example, as shown in Fig.4(b), the corrections range between $`13\%0\%`$ when $`m_{H^\pm }`$ increase from $`300GeV`$ to $`1TeV`$ at the LHC. For high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta (=10,30)`$ these corrections become smaller, which can decrease or increase the total cross sections depending on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and the magnitude of the corrections are at most a few percent for a wide range of the charged Higgs boson mass at both the Tevatron and the LHC.

In Fig.5 we present the Yukawa correction from the Higgs sector and the genuine SUSY electroweak correction from the couplings involving the genuine SUSY particles(the chargino, neutralino and squark) for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$ at the LHC, respectively. One can see that the Yukawa correction and the genuine SUSY electroweak correction have opposite signs, and thus cancel to some extent. The former decrease the total cross sections, which can range between $`8\%4\%`$ for $`m_{H^\pm }`$ below $`300GeV`$, but the latter increase the total cross sections, which range between $`10\%7\%`$ for $`m_{H^\pm }`$ in the same range. In such a case the combined effects just are about $`2\%3\%`$.

Figs.6(a) and 6(b) give the corrections as the functions of $`A_t=A_b`$ and $`\mu `$ for $`m_{H^\pm }=300GeV`$ at the LHC, respectively, assuming $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2,10`$ and $`30`$. From Figs.6(a) and 6(b) one sees that the corrections increase or decrease slowly with increasing $`A_t=A_b`$ and the magnitude of $`\mu `$, respectively, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30,10`$, and the corrections are not very sensitive to both $`A_t=A_b`$ and $`\mu `$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$, where the corrections are always about $`12\%`$ and $`13\%`$, respectively. In general for large values of $`A_t`$ and small values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ or large values of $`\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, one can get much larger corrections since the charged Higgs boson-stop-sbottom couplings become stronger. For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$, comparing Fig.4(b) with Fig.6(b), we can see that the corrections indeed become larger as the values of $`\mu `$ increase. But for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$ from Fig.4(a) and Fig.6(a) we found that the corrections almost have no change when $`A_t=A_b`$ become larger. Obviously the effects from the stronger couplings have been suppressed by the decoupling effects because with an increase of $`A_t=A_b`$ all the squark masses are still heavy, which almost is same as discussed in Ref..

In conclusion, we have calculated the $`O(\alpha _{ew}m_{t(b)}^2/m_W^2)`$ and $`O(\alpha _{ew}m_{t(b)}^4/m_W^4)`$ SUSY electroweak corrections to the cross section for the charged Higgs boson production in association with a top quark at the Tevatron and the LHC. These corrections decrease or increase the cross section depending on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ but are not very sensitive to the mass of the charged Higgs boson for high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. At low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta (=2)`$ the corrections decrease the total cross sections significantly, which exceed $`12\%`$ for $`m_{H^\pm }`$ below $`300GeV`$ at both the Tevatron and the LHC, but for $`m_{H^\pm }>300GeV`$ the corrections can become very small at the LHC. For high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta (=10,30)`$ these corrections can decrease or increase the total cross sections, and the magnitude of the corrections are at most a few percent at both the Tevatron and the LHC.

This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Doctoral Program Foundation of Higher Education of China, the Post Doctoral Foundation of China, a grant from the State Commission of Science and Technology of China, and the U.S.Department of Energy, Division of High Energy Physics, under Grant No.DE-FG02-91-ER4086. S.H. Zhu also gratefully acknowledges the support of the K.C. Wong Education Foundation of Hong Kong.

Appendix A

The coefficients $`C^l`$ and form factors $`f_i^l`$ are the following:

$`C^{V_1(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{m_W^2(\widehat{s}m_b^2)}},C^{V_1(t)}={\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{m_W^2(\widehat{t}m_t^2)}},C^{s(s)}={\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{m_W^2(\widehat{s}m_b^2)^2}},`$
$`C^{s(t)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{m_W^2(\widehat{t}m_t^2)^2}},C^{V_2(s)}={\displaystyle \frac{m_bm_t}{m_W^2(\widehat{s}m_b^2)}},C^{V_2(t)}={\displaystyle \frac{m_bm_t}{m_W^2(\widehat{t}m_t^2)}},`$
$`C^{b(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`C^{b(t)}={\displaystyle \frac{m_tm_b}{m_W^2}},`$
$`f_1^{V_1(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^{(1)}[m_b(g_2^{V_1(s)}g_3^{V_1(s)})2p_bkg_6^{V_1(s)}],`$
$`f_2^{V_1(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^{(2)}[m_b(g_3^{V_1(s)}g_2^{V_1(s)})2p_bkg_7^{V_1(s)}],`$
$`f_3^{V_1(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^{(2)}[2(g_1^{V_1(s)}+g_2^{V_1(s)})+m_b(g_4^{V_1(s)}+g_5^{V_1(s)})+2p_bkg_8^{V_1(s)}],`$
$`f_4^{V_1(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^{(1)}[2(g_1^{V_1(s)}+g_3^{V_1(s)})+m_b(g_4^{V_1(s)}+g_5^{V_1(s)})+2p_bkg_9^{V_1(s)}],`$
$`f_7^{V_1(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^{(2)}[(g_1^{V_1(s)}+g_2^{V_1(s)})+m_b(g_6^{V_1(s)}+g_7^{V_1(s)})],`$
$`f_8^{V_1(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^{(1)}[(g_1^{V_1(s)}+g_3^{V_1(s)})+m_b(g_6^{V_1(s)}+g_7^{V_1(s)})],`$
$`f_9^{V_1(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^{(1)}[g_4^{V_1(s)}+2g_6^{V_1(s)}+m_b(g_8^{V_1(s)}g_9^{V_1(s)})],`$
$`f_{10}^{V_1(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^{(2)}[g_5^{V_1(s)}+2g_7^{V_1(s)}+m_b(g_9^{V_1(s)}g_8^{V_1(s)})],`$
$`f_1^{V_2(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`2p_bkg_3^{V_2(s)},f_2^{V_2(s)}=2p_bkg_4^{V_2(s)},`$
$`f_3^{V_2(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`2g_1^{V_2(s)}+2m_t\mathrm{cot}\beta (\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{(1)}+\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{(2)}+\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{(3)})2m_tg_3^{V_2(s)}+2m_bg_4^{V_2(s)},`$
$`f_4^{V_2(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`2g_2^{V_2(s)}+2m_b\mathrm{tan}\beta (\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }_R^{(1)}+\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }_R^{(2)}+\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }_R^{(3)})+2m_bg_3^{V_2(s)}2m_tg_4^{V_2(s)},`$
$`f_7^{V_2(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f_3^{V_2(s)},f_8^{V_2(s)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f_4^{V_2(s)},`$
$`f_1^{V_2(t)}`$ $`=`$ $`2p_tkg_3^{V_2(t)},f_2^{V_2(t)}=2p_tkg_4^{V_2(t)},`$
$`f_5^{V_2(t)}`$ $`=`$ $`2g_1^{V_2(t)}+2m_t\mathrm{cot}\beta (\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{(1)}+\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{(2)}+\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{(3)})2m_tg_3^{V_2(t)}+2m_bg_4^{V_2(t)},`$
$`f_6^{V_2(t)}`$ $`=`$ $`2g_2^{V_2(t)}+2m_b\mathrm{tan}\beta (\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }_R^{(1)}+\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }_R^{(2)}+\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }_R^{(3)})+2m_bg_3^{V_2(t)}2m_tg_4^{V_2(t)},`$
$`f_7^{V_2(t)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f_5^{V_2(t)},f_8^{V_2(t)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f_6^{V_2(t)},`$
$`f_1^{s(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`2\eta ^{(1)}p_bk[g_1^{s(s)}+m_b(g_2^{s(s)}+g_3^{s(s)})],`$
$`f_2^{s(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`2\eta ^{(2)}p_bk[g_5^{s(s)}+m_b(g_2^{s(s)}+g_4^{s(s)})],`$
$`f_3^{s(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`2\eta ^{(2)}[m_b(g_1^{s(s)}+g_5^{s(s)})+2(m_b^2+p_bk)g_2^{s(s)}+(m_b^2+2p_bk)g_3^{s(s)}+m_b^2g_4^{s(s)}],`$
$`f_4^{s(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`2\eta ^{(1)}[m_b(g_1^{s(s)}+g_5^{s(s)})+2(m_b^2+p_bk)g_2^{s(s)}+m_b^2g_3^{s(s)}+(m_b^2+2p_bk)g_4^{s(s)}],`$
$`f_7^{s(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f_3^{s(s)},f_8^{s(s)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f_4^{s(s)},`$
$`f_1^{b(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=H^0,h^0,G^0,A^0}{}}\eta _i^{(3)}\{\eta ^{(2)}[2m_b(3D_{312}+(1\zeta _i)D_{27})+m_b^3(D_0+D_{12}D_{22}`$
$`D_{32})m_t^2m_b(D_{23}+2D_{39})2m_bp_bk(2D_{36}+D_{24}+\zeta _i(D_0+D_{12}))`$
$`+2m_bp_tk(D_{25}+D_{310})+2m_bp_bp_t(D_{26}+2D_{38})]+\eta ^{(1)}[2m_t(3D_{313}+(1`$
$`+\zeta _i)D_{27})m_t^3(D_{33}+(1+\zeta _i)D_{23})+m_b^2m_t(D_{13}2D_{38}+(1+\zeta _i)(D_0`$
$`D_{22}))+2m_tp_bk(D_{13}D_{310}(1+\zeta _i)(D_{12}+D_{24}))+2m_tp_tk(2D_{37}`$
$`+(1+\zeta _i)D_{25})+2m_tp_bp_t(2D_{39}+(1+\zeta _i)D_{26})]\}`$
$`(k,p_b,p_t,m_b,m_b,m_i,m_t)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{8\sqrt{2}m_W}{\mathrm{sin}2\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}}N_{k4}N_{k3}^{}R_i(b)R_j(t)\sigma _{ij}D_{27}(k,p_b,p_t,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i},m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_k^0},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_j}),`$
$`f_2^{b(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`f_1^{b(s)}(\eta ^{(1)}\eta ^{(2)},L_lR_l,N_{kl}N_{kl}^{}),`$
$`f_3^{b(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=H^0,h^0,G^0,A^0}{}}\eta _i^{(3)}\{\eta ^{(1)}[4D_{27}+2m_b^2(D_{22}D_0(1\zeta _i)(D_{12}+D_{22}))`$
$`+2m_t^2(D_{23}(1+\zeta _i)D_{26})+4p_tk(D_{26}D_{25})]+\eta ^{(2)}2m_tm_b(1+\zeta _i)(D_{22}`$
$`D_{12}D_{26})\}(k,p_b,p_t,m_b,m_b,m_i,m_t)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{8\sqrt{2}m_W}{\mathrm{sin}2\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}}\sigma _{ij}[m_tN_{k4}N_{k3}^{}R_i(b)R_j(t)D_{26}+m_bN_{k4}^{}N_{k3}L_i(b)L_j(t)(D_{12}`$
$`+D_{22})+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_k^0}N_{k4}^{}N_{k3}^{}R_i(b)L_j(t)D_{12}](k,p_b,p_t,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i},m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_k^0},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_j}),`$
$`f_4^{b(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`f_3^{b(s)}(\eta ^{(1)}\eta ^{(2)},L_lR_l,N_{kl}N_{kl}^{}),`$
$`f_5^{b(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=H^0,h^0,G^0,A^0}{}}\eta _i^{(3)}\{\eta ^{(1)}[12D_{313}+2m_b^2(2D_{38}D_{13}+(1\zeta _i)(D_{13}`$
$`+D_{26}))+2m_t^2(D_{33}+(1+\zeta _i)D_{23})+4p_bk(D_{25}+D_{310})4p_tk(D_{23}`$
$`+2D_{37})4p_tp_b(D_{23}+2D_{39})]+\eta ^{(2)}2m_tm_b(1+\zeta _i)(D_{13}+D_{23}`$
$`D_{26})\}(k,p_b,p_t,m_b,m_b,m_i,m_t)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{8\sqrt{2}m_W}{\mathrm{sin}2\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}}\sigma _{ij}[m_tN_{k4}N_{k3}^{}R_i(b)R_j(t)D_{23}+m_bN_{k4}^{}N_{k3}L_i(b)L_j(t)(D_{13}`$
$`+D_{26})+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_k^0}N_{k4}^{}N_{k3}^{}R_i(b)L_j(t)D_{13}](k,p_b,p_t,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i},m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_k^0},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_j}),`$
$`f_6^{b(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`f_5^{b(s)}(\eta ^{(1)}\eta ^{(2)},L_lR_l,N_{kl}N_{kl}^{}),`$
$`f_7^{b(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=H^0,h^0,G^0,A^0}{}}\eta _i^{(3)}\{\eta ^{(1)}[6(D_{27}D_{311})+m_b^2(D_{11}2D_{12}2D_{22}`$
$`2D_{36}+(1+\zeta _i)(D_0+D_{12}))m_t^2(2D_{23}+2D_{37}+(1+\zeta _i)D_{13})2p_bk(D_{12}`$
$`+2D_{24}+2D_{34})+2p_tk(D_{13}+2D_{25}+2D_{35})+2p_tp_b(D_{13}+2D_{26}`$
$`+D_{310})]+\eta ^{(2)}m_tm_b(1+\zeta _i)(D_{12}D_{13}D_0)\}(k,p_b,p_t,m_b,m_b,m_i,m_t),`$
$`f_8^{b(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`f_7^{b(s)}(\eta ^{(1)}\eta ^{(2)}),`$
$`f_9^{b(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=H^0,h^0,G^0,A^0}{}}\eta _i^{(3)}\{\eta ^{(1)}2m_t[D_{13}D_{26}+(1+\zeta _i)(D_{12}+D_{24})]`$
$`+\eta ^{(2)}2m_b[D_{22}+D_{24}+\zeta _i(D_0+2D_{12}+D_{24})]\}(k,p_b,p_t,m_b,m_b,m_i,m_t)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{8\sqrt{2}m_W}{\mathrm{sin}2\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}}\sigma _{ij}N_{k4}N_{k3}^{}R_i(b)R_j(t)(D_{12}`$
$`+D_{24})(k,p_b,p_t,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i},m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_k^0},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_j}),`$
$`f_{10}^{b(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`f_9^{b(s)}(\eta ^{(1)}\eta ^{(2)},L_lR_l,N_{kl}N_{kl}^{}),`$
$`f_{11}^{b(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=H^0,h^0,G^0,A^0}{}}\eta _i^{(3)}\{\eta ^{(1)}2m_t[D_{23}(1+\zeta _i)D_{25}]\eta ^{(2)}2m_b[D_{26}+D_{25}`$
$`+\zeta _i(D_{13}+D_{25})]\}(k,p_b,p_t,m_b,m_b,m_i,m_t)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{8\sqrt{2}m_W}{\mathrm{sin}2\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}}\sigma _{ij}N_{k4}N_{k3}^{}R_i(b)R_j(t)(D_{13}`$
$`+D_{25})(k,p_b,p_t,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i},m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_k^0},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_j}),`$
$`f_{12}^{b(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`f_{11}^{b(s)}(\eta ^{(1)}\eta ^{(2)},L_lR_l,N_{kl}N_{kl}^{}),`$
where $`D_0,D_{ij},D_{ijk}`$ are the four-point Feynman integrals . The explicit forms of $`\delta M^{V_1(t)},\delta M^{s(t)},\delta M^{b(t)}`$ can be respectively obtained from $`\delta M^{V_1(s)},\delta M^{s(s)},\delta M^{b(s)}`$ by the transformation $`U`$ defined as

$$p_bp_t,\widehat{s}\widehat{t},kk,\xi _i^{(1)}\xi _i^{(2)},\xi _i^{(3)}\xi _i^{(4)},\eta _i^{(1)}\eta _i^{(2)},$$

$$m_tm_b,\eta ^{(1)}\eta ^{(2)},\lambda _b\lambda _t,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_i}m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i},U_{i2}V_{i2}^{},N_{i3}N_{i4}^{},$$

$$L_i(b)L_i(t),R_i(b)R_i(t),p_b^\mu P_{L(R)}p_t^\mu P_{R(L)},\gamma ^\mu \mathit{}P_L\gamma ^\mu \mathit{}P_R.$$

All other form factors $`f_i^l`$ not listed above vanish. In the above expressions we have used the following definitions:

$`\eta ^{(1)}=m_b\mathrm{tan}\beta ,\eta ^{(2)}=m_t\mathrm{cot}\beta ,`$ $`\lambda _b={\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{\sqrt{2}m_W\mathrm{cos}\beta }},\lambda _t={\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{\sqrt{2}m_W\mathrm{sin}\beta }}`$
$`L_1(q)=\mathrm{cos}\theta _q,L_2(q)=\mathrm{sin}\theta _q,`$ $`R_1(q)=\mathrm{sin}\theta _q,R_2(q)=\mathrm{cos}\theta _q,`$
$`\eta _{H^0}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha }{\mathrm{cos}^2\beta }},\eta _{h^0}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha }{\mathrm{cos}^2\beta }},`$ $`\eta _{A^0}^{(1)}=\mathrm{tan}^2\beta ,\eta _{G^0}^{(1)}=1,`$
$`\eta _{H^0}^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha }{\mathrm{sin}^2\beta }},\eta _{h^0}^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha }{\mathrm{sin}^2\beta }},`$ $`\eta _{A^0}^{(2)}=\mathrm{cot}^2\beta ,\eta _{G^0}^{(2)}=1,`$
$`\eta _{H^0}^{(3)}=\eta _{h^0}^{(3)}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\alpha }{\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\beta }},`$ $`\eta _{G^0}^{(3)}=\eta _{A^0}^{(3)}=1,`$
$`\xi _H^{}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{m_b^2}}\mathrm{cot}^2\beta ,\xi _G^{}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{m_b^2}},`$ $`\xi _H^{}^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{m_t^2}}\mathrm{tan}^2\beta ,\xi _G^{}^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{m_t^2}},`$
$`\xi _H^{}^{(3)}=\mathrm{tan}^2\beta ,\xi _G^{}^{(3)}=1,`$ $`\xi _H^{}^{(4)}=\mathrm{cot}^2\beta ,\xi _G^{}^{(4)}=1,`$
$$\zeta _{H^0}=\zeta _{h^0}=\zeta _H^{}=\zeta _{A^0}=\zeta _{G^0}=\zeta _G^{}=1,$$

$`\sigma _{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_W}{\sqrt{2}}}(\mathrm{sin}2\beta {\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2\mathrm{tan}\beta +m_t^2\mathrm{cot}\beta }{m_W^2}})L_i(b)L_j(t)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_tm_b}{\sqrt{2}m_W}}(\mathrm{tan}\beta +\mathrm{cot}\beta )R_i(b)R_j(t){\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{\sqrt{2}m_W}}(\mu A_b\mathrm{tan}\beta )R_i(b)L_j(t)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{\sqrt{2}m_W}}(\mu A_t\mathrm{cot}\beta )L_i(b)R_j(t),`$
$`g_1^{V_1(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=H^0,h^0,G^0,A^0}{}}\eta _i^{(1)}\{[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}2\overline{C}_{24}+m_b^2(2C_{11}+C_{12}C_{21}+C_{23})\widehat{s}(C_{12}`$
$`+C_{23})](p_b,k,m_i,m_b,m_b)+[F_0+F_1+2m_b^2G_1`$
$`(1+\zeta _i)2m_b^2G_0](m_b^2,m_i,m_b)\},`$
$`g_2^{V_1(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=H^{},G^{}}{}}2\{\xi _i^{(1)}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}2\overline{C}_{24}+m_t^2C_0+m_b^2(C_02C_{11}+C_{12}C_{21}+C_{23})`$
$`\widehat{s}(C_{12}+C_{23})](p_b,k,m_i,m_t,m_t)+[\xi _i^{(1)}(F_0+F_1)2m_t^2\zeta _iG_0`$
$`+m_b^2(\xi _i^{(1)}+\xi _i^{(3)})(G_1\zeta _iG_0)](m_b^2,m_i,m_t)\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4m_W^2}{m_b^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}\{\lambda _b^2[R_j^2(b)|N_{i3}|^2(F_0+F_1)+m_b^2|N_{i3}|^2(G_0+G_1)2m_bm_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}`$
$`\times L_j(b)R_j(b)N_{i3}^2G_0](m_b^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_j},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0})+[2m_bm_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}\lambda _b\lambda _tL_j(t)R_j(t)V_{i2}^2U_{i2}^2G_0`$
$`+\lambda _t^2R_j^2(t)|V_{i2}|^2(F_0+F_1)+m_b^2(\lambda _t^2R_j^2(t)|V_{i2}|^2+\lambda _b^2L_j^2(t)|U_{i2}|^2)(G_0`$
$`+G_1)](m_b^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_j},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+})2\lambda _b^2R_j^2(b)|N_{i3}|^2\overline{C}_{24}(p_b,k,m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0},m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_j},m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_j})`$
$`2\lambda _t^2R_j^2(t)|V_{i2}|^2\overline{C}_{24}(p_b,k,m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_j},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_j})\},`$
$`g_3^{V_1(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`g_2^{V_1(s)}(\xi _i^{(1)}\xi _i^{(3)},V_{i2}U_{i2}^{},N_{i3}N_{i3}^{},L_j(b)R_j(b),\lambda _bL_j(t)\lambda _tR_j(t)),`$
$`g_4^{V_1(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=H^0,h^0,G^0,A^0}{}}\eta _i^{(1)}2m_b[C_0+2C_{11}+C_{21}+\zeta _i(C_0+C_{11})](p_b,k,m_i,m_b,m_b)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=H^{},G^{}}{}}4m_b[\xi _i^{(3)}(C_0+2C_{11}+C_{21})+{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{m_b^2}}\zeta _i(C_0+C_{11})](p_b,k,m_i,m_t,m_t)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{8m_W^2}{m_b^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}\{\lambda _b^2[m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}L_j(b)R_j(b)N_{i3}^2(C_0+C_{11})m_bL_j^2(b)|N_{i3}|^2(C_{11}`$
$`+C_{21})](p_b,k,m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0},m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_j},m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_j})`$
$`+[m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}\lambda _b\lambda _tL_j(t)R_j(t)V_{i2}^{}U_{i2}^{}(C_0+C_{11})m_b\lambda _b^2L_j^2(t)|U_{i2}|^2(C_{11}`$
$`+C_{21})](p_b,k,m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_j},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_j})\},`$
$`g_5^{V_1(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`g_4^{V_1(s)}(\xi _i^{(1)}\xi _i^{(3)},V_{i2}U_{i2}^{},N_{i3}N_{i3}^{},L_j(b)R_j(b),\lambda _bL_j(t)\lambda _tR_j(t)),`$
$`g_6^{V_1(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=H^0,h^0,G^0,A^0}{}}\eta _i^{(1)}m_b(C_0+C_{11}+\zeta _iC_0)(p_b,k,m_i,m_b,m_b)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=H^{},G^{}}{}}2m_b[\xi _i^{(3)}(C_0+C_{11})+{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{m_b^2}}\zeta _iC_0](p_b,k,m_i,m_t,m_t),`$
$`g_7^{V_1(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`g_6^{V_1(s)}(\xi _i^{(1)}\xi _i^{(3)}),`$
$`g_8^{V_1(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=H^0,h^0,G^0,A^0}{}}2\eta _i^{(1)}(C_{12}+C_{23})(p_b,k,m_i,m_b,m_b)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=H^{},G^{}}{}}4\xi _i^{(1)}(C_{12}+C_{24})(p_b,k,m_i,m_t,m_t)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{8m_W^2}{m_b^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}\{\lambda _b^2R_j^2(b)|N_{i3}|^2(C_{12}+C_{23})(p_b,k,m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0},m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_j},m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_j})`$
$`+\lambda _t^2R_j^2(t)|V_{i2}|^2(C_{12}+C_{23})(p_b,k,m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_j},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_j})\},`$
$`g_9^{V_1(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`g_8^{V_1(s)}(\xi _i^{(1)}\xi _i^{(3)},V_{i2}U_{i2}^{},N_{i3}N_{i3}^{},L_j(b)R_j(b),\lambda _bL_j(t)\lambda _tR_j(t)),`$
$`g_1^{V_2(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=H^0,h^0,G^0,A^0}{}}\eta _i^{(3)}\{\eta ^{(1)}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+4\overline{C}_{24}+m_t^2(C_0+2C_{11}+\zeta _i(C_0+C_{11})`$
$`+C_{21}C_{12}C_{23})+m_H^{}^2(C_{22}C_{23})+\widehat{s}(C_{12}+C_{23})]+\eta ^{(2)}m_bm_t[\zeta _iC_{11}`$
$`+(1+\zeta _i)C_0]\}(p_t,p_H^{},m_i,m_t,m_b)+{\displaystyle \frac{4\sqrt{2}m_W}{\mathrm{sin}2\beta }}{\displaystyle }_{i,j,k}[m_tR_i(b)R_j(t)N_{k3}^{}N_{k4}`$
$`\times (C_{11}+C_{12})+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_k^0}L_j(t)R_i(b)N_{k3}^{}N_{k4}^{}C_0]\sigma _{ij}(p_t,p_H^{},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_k^0},m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_j}),`$
$`g_2^{V_2(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`g_1^{V_2(s)}(\eta ^{(1)}\eta ^{(2)},L_lR_l,N_{kl}N_{kl}^{}),`$
$`g_3^{V_2(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=H^0,h^0,G^0,A^0}{}}\eta _i^{(3)}\{\eta ^{(1)}m_t[C_0+C_{11}+\zeta _i(C_0+C_{12})]+\eta ^{(2)}\zeta _im_bC_{12}\}`$
$`(p_t,p_H^{},m_i,m_t,m_b)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4\sqrt{2}m_W}{\mathrm{sin}2\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}}R_i(b)R_j(t)N_{k3}^{}N_{k4}\sigma _{ij}C_{12}(p_t,p_H^{},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_k^0},m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_j}),`$
$`g_4^{V_2(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`g_3^{V_2(s)}(\eta ^{(1)}\eta ^{(2)},L_lR_l,N_{kl}N_{kl}^{}),`$
$`g_1^{V_2(t)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=H^0,h^0,G^0,A^0}{}}\eta _i^{(3)}\{\eta ^{(1)}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+4\overline{C}_{24}+m_b^2(C_0+2C_{11}+\zeta _i(C_0+C_{11})`$
$`+C_{21}C_{12}C_{23})+m_H^{}^2(C_{22}C_{23})+\widehat{t}(C_{12}+C_{23})]`$
$`+\eta ^{(2)}m_bm_t[C_0+\zeta _i(C_0+C_{11})]\}(p_b,p_H^{},m_i,m_b,m_t)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4\sqrt{2}m_W}{\mathrm{sin}2\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}}[m_bL_i(b)L_j(t)N_{k3}^{}N_{k4}(C_{11}+C_{12})`$
$`+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_k^0}L_j(t)R_i(b)N_{k3}^{}N_{k4}^{}C_0]\sigma _{ij}(p_b,p_H^{},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_k^0},m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_j}),`$
$`g_2^{V_2(t)}`$ $`=`$ $`g_1^{V_2(t)}(\eta ^{(1)}\eta ^{(2)},L_lR_l,N_{kl}N_{kl}^{}),`$
$`g_3^{V_2(t)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=H^0,h^0,G^0,A^0}{}}\eta _i^{(3)}\{\eta ^{(1)}m_b[C_0+C_{11}+\zeta _i(C_0+C_{12})]+\eta ^{(2)}\zeta _im_tC_{12}\}`$
$`(p_b,p_H^{},m_i,m_b,m_t)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4\sqrt{2}m_W}{\mathrm{sin}2\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}}R_i(b)R_j(t)N_{k3}^{}N_{k4}\sigma _{ij}C_{12}(p_b,p_H^{},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_k^0},m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_j}),`$
$`g_4^{V_2(t)}`$ $`=`$ $`g_3^{V_2(t)}(\eta ^{(1)}\eta ^{(2)},L_lR_l,N_{kl}N_{kl}^{}),`$
$`g_1^{s(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=H^0,h^0,G^0,A^0}{}}m_b\eta _i^{(1)}\{\zeta _iF_0(p_b+k,m_i,m_b)+[\zeta _iF_02m_b^2(1+\zeta _i)G_0`$
$`+2m_b^2G_1](m_b^2,m_i,m_b)\}+{\displaystyle }_{i=H^{},G^{}}2m_b\{{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{m_b^2}}\zeta _iF_0(p_b+k,m_i,m_t)`$
$`+[2m_t^2\zeta _iG_0+m_b^2(\xi _i^{(1)}+\xi _i^{(3)})(G_1\zeta _iG_0)+\zeta _i{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{m_b^2}}F_0](m_b^2,m_i,m_t)\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4m_W^2}{m_b^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}\{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}\lambda _b^2L_j(b)R_j(b)N_{i3}^2F_0(p_b+k,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_j},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0})`$
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}\lambda _b\lambda _tL_j(b)R_j(b)V_{i2}^{}U_{i2}^{}F_0(p_b+k,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_j},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+})+[m_b^3\lambda _b^2|N_{i3}|^2(G_0+G_1)`$
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}\lambda _b^2L_j(b)R_j(b)N_{i3}^2(2m_b^2G_0F_0)](m_b^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_j},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0})+[m_b^3(\lambda _b^2L_j^2(t)|U_{i2}|^2`$
$`+\lambda _t^2R_j^2(t)|V_{i2}|^2)(G_0+G_1)m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}\lambda _b\lambda _tL_j(t)R_j(t)V_{i2}^{}U_{i2}^{}(2m_b^2G_0`$
$`F_0)](m_b^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_j},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+})\},`$
$`g_2^{s(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=H^0,h^0,G^0,A^0}{}}\eta _i^{(1)}(F_0+F_1)(p_b+k,m_i,m_b),`$
$`g_3^{s(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=H^0,h^0,G^0,A^0}{}}\eta _i^{(1)}[F_0F_12m_b^2G_1+2(1+\zeta _i)m_b^2G_0](m_b^2,m_i,m_b)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=H^{},G^{}}{}}2\{\xi _i^{(1)}(F_0+F_1)(p_b+k,m_i,m_t)[\xi _i^{(1)}(F_0+F_1)`$
$`2\zeta _im_t^2G_0+m_b^2(\xi _i^{(1)}+\xi _i^{(3)})(G_1\zeta _iG_0)](m_b^2,m_i,m_t)\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4m_W^2}{m_b^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}\{\lambda _b^2[R_j^2(b)|N_{i3}|^2(F_0+F_1)+|N_{i3}|^2m_b^2(G_0+G_1)`$
$`2m_bm_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}L_j(b)R_j(b)N_{i3}^2G_0](m_b^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_j},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0})`$
$`+[\lambda _t^2R_j^2(t)|V_{i2}|^2(F_0+F_1)+m_b^2(\lambda _t^2R_j^2(t)|V_{i2}|^2+\lambda _b^2L_j^2(t)|U_{i2}|^2)(G_1G_0)`$
$`2m_bm_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}L_j(t)R_j(t)\lambda _b\lambda _tV_{i2}^{}U_{i2}^{}G_0](m_b^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_j},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+})`$
$`\lambda _b^2R_j^2(b)|N_{i3}|^2(F_0+F_1)(p_b+k,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_j},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0})`$
$`\lambda _t^2R_j^2(t)|V_{i2}|^2(F_0+F_1)(p_b+k,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_j},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+})\},`$
$`g_4^{s(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`g_3^{s(s)}(\xi _i^{(1)}\xi _i^{(3)},V_{i2}U_{i2}^{},N_{i3}N_{i3}^{},L_j(b)R_j(b),\lambda _bL_j(t)\lambda _tR_j(t)),`$
$`g_5^{s(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`g_1^{s(s)}(N_{i3}^{}N_{i3},V_{i2}^{}V_{i2},U_{i2}^{}U_{i2}),`$
$`\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4N_c}{3m_W^2}}(1\mathrm{cot}^2\theta _W)[2m_t^2(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{\mu ^2}}1)+m_b^2+m_t^2{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}m_W^2+m_b^2F_0`$
$`+(m_b^2m_t^22m_W^2)F_1](m_W^2,m_b,m_t)+{\displaystyle \frac{4N_c}{3m_W^2}}\mathrm{cot}^2\theta _W\{{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}[(g_V^b)^2+(g_A^b)^2`$
$`+(g_V^t)^2+(g_A^t)^2]m_Z^2+[((g_V^t)^2+(g_A^t)^2)(2m_t^2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{\mu ^2}}+m_t^2F_02m_Z^2F_1)`$
$`((g_V^t)^2(g_A^t)^2)3m_t^2F_0](m_Z^2,m_t,m_t)+[((g_V^b)^2+(g_A^b)^2)(2m_b^2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{\mu ^2}}`$
$`+m_b^2F_02m_Z^2F_1)((g_V^b)^2(g_A^b)^2)3m_b^2F_0](m_Z^2,m_b,m_b)\}+{\displaystyle \frac{4N_c}{m_W^2}}[(\mathrm{cot}^2\beta `$
$`1)m_t^2F_0+(m_t^2m_b^22m_t^2\mathrm{cot}^2\beta )F_1+(m_t^2\mathrm{cot}^2\beta +m_b^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta `$
$`+2m_b^2)m_t^2G_0(m_t^2\mathrm{cot}^2\beta +m_b^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta )m_H^{}^2G_1](m_H^{}^2,m_t,m_b)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=H^0,h^0,G^0,A^0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_W^2}}\{m_b^2\eta _i^{(1)}[F_1F_02m_b^2(G_0+\zeta _iG_0G_1)](m_b^2,m_i,m_b)`$
$`m_t^2\eta _i^{(2)}[(1+2\zeta _i)F_0+F_1+2m_t^2(1+\zeta _i)G_02m_t^2G_1](m_t^2,m_i,m_t)\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=H^{},G^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_W^2}}\{m_b^2[\xi _i^{(1)}(F_0+F_1)2m_t^2\zeta _iG_0+m_b^2(\xi _i^{(1)}+\xi _i^{(3)})`$
$`\times (G_1\zeta _iG_0)](m_b^2,m_i,m_t)m_t^2[{\displaystyle \frac{2m_b^2}{m_t^2}}\zeta _iF_0+\xi _i^{(2)}(F_0+F_1)+2m_b^2\zeta _iG_0`$
$`m_t^2(\xi _i^{(2)}+\xi _i^{(4)})(G_1\zeta _iG_0)](m_t^2,m_i,m_b)\}2N_C{\displaystyle }_{i,j}\{2\sigma _{ij}\sigma _{ij}G_0`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_W^2}}L_i(b)L_j(t)[L_i(b)L_j(t)({\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{\mathrm{cos}^2\beta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\beta }})\mathrm{cos}2\beta `$
$`+R_i(b)R_j(t)m_tm_b(\mathrm{tan}^2\beta \mathrm{cot}^2\beta )]\}(m_H^{}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_j},m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i}),`$
$`\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}\{\lambda _t^2[{\displaystyle \frac{2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}}{m_t}}L_j(t)R_j(t)N_{i4}^2(F_0m_t^2G_0)+|N_{i4}|^2(R_j^2(t)(F_0+F_1)`$
$`m_t^2(G_0+G_1))](m_t^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_j},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0})+[{\displaystyle \frac{2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}}{m_t}}\lambda _b\lambda _tL_j(b)R_j(b)U_{i2}^{}V_{i2}^{}(F_0`$
$`m_t^2G_0)+\lambda _b^2R_j^2(b)|U_{i2}|^2(F_0+F_1)m_t^2(\lambda _t^2L_j^2(b)|V_{i2}|^2+\lambda _b^2R_j^2(b)|U_{i2}|^2)`$
$`\times (G_0+G_1)](m_t^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_j},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+})\},`$
$`\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}\{\lambda _b^2[|Ni3|^2(R_j^2(b)(F_0+F_1)+m_b^2(G_0+G_1))2m_bm_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}L_j(b)R_j(b)`$
$`\times N_{i3}^2G_0](m_b^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_j},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0})+[2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}m_b\lambda _b\lambda _tL_j(t)R_j(t)U_{i2}^{}V_{i2}^{}G_0`$
$`+\lambda _b^2L_j^2(b)|U_{i2}|^2(F_0+F_1)+m_b^2(\lambda _t^2R_j^2(t)|V_{i2}|^2+\lambda _b^2L_j^2(t)|U_{i2}|^2)`$
$`\times (G_0+G_1)](m_b^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_j},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+})\},`$
$`\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }_R^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=H^0,h^0,G^0,A^0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_W^2}}\{m_t^2\eta _i^{(2)}[F_0+F_12m_t^2(G_0+\zeta _iG_0G_1)](m_t^2,m_i,m_t)`$
$`m_b^2\eta _i^{(1)}[F_0+F_12\zeta _iF_0+2m_b^2(1+\zeta _i)G_02m_b^2G_1](m_b^2,m_i,m_b)\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=H^{},G^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_W^2}}\{m_t^2[\xi _i^{(2)}(F_0+F_1)2m_b^2\zeta _iG_0+m_t^2(\xi _i^{(2)}+\xi _i^{(4)})(G_1`$
$`\zeta _iG_0)](m_t^2,m_i,m_b)m_b^2[{\displaystyle \frac{2m_t^2}{m_b^2}}\zeta _iF_0+\xi _i^{(1)}(F_0+F_1)+2m_t^2\zeta _iG_0`$
$`m_b^2(\xi _i^{(1)}+\xi _i^{(3)})(G_1\zeta _iG_0)](m_b^2,m_i,m_t)\},`$
$`\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }_R^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{(2)}(U),\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }_R^{(3)}=\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{(3)}(U).`$
Here $`C_0,C_{ij}`$ are the three-point Feynman integrals and $`\overline{C}_{24}\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Delta }+C_{24}`$, while

$`F_n(q,m_1,m_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑yy^n\mathrm{ln}[{\displaystyle \frac{q^2y(1y)+m_1^2(1y)+m_2^2y}{\mu ^2}}],`$
$`G_n(q,m_1,m_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{y^{n+1}(1y)}{q^2y(1y)+m_1^2(1y)+m_2^2y}},`$
and

$`g_V^t={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W,g_A^t={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},g_V^b={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W,g_A^b={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},`$
which are the SM couplings of the top and bottom quarks to the Z boson. The definitions of $`\theta _q,U_{ij},V_{ij},N_{ij},\mu ,A_q`$ can be found in ref..

Appendix B

$`h_1^{(i)}`$ $`=`$ $`4m_t\eta ^{(2)}(2p_bkp^{(i)}p_b)4m_b\eta ^{(1)}(p^{(i)}p_t+p_tk),`$
$`h_2^{(i)}`$ $`=`$ $`h_1^{(i)}(\eta ^{(1)}\eta ^{(2)}),`$
$`h_3^{(i)}`$ $`=`$ $`2\eta ^{(2)}(2p_bkp_bp_tm_b^2p_tk2p^{(i)}p_bp_bp_t)+2m_bm_t\eta ^{(1)}(p_bk`$
$`2p^{(i)}p_b),`$
$`h_4^{(i)}`$ $`=`$ $`h_3^{(i)}(\eta ^{(1)}\eta ^{(2)}),`$
$`h_5^{(i)}`$ $`=`$ $`2\eta ^{(2)}(m_t^2p_bk2p^{(i)}p_tp_bp_t)+2m_bm_tm_t\eta ^{(1)}(p_tk2p^{(i)}p_t),`$
$`h_6^{(i)}`$ $`=`$ $`h_5^{(i)}(\eta ^{(1)}\eta ^{(2)}),`$
$`h_7^{(i)}`$ $`=`$ $`4\eta ^{(2)}(p^{(i)}p_bp_tkp^{(i)}kp_bp_tp_bkp^{(i)}p_t2p_bkp_tk)`$
$`4m_bm_t\eta ^{(1)}p^{(i)}k,`$
$`h_8^{(i)}`$ $`=`$ $`h_7^{(i)}(\eta ^{(1)}\eta ^{(2)}),`$
$`h_9^{(i)}`$ $`=`$ $`4m_t\eta ^{(2)}p_bk(p_bkp^{(i)}p_b)4m_b\eta ^{(1)}p^{(i)}p_bp_tk,`$
$`h_{10}^{(i)}`$ $`=`$ $`h_9^{(i)}(\eta ^{(1)}\eta ^{(2)}),`$
$`h_{11}^{(i)}`$ $`=`$ $`4m_t\eta ^{(2)}p_bk(p_tkp^{(i)}p_t)4m_b\eta ^{(1)}p_tkp^{(i)}p_t,`$
$`h_{12}^{(i)}`$ $`=`$ $`h_{11}^{(i)}(\eta ^{(1)}\eta ^{(2)}),`$
where the index $`i`$ represents the two channels $`s`$ and $`t`$, and $`p^{(s)}=p_b`$, $`p^{(t)}=p_t`$.

References

* For a review, see J.Gunion, H. Haber, G. Kane, and S.Dawson, The Higgs Hunter’s Guide(Addison-Wesley, New York,1990).
* H.E. Haber and G.L. Kane, Phys. Rep. 117, 75(1985); J.F. Gunion and H.E. Haber, Nucl. Phys. B272, 1(1986).
* E.Eichten, I.Hinchliffe, K. Lane, and C. Quigg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 56, 579(1984); 1065(E)(1986); N.G. Deshpande, X. Tata, and D. A. Dicus, Phys. Rev. D29, 1527(1984); S. Willenbrock, Phys. Rev. D35, 173(1987); A. Krause, T.Plehn, M. Spria, and P. M. Zerwas, Nucl. Phys. B519, 85(1998); J.Yi, M. Wen-Gan, H.Liang, H. Meng, and Y. Zeng-Hui, J. Phys. G23, 385(1997); Erratum-ibid. G23, 1151(1997).
* D.A.Dicus, J.L.Hewett, C.Kao and T.G.Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D40, 787(1989); A.A. Barrientos Bendez$`\stackrel{´}{u}`$ and B.A. Kniehl, Phys. Rev. D59, 015009(1999).
* S. Moretti and K. Odagiri, Phys. Rev. D59,055008(1999).
* Z.Kunszt and F. Zwirner, Nucl. Phys. B385, 3(1992), and references cited therein.
* J.F. Gunion, H.E. Haber, F.E. Paige, W.-K. Tung, and S. Willenbrock, Nucl. Phys. B294,621(1987); R.M. Barnett, H.E. Haber, and D.E. Soper, ibid. B306, 697(1988); F.I. Olness and W.-K. Tung, ibid. B308, 813(1988).
* V. Barger, R.J.N. Phillips, and D.P. Roy, Phys. Lett. B324, 236(1994).
* C.S. Huang and S.H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D60, 075012(1999).
* K. Odagiri, hep-ph/9901432; Phys. Lett. B452, 327(1999).
* D.P. Roy, Phys. Lett. B459, 607(1999).
* Francesca Borzumati, Jean-Loic Kneur, and Nir Polonsky, Phys. Rev. D60, 115011(1999).
* S. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D22, 971 (1980); W. J. Marciano and A. Sirlin,ibid. 22, 2695(1980); 31, 213(E) (1985); A. Sirlin and W.J. Marciano, Nucl. Phys. B189, 442(1981); K.I. Aoki et.al., Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 73, 1(1982).
* A. Mendez and A. Pomarol, Phys.Lett.B279, 98(1992).
* Particle Data Group, C.Caso et al, Eur.Phys.J.C 3, 1(1998).
* J.Gunion, A.Turski, Phys. Rev. D39, 2701(1989); D40, 2333(1990); J.R.Espinosa, M.Quiros, Phys. Lett. B266, 389(1991); M.Carena, M.Quiros, C.E.M.Wagner, Nucl. Phys. B461, 407(1996).
* H.L. Lai, et al.(CTEQ collaboration), hep-ph/9903282.
* C.S.Li, R.J.Oakes, and J.M. Yang, Phys. Rev. D55, 5780(1997).
* G.Passarino and M.Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B160, 151(1979); A.Axelrod, ibid. B209, 349 (1982); M.Clements et al., Phys. Rev. D27, 570 (1983).


format: text

text:
# On Companion-Induced Off-Center Supernova-Like Explosions

## 1. Introduction

It has recently been reported that neutron stars with large luminosities could be powered by ultra-strong magnetic fields $`10^{14}G`$ (”magnetars”) rather than rapid rotation as in rotation-powered pulsars (e.g. Kouveliotou et al. 1998, 1999). These ”magnetars” are believed to be produced in supernova explosions or accretion induced collapses (Duncan & Thompson 1992).

On the other hand, the Blandford-Znajek process has been suggested as a powerful source for a variety of very energetic events ranging from active galactic nuclei (Blandford & Znajek 1977) to gamma-ray bursts (e.g. Lee et al. 2000ab and references therein). The extremely high luminosities or power outputs generally require ultra-strong magnetic fields around rapidly rotating black holes. The origin of such strong magnetic fields around the rapidly spinning black holes has not been clearly understood. It is interesting to point out that if magnetars directly collapse to black holes via rapid accretion, the resulting black holes could spin rapidly with magnetic fields left at the horizon, which are large enough to make the Blandford-Znajek power interesting for very energetic events.

Based on this possibility, we propose that the hypercritical accretion onto a neutron star with a very strong magnetic field can produce a rapidly spinning black hole with an ultra-strong field near the horizon. The hypercritical accretion has been invoked for the common envelope phase evolution of the massive stellar binaries (Bethe & Brown 1998). Unless the strong magnetic fields decay within time scales shorter than the duration of the accretion phase, $``$ 1 year, it is highly likely that the black holes with very strong fields could be produced. The Blandford-Znajek power is sufficient to power a supernova-like event with the center of explosion displaced from the companion core. The companion core, after explosion, evolves into a C/O-white dwarf or a neutron star with a second explosion. The detection of highly eccentric black-hole, C/O-white dwarf binaries or the double explosion structure in the supernova remnants, with two different centers of explosion, could be an evidence of the proposed scenario. Especially, in the later case, the neutron star can have double kicks, resulting in very high kick velocities, $`>1000`$ km s-1. If the spiral-in of the neutron star leads to the merger with the companion core, the explosion at the core would appear as an explosion from a single star. The neutron star-neutron star binary system is expected when the companion collapses before significant accretion of the neutron star occurs.

## 2. Magnetar Formation and Ultra-Strong Magnetic Fields

The NSs right after core collapse are hot and convective throughout most of the stellar interior due to a large neutrino flux. Duncan & Thompson (1992) and Thompson & Duncan (1993) describe the most likely outcome of such hot neutron stars. Right after the collapse, there exists an intense neutrino-driven convective phase with the overturn time scale of convective cell, $`\tau _{\mathrm{conv}}1`$ ms at the base of the convection zone and $`\tau _{\mathrm{conv}}0.1`$ ms at the neutrinosphere. In this case, if the neutron star spin frequency is

$`\mathrm{\Omega }\text{ }>\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{dynamo}}2\pi \tau _{\mathrm{conv}}^16\times 10^3\mathrm{s}^1,`$ (1)
the amplification of of a magnetic field by helical motions is not suppressed by turbulent diffusion, and the $`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }`$-type dynamo could work efficiently. They found that the saturation field strength of $`B_{\mathrm{sat}}10^{16}10^{17}\mathrm{G}`$ could be reached within $`10100`$ ms. Therefore, post-collapse NSs with $`P\text{ }<1\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}`$, within the first few seconds, can build up very strong large scale magnetic fields $`10^{15}\mathrm{G}`$ through exponential growth. In this case, the resulting ultra-strong field is independent of the fossil field strength. For strong seed fields, the small-scale fluid motion, which is required for ohmic dissipation of magnetic energy, is suppressed by the magnetic tension. The convective motion ceases when the neutrino-driven convection becomes unavailable. Such a strong field pulsar with slow spin (”magnetar”, Duncan & Thompson 1992) has recently been discovered, which strongly supports the basic idea of creation of a ultrastrong field pulsar (Kouvelioutou et al. 1998, 1999).

For NSs spinning with $`\mathrm{\Omega }\text{ }<\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{dynamo}}`$ or $`P\text{ }>1\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}`$, the differential rotation (i.e. $`d\mathrm{\Omega }/dR0`$) could amplify the seed poloidal fields by wrapping them up into strong toroidal fields (Kluzniak & Ruderman 1998). For an initial poloidal seed field with strength $`B_p10^9\mathrm{G}`$ which would result from flux freezing of a field of $`\text{ }<3\times 10^4\mathrm{G}`$ in the pre-collapse core, is amplified to the strong toroidal field of $`B_\varphi 10^{17}\mathrm{G}`$ after $`(1/2\pi )(B_\varphi /B_p)10^7`$ rotations or time $`\tau B_\varphi /B_p\mathrm{\Omega }10^4P\mathrm{s}`$ with $`P`$ in $`\mathrm{ms}`$. The amplified field becomes buoyant after reaching the critical field strength of $`B_b10^{17}\mathrm{G}`$. Since the total energy included in the buoyant fluid cells is $`\frac{1}{8\pi }B_b^2(\frac{4\pi R^3}{3})\eta 3\times 10^{51}\eta `$ erg, where $`\eta 0.2`$ is the fractional volume of the buoyant elements, the repeated build-up and buoyant loss will occur for a number of times determined as

$`N_{\mathrm{buoyant}\mathrm{loss}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1/2)I\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{(1/8\pi )(B_b^2)(4\pi R^3/3)\eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\eta }}10,`$ (2)
where $`I\frac{2}{5}MR^2`$ with neutron star mass $`M=1.5\text{ }M_{}`$ and neutron star radius $`R=10`$ km. This process will continue until the existing poloidal seed field is exhausted as the poloidal field is not re-generated in this non-dynamo amplification process. The buoyantly rising field could dissipate on a time scale

$`\tau _{\mathrm{dissipation}}(4\pi \rho )^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{R}{B_b}}10^3\mathrm{s},`$ (3)
which controls the overall time scale. Therefore, we conclude that essentially all NSs with $`P`$ a few ms could achieve strong fields through either dynamo or differential rotation.

Once strong fields are created, rapid spin-down of NSs is inevitable. The electromagnetic dipole radiation luminosity is

$`L_{\mathrm{EM}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3c^3}}B^2R^6\mathrm{\Omega }^4=2\times 10^{50}B_{15}^2\mathrm{\Omega }_4^4\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (4)
which gives the characteristic electromagnetic spin-down time scale

$`\tau _{\mathrm{EM}}{\displaystyle \frac{I\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{2L_{\mathrm{EM}}}}3\times 10^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{B_{15}^2\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2}}\mathrm{s}`$ (5)
where $`B_{15}=B/10^{15}\mathrm{G}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_4=\mathrm{\Omega }/10^4\mathrm{s}^1`$. Therefore, all MSPs with ms periods are likely to spin-down to near the pulsar deathline, $`P70B_{15}^{1/2}\mathrm{s}`$, on a time scale of $`10^5B_{15}^1`$ yr (e.g. Ritchings 1976). That is, these initially fast spinning MSPs would not be detected as MSPs unless they are recycled through the low mass X-ray binary stage, which is not promising (Yi & Grindlay 1998). Therefore, before the common envelope phase begins, the neutron stars are likely to be spinning with spin periods very similar to those of the magnetars and anomalous X-ray pulsars (e.g. Mereghetti 1999, Kouvelioutou 1998, 1999). That is, the initial conditions for the neutron stars which spiral-in during the common envelope phase are likely to be a slow spin and a high magnetic field.

## 3. Hypercritical Accretion

Bethe & Brown (1998) suggested that the hypercritical accretion can occur in the massive binary systems, in which both stars can go into supernova leaving the compact cores as remnants. In their scenario, the more massive star 111The progenitor masses should be different by more than 5%. If the two masses are close enough, the binary will explode nearly at the same time leaving the neutron star$``$neutron star (ns,ns) binary. In this case, there is not enough time to change neutron star into black hole by accretion. first explodes leaving a neutron in the core. If the binary is within the radius of the companion in the giant stage, the first born neutron star will spiral into the envelope of the expanding companion in the giant stage. We assume the envelope of the giant to be convective.

In the rest frame of the compact object, Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton accretion of the hydrogen envelope of density $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}`$ and velocity $`V`$ is

$`\dot{M}=2.23\times 10^{29}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{co,1}^2}{V_8^3}}\rho _{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (6)
where $`M_{co,1}M_{co}/1\text{ }M_{}`$ is the mass of the compact object, $`V_8`$ is the velocity in unit of 1000 km s-1, and $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}`$ is given in g cm-3. The density $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}`$ required for the hypercritical accretion, $`\dot{M}=10^8\dot{M}_{Edd}10^{26}`$ g s-1, is

$`\rho _{\mathrm{}}=0.44\times 10^3{\displaystyle \frac{V_8^3}{M_{co,1}^2}}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3.`$ (7)
Using the Kepler law for circular orbits $`V^2=GM_{tot}/a`$, where $`M_{tot}`$ is the combined mass of the compact object and the stellar material interior to the orbit of the compact object and $`a`$ is the binary separation, one finds

$`\rho _{\mathrm{}}=2.1\times 10^5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{co,1}^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{tot,10}}{a_{12}}}\right)^{3/2}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3,`$ (8)
where $`M_{tot,10}=M_{tot}/10^{10}M_{}`$ and $`a_{12}=a/10^{12}cm`$. Since this critical density is of the same order as the average density of the hydrogen envelope of the giant star, the hypercritical accretion $`\dot{M}\text{ }>10^8\dot{M}_{Edd}`$ can occur in this spiral-in process. This rapid accretion can add $`1\text{ }M_{}`$ to the first-born neutron star in less than about one year, which is enough to turn the first born neutron star into a black hole. In this process, the orbital radius shrinks by a factor $`50`$.

If the companion is massive enough to have a supernova explosion, the binary system will end up as a black hole$``$neutron star (bh,ns) binary instead of a (ns,ns) binary. If the companion is less massive, the binary will end up as black hole$``$CO white dwarf (bh,cowd) binaries. Brown, Lee, Portegies Zwart, & Bethe (1999) show that there are big discrepancies between the predicted and the observed (ns,ns) and (ns,cowd)c (i.e. with circular orbits) binary systems. They solved this discrepancy by arguing that in both systems the first born neutron star turned into black holes by accretion leaving behind (bh,ns) and (bh,cowd) binaries. The (bh,ns) binaries are one of the most important sources for gravitational detectors. The chirp mass of double neutron star binary with masses $`1.4\text{ }M_{}`$ is $`M_{chirp}=\mu ^{0.6}(M_1+M_2)^{0.4}=1.2\text{ }M_{}`$, while that of the (bh,ns) binary with $`M_{BH}=2.4\text{ }M_{}`$ is $`M_{chirp}=1.6\text{ }M_{}`$. The (bh,ns) binaries, if they exist, can be more easily detected by factor $`(1.6/1.2)^3=2.4`$ than the (ns,ns) binaries. Since the LIGO is based on one observation of (ns,ns) binary, their unseen (bh,ns) will enhance the detectability of LIGO by factor of $``$30 considering the effect of the chirp masses. This will be tested in near future.

One of the most strong criticisms on the hypercritical accretion was the angular momentum and possibility of a strong jet along the rotation axis. Even thouth these remain as unsolved problems, Brown, Lee, & Bethe (2000) showed that Narayan & Yi (1994) ADAF solution can be applied in this case if the accretion flows is radiation-dominated. With the hypercritical accretion, the inner boundary of accretion flow can be extended to the marginally bound orbit ($`r_{mb}=2R_{Sch}`$ for Schwarzschild black holes). Since $`r_{mb}9`$ km, the inner boundary of accretion disc can be extended to the neutron star surface $`r_{NS}\text{ }>10`$ km. By using a reasonable viscosity parameter $`\alpha =0.05`$, they found that the neutrino cooling in the disc is almost negligible $`<10^7`$ of viscosity generated energy. Brown et al. (2000) argued that in order to avoid strong polar jets or pile-up up of material above neutron star surface, the neutrinos are generated at the neutron surface to carry out the pressure and energy from the system.

## 4. Hypercritical Accretion onto a Magnetar

Despite a very strong magnetic field, the dynamic effects of the magnetic field would be negligible if the mass accretion rate satisfies

$`\dot{M}`$ $`>`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{GM}{R^5}}\right)^{1/2}7\times 10^{25}B_{14}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{1.5}}{R_6^5}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (9)
$``$ $`4\times 10^7B_{14}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{1.5}}{R_6^7}}\right)^{1/2}\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$
Such a possibility is realized when the accretion is hypercritical.

During hypercritical accretion, even when the electromagnetic dipole radiation occurs for a fast spinning pulsar, the spin-up by hypercritical accretion can counter the spin-down. The spin-down torque due to the dipole radiation emission is

$`N_{em}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3c^3}}B^2R^6\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{\Omega }^3`$ (10)
and the spin-up torque due to accretion is

$`N_{acc}=\dot{M}\stackrel{~}{a}(GMR)^{1/2}`$ (11)
where $`\stackrel{~}{a}0.5`$ is the sub-Keplerian rotation factor in the hypercritical accretion (Brown, Lee, & Bethe 2000). The equilibrium spin is reached at the neutron star spin frequency

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NS}}1.4\times 10^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{a}_{0.5}\dot{M}_{26}M_{1.5}^{1/2}}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta R_6^{11/2}B_{14}^2}}\right)^{1/3}s^1.`$ (12)
By assuming $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta 0.5`$, one gets $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{NS}1.8\times 10^3\mathrm{s}^1`$ with other quantities in unities. The collapse of the neutron star to a black hole results in a rapidly spinning black hole with a spin frequency

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{H}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_{\mathrm{NS}}}{R_\mathrm{H}}}\right)^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NS}}4\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NS}}7.2\times 10^3s^1`$ (13)
which corresponds to black hole spin of $`\stackrel{~}{a}0.1`$. The magnetic field strength

$`B_\mathrm{H}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_{\mathrm{NS}}}{R_\mathrm{H}}}\right)^2B_{\mathrm{NS}}4B_{\mathrm{NS}}4\times 10^{14}B_{\mathrm{NS},14}\mathrm{G}`$ (14)
where we have assumed the angular momentum conservation and flux-freezing.

If the magnetar enters the hypercritical accretion regime as a slowly spinning neutron star, the spin-up during the hypercritical accretion will take place on a time scale

$`t_{spinup}{\displaystyle \frac{I_{\mathrm{NS}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NS}}}{N_{acc}}}1.6\times 10^7\mathrm{s}0.5\mathrm{yr}`$ (15)
which is comparable to the spiral-in time scale ($`1`$ yr) during the common envelope phase.

## 5. Energetics of Blandford-Znajek Process

Based on the steady pulsar periods and spin-down rates, the magnetic field of pulsars are generally estimated by assuming the dipole radiation induced by magnetic fields. The typical fresh neutron stars in the pulsar island have $`10^{12}`$ G, and the recycled ones have $`\text{ }<10^{10}`$ G. The discoveries of the magnetar and AXP suggest the possibilities of the strong magnetic field $`\text{ }>10^{14}G`$. Even though AXP and magnetars raised questions on the origin of the pulsar mechanism, we assume the dipole radiation as origin of the pulsar in these systems. The probability of pulsar with strong magnetic field is assumed to be $`10\%`$ (Kouveliotou et al. 1998, 1999).

After the discovery of GRB afterglows, the theoretical understandings of the formation of GRBs have been improved quite a lot. However, the mechanism of the central engine is still controversial. The electromagnetic extraction of the BH rotating energy by the Blandford-Znajek process (Bandford & Znajek 1977) is one of the candidate mechanisms, in which the strong magnetic field is essential to power the GRB. Typically $`B_H10^{15}`$ G can generate enough energy to power the GRB from rotating black holes. However, the existence of the strong magnetic field in the black holes is uncertain because the strong magnetic fields diffuse in very short time scales.

We suggest that the Blandford-Znajek process can operate if the collapsing neutron stars, with $`B\text{ }>10^{14}`$ G, carry the magnetic fields with them, amplifying the fields upto $`10^{15}`$ G. In this scenario, the existence of neutron stars prior to the black holes is essential.

The hypercritical accretion prior to the collapse to a black hole spins up the neutron star and the black hole is expected to be spinning at rotational angular velocity close to $`\stackrel{~}{a}0.1`$. Once black hole is formed, the spin-down torque due to the dipole emission is not working, and the spin-up torque due to accretion can increase the black hole spin further. So, our estimate given above may be a low limit.

The Blandford-Znajek power (Lee, Wijers, & Brown 2000a) from the rotating black hole with the angular momentum $`J=aM`$ and the magnetic field $`B_H`$ is given by

$`P_{\mathrm{BZ}}`$ $``$ $`10^{50}a^2B_{H,15}^2(M/M_{})^2\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1.`$ (16)
Using the values in the previous section, we have $`P_{\mathrm{BZ}}3.6\times 10^{47}`$ erg s-1. The total available rotational energy is 0.06% of the rest mass $`2\times 10^{51}`$ erg (Lee, Wijers, & Brown 2000a).

## 6. The Role of Black Hole Formation in the Spiral-In Phase

When the first born star with strong magnetic field accretes material from the companion envelope, the black hole should be formed inside the envelope. Since the black hole is formed in the process of the hypercritical accretion, the temperature near the surface of the neutron star should remain $`1`$ MeV until the collapse into a black hole. This temperature is required to generate neutrinos. In this case, the spin frequency for the r-mode instability is so high that we can neglect the effect (Lindblom & Owen 1999). If the Blandford-Znajek process works at the time of black hole formation, there is enough energy to generate GRBs. However, because of the optically thick envelope, gamma rays cannot come out through the hydrogen (or helium) envelope. Instead of GRBs, the energy will pile up in the envelope to generate supernova. The main difference from the normal SN scenarios is that the SN is not induced by the core collapse of the progenitors. The natural consequence is the strong asymmetry in the SN events. Since the companion mass is not the unique parameter, even the less massive stars (normal white-dwarf progenitors) can have SN events with high kick velocities.

The available energies powered by rotating black holes ($`>1.5\text{ }M_{}`$) with Blandford-Znajek process can be $`10^{51}`$ erg. Since the binding energies ($`0.6GM^2/R`$) of the hydrogen envelope of giant stars ($`10\text{ }M_{}`$) are $`𝒪(10^{48})`$ erg, newly formed black holes have enough energy to blow the envelope off. If only $`1\%`$ of this SN energy is available for the kinetic energy of the He core of the giant star, the available kick velocities are $`𝒪(1000`$ km s-1).

Fast moving white dwarfs from SN remnants, if exists, will be the consequences of this ”companion induced SN events”. If the black holes are formed just before the normal SN events of the companions, the double SN are also possible leaving (bh,ns) as remnants. Especially, in the later case, the neutron star can have double kicks, resulting in very high kick velocities, $`>1000`$ km s-1.

Bethe & Brown (1998) argued that the formation rate of $`(bh,ns)`$ binaries is $`10^4`$ yr-1 per galaxy, where the low mass black holes ($`2.5\text{ }M_{}`$) are formed in the common envelope evolution. By assuming the flat $`q`$ distribution, Brown, Lee, Portegies Zwart, & Bethe (1999) also argued that the formation rate of circular $`(bh,cowd)_c`$ binaries is $`1.7\times 10^4`$ yr-1 per galaxy. In their scenario the first born neutron star went into the common envelope evolution, where the neutron star is converted into black hole by hypercritical accretion. According to our scenario, in the formation of $`(bh,ns)`$ and $`(bh,cowd)_c`$ binaries by hypercritical accretion, about $`10\%`$ of the neutron stars have very strong magnetic field and will have the companion (newly formed black holes) induced supernova-like explosions. As a result $`10\%`$ of progenitors of $`(bh,cowd)_c`$ binaries end up as eccentric $`(bh,cowd)_e`$ binaries instead of circular ones. Also $`10\%`$ of progenitors of $`(bh,ns)`$ binaries have double explosions with two different centers of explosion. By assuming that half of the progenitors of $`(bh,cowd)_e`$ or $`(bh,ns)`$ binaries survive the explosion induced by rotating black holes, we have the formation rates of eccentric $`(bh,cowd)_e`$ binaries or double explosions

$`R10^5\mathrm{yr}^1\mathrm{per}\mathrm{galaxy}.`$ (17)
Since the cooling time of CO white dwarfs, i.e. the time required to reach luminosities $`\mathrm{log}(L/L_{})=4.5`$ with $`L_{}=`$ solar luminosity, is $`110`$ Gyr (Salaris et al. 1997), the number of eccentric $`(bh,cowd)_e`$ binaries with luminosity $`\mathrm{log}(L/L_{})>4.5`$ is

$`N10^410^5\mathrm{in}\mathrm{Galaxy}.`$ (18)
The number of non-pulsating eccentric $`(ns,cowd)_e`$ binaries with luminosity $`\mathrm{log}(L/L_{})>4.5`$ is $`10`$ times more popular than $`(bh,cowd)_e`$ systems. In order to identify $`(bh,cowd)_e`$ systems, one need well-established maximum neutron star masses. If there are mechanisms to identify the black holes from dead pulsars in addition to the mass (Balberg et al. 1999), one can detect $`(bh,cowd)_e`$ systems.

## 7. Discussion

We have looked into a possibility that a supernova-like explosion could occur during the common envelope evolution of a strongly magnetized neutron star. The ”magnetar” accretes in the form of the hypercritical accretion during the spiral-in phase and collapses to a rapidly spinning black hole with a strong magnetic field near the horizon. Then the explosion results from the sudden release of energy through the Blandford-Znajek mechanism. In this scenario, the strong magnetic field naturally occurs as it is derived from the strong field of the pre-collapse ”magnetar”.

There are a number of points to be clarified in the proposed scenario some of which could be observationally testable. First, if the magnetic field of the magnetar decays on a time scale $`10^310^4`$ yrs as is often argued for the evolutionary behavior of magnetars and anomalous X-ray pulsars (Colpi, Geppert, & Page 2000), then the common envelope phase has to follow the magnetar formation. Second, during the accretion phase, most of the emitted energy (including the dipole radiation) is ultimately radiated from the neutron star in the form of the neutrinos. Third, if the Blandford-Znajek phase occurs while the neutron star collapses into black hole in the envelope, the resulting off-center explosion will give a high eccentricity, which should be testable in terms of the highly eccentric binary systems. Fourth, there will be little metal spread from the core since there will be no core collapse. The dominant effect would be blowing-off the hydrogen envelope preceded by the expansion of the envelope.

If the merger of the companion core with the neutron star occurs before the black hole formation, then the explosion will not cause an off-center explosion. Although this possibility exists, the estimated accretion time scale on which the neutron star can accrete enough mass to collapse to a black hole is comparable to the spiral-in time scale. This implies that the off-center explosion is possible.

CHL is partly supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant DE-FG02-88ER40388. IY is supported in part by 1999-2000 KIAS Research Fund and KRF Research Fund KRF 1998-001-D00365. HKL is supported in part by BK21 Program of Ministry of Education and by KOSEF Grant No. 1999-2-112-003-5.