text:
# 1 The schematic description of DCPE phenomenon as the generalized two-component Cherenkov-like effect: (a) mesonic Cherenkov-like radiation (MCR) limit []: 𝑣_{𝑀𝑝ℎ}≤𝑣_𝐵₁; (b) two-body decay process B1 →MB₂; (c) baryonic Cherenkov-like radiation (BCR) limit []: 𝑣_{𝐵₂𝑝ℎ}≤𝑣_𝐵₁.

## Abstract

In this paper we introduce a new kind of coherent particle production mechanism called *dual coherent particle emission (DCPE)* as generalized two-component Cherenkov-like effect, which takes place when the phase velocity of emitted particle $`v_{Mph}`$ and the particle source phase velocity $`v_{B_1ph}`$ satisfy a specific DCPE condition: $`v_{Mph}v_{B_1ph}^1`$. The general signatures of the DCPE in dielectric, nuclear and hadronic media are established and some experimental evidences are presented.

Dual coherent particle emission as generalized two-component Cherenkov-like effect

D. B. Ion
TH Division, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland,
and NIPNE-HH, Bucharest, P.O. Box MG-6, Romania

E. K. Sarkisyan
EP Division, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland, and
Department of Physics, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK

PACS: 25.40.-h, 25.70.-z, 25.75.-q, 13.85.-t

Cherenkov radiation (CR) was first observed in the early 1900’s by the experiments developed by Mary and Pierre Curie when studying radioactivity emission. However, the nature of such radiation was unknown until the experimental works (1934-1937) of P.A. Cherenkov and the theoretical interpretation by I.E. Tamm and I.M. Frank (1937) . Then, it was discovered that this phenomenon is produced by charged particles movings with superluminal speeds in medium. Now, the CR is one of the cornerstones of classical and quantum electrodynamics and it is the subject of many studies related to the extension to other coherent particle emission via Cherenkov-like effects . The generalized Cherenkov-like effects based on four fundamental interactions has been investigated and classified recently in . In particular, this classification includes the nuclear (mesonic, $`\gamma `$, weak boson)-Cherenkov-like radiations as well as the high energy component of the coherent particle emission via (baryonic, leptonic, fermionic) Cherenkov-like effects. It is important to underline that the CR is extensively used in experiments for counting and identifying relativistic particles. We note that, by the experimental observation of the subthreshold  and anomalous  CR, it was clarified that some of fundamental aspects of the CR are still open. Therefore, more theoretical and experimental investigations on CR as well on the generalized Cherenkov-like effects are needed.

In this paper we introduce a new kind of coherent particle production mechanism in the medium called *dual coherent particle emission* (DCPE) which includes in a more general and exact form not only the usual CRs but also all kind of the generalized Cherenkov-like effects and unifies them as two-component Cherenkov-like effects. The DCPE-effect is expected to take place when the phase velocities of the emitted particle, $`v_{Mph}`$ (or $`v_{B_2ph}`$), and that of particle source $`v_{B_1ph}`$ satisfy the dual coherence condition: $`v_{B_1ph}v_{Mph}1`$ ($`v_{B_1ph}v_{B_2ph}1`$). The general signatures of DCPE effects in dielectric, nuclear and hadronic media are discussed. For illustration some recent theoretical predictions and experimental results on the coherent meson production via mesonic Cherenkov-like radiation in nuclear  and in hadronic  media are included.

*Dual coherent particle emission*. Let us start with a general B$`{}_{1}{}^{}\mathrm{MB}`$2 decay, see Fig. 1 (a). Here a particle M \[with energy $`\omega ,`$ momentum $`k=`$ Re$`n_M(\omega )`$$`\sqrt{\omega ^2M_\mathrm{M}^2}`$, rest mass $`M_\mathrm{M}`$ and refractive index $`n_M(\omega )]`$ is emitted in a (nuclear, hadronic, dielectric, etc.) medium by incident particle B1 \[with energy $`E_1`$, momentum $`p_1=\mathrm{Re}n(E_1)\sqrt{E_1^2M_1^2}`$, rest mass M1, refractive index $`n_1(E_1)`$\] that itself goes over into a final particle B2 \[with energy $`E_2`$, momentum $`p_2=\mathrm{Re}n(E_2)\sqrt{E_2^2M_2^2}`$, rest mass $`M_2`$, refractive index $`n_2(E_2)`$\].

Here we prove that in order to obtain a genuine spontaneous particle emission in a given medium the two general conditions are necessary to be fulfilled:

(i) The incident particle-source must be coupled to a specific radiation field (RF) (see Fig. 1) and that the particles propagation properties in medium must be modified.

(ii.1) The particle source must be moving in the medium with a dual phase velocity $`v_{B_1ph}^1`$ higher than the phase velocity $`v_{Mph}`$ of the RF-quanta.

(ii.2) The particle source must be moving in medium with a dual phase velocity $`v_{B_1ph}^1v_{B_2ph}`$.

*Proof:* The propagation properties of particles in a medium are changed in agreement with their elastic scattering with the constituents of that medium. So, the phase velocity $`v_{Xph}(E_X)`$ of any particle X (with the total energy $`E_X`$ and rest mass $`M_X`$) in medium is modified:

$$v_{Xph}(E_X)=\frac{E_X}{p_X}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{Re}n_X(E_X)}\frac{E_X}{\sqrt{E_X^2M_X^2}}.$$
(1)
The *refractive index* $`n_X(E_X)`$ in a medium composed from the constituents “c” can be calculated in standard way by using the Foldy-Lax formula  (we work in the units system $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$)

$$n_X^2(E_X)=1+\frac{4\pi \rho }{E_X^2M_X^2}C(E_X)\overline{f}_{XcXc}(E_X),$$
(2)
where $`\rho `$ is the density of the constituents, $`C(E_X)`$ is a  *coherence factor* \[$`C(E_X)=1`$ when the medium constituents are randomly distributed\], $`\overline{f}_{XcXc}(E_X)`$ is the averaged forward Xc-scattering amplitude.

Now, by using the *energy-momentum conservation law* for the decay $`\mathrm{B}_1\mathrm{MB}_2`$ in medium, $`E_1=E_2+\omega `$, $`\stackrel{}{p}_1=\stackrel{}{p}_2+\stackrel{}{k}`$, we obtain (see angles definition in Fig. 1):

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta _{1k}=v_{Mph}v_{B_1ph}+\frac{1}{2p_1k}(D_{B_1}+D_{B_2}D_M),$$
(3)
$$\mathrm{cos}\theta _{12}=v_{B_1ph}v_{B_2ph}+\frac{1}{2p_1p_2}(D_{B_1}D_{B_2}+D_M),$$
(4)
$$\mathrm{cos}\theta _{2k}=v_{Mph}v_{B_2ph}+\frac{1}{2p_2k}(D_{B_1}D_{B_2}D_M).$$
(5)
Here $`D_X`$,$`XB_1,B_2,M,`$ are departures off mass shell,

$$D_XE_X^2p_X^2=M_X^2+[1(\mathrm{Re}n_X(E_X))^2](E_X^2M_X^2).$$

We note that the second terms in the right side of Eqs. (3)–(5) can be considered as quantum corrections to the first “classical” terms .

A rigorous proof of statement (ii) is obtained from the fact that the respective emission angles must be the physical ones. The *coherence quantum conditions,* $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij}`$ $`1,`$ $`i,j=1,2,k,`$ Eqs. (3)–(5), at high incident particle energies transform into *classical coherence conditions*, e.g.,

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta _{1k}=v_{Mph}v_{B_1ph}1,$$
(6)
which is equivalent to

$$v_{Mph}v_{B_1ph}^1\mathrm{or}v_{B_1ph}v_{Mph}^1.$$
(7)
It is worth to note that from the dual coherence conditions (7) we obtain the following limits of the DCPE condition: (iii) In case when $`v_{B_1ph}^1=v_{B_1}`$, from the condition (ii) the two important generalized Cherenkov-like limits follow: (iii.1) the MCR limit $`v_{Mph}v_{B_1}`$, and (iii.2) the BCR limit $`v_{B_2ph}v_{B_1}`$ (see Fig. 1)

The proof of the statement (iii) is obtained immediately if one observes that *when the particle $`B_1`$ is on the mass shell in medium (Re$`n_1=1`$), then $`v_{B_1ph}^1=v_{B_1}`$,* and the  *dual coherence conditions* (ii.1) and (ii.2) are the *Cherenkov-like coherence conditions* (iii.1) and (iii.2), respectively.

Now, we can obtain a classification of these DCPE effects not only on the basis of four fundamental (strong, electromagnetic, weak, and gravitational) interactions but also using the above *“M-B duality”* as well as the *crossing symmetry.*

The main signatures of the DCPE as the generalized two-component Cherenkov-like effects are as follows:

* The differential cross sections posses the bumps in the energy bands where the DCPE conditions are fulfilled.
* The DCPE-effects are threshold mechanisms. In the classical limit the DCPE-threshold velocity is related with Cherenkov-like threshold velocity via the relation $`v_{B_1}^{thr}(DCPE)=v_{B_1}^{thr}(XCR)/\mathrm{Re}n_{B_1}`$, where $`XM,B_2`$.
* Coherent particles emitted via the DCPE must be coplanar with the incoming and outgoing projectiles: strong $`(\theta _{1k},\omega )`$ and $`(\theta _{1k},E_p)`$ correlations, where $`E_p`$ is the total projectile energy.
* The intensities as well as the absorption effects can be calculated as in the case of generalized Cherenkov-like effects  by using Feynman diagrams in medium.
* Any two-body decay process B1 $``$ MB2 in medium via DCPE posses two limiting modes: the nuclear MCR (NMCR) mode in which the particle M is emitted with the coherence condition $`v_{Mph}v_{B_1}`$, and the nuclear BCR (NBCR) mode with $`v_{B_2ph}v_{B_1}`$.

The electromagnetic DCPE. To be more specific let us consider a charged particle (e.g. $`e^\pm ,\mu ^\pm `$,p, etc.) moving in a (dielectric, nuclear or hadronic) medium and to explore the $`\gamma `$ coherent emission via DCPE in that media. In the case of dielectric medium the CR is well established phenomenon widely used in physics and technology. Also, experimentally, the high energy $`\gamma `$-emission via coherent bremsstrahlung (CB) is well known as a channeling effect. So, the high energy component of the DCPE phenomenon can be identified with the CB-radiation. Hence, more experimental and theoretical investigations are needed since CR and CB radiations can be described in a unified way via the DCPE as two-component generalized Cherenkov-like effects. Then, the same final interaction Hamiltonian $`H_{\mathrm{fi}}`$ just as in the quantum theory of CR with some modifications of the source fields in medium can also describe the coherent $`\gamma `$-emission in the CB sector. Therefore, the subthreshold rings observed experimentally can also be interpreted as DCPE signatures since in the CR sector (Fig.1(a)) the number of photons emitted per time unit in the interval $`(\omega ,\omega +d\omega )`$ in an nonabsorbent medium will be given by

$$\frac{dN_\gamma }{d\omega }(DCPE)\alpha Z_{B_1}^2v_{B_1}\left(1v_{\gamma ph}^2v_{B_1ph}^2\right)$$
(8)
where $`\alpha =1/137`$ is the fine structure constant and $`Z_{B_1}`$ is the electric charge of the B1 particle.

Now, it is easy to see that the DCPE-coherence condition (6) includes in a general and exact form the subthreshold Cherenkov-like radiation  since: $`v_{B_1}^{thr}(DCPE)=v_{B_1}^{thr}(CR)/\mathrm{Re}n_{B_1}`$. So, if $`\mathrm{Re}n_{B_1}1,\mathrm{then}v_{B_1}^{thr}(DCPE)v_{B_1}^{thr}(CR)`$.

The second major result is connected with the fact that the physical domain of the DCPE-radiation includes a high energy component in which the charged particle source is “coherently” stopped in medium like in the channeling radiation process. Hence, in the CR-case, these secondary charged particles produce secondary rings in the same refractive medium. This DCPE-effect completely solves the mystery of the  anomalous Cherenkov radiation . In fact, we obtain a Cherenkov-Channeling (or coherent bremsstrahlung) radiation duality.

It is worth to note that a two-component $`\gamma `$-CR can explain $`\gamma `$ -rays emission from cosmic sources .

The strong DCPE effects. Now, let us consider a baryon (e.g. p, n, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, etc.) moving in a (nuclear or hadronic) medium and to explore the coherent meson emission (e.g. $`\pi `$, K, $`\eta `$, etc.) via the strong DCPE radiation in that medium.

In the nuclear medium, two kinds of the NMCR have been intensively investigated in details in , namely the *nuclear pionic Cherenkov-like radiation (NPICR)* and the nuclear kaonic Cherenkov-like radiation (NKCR). The characteristic features of the NPICR-pions predicted in  are the following. (i) The NPICR-coherence condition, $`v_{ph}(\omega )v`$, was found to be fulfilled in the three energy bands: (CB1) 190 MeV$`\omega `$ 315 MeV, for all $`\pi ^{\pm ,0}`$; (CB2) 910 MeV $`\omega `$ 960 MeV, only for $`\pi `$+; (CB3) $`\omega `$ 80 GeV, for all $`\pi ^{\pm ,0}`$. (ii) The NPICR-pions must be complanar with the incoming and outgoing projectile possessing strong correlations, ($`\theta _{1k},w`$) and ($`\theta _{1k},T_p`$), where $`T_p`$ is the threshold kinetic energy. (iii) The *NPICR differential cross sections (DCS)* are peaked at the energy $`\omega _\mathrm{m}=244`$ MeV for CB1-emission band when absorption in medium is taken into account. The CB1-peak width in the DCS is predicted to be $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{m}`$ 25 MeV. (iv) The NPICR-peak position is predicted to behave with energy as $`T_p^2`$, while the $`A`$-target dependence of the DCS is also predicted .

Therefore, the physical domain of the low-energy component of the DCPE phenomenon can be identified with the NPICR-predicted pionic bands, CB1, CB2, and CB3. Hence, more experimental and theoretical investigations are needed since NPICR and NBCR radiations can be described in an unified way via DCPE as the generalized two-component Cherenkov-like effects with the same interaction Hamiltonian .

On the other hand, we must underline that the existence of the NPICR-CB1-emission band has been experimentally confirmed in the studies of dense groups, or spikes, of negative pions in central Mg-Mg collisions at 4.3 $`A`$ GeV/$`c`$ from the 2m Streamer Chamber SKM-200 (JINR, Dubna) . In about 14420 events, the spikes have been extracted in each event from the ordered pseudorapidities scanned with the rapidity window of the fixed size $`\delta \stackrel{}{\eta }`$ with the definite number $`n`$ of pions required to hit in the window. An example of the c.m. energy distributions is shown in Fig. 2. So, from Fig. 2 and the $`E^{}`$ -spectra at other $`\delta \stackrel{}{\eta }`$ and $`n`$ , one finds a significant peak in the energy spectra of emitted pions over the inclusive background. The experimental values of the peak position, $`E_\mathrm{m}^{}=238\pm 3(\mathrm{stat})\pm 8(\mathrm{syst})\mathrm{MeV}`$, and its width, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{m}=10\pm 3(\mathrm{stat})\pm 5(\mathrm{syst})\mathrm{MeV}`$, are found to be in a good agreement with the absolute NPICR predictions for $`\omega _\mathrm{m}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{m}`$ . It is important to note that the value of $`E_\mathrm{m}^{}`$ is similar to the position of the peak found in  in the study of $`\pi ^+`$-production in coincidence measurements of (p,n) reactions at 0 on C, the effect connected with NPICR .

Finally, we can conclude that DCPE intensities are large enough in order to be experimentally measured in exclusive experiments by rapid coincidence techniques.

*The DCPE in hadronic media.* The mesonic Cerenkov-like radiation in hadronic media was considered by many authors . A systematic investigation of the classical and quantum theory of this kind of effects in hadronic media can be found in Ref. . The classical variant  of the Cherenkov mechanism was applied to the study of single meson production in hadron-hadron interactions at high energies. This variant is based on the usual assumption that hadrons are composed from a central core in which most of the hadron mass is concentrated surrounded by a large and more diffuse mesonic cloud (hadronic medium). Then, it was shown  that a *hadronic mesonic Cherenkov-like radiation (HMCR)* with an mesonic refractive index given by a pole approximation, can be able to explain the integrated cross sections of a single meson production in hadron-hadron interactions. Indeed, in the pole approximation the integrated cross section reads:

$$\sigma _{HMCR}(v)=\sigma _0\frac{G^2}{4\pi }\frac{a}{Y_v}\times $$

$$\left\{1\frac{1}{Y_v}\left[\frac{m}{a}+\frac{a^2+m^2}{a^2}\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{aY_vm}{mY_v+a}\right)\right]\right\}$$
(9)
for the (pseudo)scalar mesons, and

$$\sigma _{HMCR}(v)=\sigma _0\frac{G^2}{4\pi }\left[\frac{a^2+m^2}{a^2v^2}\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{aY_vm}{mY_v+a}\right)\frac{aY_vm}{Y_{v}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\right]$$
(10)
for the vector mesons . Here, $`v`$ is the projectile velocity, $`Y_v=v/\sqrt{1v^2}`$, $`m`$ is the rest mass of the produced meson, $`G`$ is the usual coupling constant, $`\sigma _0=0.389`$ mb, and $`a=0.350`$ GeV. To illustrate, in Fig. 3(a) we present the measured integrated cross sections of the process $`\mathrm{pp}\mathrm{pp}\pi ^0`$, compared with the HPICR-predictions. This result was very encouraging for the extension of the HMCR analysis to other single meson production in hadron-hadron collisions at high energies. Collecting the $`\chi ^2/dof`$s for all 139 reactions fitted with the HMCR approach , we get the surprisingly good description as shown in Fig. 3(b). We must underline that only reactions with single meson production were fitted (a single parameter fit) with the HMCR predictions on the integrated cross sections.

Conclusions. A new kind of coherent particle production mechanism, called *dual coherent particle emission (DCPE)*, is introduced. The DCPE phenomenon as generalized two-component Cherenkov-like effects can be viewed as two body decays B$`{}_{1}{}^{}`$ B2M in medium. They are expected to take place when the  *phase velocities of the emitted particle $`v_{Mph}`$ and that of particle source $`v_{B_1ph}`$ satisfy the dual coherence condition: $`v_{B_1ph}v_{Mph}1.`$* The secondary B2-particles produced by the high-energy component (BCR) of the DCPE can produce secondary MCR-effects. Hence, under certain circumstances the DCPE phenomenon applied to the CR in dielectrics (or crystals) can explain not only subthreshold CR  but also the observed secondary rings (or anomalous CR) . For illustration, experimental evidences for DCPE effects in various media are presented.

Finally, it is important to remark that more investigations of DCPE effects are necessary in connections with Cherenkov particle detectors since they may help to explain discrepancies between some experimental results and theoretical predictions in high-energy physics.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank G. Altarelli for fruitful discussions. One of the authors (D.B.I.) would like to thank TH Division for hospitality during his stay at CERN.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

At a future linear $`e^+e^{}`$ collider with a centre-of-mass energy above 350 GeV, one of the most important reactions will be top-pair production well above the threshold (i.e. in the continuum region),

$`e^++e^{}t+\overline{t}.`$ (1.1)
Several hundred thousand events are expected, and the anticipated accuracy of the corresponding theoretical predictions should be around a few per mille. Of course, it is not only the two-fermion production process (1.1), with electroweak radiative corrections (EWRC) and QCD corrections to the final state that has to be calculated with high precision. Additionally the decay of the top quarks and a variety of quite different radiative corrections such as real photonic bremsstrahlung and other non-factorizing contributions to six-fermion production and beamstrahlung have to be considered. Potentially, new physics effects also have to be taken into account. For more details on the general subject of top physics, we refer the reader to  and, for top-pair production, to the recent collider studies  and references therein.

The electroweak one-loop corrections will be a central building block in any precision study of top-pair production. Also it might well be that for most of the physics a phenomenological study of the two-particle (top-pair) production cross section will be sufficient, thus avoiding to deal too much with many-particle final states observed in the detectors . For these reasons, we recalculated the complete set of electroweak contributions, including real hard photon corrections. Several studies on this topic are already available in the literature. In , the complete $`O(\alpha )`$ corrections, including hard photon radiation, are calculated. The virtual and soft photon corrections both in the Standard Model and in the minimal supersymmetric Standard Model are determined in , and (only) in the Standard Model in . Experience proves that so far it was difficult to get a satisfactory numerical comparison based on articles or computer codes without contacting the corresponding authors. Due to the importance of the process, for future applications, it is therefore necessary to provide a common basis and accessible documentation. Thus we aim, with the present write-up, to carefully document the one-loop radiative corrections for the process (1.1111 The situation with massless fermion-pair production is much better due to the efforts related to LEP physics; see  and the references therein. , with the publicly available Fortran program topfit , and with the sample Fortran outputs. In the mean time, we compared our calculations in detail with the results of two collaborations .222Another series of numerical comparisons with the authors of  was started in September 2001; see also .

In this article, we sketch in short our calculation and present some typical numerical results applicable at typical Linear Collider energies.

## 2 Conventions and Cross Sections

In lowest order perturbation theory the process $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}`$can be illustrated by the two Feynman diagrams of Fig. 2.1.

For convenience we introduce the following abbreviations:

$`p_5`$ $`=p_1+p_2=p_3p_4,p_5^2=t,`$ (2.1)
$`p_6`$ $`=p_2+p_3=p_1p_4,p_6^2=s,`$ (2.2)
$`p_7`$ $`=p_2+p_4=p_1p_3,p_7^2=u.`$ (2.3)
In the Feynman gauge the matrix elements corresponding to Fig. 2.1 are:

$`_\gamma `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{s}}Q_eQ_t[\overline{v}(p_4)\gamma ^\mu u(p_1)]\times [\overline{u}(p_2)\gamma _\mu v(p_3)],`$ (2.4)
$`_Z`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{sM_Z^2+iM_Z\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z}}[\overline{v}(p_4)\gamma ^\mu (v_ea_e\gamma _5)u(p_1)]\times [\overline{u}(p_2)\gamma _\mu (v_ta_t\gamma _5)v(p_3)],`$ (2.5)
with

$`v_f`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{T_f^32Q_f\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{w}}{2\mathrm{sin}\theta _\mathrm{w}\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{w}}},`$ (2.6)
$`a_f`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{T_f^3}{2\mathrm{sin}\theta _\mathrm{w}\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{w}}},`$ (2.7)
where $`T_f^3`$ is the quantum number corresponding to the third component of the weak isospin, $`eQ_f`$ the electromagnetic charge, and $`\theta _w`$ the weak mixing angle.

We parametrize the radiative corrections by means of form factors. Defining the following four matrix elements

$`_1^{ij}`$ $`=\left[\overline{v}(p_4)\gamma ^\mu 𝐆^iu(p_1)\right]\times \left[\overline{u}(p_2)\gamma _\mu 𝐆^jv(p_3)\right],i,j=1,5,`$ (2.8)
with $`𝐆^1=1`$ and $`𝐆^5=\gamma _5`$, the Born amplitude can be written in a compact form:

$$_B=_\gamma +_Z=\underset{i,j=1,5}{}F_1^{ij,B}_1^{ij}.$$
(2.9)
The form factors are

$`F_1^{11,B}`$ $`=v_ev_t{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{sM_Z^2+iM_Z\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z}}+Q_eQ_t{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{s}}F_1^{11,B,Z}+F_1^{11,B,\gamma },`$ (2.10)
$`F_1^{15,B}`$ $`=v_ea_t{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{sM_Z^2+iM_Z\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z}},`$ (2.11)
$`F_1^{51,B}`$ $`=v_ta_e{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{sM_Z^2+iM_Z\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z}},`$ (2.12)
$`F_1^{55,B}`$ $`=a_ea_t{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{sM_Z^2+iM_Z\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z}}.`$ (2.13)
Besides (2.8), we find at one-loop level three further basic matrix element structures (in the limit of vanishing electron mass):

$$_{1\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{p}}=\underset{a=1}{\overset{4}{}}\underset{i,j=1,5}{}F_a^{ij,1\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{p}}_a^{ij},$$
(2.14)
with

$`_1^{ij}`$ $`=\gamma ^\mu 𝐆^i\gamma _\mu 𝐆^j,`$ (2.15)
$`_2^{ij}`$ $`=p/_2𝐆^ip/_4𝐆^j,`$ (2.16)
$`_3^{ij}`$ $`=p/_2𝐆^i𝐆^j,`$ (2.17)
$`_4^{ij}`$ $`=\gamma ^\mu 𝐆^i\gamma _\mu p/_4𝐆^j,`$ (2.18)
and respectively sixteen scalar form factors $`F_a^{ij}`$ in total. An alternative notion uses the helicity structures,

$`_1^{LR}`$ $`=\gamma ^\mu 𝐋\gamma _\mu 𝐑`$ (2.19)
etc., with $`𝐋,𝐑=(1\gamma _5)/2`$. The interferences of these matrix elements with the Born amplitude have to be calculated. Only six of these interferences are independent, e.g. $`_1^{ij}`$, $`_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{11}`$ and $`_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{51}`$, 333 We are grateful to D. Bardin and P. Christova for drawing our attention to this simplification.  i.e. we have the following 10 equivalences :

$`4_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{11}`$ $``$ $`(TU)_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{11}+s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{55},`$ (2.20)
$`4_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{15}`$ $``$ $`(TU)_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{15}+(s4m_t^2)_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{51}4m_t_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{51},`$ (2.21)
$`4_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{51}`$ $``$ $`(TU)_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{51}+s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{15},`$ (2.22)
$`4_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{55}`$ $``$ $`(TU)_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{55}+(s4m_t^2)_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{11}4m_t_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{11},`$ (2.23)
$`_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{15}`$ $``$ $`0,`$ (2.24)
$`_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{55}`$ $``$ $`0,`$ (2.25)
$`_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{55}_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{11}`$ $``$ $`_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{11}+m_t_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{11},`$ (2.26)
$`_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{15}_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{51}`$ $``$ $`_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{51}+m_t_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{51}.`$ (2.27)
In the massless limit ($`m_t0`$) , only $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ will contribute to the cross-section, and it can be expressed in terms of the Born-like structures $`_1`$ exclusively. We introduce the variables

$`T=m_e^2+m_t^2t`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s}{2}}(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ),`$ (2.28)
$`U=m_e^2+m_t^2u`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s}{2}}(1+\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ),`$ (2.29)
$`\beta _t=\beta `$ $`=\sqrt{14m_t^2/s}.`$ (2.30)
Based on the relations (2.20 to 2.27 ) the virtual corrections can be expressed in terms of six independent, modified, dimensionless form factors $`\widehat{F}_1^{ij},\widehat{F}_3^{11},\widehat{F}_3^{51}`$:

$`\widehat{F}_1^{11}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[F_1^{11}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(ut)F_2^{11}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(u+t+2m_t^2)F_2^{55}+m_t(F_4^{55}F_4^{11})\right],`$ (2.31)
$`\widehat{F}_1^{15}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[F_1^{15}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(u+t2m_t^2)F_2^{51}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(ut)F_2^{15}\right],`$ (2.32)
$`\widehat{F}_1^{51}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[F_1^{51}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(ut)F_2^{51}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(u+t+2m_t^2)F_2^{15}+m_t(F_4^{15}F_4^{51})\right],`$ (2.33)
$`\widehat{F}_1^{55}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[F_1^{55}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(u+t2m_t^2)F_2^{11}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(ut)F_2^{55}\right],`$ (2.34)
$`\widehat{F}_3^{11}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[F_3^{11}F_4^{11}+F_4^{55}m_tF_2^{55}\right],`$ (2.35)
$`\widehat{F}_3^{51}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[F_3^{51}+F_4^{15}F_4^{51}m_tF_2^{15}\right].`$ (2.36)
The resulting cross-section formula is:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha ^2}{2s}}c_t\beta 2\mathrm{}e[(u^2+t^2+2m_t^2s)(\overline{F}_1^{11}\overline{F}_1^{11,B}+\overline{F}_1^{51}\overline{F}_1^{51,B})`$ (2.37)
$`+(u^2+t^22m_t^2s)\left(\overline{F}_1^{15}\overline{F}_1^{15,B}+\overline{F}_1^{55}\overline{F}_1^{55,B}\right)`$
$`+(u^2t^2)\left(\overline{F}_1^{55}\overline{F}_1^{11,B}+\overline{F}_1^{15}\overline{F}_1^{15,B}+\overline{F}_1^{51}\overline{F}_1^{51,B}+\overline{F}_1^{11}\overline{F}_1^{55,B}\right)`$
$`+2m_t(tum_t^4)(\overline{F}_3^{11}\overline{F}_1^{11,B}+\overline{F}_3^{51}\overline{F}_1^{51,B})],`$
where the dimensionless form factors are

$`\overline{F}_1^{ij,B}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s}{e^2}}F_1^{ij,B},`$ (2.38)
$`\overline{F}_a^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s}{e^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _{a,1}F_1^{ij,B}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\widehat{F}_a^{ij,1\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{p}}\right].`$ (2.39)
and $`c_t=3`$, $`\alpha =e^2/4\pi `$. The $`\overline{F}_a^{ij}`$ are defined so that double counting for the Born contributions $`F_1^{ij,B}`$ is avoided. The factor $`1/(16\pi ^2)`$ is conventional.

In the numerical program, helicity form factors are calculated as well. They are defined as follows:

$`F_i^{LL}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[F_i^{11}F_i^{15}F_i^{51}+F_i^{55}\right],`$ (2.40)
$`F_i^{LR}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[F_i^{11}+F_i^{15}F_i^{51}F_i^{55}\right],`$ (2.41)
$`F_i^{RL}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[F_i^{11}F_i^{15}+F_i^{51}F_i^{55}\right],`$ (2.42)
$`F_i^{RR}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[F_i^{11}+F_i^{15}+F_i^{51}+F_i^{55}\right],i=1\mathrm{}4.`$ (2.43)
At the end of this introductory section, we would like to give the relation of our form factors to those used in the literature for pair production of massless fermions. In that case, only the four form factors $`\widehat{F}_1^{ij}`$ contribute. They have to replace, in the massless limit, the form factors $`\rho `$ and $`\kappa _f`$, which are conventionally used to renormalize the muon decay constant and the weak mixing angle and are precisely defined in . We rewrite the matrix element $`_1`$ in such a way that it gives exactly the Born $`Z`$ amplitude (2.5) when the four form factors $`\rho _{et},\kappa _e,\kappa _t,\kappa _{et}`$ are set equal to 1:

$`_1`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1,5}{}}\widehat{F}_1^{ij}_1^{ij}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=L,R}{}}\widehat{F}_1^{ij}_1^{ij}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{4e^2a_ea_t}{sM_Z^2+iM_Z\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z}}\rho _{et}[(\gamma ^\mu 𝐋\gamma _\mu 𝐋)|Q_e|\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{w}\kappa _e(\gamma ^\mu \gamma _\mu 𝐋)`$
$`|Q_t|\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{w}\kappa _t(\gamma ^\mu 𝐋\gamma _\mu )+|Q_tQ_e|\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _\mathrm{w}\kappa _{et}(\gamma ^\mu \gamma _\mu )].`$ (2.44)
From here, it is easy to derive the relations between the form factors $`\widehat{F}_1^{ij}`$ in an (L,R) or (1,5) basis and $`\rho _{et},\kappa _e,\kappa _t,\kappa _{et}`$, respectively:

$`\widehat{F}_1^{LL}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{4e^2a_ea_t}{sM_Z^2+iM_Z\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z}}\rho _{et}\left(1|Q_e|\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{w}\kappa _e|Q_t|\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{w}\kappa _t+|Q_tQ_e|\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _\mathrm{w}\kappa _{et}\right),`$ (2.45)
$`\widehat{F}_1^{LR}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{4e^2a_ea_t}{sM_Z^2+iM_Z\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z}}\rho _{et}\left(|Q_t|\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{w}\kappa _t+|Q_tQ_e|\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _\mathrm{w}\kappa _{et}\right),`$ (2.46)
$`\widehat{F}_1^{RL}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{4e^2a_ea_t}{sM_Z^2+iM_Z\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z}}\rho _{et}\left(|Q_e|\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{w}\kappa _e+|Q_tQ_e|\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _\mathrm{w}\kappa _{et}\right),`$ (2.47)
$`\widehat{F}_1^{RR}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{4e^2a_ea_t}{sM_Z^2+iM_Z\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z}}\rho _{et}\left(|Q_tQ_e|\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _\mathrm{w}\kappa _{et}\right).`$ (2.48)
Three process-dependent effective weak mixing angles $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{w}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and the weak coupling strength $`\kappa ^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ are obtained by inverting these relations:

$`\kappa ^{\mathrm{eff}}=\rho _{et}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{sM_Z^2+iM_Z\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z}{4e^2a_ea_t}}\left(\widehat{F}_1^{LL}\widehat{F}_1^{LR}\widehat{F}_1^{RL}+\widehat{F}_1^{RR}\right),`$ (2.49)
$`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{w}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{eff},e}=\kappa _e\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{w}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|Q_e|}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\widehat{F}_1^{RR}\widehat{F}_1^{RL}\right)}{\left(\widehat{F}_1^{LL}\widehat{F}_1^{LR}\widehat{F}_1^{RL}+\widehat{F}_1^{RR}\right)}},`$ (2.50)
$`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{w}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{eff},t}=\kappa _t\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{w}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|Q_t|}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\widehat{F}_1^{RR}\widehat{F}_1^{LR}\right)}{\left(\widehat{F}_1^{LL}\widehat{F}_1^{LR}\widehat{F}_1^{RL}+\widehat{F}_1^{RR}\right)}},`$ (2.51)
$`(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{w}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{eff},et})^2=\kappa _{et}\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _\mathrm{w}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|Q_eQ_t|}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{F}_1^{RR}}{\left(\widehat{F}_1^{LL}\widehat{F}_1^{LR}\widehat{F}_1^{RL}+\widehat{F}_1^{RR}\right)}}.`$ (2.52)
For the simplest approximations with factorizing, universal weak corrections, the $`\kappa _e`$, $`\kappa _t`$, and $`\sqrt{\kappa _{et}}`$ become equal, real and constant (independent of process and kinematics); for more details see for instance the discussion of the weak corrections in  and references therein. There, also the important influence of higher order corrections is considered.

## 3 Virtual Corrections

The virtual corrections come from self-energy insertions, vertex and box diagrams, and from renormalization. A complete list of the contributing diagrams may be found in . By means of the package DIANA  we generated useful graphical presentations of the diagrams and the input for subsequent FORM  manipulations. With the DIANA output (FORM input), we performed two independent calculations of the virtual form factors, both using the ’t Hooft–Feynman gauge.

For the final numerical evaluations we used two Fortran packages: FF  and LoopTools . Both have been taken from the corresponding homepages, and LoopTools was slightly adapted: one infrared $`C_0`$ was added and the $`DB_1`$ was used only for photon mass $`\lambda =0`$.

In the package FF, the Passarino–Veltman tensor decomposition of the amplitudes  is defined in terms of the external momenta of the diagrams, while in LoopTools this decomposition is performed in terms of internal momenta and the latter are later expressed in terms of the external ones. The resulting linear relation between the corresponding form factors is given in Appendix A. Both the ultraviolet (UV) and the infrared (IR) divergences are treated by dimensional regularization, introducing the dimension $`d=42ϵ`$ and parametrizing the infinities as poles in $`ϵ`$. The UV divergences have to be eliminated by renormalization on the amplitude level, while the IR ones can only be eliminated on the cross-section level by including the emission of soft photons. For the IR divergences we have alternatively introduced a finite photon mass, as is foreseen in FF, yielding a logarithmic singularity in this mass. Agreement to high precision was achieved for the two approaches.

Because the calculation of one-loop corrections for two-fermion production is well known, we do not present a detailed prescription of the calculations. We perform the renormalization closely following . On the other hand, we want to fix some cornerstones and sketch the renormalization and show the UV-divergent parts of all the contributing diagrams, such that their cancellations can be deduced. The treatment of the IR divergences will be discussed in more detail because of the interplay with real photonic corrections. Finally, concerning the finite parts, we refer to the Fortran program topfit. We only mention that we did not perform a complete reduction of the various scalar functions to $`A_0`$, $`B_0`$, $`C_0`$, and $`D_0`$, since this is not needed for a purely numerical evaluation.

### 3.1 The self-energy diagrams

We have to renormalize the UV singularities of the self-energies of the photon and the $`Z`$ boson, and also that of their mixing. Since the counter terms from wave-function and parameter renormalization must exhibit Born-like structures, it is clear from the very beginning that a cancellation of UV divergences can only occur in terms of single propagator poles. The double poles, which originally occur in the self-energy diagrams, are cancelled by mass renormalization. This we want to stress for the following, by allowing only single poles in the self-energy contributions. Thus the photon self-energy and the $`Z`$ self-energy diagrams take the form

$`S_\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\gamma \gamma }}{s}}_\gamma ,`$ (3.1)
$`S_Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ZZ}}{sM_Z^2}}_Z.`$ (3.2)
In the $`\gamma `$$`Z`$ mixing diagrams, a partial fraction decomposition of the product $`(1/s)1/(sM_Z^2)`$ is performed, but no subtraction:

$`S_{\gamma Z}`$ $`=`$ $`e^2Q_e\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\gamma Z}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_Z^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{sM_Z^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}\right)\gamma _\mu \times \gamma _\mu \left(v_ta_t\gamma _5\right),`$ (3.3)
$`S_{Z\gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`e^2Q_t\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\gamma Z}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_Z^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{sM_Z^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}})\gamma _\mu (v_ea_e\gamma _5)\times \gamma _\mu .`$ (3.4)
We give the UV-divergent parts of the renormalized self-energies (for definitions, see Appendix B):

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\gamma \gamma }^{\mathrm{ren},\mathrm{UV}}`$ $`=`$ $`e^2s\left({\displaystyle \frac{23}{3}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}},`$ (3.5)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{Z\gamma }^{\mathrm{ren},\mathrm{UV}}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\gamma Z}^{\mathrm{ren},\mathrm{UV}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2\mathrm{sin}\theta _\mathrm{w}\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{w}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{46}{3}}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _\mathrm{w}s4M_W^2{\displaystyle \frac{41}{3}}s\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}},`$ (3.6)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ZZ}^{\mathrm{ren},\mathrm{UV}}`$ $`=`$ $`e^2(sM_Z^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{23}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{w}}}{\displaystyle \frac{41}{6\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _\mathrm{w}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{w}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}.`$ (3.7)
Three families of fermions are assumed. The UV-divergent terms of the self-energies are independent of the fermion masses, but this is, of course, not true for the finite contributions.

The form factors are easily deduced from the above representations. The photon self-energy, for instance, contributes to $`F_1^{11}`$ only:

$`\widehat{F}_1^{11,\gamma \gamma }=F_1^{11,B,\gamma \gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\gamma \gamma }^{\mathrm{ren}}}{s}}Q_eQ_t{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{s^2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\gamma \gamma }^{\mathrm{ren}}.`$ (3.8)
### 3.2 The vertex diagrams

From the initial-state vertex corrections, form factors $`F_1^{ij,V},V=\gamma ,Z`$, arise, and from the final vertices $`F_1^{ij,V}`$ and $`F_3^{ij,V}`$, the latter being proportional to $`m_t`$. There are UV divergences from the vertex diagrams in $`F_1^{ij}`$: again only Born-like amplitudes are UV-divergent.

The divergent parts of vertices with a photon or $`Z`$ boson in the $`s`$-channel, correspondingly, are:444To compactify the following formula we introduce the abbreviations: $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _\mathrm{w}=s_W`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{w}=c_W`$.

$`V_\gamma ^{\mathrm{UV}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2s_W}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\left[f_1^{11,\gamma }\gamma _\mu \gamma ^\mu +f_1^{15,\gamma }\gamma _\mu \gamma ^\mu \gamma _5+f_1^{51,\gamma }\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\gamma ^\mu \right],`$ (3.9)
$`V_Z^{\mathrm{UV}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2s_W^2c_W}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{sM_Z^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\left[f_1^{11,Z}\gamma _\mu \gamma ^\mu +f_1^{15,Z}\gamma _\mu \gamma ^\mu \gamma _5+f_1^{51,Z}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\gamma ^\mu +f_1^{55,Z}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\right].`$
The explicit expressions from the initial and final photonic vertices are:

$`f_1^{11,\gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{17}{27}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{64}{27}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{M_W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{M_W^2}}\right)_{\mathrm{fin}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_W^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\right)_{\mathrm{ini}},`$ (3.11)
$`f_1^{15,\gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{32}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{M_W^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{M_W^2}}\right)_{\mathrm{fin}},`$ (3.12)
$`f_1^{51,\gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{10}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_W^2}}\right)_{\mathrm{ini}}.`$ (3.13)
For the $`Z`$ boson in the $`s`$-channel we only give the sum of the initial- and final-state fermion vertices:

$`f_1^{11,Z}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{973}{216}}{\displaystyle \frac{25}{18}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{M_W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{M_W^2}}c_W^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{M_Z^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}c_W^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{M_Z^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{157}{108}}c_W^2{\displaystyle \frac{82}{27}}c_W^4+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{M_Z^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{M_Z^2}},`$
$`f_1^{15,Z}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{21}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{7}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{M_W^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{M_W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}c_W^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{M_Z^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}c_W^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{M_Z^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{137}{36}}c_W^2+{\displaystyle \frac{32}{9}}c_W^4+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{M_Z^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{M_Z^2}},`$
$`f_1^{51,Z}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{665}{216}}{\displaystyle \frac{95}{108}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{M_W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{M_W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{449}{108}}c_W^2+{\displaystyle \frac{10}{3}}c_W^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{M_Z^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{M_Z^2}},`$ (3.16)
$`f_1^{55,Z}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{97}{72}}{\displaystyle \frac{7}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{7}{48}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{M_W^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{M_W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{77}{36}}c_W^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{M_Z^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{M_Z^2}}.`$ (3.17)
The resulting form factors can be extracted, e.g.

$`\widehat{F}_1^{ij,\gamma ,\mathrm{UV}}`$ $`=`$ $`(e^4)/(4s_W^2sϵ)f_1^{ij,\gamma }.`$ (3.18)
### 3.3 The box diagrams

$`ZZ`$, $`Z\gamma `$ and $`\gamma Z`$ box diagrams contribute to all form factors $`F_1^{ij}`$ to $`F_4^{ij}`$ introduced in (2.14) to (2.18), while the $`WW`$ box diagram contributes only to $`F_1^{ij}`$. The pure photonic box diagrams contribute only to $`F_a^{11}`$ and $`F_a^{55}`$. Simple power counting shows that there are no UV divergences from the boxes. The IR divergences will be discussed in Section 3.5 and Appendix C.

### 3.4 The counter-term contributions

Finally we have to take into account the contribution from the counter terms of Appendix B, where we also introduce some of the notation to be used in the following. With these the photon exchange becomes:

$`C_\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`\left[\gamma _\mu \gamma _\mu (z_{a,t}+z_{b,t}\gamma _5)+\gamma _\mu (z_{a,e}+z_{b,e}\gamma _5)\gamma _\mu +\gamma _\mu \gamma ^\mu 2{\displaystyle \frac{\delta e}{e}}\right]Q_eQ_t{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{s}}.`$ (3.19)
Analogously, for the $`Z`$ exchange

$`C_Z`$ $`=`$ $`\{\gamma _\mu (v_ea_e\gamma _5)\gamma _\mu (v_ta_t\gamma _5)(z_{a,t}+z_{b,t}\gamma _5)+\gamma _\mu (v_ea_e\gamma _5)(z_{a,e}+z_{b,e}\gamma _5)\gamma _\mu (v_ta_t\gamma _5)`$ (3.20)
$`\gamma _\mu \gamma _\mu (v_ta_t\gamma _5){\displaystyle \frac{Q_e}{s_Wc_W}}\delta s_W^2\gamma _\mu (v_ea_e\gamma _5)\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{Q_t}{s_Wc_W}}\delta s_W^2`$
$`+\gamma _\mu (v_ea_e\gamma _5)\gamma _\mu (v_ta_t\gamma _5)[2{\displaystyle \frac{\delta e}{e}}+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_W^2}})\delta s_W^2]\}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{sM_Z^2}}.`$
It is again easy to collect from the above expressions the corresponding contributions to the form factors $`F_1^{11}`$ to $`F_1^{55}`$. The contributions to, say, $`F_1^{11}`$ from the counter terms are:

$`\widehat{F}_1^{11,ct}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[2{\displaystyle \frac{\delta e}{e}}+z_{a,t}+z_{a,e}\right]F_1^{11,B,\gamma }+\left[2{\displaystyle \frac{\delta e}{e}}+z_{a,t}+z_{a,e}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_W^2}}\right)\delta s_W^2\right]F_1^{11,B,Z}`$ (3.21)
$`(v_tQ_e+v_eQ_t){\displaystyle \frac{\delta s_W^2}{s_Wc_W}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{sM_Z^2}}.`$
The resulting $`1/ϵ`$ terms may be read off in Appendix B.

The sum of all the $`1/ϵ`$ terms listed in the foregoing subsections for the form factors $`F_1^{ij}`$, $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},4`$, has been shown to finally vanish separately for the photon and the $`Z`$ pole of the s-channel propagator:

$`\widehat{F}_1^{ij,\mathrm{UV}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\widehat{F}_1^{ij,\gamma \gamma }+\widehat{F}_1^{ij,\gamma Z}+\widehat{F}_1^{ij,Z\gamma }+\widehat{F}_1^{ij,ZZ}+\widehat{F}_1^{ij,\gamma }+\widehat{F}_1^{ij,Z}+\widehat{F}_1^{ij,ct}\right]_{\mathrm{UV}}=0.`$ (3.22)
### 3.5 Infrared divergences

In topfit, we have incorporated two weak libraries. One uses the package LoopTools , and the other one the package FF . With these two options, we have a variety of internal cross checks at our disposal.

The photonic virtual corrections contain infrared divergences. They appear as singular behaviour of classes of one-loop functions. One may follow several strategies to handle them in a numerical calculation. The simplest one is to blindly give the task to the library for numerical calculation of the one-loop functions and then control the infrared stability numerically in the Fortran program. Both packages allow for this approach; LoopTools with dimensional regularization or with a finite photon mass, while FF treats loop functions with finite photon mass only.

In addition, we checked the IR stability in two ways explicitly. In the library based on FF, we simply took a small but finite photon mass and directly applied FF without simplifying any tensor functions. Several analytic checks were also performed. In the other one, we isolated in all the scalar functions the IR divergence explicitly and the cancellations with the divergences from bremsstrahlung corrections (see Section 4.3) were controlled both analytically and numerically.

In Appendix C, we fix the notation and discuss the basics of the treatment of IR divergences. In the rest of this section, we simply give a list of the divergent parts of the form factors:

From the renormalization of the fermion self-energies (wave function renormalization factors) :

$`\widehat{F}_1^{ij,Z_f,\mathrm{IR}}`$ $`=`$ $`4e^2Q_f^2m_f^2DB_1(m_f^2;m_f^2,0)F_1^{ij,B}.`$ (3.23)
From the vertex corrections (index $`f=e,t`$):

$`\widehat{F}_1^{ij,V_f,\mathrm{IR}}`$ $`=`$ $`2e^2Q_f^2(s2m_f^2)C_0(m_f^2,s,m_f^2;0,m_f^2,m_f^2)F_1^{ij,B}.`$ (3.24)
These form factors combine in the cross-section with the initial- and final-state soft photon corrections to an infrared-finite contribution. For instance, the pure photonic parts contribute only to $`\overline{F}_1^{11}`$. The resulting IR-divergent cross-section contribution in (2.37),

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^{f,\mathrm{IR}}}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^B}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}Q_f^2\delta _f^{\mathrm{IR}},`$ (3.25)
with

$`\delta _f^{\mathrm{IR}}=2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_f}{\lambda }}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{s2m_f^2}{s\beta _f}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1\beta _f}{1+\beta _f}}\right),`$ (3.26)
is compensated with (4.76) and (4.77).

A little more involved are the box diagram contributions. As a typical example, we show the photonic box parts. The direct box gives:

$`F_1^{11,d\gamma ,\mathrm{IR}}=F_1^{55,d\gamma ,\mathrm{IR}}`$ $`=`$ $`(tus)𝒢_d,`$ (3.27)
$`F_2^{11,d\gamma ,\mathrm{IR}}=F_2^{55,d\gamma ,\mathrm{IR}}`$ $`=`$ $`4𝒢_d,`$ (3.28)
$`F_4^{55,d\gamma ,\mathrm{IR}}`$ $`=`$ $`4m_t𝒢_d,`$ (3.29)
with

$`𝒢_d`$ $`=`$ $`e^2Q_eQ_tC_0(m_e^2,t,m_t^2;0,m_e^2,m_t^2)F_1^{11,B,\gamma }.`$ (3.30)
From these expressions, the form factors (2.31) to (2.35) get contributions:

$`\widehat{F}_1^{11,d\gamma ,\mathrm{IR}}`$ $`=`$ $`+4Te^2Q_eQ_tC_0(m_e^2,t,m_t^2;0,m_e^2,m_t^2)F_1^{11,B,\gamma },`$ (3.31)
and all the others vanish. Analogously, from the crossed photonic box diagram:

$`F_1^{11,c\gamma ,\mathrm{IR}}=+F_1^{155,c\gamma ,\mathrm{IR}}`$ $`=`$ $`2(um_t^2)𝒢_c,`$ (3.32)
$`F_2^{11,c\gamma ,\mathrm{IR}}=F_2^{55,c\gamma ,\mathrm{IR}}`$ $`=`$ $`4𝒢_c,`$ (3.33)
$`F_4^{55,c\gamma ,\mathrm{IR}}`$ $`=`$ $`+4m_t𝒢_c,`$ (3.34)
with

$`𝒢_c`$ $`=`$ $`e^2Q_eQ_tC_0(m_e^2,u,m_t^2;0,m_e^2,m_t^2)F_1^{11,B,\gamma }.`$ (3.35)
From these expressions, the form factors (2.31) to (2.35) get contributions:

$`\widehat{F}_1^{11,d\gamma ,\mathrm{IR}}`$ $`=`$ $`4Ue^2Q_eQ_tC_0(m_e^2,u,m_t^2;0,m_e^2,m_t^2)F_1^{11,B,\gamma },`$ (3.36)
and again all the others vanish.

The resulting cross-section contributions become

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^{\gamma ,\mathrm{IR}}}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^B}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}4{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}Q_eQ_t\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_em_t}{T}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_em_t}{U}}\right),`$ (3.37)
and are compensated with (4.78).

In Appendix C we show the relevant scalar functions explicitly.

## 4 Real Photonic Radiative Corrections

### 4.1 The three-particle phase space

The reaction

$$e^+(p_4)+e^{}(p_1)t(q_2)+\overline{t}(q_3)+\gamma (p)$$
(4.1)
with

$`d\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2s\beta _0}}||^2(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(p_1+p_4q_2q_3p){\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^3\stackrel{}{q}_2}{(2\pi )^32E_t}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^3\stackrel{}{q}_3}{(2\pi )^32E_{\overline{t}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^3\stackrel{}{p}}{(2\pi )^32E_\gamma }}`$ (4.2)
is the one which in reality always takes place, even if for soft photons the ‘elastic’ Born cross-section can be a good approximation without taking into account the radiated photons. Here we introduce the final-state phase-space parametrization: for convenience of notation, the top physical momenta $`q_2=p_2,q_3=p_3`$ are used here. We will not neglect the electron mass systematically, $`p_1^2=p_4^2=m_e^2`$, and $`\beta _0=\sqrt{14m_e^2/s}`$. Our semi-analytical integration approach with physically accessible observables as integration variables may be used to set benchmarks and to control the numerical precision to more than four digits. Their choice is constrained by the observables we want to predict, notably the angular distribution and certain cross-section asymmetries. Basically we follow the approach proposed in  and extend the required formulae to the massive fermion case.

There is not too much found in the literature for the radiative production of massive fermion pairs. Thus, we will discuss the kinematical details with some care, since they define the integration boundaries of our numerical integration program.

In (2.1) and (2.3) we defined $`t`$ and $`u`$ for two-particle production. With the additional photon in the final state, we have to be more specific and will use the following definitions:

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`2p_4q_3,`$ (4.3)
$`U`$ $`=`$ $`2p_1q_3.`$ (4.4)
Additionally, the following invariants will be used:

$`s^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(q_2+q_3)^2,`$ (4.5)
$`Z_{1,2}`$ $`=`$ $`2pp_{1,4},`$ (4.6)
$`V_{1,2}`$ $`=`$ $`2pq_{2,3}.`$ (4.7)
The squares of all three-momenta in the centre-of-mass system can be expressed in terms of a set of $`\lambda `$ functions:

$`4s|\stackrel{}{q}_2|^2`$ $`=\lambda _1`$ $`\lambda [(p_1+p_4)^2,(q_3+p)^2,q_2^2]=(sV_2)^24m_t^2s,`$ (4.8)
$`4s|\stackrel{}{q}_3|^2`$ $`=\lambda _2`$ $`\lambda [(p_1+p_4)^2,(q_2+p)^2,q_3^2]=(s^{}+V_2)^24m_t^2s,`$ (4.9)
$`4s|\stackrel{}{p}_1|^2=4s|\stackrel{}{p}_4|^2`$ $`=\lambda _s`$ $`\lambda [(p_1+p_4)^2,p_1^2,p_4^2]=s^24m_e^2s,`$ (4.10)
$`4s|\stackrel{}{p}|^2`$ $`=\lambda _p`$ $`\lambda [(p_1+p_4)^2,(q_2+q_3)^2,p^2]=(ss^{})^2,`$ (4.11)
where we use $`\lambda (x,y,z)=x^2+y^2+z^22(xy+xz+yz)`$ and the relation $`4p_A^2|\stackrel{}{p}_B|^2=\lambda [(p_A+p_B)^2,p_A^2,p_B^2]|_{\stackrel{}{p}_A=0}`$ for $`p_A=(p_1+p_4)`$ $`=(\sqrt{s},0,0,0)`$.

The phase space of three particles in the final state is five-dimensional. This means that only five of the ten scalar products (those introduced already: $`s,T,U,s^{},Z_i,V_i`$, plus $`W_{1,2}=2p_{1,4}q_2`$) built from the five momenta are independent. In fact, the following relations hold

$`s`$ $`=`$ $`s^{}+V_1+V_2=s^{}+Z_1+Z_2=V_2+W_1+W_2`$ (4.12)
$`=`$ $`V_1+U+T=Z_1+W_1+U.`$ (4.13)
We use the first of relations (4.12) in order to substitute $`V_1`$ everywhere in favour of $`V_2`$ as already done in (4.9). Since we do not consider transversally polarized initial particles, an integration of the cross section over the corresponding rotation angle is trivially giving a factor $`2\pi `$ and we are left with four non-trivial phase space variables.

For the calculation of the forward–backward asymmetry, the angle $`\theta `$ between the three-momenta of $`\overline{t}`$ and $`e^+`$ is used, in accordance with (4.3). Further, the energies $`E_t`$, $`E_{\overline{t}}`$, and $`E_\gamma `$ are ‘good’ variables. As mentioned before, they can be expressed in terms of the invariants $`s^{}`$ and $`V_2`$:

$`E_{\overline{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s^{}+V_2}{2\sqrt{s}}},`$ (4.14)
$`E_\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ss^{}}{2\sqrt{s}}},`$ (4.15)
$`E_t`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{s}E_\gamma E_{\overline{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{sV_2}{2\sqrt{s}}}.`$ (4.16)
The scattering angle in the centre-of-mass system may now be expressed by invariants:

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s^{}+V_2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _0\sqrt{\lambda _2}}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta .`$ (4.17)
As will be seen later, the two invariants $`s^{}`$ and $`V_2`$ also describe the angles between any pair of final-state particles. Therefore, we choose them to parametrize the phase space. Finally, the fourth integration variable will be the azimuthal angle of the photon $`\varphi _\gamma `$.

The coordinate system is chosen such that the $`\overline{t}`$ moves along the $`z`$ axis and the beam axis is in the $`y`$$`z`$ plane. The four-momenta of all particles can then be written as follows:

$`p_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}}(1,0,\beta _0\mathrm{sin}\theta ,\beta _0\mathrm{cos}\theta ),`$ (4.18)
$`p_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}}(1,0,\beta _0\mathrm{sin}\theta ,\beta _0\mathrm{cos}\theta ),`$ (4.19)
$`p`$ $`=`$ $`E_\gamma (1,\mathrm{sin}\theta _\gamma \mathrm{cos}\varphi _\gamma ,\mathrm{sin}\theta _\gamma \mathrm{sin}\varphi _\gamma ,\mathrm{cos}\theta _\gamma ),`$ (4.20)
$`q_3`$ $`=`$ $`(E_{\overline{t}},0,0,|\stackrel{}{q}_3|),`$ (4.21)
$`q_2`$ $`=`$ $`p_1+p_4pq_3.`$ (4.22)
The $`\varphi _\gamma `$ and $`\theta _\gamma `$ are the azimuthal and polar angles of the photon. The expression for $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\gamma `$ (and also that for $`|\stackrel{}{q}_3|`$) can be obtained from $`(\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}_2)^2=(\stackrel{}{q}_3)^2`$,

$`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _p}{2\sqrt{\lambda _p\lambda _2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{s^{}(ss^{})V_2(s+s^{})}{(ss^{})\sqrt{\lambda _2}}},`$ (4.23)
and again depends only on $`s^{}`$ and $`V_2`$. The differential bremsstrahlung cross section (4.2) takes the form

$`d\sigma ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2s\beta _0}}||^2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{16s}}\text{d}\varphi _\gamma \text{d}s^{}\text{d}V_2\text{d}\mathrm{cos}\theta `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2s\beta _0}}||^2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi s}{16}}\text{d}\varphi _\gamma \text{d}r\text{d}x\text{d}\mathrm{cos}\theta .`$ (4.24)
In the last step, dimensionless variables are introduced:

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_2}{s}},`$ (4.25)
$`r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s^{}}{s}},`$ (4.26)
$`r_m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4m_t^2}{s}}.`$ (4.27)
The integration boundaries are either trivial ($`\varphi _\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$) or can be found from the condition that the three three-vectors $`\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{q}_2,\stackrel{}{q}_3`$ form a triangle with the geometrical constraint $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _\gamma 1`$. The four integration variables vary within the following regions:

$`0`$ $`\varphi _\gamma `$ $`2\pi ,`$ (4.28)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{x}{2x+r_m/2}}\left(1+x\sqrt{(1x)^2r_m}\right)`$ $`1r`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x}{2x+r_m/2}}\left(1+x+\sqrt{(1x)^2r_m}\right),`$ (4.29)
$`0`$ $`x`$ $`1\sqrt{r_m},`$ (4.30)
$`1`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ $`+1.`$ (4.31)
If the order of integrations over $`r`$ and $`x`$ is interchanged, their boundaries are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1r}{2}}\left(1\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{r_m}{r}}}\right)`$ $`x`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1r}{2}}\left(1+\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{r_m}{r}}}\right),`$ (4.32)
$`r_m`$ $`r`$ $`1.`$ (4.33)
The kinematic regions of $`r`$ and $`x`$ are shown in Fig. 4.1(a) for massless ($`r_m=0`$) and in Fig. 4.1(b) for massive ($`r_m0`$) final fermions. At the kinematic boundaries, the three-momenta $`\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{q}_2,\stackrel{}{q}_3`$ are parallel. Further, there are three special points where exactly one of the three three-momenta vanishes

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{r_m}}{2\sqrt{r_m}}},1\sqrt{r_m}),`$ (4.34)
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{r_m}}{2\sqrt{r_m}}},(1\sqrt{r_m}){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{r_m}}{2\sqrt{r_m}}}),`$ (4.35)
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`(1,0).`$ (4.36)
At point $`C`$ the soft photons are located. Section 4.3 is devoted to their treatment. The $`t`$ ($`\overline{t}`$) are at rest in $`A`$ ($`B`$). In the massless case, $`r_m=0`$, the three points $`A,B`$ and $`C`$ are located at the corners of the kinematic triangle, $`A=(0,1),B=(0,0),C=(1,0)`$. From (4.14)–(4.16) it follows that the photon energy is maximal at the left edge, coinciding with the $`x`$-axis; the fermion energy is maximal at the lower edge, coinciding with the $`r`$-axis; and finally the energy of the anti fermion is maximal at the third edge.

#### 4.1.1 Energy cuts

Cuts on the energy of the final state particles are of importance for two reasons: they are being applied in the experimental set-ups, and for the photon we have to identify the soft photon terms in order to combine them with virtual corrections for a finite net elastic cross section. The lower hard photon energy (being also the upper soft photon energy) is

$`\omega =E_\gamma ^{\mathrm{min}}.`$ (4.37)
All three energy cuts are deduced from (4.14) to (4.16). The photon energy is related to $`r`$ by

$`r=12E_\gamma /\sqrt{s}`$ (4.38)
and the limits to be imposed are

$`r_\gamma =12E_\gamma ^{\mathrm{max}}/\sqrt{s}r12\omega /\sqrt{s}=r_\omega .`$ (4.39)
Constraining the fermion energies leads to cuts on $`x`$:

$`r_{\overline{E}}r2E_{\overline{t}}^{\mathrm{min}}/\sqrt{s}rx1r_E12E_t^{\mathrm{min}}/\sqrt{s}.`$ (4.40)
All the energy cuts are independent of the mass of the final fermions and of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. They are illustrated in Fig.4.1. From (4.40) it can be seen that the derivatives of the kinematic border at points $`A`$ and $`B`$ in Fig. 4.1(b) (for their definitions see (4.34) and (4.35)) are $`0`$ and $`1`$.

#### 4.1.2 Angular cuts

The scattering angle $`\theta `$

is the angle between $`\overline{t}`$ and $`e^+`$. This angle is one of the integration variables and is constrained directly:

$$c_{\mathrm{min}}c\mathrm{cos}\theta c_{\mathrm{max}}.$$
(4.41)
Additional angular cuts deserve a study of the ($`r,x`$) parameter space. To be definite, we will always consider the kinematic bound of $`r`$ for an arbitrarily chosen value of $`x`$.

The directions of the final-state particles define three angles $`\theta _{t\overline{t}}`$, $`\theta _{t\gamma }`$, and $`\theta _{\overline{t}\gamma }`$; as shown In Fig. 4.2. The acollinearity angle $`\xi `$ is defined by

$$\xi =\pi \theta _{t\overline{t}}.$$
(4.42)
The condition $`\xi 1`$ restricts the events to a Born-like kinematics: the fermions are back to back and only soft photons or photons collinear to one of the final fermions are allowed. Using the above formulae, the acollinearity angle $`\xi `$ is expressed in terms of the invariants $`x`$ and $`r`$:

$$\mathrm{cos}\xi =\frac{\lambda _1+\lambda _2\lambda _p}{2\sqrt{\lambda _1\lambda _2}}=\frac{r(1+x)x(1x)r_m}{\sqrt{(1x)^2(r+x)^2r_m[(1x)^2+(r+x)^2]+r_m^2}}.$$
(4.43)
Equation (4.43) can readily be derived considering the scalar product $`q_2q_3`$ or alternatively the triangle of the three-momenta of the final particles in Fig. 4.2, with account of the relations (4.11) between $`\lambda `$ functions and absolute values of three-momenta.

For massless fermions, Eq. (4.43) is much simpler and describes a hyperbola with a symmetry axis rotated by an angle of $`\pi /8`$ relative to the $`r`$ axis. The kinematic regions for different values of the acollinearity angle are shown in Fig. 4.3. All lines intersect at the points $`A`$ and $`B`$. For moderate cuts on the maximum acollinearity angle, the kinematic area is only constrained for values of $`x`$ above the point $`B`$, i.e. for $`x>\sqrt{r_m}(1\sqrt{r_m})/(2\sqrt{r_m})`$. In this case only the lower bound of $`r`$ is changed. The constraint to the kinematic region acts in a way similar to a cut to hard photons. This is clear from the topology of events with high acollinearity: the fermion and anti fermion fly approximately in one direction and must recoil against a hard photon. For stronger acollinearity cuts, constraints of the kinematic area arise also for values of $`x`$ below the point $`B`$. In this case the allowed range for $`r`$ splits in two regions. The first region extends from the lower kinematic border to the smaller solution of (4.43), while the second region extends from the larger solution of (4.43) to the upper kinematic border.

The analytic treatment of the acollinearity cut for the massless case was also discussed in .

In a similar way as explained for the acollinearity angle, the two angles $`\theta _{t\gamma }`$ and $`\theta _{\overline{t}\gamma }`$ can be expressed in terms of the two invariants $`r`$ and $`x`$:

$`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{t\gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2\lambda _1\lambda _p}{2\sqrt{\lambda _1\lambda _p}}}={\displaystyle \frac{r(1+x)(1x)}{(1r)\sqrt{(1x)^2r_m}}},`$ (4.44)
$`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\overline{t}\gamma }\mathrm{cos}\theta _\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _p}{2\sqrt{\lambda _2\lambda _p}}}={\displaystyle \frac{x(1+r)+r(1r)}{(1r)\sqrt{(x+r)^2r_m}}}.`$ (4.45)
Although physically the situation for a cut on $`\theta _{t\gamma }`$ is equivalent to a cut on $`\theta _{\overline{t}\gamma }`$, the symmetry is broken because we had to make a choice between $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$. The constraint on $`\theta _{t\gamma }`$ leads to a quadratic equation in $`x`$ and $`r`$, while that for $`\theta _{\overline{t}\gamma }`$ is quadratic in $`x`$ and of fourth order in $`r`$. In the massless case, the constraints to $`\theta _{t\gamma }`$ become a bilinear equation in $`r`$ and $`x`$, describing a hyperbola with a symmetry axis, which is rotated by an angle $`\pi /4`$ relative to the $`r`$ axis. The massless limit of (4.45) leads to a constraint on $`\theta _{\overline{t}\gamma }`$, which is linear in $`x`$ and quadratic in $`r`$, describing a hyperbola with a symmetry axis, which is rotated by an angle of $`\pi /8`$ relative to the $`x`$ axis.

The kinematic regions for different values of the angle $`\theta _{t\gamma }`$ are shown in Fig. 4.4. All lines intersect at the points $`A`$ and $`C`$. The exclusion of events with small angles $`\theta _{t\gamma }`$ excludes regions near the edge $`x=1r`$. These kinematic regions correspond to events with large anti fermion energies, (compare Fig. 4.1). Technically, a constraint of the angle $`\theta _{t\gamma }`$ from below changes the upper bound of $`r`$ in the kinematic region for a fixed $`x`$. The lower bound of $`r`$ is unchanged by this cut.

Finally, the kinematic regions for different values of the angle $`\theta _{\overline{t}\gamma }`$ are shown in Fig. 4.5. All lines intersect at the points $`B`$ and $`C`$. The exclusion of events with small angles $`\theta _{\overline{t}\gamma }`$ excludes regions near the $`r`$ axis. These kinematic regions correspond to events with large fermion energies, (compare Fig. 4.2). Technically, a constraint of the angle $`\theta _{\overline{t}\gamma }`$ from below affects the kinematic region only for some $`x`$ below a certain value. For these $`x`$ and for massless fermions, the integration region of $`r`$ is split into two regions. The first region extends from the lower kinematic border to the smaller solution of (4.45), and the second one extends from the larger solution of (4.45) to the upper kinematic border. For massive fermions, the cutting out of small angles $`\theta _{\overline{t}\gamma }`$ changes only the lower bound of $`r`$ as far as $`x`$ is below the point $`B`$. For a harder cut on $`\theta _{\overline{t}\gamma }`$, the kinematic region is also affected for values of $`x`$, larger than the $`x`$ coordinate of the point $`B`$. For a fixed $`x`$ and finite $`m_t`$, two regions of $`r`$ near the kinematic border are then allowed, while some region in the “middle” is cut out by the constraint. This is similar to the situation in the massless case.

### 4.2 Radiative differential cross sections

For massless fermions, typically a threefold analytical integration of the radiative contributions to fermion pair production with realistic cuts may be performed, see  and references quoted therein. For massive pair production, everything becomes non-trivial and, in the end, we decided to perform only the first integration analytically, that over $`\varphi _\gamma `$. This leaves three integrations at most for a numerical treatment. Our practice proved that the accuracy and speed are absolutely satisfactory for our needs of calculating benchmarks and physics case studies.

For this reasons, and in order to make everything well-defined, we now have to collect the singly analytically integrated contributions to be used in a subsequent numerical calculation.

We will use a notation for the couplings with some flexibility not needed in the Born case:

$`V(s,s^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}e\{{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}[\chi _m(s)\chi _n^{}(s^{})+\chi _m(s^{})\chi _n^{}(s)]{\displaystyle \frac{\text{}}{\text{}}}`$ (4.46)
$`\times [v_e(m)v_e^{}(n)+a_e(m)a_e^{}(n)][v_f(m)v_f^{}(n)+a_f(m)a_f^{}(n)]\},`$
$`A(s,s^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}e\{{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}[\chi _m(s)\chi _n^{}(s^{})+\chi _m(s^{})\chi _n^{}(s)]{\displaystyle \frac{\text{}}{\text{}}}`$ (4.47)
$`\times [v_e(m)a_e^{}(n)+a_e(m)v_e^{}(n)][v_f(m)a_f^{}(n)+a_f(m)v_f^{}(n)]\},`$
$`C(s,s^{})`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{}e\{{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}[\chi _m(s)\chi _n^{}(s^{})+\chi _m(s^{})\chi _n^{}(s)]{\displaystyle \frac{\text{}}{\text{}}}`$ (4.48)
$`\times [v_e(m)v_e^{}(n)+a_e(m)a_e^{}(n)]a_f(m)a_f^{}(n)\},`$
$`\widehat{C}(s,s^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}e\{{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}[\chi _m(s)\chi _n^{}(s^{})\chi _m(s^{})\chi _n^{}(s)]{\displaystyle \frac{\text{}}{\text{}}}`$ (4.49)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{}}{\text{}}}\times [v_e(m)a_e^{}(n)+a_e(m)v_e^{}(n)][v_f(m)a_f^{}(n)a_f(m)v_f^{}(n)]\},`$
where we use $`v_f(\gamma )=Q_f`$, $`a_f(\gamma )=0`$, $`v_f(Z)=v_f`$, and $`a_f(Z)=a_f`$ and

$`\chi _Z(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s}{sM_Z^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_ZM_Z}},`$ (4.50)
$`\chi _\gamma (s)`$ $`=`$ $`1.`$ (4.51)
With these conventions, the Born cross section becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{\mathrm{Born}}(s)}{dc}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha ^2N_c\beta }{2s}}\left[V(s,s)(2\beta ^2+c^2\beta ^2)+2c\beta A(s,s){\displaystyle \frac{1\beta ^2}{2}}C(s,s)\right].`$ (4.52)
The cross section for $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}\gamma `$ subdivides in the gauge-invariant subsets of initial-state radiation, final-state radiation and the interference between them. Explicit expressions for the totally differential cross section may be found in . The integration over $`\varphi _\gamma `$ is not too complicated and in fact we could simply use existing tables of integrals . This first integration is unaffected by the cuts discussed and has to be performed with an exact treatment of both $`m_e`$ and $`m_t`$.

The cross section for initial-state radiation after the integration over $`\varphi _\gamma `$ is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma _{ini}}{dcds^{}dV_2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^3N_cQ_e^2}{2ss^2}}\{V(s^{},s^{})[2{\displaystyle \frac{m_e^2\zeta _1}{\sqrt{D_1}^3}}(2T^22Ts^{}+s^2+2m_t^2s^{})`$ (4.53)
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{m_e^2\zeta _2}{\sqrt{D_2}^3}}(2U^22Us^{}+s^2+2m_t^2s^{})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2s^{}}{ss^{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{D_1}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{D_2}}}\right)(T^2Ts^{}+U^2Us^{}+s^2+2m_t^2s^{})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{D_1}}}(2Us^{}+ss^{}+s^2+2m_t^2(s+s^{}))+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{D_2}}}(2Ts^{}+ss^{}+s^2+2m_t^2(s+s^{}))`$
$`2s^{}4m_t^2\text{}]`$
$`+A(s^{},s^{})s^{}[2{\displaystyle \frac{m_e^2\zeta _1}{\sqrt{D_1}^3}}(s^{}2T)+2{\displaystyle \frac{m_e^2\zeta _2}{\sqrt{D_2}^3}}(s^{}2U)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2s^{}}{ss^{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{D_1}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{D_2}}})(UT){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{D_1}}}(s+s^{}2U)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{D_2}}}(s+s^{}2T)]`$
$`+C(s^{},s^{})m_t^2[2s^{}m_e^2({\displaystyle \frac{\zeta _1}{\sqrt{D_1}^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta _2}{\sqrt{D_2}^3}}){\displaystyle \frac{2s^2}{ss^{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{D_1}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{D_2}}})`$
$`(s+s^{})({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{D_1}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{D_2}}})+2]\},`$
with

$`\zeta _{1,2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ss^{}}{2}}\left(1\pm \beta _0cc_t\right),`$ (4.54)
$`c_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_1(s+s^{})s(ss^{})}{(ss^{})\sqrt{\lambda _2}}},`$ (4.55)
$`\beta _0`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_e^2}{s}}},`$ (4.56)
$`D_{1,2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _2}}C_{1,2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\text{}}{\text{}}}2ss^{}(V_2+s^{})(s+s^{})\pm c\beta _0(ss^{})\sqrt{\lambda _2}]^2`$ (4.57)
$`+4m_e^2[{\displaystyle \frac{\text{}}{\text{}}}s^{}V_2(ss^{}V_2)(ss^{})^2m_t^2]\}.`$
The cross section for final-state radiation after the integration over $`\varphi _\gamma `$ is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma _{fin}}{dcds^{}dV_2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^3N_cQ_f^2}{2s^3}}\{V(s,s)[{\displaystyle \frac{2m_t^2}{V_1^2}}(2UT+s^2+2m_t^2s)`$ (4.58)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2m_t^2}{V_2^2}}(2(UT+U\zeta _2+T\zeta _1+\zeta _{12})+s^2+2m_t^2s)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4m_t^2}{V_1V_2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\text{}}{\text{}}}U(T+\zeta _2)+T(U+\zeta _1)2m_t^2s\right){\displaystyle \frac{2s}{V_1V_2}}(2UT+t\zeta _2+T\zeta _1+\zeta _{12}2s^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{s}{V_1}}(V_24m_t^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{s}{V_2}}(V_12s4m_t^2)]`$
$`+A(s,s)s[{\displaystyle \frac{2m_t^2}{V_1^2}}(TU)+{\displaystyle \frac{2m_t^2}{V_2^2}}(T+\zeta _2U\zeta _1)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V_1V_2}}(s^{}2m_t^2)(2U+\zeta _12T\zeta _2)+{\displaystyle \frac{UT}{V_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{U+\zeta _1T\zeta _2}{V_2}}]`$
$`+C(s,s)2m_t^2[m_t^2s({\displaystyle \frac{1}{V_1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V_2^2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V_1V_2}}(\zeta _{12}ss^{}+2m_t^2s)]\},`$
with

$$\zeta _{12}=\zeta _1\zeta _2\frac{1}{8}(ss^{})^2\beta _0^2(1c^2)(1c_t^2).$$
(4.59)
The cross section for the interference between initial- and final-state radiation after the integration over $`\varphi _\gamma `$ is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma _{int}}{dcds^{}dV_2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^3N_cQ_eQ_f}{2s^2s^{}}}\{V(s,s^{})[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{D_1}V_1}}(sU)(2T^22Ts^{}+s^2+2m_t^2s^{}2UT+s^22m_t^2s)`$ (4.60)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{D_2}V_1}}(sT)(2U^22Us^{}+s^2+2m_t^2s^{}2UT+s^22m_t^2s)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{D_2}V_2}}(s^{}U)(2T^22Ts+s^2+2m_t^2s2UT+s^22m_t^2s^{})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{D_1}V_2}}(s^{}T)(2U^22Us+s^2+2m_t^2s2UT+s^22m_t^2s^{})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V_1}}\left((\zeta _1\zeta _2)s+(UT)(3ss^{}4m_t^2)\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V_2}}\left((\zeta _1\zeta _2)(s^{}+4m_t^2)+(UT)(3s^{}s+4m_t^2)\right)`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{D_2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{D_1}}})({\displaystyle \frac{\text{}}{\text{}}}s^2+s^2+2m_t^2(s+s^{}))]`$
$`+A(s,s^{})s[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{D_1}V_1}}(sU)[2Ts^{}+s^2+s(UT)]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{D_2}V_1}}(sT)[2Us^{}+s^2+s(TU)]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{D_2}V_2}}(s^{}U)[2Ts+s^2+s^{}(UT)]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{D_1}V_2}}(s^{}T)[2Us+s^2+s^{}(TU)]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V_1}}\left(2ss^{}+2m_t^2(V_22s)\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V_2}}\left(2ss^{}+2m_t^2(V_12s)\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{D_1}}}(s^{}TsU)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{D_2}}}(s^{}UsT)+2(s+s^{})+4m_t^2]`$
$`+C(s,s^{})m_t^2[(s+s^{})({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{D_1}V_1}}(sU)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{D_2}V_1}}(sT){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{D_2}V_2}}T+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{D_1}V_2}}U)`$
$`+(\zeta _1\zeta _2)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{V_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V_1}})]`$
$`+\widehat{C}(s,s^{})m_t^2(s+s^{})[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V_2}}]\}.`$
### 4.3 Soft photon corrections

The four-dimensional integration of the bremsstrahlung contributions is divergent in the soft-photon part of the phase-space and is treated in $`d`$ dimensions. One starts from a reparametrization of the photonic phase-space part with Born-like kinematics for the matrix element squared. To obtain a soft photon contribution we have to take the terms of the bremsstrahlung amplitude without $`p^0E_\gamma \omega `$ in the numerators. In this limit, $`s^{}`$ approaches $`s`$ and the soft contribution to the differential cross section takes the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^{soft}}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\delta ^{soft}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^{Born}}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}`$ (4.61)
with

$`\delta ^{soft}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{p}}{(2\pi )^32E_\gamma }\left[Q_e\left(\frac{2p_4}{Z_2}\frac{2p_1}{Z_1}\right)+Q_t\left(\frac{2q_2}{V_1}\frac{2q_3}{V_2}\right)\right]^2\theta (\omega E_\gamma )}`$ (4.62)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{p}}{E_\gamma ^3}\theta (\omega E_\gamma )I^{soft}}`$
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{I^{soft}}{4E_\gamma ^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`Q_e^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_e^2}{Z_1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_e^2}{Z_2^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{s2m_e^2}{Z_1Z_2}}\right)+Q_eQ_t\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{Z_1V_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{T}{Z_2V_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{U}{Z_1V_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{U}{Z_2V_1}}\right)`$ (4.63)
$`+Q_t^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{V_1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{V_2^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{s2m_t^2}{V_1V_2}}\right).`$
The scalar products have to be taken according to Born kinematics, i.e. the expressions (4.6) and (4.7) become

$`Z_1`$ $`=`$ $`2pp_1=2E_\gamma \left[p_1^0+|\stackrel{}{p}_1|\mathrm{cos}\theta _p\right],`$ (4.64)
$`Z_2`$ $`=`$ $`2pp_4=2E_\gamma \left[p_4^0|\stackrel{}{p}_4|\mathrm{cos}\theta _p\right],`$ (4.65)
$`V_1`$ $`=`$ $`2pq_2=2E_\gamma \left[q_2^0+|\stackrel{}{q}_2|\mathrm{cos}\theta _q\right],`$ (4.66)
$`V_2`$ $`=`$ $`2pq_3=2E_\gamma \left[q_3^0|\stackrel{}{q}_3|\mathrm{cos}\theta _q\right].`$ (4.67)
From here we see that $`I^{soft}`$ is constructed to be independent of $`E_\gamma `$. Substitute now, with $`d=42ϵ`$, $`ϵ<0`$,

$`\delta ^{soft}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi \mu )^{2ϵ}}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\omega }E_\gamma ^{(1+2ϵ)}𝑑E_\gamma {\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{(d2)}I^{soft}}`$ (4.68)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑\xi \left[𝒫_{IR}+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\mu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}(1\xi ^2)\right]I^{soft}.`$
We introduce the abbreviation for the infrared divergence

$`𝒫_{IR}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _E}{2}}\mathrm{ln}(2\sqrt{\pi }).`$ (4.69)
The infrared divergence can also be regularized by introducing a finite photon mass $`\lambda `$:

$`P_{IR}\mathrm{ln}\mu =\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}.`$ (4.70)
The last integral over $`\xi =\mathrm{cos}\theta _\gamma `$ is trivial for the products $`Z_iZ_j`$ and $`V_iV_j`$, since they contain only one angle; one may thus identify either $`\xi =\mathrm{cos}\theta _p`$ or $`\xi =\mathrm{cos}\theta _q`$. In the initial–final interference, one may introduce a Feynman parameter

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_iV_j}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{pp_ipq_j}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1}{(pk_{ij})^2}}`$ (4.71)
with

$`k_{ij}=\alpha p_i+(1\alpha )q_j.`$ (4.72)
Then, $`(pk_{ij})^2=E_\gamma ^2s(1\beta _{ij}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij})^2/4`$ and identify now $`\xi =\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij}`$. Further,

$`(1\beta _{12})^2=(1\beta _{43})^2=(1\beta _T)^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{s}}\left[\alpha (1\alpha )T+\alpha ^2m_e^2+(1\alpha )^2m_t^2\right],`$ (4.73)
$`(1\beta _{13})^2=(1\beta _{42})^2=(1\beta _U)^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{s}}\left[\alpha (1\alpha )U+\alpha ^2m_e^2+(1\alpha )^2m_t^2\right].`$ (4.74)
The final result is

$`\delta ^{soft}`$ $`=`$ $`Q_e^2\delta _{ini}^{soft}+Q_eQ_t\delta _{int}^{soft}+Q_t^2\delta _{fin}^{soft}`$ (4.75)
with

$`\delta _{ini}^{soft}(m_e,\omega ,ϵ,\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(P_{IR}+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2\omega }{\mu }}\right)\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{s2m_e^2}{s\beta _0}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta _0}{1\beta _0}}\right)\right]`$ (4.76)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _0}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta _0}{1\beta _0}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{s2m_e^2}{s\beta _0}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\beta _0}{1\beta _0}}\right)`$
$`+\text{Li}_2(1)+\text{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _01}{2\beta _0}}\right)+\text{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\beta _0}{\beta _0+1}}\right)],`$
$`\delta _{fin}^{soft}(m_t,\omega ,ϵ,\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ini}^{soft}(m_t,\omega ,ϵ,\mu ),`$ (4.77)
$`\delta _{int}^{soft}(m_e,m_t,\omega ,ϵ,\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(P_{IR}+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2\omega }{\mu }}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{\sqrt{\lambda _T}}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{T+\sqrt{\lambda _T}}{T\sqrt{\lambda _T}}}{\displaystyle \frac{U}{\sqrt{\lambda _U}}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{U+\sqrt{\lambda _U}}{U\sqrt{\lambda _U}}}\right)`$ (4.78)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[T(T)U(U)\right],`$
and

$`\lambda _T`$ $`=`$ $`T^24m_e^2m_t^2,`$ (4.79)
$`(T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{s}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _T(1\beta _T^2)}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta _T}{1\beta _T}},`$ (4.80)
and analogue definitions for $`TU`$. We calculate the finite interference part given in (4.78) numerically, but have shown the agreement with Eq. (3.64) of :

$`T(T)U(U)`$ $`=`$ $`2[\text{Li}_2(1{\displaystyle \frac{1\beta }{1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta }})+\text{Li}_2(1{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta }{1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta }})`$ (4.81)
$`\text{Li}_2(1{\displaystyle \frac{1\beta }{1+\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta }})\text{Li}_2(1{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta }{1+\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta }})].`$
## 5 Results

In this section we present the numerical results of the electroweak one-loop calculation to the process $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}`$. We have performed a fixed-order $`\alpha `$ calculation, i.e. no higher order corrections such as photon exponentiation have been taken into account.

For the numerical evaluation we assume the following input values :

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z=2.49977\mathrm{GeV},\hfill & \alpha =\frac{e^2}{4\pi }=1/137.03599976,\hfill & E_\gamma ^{\mathrm{max}}=\sqrt{s}/10^5,\hfill \\ M_W=80.4514958\mathrm{GeV},\hfill & M_Z=91.1867\mathrm{GeV},\hfill & M_H=120\mathrm{GeV},\hfill \\ m_e=0.00051099907\mathrm{GeV},\hfill & m_t=173.8\mathrm{GeV},\hfill & m_b=4.7\mathrm{GeV},\hfill \\ m_\mu =0.105658389\mathrm{GeV},\hfill & m_u=0.062\mathrm{GeV},\hfill & m_d=0.083\mathrm{GeV},\hfill \\ m_\tau =1.77705\mathrm{GeV},\hfill & m_c=1.5\mathrm{GeV},\hfill & m_s=0.215\mathrm{GeV}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (5.6)
Two packages, namely FF  and LoopTools  have been used for the numerical evaluation of the loop integrals.

In Fig. 5.1, we present the differential cross section for various generic values of $`\sqrt{s}`$.

It can be seen that for rather high centre-of-mass energies the characteristic features of a massive fermion pair production become less prominent. At $`\sqrt{s}=3`$ TeV the differential cross section of electroweak radiative corrections starts to exhibit collinear mass singularities at the edges of phase space. Those are cured by applying a cut on $`s^{}`$. In general it can be seen that the effects of radiative corrections are more dramatic for top-pairs produced close to the direction of the beam. For the TESLA range of centre-of-mass energies, backward scattered top quarks give rise to slightly larger corrections than forward scattered ones . For higher energies this effect is more or less washed out.

In Table 5.1 to 5.3 we present a complete set of form factors entering the cross-section calculation. The form factors given correspond to the minimal set of independent form factors possible for a two-to-two process with two massless and two massive fermions in the initial and final state respectively, and are defined with respect to the ‘naturally’ arising form factors in Eq. (2.31). For completeness we also give the corresponding Born form factors. The numerical values given are obtained for a characteristic centre-of-mass energy of $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV and a fixed scattering angle $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =0.7`$.

In Fig. 5.2 we present the total integrated cross section as a function of $`\sqrt{s}`$. From the previous discussion it is clear that the effect of radiative corrections is less dramatic in the total cross section, since the effects above and below the Born cross section are averaged out.

Finally the forward–backward asymmetry of the total integrated cross section can serve as a good observable to determine the effects of radiative corrections. Towards higher energies, the effects become distinctively.

In summary our calculation shows that for the next generation of linear colliders with centre-of-mass energies above $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 500 GeV, electroweak radiative corrections modify the differential as well as the integrated cross section within the experimental precision of a few per mille. The package topfit provides the means to calculate those corrections and allows predictions for various realistic cuts on the scattering angle as well as on the energy of the photon.

## Acknowledgements

J.F. and A. L. would like to thank DESY Zeuthen for invitations and all authors thank the Heisenberg-Landau projekt ‘New methods of computing massive Feynman integrals and mass effects in the Standard Model’ for financing visits to Dubna.

## Appendices

### A Translation of Tensor Decompositions

On the left-hand side we give the Passarino-Veltman functions, used in , according to the tensor decomposition of Feynman diagrams with respect to external momenta as systematically introduced in . On the right-hand side we follow the corresponding notation in the LoopTools package , with $`\lambda 0`$. There are also sign differences reflecting different notions of metrics.

$`C_0`$ $`=`$ $`C_0`$ (A.1)
$`C_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`C_1C_2`$ (A.2)
$`C_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`C_2`$ (A.3)
$`C_{24}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{00}`$ (A.4)
$`C_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{11}2C_{12}C_{22}`$ (A.5)
$`C_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{22}`$ (A.6)
$`C_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{12}C_{22}`$ (A.7)
$`D_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`D_1+D_2+D_3`$ (A.8)
$`D_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`D_2+D_3`$ (A.9)
$`D_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`D_3`$ (A.10)
$`D_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`D_{11}+2D_{12}+2D_{13}+2D_{23}+D_{22}+D_{33}`$ (A.11)
$`D_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`2D_{23}+D_{22}+D_{33}`$ (A.12)
$`D_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`D_{33}`$ (A.13)
$`D_{24}`$ $`=`$ $`D_{12}+D_{13}+2D_{23}+D_{22}+D_{33}`$ (A.14)
$`D_{25}`$ $`=`$ $`D_{13}+D_{23}+D_{33}`$ (A.15)
$`D_{26}`$ $`=`$ $`D_{23}+D_{33}`$ (A.16)
$`D_{27}`$ $`=`$ $`D_{00}`$ (A.17)
### B Renormalization

A detailed formulation of renormalization of fermion pair production can be found in various textbooks, e.g. . To complete the documentation of our calculation we present some relations resulting from the application of an on-mass-shell renormalization, closely following . They had been used to derive the formulae given in Section 3.

After the renormalization of the boson self-energies: we have to use the following expressions:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_Z^{\mathrm{ren}}(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_Z(p^2)\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_Z(M_Z^2)\mathrm{\Sigma }_Z(p^2)\delta M_Z^2`$ (B.1)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\gamma ^{\mathrm{ren}}(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\gamma (p^2)`$ (B.2)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\gamma Z}^{\mathrm{ren}}(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\gamma Z}(p^2)`$ (B.3)
The divergent parts of those renormalized self-energies were given in (3.7). For the mixing angle renormalization $`\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_Z(M_Z^2)=\delta M_Z^2`$ and $`\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_W(M_W^2)=\delta M_W^2`$ are needed:

$`\delta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{w}=\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _\mathrm{w}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta M_Z^2}{M_Z^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta M_W^2}{M_W^2}}\right).`$ (B.4)
Among the free parameters of the theory we have, only one coupling constant $`e`$, using

$`g\mathrm{sin}\theta _\mathrm{w}=g^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{w}=e=\sqrt{4\pi \alpha _{em}(0)}`$ (B.5)
The electric charge renormalization differs in pure QED and electroweak theory

$`e^{2,ren}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \alpha _{em}(0)\left(1+2{\displaystyle \frac{\delta e}{e}}\right)`$ (B.6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta e}{e}}^{\mathrm{QED}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta Z_\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{p^2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\gamma (p^2)_{|_{_{p^2=0}}}`$ (B.7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta e}{e}}^{\mathrm{weak}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{p^2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\gamma (p^2)_{|_{_{p^2=0}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta _\mathrm{w}}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{w}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{Z\gamma }(0)}{M_Z^2}}`$ (B.8)
The wav-function renormalization factor $`Z_f`$ is obtained from the fermion self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_f`$, with

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_f(p)`$ $`=`$ $`A(p^2)+B(p^2)(p/m_f)+C(p^2)p/\gamma _5`$ (B.9)
The resulting $`Z`$ factor is:

$`Z_f`$ $`=`$ $`1+z_{a,f}+z_{b,f}\gamma _5.`$ (B.10)
$`=`$ $`1+B(m_f^2)+2m_fA^{}(p^2)|_{m_f^2}+C(m_f^2)\gamma _5.`$
For QED, the axial terms vanish, of course. Explicitly, the UV-divergent parts are given by :

$`z_{a,f}^{UV}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{w}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_f^2}{M_W^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_f^{}^2}{M_W^2}}\right)e^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}(Q_f^2+a_f^2+v_f^2)`$ (B.11)
$`z_{b,f}^{UV}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{w}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_f^2}{M_W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_f^{}^2}{M_W^2}}\right)+e^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}(2a_fv_f)`$ (B.12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta e^{\mathrm{weak},UV}}{e}}`$ $`=`$ $`e^2{\displaystyle \frac{11}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}`$ (B.13)
$`\delta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{w}^{UV}`$ $`=`$ $`e^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{41}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{21}{2}}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _\mathrm{w}+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{3}}\mathrm{cos}^4\theta _\mathrm{w}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{w}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}=e^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{41}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{11}{3}}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _\mathrm{w}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}`$ (B.14)
with $`f^{}`$ denoting the isospin partner of $`f`$.

The above relations define the complete renormalization procedure needed for our reaction. A vertex renormalization, e.g. resulting from terms such as $`e\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _\mu A_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }`$ in the Lagrangian, traces back to $`\delta e`$ and $`Z_f`$. Explicit formulae may be found in the Fortran code .

### C Infrared Divergences

The conventions of the one-loop functions and related ones are those used in the package LoopTools . In particular the normalization of the one-loop integration is used as in the following simplest example:

$`A_0(m^2)={\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi \mu )^{4d}}{i\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^dk}{k^2m^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`(4\pi \mu ^2)^{2\frac{d}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(m^2)^{1\frac{d}{2}}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1{\displaystyle \frac{d}{2}})`$ (C.1)
$`=`$ $`m^2\left[1\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\gamma _E+\mathrm{ln}(4\pi )\right]+𝒪(ϵ).`$
In the Fortran program, we leave the treatment of IR divergences to the packages used for the calculation of one-loop integrals. Additionally, we checked analytically their cancellation. For this purpose, we isolated them in the few IR-divergent scalar integrals contributing to the process $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}`$.

One-loop infrared divergences are due to the exchange of a photon between two massive particles, which occur also as external (on-shell) ones.

Wave function renormalization yields IR-divergent contributions $`DB_0`$ and $`DB_1`$, the on-mass-shell derivatives of $`B_0`$ and $`B_1`$ (w.r.t. the external momentum squared). From 555In FF, there is no $`DB_1`$ foreseen, while in LoopTools this function was numerically unstable for $`\lambda 0`$. This might be improved now.  With the representation

$`B_1(p^2;m_1^2,m_2^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p^2}}\left[(m_2^2m_1^2p^2)B_0(p^2,m_1^2,m_2^2)+A_0(m_1^2)A_0(m_2^2)\right]`$ (C.2)
one arrives at

$`DB_1(m^2;m^2,0)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{p^2}}B_1(p^2;m^2,0)_{|_{p^2=m^2}}`$ (C.3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m^4}}\left[A_0(m^2)+m^2B_0(m^2;m^2,0)2m^4DB_0(p^2;m^2,0)_{|_{p^2=m^2}}\right].`$
The UV divergences cancel at the right-hand side and the IR divergence is traced back to $`DB_0`$. We mention for completeness that the similar function $`DB_1(m^2;0,m^2)\frac{}{p^2}B_1(p^2=m^2;0,m^2)=[A_0(m^2)m^2B_0(m^2;0,m^2)]/(2m^4)`$, arising from the charged current self-energy with a massless neutrino, is finite.

An explicit calculation gives

$`DB_0(p^2;m^2,0)_{|_{p^2=m^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(m^2\right)^{3d/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(3d/2)}{(d3)(d4)}}(2\sqrt{\pi }\mu )^{4d}`$ (C.4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_0(m^2,0,m^2;0,m^2,m^2)}{d3}},`$
$`C_0(m^2,0,m^2;0,m^2,m^2)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\lambda }}.`$ (C.5)
Assigning the loop-momentum $`k`$ to the photon line in the initial- and final-state vertex diagrams ensures that the divergent part is exclusively contained in one scalar three-point function $`C_0`$ :

$`C_0(m^2,s,m^2;0,m^2,m^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s\beta }}\left\{\mathrm{ln}(y)\left[2\mathrm{ln}(1+y){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}(y)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{m^2}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}+2\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_2(y)\right\}`$
with

$`yy(s,m,m)={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{14m^2/s}1}{\sqrt{14m^2/s}+1}}={\displaystyle \frac{\beta 1}{\beta +1}}+i\epsilon .`$ (C.7)
The finite, small photon mass $`\lambda `$ is defined according to (4.70).

Finally, IR-divergent functions from the photonic box diagrams, $`D_0`$, , $`D_\mu `$, and $`D_{\mu \nu }`$, have to be considered. We indicate for the direct two-photon box, shown in Fig. .4, how the singularities can be isolated.

The key ingredient for this method  is the following identity:

$`D_0`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{[(kq_1)^2m_1^2][(kq_2)^2m_2^2][(kq_3)^2m_3^2][k^2m_4^2]}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{sm_1^2m_3^2}}[{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{2(kq_1)(kq_3)d^4k}{[(kq_1)^2m_1^2][(kq_2)^2m_2^2][(kq_3)^2m_3^2][k^2m_4^2]}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{[(kq_2)^2m_2^2][(kq_3)^2m_3^2][k^2m_4^2]}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{[(kq_1)^2m_1^2][(kq_2)^2m_2^2][k^2m_4^2]}}].`$
For $`m_1=m_3=0`$, evidently the numerator of the first of the three terms makes it an IR-finite contribution and the other two are $`C_0`$ functions. To demonstrate more explicitely the procedure we select the above diagram (see Fig. .4) and obtain (see also ):

$`sD_0`$ $``$ $`s{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{[(kq_1)^2][(kq_2)^2m_t^2][(kq_3)^2][k^2m_e^2]}}`$ (C.9)
$`\stackrel{\mathrm{IR}}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{[(kq_2)^2m_t^2][(kq_3)^2][k^2m_e^2]}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{[(kq_1)^2][(kq_2)^2m_t^2][k^2m_e^2]}}`$
$`\stackrel{\mathrm{IR}}{}`$ $`C_0(q_2^2,(q_3q_2)^2,q_3^2;m_e^2,m_t^2,0)+C_0(q_1^2,(q_1q_2)^2,q_2^2;m_e^2,0,m_t^2)`$
$`=`$ $`2C_0(t,m_t^2,m_e^2;m_e^2,m_t^2,0).`$
Only one scalar function has to be calculated, and in the limit of vanishing $`m_e`$ we find

$`C_0(m_e^2,t,m_t^2;0,m_e^2,m_t^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}\left[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_em_t}{T}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{m_em_t}}+\mathrm{Li}_2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{T}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_e^2}{T}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{T}}\right].`$ (C.10)
From the crossed box diagram, we get another function, $`D_0`$, with $`t`$ in Eq. (C.10) replaced by $`u`$. When combining virtual and soft corrections, the singularities of these functions are cancelled against the divergent parts of (4.78).

The vector and tensor functions may be treated quite similarly:

$`sD_\mu `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mu d^4k}{[(kq_1)^2][(kq_2)^2m_2^2][(kq_3)^2][k^2m_4^2]}}`$ (C.11)
$`\stackrel{\mathrm{IR}}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[(k_\mu q_{3\mu })+q_{3\mu }]d^4k}{[(kq_2)^2m_2^2][(kq_3)^2][k^2m_4^2]}}+{\displaystyle \frac{[k_\mu q_{1\mu })+q_{1\mu }]d^4k}{[(kq_1)^2][(kq_2)^2m_2^2][k^2m_4^2]}}`$
$`\stackrel{\mathrm{IR}}{}`$ $`\left(q_{1\mu }+q_{3\mu }\right)C_0(m_e^2,t,m_t^2;0,m_e^2,m_t^2),`$
$`sD_{\mu \nu }`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mu k_\nu d^4k}{[(kq_1)^2][(kq_2)^2m_2^2][(kq_3)^2][k^2m_4^2]}}`$ (C.12)
$`\stackrel{\mathrm{IR}}{}`$ $`\left(q_{1\mu }q_{1\nu }+q_{3\mu }q_{3\nu }\right)C_0(m_e^2,t,m_t^2;0,m_e^2,m_t^2).`$
To cross-check the result, we isolated the IR-divergent parts also with another approach, where the tensor integrals are reduced to scalar ones by means of recurrence relations . The divergent contributions hidden in the tensor integrals manifest themselves in the form of the three IR-divergent scalar functions $`C_0`$ introduced above, namely (C.5) for self-energies, (C) for vertices, and (C.10) for boxes, correspondingly.