format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Since its early applications  the heavy quark symmetry has been one of the key ingredients in the theoretical investigations of hadrons containing a heavy quark. It has been successfully applied to the heavy hadrons spectroscopy, to the inclusive as well as to a number of exclusive decays (for reviews of the heavy quark effective theory and related issues see  or ). To describe interactions with not too energetic light mesons, the heavy quark symmetry has been combined with chiral symmetries leading to the heavy hadron chiral perturbation theory (HChPT) .

The one loop calculations within the heavy quark effective theory are considerably simplified if the light-quark masses are neglected. Very common in the HChPT is a similar approximation, with the finite contributions omitted, while only the leading logs are retained ,. This approximation is, however, becoming less adequate with the increasing precision of data coming from B factories. To go beyond the leading log approximation and/or take into account the counterterms appearing at the next order in the chiral expansion, the general solutions for the one loop scalar functions need to be considered. In the context of the HChPT a general solution for the one loop scalar two-point function with one heavy quark propagator has been found in ,. We extend this calculation and find solutions for the scalar three-point and four-point functions with one heavy quark propagator.

The vector and tensor one loop functions can then be expressed in terms of the scalar one loop functions using the algebraic reduction . Also, the one loop scalar functions with two or more heavy quark propagators can be expressed in terms of the one loop scalar functions with just one heavy quark propagator. For the case of the equal heavy-quark velocities this can be accomplished using the relation

$$\frac{1}{vq\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{1}{vq\mathrm{\Delta }^{}}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }^{}}\left(\frac{1}{vq\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{1}{vq\mathrm{\Delta }^{}}\right).$$
(1)
For unequal heavy quark velocities techniques developed in  can be used.

The scalar one-loop functions with heavy quark propagators can be derived also directly from the scalar functions of the full theory by using the threshold expansion  (see also appendix B of ). This technique has recently been used for the calculation of the scalar and tensor three-point functions with one and two heavy quark propagators ,. In the present paper, however, we will not follow the approach of Bouzas et al. ,, but rather do the calculation from scratch.

The paper is organized as follows: in section 2. we make some general remarks and list useful relations used further on in the calculation. In section 3. we calculate one and two point functions. We continue with the calculation of the three-point function in section 4. and with the four-point function in section 5.

## 2 General remarks and useful relations

Before we start with the calculation, let us first list some useful relations and the conventions that are going to be used further on. The greater part of this section is a review of the relations and the conventions used in  with certain modifications. The major difference between the conventional one loop scalar functions and the one loop scalar functions with one heavy quark propagator is the appearance of the propagator linear in the integration variable $`q`$. Therefore a modified version of the standard Feynman parameterization is used

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{1}{\left(_{i=1}^NA_i\right)B}=& N!_0^{\mathrm{}}2𝑑\lambda \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}du_i\frac{\delta (1_iu_i)_i\mathrm{\Theta }(u_i)}{[_{i=1}^NA_iu_i+2B\lambda ]^{N+1}}\hfill \\ \hfill =& N!\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}2𝑑\lambda _0^1𝑑x_1_0^{x_1}𝑑x_2\mathrm{}_0^{x_{N2}}𝑑x_{N1}}{[A_1(1x_1)+_{j=2}^{N1}A_j(x_{j1}x_j)+A_Nx_{N1}+2B\lambda ]^{N+1}},\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }(u)`$ is the Heaviside function $`\mathrm{\Theta }(u)=1`$ for $`u>0`$ and zero otherwise. In the calculation $`A_i`$ are going to be “full” (inverse) propagators $`((q+p_i)^2m_i^2+i\delta )`$ and $`B`$ the heavy quark propagator $`(vq\mathrm{\Delta }+i\delta )`$. Note also, that the leading power of $`q^2`$ in the denominator has increased from the left-hand side’s $`(q^2)^{N+1/2}`$ to the right-hand side’s $`(q^2)^{N+1}`$. The integration over $`q`$ has been made more convergent, but then another integration over infinite range (integration over $`\lambda `$) has been introduced through the parameterization.

A very useful identity used in the calculation is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{1}{[(q+p_1)^2m_1^2+i\delta ][(q+p_2)^2m_2^2+i\delta ]}=& \frac{\alpha }{[(q+p_1)^2m_1^2+i\delta ][(q+l)^2M^2+i\delta ]}\hfill \\ & +\frac{1\alpha }{[(q+p_2)^2m_2^2+i\delta ][(q+l)^2M^2+i\delta ]},\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
where $`\alpha `$ is an arbitrary parameter and

$`l`$ $`=p_1+\alpha (p_2p_1),`$ (4)
$`M^2`$ $`=(1\alpha )m_1^2+\alpha m_2^2\alpha (1\alpha )(p_2p_1)^2.`$ (5)
The parameter $`\alpha `$ can then be chosen at will. It is useful to keep it real, though. Then there are no ambiguities connected with the shift of the integration variable $`q`$, that is performed, as usual, before the Wick rotation. For instance $`\alpha `$ can be chosen such that $`M^2=0`$. If $`(p_2p_1)^2(m_1m_2)^2`$ or $`(p_2p_1)^2(m_1+m_2)^2`$, then $`\alpha `$ is real. If one of the masses is made to be zero, the integration is simplified considerably (as will be seen in the calculation of the four-point function (39)). The other option used below is to set $`\alpha `$ such that $`l^2=0`$. This can be done for real $`\alpha `$ if (but not only if) one of $`p_1`$, $`p_2`$ or $`p_1\pm p_2`$ is timelike. This shows, that in general product of propagators at least one internal or one external mass can always be set to zero, even with $`\alpha `$ restricted to be real.

In doing the integrals the following procedure proves to be very useful. Consider

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}2𝑑\lambda _0^1𝑑x\frac{1}{[ax^2+b\lambda ^2+cx\lambda +\mathrm{}]}.$$
(6)
The integration over $`x`$ can be simplified by the change of the integration variables $`\lambda =\lambda ^{}+\beta x`$, where $`\beta `$ is chosen such, that the coefficient in front of $`x^2`$ vanishes, i.e. $`\beta `$ has to solve the equation $`b\beta ^2+c\beta +a=0`$. Then the integrand is linear in $`x`$, so the integration over $`x`$ is trivial. The integration bounds are

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _0^{\mathrm{}}2𝑑\lambda _0^1𝑑x\mathrm{}& =_0^1𝑑x_{\beta x}^{\mathrm{}}2𝑑\lambda ^{}\mathrm{}=\hfill \\ & =_0^{\mathrm{}}2𝑑\lambda _0^1𝑑x\mathrm{}+_\beta ^02𝑑\lambda _{\lambda /\beta }^1𝑑x\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
As the results of the integration, the functions such as logarithms, dilogarithms (Spence functions) and hypergeometric functions will appear. Since the arguments of the functions will in general lie in the complex plane it is necessary to discuss the conventions used. The logarithms used in this paper have a cut along the negative real axis. For $`x`$ exactly negative real we use the prescription $`\mathrm{ln}(x)\mathrm{ln}(x+iϵ)`$, where $`ϵ>0`$ is a positive infinitesimal parameter. In other words, $`\mathrm{ln}(x)=\mathrm{ln}|x|+i\pi `$ for $`x`$ negative real222Note that this prescription does not change the calculation of the logarithms away from the negative real axis. In particular it does not change the value of a logarithm with an argument that already has an infinitesimal but nonzero imaginary part. For more discussion on this point see text after Eq. (86). . In particular $`\mathrm{ln}(1)`$ is defined to be $`\mathrm{ln}(1)=i\pi `$. Of course this choice is completely arbitrary and at the end of the calculation one has to check that results are independent of this choice. Using this definition for the logs of the negative real arguments the logarithm of an inverse is

$$\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1}{x}\right)=\mathrm{ln}(x)+2\pi i\mathrm{Re}^{()}(x),$$
(8)
with

$$\mathrm{Re}^{()}(x)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 1& ;\hfill & \hfill x\text{ on negative real axis},\\ \hfill 0& ;\hfill & \hfill \text{otherwise}.\end{array}$$
(9)
Note that the change from the usual rule for the logarithm of an inverse is just on the negative real axis. For the arguments away from the negative real axis the function $`\mathrm{Re}^{()}(x)`$ is exactly zero and everything is as usual. The logarithm of a product is

$$\mathrm{ln}(ab)=\mathrm{ln}(a)+\mathrm{ln}(b)+\eta (a,b),$$
(10)
where $`\eta `$ function is 333Note, that in comparison with , the $`\eta `$ function has been extended also to the negative real arguments (cf. discussion after Eq. (48) and Eq. (68)). For arguments away from the negative real exis (also if by an infinitesimal amount) it is the same as in .

$$\eta (a,b)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}& \begin{array}{cc}\hfill 2\pi i\{& \mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{Im}a)\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{Im}b)\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{Im}ab)\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{Im}a)\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{Im}b)\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{Im}ab)\}\hfill \end{array};\hfill & \hfill \text{ }a\text{ and }b\text{ }\text{not}\text{ negative real},\\ & 2\pi i\left\{\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{Im}a)+\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{Im}b)\right\};\hfill & \hfill \text{ either }a\text{ or }b\text{ negative real},\\ & 2\pi i;\hfill & \hfill \text{ }a\text{ and }b\text{ negative real}.\end{array}$$
(11)
The normal rule for the logarithm of a product applies for these important cases

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{ln}(ab)& =\mathrm{ln}(a)+\mathrm{ln}(b);\mathrm{Im}a\text{ and }\mathrm{Im}b\text{ have the opposite sign},\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{ln}(a/b)& =\mathrm{ln}(a)\mathrm{ln}(b);\mathrm{Im}a\text{ and }\mathrm{Im}b\text{ have the same sign},\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
with $`a`$, $`b`$ not negative real.

## 3 One- and two-point functions

In this section we will concentrate on the calculation of the dimensionally regularized one-point and two-point functions in the heavy quark effective theory

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\overline{A}_0(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{i\mu ^ϵ}{(2\pi )^n}}{\displaystyle d^nq\frac{1}{(vq\mathrm{\Delta }+i\delta )}},`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\overline{B}_0(m,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{i\mu ^ϵ}{(2\pi )^n}}{\displaystyle d^nq\frac{1}{(vq\mathrm{\Delta }+i\delta )(q^2m^2+i\delta )}},`$ (14)
where $`\delta `$ is a positive infinitesimal parameter, $`n=4ϵ`$, while $`m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are real. The general solution for the two-point function has been found by Stewart in Ref.  (see also  and references therein). In this section we will derive Stewart’s result.

We start with the integral

$$I_r=\frac{i\mu ^ϵ}{(2\pi )^n}d^nq\frac{1}{(vq\mathrm{\Delta }+i\delta )(q^2m^2+i\delta )^r}.$$
(15)
Using the Feynman parameterization

$$\frac{1}{a^rb^s}=2^s\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(r+s)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(r)\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\lambda \frac{\lambda ^{s1}}{(a+2b\lambda )^{r+s}},$$
(16)
we get

$$I_r=\mu ^ϵ\frac{(1)^r}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(r)}\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(r+1\frac{n}{2})}{(4\pi )^{\frac{n}{2}}}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\lambda (\lambda ^2+2\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }+m^2i\delta )^{\frac{n}{2}r1}.$$
(17)
The integral can be expressed in terms of the hypergeometric function. Introducing the new variable $`\lambda ^{}=\lambda +\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and then splitting the integration interval for negative $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ we get

$$_\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\lambda ^{}}{(\lambda _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Delta }^2+m^2i\delta )^N}=_{|\mathrm{\Delta }|}^{|\mathrm{\Delta }|}\frac{d\lambda }{(\lambda ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2+m^2i\delta )^N}\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta })+_{|\mathrm{\Delta }|}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\lambda }{(\lambda ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2+m^2i\delta )^N},$$
(18)
where we write $`N=r+1n/2`$ for short. Another change of variables $`u=\lambda ^2`$ leads to

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (m^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2i\delta )^N\{& _{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{du}{2\sqrt{u}}\left[\frac{u}{m^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2i\delta }+1\right]^N+\hfill \\ & +2_0^{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\frac{du}{2\sqrt{u}}[\frac{u}{m^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2i\delta }+1]^N\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta })\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
These integrals can be expressed in terms of the hypergeometric functions $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\alpha ,\beta ;\gamma ;z)`$ through the identities (64a), (64b) listed in the appendix A. Using the transformation formula (63) together with $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(0,\beta ;\gamma ;z)={}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\alpha ,0;\gamma ;z)=1`$ we arrive at

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill I_r=\mu ^ϵ\frac{(1)^r}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(r)}\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(N)}{(4\pi )^{\frac{n}{2}}}[& \mathrm{\Delta }(m^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2i\delta )^N{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(N,\frac{1}{2};\frac{3}{2};\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{m^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2i\delta })\hfill \\ & +\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N+\frac{1}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)}{(2N1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(N)}(m^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2i\delta )^{\frac{1}{2}N}],\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
where $`N=r+1n/2`$.

Let us first discuss the case when $`r`$ is equal to zero or negative integer, i.e. when the integrand, apart from the heavy quark propagator, is a polynomial. The integrals for the physical case $`n4`$ are divergent, but we can make sense of it through analytic continuation. At fixed $`r`$ the integral $`I_r`$ is taken to be an analytic function of the complex dimension $`n`$. For $`r`$ equal to zero or negative integer and $`n/2`$ all functions appearing in (20) are finite, apart from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(r)`$ that is infinitely large. Thus $`I_r`$ vanishes for $`r`$ zero or negative integer everywhere in the $`n`$ complex plane apart from the points on the real axis with integer $`n/2r+1`$. Analytic continuation of $`I_r`$ (20) is then equal to zero in the whole $`n`$ plane. Integrals over polynomials (and one heavy quark propagator) are in the dimensional regularisation thus equal to zero. In particular, the one-point scalar function $`\overline{A}_0=0`$.

For the two-point function we have $`r=1`$ and therefore $`N=ϵ/2`$. So the two point function is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{2}{16\pi ^2}\left(4\pi \mu ^2\right)^{\frac{ϵ}{2}}& \{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{ϵ}{2}\right)(\mathrm{\Delta })(m^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2i\delta )^{\frac{ϵ}{2}}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\frac{ϵ}{2},\frac{1}{2};\frac{3}{2};\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{m^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2i\delta })\hfill \\ & \pi (m^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2i\delta )^{\frac{1}{2}}\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(ϵ/2)2/ϵ\gamma +𝒪(ϵ)`$ we have to expand hypergeometric function around $`ϵ/2=0`$ in order to get the finite terms correctly

$${}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\frac{ϵ}{2},\frac{1}{2};\frac{3}{2};z)=1+\frac{ϵ}{2}\frac{}{N}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(N,\frac{1}{2};\frac{3}{2};z)|_{N=0}+\mathrm{}.$$
(22)
The partial derivative can be found using the series expansion (61) and is

$$\frac{}{N}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(N,\frac{1}{2};\frac{3}{2};z)|_{N=0}=\mathrm{ln}(1z)z^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{z}}{1\sqrt{z}}\right)+2.$$
(23)
This leads us to the final result for the two-point function

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{i\mu ^ϵ}{(2\pi )^{4ϵ}}& d^{4ϵ}q\frac{1}{(vq\mathrm{\Delta }+i\delta )(q^2m^2+i\delta )}=\hfill \\ & \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }}{(4\pi )^2}\left\{\frac{2}{ϵ}\gamma +\mathrm{ln}4\pi \mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}\right)+22F\left(\frac{m}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)\right\},\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
where F(x) is a function as defined in  valid for both positive and negative $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (while $`m`$ is always taken to be positive real)

$$F\left(\frac{1}{x}\right)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}& \frac{1}{x}\sqrt{x^21}\mathrm{ln}(x+\sqrt{x^21}+i\delta );\hfill & \hfill |x|>1,\\ \hfill & \frac{1}{x}\sqrt{1x^2}\left[\frac{\pi }{2}\mathrm{tan}^1\left(\frac{x}{\sqrt{1x^2}}\right)\right];\hfill & \hfill |x|1,\end{array}$$
(25)
with $`\delta `$ an infinitesimal positive parameter. Note that for $`x<1`$, $`F(1/x)`$ has an imaginary part that corresponds to the particle creation. Also, the two point function has to be a continuous function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, as can be seen from (14) or (19). It is easy to check that for $`|x|=1`$ the two-point function is continuous as then $`F(\pm 1)=0`$. The two-point function is also continuous for $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$. Even though $`F(1/x)`$ diverges as $`x0`$, the two point function (24) is finite and equal to $`m/8\pi `$.

Finally, for $`r2`$ both $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(r)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(N)`$ in (20) are finite in the limit $`n4`$, so that Eq. (20) can be used directly, with $`n`$ set to $`n=4`$.

## 4 Three-point scalar function

The one loop scalar three-point function with one heavy quark propagator is given by

$$\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\overline{C}_0(v,k,\mathrm{\Delta },m_1,m_2)=\frac{i\mu ^ϵ}{(2\pi )^n}d^nq\frac{1}{(vq\mathrm{\Delta }+i\delta )(q^2m_1^2+i\delta )((q+k)^2m_2^2+i\delta )}.$$
(26)
This integral is finite in 4 dimensions, so that $`ϵ`$ can be set to zero. Using the Feynman parameterization (2) we get

$$\overline{C}_0=_0^{\mathrm{}}2𝑑\lambda _0^1𝑑x\frac{1}{[\lambda ^2+k^2x^2+2vkx\lambda (k^2+m_1^2m_2^2)x+2\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda +m_1^2i\delta ]}.$$
(27)
The integration over $`x`$ can be made trivial through the change of variables $`\lambda =\lambda ^{}+\alpha x`$. We choose $`\alpha `$ to be the solution of

$$(k+\alpha v)^2=0,$$
(28)
as then the term quadratic in $`x`$ is zero. The solution is $`\alpha _{1,2}=(vk\pm \sqrt{(vk)^2k^2})`$ and is real for any real four-vector $`k^\mu `$ (this can be easily seen by going in the frame, where $`v^\mu =(1,0,0,0)`$ with the square root then equal to $`\sqrt{\stackrel{}{k}^2}`$). Changing the integration order as in (7), and then integrating over $`x`$, we get

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \overline{C}_0=[& _0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{2d\lambda }{(A\lambda +B)}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\lambda ^2+C\lambda +D+(A\lambda +B)}{\lambda ^2+C\lambda +D}\right)\hfill \\ & +_0^1\frac{2\alpha d\lambda }{(A\alpha \lambda +B)}\{\mathrm{ln}[\alpha ^2\lambda ^2C\alpha \lambda +D+(A\alpha \lambda +B)]\hfill \\ & \mathrm{ln}[\alpha ^2\lambda ^2C\alpha \lambda +D+(A\alpha \lambda +B)\lambda ]\}],\hfill \end{array}$$
(29)
where

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& A=2(vk+\alpha ),& B=2\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha +m_2^2m_1^2k^2,\\ & C=2\mathrm{\Delta },& D=m_1^2i\delta .\end{array}$$

and $`\alpha `$ one of the solutions $`\alpha _{1,2}`$ of the quadratic equation (28). In (29) we have used the fact that D is the only complex parameter and split the logarithm in the second integrand. The integrands of both the first and the second integral have vanishing residua. In the second integral we then add and subtract the values of the logarithms for $`\lambda =B/A\alpha `$ and write

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \overline{C}_0=\frac{1}{A}[& _0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{2d\lambda }{\lambda +B/A}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\lambda ^2+(A+C)\lambda +(B+D)}{\lambda ^2+C\lambda +D}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill & _0^1\frac{2d\lambda }{\lambda B/(A\alpha )}(\mathrm{ln}[\alpha ^2\lambda ^2(A+C)\alpha \lambda +(B+D)]\hfill \\ & \mathrm{ln}[\alpha ^2\lambda _0^2(A+C)\alpha \lambda _0+(B+D)])\hfill \\ \hfill +& _0^1\frac{2d\lambda }{\lambda B/(A\alpha )}(\mathrm{ln}[\alpha (\alpha A)\lambda ^2+(BC\alpha )\lambda +D]\hfill \\ & \mathrm{ln}[\alpha (\alpha A)\lambda _0^2+(BC\alpha )\lambda _0+D])],\hfill \end{array}$$
(30)
with $`\lambda _0=B/(A\alpha )`$. Note, that all three integrals in (30) have integrands with vanishing residua. These integrals can be reduced into the sums of the dilogarithms, where care has to be taken regarding the imaginary parts of the arguments of the logarithms. The solutions of the integrals can be found in the appendix B. The solution of the first integral can be found in (85), (87), with the definitions (76), (78) (where $`a_1=a_2=0`$, note also the minus sign), while the solutions to the last two integrals can be found in (69), (71). Using the functions $`S_3`$ and $`I_2`$ defined in the appendix B the three-point function (26) finally reads

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \overline{C}_0=\frac{2}{A}[& I_2(0,0,A+C,B+D,C,D,B/A)\hfill \\ \hfill +& S_3(\alpha ^2,(A+C)\alpha ,B+D,B/A\alpha )\hfill \\ \hfill & S_3(\alpha (\alpha A),BC\alpha ,D,B/A\alpha )].\hfill \end{array}$$
(31)
Note that the value of the three-point function in (31) does not depend on which of the solutions $`\alpha _{1,2}`$ of the equation (28) is used. This can be used as a useful check in the numerical implementation.

The solution is simplified considerably if $`k^2=0`$. Then the $`x`$ integration in (27) is trivial. Proceeding similarly as above we arrive at

$$\overline{C}_0(v,k,\mathrm{\Delta },m_1,m_2)|_{k^2=0}=\frac{1}{vk}\underset{i}{}\rho (\kappa _i)\left[\mathrm{Li}_2\left(\frac{\lambda _0}{\lambda _0\kappa _i}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}^2(\lambda _0\kappa _i)\right],$$
(32)
where $`\lambda _0=(m_1^2m_2^2)/(2vk)`$, while $`\kappa _i`$ are the solutions of

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \lambda ^2+2(vk+\mathrm{\Delta })\lambda +m_2^2i\delta =(\lambda \kappa _1)(\lambda \kappa _3),\hfill \\ & \lambda ^2+2\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda +m_1^2i\delta =(\lambda \kappa _2)(\lambda \kappa _4),\hfill \end{array}$$
(33)
and $`\rho (\kappa _i)=(1)^{i+1}`$.

The solution is even further simplified if besides $`k^2=0`$ also $`m_1=m_2=m`$. Then

$$\overline{C}_0(v,k,\mathrm{\Delta },m,m)|_{k^2=0}=\frac{1}{vk}\underset{i}{}\rho (\kappa _i)\left[\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}^2(\kappa _i)\right],$$
(34)
with $`\kappa _i`$ and $`\rho (\kappa _i)`$ given in (33). The three point function in this limit has been calculated before and is given explicitly in  (see Eq. (A10) of ). The two expressions agree completely. A number of numerical checks between numerically integrated expression (29) and final expression (31) have been performed as well.

## 5 Four-point function

The scalar four-point function with one heavy quark propagator is defined as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\overline{D}_0(v,p_1,& p_2,\mathrm{\Delta },m_1,m_2,m_3)=\hfill \\ & \frac{i\mu ^ϵ}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{d^nq}{(vq\mathrm{\Delta })(q^2m_1^2)((q+p_1)^2m_2^2)((q+p_2)^2m_3^2)},\hfill \end{array}$$
(35)
where the $`i\delta `$ prescription has been omitted in the notation. Again, the integral is convergent and $`ϵ`$ can be set to zero. Since the Feynman parameterization (2) is not symmetric in $`A_i`$ and $`B`$, the elegant transformation used in the calculation of the conventional four-point function  and further improved in  unfortunately cannot be applied. Instead, one repeatedly uses the propagator identity (3) to solve the integral (35). Since the parameter $`\alpha `$ in propagator identity (3) has to be real, the calculation differs depending on the values of the external momenta $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$.

First we take up the case, when one of the following inequalities is true $`p_{1,2}^2(m_1+m_{2,3})^2`$ or $`p_{1,2}^2(m_1m_{2,3})^2`$. If necessary, we renumber the momenta and reshuffle the propagators in (35) in such a way that either $`p_1^2(m_1+m_2)^2`$ or $`p_1^2(m_1m_2)^2`$ in order to simplify the discussion. Then we use the propagator identity (3) on the second and the third propagators of (35)

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{1}{(q^2m_1^2+i\delta )((q+p_1)^2m_2^2+i\delta )}=& \frac{1\alpha }{[(q+p_1)^2m_2^2+i\delta ][(q+l)^2M^2+i\delta ]}\hfill \\ & +\frac{\alpha }{[q^2m_1^2+i\delta ][(q+l)^2M^2+i\delta ]},\hfill \end{array}$$
(36)
where $`\alpha `$ is an arbitrary parameter and

$`l`$ $`=\alpha p_1,`$ (37)
$`M^2`$ $`=(1\alpha )m_1^2+\alpha m_2^2\alpha (1\alpha )p_1^2.`$ (38)
We choose $`\alpha `$ such that $`M^2=0`$. This is satisfied by real $`\alpha `$ if either $`p_1^2(m_1+m_2)^2`$ or $`p_1^2(m_1m_2)^2`$ as has been assumed above. The scalar four point function is then

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{i}{(2\pi )^4}& d^4q\frac{1\alpha }{(vq\mathrm{\Delta })[(q+p_1)^2m_2^2][(q+p_2)^2m_3^2][(q+l)^2+i\delta ]}+\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{i}{(2\pi )^4}& d^4q\frac{\alpha }{(vq\mathrm{\Delta })[q^2m_1^2][(q+p_2)^2m_3^2][(q+l)^2+i\delta ]},\hfill \end{array}$$
(39)
with $`\alpha `$ the solution of

$$p_1^2\alpha ^2+(m_2^2m_1^2p_1^2)\alpha +m_1^2=0.$$
(40)
To calculate the two integrals in (39) it suffices to consider

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\stackrel{~}{D}_0& (v,k_1,k_2,k_3,\mathrm{\Delta },M_1,M_2)=\hfill \\ & \frac{i}{(2\pi )^4}d^4q\frac{1}{(vq\mathrm{\Delta })[(q+k_1)^2M_1^2][(q+k_2)^2M_2^2][(q+k_3)^2+i\delta ]},\hfill \end{array}$$
(41)
where the $`i\delta `$ prescription has not been written out explicitly in the first three propagators.

Using the Feynman parameterization (2) and integrating over $`q`$ we arrive at

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{D}_0=_0^{\mathrm{}}2d\lambda _0^1dx_0^xdy[& p_{23}x^2+p_{12}y^2+(p_{13}p_{23}p_{12})xy+\lambda ^2+(P_2P_3)x\lambda +P_3\lambda \hfill \\ & +(P_1P_2)y\lambda +(p_{23}+M_2^2)x+(p_{23}p_{13}+M_1^2M_2^2)yi\delta ]^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(42)
with

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill p_{ij}& =(k_ik_j)^2,\hfill \\ \hfill P_i& =2(vk_i+\mathrm{\Delta }).\hfill \end{array}$$
(43)
To simplify the integration we introduce new variables $`y=xy^{}`$ and $`\lambda =x\lambda ^{}`$. The integration limits are then $`_0^1𝑑x_0^x𝑑y_0^{\mathrm{}}2𝑑\lambda _0^1𝑑x_0^1x𝑑y^{}_0^{\mathrm{}}x2𝑑\lambda ^{}`$. Since $`x`$ is positive and $`\delta `$ an infinitesimal parameter of which only the sign matters, the extra factor of $`x^2`$ in the numerator can be canceled against the similar factor in the denominator. After the cancellation the denominator is linear in $`x`$. The integration over $`x`$ is now trivial and yields

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{D}_0=_0^{\mathrm{}}2𝑑\lambda _0^1𝑑y& [(p_{23}p_{13}+M_1^2M_2^2)y+P_3\lambda p_{23}+M_2^2i\delta ]^1\times \hfill \\ & [p_{12}y^2+\lambda ^2+(P_1P_2)y\lambda +P_2\lambda +(p_{12}+M_1^2M_2^2)y+M_2^2i\delta ]^1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(44)
To cancel the $`y^2`$ term in the integral above a new variable $`\lambda =\lambda ^{}+\beta y`$ is introduced, with $`\beta `$ chosen to solve

$$\beta ^2+(P_1P_2)\beta +p_{12}=0.$$
(45)
The solutions are real for $`(k_2k_1)^\mu `$ real. We get

$$\stackrel{~}{D}_0=\left(_0^{\mathrm{}}2𝑑\lambda _0^1𝑑y+_\beta ^02𝑑\lambda _{\lambda /\beta }^1𝑑y\right)\frac{1}{[a_1y+b_1\lambda +c_1][a_2y+b_2\lambda +c_2+d_2y\lambda +\lambda ^2]},$$
(46)
with

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \begin{array}{cc}\hfill a_1& =\beta P_3+p_{23}p_{13}+M_1^2M_2^2,\hfill \\ \hfill b_1& =P_3,\hfill \\ \hfill c_1& =M_2^2p_{23}i\delta ,\hfill \end{array}& \begin{array}{cc}\hfill a_2& =\beta P_2+M_1^2M_2^2p_{12},\hfill \\ \hfill b_2& =P_2,\hfill \\ \hfill c_2& =M_2^2i\delta ,\hfill \\ \hfill d_2& =2\beta +P_1P_2.\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$
(47)
After $`y`$ integration we arrive at

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{D}_0=& \frac{1}{(\lambda _1\lambda _2)}\frac{1}{(b_1d_2a_1)}[\hfill \\ & _0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{2d\lambda }{\lambda \lambda _1}\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{b_1\lambda +c_1}{b_1\lambda +a_1+c_1}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\lambda ^2+b_2\lambda +c_2}{\lambda ^2+(b_2+d_2)\lambda +a_2+c_2}\right)\right\}\hfill \\ \hfill & _0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{2d\lambda }{\lambda \lambda _2}\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{b_1\lambda +c_1}{b_1\lambda +a_1+c_1}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\lambda ^2+b_2\lambda +c_2}{\lambda ^2+(b_2+d_2)\lambda +a_2+c_2}\right)\right\}\hfill \\ \hfill & _0^1\frac{2d\lambda }{\lambda +\lambda _1/\beta }\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{(a_1\beta b_1)\lambda +c_1}{\beta b_1\lambda +a_1+c_1}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\beta (\beta d_2)\lambda ^2+(a_2b_2\beta )\lambda +c_2}{\beta ^2\lambda ^2\beta (b_2+d_2)\lambda +a_2+c_2}\right)\right\}\hfill \\ \hfill +& _0^1\frac{2d\lambda }{\lambda +\lambda _2/\beta }\{\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{(a_1\beta b_1)\lambda +c_1}{\beta b_1\lambda +a_1+c_1}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\beta (\beta d_2)\lambda ^2+(a_2b_2\beta )\lambda +c_2}{\beta ^2\lambda ^2\beta (b_2+d_2)\lambda +a_2+c_2}\right)\}],\hfill \end{array}$$
(48)
with $`\lambda _{1,2}`$ the solutions of

$$(b_1d_2a_1)\lambda ^2+(a_2b_1a_1b_2+c_1d_2)\lambda +a_2c_1a_1c_2=(b_1d_2a_1)(\lambda \lambda _1)(\lambda \lambda _2).$$
(49)
Note that the integrands above have vanishing residua, i.e. arguments of the two logarithms in the integrands are the same for $`\lambda =\lambda _{1,2}`$. Note as well, that the infinitesimal imaginary parts of $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$, the $`i\delta `$ in (47), have to be equal. They originate from the same infinitesimal parameter in (42) that after the integration over $`x`$ appears twice in (44). The size of the infinitesimal parts of $`\lambda _{1,2}`$ compared to $`i\delta `$ are thus unambiguously defined and have to be kept track of until the end of the calculation.

The integrals (48) can be expressed in terms of the dilogarithms. This has been done in the appendix B. The solution for the first two integrals can be found in (85), with the definitions in (76), (78), while the solution for the last two integrals can be found in (74), (75). Together with Eqs. (39), (41) and the cascade of abbreviations (47), (45), (43) this gives the complete solution of the four point function with at least one external momentum $`p_1`$, $`p_2`$ satisfying $`p_{1,2}^2(m_1+m_{2,3})^2`$ or $`p_{1,2}^2(m_1m_{2,3})^2`$. Collecting the terms and rearranging the last two propagators in (35) if necessary, the four point function for $`p_1^2(m_1+m_2)^2`$ or $`p_1^2(m_1m_2)^2`$ finally reads

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \overline{D}_0(v,p_1,p_2,\mathrm{\Delta },m_1,m_2,m_3)=& (1\alpha )\stackrel{~}{D}_0(v,p_1,p_2,l,\mathrm{\Delta },m_2,m_3)\hfill \\ & +\alpha \stackrel{~}{D}_0(v,0,p_2,l,\mathrm{\Delta },m_1,m_3),\hfill \end{array}$$
(50)
with $`l=\alpha p_1`$ and $`\alpha `$ the solution of $`p_1^2\alpha ^2+(m_2^2m_1^2p_1^2)\alpha +m_1^2=0`$, while

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{D}_0& (v,k_1,k_2,k_3,\mathrm{\Delta },M_1,M_2)=\frac{1}{(\lambda _1\lambda _2)}\frac{2}{(b_1d_2a_1)}[\hfill \\ & I_2(c_1/b_1,(a_1+c_1)/b_1,b_2,c_2,b_2+d_2,a_2+c_2,\lambda _1)\hfill \\ \hfill & I_2(c_1/b_1,(a_1+c_1)/b_1,b_2,c_2,b_2+d_2,a_2+c_2,\lambda _2)\hfill \\ \hfill & I_1(\beta ^2\beta d_2,\beta ^2,a_2\beta b_2,\beta (b_2+d_2),a_1\beta b_1,\beta b_1,c_2,a_2+c_2,c_1,a_1+c_1,\lambda _1/\beta )\hfill \\ \hfill +& I_1(\beta ^2\beta d_2,\beta ^2,a_2\beta b_2,\beta (b_2+d_2),a_1\beta b_1,\beta b_1,c_2,a_2+c_2,c_1,a_1+c_1,\lambda _2/\beta )]\hfill \end{array}$$
(51)
with $`a_1\mathrm{}d_2`$ defined in (47), $`\beta `$ defined in (45), $`p_{ij}`$, $`P_i`$ defined in (43) and $`\lambda _{1,2}`$ solutions of (49). Note that parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are solutions of quadratic equations (40) and (45) that in general have two real solutions each. The value of the four point function $`\overline{D}_0(v,k_1,k_2,k_3,\mathrm{\Delta },M_1,M_2)`$ does not depend on which of the solutions are chosen in the evaluation of (50),(51). This fact can be used as a useful test in the numerical implementation of the expressions given above.

Now we take up the special case of $`p_1`$ on the light-cone, i.e. $`p_1^2=0`$. From (40) it follows that $`\alpha =m_1^2/(m_1^2m_2^2)`$. If $`m_1^2m_2^2`$ then $`\alpha `$ is finite and the calculation proceeds as before, (35)-(48). For equal masses $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$, we evaluate the integrals by first taking $`m_1^2m_2^2`$ and then performing the limit $`m_1^2m_2^2`$ and thus $`|\alpha |\mathrm{}`$. The external momenta in the last propagators of (39) are both equal to $`l=\alpha p_1`$. Thus the last external momentum in $`\stackrel{~}{D}_0`$ of (41) is going to be $`k_3=l=\alpha p_1`$ for both of the integrals in (39). In the limit $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$ the following leading order values (47) are obtained: $`a_12\alpha p_1(\beta vp_2)`$, $`b_12\alpha vp_1`$, $`c_12\alpha p_1p_2`$ , where we have used also the fact that $`p_1^2=0`$. The other coefficients $`a_2`$, $`b_2`$, $`c_2`$, $`d_2`$ do not depend on $`\alpha `$. The first term in the denominator of the integrand in (46) is then proportional to $`\alpha `$, while the second term in the denominator does not depend on $`\alpha `$ at all. The $`\alpha `$ in the denominator cancels against the $`\alpha `$ in the numerator of (39). For the case of equal masses $`m_1^2=m_2^2`$ and $`p_1^2=0`$, the solution is then the same as for the case $`m_1^2m_2^2`$ except that (i) one has to replace $`(1\alpha )`$ and $`\alpha `$ in (39) with $`1`$ and $`1`$ respectively, and that (ii) $`a_1`$, $`b_1`$, $`c_1`$ in (47), (48) have to be replaced by their limiting values (divided by $`\alpha `$)

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a_1& a_1^l=2p_1(\beta vp_2),\hfill \\ \hfill b_1& b_1^l=2vp_1,\hfill \\ \hfill c_1& c_1^l=2p_1p_2i\delta ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(52)
where $`\beta `$ is the solution to (45) (with $`P_i`$ defined in (43)), and is different for the two integrals in (39). In the limiting value of $`c_1`$ coefficient given in (52) an additional $`i\delta `$ prescription has been added. As will be shown in the next paragraph, this does not have any effect on the value of the four-point function. It does make possible, however, to express the integrals in (48) in terms of the functions $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$ as in (51).

It is easy to see, that the limiting procedure as explained above does lead to an unambiguous result. One might in principle worry that limits $`m_1^2m_2^2`$ taken from above and below, corresponding to the limits $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$ and $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$ respectively, would lead to different results. The question is most conveniently settled if the $`\stackrel{~}{D}_0`$ functions in Eq. (50) are replaced by the expressions given in Eq. (44). Once the limit $`m_1m_2`$ is taken, the first factors of the integrands have the same limiting value. For $`\alpha `$ large, thus the leading term is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \overline{D}_0\alpha _0^{\mathrm{}}2𝑑\lambda _0^1𝑑y& [2\alpha p_1p_2y+2\alpha vp_1\lambda +2\alpha p_1p_2i\delta ]^1\times \hfill \\ & [(p_1p_2)^2y^2+\lambda ^2+2v(p_1p_2)y\lambda +\hfill \\ & +P_2\lambda +((p_1p_2)^2+m_2^2m_3^2)y+m_3^2i\delta ]^1\hfill \\ \hfill +\alpha _0^{\mathrm{}}2𝑑\lambda _0^1𝑑y& [2\alpha p_1p_2y+2\alpha vp_1\lambda +2\alpha p_1p_2i\delta ]^1\times \hfill \\ & [p_2^2y^2+\lambda ^22vp_2y\lambda +\hfill \\ & +P_2\lambda +(p_2^2+m_1^2m_3^2)y+m_3^2i\delta ]^1,\hfill \end{array}$$
(53)
with $`P_2=2(vp_2+\mathrm{\Delta })`$. After collecting the two integrands in (53) the first factor in the integrands cancels and one finds

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \overline{D}_0_0^{\mathrm{}}2𝑑\lambda _0^1y𝑑y& [(p_1p_2)^2y^2+\lambda ^2+2v(p_1p_2)y\lambda +\hfill \\ & +P_2\lambda +((p_1p_2)^2+m_2^2m_3^2)y+m_3^2i\delta ]^1\times \hfill \\ & [p_2^2y^2+\lambda ^22vp_2y\lambda +\hfill \\ & +P_2\lambda +(p_2^2+m_1^2m_3^2)y+m_3^2i\delta ]^1,\hfill \end{array}$$
(54)
This result exhibits clearly the fact that (i) the limit $`m_1^2m_2^2`$ is independent of whether it is taken from above or below and (ii) the limit is independent of the size (or even the sign) of the infinitesimal parameter in the first terms of the integrands in (53).

When the momenta $`p_1`$, $`p_2`$ satisfy $`(m_1m_{2,3})^2<p_{1,2}^2<(m_1+m_{2,3})^2`$, rendering a complex $`\alpha `$, the procedure outlined above in (35)-(50) cannot be applied directly. Starting from (35), we then use the propagator identity (3) on the last two propagators in (35), where we set $`\alpha `$ such that $`l^2=(p_1+\alpha (p_2p_1))^2=0`$. This has a real solution for $`\alpha `$ since $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ are timelike as has been assumed at the beginning of this paragraph. Changing the notation slightly we then have for the scalar four point function (omitting the $`i\delta `$ prescription in the notation)

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{i}{(2\pi )^4}& d^4q\frac{\alpha ^{}}{(vq\mathrm{\Delta })[q^2m_1^2][(q+p_1)^2m_2^2][(q+l)^2M^2]}+\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{i}{(2\pi )^4}& d^4q\frac{1\alpha ^{}}{(vq\mathrm{\Delta })[q^2m_1^2][(q+p_2)^2m_3^2][(q+l)^2M^2]},\hfill \end{array}$$
(55)
with $`\alpha ^{}`$ the (real) solution of

$$(p_1+\alpha ^{}(p_2p_1))^2=0$$
(56)
and

$`l`$ $`=p_1+\alpha ^{}(p_2p_1),`$ (57a)
$`M^2`$ $`=(1\alpha ^{})m_2^2+\alpha ^{}m_3^2\alpha ^{}(1\alpha ^{})(p_2p_1)^2.`$ (57b)
The integrals in (55) can now be solved using the procedure outlined above (35)-(52), once we permute the last two propagators with $`l`$ taking the role of $`p_1`$ in (35). Note also, that $`\alpha ^{}`$ solves quadratic equation (56) that in general has two solutions. The final result for the four point function $`\overline{D}_0`$ does not depend on which of the two solutions is taken in (55). This fact can be exploited in the numerical implementation as a useful check.

The four point function has already been calculated before for a special case of $`m_1=m_2=m_3`$, $`p_1^2=p_2^2=0`$ and $`p_1^\mu p_2^\mu =Mv^\mu `$ (see Eq. (A11) of ). It has been checked numerically that the two solutions, the one given in this paper and the solution of , agree for this special case. A number of other numerical tests have been performed. The direct numerical integration of (42) and the evaluation of analytical result given in this paper have been found to agree numerically. It has been also checked that the results do not depend on which of the two solutions for $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ or $`\alpha ^{}`$ is taken. The solution for the four-point function calculated in this paper has also been checked numerically to have the branch cuts as required by analyticity and unitarity.

## 6 Conclusions

In this article the general expressions for the dimensionally regularized scalar two-point, three-point and four-point functions with one heavy quark propagator were derived. The calculation proceeds along similar lines as in the case of the one-loop scalar functions of the conventional perturbation theory. There are, however, also a number of differences that result from the appearance of the heavy quark propagator. Since this is linear in the integration variable, one is forced to use a modified Feynman parameterization (2). In the calculation of the four-point function this prevents one to use the elegant formalism of ,. A repeated use of the propagator identity (3) then leads to the final expression for the four-point function. The simplification in the calculation is, that the heavy quark velocity $`v^\mu `$ is a timelike vector, which than leads to real solutions of the quadratic equations (28), (45). The complication on the other hand is the integration over infinite range that stems from the Feynman parameterization (2).

The five-point as well as the higher-point functions can be expressed in terms of the scalar functions given in this paper using the standard procedure ,. Consider for instance the case of five-point scalar function. This is a function of four vectors, $`v`$ and $`p_1,p_2,p_3`$. The five-point function is first multiplied by $`v_\mu ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }`$ and then antisymmetrized in all five indices. The resulting tensor is zero, because there is no antisymmetrical tensor with five indices in four dimensions. Then the tensor is multiplied first with $`p_{1\alpha }p_{2\beta }p_{3\gamma }q_\delta `$ and finally with $`v^\mu ϵ_{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}\gamma ^{}\delta ^{}}p_1^\alpha ^{}p_2^\beta ^{}p_3^\gamma ^{}q^\delta ^{}`$. Using the decomposition of the product of two Levi-Civita tensors in terms of the Kronecker delta functions and expressing the scalar products $`qp_i`$ in terms of the propagators $`((q+p_i)^2m_{i+1}^2)`$ and $`(q^2m_1^2)`$, the five-point function can be expressed in terms of the four point functions. The tensor functions can also be expressed in terms of the scalar functions using the algebraic reduction .

In the numerical implementation of the expressions given in this article, further care has to be taken regarding the numerical instabilities. Such numerical instabilities can for instance arise, if one of the solutions of the quadratic equation is much smaller than its coefficients. There is also a possibility of a cancellation between the dilogarithmic functions, when the values of the dilogarithms separately are much larger then their sum. These difficulties can be dealt with along the lines of Ref. .

Acknowledgments I wish to thank S. Fajfer and especially B. Bajc for helpful discussions and for carefully reading the manuscript. It is a pleasure to also thank the theory group at Technion for warm hospitality during my visit. This work was supported in part by the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia.

## Appendix A Dilogarithm and hypergeometric function

In this appendix we list some properties of the dilogarithm and the hypergeometric function used in the rest of the paper (for other properties consult e.g. ,  ).

The dilogarithm or Spence function is defined as

$$\mathrm{Li}_2(x)=_0^1𝑑t\frac{\mathrm{ln}(1xt)}{t}.$$
(58)
The cut for the logarithm along the negative real axis translates into the cut for the dilogarithm along the positive real axis for $`x>1`$. For $`x`$ on the positive real axis, $`x>1`$, dilogarithm is calculated using the following prescription $`\mathrm{Li}_2(x)\mathrm{Li}_2(xiϵ)`$. Note as well that $`\mathrm{Li}_2(0)=0`$.

Useful identities valid also for the complex arguments (not equal to zero) are

$`\mathrm{Li}_2(x)`$ $`=\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\mathrm{ln}(x)2\pi i\xi (x)\right]^2,`$ (59a)
$`\mathrm{Li}_2(x)`$ $`=\mathrm{Li}_2(1x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}(x)\mathrm{ln}(1x),`$ (59b)
where

$$\xi (x)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}& 1;\hfill & \hfill x(0,1),\\ & 0;\hfill & \hfill \text{ otherwise}.\end{array}$$
(60)
The hypergeometric function for complex argument $`|z|<1`$ is defined in terms of the series

$${}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\alpha ,\beta ;\gamma ;z)=1+\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\alpha \mathrm{}(\alpha +n)\beta \mathrm{}(\beta +n)}{\gamma \mathrm{}(\gamma +n)(n+1)!}z^{n+1},$$
(61)
with $`\gamma `$ not equal to zero or negative integer. Note that the series terminates if $`\alpha `$ or $`\beta `$ are equal to negative integer or zero. If either of them is zero then

$${}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(0,\beta ;\gamma ;z)={}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\alpha ,0;\gamma ;z)=1.$$
(62)
For $`z`$ outside the unit circle the values of the hypergeometric function can be obtained through analytic continuation. We make a cut in the $`z`$ plane along the real axis from $`z=1`$ to $`z=\mathrm{}`$. Then the series (61) will yield, in the cut plain, a single valued analytic continuation that can be obtained using the following identity (other similar transformation formulas can be found in e.g. )

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill {}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\alpha ,\beta ;\gamma ;z)=& \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta \alpha )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma \alpha )}(z)^\alpha {}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\alpha ,\alpha +1\gamma ;\alpha +1\beta ;1/z)\hfill \\ \hfill +& \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha \beta )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma \beta )}(z)^\beta {}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\beta ,\beta +1\gamma ;\beta +1\alpha ;1/z).\hfill \end{array}$$
(63)
The integral representations of the hypergeometric function include

$`{\displaystyle _z^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{x^{\mu 1}dx}{(1+\beta x)^\nu }}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{z^{\mu \nu }}{\beta ^\nu (\nu \mu )}}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\nu ,\nu \mu ;\nu \mu +1;1/(\beta z)),`$ (64a)
$`{\displaystyle _0^z}{\displaystyle \frac{x^{\mu 1}dx}{(1+\beta x)^\nu }}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{z^\mu }{\mu }}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\nu ,\mu ;1+\mu ;\beta z),`$ (64b)
where Eq. (64a) is valid for $`\mathrm{Re}\nu >\mathrm{Re}\mu `$, while Eq. (64b) is valid for the case, when $`\mathrm{arg}(1+\beta z)<\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{Re}\mu >0`$.

## Appendix B Reduction to dilogarithms

In this appendix we will express the integrals appearing in (30), (48) in terms of the dilogarithms. First we review the derivations given in . Consider

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill R(\lambda _1,\lambda _0)& =_0^1𝑑\lambda \frac{1}{\lambda \lambda _0}[\mathrm{ln}(\lambda \lambda _1)\mathrm{ln}(\lambda _0\lambda _1)]\hfill \\ & =_{\lambda _1}^{1\lambda _1}𝑑\lambda \frac{1}{\lambda \lambda _0+\lambda _1}[\mathrm{ln}\lambda \mathrm{ln}(\lambda _0\lambda _1)],\hfill \end{array}$$
(65)
where $`\lambda _{0,1}`$ may be complex. The residue of the pole of the integrand is zero. The cut of the logarithm is along the negative real axis, so for $`\lambda _1`$ not real, the cut is outside the triangle $`0`$, $`\lambda _1`$, $`1\lambda _1`$. The integration path can thus be deformed to (for $`\lambda _1`$ real, this statement is trivial)

$$_{\lambda _1}^{1\lambda _1}𝑑\lambda =_0^{1\lambda _1}𝑑\lambda _0^{\lambda _1}𝑑\lambda .$$

Making the substitutions $`\lambda =(1\lambda _1)\lambda ^{}`$ and $`\lambda =\lambda _1\lambda ^{}`$ we obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill R(\lambda _1,\lambda _0)& =_0^1𝑑\lambda \left[\frac{d}{d\lambda }\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\lambda \frac{1\lambda _1}{\lambda _1\lambda _0}\right)\right][\mathrm{ln}\lambda (1\lambda _1)\mathrm{ln}(\lambda _0\lambda _1)]\hfill \\ & _0^1𝑑\lambda \left[\frac{d}{d\lambda }\mathrm{ln}\left(1\lambda \frac{\lambda _1}{\lambda _1\lambda _0}\right)\right][\mathrm{ln}(\lambda \lambda _1)\mathrm{ln}(\lambda _0\lambda _1)].\hfill \end{array}$$
(66)
Since $`\lambda `$ is positive real, none of the arguments of the logarithms crosses the negative real axis. After integration per partes

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill R(\lambda _1,\lambda _0)=\mathrm{Li}_2\left(\frac{\lambda _11}{\lambda _1\lambda _0}\right)+& \mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1\lambda _0}{\lambda _1\lambda _0}\right)\left[\mathrm{ln}(1\lambda _1)\mathrm{ln}(\lambda _0\lambda _1)\right]\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{Li}_2\left(\frac{\lambda _1}{\lambda _1\lambda _0}\right)& \mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\lambda _0}{\lambda _1\lambda _0}\right)\left[\mathrm{ln}(\lambda _1)\mathrm{ln}(\lambda _0\lambda _1)\right].\hfill \end{array}$$
(67)
This can be further simplified using (59b)

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill R(\lambda _1,\lambda _0)=& \mathrm{Li}_2\left(\frac{\lambda _0}{\lambda _0\lambda _1}\right)+\left[\eta (\lambda _1,\frac{1}{\lambda _0\lambda _1})+2\pi i\mathrm{Re}^{()}(\lambda _0\lambda _1)\right]\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda _0}{\lambda _0\lambda _1}\hfill \\ \hfill & \mathrm{Li}_2\left(\frac{\lambda _01}{\lambda _0\lambda _1}\right)\left[\eta (1\lambda _1,\frac{1}{\lambda _0\lambda _1})+2\pi i\mathrm{Re}^{()}(\lambda _0\lambda _1)\right]\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda _01}{\lambda _0\lambda _1},\hfill \end{array}$$
(68)
with $`\eta `$ defined in (11) and $`\mathrm{Re}^{()}(x)`$ defined in (9). Note that this result differs slightly from the one in  as it is defined also for the arguments lying on the negative real axis. The extension to negative real arguments was not necessary in  as then the $`\lambda _0`$ was always real. This is not the case in the calculation of the four point function with one heavy quark propagator presented in this paper, as the $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ in (48) can have nonzero imaginary parts. The momenta and the masses in the calculation can then be chosen such, that one of the arguments appearing in (68) can lie on the negative real axis.

Next we turn to the integral

$$S_3(a,b,c,\lambda _0)=_0^1𝑑\lambda \frac{1}{\lambda \lambda _0}[\mathrm{ln}(a\lambda ^2+b\lambda +c)\mathrm{ln}(a\lambda _0^2+b\lambda _0+c)],$$
(69)
with $`a`$ real, while $`b`$, $`c`$, $`\lambda _0`$ may be complex but such, that the imaginary part of the argument of the logarithm does not change sign for $`x[0,1]`$ (also $`\mathrm{Im}c0`$).

Let $`ϵ`$ and $`\delta `$ be infinitesimal quantities that have the opposite sign from the imaginary part of first and second argument of the logarithm respectively. That is, the signs of the arguments are as given by $`iϵ`$ and $`i\delta `$. Then

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S_3=& _0^1𝑑\lambda \frac{1}{\lambda \lambda _0}[\mathrm{ln}(\lambda \lambda _1)(\lambda \lambda _2)\mathrm{ln}(\lambda _0\lambda _1)(\lambda _0\lambda _2)]\hfill \\ & \eta (aiϵ,\frac{1}{ai\delta })\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\lambda _01}{\lambda _0}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(70)
with $`\lambda _{1,2}`$ the solutions of $`a\lambda ^2+b\lambda +c=a(\lambda \lambda _1)(\lambda \lambda _2)`$. Next we split up the logarithms, use the fact that the imaginary part of $`(\lambda \lambda _1)(\lambda \lambda _2)`$ has the same sign as the imaginary part of $`c/a`$ and use the definitions of $`R(\lambda _1,\lambda _0)`$ (65) to get

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S_3(a,b,c,\lambda _0)=& R(\lambda _1,\lambda _0)+R(\lambda _2,\lambda _0)\hfill \\ & +\left[\eta (\lambda _1,\lambda _2)\eta (\lambda _0\lambda _1,\lambda _0\lambda _2)\eta (aiϵ,\frac{1}{ai\delta })\right]\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda _01}{\lambda _0},\hfill \end{array}$$
(71)
with $`ϵ`$ and $`\delta `$ defined before Eq. (70).

For future reference we also define

$$S_2(b,c,\lambda _0)=_0^1𝑑\lambda \frac{1}{\lambda \lambda _0}[\mathrm{ln}(b\lambda +c)\mathrm{ln}(b\lambda _0+c)],$$
(72)
with $`b`$ real and $`c`$, $`\lambda _0`$ possibly complex ($`\mathrm{Im}c0`$). Defining as above infinitesimal parameters $`ϵ^{}`$ and $`\delta ^{}`$ to have signs opposite to the imaginary parts of the first and the second argument of the logarithms respectively, we obtain

$$S_2(b,c,\lambda _0)=R(c/b,\lambda _0)\eta (biϵ^{},\frac{1}{bi\delta ^{}})\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda _01}{\lambda _0}.$$
(73)
Next we turn to the integrals appearing in the calculations of the three-point and four-point functions with one heavy quark propagator. Consider first

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill I_1(a_1,a_2,b_1,b_2,b_3,b_4,& c_1,c_2,c_3,c_4,\lambda _0)=\hfill \\ & _0^1𝑑\lambda \frac{1}{\lambda \lambda _0}\left[\mathrm{ln}\frac{b_3\lambda +c_3}{b_4\lambda +c_4}\mathrm{ln}\frac{a_1\lambda ^2+b_1\lambda +c_1}{a_2\lambda ^2+b_2\lambda +c_2}\right],\hfill \end{array}$$
(74)
with $`a_{1,2}`$ and $`b_{1,\mathrm{},4}`$ real, while $`\lambda _0`$, $`c_{1\mathrm{}4}`$ may be complex but such that $`\mathrm{Im}c_1\mathrm{Im}c_2>0`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}c_3\mathrm{Im}c_4>0`$. Also, the coefficients are such, that for $`\lambda =\lambda _0`$ the two logarithms are equal, so that the residuum of the integrand is equal to zero. Such an integral appears in the calculation of the four-point scalar function (48). To reduce the integral $`I_1`$ to the integrals $`S_2`$, $`S_3`$ we add and subtract the values of the logarithms at the pole. Since the numerators and the denominators of the logarithms in (74) have imaginary parts of the same sign, we can split the logarithms. Additional $`\eta `$ terms appear, however, when we split the logarithms with $`\lambda `$ set to $`\lambda _0`$. As the result we get

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill I_1& =S_2(b_3,c_3,\lambda _0)S_2(b_4,c_4,\lambda _0)S_3(a_1,b_1,c_1,\lambda _0)+S_3(a_2,b_2,c_2,\lambda _0)\hfill \\ & +[\eta (a_1\lambda _0^2+b_1\lambda _0+c_1,\frac{1}{a_2\lambda _0^2+b_2\lambda _0+c_2})+2\pi i\mathrm{Re}^{()}(a_2\lambda _0^2+b_2\lambda _0+c_2)\hfill \\ & \eta (b_3\lambda _0+c_3,\frac{1}{b_4\lambda _0+c_4})2\pi i\mathrm{Re}^{()}(b_4\lambda _0+c_4)]\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda _01}{\lambda _0}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(75)
with $`\eta `$ defined in (11) and $`\mathrm{Re}^{()}`$ in (9).

Next consider the integral

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill I_2(a_1,a_2,g_1,f_1,g_2,& f_2,\lambda _0)=\hfill \\ & _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\lambda \frac{1}{\lambda \lambda _0}\left\{\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda a_1}{\lambda a_2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda ^2+g_1\lambda +f_1}{\lambda ^2+g_2\lambda +f_2}\right\},\hfill \end{array}$$
(76)
with $`g_{1,2}`$ real, while $`\lambda _0`$, $`a_{1,2}`$, $`f_{1,2}`$ may be complex with the restriction $`\mathrm{Im}a_1\mathrm{Im}a_2>0`$, $`\mathrm{Im}f_1\mathrm{Im}f_2>0`$. Then the logarithms can be split without introducing $`\eta `$ terms, independent of the value of $`\lambda `$ as long as this is real. Also the arguments of the logarithms in (76) are taken to be the same for $`\lambda =\lambda _0`$, so that the residuum of the integrand is zero. Such integrals appear in the calculation of the three-point function (30) and in the calculation of the four-point function (48). We rewrite the integral (76) as

$$I_2=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\lambda \frac{1}{\lambda \lambda _0}\left\{\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda a_1}{\lambda a_2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{(\lambda b_1)(\lambda b_2)}{(\lambda c_1)(\lambda c_2)}\right\},$$
(77)
with

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \lambda ^2+g_1\lambda +f_1& =(\lambda b_1)(\lambda b_2),\hfill \\ \hfill \lambda ^2+g_2\lambda +f_2& =(\lambda c_1)(\lambda c_2),\hfill \end{array}$$
(78)
where $`\mathrm{Im}b_1\mathrm{Im}b_2<0`$, $`\mathrm{Im}c_1\mathrm{Im}c_2<0`$, $`\mathrm{Im}(b_1b_2)\mathrm{Im}(c_1c_2)>0`$ as can be seen from the constraints on $`g_{1,2}`$, $`f_{1,2}`$. Then the logarithms can be split up in the sum of the logarithms with arguments linear in $`\lambda `$.

To the integral (77) we add logarithms with $`\lambda `$ set to $`\lambda _0`$ and then split the logarithms

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& =\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda _0a_1}{\lambda _0a_2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{(\lambda _0b_1)(\lambda _0b_2)}{(\lambda _0c_1)(\lambda _0c_2)}\hfill \\ & =\underset{i}{}\rho (\kappa _i)\mathrm{ln}(\lambda _0\kappa _i)\eta ^{},\hfill \end{array}$$
(79)
where $`\kappa _i`$ are the coefficients $`a_{1,2}`$, $`b_{1,2}`$, $`c_{1,2}`$ with $`\rho (\kappa _i)=1`$ for $`a_1,c_{1,2}`$ and $`\rho (\kappa _i)=1`$ for $`a_2,b_{1,2}`$. There is also a sum of $`\eta `$ terms that we do not write out explicitly, but just denote by $`\eta ^{}`$, as it will be reabsorbed in the final result. Note also, that in the case of $`\lambda _0\kappa _i`$ real and negative the logarithm is calculated using the prescription $`\lambda _0\kappa _i\lambda _0\kappa _i+i\delta `$, with $`\delta `$ a positive infinitesimal parameter (see also (8)-(12)). The integral is then

$$I_2=\underset{i}{}\rho (\kappa _i)_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\lambda \frac{1}{\lambda \lambda _0}[\mathrm{ln}(\lambda \kappa _i)\mathrm{ln}(\lambda _0\kappa _i)]+\eta ^{}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\lambda }{\lambda \lambda _0}.$$
(80)
The separate integrals are divergent so they have to be regulated. We use the cutoff $`M`$ that is sent to infinity at the end of the calculation. Note also, that there is no problem with the pole in the last term even if $`\lambda _0`$ is real, as then $`\eta ^{}`$ is zero.

The regulated integrals are then

$$_0^M𝑑\lambda \frac{1}{\lambda \lambda _0}[\mathrm{ln}(\lambda \kappa _i)\mathrm{ln}(\lambda _0\kappa _i)].$$
(81)
Let us from here on first assume, that $`\lambda _0\kappa _i`$ is not negative real. Changing the variable $`\lambda =M\lambda ^{}`$ and using the calculation of $`R(\lambda _1,\lambda _0)`$ (65), (68) we get

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _0^1& d\lambda \frac{1}{\lambda \frac{\lambda _0}{M}}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\lambda \frac{\kappa _i}{M}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\lambda _0}{M}\frac{\kappa _i}{M}\right)\right]=\hfill \\ & \mathrm{Li}_2\frac{\lambda _0}{\lambda _0\kappa _i}\mathrm{Li}_2\frac{\lambda _0M}{\lambda _0\kappa _i}+\eta (\kappa _i,\frac{1}{\lambda _0\kappa _i})\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda _0}{\lambda _0\kappa _i}\eta (1\frac{\kappa _i}{M},\frac{M}{\lambda _0\kappa _i})\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda _0M}{\lambda _0\kappa _i}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(82)
For $`M`$ big enough the last term is zero. The $`M`$ dependent dilogarithm can be transformed using relation (59a)

$$\mathrm{Li}_2\frac{M}{\lambda _0\kappa _i}=\mathrm{Li}_2\frac{\lambda _0\kappa _i}{M}\frac{1}{6}\pi ^2\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}^2\left(\frac{M}{\lambda _0\kappa _i}\right).$$
(83)
The argument of the dilogarithm on the right-hand side goes toward zero as $`M\mathrm{}`$, so that in that limit the dilogarithm vanishes. Next we split the logarithm in the last term and write

$$\mathrm{ln}^2\left(\frac{M}{\lambda _0\kappa _i}\right)=\mathrm{ln}^2M2\mathrm{ln}M\mathrm{ln}(\lambda _0\kappa _i)+\mathrm{ln}^2(\lambda _0\kappa _i).$$
(84)
The first term gives zero once summed over in (80), while the second term cancels against the $`\eta ^{}`$ term in (80). Leaving the case of $`\lambda _0\kappa _i`$ negative real to the reader, the final result is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill I_2=\underset{i}{}\rho (\kappa _i)\{& \mathrm{Li}_2\frac{\lambda _0}{\lambda _0\kappa _i}+\left[\eta (\kappa _i,\frac{1}{\lambda _0\kappa _i})+2\pi i\mathrm{Re}^{()}(\lambda _0\kappa _i)\right]\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda _0}{\lambda _0\kappa _i}\hfill \\ \hfill +& \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}^2(\lambda _0\kappa _i)\mathrm{ln}(\lambda _0\kappa _i)\mathrm{ln}(\lambda _0)\},\hfill \end{array}$$
(85)
with

$$\rho (\kappa _i)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}& +1;\hfill & \hfill \kappa _i=a_1,c_{1,2},\\ & 1;\hfill & \hfill \kappa _i=a_2,b_{1,2}.\end{array}$$
(86)
Note that this solution applies also for the case encountered in the calculation of the three point function (30), when $`a_1=a_2=0`$. Then the terms containing $`a_{1,2}`$ cancel each other, so they can be dropped altogether for the case of Eq. (30).

There is one more point worth mentioning regarding the expression (85). One might think that problems could arise for $`\lambda _0\kappa _i`$ negative real or $`\lambda _0/(\lambda _0\kappa _i)`$ real as then one has to deal with the cuts in the logarithm and the dilogarithmic function444Note that there exists such a combination of parameters $`v`$, $`p_{1,2}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`m_{1,2,3}`$ in (35) that $`\lambda _0\kappa _i`$ in (85) is negative real for some $`i`$, as can be seen from definition of $`a_1,\mathrm{},d_2`$ (47), definition of $`\lambda _{1,2}`$ (49) and the expression for the four-point function (51).. We use the prescription for the arguments lying exactly on the cuts of the functions as described before Eq. (8) and after Eq. (58). One could as well use a different prescription, with infinitesimal parameter $`ϵ`$ in (8), (58) taken to be negative, and with appropriately adjusted $`\eta `$ and $`\mathrm{Re}^{()}`$ functions. It has been checked numerically that the result (85) does not depend on which prescription is used. Thus the result (85) is valid for any complex $`\lambda _0`$, $`\kappa _i`$ independent of the prescription used for the arguments lying on the cut.

For the special case of $`\lambda _0`$ real the result (85) simplifies considerably. The $`\eta `$ term is then zero. Also the last term in (85), that arises from the $`\eta ^{}`$ term in (80), then sums up to zero. For $`\lambda _0`$ real we have

$$I_2=\underset{i}{}\rho (\kappa _i)\left[\mathrm{Li}_2\frac{\lambda _0}{\lambda _0\kappa _i}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}^2(\lambda _0\kappa _i)\right],$$
(87)
with $`\kappa _i`$ and $`\rho (\kappa _i)`$ as in (86).

Of special interest is the case of $`\lambda _0`$ almost real, i.e. $`\lambda _0=\lambda _0^{re}+i\delta ^{}`$, where $`\lambda _0^{re}`$ is the real part of $`\lambda _0`$ and $`\delta ^{}`$ an infinitesimal (not necessarily positive) parameter. One can of course still use the solution (85). The problem is, however, that for both $`\kappa _i`$ and $`\lambda _0`$ almost real one has to keep track of the relative sizes of the infinitesimal imaginary parts. This complication can be avoided by the following procedure. First we set $`\lambda _0`$ in the second line of (79) equal to its real part. By doing this, the arguments of the logarithms can cross the negative real axis, which is compensated by a new sum of $`\eta `$ functions, $`\eta ^{\prime \prime }`$. Then instead of (80) we have

$$\underset{i}{}\rho (\kappa _i)_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\lambda \frac{1}{\lambda \lambda _0^{re}i\delta ^{}}[\mathrm{ln}(\lambda \kappa _i)\mathrm{ln}(\lambda _0^{re}\kappa _i)]+\eta ^{\prime \prime }_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\lambda }{\lambda \lambda _0}.$$
(88)
In the first integral $`\delta ^{}`$ can be safely put equal to zero as the resulting integrand has vanishing residuum, with the logarithm in the numerator being an analytic function in some neighbourhood of the pole (since $`\mathrm{Im}(\kappa _i)0)`$. The integral thus does not depend on how we avoid the pole (i.e. $`\delta ^{}`$ can be positive, negative or zero). In the second integral one has to keep the imaginary part of $`\lambda _0`$.

The final result for almost real $`\lambda _0=\lambda _0^{re}+i\delta ^{}`$ is then

$$I_2=\underset{i}{}\rho (\kappa _i)\left[\mathrm{Li}_2\frac{\lambda _0^{re}}{\lambda _0^{re}\kappa _i}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}^2(\lambda _0^{re}\kappa _i)\mathrm{ln}(\lambda _0^{re}\kappa _i)\mathrm{ln}(\lambda _0)\right],$$
(89)
where in the last logarithm $`\lambda _0`$ is kept together with its infinitesimal imaginary part.


text:
# Bunching of Fractionally-Charged Quasiparticles Tunneling through High Potential Barriers

> Shot noise measurements were recently exploited to measure the charge of the quasiparticles in the Fractional Quantum Hall (FQH) regime. For fractional filling factors $`\nu =1/3`$ and $`2/5`$ of the first Landau level, fractional charges $`q=e/3`$ and $`e/5`$, respectively, were measured. We investigate here the interaction of $`e/3`$ quasiparticles with a strong backscatterer and find unexpected results. When a weak backscatterer is introduced in the path of an otherwise noiseless current of quasiparticles, stochastic partitioning of the quasiparticles takes place and shot noise proportional to their charge appears. Specifically, at $`\nu =1/3`$, noise corresponding to $`q=e/3`$ appears. However, the measured charge increases monotonically as backscattering becomes stronger, approaching asymptotically $`q=e`$ . In other words, only electrons, or alternatively, three bunched quasiparticles, tunnel through high potential barriers when impinged by a noiseless current of quasiparticles. Here we show that such bunching of quasiparticles by a strong backscatterer depends on the average occupation (dilution) of the impinging quasiparticle current. For a very dilute impinging current, bunching ceases altogether and the transferred charge approaches $`q=e/3`$. These surprising results prove that a sparse beam of quasiparticles, each with charge $`e/3`$, tunnel through high potential barriers, originally thought to be opaque for them.

Already in 1918 W. Schottky determined the charge of the electron by measuring the average square of the current fluctuations, $`S=i^2`$ , resulting from the stochastic emission of electrons in a vacuum tube - naming it shot noise . His famous expression $`S=2qI`$ is a result of independent random events obeying Poisson distribution. Here, $`S`$ is the spectral density of the fluctuations (in units of A2/Hz), $`q`$ the charge of the particle and $`I`$ the average current. Similar experiments were implemented  in the FQH regime, verifying the existence of fractionally charged quasiparticles. A partially transmitting constriction, Quantum Point Contact (QPC), served in these experiments as an adjustable potential barrier in the path of the current, thus partitioning the transmitted charges. This random process is described by a binomial distribution, resulting with $`S=2qI(1t)`$ at zero temperature, with $`t[0,1]`$ being the transmission coefficient of the QPC. In the weak backscattering regime, the quasiparticles were found to traverse the QPC independent of each other and the measured charge was $`q=e/3`$ at filling factor $`\nu =1/3`$ and $`q=e/5`$ for $`\nu =2/5`$ . As backscattering gets stronger, the tunneling of individual quasiparticles becomes correlated, and in the limit of a pinched QPC and $`\nu =1/3`$ three quasiparticles were found to group together in order to tunnel through the barrier. Obviously, Schottky’s formula is inapplicable for correlated (or bunched) quasiparticles, but it can still be used to characterize the system with the effect of bunching being incorporated into an effective charge $`q(t)`$. Hence, the noise for a pinched QPC becomes electronic like, namely, with an effective charge $`q=e`$. Moreover, a nearly universal behavior was found for the evolution of the effective charge $`q(t)`$ , starting at $`q(`$open QPC$`)=e/3`$ and monotonically increases toward $`q(`$pinched QPC$`)=e`$.

Here we explore the bunching properties of a pinched QPC when a sparse beam of $`e/3`$ quasiparticles impinges upon it. In other words, when there are not enough quasiparticles in close proximity to bunch into an ’electron’, we may ask the following questions: (a) Will the barrier become opaque? (b) Will quasiparticles be ’borrowed’ from lower-energy states to fill in for the missing ones in the beam? Or, (c) perhaps the bunching condition will be relaxed and individual quasiparticles will transverse the barrier? Theory does not provide yet answers to these questions.

Samples were fabricated in a high-mobility two-dimensional electron gas embedded in a GaAs-AlGaAs heterostructure. Measurements were done in a strong magnetic field $`B13`$ T and a fractional filling factor $`\nu =1/3`$ in the FQH regime. Vanishing of the longitudinal resistivity $`\rho _{xx}`$ assures that the (net) current is flowing chiraly along the edges of the sample in edge states. This allows measurements in multi-terminal geometries shown in Fig. 1. Two techniques are employed in order to partition the quasiparticle beam, hence making it sparse or dilute, before it impinges on the pinched QPC2. A straightforward scheme, shown in Fig. 1a, utilizes a noiseless current $`I_{inc}`$ that impinges on a relatively open QPC1 and partially scatters toward QPC2 (although in this case the small reflection coefficient of QPC1 is responsible for the dilution of the current, for uniformity we stick to the notation of transmission coefficient $`t_10`$). Most of the current continues toward D1 while the scattered part is a very dilute beam of quasiparticles with charge $`q_1=e/3`$  and dilution determined by $`t_1`$. Much of that dilute current is reflected back by QPC2 toward drain D2 and a small part $`t_2`$ is transmitted. A fraction $`t_1t_2`$ of the incident current reaches the amplifier. This method cannot be applied, however, to achieve a moderately sparse beam of quasiparticles since a partly pinched QPC1 would lead to bunching of quasiparticles and to an effective charge $`q_1>e/3`$ . Hence, we employ also a geometry shown in Fig. 1b. Here, the incident current is being partitioned by transmission through a cascade of weakly backscattering QPCs (for each $`t_i1`$), feeding QPC2 with current of quasiparticles with arbitrary dilution $`t_1=_it_i`$. The fact that the partitioned charge by this method is $`e/3`$ is not obvious and a detailed study was needed to prove that a beam of quasiparticles is indeed produced. We also tested, via detailed noise measurements, whether dilute quasiparticles suffer intra-edge scattering and subsequent equilibration during transport along the device edges. Equilibration establishes a new chemical potential and increases the occupation of each state below the chemical potential - hence, modifying the dilution of the beam. As shown in Ref. 11 such equilibration does not take place in our devices.

Using one of the two methods depicted in Fig. 1 we create a noisy beam of quasiparticles with charge $`e/3`$, which is being further partitioned by QPC2. The noise at A is measured with a spectrum analyzer after amplification by a cooled amplifier. The amplifier, being placed near the sample, has a very low current noise at its input, $`i_{amp}^2=1.5\times 10^{28}`$ A2/Hz, when operating with bandwidth of 30 kHz and center frequency $`f_01.5`$ MHz. The value of $`f_0`$, chosen well above the cutoff of the ubiquitous $`1/f`$ noise, is determined by a resonance of $`LC`$ circuit, with $`C`$ determined by the capacitance of the coaxial cable connecting the sample and the amplifier and $`L`$ by an added superconducting coil. Reflected currents flow into the grounded terminals D and T, leading to a constant input (at S) and output (at A) conductance $`G=e^2/3h`$ \- independent of the transmission of the QPCs. This makes both the sample’s equilibrium noise ($`4k_BTG=5\times 10^{29}`$ A2/Hz) and the sample-dependent amplifier’s noise ($`i_{amp}^2/G^2`$) independent of QPCs’ transmission, allowing their subtraction from the measured noise (for comparison, the magnitude of the shot noise at A is typically in the $`10^{30}`$ A2/Hz range).

The configuration in Fig. 1a can be analyzed by means of superposition. Consider first the ’injector’ QPC1, characterized by transmission $`t_10`$ toward QPC2 and partitioned charge $`e/3`$. Being a stochastic element, it generates (at zero temperature) noise $`2(e/3)I_{inc}t_1(1t_1)`$, with $`I_{inc}t_1`$ the transmitted current, impinging on QPC2. This noise is attenuated with a factor $`t_2^2`$ by QPC2, resulting with a contribution of QPC1 to the total noise:

$$S_1=2(e/3)I_{inc}t_1(1t_1)t_2^2.$$
(1)
Consider now QPC2, characterized by transmission $`t_2`$ and charge $`q_2`$ when impinged by a noiseless current $`I_{imp}`$ of $`e/3`$ quasiparticles. It produces noise $`2q_2I_{imp}t_2(1\stackrel{~}{t_2})`$, where $`I_{imp}t_2=I_2`$ is the transmitted current and $`\stackrel{~}{t_2}=t_2\frac{e/3}{q_2}`$ denotes the effective transmission for charge $`q_2`$ quasiparticles. This transmission $`\stackrel{~}{t_2}`$ is determined self consistently with the charge $`q_2`$ in order to maintain the measured conductance of QPC2. We stress that even though the current $`I_{imp}=I_{inc}t_1`$ is noisy we still use the above expression to calculate the noise generated by QPC2, since the noise in $`I_{imp}`$ was already taken into account in Eq. (1). The added contribution of QPC2 is therefore:

$$S_2=2q_2I_{inc}t_1t_2(1\stackrel{~}{t_2}).$$
(2)
The total noise in A is then $`S_1+S_2`$. The correctness of this analysis can be validated in the limit of a constant charge (say, $`e/3`$): $`S_1+S_2=2(e/3)I_{inc}t_1t_2(1t_1t_2)`$, with $`t_{tot}=t_1t_2`$ being the total transmission from S to A \- the standard expression for binomially distributed process. In the experiment we use the expression for $`S_1+S_2`$ in order to determine the charge $`q_2`$ partitioned by QPC2. In the limit where both $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ are small $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ are of order of $`O(t_1t_2^2)`$ and $`O(t_1t_2)`$ , respectively, with the first much smaller than the second. Hence, the measured noise is dominated by the contribution of the pinched QPC2:

$$S2q_2I_{inc}t_1t_2=2q_2I_2.$$
(3)
We verify first that the noise produced by a pinched QPC, when fed with a quiet current, corresponds as expected to $`qe`$. We find results similar to these in Ref. 5 with an example given in Fig. 3b. For $`t_1=1`$, hence feeding QPC2 with a noiseless current, and $`t_20.1`$, we measure indeed charge $`e`$. We then partition the incident current by setting $`t_1<1`$, hence impinging a noisy current of quasiparticles on QPC2 with $`t_20.1`$. The noise seen in Fig. 2a corresponds to an average state-occupation $`t_10.7`$ and than in Fig. 2b to $`t_10.2`$. Calculating the expected noise we take into account the finite temperature of the electrons ($`T65`$ mK) and the energy (or current) dependence of the total transmission $`t_{tot}=t_1t_2`$ (current dependent transmissions are shown in the insets of Fig. 2). The average current is being varied over a large enough range, with the voltage $`V`$ satisfying $`q_2Vk_BT`$, to allow the noise to reach the linear regime. Nice agreement is found between the data and the independent particle model for $`q_2=0.9e`$ and $`t_1=0.7`$ (lightly diluted current) and for $`q_2=0.55e`$ and $`t_1=0.2`$ (highly diluted current).

A more striking example of the effect of beam dilution is demonstrated in Fig. 3, where the range of current $`I_2`$ is kept constant for different values of dilution. Obviously, a higher source voltage is required to obtain the same current $`I_2`$ when the current is more dilute. In comparison with the measured electron charge for a noiseless impinging current (Fig. 3b), a highly dilute current ($`t_10.1`$) impinging on the pinched QPC2 is found to produce a small charge $`q_2=0.45e`$ (Fig. 3a) - slightly above the quasiparticles charge.

Figure 4 summarizes the dependence of $`q_2`$ on the dilution $`t_1`$ of the impinging current on QPC2. Two examples, $`t_2=0.1`$ and $`t_2=0.25`$, are chosen, with corresponding charge $`e`$ and $`0.75e`$, respectively, for a noiseless impinging current. The more dilute the impinging current is ($`t_10`$), the smaller is the effective charge $`q_2`$ \- approaching asymptotically $`e/3`$. The unavoidable conclusion is that bunching of quasiparticles is not an essential mechanism for quasiparticles transfer through high potential barriers! Bunching takes place only when the incoming states are highly occupied.

Before we conclude we may also ask how is the transmission of QPC2 affected by the dilution of the impinging quasiparticles. Present theory assumes only a noiseless current approaching a constriction within the framework of the Luttinger model. Also here we find counter intuitive results. In the linear regime, where the source voltage is small enough to keep the transmission almost energy independent (Fig. 5a) the transmission $`t_2`$ is independent of dilution (although the source voltage for the dilute current is some ten times larger). This can be compared with the case where the same source voltage range is kept (Fig. 5b). Here, the transmission $`t_2`$ of the noiseless current strongly depends on voltage (approaching unity at $`V>50`$ $`\mu `$V). Since equilibration of quasiparticles had been ruled out, we conclude that the non-linearity of the pinched QPC depends strongly on the quasiparticle current and less on the quasiparticle energy. This rules out that the potential profile of the barrier in the QPC is responsible for non-linearity of the current. Moreover, the insensitivity of the transmission $`t_2`$ in the linear regime to the dilution of the impinging quasiparticle beam suggests equal probabilities of tunneling for a single quasiparticle and for bunched quasiparticles. In other words, noise and transmission measurements show that quasiparticles can transfer, with the same ease, either one by one or bunched in groups. Their bunching depends on the transparency of the barrier and on the preparation of the quasiparticle beam. It is now for theory to explain such a bizarre effect.

Acknowledgements:

The work was partly supported by the Israeli Academy of Science and by the German-Israel Foundation (GIF) grant. We thank A. Yacoby, A. Stern and Y. Levinson for helpful discussions.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to M.H. (e-mail: heiblum@wisemail.weizmann.ac.il).
Captions
Fig. 1. Schematic and actual representations of quasiparticles injector followed by a quasiparticle filter, both made of quantum point contacts, QPC1 and QPC2, respectively. (a) An injector made of a relatively open QPC1 partitions an incident noiseless (dc) current, injected from terminal S. The scattered part ($`t_1`$), composed of a dilute beam of quasiparticles, impinges on a pinched QPC2. The resulting noise measured by a cooled, low-noise, amplifier at terminal A (see Ref. 1). The intermediate drain D2 prohibits multiple-reflections, and the grounded terminal T is used to fix the output impedance of the sample and make it independent of QPC settings. (b) An alternative scheme, suitable for producing a moderately dilute current, invokes a cascade of weakly backscattering QPCs transmitting a dilute quasiparticle beam (see Ref. 11). (c) A photograph of the actual device in the vicinity of the QPCs, formed by metallic gates (light gray regions) deposited on the surface of the GaAs-AlGaAs heterostructure embedding a two dimensional electron gas some 0.1 $`\mu `$m below the surface. Electron mobility is $`2\times 10^6`$ cm2/Vs and areal carrier density is $`1.1\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2, both measured at 4.2 K in the dark. The solid arrows correspond to the direction of current in configuration (a), while the other QPCs on the right (with current flow denoted by dotted arrows) are used when configuration (b) is employed. Ohmic contacts (serving as S, D, T, A) are outside the frame of the picture.
Fig. 2. Noise and transmission measurements of the pinched QPC2 (with transmission $`t_20.1`$ at zero bias) for two different values of dilution of the impinging current: $`t_1=0.7`$ (a) and $`0.2`$ (b). In the main graphs the measured noise is plotted against the transmitted current, together with the theoretical prediction of the independent particles model at a finite temperature. The intermediate curve in each graph represents the best fit to an arbitrary charge $`q_2`$. Various transmission coefficients, measured simultaneously with the noise, are shown in the insets against the incident (noiseless) current. Each inset shows the dilution level $`t_1`$ generated by the QPC1 injector, the transmission $`t_2`$ of the pinched QPC2 in response to the dilute impinging current, and the total transmission $`t_{tot}`$. Notice that the sensitivity of $`t_2`$ to the current depends on the dilution level of the impinging current.
Fig. 3. Comparison of the charge characterizing the pinched QPC2 for two extreme cases of the impinging current: not diluted (noiseless) and highly dilute, keeping the same transmitted current. (a) The noise produced by the pinched QPC2 when fed by a highly dilute impinging current, $`t_10.1`$, corresponds to a quasiparticle charge $`q_20.45e`$. The inset shows the current-dependent transmission $`t_1`$ (level of dilution) and the transmission $`t_2`$ (is fairly current independent for such a dilute beam). (b) The noise produced by the pinched QPC2 when fed by a noiseless current corresponds to almost an electronic charge. The inset verifies the charge $`q_2=e`$ by measuring the noise over considerably wider range of transmitted current. Clearly, the charge characterizing QPC2 depends not only on the potential barrier height but also on the average occupation of the states (dilution) of the impinging current.
Fig. 4. Evolution of the effective charge $`q_2`$ that characterizes the pinched QPC2 in response to different values of dilution $`t_1`$ of the impinging current (extracted from curves similar to that in Fig. 3a). Results of three different measurements are shown - two complementary sets of data for $`t_2=0.1`$, with dilution produced by backscattering of a single QPC1 (Fig. 1a) and by transmission through five, relatively open, QPCs (Fig. 1b), and one set with $`t_2=0.25`$. In the case of $`t_2=0.25`$ only the extreme points are shown in order to simplify the graph. The dashed lines are only guide to the eye. Evidently, as the current impinging on the pinched QPC2 becomes more dilute, the charge drops from its original value toward $`e/3`$ in the limit of very high dilution. We conclude that individual, very sparse, quasiparticles tunnel through a pinched QPC - originally thought to be opaque for them.
Fig. 5. Dependence of the transmission $`t_2`$ of the pinched QPC2 on the dilution $`t_1`$ of the impinging current. (a) Measurements in the linear regime. The transmission $`t_2`$ of a highly dilute impinging current ($`t_10.1`$, solid curve) and that of a noiseless current ($`t_1=1`$, dashed curve), with the same transmitted current range kept in both cases. The applied source voltage, on the other hand, reaches a maximal value of $`170`$ $`\mu `$V for the noisy impinging current but only $`16`$ $`\mu `$V in the noiseless case. Nevertheless, the transmissions in both cases are similar. (b) Measurements in the non-linear regime. Similar measurements to (a) but the same applied source voltage range is kept in both cases (the noiseless current is some ten times larger for the same voltage). The transmission is found to be strongly current dependent when the impinging current is noiseless.

> Comforti et al. \- Figure 1
>
> Comforti et al. \- Figure 2
>
> Comforti et al. \- Figure 3
>
> Comforti et al. \- Figure 4
>
> Comforti et al. \- Figure 5