text:
# Untitled Document

Modern Phys. Lett. B 16, 459-465 (2002) E-print cond-mat/0203039 at www.arxiv.org

Short-Time Decoherence and Deviation from Pure Quantum States

Vladimir Privman

Center for Quantum Device Technology, Clarkson University

Potsdam, New York 13699–5820, USA

E-mail: privman@clarkson.edu

Received May 8, 2002

Abstract: In systems considered for quantum computing, i.e., for control of quantum dynamics with the goal of processing information coherently, decoherence and deviation from pure quantum states, are the main obstacles to error correction. At low temperatures, usually assumed in quantum computing designs, some of the accepted approaches to evaluation of relaxation mechanisms break down. We develop a new formalism for estimation of decoherence at short times, appropriate for evaluation of quantum computing architectures.

Consider a microscopic quantum system described by the Hamiltonian $`H_S`$. This system, $`S`$, can be a quantum bit (qubit), or several qubits, controlled externally individually and by switching on and off pairwise qubit interactions. This qubit paradigm helps to define the questions in describing how $`S`$ interacts with the surrounding macroscopic world. Interactions with the surroundings depend on the setting. For example, in quantum measurement, the wavefunction of the system is probed, and part of the process involves a strong interaction with the measuring device. However, in most applications, the external interactions are quite weak. In quantum computing , the aim is to minimize their effect.

Traditionally, interactions with the surroundings have been modelled by the modes of a “bath” $`B`$, with the mode Hamiltonians $`M_K`$,

$$H_B=\underset{K}{}M_K.$$
$`(1)`$
The interaction of the bath modes with $`S`$, will be modelled by

$$H_I=\mathrm{\Lambda }_SP_B=\mathrm{\Lambda }_S\underset{K}{}J_K,$$
$`(2)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_S`$ is a Hermitean operator of $`S`$, coupled to the operator $`P_B`$ of $`B`$. For a bosonic bath , which we use as a prototype,

$$M_K=\omega _Ka_K^{}a_K,J_K=g_K^{}a_K+g_Ka_K^{},$$
$`(3)`$
where the ground state is shifted to zero, and we work in units $`\mathrm{}=1`$. The total Hamiltonian is then $`H=H_S+H_B+H_I`$.

Let $`\rho (t)`$ represent the reduced density matrix of $`S`$, after $`B`$ has been traced over. For large times, the effect of the environment on an “idle” quantum system, i.e., one that is not otherwise externally controlled, is expected to be thermalization: this density matrix should approach $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta H_S\right)/\mathrm{Tr}_S\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta H_S\right)\right]`$, where $`\beta 1/kT`$. For times $`t0`$, we can consider the degree to which the system has departed from coherent pure-quantum-state evolution, due to the interactions and entanglement with the bath. The temperature and other external parameters needed to characterize $`\rho (t)`$, are determined by the properties of $`B`$, which in turn might interact with “the rest of the universe.”

In the eigenbasis of $`H_S`$, we consider the matrix elements of $`\rho (t)`$,

$$H_S|n=E_n|n,\rho _{mn}(t)=m|\rho (t)|n.$$
$`(4)`$
For large times, we expect the diagonal $`\rho _{nn}`$ to approach values $`e^{\beta E_n}`$, while the off-diagonal elements $`\rho _{mn}0`$, corresponding to thermalization and decoherence in the energy basis. To establish this, several assumptions are traditionally made \[1-5\]. At time $`t=0`$, it is assumed that the bath is thermalized, i.e., its modes, $`K`$, have density matrices $`\theta _K=e^{\beta M_K}/\mathrm{Tr}_K\left(e^{\beta M_K}\right)`$. The overall density matrix $`R`$ is then unentangled,

$$\left[R(t)=\rho (t)\underset{K}{}\theta _K\right]_{t=0}.$$
$`(5)`$
Now, a series of assumptions are made, e.g., the Markovian and secular approximations. The Markovian approximation essentially assumes that the density matrices of the bath modes are reset to the thermal ones, on time scales shorter than any dynamical times of the system interacting with the bath. This amounts to using (5) for times $`t>0`$ and is a natural assumption, because each bath mode is coupled only weakly to the system, whereas it is “monitored” by the rest of the universe and kept at temperature $`T`$. Such approaches aim at master equations for $`\rho _{mn}`$ at large times, consistent with the Golden Rule, thermalization and decoherence. In variants of these formalisms, two external (to $`S`$) times scales are identified. One is the inverse of the upper cutoff frequency of the bath modes, $`1/\omega _D`$. Another is the “thermal” time $`\mathrm{}/kT=\beta `$.

There is evidence  that the Markovian-type approximations are only valid for times large than both these time scales. This is hardly a limitation at room temperatures. However, for quantum computing, in semiconductor-heterostructure architectures \[7-10\], $`T10100\mu `$K. The thermal time then becomes dangerously close to the single-qubit control time even for slower qubits, based on nuclear spins. We emphasize that not all the approximation schemes have this problem . We also point out that quantum computing architectures utilize \[7-10\] qubits and modes that couple them, that have large spectral gaps. It is believed that, especially at low temperatures, spectral gaps slow down relaxation processes. Thus, qubit levels are considered in quantum dots, in atoms, in large magnetic fields, and coupled by highly nondissipative “quantum” media , e.g., the quantum-Hall two-dimensional electron gas.

At low temperatures, spectral gaps lead to separation of time scales of the initial decoherence vs. later-stage thermalization and further decoherence driven by energy-conserving processes. One can then question whether the energy basis is the best to describe decoherence for times before the thermalizing processes take over. The issue of the basis has also come up in models of quantum measurement , where the eigenbasis of the interaction, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_S`$, may be more appropriate. In fact, in quantum computing applications we really want to retain a pure quantum state . The value of $`1\mathrm{Tr}_S\left[\rho ^2(t)\right]`$, of other measure, may be more indicative than off-diagonal matrix elements. Therefore, it is desirable to have basis-independent expressions for the reduced density operator $`\rho (t)`$.

Recently, several groups have reported \[6,10,12,14-16\] results for spin decoherence in quantum computing systems. Some have not invoked all the traditional approximations, Markovian and secular, etc., or have utilized the spectral gap of the bath modes, to achieve better reliability of the short-time results. Experimental efforts are picking up momentum, with the first limited results available  by NMR/ESR techniques. An approach, termed adiabatic decoherence, has been developed  to avoid the ambiguity of the basis selection and achieve exact solvability . The price paid was the assumption that $`H_S`$ is conserved (a version of the quantum nondemolition assumption), i.e., $`[H_S,H]=[H_S,\mathrm{\Lambda }_S]=0`$. This makes the eigenbasis of $`H_S`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_S`$ the same, but precludes energy exchange, leaving only relaxation pathways that contribute to decoherence. Generally, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_S|\gamma =\lambda _\gamma |\gamma `$, where the Greek index labels the eigenstates of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_S`$; the Roman indices will be used for the energy, (4), and, capitalized, for the bath modes, (2,3).

The most widely used approximation has been the second-order perturbative expansion in the interaction, $`H_I`$. In the present work, we report a different scheme, valid for short times. It has several advantages, such as becoming exact in the adiabatic case, yielding several explicit results, and permitting derivation of higher-order approximations. We do assume that at $`t=0`$ the system and bath modes are not entangled. Our formulation also relies on that the Hamiltonians are all time-independent, and, therefore, applies to “idling” (possibly interacting) qubits. It is reasonable to assume that a lower limit on decoherence rate can be evaluated in such an idling state. The $`t=0`$ factorization assumption, shared by all the recent spin-decoherence studies, represents the expectation that control by short-duration but large externally applied potentials, will “reset” the qubits, disentangling them from the environment to which they are only weakly coupled. Thus, it is the qubit system that gets approximately reset and disentangled from the bath at $`t=0`$, rather than the bath is thermalized by the “rest of the universe,” as assumed in Markovian approximation schemes.

The overall density matrix is $`R(t)=e^{i(H_S+H_B+H_I)t}R(0)e^{i(H_S+H_B+H_I)t}`$. The following relation for the exponential factors will be used as our short-time approximation,

$$e^{i(H_S+H_B+H_I)t+O(t^3)}=e^{iH_St/2}e^{i(H_B+H_I)t}e^{iH_St/2}.$$
$`(6)`$
It becomes exact for the adiabatic-decoherence case. Furthermore, $`e^{\pm iHt}`$ are replaced by three consecutive time-evolution-type transformations on $`R(0)`$. Therefore, the approximate expression for $`R(t)`$ will have all the desired positivity properties. Extensions to higher-orders in powers of $`t`$ are possible: see  for various expressions valid to $`O(t^4)`$ and $`O(t^5)`$ in our nomenclature. In the resulting approximation to the matrix element,

$$\rho _{mn}(t)=\mathrm{Tr}_Bm|e^{iH_St/2}e^{i(H_B+H_I)t}e^{iH_St/2}R(0)e^{iH_St/2}e^{i(H_B+H_I)t}e^{iH_St/2}|n,$$
$`(7)`$
we insert the decomposition of the unit operator in the $`S`$ space in terms of the eigenbasis of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_S`$ before the second exponential, and in terms of the eigenbasis of $`H_S`$ after it, etc.,

$$\rho _{mn}(t)=\underset{\gamma pq\delta }{}\mathrm{Tr}_B[e^{iE_mt/2}m|\gamma \gamma |pe^{i(H_B+\lambda _\gamma P_B)t}e^{iE_pt/2}\rho _{pq}(0)$$

$$\times \left(\underset{K}{}\theta _K\right)e^{iE_qt/2}e^{i(H_B+\lambda _\delta P_B)t}q|\delta \delta |ne^{iE_nt/2}].$$
$`(8)`$
We use (1,2) to write

$$\rho _{mn}(t)=\underset{\gamma pq\delta }{}\{e^{i(E_q+E_nE_pE_m)t/2}m|\gamma \gamma |pq|\delta \delta |n\rho _{pq}(0)$$

$$\times \underset{K}{}\mathrm{Tr}_K\left[e^{i(M_K+\lambda _\gamma J_K)t}\theta _Ke^{i(M_K+\lambda _\delta J_K)t}\right]\}.$$
$`(9)`$
This expression actually allows rather straightforward calculations in typical quantum-computing applications which involve single or few two-state systems. The overlap brackets are between the eigenstates of $`H_S`$ (labeled by $`m`$, $`n`$, $`p`$ and $`q`$) and of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_S`$ (labeled by $`\gamma `$ and $`\delta `$). The traces are over the modes of $`B`$. Since these modes have identical structure, with $`K`$-dependent coupling constants, the calculation needs only be done once, in the space of one mode.

For the bosonic bath , see (3), with the thermal initial $`\theta _K=\left(1e^{\beta \omega _K}\right)e^{\beta \omega _Ka_K^{}a_K}`$, the product of traces in (9) is known ,

$$\rho _{mn}(t)=\underset{\gamma pq\delta }{}\{e^{i(E_q+E_nE_pE_m)t/2}m|\gamma \gamma |pq|\delta \delta |n\rho _{pq}(0)$$

$$\times \mathrm{exp}(\underset{K}{}\frac{|g_K|^2}{\omega _K^2}[2(\lambda _\gamma \lambda _\delta )^2\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\omega _Kt}{2}\mathrm{coth}\frac{\beta \omega _K}{2}+i(\lambda _\gamma ^2\lambda _\delta ^2)(\mathrm{sin}\omega _Kt\omega _Kt)])\}.$$
$`(10)`$
The last term in the exponent, linear in $`t`$, is the “renormalization” of the system energy levels due to its interaction with the bath modes. It could be removed by adding the term $`H_R=\mathrm{\Lambda }_S^2_K|g_K|^2/\omega _K`$ to the total Hamiltonian. The non-negative real spectral sums, $`B(t)`$ and $`C(t)`$,

$$B^2(t)=8\underset{K}{}\frac{|g_K|^2}{\omega _K^2}\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\omega _Kt}{2}\mathrm{coth}\frac{\beta \omega _K}{2},$$
$`(11)`$
$$C(t)=\underset{K}{}\frac{|g_K|^2}{\omega _K^2}\left(\omega _Kt\mathrm{sin}\omega _Kt\right),$$
$`(12)`$
when converted to integrals over the bath mode frequencies, with the cutoff at $`\omega _D`$, have been discussed extensively in the literature , for several choices of the bath mode density of states and coupling strength $`g`$ as functions of the mode frequency. In summary, we get the approximation

$$\rho _{mn}(t)=\underset{\gamma pq\delta }{}\{e^{i(E_q+E_nE_pE_m)t/2}m|\gamma \gamma |pq|\delta \delta |n\rho _{pq}(0)$$

$$\times \mathrm{exp}[\frac{1}{4}B^2(t)(\lambda _\gamma \lambda _\delta )^2+iC(t)(\lambda _\gamma ^2\lambda _\delta ^2)]\},$$
$`(13)`$
which is exact for all times in the adiabatic case , and has the properties of a density operator.

A basis-independent representation for $`\rho (t)`$ is obtained by using $`\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{exp}[B^2(\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda )^2/4]=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ye^{y^2}\mathrm{exp}[iyB(\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda )]`$. Exponential factors in (13) can then be reproduced by applying operators on the wavefunctions, and the sums carried out,

$$\sqrt{\pi }\rho =𝑑ye^{y^2}e^{iH_St/2}e^{i[yB(t)\mathrm{\Lambda }_S+C(t)\mathrm{\Lambda }_S^2]}e^{iH_St/2}\rho (0)e^{iH_St/2}e^{i[yB(t)\mathrm{\Lambda }_S+C(t)\mathrm{\Lambda }_S^2]}e^{iH_St/2}.$$
$`(14)`$
Decoherence is explicit in (14): if $`\rho (0)`$ is a projection operator $`|\psi _0\psi _0|`$ (a pure state), then $`\rho (t>0)`$ is obviously a mixture (integral over $`y`$) of projectors $`|\psi (y,t)\psi (y,t)|`$, where $`\psi (y,t)=e^{iH_St/2}e^{i[yB(t)\mathrm{\Lambda }_S+C(t)\mathrm{\Lambda }_S^2]}e^{iH_St/2}\psi _0`$.

As an application, let us consider the case of $`H_S`$ proportional to the Pauli matrix $`\sigma _z`$, e.g., spin-$`1/2`$ in magnetic field, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_S=\sigma _x`$, with the proportionality constant absorbed in the couplings $`g_K`$ in (3). We study the deviation of the state of a spin-$`1/2`$ qubit, initially in the energy eigenstate $`|`$ or $`|`$, from pure state, by calculating $`\mathrm{Tr}_S[\rho ^2(t)]`$. For a two-by-two density matrix, this trace can vary from 1 for pure quantum states to $`1/2`$ for maximally mixed states. With $`\rho (0)=||`$ or $`||`$,

$$\mathrm{Tr}_S[\rho ^2(t)]=\frac{1}{2}\left[1+e^{2B^2(t)}\right].$$
$`(15)`$
As the time increases, the function $`B^2(t)`$ grows monotonically from zero . For Ohmic dissipation, $`B^2(t)`$ increases quadratically for short times $`t<O(1/\omega _D)`$, then logarithmically for $`O(1/\omega _D)<t<O(\mathrm{}/kT)`$, and linearly for $`t>O(\mathrm{}/kT)`$. (For other bath models, it need not diverge to infinity at large times.) This calculation illustrates that the present approximation can yield reasonable results for short and even intermediate times.

In summary, we have derived short-time approximations, (13,14), for the density matrix or its energy-basis matrix elements, for the case of the bosonic heat bath with initially fully thermalized modes. Other baths can be studied by using (9).

The author acknowledges useful discussions with Professors Yurii Bychkov and Tsofar Maniv. This research was supported by the National Science Foundation, grants DMR-0121146 and ECS-0102500, and by the National Security Agency and Advanced Research and Development Activity under Army Research Office contract DAAD-19-99-1-0342.

References

1.  R.P. Feynman and A.R. Hibbs, Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals (McGraw-Hill, NY, 1965); G.W. Ford, M. Kac and P. Mazur, J. Math. Phys. 6, 504 (1965); A.O. Caldeira and A.J. Leggett, Phys. Rev. Lett. 46, 211 (1981), Physica 121A, 587 (1983); S. Chakravarty and A.J. Leggett, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 5 (1984). 2.  A.J. Leggett, S. Chakravarty, A.T. Dorsey, M.P.A. Fisher and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 59, 1 (1987). 3.  N.G. van Kampen, Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2001). 4.  W.H. Louisell, Quantum Statistical Properties of Radiation (Wiley, NY, 1973); K. Blum, Density Matrix Theory and Applications (Plenum, NY, 1996); A. Abragam, The Principles of Nuclear Magnetism (Clarendon Press, 1983). 5.  Review: H. Grabert, P. Schramm and G.-L. Ingold, Phys. Rep. 168, 115 (1988). 6.  N.G. van Kampen, J. Stat. Phys. 78, 299 (1995). 7.  D. Loss and D.P. DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. A57, 120 (1998). 8.  V. Privman, I.D. Vagner and G. Kventsel, Phys. Lett. A239, 141 (1998). 9.  B.E. Kane, Nature 393, 133 (1998); A. Imamoglu, D.D. Awschalom, G. Burkard, D.P. DiVincenzo, D. Loss, M. Sherwin and A. Small, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4204 (1999); R. Vrijen, E. Yablonovitch, K. Wang, H.W. Jiang, A. Balandin, V. Roychowdhury, T. Mor and D.P. DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. A62, 012306 (2000); S. Bandyopadhyay, Phys. Rev. B61, 13813 (2000). 10.  D. Mozyrsky, V. Privman and M.L. Glasser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5112 (2001). 11.  W.G. Unruh and W.H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D40, 1071 (1989); W.H. Zurek, S. Habib and J.P. Paz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1187 (1993); A.O. Caldeira and A.J. Leggett, Ann. Phys. 149, 374 (1983); L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, 1995). 12.  D. Mozyrsky and V. Privman, J. Stat. Phys. 91, 787 (1998). 13.  P.W. Shor, in Proc. 37th Annual Symp. Found. Comp. Sci., p. 56 (IEEE Comp. Sci. Soc. Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1996); D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, quant-ph/9611025, quant-ph/9906129; A. Steane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2252 (1997); E. Knill and R. Laflamme, Phys. Rev. A55, 900 (1997); D. Gottesman, Phys. Rev. A57, 127 (1998); J. Preskill, Proc. Royal Soc. London A454, 385 (1998). 14.  G.M. Palma, K.A. Suominen and A.K. Ekert, Proc. Royal Soc. London A452, 567 (1996). 15.  J. Shao, M.-L. Ge and H. Cheng, Phys. Rev. E53, 1243 (1996); I.S. Tupitsyn, N.V. Prokof’ev, P.C.E. Stamp, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B11, 2901 (1997). 16.  N.V. Prokof’ev and P.C.E. Stamp, Rep. Prog. Phys. 63, 669 (2000); J. Ankerhold and H. Grabert, Phys. Rev. E61, 3450 (2000); T. Maniv, Y.A. Bychkov, I.D. Vagner and P. Wyder, Phys. Rev. B64, 193306 (2001); A.M. Dyugaev, I.D. Vagner and P. Wyder, cond-mat/0005005; D. Mozyrsky, S. Kogan and G.P. Berman, cond-mat/0112135; A.V. Khaetskii, D. Loss and L. Glazman, cond-mat/0201303; I.A. Merkulov, A.L. Efros and M. Rosen, cond-mat/0202271; D. Mozyrsky, V. Privman and I.D. Vagner, Phys. Rev. B63, 085313 (2001). 17.  J. Zhang, Z. Lu, L. Shan and Z. Deng, quant-ph/0202146; E. Yablonovitch, private communication. 18.  A.T. Sornborger and E.D. Stewart, Phys. Rev. A60, 1956 (1999). 19.  Some models of quantum measurement evaluate decoherence by setting $`H_S=0`$. Our approximation then becomes exact: D. Mozyrsky and V. Privman, Mod. Phys. Lett. B14, 303 (2000); D. Braun, F. Haake, W.T. Strunz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 2913 (2001).


format: text

text:
# In: D. E. Wolf, P. Grassberger (Eds.) “Friction, Arching, Contact Dynamics” World Scientific (Singapore, 1997) p. 293-299 Contact of Viscoelastic Spheres

## Abstract

In a recent paper an implicit equation for contacting viscoelastic spheres was derived . Integrating this equation it can be shown that the coefficient of normal restitution $`ϵ`$ depends on the impact velocity $`g`$ as $`1ϵg^{\frac{1}{5}}`$

The behavior of granular gases has been of large scientific interest in recent time. Goldhirsch and Zanetti  and McNamara and Young  have shown that a homogeneous granular gas is unstable. After some time one observes dense regions (clusters) and voids. To evaluate the loss of mechanical energy due to collisions one introduces the coefficient of (normal) restitution

$$g^{}=ϵg$$
(1)
describing the loss of relative normal velocity $`g^{}`$ of a pair of colliding particles after the collision with respect to the impact velocity $`g`$

In the investigations  the approximation of constant coefficient of restitution was assumed. Solving viscoelastic equations for spheres currently it was shown that the coefficient of normal restitution $`ϵ`$ is not a constant but a function of the impact velocity $`ϵ\left(g\right)`$ itself . For the “compression” $`\xi =R_1+R_2\left|\stackrel{}{r}_1\stackrel{}{r}_2\right|`$ of particles with radii $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ at positions $`\stackrel{}{r}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{r}_2`$ one finds

$$\ddot{\xi }+\rho \left(\xi ^{3/2}+\frac{3}{2}A\sqrt{\xi }\dot{\xi }\right)=0$$
(2)
$$\rho =\frac{2Y\sqrt{R_{\text{eff}}}}{3m_{\text{eff}}\left(1\nu ^2\right)}$$
(3)
$`m_{\text{eff}}={\displaystyle \frac{m_1m_2}{m_1+m_2}}R_{\text{eff}}={\displaystyle \frac{R_1R_2}{R_1+R_2}}`$ (4)
$`Y`$ is the Young modulus and $`m_{\text{eff}}`$ and $`R_{\text{eff}}`$ are the effective radius and mass of the grains, respectively. $`A`$ is a material constant depending on the Young modulus, the viscous constants and the Poisson ratio of the material. The initial conditions for solving (2) are $`\xi (0)=0`$ and $`\dot{\xi }(0)=g`$. The coefficient of restitution $`ϵ`$ of at time $`t=0`$ colliding spherical grains can be found from this equation relating the relative normal velocities $`g=\dot{\xi }(0)`$ at time of impact and at time $`t_c`$, when the particles separate after the collision, i.e. $`t_c`$ is the collision time:

$$ϵ=\dot{\xi }\left(t_c\right)/\dot{\xi }\left(0\right).$$
(5)
The (numerical) integration of equation (5) yields the coefficient of restitution as a function of the impact velocity (see fig. 1 in ref. ) which is in good agreement with experimental data. Constant coefficient of restitution, however, does not agree with experimental experience . Other theoretical work on this topic can be found e.g. in .

The duration of collision $`t_c^0`$ for the undamped problem ($`A=0`$) is given by

$$t_c^0=\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0}{\rho ^{\frac{2}{5}}g^{\frac{1}{5}}},$$
(6)
with $`\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0`$ being a constant. Substituting $`\xi =\rho ^2x(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ we get for the rescaled velocity $`v=\rho ^2g`$, and with (6) one finds $`t=\mathrm{\Theta }v^{\frac{1}{5}}`$. We rewrite (2) using rescaled compression, relative velocity and time $`x,v`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and the abbreviation $`\alpha =\frac{3}{2}A`$

$$\ddot{x}+\alpha v^{\frac{1}{5}}\dot{x}\sqrt{x}+v^{\frac{2}{5}}x^{\frac{3}{2}}=0$$
(7)
with $`\dot{x}=\frac{d}{d\mathrm{\Theta }}x`$. The initial conditions read now

$`x(0)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{dt}}(0)`$ $`=`$ $`v^{\frac{1}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{d\mathrm{\Theta }}}(0)=v,\text{hence}\dot{x}(0)=v^{\frac{4}{5}}.`$ (9)
Eq. (7) will be solved now by series expansion. All derivatives of third order and higher of $`x`$ diverge at $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$, hence one cannot expand $`x`$ in powers of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. Since $`\xi `$ can be written in the form $`\xi (t)=gty(t)`$, the Ansatz

$$x(\mathrm{\Theta })=v^{\frac{4}{5}}\mathrm{\Theta }(1+\eta (\mathrm{\Theta }))\text{with }\eta (0)=0$$
(10)
seems to be a reasonable assumption. We get an equation for $`\eta `$ :

$$\mathrm{\Theta }\ddot{\eta }+2\dot{\eta }+\alpha v^{\frac{1}{5}}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\frac{3}{2}}\dot{\eta }\sqrt{1+\eta }+\left(\alpha v^{\frac{1}{5}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Theta }}+\mathrm{\Theta }^{\frac{3}{2}}\right)(1+\eta )^{\frac{3}{2}}=0.$$
(11)
In (11) occur terms $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{0.5}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{1.5}`$, therefore we expand $`\eta `$ in powers of $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$

$$\eta =\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_k\mathrm{\Theta }^{\frac{k}{2}}$$
(12)
The first coefficients $`a_0=0`$ and $`a_1=0`$ vanish because of the initial conditions. With Taylor expansion of $`\sqrt{1+\eta }`$ and $`(1+\eta )^{\frac{3}{2}}`$ for small $`\eta `$ we arrive at

$$\eta =\frac{4}{15}\alpha v^{\frac{1}{5}}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\frac{3}{2}}\frac{4}{35}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\frac{5}{2}}+\frac{3}{70}\alpha v^{\frac{1}{5}}\mathrm{\Theta }^4+\frac{1}{15}\alpha ^2v^{\frac{2}{5}}\mathrm{\Theta }^3\mathrm{}$$
(13)
and therefore

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`v^{\frac{4}{5}}\mathrm{\Theta }{\displaystyle \frac{4}{15}}\alpha v\mathrm{\Theta }^{\frac{5}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{35}}v^{\frac{4}{5}}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\frac{7}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{15}}\alpha ^2v^{\frac{6}{5}}\mathrm{\Theta }^4`$ (15)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{70}}\alpha v\mathrm{\Theta }^5{\displaystyle \frac{38}{2475}}\alpha ^3v^{\frac{7}{5}}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\frac{11}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{175}}v^{\frac{4}{5}}\mathrm{\Theta }^6+\mathrm{}`$
Rearranging the full series (15) one finds (s. fig. 1)

$$x=v^{\frac{4}{5}}x_0(\mathrm{\Theta })+\alpha vx_1(\mathrm{\Theta })+\alpha ^2v^{\frac{6}{5}}x_2(\mathrm{\Theta })\mathrm{}$$
(16)
$`v^{\frac{4}{5}}x_0`$ is the solution of the undamped (elastic) collision. We will need $`x\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0\right)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0`$ is the duration of the undamped collision.

Later we will need the solution $`x^{inv}`$ of the inverse problem, i.e. of a collision with impact velocity $`v^{}`$ and final velocity $`v`$. Hence the inverse collision is not a damped motion, but an accelerated one, where $`\alpha `$ has to be replaced by $`\alpha `$. Substituting $`vv^{}`$ and $`\alpha \alpha `$ we find

$$x^{inv}(\mathrm{\Theta }^{})=(v^{})^{\frac{4}{5}}x_0(\mathrm{\Theta }^{})\alpha v^{}x_1(\mathrm{\Theta }^{})+\alpha ^2(v^{})^{\frac{6}{5}}x_2(\mathrm{\Theta }^{})\mathrm{}$$
(17)
Now we determine the collision time $`\mathrm{\Theta }_c`$ and the final velocity $`\frac{d}{dt}x\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_c\right)`$. (A more direct method to calculate $`\mathrm{\Theta }_c`$ is to determine the solution of $`x(\mathrm{\Theta })=0`$ using Taylor expansion of $`x`$ in the region close to $`\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0`$. It can be seen easily that this method fails since, all derivatives of $`\frac{^nx}{\mathrm{\Theta }^n}`$ with $`n3`$ diverge for $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0`$. Therefore $`\mathrm{\Theta }_c`$ has to be calculated indirectly as explained in the text (s. fig. 1).)

The problem will be subdivided into two parts (s. fig. 2): a) the motion of the particles $`x`$ from $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$ to time $`\mathrm{\Theta }_m`$ when $`x`$ approaches its maximum and where $`\dot{x}`$ changes its sign, and b) from $`\mathrm{\Theta }_m`$ to $`\mathrm{\Theta }_c`$. In case of undamped motion where $`\alpha =0`$ we have $`\mathrm{\Theta }_m=\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0/2`$. In part b) we do not consider the collision itself but the inverse problem in the interval $`(\mathrm{\Theta }=0,\mathrm{\Theta }_m^{})`$, with $`\mathrm{\Theta }_m^{}`$ being the time where $`x^{inv}`$ approaches its maximum. The continuity of both parts means

$$x\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_m\right)=x^{inv}\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_m^{}\right).$$
(18)
For finite damping $`\alpha 0`$ we write $`\mathrm{\Theta }_m=\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0/2+\delta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_m^{}=\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0\right)^{}/2+\delta ^{}`$ and remind that $`\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0=\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0\right)^{}`$ . To get an expression for $`\delta `$ we expand

$`\dot{x}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0}{2}}+\delta \right)=0`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{x}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0}{2}}\right)+\delta \ddot{x}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0}{2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3}{d\mathrm{\Theta }^3}}x\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0}{2}}\right)+\mathrm{}`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`v^{\frac{4}{5}}\left(\dot{x}_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0}{2}}\right)+\delta \ddot{x}_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0}{2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3}{d\mathrm{\Theta }^3}}x_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0}{2}}\right)+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (21)
$`+v\alpha \left(\dot{x}_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0}{2}}\right)+\delta \ddot{x}_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0}{2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3}{d\mathrm{\Theta }^3}}x_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0}{2}}\right)+\mathrm{}\right)`$
and using $`\dot{x}_0\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0/2\right)=0`$ ($`v^{\frac{4}{5}}x_0`$ is the solution of the undamped problem)

$$\delta =\alpha v^{\frac{1}{5}}\frac{\dot{x}_1\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0/2\right)}{\ddot{x}_0\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0/2\right)}+𝒪\left(\alpha ^2\right).$$
(23)
The expression (23) has to be inserted into the Taylor expansion of $`x\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0/2+\delta \right)`$:

$`x\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0/2+\delta \right)`$ $`=`$ $`v^{\frac{4}{5}}\left(x_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0}{2}}\right)+\delta \dot{x}_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0}{2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{2}}\ddot{x}_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0}{2}}\right)+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (27)
$`+\alpha v\left(x_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0}{2}}\right)+\delta \dot{x}_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0}{2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{2}}\ddot{x}_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0}{2}}\right)+\mathrm{}\right)`$
$`=v^{\frac{4}{5}}x_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0}{2}}\right)+\alpha vx_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2v^{\frac{6}{5}}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{x}_1^2\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0/2\right)}{\ddot{x}_0\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0/2\right)}}`$
$`+\alpha ^2v^{\frac{6}{5}}x_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0}{2}}\right)+𝒪\left(\alpha ^3\right).`$
Hence

$`x\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_m\right)`$ $`=`$ $`v^{\frac{4}{5}}x_0\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0/2\right)+\alpha vx_1\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0/2\right)+`$ (29)
$`\alpha ^2v^{\frac{6}{5}}\left(x_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{x}_1^2\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0/2\right)}{\ddot{x}_0\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0/2\right)}}\right)+\mathrm{}`$
Replacing again $`vv^{}`$ and $`\alpha \alpha `$ yields

$`\delta ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha (v^{})^{\frac{1}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{x}_1\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0/2\right)}{\ddot{x}_0\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0/2\right)}}+𝒪\left(\alpha ^2\right)`$ (30)
$`x^{inv}\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_m^{}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`(v^{})^{\frac{4}{5}}x_0\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0/2\right)\alpha v^{}x_1\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0/2\right)+`$ (32)
$`\alpha ^2(v^{})^{\frac{6}{5}}\left(x_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{x}_1^2\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0/2\right)}{\ddot{x}_0\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0/2\right)}}\right)+\mathrm{}`$
As explained above both solutions (29) and (32) have to be equal. With

$$\beta =x_2\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0}{2}\right)\frac{1}{2}\frac{\dot{x}_1^2\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0/2\right)}{\ddot{x}_0\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0/2\right)}$$
(33)
we write

$`v^{\frac{4}{5}}x_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_0^c}{2}}\right)+\alpha vx_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_0^c}{2}}\right)+\alpha ^2v^{\frac{6}{5}}\beta `$ $`=`$ $`(v^{})^{\frac{4}{5}}x_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_0^c}{2}}\right)\alpha v^{}x_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_0^c}{2}}\right)`$ (35)
$`+\alpha ^2(v^{})^{\frac{6}{5}}\beta .`$
We expand $`v^{}`$ in $`\alpha `$

$$v^{}=v+\alpha v_1+\alpha ^2v_2+\mathrm{},$$
(36)
and find

$`v^{\frac{4}{5}}x_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_0^c}{2}}\right)+\alpha vx_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_0^c}{2}}\right)+\alpha ^2v^{\frac{6}{5}}\beta `$ (37)
$`=`$ $`v^{\frac{4}{5}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta v}{v}}\right)^{\frac{4}{5}}x_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_0^c}{2}}\right)\alpha v\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta v}{v}}\right)x_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_0^c}{2}}\right)+\alpha ^2v^{\frac{6}{5}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta v}{v}}\right)^{\frac{6}{5}}\beta `$ (38)
with $`\delta v=\alpha v_1+\alpha ^2v_2+\mathrm{}`$. Writing $`(1+\frac{\delta v}{v})^{\frac{n}{5}}`$ in powers of $`\alpha `$ and comparing coefficients yields finally

$`v^{}`$ $`=`$ $`v\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}\alpha v^{\frac{1}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_1\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0}{2}\right)}{x_0\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0}{2}\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{4}}\alpha ^2v^{\frac{2}{5}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_1\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0}{2}\right)}{x_0\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0}{2}\right)}}\right)^2+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`v\left(1\alpha v^{\frac{1}{5}}C_1+\alpha ^2v^{\frac{2}{5}}C_2+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (40)
and for coefficient of normal restitution one gets

$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v^{}}{v}}=1\alpha v^{\frac{1}{5}}C_1+\alpha ^2v^{\frac{2}{5}}C_2+\mathrm{}`$ (41)
$`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}C_1A\rho ^{\frac{2}{5}}g^{\frac{1}{5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}C_2A^2\rho ^{\frac{4}{5}}g^{\frac{2}{5}}+\mathrm{}`$ (42)
with $`g`$ being the impact velocity (fig 3). For the duration of collision we find with (23), (32) and (39)

$$t_c=\mathrm{\Theta }_c^0\rho ^{\frac{2}{5}}g{}_{}{}^{\frac{1}{5}}(1+\frac{1}{10}C_1\alpha \rho ^{\frac{2}{5}}g^{\frac{1}{5}})+𝒪(\alpha ^2).$$
(43)
Our final results eq. (42) shows that for viscoelastic colliding smooth bodies the coefficient of normal restitution is a decreasing function with rising impact velocity: $`1ϵg^{\frac{1}{5}}`$.

The authors are grateful to N. Brilliantov, S. Esipov, H. Herrmann, F. Spahn and W. Young for helpful discussions, and J.-M. Hertzsch for providing relevant literature.


text:
# (Quasi)elastic electron–muon large-angle scattering to a two-loop approximation: vertex contributions 11footnote 1supported in part by RFBR 01-02-17437.

## 1 Introduction

Certain interest to the physics envisaged at electron-muon colliders is now surging up. The main attention will be paid to the investigation of rare processes, for instance to those which violate the lepton number conservation law. Another motivation is a test of the models alternative to the SM . The problems of calibration and precise determination of luminosity will be important. To this end the process of quasi-elastic electron-muon scattering could be used.

Processes of quasi-elastic and inelastic large-angle $`e\mu `$ scattering (EMS) play an important role in the luminosity calibration at electron-positron colliders. Indeed they have a clear signature: scattered leptons moving almost back-to-back (in the center-of-mass (cms) reference frame) and sufficiently large cross section ($`\theta `$\- cms scattering angle ),

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\sigma _0(\theta )}{\text{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_e}}{\displaystyle \frac{200\text{nb}}{s(\text{GeV}^2)}},cos\theta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}.`$ (1)
The modern experimental requirements to the theoretical accuracy are at the level of per mille or even less whereby demanding for a detailed knowledge of the nonleading terms in two-loop approximation. Some of them have been recently calculated in a series of papers  devoted to the study of large-angle Bhabha scattering. The contribution of elastic genuine two-loop virtual correction to the Bhabha amplitude has been recently performed  using the prescription developed in  how to handle singular terms in QCD at two-loop level.

In this paper we consider the EMS process to a two-loop approximation. We are interested in the contribution to the cross section at this level which is given by the interference of Born amplitude and those that take into account the two-loop virtual corrections to the former. An attempt to this problem was done in a series of papers  where a direct calculation was performed, but unfortunately their result is incorrect even in the part containing infrared (IR) divergence. Another set of papers (see for example ) was devoted to the calculation of two-loop Feynman amplitudes within a dimensional regularization scheme. Once again their results cannot be straightforwardly applied to the real amplitudes of $`e\mu `$ large-angle scattering. One of the reasons is the requirement of distinguishing different masses of interacting particles.

Here we will consider only virtual and real soft photon contributions to the cross section of $`e\mu `$ scattering. To a third order of PT there exist three sets of contributions, each of which is free of IR singularities. They include the contribution coming from the one-loop virtual photon emission corrections (see Fig. 1) and the one given by a soft photon emission (see Fig.3a).

To a fourth order there in overall are four IR-free sets. One of them, dubbed vertex, contains virtual corrections up to a second order of PT to the lepton vertex function and relevant inelastic processes with emission and absorption of real soft photons and lepton pairs by initial and scattered electron (and the same for muons). We use here the known expression for the lepton vertex function up to a fourth order of PT . These along with the contribution coming from the emission of two real soft photons and soft charged lepton pair is our primary concern in the present paper. As well we consider a contribution to the vacuum polarization caused by hadrons and a soft real pion pair production.

Three additional gauge invariant contributions are described by the one photon exchange containing lepton vertex functions with account for the vacuum polarization (VP) and box-type FD with a self-energy insertion into the one of the exchange photons’ Green function. They are put aside for a separate consideration.

Quasielastic means a process with emission of final particles in a center-of-mass (cms) reference frame almost back-to-back. Final particle’s energies up to a small value $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon \epsilon `$ coincide with those of initial particles. This disbalance is due to a possible emission of soft photons and pairs.

We start by giving the results for the Born differential cross section and first order corrections. The latter contains radiative corrections (RC) due to emission of virtual photons at one-loop level and emission of an additional soft photon. Those contributions suffer from IR divergence that mutually cancel out upon summing them up.

An outcome of the calculations agrees with the renormalization group (RG) prediction in the leading logarithmic approximation (LLA):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\rho _t1,{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}1,\rho _t=\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{t}{m_em_\mu }},`$
$`\text{d}\sigma ={\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\sigma _0}{|1\mathrm{\Pi }(t)|^2}}𝒟_\mathrm{\Delta }^4,`$ (2)
with $`𝒟_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-part of non-singlet structure function of lepton

$`𝒟_\mathrm{\Delta }=1+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}\rho _t\right)^nP_{n\mathrm{\Delta }},`$ (3)
$`P_{1\mathrm{\Delta }}=2\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},`$ $`P_{2\mathrm{\Delta }}=\left(2\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right)^24\zeta _2,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon }{\epsilon }}1,`$ $`\zeta _2={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}},`$
where $`\rho _t`$ is a so-called large logarithm, $`t`$ is the kinematical invariant and $`m_e,m_\mu `$ — masses of the leptons.

Besides we put the explicit form for the nonleading terms and present the result of lowest order RC calculation to a power accuracy,

$$1+𝒪\left(\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\frac{m^2}{s}\rho _t\right).$$
(4)
Our calculation of a second order contribution is done in the logarithmic approximation. We keep all the logarithmically enhanced terms including those containing logarithms of a mass ratio, and omit the terms of order $`𝒪(1)`$.

Doing RC in the fourth order of PT we consider three separate gauge-invariant contributions. We label them vertex contributions, decorated boxes and eikonal types. The last two take into account the amplitudes with exchange between electron and muon enhanced by additional one or two virtual (or real soft) photons as well as virtual (real soft) pair. Their contributions will be given elsewhere.

The first set of Feynman diagrams (FD) is that of the vertex type with RC to a second order (Fig. 2). It produces a contribution containing fourth power large logarithms along with the IR divergent terms. Combining these with additional contributions coming from the emission and absorption of one and two soft photons by either of the lepton lines results in the cancellation of fourth and third power of large logarithms as well as all of IR divergent terms. The result is found to be in agreement with RG predictions.

Our paper is organized as follows. After some introductory remarks we start with discussing a first order contribution to the cross section of the process in Sec. 2. In Sec. 3.1 RC coming from the vertex diagrams to a $`\alpha ^4`$ order of PT are considered. Section 3.2 is devoted to the study of the vacuum polarization effects including hadronic contribution to the vertex FD. In Sec. 3 we give the contribution due to the emission of one and two soft photons as well as a soft pair for the cases of emitted (absorbed) leptons with equal and different masses. In conclusion we summarize and recapitulate the results obtained.

## 2 Born cross section and lowest order RC

Let’s remind that here we are concerned with large-angle high-energy $`e\mu `$ scattering,

$`e^{}(p_1)+\mu ^{}(p_2)`$ $``$ $`e^{}(p_1^{})+\mu ^{}(p_2^{}),`$ (5)
$`p_1^2=p_1^{}_{}{}^{}2=m_e^2,`$ $`p_2^2=p_2^{}_{}{}^{}2=m_\mu ^2,`$
with the kinematical invariants $`s,t,u`$ much larger than the lepton mass squared,

$$s=(p_1+p_2)^2,t=(p_1p_1^{})^2=\frac{s}{2}(1c),u=(p_1p_2^{})^2=\frac{s}{2}(1+c),$$

where $`c=\mathrm{cos}(\widehat{𝒑_1,𝒑_1^{}})`$ is a cosine of the scatter angle in cms (in what follows this reference frame is implied). The differential cross section in the Born approximation has a form,

$`\text{d}\sigma _0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8s}}B\text{d}\mathrm{\Gamma },B={\displaystyle |M_0|^2}=8(4\pi \alpha )^2{\displaystyle \frac{s^2+u^2}{t^2}},`$ (6)
$`\text{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^3p_1^{^{}}}{2\epsilon _1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^3p_2^{^{}}}{2\epsilon _2}}\delta ^4(p_1+p_2p_1^{^{}}p_2^{^{}})={\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_e}{8(2\pi )^2}}.`$
And then we can write,

$$\frac{\text{d}\sigma _0}{\text{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_e}=\frac{\alpha ^2}{2s}\frac{s^2+u^2}{t^2}\left\{1+𝒪\left(\frac{m_\mu ^2}{s}\right)\right\}.$$

The lowest order RC comes from the emission of virtual (one-loop correction) and real photons. The one-loop RC is classified out into the three distinct sets. One of them is related with a vacuum polarization insertion into the propagator of a photon exchanged between leptons. It could be taken into account as follows,

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\sigma }{\text{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_e}}\right)_{vp}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\sigma _0}{\text{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_e}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|1\mathrm{\Pi }(t)|^2}},`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{3\pi }}\left(l_t{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{3\pi }}\left(L_t{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}\right)+\delta _{had}(t)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{4\pi ^2}}(l_t+L_t)+\mathrm{},`$
$`\delta _{had}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{3\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{4m_\pi ^2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}M^2}{M^2}}(M^2){\displaystyle \frac{t}{tM^2}},l_t=\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{t}{m_e^2}}=\rho _t+L,`$
$`L_t`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{t}{m_\mu ^2}}=\rho _tL,L=\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{m_e}}.`$
In the above the quantity $`M^2`$ denotes a square of hadron invariant mass in a process $`e\overline{e}h`$,

$`(M^2)={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{e\overline{e}h}(M^2)}{\sigma _{e\overline{e}\mu \overline{\mu }}}},`$ (8)
is the known ratio of the single-photon annihilation cross sections with hadron and muon pairs produced.

Another set of one-loop RC contains vertex function (we remind that only the Dirac form factor of the vertex function works within power accuracy quoted in Eq. (4)):

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\sigma }{\text{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_e}}\right)_v`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\sigma _0}{\text{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_e}}[V_e(l_t)V_\mu (L_t)]^2,`$ (9)
with lowest order Dirac form factors of leptons (see ):

$`V_e(l_t)`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}f_1^{(2)}(l_t)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{\pi ^2}}f_1^{(4)}(l_t)+\mathrm{},V_\mu (L_t)=V_e(l_tL_t),`$ (10)
$`f_1^{(2)}(l_t)`$ $`=`$ $`l_\lambda (1l_t)1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}l_t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}l_t^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\zeta _2,l_\lambda =\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_e}{\lambda }}.`$
Here $`\lambda `$ is a fictitious photon mass. It’s convenient to present $`f_1^{(4)}(l_t)`$ as a sum of two ingredients

$`f_1^{(4)}=f^{\gamma \gamma }+f^{vp},`$ (11)
one of which $`f^{vp}`$ contains QED vacuum polarization effects (it will be specified in section 3.2) and the second term,

$`f^{\gamma \gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}l_t^4{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}l_t^3+\left({\displaystyle \frac{17}{32}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\zeta _2\right)l_t^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{21}{32}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\zeta _2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\zeta _3\right)l_t`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}l_\lambda ^2(l_t1)^2l_\lambda (l_t1)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}l_t^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}l_t1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\zeta _2\right)+𝒪(1),\zeta _31.2020569.`$
A contribution due to the Pauli form factor is neglected for it is proportional to a lepton mass squared. Remaining one-loop RC is associated with the interference of the Born amplitude with those containing two virtual photons exchanged between lepton lines.

A real photon emission could as usual be distinguished into a soft ($`\omega <\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon \epsilon `$) and a hard ($`\omega >\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon `$) regions regarding photon energy. For the quasireal case only a soft region is of relevance:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\sigma _{soft}}{\text{d}\sigma _0}}={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \alpha }{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^3𝒌}{2\omega }R^2(k)},\omega =\sqrt{k^2+\lambda ^2}<\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon ,`$ (13)
$`R(k)=Q_k^{p_1p_1^{}}+Q_k^{p_2p_2^{}},Q_k^{pp^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{p^{}}{p^{}k}}{\displaystyle \frac{p}{pk}}.`$
Let’s put some useful formulæ for the description of a soft photon emission. We imply the cms reference frame of initial particles, which means that the values of 3-momenta of any particles (we consider $`e\mu `$ elastic scattering) are equal.

First we give the expression for a single soft photon emission referred to

$`\delta _{11^{}}^S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^3𝒌}{\omega }}({\displaystyle \frac{p_1^{}}{p_1^{}k}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1}{p_1k}})^2|_{\omega <\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon }`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha }{\pi }}\left[(l_t1)\left(\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }+l_\lambda \right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}l_t^2\zeta _2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+c}{2}}\right)\right],`$
with a dilogarithm function

$`\text{Li}_2(z)={\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{z}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}x}{x}}\mathrm{ln}(1x).`$
By a proper squaring of this formula one can easily derive the quantity $`\delta _{11^{}}^{SS}`$ (see formulae (21) and (22)).

The IR free contributions to lowest order RC from two sets containing Dirac form factors of the leptons along with the relevant contribution coming from a soft photon emission could be cast into the following form, which is in agreement with a structure function approach,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\sigma ^{(1)}}{\text{d}\sigma _0}}`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\left[\delta _{11^{^{}}}^S+2f_1^{(2)}(l_t)+\delta _{22^{^{}}}^S+2f_1^{(2)}(L_t)\right]=`$
$`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\left[2(\rho _t1)\left(2\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right)2\zeta _21+2\text{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+c}{2}}\right)\right].`$
After accounting for a soft photon contribution $`\delta _{12^{^{}}}^S,\delta _{21^{^{}}}^S`$ as well as interference of the Born and box-type FD we obtain (details of lowest order box FD contribution can be found in ):

$`\text{d}\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`\text{d}\sigma _0\left\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|1\mathrm{\Pi }(t)|^2}}\left[\rho _t(4\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }+3)4\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }42\zeta _2+2\text{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+c}{2}}\right)\right]+K\right\},`$
$`K`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\{L_{us}(4\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }+L_{st}+L_{ut})+2\text{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1c}{2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{s^2+u^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{u}{t}}L_{st}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{t}}L_{ut}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{su}{2t}}(6\zeta _2+L_{st}^2+L_{ut}^2)]\},`$
$$L_{st}=\mathrm{ln}\frac{s}{t},L_{ut}=\mathrm{ln}\frac{u}{t},L_{us}=\mathrm{ln}\frac{u}{s}.$$

The factor $`K`$ represents a sum of elastic Born-box amplitudes and corresponding inelastic contributions. The expression for the cross section given above is in agreement with predictions expected from RG considerations.

The LLA expression for the EMS cross section can be brought to the form of a Drell-Yan-like process  written in terms of structure functions:

$`\text{d}\sigma ={\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\sigma _0}{|1\mathrm{\Pi }(t)|^2}}\left[𝒟_\mathrm{\Delta }\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (t)}{2\pi }}l_t\right)\right]^2\left[𝒟_\mathrm{\Delta }\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (t)}{2\pi }}L_t\right)\right]^2,`$ (17)
with the non-singlet structure functions $`𝒟_\mathrm{\Delta }`$,

$`𝒟_\mathrm{\Delta }(z)=1+zP_{1\mathrm{\Delta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}z^2P_{2\mathrm{\Delta }}+\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}z^nP_{n\mathrm{\Delta }}+\mathrm{}`$ (18)
Here $`P_{n\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is the nth iteration $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-part of the kernel of evolution equations:

$`P_n(y)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }0}{lim}[P_{n\mathrm{\Delta }}\delta (1y)+\mathrm{\Theta }(1y\mathrm{\Delta })P_{n\theta }]={\displaystyle \underset{y}{\overset{1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}x}{x}}P_1(x)P_{n1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{y}{x}}\right),n2,`$
$`P_{1\theta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+y^2}{1y}},P_{2\theta }={\displaystyle \frac{1+y^2}{1y}}\left[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{(1y)^2}{y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+y)\mathrm{ln}y(1y).`$ (19)
Explicit expressions for $`P_{1\mathrm{\Delta }},P_{2\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ are given above in (1). Parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }1)`$ can be interpreted as energy fraction carried by soft real photons and pairs escaping detectors. $`\alpha (t)`$ is the running QED coupling constant $`\alpha (t)=\alpha /(1\frac{\alpha }{3\pi }t).`$

## 3  Second order RC

These can be represented as a sum of several sets each of which depending on a choice of gauge with respect to virtual as well as real photons. We consider FD describing elastic scattering with vacuum polarization effects included and furthermore with account for a soft pair production. They are related with the one photon exchange FD both for elastic and quasi-elastic processes and could be specified by the emission of two more (either virtual or real) photons out of the same lepton lines.

A keystone to this classification is a soft photon radiator cross section. In case of only one soft photon emitted it gets the form,

$`\text{d}\sigma _{soft}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8s}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_e}{8(2\pi )^5}}(\delta {\displaystyle |M|^2})_{soft}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^3𝒌}{2\omega }}|_{\frac{2\omega }{\sqrt{s}}<\mathrm{\Delta }},`$ (20)
$`(\delta {\displaystyle |M|^2})_{soft}=2\mathrm{}e{\displaystyle M_0^{}M^{(1)}(4\pi \alpha )R^2(k)}.`$
For the two soft photon emission (for instance by electron block) we have ,

$`\text{d}\sigma _{ss}=\text{d}\sigma _0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}\left(4\pi \alpha \right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^3𝒌_1}{2\omega _1(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^3𝒌_2}{2\omega _2(2\pi )^3}}(Q_{k_1}^{p_1p_1^{^{}}})^2(Q_{k_2}^{p_2p_2^{^{}}})^2|_{\frac{2\omega _1}{\sqrt{s}}+\frac{2\omega _2}{\sqrt{s}}<\mathrm{\Delta }}.`$ (21)
For the case of emission of two soft photons provided that their total energy does not exceed $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon \epsilon `$ we have,

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^3𝒌_1}{\omega _1}\frac{p_ip_j}{p_ik_1p_jk_1}\frac{\text{d}^3𝒌_2}{\omega _2}\frac{p_lp_m}{p_lk_2p_mk_2}}\right]|_{\omega _1+\omega _2<\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon }=(a_1\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }+b_1)(a_2\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }+b_2)a_1a_2\zeta _2.`$ (22)
In the above the following integrals are defined,

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^3𝒌_1}{\omega _1}\frac{p_ip_j}{p_ik_1p_jk_1}}\right]|_{\omega _1<\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon }=a_1\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }+b_1,`$
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^3𝒌_2}{\omega _2}\frac{p_lp_m}{p_lk_2p_mk_2}}\right]|_{\omega _2<\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon }=a_2\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }+b_2.`$
The general structure of all the above contributions to the differential cross section reveals a presence of large logarithms up to a fourth power. However in overall sum one observes only their second powers. Such a cancellation is characteristic of each gauge invariant set of corrections.

### 3.1 Vertex graphs

Three gauge invariant groups of FD containing one photon exchange contribute

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\sigma ^v}{\text{d}\sigma _0}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{\pi ^2}}[a_1+\stackrel{~}{a}_1+a_2].`$ (23)
The quantity $`\stackrel{~}{a}_1`$ is related with the emission of two (virtual and real) photons out of a muon line: $`\stackrel{~}{a}_1=a_1(l_tL_t)`$.

Using results given in Eq. (2) for the electron Dirac form factor up to a fourth order of PT 222We exclude a contribution due to the vacuum polarization, which will be taken into account in what follows., the following IR singularities free contributions to the matrix element squared from one photon exchange amplitudes could be constructed,

$`a_1`$ $`=`$ $`(f_1^{(2)})^2+2f^{\gamma \gamma }+2f_1^{(2)}\delta _{11^{}}^S+\delta _{11^{}}^{SS},`$ (24)
$`a_2`$ $`=`$ $`4f_1^{(2)}\stackrel{~}{f}_1^{(2)}+2[f_1^{(2)}\delta _{22^{}}^S+\stackrel{~}{f}_1^{(2)}\delta _{11^{}}^S]+\delta _{11^{}}^S\delta _{22^{}}^S,`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{f}_1^{(2)}`$ corresponds to a muon form factor identical to an electron one with electron mass replaced by that of a muon. The quantities $`\delta _{ij}^S`$ and $`\delta _{ij}^{SS}`$ correspond to the emission of one and two soft real photons (their energy are restricted by condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _1+\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _2<ϵ`$) off fermion lines $`i,j`$. The corresponding expression is given in Eq. (14). One should take note of the factor $`1/2!`$ in front of the latter quantities that is due to the identity of the soft photons emitted.

The relevant contribution to the differential cross section in logarithmic approximation then appears to be,

$`a_1+\stackrel{~}{a}_1`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _t^2P_{2\mathrm{\Delta }}+\rho _t\left[{\displaystyle \frac{45}{8}}+Y+2\zeta _2+6\zeta _3\right]+𝒪(1),`$ (25)
$`a_2`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _t^2P_{2\mathrm{\Delta }}+\rho _t\left[6+Y+5\zeta _2\right]+𝒪(1),`$
$`Y`$ $`=`$ $`2P_{1\mathrm{\Delta }}\text{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+c}{2}}\right)(4\zeta _2+14)\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }8\mathrm{ln}^2\mathrm{\Delta },`$
quantities $`P_{1,2\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ are defined in (1). This result is in agreement with RG form of large-angle cross section.

### 3.2 Hadronic vacuum polarization

We study vacuum polarization effects occurring while considering vertex FD (see Fig. 2b,c). To this end, the known expression for hadronic vacuum contribution to the photon Green function is used by doing the following substitution,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{3\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{4m_\pi ^2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}M^2}{M^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(M^2)}{k^2M^2}},`$ (26)
where $`k`$ is the four-momentum of the virtual photon, $`M^2`$ is a hadron invariant mass squared and the ratio $`(M^2)`$ is given in Eq. (8).

In the next order of PT we must consider the three gauge invariant classes of FD for elastic and quasi-elastic processes with a soft photon and a soft pion pair production. At first the vertex class is examined. They could be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\sigma }{\text{d}\sigma _0}}=1+(\delta _s+\delta _v)^{hadr},`$ $`\delta _v^{hadr}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{6\pi ^2}}[F(m_e^2,t)+F(m_\mu ^2,t)],`$ (27)
$`F(m^2,t)={\displaystyle \underset{4m_\pi ^2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}M^2}{M^2}}`$ $`(M^2)F_1(t,m^2,M^2),`$
where $`F_1`$ is the vertex (with hadronic vacuum polarization of virtual photon) contribution to the Dirac form factor of a lepton having mass $`m`$. The contribution of the Pauli form factor $`F_2`$ is suppressed by a factor of $`|m^2/t|`$. $`\delta _s^{hadr}`$ corresponds to soft hadron’s emission of soft pion pairs.

A standard calculation with the regularization at $`t=0`$ leads to (for details see App. A):

$`F_1(t,m^2,M^2)=2{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}\text{d}x{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}y\text{d}y\left[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{d_0}{d}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{d}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_0}{d_0}}\right],`$ (28)
with

$`a=a_0+t[1y+x(1x)y^2],`$ $`d=d_0y^2x(1x)t,`$ (29)
$`a_0=m^2(2y^2),`$ $`d_0=y^2m^2+(1y)M^2.`$
It can be seen that the condition $`F_1|_{t=0}=0`$ is satisfied. Here we put two limiting cases for $`F_1`$. In the case of large hadron invariant mass squared, as compared to $`t`$, it’s found to be:

$$F_1(t,m^2,M^2)=\frac{t}{M^2}\left[\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{ln}\frac{M^2}{t}+\frac{11}{9}\right],M^2t,$$
(30)
and for the case of small invariant mass squared:

$$F_1(t,m^2,M^2)=\mathrm{ln}^2\frac{t}{m^2}2\mathrm{ln}\frac{M^2}{m^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{t}{m^2}5\mathrm{ln}\frac{t}{m^2}+\frac{\pi ^2}{3}\frac{1}{2},tM^2m_\mu ^2.$$
(31)
Taking into account the emission of soft pairs (see App. B) we have for hadronic contribution radiative correction:

$`(\delta _v+\delta _s)^{hadr}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{6\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{4m_{\pi ^2}^2}{\overset{t}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}M^2}{M^2}}R(M^2)[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{t}{M^2}}[8\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{m_em_\mu }}2\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }+10]`$ (32)
$`6\mathrm{ln}^2{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{m_em_\mu }}10\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{m_em_\mu }}6\mathrm{ln}^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{m_e}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\pi ^21].`$
### 3.3 Leptonic vacuum polarization, soft lepton pairs.

Next we do a VP-type contribution to the lepton vertex function. Obviously, there are two possibilities for a VP blob to be inserted into the lepton vertex function. Then the contribution to elastic cross section could be written as,

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\sigma ^{vp}}{\text{d}\sigma _0}}\right)_e=2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{\pi ^2}}\left[Z_1(m_e,m_e)+Z_2(m_e,m_\mu )\right],`$ (33)
where

$`Z_1(m_e,m_e)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{36}}\rho _t^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{19}{6}}L\right)\rho _t^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{36}}\left(6\zeta _2+{\displaystyle \frac{265}{6}}+3L^219L\right)\rho _tf^{vp},`$
is a contribution of the electron blob inserted into the electron vertex function (for definition $`f^{vp}`$ see (11)) and

$`Z_2(m_e,m_\mu )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{36}}\rho _t^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{19}{6}}+L\right)\rho _t^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{36}}\left(6\zeta _2+{\displaystyle \frac{265}{6}}+3L^2+63L\right)\rho _t,`$
is a muon blob contribution to the electron vertex respectively.

The similar expression holds for muon vertex function (electron blob contribution for muon vertex):

$`Z_3(m_\mu ,m_e)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{36}}\rho _t^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{19}{6}}L\right)\rho _t^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{36}}\left(6\zeta _2+{\displaystyle \frac{265}{6}}+3L^225L\right)\rho _t,`$
Now turn to inelastic process of a soft lepton-antilepton (of mass $`\mu `$ obeying $`2\mu \mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon \epsilon `$) pair production. For the differential cross section we obtain:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\sigma ^{sp}}{\text{d}\sigma _0}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{6\pi ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}𝐋^3+𝐋^2\left(2\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}\right)+𝐋\left(4\mathrm{ln}^2\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{20}{3}}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{56}{9}}4\zeta _2+2\text{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+c}{2}}\right)\right)\right],`$ (34)
with $`𝐋`$ defined as $`𝐋=\mathrm{ln}(t/\mu ^2).`$ We assume a muon or an electron to be a scattered lepton, consequently the quantity $`\mu `$ stands for the corresponding mass.

The sum of contributions (33) and (34) doesn’t contain cubic powers of large logarithms and for the “electron line corrections” is found to be (see ):

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\sigma _{vp}^{sv}}{\text{d}\sigma _0}}\right)_e`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\right)^2\{({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\rho _t^2`$ (35)
$`+`$ $`2\rho _t[{\displaystyle \frac{17}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{11}{9}}L+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{ln}^2\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{10}{9}}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }\zeta _2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\text{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+c}{2}}\right)]\}.`$
In case of a muon it appears to be,

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\sigma _{vp}^{sv}}{\text{d}\sigma _0}}\right)_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\right)^2\{({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\rho _t^2`$ (36)
$`+`$ $`2\rho _t[{\displaystyle \frac{17}{12}}+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{6}}L+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{ln}^2\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{10}{9}}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }\zeta _2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\text{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+c}{2}}\right)]\}.`$
It’s seen that the leading terms are in agreement with RG predictions.

## 4 Summary

In this paper we evaluate the Born cross section and the first order RC to it of a process of $`e\mu `$ scattering in the quasi-elastic kinematical situation. The relevant formulae are given in LLA in (1,3) and with power accuracy in (2).

Among second order contributions we consider gauge-invariant contributions from FD with radiative corrections to vertex function of either leptons. Here we also include soft photon and pairs emission with energies less than $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ`$.

In LLA the results are in agreement with RG.

The explicit results for virtual and soft real photon emission are given in formulae (23,25). For emission of virtual and soft real lepton pairs the relevant formulae are given in (34,35).

Section 3.2 in this paper is devoted to the determination of the contributions coming from the hadronic vacuum polarization, where RC is expressed in terms of explicit integral from the experimentally measured quantity $`R(M^2)`$. Also we consider a soft pion pair production (see App.B). We calculate the hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the vertex functions of electron or muon explicitly. The relevant formulae for RC are given in (32).

In the forthcoming papers we will consider contributions coming from the last gauge-invariant types of contributions, which are eikonal and decorated types of box FD.

## Appendix A. Hadronic vacuum polarization, details

Let’s consider here details of vertex hadron’s function calculation. For the vertex function we can write down:

$`V_\mu =\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\gamma _\mu +\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(\widehat{q}\gamma _\mu \gamma _\mu \widehat{q}),`$ (37)
where $`q=p_2p_2^{^{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,2}`$ are Dirac and Pauli form-factor. Let’s write down vertex function as follows,

$`V_\mu =\gamma _\mu [\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+4m\mathrm{\Gamma }_2]2(p_2+p_2^{^{}})_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_2=\gamma _\mu A+(p_2+p_2^{^{}})_\mu B,`$ (38)
where

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }y\text{d}y{\displaystyle }\text{d}x[{\displaystyle \frac{2y2p_2p_2^{^{}}}{d}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4y^2}{d}}(m^2+p_2p_2^{^{}})2y\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{m^2}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2m^2y^3x^2}{d}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2y^3x(1x)}{d}}(2p_2p_2^{^{}})],`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle y\text{d}y\text{d}x\left[\frac{y^2}{d}(2m)+\frac{2y^3x^2}{d}2m+\frac{2y^3x(1x)}{d}2m\right]}.`$
Quantities $`d,d_0`$ are defined in Eq. (29). After a regularization at $`t=0`$ we have:

$`F_1(t,m^2,M^2)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1|_{t=0}=2{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}\text{d}x{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}y\text{d}y\left[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{d_0}{d}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{d}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_0}{d_0}}\right].`$ (40)
The contribution of the Pauli form factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ is proportional to $`B`$ and therefore is suppressed by a factor of $`|m^2/t|`$.

## Appendix B. Soft pion pair production

The general expression for a soft pion pair production,

$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_0}}\right|^2\text{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \alpha }{q^2}}\right)^2\text{d}^4q{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^3q_+}{2\epsilon _+}\frac{\text{d}^3q_{}}{2\epsilon _{}}(2\pi )^6\delta ^4(q_++q_{}q)}`$
$`\times `$ $`(q_+q_{})_\mu (q_+q_{})_\nu J_\mu J_\nu ,J_\mu =(Q_q^{p_1p_1^{}})_\mu ,`$
with

$$m_\mu \sqrt{q^2}\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon \epsilon ,q_0^2q^2.$$

Here $`q_\pm ,ϵ_\pm `$ is four-momentum and energy of $`\pi ^\pm `$, $`q`$ and $`q_0`$ is 4-momenta and energy of soft pair.

Rewriting

$`{\displaystyle \text{d}^4q}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \text{d}q^2\frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_q}{4\pi }\underset{\sqrt{q^2}}{\overset{\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon }{}}\text{d}q_0\sqrt{q_0^2q^2}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^3q_+}{2\epsilon _+}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^3q_{}}{2\epsilon _{}}(2\pi )^6\delta ^4(q_++q_{}q)(q_+q_{})_\mu }`$
$`\times `$ $`(q_+q_{})_\nu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(g_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2}}\right)2^7\pi ^5(4m^2q^2)\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4m^2}{q^2}}},`$
one gets,

$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_0}}\right|^2\text{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{4\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{(q^24m^2)^{3/2}}{(q^2)^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_q}{4\pi }\text{d}q_0\sqrt{q_0^2q^2}J^2},`$
where

$$J^2=J_\mu J_\nu \left(g_{\mu \nu }\frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2}\right).$$

Separate contributions,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_q}{4\pi }\frac{m^2}{(p_1q)^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^2{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{q^2}}\right),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_q}{4\pi }\frac{p_1p_2}{p_1qp_2q}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_q}{4\pi }\frac{p_1^{}p_2^{}}{p_1^{}qp_2^{}q}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon }{\sqrt{q^2}}}\right)\mathrm{ln}2,`$
Master integral,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\sqrt{q^2}}{\overset{\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon }{}}}\text{d}q_0\sqrt{q_0^2q^2}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_q}{4\pi }\frac{p_1p_1^{}}{p_1qp_1^{}q}}=\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon }{\sqrt{q^2}}}\right)+\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon }{\sqrt{q^2}}}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1c}{2}}\right)\zeta _2,`$
Soft pion pair production contribution to the invariant mass distribution (both from electron and muon blocks emission) has the form:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{\sigma _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\sigma }{\text{d}M^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{3\pi ^2}}\left[\mathrm{ln}^2{\displaystyle \frac{t}{M^2}}+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{t}{M^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon }{\epsilon }}+𝒪(1)\right].`$