text:
# Random Bond Effect in the Quantum Spin System (Tl1-xKx)CuCl3

## I Introduction

In the last two decades, extensive theoretical studies on the effects of the exchange bond randomness in the one-dimensional quantum spin system have been performed , and new concepts such as the random singlet (RS) phase  and random dimer (RD) phase  have been proposed. For the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ dimerized chain, Hyman et al.  showed that for weak randomness the excitation gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ does not close up, and the susceptibility remains finite, while for strong randomness the system is in the RD phase, in which the excitation spectrum is gapless and the susceptibility diverges as $`\chi T^{1+\alpha }`$ with $`0<\alpha 1`$. By means of magnetic susceptibility and specific heat measurements, Manaka et al.  investigated the bond randomness effect in the $`S=1/2`$ alternating Heisenberg chain system (CH3)2CHNH3Cu(ClxBr1-x)3. They observed that with increasing $`x`$, the ordered phase with high ordering temperature appears discontinuously for $`0.44<x<0.87`$.

The random bond effect in the three-dimensional (3D) spin gap system has been less extensively studied. This paper is concerned with the random bond effect in the 3D spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ mixed system (Tl1-xKx)CuCl3. The parent compounds TlCuCl3 and KCuCl3 have the same monoclinic structure (space group $`P2_1/c`$) . The crystal structure is composed of planar dimers of Cu2Cl6, in which Cu2+ ions have spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$. The dimers are stacked on top of one another to form infinite double chains parallel to the crystallographic $`a`$-axis. These double chains are located at the corners and center of the unit cell in the $`bc`$ plane, and are separated by Tl+ or K+ ions. The lattice parameters of both parent systems are shown in Table I. The crystal lattice of TlCuCl3 is compressed along the $`a`$-axis and enlarged in the $`bc`$ plane as compared with KCuCl3. Thus, substituting K+ ions for some Tl+ ions produces not only exchange randomness, but also negative uniaxial stress along the $`a`$-axis.

The magnetic ground states of TlCuCl3 and KCuCl3 are the spin singlet  with excitation gaps $`\mathrm{\Delta }=7.7`$  and 31 K , respectively. From the results of analyses of the dispersion relations obtained by neutron inelastic scattering, it was found that the origin of the spin gaps in TlCuCl3 and KCuCl3 is the strong antiferromagnetic interaction in the chemical dimer Cu2Cl6, and that the neighboring dimers couple magnetically along the double chain and in the $`(1,0,2)`$ plane, in which the hole orbitals of Cu2+ spread . TlCuCl3 and KCuCl3 differ in their interdimer interactions. In TlCuCl3 the interdimer interactions are strong , while they are weak in KCuCl3 .

When a strong magnetic field higher than the gap field $`H_\mathrm{g}=\mathrm{\Delta }/g\mu _\mathrm{B}`$ is applied in the 3D spin gap system, magnetic ordering occurs. It has been theoretically shown that the field-induced magnetic ordering in the 3D Heisenberg spin gap system can be described by the Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) of excited triplets (magnons) . Recently, field-induced magnetic ordering was observed in TlCuCl3  and KCuCl3 . Nikuni et al.  demonstrated that the temperature dependence of the magnetization and field dependence of the transition temperature observed in TlCuCl3 can be described by the BEC of dilute magnons. The magnon BEC is a new concept of magnetic phase transition. Thus, it is of great interest to study how the field-induced magnetic ordering is affected by the bond randomness. For this purpose, we carried out magnetization measurements of (Tl1-xKx)CuCl3.

## II Experimental Details

We first prepared single crystals of TlCuCl3 and KCuCl3 by the Bridgman method. The details of their preparation have been reported in reference . Mixing single crystals of TlCuCl3 and KCuCl3 in a ratio of $`1x:x`$, we prepared (Tl1-xKx)CuCl3 by the Bridgman method. The temperature at the center of the furnace was set at 580C, and the lowering rate was 3 mm$``$h-1. Single crystals of 1$``$5 cm3 with $`x=0.04`$, 0.05, 0.08, 0.11, 0.14, 0.16, 0.20, 0.27 and 0.36 were obtained. The potassium concentration $`x`$ was determined by emission spectrochemical analysis after the measurements. Samples used for magnetic measurements were cut into pieces of 50$``$150 mg. We treated samples in a glove box filled with dry nitrogen to reduce the amount of hydrate phase, which produces paramagnetic susceptibility at low temperatures, on the sample surface.

The magnetizations were measured down to 1.8 K in magnetic fields up to 7 T using a SQUID magnetometer (Quantum Design MPMS XL). The magnetic fields were applied perpendicular to the cleavage planes (0,1,0) and (1,0,$`\overline{2}`$).

## III Results and Discussion

Figure 1 shows the temperature dependence of the magnetic susceptibilities $`\chi =M/H`$ in (Tl1-xKx)CuCl3 for $`x=0`$ and 1 at $`H=1`$ T and for $`x=0.16`$ at $`H=0.1`$ T. The magnetic susceptibilities for pure systems ($`x=0`$ and 1) have broad maxima at $`T=38`$ K and $`T=30`$ K, respectively, and then decrease exponentially toward zero. This behavior is characteristic of a system with a gapped ground state. However, the magnetic susceptibility for $`x=0.16`$ decreases toward a finite value, obeying the power law, after it attains a broad maximum at $`T=34`$ K.

Figure 2 shows the magnetization curves in (Tl1-xKx)CuCl3 measured at $`T=1.8`$ K for $`x=0`$, 0.05 and 0.16. In pure TlCuCl3 ($`x=0`$), the magnetization is almost zero until the transition field $`H_\mathrm{N}`$, indicated by arrows, and then increases steeply. This magnetization behavior is typical of the spin gap system. However, for $`x0`$, the magnetization curves have a finite slope in the low-field region. This, together with the temperature variation of the susceptibility for $`x0`$ shown in Fig. 1, indicates that the ground state is not a spin singlet, but a magnetic with continuous excitations. The absence of the Curie term in the low-temperature susceptibility and the fact that the magnetization curves in the low-field region do not obey the Brillouin function, but are almost proportional to the applied field indicate that the ground state consists not of isolated or weakly coupled spins, but of strongly coupled spins. Therefore, the low-lying excitation may be spin-wave-like for $`x0`$. Although no anomaly indicative of magnetic ordering was observed down to 1.8 K at $`H=0.1`$ T, it may occur with a further decrease in temperature.

With increasing magnetic field, the magnetization for $`x0`$ increases rapidly above $`H_\mathrm{N}`$. This indicates that field-induced magnetic ordering occurs for $`H>H_\mathrm{N}`$ as observed in a pure system. Thus, we can deduce that a gap remains in the excitation spectrum. Here, we assigned the fields with an inflection point of the magnetization field derivative as the transition field $`H_\mathrm{N}`$, as shown in the inset of Fig. 2. These observations that the energy gap does not close, and the susceptibility remains finite correspond to the argument by Hyman et al.  for weak bond randomness in the $`S=1/2`$ bond-alternating system, though the present system is a 3D system.

Since the paramagnetic susceptibility for $`H<H_\mathrm{N}`$ is very low, the energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ between the ground state and the first excited triplet may be expressed as $`\mathrm{\Delta }=g\mu _\mathrm{B}H_0`$, where $`H_0`$ is a field at which the two fitting functions for the magnetizations for $`H<H_\mathrm{N}`$ and $`H>H_\mathrm{N}`$ cross, as shown in Fig. 2. For the fitting, we used a linear function for $`H<H_\mathrm{N}`$ and a quadratic function for $`H>H_\mathrm{N}`$, because $`dM/dH`$ for $`H>H_\mathrm{N}`$ is described by a linear function, as shown in the inset of Fig. 2. We assign $`H_0`$ obtained at $`T=1.8`$ K to the gap field $`H_\mathrm{g}=\mathrm{\Delta }/g\mu _\mathrm{B}`$. The value of $`(g/2)H_05.8`$ T obtained for TlCuCl3 is consistent with the $`(g/2)H_\mathrm{g}5.7`$ T obtained from the specific heat and neutron scattering measurements . Since the magnetization curves at 1.8 K exhibit rounding around $`H_\mathrm{N}`$, there is a certain amount of error in the determination of $`H_0`$.

Figure 3 shows the low-temperature magnetizations in (Tl1-xKx)CuCl3 for $`x=0.05`$ and 0.16 at various magnetic fields. For comparison, we also show the low-temperature magnetizations for TlCuCl3. The magnetic field was applied along the $`b`$-axis. The small anomalies at 4.4 K are due to an instrumental problem and are not intrinsic to the sample. TlCuCl3 undergoes phase transition in magnetic fields higher than $`H_\mathrm{g}6`$ T, which is indicated by the cusplike minimum of the low-temperature magnetization . The field-induced phase transition was also observed in KCuCl3 for $`H>H_\mathrm{g}22`$ T .

The magnetization exhibits a similar cusplike minimum in (Tl1-xKx)CuCl3 for $`x=0.05`$ and 0.16. The cusplike magnetization minimum in the present mixed systems is fairly sharp, similar to the pure system. This is indicative of the good homogeneity of the samples. We assign the temperature with the minimum magnetization as the transition temperature $`T_\mathrm{N}`$, which increases with increasing magnetic field. The transition temperature for $`x=0.16`$ is lower than that for $`x=0.05`$ at the same magnetic field. The magnetization minimum was not observed down to 1.8 K for $`x=0.36`$ at $`H=7`$ T. The low-temperature magnetization for $`H(1,0,\overline{2})`$ is similar to that for $`Hb`$.

Figure 4 shows the magnetic field vs temperature diagram of (Tl1-xK$`{}_{x}{}^{})`$CuCl3; the transition temperatures $`T_\mathrm{N}`$ and the transition fields $`H_\mathrm{N}`$ obtained for $`Hb`$ and $`H(1,0,\overline{2})`$ are plotted for various potassium concentrations $`x`$. Since the $`g`$-factor is anisotropic, the values of $`T_\mathrm{N}(H)`$ and $`H_\mathrm{N}(T)`$ depend on the external field direction. Thus, we normalize the phase boundaries using $`g=2.06`$ for $`Hb`$ and $`g=2.23`$ for $`H(1,0,\overline{2})`$, which were obtained from TlCuCl3 .

Figure 5 shows the phase diagram of (Tl1-xK$`{}_{x}{}^{})`$CuCl3 normalized by the $`g`$-factor. We also plot the value of the gap field $`H_\mathrm{g}=\mathrm{\Delta }/g\mu _\mathrm{B}`$ at $`T=0`$ K, because 3D ordering is expected to occur at $`T=0`$ K when the energy gap vanishes. As seen from Fig. 5, the phase boundaries for $`Hb`$ and $`H(1,0,\overline{2})`$ coincide. This result indicates that the phase boundary is independent of the external field direction when normalized by the $`g`$-factor. This means that the magnetic anisotropy is negligible in (Tl1-xK$`{}_{x}{}^{})`$CuCl3. The solid lines in Fig. 5 denote the curves fitted using the power law $`(g/2)[H_\mathrm{N}(T)H_\mathrm{N}(0)]T^\varphi `$ which describes the phase boundary in TlCuCl3 with $`\varphi =2.02.2`$ . The values of the exponent $`\varphi `$ and the normalized gap field $`(g/2)H_\mathrm{N}(0)=(g/2)H_\mathrm{g}`$ are plotted in Fig. 6 as a function of the concentration $`x`$. The exponent $`\varphi `$ is almost independent of $`x`$, $`\varphi 2.3`$, while the magnitude of the normalized gap field $`(g/2)H_\mathrm{g}`$ decreases gradually to a constant $`(g/2)H_\mathrm{g}5`$ T. Since there is a certain amount of error in determining $`H_\mathrm{g}`$, as mentioned above, the value of $`\varphi `$ has also a certain amount of error. When $`x`$ is close to unity, the normalized gap field $`(g/2)H_\mathrm{g}`$ may increase steeply and reach $`(g/2)H_\mathrm{g}23`$ T, which is the gap field for KCuCl3 .

Figure 7 shows the phase diagram of (Tl1-xK$`{}_{x}{}^{})`$CuCl3, where the magnetic field is measured from the gap field $`H_\mathrm{g}`$. The transition temperature $`T_\mathrm{N}`$ decreases monotonically with increasing concentration $`x`$, namely, the range of ordered phase becomes narrower. In the pure system without randomness, the temperature and field ranges of the ordered phase are given by the interdimer interactions . The difference between the slope of the magnetization curve for $`H>H_\mathrm{g}`$ and that for the low-field region below $`H_\mathrm{g}`$ are given by the interdimer exchange interactions. In the pure system, the slope for the low-field region is negligible. The difference between the slopes is only nominally affected at potassium concentrations $`x<0.3`$, which implies that the average of the interdimer interactions does not decrease with $`x`$. Therefore, it is deduced that the decrease of the ordering temperature with $`x`$ is attributed to the exchange randomness due to the partial K+ ion substitution.

Nikuni et al.  demonstrated that the field-induced phase transition in TlCuCl3 can be described by the Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) of excited triplets (magnons), i.e., the theory represents the phase transition as the formation of the coherent state of magnons. The cusplike minimum of the magnetization, which corresponds to the magnon density, is typical of the BEC of dilute magnons . Since the magnetization in the present mixed systems (Tl1-xK$`{}_{x}{}^{})`$CuCl3 exhibits a similar cusplike minimum, the magnetic ordering may also be described by the magnon BEC. From the viewpoint of the magnon BEC, we discuss the decrease in the transition temperature with increasing potassium concentration $`x`$.

Partial K+ ion substitution for Tl+ ions produces randomness in the exchange interactions between Cu2+ ions. The magnitude of the randomness may increase with increasing $`x`$ for small $`x`$. The chemical potential $`\mu `$ of the magnon is expressed by $`\mu =g\mu _\mathrm{B}(HH_\mathrm{g})`$ , where the gap energy $`g\mu _\mathrm{B}H_\mathrm{g}`$ is given by the intradimer and interdimer exchange interactions. The intradimer exchange interaction was evaluated, through neutron inelastic scattering experiments, to be $`J5.7`$ meV for TlCuCl3  and $`J4.3`$ meV for KCuCl3 . Since these two intradimer interactions are different, the partial K+ ion substitution for Tl+ ions produces the random on-site potential $`\delta \mu _i`$ of the magnon, where $`i`$ denotes the number of dimer sites. The random on-site potential acts to localize the magnon, Anderson localization. The hopping amplitude $`t_{ij}`$ and the intersite interaction $`U_{ij}`$ are given by the interdimer exchange interactions. Consequently, the partial K+ ion substitution also produces randomness in $`t_{ij}`$ and $`U_{ij}`$, which may also act to localize the magnon. In general, the localization effect prevents the bosons from forming the coherent state, i.e., the localization effect suppresses the BEC. Thus, we suggest that the localization effect due to the random bond acts to suppress the BEC of the magnons in the present system, such that the transition temperature $`T_\mathrm{N}`$ decreases with increasing $`x`$. However, we cannot have a quantitative argument on the decrease of the ordering temperature due to the randomness, because there is no quantitative theory on this problem, as far as we know.

The superfluid-insulator transition in the boson system in the presence of the random on-site potential has been discussed theoretically . In our magnetic system, the superfluid phase corresponds to the ordered phase in which the magnons condense. In pure TlCuCl3, the gapped phase for $`H<H_\mathrm{g}`$ corresponds to the insulating phase. Fisher et al. argued that a new phase, the Bose glass phase, can exist in the presence of randomness. The Bose glass phase is a phase in which bosons are localized, but there is no energy gap. It would be very interesting if a new phase corresponding to the Bose glass phase were observed. In order to confirm the presence of such a phase, more low-temperature measurements are needed.

## IV Conclusion

By means of magnetization measurements, we have investigated the random bond effect in (Tl1-xKx)CuCl3 which is a mixture of the three-dimensional coupled dimer systems TlCuCl3 and KCuCl3. Due to bond randomness, the singlet ground state turns into the magnetic state with finite susceptibility, but the excitation gap remains. For $`x<0.3`$, the magnitude of the gap field $`H_\mathrm{g}`$ decreases gradually to a constant. The field-induced magnetic ordering, which may be described by the Bose condensation of magnons, was observed, similar to TlCuCl3. The ordering temperature is suppressed by bond randomness. We suggest that this behavior can be attributed to the localization effect due to randomness.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to thank M. Oshikawa and T. Nikuni for useful discussions. This work was supported by Toray Science Foundation and a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Areas (B) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan. A. O. was supported by the Research Fellowships of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for Young Scientists.


format: text

text:
# Equation of state and magnetic susceptibility of spin polarized isospin asymmetric nuclear matter

## I Introduction

Pulsars are believed to be rapidly rotating neutron stars endowed with strong magnetic fields . Within the dipole magnetic model for pulsars the intensity of the surface (dipole) magnetic field $`B_p`$ can be inferred from the measured rotational period $`P`$ of the pulsar about its rotation axis and from its time derivative $`\dot{P}=dP/dt`$. For “canonical” pulsars ***Here we use the term “canonical” to distinguish these pulsars from the group of “millisecond” pulsars, for which $`B_p10^8`$$`10^9`$ G, and from a possible new family of pulsars (the so-called “magnetars”) having $`B_p10^{15}`$ G. this method gives values for $`B_p`$ in the range $`10^{12}`$$`10^{13}`$ G. Despite the great theoretical effort, there is no general consensus regarding the mechanism to generate such a strong magnetic field in a neutron star. The field could be a fossil remnant from the one of the progenitor star. In fact, assuming magnetic flux conservation during the birth of the neutron star, a magnetic field of $`10^{12}`$ G could originate from the collapse of a main sequence star with a typical surface magnetic field of 10–102 G. Alternatively, the field could be generated after the formation of the neutron star by some long-lived electric currents flowing in the highly conductive neutron star material.

There are strong theoretical and observational arguments which indicate a decay of the magnetic field during the “life” of a neutron star . The physical processes which are responsible for the magnetic field evolution in neutron stars are not well understood, however, the observational data for pulsar distribution on the $`P`$-$`\dot{P}`$ plane can be reproduced by population synthesis codes (see e.g., ref.  and references therein quoted) in which the stellar magnetic field evolves according to the following exponential decay law

$$B(t)=B_{\mathrm{}}+(B_0B_{\mathrm{}})e^{t/\tau _B},$$
(1)
where $`\tau _B10^7`$$`10^9`$ yr is the field decay time and $`B_{\mathrm{}}10^8`$ G is a residue magnetic field. If the residue field is permanent and is not generated by some dynamo mechanism, it could be produced by a spontaneous ferromagnetic transition in the dense stellar core. Several authors have studied the possible existence of a ferromagnetic core in the liquid interior of neutron stars. First models, in which neutron star matter was approximated by pure neutron matter, were proposed just after the discovery of pulsars. Brownell and Callaway  and Rice  considered a hard sphere gas model and showed that neutron matter becomes ferromagnetic at $`k_F2.3`$ fm-1. Silverstein  and Østgaard  found that the inclusion of long range attraction significantly increased the ferromagnetic transition density (e.g., Østgaard predicted the transition to occur at $`k_F4.1`$ fm-1 using a simple central potential with hard core only for the singlet spin states). Clark  and Pearson and Saunier  calculated the magnetic susceptibility for low densities ($`k_F2`$ fm-1) using more realistic interactions. Pandharipande et al. , using the Reid soft-core potential, performed a variational calculation arriving to the conclusion that such a transition was not to be expected for $`k_F5`$ fm-1. Early calculations of the magnetic susceptibility within the Brueckner theory were performed by Bäckmann and Källman  employing the Reid soft-core potential, and results from a correlated basis function calculation were obtained by Jackson et al.  with the Reid $`v_6`$ interaction. A different point of view was followed by Vidaurre et al. , who employed neutron-neutron effective interactions of the Skyrme type, finding the ferromagnetic transition at $`k_F1.731.97`$ fm-1. Marcos et al.  have also studied the spin stability of dense neutron matter within the relativistic Dirac–Hartree–Fock approximation with an effective nucleon-meson Lagrangian, predicting the ferromagnetic transition at several times nuclear matter saturation density. On the contrary, no sign of such a transition has been found by Vidaña et al. , who have recently studied the properties of spin polarized neutron matter within the Brueckner–Hartree–Fock approximation employing the realistic Nijmegen II and Reid93 interactions. In connection with the problem of neutrino diffusion in dense matter, Fantoni et al.  have recently employed the so-called auxiliary field diffusion Monte Carlo method (AFDMC) using realistic interactions (based upon the Argonne $`v_{18}`$ two-body potential  plus Urbana IX three-body potential ), and have found that the magnetic susceptibility of neutron matter shows a strong reduction of about a factor of $`3`$ with respect its Fermi gas value. They pointed out that such a reduction may have strong effects on the mean free path of a neutrino in dense matter and, therefore, it should be taken into account in the studies of supernovae and proto-neutron stars.

In all these studies neutron star matter was approximated by a pure neutron gas. Nevertheless, neutron star matter is also composed of protons, electrons, muons and other exotic constituents . The importance of the presence of a small number of protons in neutron matter for the spin stability was pointed out by Kutschera and Wójcik . These authors found that the ferromagnetic state, corresponding to completely polarized protons and weakly polarized neutrons, was energetically preferred over the nonpolarized one. Calculations performed by Bernardos et al.  for strongly asymmetric nuclear matter within the relativistic Dirac–Hartree–Fock approximation confirmed also that the presence of an admixture of protons favors the ferromagnetic instability of dense matter.

In this work we study the bulk and single-particle properties of spin polarized isospin asymmetric nuclear matter. Our calculations are based on the Brueckner–Hartree–Fock (BHF) approximation of the well known Brueckner-Bethe-Goldstone (BBG) theory of nuclear matter. To describe the bare nucleon-nucleon interaction we make use of the nucleon-nucleon part of the recent realistic baryon-baryon interaction (model NSC97e) constructed by the Nijmegen group . We study the dependence of the single-particle potentials and the total energy per particle on the asymmetry parameter and neutron and proton spin polarizations. Further, we calculate the magnetic susceptibility for several values of the asymmetry parameter and in particular we explore the possibility of a ferromagnetic transition in the high density region relevant for neutron stars.

The paper is organized in the following way. The formalism of the BHF approximation is briefly reviewed at the beginning of Sec. II, whereas the calculation of the magnetic susceptibility is presented at the end of it. Section III is devoted to the presentation and discussion of the results obtained for the single-particle potentials, the total energy per particle and the magnetic susceptibility. Finally, a short summary and the main conclusions of this work are drawn in Sec. IV.

## II Formalism

Spin polarized isospin asymmetric nuclear matter is an infinite nuclear system composed of four different fermionic components: neutrons with spin up and spin down having densities $`\rho _n`$ and $`\rho _n`$ respectively, and protons with spin up and spin down with densities $`\rho _p`$ and $`\rho _p`$. The total densities for neutrons ($`\rho _n`$), protons ($`\rho _p`$), and nucleons ($`\rho `$) are given by:

$$\rho _n=\rho _n+\rho _n,\rho _p=\rho _p+\rho _p,\rho =\rho _n+\rho _p.$$
(2)
The isospin asymmetry of the system can be expressed by the asymmetry parameter $`\beta =(\rho _n\rho _p)/\rho `$, while the degree of spin polarization of the system is characterized by the neutron and proton spin polarizations $`S_n`$ and $`S_p`$, defined as

$$S_n=\frac{\rho _n\rho _n}{\rho _n},S_p=\frac{\rho _p\rho _p}{\rho _p},$$
(3)
Note that the value $`S_n=S_p=0`$ corresponds to nonpolarized (i.e., $`\rho _n=\rho _n`$ and $`\rho _p=\rho _p`$) matter, whereas $`S_n=\pm 1(S_p=\pm 1)`$ means that neutrons (protons) are totally polarized, i.e., all the neutron (proton) spins are aligned along the same direction.

The single component densities are related to the total density and to the isospin and spin asymmetry parameters $`\beta `$, $`S_n`$, and $`S_p`$ via the equations:

$$\rho _n=\frac{1+S_n}{2}\rho _n=\frac{1+S_n}{2}\frac{1+\beta }{2}\rho ,$$
(4)
$$\rho _n=\frac{1S_n}{2}\rho _n=\frac{1S_n}{2}\frac{1+\beta }{2}\rho ,$$
(5)
$$\rho _p=\frac{1+S_p}{2}\rho _p=\frac{1+S_p}{2}\frac{1\beta }{2}\rho ,$$
(6)
$$\rho _p=\frac{1S_p}{2}\rho _n=\frac{1S_p}{2}\frac{1\beta }{2}\rho .$$
(7)
Finally the Fermi momentum $`k_F^{\tau \sigma }`$ is related to the corresponding partial density by $`k_F^{\tau \sigma }=(6\pi ^2\rho _{\tau \sigma })^{1/3}`$, with $`\tau =n,p`$ and $`\sigma =,`$.

Our calculations are based on the BHF approximation of the BBG theory extended to the case in which it is assumed that nuclear matter is arbitrarily asymmetric both in the isospin and spin degrees of freedom (i.e., $`\rho _n\rho _n\rho _p\rho _p`$). Therefore, our many-body scheme starts by constructing all the nucleon-nucleon $`G`$ matrices which describe in an effective way the interaction between two nucleons ($`nn,np,pn`$ and $`pp`$) for each one of the spin combinations ($`,,`$ and $``$). The $`G`$ matrices can be obtained by solving the well known Bethe–Goldstone equation

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{k}_1\tau _1\sigma _1;\stackrel{}{k}_2\tau _2\sigma _2|G(\omega )|\stackrel{}{k}_3\tau _3\sigma _3;\stackrel{}{k}_4\tau _4\sigma _4=\stackrel{}{k}_1\tau _1\sigma _1;\stackrel{}{k}_2\tau _2\sigma _2|v|\stackrel{}{k}_3\tau _3\sigma _3;\stackrel{}{k}_4\tau _4\sigma _4\\ +\underset{ij}{}\stackrel{}{k}_1\tau _1\sigma _1;\stackrel{}{k}_2\tau _2\sigma _2|v|\stackrel{}{k}_i\tau _i\sigma _i;\stackrel{}{k}_j\tau _j\sigma _j\frac{Q_{\tau _i\sigma _i,\tau _j\sigma _j}}{\omega E_{\tau _i\sigma _i}E_{\tau _j\sigma _j}+i\eta }\stackrel{}{k}_i\tau _i\sigma _i;\stackrel{}{k}_j\tau _j\sigma _j|G(\omega )|\stackrel{}{k}_3\tau _3\sigma _3;\stackrel{}{k}_4\tau _4\sigma _4,\end{array}$$
(8)
where $`\tau _m`$ and $`\sigma _m`$ indicate respectively the isospin and spin projections ($`n`$$``$$`()`$,$`p`$$``$$`()`$) of the two nucleons in the initial, intermediate and final states, $`\stackrel{}{k}_m`$ are their respective linear momenta, $`v`$ is the bare nucleon-nucleon interaction, $`Q_{\tau _i\sigma _i,\tau _j\sigma _j}`$ is the Pauli operator which allows only intermediate states compatible with the Pauli principle, and $`\omega `$ is the so-called starting energy. Note that the $`G`$ matrices are obtained from a coupled channel equation. In practice a partial wave decomposition of the Bethe–Goldstone equation is performed, the Pauli operator and the energy denominator is replaced by an angle-averaged one, and the $`G`$ matrices are solved using relative and center-of-mass coordinates.

The single-particle energy of a nucleon with momentum $`k`$ and spin projection $`\sigma =`$($``$) is given by

$$E_{\tau \sigma }=\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{2m_\tau }+U_{\tau \sigma }(k),$$
(9)
where the single-particle potential $`U_{\tau \sigma }(k)`$ represents the mean field “felt” by the nucleon due to its interaction with the other nucleons of the system. In the BHF approximation $`U_{\tau \sigma }(k)`$ is calculated through the “on-energy shell” $`G`$ matrix and is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}U_{\tau \sigma }(k)=\underset{\tau ^{}=n,p}{}\underset{\sigma ^{}=,}{}U_{\tau \sigma \tau ^{}\sigma ^{}}(k)\\ =\underset{\tau ^{}=n,p}{}\underset{\sigma ^{}=,}{}\underset{k^{}k_F^{\tau ^{}\sigma ^{}}}{}\text{Re}\stackrel{}{k}\tau \sigma ;\stackrel{}{k^{}}\tau ^{}\sigma ^{}|G(\omega =E_{\tau \sigma }+E_{\tau ^{}\sigma ^{}})|\stackrel{}{k}\tau \sigma ;\stackrel{}{k}^{}\tau ^{}\sigma ^{}_𝒜,\end{array}$$
(10)
where $`U_{\tau \sigma \tau ^{}\sigma ^{}}(k)`$ is the contribution to $`U_{\tau \sigma }(k)`$ due to the Fermi sea of nucleons $`\tau ^{}\sigma ^{}`$. Note that a sum over the Fermi seas of neutrons and protons with spin up and down is performed and that the matrix elements are properly antisymmetrized. We note also here that the continuous prescription has been adopted for the single particle potential when solving the Bethe–Goldstone equation. As shown by the authors of refs. , the contribution to the energy per particle from three body clusters are diminished in this prescription.

Once a self-consistent solution of Eqs. (8) and (10) is obtained, the total energy per particle is easily calculated:

$$\frac{E}{A}=\frac{1}{A}\underset{\tau =n,p}{}\underset{\sigma =,}{}\underset{kk_F^{\tau \sigma }}{}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{2m_\tau }+\frac{1}{2}U_{\tau \sigma }(k)\right)\frac{T}{A}+\frac{V}{A}.$$
(11)
This quantity is a function of $`\rho _n`$, $`\rho _n`$, $`\rho _p`$ and $`\rho _p`$ or, equivalently, of $`\rho `$, $`\beta `$, and $`S_n`$ and $`S_p`$.

The magnetic susceptibility $`\chi `$ of a system characterizes the response of this system to a magnetic field and gives a measure of the energy required to produce a net spin alignment in the direction of the field. In the case of nuclear matter it is defined by the $`2\times 2`$ matrix

$$\frac{1}{\chi }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1/\chi _{nn}& 1/\chi _{np}\\ 1/\chi _{pn}& 1/\chi _{pp}\end{array}\right),$$
(12)
where the matrix elements $`1/\chi _{ij}`$ are given by

$$\frac{1}{\chi _{ij}}=\frac{_i}{_j}(i,j=n,p).$$
(13)
Here $`_j`$ is the magnetization of the species $`j`$ per unit volume

$$_j=\mu _j(\rho _j\rho _j)=\mu _j\rho _jS_j,$$
(14)
with $`\mu _j`$ the magnetic moment of the species $`j`$, and $`_i`$ is the magnetic field induced by the magnetization of the species $`i`$, which can be obtained from

$$_i=\rho \frac{(E/A)}{_i}.$$
(15)
Using Eqs. (14) and (15) the matrix elements $`1/\chi _{ij}`$ can be written as

$$\frac{1}{\chi _{ij}}=\frac{\rho }{\mu _i\rho _i\mu _j\rho _j}\left(\frac{^2(E/A)}{S_iS_j}\right),$$
(16)
where the second derivatives can be taken at $`S_i=S_j=0`$ if the magnetic field is assumed to be small.

It is convenient to study the magnetic susceptibility of the system in terms of the ratio det($`1/\chi `$)/det($`1/\chi _F`$), where $`\chi _F`$ is the magnetic susceptibility of the two component free Fermi gas. Writing the total energy per particle as a sum of the kinetic, $`T/A`$, and the potential, $`V/A`$, energy contributions, the ratio between both determinants can be written as

$$\frac{\text{det}(1/\chi )}{\text{det}(1/\chi _F)}=\left(1+\frac{\frac{^2(V/A)}{S_n^2}}{\frac{^2(T/A)}{S_n^2}}\right)\left(1+\frac{\frac{^2(V/A)}{S_p^2}}{\frac{^2(T/A)}{S_p^2}}\right)\left(\frac{\frac{^2(V/A)}{S_nS_p}}{\frac{^2(T/A)}{S_n^2}}\right)\left(\frac{\frac{^2(V/A)}{S_pS_n}}{\frac{^2(T/A)}{S_p^2}}\right).$$
(17)
The stability of matter against spin fluctuations is guaranteed if det($`1/\chi `$)/det($`1/\chi _F`$)$`>0`$, indicating a change of sign of the ratio the onset of a ferromagnetic phase in the system.

## III Results

### A Single-particle potentials

In Fig. 1 we show the neutron $`U_n`$, $`U_n`$ (upper panels), and proton $`U_p`$, $`U_p`$ (lower panels) single-particle potentials evaluated at $`\rho =0.17`$ fm-3 for several values of $`S_n`$, $`S_p`$, and $`\beta `$. Results for symmetric matter ($`\beta =0`$) are plotted on the left and middle panels, whereas results for asymmetric matter with $`\beta =0.5`$ are reported on the right ones. Solid lines show as a reference the results for nonpolarized matter ($`S_n=S_p=0`$), while dotted lines refer to spin polarized matter. On the left panels we show the effects on $`U_{\tau \sigma }(k)`$ of a partial polarization ($`S_n=0.75`$) of the neutron component in proton-unpolarized ($`S_p=0`$) symmetric matter. As it can be seen, the single-particle potentials of both species split off when a partial polarization of the neutron spin is assumed. The single-particle potential for neutrons with spin up (down) becomes less (more) attractive with respect to $`U_n(k)`$ for nonpolarized nuclear matter. For the proton single-particle potential, we find an opposite qualitative trend being $`U_p`$ ($`U_p`$) more (less) attractive than the proton single-particle potential for nonpolarized matter. The additional partial proton polarization (middle panels) produces on $`U_{\tau \sigma }(k)`$ a reverse global effect with respect to the one produced by polarizing neutrons. This is particularly evident in the case of $`U_{p\sigma }(k)`$ (compare the results in the lower left and lower central panels). Finally, to obtain the results presented in the right panels of Fig. 1, we further introduce an isospin asymmetry ($`\beta =0.5`$) in the system. Notice that the isospin asymmetry generates a splitting of the neutron and proton single particle potentials even in the case of spin-unpolarized matter .

The splitting, $`U_\tau `$$`U_\tau `$, in the neutron and proton single-particle potentials can be mainly ascribed to two reasons: (i) the change in the number of pairs which the nucleon under consideration $`|k,\tau ,\sigma `$ can form with the remaining nucleons $`|k^{}k_F^{\tau ^{}\sigma ^{}},\tau ^{},\sigma ^{}`$ of the system as nuclear matter is spin polarized, and (ii) the spin dependence (and isospin dependence for asymmetric spin polarized matter) of the nucleon-nucleon $`G`$ matrices in the spin polarized nuclear medium (see Eq. (8)).

In the general case of spin polarized asymmetric matter, the effect of the neutron and proton spin polarizations and the isospin asymmetry on the single particle potentials can be clarified by considering their partial contributions $`U_{\tau \sigma \tau ^{}\sigma ^{}}(k)`$ in such a way as to single out explicitly the dependence on their respective phase space:

$$U_n=U_{nn}+U_{nn}+U_{np}+U_{np}=g_{nn}\rho _n+g_{nn}\rho _n+g_{np}\rho _p+g_{np}\rho _p,$$
(18)
$$U_n=U_{nn}+U_{nn}+U_{np}+U_{np}=g_{nn}\rho _n+g_{nn}\rho _n+g_{np}\rho _p+g_{np}\rho _p,$$
(19)
$$U_p=U_{pn}+U_{pn}+U_{pp}+U_{pp}=g_{pn}\rho _n+g_{pn}\rho _n+g_{pp}\rho _p+g_{pp}\rho _p,$$
(20)
$$U_p=U_{pn}+U_{pn}+U_{pp}+U_{pp}=g_{pn}\rho _n+g_{pn}\rho _n+g_{pp}\rho _p+g_{pp}\rho _p,$$
(21)
where $`g_{\tau \sigma \tau ^{}\sigma ^{}}`$ is the average value of the matrix element $`\stackrel{}{k}\tau \sigma ;\stackrel{}{k^{}}\tau ^{}\sigma ^{}|G|\stackrel{}{k}\tau \sigma ;\stackrel{}{k^{}}\tau ^{}\sigma ^{}_𝒜`$ in the Fermi sphere with radius $`k^{}k_F^{\tau ^{}\sigma ^{}}`$ and the density factor $`\rho _{\tau ^{}\sigma ^{}}`$ in each term arises from the integral over the corresponding Fermi sea.

For small values of the asymmetry parameter ($`|\beta |<<1`$) and the spin polarizations ($`|S_n|,|S_p|<<1`$) one can neglect the dependence on $`\beta ,S_n`$ and $`S_p`$ of the average $`G`$ matrices $`g_{\tau \sigma \tau ^{}\sigma ^{}}`$ assuming $`g_{\tau \sigma \tau ^{}\sigma ^{}}g_{\tau \sigma \tau ^{}\sigma ^{}}(k,\rho )`$ and

$$\begin{array}{c}g_{nn}g_{nn}g_{pp}g_{pp}g_1,\\ g_{nn}g_{nn}g_{pp}g_{pp}g_2,\\ g_{np}g_{np}g_{pn}g_{pn}g_3,\\ g_{np}g_{np}g_{pn}g_{pn}g_4.\end{array}$$
(22)
Clearly, even under these assumptions, in the most general case $`g_1g_2g_3g_4`$ because they receive contributions from different spin and isospin channels. Whereas $`g_1`$ receives contributions only from the spin and isospin triplet ($`S=1,T=1`$) channels, $`g_2`$ has in addition contributions from the spin singlet ones, $`g_3`$ from channels with $`S=1`$ and $`T=0,1`$, and $`g_4`$ from channels with $`S=0,1`$ and $`T=0,1`$.

Using Eq. (22) the single-particle potentials can then be rewritten in terms of the average $`G`$ matrices $`g_{\tau \sigma \tau ^{}\sigma ^{}}`$ as:

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill U_n\frac{\rho }{4}[(g_1+g_2+g_3+g_4)+(g_1+g_2g_3g_4)\beta \\ \hfill +(g_1g_2)(1+\beta )S_n+(g_3g_4)(1\beta )S_p],\end{array}$$
(23)
$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill U_n\frac{\rho }{4}[(g_1+g_2+g_3+g_4)+(g_1+g_2g_3g_4)\beta \\ \hfill (g_1g_2)(1+\beta )S_n(g_3g_4)(1\beta )S_p],\end{array}$$
(24)
$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill U_p\frac{\rho }{4}[(g_1+g_2+g_3+g_4)(g_1+g_2g_3g_4)\beta \\ \hfill +(g_3g_4)(1+\beta )S_n+(g_1g_2)(1\beta )S_p],\end{array}$$
(25)
$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill U_p\frac{\rho }{4}[(g_1+g_2+g_3+g_4)(g_1+g_2g_3g_4)\beta \\ \hfill (g_3g_4)(1+\beta )S_n(g_1g_2)(1\beta )S_p],\end{array}$$
(26)
where Eqs. (4), (5) (6) and (7) have been used to write $`\rho _{\tau \sigma }`$ in terms of $`\rho `$, $`\beta `$, $`S_n`$ and $`S_p`$. These equations show explicitly the dependence of the single-particle potentials on the spin polarizations and isospin asymmetry. This dependence is tested in Fig. 2, where the value at $`k=0`$ of the single-particle potentials $`U_n,U_n,U_p`$ and $`U_p`$ at $`\rho =0.17`$ fm-3 is plotted as a function of neutron (left panels) and proton (right panels) spin polarizations for two values of the asymmetry parameter: $`\beta =0`$ (upper panels) and $`\beta =0.5`$ (lower panels). In order to make more clear the discussion $`S_n(S_p)`$ is taken equal to 0 on the right (left) panels. The above equations predict a linear and symmetric variation of the single-particle potentials on $`\beta `$, $`S_n`$ and $`S_p`$. This prediction is well confirmed from the microscopic results reported on Fig. 2, although deviations from this behavior are found at higher values of the asymmetry and spin polarizations. These deviations have to be associated to the dependence on $`\beta ,S_n`$ and $`S_p`$ of the average $`G`$ matrices $`g_{\tau \sigma \tau ^{}\sigma ^{}}`$ which has been neglected in the present analysis (see Eq. (22)). From the above expressions it can be seen that under charge exchange (i.e., doing the changes $`\beta \beta ,S_nS_p,S_pS_n`$) the role of neutrons and protons with the same spin projection is exactly interchanged. This can be clearly seen by comparing the left and right top panels of the figure, which correspond to the particular case of symmetric matter. It is also clear that neutrons (protons) with spin up and down interchange their roles when a global flip of the spins is performed (i.e., changing $`S_n`$ by $`S_n`$ and $`S_p`$ by $`S_p`$).

### B Energy per particle

The total energy per particle of neutron, asymmetric, and symmetric matter is shown on the left, middle and right panels of Fig. 3, respectively. In the three panels solid lines show results for nonpolarized matter, whereas those for totally polarized matter are reported by dotted lines. Note that in totally polarized asymmetric and symmetric matter, we have distinguished two possible orientations of the neutron and proton spins: that in which neutron and proton spins are aligned along the same direction (i.e., $`S_n=S_p=\pm 1`$), and that in which neutron and proton spins are orientated along opposite directions (i.e., $`S_n=\pm 1,S_p=1`$). As can be seen from the figure, totally polarized matter is always more repulsive than nonpolarized matter in all the density range explored for any value of the asymmetry parameter. Note also that the case in which neutron and proton spins are parallelly orientated is less repulsive than the case in which they have an antiparallel orientation. To highlight the effects of the nuclear interaction on the variation of $`E/A`$ as nuclear matter is polarized, we plot in Fig. 4 the kinetic (upper panels) and potential (lower panels) energy per particle for nonpolarized and totally polarized matter. The kinetic energy contribution of totally polarized neutron matter, asymmetric or symmetric matter is always larger than the corresponding one of nonpolarized matter, simply due to the fermionic nature of nucleons. Also, the potential energy contribution is always more repulsive in the totally polarized case. This can be understood by considering separately the contribution to the potential energy per particle of the spin singlet and spin triplet channels. In Tables I and II we show these contributions for nonpolarized and totally polarized neutron and symmetric matter at densities $`\rho =0.17`$ fm-3 and $`\rho =0.4`$ fm-3, respectively. Note, firstly, that an important amount of binding is lost in totally polarized neutron matter and in totally polarized symmetric matter with neutron and proton spins parallelly orientated due to the absence in these cases of the contribution of the spin singlet channels. Note also, in the totally polarized symmetric case, that when the orientation of neutron and proton spins is antiparallel this contribution, although it is present, is much less attractive or even repulsive (see Table II) than the corresponding one of nonpolarized symmetric matter. In addition, in all cases the contribution from spin triplet channels in totally polarized matter is always less attractive (or even repulsive at high density) than the corresponding one to nonpolarized matter. In particular, it is mainly this contribution the one which explains the difference between the energies of totally polarized symmetric matter with a parallel and an antiparallel orientation of neutron and proton spins, being in the antiparallel case less attractive or more repulsive. An interesting conclusion which can be inferred from our microscopic calculations is that a spontaneous transition to a spin polarized state, i.e., to a so-called ferromagnetic state, of nuclear matter is not to be expected for all the possible isospin asymmetries ranging from symmetric to pure neutron matter. If such a transition would exist, a crossing of the energies of the totally polarized and nonpolarized cases would be observed in neutron, asymmetric or symmetric matter at some density, indicating that the ground state of the system would be ferromagnetic from that density on. As can be seen in Fig. 3, there is no sign of such a crossing and, on the contrary, a spin polarized state becomes less favorable as the density increases.

It would be interesting to characterize in a simple analytic form the dependence of the total energy per particle on the asymmetry and spin polarizations. The kinetic energy contribution is already analytic and well known. It is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \frac{T}{A}(\rho ,\beta ,S_n,S_p)=\frac{3}{5}\frac{\mathrm{}^2k_F^2}{2m}\frac{1}{4}[(1+\beta )^{5/3}(1+S_n)^{5/3}+(1+\beta )^{5/3}(1S_n)^{5/3}\\ \hfill +(1\beta )^{5/3}(1+S_p)^{5/3}+(1\beta )^{5/3}(1S_p)^{5/3}],\end{array}$$
(27)
being $`k_F=(3\pi ^2\rho /2)^{1/3}`$ the Fermi momentum of nonpolarized isospin symmetric matter. An idea of the possible terms appearing in the potential energy contribution can be extracted from our previous phase space analysis of the single-particle potentials. We start from the BHF approximation of the potential energy per particle $`V/A`$ defined through Eq. (11) and making use of Eqs. (18)–(21) for the single particle potential $`U_{\tau \sigma }(k)`$, we can write

$$\frac{V}{A}\frac{1}{2A}\underset{\tau ,\sigma }{}\underset{\tau ^{},\sigma ^{}}{}\underset{kk_F^{\tau \sigma }}{}g_{\tau \sigma \tau ^{}\sigma ^{}}(k,\rho )\rho _{\tau ^{}\sigma ^{}}.$$
(28)
Next we use Eq. (22) and perform the average of the quantities $`g_i(k,\rho )`$ over the corresponding Fermi sphere with radius $`k_F^{\tau \sigma }`$. Finally, we arrive, after some little algebra, to

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{V}{A}\frac{\rho ^2}{4}[\overline{g}_1+\overline{g}_2+\overline{g}_3+\overline{g}_4]+\frac{\rho ^2}{4}[\overline{g}_1+\overline{g}_2\overline{g}_3\overline{g}_4]\beta ^2\\ \frac{\rho ^2}{8}[\overline{g}_1\overline{g}_2](1+\beta )^2S_n^2+\frac{\rho ^2}{8}[\overline{g}_1\overline{g}_2](1\beta )^2S_p^2+\frac{\rho ^2}{4}[\overline{g}_3\overline{g}_4](1\beta ^2)S_nS_p,\end{array}$$
(29)
where $`\overline{g}_i`$ are just the averages values of the quantities $`g_i`$. Following this simple analysis we can finally infer the form of the total energy per particle

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{E}{A}(\rho ,\beta ,S_n,S_p)=\frac{T}{A}(\rho ,\beta ,S_n,S_p)+V_0(\rho )+V_1(\rho )\beta ^2+V_2(\rho )(1+\beta )^2S_n^2\\ +V_2(\rho )(1\beta )^2S_p^2+V_3(\rho )(1\beta ^2)S_nS_p.\end{array}$$
(30)
This parametrization is consistent with the spin and isospin structure of the nucleon-nucleon interaction, in the sense that if we consider a particular configuration, $`\beta ,S_n,S_p`$, of the system, a global flip of the spins does not change the energy, whereas a flip only of all neutron or protons spins does. It is also clear that due to charge symmetry, a system with a configuration, $`\beta ^{}=\beta ,S_n^{}=S_p,S_p^{}=S_n`$, will have the same energy as the original one (note that the coefficients of the terms $`(1+\beta )^2S_n^2`$ and $`(1\beta )^2S_p^2`$ are the same).

The coefficients $`V_0(\rho ),V_1(\rho ),V_2(\rho )`$ and $`V_3(\rho )`$, whose density dependence is shown in Fig. 5, have been determined in the following way

$$V_0(\rho )=\frac{V}{A}(\rho ,\beta =0,S_n=0,S_p=0),$$
(31)
$$V_1(\rho )=\frac{V}{A}(\rho ,\beta =1,S_n=0,S_p=0)V_0(\rho ),$$
(32)
$$V_2(\rho )=\frac{V}{A}(\rho ,\beta =0,S_n=1,S_p=0)V_0(\rho ),$$
(33)
$$V_3(\rho )=\frac{V}{A}(\rho ,\beta =0,S_n=1,S_p=1)V_0(\rho )2V_2(\rho ).$$
(34)
It is clear, however, that their determination is not unique. Choosing them in this way, we get a parametrization which reproduces with a good quality (see Figs. 6 and 7 and the discussion below) the results of the BHF calculation of the total energy per particle for values of $`\beta ,S_n`$ and $`S_p`$ around their values for nonpolarized symmetric matter (i.e., $`\beta =0,S_n=0,S_p=0`$).

Note that for nonpolarized matter this parametrization reduces to

$$\frac{E}{A}(\rho ,\beta ,0,0)=\frac{T}{A}(\rho ,\beta ,0,0)+V_0(\rho )+V_1(\rho )\beta ^2,$$
(35)
which can be identified with the usual parabolic approach of the nuclear matter energy per particle if the kinetic energy contribution is expanded up to order $`\beta ^2`$.

In order to test the quality of this parametrization, we show in Fig. 6 the total energy per particle at $`\rho =0.8`$ fm-3 as a function of the proton spin polarization for different values of the neutron spin polarization and two values of the asymmetry parameter: $`\beta =0`$ (right panel) and $`\beta =0.25`$ (left panel). Circles, squares, diamonds and triangles show the results obtained from the BHF calculation, whereas those obtained from the parametrization are reported by solid lines. As can be seen from the figure, the dependence on the spin polarizations and the asymmetry parameter predicted by Eq. (30) is well confirmed from the microscopic results. It is interesting to note that for a fixed value of $`\beta `$ and $`S_n`$ (with $`S_n0`$), the minimum of the energy happens for a value of $`S_p0`$. However, this is not an indication of a phase transition to a ferromagnetic state, because the real ground state of the system, as we have seen, is that of nonpolarized matter in all the range of densities and isospin asymmetries considered. For completeness, we compare in Fig. 7 the results for the total energy per particle as a function of density for three arbitrarily asymmetric and spin polarized situations: $`\beta =0.25,S_n=0.3,S_p=0.4`$, $`\beta =0.5,S_n=0.5`$, $`S_p=0.25`$, and $`\beta =0.8,S_n=0.6`$, $`S_p=0.2`$, obtained from the BHF calculation and from the parametrization. As in the previous figure, symbols show results obtained from the BHF calculation, while soid lines refer to those obtained with the parametrization. The quality of the parametrization is quite good, as can be seen in both figures, with deviations from the microscopic calculation of at most $`78\%`$ only for the combinations of $`\beta ,S_n`$ and $`S_p`$ with the largest values. Higher deviations are found, however, at higher values of these parameters, being this an indication that the coefficients need to be refitted when considering matter with $`|\beta |1,|S_n|1`$ and $`|S_p|1`$.

### C Magnetic susceptibility

The ratio det($`1/\chi `$)/det($`1/\chi _F`$) can be evaluated in a very simple analytic way from Eq. (17) if the parametrization of Eq. (30) is assumed, giving

$$\frac{\text{det}(1/\chi )}{\text{det}(1/\chi _F)}=1+\frac{12mV_2(\rho )}{\mathrm{}^2k_F^2}[(1+\beta )^{1/3}+(1\beta )^{1/3}]+\frac{36m^2}{\mathrm{}^4k_F^4}[4V_2^2(\rho )V_3^2(\rho )](1\beta ^2)^{1/3},$$
(36)
with $`m`$ the average mass of the nucleons. This ratio is shown in Fig. 8 as a function of the density for several values of the asymmetry parameter $`\beta `$ from neutron to symmetric matter. Note that an important increase of the ratio happens as soon as a small fraction of protons is introduced in the system. This can be understood by looking at Eq. (36) and Fig. 5 from which it is clear that the ratio det($`1/\chi `$)/det($`1/\chi _F`$) increases as the asymmetry parameter $`\beta `$ decreases from $`1`$ to $`0`$. According to the criteria for the appearance of a ferromagnetic instability, such an instability should appear when det($`1/\chi `$)/det($`1/\chi _F`$)$`=0`$. Nevertheless, it can be seen from the figure that det($`1/\chi `$)/det($`1/\chi _F`$) increases monotonously with density, and a decrease is not to be expected even at higher densities for any value of the asymmetry parameter. Therefore, it can be inferred from these results that there is no sign at any density of a possible ferromagnetic phase transition for any asymmetry of nuclear matter.

As we said previously, the coefficients of the parametrization should be refitted when large values of the asymmetry parameter and the spin polarizations are considered. In particular, for the case of pure neutron matter it is more convenient to redefine coefficient $`V_2(\rho )`$ in the following way

$$V_2(\rho )=\frac{1}{4}(\frac{V}{A}(\rho ,\beta =1,S_n=1,S_p=0)\frac{V}{A}(\rho ,\beta =1,S_n=0,S_p=0)),$$
(37)
in order to get a better value of the magnetic susceptibility. We show in the figure by open circles the resulting neutron magnetic susceptibility obtained by refitting coefficient $`V_2(\rho )`$ according to Eq. (37). We find a good agreement with the results of ref.  where this coefficient is fitted in this way. For comparison, we show also the results for neutron matter obtained recently by Fantoni et al.  (filled circles). We note here, that our results confirm the reduction of about a factor $`3`$ of the magnetic susceptibility of neutron matter with respect to its Fermi gas value found by these authors, being the differences ascribed to the method (AFDMC) and the potential (AU6’ two-body \+ UIX three-body) employed by them. It seems, therefore, that this reduction is largely independent of the two-body modern potential used, and, in addition, that the effects of the three-nucleon interaction on the magnetic susceptibility are not large.

## IV Summary and Conclusions

Employing a realistic modern nucleon-nucleon interaction (NSC97e) we have studied properties of spin polarized isospin asymmetric nuclear matter within the Brueckner–Hartree–Fock approximation. We have determined the single particle potentials of neutrons and protons with spin up and down for several values of the neutron and proton spin polarizations and the asymmetry parameter. We have found that the potentials exhibit an almost linear and symmetric variation as a function of these parameters. Deviations from this behaviour occur at higher values of the asymmetry parameter and spin polarizations. These deviations have to be attributed to the dependence of the nucleon-nucleon $`G`$ matrices on $`\beta ,S_n`$ and $`S_p`$.

We have calculated the total energy per particle as a function of the density for totally polarized and nonpolarized neutron, asymmetric and symmetric matter. We have found that in the range of densities explored (up to $`7\rho _0`$) totally polarized matter is always more repulsive than nonpolarized matter for any asymmetry. This is due to a combination effect of the kinetic and potential energy contributions. We have also found in the totally polarized case that asymmetric and symmetric matter is more repulsive when neutron and proton spins are antiparallelly orientated than when all the spins are aligned along the same direction.

We have constructed an analytic parametrization of the total energy per particle as a function of the asymmetry parameter and spin polarizations. The quality of this parametrization has been tested, finding deviations from the microscopic calculation of at most $`78\%`$. Nevertheless, deviations are higher for higher values of the asymmetry parameter and spin polarization, and the coefficients of the parametrization need to be refitted when large values of the spin and isospin asymmetries are considered.

Employing this parametrization we have determined the magnetic susceptibility of nuclear matter for several values of the asymmetry from neutron to symmetric matter in terms of the ratio det($`1/\chi `$)/det($`1/\chi _F`$). We have found that this quantity increases monotonously with density, from which it can be inferred that a phase transition to a ferromagnetic state is not to be expected in nuclear matter at any density for any asymmetry.

Finally, our results confirm the reduction of about a factor $`3`$ of the magnetic susceptibility of neutron matter with respect to its Fermi gas value found recently by Fantoni et al. .

## Acknowledgements

The authors are very grateful to professors A. Fabrocini, A. Polls, A. Ramos and S. Rosati for useful discussions and comments. One of the authors (I.V.) wishes to acknowledge support from the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (Italy).


text:
# Five-parton amplitudes with two-quark and two-photon at Next-to-leading Order

## 1 Introduction

The search for the Higgs boson will be one of the most important issue of the LHC experiment. However, if the mass of the Higgs boson is light ($`M_H140`$ GeV), the Higgs boson search at the LHC is not so easy. In this range, the rare decay mode into two photons ($`H\gamma \gamma `$) is expected to give rather clear signals. There have been many calculations for this process including the radiative corrections . They found that the next-to-leading order (NLO) corrections to the Higgs production are very large. The next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) corrections haven been evaluated in the large top mass limit. The NNLO corrections show a good convergence in the perturbative expansion. Now, the uncertainty of the higher order corrections for the Higgs production signal is less serious. On the other hand, the QCD background still has large uncertainties. The NLO corrections of the QCD background ($`q\overline{q}\gamma \gamma `$) are also very large. To make matters worse, NNLO corrections of gluon-gluon initiated processes, such as the Box type correction $`gg\gamma \gamma `$, may very large due to the large gluon distribution. Actually, the size of a NNLO correction $`gg\gamma \gamma `$ comparable to the LO contribution $`q\overline{q}\gamma \gamma `$. Thus, at least, full NNLO analysis is required to obtain the significant evaluation. However, the NNLO analysis of the QCD backgrounds is still on the way.

It has been pointed out that the signal-to-background ratio can be improved by considering the associated production of the Higgs with a high transverse energy jet ( $`ppHjet\gamma \gamma jet`$). The existence of a high $`P_T`$ jet in the final state allows to choose suitable cuts to suppress the QCD background. In addition, for this process, the ambiguity of the higher order corrections is less serious. The subprocess with two gluon initial states $`ggg\gamma \gamma `$ again contributes first in the NNLO, which is believed to dominate the NNLO contributions. However, the LO correction, which is dominated by the subprocess $`qgq\gamma \gamma `$, is enough larger than the NNLO contributions because of the large gluon distribution. Thus, it is expected that the NLO analysis is fairly accurate to understand the QCD background.

To evaluate the NLO corrections of the QCD background, we need the tree-level QCD amplitudes for six partons ($`q\overline{q}\gamma \gamma gg`$,$`q\overline{q}Q\overline{Q}\gamma \gamma `$) and one-loop amplitudes for the five partons($`q\overline{q}\gamma \gamma g`$). In ref., the compact expressions for the six-parton tree-level amplitudes are presented. The one-loop amplitudes are also discussed in ref.. They provided the systematic procedure to express the one-loop five-parton amplitudes with using the known results of the $`q\overline{q}ggg`$ amplitudes or ”primitive amplitudes”. However, the QCD amplitudes include a lot of unnecessary terms which disappear in the explicit expression of photons amplitudes. Thus, their one-loop expressions are still rather complicated. In this paper, we carry out the direct calculations of the one-loop five-parton amplitudes, which are involving two massless quarks, two or three external photons. Our final goal of this paper is to obtain the explicit expressions for the one-loop $`\overline{q}qg\gamma \gamma `$ amplitudes without using QCD amplitudes.

The paper is organized as follows. It is now popular that QCD matrix elements of multi-partons are expressed in terms of the color ordered helicity amplitudes. In section 2 , we explain some technical prescriptions of these methods. We also explain known general forms of tree-level amplitudes with external gluons and/or photons. In Section 3, we present one-loop helicity amplitudes for five-parton processes including two or tree external photons. In Section 4, we give some concluding remarks.

## 2 Tree-level Amplitudes

The color decomposition and helicity basis method are now standard techniques to express the multi-parton amplitudes. The color decomposition method is the procedure which constructs color ordered gauge invariant partial amplitudes in the QCD. At the tree level, amplitudes $`𝒜_n`$ involving two quarks and $`n2`$ gluons can be decomposed into the partial amplitudes $``$’s which are characterized by the single string of the group matrices,

$$𝒜_n=g^{n2}\underset{a_iS_{n2}}{}(T^{a_3}\mathrm{}T^{a_n})A_n(q^{i_1},\overline{q}^{i_2},g^{i_3}\mathrm{},g^{i_n}),$$

where $`i_j`$ are parton helicities. $`T^a(a=1,2,\mathrm{},N^21)`$ are the matrices of the gauge group in the fundamental representation. $`S_n`$ denotes the set of noncyclic permutations over $`1,\mathrm{},n`$.

We also introduce the spinor helicity basis method. We use the popular notations for the helicity basis of a massless spinor field $`\psi `$,

$$q^\pm |\frac{1}{2}\overline{\psi }(q)(1\gamma _5),|\overline{q}^\pm \frac{1}{2}(1\pm \gamma _5)\psi (\overline{q}).$$

In this paper, all external momenta are taken to be outgoing. All color ordered helicity amplitudes are expressed in terms of following spinor products,

$$pqp^{}|q^+,[pq]p^+|q^{},[pq]qp=s_{pq}2pq.$$

We can also describe external gauge fields by using the spinor helicity basis. The polarization vectors can be written in terms of massless spinors $`|p^\pm `$ and $`|k^\pm `$,

$$\epsilon ^\pm (p,k)=\pm \frac{p^\pm |\gamma _\mu |k^\pm }{\sqrt{2}k^{}|p^\pm },$$
(1)
where $`p`$ is the gauge boson momentum, $`k`$ is the arbitrary momentum which satisfies $`k^2=0`$. We call this momentum $`k`$ as the reference momentum. Physical quantities do not depend on the reference momentum because a change in the reference momentum is equivalent to a gauge transformation:

$$\epsilon ^+(p,k)_\mu \epsilon ^+(p,k^{})_\mu \sqrt{2}\frac{kk^{}}{kpk^{}p}p_\mu .$$

This means that we can choose an appropriate reference momentum for any gauge invariant subset of the full amplitude. For example, in this formula, we obtain the following identities,

$$\overline{)}\epsilon ^\pm (p,k)|k^\pm =0,k^{}|\overline{)}\epsilon ^\pm (p,k)=0.$$
(2)
Using this identities, we can easily show that the amplitudes in which all gluons have the same helicity vanish,

$$A_n^{tree}(\overline{q},q,g_3^+,g_4^+,\mathrm{},g_n^+)=0.$$
(3)
From the above formula, we also obtain the simple expression of the amplitudes in which one gluon has negative helicity and all other gluons have positive helicity ,

$$A_n^{tree}(\overline{q}_1^+,q_2^{},g_3^+,\mathrm{},g_j^{},\mathrm{},g_n^+)=i\frac{1j2j^3}{1223\mathrm{}n1},$$
(4)
where the j-th gluon has the negative helicity. Here, we followed the notations and conventions given in ref.(In section 3, we use different normalization condition of group factor $`T^a`$).

The amplitudes involving external photons are obtained by summing over permutations of gluon matrix elements. The amplitudes containing gluons and photons with maximally-helicity-violating(MHV) configuration $`(,,+,\mathrm{},+)`$ are ,

$`A_n^{tree}(\overline{q}_1^,q_2^{},g_3,\mathrm{},g_{r+2},\gamma _{r+3},\mathrm{},\gamma _{r+m+2})`$ (5)
$`=i{\displaystyle \frac{1i2i^3}{1223\mathrm{}(r+2)1}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=r+3}{\overset{r+m+2}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{21}{2jj1}}\right],`$
where the i-th gluon or photon has the negative helicity. To obtain the one-loop level photons amplitudes, similar procedure have been applied to the one-loop amplitudes .

The amplitudes with other configuration of helicities are obtained by Parity inversion and charge conjugation. Parity inversion reverses the sign of all helicities of external legs. This conversion is achieved by taking the complex conjugation. In terms of the helicity basis method, this operation is same as the replacement of spinor products $`ij[ji]`$, but with no substitution of $`ii`$. In addition, a factor $`1`$ is required for each quark anti-quark pair. Charge conjugation replaces quarks and anti-quarks without changing helicities. From these relations, we can reduce the number of independent partial amplitudes. For the case of $`q\overline{q}g\gamma \gamma `$ amplitude, we only need to calculate the amplitudes with following three types of helicity configurations; $`(\overline{q}^{},q^+,g^+,\gamma ^+,\gamma ^+)`$ and $`(\overline{q}^{},q^+,g^\pm ,\gamma ^{},\gamma ^+)`$.

## 3 One-loop results

The one-loop $`q\overline{q}\gamma \gamma g`$ amplitudes can be written by the three types gauge independent partial amplitude $`_5^i(i=1,2,3)`$,

$$𝒜_5^{1loop}(q\overline{q}\gamma \gamma g)=\frac{e_q^2g^3T^a}{2}\left\{\frac{1}{N_c}_5^1(q\overline{q}\gamma \gamma g)+N_c_5^2(q\overline{q}\gamma \gamma g)\right\}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n_f}{}}\frac{e_{q_i}^2g^3T^a}{2}_5^3(q\overline{q}\gamma \gamma g).$$
(6)
$`_5^1`$ and $`_5^2`$ have different dependence on the color factor $`N_c(=3\text{for QCD})`$ and $`_5^3`$ is the fermion loop contribution. $`e_q`$ is the charge of the external quarks. $`e_{q_i}`$ are the charges of loop fermions and $`n_f`$ is flavor. To explain the one-loop results, we change normalization condition of the group generators as $`Tr(T^aT^b)=\delta ^{ab}/2`$.

To carry out the one-loop calculations, we need the information on the Feynman integrals. We follow the technology of the Feynman integral calculation which discussed in ref.. We use dimensionally regulated one-loop integrals in $`42ϵ`$ dimensions. In the conventional dimensional regularization(CDR) scheme, both momentum components and helicity states are dealt with in $`D(=42ϵ)`$ dimensions. Thus, all gluons and photons have $`22ϵ`$ helicity states. On the other hand, the spinor helicity basis is defined in four dimensions. To apply the helicity basis method to the one-loop calculations, we need some modification in the regularization scheme. The ’t Hooft and Veltman scheme is one of the solutions in which all polarization of observed particles are dealt with in four dimensions (then observed gluons and photons have 2 helicity state). The four-dimensional helicity (FDH) scheme  is a more efficient approach when using the spinor helicity method. In this scheme momentum components of unobserved particles are dealt with $`42ϵ`$ dimensions, but all helicities are treated in four dimensions. Thus, both observed and unobserved gauge bosons have 2 helicity states.

### 3.1 $`_5^1(\overline{q}qg\gamma \gamma )`$

The Feynman diagrams which contribute to the partial amplitudes $`_5^1`$ are given in figure 1. Here, one of the external gauge boson legs is a gluon and others are photons. We notice that the amplitudes $`_5^1`$ are obtained from the two-quark three-photon amplitudes $`𝒜(q\overline{q}\gamma \gamma \gamma )`$ by converting one of the photons into a gluon.

$`_5^1(q,\overline{q},g,\gamma ,\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`m_5(q,\overline{q},\gamma g,\gamma ,\gamma ),`$
$`𝒜^{1loop}(q,\overline{q},\gamma ,\gamma ,\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`e_q^3g^2{\displaystyle \frac{N_c^21}{2N_c}}m_5(q,\overline{q},\gamma ,\gamma ,\gamma ).`$
Therefore, we present the $`q\overline{q}\gamma \gamma \gamma `$ amplitudes at first.

From the analogy of eq.(2) and eq.(3), the tree level amplitudes in which all of photons have same helicity vanish,

$$m_n^{tree}(\overline{q},q,\gamma _3^+,\gamma _4^+,\mathrm{},\gamma _n^+)=0.$$

This result ensure that the corresponding amplitudes at one-loop level must be infrared and ultraviolet finite. The explicit form of the one-loop amplitude for the helicity $`(q_1^+,\overline{q}_2^{},\gamma _3^+,\gamma _4^+,\gamma _5^+)`$ is,

$`m_5(q_1^+\overline{q}_2^{}\gamma _3^+\gamma _4^+\gamma _5^+)={\displaystyle \frac{i}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{[24]14354534}}`$
$`\times `$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{\left([51][23]1325+3412[24][13]\right)s_{13}\left(s_{12}+s_{25}\right)}{s_{24}s_{51}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left([51][23]132523[13][24]14+2s_{25}s_{13}\right)s_{23}}{s_{24}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left([23]34[45]2545[51]12[24]\right)s_{45}\left(s_{12}+s_{25}\right)}{s_{51}s_{23}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(2[51]12[23]35+2[45][23]3524+s_{45}s_{12}\right)s_{24}}{s_{23}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(2[51]12[23]352[34]45[51]13+s_{34}s_{12}s_{34}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)s_{23}}{s_{51}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{s_{34}\left(s_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+s_{34}s_{12}+s_{34}s_{13}\right)}{s_{51}}}`$
$`+[45][12]2514+45[51]12[24]+2s_{45}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2s_{45}s_{34}`$
$`+s_{51}(s_{51}3s_{45}+s_{34}+5s_{12})]+(35).`$
An independent non-vanishing tree-level partial amplitude $`m_5^{tree}`$ is given by the helicity configuration ($`q^{},\overline{q}^+,\gamma ^{},\gamma ^+,\gamma ^+`$),

$$m_5^{\text{tree}}(q_1^+\overline{q}_2^{}\gamma _3^+\gamma _4^{}\gamma _5^+)=\frac{i2\sqrt{2}1224^2}{25235113.}$$
(7)
Here, we define the partial amplitudes $`m_5`$’s as,

$$A_5^{tree}(q\overline{q}\gamma \gamma \gamma )e^3m_5^{tree}(q\overline{q}\gamma \gamma \gamma )$$

The difference between eq.(5) and eq.(7) in the factor $`2\sqrt{2}`$ comes from the different normalization of group factor $`T^a`$. The corresponding one-loop level partial amplitude possesses ultraviolet and infrared divergences. It is well known that the singular part of one-loop n-point amplitudes have the universal structure,

$$m_n^{1loop}|_{\text{singular}}=c_\mathrm{\Gamma }m_n^{\text{tree}}\left[\frac{1}{ϵ^2}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}𝒮_j^{[n]}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{s_{j,j+1}}\right)^ϵ+𝒞^{[n]}\frac{1}{ϵ}\right],$$
(8)
where

$$c_\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{(4\pi )^ϵ}{16\pi ^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+ϵ)\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(1ϵ)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(12ϵ)}.$$

with $`D=42ϵ`$ and $`\mu `$ is the renormalization scale. $`m^{tree}`$ is the tree-level partial amplitude. $`𝒮_j^{[n]}`$ are the coefficients of the soft singularities and $`𝒞_j^{[n]}`$ are the sum of the coefficients of the collinear and ultraviolet singularities which depend on the particle contents of amplitudes. For the massless QCD, accurate values of the coefficients $`𝒮_j^{[n]}`$ and $`𝒞_j^{[n]}`$ are well known. Because of this fact, it is easy to check the singular part of one-loop level amplitudes. We will mention this matter in the end of this section. Here, we present the amplitudes in which ultraviolet divergences are unsubtracted.

We also introduce following functions to explain the non-singular parts,

$`L(s,t,u)`$ $``$ $`Li_2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{s}{u}}\right)+Li_2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{t}{u}}\right)+ln{\displaystyle \frac{s}{u}}ln{\displaystyle \frac{t}{u}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}`$
$`Rln^n\left({\displaystyle \frac{s}{t}}\right)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ln\left(\frac{s}{t}\right)}{(st)^n}},`$
where $`Li_2(Z)`$ is the dilogarithm function:

$$Li_2(Z)_0^Z\frac{dx}{x}log(1x).$$

The explicit form of the one-loop partial amplitude for the helicity configuration ($`q^{},\overline{q}^+,\gamma ^{},\gamma ^+,\gamma ^+`$) is,

$`m_5(q_1^+\overline{q}_2^{}\gamma _3^+\gamma _4^{}\gamma _5^+)`$
$`=`$ $`c_\mathrm{\Gamma }m^{\text{tree}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{s_{12}}}\right)^ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{3}{ϵ(12ϵ)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{s_{12}}}\right)^ϵ3\delta _D\right\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{[24]^235^212}}[f_1ln\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_{34}}{s_{12}}}\right)+f_2ln\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_{14}}{s_{45}}}\right)+f_3Rln^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_{23}}{s_{45}}}\right)+f_4Rln^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_{14}}{s_{23}}}\right)`$
$`4{\displaystyle \frac{35[24]s_{24}12^2s_{12}\left([13]34+[51]45\right)}{2351s_{13}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\stackrel{~}{L}(s_{23},s_{12},s_{45})`$
$`4{\displaystyle \frac{45^212^3[24]^235}{51^323}}\left(\stackrel{~}{L}(s_{14},s_{45},s_{23})+{\displaystyle \frac{s_{51}^2}{s_{13}^2}}\stackrel{~}{L}(s_{23},s_{12},s_{45})\right)`$
$`4{\displaystyle \frac{1235s_{24}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{5123}}(L(s_{12},s_{51},s_{34})+L(s_{34},s_{24},s_{51}))`$
$`+\{2{\displaystyle \frac{[35]\left([14]5134+23[24]45\right)\left(s_{34}+s_{45}\right)}{s_{35}}}2{\displaystyle \frac{s_{34}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left(s_{12}+s_{34}2s_{51}\right)}{s_{51}}}`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{[23]\left([51]123534[45]25\right)\left(s_{51}s_{34}\right)^2}{s_{23}s_{51}}}234[45]51[13]+223[24]45[35]`$
$`+2s_{23}s_{12}4s_{12}(s_{51}s_{34})\}L(s_{45},s_{34},s_{12})+R_0+(35)].`$
The scheme dependence is controlled by the parameter $`\delta _D`$. We obtain $`\delta _D=0`$ in the FDH scheme and $`\delta _D=1`$ in the ’t Hoot-Veltman scheme. Here, we also used the following definitions,

$`\stackrel{~}{L}(s_{23},s_{12},s_{45})`$ $``$ $`L(s_{23},s_{12},s_{45})s_{13}Rln^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_{23}}{s_{45}}}\right)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{L}(s_{14},s_{45},s_{23})`$ $``$ $`L(s_{14},s_{45},s_{23})s_{51}Rln^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_{23}}{s_{45}}}\right)s_{51}Rln^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_{14}}{s_{23}}}\right)`$
$`f_i(i=1,\mathrm{},4)`$ and $`R_0`$ are given by,

$`f_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[23]\left(1325[51]+24[45]35\right)\left(s_{25}+3s_{13}3s_{45}\right)}{s_{23}}}`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \frac{[51]\left(4512[24]13[23]25\right)s_{24}}{s_{51}}}3{\displaystyle \frac{\left([45]14[13]35+45[14]12[25]\right)s_{45}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{s_{25}s_{13}}}`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{\left(51[25]23[13]+45[51]12[24]s_{51}s_{45}\right)\left(s_{45}+s_{23}\right)}{s_{25}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(45[14]12[25]51[12]23[35]\right)s_{45}}{s_{25}}}{\displaystyle \frac{s_{45}\left(s_{45}+s_{23}\right)\left(s_{51}2s_{12}\right)}{s_{25}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{s_{45}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left(2s_{51}+3s_{45}\right)}{s_{25}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{[13]\left([45]143551[25]23\right)\left(s_{25}+4s_{45}\right)}{s_{13}}}+3{\displaystyle \frac{s_{45}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left(s_{23}s_{45}\right)}{s_{13}}}`$
$`551[12]23[35]+5[51]25[23]13+2s_{51}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+s_{34}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}3s_{34}s_{51}2s_{23}s_{45}2s_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$
$`3s_{51}s_{12}+3s_{34}s_{45}+4s_{34}s_{23}+s_{51}s_{45}s_{12}s_{34}+s_{12}s_{45}+7s_{45}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+4s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$
$`f_2`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{[25]\left(12[14]45+5123[13]\right)\left(s_{23}+3s_{12}\right)}{s_{25}}}`$
$`+8{\displaystyle \frac{[23]\left([51]123525[45]34\right)s_{12}}{s_{23}}}`$
$`4s_{45}s_{12}+4s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+8s_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}4s_{34}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+16s_{12}s_{23}8s_{34}s_{45}`$
$`f_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[23](12[51]3534[45]25)s_{34}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left(3s_{45}+2s_{12}\right)}{s_{51}s_{23}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left([51]12[23]35+[34]45[51]13+s_{34}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}s_{34}s_{12}\right)\left(s_{23}s_{12}+s_{23}s_{13}+s_{34}s_{12}+3s_{34}s_{13}\right)}{s_{51}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left([34]45[51]13[23]34[45]25\right)s_{34}\left(s_{45}3s_{34}s_{23}\right)}{s_{51}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{[23]\left([51]1235+25[45]34\right)\left(2s_{51}s_{12}4s_{34}s_{12}+5s_{34}s_{45}2s_{45}s_{51}\right)}{s_{23}}}`$
$`3\left([34]45[51]13[23]34[45]25+s_{45}s_{13}+s_{34}s_{12}+s_{45}s_{23}\right)s_{34}`$
$`234\left(12[23][14][45]51[13]\right)\left(s_{45}+s_{12}\right)2s_{45}\left(s_{34}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+s_{51}s_{12}s_{23}s_{34}\right)`$
$`+2\left(s_{51}s_{34}\right)s_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}5s_{34}s_{45}\left(s_{45}s_{34}+s_{51}\right)+5s_{34}s_{23}\left(s_{12}+s_{45}\right)`$
$`2s_{34}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left(s_{23}s_{45}\right)+s_{34}\left(s_{51}s_{12}+s_{45}s_{23}\right)`$
$`f_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[23]\left([51]123525[45]34\right)s_{34}(s_{34}s_{51})\left(s_{51}^2s_{45}^2\right)}{s_{51}s_{23}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{s_{34}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}s_{45}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left(s_{12}s_{34}\right)}{s_{51}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{[51]\left(35[23]12+[34]4513\right)\left(s_{12}s_{34}\right)\left(s_{12}s_{23}s_{23}s_{34}+2s_{34}s_{45}\right)}{s_{51}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2[23]\left([51]123525[45]34\right)s_{45}\left(s_{51}s_{34}\right)\left(s_{51}+s_{45}\right)}{s_{23}}}`$
$`+2\left([12]23[34]14+12[13]34[24]+s_{45}s_{51}+s_{34}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)s_{45}\left(s_{51}+s_{45}\right)`$
$`2\left(2[34]45[51]13+s_{34}s_{51}s_{45}s_{14}\right)s_{34}\left(s_{34}s_{23}+s_{12}\right)`$
$`2\left([34][51]1435+4512[14][25]+s_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}s_{34}s_{12}\right)\left(s_{45}+s_{12}\right)s_{23}`$
$`+\left(4512[14][25]+23[34]45[25]s_{23}s_{34}s_{45}s_{12}\right)\left(2s_{12}+s_{23}\right)s_{51}`$
$`+\left(223[34]45[25]+s_{12}s_{23}2s_{34}s_{45}\right)s_{12}\left(s_{12}s_{34}+s_{45}\right)`$
$`s_{45}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left(s_{45}s_{23}+3s_{12}s_{23}2s_{34}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}s_{34}s_{12}\right)s_{12}s_{23}\left(s_{34}s_{12}+2s_{45}s_{51}\right)`$
$`s_{34}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left(s_{34}s_{51}+s_{12}s_{23}4s_{45}s_{51}s_{51}s_{12}s_{45}s_{23}+2s_{51}s_{23}\right)`$
$`s_{12}\left(s_{34}+2s_{45}+s_{23}\right)s_{51}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+s_{23}s_{34}\left(2s_{45}s_{23}+s_{51}s_{23}+5s_{45}s_{51}\right)`$
$`R_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[25]\left(45[34]23+5124[14]\right)\left(2s_{51}3s_{34}s_{45}\right)s_{24}}{\left(s_{34}+s_{45}\right)s_{25}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{14[34]\left([12]23+[51]35\right)s_{35}s_{12}}{s_{14}s_{23}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{s_{35}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left(s_{23}+s_{34}\right)}{s_{51}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{45[24]\left([51]12+[35]23\right)s_{35}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{s_{51}\left(s_{51}+s_{45}\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{s_{35}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left(s_{12}+s_{34}+s_{45}+s_{23}\right)}{s_{51}+s_{45}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(51[12]23[35]+[34][51]1435s_{51}s_{23}\right)s_{12}s_{35}}{s_{23}\left(s_{51}+s_{45}\right)}}`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \frac{s_{12}s_{14}\left([51]12[23]3534[45]51[13]+s_{45}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}s_{23}s_{13}2s_{23}s_{45}\right)}{s_{23}\left(s_{34}+s_{45}\right)}}`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \frac{\left(51[25]23[13][34]45[51]13+s_{51}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+s_{45}s_{51}+s_{45}^2\right)s_{14}}{s_{34}+s_{45}}}`$
$`+3{\displaystyle \frac{[51]\left(1345[34]+12[23]35\right)\left(s_{23}+s_{34}\right)^2}{s_{51}s_{23}}}3{\displaystyle \frac{\left(s_{12}s_{45}\right)s_{34}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{s_{23}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{[23]\left(25[45]34[51]1235\right)\left(2s_{25}+3s_{34}\right)}{s_{23}}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{s_{45}s_{12}\left(s_{51}+s_{45}\right)}{s_{23}}}`$
$`+1423[34]45[25]+7[12]23[34]147[51]12[23]35+7s_{45}s_{34}+5s_{51}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$
$`6s_{51}s_{23}+s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}3s_{51}s_{12}+s_{12}s_{23}s_{23}s_{45}5s_{34}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2s_{45}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+s_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}4s_{23}s_{34}`$
$`+3s_{45}s_{51}+4s_{12}s_{34}7s_{45}s_{12}s_{34}s_{51}.`$
### 3.2 $`_5^2(\overline{q}qg\gamma \gamma )`$

The Feynman diagrams which contribute to the $`𝒪(N_c)`$-part are given in figure 2. The amplitude of all helicity positive gluon and photons vanishes again at the tree level. The corresponding amplitude at one-loop level is infrared and ultraviolet finite as,

$`_5^2(g_1^+\overline{q}_2^{}\gamma _3^+\gamma _4^+q_5^+)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{[12]51141334}}`$
$`\times `$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{[23]\left(1234[14]+[45]3524\right)s_{12}s_{14}}{s_{45}s_{23}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left([23]34[45]25+[12]23[34]14\right)s_{23}s_{34}}{s_{45}s_{12}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left([45]51[12]24+23[34]45[25]+2[12]23[34]14\right)\left(s_{51}s_{34}\right)}{s_{12}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left([45]51[12]24+12[23]34[14]s_{34}s_{12}2s_{34}s_{23}\right)\left(s_{12}+s_{51}+s_{34}\right)}{s_{45}}}`$
$`+45[14]12[25]+[45]14[13]35s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}s_{34}s_{23}+s_{45}s_{23}4s_{23}(s_{45}+s_{34})]`$
$`+(34).`$
Tree level amplitudes with the helicity configuration $`(\overline{q},q,\gamma ^+,\gamma ^\pm ,g^{})`$ are non-vanishing. Corresponding one-loop amplitudes have the ultraviolet and infrared divergences, again.

The amplitude in which a gluon has negative helicity and two photons have positive helicity is,

$`_5^2(g_1^{}\overline{q}_2^{}\gamma _3^+\gamma _4^+q_5^+)`$
$`=`$ $`c_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{tree}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{s_{12}}}\right)^ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{s_{51}}}\right)^ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{3}{ϵ(12ϵ)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{s_{51}}}\right)^ϵ\delta _D\right\}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{[12]^234^225}}[2{\displaystyle \frac{14[12]^225s_{34}\left(2[45]5124+323[34]14\right)}{45}}Rln^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_{51}}{s_{23}}}\right)`$
$`4{\displaystyle \frac{3425s_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2345}}(L(s_{51},s_{45},s_{23})+L(s_{23},s_{12},s_{45}))+4{\displaystyle \frac{25[51]3412s_{12}}{2324}}L(s_{12},s_{51},s_{34})`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{25[12][45](14s_{51}s_{34}24[25]51s_{45})s_{34}}{s_{51}s_{45}(s_{23}s_{51})}}+(34)],`$
where

$$^{\text{tree}}=\frac{2\sqrt{2}i12^225}{45242335}.$$

The tree level amplitudes are given by,

$$𝒜_5^{tree}(q\overline{q}g\gamma \gamma )=e^2gT^a_5^{tree}(q\overline{q}g\gamma \gamma ).$$

The amplitude with the helicity $`(\overline{q}^{},q^+,\gamma ^+,\gamma ^{},g^+)`$ is given by,

$`_5^2(g_1^+\overline{q}_2^{}\gamma _3^{}\gamma _4^+q_5^+)`$
$`=`$ $`c_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{tree}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{s_{12}}}\right)^ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{s_{51}}}\right)^ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{3}{ϵ(12ϵ)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{s_{51}}}\right)^ϵ`$
$`2L(s_{34},s_{23},s_{51})2L(s_{12},s_{51},s_{34})2\delta _D\}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{[23]^214^225}}[f_1Rln^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_{35}}{s_{12}}}\right)+f_2Rln^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_{35}}{s_{24}}}\right)+f_3Rln^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_{34}}{s_{12}}}\right)`$
$`+\{4{\displaystyle \frac{[45]51[12]24\left([45]51[12]2423[34]45[25]\right)^2}{s_{12}s_{45}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}}}`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{\left(2[45]51[12]24[51]25[24]1423[34]45[25]\right)}{s_{45}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}`$
$`\times \left(223[34]45[25]+2[23]34[45]25+s_{12}s_{45}\right)`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \frac{[45]\left(24[12]51[23]3425\right)s_{51}s_{24}}{s_{45}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\left(s_{51}s_{23}2s_{34}s_{23}+s_{51}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}s_{34}s_{51}\right)s_{25}}{s_{45}}}`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \frac{\left(45[51]12+2314[13]\right)s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{s_{51}24}}2{\displaystyle \frac{[51]\left(12[23]35+1345[34]\right)\left(s_{23}+s_{34}\right)}{s_{51}}}`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \frac{s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left(s_{23}+s_{45}\right)}{s_{51}}}2[24]\left([51]25143412[13]\right)+2s_{51}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}6s_{34}s_{51}+2s_{51}s_{23}`$
$`2s_{34}s_{45}4s_{51}s_{12}+2s_{45}s_{23}+4s_{34}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2s_{12}s_{34}\}\stackrel{~}{L}(s_{34},s_{35},s_{12})`$
$`+4{\displaystyle \frac{[14][25]s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}L(s_{51},s_{45},s_{23})}{[12][45]}}`$
$`+\{2{\displaystyle \frac{[51]\left(12[23]35+[34]4513\right)s_{34}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left(s_{23}s_{45}\right)}{s_{51}s_{24}s_{14}}}4{\displaystyle \frac{12[13]34^2[23][45]25}{24s_{14}}}`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \frac{s_{34}\left(12[13][24][23][45]25\right)\left([12]2314+45[51]13\right)}{s_{24}s_{14}}}`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{[34]^2\left([12]2314+45[51]13\right)^2}{s_{24}s_{14}}}\}\stackrel{~}{L}(s_{24},s_{12},s_{35})+R_0],`$
where

$$^{tree}=\frac{i2\sqrt{2}2523^2}{12452451}.$$

We also used following functions,

$`\stackrel{~}{L}(s_{34},s_{35},s_{12})`$ $`=`$ $`L(s_{34},s_{35},s_{12})s_{45}Rln^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_{35}}{s_{12}}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}s_{45}^2Rln^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_{35}}{s_{12}}}\right)s_{45}Rln^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_{34}}{s_{12}}}\right)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{L}(s_{24},s_{12},s_{35})`$ $`=`$ $`L(s_{24},s_{12},s_{35})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}s_{14}s_{24}Rln^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_{35}}{s_{12}}}\right).`$
$`f_i(i=1,2,3)`$ and $`R_0`$ are,

$`f_1`$ $`=`$ $`[24]\left(45[51]12+[13]1423\right)s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{8s_{45}s_{23}+3s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+6s_{45}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{s_{51}s_{24}}}{\displaystyle \frac{3s_{51}6s_{23}+8s_{45}}{s_{24}}}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{[51]\left(1345[34]+12[23]35\right)\left(s_{23}s_{45}\right)\left(3s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}3s_{34}s_{23}5s_{45}s_{23}+3s_{34}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+3s_{34}s_{45}\right)}{s_{51}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{[12]\left([45]512414[34]23\right)s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}s_{45}}{s_{12}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left(s_{23}s_{45}\right)\left(8s_{45}s_{23}+3s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+6s_{45}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)}{s_{51}}}`$
$`+\left(223[34]45[25]+223[24]14[13]2[51]25[23]13s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)s_{23}\left(2s_{51}+4s_{45}5s_{23}\right)`$
$`3([34]45[51]13+23[24]14[13]212[23]34[14]`$
$`+2s_{34}s_{45}+s_{51}s_{23}2s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})(s_{45}+s_{12}\left)\right(s_{45}+s_{34})`$
$`s_{23}(s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}6s_{34}s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}s_{12}s_{51}s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}s_{45}2s_{51}s_{23}s_{12}7s_{23}s_{45}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$
$`2s_{23}s_{34}s_{45}+3s_{23}s_{45}s_{12}+6s_{34}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}s_{45}2s_{12}s_{45}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2s_{45}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}+6s_{34}s_{45}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$
$`f_2`$ $`=`$ $`[51]\left(1345[34]+12[23]35\right)s_{14}`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{s_{23}\left(s_{23}s_{45}\right)}{s_{51}}}+3{\displaystyle \frac{s_{34}\left(s_{23}s_{45}\right)}{s_{51}}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{s_{12}\left(s_{23}+s_{34}\right)}{s_{51}}}\right)`$
$`+3\left([23]34[45]25[51]12[23]35+s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)\left(s_{12}s_{45}\right)s_{14}`$
$`+2\left([23]34[45]25[51]12[23]35s_{34}s_{12}\right)\left(s_{12}+s_{23}\right)s_{14}`$
$`+2[14]\left(12[23]34+51[25]24\right)s_{12}s_{25}2s_{14}s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left(s_{23}+s_{51}+s_{12}+s_{34}\right)`$
$`s_{14}\left(2s_{51}+2s_{34}+3s_{23}\right)s_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}s_{14}\left(3s_{34}s_{23}\right)s_{45}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$
$`+s_{14}s_{34}\left(4s_{51}+2s_{34}+5s_{45}\right)s_{12}+2s_{14}\left(3s_{23}s_{34}s_{45}+s_{51}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}s_{12}\right)`$
$`f_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[45]\left(51[12]24[23]3425\right)s_{23}\left(s_{34}s_{23}s_{12}s_{23}2s_{51}s_{12}\right)}{s_{45}s_{12}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left([51]25[23]13+23[34]45[25]\right)s_{23}(3s_{25}s_{25}+2(s_{51}s_{34})s_{45})}{s_{51}s_{24}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{s_{45}s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\left(3s_{23}+3s_{12}2s_{45}\right)}{s_{51}s_{24}}}2{\displaystyle \frac{s_{23}\left(s_{23}s_{51}+s_{34}\right)s_{45}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{s_{51}}}`$
$`+3{\displaystyle \frac{s_{45}s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left(s_{25}s_{23}\right)}{s_{51}}}+3{\displaystyle \frac{\left(23[34]45[25]23[24]14[13]s_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{s_{24}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left(6s_{12}s_{23}2s_{45}s_{12}5s_{45}s_{23}+3s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)}{s_{24}}}{\displaystyle \frac{s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}s_{34}\left(s_{51}+s_{34}\right)}{s_{12}}}`$
$`+4\left(23[24]14[13]+2[51]25[23]13+[12]23[34]14\right)s_{23}`$
$`R_0`$ $`=`$ $`\left(51[12]23[35]45[51]12[24]+s_{12}s_{35}s_{51}s_{35}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_{12}\left(s_{51}+s_{45}\right)}{s_{35}\left(s_{12}+s_{14}\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{s_{12}\left(s_{51}+s_{12}\right)}{s_{51}\left(s_{12}+s_{14}\right)}}\right)`$
$`+\left(45[51]12[24]2314[13][24]+s_{14}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_{14}s_{12}\left(s_{14}+s_{45}\right)}{s_{45}s_{35}\left(s_{12}s_{35}\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{s_{14}\left(s_{51}+s_{45}\right)}{s_{35}\left(s_{12}s_{35}\right)}}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(45[51]12[24]+[12]23[34]14\right)\left(\left(s_{51}s_{23}\right)^2s_{45}s_{14}\right)}{s_{45}s_{35}}}`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \frac{s_{14}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}s_{45}\left(s_{51}+s_{45}\right)}{s_{35}\left(s_{12}+s_{35}\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{s_{14}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}s_{51}\left(s_{45}s_{12}s_{45}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}s_{51}s_{45}s_{14}s_{12}\right)}{s_{45}s_{35}\left(s_{12}+s_{35}\right)}}2{\displaystyle \frac{s_{51}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}s_{12}}{s_{45}s_{35}}}`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \frac{[24]\left(45[51]12+25[35]34\right)\left(s_{34}+s_{51}\right)^2}{s_{51}s_{24}}}2{\displaystyle \frac{s_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left(s_{45}s_{35}+s_{51}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+s_{51}s_{45}\right)}{s_{35}\left(s_{12}+s_{14}\right)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(s_{45}s_{12}s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)s_{14}}{s_{35}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\left([45]51[12]24+[51]14[34]35+s_{51}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)s_{51}}{s_{35}}}`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{\left(45[51]12[24]+[12]23[34]14\right)s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{s_{45}s_{12}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{s_{23}\left(s_{51}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)}{s_{45}}}2{\displaystyle \frac{s_{45}\left(s_{12}s_{23}s_{34}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)}{s_{51}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(51[12]23[35]+12[13]35[25]+s_{45}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)\left(s_{23}+s_{45}+s_{12}\right)}{s_{51}}}{\displaystyle \frac{s_{45}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left(s_{23}+s_{34}\right)}{s_{51}}}`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{\left([51]14[34]35+34[35]25[24]s_{34}s_{45}\right)\left(s_{23}s_{34}\right)}{s_{51}}}{\displaystyle \frac{s_{34}s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}s_{12}}{s_{51}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{s_{45}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\left(s_{13}+s_{24}\right)}{s_{51}s_{35}}}7{\displaystyle \frac{s_{34}s_{45}\left(s_{51}+s_{45}\right)}{s_{35}}}6{\displaystyle \frac{s_{23}s_{45}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+s_{51}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}s_{34}}{s_{35}}}4{\displaystyle \frac{s_{51}s_{45}\left(s_{23}+s_{34}\right)}{s_{35}}}`$
$`2[12]23[34]14234[35]25[24]4s_{34}s_{45}+2s_{14}s_{51}2s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+4s_{34}s_{23}s_{45}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$
$`4s_{51}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}2s_{34}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}s_{45}s_{12}s_{51}s_{12}s_{12}s_{23}3s_{51}s_{45}s_{45}s_{23}+s_{34}s_{12}`$
### 3.3  $`_5^3(\overline{q}qg\gamma \gamma )`$

In the end of this section, we also give amplitudes which come from the fermion loop contributions. Here, we only consider massless quark loops.

$`_5^3(q_1^+\overline{q}_2^{}g_3^+\gamma _4^+\gamma _5^+)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16}{i\sqrt{2}(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{45[51]12[24]s_{14}45[51]12[24]s_{24}s_{25}s_{24}s_{14}+s_{24}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}s_{51}}{s_{12}[24]41355443}}`$
$`_5^3(q_1^+\overline{q}_2^{}g_3^+\gamma _4^{}\gamma _5^+)=_5^3(q_1^+\overline{q}_2^{}\gamma _3^+g_4^{}\gamma _5^+)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{\sqrt{2}[24]^235^212}}[2s_{24}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(s_{12}s_{35})s_{35}Rln^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_{34}}{s_{12}}}\right)`$
$`+\{2{\displaystyle \frac{\left(51[12]23[35]45[14]13[35]+s_{23}s_{12}\right)s_{14}}{s_{35}}}`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \frac{\left(12[23]34[14]51[12]23[35]\right)s_{12}s_{23}}{\left(s_{12}+s_{45}\right)s_{35}}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{s_{34}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left(s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+s_{12}s_{51}+s_{23}s_{51}\right)}{\left(s_{12}+s_{45}\right)^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(12[13]34[24]51[12]23[35]s_{34}s_{23}+2s_{34}s_{51}\right)\left(s_{34}s_{12}+s_{34}s_{23}+s_{23}s_{12}\right)}{\left(s_{12}+s_{45}\right)^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(23[34]45[25]+12[23]34[14]\right)\left(s_{34}+s_{51}+2s_{23}\right)}{s_{12}+s_{45}}}`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{[13]\left(1234[24]23[25]51\right)s_{12}}{s_{12}+s_{45}}}{\displaystyle \frac{s_{23}\left(s_{34}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+s_{34}s_{51}+2s_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+4s_{12}s_{51}\right)}{s_{12}+s_{45}}}`$
$`+2[34]35[51]14+245[14]13[35]+2[45]14[12]25223[24]45[35]`$
$`4s_{23}s_{51}+4s_{34}s_{23}4s_{23}s_{12}+2s_{51}s_{45}+s_{51}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+s_{34}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}2s_{34}s_{12}\}`$
$`\times \left\{ln\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_{45}}{s_{12}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{(s_{45}s_{12})^2}{(s_{34}s_{12})^2}}ln\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_{34}}{s_{12}}}\right)\right\}`$
$`2[35]^2[24]^2\left(34^225^2+23^245^2\right)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{L(s_{34},s_{45},s_{12})}{s_{35}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2s_{45}3_{12}+2s_{34})}{s_{35}}}Rln^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{34}{12}}\right)\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(23[34]45[25]+12[23]34[14]\right)s_{23}s_{34}}{s_{12}\left(s_{12}+s_{45}\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(34[45]51[13]+45[51]12[24]\right)s_{45}s_{51}}{s_{12}\left(s_{34}s_{12}\right)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(12[13]34[24]51[12]23[35]\right)\left(s_{34}+s_{23}\right)}{s_{12}+s_{45}}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{s_{23}s_{51}s_{34}}{s_{12}+s_{45}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(45[51]12[24]51[12]23[35]s_{12}s_{45}\right)\left(s_{45}+s_{51}\right)}{s_{34}s_{12}}}`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \frac{s_{51}s_{45}\left(s_{45}+s_{23}+s_{12}\right)}{s_{34}s_{12}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(s_{45}+s_{34}\right)\left(s_{45}+s_{23}\right)\left(s_{34}+s_{51}\right)}{s_{12}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(12[23]34[14]45[51]12[24]+s_{45}s_{34}\right)\left(s_{45}s_{34}+s_{23}+s_{51}\right)}{s_{12}}}`$
$`+s_{34}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}2s_{34}s_{51}+s_{45}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+4s_{34}s_{23}+s_{51}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+s_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}].`$
Now, we give some comments concerning the cross-check of our results. Besides the previous results, we also carried out the direct calculation of the amplitudes with the helicities $`(\overline{q}^{},q^+,g^{},\gamma ^{},\gamma ^\pm )`$ and $`(\overline{q}^{},q^+,g^{},\gamma ^{},\gamma ^{})`$. These amplitudes are obtained from the previous results by using Parity inversion and charge conjugation. This procedure is basically the same procedure discussed in section 2. Our direct calculations are consistent with this argument.

In addition, we checked the singular parts. Singular parts of one-loop amplitudes have the well known universal structure eq.(8). Thus, we can easily compute the singular part of the amplitudes from the known results of ref. by using the procedure given in ref.. To evaluate the singular part, we have to keep in mind that the regularization scheme does not affect the universal structure of the $`1/ϵ^2`$ pole parts but the $`1/ϵ`$ pole parts are scheme dependent. We estimated the singular parts in the FDH scheme and our results are consistent with the results of ref..

We also performed a consistency check of the scheme dependence. It is well known that, the FDH scheme at one-loop level is equivalent to the dimensional reduction(DR) scheme. The conversion relation between the DR scheme and ’t Hooft-Veltman scheme for the two-quark (n-2)gluon amplitudes is discussed in ref.. From their argument, the conversion from the DR scheme to the ’t Hooft-Veltman scheme at one-loop level is obtained by shifting the amplitudes as $`A_nA_n+\delta _n`$ with $`\delta _n=c_\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\frac{1}{N_c^2})A_n^{tree}`$. Now, we can consider the color-less limits ($`C_f1`$ and $`C_A0`$) of our results and the results in ref.. In this limits, both results give the same quantity of shifting parameter $`\delta _5`$.

## 4 Conclusion

In this paper, we presented one-loop five-parton amplitudes involving two massless quarks, two or three photons external legs. The one-loop five parton amplitudes with external photons are required to evaluate the QCD background for the Higgs production in association with a jet. These amplitudes have been discussed in terms of the known QCD amplitude($`q\overline{q}ggg`$). They give the systematic procedure to replace external gluons into photons. However, their results are still in rather large expression. Here, we computed the one-loop helicity amplitudes for the process $`q\overline{q}g\gamma \gamma `$ directly and obtained more compact expression successfully. The amplitudes which we presented here, together with the six parton tree-level amplitudes ($`q\overline{q}\gamma \gamma gg`$, $`q\overline{q}Q\overline{Q}\gamma \gamma `$) , we can estimate the NLO QCD background for the associated Higgs production with a jet.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Prof. Bern and Dr. Kilgore for useful discussions and comments, and Prof. Trócsányi for pointing out an error in an earlier version of eq.(6) and typos. I also thank Prof. Okada and Prof. Yazaki.