text:
# Josephson effect in point contacts between ”f-wave” superconductors.

## I
Introduction.

Triplet superconductivity, which is an analogue of superfluidity in $`{}_{}{}^{3}He,`$ was firstly discovered in a heavy-fermion compound $`UPt_3`$ more than ten years ago . Recently, a novel triplet superconductor $`Sr_2RuO_4`$ was found . In these compounds, the triplet pairing can be reliably determined, for example, by Knight shift experiments , however the identification of a symmetry of the order parameter is much more difficult task. A large number of experimental and theoretical investigations done on $`UPt_3`$ and $`Sr_2RuO_4`$ are concerned with different thermodynamic and transport properties, but the precise order parameter symmetry remains still to be worked out yet (see, for example, , and original references therein).

Calculations of the order parameter $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}\left(\widehat{𝐤}\right)`$ in$`UPt_3`$ and $`Sr_2RuO_4`$ as a function of the momentum direction $`\widehat{𝐤}`$ on the Fermi surface is a very complex problem. Some general information about $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}\left(\widehat{𝐤}\right)`$ can be obtained from a symmetry of a normal state: $`G_{spinorbit}\times \tau \times U(1)`$, where $`G_{spinorbit}`$ represents the point group with inversion; $`\tau `$ is the time-inversion operator, and $`U(1)`$ is the group of gauge transformation. A superconducting state breaks one or more symmetries. In particular, a transition to the superconducting state implies an appearance of the phase coherence corresponding to breaking of the gauge symmetry. According to Landau theory  of second order phase transitions, the order parameter is transformed only on irreducible representations of the symmetry group of the normal state. Conventional superconducting states have a total point symmetry of the crystal and belong to the unitary even representation $`A_{1g}.`$ In unconventional superconductors this symmetry is broken. The parity of a superconductor with inversion symmetry can be specified using the Pauli principle. Because for triplet pairing the spin part of the $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is a symmetric second rank spinor, the orbital part has to belong to the odd representation. In a general case the triplet paring is described by the order parameter of the form $`\widehat{𝚫}\left(\widehat{𝐤}\right)=i𝐝\left(\widehat{𝐤}\right)\widehat{\sigma }\widehat{\sigma }_2`$, where the vector $`\widehat{\sigma }=(\widehat{\sigma }_1,\widehat{\sigma }_2,\widehat{\sigma }_3),`$ and $`\widehat{\sigma }_i`$ are Pauli matrices in the spin space. A vector $`𝐝\left(\widehat{𝐤}\right)=𝐝\left(\widehat{𝐤}\right)`$ in spin space is frequently referred to as an order parameter or a gap vector of the triplet superconductor. This vector defines the axis along which the Cooper pairs have zero spin projection. If $`𝐝`$ is complex, the spin components of the order parameter spontaneously break time-reversal symmetry.

Symmetry considerations reserves for the order parameter considerable freedom in the selection of irreducible representation and its basis functions. Therefore in many papers (see, for example, ) authors consider different models (so-called scenarios) of superconductivity in $`UPt_3`$ and $`Sr_2RuO_4,`$ which are based on possible representations of crystallographic point groups. The subsequent comparison of theoretical results with experimental data makes it possible to conclude on the symmetry of the order parameter.

In real crystalline superconductors there is no classification of Cooper pairing by angular momentum ($`s`$-wave, $`p`$-wave, $`d`$-wave, $`f`$-wave pairing, etc.). However these terms are often used for unconventional superconductors meaning that the point symmetry of the order parameter is the same as one for the corresponding representation of $`SO_3`$ symmetry group of isotropic conductor. In this terminology conventional superconductors can be referred to as $`s`$-wave. For example, the ”$`p`$-wave” pairing corresponds to the odd two-dimensional representation $`E_{1u}`$ of $`D_{6h}`$ point group or $`E_u`$ representation of $`D_{4h}`$ point group. The order parameter for these representations has the same symmetry, as for the superconducting state with angular momentum $`l=1`$ of Cooper pairs in an isotropic conductor. If the symmetry of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ can not be formally related to any irreducible representation of $`SO_3`$ group, these states are usually referred to as hybrid states.

Apparently, in crystalline triplet superconductors the order parameter has more complex dependence on $`\widehat{𝐤}`$ in comparison with well known $`p`$-wave order parameter for superfluid phases of $`{}_{}{}^{3}He.`$ The heavy-fermion superconductor $`UPt_3`$ belongs to the hexagonal crystallographic point group $`\left(D_{6h}\right),`$ and it is most likely that the pairing state belongs to $`E_{2u}`$ (”$`f`$wave” state) representation. A layered perovskite material $`Sr_2RuO_4`$ belongs to the tetragonal crystallographic point group $`\left(D_{4h}\right)`$ . Initially the simplest ”$`p`$-wave” model based on $`E_u`$ representation was proposed for the superconducting state in this compound . However this model was inconsistent with available experimental data, and later  other ”$`f`$-wave” models of pairing state were proposed.

Theoretical studies of specific heat, thermal conductivity, ultrasound absorption for different models of triplet superconductivity show considerable quantitative differences between calculated dependences. The Josephson effect is much more sensitive to dependence of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ on the momentum direction on the Fermi surface. One of the possibilities to form a Josephson junction is to create a point contact between two massive superconductors. A microscopic theory of the stationary Josephson effect in ballistic point contacts between conventional superconductors was developed in Ref.. Later this theory was generalized for a pinhole model in $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$  and for point contacts between ”$`d`$-wave” high-$`T_c`$ superconductors . It was shown that current-phase dependences for the Josephson current in such systems are quite different from those of conventional superconductors, and states with a spontaneous phase difference become possible. Theoretical and experimental investigations of this effect in novel triplet superconductors seem to be interesting and enable one to distinguish among different candidates for the superconducting state.

In Ref. the authors study the interface Andreev bound states and their influence on the Josephson current between clean ”$`f`$-wave” superconductors both self-consistently (numerically) and non-self-consistently (analytically). The temperature dependence of the critical current is presented. However in that paper there is no detailed analysis of the current-phase dependences for different orientations of the crystals in the superconducting banks.

In this paper we theoretically investigate the stationary Josephson effect in a small ballistic junction between two bulk triplet superconductors with different orientations of the crystallographic axes with respect to the junction normal. In Sec.II we describe our model of the junction and present the full set of equations. In Sec.III the current density in the junction plane is analytically calculated for a non-self-consistent model of the order parameter. In Sec.IV the current-phase dependences for most likely models of ”$`f`$-wave” superconductivity in $`UPt_3`$ and $`Sr_2RuO_4`$ are analyzed for different mutual orientations of the banks. We end in Sec.V with some conclusions.

## II Model of the contact and formulation of the problem.

We consider a model of a ballistic point contact as an orifice with a diameter $`d`$ in an impenetrable for electrons partition between two superconducting half spaces (Fig.1). We assume that the contact diameter $`d`$ is much larger than the Fermi wavelength and use the quasiclassical approach.

In order to calculate the stationary Josephson current in point contact we use ”transport-like” equations for $`\xi `$-integrated Green functions $`\stackrel{}{g}(\widehat{𝐤},𝐫,\epsilon _m)`$

$$[i\epsilon _m\underset{3}{\overset{}{\tau }}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }},\stackrel{}{g}]+iv_F\widehat{𝐤}\stackrel{}{g}=0,$$
(1)
and the normalization condition

$$\stackrel{}{g}\stackrel{}{g}=1.$$
(2)
Here $`\epsilon _m=\pi T(2m+1)`$ are discrete Matsubara energies, $`v_F`$ is the Fermi velocity, $`\widehat{𝐤}`$ is a unit vector along the electron velocity, $`\underset{3}{\overset{}{\tau }}=\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{I};\widehat{\tau }_i(i=1,2,3)`$ are Pauli matrices in a particle-hole space.

The Matsubara propagator $`\stackrel{}{g}`$ can be written in the form :

$$\stackrel{}{g}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}g_1+𝐠_1\widehat{\sigma }& \left(g_2+𝐠_2\widehat{\sigma }\right)i\widehat{\sigma }_2\\ i\widehat{\sigma }_2\left(g_3+𝐠_3\widehat{\sigma }\right)& g_4\widehat{\sigma }_2𝐠_4\widehat{\sigma }\widehat{\sigma }_2\end{array}\right);$$
(3)
as can be done for an arbitrary Nambu matrix. Matrix structure of the off-diagonal self energy $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ in Nambu space is

$$\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i𝐝\widehat{\sigma }\widehat{\sigma }_2\\ i\widehat{\sigma }_2𝐝^{}\widehat{\sigma }& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(4)
Below we consider so-called unitary states, for which $`𝐝\times 𝐝^{}=0.`$

The gap vector $`𝐝`$ has to be determined from the self-consistency equation:

$$𝐝(\widehat{𝐤},𝐫)=\pi TN\left(0\right)\underset{m}{}V(\widehat{𝐤},\widehat{𝐤}^{})𝐠_2(\widehat{𝐤}^{},𝐫,\epsilon _m),$$
(5)
where $`V(\widehat{𝐤},\widehat{𝐤}^{})`$ is a potential of pairing interaction; $`\mathrm{}`$ stands for averaging over directions of an electron momentum on the Fermi surface; $`N\left(0\right)`$ is the electron density of states.

Solutions of Eqs. (1), (5) must satisfy the conditions for Green functions and vector $`𝐝`$ in the banks of superconductors far from the orifice:

$`\stackrel{}{g}\left(\mathrm{}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\epsilon _m\underset{3}{\overset{}{\tau }}\underset{1,2}{\overset{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}{\sqrt{\epsilon _m^2+\left|𝐝_{1,2}\right|^2}}};`$ (6)
$`𝐝\left(\mathrm{}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`𝐝_{1,2}\left(\widehat{𝐤}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i\varphi }{2}}\right),`$ (7)
where $`\varphi `$ is the external phase difference. Eqs. (1) and (5) have to be supplemented by the boundary continuity conditions at the contact plane and conditions of reflection at the interface between superconductors. Below we assume that this interface is smooth and electron scattering is negligible.

## III Calculation of the current density.

The solution of Eqs. (1) and (5) allows us to calculate the current density:

$$𝐣\left(𝐫\right)=2\pi eTv_FN\left(0\right)\underset{m}{}\widehat{𝐤}g_1(\widehat{𝐤},𝐫,\epsilon _m).$$
(8)
We consider a simple model of the constant order parameter up to the surface. The pair breaking and the scattering on the partition and in the junction are ignored. This model can be rigorously found for the calculations of the current density (8) in ballistic point contacts between conventional superconductors at zero approximation with small parameter $`d/\xi _0`$ ($`\xi _0`$ is the coherence length) . In anisotropically paired superconductors the order parameter changes at distances of the order of $`\xi _0`$ even near a specular surface . Thus for calculations of the current (8) in the main approximation on the parameter $`d/\xi _0`$ it is necessary to solve the equation (5) near a surface of the semi-infinite superconductor. It can be done only numerically and will be the subject of our future investigations. Below we assume that the order parameter does not depend on coordinates and in each half-space equals to its value (7) far form the point contact. For this non-self-consistent model the current-phase dependence of a Josephson junction can be calculated analytically. It makes possible to analyze the main features of current-phase dependences for different scenarios of ”$`f`$-wave” superconductivity. We believe that under this strong assumption our results describe the real situation qualitatively, as it was justified for point contacts between ”$`d`$-wave” superconductors  and pinholes in $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ . It was also shown in Ref. that for the contact between ”$`f`$-wave” superconductors there is also good qualitative agreement between self-consistent and non-self-consistent solutions (although, of course, quantitative distinctions, take place).

In a ballistic case the system of 16 equations for functions $`g_i`$ and $`𝐠_i`$ can be decomposed on independent blocks of equations. The set of equations which enables us to find the Green function $`g_1`$ is

$`iv_F\widehat{𝐤}g_1+\left(𝐠_3𝐝𝐠_2𝐝^{}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0;`$ (9)
$`iv_F\widehat{𝐤}𝐠_{}+2i\left(𝐝\times 𝐠_3+𝐝^{}\times 𝐠_2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0;`$ (10)
$`iv_F\widehat{𝐤}𝐠_32i\epsilon _m𝐠_32g_1𝐝^{}i𝐝^{}\times 𝐠_{}`$ $`=`$ $`0;`$ (11)
$`iv_F\widehat{𝐤}𝐠_2+2i\epsilon _m𝐠_2+2g_1𝐝i𝐝\times 𝐠_{}`$ $`=`$ $`0;`$ (12)
where $`𝐠_{}=𝐠_1𝐠_4.`$ The Eqs. (9)-(12) can be solved by integrating over ballistic trajectories of electrons in the right and left half-spaces. The general solution satisfying the boundary conditions (6) at infinity is

$`g_1^{\left(n\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\epsilon _m}{\mathrm{\Omega }_n}}+iC_n\mathrm{exp}\left(2s\mathrm{\Omega }_nt\right);`$ (13)
$`𝐠_{}^{\left(n\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`𝐂_n\mathrm{exp}\left(2s\mathrm{\Omega }_nt\right);`$ (14)
$`𝐠_2^{\left(n\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2C_n𝐝_n𝐝_n\times 𝐂_n}{2s\eta \mathrm{\Omega }_n+2\epsilon _m}}\mathrm{exp}\left(2s\mathrm{\Omega }_nt\right){\displaystyle \frac{𝐝_n}{\mathrm{\Omega }_n}};`$ (15)
$`𝐠_3^{\left(n\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2C_n𝐝_n^{}+𝐝_n^{}\times 𝐂_n}{2s\eta \mathrm{\Omega }_n2\epsilon _m}}\mathrm{exp}\left(2s\mathrm{\Omega }_nt\right){\displaystyle \frac{𝐝_n^{}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_n}};`$ (16)
where $`t`$ is the time of the flight along the trajectory, $`sgn\left(t\right)=sgn\left(z\right)=s;`$ $`\eta =sgn\left(v_z\right);`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n=\sqrt{\epsilon _m^2+\left|𝐝_n\right|^2}.`$ By matching the solutions (13-16) at the orifice plane $`\left(t=0\right)`$, we find constants $`C_n`$ and $`𝐂_𝐧.`$ Index $`n`$ numbers left $`\left(n=1\right)`$ and right $`\left(n=2\right)`$ half-spaces. The function $`g_1\left(0\right)=g_1^{\left(1\right)}\left(0\right)=g_1^{\left(2\right)}\left(+0\right),`$ which determines the current density in the contact is

$`g_1\left(0\right)=`$

$$\frac{i\epsilon _m\mathrm{cos}\varsigma \left(\mathrm{\Omega }_1+\mathrm{\Omega }_2\right)+\eta \mathrm{sin}\varsigma \left(\epsilon _m^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2\right)}{𝚫_1𝚫_2+\left(\epsilon _m^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2\right)\mathrm{cos}\varsigma i\epsilon _m\eta \left(\mathrm{\Omega }_1+\mathrm{\Omega }_2\right)\mathrm{sin}\varsigma }$$
(17)
In the formula (17) we have taken into account that for unitary states vectors $`𝐝_{1,2}`$ can be written as

$$𝐝_n=𝚫_n\mathrm{exp}i\psi _n,$$
(18)
where $`𝚫_{1,2}`$ are real vectors.

Knowing the function $`g_1\left(0\right)`$ one can calculate the current density at the orifice plane $`𝐣(0)`$:

$$𝐣(0)=4\pi eN(0)v_FT\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\widehat{𝐤}\widehat{𝐤}Reg_1(0),$$
(19)
where

Re $`g_1\left(0\right)=`$

$$\frac{\mathrm{sin}\varsigma \left(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2\mathrm{cos}\varsigma +\left(\epsilon _m^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2\right)𝚫_1𝚫_2\right)}{\left[𝚫_1𝚫_2+\left(\epsilon _m^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2\right)\mathrm{cos}\varsigma \right]^2+\epsilon _m^2\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_1+\mathrm{\Omega }_2\right)^2\mathrm{sin}^2\varsigma }$$
(20)
or, alternatively,

$$Reg_1\left(0\right)=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2}{2}\underset{\pm }{}\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\varsigma \pm \theta )}{\epsilon _m^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2+\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2\mathrm{cos}(\varsigma \pm \theta )},$$
(21)
where $`\theta `$ is defined by $`𝚫_1(\widehat{𝐤})𝚫_2(\widehat{𝐤})=\mathrm{\Delta }_1(\widehat{𝐤})\mathrm{\Delta }_2(\widehat{𝐤})\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, and $`\varsigma (\widehat{𝐤})=\psi _2(\widehat{𝐤})\psi _1(\widehat{𝐤})+\varphi .`$

Misorientation of the crystals would generally result in appearance of the current along the interface as can be calculated by projecting vector $`𝐣`$ at the corresponding direction.

We consider a rotation $`R`$ only in the right superconductor (see, Fig.1), (i.e., $`𝐝_2\left(\widehat{𝐤}\right)=R𝐝_1\left(R^1\widehat{𝐤}\right)`$). The $`c`$-axis in the left half-space we choose along the partition between superconductors (along $`z`$-axis in Fig.1). To illustrate results obtained by computing the formula (19), we plot the current-phase dependence for different below mentioned scenarios of ” $`f`$-wave” superconductivity for two different geometries corresponding to different orientations of the crystals to the right and to the left at the interface (see, Fig.1):

(i) The basal $`ab`$-plane to the right is rotated about $`c`$-axis by the angle $`\alpha `$; $`\widehat{𝐜}_1\widehat{𝐜}_2`$.

(ii) The $`c`$-axis to the right is rotated about the contact axis ($`y`$-axis in Fig.1) by the angle $`\alpha `$; $`\widehat{𝐛}_1\widehat{𝐛}_2`$.

Further calculations require a certain model of the vector order parameter $`𝐝`$.

## IV Current-phase dependence for different scenarios of ”$`f`$-wave” superconductivity.

The model which has been successful to explain properties of the superconducting phases in $`UPt_3`$ is based on the odd-parity $`E_{2u}`$ representation of the hexagonal point group $`D_{6h}`$ for the strong spin-orbital coupling with vector d locked along c axis of the lattice : $`𝐝=\mathrm{\Delta }_0\widehat{z}\left[\eta _1Y_1+\eta _2Y_2\right],`$ where $`Y_1=k_z\left(k_x^2k_y^2\right)`$ and $`Y_2=`$ $`2k_xk_yk_z`$ are the basis function of the representation***Strictly speaking, in crystals with a strong spin-orbit coupling the spin is a ”bad” quantum number, but electron states are twice degenerated and can be characterized by pseudospins.. The coordinate axes $`x,y,z`$ here and below are chosen along the crystallographic axes $`\widehat{𝐚},\widehat{𝐛},\widehat{𝐜}`$ as at the left at Fig.1. This model describes the hexagonal analog of spin-triplet $`f`$-wave pairing. For the high-temperature A-phase ($`\eta _2=0`$) the order parameter has an equatorial line node and two longitudinal line nodes. In the low-temperature B-phase ($`\eta _2=i`$) or the axial state:

$$𝐝=\mathrm{\Delta }_0\widehat{z}k_z\left(k_x+ik_y\right)^2,$$
(22)
the longitudinal line nodes are closed and there is a pair of point nodes. The B-phase (22) breaks the time-reversal symmetry. The function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0\left(T\right)`$ in Eq.22 and below describes the dependence of the order parameter $`𝐝`$ on temperature $`T`$ (carrying out numerical calculations we assume $`T=0`$).

Other candidates to describe the orbital states, which imply that the effective spin-orbital coupling in $`UPt_3`$ is weak, are unitary planar state

$$𝐝=\mathrm{\Delta }_0k_z(\widehat{x}\left(k_x^2k_y^2\right)+\widehat{y}2k_xk_y),$$
(23)
(or $`𝐝=\mathrm{\Delta }_0(Y_1,Y_2,0)`$) and non-unitary bipolar state $`𝐝=\mathrm{\Delta }_0(Y_1,iY_2,0)`$ . In Fig.2 we plot the Josephson current-phase dependence $`j_J(\varphi )=j_y(y=0)`$ calculated from Eq.19 for both the axial (with the order parameter given by Eq.22) and the planar (Eq.23) states for a particular value of $`\alpha `$ under the rotation of basal $`ab`$-plane to the right (the geometry (i)). For simplicity we use the spherical model of the Fermi surface. For the axial state the current-phase dependence is just the slanted sinusoid and for the planar state it shows a ”$`\pi `$-state”. The appearance of $`\pi `$-state at low temperatures is due to the fact that different quasiparticle trajectories contribute to the current with different effective phase differences $`\varsigma (\widehat{𝐤})`$ (see Eqs.19 and 21). Such a different behavior can be a criterion to distinguish between the axial and the planar states, taking advantage of the phase-sensitive Josephson effect. Note that for the axial model the Josephson current formally does not equal to zero at $`\varphi =0.`$ This state is unstable (does not correspond to a minimum of the Josephson energy), and the state with a spontaneous phase difference (value $`\varphi _0`$ in Fig.2), which depends on the misorientation angle $`\alpha ,`$ is realized.

The remarkable influence of the misorientation angle $`\alpha `$ on the current-phase dependence is shown in Fig.3 for the axial state in the geometry (ii). For some values of $`\alpha `$ (in Fig.3 it is $`\alpha =\pi /3`$ ) there are more than one state, which correspond to minima of the Josephson energy $`(j_J=0`$ and $`dj_J/d\varphi >0)`$.

Calculated $`x`$ and $`z`$-components of the current, which are parallel to the surface, $`𝐣_S(\varphi )`$ are shown in Fig.4 and Fig.5 for the same axial state in the geometry (ii). Note that the tangential to the surface current as a function of $`\varphi `$ is not zero when the Josephson current (Fig.3) is zero. This spontaneous tangential current (see also in Ref.) is due to the specific ”proximity effect” similar to spontaneous current in contacts between ”$`d`$-wave” superconductors . The total current is determined by the Green function, which depends on the order parameters in both superconductors. As a result of this, for nonzero misorientation angles the parallel to the surface current can be generated. In the geometry (i) the tangential current for both the axial and planar states at $`T=0`$ is absent.

The first candidate for the superconducting state in $`Sr_2RuO_4`$ was ”$`p`$-wave” model

$$𝐝=\mathrm{\Delta }_0\widehat{z}\left(\widehat{k}_x+i\widehat{k}_y\right).$$
(24)
Recently  it was shown that the pairing state in $`Sr_2RuO_4,`$ most likely, has lines of nodes. It was suggested that this can occur if the spin-triplet state belongs to a non trivial realization of the $`E_u`$ representation of $`D_{4h}`$ group, either $`B_{2g}E_u`$  or $`B_{1g}E_u`$  symmetry:

$$𝐝=\mathrm{\Delta }_0\widehat{z}\widehat{k}_x\widehat{k}_y\left(\widehat{k}_x+i\widehat{k}_y\right),\text{ for }B_{2g}E_u\text{ symmetry;}$$
(25)
$$𝐝=\mathrm{\Delta }_0\widehat{z}\left(\widehat{k}_x^2\widehat{k}_y^2\right)\left(\widehat{k}_x+i\widehat{k}_y\right),\text{ for }B_{1g}E_u\text{ symmetry.}$$
(26)
Note that models (24-26)of the order parameter spontaneously break time-reversal symmetry.

Taking into account a quasi-two-dimensional electron energy spectrum in $`Sr_2RuO_4`$, we calculate the current (19) numerically using a model of the cylindrical Fermi surface. The Josephson current for the hybrid ”$`f`$-wave” model of the order parameter Eq.(26) is compared to the $`p`$-wave model (Eq.24) in Fig.6 (for $`\alpha =\pi /4`$). Note that the critical current for the ”$`f`$-wave” model is several times smaller (for the same value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$) than for the ”$`p`$-wave” model. This different character of the current-phase dependencies enables us to distinguish between the two states.

In Figs. 7 and 8 we present the Josephson current and the tangential current for the hybrid ”$`f`$-wave” model for different misorientation angles $`\alpha `$ (for the ”$`p`$-wave” model it equals to the zero). Just as in Fig.2 for the ”$`f`$-wave” order parameter (22), in Fig.7 for the hybrid ”$`f`$-wave” model (25) the steady state of the junction with zero Josephson current corresponds to the nonzero spontaneous phase difference if misorientation angle $`\alpha 0`$.

## V Conclusion.

We have considered the stationary Josephson effect in point-contacts between triplet superconductors. Our consideration is based on models with ”$`f`$-wave” symmetry of the order parameter belonging to the two-dimensional representations of the crystallographic symmetry groups. It is shown that the current-phase dependences are quite different for different models of the order parameter. Because the order parameter phase depends on the momentum direction on the Fermi surface, the misorientation of the superconductors leads to spontaneous phase difference that corresponds to the zero Josephson current and to the minimum of the weak link energy. This phase difference depends on the misorientation angle and can possess any values. We have found that in contrast to ”$`p`$-wave” model, in the ”$`f`$-wave” models the spontaneous current may be generated in a direction which is tangential to the orifice plane. Generally speaking this current is not equal to zero in the absence of the Josephson current. We demonstrate that the study of a current-phase dependence of small Josephson junction for different crystallographic orientations of banks enables one to judge on the applicability of different models to the triplet superconductors $`UPt_3`$ and $`Sr_2RuO_4.`$

It is clear that such experiments require very clean superconductors and perfect structures of the junction because of pairbreaking effects of non-magnetic impurities and defects in triplet superconductors. The influence of single impurities and roughness of interface in the plane of the contact, which may essentially decrease the critical current of the junction, will be analyzed in our next paper.

## VI Acknowledgment.

We would like to thank A.N. Omelyanchouk for many helpful discussions. One of the authors (Yu.K) acknowledges to Institute for Advanced Studies in Basic Sciences and personally Y.Sobouti and M.R.H.Khajehpour for hospitality.


format: text

text:
# The radiative return at small angles: virtual corrections

## 1 Introduction

The total cross section for electron–positron annihilation into hadrons is one of the fundamental observables in particle physics. Its high energy behaviour provides one of the first and still most convincing arguments for the point-like nature of quarks. Its normalization was evidence for the existence of quarks of three different colours, and the recent, precise measurements even allow for an excellent determination of the strong coupling at very high :2001xv  and intermediate energies (e.g. Kuhn:2001dm  and refs. therein) through the influence of QCD corrections.

Weighted integrals over the cross section with properly chosen kernels are, furthermore, a decisive input for electroweak precision tests. This applies, for example, to the electromagnetic coupling at higher energies or to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon.

Of particular importance for these two applications is the low energy region, say from threshold up to centre-of-mass (cms) energies of approximately 3 GeV and 10 GeV, respectively. Recent measurements based on energy scans between 2 and 5 GeV have improved the accuracy in part of this range. However, similar, or even further improvements below 2 GeV would be highly welcome. The region between 1.4 GeV and 2 GeV, in particular, is poorly studied and no collider will cover this region in the near future. Improvements or even an independent cross-check of the precise measurements of the pion form factor in the low energy region by the CMD2 and DM2 collaborations would be extremely useful, since this dominates in the analysis of the muon anomalous magnetic moment.

Experiments at present electron–positron colliders operate mostly at fixed energies, albeit with enormous luminosity, with BaBar and BELLE at 10.6 GeV and KLOE at 1.02 GeV as most prominent examples.

This peculiar feature allows the use of the radiative return, i.e. the reaction

$$e^+(p_1)+e^{}(p_2)\gamma (k)+\gamma ^{}(Q)(\mathrm{hadrons}),$$
(1)
to explore a wide range of $`Q^2`$ in a single experiment Binner:1999bt ; Melnikov:2000gs ; Czyz:2000wh ; Spagnolo:1999mt ; Khoze:2001fs ; Hoefer:2001mx ; Khoze:2002ix .

Nominally masses of the hadronic system between $`2m_\pi `$ and the cms energy of the experiment are accessible. In practice it is useful to consider only events with a hard photon — tagged or untagged — to clearly identify the reaction, which lowers the energy significantly.

The study of events with photons emitted under both large and small angles, and thus at a significantly enhanced rate, is particularly attractive for the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ final state with its clear signature, an investigation performed at present at DA$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$NE Aloisio:2001xq ; Denig:2001ra ; Adinolfi:2000fv . Events with a tagged photon, emitted under a large angle with respect to the beam, have a clear signature and are thus particularly suited to the analysis of hadronic final states of higher multiplicity babar .

The inclusion of radiative corrections is essential for the precise extraction of the cross section, which is necessarily based on a Monte Carlo simulation. A first program, called EVA, was constructed some time ago Binner:1999bt . It includes initial-state radiation (ISR), final-state radiation (FSR), their interference, and the dominant radiative corrections from additional collinear radiation through structure function techniques Caffo:1997yy .

The complete NLO corrections have recently been implemented in a program called PHOKHARA Rodrigo:2001kf . Both programs, however, were designed to simulate reactions with tagged photons, i.e. at least one photon was required to be emitted under large angles.

An important ingredient in the extension of the NLO Monte Carlo program PHOKHARA to small photon angles is the evaluation of the virtual corrections to the reaction (1) in the limit $`m_e^2/s1`$, which are equally valid for large and small angles. Compact results for the one-loop two-, three- and four-point functions that enter this calculation can be found in the literature 'tHooft:1978xw ; Beenakker:1988jr  for arbitrary values of $`m_e^2/s`$. However, the combination of these analytical expressions with the relevant coefficients is numerically unstable in the limit of small mass and angles. A compact, numerically stable result, valid for an arbitrarily small photon angle, is therefore required. As a consequence of the highly singular kinematic coefficients, terms proportional to $`m_e^2`$ and even $`m_e^4`$ must be kept in the expansion, which after angular integration will contribute to the total cross section even in the limit $`m_e^2/s0`$.

The present paper extends the analysis of Ref. Rodrigo:2001jr  where the corrections from virtual and soft photons were presented for the case of large angles. In section 2 we recall the basic definitions and describe the systematic procedure used in the expansion of the results for small $`m_e^2/s`$ and small angles simultaneously. The analytic results for real and imaginary parts of the leptonic tensor, expressed in an angular momentum basis, are presented in section 3 and compared with results for related quantities that can be found in the literature. After summation over the polarizations of the virtual photons, our result agrees with the one of Berends, Burgers and van Neerven Berends:1986yy ; Berends:1988ab . The result of Kuraev, Merenkov and Fadin Kuraev:cg1  for the real part of the tensor, which was obtained for virtual Compton scattering $`\gamma ^{}+e^{}\gamma +e^{}`$ is related to our case by proper analytic continuation; and indeed after analytic continuation we find agreement for the real part111We disagree, however, with eq.(30) of the translated version Kuraev:cg2  which contains a missprint.. Section 4 contains our summary and the conclusions. The mass-dependent terms proportional to $`m_e^2`$ and $`m_e^4`$, expressed in the Cartesian basis, are given in Appendix A. The scalar loop integrals needed for the calculation are listed in Appendix B.

## 2 The leptonic tensor for the radiative return

Consider the $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation process

$`e^+(p_1)+e^{}(p_2)`$ $`\gamma ^{}(Q)+\gamma (k_1),`$ (2)
where the virtual photon decays into a hadronic final state, $`\gamma ^{}(Q)`$ hadrons, and the real one is emitted from the initial state. The differential rate can be cast into the product of a leptonic and a hadronic tensor and the corresponding factorized phase space

$$d\sigma =\frac{1}{2s}L_{\mu \nu }H^{\mu \nu }d\mathrm{\Phi }_2(p_1,p_2;Q,k_1)d\mathrm{\Phi }_n(Q;q_1,,q_n)\frac{dQ^2}{2\pi },$$
(3)
where $`d\mathrm{\Phi }_n(Q;q_1,,q_n)`$ denotes the hadronic $`n`$-body phase space, including all the statistical factors coming from the hadronic final state.

For an arbitrary hadronic final state, the matrix element for the diagrams in Fig. 1 can be written

$`M_0`$ $`=M_0^\mu J_\mu ,`$
where $`J_\mu `$ is the hadronic current and $`M_0^\mu `$ is the leptonic current in lowest order. Summing over the polarizations of the real photon, averaging over the polarizations of the initial $`e^+e^{}`$ state, and using current conservation, $`Q_\mu J^\mu =0`$, the leptonic tensor

$$L_0^{\mu \nu }=\overline{M_0^\mu M_0^{\nu +}}$$

can be written in the following form:

$`L_0^{\mu \nu }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{(4\pi \alpha /s)^2}{q^4}}[({\displaystyle \frac{2m^2q^2(1q^2)^2}{y_1^2y_2^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2q^2+y_1^2+y_2^2}{y_1y_2}})g^{\mu \nu }`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{8m^2}{y_2^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4q^2}{y_1y_2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{p_1^\mu p_1^\nu }{s}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{8m^2}{y_1^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4q^2}{y_1y_2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{p_2^\mu p_2^\nu }{s}}`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{8m^2}{y_1y_2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{p_1^\mu p_2^\nu +p_1^\nu p_2^\mu }{s}}],`$ (4)
with

$$y_i=\frac{2k_1p_i}{s},m^2=\frac{m_e^2}{s},q^2=\frac{Q^2}{s}.$$
(5)
It is symmetric under the exchange of the electron and the positron momenta. Expressing the bilinear products $`y_i`$ by the photon emission angle in the cms frame

$$y_{1,2}=\frac{1q^2}{2}(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ),\beta =\sqrt{14m^2},$$

and rewriting the two-body phase space

$$d\mathrm{\Phi }_2(p_1,p_2;Q,k_1)=\frac{1q^2}{32\pi ^2}d\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(6)
it is evident that expression (4) contains several singularities: soft singularities for $`q^21`$ and collinear singularities for $`\mathrm{cos}\theta \pm 1`$. The former are avoided by requiring a minimal photon energy. The latter are regulated by the electron mass.

The physics of the hadronic system, whose description is model-dependent, enters only through the hadronic tensor

$$H^{\mu \nu }=J^\mu J^{\nu +},$$
(7)
where the hadronic current has to be parametrized through form factors. For two charged pions in the final state, the current

$$J_{2\pi }^\mu =ieF_{2\pi }(Q^2)(q_{\pi ^+}q_\pi ^{})^\mu ,$$
(8)
where $`q_{\pi ^+}`$ and $`q_\pi ^{}`$ are the momenta of the $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ respectively, is determined by only one function, the pion form factor $`F_{2\pi }`$ Kuhn:1990ad . The hadronic current for four pions exhibits a more complicated structure and has been discussed in Czyz:2000wh ; Decker:1994af ; Ecker:2002cw .

At NLO, the leptonic tensor receives contributions both from one-loop corrections arising from the insertion of virtual photon lines in the tree diagrams of Fig. 1 and from the emission of an extra real photon from the initial state. In this paper, we consider only the emission of soft photons. The implementation of these results in the program PHOKHARA and the discussion of their physical consequences will be considered in a separate work inpreparation .

At NLO, the leptonic tensor has the following general form222The present convention differs from the one in Ref. Rodrigo:2001jr  by a factor $`1/(y_1y_2)`$.:

$`L^{\mu \nu }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{(4\pi \alpha /s)^2}{q^4}}[a_{00}g^{\mu \nu }+a_{11}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^\mu p_1^\nu }{s}}+a_{22}{\displaystyle \frac{p_2^\mu p_2^\nu }{s}}`$
$`+a_{12}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^\mu p_2^\nu +p_2^\mu p_1^\nu }{s}}+i\pi a_1{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^\mu p_2^\nu p_2^\mu p_1^\nu }{s}}].`$ (9)
Terms proportional to $`Q^\mu `$ are absent as a consequence of current conservation. The scalar coefficients $`a_{ij}`$ and $`a_1`$ allow the following expansion

$$a_{ij}=a_{ij}^{(0)}+\frac{\alpha }{\pi }a_{ij}^{(1)},a_1=\frac{\alpha }{\pi }a_1^{(1)}.$$
(10)
The LO coefficients $`a_{ij}^{(0)}`$ can be directly read from eq. (4)

$`a_{00}^{(0)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2m^2q^2(1q^2)^2}{y_1^2y_2^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2q^2+y_1^2+y_2^2}{y_1y_2}},`$
$`a_{11}^{(0)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{8m^2}{y_2^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4q^2}{y_1y_2}},a_{22}^{(0)}=a_{11}^{(0)}(y_1y_2),`$
$`a_{12}^{(0)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{8m^2}{y_1y_2}}.`$ (11)
The imaginary antisymmetric piece proportional to $`a_1`$ appears for the first time at NLO. The leptonic tensor therefore remains fully symmetric only at LO.

As an alternative one can replace the Cartesian basis (eq. (9)) by a basis derived from the three circular polarization vectors of the virtual photon $`\epsilon _L`$ and $`\epsilon _\pm `$, defined through

$`\epsilon _L^\mu =`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\left(q^\mu q^\nu g^{\mu \nu }q^2\right)}{\sqrt{sq^2}(1q^2)}}k_{1\nu },`$
$`\epsilon _1^\mu =`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\left(q^\mu q^\nu g^{\mu \nu }q^2\right)}{\sqrt{s}q^2(1q^2)^2\beta \mathrm{sin}\theta }},`$
$`\times \left((y_1q^2y_2)p_{1\nu }(y_2q^2y_1)p_{2\nu }\right),`$
$`\epsilon _2^\mu =`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\left(q^\mu q^\nu g^{\mu \nu }q^2\right)}{\sqrt{s^3}q^2(1q^2)\beta \mathrm{sin}\theta }}ϵ_{\nu \eta \rho \sigma }k_1^\eta p_1^\rho p_2^\sigma ,`$
$`\epsilon _\pm ^\mu =`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\epsilon _1^\mu \pm i\epsilon _2^\mu \right),`$ (12)
where $`ϵ_{\nu \eta \rho \sigma }`$ is the four-dimensional totally antisymmetric Levi-Civita tensor, $`ϵ_{0123}=1`$. The leptonic tensor is thus given by

$`L^{\mu \nu }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{(4\pi \alpha /s)^2}{q^4}}{\displaystyle a_{ij}\epsilon _i^\mu \epsilon _j^\nu },i,j=L,\pm .`$ (13)
Only four of the scalar coefficients are independent

$`a_L=a_{L+},`$ $`a_L=a_{+L}=a_{L+}^{},`$
$`a_{}=a_{++},`$ $`a_+=a_+.`$
The trace of the leptonic tensor

$`L^{\mu \nu }(q_\mu q_\nu g_{\mu \nu }q^2)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{(4\pi \alpha /s)^2}{q^2}}(a_{LL}+2a_{++})`$ (14)
is related to the cross section after angular averaging of the hadronic tensor.

The relations between the components in the Cartesian and the circular basis read as follows:

$`a_{LL}`$ $`=a_{00}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4q^2(1q^2)^2}}[(y_2q^2y_1)^2a_{11}`$
$`+(y_1q^2y_2)^2a_{22}+2(y_1q^2y_2)(y_2q^2y_1)a_{12}],`$
$`a_{L+}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\beta \mathrm{sin}\theta }{4\sqrt{2q^2}(1q^2)}}[(y_2q^2y_1)a_{11}(y_1q^2y_2)a_{22}`$
$`+(1+q^2)(y_1y_2)a_{12}i\pi a_1],`$
$`a_+`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{8}}(a_{11}+a_{22}2a_{12}),`$
$`a_{++}`$ $`=a_+a_{00}.`$ (15)
Conversely

$`a_{00}`$ $`=a_+a_{++},`$
$`a_{11}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{4}{(1q^2)^2}}[q^2(a_{LL}+a_+a_{++}),`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2q^2}(y_1q^2y_2)}{(1q^2)\beta \mathrm{sin}\theta }}\mathrm{Re}(a_{L+})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2(y_1q^2y_2)^2}{(1q^2)^2\beta ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}a_+],`$
$`a_{22}`$ $`=a_{11}(y_1y_2),a_{12}={\displaystyle \frac{a_{11}+a_{22}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4a_+}{\beta ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }},`$
$`a_1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{4\sqrt{2q^2}}{\pi (1q^2)\beta \mathrm{sin}\theta }}\mathrm{Im}(a_{L+}).`$ (16)
The scalar coefficients in the circular basis are given at LO by

$`a_{LL}^{(0)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2q^2\beta ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{y_1y_2}},`$
$`a_{L+}^{(0)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{q^2}(y_1y_2)\beta \mathrm{sin}\theta }{\sqrt{2}(1q^2)y_1y_2}}\left(1+q^2{\displaystyle \frac{2m^2(1q^2)^2}{y_1y_2}}\right),`$
$`a_+^{(0)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{y_1y_2}}\left(q^2+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2(1q^2)^2}{y_1y_2}}\right),`$
$`a_{++}^{(0)}`$ $`=a_+^{(0)}+{\displaystyle \frac{2q^2+y_1^2+y_2^2}{y_1y_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2m^2q^2(1q^2)^2}{y_1^2y_2^2}}.`$ (17)
The one-loop matrix elements (Fig. 2) contribute to the leptonic tensor through their interference with the lowest order diagrams (Fig. 1). They contain ultraviolet (UV) and infrared (IR) divergences, which are regularized using dimensional regularization in $`D=42\epsilon `$ dimensions. The UV divergences are renormalized in the on-shell scheme. The IR divergences are cancelled by adding the contribution of an extra soft photon emitted from the initial state and integrated in the phase space up to an energy cutoff $`E_\gamma <w\sqrt{s}`$ far below $`\sqrt{s}`$. The result, which is finite, depends, however, on this soft photon cutoff. Only the contribution from hard photons with energy $`E_\gamma >w\sqrt{s}`$ would cancel this dependence.

The algebraic manipulations have been carried out with the help of the FeynCalc Mathematica package Mertig:1991an . Using standard techniques Passarino:1979jh , it automatically reduces the evaluation of the one-loop contribution to the calculation of a few scalar one-loop integrals and performs the Dirac algebra.

Since we consider the small angular region, mass terms proportional to $`y_i^2`$ and even $`y_i^3`$ arise. Terms proportional to $`m^2`$ and even $`m^4`$ must be kept, if they are multiplied by $`y_i^2`$ and $`y_i^3`$ respectively. In the expansion of the one-loop integrals, functions that depend on the ratio $`m^2/y_i`$ cannot be expanded, in contrast to functions of $`m^2`$ or $`y_i`$ separately. To arrive at a systematic approach we therefore make the replacements $`m^2\lambda m^2`$, $`y_i\lambda y_i`$, perform the expansion for small $`\lambda `$ up to the appropriate order, and set $`\lambda =1`$ at the end.

## 3 The NLO leptonic tensor

Combining the one-loop and the soft contribution we now arrive at the leptonic tensor in NLO. It will be convenient to split the coefficients $`a_{ij}^{(1)}`$ into a part that contributes at large angles and a part proportional to $`m^2`$ and $`m^4`$, denoted by $`a_{ij}^{(1,0)}`$ and $`a_{ij}^{(1,m)}`$ respectively:

$`a_{ij}^{(1)}`$ $`=a_{ij}^{(0)}[\mathrm{log}(4w^2)[1+\mathrm{log}(m^2)]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{q^2}})2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}]+a^{(1,0)}_{ij}+a^{(1,m)}_{ij}.`$ (18)
The factor proportional to the LO coefficients $`a_{ij}^{(0)}`$ contains the usual soft and collinear logarithms. The expressions are particularly compact in the circular basis. For completeness we also repeat the results for $`a_{ij}^{(1,0)}`$, which can be found in Rodrigo:2001jr 333The result for the imaginary part of $`a_{L+}`$ differs from $`a_1`$ in the original version of Rodrigo:2001jr ., albeit in the Cartesian basis:

$`a_{LL}^{(1,0)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2q^2}{(1q^2)^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{y_1}{1y_1}}2\mathrm{log}(q^2)+2L(y_1)`$
$`+[1{\displaystyle \frac{1q^2}{1y_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{(1y_2)^2}}]\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{y_1}{q^2}})+[y_1y_2]\},`$
$`a_{L+}^{(1,0)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\beta \mathrm{sin}\theta }{4\sqrt{2q^2}(1q^2)}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{y_1(1+q^2)^2}{(1y_1)(1y_2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1q^2)^2}{y_2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2q^2(2+q^2)}{y_2}}\mathrm{log}(q^2)+[2(1q^2)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{y_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{y_2}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2(1+q^2)}{1y_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2(1+q^2)^2}{(1y_2)^2}}]\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{y_1}{q^2}})`$
$`2q^2[{\displaystyle \frac{1+2q^2}{y_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{y_1}{y_2^2}}]L(y_1){\displaystyle \frac{i\pi q^2}{y_1y_2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{log}(1y_1)}{y_1}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1q^2}{1y_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{(1y_1)^2}}][y_1y_2]\},`$ (20)
$`a_{++}^{(1,0)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1y_2}{y_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1q^2)^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1+q^4}{1y_1}}2+2\mathrm{log}(q^2))+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+q^4}{1q^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{(1y_2)^2}}1\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{3q^4}{1y_2}}\right]\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{y_1}{q^2}})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{1q^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{(1+q^4)y_2}{(1q^2)y_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{y_2}}]L(y_1)+[y_1y_2]\},`$ (21)
$`a_+^{(1,0)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{(1q^2)^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1+q^4}{2q^2(1y_1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{y_2}{y_1}}\mathrm{log}(q^2)`$
$`\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{(1q^2)^2}{y_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2(1q^2)}{1y_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+q^4}{2(1y_2)^2}}\right]`$
$`\times \mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{y_1}{q^2}})[2+{\displaystyle \frac{(1q^2)^2}{y_2^2}}]L(y_1)+[y_1y_2]\},`$ (22)
with

$`L(y_i)=Li_2({\displaystyle \frac{y_i}{q^2}})Li_2(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2}})+\mathrm{log}(q^2+y_i)\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{y_i}{q^2}}),`$
where $`Li_2`$ is the Spence or dilogarithm function. The result in the Cartesian basis has been given in Ref. Rodrigo:2001jr . The terms proportional to powers of $`m^2`$ are given by

$`a_{LL}^{(1,m)}=0,`$ (23)
$`a_{L+}^{(1,m)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{q^2}\beta \mathrm{sin}\theta }{4\sqrt{2}}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{4m^2}{y_1^2}}[\mathrm{log}(q^2)\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{y_1^4}{m^4q^2}})`$
$`+4Li_2(1q^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(Li_2(1{\displaystyle \frac{y_1}{m^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}})]`$
$`n(y_1,{\displaystyle \frac{2(13q^2)}{q^2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{2m^2N(y_1)}{y_1(m^2(1q^2)y_1)}}`$
$`[y_1y_2]\},`$ (24)
$`a_{++}^{(1,m)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{m^2q^2}{y_1^2}}[\mathrm{log}(q^2)\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{y_1^4}{m^4q^2}})+4Li_2(1q^2)`$
$`+Li_2(1{\displaystyle \frac{y_1}{m^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}]{\displaystyle \frac{m^2(1q^2)}{y_1^2}}[1\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{y_1}{m^2}})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{y_1}}(Li_2(1{\displaystyle \frac{y_1}{m^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}})]+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2}}n(y_1,{\displaystyle \frac{13q^2}{q^2}})`$
$`+[y_1y_2],`$ (25)
and

$`a_+^{(1,m)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{8}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{4m^2}{y_1^2}}[\mathrm{log}(q^2)\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{y_1^4}{m^4q^2}})+4Li_2(1q^2)`$
$`+2(Li_2(1{\displaystyle \frac{y_1}{m^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}})]{\displaystyle \frac{1q^2}{q^2}}n(y_1,{\displaystyle \frac{37q^2}{1q^2}})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2m^2(1q^2)}{y_1(m^2(1q^2)y_1)}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2}}\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{y_1}{m^2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}(q^2)}{1q^2}}`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{3q^2}{1q^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{m^2(1q^2)y_1}})N(y_1)]`$
$`+[y_1y_2]\}.`$ (26)
The coefficient $`a_{L+}`$ is antisymmetric with respect to the exchange $`[y_1y_2]`$, while all the others are symmetric. Only $`a_{L+}^{(1,0)}`$ contributes to the imaginary part. Notice that the mass-suppressed terms are all real. The functions $`n(y_i,z)`$ and $`N(y_i)`$ are defined through

$`n(y_i,z)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{y_i(m^2y_i)}}\left[1+z\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{y_i}{m^2}})\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{(m^2y_i)^2}}\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{y_i}{m^2}}),`$ (27)
$`N(y_i)`$ $`=\mathrm{log}(q^2)\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{y_i}{m^2}})+Li_2(1q^2)`$
$`+Li_2(1{\displaystyle \frac{y_i}{m^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}.`$ (28)
The apparent singularity of $`n`$ inside the limits of phase space is compensated by the zero in the numerator. For the numerical evaluation in the region $`y_i`$ close to $`m^2`$ we use

$`n(y_i,z)|_{y_im^2}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{y_i}}\left[1+z\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{y_i}{m^2}})\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{z}{n+1}}\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{y_i}{m^2}}\right)^n.`$ (29)
For the conversion from the circular to the Cartesian basis, and to ensure finite results in the limit $`\mathrm{sin}\theta 0`$, it is important that $`a_{L+}`$ and $`a_+`$ vanish at $`\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ respectively. This corresponds to the requirement that the factors in curly brackets do not diverge for small $`\mathrm{sin}\theta `$, i.e. in the limit $`(m^2(1q^2)y_i)0`$. This is guaranteed by the behaviour of $`N(y_i)`$ for $`y_im^2(1q^2)`$:

$$\frac{m^2N(y_i)}{m^2(1q^2)y_i}|_{y_im^2(1q^2)}=\frac{\mathrm{log}(1q^2)}{q^2}\frac{\mathrm{log}(q^2)}{1q^2},$$
(30)
The results for $`a_{ij}^{(1,m)}`$ in the Cartesian basis are listed in Appendix A.

We note that the imaginary part of $`L_{\mu \nu }`$, which is present in the coefficients $`a_{L+}`$ or $`a_1`$ only, is of interest for those cases where the hadronic current receives contributions from different amplitudes with non-trivial relative phases. This is possible, e.g. for final states with three or more mesons or for $`p\overline{p}`$ production.

## 4 Tests of the result

After summation over the polarizations of the virtual photon the differential rate is given by the properly contracted leptonic tensor:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{(4\pi \alpha /s)^2}}L^{\mu \nu }(q_\mu q_\nu g_{\mu \nu }q^2)=a_{LL}+2a_{++}`$
$`=3a_{00}+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4q^2}}(1y_1)^2m^2)a_{11}`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4q^2}}(1y_2)^2m^2)a_{22}`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2q^2}}(1y_1)(1y_2)(12m^2))a_{12}`$
$`=L_0\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}[\mathrm{log}(4w^2)[1+\mathrm{log}(m^2)]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{q^2}})2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}]\}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\{4({\displaystyle \frac{1+(1y_2)^2}{2y_1y_2}}L(y_1)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{12q^2}{2(1q^2)^2}}\mathrm{log}(q^2)+\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{y_12y_2}{2(1y_2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{y_1y_2}{4(1y_2)^2}}\right]`$
$`\times \mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{y_1}{q^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(1q^2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(1y_1)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1y_2}{4y_1}}`$
$`+[y_1y_2])2a_{++}^{(1,m)}\},`$ (31)
where

$`L_0`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{(4\pi \alpha /s)^2}}L_0^{\mu \nu }(q_\mu q_\nu q^2g_{\mu \nu })=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{y_1y_2}}\left[2q^2+y_1^2+y_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{2m^2q^2(1q^2)^2}{y_1y_2}}\right],`$ (32)
$`L_0^{\mu \nu }`$ being the leptonic tensor at LO. In $`L_0`$ only the relevant terms in the limit $`m^20`$ have been kept. Large angle terms and mass corrections are in agreement with Berends et al. Berends:1986yy ; Berends:1988ab . After proper analytic continuation and using the substitutions

$`ty_1+i\eta ,sy_2+i\eta ,us+i\eta ,`$ (33)
the leptonic tensor in eq. (9) is closely related444We thank N.P. Merenkov for drawing our attention to this reference. to the tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }`$, which describes “virtual Compton scattering” and has been calculated by Kuraev et al. Kuraev:cg1 . After performing this analytical continuation, the results are in agreement (However, the result for $`T_{12}`$ printed in Kuraev:cg2  contains a typo and would give rise to a discrepancy.).

## 5 Conclusions

Compact analytical formulae have been obtained for the virtual corrections to the process $`e^+e^{}\gamma \gamma ^{}`$, which are valid for photon emission under both large and small angles. After proper analytic continuation the results are in agreement with those obtained in Kuraev:cg1  for the reaction $`\gamma ^{}+e^{}\gamma +e^{}`$. In polarization averaged form they are in agreement with those for $`e^+e^{}\gamma Z`$ from Berends:1986yy ; Berends:1988ab .

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank G. Cataldi, A. Denig, S. Di Falco, W. Kluge, S. Müller, G. Venanzoni and B. Valeriani for reminding us constantly of the importance of this work for the experimental analysis and H. Czyż and N.P. Merenkov for very useful discussions. Work supported in part by BMBF under grant number 05HT9VKB0 and E.U. EURODA$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$NE network TMR project FMRX-CT98-0169.

## Appendix A The leptonic tensor in the Cartesian basis

For the convenience of the reader we list the mass-suppressed terms $`a_{ij}^{(1,m)}`$ also in the Cartesian basis. The large-angle contributions have been given in Rodrigo:2001jr . The component proportional to $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ reads

$`a_{00}^{(1,m)}=a_{++}^{(1,m)},`$ (34)
see eq. (25). The coefficient $`a_+`$ does not contribute at this order to $`a_{00}`$. The remaining components are given by

$`a_{11}^{(1,m)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{1q^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{4m^2}{y_1^2}}[1\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{y_1}{m^2}})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{y_1}}(Li_2(1{\displaystyle \frac{y_1}{m^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}})]n(y_1,1)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2m^2q^2}{y_1(m^2(1q^2)y_1)}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2}}\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{y_1}{m^2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}(q^2)}{1q^2}}`$
$`+(1+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{m^2(1q^2)y_1}})N(y_1)]\}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{4m^2(1q^2)}{y_2^2}}[\mathrm{log}(q^2)\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{y_2^4}{m^4q^2}})`$
$`+4Li_2(1q^2)+2(Li_2(1{\displaystyle \frac{y_2}{m^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}})]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4m^2q^2}{y_2^2}}[1\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{y_2}{m^2}})+(1+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{y_2}})(Li_2(1{\displaystyle \frac{y_2}{m^2}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}})]{\displaystyle \frac{12q^4}{q^2}}n(y_2,{\displaystyle \frac{38q^2+6q^4}{12q^4}})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2m^2}{y_2(m^2(1q^2)y_2)}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2}}\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{y_2}{m^2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}(q^2)}{1q^2}}`$
$`+(3+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{m^2(1q^2)y_2}})N(y_2)]\},`$ (35)
$`a_{22}^{(1,m)}`$ $`=a_{11}^{(1,m)}(y_1y_2),`$ (36)
$`a_{12}^{(1,m)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{1q^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{4m^2}{y_1^2}}[1\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{y_1}{m^2}})`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{y_1}})(Li_2(1{\displaystyle \frac{y_1}{m^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}})]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1q^2}{q^2}}n(y_1,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q^2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{2m^2}{y_1(m^2(1q^2)y_1)}}`$
$`\times [{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2}}\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{y_1}{m^2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}(q^2)}{1q^2}}`$
$`+(2+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{m^2(1q^2)y_1}})N(y_1)]\}+[y_1y_2].`$ (37)
and

$`a_1^{(1,m)}`$ $`=0.`$ (38)
## Appendix B Scalar one-loop integrals

A few two-, three-, and four-point scalar one-loop integrals enter our calculation. Expression for the two-point scalar integrals are simple and well known. The notation from Rodrigo:2001jr , where the corresponding results valid for large photon angles ($`m^21,q^2,y_i`$) can be found, is used in the following. The general three-point scalar one-loop integral is defined by

$`C_0(p_a^2,(p_ap_b)^2,p_b^2,m_1^2,m_2^2,m_3^2)=i16\pi ^2\mu ^{4D}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[k^2m_1^2][(kp_a)^2m_2^2][(kp_b)^2m_3^2]}}.`$ (39)
Four different three-point scalar one-loop integrals are needed

$`C01=C_0((p_ik_1)^2,0,m_e^2,0,m_e^2,m_e^2),`$
$`C02=C_0(m_e^2,s,m_e^2,0,m_e^2,m_e^2),`$
$`C03=C_0((p_ik_1)^2,Q^2,m_e^2,0,m_e^2,m_e^2),`$
$`C04=C_0(Q^2,s,0,m_e^2,m_e^2,m_e^2),`$ (40)
$`i=1,2`$, and one scalar box

$`D0=i16\pi ^2\mu ^{4D}{\displaystyle \frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}}`$ (41)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2[(k+p_i)^2m_e^2][(k+p_ik_1)^2m_e^2][(kp_j)^2m_e^2]}},`$
with $`ji`$.

The following simple expressions are used, from where the limits ($`m^21,q^2,y_i`$) or ($`m^21,q^2`$ but $`m^2y_i`$) are obtained:

$`C01={\displaystyle \frac{s^1}{y_i}}\left[Li_2(1{\displaystyle \frac{y_i}{m^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}\right],`$
$`C02={\displaystyle \frac{s^1}{\beta }}[(\mathrm{\Delta }2\mathrm{log}(\beta ){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}(c)}{2}})\mathrm{log}(c)`$
$`2Li_2(c){\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2}{3}}+i\pi (\mathrm{\Delta }2\mathrm{log}(\beta ))],`$
$`C04={\displaystyle \frac{s^1}{1q^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}(c)}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}(c_q)}{2}}+i\pi \mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{c}{c_q}})\right],`$
$`D0={\displaystyle \frac{s^2}{\beta y_i}}[(\mathrm{\Delta }+2\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{m}{y_i}}))\mathrm{log}(c_q)+\mathrm{log}^2(c)`$
$`+2Li_2(1{\displaystyle \frac{c_q}{c}})+2Li_2(1cc_q)Li_2(1c_q^2)\pi ^2`$
$`i\pi (\mathrm{\Delta }+2\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{m}{cy_i}}))],`$ (42)
with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{(4\pi )^\epsilon }{\epsilon \mathrm{\Gamma }(1\epsilon )}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{s}\right)^\epsilon ,$$
(43)
and

$`\beta `$ $`=\sqrt{14m^2},c={\displaystyle \frac{1\beta }{1+\beta }},`$
$`\beta _q`$ $`=\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4m^2}{q^2}}},c_q={\displaystyle \frac{1\beta _q}{1+\beta _q}}.`$ (44)
Our expression for the C03 function is rather cumbersome:

$`C03`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{s^1}{q^2(z_1z_2)}}[\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{y_i}{q^2}})\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(1z_1)z_2}{(1z_2)z_1}}\right)`$
$`+\{Li_2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_1}})\mathrm{log}((z_3z_1)(z_4z_1))\mathrm{log}(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_1}})`$
$`+Li_2({\displaystyle \frac{1z_1}{z_3z_1}})Li_2({\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{z_3z_1}})`$
$`+Li_2({\displaystyle \frac{1z_1}{z_4z_1}})Li_2({\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{z_4z_1}})[z_1z_2]\}],`$ (45)
where

$`z_{1,2}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{q^2+y_i}{2q^2}}\left(1\pm \sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4(m^2i\eta )q^2}{(q^2+y_i)^2}}}\right),`$
$`z_{3,4}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1\pm \sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4(m^2i\eta )}{q^2}}}\right),`$ (46)
being

$`Im(C03)={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{q^2(z_1z_2)}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(z_3z_1)(z_4z_2)}{(z_4z_1)(z_3z_2)}}\right),`$ (47)
its imaginary part. As for the other scalar one-loop functions, this expression is expanded up to terms of order $`m^2`$ and $`m^4`$.