text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The Higgs boson couples to fermions with strength $`m_f/v`$, where $`v=(\sqrt{2}G_F)^{1/2}246`$ GeV is the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field. Its Yukawa coupling to bottom quarks ($`m_b5`$ GeV) is thus very weak, leading to very small cross sections for associated production of the Higgs boson and bottom quarks at the Fermilab Tevatron  and the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) . However, this Yukawa coupling could be considerably enhanced in extensions of the standard model with more than one Higgs doublet, thereby increasing this production cross section . For example, in a two-Higgs-doublet model, the Yukawa coupling of some or all of the Higgs bosons ($`h^0,H^0,A^0,H^\pm `$) to the bottom quark could be enhanced for large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =v_2/v_1`$, where $`v_1`$ is the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs doublet that couples to the bottom quark.

The dominant subprocess for the production of a Higgs boson via its coupling to bottom quarks is $`b\overline{b}h`$ (Fig. 1),111We use $`h`$ to denote a generic Higgs boson. In a two-Higgs-doublet model, $`h`$ may denote any of the neutral Higgs bosons ($`h^0,H^0,A^0`$). where the $`b`$ quarks reside in the proton sea . The $`b`$-quark sea is generated from gluons splitting into nearly collinear $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs. When one member of the pair initiates a hard-scattering subprocess, its partner tends to remain at low $`p_T`$ and to become part of the beam remnant. Hence the final state typically has no high-$`p_T`$ bottom quarks. This subprocess may be useful to discover a Higgs boson for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in the decay mode $`h\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ at the Tevatron and the LHC , and $`h\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ at the LHC . The decay mode $`hb\overline{b}`$ is not distinguishable from the overwhelming background $`gg,q\overline{q}b\overline{b}`$.

If one instead demands that at least one $`b`$ quark be observed at high $`p_T`$, then the leading-order subprocess for associated production of the Higgs boson and bottom quarks is $`gbhb`$ (Fig. 2) .222This includes the charge-conjugate subprocess $`g\overline{b}h\overline{b}`$. All charge-conjugate subprocesses are understood throughout this paper. The presence of a high-$`p_T`$ bottom quark in the final state has distinct phenomenological advantages since it can be tagged with reasonably high efficiency. In the case of $`h\tau ^+\tau ^{},\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ the $`b`$ quark can be used to reduce backgrounds and to identify the Higgs-boson production mechanism . The trade-off is that the cross section for $`gbhb`$, with the $`b`$ quark at high $`p_T`$, is less than that of $`b\overline{b}h`$.

If the Higgs boson decays via $`hb\overline{b}`$, the presence of an additional high-$`p_T`$ bottom quark in the final state is essential in order to separate the signal from backgrounds . Recent analyses are based on the subprocess $`gg,q\overline{q}b\overline{b}h`$ (Fig. 3), and demand a final state with four jets, with either at least three $`b`$ tags, or with four $`b`$ tags . However, the cross section for this subprocess is less than that of $`gbhb`$. We therefore suggest that it may be advantageous to search for $`hb\overline{b}`$ by demanding just three jets in the final state, all of which are $`b`$ tagged . The three-jet final state will have bigger backgrounds than the four-jet final state, but the significance of the signal ($`S/\sqrt{B}`$) is likely to increase.

It is only valid to use $`gg,q\overline{q}b\overline{b}h`$ as the production subprocess when both $`b`$ quarks are at high $`p_T`$. If only one of the $`b`$ quarks is at high $`p_T`$ , the integration over the momentum of the other $`b`$ quark yields a factor $`\mathrm{ln}(m_h/m_b)`$ which invalidates perturbation theory. Our calculation of $`gbhb`$ sums these logarithms to all orders, and results in a well-behaved perturbation series.

In this paper we calculate the cross section for the associated production of the Higgs boson and a single bottom quark ($`gbhb`$) at next-to-leading order. We provide results for both the Tevatron and the LHC. The cross section for the subprocess $`b\overline{b}h`$ is already known at next-to-leading order . The cross section for the subprocess $`gg,q\overline{q}b\overline{b}h`$, which has two high-$`p_T`$ bottom quarks, is known only at leading order, but the analogous subprocess $`gg,q\overline{q}t\overline{t}h`$ has been calculated at next-to-leading order , so the next-to-leading-order result for $`gg,q\overline{q}b\overline{b}h`$ could be made available. Thus our calculation completes the set of next-to-leading-order cross sections for the subprocesses $`b\overline{b}h`$, $`gbhb`$, and $`gg,q\overline{q}b\overline{b}h`$.

In Section 2 we discuss the leading-order cross section for $`gbhb`$. In Section 3 we discuss the correction of order $`1/\mathrm{ln}(m_h/m_b)`$, due to initial gluons splitting into $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs. In Section 4 we discuss the correction of order $`\alpha _S`$; the virtual and real corrections are discussed separately. We present our numerical results in Section 5. Conclusions are drawn in Section 6. Several appendices follow, in which the analytic results and some of the technical details are presented.

## 2 Leading order

The leading-order subprocess for Higgs-boson production in association with a single high-$`p_T`$ bottom quark is shown in Fig. 2. Since the scale of the hard scattering is large compared with the $`b`$-quark mass, the $`b`$ quark is regarded as part of the proton sea . However, unlike the light-quark sea, the $`b`$-quark sea is perturbatively calculable. This changes the way that one counts powers . If the scale of the hard scattering is $`\mu `$, the $`b`$ distribution function $`b(x,\mu )`$ is intrinsically of order $`\alpha _S(\mu )\mathrm{ln}(\mu /m_b)`$, in contrast with the light partons, which are of order unity. This captures the behavior of the $`b`$ distribution function at low and high values of $`\mu `$, and interpolates between them. As $`\mu `$ approaches $`m_b`$ from above, $`\mathrm{ln}(\mu /m_b)`$ vanishes; this reflects the initial condition on the $`b`$ distribution function, $`b(x,m_b)=0`$. As $`\mu `$ becomes asymptotically large, $`\alpha _S(\mu )\mathrm{ln}(\mu /m_b)`$ approaches order unity,333This can be seen by recalling $`\alpha _S(\mu )2\pi /(\beta _0\mathrm{ln}(\mu /\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}))`$. and the $`b`$ distribution function becomes of the same order as the light partons.

With this counting, the leading-order subprocess $`gbhb`$ is of order $`\alpha _S^2\mathrm{ln}(m_h/m_b)`$ (times the Yukawa coupling), where we have chosen the Higgs-boson mass as the relevant scale. The leading-order amplitude may be decomposed into a linear combination of two gauge-invariant subamplitudes,

$`𝒜_0^\mu =𝒜_A^\mu +𝒜_B^\mu .`$ (1)
These subamplitudes are gauge invariant in the sense that they each satisfy the Ward identity $`p_{3\mu }𝒜_{A,B}^\mu =0`$, where $`p_{3\mu }`$ is the gluon four-momentum. They are related to the two independent helicity amplitudes for this subprocess. The explicit form of the subamplitudes and the helicity amplitudes are given in Appendix A.

The spin- and color-averaged cross section for $`gbhb`$ is

$$\frac{d\overline{\sigma }_{gbhb}}{dt}=\frac{1}{s^2}\frac{\alpha _S(\mu )}{24}\left(\frac{y_b(\mu )}{\sqrt{2}}\right)^2\frac{m_h^4+u^2}{st},$$
(2)
where $`s,t,u`$ are the usual Mandelstam variables (the first and second diagrams in Fig. 2 have poles in the $`t`$ and $`s`$ channels, respectively), $`\alpha _S(\mu )`$ is the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ strong coupling, and $`y_b(\mu )`$ is the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ Yukawa coupling ($`y_b(\mu )/\sqrt{2}=\overline{m}_b(\mu )/v`$ in the standard model, where $`\overline{m}_b(\mu )`$ is the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass, and $`v=(\sqrt{2}G_F)^{1/2}246`$ GeV). We choose the scale $`\mu =m_h`$ as our central value. It is important to use $`\overline{m}_b(m_h)`$ rather than the pole mass when evaluating the Yukawa coupling, as the latter is significantly greater than the former, and would yield an inflated cross section.444The evaluation of $`\overline{m}_b(m_h)`$ is detailed in Ref. . We use $`\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)=4.2`$ GeV as the initial condition . The cross section for the charge-conjugate subprocess $`g\overline{b}h\overline{b}`$ is identical. The cross section is also identical for the production of a pseudoscalar Higgs boson ($`A^0`$).

We neglect the $`b`$-quark mass in Eq. (2) and throughout, except in the evaluation of the Yukawa coupling. This corresponds to the simplified ACOT scheme . The $`b`$-quark mass may be neglected, with no loss of accuracy, in any diagram in which the $`b`$ quark is an initial-state parton. Terms proportional to the $`b`$-quark mass enter only in the $`1/\mathrm{ln}(m_h/m_b)`$ correction. This is discussed at the end of the next section.

## 3 $`1/\mathrm{ln}(m_h/m_b)`$ correction

Consider the subprocess $`gg,q\overline{q}b\overline{b}h`$, shown in Fig. 3. It is of order $`\alpha _S^2`$ (times the Yukawa coupling). Since the leading-order subprocess $`gbhb`$ is of order $`\alpha _S^2\mathrm{ln}(m_h/m_b)`$, this subprocess is suppressed by $`1/\mathrm{ln}(m_h/m_b)`$ relative to the leading-order subprocess (for $`m_hm_b`$) .

The helicity amplitudes for this subprocess are given in Appendix B. Integration over the phase space of the final-state particles is divergent when the $`\overline{b}`$ is collinear with an initial gluon,555This pertains only to $`ggb\overline{b}h`$, which makes a much larger contribution than $`q\overline{q}b\overline{b}h`$. since we use $`m_b=0`$. This collinear divergence is regulated using modern dimensional reduction (DR) , and absorbed into the $`b`$ distribution function using a dipole-subtraction method  as formulated in Ref. .666See Ref.  for details on the implementation of this method. This subtraction, together with Gribov-Lipatov-Altarelli-Parisi evolution of the parton distribution functions, sums terms of order $`\alpha _S^n\mathrm{ln}^n(m_h/m_b)`$, to all orders in perturbation theory, into the $`b`$ distribution function . This yields a well-behaved perturbation expansion in terms of the parameters $`1/\mathrm{ln}(m_h/m_b)`$ and $`\alpha _S`$ (the latter to be discuss in Section 4). Our final result is in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ factorization scheme.

Some fraction of the events from this subprocess yield a final state with two $`b`$ quarks at high $`p_T`$. In that case the contribution of this subprocess to the total cross section is enhanced, since either $`b`$ can be tagged. If the $`b`$-tagging efficiency is $`ϵ_b`$, the probability of tagging one or more $`b`$ quarks when both are at high $`p_T`$ is $`2ϵ_b(1ϵ_b)+ϵ_b^2`$. This results in an enhancement factor of $`2ϵ_b`$ relative to subprocesses in which only one $`b`$ quark is at high $`p_T`$. If the Higgs boson decays to $`b\overline{b}`$, the enhancement factor remains $`2ϵ_b`$, if we demand three or more $`b`$ tags and also demand that two of these tags come from the Higgs-boson decay products (so that two $`b`$-tagged jets reconstruct the Higgs-boson mass).

Since we neglect the $`b`$-quark mass throughout the calculation, we are making an approximation. To include the $`b`$-quark mass, one would calculate the diagrams of Fig. 3 with a finite quark mass . This would introduce terms of order $`m_b^2/m_h^2`$ and $`m_b^2/p_T^2`$. Hence the only approximation we are making by neglecting the $`b`$-quark mass throughout the calculation is of order $`1/\mathrm{ln}(m_h/m_b)\times m_b^2/m_h^2`$ and $`1/\mathrm{ln}(m_h/m_b)\times m_b^2/p_T^2`$.

## 4 $`\alpha _S`$ correction

In this section we discuss the genuine correction of order $`\alpha _S`$. We divide it into two classes: virtual and real. Collinear divergences are isolated and absorbed into the parton distribution functions. Soft divergences cancel between the virtual and real corrections. Both types of divergences are regulated using modern dimensional reduction (DR) and are cancelled using a dipole-subtraction method, as in the previous section. Our final result is in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ factorization scheme. The $`b`$-quark mass is neglected throughout this section; this introduces no approximation .

### 4.1 Virtual correction

The one-loop correction to the subprocess $`gbhb`$ is shown in Fig. 4. We calculate in $`d=42ϵ`$ dimensions, using modern dimensional reduction (DR). We also used conventional dimensional regularization (CDR) as a check on our calculation , as discussed in Appendix E. In DR, the result for the one-loop amplitude is

$`𝒜_1^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`𝒜_0^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _S}{4\pi }}[{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{2}}(2C(s)+D(s,u){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D(s,t)+C^{}(u))`$ (3)
$`+C_F(C(s)D(s,u)C^{}(t)C^{}(u))+(st){\displaystyle \frac{}{}}]`$
$`+`$ $`𝒜_B^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _S}{4\pi }}(C_AC_F),`$
where the scalar loop integrals $`C,C^{},D`$ are defined in Appendix C, and $`C_F=(N_c^21)/2N_c=4/3,C_A=N_c=3`$. The one-loop amplitude is proportional to the tree amplitude, $`𝒜_0^\mu `$, except for the last term, which is proportional to one of the two gauge-invariant tree subamplitudes, $`𝒜_B^\mu `$ \[Eq. (6)\], times a finite constant. We checked that this amplitude has the structure of infrared (soft and collinear) divergences expected from the dipole-subtraction method (see Appendix E).

The above expression contains ultraviolet divergences. These are cancelled by the renormalization of the strong and Yukawa couplings, as discussed in Appendix E. The ultraviolet divergences are also regulated using modern dimensional reduction (DR). The renormalization of the Yukawa coupling with this regulator in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ renormalization scheme is derived in Appendix D.

### 4.2 Real correction

The real correction of $`𝒪(\alpha _S)`$ has several contributions. Fig. 5(a) shows the contribution from real gluon emission, $`gbgbh`$; (b) shows the subprocesses $`qbqbh`$ and $`\overline{q}b\overline{q}bh`$; (c) shows the subprocess $`bbbbh`$; and (d) shows the subprocess $`b\overline{b}b\overline{b}h`$. Another real correction, $`gg,q\overline{q}b\overline{b}h`$, shown in Fig. 3, is of $`𝒪(1/\mathrm{ln}(m_h/m_b))`$; it is discussed in Section 3. The helicity amplitudes for these subprocesses are given in Appendix B.

The subprocess $`bbbbh`$ (and $`b\overline{b}b\overline{b}h`$) requires some additional consideration. Since there are two $`b`$ quarks in the initial state, this subprocess is of order $`\alpha _S^4\mathrm{ln}^2(m_h/m_b)`$, which is suppressed relative to the leading-order subprocess by $`\alpha _S^2\mathrm{ln}(m_h/m_b)`$. Thus it is not truly a correction of order $`\alpha _S`$. Nevertheless, it is a next-to-leading-order correction in powers of $`\alpha _S`$ and $`1/\mathrm{ln}(m_h/m_b)`$, so it is appropriate to include it in our calculation. Furthermore, this subprocess yields two $`b`$ quarks in the final state. Thus, as discussed in Section 3, this subprocess is enhanced by a factor $`2ϵ_b`$ when both $`b`$ quarks are at high $`p_T`$. However, this contribution is less than one percent of the leading-order cross section, so this point is moot.

The subprocess $`b\overline{b}b\overline{b}h`$ has a contribution from the diagram shown in Fig. 5(d) in which a gluon splits into a final-state $`b\overline{b}`$ pair. Since we neglect the $`b`$ mass throughout our calculation, this subprocess contains a divergence when the $`b`$ and $`\overline{b}`$ are collinear. In reality, the $`b`$-quark mass regulates this divergence. To approximate this effect, we restrict the $`b\overline{b}`$ invariant mass to be greater than $`2m_b`$. This correctly captures the dominant, logarithmically-enhanced term of order $`\mathrm{ln}s/m_b^2`$. Since this correction is less than one percent of the leading-order cross section, this approximation suffices.

## 5 Results

Figures 68 show the cross sections for associated production of the Higgs boson and a single bottom quark vs. the Higgs-boson mass at the Tevatron and the LHC. These cross sections pertain to both a scalar and a pseudoscalar Higgs boson. The Yukawa coupling is set to its standard-model value. At the Tevatron, the $`b`$ jet777Partons within a cone of $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.7`$ are clustered into a single $`b`$ jet. is required to have a minimum $`p_T`$ of 15 GeV and a rapidity of magnitude less than 2, such that it can be tagged by the silicon vertex detector; we refer to this as the tagging region. At the LHC the rapidity coverage is taken to be $`|\eta (b)|<2.5`$. Two plots are given for the LHC, one with a minimum $`p_T`$ of 15 GeV (appropriate for low-luminosity running) and one with 30 GeV (appropriate for high-luminosity running). Each figure has three curves. The curve labeled $`\sigma _{\mathrm{LO}}(1b)`$ is the leading-order cross section, calculated with LO parton distribution functions (CTEQ5L ) and couplings evolved at LO, with the factorization and renormalization scales set to $`\mu =m_h`$.888The evolution of $`\alpha _S(\mu )`$ uses the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ corresponding to the parton distribution functions. The notation indicates that there is only one $`b`$ quark at high $`p_T`$. The curve labeled $`\sigma _{\mathrm{NLO}}(1b)`$ is the next-to-leading-order cross section, calculated with NLO parton distribution functions (CTEQ5M1) and couplings evolved at NLO, with $`\mu =m_h`$. Only the subprocesses that yield a single $`b`$ quark in the tagging region are included. Some of the NLO subprocesses yield two $`b`$ quarks in the tagging region; this cross section is labeled $`\sigma _{\mathrm{NLO}}(2b)`$ in the figures. This cross section is dominated by the subprocess $`ggb\overline{b}h`$, discussed in Section 3. The NLO cross section with one or more $`b`$ tags is given by $`\sigma _{\mathrm{NLO}}(1b)ϵ_b+\sigma _{\mathrm{NLO}}(2b)(2ϵ_b(1ϵ_b)+ϵ_b^2)`$, where $`ϵ_b`$ is the $`b`$-tagging efficiency. As is evident from the figures, the NLO cross section is dominated by the subprocesses with a single $`b`$ quark in the tagging region.

The NLO correction ranges from $`5060\%`$ of the LO cross section at the Tevatron for $`m_h=100200`$ GeV. At the LHC, the correction ranges from $`2040\%`$ for $`p_T>15`$ GeV, and $`2545\%`$ for $`p_T>30`$ GeV, for $`m_h=120500`$ GeV.999This is the size of the correction for $`\mu =m_h`$. The correction is less for smaller values of $`\mu `$. Most of the correction comes from the $`𝒪(\alpha _S)`$ contribution. The $`𝒪(1/\mathrm{ln}(m_h/m_b))`$ contribution is small, less than $`10\%`$ of the LO cross section. Thus the terms we are neglecting by using $`m_b=0`$ throughout the calculation, of order $`1/\mathrm{ln}(m_h/m_b)\times m_b^2/m_h^2`$ and $`1/\mathrm{ln}(m_h/m_b)\times m_b^2/p_T^2`$, are very small.

As discussed in the Introduction, recent analyses for the decay $`hb\overline{b}`$ use $`gg,q\overline{q}hb\overline{b}`$ as the Higgs-boson production subprocess, and demand a final state with four jets, with either at least three $`b`$ tags, or with four $`b`$ tags . The cross section with at least three $`b`$ tags (two of which come from the decay products of the Higgs boson)101010A factor $`BR(hb\overline{b})ϵ_b^2`$ is implicit in the following cross sections. is $`\sigma _{\mathrm{NLO}}(2b)(2ϵ_b(1ϵ_b)+ϵ_b^2)`$; with four $`b`$ tags it is $`\sigma _{\mathrm{NLO}}(2b)ϵ_b^2`$. Both of these are an order of magnitude less than the cross section with three or more jets, with three or more $`b`$ tags, given by $`\sigma _{\mathrm{NLO}}(1b)ϵ_b+\sigma _{\mathrm{NLO}}(2b)(2ϵ_b(1ϵ_b)+ϵ_b^2)`$. Thus our motivation for carrying out this calculation was well founded.

Similarly, the existing studies of $`h\tau ^+\tau ^{},\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ with at least one $`b`$ tag use $`gg,q\overline{q}b\overline{b}h`$ as the Higgs-boson production subprocess . One should instead use the NLO calculation of $`gbhb`$, since this is a much larger cross section.

The NLO calculation of the cross section for associated production of the Higgs boson and a single $`b`$ quark gives a more accurate estimate of the cross section than the LO calculation. This is evidenced by the fact that the NLO calculation of the cross section is less sensitive to the choice of factorization and renormalization scales than the LO calculation. Typical examples are shown in Figs. 9 and 10, where we plot the LO and NLO cross section vs. the common factorization and renormalization scale $`\mu `$, for $`m_h=120`$ GeV at the Tevatron and the LHC (solid curves) .111111In this and the following figure, we take $`ϵ_b=1`$ when combining $`\sigma _{\mathrm{NLO}}(1b)`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{NLO}}(2b)`$ to obtain the NLO cross section. However, the NLO cross section is dominated by $`\sigma _{\mathrm{NLO}}(1b)`$ for any value of $`ϵ_b`$. In Tables 1 and 2 we give the cross section evaluated at $`\mu =m_h`$ as the central value (these are the numbers plotted in Figs. 68), with uncertainties corresponding to $`\mu =m_h/2`$ (upper uncertainty) and $`\mu =2m_h`$ (lower uncertainty). The scale dependence is significantly reduced when going from LO to NLO. Our NLO cross section can be used to normalize any future studies that make use of this production mechanism.

Also shown in Figs. 9 and 10 is the factorization-scale dependence of the cross section, with the renormalization scale fixed to $`\mu =m_h`$ (dashed curves). The factorization-scale dependence decreases at NLO, as expected. At the Tevatron, the factorization-scale dependence is negligible, even at LO. At the LHC, the factorization-scale dependence is greater than the dependence on the common factorization and renormalization scales. This indicates that there is compensation between the factorization and renormalization scales when the two are varied simultaneously.

The uncertainty in the choice of factorization and renormalization scales yields some uncertainty in the NLO cross section. In addition, there is an uncertainty in the cross section of about $`10\%`$ due to the uncertainty in the Yukawa coupling ($`\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)=4.2\pm 0.2`$), and of about $`4\%`$ due to the uncertainty in the strong coupling . The uncertainty in the gluon distribution function (which also reflects itself in the uncertainty in the $`b`$ distribution function) is the source of another $`10\%`$ uncertainty in the cross section .

Recall that it is only valid to use $`gg,q\overline{q}b\overline{b}h`$ as the production subprocess when both $`b`$ quarks are at high $`p_T`$. To demonstrate this, we evaluated the cross section for the production of the Higgs boson and one high-$`p_T`$ $`b`$ quark using this subprocess by integrating over the momentum of the other $`b`$ quark. For $`m_h=120`$ GeV, this underestimates the NLO cross section by a factor of 4.6 at the Tevatron and 2.7 at the LHC. This factor is even larger for heavier Higgs bosons.

We also studied the kinematics of the Higgs boson at NLO vs. LO. The rapidity distribution of the Higgs boson remains almost unchanged. The $`p_T`$ distribution of the Higgs boson does change at low $`p_T`$, as shown in Fig. 11. At LO, the $`p_T`$ of the Higgs boson is balanced against that of the $`b`$ quark, so the Higgs-boson $`p_T`$ cannot be less than the minimum $`p_T`$ of the $`b`$ quark. This restriction is lifted at NLO, since the $`p_T`$ of the Higgs boson is balanced against that of the $`b`$ quark and an additional parton.

## 6 Conclusions

Previous studies of the associated production of the Higgs boson and a high-$`p_T`$ bottom quark have used $`gg,q\overline{q}b\overline{b}h`$ as the production mechanism , which is valid only if both $`b`$ quarks are at high $`p_T`$. In this paper we have shown that the cross section for $`gbhb`$  is an order of magnitude larger than that of $`gg,q\overline{q}b\overline{b}h`$. This production mechanism improves the prospects for the discovery of a Higgs boson with enhanced coupling to the $`b`$ quark. We evaluated the cross section for this subprocess at the Tevatron and the LHC at next-to-leading order in QCD. These cross sections can be used to normalize any future studies of this production mechanism. They pertain to both a scalar and a pseudoscalar Higgs boson. We have included $`gbhb`$ in the multi-purpose NLO Monte Carlo program MCFM . We encourage studies of the signal and backgrounds for associated production of the Higgs boson with a single high $`p_T`$ bottom quark.

## Acknowledgments

We are grateful for conversations and correspondence with C. Oleari and Z. Trócsányi. This work was supported in part by the U. S. Department of Energy under contracts Nos. DE-AC02-76CH03000 and DE-FG02-91ER40677.

## Appendix A

In this Appendix we present explicit results for the leading-order subprocess $`gbhb`$. In order to be systematic, we give results for the (unphysical) crossed subprocess $`0\overline{b}bgh`$, in which all particles are taken to be outgoing, as shown in Fig. 12. The amplitudes for the physical subprocesses $`gbhb`$ and $`g\overline{b}h\overline{b}`$ may then be obtained by crossing. The $`b`$-quark mass is neglected throughout. All expressions are presented in $`d=42ϵ`$ dimensions, using modern dimensional reduction.

The amplitude for the leading-order subprocess $`0\overline{b}bgh`$ may be written in terms of the four-momenta of the $`b`$, $`\overline{b}`$, and gluon. It is a linear combination of two gauge-invariant subamplitudes,

$`𝒜_0`$ $``$ $`ϵ_\mu ^{h_3}(p_3)𝒜_0^\mu =ϵ_\mu ^{h_3}(p_3)(𝒜_A^\mu +𝒜_B^\mu )`$ (4)
$`𝒜_A^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`i\mu ^{2ϵ}g_S{\displaystyle \frac{y_b}{\sqrt{2}}}\sqrt{2}T^a22^{h_2}|1^{h_2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_2^\mu }{s_{23}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^\mu }{s_{13}}}\right)`$ (5)
$`𝒜_B^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`i\mu ^{2ϵ}g_S{\displaystyle \frac{y_b}{\sqrt{2}}}\sqrt{2}T^a{\displaystyle \frac{m_h^2s_{12}}{s_{23}s_{13}}}2^{h_2}|\gamma ^\mu \widehat{p}_3|1^{h_2},`$ (6)
where $`y_b`$ is the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ Yukawa coupling ($`y_b(\mu )/\sqrt{2}=\overline{m}_b(\mu )/v`$ in the standard model, where $`\overline{m}(\mu )`$ is the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass and $`v=(\sqrt{2}G_F)^{1/2}246`$ GeV), $`T^a`$ are the fundamental-representation matrices of $`SU(3)`$ (Tr $`T^aT^b=\delta ^{ab}/2`$), $`s_{ij}(p_i+p_j)^2`$, $`\widehat{p}_3\gamma _\mu p_3^\mu `$, $`|1^\pm v^{}(p_1)`$, $`2^\pm |\overline{u^\pm }(p_2)`$, $`\mu `$ is the ’t Hooft mass (introduced such that the renormalized couplings are dimensionless in $`d`$ dimensions), $`h_2`$ denotes the helicity of the $`b`$ quark (the $`\overline{b}`$ has the same helicity in the massless approximation), and $`h_3`$ denotes the helicity of the gluon. The subamplitudes are gauge invariant in the sense that they each satisfy the Ward identity $`p_{3\mu }𝒜_{A,B}^\mu =0`$.

One may also describe this subprocess in terms of helicity amplitudes. We define helicity amplitudes, $`A`$, with the overall factors of the coupling constants removed,

$`𝒜_0(1_{\overline{b}}^{h_1},2_b^{h_2},3_g^{h_3})`$ $`=`$ $`\mu ^{2ϵ}g_S{\displaystyle \frac{y_b}{\sqrt{2}}}\sqrt{2}T^aA(1_{\overline{b}}^{h_1},2_b^{h_2},3_g^{h_3}),`$ (7)
where the Higgs-boson four-momentum is tacit. There are two independent helicity amplitudes,

$`A(1_{\overline{b}}^+,2_b^+,3_g^+)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{m_h^2}{1323}}`$ (8)
$`A(1_{\overline{b}}^+,2_b^+,3_g^{})`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{[12]^2}{[13][23]}},`$ (9)
using the spinor inner-product notation as reviewed in Ref. . The helicity-reversed amplitudes are equal to these (times $`1`$ if the Higgs boson is a pseudoscalar), by parity. The helicity amplitudes are related to the amplitudes $`𝒜_A^\mu `$ and $`𝒜_B^\mu `$ above by

$`ϵ_\mu ^\pm (p_3)𝒜_A^\mu =𝒜_0(1_{\overline{b}}^{},2_b^{},3_g^\pm )`$ (10)
$`ϵ_\mu ^\pm (p_3)𝒜_B^\mu =𝒜_0(1_{\overline{b}}^\pm ,2_b^\pm ,3_g^\pm ).`$ (11)
Squaring the amplitude and summing over colors and helicities gives

$$\underset{\mathrm{col},\mathrm{hel}}{}|𝒜_0|^2=\mathrm{sgn}(s_{12})16\mu ^{4ϵ}g_S^2\left(\frac{y_b}{\sqrt{2}}\right)^2\frac{m_h^4+s_{12}^2}{s_{13}s_{23}}.$$
(12)
The spin- and color-averaged cross section for the physical subprocess $`gbhb`$, Eq. (2), is then obtained from the above by crossing ($`s_{12}u`$, $`s_{13}s`$, $`s_{23}t`$).

In the dipole-subtraction method, the tensor

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{col},h_2=\pm 1}{}}𝒜_0^\mu 𝒜_0^\nu =8\mu ^{4ϵ}g_S^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{y_b}{\sqrt{2}}}\right)^2[g^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{(s_{13}+s_{23})^2}{s_{13}s_{23}}}+4m_h^2({\displaystyle \frac{p_2^\mu }{s_{23}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^\mu }{s_{13}}})({\displaystyle \frac{p_2^\nu }{s_{23}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^\nu }{s_{13}}})`$
$`4{\displaystyle \frac{s_{12}}{s_{13}s_{23}}}p_3^\mu p_3^\nu 2{\displaystyle \frac{s_{12}s_{13}m_h^2s_{23}}{s_{13}^2s_{23}}}(p_3^\mu p_1^\nu +p_3^\nu p_1^\mu )2{\displaystyle \frac{s_{12}s_{23}m_h^2s_{13}}{s_{13}s_{23}^2}}(p_3^\mu p_2^\nu +p_3^\nu p_2^\mu )]`$ (13)
is also needed.

## Appendix B

We present the helicity amplitudes for the $`23`$ subprocesses shown in Figs. 3 and 5. All amplitudes are calculated in $`d=4`$ dimensions. The amplitudes in $`d=42ϵ`$ dimensions using modern dimensional reduction may be obtained via $`g_Sg_S\mu ^ϵ`$, $`y_by_b\mu ^ϵ`$. The calculations were checked with the code MADGRAPH .

The subprocesses shown in Figs. 3(a) and 5(a) may be obtained from the helicity amplitudes for the unphysical subprocess $`0\overline{b}bggh`$. These helicity amplitudes may be written as

$$𝒜(1_{\overline{b}}^{h_1},2_b^{h_2},3_g^{h_3},4_g^{h_4})=(g_S\sqrt{2})^2\frac{y_b}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\frac{\{T^a,T^b\}}{2}A_s+\frac{[T^a,T^b]}{2}A_a\right),$$
(14)
where $`A_s`$ and $`A_a`$ are the symmetric and antisymmetric combination of color-ordered amplitudes. The three independent helicity configurations are given by ($`s_{ijk}(p_i+p_j+p_k)^2`$)

$`A_s(1_{\overline{b}}^+,2_b^+;3_g^+,4_g^+)=i{\displaystyle \frac{m_h^212}{13142324}}`$ (15)
$`A_a(1_{\overline{b}}^+,2_b^+;3_g^+,4_g^+)=i{\displaystyle \frac{m_h^2}{34}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1324}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1423}}\right)`$ (16)
$`A_s(1_{\overline{b}}^+,2_b^+;3_g^{},4_g^{})=i{\displaystyle \frac{\left[12\right]^3}{\left[13\right]\left[14\right]\left[23\right]\left[24\right]}}`$ (17)
$`A_a(1_{\overline{b}}^+,2_b^+;3_g^{},4_g^{})=i{\displaystyle \frac{\left[12\right]^2}{\left[34\right]}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left[13\right]\left[24\right]}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left[14\right]\left[23\right]}}\right)`$ (18)
$`A_s(1_{\overline{b}}^+,2_b^+;3_g^+,4_g^{})=i({\displaystyle \frac{\left[12\right]s_{123}}{1323\left[14\right]\left[24\right]}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left[13\right]\left(14\left[12\right]34\left[23\right]\right)}{13\left[14\right]s_{134}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(24\left[12\right]+34\left[13\right]\right)\left[23\right]}{23\left[24\right]s_{234}}})`$ (19)
$`A_a(1_{\overline{b}}^+,2_b^+;3_g^+,4_g^{})=i[{\displaystyle \frac{34\left[23\right]14\left[12\right]}{13s_{34}}}({\displaystyle \frac{\left[23\right]}{\left[24\right]}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(s_{13}+s_{14}\right)\left[13\right]}{\left[14\right]s_{134}}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{24\left[12\right]+34\left[13\right]}{23s_{34}}}({\displaystyle \frac{\left[13\right]}{\left[14\right]}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(s_{23}s_{24}\right)\left[23\right]}{\left[24\right]s_{234}}})].`$ (20)
Since these are not color-ordered amplitudes, the order of the gluons in the arguments of the functions $`A_s`$ and $`A_a`$ is irrelevant. Squaring and summing over colors gives

$$\underset{\mathrm{col}}{}|𝒜(1_{\overline{b}}^{h_1},2_b^{h_2},3_g^{h_3},4_g^{h_4})|^2=g_S^4\left(\frac{y_b}{\sqrt{2}}\right)^2\frac{N_c^21}{2}\left(\frac{N_c^22}{N_c}|A_s|^2+N_c|A_a|^2\right).$$
(21)
The four-quark subprocess of Figs. 3(b) and 5(b) may be obtained from the helicity amplitudes for the unphysical subprocess $`0\overline{b}b\overline{q}qh`$,

$$𝒜(1_{\overline{b}}^{h_1},2_b^{h_2},3_{\overline{q}}^{h_3},4_q^{h_4})=(g_S\sqrt{2})^2\frac{y_b}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta _{i_4}^{\overline{ı}_1}\delta _{i_2}^{\overline{ı}_3}\frac{1}{N_c}\delta _{i_2}^{\overline{ı}_1}\delta _{i_4}^{\overline{ı}_3}\right)A.$$
(22)
The two independent helicity configurations are given by

$`A(1_{\overline{b}}^+,2_b^+,3_{\overline{q}}^+,4_q^{})=f(1,2,3,4)+f(2,1,3,4)`$ (23)
$`A(1_{\overline{b}}^+,2_b^+,3_{\overline{q}}^{},4_q^+)=f(1,2,4,3)+f(2,1,4,3),`$ (24)
where

$$f(1,2,3,4)=i\frac{\left[13\right]\left(14\left[12\right]34\left[23\right]\right)}{s_{34}s_{134}}.$$
(25)
Squaring and summing over colors gives

$$\underset{\mathrm{col}}{}|𝒜(1_{\overline{b}}^{h_1},2_b^{h_2},3_{\overline{q}}^{h_3},4_q^{h_4})|^2=g_S^4\left(\frac{y_b}{\sqrt{2}}\right)^2(N_c^21)|A|^2.$$
(26)
The four-$`b`$-quark subprocesses in Figs. 5(c) and (d) may be obtained from the helicity amplitudes for the unphysical subprocess $`0\overline{b}b\overline{b}bh`$. These helicity amplitudes may be obtained from the four-quark amplitudes above by subtracting a term with one pair of the identical quarks exchanged,

$`𝒜(1_{\overline{b}}^{h_1},2_b^{h_2},3_{\overline{b}}^{h_3},4_b^{h_4})=(g_S\sqrt{2})^2{\displaystyle \frac{y_b}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\left(\delta _{i_4}^{\overline{ı}_1}\delta _{i_2}^{\overline{ı}_3}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c}}\delta _{i_2}^{\overline{ı}_1}\delta _{i_4}^{\overline{ı}_3}\right)A\left(\delta _{i_2}^{\overline{ı}_1}\delta _{i_4}^{\overline{ı}_3}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c}}\delta _{i_4}^{\overline{ı}_1}\delta _{i_2}^{\overline{ı}_3}\right)A^{\mathrm{ex}}\right],`$ (27)
where

$`A=A(1_{\overline{b}}^{h_1},2_b^{h_2},3_{\overline{b}}^{h_3},4_b^{h_4})`$ (28)
$`A^{\mathrm{ex}}=\delta _{h_2h_4}A(1_{\overline{b}}^{h_1},4_b^{h_4},3_{\overline{b}}^{h_3},2_b^{h_2})+\delta _{h_1h_3}A(3_{\overline{b}}^{h_3},2_b^{h_2},1_{\overline{b}}^{h_1},4_b^{h_4}).`$ (29)
The four independent helicity configurations are given by

$`A(1_{\overline{b}}^+,2_b^+,3_{\overline{b}}^+,4_b^{})=f(1,2,3,4)+f(2,1,3,4)`$ (30)
$`A(1_{\overline{b}}^+,2_b^+,3_{\overline{b}}^{},4_b^+)=f(1,2,4,3)+f(2,1,4,3)`$ (31)
$`A(1_{\overline{b}}^+,2_b^{},3_{\overline{b}}^+,4_b^+)=f(3,4,1,2)+f(4,3,1,2)`$ (32)
$`A(1_{\overline{b}}^{},2_b^+,3_{\overline{b}}^+,4_b^+)=f(3,4,2,1)+f(4,3,2,1).`$ (33)
Squaring and summing over colors gives

$$\underset{\mathrm{col}}{}|𝒜(1_{\overline{b}}^{h_1},2_b^{h_2},3_{\overline{q}}^{h_3},4_q^{h_4})|^2=g_S^4\left(\frac{y_b}{\sqrt{2}}\right)^2(N_c^21)\left(|A|^2+|A^{\mathrm{ex}}|^2+\frac{2}{N_c}\mathrm{Re}(A^{\mathrm{ex}}A^{})\right).$$
(34)
## Appendix C

In this appendix we list the scalar integrals which result from the Passarino-Veltman tensor reduction of the one-loop diagrams of Fig. 4, as given in Eq. (3). We define $`(d=42ϵ)`$

$`B_0(p_1^2;m_0^2,m_1^2)\mu ^{2ϵ}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{1}{[k^2m_0^2][(k+p_1)^2m_1^2]}}`$ (35)
$`C_0(p_1^2,p_2^2,p_{12}^2;m_0^2,m_1^2,m_2^2)`$
$`\mu ^{2ϵ}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{1}{[k^2m_0^2][(k+p_1)^2m_1^2][(k+p_1+p_2)^2m_2^2]}}`$ (36)
$`D_0(p_1^2,p_2^2,p_3^2,p_4^2,p_{12}^2,p_{23}^2;m_0^2,m_1^2,m_2^2,m_3^2)`$
$`\mu ^{2ϵ}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{1}{[k^2m_0^2][(k+p_1)^2m_1^2][(k+p_1+p_2)^2m_2^2][(k+p_1+p_2+p_3)^2m_3^2]}}`$ (37)
where $`p_{ij}^2=(p_i+p_j)^2`$, and

$$c_\mathrm{\Gamma }(4\pi )^ϵ\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+ϵ)\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(1ϵ)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(12ϵ)}.$$
(38)
The scalar integrals needed are ($`s`$ and $`t`$ are generic invariants here)

$`B_0(0;0,0)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (39)
$`B_0(s;0,0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ic_\mathrm{\Gamma }}{16\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}+2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{\mu ^2}}\right)s<0`$ (40)
$`C_0(0,0,s;0,0,0){\displaystyle \frac{iC(s)}{s}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ic_\mathrm{\Gamma }}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{\mu ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}^2{\displaystyle \frac{s}{\mu ^2}}\right)s<0`$ (41)
$`C_0(m_h^2,0,s;0,0,0)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iC^{}(s)}{m_h^2s}}`$ (42)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ic_\mathrm{\Gamma }}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_h^2s}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{m_h^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{ln}^2{\displaystyle \frac{s}{\mu ^2}}\mathrm{ln}^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_h^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)\right]`$
$`s,m_h^2<0`$
$`D_0(0,0,0,m_h^2,s,t;0,0,0,0)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iD(s,t)}{st}}`$ (44)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ic_\mathrm{\Gamma }}{16\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m_h^2}}\right)^ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{2}{st}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{m_h^2}}+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{t}{m_h^2}})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{ln}^2{\displaystyle \frac{s}{m_h^2}}+\mathrm{ln}^2{\displaystyle \frac{t}{m_h^2}})+\mathrm{R}({\displaystyle \frac{s}{m_h^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{t}{m_h^2}})]`$
$`m_h^2<s,t<0`$
$`\mathrm{R}(x,y)=\mathrm{ln}x\mathrm{ln}y\mathrm{ln}x\mathrm{ln}(1x)\mathrm{ln}y\mathrm{ln}(1y)+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}\mathrm{Li}_2(x)\mathrm{Li}_2(y).`$
The analytic continuation of the above results to the physical region is accomplished through the use of

$$\mathrm{ln}(si\eta )=\mathrm{ln}|s|i\pi \mathrm{\Theta }(s),$$
(45)
where $`s`$ is a generic invariant (including $`m_h^2`$) and $`\eta `$ is a small positive number and, for the dilogarithms with arguments greater than unity, by means of

$$\mathrm{Re}\left[\mathrm{Li}_2(x)\right]=\mathrm{Li}_2\left(\frac{1}{x}\right)+\frac{\pi ^2}{3}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}^2x.$$
(46)
## Appendix D

In this appendix we derive the QCD counterterm for the Yukawa coupling in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ renormalization scheme . We consider two different regularization schemes (RS): conventional dimensional regularization (CDR) and modern dimensional reduction (DR).

The Yukawa coupling and the quark mass arise from a common term in the Lagrangian,

$$=\frac{y_0}{\sqrt{2}}\overline{Q}Q(h+v),$$
(47)
where $`y_0`$ is the bare Yukawa coupling, $`h`$ is the physical Higgs-boson field, and $`v=(\sqrt{2}G_F)^{1/2}`$ $`246`$ GeV is the vacuum-expectation value of the Higgs-doublet field. It is evident from Eq. (47) that the bare quark mass is related to the bare Yukawa coupling by $`m_0=y_0v/\sqrt{2}`$.

The quark mass and Yukawa coupling receive corrections at one loop in QCD. We express the bare parameters in terms of the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ values and a counterterm,

$`y_0=\mu ^ϵy(1+\delta y_{\mathrm{RS}})`$ (48)
$`m_0=\overline{m}+\delta m_{\mathrm{RS}},`$ (49)
where the subscript on the counterterm indicates that it depends on the regularization scheme (RS). The parameter $`\mu `$ is the ’t Hooft mass, introduced to keep the renormalized Yukawa coupling dimensionless in $`d=42ϵ`$ dimensions. The Higgs vacuum-expectation value does not receive a correction at one loop in QCD. From the above equations and the relation $`m_0=y_0v/\sqrt{2}`$ we find that the mass and Yukawa-coupling counterterms are related by $`\delta y_{\mathrm{RS}}=\delta m_{\mathrm{RS}}/\overline{m}`$. Thus we may obtain the Yukawa-coupling counterterm from the mass counterterm.

The one-loop quark propagator is given by

$$\frac{i}{\widehat{p}m_0+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{RS}}(\widehat{p})}=\frac{i}{\widehat{p}\overline{m}\delta m_{\mathrm{RS}}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{RS}}(\widehat{p})},$$
(50)
where $`i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{RS}}(\widehat{p})`$ is the one-loop quark self energy. Since it is ultraviolet divergent, it depends on the regularization scheme. The position of the pole in the propagator at one loop is121212At one loop, the mass $`m`$ in the argument of the quark self energy may be regarded as the pole mass or the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass.

$$m_{\mathrm{pole}}=\overline{m}+\delta m_{\mathrm{RS}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{RS}}(m).$$
(51)
The $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass is defined via

$$\delta m_{\mathrm{CDR}}=\mathrm{\Sigma }(m)|_{\mathrm{div}},$$
(52)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(m)|_{\mathrm{div}}`$ is the divergent part, proportional to $`c_\mathrm{\Gamma }/ϵ`$, of the quark self energy (which is the same in CDR and DR). Since the pole mass is a physical quantity,131313The quark pole mass is a physical quantity within perturbation theory, which suffices for our purposes. However, it is unphysical once nonperturbative QCD is taken into account . independent of the regularization scheme, Eqs. (51) and (52) yield

$$\delta m_{\mathrm{DR}}=\mathrm{\Sigma }(m)|_{\mathrm{div}}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{DR}}(m)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{CDR}}(m).$$
(53)
The one-loop quark self energy (in ’t Hooft-Feynman gauge) is

$`i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{RS}}(\widehat{p})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\left(ig_S\mu ^ϵ\gamma ^\nu T^a\right)\frac{i}{\widehat{p}+\widehat{k}m}\left(ig_S\mu ^ϵ\gamma ^\mu T^a\right)\frac{ig_{\mu \nu }}{k^2}}`$ (56)
$`=`$ $`g_S^2C_F\{\begin{array}{cc}\left[(2+2ϵ)\widehat{p}+(42ϵ)m\right]B(p^2)+(2+2ϵ)\widehat{p}A(p^2)& \mathrm{in}\mathrm{CDR}\hfill \\ \left(2\widehat{p}+4m\right)B(p^2)2\widehat{p}A(p^2)& \mathrm{in}\mathrm{DR}\hfill \end{array}`$
where $`C_F=(N_c^21)/2N_c=4/3`$ and

$`A(p^2)p^\alpha `$ $``$ $`\mu ^{2ϵ}{\displaystyle \frac{d^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{k^\alpha }{k^2\left[(p+k)^2m^2\right]}}`$ (57)
$`B(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`B_0(p^2;0,m^2).`$ (58)
Using

$`A(m^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{16\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}}\right)^ϵc_\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)`$ (59)
$`B(m^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{16\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}}\right)^ϵc_\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}+2\right),`$ (60)
gives

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{RS}}(m)=\frac{\alpha _S}{4\pi }C_F\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}\right)^ϵc_\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\frac{3}{ϵ}+4+\delta _{\mathrm{RS}}\right]m,$$
(61)
where $`\delta _{\mathrm{CDR}}=0`$ and $`\delta _{\mathrm{DR}}=1`$. The counterterm is then obtained from Eqs. (52) and (53),

$$\delta m_{\mathrm{RS}}=\frac{\alpha _S}{4\pi }C_Fc_\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\frac{3}{ϵ}+\delta _{\mathrm{RS}}\right]m.$$
(62)
Using $`\delta y_{\mathrm{RS}}=\delta m_{\mathrm{RS}}/\overline{m}`$ then gives

$$\delta y_{\mathrm{RS}}=\frac{\alpha _S}{4\pi }C_Fc_\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\frac{3}{ϵ}+\delta _{\mathrm{RS}}\right].$$
(63)
This result is independent of the gauge chosen.

The $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ counterterm for the strong coupling, $`g_S^0=\mu ^ϵg_S(1+\delta g_S^{\mathrm{RS}})`$, analogous to Eq. (63), is

$$\delta g_S^{\mathrm{RS}}=\frac{\alpha _S}{4\pi }c_\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\frac{b_0}{ϵ}+\frac{C_A}{6}\delta _{\mathrm{RS}}\right],$$
(64)
where $`b_0=\beta _0/2=(11/6)C_A(2/3)T_Fn_f`$, $`C_A=N_c=3`$, $`T_F=1/2`$, $`n_f`$ is the number of light quarks, and $`\delta _{\mathrm{CDR}}=0`$, $`\delta _{\mathrm{DR}}=1`$.

The relation between the pole mass and $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass may also be obtained from Eqs. (51), (52), and (61),

$$m_{\mathrm{pole}}=\overline{m}(\mu )\left[1+\frac{\alpha _S}{4\pi }C_F\left(4+3\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}\right)\right].$$
(65)
## Appendix E

In this appendix we discuss two of the checks performed on our calculation of the virtual correction presented in Section 4.1 and Appendix C. We checked that the structure of the infrared (soft and collinear) divergences is as expected from the dipole-subtraction method . We also performed the calculation in both conventional dimensional regularization (CDR) and modern dimensional reduction (DR) and verified the scheme independence of our results.

The structure of the divergences for $`gbhb`$ at one loop is

$`2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\left(𝒜_1𝒜_0^{}\right)|_{\mathrm{div}}=|𝒜_0|^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _S}{2\pi }}c_\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m_h^2}}\right)^ϵ`$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ^2}}(C_A+2C_F)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\left(C_A\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{m_h^2}}+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{t}{m_h^2}}\right)(C_A2C_F)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{u}{m_h^2}}\right)\right],`$ (66)
where $`C_F=(N_c^21)/2N_c=4/3,C_A=N_c=3`$ and where $`𝒜_0`$ is the tree amplitude given in Eqs. (4) and (7), and $`𝒜_1ϵ_\mu ^{h_3}(p_3)𝒜_1^\mu `$ where $`𝒜_1^\mu `$ is the one-loop amplitude given in Eq. (3). This expression contains both infrared and ultraviolet divergences. The latter are removed by renormalizing the Yukawa and strong couplings using the counterterms given in Eqs. (63) and (64), respectively. This leaves the infrared-divergent expression

$`[2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\left(𝒜_1𝒜_0^{}\right)+|𝒜_0|^22(\delta y_{\mathrm{RS}}+\delta g_S^{\mathrm{RS}})]|_{\mathrm{div}}=|𝒜_0|^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _S}{2\pi }}c_\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m_h^2}}\right)^ϵ[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ^2}}(C_A+2C_F)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}(C_A(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{m_h^2}}+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{t}{m_h^2}})(C_A2C_F)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{u}{m_h^2}}b_03C_F)],`$ (67)
which has the structure expected from the dipole-subtraction method .

We also calculate the relation between the virtual amplitude in CDR and DR. We find

$`2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\left(𝒜_1𝒜_0^{}\right)|_{\mathrm{CDR}}=2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\left(𝒜_1𝒜_0^{}\right)|_{\mathrm{DR}}|𝒜_0|^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _S}{2\pi }}2C_F.`$ (68)
The above relation is consistent with the set of rules given in Ref. , augmented by the regularization-scheme-dependent renormalization of the Yukawa coupling given in Eq. (63).


format: text

text:
# Probing the Dark Side of Gravitational Clustering: Weak Lensing Statistics at Large Smoothing Angle

## 1 Introduction

The theoretical study of the weak gravitational lensing to probe the statistics of large scale structures in the universe has received much attention (Mellier 1999, Bartelmann & Schneider 1999) in recent past.

Based on the earlier works done by several authors (Gunn (1967), Blandford et al. (1991), Miralda-Escude (1991) and Kaiser (1992)), current development has focussed mainly on two different directions. Much progress have been achieved in the field of numerical simulations of the weak lensing, in particular the construction of shear maps which provide invaluable tools in testing the analytical results. The numerical simulations typically employ N-body simulations, through which ray tracing experiments are conducted (Schneider & Weiss 1988; Jarosszn’ski et al. 1990; Lee & Paczyn’ski 1990; Jarosszn’ski 1991; Babul & Lee 1991; Bartelmann & Schneider 1991, Blandford et al. 1991). Building on the earlier works of Wambsganns et al. (1995, 1997, 1998) the most detailed numerical study of lensing was done by Wambsganns, Cen & Ostriker (1998). Other recent studies using ray tracing experiments have been conducted by Premadi, Martel & Matzner (1998), van Waerbeke, Bernardeau & Mellier (1998), Bartelmann et al (1998), Couchman, Barber & Thomas (1998) and Jain, Seljak & White 2000.

On the analytical front, Villumsen (1996), Stebbins (1996), Bernardeau et al. (1997) and Kaiser (1992) have focussed on the use of perturbative techniques to study weak lensing. More recently it has been shown that the hierarchical ansatz for the higher order correlation functions can be used to describe the statistical properties of the weak lensing convergence fields for the case of small smoothing angles (Hui 1999, Munshi & Coles 1999, Munshi & Jain 1999, Valageas 1999a,b, Munshi 2000, Munshi & Coles 2000a,b).

In this paper we will show that while perturbative calculations have already been used to compute the lower order moments of convergence field, (see e.g.Bernardeau, van Waerbeke & Mellier 1997, van Waerbeke, Bernardeau & Mellier 1998, for detailed review on perturbative calculations in the context of weak lensing surveys see Bernardeau 1999) ; when coupled with generating function techniques it can also reproduce the complete pdf and bias functions associated with the smoothed projected density field. We also show that these results can simply be obtained by replacing the generating function of the tree hierarchy in non-linear regime with its quasi-linear counterpart. While the non-linear generating function corresponds to the three dimensional generating function for the matter correlation hierarchy, in the quasi-linear regime it has to be replaced by a generating function which represent the smoothed two-dimensional projected density field. These generating functions have already been studied in great detail by Bernardeau (1992, 1994, 1995, 1996) for the case of top-hat smoothing function. Using the recent analytical results from the study of statistics of the convergence field for small smoothing angles, we will introduce a reduced convergence field $`\eta `$ and study how its statistical properties (including the lower order moments) are related with its counterpart used to describe the projected density field.

## 2 The Statistics of the Convergence field for Large Smoothing Angles

The weak lensing convergence $`\kappa `$ is simply the projected mass distribution and its statistics carries valuable information about the geometry and dynamics of the background universe as well as the physics of collision-less clustering.

$$\kappa (𝜸)=_0^{\chi _s}𝑑\chi \omega (\chi )\delta (r(\chi )𝜸)$$
(1)
Throughout our discussion we will be placing the sources at a fixed red-shift (an approximation not too difficult to modify for more realistic description). The weight function can be expressed as $`\omega (\chi )=3/2ac^2H_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_mr(\chi )r(\chi _s\chi )/r(\chi _s)`$. Where $`\chi _s`$ is the comoving radial distance to the source placed at a red-shift $`z_s`$. We will be focusing on the quasi-linear regime where it is possible to expand the density contrast using a perturbative series.

$$\kappa ^{(1)}(𝜸)+\kappa ^{(2)}(𝜸)+\mathrm{}=_0^{\chi _s}𝑑\chi \omega (\chi )(\delta ^{(1)}(r(\chi )𝜸)+\delta ^{(2)}(r(\chi )𝜸)+\mathrm{})$$
(2)
It will be useful to work in Fourier domain and the Fourier decomposition of $`\delta `$ can be written as:

$$\kappa (𝜸)=_0^{\chi _s}𝑑\chi \omega (\chi )\frac{d^3𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{exp}(i\chi k_{}+ir\theta k_{})\delta _k$$
(3)
Where we have used $`k_{}`$ and $`k_{}`$ to denote the components of wave vector $`𝐤`$, parallel and perpendicular to the line of sight direction $`\gamma `$. In the small angle approximation however, one assumes that $`k_{}`$ is much larger compared to $`k_{}`$. We will denote the angle between the line of sight direction $`𝜸`$ and the wave vector $`𝐤`$, by $`\theta `$. The smoothing angle will be denoted by $`\theta _0`$. Using the definitions that we have introduced above we can now express the smoothed projected two-point correlation function (Limber 1954, Peebles 1980, Kaiser 1992, Kaiser 1998):

$$\kappa (𝜸_1)\kappa (𝜸_2)_c=_0^{\chi _s}𝑑\chi \frac{\omega ^2(\chi _1)}{r^2(\chi _1)}\frac{d^2𝐥}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{exp}(\theta l)\mathrm{P}\left(\frac{l}{r(\chi )}\right)W_2^2(l\theta _0).$$
(4)
Where we have introduced a new notation $`𝐥=r(\chi )𝐤_{}`$ which denotes the scaled wave vector projected on the surface of the sky. The average of the two-point correlation function $`\kappa _s^2`$ smoothed over an angle $`\theta _0`$ with a top-hat smoothing window $`W_2(l\theta _0)`$ is useful to quantify the fluctuations in $`\kappa _s`$ which is often used to reconstruct the matter power spectrum $`P(𝐤)`$ (Jain & Selzak 1997).

$$\kappa _s^2_c=_0^{\chi _s}𝑑\chi \frac{\omega ^2(\chi )}{r^2(\chi )}\frac{d^2𝐥}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{P}(\frac{l}{r(\chi )},\chi )W_2^2(l\theta _0)$$
(5)
Using the standard perturbative techniques, it is possible to compute the normalized cumulants or $`s_N`$ parameters, for the convergence field in the large smoothing angle regime.

### 2.1 The Probability Distribution Function of $`\kappa (\theta _0)`$

To construct the probability distribution function (pdf) it is necessary to have the $`s_N`$ parameters for the convergence maps computed to an arbitrary order. These computations have already been done by Bernardeau et al. (1996) and Waerbeke et al. (1998).

$`\kappa ^2(\gamma )=C_2[I_{\kappa _{\theta _0}}]`$ (6)
$`\kappa ^3(\gamma )=s_3^{\mathrm{PT}}C_3[I_{\kappa _{\theta _0}}^2]`$ (7)
$`\kappa ^N(\gamma )=s_N^{\mathrm{PT}}C_N[I_{\kappa _{\theta _0}}^{N1}]`$ (8)
Where the $`s_N`$ parameters 111Throughout this paper we will use lower case letters for quantities related to both the convergence $`\kappa `$ and its reduced counterpart $`\eta `$. We will show that the statistics associated with the reduced convergence map $`\eta (\theta _0)=\frac{\kappa (\theta _0)\kappa _{min}}{\kappa _{min}}=1+\frac{\kappa (\theta _0)}{|\kappa _{min}|}`$ is very similar to the projected two dimensional density fields. The Moments of these fields will be represented by a super-script $`\mathrm{PT}`$ to denote their perturbative origin, where as moments associated with the convergence map $`\kappa `$ will be denoted by the superscript $`\kappa `$.  correspond to the case of 3D gravitational dynamics with 2D perturbations (Bernardeau 1995),

$`s_3^{\mathrm{PT}}={\displaystyle \frac{36}{7}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(n+2)`$ (9)
$`s_4^{\mathrm{PT}}={\displaystyle \frac{2540}{49}}33(n+2)+{\displaystyle \frac{21}{4}}(n+2)^2`$ (10)
and $`C_t`$ denotes the line of sight integration.

$$C_t[I_{\kappa _{\theta _0}}^m]=_0^{\chi _s}\frac{\omega ^t(\chi )}{r^{2(t1)}(\chi )}I_{\kappa _{\theta _0}}^m𝑑\chi .$$
(11)
The spectral index $`n`$ is however same as that of the three dimensional (local) power spectral index. These results have already been tested using numerical simulation by Munshi et al. (1999). Typically for a degree scale smoothing, we will use $`n=1.3`$. The projection effects are incorporated in the line of sight integration. Such a separation of dynamical part and the geometrical part occurs only when we replace the actual initial power spectra with the local power law spectra (Bernardeau, 1995).

$$I_{\kappa _{\theta _0}}=\frac{d^2𝐥}{(2\pi )^2}P(\frac{𝐥}{𝐫(\chi )},\chi )W_2(l\theta _0)$$
(12)
Finally we can write down the normalized cumulants for the convergence field as:

$$s_N^\kappa =s_n^{\mathrm{PT}}\frac{C_N[I\kappa _{\theta _0}^{(N1)}]}{(C_2[I_{\kappa _{\theta _0}}])^{N1}}$$
(13)
The generating function approach developed by Balian & Schaeffer (1989) and later extended by Bernardeau & Schaeffer (1992) was used to compute the whole hierarchy of $`s_N`$ parameters for the three dimensional matter distribution and the projected matter distribution (Bernardeau 1995). The generating function is related to the vertices which appear in the tree representation of the correlation hierarchy which appear in the quasi-linear evolution of gravitational clustering.

$$𝒢^{\mathrm{PT}}(\tau )=1\tau +\frac{\nu _2}{2!}\tau ^2\frac{\nu _3}{3!}\tau ^3+\mathrm{}$$
(14)
Such a hierarchy also appears in the highly non-linear regime but with different tree amplitudes. The generating function for the $`s_N`$ parameters can similarly be represented as (Balian & Schaeffer 1989):

$$\varphi ^{\mathrm{PT}}(y)=\underset{N=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^{N1}\frac{s_N^{\mathrm{PT}}}{N!}y^N$$
(15)
The function $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{PT}}(y)`$ satisfies the constraint $`s_1=s_2=1`$ necessary for the normalization of the PDF. These two generating function are known to be related to each other by the following set of equations (Balian & Schaeffer 1989 , Bernardeau & Schaeffer 1992):

$`\varphi ^{\mathrm{PT}}(y)=y𝒢^{\mathrm{PT}}(\tau ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}y\tau {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}𝒢^{\mathrm{PT}}(\tau )`$ (16)
$`\tau =y{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}𝒢^{\mathrm{PT}}(\tau )`$ (17)
Hence once we know the generating function $`𝒢(\tau )`$ it is possible to compute the whole hierarchy of the projected $`s_N`$ parameters. It was shown that the generating function takes a particularly simple form (Bernardeau 1995):

$$𝒢^{\mathrm{PT}}(\tau )=\left(1\frac{\tau }{\kappa _a}\right)^{\kappa _a},$$
(18)
with $`\kappa _a=(\sqrt{13}1)/2`$ for 2D perturbative dynamics of gravitational clustering in a 3D universe. This particular result hold for unsmoothed density field but it is possible to incorporate the effect of smoothing into account if we assume that the smoothing window is a top-hat function (Bernardeau 1994, Bernardeau 1995).

$$𝒢_s^{\mathrm{PT}}(\tau )=𝒢^{\mathrm{PT}}\left[\tau \frac{\sigma \left(R_0[1+𝒢^{\mathrm{PT}}(\tau )]^{1/2}\right)}{\sigma (R_0)}\right].$$
(19)
For the variance $`\sigma `$ at length scale $`R_0`$ will use the local power spectral index $`n`$ so that $`\sigma (R_0)R_0^{(n+3)/2}`$.

The VPF and the PDF can be related to each other by the following equation (Balian & Schaeffer 1989):

$$P^{\mathrm{PT}}(\delta )=_i\mathrm{}^i\mathrm{}\frac{dy}{2\pi i}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(1+\delta )y\varphi ^{\mathrm{PT}}(y)}{\overline{\xi }_2}\right].$$
(20)
The above expressions are clearly suitable for the density field and similar calculations can be done for convergence maps and the generating functions for the cumulants of the convergence maps can then directly be related to its counterpart for the density field. The details of such calculations can be found in Munshi & Jain (1999) and Valageas(1999b). Our notations follow that of Munshi & Jain (1999) more closely. These studies clarified that it is useful to define a reduced convergence map $`\eta `$ smoothed with an angle $`\theta _0`$;

$$\eta (\theta _0)=\frac{\kappa (\theta _0)\kappa _{min}}{\kappa _{min}}=1+\frac{\kappa (\theta _0)}{|\kappa _{min}|},$$
(21)
where the minimum value of the convergence along any line of sight direction can be defined by the following equation:

$$\kappa _{min}=_0^{\chi _s}𝑑\chi \omega (\chi ).$$
(22)
Under certain approximation $`\eta `$ will have the exactly same one-point statistics as the density field $`1+\delta `$.

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta (y)=\varphi ^{PT}(y)$$
(23)
Notice that the quantity $`k_{min}`$ does not depend on the smoothing angle $`\theta _0`$ and hence will only depend on the source red-shift $`z_s`$ and the definition of reduced convergence remains same both in the quasi-linear and the highly non-linear regime and is not connected with the convergence or divergence of the perturbative series.

In general the expression connecting the cumulant generator for $`\eta `$ ,i.e. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta `$ can be related to $`\varphi `$ by the following approximation.

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta (y)=\frac{1}{[_0^{\chi _s}\omega (\chi )𝑑\chi ]}_0^{\chi _s}𝑑\chi \left[\frac{r^2(\chi )}{_0^{\chi _s}\omega (\chi )𝑑\chi }\frac{\kappa ^2(\theta _0)}{\frac{d^2𝐥}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{P}\left(\frac{l}{r(\chi )}\right)W_2^2(l\theta _0)}\right]\varphi ^{\mathrm{PT}}\left[\omega (\chi )_0^{\chi _s}\omega (\chi )𝑑\chi \frac{\frac{d^2𝐥}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{P}\left(\frac{l}{r(\chi )}\right)W_2^2(l\theta _0)}{r^2(\chi )\kappa ^2(\theta _0)}\right]$$
(24)
Clearly this expression does not depend on whether we are in the quasi-linear regime or in the highly non-linear regime. Only changes which are to be made is that of $`\varphi `$. In quasi-linear regime the quasi-linear phi can be computed from quasi-linear generating function for tree vertices defined earlier and in highly non-linear regime it needs to replaced with its non-linear counterpart. The simplification mentioned above can be achieved by replacing the red-shift dependence of different integrands with their values at a median red-shift. Numerical computations seems to suggest that such an approximation works remarkably well (Valageas 1999b, Munshi & Jain 1999a).

It is possible to have different approximate asymptotic expressions for different limiting values of $`\eta `$. However here we have performed a direct numerical integration and results for different cosmologies and various smoothing angles are presented in the Figure-1 and Figure-2. The different curves represent various versions of (standard, lambda, omega and $`\tau `$) cold dark matter models. The details of various parameters charecterising these dark matter models can be found in Munshi & Jain (1999a).

As in the case of quasi-linear regime we now get:

$`s_3^\kappa =s_3^{\mathrm{PT}}/\kappa _{min}`$ (25)
$`s_4^\kappa =s_4^{\mathrm{PT}}/\kappa _{min}^2`$ (26)
$`s_N^\kappa =s_N^{\mathrm{PT}}/\kappa _{min}^{N2}.`$ (27)
Although these expressions are very similar to their small angle counterparts (Munshi & Jain 1999a, Valageas 1999), however it is not very difficult to notice that there is a sharp difference between the two. For larger smoothing angle the statistics of reduced convergence map follows that of projected density field which in turn is related to the results associated with the two dimensional perturbations in a three dimensional universe. However in case of very small smoothing angles when we are probing the non-linear regime, the statistics of the convergence maps is that of full three dimensional density field. The intermediate regime is more difficult to model and it interpolates these two regimes in a smooth manner. Numerical investigations of $`s_3^\kappa `$ was done by Gaztanaga & Bernardeau (1998) for SCDM model for various smoothing angle. We find a good agreement between our results and their numerical measurements for angular scales as small as $`\theta =15^{}`$. Which means that our analytical results for pdf and bias (based on tree-level calculations), may even be valid for much smaller angular scales. A detailed comparison however will require a large simulation patch and is not available at present.

### 2.2 The bias associated with the convergence field $`\kappa (\theta _0)`$

While it is clear that one-point studies of convergence field is interesting it was shown by Munshi (2001) that such results can also be obtained for the case of two-point quantities such as bias associated with the convergence map $`b(\kappa )`$ and its moment, the cumulant correlators $`c_{pq}`$ (see Munshi, Melott & Coles 1999 for detailed descriptions of generalized cumulant correlators based on various hierarchical models).

$$p(\kappa _1,\kappa _2)d\kappa _1d\kappa _2=p(\kappa _1)p(\kappa _2)(1+b(\kappa _1)\xi _{12}^\kappa b(\kappa _2))d\kappa _1d\kappa _2$$
(28)
We have used shorthand notations $`\kappa _1=\kappa (\gamma _1)`$, $`\kappa _2=\kappa (\gamma _2)`$ and $`\xi _{12}^\kappa =\kappa (\gamma _1)\kappa (\gamma _2)`$ to simplify the above expression. A similar expression can be obtained for the reduced convergence map $`\eta `$.

Our studies in the highly non-linear regime have shown that the hierarchical ansatz can be used to understand how the ‘hot-spots’ in convergence maps are correlated and how such correlations can be used to study the similar correlation for the underlying matter distribution and hence the bias associated with the collapsed objects. We will show that a similar study is also possible in the quasi-linear regime with appropriate change in the generating function as was the case for non-linear regime.

The normalized cumulant correlators or $`c_{pq}^{\mathrm{PT}}`$ parameters have been calculated for dark matter density perturbations using direct perturbative calculations for low orders and for arbitrary orders using the generating function techniques. We can define these parameters by the following relation

$$\kappa _s^p(𝜸_1)\kappa _s^q(𝜸_2)_c==c_{pq}^\kappa \kappa _s^2_c^{(p+q2)}\kappa _s(𝜸_1)\kappa _s(𝜸_2).$$
(29)
These parameters were computed by Bernardeau(1996) for the density field and were found to obey a generic factorization rule $`c_{pq}=c_{p1}c_{q1}`$ for the case of 3D perturbations. Similar computations were later generalized for the case of 2D perturbations.

$`c_{21}^{\mathrm{PT}}={\displaystyle \frac{24}{7}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(n+2),`$ (30)
$`c_{31}^{\mathrm{PT}}={\displaystyle \frac{1473}{49}}{\displaystyle \frac{195}{14}}(n+2)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(n+2)^2.`$ (31)
For projected fields we will get a prefactor resulting from the line of sight integration as was the case for the one-point cumulants.

$$\kappa _s^p(𝜸_1)\kappa _s^q(𝜸_2)_c=c_{pq}^{\mathrm{PT}}𝒞_{p+q}[I_{\kappa _{\theta _0}}^{(p+q2)}I_{\kappa _{\theta _{12}}}]=c_{p1}^{\mathrm{PT}}c_{q1}^{\mathrm{PT}}𝒞_{p+q}[I_{\kappa _{\theta _0}}^{(p+q2)}I_{\kappa _{\theta _{12}}}]$$
(32)
where we have introduced a new quantity $`I_{\kappa _{\theta _{12}}}`$ which incorporates the line of sight integration effects for the two-point quantities, such as the cumulant correlators and bias which we are considering here.

$$I_{\kappa _{\theta _{12}}}\frac{d^2𝐥}{(2\pi )^2}P\left(\frac{l}{r(\chi )}\right)W_2^2(l\theta _0)\mathrm{exp}(l\theta _{12}).$$
(33)
.

It can be shown that the role of the generating function for the normalized cumulant correlators for the (unsmoothed) density field $`1+\delta `$ $`c_{p1}^{\mathrm{PT}}`$ is played by the quantity $`\tau `$ itself.

$$\beta ^{\mathrm{PT}}(y)=\underset{p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{c_{p1}^{\mathrm{PT}}}{p!}y^p$$
(34)
In a very similar way we can define the generating function $`c_{pq}`$ for the convergence map $`\kappa `$ by the following relation:

$$\beta _\kappa (y_1,y_2)=\underset{p,q}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{c_{pq}^\kappa }{p!q!}y_1^py_2^q=\underset{p}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{c_{p1}^\kappa }{p!}y_1^p\underset{q}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{c_{q1}^\kappa }{q!}y_2^q=\beta _\kappa (y_1)\beta _\kappa (y_2)$$
(35)
However such a factorization is not possible for the projected density fields, without some simplifying assumptions and in general we have to use the generating function for $`c_{pq}^{\mathrm{PT}}`$ which we denote as $`\beta _\kappa `$. Using relations we have already presented above we can finally write:

$`\beta _\kappa (y_1,y_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p,q}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_{pq}^{\mathrm{PT}}}{p!q!}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa _s^2^{p+q2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa _s(\gamma _1)\kappa _s(\gamma _2)}}`$ (36)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^{\chi _s}}d\chi {\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^{p+q}}{r^{2(p+q1)}}}\left[{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥}{(2\pi )^2)}}P({\displaystyle \frac{𝐥}{𝐫(\chi )}})W^2(l\theta _0)\mathrm{exp}[il\theta _{12}]\right]\left[{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥}{(2\pi )^2)}}P({\displaystyle \frac{𝐥}{𝐫(\chi )}})W^2(l\theta _0)\right]^{p+q2}y_1^py_2^q.`$
As was the case with one point cumulants we can use the reduced convergence $`\eta (\theta _0)`$ to simplify the analysis because as pointed out earlier the statistics of reduced convergence map is very similar to that of the underlying projected density field.

$`\beta _\eta (y_1,y_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\chi _s}}\omega ^2(\chi )𝑑\chi {\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{\omega ^2(\chi )}{r^2(\chi )}\right)\left[\frac{d^2𝐥}{(2\pi )^2)}\mathrm{P}(\frac{𝐥}{𝐫(\chi )})W^2(l\theta _0)\mathrm{exp}[il\theta _{12}]\right]}{\kappa _s(\gamma _1)\kappa _s(\gamma _2)_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _s^2^2}{\left(\frac{\omega (\chi )}{r^2(\chi )}\right)^2\left[\frac{d^2𝐥}{(2\pi )^2)}\mathrm{P}(\frac{𝐥}{𝐫(\chi )})W^2(l\theta _0)\right]^2\left[_0^{\chi _s}\omega (\chi )𝑑\chi \right]^2}}`$ (37)
$`\times \beta ^{\mathrm{PT}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{y_1}{\kappa _s^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega (\chi )}{r^2(\chi )}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥}{(2\pi )^2)}\mathrm{P}(\frac{𝐥}{𝐫(\chi )})W^2(l\theta _0)}\right]{\displaystyle _0^{\chi _s}}\omega (\chi )𝑑\chi \right)`$
$`\times \beta ^{\mathrm{PT}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{y_2}{\kappa _s^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega (\chi )}{r^2(\chi )}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐥}{(2\pi )^2)}\mathrm{P}(\frac{𝐥}{𝐫(\chi )})W^2(l\theta _0)}\right]{\displaystyle _0^{\chi _s}}\omega (\chi )𝑑\chi \right).`$
If we use the same techniques which we have used to simplify the integrals associated with one the point cumulants (see Munshi & Jain 1999a, and Munshi 2000) where we replaced the red-shift dependence in integrands with their values at a median red-shift we can write:

$$\beta _\eta (y_1,y_2)=\beta _\eta (y_1)\beta _\eta (y_2)=\beta ^{\mathrm{PT}}(y_1)\beta ^{\mathrm{PT}}(y_2)$$
(38)
This is exactly the same result which we have obtained for small smoothing angle, however results we have derived here are valid for large smoothing angles and hence the generating function $`\beta ^{\mathrm{PT}}(y)`$ corresponds to the case of perturbative regime. If we neglect the effect of smoothing the generating function $`\beta ^{\mathrm{PT}}(y)`$ is simply the function $`\tau (y)`$ (Bernardeau 1996) however for smoothed convergence maps we can write (Bernardeau 1996):

$$\beta ^{\mathrm{PT}}(y)=\tau (y)\frac{\sigma (R_0)}{\sigma \left(R_0[1+𝒢^{\mathrm{PT}}(\tau )]^{1/2}\right)}.$$
(39)
Finally the bias $`b(\eta )`$ can be expressed as:

$$b(\eta )=_i\mathrm{}^i\mathrm{}\frac{dy}{2\pi i}\beta (y)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\eta y\varphi ^{\mathrm{PT}}(y)}{\overline{\xi }_2}\right]/_i\mathrm{}^i\mathrm{}\frac{dy}{2\pi i}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\eta y\varphi ^{\mathrm{PT}}(y)}{\overline{\xi }_2}\right].$$
(40)
The generating function for $`\eta `$ and projected density field are same under certain simplifying approximation, it shows that the bias associated with the reduced convergence is very similar to the statistics of the projected density field. This is in direct contrast with what was obtained using the nonlinear theory for small smoothing angle where the statistics of hot-spots in projected map are more closely related to the underlying three dimensional density field and not to the projected density field. Finally the bias associated with the convergence $`\kappa `$ can be expressed by the following equation.

$$b_\kappa (\kappa )=\frac{b_\eta (\eta )}{k_{min}}.$$
(41)
Clearly it is possible to integrate the exact equation which represents joint moments exactly and hence compute the exact bias function for large smoothing angle from $`\beta (y)`$, but it was found by Munshi(2000) that simplification of replacing all the integrals by their approximate values, works remarkably well, when tested against numerical simulations. We will adopt the same technique for this study. Result of such numerical integration for different cosmologies are presented in Figure-3 and Figure-4. Instead of plotting the differential bias function we have plotted its integral part which simply represent the bias associated with spots which cross certain threshold in reduced convergence. Such a bias is easier to measure from numerical maps. We find that the bias predictions based on log-normal models also match perturbative calculations reasonably well.

While in the non-linear regime it is possible to extend such studies to even higher order where one gets the complete picture for the many-point statistics of over-dense cells, similar analysis is not possible in quasi-linear regime as the tree-vertices $`\nu _n`$ defined above are dependent on shape factors.

Different sources of noise affect the measurement of one-point quantities such as pdf and two-point quantities such as bias from observational data or numerical simulations. While for small angular scales the major concern is always the noise due to intrinsic ellipticities of galaxies at larger smoothing angle it is finite volume corrections which starts playing the major role. It manifests itself mainly on large $`\kappa `$ tail of the pdf and bias and depends on the presence or absence of a rare cluster in the catalog. The large $`\kappa `$ tail generally shows large fluctuations before showing an abrupt cutoff for a certain threshold beyond which there are no more over-dense cells in the catalog. Similar effects are observed in the determination of bias too.

## 3 Discussion

Perturbative calculations have already been used to compute the lower order hierarchy of $`s_N`$ parameters associated with the convergence maps in quasi-linear regime. On the other hand hierarchical ansatz was shown to be useful in highly non-linear regime. In this particular paper we have shown how the recent development in highly non-linear regime can also be used to study the quasi-linear regime by introducing a reduced convergence field to construct the full pdf and bias associated with convergence maps in the quasi-linear regime. We have shown that a reduced convergence field in fact is related directly with the two-dimensional projected density field. It is known from earlier studies that the generating function corresponding to the two-dimensional density field is connected with the two dimensional spherical collapse. Which indicates that such a generating function now can be used to predict the pdf and bias of smooth convergence maps in the quasi-linear regime. A quick comparison with corresponding results in highly non-linear regime shows that while statistics of projected density for small smoothing is intimately related with the full three dimensional density field at larger smoothing angle it is related to the projected two dimensional density field.

From observational point of view our results will have direct significance. While most recent observational studies cover rather small patches of the sky necessary for quasi-linear approximations to be valid, it is hoped that larger and larger patches of the sky will be covered in future, where one can apply perturbative techniques. At smaller angular scales it is well known that noise due to intrinsic ellipticity of galaxies will play a major role in determination of the cosmological parameters, however such noise will be less significant for studies at larger angular scales where our results will have direct relevance. Although signal variance will start declining with larger and larger smoothing angle and direct determination of weak lensing signal at degree scale might seem difficult at present, in the intermediate length scale $`\theta _0=15^{}`$ where the hierarchical ansatz starts to break down our analysis using perturbative techniques will provide much needed theoretical insight.

Most of the presently available numerical maps for cosmic shear are generated from high resolution numerical simulation and are generally correspond to few degree patches in the sky which are suitable for testing analytical predictions for smaller smoothing angles, and recent comparison of various statistics were found to be very accurately reproduced by non-linear theory. Such studies for larger smoothing angles will have to wait till much larger numerical maps are available. There have been some attempts in this direction using higher order Lagrangian theories which replaces the exact gravitational dynamics. Such models although less accurate can reproduce the basic features of convergence maps in larger smoothing angles and are definitely very cost effective. For reproducing the statistics of convergence maps made using higher order Lagrangian perturbation theory we just need to change the exact generating function which we have used in this study by corresponding smoothed generating function for perturbative Lagrangian dynamics for the case of projected perturbations and it can then be used to compare with numerical studies. It can be shown that the frozen flow approximation as proposed by Matarrese et al(1992). will produce a log-normal pdf in the quasi-linear regime (Munshi, Sahni & Starobinsky 1994), hence such an approximation can also be used to generate convergence maps.

Results presented here can be generalized very easily for the case of projected galaxy survey. A detailed study will be presented elsewhere.

## Acknowledgment

I was supported by a fellowship from the Humboldt foundation at the MPA when this work was completed. It is pleasure for me to acknowledge many helpful discussions with Francis Bernardeau, Bhubnesh Jain, Patrick Valageas and Peter Coles. The complex integration routine I have used to generate $`p(\eta )`$ and $`b(>\eta )`$ were made available to me by Francis Bernardeau. I am grateful to him for his help.

## Appendix: Log-normal Distribution

Lognormal distribution provides a phenomological description of one -point probability ditribution function (see Coles & Jones 1991) and its generalisation to compute the bias function associated with overdense region (Taruya et al. 2001). Although inherently local in nature we found that it can also be used as a good fitting function for both one-point probability distribution function (see Bernardeau & Kofman 1995 for similar comparison in 3D for density PDF) and the bias function associated with the convergence maps. For the projected density contrast $`\delta `$ (which is related to the reduced cnvergence field $`\eta =1+\delta `$) we can write the pdf as:

$$P(\delta )d\delta =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }^2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right]\frac{1}{(1+\delta )}d\delta .$$
(42)
Similarly the joint probability distribution function can be written as (Kayo et al.2001):

$$P(\delta _1,\delta _2)d\delta _1d\delta _2=\frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{(\mathrm{\Sigma }^2X^2)}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^2)2X\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}{2(\mathrm{\Sigma }^2X^2)}\right]\frac{1}{(1+\delta _1)}\frac{1}{(1+\delta _2)}d\delta _1d\delta _2$$
(43)
Where we have introduced the following notations:

$$X=\mathrm{ln}(1+\xi _{nl}),\mathrm{\Sigma }=(1+\sigma _{nl}),\mathrm{\Lambda }_i=\mathrm{ln}\left[(1+\delta _i)\sqrt{(1+\sigma _{nl})}\right].$$
(44)
$`\xi _{nl}`$ and $`\xi _{lin}`$ denotes the non-linear and linear correlation functions and can be computed using suitable modelling of non-linear evolution e.g. Peacock & Dodds (1996). To compute the one-point and two-point pdf’s for $`\kappa `$ from above expressions we have to apply the transformation $`\eta \kappa `$ (which involve computation of $`\kappa _{min}`$) discussed before. A detailed comparison of bias from log-normal model and from hierarchical ansatz for the case of density field will be presented elsewhere.