arxiv:hep-ph/ v6 17 Apr 2007

Transcription

1 auge dependence of on-shell and pole mass renormalization prescriptions Yong hou Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, school of science P.O. Box 123, Beijing , China arxiv:hep-ph/ v6 17 Apr 2007 e discuss the gauge dependence of physical parameter s definitions under the on-shell and pole mass renormalization prescriptions. By to-loop-level calculations e prove for the first time that the on-shell mass renormalization prescription makes physical result gauge dependent. On the other hand, such gauge dependence doesn t appear in the result of the pole mass renormalization prescription. Our calculation also implies the difference of the physical results beteen the to mass renormalization prescriptions cannot be neglected at to-loop level. PACS numbers: h, Lk I. INTRODUCTION The conventional on-shell mass renormalization prescription has been present for a long time. It renormalizes the real part of particle s inverse propagator to zero at physical mass point. For boson the on-shell mass renormalization condition is [1, 2] m 2 m 2 0 +ReΣ(m2 ) = 0, (1) herem 0 is the baremass and Σ is the boson s diagonal self energy (for vector boson it is thetransverse diagonal self energy). But recently people proposed a ne mass renormalization prescription hich renormalizes both the real and thmaginary parts of the particle s inverse propagator to zero at the (complex) pole of the particle s propagator, i.e. [3, 4] s m 2 0 +Σ( s) = 0, (2) here s is the pole of the particle s propagator. ritten s = m 2 2 im 2Γ 2, m 2 is defined as the physical mass of the particle [3]. Putting the expression of s into Eq.(2) one has [3, 4] m 2 2 m 2 0 +ReΣ( s) = 0, m 2 Γ 2 = ImΣ( s). (3) By expanding Eqs.(3) at s = m 2 2 one readily has (see Eq.(1)) [3, 4] m m 2 = Γ 2 ImΣ (m 2 2)/2+O(g 6 ), (4)

2 2 here Σ (m 2 2 ) = Σ(m2 2 )/ p2 and g is a generic coupling constant. For unstable boson the r.h.s. of Eq.(4) is gauge dependent [3, 4]. So A. Sirlin et al. claim that the on-shell mass definition m of unstable particles is gauge dependent, since the pole mass definition m 2 is gaugndependent [3, 4, 5, 6]. But the conclusion that the pole mass definition m 2 is gaugndependent has been proposed for not very long time. e still need to search ne and stricter proofs to prove this conclusion. In this paper e ill discuss if the pole mass definition is gaugndependent annvestigate the difference of physical result beteen the on-shell and pole mass renormalization prescriptions. The arrangement of this paper is as follos: firstly e discuss the gauge dependencies of the counterterms of gauge boson and s mass and the sine of the eak mixing angle under the on-shell and pole mass renormalization prescriptions; then e discuss the gauge dependence of the to-loop-level cross section of the physical process µ ν µ e ν e under the to mass renormalization prescriptions; Lastly e give the conclusion. II. AUE DEPENDENCIES OF PYSICAL PARAMETER S COUNTERTERMS UNDER TE ON-SELL AND POLE MASS RENORMALIATION PRESCRIPTIONS The gaugnvariance of Lagrangian alays requires the bare physical parameters are gauge independent. The natural deduction of this conclusion is the counterterms of physical parameters should also be gaugndependent[7], since the bare physical parameter can be dividento physical parameter and the corresponding counterterm, and the physical parameter is of course gauge independent. This criterion could be used to judge hich mass renormalization prescription is reasonable, in other ords hich mass definition is gaugndependent. In the folloing e ill discuss the gauge dependence of the counterterms of gauge boson and s mass and the sine of the eak mixing angle under the on-shell and pole mass renormalization prescriptions. For convenience e only discuss the dependence of gauge parameter ξ in the R ξ gauge, and e only introduce physical parameter s counterterms (i.e. e don t introduce field renormalization constants). The computer program packages FeynArts and FeynCalc [8] have been usen the folloing calculations. ere e note there are some early to-loop-level calculations about the massive gauge boson s self energies in Ref.[9]. From Eqs.(1,3) one has for massive gauge boson [10] δm 2 = ReΣ T (m 2 ), δm 2 2 = ReΣT (m 2 2 )+m 2Γ 2 ImΣ T (m 2 2 )+O(g6 ), (5)

3 3 here Σ T denotes the transverse self energy of the gauge boson. The one-loop-level mass counterterms of and have been proven gaugndependent [6]. So e only need to discuss the to-loop-level case. Firstly m and m 2 should be regarded as equal quantities, since both of them are regarded as the physical mass of the same particle. Therefore e find the to-loop-level difference of the to mass counterterm is mγimσ T (m 2 ). Every part of this term contains gaugeparameter-dependent eaviside functions (hich come from the one-loop-level ImΣ T [3, 4]). So in order to discuss the difference of the gauge dependence of the to mass counterterms e only need to calculate the gauge dependence of the singularities of the to-loop-level ReΣ T (m 2 ), because only the singularities of ReΣ T (m 2 ) in ReΣ T (m 2 ) contain eaviside functions. In other ords for our purpose e only need to discuss the gauge dependence of the part hich contains eaviside functions of the to mass counterterms. The to-loop-level self energies can be classifiento to kinds: one kind contains one-looplevel counterterms, the other kind doesn t contain any counterterm. Since except for CKM matrix elements [11] all of the one-loop-level counterterms of physical parameters are real numbers and don t contain eaviside function [2], the first kind self energy doesn t contribute to the singularities of the real part of the self energy, because except the one-loop-level counterterm the left part of this kind self energy is an one-loop-level self energy hich real part doesn t contain singularities. ere e don t need to orry about the problem that the CKM matrix elements and their counterterms are complex numbers, because the total contribution of them to the real part of the gauge boson s self energy is real number(the correctness of this conclusion can be see from the folloing calculations). So e only need to calculate the contributions of the second kind self energy. According to the cutting rules [12] the second kind self energy can be classifiento three kinds: one kind doesn t contain singularity, the second kind contains singularities, but its singularities don t contribute to the real part of the self energy, the third kind contains singularities ants singularities contribute to the real part of the self energy. The topologies of the three kind self energies are shon in Fig.1, Fig.2 and Fig.3. ere e note the middle propagator (denoted by broken line) in the one-particle-reducible diagrams of Fig.(1-3) is different from the external-line particles. The tadpole diagrams are also includen Fig.(1-3), because e don t introduce the tadpole counterterm [6]. Obviously e only need to calculate the contribution of the singularities of Fig.3 to the real part of the gauge boson s self energy. In Fig.3 e also dra the possible cuts/singularities of the first four topologies hich contribute to the real part of the gauge boson s self energy (the arro on thnner line denotes the corresponding propagator is cut [12]). The possible cuts of the left

4 4 FI. 1: Topologies of the to-loop-level self energy hich lacks counterterm and singularity. to topologies hich contribute to the real part of the gauge boson s self energy are shon in Fig.4 and Fig.5. A. auge dependence of mass counterterm under the to mass renormalization prescriptions In the standard model of particle physics the first topology of Fig.3 doesn t contribute to transverse self energy, so e don t need to calculatts contribution. For the second topology of Fig.3 there are 39 Feynman diagrams in the standard model, but none of them satisfies the corresponding cutting condition. The case of the third topology of Fig.3 is same as the case of the second topology. For the 4th topology of Fig.3 there are to self energy diagrams as shon in Fig.6 hich satisfy the corresponding cutting condition. Using the cutting rules e obtain the gauge-parameter-dependent contribution of the cuts of Fig.6 to the real part of transverse self

5 5 FI. 2: Topologies of the to-loop-level self energy hich lacks counterterm ants singularities don t contribute to the real part of the self energy FI. 3: Topologies of the to-loop-level self energy hich lacks counterterm ants singularities contribute to the real part of the self energy. FI. 4: Possible cuts of the 5th topology of Fig.3 hich contribute to the real part of the self energy.

6 FI. 5: Possible cuts of the 6th topology of Fig.3 hich contribute to the real part of the self energy. FI. 6: self energy diagrams hich satisfy the 4th topology of Fig.3 and the corresponding cutting condition. energy: ReΣ T (m2 ) ξ cut = α2 m (1 ξ ) 3 (ξ 5 3ξ4 6ξ3 46ξ2 +165ξ +465)θ[1 ξ ], (6) hereσ T is transverse self energy, m andξ is s mass andgauge parameter, α is thefine structure constant, θ is the eaviside function, and the subscript ξ cut denotes the ξ -dependent contribution from the cuts/singularities. In the follos e restrict ourselves to ξ > 0 [4]. For the 5th topology of Fig.3 there are 14 s self energy diagrams as shon in Fig.7 hich are ξ -dependent and satisfy the cutting conditions of Fig.4. After careful calculations e obtain the gauge-parameter-dependent contribution of the cuts of Fig.7 to the real part of transverse self energy: ReΣ T (m 2 ) ξ cut = α2 m 2 [ 128s 4 1 x i (1 x i )(x i ξ ) 2 (x 2 i +x i 2)θ[m i ξ m ] + 1 ξ 2 s 2 (1 ξ ) 3 x i (x i ξ ) 2 θ[ ξ m m i ]θ[1 ξ ] V ij 2 (ξ x i +x j )A ij B ij C ij θ[m i m j ξ m ] x i

7 7 u k d k d l u l u k d k d l u l FI. 7: ξ -dependent self energy diagrams hich satisfy the 5th topology of Fig.3 and the cutting conditions of Fig ξ 2 s 2 (1 ξ ) 3 1 x j V ij 2 (ξ x j +x i )A ij B ij C ij θ[m j m i ξ m ] θ[ ξ m m i m j ]θ[1 ξ ] V ij 2 (ξ (x i +x j ) (x i x j ) 2 )C ij ], (7) here s is the sine of the eak mixing angle, x i = m 2 i /m2, x j = m 2 j /m2, V ij is the CKM matrix element [11], and A ij = (x i x j ) 2 2(x i +x j )+1, B ij = 2 (x i +x j ) (x i x j ) 2, C ij = (x i x j ) 2 2ξ (x i +x j )+ξ 2. (8) For the 6th topology of Fig.3 there are 53 self energy diagrams as shon in Fig.8 hich are

8 8 ξ -dependent and satisfy the cutting conditions of Fig.5. e ill calculate the contributions of the five cuts of Fig.5 one by one. Firstly e obtain the gauge-parameter-dependent contribution of the first cut of Fig.5 to the real part of transverse self energy: ReΣ T (m 2 ) ξ cut = α2 m 2 [3 576s 2 V ij 2 A ij B ij + ] (1 x i ) 2 (2+x i ) (1 ξ )(ξ 2 2ξ 11)θ[1 ξ ] α2 m (1 ξ ) 3 (ξ 5 3ξ4 6ξ3 46ξ2 +165ξ +465)θ[1 ξ ]. (9) Then e obtain the gauge-parameter-dependent contributions of the second and third cuts of Fig.5 to the real part of transverse self energy: ReΣ T (m 2 ) ξ cut = α2 m 2 [ 256s 4 1 x i (1 x i )(x i ξ ) 2 (x 2 i +x i 2)θ[m i ξ m ] + 1 ξ 2 s 2 (1 ξ ) 3 x i (x i ξ ) 2 θ[ ξ m m i ]θ[1 ξ ] V ij 2 (ξ x i +x j )A ij B ij C ij θ[m i m j ξ m ] x i ξ 2 s 2 (1 ξ ) 3 1 x j V ij 2 (ξ x j +x i )A ij B ij C ij θ[m j m i ξ m ] θ[ ξ m m i m j ]θ[1 ξ ] V ij 2 (ξ (x i +x j ) (x i x j ) 2 )C ij ]. (10) Lastly e find the gauge-parameter-dependent contributions of the 4th and 5th cuts of Fig.5 to the real part of transverse self energy are same as those of the second and the third cuts of Fig.5 (this point can be seen from the symmetries of the four cuts). Summing up all of the above results e obtain the gauge dependence of the singularities of the real part of to-loop-level transverse self energy (see Eqs.(6,7,9,10) and the corresponding discussions) ReΣ T (m 2 ) ξ cut = α2 m 2 [3 576s 2 V ij 2 A ij B ij + ] (1 x i ) 2 (2+x i ) (1 ξ )(ξ 2 2ξ 11)θ[1 ξ ]. (11) From Eq.(5) one finds Eq.(11) is just the gauge dependence of the part containing eaviside functions of mass counterterm under the on-shell mass renormalization prescription. So Eq.(11) proves the mass counterterm of on-shell mass renormalization prescription is gauge dependent.

9 u u u u

10 10 u u u u u u u u FI. 8: ξ -dependent self energy diagrams hich satisfy the 6th topology of Fig.3 and the cutting conditions of Fig.5.

11 11 In order to discuss the gauge dependence of mass counterterm of the pole mass renormalization prescription e calculate the term (see Eq.(5)) m Γ ImΣ T (m2 ) ξ cut = α2 m 2 [3 576s 2 V ij 2 A ij B ij + ] (1 x i ) 2 (2+x i ) (1 ξ )(ξ 2 2ξ 11)θ[1 ξ ]. (12) Combining Eq.(11) and Eq.(12) one gets (see Eq.(5)) δm 2 ξ cut = 0 under pole mass renormalization prescription. (13) This result indicates the part containing eaviside functions of mass counterterm of the pole mass renormalization prescription is gaugndependent. B. auge dependence of mass counterterm under the to mass renormalization prescriptions Similarly as the case of gauge boson e only calculate the gauge dependence of the part containing eaviside function of the real part of to-loop-level transverse self energy. The topologies of to-loop-level self energy needing calculated have been shon in Fig.3. For the first topology of Fig.3 only the diagram hose middle propagator (denoted by the broken line) is photon contributes to transverse self energy. After careful calculation e obtain the ξ - dependent contribution of the cut of the first topology of Fig.3 to the real part of transverse self energy = ReΣ T (m2 ) ξ cut α 2 m c 6 s2 (1 4c 2 ξ ) 3/2[ 3 (1 4c 2 ξ ) 3/2 +8(3(4c 2 3) i=d,s,b c 2 + (4c 2 1) ) 1 4c 2 x i (2c 2 x i +1) ]θ[ 1 2 ξ ]+ α2 m 2 c 1728c 6 DE +2(8c 2 5) [ 3s 2 c 2 DE 3 c 2 (1 4c 2 ξ ) 3/2 4(3(4c 2 3) +2(8c 2 5) +(4c 2 1) ) i=u,c i=d,s,b 1 4c 2 x i(2c 2 x i +1) ]θ[ 1 ξ 1], (14) c here m is mass, c is the cosine of the eak mixing angle, and i=u,c D = (ξ 1) 2 c 4 2(ξ +1)c 2 +1, E = (ξ 1) 2 c 4 2(ξ 5)c (15)

12 12 For the second topology of Fig.3 there are four self-energy diagrams as shon in Fig.9 hich satisfy the corresponding cutting condition. By the cutting rules e obtain the ξ -dependent FI. 9: self-energy diagrams hich satisfy the second topology of Fig.3 and the corresponding cutting condition. contribution of the cuts of Fig.9 to the real part of transverse self energy : ReΣ T (m2 ) ξ cut = α2 m c 4 (ξ 1)D[(ξ 1) 3 (ξ 3 ξ2 3ξ 33)c 6 (ξ 1)(3ξ 4 9ξ3 29ξ2 +101ξ +366)c 4 + (3ξ 4 10ξ 3 22ξ ξ 93)c 2 ξ 3 + 2ξ 2 +5ξ 18]θ[ 1 c ξ 1]. (16) For the third topology of Fig.3 there are also four self-energy diagrams as shon in Fig.10 hich satisfy the corresponding cutting condition. Obviously Fig.9 and Fig.10 are right-and-left FI. 10: self-energy diagrams hich satisfy the third topology of Fig.3 and the corresponding cutting condition. symmetric. Through calculations e find the ξ -dependent contribution of the cuts of Fig.10 to the real part of transverse self energy is just equal to that of Fig.9. For the 4th topology of Fig.3 there are six self-energy diagrams as shon in Fig.11 hich satisfy the corresponding cutting rules. After careful calculations e obtain the ξ -dependent contribution of the cuts of Fig.11 to the real part of transverse self energy: ReΣ T (m 2 ) ξ cut = α2 m c 8 s 4 (1 4c 2 ξ ) 3 (2c 6 4c 4 +2c 2 3)θ[ 1 2 ξ ] c + α2 m c 8 [(ξ 1) 6 c 14 6(ξ 1) 4 (ξ 2 +11ξ +22)c (ξ 1) 2 (12ξ 3 +65ξ2 +10ξ +201)c 10

13 13 FI. 11: self-energy diagrams hich satisfy the 4th topology of Fig.3 and the corresponding cutting condition. 2(45ξ 4 +46ξ3 228ξ2 150ξ +415)c 8 + 3(40ξ 3 19ξ2 98ξ +109)c 6 6(15ξ2 17ξ 12)c 4 + (36ξ 35)c 2 6]θ[ 1 ξ 1] α2 m 2 c 1152c 8 s 2 D [4(ξ 1) 2 ξ c 10 (4ξ 3 +ξ 2 38ξ +1)c 8 1 4c 2 ξ + 3(4ξ 3 +19ξ2 32ξ 3)c 6 3(9ξ2 10ξ 8)c 4 + (18ξ 11)c 2 3]θ[ 1 c ξ 1]. (17) For the 5th topology of Fig.3 there are 84 self-energy diagrams as shon in Fig.12 hich satisfy the cutting conditions of Fig.4. After careful calculations e obtain the ξ -dependent contribution of the cuts of Fig.12 to the real part of transverse self energy: = + ReΣ T (m 2 ) ξ cut α 2 m 2 DE[ (1 x i ) 2 (2+x i )+3 192c 2 s2 α 2 m 2 64s 4 ξ2 (1 4c 2 ξ ) 3/2 + 3α2 m 2 64s 4 (1 4c 2 ξ2 ξ ) 3/2 V ij 2 A ij B ij ]θ[ 1 c ξ 1] x i (x i ξ ) 2 θ[ 1 c 2 ξ ]θ[ ξ m m i ] V ij 2 C ij (ξ (x i +x j ) (x i x j ) 2 ) θ[ 1 2 ξ ]θ[ ξ m m i m j ] α2 m 2 c 64c 4 (2c 2 s4 1) (x i ξ ) 2 (2c 2 1+c 2 (4c 2 5)x i )θ[m i ξ m ] α 2 m 2 + (4c 2 1) 1 V ij 2 C ij 1 4c x 2 x i (ξ x i +x j ) i 192c 4 s c x 2 x i i

14 14

15 15 u u u u u u u u u u

16 16 u u u u u u FI. 12: self-energy diagrams hich satisfy the 5th topology of Fig.3 and the cutting conditions of Fig.4.

17 17 (4c 2 1+c2 (8c2 11)x i)θ[m i m j ξ m ] α 2 m c 4 s 4 (2c 2 +1) 1 V ij 2 C ij 1 4c x 2 x j(ξ x j +x i ) j (2c 2 +1+c 2 (4c 2 7)x j )θ[m j m i ξ m ]. (18) For the 6th topology of Fig.3 there are 124 self-energy diagrams as shon in Fig.13 hich are ξ dependent and satisfy the cutting conditions of Fig.5. e ill calculate the contributions of the five cuts of Fig.5 one by one. Firstly e obtain the ξ -dependent contribution of the first cut of Fig.5 to the real part of transverse self energy: ReΣ T (m2 ) ξ cut = α2 m c 8 (1 4c 2 s4 ξ ) 3 (1+4c 4 2c6 )θ[ 1 2 ξ ] c α2 m 2 576c 6 s 4 (1 4c 2 ξ ) 3/2 [3+( 2c 2 1+c2 (4c2 5)x i + 4c 2 1+c2 (8c2 11)x i + 2c 2 +1+c2 (4c2 7)x i) i=u,c i=d,s,b 1 4c 2 x i ]θ[ 1 2 ξ ]+ α2 m 2 c 1152c 8 D 1 4c 2 ξ s2 [4(ξ 1) 2 ξ c 10 +(4ξ3 17ξ2 +46ξ 1)c 8 + (4ξ 3 +55ξ2 20ξ 11)c 6 (9ξ2 +42ξ 6)c 4 + (6ξ +7)c 2 1]θ[ 1 c ξ 1] + α2 m c 8 [3(ξ 1) 6 c 14 +2(ξ 1) 4 (ξ 2 +25ξ +100)c 12 3(ξ 1) 2 (4ξ 3 +85ξ 2 +58ξ +141)c (5ξ 4 +74ξ3 144ξ2 50ξ 13)c 8 (40ξ ξ2 798ξ 581)c 6 +6(5ξ2 +31ξ 42)c 4 3(4ξ +11)c 2 +2]θ[ 1 ξ 1]+ α2 m 2 c 288c 6 s 2 DE [3+( (2c 2 1+c 2 (4c 2 5)x i )+ (4c 2 1+c 2 (8c 2 11)x i ) + i=d,s,b i=u,c (2c 2 +1+c 2 (4c 2 7)x i )) 1 4c 2 x i ]θ[ 1 ξ 1]. (19) c Then e obtain the ξ -dependent contribution of the second and third cuts of Fig.5 to the real part of transverse self energy: ReΣ T (m2 ) ξ cut = α2 m 2 384c 2 DE[ s2 (1 x i ) 2 (2+x i )+3 V ij 2 A ij B ij ]θ[ 1 c ξ 1]

18 18 dj u u u u 0 0 dj

19 19 u u u u u u u

20 20 u u u u u

21 21 u u u u u u u u

22 22 FI. 13: ξ -dependent self-energy diagrams hich satisfy the 6th topology of Fig.3 and the cutting conditions of Fig.5. α2 m c 4 (ξ 1)D[(ξ 1) 3 (ξ 3 ξ 2 3ξ 33)c 6 (ξ 1)(3ξ 4 9ξ 3 29ξ ξ +366)c 4 + (3ξ 4 10ξ3 22ξ2 +170ξ 93)c 2 ξ3 +2ξ2 +5ξ 18]θ[ 1 ξ 1] c α 2 m 2 128s 4 ξ 2 (1 4c 2 ξ ) 3/2 x i (x i ξ ) 2 θ[ 1 2 ξ ]θ[ ξ m m i ] c 3α 2 m 2 128s 4 ξ 2 (1 4c 2 ξ ) 3/2 V ij 2 C ij (ξ (x i +x j ) (x i x j ) 2 ) θ[ 1 2 ξ ]θ[ ξ m m i m j ]+ α2 m 2 c 128c 4 (2c 2 s4 1) 1 1 4c x 2 x i(x i ξ ) 2 (2c 2 1+c2 (4c2 5)x i)θ[m i ξ m ] i α 2 m 2 384c 4 s 4 (4c 2 1) 1 V ij 2 C ij 1 4c x 2 x i(ξ x i +x j ) i (4c 2 1+c 2 (8c 2 11)x i )θ[m i m j ξ m ] α 2 m 2 (2c 2 +1) 1 V ij 2 C ij 1 4c x 2 x j (ξ x j +x i ) j 384c 4 s4 (2c 2 +1+c 2 (4c 2 7)x j )θ[m j m i ξ m ]. (20) From Fig.5 one readily sees the 4th and 5th cuts are right-and-left symmetric ith the second and

23 23 third cuts. After careful calculations e also find the ξ -dependent contribution of the 4th and 5th cuts of Fig.5 to the real part of transverse self energy is equal to that of the second and third cuts of Fig.5. Summing up all of the above results e obtain the gauge dependence of the part containing eaviside functions of the real part of to-loop-level transverse self energy (see Eqs.(14-20) and the corresponding discussions) = ReΣ T (m 2 ) ξ cut α 2 m 2 [ c 6 s2 i=u,c i=d,s,b 1 4c 2 x i (16x i c 6 +(8 24x i )c 4 +(7x i 12)c 2 +5) 1 4c 2 x i(64x i c 6 +(32 80x i)c 4 +(7x i 40)c 2 +17) ] 1 4c 2 x i (16x i c 6 +8(1 x i )c 4 (17x i +4)c 2 +5) [2DEθ[ 1 ξ 1] 1 c s 2 (1 4c 2 ξ ) 3/2 θ[ 1 2 ξ ]]. (21) c This result proves that the part containing eaviside functions of mass counterterm is gauge dependent under the on-shell mass renormalization prescription, i.e. the mass counterterm is gauge dependent under the on-shell mass renormalization prescription. In order to calculate the gauge dependence of mass definition of the pole mass renormalization prescription e need to calculate the folloing term (see Eq.(5)): = m Γ ImΣ T (m 2 ) ξ cut α 2 m 2 [ c 2 x i (16x i c 6 +(8 24x i )c 4 +(7x i 12)c 2 +5) c 6 s2 i=u,c i=d,s,b 1 4c 2 x i(64x i c 6 +(32 80x i)c 4 +(7x i 40)c 2 +17) ] 1 4c 2 x i (16x i c 6 +8(1 x i )c 4 (17x i +4)c 2 +5) [ 1 s 2 (1 4c 2 ξ ) 3/2 θ[ 1 2 ξ ] 2DEθ[ 1 ξ 1]]. (22) c c From Eq.(5) and Eqs.(21,22) e get the gauge dependence of the part containing eaviside functions of mass counterterm under the pole mass renormalization prescription: δm 2 ξ cut = 0 under pole mass renormalization prescription. (23)

24 24 C. auge dependence of the counterterm of the sine of the eak mixing angle under the to mass renormalization prescriptions From the to-loop-level and s mass counterterms e can calculate the to-loop-level counterterm of the sine of the eak mixing angle. To to-loop level one has [2] δs = c2 2s ( δm2 m 2 δm2 m 2 )+ c2 2s ( δm2 δm2 m 2 m2 (δm2 )2 m 4 ) c4 8s 3 ( δm2 m 2 δm2 m 2 ) 2 +O(g 6 ). (24) The one-loop-level and s mass counterterms have been proven gaugndependent [6]. So e only need to calculate the gauge dependence of the first term of the r.h.s. of Eq.(24). From Eqs.(11,21) e obtain the gauge dependence of the part containing eaviside functions of the to-loop-level δs under the on-shell mass renormalization prescription α 2 δs ξ cut = [ c 2 s 3 + i=u,c + i=d,s,b 1 4c 2 x i (16x i c 6 +(8 24x i )c 4 +(7x i 12)c 2 +5) 1 4c 2 x i (64x i c 6 +(32 80x i )c 4 +(7x i 40)c 2 +17) 1 4c 2 x i(16x i c 6 +8(1 x i)c 4 (17x i +4)c 2 +5) ] [2DEθ[ 1 c ξ 1] 1 + α2 c s 3 [3 s 2 (1 4c 2 ξ ) 3/2 θ[ 1 c 2 ξ ]] V ij 2 A ij B ij + ] (1 x i ) 2 (2+x i ) (1 ξ )(ξ 2 2ξ 11)θ[1 ξ ] under on shell prescription. (25) Eq.(25) implies δs is gauge dependent under the on-shell mass renormalization prescription. On the other hand, from Eqs.(13,23) e obtain the gauge dependence of the part containing eaviside functions of the to-loop-level δs under the pole mass renormalization prescription δs ξ cut = 0 under pole prescription. (26) III. AUE DEPENDENCE OF PYSICAL RESULT UNDER TE ON-SELL AND POLE MASS RENORMALIATION PRESCRIPTIONS From the results of section II e have found the counterterms of and s mass and the sine of the eak mixing angle are gauge dependent under the on-shell mass renormalization prescription, but those gauge dependencies don t appear in the counterterms of the pole mass renormalization prescription. Maybe this conclusion is not enough to judge hich renormalization prescription is

25 25 reasonable. So e ill judge the reasonableness of the to renormalization prescriptions from the gaugndependence of physical result. For example e calculate the gauge dependence of the to-loop-level cross section of the physical process µ ν µ e ν e under the to mass renormalization prescriptions. Note that e only calculate the gauge dependence of the part containing the eaviside functions θ[1 ξ ], θ[1/c ξ 1] and θ[1/c 2 ξ ] of the cross section of the physical process. This ill not affect our conclusion. Under this consideration only the diagrams containing the to-loop-level counterterms δs and δm 2 as shon in Fig.14 need to be calculated. This is because: 1) all of the one-loop-level physical ν µ ν µ ν µ µ e ν e µ e ν e µ e ν e ν µ ν µ ν µ µ e ν e µ e ν e µ e ν e FI. 14: Diagrams of µ ν µ e ν e containing the to-loop-level counterterms δs and δm 2. parameter s counterterms and the to-loop-level counterterms of the lepton masses and electron charge don t contain the eaviside functions θ[1 ξ ], θ[1/c ξ 1] and θ[1/c 2 ξ ]; 2) the energy of thncoming particle of this process is order of muon energy hich doesn t reach the threshold of the singularities containing the eaviside functions θ[1 ξ ], θ[1/c ξ 1] and θ[1/c 2 ξ ], thus all of loop momentum integrals of the Feynman diagrams don t contribute to these eaviside functions. e can easily get the contribution of Fig.14 to the physical amplitude µ ν µ e ν e M(µ ν µ e ν e ) 4πα(m em µ F 1 m 2 F 2) m 2 s3 (m2 m2 e 2q 2 q 3 ) δs 2παδm 2 + m 4 s2 (m2 m2 e 2q 2 q 3 ) 2 [m e m µ (2m 2 m 2 e 2q 2 q 3 )F 1 m 4 F 2 ], (27) here m e and m µ is the mass of electron and muon, q 2 and q 3 are the momentums of electron and the anti electron neutrino, and F 1 = ū(q 1 ) R u(p)ū(q 2 ) L ν(q 3 ), F 2 = ū(q 1 ) µ L u(p)ū(q 2 ) µ L ν(q 3 ), (28)

26 26 here p and q 1 are the momentums of muon and muon neutrino, and L and R are the left- and right- handed helicity operators. The contribution of Eq.(27) to the to-loop-level cross section of µ ν µ e ν s σ(µ ν µ e ν e ) M(µ ν µ e ν e ) 2 16π2 α 2 q 1 q 2 (m 2 e m 2 µ +2q 1 q 2 ) m 4 ( 2δs + δm2 s4 s m 2 ). (29) In Eq.(29) e have averaged the result over thncoming fermion s helicity states and summed up the results for the different outgoing fermions helicity states. On the other hand e only keep the loest order of the quantities m 2 e /m2, m2 µ /m2 external-line particles are very small compared ith m 2. and so on in Eq.(29), since the energies of the From Eqs.(11,25) and Eq.(29) e obtain the gauge dependence of the part containing the eaviside functions θ[1 ξ ], θ[1/c ξ 1] and θ[1/c 2 ξ ] of the to-loop-level cross section of µ ν µ e ν e under the on-shell mass renormalization prescription σ 2 (µ ν µ e ν e ) ξ cut π2 α 4 q 1 q 2 (m 2 e m 2 µ +2q 1 q 2 ) i=u,c + i=d,s,b 108m 4 c2 s8 [ 9 1 4c 2 x i(16x i c 6 +(8 24x i)c 4 +(7x i 12)c 2 +5) 1 4c 2 x i (64x i c 6 +(32 80x i )c 4 +(7x i 40)c 2 +17) 1 4c 2 x i(16x i c 6 +8(1 x i)c 4 (17x i +4)c 2 +5) ] [2DEθ[ 1 ξ 1] 1 c s 2 (1 4c 2 ξ ) 3/2 θ[ 1 2 ξ ]] c + π2 α 4 q 1 q 2 (m 2 e m2 µ +2q 1 q 2 ) (2c 2 1)(1 ξ )(ξ 2 2ξ 11) [3 36m 4 s8 V ij 2 A ij B ij + ] (1 x i ) 2 (2+x i ) θ[1 ξ ]. (30) Eq.(30) implies the on-shell mass renormalization prescription makes the cross section of the physical process µ ν µ e ν e gauge dependent. So the on-shell mass renormalization prescription is a rong mass renormalization prescription beyond one-loop level. The quantitative order of this gauge dependence can be seen in Fig.15. In Fig.15 the folloing data have been used: e = , s 2 = , m = 80.42ev, m u = 3Mev, m c = 1.25ev, m t = 174.3ev, m d = 6Mev, m s = 120Mev, m b = 4.2ev, m e = Mev, m µ = 105.7Mev, m τ = 1.777ev, V ud = 0.975, V us = 0.223, V ub = 0.004, V cd = 0.222, V cs = 0.974, V cb = 0.040, V td = 0.009, V ts = 0.039, and V tb = [13]. Obviously the gauge dependence of σ(µ ν µ e ν e ) induced by the on-shell mass renormalization prescription cannot be neglected at the to-loop level. On the other hand,

27 27 Σ 2 Μ Ν Μ e Ν e Ξ cut Α 2 Σ 0 Μ Ν Μ e Ν e Ξ FI. 15: auge dependence of the to-loop-level cross section of µ ν µ e ν e under the on-shell mass renormalization prescription, here q 1 q 2 = q 2 q 3 = m 2 µ /6 m2 e /2 and σ 0(µ ν µ e ν e ) is the tree-level cross section. from Eqs.(13,26) and Eq.(29) e find such gauge dependence doesn t appear in the result of the pole mass renormalization prescription. IV. CONCLUSION Through calculating the singularities of and s to-loop-level transverse self energy e find the counterterms of and s mass and the sine of the eak mixing angle are gauge dependent under the on-shell mass renormalization prescription. The gauge dependencies of these counterterms lead to the cross section of µ ν µ e ν e gauge dependent at to-loop level. So the on-shell mass renormalization prescription is a rong mass renormalization prescription beyond one-loop level. On the other hand, all of the above gauge dependencies don t appear in the results of the pole mass renormalization prescription. So the pole mass renormalization prescription is the only reasonable candidate for the mass renormalization prescription at present. e should use the pole mass renormalization prescription rather than the on-shell mass renormalization prescription to calculate physical results beyond one-loop level. Acknoledgments

28 28 The author thanks Prof. Xiao-Yuan Li and Prof. Cai-dian Lu for their useful guidance. [1] M. Veltman, Physica 29 (1963) 186; D. Bardin and. Passarino, The Standard Model in the Making Precision Study of the Electroeak Interactions, Oxford Science Pub., Clarendon Press, Oxford,1999. [2] A. Denner, Fortschr. Phys. 41 (1993) 307. [3] A.Sirlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 (1991) 2127; Phys. Lett. B 267 (1991) 240; R.. Stuart, Phys. Lett. B 272 (1991) 353. [4] M. Passera, A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 4146; B.A. Kniehl, A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 1373; P.A. rassi, B.A. Kniehl and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 389; M.L. Nekrasov, Phys. Lett. B 531 (2002) 225; B.A. Kniehl, A. Sirlin, Phys. Lett. B 530 (2002) 129; [5] J.C. Breckenridge, M.J. Lavelle, T.. Steele,. Phys. C 65 (1995) 155. [6] P. ambino, P.A. rassi, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) (hep-ph/ ). [7] N.K. Nielsen, Nucl. Phys. B101 (1975) 173; R. Tarrach, Nucl. Phys. B 183 (1981) 384; O. Piguet and K. Sibold, Nucl. Phys. B253 (1985) 517; N. ray, D.J. Broadhurst,. rafe, K. Schilcher,. Phys. C 48 (1990) 673; D.J. Broadhurst, N. ray, K. Schilcher,. Phys. C 52 (1991) 111. [8] J. Kublbeck, M. Bohm, A. Denner, Comput. Phys. Commun. 60 (1990) 165;.J. van Oldenborgh, J.A.M. Vermaseren,. Phys. C46 (1990) 425; T. ahn, M. Perez-Victoria, Comput. Phys. Commun. 118 (1999) 153. [9] J. egelia,. Japaridze, A. Tkabladze, A. Khelashvili, K. Turashvili, hep-ph/ ; F. Jegerlehner, M.Yu. Kalmykov and O. Veretin, Nucl. Phys. B641 (2002) 285; F. Jegerlehner, M.Yu. Kalmykov and O. Veretin, Nucl. Phys. B658 (2003) 49. [10] A. Freitas,. ollik,. alter,. eiglein, Phys. Lett. B495 (2000) 338; A. Freitas,. ollik,. alter,. eiglein, Nucl. Phys. B632 (2002) 189. [11] N.Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 531 (1963); M.Kobayashi and K.Maskaa, Prog. Theor. Phys. 49 (1973) 652. [12] R.E. Cutkosky, J. Math. Phys. 1, 429 (1960); Yong hou, hep-ph/ [13] The European Physical Journal C, 15 (2000)

29 auge dependence of on-shell and pole mass renormalization prescriptions Yong hou Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, school of science P.O. Box 123, Beijing , China arxiv:hep-ph/ v6 17 Apr 2007 e discuss the gauge dependence of physical parameter s definitions under the on-shell and pole mass renormalization prescriptions. By to-loop-level calculations e prove for the first time that the on-shell mass renormalization prescription makes physical result gauge dependent. On the other hand, such gauge dependence doesn t appear in the result of the pole mass renormalization prescription. Our calculation also implies the difference of the physical results beteen the to mass renormalization prescriptions cannot be neglected at to-loop level. PACS numbers: h, Lk I. INTRODUCTION The conventional on-shell mass renormalization prescription has been present for a long time. It renormalizes the real part of particle s inverse propagator to zero at physical mass point. For boson the on-shell mass renormalization condition is [1, 2] m 2 m 2 0 +ReΣ(m2 ) = 0, (1) herem 0 is the baremass and Σ is the boson s diagonal self energy (for vector boson it is thetransverse diagonal self energy). But recently people proposed a ne mass renormalization prescription hich renormalizes both the real and thmaginary parts of the particle s inverse propagator to zero at the (complex) pole of the particle s propagator, i.e. [3, 4] s m 2 0 +Σ( s) = 0, (2) here s is the pole of the particle s propagator. ritten s = m 2 2 im 2Γ 2, m 2 is defined as the physical mass of the particle [3]. Putting the expression of s into Eq.(2) one has [3, 4] m 2 2 m2 0 +ReΣ( s) = 0, m 2Γ 2 = ImΣ( s). (3) By expanding Eqs.(3) at s = m 2 2 one readily has (see Eq.(1)) [3, 4] m m 2 = Γ 2 ImΣ (m 2 2)/2+O(g 6 ), (4)

30 2 here Σ (m 2 2 ) = Σ(m2 2 )/ p2 and g is a generic coupling constant. For unstable boson the r.h.s. of Eq.(4) is gauge dependent [3, 4]. So A. Sirlin et al. claim that the on-shell mass definition m of unstable particles is gauge dependent, since the pole mass definition m 2 is gaugndependent [3, 4, 5, 6]. But the conclusion that the pole mass definition m 2 is gaugndependent has been proposed for not very long time. e still need to search ne and stricter proofs to prove this conclusion. In this paper e ill discuss if the pole mass definition is gaugndependent annvestigate the difference of physical result beteen the on-shell and pole mass renormalization prescriptions. The arrangement of this paper is as follos: firstly e discuss the gauge dependencies of the counterterms of gauge boson and s mass and the sine of the eak mixing angle under the on-shell and pole mass renormalization prescriptions; then e discuss the gauge dependence of the to-loop-level cross section of the physical process µ ν µ e ν e under the to mass renormalization prescriptions; Lastly e give the conclusion. II. AUE DEPENDENCIES OF PYSICAL PARAMETER S COUNTERTERMS UNDER TE ON-SELL AND POLE MASS RENORMALIATION PRESCRIPTIONS The gaugnvariance of Lagrangian alays requires the bare physical parameters are gauge independent. The natural deduction of this conclusion is the counterterms of physical parameters should also be gaugndependent[7], since the bare physical parameter can be dividento physical parameter and the corresponding counterterm, and the physical parameter is of course gauge independent. This criterion could be used to judge hich mass renormalization prescription is reasonable, in other ords hich mass definition is gaugndependent. In the folloing e ill discuss the gauge dependence of the counterterms of gauge boson and s mass and the sine of the eak mixing angle under the on-shell and pole mass renormalization prescriptions. For convenience e only discuss the dependence of gauge parameter ξ in the R ξ gauge, and e only introduce physical parameter s counterterms (i.e. e don t introduce field renormalization constants). The computer program packages FeynArts and FeynCalc [8] have been usen the folloing calculations. ere e note there are some early to-loop-level calculations about the massive gauge boson s self energies in Ref.[9]. From Eqs.(1,3) one has for massive gauge boson [10] δm 2 = ReΣ T (m 2 ), δm 2 2 = ReΣT (m 2 2 )+m 2Γ 2 ImΣ T (m 2 2 )+O(g6 ), (5)

31 3 here Σ T denotes the transverse self energy of the gauge boson. The one-loop-level mass counterterms of and have been proven gaugndependent [6]. So e only need to discuss the to-loop-level case. Firstly m and m 2 should be regarded as equal quantities, since both of them are regarded as the physical mass of the same particle. Therefore e find the to-loop-level difference of the to mass counterterm is mγimσ T (m 2 ). Every part of this term contains gaugeparameter-dependent eaviside functions (hich come from the one-loop-level ImΣ T [3, 4]). So in order to discuss the difference of the gauge dependence of the to mass counterterms e only need to calculate the gauge dependence of the singularities of the to-loop-level ReΣ T (m 2 ), because only the singularities of ReΣ T (m 2 ) in ReΣ T (m 2 ) contain eaviside functions. In other ords for our purpose e only need to discuss the gauge dependence of the part hich contains eaviside functions of the to mass counterterms. The to-loop-level self energies of gauge bosons can be classifiento to kinds: one kind contains one-loop-level counterterms, the other kind doesn t contain any counterterm. Since except for CKM matrix elements [11] all of the one-loop-level counterterms of physical parameters are real numbers and don t contain eaviside function [2], the first kind self energy doesn t contribute to the singularities of the real part of the gauge boson s self energy, because except the one-loop-level counterterm the left part of this kind self energy is an one-loop-level self energy hich real part doesn t contain singularities. ere e don t need to orry about the problem that the CKM matrix elements and their counterterms are complex numbers, because the total contribution of them to the real part of the gauge boson s self energy is real number (the correctness of this conclusion can be sen the folloing calculations). So e only need to calculate the contributions of the second kind self energy. According to the cutting rules [12] the second kind self energy of gauge bosons can be classified into three kinds: one kind doesn t contain singularity, the second kind contains singularities, but its singularities don t contribute to the real part of the gauge boson s self energy, the third kind contains singularities ants singularities contribute to the real part of the gauge boson s self energy. The topologies of the three kind self energies are shon in Fig.1, Fig.2 and Fig.3. ere e note the middle propagator (denoted by broken line) in the one-particle-reducible diagrams of Fig.(1-3) is different from the external-line particles. The tadpole diagrams are also includen Fig.(1-3), because e don t introduce the tadpole counterterm [6]. Obviously e only need to calculate the contribution of the singularities of Fig.3 to the real part of the gauge boson s self energy. In Fig.3 e also dra the possible cuts/singularities of the first four topologies hich contribute to the real part of the gauge boson s self energy (the arro

32 4 FI. 1: Topologies of the to-loop-level self energy hich lacks counterterm and singularity. on thnner line denotes the corresponding propagator is cut [12]). The possible cuts of the left to topologies hich contribute to the real part of the gauge boson s self energy are shon in Fig.4 and Fig.5. A. auge dependence of mass counterterm under the to mass renormalization prescriptions In the standard model of particle physics the first topology of Fig.3 doesn t contribute to transverse self energy, so e don t need to calculatts contribution. For the second topology of Fig.3 there are 39 Feynman diagrams in the standard model, but none of them satisfies the corresponding cutting condition. The case of the third topology of Fig.3 is same as the case of the second topology. For the 4th topology of Fig.3 there are to self energy diagrams as shon in Fig.6 hich satisfy the corresponding cutting condition. Using the cutting rules e obtain the gauge-parameter-dependent contribution of the cuts of Fig.6 to the real part of transverse self

33 5 FI. 2: Topologies of the to-loop-level self energy hich lacks counterterm ants singularities don t contribute to the real part of the self energy FI. 3: Topologies of the to-loop-level self energy hich lacks counterterm ants singularities contribute to the real part of the self energy. FI. 4: Possible cuts of the 5th topology of Fig.3 hich contribute to the real part of the self energy.

34 FI. 5: Possible cuts of the 6th topology of Fig.3 hich contribute to the real part of the self energy. FI. 6: self energy diagrams hich satisfy the 4th topology of Fig.3 and the corresponding cutting condition. energy: ReΣ T (m2 ) ξ cut = α2 m (1 ξ ) 3 (ξ 5 3ξ4 6ξ3 46ξ2 +165ξ +465)θ[1 ξ ], (6) hereσ T is transverse self energy, m andξ is s mass andgauge parameter, α is thefine structure constant, θ is the eaviside function, and the subscript ξ cut denotes the ξ -dependent contribution from the cuts/singularities. In the follos e restrict ourselves to ξ > 0 [4]. For the 5th topology of Fig.3 there are 14 s self energy diagrams as shon in Fig.7 hich are ξ -dependent and satisfy the cutting conditions of Fig.4. After careful calculations e obtain the gauge-parameter-dependent contribution of the cuts of Fig.7 to the real part of transverse self energy: ReΣ T (m 2 ) ξ cut = α2 m 2 [ 128s 4 1 x i (1 x i )(x i ξ ) 2 (x 2 i +x i 2)θ[m i ξ m ] + 1 ξ 2 s 2 (1 ξ ) 3 x i (x i ξ ) 2 θ[ ξ m m i ]θ[1 ξ ] V ij 2 (ξ x i +x j )A ij B ij C ij θ[m i m j ξ m ] x i

35 7 u k d k d l u l u k d k d l u l FI. 7: ξ -dependent self energy diagrams hich satisfy the 5th topology of Fig.3 and the cutting conditions of Fig ξ 2 s 2 (1 ξ ) 3 1 x j V ij 2 (ξ x j +x i )A ij B ij C ij θ[m j m i ξ m ] θ[ ξ m m i m j ]θ[1 ξ ] V ij 2 (ξ (x i +x j ) (x i x j ) 2 )C ij ], (7) here s is the sine of the eak mixing angle, x i = m 2 i /m2, x j = m 2 j /m2, V ij is the CKM matrix element [11], and A ij = (x i x j ) 2 2(x i +x j )+1, B ij = 2 (x i +x j ) (x i x j ) 2, C ij = (x i x j ) 2 2ξ (x i +x j )+ξ 2. (8) For the 6th topology of Fig.3 there are 53 self energy diagrams as shon in Fig.8 hich are

36 8 ξ -dependent and satisfy the cutting conditions of Fig.5. e ill calculate the contributions of the five cuts of Fig.5 one by one. Firstly e obtain the gauge-parameter-dependent contribution of the first cut of Fig.5 to the real part of transverse self energy: ReΣ T (m2 ) ξ cut = α2 m 2 [3 576s 2 V ij 2 A ij B ij + ] (1 x i ) 2 (2+x i ) (1 ξ )(ξ 2 2ξ 11)θ[1 ξ ] α2 m (1 ξ ) 3 (ξ 5 3ξ4 6ξ3 46ξ2 +165ξ +465)θ[1 ξ ]. (9) Then e obtain the gauge-parameter-dependent contributions of the second and third cuts of Fig.5 to the real part of transverse self energy: ReΣ T (m 2 ) ξ cut = α2 m 2 [ 256s 4 1 x i (1 x i )(x i ξ ) 2 (x 2 i +x i 2)θ[m i ξ m ] + 1 ξ 2 s 2 (1 ξ ) 3 x i (x i ξ ) 2 θ[ ξ m m i ]θ[1 ξ ] V ij 2 (ξ x i +x j )A ij B ij C ij θ[m i m j ξ m ] x i ξ 2 s 2 (1 ξ ) 3 1 x j V ij 2 (ξ x j +x i )A ij B ij C ij θ[m j m i ξ m ] θ[ ξ m m i m j ]θ[1 ξ ] V ij 2 (ξ (x i +x j ) (x i x j ) 2 )C ij ]. (10) Lastly e find the gauge-parameter-dependent contributions of the 4th and 5th cuts of Fig.5 to the real part of transverse self energy are same as those of the second and the third cuts of Fig.5 (this point can be seen from the symmetries of the four cuts). Summing up all of the above results e obtain the gauge dependence of the singularities of the real part of to-loop-level transverse self energy (see Eqs.(6,7,9,10) and the corresponding discussions) ReΣ T (m 2 ) ξ cut = α2 m 2 [3 576s 2 V ij 2 A ij B ij + ] (1 x i ) 2 (2+x i ) (1 ξ )(ξ 2 2ξ 11)θ[1 ξ ]. (11) From Eq.(5) one finds Eq.(11) is just the gauge dependence of the part containing eaviside functions of mass counterterm under the on-shell mass renormalization prescription. So Eq.(11) proves the mass counterterm of on-shell mass renormalization prescription is gauge dependent.

37 u u u u

38 10 u u u u u u u u FI. 8: ξ -dependent self energy diagrams hich satisfy the 6th topology of Fig.3 and the cutting conditions of Fig.5.

39 11 In order to discuss the gauge dependence of mass counterterm of the pole mass renormalization prescription e calculate the term (see Eq.(5)) m Γ ImΣ T (m2 ) ξ cut = α2 m 2 [3 576s 2 V ij 2 A ij B ij + ] (1 x i ) 2 (2+x i ) (1 ξ )(ξ 2 2ξ 11)θ[1 ξ ]. (12) Combining Eq.(11) and Eq.(12) one gets (see Eq.(5)) δm 2 ξ cut = 0 under pole mass renormalization prescription. (13) This result indicates the part containing eaviside functions of mass counterterm of the pole mass renormalization prescription is gaugndependent. B. auge dependence of mass counterterm under the to mass renormalization prescriptions Similarly as the case of gauge boson e only calculate the gauge dependence of the part containing eaviside function of the real part of to-loop-level transverse self energy. The topologies of to-loop-level self energy needing calculated have been shon in Fig.3. For the first topology of Fig.3 only the diagram hose middle propagator (denoted by the broken line) is photon contributes to transverse self energy. After careful calculation e obtain the ξ - dependent contribution of the cut of the first topology of Fig.3 to the real part of transverse self energy ReΣ T (m2 ) ξ cut α 2 m 2 = 6912c 6 s 2 (1 4c 2 ξ ) 3/2[ 3 c 2 (1 4c 2 ξ ) 3/2 +8(3(4c 2 3) +2(8c 2 5) + (4c 2 1) ) 1 4c 2 x i (2c 2 x i +1) ]θ[ 1 2 ξ ]+ α2 m 2 c 1728c 6 DE i=d,s,b [ 3s 2 c 2 DE 3 c 2 (1 4c 2 ξ ) 3/2 4(3(4c 2 3) +2(8c 2 5) +(4c 2 1) ) i=u,c i=d,s,b 1 4c 2 x i(2c 2 x i +1) ]θ[ 1 ξ 1], (14) c here m is mass, c is the cosine of the eak mixing angle, and i=u,c D = (ξ 1) 2 c 4 2(ξ +1)c 2 +1, E = (ξ 1) 2 c 4 2(ξ 5)c (15)

40 12 For the second topology of Fig.3 there are four self-energy diagrams as shon in Fig.9 hich satisfy the corresponding cutting condition. By the cutting rules e obtain the ξ -dependent FI. 9: self-energy diagrams hich satisfy the second topology of Fig.3 and the corresponding cutting condition. contribution of the cuts of Fig.9 to the real part of transverse self energy : ReΣ T (m2 ) ξ cut = α2 m c 4 (ξ 1)D[(ξ 1) 3 (ξ 3 ξ2 3ξ 33)c 6 (ξ 1)(3ξ 4 9ξ3 29ξ2 +101ξ +366)c 4 + (3ξ 4 10ξ 3 22ξ ξ 93)c 2 ξ 3 + 2ξ 2 +5ξ 18]θ[ 1 c ξ 1]. (16) For the third topology of Fig.3 there are also four self-energy diagrams as shon in Fig.10 hich satisfy the corresponding cutting condition. Obviously Fig.9 and Fig.10 are right-and-left FI. 10: self-energy diagrams hich satisfy the third topology of Fig.3 and the corresponding cutting condition. symmetric. Through calculations e find the ξ -dependent contribution of the cuts of Fig.10 to the real part of transverse self energy is just equal to that of Fig.9. For the 4th topology of Fig.3 there are six self-energy diagrams as shon in Fig.11 hich satisfy the corresponding cutting rules. After careful calculations e obtain the ξ -dependent contribution of the cuts of Fig.11 to the real part of transverse self energy: ReΣ T (m2 ) ξ cut = α2 m c 8 s 4 (1 4c 2 ξ ) 3 (2c 6 4c4 +2c2 3)θ[ 1 2 ξ ] c + α2 m c 8 [(ξ 1) 6 c 14 6(ξ 1) 4 (ξ 2 +11ξ +22)c (ξ 1) 2 (12ξ 3 +65ξ2 +10ξ +201)c 10

41 13 FI. 11: self-energy diagrams hich satisfy the 4th topology of Fig.3 and the corresponding cutting condition. 2(45ξ 4 +46ξ 3 228ξ 2 150ξ +415)c 8 + 3(40ξ 3 19ξ2 98ξ +109)c 6 6(15ξ2 17ξ 12)c 4 + (36ξ 35)c 2 6]θ[ 1 ξ 1] α2 m 2 c 1152c 8 s 2 D [4(ξ 1) 2 ξ c 10 (4ξ 3 +ξ 2 38ξ +1)c 8 1 4c 2 ξ + 3(4ξ 3 +19ξ 2 32ξ 3)c 6 3(9ξ 2 10ξ 8)c 4 + (18ξ 11)c 2 3]θ[ 1 c ξ 1]. (17) For the 5th topology of Fig.3 there are 84 self-energy diagrams as shon in Fig.12 hich satisfy the cutting conditions of Fig.4. After careful calculations e obtain the ξ -dependent contribution of the cuts of Fig.12 to the real part of transverse self energy: = + ReΣ T (m2 ) ξ cut α 2 m 2 DE[ (1 x i ) 2 (2+x i )+3 192c 2 s2 α 2 m 2 64s 4 ξ2 (1 4c 2 ξ ) 3/2 + 3α2 m 2 64s 4 (1 4c 2 ξ2 ξ ) 3/2 V ij 2 A ij B ij ]θ[ 1 c ξ 1] x i (x i ξ ) 2 θ[ 1 c 2 ξ ]θ[ ξ m m i ] V ij 2 C ij (ξ (x i +x j ) (x i x j ) 2 ) θ[ 1 2 ξ ]θ[ ξ m m i m j ] α2 m 2 c 64c 4 s 4 (2c 2 1) (x i ξ ) 2 (2c 2 1+c 2 (4c 2 5)x i )θ[m i ξ m ] α 2 m 2 + (4c 2 1) 1 V ij 2 C ij 1 4c x 2 x i (ξ x i +x j ) i 192c 4 s c x 2 x i i

42 14

43 15 u u u u u u u u u u

44 16 u u u u u u FI. 12: self-energy diagrams hich satisfy the 5th topology of Fig.3 and the cutting conditions of Fig.4.

45 17 (4c 2 1+c2 (8c2 11)x i)θ[m i m j ξ m ] α 2 m c 4 s 4 (2c 2 +1) 1 V ij 2 C ij 1 4c x 2 x j(ξ x j +x i ) j (2c 2 +1+c2 (4c2 7)x j)θ[m j m i ξ m ]. (18) For the 6th topology of Fig.3 there are 124 self-energy diagrams as shon in Fig.13 hich are ξ dependent and satisfy the cutting conditions of Fig.5. e ill calculate the contributions of the five cuts of Fig.5 one by one. Firstly e obtain the ξ -dependent contribution of the first cut of Fig.5 to the real part of transverse self energy: ReΣ T (m 2 ) ξ cut = α2 m c 8 (1 4c 2 ξ ) 3 (1+4c 4 s4 2c 6 )θ[ 1 2 ξ ] c α2 m 2 576c 6 s 4 (1 4c 2 ξ ) 3/2 [3+( 2c 2 1+c2 (4c2 5)x i + 4c 2 1+c2 (8c2 11)x i + 2c 2 +1+c2 (4c2 7)x i) i=u,c i=d,s,b 1 4c 2 x i ]θ[ 1 2 ξ ]+ α2 m 2 c 1152c 8 s 2 D 1 4c 2 ξ [4(ξ 1) 2 ξ c 10 +(4ξ 3 17ξ 2 +46ξ 1)c 8 + (4ξ 3 +55ξ2 20ξ 11)c 6 (9ξ2 +42ξ 6)c 4 + (6ξ +7)c 2 1]θ[ 1 c ξ 1] + α2 m c 8 [3(ξ 1) 6 c 14 +2(ξ 1) 4 (ξ 2 +25ξ +100)c 12 3(ξ 1) 2 (4ξ 3 +85ξ 2 +58ξ +141)c (5ξ 4 +74ξ 3 144ξ 2 50ξ 13)c 8 (40ξ ξ2 798ξ 581)c 6 +6(5ξ2 +31ξ 42)c 4 3(4ξ +11)c 2 +2]θ[ 1 ξ 1]+ α2 m 2 c 288c 6 s 2 DE [3+( (2c 2 1+c 2 (4c 2 5)x i )+ (4c 2 1+c 2 (8c 2 11)x i ) + i=d,s,b i=u,c (2c 2 +1+c 2 (4c 2 7)x i )) 1 4c 2 x i ]θ[ 1 ξ 1]. (19) c Then e obtain the ξ -dependent contribution of the second and third cuts of Fig.5 to the real part of transverse self energy: ReΣ T (m2 ) ξ cut = α2 m 2 384c 2 s 2 DE[ (1 x i ) 2 (2+x i )+3 V ij 2 A ij B ij ]θ[ 1 c ξ 1]

46 18 dj u u u u 0 0 dj

47 19 u u u u u u u

48 20 u u u u u

49 21 u u u u u u u u

50 22 FI. 13: ξ -dependent self-energy diagrams hich satisfy the 6th topology of Fig.3 and the cutting conditions of Fig.5. α2 m c 4 (ξ 1)D[(ξ 1) 3 (ξ 3 ξ2 3ξ 33)c 6 (ξ 1)(3ξ 4 9ξ 3 29ξ ξ +366)c 4 + (3ξ 4 10ξ 3 22ξ ξ 93)c 2 ξ 3 +2ξ 2 +5ξ 18]θ[ 1 ξ 1] c α 2 m 2 (1 4c 2 ξ ) 3/2 x i (x i ξ ) 2 θ[ 1 2 ξ ]θ[ ξ m m i ] c 128s 4 ξ2 3α 2 m 2 128s 4 ξ 2 (1 4c 2 ξ ) 3/2 V ij 2 C ij (ξ (x i +x j ) (x i x j ) 2 ) θ[ 1 2 ξ ]θ[ ξ m m i m j ]+ α2 m 2 c 128c 4 (2c 2 s4 1) 1 1 4c x 2 x i(x i ξ ) 2 (2c 2 1+c2 (4c2 5)x i)θ[m i ξ m ] i α 2 m 2 384c 4 s 4 (4c 2 1) 1 V ij 2 C ij 1 4c x 2 x i(ξ x i +x j ) i (4c 2 1+c2 (8c2 11)x i)θ[m i m j ξ m ] α 2 m 2 (2c 2 +1) 1 V ij 2 C ij 1 4c x 2 x j (ξ x j +x i ) j 384c 4 s4 (2c 2 +1+c 2 (4c 2 7)x j )θ[m j m i ξ m ]. (20) From Fig.5 one readily sees the 4th and 5th cuts are right-and-left symmetric ith the second and

51 23 third cuts. After careful calculations e also find the ξ -dependent contribution of the 4th and 5th cuts of Fig.5 to the real part of transverse self energy is equal to that of the second and third cuts of Fig.5. Summing up all of the above results e obtain the gauge dependence of the part containing eaviside functions of the real part of to-loop-level transverse self energy (see Eqs.(14-20) and the corresponding discussions) = ReΣ T (m2 ) ξ cut α 2 m 2 [ c 6 s2 i=u,c i=d,s,b 1 4c 2 x i (16x i c 6 +(8 24x i )c 4 +(7x i 12)c 2 +5) 1 4c 2 x i(64x i c 6 +(32 80x i)c 4 +(7x i 40)c 2 +17) ] 1 4c 2 x i (16x i c 6 +8(1 x i )c 4 (17x i +4)c 2 +5) [2DEθ[ 1 ξ 1] 1 c s 2 (1 4c 2 ξ ) 3/2 θ[ 1 2 ξ ]]. (21) c This result proves that the part containing eaviside functions of mass counterterm is gauge dependent under the on-shell mass renormalization prescription, i.e. the mass counterterm is gauge dependent under the on-shell mass renormalization prescription. In order to calculate the gauge dependence of mass definition of the pole mass renormalization prescription e need to calculate the folloing term (see Eq.(5)): = m Γ ImΣ T (m 2 ) ξ cut α 2 m 2 [ c 2 x i (16x i c 6 +(8 24x i )c 4 +(7x i 12)c 2 +5) c 6 s2 i=u,c i=d,s,b 1 4c 2 x i(64x i c 6 +(32 80x i)c 4 +(7x i 40)c 2 +17) ] 1 4c 2 x i (16x i c 6 +8(1 x i )c 4 (17x i +4)c 2 +5) [ 1 s 2 (1 4c 2 ξ ) 3/2 θ[ 1 2 ξ ] 2DEθ[ 1 ξ 1]]. (22) c c From Eq.(5) and Eqs.(21,22) e get the gauge dependence of the part containing eaviside functions of mass counterterm under the pole mass renormalization prescription: δm 2 ξ cut = 0 under pole mass renormalization prescription. (23)