anomalous dimensions of gauge fields and gauge coupling ... · arxiv eprint: 1210.6873. contents 1...
TRANSCRIPT
arX
iv:1
210.
6873
v4 [
hep-
ph]
20
Mar
201
3
Prepared for submission to JHEP
Anomalous dimensions of gauge fields and gauge
coupling beta-functions in the Standard Model at
three loops
A. V. Bednyakov,a A. F. Pikelnera and V. N. Velizhaninb
aJoint Institute for Nuclear Research,
141980 Dubna, RussiabTheoretical Physics Department, Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute,
Orlova Roscha, Gatchina, 188300 St. Petersburg, Russia
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract: We present the results for three-loop gauge field anomalous dimensions in the
SM calculated in the background field gauge within the unbroken phase of the model. The
results are valid for the general background field gauge parameterized by three independent
parameters. Both quantum and background fields are considered. The former are used to
find three-loop anomalous dimensions for the gauge-fixing parameters, and the latter allow
one to obtain the three-loop SM gauge beta-functions. Independence of beta-functions of
gauge-fixing parameters serves as a validity check of our final results.
Keywords: Renormalization Group, Standard Model
ArXiv ePrint: 1210.6873
Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 The Standard Model in the unbroken phase. The background-field gauge 3
3 Details of calculations 5
4 Results and conclusions 8
A Renormalization constants 12
1 Introduction
In spite of the fact that the Standard Model has many unsatisfactory aspects Nature still
does not allow us to find some solid evidence for the existence of a more fundamental theory
with new particles and/or interactions. Due to the joint efforts of both experimentalists
and theoreticians we are about to enter the only unexplored part of the SM and unveil
the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking. According to the recent experimental
results, there is strong evidence for the existence of the Higgs boson, the last missing
ingredient of the SM spectrum [1, 2].
The mass of the higgs seems to be located at the boundary of the so-called stability
and instability regions [3–5] in the SM phase diagram (see Refs. [6–8] for recent studies).
This fact implies that the SM can be potentially valid up to a very high scale (e.g., Plank
scale).
In this situation, it is important to know how the running SM parameters evolve with
energy scale. The analysis of high energy behavior is usually divided into two parts. The
first one is the determination of running MS-parameters from some (pseudo)observables.
This procedure is usually referred to as “matching”. The second one utilizes renormal-
ization group equations (RGEs) to find the corresponding values at some “New Physics”
scale. In order to carry out such an analysis consistently one usually use (L − 1)-loop
matching to find boundary conditions for L-loop RGEs (see, e.g., [9]). It is worth point-
ing that the advantage of the minimal-subtraction prescription lies in the fact that one
needs to know only the ultraviolet (UV) divergent part of all the required diagrams. The
latter has a simple polynomial structure in mass and momenta (once subdivergences are
subtracted). Due to this, MS beta functions and anomalous dimensions can be relatively
easily extracted from Green functions by solving a single scale problem with the help of
the so-called infrared rearrangements (IRR) [10].
One- and two-loop results for SM beta functions have been known for quite a long time
[11–21] and are summarized in [22]. Until recently, three-loop corrections were known only
partially [23–28].
– 1 –
Having a well tested method for calculation of three-loop renormalization constants [29–
31] and an experience in the calculations in the Standard Model and its minimal super-
symmetric extension [32–34] we are planning to perform the calculation of all renormal-
ization group coefficients in the third order of perturbation theory extending the results of
Refs. [19, 35, 36] to one more loop.
In this paper, we present our first step in this direction: the results for three-loop
anomalous dimensions of the SM gauge fields. Since we are only interested in UV-divergences
for the fields and dimensionless parameters, we do not consider the effects related to sponta-
neous breaking of electroweak symmetry and, as a consequence, can neglect all dimensionful
parameters of the model. Moreover, we made use of the background-field gauge (BFG) (see,
e.g., Refs. [37, 38]) to carry out our calculation. In this gauge, due to the simple QED-
like Ward identities involving background fields, one can easily obtain expressions for the
beta-functions by considering the two-point functions with external background particles.
During the work on this project a few papers on the same topic appeared [39, 40]
(gauge couplings) and [41] (Top Yukawa and higgs self-interactions). Since the authors of
[39, 40] carried out a similar calculation, let us mention that our setup differs from that
used in Ref. [39, 40] in several aspects.
Firstly, for the diagram generation we solely rely on FeynArts [42]. Since the diagrams
are evaluated with the help of the MINCER package [43], a mapping to the MINCER notation
for momenta is required. This problem was solved by hand with the help of the DIANA [44]
topology files which were prepared during our previous calculations [29]. Based on these
files a simple script was written which allows one to perform the mapping between the
FeynArts and MINCER notation1.
Secondly, we do not consider the unbroken SM in a general Lorentz gauge, in which
case we are forced to take into account vertex renormalization, but choose to work within
the unbroken SM in a general background-field gauge. We keep the full dependence of the
diagrams on the electroweak gauge-fixing parameters and take into account corresponding
renormalization. Absence of these auxiliary parameters in the final expressions for beta-
functions gives us an independent confirmation of the correctness of our calculation.
It is worth mentioning that in Refs. [39, 40] the SM in BFG was also considered. How-
ever, the corresponding calculation was carried out in the spontaneously broken phase and
the model file distributed with FeynArts package was used. Since a consistent renormaliza-
tion of the electroweak gauge-fixing parameters in the spontaneously broken phase requires
a severe modification of corresponding part of the model file (see, e.g., Refs. [45–47]), the
Landau gauge was chosen in [40] to avoid these kind of problems.
And lastly, since the unbroken SM in BFG is not implemented as a FeynArts model
file, we are forced to use a package like FeynRules [48] or LanHEP [49]. Due to the fact
that the authors are more accustomed to the latter, LanHep was chosen to generate the
required Feynman rules from the Lagrangian2.
1During the preparation of the final version of the paper a routine was written that automatically maps
the FeynArts topologies onto that of MINCER.2The authors of Refs. [39, 40] utilize FeynRules to obtain a model file for the unbroken SM.
– 2 –
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we introduce our notation and present
a brief description of the unbroken SM quantized in the background-field gauge. Section 3
describes the details of our calculation strategy. Finally, the results and conclusions can be
found in Section 4. Appendix contains all the expressions for the considered renormalization
constants.
2 The Standard Model in the unbroken phase. The background-field
gauge
Let us briefly review the Lagrangian of the SM in the background-field gauge. We closely
follow [50] albeit the fact that we introduce background fields only for gauge bosons. More-
over, as it was mentioned in Introduction, we neglect all the dimensionful couplings (i.e.,
mass parameters).
In our calculation we use the Lagrangian of the form
L = LG + LH + LF + LGF + LFP. (2.1)
Here LG is the Yang-Mills part
LG = −1
4Ga
µνGaµν −
1
4W i
µνWiµν −
1
4BµνBµν , (2.2)
Gaµν = ∂µG
aν − ∂νG
aµ + gsf
abcGbµG
cν , (2.3)
W iµν = ∂µW
iν − ∂νW
iµ + g2ǫ
ijkW jµW
kν , (2.4)
Bµν = ∂µBν − ∂νBµ, (2.5)
where Gaµ = Ga
µ + Gaµ (a = 1, . . . , 8), W i
µ = W iµ + W i
µ, (i = 1, 2, 3), and Bµ = Bµ + Bµ
are gauge fields for SU(3), SU(2) and U(1) groups. By V = (G, W , B) we denote quantum
fields, and V = (G, W , B) is used for their background counterpart. The corresponding
gauge couplings are gs, g2, and g1. The group structure constants enter into the commu-
tation relations[
T a, T b]
= ifabcT c,[
τ i, τ j]
= iǫijkτk, (2.6)
with T a = λa/2 and τ i = σi/2 being color and weak isospin generators.
The covariant derivative acting on a field which is charged under all the gauge groups
looks like
Dµ = ∂µ − igsTaGa
µ − ig2τiW i
µ + ig1YW
2Bµ. (2.7)
If a field is not charged under either group, the corresponding term is omitted. With the
help of the covariant derivative one can write the following Higgs and fermionic parts of
the Lagrangian:
LH = (DµΦ)† (DµΦ)− λ
(
Φ†Φ)2
, (2.8)
LF =∑
i=1,2,3
(
iQLi DQL
i + iLLi DLL
i + iuRg DuRg + idRg DdRg + ilRg DlRg
)
−∑
i,j=1,2,3
(
Y iju (QL
i Φc)uRj + Y ij
d (QLi Φ)d
Rj + Y ij
l (LLi Φ)l
Rj + h.c.
)
, (2.9)
– 3 –
where indices i, j = 1, 2, 3 count different fermion families, λ and Yu,d,l are the higgs quartic
and Yukawa matrices3, respectively. The left-handed quarks QLg = (ug, dg)
L and leptons
LLg = (νg, lg)
L form the SU(2) doublets while the right-handed quarks (uRg , dRg ) and charged
leptons lRg are the singlets with respect to SU(2). The Higgs doublet Φ with YW = 1 has
the following decomposition in terms of the component fields:
Φ =
(
φ+(x)1√2(h+ iχ)
)
, Φc = iσ2Φ† =
(
1√2(h− iχ)
−φ−
)
. (2.10)
Here a charge-conjugated Higgs doublet is introduced Φc with YW = −1.
The gauge-fixing terms are introduced only for quantum fields
LGF = −1
2ξGGa
GGaG −
1
2ξWGi
WGiW −
1
2ξBG2
B , (2.11)
with
GaG = ∂µG
aµ + gsf
abcGbµG
cµ ,
GiW = ∂µW
iµ + g2ǫ
ijkW jµW
kµ ,
GB = ∂µBµ . (2.12)
The ordinary derivatives are replaced by covariant ones containing the background fields.
Due to this, the invariance of the effective action under background gauge transformations
is not touched by introduction of (2.11).
The Fadeev-Popov part of the Lagrangian is given by
LFP = −cαδGα
δθβcβ (2.13)
where α, β = (G,W,B), and δGα/δθβ is the variation of gauge-fixing functions (2.12) under
the following infinitesimal quantum gauge transformations
δGaµ = (DµθG)
a = ∂µθaG + gsf
abcGbµθ
cG ,
δW iµ = (DµθW )i = ∂µθ
iW + g2ǫ
ijkW jµθ
kW ,
δBµ = ∂µθB . (2.14)
It should be stressed that covariant derivatives in (2.14) involve the sum of quantum and
background gauge fields V = V + V . The corresponding background transformations are
obtained from (2.14) by the replacement V → V .
The Feynman rules for the model described by the Lagrangian (2.1) were generated
with the help of LanHEP 4 [49].
It is worth mentioning here that our problem does not require the introduction of U(1)
ghosts cB , cB and background B fields. This is due to the fact that the latter has the same
interactions as its quantum counterpart B and the former decouples from other particles.
Nevertheless, we keep them in our LanHEP model file to allow for possible generalizations
to non-linear gauge-fixing as in Ref. [50].
3In the actual calculation the diagonal Yukawa matrices were used. However, the result can be general-
ized with the help of additional tricks (see Sec.3 and Ref. [40]).4LanHEP 3.1.5, which was used by the authors, produces a wrong sign for the combination fabcfdec during
export to the FeynArts model files. A new version with a fix is scheduled for November 2012.
– 4 –
3 Details of calculations
Due to the gauge invariance of the effective action for the background fields, QED-like Ward
identities can be derived. The latter can be used to prove the following simple relations:
Zgi = Z−1/2
Vi
, i = 1, 2, 3 (3.1)
with ZViand Zgi being renormalization constants for background fields V µ
i = (Bµ, W µ, Gµ)
and SM gauge couplings gi = (g1, g2, gs), respectively.
Since we keep the full dependence on the gauge-fixing parameters ξi during the whole
calculation, we also need to know how ξi = (ξB, ξW , ξG) are renormalized. Again, due to
the Ward identities, the longitudinal part of the quantum gauge field propagators does not
receive any loop corrections. As a consequence, the following identities hold:
Zξi = ZVi. (3.2)
Here Zξi stands for the renormalization constants for the gauge-fixing parameters. The
quantum gauge fields Vi are renormalized in the MS-scheme with the help of ZVi. It is
clear from (3.1) and (3.2) that to carry out the calculation, one needs to consider gauge
boson self-energies for both quantum V and background V fields.
For calculation of the renormalization constants, following [26] (see also [10, 14, 51]),
we use the multiplicative renormalizability of the corresponding Green functions. The
renormalization constants ZV relate the dimensionally regularized one-particle-irreducible
two-point functions ΓV,Bare with the renormalized one ΓV,Ren as:
ΓV,Ren
(
Q2
µ2, ai
)
= limǫ→0
ZV
(
1
ǫ, ai
)
ΓV,Bare
(
Q2, ai,Bare, ǫ)
, (3.3)
where ai,Bare are the bare parameters of the model. For convenience, we introduce the
following notation, which is closely related to that used in Ref. [40],
ai =
(
5
3
g2116π2
,g22
16π2,
g2s16π2
,Y 2u
16π2,Y 2d
16π2,Y 2l
16π2,
λ
16π2, ξG, ξW , ξG
)
, (3.4)
so we treat the gauge-fixing parameters along the same lines as couplings. Moreover, in
the renormalization group analysis of the SM one usually employs the SU(5) normalization
of the U(1) gauge coupling which leads to an additional factor 5/3 in (3.4).
The bare parameters are related to the renormalized ones in the MS-scheme by the
following formula:
ak,Bareµ−2ρkǫ = Zakak(µ) = ak +
∞∑
n=1
c(n)k
1
ǫn, (3.5)
where ρk = 1/2 for the gauge (g1, g2, gs) and Yukawa constants (Yu, Yd, Yl), ρk = 1 for the
scalar quartic coupling constant λ, and ρk = 0 for the gauge fixing parameters. In order to
extract a three-loop contribution to ZV from the corresponding self-energies, it is sufficient
to know the two-loop renormalization constants for the gauge couplings and the one-loop
results for the Yukawa couplings. This is due to the fact that the Yukawa vertices appear
– 5 –
for the first time only in the two-loop self-energies and the higgs self-coupling enters into
the result only at the third level of perturbation theory.
The four-dimensional beta-functions, denoted by βi, are defined via
βi(ak) =dai(µ, ǫ)
d ln µ2
∣
∣
∣
∣
ǫ=0
. (3.6)
Here, again, ai stands for both the gauge couplings and the gauge-fixing.
Given the fact that the bare parameters do not depend on the renormalization scale
the expressions for βi can be obtained [19] by differentiation of (3.5) with respect to lnµ2:
− ρkǫ
[
ak +∞∑
n=1
c(n)k
1
ǫn
]
= −ρkǫak + βk +∞∑
n=1
∑
l
(βl − ρlalǫ)∂c
(n)k
∂al
1
ǫn. (3.7)
Taking in account only the leading order of the expansion in ǫ:
βk =∑
l
ρlal∂c
(1)k
∂al− ρkc
(1)k . (3.8)
In MS-like schemes the renormalization constants for the Green functions may be
expanded as
ZΓ = 1 +∞∑
k=1
Z(k)Γ
ǫk. (3.9)
Differentiating (3.9) with respect to lnµ2 we simply get all-order expression for anomalous
dimensions:
γΓ ≡ −µ2∂ lnZΓ
∂µ2= −
∑
j
(
βj − ρjajǫ)∂ZΓ
∂aj
Z−1Γ . (3.10)
It turns out that the above expression is finite as ǫ → 0 so
γΓ =∑
j
ajρj∂Z
(1)Γ
∂aj. (3.11)
The advantage of (3.7) and (3.10) comes from the fact that it provides us with additional
confirmation of the correctness of the final result since beta functions and anomalous di-
mensions extracted directly from (3.7) and (3.10) are finite for ǫ → 0 only if c(n)k satisfy
the so-called pole equations [52], e.g.,
[
∑
l
ρlal∂
∂al− ρk
]
c(n+1)k =
∑
l
βl∂c
(n)k
∂al. (3.12)
In order to calculate the bare two-point functions for the quantum and background
fields, we generate the corresponding diagrams with the help of the FeynArts package [42].
It is worth pointing that we use the Classes level of diagram generation which allows us to
significantly reduce the number of generated diagrams since we do not distinguish fermion
generations. The complexity of the problem can be deduced from Table 1 that shows how
– 6 –
the number of the FeynArts generated diagrams increases with the loop level. Clearly, the
presented numbers are an order of magnitude less than those given in Table I of Ref. [40],
which somehow demonstrate the advantage of our approach.
The number of the SM fermion generations is introduced via counting fermion traces
present in the generated expression for a diagram and multiplying it by nG. We separately
count fermion traces involving the Yukawa interaction vertices and multiply them not by
nG but by nY . This allows us to use the following substitution rules (c.f., [40]) to generalize
the obtained expression to the case of the general Yukawa matrices
nY
[
au, ad, al]
→[
Yu,Yd,Yl
]
,
nY
[
a2u, a2d, a
2l
]
→[
Yuu,Ydd,Yll
]
,
n2Y
[
a2u, a2d, a
2l
]
→[
Y2u,Y
2d ,Y
2l
]
,
n2Y
[
auad, adal, aual]
→[
YuYd,YdYl,YuYl
]
,
nY auad → Yud (3.13)
where
Yu =trYuY
†u
16π2, Yd =
trYdY†d
16π2, Yl =
trYlY†l
16π2, (3.14)
and
Yuu =trYuY
†uYuY
†u
(16π2)2, Ydd =
trYdY†d YdY
†d
(16π2)2,
Yud =trYuY
†uYdY
†d
(16π2)2, Yll =
trYlY†l YlY
†l
(16π2)2. (3.15)
A comment is in order about the last substitution in (3.13). It turns out that Yud
is the only combination of up- and down-type Yukawa matrices, which can appear in the
result for the three-loop gauge-boson self-energy within the SM. This can be traced to the
following facts: 1) in the unbroken SM all the particles are massless so that chirality is
conserved during fermion propagation; 2) only the Yukawa interactions flip the chirality of
the incoming fermions; 3) there is no right-handed flavour changing current coupled to a
SM gauge field. As a consequence, combinations like
trYuY†d YuY
†d
(16π2)2and
trYuY†d YdY
†u
(16π2)2, (3.16)
which require at least two chirality-conserving transitions between right-handed up- and
down-type quarks, do not show up in the result.
This type of counting is performed at the generation stage. A simple script converts
the output of FeynArts to DIANA-like [44] notation and identifies MINCER topologies. This
allows us to use the FORM [53] package COLOR [54] to do the SU(3) color algebra and MINCER
[43] to obtain the ǫ-expansion of diagrams. It is worth pointing that the expressions for
all SM gauge couplings exhibit explicit dependence on number of colors Nc which stems
from the fact that we have to sum over color when there is a (sub)loop with external color
singlets coupled to quarks.
– 7 –
Broken 1 2 3 Unbroken 1 2 3
W+/W− 10 339 21942 W i 11 389 36647
Z 9 281 19041 W i 11 371 36103
A 7 218 14426 B, B 6 214 20144
ZA 7 236 16120 G 4 73 4183
G 4 67 3287 G 4 66 4060
Total 37 1141 74816 Total 36 1113 101137
Table 1. Number of self-energy diagrams with external gauge fields, generated by FeynArts in the
broken and unbroken SM, at one, two, and three loops.
During our calculation we made use of naive anticommuting prescription for dealing
with γ5 (see, e.g., a nice review [60]). In this case, however, closed fermion loops with odd
number of γ5 (“odd traces”) are not treated properly. In D = 4 such traces inevitably lead
to the appearance of four-dimensional antisymmetric tensors ǫµνρσ that in the final result for
a diagram should be contracted either between themselves or with external Lorentz indices
and/or momenta. Since we are only interested in two-point functions the only non-zero
combination that could potentially appear after loop integration is ǫµαρσǫνβρσqαqβ which
originates at three loops from two odd traces. In this expression q corresponds to external
momentum, µ, ν denote external Lorentz indices, and ρ, σ are dummy indices representing
the contractions due to internal vector boson propagators. A simple counting shows that
both closed fermion lines are one-loop triangle (sub)graphs contributing to Adler-Bell-
Jackiw gauge anomalies [55–57]. Having in mind the cancellation of such anomalies within
the SM [58, 59], in our calculation we can safely put all the Dirac traces involving odd
number of γ5 to zero (see also the discussion in Ref. [40]). It is worth mentioning that the
correct results for three-loop contribution to Yukawa coupling beta-functions [41] can not
be obtained without special treatment of such traces.
4 Results and conclusions
Here we present the results of our calculations in the form of the SM gauge beta-functions
and anomalous dimension of the gauge-fixing parameters. From (3.1) and (3.2) it is clear
that anomalous dimensions of the background fields are connected with the corresponding
gauge coupling beta-functions
γB = −β1/a1, γW = −β2/a2, γG = −βs/as (4.1)
and for the quantum fields we have
γB = βξB/ξB , γW = βξW /ξW , γG = βξG/ξG. (4.2)
The corresponding renormalization constants can be found in the Appendix.
At the end of the day, we have the following expressions for the beta-functions (λ ≡ aλ):
β1 = a21
(
nG
(
11 Nc
45+
3
5
)
+1
10
)
– 8 –
+ a21
(
nG
(
137a1 Nc
900+
81a1100
+a2 Nc
20+
9a220
+11asCF Nc
15
)
+9a150
+9 a210
−NcYd
6−
17Nc Yu
30−
3Yl
2
)
+ a21
(
nG
(
−1697a21 Nc
18000−
981a212000
−a1a2 Nc
1200−
27a1a2400
−137
900a1asCFNc +
a22 Nc
45+
27a2210
−1
20a2as CFNc +
1463
540a2sCACF Nc
−11
30a2sC
2FNc
)
+ n2G
(
−16577a21N
2c
486000−
2387a21 Nc
9000−
891a212000
−11a22 N2
c
720
−11a22Nc
72−
11 a2280
−242
135a2sCFTF Nc
)
+489a218000
+783a1 a2
800+
27a1λ
50
−1267a1 NcYd
2400−
2827a1Nc Yu
2400−
2529a1Yl
800+
3401 a22320
+9a2λ
10
−437a2 NcYd
160−
157a2Nc Yu
32−
1629a2Yl
160−
17
20asCFNcYd −
29
20asCF NcYu
−9λ2
5+
17N2c Y2
d
120+
59
60N2
c YdYu +101 N2
c Y2u
120+
157NcYd Yl
60+
61NcYdd
80
+199Nc YlYu
60+
NcYud
8+
113 NcYuu
80+
99Y2l
40+
261 Yll
80
)
, (4.3)
β2 = a22
(
nG
(
Nc
3+
1
3
)
−43
6
)
+ a22
(
nG
(
a1Nc
60+
3 a120
+49a2Nc
12+
49 a212
+ asCFNc
)
+3 a110
−259a26
−Nc Yd
2−
NcYu
2−
Yl
2
)
+ a22
(
nG
(
−287a21 Nc
3600−
91a21400
+13a1a2 Nc
240+
39a1a280
−1
60a1 asCFNc
+1603a22 Nc
27+
1603a2227
+13
4a2 asCFNc +
133
36a2sCA CFNc −
1
2a2sC
2F Nc
)
+ n2G
(
−121a21 N2
c
32400−
77a21Nc
1800−
33 a21400
−415a22N
2c
432−
415 a22Nc
216−
415a22432
−22
9a2sCFTFNc
)
+163 a211600
+561a1a2160
+3a1 λ
10−
533a1NcYd
480−
593 a1NcYu
480
−51a1 Yl
32−
667111a221728
+3a2 λ
2−
243a2NcYd
32−
243 a2NcYu
32−
243a2 Yl
32
−7
4asCFNc Yd −
7
4asCFNcYu − 3 λ2 +
5N2c Y
2d
8+
5
4N2
c YdYu +5N2
c Y2u
8
+5Nc YdYl
4+
19NcYdd
16+
5 NcYlYu
4+
9Nc Yud
8+
19NcYuu
16
+5Y2
l
8+
19Yll
16
)
, (4.4)
– 9 –
βs = a2s
(
8TFnG
3−
11 CA
3
)
+ a2s
(
nG
(
11a1TF
15+ 3 a2TF +
40asCATF
3+ 8 asCFTF
)
−34asC
2A
3− 4 TFYd − 4TFYu
)
+ a2s
(
nG
(
−13a21 TF
60−
a1a2TF
20
+22
15a1asCATF −
11
15a1 asCFTF +
241a22TF
12
+ 6a2asCATF − 3a2asCF TF +2830
27a2sC
2ATF +
410
9a2sCACFTF − 4a2sC
2F TF
)
+ n2G
(
−1331a21TF Nc
8100−
121a21TF
300−
11
12a22TFNc −
11a22 TF
12−
632
27a2sCAT
2F
−176
9a2sCFT
2F
)
−89a1TFYd
20−
101 a1TFYu
20−
93a2TF Yd
4−
93a2TFYu
4
−2857
54a2sC
3A − 24asCATFYd − 24 asCATFYu − 6asCFTF Yd − 6asCFTFYu
+ 7TF NcY2d + 14TFNcYdYu + 7 TFNcY
2u + 7TFYdYl + 9 TFYdd + 7TFYlYu
− 6TF Yud + 9TFYuu
)
, (4.5)
βξB = ξB
(
−a110
+ nG
(
−3a15
−11a1Nc
45
))
+ ξB
(
−9a2150
−9a1a210
+a1NcYd
6+
3a1Yl
2+
17a1NcYu
30
+ nG
(
−81a21100
−9a1a220
−137a21Nc
900−
a1a2Nc
20−
11
15a1asCFNc
))
+ ξB
(
−489a318000
−783a21a2800
−3401a1a
22
320−
27a21λ
50−
9a1a2λ
10+
9a1λ2
5
+ nG
(
981a312000
+27a21a2400
−27a1a
22
10+
1697a31Nc
18000+
a21a2Nc
1200−
1
45a1a
22Nc
+137
900a21asCFNc +
1
20a1a2asCFNc −
1463
540a1a
2sCACFNc +
11
30a1a
2sC
2FNc
)
+ n2G
(
891a312000
+11a1a
22
80+
2387a31Nc
9000+
11
72a1a
22Nc +
242
135a1a
2sCFTFNc
+16577a31N
2c
486000+
11
720a1a
22N
2c
)
+1267a21NcYd
2400+
437
160a1a2NcYd
+17
20a1asCFNcYd −
17
120a1N
2c Y
2d −
61a1NcYdd
80+
2529a21Yl
800+
1629a1a2Yl
160
−157
60a1NcYdYl −
99a1Y2l
40−
261a1Yll
80+
2827a21NcYu
2400+
157
32a1a2NcYu
+29
20a1asCFNcYu −
59
60a1N
2c YdYu −
199
60a1NcYlYu −
101
120a1N
2c Y
2u
– 10 –
−a1NcYud
8−
113a1NcYuu
80
)
, (4.6)
βξW = ξW
(
25a26
− a2ξW + nG
(
−a23
−a2Nc
3
))
+ ξW
(
−3a1a210
+113a224
−11a22ξW
2− a22ξ
2W + nG
(
−3a1a220
−13a224
−a1a2Nc
60−
13a22Nc
4− a2asCFNc
)
+a2NcYd
2+
a2Yl
2+
a2NcYu
2
)
+ ξW
(
−163a21a21600
−33a1a
22
32+
143537a32576
−3a1a2λ
10−
3a22λ
2+ 3a2λ
2
−315a32ξW
8−
33a32ξ2W
4−
7a32ξ3W
4+ n2
G
(
33a21a2400
+185a32144
+77a21a2Nc
1800
+185a32Nc
72+
22
9a2a
2sCFTFNc +
121a21a2N2c
32400+
185a32N2c
144
)
+533
480a1a2NcYd
+79
32a22NcYd +
7
4a2asCFNcYd −
5
8a2N
2c Y
2d −
19a2NcYdd
16+
51a1a2Yl
32
+79a22Yl
32−
5
4a2NcYdYl −
5a2Y2l
8−
19a2Yll
16+
593
480a1a2NcYu +
79
32a22NcYu
+7
4a2asCFNcYu −
5
4a2N
2c YdYu −
5
4a2NcYlYu −
5
8a2N
2c Y
2u −
9a2NcYud
8
−19a2NcYuu
16−
9
10a1a
22ζ(3) +
3a32ζ(3)
2− 6a32ξW ζ(3)−
3
2a32ξ
2W ζ(3)
+ nG
(
91a21a2400
+6a1a
22
5−
7025a32144
+ 2a32ξW +287a21a2Nc
3600+
2
15a1a
22Nc
−7025a32Nc
144+
1
60a1a2asCFNc + 8a22asCFNc −
133
36a2a
2sCACFNc
+1
2a2a
2sC
2FNc + 2a32ξWNc −
9
5a1a
22ζ(3) + 9a32ζ(3)−
1
5a1a
22Ncζ(3)
+ 9a32Ncζ(3)− 12a22asCFNcζ(3)
))
, (4.7)
βξG = ξG
(
13asCA
6−
asCAξG2
−8asTFnG
3
)
+ ξG
(
59a2sC2A
8−
11
8a2sC
2AξG −
1
4a2sC
2Aξ
2G + 4asTFYd + 4asTFYu
+
(
−11
15a1asTF − 3a2asTF − 10a2sCATF − 8a2sCFTF
)
nG
)
+ ξG
(
9965a3sC3A
288−
167
32a3sC
3AξG −
33
32a3sC
3Aξ
2G −
7
32a3sC
3Aξ
3G + n2
G
(
121
300a21asTF
+11
12a22asTF +
304
9a3sCAT
2F +
176
9a3sCFT
2F +
1331a21asTFNc
8100+
11
12a22asTFNc
)
– 11 –
+89
20a1asTFYd +
93
4a2asTFYd +
25
2a2sCATFYd + 6a2sCFTFYd − 7asTFNcY
2d
− 9asTFYdd − 7asTFYdYl +101
20a1asTFYu +
93
4a2asTFYu +
25
2a2sCATFYu
+ 6a2sCFTFYu − 14asTFNcYdYu − 7asTFYlYu − 7asTFNcY2u + 6asTFYud
− 9asTFYuu −9
16a3sC
3Aζ(3)−
3
4a3sC
3AξGζ(3)−
3
16a3sC
3Aξ
2Gζ(3) + nG
(
13
60a21asTF
+1
20a1a2asTF −
241
12a22asTF +
319
120a1a
2sCATF +
87
8a2a
2sCATF −
911
9a3sC
2ATF
+11
15a1a
2sCFTF + 3a2a
2sCFTF −
5
9a3sCACFTF + 4a3sC
2FTF + 4a3sC
2AξGTF
−22
5a1a
2sCATF ζ(3)− 18a2a
2sCATF ζ(3) + 36a3sC
2ATF ζ(3)
− 48a3sCACFTF ζ(3)
))
. (4.8)
With the help of substitutions CA = Nc = 3, CF = 4/3, TF = 1/2, Yu = tr T ,
Yd = tr B, Yl = tr L, Ydd = tr(B2), Yuu = tr(T 2), Yll = tr(L2), and Yud = tr T B it is
possible to prove that the expressions presented above coincide with the results for the
gauge beta functions obtained in Ref. [39].
As a consequence, one can be sure that the three-loop renormalization group equations
obtained for the first time in Ref. [39] are correct and confirmed by an independent calcu-
lation. It is also worth mentioning that the obtained results can be used not only for the
analysis of vacuum stability constraints within the SM (as in Refs. [6–8]) but also, e.g., for
very precise matching of the SM with its supersymmetric extension since the corresponding
three-loop renormalization group functions are already known from the literature [61–63].
Moreover, the leading two-loop decoupling corrections for the strongest SM couplings are
also calculated within the MSSM in Refs. [32, 33, 64, 65].
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank M. Kalmykov for drawing our attention to the problem
and A. Semenov for his help with the LanHEP package. This work is partially supported
by RFBR grants 11-02-01177-a, 12-02-00412-a, RSGSS-4801.2012.2
A Renormalization constants
Here we present the results for the renormalization constants from which the anomalous
dimensions and beta-functions were extracted. It should be pointed out that the coefficients
of the ǫ-expansion satisfy the pole equations (3.12). The corresponding expressions together
with the results for beta-functions can be found online5 in the form of Mathematica files.
Zα1= 1 + a1
1
ǫ
{
nG
(
11Nc
45+
3
5
)
+1
10
}
5As ancillary files of the arXiv version of the paper
– 12 –
+ a1
{
1
ǫ2
[
n2G
(
121a1N2c
2025+
22a1Nc
75+
9a125
)
+ nG
(
11a1Nc
225+
3a125
)
+a1100
]
+1
ǫ
[
nG
(
137a1Nc
1800+
81a1200
+a2Nc
40+
9a240
+11asCFNc
30
)
+9a1100
+9a220
−NcYd
12−
17NcYu
60−
3Yl
4
]}
+ a1
{
1
ǫ3
[
n3G
(
1331a21N3c
91125+
121a21N2c
1125+
33a21Nc
125+
27a21125
)
+ n2G
(
121a21N2c
6750+
11a21Nc
125+
27a21250
)
+ nG
(
11a21Nc
1500+
9a21500
)
+a21
1000
]
+1
ǫ2
[
nG
(
3731a21Nc
54000+
441a212000
+9a1a2Nc
40+
117a1a2200
+11
150a1asCFNc
−11
270a1N
2c Yd −
187a1N2c Yu
1350−
a1NcYd
10−
11a1NcYl
30−
17a1NcYu
50−
9a1Yl
10
−7a22Nc
720−
39a2280
−121
270a2sCACFNc
)
+ n2G
(
10549a21N2c
243000+
1519a21Nc
4500
+567a211000
+11
900a1a2N
2c +
7a1a2Nc
50+
27a1a2100
+121
675a1asCFN
2c +
11
25a1asCFNc
+a22N
2c
360+
a22Nc
36+
a2240
+44
135a2sCFTFNc
)
+21a211000
+9a1a2100
−7a1NcYd
720
+17a1NcYu
720+
33a1Yl
80−
43a2240
+a2NcYd
16+
17a2NcYu
80+
9a2Yl
16
+1
6asCFNcYd +
17
30asCFNcYu −
N2c Y
2d
36−
11
90N2
c YdYu −17N2
c Y2u
180
−5NcYdYl
18−
NcYdd
24−
31NcYlYu
90+
11NcYud
60−
17NcYuu
120−
Y2l
4−
3Yll
8
]
+1
ǫ
[
nG
(
−1697a21Nc
54000−
327a212000
−a1a2Nc
3600−
9a1a2400
−137a1asCFNc
2700
+a22Nc
135+
9a2210
−1
60a2asCFNc +
1463a2sCACFNc
1620−
11
90a2sC
2FNc
)
+ n2G
(
−16577a21N
2c
1458000−
2387a21Nc
27000−
297a212000
−11a22N
2c
2160−
11a22Nc
216−
11a22240
−242
405a2sCFTFNc
)
+163a218000
+261a1a2800
+9a1λ
50−
1267a1NcYd
7200
−2827a1NcYu
7200−
843a1Yl
800+
3401a22960
+3a2λ
10−
437a2NcYd
480−
157a2NcYu
96
−543a2Yl
160−
17
60asCFNcYd −
29
60asCFNcYu −
3λ2
5+
17N2c Y
2d
360+
59
180N2
c YdYu
+101N2
c Y2u
360+
157NcYdYl
180+
61NcYdd
240+
199NcYlYu
180+
NcYud
24+
113NcYuu
240
+33Y2
l
40+
87Yll
80
]}
, (A.1)
– 13 –
Zα2= 1 + a2
1
ǫ
{
nG
(
Nc
3+
1
3
)
−43
6
}
+ a2
{
1
ǫ2
[
n2G
(
a2N2c
9+
2a2Nc
9+
a29
)
+ nG
(
−43a2Nc
9−
43a29
)
+1849a236
]
+1
ǫ
[
nG
(
a1Nc
120+
3a140
+49a2Nc
24+
49a224
+asCFNc
2
)
+3a120
−259a212
−NcYd
4−
NcYu
4−
Yl
4
]}
+ a2
{
1
ǫ3
[
nG
(
1849a22Nc
36+
1849a2236
)
+ n2G
(
−43
18a22N
2c −
43a22Nc
9−
43a2218
)
+ n3G
(
a22N3c
27+
a22N2c
9+
a22Nc
9+
a2227
)
−79507a22216
]
+1
ǫ2
[
nG
(
a21Nc
80+
13a21400
−7a1a2Nc
360−
39a1a240
−22001a22Nc
432−
22001a22432
−43
6a2asCFNc −
1
6a2N
2c Yd
−1
6a2N
2c Yu −
a2NcYd
6−
a2NcYl
6−
a2NcYu
6−
a2Yl
6−
11
18a2sCACFNc
)
+ n2G
(
11a21N2c
16200+
7a21Nc
900+
3a21200
+1
180a1a2N
2c +
a1a2Nc
18+
a1a220
+343a22N
2c
216
+343a22Nc
108+
343a22216
+1
3a2asCFN
2c +
1
3a2asCFNc +
4
9a2sCFTFNc
)
+a21200
−43a1a220
+a1NcYd
48+
17a1NcYu
240+
3a1Yl
16+
77959a22216
+181a2NcYd
48
+181a2NcYu
48+
181a2Yl
48+
1
2asCFNcYd +
1
2asCFNcYu −
N2c Y
2d
12−
1
6N2
c YdYu
−N2
c Y2u
12−
NcYdYl
6−
NcYdd
8−
NcYlYu
6+
NcYud
4−
NcYuu
8−
Y2l
12−
Yll
8
]
+1
ǫ
[
nG
(
−287a21Nc
10800−
91a211200
+13a1a2Nc
720+
13a1a280
−1
180a1asCFNc
+1603a22Nc
81+
1603a2281
+13
12a2asCFNc +
133
108a2sCACFNc −
1
6a2sC
2FNc
)
+ n2G
(
−121a21N
2c
97200−
77a21Nc
5400−
11a21400
−415a22N
2c
1296−
415a22Nc
648−
415a221296
−22
27a2sCFTFNc
)
+163a214800
+187a1a2160
+a1λ
10−
533a1NcYd
1440−
593a1NcYu
1440
−17a1Yl
32−
667111a225184
+a2λ
2−
81a2NcYd
32−
81a2NcYu
32−
81a2Yl
32
−7
12asCFNcYd −
7
12asCFNcYu − λ2 +
5N2c Y
2d
24+
5
12N2
c YdYu +5N2
c Y2u
24
+5NcYdYl
12+
19NcYdd
48+
5NcYlYu
12+
3NcYud
8+
19NcYuu
48
+5Y2
l
24+
19Yll
48
]}
, (A.2)
– 14 –
Zαs= 1 + as
1
ǫ
{
8TFnG
3−
11CA
3
}
+ as
{
1
ǫ2
[
121asC2A
9−
176
9asCATFnG +
64
9asT
2Fn
2G
]
+1
ǫ
[
nG
(
11a1TF
30+
3a2TF
2+
20asCATF
3+ 4asCFTF
)
−17asC
2A
3− 2TFYd − 2TFYu
]}
+ as
{
1
ǫ3
[
−1331
27a2sC
3A +
968
9a2sC
2ATFnG −
704
9a2sCAT
2Fn
2G +
512
27a2sT
3Fn
3G
]
+1
ǫ2
[
nG
(
11a21TF
900−
121
45a1asCATF −
43a22TF
12− 11a2asCATF −
2492
27a2sC
2ATF
−308
9a2sCACFTF −
32
3asT
2FYd −
32
3asT
2FYu
)
+ n2G
(
121a21TFNc
4050+
11a21TF
150
+88
45a1asT
2F +
1
6a22TFNc +
a22TF
6+ 8a2asT
2F +
1120
27a2sCAT
2F +
224
9a2sCFT
2F
)
+a1TFYd
6+
17a1TFYu
30+
3a2TFYd
2+
3a2TFYu
2+
1309a2sC3A
27+
44
3asCATFYd
+44
3asCATFYu + 4asCFTFYd + 4asCFTFYu −
2
3TFNcY
2d −
4
3TFNcYdYu
−2
3TFNcY
2u −
2TFYdYl
3− TFYdd −
2TFYlYu
3+ 2TFYud − TFYuu
]
+1
ǫ
[
nG
(
−13a21TF
180−
a1a2TF
60+
22
45a1asCATF −
11
45a1asCFTF +
241a22TF
36
+ 2a2asCATF − a2asCFTF +2830
81a2sC
2ATF +
410
27a2sCACFTF −
4
3a2sC
2FTF
)
+ n2G
(
−1331a21TFNc
24300−
121a21TF
900−
11
36a22TFNc −
11a22TF
36−
632
81a2sCAT
2F
−176
27a2sCFT
2F
)
−89a1TFYd
60−
101a1TFYu
60−
31a2TFYd
4−
31a2TFYu
4
−2857
162a2sC
3A − 8asCATFYd − 8asCATFYu − 2asCFTFYd − 2asCFTFYu
+7
3TFNcY
2d +
14
3TFNcYdYu +
7
3TFNcY
2u +
7TFYdYl
3+ 3TFYdd +
7TFYlYu
3
− 2TFYud + 3TFYuu
]}
, (A.3)
ZξB = 1 + a11
ǫ
{
nG
(
−11Nc
45−
3
5
)
−1
10
}
+ a1
{
1
ǫ
[
nG
(
−137a1Nc
1800−
81a1200
−a2Nc
40−
9a240
−11asCFNc
30
)
– 15 –
−9a1100
−9a220
+NcYd
12+
17NcYu
60+
3Yl
4
]}
+ a1
{
1
ǫ2
[
nG
(
−533a21Nc
54000−
63a212000
+7a22Nc
720+
39a2280
+121
270a2sCACFNc
)
− n2G
(
1507a21N2c
243000+
217a21Nc
4500+
81a211000
+a22N
2c
360+
a22Nc
36+
a2240
+44
135a2sCFTFNc
)
−3a211000
−a1NcYd
144−
289a1NcYu
3600−
9a1Yl
16+
43a2240
−a2NcYd
16−
17a2NcYu
80
−9a2Yl
16−
1
6asCFNcYd −
17
30asCFNcYu +
N2c Y
2d
36+
11
90N2
c YdYu +17N2
c Y2u
180
+5NcYdYl
18+
NcYdd
24+
31NcYlYu
90−
11NcYud
60+
17NcYuu
120+
Y2l
4+
3Yll
8
]
+1
ǫ
[
nG
(
1697a21Nc
54000+
327a212000
+a1a2Nc
3600+
9a1a2400
+137a1asCFNc
2700−
a22Nc
135
−9a2210
+1
60a2asCFNc −
1463a2sCACFNc
1620+
11
90a2sC
2FNc
)
+ n2G
(
16577a21N2c
1458000
+2387a21Nc
27000+
297a212000
+11a22N
2c
2160+
11a22Nc
216+
11a22240
+242
405a2sCFTFNc
)
−163a218000
−261a1a2800
−9a1λ
50+
1267a1NcYd
7200+
2827a1NcYu
7200+
843a1Yl
800
−3401a22960
−3a2λ
10+
437a2NcYd
480+
157a2NcYu
96+
543a2Yl
160+
17
60asCFNcYd
+29
60asCFNcYu +
3λ2
5−
17N2c Y
2d
360−
59
180N2
c YdYu −101N2
c Y2u
360−
33Y2l
40
−157NcYdYl
180−
61NcYdd
240−
199NcYlYu
180−
NcYud
24
−113NcYuu
240−
87Yll
80
]}
, (A.4)
ZξW = 1 + a21
ǫ
{
− ξW + nG
(
−Nc
3−
1
3
)
+25
6
}
+ a2
{
1
ǫ2
[
a2ξ2W + nG
(
a2ξWNc
3+
a2ξW3
+a2Nc
2+
a22
)
−8a2ξW
3−
25a24
]
+1
ǫ
[
nG
(
−a1Nc
120−
3a140
−13a2Nc
8−
13a28
−asCFNc
2
)
−3a120
−a2ξ
2W
2−
11a2ξW4
+113a28
+NcYd
4+
NcYu
4+
Yl
4
]}
+ a2
{
1
ǫ3
[
− a22ξ3W + nG
(
−1
3a22ξ
2WNc −
1
3a22ξ
2W −
5
6a22ξWNc −
5a22ξW6
−43a22Nc
18−
43a2218
)
+7a22ξ
2W
6+
89a22ξW12
+ n2G
(
a22N2c
18+
a22Nc
9+
a2218
)
+1525a2272
]
+1
ǫ2
[
nG
(
−a21Nc
80−
13a21400
+1
120a1a2ξWNc +
3a1a2ξW40
– 16 –
+a1a2Nc
120+
3a1a240
+1
6a22ξ
2WNc +
a22ξ2W
6+
47
24a22ξWNc +
47a22ξW24
+4273a22Nc
432+
4273a22432
+1
2a2asCF ξWNc +
1
2a2asCFNc +
11
18a2sCACFNc
)
+ n2G
(
−11a21N
2c
16200−
7a21Nc
900−
3a21200
−59a22N
2c
216−
59a22Nc
108−
59a22216
−4
9a2sCFTFNc
)
−a21200
+3a1a2ξW
20+
3a1a220
−a1NcYd
48−
17a1NcYu
240
−3a1Yl
16+
7a22ξ3W
6+
53a22ξ2W
12−
271a22ξW24
−29629a22432
−1
4a2ξWNcYd
−1
4a2ξWNcYu −
a2ξWYl
4−
7a2NcYd
16−
7a2NcYu
16−
7a2Yl
16−
1
2asCFNcYd
−1
2asCFNcYu +
N2c Y
2d
12+
1
6N2
c YdYu +N2
c Y2u
12+
NcYdYl
6+
NcYdd
8
+NcYlYu
6−
NcYud
4+
NcYuu
8+
Y2l
12+
Yll
8
]
+1
ǫ
[
nG
(
287a21Nc
10800+
91a211200
−1
15a1a2Ncζ(3) +
2a1a2Nc
45−
3a1a2ζ(3)
5+
2a1a25
+1
180a1asCFNc
+2
3a22ξWNc +
2a22ξW3
+ 3a22Ncζ(3)−7025a22Nc
432+ 3a22ζ(3)−
7025a22432
− 4a2asCFNcζ(3) +8
3a2asCFNc −
133
108a2sCACFNc +
1
6a2sC
2FNc
)
+ n2G
(
121a21N2c
97200+
77a21Nc
5400+
11a21400
+185a22N
2c
432+
185a22Nc
216+
185a22432
+22
27a2sCFTFNc
)
−163a214800
−3a1a2ζ(3)
10−
11a1a232
−a1λ
10+
533a1NcYd
1440
+593a1NcYu
1440+
17a1Yl
32−
7
12a22ξ
3W −
1
2a22ξ
2W ζ(3)−
11a22ξ2W
4− 2a22ξW ζ(3)
−105a22ξW
8+
a22ζ(3)
2+
143537a221728
−a2λ
2+
79a2NcYd
96+
79a2NcYu
96
+79a2Yl
96+
7
12asCFNcYd +
7
12asCFNcYu + λ2 −
5N2c Y
2d
24−
5
12N2
c YdYu
−5N2
c Y2u
24−
5NcYdYl
12−
19NcYdd
48−
5NcYlYu
12−
3NcYud
8−
19NcYuu
48
−5Y2
l
24−
19Yll
48
]}
, (A.5)
ZξG = 1 + as1
ǫ
{
−CAξG2
+13CA
6−
8TFnG
3
}
+ as
{
1
ǫ2
[
1
4asC
2Aξ
2G −
17
24asC
2AξG −
13asC2A
8
+ nG
(
4
3asCAξGTF + 2asCATF
)]
– 17 –
+1
ǫ
[
nG
(
−11a1TF
30−
3a2TF
2− 5asCATF − 4asCFTF
)
−1
8asC
2Aξ
2G −
11
16asC
2AξG +
59asC2A
16+ 2TFYd + 2TFYu
]}
+ as
{
1
ǫ3
[
−1
8a2sC
3Aξ
3G +
1
6a2sC
3Aξ
2G +
47
48a2sC
3AξG +
403a2sC3A
144
+ nG
(
−2
3a2sC
2Aξ
2GTF −
5
3a2sC
2AξGTF −
44
9a2sC
2ATF
)
+16
9a2sCAT
2Fn
2G
]
+1
ǫ2
[
nG
(
−11a21TF
900+
11
60a1asCAξGTF +
11
60a1asCATF +
43a22TF
12
+3
4a2asCAξGTF +
3
4a2asCATF +
1
3a2sC
2Aξ
2GTF +
19
6a2sC
2AξGTF
+481
27a2sC
2ATF + 2a2sCACF ξGTF +
62
9a2sCACFTF
)
+ n2G
(
−121a21TFNc
4050
−11a21TF
150−
1
6a22TFNc −
a22TF
6−
200
27a2sCAT
2F −
32
9a2sCFT
2F
)
−a1TFYd
6
−17a1TFYu
30−
3a2TFYd
2−
3a2TFYu
2+
7
48a2sC
3Aξ
3G +
13
24a2sC
3Aξ
2G
−143
96a2sC
3AξG −
7957a2sC3A
864− asCAξGTFYd − asCAξGTFYu − asCATFYd
− asCATFYu − 4asCFTFYd − 4asCFTFYu +2
3TFNcY
2d +
4
3TFNcYdYu
+2
3TFNcY
2u +
2TFYdYl
3+ TFYdd +
2TFYlYu
3− 2TFYud + TFYuu
]
+1
ǫ
[
nG
(
13a21TF
180+
a1a2TF
60−
22
15a1asCATF ζ(3) +
319
360a1asCATF
+11
45a1asCFTF −
241a22TF
36− 6a2asCATF ζ(3) +
29
8a2asCATF + a2asCFTF
+4
3a2sC
2AξGTF + 12a2sC
2ATF ζ(3)−
911
27a2sC
2ATF − 16a2sCACFTF ζ(3)
−5
27a2sCACFTF +
4
3a2sC
2FTF
)
+ n2G
(
1331a21TFNc
24300+
121a21TF
900+
11
36a22TFNc
+11a22TF
36+
304
27a2sCAT
2F +
176
27+ a2sCFT
2F
)
+89a1TFYd
60+
101a1TFYu
60
+31a2TFYd
4+
31a2TFYu
4−
7
96a2sC
3Aξ
3G −
1
16a2sC
3Aξ
2Gζ(3)−
11
32a2sC
3Aξ
2G
−1
4a2sC
3AξGζ(3)−
167
96a2sC
3AξG −
3
16a2sC
3Aζ(3) +
9965a2sC3A
864+
25
6asCATFYd
+25
6asCATFYu + 2asCFTFYd + 2asCFTFYu −
7
3TFNcY
2d −
14
3TFNcYdYu
−7
3TFNcY
2u −
7TFYdYl
3− 3TFYdd −
7TFYlYu
3
+ 2TFYud − 3TFYuu
]}
. (A.6)
– 18 –
References
[1] [ATLAS Collaboration], “Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard
Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1
[arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]].
[2] [CMS Collaboration], “Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS
experiment at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30 [arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]].
[3] N. V. Krasnikov, “Restriction of the Fermion Mass in Gauge Theories of Weak and
Electromagnetic Interactions,” Yad. Fiz. 28 (1978) 549.
[4] P. Q. Hung, “Vacuum Instability and New Constraints on Fermion Masses,” Phys. Rev.
Lett. 42 (1979) 873.
[5] H. D. Politzer and S. Wolfram, “Bounds on Particle Masses in the Weinberg-Salam Model,”
Phys. Lett. B 82 (1979) 242 [Erratum-ibid. 83B (1979) 421].
[6] F. Bezrukov, M. Y. Kalmykov, B. A. Kniehl and M. Shaposhnikov, “Higgs Boson Mass and
New Physics,” arXiv:1205.2893 [hep-ph].
[7] G. Degrassi, S. Di Vita, J. Elias-Miro, J. R. Espinosa, G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori and
A. Strumia, “Higgs mass and vacuum stability in the Standard Model at NNLO,” JHEP
1208 (2012) 098 [arXiv:1205.6497 [hep-ph]].
[8] S. Alekhin, A. Djouadi and S. Moch, “The top quark and Higgs boson masses and the
stability of the electroweak vacuum,” Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 214 [arXiv:1207.0980
[hep-ph]].
[9] J. C. Collins, “Renormalization. An introduction to renormalization, the renormalization
group, and the operator product expansion,” Cambridge, Uk: Univ. Pr. (1984) 380p
[10] A. A. Vladimirov, “Method for computing renormalization group functions in dimensional
renormalization scheme,” Theor. Math. Phys. 43 (1980) 417 [Teor. Mat. Fiz. 43 (1980) 210].
[11] D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, “Ultraviolet behavior of nonabelian gauge theories,” Phys.
Rev. Lett. 30 (1973) 1343.
[12] H. D. Politzer, “Reliable perturbative results for strong interactions?,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 30
(1973) 1346.
[13] D. R. T. Jones, “Two loop diagrams in Yang-Mills theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 75 (1974) 531.
[14] O. V. Tarasov and A. A. Vladimirov, “Two loop renormalization of the Yang-Mills theory
in an arbitrary gauge,” Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 25 (1977) 585 [Yad. Fiz. 25 (1977) 1104].
[15] W. E. Caswell, “Asymptotic behavior of nonabelian gauge theories to two loop order,”
Phys. Rev. Lett. 33 (1974) 244.
[16] E. Egorian and O. V. Tarasov, “Two loop renormalization of the QCD in an arbitrary
gauge,” Teor. Mat. Fiz. 41 (1979) 26 [Theor. Math. Phys. 41 (1979) 863].
[17] D. R. T. Jones, “The two loop beta function for a G(1) x G(2) gauge theory,” Phys. Rev. D
25 (1982) 581.
[18] M. S. Fischler and C. T. Hill, “Effects of large mass fermions on MX and sin2 θW ,” Nucl.
Phys. B 193 (1981) 53.
– 19 –
[19] M. E. Machacek and M. T. Vaughn, “Two loop renormalization group equations in a general
quantum field theory. 1. Wave function renormalization,” Nucl. Phys. B 222 (1983) 83.
[20] I. Jack and H. Osborn, “General background field calculations with fermion fields,” Nucl.
Phys. B 249 (1985) 472.
[21] S. G. Gorishnii, A. L. Kataev and S. A. Larin, “Two Loop Renormalization Group
Calculations In Theories With Scalar Quarks,” Theor. Math. Phys. 70 (1987) 262 [Teor.
Mat. Fiz. 70 (1987) 372].
[22] H. Arason, D. J. Castano, B. Keszthelyi, S. Mikaelian, E. J. Piard, P. Ramond and
B. D. Wright, “Renormalization group study of the standard model and its extensions. 1.
The Standard model,” Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 3945.
[23] T. Curtright, “Three loop charge renormalization effects due to quartic scalar
selfinteractions,” Phys. Rev. D 21 (1980) 1543.
[24] D. R. T. Jones, “Comment on the charge renormalization effects of quartic scalar
selfinteractions,” Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 3140.
[25] O. V. Tarasov, A. A. Vladimirov and A. Y. Zharkov, “The Gell-Mann-Low function of
QCD in the three loop approximation,” Phys. Lett. B 93 (1980) 429.
[26] S. A. Larin and J. A. M. Vermaseren, “The three loop QCD Beta function and anomalous
dimensions,” Phys. Lett. B 303 (1993) 334 [arXiv:hep-ph/9302208].
[27] M. Steinhauser, “Higgs decay into gluons up to O(α3
sGFm2
t ),” Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999)
054005 [arXiv:hep-ph/9809507].
[28] A. G. M. Pickering, J. A. Gracey and D. R. T. Jones, “Three loop gauge beta function for
the most general single gauge coupling theory,” Phys. Lett. B 510 (2001) 347 [Phys. Lett. B
512 (2001) 230] [Erratum-ibid. B 535 (2002) 377] [arXiv:hep-ph/0104247].
[29] V. N. Velizhanin, “Three-loop renormalization of the N=1, N=2, N=4 supersymmetric
Yang-Mills theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 818 (2009) 95 [arXiv:0809.2509 [hep-th]].
[30] V. N. Velizhanin, “Three loop anomalous dimension of the non-singlet transversity operator
in QCD,” Nucl. Phys. B 864 (2012) 113 [arXiv:1203.1022 [hep-ph]].
[31] A. A. Bagaev, A. V. Bednyakov, A. F. Pikelner and V. N. Velizhanin, “The 16th moment of
the three loop anomalous dimension of the non-singlet transversity operator in QCD,”
Phys. Lett. B 714 (2012) 76 [arXiv:1206.2890 [hep-ph]].
[32] A. V. Bednyakov, “Running mass of the b-quark in QCD and SUSY QCD,” Int. J. Mod.
Phys. A 22 (2007) 5245 [arXiv:0707.0650 [hep-ph]].
[33] A. V. Bednyakov, “On the two-loop decoupling corrections to tau-lepton and b-quark
running masses in the MSSM,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 25 (2010) 2437 [arXiv:0912.4652
[hep-ph]].
[34] A. V. Bednyakov, “Some two-loop threshold corrections and three-loop renormalization
group analysis of the MSSM,” arXiv:1009.5455 [hep-ph].
[35] M. E. Machacek and M. T. Vaughn, “Two loop renormalization group equations in a
general quantum field theory. 2. Yukawa couplings,” Nucl. Phys. B 236 (1984) 221.
[36] M. E. Machacek and M. T. Vaughn, “Two loop renormalization group equations in a
general quantum field theory. 3. Scalar quartic couplings,” Nucl. Phys. B 249 (1985) 70.
– 20 –
[37] L. F. Abbott, “The Background Field Method Beyond One Loop,” Nucl. Phys. B 185
(1981) 189.
[38] L. F. Abbott, “Introduction to the background field method,” Acta Phys. Polon. B 13
(1982) 33.
[39] L. N. Mihaila, J. Salomon and M. Steinhauser, “Gauge coupling beta functions in the
Standard Model to three loops,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 151602 [arXiv:1201.5868
[hep-ph]].
[40] L. N. Mihaila, J. Salomon and M. Steinhauser, “Renormalization constants and beta
functions for the gauge couplings of the Standard Model to three-loop order,”
arXiv:1208.3357 [hep-ph].
[41] K. G. Chetyrkin and M. F. Zoller, “Three-loop beta-functions for top-Yukawa and the Higgs
self-interaction in the Standard Model,” JHEP 1206 (2012) 033 [arXiv:1205.2892 [hep-ph]].
[42] T. Hahn, “Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with FeynArts 3,” Comput.
Phys. Commun. 140 (2001) 418 [arXiv:hep-ph/0012260].
[43] S. G. Gorishnii, S. A. Larin, L. R. Surguladze and F. V. Tkachov, “MINCER: program for
multiloop calculations in quantum field theory for the schoonschip system,” Comput. Phys.
Commun. 55 (1989) 381.
[44] M. Tentyukov and J. Fleischer, “A Feynman diagram analyzer DIANA,” Comput. Phys.
Commun. 132 (2000) 124 [arXiv:hep-ph/9904258].
[45] S. Actis, A. Ferroglia, M. Passera and G. Passarino, “Two-Loop Renormalization in the
Standard Model. Part I: Prolegomena,” Nucl. Phys. B 777 (2007) 1 [hep-ph/0612122].
[46] S. Actis and G. Passarino, “Two-Loop Renormalization in the Standard Model Part II:
Renormalization Procedures and Computational Techniques,” Nucl. Phys. B 777 (2007) 35
[hep-ph/0612123].
[47] S. Actis and G. Passarino, “Two-Loop Renormalization in the Standard Model Part III:
Renormalization Equations and their Solutions,” Nucl. Phys. B 777 (2007) 100
[hep-ph/0612124].
[48] N. D. Christensen and C. Duhr, “FeynRules - Feynman rules made easy,” Comput. Phys.
Commun. 180 (2009) 1614 [arXiv:0806.4194 [hep-ph]].
[49] A. Semenov, “LanHEP - a package for automatic generation of Feynman rules from the
Lagrangian. Updated version 3.1,” arXiv:1005.1909 [hep-ph].
[50] A. Denner, G. Weiglein and S. Dittmaier, “Application of the background field method to
the electroweak standard model,” Nucl. Phys. B 440 (1995) 95 [arXiv:hep-ph/9410338].
[51] O. V. Tarasov and A. A. Vladimirov, “Three loop calculations in nonabelian gauge
theories,” JINR-E2-80-483.
[52] G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman, “Regularization and Renormalization of Gauge Fields,”
Nucl. Phys. B 44 (1972) 189.
[53] J. A. M. Vermaseren, “New features of FORM,” arXiv:math-ph/0010025.
[54] T. van Ritbergen, A. N. Schellekens and J. A. M. Vermaseren, “Group theory factors for
Feynman diagrams,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 14 (1999) 41 [arXiv:hep-ph/9802376].
[55] S. L. Adler, “Axial vector vertex in spinor electrodynamics,” Phys. Rev. 177 (1969) 2426.
– 21 –
[56] J. S. Bell and R. Jackiw, “A PCAC puzzle: pi0 –¿ gamma gamma in the sigma model,”
Nuovo Cim. A 60 (1969) 47.
[57] W. A. Bardeen, “Anomalous Ward identities in spinor field theories,” Phys. Rev. 184
(1969) 1848.
[58] C. Bouchiat, J. Iliopoulos and P. Meyer, “An Anomaly Free Version of Weinberg’s Model,”
Phys. Lett. B 38 (1972) 519.
[59] D. J. Gross and R. Jackiw, “Effect of anomalies on quasirenormalizable theories,” Phys.
Rev. D 6 (1972) 477.
[60] F. Jegerlehner, “Facts of life with gamma(5),” Eur. Phys. J. C 18 (2001) 673
[hep-th/0005255].
[61] P. M. Ferreira, I. Jack and D. R. T. Jones, “The three loop SSM beta functions,” Phys.
Lett. B 387 (1996) 80 [arXiv:hep-ph/9605440].
[62] I. Jack, D. R. T. Jones and A. F. Kord, “Snowmass benchmark points and three-loop
running,” Annals Phys. 316 (2005) 213 [arXiv:hep-ph/0408128].
[63] R. V. Harlander, L. Mihaila and M. Steinhauser, “The SUSY-QCD beta function to three
loops,” Eur. Phys. J. C 63 (2009) 383 [arXiv:0905.4807 [hep-ph]].
[64] R. V. Harlander, L. Mihaila and M. Steinhauser, “Running of alpha(s) and m(b) in the
MSSM,” Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 055002 [arXiv:0706.2953 [hep-ph]].
[65] A. Bauer, L. Mihaila and J. Salomon, “Matching coefficients for αs and mb to O(α2
s) in the
MSSM,” JHEP 0902 (2009) 037 [arXiv:0810.5101 [hep-ph]].
– 22 –