Equivalence of coefficients extraction of one-loop master integrals

Yang An; Zi-ang Hu; Zhongjie Huang; Yi Li; Xiang Lv

doi:10.1088/1572-9494/abb7ce

PDF(376 KB)

Communications in Theoretical Physics ›› 2020, Vol. 72 ›› Issue (11) : 115201. DOI: 10.1088/1572-9494/abb7ce

Particle Physics and Quantum Field Theory

Equivalence of coefficients extraction of one-loop master integrals

Author information +

History +

Abstract

Now, there have been many different methods to calculate one-loop amplitudes. Two of them are the unitarity cut method and the generalized unitarity cut method. In this short paper, we present an explicit connection between these two methods, especially how the extractions of triangle and bubble coefficients are equivalent to each other.

Key words

scattering amplitude / one loop correction

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

Yang An, Zi-ang Hu, Zhongjie Huang, et al. Equivalence of coefficients extraction of one-loop master integrals[J]. Communications in Theoretical Physics, 2020, 72(11): 115201 https://doi.org/10.1088/1572-9494/abb7ce

1. Introduction

Experiments of high-energy physics such as the LHC requires calculations of cross sections of processes involving multiple particles. Precise theoretical predictions of these processes need calculations of Feynman diagrams at the one-loop level and beyond. However, loop calculation is tedious and very inefficient using the standard method. In recent years new methods have been developed to prompt the calculation and avoid laborious work. Currently, one-loop calculation has been considered as a solved problem and the focus is the higher loop calculations.

For loop calculation, the main approach is the Passarino–Veltman (PV) reduction method [1] . The reduction can be divided into two categories: the reduction at the integrand level, and the reduction at the integral level. For a one-loop case, the efficient integrand level reduction is introduced by Ossola, Papadopoulos and Pittau in [2]. But for the integral level reduction, the PV reduction method is inefficient. Another two different methods, the unitarity cut method and the generalized unitarity cut method, are two mainly used methods now.

The unitarity cut method was introduced in [3, 4]. The main idea is that since we know the expansion

\begin{array}{rcl} A^{1 - l o o p} = \sum_{i} C_{i} I_{i}, \end{array}

(1.1)

where the one-loop master integrals are a set of scalar integrals, which are defined as³

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{rcl} I_{n} & = & {(- 1)}^{n + 1} i {(4 π)}^{\frac{D}{2}} \int \frac{d^{D} ℓ}{{(2 π)}^{D}} \frac{1}{(ℓ^{2} - m_{1}^{2}) ({(ℓ - K_{1})}^{2} - m_{2}^{2}) ({(ℓ - K_{1} - K_{2})}^{2} - m_{3}^{2}) \dots ({(ℓ + K_{n})}^{2} - m_{n}^{2})} . \end{array} \end{array}

(1.2)

If we take the imaginary part of a given branch at both sides, we will have

\begin{array}{rcl} I m A^{1 - l o o p} = \sum_{i} C_{i} I m I_{i} . \end{array}

(1.3)

Thus, if we can calculate the imaginary part easily, we can extract the master coefficients by comparing both sides. By Cutkosky rules [5], the calculation of the imaginary part is carried out following phase space integration

\begin{array}{rcl} Δ A^{1 - l o o p} \equiv \int d μ A_{L e f t}^{t r e e} \times A_{R i g h t}^{t r e e}, \end{array}

(1.4)

where the Lorentz-invariant phase space (LIPS) measure is defined by

\begin{array}{rcl} d μ = d^{4} ℓ_{1} d^{4} ℓ_{2} δ^{(4)} (ℓ_{1} + ℓ_{2} - K) δ^{(+)} (ℓ_{1}^{2}) δ^{(+)} (ℓ_{2}^{2}) . \end{array}

(1.5)

Here, the superscript (+) on the delta functions for the cut propagators denotes the choice of a positive-energy solution. Although the integration has been simplified to two dimension, carrying it out is still a difficult task. The breakthrough comes after realizing that, by holomorphic anomaly, such a two dimensional phase space integration can be translated to read out the residue of corresponding poles [6 –9]. Using this technique, analytic expressions of coefficients of one-loop master integrals have been given in the series papers [10 –13].

Inspired by the double cut for the imaginary part, multiple cuts have also been proposed in [14, 15] . In particular, in [16] it has been shown that putting four propagators on shell, one can read out the coefficient of boxes as the multiplication of four on-shell tree-level amplitudes at the four corners. This generalized unitarity cut method has been further developed in [17, 18].

Both methods, i.e. the unitarity cut method and the generalized unitarity cut method, have solved the one-loop integral level reduction completely. However, the connection between these two methods has still not been clearly demonstrated. It is our purpose in this short paper to reveal the equivalence of these two methods.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In section 2 we have reviewed the two methods, and in section 3 we will present our proof of the equivalence of these two methods.

2. Review of the unitarity cut method and generalized unitarity cut method

In this section, we will review both methods to establish the basis for our investigation. In the first subsection, we will briefly review the unitarity cut method and write down the major formula. We will review the generalized unitarity cut method in the second subsection.

2.1. Review of the unitarity cut method

The unitary property of the S-matrix means

S^{†} S = 1

. Writing

S = 1 + i T

, we have

2 I m T = T^{†} T

, which is the familiar optical theorem. Expanding this equation by the order of the coupling constant, we see that the imaginary part of the one-loop amplitude is related to a product of two on-shell tree-level amplitudes. This imaginary part should be viewed more generally as a discontinuity across the branch cut singularity of the amplitude—in a kinematic configuration where one kinematic invariant momentum, say K ², is positive, while all others are negative. This condition isolates the momentum channel K of our interest; K is the sum of some of the external momenta.

As we have mentioned in the introduction, for the one-loop amplitude the Cutkosky rule gives the integral (1.4 ). Now, we discuss how to carry out the phase space integration. Since we are trying to compare with the method given in [18], we will focus on massless theory in pure 4D, thus we rewrite it as

\begin{array}{rcl} A^{1 - l o o p} = - i {(4 π)}^{2} \int \frac{d^{4} ℓ}{{(2 π)}^{4}} δ^{(+)} (ℓ^{2}) δ^{(+)} ({(ℓ - K)}^{2}) T^{(N)} (ℓ), \end{array}

(2.1)

where the integrand can be generally represented as

\begin{array}{rcl} T^{(N)} (ℓ) = \frac{\prod_{j = 1}^{n + k} (- 2 ℓ \cdot P_{j})}{\prod_{i = 1}^{k} D_{i} (ℓ)}, D_{i} (ℓ) = {(ℓ - K_{i})}^{2} . \end{array}

(2.2)

Here, N is defined as the degree of amplitude, which is just equal to n and is the half power of momentum in the fraction. To carry out the integration, we use the spinor technique to write the loop momentum as

ℓ = t λ \tilde{λ}

, with

λ, \tilde{λ} \in {C P}^{1}

, and the measure can be expressed as follows

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{c} \begin{array}{l} \int d μ (∙) = \int d^{4} ℓ δ (ℓ^{2}) δ ({(ℓ - K)}^{2}) (∙) \\ = \int_{0}^{\infty} t d t \int ⟨ λ d λ ⟩ [\tilde{λ} d \tilde{λ}] δ (K^{2} - t ⟨ λ | K | \tilde{λ}]) (∙) \\ = \int_{\bar{λ} = \tilde{λ}} ⟨ λ d λ ⟩ [\tilde{λ} d \tilde{λ}] \frac{K^{2}}{{⟨ λ | K | \tilde{λ}]}^{2}} (∙), \end{array} \end{array} \end{array}

(2.3)

where the t integration has been carried out. After the t integration, the

T^{(N)} (ℓ)

becomes

\begin{array}{rcl} T^{(N)} (λ, \tilde{λ}) = \frac{{(K^{2})}^{n}}{{⟨ λ | K | \tilde{λ}]}^{n}} \frac{\prod_{j = 1}^{n + k} ⟨ λ | R_{j} | \tilde{λ}]}{\prod_{i = 1}^{k} ⟨ λ | Q_{i} | \tilde{λ}]}, \end{array}

(2.4)

where

Q_{i} = \frac{K_{i}^{2}}{K^{2}} K - K_{i}

and

R_{i} = - P_{i}

. We also define the integrand

\begin{array}{rcl} I_{t e r m} = \frac{K^{2}}{{⟨ λ | K | \tilde{λ}]}^{2}} T^{(N)} (λ, \tilde{λ}) = \frac{G (λ) \prod_{j = 1}^{n + k} [a_{j} | \tilde{λ}]}{{⟨ λ | K | \tilde{λ}]}^{n + 2} \prod_{i = 1}^{k} ⟨ λ | Q_{i} | \tilde{λ}]}, \end{array}

(2.5)

where

G (λ)

is constant, and

[a_{j} | = ⟨ λ | R_{j} |

The expression

T^{(N)} (λ, \tilde{λ})

contains all the information of coefficients of boxes, triangles and bubbles. To disentangle the information, canonical splitting has been given in [12, 13, 19 –21]

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{rcl} \frac{[a | \tilde{λ}]}{⟨ λ | Q_{1} | \tilde{λ}] ⟨ λ | Q_{2} | \tilde{λ}]} & = & \frac{[a | Q_{1} | λ ⟩}{⟨ λ | Q_{2} Q_{1} | λ ⟩ ⟨ λ | Q_{1} | \tilde{λ}]} \\ + \frac{[a | Q_{2} | λ ⟩}{⟨ λ | Q_{1} Q_{2} | λ ⟩ ⟨ λ | Q_{2} | \tilde{λ}]} . \end{array} \end{array}

(2.6)

After making the splitting, we get the canonical splitting [12]

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{rcl} I_{t e r m} & = & \sum_{i = 1}^{n + 1} \underset{s_{i} \to 0}{l i m} \frac{1}{⟨ λ | K | \tilde{λ}] ⟨ λ | K + s_{i} η | \tilde{λ}]} \frac{G (λ) \prod_{j = 1}^{n + k} ⟨ a_{j} | K + s_{i} η | \tilde{λ}]}{\prod_{q \neq i}^{n + 1} ⟨ λ | (K + s_{q} η) (K + s_{i} η) | \tilde{λ}] \prod_{p = 1}^{k} ⟨ λ | Q_{p} (K + s_{i} η) | \tilde{λ}]} \\ + \sum_{i = 1}^{k} \frac{1}{⟨ λ | K | \tilde{λ}] ⟨ λ | Q_{i} | \tilde{λ}]} \frac{G (λ) \prod_{j = 1}^{n + k} [a_{j} | Q_{i} | λ ⟩}{{⟨ λ | {K Q}_{i} | λ ⟩}^{n + 1} \prod_{r \neq i}^{r = k} ⟨ λ | Q_{r} Q_{i} | λ ⟩} . \end{array} \end{array}

(2.7)

The second line contains all the information of the coefficients of triangles and boxes, while the first line contains purely the information of the coefficients of bubbles. More explicitly, using holomorphic anomaly integration of equation (2.3 ) and taking residues of various poles at the first line, we get the bubble coefficients. The detailed process is in [19]. Based on the above canonical splitting, we can extract coefficients of various master integrals. The algebraic expressions are summarized as follows [22]:

•

^• Box coefficients

The coefficient of the box, identified by the two cut propagators along with D _r and D _s, is given by

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{l} C [K_{r}, K_{s}, K] \\ = \frac{1}{2} {(T^{(N)} (ℓ) D_{r} (ℓ) D_{s} (ℓ) |}_{λ \to P_{s r, 1}, \tilde{λ} \to P_{s r, 2}} + {P_{s r, 1} \leftrightarrow P_{s r, 2}}) . \end{array} \end{array}

(2.8)

We define Q _s and Q _r as follows

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{rcl} Q_{s} & = & \frac{K_{s}^{2}}{K^{2}} K - K_{s}, \\ Q_{r} & = & \frac{K_{r}^{2}}{K^{2}} K - K_{r} . \end{array} \end{array}

(2.9)

And define the auxiliary vectors

P_{s r, 1}

and

P_{s r, 2}

as the null linear combinations of Q _r and Q _s

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{rcl} P_{s r, 1} & = & Q_{s} + (\frac{- Q_{s} \cdot Q_{r} + \sqrt{Δ_{s r}}}{Q_{r}^{2}}) Q_{r}, \\ P_{s r, 2} & = & Q_{s} + (\frac{- Q_{s} \cdot Q_{r} - \sqrt{Δ_{s r}}}{Q_{r}^{2}}) Q_{r}, \\ Δ_{s r} & = & {(Q_{s} \cdot Q_{r})}^{2} - Q_{s}^{2} Q_{r}^{2} . \end{array} \end{array}

(2.10)

•

^• Triangle coefficients

If $N < - 1$ , the triangle coefficients are zero. If N ≥ −1, the coefficient of the triangle, identified by the two cut propagators along with D _s, is given by

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{rcl} C [K_{s}, K] & = & \frac{1}{2 (N + 1)! {\sqrt{Δ_{s}}}^{N + 1} {⟨ P_{s, 1} P_{s, 2} ⟩}^{N + 1}} \\ \times \frac{d^{N + 1}}{d τ^{N + 1}} ({T^{(N)} (ℓ) D_{s} (ℓ) {⟨ λ | K | \tilde{λ}]}^{N + 1} |}_{\tilde{λ} \to Q_{s} λ, λ \to P_{s, 1} - τ P_{s, 2}} \\ {+ {P_{s, 1} \leftrightarrow P_{s, 2}}) |}_{τ \to 0} . \end{array} \end{array}

(2.11)

Here, we use the following definitions. The vectors

P_{s, 1}

and

P_{s, 2}

are null linear combinations of Q _s and K

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{rcl} P_{s, 1} & = & Q_{s} + (\frac{- Q_{s} \cdot K + \sqrt{Δ_{s}}}{K^{2}}) K, \\ P_{s, 2} & = & Q_{s} + (\frac{- Q_{s} \cdot K - \sqrt{Δ_{s}}}{K^{2}}) K, \\ Δ_{s} & = & {(Q_{s} \cdot K)}^{2} - Q_{s}^{2} K^{2} . \end{array} \end{array}

(2.12)

The effect of the multiple derivative of the parameter τ, evaluated at τ = 0, is simply to pick out a term in the series expansion.

•

^• Bubble coefficients

There is just one bubble in the cut channel K . If $N \overset{}{<} 0$ , the coefficient is zero. If $N ⩾ 0$ , the coefficient is

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{rcl} C [K] & = & K^{2} \sum_{q = 0}^{N} \frac{{(- 1)}^{q}}{q!} \frac{d^{q}}{{d s}^{q}} (B_{N, N - q}^{(0)} (s) \\ {+ \sum_{r = 1}^{k} \sum_{a = q}^{N} (B_{N, N - a}^{(r; a - q; 1)} (s) - B_{N, N - a}^{(r; a - q; 2)} (s))) |}_{s = 0}, \end{array} \end{array}

(2.13)

where

\begin{array}{rcl} B_{N, m}^{(0)} (s) \equiv \frac{d^{N}}{d τ^{N}} {({\frac{{(2 η \cdot K)}^{m + 1} {⟨ λ | K | \tilde{λ}]}^{N}}{N! {[η | η^{'} K | η]}^{N} (m + 1) {(K^{2})}^{m + 1} {⟨ λ η ⟩}^{N + 1}} T^{(N)} (ℓ) |}_{\overset{\tilde{λ} \to (K + s η) \cdot λ}{λ \to (K - τ η^{'}) \cdot η}}) |}_{τ \to 0}, \end{array}

\begin{array}{rcl} B_{n, m}^{(r; b; 1)} (s) \equiv \frac{{(- 1)}^{b + 1}}{b! (m + 1) {\sqrt{Δ_{r}}}^{b + 1} {⟨ P_{r, 1} P_{r, 2} ⟩}^{b}} \frac{d^{b}}{d τ^{b}} {(\frac{{⟨ λ | η | P_{r, 1}]}^{m + 1} {⟨ λ | Q_{r} η | λ ⟩}^{b} {⟨ λ | K | \tilde{λ}]}^{N + 1}}{{⟨ λ | K | P_{r, 1}]}^{m + 1} {⟨ λ | η K | λ ⟩}^{n + 1}} T^{(N)} (ℓ) D_{r} (ℓ)) |}_{\overset{\tilde{λ} \to (K + s η) λ, λ \to P_{r, 1} - τ P_{r, 2}}{τ = 0}}, \end{array}

\begin{array}{rcl} B_{n, m}^{(r; b; 2)} (s) \equiv \frac{{(- 1)}^{b + 1}}{b! (m + 1) {\sqrt{Δ_{r}}}^{b + 1} {⟨ P_{r, 1} P_{r, 2} ⟩}^{b}} \frac{d^{b}}{d τ^{b}} {(\frac{{⟨ λ | η | P_{r, 2}]}^{m + 1} {⟨ λ | Q_{r} η | λ ⟩}^{b} {⟨ λ | K | \tilde{λ}]}^{N + 1}}{{⟨ λ | K | P_{r, 2}]}^{m + 1} {⟨ λ | η K | λ ⟩}^{n + 1}} T^{(N)} (ℓ) D_{r} (ℓ)) |}_{\overset{\tilde{λ} \to (K + s η) λ, λ \to P_{r, 2} - τ P_{r, 1}}{τ = 0}} . \end{array}

Here,

η, η^{'}

are arbitrary spinors, which should be generic in the sense that they do not coincide with any spinors from massless external legs. The above expressions for bubble coefficients look complicated. However, it is just the calculations of residues of various poles in the first line of canonical splitting (2.7 ). As will become clear in section 3, our comparison will be carried out at the level of (2.7 ) only.

2.2. Review of the generalized unitarity cut method

As we have mentioned, our purpose in this paper is to establish the explicit relation between the unitarity cut method and the generalized unitarity cut method proposed in [18]. In this subsection, we will briefly review their results.

The key idea of their method is the generalization of formula (1.3 ) with multiple cut

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{c} \begin{array}{rcl} {C u t}_{{1}, \dots, {n}}^{(n)} A^{1 - l o o p} & = & \sum_{c} C_{d}^{c} {C u t}_{{1}, \dots, {n}}^{(n)} I_{d}^{c} \\ + \dots + \sum_{c} C_{2}^{c} {C u t}_{{1}, \dots, {n}}^{(n)} I_{2}^{c}, \end{array} \end{array} \end{array}

(2.14)

where the sum of c is over all different channels, and

{C u t}_{{1}, \dots, {n}}^{(n)}

means to cut n propagators

D_{1}, \dots, D_{n}

. Based on this formula, when applying to D = 4, coefficients of master integrals can be read out as follows:

•

^• Box coefficients

For the quadruple cut, ${C u t}^{(4)}$ is simply proportional to C ₄ . That is because the quadruple cut renders $I_{n} (n < 4)$ zero [16, 23]. To be concrete,

\begin{array}{rcl} C_{4} = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{ℓ \in S} A_{L, s, 1} (ℓ) A_{L, s, 2} (ℓ) A_{R, r, 1} (ℓ) A_{R, r, 2} (ℓ), \end{array}

(2.15)

where

S

is the solution set for the four delta functions of the cut propagators

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{rcl} S = {ℓ | ℓ^{2} = 0, {(ℓ - K)}^{2} = 0, \\ {(ℓ - K_{s})}^{2} = 0, {(ℓ - K_{r})}^{2} = 0} . \end{array} \end{array}

(2.16)

•

^• Triangle coefficients

For triangle coefficients in 4D, it is not so lucky because triple cuts cannot fix the internal momentum completely and there is a free parameter left. A consequence of this freedom is that some box integrals will contribute to triple cuts. Thus, we need to have a cleverer way to disentangle their information. The way to do so is by following [18]. Suppose we cut propagators $ℓ_{3}^{2} = ℓ^{2}, ℓ_{2}^{2} = {(ℓ - K_{s})}^{2}, ℓ_{1}^{2} = {(ℓ - K)}^{2}$ . Without loss of generality, we can choose the external conditions with a Lorentz boost to be

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{rcl} K_{a \dot{a}} & = & (\begin{array}{cc} - 1 & 0 \\ 0 & - 1 \end{array}), \\ {(K_{s})}_{a \dot{a}} & = & (\begin{array}{cc} E_{+} & 0 \\ 0 & E_{-} \end{array}), \end{array} \end{array}

(2.17)

where

P_{a \dot{a}} = p_{μ} {({\bar{σ}}^{μ})}_{a \dot{a}} = (\begin{array}{cc} p^{0} + p^{3} & p^{1} - i p^{2} \\ p^{1} + i p^{2} & p^{0} - p^{3} \end{array})

. Now, the on-shell condition gives

\begin{array}{rcl} ℓ_{i} = (\begin{array}{cc} α_{i}^{+} & \bar{l} \\ l & α_{i}^{-} \end{array}) = (\begin{array}{cc} α_{i}^{+} & {r e}^{- i θ} \\ {r e}^{i θ} & α_{i}^{-} \end{array}), \end{array}

(2.18)

with

\begin{array}{rcl} l \bar{l} = α_{i}^{+} α_{i}^{-} \equiv r^{2} = \frac{- E_{+} E_{-} (1 + E_{+}) (1 + E_{-})}{{(E_{+} - E_{-})}^{2}}, \end{array}

(2.19)

and

α_{i}^{\pm}

are some definite functions of

E_{\pm}

whose explicit expressions are not important in the derivation. Here, we only discuss under the condition r ² > 0, while the results of other regions of r ² can be obtained by analytic continuation. Integrate out all delta functions, we have

\begin{array}{rcl} {C u t}^{(3)} \propto \int_{0}^{2 π} d θ F (r \cos θ, r \sin θ), \end{array}

(2.20)

where

F = A_{1} A_{2} A_{3}

is the factorized tree amplitude after the triple cut. To find the proportionality constant, we consider the simplest case when the loop amplitude

\begin{array}{rcl} A^{o n e - l o o p} = \int \frac{d^{4} ℓ}{{(2 π)}^{4}} \frac{1}{ℓ^{2} {(ℓ + P_{1})}^{2} {(ℓ - P 3)}^{2}} . \end{array}

(2.21)

We expect

{C u t}^{(3)} = C_{3} = 1

, because no box integrals exist. Now,

A_{1} A_{2} A_{3} = 1

and we find the proportionality constant is equal to

1 / 2 π

For further derivation, we change the variable to $z = r \cos θ$ . The integral becomes

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{rcl} {C u t}^{(3)} & = & \frac{1}{2 π} \int_{- r}^{r} \frac{d z}{\sqrt{r^{2} - z^{2}}} [F (z, \sqrt{r^{2} - z^{2}}) \\ + F (z, - \sqrt{r^{2} - z^{2}})] . \end{array} \end{array}

(2.22)

Then, we consider z to be a complex variable. That is because we want to identify the box integral contribution from Cut⁽³⁾, and the momenta that satisfy the quadruple cut are always complex. The integrand has a branch cut which can be taken to be

(- r, r)

, and the integral itself can be rewritten to be a contour integral encircling the branch cut in a clockwise direction

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{rcl} {C u t}^{(3)} & = & \frac{1}{4 π} \int_{C_{0}} \frac{d z}{\sqrt{r^{2} - z^{2}}} [F (z, \sqrt{r^{2} - z^{2}}) \\ + F (z, - \sqrt{r^{2} - z^{2}})] . \end{array} \end{array}

(2.23)

The integrand of the above integral has simple poles on the complex z plane. Simple poles at finite z come from the remaining propagators in

A_{1} (z) A_{2} (z) A_{3} (z)

. When z approaches these poles, an additional propagator goes on shell, and the integrand is further factorized to be a product of four pieces of tree amplitudes

A'_{1} (z) A'_{2} (z) A'_{3} (z) A'_{4} (z)

, which is proportional to C ₄ ^c for some channel c . It is now clear that to eliminate the contributions from box integrals, we can simply drop the residues at finite poles, and take the residue at infinity only. So, we deform the contour to obtain

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{rcl} C_{3} & = & \frac{1}{4 π} \int_{C} \frac{d z}{\sqrt{r^{2} - z^{2}}} [F (z, \sqrt{r^{2} - z^{2}}) \\ + F (z, - \sqrt{r^{2} - z^{2}})], \end{array} \end{array}

(2.24)

where the contour

C

encircles the pole at infinity.

•

^• Bubble coefficients

For bubble coefficients, as a triple cut case, a double cut will contain contributions from boxes and triangles. The separation of the bubble part from the others is carried out in [18] as follows

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{rcl} C_{2} & = & \int d L I P S [ℓ_{1}, ℓ_{2}] \\ \times \int_{C} \frac{d z}{z} M_{L} (ℓ_{1} (z), ℓ_{2} (z)) M_{R} (ℓ_{1} (z), ℓ_{2} (z)), \end{array} \end{array}

(2.25)

where we deformed the loop momentum using the BCFW (Britto–Cachazo–Feng–Witten recursion relation) shift [24, 25] with

ℓ_{1} = ℓ_{1} - z q

and

ℓ_{2} = ℓ_{2} + z q

with q a reference momentum, which keeps

ℓ_{1}, ℓ_{2}

on shell as well as momentum conservation. The contour

C

encircles the pole at infinity.

3. Connection between these two methods

Having roughly reviewed the two methods in the previous section, in this section we will show their connection explicitly.

3.1. Connection between input amplitude

The main difference between these two methods is the number of cuts implemented on the loop propagators. For the unitarity cut method with double cuts, the input is always the multiplication of two on-shell tree-level amplitudes, i.e.

\begin{array}{rcl} {I n p u t}_{2} = T^{(N)} (ℓ) = A_{L} A_{R}, \end{array}

(3.1)

where we have assumed the propagators

ℓ^{2}, {(ℓ - K)}^{2}

have been cut. However, for the generalized unitarity cut method, depending on which coefficient we are looking for, the input is different. For the triangle coefficient, the triple cut is needed and the input is

\begin{array}{rcl} {I n p u t}_{3} = A_{L, s, 1} A_{L, s, 2} A_{R}, \end{array}

(3.2)

where an extra propagator

D_{s} = {(ℓ - K_{s})}^{2}

has been cut. For the box coefficient, the quadruple cut is needed and the input is

\begin{array}{rcl} {I n p u t}_{4} = A_{L, s, 1} A_{L, s, 2} A_{R, r, 1} A_{R, r, 2}, \end{array}

(3.3)

where two extra propagators

D_{s} = {(ℓ - K_{s})}^{2}

and

D_{r} = {(ℓ - K_{r})}^{2}

have been cut.

Although the input amplitudes seem to be different, they can be easily related by the factorization property of the tree amplitude. For example,

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{l} {A_{L} \times A_{R} \times D_{s} |}_{D_{s} = 0} = {\sum_{c} \frac{A_{L, c, 1} A_{L, c, 2} A_{R}}{D_{c}} \times D_{s} |}_{D_{s} = 0} \\ = A_{L, s, 1} A_{L, s, 2} A_{R} . \end{array} \end{array}

(3.4)

After calculating each term in the formula, it is easy to show the relationship of the left and right side of the equation

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{rcl} T^{(N)} (ℓ) & = & A_{L} \times A_{R} \\ {T^{(N)} (ℓ) \cdot D_{s} (ℓ) |}_{D_{s} = 0} & = & A_{L, s, 1} A_{L, s, 2} A_{R} \\ {T^{(N)} (ℓ) \cdot D_{s} (ℓ) \cdot D_{r} (ℓ) |}_{D_{s}, D_{r} = 0} & = & A_{L, s, 1} A_{L, s, 2} A_{R, r, 1} A_{R, r, 2} . \end{array} \end{array}

(3.5)

These relations will be used when we prove the equivalence of the two methods.

3.2. The equivalence of the box coefficient between two methods

Let us recall the box coefficients of the unitarity cut method in (2.8 )

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{l} C [K_{r}, K_{s}, K] \\ = \frac{1}{2} ({T^{(N)} (ℓ) \cdot D_{r} (ℓ) \cdot D_{s} (ℓ) |}_{{\begin{matrix} | \tilde{λ}] \to | P_{r s, 2}] \\ | λ ⟩ \to | P_{r s, 1} ⟩ \end{matrix}} + {P_{r s, 1} \leftrightarrow P_{r s, 2}}) . \end{array} \end{array}

(3.6)

The role of the replacement of

| \tilde{λ}]

and

| λ ⟩

is to put the propagators

D_{r} (ℓ)

and

D_{s} (ℓ)

on shell. To see it, one can see that using the definition in (2.10 ), Q _s and Q _r can be expressed in terms of

P_{r s, 1}

and

P_{r s, 2}

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{rcl} Q_{s} & = & \frac{\sqrt{Δ_{r s}} + Q_{s} \cdot Q_{j}}{2 \sqrt{Δ_{r s}}} P_{r s, 1} + \frac{\sqrt{Δ_{r s}} - Q_{s} \cdot Q_{j}}{2 \sqrt{Δ_{r s}}} P_{r s, 2}, \\ Q_{r} & = & \frac{Q_{r}^{2}}{2 \sqrt{Δ_{r s}}} (P_{r s, 1} - P_{r s, 2}) . \end{array} \end{array}

(3.7)

Thus, we have

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{rcl} ⟨ λ | Q_{s} | \tilde{λ}] & = & \frac{\sqrt{Δ_{r s}} + Q_{s} \cdot Q_{r}}{2 \sqrt{Δ_{r s}}} ⟨ λ | P_{r s, 1} | \tilde{λ}] \\ + \frac{\sqrt{Δ_{r s}} - Q_{s} \cdot Q_{r}}{2 \sqrt{Δ_{r s}}} ⟨ λ | P_{r s, 2} | \tilde{λ}], \\ ⟨ λ | Q_{r} | \tilde{λ}] & = & \frac{Q_{r}^{2}}{2 \sqrt{Δ_{r s}}} (⟨ λ | P_{r s, 1} | \tilde{λ}] - ⟨ λ | P_{r s, 2} | \tilde{λ}]), \end{array} \end{array}

(3.8)

which are zero after the substitutions

| \tilde{λ}] \to | P_{r s, 2}], | λ ⟩ \to | P_{r s, 1} ⟩

| \tilde{λ}] \to | P_{r s, 1}], | λ ⟩ \to | P_{r s, 2} ⟩

. Namely, propagators

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{rcl} D_{s} & = & {(ℓ - K_{s})}^{2} = \frac{K^{2} ⟨ λ | Q_{s} | \tilde{λ}]}{⟨ λ | K | \tilde{λ}]} = 0, \\ D_{r} & = & {(ℓ - K_{r})}^{2} = \frac{K^{2} ⟨ λ | Q_{r} | \tilde{λ}]}{⟨ λ | K | \tilde{λ}]} = 0 \end{array} \end{array}

(3.9)

are indeed on shell after the above substitutions. With this observation and (3.5 ), the box coefficient (3.6 ) is simply

\begin{array}{rcl} C [K_{r}, K_{s}, K] = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{ℓ \in S} A_{L, s, 1} (ℓ) A_{L, s, 2} (ℓ) A_{R, r, 1} (ℓ) A_{R, r, 2} (ℓ), \end{array}

(3.10)

which is the same as result (2.15 ) coming from the generalized unitarity cut method. Thus, we have proved that the expressions of box coefficients for the unitarity cut method and generalized unitarity cut method are indeed the same.

3.3. Triangle coefficients

For the triangle coefficient, the connection between the two methods is not so obvious. The main difference is the choice of parameter for cut on-shell complexified momentum. In the unitarity cut method, we parameterize the momentum as

| ℓ ⟩ \to | P_{s, 1} - τ P_{s, 2} ⟩

, where a complex parameter τ is introduced. In the generalized unitarity cut method, after putting three propagators on shell, we introduce a parameter z corresponding to the remaining degrees of freedom of the loop momentum. Although τ and z seem to be very different, there is a simple relation between these two parameters, which we will derive by direct calculation. Using this relation, we will prove the equivalence of the unitarity cut method and generalized unitarity cut method in computing the triangle coefficient.

3.3.1. Connection between parameter τ and z

To find the connection between τ and z, we notice that they both show up in the loop momentum

ℓ

. We first calculate

ℓ

by the unitarity cut method. For comparison with [18], we put

ℓ^{2} = {(ℓ - K)}^{2} = {(ℓ - K_{s})}^{2} = 0

and use the external condition (2.17 ); thus by the definition (2.12 ) of Q _s,

P_{s, 1}

and

P_{s, 2}

, we obtain

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{rcl} Q_{s} & = & \frac{K_{s}^{2}}{K^{2}} K - K_{s} \\ = & (\begin{array}{cc} - E_{+} E_{-} - E_{+} & 0 \\ 0 & - E_{+} E_{-} - E_{-} \end{array}) \equiv (\begin{array}{cc} α_{s}^{+} & 0 \\ 0 & α_{s}^{-} \end{array}), \\ P_{s, 1} & = & (\begin{array}{cc} α_{s}^{+} - α_{s}^{-} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array}) = (\begin{array}{c} 1 \\ 0 \end{array}) (\begin{array}{cc} α_{s}^{+} - α_{s}^{-} & 0 \end{array}), \\ P_{s, 2} & = & (\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & α_{s}^{-} - α_{s}^{+} \end{array}) = (\begin{array}{c} 0 \\ - 1 \end{array}) (\begin{array}{cc} 0 & α_{s}^{+} - α_{s}^{-} \end{array}) . \end{array} \end{array}

(3.11)

Since we have

ℓ_{a \dot{a}} = t λ_{a} {\tilde{λ}}_{\dot{a}}

and the substitution

| \tilde{λ}] = Q_{s} | λ ⟩

and

| λ ⟩ = | P_{s, 1} - τ P_{s, 2} ⟩

, we can derive

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{rcl} {| λ ⟩}_{a} = {| P_{s, 1} ⟩}_{a} - τ {| P_{s, 2} ⟩}_{a} & = & (\begin{array}{c} 1 \\ τ \end{array}), \\ {[\tilde{λ} |}_{\dot{a}} = ϵ_{\dot{a} \dot{b}} {(Q_{s})}^{\dot{b} b} {| λ ⟩}_{b} & = & (\begin{array}{cc} τ α_{s}^{+} & - α_{s}^{-} \end{array}), \\ t = \frac{K^{2}}{⟨ λ | K | λ]} & = & \frac{1}{τ (α_{s}^{-} - α_{s}^{+})} \end{array} \end{array}

(3.12)

and finally

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{rcl} ℓ & = & t {| λ ⟩}_{a} {[\tilde{λ} |}_{\dot{a}} = \frac{1}{α_{s}^{-} - α_{s}^{+}} (\begin{array}{cc} α_{s}^{+} & \frac{- α_{s}^{-}}{τ} \\ α_{s}^{+} τ & - α_{s}^{-} \end{array}) \\ = & (\begin{array}{cc} α_{3}^{+} & \bar{l} \\ l & α_{3}^{-} \end{array}), \end{array} \end{array}

(3.13)

where

l = \frac{α_{s}^{+}}{α_{s}^{-} - α_{s}^{+}} τ

and

\bar{l} = \frac{- α_{s}^{-}}{α_{s}^{-} - α_{s}^{+}} \frac{1}{τ}

. Notice that

α_{3}^{+}

and

α_{3}^{-}

defined above are the same as formula (140) in [18], which shows the on-shell conditions are satisfied. Similarly, for the substitution

| \tilde{λ}] = Q_{s} | λ ⟩

and

| λ ⟩ = | P_{s, 2} - τ P_{s, 1} ⟩

, we have

l = \frac{α_{s}^{+}}{α_{s}^{-} - α_{s}^{+}} \frac{1}{τ}

and

\bar{l} = \frac{- α_{s}^{-}}{α_{s}^{-} - α_{s}^{+}} τ

Next, we consider the generalized unitarity cut method. By comparing to the definition of loop momentum

ℓ

in (2.18 ), we find the relation between parameter τ and z

\begin{array}{rcl} z = r \cos θ = \frac{\tilde{l} + l}{2} = \frac{1}{2 (α_{s}^{-} - α_{s}^{+})} (α_{s}^{+} τ + \frac{- α_{s}^{-}}{τ}), \end{array}

(3.14)

for the substitution

| λ ⟩ = | P_{s, 1} - τ P_{s, 2} ⟩

. For another substitution

| λ ⟩ = | P_{s, 2} - τ P_{s, 1} ⟩

, it is just to put

τ \to \frac{1}{τ}

It is useful to figure out how the complex plane transforms when we change the variable by formula (3.14 ). Remember that following [18], we suppose

r^{2} = - α_{s}^{+} α_{s}^{-} / {(α_{s}^{-} - α_{s}^{+})}^{2} > 0

all along our derivation, while the result of

r^{2} ⩽ 0

can be obtained by analytic continuation. By rescaling τ and z, (3.14 ) is identical to the well-known Joukowsky transformation

\begin{array}{rcl} z = \frac{1}{2} (τ + \frac{1}{τ}) . \end{array}

(3.15)

This transformation maps the whole τ plane to two sheets of the z plane (because

τ = z \pm \sqrt{z^{2} - 1}

| τ | > 1

to one and

| τ | < 1

to another, as figure 1 shows. The points on the z plane are branch points, and the dashed lines are branch cuts. We choose

τ = z + \sqrt{z^{2} - 1}

, as well as

A r g (z) = 0

on the x axis of the first sheet. Under this convention, the + and − in the figure means

\sqrt{1 - z^{2}}

to be positive or negative near the branch cut.

Figure 1. Joukowsky transformation.

Full size|PPT slide

Notice that the functions

f (z, \sqrt{1 - z^{2}})

and

f (z, - \sqrt{1 - z^{2}})

can be viewed as the same function f (z) on different sheets. Thus, we can rewrite formulas (2.23 ) to be

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{c} \begin{array}{rcl} {C u t}^{(3)} & = & \frac{1}{4 π} \int_{C} \frac{d z}{- \sqrt{1 - z^{2}}} A_{1} A_{2} A_{3} (z) \\ = & \frac{1}{4 π} \int_{C^{'}} \frac{d τ}{i τ} A_{1} A_{2} A_{3} (τ), \end{array} \end{array} \end{array}

(3.16)

where the contour

C

on the z plane and the corresponding contour

C^{'}

on the τ plane are shown in figure 1 . To rescale back we simply put

\sqrt{1 - z^{2}} \to \sqrt{r^{2} - z^{2}}

in the integrand.

3.3.2. Connection between residues

Now we come to the explicit formula of the triangle coefficient. In the unitarity cut method, the triangle coefficient comes from

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{c} \begin{array}{l} C [K_{s}, K] = \frac{1}{2 (N + 1)! {\sqrt{Δ_{s}}}^{N + 1} {⟨ P_{s, 1} P_{s, 2} ⟩}^{N + 1}} \\ \times \frac{d^{N + 1}}{d τ^{N + 1}} ({T^{(N)} (ℓ) D_{s} (ℓ) {⟨ λ | K | \tilde{λ}]}^{N + 1} |}_{\tilde{λ} \to Q_{s} λ, λ \to P_{s, 1} - τ P_{s, 2}} \\ + {{P_{s, 1} \leftrightarrow P_{s, 2}}) |}_{τ \to 0} . \end{array} \end{array} \end{array}

(3.17)

It can be easily shown

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{rcl} \sqrt{Δ_{s}} & = & α_{s}^{-} - α_{s}^{+}, \\ ⟨ P_{s, 1} P_{s, 2} ⟩ & = & 1, \\ ⟨ λ | K | \tilde{λ}] & = & τ (α_{s}^{-} - α_{s}^{+}) . \end{array} \end{array}

(3.18)

Note that these equations are valid for two substitutions.

We concentrate on the first term in the derivative. Under the substitution

| λ] = Q_{s} | λ ⟩

and

| λ ⟩ = | P_{s, 1} - τ P_{s, 2} ⟩

, we put the propagator

1 / D_{s} (ℓ)

on shell. Using the fact that

T^{(N)} (ℓ) D_{s} (ℓ)

has a Laurent expansion

\sum_{n = - (N + 1)}^{\infty} a_{n} τ^{n}

around

τ = 0

, we can conclude that

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{c} \begin{array}{l} \frac{1}{(N + 1)! {\sqrt{Δ_{s}}}^{N + 1} {⟨ P_{s, 1} P_{s, 2} ⟩}^{N + 1}} \\ \times {\frac{d^{N + 1}}{d τ^{N + 1}} T^{(N)} (ℓ) D_{s} (ℓ) {⟨ λ | K | \tilde{λ}]}^{N + 1} |}_{\tilde{λ} \to Q_{s} λ, λ \to P_{s, 1} - τ P_{s, 2}} \\ = {\frac{1}{(N + 1)!} \frac{d^{N + 1}}{d τ^{N + 1}} \sum_{n = - (N + 1)}^{\infty} a_{n} τ^{n} \cdot τ^{N + 1} |}_{τ \to 0} = a_{0} \\ = {R e s}_{τ = 0} (\frac{T^{(N)} (τ) \times D_{s} (τ)}{τ}) \\ = {R e s}_{τ = 0} (\frac{A_{1} A_{2} A_{3}}{τ}), \end{array} \end{array} \end{array}

(3.19)

where at the last equal sign we use (3.5 ), and we denote the factorized tree amplitude

A_{L, s, 1} A_{L, s, 2} A_{R}

A_{1} A_{2} A_{3}

. For the second term in the derivative, we simply set

τ \to 1 / τ

T^{(N)} (ℓ) D_{s} (ℓ)

, while

⟨ λ | K | \tilde{λ}]

remains proportional to τ . We obtain

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{l} \frac{1}{(N + 1)! {\sqrt{Δ_{s}}}^{N + 1} {⟨ P_{s, 1} P_{s, 2} ⟩}^{N + 1}} \\ \times {\frac{d^{N + 1}}{d τ^{N + 1}} T^{(N)} (ℓ) D_{s} (ℓ) {⟨ λ | K | \tilde{λ}]}^{N + 1} |}_{\tilde{λ} \to Q_{s} λ, λ \to P_{s, 2} - τ P_{s, 1}} \\ = {R e s}_{τ = 0} (\frac{T^{(N)} (\frac{1}{τ}) \times D_{s} (\frac{1}{τ})}{τ}) \\ = - {R e s}_{τ = \infty} (\frac{T^{(N)} (τ) \times D_{s} (τ)}{τ}) \\ = - {R e s}_{τ = \infty} (\frac{A_{1} A_{2} A_{3}}{τ}), \end{array} \end{array}

(3.20)

where we use

{R e s}_{z = \infty} f (z) = {R e s}_{z = 0} (- \frac{f (1 / z)}{z^{2}})

Combining the above results,

\begin{array}{rcl} C [K_{s}, K] = \frac{1}{2} {R e s}_{τ = 0} (\frac{A_{1} A_{2} A_{3}}{τ}) - \frac{1}{2} {R e s}_{τ = \infty} (\frac{A_{1} A_{2} A_{3}}{τ}) . \end{array}

(3.21)

It is now clear that what formula (3.17 ) really does is to compute the residue of

\frac{A_{1} A_{2} A_{3}}{τ}

τ = 0

and

τ = \infty

After figuring out the meaning of formula (3.17 ), we turn to the generalized unitarity cut method. We have already shown that the triple cut can be computed by (3.16 )

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{c} \begin{array}{rcl} {C u t}^{(3)} & = & \frac{1}{4 π} \int_{C} \frac{d z}{- \sqrt{r^{2} - z^{2}}} A_{1} A_{2} A_{3} (z) \\ = \frac{1}{4 π i} \int_{C^{'}} \frac{d τ}{τ} A_{1} A_{2} A_{3} (τ) . \end{array} \end{array} \end{array}

(3.22)

To get rid of the influence of the box coefficient, we stretch the contour

C

to be two infinitely large loops, which only contain the residue on

z = \infty

. Now, the contour

C^{'}

becomes an infinitesimal loop encircling τ = 0 and an infinitely large loop encircling

τ = \infty

. Thus, we come to the final step

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{rcl} C_{3} & = & {i R e s}_{z = \infty o n t w o s h e e t s} (\frac{A_{1} A_{2} A_{3}}{- \sqrt{r^{2} - z^{2}}}) \\ = & \frac{1}{2} {R e s}_{τ = 0} (\frac{A_{1} A_{2} A_{3}}{τ}) - \frac{1}{2} {R e s}_{τ = \infty} (\frac{A_{1} A_{2} A_{3}}{τ}) . \end{array} \end{array}

(3.23)

We have proven that the formulas for the triangle coefficient in the two methods are indeed equal.

3.4. Bubble coefficients

The core part in evaluating the bubble coefficient of the master integral is to split it from other master integrals. In the unitarity cut method, the procedure is carried out by recognizing it from analytical properties of other master integrals, which behave as pure logarithms. In the generalized unitarity cut method, it is carried out by recognizing it as the infinite pole in the integrand [18].

We begin with expression (2.25 )

\begin{array}{rcl} C_{2} = \int d L I S P \int_{C} \frac{d z}{z} A_{L} (z) \times A_{R} (z) . \end{array}

(3.24)

However, after two cuts, the contribution coming from triangles and boxes will appear as some remaining propagators in the form of

\frac{1}{{(l - K_{i})}^{2}}

. When we do the contour integrals at infinity, i.e. when the contour

C

is an infinitely large loop, we have

\begin{array}{rcl} \int_{C} \frac{d z}{z} T^{(N)} (z) = 2 π {i T}^{(N)} (0) + 2 π i \sum_{i} \frac{1}{z_{i}} {R e s}_{z = z_{i}} T^{(N)} (z), \end{array}

(3.25)

with some z _i that put a remaining propagator D _i on shell. Rewriting the above formula as

\begin{array}{rcl} T^{(N)} (0) = - \sum_{i} \frac{1}{z_{i}} {R e s}_{z = z_{i}} T^{(N)} (z) + \frac{1}{2 π i} \int_{C} \frac{d z}{z} T^{(N)} (z) . \end{array}

(3.26)

Since we can exchange the order of integration, we integrate t in

d L I S P

as in (2.3 ), then the integrand becomes (2.5 ). Thus, we have

\begin{array}{rcl} I_{t e r m} (0) = - \sum_{i} \frac{1}{z_{i}} {R e s}_{z = z_{i}} I_{t e r m} (z) + \frac{1}{2 π i} \int_{C} \frac{d z}{z} I_{t e r m} (z) . \end{array}

(3.27)

We can see that the right-hand side gives a splitting of the input integrand. We want to show such a splitting is nothing but the canonical splitting in the unitarity cut method (2.7 ).

Now, we calculate the residues of the poles for finite z _i . Since

G (λ)

is pure holomorphic, we omit it during our derivation and put it back only at the end. The BCFW deformation is given by⁴

⁴ The deformation null momenta q can have two choices: $| ℓ_{1} ⟩ | ℓ_{2}]$ or $| ℓ_{2} ⟩ | ℓ_{1}]$ . These two choices are equivalent to each other. Using $ℓ_{2} = ℓ_{1} + K$ , we have $| ℓ_{2}] \sim | K | ℓ_{1} ⟩$ .

{\begin{cases} | λ ⟩ \to | λ ⟩ \\ | \tilde{λ}] \to | \tilde{λ}] - z | K | λ ⟩ \end{cases}

. After substituting the

| \tilde{λ}]

in the above equation, we have

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{l} - \frac{1}{z_{i}} {R e s}_{z = z_{i}} I_{t e r m} (z) \\ = - \frac{1}{z_{i}} {R e s}_{z = z_{i}} \frac{\prod_{j = 1}^{n + k} ([a_{j} | \tilde{λ}] - z [a_{j} | K | λ ⟩)}{{⟨ λ | K | \tilde{λ}]}^{n + 2} \prod_{i = 1}^{k} (⟨ λ | Q_{i} | \tilde{λ}] - z ⟨ λ | Q_{i} K | λ ⟩)} . \end{array} \end{array}

(3.28)

For a certain propagator D _i on shell, we have

z_{i} = \frac{⟨ λ | Q_{i} | \tilde{λ}]}{⟨ λ | Q_{i} K | λ ⟩}

and then we have

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{l} - \frac{1}{z_{i}} {R e s}_{z = z_{i}} I_{t e r m} (z) = \frac{1}{⟨ λ | Q_{i} \tilde{λ}]} \frac{\prod_{j = 1}^{n + k} ([a_{j} | \tilde{λ}] - \frac{⟨ λ | Q_{i} | \tilde{λ}]}{⟨ λ | Q_{i} K | λ ⟩} [a_{j} | K | λ ⟩)}{{⟨ λ | K | \tilde{λ}]}^{n + 2} \prod_{r \neq i}^{k} (⟨ λ | Q_{r} | \tilde{λ}] - \frac{⟨ λ | Q_{i} | \tilde{λ}]}{⟨ λ | Q_{i} K | λ ⟩} ⟨ λ | Q_{r} K | λ ⟩)} \\ = \frac{1}{⟨ λ | Q_{i} \tilde{λ}] {⟨ λ | K | \tilde{λ}]}^{n + 2}} \frac{\prod_{j = 1}^{n + k} ([a_{j} | \tilde{λ}] ⟨ λ | Q_{i} K | λ ⟩ - [a_{j} | K | λ ⟩ ⟨ λ | Q_{i} | \tilde{λ}])}{{⟨ λ | Q_{i} K | λ ⟩}^{n + 1} \prod_{r \neq i}^{k} (⟨ λ | Q_{r} | \tilde{λ}] ⟨ λ | Q_{i} K | λ ⟩ - ⟨ λ | Q_{i} | \tilde{λ}] ⟨ λ | Q_{r} K | λ ⟩)} . \end{array} \end{array}

(3.29)

Using a generalized version of the Schouten identity

\begin{array}{rcl} | \tilde{λ}] ⟨ λ | Q_{i} K | λ ⟩ - | K | λ ⟩ ⟨ λ | Q_{i} | \tilde{λ}] + | Q_{i} | λ ⟩ ⟨ λ | K | \tilde{λ}] = 0, \end{array}

(3.30)

\begin{array}{rcl} [\tilde{λ} | Q_{r} | λ ⟩ ⟨ λ | Q_{i} | - [\tilde{λ} | Q_{i} | λ ⟩ ⟨ λ | Q_{r} | + ⟨ λ | Q_{r} Q_{i} | λ ⟩ [\tilde{λ} | = 0, \end{array}

(3.31)

the residue term will represent as

\begin{array}{rcl} \begin{array}{l} \frac{1}{⟨ λ | Q_{i} | \tilde{λ}] {⟨ λ | K | \tilde{λ}]}^{n + 2}} \\ \times \frac{\prod_{j = 1}^{n + k} (- [a_{j} | Q_{i} | λ ⟩ ⟨ λ | K | \tilde{λ}])}{{(- 1)}^{n + 1} {⟨ λ | {K Q}_{i} | λ ⟩}^{n + 1} \prod_{r \neq i}^{r = k} (- ⟨ λ | Q_{r} Q_{i} | λ ⟩ ⟨ λ | K | \tilde{λ}])} \\ = \frac{1}{⟨ λ | K | \tilde{λ}] ⟨ λ | Q_{i} | \tilde{λ}]} \frac{\prod_{j = 1}^{n + k} [a_{j} | Q_{i} | λ ⟩}{{⟨ λ | {K Q}_{i} | λ ⟩}^{n + 1} \prod_{r \neq i}^{r = k} ⟨ λ | Q_{r} Q_{i} | λ ⟩} . \end{array} \end{array}

(3.32)

Putting it back to (3.27 ), and comparing with (2.7 ), we see that the first line of (2.7 ) is nothing, but the part

\frac{1}{2 π i} \int_{C} \frac{d z}{z} I_{t e r m} (z)

, thus (3.24 ) is nothing, but taking residues of the first line of (2.7 ). Thus, we have shown the equivalence of getting bubble coefficients in these two methods.

References

List( Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within ) Chart analysis

1	Passarino G Veltman M J G 1979 One loop corrections for e + e− annihilation into mu+ mu− in the Weinberg model Nucl. Phys. B 160 151 207 151–207 https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(79)90234-7 Cited in this article [1]

2	Ossola G Papadopoulos C G Pittau R 2007 Reducing full one-loop amplitudes to scalar integrals at the integrand level Nucl. Phys. B 763 147 169 147–69 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.11.012 Cited in this article [1]

3	Bern Z Dixon L J Dunbar D C Kosower D A 1994 One-loop n-point gauge theory amplitudes, unitarity and collinear limits Nucl. Phys. B 425 217 260 217–60 https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(94)90179-1 Cited in this article [1]

4	Bern Z Dixon L J Dunbar D C Kosower D A 1995 Fusing gauge theory tree amplitudes into loop amplitudes Nucl. Phys. B 435 59 101 59–101 https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(94)00488-Z Cited in this article [1]

5	Cutkosky R E 1960 Singularities and discontinuities of Feynman amplitudes J. Math. Phys. 1 429 433 429–33 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1703676 Cited in this article [1]

6	Witten E 2004 Perturbative gauge theory as a string theory in twistor space Commun. Math. Phys. 252 189 258 189–258 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-004-1187-3 Cited in this article [1]

7	Cachazo F Svrcek P Witten E 2004 MHV vertices and tree amplitudes in gauge theory J. High Energy Phys. JHEP09(2004)006 https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2004/09/006

8	Cachazo F Svrcek P Witten E 2004 Twistor space structure of one-loop amplitudes in gauge theory J. High Energy Phys. JHEP10(2004)074 https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2004/09/006

9	Britto R Buchbinder E Cachazo F Feng B 2005 One-loop amplitudes of gluons in SQCD Phys. Rev. D 72 065012 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.72.065012 Cited in this article [1]

10	Anastasiou C Britto R Feng B Kunszt Z Mastrolia P 2007 Unitarity cuts and reduction to master integrals in d dimensions for one-loop amplitudes J. High Energy Phys. JHEP03(2007)111 https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2007/03/111 Cited in this article [1]

11	Anastasiou C Britto R Feng B Kunszt Z Mastrolia P 2007 D-dimensional unitarity cut method Phys. Lett. B 645 213 216 213–6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2006.12.022

12	Britto R Feng B 2008 Integral coefficients for one-loop amplitudes J. High Energy Phys. JHEP02(2008)095 https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2008/02/095 Cited in this article [2]

13	Britto R Feng B Yang G 2008 Polynomial structures in one-loop amplitudes J. High Energy Phys. JHEP09(2008)089 https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2008/02/095 Cited in this article [2]

14	Eden R J Landshoff P V Olive D I Polkinghorne J C 2002 The Analytic S-Matrix Cambridge Cambridge University Press Cited in this article [1]

15	Bern Z Dixon L J Kosower D A 1993 Dimensionally regulated one loop integrals Phys. Lett. B 302 299 308 299–308 https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(93)90400-C Bern Z Dixon L J Kosower D A 1993 Phys. Lett. B 318 649 Erratum: https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(93)90469-X Cited in this article [1]

16	Britto R Cachazo F Feng B 2005 Generalized unitarity and one-loop amplitudes in N = 4 super-Yang-Mills Nucl. Phys. B 725 275 305 275–305 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.07.014 Cited in this article [2]

17	Forde D 2007 Direct extraction of one-loop integral coefficients Phys. Rev. D 75 125019 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.75.125019 Cited in this article [1]

18	Arkani-Hamed N Cachazo F Kaplan J 2010 What is the simplest quantum field theory? J. High Energy Phys. JHEP09(2010)016 https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP09(2010)016 Cited in this article [9]

19	Britto R Feng B 2007 Unitarity cuts with massive propagators and algebraic expressions for coefficients Phys. Rev. D 75 105006 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.75.105006 Cited in this article [2]

20	Britto R Feng B Mastrolia P 2008 Closed-form decomposition of one-loop massive amplitudes Phys. Rev. D 78 025031 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.78.025031

21	Feng B Yang G 2009 Unitarity method with spurious pole Nucl. Phys. B 811 305 352 305–52 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2008.11.032 Cited in this article [1]

22	Britto R 2011 Loop amplitudes in gauge theories: modern analytic approaches J. Phys. A 44 454006 https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/44/45/454006 Cited in this article [1]

23	Bern Z Del Duca V Dixon L J Kosower D A 2005 All non-maximally-helicity-violating one-loop seven-gluon amplitudes in N = 4 super-Yang-Mills theory Phys. Rev. D 71 045006 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.71.045006 Cited in this article [1]

24	Britto R Cachazo F Feng B 2005 New recursion relations for tree amplitudes of gluons Nucl. Phys. B 715 499 522 499–522 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.02.030 Cited in this article [1]

25	Britto R Cachazo F Feng B Witten E 2005 Direct proof of tree-level recursion relation in Yang-Mills theory Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 181602 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.181602 Cited in this article [1]

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Bo Feng for suggesting this project and giving us many instructions along the way. Yang An is grateful to his tutor Mingxing Luo. Z Huang thanks his tutor Ellis Ye Yuan for his guidance. Yi Li is supported by Chinese NSF funding under contract No. 11575156.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

PDF(376 KB)

239

Accesses

Citation

Detail

Sections

Recommended

Abstract
Key words
Cite this article
1. Introduction
2. Review of the unitarity cut method and generalized unitarity cut method
2.1. Review of the unitarity cut method
2.2. Review of the generalized unitarity cut method
3. Connection between these two methods
3.1. Connection between input amplitude
3.2. The equivalence of the box coefficient between two methods
3.3. Triangle coefficients
3.3.1. Connection between parameter τ and z
Figure 1. Joukowsky transformation.
3.3.2. Connection between residues
3.4. Bubble coefficients
References
Acknowledgments
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Received	Revised	Accepted	Published
2020-04-09	2020-07-21	2020-07-28	2020-11-01
Issue Date
2020-11-09

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export

Abstract

Key words

Cite this article

1. Introduction

2. Review of the unitarity cut method and generalized unitarity cut method

2.1. Review of the unitarity cut method

2.2. Review of the generalized unitarity cut method

3. Connection between these two methods

3.1. Connection between input amplitude

3.2. The equivalence of the box coefficient between two methods

3.3. Triangle coefficients

3.3.1. Connection between parameter τ and z

Figure 1. Joukowsky transformation.

3.3.2. Connection between residues

3.4. Bubble coefficients

{{custom_sec.title}}

{{custom_sec.title}}

References

{{custom_fnGroup.title_en}}

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

{{custom_ack.title_en}}

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

模态框（Modal）标题

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export

Abstract

Key words

Cite this article

1. Introduction

2. Review of the unitarity cut method and generalized unitarity cut method

2.1. Review of the unitarity cut method

2.2. Review of the generalized unitarity cut method

3. Connection between these two methods

3.1. Connection between input amplitude

3.2. The equivalence of the box coefficient between two methods

3.3. Triangle coefficients

3.3.1. Connection between parameter τ and z

Figure 1. Joukowsky transformation.

3.3.2. Connection between residues

3.4. Bubble coefficients

{{custom_sec.title}}

{{custom_sec.title}}

References

{{custom_fnGroup.title_en}}

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

{{custom_ack.title_en}}

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS