one of the longstanding questions of elementary particle physics is whether nature makes use of the higgs mechanism of spontaneous symmetry breaking to endow the particles with their masses .
the higgs boson , @xmath5 , is the missing link sought to verify this theoretical concept in the standard model ( sm ) .
its mass , @xmath6 , is essentially a free parameter of the sm .
the failure of experiments at the cern large electron - positron collider ( lep  1 ) and the slac linear collider ( slc ) to observe the decay @xmath7 has ruled out the mass range @xmath8  gev at the 95% confidence level @xcite .
the discovery potential of lep  2 , with centre - of - mass ( c.m . ) energy @xmath9  gev and luminosity @xmath10  pb@xmath11 per experiment , will reach up to @xmath12  gev @xcite .
we note in passing that @xmath6 lower bounds may also be derived theoretically by demanding that the higgs vacuum be ( meta)stable @xcite .
several theoretical arguments bound @xmath6 from above .
the requirement that partial - wave unitarity in intermediate - boson scattering at high energies be satisfied at tree level establishes an upper bound on @xmath6 at about @xmath13  tev @xcite .
this unitarity bound is significantly lowered by including one- @xcite and two - loop @xcite corrections . however , the improved bound depends on the energy scale , @xmath14 , up to which the sm is assumed to remain valid .
the same is true for the triviality bound , which is derived perturbatively @xcite by requiring that the running higgs self - coupling , @xmath15 , stays finite for renormalization scales @xmath16 .
lattice computations , which take all orders of the perturbative expansion into account , yield a triviality bound of @xmath17  gev @xcite .
the precise value of this bound depends on the specific form of the lattice action and the regularization method used .
an alternative way of constraining @xmath6 from above is to require that the higgs sector be weakly interacting , so that perturbation theory is meaningful @xcite .
the resulting bounds depend somewhat on the considered process and the precise definition of perturbation - theory breakdown , but they are independent of assumptions concerning the scale @xmath14 beyond which new physics operates . at one and two loops , the leading high-@xmath6 corrections to physical observables related to higgs - boson production or decay
are of @xmath18 and @xmath3 , respectively .
the one - loop corrections to the partial widths of the higgs - boson decays to pairs of fermions @xcite and intermediate bosons @xcite are relatively modest , below 15% at @xmath19  tev if the on - mass - shell renormalization scheme is employed .
the situation is similar for higgs - boson production @xcite . for @xmath6 increasing , the @xmath3 corrections will eventually exceed the @xmath18 ones in size . in the case of the fermionic higgs - boson decays
, this happens at @xmath20  tev in the on - shell scheme @xcite .
obviously , the perturbative expansion in @xmath21 ceases to usefully converge for larger values of @xmath6 .
the study of high - energy weak - boson scattering at two loops ( with neglect of trilinear couplings ) leads to a perturbative upper bound on @xmath6 which depends on the considered c.m .  energy . for @xmath22 in the 1-tev range , the @xmath6 upper
bound comes out as low as 450  gev  @xcite .
however , this result may be relaxed using resummation techniques @xcite .
since a higgs boson with @xmath23 decays almost exclusively to @xmath24 and @xmath25 pairs , it is desirable , both from the theoretical and phenomenological points of view , to find the two - loop @xmath3 corrections to the partial widths of these decays as well .
this is the purpose of the present paper .
in contrast to the fermionic case @xcite , this involves the calculation of massive three - point functions at two loops .
due to the presence of a large external momentum , heavy - mass expansion techniques are not applicable here . as in a previous analysis @xcite , we take advantage of the goldstone - boson equivalence theorem @xcite and neglect the gauge and yukawa couplings as well as the intermediate - boson masses . in this approximation ,
the radiative corrections to the @xmath26 and @xmath27 decay widths coincide .    in the evaluation of the relevant two - loop feynman diagrams , both infrared ( ir ) and ultraviolet ( uv ) divergences occur .
we calculate all divergent diagrams analytically , using dimensional regularization .
this guarantees that the cancellation of the ir and uv divergences is manifest .
the remaining diagrams are individually devoid of singularities .
they are computed numerically in four space - time dimensions after formulating the integrals in parallel and orthogonal space .
this has the advantage that potential numerical instabilities in connection with the conventional feynman parameterizations are avoided .
we list our results for the individual diagrams , so that they are available to other authors for comparisons and further calculations .
we anticipate that we find good agreement with a recent , pioneering work by ghinculov @xcite , which fully resorts to numerical methods . in ref .
@xcite , the ir divergences are regularized by introducing a small goldstone - boson mass .
the final result is obtained by numerically taking the massless limit .
another conceptual difficulty in ref .
@xcite is related to the treatment of ( endpoint ) singularities in the feynman - parameter integrals .
these are controlled by choosing suitable integration paths in the complex plane with the aid of spline functions .
the values of the individual diagrams are not specified in ref .
we believe that , in view of the enormous complexity of the problem at hand , it is indispensable to have at least two independent analyses that agree with each other .
this paper is organized as follows . in sec .  2 , we catalogue the contributing feynman - graph topologies and explain our renormalization framework . in sec .  3
, we describe our analytical and numerical techniques . in sec .
4 , we present our results for the individual two - loop vertex diagrams and assemble the renormalized @xmath28 ( @xmath29 ) transition amplitude . in sec .  5 , we explore the phenomenological implications of our result and draw the conclusions .
the relevant one - loop three - point amplitudes to @xmath30 , where @xmath31 is the dimensionality of space time , are listed in the appendix .
in this section , we set the stage for our calculation of the @xmath28 ( @xmath29 ) decay widths to @xmath3 . as mentioned in the introduction , this task may be greatly simplified in the limit of interest , @xmath23 , through the use of the goldstone - boson equivalence theorem @xcite .
this theorem states that the leading high-@xmath6 electroweak contribution to a feynman diagram may be calculated by replacing the intermediate bosons @xmath32 , @xmath2 with the would - be goldstone bosons @xmath33 , @xmath34 of the symmetry - breaking sector of the theory . in this limit
, the gauge and yukawa couplings may be neglected against the higgs self - coupling . by the same token
, the goldstone bosons may be taken to be massless , and the fermion loops may be omitted .    adopting the conventions of ref .
@xcite , we may write the relevant lagrangian for the symmetry - breaking sector of the sm in terms of bare quantities , marked by the subscript 0 , as @xmath35 where @xmath36 is the higgs quartic coupling , @xmath37 is the higgs vacuum expectation value , @xmath5 is the real scalar higgs field , and the real scalar so(3 ) triplet , @xmath38 , is related to the goldstone bosons , @xmath33 and @xmath34 , by @xmath39 and @xmath40 , respectively .
the tadpole counterterm , which cancels all tadpole contributions of @xmath41 order by order , has been omitted in writing eq .
( [ eqsbs ] ) .
consequently , all diagrams which include tadpole contributions need to be dropped in calculations @xcite .
we work in the on - mass - shell renormalization scheme as formulated in refs .
the residual so(3 ) symmetry present in eq .
( [ eqsbs ] ) is preserved in the renormalization procedure , so that the @xmath33 and @xmath34 bosons share one mass counterterm and one wave - function renormalization constant . specifically , the renormalization conditions are as follows : ( i ) the mass counterterms , @xmath42 and @xmath43 , are determined so that the renormalized masses , @xmath44 and @xmath45 , coincide with the physical ( pole ) masses , _
i.e. _ , the pole positions of the radiatively corrected propagators . in the case of the goldstone bosons
, one has @xmath46 .
( ii ) the wave - function renormalization constants , @xmath47 and @xmath48 , which enter the relations @xmath49 and @xmath50 between the bare and renormalized fields are adjusted so that the on - shell propagators have unit residues .
( iii ) the physical higgs quartic coupling and vacuum expectation value are fixed by requiring that @xmath51 and @xmath52 , respectively , where @xmath53 is fermi s constant .
this leads to the following relations @xcite : @xmath54 where @xmath55 and @xmath56 are the self - energy functions of the bare goldstone and higgs fields , respectively , calculated from lagrangian  ( [ eqsbs ] ) .
two - loop expressions for @xmath42 , @xmath43 , @xmath47 , @xmath48 , and @xmath57 in terms of @xmath6 and @xmath36 may be found in refs .
@xcite .
the feynman diagrams that contribute to the @xmath28 transition amplitude through @xmath3 are depicted in fig .
[ fig1 ] . dashed and solid lines represent goldstone and higgs bosons , respectively .
adjacent propagators with identical four - momenta , which occur in connection with mass - counterterm insertions , are separated by solid circles .
the calligraphic labels stand for the values of the diagrams and are used in our formulas ; the nomenclature extents the one introduced in ref .
the underlying conventions are explained in sec .  3 and the appendix .
there are 6 one - loop diagrams ( @xmath58 , @xmath59 , and @xmath60 ) , 18 reducible two - loop diagrams ( @xmath61 , @xmath62 , @xmath63 , and @xmath64 ) , and 52 irreducible two - loop diagrams ( @xmath65 , @xmath66 , @xmath67 , @xmath68 , @xmath69 , @xmath70 , @xmath71 , @xmath72 , and @xmath73 ) .
in addition , there are 8 one - loop diagrams with one mass - counterterm insertion ( @xmath74 and @xmath75 , where @xmath76 ) .
further reducible two - loop diagrams emerge as products of one - loop vertex and wave - function - renormalization diagrams ; these are not counted here .
the one - loop diagrams need to be evaluated through @xmath30 .
the corresponding results for the tadpole ( @xmath58 ) and two - point topologies ( @xmath59 and @xmath77 ) may be found in ref .
@xcite ; those for the three - point topologies ( @xmath60 and @xmath78 ) are listed in the appendix .
the irreducible two - loop two - point topologies ( @xmath65 , @xmath66 , and @xmath67 ) may be taken from ref .
@xcite . here ,
we regard two external legs that merge into the same vertex as one point ; solid circles are not counted as points .
for example , we view both @xmath77 and @xmath65 as two - point topologies .
the main technical difficulty of the present paper is to tackle the irreducible two - loop three - point topologies ( @xmath68 , @xmath69 , @xmath70 , @xmath71 , @xmath72 , and @xmath73 ) .
topologies @xmath68 , @xmath69 , and @xmath70 are ultraviolet divergent
. topologies @xmath79 and @xmath80 are also plagued by infrared singularities .
topologies @xmath71 , @xmath72 , and @xmath73 are uv and ir finite . after describing our computational techniques in sec .  3
, we itemize the results for topologies @xmath81 through @xmath82 in sec .  4 .
calculating the combinatorial factors with the help of the software package diagrammar @xcite , we find the following master formula for the two - loop @xmath28 transition amplitude in terms of @xmath57 , @xmath83 , and @xmath6 : @xmath84\delta m_w^2 \nonumber\\ & { \hspace*{-2.5mm}}{\hspace*{-2.5mm}}&\left .
{ } + \left[i\lambda_0(8{\cal t}_2 + 12{\cal t}_3 ) + i(\lambda_0 v_0)^2(8{\cal d}_{2a}+48{\cal d}_{3})\right]\delta m_h^2 \right\}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] here , the tree - level term has been factored out together with the wave - function renormalization constants of the external legs ; in our two - loop approximation , these quantities need to be evaluated through @xmath85 .
the second and third terms within the curly bracket arise at one loop ; their prefactors of @xmath57 and @xmath83 need only to be expanded through @xmath86 .
the residual terms are of genuine two - loop order ; here , @xmath57 and @xmath83 may immediately be replaced with @xmath36 and @xmath37 , and it is sufficient to insert the one - loop expressions for @xmath42 and @xmath43 .
notice that we have already performed mass renormalization in eq .
( [ eqmaster ] ) , so that @xmath6 , which appears inside the expressions for the various diagrams , is the only mass parameter left .
as usual , we calculate the feynman diagrams in @xmath31 space - time dimensions and introduce an unphysical t  hooft mass scale , @xmath87 , to keep the higgs quartic coupling dimensionless . after coupling renormalization ,
( [ eqmaster ] ) will be finite and @xmath87 independent in the physical limit @xmath88 . to fix the notation
, we write down the generic one - loop two - point integral ( with two scalar propagators ) : @xmath89}.\ ] ] the one - loop two - point diagrams in fig .
[ fig1 ] are then defined as @xmath90 analytic results for these diagrams to @xmath30 may be found in ref .
note that , in contrast to ref .
@xcite , we exclude the factors of @xmath91 connected with the scalar propagators in the definitions of the diagrams . for the one - loop tadpole diagram
, we have @xmath92 . the one - loop three - point diagrams , @xmath60 and @xmath78 , are defined and evaluated to @xmath30 in the appendix .    the two - loop diagrams are defined in analogy to eqs .
( [ eqtwo ] ) and ( [ eqthree ] ) .
we first consider the ir - finite two - loop diagrams in fig .
[ fig1 ] . in the limit @xmath88 ,
any member , @xmath93 , of this class may be cast into the generic form @xmath94,\ ] ] where @xmath95 is the euler - mascheroni constant , @xmath96 is the number of propagators in @xmath97 , and @xmath98 , @xmath99 , and @xmath100 are finite , complex numbers .
the special form of the prefactor is to suppress the appearance of the familiar term @xmath101 in @xmath99 and @xmath100 .
( by contrast , the @xmath95 piece of the prefactor was expanded in ref .
coefficients @xmath98 , @xmath99 , and @xmath100 for diagrams @xmath65 , @xmath66 , and @xmath67 are available in analytic form @xcite
. diagrams @xmath102 and @xmath103 are ir divergent and will be discussed further below .
the irreducible two - loop three - point diagrams with four propagators , @xmath68 , exhibit uv divergences in the form of quadratic and linear poles in @xmath104 , but they are ir safe . they may be evaluated analytically from appropriate feynman - parameter representations , proceeding along the lines of ref .  @xcite . in the case of diagram
@xmath81 , where all internal lines are massless , we find agreement with ref .  @xcite .
diagrams @xmath69 and @xmath70 are more involved , and it is advantageous to apply dispersion relations in a way similar to ref .
let us first concentrate on diagrams @xmath69 .
we observe that they contain a one - loop two - point subdiagram consisting of a bubble and an adjacent propagator .
calling the masses inside this bubble @xmath105 and @xmath106 , the mass of the adjacent leg @xmath107 , and the common four - momentum @xmath108 , we may rewrite this subdiagram as @xmath109 where @xmath110[s-(m_1-m_2)^2]$ ] is the klln function .
( [ eqdr ] ) is inserted in the expression for the one - loop seed diagram , the first term turns into a product of the type @xmath62 , which contains all divergences . in the second term , we may interchange the dispersion and loop integrations and are left with a finite dispersion integral , which may be solved analytically .
diagrams @xmath70 may be treated in a similar fashion .
they contain a one - loop two - point subdiagram consisting of a bubble and two identical adjacent propagators .
a useful representation of this subdiagram emerges by differentiating eq .
( [ eqdr ] ) with respect to @xmath111 .
the divergences of diagrams @xmath70 are contained in products of the form @xmath112 .
in particular , this method allows us to separate the ir divergences of diagrams @xmath79 and @xmath80 . by the way , this method
may also be applied to the ir - divergent diagrams @xmath102 and @xmath103 .
let us now turn to the cancellation of the ir divergences in eq .
( [ eqmaster ] ) .
it is possible to extract the ir divergences along with the uv ones as poles in @xmath104 using dimensional regularization .
in fact , this avenue was taken in ref .
@xcite . here
, we adopt an alternative strategy .
we identify a basic set of ir - divergent one - loop diagrams and show that their prefactors vanish . in this way
, we do not need to solve any ir - divergent loop integral .
it is easy to see that the diagrams which emerge by duplicating any of the goldstone - boson propagators in diagrams @xmath113 , @xmath114 , @xmath115 , and @xmath116 are ir divergent .
the resulting diagrams are @xmath117 , @xmath118 , @xmath119 , and @xmath120 , respectively . as for the irreducible two - loop diagrams , @xmath102 , @xmath103 , @xmath79 , and @xmath80 are ir divergent .
hence there are twelve ir - divergent terms in eq .
( [ eqmaster ] ) . by means of the dispersion - relation method described above
, we find that @xmath121 , @xmath122 , @xmath123 , and @xmath124 are finite .
exploiting the one - loop identity
@xcite @xmath125 it follows on that the twelve ir - divergent terms in eq .
( [ eqmaster ] ) may be grouped in four finite sets .
specifically , we have @xmath126,\nonumber\\ ( \lambda{\cal q}-i\delta m_w^2){\cal t}_1 + 4(\lambda v)^2{\cal e}_2&{\hspace*{-2.5mm}}={\hspace*{-2.5 mm } } & \lambda\left[-2+o(\epsilon)\right],\nonumber\\ ( \lambda{\cal q}-i\delta m_w^2){\cal d}_1 + 4(\lambda v)^2{\cal h}_3&{\hspace*{-2.5mm}}={\hspace*{-2.5 mm } } & \frac{1}{v^2}\left[\frac{3}{8}\zeta(2)-\frac{1}{2 } + i\frac{\pi}{2}\ln2+o(\epsilon)\right],\nonumber\\ ( \lambda{\cal q}-i\delta m_w^2){\cal d}_{2b}+4(\lambda v)^2{\cal h}_4&{\hspace*{-2.5mm}}={\hspace*{-2.5 mm } } & \frac{1}{v^2}\left[-\frac{\zeta(2)}{12 } -\frac{\sqrt3}{2}{\mathop{{\mbox{cl}}_2}\nolimits}\left(\frac{\pi}{3}\right)+\frac{\pi}{2\sqrt3 } + \frac{1}{2}+o(\epsilon)\right],\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath127 is riemann s zeta function , with values @xmath128 and @xmath129 , and @xmath130 is clausen s integral , with value @xmath131 .    in the remainder of this section
, we describe the evaluation of the finite diagrams @xmath132 though @xmath82 .
this is achieved with the help of the methods developed in refs .
these methods suggest a separation of the integration space in an orthogonal and a parallel space .
the parallel space is defined to be the linear span of the exterior momenta involved in the process under consideration . for a three - point function , this is a two - dimensional space .
each loop momentum is a sum of two vectors , one being its projection onto the two - dimensional plane spanned by two non - degenerate exterior momenta , the other one being orthogonal to this plane .
this splitting does not break lorentz invariance @xcite . in the following ,
we define orthogonal- and parallel - space variables for our purposes .
we assume two independent exterior momenta , @xmath133 and @xmath134 , and two loop momenta , @xmath135 and @xmath136 . without loss of generality , we assume @xmath133 and @xmath134 to be timelike . then , @xmath137 and @xmath138 are orthogonal unit vectors , with @xmath139 and @xmath140 .
we further define @xmath141 we then have @xmath142 futhermore , we call the angle between the two - loop momenta in orthogonal space @xmath143    in its most straightforward application , this approach delivers a two - fold integral representation for the two - loop two - point function @xcite . typically , the remaining integrations are with respect to the parallel - space component of each of the two loop momenta .    for two - loop three - point functions
@xcite , and for four - point functions as well @xcite , this approach opens a route to three - fold integral representations , regardless of the internal topology of the function . in ref .
@xcite , this was improved to give a two - fold integral representation for the planar three - point case .
remarkably , the so - obtained integral representations are solely defined on finite domains of integration @xcite .
these results are sufficient to treat topologies @xmath72 and , with slight modifications , topologies @xmath71 as well . a similar result for the three - point non - planar case was obtained recently @xcite , and was used here for the first time to handle topologies @xmath73 .
we now wish to describe some features of the method .
following separation into parallel - space and orthogonal - space variables , the angular integration in the orthogonal space is complicated due to the presence of propagators involving both loop momenta , which results in a non - trivial integration over the variable @xmath34 .
in fact , the @xmath34 integration delivers a result of the form @xmath144 , where @xmath145 is a function having a single branch - cut and @xmath146 is such a propagator involving both loop momenta . in @xmath145 , this propagator
is evaluated at nullified orthogonal loop momenta .
typically , in four - dimensional field theory , @xmath145 turns out to be a logarithm in the two - loop two - point case , and a square root in the two - loop three - point case .    by the very definition of a scalar field propagator
, @xmath146 is a quadratic form in parallel - space variables .
parallel - space integrations over the real line are most conveniently performed with the help of the residue theorem . to this end
, we wish to close the contour in either the upper or the lower halfplane .
this is obscured by the cut of @xmath144 , which is present in both halfplanes .
the problem is readily solved by using translations @xmath147 and @xmath148 . using the @xmath149 signature of space - time
, we see that these translations render the propagators linear in the variables @xmath150 and @xmath151 .
accordingly , the cut defined by the equation @xmath152 with @xmath153 , is now in either the lower or upper complex @xmath150 ( resp .
@xmath151 ) plane .
this allows us to close the contour in the opposite halfplane .
the precise location of the cut becomes a function of the other integration variables .
this results in constraint equations for the contributing residues , and thus in constraints on the domains of integration for the remaining variables .
these domains turn out to be restricted to triangles in the @xmath154 plane in the case of two - loop three - point functions @xcite .    at this stage ,
one is left with a four - fold integral representation .
there are two integrations for the remaining parallel - space variables @xmath155 and @xmath156 , and the moduli @xmath157 and @xmath158 still have to be integrated over the positive real axis . these last two integrations can be carried out next .
these @xmath159 and @xmath160 integrals have the form @xcite @xmath161 with the cut of the square root chosen to be along the positive real axis .
the coefficients are functions of the parallel space variables @xmath155 and @xmath156 . with due care to the analytic structure of the integrand
, one achieves the first integration by using either landen @xcite or euler transformations @xcite .
the results allow one to interpret the @xmath160 integration as an integral representation of dilogarithms and associated functions , and thus one obtains a two - fold integral representation as the final result .
we once more stress that the final two integrations only cover finite triangular domains .
they are suitable for numerical integrations using gaussian quadrature .
this programme was first successfully applied to two - loop three - point functions in ref .
@xcite , and then extended to the crossed topology in ref .
@xcite . for the crossed topology , the unavoidable presence of two propagators involving both loop momenta results in a more complicated cut structure .
there are many more cases to be considered , but the calculation still follows the scheme outlined above .
we now present our results for diagrams @xmath81 through @xmath82 in the form of eq .
( [ eqtem ] ) .
the number of propagators is @xmath162 for @xmath68 , @xmath163 for @xmath69 and @xmath71 , and @xmath164 for @xmath70 , @xmath72 , and @xmath73 .
coefficients @xmath98 , @xmath99 , and @xmath100 are listed in tables  [ tab1 ] and [ tab2 ] .
the formulas for coefficients @xmath100 of @xmath165 , @xmath166 , and @xmath167 are somewhat lengthy , and we have introduced the following constants : @xmath168\nonumber\\ & { \hspace*{-2.5mm}}\approx{\hspace*{-2.5mm}}&-0.647\,466\,172,\nonumber\\ { \rm g}_5&{\hspace*{-2.5mm}}={\hspace*{-2.5mm}}&-\int_0^{1/4}dx\,\frac{\sqrt{1 - 4x}}{x(1-x)}\,\ln(1+x ) \nonumber\\ & { \hspace*{-2.5mm}}={\hspace*{-2.5mm}}&\sqrt3\left[{\mathop{{\mbox{cl}}_2}\nolimits}\left(\frac{2}{3}\pi + \arctan\sqrt{15}\right )             + { \mathop{{\mbox{cl}}_2}\nolimits}\left(\frac{2}{3}\pi - \arctan\sqrt{15}\right)\right ]         -\frac{4}{\sqrt3}{\mathop{{\mbox{cl}}_2}\nolimits}\left(\frac{\pi}{3}\right)\nonumber\\ & { \hspace*{-2.5mm}}{\hspace*{-2.5mm}}&-2\ln^2\frac{\sqrt5 - 1}{2 } + \frac{\pi}{\sqrt3}\ln2 \nonumber\\ & { \hspace*{-2.5mm}}\approx{\hspace*{-2.5mm}}&-0.177\,283\,264,\nonumber\\ { \rm h}_5&{\hspace*{-2.5mm}}={\hspace*{-2.5mm}}&\int_0^{1/4}dx\,\frac{\sqrt{1 - 4x}}{(1-x)^2 } \left[{\mathop{{\mbox{li}}_2}\nolimits}(-x)+\ln x\ln(1+x)\right]\nonumber\\ & { \hspace*{-2.5mm}}\approx{\hspace*{-2.5mm}}&-0.065\,325\,931,\nonumber\\ { \rm h}_5&{\hspace*{-2.5mm}}={\hspace*{-2.5mm}}&-\int_0^{1/4}dx\,\frac{\sqrt{1 - 4x}}{(1-x)^2}\ln(1+x)\nonumber\\ & { \hspace*{-2.5mm}}={\hspace*{-2.5mm}}&-\frac{2}{\sqrt3 } \left[{\mathop{{\mbox{cl}}_2}\nolimits}\left(\frac{2}{3}\pi + \arctan\sqrt{15}\right )             + { \mathop{{\mbox{cl}}_2}\nolimits}\left(\frac{2}{3}\pi - \arctan\sqrt{15}\right)\right ]         + \frac{8}{3\sqrt3}{\mathop{{\mbox{cl}}_2}\nolimits}\left(\frac{\pi}{3}\right)\nonumber\\ & { \hspace*{-2.5mm}}{\hspace*{-2.5 mm } } & -\frac{\sqrt5}{2}\ln\frac{3-\sqrt5}{2 }          -\frac{\pi}{\sqrt3}\left(\frac{2}{3}\ln2+\frac{1}{2}\right ) \nonumber\\ & { \hspace*{-2.5mm}}\approx{\hspace*{-2.5mm}}&-0.021\,441\,581.\end{aligned}\ ] ] the analytic results for @xmath169 and @xmath170 are rather messy , and we refrain from writing them down here .    in sec .  3
, we discussed the elimination of the ir - divergent pieces in eq .
( [ eqmaster ] ) . substituting in the remainder of eq .
( [ eqmaster ] ) the expressions for @xmath43 , @xmath47 , @xmath48 , @xmath57 , and @xmath83 in terms of @xmath6 and @xmath36 @xcite as well as the results for the various one- and two - loop diagrams , we may set @xmath171 and so obtain the physical result @xmath172\right . \nonumber\\ & { \hspace*{-2.5mm}}{\hspace*{-2.5 mm } } & + \hat\lambda^2\left [ - 2\zeta(3 ) + \zeta(2)\left(- 45\pi\sqrt3 + 144\ln2 + \frac{1173}{2}\right )   + 4\left(33\sqrt3 + 4\pi\right){\mathop{{\mbox{cl}}_2}\nolimits}\left(\frac{\pi}{3}\right )    \right .
\nonumber\\ & { \hspace*{-2.5mm}}{\hspace*{-2.5 mm } } & \phantom{+\hat\lambda^2\left[\right . } - 181\pi\sqrt3 - \frac{749}{8 }   + 189{\rm l}_5 - 2{\rm f}_2 - 12{\rm g}_5 - 18{\rm h}_5 \nonumber\\ & { \hspace*{-2.5mm}}{\hspace*{-2.5 mm } } & \phantom{+\hat\lambda^2\left[\right . }
+ 12{\rm i}_1 + 12{\rm i}_2 + 8{\rm i}_3 + 72{\rm i}_4   + 40{\rm i}_5 + 24{\rm i}_6 + 8{\rm i}_7    \nonumber\\ & { \hspace*{-2.5mm}}{\hspace*{-2.5 mm } } & \phantom{+\hat\lambda^2\left[\right . }
+ 108{\rm j}_1 + 12{\rm j}_2 + 12{\rm j}_3 + 4{\rm j}_4   + 72{\rm j}_5 + 24{\rm j}_6 + 24{\rm j}_7 + 8{\rm j}_8   + 36{\rm k}_1   + 4{\rm k}_2   \nonumber\\ & { \hspace*{-2.5mm}}{\hspace*{-2.5 mm } } & \phantom{+\hat\lambda^2\left[\right . } + i\left ( \zeta(2)\left ( - 108\sqrt3\ln2 + 174\sqrt3 - 53\pi\right ) + \pi\left(57\ln2 - \frac{41}{2 } - 2{\rm f}_2 - 12{\rm g}_5 - 18{\rm h}_5\right ) \right .
\nonumber\\ & { \hspace*{-2.5mm}}{\hspace*{-2.5 mm } } & \phantom{+\hat\lambda^2\left[\right . }
+ 40{\rm i}_5 + 8{\rm i}_7   + 12{\rm j}_2   + 12{\rm j}_3 + 4{\rm j}_4 + 24{\rm j}_7 + 8{\rm j}_8   + 4{\rm k}_2 \left.\left.\left.\vphantom{\frac{1}{1}}\right)\right]\right\},\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath173 . here
, @xmath174 stems from the all - massive lemon diagram , @xmath175+o(\epsilon)$ ] , and is given in terms of a two - dimensional integral in eq .
( a86 ) of ref .
@xcite , where it is called @xmath176 .
all other constants are listed in tables  [ tab1 ] and [ tab2 ] together with eq .
( [ eqcon ] ) . inserting in eq .
( [ eqfin ] ) the numerical values of these constants , we find @xmath177\right\}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] this agrees reasonably well with eq .  ( 13 ) of ref .
@xcite , where the two - loop coefficient is found to be @xmath178 $ ] . taking
the absolute squared of eq .
( [ eqnum ] ) , we obtain the correction factor , @xmath179 , in the relation @xmath180 between the radiatively corrected and born values of the @xmath28 decay width as @xmath181    for comparison , we also list the analogous correction factor , @xmath182 @xmath183 , for the higgs - boson decay to a pair of fermions @xcite : @xmath184 in the derivation of eq .
( [ eqkf ] ) , yukawa couplings have been set to zero .
therefore eq .
( [ eqkf ] ) should be a useful approximation to the full electroweak two - loop result as long as @xmath185 .
we are now in a position to explore the phenomenological consequences of our result . in fig .
[ fig2 ] , we display the @xmath28 correction factor @xmath179 of eq .
( [ eqkv ] ) to @xmath18 and @xmath3 as a function of @xmath6 . for comparison , also the corresponding approximations for the @xmath186 correction factor @xmath187 of eq .
( [ eqkf ] ) are shown . in both cases ,
the @xmath18 terms enhance the born results .
this effect is slightly more pronounced for @xmath179 . in the case of @xmath179 ,
the @xmath3 term acts in the same direction as the @xmath18 term . for @xmath6 increasing , it rapidly gains importance relative to the @xmath18 term ; at @xmath188  gev , both terms have the same numerical value , 12.6% . in the case of @xmath187 ,
the @xmath3 term reduces and , for @xmath189  tev , overcompensates the effect of the @xmath18 term .
obviously , the perturbation expansions of @xmath179 and @xmath187 in @xmath21 cease to usefully converge for @xmath6 values in excess of about 1  tev .
consequently , this value may be considered as an upper bound on the higgs - boson pole mass @xmath6 , if the sm is to be weakly interacting @xcite .
we emphasize that this observation is independent of speculations concerning the energy scale up to which the sm is supposed to be valid .
the goldstone - boson equivalence theorem @xcite allowed us to extract power corrections in @xmath21 . in the high-@xmath6 limit , these are clearly dominant over corrections in @xmath190 and @xmath191 arising from the gauge and yukawa sectors of the sm , respectively .
for the @xmath26 and @xmath27 decays , this was verified for the @xmath18 terms in refs .
@xcite , where the respective partial widths were completely calculated to one loop in the sm .
there is no obvious reason why the situation should be different at the electroweak two - loop order .
qcd corrections enter the stage only at the two - loop level , in connection with quark loops .
the dominant two- and three - loop qcd corrections to the @xmath192 and @xmath193 couplings , of @xmath194 @xcite and @xmath195 @xcite , respectively , are well under control and suppressed against the @xmath21 power corrections for @xmath6 large .
the dominance of the @xmath21 power corrections in the case of the @xmath196 yukawa couplings was discussed in great detail in refs .
@xcite . in this context
, we should mention that the @xmath18 two - loop corrections to the partial width of the loop - induced @xmath197 decay have been computed @xcite with the aid of the goldstone - boson equivalence theorem .    since a higgs boson with mass @xmath23 decays almost exclusively to pairs of intermediate bosons and top quarks , and we have gained control over the dominant two - loop corrections to the respective partial widths , we are now able to predict the lifetime of a high - mass higgs boson with two - loop precision . for the reader
s convenience , we list here the born formulas of the relevant partial decay widths : @xmath198 where @xmath199 and @xmath200 ( @xmath201 ) .
we compute the total higgs - boson decay width as @xmath202 + k_f\gamma_b\left(h\to t\bar t\,\right)\,.\ ] ] we display the result as a function of @xmath6 in fig .
[ fig3 ] , assuming @xmath203  gev . comparing the born , one - loop , and two - loop approximations , the significance of radiative corrections to the heavy - higgs lifetime , @xmath204 , becomes evident .
equations  ( [ eqkv ] ) , ( [ eqkf ] ) , and ( [ eqdec ] ) refer to the on - mass - shell renormalization scheme and are thus independent of the unphysical renormalization scale @xmath87 , which enters via dimensional regularization .
by contrast , in other renormalization schemes such as the @xmath205 scheme , there remains a weak @xmath87 dependence in the loop - corrected expressions for the various higgs - boson decay widths .
it is generally believed that the scheme and scale dependences of a calculation up to a given order indicate the size of the unknown higher - order contributions , _
i.e. _ , they provide us with an estimate of the theoretical uncertainty . applying this empirical rule to the fermionic and bosonic
higgs - boson decays , one may conclude that the respective perturbative results are likely to become unreliable already for @xmath206  gev  @xcite .
in fact , for @xmath206  gev , the @xmath87 dependences of the @xmath205 results are no longer reduced if the two - loop corrections are included @xcite .
finally , we should mention that monte - carlo studies on finite lattices provide us with a hint on the all - order relation between the mass and the bosonic decay width of the higgs boson @xcite . in ref .
@xcite , elastic @xmath207 scattering was analyzed nonperturbatively in the framework of the four - dimensional o(4)-symmetric nonlinear @xmath208 model in the broken phase , and the @xmath208 resonance was observed .
the mass @xmath209 and width @xmath210 of this resonance could be extracted from the measured scattering phases . at the same time , the pion mass @xmath211 and wave - function - renormalization constant @xmath2 as well as the field expectation value @xmath212 in infinite volume were determined . in this way , it is possible to compare the nonperturbative value of @xmath210 with the respective perturbative value obtained by inserting @xmath211 , @xmath209 , @xmath2 , and @xmath212 into the tree - level formula for @xmath210 , given by eqs .
( 9.4 ) and ( 9.5 ) of ref .
@xcite . for the central simulation point ,
the nonperturbative result is found to exceed the tree - level one by approximately 16.7% @xcite .
it is interesting to confront this all - order correction with the one- and two - loop corrections of eq .
( [ eqkv ] ) . if we identify @xmath209 , @xmath2 , and @xmath212 of ref .
@xcite with our parameters @xmath6 , @xmath47 , and @xmath83 , respectively , we have @xmath213 , where the lattice constant cancels on the right - hand side .
we so find that the central simulation point of ref .
@xcite corresponds to @xmath214  gev , for which the corrections through @xmath18 and @xmath3 in eq .
( [ eqkv ] ) amount to approximately 7.7% and 12.5% , respectively .
the tree - level , one - loop , two - loop , and nonperturbative values of @xmath179 at this value of @xmath6 are indicated by the crosses in fig .
[ fig2 ] . in other words ,
the one- and two - loop terms of @xmath179 are 7.7% and 4.7% , respectively , while the higher - order terms apparently add up to a total of 4.3% .
this is a very reasonable result , which gives support to the notion that the perturbative expansion in @xmath21 of the bosonic higgs - decay width is still usefully convergent for this value of @xmath6 , in accordance with the conclusions drawn above on the basis of fig .
however , this observation should be taken with a grain of salt .
the analysis of ref .
@xcite was performed with @xmath211 finite , while we set @xmath215 for the goldstone - boson pole mass . nevertheless , we believe that such finite - mass effects will not drastically change our conclusions as long as we compare the relative corrections to the decay widths rather than the absolute values of the latter .
this assumption is substantiated by the detailed inspection of the full one - loop results for the @xmath26 and @xmath27 partial decay widths @xcite .    * acknowledgements *    we thank a. ghinculov for providing us with some partial results of ref .
@xcite , and m. gckeler , m. lscher , p. weisz , and j. westphalen for valuable advice regarding the comparison of our result with ref .
the collaboration on this project was initiated during the workshop on _ higher order perturbative corrections in the standard model _ at the _ aspen center for physics_.
here , we present the relevant one - loop three - point diagrams to @xmath30 . we write the generic one - loop three - point integral as @xmath216 [ ( q+p+k)^2-m_3 ^ 2+i\varepsilon]}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] the one - loop three - point diagrams in fig .
[ fig1 ] are then defined as @xmath217 we find @xmath218     + o(\epsilon^2)\right\ } ,     \nonumber\\ { \cal c}_2&{\hspace*{-2.5mm}}={\hspace*{-2.5 mm } } &     \frac{i}{(4\pi)^2m_h^2 } \left(\frac{4\pi\mu^2}{m_h^2e^\gamma}\right)^\epsilon \left\ {     -\frac{2}{3}\zeta(2 )     + \epsilon\left[\frac{2}{9}\zeta(3)-\frac{4\pi}{9}{\mathop{{\mbox{cl}}_2}\nolimits}\left(\frac{\pi}{3}\right)\right ]      + o(\epsilon^2)\right\ } ,     \nonumber\\ { \cal d}_{2a}&{\hspace*{-2.5mm}}={\hspace*{-2.5 mm } } &      \frac{i}{(4\pi)^2m_h^4 } \left(\frac{4\pi\mu^2}{m_h^2e^\gamma}\right)^\epsilon \left\ {     i\frac{\pi}{2 }     + \epsilon\left[-\frac{5}{4}\zeta(2)+i\frac{3\pi}{2}\ln2\right ]     + o(\epsilon^2)\right\ } ,     \nonumber\\ { \cal d}_3&{\hspace*{-2.5mm}}={\hspace*{-2.5 mm } } &     \frac{i}{(4\pi)^2m_h^4 } \left(\frac{4\pi\mu^2}{m_h^2e^\gamma}\right)^\epsilon \left\{\frac{\pi}{3\sqrt3 }     + \epsilon\left[\frac{2}{3}\zeta(2)+\frac{4}{3\sqrt3}{\mathop{{\mbox{cl}}_2}\nolimits}\left(\frac{\pi}{3}\right )      -\frac{\pi}{3\sqrt3}\ln3\right ]     + o(\epsilon^2)\right\}.\nonumber\\\end{aligned}\ ] ] as already stated in sec
.  3 , @xmath119 and @xmath120 are ir divergent . we need not calculate them , since their prefactors in eq .
( [ eqmaster ] ) vanish according to eq .
( [ irfinsets ] ) .
e. gross , b.a .
kniehl , and g. wolf , z. phys .
c * 63 * , 417 ( 1994 ) ; * 66 * , 321(e ) ( 1995 ) ; m. carena , p.m. zerwas , _
et al . _ , in _ physics at lep2 _ , edited by g. altarelli , t. sjostrand , and f. zwirner , cern yellow report no .  9601 , vol .  1 ( february 1996 )
p.  351 .
linde , pisma zh .
teor .  fiz .
* 23 * , 73 ( 1976 ) [ jetp lett .  *
23 * , 64 ( 1976 ) ] ; s. weinberg , phys .
36 * , 294 ( 1976 ) ; m.j .
duncan , r. philippe , and m. sher , phys .
* 153b * , 165 ( 1985 ) ; m. sher , phys .  rep .  * 179 * , 273 ( 1989 ) ; phys .
b * 317 * , 159 ( 1993 ) ; * 331 * , 448(a ) ( 1994 ) ; m. lindner , m. sher , and h.w .
zaglauer , phys .  lett .
b * 228 * , 139 ( 1989 ) ; c. ford , d.r.t .
jones , p.w .
stephenson , and m.b .
einhorn , nucl .
* b395 * , 17 ( 1993 ) ; g. altarelli and g. isidori , phys .
b * 337 * , 141 ( 1994 ) ; j.a .
casas , j.r .
espinosa , and m. quiros , phys .
b * 342 * , 171 ( 1995 ) .
r. dashen and h. neuberger , phys .
lett .  * 50 * , 1897 ( 1983 ) ; w. langguth and i. montvay , z. phys .
c * 36 * , 725 ( 1987 ) ; a. hasenfratz , t. neuhaus , k. jansen , h. yoneyama , and c.b .
lang , phys .
b * 199 * , 531 ( 1987 ) ; a. hasenfratz and t. neuhaus , nucl .  phys .
* b297 * , 205 ( 1988 ) ; p. hasenfratz and j. nager , z. phys .
c * 37 * , 477 ( 1988 ) ; m. lscher and p. weisz , phys .
b * 212 * , 472 ( 1988 ) ; u.m .
heller , h. neuberger , and p. vranas , nucl .
phys .  * b399 * , 271 ( 1993 ) ; u.m .
heller , m. klomfass , h. neuberger , and p. vranas , nucl .
* b405 * , 555 ( 1993 ) .
cornwall , d.n .
levin , and g. tiktopoulos , phys .
d * 10 * , 1145 ( 1974 ) ; * 11 * , 972(e ) ( 1975 ) ; c.e .
vayonakis , lett .
nuovo cim .
* 17 * , 383 ( 1976 ) ; m.s . chanowitz and m.k .
gaillard , nucl .
* b261 * , 379 ( 1985 ) ; g.j .
gounaris , r. kgerler , and h. neufeld , phys .
d * 34 * , 3257 ( 1986 ) ; y .- p .
yao and c .- p .
yuan , phys .
d * 38 * , 2237 ( 1988 ) ; j. bagger and c. schmidt , phys .
d * 41 * , 264 ( 1990 ) ; h. veltman , phys .
d * 41 * , 2294 ( 1990 ) ; h .- j .
he , y .- p .
kuang , and x. li , phys .
lett .  * 69 * , 2619 ( 1992 ) ; phys .
d * 49 * , 4842 ( 1994 ) ; h .- j .
he , y .- p .
kuang , and c .- p .
yuan , phys .
d * 51 * , 6463 ( 1995 ) .
.coefficients @xmath98 , @xmath99 , and @xmath100 to be inserted in template  ( [ eqtem ] ) to obtain the values of the divergent two - loop three - point diagrams of fig .
@xmath162 for @xmath68 , @xmath163 for @xmath69 , and @xmath164 for @xmath70 .
analytical and numerical results for @xmath219 , @xmath220 , @xmath169 , @xmath221 , @xmath170 , and @xmath222 are given in eq .
( [ eqcon ] ) . [ cols="^,^,^,<",options="header " , ]