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: bednya@theor.jinr.ru

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 –