text:
# Magnetorotational Instability in a Rotating Liquid Metal Annulus

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Astrophysical magnetic fields have long been recognized to be important but difficult to understand. A prominent example concerns accretion disks \[Shakura & Sunyaev 1973, Lynden-Bell & Pringle 1974\], where orbiting plasmas gradually accrete onto a central mass. Three types of central object occur: protostars (stars in formation), collapsed stars in binary systems (white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes), and supermassive black holes in active galactic nuclei (quasars *et al.*). In addition to the accretion process, jets and other spectacular phenomena may be magnetically driven by the disk \[e.g. Meier, Koide, & Uchida 2001\]. Understanding the dynamics and dissipation mechanisms in accretion disks holds an important key to understanding many active astronomical systems as a whole.

The accretion rates cannot be due to ordinary molecular or plasma viscosity because of the extraordinarily high Reynolds numbers involved. Theorists have often appealed to hydrodynamic turbulence \[Pringle 1981\], but recent numerical simulations indicate that nonmagnetic disks are stabilized by their positive angular momentum gradient \[Balbus, Hawley, & Stone 1996, Cabot 1996, Hawley, Balbus, & Winters 1999\]; in effect, Rayleigh’s stability criterion appears to suppress local nonaxisymmetric as well as axisymmetric disturbances \[Rayleigh 1916\]. Linear axisymmetric instability of a *magnetized* but Rayleigh-stable fluid, the magnetorotational instability (MRI), was discovered decades ago \[Velikhov 1959, Chandrasekhar 1960\] but did not come to the attention of the astrophyisical community until recently rediscovered \[Balbus & Hawley 1991a\], despite general recognition that magnetic effects might somehow be important \[Shakura & Sunyaev 1973\]. Since then, many analytic and numerical studies of the MRI have been performed under increasingly complex and realistic assumptions, including such effects as finite resistivity, global boundary conditions, and nonlinearity in two and three dimensions \[Balbus & Hawley 1991b, Curry, Pudritz, & Sutherland 1994, Blaes & Balbus 1994, Brandenburg et al. 1995, Matsumoto & Tajima 1995, Hawley, Gammie, & Balbus 1996, Stone et al. 1996, Gammie 1996, Jin 1996, Sano & Miyama 1999, Fleming, Stone, & Hawley 2000, Hawley 2000\].

Despite its popularity and importance, however, the MRI has never been realized in the laboratory or demonstrated observationally. Laboratory plasma experiments are primarily magnetically driven, and the observed flows, often induced as secondary effects of other instabilities, are small compared to the Alfvén speed. On the other hand, the existing body of experimental work on magnetized Couette flow using liquid metals \[Donnelly & Ozima 1960, Donnelly & Ozima 1962, Donnelly & Caldwell 1964, Brahme 1970\] has focused on magnetic stabilization of the Rayleigh instability, as first analyzed by Chandrasekhar \[Chandrasekhar 1961\]. In this Letter, we explore the feasibility of a Couette-flow experiment dedicated to MRI.

## 2 LOCAL STABILITY ANALYSIS

Couette flow involves a liquid confined between rotating coaxial cylinders \[Couette 1890\]. Let their radii be $`r_1<r_2`$, and their angular velocities $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$. In steady state, the radial angular momentum flux, $`h2\pi r\rho \nu r^2(\mathrm{\Omega }/r)`$, is constant with radius, where $`h`$ is the depth of the liquid, $`\rho `$ is its density, and $`\nu `$ is its kinematic viscosity. If $`h/r=0`$, then the angular velocity of the liquid satisfies $`r^3\mathrm{\Omega }/r=`$const., so that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(r)=a+\frac{b}{r^2},$$
(1)
where $`a=(\mathrm{\Omega }_2r_2^2\mathrm{\Omega }_1r_1^2)/(r_2^2r_1^2)`$ and $`b=r_1^2r_2^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2)/(r_2^2r_1^2).`$ The Rayleigh stability criterion is $`a\mathrm{\Omega }>0`$.

The dynamics of liquid metals is well described by the incompressible and dissipative magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) equations,

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{}`$$`𝑽`$
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{}`$$`𝑩`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝑩}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{\times }(𝑽\mathbf{\times }𝑩)+\eta \mathbf{}^2𝑩`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝑽}{t}}+(𝑽\mathbf{})𝑽`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(𝑩\mathbf{})𝑩}{\mu _0\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}\mathbf{}\left(p+{\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{2\mu _0}}\right)`$
$`+\nu \mathbf{}^2𝑽,`$
where $`𝑽`$ is velocity, $`𝑩`$ is magnetic field, $`\eta `$ is magnetic diffusivity, and $`p`$ is a scalar potential incorporating both pressure and gravity. In cylindrical coordinates, the equilibrium quantities are $`𝑩_0=(0,0,B)`$ and $`𝑽_0=(0,r\mathrm{\Omega },0)`$, and the balance of forces is $`p_0/z=0`$ and $`p_0/r=\rho r\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$.

WKBJ methods describe the stability of this system very well even on the largest scales. Using cylindrical coordinates, the perturbations are $`𝑩_1=(B_r,B_\theta ,B_z)`$ and $`𝑽_1=(V_r,V_\theta ,V_z)`$, all proportional to $`\mathrm{exp}(\gamma tik_zzik_rr)`$, so that $`\gamma `$ is the growth rate and the perturbations are axisymmetric. The minimum $`k_z`$ and $`k_r`$ are assumed to be $`\pi /h`$ and $`\pi /(r_2r_1)`$, respectively, so that the total wavenumber $`k=\sqrt{k_z^2+k_r^2}=k_z\sqrt{1+ϵ^2}`$, where $`ϵh/(r_2r_1)`$ is the elongation of a toroidal cross-section of the liquid metal annulus. The linearized equations of motion are

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`k_rV_r+k_zV_z`$
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`k_rB_r+k_zB_z`$
$`\gamma B_r`$ $`=`$ $`ik_zBV_r\eta k^2B_r`$
$`\gamma B_\theta `$ $`=`$ $`ik_zBV_\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{ln}r}}B_r\eta k^2B_\theta `$
$`\gamma V_r2\mathrm{\Omega }V_\theta `$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{k_zB}{\mu _0\rho }}B_r+i{\displaystyle \frac{k_r}{\rho }}p_1+i{\displaystyle \frac{k_rB}{\mu _0\rho }}B_z\nu k^2V_r`$
$`\gamma V_\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}}V_r`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{k_zB}{\mu _0\rho }}B_\theta \nu k^2V_\theta `$
$`\gamma V_z`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{k_z}{\rho }}p_1\nu k^2V_z`$
where the epicyclic frequency is defined by $`\kappa ^2(1/r^3)(r^4\mathrm{\Omega }^2)/r=4\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\mathrm{\Omega }^2/\mathrm{ln}r`$ and $`p_1`$ is the perturbed pressure. The vertical induction equation is not needed since $`B_z`$ can be deduced from $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝑩=0`$. These equations lead to the following dispersion relation:

$`[(\gamma +\nu k^2)(\gamma +\eta k^2)+(k_zV_A)^2]^2{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{k_z^2}}`$ $`+`$ $`\kappa ^2(\gamma +\eta k^2)^2`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\mathrm{ln}r}}(k_zV_A)^2=0.`$
The Alfvén speed is $`V_AB/\sqrt{\mu _0\rho }`$. This dispersion relation is identical to the one derived for accretion disks in the incompressible limit \[Sano & Miyama 1999\].

Introducing a dimensionless vorticity parameter, $`\zeta (1/r\mathrm{\Omega })(r^2\mathrm{\Omega })/r=2+\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{ln}r`$, we have $`\kappa ^2=2\mathrm{\Omega }^2\zeta `$ so that the Rayleigh stability criterion becomes $`\zeta 0`$. Similarly, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2/\mathrm{ln}r=2\mathrm{\Omega }^2(\zeta 2)`$. There are three other relevant frequencies: resistive, $`\omega _\eta \eta k^2`$; viscous, $`\omega _\nu \nu k^2`$; and Alfvénic $`\omega _A|k_zV_A|`$. Because liquid metals are far more resistive than viscous, $`\omega _\eta `$ serves as a base frequency in the following three dimensionless parameters: magnetic Prandtl number, $`P_\mathrm{m}\omega _\nu /\omega _\eta `$; Lundquist number, $`S\omega _A/\omega _\eta `$; and magnetic Reynolds number, $`R_\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega _\eta `$. The astrophysical literature gives several inequivalent definitions of “magnetic Reynolds number,” some corresponding to our $`S`$. Some involve the sound speed, $`c_s`$, for although MRI is essentially noncompressive, vertical force balance in an astrophysical disk relates $`c_s`$ to the half-thickness: $`c_sh\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The free energy for MRI derives from differential rotation, represented in our dimensionless system by a combination of $`\zeta `$ and $`R_\mathrm{m}`$; but magnetic field, represented by $`S`$, is required to liberate this energy from hydrodynamic constraints.

Using the normalized growth rate, $`\gamma /\omega _\eta \gamma `$, the dispersion relation can be rewritten as

$`\left[(\gamma +P_\mathrm{m})(\gamma +1)+S^2\right]^2(1+ϵ^2)`$
$`+2\zeta R_\mathrm{m}^2(\gamma +1)^22(2\zeta )R_\mathrm{m}^2S^2`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
It can be shown that there are no purely imaginary roots for $`\gamma `$ as follows. Suppose that $`\gamma =i\omega `$ for real and nonzero $`\omega `$. From the imaginary part of the equation above, one finds

$$\omega ^2=S^2+P_\mathrm{m}+(1+P_\mathrm{m})\zeta \sigma ^2,\sigma \frac{R_\mathrm{m}}{1+P_\mathrm{m}}\sqrt{\frac{2}{1+ϵ^2}}.$$

Substituting this into the real part yields

$$\sigma ^4\zeta ^2+2\sigma ^2\zeta +1+\frac{S^2}{P_\mathrm{m}}+2\frac{S\sigma ^2}{P_\mathrm{m}}=0.$$

This is a quadratic equation in $`\zeta `$ which must be real. But the discriminant

$$\sigma ^4\left(\frac{S^2}{P_\mathrm{m}}+2\frac{S\sigma ^2}{P_\mathrm{m}}\right),$$

is negative unless $`S=0`$ or $`R_\mathrm{m}=0`$. Hence there are no purely oscillatory modes. On the other hand, all roots of the dispersion relation for $`\gamma `$ have negative real parts as $`R_\mathrm{m}0`$ (nonrotating flow). Hence the transition to instability occurs through $`\gamma =0`$, and the necessary and sufficient condition for stability is that the value of the dispersion relation at $`\gamma =0`$ remain positive as $`R_\mathrm{m}`$ increases:

$$(P_\mathrm{m}+S^2)^2(1+ϵ^2)+2\zeta R_\mathrm{m}^22(2\zeta )R_\mathrm{m}^2S^20,$$
(2)
which can be taken into various limits.

Nonmagnetic limit. As $`\eta \mathrm{}`$, the three terms $`S^4`$, $`R_\mathrm{m}S^2`$, and $`R_\mathrm{m}^2S^2`$ approach zero faster than the others, leading to the stability condition $`P_\mathrm{m}^2(1+ϵ^2)+2\zeta R_\mathrm{m}^20`$. Stability occurs when $`\zeta 0`$, and also when $`\zeta <0`$ if the Taylor number-like expression $`2\zeta \mathrm{\Omega }^2/\nu ^2k^41+ϵ^2`$ \[Taylor 1923\].

Ideal MHD limit. As $`\eta 0`$, the other two terms dominate, with stability for $`S^2(1+ϵ^2)2(2\zeta )R_\mathrm{m}^2`$. Instability occurs at sufficiently weak fields (small $`S`$) unless $`\zeta 2`$, *i.e.* $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{ln}r0`$ \[Balbus & Hawley 1991a\].

Small $`P_\mathrm{m}`$ limit. In liquid metals, usually viscosity is much smaller than resistivity, $`P_\mathrm{m}10^6`$. As $`P_\mathrm{m}0`$, eq. (2) reduces to

$$\zeta \frac{2S^2}{S^2+1}\frac{S^4(1+ϵ^2)}{2R_\mathrm{m}^2(S^2+1)}.$$
(3)
## 3 STABILITY DIAGRAMS AND GROWTH RATES

The stability condition (3) defines a two-dimensional surface in the parameter space $`(S,\zeta ,R_\mathrm{m})`$ at fixed $`ϵ`$. To illustrate the dependence on these parameters, we vary only two of them at a time. Stability boundaries in the $`(S,\zeta )`$ plane are shown in Fig. 1 for the case of $`ϵ=1`$. When $`\zeta <0`$, the annulus is unstable hydrodynamically to the Rayleigh mode at $`S=0`$ but can be stabilized \[Chandrasekhar 1961\] by a large magnetic field (large $`S`$). When $`\zeta >0`$, the annulus is stable at zero field but unstable at some $`S>0`$ if $`R_\mathrm{m}`$ is large enough. Stability returns at even larger $`S`$. The unstable region extends to larger $`S`$ and $`\zeta `$ at larger $`R_\mathrm{m}`$. Stability at $`S=0`$ and as $`S\mathrm{}`$ are hallmarks of MRI \[Balbus & Hawley 1991a, Balbus & Hawley 1998\]. (In ideal MHD, instability extends formally to $`S=0^+`$.) It can be seen that there is a maximum $`\zeta `$ above which MRI is absent for a given $`R_\mathrm{m}`$. From eq.(3),

$$\zeta _{\mathrm{max}}=2\frac{1+ϵ^2}{R_\mathrm{m}^2}\left(\sqrt{1+\frac{4R_\mathrm{m}^2}{1+ϵ^2}}1\right)$$
(4)
at the $`S`$ value given by $`S^2=\sqrt{1+4R_\mathrm{m}^2/(1+ϵ^2)}1`$.

Figure 2 shows stability in the $`(R_\mathrm{m},\zeta )`$ plane. Region (I) is hydrodynamically unstable but can be stabilized by a finite magnetic field. This region has been extensively studied both theoretically and experimentally \[Chandrasekhar 1961\], and is exemplified by point B. Region (II) is hydrodynamically stable but destabilized by a magnetic field. This is the MRI region, and has never been studied experimentally. Growth rates at points A and C are given below. Region (III) is always stable. The boundary between regions (II) and (III) is given by eq. (4).

It is useful to project the stability diagram onto experimentally controllable parameters. To apply the local dispersion relation, we take $`\zeta =2a/\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ \[from eq.(1)\] and $`R_\mathrm{m}\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\omega _\eta `$, with $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2}`$. Figure 3(a) shows stability in the plane $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)`$ for an annulus of dimensions $`r_1`$=0.05m, $`r_2`$=0.15m, and $`h`$=0.1m (hence $`ϵ=1`$) filled with gallium ($`\rho 6\times 10^3`$kg/m3, $`\eta 0.2`$m2/s, $`\nu 3\times 10^7`$m2/s). Table 1 lists the physical parameters at points A, B, and C. The corresponding growth rates are shown as functions of magnetic field in Fig.3(b).

The applicability of WKBJ is subject to doubt, since the most unstable wavelengths are larger than the gap width and cylinder height. In fact, global analysis shows that the eigenfunctions are nonsinusoidal and sensitive to the boundary conditions. Yet the growth rates are remarkably robust. A linearized, finite-difference, initial-value code was written to to detect the fastest growing mode. Periodic boundary conditions were used in $`z`$. Radial boundaries were impenetrable and no-slip ($`\delta 𝑽_1=0`$), and electrically either perfectly insulating or perfectly conducting. Results are compared with the WKBJ analysis in Figs.2 and 3. Figure 4 shows eigenmodes for the parameters of point C with $`B`$=0.3 Tesla. Differences between the conducting and insulating cases can be seen near the inner boundaries. A Hartmann layer \[Hartmann 1937\], consisting of large toroidal and axial velocities within a radial thickness of $`\sqrt{\nu \eta }/V_A<1`$mm (not visible in Fig. 4), forms at the inner conducting boundary as the Lorentz force, $`\delta j_r\times B_z`$, balances with the viscous force. Nevertheless, the growth rates are remarkably similar to those of the local analysis, which therefore should suffice for preliminary experimental design. \[Details of the global analysis will be reported elsewhere \[Goodman & Ji 2001\].\]

A fully nonlinear incompressible MHD code has been developed to study the problem in three dimensions \[Kageyama, Ji, & Goodman 2001\]. Initial results from linear and two-dimensional runs of this code with conducting, freely-slipping boundary conditions agree with the local and global analyses. For example, for the conditions given by the point C in Figs.2 and 3 at $`B=0.3`$ Tesla, the growth rate is 21.67 s-1 from simulations, 21.90 s-1 from global analysis, and 19.10 s-1 from local analysis.

## 4 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Several issues must be explored before committing to an experimental design. The first is geometric optimization with regard to aspect ratio \[$`A(r_2+r_1)/(r_2r_1)`$\] and elongation \[$`ϵh/(r_2r_1`$)\]. Obviously, $`ϵ1`$ is desirable to minimize volume, and therefore expense, at a given growth rate. Less obviously, aspect ratios close to unity cause the eigenmodes and growth rates to be dominated by the inner cylinder, which is undesirable if the aim is to imitate relatively uniform local conditions within an astrophysical disk. Therefore, moderate values of $`A(2)`$ and $`ϵ(1)`$ are preferred.

The periodic vertical boundary conditions used in all of our analyses take no account of viscous layers at the top and bottom of the flow. (The top will have to be capped because of large radial pressure gradients.) The main effect of these viscous boundary layers is to drive Ekman circulation, which flows more rapidly against a weak angular-momentum gradient than against uniform rotation. The thickness of the Ekman layer $`\delta _E\zeta ^{1/4}\sqrt{\nu /\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ is small ($`10^3h`$ at point C), and the Ekman circulation time $`\zeta ^{3/4}h/\sqrt{\nu \overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ 2 s is much longer than a typical MRI growth time, so we do not expect these layers to be important for stability. To further minimize their effect, if necessary, one could increase $`ϵ`$, use differentially rotating rings at the vertical boundaries, or modify the boundary layer by localized Lorentz forces \[Brahme 1970\].

A third issue is finite-amplitude or nonlinear hydrodynamical instability in Rayleigh-stable regimes. Few theoretical studies on this subject exist \[Serrin 1959, Joseph & Munson 1970\]. It has been argued from experiments that a rapid Couette flow can be nonlinearly unstable \[Richard & Zahn 1999\]. However, there are indications that such instabilities are caused by wall surface defects \[Schultz-Grunow 1959\], which can be minimized. In fact, it has been shown numerically that a positive angular-momentum gradient strongly resists nonlinear instability \[Balbus, Hawley, & Stone 1996, Hawley, Balbus, & Winters 1999\]. The outcome depends, however, on the amplitude of the initial perturbation and the strength of the angular-momentum gradient. These questions could be addressed empirically and relatively inexpensively in prototype experiments using water.

One would like to predict the nonlinear phases of MRI in the laboratory system. Ultimately, nonlinear MRI is closely related to other important physics of accretion disks involving magnetic field, i.e., dynamo processes and jet formation. Ongoing three-dimensional MHD simulations \[Kageyama, Ji, & Goodman 2001\] will provide useful insights here. Indeed, an important purpose of the experiment is to be a testbed for MHD codes since, lacking detailed observational constraints, theorists depend upon computer simulations to understand MRI-driven turbulence.

The experiment will be far more resistive than most accretion disks, though perhaps not all \[Gammie 1996, Gammie & Menou 1998\]. Simulations indicate that when the field is generated by the disk itself (magnetic dynamo), then the large-scale field is nearly toroidal, the important instabilities are nonaxisymmetric, and the turbulence sustains itself only if $`S`$ and $`R_\mathrm{m}`$ are much larger than the experiment proposed here will achieve \[Balbus & Hawley 1991b, Brandenburg et al. 1995, Hawley, Gammie, & Balbus 1996, Sano, Inutsuku & Miyama 1998, Fleming, Stone, & Hawley 2000\]. On the other hand, the innermost (and therefore most energetic) parts of accretion disks often encounter a vertical field due to the central compact object. The works cited above find that in the presence of an imposed vertical field, turbulence is driven by axisymmetric modes and persists to higher resistivity, probably into the experimentally accessible regime.

In summary, we have used linear stability analyses to explore the prospects for magnetorotational instability in a magnetized Couette flow. We find that MRI can be achieved in a moderately rapidly rotating table-top apparatus using an easy-to-handle liquid metal such as gallium. Auxiliary experiments with an inexpensive nonmagnetic fluid, such as water, will be valuable both as prototypes and as controls to distinguish MRI from nonlinear hydrodynamic instabilities. Onset and dynamics of MRI can be detected by torque measurements of cylinders and magnetic sensors placed around the annulus. Ultrasonic imaging may also be possible. If successful, this will be a rare example of an astrophysical process that can be studied in the laboratory.

## Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Drs. P. Diamond, R. Goldston, S. Hsu, R. Kulsrud, W. Tang, and M. Yamada for fruitful discussions. We thank our anonymous referee for the valuable comments, especially those on the oscillatory modes. This work is supported by U.S. Department of Energy and by NASA grant NAG5-8385 \[to JG\].


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The rare $`B`$ decays serve as a good test for new physics beyond the standard model (SM) since they are not seriously affected by the uncertainties due to long distance effects. The forthcoming B-factories will make more precise measurements on the rare B-decay processes and those measurements would set more strict constraints on the new physics beyond SM. The main purpose of investigation of B-decays, especially the rare decay modes is to search for traces of new physics and determine its parameter space. In all the extensions of SM, the supersymmetry is considered as one of the most plausible candidates. In the general supersymmetric extension of SM, new sources of flavor violation may appear in those soft breaking terms. Applying the mass insertion method, the influence of those non-universal soft breaking terms on various flavor changing neutral current (FCNC) processes are discussed in literatures. However, too many free parameters which exist in the supersymmetry model with non-universal soft breaking terms decrease the model prediction ability. Thus for a practical calculation whose results can be compared with the data, one needs to reduce the number of the free parameters in some way, i.e. by enforcing some physical conditions and assuming reasonable symmetries. A realization of this idea is the minimal supergravity (mSUGRA), which is fully specified by only five parameters. In this work, we perform a strict analysis on the $`\overline{s}bg(\overline{s}b\gamma )`$ effective Lagrangian in the minimal flavor violation supersymmetry up to the leading order. The NLO SUSY-QCD corrections to those processes have been evaluated in our another work .

The most general form of the superpotential which does not violate gauge invariance and the conservation laws in SM is

$`𝒲=\mu ϵ_{ij}\widehat{H}_i^1\widehat{H}_j^2+ϵ_{ij}h_l^I\widehat{H}_i^1\widehat{L}_j^I\widehat{R}^Ih_d^I(\widehat{H}_1^1\widehat{Q}_2^I\widehat{H}_2^1V^{IJ}\widehat{Q}_1^J)\widehat{D}^Ih_u^I(\widehat{H}_1^2V^{JI}\widehat{Q}_2^J\widehat{H}_2^2\widehat{Q}_1^I)\widehat{U}^I.`$ (1)
Here $`\widehat{H}^1`$, $`\widehat{H}^2`$ are Higgs superfields; $`\widehat{Q}^I`$ and $`\widehat{L}^I`$ are quark and lepton superfields in doublets of the weak SU(2) group, where I=1, 2, 3 are the indices of generations; the rest superfields $`\widehat{U}^I`$, $`\widehat{D}^I`$ and $`\widehat{R}^I`$ are quark superfields of the u- and d-types and charged leptons in singlets of the weak SU(2) respectively. Indices i, j are contracted for the SU(2) group, and $`h_l`$, $`h_{u,d}`$ are the Yukawa couplings. In order to break the supersymmetry, the soft breaking terms are introduced as

$`_{soft}=m_{H^1}^2H_i^1H_i^1m_{H^2}^2H_i^2H_i^2m_{L^I}^2\stackrel{~}{L}_i^I\stackrel{~}{L}_i^I`$
$`m_{R^I}^2\stackrel{~}{R}^I\stackrel{~}{R}^Im_{Q^I}^2\stackrel{~}{Q}_i^I\stackrel{~}{Q}_i^Im_{U^I}^2\stackrel{~}{U}^I\stackrel{~}{U}^I`$
$`m_{D^I}^2\stackrel{~}{D}^I\stackrel{~}{D}^I+(m_1\lambda _B\lambda _1+m_2\lambda _A^i\lambda _A^i`$
$`+m_3\lambda _G^a\lambda _G^a+h.c.)+[B\mu ϵ_{ij}H_i^1H_j^2+ϵ_{ij}A_l^Ih_l^IH_i^1\stackrel{~}{L}_j^I\stackrel{~}{R}^I`$
$`A_d^Ih_d^I(H_1^1\stackrel{~}{Q}_2^IH_2^1V^{IJ}\stackrel{~}{Q}_1^J)\stackrel{~}{D}^IA_u^Ih_u^I(H_1^2V^{JI}\stackrel{~}{Q}_2^JH_2^2\stackrel{~}{Q}_1^I)\stackrel{~}{U}^I+h.c.],`$ (2)
where $`m_{H^1}^2,m_{H^2}^2,m_{L^I}^2,m_{R^I}^2,m_{Q^I}^2,m_{U^I}^2`$ and $`m_{D^I}^2`$ are the parameters in unit of mass squared, $`m_3,m_2,m_1`$ denote the masses of $`\lambda _G^a(a=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}8}),\lambda _A^i(i=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3})`$ and $`\lambda _B`$, which are the $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ gauginos. $`B`$ is a free parameter in unit of mass. $`A_l^I,A_u^I,A_d^I(I=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3})`$ are the soft breaking parameters that result in mass splitting between leptons, quarks and their supersymmetric partners. Taking into account of the soft breaking terms Eq.(2), we can study the phenomenology within the minimal supersymmetric extension of the standard model (MSSM). The resultant mass matrix of the up-type scalar quarks is written as

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{U}^I}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{Q^I}^2+m_{u^I}^2+(\frac{1}{2}\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{W})\mathrm{cos}2\beta m_\mathrm{Z}^2& m_{u^I}(A_u^I+\mu \mathrm{cot}\beta )\\ m_{u^I}(A_u^I+\mu \mathrm{cot}\beta )& m_{U^I}^2+m_{u^I}^2+\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{W}\mathrm{cos}2\beta m_\mathrm{Z}^2\end{array}\right),`$ (5)
and the corresponding mass matrix of the down-type scalar quarks is

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{D}^I}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{Q^I}^2+m_{d^I}^2+(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{W})\mathrm{cos}2\beta m_\mathrm{Z}^2& m_{d^I}(A_d^I+\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta )\\ m_{d^I}(A_d^I+\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta )& m_{D^I}^2+m_{d^I}^2\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{W}\mathrm{cos}2\beta m_\mathrm{Z}^2\end{array}\right),`$ (8)
with $`m_{u^I},m_{d^I}(I=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3})`$ being the masses of the I-th generation quarks. One difference between the MSSM and SM is the Higgs sector. There are four charged scalars, two of them are physical massive Higgs bosons and other are massless Goldstones in the SUSY extension. The mixing matrix can be written as:

$$𝒵_H=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{sin}\beta & \mathrm{cos}\beta \\ \mathrm{cos}\beta & \mathrm{sin}\beta \end{array}\right)$$
(9)
with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =\frac{\upsilon _2}{\upsilon _1}`$ and $`\upsilon _1,\upsilon _2`$ being the vacuum-expectation values of the two Higgs scalars. Another matrix that we will use in the later derivation is the chargino mixing matrix. The SUSY partners of the charged Higgs and $`W^\pm `$ combine to give four Dirac fermions: $`\chi _1^\pm `$, $`\chi _2^\pm `$. The two mixing matrices $`𝒵^\pm `$ appearing in the Lagrangian are defined as

$`(𝒵^{})^T_c𝒵^+=diag(m_{_{\chi _1}},m_{_{\chi _2}}),`$ (10)
where $`_c`$ is the mass matrix of charginos. In a similar way, $`Z_{U,D}`$ diagonalize the mass matrices of the up- and down-type squarks respectively:

$`𝒵_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}^I}}^{}m_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}^I}}^2𝒵_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}^I}}=diag(m_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_1^I}}^2,m_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_2^I}}^2),`$
$`𝒵_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}^I}}^{}m_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}^I}}^2𝒵_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}^I}}=diag(m_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_1^I}}^2,m_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_2^I}}^2).`$ (11)
In the framework of minimal supergravity (mSUGRA), the unification assumptions at the GUT scale are expressed as

$`A_l^I=A_d^I=A_u^I=A_0,`$ (12)
$`B=A_01,`$
$`m_{H^1}^2=m_{H^2}^2=m_{L^I}^2=m_{R^I}^2=m_{Q^I}^2=m_{U^I}^2=m_{D^I}^2=m_0^2,`$
$`m_1=m_2=m_3=m_{\frac{1}{2}}.`$
Under these assumptions, the mSUGRA is specified by five parameters:

$$A_0,m_0,m_{\frac{1}{2}},\mathrm{tan}\beta ,sgn(\mu ),$$

and the flavor structure of the model is similar to SM, i.e. flavors change only via the CKM matrix.

The supersymmetric contributions will modify the Wilson Coefficients of the effective $`\overline{s}bg`$ and $`\overline{s}b\gamma `$ vertices. For the W-boson propagator, we adopt the nonlinear $`R_\xi `$ gauge whose gauge fixing term is

$$_{_{gaugefixing}}=\frac{1}{\xi }f^{}f$$
(13)
with $`f=(_\mu W^{+\mu }ieA_\mu W^{+\mu }i\xi m__\mathrm{W}\varphi ^+)`$ in our calculations. A thorough discussion about the gauge invariance was given by Deshpande et al. .

As in the case of SM , the operator basis for $`bsg`$ in the supersymmetry consists of

$`𝒪_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}\overline{s}(i/D)^3\omega _{}b,`$
$`𝒪_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}\overline{s}\{i/D,g_sG\sigma \}\omega _{}b,`$
$`𝒪_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}\overline{s}iD_\mu (ig_sG^{\mu \nu })\gamma _\nu \omega _{}b,`$
$`𝒪_4={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}\overline{s}(i/D)^2(m_s\omega _{}+m_b\omega _+)b,`$
$`𝒪_5={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}\overline{s}g_sG\sigma (m_s\omega _{}+m_b\omega _+)b.`$ (14)
In these operators, $`D_\mu _\mu ig_sG_\mu `$ and $`G_{\mu \nu }G_{\mu \nu }^aT^a`$ denotes the gluon field strength tensor with $`G_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu G_\nu ^a_\nu G_\mu ^a+g_sf^{abc}G_\mu ^bG_\nu ^c`$, and $`G\sigma G_{\mu \nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }`$.

For transition $`bs\gamma `$, the operator basis is somewhat different from those in eq.(14) and the changes are reflected in the following replacements:

$`𝒪_2𝒪_6={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}\overline{s}\{i/D,eQ_dF\sigma \}\omega _{}b,`$
$`𝒪_3𝒪_7={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}\overline{s}iD_\mu (ieQ_dF^{\mu \nu })\gamma _\nu \omega _{}b,`$
$`𝒪_5𝒪_8={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}\overline{s}eQ_dF\sigma (m_s\omega _{}+m_b\omega _+)b`$ (15)
with $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ being the electromagnetic field strength tensor and $`F\sigma F_{\mu \nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }`$.

## 2 The effective Lagrangian for $`\overline{s}bg(\overline{s}b\gamma )`$

At first, we present the analysis of $`\overline{s}b`$-mixing. The self-energy diagrams are drawn in Fig.1. The unrenormalized $`\overline{s}b`$ self-energy is given as

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }={\displaystyle \frac{ig_2^2}{32\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=u,c,t}{}}V_{ib}V_{is}^{}\{(A_0(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}A_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }}))/p\omega _{}`$
$`+\left(B_0(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}B_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})\right)(m_s\omega _{}+m_b\omega _+)`$
$`+C_0(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }}){\displaystyle \frac{m_bm_s}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}/p\omega _+\}`$ (16)
with the symbolic definitions $`x_i=\frac{m_i^2}{m__\mathrm{W}^2},x__H=\frac{m_{_{H^+}}^2}{m__\mathrm{W}^2},x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}=\frac{m_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}^2}{m__\mathrm{W}^2},x_{_{\chi _\beta }}=\frac{m_{_{\chi _\beta }}^2}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}`$ with $`i=u,c,t`$. Those form factors $`A_0,A_1,B_0,B_1`$ and $`C_0`$ are complicated functions of the parameters and their explicit expressions are collected in Appendix.A.

We renormalize the $`\overline{s}b`$ self-energy according to the well-known prescription, namely by demanding that the renormalized self-energy $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ vanishes when one of the external legs is on its mass-shell. Obviously, this is a necessary physical condition which must be satisfied. This is realized as

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}={\displaystyle \frac{ig_2^2}{32\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=u,c,t}{}}V_{ib}V_{is}^{}\{(A^{}+A_0(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}A_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }}))/p\omega _{}`$
$`+\left(B_s^{}+B_0(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}B_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})\right)m_s\omega _{}`$
$`+\left(B_b^{}+B_0(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}B_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})\right)m_b\omega _+`$
$`+(C^{}+C_0(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})){\displaystyle \frac{m_bm_s}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}/p\omega _+\},`$ (17)
where

$`A^{}=A_0(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }}){\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2+m_s^2}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}\left(A_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})+B_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})\right),`$
$`B_b^{}=B_0(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }}){\displaystyle \frac{m_s^2}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}\left(A_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})+B_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})\right),`$
$`B_s^{}=B_0(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }}){\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}\left(A_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})+B_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})\right),`$
$`C^{}={\displaystyle \frac{m_bm_s}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}\left(A_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})+2B_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})+C_0(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})\right).`$ (18)
After carrying out the renormalization procedure described above, the self-energy is written as

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}={\displaystyle \frac{ig_2^2}{32\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=u,c,t}{}}V_{ib}V_{is}^{}\{[{\displaystyle \frac{p^2m_b^2m_s^2}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}A_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }}){\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2+m_s^2}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}B_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})]/p\omega _{}`$
$`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}B_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})+{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}\left(A_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})+B_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})\right)\right]m_s\omega _{}`$
$`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}B_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})+{\displaystyle \frac{m_s^2}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}\left(A_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})+B_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})\right)\right]m_b\omega _+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_bm_s}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}(A_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})+2B_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }}))/p\omega _+\}.`$ (19)
This procedure is exactly the same as that adopted in the SM case.

Next, let us calculate the unrenormalized $`\overline{s}bg`$ vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho (p,q)`$ corresponding to Fig.2. Keeping terms up to order $`\frac{p^2,q^2}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}`$, we have

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^{^{bsg}}=g_sT^a{\displaystyle \frac{ig_2^2}{32\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=u,c,t}{}}V_{ib}V_{is}^{}\{A_0(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})\gamma _\rho \omega _{}`$
$`+A_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }}){\displaystyle \frac{p^2\gamma _\rho +(p+q)^2\gamma _\rho +/p\gamma _\rho /p}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}\omega _{}+F_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }}){\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}\gamma _\rho \omega _{}`$
$`+F_2(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }}){\displaystyle \frac{/p\gamma _\rho /q}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}\omega _{}+F_3(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }}){\displaystyle \frac{/q\gamma _\rho /p}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}\omega _{}`$
$`+F_4(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }}){\displaystyle \frac{/q\gamma _\rho /q}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}\omega _{}+B_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}((/p+/q)\gamma _\rho +\gamma _\rho /p)(m_s\omega _{}+m_b\omega _+)`$
$`+F_5(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}[/q,\gamma _\rho ](m_s\omega _{}+m_b\omega _+)+C_0(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }}){\displaystyle \frac{m_bm_s}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}\gamma _\rho \omega _+\},`$ (20)
where $`F_i(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})(i=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}5})`$ are collected in Appendix.A. From Eq.16 and Eq.20, it is easy to show that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^{^{bsg}}`$ obeys the Ward-Takahashi identity

$`q^\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^{^{bsg}}(p,q)=g_sT^a\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }(p+q)\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)\right].`$ (21)
According to the general principle of renormalization, $`\overline{s}bg`$vertex does not exist in the fundamental Lagrangian, thus it does not need to be renormalized. In other words, the divergence would be canceled as the physical conditions are taken into account. In the nonlinear $`R_\xi `$ gauge, as well as in the unitary gauge, the one-loop penguin diagram results in a divergence. On other side, all the one-loop diagrams which contribute to the $`bsg`$ or $`bs\gamma `$ processes constitute a convergent subgroup. Thus obviously, the renormalizations of the penguin and flavor-changing self energies are associated. In fact, the Ward-Takahashi identity holds at the unrenormalized penguin, to renormalize the $`\overline{s}bg`$ vertex, we demand that the Ward-Takahashi identity be preserved by the renormalized vertex $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\rho ^{^{bsg}}`$,

$`q^\rho \widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\rho ^{^{bsg}}(p,q)=g_sT^a\left[\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(p+q)\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(p)\right].`$ (22)
It is noted that with this requirement, just as in the SM case , the renormalization of the $`\overline{s}bg`$ vertex is realized when we renormalize the self-energy by enforcing the physical condition $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=0`$ as one of the external legs being on its mass shell. Moreover, indeed, the renormalization scheme of the $`\overline{s}bg`$ vertex pledges the current conservation for an on-shell transition, since the renormalized self-energies $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(p+q)`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(p)`$ are zero as both $`b`$ and $`s`$ are on mass shell .

This renormalization scheme can be understood from another angle. The requirement that the Ward-Takahashi identity holds and condition $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$(on-shell)=0 realize the renormalization of the $`\overline{s}bg`$ vertex and the scheme is equivalent to summing up the contributions of penguin and flavor-changing self-energies to the transition $`\overline{s}bg`$ at one-loop level. This procedure can be generalized to two-loop calculations.

Applying Eq.22, we have

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\rho ^{^{bsg}}=g_sT^a{\displaystyle \frac{ig_2^2}{32\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=u,c,t}{}}V_{ib}V_{is}^{}\{{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2+m_s^2}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}(A_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})+B_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }}))\gamma _\rho \omega _{}`$
$`+A_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }}){\displaystyle \frac{p^2\gamma _\rho +(p+q)^2\gamma _\rho +/p\gamma _\rho /p}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}\omega _{}+F_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }}){\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}\gamma _\rho \omega _{}`$
$`+F_2(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }}){\displaystyle \frac{/p\gamma _\rho /q}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}\omega _{}+F_3(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }}){\displaystyle \frac{/q\gamma _\rho /p}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}\omega _{}`$
$`+F_4(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }}){\displaystyle \frac{/q\gamma _\rho /q}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}\omega _{}+B_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}((/p+/q)\gamma _\rho +\gamma _\rho /p)(m_s\omega _{}+m_b\omega _+)`$
$`+F_5(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}[/q,\gamma _\rho ](m_s\omega _{}+m_b\omega _+)`$
$`(A_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})+2B_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})){\displaystyle \frac{m_bm_s}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}}\gamma _\rho \omega _+\}.`$ (23)
The terms of dimension-four which are related to the $`\overline{s}\gamma _\rho \omega _\pm b`$ vertex cancel each other as long as we let $`b`$ and $`s`$ quarks be on their mass shells, so that we do not need to consider them at all. We ignore all terms which vanish as $`\frac{m_{u,c}^2}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}0`$, whereas keep the part in the coefficients which are proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_{u,c}^2}{m__\mathrm{W}^2}`$ in the final effective vertex for $`bsg`$, we can recast Eq.23 to a form with the operator basis given in Eq.14:

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\rho ^{^{bsg}}=\frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\left\{V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}C_i(\mu __\mathrm{W})𝒪_i+\left(\frac{4}{3}V_{cb}V_{cs}^{}\mathrm{ln}x_c+\frac{4}{3}V_{ub}V_{us}^{}\mathrm{ln}x_u\right)𝒪_3\right\}.$$
(24)
After matching between the effective theory and the full theory, we have the effective Lagrangian for $`bsg`$ at the weak scale in the minimal flavor violating supersymmetry as:

$$_{bsg}=\frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}C_i(\mu __\mathrm{W})𝒪_i$$
(25)
where

$`C_1(\mu __\mathrm{W})=[{\displaystyle \frac{5x_t+1}{2(1x_t)^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_t^3+2x_t^2}{(1x_t)^4}}\mathrm{ln}x_t]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }}[{\displaystyle \frac{x_t^3x__H(\mathrm{ln}x_t\mathrm{ln}x__H}{(x__Hx_t)^4}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2x_t^3+5x_t^2x__Hx_tx__H^2}{6(x__Hx_t)^3}}]+2{\displaystyle }_{\alpha ,\beta }(𝒜_3^{^{\alpha ,\beta }})^2[{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\chi _\beta }}^2x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}(\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})}{(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})^4}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2x_{_{\chi _\beta }}^2+5x_{_{\chi _\beta }}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}^2}{6(x_{_{\chi _\beta }}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}})^3}}],`$
$`C_2(\mu __\mathrm{W})=x_t[{\displaystyle \frac{5x_t2}{4(1x_t)^4}}\mathrm{ln}x_t+{\displaystyle \frac{4+13x_t3x_t^2}{8(1x_t)^3}}]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }}[{\displaystyle \frac{x_t^2x__H^2(\mathrm{ln}x_t\mathrm{ln}x__H)}{4(x__Hx_t)^4}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2x_tx__H^2+5x_t^2x__Hx_t^3}{24(x__Hx_t)^3}}]+{\displaystyle }_{\alpha ,\beta }(𝒜_3^{^{\alpha ,\beta }})^2[{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\chi _\beta }}^2x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}(\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})}{2(x_{_{\chi _\beta }}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}})^4}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2x_{_{\chi _\beta }}^2+5x_{_{\chi _\beta }}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}^2}{12(x_{_{\chi _\beta }}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}})^3}}],`$
$`C_3(\mu __\mathrm{W})=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{9x_t^2+16x_t4}{6(1x_t)^4}}\mathrm{ln}x_t+{\displaystyle \frac{x_t^311x_t^2+18x_t}{12(1x_t)^3}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(2x_tx__H^33x_t^2x__H^2)(\mathrm{ln}x_t\mathrm{ln}x__H)}{6(x__Hx_t)^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{16x_tx__H^229x_t^2x__H+7x_t^3}{36(x__Hx_t)^3}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}(𝒜_3^{^{\alpha ,\beta }})^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\chi _\beta }}^3(\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})}{3(x_{_{\chi _\beta }}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}})^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{11x_{_{\chi _\beta }}^27x_{_{\chi _\beta }}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}+2x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}^2}{18(x_{_{\chi _\beta }}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}})^3}}\right],`$
$`C_4(\mu __\mathrm{W})=x_t\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_t^2x_t}{(1x_t)^4}}\mathrm{ln}x_t+{\displaystyle \frac{x_t^21}{2(1x_t)^3}}\right]\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_t^2x__H(\mathrm{ln}x_t\mathrm{ln}x__H)}{(x__Hx_t)^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x__Hx_t+x_t^2}{2(x__Hx_t)^2}}\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{_{\chi _\beta }}}{\sqrt{2}m__\mathrm{W}\mathrm{cos}\beta }}(𝒜_3^{^{\alpha ,\beta }}_3^{^{\alpha ,\beta }})\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2x_{_{\chi _\beta }}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}(\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})}{(x_{_{\chi _\beta }}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}})^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\chi _\beta }}+x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}}{(x_{_{\chi _\beta }}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}})^2}}\right],`$
$`C_5(\mu __\mathrm{W})=x_t\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}x_t}{2(1x_t)^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3x_t}{4(1x_t)^2}}\right]+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_tx__H^2(\mathrm{ln}x_t\mathrm{ln}x__H)}{2(x__Hx_t)^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3x__Hx_tx_t^2}{4(x__Hx_t)^2}}\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{_{\chi _\beta }}}{\sqrt{2}m__\mathrm{W}\mathrm{cos}\beta }}(𝒜_3^{^{\alpha ,\beta }}_3^{^{\alpha ,\beta }})\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\chi _\beta }}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}(\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})}{(x_{_{\chi _\beta }}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}})^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\chi _\beta }}+x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}}{2(x_{_{\chi _\beta }}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}})^2}}\right],`$ (26)
with

$`𝒜_i^{^{\alpha ,\beta }}=𝒵_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}^i}}^{^{1,\alpha }}𝒵_{_{1,\beta }}^++{\displaystyle \frac{m_{_{u_i}}}{\sqrt{2}m__\mathrm{W}\mathrm{sin}\beta }}𝒵_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}^i}}^{^{2,\alpha }}𝒵_{_{2,\beta }}^+,`$
$`_i^{^{\alpha ,\beta }}=𝒵_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}^i}}^{^{1,\alpha }}𝒵_{_{2,\beta }}^{},`$ (27)
and the mixing matrices $`𝒵_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}^i}}𝒵_{_{2,\beta }}^\pm `$ are given in Eqs.10, 11. The first terms in the above expressions are the SM contributions and the second terms are the charged Higgs contributions. The supersymmetric corrections exist in the third terms.

For the vertex $`\overline{s}b\gamma `$, the Feynman diagrams are drawn in Fig.3.

With all unrenormalized quantities the Ward-Takahashi identity for the $`\overline{s}b\gamma `$ vertex is in form:

$`q^\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^{^{bsg}}(p,q)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}e\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }(p+q)\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)\right].`$ (28)
To renormalize the $`\overline{s}b\gamma `$ vertex, we demand that the Ward-Takahashi identity be preserved for the renormalized vertex $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\rho ^{^{bs\gamma }}`$,

$`q^\rho \widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\rho ^{^{bsg}}(p,q)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}e\left[\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(p+q)\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(p)\right].`$ (29)
The other steps are similar to those applied in the calculation for the $`\overline{s}bg`$ vertex. The result is written as

$$_{bs\gamma }=\frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\left\{C_1(\mu __\mathrm{W})𝒪_1+C_4(\mu __\mathrm{W})𝒪_4+C_6(\mu __\mathrm{W})𝒪_6+C_7(\mu __\mathrm{W})𝒪_7+C_8(\mu __\mathrm{W})𝒪_8\right\}$$
(30)
with

$`C_6(\mu __\mathrm{W})=x_t[{\displaystyle \frac{18x_t^211x_t1}{8(1x_t)^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{15x_t^216x_t+4}{4(1x_t)^4}}\mathrm{ln}x_t]+{\displaystyle \frac{x_t}{\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }}[{\displaystyle \frac{4x_t^2+x_tx__H+25x__H^2}{72(x_tx__H)^3}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(3x_t^2x__H+2x_tx__H^2)(\mathrm{ln}x_t\mathrm{ln}x__H)}{12(x_tx__H)^4}}]+{\displaystyle }_{\alpha ,\beta }(𝒜_3^{^{\alpha ,\beta }})^2[{\displaystyle \frac{8x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}^2+5x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }}7x_{_{\chi _\beta }}^2}{36(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(3x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}^2x_{_{\chi _\beta }}2x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }}^2)(\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})}{6(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})^4}}],`$
$`C_7(\mu __\mathrm{W})=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{19x_t^3+25x_t^2}{12(1x_t)^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3x_t^430x_t^3+54x_t^232x_t+8}{6(1x_t)^4}}\mathrm{ln}x_t\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{x_t}{\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{19x_t^2+109x_tx__H98x__H^2}{108(x_tx__H)^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(3x_t^39x_t^2x__H4x__H^3)(\mathrm{ln}x_t\mathrm{ln}x__H)}{36(x_tx__H)^4}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}(𝒜_3^{^{\alpha ,\beta }})^2[{\displaystyle \frac{52x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}^2101x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }}+43x_{_{\chi _\beta }}^2}{54(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})^3}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(6x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}^327x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}^2x_{_{\chi _\beta }}+12x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }}^2+2x_{_{\chi _\beta }}^3)(\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})}{9(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})^4}}],`$
$`C_8(\mu __\mathrm{W})=x_t\left[{\displaystyle \frac{5x_t^2+8x_t3}{4(1x_t)^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3x_t2}{2(1x_t)^3}}\mathrm{ln}x_t\right]`$
$`x_t\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(x_tx__H)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(x__H^2+x_tx__H)(\mathrm{ln}x_t\mathrm{ln}x__H)}{2(x_tx__H)^3}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{_{\chi _\beta }}}{\sqrt{2}m__\mathrm{W}\mathrm{cos}\beta }}(𝒜_3^{^{\alpha ,\beta }}_3^{^{\alpha ,\beta }})[{\displaystyle \frac{7x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}5x_{_{\chi _\beta }}}{6(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(3x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}^2+2x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})(\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})}{3(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^3}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})^3}}].`$
(31)
## 3 Numerical results

In this section, we present our numerical results of the Wilson coefficients in the mSUGRA model. As we have mentioned before, the model is fully specified by five parameters

$$m_0,m_{\frac{1}{2}},A_0,\mathrm{tan}\beta ,sgn(\mu ).$$

Here $`m_0,m_{\frac{1}{2}},`$ and $`A_0`$ are the universal scalar quark mass, gaugino mass and trilinear scalar coupling. They are assumed to arise through supersymmetry breaking in a hidden-sector at the GUT scale $`\mu _{GUT}2\times 10^{16}`$GeV. In our numerical calculation, to maintain consistency of the theory and the up-to-date experimental observation, when we obtain the numerical value of the Higgs mass in the mSUGRA model with the five parameters, and we include all one-loop effects in the Higgs potential. Moreover we also employ the two-loop RGEs with one-loop threshold corrections as the energy scale runs down from the mSUGRA scale to the lower weak scale.

For the SM parameters, we have $`m_b=5\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V},m_t=174\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V},m_\mathrm{W}=80.23\mathrm{GeV},\alpha _e(m_\mathrm{W})=\frac{1}{128},\alpha _s(m_\mathrm{W})=0.12`$ at the weak scale. In our later calculations, we always set $`A_0=0,sgn(\mu )=`$. Taking above values, we find that the Standard Model prediction for the Wilson Coefficients are $`C_{2_{SM}}(m__\mathrm{W})=0.315,C_{3_{SM}}(m__\mathrm{W})=0.256,C_{5_{SM}}(m__\mathrm{W})=0.218,C_{6_{SM}}(m__\mathrm{W})=1.477,C_{7_{SM}}(m__\mathrm{W})=1.511,C_{8_{SM}}(m__\mathrm{W})=0.891`$. Then with the aforementioned inputs of the five parameter we evaluate the supersymmetric corrections to those Wilson coefficients $`C_i(m__\mathrm{W})(i=2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}5},\mathrm{},8)`$.

Even though other Wilson coefficients also get nonzero contributions from the supersymmetric sector, our discussions mainly focus on $`C_{_{2,3,5,6,7,8}}(m__\mathrm{W})`$ because they play more significant roles in low energy phenomenology. Moreover, we will illustrate their dependence on the supersymmetric parameters through the attached figures.

In Fig.4, we plot $`C_2(m__\mathrm{W}),C_3(m__\mathrm{W}),C_5(m__\mathrm{W})`$ versus $`m_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ with $`m_0=100\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V},A_0=0,sgn(\mu )=`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}20}`$. Setting $`m_{\frac{1}{2}}=100\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V},A_0=0,sgn(\mu )=`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}20}`$, the dependence of $`C_2(m__\mathrm{W}),C_3(m__\mathrm{W}),C_5(m__\mathrm{W})`$ on $`m_0`$ is plotted in Fig.5. From Fig.4, we find that the supersymmetric contributions make the Wilson coefficients at the weak scale deviate from the SM predictions obviously when $`m_{\frac{1}{2}}800\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$; when $`m_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ further increases, the new physics contributions gradually become immaterial. A similar situation exists in Fig.5, the Wilson coefficients tend to the SM prediction values as $`m_0`$ increases. For the Wilson coefficients of $`bs\gamma `$, we plot $`C_6(m__\mathrm{W}),C_7(m__\mathrm{W}),C_8(m__\mathrm{W})`$ versus $`m_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ with $`m_0=100\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V},A_0=0,sgn(\mu )=`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}20}`$ in Fig.6. Setting $`m_{\frac{1}{2}}=100\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V},A_0=0,sgn(\mu )=`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}20}`$, dependence of $`C_2(m__\mathrm{W}),C_3(m__\mathrm{W}),C_5(m__\mathrm{W})`$ on $`m_0`$ is plotted in Fig.7. The trend of changes of those coefficients with respect to parameters $`m_{\frac{1}{2}},m_0`$ is similar to that in the $`bsg`$ case.

When the effective Lagrangian is applying at the hadronic scale, we should evolve those Wilson coefficients from the weak scale down to the hadronic scale. The running depends on the anomalous dimension matrix of concerned operators. The coefficients $`C_i(m__\mathrm{W})`$ obtained at the weak scale $`M_W`$ are regarded as the initial conditions for the differential RGEs.

## 4 Discussions

In this work, we discuss contributions to the effective Lagrangian for $`bsg`$ and $`bs\gamma `$ from the SUSY sector in the mSUGRA model. As many authors suggested, if the masses of the lightest SUSY particles are close to the electroweak energy scale, the contribution from the SUSY sector to the Wilson coefficients of the induced operators is comparable with that from SM.

Our numerical results indicate that within a reasonable mSUGRA parameter range, the SUSY contribution to $`C_5(m__\mathrm{W})`$ can enlarge the SM prediction by about 90%, and to the other coefficients, the SUSY contributions are not smaller than 30% of that of SM.

If the masses of the SUSY particles are larger, the SUSY contributions to the effective Lagrangian would become weaker. Then as the SUSY particles are very heavy, the main contribution to the effective Lagrangian uniquely comes from the standard model.

As well known, the QCD correction to the vertices $`\overline{s}bg`$ and $`\overline{s}b\gamma `$ is important and for practical application of the effective Lagrangian to evaluate the physical processes, say B decays, one needs to run down the coefficients from the weak energy scale to the hadronic scale, i.e. $`M_B5`$GeV$`\mu _W`$, in terms of the RGEs.

In this work, we adopt the non-linear $`R_\xi `$ gauge. The advantage is that the Ward-Takahashi identity holds at the one-loop level no matter for the unrenormalized or renormalized quantities. This advantage would be more obvious as we go on doing the two-loop calculations.

Our numerical results also show that as all SUSY particles become very heavy, the values of all coefficients tend to that determined by the SM sector which is consistent with the results obtained before .

Acknowledgements

This work is partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Appendix

## Appendix A The expressions for the form factors

The form factors in self-energy is given as

$`A_0(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})=(1+{\displaystyle \frac{x_i}{2}})\left[\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\mathrm{ln}x_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{x_i}{x_i1}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_i^2\mathrm{ln}x_i}{(x_i1)^2}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{x_i}{2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\mathrm{ln}x_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{x_i}{x_ix__H}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_i^2\mathrm{ln}x_i}{(x_ix__H)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(2x__Hx_ix__H^2)\mathrm{ln}x__H}{(x_ix__H)^2}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}(𝒜_i^{^{\alpha ,\beta }})^2\left[\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+\mathrm{ln}x_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}}{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}(2x_{_{\chi _\beta }}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}})\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}}{(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\chi _\beta }}^2\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\chi _\beta }}}{(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})^2}}\right],`$
$`A_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})=(1+{\displaystyle \frac{x_i}{2}})\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2x_i^2+5x_i1}{3(x_i1)^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2x_i^2\mathrm{ln}x_i}{(x_i1)^4}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{x_i}{2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2x_i^2+5x_ix__Hx__H^2}{3(x_ix__H)^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2x_i^2x__H(\mathrm{ln}x_i\mathrm{ln}x__H)}{(x_ix__H)^4}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}(𝒜_i^{^{\alpha ,\beta }})^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}^25x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }}2x_{_{\chi _\beta }}^2}{3(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }}(\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})}{(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})^4}}\right],`$
$`B_0(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})={\displaystyle \frac{x_i^2\mathrm{ln}x_i}{x_i1}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_i^2\mathrm{ln}x_ix_ix__H\mathrm{ln}x__H}{x_ix__H}}`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{_{\chi _\beta }}}{\sqrt{2}m__\mathrm{W}\mathrm{cos}\beta }}(𝒜_3^{^{\alpha ,\beta }}_3^{^{\alpha ,\beta }})\left[\mathrm{\Delta }+1+\mathrm{ln}x_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\chi _\beta }}}{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }}}}\right],`$
$`B_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})=x_i\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_i+1}{2(x_i1)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_i\mathrm{ln}x_i}{(x_i1)^3}}\right]`$
$`+x_i\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_i+x__H}{2(x_ix__H)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_ix__H(\mathrm{ln}x_i\mathrm{ln}x__H)}{(x_ix__H)^3}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{_{\chi _\beta }}}{\sqrt{2}m__\mathrm{W}\mathrm{cos}\beta }}(𝒜_3^{^{\alpha ,\beta }}_3^{^{\alpha ,\beta }})\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}+x_{_{\chi _\beta }}}{(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }}(\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})}{(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})^3}}\right],`$
$`C_0(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\mathrm{ln}x_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{x_i}{x_i1}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_i^2\mathrm{ln}x_i}{(x_i1)^2}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }{2}}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\mathrm{ln}x_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{x_i}{x_ix__H}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_i^2\mathrm{ln}x_i}{(x_ix__H)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(2x__Hx_ix__H^2)\mathrm{ln}x__H}{(x_ix__H)^2}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(_3^{^{\alpha ,\beta }})^2}{2\mathrm{cos}^2\beta }}[\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+\mathrm{ln}x_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}}{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}(2x_{_{\chi _\beta }}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}})\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}}{(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\chi _\beta }}^2\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\chi _\beta }}}{(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})^2}}].`$ (32)
The expression for $`F_i(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})(i=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}5})`$ is written as

$`F_1(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})=(1+{\displaystyle \frac{x_i}{2}})\left[{\displaystyle \frac{5x_i^222x_i+5}{18(x_i1)^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(3x_i1)\mathrm{ln}x_i}{3(x_i1)^4}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_i(5x_i^222x_ix__H+5x__H^2)}{36(x_ix__H)^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{(x__H^3x_i3x__H^2x_i^2)(\mathrm{ln}x_i\mathrm{ln}x__H)}{6(x_ix__H)^4}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}(𝒜_i^{^{\alpha ,\beta }})^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}^28x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }}17x_{_{\chi _\beta }}^2}{36(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(3x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }}^2+x_{_{\chi _\beta }}^3)(\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})}{6(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})^4}}\right],`$
$`F_2(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_i^315x_i^212x_i+8}{12(x_i1)^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{(5x_i^22x_i)\mathrm{ln}x_i}{2(x_i1)^4}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_i(x_i^25x_ix__H2x__H^2)}{12(x_ix__H)^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_i^2x__H^2(\mathrm{ln}x_i\mathrm{ln}x__H)}{2(x_ix__H)^4}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}(𝒜_i^{^{\alpha ,\beta }})^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}^2x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }}2x_{_{\chi _\beta }}^2}{6(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }}^2(\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})}{(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})^4}}\right],`$
$`F_3(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{5x_i^3+3x_i^2+6x_i+4}{12(x_i1)^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_i(2x_i^2x_i2)\mathrm{ln}x_i}{2(x_i1)^4}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_i(5x_i^2+5x_ix__H4x__H^2)}{12(x_ix__H)^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(2x_i^3x__Hx_i^2x__H^2)(\mathrm{ln}x_i\mathrm{ln}x__H)}{2(x_ix__H)^4}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}(𝒜_i^{^{\alpha ,\beta }})^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}^2x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }}2x_{_{\chi _\beta }}^2}{6(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }}^2(\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})}{(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})^4}}\right],`$
$`F_4(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})=(1+{\displaystyle \frac{x_i}{2}})\left[{\displaystyle \frac{5x_i^222x_i+5}{18(x_i1)^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(3x_i1)\mathrm{ln}x_i}{3(x_i1)^4}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_i(5x_i^222x_ix__H+5x__H^2)}{36(x_ix__H)^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(x__H^3x_i3x__H^2x_i^2)(\mathrm{ln}x_i\mathrm{ln}x__H)}{6(x_ix__H)^4}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}(𝒜_i^{^{\alpha ,\beta }})^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}^28x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }}17x_{_{\chi _\beta }}^2}{36(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(3x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }}^2+x_{_{\chi _\beta }}^3)(\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})}{6(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})^4}}\right],`$
$`F_5(x_i,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}},x_{_{\chi _\beta }})=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_i(x_i3)}{4(x_i1)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_i\mathrm{ln}x_i}{2(x_i1)^3}}\right]+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_i(x_i3x__H)}{4(x_ix__H)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_ix__H^2(\mathrm{ln}x_i\mathrm{ln}x__H)}{2(x_ix__H)^3}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{_{\chi _\beta }}}{\sqrt{2}m__\mathrm{W}\mathrm{cos}\beta }}(𝒜_3^{^{\alpha ,\beta }}_3^{^{\alpha ,\beta }})\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}+x_{_{\chi _\beta }}}{2(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }}(\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}+\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})}{(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ^i}}x_{_{\chi _\beta }})^3}}\right].`$ (33)


text:
# A simple functional form for proton-208Pb total reaction cross sections

## Abstract

A simple functional form has been found that gives a good representation of the total reaction cross sections for the scattering from 208Pb of protons with energies in the range 30 to 300 MeV.

The values of total reaction cross sections of nucleon scattering from nuclei (stable as well as radioactive) are required in a number of fields of study. Some of quite current interest concern the transmutation of long-lived radioactive waste into shorter-lived products using accelerator-driven systems (ADS) and in predicting dosimetries for patients in radiation therapy. To be able to specify those total reaction cross sections in a simple functional form then has great utility for any associated evaluation such as of nucleon production in spallation calculations.

Recently  nucleon-nucleus total reaction cross sections to 300 MeV for 12C and 208Pb have been predicted in good agreement with data. Those cross sections were evaluated using $`g`$-folding optical potentials formed by full folding realistic two nucleon ($`NN`$) interactions with credible nucleon-based structure models of those nuclei. The effective interactions at each energy in the range to 300 MeV were defined from the $`NN`$ $`g`$ matrices (solutions of the Bruckner-Bethe-Goldstone equations) of the free $`NN`$ (BonnB) interactions; and so vary with energy and the medium. The ground state of 12C was specified from a complete $`(0+2)\mathrm{}\omega `$ shell model evaluation , while that of 208Pb was obtained from a Skyrme-Hartree-Fock calculation . The resulting $`nA`$ optical potentials are complex, energy dependent and very non-local. All details of the approach and numerous demonstrations of its successful use with targets spanning the entire mass range (3 to 238) are given in the recent review . But each such prediction of nucleon scattering is an involved calculation that culminates with use of large scale computer programs, and those of DWBA98  in our recent studies. It would be very utilitarian if aspects of such scattering were indeed well approximated by a simple convenient functional form. We demonstrate herein that for the total reaction cross sections such a form may exist at least for heavy nuclei such as 208Pb.

We have used the $`g`$-folding optical potential calculations to specify proton-208Pb scattering $`S`$ matrices at energies $`Ek^2`$,

$$S_l^\pm S_l^\pm (k)=e^{2i\delta _l^\pm (k)}=\eta _l^\pm (k)e^{2i\mathrm{}\left[\delta _l^\pm (k)\right]},$$
(1)
where $`\delta _l^\pm (k)`$ are the (complex) scattering phase shifts and $`\eta _l^\pm (k)`$ are the moduli of the $`S`$ matrices. The superscript designates $`j=l\pm 1/2`$. Total reaction cross sections then are predicted by

$`\sigma _R(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{k^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left\{(l+1)\left[1\left(\eta _l^+\right)^2\right]+l\left[1\left(\eta _l^{}\right)^2\right]\right\}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{k^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\sigma _l^{(R)}(E).`$ (3)
The partial reaction cross sections $`\sigma _l^{(R)}(E)`$ so found we now take as ’data’. The values from calculations of the scattering of protons from 208Pb are displayed in the Fig. 1 by the filled circles for energies 30, 40, 50, 65, 100, 160, 200, 250, and 300 MeV as the peak magnitudes increase respectively. They suggest to us that the partial total reaction cross sections $`\sigma _l^{(R)}(E)`$ can be described by the simple functional form,

$$\sigma _l^{(R)}(E)=(2l+1)\left[1+e^{\frac{(ll_0)}{a}}\right]^1+ϵ(2l_0+1)e^{\frac{(ll_0)}{a}}\left[1+e^{\frac{(ll_0)}{a}}\right]^2$$
(4)
with $`l_0(E,A)`$, $`a(E,A)`$, and $`ϵ(E,A)`$ varying smoothly with energy and mass.

The summation giving the total reaction cross section can be limited to a value $`l_{max}`$ and the associated form tends appropriately to the known high energy limit. With increasing energy, $`l_{max}`$ becomes so large that the exponential fall-off of the functional form, Eq. 4, can be approximated as a straight vertical line ($`l_0=l_{max}`$). In that case, the total reaction cross section equates to the area of a triangle, and

$$\sigma _R\frac{\pi }{2k^2}l_{max}(2l_{max}+1)\frac{\pi }{k^2}l_{max}^2.$$
(5)
Then with $`l_{max}kR`$, at high energies

$$\sigma _R\pi R^2;$$
(6)
the geometric cross section as required.

The fits of this functional form to the ”data” from 208Pb are displayed by the solid curves in Fig. 1 with the values of the three parameters given at the specific energies connected by straight lines in Fig. 2. These values are plotted as functions of $`\sqrt{E}`$ (effectively $`k`$) and it is clear that they are smooth variations with energy. Of these the linearity of $`l_0`$ with $`\sqrt{E}`$ is most evident and we find

$$l_0(E,{}_{}{}^{208}\mathrm{Pb})kR3;R1.6A^{\frac{1}{3}}.$$
(7)
The best fit values of these parameters are listed in Table I.

For any dynamical situation in which numerous partial reaction cross sections contribute non-negligibly to the sum in Eq. 3, one can use the limit form

$$\sigma _R(E)=\frac{\pi }{k^2}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sigma _l^{(R)}(E)\frac{\pi }{k^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\sigma ^{(R)}(E;\lambda )𝑑\lambda .$$
(8)
Then with $`x=\frac{\lambda l_0}{a}`$ and using the basic integrals

$`{\displaystyle _{l_0/a}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+e^x}}𝑑x`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle _0^{l_0/a}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+e^x}}𝑑x+{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^x}{1+e^x}}𝑑x\right]={\displaystyle \frac{l_0}{a}}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}()^{n+1}e^{\frac{l_0}{a}n}`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle _{l_0/a}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{1+e^x}}𝑑x`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle _0^{l_0/a}}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{1+e^x}}𝑑x+{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{xe^x}{1+e^x}}𝑑x\right]`$ (11)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{l_0^2}{a^2}}+1.645+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}()^n\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^2}}\right)e^{\frac{l_0}{a}},`$
the integral observable is

$`\sigma ^{(R)}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{k^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\sigma _l^{(R)}(E){\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{k^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\sigma ^{(R)}(\lambda ;E)𝑑\lambda `$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{k^2}}\{l_0(l_0+1)+3.29a^2+aϵ(2l_0+1)`$ (15)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{n\frac{l_0}{a}}()^n[2a^2\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^2}}\}+(2l_0+1)\{aϵ{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\}]\}`$
$`\underset{n=1}{}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{k^2}}\left\{l_0(l_0+1)+3.29a^2+aϵ(2l_0+1)+\left[(2l_0+1)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}aϵ\right\}4a^2\right]e^{\frac{l_0}{a}}\right\}`$
Thus if $`l_0`$, $`a`$, and $`ϵ`$ are well behaved functions from matching to observed data, one can have confidence that these simple prescriptions give reliable estimates of reaction cross section values that have not been measured as yet but may be required as input in, for example, spallation production calculations. The ratios of the total reaction cross sections calculated under this approximation to those determined from the microscopic optical model potentials are listed in the last column of the Table. The results compare well to within a few percent.