text:
# Micro-Hall Magnetometry Studies of Thermally Assisted and Pure Quantum Tunneling in Single Molecule Magnet Mn12-Acetate

\[

## Abstract

We have studied the crossover between thermally assisted and pure quantum tunneling in single crystals of high spin ($`S=10`$) uniaxial single molecule magnet Mn12-acetate using micro-Hall effect magnetometry. Magnetic hysteresis experiments have been used to investigate the energy levels that determine the magnetization reversal as a function of magnetic field and temperature. These experiments demonstrate that the crossover occurs in a narrow ($`0.1`$ K) or broad ($`1`$ K) temperature interval depending on the magnitude and direction of the applied field. For low external fields applied parallel to the easy axis, the energy levels that dominate the tunneling shift abruptly with temperature. In the presence of a transverse field and/or large longitudinal field these energy levels change with temperature more gradually. A comparison of our experimental results with model calculations of this crossover suggest that there are additional mechanisms that enhance the tunneling rate of low lying energy levels and broaden the crossover for small transverse fields.

Keywords: Single-Molecule Magnets; High-Spin Clusters; Quantum Tunneling; Hysteresis; Hall-Effect Magnetometry

\]

High spin single molecule magnets Mn12-acetate (Mn12) and Fe8 have been actively studied as model systems for the behavior of the mesoscopic spins . These materials can be considered as monodisperse ensembles of weakly interacting particles with net spin $`S=10`$ and strong uniaxial anisotropy. They enable studies of both classical and quantum effects through macroscopic magnetic measurements. These clusters show enhanced relaxation of magnetization at regular intervals of magnetic field, attributed to the tunneling of magnetization across the anisotropy barrier .

The temperature dependence of this process suggests that both classical thermal activation and quantum tunneling are important . Other significant recent experimental results on single molecule magnets include observation of non-exponential relaxation of magnetization  and quantum phase interference in Fe8 . Spectroscopic experiments (EPR and inelastic neutron scattering) have provided important information about the magnetic energy levels of Mn12 and Fe8, relevant to understanding their macroscopic magnetic response .

Experimental results, such as the series of regular steps in magnetic hysteresis curves of these materials, have been interpreted within an effective spin Hamiltonian for an individual cluster:

$$=DS_z^2BS_z^4g_z\mu _\mathrm{B}S_zH_z+^{},$$
(1)
where the uniaxial anisotropy parameters $`D`$ and $`B`$ have been determined by EPR  and inelastic neutron spectroscopy experiments  ($`D=0.548(3)`$ K, $`B=1.17(2)\times 10^3`$ K, and $`g_z`$ is estimated to be $`1.94(1)`$). Here $`^{}`$ includes terms which do not commute with $`S_z`$ and produce tunneling. These mechanisms of level-mixing may be due to a transverse field (such as hyperfine, dipolar fields or an external field, contributing terms like $`H_xS_x`$) or higher order transverse anisotropies, for example $`C(S_+^4+S_{}^4)`$, $`C=2.2(4)\times 10^5`$ K , which is the lowest order term allowed by the tetragonal symmetry of the Mn12 crystal. The enhanced relaxation of the magnetization at certain field values is ascribed to thermally assisted tunneling (TAT) or pure quantum tunneling (QT) (see Fig. 1). In the TAT regime the relaxation occurs by tunneling from thermally excited magnetic sublevels ($`m_{\mathrm{esc}}=9,8,\mathrm{},8,9`$), when two levels on the opposite sides of the anisotropy barrier are brought close to resonance by the magnetic field. From the unperturbed Hamiltonian (1) the longitudinal ($`z`$-axis) field at which the levels $`m_{\mathrm{esc}}`$ and $`m^{}`$ become degenerate is:

$$H(n,m_{\mathrm{esc}})=nH_0\{1+B/D[m_{\mathrm{esc}}^2+(m_{\mathrm{esc}}n)^2]\},$$
(2)
where $`n=m_{\mathrm{esc}}+m^{}`$ is the step index describing the bias field, and $`H_0=D/g_z\mu _\mathrm{B}`$ is a constant ($`0.42`$ T). Direct numerical diagonalization of the spin Hamiltonian (1) shows that the small transverse anisotropy term does not significantly change these resonance fields. Note that a larger magnetic field is necessary to bring lower lying sublevels into resonance. As the temperature decreases, the thermal population of the excited levels is reduced, and these states contribute less and less to the tunneling. Consequently, the steps in hysteresis curves shift to higher bias field values, and steps with larger $`n`$ become observable. At low temperature, the tunneling from the ground state $`m_{\mathrm{esc}}=10`$ dominates, and the position and amplitude of the steps become independent of temperature, denoted the QT regime.

At any temperature the magnetic relaxation rate is dominated by the contribution of only few (one or two) magnetic sublevels. This is because the relaxation rate is the product of the thermal occupation probability and the tunneling rate. The probability of thermal occupation decreases exponentially with energy, while the tunneling probability increases exponentially approaching one at the top of the anisotropy barrier. Therefore the relaxation rate has a sharp maximum at the dominant level or levels.

Recent theoretical models suggest that in the large spin limit a crossover between thermal activation and quantum tunneling can either occur abruptly, in a narrow temperature interval, or gradually, in a broader temperature interval . In the first case the energy at which the system crosses the anisotropy barrier shifts abruptly with temperature from a value close to the top of the barrier to the lowest lying level in the metastable well (denoted a first-order crossover). In the second case this energy changes smoothly with temperature (second-order) . The “phase diagram” for this crossover depends on the form of the spin Hamiltonian, particularly the terms important for tunneling. In finite spin systems the crossover is always smeared, nevertheless the two types of the crossovers can be distinguished experimentally. In the first-order crossover there are competing maxima in the relaxation rate versus energy and the global maximum shifts abruptly from one energy to the other as a function of temperature. In the second-order case a single maximum in the relaxation rate shifts continuously with temperature. Recent experiments have shown that in Mn12 the crossover occurs in a narrow temperature interval when the applied field is parallel to the easy axis of the sample . In contrast, experiments on Fe8 suggest a second-order crossover .

In this paper we show that in Mn12 both types of the crossover can be experimentally observed when the applied field has a transverse component. A transverse magnetic field makes the crossover more gradual and leads to a continuous shift in the dominant energy levels (i.e., a second-order crossover) . We show that these levels can be identified by hysteresis experiments and their behavior as a function of temperature can be studied in order to test the tunneling model described above.

Our experiments have been conducted using a micro-Hall-effect magnetometer  in a high field 3He system. Single crystals of Mn12 in the shape of parallelepipeds $`50\times 50\times 200`$ $`\mu `$m3 were synthesized as described in Ref. . A crystal was encapsulated in thermally conducting grease and the temperature was measured with a calibrated carbon thermometer a few millimeters from the sample. The angle $`\theta `$ between the easy axis of the crystal and the applied magnetic field was varied by rotating the sample in a superconducting solenoid.

In our hysteresis experiments the sample was initially saturated ($`M_0=M_\mathrm{s}`$), then the field was ramped at a constant rate ($`0.2`$ T/min) towards positive saturation. Hysteresis curves show steps and plateaus, separated by a field interval of approximately $`0.44`$ T, in agreement with previously published results. Figure 2 shows a plot of the derivative of the magnetization $`dM/dH`$ versus the applied field for $`\theta =10^{}`$ measured at different temperatures.

The positions and structure of the peaks in $`dM/dH`$ show the magnetic fields at which there are maxima in the magnetization relaxation rate at a given temperature, applied field and magnetization. The dashed lines mark the positions of the three observed peaks showing their shift with temperature. The peak that occurs at the lowest magnetic field shifts gradually from $`H=2.41`$ T to $`H=2.48`$ T (by $`0.17H_0`$) as the temperature decreases from $`1.55`$ K to $`1.23`$ K, that can be identified as the TAT regime.

As the temperature is reduced from $`1.23`$ K to $`1.15`$ K, this maximum is shifted abruptly to $`H=2.62`$ T (i.e., by $`0.34H_0`$) and remains approximately at the same value upon further decrease of temperature to $`0.62`$ K. The middle peak also shifts gradually from $`2.81`$ T to $`2.94`$ T in the interval between $`1.55`$ K to $`1.10`$ K, but it then shifts abruptly between $`1.10`$ K and $`0.91`$ K, at lower temperature than the previous maximum. Below $`0.91`$ K the position of this peak also remains constant. We attribute this temperature independent regime to the pure QT. Assuming that at the lowest temperature only the ground state $`m_{\mathrm{esc}}=10`$ participates in tunneling, we can identify the positions of the observed peaks by the resonance field values $`H(n,m_{\mathrm{esc}}=10)`$, $`n=5`$, $`6`$, and $`7`$, calculated according to Eq. (2), from low to high magnetic field. The peaks labeled $`n=5`$ and $`6`$ show an abrupt crossover between TAT to QT, which occurs in an interval of approximately $`0.1`$ K. In contrast to $`n=5`$ and $`n=6`$ peaks, the $`n=7`$ peak shifts to higher field (from $`3.20`$ T to $`3.52`$ T) step-wise in the whole studied temperature interval ($`1`$ K). We consider the crossover to QT in this case as gradual (second-order).

Peak positions as a function of temperature, obtained from hysteresis experiments performed as described above, are summarized in Fig. 3. This plot shows the values of the longitudinal field, at which the maxima in $`dM/dH`$ occur, versus temperature for the four studied angles, $`\theta =0^{}`$, $`10^{}`$, $`20^{}`$, and $`35^{}`$. The peak positions were corrected for the effects of the internal field as described in Ref. . The bars on the left hand side of the figure show the escape levels calculated using Eq. (2), with parameters from spectroscopic data .

Analyzing this graph, we can make following observations. First, for larger angles, and therefore higher transverse field, peaks with lower indices (i.e., lower $`H_z`$) can be observed in the experimental time window. The lowest step observed for $`\theta =0^{}`$ and $`10^{}`$ is $`n=5`$, for $`\theta =20^{}`$ it is $`n=4`$, for $`\theta =35^{}`$ it is $`n=3`$. This is consistent with the idea that the transverse field promotes tunneling and lowers the effective anisotropy barrier. We find that there is greater amplitude in lower lying peaks as the transverse field is increased. Second, two regimes can be distinguished: the high temperature regime, where the peaks gradually shift to higher fields with decreasing temperature, and the low temperature regime, where the peak positions are constant. We associate the first regime with the TAT and the second with pure QT. Third, the form of the crossover between these two regimes depends on the longitudinal field. For each sample orientation, peaks with lower indices show a more abrupt crossover between TAT and QT than peaks with higher indices (compare peaks $`n=6`$ and $`n=7`$ for $`\theta =0^{}`$ and $`10^{}`$, or $`n=4`$ and $`5`$ for $`\theta =20^{}`$, or $`n=3`$ and $`4`$ for $`\theta =20^{}`$).

The experimentally determined escape levels can be compared to models . As mentioned above, the relaxation rate can be written as a product of the tunneling rate between the pair of levels $`i`$ and $`j`$, split by the energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}`$, and the Boltzmann factor: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^2\mathrm{exp}(E_{ij}/T`$), where $`E_{ij}=(|E_i+E_j|)/2E_0`$ is the average energy of levels $`i`$ and $`j`$ above the lowest lying state in the metastable well $`E_0`$. The energy level $`m_{\mathrm{esc}}`$ which dominates tunneling is determined as the level for which the tunneling rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has a maximum at a given temperature, longitudinal and transverse field. The tunnel splittings $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}`$ were obtained by numerical diagonalization of spin Hamiltonian (1), whose eigenvalues were determined with high precision . In Eq. (1) the second order uniaxial anisotropy term (i.e., $`BS_z^4`$) was ignored for simplicity and a higher value of $`D`$ ($`D=0.66`$ K) was used so that the low lying energy level spacing and overall barrier height is better approximated. Figure 4 shows experimental positions of the $`n=4`$ peak at two different angles, $`\theta =20^{}`$ (Fig. 4(a)) and $`\theta =35^{}`$ (Fig. 4(b)) compared to the calculated $`m_{\mathrm{esc}}`$. Calculations were performed using a Mathematica program for constant values of the longitudinal and transverse magnetic field corresponding to $`n=4`$, $`\theta =20^{}`$ and $`\theta =35^{}`$.

First consider the $`\theta =20^{}`$ data. A few major discrepancies between the calculated and experimental results can be noticed. The experimental crossover temperature is higher than the calculated one ($`T_{\mathrm{exp}}=1.25`$ K versus $`T_{\mathrm{th}}=0.7`$ K). Also the experimental temperature interval in which the crossover occurs is larger than predicted by the model. Experimental escape levels involved in the crossover ($`m_{\mathrm{esc}}=710`$) are lying lower in the potential well than the calculated ones ($`m_{\mathrm{esc}}=510`$). The observed escape levels change more gradually than predicted by the model: our observations show that none of the levels $`m_{\mathrm{esc}}=79`$ are skipped in the crossover, while the calculations show that as many as three levels ($`m_{\mathrm{esc}}=7,8,9`$) do not contribute significantly to the relaxation. Based on this comparison we conclude that there are additional mechanisms, such as transverse anisotropy, that enhance the tunneling rate of low lying levels. For $`\theta =35^{}`$ the crossover is more gradual than for $`\theta =20^{}`$, in qualitative agreement with the theoretical model. As in the $`\theta =20^{}`$ case, experimental data show that lower lying levels ($`8`$ and $`9`$) are active over larger intervals of temperature than predicted by the model. The overall better agreement with the calculated data in this case suggests that a large enough applied transverse field can become a dominant factor in determining the tunnel splittings.

It is important to note that in our hysteresis experiments, in which the field is increasing, relaxation will first occur from thermally excited states because these come into resonance first (Eq. (2)). Therefore our data on Figures 3 and 4 somewhat underestimate the crossover temperature.

To show this we have performed a series of minor loop hysteresis experiments near the crossover temperature. In these experiments the field was swept at a constant rate back and forth across an interval, where a peak in $`dM/dH`$ was observed. If the field is ramped towards positive saturation, relaxation from the excited levels is emphasized, if the direction of the sweep is towards lower magnetization, the ground state tunneling is favored. The results of these experiments in which the field was swept across the n=6 peak five times at $`\theta =10^{}`$ are shown on Fig. 5. Figure 5(a) shows a typical hysteresis curve at $`T=1.01`$ K. Figures 5(b-d) show plots of $`dM/dH`$ at three different temperatures. For $`T=1.01`$ K (Fig. 5(b)) the maximum in $`dM/dH`$ for all sweeps occurs at $`3.06`$ T, which corresponds to QT from $`m_{\mathrm{esc}}=10`$. At a higher temperature, $`T=1.12`$ K (Fig. 5(c)) the maximum of the first sweep is at a lower field, $`H=2.93`$ T, which can be identified as a thermal channel ($`m_{\mathrm{esc}}=9`$). For the sweeps $`2`$ \- $`5`$ the maximum occurs at the QT position ($`3.06`$ T), which suggests that at this temperature QT still dominates. At higher temperature ($`1.23`$ K, Fig. 5(d)) almost all relaxation occurs via a thermal channel at $`H=2.87`$ T ($`m_{\mathrm{esc}}=8`$), which shows that the crossover to TAT has already taken place. These results show that regular hysteresis experiments emphasize the tunneling from the excited states, and therefore the crossover temperature determined from such experiments is underestimated.

In conclusion, we presented low temperature magnetic hysteresis studies of thermally assisted and pure quantum tunneling in Mn12. The crossover between these two regimes can be either abrupt or gradual. These types of the crossovers are distinguished by the temperature interval within which the escape energy levels shift from thermally excited levels to the lowest state in the metastable well. Through the hysteresis experiments we were able to identify these energy levels and study their behavior as a function of temperature. Our studies indicate that the higher longitudinal and transverse fields make the crossover more gradual. Comparison of our experimental data and theoretical model suggests that in Mn12 there must be additional mechanisms which promote tunneling, such as a transverse anisotropy, which is responsible for broadening the crossover for smaller transverse fields and increasing the tunneling rate from low lying levels. These experiments establish a lower bound on the crossover temperature (Fig. 3), as the standard hysteresis experiments favor relaxation from the excited levels.

We are grateful to Dmitry Garanin for fruitful discussions and help with numerical calculations.


format: text

text:
# Two-loop virtual corrections to 𝑩→𝑿_𝒔ℓ⁺ℓ⁻ in the standard model*footnote **footnote *Work partially supported by Schweizerischer Nationalfonds and SCOPES program

## I Introduction

After the observation of the penguin-induced decay $`BX_s\gamma `$  and the corresponding exclusive channels such as $`BK^{}\gamma `$ , rare $`B`$-decays have begun to play an important role in the phenomenology of particle physics. The measured decay rates are in good agreement with the standard model (SM) predictions, putting strong constraints on its various extensions. Another interesting decay mode in this context is the inclusive transition $`BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ ($`\mathrm{}=e,\mu `$). It has not been observed so far , but its detection is expected at the $`B`$-factories which are currently running. It is known that, unlike for $`BX_s\gamma `$, large resonant contributions from $`\overline{c}c`$ intermediate states come into the game when considering $`BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$. When the invariant mass $`\sqrt{s}`$ of the lepton pair is close to the mass of a resonance, only model dependent predictions for these long distance contributions are available today. It is therefore unclear whether integrating the decay rate over these domains can reduce the theoretical uncertainty below $`\pm 20\%`$ .

However, when restricting to regions of $`\sqrt{s}`$ below the resonances, the long distance effects are under control. In particular, all the available studies indicate that for the region $`0.05\widehat{s}=s/m_b^20.25`$ these non–perturbative effects are below 10% . Consequently, the differential decay rate for $`BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ can be predicted precisely in this region using renormalization group improved perturbation theory.

It is known that the next-to-leading logarithmic (NLL) result for the $`BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay rate suffers from a relatively large ($`\pm 16\%`$) matching scale ($`\mu _W`$) dependence . To reduce it, next-to-next-to leading (NNLL) corrections to the Wilson coefficients were calculated recently by Bobeth et al. . This required a two-loop matching calculation of the effective theory to the full SM theory, followed by a renormalization group treatment of the Wilson coefficients, using up to three-loop anomalous dimensions . Including these NNLL corrections to the Wilson coefficients, the matching scale dependence could be removed to a large extent.

However, this partially NNLL result suffers from a relatively large ($`\pm 13\%`$) renormalization scale ($`\mu _b`$) dependence ($`\mu _bO(m_b)`$), as pointed out in ref. . The aim of the current paper is to reduce this dependence by calculating NNLL corrections to the matrix elements of the effective Hamiltonian given in the next section. Our main contribution is the calculation of the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ two-loop virtual corrections to the matrix elements of the operators $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$, as well as the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ one-loop corrections to $`O_7`$$`O_{10}`$. Also those bremsstrahlung contributions are included which are needed to cancel infrared and collinear singularities in the virtual corrections. The new contributions reduce the renormalization scale dependence from $`\pm 13\%`$ to $`\pm 6.5\%`$.

The remainder of this letter is organized as follows. In Section II we review the theoretical framework. Our results for the virtual $`O(\alpha _s)`$ corrections to the matrix elements of the operators $`O_1`$, $`O_2`$, $`O_7`$, $`O_8`$ and $`O_9`$ we present in section III. Section IV is devoted to the bremsstrahlung contributions. The combined corrections (virtual and bremsstrahlung) to $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ are given in section V. Finally, in section VI we analyze the invariant mass distribution of the lepton pair in the range $`0.05\widehat{s}0.25`$.

## II  Theoretical framework

The most efficient tool for studying weak decays of $`B`$ mesons is the effective Hamiltonian technique. For the specific decay channels $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ ($`\mathrm{}=\mu ,e`$), the effective Hamiltonian, derived from the standard model (SM) by integrating out the $`t`$-quark and the $`W`$-boson, is of the form

$`_{\text{eff}}={\displaystyle \frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{10}{}}}C_iO_i,`$ (1)
where $`O_i`$ are dimension six operators and $`C_i`$ are the corresponding Wilson coefficients. The operators can be chosen as

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\hfill O_1& =& (\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu T^ac_L)(\overline{c}_L\gamma ^\mu T^ab_L)\hfill & \hfill O_2& =& (\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu c_L)(\overline{c}_L\gamma ^\mu b_L)\hfill \\ \hfill O_3& =& (\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu b_L)_q(\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu q)\hfill & \hfill O_4& =& (\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu T^ab_L)_q(\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu T^aq)\hfill \\ \hfill O_5& =& (\overline{s}_L\gamma _{\mu _1}\gamma _{\mu _2}\gamma _{\mu _3}b_L)_q(\overline{q}\gamma ^{\mu _1}\gamma ^{\mu _2}\gamma ^{\mu _3}q)\hfill & \hfill O_6& =& (\overline{s}_L\gamma _{\mu _1}\gamma _{\mu _2}\gamma _{\mu _3}T^ab_L)_q(\overline{q}\gamma ^{\mu _1}\gamma ^{\mu _2}\gamma ^{\mu _3}T^aq)\hfill \\ \hfill O_7& =& \frac{e}{g_s^2}m_b(\overline{s}_L\sigma ^{\mu \nu }b_R)F_{\mu \nu }\hfill & \hfill O_8& =& \frac{1}{g_s}m_b(\overline{s}_L\sigma ^{\mu \nu }T^ab_R)G_{\mu \nu }^a\hfill \\ \hfill O_9& =& \frac{e^2}{g_s^2}(\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu b_L)_{\mathrm{}}(\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{})\hfill & \hfill O_{10}& =& \frac{e^2}{g_s^2}(\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu b_L)_{\mathrm{}}(\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\mathrm{}),\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
where the subscripts $`L`$ and $`R`$ refer to left- and right- handed components of the fermion fields. We work in the approximation where the combination $`(V_{us}^{}V_{ub})`$ of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements is neglected; in this case the CKM structure factorizes, as indicated in eq. (1).

The factors $`1/g_s^2`$ in the definition of the operators $`O_7`$, $`O_9`$ and $`O_{10}`$, as well as the factor $`1/g_s`$ present in $`O_8`$ have been chosen by Misiak  in order to simplify the organization of the calculation: With these definitions, the one-loop anomalous dimensions (needed for a leading logarithmic (LL) calculation) of the operators $`O_i`$ are all proportional to $`g_s^2`$, while two-loop anomalous dimensions (needed for a next-to-leading logarithmic (NLL) calculation) are proportional to $`g_s^4`$, etc..

After this important remark we now outline the principal steps which lead to a LL, NLL, NNLL prediction for the decay amplitude for $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$:

1. A matching calculation between the full SM theory and the effective theory has to be performed in order to determine the Wilson coefficients $`C_i`$ at the high scale $`\mu _Wm_W,m_t`$. At this scale, the coefficients can be worked out in fixed order perturbation theory, i.e. they can be expanded in $`g_s^2`$:

$$C_i(\mu _W)=C_i^{(0)}(\mu _W)+\frac{g_s^2}{16\pi ^2}C_i^{(1)}(\mu _W)+\frac{g_s^4}{(16\pi ^2)^2}C_i^{(2)}(\mu _W)+O(g_s^6).$$
(3)
At LL order, only $`C_i^{(0)}`$ is needed, at NLL order also $`C_i^{(1)}`$, etc.. While the coefficient $`C_7^{(2)}`$, which is needed for a NNLL analysis, is known for quite some , $`C_9^{(2)}`$ and $`C_{10}^{(2)}`$ have been calculated only recently  (see also ).
2. The renormalization group equation (RGE) has to be solved in order to get the Wilson coefficients at the low scale $`\mu _bm_b`$. For this RGE step the anomalous dimension matrix to the relevant order in $`g_s`$ is required, as described above. After these two steps one can decompose the Wilson coefficients $`C_i(\mu _b)`$ into a LL, NLL and NNLL part according to

$$C_i(\mu _b)=C_i^{(0)}(\mu _b)+\frac{g_s^2(\mu _b)}{16\pi ^2}C_i^{(1)}(\mu _b)+\frac{g_s^4(\mu _b)}{(16\pi ^2)^2}C_i^{(2)}(\mu _b)+O(g_s^6).$$
(4)
3. In order to get the decay amplitude, the matrix elements $`s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}|O_i(\mu _b)|b`$ have to be calculated. At LL precision, only the operator $`O_9`$ contributes, as this operator is the only one which at the same time has a Wilson coefficient starting at lowest order and an explicit $`1/g_s^2`$ factor in the definition. Hence, in the NLL precision QCD corrections (virtual and bremsstrahlung) to the matrix element of $`O_9`$ are needed. They have been calculated a few years ago . At NLL precision, also the other operators start contributing, viz. $`O_7(\mu _b)`$ and $`O_{10}(\mu _b)`$ contribute at tree-level and the four-quark operators $`O_1,\mathrm{},O_6`$ at one-loop level. Accordingly, QCD corrections to the latter matrix elements are needed for a NNLL prediction of the decay amplitude.

As known for a long time , the formally leading term $`(1/g_s^2)C_9^{(0)}(\mu _b)`$ to the amplitude for $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ is smaller than the NLL term $`(1/g_s^2)[g_s^2/(16\pi ^2)]C_9^{(1)}(\mu _b)`$. We adapt our systematics to the numerical situation and treat the sum of these two terms as a NLL contribution. This is, admittedly some abuse of language, because the decay amplitude then starts out with a term which is called NLL.

As pointed out in step 3), $`O(\alpha _s)`$ QCD corrections to the matrix elements $`s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}|O_i(\mu _b)|b`$ have to be calculated in order to obtain the NNLL prediction for the decay amplitude. In the present paper we systematically evaluate virtual corrections of order $`\alpha _s`$ to the matrix elements of $`O_1`$, $`O_2`$, $`O_7`$, $`O_8`$, $`O_9`$ and $`O_{10}`$. As the Wilson coefficients of the gluonic penguin operators $`O_3,\mathrm{},O_6`$ are much smaller than those of $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$, we neglect QCD corrections to their matrix elements. As discussed in more detail later, we also include those bremsstrahlung diagrams which are needed to cancel infrared and collinear singularities from the virtual contributions. The complete bremsstrahlung corrections, i.e. all the finite parts, however, will be given elsewhere . We anticipate that the QCD corrections calculated in the present letter substantially reduce the scale dependence of the NLL result.

## III  Virtual corrections to the operators $`O_1`$, $`O_2`$, $`O_7`$, $`O_8`$, and $`O_9`$.

In this section we present our results for the virtual $`O(\alpha _s)`$ corrections induced by the operators $`O_1`$, $`O_2`$, $`O_7`$, $`O_8`$, and $`O_9`$. Using the naive dimensional regularization (NDR) scheme in $`d=42ϵ`$ dimensions, both, ultraviolet and infrared singularities show up as $`1/ϵ^n`$-poles ($`n=1,2`$). The ultraviolet singularities cancel after including the counterterms. Collinear singularities are regularized by retaining a finite strange quark mass $`m_s`$. They are cancelled together with the infrared singularities at the level of decay width, taking the bremsstrahlung process $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}g`$ into account. Gauge invariance implies that the QCD-corrected matrix elements of the operators $`O_i`$ can be written as

$$s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}|O_i|b=\widehat{F}_i^{(9)}O_9_{\text{tree}}+\widehat{F}_i^{(7)}O_7_{\text{tree}},$$
(5)
where $`O_9_{\text{tree}}`$ and $`O_7_{\text{tree}}`$ are the tree-level matrix elements of $`O_9`$ and $`O_7`$, respectively.

### A Virtual corrections to $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$

The complete list of Feynman diagrams for the two-loop matrix elements of the operators $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$ is shown in Fig. 1. Our calculation follows the line of  where the contributions of $`O_2`$ to the processes $`BX_s\gamma `$ and $`BX_sg`$ have been evaluated. There, the results have been found as expansions in terms of powers and logarithms of the small parameter $`\widehat{m}_c^2=m_c^2/m_b^2`$. The central point of the procedure is to use Mellin-Barnes representations of certain denominators in the Feynman parameter integrals, as described in detail in refs. . In the present case, however, we have an additional mass scale: $`q^2`$, the invariant mass squared of the lepton pair. For values of $`q^2`$ satisfying $`\frac{q^2}{m_b^2}<1`$ and $`\frac{q^2}{4m_c^2}<1`$, most of the diagrams allow a Taylor series expansion in $`q^2`$ and can be calculated in combination with a Mellin-Barnes representation. This method does not work for the diagram in Fig. 1a) where the photon is emitted from the internal line. Instead, we applied a Mellin-Barnes representation twice. We will explain this procedure in detail in ref. . The diagrams in Fig. 1e) finally, we calculated using the heavy mass expansion technique .

Using these methods, the unrenormalized form factors $`\widehat{F}^{(7,9)}`$ of $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$, as defined in eq. (5), are then obtained in the form

$$\widehat{F}^{(7,9)}=\underset{i,j,l,m}{}c_{ijlm}^{(7,9)}\widehat{s}^i\mathrm{ln}^j(\widehat{s})\left(\widehat{m}_c^2\right)^l\mathrm{ln}^m\left(\widehat{m}_c\right),$$
(6)
where $`\widehat{s}=q^2/m_b^2`$ and $`\widehat{m}_c=m_c/m_b`$. $`i,j,m`$ are non-negative integers and $`l=i,i+1/2,i+2/2,\mathrm{}.`$. We keep the terms with $`i`$ and $`l`$ up to 3, after checking that higher order terms are small for $`0.05\widehat{s}0.25`$, the range considered in this paper.

The counterterm contributions are of various origin. There are counterterms due to quark field renormalization, renormalization of the strong coupling constant $`g_s`$ and renormalization of the charm- and bottom- quark masses. We stress that we use the pole mass definition for both, $`m_c`$ and $`m_b`$. Additionally, we also have to take operator mixing into account. The corresponding counterterms to the matrix elements $`C_iO_i`$ are of the form

$`C_iO_i`$ $`=`$ $`C_i{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\delta Z_{ij}O_j,\text{ with}`$ (7)
$`\delta Z_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}(a_{ij}^{01}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}a_{ij}^{11})+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^2}{(4\pi )^2}}(a_{ij}^{02}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}a_{ij}^{12}++{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ^2}}a_{ij}^{22})+O(\alpha _s^3).`$ (8)
Most of the coefficients $`a_{ij}^{lm}`$ needed for our calculation are given in ref. . As some are new, we list those for $`i=1,2`$ and $`j=1,2,4,7,9,11,12`$ that are different from zero:

$$\widehat{a}^{11}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}2& \frac{4}{3}& \frac{1}{9}& 0& \frac{16}{27}& \frac{5}{12}& \frac{2}{9}\\ & & & & & & \\ 6& 0& \frac{2}{3}& 0& \frac{4}{9}& 1& 0\end{array}\right),\begin{array}{ccc}a_{17}^{12}=\frac{58}{243},\hfill & a_{19}^{12}=\frac{64}{729},\hfill & a_{19}^{22}=\frac{1168}{243},\hfill \\ & & \\ a_{27}^{12}=\frac{116}{81},\hfill & a_{29}^{12}=\frac{776}{243},\hfill & a_{29}^{22}=\frac{148}{81}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
$`O_{11}`$ and $`O_{12}`$, entering eq. (7), are evanescent operators, defined as

$$\begin{array}{c}O_{11}=\left(\overline{s}_L\gamma _{\mu _1}\gamma _{\mu _2}\gamma _{\mu _3}T^ac_L\right)\left(\overline{c}_L\gamma ^{\mu _1}\gamma ^{\mu _2}\gamma ^{\mu _3}T^ab_L\right)16O_1\hfill \\ \\ O_{12}=\left(\overline{s}_L\gamma _{\mu _1}\gamma _{\mu _2}\gamma _{\mu _3}c_L\right)\left(\overline{c}_L\gamma ^{\mu _1}\gamma ^{\mu _2}\gamma ^{\mu _3}b_L\right)16O_2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
Before we give the result for the renormalized form factors, we remark that only diagram 1f) (and also its renormalized version) suffers from infrared and collinear singularities. As this diagram can easily be combined with diagram 2b) associated with the operator $`O_9`$, we will take it into account in the next subsection, when discussing virtual corrections to $`O_9`$.

We decompose the renormalized matrix elements of $`O_i`$ ($`i=1,2`$) as

$$s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}|C_i^{(0)}O_i|b=C_i^{(0)}\left(\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }\right)\left[F_i^{(9)}\stackrel{~}{O}_9_{\text{tree}}+F_i^{(7)}\stackrel{~}{O}_7_{\text{tree}}\right],$$
(11)
with $`\stackrel{~}{O}_9=\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }O_9`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{O}_7=\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }O_7`$. The form factors $`F_i^{(9)}`$ and $`F_i^{(7)}`$ read (using $`L_\mu =\mathrm{ln}(\mu /m_b)`$, $`L_s=\mathrm{ln}(\widehat{s})`$)

$`F_1^{(9)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1424}{729}}+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{243}}i\pi +{\displaystyle \frac{64}{27}}L_c\right)L_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{16}{243}}L_\mu L_s+\left({\displaystyle \frac{16}{1215}}{\displaystyle \frac{32}{135}}\widehat{m}_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)L_\mu \widehat{s}`$ (12)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{2835}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{315}}\widehat{m}_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\right)L_\mu \widehat{s}^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{16}{76545}}{\displaystyle \frac{32}{8505}}\widehat{m}_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}\right)L_\mu \widehat{s}^3{\displaystyle \frac{256}{243}}L_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+f_1^{(9)},`$ (13)
$`F_2^{(9)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{256}{243}}{\displaystyle \frac{32}{81}}i\pi {\displaystyle \frac{128}{9}}L_c\right)L_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{32}{81}}L_\mu L_s+\left({\displaystyle \frac{32}{405}}+{\displaystyle \frac{64}{45}}\widehat{m}_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)L_\mu \widehat{s}`$ (14)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{8}{945}}+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{105}}\widehat{m}_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\right)L_\mu \widehat{s}^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{32}{25515}}+{\displaystyle \frac{64}{2835}}\widehat{m}_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}\right)L_\mu \widehat{s}^3+{\displaystyle \frac{512}{81}}L_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+f_2^{(9)},`$ (15)
$$F_1^{(7)}=\frac{208}{243}L_\mu +f_1^{(7)},F_2^{(7)}=\frac{416}{81}L_\mu +f_2^{(7)}.$$
(16)
The analytic results for $`f_1^{(9)}`$, $`f_1^{(7)}`$, $`f_2^{(9)}`$, and $`f_2^{(7)}`$ (expanded up to $`\widehat{s}^3`$ and $`(\widehat{m}_c^2)^3`$) are rather lengthy. The formulas become relatively short, however, if we give the charm quark mass dependence in numerical form (for the characteristic values of $`\widehat{m}_c`$=0.27, 0.29 and 0.31). We write the functions $`f_a^{(b)}`$ as

$$f_a^{(b)}=\underset{i,j}{}k_a^{(b)}(i,j)\widehat{s}^iL_s^j(a=1,2;b=7,9;i=0,\mathrm{},3;j=0,1).$$
(17)
The numerical values for the quantities $`k_a^{(b)}(i,j)`$ are given in Tab. I and II.

### B Virtual corrections to the matrix elements of $`O_7`$, $`O_8`$ and $`O_9`$

We first turn to the virtual corrections to the matrix element of the operator $`O_9`$, consisting of the vertex correction shown in Fig. 2b) and of the quark self-energy contributions. The sum of these corrections is ultraviolet finite, but suffers from infrared and collinear singularities. The result can be written as

$$s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}|C_9O_9|b=\stackrel{~}{C}_9^{(0)}\left(\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }\right)\left[F_9^{(9)}\stackrel{~}{O}_9_{\text{tree}}+F_9^{(7)}\stackrel{~}{O}_7_{\text{tree}}\right],$$
(18)
with $`\stackrel{~}{O}_9=\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }O_9`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_9^{(0)}=\frac{4\pi }{\alpha _s}\left(C_9^{(0)}+\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }C_9^{(1)}\right)`$. The form factors $`F_9^{(9)}`$ and $`F_9^{(7)}`$ read (keeping terms up to order $`\widehat{s}^3`$)

$$F_9^{(9)}=\frac{16}{3}+\frac{20}{3}\widehat{s}+\frac{16}{3}\widehat{s}^2+\frac{116}{27}\widehat{s}^3+f_{\mathrm{inf}},$$
(19)
$`F_9^{(7)}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\widehat{s}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{s}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\widehat{s}^2\right),`$ (20)
where the function $`f_{\mathrm{inf}}`$ contains the infrared and collinear singularities. Its explicit form is (using $`r=(m_s/m_b)^2`$)

$$f_{\mathrm{inf}}=\frac{\left(\frac{\mu }{m_b}\right)^{2ϵ}}{ϵ}\frac{8}{3}(1+\widehat{s}+\frac{1}{2}\widehat{s}^2+\frac{1}{3}\widehat{s}^3)+\frac{4}{3}\frac{\left(\frac{\mu }{m_b}\right)^{2ϵ}}{ϵ}\mathrm{ln}r+\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{ln}r\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{ln}^2r.$$
(21)
At this place, it is convenient to incorporate the renormalized diagram 1f), which has not been taken into account so far. It is easy to see that the two loops factorize into two one-loop contributions. The charm loop has the Lorentz structure of $`O_9`$ and can therefore be absorbed into an effective Wilson coefficient: Diagram 1f) is properly included by modifying $`\stackrel{~}{C}_9^{(0)}`$ in eq. (18) as follows:

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_9^{(0)}\stackrel{~}{C}_9^{(0,\text{mod})}=\stackrel{~}{C}_9^{(0)}+\left(C_2^{(0)}+\frac{4}{3}C_1^{(0)}\right)H_0,$$
(22)
where the charm-loop function $`H_0`$ reads (in expanded form)

$$H_0=\frac{1}{2835}\left[1260+2520\mathrm{ln}(\mu /m_c)+252\widehat{s}\widehat{m}_c^2+27\widehat{s}^2\widehat{m}_c^4+4\widehat{s}^3\widehat{m}_c^6\right].$$
(23)
In the context of virtual corrections also the $`O(ϵ)`$-part of this loop function is needed. We neglect it here since it will drop out in combination with gluon bremsstrahlung. Note that $`H_0=h(\widehat{m}_c^2,\widehat{s})+8/9\mathrm{ln}(\mu /m_b)`$, with $`h`$ defined in .

We now turn to the virtual corrections to the matrix element of the operator $`O_7`$, consisting of the vertex- (Fig. 2a) and self-energy corrections. The sum of these diagrams is ultraviolet singular. After renormalization, the result can be written as

$$s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}|C_7O_7|b=\stackrel{~}{C}_7^{(0)}\left(\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }\right)\left[F_7^{(9)}\stackrel{~}{O}_9_{\text{tree}}+F_7^{(7)}\stackrel{~}{O}_7_{\text{tree}}\right],$$
(24)
with $`\stackrel{~}{O}_7=\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }O_7`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_7^{(0)}=C_7^{(1)}`$. The form factors $`F_7^{(9)}`$ and $`F_7^{(7)}`$ read

$$F_7^{(9)}=\frac{16}{3}\left(1+\frac{1}{2}\widehat{s}+\frac{1}{3}\widehat{s}^2+\frac{1}{4}\widehat{s}^3\right),$$
(25)
$$F_7^{(7)}=\frac{32}{3}L_\mu +\frac{32}{3}+8\widehat{s}+6\widehat{s}^2+\frac{128}{27}\widehat{s}^3+f_{\mathrm{inf}}.$$
(26)
Note that for these expressions the pole mass for $`m_b`$ has to be used at lowest order.

Finally, we give the result for the renormalized corrections to the matrix elements of $`O_8`$. The corresponding diagrams are shown in Fig. 2c) and 2d). One obtains:

$$s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}|C_8O_8|b=\stackrel{~}{C}_8^{(0)}\left(\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }\right)\left[F_8^{(9)}\stackrel{~}{O}_9_{\text{tree}}+F_8^{(7)}\stackrel{~}{O}_7_{\text{tree}}\right],$$
(27)
with $`\stackrel{~}{C}_8^{(0)}=C_8^{(1)}`$. The form factors $`F_8^{(9)}`$ and $`F_8^{(7)}`$ read (in expanded form)

$`F_8^{(9)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{104}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{32}{27}}\pi ^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1184}{27}}{\displaystyle \frac{40}{9}}\pi ^2\right)\widehat{s}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{14212}{135}}{\displaystyle \frac{32}{3}}\pi ^2\right)\widehat{s}^2`$ (28)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{193444}{945}}{\displaystyle \frac{560}{27}}\pi ^2\right)\widehat{s}^3+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{9}}L_s\left(1+\widehat{s}+\widehat{s}^2+\widehat{s}^3\right),`$ (29)
$`F_8^{(7)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{32}{9}}L_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{8}{27}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{44}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}i\pi +\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{40}{3}}\right)\widehat{s}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{32}{9}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{316}{9}}\right)\widehat{s}^2`$ (30)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{200}{27}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{658}{9}}\right)\widehat{s}^3{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}L_s\left(\widehat{s}+\widehat{s}^2+\widehat{s}^3\right).`$ (31)
## IV Bremsstrahlung corrections

We stress that in the present paper only those bremsstrahlung diagrams are taken into account which are needed to cancel the infrared and collinear singularities from the virtual corrections. All other bremsstrahlung contributions (which are finite), will be given elsewhere .

It is known  that the contribution to the inclusive decay width coming from the interference between the tree-level and the one-loop matrix elements of $`O_9`$ (Fig. 2b)) and from the corresponding bremsstrahlung corrections (Fig. 2f)), can be written in the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{99}}{d\widehat{s}}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{em}}{4\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2m_{b,pole}^5\left|V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}\right|^2}{48\pi ^3}}(1\widehat{s})^2\left(1+2\widehat{s}\right)\left(2\left(\stackrel{~}{C}_9^{(0)}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\omega _9(\widehat{s})\right),`$ (32)
where $`\stackrel{~}{C}_9^{(0)}=\frac{4\pi }{\alpha _s}\left(C_9^{(0)}+\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }C_9^{(1)}\right)`$; the function $`\omega _9(\widehat{s})\omega (\widehat{s})`$, which contains information on virtual and bremsstrahlung corrections, can be found in . Replacing $`\stackrel{~}{C}_9^{(0)}`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{C}_9^{(0,\text{mod})}`$ (see eq. (22)) in eq. (32), diagram 1f) and the corresponding bremsstrahlung corrections are automatically included.

Similarly, the contribution to the decay width from the interference between the tree-level and the one-loop matrix element of $`O_7`$ (Fig. 2a), combined with the corresponding bremsstrahlung corrections shown in Fig. 2e), can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{77}}{d\widehat{s}}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{em}}{4\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2m_{b,pole}^5\left|V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}\right|^2}{48\pi ^3}}(1\widehat{s})^24\left(1+2/\widehat{s}\right)\left(2\left(\stackrel{~}{C}_7^{(0)}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\omega _7(\widehat{s})\right),`$ (33)
where $`\stackrel{~}{C}_7^{(0)}=C_7^{(1)}`$. The function $`\omega _7(\widehat{s})`$, which is new, reads

$`\omega _7(\widehat{s})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m_b}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\text{Li}(\widehat{s}){\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{ln}(\widehat{s})\mathrm{ln}(1\widehat{s})`$ (35)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{8+\widehat{s}}{2+\widehat{s}}}\mathrm{ln}(1\widehat{s}){\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}\left(22\widehat{s}\widehat{s}^2\right)}{\left(1\widehat{s}\right)^2\left(2+\widehat{s}\right)}}\mathrm{ln}(\widehat{s}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{18}}{\displaystyle \frac{1611\widehat{s}17\widehat{s}^2}{\left(2+\widehat{s}\right)\left(1\widehat{s}\right)}}.`$
Finally, one observes that also the interference between the tree-level matrix element of $`O_7`$ and the one-loop matrix element of $`O_9`$ (and vice versa) lead to an infrared singular contribution to the decay width. We combined it with the corresponding bremsstrahlung terms coming from the interference of diagrams 2e) and 2f). The result reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{79}}{d\widehat{s}}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{em}}{4\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2m_{b,pole}^5\left|V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}\right|^2}{48\pi ^3}}(1\widehat{s})^2122{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\omega _{79}(\widehat{s})\text{Re}\left(\stackrel{~}{C}_7^{(0)}\stackrel{~}{C}_9^{(0)}\right).`$ (36)
For the function $`\omega _{79}(\widehat{s})`$, which also is new, we obtain

$`\omega _{79}(\widehat{s})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m_b}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\text{Li}(\widehat{s}){\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{ln}(\widehat{s})\mathrm{ln}(1\widehat{s})`$ (38)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{2+7\widehat{s}}{\widehat{s}}}\mathrm{ln}(1\widehat{s}){\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}\left(32\widehat{s}\right)}{\left(1\widehat{s}\right)^2}}\mathrm{ln}(\widehat{s})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{18}}{\displaystyle \frac{59\widehat{s}}{1\widehat{s}}}.`$
## V Corrections to the decay width for $`bX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$

In this section we combine the virtual corrections calculated in section III and the bremsstrahlung contributions discussed in section IV and study their influence on the decay width $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }(bX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})/d\widehat{s}`$. In the literature (see e.g. ), this decay width is usually written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(bX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})}{d\widehat{s}}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{em}}{4\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2m_{b,pole}^5\left|V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}\right|^2}{48\pi ^3}}(1\widehat{s})^2\times `$ (39)
$`\left(\left(1+2\widehat{s}\right)\left(\left|\stackrel{~}{C}_9^{\text{eff}}\right|^2+\left|\stackrel{~}{C}_{10}^{\text{eff}}\right|^2\right)+4\left(1+2/\widehat{s}\right)\left|\stackrel{~}{C}_7^{\text{eff}}\right|^2+12\text{Re}\left(\stackrel{~}{C}_7^{\text{eff}}\stackrel{~}{C}_9^{\text{eff}}\right)\right),`$ (40)
where the contributions calculated so far have been absorbed into the effective Wilson coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{C}_7^{\text{eff}}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{C}_9^{\text{eff}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{10}^{\text{eff}}`$. It turns out that also the new contributions calculated in the present paper can be absorbed into these coefficients. Following as closely as possible the ’parametrization’ given recently by Bobeth et al. , we write

$`\stackrel{~}{C}_9^{\text{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu )}{\pi }}\omega _9(\widehat{s})\right)\left(A_9+T_9h(\widehat{m}_c^2,\widehat{s})+U_9h(1,\widehat{s})+W_9h(0,\widehat{s})\right)`$ (42)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu )}{4\pi }}\left(C_1^{(0)}F_1^{(9)}+C_2^{(0)}F_2^{(9)}+A_8^{(0)}F_8^{(9)}\right)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_7^{\text{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu )}{\pi }}\omega _7(\widehat{s})\right)A_7{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu )}{4\pi }}\left(C_1^{(0)}F_1^{(7)}+C_2^{(0)}F_2^{(7)}+A_8^{(0)}F_8^{(7)}\right)`$ (43)
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_{10}^{\text{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu )}{\pi }}\omega _9(\widehat{s})\right)A_{10},`$ (44)
where the expressions for $`h(\widehat{m}_c^2,\widehat{s})`$ and $`\omega _9(\widehat{s})`$ are given in . The quantities $`\omega _7(\widehat{s})`$ and $`F_{1,2,8}^{(7,9)}`$, on the other hand, have been calculated in the present paper. We take the numerical values for $`A_7`$, $`A_9`$, $`A_{10}`$, $`T_9`$, $`U_9`$, and $`W_9`$ from , while $`C_1^{(0)}`$, $`C_2^{(0)}`$ and $`A_8^{(0)}=\stackrel{~}{C}_8^{(0,\text{eff})}`$ are taken from . For completeness we list them in Tab. III.

When calculating the decay width (39), we retain only terms linear in $`\alpha _s`$ (and thus in $`\omega _9`$ and $`\omega _7`$) in $`|\stackrel{~}{C}_9^{\text{eff}}|^2`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{C}_7^{\text{eff}}|^2`$. In the interference term $`\text{Re}\left(\stackrel{~}{C}_7^{\text{eff}}\stackrel{~}{C}_9^{\text{eff}}\right)`$ too, we keep only terms linear in $`\alpha _s`$. By construction, one has to make the replacements $`\omega _9\omega _{79}`$ and $`\omega _7\omega _{79}`$ in this term.

Our results include all the relevant virtual corrections and singular bremsstrahlung contributions. There exist additional bremsstrahlung terms coming e.g. from one-loop $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$ diagrams in which both, the virtual photon and the gluon are emitted from the charm quark line. These contributions do not induce additional renormalization scale dependence as they are ultraviolet finite. Using our experience from $`bs\gamma `$ and $`bsg`$, these contributions are not expected to be large.

## VI Numerical results

The decay width in eq. (39) has a large uncertainty due to the factor $`m_{b,pole}^5`$. Following common practice, we consider the ratio

$$R_{\text{quark}}(\widehat{s})=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(bX_ce\overline{\nu })}\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(bX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})}{d\widehat{s}},$$
(45)
in which the factor $`m_{b,pole}^5`$ drops out. The explicit expression for the semi-leptonic decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(bX_ce\nu _e)`$ can be found e.g. in .

We now turn to the numerical results for $`R_{\text{quark}}(\widehat{s})`$ for $`0.05\widehat{s}0.25`$. In Fig. 3a we investigate the dependence of $`R_{\text{quark}}(\widehat{s})`$ on the renormalization scale $`\mu `$. The solid lines are obtained by including the new NNLL contributions as explained in detail in section V. The three solid lines correspond to $`\mu =2.5`$ GeV (lower line), $`\mu =5`$ GeV (middle line) and $`\mu =10`$ GeV (upper line). The three dashed lines (again $`\mu =2.5`$ GeV for the lower, $`\mu =5`$ GeV for the middle and $`\mu =10`$ GeV for the upper curve), on the other hand, show the results without the new NNLL corrections, i.e., they include the NLL results combined with the NNLL corrections to the matching conditions as obtained by Bobeth et al. . From this figure we conclude that the renormalization scale dependence gets reduced by more than a factor of 2. Only for small values of $`\widehat{s}`$ ($`\widehat{s}0.05`$), where the NLL $`\mu `$-dependence is small already, the reduction factor is smaller. For the integrated quantity we obtain

$$R_{\text{quark}}=_{0.05}^{0.25}𝑑\widehat{s}R_{\text{quark}}(\widehat{s})=(1.25\pm 0.08)\times 10^5,$$
(46)
where the error is obtained by varying $`\mu `$ between 2.5 GeV and 10 GeV. Before our corrections, the result was $`R_{\text{quark}}=(1.36\pm 0.18)\times 10^5`$ . In other words, the renormalization scale dependence got reduced from $`\pm 13\%`$ to $`\pm 6.5\%`$.

Among the errors on $`R_{\text{quark}}(\widehat{s})`$ which are due to the uncertainties in the input parameters, the one induced by $`\widehat{m}_c=m_c/m_b`$ is known to be the largest. We therefore show in Fig. 3b the dependence of $`R_{\text{quark}}(\widehat{s})`$ on $`\widehat{m}_c`$. Comparing Fig. 3a with Fig. 3b, we find that the uncertainty due to $`\widehat{m}_c`$ is somewhat larger than the left-over $`\mu `$-dependence at the NNLL level. For the integrated quantity $`R_{\text{quark}}`$ we find an uncertainty of $`\pm 7.6\%`$ due to $`\widehat{m}_c`$.

To conclude: We have calculated virtual corrections of order $`\alpha _s`$ to the matrix elements of $`O_1`$, $`O_2`$, $`O_7`$, $`O_8`$, $`O_9`$ and $`O_{10}`$. We also took into account those bremsstrahlung corrections which cancel the infrared and collinear singularities in the virtual corrections. The renormalization scale dependence of $`R_{\text{quark}}(\widehat{s})`$ gets reduced by more than a factor of 2. The calculation of the remaining bremsstrahlung contributions (which are expected to be rather small) and a more detailed numerical analysis are in progress .