format: text

text:
# 1 Preliminaries

## 1 Preliminaries

The *Heavy Quark Expansion* (HQE) technique provides a well-defined QCD-based framework for the calculation of total decay rates of $`𝒃`$-flavoured hadrons . The HQE yields an expansion of the decay rate $`𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$ in terms of $`𝚲_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$, where $`𝑯_𝒃`$ represents any hadron containing a single $`𝒃`$-quark and any of the light $`𝒖`$,$`𝒅`$,$`𝒔`$ (anti-)quarks as valence quarks. $`𝒎_𝒃`$ is the $`𝒃`$-quark mass and $`𝚲_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}`$ is the fundamental scale of QCD, which determines the size of hadronic effects. In the leading order of $`𝚲_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ the decay rate of $`𝑯_𝒃`$ equals the decay rate of a free $`𝒃`$-quark, which is unaffected by the light degrees of freedom of $`𝑯_𝒃`$. Consequently, the lifetimes of all $`𝒃`$-flavoured hadrons are the same at this order. The first corrections to the free quark decay appear at order $`\mathbf{(}𝚲_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and are caused by the Fermi motion of the $`𝒃`$-quark in $`𝑯_𝒃`$ and the chromomagnetic interaction of the final state quarks with the hadronic cloud surrounding the heavy $`𝒃`$-quark. These mechanisms have a negligible effect on the lifetime difference between the $`𝑩^\mathbf{+}`$ and $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mesons, because the strong interaction excellently respects isospin symmetry. At order $`\mathbf{(}𝚲_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟑}`$, however, one encounters weak interaction effects between the $`𝒃`$-quark and the light valence quark. These effects, known as *weak annihilation* (WA) and *Pauli interference* (PI) , are depicted in Fig. 1.

They are phase-space enhanced with respect to the leading free-quark decay and induce corrections to $`𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$ of order $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝚲_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{\%}\mathbf{)}`$. The measurement of lifetime differences among different $`𝒃`$-flavoured hadrons therefore tests the HQE formalism at the third order in the expansion parameter.

The calculation of $`𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$ consists of three steps: the first step is an operator product expansion (OPE) integrating out the heavy $`𝑾`$ boson, which mediates the weak $`𝒃`$ decay. This results in an effective $`\mathbf{|}𝚫𝑩\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ Hamiltonian describing the flavour-changing weak interaction of the Standard Model up to corrections of order $`𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑾^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, where $`𝚫𝑩`$ denotes the change in bottom-quark number:

$`𝑯`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝑮_𝑭}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}^{\mathbf{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝒅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}{𝒖^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}𝒖\mathbf{,}𝒄}}{\mathbf{}}}𝑽_{𝒖^{\mathbf{}}𝒅^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{\left[}𝑪_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝑸_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝒖^{\mathbf{}}𝒅^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝑪_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝑸_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝒖^{\mathbf{}}𝒅^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{+}\text{h.c.}\mathbf{.}`$ (1)
Here $`𝑮_𝑭`$ is the Fermi constant and the $`𝑽_{𝒊𝒋}`$’s are elements of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix. The Wilson coefficients $`𝑪_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ contain the short-distance physics associated with scales above the renormalization scale $`𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}`$. The weak interaction is encoded in the four-quark operators

$`𝑸_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝒖^{\mathbf{}}𝒅^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{=}\overline{𝒃}_𝒊𝜸_𝝁\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝒄_𝒋\overline{𝒖}_𝒋^{\mathbf{}}𝜸^𝝁\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝒅_𝒊^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}`$ $`𝑸_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝒖^{\mathbf{}}𝒅^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{=}\overline{𝒃}_𝒊𝜸_𝝁\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝒄_𝒊\overline{𝒖}_𝒋^{\mathbf{}}𝜸^𝝁\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝒅_𝒋^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}`$ (2)
with summation over the colour indices $`𝒊`$ and $`𝒋`$. We have omitted penguin operators and doubly Cabibbo-suppressed terms in (1), which have a negligible effect on the $`𝑩^\mathbf{+}`$$`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ lifetime difference. Next the total decay rate $`𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$ is related to $`𝑯`$ by the optical theorem:

$`𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_{𝑯_𝒃}}}\mathbf{}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{|}𝓣\mathbf{|}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{}\mathbf{.}`$ (3)
Here we have adopted the conventional relativistic normalization $`\mathbf{}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{|}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}𝑬𝑽`$ and introduced the transition operator:

$`𝓣`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}𝒊{\displaystyle \mathbf{}𝒅^\mathrm{𝟒}𝒙𝑻\mathbf{[}𝑯\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}𝑯\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}}\mathbf{.}`$ (4)
The second step is the HQE, which exploits the hierarchy $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}𝚲_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}`$ to expand the RHS of (3) in terms of $`𝚲_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$. To this end an OPE is applied to $`𝓣`$ which effectively integrates out the hard loop momenta (corresponding to the momenta of the final state quarks). We decompose the result as

$`𝓣`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{\left[}𝓣_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{+}𝓣_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝓣_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}`$
$`𝓣_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝓣^𝒖\mathbf{+}𝓣^𝒅\mathbf{+}𝓣_{𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈}`$ (5)
Here $`𝓣_𝒏`$ denotes the portion of $`𝓣`$ which is suppressed by a factor of $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^𝒏`$ with respect to $`𝓣_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ describing the free quark decay. The contributions to $`𝓣_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ from weak spectator interactions read

$`𝓣^𝒖`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝑮_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟔}𝝅}}\mathbf{[}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝑭^𝒖𝑸^𝒅\mathbf{+}𝑭_𝑺^𝒖𝑸_𝑺^𝒅\mathbf{+}𝑮^𝒖𝑻^𝒅\mathbf{+}𝑮_𝑺^𝒖𝑻_𝑺^𝒅\mathbf{)}`$
$`\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒅}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝑭^𝒄𝑸^𝒅\mathbf{+}𝑭_𝑺^𝒄𝑸_𝑺^𝒅\mathbf{+}𝑮^𝒄𝑻^𝒅\mathbf{+}𝑮_𝑺^𝒄𝑻_𝑺^𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒅\mathbf{}𝒔\mathbf{)}`$
$`𝓣^𝒅`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝑮_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟔}𝝅}}\mathbf{\left[}𝑭^𝒅𝑸^𝒖\mathbf{+}𝑭_𝑺^𝒅𝑸_𝑺^𝒖\mathbf{+}𝑮^𝒅𝑻^𝒖\mathbf{+}𝑮_𝑺^𝒅𝑻_𝑺^𝒖\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}`$ (6)
The superscript $`𝒒`$ of the coefficients $`𝑭^𝒒`$, $`𝑭_𝑺^𝒒`$, $`𝑮^𝒒`$, $`𝑮_𝑺^𝒒`$ refers to the $`𝒄𝒒`$ intermediate state (see Fig. 1). We include singly Cabibbo-suppressed contributions. In writing $`𝓣^𝒅`$ we have used $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝒎_𝒅\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒔\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$, so that $`𝑭^𝒅\mathbf{=}𝑭^𝒔`$, etc.. Here we encounter the local dimension-6, $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ operators

$`𝑸^𝒒\mathbf{=}\overline{𝒃}𝜸_𝝁\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝒒\overline{𝒒}𝜸^𝝁\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝒃\mathbf{,}`$ $`𝑸_𝑺^𝒒\mathbf{=}\overline{𝒃}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝒒\overline{𝒒}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝒃\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝑻^𝒒\mathbf{=}\overline{𝒃}𝜸_𝝁\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝑻^𝒂𝒒\overline{𝒒}𝜸^𝝁\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝑻^𝒂𝒃\mathbf{,}`$ $`𝑻_𝑺^𝒒\mathbf{=}\overline{𝒃}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝑻^𝒂𝒒\overline{𝒒}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝑻^𝒂𝒃\mathbf{,}`$ (7)
where $`𝑻^𝒂`$ is the generator of colour SU(3). We define the $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ operators at the renormalization scale $`𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}`$, which is of order $`𝒎_𝒃`$. The Wilson coefficients $`𝑭^𝒖\mathbf{}𝑮_𝑺^𝒅`$ are computed in perturbation theory. When applied to mesons, $`𝓣^𝒖`$ and $`𝓣^𝒅`$ correspond to the WA and PI mechanisms of Fig. 1, respectively. In the case of baryons their role is interchanged: $`𝓣^𝒖`$ encodes the PI effect and $`𝓣^𝒅`$ describes the weak scattering of the $`𝒃`$-quark with the valence quark (see Fig. 5). The coefficients in (6) depend on $`𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Since the hard loops involve the charm quark, they also depend on the ratio $`𝒛\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. The truncation of the perturbation series makes $`𝑭^𝒖\mathbf{}𝑮_𝑺^𝒅`$ also dependent on $`𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$. This dependence diminishes in increasing orders of $`𝜶_𝒔`$. To the considered order, the dependence on $`𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ cancels between the coefficients and the matrix elements of operators in (6), so that observables are independent of $`𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}`$. The remainder $`𝓣_{𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈}`$ in (5) involves additional dimension-6 operators, which describe power-suppressed contributions to the free quark decay from strong interactions with the spectator quark. The operators in $`𝓣_{𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈}`$ are isospin singlets and do not contribute to the $`𝑩^\mathbf{+}`$$`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ lifetime difference. The formalism of (5)–(7) applies to weakly decaying hadrons containing a single bottom quark and no charm quarks. Decays of hadrons like the $`𝑩_𝒄`$ meson with more than one heavy quark have a different power counting than in (5) . In the third step one computes the hadronic matrix elements of the operators in (7). They enter our calculation in isospin-breaking combinations and are conventionally parametrized as

$`\mathbf{}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{(}𝑸^𝒖\mathbf{}𝑸^𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}𝒇_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑩_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{(}𝑸_𝑺^𝒖\mathbf{}𝑸_𝑺^𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}𝒇_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑩_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}`$
$`\mathbf{}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{(}𝑻^𝒖\mathbf{}𝑻^𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}𝒇_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathit{ϵ}_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{(}𝑻_𝑺^𝒖\mathbf{}𝑻_𝑺^𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}𝒇_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathit{ϵ}_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}`$ (8)
Here $`𝒇_𝑩`$ is the $`𝑩`$ meson decay constant. In the *vacuum saturation approximation* (VSA) one has $`𝑩_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`𝑩_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝓞\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝚲_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$ and $`\mathit{ϵ}_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Corrections to the VSA results are of order $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝑵_𝒄`$, where $`𝑵_𝒄\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑}`$ is the number of colours.

Using the isospin relation $`\mathbf{}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{|}𝑸^{𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒖}\mathbf{|}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝑸^{𝒖\mathbf{,}𝒅}\mathbf{|}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}`$ we now find from (3) and (6):

$`𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝑮_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}𝝅}}𝒇_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{(}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝑭}{}_{}{}^{𝒖}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒅}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝑭}{}_{}{}^{𝒄}\mathbf{}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝑭}{}_{}{}^{𝒅}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝑩}\mathbf{.}`$ (9)
Here we have introduced the shorthand notation

$`\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝑭}{}_{}{}^{𝒒}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left(}\begin{array}{c}𝑭^𝒒\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\\ 𝑭_𝑺^𝒒\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\\ 𝑮^𝒒\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\\ 𝑮_𝑺^𝒒\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\end{array}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}`$ $`\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝑩}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left(}\begin{array}{c}𝑩_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\\ 𝑩_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\\ \mathit{ϵ}_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\\ \mathit{ϵ}_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\end{array}\mathbf{\right)}\text{for }𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒖\mathbf{,}𝒄\mathbf{.}`$ (18)
The strong interaction affects all three steps of the calculation. The minimal way to include QCD effects is the leading logarithmic approximation, which includes corrections of order $`𝜶_𝒔^𝒏\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}^𝒏\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑾\mathbf{)}`$, $`𝒏\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}`$ in the coefficients $`𝑪_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ in (1). The corresponding leading order (LO) calculation of the width difference in (9) involves the diagrams in Fig. 1 . Yet LO results are too crude for a precise calculation of lifetime differences. The heavy-quark masses in (9) cannot be defined in a proper way and one faces a large dependence on the renormalization scale $`𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}`$. Furthermore, results for $`𝑩_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ and $`\mathit{ϵ}_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ from lattice gauge theory cannot be matched to the continuum theory in a meaningful way at LO. Finally, as pointed out in , at LO the coefficients $`𝑭`$, $`𝑭_𝑺`$ in (9) are anomalously small. They multiply the large matrix elements parametrized by $`𝑩_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$, while the larger coefficients $`𝑮`$, $`𝑮_𝑺`$ come with the small hadronic parameters $`\mathit{ϵ}_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$, rendering the LO prediction highly unstable. To cure these problems one must include the next-to-leading-order (NLO) QCD corrections of order $`𝜶_𝒔^{𝒏\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}^𝒏\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑾\mathbf{)}`$. NLO corrections to the effective $`\mathbf{|}𝚫𝑩\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ Hamiltonian in (1) have been computed in . The second step beyond the LO requires the calculation of QCD corrections to the coefficients $`𝑭^𝒖\mathbf{}𝑮_𝑺^𝒅`$ in (6). Such a calculation has been first performed for the $`𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ lifetime difference in , where $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$ corrections were calculated in the SU(3)F limit neglecting certain terms of order $`𝒛`$. In this limit only a few penguin effects play a role. A complete NLO computation has been carried out for the lifetime difference between the two mass eigenstates of the $`𝑩_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ meson in . In particular the correct treatment of infrared effects, which appear at intermediate steps of the calculation, has been worked out in . The computation presented in this paper is conceptually similar to the one in , except that the considered transition is $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ rather than $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and the quark masses in the final state are different. While this work was in preparation, QCD corrections to $`𝓣^𝒖`$ and $`𝓣^𝒅`$ have also been calculated in . There are two important differences between our analysis and :

* in  the NLO corrections have been computed for the limiting case $`𝒛\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$, i.e. neglecting the charm-quark mass in the final state. The corrections to this limit are of order $`𝒛\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}𝒛`$ or roughly 20%. In Sect. 2 we include the dependence on the charm-quark mass exactly.
* in  the $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ operators have been defined in the heavy quark effective theory (HQET) rather than in full QCD, as we did in (7). HQET operators were chosen to eliminate the mixing of the dimension-6 operators in (7) into lower-dimensional operators under renormalization. We emphasize that this mixing does not impede the use of QCD operators in the HQE: it results purely from ultraviolet effects and can be accounted for by a finite renormalization of the affected operators. For a more detailed discussion with an explicit example we refer the reader to  and to Sect. 3.2.

Finally one must compute the non-perturbative QCD effects residing in $`𝒇_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑩_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}𝒇_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathit{ϵ}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$. Results from lattice gauge theory for the matrix elements in (8) have been recently obtained in . Earlier results using HQET fields can be found in . In the matching of the results to continuum QCD the dependence of $`𝑩_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathit{ϵ}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ on $`𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and on the chosen renormalization scheme must cancel the corresponding dependence of the Wilson coefficients, which requires NLO accuracy.

## 2 $`𝓣^𝒖`$ and $`𝓣^𝒅`$ at next-to-leading order

We decompose the Wilson coefficients in (6) as

$`𝑭^𝒖\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝑪_\mathrm{𝟏}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝑭_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}^𝒖\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝑪_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝑪_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝑭_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}^𝒖\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}`$
$`\mathbf{+}𝑪_\mathrm{𝟐}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝑭_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}}^𝒖\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}`$
$`𝑭_{𝒊𝒋}^𝒖\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝑭_{𝒊𝒋}^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅}}𝑭_{𝒊𝒋}^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝓞\mathbf{\left(}𝜶_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}`$ (19)
with $`𝒙_𝝁\mathbf{=}𝝁\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ and an analogous notation for the remaining Wilson coefficients in (6). The LO coefficients are obtained from the diagrams in Fig. 1. The non-vanishing coefficients read

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}𝑭_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝑭_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑}𝑭_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}}^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝑮_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}}^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒛}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}𝑭_{𝑺\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝑭_{𝑺\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑}𝑭_{𝑺\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}}^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝑮_{𝑺\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}}^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}𝑭_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}^{𝒄\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝑭_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}^{𝒄\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑}𝑭_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}}^{𝒄\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝑮_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}}^{𝒄\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}𝒛}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}𝑭_{𝑺\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}^{𝒄\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝑭_{𝑺\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}^{𝒄\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑}𝑭_{𝑺\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}}^{𝒄\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝑮_{𝑺\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}}^{𝒄\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}𝒛}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}`$
$`\mathrm{𝟔}𝑭_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}^{𝒅\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝑭_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}^{𝒅\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟔}𝑭_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}}^{𝒅\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝑮_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}^{𝒅\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝑮_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}}^{𝒅\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}`$
while

$`𝑮_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝑮_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝑮_{𝑺\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝑮_{𝑺\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝑮_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}^{𝒄\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝑮_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}^{𝒄\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝑮_{𝑺\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}^{𝒄\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝑮_{𝑺\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}^{𝒄\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝑮_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}^{𝒅\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝑭_{𝑺\mathbf{,}𝒊𝒋}^{𝒅\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝑮_{𝑺\mathbf{,}𝒊𝒋}^{𝒅\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{.}`$ (21)
To obtain the NLO corrections $`𝑭_{𝒊𝒋}^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}𝑮_{𝑺\mathbf{,}𝒊𝒋}^{𝒅\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}`$ we have calculated the diagrams $`𝑬_𝒊`$ and the imaginary parts of $`𝑫_𝒊`$ in Fig. 2.

At NLO one becomes sensitive to the renormalization scheme. First, this affects the quantities $`𝒎_𝒃`$, $`𝒛`$ and $`𝜶_𝒔`$ entering our calculation. The NLO coefficients given below correspond to the use of the pole-mass definition for $`𝒎_𝒃`$ and the definition of $`𝜶_𝒔`$ in the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐌𝐒}}`$ scheme . $`𝒛`$ can be either calculated from the pole masses or from the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐌𝐒}}`$ masses, because $`𝒛\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\overline{𝒎}_𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\overline{𝒎}_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝓞\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$. Second, the choice of the renormalization scheme is also an issue for the effective four-quark operators appearing at the various stages of our calculation. In the prediction of physical quantities this scheme dependence cancels to the calculated order, nevertheless it must be taken care of when assembling pieces from different theoretical sources. The Wilson coefficients $`𝑪_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ of $`𝑯`$ in (1) and $`𝑭_{𝒊𝒋}^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}𝑮_{𝑺\mathbf{,}𝒊𝒋}^{𝒅\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}`$ depend on the scheme used to renormalize the $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ operators in (2), but this dependence cancels in $`𝑭^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}𝑮_𝑺^{𝒅\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}`$. Our results below correspond to the definition of $`𝑪_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ in . $`𝑭^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}𝑮_𝑺^{𝒅\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}`$ also depend on the renormalization scheme of the $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ operators in (7). This dependence cancels only when these coefficients are combined with the hadronic parameters $`𝑩_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ and $`\mathit{ϵ}_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ calculated from lattice QCD. It is therefore important that our scheme is used in the lattice-continuum matching of these quantities. We use the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐌𝐒}}`$ scheme with the NDR prescription for $`𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}`$ . To specify the scheme completely, it is further necessary to state the definition of the evanescent operators appearing in the calculation . We use

$`𝑬\mathbf{[}𝑸\mathbf{]}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\overline{𝒃}𝜸_𝝁𝜸_𝝆𝜸_𝝂\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝒒\overline{𝒒}𝜸^𝝂𝜸^𝝆𝜸^𝝁\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝒃\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖}𝜺\mathbf{)}𝑸`$
$`𝑬\mathbf{[}𝑸_𝑺\mathbf{]}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\overline{𝒃}𝜸_𝝁𝜸_𝝂\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝒒\overline{𝒒}𝜸^𝝂𝜸^𝝁\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝒃\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖}𝜺\mathbf{)}𝑸_𝑺`$ (22)
and analogous definitions of $`𝑬\mathbf{[}𝑻\mathbf{]}`$ and $`𝑬\mathbf{[}𝑻_𝑺\mathbf{]}`$. When the diagrams $`𝐄_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝐄_\mathrm{𝟒}`$ for e.g. $`𝑸_𝑺`$ are calculated in $`𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜺`$ dimensions, the result can be expressed as a linear combination of $`𝑸_𝑺`$ and $`𝑬\mathbf{[}𝑸_𝑺\mathbf{]}`$. Effectively, (22) defines how Dirac strings with two or three Dirac matrices are reduced. (Note that (22) also implies the replacement rules $`𝜸_𝝂𝜸_𝝆𝜸_𝝁\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝜸^𝝂𝜸^𝝆𝜸^𝝁\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}𝜺\mathbf{)}𝜸_𝝁\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝜸^𝝁\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝜸_𝝁𝜸_𝝂\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝜸^𝝁𝜸^𝝂\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜺\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}`$.) The particular choice of the $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖}𝜺`$ terms in (22) is motivated by Fierz invariance: the one-loop matrix elements of e.g. $`𝑸_𝑺`$ and its Fierz transform $`𝑸_𝑺^𝑭\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}\overline{𝒃}_𝒊𝜸_𝝂\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝒃_𝒋\overline{𝒒}_𝒋𝜸^𝝂\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝒒_𝒊`$ are in general different. This feature is an artifact of dimensional regularization. With (22) and a corresponding definition of $`𝑬\mathbf{[}𝑸_𝑺^𝑭\mathbf{]}`$, however, Fierz invariance is maintained at the one-loop level. This choice, which has also been made in  for the $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ operators, has the practical advantage that one can freely use the Fierz transformation at any step of the calculation. In other words: “Fierz-evanescent” operators like $`𝑸_𝑺\mathbf{}𝑸_𝑺^𝑭`$ can be identified with 0.

In the procedure of matching the full theory (eq. (4)) to the effective $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ theory, infrared singularities are encountered at $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$ both in the full-theory diagrams and in the matrix elements of operators in the effective theory. The diagrams relevant for this issue are $`𝑫_\mathrm{𝟏}`$$`𝑫_\mathrm{𝟒}`$ and $`𝑬_\mathrm{𝟏}`$$`𝑬_\mathrm{𝟒}`$. The singularities cancel in the Wilson coefficients $`𝑭`$ and $`𝑮`$, but need to be regularized at intermediate steps of the calculation. We take the $`𝒃`$-quark on-shell, assign zero $`\mathrm{𝟒}`$-momentum to the external light quarks and use dimensional regularization for the infrared (as well as the ultraviolet) divergences. In this case, care has to be taken to treat the Dirac algebra in a consistent way. In computing the matching condition between $`𝑫_\mathrm{𝟏}`$$`𝑫_\mathrm{𝟒}`$ and $`𝑬_\mathrm{𝟏}`$$`𝑬_\mathrm{𝟒}`$ we have used two different methods, which lead to the same result. In both methods ultraviolet divergences appearing in $`𝑬_\mathrm{𝟏}`$$`𝑬_\mathrm{𝟒}`$ and $`𝑫_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ are subtracted, respectively, by $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ counterterms, in the usual way.

In the first method, we distinguish IR singularities arising in loop integrals from UV singularities, and treat the Dirac algebra in strictly four dimensions in the IR-divergent parts. In the second method, IR and UV divergences are not distinguished and $`𝒅`$-dimensional Dirac algebra is used throughout. In this case evanescent operators $`𝑬`$, as those given in (22), give a non-vanishing contribution in the matching procedure. This is a subtlety of the IR regulator used in method 2 . If a different IR regulator, such as a gluon mass or method 1, is used, the non-vanishing bare one-loop matrix element of $`𝑬`$ is cancelled by a finite counterterm, so that $`𝑬`$ disappears from the NLO matching calculation . The non-zero contribution in method 2 originates in diagram $`𝑬_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ with the insertion of an evanescent operator $`𝑬`$. This diagram is zero in dimensional regularization, thus leaving the corresponding counterterm uncancelled. We have further parametrized the evanescent $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝜺\mathbf{)}`$ parts appearing in the $`𝒅`$-dimensional projections of general Dirac structures $`𝚪\mathbf{}𝚪`$ onto the basic operators $`𝑸`$ and $`𝑸_𝑺`$. There are four independent parameters in the calculation, corresponding to $`𝚪`$ being a string of two, three, four or five Dirac matrices. We have checked that all four parameters disappear from the final result for the coefficients. (This is true for the evanescent $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝜺\mathbf{)}`$ parts multiplying IR poles. The UV poles give rise to a dependence on these parameters, which corresponds to a usual scheme dependence that is cancelled by the matrix elements of operators in the effective theory. Our choice of scheme is specified by (22).)

We would also like to mention that the Fierz ordering of $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ operators is immaterial because Fierz symmetry is respected by the standard NDR renormalization scheme employed by us. This has been checked by using the Fierz form leading to Dirac strings with flavour structure $`\overline{𝒃}𝒃\mathbf{}\overline{𝒖}𝒖`$ in method 1, and $`\overline{𝒃}𝒖\mathbf{}\overline{𝒖}𝒃`$ in method 2, and similarly for the contribution with $`𝒖\mathbf{}𝒅`$. (The Fierz form used in method 2 for $`\overline{𝒃}𝒅\mathbf{}\overline{𝒅}𝒃`$ is such that a closed fermion loop is generated in $`𝑫_\mathrm{𝟏}`$$`𝑫_\mathrm{𝟒}`$.)

In the NLO corrections to (9) we set $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝑽_{𝒄𝒅}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$. This introduces an error of order $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒅}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}𝒛\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}𝒛`$, which is well below 1% of $`𝝉\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝝉\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$. Hence (9) only involves the differences $`𝑭_{𝒊𝒋}^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}𝑭_{𝒊𝒋}^{𝒅\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}𝑮_{𝑺\mathbf{,}𝒊𝒋}^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}𝑮_{𝑺\mathbf{,}𝒊𝒋}^{𝒅\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}`$. Our results for these coefficients read:

$`𝑭_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑭_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}^{𝒅\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}𝒛\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟑}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝐋𝐢}_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏𝟗}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟒}𝒛\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟗𝟑}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟒𝟎}𝒛\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓𝟕}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟗}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟗}}}\mathbf{\right]}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟓𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏𝟒𝟗}𝒛\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏𝟓𝟓}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}}}`$
$`𝑭_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑭_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}^{𝒅\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔}𝒛\mathbf{+}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝐋𝐢}_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏𝟑}𝒛\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟑}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟑}𝒛}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟖}𝒛\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟑𝟕}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔}𝒛\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒛\mathbf{+}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟗}}}\mathbf{\right]}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟑𝟎}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟑𝟑}𝒛\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟑}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}`$
$`𝑭_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}}^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑭_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}}^{𝒅\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟗}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}𝒛}{\mathrm{𝟗}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝐋𝐢}_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟗}𝒛}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟒}𝒛\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟓}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟑𝟎}𝒛\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔𝟖}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{+}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{+}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒛\mathbf{+}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}}}\mathbf{\right]}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟓𝟒𝟒}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟓}𝒛\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔𝟖}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟖𝟏}}}`$
$`𝑭_{𝑺\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑭_{𝑺\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}^{𝒅\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝐋𝐢}_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}𝒛\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟖}𝒛\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟓𝟓}𝒛\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏𝟒𝟒}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟗}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒𝟖}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟑}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓𝟑}𝒛\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟒𝟎}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}}}`$
$`𝑭_{𝑺\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑭_{𝑺\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}^{𝒅\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟔𝟒}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝐋𝐢}_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒛\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟔}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟑}𝒛}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}𝒛\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}𝒛\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}𝒛\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟗}}}\mathbf{\right]}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟕}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟗}𝒛\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟑𝟔}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}`$
$`𝑭_{𝑺\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}}^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑭_{𝑺\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}}^{𝒅\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟗}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝐋𝐢}_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟓}𝒛\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟖}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟗}𝒛}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟖}𝒛\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟑}𝒛\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟖𝟐}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟗}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}𝒛\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}}}\mathbf{\right]}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟓𝟗}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒𝟐𝟏}𝒛\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟒𝟖𝟖}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟖𝟏}}}`$
$`𝑮_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑮_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}^{𝒅\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝐋𝐢}_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟓}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒛\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟑𝟖𝟒}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟓𝟔}𝒛\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟏}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟑}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟗}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{\right]}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟒𝟓𝟎}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐𝟓𝟕𝟓}𝒛\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟓𝟏𝟕}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟖}}}`$
$`𝑮_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑮_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}^{𝒅\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟑}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝐋𝐢}_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟑}𝒛\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏𝟑}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}}{𝒛}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟒}𝒛\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}𝒛\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟓}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟒}\mathbf{+}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{+}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒛\mathbf{+}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{\right]}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟖𝟏𝟖}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔𝟔𝟕}𝒛\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟗}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟗}}}`$
$`𝑮_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}}^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑮_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}}^{𝒅\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟑𝟔}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟑𝟏}𝒛\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟓}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝐋𝐢}_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟔𝟖}𝒛\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟓}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟑}𝒛}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟒}𝒛\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟐}𝒛\mathbf{}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟗}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{+}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{+}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟕𝟕}𝒛\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟕}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟗}}}\mathbf{\right]}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟖𝟎𝟑}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐𝟕𝟖𝟔}𝒛\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟕𝟐𝟓}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}}}`$
$`𝑮_{𝑺\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑮_{𝑺\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}^{𝒅\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒𝟒}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟐𝟖}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟑}𝒛\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔𝟒}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟗}}}`$
$`𝑮_{𝑺\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑮_{𝑺\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}^{𝒅\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝐋𝐢}_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}}{𝒛}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟒}𝒛\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓𝟏}𝒛\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐𝟖}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}𝒛\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{\right]}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓𝟑}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖𝟎}𝒛\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟖𝟐}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟗}}}`$
$`𝑮_{𝑺\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}}^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑮_{𝑺\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}}^{𝒅\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}`$ (23)
$`\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟓}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝐋𝐢}_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟑𝟏}𝒛\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟔𝟒}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟑}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟑}𝒛}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒛\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟑𝟔}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑𝟑𝟔}𝒛\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟔𝟐}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟗}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟗}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒙_{𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟗}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟕}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟗}}}\mathbf{\right]}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒛\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟑𝟖𝟓}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏𝟓𝟏𝟗}𝒛\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑𝟐𝟕𝟖}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}}}`$
Here $`\mathrm{𝐋𝐢}_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}_\mathrm{𝟎}^𝒛𝒅𝒕\mathbf{[}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{/}𝒕`$ is the dilogarithm function. Any dependence on infrared regulators has cancelled from the coefficients in (23) showing that infrared effects properly factorize. As another check we have verified that the dependence on $`𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ cancels analytically to the calculated order.

For our numerical studies we choose the following range for the input parameters:

$`𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝒁\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.118}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.003}\mathbf{,}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}4.8}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.1}\text{GeV}\mathbf{,}𝒛\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.085}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.015}\mathbf{.}`$ (24)
Throughout this paper we always remove $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ terms from the calculated coefficients. (For instance, at NLO we write a product such as $`𝑪_\mathrm{𝟏}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑭^𝒖`$ as $`𝑪_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐋𝐎}}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑭_{\mathrm{𝐍𝐋𝐎}}^𝒖\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝑪_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐋𝐎}}𝒅𝑪_\mathrm{𝟏}𝑭_{\mathrm{𝐋𝐎}}^𝒖`$, where $`𝑪_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐍𝐋𝐎}}\mathbf{=}𝑪_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐋𝐎}}\mathbf{+}𝒅𝑪_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ denotes the NLO Wilson coefficient.) In all terms we use the two-loop expression for the running coupling $`𝜶_𝒔`$ in QCD with five flavours. Numerical values for the calculated coefficients can be found in Tab. 1.

The two contributions from $`\mathbf{(}𝑭^𝒖\mathbf{}𝑭^𝒅\mathbf{)}𝑩_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝑮^𝒖\mathbf{}𝑮^𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathit{ϵ}_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and from $`\mathbf{(}𝑭_𝑺^𝒖\mathbf{}𝑭_𝑺^𝒅\mathbf{)}𝑩_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝑮_𝑺^𝒖\mathbf{}𝑮_𝑺^𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathit{ϵ}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ to $`𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}`$ are separately scheme-independent. Tab. 1 reveals that the former part is expected to give the dominant contribution to the desired width difference. The results also show a substantial improvement of the $`𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}`$-dependence in the NLO compared to LO.

This dependence is plotted in Fig. 3 for the two Wilson coefficients of the important vector operators. The approximation employed in  setting $`𝒛\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ in the NLO correction is also plotted. Expectedly, the accuracy of this approximation decreases for small $`𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}`$, because the difference to the exact NLO result is of order $`𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝒛\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}𝒛`$. For the final result of our coefficients we estimate the $`𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}`$-dependence in a more conservative way: we vary $`𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ in $`𝑭^𝒖\mathbf{}𝑮_𝑺^𝒖`$ and $`𝑭^𝒅\mathbf{}𝑮_𝑺^𝒅`$ independently. Further the variation with $`𝒛`$ and $`𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝒁\mathbf{)}`$ in the ranges of (24) is calculated and all these sources of theoretical uncertainty are symmetrized individually and added in quadrature. The dependence on $`𝒛`$ is only an issue for $`𝑮^𝒖\mathbf{}𝑮^𝒅`$. We find:

$`\begin{array}{cccc}& \hfill \mathrm{𝐍𝐋𝐎}& \hfill \mathrm{𝐋𝐎}& \hfill \mathrm{𝐚𝐩𝐩}\\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \hfill 𝑭^𝒖\mathbf{}𝑭^𝒅& \hfill \mathbf{0.460}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.101}& \hfill \mathbf{0.270}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.480}& \hfill \mathbf{0.440}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.119}\\ \hfill 𝑭_𝑺^𝒖\mathbf{}𝑭_𝑺^𝒅& \hfill \mathbf{0.033}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.046}& \hfill \mathbf{0.042}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.052}& \hfill \mathbf{0.025}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.045}\\ \hfill 𝑮^𝒖\mathbf{}𝑮^𝒅& \hfill \mathbf{}\mathbf{8.50}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.40}& \hfill \mathbf{}\mathbf{8.62}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.90}& \hfill \mathbf{}\mathbf{8.00}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.32}\\ \hfill 𝑮_𝑺^𝒖\mathbf{}𝑮_𝑺^𝒅& \hfill \mathbf{1.85}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.08}& \hfill \mathbf{2.40}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.23}& \hfill \mathbf{1.80}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.10}\end{array}`$ (31)
The quoted central values correspond to the choice $`𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝒃`$ and the central values in (24). The third column in (31) shows the result for the approximation of , setting $`𝒛\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ in the NLO corrections. For $`𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝒃`$ this approximation reproduces the size of the NLO corrections to $`𝑭^𝒖\mathbf{}𝑭^𝒅`$ and $`𝑮_𝑺^𝒖\mathbf{}𝑮_𝑺^𝒅`$ to better than 15% . The small NLO correction to $`𝑮^𝒖\mathbf{}𝑮^𝒅`$ is, however, overestimated. The NLO result for this coefficient, which is largest in magnitude, is better reproduced by the LO result than by the approximation of .

The origin of the $`𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝒛\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}𝒛`$ terms, which are the main cause of the discrepancy between the first and third column in (31), can be traced back to diagram $`𝐃_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}`$ of Fig. 2. This diagram defines the scheme of the charm-quark mass. One can absorb the $`𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝒛\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}𝒛`$ terms into the LO by replacing $`𝒛`$ with $`\overline{𝒛}\mathbf{=}\overline{𝒎}_𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\overline{𝒎}_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$, which implies the replacement

$`𝑭^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}𝑭^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}𝑭^{𝒖\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}}{\mathbf{}\overline{𝒛}}}𝜸_𝒎^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\overline{𝒛}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\overline{𝒛}`$ (32)
in the NLO corrections to $`𝑭^𝒖`$ and similarly in the other Wilson coefficients. Here $`𝜸_𝒎^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟖}`$ is the LO anomalous dimension of the quark mass. This procedure sums the terms of order $`𝜶_𝒔^𝒏\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝒛\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}^𝒏𝒛`$ with $`𝒏\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}`$ to all orders in perturbation theory. This can be seen by performing an OPE of the transition operator $`𝓣`$ which treats $`𝒎_𝒄`$ as a light mass scale: then increasing powers of $`𝒎_𝒄`$ correspond to $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ operators of increasing dimension and $`𝒎_𝒄`$ and $`𝒎_𝒃`$ enter the result at the same scale $`𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ at which the OPE is performed. In every order of the perturbation series $`\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\overline{𝒛}`$ is split into $`\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ contained in the Wilson coefficients and $`\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ residing in the matrix elements. Since there are no dimension-8 operators with charm-quark fields contributing to $`𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}`$, no terms of order $`𝒎_𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ can occur. From our NLO results we can indeed verify that the procedure in (32) removes the $`𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝒛\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}𝒛`$ terms, while e.g. terms of order $`𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}𝒛`$ persist as expected, because there are dimension-10 operators with charm-quark fields of the type $`𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒃}𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒒}𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒄}𝒄\mathbf{)}`$. Using $`\overline{𝒛}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.055}`$ rather than $`𝒛\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.085}`$ in the coefficients tabulated in the third column of (31) indeed removes the disturbing discrepancy with the NLO result for $`𝑮^𝒖\mathbf{}𝑮^𝒅`$. Also the central values of $`𝑭^𝒖\mathbf{}𝑭^𝒅`$ and $`𝑮_𝑺^𝒖\mathbf{}𝑮_𝑺^𝒅`$ move closer to the NLO result, while no significant improvement occurs for $`𝑭_𝑺^𝒖\mathbf{}𝑭_𝑺^𝒅`$.

The width difference in (9) involves the product $`\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝑭}{}_{}{}^{𝒒𝑻}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝑩}`$, which is independent of the renormalization scheme and scales. In order to compare the scheme dependent coefficients $`\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝑭}^𝒒`$ with the calculation in  for $`𝒛\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$, we need to take into account that the coefficients in  are defined for matrix elements in HQET rather than in full QCD. The matching relation connecting HQET and full-QCD matrix elements of the four operators $`\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝑶}`$ used in  has the form

$$\mathbf{}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝑶}\mathbf{}_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅}\widehat{𝑪}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\overline{𝑴𝑺}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝑶}\mathbf{}_{𝑯𝑸𝑬𝑻}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(33)
where the $`\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟒}`$ matrix $`\widehat{𝑪}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\overline{𝑴𝑺}}`$ can be found in Eq. (36) of . The renormalization scheme of operator matrix elements in full QCD is identical in our paper and in . The only further difference is that the operators $`\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝑶}`$ are linear combinations, $`\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝑶}\mathbf{=}𝑺\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝑸}`$, of our basis $`\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝑸}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{,}𝑸_𝑺\mathbf{,}𝑻\mathbf{,}𝑻_𝑺\mathbf{)}^𝑻`$ with

$$𝑺\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left(}\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟐}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\\ \frac{\mathrm{𝟒}}{\mathrm{𝟗}}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟖}}{\mathrm{𝟗}}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}\end{array}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}$$
(34)
(This simple relation holds beyond tree level because the renormalization schemes are identical. The preservation of Fierz-symmetry by the choice of evanescent operators in (22) is important for this property.) It follows that our coefficients $`\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝑭}`$ are related to the corresponding coefficients $`\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝑨}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝜶_𝒔}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝑩}`$ in  at scale $`𝝁\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝒃`$ through

$$\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{\left(}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝑭}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝜶_𝒔}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝑭}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right)}^𝑻\mathbf{=}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝑨}^𝑻𝑺\mathbf{+}\frac{𝜶_𝒔}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅}\mathbf{\left(}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝑩}^𝑻𝑺\mathbf{}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝑨}^𝑻\widehat{𝑪}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\overline{𝑴𝑺}}𝑺\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}$$
(35)
Here we have suppressed flavour labels $`𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒖`$, $`𝒅`$ and the double indices $`𝒊𝒋\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}`$ refering to the $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ coefficients $`𝑪_𝒊𝑪_𝒋`$ (see (19)). Note that in the notation of  labels $`𝒖`$, $`𝒅`$ are interchanged with respect to our convention and that the coefficients with label $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}`$ are defined with a relative factor of two. Using (35) we have verified that the results of  obtained for $`𝒛\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ are in agreement with ours in this limit.

## 3 Phenomenology

### 3.1 $`𝝉\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝝉\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$

One can directly use (9) to predict the desired lifetime ratio:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝝉\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}}{𝝉\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{=}𝝉\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\left[}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}`$ (36)
$`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.0325}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}}{\mathbf{0.04}}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒎_𝒃}{\mathbf{4.8}\text{GeV}}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒇_𝑩}{\mathrm{𝟐𝟎𝟎}\text{MeV}}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\times }`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.0}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.2}\mathbf{)}𝑩_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.1}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.1}\mathbf{)}𝑩_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{18.4}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.9}\mathbf{)}\mathit{ϵ}_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{4.0}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.2}\mathbf{)}\mathit{ϵ}_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}`$
Here $`𝝉\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.653}`$ps has been used in the overall factor and the hadronic parameters $`𝑩_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathit{ϵ}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ are normalized at $`𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝒃`$ throughout this section.

In  it has been noticed that without a detailed study of the hadronic parameters one expects $`𝝉\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝝉\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ to deviate from 1 by up to $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$. This feature originates from the large coefficient of $`\mathit{ϵ}_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and persists in our NLO prediction in (36), because the NLO corrections to $`𝑮^𝒖\mathbf{}𝑮^𝒅`$ are small. Confronting (36) with the recent measurements ,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝝉\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}}{𝝉\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{\{}\begin{array}{cc}\mathbf{1.082}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.026}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.012}\hfill & \mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐁𝐀𝐁𝐀𝐑}\mathbf{)}\hfill \\ \mathbf{1.091}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.023}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.014}\hfill & \mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐁𝐄𝐋𝐋𝐄}\mathbf{)}\hfill \end{array}`$ (39)
one expects $`\mathbf{|}\mathit{ϵ}_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{|}`$ to be significantly smaller than $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝑵_𝒄\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟑}`$, i.e. nonfactorizable contributions appear to be small. This result is confirmed by the existing computations of the $`\mathit{ϵ}_𝒊`$’s in quenched lattice QCD . However, due to its large coefficient sophisticated non-perturbative methods are definitely necessary to compute $`\mathit{ϵ}_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ sufficiently accurately. The other important term in (36) is the first one: the NLO enhancement of $`𝑭^𝒖\mathbf{}𝑭^𝒅`$ in (31) has altered the coefficient of $`𝑩_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ in (36) from $`\mathbf{0.6}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{1.0}`$ in the LO to $`\mathbf{1.0}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.2}`$. While from the LO result not even the sign of this contribution was known, the NLO result now clearly establishes a positive contribution of order 3% to $`𝝉\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝝉\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ from the term involving $`𝑩_\mathrm{𝟏}`$.

The hadronic parameters have been computed in  using the same renormalization scheme as in the present paper. They read

$`\mathbf{(}𝑩_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}𝑩_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathit{ϵ}_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathit{ϵ}_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.10}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.20}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}0.79}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.10}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.02}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.02}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}0.03}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.01}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}`$ (40)
Using $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.040}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0016}`$ from a CLEO analysis of inclusive semileptonic $`𝑩`$ decays , the world average $`𝒇_𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐𝟎𝟎}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟑𝟎}\mathbf{)}\text{MeV}`$ from lattice calculations  and $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{=}\mathbf{4.8}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.1}\text{GeV}`$ in (36), we find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝝉\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}}{𝝉\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{1.053}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.016}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.017}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝉\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}}{𝝉\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{\right]}_{\mathrm{𝐋𝐎}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}1.041}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.040}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.013}\mathbf{,}`$ (41)
where the first error is due to the errors on the NLO coefficients as given in (36) and the hadronic parameters (40), and the second error is the overall normalization uncertainty due to $`𝒎_𝒃`$, $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`𝒇_𝑩`$ in (36). The first error reduces to 0.008 in NLO and 0.038 in LO, if the errors on the hadronic parameters are neglected, demonstrating the substantial reduction of scale dependence at NLO in comparison with the LO. This result is gratifying as the strong scale dependence observed at LO had been a major motivation for a NLO analysis. This is also seen in Fig. 4, where we show the lifetime ratio as a function of the renormalization scale $`𝝁_\mathrm{𝟏}`$. We should, however, emphasize that the result and error given in (41) do not include the effects of $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ corrections and unquenching, which could well be on the order of 0.05. The NLO result slightly exceeds the central value of the LO result and improves the agreement with the experimental value in (39).

### 3.2 $`𝝉\mathbf{(}𝚵_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝝉\mathbf{(}𝚵_𝒃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$

The SU(3)F anti-triplet $`\mathbf{(}𝚲_𝒃\mathbf{}𝒃𝒖𝒅\mathbf{,}𝚵_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝒃𝒖𝒔\mathbf{,}𝚵_𝒃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝒃𝒅𝒔\mathbf{)}`$ comprises the $`𝒃`$-flavoured baryons whose light degrees of freedom are in a $`\mathrm{𝟎}^\mathbf{+}`$ state. These baryons decay weakly. Baryon lifetimes have attracted a lot of theoretical attention: the measured $`𝚲_𝒃`$ lifetime falls short of $`𝝉\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ by roughly 20% , which has raised concerns about the applicability of the HQE to baryons. Unfortunately this interesting topic cannot yet be addressed at the NLO level, because $`𝝉\mathbf{(}𝚲_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝝉\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ receives contributions from the SU(3)F-singlet portion $`𝓣_{𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈}`$ of the transition operator in (5) and NLO corrections to $`𝓣_{𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈}`$ are unknown at present. Further the hadronic matrix elements entering $`𝝉\mathbf{(}𝚲_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝝉\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ involve penguin contractions of the operators in (7), which are difficult to compute. It is, however, possible to predict the lifetime splitting within the iso-doublet $`\mathbf{(}𝚵_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝚵_𝒃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ with NLO precision. The corresponding LO diagrams are shown in Fig. 5.

For $`𝚵_𝒃`$’s the weak decay of the valence $`𝒔`$-quark could be relevant: the decays $`𝚵_𝒃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝚲_𝒃𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝚵_𝒃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝚲_𝒃𝒆^{\mathbf{}}\overline{𝝂}_𝒆`$ and $`𝚵_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝚲_𝒃𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ are triggered by $`𝒔\mathbf{}𝒖`$ transitions and could affect the total rates at the $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\%}\mathbf{)}`$ level . Once the lifetime measurements reach this accuracy, one should correct for this effect. To this end we define

$`\overline{𝚪}\mathbf{(}𝚵_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`𝚪\mathbf{(}𝚵_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝚵_𝒃\mathbf{}𝚲_𝒃𝑿\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑩\mathbf{(}𝚵_𝒃\mathbf{}𝚲_𝒃𝑿\mathbf{)}}{𝝉\mathbf{(}𝚵_𝒃\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\overline{𝝉}\mathbf{(}𝚵_𝒃\mathbf{)}}}\text{for }𝚵_𝒃\mathbf{=}𝚵_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝚵_𝒃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}`$ (42)
where $`𝑩\mathbf{(}𝚵_𝒃\mathbf{}𝚲_𝒃𝑿\mathbf{)}`$ is the branching ratio of the above-mentioned decay modes. Thus $`\overline{𝚪}\mathbf{(}𝚵_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$ is the contribution from $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄`$ transitions to the total decay rate. In analogy to (9) one finds

$`\overline{𝚪}\mathbf{(}𝚵_𝒃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\overline{𝚪}\mathbf{(}𝚵_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝑮_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}𝝅}}𝒇_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{(}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝑭}{}_{}{}^{𝒖}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒅}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝑭}{}_{}{}^{𝒄}\mathbf{}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝑭}{}_{}{}^{𝒅}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝑩}{}_{}{}^{𝚵_𝒃}\mathbf{.}`$ (43)
Here $`\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝑩}{}_{}{}^{𝚵_𝒃}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}𝑳_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝚵_𝒃}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝑳_{\mathrm{𝟏}𝑺}^{𝚵_𝒃}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝑳_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝚵_𝒃}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝑳_{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑺}^{𝚵_𝒃}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}^𝑻`$ comprises the hadronic parameters defined as

$`\mathbf{}𝚵_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{(}𝑸^𝒖\mathbf{}𝑸^𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝚵_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝒇_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑩𝑴_{𝚵_𝒃}𝑳_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝚵_𝒃}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}`$
$`\mathbf{}𝚵_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{(}𝑸_𝑺^𝒖\mathbf{}𝑸_𝑺^𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝚵_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝒇_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑩𝑴_{𝚵_𝒃}𝑳_{\mathrm{𝟏}𝑺}^{𝚵_𝒃}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}`$
$`\mathbf{}𝚵_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{(}𝑻^𝒖\mathbf{}𝑻^𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝚵_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝒇_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑩𝑴_{𝚵_𝒃}𝑳_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝚵_𝒃}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}`$
$`\mathbf{}𝚵_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{(}𝑻_𝑺^𝒖\mathbf{}𝑻_𝑺^𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝚵_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝒇_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑩𝑴_{𝚵_𝒃}𝑳_{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑺}^{𝚵_𝒃}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}`$ (44)
In contrast to the $`𝑩`$ meson system, the four matrix elements in (44) are not independent at the considered order in $`𝚲_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$. Since the light degrees of freedom are in a spin-0 state, the matrix elements $`\mathbf{}𝚵_𝒃\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝟐}𝑸_𝑺^𝒒\mathbf{+}𝑸^𝒒\mathbf{|}𝚵_𝒃\mathbf{}`$ and $`\mathbf{}𝚵_𝒃\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝟐}𝑻_𝑺^𝒒\mathbf{+}𝑻^𝒒\mathbf{|}𝚵_𝒃\mathbf{}`$ are power-suppressed compared to those in (44) (see e.g. ). This, however, is not true in all renormalization schemes, in the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐌𝐒}}`$ scheme used by us $`\mathrm{𝟐}𝑸_𝑺^𝒒\mathbf{+}𝑸^𝒒`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟐}𝑻_𝑺^𝒒\mathbf{+}𝑻^𝒒`$ receive short-distance corrections, because hard gluons can resolve the heavy $`𝒃`$-quark mass. This feature is discussed in . These short-distance corrections are calculated from the diagrams $`𝑬_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑬_\mathrm{𝟒}`$ in Fig. 2. For our scheme we find

$`\mathbf{\left(}\begin{array}{c}𝑳_{\mathrm{𝟏}𝑺}^{𝚵_𝒃}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}\\ 𝑳_{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑺}^{𝚵_𝒃}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}\end{array}\mathbf{\right)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅}}\mathbf{\left(}\begin{array}{cc}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟖}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟑}& \mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟕}\\ \mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟒}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟗}& \mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}\end{array}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{\left(}\begin{array}{c}𝑳_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝚵_𝒃}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}\\ 𝑳_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝚵_𝒃}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}\end{array}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{+}𝓞\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝚲_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}}{𝒎_𝒃}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}`$ (51)
As an important check we find that the dependence on the infrared regulator drops out in (51). With (51) we can express the width difference in (43) in terms of just the two hadronic parameters $`𝑳_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝚵_𝒃}`$ and $`𝑳_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝚵_𝒃}`$. We find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{𝝉}\mathbf{(}𝚵_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}{\overline{𝝉}\mathbf{(}𝚵_𝒃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\overline{𝝉}\mathbf{(}𝚵_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\left[}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝚵_𝒃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝚵_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}`$ (52)
$`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.59}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}}{\mathbf{0.04}}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒎_𝒃}{\mathbf{4.8}\text{GeV}}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒇_𝑩}{\mathrm{𝟐𝟎𝟎}\text{MeV}}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{𝝉}\mathbf{(}𝚵_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}{\mathbf{1.5}\mathrm{𝐩𝐬}}}\mathbf{\times }`$
$`\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.04}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.01}\mathbf{)}𝑳_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.00}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.04}\mathbf{)}𝑳_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}`$
with $`𝑳_𝒊\mathbf{=}𝑳_𝒊^{𝚵_𝒃}\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$. For the baryon case there is no reason to expect the color-octed matrix element to be much smaller than the color-singlet ones, so that the term with $`𝑳_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ will dominate the result. The hadronic parameters $`𝑳_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ have been analysed in an exploratory study of lattice HQET  for $`𝚲_𝒃`$ baryons. Up to SU(3)F corrections, which are irrelevant in view of the other uncertainties, $`𝑳_𝒊^{𝚵_𝒃}`$ and $`𝑳_𝒊^{𝚲_𝒃}`$ are equal.

## 4 Conclusions

We have computed the Wilson coefficients in the heavy quark expansion to order $`\mathbf{(}𝚲_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ for the $`𝑩^\mathbf{+}`$$`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ lifetime difference at next-to-leading order in perturbative QCD. These coefficients depend on the scheme and scale $`𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ used to define the matrix elements of the $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ operators in the effective theory. Our scheme is specified by the NDR prescription for $`𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐌𝐒}}`$ subtraction and the definition of evanescent operators given in (22). The $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$ accuracy is crucial for a satisfactory matching of the Wilson coefficients to the matrix elements determined with lattice QCD. Current lattice calculations, which are still in a relatively early stage in this case, yield, when combined with our calculations, $`𝝉\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝝉\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.053}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.016}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.017}`$ \[see (41)\]. The effects of unquenching and $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ corrections are not yet included, but could well be on the order of 0.05. Next-to-leading order corrections to $`𝝉\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝝉\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ were recently computed in the approximation $`𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ . Taking the limit $`𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ of our results we find agreement with this calculation.

A substantial improvement of the NLO calculation is the large reduction of perturbative uncertainty reflected in the scale dependence of $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ Wilson coefficients from the standard weak Hamiltonian. This scale dependence had been found to be very large at leading order, preventing even an unambiguous prediction of the sign of $`𝝉\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝝉\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ up to now . With this major source of uncertainty removed by the NLO calculation, further progress will depend on continuing advances in the evaluation of the nonperturbative hadronic matrix elements and the computation of $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$-suppressed effects.