text:
# New series of integrable vertex models through a unifying approach

## Abstract

Applying a unifying Lax operator approach to statistical systems a new class of integrable vertex models based on quantum algebras is proposed, which exhibits a rich variety for generic q, q roots of unity and $`q1`$. Exact solutions are formulated through algebraic Bethe ansatz and a novel possibility of hybrid vertex models is introduced.

—–

PACS numbers 02.30.Ik, 02.20.Uw, 05.20.-y 05.50+q, 03.65.Fd

Introduction:

$`D`$-dimensional quantum systems are known to be related to $`(1+D)`$-dimensional classical statistical models, which is true naturally also in $`D=1`$, where one finds an exclusive class of models, known as integrable systems, allowing exact solutions. Celebrated example of such relation is that between the $`XYZ`$ quantum spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ chain and the $`8`$-vertex statistical model and similarly between the $`XXZ`$ chain and the $`6`$-vertex model . Hamiltonian $`H_s`$ of the integrable quantum spin chain is given through its transfer matrix as $`ln\tau (u)=I+uH_s+O(u^2)`$, while the partition function $`Z`$ of the related vertex model is constructed from $`\tau (u)`$ as $`Z=tr(\tau (u)^M)`$. Moreover, both these models share the same quantum $`R`$-matrix and have the same representation for the transfer matrix, commutativity of which: $`[\tau (u),\tau (v)]=0`$ guarantees their integrability.

It is therefore rather surprising to note that, inspite of such deep connection between these two integrable systems, their starting formulation conventionally follows two different routes. Quantum systems usually are defined by their Lax operators $`L_{al}(u)`$, which satisfy the quantum Yang-Baxter equation (YBE) $`R_{ab}(uv)L_{al}(u)L_{bl}(v)=L_{bl}(v)L_{al}(u)R_{ab}(uv),`$ together with its associated $`R`$-matrix. A vertex model on the other hand is described by its Boltzmann weights given generally through the elements of the $`R`$-matrix alone, which solves the YBE $`R_{ab}(uv)R_{al}(u)R_{bl}(v)=R_{bl}(v)R_{al}(u)R_{ab}(uv).`$ However such a difference in their approaches, reason of which seems to be rather historical, puts certain restrictions on the 2-dimensional vertex models by assuming their vertical (v) and the horizontal (h) links, which are related to the auxiliary and quantum spaces respectively, to be equivalent. As a consequence while a rich variety of integrable quantum systems with wide range of interactions involving spin, fermionic, bosonic and canonical variables does exist, the integrable vertex models are confined mostly to those quantum models that exhibit regularity property expressed through the permutation operator: $`L_{al}(0)=P_{al}`$ and hence correspond to local Hamiltonians with nearest neighbor (NN) interactions. Therefore the well known examples of the integrable vertex models, apart from those mentioned above, appear to be limited mainly to the models like the 5-vertex model , 6-vertex model in external fields , $`19`$-vertex model connected with the Babujian-Takhtajan spin-1 chain  and the vertex models equivalent to the Hubbard model , supersymmetric t-J model , Bariev chain  etc. all exhibiting only NN interactions.

The basic idea of the present letter however is to exploit fully the equivalence between statistical and quantum systems and construct new class of integrable vertex models by applying a unifying scheme designed originally for quantum models . In the original scheme an ancestor model was proposed for generating integrable quantum systems as its various descendant realisations. For describing our vertex models we start in analogy also with the generalised Lax operator

$$L(u)=\left(\begin{array}{c}c_1^+q^{S^3+u}+c_1^{}q^{(S^3+u)}2\mathrm{sin}\alpha S^{}\\ 2\mathrm{sin}\alpha S^+c_2^+q^{(S^3u)}+c_2^{}q^{S^3u}\end{array}\right),q=e^{i\alpha },$$
(1)
linked with the underlying quantum algebra

$$[S^3,S^\pm ]=\pm S^\pm ,[S^+,S^{}]=(M^+[2S^3]_q+M^{}[[2S^3]]_q),[M^\pm ,]=0.$$
(2)
Here $`[x]_q\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\alpha x)}{\mathrm{sin}\alpha },[[x]]_q\frac{\mathrm{cos}(\alpha x)}{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }`$ and the central elements $`M^\pm `$ are related to the other set of such elements appearing in the $`L`$-operator as $`M^\pm =\pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\pm 1}(c_+^+c_{}^{}\pm c_+^{}c_{}^+).`$ It is important to notice that (2) is a q-deformed quadratic algebra, which generalises both q-spin and q-boson algebras and in fact follows from the quantum YBE representing integrability condition. We define the Boltzmann weights (BW) of our vertex models not by the $`R`$-matrix as conventional, but through the elements of the Lax operator: $`L_{ab}^{j,k}(u)=\omega _{a,j;b,k}(u)`$ by using matrix representations of the general algebra (2) in (1). These generalised BW generate a unified vertex model, which through possible reductions yields new series of vertex models linked with different underlying algebras, their representations and choices of the central elements. Prominent examples of such integrable statistical systems are a rich collection of vertex models linked to q-spin and q-boson with generic q, q roots of unity and $`q1`$. In all these models the h and v links , contrary to the usual approach, may become inequivalent and independent at every vertex point and since we consider here $`2\times 2`$ Lax operators, the h links admit only 2 values: $`a,b[+,]`$. The v links on the other hand have richer possibilities with $`j,k[1,D]`$, depending on dimension $`D`$ of the matrix-representation of the q-algebras (see Fig. 1). The familiar ice-rule is generalised here as the ’colour’ conservation $`a+j=b+k`$ for determining nonzero BW. The crucial partition function of the models however is given as usual by $`Z=_{config}_{a,b,j,k}\omega _{a,j;b,k}(u).`$

An important point to note is that unlike traditional approach the Lax operators related to such vertex models do not coincide with their $`R`$-matrix, do not comply with the regularity condition and do not correspond in general to quantum Hamiltonians with NN interactions. Moreover since our vertex models belonging to the same class have the same $`R`$-matrix, we can generate another rich series of integrable models, namely hybrid vertex models by combining any number of them in a row (see Fig. 1).

The eigenvalue solution of the transfer matrix needed for constructing the partition function for all these vertex models can also be found exactly through the algebraic Bethe ansatz in a unifying way.

Unified vertex model:

In accordance with our primary goal we discover an explicit matrix representation for the basic operators $`S^\pm ,S^3`$:

$$<s,\overline{m}|S^3|m,s>=m\delta _{m,\overline{m}},<s,\overline{m}|S^\pm |m,s>=f_s^\pm (m)\delta _{m\pm 1,\overline{m}},$$
(3)
with $`f_s^+(m)=f_s^{}(m+1)=(\kappa +[sm]_q(M^+[s+m+1]_q+M^{}[[s+m+1]]_q))^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ having additional parameters $`\kappa ,s`$. It may be checked that (3) indeed gives an exact representation of the general q-deformed algebra (2) for arbitrary values of the central elements $`M^\pm `$. Therefore the BW may be constructed from the matrix representation of the generalised Lax operator (1) by using (3) in the form

$$\omega _{\pm ,j;\pm ,j}(u)=c_\pm ^+e^{i\alpha (u\pm m)}+c_\pm ^{}e^{i\alpha (u\pm m)},\omega _{+,j;,j1}=\omega _{,j1;+,j}=2f_s^+(m)\mathrm{sin}\alpha ,$$
(4)
with $`m=s+1j,j=1,2,\mathrm{},D.`$ The BW parameterised as (4) would generate now a unified $`(4D2)`$-vertex model, representing a new series with arbitrary parameters $`c_\pm ^\pm ,s`$ and $`\kappa `$. These models and naturally all others obtained below through various reductions are integrable statistical models and share the same $`R`$-matrix, which is given by that of the well known $`6`$-vertex model .

Note that though in general the dimension $`D`$ of the matrices (3) is infinite, it may get truncated through possible appearance of zero-normed states. To analyse this important effect we observe that since $`[0]_q=0`$, one gets $`f_s^+(m=s)=0`$ for $`\kappa =0`$, recovering the familiar ’vacuum’ state: $`S^+|s,s>=0`$. However due to the presence of the second term one gets here $`f_s^{}(m=s)=([2s+1]_q(M^+[0]_q+M^{}[[0]]_q))^{\frac{1}{2}}0`$ and unlike the spin representation we have $`S^{}|m,s>0`$ for all $`m`$. This creates therefore an infinite tower of states by the action of the lowering operator $`S^{},`$ as typical for the bosonic representation. This also signals the fact that algebra (2) includes both q-spin and q-boson and therefore their representations must be derivable from (3) as particular cases.

q-spin vertex model:

It is straightforward to check that for $`M^+=1,M^{}=0,`$ our unifying algebra (2) reduces to the well known $`U_q(su(2))`$ quantum spin algebra  and at the same time (3) reproduces the known q-spin representation. Therefore the corresponding BW may be obtained from (4) for a consistent choice $`c_+^\pm =c_{}^\pm =i,`$ as

$$\omega _{\pm ,j;\pm ,j}(u)=[u\pm m]_q,\omega _{+,j;,j1}=\omega _{,j1;+,j}=f_s^{+(qspin)}(m),m=s+1j$$

with $`f_s^{\pm (qspin)}(m)=([sm]_q[s\pm m+1]_q)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. In this case the truncation $`S^\pm |m=\pm s,s>=0`$ typical for spin models and hence the familiar $`D=2s+1`$ dimensional representation naturally arise, which produces therefore a series of q-spin $`(8s+2)`$-vertex models. The $`6`$-vertex model is clearly recovered at $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$, while $`s=1,\frac{3}{2},2,\frac{5}{2},\mathrm{}`$ yield new $`10,14,18,22,\mathrm{}`$-vertex models (Fig. 1 a,b)).

The quantum systems related to such statistical models may be represented in general by interacting q-spins with nonlocal interactions. In particular, since the well known sine-Gordon model is a realisation of the q-spin , the vertex models constructed with nonzero $`\kappa `$ and having infinite $`D`$ will be related to the quantum integrable lattice sine-Gordon model .

q-boson vertex model:

We find that q-bosonic algebra  can also be derived as a subalgebra of (2) for the complementary choice $`M^+=\mathrm{sin}\alpha ,M^{}=\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$ by denoting $`S^+=\rho A,S^{}=\rho A^{},S^3=N,\rho =(\mathrm{cot}\alpha )^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ The same choice derives therefore the matrix representation for the q-boson directly from (3) with the assumption that $`\kappa =s=0`$ and $`n=m`$, yielding

$$f_0^{(qbos)}(n)=([1+n]_q[[n1]]_q)^{\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[1+n]_{q^2}^{\frac{1}{2}},f_0^{+(qbos)}(n)=f_0^{(qbos)}(n1)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[n]_{q^2}^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$

Consequently for a consistent solution $`c_\pm ^+=1,c_\pm ^{}=ie^{\pm i\alpha }`$ we can derive from (4) the BW as

$`\omega _{\pm ,j;\pm ,j}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`ie^{\pm i\alpha \varphi }[u(j+\varphi 1)]_q,\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\alpha }}),`$
$`\omega _{+,j;,j1}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{,j1;+,j}=f_0^{+(qbos)}(j1)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}[j1]_{q^2}^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ (5)
It is obvious that apart from the vacuum state $`|0>`$ with $`f_0^{+(qbos)}(0)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[0]_{q^2}^{\frac{1}{2}}=0`$ we can have no other zero-normed states and the q-bosonic representation like the standard boson is semi-infinite with $`D=n+1`$. The integrable $`(4n+2)`$-vertex model linked to the q-boson (Fig. 1c)) that we construct using (5) would therefore be related to the lattice version of the quantum derivative nonlinear Schrödinger model (DNLS), which exhibits a q-bosonic realisation .

Vertex models with $`q`$ roots of unity:

An excellent possibility for regulating the dimension of the matrix representation opens up when $`q=e^{i\alpha }`$ is chosen as solutions of $`q^p=\pm 1`$ with parameter $`\alpha `$ taking discrete values $`\alpha _a=\pi \frac{a}{p},a=1,2,\mathrm{},p1`$ . Note however that when some values of $`a`$ becomes a factor of $`p`$ one faces a situation with $`q^{\frac{p}{a}}=\pm 1.`$ Therefore to avoid such complicacies we suppose $`p`$ to be prime in our present discussion. For further analysis we focus on the action of $`S^{}`$ assuming $`\kappa =0`$ in (3): $`S^{}|m=\overline{s},s>=([s+\overline{s}+1]_q(M^+[s\overline{s}]_q+M^{}[[s\overline{s}]]_q))^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ and observe that due to $`[p]_q=\mathrm{sin}\alpha _ap=0,`$ unlike generic q we can get now $`S^{}|\overline{s},s>=0`$ at $`\overline{s}=p(s+1)`$, which reduces matrix (3) to a finite dimensional representation. Therefore the BW obtained from (4) for this case would generate another series of unified $`\mathrm{K}`$-vertex model having finite $`\mathrm{K}=4p2`$ configurations at every vertex point. Moreover, since for a fixed p there can be $`p1`$ different $`\alpha _a`$, each of these discrete values describes a different set of BW and hence a novel model.

Consequently at particular reductions as analysed above, we obtain the corresponding series of new vertex models linked with q-spin or q-boson, but now having finite configuration space determined by $`p`$. Thus for the q-spin with fixed $`p,0<p<2s+1,`$ in place of a $`(8s+2)`$-vertex model for generic $`q`$, one obtains $`p1`$ number of different $`(4p2)`$-vertex models and the related representation including the case $`p>2s+1`$ become more involved . The corresponding BW defining these models should however be given by their same generic form, though using discrete $`\alpha _a`$ values. As for example in case of $`s=\frac{5}{2}`$ with $`q^5=1`$, instead of a $`22`$-vertex model one obtains $`4`$ different $`18`$-vertex models for distinct values of $`\alpha _a=\pi \frac{a}{5},a=1,2,3,4`$. Noticeably, as a quantum model the q-spin with q roots of unity are realised as the restricted sine-Gordon model .

The situation becomes more interesting when applied to the q-boson with finite $`p`$, since now together with the standard vacuum we get also $`A^{}|n=\frac{p}{2}1>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[\frac{p}{2}]_{q^2}^{\frac{1}{2}}|\frac{p}{2}>=0`$, yielding finite $`(\frac{p}{2}\times \frac{p}{2})`$ matrix representations for the q-bosonic operators $`A,A^{}`$. As a result we obtain an intriguing series of $`(2p2)`$-vertex models with BW described by the same form (5) as for the generic q-bosonic case, but with different possible parameter values $`q=e^{i\alpha _a},a=1,2,\mathrm{},p1`$. The quantum model corresponding to such q-boson vertex models can be realised as the restricted DNLS model, which supports finite quasi-particle bound states .

Rational class of vertex models :

At $`q1(\alpha 0)`$ on the other hand, the associated $`R`$-matrix goes to its known rational limit and the underlying algebra becomes undeformed one with $`M^\pm m^\pm `$, reducing at the same time the unified model to its rational form. Consequently, taking carefully the limits we may construct in a similar way the corresponding set of vertex models belonging to the rational class. Not going into details we mention only that the BW of these vertex models can be obtained from the limiting values of (4) yielding $`f_s^+(m)((sm)(m^+(m+s+1)+m^{}))^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ It is easy to check that the BW for the vertex models related to the undeformed spin as well as the standard boson correspond to the particular values of the central elements: $`m^+=1,m^{}=0`$ and $`m^+=0,m^{}=1`$, respectively. Remarkably, the spin vertex model constructed in this way coincides with the similar higher $`s`$ model obtained earlier through fusion method , whereas the bosonic-vertex model apparently is a new model, linked to a quantum integrable lattice NLS model .

Hybrid vertex models:

In constructing our vertex models we have flatly assumed that in any model the same BW must be defined at every vertex point. An immediate generalisation is therefore possible by relaxing this condition and considering the central elements $`c_\pm ^\pm `$ as well as the spin parameters $`s`$ appearing in (4) to be different at different sites. As we have already stressed, vertex models obtained as various reductions of the same integrable unified model belong to the same class sharing the same $`R`$-matrix. Thus the q-spin and q-boson vertex models are members of the trigonometric class, while the normal spin and boson models belong to the rational class. Based on this fact therefore we can construct a rich collection of hybrid models by combining different vertex models of the same class and inserting their defining BW along the vertex points $`l=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$ in a row, in any but fixed manner. Due to the association with the same $`R`$-matrix the integrability of such statistical models would be naturally preserved.

Thus for example an alternate insertion of $`10`$ and $`6`$ vertex models results to a hybrid model, which is related to the known quantum model  involving spin-1 and spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ operators with next-NN interactions. More exotic hybrid models can be formed by arranging the BW for the q-spin and q-boson vertex models, alternatively or in any other way at different vertex points (Fig. 1). Similarly one can construct a spin-boson hybrid vertex model by combining their individual vertex models, which would correspond to a quantum chain of interacting spins and bosons involving next-NN couplings.

Unified solution:

The construction of the unified vertex model through the generalised Lax operator suggests also a scheme for exactly solving the eigenvalue problem for the transfer matrix. Since the partition functions in turn can be determined from the knowledge of these eigenvalues, all vertex models obtained as particular cases and linked to (un-)deformed spin or (un-)deformed boson can also be solved in a unified way. There is a well formulated algebraic Bethe ansatz method for exactly solving the eigenvalue problem of the transfer matrix: $`\tau (u)=tr_h(_l^NL_l(u))`$, when the associated Lax operator as well as the $`R`$-matrix are given . Therefore, since we have defined the BW through matrix representations of the Lax operator and the $`R`$-matrix in our case is given by that of the well known $`6`$-vertex model, we can derive the exact eigenvalues for the transfer matrix of our models as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(u)=\omega _{+,1;+,1}^N(u)\underset{k}{\overset{n}{}}g(u_ku)+\omega _{,1;,1}^N(u)\underset{k}{\overset{n}{}}g(uu_k),g(u)=\frac{[u+1]_q}{[u]_q}.$$
(6)
with all possible solutions of $`\{u_k\}`$ to be determined from the Bethe equations

$$\left(\frac{\omega _{+,1;+,1}(u_l)}{\omega _{,1;,1}(u_l)}\right)^N=\underset{kl}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{[u_lu_k+1]_q}{[u_lu_k1]_q},l=1,2,\mathrm{},n.$$
(7)
By analysing the structure of these equations we conclude that, the factors involving BW in both of them come from the action of the Lax operator on the pseudovacuum, which is chosen as the direct product of the highest weight states with $`j=1`$ i.e. $`|m=s>`$. The rest of the factors on the other hand are originated from the $`R`$-matrix elements, which arise during diagonalisation of the transfer matrix due to the use of the quantum YBA. Therefore it is crucial to note that, the only part given by BW is model-dependent and defined for the vertex models by the diagonal entries in (4) with $`j=1`$, while the remaining parts contributed by the $`R`$-matrix are the same for all our models from the same class. Consequently the exact solutions for all models constructed here can be found in a systematic way from (6) and (7) by using corresponding reductions of the unified model (4).

The total number of solutions $`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma (u)\}`$ for the eigenvalues (6) should be $`D^N`$, which coincides with the number of possible eigenstates and gives the dimension of the vector space on which the transfer matrix acts. The partition function of the vertex models may therefore be given at the thermodynamic limit by $`Z=lim_{M,N\mathrm{}}tr_v(\tau ^M(u))=lim_{M,N\mathrm{}}_{\gamma =1}^{D^N}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma ^M(u)`$. At this important limit, the Bethe equations (7) turn into an integral equation $`V(u)=2\pi \rho (u)+\rho (v)K(v,u)𝑑v`$, with known kernel of the 6-vertex model . Interestingly, all information about a particular model is encoded in the driving term only, which is expressed through $`\frac{\omega _{+,1;+,1}(u)}{\omega _{,1;,1}(u)}=re^{iP(u)}`$ as $`V(u)=P^{^{}}(u)`$ and therefore knowing the explicit form of BM one can derive easily the equations for individual models.

For extracting the solutions of the hybrid vertex models however the BW dependent parts in the above equations should be slightly modified by generalising the factors inhomogeneously as $`_\beta ((\omega _{\pm ,1;\pm ,1}^{(\beta )}(u))^{N_\beta }`$, where $`N_\beta `$ is the number of vertices of type $`\beta `$ appearing in a row with the constraint $`N=_\beta N_\beta `$.

Detail investigation of individual models and identification of their most probable states are important problems to be pursued.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The inclusive rare decay $`BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ has not been observed so far, but is expected to be measured at the operating $`B`$ factories after a few years of data taking. The measurement of its various kinematical distributions, combined with improved data on $`BX_s\gamma `$, will imply tight constraints on the extensions of the standard model and perhaps even reveal some new physics.

The main problem of the theoretical description of $`BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ is due to the long-distance contributions from $`\overline{c}c`$ resonant states. 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 the theoretical uncertainty can be reduced to less than $`\pm 20\%`$ when integrating over these domains .

However, when restricting $`\sqrt{s}`$ to a region below the resonances, the long distance effects are under control. The corrections to the pure perturbative picture can be analyzed within the heavy quark effective theory (HQET). In particular, all available studies indicate that for the region $`0.05<\widehat{s}=s/m_b^2<0.25`$ the non-perturbative effects are below 10$`\%`$ . Consequently, the differential decay rate for $`BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ can be precisely predicted in this region using renormalization group improved perturbation theory. It was pointed out in the literature that the differential decay rate and the forward-backward asymmetry are particularly sensitive to new physics in this kinematical window .

The next-to-leading logarithmic (NLL) result for $`BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ suffers from a relatively large ($`\pm 16\%`$) dependence on the matching scale $`\mu _W`$ . The NNLL corrections to the Wilson coefficients remove the matching scale dependence to a large extent , but leave a $`\pm 13\%`$-dependence on the renormalization scale $`\mu _b`$, which is of $`𝒪(m_b)`$. In order to further improve the theoretical prediction, we have recently calculated the $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ virtual two-loop corrections to the matrix elements $`s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}|O_i|b`$ ($`i=1,2`$) as well as the virtual $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ one-loop corrections to $`O_7`$,…, $`O_{10}`$ . As some of these corrections suffer from infrared and collinear singularities, we have added those bremsstrahlung corrections needed to cancel these singularities. This improvement reduced the renormalization scale dependence by a factor of 2.

In the present paper we complete the calculation of the bremsstrahlung corrections associated with the operators $`O_1`$, $`O_2`$, $`O_7`$,…,$`O_{10}`$, i.e., we add those bremsstrahlung terms which are purely finite and have therefore been omitted in Ref. . We anticipate that the additional terms have a small impact on the phenomenology of $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$.

The paper is organized as follows: In Sec. 2, we briefly specify the theoretical framework, before, in Sec. 3, we discuss the organization of the calculation of the finite bremsstrahlung corrections and review the structure of the virtual corrections and singular bremsstrahlung contributions, calculated in Ref. . The finite bremsstrahlung corrections are worked out in Sec. 4 and Sec. 5. In Sec. 6, finally, we investigate the numerical impact of the new corrections on the invariant mass spectrum of the lepton pair. We also illustrate the dependence of our results on the definition of the charm quark mass.

## 2 Effective Hamiltonian

The appropriate tool for studies on weak $`B`$ mesons decays is the effective Hamiltonian technique. The effective Hamiltonian is derived from the standard model by integrating out the $`t`$ quark, the $`Z_0`$ and the $`W`$ boson. For the decay channels $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ ($`\mathrm{}=\mu ,e`$) it reads

$$_{\text{eff}}=\frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}\underset{i=1}{\overset{10}{}}C_iO_i,$$

where $`O_i`$ are dimension six operators and $`C_i`$ denote the corresponding Wilson coefficients. The operators we choose as in :

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\hfill O_1& =& (\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu T^ac_L)(\overline{c}_L\gamma ^\mu T^ab_L),\hfill & \hfill O_2& =& (\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu c_L)(\overline{c}_L\gamma ^\mu b_L),\hfill \\ \hfill O_3& =& (\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu b_L)_q(\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu q),\hfill & \hfill O_4& =& (\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu T^ab_L)_q(\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu T^aq),\hfill \\ \hfill O_5& =& (\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu \gamma _\sigma b_L)_q(\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\sigma q),\hfill & \hfill O_6& =& (\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu \gamma _\sigma T^ab_L)_q(\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\sigma T^aq),\hfill \\ \hfill O_7& =& \frac{e}{g_s^2}m_b(\overline{s}_L\sigma ^{\mu \nu }b_R)F_{\mu \nu },\hfill & \hfill O_8& =& \frac{1}{g_s}m_b(\overline{s}_L\sigma ^{\mu \nu }T^ab_R)G_{\mu \nu }^a,\hfill \\ \hfill O_9& =& \frac{e^2}{g_s^2}(\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu b_L)_{\mathrm{}}(\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}),\hfill & \hfill O_{10}& =& \frac{e^2}{g_s^2}(\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu b_L)_{\mathrm{}}(\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\mathrm{}).\hfill \end{array}$$

The subscripts $`L`$ and $`R`$ refer to left- and right-handed fermion fields. We work in the approximation where the combination $`(V_{us}^{}V_{ub})`$ of Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements is neglected and the CKM structure factorizes.

In the following it is convenient to define the operators $`\stackrel{~}{O}_7`$,…, $`\stackrel{~}{O}_{10}`$ according to

$$\stackrel{~}{O}_j=\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }O_j,(j=7,\mathrm{},10),$$
(1)
with the corresponding coefficients

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_j=\frac{4\pi }{\alpha _s}C_j,(j=7,\mathrm{},10).$$
(2)
## 3 Organization of the calculation and previous results

In this section we comment on the organization of the calculation of the virtual and bremsstrahlung corrections to the process $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ and repeat the results obtained in Ref. .

The one-loop diagrams in Fig. 1, associated with the four-quark operators $`O_1`$,…, $`O_6`$, lead to contributions which are proportional to the tree level matrix elements of the operators $`\stackrel{~}{O}_7`$, $`\stackrel{~}{O}_8`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{O}_9`$. Therefore, they can be absorbed by appropriately modifying the Wilson coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{C}_7`$, $`\stackrel{~}{C}_8`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_9`$. The modified coefficients we write as

$`\stackrel{~}{C}_7^{\text{mod}}=`$ $`A_7,`$ (3)
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_8^{\text{mod}}=`$ $`A_8,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_9^{\text{mod}}=`$ $`A_9+T_9h(z,\widehat{s})+U_9h(1,\widehat{s})+W_9h(0,\widehat{s}).`$
The auxiliary quantities $`A_i`$, $`T_9`$, $`U_9`$ and $`W_9`$ are linear combinations of the Wilson coefficients $`C_i(\mu )`$. Their explicit form is relegated to the appendix. The one-loop function $`h(z,\widehat{s})`$ is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}h(z,\widehat{s})=\frac{4}{9}\mathrm{ln}(z)+\frac{8}{27}+\frac{16}{9}\frac{z}{\widehat{s}}\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{2}{9}\left(2+\frac{4z}{\widehat{s}}\right)\sqrt{\left|\frac{4z\widehat{s}}{\widehat{s}}\right|}\{\begin{array}{cc}2\mathrm{arctan}\sqrt{\frac{\widehat{s}}{4z\widehat{s}}},\hfill & \widehat{s}<4z\hfill \\ & \\ \mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\sqrt{\widehat{s}}+\sqrt{\widehat{s}4z}}{\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\sqrt{\widehat{s}4z}}\right)i\pi ,\hfill & \widehat{s}>4z\hfill \end{array}.\end{array}$$
(4)
It is obvious that the modification of the Wilson coefficients automatically accounts also for the diagrams in Fig. 2 when calculating the corresponding corrections to the matrix elements

$$s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}|\stackrel{~}{C}_i^{(0,\text{mod})}\stackrel{~}{O}_i|b(i=7,8,9),$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{C}_i^{(0,\text{mod})}`$ are the leading order terms of the modified Wilson coefficients, i.e.,

$`\stackrel{~}{C}_7^{(0,\text{mod})}=`$ $`A_7^{(0)},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_8^{(0,\text{mod})}=`$ $`A_8^{(0)},`$ (5)
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_9^{(0,\text{mod})}=`$ $`A_9^{(0)}+T_9^{(0)}h(z,\widehat{s})+U_9^{(0)}h(1,\widehat{s})+W_9^{(0)}h(0,\widehat{s}).`$
For the explicit expressions of the quantities $`A_i^{(0)}`$, $`T_9^{(0)}`$, $`U_9^{(0)}`$ and $`W_9^{(0)}`$ we refer to the appendix.

Notice that the virtual and bremsstrahlung corrections of the four-quark operators with topologies shown in Figs. 3 and 4, however, have to be calculated explicitly. As the Wilson coefficients $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are much larger than $`C_3`$,…,$`C_6`$ we retain the contributions of these topologies only for $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$ insertions.

In the previous work , we systematically calculated the virtual corrections to the matrix elements of $`C_1^{(0)}O_1`$, $`C_2^{(0)}O_2`$, shown in Fig. 3, as well as to those of $`\stackrel{~}{C}_j^{(0,\text{mod})}\stackrel{~}{O}_j`$ ($`j=7,\mathrm{},9`$) and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{10}^{(0)}\stackrel{~}{O}_{10}`$ (cf Fig. 5). Furthermore, we also took into account the corrections to the Wilson coefficients calculated in Refs. .

We found that the matrix elements of the operators $`\stackrel{~}{O}_7`$, $`\stackrel{~}{O}_9`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{O}_{10}`$ \[cf Fig. 5(a)–(c)\] suffer from infrared and collinear singularities. Consequently, on decay width level the interferences $`(\stackrel{~}{O}_j,\stackrel{~}{O}_k)`$ ($`j,k=7,9,10`$) are singular, too. We therefore included the gluon bremsstrahlung corrections associated with $`(\stackrel{~}{O}_j,\stackrel{~}{O}_k)`$ ($`j,k=7,9,10`$) in order to get an infrared finite result for the decay width \[cf Fig. 6(a) and (b)\].

Taking into account the virtual and bremsstrahlung contributions discussed so far, we obtain the result presented in Ref. :

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(bX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})}{d\widehat{s}}=\left(\frac{\alpha _{em}}{4\pi }\right)^2\frac{G_F^2m_{b,\text{pole}}^5\left|V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}\right|^2}{48\pi ^3}(1\widehat{s})^2\hfill \\ \hfill \times \left\{\left(1+2\widehat{s}\right)\left(\left|\stackrel{~}{C}_9^{\text{eff}}\right|^2+\left|\stackrel{~}{C}_{10}^{\text{eff}}\right|^2\right)+4\left(1+2/\widehat{s}\right)\left|\stackrel{~}{C}_7^{\text{eff}}\right|^2+12\text{Re}\left(\stackrel{~}{C}_7^{\text{eff}}\stackrel{~}{C}_9^{\text{eff}}\right)\right\},\end{array}$$
(6)
where the effective Wilson coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{C}_7^{\text{eff}}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{C}_9^{\text{eff}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{10}^{\text{eff}}`$ are given by

$`\stackrel{~}{C}_7^{\text{eff}}=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu )}{\pi }}\omega _7(\widehat{s})\right)A_7`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu )}{4\pi }}\left(C_1^{(0)}F_1^{(7)}(\widehat{s})+C_2^{(0)}F_2^{(7)}(\widehat{s})+A_8^{(0)}F_8^{(7)}(\widehat{s})\right),`$ (7)
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_9^{\text{eff}}=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu )}{\pi }}\omega _9(\widehat{s})\right)\left(A_9+T_9h(\widehat{m}_c^2,\widehat{s})+U_9h(1,\widehat{s})+W_9h(0,\widehat{s})\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu )}{4\pi }}\left(C_1^{(0)}F_1^{(9)}(\widehat{s})+C_2^{(0)}F_2^{(9)}(\widehat{s})+A_8^{(0)}F_8^{(9)}(\widehat{s})\right),`$ (8)
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_{10}^{\text{eff}}=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu )}{\pi }}\omega _9(\widehat{s})\right)A_{10}.`$ (9)
The quantities $`C_1^{(0)}`$, $`C_2^{(0)}`$, $`A_7`$, $`A_8^{(0)}`$, $`A_9`$, $`A_{10}`$, $`T_9`$, $`U_9`$ and $`W_9`$ are Wilson coefficients or linear combinations thereof. We give their analytical expressions and numerical values in the appendix. The one-loop function $`h(\widehat{m}_c^2,\widehat{s})`$ is given in Eq. (4), while the two-loop functions $`F_{1,2}^{(7),(9)}`$, accounting for the diagrams in Fig. 3, and the one-loop functions $`F_8^{(7),(9)}`$, corresponding to the diagrams 5(d) and (e), are given in Ref. . The functions $`\omega _7`$ and $`\omega _9`$, finally, include both virtual and bremsstrahlung corrections associated with $`\stackrel{~}{O}_7`$, $`\stackrel{~}{O}_9`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{O}_{10}`$. For details on their construction we again refer to .

When calculating the decay width (6), we retain only terms linear in $`\alpha _s`$ (and thus in $`\omega _7`$, $`\omega _9`$) in the expressions for $`|\stackrel{~}{C}_7^{\text{eff}}|^2`$, $`|\stackrel{~}{C}_9^{\text{eff}}|^2`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{C}_{10}^{\text{eff}}|^2`$. In the interference term $`\text{Re}\left(\stackrel{~}{C}_7^{\text{eff}}\stackrel{~}{C}_9^{\text{eff}}\right)`$ too, we keep only linear contributions in $`\alpha _s`$. By construction one has to make the replacements $`\omega _9\omega _{79}`$ and $`\omega _7\omega _{79}`$ in this term.

The functions $`\omega _7`$, $`\omega _9`$ and $`\omega _{79}`$ read

$$\begin{array}{c}\omega _7(\widehat{s})=\frac{8}{3}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu }{m_b}\right)\frac{4}{3}\text{Li}(\widehat{s})\frac{2}{9}\pi ^2\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{ln}(\widehat{s})\mathrm{ln}(1\widehat{s})\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{3}\frac{8+\widehat{s}}{2+\widehat{s}}\mathrm{ln}(1\widehat{s})\frac{2}{3}\frac{\widehat{s}\left(22\widehat{s}\widehat{s}^2\right)}{\left(1\widehat{s}\right)^2\left(2+\widehat{s}\right)}\mathrm{ln}(\widehat{s})\frac{1}{18}\frac{1611\widehat{s}17\widehat{s}^2}{\left(2+\widehat{s}\right)\left(1\widehat{s}\right)},\end{array}$$
(10)
$$\begin{array}{c}\omega _9(\widehat{s})=\frac{4}{3}\text{Li}(\widehat{s})\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{ln}(1\widehat{s})\mathrm{ln}(\widehat{s})\frac{2}{9}\pi ^2\frac{5+4\widehat{s}}{3(1+2\widehat{s})}\mathrm{ln}(1\widehat{s})\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{2\widehat{s}(1+\widehat{s})(12\widehat{s})}{3(1\widehat{s})^2(1+2\widehat{s})}\mathrm{ln}(\widehat{s})+\frac{5+9\widehat{s}6\widehat{s}^2}{6(1\widehat{s})(1+2\widehat{s})},\end{array}$$
(11)
$$\begin{array}{c}\omega _{79}(\widehat{s})=\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu }{m_b}\right)\frac{4}{3}\text{Li}(\widehat{s})\frac{2}{9}\pi ^2\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{ln}(\widehat{s})\mathrm{ln}(1\widehat{s})\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{9}\frac{2+7\widehat{s}}{\widehat{s}}\mathrm{ln}(1\widehat{s})\frac{2}{9}\frac{\widehat{s}\left(32\widehat{s}\right)}{\left(1\widehat{s}\right)^2}\mathrm{ln}(\widehat{s})+\frac{1}{18}\frac{59\widehat{s}}{1\widehat{s}}.\end{array}$$
(12)
Summary
The bremsstrahlung corrections associated with the interferences

$$(\stackrel{~}{C}_j^{(0,\text{mod})}\stackrel{~}{O}_j,\stackrel{~}{C}_k^{(0,\text{mod})}\stackrel{~}{O}_k),(j,k=7,9,10),$$

are already included in formula (6). The remaining bremsstrahlung corrections, which are infrared finite, we derive in Sec. 4 and Sec. 5. In Sec. 4 we discuss the contributions of the interferences

$$(\stackrel{~}{C}_8^{(0,\text{mod})}\stackrel{~}{O}_8,\stackrel{~}{C}_k^{(0,\text{mod})}\stackrel{~}{O}_k),(k=7,8,9,10),$$

which we call to be of type A. There is no contribution from $`k=10`$ because of the Dirac structures of the involved operators. Sec. 5 is devoted to the interferences

$$(C_i^{(0)}O_i,C_j^{(0)}O_j),(i,j=1,2)\text{and}(C_i^{(0)}O_i,\stackrel{~}{C}_k^{(0,\text{mod})}\stackrel{~}{O}_k),(i=1,2;k=7,8,9,10).$$

Accordingly, we call these the type B terms. Again, the contributions for $`k=10`$ vanish due to the Dirac structures of the operators involved.

## 4 Finite bremsstrahlung contributions of type A

The bremsstrahlung contributions taken into account by introducing the functions $`\omega _i(\widehat{s})`$ cancel the infrared divergences associated with the virtual corrections. All other bremsstrahlung terms are finite. This allows us to perform their calculation directly in $`d=4`$ dimensions.

The bremsstrahlung contributions from $`\stackrel{~}{O}_7\stackrel{~}{O}_8`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{O}_8\stackrel{~}{O}_9`$ interference terms as well as the $`\stackrel{~}{O}_8\stackrel{~}{O}_8`$ term oppose no difficulties. The sum of these three parts can be written as

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{Brems},\text{A}}}{d\widehat{s}}=\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{78}^{\text{Brems}}}{d\widehat{s}}+\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{89}^{\text{Brems}}}{d\widehat{s}}+\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{88}^{\text{Brems}}}{d\widehat{s}}=\hfill \\ \hfill \left(\frac{\alpha _{em}}{4\pi }\right)^2\left(\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }\right)\frac{m_{b,\text{pole}}^5|V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}|^2G_F^2}{48\pi ^3}\times \left(2\text{Re}\left[c_{78}\tau _{78}+c_{89}\tau _{89}\right]+c_{88}\tau _{88}\right).\end{array}$$
(13)
The coefficients $`c_{ij}`$ are given by

$$c_{78}=C_F\stackrel{~}{C}_7^{(0,\text{eff})}\stackrel{~}{C}_8^{(0,\text{eff})},c_{89}=C_F\stackrel{~}{C}_8^{(0,\text{eff})}\stackrel{~}{C}_9^{(0,\text{eff})},c_{88}=C_F\left|\stackrel{~}{C}_8^{(0,\text{eff})}\right|^2,$$
(14)
while the quantities $`\tau _{ij}`$ read

$$\begin{array}{c}\tau _{78}=\frac{8}{9\widehat{s}}\{252\pi ^227\widehat{s}+3\widehat{s}^2\widehat{s}^3+12(\widehat{s}+\widehat{s}^2)\mathrm{ln}(\widehat{s})\hfill \\ \hfill +6\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\mathrm{arctan}\left[\frac{24\widehat{s}+\widehat{s}^2}{(2\widehat{s})\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\sqrt{4\widehat{s}}}\right]\right)^224\text{Re}\left(\text{Li}\left[\frac{\widehat{s}i\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\sqrt{4\widehat{s}}}{2}\right]\right)\\ \hfill 12((1\widehat{s})\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\sqrt{4\widehat{s}}2\mathrm{arctan}\left[\frac{\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\sqrt{4\widehat{s}}}{2\widehat{s}}\right])\times \\ \hfill (\mathrm{arctan}\left[\sqrt{\frac{4\widehat{s}}{\widehat{s}}}\right]\mathrm{arctan}\left[\frac{\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\sqrt{4\widehat{s}}}{2\widehat{s}}\right])\},\end{array}$$
(15)
$$\begin{array}{c}\tau _{88}=\frac{4}{27\widehat{s}}\{8\pi ^2+(1\widehat{s})(77\widehat{s}4\widehat{s}^2)24\text{Li}(1\widehat{s})\hfill \\ \hfill +3\left(104\widehat{s}9\widehat{s}^2+8\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\sqrt{\widehat{s}}}{1\widehat{s}}\right]\right)\mathrm{ln}(\widehat{s})+48\text{Re}\left(\text{Li}\left[\frac{3\widehat{s}}{2}+i\frac{(1\widehat{s})\sqrt{4\widehat{s}}}{2\sqrt{\widehat{s}}}\right]\right)\\ \hfill 6(\frac{20\widehat{s}+10\widehat{s}^23\widehat{s}^3}{\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\sqrt{4\widehat{s}}}8\pi +8\mathrm{arctan}\left[\sqrt{\frac{4\widehat{s}}{\widehat{s}}}\right])\times \\ \hfill (\mathrm{arctan}\left[\sqrt{\frac{4\widehat{s}}{\widehat{s}}}\right]\mathrm{arctan}\left[\frac{\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\sqrt{4\widehat{s}}}{2\widehat{s}}\right])\},\end{array}$$
(16)
$$\begin{array}{c}\tau _{89}=\frac{2}{3}\{\widehat{s}(4\widehat{s})34\mathrm{ln}(\widehat{s})(1\widehat{s}\widehat{s}^2)\hfill \\ \hfill 8\text{Re}\left(\text{Li}\left[\frac{\widehat{s}}{2}+i\frac{\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\sqrt{4\widehat{s}}}{2}\right]\text{Li}\left[\frac{2+\widehat{s}(4\widehat{s})}{2}+i\frac{(2\widehat{s})\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\sqrt{4\widehat{s}}}{2}\right]\right)\\ \hfill +4(\widehat{s}^2\sqrt{\frac{4\widehat{s}}{\widehat{s}}}+2\mathrm{arctan}\left[\frac{\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\sqrt{4\widehat{s}}}{2\widehat{s}}\right])\times \\ \hfill (\mathrm{arctan}\left[\sqrt{\frac{4\widehat{s}}{\widehat{s}}}\right]\mathrm{arctan}\left[\frac{\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\sqrt{4\widehat{s}}}{2\widehat{s}}\right])\}.\end{array}$$
(17)
## 5 Finite bremsstrahlung contributions of type B

In this section we consider the bremsstrahlung contributions from $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$ and interference terms with $`\stackrel{~}{O}_7`$, $`\stackrel{~}{O}_8`$, $`\stackrel{~}{O}_9`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{O}_{10}`$. As mentioned before, interferences with $`\stackrel{~}{O}_{10}`$ vanish due to the Dirac structures of the operators.

The bremsstrahlung contributions discussed in this section all involve the matrix elements associated with the two diagrams depicted in Fig. 4. Their sum, $`\overline{J}_{\alpha \beta }`$, is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{J}_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{eg_sQ_u}{16\pi ^2}[E(\alpha ,\beta ,r)\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_5+E(\alpha ,\beta ,q)\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_6E(\beta ,r,q)\frac{r_\alpha }{qr}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{23}\hfill \\ \hfill E(\alpha ,r,q)\frac{q_\beta }{qr}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{26}E(\beta ,r,q)\frac{q_\alpha }{qr}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{27}]L\frac{\lambda }{2},\end{array}$$
(18)
where $`q`$ and $`r`$ denote the momenta of the virtual photon and of the gluon, respectively. The index $`\alpha `$ will be contracted with the photon propagator, whereas $`\beta `$ is contracted with the polarization vector $`ϵ^\beta (r)`$ of the gluon. $`\overline{J}_{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_k`$ are obtained from $`J_{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }i_k`$ , respectively, by setting $`r^2=0`$ and dropping terms proportional to $`r_\beta `$. The matrix $`E(\alpha ,\beta ,r)`$ is defined as

$$E(\alpha ,\beta ,r)=\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _\alpha \gamma _\beta r/r/\gamma _\beta \gamma _\alpha ).$$
(19)
Due to Ward identities, the quantities $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_k`$ are not independent of one another. Namely,

$$q^\alpha \overline{J}_{\alpha \beta }=0\text{and}r^\beta \overline{J}_{\alpha \beta }=0$$

imply that $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_5`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_6`$ can be expressed as

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_5=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{23}+\frac{q^2}{qr}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{27};\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_6=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{26}.$$
(20)
As in addition $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{26}=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{23}`$, the bremsstrahlung matrix elements depend on $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{23}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{27}`$, only. In $`d=4`$ dimensions we find

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`8(qr){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{xy(1y)^2}{C}},`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{27}`$ $`=`$ $`8(qr){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{y(1y)^2}{C}},`$ (21)
where

$$C=m_c^22xy(1y)(qr)q^2y(1y)i\delta .$$

In the rest frame of the $`b`$ quark and for fixed $`\widehat{s}=q^2/m_b^2`$, the phase space integrals which one encounters in the calculation of $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{Brems},\text{B}}/d\widehat{s}`$ can be reduced to a two-dimensional integral over $`\widehat{E}_r=E_r/m_b`$ and $`\widehat{E}_s=E_s/m_b`$, where $`E_r`$ and $`E_s`$ are the energy of the gluon and the $`s`$ quark, respectively. In the following it is useful to introduce the integration variable $`w=12\widehat{E}_s`$ instead of $`\widehat{E}_s`$. The integration limits are then given by

$$\widehat{E}_r[\frac{w\widehat{s}}{2},\frac{w\widehat{s}}{2w}]\text{and}w[\widehat{s},1].$$

For fixed values of $`\widehat{s}`$, the quantities $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{23}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{27}`$ depend only on the scalar product $`qr`$, which, in the rest frame of the $`b`$ quark, is given by $`(w\widehat{s})m_b^2/2`$. The integration over $`\widehat{E}_r`$ turns out to be of rational kind and can be performed analytically. The remaining integration over $`w`$, however, is more complicated and is done numerically. The result can be written as

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\text{Brems},\text{B}}}{d\widehat{s}}=\left(\frac{\alpha _{\text{em}}}{4\pi }\right)^2\left(\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }\right)\frac{G_F^2m_{b,\text{pole}}^5|V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}|^2}{48\pi ^3}\times \hfill \\ \hfill \underset{\widehat{s}}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑w\left[\left(c_{11}+c_{12}+c_{22}\right)\tau _{22}+2\text{Re}\left[\left(c_{17}+c_{27}\right)\tau _{27}+\left(c_{18}+c_{28}\right)\tau _{28}+\left(c_{19}+c_{29}\right)\tau _{29}\right]\right].\end{array}$$
(22)
The quantities $`\tau _{ij}`$, expressed in terms of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{23}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{27}`$, read

$$\begin{array}{c}\tau _{22}=\frac{8}{27}\frac{(w\widehat{s})(1w)^2}{\widehat{s}w^3}\times \left\{[3w^2+2\widehat{s}^2(2+w)\widehat{s}w(52w)]\right|\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{23}|^2+\hfill \\ \hfill [2\widehat{s}^2(2+w)+\widehat{s}w(1+2w)]|\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{27}|^2+4\widehat{s}[w(1w)\widehat{s}(2+w)]\text{Re}\left[\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{23}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{27}^{}\right]\}\end{array}$$
(23)
$$\begin{array}{c}\tau _{27}=\frac{8}{3}\frac{1}{\widehat{s}w}\times \{[(1w)(4\widehat{s}^2\widehat{s}w+w^2)+\widehat{s}w(4+\widehat{s}w)\mathrm{ln}(w)]\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{23}\hfill \\ \hfill [4\widehat{s}^2(1w)+\widehat{s}w(4+\widehat{s}w)\mathrm{ln}(w)]\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{27}\}\end{array}$$
(24)
$$\begin{array}{c}\tau _{28}=\frac{8}{9}\frac{1}{\widehat{s}w(w\widehat{s})}\times \{\left[(ws)^2(2\widehat{s}w)(1w)\right]\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{23}\left[2\widehat{s}(w\widehat{s})^2(1w)\right]\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{27}\hfill \\ \hfill +\widehat{s}w[(1+2\widehat{s}2w)\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{23}2(1+\widehat{s}w)\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{27}]\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\widehat{s}}{(1+\widehat{s}w)(w^2+\widehat{s}(1w))}\right]\}\end{array}$$
(25)
$$\begin{array}{c}\tau _{29}=\frac{4}{3}\frac{1}{w}\times \{[2\widehat{s}(1w)(\widehat{s}+w)+4\widehat{s}w\mathrm{ln}(w)]\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{23}\hfill \\ \hfill [2\widehat{s}(1w)(\widehat{s}+w)+w(3\widehat{s}+w)\mathrm{ln}(w)]\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{27}\}\end{array}$$
(26)
The coefficients $`c_{ij}`$ in Eq. (22) include the dependence on the Wilson coefficients and the color factors. Explicitly, they read

$`c_{11}=`$ $`C_{\tau _1}\left|C_1^{(0)}\right|^2,`$ $`c_{17}=`$ $`C_{\tau _2}C_1^{(0)}\stackrel{~}{C}_7^{(0,\text{eff})},`$ $`c_{27}=`$ $`C_FC_2^{(0)}\stackrel{~}{C}_7^{(0,\text{eff})},`$
$`c_{12}=`$ $`C_{\tau _2}2\text{Re}\left[C_1^{(0)}C_2^{(0)}\right],`$ $`c_{18}=`$ $`C_{\tau _2}C_1^{(0)}\stackrel{~}{C}_8^{(0,\text{eff})},`$ $`c_{28}=`$ $`C_FC_2^{(0)}\stackrel{~}{C}_8^{(0,\text{eff})},`$ (27)
$`c_{22}=`$ $`C_F\left|C_2^{(0)}\right|^2,`$ $`c_{19}=`$ $`C_{\tau _2}C_1^{(0)}\stackrel{~}{C}_9^{(0,\text{eff})},`$ $`c_{29}=`$ $`C_FC_2^{(0)}\stackrel{~}{C}_9^{(0,\text{eff})},`$
where the color factors $`C_F`$, $`C_{\tau _1}`$ and $`C_{\tau _2}`$ arise from the following color structures:

$$\underset{a}{}T^aT^a=C_F\mathrm{𝟏},C_F=\frac{N_c^21}{2N_c},$$

$$\underset{a,b,c}{}T^aT^cT^aT^bT^cT^b=C_{\tau _1}\mathrm{𝟏},C_{\tau _1}=\frac{N_c^21}{8N_c^3},$$

and

$$\underset{a,b}{}T^aT^bT^aT^b=C_{\tau _2}\mathrm{𝟏},C_{\tau _2}=\frac{N_c^21}{4N_c^2}.$$

Finally, we list the explicit formulas for $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{23}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{27}`$ expressed as a function of $`\widehat{s}`$ and the integration variable $`w`$. We obtain

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{23}`$ $`=2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{w\widehat{s}}}\left[zG_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}}{z}}\right)zG_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{w}{z}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}}{2}}G_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}}{z}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}}{2}}G_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{w}{z}}\right)\right],`$ (28)
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}i_{27}`$ $`=2\left[G_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}}{z}}\right)G_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{w}{z}}\right)\right],`$ (29)
where the functions $`G_k(t)`$ ($`k1`$) are defined through the integral

$$G_k(t)=\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑xx^k\mathrm{ln}\left[1tx(1x)i\delta \right],G_1(t)=\frac{1}{2}G_0(t).$$

Explicitly, the functions $`G_1(t)`$ and $`G_0(t)`$ read

$`G_1(t)`$ $`=\{\begin{array}{cc}2\pi \mathrm{arctan}\left(\sqrt{\frac{4t}{t}}\right)\frac{\pi ^2}{2}2\mathrm{arctan}^2\left(\sqrt{\frac{4t}{t}}\right),\hfill & t<4\hfill \\ & \\ 2i\pi \mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\sqrt{t}+\sqrt{t4}}{2}\right)\frac{\pi ^2}{2}+2\mathrm{ln}^2\left(\frac{\sqrt{t}+\sqrt{t4}}{2}\right),\hfill & t>4\hfill \end{array},`$ (30)
$`G_0(t)`$ $`=\{\begin{array}{cc}\pi \sqrt{\frac{4t}{t}}22\sqrt{\frac{4t}{t}}\mathrm{arctan}\left(\sqrt{\frac{4t}{t}}\right),\hfill & t<4\hfill \\ & \\ i\pi \sqrt{\frac{t4}{t}}2+2\sqrt{\frac{t4}{t}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\sqrt{t}+\sqrt{t4}}{2}\right),\hfill & t>4\hfill \end{array}.`$ (31)
## 6 Numerical results

First, we investigate the numerical impact of the finite bremsstrahlung corrections \[see Eqs. (13 and (22)\] on the dilepton invariant mass spectrum. Following common practice, we consider the ratio

$$R_{\text{quark}}(\widehat{s})=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(bX_ce\overline{\nu }_e)}\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})}{d\widehat{s}},$$
(32)
in which the factor $`m_{b,\text{pole}}^5`$ drops out. The explicit expression for the semi-leptonic decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(bX_ce\overline{\nu }_e)`$ reads

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(bX_ce\overline{\nu }_e)=\frac{G_F^2m_{b,\text{pole}}^5}{192\pi ^3}|V_{cb}|^2g\left(\frac{m_{c,\text{pole}}^2}{m_{b,\text{pole}}^2}\right)K\left(\frac{m_c^2}{m_b^2}\right),$$
(33)
where $`g(z)=18z+8z^3z^412z^2\mathrm{ln}(z)`$ is the phase space factor, and

$$K(z)=1\frac{2\alpha _s(m_b)}{3\pi }\frac{f(z)}{g(z)}$$
(34)
incorporates the next-to-leading QCD correction to the semi-leptonic decay . The function $`f(z)`$ has been calculated analytically in Ref. . It reads

$`f(z)=`$ $`(1z^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{25}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{239}{3}}z+{\displaystyle \frac{25}{4}}z^2\right)+z\mathrm{ln}(z)\left(20+90z{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}z^2+{\displaystyle \frac{17}{3}}z^3\right)`$
$`+z^2\mathrm{ln}^2(z)(36+z^2)+(1z^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{17}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{64}{3}}z+{\displaystyle \frac{17}{3}}z^2\right)\mathrm{ln}(1z)`$
$`4(1+30z^2+z^4)\mathrm{ln}(z)\mathrm{ln}(1z)(1+16z^2+z^4)\left(6\text{Li}(z)\pi ^2\right)`$
$`32z^{3/2}(1+z)\left[\pi ^24\text{Li}(\sqrt{z})+4\text{Li}(\sqrt{z})2\mathrm{ln}(z)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\sqrt{z}}{1+\sqrt{z}}}\right)\right].`$ (35)
We stress that the function $`f(z)`$ refers to on-shell renormalization of the charm quark mass.

In Fig. 7 we consider the contribution $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{\text{quark}}(\widehat{s})`$, which is due to the finite bremsstrahlung corrections in Eqs. (13) and (22), for three values of the renormalization scale ($`\mu `$=2.5, 5 and 10 GeV) and for fixed value $`m_c/m_b=0.29`$. The values of all the other input parameters are as in Ref. .

In Fig. 8 we combine the new corrections with the previous results. The solid lines show the ratio $`R_{\text{quark}}(\widehat{s})`$, including the new corrections, for the values $`\mu =10`$ GeV (uppermost curve), $`\mu =5`$ GeV (middle curve) and $`\mu =2.5`$ GeV (lowest curve) and for fixed value $`m_c/m_b=0.29`$. The dashed lines represent the corresponding results without the new corrections. We find that for $`\widehat{s}=0.05`$ the new corrections increase the ratio $`R_{\text{quark}}(\widehat{s})`$ by $`3\%`$, while for larger values of $`\widehat{s}`$ their impact is even smaller.

When including the finite bremsstrahlung corrections we obtain

$$R_{\text{quark}}=\underset{0.05}{\overset{0.25}{}}𝑑\widehat{s}R_{\text{quark}}(\widehat{s})=(1.27\pm 0.08(\mu ))\times 10^5$$

for the integrated quantity $`R_{\text{quark}}`$. The error is obtained by varying $`\mu `$ between 2.5 GeV and 10 GeV. For comparison, the corresponding result without the finite bremsstrahlung correction is $`R_{\text{quark}}(\widehat{s})=(1.25\pm 0.08(\mu ))\times 10^5`$ .

Among the errors on $`R_{\text{quark}}(\widehat{s})`$ due to uncertainties in the input parameters, the one related to the charm quark mass is by far the largest. We therefore only comment on this error. In principle, the uncertainties induced by the charm quark mass have two sources. First, it is unclear whether $`m_c`$ in the virtual- and bremsstrahlung corrections should be interpreted as the pole mass or the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ mass (at an appropriate scale). Second, the question arises what the numerical value of $`m_c`$ is, once a choice concerning the definition of $`m_c`$ has been made.

To illustrate these problems more clearly, it is useful to first consider the process $`BX_s\gamma `$. There, the one-loop matrix elements of $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$ vanish, implying that the charm quark mass dependence only enters at $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$. Formally, one can interpret $`m_c`$ in these $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ expressions to be the pole mass or the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ mass because the difference is of higher order in $`\alpha _s`$. Nevertheless, it has been argued in the literature  that the choice $`m_c^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(\mu )`$ with $`\mu [m_c,m_b]`$ seems more reasonable than $`m_c^{\mathrm{pole}}`$ (which was used in all the previous analysis) due to the fact that the largest charm quark mass dependence comes from the real part of the two-loop matrix elements of $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$, where the charm quarks are usually off-shell, with a momentum scale set by $`m_b^{\mathrm{pole}}`$ (or some seizable fraction of it). It was shown in Ref.  that the definition of the charm quark mass leads to a relatively large uncertainty in the branching ratio: Changing $`m_c/m_b`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(BX_s\gamma )`$ from $`0.29\pm 0.02`$ to $`0.22\pm 0.04`$, i.e., from $`m_c^{\mathrm{pole}}/m_b^{\mathrm{pole}}`$ to $`m_c^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}/m_b^{\mathrm{pole}}`$ (with $`\mu [m_c,m_b]`$), causes an enhancement of $`\text{BR}(BX_s\gamma )`$ by $`11\%`$.

In the process $`BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ this problem is less severe because $`m_c`$ enters already the one-loop diagrams (i.e., at $`𝒪(\alpha _s^0)`$) associated with $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$. As the two-loop calculation requires the renormalization of $`m_c`$, the definition of $`m_c`$ has to be specified. Therefore, the two-loop result explicitly depends on the definition of the charm quark mass. This can be seen from . For the pole mass definition, the results for the two-loop matrix elements of $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$, encoded in $`F_{1,2}^{(7),(9)}`$, are given in Eqs. (54)–(56), while those corresponding to the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ definition are obtained by adding the terms $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_{1,2,m_c\mathrm{ren}}^{\mathrm{ct}(9)}`$ given in Eq. (49).

In the following, we investigate the impact of pole- vs. $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ definition of $`m_c`$ in the rare decay $`bX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ on the ratio $`R_{\text{quark}}(\widehat{s})`$. In the semileptonic decay $`bX_ce\overline{\nu }_e`$ the charm quark is basically on-shell. Therefore, we always use the pole mass definition for the charm quark mass in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(bX_ce\overline{\nu }_e)`$, which enters $`R_{\text{quark}}(\widehat{s})`$.

In Fig. 9 we set $`m_c^{\mathrm{pole}}/m_b^{\mathrm{pole}}`$ equal to 0.31, 0.29 and 0.27 in the decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(bX_ce\overline{\nu }_e)`$. In the rare decay $`bX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, on the other hand, we use the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ definition for $`m_c`$, and put $`m_c^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}/m_b^{\mathrm{pole}}=0.18,0.22`$ and 0.26 (independently of $`m_c^{\mathrm{pole}}/m_b^{\mathrm{pole}}`$, to be on the conservative side). This leads, for a given value of $`m_c^{\mathrm{pole}}/m_b^{\mathrm{pole}}`$, to three curves which form a narrow band. The uppermost band corresponds to $`m_c^{\mathrm{pole}}/m_b^{\mathrm{pole}}=`$ 0.31, the middle to 0.29 and the lowest to 0.27. The curves with the strange behavior for $`\widehat{s}>0.13`$ all belong to the lowest value $`m_c^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}/m_b^{\mathrm{pole}}=0.18`$. As the result for the two-loop corrections was derived in expanded form which only holds for $`\widehat{s}<4m_c^2/m_b^2`$, the strange behavior illustrates that, for $`m_c/m_b=0.18`$, the result is not valid for $`\widehat{s}>0.13`$.

In Fig. 10 the three middle solid curves are obtained by adopting the pole mass definition of $`m_c`$, both in the rare and in the semileptonic decay. They correspond to $`m_c^{\mathrm{pole}}/m_b^{\mathrm{pole}}=`$ 0.31, 0.29, 0.27. The dashed curves, on the other hand, are obtained when the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ definition with $`m_c^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}/m_b^{\mathrm{pole}}=`$ 0.22 is used in the rare decay width. One finds that for $`\widehat{s}>0.06`$ the results for $`R_{\text{quark}}(\widehat{s})`$ are somewhat larger when using the pole mass definition of $`m_c`$ in the rare decay. For values below $`\widehat{s}<0.06`$ the situation is reversed and thus the same as for $`bX_s\gamma `$ . Again, the strange behavior of the dashed curves indicates that, for $`m_c/m_b=0.22`$, the expanded formulas become unreliable for values of $`\widehat{s}>0.19`$ . The thick solid lines are obtained by adopting the pole mass definition on the whole and correspond to $`m_c/m_b`$=0.33 (upper) and 0.25 (lower). In summary, the figure shows that the quark mass uncertainties can effectively be estimated by working with the pole mass definition throughout, provided one takes the rather conservative range $`0.25m_c^{\mathrm{pole}}/m_b^{\mathrm{pole}}0.33`$.

Finally, in Fig. 11 we show $`R_{\text{quark}}(\widehat{s})`$ in the full range $`\widehat{s}[0.05,0.25]`$ for $`m_c^{\mathrm{pole}}/m_b^{\mathrm{pole}}[0.25,0.33]`$. Note that for these values of $`m_c/m_b`$ the expanded formulas hold just up to $`\widehat{s}=0.25`$.

Comparing Fig. 8 with Fig. 11, we find that the uncertainty due to $`m_c/m_b`$ is clearly larger than the leftover $`\mu `$ dependence. Varying $`m_c/m_b`$ between 0.25 and 0.33, the corresponding uncertainty amounts to $`\pm 15\%`$.

To conclude: We have calculated the finite gluon bremsstrahlung corrections of $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$, taking into account the contributions of the operators $`O_1`$, $`O_2`$, $`O_7`$, $`O_8`$, $`O_9`$ and $`O_{10}`$. We have worked out the numerical impact of the new corrections on the invariant mass spectrum of the lepton pair in the range $`\widehat{s}[0.05,0.25]`$ and found an increase of about 3% for $`\widehat{s}=0.05`$ and even less for larger values of $`\widehat{s}`$. Furthermore, we investigated the uncertainties of $`R_{\text{quark}}(\widehat{s})`$ due to the definition and numerical uncertainties of the charm quark mass. We found that these errors can be reliably estimated when working with the pole mass definition of $`m_c`$, provided one takes the rather conservative range $`0.25m_c^{\mathrm{pole}}/m_b^{\mathrm{pole}}0.33`$.

Acknowledgements:
The work of H.M.A. was partially supported by NATO Grant PST.CLG.978154.

## Appendix A Auxiliary quantities $`A_i`$, $`T_9`$, $`U_9`$ and $`W_9`$

The auxiliary quantities $`A_i`$, $`T_9`$, $`U_9`$ and $`W_9`$, appearing in the modified Wilson coefficients in Eq. (3) and in the effective Wilson coefficients in Eqs. (3)–(9) are the following linear combinations of the Wilson coefficients $`C_i(\mu )`$ :

$`A_7=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{\alpha _s(\mu )}}C_7(\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}C_3(\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}C_4(\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{20}{3}}C_5(\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{80}{9}}C_6(\mu ),`$
$`A_8=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{\alpha _s(\mu )}}C_8(\mu )+C_3(\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}C_4(\mu )+20C_5(\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{10}{3}}C_6(\mu ),`$
$`A_9=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{\alpha _s(\mu )}}C_9(\mu )+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}}C_i(\mu )\gamma _{i9}^{(0)}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{\mu }}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}C_3(\mu )+{\displaystyle \frac{64}{9}}C_5(\mu )+{\displaystyle \frac{64}{27}}C_6(\mu ),`$
$`A_{10}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{\alpha _s(\mu )}}C_{10}(\mu ),`$ (36)
$`T_9=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}C_1(\mu )+C_2(\mu )+6C_3(\mu )+60C_5(\mu ),`$
$`U_9=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}C_3(\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}C_4(\mu )38C_5(\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{32}{3}}C_6(\mu ),`$
$`W_9=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_3(\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}C_4(\mu )8C_5(\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{32}{3}}C_6(\mu ).`$
The elements $`\gamma _{i9}^{(0)}`$ can be found in , while the loop-function $`h(z,\widehat{s})`$ is given in Eq. (4).

In the contributions which explicitly involve virtual or bremsstrahlung correction only the leading order coefficients $`A_i^{(0)}`$, $`T_9^{(0)}`$, $`U_9^{(0)}`$ and $`W_9^{(0)}`$ enter. They are given by

$`A_7^{(0)}=`$ $`C_7^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}C_3^{(0)}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}C_4^{(0)}{\displaystyle \frac{20}{3}}C_5^{(0)}{\displaystyle \frac{80}{9}}C_6^{(0)},`$
$`A_8^{(0)}=`$ $`C_8^{(1)}+C_3^{(0)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}C_4^{(0)}+20C_5^{(0)}{\displaystyle \frac{10}{3}}C_6^{(0)},`$
$`A_9^{(0)}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{\alpha _s}}\left(C_9^{(0)}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}C_9^{(1)}\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}}C_i^{(0)}\gamma _{i9}^{(0)}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{\mu }}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}C_3^{(0)}+{\displaystyle \frac{64}{9}}C_5^{(0)}+{\displaystyle \frac{64}{27}}C_6^{(0)},`$
$`A_{10}^{(0)}=`$ $`C_{10}^{(1)},`$ (37)
$`T_9^{(0)}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}C_1^{(0)}+C_2^{(0)}+6C_3^{(0)}+60C_5^{(0)},`$
$`U_9^{(0)}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}C_3^{(0)}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}C_4^{(0)}38C_5^{(0)}{\displaystyle \frac{32}{3}}C_6^{(0)},`$
$`W_9^{(0)}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_3^{(0)}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}C_4^{(0)}8C_5^{(0)}{\displaystyle \frac{32}{3}}C_6^{(0)}.`$
We list the leading and next-to-leading order contributions to the quantities $`A_i`$, $`T_9`$, $`U_9`$ and $`W_9`$ in Tab. 1.