text:
# Non-Markovian Optimal Prediction

## 1 Introduction

Many problems in science and engineering are described by nonlinear differential equations whose solutions are too complicated to be properly resolved. The problem of predicting the evolution of systems that are not well resolved has been addressed by the present authors and others in . Nothing can be predicted without some knowledge about the unresolved (“subgrid”) degrees of freedom. In the optimal prediction methods just cited it is assumed that one possesses, as one often does, prior statistical information about the system in the form of an invariant measure; what is sought is a mean solution with respect to this prior measure, compatible with the information initially at hand as well as with the limitations on the computing power one can bring to bear.

The simplest version of this idea, Markovian optimal prediction, generates an approximating system of ordinary differential equations and works well for a time that depends on the degree of underresolution and on the uncertainty in the data. This version is optimal in the class of Markovian approximations , but it eventually exhibits errors, because the influence of partial initial data on the distribution of the solutions weakens in time if the system is ergodic, and this loss of information is not captured in full, see . To obtain an accurate approximation of a subset of variables without solving the full problem requires the addition of a “memory” term, and the resulting prediction scheme becomes a generalized Langevin equation, similar to those in irreversible statistical mechanics .

We present a general formalism for separating resolved and unresolved degrees of freedom, analogous to the nonlinear projection formalism of Zwanzig  but using the language of probability theory. We find a zero-th order approximate solution of the equation for the orthogonal unresolved dynamics and find its statistics by Monte-Carlo integration; we use the results to construct a prediction scheme with memory. We apply the scheme to a simple model problem. In the conclusion we indicate how the construction is generalized to more complicated problems, and the new perspectives it opens for prediction as well as for irreversible statistical mechanics.

## 2 Linear and nonlinear projections of dynamical systems

Consider a problem of the form

$$\frac{d\phi }{dt}=R(\phi ),\phi (0)=x,$$
(2.1)
where $`R`$ and $`\phi `$ are $`n`$-dimensional vectors ($`n`$ may be infinite), with components $`R_i`$ and $`\phi _i`$; $`t`$ is time. When $`n`$ is finite (2.1) is a system of ordinary differential equations. Our goal is to calculate the average values of $`m`$ components of $`\phi `$, $`m<n,`$ without calculating all the components; the average is over all the values that the missing, unresolved, components may assume; our prior information allows us to make statistical statements about these missing components.

We denote the phase space (the vector space in which $`\phi `$ resides) by $`𝚪`$; in classical statistical physics this phase space is the $`n=6\mathrm{}`$ dimensional space of coordinates and momenta $`(q_i,p_i)`$, where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the number of particles; the $`q_i,p_i`$ at time $`t`$ are then entries of the vector $`\phi `$. A solution of equation (2.1) is defined when an initial value $`\phi (t=0)=x`$ is given; to each initial condition $`x`$ corresponds a trajectory, $`\phi (t)=\phi (x,t)`$; the initial value $`x`$ is emphasized by this notation in view of its key role in what follows.

A phase variable $`u`$ is a function on $`𝚪`$; $`u`$ may be a vector, whose components are labeled as $`u_i`$. A phase variable varies when its argument varies in time, so that a phase variable whose value at $`t=0`$ was $`u(x)`$ acquires at time $`t`$ the value $`u(\phi (x,t))`$. It is useful to examine the evolution of $`u`$ in a more abstract setting: Introduce an evolution operator $`S^t`$ for phase variables by the relation

$$(S^tu)(x)=u(\phi (x,t)).$$
(2.2)
Differentiation of (2.2) with respect to time yields

$$\frac{}{t}(S^tu)(x)=\underset{i}{}R_i(\phi (x,t))\frac{u}{\phi _i}(\phi (x,t))=LS^tu(x),$$
(2.3)
where $`L`$, the Liouvillian, is the linear differential operator $`L=_iR_i(\phi )\frac{}{\phi _i}`$. Thus the phase variable $`S^tu`$ can be calculated in either of two ways: (i) for each $`x`$ integrate to time $`t`$ the equations of motion $`\frac{d}{dt}\phi (t)=R(\phi (t))`$ with initial conditions $`\phi (0)=x`$ and evaluate the phase variable $`u`$ at the point $`\phi (x,t)`$; or (ii) solve the equation

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{}{t}S^tu=LS^tu\hfill \\ & S^0u=u(x).\hfill \end{array}$$

It is convenient to write $`S^t=e^{tL}`$; we do not inquire here as to the conditions under which this symbolic notation can be taken literally. The significant thing about equation (2.3) is that it is linear.

One can check from the definitions that $`e^{tL}(uv)=(e^{tL}u)(e^{tL}v)`$, $`e^{tL}f(u)=f(e^{tL}u)`$ for any function $`f`$, and $`e^{tL}L=Le^{tL}`$. In this notation, the symbol $`u`$ standing alone refers to the data $`u(x)`$ at $`t=0`$; the time dependence is described by the exponential.

Suppose that the initial data $`x`$ are drawn from a probability distribution $`\mu ^0`$; each initial datum gives rise to a solution of equation (2.1) and the measure $`\mu ^0`$ evolves into a measure $`\mu ^t`$ at time $`t`$. The evolution of $`\mu ^t`$ is defined by the conditions

$$_𝚪u(\phi (x,t))\mu ^0(dx)=_𝚪u(x)\mu ^t(dx)$$

for all sufficiently smooth phase variables $`u`$. We assume that the measure $`\mu ^0`$ is invariant under the flow (2.1): $`\mu ^t=\mu ^0=\mu `$. Many systems have invariant measures, in particular, any Hamiltonian system with Hamiltonian $`H`$ leaves invariant the canonical measure with density $`Z^1e^{H(x)/T}`$, where $`Z`$ is a normalization constant and $`T`$ is the variance of the samples, which in physics is the temperature. Given a phase variable $`u`$, we denote by $`𝔼[u]`$ the expected value of $`u`$ with respect to the invariant measure $`\mu `$,

$$𝔼[u]=_𝚪u(x)\mu (dx).$$

We endow the space of phase variables with the inner product $`(u,v)=𝔼[uv]`$, which makes them elements of the Hilbert space $`L_2[𝚪,\mu ]`$ ($`L_2`$ for brevity). The representations (2.1) and (2.3) of the dynamics are equivalent; in particular one can retrieve (2.1) from (2.3) by setting $`u=x_i`$ and therefore $`e^{tL}u=\phi _i(x,t)`$ (the i-th coordinate function). In $`L_2`$ the Liouvillian operator $`L`$ is antisymmetric.

We wish to calculate the means of a small number of variables $`\phi _i(x,t),i=1,\mathrm{},m,m<n`$, averaged over all the values the other variables may take initially when they are drawn from the invariant distribution, without calculating any of these other variables. We write $`\widehat{\phi }=(\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _m)`$ for the vector whose entries are the variables we actually calculate. To find equations for $`\widehat{\phi }`$ we need projections of $`L_2`$ on subspaces of functions of $`\widehat{x}=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_m)`$ or of $`\widehat{\phi }(x,t)=(\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _m)`$; these projections are not unique and we shall consider two different ones:

(i) Consider the conditional expectation $`𝔼[v|u]`$, where both $`u`$ and $`v`$ are phase variables; it satisfies:

1. $`𝔼[v|u]`$ is a function of $`u`$;
2. $`𝔼[v|u]`$ is linear in $`v`$:

$$𝔼[\alpha v_1+\beta v_2|u]=\alpha 𝔼[v_1|u]+\beta 𝔼[v_2|u].$$
3. $`𝔼[v|u]`$ is the best approximation of $`v`$ by a function of $`u`$:

$$𝔼[|v𝔼[v|u]|^2]𝔼[|vf(u)|^2]$$
(2.4)
for all functions $`f`$.

See Chung .

$`𝔼[v|u]`$ is the orthogonal projection of $`v`$ on the space of functions of $`u`$, and we can write $`Pv=𝔼[v|u]`$. This is the “nonlinear projection” used in  with a different interpretation, as well as in .

ii)For a function $`w=w(x)`$ in $`L_2`$, define

$$P^{}w=\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^m\frac{(w,x_i)}{(x_i,x_i)}x_i,$$
(2.5)
this is the “linear projection” used in most of irreversible statistical mechanics (see e.g. () .

Clearly the projection based on conditional expectations puts more information into the subspace of functions of the smaller set of variables and is thus preferable for our purposes, but we shall need both projections for technical reasons. There is a large set of projections intermediate between these two, obtained by spanning the space of functions of $`\widehat{x}`$ by additional elements; we shall not discuss these intermediate projections here.

We now follow the Mori-Zwanzig procedure () and split the time derivative of $`e^{tL}u`$ into its projection on the functions of $`\widehat{\phi }(t)`$ plus a complement:

$$\frac{}{t}e^{tL}u=e^{tL}Lu=e^{tL}PLu+e^{tL}QLu,$$
(2.6)
where $`P`$ is either of the two projection just described and $`Q=IP`$. If $`u`$ is a scalar function of $`\phi `$, it is projected in $`L_2`$ on a function of $`\widehat{\phi }`$; if $`u`$ is a vector function of $`\phi `$, each of its components is projected. The first term in (2.6) can be evaluated in terms of $`u`$ and we denote it by $`(u)`$:

$$e^{tL}(u)=(e^{tL}u).$$

To understand the second term, consider an evolution operator, $`e^{tQL}`$, defined for a phase variable $`v`$ by the equation:

$$\frac{}{t}e^{tQL}v=QLe^{tQL}v=Le^{tQL}vPLe^{tQL}v.$$
(2.7)
with $`Pv(t=0)=0`$. This is the orthogonal dynamics equation, which should be read as follows: Let $`w=v`$ at $`t=0`$; let $`w(t)`$ be a time-dependent phase variable that satisfies

$$\frac{}{t}w(t)=Lw(t)PLw(t);$$
(2.8)
with initial datum $`w(t=0)=v`$, and set $`w(t)=e^{tQL}v`$, defining the orthogonal evolution operator $`e^{tQL}`$. Note that if $`v`$ is orthogonal to the range of $`P`$ then so is $`e^{tQL}v`$ for all times $`t`$. The operator $`e^{tQL}`$ is the solution operator of the orthogonal dynamics.

The evolution operators $`e^{tL}`$ and $`e^{tQL}`$ satisfy the Dyson formula :

$$e^{tL}=e^{tQL}+_0^te^{(ts)L}PLe^{sQL}𝑑s,$$
(2.9)
which can be checked by differentiation. With the help of the Dyson formula the second term on the right hand side of (2.6) can be written as:

$$e^{tQL}v+_0^te^{(ts)L}PLe^{sQL}v𝑑s,$$

where

$$v=LuPLu=QLu.$$

Putting all the terms together, we obtain the generalized Langevin equation

$$\frac{}{t}e^{tL}u=(e^{tL}u)+_0^te^{(ts)L}PLe^{sQL}v𝑑s+e^{tQL}v.$$
(2.10)
This is an identity between phase variables, the starting point for our approximations. If one projects this equation on the space spanned by the initial data for $`u`$, the last term drops out and the other terms acquire a projection operator as prefactor.

The various terms in equation (2.10) have conventional interpretations. The first term on the right-hand side is a function only of $`e^{tL}u`$ and represents the self-interaction of the components of $`e^{tL}u`$; it is the Markovian contribution to $`\frac{}{t}e^{tL}u`$. The second term depends on $`u`$ through the values of $`e^{tL}u`$ at all times $`s`$ between $`0`$ and $`t`$, and embodies a non-Markovian memory. Finally, the third term has no component in the range of $`P`$ and if we know nothing outside this range it can be viewed as random, with statistics determined by the initial data.

In the special case of a linear projection $`P^{}`$ the second term in equation (2.10) acquires a particularly simple form, well-known in statistical physics where it is the only form in general use. By definition, see above,

$$P^{}Le^{sQL}QLu=P^{}LQe^{sQL}QLu=\underset{1}{\overset{m}{}}(LQe^{sQL}QLu,h_j(\widehat{x}))h_j(\widehat{x}),$$
(2.11)
where $`h_j(\widehat{x})=\widehat{x}_j/\widehat{x}_j`$, $`\widehat{x}_j^2=E[\widehat{x}_j^2]`$, $`1jm`$, are normalized coordinate functions. A short manipulation converts this sum into

$$K_j(s)h_j(\widehat{x}),$$
(2.12)
where $`K_j(s)=(e^{sQL}QLu,QLh_j)`$, i.e., $`K_j`$ is the correlation of the solution of the orthogonal dynamics equation that starts from $`v=QLu`$ with $`QLh_j`$. Substitution into the integral produces the term

$$_0^tK_j(ts)e^{sL}h_j(\widehat{x})ds.$$
(2.13)
## 3 Implementation of the projections in a small dimensional space and first-order optimal prediction

The generalized Langevin equation (2.10) expresses the rate of change of the phase variable $`u`$ as a sum of terms that depend on $`u`$ and on the orthogonal dynamics. These expressions cannot be used directly for approximation when the equations are nonlinear. Indeed, the evaluation of a term such as $`e^{tL}E[Lu|u]=E[Le^{tL}u|e^{tL}u]`$ requires the evaluation of $`e^{tL}u`$, i.e., requires a solution of the full set of $`n`$ equations. In terms of $`\phi `$, this term becomes

$$𝔼[\widehat{R}(\widehat{y})|\widehat{y}]_{\widehat{y}=\widehat{\phi }(x,t)},$$
(3.1)
where the last expression is the expected value of $`\widehat{R}(\widehat{y})`$ given the value $`\widehat{\phi }(x,t)`$ of $`\widehat{y}`$. ( we first find the best approximation of $`\widehat{R}(y)`$ by a function of $`\widehat{y}`$, then substitute the value $`\widehat{y}=\widehat{\phi }(x,t)`$ into the result). The vector $`x`$ has components $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ not included in $`\widehat{x}`$ and not known; $`x=(\widehat{x},\stackrel{~}{x})`$. To obtain something that can be evaluated we move the expectation into the condition, i.e., we approximate $`𝔼[\widehat{R}|\widehat{y}]_{\widehat{y}=\phi (\widehat{x},\stackrel{~}{x},t)]}`$ by $`𝔼[\widehat{R}|\widehat{y}]_{\widehat{y}=𝔼[\phi (x,t)|\widehat{x}]}`$, which is a function $`\widehat{y}=\widehat{y}(\widehat{x})`$ of $`\widehat{x}`$.

Assume for a moment that the second and third terms in the Langevin equation (2.10) are negligible. Equation (2.10) becomes:

$$\frac{d}{dt}\widehat{\phi }(x,t)=𝔼[\widehat{R}(y)|\widehat{y}]_{\widehat{y}=\widehat{\phi }(x,t)}.$$
(3.2)
The approximation we just made, replacing $`\widehat{\phi }(x,t)`$ by its projection, gives:

$$\frac{d}{dt}\widehat{\phi }(\widehat{x},t)=𝔼[\widehat{\widehat{R}}(\widehat{y})|\widehat{y}]_{\widehat{y}=\widehat{y}(\widehat{x})};$$
(3.3)
projecting this equation on the space of functions of $`\widehat{x}`$, we find,

$$\frac{d}{dt}\widehat{y}=𝔼[\widehat{R}(\widehat{y})|\widehat{y}]_{\widehat{y}=\widehat{y}(\widehat{x})}.$$
(3.4)
The initial data $`\widehat{y}(0)=\widehat{x}`$ make $`\widehat{y}(t)`$ a function of $`\widehat{x}`$. These are the first-order optimal prediction equations. First-order optimal prediction neglects however the effect of the fluctuations due to the variation of the components $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ of $`x`$, as we already know from ; all that is left the uncomputed components is their conditional expectations.

As an example, consider the model equations that arise from the Hamiltonian

$$H=\frac{1}{2}(x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2+x_4^2+x_1^2x_3^2),$$
(3.5)
($`x_1,x_3`$ can be viewed as position variables $`q_1,q_2`$ and $`x_2,x_4`$ can be viewed as momenta $`p_1,p_2`$). The resulting equations of motion are:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\phi _1`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _2\phi _2\phi _4^2,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\phi _2`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _1,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\phi _3`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _4\phi _4\phi _2^2,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\phi _4`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _3`$
with $`\phi (0)=x`$. The probability density of $`x`$ is $`Z^1e^{H(x)/T}`$, and that of $`\phi `$ is $`Z^1e^{H(\phi )/T}`$. For simplicity set $`T=1`$. Keeping $`m=2`$ out of the $`n=4`$ equations, and omitting all but the first term in the Langevin equation (2.10), we find:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\phi _1`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _2{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _2}{1+\phi _2^2}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\phi _2`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _1`$
as can be deduced from the definition of conditional expectation:

$$\frac{_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}x_2x_4^2e^H𝑑x_3𝑑x_4}{_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}e^H𝑑x_3𝑑x_4}=\frac{x_2}{1+x_2^2}.$$
(3.6)
These are the first-order optimal prediction equations as presented in .

## 4 Zero-th order solution of the Langevin equation

Now consider the full Langevin equation (2.10). The evaluation of the memory term requires a solution of the orthogonal dynamics equation, which we shall present in detail elsewhere. In the present paper we shall be content with less, yet the result is instructive.

With the appropriate substitutions, the Dyson formula (2.9) yields the identity

$$e^{tQL}=e^{tL}_0^te^{(ts)L}PLe^{sQL}𝑑s,$$
(4.1)
which can be in principle be the starting point of a perturbative evaluation of $`e^{tQL}`$. The zero-th order approximation of this equation is:

$$e^{tQL}e^{tL},$$
(4.2)
i.e., one replaces the true flow in the orthogonal complement of the range of $`P`$ (or $`P^{}`$) by the real flow induced by $`L`$ ( which of course has a component in the orthogonal complement). This approximation can be sufficient if the correlations in (2.13) do not decay too slowly; to see this, consider the second term in equation (2.10):

$$_0^te^{(ts)L}PLe^{sQL}QLu𝑑s=_0^te^{(ts)L}PLQe^{sQL}QLu𝑑s.$$
(4.3)
Adding and subtracting equal quantities, we find:

$$PLe^{sQL}QLu=PLQe^{sL}u+PLQ(e^{sQL}e^{sL})QLu;$$
(4.4)
a Taylor series yields:

$$e^{sQL}e^{sL}=I+sQL+\mathrm{}IsL\mathrm{}=sPL+O(s^2),$$
(4.5)
and therefore, using $`QP=0`$, we find:

$`PLe^{sQL}QLu`$ $`=`$ $`PLQe^{sL}QLu+O(s^2),`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^t}e^{(ts)L}PLe^{sL}QLu𝑑s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^t}e^{(ts)L}PLe^{sQL}QLu𝑑s+O(t^3);`$
if the correlations $`(e^{sQL}QLu,QLh_j)`$, $`(e^{sL}QLu,QLh_j)`$, are significant only over short times, we have an acceptable approximation.

At $`t=0`$ the orthogonal dynamics start from $`v(0)=R(x)𝔼[R(x)|\widehat{x}]`$; at later time, in our approximation, $`v(t)=e^{tL}v(0)=R(\phi (x,t))𝔼[R(y)|\widehat{y}]_{\widehat{y}=\widehat{\phi }(x,t)}`$. The correlations in (2.13) can be calculated by Monte-Carlo, and provides a better approximation than first-order optimal prediction. This is still not a very good approximation, and the reason, as we shall show elsewhere, is that the linear projection $`P^{}`$ used to derive (2.13) projects onto a set of functions that fails to span the whole space of functions of $`\widehat{x}`$; this can be remedied by devising more elaborate approximations to the conditional expectation $`P`$. Here we propose a heuristic alternative: We interpret $`𝔼[R(y)|\widehat{y}]_{\widehat{y}=\widehat{\phi }(x,t)}`$ in $`v(t)`$ as the mean of the right-hand-side of equations (2.1) and $`R(\phi (x,t))`$ as the fluctuation around that mean. This mean varies less than the fluctuations as $`x`$ spans $`𝚪`$, and we make it vary even less by anchoring it to the initial data for the specific problem we wish to solve, i.e., first approximate $`𝔼[R(y)|\widehat{y}]_{\widehat{y}=\widehat{\phi }(x,t)}`$ by $`𝔼[R(y)|\widehat{y}]_{\widehat{y}=𝔼[\widehat{\phi }(x,t)|\widehat{x}]}`$ and then further fix $`\widehat{x}`$ at the specific initial value for which we want to solve the $`m`$equation approximation of the system (2.1). Let $`w(t)`$ be the function $`w(t)=𝔼[R(y)|\widehat{y}]_{\widehat{y}=𝔼[\widehat{\phi }(x,t)|\widehat{x}]}`$ obtained in this way for a specific $`\widehat{x}`$ (in the example, $`w(t)=\phi _2\phi _2/(1+\phi _2^2)`$, where $`\phi _2`$ is the specific solution we are seeking). Note that $`v(t)=R(\phi (x,t))w(t)`$ is no longer a stationary stochastic process. The heuristic rationale for this “freezing” of $`w`$ is as follows: Write as before $`x=(\widehat{x},\stackrel{~}{x})`$; when, in the averaging that determines the kernels $`K_j`$, we fix $`\widehat{x}`$ and vary $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ alone, thus finding the contribution of the subspace orthogonal to $`\widehat{x}`$, the “frozen” and the true variations of $`v(t)`$ are the same; however, if we keep $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ fixed and vary $`\widehat{x}`$ for the evaluation of $`R(\phi )`$ we relate the fluctuations to the specific solution we are seeking more thoroughly than is possible otherwise when the projection is $`P^{}`$. With these approximations, the kernels $`K_j`$ in (2.13), $`K_j(ts)=𝔼[v(t)v(s)]`$, become

$$K_j(ts)=K_j^0(ts)w_j(t)w_j(s).$$
(4.6)
where $`K_j^0=𝔼[R_j(\phi (x,t)R_j(\phi (x,s)]`$ can be evaluated by Monte-Carlo: Sample initial data from the invariant distribution over and over, solve the resulting system of equations, whose solutions are statistically stationary in time, and average. Note that this calculation does not depend on the particular known initial values $`\widehat{x}`$, and thus can be done once and for all for a given equation and a given level of truncation. The time evolution of the $`v_j(t)`$ need be accurate only as long as $`v_j(t)`$ and $`v_j(0)`$ are correlated.

Substitute this into the Langevin equation: there is no impediment to using the true $`e^{tQL}`$ in the third term; then average with respect to $`x`$; note that the $`K_j`$ are functions of time only and commute with a projection on the initial data, while the average of the third term is 0. We find the following equation:

$$\frac{d}{dt}\widehat{y}_j=w(t)_0^t\underset{1}{\overset{m}{}}(K_j^0(ts)w_j(t)w_j(s))\widehat{y}_j(s)ds,$$
(4.7)
where $`j=1,\mathrm{},m`$ and $`\widehat{y}(\widehat{x},0)=\widehat{x}`$.

Equation (4.7) states that the solution of the problem depends not only on the mean of the $`R`$ but also on the autocorrelation of the fluctuations. The solution is thus “renormalized” ( see e.g ). The sources of error in (4.7) are: An inconsistent use of projections, a simplistic solution of the orthogonal dynamics, and possibly an inaccurate Monte-Carlo evaluation of the kernels $`K^0`$. All can be remedied.

In the example, (4.7) reduces to:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}y_1`$ $`=`$ $`w(t){\displaystyle _0^t}(K^0(ts)w(t)w(s))y_1(s)𝑑s,`$ (4.8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}y_2`$ $`=`$ $`y_1,`$ (4.9)
The kernel $`K^0`$ is $`K^0=𝔼[R_1(\phi (x,t))R_1(\phi (x,s))],R_1(\phi )=\phi _2\phi _2\phi _4^2`$, $`w(t)=y_2y_2/(1+y_2^2)`$, and the expected value in $`K^0`$ is evaluated over all choices of $`x`$ in $`n=4`$ dimensions drawn from the invariant distribution with density $`Z^1e^{H/T}`$.

In Figure 1 we display some numerical results for $`y_1(t)`$ in the example, with data $`x_1=1,x_2=0`$. We show the “truth” found by averaging many solutions of the full $`4`$dimensional system, the Galerkin approximation that sets all unknown functions to zero, the first-order optimal prediction, and the solution of equation (4.9). The solutions are shown in a rather favorable case ( they look less striking if one exchanges for example the values of $`x_1,x_2`$).

## 5 Conclusions

At first sight, the results in Figure 1 are interesting but not overwhelming: The cost of evaluating $`K^0`$ is comparable to the cost of evaluating the ”truth” by Monte-Carlo, and the gain is not obvious. One may note however, that once $`K^0`$ has been evaluated, the cost of rerunning the calculation with any other initial data $`\widehat{x}`$ is negligible.

This is the significant fact: $`K^0`$ is evaluated “at equilibrium”, i.e., with all components of $`x`$, the initial data, sampled from the invariant measure; $`K^0`$ does not depend on any specific initial value. As we shall show elsewhere, the analogous statement is true for an accurate solution of the orthogonal dynamics. Once the heavy work of determining memory functions has been done, the solution of a specific problem is plain sailing. At equilibrium, one can bring to bear the panoply of scaling methods and equilibrium statistical mechanics. One can say that the Mori-Zwanzig formalism makes possible the use of “universal” (non problem specific) results to solve specific problems. In some of the applications we have in mind, the “large” ($`n`$-dimensional) problems are partial differential equations, and then imperfections in the evaluation of memory terms are immaterial as long as the rate of convergence of finite-dimensional approximations is enhanced ( see ).

It is taken for granted in the physics literature that the memory kernels are autocorrelations of the “noise” (i.e., the orthogonal dynamics). This is true also in the example we have presented here. However, it should be obvious from the discussion that this is an artifact of the use of $`P^{}`$, the linear projection, and that the full truth is more complicated and interesting.

Furthermore, in the physics literature one usually deals with memory by separating “fast” and ”slow” variables and assuming that the orthogonal dynamics generated by “fast” variables generate “noise” with delta-function memory ; note in contrast that in our problem the unresolved and the resolved variables have exactly the same time scale.

Finally, the heuristic arguments of the present paper will be replaced in general by a systematic approximation of the Langevin equation, including a systematic evaluation of the orthogonal dynamics, as we will explain in future publications.

## 6 Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Prof. G.I. Barenblatt, Dr. E. Chorin, Mr. E. Ingerman, Dr. A. Kast, Mr. K. Lin, for helpful discussions and comments, and Mr. P. Okunev for help in programming. This work was supported in part by by the Applied Mathematical Sciences subprogram of the Office of Energy Research of the US Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC03-76-SF00098, and in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant DMS98-14631. R.K. was supported by the Israel Science Foundation founded by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The forthcoming B-factories will make more precise measurements on the rare B-decay processes and those measurements would set more strict constraints on the new physics beyond the SM. The purpose to investigate B-decays, especially the rare decay modes is to search for traces of new physics and determine its parameter space.

The new physics effects on the rare B processes are intensively discussed in literature. If we believe that the SM is only an effective theory and the supersymmetry is more fundamental, measurements of rare B-processes will definitely enrich our knowledge in this field. But before we can really pin down any new physics effects, we need to carry out a thorough exploration in this area, not only in SM, but also in many plausible models, especially the supersymmetric model.

The calculation of the rate of inclusive decay $`BX_s\gamma `$ is presented by authors of  in the two-Higgs doublet model (2HDM). The supersymmetric effect on $`BX_s\gamma `$ is discussed in  and the next-to-leading order (NLO) QCD corrections are given in . The transition $`bs\gamma \gamma `$ in the supersymmetric extension of the standard model is computed in . The hadronic B decays and CP-violation in those processes have been discussed also. The authors of  have discussed possibility of observing supersymmetric effects in rare decays $`BX_s\gamma `$ and $`BX_se^+e^{}`$ at the B-factory. Studies on decays $`B(K,K^{})l^+l^{}`$ in SM and supersymmetric model have been carried out in . The supersymmetric effects on these processes are very interesting and studies on them may shed some light on the general characteristics of the supersymmetric model. A relevant review can be found in . For oscillations of $`B_0\overline{B}_0`$ ($`K_0\overline{K}_0`$), calculations have been done in the SM and 2HDM. As for the supersymmetric extension of SM, the calculation involving the gluino contributions should be re-studied carefully for gluino has a nonzero mass. At the NLO approximation, the QCD corrections to the $`B_0\overline{B}_0`$ mixing in the supersymmetry model have been discussed recently. The authors of  applied the mass-insertion method to estimate QCD corrections to the $`B_0\overline{B}_0`$ mixing. The calculations including the gluon-mediated QCD were given in, and later we have re-derived the formulation by including the contribution of gluinos .

The supersymmetry effects influence the rare B processes in two ways:

* the Wilson coefficients of the operators existing in the standard model case receive corrections from the supersymmetry sector. As far as the four-quark operators are concerned, the supersymmetric contribution begins at the order of $`O(\alpha _s)`$ along with the SM QCD corrections.
* when the supersymmetry effects are taken into account, the operator basis is enlarged, new operators emerge.

Generally speaking, theoretical predictions on the inclusive decay rates of B-mesons rest on solid grounds due to the fact that these rates can be systematically expanded in powers of $`\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}}{m_b}`$, where the leading term corresponds to the decay width of free b-quark. As the power corrections only start at $`𝒪(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2}{m_b^2})`$, they affect these rates by at most a few percent. Theoretically, the non-spectator effects of order $`16\pi ^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}}{m_b}\right)^3`$ could be large, especially for the charmless decay modes of B-mesons . The main contributions to the lifetimes of B-mesons and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ are from the b-quark decays which are thoroughly studied in the framework of SM.

All the theoretical calculations are based on the weak effective Lagrangian which determines the effective vertices in the concerned Feynman diagrams. The NLO calculation has been carried out in SM, but is not complete for the supersymmetric extension. In order to study the supersymmetry effects in those low energy processes, one should obtain a complete effective Lagrangian which includes the supersymmetric contributions at the order $`O(\alpha _s)`$. Here we consider the supersymmetric model with minimal flavor violation (MFV), i.e. all flavor transitions occur only in the charged-current sector and are determined by the standard Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) mechanism.

In this work, we perform a complete analysis on the $`|\mathrm{\Delta }B|=1`$ effective Lagrangian, including the current-current operators and penguin-induced operators within the framework of the MFV supersymmetry.

After matching between the full MFV supersymmetric theory and the effective Lagrangian, the Wilson coefficients for concerned operators are obtained at the weak scale. Using the recently developed two-loop QCD anomalous dimension matrix of flavor changing four-quark operators, we discuss the evolution of the $`|\mathrm{\Delta }B|=1`$ non-leptonic effective Lagrangian from the weak scale down to the hadronic scale.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we review the minimal flavor violation supersymmetric model and give the notations adopted in our analysis. In section 3, the detailed derivations of the effective Lagrangian at the weak and hadronic scales are made. Then in section 4, we present the numerical results which explicitly demonstrate the difference of the Wilson coefficients in MFV supersymmetry and SM. We discuss the numerical results and make a short summary in section 5. Some complicated and tedious expressions are collected in the appendices.

## 2 The supersymmetry with minimal flavor violation

Throughout this paper we adopt the notation similar to Ref., the expressions of the concerned propagators and vertices can be found in the appendix of Ref.. For convenience, we write down the superpotential and relevant mixing matrices. The most general form of the superpotential which does not violate gauge invariance and the SM conservation laws is

$`𝒲=\mu ϵ_{ij}\widehat{H}_i^1\widehat{H}_j^2+ϵ_{ij}h_l^I\widehat{H}_i^1\widehat{L}_j^I\widehat{R}^Ih_d^I(\widehat{H}_1^1\widehat{Q}_2^I\widehat{H}_2^1V^{IJ}\widehat{Q}_1^J)\widehat{D}^Ih_u^I(\widehat{H}_1^2V^{JI}\widehat{Q}_2^J\widehat{H}_2^2\widehat{Q}_1^I)\widehat{U}^I.`$ (1)
Here, the weak $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ doublets of quark superfields have been written in the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}V^{IJ}\widehat{Q}_1^J\\ \widehat{Q}_2^I\end{array}\right),$$

where $`I=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}`$ are the indices of generations. The Higgs and lepton doublets are denoted by $`\widehat{H}^1`$, $`\widehat{H}^2`$ and $`\widehat{L}^I`$, respectively. The rest superfields $`\widehat{U}^I`$, $`\widehat{D}^I`$ and $`\widehat{R}^I`$ are quark superfields of u- and d-types and charged leptons in singlets of the weak SU(2). Indices i, j are contracted for the SU(2) group, and $`h_l`$, $`h_{u,d}`$ are the Yukawa couplings.

In order to break the supersymmetry, the soft breaking terms are introduced as

$`_{soft}=m_{H^1}^2H_i^1H_i^1m_{H^2}^2H_i^2H_i^2m_{L^I}^2\stackrel{~}{L}_i^I\stackrel{~}{L}_i^I`$
$`m_{R^I}^2\stackrel{~}{R}^I\stackrel{~}{R}^Im_{Q^I}^2\stackrel{~}{Q}_i^I\stackrel{~}{Q}_i^Im_{U^I}^2\stackrel{~}{U}^I\stackrel{~}{U}^I`$
$`m_{D^I}^2\stackrel{~}{D}^I\stackrel{~}{D}^I+(m_1\lambda _B\lambda _1+m_2\lambda _A^i\lambda _A^i`$
$`+m_3\lambda _G^a\lambda _G^a+h.c.)+[B\mu ϵ_{ij}H_i^1H_j^2+ϵ_{ij}A_l^Ih_l^IH_i^1\stackrel{~}{L}_j^I\stackrel{~}{R}^I`$
$`A_d^Ih_d^I(H_1^1\stackrel{~}{Q}_2^IH_2^1V^{IJ}\stackrel{~}{Q}_1^J)\stackrel{~}{D}^IA_u^Ih_u^I(H_1^2V^{JI}\stackrel{~}{Q}_2^JH_2^2\stackrel{~}{Q}_1^I)\stackrel{~}{U}^I+h.c.]+\mathrm{}`$ (2)
where $`m_{H^1}^2,m_{H^2}^2,m_{L^I}^2,m_{R^I}^2,m_{Q^I}^2,m_{U^I}^2`$ and $`m_{D^I}^2`$ are the parameters of dimension two, while $`m_3,m_2,m_1`$ denote the masses of $`\lambda _G^a(a=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}8}),\lambda _A^i(i=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3})`$, and $`\lambda _B`$, the $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ gauginos. $`B`$ is a free parameter of dimension one. $`A_l^I,A_u^I,A_d^I(I=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3})`$ are the soft breaking trilinear couplings of scalars. The dots in Eq.2 stand for flavor-off-diagonal terms (e.g. $`m_{Q^K}^2Q_1^IQ_1^J(\delta ^{KI}\delta ^{KJ}V^{KI}V^{KJ})`$) that are assumed to be negligible. Such terms do occur in our numerical calculation in section 4, but are indeed very small.

Taking into account of the soft breaking terms Eq.(2), we can study the phenomenology within the supersymmetric extension of the standard model with minimal flavor violation (MFV MSSM). Once the favor-off-diagonal soft supersymmetry breaking terms are neglected, the squark mass matrices can be written as $`2\times 2`$ matrices for each flavor separately:

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{U}^I}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{Q^I}^2+m_{u^I}^2+(\frac{1}{2}\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{W})\mathrm{cos}2\beta m_\mathrm{Z}^2& m_{u^I}(A_u^I+\mu \mathrm{cot}\beta )\\ m_{u^I}(A_u^I+\mu \mathrm{cot}\beta )& m_{U^I}^2+m_{u^I}^2+\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{W}\mathrm{cos}2\beta m_\mathrm{Z}^2\end{array}\right),`$ (5)
and

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{D}^I}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{Q^I}^2+m_{d^I}^2+(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{W})\mathrm{cos}2\beta m_\mathrm{Z}^2& m_{d^I}(A_d^I+\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta )\\ m_{d^I}(A_d^I+\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta )& m_{D^I}^2+m_{d^I}^2\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{W}\mathrm{cos}2\beta m_\mathrm{Z}^2\end{array}\right),`$ (8)
with $`m_{u^I},m_{d^I}(I=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3})`$ are the masses of the I-th generation quarks.

The SM and the MSSM differ in their Higgs sectors. There are four charged scalars, two of them are physical massive Higgs bosons and other are massless Goldstones. The mixing matrix can be written as:

$$𝒵_H=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{sin}\beta & \mathrm{cos}\beta \\ \mathrm{cos}\beta & \mathrm{sin}\beta \end{array}\right)$$
(9)
with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =\frac{\upsilon _2}{\upsilon _1}`$ and $`v_1,v_2`$ are the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs scalars. Another matrix that we will use is the chargino mixing matrix. The supersymmetric partners of the charged Higgs and $`W^\pm `$ combine to give two Dirac fermions: $`\chi _1^\pm `$, $`\chi _2^\pm `$. The two mixing matrices $`𝒵^\pm `$ appearing in the Lagrangian are defined as

$`(𝒵^{})^T_c𝒵^+=diag(m_{\chi _1},m_{\chi _2}),`$ (10)
where

$$_c=\left(\begin{array}{cc}2m_2& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g_2\upsilon _2\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g_2\upsilon _1& \mu \end{array}\right)$$

is the mass matrix of charginos with $`g_2`$ denoting the gauge coupling of $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$. In a similar way, $`𝒵_{U,D}`$ diagonalize the mass matrices of the up- and down-type squarks respectively:

$`𝒵_{U^I}^{}m_{\stackrel{~}{U}^I}^2𝒵_{U^I}=diag(m_{\stackrel{~}{U}_1^I}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{U}_2^I}^2),`$
$`𝒵_{D^I}^{}m_{\stackrel{~}{D}^I}^2𝒵_{D^I}=diag(m_{\stackrel{~}{D}_1^I}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{D}_2^I}^2).`$ (11)
With those mixing matrices defined above, we can write the interaction vertices as in Ref..

## 3 Matching the coefficients of operators

As in the SM case, we need to obtain the low-energy effective Lagrangian with five quarks, and while deriving it, the heavy supersymmetric degrees of freedom as well as that of SM, including top quark, W-bosons, charged Higgs bosons and the supersymmetric partners of the standard particles are integrated out. In this work we only retain the operators up to dimension six. In this approximation the effective Lagrangian for $`|\mathrm{\Delta }B|=1`$ reads

$`_{eff}={\displaystyle \frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{10}{}}}\left(C_i^c(\mu )Q_i^c+\stackrel{~}{C}_i^c(\mu )\stackrel{~}{Q}_i^c\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{5}{}}}C_j^p(\mu )Q_j^p\right]`$ (12)
where $`G_F`$ is the Fermi coupling constant, $`C_i^c(\mu ),\stackrel{~}{C}_i^c(\mu ),C_j^p(\mu )(i=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10};j=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}5})`$ are the Wilson coefficients evaluated at the scale $`\mu `$; $`V_{tb}`$ and $`V_{ts}`$ are the matrix elements of the CKM matrix. Making the effective Lagrangian close under the QCD renormalization, we include the penguin operator $`Q_5^p`$ beside those four-quark operators.

As commonly adopted in literature, we classify the operators as the current-current operators which are originally induced by the tree level W-exchange interaction and one-loop ’box’ diagrams, and the ”penguin-”induced operators. Both of them would undergo QCD corrections and receive contributions from supersymmetric particles via loops.

The current-current operators are written as

$`Q_1^c=\left(\overline{s}_\alpha \gamma _\mu \omega _{}c_\beta \right)\left(\overline{c}_\beta \gamma ^\mu \omega _{}b_\alpha \right),`$
$`Q_2^c=\left(\overline{s}_\alpha \gamma _\mu \omega _{}c_\alpha \right)\left(\overline{c}_\beta \gamma ^\mu \omega _{}b_\beta \right),`$
$`Q_3^c=\left(\overline{s}_\alpha \omega _{}c_\beta \right)\left(\overline{c}_\beta \omega _{}b_\alpha \right),`$
$`Q_4^c=\left(\overline{s}_\alpha \omega _{}c_\alpha \right)\left(\overline{c}_\beta \omega _{}b_\beta \right),`$
$`Q_5^c=\left(\overline{s}_\alpha \sigma _{\mu \nu }\omega _{}c_\beta \right)\left(\overline{c}_\beta \sigma ^{\mu \nu }\omega _{}b_\alpha \right),`$
$`Q_6^c=\left(\overline{s}_\alpha \sigma _{\mu \nu }\omega _{}c_\alpha \right)\left(\overline{c}_\beta \sigma ^{\mu \nu }\omega _{}b_\beta \right),`$
$`Q_7^c=\left(\overline{s}_\alpha \gamma _\mu \omega _{}c_\beta \right)\left(\overline{c}_\beta \gamma ^\mu \omega _+b_\alpha \right),`$
$`Q_8^c=\left(\overline{s}_\alpha \gamma _\mu \omega _{}c_\alpha \right)\left(\overline{c}_\beta \gamma ^\mu \omega _+b_\beta \right),`$
$`Q_9^c=\left(\overline{s}_\alpha \omega _{}c_\beta \right)\left(\overline{c}_\beta \omega _+b_\alpha \right),`$
$`Q_{10}^c=\left(\overline{s}_\alpha \omega _{}c_\alpha \right)\left(\overline{c}_\beta \omega _+b_\beta \right),`$ (13)
where $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }=\frac{i}{2}[\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\nu ]`$ and $`\omega _\pm =\frac{1\pm \gamma _5}{2}`$. In the standard model, there are only two such operators i.e. $`Q_1^c,Q_2^c`$, 18 new operators are induced when supersymmetry takes part in the game. There are other ten current-current operators which are simply obtained by interchanging $`\omega _\pm \omega _{}`$ in $`Q_i^c`$, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_i^c=Q_i^c(\omega _\pm \omega _{})`$. Due to the small CKM entries for the u-analog operators in the $`|\mathrm{\Delta }B|=1`$ effective Lagrangian, $`V_{us}^{}V_{ub}<<V_{cs}^{}V_{cb}`$ the u-quark analogs of the effective Lagrangian in Eq.12 can be neglected. The basis of the penguin-induced operators consists of

$`Q_1^p=\left(\overline{s}_\alpha \gamma _\mu \omega _{}b_\alpha \right){\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\left(\overline{q}_\beta \gamma ^\mu \omega _{}q_\beta \right),`$
$`Q_2^p=\left(\overline{s}_\alpha \gamma _\mu \omega _{}b_\beta \right){\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\left(\overline{q}_\beta \gamma ^\mu \omega _{}q_\alpha \right),`$
$`Q_3^p=\left(\overline{s}_\alpha \gamma _\mu \omega _{}b_\alpha \right){\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\left(\overline{q}_\beta \gamma ^\mu \omega _+q_\beta \right),`$
$`Q_4^p=\left(\overline{s}_\alpha \gamma _\mu \omega _{}b_\beta \right){\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\left(\overline{q}_\beta \gamma ^\mu \omega _+q_\alpha \right),`$
$`Q_5^p={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}\overline{s}g_sG\sigma (m_s\omega _{}+m_b\omega _+)b,`$ (14)
with $`q=u,d,c,s,b`$, $`G_{\mu \nu }G_{\mu \nu }^aT^a`$ denotes the gluon field strength tensor, $`G_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu G_\nu ^a_\nu G_\mu ^a+g_sf^{abc}G_\mu ^bG_\nu ^c`$, and $`G\sigma G_{\mu \nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }`$.

In the following sections, we will derive the Wilson coefficients for the current-current operators in Eq.13 and penguin-induced operators in Eq.14.

### 3.1 The difference of quark field normalization in the full and effective theories while taking the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme

In order to systematically investigate all corrections of the supersymmetry QCD to the vertex $`\overline{d}uW`$ including the self-energies of external quark legs, Ciuchini et.al used the on-shell scheme to subtract the divergence of the quark fields and the $`\overline{d}u\mathrm{W}`$ vertex that originates from supersymmetric partners, whereas the divergence originating from the SM sector is still subtracted out in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme. In this work, we will employ the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme throughout and show that the results are qualitatively consistent with theirs.

It is noted that there is a difference of the normalization of the quark fields in the full supersymmetric theory and the effective theory while taking the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme. As a matter of fact, for the self-energy which determines the renormalization of the wave functions, the Feynman diagrams in the effective theory are the same as the standard model part of the full theory, therefore there is not normalization ambiguity in the SM case. When the supersymmetry sector is included, there exists an extra term from the supersymmetry sector and the normalizations of the external quark fields are not the same after renormalization in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme, as

$$\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{\Delta }Z_{SM}^{full}+\mathrm{\Delta }Z_{MSSM}^{full}}\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{\Delta }Z^{eff}},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }Z_{SM}^{full}=\mathrm{\Delta }Z^{eff}`$ and the superscript ”eff” denotes the quantities in the effective theory. Thus one cannot simply match the vertex-induced Lagrangian in the full and effective theories because the external quark fields have different normalizations. That is understood that in both the full and effective theories, the SM quarks exist, but the supersymmetry particles (squarks and gluinos) only exist in the full theory, but are integrated out to produce the effective Lagrangian. The difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }Z^{full}\mathrm{\Delta }Z^{eff}=\mathrm{\Delta }Z_{MSSM}^{full}`$ is a finite renormalization effect which should be included when we match the Lagrangian in the full and effective theories. Namely, when we match the Lagrangians, we not only consider the contributions from the vertices, but also include this normalization difference. We find that the large logarithms which exist in the vertex contributions and this normalization difference would cancel each other exactly and then the decoupling theorem is obvious.

The difference manifests as a finite renormalization contribution to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=1`$ effective Lagrangian, which will be expressed explicitly in the following computation.

The supersymmetric contributions to the self-energy are

$`i\mathrm{\Sigma }_u^{^{susy}}(p)=i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}C_F\{(\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{ln}x_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^I}}}{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^I}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^I}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^I}}}{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^I}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}^2\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^I}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^I}}}{(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^I}})^2}})(Z_{\stackrel{~}{U}^I}^{1i}Z_{\stackrel{~}{U}^I}^{1i}/p\omega _{}`$
$`+Z_{\stackrel{~}{U}^I}^{2i}Z_{\stackrel{~}{U}^I}^{2i}/p\omega _+)+2m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^I}}(\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^I}})}{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^I}}}}(Z_{\stackrel{~}{U}^I}^{1i}Z_{\stackrel{~}{U}^I}^{2i}\omega _{}+Z_{\stackrel{~}{U}^I}^{1i}Z_{\stackrel{~}{U}^I}^{2i}\omega _+)\},`$
$`i\mathrm{\Sigma }_d^{^{susy}}(p)=i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}C_F\{(\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{ln}x_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^I}}}{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^I}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^I}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^I}}}{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^I}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}^2\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^I}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^I}}}{(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^I}})^2}})(Z_{\stackrel{~}{D}^I}^{1i}Z_{\stackrel{~}{D}^I}^{1i}/p\omega _{}`$
$`+Z_{\stackrel{~}{D}^I}^{2i}Z_{\stackrel{~}{D}^I}^{2i}/p\omega _+)+2m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^I}}(\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^I}})}{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^I}}}}(Z_{\stackrel{~}{D}^I}^{1i}Z_{\stackrel{~}{D}^I}^{2i}\omega _{}+Z_{\stackrel{~}{D}^I}^{1i}Z_{\stackrel{~}{D}^I}^{2i}\omega _+)\},`$ (15)
where $`x_\mu =\frac{\mu _W^2}{m_\mathrm{W}^2},x_i=\frac{m_i^2}{m_\mathrm{W}^2}.`$ In the expressions the first term is the correction to the wave function of the quarks whereas the second term corresponds to the supersymmetric contributions to the quark masses. In Eq.15, if we complete the renormalization for the quark fields in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme, the divergent part in the renormalization multiplier which should be subtracted is

$$\delta Z_q^\pm (\overline{\mathrm{MS}})=\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }C_F\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(16)
When matching the full and effective theories in $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme, there is a difference of the renormalized quark fields, so that we need to derive the extra contribution.

In literature , the on-mass-shell renormalization  is adopted, by which after renormalization the residue of the self-energy should be one at the physical mass, so that the normalization ambiguity does not exist. However, in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme, there is no such a requirement. From Eq.15, we have the difference of the normalization of the quark fields in the full supersymmetric theory and the effective theory while taking the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }Z_{u^I}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}C_F\left(\mathrm{ln}x_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}Z_{\stackrel{~}{U}^I}^{1i}Z_{\stackrel{~}{U}^I}^{1i}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^I}}}{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^I}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^I}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^I}}}{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^I}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}^2\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^I}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^I}}}{(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^I}})^2}}\right)\right),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }Z_{d^I}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}C_F\left(\mathrm{ln}x_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}Z_{\stackrel{~}{D}^I}^{1i}Z_{\stackrel{~}{D}^I}^{1i}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^I}}}{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^I}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^I}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^I}}}{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^I}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}^2\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^I}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^I}}}{(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^I}})^2}}\right)\right),`$ (17)
When we match the Lagrangians in the full and effective theories, we not only consider the vertex-induced contributions, but also need to include this finite renormalization contribution. Thus taking this normalization difference into account, we obtain the Wilson coefficients of the current-current operators in the full and effective theories.

### 3.2 The Wilson coefficients of current-current operators

The Wilson coefficients $`C_i^c,\stackrel{~}{C}_i^c(i=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10})`$ in Eq.12 can be determined by the requirement that the amplitude $`A_{full}`$ in the full theory is equal to the corresponding amplitude in the effective theory at the weak scale

$`A_{full}=A_{eff}={\displaystyle \frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{cs}^{}V_{cb}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{10}{}}}\left\{C_i^cQ_i^c+\stackrel{~}{C}_i^c\stackrel{~}{Q}_i^c\left[\mathrm{\Delta }Z_c^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }Z_b^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }Z_s^{}\right]Q_2^c\right\}.`$ (18)
The QCD induced one-loop Feynman diagrams responsible for $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=1`$ effective Lagrangian in the minimal flavor violation supersymmetric theory and effective theory are drawn in Fig.1 and Fig.2 respectively. The last term of Eq.18 originates from the difference of quark field normalization in the full and effective theories. Considering the QCD corrections of current-current operators, we can extract the Wilson coefficients $`C_i^c,\stackrel{~}{C}_i^c`$ at the $`\mu _\mathrm{W}`$ scale. The expressions for those coefficients are presented in appendix A, and one can notice that all resultant $`C_i^c`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_i^c`$ are free of infrared divergence. The first terms of $`C_1^c(\mu _W)`$ and $`C_2^c(\mu _W)`$ are the SM contribution whereas the other terms are due to the supersymmetry contributions. Other non-zero Wilson coefficients $`C_i^c(\mu _W),\stackrel{~}{C}_j^c(\mu _W)(i=3,4,\mathrm{},10,j=1,2,\mathrm{},10)`$ all originate from contributions of scalar quarks and gluino. Provided $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=m_{_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}}=m_{_{SUSY}}`$, we have

$`C_2^c(\mu _W)C_{2_{\mathrm{SM}}}^c(\mu _W)=1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}(\mathrm{ln}x_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{11}{6}}),`$
$`C_1^c(\mu _W)C_{1_{\mathrm{SM}}}^c(\mu _W)={\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha _s}{4\pi }}(\mathrm{ln}x_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{11}{6}}),\mathrm{as}m_{_{SUSY}}\mu _W,`$ (19)
which recovers the SM result. When $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\mathrm{}`$, but $`m_{\stackrel{~}{U}}=m_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^I}(I=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3};i=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2})`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{D}}=m_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^I}(I=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3};i=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2})`$ remain finite, we also have $`C_{1,2}^c(\mu _W)C_{1,2_{\mathrm{SM}}}^c(\mu _W)`$. From the equations given in the appendix, one observes that in $`C_2^c(\mu _W)`$ if all the mass parameters of the supersymmetric particles tend to infinity or they are the same, i.e. the supersymmetric particles are degenerate in mass (it is exactly the mSUGRA case) all the $`x`$-value related terms cancel each other. Here we take into account the fact $`𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{U}^{1,2}}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{D}^{1,2,3}}𝐈`$ in the mSUGRA scenario. In other coefficients $`C_1^c,C_3^c`$ etc. the logarithm-related terms are automatically suppressed to zero when the supersymmetric particles are very heavy (see appendix A for details). Those results indicate the decoupling of the supersymmetric sector as the supersymmetric partners turn to be very heavy.

In order to give a complete $`|\mathrm{\Delta }B|=1`$ non-leptonic effective Lagrangian with five quarks, we should include the contributions of penguin diagrams. In our present work, we only consider the gluon-penguin.

### 3.3 The Wilson coefficients of penguin-induced operators

In this section, we derive the Wilson coefficients for the penguin-induced dimension six operators. The basis for the penguin-induced operators is given in Eq.14. The one-loop Feynman diagrams for the penguin-induced operators are drawn in Fig.3. The obtained coefficients $`C_i^p(\mu _\mathrm{W})`$ read

$`C_1^p(\mu _\mathrm{W})={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\mathrm{ln}x_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}E(x_t,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^3}},x_{\chi _j})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\right],`$
$`C_2^p(\mu _\mathrm{W})={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{ln}x_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}E(x_t,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^3}},x_{\chi _j}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\right],`$
$`C_3^p(\mu _\mathrm{W})={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\mathrm{ln}x_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}E(x_t,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^3}},x_{\chi _j})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\right],`$
$`C_4^p(\mu _\mathrm{W})={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{ln}x_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}E(x_t,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^3}},x_{\chi _j}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\right],`$
(20)
where

$`E(x_t,x__H,x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^3}},x_{\chi _j})=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{18x_t11x_t^2x_t^3}{12(1x_t)^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(4+16x_t9x_t^2)\mathrm{ln}x_t}{6(1x_t)^4}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(2x_tx__H^33x_t^2x__H^2)(\mathrm{ln}x_t\mathrm{ln}x__H)}{6(x__Hx_t)^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{16x_tx__H^229x_t^2x__H+7x_t^3}{36(x__Hx_t)^3}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}|𝒜^{ij}|^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_{\chi _j}^3(\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^3}}\mathrm{ln}x_{\chi _j})}{6(x_{\chi _j}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^3}})^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{11x_{\chi _j}^27x_{\chi _j}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^3}}+2x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^3}}^2}{18(x_{\chi _j}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^3}})^3}}\right].`$ (21)
The Wilson coefficient of $`Q_5^p`$ is

$`C_5^p(\mu _\mathrm{W})=x_t[{\displaystyle \frac{3x_t\mathrm{ln}x_t}{4(1x_t)^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2+5x_tx_t^2}{8(1x_t)^3}}]+\{[{\displaystyle \frac{x_tx__H^2(\mathrm{ln}x_t\mathrm{ln}x__H)}{2(x__Hx_t)^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3x__Hx_tx_t^2}{4(x__Hx_t)^2}}]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }}[{\displaystyle \frac{x_t^2x__H^2(\mathrm{ln}x_t\mathrm{ln}x__H)}{4(x__Hx_t)^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{2x_tx__H^2+5x_t^2x__Hx_t^3}{24(x__Hx_t)^3}}]\}`$
$`+\{{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}|𝒜^{ij}|^2[{\displaystyle \frac{x_{\chi _j}^2x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^3}}(\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^3}}\mathrm{ln}x_{\chi _j})}{2(x_{\chi _j}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^3}})^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2x_{\chi _j}^2+5x_{\chi _j}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^3}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^3}}^2}{12(x_{\chi _j}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^3}})^3}}]`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}m_{\chi _j}^{ij}[{\displaystyle \frac{x_{\chi _j}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^3}}(\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^3}}\mathrm{ln}x_{\chi _j})}{(x_{\chi _j}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^3}})^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_{\chi _j}+x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^3}}}{2(x_{\chi _j}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_i^3}})^2}}]\}.`$ (22)
The first terms of Eq.21 and Eq.22 are the SM contributions, the second and the third terms are the contributions from charged Higgs and supersymmetric particles respectively. In the above expression, we only keep the contribution of the up-type scalar quarks of the third generation, and that from other squarks are ignored for their large masses. The matrix $`𝒜,`$ are written as

$`𝒜^{ij}=𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{U}^3}^{1i}𝒵_{1j}^++{\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{\sqrt{2}m_\mathrm{W}\mathrm{sin}\beta }}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{U}^3}^{2i}𝒵_{2j}^+`$
$`^{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{U}^3}^{1i}𝒵_{2j}^{}}{\sqrt{2}m_\mathrm{W}\mathrm{cos}\beta }}\left(𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{U}^3}^{1i}𝒵_{1j}^++{\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{\sqrt{2}m_\mathrm{W}\mathrm{sin}\beta }}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{U}^3}^{2i}𝒵_{2j}^+\right)`$ (23)
with $`𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{U}^3},𝒵^+`$ are the mixing matrices of scalar top quarks and charginos respectively. Because we are working in the framework of supersymmetric extension of SM, the effective vertex $`bsg`$ must take in the contribution of supersymmetric particles, thus the penguin-induced Lagrangian is somewhat different from that within SM. It is noticed that the $`m_H`$ related terms i.e. the last two terms in Eq.21 and Eq.22 tend to zero when $`m_H\mathrm{}`$ and as well as $`m_{_{SUSY}}\mathrm{}`$.

When we only keep the Yukawa coupling of the top-quark to the Higgs boson and assuming that the masses of the scalar quarks except top scalar quarks are highly degenerate, and the weak eigenstates are the eigenstates of the masses, i.e. $`𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{U}}=𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{D}}=1`$, we find that only the coefficients of $`Q_1^c,Q_2^c`$ and the five penguin-induced operators are not zero, whereas the Wilson coefficients of other operators vanish. This is exactly the operator basis existing in the standard model. In the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme, the Wilson coefficients are simplified as

$`C_1^c(\mu _\mathrm{W})=3{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}(\mathrm{ln}x_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{11}{6}})2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}𝒵_{1k}^{}𝒵_{1k}^{}[{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}^2\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}}{(x_{_{\chi _k^+}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}})(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}})^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\chi _k^+}}^2\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\chi _k^+}}}{(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\chi _k^+}})(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}}x_{_{\chi _k^+}})^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}}^2\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}}}{(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}})^2(x_{_{\chi _k^+}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}})}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}}^2\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}}}{(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}})(x_{_{\chi _k^+}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}})^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}}(2\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}}+1)}{(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}})(x_{_{\chi _k^+}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}})}}],`$
$`C_2^c(\mu _\mathrm{W})=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}(\mathrm{ln}x_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{11}{6}})\right){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}}}{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}}^2)\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}}+x_{_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}}^2\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}}{(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}})^2}}\right),`$ (24)
the Wilson coefficients of the penguin-induced operators remain unchanged and the other Wilson coefficients vanish.

### 3.4 The evolution of the Wilson coefficients

Many flavor-changing processes occur at the hadronic scale with $`\mu _{hadron}\mu _\mathrm{W}`$. Generally, first a few terms in the perturbative expansion of the amplitudes are sufficient when the renormalization scale $`\mu `$ is close to $`\mu _{hadron}`$ rather than to $`\mu _\mathrm{W}`$. The Wilson coefficients $`C_i^c,\stackrel{~}{C}_i^c,C_i^p`$ at $`\mu _{hadron}`$ are obtained from $`C_i^c(\mu _\mathrm{W}),\stackrel{~}{C}_i^c(\mu _\mathrm{W}),C_i^p(\mu _\mathrm{W})`$ with help of the Renormalization Group Equations (RGEs) evolution. If we define a $`1\times 24`$ matrix as

$$\stackrel{}{𝐂}=(C_1^c,C_2^c,\mathrm{},C_{10}^c,\stackrel{~}{C}_1^c,\stackrel{~}{C}_2^c,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{C}_{10}^c,C_1^p,C_2^p,C_3^p,C_4^p),$$
(25)
and the RGEs for the Wilson coefficients are

$$\mu \frac{d}{d\mu }\stackrel{}{𝐂}(\mu )=\stackrel{}{𝐂}(\mu )\widehat{\gamma }(\mu ).$$
(26)
Here, $`\widehat{\gamma }`$ is the anomalous dimension matrix which has the following form in the perturbative expansion

$$\widehat{\gamma }(\mu )=\frac{\alpha _s(\mu )}{4\pi }\widehat{\gamma }^{(0)}+\left(\frac{\alpha _s(\mu )}{4\pi }\right)^2\widehat{\gamma }^{(1)}.$$
(27)
Adopting the Naive Dimensional Regularization$`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ (NDR-$`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$) scheme, Buras et.al have given the anomalous dimension matrix up to two-loop order in the basis of Eq.13 and Eq.14.

With the RGEs (26) and the Wilson coefficients at the weak scale as the initial condition, we can derive the effective Lagrangian of five quarks at the hadronic scale.

## 4 Numerical results

Indeed, there are too many free parameters in the minimal supersymmetric extension of SM (MSSM). In order to reduce the number of free parameters, we assume that the MSSM is a low-energy effective theory of a more fundamental theory which exists at a higher scale, such as the grand unification scale or the Planck scale. A realization of this idea is the minimal supergravity (mSUGRA), which is fully specified by five parameters

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

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

$`A_l^I=A_d^I=A_u^I=A_0,`$ (28)
$`B=A_01,`$
$`m_{H^1}^2=m_{H^2}^2=m_{L^I}^2=m_{R^I}^2=m_{Q^I}^2=m_{U^I}^2=m_{D^I}^2=m_0^2,`$
$`m_1=m_2=m_3=m_{\frac{1}{2}}.`$
For the SM parameters, we have $`m_b=5\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V},m_t=174\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V},m_\mathrm{W}=80.23\mathrm{GeV},\alpha _e(m_\mathrm{W})=\frac{1}{128},\alpha _s(m_\mathrm{W})=0.12`$ at the weak scale. Taking above values, we find the SM prediction for Wilson Coefficients as $`C_{1_{SM}}^c(m_b)=0.295,C_{2_{SM}}^c(m_b)=1.110,C_{1_{SM}}^p(m_b)=0.014`$. In our numerical calculations of the supersymmetry corrections to those Wilson coefficients $`C_i^c(m_b)(i=1,\mathrm{},10),\stackrel{~}{C}_i^c(m_b)(i=1,\mathrm{},10)`$, and $`C_i^p(m_b)`$, we always set $`A_0=0`$ and $`sgn(\mu )=+`$. Even though other Wilson coefficients also get nonzero contributions from the supersymmetric sector, our discussions mainly focus at the dependence of $`C_1^c(m_b),C_2^c(m_b),C_1^p(m_b)`$ on the supersymmetric parameters because they play more significant roles in low energy phenomenology. In Fig.4 (a), (b) and (c), we plot the ratios between supersymmetry corrections to $`C_1^c(m_b),C_2^c(m_b),C_1^p(m_b)`$ and their SM prediction values versus the parameter $`m_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ with $`m_0=200`$GeV and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$ or $`20`$. The dependence of those ratios on $`m_0`$ ($`m_{\frac{1}{2}}=300`$GeV and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$ or $`20`$) is plotted in Fig.5.

## 5 Discussions and Conclusion

The $`|\mathrm{\Delta }B|=1`$ non-leptonic effective Lagrangian has been considered in the minimal flavor violating supersymmetry scenario. The supersymmetry contributions affect the effective Lagrangian via two aspects:

* new current-current operators emerge beside those ’old’ operators in the SM case;
* for the ’old’ operators, the Wilson coefficients at the weak scale are modified by the supersymmetric contributions.

Now let us briefly discuss our observation of the numerical results.

In Fig.4 (a) and (b), the two lines (solid and dash) corresponding to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =20`$ differ from each other more obviously. The supersymmetry corrections to the Wilson coefficients $`C_{1,2}^c(m_b)`$ are relatively large when the supersymmetry particles have masses of the same order of electroweak energy scale, for example, $`m_{\frac{1}{2}}=300\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V},m_0=200\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$, the supersymmetry corrections to $`C_{1,2}^c(m_b)`$ can reach about 8%. When the masses of the supersymmetric particles become very large, the supersymmetry corrections turn to zero due to the decoupling theorem. In Fig.4(c), the two lines corresponding to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =20`$ almost overlap on each other. It is noted that at the left part of Fig.5 (c) as $`m_{\frac{1}{2}}<2`$ TeV, there is a sharp peak at the dependence of $`C_1^p(m_b)`$ on $`m_{\frac{1}{2}}`$. It drops very fast as $`m_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ is away from this region, the resonance is due to an almost degeneracy of the mass of chargino and the mass of stop and it leads to an obvious deviation of the $`C_1^p(m_b)`$ value from the prediction of SM (0.014). As $`m_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ further increases, $`C_1^p`$ tends to the predictive value of SM. This mass resonance only occurs for the coefficients of the penguin-induced operators, but not for the current-current-quark operators, so that the dependence of $`C_1^c(m_b),C_2^c(m_b)`$ on $`m_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ does not change drastically. All these are consistent with the common sense which is familiar to us even before the calculations are done.

In Fig.5, we plot the dependence of $`C_1^c(m_b),C_2^c(m_b)`$ and $`C_1^p`$ on $`m_0`$, with $`A_0=0,sgn(\mu )=+1,m_{\frac{1}{2}}=200`$ GeV. Similar to the case of Fig.4, the dependence of supersymmetry corrections to $`C_{1,2}^c(m_b)`$ on $`m_0`$ is remarkable and the values obviously deviate from the SM prediction when $`m_0`$ take smaller values. When $`m_0200\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$, $`C_{1,2}^c(m_b)`$ deviate from the SM prediction by 8%, and when $`m_0>5`$ TeV, the deviation tends to zero. The dependence of $`C_1^p(m_b)`$ on $`m_0`$ is in analog to its dependence on $`m_{\frac{1}{2}}`$. When $`m_0<2`$ TeV, there is an obvious peak which damps steeply, the reason is still due to the mass degeneracy of heavy chargino and stop. When $`m_0`$ turns very large, $`C_1^p(m_b)`$ approaches the SM prediction. By contrast, the dependence of $`C_1^c(m_b),C_2^c(m_b)`$ on $`m_0`$ is more smooth, because there is no mass resonance effect in this situation.

In above discussions, we only list the Wilson coefficients of a few typical operators, the Wilson coefficients of other operators are in analogy. For simplicity, in all the numerical calculations, we always adopt $`A_0=0,sgn(\mu )=+1`$, but this convention is not necessary. If we dismiss this assumption and let $`A_00,sgn(\mu )=\pm 1`$, the parameter space is enlarged, but the qualitative conclusion remains the same.

Here we briefly discuss the decoupling of the supersymmetry particles as the concerned energy scale turns to infinity. When we match the effective theory to the full theory which is the standard model at the weak scale, the quark and gluon fields exist in both theories, thus the renormalized quark fields are the same in both theories. However, as the full theory is the supersymmetric extension of SM, scalar quarks and gluinos exist only in the full theory, but do not in the effective one. Thus when we match the two theories at a certain scale, disappearance of such supersymmetric partners in the effective theory would result in a difference of the normalization of the quark fields in the full and effective theories. Actually, this is a finite renormalization contribution of the self-energy. Ignoring this effect would lead to a situation that heavy supersymmetry particles do not decouple. This normalization difference would also affect evaluation of the vertex-induced contribution. When we match the full and effective theories we need to take this normalization difference into account, then the large logarithms emerging from the self-energy exactly cancel out that from the vertices, thus the decoupling is obvious. On other side, only in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme, there exists the difference of the normalization of the renormalized quark fields, but it does not exist in the on-mass shell renormalization scheme. The reason is that requiring the external quarks to be on their physical mass shell and the residue for the self-energy to be one can serve as an additional condition by which the normalization of the quark fields are the same in the full and effective theories. A direct consequence of the correct renormalization scheme is the decoupling of the supersymmetry sector as the supersymmetry particles are too heavy. If we include the normalization difference as we take the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme, the result coincides with that in the on-shell renormalization.

Because we have carefully considered the normalization difference, in our final expressions, one can immediately observe that the supersymmetry particles would decouple if their mass scale turns to infinity. That is consistent with the common sense.

From our discussion and numerical results, one can note that in general, the correction of supersymmetry to the Wilson coefficients can be as large as 8% when the supersymmetry particles are not very heavy. It is also noted that the $`|\mathrm{\Delta }B|=1`$ effective Lagrangian at the weak scale induces an electromagnetic dipole and a chromo-dipole. Through the evolution down to the hadronic scale, the supersymmetric contribution would result in substantial values for the dipoles at low energies which may not be negligible for phenomenology when $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ are relative light.

With collection of large amount of data at the B-factory and elsewhere main laboratories in the world, the measurements on the rare processes $`bs\gamma ,bs\overline{u}u`$ etc. would set more rigorous constraint on the parameter space of the supersymmetric model or we can, as expected, find some evidence of existence of supersymmetric particles.

Acknowledgments

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

## Appendix A The Wilson coefficients of current-current operators at the weak scale

After matching at the weak scale, the Wilson coefficients for the current-current operators are written as

$`C_1^c(\mu _\mathrm{W})=3{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}(\mathrm{ln}x_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{11}{6}}){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}[{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =\stackrel{~}{g},\chi _k^+,\stackrel{~}{D}_i^3,\stackrel{~}{D}_j^2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_\alpha ^2\mathrm{ln}x_\alpha }{\underset{\beta \alpha }{}(x_\beta x_\alpha )}}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{D}^2}^{1j}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{D}^3}^{1i}A_{bc}^{ik}A_{sc}^{jk}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =\stackrel{~}{g},\chi _k^+,\stackrel{~}{U}_i^2,\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_\alpha ^2\mathrm{ln}x_\alpha }{\underset{\beta \alpha }{}(x_\beta x_\alpha )}}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{U}^2}^{1j}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{U}^2}^{1i}B_{bc}^{ik}B_{sc}^{jk}],`$
$`C_2^c(\mu _\mathrm{W})=(1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}(\mathrm{ln}x_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{11}{6}})){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{8\pi }}\{2{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}Z_{\stackrel{~}{U}^2}^{1j}Z_{\stackrel{~}{U}^2}^{1j}({\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}}}{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}}}{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(2x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}}^2)\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}}}{(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}})^2}})+{\displaystyle }_iZ_{\stackrel{~}{D}^2}^{1i}Z_{\stackrel{~}{D}^2}^{1i}({\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^2}}}{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^2}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^2}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^2}}}{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^2}}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(2x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^2}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^2}}^2)\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^2}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^2}}}{(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^2}})^2}})+2{\displaystyle }_{ij}Z_{\stackrel{~}{D}^2}^{1i}Z_{\stackrel{~}{D}^2}^{1i}Z_{\stackrel{~}{U}^2}^{1j}Z_{\stackrel{~}{U}^2}^{1j}\{`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^2}}+x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}})x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^2}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}}\right)\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}}{(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^2}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}})(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}})}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^2}}^2\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^2}}}{(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^2}})(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^2}})}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}}^2\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}}}{(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}})(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^2}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}})}}\}+{\displaystyle }_iZ_{\stackrel{~}{D}^3}^{1i}Z_{\stackrel{~}{D}^3}^{1i}({\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^3}}}{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^3}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^3}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^3}}}{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^3}}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(2x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^3}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^3}}^2)\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^3}}\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^3}}}{(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^3}})^2}})+2{\displaystyle }_{ij}Z_{\stackrel{~}{D}^3}^{1i}Z_{\stackrel{~}{D}^3}^{1i}Z_{\stackrel{~}{U}^2}^{1j}Z_{\stackrel{~}{U}^2}^{1j}\{`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^3}}+x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}})x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^3}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}}\right)\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}}{(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^3}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}})(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}})}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^3}}^2\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^3}}}{(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^3}})(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^3}})}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}}^2\mathrm{ln}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}}}{(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}})(x_{_{\stackrel{~}{D}_i^3}}x_{_{\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}})}}\}\},`$
$`C_3^c(\mu _\mathrm{W})={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{2m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}m_{\chi _k^+}}{m_\mathrm{W}^2}}({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =\stackrel{~}{g},\chi _k^+,\stackrel{~}{D}_i^3,\stackrel{~}{D}_j^2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_\alpha \mathrm{ln}x_\alpha }{\underset{\beta \alpha }{}(x_\beta x_\alpha )}}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{D}^2}^{2j}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{D}^3}^{1i}A_{bc}^{+ik}A_{sc}^{jk}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =\stackrel{~}{g},\chi _k^+,\stackrel{~}{U}_i^2,\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_\alpha \mathrm{ln}x_\alpha }{\underset{\beta \alpha }{}(x_\beta x_\alpha )}}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{U}^2}^{2i}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{U}^2}^{1j}B_{bc}^{ik}B_{sc}^{+jk}),`$
$`C_4^c(\mu _\mathrm{W})=0,`$
$`C_5^c(\mu _\mathrm{W})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}C_3^c(\mu _\mathrm{W}),`$
$`C_6^c(\mu _\mathrm{W})=0,`$
$`C_7^c(\mu _\mathrm{W})={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{2m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}m_{\chi _k^+}}{m_\mathrm{W}^2}}({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =\stackrel{~}{g},\chi _k^+,\stackrel{~}{D}_i^3,\stackrel{~}{D}_j^2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_\alpha \mathrm{ln}x_\alpha }{\underset{\beta \alpha }{}(x_\beta x_\alpha )}}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{D}^2}^{1j}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{D}^3}^{2i}A_{bc}^{+ik}A_{sc}^{jk}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =\stackrel{~}{g},\chi _k^+,\stackrel{~}{U}_i^2,\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_\alpha \mathrm{ln}x_\alpha }{\underset{\beta \alpha }{}(x_\beta x_\alpha )}}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{U}^2}^{2i}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{U}^2}^{1j}B_{bc}^{+ik}B_{sc}^{jk}),`$
$`C_8^c(\mu _\mathrm{W})={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =\stackrel{~}{g},\stackrel{~}{U}_i^2,\stackrel{~}{D}_j^3}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_\alpha ^2\mathrm{ln}x_\alpha }{\underset{\beta \alpha }{}(x_\beta x_\alpha )}}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{U}^2}^{2i}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{U}^2}^{1i}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{D}^3}^{2j}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{D}^3}^{1j},`$
$`C_9^c(\mu _\mathrm{W})=2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}[{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =\stackrel{~}{g},\chi _k^+,\stackrel{~}{D}_i^3,\stackrel{~}{D}_j^2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_\alpha ^2\mathrm{ln}x_\alpha }{\underset{\beta \alpha }{}(x_\beta x_\alpha )}}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{D}^2}^{2j}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{D}^3}^{2i}A_{bc}^{ik}A_{sc}^{jk}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =\stackrel{~}{g},\chi _k^+,\stackrel{~}{U}_i^2,\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_\alpha ^2\mathrm{ln}x_\alpha }{\underset{\beta \alpha }{}(x_\beta x_\alpha )}}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{U}^2}^{1j}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{U}^2}^{1i}B_{bc}^{+ik}B_{sc}^{+jk}],`$
$`C_{10}^c(\mu _\mathrm{W})=0,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_1^c(\mu _\mathrm{W})={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}[{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =\stackrel{~}{g},\chi _k^+,\stackrel{~}{D}_i^3,\stackrel{~}{D}_j^2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_\alpha ^2\mathrm{ln}x_\alpha }{\underset{\beta \alpha }{}(x_\beta x_\alpha )}}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{D}^2}^{2j}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{D}^3}^{2i}A_{bc}^{+ik}A_{sc}^{+jk}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =\stackrel{~}{g},\chi _k^+,\stackrel{~}{U}_i^2,\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_\alpha ^2\mathrm{ln}x_\alpha }{\underset{\beta \alpha }{}(x_\beta x_\alpha )}}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{U}^2}^{2j}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{U}^2}^{2i}B_{bc}^{+ik}B_{sc}^{+jk}],`$
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_2^c(\mu _\mathrm{W})=0,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_3^c(\mu _\mathrm{W})={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{2m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}m_{\chi ^+}}{m_\mathrm{W}^2}}({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =\stackrel{~}{g},\chi _k^+,\stackrel{~}{D}_i^3,\stackrel{~}{D}_j^2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_\alpha \mathrm{ln}x_\alpha }{\underset{\beta \alpha }{}(x_\beta x_\alpha )}}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{D}^2}^{1j}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{D}^3}^{2i}A_{bc}^{ik}A_{sc}^{+jk}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =\stackrel{~}{g},\chi _k^+,\stackrel{~}{U}_i^2,\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_\alpha \mathrm{ln}x_\alpha }{\underset{\beta \alpha }{}(x_\beta x_\alpha )}}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{U}^2}^{1i}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{U}^2}^{2j}B_{bc}^{+ik}B_{sc}^{jk}),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_4^c(\mu _\mathrm{W})=0,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_5^c(\mu _\mathrm{W})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{~}{C}_3^c(\mu _\mathrm{W}),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_6^c(\mu _\mathrm{W})=0,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_7^c(\mu _\mathrm{W})={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{2m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}m_{\chi ^+}}{m_\mathrm{W}^2}}({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =\stackrel{~}{g},\chi _k^+,\stackrel{~}{D}_i^3,\stackrel{~}{D}_j^2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_\alpha \mathrm{ln}x_\alpha }{\underset{\beta \alpha }{}(x_\beta x_\alpha )}}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{D}^2}^{2j}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{D}^3}^{1i}A_{bc}^{ik}A_{sc}^{+jk}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =\stackrel{~}{g},\chi _k^+,\stackrel{~}{U}_i^2,\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_\alpha \mathrm{ln}x_\alpha }{\underset{\beta \alpha }{}(x_\beta x_\alpha )}}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{U}^2}^{1i}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{U}^2}^{2j}B_{bc}^{ik}B_{sc}^{+jk}),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_8^c(\mu _\mathrm{W})={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =\stackrel{~}{g},\stackrel{~}{U}_i^2,\stackrel{~}{D}_j^3}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_\alpha ^2\mathrm{ln}x_\alpha }{\underset{\beta \alpha }{}(x_\beta x_\alpha )}}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{U}^2}^{1i}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{U}^2}^{2i}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{D}^3}^{1j}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{D}^3}^{2j},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_9^c(\mu _\mathrm{W})=2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}[{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =\stackrel{~}{g},\chi _k^+,\stackrel{~}{D}_i^3,\stackrel{~}{D}_j^2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_\alpha ^2\mathrm{ln}x_\alpha }{\underset{\beta \alpha }{}(x_\beta x_\alpha )}}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{D}^2}^{1j}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{D}^3}^{1i}A_{bc}^{+ik}A_{sc}^{+jk}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =\stackrel{~}{g},\chi _k^+,\stackrel{~}{U}_i^2,\stackrel{~}{U}_j^2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_\alpha ^2\mathrm{ln}x_\alpha }{\underset{\beta \alpha }{}(x_\beta x_\alpha )}}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{U}^2}^{2j}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{U}^2}^{2i}B_{bc}^{ik}B_{sc}^{jk}],`$
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_{10}^c(\mu _\mathrm{W})=0.`$ (29)
The notation $`A_{IJ}^{ij},B_{IJ}^{,ij}`$ ($`I,J=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}`$ are the indices of generations) are defined as

$`A_{IJ}^{ij}=\left(𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{D}^I}^{1i}𝒵_{1j}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{d^I}}{\sqrt{2}m_\mathrm{W}\mathrm{cos}\beta }}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{D}^I}^{2i}𝒵_{2j}^{}\right),`$
$`A_{IJ}^{+ij}={\displaystyle \frac{m_{u^J}}{\sqrt{2}m_\mathrm{W}\mathrm{sin}\beta }}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{D}^I}^{1i}𝒵_{2j}^+,`$
$`B_{IJ}^{ij}=\left(𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{U}^I}^{1i}𝒵_{1j}^+{\displaystyle \frac{m_{u^J}}{\sqrt{2}m_\mathrm{W}\mathrm{sin}\beta }}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{U}^J}^{2i}𝒵_{2j}^+\right),`$
$`B_{IJ}^{+ij}={\displaystyle \frac{m_{d^I}}{\sqrt{2}m_\mathrm{W}\mathrm{cos}\beta }}𝒵_{\stackrel{~}{U}^J}^{1i}𝒵_{2j}^{}.`$ (30)
Here, $`𝒵^\pm `$ are the mixing matrices of charginos.