format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Renormalization group short-distance QCD effects play an important role in $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ and $`B_{d,s}^0\overline{B}_{d,s}^0`$ mixing within the Standard Model (SM) and its extensions . They can be calculated by solving renormalization group equations that govern the scale dependence of the Wilson coefficients $`C_i(\mu )`$ of the relevant $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=2`$ operators $`Q_i`$. The resulting effective weak Hamiltonian reads

$$H_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{F}=2}=\frac{G_F^2}{16\pi ^2}M_W^2\underset{i}{}V_{\mathrm{CKM}}^iC_i(\mu )Q_i.$$
(1.1)
Here $`G_F`$ is the Fermi constant and $`V_{\mathrm{CKM}}^i`$ the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) factor equal to $`(V_{tb}^{}V_{td})^2`$ in the case of $`B_d^0\overline{B}_d^0`$ mixing in the SM. Beyond the SM other factors not proportional to CKM elements are generally present. Using this Hamiltonian one can calculate $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=2`$ amplitudes, in particular the mass differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_K`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{d,s}`$ in the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ and $`B_{d,s}^0\overline{B}_{d,s}^0`$ systems and the CP-violating parameter $`\epsilon _K`$.

Within the SM there is only one single operator

$$Q_1^{\mathrm{VLL}}=\left(\overline{s}^\alpha \gamma _\mu P_Ld^\alpha \right)\left(\overline{s}^\beta \gamma ^\mu P_Ld^\beta \right)$$
(1.2)
relevant for $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mixing, with analogous operators for $`B_{d,s}^0\overline{B}_{d,s}^0`$ mixing obtained from (1.2) through the appropriate change of flavours. Beyond the SM the full set of dimension six operators contributing to $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mixing consists of 8 operators that can be split into 5 separate sectors according to the chirality of the quark fields they contain. These operators are listed in (2.1). Corresponding operators contributing to $`B_{d,s}^0\overline{B}_{d,s}^0`$ mixing exist.

The general expression for $`C_i(\mu )`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{}{C}(\mu )=\widehat{U}(\mu ,\mu _t)\stackrel{}{C}(\mu _t)$$
(1.3)
where $`\stackrel{}{C}`$ is a column vector built out of the $`C_i`$’s and $`\widehat{U}(\mu ,\mu _t)`$ is the renormalization group matrix. $`\stackrel{}{C}(\mu _t)`$, with $`\mu _t=𝒪(m_t)`$, are the initial conditions which depend on the short distance physics at high energy scales. In particular they depend on the top quark mass and the couplings and masses of new particles in extensions of the SM. We will later briefly discuss the case of scales much higher than $`m_t`$. Otherwise $`\mu _t`$ denotes a high energy scale in the range, say, $`M_W\mu _t2m_t`$.

While the initial conditions $`C_i(\mu _t)`$ at the NLO level are known only in the SM  and in some of its extensions , all the ingredients are available to compute the NLO evolution matrix $`\widehat{U}(\mu ,\mu _t)`$ for all possible extensions of the SM. Indeed, the two-loop anomalous dimension matrix for all $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=2`$ four-quark dimension six operators has been calculated in the regularization independent renormalization scheme (RI) in  and in the NDR scheme in . Together with the known one-loop anomalous dimension matrix  and the known $`\beta `$ function, the evolution matrix can be straightforwardly computed by means of the methods reviewed in .

The LO analytic expressions for $`\widehat{U}(\mu ,\mu _t)`$ can be found in . For phenomenological applications it is useful to derive analogous expressions including NLO corrections. The first step in this direction has been made in  where $`\widehat{U}(\mu ,\mu _s)`$ with $`\mu _s>m_t`$ has been written as

$$\widehat{U}(\mu ,\mu _s)=\widehat{U}(\mu ,\mu _t)\widehat{U}(\mu _t,\mu _s)$$
(1.4)
with $`\widehat{U}(\mu _t,\mu _s)`$ given analytically in the Landau RI scheme (LRI) but $`\widehat{U}(\mu ,\mu _t)`$ evaluated numerically for $`\mu =2`$ GeV, $`\mu _t=m_t`$ and particular values of $`m_c`$, $`m_b`$ and $`\alpha _s`$. The corresponding results for $`B_{d,s}^0\overline{B}_{d,s}^0`$ mixing have not been presented in .

It should be emphasized that NLO corrections are necessary for a satisfactory matching of the Wilson coefficients to the matrix elements obtained from lattice calculations. Moreover as demonstrated in  the inclusion of QCD corrections at the LO and the NLO level is mandatory in order to place reliable constraints on the parameters in the extensions of the SM, in particular on the squark mass matrices in supersymmetric theories.

The purpose of our paper is to present NLO analytic formulae for the matrix $`\widehat{U}(\mu ,\mu _t)`$ relevant for $`B_{d,s}^0\overline{B}_{d,s}^0`$ mixing $`(\mu =𝒪(m_b))`$, and $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mixing $`(\mu =𝒪(12\mathrm{GeV}))`$. These formulae when combined with the initial conditions $`\stackrel{}{C}(\mu _t)`$ and the hadronic matrix elements $`\stackrel{}{Q}(\mu )`$ will allow to calculate in the future the $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=2`$ amplitudes for any extension of the SM.

The formulae given below for $`\widehat{U}(\mu ,\mu _t)`$ apply to the situation in which the initial conditions for the Wilson coefficients are known at $`\mu _t=𝒪(m_t)`$ and the evolution down to scales $`\mu <\mu _t`$ is performed in an effective theory with the top quark and the heavy new particles integrated out. Whether the top quark and the new particles have been integrated out at a single scale $`\mu _t`$ or at different scales, say $`\mu _t`$, $`\mu _{s_1}`$, $`\mu _{s_2}`$ with $`\mu _t<\mu _{s_1}<\mu _{s_2}`$, is immaterial here. What matters are the values of the Wilson coefficients at $`\mu _t`$ and not how they have been evaluated from the contributions at scales higher than $`\mu _t`$. On the other hand in the process of the evaluation of $`C_i(\mu _t)`$ large logarithms $`\mathrm{log}\mu _{s_1}/\mu _t`$, $`\mathrm{log}\mu _{s_2}/\mu _{s_1}`$ may appear. These logarithms have to be resummed which results in new evolution functions $`\widehat{U}(\mu _t,\mu _{s_1})`$, $`\widehat{U}(\mu _{s_1},\mu _{s_2})`$, etc. As discussed in  the structure of these matrices is model dependent and consequently beyond the scope of the present paper. We will, however, provide an analytic formula for the evolution $`\widehat{U}(\mu _t,\mu _s)`$ with $`\mu _t\mu _s`$ in an effective $`f=6`$ theory in which only SM degrees of freedom are present and all new particles have been integrated out.

Now, the lattice results for the matrix elements $`\stackrel{}{Q}(\mu )`$ are usually given at $`\mu =2`$ GeV. In what follows we will denote this scale by $`\mu _L`$. On the other hand large-$`N`$ approaches, the chiral quark model and any non-perturbative method in which the low-energy degrees of freedom are mesons provide these matrix elements at scales $`\mu _K1`$GeV. In our opinion it would be useful to have the matrix elements obtained by means of different methods at a common “standard” scale, which we will choose to be $`\mu _L`$ in the following. This is achieved using the formula

$$\stackrel{}{Q}(\mu _L)=\widehat{U}^T(\mu _K,\mu _L)\stackrel{}{Q}(\mu _K)$$
(1.5)
where $`\stackrel{}{Q}(\mu _K)`$ are the matrix elements calculated for scales $`\mu _K<\mu _L`$ and $`\widehat{U}(\mu _K,\mu _L)`$ is the renormalization group evolution matrix. In our paper we provide analytic formulae for $`\widehat{U}(\mu _K,\mu _L)`$.

At this point we would like to stress that our paper is addressed first of all to the practitioners of weak decays who do not want to get involved with the details of NLO calculations but rather would like to use the final QCD factors in phenomenological applications. On the other hand it should also be useful to experts. Indeed, having explicit analytic formulae, rather than numerical values, not only gives the freedom to change input parameters but also makes possible the checking of a given calculation. In particular when multiplying the $`\widehat{U}`$ matrices like in (1.4) one easily generates higher-order terms in $`\alpha _s`$ which really do not belong to NLO corrections. While these corrections should be removed from NLO expressions, this is not always done in the literature. Consequently, already at this stage unnecessary discrepancies of the order of 5% between calculations performed by different groups may arise. These higher-order terms in $`\alpha _s`$ are consistently removed in the present paper. We are aware of the fact that some of the formulae presented below are rather long. Nevertheless we believe that they should turn out to be useful in future phenomenological applications.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we give the list of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=2`$ operators in question and establish our notation. In Section 3 we give analytic formulae for the QCD factors $`\left[\eta _{ij}(\mu )\right]_a`$ that represent the evolution matrix $`\widehat{U}(\mu ,\mu _t)`$ in (1.3) in five different sectors, $`a=(\mathrm{VLL},\mathrm{LR},\mathrm{SLL},\mathrm{VRR},\mathrm{SRR})`$, in the leading order (LO) and the next-to-leading (NLO) approximation in the NDR scheme. In Section 4 we give the analogous formulae for the QCD factors $`\left[\rho _{ij}(\mu _K)\right]_a`$ which represent the evolution matrix $`\widehat{U}(\mu _K,\mu _L)`$ in (1.5). In Section 5 we provide numerical results for $`\left[\eta _{ij}(\mu )\right]_a`$ and $`\left[\rho _{ij}(\mu )\right]_a`$ in the NDR scheme. In section 6 we discuss the transformation rules for obtaining the corresponding results in other renormalization schemes and we present the relation between the QCD factors calculated here and the QCD factors $`\eta _B`$ and $`\eta _2`$ used in phenomenological applications. In Section 7 we calculate the matrix elements $`\overline{K}^0|Q_i|K^0`$ in the NDR scheme using the lattice results in the LRI scheme . We give general expressions for the mass differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_K`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_B`$ and the CP-violating parameter $`ϵ_K`$ in terms of the non-perturbative parameters $`B_i^a`$ and the Wilson coefficients $`C_i(\mu _t)`$. We conclude in Section 8. For completeness we list in appendix A the one-loop and two-loop anomalous dimension matrices that we have used in our paper. Appendix B gives the general formulae for the $`\widehat{U}`$ matrices which have been used to obtain the analytic formulae of sections 3 and 4. Finally in Appendix C we give analytic formulae for the evolution matrix $`\widehat{U}(\mu _t,\mu _s)`$.

## 2 Basic Formulae

For definiteness, we will give explicit expressions for the operators responsible for the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mixing. The operators belonging to the VLL, LR and SLL sectors read

$`Q_1^{\mathrm{VLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{s}^\alpha \gamma _\mu P_Ld^\alpha )(\overline{s}^\beta \gamma ^\mu P_Ld^\beta ),`$
$`Q_1^{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{s}^\alpha \gamma _\mu P_Ld^\alpha )(\overline{s}^\beta \gamma ^\mu P_Rd^\beta ),`$
$`Q_2^{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{s}^\alpha P_Ld^\alpha )(\overline{s}^\beta P_Rd^\beta ),`$
$`Q_1^{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{s}^\alpha P_Ld^\alpha )(\overline{s}^\beta P_Ld^\beta ),`$
$`Q_2^{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{s}^\alpha \sigma _{\mu \nu }P_Ld^\alpha )(\overline{s}^\beta \sigma ^{\mu \nu }P_Ld^\beta ),`$ (2.1)
where $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are colour indices, $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}[\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\nu ]`$ and $`P_{L,R}=\frac{1}{2}(1\gamma _5)`$. The operators belonging to the two remaining sectors (VRR and SRR) are obtained from $`Q_1^{\mathrm{VLL}}`$ and $`Q_i^{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ by interchanging $`P_L`$ and $`P_R`$. Since QCD preserves chirality, there is no mixing between different sectors. Moreover, the anomalous dimension matrices and the evolution matrices in the VRR and SRR sectors are the same as in the VLL and SLL sectors, respectively. Therefore, in the following, we shall consider only the VLL, LR and SLL sectors. However, one should remember that the initial conditions $`C_i(\mu _t)`$ are generally changed when $`P_L`$ and $`P_R`$ are interchanged. The operators in the case of $`B_d^0\overline{B}_d^0`$ mixing are obtained from (2.1) through the replacement $`sb`$. Performing the subsequent replacement $`ds`$ gives the operators contributing to $`B_s^0\overline{B}_s^0`$ mixing. The one-loop and two-loop anomalous dimension matrices of the operators (2.1) are given in appendix A.

Restricting the discussion to the VLL, LR and SLL sectors $`\widehat{U}(\mu _1,\mu _2)`$ takes the following form

$$\widehat{U}(\mu _1,\mu _2)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\left[\eta (\mu _1,\mu _2)\right]_{\mathrm{VLL}}& 0& 0\\ 0& \left[\widehat{\eta }(\mu _1,\mu _2)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}& 0\\ 0& 0& \left[\widehat{\eta }(\mu _1,\mu _2)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}\end{array}\right)$$
(2.2)
where $`\left[\widehat{\eta }(\mu _1,\mu _2)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ and $`\left[\widehat{\eta }(\mu _1,\mu _2)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ are $`2\times 2`$ matrices and $`\mu _1<\mu _2`$. In what follows we will use a short-hand notation, denoting the QCD factors representing $`\widehat{U}(\mu ,\mu _t)`$ and $`\widehat{U}(\mu _K,\mu _L)`$ by

$`\left[\widehat{\eta }(\mu ,\mu _t)\right]_a`$ $``$ $`\left[\widehat{\eta }(\mu )\right]_a=\left[\widehat{\eta }^{(0)}(\mu )\right]_a+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^{(f)}(\mu )}{4\pi }}\left[\widehat{\eta }^{(1)}(\mu )\right]_a,`$ (2.3)
$`\left[\widehat{\rho }(\mu _K,\mu _L)\right]_a`$ $``$ $`\left[\widehat{\rho }(\mu _K)\right]_a=\left[\widehat{\rho }^{(0)}(\mu _K)\right]_a+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^{(3)}(\mu _K)}{4\pi }}\left[\widehat{\rho }^{(1)}(\mu _K)\right]_a,`$ (2.4)
respectively. That is, we will suppress the high-energy scale $`\mu _t`$ in the argument of the $`\eta `$-factors. Similarly, we will suppress the “lattice scale” $`\mu _L`$ in the argument of the $`\rho `$-factors. Using this notation we have for instance

$$C_1^{\mathrm{VLL}}(\mu _b)=\left[\eta (\mu _b)\right]_{\mathrm{VLL}}C_1^{\mathrm{VLL}}(\mu _t),$$
(2.5)
$$\left(\begin{array}{c}C_1^{\mathrm{LR}}(\mu _b)\\ C_2^{\mathrm{LR}}(\mu _b)\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\left[\eta _{11}(\mu _b)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}& \left[\eta _{12}(\mu _b)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}\\ \left[\eta _{21}(\mu _b)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}& \left[\eta _{22}(\mu _b)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}C_1^{\mathrm{LR}}(\mu _t)\\ C_2^{\mathrm{LR}}(\mu _t)\end{array}\right),$$
(2.6)
$$Q_1^{\mathrm{VLL}}(\mu _L)=\left[\rho (\mu _K)\right]_{\mathrm{VLL}}Q_1^{\mathrm{VLL}}(\mu _K),$$
(2.7)
$$\left(\begin{array}{c}Q_1^{\mathrm{LR}}(\mu _L)\\ Q_2^{\mathrm{LR}}(\mu _L)\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\left[\rho _{11}(\mu _K)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}& \left[\rho _{21}(\mu _K)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}\\ \left[\rho _{12}(\mu _K)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}& \left[\rho _{22}(\mu _K)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}Q_1^{\mathrm{LR}}(\mu _K)\\ Q_2^{\mathrm{LR}}(\mu _K)\end{array}\right)$$
(2.8)
and analogous formulae for the SLL sector. Note that in accordance with (1.5), the transpose of $`\left[\widehat{\rho }(\mu _K)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ enters the transformation (2.8).

In Section 3 we will give analytic formulae for the LO factors $`\left[\eta ^{(0)}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{VLL}}`$, $`\left[\eta _{ij}^{(0)}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$, $`\left[\eta _{ij}^{(0)}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ and the NLO factors $`\left[\eta ^{(1)}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{VLL}}`$, $`\left[\eta _{ij}^{(1)}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$, $`\left[\eta _{ij}^{(1)}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$. The corresponding expressions for the $`\rho `$-factors are given in Section 4. $`\alpha _s^{(f)}(\mu )`$ is the QCD coupling constant in an effective theory with $`f`$ flavours: $`f=5`$ for $`\mu _b<\mu <\mu _t`$, $`f=4`$ for $`\mu _c<\mu <\mu _b`$, and $`f=3`$ for $`\mu <\mu _c`$, where $`\mu _t=𝒪(m_t)`$, $`\mu _b=𝒪(m_b)`$ and $`\mu _c=𝒪(m_c)`$. We impose the continuity relations

$$\alpha _s^{(3)}(\mu _c)=\alpha _s^{(4)}(\mu _c),\alpha _s^{(4)}(\mu _b)=\alpha _s^{(5)}(\mu _b).$$
(2.9)
The general expression for $`\alpha _s^{(f)}`$ reads

$$\frac{\alpha _s^{(f)}(\mu )}{4\pi }=\frac{1}{\beta _0\mathrm{ln}\left(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^{(f)}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)}\frac{\beta _1}{\beta _0^3}\frac{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{ln}\left(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^{(f)}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)}{\mathrm{ln}^2\left(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^{(f)}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)}$$
(2.10)
with

$$\beta _0=11\frac{2}{3}f,\beta _1=102\frac{38}{3}f.$$
(2.11)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^{(f)}`$ is the QCD scale parameter in a theory with $`f`$ quark flavours . The existing analyses of high energy processes give $`\alpha _{\overline{MS}}^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.118\pm 0.003`$  or equivalently $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^{(5)}=(226\begin{array}{c}+41\\ 36\end{array})`$MeV.

The evolution matrix, $`\widehat{U}(\mu ,\mu _t)`$, is given as follows:

$$\widehat{U}(\mu ,\mu _t)=T_g\mathrm{exp}\left[_{g(\mu _t)}^{g(\mu )}𝑑g^{}\frac{\widehat{\gamma }^T(g^{})}{\beta (g^{})}\right]$$
(2.12)
with $`g`$ denoting the QCD effective coupling constant and $`T_g`$ an ordering operation defined in . $`\beta (g)`$ governs the evolution of $`g`$ and $`\widehat{\gamma }`$ is the anomalous dimension matrix of the operators involved.

We also have

$$\widehat{U}(\mu _K,\mu _t)=\widehat{U}(\mu _K,\mu _c)\widehat{U}(\mu _c,\mu _b)\widehat{U}(\mu _b,\mu _t)$$
(2.13)
with the three factors on the r.h.s. evaluated in $`f=3`$, $`f=4`$ and $`f=5`$ effective theories, respectively. Now,

$$\widehat{U}(\mu _L,\mu _t)=\widehat{U}(\mu _L,\mu _b)\widehat{U}(\mu _b,\mu _t),\widehat{U}(\mu _K,\mu _t)=\widehat{U}(\mu _K,\mu _L)\widehat{U}(\mu _L,\mu _t).$$
(2.14)
This means that knowing $`\eta _{ij}(\mu _L)`$ and $`\rho _{ij}(\mu _K)`$ allows to calculate $`\eta _{ij}(\mu _K)`$.

Keeping the first two terms in the expansions of $`\widehat{\gamma }(g)`$ and $`\beta (g)`$ in powers of $`g`$

$$\widehat{\gamma }(g)=\widehat{\gamma }^{(0)}\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }+\widehat{\gamma }^{(1)}\left(\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }\right)^2,\beta (g)=\beta _0\frac{g^3}{16\pi ^2}\beta _1\frac{g^5}{(16\pi ^2)^2},$$
(2.15)
inserting these expansions into (2.12) and (2.13) and expanding in $`\alpha _s`$ one can calculate the $`\eta `$\- and $`\rho `$-factors defined in (2.3) and (2.4), respectively. To this end, one has to remove terms $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ and higher-order terms. We discuss this point in appendix B where the expansions of $`\widehat{U}(\mu ,\mu _t)`$ for $`\mu =\mu _b`$, $`\mu =\mu _L`$ and $`\mu =\mu _K`$ are given.

## 3 $`\eta `$-Factors in the NDR Scheme

### 3.1 $`\eta `$-Factors for $`B_{d,s}^0\overline{B}_{d,s}^0`$ mixing

VLL-Sector

$`\left[\eta ^{(0)}(\mu _b)\right]_{\mathrm{VLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _5^{6/23},`$ (3.1)
$`\left[\eta ^{(1)}(\mu _b)\right]_{\mathrm{VLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.6273(1\eta _5)\eta _5^{6/23}.`$ (3.2)
LR-Sector

$`\left[\eta _{11}^{(0)}(\mu _b)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _5^{3/23},`$ (3.3)
$`\left[\eta _{12}^{(0)}(\mu _b)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.4)
$`\left[\eta _{21}^{(0)}(\mu _b)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(\eta _5^{3/23}\eta _5^{24/23}),`$ (3.5)
$`\left[\eta _{22}^{(0)}(\mu _b)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _5^{24/23},`$ (3.6)
$`\left[\eta _{11}^{(1)}(\mu _b)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.9250\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{24/23}+\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{3/23}\left(2.0994+1.1744\eta _5\right),`$ (3.7)
$`\left[\eta _{12}^{(1)}(\mu _b)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.3875\left(\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{26/23}\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{24/23}\right),`$ (3.8)
$`\left[\eta _{21}^{(1)}(\mu _b)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(11.7329+0.7829\eta _5\right)\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{3/23}+\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{24/23}\left(5.3048+16.2548\eta _5\right),`$ (3.9)
$`\left[\eta _{22}^{(1)}(\mu _b)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(7.95728.8822\eta _5\right)\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{24/23}+0.9250\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{26/23}.`$ (3.10)
SLL-Sector

$`\left[\eta _{11}^{(0)}(\mu _b)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.0153\eta _5^{0.6315}0.0153\eta _5^{0.7184},`$ (3.11)
$`\left[\eta _{12}^{(0)}(\mu _b)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.9325(\eta _5^{0.6315}\eta _5^{0.7184}),`$ (3.12)
$`\left[\eta _{21}^{(0)}(\mu _b)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.0081(\eta _5^{0.7184}\eta _5^{0.6315}),`$ (3.13)
$`\left[\eta _{22}^{(0)}(\mu _b)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.0153\eta _5^{0.7184}0.0153\eta _5^{0.6315},`$ (3.14)
$`\left[\eta _{11}^{(1)}(\mu _b)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(4.81775.2272\eta _5\right)\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6315}+\left(0.3371+0.0724\eta _5\right)\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.7184},`$ (3.15)
$`\left[\eta _{12}^{(1)}(\mu _b)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(9.169638.8778\eta _5\right)\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6315}+\left(42.502112.7939\eta _5\right)\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.7184},`$ (3.16)
$`\left[\eta _{21}^{(1)}(\mu _b)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(0.0531+0.0415\eta _5\right)\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6315}\left(0.0566+0.0380\eta _5\right)\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.7184},`$ (3.17)
$`\left[\eta _{22}^{(1)}(\mu _b)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(0.1011+0.3083\eta _5\right)\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6315}+\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.7184}\left(7.1314+6.7219\eta _5\right),`$ (3.18)
where

$$\eta _5\frac{\alpha _s^{(5)}(\mu _t)}{\alpha _s^{(5)}(\mu _b)}.$$
(3.19)
### 3.2 $`\eta `$-Factors for $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mixing with $`\mu =\mu _L`$

These factors are relevant for $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mixing but can also be used in $`D^0\overline{D}^0`$ mixing. They can be expressed in terms of $`\eta _5`$ defined in (3.19) and

$$\eta _4\frac{\alpha _s^{(4)}(\mu _b)}{\alpha _s^{(4)}(\mu _L)}.$$
(3.20)
VLL-Sector

$`\left[\eta ^{(0)}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{VLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _4^{6/25}\eta _5^{6/23},`$ (3.21)
$`\left[\eta ^{(1)}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{VLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _4^{6/25}\eta _5^{6/23}(1.79170.1644\eta _41.6273\eta _4\eta _5).`$ (3.22)
LR-Sector

$`\left[\eta _{11}^{(0)}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _4^{3/25}\eta _5^{3/23},`$ (3.23)
$`\left[\eta _{12}^{(0)}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.24)
$`\left[\eta _{21}^{(0)}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(\eta _4^{3/25}\eta _5^{3/23}\eta _4^{24/25}\eta _5^{24/23}),`$ (3.25)
$`\left[\eta _{22}^{(0)}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _4^{24/25}\eta _5^{24/23},`$ (3.26)
$`\left[\eta _{11}^{(1)}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.9279\eta _{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{24/25}\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{24/23}0.0029\eta _{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{28/25}\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{24/23}`$
$`+\eta _{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{3/25}\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{3/23}\left(2.02410.0753\eta _4+1.1744\eta _4\eta _5\right),`$
$`\left[\eta _{12}^{(1)}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.3918\eta _{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{24/25}\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{24/23}+0.0043\eta _{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{28/25}\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{24/23}`$
$`+1.3875\eta _{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{28/25}\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{26/23},`$
$`\left[\eta _{21}^{(1)}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.0019\eta _{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{28/25}\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{24/23}+5.0000\eta _{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/25}\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{3/23}`$
$`+\eta _{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{3/25}\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{3/23}\left(16.68280.0502\eta _4+0.7829\eta _4\eta _5\right)`$
$`+\eta _{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{24/25}\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{24/23}\left(4.47010.8327\eta _4+16.2548\eta _4\eta _5\right),`$
$`\left[\eta _{22}^{(1)}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.0029\eta _{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{28/25}\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{24/23}+0.9250\eta _{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{28/25}\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{26/23}`$
$`+\eta _{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{24/25}\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{24/23}\left(6.7052+1.2491\eta _48.8822\eta _4\eta _5\right).`$
SLL-Sector

$`\left[\eta _{11}^{(0)}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.0153\eta _4^{0.5810}\eta _5^{0.6315}0.0153\eta _4^{0.6610}\eta _5^{0.7184},`$ (3.31)
$`\left[\eta _{12}^{(0)}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.9325(\eta _4^{0.5810}\eta _5^{0.6315}\eta _4^{0.6610}\eta _5^{0.7184}),`$ (3.32)
$`\left[\eta _{21}^{(0)}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.0081(\eta _4^{0.6610}\eta _5^{0.7184}\eta _4^{0.5810}\eta _5^{0.6315}),`$ (3.33)
$`\left[\eta _{22}^{(0)}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.0153\eta _4^{0.6610}\eta _5^{0.7184}0.0153\eta _4^{0.5810}\eta _5^{0.6315},`$ (3.34)
$`\left[\eta _{11}^{(1)}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.0020\eta _{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{1.6610}\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6315}0.0334\eta _{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.4190}\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.7184}`$
$`+\eta _{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.5810}\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6315}\left(4.2458+0.5700\eta _45.2272\eta _4\eta _5\right)`$
$`+\eta _{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6610}\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.7184}\left(0.3640+0.0064\eta _4+0.0724\eta _4\eta _5\right),`$
$`\left[\eta _{12}^{(1)}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.0038\eta _{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{1.6610}\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6315}4.2075\eta _{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.4190}\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.7184}`$
$`+\eta _{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.5810}\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6315}\left(8.0810+1.0848\eta _438.8778\eta _4\eta _5\right)`$
$`+\eta _{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6610}\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.7184}\left(45.9008+0.8087\eta _412.7939\eta _4\eta _5\right),`$
$`\left[\eta _{21}^{(1)}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.0011\eta _{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{1.6610}\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6315}+0.0003\eta _{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.4190}\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.7184}`$
$`+\eta _{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6610}\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.7184}\left(0.05340.0034\eta _40.0380\eta _4\eta _5\right)`$
$`+\eta _{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.5810}\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6315}\left(0.05870.0045\eta _4+0.0415\eta _4\eta _5\right),`$
$`\left[\eta _{22}^{(1)}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.0020\eta _{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{1.6610}\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6315}+0.0334\eta _{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.4190}\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.7184}`$
$`+\eta _{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.5810}\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6315}\left(0.11170.0086\eta _4+0.3083\eta _4\eta _5\right)`$
$`+\eta _{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6610}\eta _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.7184}\left(6.73980.4249\eta _4+6.7219\eta _4\eta _5\right).`$
### 3.3 $`\eta `$-Factors for $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mixing with $`\mu _K=𝒪(1\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})`$

The formulae for the QCD factors $`\widehat{\eta }(\mu _K,\mu _t)\widehat{\eta }(\mu _K)`$ relating the coefficients $`C_i(\mu _K)`$ and $`C_i(\mu _t)`$ are rather long and will not be presented. These factors can be obtained using the relation

$$\widehat{\eta }(\mu _K)=\widehat{\rho }(\mu _K)\widehat{\eta }(\mu _L)$$
(3.39)
with $`\widehat{\eta }(\mu _L)`$ given in section 3.2 and $`\widehat{\rho }(\mu _K)`$ given below. When calculating (3.39), terms of $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ should be removed.

## 4 $`\rho `$-Factors in the NDR Scheme

These factors allow to calculate $`Q_i(\mu _L)`$ from $`Q_i(\mu _K)`$ with $`\mu _K<\mu _c`$. They can be expressed in terms of

$$\eta _3\frac{\alpha _s^{(3)}(\mu _c)}{\alpha _s^{(3)}(\mu _K)}\mathrm{and}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_4\frac{\alpha _s^{(4)}(\mu _L)}{\alpha _s^{(4)}(\mu _c)}.$$
(4.1)
VLL-Sector

$`\left[\rho ^{(0)}(\mu _K)\right]_{\mathrm{VLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _3^{2/9}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_4^{6/25},`$ (4.2)
$`\left[\rho ^{(1)}(\mu _K)\right]_{\mathrm{VLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.8951\eta _3^{2/9}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_4^{6/25}0.1033\eta _3^{11/9}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_4^{6/25}1.7917\eta _3^{11/9}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_4^{31/25}.`$ (4.3)
LR-Sector

$`\left[\rho _{11}^{(0)}(\mu _K)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _3^{1/9}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_4^{3/25},`$ (4.4)
$`\left[\rho _{12}^{(0)}(\mu _K)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (4.5)
$`\left[\rho _{21}^{(0)}(\mu _K)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(\eta _3^{1/9}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_4^{3/25}\eta _3^{8/9}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_4^{24/25}),`$ (4.6)
$`\left[\rho _{22}^{(0)}(\mu _K)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _3^{8/9}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_4^{24/25},`$ (4.7)
$`\left[\rho _{11}^{(1)}(\mu _K)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.9306\eta _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{8/9}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{24/25}0.0027\eta _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{10/9}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{24/25}`$
$`+\eta _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/9}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{3/25}\left(1.97840.0457\eta _3+1.0962\eta _3\stackrel{~}{\eta }_4\right),`$
$`\left[\rho _{12}^{(1)}(\mu _K)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.3958\eta _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{8/9}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{24/25}+0.0040\eta _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{10/9}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{24/25}`$
$`+1.3918\eta _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{10/9}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{28/25},`$
$`\left[\rho _{21}^{(1)}(\mu _K)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`3.8570\eta _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{8/9}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{24/25}`$
$`+\eta _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/9}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{24/25}\left(0.61130.0018\eta _3+20.4220\stackrel{~}{\eta }_4\right)`$
$`+\eta _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/9}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{3/25}\left(16.65230.7407\mathrm{log}(\eta _3)0.0305\eta _3+0.7308\eta _3\stackrel{~}{\eta }_4\right),`$
$`\left[\rho _{22}^{(1)}(\mu _K)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`5.7855\eta _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{8/9}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{24/25}+0.9279\eta _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{10/9}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{28/25}`$
$`+\eta _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/9}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{24/25}\left(0.9170+0.0027\eta _37.6331\stackrel{~}{\eta }_4\right).`$
SLL-Sector

$`\left[\rho _{11}^{(0)}(\mu _K)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.0153\eta _3^{0.5379}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_4^{0.5810}0.0153\eta _3^{0.6120}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_4^{0.6610},`$ (4.12)
$`\left[\rho _{12}^{(0)}(\mu _K)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.9325(\eta _3^{0.5379}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_4^{0.5810}\eta _3^{0.6120}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_4^{0.6610}),`$ (4.13)
$`\left[\rho _{21}^{(0)}(\mu _K)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.0081(\eta _3^{0.6120}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_4^{0.6610}\eta _3^{0.5379}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_4^{0.5810}),`$ (4.14)
$`\left[\rho _{22}^{(0)}(\mu _K)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.0153\eta _3^{0.6120}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_4^{0.6610}0.0153\eta _3^{0.5379}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_4^{0.5810},`$ (4.15)
$`\left[\rho _{11}^{(1)}(\mu _K)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.0019\eta _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{1.6120}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.5810}0.0663\eta _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.4621}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6610}`$
$`+\eta _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.5379}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.5810}\left(3.8487+0.3952\eta _34.6906\eta _3\stackrel{~}{\eta }_4\right)`$
$`+\eta _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6120}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6610}\left(0.4264+0.0039\eta _3+0.0808\eta _3\stackrel{~}{\eta }_4\right),`$
$`\left[\rho _{12}^{(1)}(\mu _K)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.0036\eta _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{1.6120}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.5810}8.3647\eta _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.4621}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6610}`$
$`+\eta _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.5379}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.5810}\left(7.3253+0.7521\eta _342.0005\eta _3\stackrel{~}{\eta }_4\right)`$
$`+\eta _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6120}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6610}\left(53.7722+0.4933\eta _311.9813\eta _3\stackrel{~}{\eta }_4\right),`$
$`\left[\rho _{21}^{(1)}(\mu _K)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.0010\eta _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{1.6120}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.5810}+0.0005\eta _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.4621}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6610}`$
$`+\eta _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6120}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6610}\left(0.05190.0021\eta _30.0425\eta _3\stackrel{~}{\eta }_4\right)`$
$`+\eta _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.5379}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.5810}\left(0.06280.0031\eta _3+0.0372\eta _3\stackrel{~}{\eta }_4\right),`$
$`\left[\rho _{22}^{(1)}(\mu _K)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.0019\eta _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{1.6120}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.5810}+0.0663\eta _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.4621}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6610}`$
$`+\eta _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.5379}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.5810}\left(0.11960.0060\eta _3+0.3331\eta _3\stackrel{~}{\eta }_4\right)`$
$`+\eta _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6120}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6610}\left(6.54700.2592\eta _3+6.2950\eta _3\stackrel{~}{\eta }_4\right).`$
Regarding the appearance of $`\mathrm{log}\left(\eta _3\right)`$ in eq. (4) in the LR sector, we direct the reader’s attention to eq. (B.15) and the fact that in the LR sector for $`f=3`$ the form of the evolution operator given there breaks down, as the matrix $`\widehat{J}`$ has a singularity at $`f=3`$. However, taking the limit $`f3`$ of the complete expression (B.15), a finite result exhibiting the aforementioned term $`𝒪(\alpha _s)\mathrm{log}\left(\eta _3\right)`$ is obtained . In accordance with the convention of (B.17), (B.18) we treat it as an NLO contribution to the evolution operator.

## 5 Numerical Results

In tables 14 we give the numerical values for the $`\eta _{ij}`$ and $`\rho _{ij}`$ factors in the NDR scheme. To this end we have used $`\alpha _s^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.118\pm 0.003`$ with the corresponding values of $`\alpha _s^{(f)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^{(f)}`$ for $`f=4`$ and $`f=3`$ theories, see table 2 in the first paper in . Moreover we have set $`\mu _t=m_t(m_t)=166`$ GeV, $`\mu _b=4.4`$ GeV, $`\mu _L=2.0`$ GeV, $`\mu _c=1.3`$ GeV and $`\mu _K=1.0`$ GeV. In order to illustrate the effect of the NLO corrections we show also the results in the LO. In doing this we have, however, used the two-loop expression for $`\alpha _s`$ in both the LO and the NLO parts. In figs. 1 and 2 we show the factors $`\left[\eta _{ij}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ and $`\left[\eta _{ij}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ versus $`\mu `$ setting $`\alpha _s^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.118`$.

Let us recall that in the absence of renormalization group effects $`\left[\eta (\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{VLL}}=\left[\rho (\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{VLL}}=1`$ and $`\left[\widehat{\eta }(\mu )\right]_a`$ and $`\left[\widehat{\rho }(\mu )\right]_a`$ are unit matrices. Renormalization group effects generate non-diagonal elements in these matrices and renormalize $`\left[\eta (\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{VLL}}`$ and the diagonal elements in $`\left[\widehat{\eta }(\mu )\right]_a`$ and $`\left[\widehat{\rho }(\mu )\right]_a`$ away from unity.

Inspecting tables 14 and figs. 12 we observe the following pattern:

* Large renormalization group effects are found for the diagonal entries $`\left[\eta _{22}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ and $`\left[\eta _{11}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ which for $`\alpha _s^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.118`$ and $`\mu =\mu _K=1`$ GeV are enhanced by factors of 5.6 and 2.9, respectively. On the other hand $`\left[\eta _{22}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ is strongly suppressed down to 0.26 at $`\mu _K=1`$ GeV.
* Similarly the renormalization group effects in the non-diagonal entries $`\left[\eta _{21}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ and $`\left[\eta _{12}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ are large. For $`\mu _K=1.0`$ GeV and $`\alpha _s^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.118`$ they become as large as $`3.2`$ and 4.8, respectively. This implies that $`C_2^{\mathrm{LR}}(\mu )`$ is strongly affected by the presence of the operator $`Q_1^{\mathrm{LR}}`$. Similarly $`C_1^{\mathrm{SLL}}(\mu )`$ is strongly affected by the presence of $`Q_2^{\mathrm{SLL}}`$.
* These enhancements and suppressions are more pronounced after the inclusion of NLO corrections. The largest NLO corrections, in the ball park of $`25\%`$, are found for the elements $`\left[\eta _{21}(\mu _K)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$, $`\left[\eta _{22}(\mu _K)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ and $`\left[\eta _{22}(\mu _K)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$.
* $`\left[\eta _{11}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ and $`\eta _{\mathrm{VLL}}(\mu )`$ are both suppressed but this suppression is at most by $`10\%`$ and $`30\%`$, respectively.
* $`\left[\eta _{12}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ is small and $`\left[\eta _{21}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ negligible in the full range of $`\mu `$ considered. This implies that $`C_1^{\mathrm{LR}}(\mu )`$ and $`C_2^{\mathrm{SLL}}(\mu )`$ are essentially unaffected by the presence of the operators $`Q_2^{\mathrm{LR}}`$ and $`Q_1^{\mathrm{SLL}}`$, respectively.
* Similar patterns are observed for the $`\left[\rho _{ij}(\mu )\right]_a`$ factors.

On the basis of this pattern we conclude that the renormalization group effects strongly enhance the Wilson coefficients $`C_2^{\mathrm{LR}}`$ and $`C_1^{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ and strongly suppress $`C_2^{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ with respect to their values at $`\mu _t`$. The corresponding effects in $`C_1^{\mathrm{VLL}}`$ and $`C_1^{\mathrm{LR}}`$ are substantially smaller.

## 6 General Remarks

### 6.1 Renormalization Scheme Dependence

The evolution matrix $`\widehat{U}`$ is renormalization scheme dependent. It is instructive to recall how this scheme dependence is canceled in physical amplitudes by considering a single operator $`Q`$. Then the $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=2`$ amplitude reads

$$A(\mathrm{\Delta }F=2)=H_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{G_F^2}{16\pi ^2}M_W^2V_{\mathrm{CKM}}C(\mu )Q(\mu ).$$
(6.1)
The Wilson coefficient is given by

$$C(\mu )=U(\mu ,\mu _t)C(\mu _t)$$
(6.2)
where

$$U(\mu ,\mu _t)=[1+\frac{\alpha _s(\mu )}{4\pi }J][\frac{\alpha _s(\mu _t)}{\alpha _s(\mu )}]^P[1\frac{\alpha _s(\mu _t)}{4\pi }J]$$
(6.3)
with

$$P=\frac{\gamma ^{(0)}}{2\beta _0},J=\frac{P}{\beta _0}\beta _1\frac{\gamma ^{(1)}}{2\beta _0}$$
(6.4)
and

$$C(\mu _t)=C_0+\frac{\alpha _s(\mu _t)}{4\pi }C_1.$$
(6.5)
$`C_0`$ and $`C_1`$ depend generally on $`m_t`$, $`M_W`$ and the masses of new particles in extensions of the SM.

Now, the renormalization scheme dependence of $`C_1`$ is canceled by the one of $`J`$ in the last square bracket in (6.3). The scheme dependence of $`J`$ in the first square bracket in (6.3) is canceled by the scheme dependence of $`Q(\mu )`$. The power $`P`$ and the coefficient $`C_0`$ are scheme independent.

### 6.2 Transformation to Different Renormalization Schemes

Once the Wilson coefficients $`C_i(\mu )`$ have been calculated in the NDR scheme, they can be transformed to a different renormalization scheme $`A`$ by means of

$$\stackrel{}{C}^\mathrm{A}(\mu )=\left(1\frac{\alpha _s(\mu )}{4\pi }\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_{\mathrm{NDR}\mathrm{A}}^T\right)\stackrel{}{C}^{\mathrm{NDR}}(\mu ).$$
(6.6)
Likewise the matrix elements $`Q_i(\mu )`$ can be transformed from scheme A to the NDR scheme:

$$\stackrel{}{Q}(\mu )_{\mathrm{NDR}}=\left(1+\frac{\alpha _s(\mu )}{4\pi }\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_{\mathrm{A}\mathrm{NDR}}\right)\stackrel{}{Q}(\mu )_\mathrm{A},\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_{\mathrm{A}\mathrm{NDR}}=\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_{\mathrm{NDR}\mathrm{A}}.$$
(6.7)
The transformation matrices $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_{\mathrm{NDR}\mathrm{RI}}`$ from the NDR scheme to the RI schemes of  can be found in section 5 of .

### 6.3 $`\eta _B`$ and $`\eta _2`$ Factors in the SM

At this point we would like to warn the reader that the QCD factors $`\eta _B=0.55`$  and $`\eta _2`$  used in the analysis of $`B_{d,s}^0\overline{B}_{d,s}^0`$ mixing and of the top quark contribution to $`\epsilon _K`$ in the SM should not be identified with the factors $`\left[\eta (\mu _b)\right]_{\mathrm{VLL}}`$ and $`\left[\eta (\mu _K)\right]_{\mathrm{VLL}}`$ presented in this paper.

The factors $`\eta _B`$ and $`\eta _2`$ are discussed in detail in . See in particular the expressions (12.10) and (13.3) in  for $`\eta _2`$ and $`\eta _B`$, respectively. Using these expressions it is straightforward to find the relation between $`\eta _B`$ and $`\left[\eta (\mu _b)\right]_{\mathrm{VLL}}`$. It reads

$$\left[\eta (\mu _b)\right]_{\mathrm{VLL}}C_{\mathrm{SM}}^{\mathrm{VLL}}(\mu _t)=\left[\alpha _s^{(5)}(\mu _b)\right]^{6/23}[1+\frac{\alpha _s^{(5)}(\mu _b)}{4\pi }J_5]\eta _B4S_0(x_t)$$
(6.8)
where $`C_{\mathrm{SM}}^{\mathrm{VLL}}(\mu _t)`$ includes NLO corrections calculated in , $`J_5=1.627`$ in the NDR scheme and $`4S_0(x_t)`$ with $`x_t=m_t^2(\mu _t)/M_W^2`$ is the LO expression for $`C_{\mathrm{SM}}^{\mathrm{VLL}}(\mu _t)`$ that is obtained from box diagrams with top quark exchanges without QCD corrections. $`\eta _B`$ in contrast to $`\left[\eta (\mu _b)\right]_{\mathrm{VLL}}`$ is renormalization scheme independent and does not depend on $`\mu _b`$. The latter dependence has been factored out as seen on the r.h.s of (6.8). Notice that the QCD corrections to $`C_{\mathrm{SM}}^{\mathrm{VLL}}(\mu _t)`$ have been absorbed into $`\eta _B`$. An analogous relation between $`\eta _2`$ and $`\left[\eta (\mu _K)\right]_{\mathrm{VLL}}`$ can be found.

### 6.4 Going Beyond the SM

In the SM

$$\overline{B}^0|H_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{\Delta }B=2}|B^0_{\mathrm{SM}}=\frac{G_F^2}{48\pi ^2}M_W^2m_BF_B^2\widehat{B}_B(V_{tb}^{}V_{td})^2\eta _B4S_0(x_t)$$
(6.9)
where $`\widehat{B}_B`$ is the renormalization group invariant parameter defined by

$$\widehat{B}_B=B_1^{\mathrm{VLL}}(\mu _b)\left[\alpha _s^{(5)}(\mu _b)\right]^{6/23}\left[1+\frac{\alpha _s^{(5)}(\mu _b)}{4\pi }J_5\right],$$
(6.10)
with $`B_1^{\mathrm{VLL}}(\mu )`$ defined in (7.1). $`F_B`$ is the $`B`$-meson decay constant and $`\eta _B`$ is the QCD factor defined in (6.8).

In the extensions of the SM with minimal flavour violation (MFV) and without contributions from new operators it is useful to generalize (6.9) to

$$\overline{B}^0|H_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{\Delta }B=2}|B^0=\frac{G_F^2}{48\pi ^2}M_W^2m_BF_B^2\widehat{B}_B(V_{tb}^{}V_{td})^2\eta _B4F_{tt}$$
(6.11)
where

$$F_{tt}=S_0(x_t)+\frac{\eta _B^{\mathrm{new}}}{\eta _B}S_0^{\mathrm{new}}.$$
(6.12)
Here $`\eta _B^{\mathrm{new}}`$ and $`S_0^{\mathrm{new}}`$ describe new physics contributions in analogy to $`\eta _B`$ and $`S_0(x_t)`$, respectively. That is

$$\left[\eta (\mu _b)\right]_{\mathrm{VLL}}C_{\mathrm{new}}^{\mathrm{VLL}}(\mu _t)=\left[\alpha _s^{(5)}(\mu _b)\right]^{6/23}[1+\frac{\alpha _s^{(5)}(\mu _b)}{4\pi }J_5]\eta _B^{\mathrm{new}}4S_0^{\mathrm{new}}(x_t),$$
(6.13)
where $`C_{\mathrm{new}}^{\mathrm{VLL}}(\mu _t)`$ is the new physics contribution to $`C_1^{\mathrm{VLL}}(\mu _t)`$ and $`4S_0^{\mathrm{new}}`$ results from new physics contributions without QCD corrections.

In more complicated models in which new flavour-violating couplings are present and the full set of operators (2.1) is relevant, it appears to be most useful to evaluate new physics contributions using simply

$$\overline{B}^0|H_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{\Delta }B=2}|B^0_{\mathrm{new}}=\frac{G_F^2}{16\pi ^2}M_W^2C_i(\mu )\overline{B}^0|Q_i(\mu )|B^0$$
(6.14)
with $`C_i(\mu )`$ evaluated by means of the formulae in sections 2 and 3. Similar comments apply to the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ system with obvious replacements.

## 7 Phenomenological Applications

### 7.1 Hadronic Matrix Elements for $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ Mixing

The matrix elements $`\overline{K}^0|Q_i(\mu )|K^0Q_i(\mu )`$ contributing to $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mixing can be written as

$`Q_1^{\mathrm{VLL}}(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}m_KF_K^2B_1^{\mathrm{VLL}}(\mu ),`$ (7.1)
$`Q_1^{\mathrm{LR}}(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}R(\mu )m_KF_K^2B_1^{\mathrm{LR}}(\mu ),`$ (7.2)
$`Q_2^{\mathrm{LR}}(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}R(\mu )m_KF_K^2B_2^{\mathrm{LR}}(\mu ),`$ (7.3)
$`Q_1^{\mathrm{SLL}}(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{24}}R(\mu )m_KF_K^2B_1^{\mathrm{SLL}}(\mu ),`$ (7.4)
$`Q_2^{\mathrm{SLL}}(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R(\mu )m_KF_K^2B_2^{\mathrm{SLL}}(\mu ),`$ (7.5)
where

$$R(\mu )=\left(\frac{m_K}{m_s(\mu )+m_d(\mu )}\right)^2$$
(7.6)
and $`F_K`$ is the $`K`$-meson decay constant. Let us calculate the non-perturbative parameters $`B_i^a(\mu )`$ using the lattice results of  discussed in . In the Landau RI scheme (LRI) the $`B_i^a(\mu )`$ factors are given by

$`\left[B_1^{\mathrm{VLL}}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{LRI}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[B_1(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{LRI}},`$
$`\left[B_1^{\mathrm{LR}}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{LRI}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[B_5(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{LRI}},\left[B_2^{\mathrm{LR}}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{LRI}}=\left[B_4(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{LRI}},`$ (7.7)
$`\left[B_1^{\mathrm{SLL}}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{LRI}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[B_2(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{LRI}},\left[B_2^{\mathrm{SLL}}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{LRI}}=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}B_2(\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}B_3(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{LRI}},`$
where $`B_i(\mu ),i=1,\mathrm{},5`$ are the non-perturbative factors entering the matrix elements in the operator basis of .

In order to find the matrix elements (7.1)–(7.5) in the NDR scheme we use the results of , which allow us to relate the $`B_i`$ factors in the LRI and NDR schemes. We find

$`\left[B_1^{\mathrm{VLL}}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{NDR}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[B_1^{\mathrm{VLL}}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{LRI}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^{(4)}(\mu )}{4\pi }}r^{\mathrm{VLL}}\left[B_1^{\mathrm{VLL}}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{LRI}},`$ (7.8)
$`\left[B_1^{\mathrm{LR}}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{NDR}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[B_1^{\mathrm{LR}}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{LRI}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^{(4)}(\mu )}{4\pi }}\left[r_{11}^{\mathrm{LR}}B_1^{\mathrm{LR}}(\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}r_{12}^{\mathrm{LR}}B_2^{\mathrm{LR}}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{LRI}},`$ (7.9)
$`\left[B_2^{\mathrm{LR}}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{NDR}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[B_2^{\mathrm{LR}}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{LRI}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^{(4)}(\mu )}{4\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}r_{21}^{\mathrm{LR}}B_1^{\mathrm{LR}}(\mu )+r_{22}^{\mathrm{LR}}B_2^{\mathrm{LR}}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{LRI}},`$ (7.10)
$`\left[B_1^{\mathrm{SLL}}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{NDR}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[B_1^{\mathrm{SLL}}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{LRI}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^{(4)}(\mu )}{4\pi }}\left[r_{11}^{\mathrm{SLL}}B_1^{\mathrm{SLL}}(\mu )+{\displaystyle \frac{12}{5}}r_{12}^{\mathrm{SLL}}B_2^{\mathrm{SLL}}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{LRI}},`$ (7.11)
$`\left[B_2^{\mathrm{SLL}}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{NDR}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[B_2^{\mathrm{SLL}}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{LRI}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^{(4)}(\mu )}{4\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{5}{12}}r_{21}^{\mathrm{SLL}}B_1^{\mathrm{SLL}}(\mu )+r_{22}^{\mathrm{SLL}}B_2^{\mathrm{SLL}}(\mu )\right]_{\mathrm{LRI}},`$ (7.12)
where

$`r^{\mathrm{VLL}}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_{\mathrm{LRI}\mathrm{NDR}}^{\mathrm{VLL}}=0.8785,`$ (7.13)
$`\widehat{r}^{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_{\mathrm{LRI}\mathrm{NDR}}^{\mathrm{LR}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1.1288& 6.7726\\ 0.3069& 10.8712\end{array}\right),`$ (7.14)
$`\widehat{r}^{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_{\mathrm{LRI}\mathrm{NDR}}^{\mathrm{SLL}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}5.6438& 0.2140\\ 12.9387& 2.6892\end{array}\right).`$ (7.15)
Now, the $`B_i`$ factors presented in  read for $`\mu =\mu _L=2\mathrm{GeV}`$ as follows:

$`\left[B_1\right]_{\mathrm{LRI}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.60\pm 0.06,\left[B_2\right]_{\mathrm{LRI}}=0.66\pm 0.04,`$
$`\left[B_3\right]_{\mathrm{LRI}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.05\pm 0.12,\left[B_4\right]_{\mathrm{LRI}}=1.03\pm 0.06,`$ (7.16)
$`\left[B_5\right]_{\mathrm{LRI}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.73\pm 0.10.`$
Using the central values for these parameters, we find by means of (7.7)

$`\left[B_1^{\mathrm{VLL}}\right]_{\mathrm{LRI}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.60,`$
$`\left[B_1^{\mathrm{LR}}\right]_{\mathrm{LRI}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.73,\left[B_2^{\mathrm{LR}}\right]_{\mathrm{LRI}}=1.03,`$ (7.17)
$`\left[B_1^{\mathrm{SLL}}\right]_{\mathrm{LRI}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.66,\left[B_2^{\mathrm{SLL}}\right]_{\mathrm{LRI}}=0.40.`$
Finally, setting $`\alpha _s^{(4)}(2\mathrm{GeV})=0.306`$ and using (7.8)–(7.12) we obtain in the NDR scheme for $`\mu =\mu _L=2\mathrm{GeV}`$

$`\left[B_1^{\mathrm{VLL}}\right]_{\mathrm{NDR}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.61,`$
$`\left[B_1^{\mathrm{LR}}\right]_{\mathrm{NDR}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.96,\left[B_2^{\mathrm{LR}}\right]_{\mathrm{NDR}}=1.30,`$ (7.18)
$`\left[B_1^{\mathrm{SLL}}\right]_{\mathrm{NDR}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.76,\left[B_2^{\mathrm{SLL}}\right]_{\mathrm{NDR}}=0.51.`$
We observe that the scheme dependence in the LR and SLL sectors is large, amounting to a shift of the $`B_i`$ factors by roughly 30% and 20%, respectively. The corresponding scheme dependence in the VLL sector amounts to 2%.

Setting $`F_K=160\mathrm{MeV}`$ and $`m_K=498\mathrm{MeV}`$ we obtain at $`\mu =2\mathrm{GeV}`$

$`Q_1^{\mathrm{VLL}}_{\mathrm{NDR}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.2610^2\mathrm{GeV}^3,`$ (7.19)
$`Q_1^{\mathrm{LR}}_{\mathrm{NDR}}`$ $`=`$ $`3.83\left[{\displaystyle \frac{115\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}{m_s(2\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})+m_d(2\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})}}\right]^210^2\mathrm{GeV}^3,`$ (7.20)
$`Q_2^{\mathrm{LR}}_{\mathrm{NDR}}`$ $`=`$ $`7.77\left[{\displaystyle \frac{115\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}{m_s(2\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})+m_d(2\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})}}\right]^210^2\mathrm{GeV}^3,`$ (7.21)
$`Q_1^{\mathrm{SLL}}_{\mathrm{NDR}}`$ $`=`$ $`3.79\left[{\displaystyle \frac{115\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}{m_s(2\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})+m_d(2\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})}}\right]^210^2\mathrm{GeV}^3,`$ (7.22)
$`Q_2^{\mathrm{SLL}}_{\mathrm{NDR}}`$ $`=`$ $`6.10\left[{\displaystyle \frac{115\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}{m_s(2\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})+m_d(2\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})}}\right]^210^2\mathrm{GeV}^3.`$ (7.23)
### 7.2 $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_K`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_B`$ and $`\epsilon _K`$

Next we would like to present general formulae for the mass differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_K`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_B`$ in the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ and $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ systems and for the CP-violating parameter $`\epsilon _K`$. In the case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_K`$ and $`\epsilon _K`$ our formulae are valid for the contributions of heavy internal particles with masses higher than $`M_W`$. The known SM contributions from internal charm quark exchanges and mixed charm-top exchanges  have to be added separately.

We have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M_K=2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\overline{K}^0|H_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{\Delta }S=2}|K^0,$$
(7.24)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }M_B=2|\overline{B}^0|H_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{\Delta }B=2}|B^0|,$$
(7.25)
$$\epsilon _K=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(i\pi /4)}{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Delta }M_K}\mathrm{Im}\overline{K}^0|H_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{\Delta }S=2}|K^0.$$
(7.26)
The matrix element $`\overline{K}^0|H_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{\Delta }S=2}|K^0`$ can be written as follows

$`\overline{K}^0|H_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{\Delta }S=2}|K^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2}{48\pi ^2}}M_W^2m_KF_K^2[P_1^{\mathrm{VLL}}(C_1^{\mathrm{VLL}}(\mu _t)+C_1^{\mathrm{VRR}}(\mu _t))`$ (7.27)
$`+P_1^{\mathrm{LR}}C_1^{\mathrm{LR}}(\mu _t)+P_2^{\mathrm{LR}}C_2^{\mathrm{LR}}(\mu _t)`$
$`+P_1^{\mathrm{SLL}}(C_1^{\mathrm{SLL}}(\mu _t)+C_1^{\mathrm{SRR}}(\mu _t))+P_2^{\mathrm{SLL}}(C_2^{\mathrm{SLL}}(\mu _t)+C_2^{\mathrm{SRR}}(\mu _t))]`$
with

$$P_1^{\mathrm{VLL}}=\left[\eta (\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{VLL}}B_1^{\mathrm{VLL}}(\mu _L),$$
(7.28)
$$P_1^{\mathrm{LR}}=\frac{1}{2}\left[\eta _{11}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}\left[B_1^{\mathrm{LR}}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{eff}}+\frac{3}{4}\left[\eta _{21}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}\left[B_2^{\mathrm{LR}}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{eff}},$$
(7.29)
$$P_2^{\mathrm{LR}}=\frac{1}{2}\left[\eta _{12}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}\left[B_1^{\mathrm{LR}}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{eff}}+\frac{3}{4}\left[\eta _{22}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}\left[B_2^{\mathrm{LR}}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{eff}},$$
(7.30)
$$P_1^{\mathrm{SLL}}=\frac{5}{8}\left[\eta _{11}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}\left[B_1^{\mathrm{SLL}}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{eff}}\frac{3}{2}\left[\eta _{21}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}\left[B_2^{\mathrm{SLL}}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{eff}},$$
(7.31)
$$P_2^{\mathrm{SLL}}=\frac{5}{8}\left[\eta _{12}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}\left[B_1^{\mathrm{SLL}}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{eff}}\frac{3}{2}\left[\eta _{22}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}\left[B_2^{\mathrm{SLL}}(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{eff}}.$$
(7.32)
In the case of the SM and MFV models one can use (6.9) and (6.11) instead of (7.28). In writing these formulae we have absorbed the CKM factors into $`C_i(\mu _t)`$. The effective parameters $`\left[B_i^a(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ are defined by

$$\left[B_i^a(\mu _L)\right]_{\mathrm{eff}}\left(\frac{m_K}{m_s(\mu _L)+m_d(\mu _L)}\right)^2B_i^a(\mu _L)=18.75\left[\frac{115\mathrm{MeV}}{m_s(\mu _L)+m_d(\mu _L)}\right]^2B_i^a(\mu _L).$$
(7.33)
In the case of $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing one has to make the replacements $`\mu _L\mu _b`$ and $`m_KF_K^2m_BF_B^2`$. Then in the case of $`B_d^0\overline{B}_d^0`$ system

$$\left[B_i^a(\mu _b)\right]_{\mathrm{eff}}\left(\frac{m_B}{m_b(\mu _b)+m_d(\mu _b)}\right)^2B_i^a(\mu _b)=1.44\left[\frac{4.4\mathrm{GeV}}{m_b(\mu _b)+m_d(\mu _b)}\right]^2B_i^a(\mu _b),$$
(7.34)
with an analogous formula for the $`B_s^0\overline{B}_s^0`$ system.

We would like to emphasize that these formulae together with the QCD factors $`\eta _{ij}`$ presented in Section 3 are valid for any extension of the SM. In particular the coefficients $`P_i^a`$ are universal. New physics contributions enter only the coefficients $`C_i^a(\mu _t)`$. The latter have to be evaluated in the NDR scheme in order to cancel the scheme dependence of the universal coefficients $`P_i^a`$. In the process of multiplying $`C_i^a(\mu _t)`$ and $`P_i^a`$ terms $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ have to be removed.

It is instructive to evaluate the coefficients $`P_i^a`$ for the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ system. Setting $`\mu _L=2`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^{(4)}=325`$ MeV, $`m_s(\mu _L)+m_d(\mu _L)=115`$ MeV and using the values for $`B_i^a`$ in (7.18) we find

$$P_1^{\mathrm{VLL}}=0.48,$$
(7.35)
$$P_1^{\mathrm{LR}}=36.1,P_2^{\mathrm{LR}}=59.3,$$
(7.36)
$$P_1^{\mathrm{SLL}}=18.1,P_2^{\mathrm{SLL}}=32.2.$$
(7.37)
We observe that the coefficients $`P_i^{\mathrm{LR}}`$ and $`P_i^{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ are by two orders of magnitude larger than $`P_1^{\mathrm{VLL}}`$. This originates in the strong enhancement of the QCD factors $`\eta _{ij}`$ for the LR and SLL (SRR) operators and in the chiral enhancement of their matrix elements as seen in (7.33). Consequently even small new physics contributions to $`C_i^{\mathrm{LR}}(\mu _t)`$ and $`C_i^{\mathrm{SLL}}(\mu _t)`$ can play an important role in the phenomenology .

In the case of $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing the chiral enhancement of the hadronic matrix elements in the LR and SLL sectors is absent. Moreover, the QCD factors $`\eta _{ij}`$ are smaller than in the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mixing. Consequently the coefficients $`P_i^{\mathrm{LR}}`$ and $`P_i^{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ are smaller in this case. As lattice results are not yet available for all the relevant hadronic matrix elements in the $`B`$ system  we will set $`B_i^a(m_b)=1`$. Taking $`m_B=5.28`$ GeV, $`\mu _b=4.4`$ GeV, $`m_b(\mu _b)+m_d(\mu _b)=4.4`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^{(5)}=226`$ MeV we find

$$P_1^{\mathrm{VLL}}=0.84,$$
(7.38)
$$P_1^{\mathrm{LR}}=1.62,P_2^{\mathrm{LR}}=2.46,$$
(7.39)
$$P_1^{\mathrm{SLL}}=1.47,P_2^{\mathrm{SLL}}=2.98.$$
(7.40)
## 8 Summary

We have presented analytic formulae for the QCD renormalization group factors relating the Wilson coefficients $`C_i(\mu _t)`$ and $`C_i(\mu )`$, with $`\mu _t=𝒪(m_t)`$ and $`\mu <\mu _t`$, of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=2`$ dimension six four-quark operators $`Q_i`$. The formulae presented in section 3 are given in the NDR scheme but are otherwise universal and apply to the Standard Model and all its possible extensions. In order to complete the evaluation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=2`$ amplitudes, the QCD factors presented here have to be combined with the Wilson coefficients $`C_i(\mu _t)`$ evaluated in a given model at the short distance scale $`\mu _t`$ and with the hadronic matrix elements $`Q_i(\mu )`$ evaluated at $`\mu =\mu _b`$, $`\mu =\mu _L`$ or $`\mu =\mu _K`$ dependently on the process considered. $`C_i(\mu _t)`$ and $`Q_i(\mu )`$ have to be computed in the NDR scheme in order to obtain a renormalization scheme independent answer for the physical amplitudes.

We have also presented analytic formulae for the QCD factors relating the matrix elements $`Q_i(2\mathrm{GeV})`$ and $`Q_i(\mu _K)`$ with $`\mu _K<2`$ GeV. These formulae allow the comparison of the matrix elements obtained in lattice simulations with those obtained in approaches which use lower renormalization scales.

Our numerical analysis shows that the renormalization-group effects are very large in the LR and SLL sectors. This in particular is the case for the elements $`[\eta _{21}(\mu )]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$, $`[\eta _{22}(\mu )]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$, $`[\eta _{11}(\mu )]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$, $`[\eta _{12}(\mu )]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ and $`[\eta _{22}(\mu )]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ and is in accordance with the previous analyses . The NLO corrections amount typically to 5-15% except for the elements $`[\eta _{21}(\mu )]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$, $`[\eta _{22}(\mu )]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ and $`[\eta _{22}(\mu )]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$, where in the case of $`\mu =1\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ they can reach 25%. As a result of this pattern the renormalization group effects strongly enhance the Wilson coefficients $`C_2^{\mathrm{LR}}`$ and $`C_1^{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ and strongly suppress $`C_2^{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ with respect to their values at $`\mu _t`$. The corresponding effects in $`C_1^{\mathrm{VLL}}`$ and $`C_1^{\mathrm{LR}}`$ are substantially smaller.

Finally we have presented expressions for the mass differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_K`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_B`$ and the CP-violating parameter $`ϵ_K`$ in terms of the non-perturbative parameters $`B_i^a`$ and the Wilson coefficients $`C_i(\mu _t)`$. These formulae include renormalization group effects at the NLO level and allow to calculate straightforwardly $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_K`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_B`$ and $`ϵ_K`$ in any extension of the SM once the Wilson coefficients $`C_i(\mu _t)`$ and the non-perturbative parameters $`B_i^a`$ are known in the NDR scheme. In the case of $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mixing we have presented the results for $`\left[B_i^a(2\mathrm{GeV})\right]_{\mathrm{NDR}}`$ using the lattice results obtained in the LRI scheme. The corresponding results for the $`B`$ system should be available this year.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Christoph Bobeth and Janusz Rosiek for critical reading of the manuscript and enlightening discussions.

This work has been supported in part by the German Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung under the contract 05HT9WOA0.

## Appendix

## Appendix A One-Loop and Two-Loop Anomalous Dimension Matrices

We give below the one-loop and two-loop anomalous dimension matrices. The two-loop expressions are given in the NDR scheme .

$`\begin{array}{cc}\gamma ^{(0)\mathrm{VLL}}=4,\hfill & \gamma ^{(1)\mathrm{VLL}}=7+\frac{4}{9}f,\hfill \\ \widehat{\gamma }^{(0)\mathrm{LR}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}2& & 12\\ 0& & 16\end{array}\right),\hfill & \widehat{\gamma }^{(1)\mathrm{LR}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{71}{3}\frac{22}{9}f& & 198\frac{44}{3}f\\ \frac{225}{4}2f& & \frac{1343}{6}+\frac{68}{9}f\end{array}\right),\hfill \\ \widehat{\gamma }^{(0)\mathrm{SLL}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}10& & \frac{1}{6}\\ 40& & \frac{34}{3}\end{array}\right),\hfill & \widehat{\gamma }^{(1)\mathrm{SLL}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1459}{9}+\frac{74}{9}f& & \frac{35}{36}\frac{1}{54}f\\ \frac{6332}{9}+\frac{584}{9}f& & \frac{2065}{9}\frac{394}{27}f\end{array}\right).\hfill \end{array}`$ (A.12)
## Appendix B Expansion of the evolution matrices $`\widehat{U}`$ in $`\alpha _s`$

Recall the renormalization group equation to which (2.12) is the formal solution. At NLO it reads, written in terms of $`\alpha _s`$,

$$\frac{d\widehat{U}(\mu _1,\mu _2)}{d\alpha _s}=\left[\frac{\widehat{\gamma }^{(0)T}}{2\beta _0}\frac{1}{\alpha _s}+\left(\frac{\beta _1}{2\beta _0^2}\widehat{\gamma }^{(0)T}\frac{1}{2\beta _0}\widehat{\gamma }^{(1)T}\right)\frac{1}{4\pi }\right]\widehat{U}(\mu _1,\mu _2).$$
(B.13)
At the leading order, where only the term $`1/\alpha _s`$ is kept, (B.13) has the (exact) solution

$$\widehat{U}^{(0)}(\mu _1,\mu _2)=\left(\frac{\alpha _s(\mu _2)}{\alpha _s(\mu _1)}\right)^{\frac{\widehat{\gamma }^{(0)T}}{2\beta _0}}=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\widehat{\gamma }^{(0)T}}{2\beta _0}\mathrm{log}\frac{\alpha _s(\mu _2)}{\alpha _s(\mu _1)}\right).$$
(B.14)
At the next-to-leading order one has

$$\widehat{U}(\mu _1,\mu _2)=\left(\widehat{1}+\frac{\alpha _s^{(f)}(\mu _1)}{4\pi }\widehat{J}_f\right)\widehat{U}_f^{(0)}\left(\widehat{1}\frac{\alpha _s^{(f)}(\mu _2)}{4\pi }\widehat{J}_f\right),$$
(B.15)
where higher orders in the parentheses have been omitted. The algorithm for constructing the matrix $`\widehat{J}_f`$ can be found in . Eq. (B.15) holds in a theory with a given number $`f`$ of active quark flavours. When evolving across a quark threshold, as for instance in (2.14), one finds

$`\widehat{U}(\mu _L,\mu _t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\widehat{1}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^{(4)}(\mu _L)}{4\pi }}\widehat{J}_4\right)\widehat{U}_{f=4}^{(0)}\left(\widehat{1}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^{(4)}(\mu _b)}{4\pi }}\widehat{J}_4\right)\left(\widehat{1}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^{(5)}(\mu _b)}{4\pi }}\widehat{J}_5\right)\widehat{U}_{f=5}^{(0)}\left(\widehat{1}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^{(5)}(\mu _t)}{4\pi }}\widehat{J}_5\right).`$
In light of the fact that $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ and higher terms have been dropped in (B.13) and (B.15), we adopt the convention

$`\eta ^\mathrm{P}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu _2)}{\alpha _s(\mu _1)}}\right)^\mathrm{P}=𝒪(\alpha _s^0),`$ (B.17)
$`\mathrm{log}(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪(\alpha _s^0)`$ (B.18)
and drop all $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ and higher terms in (LABEL:NLO\_2step) and similar expressions. For the desired two- and three-step evolution matrices, one obtains

$`\widehat{U}(\mu _L,\mu _t)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{U}_{f=4}^{(0)}(\mu _L,\mu _b)\widehat{U}_{f=5}^{(0)}(\mu _b,\mu _t)`$ (B.19)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^{(4)}(\mu _L)}{4\pi }}\left[\widehat{J}_4\widehat{U}_{f=4}^{(0)}\widehat{U}_{f=5}^{(0)}+\eta _4\widehat{U}_{f=4}^{(0)}\left(\widehat{J}_5\widehat{J}_4\right)\widehat{U}_{f=5}^{(0)}\eta _4\eta _5\widehat{U}_{f=4}^{(0)}\widehat{U}_{f=5}^{(0)}\widehat{J}_5\right],`$
$`\widehat{U}(\mu _K,\mu _L)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{U}_{f=3}^{(0)}(\mu _K,\mu _c)\widehat{U}_{f=4}^{(0)}(\mu _c,\mu _L)`$ (B.20)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^{(3)}(\mu _K)}{4\pi }}\left[\widehat{J}_3\widehat{U}_{f=3}^{(0)}\widehat{U}_{f=4}^{(0)}+\eta _3\widehat{U}_{f=3}^{(0)}\left(\widehat{J}_4\widehat{J}_3\right)\widehat{U}_{f=4}^{(0)}\eta _3\eta _4\widehat{U}_{f=3}^{(0)}\widehat{U}_{f=4}^{(0)}\widehat{J}_4\right],`$
$`\widehat{U}(\mu _K,\mu _t)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{U}_{f=3}^{(0)}(\mu _K,\mu _c)\widehat{U}_{f=4}^{(0)}(\mu _c,\mu _b)\widehat{U}_{f=5}^{(0)}(\mu _b,\mu _t)`$ (B.21)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^{(3)}(\mu _K)}{4\pi }}[\widehat{J}_3\widehat{U}_{f=3}^{(0)}\widehat{U}_{f=4}^{(0)}\widehat{U}_{f=5}^{(0)}+\eta _3\widehat{U}_{f=3}^{(0)}(\widehat{J}_4\widehat{J}_3)\widehat{U}_{f=4}^{(0)}\widehat{U}_{f=5}^{(0)}`$
$`+\eta _3\eta _4\widehat{U}_{f=3}^{(0)}\widehat{U}_{f=4}^{(0)}(\widehat{J}_5\widehat{J}_4)\widehat{U}_{f=5}^{(0)}\eta _3\eta _4\eta _5\widehat{U}_{f=3}^{(0)}\widehat{U}_{f=4}^{(0)}\widehat{U}_{f=5}^{(0)}J_5],`$
where we have suppressed some obvious arguments in the LO evolution matrices $`U^{(0)}`$ in order not to unnecessarily clutter the expressions.

## Appendix C The Evolution Matrix $`\widehat{U}(\mu _t,\mu _s)`$

For completeness we give here the elements of the evolution matrix $`\widehat{U}(\mu _t,\mu _s)`$ in a $`f=6`$ flavour theory with $`\mu _s>\mu _t`$. The renormalization group evolution from $`\mu _s`$ down to $`\mu _t`$ can even be included as in (1.4) when $`\mu _s`$ is only by a factor of two higher than $`m_t`$. However, it is only necessary when $`\mu _s>4m_t`$ in order to avoid large logarithms.

The formulae given below are not as general as the ones given in section 3. They apply only to the evolution of new physics contributions which do not involve SM particles except for the number of quark flavours entering $`\alpha _s`$ and the anomalous dimensions of the operators (2.1). This is for instance the case considered in  in which squarks and gluinos have been integrated out at a scale $`\mu _s\mu _t`$. On the other hand the renormalization group analysis of charged Higgs contributions with $`M_{H^\pm }m_t`$ would be more complicated as both $`H^\pm `$ and top can be simultaneously exchanged in box diagrams. Integrating out first $`H^\pm `$ and subsequently the top would introduce bilocal structures for $`\mu _t<\mu <\mu _s`$ quite analogous to the study of charm contributions to $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mixing . We find then
VLL-Sector

$`\left[\eta ^{(0)}(\mu _t)\right]_{\mathrm{VLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _6^{6/21},`$ (C.22)
$`\left[\eta ^{(1)}(\mu _t)\right]_{\mathrm{VLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.3707(1\eta _6)\eta _6^{6/21}.`$ (C.23)
LR-Sector

$`\left[\eta _{11}^{(0)}(\mu _t)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _6^{3/21},`$ (C.24)
$`\left[\eta _{12}^{(0)}(\mu _t)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (C.25)
$`\left[\eta _{21}^{(0)}(\mu _t)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(\eta _6^{3/21}\eta _6^{24/21}),`$ (C.26)
$`\left[\eta _{22}^{(0)}(\mu _t)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _6^{24/21},`$ (C.27)
$`\left[\eta _{11}^{(1)}(\mu _t)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.9219\eta _{6}^{}{}_{}{}^{24/21}+\eta _{6}^{}{}_{}{}^{3/21}\left(2.2194+1.2975\eta _6\right),`$ (C.28)
$`\left[\eta _{12}^{(1)}(\mu _t)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.3828(\eta _{6}^{}{}_{}{}^{24/21}\eta _6^{24/21}),`$ (C.29)
$`\left[\eta _{21}^{(1)}(\mu _t)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{6}^{}{}_{}{}^{3/21}\left(10.1463+0.8650\eta _6\right)+\eta _{6}^{}{}_{}{}^{24/21}\left(6.4603+15.7415\eta _6\right),`$ (C.30)
$`\left[\eta _{22}^{(1)}(\mu _t)\right]_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.9219\eta _{6}^{}{}_{}{}^{24/21}+\eta _{6}^{}{}_{}{}^{24/21}\left(9.690410.6122\eta _6\right).`$ (C.31)
SLL-Sector

$`\left[\eta _{11}^{(0)}(\mu _t)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.0153\eta _6^{0.6916}0.0153\eta _6^{0.7869},`$ (C.32)
$`\left[\eta _{12}^{(0)}(\mu _t)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.9325(\eta _6^{0.6916}\eta _6^{0.7869}),`$ (C.33)
$`\left[\eta _{21}^{(0)}(\mu _t)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.0081(\eta _6^{0.7869}\eta _6^{0.6916}),`$ (C.34)
$`\left[\eta _{22}^{(0)}(\mu _t)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.0153\eta _6^{0.7869}0.0153\eta _6^{0.6916},`$ (C.35)
$`\left[\eta _{11}^{(1)}(\mu _t)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{6}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6916}\left(5.64786.0350\eta _6\right)+\eta _{6}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.7869}\left(0.3272+0.0600\eta _6\right),`$ (C.36)
$`\left[\eta _{12}^{(1)}(\mu _t)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{6}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6916}\left(10.749437.9209\eta _6\right)+\eta _{6}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.7869}\left(41.255614.0841\eta _6\right),`$ (C.37)
$`\left[\eta _{21}^{(1)}(\mu _t)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{6}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.7869}\left(0.06180.0315\eta _6\right)+\eta _{6}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6916}\left(0.0454+0.0479\eta _6\right),`$ (C.38)
$`\left[\eta _{22}^{(1)}(\mu _t)\right]_{\mathrm{SLL}}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{6}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.6916}\left(0.0865+0.3007\eta _6\right)+\eta _{6}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.7869}\left(7.7870+7.3999\eta _6\right).`$ (C.39)
Here $`\mu _t=𝒪(m_t)`$ and $`\eta _6=\alpha _s^{(6)}(\mu _s)/\alpha _s^{(6)}(\mu _t)`$. These results together with those presented in section 3 and 4 allow to find $`\widehat{U}(\mu ,\mu _s)`$ with $`\mu <\mu _t`$, see (1.4).


text:
# Dynamics of the Time Horizon Minority Game

## 1 Introduction

Agent-based models of complex adaptive systems are attracting significant interest across many disciplines. Typically each agent has access to a limited set of recent global outcomes of the system; she then combines this information with her limited strategy set chosen randomly at the start of the game (i.e. quenched disorder) in order to decide an action at a given timestep. These decisions by the $`N`$ agents feed back to generate the fluctuations in the system’s output. The Minority Game (MG) introduced by Challet and Zhang offers possibly the simplest paradigm for such a complex, adaptive system and has therefore been the subject of intense research activity -. Most studies of the MG have focussed on a calculation of both time and configuration (i.e. quenched disorder) averaged quantities, in particular the ‘volatility’ $`\sigma `$ where $`\sigma `$ is the standard deviation of the fluctuations. Our own work has shown that the variations of this averaged $`\sigma `$ with memory size $`m`$ can be quantitatively explained in terms of ‘crowd-anticrowd’ collective behavior . This crowd-anticrowd theory, which implicitly assumes both time-averaging and configuration-averaging, is simple and intuitive yet it yields useful analytic expressions . In terms of more detailed microscopic theories, two complementary spin-glass approaches have been shown to be remarkably powerful.

In this paper, we wish to focus on the dynamics of the multi-agent game for a given realization of the quenched disorder of initially picked strategies. We present exact analytic results for a finite time horizon version of the Minority Game, the Time Horizon Minority Game (THMG), in which strategy performance is only recorded over the previous $`\tau `$ timesteps. This seemingly trivial modification of the basic MG yields a dynamical system with surprisingly rich dynamics. These dynamics depend strongly on whether the participants are fed real (as opposed to random) history strings, and on the nature of the quenched disorder corresponding to initial conditions. We present a set of equations describing the THMG - these equations are equivalent to a Markov Chain. This Markov Chain is used to generate accurate analytic results for the resulting volatility in the THMG. Throughout the paper, similarities and differences between the THMG and MG are pointed out where appropriate. Section 2 provides a brief introduction to the MG and provides exact analytic expressions for the volatility $`\sigma `$ for a given configuration of quenched disorder. Section 3 discusses the THMG and provides corresponding formulae for this game. Section 4 compares the analytic and numerical results for the THMG. Section 5 provides the conclusion.

## 2 The basic Minority Game (MG)

The MG  comprises an odd number of agents $`N`$ (e.g. traders or drivers) choosing repeatedly between option 0 (e.g. buy or choose route 0) and option 1 (e.g. sell or choose route 1). The winners are those in the minority group; e.g. sellers win if there is an excess of buyers, drivers choosing route 0 encounter less traffic if most other drivers choose route 1. The outcome at each timestep represents the winning decision, 0 or 1. A common bit-string of the $`m`$ most recent outcomes is made available to the agents at each timestep . The agents randomly pick $`s`$ strategies at the beginning of the game, with repetitions allowed (quenched disorder). Each strategy is a bit-string of length $`2^m`$ which predicts the next outcome for each of the $`2^m`$ possible histories. After each turn, the agent assigns one (virtual) point to each of her strategies which would have predicted the correct outcome, and penalizes a strategy by one (virtual) point if it incorrectly predicts the outcome. At each turn of the game, the agent uses the most successful strategy, i.e. the one with the most virtual points, among her $`s`$ strategies.

The number of agents holding a particular combination of strategies can be written as a $`D\times D\times \mathrm{}`$ ($`s`$ terms) dimensional tensor $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, where $`D`$ is the total number of available strategies. For $`s=2`$, this is simply a $`D\times D`$ matrix where the entry $`(i,j)`$ represents the number of agents who picked strategy $`i`$ and then $`j`$. The strategy labels are given by the decimal representation of the strategy plus unity, for example the strategy 0101 for $`m=2`$ has strategy label 5+1=6. This quenched disorder $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is fixed at the beginning of the game and can be written using the full or reduced strategy spaces . The value of $`a_R^\mu `$  describes the prediction of strategy $`R`$ given the history $`\mu `$, where $`\mu `$ is the decimal number corresponding to the $`m`$-bit binary history string. Hence $`a_R^\mu =1`$ denotes a prediction of choice ‘0’ while $`a_R^\mu =1`$ denotes a prediction of choice ‘1’). The approach of our (time and configuration-averaged) crowd-anticrowd theory was to partition the $`N`$ agents into $`g`$ groups in such a way that the groups themselves were uncorrelated. This was achieved by considering the reduced strategy space, which produces essentially identical results to the full strategy space for the volatility. Specifically, each group $`g`$ contains a crowd of $`n_g^C`$ agents using highly correlated strategies, and an anticrowd $`n_g^A`$ of agents using strategies which are highly anti-correlated to the crowd. This leaves an effective super-agent of size $`n_g=n_g^Cn_g^A`$ representing each group. Since the strong correlations have now been removed from the problem, the resulting groups are essentially uncorrelated and can be considered as executing random walks with respect to each other in terms of their decisions. As shown in Refs. , summing the resulting variances yields excellent agreement with the numerical values for the volatility $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Omega }`$, where $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ denotes averaging over all initial configurations of quenched disorder $`\{\mathrm{\Omega }\}`$.

Here we are interested instead in the detailed dynamics of the game for a given choice of initial quenched disorder $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, hence we follow a more microscopic approach. This is particularly relevant if the intended application of such games is to understand financial markets, since such markets should each correspond to just *one* realization of the game given an initial $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Hence we imagine that a particular $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has already been chosen. Since the game involves a coin-toss to break ties in strategy scores, this stochasticity also means that different runs for a given $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ will also differ - we return to this point below. The number of traders making decision $`1`$ (the ‘instantaneous crowd’) minus the number of traders making decision $`0`$ (the ‘instantaneous anticrowd’) defines the net ‘attendance’ $`A[t]`$ at a given timestep $`t`$ of the game. This attendance $`A[t]`$ is made up of two groups of traders at any one timestep: there are $`A_D[t]`$ traders who act in a ‘decided’ way, i.e. they do not require the toss of a coin to decide which choice to make - this is because they have one strategy that is better than their others, or because their highest-scoring strategies are tied *but* give the same response as each other to the history $`\mu _t`$ at that turn of the game. In addition, there are $`A_U[t]`$ traders who act in an ‘undecided’ way, i.e. they require the toss of a coin to decide which choice to make - this is because they have two (or more) highest-scoring tied strategies *and* these give different responses to the history $`\mu _t`$ at that turn of the game. Hence the outcome at timestep $`t`$ is given by

$$A[t]=A_D[t]+A_U[t].$$
(1)
The state of the game at the beginning of timestep $`t`$ depends on the strategy score vector $`\underset{¯}{s}_t`$ and a history $`\mu _t`$ at that moment. Henceforth we will drop the variable $`t`$ from the notation, but note that it remains an implicit variable through the time-dependence of $`\underset{¯}{s}`$ and $`\mu `$. We also focus on $`s=2`$ strategies per agent, although the formalism can be generalized in a straightforward way. At timestep $`t`$, $`A_D`$ is given exactly by

$$A_D(\underset{¯}{s},\mu )=\underset{R,R^{^{}}=1}{}a_R^\mu (1+\mathrm{Sgn}[s_Rs_R^{^{}}])\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Psi }}}_{R,R^{^{}}}$$
(2)
where the symmetrized matrix $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Psi }}}=\frac{1}{2}(\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}+\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}^T)`$ with $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ representing the quenched disorder. The element $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_{R,R^{^{}}}`$ gives the number of agents picking strategy $`R`$ and then $`R^{}`$. The number of undecided traders $`N_U`$ is given exactly by

$$N_U(\underset{¯}{s},\mu )=\underset{R,R^{^{}}=1}{}\delta (s_Rs_R^{^{}})[1\delta (a_R^\mu a_R^{^{}}^\mu )]\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_{R,R^{^{}}}$$
(3)
and hence the attendance of undecided traders $`A_U`$ is distributed binomially in the following way:

$$A_U(\underset{¯}{s},\mu )2\mathrm{Bin}[N_U(\underset{¯}{s},\mu ),\frac{1}{2}]N_U(\underset{¯}{s},\mu )$$
(4)
where the term ‘Bin’ denotes a binomial distribution with $`N_U(\underset{¯}{s},\mu )`$ trials and probability $`1/2`$.

The so-called ‘volatility’ is used in finance to describe some statistical characteristic of the fluctuations in the market. It does not have a unique definition in the finance literature but is typically taken as some form of ‘root-mean-square’ fluctuation - however this definition leaves open the question of *which* mean should be computed. In the present context, it makes sense to define the volatility in terms of the time-average of a particular realization $`k`$ of the random process $`A[t]`$, given an initial quenched disorder $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. As mentioned above, our crowd-anticrowd theory was limited to consideration of a time-averaged volatility $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which had *also* been averaged over all configurations of initial quenched disorder $`\{\mathrm{\Omega }\}`$. The present work goes beyond this limitation to consideration of a *particular* choice of quenched disorder $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Consider any stochastic process $`z(t)`$ produced by a particular realization $`k`$ of the game, given an initial quenched disorder $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This quantity $`z(t)`$ could represent the attendance $`A[t]`$ at timestep $`t`$, or any time-dependent quantity derived from it such as the mean attendance at timestep $`t`$ calculated over the past $`n`$ timesteps, or the volatility defined as the root-mean-square attendance over the past $`n`$ timesteps. The finite time average of the $`k`$’th realization of this process is given by

$$[^{(k)}z(t)]_T\frac{1}{T}_{tT/2}^{t+T/2}{}_{}{}^{(k)}z(t^{})dt^{}.$$
(5)
If $`T`$ is finite, then $`[^{(k)}z(t)]_T`$ is itself a random process. In real financial markets, the volatility defined by such a finite-time average does indeed fluctuate producing ‘volatility clustering’. Here we instead wish to focus on the time-average which is defined in the $`T\mathrm{}`$ limit:

$$\overline{{}_{}{}^{(k)}z}\mathrm{Lim}_\mathrm{T}\mathrm{}\frac{1}{T}_{tT/2}^{t+T/2}{}_{}{}^{(k)}z(t^{})𝑑t^{},$$
(6)
which no longer depends on $`t`$ or $`T`$ but in general does depend on the particular realization $`k`$ of the ensemble that we have chosen in addition to the dependence on the initial quenched disorder $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In the absence of stochastic tie-breaks, the attendance $`A[t]`$ would be deterministic hence producing a deterministic Minority Game for a given initial quenched disorder $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ . However in the presence of stochastic tie-breaks, which is the case of interest here, the game should self-average in the following sense: for a given quenched disorder $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the time-average of $`A[t]`$ or any of its higher order correlation functions (e.g. volatility) for a given realization $`k`$ should be equivalent to the ensemble average value taken over all realizations $`k`$ at a given time $`t`$. We stress that this discussion is for one particular (fixed ) quenched disorder $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ \- we are *not* averaging over this quenched disorder. Henceforth we will therefore assume that this ergodic principle holds given a particular $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, i.e. we assume that the time-average and ensemble-average of both the attendance $`A[t]`$ and the volatility are equivalent for fixed quenched disorder $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We will denote this average attendance as $`\overline{A}`$ and the associated average volatility as $`\sigma `$, noting that both have an implicit dependence on the initial quenched disorder $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Hence for a given $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the square of the volatility is given exactly by the expectation value of the mean-square attendance:

$$\sigma ^2=\underset{A}{}(A\overline{A})^2P(A)$$
(7)
where $`P(A)`$ is the probability that the attendance is given by $`A`$. From Eq. (1) the attendance $`A=A_D(\underset{¯}{s},\mu )+A_U(\underset{¯}{s},\mu ,x)`$ where we have included the stochastic variable $`x`$ to denote the coin-toss process. Because this coin-toss process is unbiased, we have $`\overline{A}_U(\underset{¯}{s},\mu ,x)=0`$ and hence $`\overline{A}=\overline{A}_D(\underset{¯}{s},\mu )`$. The probability $`P(A)`$ is exactly equivalent to the probability of obtaining a given $`\underset{¯}{s}`$, $`\mu `$ and $`x`$. Since $`x`$ is an independent variable, we have

$$P(A)=P(\mu |\underset{¯}{s})P(\underset{¯}{s})P(x)$$
(8)
with $`P(x)`$ given by the binomial expression $`{}_{}{}^{N_U}C_{x}^{}(\frac{1}{2})^{N_U}`$. Here $`P(\underset{¯}{s})`$ is the probability that the strategy score vector is $`\underset{¯}{s}`$, while $`P(\mu \underset{¯}{s})`$ is the probability that the game is in a state where the history is $`\mu `$ given that the strategy score vector is $`\underset{¯}{s}`$. Hence Eq. (7) can be rewritten exactly as

$$\sigma ^2=\underset{\{\underset{¯}{s}\}}{}\left[\underset{\{\mu \}}{}\left[\underset{x=0}{\overset{N_U}{}}[^{N_U}C_x(\frac{1}{2})^{N_U}(A_D+2xN_U\overline{A})^2]P(\mu \underset{¯}{s})\right]P(\underset{¯}{s})\right]$$
(9)
with the mean attendance being given exactly by

$$\overline{A}=\underset{\{\underset{¯}{s}\}}{}\left[\underset{\{\mu \}}{}\left[A_DP(\mu \underset{¯}{s})\right]P(\underset{¯}{s})\right]$$
(10)
where in Eqs. (9) and (10) $`A_D=A_D(\underset{¯}{s},\mu )`$ and $`N_U=N_U(\underset{¯}{s},\mu )`$. The difficulty in evaluating this expression for the volatility in the MG, for a given quenched disorder $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, now lies in the complexity of $`P(\underset{¯}{s})`$ and $`P(\mu \underset{¯}{s})`$. As an example of a specific realization of the initial quenched disorder, we shall take $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ throughout this paper to be the following randomly-chosen matrix in the reduced strategy space:

$$\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}1& 2& 1& 0& 1& 1& 1& 1\\ 0& 0& 2& 2& 2& 0& 2& 0\\ 2& 1& 0& 3& 1& 0& 2& 1\\ 2& 2& 0& 3& 3& 2& 2& 2\\ 1& 1& 0& 2& 3& 3& 2& 0\\ 2& 3& 2& 0& 1& 5& 1& 1\\ 0& 1& 4& 7& 2& 1& 0& 0\\ 3& 2& 2& 0& 2& 2& 2& 4\end{array}\right).$$
(11)
Figure 1 shows the resulting $`P(\underset{¯}{s})`$ for $`N=101`$, $`m=2`$, $`s=2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as shown above. The strategy scores themselves are written out explicitly for the dominant score vectors. As can be seen, the probability distribution $`P(\underset{¯}{s})`$ is uneven and has non-trivial structure.

## 3 Time Horizon Minority Game (THMG)

In the basic MG, strategy scores are kept since the beginning of the game. One might ask whether this is realistic in a ‘real-world’ situation, given the finite time-horizon under which most ‘agents’ (e.g. traders) tend to operate. Hence we will make a small modification to this rule - we introduce the Time Horizon Minority Game (THMG) in which strategy scores are only kept over the last $`\tau `$ turns of the game. Hence agents (e.g. traders) are limited to assessing their strategies’ performance over the last $`\tau `$ turns of the game, in addition to the basic MG rule of viewing just the last $`m`$ steps of the history. We focus on the low $`m`$ regime because of the richer dynamics, however our formalism applies for all $`m`$.

Figure 2 shows numerical results for the variation in volatility as a function of $`\tau `$, given different realizations of the initial quenched disorder $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Results are shown for $`m=3`$ using the full strategy space, and for both real and random histories of the game. For real histories it can be seen that the volatility is essentially periodic in $`2.2^m`$. This value corresponds to the number of different paths in a De Bruijn graph linking all $`P=2^m`$ histories. Such a graph is necessarily Eulerian since all the vertex-degrees of a De Bruijn graph are even. Games that differ in $`\tau `$ by multiples of $`2.2^m`$ show similar dynamics for $`t>\tau `$. The dynamics of the THMG for $`t<\tau `$ are that of the basic MG, as can be seen in Figs. 3a and 3b for small $`t`$.

The peaks in Fig. 2 which arise at $`\tau =2.2^m\lambda 1`$ for real histories, where $`\lambda 1`$ and is an integer, correspond to realizations of the game that are purely deterministic. If the game performs a path around the de Bruijn graph that is of a length $`\tau `$ and satisfies the condition that all edges have been visited equally during the course of this path, then $`\underset{¯}{s}`$ and $`\mu `$ at the start of the cycle are identical to $`\underset{¯}{s}`$ and $`\mu `$ at the end of the cycle, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_{cycle}=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _{cycle}=0`$. Note that even for large $`\lambda `$ this is very likely to happen due to the nature of the minority game in the efficient regime . In the THMG it is observed to occur very soon after $`t`$ becomes larger than $`\tau `$. Once this type of path occurs for integer $`\lambda `$, the game evolves such that $`\underset{¯}{s}^\mu `$ is equal to $`\pm \underset{¯}{a}^\mu `$ at any subsequent time-step of the game. Note that for integer $`\lambda `$ the strategies are scored for one time-step less than the period of this special cycle; this fact together with $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_{cycle}=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _{cycle}=0`$ imply that $`\underset{¯}{s}^\mu =\pm \underset{¯}{a}^\mu .`$ When $`\underset{¯}{s}^\mu =\pm \underset{¯}{a}^\mu `$, we are left with the unique situation where all tied strategies that have a particular score at history $`\mu `$ give the same game decision, i.e. $`+1`$ or $`1`$. When this happens there are no longer any traders that have tied strategies telling them to make opposing decisions. None of the game dynamics for this turn of the game are therefore decided by the tossing of coins - this turn is hence purely deterministic. Once the game has found such a deterministic state, it never leaves it and the game henceforth evolves such that $`\underset{¯}{s}^\mu =\pm \underset{¯}{a}^\mu `$. Figure 3a shows the finite time-average standard deviation (over $`100`$ turns) of the attendance, together with the actual number of traders making a given decision as a function of time. The case shown corresponds to $`\lambda =100`$ and hence $`\tau =1599`$. For time-steps $`0`$ to $`1599`$ the system is equivalent to that of the basic MG, whereas from $`t=1600`$ onwards the effect of the time horizon on strategy scores becomes apparent. The system only takes about $`40`$ time-steps to become locked into the deterministic state described above. We have observed at low $`m`$ and for several randomly selected $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, that once $`t`$ becomes larger than $`\tau `$ then the game rapidly finds the deterministic state described above. The game dynamics hence become deterministic and periodic with period $`\tau +1`$. It is possible to construct specially chosen $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ matrices such that the above special cycle is not found during a run of the corresponding game, however we are here interested in characterising the dynamics for a ‘typical’ (i.e. randomly chosen) $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Figure 3b shows the corresponding results for $`\tau =1600.`$ We stress that the THMG with random histories has very different dynamics as can be seen in Fig. 2.

We now present an analytic description of the THMG. Consider $`\tau +1`$ consecutive histories in the game and call this a $`\mu `$-path, denoted as $`\mu _{path}.`$ We define $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{G}}`$ as the matrix telling us which transitions between histories are allowed in the game - the matrix $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{G}}`$ is the $`P\times P`$ ‘adjacency’ matrix of a de Bruijn graph of order $`m`$. The element $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{G}}_{\mu ,\nu }`$ has value $`1`$ if history $`\nu `$ can follow history $`\mu `$ in the game, but has value $`0`$ if the transition is disallowed. The adjacency matrix is hence given by

$$\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{G}}_{\mu ,\nu }=\delta (2\mu \%P\nu )+\delta (2\mu \%P+1\nu )$$
(12)
where $`A\%B`$ is the remainder when $`A`$ is divided by $`B`$. Here $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ denote the nodes (i.e. histories) in the de Bruijn graph where $`\mu ,\nu =0,1,..`$. The matrix $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{G}}`$ quantifies which paths around history space are allowed and hence we can write down a rule for determining which $`\mu _{path}`$ transitions are permitted in the game. Let $`\mu _{path}(t1)=\mu _{t\tau 1}\mu _{t\tau }\mathrm{}\mu _{t1}`$. Whether $`\mu _{path}(t1)`$ actually arises in the game, and whether the transition to $`\mu _{path}(t)=\mu _{t\tau }\mu _{t\tau +1}\mathrm{}\mu _t`$ is allowed, depends on whether all the transitions are allowed between histories in $`\mu _{path}(t1)`$ and the corresponding history in $`\mu _{path}(t)`$. Figure 4 shows an example of the allowed transitions between $`\mu `$-paths for $`m=2,\tau =2.`$ Let us define a scalar quantity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\tau }{}}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{G}}_{\mu _{t1i},\mu _{ti}}.$$
(13)
The transition between $`\mu _{path}(t1)`$ and $`\mu _{path}(t)`$ is allowed if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1`$, but is disallowed if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$. The increment in score vector when passing from one history at time-step $`t1`$ to the next history at time-step $`t`$ is given by

$$\underset{¯}{\delta s}_{\mu _{t1}\mu _t}=(2\underset{¯}{a}^{\mu _{t1}}1)(2(\mu _t\%2)1)$$
(14)
It follows that

$$\underset{¯}{s}_{\mu _{path}}=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\tau 1}{}}\underset{¯}{\delta s}_{\mu _{t1i}\mu _{ti}}.$$
(15)
We can evaluate the exact number of decided and undecided traders for a given $`\mu _{path}`$, and we can also identity which $`\mu _{path}`$ are allowed in the game; hence we can find the transition matrix giving the probability that a particular $`\mu _{path}`$ at an arbitrary timestep evolves to the next allowed $`\mu _{path}`$ with final history $`\mu _t`$. This transition matrix is given as follows:

$`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{T}}_{\mu _{path}(t1),\mu _{path}(t)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{x=0}{\overset{N_U}{}}}[^{N_U}C_x({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})^{N_U}\delta [\mathrm{Sgn}(A_D+2xN_U)`$
$`+(2(\mu _t\%2)1)]]`$ (16)
where $`A_D=A_D(\mu _{path}(t1))=A_D(\underset{¯}{s}_{\mu _{path}(t1)},\mu _{t1})`$ and $`N_U=N_U(\mu _{path}(t1))=N_U(\underset{¯}{s}_{\mu _{path}(t1)},\mu _{t1})`$. The size of $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{T}}`$ is given by $`\varphi =2^{(m+\tau )}`$. For the basic MG $`\varphi `$ would grow indefinitely with time $`t`$, however for the THMG it is of fixed size. Having obtained this transition matrix for the THMG then allows us to calculate various macroscopic quantities, in particular $`P(\mu _{path})`$. The vector $`\underset{¯}{P(\mu _{path})}`$ satisfies $`\underset{¯}{P(\mu _{path})}=\underset{¯}{P(\mu _{path})}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{T}}`$ which is the transpose of an eigenvector-eigenvalue equation. The vector $`\underset{¯}{P(\mu _{path})}`$ is also a stationary distribution of the Markov Chain:

$$P(\mu _{path})=[\varphi ^1\underset{¯}{1}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{T}}^{\mathrm{}}]_{\mu _{path}}.$$
(17)
The expression given for $`P(\mu _{path})`$ represents an average over all games with different $`\mu `$-paths defining the initial conditions of the game. This is achieved by taking an average over all $`\varphi `$ rows of the matrix $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{T}}^{\mathrm{}}`$. This method assumes that, for all possible states in the set $`\{\mu _{path}\}`$, if a state is visited then the state can be re-visited during a run of the game. We note that if there are closed irreducible subsets in the set of $`\mu `$-paths $`\{\mu _{path}\}`$ which are visited during the time evolution of the THMG, the game can then lock into a deterministic state. This situation of deterministic states arises for $`\tau =2.2^m\lambda 1`$ as discussed earlier. In this case, the present method for calculating $`P(\mu _{path})`$ could be improved to account more fully for the deterministic dynamics since in general the system is not ergodic We do not consider such a calculation here, but note that the values of $`\sigma `$ obtained using the present method may still be very accurate (see later Fig. 6 for $`\tau =7`$ for example).

Figure 5a shows the measured $`P(\mu _{path})`$ for $`N=101`$, $`m=2`$, $`s=2`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as in Eq. (11) and $`\tau =2`$. Figure 5b shows the corresponding calculated $`P(\mu _{path})`$ using Eq. (13). The agreement is excellent, demonstrating that our expression for $`P(\mu _{path})`$ is exact.

## 4 Results

We now show how to calculate the volatility of the THMG exactly using Eq. (9). Without loss of generality, we replace both $`P(\underset{¯}{s})`$ and $`P(\mu \underset{¯}{s})`$ by the probability $`P(\mu _{path})`$ that the game has just passed through one particular $`\mu _{path}`$ at a timestep $`t`$. This reduces the problem of calculating the volatility $`\sigma `$ in the THMG to that of studying a Markov Chain whose states are given by the set $`\{\mu _{path}\}`$. Note that whilst the THMG is homogeneous, the basic MG is not since the size of the set $`\{\mu _{path}\}`$ grows as $`t`$ increases. Replacing both $`P(\underset{¯}{s})`$ and $`P(\mu \underset{¯}{s})`$ by the probability $`P(\mu _{path})`$ in Eq. (9), we have an equivalent exact expression for $`\sigma `$ given by :

$$\sigma ^2=\underset{\{\mu _{path}\}}{}\left[\underset{x=0}{\overset{N_U}{}}[^{N_U}C_x(\frac{1}{2})^{N_U}(A_D+2xN_U\overline{A})^2]P(\mu _{path})\right].$$
(18)
In order to calculate $`A_D`$ and $`N_U`$ exactly for a given $`\mu _{path}`$, the score vector to be used is that which would be obtained if the game went through a path of histories corresponding to $`\mu _{path}`$ as in Eq. (15); the history to be used is the last history in the path $`\mu _{path}`$. Denoting this last history as $`\mu `$, we have $`A_D=A_D(\mu _{path})=A_D(\underset{¯}{s}_{\mu _{path}},\mu )`$ and $`N_U=N_U(\mu _{path})=N_U(\underset{¯}{s}_{\mu _{path}},\mu )`$. We note that the exact analytic expression given for $`\sigma `$ in Eq. (18) applies to the limiting case where the number of realizations used to numerically determine $`\sigma `$ tends to infinity (i.e. ensemble average). We also note that using the formalism described, we could alternatively have obtained a finite time-average volatility $`\sigma `$ between $`t=t_1`$ and $`t=t_2`$ given a specific $`\mu _{path}`$ at $`t=t_1`$.

Using Eq. (17) in Eq. (18), together with Eqs. (2), (3) and (10), we obtain analytic values for $`\sigma `$ in the THMG given the initial quenched disorder $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Figure 6 shows a comparison between the analytic values for the volatility $`\sigma `$ and the numerical values taken from the game as a function of the time-horizon $`\tau `$. Here $`N=101`$, $`m=2`$, $`s=2`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is given in Eq. (11). We only show $`\tau =12.2^m+1`$, i.e. $`\lambda =1`$; however similar results can also be obtained for $`\lambda >1`$. The agreement is excellent, with the numerical and analytic lines essentially coincident. This demonstrates the power and accuracy of the present Markov Chain formalism as developed for the THMG.

## 5 Conclusion

In summary, we have introduced and studied a finite time horizon version of the Minority Game (THMG). We have presented exact analytic expressions for the volatility in both the THMG and the basic MG, for a given configuration of initial quenched disorder $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We have presented an analytic theory to describe the dynamics of the THMG by obtaining an analytic expression for the transition matrix in terms of the set $`\{\mu _{path}\}`$. As an example of what can be achieved analytically, we obtained excellent agreement between analytic and numerical values for the THMG volatility, given knowledge of the initial quenched disorder $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Finally we would like to stress that our theoretical approach and results avoid having to keep track of the labels of individual agents - our results are obtained for a specific initial quenched disorder $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, however this $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ describes many possible arrangements of individual agents. In this sense, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ defines a macrostate for which there are many possible microstates corresponding to different initial strategy choices by the $`N`$ individual agents.

We thank Pak Ming Hui for discussions.

FIG. 1. The probability of occurrence $`P(\underset{¯}{s})`$ of the strategy score vector obtained numerically from the Minority Game (MG). Strategy score vectors $`s`$ are listed in an arbritary order along the x-axis. Unless otherwise stated, the game parameters in Figs. 1-6 are as follows: $`N=101`$, $`m=2`$, $`s=2`$ with the initial quenched disorder matrix $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ taken from Eq. (11).

FIG. 2. Standard deviation (volatility) $`\sigma `$ as a function of time horizon $`\tau `$ for the Time Horizon Minority Game (THMG) with $`m=3`$. Results are obtained using the full strategy space. Numerical data is collected using real histories (black circles) and random histories (grey circles) with randomly selected quenched disorder matrices $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The lower short-dashed line shows the value of the volatility for the basic MG in the high $`m`$ limit. The upper long-dashed line shows the configuration-average volatility (i.e. average over quenched disorder $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$) for the basic MG with $`m=3`$.

FIG. 3. The finite time-average standard deviation (average taken over $`100`$ turns) of the attendance of traders (black line) together with the number of traders choosing ‘1’ (grey circles) as a function of time $`t`$. (a) $`\lambda =100`$, i.e. $`\tau =1599`$. (b) $`\tau =1600`$.

FIG. 4. Schematic diagram showing the allowed transitions between $`\mu `$-paths in the THMG for the following example: $`\mu _{path}(t1)=201`$ and $`m=2,\tau =2.`$

FIG. 5. (a) Numerical and (b) analytic results for the probability distribution $`P(\mu _{path})`$ as a function of $`\mu _{path}`$. $`\mu `$-path are listed in order of increasing decimal representation along the x-axis. Game parameters are $`N=101`$, $`m=2`$, $`s=2`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as in Eq. (11), and $`\tau =2`$.

FIG. 6. Standard deviation (volatility) $`\sigma `$ for the THMG as a function of time horizon $`\tau `$, for a given initial quenched disorder $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Exact analytic values are grey diamonds joined by a thick grey dashed line, numerical values taken from the game simulation are black circles joined by a thick black line. These lines are essentially coincident thereby demonstrating the excellent agreement between the analytic theory and the numerical results. Here $`N=101`$, $`m=2`$, $`s=2`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is from Eq. (11). Lower short-dashed line shows the value of the volatility for the basic MG in the high $`m`$ limit. Upper long-dashed line shows the configuration-average volatility (i.e. average over quenched disorder $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$) for the basic MG with $`m=2`$.