text:
# Quantum Communication with Correlated Nonclassical States

## I Introduction

Principal motivations for the investigation of manifestly quantum or nonclassical states of the electromagnetic field have been their possible exploitation for optical communication$`^{\text{[3, 4, 5]}}`$ and for enhanced measurement sensitivity.$`^{\text{[6]}}`$ For example, relative to a coherent state, the reduced quantum fluctuations associated with squeezed and number states offer potential for improving channel capacity in the transmission of information.$`^{\text{[5]}}`$ Squeezed states of light have been widely employed to achieve measurement sensitivity beyond the standard quantum limits in applications such as precision interferometry,$`^{\text{[7]}}`$ the detection of directly encoded amplitude modulation,$`^{\text{[8]}}`$ atomic spectroscopy,$`^{\text{[9]}}`$ and quantum noise reduction in optical amplification.$`^{\text{[10]}}`$ Likewise, nonclassical correlations for the amplitudes of spatially separated beams have been exploited in diverse situations, including demonstrations of the EPR paradox for continuous variables,$`^{\text{[11]}}`$ of quantum nondemolition detection (QND),$`^{\text{[12, 13]}}`$ and of a quantum-optical tap.$`^{\text{[14]}}`$

Within the broader setting of quantum information science (QIS), there has been growing interest and important progress concerning the prospects for quantum information processing with continuous quantum variables, including universal quantum computation,$`^{\text{[15]}}`$ quantum error correction,$`^{\text{[16, 17, 18]}}`$ and entanglement purification.$`^{\text{[19, 20]}}`$ Theories for quantum teleportation of continuous quantum variables in an infinite dimensional Hilbert space have been developed,$`^{\text{[21, 22, 23, 24]}}`$ including for broad bandwidth teleportation$`^{\text{[25]}}`$ and for teleportation of atomic wavepackets.$`^{\text{[26]}}`$ This formalism has also been applied to super-dense quantum coding.$`^{\text{[27]}}`$ On an experimental front, these developments in QIS led to the first bona fide demonstration of quantum teleportation, which was carried out by exploiting nonclassical states of light in conjunction with continuous quantum variables.$`^{\text{[28, 29]}}`$

Against this backdrop the focus of attention in this article is optical communication in two channels with quantum correlated light fields and the associated quadrature amplitudes.$`^{\text{[30]}}`$ The goal is to explore the extension of quantum cryptography from the usual setting of discrete variables as pioneered by C. Bennett and colleagues$`^{\text{[31]}}`$ (e.g., photon polarization as in the experiments of Refs.) into the realm of continuous quantum variables (e.g., the complex amplitude of the electromagnetic field). Apart from our work, several related schemes for quantum cryptography based upon continuous variables have recently been analyzed, including a single-beam scheme with squeezed light$`^{\text{[36]}}`$ as well dual-beam schemes with shared entanglement.$`^{\text{[37, 38]}}`$ However, we stress at the outset that neither for our scheme nor for any of these other protocols, can any claim about absolute security be made. Rather, we suggest that these protocols (and suitable extensions thereof) are worthy candidates for more detailed analyses. Such an undertaking would involve various important matters of principle as well as practice for continuous quantum variables, and might hopefully lead to security proofs such as have recently emerged in the case of discrete variables.$`^{\text{[39, 40, 41]}}`$

As illustrated in Figure 1, the basic idea in our scheme is to construct a “transmitter” which combines a coherent signal of amplitude $`ϵ/t`$ (the “message”) with the large fluctuating fields generated in nondegenerate optical parametric amplification (the “noise”).$`^{\text{[30]}}`$ The “message” and the “noise” are superimposed at mirror $`M`$ with transmission coefficient $`t`$ $`<<`$ 1. Note that although each of the two transmitted beams along channels ($`A,B`$) has large phase insensitive fluctuations that are individually indistinguishable from a thermal source,$`^{\text{[42]}}`$ the quadrature-phase amplitudes of the two-beams can be quantum copies of one another,$`^{\text{[11, 43]}}`$ and in fact form an entangled EPR state.$`^{\text{[44, 45]}}`$ Hence proper subtraction of the photocurrents at the “receiver” can result in the faithful reconstruction of the encoded “message” even though the signal-to-noise ratios $`R_j`$ ($`j`$=$`A,B`$) during transmission are individually much less than one. Indeed, in a lossless system with large parametric gain, the signal-to-noise ratio of the reconstructed message $`R_t`$ can approach the signal-to-noise ratio $`R_0`$ of the original message ($`ϵ^2/t^2`$), which was written in the transmitter as a coherent state before the mirror $`M`$ in Figure 1. Note that the individual Channels $`(A,B)`$ have a high degree of immunity to unauthorized interception since the signal-to-noise ratios $`R_{A,B}`$ in these channels are each very small. Furthermore, any attempt to extract information from the $`(A,B)`$ channels will reveal itself either by a decrease in Rt (classical extraction) or by an increase in the fluctuations of the orthogonal quadrature amplitude (quantum extraction).

In addition to achieving a faithful reconstruction of the message transmitted through M to the receiver, note that the scheme of Figure 1 also preserves to a high degree the signal-to-noise ratio for the original message beam that reflects from M. More specifically, for high gain and for losses dominated by the transmission coefficient of M, the signal-to-noise ratio Rr for the reflected beam can approach R0 for the original message. In this limit, we then have that the information transfer coefficient T $``$ (Rr+R$`{}_{t}{}^{})`$ / R$`{}_{0}{}^{}`$ 2, where $`0`$ T $``$ 1 for classical devices and 1 $`<`$ T $``$ 2 for manifestly quantum or nonclassical situations.$`^{\text{[14]}}`$ Hence the scheme depicted in Fig.1 acts as a quantum optical tap in the fashion originally discussed by Shapiro.$`^{\text{[46]}}`$ It provides a received (or “tapped”) message with a signal-to-noise ratio equal to that of the input ($`R_t/R_0)1`$, while simultaneously transmitting an output field with signal-to-noise ratio equal to that of the input $`(R_r/R_0)1`$.

Of course similar schemes for two-channel communication can be implemented with correlated classical noise sources (i.e., thermal light), each with large fluctuations which “hide” the message $`ϵ`$ during transmission. However, with classical sources of whatever type, only excess fluctuations can be subtracted; the quantum fluctuations at the vacuum-state level will remain unchanged and will enforce a noise floor for information transmission and extraction. For the case illustrated in Figure 1, this noise floor for the message at the receiver is given by the sum of independent vacuum fluctuations from fields in channels ($`A,B`$) and sets a fundamental noise level of “2” (with “1” as the individual vacuum-state limits for the two channels). Here we adopt the usual convention for the demarcation between classical and nonclassical correlations in terms of the behavior the Glauber-Sudarshan phase-space function.$`^{\text{[43]}}`$ Hence for the case illustrated in Figure 1 but with classical input fields, the signal-to-noise ratio $`R_t^{}`$ for the detected message at the receiver is given by $`R_t^{}|ϵ|^2R_t`$. In fact, for classical inputs, we have that $`T^{}R_t^{}+R_r^{}1`$, and the system no longer functions as a quantum optical tap. Furthermore, the individual channels ($`A,B`$) are not protected from unauthorized eavesdropping, since information can be extracted from these channels with impunity for classical noise much greater than the vacuum-state limit.

Apart from these considerations related to secure communication and quantum optical tapping, the configuration of Figure 1 can also be viewed as a means to realize super-dense quantum coding$`^{\text{[47]}}`$ for continuous quantum variables.$`^{\text{[27]}}`$ Here, the message $`ϵ/t`$ is again encoded at the mirror $`M`$, but now in a single channel corresponding to one component of the entangled EPR state (e.g., channel $`A`$). This combination of the message and the fluctuations from one component of the NOPA are transmitted to the receiving station where they are combined with the second component of the entangled output of the NOPA that has been independently transmitted (e.g., along channel $`B`$). The signal is then decoded by combining the outputs of the two channels in a fashion similar to that shown in Figure 1 as discussed in more detail in Ref.. The principal distinctions between this dense coding scheme and the aforementioned dual channel arrangement are (1) the message is encoded in a single component of the entangled EPR beam instead of symmetrically in both and (2) the received beams from paths $`(A,B)`$ must be physically recombined, with the phases of the local oscillators $`(A,B)`$ at the receiving station offset by $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$. Recall that for dense coding in its canonical form,$`^{\text{[47]}}`$ no signal modulation is applied to the second (i.e., channel $`B`$) component of the entangled state, so that it carries no information by itself.

In subsequent sections of this paper, we describe in more detail the implementation of this general discussion about quantum communication with correlated nonclassical fields. In our experiment, we have been able to demonstrate an improvement in signal-to-noise ratio by a factor of 2.1 over that possible with any classical source (that is, 10 $`log[R_t/R_t^{}]=3.2`$ dB) and have succeeded in suppressing the noise of the difference photocurrent $`i_{}i_Ai_B`$ below that associated with the vacuum fluctuations of even a single beam, thus making possible transmission with $`|ϵ|^2`$ $`<1`$. Quantum dense coding would thereby be enabled with the aforementioned changes in the overall experimental protocol. We conclude with a discussion of possible extensions for enhanced security against unauthorized eavesdropping.

## II Implementation by Nondegenerate Parametric Amplification

As illustrated in Figure 1, correlated nonclassical states for our work are generated by a nondegenerate optical parametric amplifier (NOPA) that produces orthogonally polarized but frequency degenerate signal and idler beams for channels ($`A,B`$). We emphasize that these beams represent a realization of the entangled state originally discussed by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen.$`^{\text{[44, 45]}}`$ For the original EPR state, there exist perfect correlations both in position and momentum for two massive particles. In the optical case, the quadrature amplitudes of the electromagnetic field play the roles of position and momentum with a finite degree of correlation for finite NOPA gain, as has been experimentally demonstrated$`^{\text{[11]}}`$ and exploited to realize quantum teleportation.$`^{\text{[28]}}`$

A coherent-state “message” of total amplitude $`ϵ/t`$ is encoded in equal measure onto these entangled EPR beams by orienting its polarization at 45 with respect to the signal and idler polarizations at the mirror $`M`$ of Figure 1. To obtain a quantitative statement of the performance of this system, we must include the finite gain of the amplifier as well as various passive losses, which together limit the degree of correlation that can be exploited for communication. Following the analysis of Ref., we find that the SNR $`R_j(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ for the individual signal and idler photocurrents for propagation and detection in the presence of overall channel efficiency $`\xi `$ is given by $`R_j(\mathrm{\Omega })=\xi ϵ^2/2G_q(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, where $`G_q(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is the detected quantum-noise gain of the amplifier which can be determined experimentally from measurements of the spectral densities $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{A,B}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ for the fluctuations of photocurrents for signal and idler beams alone at either detector. Relative to the frequency of the optical carrier determined by the down-conversion process in the NOPA, the frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ specifies the Fourier components of the quadrature-phase amplitudes of signal and idler fields as well as of the coherent field $`ϵ`$.$`^{\text{[43]}}`$ Note that $`\xi `$ ($`0\xi 1`$) incorporates the cavity escape efficiency for our NOPA, the propagation efficiency from the NOPA to the detectors, and the homodyne and quantum efficiencies of the balanced detectors themselves.$`^{\text{[11]}}`$

Although the individual fluctuations for channels ($`A,B`$) give rise to a level $`G_q(\mathrm{\Omega })>1`$, (that is, greater than the vacuum-state limit of either beam alone), these large fluctuations are correlated in a nonclassical manner and hence can be eliminated by proper choice of the quadrature amplitudes detected at ($`A,B`$). As shown in Ref., there is a continuous set of such amplitudes with minimum variance for their difference requiring only that the quadrature-phase angles ($`\theta _A,\theta _B)`$ satisfy $`\theta _A+\theta _B=2p\pi `$ ($`p`$ = integer). Denoting one such pair by ($`X_A,X_B`$), we have that

$`(X_A(\mathrm{\Omega })X_B(\mathrm{\Omega }))(X_A(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})X_B(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}))`$

$$=V_{}(\mathrm{\Omega })\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }^{}),$$
(1)
where $`V_{}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is a variance which quantifies the degree of correlation between $`(X_A,X_B`$). Explicit expressions for both $`V_{}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and $`G_q(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ are given in Ref.. For propagation and detection in the presence of loss, we introduce the quantities ($`V_{}^d,G_q^d`$) which refer to the variance and quantum noise gain for fictitious fields having propagated with total loss $`(1\xi )`$, where the spectral density of the photocurrent fluctuations $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is proportional to $`V_{}^d(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Hence, the SNR $`R_d`$ for detection of the message via $`i_{}`$ is given by $`R_d=2\eta ϵ^2/V_{}^d(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, where $`\eta `$ accounts for the propagation and detection efficiency for the message from the mirror M to the photocurrent $`i_{A,B}`$. Without discussing the general case, here we note simply that for efficient propagation and detection with $`(1\xi )<<1`$ and for near threshold operation with (analysis frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega })<<`$ (cavity linewidth $`\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, then $`G_q^d(\mathrm{\Omega })1+\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Omega })^2\xi `$, while $`V_{}^d(\mathrm{\Omega })2(1\xi )<<1`$, so that $`R_d(\mathrm{\Omega })\eta ϵ^2/(1\xi )`$. Hence in the ideal case with $`\eta `$1 and $`\xi (1|t|^2)`$, with t as the amplitude transmission coefficient of mirror M, we find that the reconstructed message is recovered with the same SNR with which it was originally encoded (namely $`R_dϵ^2/t^2`$), while the fluctuations in the individual channels become arbitrarily large ($`R_{A,B}\mathrm{\Omega }^2ϵ^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }^20`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$).

As for the performance as an optical tap, note that the transfer coefficient associated with the detected message at the receiver and with the reflected output field is given by $`T_d=(R_d+R_r)/R_0`$, where $`R_d`$ is related to $`R_t`$ by way of the propagation and detection efficiency $`\eta `$ from M to the photocurrents at the receivers. In the present case, we have that

$$T_d=\frac{|r|^2}{U_{}^r(\mathrm{\Omega })}+\frac{2\eta |t|^2}{V_{}^d(\mathrm{\Omega })},$$
(2)
with $`|r|^2`$ as the reflectivity of mirror M $`(|r|^2+|t|^2`$=1) and $`U_{}^r(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ as the variance of the reflected field. Hence in the ideal case with $`\xi (1|t|^2)`$, with V$`{}_{}{}^{d}(\mathrm{\Omega })2(1\xi )`$ and with $`U_{}^r(\eta )=|r|^2`$, we have that $`R_dR_t`$ and $`T_d2`$. Thus in addition to providing large quantum fluctuations for secure transmission, the system also acts as a quantum optical tap with a nearly ideal transfer coefficient $`T`$.

In fact the system can be considered as a realization of the scheme for quantum tapping that was originally suggested by Shapiro.$`^{\text{[46]}}`$ To see this more clearly, recall that the projection of signal and idler fields along the $`45^{}`$ polarization direction of the message beam results in a squeezed field.$`^{\text{[43]}}`$ Hence, from the perspective of Ref., we are “tapping” the original message field by injecting squeezed light into the normally open (or vacuum) port of mirror M. The use of the output of a nondegenerate parametric amplifier allows us subsequently to decompose this squeezed plus coherent field into individually noisy signal and idler fields at polarizer P for transmission.

## III Experimental Setup and Results

The general scheme for our experimental implementation of these ideas is shown in Figure 1, where frequency degenerate but orthogonally polarized signal and idler beams are generated by Type II down-conversion in a subthreshold optical parametric oscillator formed by a folded cavity containing an $`a`$-cut crystal of potassium titanyl phosphate (KTP) that provides noncritical phase matching at 1.08$`\mu `$m. The crystal is 10mm long, is anti-reflection coated for both 1.08$`\mu `$m and 0.54$`\mu `$m, and has a measured harmonic conversion efficiency of $`6\times 10^4`$/W (single-pass) for this geometry. The total intracavity passive losses at 1.08$`\mu `$m are 0.3% and the transmission coefficient of mirror M1 is 3%. The amplifier is pumped by green light at 0.54 $`\mu `$m generated by external frequency doubling of a frequency-stabilized, TEM00-mode Nd:YAP laser.$`^{\text{[48]}}`$ The subthreshold oscillator acts as a narrow-band amplifier (NOPA) which is locked to the original laser frequency with a weak counter-propagating beam. Simultaneous resonance for the orthogonally polarized signal and idler fields is achieved by adjusting the temperature of the KTP crystal around 60C with milliKelvin precision. The pump field at 0.54 $`\mu `$m is itself resonant in a separate and independently locked build-up cavity (enhancement $``$ 5x).

As we have demonstrated in our previous experiments, $`^{\text{[11]}}`$ the orthogonally polarized signal and idler fields generated by the NOPA individually are fields of zero mean values and exhibit large phase insensitive fluctuations. It is in the midst of this noise that we now hide a “message”, with this coherent field being combined with the signal and idler fields at the highly reflecting mirror $`M`$ shown in Figure 1 ($`(1t^2)0.99`$). The coherent beam is injected at 45 with respect to signal and idler polarizations and is frequency shifted by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0/2\pi =1.1`$MHz (single-side band) from the primary laser frequency with the help of a pair of acoustooptic modulators, which are gated “on” and “off” to provide information encoded for transmission. The noisy but correlated signal and idler beams together with the coherent information are then separated by a polarizer $`P`$, transmitted independently over the two channels ($`A,B`$), and then directed to two separate balanced homodyne detectors for measurements of their individual quadrature-phase amplitudes and their mutual correlations. The local oscillators for the two balanced homodyne detectors originate from the laser at 1.08$`\mu `$m; their phases can be independently controlled by mirrors mounted on piezoelectric transducers. The spectral densities of the photocurrents for the two channels ($`A=`$ signal, $`B=`$ idler) are defined by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{A,B}(\mathrm{\Omega })=<i_{A,B}(t)i_{A,B}(t+\tau )>e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }\tau }𝑑\tau $$
(3)
and are recorded by a RF spectral analyzer, as is the spectral density

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(\mathrm{\Omega })=<i_{}(t)i_{}(t+\tau )>e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }\tau }𝑑\tau $$
(4)
for the difference photocurrent $`i_{}i_Ai_B`$.

In Figures 2 and 3 we present results from a series of measurements of these various spectral densities. First of all, in Figure 2a, trace i gives the spectral density $`\mathrm{\Psi }_A`$ for channel A alone with an injected “message” and with the amplifier turned on to generate large $`(`$ 7 dB) phase insensitive noise above the vacuum-state level $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{0A}`$ (indicated by a dashed line in Figure 2) for the signal beam. A similar trace is obtained for the spectral density $`\mathrm{\Psi }_B`$. By contrast, trace ii in Figure 2a gives the spectral density $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ for the difference photocurrent $`i_{}`$, with the phases of the local oscillators adjusted for minimum noise and maximum coherent signal. In this trace, the coherent message that was completely obscured in trace i emerges with high signal-to-noise ratio. Note that in trace ii the correlated quantum fluctuations for signal and idler fields are subtracted to approximately 0.4 dB below the vacuum-noise level $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{0A}`$ of the signal beam alone (and likewise for the idler), indicating an improvement in SNR over a conventional single-channel communication scheme with a classical light source.

To complete the discussion, we present in Figure 2b results obtained with the amplifier turned off (that is, uncorrelated vacuum-state inputs for signal and idler fields which are combined with the coherent “message” information at mirror $`M`$). Trace i shows the result for the signal beam alone ($`\mathrm{\Psi }_A`$), where again the noise floor $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{0A}`$ is from the vacuum fluctuations of the signal beam; a similar trace is obtained for the idler beam $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_B)`$. Trace ii gives the corresponding result for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ for the combined signal and idler photocurrents when the amplifier is off. Note that this trace represents the best possible SNR with which the encoded information can be recovered when correlated classical noise sources are employed since here the (uncorrelated) vacuum fluctuations of signal and idler beams set an ultimate noise floor 3 dB above $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{0A}`$ (that is, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=2\mathrm{\Psi }_{0A}`$).$`^{\text{[49]}}`$ On comparing traces ii in Figures 2a and 2b, we see that the correlated quantum fluctuations of signal and idler fields brought about by parametric amplification result in an improvement in SNR of 3.2 dB relative to that possible with classical noise sources.

The improvement in SNR with correlated quantum fields over classical fields in our two-channel communication scheme can be of utility especially when the message is so weak that the SNR is poor for transmission with correlated classical sources (that is, for the case where vacuum noise dominates the encoded message). This situation is illustrated in Figure 3, where we plot $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ for the two cases without (trace i) and with (trace ii) correlated quantum fields.$`^{\text{[49]}}`$ Relative to Figure 2, here the coherent beam has been attenuated resulting in a smaller SNR for the “message”. Indeed in trace i, this information is “buried” by the vacuum noise $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ associated with independent vacuum fluctuations in channels $`A`$ and $`B`$; recovery of the encoded information is poor. On the other hand, as shown in trace ii, when correlated quantum fields are employed, there is a reduction in the noise floor by more than 3 dB which makes possible improved recovery of the encoded information, with the recovery here limited by losses in propagation and detection.$`^{\text{[11]}}`$

As for the actual performance with respect to optical tapping, our system falls far short of the projected possibilities discussed in the preceding section because of an unfortunate mismatch between the transmissivity $`|t|^2`$ for mirror M and the overall system efficiency $`\xi `$. In quantitative terms, recall that the transfer coefficient $`T`$ for encoding information from the input beam to the reflected and transmitted beams at M is given by $`T(R_r+R_t)/R_0`$ whereas the transfer coefficient for the detected message photocurrent and the reflected signal field is $`T_d(R_r+R_d)/R_0`$ as given explicitly in Eq. (2). For the propagation and detection efficiencies in our experiment $`(\xi `$ 0.65 and $`\eta `$ 0.75), these transfer coefficients are optimized for mirror transmission $`|t|^2`$ 0.5 for M. In our arrangement we have instead $`|t|^2=0.01`$, with the inferred result that $`T_d1.02`$, which is only marginally in the quantum domain.

In the experiment described here, the receiver uses a local oscillator (LO) that originates from the fundamental frequency of the same laser that generated the pump beam for the NOPA. This LO is necessary for proper detection of the quadrature amplitudes of the nonclassical beams and of the message, since it provides a phase reference that follows phase fluctuations of the NOPA’s pump beam. In practice, as the stability of the available lasers improve, one should consider schemes for which the measurement is carried out with nominally independent lasers for the LO and for the source. For example, one might employ a stabilized laser diode as a reference to phase lock lasers both at the sender and at the receiver, where the laser diode could be widely distributed through optical fibers. Alternatively, Ralph has analyzed a scheme in which the local oscillators are transmitted and recovered as part of the overall protocol.$`^{\text{[37]}}`$

## IV Comparison with Other Dual Beam Schemes

It is perhaps obvious that the degree of immunity to interception for a two channel scheme such as we have discussed is related to the degree of excess fluctuations for each individual beam. For the demonstration in Ref., the excess noise used to “hide” the encoded information in each beam comes from some artificial unrelated source. Unfortunately such uncorrelated excess fluctuations also add noise to the coincidence signal in the recovery of the “message,” even though the added noise scales differently as a function of photon number for single-beam measurements (linearly) and for dual beam measurements (quadratically). Hence larger background noise which better “hides” the encoded information also brings larger added noise in the extraction of the “message.” Because of the quadratic dependence on the total photon number for the extra noise added in coincidence detection, this scheme is best suited to low light level transmission, as demonstrated in the pioneering experiment by Hong et al.$`^{\text{[50]}}`$

The situation is quite different for the quadrature-phase amplitudes of the correlated signal and idler fields generated by the NOPA. As the NOPA is pumped harder and the threshold for parametric oscillation is approached, the gain of the amplifier increases, as do the excess fluctuations of the signal and idler fields. However, the correlation between the fluctuations of the signal and idler beams also improves, giving rise to even better SNR for the recovered signal. The key point is that the large fluctuations in the signal and idler beams needed for immunity to interception are intrinsic and do not add extra noise to the recovered signal but, on the contrary, serve to reduce the noise in $`i_{}`$ as the gain of the amplifier increases. In the end, the SNR for the recovered message is arbitrated by the imperfect correlation resulting from finite gain and from passive losses in propagation and detection. On the other hand, this dependence provides a powerful means to detect eavesdropping because unauthorized extraction of signal or idler fields from channels $`A`$ or $`B`$ results in a reduction of the detected correlation and hence an increase in the noise floor of the recovered message. Note that unauthorized extraction of information from both channels by way of a quantum optical tap$`^{\text{[46]}}`$ or a quantum nondemolition measurement$`^{\text{[13]}}`$ can likewise be detected because of the unavoidable increase of fluctuations for the orthogonal quadrature-phase amplitudes ($`\theta _{A,B}+\pi /2`$) of the two channels. Furthermore, these quantum eavesdropping schemes can be defeated in large measure by random switching of the phases of the message, signal, and idler beams as discussed below.

Our system also offers advantages with respect to the (classical) digital Vernan cipher, where a message is decomposed in two correlated random signals and transmitted over two one-way channels. Although this system seems to be similar to ours in the sense that is also secure provided the eavesdropper has access to one channel only, the situation is different if the eavesdropper can split a small fraction of both channels since in the classical case, this can be done without the knowledge of the receiver. However, in our system the eavesdropper cannot choose arbitrarily the reflectivity of any “beamsplitter” used for extraction from the two channels since in the quantum case, the fraction of the beams extracted should be big enough so that the signal-to-noise ratio for the intercepted message is greater than one. But if this is the case, then unavoidable extra “noise” added to the transmitted beams by the open port of the “beamsplitter” degrades the signal-to-noise ratio of the message at the legitimate receiver, thus revealing the unauthorized intervention during transmission.

One might attempt to circumvent this difficulty by employing a quantum extraction procedure, such as quantum nondemolition detection$`^{\text{[13]}}`$ of the quadrature amplitudes in Channels $`(A,B)`$. Although the signal-to-noise ratio $`R_d`$ at the receiver would not in this case be degraded by an ideal eavesdropper, the unauthorized intervention could nonetheless be discovered because of the injection of large fluctuations (“back-action” noise) in the quadrature orthogonal to that in which signal information is stored, as previously noted.

## V Extensions via Random Phase Switching

One way an eavesdropper Eve could access the signal and idler beams without the knowledge of the legitimate receiver is if she can intercept both channels completely, detect in the same manner as does the legitimate receiver (i.e., Eve should also have access to a local oscillator phase stable with respect to that of sender and receiver) and retransmit the beams in the same way as the legitimate sender. Because of this possibility, our protocol as described is certainly not secure, in contrast to the protocols for discrete variables.$`^{\text{[39, 40, 41]}}`$ However, we suggest that simple extensions of our protocol might lead to significant enhancements in security.

If the goal were to achieve quantum key distribution, one idea is to make straightforward adaptations of the protocols introduced by Bennett and colleagues for the discrete case, as in Ref.. Here, we propose that the sending station (Alice) and receiving station (Bob) make random choices for the set of phases of the coherent message beam, as well as for the signal and idler beams. Recall that the variance $`V_{}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ of Eq.1 is the minimum possible and applies only for the choice of quadrature-phase angles $`(\theta _A,\theta _B)`$ for the signal and idler beams that satisfy $`\theta _A+\theta _B=2p\pi `$ ($`p`$ = integer). For definiteness, assume the following two choices.

1. $`(\theta _A^0,\theta _B^0)`$, with $`\theta _A^0+\theta _B^0=0`$ and corresponding quadrature amplitudes $`(X_A,X_B)`$.
2. $`(\theta _A^{\pi /2}=\theta _A^0+\frac{\pi }{2},\theta _B^{\pi /2}=\theta _B^0+\frac{\pi }{2})`$ and corresponding quadrature amplitudes $`(Y_A,Y_B)`$.

In the first case, the minimum variance $`V_{}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ results for the combination $`(X_AX_B)`$, while in the second case, the combination $`(Y_A+Y_B)`$ has minimum variance. This is because $`Y_BY_B`$ is equivalent to the shift $`\theta _B^{\pi /2}\theta _B^{\pi /2}+\pi `$, so that $`\theta _A^{\pi /2}+\theta _B^{\pi /2}+\pi =2\pi `$.

With these definitions, Alice at the sending station (randomly) makes one of two choices.

1. Phase $`0`$ – Set the quadrature-phase angles $`(\theta _A,\theta _B)`$ to $`(\theta _A^0,\theta _B^0)`$ and the phases $`\beta _{A,B}=\beta _{A,B}^0`$ for the coherent message beam $`|\alpha =|\alpha |\mathrm{exp}[i\beta ]`$ corresponding to the $`X`$ quadratures of $`(A,B)`$.
2. Phase $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ – Set $`(\theta _A,\theta _B)`$ to $`(\theta _A^{\pi /2},\theta _B^{\pi /2})`$ and $`\beta _{A,B}=\beta _{A,B}^{\pi /2}=\beta _{A,B}^0\pm \frac{\pi }{2}`$ corresponding to the $`Y`$ quadratures.

The encoded message (which could consist of $`|\alpha |=[a_0,a_1]`$ for a binary transmission) is sent to Bob’s receiving station precisely as in Figure 1. Bob must then choose the appropriate phases $`(\varphi _A,\varphi _B)`$ for his local oscillators $`(LO_A,LO_B)`$ to detect quadrature amplitudes such that the spectral density $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ for the difference photocurrent $`i_{}i_Ai_B`$ is minimized and the signal maximized. In the case Phase $`0`$, denote the local oscillator settings as $`(\varphi _A^0,\varphi _B^0)`$, in correspondence to the detection of $`(X_A,X_B)`$ with minimum variance $`V_{}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. On the other hand, for the case Phase $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$, the local oscillator phases $`(\varphi _A,\varphi _B)(\varphi _A^{\pi /2},\varphi _B^{\pi /2})=(\varphi _A^0+\frac{\pi }{2},\varphi _B^0+\frac{3\pi }{2})`$, in correspondence to the detection of $`(Y_A,Y_B)`$ with minimum variance. In both cases, the encoded message would be recovered with maximum signal-to-noise ratio. Note that precisely such a switching protocol was implemented in our prior experiment of Ref. with results as stated for the variances.

Of course, Bob does not know in advance which choice $`[0,\frac{\pi }{2}]`$ Alice will have made for any given transmission. Hence, he makes a random selection between the alternatives $`(\varphi _A^0,\varphi _B^0)`$ and $`(\varphi _A^{\pi /2},\varphi _B^{\pi /2})`$, recovering the message in some cases but not others. After a series of transmissions, Alice and Bob communicate publicly about their choice of bases, keeping measurement results only when their choices coincide.

Now, if an eavesdropper Eve attempts to intervene (either by a strategy of partial tapping or by one of complete interception and re-broadcast), she will necessarily increase the noise level and error rate at Bob’s receiving station. The random switching of the phases $`(\theta _A,\theta _B)`$ by Alice forces Eve to make a guess as to the correct quadratures $`(\delta _A,\delta _B)`$ to be detected. Having made a choice, information about the orthogonal quadrature is lost. Of course, rather than homodyne detection, she could choose to employ heterodyne detection to gain information about the full complex amplitude. However, relative to homodyne detection, heterodyne detection brings a well-known penalty of a $`3`$dB reduction in signal-to-noise ratio.$`^{\text{[51]}}`$

While it is beyond the scope of the current paper to make any claims about the quantitative limits to the information that Eve might access or about the absolute ability of Alice and Bob to detect her presence, we do suggest that these would be interesting questions to investigate. There are certainly intervention strategies beyond those that we have mentioned that a cunning Eve would want to consider, such as an adaptive strategy for adjusting the phases $`(\delta _A,\delta _B)`$ during the duration of the transmission of any given message.$`^{\text{[52]}}`$ Likewise, in any real-world setting, overcoming the deleterious effects of losses in propagation from Alice to Bob will be a overriding consideration. The question of preserving the entanglement of the initial EPR state in the face of such losses is a fascinating one for continuous quantum variables. Although initial attempts have been made to develop error correcting quantum codes for continuous variables,$`^{\text{[16, 17, 18]}}`$ no adequate solution seems to yet have been found. Finally, it would be of interest to analyze the case where only one of the two correlated beams is sent to Bob, with then Alice retaining the other.

###### Acknowledgements.

We gratefully acknowledge the comments of J.H. Shapiro who pointed out the connection of our experiment to Ref., of S. L. Braunstein and H. Mabuchi for critical discussions, and of one of the referees who brought to our attention the Vernon cipher. This work was supported by the Office of Naval Research, by the National Science Foundation, and by DARPA via the QUIC administered by the Army Research Office.


format: text

text:
# Contact interaction probes at the Linear Collider with polarized electron and positron beams11footnote 1Partially supported by the Research Council of Norway, and by MURST (Italian Ministry of University, Scientific Research and Technology).

## 1 Introduction

The possibility of constructing high energy polarized electron and positron beams is considered with great interest with regard to the physics programme at the Linear Collider (LC). Indeed, one of the most important advantages of initial beam polarization is that one can measure spin-dependent observables, which represent the most direct probes of the fermion helicity dependence of the electroweak interactions. Consequently, one would expect a substantial gain in the sensitivity to the features of possible non-standard interactions and, in particular, stringent constraints on the individual new coupling constants could be derived from the data analysis by looking for deviations of cross sections from the Standard Model (SM) predictions.

Here, we will consider the process of fermion pair production ($`fe`$, $`t`$)

$$e^++e^{}f+\overline{f}$$
(1)
at a future Linear Collider with longitudinally polarized electron and positron beams, and discuss the sensitivity of the measurable helicity cross sections to the $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ symmetric $`eeff`$ contact-interaction Lagrangian with helicity-conserving and flavor-diagonal fermion currents :

$$=\underset{\alpha \beta }{}\frac{g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }^2}\eta _{\alpha \beta }\left(\overline{e}_\alpha \gamma _\mu e_\alpha \right)\left(\overline{f}_\beta \gamma ^\mu f_\beta \right).$$
(2)
In Eq. (2), generation and color indices have been suppressed, $`\alpha ,\beta =\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}`$ indicate left- or right-handed helicities, and the parameters $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }=\pm 1,0`$ specify the chiral structure of the individual interactions. Conventionally, one takes $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2=4\pi `$ as a reminder that the new interaction, originally proposed for compositeness, would become strong at $`\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }`$. Actually, in a more general sense, $``$ should be considered as an effective Lagrangian which represents the leading, lowest dimensional, parameterization at the ‘low-energy’ $`E`$ at which we make measurements, of some non-standard interaction acting at a much larger energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }E`$. For example, in addition to the remnant compositeness binding force, this is the case of a variety of interactions generated by the exchange of very heavy objects with masses much larger than the Mandelstam variables of the considered process (1), such as the exchanges of a $`Z^{}`$ with a few TeV mass  and of a heavy leptoquark . In this effective framework, therefore, with the assumed conventional values of $`\eta `$’s and $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2`$, the scales $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }`$ in Eq. (2) define a standard to compare the reach of different new-physics searches in the process (1).

Clearly, $``$ should manifest itself by deviations of observables from the SM theoretical predictions. The sensitivity of measurements to the new coupling constants, or, equivalently, the experimentally attainable reach in the free mass scales $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }`$, can be assessed by the numerical comparison of such deviations to the expected experimental accuracies.

For a given flavor $`f`$, Eq. (2) defines eight individual, independent models corresponding to the combinations of the four chiralities $`\alpha ,\beta `$ with the $`\pm `$ signs of the $`\eta `$’s. However, in general, an observed contact interaction could be any linear combination of these models, and this leads to the complicated situation in which the aforementioned deviations of observables from the SM predictions simultaneously depend on all four-fermion effective couplings. A simplified, and commonly adopted, procedure is to assume a non-zero value for only one parameter at a time and constrain it by essentially a $`\chi ^2`$ fit analysis, keeping the remaining parameters set equal to zero. In this way, tests of the individual models are obtained.

On the other hand, a general, model-independent, analysis must simultaneously include all terms of Eq. (2) as free parameters and, at the same time, must allow to disentangle their contributions to the basic observables so as to avoid potential cancellations between different contributions. Such cancellations can make the constraints considerably weaker or even spoil them. For this purpose, the longitudinal polarization of initial beams offers the possibility of experimentally separating from the data the individual helicity cross sections of process (1), each one being directly related to a single $`eeff`$ contact term and, therefore, depending on the minimal set of free independent parameters. The approach we adopt here uses as basic observables two particular, polarized, integrated cross sections that allow to reconstruct the four helicity amplitudes via linear combinations of measurements at different beam polarizations.111Integrated observables should be of advantage in the case of limited experimental statistics. Moreover, in the definition of such integrated observables, optimal kinematical regions can be chosen to maximize the sensitivity to the individual four-fermion contact interactions.

This kind of analysis, and the determination of the corresponding reach on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }`$, was applied in Ref.  for the LC with $`\sqrt{s}=0.5\mathrm{TeV}`$ and only the electron beam longitudinally polarized, making standard assumptions on the luminosity and on the expected systematic uncertainties on the cross section of process (1) for the different flavors. Indeed, longitudinal polarization of one beam is by itself already sufficient to disentangle the helicity cross sections from the data, if at least two values of the polarization are available, e.g., $`\pm |P_e|`$. In what follows, we extend the analysis of Ref.  and discuss the case where also positron beam longitudinal polarization is available at the LC with the same c.m. energy. Specifically, after giving the main definitions and briefly reviewing the procedure and findings for the sensitivity on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }`$ obtained in , we start by considering the effect of the uncertainty on the electron beam polarization that was disregarded there. We then consider the case of both electron and positron longitudinal polarizations, including in the analysis also the uncertainty on these polarizations.

## 2 Separation of the helicity cross sections

In Eq. (1) we limit ourselves to the cases $`fe,t`$ and make the approximation of negligible fermion mass with respect to the c.m. energy $`\sqrt{s}`$. Then, the amplitude for $`e^+e^{}f\overline{f}`$ is determined by the Born, $`s`$-channel, $`\gamma `$ and $`Z`$ exchanges plus the contact-interaction term of Eq. (2). With $`P_e`$ and $`P_{\overline{e}}`$ the longitudinal polarizations of the beams, and $`\theta `$ the angle between the incoming electron and the outgoing fermion in the c.m. frame, the differential cross section reads :

$$\frac{\text{d}\sigma }{\text{d}\mathrm{cos}\theta }=\frac{3}{8}\left[(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2\sigma _++(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2\sigma _{}\right].$$
(3)
In terms of helicity cross sections $`\sigma _{\alpha \beta }`$ (with $`\alpha ,\beta =\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}`$):

$`\sigma _+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[(1P_e)(1+P_{\overline{e}})\sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}+(1+P_e)(1P_{\overline{e}})\sigma _{\mathrm{RR}}\right]`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D}{4}}\left[(1P_{\mathrm{eff}})\sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}+(1+P_{\mathrm{eff}})\sigma _{\mathrm{RR}}\right],`$
$`\sigma _{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[(1P_e)(1+P_{\overline{e}})\sigma _{\mathrm{LR}}+(1+P_e)(1P_{\overline{e}})\sigma _{\mathrm{RL}}\right]`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D}{4}}\left[(1P_{\mathrm{eff}})\sigma _{\mathrm{LR}}+(1+P_{\mathrm{eff}})\sigma _{\mathrm{RL}}\right],`$
where

$$P_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{P_eP_{\overline{e}}}{1P_eP_{\overline{e}}}$$
(6)
is the effective polarization , $`|P_{\mathrm{eff}}|1`$, and $`D=1P_eP_{\overline{e}}`$. Obviously, for unpolarized positrons $`P_{\mathrm{eff}}P_e`$ and $`D1`$. It should be noted that with $`P_{\overline{e}}0`$, $`|P_{\mathrm{eff}}|`$ can be larger than $`|P_e|`$. Moreover, in Eqs. (4) and (5):

$$\sigma _{\alpha \beta }=N_C\sigma _{\mathrm{pt}}|A_{\alpha \beta }|^2,$$
(7)
where $`N_C3(1+\alpha _s/\pi )`$ for quarks and $`N_C=1`$ for leptons, respectively, and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{pt}}\sigma (e^+e^{}\gamma ^{}l^+l^{})=(4\pi \alpha ^2)/(3s)`$. The helicity amplitudes $`A_{\alpha \beta }`$ can be written as

$$A_{\alpha \beta }=Q_eQ_f+g_\alpha ^eg_\beta ^f\chi _Z+\frac{s\eta _{\alpha \beta }}{\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }^2},$$
(8)
where $`\chi _Z=s/(sM_Z^2+iM_Z\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z)`$ is the gauge boson propagator, $`g_\mathrm{L}^f=(I_{3L}^fQ_fs_W^2)/s_Wc_W`$ and $`g_\mathrm{R}^f=Q_fs_W^2/s_Wc_W`$ are the SM left- and right-handed fermion couplings of the $`Z`$ with $`s_W^2=1c_W^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ and $`Q_f`$ the fermion electric charge.

Our analysis focuses on the helicity cross sections that, as the above relations clearly show, directly relate to the individual contact interactions in Eq. (2) with definite chiralities and, accordingly, lead to a model-independent analysis where all terms in this equation are taken into account as completely free parameters with no danger of accidental compensations. To disentangle the various contributions in Eqs. (4) and (5), one simply has to make measurements at two different values of the polarizations (a minimum of four measurements is needed). For example, two convenient sets of values for the polarizations, that we will use in the sequel, would be $`P_e=\pm P_1`$ and $`P_{\overline{e}}=P_2`$ ($`P_{1,2}>0`$) or, alternatively, $`P_{\mathrm{eff}}=\pm P`$ and $`D`$ fixed. The corresponding solutions of Eqs. (4) and (5) read:

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1P}{P}}\sigma _+(P)+{\displaystyle \frac{1+P}{P}}\sigma _+(P)\right],`$ (9)
$`\sigma _{\mathrm{RR}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+P}{P}}\sigma _+(P){\displaystyle \frac{1P}{P}}\sigma _+(P)\right],`$ (10)
with $`\sigma _{\mathrm{LR}}`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{RL}}`$ obtained from $`\sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{RR}}`$, respectively, replacing $`\sigma _+`$ by $`\sigma _{}`$.

Actually, for the purpose of optimizing the resulting bounds on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }`$, one can more generally define the polarized cross sections integrated over the a priori arbitrary kinematical ranges ($`1,z^{}`$) and ($`z^{},1`$) :

$`\sigma _1(z^{},P,D)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _z^{}^1}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\sigma }{\text{d}\mathrm{cos}\theta }}\text{d}\mathrm{cos}\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left\{\left[8(1+z^{})^3\right]\sigma _++(1z^{})^3\sigma _{}\right\},`$ (11)
$`\sigma _2(z^{},P,D)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _1^z^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\sigma }{\text{d}\mathrm{cos}\theta }}\text{d}\mathrm{cos}\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left\{(1+z^{})^3\sigma _++\left[8(1z^{})^3\right]\sigma _{}\right\}.`$ (12)
For simplicity of notations, the polarization dependence of $`\sigma _\pm `$ on the right-hand sides of Eqs. (11) and (12) has been suppressed. As abbreviations, we introduce

$$a(z^{})=\frac{8(1z^{})^3}{6(1z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})},b(z^{})=\frac{(1z^{})^3}{6(1z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})}.$$
(13)
By solving Eqs. (11) and (12) one obtains $`\sigma _+`$ and $`\sigma _{}`$ from the measurement of $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$:

$`\sigma _+`$ $`=`$ $`\left[a(z^{})\sigma _1(z^{},P,D)+b(z^{})\sigma _2(z^{},P,D)\right],`$ (14)
$`\sigma _{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[b(z^{})\sigma _1(z^{},P,D)+a(z^{})\sigma _2(z^{},P,D)\right].`$ (15)
Thus, according to this procedure, $`\sigma _{1,2}(z^{},P,D)`$ play the role of a basic set of integrated polarized observables to be measured. As a second step, the corresponding cross sections $`\sigma _\pm `$ are constructed using the relations (14) and (15) and the experimental values of the helicity cross sections $`\sigma _{\alpha \beta }`$ are finally determined from the linear system of equations (9)–(10). Moreover, the value of $`z^{}`$ is taken as an input parameter related to given experimental conditions, that can be tuned in order to get maximal sensitivity of the helicity cross sections $`\sigma _{\alpha \beta }`$ to the mass scales $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }`$ we want to constrain.

For comparison, we recall the conventional observables, the total cross section $`\sigma `$ and the various asymmetries. These are generally given, according to Eqs. (3)–(6), by

$$\sigma =\sigma _++\sigma _{}=\frac{D}{4}\left[(1P_{\mathrm{eff}})(\sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{LR}})+(1+P_{\mathrm{eff}})(\sigma _{\mathrm{RR}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{RL}})\right];$$
(16)
and

$`\sigma A_{\mathrm{FB}}`$ $``$ $`\sigma _\mathrm{F}\sigma _\mathrm{B}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\left(\sigma _+\sigma _{}\right)`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}D\left[(1P_{\mathrm{eff}})(\sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}\sigma _{\mathrm{LR}})+(1+P_{\mathrm{eff}})(\sigma _{\mathrm{RR}}\sigma _{\mathrm{RL}})\right];`$
with

$$\sigma _\mathrm{F}=\sigma _1(z^{}=0)=_0^1(\text{d}\sigma /\text{d}\mathrm{cos}\theta )\text{d}\mathrm{cos}\theta ;\sigma _\mathrm{B}=\sigma _2(z^{}=0)=_1^0(\text{d}\sigma /\text{d}\mathrm{cos}\theta )\text{d}\mathrm{cos}\theta ,$$
(18)
and $`P_{\mathrm{eff}}0`$, $`D1`$ for unpolarized beams. For the case of polarized beams, one has also the left-right asymmetry

$$A_{\mathrm{LR}}=\frac{\sigma _\mathrm{L}\sigma _\mathrm{R}}{\sigma _\mathrm{L}+\sigma _\mathrm{R}}=\frac{(\sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{LR}})(\sigma _{\mathrm{RL}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{RR}})}{\sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{LR}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{RL}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{RR}}},$$
(19)
and the combined left-right forward-backward asymmetry

$$A_{\mathrm{LR},\mathrm{FB}}=\frac{(\sigma _\mathrm{L}^\mathrm{F}\sigma _\mathrm{R}^\mathrm{F})(\sigma _\mathrm{L}^\mathrm{B}\sigma _\mathrm{R}^\mathrm{B})}{(\sigma _\mathrm{L}^\mathrm{F}+\sigma _\mathrm{R}^\mathrm{F})+(\sigma _\mathrm{L}^\mathrm{B}+\sigma _\mathrm{R}^\mathrm{B})}=\frac{3}{4}\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}\sigma _{\mathrm{RR}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{RL}}\sigma _{\mathrm{LR}}}{\sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{RR}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{RL}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{LR}}},$$
(20)
where $`\sigma _\mathrm{L}`$ and $`\sigma _\mathrm{R}`$ denote the cross sections with left-handed and right-handed electrons and unpolarized positrons.

In the numerical analysis, radiative corrections including initial- and final-state radiation are taken into account by means of the program ZFITTER , which has to be used along with ZEFIT, adapted to the present discussion, with $`m_{\mathrm{top}}=175`$ GeV and $`m_H=100`$ GeV. One-loop SM electroweak corrections are accounted for by improved Born amplitudes , such that the form of the previous formulae remains the same. Concerning initial-state radiation, a cut on the energy of the emitted photon $`\mathrm{\Delta }=E_\gamma /E_{\mathrm{beam}}=0.9`$ is applied for $`\sqrt{s}=0.5\mathrm{TeV}`$ in order to avoid the radiative return to the $`Z`$ peak, and increase the signal originating from the contact interaction .

## 3 Sensitivity of observables and their optimization

Given the current bounds on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }`$, of the order of several TeV , at the LC c.m. energy $`\sqrt{s}=0.5`$ TeV the characteristic suppression factor $`s/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ in Eq. (8) is such that we can only look at indirect manifestations of the contact interaction (2) as deviations from the SM predictions. In this case, we can assess the sensitivity of process (1) to the couplings in (2), that determines the corresponding reach on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }`$, on the basis of the foreseen experimental accuracy on the helicity cross sections $`\sigma _{\alpha \beta }`$. As stressed previously, the knowledge of the latter allows a model-independent analysis, where all the contact interactions are disentangled and therefore can be taken into account as free parameters simultaneously.

Specifically, we define the ‘significance’ of each helicity cross section by the ratio

$$𝒮(\sigma _{\alpha \beta })=\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{\alpha \beta }|}{\delta \sigma _{\alpha \beta }},$$
(21)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{\alpha \beta }`$ are the deviations from the SM prediction due to (2), dominated for $`\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }`$ by the linear interference term

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{\alpha \beta }\sigma _{\alpha \beta }\sigma _{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{SM}}2N_C\sigma _{\mathrm{pt}}\left(Q_eQ_f+g_\alpha ^eg_\beta ^f\chi _Z\right)\frac{s\eta _{\alpha \beta }}{\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }^2},$$
(22)
and $`\delta \sigma _{\alpha \beta }`$ denotes the expected experimental uncertainty on $`\sigma _{\alpha \beta }`$, combining statistical and systematic uncertainties.

In the procedure of determining helicity amplitudes via the integrated polarized cross sections $`\sigma _{1,2}`$ outlined in the previous section (see Eqs. (9), (10), (14) and (15)), adding all uncertainties in quadrature and neglecting for the moment the systematic uncertainty on the electron and positron polarizations, one can write:

$`\left(\delta \sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`a^2(z^{})\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1P}{PD}}\right)^2(\delta \sigma _1(z^{},P))^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+P}{PD}}\right)^2(\delta \sigma _1(z^{},P))^2\right]`$ (23)
$`+`$ $`b^2(z^{})\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1P}{PD}}\right)^2(\delta \sigma _2(z^{},P))^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+P}{PD}}\right)^2(\delta \sigma _2(z^{},P))^2\right],`$
$`\left(\delta \sigma _{\mathrm{LR}}\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`b^2(z^{})\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1P}{PD}}\right)^2(\delta \sigma _1(z^{},P))^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+P}{PD}}\right)^2(\delta \sigma _1(z^{},P))^2\right]`$ (24)
$`+`$ $`a^2(z^{})\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1P}{PD}}\right)^2(\delta \sigma _2(z^{},P))^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+P}{PD}}\right)^2(\delta \sigma _2(z^{},P))^2\right],`$
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are given by Eq. (13). For simplicity of notations, the dependence of $`\delta \sigma _{1,2}`$ on $`D`$ has not been explicitly indicated. One can derive explicit expressions for $`\delta \sigma _{\mathrm{RR}}`$ and $`\delta \sigma _{\mathrm{RL}}`$ from $`\delta \sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}`$ and $`\delta \sigma _{\mathrm{LR}}`$, respectively, by the replacement in the above equations of $`\pm PP`$ in $`\delta \sigma _i(z^{},\pm P))`$ but not in the corresponding prefactors.

Combining in quadrature statistical and systematic uncertainties on $`\sigma _{1,2}`$, one finds:

$$(\delta \sigma _i)^2(\delta \sigma _i^{\mathrm{SM}})^2=\frac{\sigma _i^{\mathrm{SM}}}{ϵ_{\mathrm{int}}}+\left(\delta ^{\mathrm{sys}}\sigma _i^{\mathrm{SM}}\right)^2,i=1,2.$$
(25)
For our numerical analysis we shall assume the commonly used reference values of the identification efficiencies, $`ϵ`$, and the systematic uncertainties, $`\delta ^{\mathrm{sys}}`$, for the various fermionic channels : $`ϵ=95\%`$ and $`\delta ^{\mathrm{sys}}=0.5\%`$ for $`l^+l^{}`$; $`ϵ=60\%`$ and $`\delta ^{\mathrm{sys}}=1\%`$ for $`b\overline{b}`$; $`ϵ=35\%`$ and $`\delta ^{\mathrm{sys}}=1.5\%`$ for $`c\overline{c}`$. Notice that, as a simplification, we take the same $`\delta ^{\mathrm{sys}}`$ for both $`i=1`$ and 2, and independent of $`z^{}`$ in the relevant angular range. Concerning the statistical uncertainty, we consider the LC with $`\sqrt{s}=0.5`$ TeV, $`_{\mathrm{int}}=50\text{fb}^1`$ and $`_{\mathrm{int}}=500\text{fb}^1`$ (half for each polarization orientation), and a fiducial experimental angular range $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |0.99`$.

Finally, as regards optimization of the bounds on contact-interaction couplings, which corresponds to the maximum value of the ‘significance’ defined in Eq. (21), one may notice from the equations above that the uncertainties $`\delta \sigma _{\alpha \beta }`$ depend on the, a priori free, kinematical parameter $`z^{}`$ in the definition of the polarized cross sections $`\sigma _i`$. Conversely, by definition, the deviations from the SM $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{\alpha \beta }`$ in Eq. (22) are $`z^{}`$-independent. Therefore, optimization can be achieved by choosing $`z^{}=z_{\mathrm{opt}}^{}`$ where $`\delta \sigma _{\alpha \beta }`$ becomes minimum, so that the corresponding sensitivity has a maximum and determines the highest bound on the corresponding mass scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }`$. The $`z^{}`$ dependence of the statistical uncertainties $`\delta \sigma _{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{stat}}`$ in the right-hand side of (25) can be approximated by that corresponding to the known SM cross sections for the process (1) and the value of $`_{\mathrm{int}}`$. In the case of low luminosity where the statistical uncertainty dominates, this SM-determined $`z^{}`$ behaviour can be used for a simple, first determination of $`z_{\mathrm{opt}}^{}`$ for the various helicity amplitudes . In the general case where statistical and systematic uncertainties are comparable, the optimal $`z^{}`$ must be determined by a more complex numerical analysis taking into account the relevant experimental details.

## 4 Polarization uncertainty and two polarized beams

In order to assess the effects on the $`\delta \sigma _{\alpha \beta }`$ due to the systematic uncertainties $`\delta P_e`$ and $`\delta P_{\overline{e}}`$ on the $`e^{}`$ and $`e^+`$ polarizations respectively, we must supplement by appropriate terms Eqs. (23) and (24) and the similar ones for the remaining helicity amplitudes. From the formulae in Sec. 2, one can see that finite values of $`\delta P_e`$ and $`\delta P_{\overline{e}}`$ will influence the extraction of the helicity cross sections $`\sigma _{\alpha \beta }`$ through the prefactors of Eqs. (9), (10), (14) and (15), as well as through the dependence of $`\sigma _{1,2}`$ on $`P`$ and $`D`$. Clearly, a complete assessment of the latter effect would require detailed knowledge of the structure of the overall systematic uncertainty in terms of the different, individual sources, that is not available at present. For the sake of simplicity, we model the systematic uncertainty by assuming that such an effect can be considered as already included in the systematic uncertainties $`\delta \sigma _i^{\mathrm{sys}}`$ introduced in Eq. (25), regardless of the values of $`\delta P_e`$ and $`\delta P_{\overline{e}}`$ (and $`P_e`$ and $`P_{\overline{e}}`$) considered in our discussion. Then, we treat $`\sigma _{1,2}`$, $`P_e`$ and $`P_{\overline{e}}`$ in Eqs. (9) and (10) as if they were independent measurables, and in this spirit, we combine the additional contribution to the uncertainty, $`\delta \sigma _{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{pol}}`$, again in quadrature with the $`\delta \sigma _{\alpha \beta }`$ determined from the expressions (23) and (24). Thus:

$$(\delta \sigma _{\alpha \beta })^2(\delta \sigma _{\alpha \beta })^2+\left(\delta \sigma _{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{pol}}\right)^2.$$
(26)
Under the above assumptions, we obtain

$`\left(\delta \sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}^{\mathrm{pol}}\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`[f(z^{},P)(1+P_{\overline{e}}P^2)f(z^{},P)(1P_{\overline{e}}P^2)]^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta P_e}{D^2P^2}}\right)^2`$
$`+`$ $`[f(z^{},P)(1P_eP^2)f(z^{},P)(1+P_eP^2)]^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta P_{\overline{e}}}{D^2P^2}}\right)^2,`$
$`\left(\delta \sigma _{\mathrm{RR}}^{\mathrm{pol}}\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`[f(z^{},P)(1P_{\overline{e}}P^2)f(z^{},P)(1+P_{\overline{e}}P^2)]^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta P_e}{D^2P^2}}\right)^2`$ (27)
$`+`$ $`[f(z^{},P)(1+P_eP^2)f(z^{},P)(1P_eP^2)]^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta P_{\overline{e}}}{D^2P^2}}\right)^2,`$
with

$$f(z^{},P)=a(z^{})\sigma _1(z^{},P)+b(z^{})\sigma _2(z^{},P).$$
(28)
Furthermore, $`\delta \sigma _{\mathrm{LR}}^{\mathrm{pol}}`$ and $`\delta \sigma _{\mathrm{RL}}^{\mathrm{pol}}`$ are obtained from $`\delta \sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}^p`$ and $`\delta \sigma _{\mathrm{RR}}^p`$, respectively, by substituting $`a(z^{})b(z^{})`$. Numerically, for explicit assessments of the reach on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }`$, we shall work out the example of $`|P_e|=0.9`$ with $`\delta P_e/P_e=0.5\%`$ as currently attainable at the SLC , and $`|P_{\overline{e}}|=0.6`$ . This corresponds to the effective polarization $`P_{\mathrm{eff}}=P=0.974`$ and $`D=1.54`$. Clearly, introducing positron polarization may amount to a sort of “noise”, unless its magnitude is known with some precision. Since, at present, information on the achievable precision on the positron polarization is unknown, in our numerical analysis we shall vary $`\delta P_{\overline{e}}/P_{\overline{e}}`$ in a range up to a few tens of percent.

We start by considering, as a first example, electrons that are polarized, but unpolarized positrons, ($`|P_e|,|P_{\overline{e}}|`$) = ($`0.9,0.0`$), and then we discuss the case of both initial beams polarized with ($`|P_e|,|P_{\overline{e}}|`$) = ($`0.9,0.6`$). Also, as anticipated, we assume half the total integrated luminosity quoted above for each value of the effective polarization, $`P_{\mathrm{eff}}=\pm P`$. We focus on the impact of finite polarization uncertainties on the sensitivity of the helicity cross sections $`\sigma _{\alpha \beta }`$ to the contact interaction (2) and the corresponding reach on the mass scales $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }`$ that, as discussed in the previous section, is determined by the uncertainties $`\delta \sigma _{\alpha \beta }`$ via Eqs. (21), (22) and (26).

In the starting example, with polarized electrons and unpolarized positrons, we compare the relative deviations $`\delta \sigma _{\alpha \beta }/\sigma _{\alpha \beta }\delta \sigma _{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{SM}}/\sigma _{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ for finite $`\delta P_e`$ with the case of the same $`P_e`$, but $`\delta P_e=0`$, studied in . The ratio of the sensitivity (21) in the two cases, determining the effect of the electron polarization uncertainty introduced via Eq. (26), is shown in Fig. 1, for $`_{\mathrm{int}}=50\mathrm{fb}^1`$. This figure is obtained using the optimization procedure, and the determination of the relevant $`z_{\mathrm{opt}}^{}`$, outlined in the previous section. The sensitivity, via its square root, determines the reach in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }`$. For the $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ final state, and LL and RR helicity configurations, the effect of $`\delta P_e`$ determining $`\delta \sigma _{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{pol}}`$ in (26) is found to change $`\delta \sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}`$ and $`\delta \sigma _{\mathrm{RR}}`$ as given by (23)–(25) and the stated input values by a really modest amount, of the order of a fraction of a %, unless $`\delta P_e/P_e`$ exceeds 3–4%, whereas for $`\delta \sigma _{\mathrm{LR}}`$ and $`\delta \sigma _{\mathrm{RL}}`$ there is no change at all. The reason for this can be found in Eqs. (4) and (28). Indeed, within the set of assumptions leading to those equations, one has numerically:

$`\left(\delta \sigma _{\mathrm{LL},\mathrm{RR}}^{\mathrm{pol}}\right)^2`$ $``$ $`[(\sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}\sigma _{\mathrm{RR}})P_{\overline{e}}P(\sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{RR}})]^2(\delta P_e)^2`$ (29)
$`+`$ $`[(\sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}\sigma _{\mathrm{RR}})\pm P_eP(\sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{RR}})]^2(\delta P_{\overline{e}})^2,`$
independent of $`z^{}`$, and similar expressions for $`\delta \sigma _{\mathrm{LR},\mathrm{RL}}^{\mathrm{pol}}`$ with the substitutions $`\text{LL,RR}\text{LR,RL}`$. Thus, for $`P_{\overline{e}}=\delta P_{\overline{e}}=0`$, $`\delta \sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}^{\mathrm{pol}}\delta \sigma _{\mathrm{RR}}^{\mathrm{pol}}\sigma _{\mathrm{LL}}^{\mathrm{SM}}\sigma _{\mathrm{RR}}^{\mathrm{SM}}`$, which for final-state muons vanishes in the limit of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{W}0.25`$, whereas $`\delta \sigma _{\mathrm{LR}}^{\mathrm{pol}}\delta \sigma _{\mathrm{RL}}^{\mathrm{pol}}\sigma _{\mathrm{LR}}^{\mathrm{SM}}\sigma _{\mathrm{RL}}^{\mathrm{SM}}=0`$. It should be stressed that this lack of sensitivity to $`\delta P_e`$ depends on having no positron polarization, $`P_{\overline{e}}=0`$. For quarks, the corresponding differences of helicity cross sections do not vanish, and the effect of $`\delta P_e`$ is to yield a non-zero $`\delta \sigma _{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{pol}}`$. The contribution of $`\delta P_e`$ to the helicity cross section uncertainty, $`\delta \sigma _{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{pol}}`$, is still quite small with respect to the total uncertainty, as long as $`\delta P_e/P_e`$ remains less than 2–3%, except for the LL and RR cases of $`b\overline{b}`$ final states.

For higher luminosity, the curves become steeper, i.e., the sensitivity deteriorates faster with loss of polarization accuracy, see Fig. 2.

Turning to the case of both positron and electron longitudinal polarization, and referring to Eqs. (4) and (5), in the chosen helicity configuration where $`P_eP_{\overline{e}}<0`$, one has $`D>1`$ and $`|P_{\mathrm{eff}}|>\mathrm{max}(|P_e|,|P_{\overline{e}}|)`$, and in principle one could expect on statistical grounds an increase of the sensitivity due to the polarization of positrons, provided the luminosity remains the same. However, this improvement from positron polarization is obtained up to a maximum value of $`\delta P_{\overline{e}}/P_{\overline{e}}`$, above which there is no benefit, but, actually, a worsening of the sensitivity.

Indeed, it is instructive to compare the sensitivity of the helicity cross sections to four-fermion contact interactions for both beams polarized with that obtained with just one beam polarized. This comparison is expressed in terms of ratios of sensitivities as a function of the positron polarization uncertainty, $`\delta P_{\overline{e}}/P_{\overline{e}}`$, for $`_{\mathrm{int}}=50\mathrm{fb}^1`$ in Fig. 3 for lepton and quark final states. It is seen that if $`|\delta P_{\overline{e}}/P_{\overline{e}}||\delta P_e/P_e|=0.5\%`$, the advantage of positron polarization manifests itself in an increase in sensitivity by 10–40% depending on the helicity configuration and the final state. However, this ratio drops with increasing $`\delta P_{\overline{e}}/P_{\overline{e}}`$, and at those positron polarization uncertainties where it becomes less than unity, the advantage of positron polarization disappears. This useful region of the precision $`\delta P_{\overline{e}}/P_{\overline{e}}`$ ranges from 2% up to beyond 20% depending on the reaction and helicity combination.

This dependence on $`\delta P_{\overline{e}}`$ can be qualitatively understood from Eq. (29). In the case of muons (as opposed to quarks), the first term (proportional to $`(\delta P_e)^2`$) is relatively small (since we consider $`P_{\overline{e}}`$ considerably less than $`P_e`$), and the second term involving $`(\delta P_{\overline{e}})^2`$ becomes important already at small values of $`\delta P_{\overline{e}}`$. This explains why the curves (see Fig. 3) are rather steep. Other properties of Fig. 3 are also seen to follow from Eq. (29): (i) for $`e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, the dependence on $`\delta P_{\overline{e}}`$ is the same for the LR and RL cross sections, as well as for the LL and RR ones; (ii) for $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}`$, the dependence on $`\delta P_{\overline{e}}`$ is relatively weak for the LR and RL cross sections since these cross sections are small; (iii) for $`e^+e^{}c\overline{c}`$, the dependence on $`\delta P_{\overline{e}}`$ is much weaker for the RL than for the LR cross section since $`\sigma _{\mathrm{LR}}`$ is bigger than $`\sigma _{\mathrm{RL}}`$, leading to a cancellation in one case and not in the other.

At higher luminosity, all the curves become more steep, since the uncertainty due to the polarization becomes more important w.r.t. the statistical uncertainty. For example, at $`_{\mathrm{int}}=500\mathrm{fb}^1`$, as Fig. 4 shows, for muon final states the positron polarization (at a value $`P_{\overline{e}}=0.6`$) stops being useful for the RR and LL cross sections at $`\delta P_{\overline{e}}/P_{\overline{e}}=0.8\%`$ and 0.6%, respectively.

In the next section we are going to conclude our numerical discussion by explicitly deriving the reach on the mass scales $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }`$ obtainable in the case where the uncertainty on the electron and positron longitudinal polarizations are, respectively, 0.5% and 1%, for the two values $`_{\mathrm{int}}=50\text{fb}^1`$ and $`_{\mathrm{int}}=500\text{fb}^1`$.

## 5 Bounds on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }`$

As a preliminary step in the derivation of the constraints on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }`$, we show in Fig. 5 the relative uncertainties $`\delta \sigma _{\alpha \beta }/\sigma _{\alpha \beta }`$ as functions of $`z^{}`$, for the lower option for the luminosity.

The optimal values of $`z^{}`$ where the sensitivity is maximum can be easily read off from these figures, and in Table 1 we report such $`z_{\mathrm{opt}}^{}`$ for the two different values of the luminosity.

Numerical constraints on the four-fermion contact interactions of Eq. (2) are obtained from a $`\chi ^2`$ analysis of data on each helicity cross section, with (see Eq. (21)):

$$\chi ^2=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{\alpha \beta }}{\delta \sigma _{\alpha \beta }}\right)^2.$$
(30)
Bounds on the allowed values of the contact interaction parameters from the non-observation of the corresponding deviations within the expected uncertainty $`\delta \sigma _{\alpha \beta }`$ are derived by imposing $`\chi ^2<\chi _{\mathrm{CL}}^2`$, where the actual value of $`\chi _{\mathrm{CL}}^2`$ specifies the desired ‘confidence’ level. As Eq. (22) shows, the deviations $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{\alpha \beta }`$ depend on a single ‘effective’ contact-interaction free parameter, and therefore in such a $`\chi ^2`$ analysis we take $`\chi _{\mathrm{CL}}^2=3.84`$ for 95% C.L. as consistent with a one-parameter fit.

The results for the bounds on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }`$ are reported in Table 1. The table shows that the helicity cross sections $`\sigma _{\alpha \beta }`$ are quite sensitive to contact interactions, with discovery limits that, at the highest considered luminosity 500 $`\text{fb}^1`$, can range from 75 up to 150 times the c.m. energy, depending on the considered final fermion state. Indeed, the best sensitivity is achieved for the $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`b\overline{b}`$ final states, while the worst one corresponds to the $`c\overline{c}`$ channel. A direct comparison with the sensitivity achieved using ‘conventional’ observables, Eqs. (16)–(20)222See, for example, the results obtained in  in the context of specific contact-interaction models., is quite difficult and might be unclear, because it depends on the assumed model of new physics involved and the kind of parameterization adopted for the uncertainty. In this regard, as repeatedly stressed, we point out that the separation of the helicity cross sections performed here (and the corresponding values in Table 1) has the qualitative advantage of providing, by definition, unambiguous and model-independent information on the non-standard parameters of Eq. (2).

For a sort of contact to the conventional observables (16)–(20), we have reported in Table 1 also the limits on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }`$ obtainable at $`z^{}=0`$ instead of $`z^{}=z_{\mathrm{opt}}^{}`$. The results show that, at $`z^{}=0`$, the sensitivity to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{RL}}`$ would be considerably smaller. As one can see from the table, the ‘optimal’ choice $`z^{}=z_{\mathrm{opt}}^{}`$ allows to substantially increase the bounds for the LR and RL cases, to the level of the LL and RR ones, for which the improvement is really modest. This relates to the $`z^{}`$ behavior of the relative uncertainties on $`\sigma _{\alpha \beta }`$, that, as is seen in Fig. 5, is flat in the latter case and varies more rapidly around $`z_{\mathrm{opt}}^{}`$ in the former one.

As discussed previously, and illustrated in Fig. 3, the benefit of positron polarization depends on it being known with some precision. We show in Figs. 6 and 7 the effect of the positron polarization uncertainty on the reach in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }`$, for the two luminosities considered.

We see from these figures that if the positron polarization is known with high precision, an amount $`P_{\overline{e}}=0.6`$ can increase the reach in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by typically 5–25%. The critical level of precision, by which the positron polarization should be known, in order to be beneficial for contact-interaction searches, depends very much on the channel considered, as well as the luminosity. At low luminosities, less polarization precision is required for the positron polarization to be useful.

While one polarized beam is a necessity in order to be able to extract the helicity cross sections, the benefit of both beams being polarized is less clear. For some combinations of final state and helicity channels, the increased reach in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be considerable, although half luminosity (and correspondingly reduced number of events) has been assumed for the two configurations of electron and positron beam polarizations. However, due to the limiting effect of the polarization uncertainties on the sensitivity (21), such improvements do not seem dramatic. More luminosity might easily lead to the same gain, especially if the positron polarization is only known with a moderate accuracy.

Actually, for full completeness in this regard, the dependence on the actual value of the uncertainty $`\delta ^{\mathrm{sys}}`$ in (25) should be considered simultaneously with that from $`\delta \sigma _{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{pol}}`$, as suggested by the combination in Eq. (26). Clearly, we should expect reduction of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ reach for increasing $`\delta ^{\mathrm{sys}}`$. As an indication, by doubling the values of $`\delta ^{\mathrm{sys}}`$ with respect to those listed below Eq. (25), and adopted for the explicit numerical example presented here, at $`_{\mathrm{int}}=50\text{fb}^1`$ the typical effect amounts to a few percent for the LR and RL cases, but can be as large as 20% for the LL and RR combinations. This indicates that the latter helicity cross sections are much more sensitive to systematic uncertainties than the former ones.

Clearly, although these considerations are numerically drawn from a specific example using as inputs some particular, hypothetical, values of initial beam polarization and corresponding uncertainties, and from assumptions on the values and properties of the uncertainties $`\delta ^{\mathrm{sys}}`$ of Eq. (25), such conclusions should hold in general. For a definite, quantitative statement about the relative roles of statistical and systematic uncertainties (including $`\delta P_e`$ and $`\delta P_{\overline{e}}`$) in the determination of the accuracy on $`\sigma _{\alpha \beta }`$ in a realistic experimental situation, we must wait for more detailed information on the expected experimental errors.