text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Despite its tremendous success, the Standard Model (SM) still lacks any direct experimental information regarding the electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB) sector. While the Higgs mechanism is a very plausible candidate, giving masses, as it does, to both the weak gauge bosons as well as the fermions, it predicts one or more physical spin-$`0`$ states, none of which has been found so far. Detection of these scalars (pseudo-scalars) is one of the major goals of the particle physics experiments being built at the moment.

This very lack of experimental information precludes any definitive statement regarding the Higgs sector. While the minimal choice of a $`SU(2)`$ doublet, as in the SM, is an aesthetically pleasing one, there is very little support for such a choice in terms of either phenomenological evidence or any theoretical understanding. Indeed, many alternatives to the SM have an extended Higgs sector. In particular, supersymmetric theories, proposed to cure the bad high energy behaviour of the Higgs mass in SM, necessarily have at least two scalar doublets taking part in the EWSB. Somewhat similar is the situation with grand unified theories (GUT). Apart from containing typically more than one Higgs responsible for EWSB, such scenarios often include extra low-mass scalars that do not directly take part in EWSB, but mix with the Higgs bosons thereby affecting their properties. Since search strategies for the Higgs(es) depend crucially on the possible decay channels, any such mixing will have very definite consequences. Examples are afforded by the recently proposed models for TeV scale gravity. The low-energy effective theory obtained upon compactification of the extra space time dimensions typically contain one or more scalars that do not contribute to the EWSB, but may mix with the SM Higgs, thus modifying the Higgs decay patterns in general.

In future experiments, we may see a number of neutral scalars. This would immediately imply that the Higgs sector is not the minimal one as chosen in the SM. On the other hand, nature may choose to have an extended scalar sector, but by a conspiracy of circumstances, experiments may find only one scalar. The important question is finding out what a detected scalar, or a set of scalars, can tell us about the mechanism of symmetry breaking . Effects of an extended Higgs sector were also the subject of discussion in refs.. In ref., for example, the focus was on differentiating between various supersymmetry breaking scenarios, if the Higgs mass were determined to be around 115 GeV, the current lower limit for the SM Higgs . The authors of ref., on the other hand, studied the $`HZZ`$ coupling in some detail keeping in mind various scenarios for EWSB.

It, obviously, would be useful to construct a simple observable that would be sensitive to the nature of the EWSB mechanism. To this end, we concentrate on the coupling of the scalar(s) to the $`Z`$-bosons. Unlike the fermion couplings to the Higgs, this measure (alongwith the $`HWW`$ couplings) receives contributions from any non-singlet scalar vacuum expectation value (VEV). Moreover, the experimental measurement of such couplings is of particular importance as these drive Higgs productions through of the Bjorken process  and gauge boson fusion .

While we have seemingly dismissed the fermion couplings to the physical scalars, they deserve a closer examination, particularly the ones involving the third generation. At the LHC, for example, the top Yukawa coupling would be measured with an accuracy $`𝒪`$(20%) for Higgs lighter than about 130 GeV . At a linear collider operating at $`\sqrt{s}=750`$ GeV and with an integrated luminosity 50 fb-1, the same coupling is likely to be measured with an accuracy of $`𝒪`$(10%) for $`m_H<240`$ GeV . However, even an observed deviation from the SM value would not be enough to distinguish a scenario with more than one doublet Higgs from an exotic one. Some indirect inferences may be drawn though. For example, if the measured value of the top-Yukawa at the EW scale turns out to be significantly larger than the SM value, then, under renormalization group evolution, it would approach a non-perturbative regime much sooner than within the SM. This would be indicative of some new physics operative at that scale. Such an eventuality is a real possibility in scenarios wherein more than one scalar takes part in the EWSB. As the scalar(s) giving mass to top quark must then have a VEV (VEVs) smaller than the SM Higgs VEV, the top-Yukawa must be enhanced accordingly. Thus the structure of scalar sector and top Yukawa are highly correlated.

The plan of the rest of the article is as follows. In section 2, we will discuss the coupling of the Higgs to a pair of $`Z`$-bosons in extensions of SM wherein the scalar sector consists of, apart from the usual doublet of $`SU(2)_L`$, fields transforming in higher-dimensional representations. Also discussed, in this context, are constraints emanating from perturbativity of the top quark-Higgs coupling as also from the naturalness of cancellations in the $`\rho `$-parameter. In Section 3, we concentrate on the models of TeV scale gravity, especially those incorporating a non-factorisable geometry. We analyse the mixing of the graviscalars with the SM Higgs and the consequent modification of the couplings to the $`Z`$. Also studied is supersymmetric variation of such models. Finally we conclude in section 4.

## 2 $`ZZH`$ coupling in four dimensional models

On account of its excellent agreement with almost all of current experimental data, the Standard Model serves as the natural template for any investigation of the Higgs sector. Within the SM, the $`ZZH`$ coupling follows from the kinetic term $`(D_\mu \varphi )^{}D^\mu \varphi `$, where $`\varphi `$ is the Higgs doublet and $`D_\mu `$ denotes the gauge covariant derivative. Clearly, if the Higgs sector were to be extended, one needs consider a sum of such individual kinetic terms, with the covariant derivative defined appropriately for each type of field.

There are good reasons for studying models with several scalars. Not only do such scalars occur in almost any extension of the Standard Model, even their representations may vary considerably. Perhaps the simplest such extension is afforded by models for spontaneous CP violation . Then, there are the models for neutrino masses (and lepton number violation) which incorporate $`SU(2)_L`$ triplets, of both the real and the complex kind . A further set of models are those that lead to gauge unification at high energy scales, either directly into a single gauge group or via some intermediate steps. Such scenarios, perforce, have to have additional Higgses that break the large symmetry down to the SM gauge group. The details, of course, depend on the choice of the initial gauge symmetry as well as the chain of symmetry breaking. As an example, let us consider the simplest model for gauge unification, namely $`SU(5)`$. The SM fermions are then contained in two disjoint representations, viz. the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$. Since

$$\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}\times \mathrm{𝟏𝟎}=\mathrm{𝟓}+\mathrm{𝟒𝟓},\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}10}\times \mathrm{𝟏𝟎}=\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}+\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}+\mathrm{𝟓𝟎}\mathrm{and}\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}\times \overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}=\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}},$$
(1)
one can have gauge invariant renormalizable Yukawa couplings for scalars transforming as one of $`\mathrm{𝟓}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}`$, and $`\mathrm{𝟓𝟎}`$. Of these, only $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}},\overline{\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}}`$ contain neutral scalars — the first two in the doublet of the embedded $`SU(2)_L`$ while the last as a $`Y=1`$ triplet — and may generate fermion or gauge boson masses. Apart from the abovementioned set of fields, one must also consider a scalar in the adjoint representation ($`\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}`$) as that is the one responsible for breaking $`SU(5)`$ down to the Standard Model gauge group.

A particular problem that a generic GUT model faces is that of generating the correct low-energy mass spectrum. To facilitate this, in a natural manner, it is often necessary to consider Higgses in other representations. While, at the tree level, such scalars would couple to only the gauge bosons and the other (lower-dimensional) scalars in the theory:

$$\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}\times \mathrm{𝟒𝟓}=\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}+\mathrm{},\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}}\times \mathrm{𝟏𝟓}=\mathrm{𝟕𝟎}^{}+\mathrm{},\overline{\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}}\times \mathrm{𝟒𝟓}=\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}+\mathrm{},$$
(2)
these may also participate in non-renormalizable couplings involving fermions. It can be easily ascertained that these new scalars appearing in eq.(2) contain, in addition to the SM gauge group singlet, components transforming as one of triplets (hypercharge $`Y=0,1`$), 4-plets ($`Y=3/2,1/2`$) or 5-plets ($`Y=2,1,0`$) of $`SU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$ 111The intermediate mass scalars, which couple to the gauge bosons, will change the running of the gauge couplings. E.g. the effect of new representations on $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ has been considered in . The measured value of the weak mixing angle restricts the mass scales and representations of the new scalars..

A third set of examples, where more than one physical scalar emerges, is afforded by the supersymmetric models. If the Standard Model (SM) description were to be valid up to high energy scales, it would face the theoretical problem of the Higgs boson mass receiving potentially large radiative corrections. To counter this in nonsupersymmetric GUTs, one has to precisely fine tune between the bare mass and radiative corrections. Supersymmetry, on the other hand, offers a very natural solution to the problem, and without coming into conflict with any experimental observation. A major difference between the Standard Model and supersymmetric models is that the Higgs sector is necessarily extended to include at least two Higgs doublets instead of just the one needed in the Standard Model.

Having argued that it is natural for extensions of the Standard Model to contain more than one Higgs with a neutral component, let us now consider the Higgs couplings with the $`Z`$. Summing over all possible neutral Higgses, we have

$$L_{ZH}=(g^2+g^2)Z^\mu Z_\mu \underset{i}{}\left[\frac{1}{2}T_{3i}^2H_i^0H_i^0+T_{3i}^2v_iH_i^0+\frac{1}{2}T_{3i}^2v_i^2\right],$$
(3)
where $`T_i`$’s are the isospins of the Higgs multiplets and $`v_i`$’s are the VEVs of the corresponding neutral components. Since the last term in (3) gives the $`Z`$ mass,

$$m_Z^2=(g^2+g^2)\underset{i}{}T_{3i}^2v_i^2,$$
(4)
it is obvious that, in the presence of many Higgses with nonzero VEVs, the magnitude of an individual VEV must be smaller than that of the SM one. Similar conclusions follow from the mass of the $`W`$-boson as well. In fact, one of the strongest constraints on VEVs of non-standard Higgses arises from the precision measurement of the electroweak $`\rho `$ parameter. Defined as the ratio of the strengths of the charged– and the neutral currents, we have, at the tree level,

$$\rho \frac{m_W^2}{m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W},$$

with a Standard Model value of unity. While quantum corrections to the $`\rho `$-parameter have been calculated, for our analysis it suffices to consider only the tree level expression. In the presence of many Higgses, we have

$$\rho =\frac{\underset{i}{}r_i\left[T_i(T_i+1)T_{3i}^2\right]v_i^2}{_i2T_{3i}^2v_i^2}.$$
(5)
with $`r_i=1/2`$ for real representations and 1 otherwise. It is immediately apparent that the experimental observation of $`\rho 1`$ can be naturally satisfied only for certain very specific choices of the Higgs representations. For all others, a degree of fine-tuning between the VEVs is necessary. Such a fine-tuning may be motivated though from other considerations . Throughout the rest of the paper, we will assume that the $`\rho `$-parameter should be unity at the tree-level, thereby defining a constraint in the space of Higgs VEVs.

We now revert back to the coupling of the $`Z`$ with the generic CP-even neutral Higgs $`H_i^0`$. These may be conveniently parametrized by

$$L_{H_iZZ}=c_i\frac{gm_Z}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}H_i^0Z_\mu Z^\mu ,$$
(6)
where $`c_i`$ is a measure of the scaling with respect to the SM Higgs coupling. A sum rule for the $`c_i`$s follows:

$$𝒞\underset{j}{}c_j^2=4\frac{\underset{i}{}T_{3i}^4v_i^2}{_iT_{3i}^2v_i^2}.$$
(7)
Clearly, $`_jc_j^2`$ increases if representations with larger hypercharge get relatively larger VEVs. On the other hand, the presence of an arbitrary number of doublets (and singlets) does not change $`𝒞`$ from its SM value of unity. In fact, $`𝒞`$ is bounded from both above and below222Singlet VEVs, of course, are not being considered here.

$$4\mathrm{max}(T_{3i}^2)𝒞4\mathrm{min}(T_{3i}^2)$$
(8)
with the extremal values being reached in the event of a particular VEV dominating all others. A clear departure from the Standard Model relation $`𝒞=1`$ would thus indicate the presence of new physics.

Were we interested only in maximizing $`\left|𝒞1\right|`$ while maintaining $`\rho =1`$, the result would be given by eq.(8). However, apart from the consequent fine-tuning amongst the VEVs of the higher representations, a further aspect needs to be considered. As we have already remarked, eq. (4) implies that were higher representation to have nonzero VEVs, the magnitude of doublet VEV(s) would necessarily be smaller than the Standard Model value. An immediate consequence is that the Yukawa couplings leading to the fermion mass terms would need to be scaled up. Restricting ourselves to the simplest (and conservative) case of only one Higgs doublet ($`\mathrm{\Phi }_{1/2}`$) being responsible for the fermion mass generation, the Yukawa couplings are now given by

$$y_f=y_f^{\mathrm{SM}}\frac{v_{\mathrm{SM}}}{v_{1/2}}.$$
(9)
Future experiments, both at the LHC  and at a linear collider  will serve to measure the Yukawa couplings for the top- and bottom-quarks as well as the $`\tau `$-lepton, at least for intermediate values of the Higgs mass333Note that the analyses of these papers implicitly assume that the Higgs couplings, whether gauge or Yukawa, are relatively close to the SM ones. A breakdown of this assumption could lead to significant changes in the results obtained.. Assuming that the theory contains only one doublet, this information could then be used to set stringent limits on parameters such as $`v_{1/2}/v_{\mathrm{SM}}`$. In other words, such measurements would immediately alert us about the presence of a nonminimal Higgs sector. In fact, an accurate measurement of more than one Yukawa coupling could also shed light on the presence of more than one doublet. We will later consider the explicit example of a triplet Higgs model.

Is the analysis of this paper redundant then? Note that if the Yukawa couplings are found to be very close to the SM ones, it is extremely unlikely that a renormalizable four-dimensional theory could accommodate a value of $`𝒞`$ significantly different from unity. Identification of a second neutral scalar and a measurement of an anomalous value of $`𝒞`$ would then immediately point towards either a radion or a SM singlet with higher-dimensional couplings with the SM fields. On the other hand, if the Yukawas are found to be quite different from their SM values, the only unambiguous conclusion that we may draw from such measurements is the presence of some nontrivial structure of the EWSB sector. An analysis as proposed in this paper could, once again, prove very useful in our quest to unravel the mystery of this sector.

Concentrating on the top Yukawa, a larger value at low energies would imply a faster growth as one evolves it to larger energies. The one-loop444While higher loop results are available, it is sufficient, for our purposes, to consider only the lowest order expression. renormalization group equation for the top Yukawa reads

$$2\pi \frac{\mathrm{d}y_t^2}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}\mu }=\left[8\alpha _3+\frac{9}{4}\alpha _2+\frac{17}{12}\alpha _1\right]y_t^2+\frac{9}{8\pi }y_t^4,$$
(10)
where $`\mu `$ is the scale and $`\alpha _i`$ represent the (scale dependent) gauge couplings within the Standard Model. Clearly, if $`y_t(m_t)`$ were to be larger, the $`y_t^4`$ piece on the right hand side would tend to dominate, thereby driving up the Yukawa coupling as the scale increases. The scale of nonperturbativity, $`\mu _{\mathrm{nonpert}}`$, may be defined through

$$y_t(\mu _{\mathrm{nonpert}})=\sqrt{4\pi }.$$
(11)
In fig.1, we exhibit the functional dependence of $`\mu _{\mathrm{nonpert}}`$ on the value of the top-Yukawa at the pole, namely $`y_t(m_t)`$. As the figure clearly shows, if we require the theory to be perturbative until very high scales, $`y_t(m_t)`$ would be required to assume values close to its Standard Model magnitude.

Having developed the tools, let us now proceed to investigate, numerically, the extent to which the sum $`𝒞`$ may vary in the presence of extra scalars, while satisfying experimental bounds. Rather than complicate matters by including scalars in arbitrary representations, we restrict ourselves to scenarios wherein the Standard Model doublet is accompanied by either $`SU(2)_L`$ triplets or fourplets or fiveplets. Within each such class, we do not further restrict the value of the hypercharge $`Y`$. We could, of course, have considered extra doublets (or singlets), but such inclusion would not have virtually any bearing on our numerical results.

Triplet Higgses.

Apart from the doublet \[(2, 1/2)\], we now have an arbitrary number of real \[(3, 0)\] and complex \[(3, 1)\] triplets. Clearly, a VEV for the former increases $`\rho `$ (see eq.(5)) from its Standard Model value of unity, while that for the latter serves to reduce it. Thus, experimental consistency stipulates that the presence of a non-zero VEV for one kind must be accompanied by a VEV for at least one of the other kind.

For the sum of the squared couplings, we now have $`1𝒞4`$ with the upper limit being reached when at least one of the complex triplets (and hence at least one of the real triplets) have a VEV much larger than the doublet. An examination of eq. (7) shows that the presence of a multitude of triplets would not change the upper bound on $`𝒞`$ in any way. Rather, for a given scaling of the top Yukawa (i.e. for the VEV of the doublet), the maximal value of $`𝒞`$ is reached when the extra contribution to the gauge boson masses accrues from only a single set of triplets. In our quest of identifying the maximal possible deviation from the value of $`𝒞`$, we may thus limit ourselves to a study of just one such pair. The results are presented in fig. 2 as a function $`y_t(m_t)`$. The width to the curve allowed by the experimental uncertainties in the measurement of $`\rho `$ is too small to be discernible. As expected, for $`y_t(m_t)y_t^{\mathrm{SM}}(m_t)`$ (namely a very small scaling of the doublet VEV), $`𝒞1`$. On the other hand, even for an arbitrarily large $`y_t(m_t)`$, which corresponds to the bulk of the gauge boson masses arising from the triplet VEVs, $`𝒞`$ only reaches its asymptotic value of 4.

Until now, we have entirely desisted from remarking on the fine-tuning problem in the cancellation of the two (or more) triplet contributions to the $`\rho `$-parameter. The degree of fine-tuning may be quantified in terms of the maximal fractional deviation, $`(\delta v_i/v_i)_{\mathrm{max}}`$, that a given triplet VEV $`v_i`$ may suffer without coming in conflict with the experimental results. In fig. 2, we also show the ‘bounds’ corresponding to a 95% C.L. agreement with the data . As is immediately apparent, if we wish the fine-tuning to be no worse than per mille level, we would be confined to $`y_t(m_t)<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.72}`$ and hence to $`𝒞<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1.3}`$, a value quite close to the SM one. However, if we admit a fine-tuning of $`10^4`$, the whole range for $`𝒞`$ would be admissible.

A constraint that we have not yet imposed is the requirement of perturbativity. As fig. 1 amply demonstrates, $`y_t(m_t)<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3.5}`$ for perturbation theory to make sense even at the top-mass scale. This still allows $`𝒞<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3.5}`$. On the other hand, if we demand that the theory remain perturbative until close to the GUT scale, we are immediately restricted to $`𝒞<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2.5}`$. This still represents a very significant deviation from the Standard Model.

Before delving into the discussion of more complex Higgs sectors, we will briefly mention how the experimentally measured Higgs widths can constrain the Higgs sector. An illustrative example is the triplet Higgs model by Georgi and Machachek (GM) . Couplings of the SM-like Higgs of the model to gauge bosons and fermions are suppressed/enhanced with respect to the SM case by a factor of $`v_{1/2}/v_{\mathrm{SM}}`$. Therefore, measurement of these factors at future experiments can shed light on the physical model. E.g. the partial decay width into a fermion pair can be expressed in terms of the SM width as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{GM}^{ff}=(v_{\mathrm{SM}}/v_{1/2})^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SM}^{ff}`$. Assuming the ratio of the VEVs is not too different from unity, the signature profile at a collider, and hence the experimental efficiencies, would not change drastically. One can use the experimentally measured value ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ff}^{exp}`$) of the $`ff`$ width and its error ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{exp}`$) to constrain the ratio of VEVs at a certain confidence level using the inequality

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ff}^{exp}\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{exp}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ff}^{SM}}}<(v_{\mathrm{SM}}/v_{1/2})^2<{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ff}^{exp}+\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{exp}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ff}^{SM}}},`$ (12)
where $`\alpha `$ depends on the confidence level at which one would want to constrain the ratio.

The projected accuracy on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(h\tau \tau )`$ measurement at the LHC is of the order of $`1020\%`$ . An $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider fares much better in this respect. The accuracy  of the Higgs width measurement can be as good as 5% instead. From the above expression, eq. (12), it is evident how the experimental accuracy determines the constraint on the ratio.

As the results for 4-plet Higgses are qualitatively very similar to those obtained above, we move straightaway to the 5-plets.

5-plet Higgses.

Apart from the doublet \[(2, 1/2)\], we now have an arbitrary number of real \[$`F_0(5,0)`$\] and complex \[both $`F_1(5,1)`$ and $`F_2(5,2)`$\] 5-plets. Clearly, VEVs for the first two types can only enhance $`\rho `$ while that for a $`F_2`$-type field suppresses it. Thus, to satisfy the experimental constraint in presence of 5-plet VEVs, one needs at least one VEV of the (5, 2) kind.

For the sum of the coupling squares, we now have the inequality

$$1𝒞16,$$
(13)
with the upper limit being reached when at least one of the $`F_2`$’s (and hence at least one of the other triplets) have a VEV much larger than the doublet. Once again, for a given $`y_t(m_t)`$, the maximal value of $`𝒞`$ is reached when a single $`F_2`$-type field acquires a large VEV and, for simplicity, we shall illustrate our results under this assumption. There are two interesting limits though. If no $`F_0`$ gets a VEV, $`𝒞(y_t)`$ follows a particular limit

$$𝒞(F_2,F_1)=\frac{288(5,2)^2+(2,1/2)^2}{24(5,2)^2+(2,1/2)^2},$$

with an ensuing maximum of 12 (see fig.3). This is irrespective of the actual numbers of $`F_2`$’s and $`F_1`$’s, as along as at least one of each kind exists. In the opposite case (no $`F_1`$ gets a VEV), $`𝒞`$ moves along the other extreme

$$𝒞(F_2,F_0)=\frac{256(5,2)^2+(2,1/2)^2}{16(5,2)^2+(2,1/2)^2},$$

and reaches the absolute maximum of 16. Both these curves are displayed in fig. 3. The results for the mixed case lie somewhere in between these two extremes depending on the relative magnitudes of the VEVs. Also displayed in the same figure are the fine-tuning curves corresponding to either of these branches. Once again, if we limit ourselves to a fine-tuning no worse than $`10^3`$, we are limited to $`𝒞<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}`$.

The arguments concerning perturbativity remain essentially the same as in the case of triplets.

## 3 $`ZZH`$ coupling in higher dimensional models

Theories with TeV-scale gravity  have recently been proposed as an alternative to supersymmetry as the solution for the hierarchy problem. Such models, perforce, have to be defined in dimensions larger than four. Since the results of the present day gravity experiments demonstrate excellent agreement with Newtonian gravity down to a distance scale about 0.1 mm, the compactification radius for the extra dimensions must be smaller than this scale. In the simplest examples of such models, all the SM fields are assumed to be confined to 4-dimensional hypersurfaces or branes.

Two different explanations for the perceived hierarchy between the Planck-scale and the fundamental ($``$ TeV) scale exist. In the first class of models , the metric in the higher dimensional theory is assumed to be a factorizable one, and the large volume of the compactified dimensions leads to the aforementioned hierarchy. Such models are characterized by very closely spaced Kaluza-Klein tower(s) of the graviton.

The model proposed by Randall and Sundrum (RS) , on the other hand, is based on the premise that the 5-dimensional theory is described by $`\mathrm{AdS}_5`$ geometry. With the 4-dimensional part of the metric suffering an exponential warp depending on the fifth co-ordinate, the perceived scale of gravity on two branes separated in the fifth direction would naturally differ enormously. The lowest Kaluza-Klein excitation of the graviton is now at the TeV scale. Interestingly, the model also contains an extra scalar, the radion, which may be lighter than the graviton excitations and may also mix with the SM Higgs thereby changing the relevant phenomenology. It is this class of models that we shall concentrate on in this section.

While the models with TeV scale gravity were originally deemed as alternatives to low energy supersymmetry, it was subsequently realized that the two ideas could well be linked to each other. For one, the very stabilization of the brane-world picture may need underlying supersymmetry, especially if they are to represent vacua of superstring theories. At a more phenomenogical level, theories with extra dimensions seem to provide a natural way of communicating supersymmetry breaking from a hidden sector onto our world .

We will, hence, consider both the non-supersymmetric and supersymmetric versions of the RS-model.

### 3.1 Non-supersymmetric RS-model.

In the model proposed in ref. , possibly the lowest mass excitation from the gravitational sector is a scalar, the radion. This corresponds to the 4-dimensional manifestation of $`g_{55}`$ of the full 5-dimensional metric and can also be visualised as the distance between the two branes situated at the two fixed points of the orbifold on which the extra dimension is compactified. As is obvious, the radion needs to be stabilized for the effective 4-dimensional Planck mass to remain exactly what we perceive it to be. In Ref. , Goldberger and Wise demonstrated that the inclusion of a bulk scalar, coupling minimally, to gravity can lead to an effective potential for the radion and hence to its stabilization. The mass of the radion turns out to be lower than that for the lowest $`J=2`$ Kaluza-Klein excitation, and hence the radion is likely to offer the first signature of the brane world picture.

It can be shown from very general considerations that the radion couples to the SM fields via the trace of the energy momentum tensor. In addition, the effective action may contain terms leading to curvature-Higgs mixing . At the two-derivative level, the coupling of the gravity and the Higgs $`H`$ — confined to the visible brane — may be parametrized as

$$S=\xi d^4x\sqrt{g_{vis}}R(g_{vis})H^{}H,$$
(14)
where the Ricci scalar $`R(g_{vis})`$ is obtained from the induced four dimensional metric on the visible brane. Clearly, the above term induces a kinetic mixing between the Higgs and the radion. Additional mixing is introduced by the fact that both the neutral component of the Higgs ($`h`$) as well as the radion ($`\varphi `$) acquire VEVs:

$$H=v,\varphi =\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{with}\gamma \frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}.$$
(15)
To obtain fields with canonical quantization rules, it is necessary to effect field redefinitions:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi \\ H\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi ^{}\\ H^{}\end{array}\right)Z_R^1\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi \\ H\end{array}\right),=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ Z_R\mathrm{sin}\theta 6\xi \gamma \mathrm{cos}\theta & Z_R\mathrm{cos}\theta +6\xi \gamma \mathrm{sin}\theta \end{array}\right)$$
(16)
where

$$Z_R^2=16\xi \gamma ^2(1+6\xi )\mathrm{and}\mathrm{tan}2\theta =\frac{12\xi \gamma Z_Rm_h^2}{m_H^2(Z_R^236\xi ^2\gamma ^2)m_\varphi ^2}.$$
(17)
In the limit $`\xi 0`$, we recover back the SM Higgs from $`H^{^{}}`$. Requiring that the kinetic terms for the physical fields $`H^{}`$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$ be positive, restricts us to

$$\frac{1}{12}\left(1+\sqrt{1+4/\gamma ^2}\right)\xi \frac{1}{12}\left(\sqrt{1+4/\gamma ^2}1\right).$$
(18)
For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ TeV, this translates to $`0.75<\xi <0.59`$, while for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=10`$ TeV, the constraint is much weaker ($`6.7<\xi <6.6`$).

The couplings of the physical scalars to a generic gauge boson $`V`$ can be expressed as

$$=\frac{M_V^2}{v}V_\mu V^\mu \left[\left(_{22}+\gamma _{12}\right)H+\left(\gamma _{11}+_{12}\right)\varphi \right].$$
(19)
The parenthetical coefficients directly give the strength of the corresponding interaction when compared to the case with no mixing555Note that we neglect here the small correction due to the conformal anomaly., and hence correspond to the quantities $`c_H^{}`$ and $`c_\varphi ^{}`$ (see eq. (6)). An important observation needs to be made here. Even in the absence of any Higgs-curvature mixing ($`\xi =0`$), the radion couples to the gauge bosons without affecting their coupling to the Higgs. Since the latter coupling is responsible for unitarizing the gauge boson scattering amplitudes ($`V_iV_jV_kV_l`$) and since the radion-exchange contribution to these amplitudes are quite similar to the Higgs-exchange ones, it is obvious that the presence of the radion would destroy the partial wave unitarity for such amplitudes . This is quite unlike the case of the multi-Higgs models in renormalizable 4-dimensional theories. Quantitatively, the unitarity constraint has only a weak dependence on $`\gamma `$  and can be approximated by $`|\xi |<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2.7}`$.

Reverting back to our measure for distinguishability, we now have

$$𝒞=\left(_{22}+\gamma _{12}\right)^2+\left(\gamma _{11}+_{12}\right)^2=1+\frac{\gamma ^2}{Z_R^2}\left(16\xi \right)^2,$$
(20)
which clearly indicates a deviation from the SM result of $`𝒞=1`$ even in the absence of curvature-Higgs mixing. However, the extent of deviation, in such cases, is very small and is unlikely to be detectable. The presence of a mixing term, though, can enhance the effect manifold, as is borne out by fig. 4. That the effect should decrease with increasing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the radion VEV, is expected. The figure also amply demonstrates the relative importances of the constraints from the positivity of the kinetic energy and from perturbative unitarity. At this stage, it should be noted that the radion-gauge boson coupling is the driving force behind a large $`𝒞`$. In other words, it is the $`\varphi ^{}ZZ`$ coupling ($`\varphi ^{}`$ is the radion-dominated scalar) that grows very fast with increasing $`\xi `$ whereas the $`H^{}ZZ`$ coupling never grows beyond its SM counterpart.

From an experimental point of view, it is worth asking how much of the parameter space one could possibly distinguish from the Standard Model. The answer, of course, would be a function of the sensitivity of the experiment under consideration. An indication, though, may be obtained from fig. 5, wherein we have plotted iso-$`𝒞`$ contours in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-$`\xi `$ plane. The contours are almost linear, with deviations from linearity becoming apparent only for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }v`$. The contour corresponding to absolute indistinguishability from the SM ($`𝒞=1`$) is but the straight line $`\xi =1/6`$. As one moves away from $`𝒞=1`$, the contour splits up into two disjoint curves. For large $`𝒞`$, the curves asymptotically reach the boundary separating the unphysical domain ($`Z=0`$). It is quite apparent that our measure ($`𝒞`$) is unlikely to differentiate a RS theory with large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ unless it is also accompanied by a large Higgs-curvature mixing. For radion VEVs of a few TeV, on the other hand, marked deviations from the SM expectation would be obtainable even for relatively small mixings.

### 3.2 Supersymmetric RS-model.

A particularly important issue for Randall-Sundrum-type models relates to the (phenomenologically needed) stabilization of the radion. Several schemes have been proposed, especially in the context of the supersymmetric versions . Interestingly, in such proposals, supersymmetry breaking and radius stabilization are intimately linked to each other.

As a concrete example of such scenarios, we shall consider in this work the low energy model discussed in ref. . The standard SUGRA particle content needs to be supplemented by a complex scalar field666Here $`r`$ is the radius of compact $`S^1`$ and $`b`$ the Aharanov-Bohm phase of the graviphoton around the $`S^1`$. $`T=k\pi (r+ib\sqrt{2/3})`$ . In addition, one needs matter in the bulk in order to ensure supersymmetry breaking . This matter is represented by a universal hypermultiplet $`S`$. In the model of ref., the warp factor is given by

$$e^{T+T^{}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{3M_P^2},$$
(21)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=𝒪`$(TeV) and $`T=T+t/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Here $`t`$ is the radion superfield, which will mix with the Higgs fields through the kinetic and mass terms. The term in the Lagrangian relevant to the matter chiral superfields on the visible brane is given by

$$=\frac{1}{2}G_{ij}D_\mu \varphi _iD^\mu \varphi _j,$$

where $`G_{ij}`$ is obtained from the effective Kähler potential in the usual way:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill G_{ij}& =& \frac{^2K_{eff}}{\varphi _i\varphi _j},\hfill \\ \hfill K_{eff}& =& \mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{t+t^{}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{eff}(\{\varphi _i\})\right\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{eff}(\{\varphi _i\})=\mathrm{\Sigma }_i|\varphi _i|^2+\lambda (H_1H_2+h.c.)`$.

Since the field $`t`$ is a gauge singlet, the kinetic term does not lead to a $`tZZ`$ coupling. However, such a term does arise from the trace of the energy-momentum tensor and is given by

$$L_{tZZ}=tZ_\mu Z^\mu \frac{m_Z^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}.$$
(23)
For the MSSM scalars $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$, on the other hand, we now have

$$L_{HZZ}=\left(1+(\lambda +1)(\lambda +3)\frac{v^2}{4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)\frac{g}{4\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}(v_1H_1^0+v_2H_2^0)Z_\mu Z^\mu ,$$
(24)
where $`v_i`$ are the VEVs of $`H_i^0`$ and $`v^2=v_1^2+v_2^2`$. The mass of the $`Z`$ boson is then

$$m_Z=\frac{gv}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}\left[1+(\lambda +1)(\lambda +3)\frac{v^2}{4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right]^{1/2}.$$
(25)
An interesting feature of this model relates to the ratio of the VEVs for $`H_i^0`$, namely $`\mathrm{tan}\beta v_2/v_1`$. The potential is minimized for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =1`$ . This is quite unlike the case of the MSSM wherein $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is a free parameter, and current experimental data strongly disfavour $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 1`$. This difference can be traced back to the additional contributions that the Higgs mass receives from its coupling to the radion (vide eq.22). A consequence of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =1`$ is that, of the two orthogonal combinations

$$\varphi ^0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(H_1^0+H_2^0)\mathrm{and}H^0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(H_1^0H_2^0),$$
(26)
$`\varphi ^0`$ alone contributes to the $`Z`$ mass, while the coupling of the $`H^0`$ to $`Z`$ vanishes identically. Note that the redefinition of eq.(26) does not entirely diagonalize the kinetic terms. To achieve that goal, one has to effect a further field redefinition  akin to that performed in Section 3.1 and involving all three of $`\{H_1^0,H_2^0,t\}`$. On doing this, we obtain, for the sum of the squares of the scalar couplings to the $`Z`$ (and normalized to the SM value),

$$𝒞=\left[1+\frac{v^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}(1+\lambda )\left\{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\lambda +5}{8}\right\}\right]^2+\frac{v^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\left[1+\frac{(1+\lambda )}{2\sqrt{2}}\frac{v^2}{16\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}(1+\lambda )(13\lambda )\right]^2.$$
(27)
In fig.6, we present $`𝒞`$ as a function of the Higgs mixing parameter $`\lambda `$. It is evident from eq. (27), that $`𝒞`$ grows with $`\lambda `$. One sees easily that, for a large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the deviation from the Standard Model value of unity is negligible. However, for a relatively small $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the effect might be noticeable.

## 4 Discussion and conclusions

To summarize, we have studied the $`ZZH`$ coupling in models with different types of scalar sectors, but with the Standard Model gauge group. We establish that the sum of the squares of the couplings of the scalars to the $`Z`$ can be an efficient discriminator. For scenarios with non-zero VEVs for Higgses in higher dimensional representations of $`SU(2)_L`$, this quantity can differ substantially from the SM value of unity. However, if we demand either naturalness in the value for the $`\rho `$-parameter or demand that the top Yukawa coupling stays perturbative until GUT-scale, this parameter is restricted to values close to one.

In higher dimensional models with warped geometry, on the other hand, the effect of Higgs-curvature mixing on this parameter may be quite significant. This remains true even after the constraints from perturbative unitarity are imposed. Thus, such a model would be clearly distinguishable from a “natural” multi-Higgs model provided the radion VEV is less than a few TeVs. Imposition of supersymmetry on such models, however, renders this measure largely ineffective. In either case, the radion, being a gauge singlet, does not contribute to fermion masses and consequently no constraints emerge from this sector.

Before we conclude, we would like to make some brief comments about the $`ZZH`$ couplings in the recently proposed model of ‘the littlest Higgs’ . The local gauge symmetry, at high energies, is enlarged to $`\left[SU(2)U(1)\right]^2`$. This is broken down to the familiar $`SU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$ at a scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒪`$(TeV). The scalar potential at low energy is generated by mechanism very similar to that of Coleman and Weinberg  and the details have been presented in ref.. The physical spectrum includes two neutral CP even, one neutral CP odd, one charged and one doubly-charged scalars. In contrast to the RS or SUSY-RS models, the extra scalars are not gauge singlets any more and all the fermions, in general, can have extra contributions to their masses of $`𝒪(v/\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. If we concentrate on the couplings of the two neutral CP-even Higgses to the pair of $`Z`$s, and calculate the quantity $`𝒞`$ as we have done earlier, the expression looks qualitatively very similar to eq. (27). In other words, as we increase the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the coupling of one of these states to a pair of $`Z`$ tends to that of the SM case while the other decouples from SM. The results are similar to those for the SUSY-RS case.

Acknowledgements

AD and KH thank the Academy of Finland (project number 48787) for financial support. DC would like to thank the Helsinki Institute of Physics for hospitality during the period the project was initiated and the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India for financial assistance under Swarnajayanti Fellowship.


format: text

text:
# Measurement of coherent charge transfer in an adiabatic Cooper pair pump

## I Introduction

It is well-known that electrons can be transferred through a mesoscopic device by means of adiabatic changes of system parameters like, e.g., externally applied electric or magnetic fields. Since the original work of Thouless thouless , several theoretical proposals concerning possible physical realizations of this phenomenon, usually referred to as parametric pumping, have been put forward moskalets . Depending on the physical mechanism employed, these proposals can be divided into two classes.

In open systems, i.e., systems consisting of several conducting parts, connected to each other by highly transmissive barriers, parametric pumping can be achieved through a periodic modulation of phase of the scattering matrix associated to the device brouwer . In these proposals, electronic phase coherence plays a fundamental role and charge is transferred coherently through the entire system. The amount of charge that is transferred per period of the modulation is in general a fraction of the electronic charge $`e`$, which depends on the modulation path. In open devices, electron-electron interactions are weak, and lead to (small) dephasing corrections to the noninteracting result for charge transfer.

In the opposite limit of closed systems, i.e., several metallic islands connected to each other by ultrasmall tunnel junctions, parametric pumping of charge is achieved by periodic modulation of the so-called Coulomb blockade houches . In these proposals, the presence of strong Coulomb repulsion between electrons is essential. It leads to the quantization of charge on the islands in units of $`e`$. A periodic modulation of externally applied gate-voltages leads to a periodic lifting of Coulomb blockade, which enables the transfer of exactly one electron per period through the device. The presence of phase coherence in this limit only leads to small corrections to the classical result, through coherent higher order charge transfer processes known as (in)elastic co-tunneling averinnazarov .

Experimental evidence for parametric charge pumping in normal metallic systems has been found in both limits of open marcus  and closed pothier ; kouwenhoven  systems.

The present paper is devoted to parametric pumping in a superconducting system geerligs . It consists of superconducting islands, connected to each other by small tunnel junctions, and it is operated in the Coulomb blockade regime. From this point of view the system is closed, and charge transfer is mainly classical, i.e. quantized in units of Cooper pair charge $`2e`$ per period of the modulation. From the other hand phase is defined naturally in a superconducting system, and due to the Josephson coupling between the various parts of the system phase coherence tends to be maintained throughout the device. In this sense, a superconducting pump behaves as an open system, and the total charge transfer will be characterized by significant phase-coherent corrections to the classical result prb99 .

We will be particularly interested in the influence of the measurement apparatus of the amount of transferred charge on the phase-coherent properties of a superconducting charge pump. Measurement on a quantum coherent system is achieved by connecting it to the environment provided by the measuring device. The environment in turn can be modeled as a collection of harmonic oscillators. Depending on the environment, the quantum coherence is typically lost in a time which we can call the dephasing or the decoherence time once properly defined. We focus here on quantum coherent systems formed of Josephson tunnel junctions, and their electromagnetic environment. These systems nakamura ; lukens ; mooij ; vion , or we might already call some of them devices to perform quantum logic operations (see review in makhlin ), hold great promise in quantum computing because of their potential in scalability.

In a superconducting system the phase difference across a junction follows the well-known AC and DC Josephson relations. The theory of phase fluctuations and environment is well established for electrical circuits including small tunnel junctions ingnaz ; schonzaikin ; martinis . What we do here specifically is the analysis of the back-action of the measurement of electrical current on a circuit consisting of small Josephson junctions. In particular, we show that unlike in a standard dissipative ammeter, the phase diffusion is limited in a measurement performed by an inductively shunted measuring circuit. Measurement of tiny currents provides a read-out of Josephson junction quantum bits, like the one in the so-called ”quantronium” experiment vion , or in general when reading out the persistent current in a flux quantum bit (an RF SQUID loop) lukens ; mooij . As a specific example we focus on a measurement of current in a double island adiabatic Cooper pair pump (CPP), but our conclusions concerning the effect of an inductance limited phase diffusion measurement can easily be generalized to other Josephson junction circuits with straightforward modifications, which account for the different topology of the circuit to be measured.

## II The model

An electron pump is a reversible device which provides quantized transport of electrical charge upon cyclic operation of gates connected to it. The simplest variant is perhaps a double island pump (see Fig. 1a) in which tiny metallic (non-superconducting) or semiconducting grains are tunnel coupled to each other and to the surrounding electrodes, and capacitively coupled to two gates pothier ; kouwenhoven . The islands are so small that, due to their tiny capacitance, equilibrium charge configurations on them are determined solely by electrostatics on the single electron level characterized by the scale of charging energy $`E_C`$. Applying $`\pi /2`$ phase shifted harmonic voltages to the two gates at a frequency $`f`$, which is so low that it allows the system to follow the ground state configuration of charging energy at each phase of operation, current through the pump equals $`I_P=ef`$, based on transport of one electron per cycle, on a precision level of a few per cent. A more accurate but more complicated device can be built by increasing the number of islands and adjacent gates in the pump: this approach has been taken to meet with requirements in metrology keller .

If all the electrodes and islands are superconducting (see Fig. 1b), charge can be transported not only as single electrons, or rather quasiparticles with single electron charge in this case, but also as Cooper pairs geerligs ; prb99 . Ideally, in the absence of any bias voltage and at low temperatures $`T`$ such that $`k_BTE_C\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the superconducting gap and $`E_C=2e^2/C`$ ($`C`$ is the junction capacitance), the system is in the Coulomb blockade regime, and only Cooper pairs are transferred. In this regime, the device can be referred to as a CPP, described by the Hamiltonian

$$\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_C+\widehat{H}_J,$$
(1)
where

$`\widehat{H}_C={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}E_C[(\widehat{n}_1n_{x1})^2+(\widehat{n}_2n_{x2})^2`$
$`+(\widehat{n}_1n_{x1})(\widehat{n}_2n_{x2})]`$ (2)
is the charging energy of the islands, coupled capacitively to each other as well as to two gates $`1`$ and $`2`$. The operator $`\widehat{n}_{1(2)}`$ denotes the number of excess Cooper pairs on island 1(2) and $`n_{x1(x2)}`$ is the gate-charge (in units of $`2e`$) which can be tuned by varying the gate voltage $`V_{g1(g2)}`$. The Josephson contribution is given by

$`\widehat{H}_J=E_J[\mathrm{cos}(\phi /3+\widehat{\varphi }_1)+\mathrm{cos}(\phi /3+\widehat{\varphi }_2\widehat{\varphi }_1)`$
$`+\mathrm{cos}(\phi /3\widehat{\varphi }_2)].`$ (3)
Here $`E_J`$ is the Josephson coupling energy of each junction (assumed equal for the three junctions). Throughout this paper we will work in the limit $`E_JE_C`$ where charging effects dominate. The phase operator $`\widehat{\varphi }_{1(2)}`$ is conjugate to the number operator $`\widehat{n}_{1(2)}`$. The phase bias $`\phi `$ is the phase difference across the entire pump. As long as one can ignore any dynamical environment, $`\phi `$ can be considered as a classical variable that can be set to a constant offset value $`\phi =\phi _0`$, for instance, by applying a magnetic flux through the circuit of Fig. 1b.

We are interested in the charge transferred through the device upon a periodic modulation of the applied gate-charges $`n_{x1}(t)`$ and $`n_{x2}(t)`$. Specifically, we assume the gate modulation to be adiabatically slow, with a frequency $`fE_J^2/\mathrm{}E_C`$. Under this condition the system remains in the ground state throughout the modulation if the temperature is low, $`k_BTE_J`$. During one period of the modulation, the two-component vector $`\stackrel{}{n}_x=(n_{x1},n_{x2})`$ describes a closed path in the corresponding two-dimensional plane, see, e.g., Fig. 2. It can be shown prb99  that the transferred charge in the ground state during one period of the modulation is given by a contour integral along the closed path followed by $`\stackrel{}{n}_x`$,

$$Q_P=2\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\text{m}\left[\underset{n0}{}\frac{(\widehat{I})_{0n}}{E_0E_n}n|_{\stackrel{}{n}_x}0𝑑\stackrel{}{n}_x\right].$$
(4)
Here, we introduced the instantaneous eigenstates $`|m`$ and energies $`E_m`$ of the corresponding time-dependent Hamiltonian (1), such that $`\widehat{H}(t)|m(t)=E_m(t)|m(t)`$. The matrix element $`(\widehat{I})_{0n}`$ corresponds to the current operator of one of the junctions. For the leftmost junction for instance we have

$$\widehat{I}\widehat{I}_l=I_J\mathrm{sin}(\widehat{\varphi }_1+\phi /3),$$
(5)
where $`I_J=2eE_J/\mathrm{}`$ is the Josephson critical current. The matrix element is taken between the instantaneous ground state $`|0`$ and the instantaneous excited state $`|n`$. An outline of the derivation of (4) is given in Appendix A.

In the limit $`E_J/E_C0`$, to leading order tunneling events involving more than one junction can be ignored. As a result, a periodic gate modulation will lead to a transfer of a charge $`Q_P=2e`$ per cycle through the pump, independent of the bias phase $`\phi _0`$, see Appendix B.1. This is the limit of incoherent Cooper pair tunneling. Experimentally, incoherent Cooper pair tunneling is best realized by a sufficiently dissipative environment which completely randomizes $`\phi _0`$, e.g., by fabricating on-chip resistors near the pump, with resistances of the order or larger than the resistance quantum for Cooper pairs: $`R_K/4=h/(2e)^26.45`$ k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ zorin .

Deviations from the classical result are related to higher order tunneling processes. In general, pumps in the superconducting state are less accurate than their normal state counterparts and one fundamental reason is the coherence of the superconducting wave function. In this paper we are interested in the regime where coherent Cooper pair tunneling leads to an important correction to the incoherent charge transfer. It provides an interesting, still unobserved quantum mechanical interference correction to the pumped charge (or pumped current in continuous cycling) prb99 :

$$Q_P/2e19(E_J/E_C)\mathrm{cos}\phi _0.$$
(6)
This result is obtained for a triangular gating, as shown in Fig. 2; some details of the derivation are given in Appendix B.2. Although the result is perturbative in $`E_J/E_C`$, the coherent interference term may be appreciable. For example for $`E_J/E_C=0.1`$, still rather well within the perturbative regime, the variation of the pumped current $`I_PQ_Pf`$, is 1.8 times larger than the magnitude of the incoherent current $`I_{\mathrm{inc}}2ef`$. The coherent contribution to the current can be tuned by adjusting $`\phi _0`$. By assuming a realistic operating frequency of $`f=100`$ MHz, $`2ef`$ equals 32 pA, and this would produce variation in the interference term by 58 pA. Detecting this phase coherent current would not only be fundamentally interesting but it would also allow one to measure dephasing in a superconducting multi-junction circuit coupled to a measuring device.

We finally note that, in addition to the current $`I_P=Q_Pf`$ discussed so far, a direct Josephson current $`I_{\mathrm{jos}}`$ exists in response to the phase bias $`\phi _0`$. The Josephson current is maximum, $`I_J`$, at the triple point P in Fig. 2, where the three charge configurations $`|0,0`$, $`|1,0`$ and $`|0,1`$ are degenerate. The gating sequence of interest here is away from P: at any given point along the cycle at most two out of the three aforementioned relevant charge configurations are degenerate. At such a degeneracy, the Josephson current is smaller, $`I_J(E_J/E_C)`$. The width of the degeneracy is finite, $`E_J/E_C`$. Hence only a fraction of the total cycle contributes to the Josephson current and $`I_{\mathrm{jos}}I_J(E_J/E_C)^2\mathrm{sin}\phi _0`$. Thus $`I_{\mathrm{jos}}`$ can be distinguished from $`I_P`$, as it depends differently on $`\phi _0`$ and is independent of the frequency $`f`$.

## III Coupling to a measurement circuit

We propose two strategies to measure the pumped charge as illustrated in Fig. 3. The first variant, in Fig. 3a, is a generic inductively coupled measurement by a DC SQUID (input coil $`L`$, mutual inductance $`M`$, shunt resistance $`R`$). We call this circuit A in the following. The second circuit, in Fig. 3b, represents a directly coupled measurement of current by a Josephson junction. In this configuration changes in current of the measured circuit are detected as changes of lifetime of a meta-stable zero voltage (supercurrent) state of the measuring current biased junction vion ; balestro . This measurement circuit will be called B in what follows. The measuring junction is biased with a current $`I`$; its capacitance $`C_J`$ is the capacitance due to its typically planar geometry. When biased near the critical current, $`II_c`$, the junction can be characterized by the Josephson inductance $`L_J=\sqrt{2}\frac{\mathrm{}}{2eI_c}(1I/I_c)^{1/2}`$. This relation conforms with the identity between the plasma frequency $`\omega _p/2\pi `$ and the circuit parameters of the junction: $`\omega _p=(L_JC_J)^{1/2}`$.

The equivalent circuits corresponding to A and B are shown in Fig. 4a and Fig. 4b, respectively. In (a) we assume the SQUID to be a pure inductor of inductance $`L_s`$. In both (a) and (b) $`C_p`$ represents the total capacitance across the pump circuit, including half of the ground capacitance $`C_0`$ of the (symmetric) pump loop. We assume that the gate capacitances of the pump are small and can be neglected. In (b) the current biased measuring junction is replaced by its RCSJ equivalent.

We do not consider in detail the exact electromagnetic environment. But, as will be obvious, the value of the resistance in shunting the SQUID in A or the junction in B does not influence our general conclusion. Furthermore, the LC-type lines in the environment, not included in the present discussion, further help to decouple the dissipative environment from the measured circuit. In A we can assume that the parallel amplifier impedance and in B the dissipative (real) part of the environment are included in $`R`$.

A few words on the current resolution $`\delta I`$ of the two circuits are in order. In an optimum measurement by circuit A, $`\delta I`$ is quantum limited to $`\delta I/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }f}\sqrt{4\pi \mathrm{}/L}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$ is the bandwidth of the measurement. This holds for perfect coupling to the SQUID. Inserting $`L=100`$ nH we obtain $`\delta I/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }f}120`$ fA and for the bandwidth $`\mathrm{\Delta }f=10`$ kHz we have $`\delta I12`$ pA. For faster measurement one needs higher input inductance: to achieve 10 pA resolution at 1 MHz, $`L`$ should exceed 10 $`\mu `$H, which starts to influence the pump operation itself, as will be discussed below. The current resolution of circuit B depends on optimizing its performance through the measuring junction characteristics. The ultimate limit of resolution can be reached when the junction is in the macroscopic quantum tunneling (MQT) limit, where escape to a finite voltage state is via tunneling through the washboard potential and thermal escape over the barrier is prohibited due to low temperature. Using a trapezoidal current pulse of height $`I`$ and duration $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ we then have the probability $`P=1\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ to escape from the zero voltage state, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the MQT escape rate. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ depends on the bias current $`I`$, we can use $`P`$ as a measure of the total current through the junction: ideally this current is the sum of the bias current and the current to be measured, as suggested by Vion et al. vion , whereby a figure of merit of the measurement is $`\delta I=\delta P/(P/I)`$ giving the smallest resolvable current. Here, $`\delta P`$ is the resolution in reading $`P`$, which for typical averaging is of the order of 0.01. By a straightforward analysis we find out that there is a trade-off of junction parameters in the sense that by reducing $`\delta I`$ (by increasing the ratio $`C_J/I_c`$) we lower at the same rate the cross-over temperature $`T_0`$ from thermally activated escape to MQT. Using this we can find an approximate answer $`P/I(\mathrm{}/2e)/(k_BT_0)`$. This, in turn, with $`\delta P=0.01`$, and by setting $`T_0=30`$ mK, a realistic electron temperature in an experiment, yields $`\delta I10`$ pA. The bandwidth of this measurement depends on various technical parameters in the setup and we will not discuss it here. The comparison of the two measurements is limited by the fact that they present fundamentally different approaches. Circuit $`𝐀`$ aims at a continuous monitoring of the current at a certain bandwidth. Circuit $`𝐁`$ in turn tries to grab information of the CPP current in a single shot, or by successive current pulses into the escape junction. Both of them can achieve the requested current resolution, but the suitability of the two depends on how they interfere with the measured CPP and whether one can initialize the CPP controllably. One of the advantages of circuit $`𝐁`$ is that the phase fluctuations are smaller owing to the smaller inductance of this detector.

In the presence of the measuring circuit the bias phase difference $`\phi `$ acquires its own dynamics. As a result, the phase will contain a fluctuating part, $`\phi (t)=\phi _0+\varphi (t)`$, and this will in general modify the pumped charge. Before studying this modification in detail for the set-ups of Fig. 3, we analyze the time-dependence of phase fluctuations induced by the measuring circuits. Fluctuation-dissipation theorem implies that the variance of the fluctuations obeys the relation

$$\varphi ^2(t)=8_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\omega }{\omega }\frac{\mathrm{}\text{e}Z(\omega )}{R_K}\mathrm{coth}(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2k_BT})[1\mathrm{cos}(\omega t)].$$
(7)
In quantifying the phase fluctuations, we thus need to know the real (dissipative) part of the impedance seen by the measured circuit, $`\mathrm{}\text{e}Z(\omega )`$, where $`\omega `$ is the (angular) frequency.

Circuit A — In this case we obtain

$`\mathrm{}\text{e}Z_A(\omega )=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{M^2R\omega ^2}{R^2(1LC_p\omega ^2)^2+\omega ^2L_s^2[1(1\gamma )LC_p\omega ^2]^2}},`$ (8)
with $`\gamma =M^2/(L_sL)`$. For typical experimental values this represents a narrow resonance peak at $`\omega \omega _{LC}`$, where $`\omega _{LC}(LC_p)^{1/2}`$ is the natural LC resonance (angular) frequency of the CPP circuit alone. We first study the limit $`\gamma 1`$, i.e., weak coupling of the measuring circuit. The circuit can then behave in two different ways depending on whether the parameter $`\alpha ^2(\omega _{LC}L_s/R)^2`$ is either $`1`$ or $`1`$. In the first limit the resonant frequency is $`\omega _{LC}`$ and the width of the peak is $`\delta \omega /\omega _{LC}(M/L)^2\sqrt{L/C_p}/(2R)=\gamma \alpha /21`$. The product of the width and height of the resonance peak is $`\mathrm{}\text{e}Z(\omega )_{max}\delta \omega \omega _{LC}\sqrt{L/C_p}`$, independent of $`R`$. In the second limit, $`\alpha ^21`$, which corresponds to most experimental conditions, the measuring circuit decreases the effective inductance of the resonant circuit and the resonant frequency (maximum of $`\mathrm{}\text{e}Z_A(\omega )`$) is shifted very slightly upwards to $`\omega _{LC}/\sqrt{1\gamma }`$. The width of the peak is now $`\delta \omega /\omega _{LC}(M/L_s)^2R/(2\sqrt{L/C_p})=\gamma /(2\alpha )1`$. The product of the width and height is again $`\mathrm{}\text{e}Z(\omega )_{max}\delta \omega \omega _{LC}\sqrt{L/C_p}`$, independent of $`R`$.

From Eqs. (7) and (8) we see that in both limits the phase fluctuations do not diverge with time. Instead we have initial oscillations which dephase and asymptotically the fluctuations tend to a constant expectation value. This behavior is not so unexpected since the measured circuit forms essentially a SQUID loop, where the average voltage over the junctions vanishes. The decay time of coherent phase oscillations turns out to be $`t_{dec,A}=LC_pR/(\gamma L_s)`$ when $`\alpha ^21`$ and $`t_{dec,A}=L_s/(\gamma R)`$ in the opposite limit. We obtain the following expressions for the variance in the short and long time limits, respectively,

$`\varphi ^2(t)4\pi ({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{L/C_p}}{R_K}})\mathrm{coth}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega _{LC}}{2k_BT}})`$
$`\times \{\begin{array}{cc}[1\mathrm{cos}(\omega _{LC}t)]\hfill & \text{ if }tt_{dec,A}\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{ if }tt_{dec,A}\hfill \end{array}.`$ (11)
In the opposite limit of strong coupling of the measuring circuit, $`\gamma 1`$, we essentially approach circuit B to be discussed below.

Circuit B — In this case we have

$$\mathrm{}\text{e}Z_B(\omega )=\frac{L_J^2R\omega ^2}{R^2(1L_JC_J^{}\omega ^2)^2+\omega ^2L_J^2},$$
(12)
with $`C_J^{}C_J+C_p`$. In this case the low damping limit corresponds to $`\delta \omega /\omega _{LC}\sqrt{L_J/C_J^{}}/R1`$, where $`\omega _{LC}(L_JC_J^{})^{1/2}`$ is again the LC resonance (angular) frequency of the CPP circuit now with the measuring junction. In this limit the maximum of the real impedance is $`\mathrm{}\text{e}Z_B(\omega )_{max}R`$ and the product of height and width is $`\mathrm{}\text{e}Z_B(\omega )_{max}\delta \omega \omega _{LC}\sqrt{L_J/C_J^{}}`$, again independent of $`R`$.

The coherence of oscillations in the underdamped case, $`\delta \omega /\omega _{LC}1`$ dies in a time $`t_{dec,B}=2RC_J^{}`$, and as a result, the asymptotics of the variance for short and long times are given by

$`\varphi ^2(t)4\pi ({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{L/C_J^{}}}{R_K}})\mathrm{coth}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega _{LC}}{2k_BT}})`$
$`\times \{\begin{array}{cc}[1\mathrm{cos}(\omega _{LC}t)]\hfill & \text{ if }tt_{dec,B}\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{ if }tt_{dec,B}\hfill \end{array}.`$ (15)
It is interesting to see how the resonance behavior characteristic for circuits A and B transforms into an essentially diffusive one when the quality factor of the resonance in the dissipative LC circuit gets lower. Let us consider circuit B as the example. In the overdamped case, $`\delta \omega /\omega _{LC}1`$, the phase fluctuations are diffusive when $`tt_{dec}`$. In particular, when $`k_BT\mathrm{}\omega _{LC}`$, we have

$$\varphi ^2(t)8\pi k_BTRt/(\mathrm{}R_K),$$
(16)
like in a purely dissipative environment prb01 . At $`t\delta \omega /\omega _{LC}^2`$ the phase fluctuations level off at the value given by the long-time, high-temperature limit in Eq. (III),

$$\varphi ^2(t)8\pi k_BTL_J/(\mathrm{}R_K).$$
(17)
In the limit $`\delta \omega /\omega _{LC}1`$ the circuit attains features on one hand of an inductance limited phase diffusion measurement and on the other hand of a dissipatively dephasing environment.

Illustrations of the results of this section for model circuit B are shown in Fig. 5. In Fig. 5a we see the results of numerically calculated $`\varphi ^2(t)`$ for typical parameter values, and Fig. 5b shows $`\mathrm{}\text{e}Z(\omega )`$ with the same parameter values. Fig. 5c demonstrates the crossover suggested by Eqs. (16) and (17) in the dissipative case; the corresponding $`\mathrm{}\text{e}Z(\omega )`$ is shown in Fig. 5d.

The analysis of the variance of phase fluctuations performed in this section indicates that the measuring circuits A and B, unlike a purely resistive environment, will not lead to a complete suppression of coherence of the CPP: the phase diffusion is essentially limited by the inductance. In the next section, we will analyze the influence of these fluctuations on the amount of (coherently) transferred charge through the pump. As we will see, fluctuations renormalize not only parameters of the pump, but may also induce (coherent) higher order charge transfer, like co-tunneling. Both effects lead to additional corrections to the pumped charge.

## IV Influence of the measuring circuit on the transferred charge

A convenient way to discuss the influence of the measuring apparatus on the charge transferred during one pumping cycle is to formulate the problem in the framework of the so-called effective action approach. This approach enables one to obtain the partition function of the pump together with its measuring environment as a path integral. For the case of an inductive environment, the degrees of freedom of the environment can be integrated out approximately, and we obtain an effective action that describes the low-energy behavior of the pump, in the presence of the measuring circuit. From this effective action, we will obtain an effective Hamiltonian for the pump, which is essentially the Hamiltonian (1) up to two modifications: (i) the Josephson energy $`E_J`$ in (II) should be replaced by a renormalized value $`E_{J,\mathrm{eff}}`$ and (ii) a term $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{ind}}`$ should be added, which accounts for correlated tunneling events induced by the measuring circuit. Both modifications will lead to corrections to the result (6).

### IV.1 Effective action

We start our analysis by considering the total equilibrium partition function of the pump together with the measuring circuit,

$$Z_{tot}=𝒟\varphi _1𝒟\varphi _2𝒟\varphi e^S,$$

where the Euclidean action $`S`$ of the system is given by $`S=S_C+S_J+S_{bath}`$. Here, $`S_C`$ and $`S_J`$ are the actions associated to the Hamiltonians $`\widehat{H}_C`$ and $`\widehat{H}_J`$ defined in Eqs. (2) and (II), respectively. Specifically, the action $`S_J`$ is given by

$$S_J=E_J\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{0}{\overset{\beta }{}}𝑑\tau \mathrm{cos}[\delta \varphi (\tau )_i+\varphi (\tau )/3],$$

where we introduced the phase differences across each junction in the CPP: $`\delta \varphi _1=\phi _0/3+\varphi _1`$, $`\delta \varphi _2=\phi _0/3+\varphi _2\varphi _1`$, and $`\delta \varphi _3=\phi _0/3\varphi _2`$. The third term, $`S_{bath}`$, is the action describing the measuring circuit. Due to this contribution, the phase bias $`\phi `$ has acquired a dynamical part, $`\varphi (\tau )`$, such that $`\phi (\tau )=\phi _0+\varphi (\tau )`$. The action $`S_{bath}`$ can be written as

$$S_{bath}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{0}{\overset{\beta }{}}\underset{0}{\overset{\beta }{}}𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}\varphi (\tau )D_\varphi (\tau \tau ^{})\varphi (\tau ^{}),$$
(18)
where $`\beta =1/T`$ (in this subsection we use units such that $`\mathrm{}=k_B=1`$). The kernel $`D_\varphi (\tau )`$ is related to the impedance of the measuring circuit leggett , $`D_\varphi (\tau )=T_nD_\varphi (i\omega _n)e^{i\omega _n\tau }`$, where

$$D_\varphi (i\omega _n)=\frac{1}{4e^2}\frac{|\omega _n|}{Z(i|\omega _n|)}.$$
(19)
Here, $`\omega _n`$ is a bosonic Matsubara frequency, $`\omega _n=2\pi nT`$. It is possible to get an effective action depending on the phases $`\varphi _1(\tau )`$ and $`\varphi _2(\tau )`$ of the islands only. We write the total partition function as

$$Z_{tot}𝒟\varphi _1𝒟\varphi _2e^{S_{\mathrm{eff}}}.$$

To second order in $`E_J`$, $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is found by a re-exponentiation of the averages $`S_J`$ and $`S_J^2`$ over the action $`S_{bath}`$. For the average of $`S_J`$ we find

$$S_J=E_{J,\mathrm{eff}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{0}{\overset{\beta }{}}𝑑\tau \mathrm{cos}\delta \varphi _i(\tau ),$$
(20)
where we introduced the renormalized Josephson coupling

$$E_{J,\mathrm{eff}}=E_Je^{G_\varphi (\tau =0)/18},$$
(21)
with the phase-phase correlation function

$$G_\varphi (\tau )=T\underset{n}{}D_\varphi ^1(\omega _n)e^{i\omega _n\tau }.$$
(22)
For the average of $`S_J^2`$ we obtain

$$S_J^2=\frac{E_{J,\mathrm{eff}}^2}{2}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{0}{\overset{\beta }{}}𝑑\tau _1𝑑\tau _2\{\mathrm{cos}\delta \varphi _i(\tau _1)\mathrm{cos}\delta \varphi _j(\tau _2)\underset{\sigma =\pm 1}{}e^{\sigma G_\varphi (\tau _1\tau _2)/9}+\mathrm{sin}\delta \varphi _i(\tau _1)\mathrm{sin}\delta \varphi _j(\tau _2)\underset{\sigma =\pm 1}{}\sigma e^{\delta G_\varphi (\tau _1\tau _2)/9}\}.$$
(23)
We see that at this order an interaction term appears, whose kernel depends on the correlation function $`G_\varphi (\tau )`$. As already discussed in the previous section, fluctuations in the bias phase are bound for the particular measuring environments we are considering. In the limit of small phase fluctuations, the correlations $`G_\varphi \varphi (\tau )\varphi `$ remain small, allowing us to expand the exponentials in (23) with respect to $`G_\varphi `$. Therefore we can write

$`S_J^2=E_{J,\mathrm{eff}}^2{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\beta }{}}}d\tau _1d\tau _2[\mathrm{cos}\delta \varphi _i(\tau _1)\mathrm{cos}\delta \varphi _j(\tau _2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\mathrm{sin}\delta \varphi _i(\tau _1)G_\varphi (\tau _1\tau _2)\mathrm{sin}\delta \varphi _j(\tau _2)].`$ (24)
We are now in a position to obtain the effective action $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}`$,

$$S_{\mathrm{eff}}=S_C+S_{J,\mathrm{eff}}+S_{\mathrm{ind}},$$

where

$$S_{J,\mathrm{eff}}=E_{J,\mathrm{eff}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{0}{\overset{\beta }{}}𝑑\tau \mathrm{cos}\delta \varphi _i(\tau )$$
(25)
and

$`S_{\mathrm{ind}}={\displaystyle \frac{E_{J,\mathrm{eff}}^2}{9}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\beta }{}}}d\tau _1d\tau _2\times `$
$`\mathrm{sin}\delta \varphi _i(\tau _1)G_\varphi (\tau _1\tau _2)\mathrm{sin}\delta \varphi _j(\tau _2).`$ (26)
The influence of the measuring circuit is indeed two-fold: (i) In the effective action, the bare Josephson coupling energy $`E_J`$ has been replaced by an effective, renormalized value, $`E_{J,\mathrm{eff}}`$; (ii) The measuring circuit correlates tunneling events at different junctions, as is seen from Eq. (26). Physically, a tunneling event occurring at time $`\tau _1`$ in junction $`i`$ virtually excites the measuring environment, which, upon relaxation, causes a second tunneling event in junction $`j`$ at time $`\tau _2`$. In other words, the environment induces higher order tunneling events in the pump of the co-tunneling type. Clearly, both (i) and (ii) will modify the charge transferred through the pump, as we will discuss in more detail below.

### IV.2 Renormalized Josephson coupling

In order to evaluate the renormalized Josephson coupling energy $`E_{J,\mathrm{eff}}`$ as given by Eq. (21), we need to calculate the correlation function $`G_\varphi `$, Eq. (22), at time $`\tau =0`$. This implies calculating the sum over all Matsubara frequencies of the quantity $`Z(i|\omega _n|)/|\omega _n|`$, which involves the total, imaginary-time response of the circuit, $`Z(i|\omega _n|)`$. For the circuits A and B of interest here we find

$`Z_A(i|\omega |)/|\omega |=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{RL+(1\gamma )L_sL|\omega |}{R(1+LC_p|\omega |^2)+L_s|\omega |[1+(1\gamma )LC_p|\omega |^2]}}`$ (27)
and

$$Z_B(i|\omega |)/|\omega |=\frac{RL_J}{R(1+L_JC_J^{}|\omega |^2)+|\omega |L_J},$$
(28)
respectively. Note that, upon analytic continuation $`i\omega _n\omega +i0`$, the real part of $`Z_{A,B}(i|\omega _n|)`$ coincides with the results (8) and (12), respectively.

From a closer inspection of Eqs. (27) and (28) we see that we can obtain $`Z_B`$ from $`Z_A`$ upon taking the limit $`\gamma 1`$ in (27), thereby replacing $`L`$ and $`L_s`$ by $`L_J`$. We will, therefore, focus on circuit A in what follows; the results obtained can be used to analyze circuit B after taking proper limits.

In the zero temperature limit $`T0`$, the sum over $`\omega _n`$ in Eq. (22) can be replaced by an integral. In this limit, the renormalized Josephson coupling energy can be written as $`E_{J,\mathrm{eff}}=E_Je^{\eta _0}`$, where

$$\eta _0=\frac{4\omega _{LC}L}{9R_K}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑x\frac{1+\alpha (1\gamma )x}{1+x^2+\alpha x[1+(1\gamma )x^2]}.$$

We introduced the dimensionless integration variable $`x=\omega /\omega _{LC}`$ and used the parameter $`\alpha =\omega _{LC}L_s/R`$ introduced in Section III. Note that the integral is always finite: the integrand is well-behaved, both for small values of $`x`$, reflecting the fact that low-frequency phase fluctuations are limited by the presence of an inductance in the circuit, and for large values of $`x`$, reflecting the natural high frequency cut-off of the fluctuations provided by the presence of capacitances. In Fig. 6, we plotted $`\eta _0`$ as a function of the dimensionless quantities $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$. Let us use some realistic parameter values to estimate the effect. For circuit A, $`\alpha 1`$ and $`\gamma 1`$ ; hence we have $`\eta _00.1`$ and $`E_{J,\mathrm{eff}}0.9E_J`$. For circuit B, $`\alpha 10^2`$ and $`\gamma 1`$ ; hence we have $`\eta _010^3`$ and $`E_{J,\mathrm{eff}}E_J`$. We conclude that the renormalization of $`E_J`$ is always weak. This result confirms the analysis of Section III: for small values of $`\alpha `$ or $`\gamma `$ the parameter $`\eta _0`$ indeed equals the asymptotic values for $`\varphi ^2/18`$, see Eqs. (III) and (III). Thus, for suitably chosen parameters, the measuring circuit A (as well as B) will not suppress the coherent coupling between various parts of the pump.

The results presented so far are valid at zero temperature, $`T=0`$, and in the absence of a gate modulation, $`f=0`$. Finite temperature introduces a correction to $`\eta _0`$ due to the summation over Matsubara frequencies in Eq. (21). As long as the inductance $`L`$ of the pump is small compared to the inductance $`\mathrm{}/(2eI_J)`$ of the Josephson junctions, this correction can be neglected at temperatures of interest here $`k_BTE_J`$. The effect of a finite frequency $`f`$ can also be ignored at this point, since we are working in the leading order in the adiabatic approximation.

The above results, obtained for an inductive environment, should be contrasted with the effect of a purely resistive measuring circuit, characterized by a resistance $`R_0`$. In this case, the low-frequency impedance is constant, $`ZR_0`$, and the sum over Matsubara frequencies in Eq. (22) diverges logarithmically. This reflects the fact that the low-frequency fluctuations of the phase are unbound. As a result, the Josephson coupling will be significantly renormalized. Indeed, in the case of a very resistive environment, characterized by a large dimensionless resistance ratio $`4R_0/9R_K1`$, the renormalized Josephson coupling at $`T=0`$ is given by $`E_{J,\mathrm{eff}}E_J(fR_0C_p)^{4R_0/9R_K}`$, which depends explicitly on the operating frequency $`f`$ of the pump. This means that the Josephson energy is completely suppressed in the absence of a gate modulation, $`f=0`$. For finite values of $`f`$, the pump will be characterized by a finite Josephson coupling energy; however, its value will be small, $`E_{J,\mathrm{eff}}^2/E_C\mathrm{}f`$, for any reasonable operating frequency. We thus conclude that it is practically impossible to operate the pump in the adiabatic regime if $`R_0`$ is large. In the opposite limit of a weakly resistive environment, $`4R_0/9R_K1`$, one finds $`E_{J,\mathrm{eff}}E_J(E_JR_0C_p/\mathrm{})^{4R_0/9R_K}E_J`$: the renormalization of the Josephson coupling is limited. We conclude that, at least in principle, the device can be operated coherently in the adiabatic regime in the presence of weak dissipation, as long as $`R_0`$ is sufficiently small.

### IV.3 Calculation of the transferred charge

We finally turn to the actual calculation of the charge transferred per cycle. In order to use Eq. (4), which involves instantaneous eigenstates of a Hamiltonian, it is convenient to transform the effective action $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ into an effective Hamiltonian, $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{eff}}=\widehat{H}_C+\widehat{H}_{J,\mathrm{eff}}+\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{ind}}`$. With the help of Eq. (25) we see that $`\widehat{H}_{J,\mathrm{eff}}`$ can be obtained directly from (II), replacing $`E_J`$ by the renormalized value $`E_{J,\mathrm{eff}}`$. The Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{ind}}`$ is obtained from $`S_{\mathrm{ind}}`$, which depends on the correlation function $`G_\varphi `$. The fact that $`G_\varphi `$ is in general non-local in time complicates matters. However, for the measuring circuit A, the dynamics at low frequencies is dominated by the inductance $`L`$ (for circuit B it is $`L_J`$). Provided that $`L`$ is small, such that $`L\mathrm{}/(2eI_J)`$, the relevant correlations are local in time and $`G_\varphi (\tau )(8\pi L/R_K)\delta (\tau )`$. In other words, the two correlated tunneling events induced by the measuring environment are instantaneous on the slow time scale characterizing the junction dynamics. Substituting the above local form for the correlator $`G_\varphi `$ into (26) and performing one of the integrations over imaginary time we see that the resulting $`S_{\mathrm{ind}}`$ can be transformed into

$$\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{ind}}=\frac{E_{J,\mathrm{eff}}}{18}\frac{E_{J,\mathrm{eff}}L}{(\mathrm{}/2e)^2}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{3}{}}\mathrm{sin}\delta \varphi _i\mathrm{sin}\delta \varphi _j.$$
(29)
The calculation of $`Q_P`$ with (4) with the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ for a triangular gating sequence is straightforward. Ignoring $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{ind}}`$, one obtains the result (6), with $`E_J`$ replaced by its renormalized value $`E_{J,\mathrm{eff}}`$. If $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{ind}}`$ is taken into account, a correction is found due to coherent higher order tunneling events induced by the inductive environment. Referring the reader to Appendix B.3 for details, we only present the final result:

$$Q_P/2e1\left(9\frac{E_{J,\mathrm{eff}}}{E_C}\frac{1}{6}\frac{E_{J,\mathrm{eff}}L}{(\mathrm{}/2e)^2}\right)\mathrm{cos}\phi _0.$$
(30)
Taking $`E_J/E_C=0.1`$ with $`E_C1`$K, the renormalization of $`E_J`$ is negligible. With $`L=100`$nH (circuit A), the second correction $`E_{J,\mathrm{eff}}L/[6(\mathrm{}/2e)^2]0.2`$, whereas for circuit B this would be $`E_{J,\mathrm{eff}}L/[6(\mathrm{}/2e)^2]210^4`$.

## V Discussion

The CPP has a few properties that make it an attractive object of investigation both theoretically and experimentally. The mechanism for deviations of the pumped charge from the quantized value are interesting in their own right. These include Landau-Zener (LZ) band crossing, quasiparticle current, and last but not least the topic of the current manuscript, the coherent quantum interference in Cooper pair transport. They all can be avoided at least in principle by using a favorable operation mode: LZ crossing can be minimized by operating the pump at low enough frequency, $`fE_J^2/(\mathrm{}E_C)`$, quasiparticle current by low temperature and careful filtering of the sample, and coherence induced corrections by dissipative environment of the CPP.

Quantized charge transport is being investigated largely because it may eventually fulfill the requirements of providing a modern standard for electrical current. At the same time it would close the metrological triangle of electrical quantities: by now both the voltage and resistance have their quantum standards, Josephson voltage and quantum Hall resistance, respectively, and by determining the current using $`I=qf`$ would test the validity of Ohm’s law with the same value of Planck’s constant in the two. But there are serious problems to be solved before $`I`$ can be determined at sufficient absolute accuracy, error rate being smaller than $`10^7`$ and output current on the nA scale. The foremost problems are either the very small current obtained in the tunnel junction based pumps, or the errors in the number of electrons carried in the moving quantum dots in the semiconductor pumps.

Cooper pair pump may solve these problems eventually. The current limitation can perhaps be lifted by using higher values of $`E_J`$ employing Josephson junctions made of a superconductor with higher $`T_c`$ than that of aluminum (1 K). An obvious candidate is niobium, where $`T_c`$ 9 K, whereby yielding an almost one order of magnitude enhancement in $`E_JT_c`$. Fabricating small junctions using Nb has, however, turned out to be a challenge, which has not been fully solved yet Kim02 ; Dolata02 . The second problem is how to suppress errors due to the quantum interference in the CPP without disturbing the operation of the pump otherwise. As an example, by inserting a highly dissipative termination to the pump, heating becomes a problem especially at the desired higher throughput currents. Therefore understanding the nature of this interference is of importance in optimizing the operation of the CPP. One alternative to dissipative environment is to employ pumps with larger number of junctions, $`N`$, since the interference correction is proportional to $`(E_J/E_C)^{N2}`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank O. Buisson, G. Falci, P. Hakonen, T. Heikkilä, J. Kivioja, Ph. Lafarge, L. Lévy, M. Paalanen, H. Seppä, and J. Toppari for useful discussions. FH acknowledges support from Institut Universitaire de France. JP thanks the Centre de Recherches sur les Très Basses Températures, where part of this work was done, for its hospitality. We acknowledge EC for financial support through grants IST-FET-SQUBIT and HPRN-CT-2002-00144.

## Appendix A Derivation of Eq. (4)

The Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}`$, Eq. (1), depends explicitly on the gate-charges $`n_{x1}`$ and $`n_{x2}`$ through the charging term $`\widehat{H}_C`$, Eq. (2). As a result of the periodic modulation of the vector $`\stackrel{}{n}_x=(n_{x1},n_{x2})`$ as a function of time, the Hamiltonian becomes time-dependent. If the modulation is adiabatically slow, Schrödinger’s equation $`i\mathrm{}|\psi _m(t)/t=\widehat{H}(t)|\psi _m(t)`$ is satisfied by an adiabatic state of the form

$$|\psi _m(t)=e^{i\stackrel{t}{}𝑑t^{}E_m(t^{})/\mathrm{}}e^{i\gamma _m(t)}|m(t),$$

where $`|m(t)`$ is an instantaneous eigenstate of $`\widehat{H}(t)`$ with energy $`E_m(t)`$ and $`\gamma _m`$ is Berry’s phase Berry .

The expectation value of any time-independent hermitian operator $`\widehat{O}`$ in the state $`|\psi _m(t)`$ is in general time-dependent and given by $`O(t)=\psi _m(t)|\widehat{O}|\psi _m(t)=m(t)|\widehat{O}|m(t)`$. Specifically, we see that the dynamics of $`O(t)`$ is governed by the instantaneous eigenstates. Using the fact that $`|\dot{m}=\dot{\stackrel{}{n}}_x_{\stackrel{}{n}_x}|m`$, where $`\dot{a}da/dt`$, we obtain

$$\dot{O}=2\mathrm{}\text{}\underset{nm}{}m|\widehat{O}|nn|_{\stackrel{}{n}_x}m\dot{\stackrel{}{n}}_x.$$
(31)
Note that the term $`n=m`$ can be excluded from the sum in (31), as $`n|_{\stackrel{}{n}_x}n`$ is purely imaginary. This can be seen using the normalization condition $`n|n=1`$ from which we obtain $`_{\stackrel{}{n}_x}n|n=0=2\mathrm{}\text{}n|_{\stackrel{}{n}_x}n`$.

We are interested in the total charge $`Q_P`$ transferred through the pump during one cycle. Since the modulation is periodic, $`Q_P`$ is the total charge transferred through any of the junctions during the cycle, e.g. the leftmost one, $`Q_l`$. Let us consider the matrix elements of the current passing through the left junction, $`m|\widehat{I}_l|n`$, see Eq. (5),

$$m|\widehat{I}_l|n\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}m|[\widehat{H},\widehat{Q}_l]|n=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(E_mE_n)m|\widehat{Q}_l|n.$$
(32)
Applying the result (31) to the charge operator $`\widehat{Q}_l`$ and using (32), we obtain

$$\dot{Q}_l=2\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\text{}\underset{nm}{}\frac{m|\widehat{I}_l|n}{E_mE_n}n|_{\stackrel{}{n}_x}m\dot{\stackrel{}{n}}_x.$$
(33)
Therefore, the total charge passing through the pump in the state $`|\psi _m`$ is given by

$`Q_P={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{cycle}}}𝑑t\dot{Q}_l`$
$`=2\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\text{m}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{nm}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{I}_l)_{mn}}{E_mE_n}n|_{\stackrel{}{n}_x}m𝑑\stackrel{}{n}_x}\right].`$ (34)
which is the result Eq. (4) upon setting $`|m=|0`$.

## Appendix B Transferred charge for triangular gating

In this Appendix we outline the perturbative calculation of $`Q_P`$ with Eq. (4), for a triangular gating sequence as in Fig. 2. This sequence corresponds to a contour consisting of three linear segments, (1), (2), and (3), in which respectively the gate-charge vector $`\stackrel{}{n}_x`$ is changed adiabatically from (0,0) to (1,0), increasing $`n_{x1}`$; then from (1,0) to (0,1), simultaneously decreasing $`n_{x1}`$ and increasing $`n_{x2}`$; finally from (1,0) to (0,0), decreasing $`n_{x2}`$. In this Appendix, when evaluating $`Q_P`$, we will present explicit calculations for segment (1) from (0,0) to (1,0) only, i.e. we will calculate

$$Q_P^{(1)}=2\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\text{m}\left[\underset{n0}{}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\frac{(\widehat{I}_l)_{0n}}{E_0E_n}n|_{n_{x1}}0𝑑n_{x1}\right].$$
(35)
Results for the segments (2) and (3) will be simply stated, their calculation being essentially analogous to the one for segment (1).

Since $`E_JE_C`$, only a limited number of charge states need to be taken into account in the calculation. This enables one to proceed perturbatively; below we will consider various contributions to $`Q_P`$ that arise in different orders of perturbation theory.

### B.1 Incoherent contribution

In leading order, the only relevant charge states for the segment (1) of interest here are the eigenstates $`|0,0`$ and $`|1,0`$ of $`\widehat{H}_C`$, Eq. (2), which are mixed coherently by $`\widehat{H}_J`$, Eq. (II). This is analogous to the coherent mixing of charge states in a single Cooper pair box, see makhlin . The two lowest instantaneous eigenstates are therefore

$`|0=a|0,0+e^{i\phi _0/3}b|1,0,`$ (36)
$`|1=b|0,0e^{i\phi _0/3}a|1,0,`$ (37)
with an energy difference $`E_1E_0=E_J\sqrt{1+ϵ^2}`$. Here $`a^2=1b^2=(1/2)(1+ϵ/\sqrt{1+ϵ^2})`$ such that $`ab=1/(2\sqrt{1+ϵ^2})`$. The dependence on the parameter $`n_{x1}`$ enters through $`ϵ=(2E_C/3E_J)(12n_{x1})`$. Higher states can be ignored as they are separated in energy by an amount $`E_C`$.

We proceed by evaluating the various terms appearing in (35). In order to obtain the matrix elements $`(\widehat{I}_l)_{01}`$ for current through the leftmost junction, it is convenient to use the charge representation of (5). Putting $`\phi =\phi _0`$ we find

$`\widehat{I}_l={\displaystyle \frac{I_J}{2i}}{\displaystyle \underset{n_1,n_2}{}}(e^{i\phi _0/3}|n_1,n_2n_1+1,n_2|`$
$`e^{i\phi _0/3}|n_1+1,n_2n_1,n_2|).`$ (38)
A direct calculation, using the above decomposition of $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ into charge states, then yields $`(\widehat{I}_l)_{01}=I_J/2i`$. Similarly, the decomposition can be used to calculate $`1|_{n_{x1}}0=b_{n_{x1}}aa_{n_{x1}}b`$. Finally, using the equality $`E_1E_0=E_J/2ab`$, we obtain, in leading order,

$`Q_P^{(1)}`$ $`4e{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}ab(a_{n_{x1}}bb_{n_{x1}}a)𝑑n_{x1}`$ (39)
$`8e{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}a(1a^2)𝑑a=2e.`$
In this order, the contributions from segments (2) and (3) are zero, and we conclude that $`Q_P=2e`$. Indeed, in the absence of higher order tunneling processes, the current through the leftmost junction is not affected by the coherent mixing of charge states $`|1,0`$ and $`|0,1`$ along segment (2) or of $`|0,1`$ and $`|0,0`$ along segment (3). Below, we will include higher order tunneling which leads to corrections to these results of order $`E_J/E_C`$.

### B.2 Coherent correction

We now take into account the charge states that $`\widehat{H}_J`$ mixes into $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ by second order tunneling processes. For the segment (1) of interest, these are the charge states $`|0,1`$ and $`|1,1`$. Straightforward second order perturbation theory yields the correction to the states $`|0`$ and $`|1`$,

$$\delta |0=c|1\text{ and }\delta |1=c^{}|0,$$
(40)
where

$$c=(3E_J/E_C)ab(b^2e^{i\phi _0}a^2e^{i\phi _0}).$$
(41)
The energies $`E_0`$ and $`E_1`$ are also renormalized, yielding a correction to the energy difference

$$\delta (E_1E_0)=(6E_J^2/E_C)ab\mathrm{cos}\phi _0.$$
(42)
Note the appearance in this order of a dependence of the corrections on the bias phase $`\phi _0`$. Along segment (1), phase coherence through the entire pump is established by coherent mixing at the leftmost junction in combination with second order tunneling through the middle and rightmost junctions.

The matrix elements of $`\widehat{I}_l`$ are not affected by the corrections. Using (40) we obtain $`\delta (\widehat{I}_l)_{01}=c^{}[(\widehat{I}_l)_{00}+(\widehat{I}_l)_{11}]`$, which vanishes since the instantaneous eigenstates carry no current: $`(\widehat{I}_l)_{00}=(\widehat{I}_l)_{11}=0`$, as can be seen easily from (36), (37) and (38). However, $`\delta 1|_{n_{x1}}0`$ is non-vanishing, $`\delta 1|_{n_{x1}}0=_{n_{x1}}c`$. The resulting correction to $`Q_P^{(1)}`$ can be written as the integral

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta Q_P^{(1)}}{2e}}={\displaystyle \frac{E_J}{E_C}}\mathrm{cos}\phi _0{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}dn_{x1}\{24(ab)^3(b_{n_{x1}}aa_{n_{x1}}b)`$
$`6ab[(b^33a^2b)_{n_{x1}}a(a^33^2a)_{n_{x1}}b]\},`$ (43)
where the first term stems from the energy renormalization (42) and the second term from the correction $`\delta 1|_{n_{x1}}0`$, calculated taking a derivative in (41). Direct integration yields

$$\delta Q_P^{(1)}/2e=3\frac{E_J}{E_C}\mathrm{cos}\phi _0.$$

A similar calculation for segments (2) and (3) yields the same result. In other words, the total correction to $`Q_P`$ is given by $`\delta Q_P=2e(9E_J/E_C)\mathrm{cos}\phi _0`$, in agreement with Eq. (4).

### B.3 Correction due to inductive coupling

We finally consider the corrections to $`Q_P`$ associated with the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{ind}}`$, Eq. (29), which depends quadratically on $`E_J`$. Hence, first order perturbation theory in $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{ind}}`$ yields a correction to $`Q_P`$ which is linear in $`E_J`$. We first find the corrections to the lowest instantaneous eigenstates

$$\delta |0=d|1\text{ and }\delta |1=d^{}|1,$$
(44)
where

$$d=\{E_{J,\mathrm{eff}}L/[18(\mathrm{}/2e)^2]\}ab(a^2e^{i\phi _0}b^2e^{i\phi _0}).$$
(45)
The energy difference is renormalized as well,

$$\delta (E_1E_0)=\{E_{J,\mathrm{eff}}^2L/[9(\mathrm{}/2e)^2]\}ab\mathrm{cos}\phi _0.$$
(46)
Comparing these results with the corresponding ones found in B.2, Eqs. (40), (41), and (42), we conclude that the subsequent calculation will be completely equivalent to the one performed in B.2. Indeed, the matrix elements of $`\widehat{I}_l`$ are not affected by the corrections, and the contribution from $`\delta 1|_{n_{x1}}0`$ is equal to $`_{n_{x1}}d`$. As a result, the correction $`\delta Q_{P,\mathrm{ind}}^{(1)}`$ can be presented as an integral similar to the one in (43). Segments (2) and (3) give the same contribution and the total correction to $`Q_P`$ due to $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{ind}}`$ is therefore given by

$$\delta Q_{P,\mathrm{ind}}=2e\{E_{J,\mathrm{eff}}L/[6(\mathrm{}/2e)^2]\}\mathrm{cos}\phi _0,$$

in agreement with Eq. (30). The result is perturbative, the parameter $`E_{J,\mathrm{eff}}L/(\mathrm{}/2e)^2`$ must be small compared to unity. This is in agreement with the condition $`L(\mathrm{}/2eI_J)`$ stated in the main text for the derivation of the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{ind}}`$.