format: text

text:
# Polarization squeezing of intense pulses with a fiber Sagnac interferometer

## I Introduction

The nonclassical polarization states of light have recently been the subject of a number of theoretical and experimental papers in the framework of quantum information HalSor01 ; KorLeu01a ; BowSch02 ; BowTre02 . Polarization squeezing was first discussed by Chirkin ChiOrl93 . This theoretical proposal used the nonlinear cross Kerr ($`\chi ^3`$) effect with special requirements on the nonlinear coefficients to achieve noise reduction in polarization variables, i.e. the Stokes operators. The first experimental realization of polarization squeezing HalSor01  used an elegantly simple scheme where a squeezed vacuum was spatially overlapped with an orthogonally polarized strong coherent beam on a 50:50 beamsplitter. This experiment sought to map the polarization state of light, an information carrier, onto the spin state of a macroscopic atomic ensemble, which could be used as a quantum memory or as a quantum information processor HalSor01 . Prior to this experiment in the late 80’s, the combination of squeezed vacuum and coherent beam of orthogonal polarization was used to enhance the sensitivity of a polarization interferometer for high precision phase measurements GraSlu87 . However, at that time the nonclassical polarization properties of the light field used were not recognized and results were attributed to the sub-shot-noise vacuum input, i.e. single-mode quadrature squeezing.

The interest in nonclassical polarization states has grown recently motivated by: 1) The demonstration of the mapping of quantum state of light onto atoms HalSor01 ; 2) The recognition that the Stokes operators as conjugate variables which can all be measured in direct detection, rendering local oscillator methods unncessary KorLeu01a ; KarMas93 ; 3) The presentation of the concept of and the criteria for the experimental verification of continuous variable polarization entanglement KorLeu01a . A straightforward experimental scheme for the generation of polarization squeezing and entanglement of intense beams was suggested in KorLeu01a . Polarization squeezed light is generated by phase-locking two orthogonally polarized intense amplitude squeezed beams. Continuous variable polarization entanglement emerges from the linear interference of two polarization squeezed beams. In both schemes, the required nonclassical resources can be reduced to as few as one amplitude squeezed beam by substituting coherent or vacuum beams for the others. Depending on the particular combination, this degrades the degree of squeezing or entanglement. This deterioration may be weaker when using low intensity squeezed light BowSch02 ; BowTre02  rather than intense squeezed beams (see results in this paper). Using such low intensity beams, polarization squeezing of continuous wave beams was recently generated exploiting an optical parametric amplifier BowSch02  and was extensively experimentally characterized SchBow03 . In this paper we present results of a polarization squeezing experiment with pulsed light and devote special attention to the definition of polarization squeezing.

The paper is organized as follows: Sec. 2 briefly introduces the relevant polarization variables, the Stokes operators. The notion of polarization squeezing is also discussed and its specific properties are compared to conventional quadrature squeezing using practical examples. Sec. 3 provides a detailed description of the experimental setup. Sec. 4 presents the experimental results on polarization squeezing using intense pulses. Two different beam combinations are considered which lead to the generation of distinct nonclassical two-modes states: 1) A linearly polarized intense amplitude squeezed beam is combined with a vacuum resulting in sub-shot-noise Stokes variances but not in polarization squeezing; and 2) Polarization squeezed light emerging from the combination of two orthogonally polarized intense amplitude squeezed beams. Sec. 5 is devoted to the conclusions.

## II Theory

The classical Stokes parameters are a well known description of the polarization state of light Sto52 ; BorWol99 . Of interest to this paper are their quantum counterparts. In direct analogy to the classical parameters, we find that the quantum Stokes operators are JauRoh55 ; KorLeu01a  and references therein:

$`\widehat{S}_0`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{a}_x^{}\widehat{a}_x+\widehat{a}_y^{}\widehat{a}_y=\widehat{n}_x+\widehat{n}_y=\widehat{n},`$
$`\widehat{S}_1`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{a}_x^{}\widehat{a}_x\widehat{a}_y^{}\widehat{a}_y=\widehat{n}_x\widehat{n}_y,`$
$`\widehat{S}_2`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{a}_x^{}\widehat{a}_y+\widehat{a}_y^{}\widehat{a}_x,`$
$`\widehat{S}_3`$ $`=`$ $`i(\widehat{a}_y^{}\widehat{a}_x\widehat{a}_x^{}\widehat{a}_y),`$ (1)
where $`\widehat{a}_{x/y}`$ and $`\widehat{a}_{x/y}^{}`$ refer to the photon annihilation and creation operators of two orthogonal polarization modes x and y. $`\widehat{n}_x`$ and $`\widehat{n}_y`$ are the photon number operators of these modes and $`\widehat{n}`$ is the total number operator. The $`\widehat{S}_0`$ operator corresponds to the beam intensity whilst $`\widehat{S}_1`$, $`\widehat{S}_2`$ and $`\widehat{S}_3`$ describe the polarization state. The $`\widehat{S}_0`$ operator commutes with the others:

$`[\widehat{S}_0,\widehat{S}_j]=0,j=1,2,3,`$ (2)
whereas the remaining operators obey the SU(2) Lie algebra, as indicated by the commutator:

$`[\widehat{S}_1,\widehat{S}_2]=2i\widehat{S}_3,`$ (3)
and the cyclics thereof. These non-zero commutators imply the impossibility of simultaneous exact measurement of the operators. It is worth noting that the commutators are operator valued. The commutation relations here are similar to those for spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ particles and this fact has already been experimentally leveraged in the mapping of the quantum polarization state of light onto an atomic spin system HalSor01 . As a result of Eq. (3) uncertainty relations in the variances of the operators arise:

$$V_1V_2|\widehat{S}_3|^2,V_3V_1|\widehat{S}_2|^2,V_2V_3|\widehat{S}_1|^2.$$
(4)
Here $`V_j`$ refers to the variance $`\widehat{S}_j^2\widehat{S}_j^2`$ of the Stokes operator $`\widehat{S}_j`$.

A useful aid in visualizing a polarization state and its uncertainties is the quantum Poincaré sphere KorLeu01a . It is defined as:

$`\widehat{S}_1^2+\widehat{S}_2^2+\widehat{S}_3^2=\widehat{S}_0^2+2\widehat{S}_0.`$ (5)
This differs from the classical definition BorWol99  in the 2$`\widehat{S}_0`$ term which is a result of the non-commutation of the Stokes operators. On the Poincaré sphere uncertainty regions are depicted as volumes about the mean values of the operators, as shown in Fig. 1. The modes depicted there are: 1) A spherical uncertainty volume of radius $`\sqrt{3n}`$ centered on the radial value of $`n`$ representing an arbitrarily polarized coherent beam; 2) A cigar shaped uncertainty which is squeezed below the shot noise in $`\widehat{S}_0`$, $`\widehat{S}_1`$ and $`\widehat{S}_2`$ and anti-squeezed in $`\widehat{S}_3`$ depicting an arbitrarily chosen polarization squeezed beam.

A particular advantage of the Stokes operators is that they can be directly measured using only linear optical elements thereby avoiding local oscillator methods KarMas93 ; KorLeu01a ; AgrCha02 . The required setups are shown in Fig. 2. Measuring the difference channel in balanced detection gives the $`\widehat{S}_1`$ parameter. Addition of a half wave-plate such that the incoming polarization is rotated by 45 allows for the measurement of the $`\widehat{S}_2`$ operator. Introduction of a quarter wave-plate to the $`\widehat{S}_2`$ setup such that the wave-plate’s axes coincide with those of the polarization beam splitter permits measurement of the $`\widehat{S}_3`$ parameter. The $`\widehat{S}_0`$ operator is found in all three setups by simply measuring the sum channel, though the first is taken as the standard. This freedom arises from the fact that $`\widehat{S}_0`$ represents the total intensity (c.f. Eq. (1)) and as such is constant for all configurations.

The three operator valued commutation relations of the Stokes operators make the definition of polarization squeezed states such as that in Fig. 1 non-trivial. In contrast to the quadrature operators Lou00 , the coherent polarization state is not simultaneously a minimum uncertainty state (MUS) for all Stokes operators. Considering the Stokes uncertainty relations in Eq. (4), the MUS is represented by an equality sign ”=” in place of the ”$``$”:

$$V_1V_2=|\widehat{S}_3|^2,V_3V_1=|\widehat{S}_2|^2,V_2V_3=|\widehat{S}_1|^2.$$
(6)
The mean values of the third Stokes operator on the right of the equations indicate the state dependence of the MUS of the other two operators. That is, the specific form of the uncertainty relations and the MUS are determined by the particular polarization state under consideration.

As we investigate the definition of polarization squeezing let us first consider the quadrature MUS, the coherent mode:

$`|\psi =|\alpha _x\alpha _y,`$ (7)
with the Stokes variances:

$`V_j^{coh}=\widehat{n}_x+\widehat{n}_y=\widehat{n},`$ $`j=1,2,3.`$ (8)
This incorrectly leads to what seems to be a natural definition for polarization squeezing in analogy to that for quadrature squeezing:

$`V_j<V_j^{coh}=\widehat{n},`$ $`j=1,2,3.`$ (9)
This suggest that a polarization squeezed state is one in which the variance of a Stokes operator $`\widehat{S}_j`$ falls below the variance of an equally intense coherent mode. A polarization state obeying Eq. (9) is always a nonclassical state and can be used to produce quadrature entanglement. However, this definition alone implies nothing more than conventional quadrature or single-mode squeezing observed through the measurement of the Stokes parameter.

The correct definition of polarization squeezing must consider the conditions given by the uncertainty relations of Eq. (4) and the MUS bounds of Eq. (6). These show that the coherent state is not a polarization MUS for any pair of Stokes operators. For example, the inequality of Eq. (9) can hold simultaneously for a pair of Stokes operators for which the uncertainty relations are bounded from below by zero. They can then both be measured simultaneously and exactly and the usual concept of squeezing is not applicable. Therefore, to define a meaningful nonclassical polarization state the uncertainty relations and the MUS must be taken into account. Thus we define a polarization squeezed state as one in which one of the Stokes variances lies not only below the coherent limit but also below the respective MUS limit (c.f. Eq. (6)) KorLou03 :

$`V_j<|\widehat{S}_l|<V_k,jkl.`$ (10)
In this paper the term polarization squeezing is always used in the strict sense of the above definition, Eq. (10). In contrast to Eq. (9) this definition is closely related to two-mode squeezing. Note that some papers have used the term in the looser sense of Eq. (9) KorLeu01a ; BowSch02 . The implications of the definition in Eq. (10)and its differences compared to Eq. (9) will be further investigated by way of three examples.

Before beginning discussion of these examples, the amplitude ($`\widehat{X}^+`$) and phase ($`\widehat{X}^{}`$) quadrature operators should be introduced. These are useful tools to describe the quantum state of light and are particularly advantageous here as our polarization squeezing is generated from amplitude quadrature squeezing. Thus the operators are Lou00 :

$$\widehat{X}_j^+=\widehat{a}_j^{}+\widehat{a}_j,\widehat{X}_j^{}=i(\widehat{a}_j^{}\widehat{a}_j),j=x,y,$$
(11)
using the notation of Eq. (1). These operators obey the uncertainty relation:

$`V(\widehat{X}_j^+)V(\widehat{X}_j^{})1,`$ (12)
which implies the impossibility of simultaneous exact measurement of the operators. For easier use of the quadrature operators we can describe the photon operators by:

$`\widehat{a}_j=\alpha _j+\delta \widehat{a}_j,`$ (13)
where $`\alpha `$ is the real, classical amplitude of the mode $`j`$ and $`\delta \widehat{a}_j`$ is the corresponding quantum noise operator with a mean value of zero. Upon substitution into Eq. (11) we find the quadrature noise operators are:

$`\delta \widehat{X}_j^+=\delta \widehat{a}_j^{}+\delta \widehat{a}_j,\delta \widehat{X}_j^{}=i(\delta \widehat{a}_j^{}\delta \widehat{a}_j).`$ (14)
For an amplitude squeezed beam the variance, $`V(\delta \widehat{X}_j^+)`$ is decreased relative to the coherent state whilst $`V(\delta \widehat{X}_j^{})`$ is increased, or anti-squeezed. Using this basis we will now look at three forms of polarization squeezing arising from different combinations of amplitude squeezed and coherent beams. Their investigation will show why for viable application of polarization squeezing of intense light, two amplitude squeezed beams are necessary.

### II.0.1 Example 1

The first case we will examine is that of a single, linearly x-polarized, amplitude squeezed beam combined where the y-polarization mode is represented by a coherent vacuum. These states are described in the following box:

| x–polarization mode | y–polarization mode |
| --- | --- |
| amplitude squeezed | coherent vacuum |
| $`\widehat{a}_x=\alpha +\delta \widehat{a}_x`$ | $`\widehat{a}_y=\delta \widehat{a}_y`$ |
| $`V(\delta X_x^+)<1`$, $`V(\delta X_x^{})>1`$ | $`V(\delta X_y^+)=V(\delta X_y^{})=1`$ |

Here the beams have been described as in Eq. (13). The resultant variances for the amplitude and phase quadratures are also shown. The following mean Stokes values are found for this beam:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{S_0}=\alpha _x^2,& \widehat{S_1}=\alpha _x^2,\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{S_2}=0,& \widehat{S_3}=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
In the spirit of squeezing relative the coherent beam (see Eq. (9)), we normalize the variance with respect to the coherent state: $`\stackrel{~}{V}_j=V_j/V_j^{coh}=V_j/\widehat{n}`$. Thus a normalized variance of 1 corresponds to a coherent state and a value of less than one indicates squeezing. Correspondingly, the coherent amplitude is normalized to 1. Substituting the above mean Stokes values into the Stokes uncertainty relations, Eq. (4), we find:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{V}_1\stackrel{~}{V}_2|\widehat{S}_3|^2=0,& & \stackrel{~}{V}_2\stackrel{~}{V}_3|\widehat{S}_1|^2=1,\\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{\stackrel{~}{V}_3\stackrel{~}{V}_1|\widehat{S}_2|^2=0.}\end{array}`$ (18)
First, we see that the operator pairs $`\widehat{S_1}`$ & $`\widehat{S_2}`$ and $`\widehat{S_1}`$ & $`\widehat{S_3}`$ commute, as the uncertainty relations are bounded by zero. Thus values for the operator pairs can be obtained simultaneously and exactly. Second, the variables $`\widehat{S_2}`$ and $`\widehat{S_3}`$ are conjugate as their uncertainty relation is bounded from below by a non-zero limit. That is their values can not be simultaneously measured to an accuracy better than the state dependent limit. This system of inequalities is similar to the usual Heisenberg uncertainty relation, for example of position and momentum, inasmuch as only one uncertainty relation has a non-zero value. The state’s MUS is found to be when the ”$``$” are replaced by ”=”. Squeezing of one of the conjugate variables below this bound results in Heisenberg-like squeezing which requires the conjugate variable to increase correspondingly, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{V}_2<1<\stackrel{~}{V}_3`$.

The products of these variances can also be calculated from the quadrature variances given in the above box. We find the following Stokes variances:

$`\stackrel{~}{V}_0=V(\delta X_x^+)<1,`$ $`\stackrel{~}{V}_1=V(\delta X_x^+)<1,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{V}_2=1,`$ $`\stackrel{~}{V}_3=1.`$ (19)
These give rise to the following variance products:

$`\stackrel{~}{V}_1\stackrel{~}{V}_21,\stackrel{~}{V}_2\stackrel{~}{V}_3=1,\stackrel{~}{V}_3\stackrel{~}{V}_11.`$ (20)
These equations show the behavior of the system relative to the coherent state. In particular we see that $`\widehat{S}_0`$ and $`\widehat{S}_1`$ are squeezed in the sense of Eq. (9), i.e. quadrature squeezing. Since the variances of both conjugate variables, $`\widehat{S}_2`$ and $`\widehat{S}_3`$, are equal to 1, this state does not exhibit polarization squeezing. Additionally, we see that this state can only be a minimum uncertainty state in the limit of infinite squeezing ($`V(\delta X_x^+)0`$). This demonstrates that merely adding vaccum modes to a quadrature squeezed mode does not lead to truly multi-mode effects such as polarization squeezing.

### II.0.2 Example 2

In this example a linearly x-polarized, amplitude squeezed beam is overlapped with a linearly y-polarized, equally intense, coherent beam.

| x–polarization mode | y–polarization mode |
| --- | --- |
| amplitude squeezed | coherent state |
| $`\widehat{a}_x=\alpha +\delta \widehat{a}_x`$ | $`\widehat{a}_y=\alpha +\delta \widehat{a}_y`$ |
| $`V(\delta X_x^+)<1`$, $`V(\delta X_x^{})>1`$ | $`V(\delta X_y^+)=V(\delta X_y^{})=1`$ |

This gives rise to the mean Stokes values seen below:

$`\widehat{S_0}=2\alpha ^2,`$ $`\widehat{S_1}=0,`$
$`\widehat{S_2}=2\alpha ^2,`$ $`\widehat{S_3}=0,`$ (21)
which lead to the following uncertainty relations:

$`\stackrel{~}{V}_1\stackrel{~}{V}_20,\stackrel{~}{V}_2\stackrel{~}{V}_30,\stackrel{~}{V}_3\stackrel{~}{V}_11.`$ (22)
Again we finding commuting operator pairs: $`\widehat{S_1}`$ & $`\widehat{S_2}`$ and $`\widehat{S_2}`$ & $`\widehat{S_3}`$. In this example as a result of $`\widehat{S}_2`$ being non-zero rather than $`\widehat{S}_1`$ the conjugate variables are $`\widehat{S_1}`$ and $`\widehat{S_3}`$. Now considering the squeezing variances in the above box, the normalized variances are:

$`\stackrel{~}{V}_0={\displaystyle \frac{V(\delta X_x^+)+1}{2}}<1,\stackrel{~}{V}_1={\displaystyle \frac{V(\delta X_x^+)+1}{2}}<1,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{V}_2={\displaystyle \frac{V(\delta X_x^+)+1}{2}}<1,\stackrel{~}{V}_3={\displaystyle \frac{V(\delta X_x^{})+1}{2}}>1.`$ (23)
Considering the uncertainty relation for the quadrature operators in Eq. (12) in conjunction with the variance above we find the following variance products:

$`\stackrel{~}{V}_1\stackrel{~}{V}_2<1,\stackrel{~}{V}_2\stackrel{~}{V}_31,\stackrel{~}{V}_3\stackrel{~}{V}_11.`$ (24)
In contrast to example 1, not only are both $`\widehat{S_0}`$ and $`\widehat{S_1}`$ squeezed relative the corresponding coherent state, but $`\widehat{S_2}`$ is also. Again two of the parameters are conjugate – $`\widehat{S_1}`$ and $`\widehat{S_3}`$.

They are indeed found to obey a Heisenberg-like uncertainty relation and thus polarization squeezing as in Eq. (10)is possible, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{V}_1<1<\stackrel{~}{V}_3`$. It must be noted that, despite seeing squeezing in three of the four Stokes parameters, this squeezing is small with respect to the initial amplitude squeezing value. This is because of the mixing with the coherent state, the effect of which is in Eq. (23). For example, 3 dB squeezing in $`V(\delta X_x^+)`$ gives only 1.25 dB squeezing in $`\widehat{S}_0`$, $`\widehat{S}_1`$ and $`\widehat{S}_2`$. Also of interest is that this beam would exhibit two-mode squeezing if incident on a polarising beam splitter at $`45^{}`$ to x and y basis.

### II.0.3 Example 3

In the final example we investigate a case similar to example 2, but here both beams are amplitude squeezed with equal squeezing and intensity magnitudes.

| x–polarization mode | y–polarization mode |
| --- | --- |
| amplitude squeezed | amplitude squeezed |
| $`\widehat{a}_x=\alpha +\delta \widehat{a}_x`$ | $`\widehat{a}_y=\alpha +\delta \widehat{a}_y`$ |
| $`V(\delta X_x^+)<1`$, $`V(\delta X_x^{})>1`$ | $`V(\delta X_y^+)<1,V(\delta X_y^{})>1`$ |

The resultant mean Stokes values are:

$`\widehat{S_0}=2\alpha ^2,\widehat{S}_1=0,`$
$`\widehat{S_2}=2\alpha ^2,\widehat{S_3}=0,`$ (25)
which give rise to identical uncertainty relations as in example 2 (see Eq. (22)). The normalized Stokes variances derived from the two amplitude squeezed beams are:

$`\stackrel{~}{V}_0=V(\delta X^+)<1,\stackrel{~}{V}_1=V(\delta X^+)<1,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{V}_2=V(\delta X^+)<1,\stackrel{~}{V}_3=V(\delta X^{})>1,`$ (26)
where the variance products are similar to those in example 2 (see Eq. (24)). We have made use of the fact that the beams exhibit identical squeezing: $`V(\delta X_x^+)=V(\delta X_y^+)=V(\delta X^+)`$ and $`V(\delta X_x^{})=V(\delta X_y^{})=V(\delta X^{})`$. These results parallel those in example 2 and polarization squeezing as in Eq. (10) is again observed in $`\widehat{S}_1`$ with $`\widehat{S}_3`$ as its anti-squeezed conjugate. The important difference here with respect to example 2 is that $`\widehat{S}_0`$, $`\widehat{S}_1`$ and $`\widehat{S}_2`$ are squeezed to the same extent as the individual amplitude squeezed beams. Thus this case holds the most promise for quantum information and so is the primary focus of this paper.

Fig. 3 illustrates the variances of the different polarization squeezed states that have been discussed. The coherent state is represented by the spherical uncertainty volume in Fig. 3a. The state Fig. 3b corresponds to the example 1, an amplitude squeezed beam. As such, only squeezing below the coherent limit is seen and no anti-squeezing is present, indicating no polarization squeezing. Examples 2 and 3 are described by Fig. 3c, where we see squeezing in $`\widehat{S}_1`$ and $`\widehat{S}_2`$ relative the coherent bound. $`\widehat{S}_1`$ is polarization squeezed as it is a conjugate variable squeezed below its uncertainty limit, and $`\widehat{S}_3`$ is correspondingly anti-squeezed.

To maximize the available polarization squeezing in our experiments, we use the superposition of two amplitude squeezed beams for the generation of polarization squeezed light, as in example 3. The above calculations assume a perfect phase alignment between the x- and y-polarization modes. This raises the question as to what effect an imperfect phase match between the pulses has on the squeezing. If we assume an angle $`\varphi `$ between the orthogonally polarized modes, they are described by:

$`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\widehat{a}_x& & & \\ \widehat{a}_y& & & \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\alpha _x+\delta \widehat{a}_x& & & \\ e^{i\varphi }(\alpha _y+\delta \widehat{a}_y)& & & \end{array}\right).`$ (31)
Using this to calculate the Stokes operators we find:

$`\widehat{S}_0`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _x^2+\alpha _x\delta \widehat{X}_x^++\alpha _y^2+\alpha _y\delta \widehat{X}_y^+,`$
$`\widehat{S}_1`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _x^2+\alpha _x\delta \widehat{X}_x^+(\alpha _y^2+\alpha _y\delta \widehat{X}_y^+),`$
$`\widehat{S}_2`$ $`=`$ $`2\alpha _x\alpha _y\mathrm{cos}\varphi +\alpha _y(\delta \widehat{X}_x^+\mathrm{cos}\varphi +\delta \widehat{X}_x^{}\mathrm{sin}\varphi )+`$
$`\alpha _x(\delta \widehat{X}_y^+\mathrm{cos}\varphi \delta \widehat{X}_y^{}\mathrm{sin}\varphi ),`$
$`\widehat{S}_3`$ $`=`$ $`2\alpha _x\alpha _y\mathrm{sin}\varphi +\alpha _y(\delta \widehat{X}_x^+\mathrm{sin}\varphi +\delta \widehat{X}_x^{}\mathrm{cos}\varphi )+`$ (32)
$`\alpha _x(\delta \widehat{X}_y^+\mathrm{sin}\varphi \delta \widehat{X}_y^{}\mathrm{cos}\varphi ).`$
These give the following mean values:

$`\widehat{S}_0`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _x^2+\alpha _y^2,`$
$`\widehat{S}_1`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _x^2\alpha _y^2,`$
$`\widehat{S}_2`$ $`=`$ $`2\alpha _x\alpha _y\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,`$
$`\widehat{S}_3`$ $`=`$ $`2\alpha _x\alpha _y\mathrm{sin}\varphi .`$ (33)
We see that $`\widehat{S}_0`$ and $`\widehat{S}_1`$ should be phase insensitive in both mean and noise. However $`\widehat{S}_2`$ and $`\widehat{S}_3`$ are phase sensitive, making good phase stability a requirement.

## III Experiment

In this work we report on an experiment to produce quadrature and polarization squeezed light beams by spatially overlapping an intense, amplitude squeezed pulse with either a coherent vacuum or another amplitude squeezed pulse. Polarization squeezing was recently implemented using quadrature squeezed cw-light from an optical parametric oscillator BowSch02 . In contrast, our work takes advantage of an efficient, pulsed squeezing source afforded by the Kerr nonlinearity of a glass fiber RosShe91 ; BerHau91 ; SchFic98b ; KorLeu00 . The setup used is depicted in Fig. 4.

The experiment uses a passively mode-locked Cr<sup>4+</sup>:YAG laser operated at 1495 nm and a repetition frequency of 163 MHz SpaBoh97 . The maximum average power is 95 mW and the pulses have a bandwidth limited hyperbolic-secant shape with a FWHM of 130-150 fs. These pulses are squeezed utilizing the Kerr effect ($`\chi ^{(3)}`$ nonlinearity) in an asymmetric fiber-Sagnac interferometer SchFic98b ; KorLeu00 . The Sagnac loop consists of a 93:7 polarization independent beam splitter and 14.2 m of polarization maintaining fiber with negligible polarization cross-talk (FS-PM-7811 from 3M), chosen for its small mode diameter and thus high nonlinearity which allows good squeezing at relatively low pulse energy. The beam splitter divides a pulse into two parts of unequal energy which then counter propagate through the fiber. The strong pulse experiences the fiber nonlinearity much more intensely than the weak pulse, giving rise to an intensity dependent, nonlinear phase shift. In the single mode picture described in KitYam86  this effect squeezes the circular shaped phase space uncertainty into a crescent. However, reduced amplitude fluctuations can not be observed directly as the deformed uncertainty area is not oriented along the amplitude quadrature direction. Upon interference with the counter propagating weak pulse on the beam splitter after exiting the fiber the ellipse is reoriented in phase space. For certain input energies this realignment yields detectable amplitude squeezing SchFic98b .

Similar to previous experiments by Silberhorn et al. KorLeu00 ; SilLam01 , polarization maintaining fiber was used in the Sagnac interferometer to simultaneously generate two independent, orthogonally polarized, amplitude squeezed pulses. Equal squeezing of these pulses was guaranteed by adjusting the quarter wave-plates in the birefringence compensator, seen in Fig. 4, which fine tuned the intensity of the two polarization modes going into the fiber. Instead of interfering these two squeezed pulses on a beam splitter after rotating one of the polarizations as in SilLam01 , we have brought the orthogonally polarized, squeezed pulses to spatial and temporal overlap, thereby generating polarization squeezing. Due to the birefringence of the fiber (beat length 1.75 mm at 1495 nm), a path difference between the polarizations is necessary for successful overlap. The birefringence compensator accomplishes this by splitting x- and y-polarizations in a Michelson-interferometer-like setup, introducing a path difference of 1.2 cm. Coarse adjustment of the delay is realized using a micrometer table; fine adjustment of the relative phase is achieved by an actively controlled piezo system. Placing the birefringence compensator before the Sagnac interferometer has the advantage of minimizing losses after the interferometer. This is important because squeezing is loss sensitive.

The piezo’s control loop is based on the back-reflection from the Sagnac interferometer. This reflection consists of two components: 1) Light reflected from the optical elements without passing through the fiber, and 2) Light which has passed through the fiber and is returned from the interferometer’s beam splitter, which has the same polarization state as the light entering the measurement setup. These two signals are of approximately equal intensity because the fiber ends are not anti-reflection coated. The reflected light of 1) is linearly polarized in contrast to the slightly elliptical light which exits the fiber, 2). A $`\widehat{S}_3`$ (ellipticity) measurement is carried out on the back-reflection, and so the reflected light of 1) plays no role. The value of this $`\widehat{S}_3`$ measurement is minimized by the control loop. The loop operates up to several tens of Hertz, constrained by the piezo.

A pair of balanced detectors with windowless InGaAs photo diodes from Epitaxx (ETX-500) were used to measure the Stokes parameters (cf. Fig. 2). Saturation of the alternating current (AC) amplifier was avoided by suppression of the 163 MHz laser repetition rate and harmonics using a Chebyshev low pass filter. Measurements of the variances of the Stokes parameters, the sum and difference of the AC signals of the two detectors, were made on a pair of spectrum analyzers. These were operated at 17.5 MHz where the extinction ratio of the detectors was 30 dB. Further, a spectrum analyzer resolution bandwidth of 300 kHz, a video bandwidth of 300 Hz and a sweep time of 10 s were used.

The shot noise for each measurement was determined by the direct current (DC) signals from the detectors which were simultaneously recorded by a digitizing oscilloscope. These DC values were summed after taking into account the slight DC gain difference (1:1.005). From this value the corresponding AC noise was derived. This calculation was based on a linear fit to an AC noise power against DC signal plot for a coherent light beam falling an individual detector. The result is however not absolutely linear, as seen in Fig. 5. For low input optical powers deviation due to the detector’s dark noise and imperfect components was seen. For large input powers the nonlinear behavior is caused by saturation of the AC amplifier. Thus a fit was made to the middle data region. For these reasons, this calibration is the largest source of error in the experiment, conservatively estimated to be 0.2 dB.

## IV Results

We used the above described setup to investigate the cases outlined in examples 1 and 3. The results shown in Fig. 6 are for example 1: a x-polarized, amplitude squeezed pulse combined with a coherent vacuum on the polarization beam splitter in the measurement setup. As expected, both $`\widehat{S}_0`$ and $`\widehat{S}_1`$ are squeezed relative the corresponding coherent light limit: by -3.7 and -3.6 dB respectively. However no polarization squeezing as in Eq. (10)is seen. The remaining parameters, $`\widehat{S}_2`$ and $`\widehat{S}_3`$, are +0.1 dB above the coherent level. This extra noise is primarily due to the detector and their electronics. The error on these values is $`\pm `$0.3 dB, resulting from the measurement accuracy and the shot noise calculation. Similar results were seen for 45 and circular polarized beams, whereby the squeezed parameters were $`\widehat{S}_0`$ & $`\widehat{S}_2`$ and $`\widehat{S}_0`$ & $`\widehat{S}_3`$ respectively. The shot noise levels differ slightly between the measurement runs because of laser power fluctuations as well as detuning of the setup, in particular the fiber coupling.

The case outlined in example 3 – the overlap of two equivalent, amplitude squeezed pulses – was also experimentally investigated. The results thereof are dispalyed in Fig. 7. In these data series the relative phase ofthe pulses was locked to $`\varphi `$=0 giving rise to a linearly polarized beam at 45. Here three of the four Stokes paarameters are squeezed: $`\widehat{S}_0`$ and $`\widehat{S}_1`$ by -3.4 dB and $`\widehat{S}_2`$ by -2.8 dB. $`\widehat{S}_1`$ is polarization squeezed, as its noise value has been brought under the corresponding minimum bound. The conjugate anti-squeezed parameter is $`\widehat{S}_3`$ with a value of +23.5 dB. It is so large as it also bears the additional phase noise inherent to squeezing in fibers. It should be remembered that the squeezing in $`\widehat{S}_0`$ and $`\widehat{S}_2`$ is only quadrature squeezing.

The general increase in noise for two pulses compared with the single pulse case has three primary roots. The first is increased sensitivity to slight misalignments and general imperfections in the many wave-plates. The misalignment of the wave-plates causes a slight mixing of the difference signal parameters $`\widehat{S}_1`$, $`\widehat{S}_2`$ and $`\widehat{S}_3`$ with each other. Mixing even a small amount of the anti-squeezed parameter, $`\widehat{S}_3`$, into the other parameters causes significant squeezing degradation. The sum signal, $`\widehat{S}_0`$, is unaffected by this phenomenon. Secondly, fluctuations in the laser power cause significant noise in all parameters. This stems from the fact that squeezing is strongly dependent on pulse power. Further complicating the matter, the four beams coupled into the fiber generally could not be coupled in with identical efficiency giving rise to small squeezing differences between the polarizations. The third error source, the phase noise, affects $`\widehat{S}_2`$ and $`\widehat{S}_3`$, as seen from Eq. (32). Whilst $`\overline{\varphi }`$=0, there is significant noise on the beam from thermal and acoustic sources which the phase control can not presently cancel. This error source most greatly affected $`\widehat{S}_2`$, which is therefore significantly noisier than the others. The phase noise was in general amplified by the misaligned wave-plates.

Further error sources in the experiment stem from the detectors. Saturation at high intensities was problematic, particularly in the $`\widehat{S}_2`$ measurement where the entire beam fell upon one detector. Of the two detectors used one had a noticeably higher saturation level and care was taken to illuminate this detector in the $`\widehat{S}_2`$ measurement. The AC gain difference between the detectors, approximately 1:1.06, is not negligible. In a numerical simulation, it was seen that this together with small wave-plate misalignment and the phase noise between the pulses produces significant degradation of the detected squeezing. This effect is strongest for wave-plates standing at 22.5, i.e. for $`\widehat{S}_2`$ measurements.

## V Conclusion

Quantum information and communication are important fields for the future. Due to the ease of detection of the Stokes operators, polarization squeezing will play an important role in the development of these fields, not least as a basis for polarization entanglement. This paper investigated polarization squeezing of intense pulses using amplitude squeezed pulses generated by the Kerr nonlinearity of a glass fiber. It was seen in three calculated examples that significant squeezing in the Stokes parameters requires stable spatial overlap of two amplitude squeezed beams. This was supported by discussion of experimental results for a single amplitude squeezed beam as well as two overlapped amplitude squeezed beams. In the former only conventional single-mode quadrature squeezing was seen through the Stokes operators whereas the latter exhibited polarization squeezing in $`\widehat{S}_1`$ with $`\widehat{S}_3`$ as its conjugate variable.

## VI Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the helpful discussion with F. König. This project is a part of the EU QIPC Project, No. IST-1999-13071 (QUICOV).


text:
# Radiation to atom quantum mapping by collective recoil in Bose-Einstein condensate

## Abstract

We propose an experiment to realize radiation to atom continuous variable quantum mapping, i.e. to teleport the quantum state of a single mode radiation field onto the collective state of atoms with a given momentum out of a Bose-Einstein condensate. The atoms-radiation entanglement needed for the teleportation protocol is established through the interaction of a single mode with the condensate in presence of a strong far off-resonant pump laser, whereas the coherent atomic displacement is obtained by the same interaction with the radiation in a classical coherent field. In principle, verification of the protocol requires a joint measurement on the recoiling atoms and the condensate, however, a partial verification involving populations, i.e. diagonal matrix elements may be obtained through counting atoms experiments.

Entanglement, teleportation, collective interaction

Entanglement is a crucial resource in the manipulation of quantum information, and quantum teleportation tel ; Braun1  is perhaps the most impressive example of quantum protocol based on entanglement. Teleportation is the transferral of (quantum) information between two distant parties that share entanglement. There is no physical move of the system from one player to the other, and indeed the two parties need not even know each other’s locations. Only classical information is actually exchanged between the parties. However, due to entanglement, the quantum state of the system at the transmitter location (say Alice) is mapped onto a different physical system at the receiver location (say Bob). The information transferral is blind, i.e. the protocol should work also when the state to be teleported is completely unknown to both the sender and the receiver. Several teleportation protocols have been suggested either for qubits and continuous variable systems zei ; dem ; nmr ; shi ; sci ; gis ; kim ; bab ; bow , including interspecies teleportation of atomic spin onto polarization states of light pol .

In this letter we propose a novel scheme to realize radiation to atom quantum state mapping i.e. the interspecies teleportation of the quantum state of a single mode radiation field onto the the collective state of atoms with a given momentum out of a Bose-Einstein condensate. The four basic ingredients of a quantum teleportation experiment are the following: i) an entangled state shared between two parties; ii) a joint Bell measurement performed on the system whose state is to be teleported and on one subsystems of the entangled state; iii) a device able to perform a given class of unitary transformation, conditioned to the results of the joint measurement; iv) a readout system to verify teleportation. In the following we describe the above points for our teleportation protocol, and discuss the feasibility conditions of our proposal. The setup is schematically illustrated in Fig. 1.

The entangled state supporting teleportation will be a twin-beam-like state of a radiation mode and a collective mode of atoms with a given momentum out of a Bose-Einstein condensate. It is given by the quantum CARL model for interaction of a Bose Einstein condensate (BEC) with a single-mode quantized radiation field in the presence of a strong far off-resonant pump laser. The starting point of such a model is the classical Hamiltonian for $`N`$ two-level atoms exposed to an off-resonant pump laser, whose electric field $`\stackrel{}{E}_0=\widehat{e}_0\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{x}\omega _2t)`$ is polarized along $`\widehat{e}`$, propagates along the direction of $`\stackrel{}{k}_2`$ and has a frequency $`\omega _2=ck_2`$ with a detuning from the atomic resonance, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{20}=\omega _2\omega _0`$, much larger than the natural linewidth of the atomic transition, $`\gamma `$. The atoms scatter a single-mode field circulating in a high-$`Q`$ ring-cavity, with frequency $`\omega _1`$, wavenumber $`\stackrel{}{k}_1`$ making an angle $`\varphi `$ with $`\stackrel{}{k}_2`$ and electric field $`\stackrel{}{E}=(\widehat{e}/2)[(t)e^{i(\stackrel{}{k}_1\stackrel{}{x}\omega _1t)}+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.]`$ with the same polarization of the pump field. By adiabatically eliminating the internal atomic degree of freedom, the following CARL Hamiltonian can be derived car

$$H=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}[\omega _rp_j^2ig(ae^{i\theta _j}\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.)]\mathrm{\Delta }|a|^2,$$

where $`\omega _r=\mathrm{}q^2/2M`$ is the recoil frequency, $`M`$ is the atomic mass, $`q=|\stackrel{}{q}|`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{k}_1\stackrel{}{k}_2`$ is the difference between the scattered and the incident wave vectors, $`\theta _j=qz_j`$ and $`p_j=p_{zj}/\mathrm{}q`$ are the dimensionless position and momentum of the $`j`$-th atom along the axis $`z`$ directed along $`\stackrel{}{q}`$, $`g=(\mathrm{\Omega }_0/2\mathrm{\Delta }_{20})(\omega _2d^2/2\mathrm{}ϵ_0V)^{1/2}`$, $`a=i(ϵ_0V/2\mathrm{}\omega _2)^{1/2}e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }t}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\omega _2\omega _1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=d_0/\mathrm{}`$ is the Rabi frequency of the pump, $`V`$ is the interaction volume, $`d`$ is the atomic dipole and $`ϵ_0`$ is the permittivity of the free space.

In order to quantize both the radiation field and the center-of-mass motion of the atoms, $`\theta _j`$, $`p_j`$ and $`a`$ are considered as quantum operators satisfying the canonical commutation relations $`[\theta _j,p_j^{}]=i\delta _{j,j^{}}`$ and $`[a,a^{}]=1`$. The model is then second quantized introducing the atomic field operator $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta )`$ with equal-time commutation relations $`[\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ),\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(\theta ^{})]=\delta (\theta \theta ^{})`$, $`[\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ),\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ^{})]=0`$ and the normalization condition $`_0^{2\pi }𝑑\theta \mathrm{\Psi }(\theta )^{}\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta )=N`$. Creation and annihilation operators are introduced for atoms with a definite momentum $`p`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta )=_mc_mu_m(\theta )`$, where $`u_m(\theta )=\mathrm{exp}(im\theta )/\sqrt{2\pi }`$ and $`c_m`$ are bosonic operators obeying the commutation relations $`[c_m,c_n^{}]=\delta _{m,n}`$ and $`[c_m,c_n]=0`$, and $`c_m^{}`$ creates an atom with momentum $`p=m`$ in $`\mathrm{}q`$ unit. This description of the atomic motion in a BEC assumes that the atoms are delocalized inside the condensate and that, at zero temperature, the momentum uncertainty $`\sigma _{p_z}\mathrm{}/\sigma _z`$ can be neglected with respect to $`\mathrm{}q`$. The approximation is valid for $`L\lambda `$, if $`\sigma _zL`$, where $`L`$ is the size of the condensate. The Hamiltonian for the second quantized model becomes las

$$H=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\{\omega _rn^2c_n^{}c_n+ig(a^{}c_n^{}c_{n+1}\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)\}\mathrm{\Delta }a^{}a$$
(1)
Notice that the Hamiltonian (1) commutes with the number of atoms, $`N=_nc_n^{}c_n`$, and the total momentum, $`P=a^{}a+_nnc_n^{}c_n`$. Let us now consider the equilibrium state with no field and all the atoms at rest, i.e. in momentum state with $`n=0`$. In the linear regime, we neglect the atomic depletion of the ground state $`n=0`$, taking $`c_0\sqrt{N}`$ as a $`c`$-number, and we consider only the transitions induced by the radiation field from the state $`n=0`$ toward the levels $`n=1`$ and $`n=1`$. Introducing the operators $`a_1=c_1\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$, $`a_2=c_1\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ and $`a_3=a\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$, the atomic field operator reduces to

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ,t)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\left\{\sqrt{N}+a_1(t)e^{i(\theta +\mathrm{\Delta }t)}+a_2(t)e^{i(\theta +\mathrm{\Delta }t)}\right\}$$
(2)
and the Hamiltonian (1) reduces to the effective Hamiltonian moo

$$H_0=\delta _+a_2^{}a_2\delta _{}a_1^{}a_1+ig\sqrt{N}[(a_1^{}+a_2)a_3^{}\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.],$$
(3)
where $`\delta _\pm =\mathrm{\Delta }\pm \omega _r`$. Hence, the dynamics of the system is that of three parametrically coupled harmonic oscillators $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$ and $`a_3`$, which obey the commutation rules $`[a_i,a_j]=0`$ and $`[a_i,a_j^{}]=\delta _{i,j}`$ for $`i,j=1,2,3`$. Notice that the Hamiltonian (3) admits $`C=a_2^{}a_2a_1^{}a_1+a_3^{}a_3`$ as a constant of motion.

Hence, in the linear regime, the quantum CARL Hamiltonian reduces to that for three coupled modes, the first two modes $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ corresponding to atoms having lost or gained respectively a two-photon recoil momentum $`\mathrm{}q`$, and the third mode $`a_3`$ corresponding to the photons of the scattered field. Starting from the vacuum $`|\mathrm{𝟎}=|0_1|0_2|0_3`$ the state at a given time is given by

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+N_1}}\underset{m,n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\alpha ^m\beta ^n\sqrt{\frac{(m+n)!}{m!n!}}|m+n,m,n$$
(4)
where $`|\alpha |^2=(N_2)/(1+N_1)`$, $`|\beta |^2=(N_3)/(1+N_1)`$, and $`N_1`$, $`N_2`$ and $`N_3`$ are the (time dependent) average number of quanta of the three oscillators \[see Eqs.(6-8)\]. Since we start from vacuum we have $`N_1=N_2+N_3`$ at any time.

Eq. (4) shows that, in general, the system is entangled and that the distribution over the different occupation numbers, $`N_1`$,$`N_2`$ and $`N_3`$, is thermal. In particular, for $`N_3N_1N_2`$, the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ reduces to $`|\psi _{12}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+N_1}}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\alpha ^n|n,n,0`$, showing maximal entanglement between atoms with different momenta. On the other hand, for $`N_2N_1N_3`$, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ reduces to

$`|\psi _{13}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+N_1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\beta ^n|n,0,n.`$ (5)
showing maximal entanglement between atoms and photons. Both the states $`|\psi _{12}`$ and $`|\psi _{13}`$ are pure bipartite states. They are maximally entangled states for the given number of quanta, according to the excess von Neumann entropy criterion pho , whereas the presence of a third mode reduces, in general, the entanglement between the other two modes bur . The atom-radiation entangled state (5) is what supports our teleportation scheme. Incidentally, it has the same form of the twin-beam state of radiation used to realize continuous variable optical teleportation kim , and this will allows us to employ the same kind of Bell measurement scheme.

In the quantum limit $`g\sqrt{N}2\omega _r`$ and for $`2g\sqrt{N}t1`$ the population of the three oscillators are given by

$`N_1(t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{g\sqrt{N}}{2\omega _r}}\right)^2\right]e^{2g\sqrt{N}t},`$ (6)
$`N_2(t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g\sqrt{N}}{2\omega _r}}\right)^2e^{2g\sqrt{N}t},`$ (7)
$`N_3(t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}e^{2g\sqrt{N}t}.`$ (8)
so that $`N_1N_3N_2`$. Furthermore, maximal entanglement between modes $`1`$ and $`3`$ requires $`N_21`$, so that the interaction time must satisfy the following limits

$$\frac{1}{g\sqrt{N}}t_{int}\frac{1}{g\sqrt{N}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{4\omega _r}{g\sqrt{N}}\right).$$
(9)
The state $`\sigma `$ we want to teleport onto the atomic mode $`a_1`$ pertains to an additional radiation mode $`a_4`$. The Bell measurement is jointly performed on $`a_3`$ and $`a_4`$, and consists in the measurement of the real and the imaginary part of the complex operator $`Z=a_3+a_4^{}`$. The measurement of $`Z_R=\text{Re}[Z]`$ and $`Z_I=\text{Im[Z]}`$ corresponds to measuring the sum- and difference-quadratures $`x_3+x_4`$ and $`y_3y_4`$ of the two modes, where the quadrature $`x`$ of a mode $`b`$ is the operator $`(b+b^{})/2`$, and the quadrature $`y`$ is the operator $`(bb^{})/2i`$. Such a measurement can be experimentally implemented by multiport homodyne detection (i.e by mixing the two modes in balanced beam splitter and then measuring two conjugated quadratures on the outgoing modes, see Fig. 1), if the two modes have the same frequencies msa ; tri , or by heterodyne detection otherwise het . The measurement is described by the following probability operator-valued measurement (POVM) RSP , acting on the Hilbert space of mode $`a_3`$

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha =\frac{1}{\pi }D(\alpha )\sigma ^TD^{}(\alpha )$$
(10)
where $`\alpha `$ is a complex number, $`D(\alpha )`$ is the displacement operator $`D(\alpha )=\mathrm{exp}\{\alpha a_3^{}\overline{\alpha }a_3\}`$ and $`(\mathrm{})^T`$ denotes the transposition operation. The result of the measurement is classically transmitted to the receiver’s location (Bob), where a displacement operation $`D(\alpha )^{}`$ is performed on the conditional state $`\varrho _\alpha `$ (see below on how to implement coherent atomic displacement). The dynamics of the conditional measurement is described by RSP

$`p_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\text{Tr}_{13}\left[|\psi _{13}\psi _{13}|𝕀_1\mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha \right]`$ (11)
$`\varrho _\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_\alpha }}\text{Tr}_3\left[|\psi _{13}\psi _{13}|𝕀_1\mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha \right]`$
$`\tau _\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`D(\alpha )\varrho _\alpha D^{}(\alpha ),`$
where $`p_\alpha `$ is the probability for the result $`\alpha `$ in the Bell measurement, $`𝕀`$ the identity operator, $`\varrho _\alpha `$ is the conditioned state of the atomic beam after the measurement, and $`\tau _\alpha `$ is is the conditioned state after the displacement operation. The teleported state is the average over all the possible outcomes, i.e.

$`\tau `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{}}d^2\alpha p_\alpha \tau _\alpha `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{}}d^2\alpha D(\alpha )\text{Tr}_3\left[|\psi _{13}\psi _{13}|𝐈_1\mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha \right]D^{}(\alpha ).`$
After performing the partial trace and with some algebra RSP , one has

$`\tau ={\displaystyle \frac{d^2\alpha }{\pi K}\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{|\alpha |^2}{K}\}D(\alpha )\sigma D^{}(\alpha )},`$ (13)
where $`K=1+N_1+N_3\sqrt{(N_1+N_3)(N_1+N_3+2)}`$. Eq. (13) shows that the overall dynamics of our scheme is equivalent to that of a Gaussian noisy channel with parameter $`K`$ ban ; RSP . The density matrix $`\tau `$, describing the final state of the atomic mode $`a_1`$ coincides with $`\sigma `$ in the limit $`N_1+N_3\mathrm{}`$ i.e. for high gain in the CARL dynamics. Notice that $`N`$, and in turn $`N_1`$ and $`N_3`$, may vary in the repeated preparations of the condensate, thus introducing additional noise in the teleported state.

The displacement operation $`D(\alpha )`$ that should be performed on the conditional atomic state $`\varrho _\alpha `$ can be obtained using the same CARL Hamiltonian in the condensate, by injecting a suitably modulated pulse, i.e. by exciting the mode $`a_3`$ in a classical coherent state. In this case, assuming a short pulse, the effective Hamiltonian may be written as $`H_2=ig\sqrt{N}\gamma (a_1+a_2+h.c)`$ where $`\gamma `$ is the amplitude of the modulated pulse. The terms proportional to $`a_j^{}a_j`$, $`j=1,2`$ in (3) can be discarded, and the evolution operator $`U=\mathrm{exp}(iH_2\tau )=D_1(\alpha )D_2^{}(\alpha )`$ coincides with the product of two displacement operators, one for each of the atomic modes, with amplitude given by $`\alpha =g\overline{\gamma }\sqrt{N}\tau `$, where $`\tau `$ is an effective interaction time. The amplitude $`\gamma `$ of the pulse can suitably tuned to obtain the desired value of the amplitude $`\alpha `$, matching the results of the Bell measurements. The above dynamics displaces both the atomic modes, however without introducing quantum correlations. Therefore, we just ignore the effect on the atomic mode $`a_2`$, which does not participate to the teleportation protocol.

The time duration of the pulse should be small when compared to the time scale of the CARL dynamics and the decoherence time of $`|\psi _{13}`$ under free evolution. This is in order for two reasons: on one hand we have that the CARL dynamics should be switched off after producing the desired entangled state $`|\psi _{13}`$, and therefore the whole protocol should be completed within the decoherence time. On the other hand, the displacement should be performed on a time scale comparable to that of the Bell measurement, i.e before the reset of the dynamics and the generation of the subsequent copy of the atom-radiation entangled state in the new condensate by CARL. Overall, our protocol may be described as a feed forward control scheme, randomized according to the statistics of the Bell measurement.

In order to discuss the readout part of our scheme, we should go back to the initial entangled scheme produced by the CARL dynamics. This should be more properly written as $`|\psi _{13}=(1+N_1)^{1/2}_{n=0}^N\beta ^n|n,0,n,Nn>`$ where the fourth entry in the ket describes the number of atoms in the condensate. Since N is a large number (of the order of $`10^7`$) writing the state as in Eq. (4) is perfectly admissible as far as we are concerned with its dynamics. However, this should be taken into account if we want to reconstruct the state of the output atomic beam. Let us consider, for the sake of simplicity, the initial light signal state as a pure state $`\sigma =|\phi \phi |`$, $`|\phi =_n\phi _n|n`$. In the limit of high CARL gain the teleported state on the atomic beam is given by $`|\phi ^{}=_n\phi _n|n,Nn`$. This indicates that any proper verification of the teleportation should involve a measurement also on the condensate, e.g. a two mode tomographic method involving both the measurement of both momentum-mode and condensate quadratures rev . Such kind of measurements are at present experimentally challenging and therefore, in order to obtain an experimentally accessible readout system, we propose to check only the statistics of the population $`|\phi _n|^2`$, i.e. the diagonal part of the teleported state, which can be achieved by counting atoms. If we choose $`|\phi `$ as a squeezed vacuum or a Fock number state, we end up with an even-odd statistics or with a very sharp atomic number distribution. This should be convincing enough, in order to show that nonlocal correlations between the input radiation mode and the output atomic mode has been established and exploited.

In conclusion, we have proposed a novel scheme to realize the interspecies teleportation of the quantum state of a single mode radiation field onto the collective state of atoms with a given momentum out of a Bose-Einstein condensate. The entangled resource needed for the teleportation protocol is established through the CARL interaction of a single mode with the condensate in presence of a strong far off-resonant pump laser, whereas the coherent atomic displacement is obtained through the same interaction by injecting a suitably modulated short coherent pulse. In principle, verification of the teleportation scheme requires a joint measurement on the recoiling atoms and the condensate. However, for diagonal matrix elements in the photon representation only atom counting measurements are needed.

This work has been sponsored by INFM through the project PRA-2002-CLON and by MIUR through the PRIN projects Entanglement assisted high precision measurements and Coherent interaction between radiation fields and Bose-Einstein condensates. MGAP is research fellow at Collegio Alessandro Volta. We thank B. Englert for stimulating discussions.


text:
# Loop induced decays of the Little Higgs: 𝐻→{𝑔𝑔,𝛾𝛾}

## I Introduction

The Standard Model (SM) of the strong and electroweak interactions has passed stringent tests up to the highest energies accessible today. The precision electroweak data  prefer the existence of a light Higgs boson of mass $`m_H<204`$ GeV at $`95\%`$ C.L. The Standard Model with a light Higgs boson can be viewed as an effective theory valid to a much higher energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, possibly all the way to the Planck scale. However, without protection by a symmetry, the Higgs mass is quadratically sensitive to quantum corrections, rendering the theory with $`m_H\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ rather unnatural.

Little Higgs models  revive an old idea to keep the Higgs boson naturally light. The key idea is to make the Higgs particle a pseudo-Goldstone boson of some broken global symmetry. Electroweak symmetry breaking is then triggered by a Coleman-Weinberg  potential, generated by integrating out heavy degrees of freedom. The Higgs boson acquires a mass at the electroweak scale possibly by radiative corrections. The Littlest Higgs (LH) model  is a minimal model of this type. It contains the minimal matter content necessary to accomplish the goal of canceling the Higgs mass quadratic divergence to one loop order. It consists of an $`SU(5)`$ non-linear $`\sigma `$-model which is broken down to $`SO(5)`$ by a vacuum condensate $`f`$. The gauged subgroup $`[SU(2)\times U(1)]^2`$ is broken at the same time to its diagonal subgroup $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ identified as the SM electroweak gauge group. A vector-like “top quark” is also needed. Particles of the same spin cancel quadratic divergences among themselves.

Due to the symmetry breaking by the vacuum condensate, the theory has a natural cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }4\pi f`$ that is $`𝒪(10\mathrm{TeV})`$. The new heavy states, such as the new gauge bosons, heavy vector-like quark, and scalars all have masses of the order $`f`$, naturally in the TeV range. The effects due to the new states at low energies have been studied recently and generic constraints on the model parameters, in particular $`f`$, are obtained  based on the precision electroweak measurements. Signatures for the new states at future colliders have also been examined .

In this paper, we study the loop-induced decays $`Hgg`$ and $`H\gamma \gamma `$ in the Littlest Higgs model. There are several motivations to perform this study. First, while the Higgs boson is the central issue of the little Higgs models, its properties have not been carefully studied to compare with the SM expectations. By construction, the Higgs boson interactions are necessarily extended and modified beyond the SM. Second, although the new states in the LH model could be too heavy to be copiously produced at the LHC and quite possibly beyond the direct reach of a linear collider, quantum corrections due to these states running in the loops may reveal an earlier signature. Third, these loop-induced decays depend primarily on the couplings of the Higgs boson to the heavy quarks and gauge bosons, which are fixed and characteristic in the LH model. This is in contrast to the Higgs boson couplings to the light fermions, which could in principle be generated by some higher-dimensional operators, leading to model dependent uncertainties. Finally, both of these processes are finite at the one-loop order and therefore independent of the detailed physics at the cutoff scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, leading to robust predictions.

It is well known that in the Standard Model, the contribution of a heavy SM particle to the loop amplitude for $`Hgg`$ or $`H\gamma \gamma `$ approaches a nonzero constant value for particle masses much heavier than $`H`$ (for example, this is a reasonably good approximation for the top quark loop ). This “non-decoupling” behavior occurs because the masses of the SM particles are generated by their coupling to $`H`$, so that the mass dependence of the coupling cancels the mass dependence of the loop integral. The heavy particles in the LH model, on the other hand, get their masses from the $`f`$ condensate, so that their couplings to $`H`$ are not proportional to their masses. Thus the heavy particle contributions to $`Hgg`$ and $`H\gamma \gamma `$ decouple as $`f`$ grows. We will show, in fact, that the deviation of these partial widths from their SM values scales with $`1/f^2`$.

In the next section we lay out the masses and couplings of the particles in the LH model relevant to our calculation. In Sec. III we present our results for $`Hgg`$ and $`H\gamma \gamma `$, including their dependence on the additional free parameters in the LH model, and discuss the expected experimental sensitivity to these loop-induced couplings at future colliders. In Sec. IV we discuss the robustness of our results under extensions of the LH model and summarize our conclusions. Finally, we present some details of the Higgs sector necessary for our calculation in the Appendix.

## II Higgs boson Couplings to new heavy states

Any colored fermion that couples to the Higgs boson significantly will contribute to the decay $`Hgg`$. Similarly, any charged particle that couples to the Higgs boson will contribute to $`H\gamma \gamma `$. Those states in the Littlest Higgs model include the heavy $`SU(2)`$ gauge boson $`W_H^\pm `$, the vector-like quark $`T`$, and the charged scalars $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm ,\mathrm{\Phi }^{\pm \pm }`$. Besides the common condensate $`f`$ as the most important scale parameter, the mass and couplings for each new state depend upon additional dimensionless parameters. The mixing between the two gauge groups $`SU(2)_1`$ and $`SU(2)_2`$, with couplings $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ respectively, is parameterized by $`c`$. The mixing between the top quark and the heavy vector-like quark $`T`$ is parameterized by $`c_t`$. In the Higgs sector, we introduce a parameter $`x`$ to parameterize the ratio of the triplet and doublet vevs $`(v^{}/v)`$. More explicitly, we have

$$0<c=\frac{g_1}{\sqrt{g_1^2+g_2^2}}<1,0<c_t=\frac{\lambda _1}{\sqrt{\lambda _1^2+\lambda _2^2}}<1,0x=\frac{4fv^{}}{v^2}<1.$$
(1)
For the parameters, the electroweak data prefers a small $`c`$ , while the positivity of the heavy Higgs boson mass requires $`v^{}/v<v/4f`$, i.e., $`x<1`$. One should note that $`x=0`$ can be achieved by tuning the contribution of the heavy vector-like quark to the Coleman-Weinberg potential against the contribution from the heavy gauge bosons to make the coefficient $`\lambda _{h\varphi h}`$ in Eq. (A) vanish.

The masses of the particles that run in the triangle loop diagrams are given to leading order in $`v/f`$ by

$`M_{W_L}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_\mathrm{w}^2\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{f^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(c^2s^2)^2{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{4}}\right)\right],`$
$`M_{W_H}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_\mathrm{w}^2{\displaystyle \frac{f^2}{s^2c^2v^2}},M_T=f\sqrt{\lambda _1^2+\lambda _2^2}={\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{s_tc_t}}{\displaystyle \frac{f}{v}},`$ (2)
$`M_\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2m_H^2f^2}{v^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[1(4v^{}f/v^2)^2]}}={\displaystyle \frac{2m_H^2}{(1x^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{f^2}{v^2}},`$
where $`m_\mathrm{w}=gv/2`$, $`s^2=1c^2`$, and $`s_t^2=1c_t^2`$. The dependence of these masses on the parameters $`c,c_t`$ and $`x`$ for various representative values of $`m_H`$ can be seen in Fig. 1.

In general, all masses that originate with the Standard Model Higgs mechanism and all couplings to $`H`$ are modified in the LH model at order $`v^2/f^2`$. We parameterize this by the factors $`y_i`$, which are the couplings of $`H`$ to the particle in the loop normalized according to the form of the SM Lagrangian as follows

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{v}}y_t\overline{t}tH{\displaystyle \frac{M_T}{v}}y_T\overline{T}TH+2{\displaystyle \frac{M_{W_L}^2}{v}}y_{W_L}W_L^+W_L^{}H+2{\displaystyle \frac{M_{W_H}^2}{v}}y_{W_H}W_H^+W_H^{}H`$ (3)
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{M_\mathrm{\Phi }^2}{v}}y_{\mathrm{\Phi }^+}\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{\Phi }^{}H2{\displaystyle \frac{M_\mathrm{\Phi }^2}{v}}y_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{++}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{++}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}H.`$
These $`y_i`$ factors are derived from the Higgs couplings given in Appendix A of Ref. ; the Higgs self-coupling factors $`y_{\mathrm{\Phi }^+}`$ and $`y_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{++}}`$ are derived in the Appendix. They are

$`\begin{array}{cccccc}\hfill y_t& =& 1+\frac{v^2}{f^2}\left[\frac{2}{3}+\frac{1}{2}x\frac{1}{4}x^2+c_t^2s_t^2\right]\hfill & \hfill y_T& =& c_t^2s_t^2\frac{v^2}{f^2}\hfill \\ \hfill y_{W_L}& =& 1+\frac{v^2}{f^2}\left[\frac{1}{6}\frac{1}{4}(c^2s^2)^2\right]\hfill & \hfill y_{W_H}& =& s^2c^2\frac{v^2}{f^2}=M_{W_L}^2/M_{W_H}^2\hfill \\ \hfill y_{\mathrm{\Phi }^+}& =& \frac{v^2}{f^2}\left[\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{4}x^2\right]\hfill & \hfill y_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{++}}& =& \frac{v^2}{f^2}𝒪(\frac{x^2}{16}\frac{v^2}{f^2},\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}).\hfill \end{array}`$ (7)
For $`y_{W_L}`$ we include the correction to the relation between $`M_{W_L}`$ and $`gv/2`$. One may naively expect some sizable contribution to $`H\gamma \gamma `$ from the doubly-charged states $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\pm \pm }`$ due to the $`Q^2=4`$ enhancement of the amplitude. However, the $`H\mathrm{\Phi }^{++}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ coupling is very small, as shown in the Appendix, leading to $`y_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{++}}v^4/f^4`$. The doubly-charged triplet states thus do not give a significant contribution to the amplitude and we will neglect them from now on.

In the SM, the $`v`$-dependence can be traded for the precisely measured $`G_F`$. In the Littlest Higgs model, however, the relation between $`G_F`$ and $`v`$ is modified from its SM form, introducing an additional correction $`y_{G_F}`$ as

$$\frac{1}{v^2}=\sqrt{2}G_Fy_{G_F}^2,\mathrm{where}y_{G_F}^2=1+\frac{v^2}{f^2}\left[\frac{5}{12}+\frac{1}{4}x^2\right].$$
(8)
This correction must also be taken into account when comparing $`H`$ decay rates in the LH model to the SM predictions with $`G_F`$ as input. Note that $`y_{G_F}^2<1`$ for $`0x<1`$, which tends to suppress the $`H`$ decay rates. For a fixed value of $`f`$, only three parameters of the Littlest Higgs model affect the loop-induced Higgs partial widths: $`c`$, $`c_t`$ and $`x`$.

## III $`Hgg`$ and $`H\gamma \gamma `$

The partial widths for $`Hgg`$ and $`H\gamma \gamma `$ in the SM can be found in . In general the partial widths can be expressed as

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\mathrm{\Gamma }(Hgg)\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{\alpha _s^2m_H^3}{32\pi ^3v^2}\left|\underset{i}{}\frac{1}{2}y_iF_{1/2}(\tau _i)\right|^2\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{\sqrt{2}G_F\alpha _s^2m_H^3y_{G_F}^2}{32\pi ^3}\left|\underset{i}{}\frac{1}{2}y_iF_{1/2}(\tau _i)\right|^2,\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }(H\gamma \gamma )\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{\alpha ^2m_H^3}{256\pi ^3v^2}\left|\underset{i}{}y_iN_{ci}Q_i^2F_i\right|^2\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{\sqrt{2}G_F\alpha ^2m_H^3y_{G_F}^2}{256\pi ^3}\left|\underset{i}{}y_iN_{ci}Q_i^2F_i\right|^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
where $`N_{ci},Q_i`$ are the color factor and electric charge respectively for a particle $`i`$ running in the loop. The dimensionless loop factors for particles of spin given in the subscript are

$`F_1=2+3\tau +3\tau (2\tau )f(\tau ),F_{1/2}=2\tau [1+(1\tau )f(\tau )],F_0=\tau [1\tau f(\tau )],`$ (10)
with

$$f(\tau )=\{\begin{array}{cc}[\mathrm{sin}^1(1/\sqrt{\tau })]^2,\hfill & \hfill \tau 1\\ \frac{1}{4}[\mathrm{ln}(\eta _+/\eta _{})i\pi ]^2,\hfill & \hfill \tau <1\end{array}$$
(11)
and

$$\tau _i=4M_i^2/m_H^2,\eta _\pm =1\pm \sqrt{1\tau }.$$
(12)
In the limit of large $`\tau `$, i.e., when the particle in the loop is much heavier than $`H`$, the loop factors approach constant values:

$$F_17,F_{1/2}4/3,F_01/3.$$
(13)
On the other hand, for $`\tau <1`$ the loop factor develops an imaginary part after crossing the real production threshold of particle pairs in the loop. The loop functions normalized to their asymptotic values are shown in Fig. 2. $`F_1(\tau _{W_L})`$ and $`F_{1/2}(\tau _t)`$ are presented as a function of $`m_H`$ in Fig. 2(a). They are just the SM results for the $`W`$ and top-quark loops. The loop functions $`F_1`$, $`F_{1/2}`$ and $`F_0`$ for the heavy particles are shown in Fig. 2(b) versus the heavy particle mass. One can clearly see that the loop functions for the heavy particles are very close to their asymptotic values.

In Eq. (9), the coefficients $`y_i`$ are the correction factors of the Higgs boson couplings with respect to the SM values. Expressing the resulting loop integrals as the dimensionless functions $`F_1,F_{1/2},F_0`$, the fact that the SM couplings $`y_t,y_{W_L}`$ are of order unity is because the Higgs boson couplings to $`t`$ and $`W_L`$ are proportional to their masses. This is not true for the heavy particles in the LH model, since they acquire their mass not from their coupling to $`H`$ but rather from the $`f`$ condensate. Consequently, all the corrections due to heavy particles in the loop are proportional to $`v^2/f^2`$, as is evident from Eq. (7). This behavior naturally respects the decoupling limit for physics with much higher scale $`f`$.

### III.1 $`Hgg`$

In the LH model, the decay $`Hgg`$ receives a contribution from the new heavy quark $`T`$. The partial width of $`Hgg`$ is given explicitly by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Hgg)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}G_F\alpha _s^2m_H^3}{32\pi ^3}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{1/2}(\tau _t)y_ty_{G_F}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{1/2}(\tau _T)y_T\right|^2`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}G_F\alpha _s^2m_H^3}{32\pi ^3}}|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{1/2}(\tau _t){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{f^2}}[({\displaystyle \frac{7}{8}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}x^2)F_{1/2}(\tau _t)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}+c_t^2s_t^2(F_{1/2}(\tau _t)F_{1/2}(\tau _T))\left]\right|^2.`$
The first term in the absolute square is the SM result due to the top quark. Examining the correction terms in the square brackets, we see that the first term is negative for $`0x<1`$, leading to a suppression of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Hgg)`$ compared to its SM value. This term comes from $`y_{G_F}`$ and from the terms in $`y_t`$ independent of $`c_t`$ \[see Eq. (7)\], which are due to the mixing in the Higgs sector and the effects of expanding out the fields of the nonlinear $`\sigma `$-model in the fermion mass terms. The second term in the square brackets, which arises from the $`T`$ quark loop plus the mixing between the SM top quark and the new heavy vector-like quark, is positive but too small to counteract the negative first term. Note that in the limit that $`m_tM_T`$, $`F_{1/2}(\tau _t)F_{1/2}(\tau _T)0`$ and this second term vanishes. This is because $`H`$ does not couple to the heavy vector-like quark in the gauge eigenstate basis, so the mixing becomes irrelevant as the masses become degenerate. Because $`F_{1/2}`$ approaches a constant at large $`\tau `$ and thus does not depend sensitively on $`f`$, the deviation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Hgg)`$ from its SM value simply scales like $`1/f^2`$.

The dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Hgg)`$ on $`x`$ is shown in Fig. 3(a) for various values of $`c_t`$, normalized to the SM partial width. We first note that the LH corrections are always negative, mainly due to the reduced coupling strength of $`y_t,y_{G_F}`$. There is both linear and quadratic dependence on $`x`$, but the linear term has a larger coefficient by a factor of 4, as is evident from the solid curves in Fig. 3(a). The $`x`$-dependence leads to a reduction of the partial width varying between about $`610\%`$ of the SM value for $`f=1`$ TeV, as indicated by the range between the dashed lines. The $`c_t`$-dependence of the cross section, as shown by the range of the solid curves in the figure, is quite weak, leading to a variation of the partial width by less than 1% of the SM value for $`f=1`$ TeV. This is due to the near-cancellation of the $`c_t`$-dependence between the $`t`$ and $`T`$ loops, as illustrated in Eq. (14). For instance, for $`m_H=120`$ GeV, $`F_{1/2}(\tau _t)/20.686`$ and $`F_{1/2}(\tau _T)/22/3`$, so the term proportional to $`c_t^2s_t^2`$ has a very small coefficient. To further explore the maximum variation to the SM prediction, we show the accessible range of LH corrections versus $`f`$ for various $`m_H`$ values in Fig. 3(b). The lower limit is independent of $`m_H`$ because it is reached when $`y_T=0`$. In this case, the amplitude is proportional to $`F_{1/2}(\tau _t)`$ only, so the $`m_H`$-dependence cancels in the ratio with the SM partial width. The upper limit depends on $`m_H`$ since the $`T`$ loop contributes, and $`F_{1/2}(\tau _T)`$ has a different $`m_H`$-dependence than $`F_{1/2}(\tau _t)`$. While the $`m_H`$-dependence is rather weak, we see that the reduction from the SM prediction can be significant. All of these features can be explicitly illustrated by examining the numerical coefficients after normalizing the partial width to its SM value as

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(Hgg)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{SM}}(Hgg)}=1+\left[0.106+0.061x0.015x^2+0.003c_t^2s_t^2\right]\left(\frac{1\mathrm{TeV}}{f}\right)^2,$$
(15)
where the $`m_H`$-dependence is only in the coefficient of the $`c_t^2s_t^2`$ term; here we have chosen $`m_H=120`$ GeV. Examining Eqs. (14) and (15), we see that the partial width reaches its maximum value (minimum deviation from the SM) at $`x=1`$ and $`c_t=1/\sqrt{2}`$, and reaches its minimum value (maximum deviation from the SM) at $`x=0`$ and $`c_t=0`$ or 1.

### III.2 $`H\gamma \gamma `$

The decay $`H\gamma \gamma `$ in the LH model receives contributions from the new charged particles $`W_H^\pm ,T`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm `$. The partial width is given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H\gamma \gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}G_F\alpha ^2m_H^3}{256\pi ^3}}|{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}F_{1/2}(\tau _t)y_ty_{G_F}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}F_{1/2}(\tau _T)y_T+F_1(\tau _{W_L})y_{W_L}y_{G_F}`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}+F_1(\tau _{W_H})y_{W_H}+F_0(\tau _\mathrm{\Phi })y_{\mathrm{\Phi }^+}|^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}G_F\alpha ^2m_H^3}{256\pi ^3}}|{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}F_{1/2}(\tau _t)+F_1(\tau _{W_L})+{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{f^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}({\displaystyle \frac{7}{8}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}x^2)F_{1/2}(\tau _t)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}c_t^2s_t^2\left(F_{1/2}(\tau _t)F_{1/2}(\tau _T)\right)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(c^2s^2)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}x^2\right)F_1(\tau _{W_L})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}s^2c^2F_1(\tau _{W_H})+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}x^2)F_0(\tau _\mathrm{\Phi })\left]\right|^2.`$
The first two terms in the absolute square are the SM results from the top quark and $`W`$ boson. For $`m_H=120`$ GeV, $`4F_{1/2}(\tau _t)/31.83`$ and $`F_1(\tau _{W_L})8.17`$. In general, for $`m_H<2M_{W_L}`$, the loop function $`F_1`$ (for $`W_L`$ and $`W_H`$) is real and positive, while the loop functions $`F_{1/2}`$ and $`F_0`$ (for $`t`$, $`T`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$) are real and negative. The amplitude is dominated by the contribution from $`W_L`$ and is therefore positive.

The behavior of the contributions of $`t`$ and $`T`$ is exactly as in the case of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Hgg)`$. However, because fermion loops enter with a minus sign in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H\gamma \gamma )`$, the effects in the $`t`$ and $`T`$ loops that lead to a suppression of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Hgg)`$ tend to enhance $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H\gamma \gamma )`$. The third term in the square brackets comes from $`y_{G_F}`$ and $`y_{W_L}`$ and is always negative. The term proportional to $`(c^2s^2)^2`$ comes from the mixing between $`W_L`$ and $`W_H`$ and suppresses the partial width. The $`W_H`$ loop amplitude has a negative coefficient due to the $`g`$ in the coupling of $`W_H^+W_H^{}H`$ (see Refs.  for details), which tends to suppress the partial width. The last term in the square brackets is due to the $`\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ loop; its negative coefficient leads to an enhancement of the amplitude, but because scalars suffer from the small loop factor of $`F_01/3`$, its effect is insignificant. Again, the deviation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H\gamma \gamma )`$ from its SM value scales like $`1/f^2`$.

The dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H\gamma \gamma )`$ on the parameters $`c`$ and $`x`$ is illustrated in Fig. 4. The deviation in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H\gamma \gamma )`$ is almost quadratic in $`x`$ as seen in Fig. 4(a). This is due to the dominant contribution from $`F_1(\tau _{W_L})`$ with the $`x^2`$-dependent coefficients of $`y_{W_L}`$ and $`y_{G_F}`$. Linear dependence on $`x`$ enters via $`y_t`$; however, this contribution is small because of the small top quark contribution compared to the $`W`$ boson contribution. Varying $`x`$ between 0 and 1 changes the partial width by as much as $`0.8\%`$ of the SM prediction for $`f=1`$ TeV. The partial width is also sensitive to the gauge mixing angle $`c`$, due to the $`W_L`$ and $`W_H`$ loops. It is quadratic in $`c^2`$, as seen in Fig. 4(b). Varying $`c`$ between $`1/\sqrt{2}`$ and 1 or 0 changes the partial width again by about $`0.5\%`$ for $`f=1`$ TeV. The partial width is almost independent of $`c_t`$ because of the near-cancellation of the $`c_t`$-dependence between the $`t`$ and $`T`$ loops, as discussed earlier. The resulting accessible range of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H\gamma \gamma )`$ is shown in Fig. 5.

The effect can be quite significant. For instance, for $`f=1`$ TeV, the deviation from the SM prediction can be $`(57\%)`$. All of these features can be made explicit if we write the expression normalized to the SM partial width,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(H\gamma \gamma )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{SM}}(H\gamma \gamma )}}=1+\left[0.0634+0.0211c^2s^20.0166x0.0211x^20.0009c_t^2s_t^2\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{TeV}}{f}}\right)^2,`$ (17)
where we have chosen $`m_H=120`$ GeV. All of the coefficients in the square brackets now depend on $`m_H`$.

To summarize the results of the partial width calculations, the values of $`c`$, $`c_t`$ and $`x`$ that minimize and maximize each partial width are given in Table 1.

We have also included the percentage decrease with respect to the SM predictions when varying the parameters from the maximum width to the minimum. Note that any colored states that enhance the $`Hgg`$ partial width would reduce the $`H\gamma \gamma `$ partial width. We illustrate the correlation between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H\gamma \gamma )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Hgg)`$ in Fig. 6, where the accessible ranges for $`f=1,2,3`$ TeV are presented. Also shown is the dependence on $`m_H`$ for the case of $`f=1`$ TeV.

### III.3 Measurements of Higgs couplings to $`gg`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$

#### III.3.1 Higgs couplings at the LHC

The coupling of $`H`$ to $`gg`$ can be probed at the LHC through the cross section for Higgs production via gluon fusion. Taking the ratio of Higgs production rates from gluon fusion and from weak boson fusion with decays to common final states yields the ratio of partial widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Hgg)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(HWW)`$; the LHC can measure this ratio with a precision of $`2530\%`$ for 100 GeV $`<m_H<200`$ GeV . The partial width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Hgg)`$ can be extracted also with a precision of $`2530\%`$ over this same range of $`m_H`$ . The SM partial decay width for $`Hgg`$ has been computed accurately to the order of $`\alpha _s^4`$ , and the production cross section for $`ggH`$ has been computed at next-to-next-to-leading order . The remaining renormalization and factorization scale dependence of the cross section gives a lower bound on the theoretical uncertainty due to uncomputed higher order QCD corrections of about $`15\%`$. This large experimental and theoretical uncertainty may preclude the detection of the deviation of the LH model from the SM.

The coupling of $`H`$ to $`\gamma \gamma `$ can be probed at the LHC through $`H\gamma \gamma `$, with $`H`$ produced via gluon fusion or weak boson fusion. The rates for both $`ggH\gamma \gamma `$ and $`VVH\gamma \gamma `$ can be measured with a precision of $`1015\%`$ for $`m_H<150`$ GeV . Taking ratios of rates as above but with common Higgs production mechanisms one can extract the ratio of partial widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H\gamma \gamma )/\mathrm{\Gamma }(HWW)`$ with a precision of $`1020\%`$ for 115 GeV $`<m_H<150`$ GeV . The partial width for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H\gamma \gamma )`$  can be extracted with a precision of $`1520\%`$ over the same Higgs mass range . Such a measurement gives a sensitivity only to $`f<650`$ GeV at the $`1\sigma `$ level, which is still marginal to reach the possible new mass scale anticipated in the LH model.

As discussed in the previous section, we noticed the correlation between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Hgg)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H\gamma \gamma )`$. Since a very promising channel for the Higgs search at the LHC is $`ggH\gamma \gamma `$, it is natural to ask how the product as a whole is affected. Figure 7 presents the accessible range for the product $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Hgg)\times \mathrm{\Gamma }(H\gamma \gamma )`$ versus $`f`$, normalized to the SM value. We see that the effect is to reduce the production rate with respect to the SM expectation, from $`11\%`$ to $`16\%`$ for $`f=1`$ TeV.

#### III.3.2 Higgs couplings at an $`e^+e^{}`$ collider

At an $`e^+e^{}`$ collider, the Higgs partial widths can be measured in a model-independent way. The technique involves tagging $`e^+e^{}Z^{}ZH`$ events using the $`Z`$ recoil mass and counting final states, thus determining absolute branching fractions; $`e^+e^{}W^{}W^{}H\nu \overline{\nu }`$ is then used to measure the $`HW^+W^{}`$ coupling to compute $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(HWW)`$ and thus solve for the individual partial widths. The cross section for $`e^+e^{}ZH`$ is largest at lower center-of-mass energies not too much above the $`ZH`$ production threshold. The cross section for $`e^+e^{}H\nu \overline{\nu }`$ grows with increasing center-of-mass energy and can thus be used at higher $`\sqrt{s}`$ to increase the statistics. At higher energies, however, the $`H`$ decay products are more highly boosted, making $`b`$, $`c`$ and $`\tau `$ tagging more difficult.

The branching ratio of $`H`$ into $`gg`$ can be measured with a precision of about $`620\%`$ at an $`e^+e^{}`$ collider . $`Hgg`$ is assumed to be what is left over after the $`b\overline{b}`$, $`c\overline{c}`$ and $`\tau \tau `$ final states are subtracted off of $`H`$ jets. This measurement clearly depends on excellent charm tagging and varies depending on detector design and machine energy. As in $`ggH`$ at the LHC, the theoretical uncertainty in the SM prediction is likely of order 15% from uncalculated higher order QCD corrections . Such a measurement would thus be sensitive only to $`f<600`$ GeV at the $`1\sigma `$ level.

The measurement of the branching ratio of $`H\gamma \gamma `$ at an $`e^+e^{}`$ collider is limited by low statistics due to the small $`H\gamma \gamma `$ branching ratio $`10^3`$. With 500 fb<sup>-1</sup> of integrated luminosity one can expect a precision of about $`1520\%`$ on the branching ratio and the same for the partial width . This measurement would be sensitive to $`f<650`$ GeV at the $`1\sigma `$ level, comparable to the sensitivity at the LHC.

#### III.3.3 Higgs couplings at a photon collider

A photon collider can produce the Higgs resonance in the $`s`$-channel with a cross section proportional to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H\gamma \gamma )`$. For a light Higgs boson with mass around $`115120`$ GeV, the most precisely measured rate will be $`\gamma \gamma Hb\overline{b}`$, with a precision of about 2% . (The uncertainty rises to 10% for $`m_H=160`$ GeV.) This can be combined with the measurement of the branching ratio of $`Hb\overline{b}`$ measured to about 2% at the $`e^+e^{}`$ collider  to extract $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H\gamma \gamma )`$ with a precision of about 3%. Such a measurement would be sensitive to $`f<1500`$ GeV at the $`1\sigma `$ level, or $`f<1100`$ GeV at the $`2\sigma `$ level. A $`5\sigma `$ deviation is possible for $`f<700`$ GeV.

## IV Discussion and Conclusions

New physics must enter the theory at the cutoff scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }4\pi f`$ to complete the non-linear $`\sigma `$-model into a linear model. Because the processes $`Hgg`$ and $`H\gamma \gamma `$ are finite at the leading one-loop order, they do not receive an arbitrarily large renormalization from cutoff-scale physics. However, this new physics will generically contain additional charged or colored fields that can run in the loop, leading to additional contributions to $`Hgg`$ and $`H\gamma \gamma `$. We can estimate their size as follows. We focus on $`H\gamma \gamma `$, but similar conclusions can be drawn for $`Hgg`$. The largest contributions will generically come from new gauge bosons, since their loop factor $`F_1`$ is the largest in the asymptotic limit. Consider a single charged gauge boson with mass of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and coupling to $`H`$ of $`g_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Its contribution to the amplitude will be smaller by a factor of $`g_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(f^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)`$ than the contribution from $`W_H`$, as can be estimated by an argument of explicit loop calculations or using the Naive Dimensional Analysis . As long as $`g_\mathrm{\Lambda }<4\pi `$, the new physics at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ will not significantly change our conclusions, unless there is a large multiplicity of new particles that couple to $`H`$.

While the LH model that we have studied here contains only a single light Higgs doublet, many little Higgs models in the literature contain two light Higgs doublets . The low-energy theory of these models is therefore a two Higgs doublet model (2HDM), containing a light charged Higgs boson $`H^+`$ that can run in the loop in addition to the new particles at the scale $`f`$. Assuming that the dimensionless Higgs self-coupling $`\lambda _{H^+H^{}H}`$ in the 2HDM is of order one as is natural, a relatively light $`H^+`$ with a mass of $`100150`$ GeV can have quite a sizable effect on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H\gamma \gamma )`$ of $`1540\%`$ times $`\lambda _{H^+H^{}H}`$. For a heavier $`H^+`$ above 300 GeV, the deviation is below 5%. Potentially more important than the $`H^+`$ loop, however, is the effect of mixing between the neutral components of the two Higgs doublets. This mixing can affect the couplings of $`H`$ to $`W_L`$ and $`t`$ in a very significant way if the second Higgs doublet is relatively light, leading to large deviations in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Hgg)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H\gamma \gamma )`$. If the dimensionless Higgs self-couplings are again of order one, the deviation of the $`HW_L^+W_L^{}`$ coupling from its SM value due to 2HDM mixing is of order $`m_Z^2/m_A^2`$ and that of the $`Ht\overline{t}`$ coupling is of order $`m_Z/m_A`$, where $`m_A`$ is the mass scale of the heavier Higgs doublet (more precisely, $`m_A`$ is the mass of the pseudoscalar Higgs boson $`A^0`$). For additional details, see Ref. . These deviations are thus generically larger than the deviations due to the heavy states at the scale $`f`$.

In conclusion, our results are robust in little Higgs models that contain only a single light Higgs boson. The dominant contributions to the deviations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Hgg)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H\gamma \gamma )`$ from their SM values are due to (i) the new $`T`$ quark and $`W_H`$ bosons in the loop, which contribute at the order $`v^2/f^2`$ since they get their masses from the condensate $`f`$; and (ii) the modification of the $`t\overline{t}H`$ and $`W_L^+W_L^{}H`$ couplings due to mixing with the heavy states, which also contributes at order $`v^2/f^2`$. Any little Higgs model must contain such a heavy $`T`$ and $`W_H`$ with masses of order $`f`$ to cancel the quadratic divergence of $`m_H`$ due to the top quark and $`W_L`$, and these new heavy states will generically mix with the corresponding SM particles at order $`v^2/f^2`$. Therefore the gross features of our analysis should carry over.

To summarize, we found that for $`f=1`$ TeV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Hgg)`$ is reduced by $`610\%`$ in the LH model compared to its SM value, where the variation is mainly due to the dependence on $`x`$, while $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H\gamma \gamma )`$ is reduced by $`57\%`$ of its SM value, where the variation is mainly due to the dependence on $`x`$ and $`c`$. The deviations scale with $`1/f^2`$. A photon collider could probe the deviation in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H\gamma \gamma )`$ up to $`f<1.5`$ TeV (1.1 TeV, 0.7 TeV) at the $`1\sigma `$ ($`2\sigma `$, $`5\sigma `$) level.

Note added: When the current paper was being completed, another paper on a similar subject appeared . In calculating the Higgs decay widths, the authors of Ref.  did not take into account mixing and interference effects between the SM particles and the new heavy states, and thus reached negligibly small results of the order $`(v/f)^4`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant DE-FG02-95ER40896 and in part by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.

## Appendix A

Here we present some details of the Higgs sector of the LH model and derive the $`H\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ and $`H\mathrm{\Phi }^{++}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ couplings.

The most general scalar potential invariant under the Standard Model gauge groups involving one doublet field $`h`$ and one triplet field $`\varphi `$ can be written up to operators of dimension four as:

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _{\varphi ^2}f^2\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi ^{}\varphi )+i\lambda _{h\varphi h}f\left(h\varphi ^{}h^Th^{}\varphi h^{}\right)\mu ^2hh^{}+\lambda _{h^4}(hh^{})^2`$ (18)
$`+\lambda _{h\varphi \varphi h}h\varphi ^{}\varphi h^{}+\lambda _{h^2\varphi ^2}hh^{}\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi ^{}\varphi )+\lambda _{\varphi ^2\varphi ^2}\left(\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi ^{}\varphi )\right)^2+\lambda _{\varphi ^4}\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi ^{}\varphi \varphi ^{}\varphi ).`$
The coefficients in this potential are constrained by the symmetries of the Littlest Higgs model. At tree-level, there is no Higgs potential. A Coleman-Weinberg potential is generated after the heavy gauge bosons and vector-like quark are integrated out. The quadratically divergent terms of the one-loop Coleman-Weinberg potential each preserve one of two global $`SU(3)`$ symmetries, while breaking the other (see Ref.  for details).

From the quadratically divergent part of the one-loop Coleman-Weinberg potential, we have:

$`\lambda _{\varphi ^2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{s^2c^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{s^2c^2}}\right]+8a^{}\lambda _1^2,`$
$`\lambda _{h\varphi h}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a}{4}}\left[g^2{\displaystyle \frac{(c^2s^2)}{s^2c^2}}+g^2{\displaystyle \frac{(c^2s^2)}{s^2c^2}}\right]+4a^{}\lambda _1^2,`$
$`\lambda _{h^4}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\lambda _{\varphi ^2},\lambda _{h\varphi \varphi h}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\lambda _{\varphi ^2},\lambda _{\varphi ^2\varphi ^2}=16a^{}\lambda _1^2,`$
$`\lambda _{\varphi ^4}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2a}{3}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{s^2c^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{s^2c^2}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{16a^{}}{3}}\lambda _1^2,`$ (19)
where $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ are unknown coefficients of order one that parameterize the effects of the UV-completion at the cutoff scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

The coefficients $`\mu ^2`$ and $`\lambda _{h^2\varphi ^2}`$ get no contribution from the quadratically divergent part of the one-loop Coleman-Weinberg potential because they are protected by both of the global $`SU(3)`$ symmetries of the LH model. Thus they receive only log-divergent contributions at one-loop, and quadratically divergent contributions at the two-loop level. The suppression of $`\mu ^2`$ from the extra loop factor gives the natural hierarchy between the electroweak scale and the cutoff scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Because $`\lambda _{h^2\varphi ^2}`$ is also generated at this order, it is not of order one like the other quartic couplings, but rather suppressed by $`1/16\pi ^210^2`$ and can be neglected for our purposes.

The $`H\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ coupling is given by the following terms in the interaction Lagrangian:

$``$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{2}\lambda _{h\varphi h}(h^+h^0\varphi ^{}h^{}h^0\varphi ^+)f+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _{h\varphi \varphi h}\varphi ^+\varphi ^{}h^0h^0+\mathrm{},`$ (20)
where the dots represent terms that give subleading contributions. Using the expressions for the couplings ,

$`\lambda _{h\varphi h}={\displaystyle \frac{xM_\mathrm{\Phi }^2}{2f^2}},\lambda _{h\varphi \varphi h}={\displaystyle \frac{4M_\mathrm{\Phi }^2}{3f^2}},`$ (21)
and the mixing angles between the gauge and mass eigenstates given in Ref. , we get for the $`H\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ coupling,

$$=H\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\left[\frac{x^2v}{2}\frac{2v}{3}\right]\frac{M_\mathrm{\Phi }^2}{f^2}.$$
(22)
The $`H\mathrm{\Phi }^{++}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ coupling is given by the following terms in the interaction Lagrangian:

$$=2\lambda _{\varphi ^2\varphi ^2}\varphi ^{++}\varphi ^{}\varphi ^0\varphi ^0+\lambda _{h^2\varphi ^2}\varphi ^{++}\varphi ^{}h^0h^0+\mathrm{},$$
(23)
where again the dots represent terms that give subleading contributions. In terms of the mass eigenstates,

$$=H\mathrm{\Phi }^{++}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\left[v\times 𝒪(v^2/v^2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/16\pi ^2)\right].$$
(24)
The $`H\mathrm{\Phi }^{++}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ coupling is thus highly suppressed relative to the $`H\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ coupling.