future @xmath8 colliders will likely have the option of operating in @xmath9 or @xmath10 collision modes  @xcite .
these modes are reached by compton scattering laser light off one or more of the incoming fermion beams , and then colliding the resulting high energy photons with the remaining fermion beam or with each other .
there is a large potential for @xmath11 and @xmath12 collisions to elucidate possible physics beyond the standard model ; previous investigations have focused on anomalous couplings  @xcite , searches for extra dimensions  @xcite , properties of supersymmetry  @xcite , and a broad host of other topics .
one subject that deserves further study is @xmath3-violating gauge boson self - couplings .
@xmath3 violation is one of the most poorly understood aspects of the standard model ( sm ) .
present data merely fixes the value of the @xmath3 violating phase in the ckm matrix , and can not test if this phase constitutes the only source for @xmath3 violation .
in fact , studies of baryogenesis within the sm suggest that additional @xmath3 violating terms are required in order to generate the observed baryon asymmetry in the universe  @xcite
. most discussions of @xmath3 violation at photon colliders work within the context of models such as supersymmetry , and focus upon either higgs or top quark production  @xcite .
however , since almost every extension of the sm contains new @xmath3 violating phases , it is desirable to eliminate any possible theoretical bias by studying @xmath3 violation within the generic context of an effective lagrangian approach , without assuming any underlying mechanisms .
a handful of such works have been performed in the past  @xcite , concentrating on @xmath13 , @xmath14 , or top quark production . here , we extend these studies by examining possible @xmath3 violating quartic gauge boson couplings .
@xmath12 colliders are particularly suited to studying such couplings ; they can be probed in @xmath5 scattering processes , unlike at @xmath8 colliders .
the sm contributions to the processes @xmath0 , @xmath15 , and @xmath16 , including electroweak contributions , were first computed in  @xcite .
recently , they have been reexamined  @xcite , and shown to exhibit several interesting features that motivate our analysis .
the sm amplitudes vanish at tree level , and may therefore be quite sensitive to the effects of new physics . at one loop
they acquire large imaginary parts , completely dominated at high energies by the helicity amplitudes @xmath17 , @xmath18 , and @xmath19 , where @xmath20 denotes the direction of transverse polarization relative to the beam direction .
such amplitudes can interfere strongly with @xmath3 violating contributions from new sources , yielding greatly enhanced sensitivity to these new effects .
in addition , the ability to polarize both the initial laser light and fermion beams allows the construction of observables which are sensitive only to these interference effects .
these properties , together with the experimental cleanliness of @xmath0 , @xmath1 , and @xmath2 scattering , suggest that these processes might provide powerful tools in searches for new physics .
in this paper we will show that @xmath0 , @xmath1 , and @xmath2 at a photon collider can provide sensitive tests of @xmath3 violation in the gauge boson sector .
we limit our study to genuinely quartic gauge boson operators , as contributions to the two point functions are strongly excluded by current data and the three point functions are likely better tested elsewhere .
we consider manifestly su(2 ) @xmath4 u(1 ) invariant operators constructed from the appropriate field strength tensors , making no assumptions as to the origin of electroweak symmetry breaking . as a result ,
our operators are of dimension eight . throughout the paper we will identify features of our analysis that might be useful for other new physics searches using these processes .    the paper is organized as follows .
we first present the density matrix formalism for photon - photon collisions in some detail , both for completeness and to motivate the expression for the ensemble average of the scattering amplitude , which will be used throughout our analysis .
we then briefly discuss the construction of the anomalous @xmath3 violating operators we have studied .
our results for the three processes considered are presented next , including discussions of the various initial laser and fermion beam polarizations .
finally , we present our conclusions , including a comparison of our resulting sensitivity to these effects with others in the literature .
in this section we present the density matrix formalism for photon - photon collisions .
our discussion is similar to that found in the literature ( see , for example ,  @xcite ) , but is included here to provide motivation for eq .
( 9 ) , which is used throughout our analysis .
consider a photon moving along the @xmath22 axis ; its polarization vectors for positive and negative helicities are given by @xmath23 we will denote the photons corresponding to states with these polarizations by @xmath24 .
the most general photon state can be written in this basis as @xmath25 where @xmath26 and @xmath27 .
writing this state in 4-vector form demonstrates that the choices @xmath28 and @xmath29 lead to circularly polarized states , while @xmath30 leads to a linearly polarized state .
the angle @xmath31 describes the direction of linear polarization in the @xmath32 plane .
the experimental setup in @xmath9 colliders has been described in detail elsewhere  @xcite ; briefly , one compton scatters laser photons off fermion beams , and then collides the backscattered photons .
when observing the scattering process @xmath33 , the energies or helicities of the incoming photons are not known ; they will be statistically distributed , with the specific distribution being determined by the details of the compton scattering process .
when measuring the differential cross section , one no longer determines @xmath34 , but rather the ensemble average of @xmath35 : @xmath36 where the sum over @xmath37 sums over all possible initial states weighted by @xmath38 , the probability of their occurrence .
we can write this in the form @xmath39 where we have introduced the density matrix for the incoming photons in the basis defined by @xmath40 : @xmath41 let us compute the density matrix for the laser photon of eq .
( 2 ) ; introducing the notation @xmath42 and @xmath43 , we have @xmath44 @xmath45 and @xmath46 measure the amounts of circular and linear polarization , respectively .
this is consistent with the polarizations for the values @xmath47 and @xmath30 noted before .
after the compton scattering process , the degrees of linear and circular polarization are described by distributions which are dependent upon the fraction of the fermion beam energy the laser photons acquire . denoting this fraction by @xmath48 , and the helicity distribution functions by @xmath49 ,
the density matrix becomes @xmath50 the eigenvalues of this matrix are @xmath51 we no longer have a pure state unless @xmath52 .
as the processes considered in this paper involve two compton scattered photons , the complete density matrix will be the tensor product of the density matrix for each photon . also , since one of the initial laser photons
will be moving along the @xmath53 axis , we must take @xmath54 in its density matrix . referring back to eqs .
( 4 ) and ( 7 ) , we can write the ensemble average for the process @xmath33 as @xmath55 \nonumber \\   & & + \xi_c ( x_2 ) \left [   \mid { \cal m}_{++ } \mid^2 - \mid { \cal m}_{-- } \mid^2 - \mid { \cal m}_{+- } \mid^2 + \mid { \cal m}_{-+ } \mid^2 \right ] \nonumber \\   & & + \xi_c ( x_1 ) \xi_c ( x_2 ) \left [   \mid { \cal m}_{++ } \mid^2 + \mid { \cal m}_{-- } \mid^2 - \mid { \cal m}_{+- } \mid^2 - \mid { \cal m}_{-+ } \mid^2 \right ] \nonumber \\ & & + 2 \xi_{t } ( x_1 ) \xi_{t } ( x_2 ) \ , { \rm re }   \left [ { \cal m}_{+- } { \cal m}^{*}_{-+ } e^{2i ( \phi_1 + \phi_2 ) } + { \cal m}_{++ } { \cal m}^{*}_{-- }   e^{2i ( \phi_1 - \phi_2 ) } \right ] \nonumber \\ & & -2 \xi_{t } ( x_1 ) \ , { \rm re } \left [ { \cal m}_{++ } { \cal m}^{*}_{-+ } e^{2i \phi_1 } + { \cal m}_{+- } { \cal m}^{*}_{-- } e^{2i \phi_1 } \right ] \nonumber \\ & &   -2 \xi_{t } ( x_2 ) \ , { \rm re } \left [ { \cal m}_{+- } { \cal m}^{*}_{++ } e^{2i \phi_2 } + { \cal m}_{-- } { \cal m}^{*}_{-+ } e^{2i \phi_2 } \right ] \nonumber \\ & & + 2 \xi_{t } ( x_1 ) \xi_c ( x_2 ) \ , { \rm re } \left [ { \cal m}_{+- } { \cal m}^{*}_{-- } e^{2i \phi_1 } - { \cal m}_{++ } { \cal m}^{*}_{-+ } e^{2i \phi_1 } \right ] \nonumber \\ & & + 2 \xi_{c } ( x_1 ) \xi_t ( x_2 ) \ , { \rm re } \left [ { \cal m}_{-- } { \cal m}^{*}_{-+ } e^{2i \phi_2 } - { \cal m}_{+- } { \cal m}^{*}_{++ } e^{2i \phi_2 } \right ] \bigg\ } \,\ , , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where , for example , @xmath56 denotes the helicity amplitude for incoming photons with helicities @xmath57 and @xmath58 .
we have suppressed the final state @xmath59 ; depending upon the process considered the observable final state might require a sum over various helicities .
this expression will be used to construct observables for all the processes considered in this paper .
the physical cross section involves a convolution of this scattering amplitude with the photon number density function of each photon .
the explicit form of this function , as well as the forms for the linear and circular helicity distribution functions , can be found in the appendix .
here we construct the most general set of operators that contribute to neutral gauge boson self - interactions , subject to the following constraints .
we consider only su(2 ) @xmath4 u(1 ) invariant operators , and further restrict these to @xmath3-odd terms . as the effects of @xmath3-odd trilinear operators have been extensivley studied  @xcite , we consider only those terms that lead to quartic or higher gauge boson interactions .
we also make no assumption as to the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking . these restrictions lead us to the following set of seven dimension eight operators constructed from the @xmath7 and @xmath60 field strength tensors : @xmath61 here
@xmath62 is the su(2 ) field strength tensor and @xmath63 the u(1 ) field strength tensor .
we have introduced the notation @xmath64 and our convention for the @xmath65 tensor is @xmath66 .
a brief comment on the completeness of these operators is in order .
@xmath3 violating operators containing three @xmath67 tensors are reducible to those containing only one such tensor , as the product of two @xmath67 tensors can be written as a determinant of metric tensors .
operators such as @xmath68 , where the @xmath67 tensor contracts an index on each field strength tensor , are reducible to those where the @xmath67 tensor fully contracts one of the field strength tensors through use of the schouten identity ( see the first reference in  @xcite ,  @xcite ) , @xmath69 which states that no tensor antisymmetric in five indices exists in four dimensions .
similarly , the operators @xmath70 can be reduced to those listed in eq .
( 10 ) through use of the identity @xmath71 this is true for @xmath72 antisymmetric in four - dimensional spaces ( an analog holds in arbitrary dimensions  @xcite ) .
finally , since the processes considered here only involve @xmath73 , the operators @xmath74 become equivalent to the second operator in eq .
( 10 ) through use of the above identity , while the operators @xmath75 only contribute to processes involving @xmath76 .
we thus see that the seven operators delineated in eq .
( 10 ) form a complete and independent set .
each of these operators will give rise to a number of different @xmath77 , @xmath78 , and @xmath79 operators , as well as other quartic operators involving three or more @xmath80 bosons and various quintic terms .
in this paper we will concentrate on those quartic operators relevant for the scattering processes @xmath0 , @xmath1 , and @xmath2 ; the other terms can not be probed in @xmath5 scattering , and the resulting constraints obtainable on the operators of eq .
( 10 ) would be weakened . denoting the operators to be studied by @xmath81 , @xmath82 , and @xmath83 , each su(2 )
@xmath4 u(1 ) operator will have an expansion of the form @xmath84 where the @xmath85 , @xmath86 , and @xmath87 are functions of the weak mixing angle and the ellipsis denotes the neglected quartic and quintic terms . to determine the independent @xmath12 , @xmath1 , and @xmath2 structures , we set @xmath88 where @xmath89 doing so , and making use of the identity in eq .
( 14 ) , leads to the following forms for the @xmath90 : @xmath91 we will present the coefficients @xmath85 , @xmath86 , and @xmath87 when we discuss the relevant process .
we will organize our study as follows . a section will be devoted to each of the processes @xmath0 , @xmath15 , and @xmath16 . in each section
we will discuss the properties of the relevant @xmath90 , focusing on the observable asymmetries associated with each operator and the role of varying the initial polarization states .
we will then discuss the measurement of the various @xmath92 , and estimate the sensitivity to these operators that can be obtained at a photon collider .
we will bound each of these operators separately ; each is multiplied by an arbitrary coefficient that could cause contributions from different operators to cancel , but we will ignore this possibility . to preview what we will observe ,
it will turn out that in certain @xmath92 the structures of eq .
( 20 ) will interfere destructively , while in others they will combine constructively , leading to widely varying sensitivity to the @xmath92 .
in this section we consider the process @xmath93 . we also present and motivate the various parameterizations and approximations used throughout the paper .
a detailed presentation of the standard model amplitudes can be found in  @xcite ; we focus here only upon those features relevant to our analysis .
let us first discuss the properties of the @xmath3 violating amplitudes we are considering .
the detailed expressions for these amplitudes , and those for the other processes considered in this paper , can be found in the appendix .
bose symmetry implies the relations @xmath94 where @xmath95 , @xmath96 , and @xmath97 are the usual mandelstam invariants : @xmath98 , @xmath99 , and @xmath100 .
we have denoted the @xmath3 violating amplitudes with the superscript @xmath3 .
the operators considered in this paper are odd under both @xmath101 and @xmath102 , which implies @xmath103 in addition , the standard crossing symmetries hold .
these relations immediately imply @xmath104 the only non - vanishing amplitudes are @xmath105 .
the standard model amplitudes are dominated at high energies by the amplitudes @xmath106 , @xmath107 , and @xmath108 .
these amplitudes are primarily imaginary , although the real parts are non - negligible ; features of all @xmath109 amplitudes are discussed in  @xcite .
all of the @xmath3 odd asymmetries that can be constructed involve the interference of @xmath105 with a standard model amplitude ; to increase our sensitivity to the anomalous interaction we should attempt to define an observable with interference between @xmath105 and one of the dominant standard model terms . unfortunately , no observable exists which contains such an interference with one of the large imaginary sm amplitudes .
we can , however , construct the following observable which contains an interference with one of the real pieces of the sm amplitudes : @xmath110}{\int_{0}^{2 \pi } \int_{0}^{2 \pi } \ , d \phi_1 \ , d \phi_2 \
, \left [ \left ( \frac{d \sigma}{d \omega}\right ) \delta(\phi_1 - \phi_2 -\pi/4 ) + \left ( \frac{d \sigma}{d \omega}\right)\delta(\phi_1 - \phi_2 + \pi/4 ) \right ] } \ , , \ ] ] where @xmath111 , @xmath112 denote the angles of linear polarization introduced in our discussion of the density matrix formalism .
the experimental determination of this asymmetry requires several measurements , as indicated in eq .
( 24 ) by the integration over linear polarization directions .
the delta functions in @xmath113 denote the need to maintain a fixed angle between the linear polarization directions of the initial beams .
this observable has been considered previously in  @xcite . referring to eq .
( 9 ) , and implementing the relations in eqs .
( 21 - 22 ) , we can show that the numerator of this asymmetry contains the term @xmath114 as shown in the appendix , the @xmath3 violating amplitudes are purely imaginary , leading to a non - vanishing result . as this observable
is sensitive only to the degree of linear polarization , we will use the following set of initial parameters : @xmath115 we note that with no circular polarization the fermion beam polarizations do not enter any expression .
we can simultaneously measure another independent quantity , the denominator of @xmath113 .
this is the unpolarized cross section @xmath116 the form of which can also be obtained from eq .
.    we will now consider the operator relevant to @xmath9 final states in eq .
we write it in the form @xmath117 where @xmath118 is the energy scale of the physics leading to these operators , and @xmath119 the associated coupling constant
. we will hereafter set @xmath120 , effectively absorbing this coupling constant into the definition of @xmath118 .
although we will quote our sensitivity in terms of the energy scale that can be probed , the reader should realize that this is not exactly the scale associated with the new physics leading to these anomalous couplings .
we have also ignored a possible @xmath121 appearing in front ; the unpolarized cross section is unaffected by this sign , and @xmath113 only acquires an overall sign change .    in our analysis , we have used the approximate sm amplitudes found in  @xcite , valid for @xmath122 , which holds for the collider energies considered here .
we will use similar approximate expressions when considering @xmath15 and @xmath16 .
the features of the sm amplitudes noted earlier occur when the energy of the process becomes greater than several hundred gev . in accordance with this approximation
we employ the cuts @xmath123 throughout this paper , we take the @xmath124 center of mass energy to be @xmath125 gev when obtaining our search reaches . in this case , at the endpoints of this region , where @xmath126 and @xmath127 , we have @xmath128 ; this value becomes much smaller as we approach the center of the parameter region , thus validating our approximation .
although a more detailed analysis taking into account detector properties and experimental cuts would need to use the complete sm expressions , our study captures the salient points .
we show the total cross section and asymmetry versus @xmath129 for this operator in fig .
( 1 ) for a `` typical '' value of @xmath130 for purposes of demonstration . in presenting these results
we have assumed an @xmath124 integrated luminosity @xmath131 , which is the quoted yearly integrated luminosity for planned linear colliders  @xcite .
however , a determination of @xmath113 requires several separate measurements , and it is certainly not expected that colliders will operate primarily with purely linearly polarized beams , or even primarily in a photon collision mode .
these numbers should be interpreted as results coming from several years of operation and are intended for purposes of illustration . to provide a more conservative outlook ,
our quoted sensitivity will be given as a function of integrated luminosity , beginning at the modest value @xmath132 .
we have also assumed the value @xmath133 in this and all other numerical results presented .    at the luminosity @xmath131
, the asymmetry is much smaller than the associated errors , and only a change in the total counting rate is statistically observable .
such an effect can arise from a variety of sources , and the identification of @xmath3 violation requires higher luminosities to observe a non - vanishing asymmetry .
the transcription of these results into statements about the su(2 ) @xmath4 u(1 ) operators is simplified by there being only one @xmath12 operator .
the coefficients @xmath134 are @xmath135 where @xmath136 .
the su(2 ) @xmath4 u(1 ) operators of eq .
( 10 ) take the form @xmath137 to estimate the value of @xmath138 that can be probed at a @xmath12 collider we have performed a combined least - squares fit to the total cross section and asymmetry .
we have assumed standard statistical errors and an additional 1 % luminosity error in the integrated cross section .
the fit was performed with @xmath139 gev ; approximate results for other energies can be obtained by scaling these numbers . as can be seen from eq .
( 30 ) there are only four different results for this process ; these are presented in fig .
although this asymmetry is not particularly sensitive to @xmath3 violation as parameterized by the operators we consider , we note that it is a good test of any @xmath3 violating amplitude for which any of the real amplitudes @xmath140 , @xmath141 , or @xmath142 are non - vanishing . in these cases terms of the form
@xmath143 appear in the fifth line of eq .
( 9 ) , leading to a large @xmath113 .
in this section we study the effects of anomalous @xmath3 violating operators in @xmath145 . a detailed study of the sm amplitudes for this process can be found in  @xcite .    as in @xmath0 ,
the @xmath146 amplitudes satisfy certain relations dictated by bose symmetry ; the anomalous couplings considered satisfy additional relations because of their transformations under @xmath101 .
let @xmath147 denote either longitudinal or transverse z polarizations .
bose symmetry implies @xmath148 and oddness under @xmath101 requires @xmath149 since the initial and final states are different in this process , the transformation properties under @xmath102 do not imply any relations between the amplitudes .
the explicit computation of the amplitudes is presented in the appendix . unlike in @xmath0 , there are several surviving amplitudes .
the structure of the sm amplitudes for @xmath144 is similar to that for @xmath0 , and even more pronounced . at high energies
the process is dominated by the imaginary parts of the amplitudes @xmath106 , @xmath107 , and @xmath108 ; all other amplitudes are completely negligible  @xcite . as before
, we must construct an observable that contains an interference of a @xmath3 odd amplitude with one of the dominant sm terms .
the asymmetry considered in the previous section contains only interference with the real parts of the sm amplitudes , and is therefore unacceptable . for interference effects between imaginary @xmath3 odd and @xmath3 even amplitudes
, we must consider the following asymmetry which is measurable with circularly polarized beams : @xmath150 this asymmetry has been considered previously in  @xcite .
the subscripts @xmath151 denote the initial polarization states of the laser and fermion beams , which we will now discuss . setting @xmath152 ,
we are left with four parameters describing the inital state polarization : @xmath153 , @xmath154 , @xmath155 , and @xmath156 .
we will set @xmath157 and @xmath158 , consistent with the expected capabilities of future facilities  @xcite , and label our inital states as @xmath159 . in the sm , there are six independent states : @xmath160 and @xmath161 , where , for example , @xmath162 means @xmath163 , @xmath164 , @xmath165 , and @xmath166 .
states obtained by an overall sign flip are identical ; for example , @xmath162 and @xmath167 lead to the same observables .
this is not true when @xmath3 violating interactions are present .
the asymmetry of eq .
( 35 ) , where the subscript @xmath168 refers to a given inital state and @xmath169 to the state obtained by flipping the signs of the polarizations , will vanish in the sm and be non - zero in the presence of the anomalous couplings .
in addition to this asymmetry we can simultaneously measure another independent quantity , the denominator of the asymmetry . referring to the ensemble average in eq .
( 9 ) and using the relations in eqs .
( 33 - 34 ) , we see that this denominator is just twice the polarized cross section , @xmath170 \ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the operators relevant to @xmath146 final states can be found in eq .
( 20 ) ; we will write them as follows : @xmath171 our philosophy in parameterizing these operators is identical to that discussed in the @xmath0 section ; there is again a coupling constant @xmath119 associated with each operator that we have set equal to 1 , and a possible factor of @xmath172 appearing in each operator that we have ignored .
the detailed amplitudes are presented in the appendix ; here we will discuss several properties relevant to our analysis .
the first is that the amplitudes for longitudinally polarized @xmath80 states are suppressed relative to those with transverse @xmath80 states by a factor of @xmath173 , as dictated by the goldstone boson equivalence theorem .
this , and the fact that the tagging efficiency for longitudinal states is at best 10% , means that we will not explore the effect of selecting final state polarizations in our analysis .    before presenting our results ,
let us examine @xmath174 in more detail .
our discussion will illustrate the complementary information that can be obtained from examining all of the possible initial polarizations . concentrating on the numerator of @xmath174
, we see that @xmath175 \nonumber \\ & & + \left ( \xi_{c}(x_{1 } ) - \xi_{c}(x_{2 } ) \right ) \left [ \mid { \cal m}_{+- } \mid^2 - \mid { \cal m}_{-+ } \mid^2 \right ] \,\ , , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where a sum over final state helicities is implied . the first term is symmetric under the interchange of the two initial photons , which implies symmetry under the transformation @xmath176 and under the interchange of the initial polarization states , @xmath177 .
the second term is antisymmetric under both of these exchanges . by selecting an appropriate initial polarization state
, we can isolate each term .
for example , the choice @xmath178 is symmetric under the interchange of the two initial polarizations ; with this choice only the first term of @xmath174 will contribute , whereas the choice @xmath179 is antisymmetric under interchange of the two initial polarizations , and with this selection only the second term contributes . a choice such as @xmath161 is of mixed symmetry , and is sensitive to both terms in @xmath174 .
such a variation of the inital states allows us to isolate the various anomalous amplitudes which contribute to @xmath174 is sensitive ; with symmetric initial polarizations it is sensitive to @xmath180 , while with antisymmetric polarizations it is sensitive to @xmath141 and @xmath142 .
the four largest asymmetries for @xmath181 are presented in fig .
( 3 ) as a function of @xmath182 , employing the same cuts as used in @xmath0 . at @xmath183 and @xmath184 tev , the `` symmetric '' asymmetries are statistically significant throughout the entire angular region , while the `` antisymmetric '' asymmetries are significant in the outer regions . in fig .
( 4 ) we present the total cross section versus @xmath129 for each inital polarization state , and the integrated asymmetry versus @xmath129 for the four symmetric initial states .
although a deviation in the cross section is not seen in any polarization state until high energies , the integrated asymmetry becomes quite large at low energies , suggesting that it provides a sensitive test of the anomalous couplings under consideration .
so far we have only considered the operator @xmath185 ; the distributions for the other two operators differ only in relative sign and overall magnitude at high energies .
the asymmetries for polarization states @xmath162 and @xmath179 for all three operators are shown in fig .
( 5 ) ; those for @xmath185 and @xmath186 are of similar magnitude but opposite sign .
this can be understood in a simple way . at high energies , a transversely polarized
@xmath80 effectively looks like a photon . when computing the amplitudes for the various operators in eq .
( 37 ) , we must include all possible permutations of the three photons , as they are identical particles ( for example , denoting the field strength tensors of the three photons by 1,2 , and 3 , the six permutations required to compute @xmath185 become @xmath187 , @xmath188 , @xmath189 , @xmath190 , @xmath191 , and @xmath192 ) .
the permutations required for @xmath185 and @xmath186 are identical to the permutations necessary to compute the amplitudes for the four photon operator of eq .
( 28 ) ; we can verify using the explicit forms of the amplitudes in the appendix that the sum of @xmath193 and @xmath194 gives @xmath195 , up to an overall constant . since @xmath102 violation leads to vanishing of the amplitudes @xmath180 , @xmath141 and @xmath142 in @xmath0 , the asymmetries for @xmath185 and @xmath186
must therefore be of opposite sign .
su(2 ) @xmath196 u(1 ) operators whose coefficients @xmath197 , @xmath198 are of the same sign will see destructive interference between @xmath185 and @xmath186 , while those whose coefficients have opposite signs will see constructive interference .
we will see similar behavior when investigating @xmath16 .
table ( 1 ) presents the coefficients @xmath199 relating the @xmath200 to the @xmath82 .
.coefficients @xmath199 relating the @xmath92 to the @xmath82 . [ cols="<,<,<,<",options="header " , ]     unlike the situation in @xmath15 , we see that all of the interference effects are destructive , given the relative signs of the @xmath201 for each operator .
however , since @xmath202 and @xmath203 , a complete cancellation does not occur except for the three operators @xmath204 , @xmath205 , and @xmath206 .
we have performed a combined least - squares fit to the normalized binned cross section , binned asymmetry , and total cross section , with @xmath207 gev , for the polarization state @xmath162 to estimate the value of @xmath138 that can be probed in this process at a photon collider .
the search reaches obtainable from the other symmetric polarization states are similar .
the results are presented in fig .
we only display results for the operators @xmath204 , @xmath206 , @xmath208 , and @xmath209 ; the sensitivity to @xmath204 and @xmath205 is identical at high energies . similarly , @xmath208 and
@xmath210 differ only in the sign of their asymmetries , as do @xmath209 and @xmath211 , and hence yield identical search reaches .
we see that overall , this process is not quite as sensitive to the anomalous operators as @xmath15 due to the destructive interference arising from the su(2 ) @xmath4 u(1 ) embedding of the @xmath79 vertex structures .
however , those operators for which the asymmetry does not vanish can still be constrained quite stringently .    in conclusion
, the sensitivity of @xmath212 to interference with the large sm amplitude @xmath17 renders this process a sensitive probe of @xmath3 violation appearing in gauge boson self couplings .
in this paper we have examined the possibility of using the processes @xmath0 , @xmath1 , and @xmath2 to search for sources of @xmath3 violation that manifest themselves at energy scales above those of future colliders .
we have parameterized these effects by an effective lagrangian containing the complete and independent set of @xmath3-odd , su(2 ) @xmath4 u(1 ) invariant quartic gauge boson operators relevant to these interactions .
the considered processes vanish at tree level in the sm , and at one loop are completely dominated by the imaginary parts of the amplitudes @xmath17 , @xmath18 , and @xmath19 .
the fact that they might be powerful tools in indirect searches for new physics was pointed out in  @xcite , where their sensitivity to supersymmetric loop effects was discussed .
our results show that they are also of utility in searches for sources of @xmath3 violation that contribute to self interactions of gauge bosons .    to demonstrate that these processes are indeed sensitive probes of the gauge boson sector
, we compare our results with four others found in the literature .
we first note that while our operators are of dimension eight , those with which we compare are of dimension six .
although our comparisons are for the search reaches for the new physics scale @xmath213 , the reader should be aware that a given limit on @xmath213 translates into a greater sensitivity to a dimension eight operator , which scales as @xmath214 , than a dimension six operator , which scales as @xmath215 , for @xmath216 .
we also note that the constraints on the anomalous su(2 ) @xmath4 u(1 ) operators obtained in this paper are stronger than those implied by unitarity .
we first contrast our search reaches with the direct bounds on quartic gauge boson couplings given recently by the lep experiments  @xcite .
they consider operators of the form @xmath217 , and obtain bounds of @xmath218 on @xmath3-conserving @xmath219 , @xmath220 , and @xmath221 vertices .
the operators considered in this paper are of the form @xmath222 ( with @xmath120 ) , and therefore our search reach for @xmath223 are to be contrasted with their bounds on @xmath224 .
as expected , our sensitivity at a higher energy and higher luminosity collider are very significantly better .
we next compare our results with those of a study of these same operators at a @xmath225 gev @xmath124 collider with an integrated luminosity of @xmath226  @xcite . in this study the operators are parameterized in the form @xmath227 , and bounds of @xmath228 obtained on vertices such as the @xmath229 vertex . setting @xmath230 , this results in @xmath231 gev , at the @xmath232 level .
the sensitivities obtained in this paper , normalized to the appropriate luminosity and energy are @xmath233 gev , where the better constraints are for those operators contributing to one of the considered asymmetries .
the search reaches obtained here on @xmath213 , after adjusting the statistical significances , are still stronger , even though the operators we consider are of dimension eight .
the sensitivity of future hadron colliders such as the lhc to these anomalous @xmath3-even @xmath79 and @xmath234 has been studied in  @xcite .
this paper obtains search reaches of @xmath235 at the 95 % cl , which are again somewhat weaker than those we have presented .
finally , the authors of  @xcite consider @xmath3-odd dimension six operators contributing to the process @xmath236 at @xmath237 tev assuming @xmath238 of integrated luminosity .
they cast their operators in the form @xmath239 , and obtain bounds of @xmath240 .
note the we have improved their results by a factor of 2.5 to simulate the search reach assuming @xmath241 of integrated luminosity .
these translate into limits of @xmath242 gev in our notation , at the @xmath243 level . the relevant limits in this paper to compare to are those assuming @xmath241 of integrated luminosity , which range from @xmath244 gev to @xmath245 gev at the 95 % cl .
our constraints on the new physics scale @xmath213 are not quite as strong , which is not too surprising considering the large cross section for @xmath236 and the fact that their operators are of dimension six while ours are of dimension eight , although the differences are lessened after accounting for the greater statistical significance of our results .
however , the processes considered are complementary ; they study the charged gauge boson production process @xmath236 while we examine the neutral gauge boson processes @xmath0 , @xmath1 , and @xmath2 .    in summary ,
the processes @xmath0 , @xmath1 , and @xmath2 are sensitive probes of @xmath3 violation in the gauge boson sector .
the sensitivities obtained here to the anomalous @xmath3-odd operators affecting these interactions compare favorably with similar limits on anomalous gauge boson couplings found in the literature .
in addition , the examination of these processes nicely complements previous studies that have focused primarily on @xmath7 boson , top quark , or higgs production .
their utility in other indirect physics searches at future photon colliders should certainly be studied in more detail .
it is a pleasure to thank hooman davoudiasl for several useful conversations , and tom rizzo for suggesting this project and for many helpful discussions .
the work of f. p. was supported in part by an nsf graduate research fellowship .
we collect here formulae describing the various photon distribution functions ; derivations are given in  @xcite .
we first define the auxiliary functions @xmath246 where @xmath247 $ ] , and @xmath248\ ] ] @xmath249.\ ] ] here @xmath22 is a variable describing the laser photon energy , and is given by @xmath250 , where @xmath251 is the electron beam energy and @xmath252 the laser energy .
varying @xmath22 changes the maximum value of the backscattered photon beam energy @xmath253 , where @xmath254 .
we will set @xmath255 , which maximizes @xmath253 while preventing interactions between the backscattered photons and laser beam .
in terms of these functions and variables the photon number and helicity distributions take the form @xmath256   - p_l \ , ( 2r - 1)\left(1 - x + \frac{1}{1 - x}\right)\right\}\ , .
\xi_{t}(x , p_e , p_l , p_t ; z ) & = & \frac{2 r^2 p_t } { c(x ) } \,\,.\end{aligned}\ ] ] @xmath257 is the photon number density function , while @xmath258 and @xmath259 are respectively the circular and linear helicity distribution functions .
we can now write the observable differential cross section as @xmath260 where @xmath261 and @xmath262 accounts for any final state bose symmetries .    here
we present the kinematics and amplitudes used for the processes in this paper .
the generic interaction considered is @xmath263 , where @xmath264 , @xmath265 are the incoming photons and @xmath266 , @xmath267 the outgoing gauge bosons .
the momenta and polarization vectors take the following form in the c.m.s .
frame : @xmath268 with @xmath269 , @xmath270 , @xmath271 , and @xmath272 . given these expressions , it is straightforward to compute the amplitudes for the operators of eq .
( 20 ) . as mentioned in the text we neglect terms of @xmath273 , as the sm amplitudes we use
also omit terms of this order .
we find that this approximation is numerically valid for the energies considered here .
the amplitude for the anomalous @xmath12 operator of eq .
( 20 ) takes the form @xmath274 \left(3+c^{2}_{\theta } \right ) \ , .\ ] ] this amplitude is exact , as @xmath275 and @xmath276 appear only in the sm amplitudes . note
that this amplitude is odd under the interchange @xmath277 ; this is a consequence of @xmath102 violation and the fact that the two final state particles are the same as the initial states .
the anomalous amplitudes for the process @xmath15 ( with @xmath278 ) are , neglecting terms of @xmath279 , @xmath280 \nonumber \\ { \cal m}_{1}^{\gamma z}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2;\lambda_3,0 ) & = & \frac{ie^2 m_z \hat{s}}{2(\lambda_{1}^{\gamma z})^4 } \ , s_{\theta } \ , \sqrt{\frac{\hat{s}}{2 } } \ , \bigg[\lambda_3 ( \lambda_1 - \lambda_2 ) + \bigg(2- \lambda_3 ( \lambda_1 + \lambda_2)\bigg ) c_{\theta } \bigg ]   \nonumber \\ { \cal m}_{2}^{\gamma z}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2;\lambda_3,\lambda_4 ) & = & \frac{ie^2 \hat{s}^2}{8(\lambda_{2}^{\gamma z})^4 } \ , \bigg [ -5(\lambda_1 + \lambda_2)(1+\lambda_3 \lambda_4 ) + 2(\lambda_3 + \lambda_1 \lambda_2 \lambda_4 ) \nonumber \\ & & -2(\lambda_2 - \lambda_1)(1-\lambda_3 \lambda_4 ) c_{\theta } + \bigg(2 ( \lambda_3 + \lambda_1 \lambda_2 \lambda_4 ) - ( \lambda_1 + \lambda_2 ) ( 1 + \lambda_3 \lambda_4 ) \bigg ) c^{2}_{\theta } \bigg ] \nonumber \\ { \cal m}_{2}^{\gamma z}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2;\lambda_3,0 ) & = & \frac{ie^2 m_z \hat{s}}{2(\lambda_{2}^{\gamma z})^4 } \ , s_{\theta } \ , \sqrt{\frac{\hat{s}}{2 } } \ , \bigg [ \lambda_3 ( \lambda_2 - \lambda_1 ) + \bigg(2 \lambda_1 \lambda_2 - \lambda_3 ( \lambda_1 + \lambda_2 ) \bigg ) c_{\theta } \bigg ] \nonumber \\ { \cal m}_{3}^{\gamma z}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2;\lambda_3,\lambda_4 ) & = & \frac{ie^2 \hat{s}^2}{32(\lambda_{3}^{\gamma z})^4 } \ , \bigg [ 3(\lambda_1 + \lambda_2)(1+\lambda_3 \lambda_4 ) +
12(\lambda_4 + \lambda_1 \lambda_2 \lambda_3 ) + 6(\lambda_3 + \lambda_1 \lambda_2 \lambda_4 ) \nonumber \\ & & + 6(\lambda_2 - \lambda_1)(1-\lambda_3 \lambda_4 ) c_{\theta } + \bigg(2 ( \lambda_4 + \lambda_1 \lambda_2 \lambda_3 ) - ( \lambda_1 + \lambda_2 ) ( 1 + \lambda_3 \lambda_4 )   \nonumber \\ & & + ( \lambda_4 - \lambda_3 ) ( 1- \lambda_1 \lambda_2 ) \bigg ) c^{2}_{\theta } \bigg ] \nonumber \\ { \cal m}_{3}^{\gamma z}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2;\lambda_3,0 ) & = & \frac{ie^2 m_z \hat{s}}{8(\lambda_{3}^{\gamma z})^4 } \ , s_{\theta } \ , \sqrt{\frac{\hat{s}}{2 } } \ , \bigg [ \lambda_3 ( \lambda_1 - \lambda_2 ) + \bigg ( 4 -2 \lambda_1 \lambda_2 - \lambda_3 ( \lambda_1 + \lambda_2 )
\bigg ) c_{\theta } \bigg ] \ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ] again neglecting terms of @xmath279 , the @xmath2 amplitudes become @xmath281 \left(1+c^{2}_{\theta } \right ) \nonumber \\ { \cal m}_{3}^{z z}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2;\lambda_3,0 ) & = & \frac{ie^2 m_z \hat{s}}{2(\lambda_{3}^{z z})^4 } \ , s_{\theta } \ , \sqrt{\frac{\hat{s}}{2 } } \ , \bigg [ ( 1 + \lambda_1 \lambda_2 ) - \lambda_3 ( \lambda_1 + \lambda_2 ) \bigg ] c_{\theta } \nonumber \\ { \cal m}_{4}^{z z}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2;\lambda_3,\lambda_4 ) & = & \frac{ie^2 \hat{s}^2}{32(\lambda_{4}^{z z})^4 } \ , \bigg [ 6 ( \lambda_1 + \lambda_2 ) ( 1 + \lambda_3 \lambda_4 ) + 2 ( \lambda_3 + \lambda_4 ) ( 1 + \lambda_1 \lambda_2 ) \nonumber \\ & & + 2 \bigg ( - ( \lambda_1 + \lambda_2 ) ( 1 + \lambda_3 \lambda_4 ) + ( \lambda_3 + \lambda_4 ) ( 1 + \lambda_1 \lambda_2 ) \bigg ) c^{2}_{\theta } \bigg ] \nonumber \\ { \cal m}_{4}^{z z}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2;\lambda_3,0 ) & = & \frac{ie^2 m_z \hat{s}}{4(\lambda_{4}^{z z})^4 } \ , s_{\theta } \ , \sqrt{\frac{\hat{s}}{2 } } \ , \bigg [ ( 1 + \lambda_1 \lambda_2 ) - \lambda_3 ( \lambda_1 + \lambda_2 ) c_{\theta } \bigg ] \nonumber \\ { \cal m}_{5}^{z z}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2;\lambda_3,\lambda_4 ) & = & \frac{ie^2 \hat{s}^2}{32(\lambda_{5}^{z z})^4 } \ , \bigg [ -6 ( \lambda_3 + \lambda_4 ) ( 1 + \lambda_1 \lambda_2 ) - 2 ( \lambda_1 + \lambda_2 ) ( 1 + \lambda_3 \lambda_4 ) \nonumber \\ & & + 2 \bigg ( ( \lambda_3 + \lambda_4 ) ( 1 + \lambda_1 \lambda_2 ) - ( \lambda_1 + \lambda_2 ) ( 1 + \lambda_3 \lambda_4 ) \bigg ) c^{2}_{\theta } \bigg ] \nonumber \\ { \cal m}_{5}^{z z}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2;\lambda_3,0 ) & = & \frac{ie^2 m_z \hat{s}}{4(\lambda_{5}^{z z})^4 } \ , s_{\theta } \ , \sqrt{\frac{\hat{s}}{2 } } \ , \bigg [ ( 1 + \lambda_1 \lambda_2 ) - \lambda_3 ( \lambda_1 + \lambda_2 ) c_{\theta } \bigg]\end{aligned}\ ] ] amplitudes with two longitudinal @xmath80 bosons are of @xmath279 , and hence are negligible in our approximation .
i. f. ginzburg , g. l. kotkin , v. g. serbo and v. i. telnov , nucl .
methods * 205 * ( 1983 ) 47 ; i. f. ginzburg , g. l. kotkin , s. l. panfil , v. g. serbo and v. i. telnov , nucl . instr .
methods * 219 * ( 1984 ) 5 .
g. blanger and f. boudjema , phys . lett .
* b288 * ( 1992 ) 210 ; k. a. peterson and s. godfrey , hep - ph/9302297 ; o. j. p. obli , m. c. gonzalz - garca and s. f. novaes , nucl
* b411 * ( 1994 ) 381 , hep - ph/9306306 ; o. j. p. obli , m. b. magro , p. g. mercandante and s. f. novaes , phys.rev .
* d52 * ( 1995 ) 15 , hep - ph/9503432 ; s. godfrey , hep - ph/9505252 ; g. j. gounaris , f. m. renard , z. phys . * c69 * ( 1996 ) 513 , hep - ph/9505429 ; g. j. gounaris , j. layssac , f. m. renard , z. phys .
* c69 * ( 1996 ) 505 , hep - ph/9505430 ; m. baillargeon , g. blanger and f. boudjema , nucl.phys . * b500 * ( 1997 ) 224 , hep - ph/9701372 ; e. boos .
hep - ph/0103090 .
t. g. rizzo , phys .
rev . * d60 * ( 1999 ) 115010 , hep - ph/9904380 ; k. cheung , phys . rev . * d61 * ( 2000 ) 015005 , hep - ph/9904266 ; h. davoudiasl , phys . rev . * d60 * ( 1999 ) 084022 , hep - ph/9904425 ; phys . rev .
* d61 * ( 2000 ) 044018 , hep - ph/9907347 .
s. hesselbach and h. fraas , phys .
* d55 * ( 1997 ) 1343 , hep - ph/9604439 ; v. barger , t. han , and j. kelly , phys .
b419 * ( 1998 ) 233 , hep - ph/9709366 ; s. berge , m. klasen and y. umeda , phys.rev .
* d63 * ( 2001 ) 035003 , hep - ph/0008081 ; k. hagiwara , hep - ph/0011360 ; m. m. mhlleitner , m. krmer , m. spira and p. m. zerwas , hep - ph/0101083 ; m. m. mhlleitner , hep - ph/0101263 . g. r. farrar and m. e. shaposhnikov , phys .
* 70 * ( 1993 ) 2833 ; erratum - ibid .
* 71 * ( 1993 ) 210 ; phys . rev .
* d50 * ( 1994 ) 774 ; hep - ph/9406387 ; m.b .
gavela , p.hernndez , j. orloff , o.pne , mod .
a9 * ( 1994 ) 795 ; hep - ph/9407403 ; p. huet and e. sather , phys . rev .
* d51 * ( 1995 ) 379 , hep - ph/9404302 .
h. anlauf , w. bernreuther and a. brandenburg , phys.rev .
* d52 * ( 1995 ) 3803 , erratum - ibid . * d53 * ( 1996 ) 1725 , hep - ph/9504424 ; p. poulose ans s. d. rindani , phys.rev .
* d57 * ( 1998 ) 5444 , erratum - ibid . * d61 * ( 2000 ) 119902 , hep - ph/9709225 ; s. y. choi and j. s. lee , phys.rev .
* d62 * ( 2000 ) 036005 , hep - ph/9912330 ; i. f. ginzburg and i. p. ivanov , hep - ph/0004069 ; d. atwood , s. bar - shalom , g. eilam and a.soni , hep - ph/0006032 .
g. blanger and g. couture , phys .
* d49 * ( 1994 ) 5720 ; s. choi and k. hagiwara , phys . lett .
* b359 * ( 1995 ) 369 , hep - ph/9506430 ; g. j. gounaris and g. p. tsirigoti , phys.rev .
* d56 * ( 1997 ) 3030 , erratum - ibid . * d58 * ( 1998 ) 059901 , hep - ph/9703446 ; m.s .
baek , s.y .
choi and c.s .
kim , phys . rev . * d56 * ( 1997 ) 6835 , hep - ph/9704312 ; i. f. ginzburg and i. p. ivanov , hep - ph/0004069 ; e. asakawa , s.y .
choi , k. hagiwara and j. s. lee , phys . rev . * d62 * ( 2000 ) 115005 , hep - ph/0005313 .
s. y. choi , k. hagiwara and m. s. baek , phys.rev .
* d54 * ( 1996 ) 6703 , hep - ph/9605334 .
g. jikia and a. tkabladze , phys . lett .
* b323 * ( 1994 ) 453 ; phys . lett . * b332 * ( 1994 ) 441 ; g. jikia , nucl . phys . * b405 * ( 1993 ) 24 ; phys . lett .
* b298 * ( 1993 ) 224 .
g. j. gounaris , p. i. porfyriadis , and f. m. renard , phys . lett .
* b452 * ( 1999 ) 76 , hep - ph/9812378 .
g. j. gounaris , p. i. porfyriadis , and f. m. renard , eur .
j. * c9 * ( 1999 ) 673 , hep - ph/9902230 .
g. j. gounaris , j. layssac , p. i. porfyriadis , and f. m. renard , eur .
j. * c10 * ( 1999 ) 499 , hep - ph/9904450 .
g. j. gounaris , j. layssac , p. i. porfyriadis , and f. m. renard , eur .
j. * c13 * ( 2000 ) 79 , hep - ph/9909243 .
k. hagiwara , r. d. peccei , d. zeppenfeld , and k. hikasa , nucl .
b282 * ( 1987 ) 253 ; m. baillargeon , g. blanger , and f. boudjema , nucl . phys .
* b500 * ( 1997 ) 224 , hep - ph/9701372 ; f. berends et .
al . , j. phys .
* g24 * ( 1998 ) 405 , hep - ph/9709413 ; g. j. gounaris , j. layssac , and f. m. renard , phys . rev .
* d61 * ( 2000 ) 073013 .
a. denner , s. dittmaier , m. roth , and d. wackeroth , hep - ph/0104057 .
d. lovelock and h. rund , _ tensors , differential forms , and variational principles _
, new york : dover publications , 1989 . b. badelek et .
al . , _ the photon collider at tesla _ , http://www.desy.de/lcnotes/tdr/ ;
j. bagger et .
al . , hep - ex/0007022 . the opal collaboration , g. abbiendi et al , phys . lett . * b471 * ( 1999 ) 293 , hep - ex/9910069 ; the l3 collaboration , m. acciarri et .
al . , phys . lett .
* b490 * ( 2000 ) 187 , hep - ex/0008022 ; the l3 collaboration , m. acciarri et .
al . , hep - ex/0102024 . g. blanger , f. boudjema , y. kurihara , d. perret - gallix and a. semenov , eur . phys
. j. * c13 * ( 2000 ) 283 , hep - ph/9908254 .
o. j. p. obli , m. c. gonzalz - garca , s. m. lietti , and s. f. novaes , phys . rev .
* d63 * ( 2001 ) 075008 , hep - ph/0009262 .


there is presently a strong interest in computation and information processing based on fundamental principles of quantum mechanics @xcite .
quantum information technology has the potential both to address problems that can not be solved by standard , classical information technology as well as to radically improve the performance of existing classical schemes .
the prospect of scalability and integrability with conventional electronics makes solid state systems a likely future arena for quantum information processing .
of particular interest is the entanglement between the elementary charge carriers , quasiparticles , in meso- or nanoscopic solid state conductors .
entanglement , or quantum mechanical correlations , constitutes a resource for any quantum information process .
moreover , due to controllable system properties and coherent transport conditions , conductors on the meso and nano scale constitute ideal systems for the generation and detection of quasiparticle entanglement .
this opens up for quantum bits based on the spin or orbital quantum states of individual electrons , the ultimate building blocks for solid state quantum information processing .
to date quasiparticle entanglement has however remained experimentally elusive .
in particular , there is no unambiguous experimental demonstration of entanglement between two spatially separated quasiparticles .
a class of mesoscopic systems that appear promising for a successful entanglement experiment are conductors without direct interactions between the quasiparticles .
it was shown by beenakker _
et al _ @xcite that fermions emitted from a thermal source can , in contrast to bosons , be entangled by scattering at a beam - splitter .
this was originally discussed for electron - hole pairs @xcite and shortly afterward for pairs of electrons @xcite .
since then there has been a large number of works on entanglement of non - interacting particles , see e.g. @xcite for a number of representative papers and also @xcite for a review .
several of the entanglement proposals have been based on electrical analogs of optical interferometers and beam - splitter geometries .
such electronic systems are conveniently implemented in conductors in the quantum hall regime , where electrons propagate along chiral edge states @xcite and quantum point contacts constitute reflectionless beam - splitters @xcite with controllable transparency , see e.g. @xcite .
recent experimental progress on electronic mach - zehnder @xcite and hanbury brown twiss @xcite interferometers has provided further motivation for a theoretical investigation of entanglement in such systems .
in addition , the experimental realization @xcite of time - controlled single - electron emitters @xcite in quantum hall systems has opened up the possibility for a dynamical generation of entangled quasiparticles , entanglement on demand @xcite .    in this work
we will focus on the electronic two - particle , or hanbury brown twiss , interferometer .
a theoretical proposal for an implementation of this two - particle interferometer ( 2pi ) in a conductor in the quantum hall regime was proposed by two of us , p.s and m.b .
, together with e. v. sukhorukov in ref .
recently , the heiblum group , including one of us , i.n .
, was able to realize the 2pi in a versatile system which could be electrically tuned between with two independent mach - zehnder interferometers and a 2pi .
in perfect agreement with the theoretical predictions @xcite , the two - particle interference pattern was visible in the current correlations but not in the average current . as discussed in ref .
@xcite , there is an intimate relation between two - particle interference and entanglement in the fermionic 2pi .
under ideal conditions , i.e. zero temperature and perfect coherence , two - particle interference implies that the two particle wave function is on the form @xmath0 . \label{introsing}\ ] ] here @xmath1 denote the sources and @xmath2 the sites of detection , as shown in fig .
[ system ] .
the wavefunction @xmath3 is maximally entangled , it is a singlet in the orbital , or pseudo spin , space @xmath4 .
however , in the experiment @xcite , @xmath5 visibility of the current correlation oscillations was observed .
this indicates that both decoherence and finite temperature is important .
dephasing can qualitatively be accounted for @xcite by a suppression of the off - diagonal components of the density matrix @xmath6 .
it was shown that at zero temperature the entanglement survives for arbitrary strong dephasing .
the effect of finite temperature was not investigated at the time of the experiment .
the experimental findings thus raised two important questions : are the electrons reaching the detectors at a and b entangled and if so , can this two - particle entanglement be unambiguously detected by measurements of currents and current correlators , the standard quantities accessible in electronic transport measurements ?
in our recent work @xcite we provided a positive answer to both these questions .
we first calculated the entanglement of the emitted two - particle state and found that the state was clearly entangled .
thereafter we showed that under very general conditions the entanglement of the reduced two - particle density matrix provides a lower bound for the entanglement of the emitted two - particle state .
since the reduced density matrix is possible to reconstruct tomographically by current and current correlation measurements @xcite , this provides an unambiguous way to detect the entanglement of the emitted state . in the present paper
we discuss these findings in more detail .
interference is most often investigated in structures that lead to a superposition of amplitudes of a single particle . however , in 1956 , hanbury brown and twiss ( hbt ) invented an optical interferometer based on correlations of light intensities @xcite , an optical 2pi , see fig .
[ system ] .
the intensity interferometer allowed hbt to determine the angular diameter of a number of visual stars , not possible with available single particle , or michelson , interferometers .
the hbt intensity interferometer displays two distinct but fundamentally interrelated features : + @xmath7 first , there is a direct statistical effect since photons from a thermal light source tend to bunch , whereas fermions would anti - bunch . this effect has been used in a large number of experiments in different fields of physics such as elementary particles @xcite , solid state @xcite and free @xcite electrons and recently cold atoms @xcite .
+ @xmath7 second , light from two different , completely uncorrelated sources gives rise to an interference effect in intensity correlations but not in the intensities themselves .
this is the two - particle interference effect . in optics , various aspects of two - particle interference
have been investigated extensively since the hbt - experiment , see e.g. @xcite for a short review , and is still a subject of interest @xcite . in electronics , only very recently was a fermionic two - particle interferometer realized @xcite , the subject of this work .
+ fundamentally both of these effects are related to the symmetry of the multiparticle wave function under exchange of two particles .
we note that albeit the hbt - experiment could be explained by a classical electro - magnetic theory , a compelling quantum mechanical picture based on individual photons was put forth soon after the experiment @xcite .
importantly , for fermions no classical theory exists .    to obtain a qualitative understanding of the physics of two - particle interferometers it is rewarding to compare the properties of optical , bosonic interferometers and electronic , fermionic interferometers . in fig .
[ system ] a schematic of a two - particle interferometer , topologically equivalent to the hbt - interferometer , is shown .
a natural measure of the correlations between the particles at @xmath8 and @xmath9 is the probability to jointly detect one particle at @xmath8 and one at @xmath9 .
an expression for this joint detection probability for photons was derived by glauber @xcite . in ref .
@xcite this was adapted to detection of electrons .
here we consider the probability to detect one photon / electron in detector @xmath10 , @xmath11 , at time @xmath12 and one in detector @xmath13 , @xmath14 at a time @xmath15 , given by @xmath16 the photon / electron creation operators at a are @xmath17 , with @xmath18 creating a particle in @xmath10 at energy @xmath19 and similarly at b. for photons we consider thermal sources in @xmath20 and @xmath21 while @xmath22 and @xmath23 are left empty . a detector frequency window of size @xmath24 is assumed , over which the distribution functions of the sources are constant , i.e. @xmath25 . for electrons we assume zero temperature and the sources @xmath20 and @xmath21 biased at @xmath26 while sources @xmath22 and @xmath23 are grounded .
only quasiparticle excitations , @xmath27 are considered .
the probabilities are normalized such that @xmath28 . following the scattering theory for intensity / current correlations for bosons / fermions emitted from thermal sources @xcite , we get @xmath29+|s_{a\alpha 2}|^2|s_{b\beta 2}|^2\left[1\pm g(\tau)\right ] \nonumber \\ & + & |s_{a\alpha 1}|^2|s_{b\beta 2}|^2+|s_{a\alpha 2}|^2|s_{b\beta 1}|^2 \nonumber \\ & \pm & g(\tau)\left[s_{a\alpha 1}^*s_{b\beta 2}^*s_{b\beta 1}s_{a\alpha 2}+s_{a\alpha 1}s_{b\beta 2}s_{b\beta 1}^ * s_{a\alpha 2}^*\right ] \label{jdpt}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath30 contains the time dependence , with @xmath31 the coherence time for electrons and @xmath32 for photons . here
@xmath33 is the amplitude to scatter from source 2 to detector @xmath10 etc .
the upper / lower signs @xmath34 correspond to electrons / photons .
several interesting conclusions can be drawn directly from eq .
( [ jdpt ] ) :    \1 ) for @xmath35 , @xmath36 approaches zero and @xmath37 is just proportional to the product of the two mean currents / intensities .
the fermionic versus bosonic statistics of the particle plays no role .
\2 ) for shorter times , @xmath38 , @xmath36 is finite and the statistics is important .
note that , as pointed out above , that the statistics of the particles enter in two different ways .
+ i ) the first two terms in eq .
( [ jdpt ] ) describe a direct bunching ( + ) or anti - bunching ( - ) effect for two particles emitted from the same reservoir within a time @xmath38
. this effect would still be present if one of the sources @xmath20 or @xmath21 is removed .
+ ii ) the last two terms describe the two - particle , or exchange @xcite , interference , where the @xmath34 sign explicitly follows from the interchange of the two detected particles .
this two particle interference is only present when both sources are active .    for semitransparent
beam - splitters @xmath39 and @xmath40 and coincident detection @xmath41 we have @xmath42 & \mbox{fermions }
\\ \frac{1}{4}\left[1+\frac{\alpha\beta}{2}\cos \phi\right ] & \mbox{bosons } \end{array}\right .
\label{jdpt2}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath43 is a scattering phase . from this expression
a very important difference between bosonic and fermionic thermal sources is apparent : the visibility @xmath44 of the oscillations is @xmath20 for fermions but only @xmath45 for bosons .
this is directly related to the fact that while the emitted fermionic two - particle state is maximally entangled , the bosonic state is unentangled @xcite .
in ref . @xcite we proposed an implementation of an electronic 2pi in a conductor in the quantum hall regime , with electrons propagating along single , spin polarized edge states ( see fig .
[ hbtferm ] ) .
two electronic reservoirs @xmath1 biased at @xmath26 act as sources for electrons while the reservoirs @xmath46 as well as the detector reservoirs are grounded .
all reservoirs are kept at the same temperature @xmath47 .
moreover , we consider here only the linear regime in voltage where electron - electron interactions can be neglected .
this regime is relevant for the experiment @xcite .
the qpc s at @xmath39 and @xmath40 act as beamsplitters with transparencies @xmath48 and @xmath49 respectively .    the scattering amplitude @xmath50 , where @xmath51 and @xmath52 is the scattering phase picked up by the electron up when traveling from c to a. similar relations hold for the other scattering amplitudes .
note that the total phase @xmath53 is , up to a constant term , given by @xmath54 where @xmath55 is the magnetic flux threading the 2pi and @xmath56 , the single particle flux quanta .
importantly , the corbino geometry in fig .
[ hbtferm ] with unidirectional edge states and reflectionless beam - splitters is topologically equivalent to the 2pi shown in fig .
[ system ] .
the standard tools for investigating transport properties in mesoscopic electronic systems are average electrical current and current correlation measurements @xcite .
a scattering theory calculation @xcite gives the average current at contact @xmath10 @xmath57 \nonumber \\ \label{curr}\end{aligned}\ ] ] and similar at @xmath58 . here @xmath59 and @xmath60 are the fermi distributions of the biased , @xmath1 and the grounded , @xmath46 reservoirs respectively .
the irreducible zero frequency correlator @xmath61 between currents @xmath62 and @xmath63 @xcite becomes @xmath64 ^ 2 \label{noise}\ ] ] these expressions are valid for arbitrary temperature but for the rest of the discussion in this section we only consider the zero temperature case . in particular , for the simplest possible case , with all beam - splitters semitransparent and energy - independent scattering amplitudes , we have @xmath65   \label{currnoise}\end{aligned}\ ] ] while the average current is a function of qpc - transparencies only , the current cross correlator depends also on the phase @xmath43 .
since this phase is proportional to the magnetic flux @xmath55 threading the 2pi , we call this a two - particle aharonov - bohm ( ab ) effect .
interestingly , we can directly relate the coincident detection probability in eq .
( [ jdpt ] ) at times @xmath66 with the currents in eq .
( [ curr ] ) and the zero frequency noise correlators in eq .
( [ noise ] ) as @xmath67 $ ] @xmath68 this is a direct consequence of fermionic anti - bunching , leading to a filled stream of electrons emitted from the source reservoirs and hence making long time observables an effective average of many individual , short time , single and two - particle events .      the connection between this two - particle aharonov - bohm effect and entanglement can be seen by considering the many - body ground state @xmath69 of the electrons injected into the 2pi .
electrons at different energies are independent and the many - body state at zero temperature is thus a product state in energy @xmath70 where @xmath71 is the filled fermi sea and @xmath72 creates an electron at energy @xmath19 , incident from reservoir @xmath20 . adopting the formalism of ref .
@xcite we first define @xmath73 the injected state at energy @xmath19 .
we have the scattering relations at the two source beam splitters , suppressing energy notation @xmath74 for incoming ( a s ) and outgoing ( b s ) electrons .
the primed scattering amplitudes thus describes particles incoming from the unbiased sources .
this gives the emitted state for the electrons at energy @xmath19 , after beam - splitters @xmath75 but before impinging on the detector beam splitters @xmath2 , as @xmath76 since we are interested in entanglement between particles in the two , spatially separated detector regions a and b we project out the part of the wave function with one particle in a and one in b yielding the normalized wavefunction @xmath77 with @xmath78 the normalization constant .
here we introduced the transmission and reflection probabilities of the source beam splitters as @xmath79 and @xmath80 for c and similarly for d. to make this more transparent we can , since the two particles live in well separated hilbert spaces , introduce the dirac notation @xmath81 etc , and write @xmath82 \label{pureab}\ ] ] which for semi - transparent beam splitters ( and scattering phase @xmath83 ) reduces to the singlet state @xmath3 in eq .
( [ introsing ] ) .
the orbital states are shown in fig .
[ hbtferm ]    the entanglement of the state @xmath84 can conveniently be quantified in terms of the concurrence @xmath85 @xcite , which ranges from zero for an unentangled state to unity for a maximally entangled state .
working in the computational basis @xmath86 , for the pure state @xmath87 in eq .
( [ pureab ] ) we have @xmath88 where @xmath89 is @xmath87 with all coefficients complex conjugated , @xmath90 a pauli matrix and @xmath91 the direct , tensor product .
we thus find for @xmath87 the concurrence @xmath92 which reaches unity for semitransparent beam splitters , i.e. for the singlet state in eq .
( [ introsing ] ) .
note that the normalization factor @xmath93 is maximal , equal to @xmath45 , for semitransparent beam splitters .
this demonstrates that at most only half of the particles injected from @xmath20 and @xmath21 lead to split pairs , with one particle emitted towards @xmath8 and one towards @xmath9 , i.e. a maximal pair emission rate of @xmath45 . for a measurement during a time @xmath94 the maximum concurrence production @xcite is thus @xmath95 , where @xmath96 the number of pairs injected from @xmath20 and @xmath21 in the time @xmath94 and energy interval @xmath97      there are several microscopic mechanisms that can lead to dephasing , typically suppressing the two - particle interference .
for low temperatures it is commonly believed that the dominatinating mechanism for dephasing is electron - electron interactions , but this is still a topic of ongoing research and goes beyond the scope of the present work .
here we consider no specific mechanism but model dephasing qualitatively by coupling one of the interferometer arms to a dephasing voltage probe @xcite . in this context
we point out a recent experiment @xcite : a voltage probe was coupled , via a tunable quantum point contact , to one arm of a mach zehnder interferometer in the quantum hall regime , demonstrating controllable dephasing .
considering semitransparent beam splitters , the dephasing probe coupled with a strength @xmath98 lead to a modification of the current correlator in eq .
( [ currnoise ] ) to @xcite @xmath99 \end{aligned}\ ] ] from this expression it is clear that @xmath100 enters as a decoherence parameter ; decreasing @xmath100 from @xmath20 to @xmath101 leads to a suppression the phase dependence of the current correlator . in the presence of dephasing the emitted state is no longer a pure state , it is instead a mixed state described by a density matrix @xmath102 .
considering zero temperature , working in the computational basis the result for @xmath103 corresponds to a suppression of the off - diagonal components of @xmath104 as @xmath105 the concurrence for a mixed state is @xcite @xmath106 where @xmath107 , @xmath108 , are the eigenvalues in decreasing order of @xmath109 .
we then have @xmath110 this means that the entanglement persists even for very strong dephasing @xcite .
this is a consequence of the 2pi - geometry , where scattering between the arms , i.e. pseudo spin - flip scattering , is prohibited .
very recently the electronic 2pi was realized experimentally by neder _
et al_. in the experiment , in the quantum hall regime , it was possible to electrically tune the system between two individual mach zehnder interferometers and a 2pi , as shown schematically in fig .
[ expfig ] .
the authors first tuned the system to two mach - zehnder interferometers and measured the single particle interference in the average current for each interferometer .
they found a very large visibility in both interferometers , around @xmath111 .
they also determined the periods of the single particle ab - oscillations as a function of both the area and the magnetic flux enclosed by the interferometers .
thereafter the system was tuned to a single 2pi . as predicted by theory
@xcite no single - particle ab - oscillations in the average current were observed but the current cross correlations displayed clear two - particle ab - oscillations , with an amplitude @xmath112 of the predicted coherent , zero temperature value . by measuring also the period of the two - particle oscillations as a function of interferometer area and enclosed flux and comparing to the sum of the periods for the two mach zehnder interferometers ,
the two - particle nature of the ab - oscillations could be established beyond doubt .    in the experiment semitransparent
beam splitters were used , @xmath113 . for the current cross correlations ,
theory for finite temperature and dephasing @xcite predicts , for @xmath114 , @xmath115 .
\label{noise2}\ ] ] the temperature dependence is fully contained in @xmath116 varying from unity for @xmath117 to zero for @xmath118 . the effect of finite temperature is thus to suppress the overall amplitude of the current cross correlation oscillations . in the experiment ,
the applied bias was @xmath119 .
the electron temperature was estimated from independent auto - correlation measurements to be @xmath120 .
this yields the temperature suppression factor @xmath121 . a direct comparison to eq .
( [ noise2 ] ) then gives the oscillation amplitude @xmath122 , i.e. @xmath123 , a substantial dephasing .
our main aim of this work is to theoretically investigate the effects of finite temperature on the entanglement of the state emitted out from the source , towards the detectors .
a prerequisite is to obtain both a qualitative and a quantitative description of the emitted many - body state at finite temperature .
we consider the experimentally relevant situation with all source and detector reservoirs kept at the same temperature @xmath47 . due to the finite temperature , not only the electrons emitted from the source in the energy range @xmath124 are of interest
, we must in principle take into account particles emitted from all reservoirs at all possible energies .
however , due to the chiral geometry of the 2pi in fig .
[ hbtferm ] , particles emitted from the detectors can never scatter back to the detectors , i.e. detector cross talk is topologically prohibited .
the particles arriving at the detectors thus all originate from the source reservoirs and we can focus on the many body state emitted by source @xmath20 to @xmath23 . we note that in the slightly different geometry realized experimentally @xcite , there is the possibility for scattering between the detectors . it can however be shown @xcite that this does not influence the entanglement of the emitted state .    at finite temperature the state injected from the sources is mixed and described by a density matrix @xcite @xmath125|0\rangle\langle 0|+f_{\kappa}(e)a^{\dagger}_{\kappa}(e)|0\rangle\langle 0|a_{\kappa}(e)\right ] \label{rhoin}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath126 is the fermi distribution of source reservoir @xmath127 . the outgoing state is then obtained by inserting the scattering relations of eq .
( [ scatrel ] ) int eq .
( [ rhoin ] ) .
one can see from eq .
( [ rhoin ] ) that the effect of finite temperature is to give rise to states with 0 to 4 particles emitted at a given energy . for the terms of interest ,
i.e. with at least one particle at both a and b , there is at finite temperature the possibility for e.g. two particles at a and one at b etc .
these terms are of central importance in the discussion below .
a theory for entanglement production in non - interacting @xcite conductors at finite temperature was presented by beenakker @xcite and along similar lines in closed condensed matter systems by dowling , doherty and wiseman @xcite . at a given energy ,
only the component of the emitted many - body state with one particle in detector region a and one in b has nonzero entanglement . moreover , as emphasized in ref .
@xcite , only this term describes two particles which each live in a well defined @xmath128 hilbert spaces at a and b respectively , i.e. two coupled orbital qubits .
we point out that this definition does not take into account occupation - number , or fock - space entanglement .
the first step is thus to project out the two - particle component from the many - body wave function , which is accomplished by the projection operator @xmath129 where @xmath130 with @xmath131 etc is the number operator ( suppressing energy notation ) .
this yields the projected density matrix @xmath132 the elements of the density matrix @xmath133 are conveniently calculated from the relation @xcite @xmath134_{ij , kl}=\langle \pi b_{ai}^{\dagger}b_{bj}^{\dagger}b_{bk}b_{al } \pi \rangle\ ] ] where , for any operator x , @xmath135 $ ] is the standard quantum - statistical average .
some algebra gives the projected density matrix , formally equivalent to the density matrix calculated in @xcite , eqs .
( b9 ) - ( b13 ) , @xmath136 where @xmath137 and @xmath138 and @xmath139 the fermi distribution functions of the grounded and biased source reservoirs respectively .
the coefficients @xmath140+\chi)(t_d[1-\chi]+\chi ) , \nonumber \\
c_{21}^{21}&=&(t_c[1-\chi]+\chi)(r_d[1-\chi]+\chi ) , \nonumber \\
c_{12}^{21}&=&(c_{21}^{12})^*=-\gamma \sqrt{r_ct_cr_dt_d}e^{i\phi_0}(1-\chi)^2\end{aligned}\ ] ] with @xmath141 an overall scattering phase of the beam splitters c and d. thus , only the prefactor @xmath142 depends on energy . as for the zero temperature case we have introduced dephasing as a suppression of the off - diagonal components of the density matrix .
it follows from eq .
( [ projected ] ) that finite temperature leads to + i ) an overall modification of the energy - dependent probability for two - particle emission via the prefactor @xmath143 .
+ ii ) a suppression @xmath144 of the off - diagonal components , equivalent to the effect of dephasing .
+ iii ) a finite amplitude for the diagonal density matrix elements @xmath145_{11,11}$ ] and @xmath145_{22,22}$ ] , i.e for two particles being emitted from either sources 1,3 or 2,4 . +
additional insight follows from writing the projected density matrix as @xmath146 \label{projected2}\ ] ] where the diagonal density matrix @xmath147\ ] ] with the zero temperature single particle density matrices @xmath148 and @xmath149 .
the density matrix @xmath150\end{aligned}\ ] ] results from the two - particle interference . here
we used the shorthand notation @xmath151 with @xmath152 etc .
note that the effect of decoherence enters as a suppression of the two - particle interference @xmath153 , where @xmath154 .
writing @xmath155 in the form in eq .
( [ projected2 ] ) shows that , taken the energy dependent prefactor @xmath142 aside , the effects of finite temperature can be viewed as follows : first , the amplitude of the two - particle interference component @xmath156 is suppressed with increasing temperature as @xmath144 .
second , the density matrix acquires a purely diagonal component @xmath157 with an amplitude @xmath158 ( note that @xmath159=4 $ ] , independent on temperature ) .    for the entanglement , following
@xcite we introduce @xmath160 and @xmath161 , the normalized density matrix and the emission probability of the emitted two - particle state respectively , defined from @xmath162=(1-f)^2f_v^2[(r_ct_d+t_cr_d)(1-\chi)^2 + 4\chi]\end{aligned}\ ] ] where we note that @xmath160 is independent on energy .
the emission probability @xmath161 is thus the probability , per unit energy , that the ( normalized ) two - particle state @xmath160 is emitted .
the concurrence production per unit energy is then @xmath163 and the total entanglement production during a time @xmath94 , @xmath164 , is then ( @xmath96 ) @xmath165 we denote this the projected entanglement . as shown in fig .
[ fig2 ] , @xmath166 decreases monotonically as a function of @xmath47 .
it reaches zero at a critical temperature @xmath167 given by @xmath168    for semi - transparent beam - splitters and zero dephasing , @xmath169 , the entanglement thus survives up to @xcite @xmath170 .    inserting the parameter values from the experiment , we get @xmath171 and @xmath172 , i.e. _ the state emitted by the 2pi is clearly entangled_. importantly , the effect of finite temperature is essentially negligible , the reduction in entanglement comes from decoherence .
the entanglement of the projected density matrix is the entanglement one could access , had one been able to do arbitrary local operations and classical communication between a and b , i.e. fully energy and particle resolved measurements .
under realistic conditions this is not possible , the accessible physical quantities are currents and current cross correlators .
is it possible to determine the projected entanglement with such measurements ?
the answer to this question is no , for two main reasons : + i ) as discussed above , at nonzero temperatures it is not only the biased source reservoirs which emit particles but also the grounded source reservoirs do . as a consequence
, there is a finite amplitude for emitted states with two - particles at a and/or at b. these unentangled states contribute to currents and current correlators , which results in a detectable state with suppressed entanglement .
+ ii ) the current and current correlators provide information on the energy integrated properties of the many - body state , not on the emitted state at each energy .
this lack of energy - resolved information leads to a further suppression of the detectable entanglement .
+ clearly , these effects of the thermally excited fermi sea constitute generic problems when trying to detect entanglement in mesoscopic conductors .    as a remedy for these finite temperature read - out problems
it was suggested to work with detectors at very low temperatures @xcite .
another idea was recently presented by hannes and titov @xcite .
they investigated detection of entanglement at finite temperatures via a bell inequality and proposed to introduce energy filters at the drains .
however , both schemes @xcite would lead to additional experimental complications in systems which already are experimentally very challenging . our idea is instead to investigate what information about the projected entanglement can actually be deduced from current and current correlation measurements .    in this context
we also mention the recent proposal by kindermann @xcite , to produce and detect entangled electron - hole pairs in graphene via a bell inequality formulated in terms of the transport part of the current cross correlators @xcite , i.e. by subtracting away the thermal equilibrium correlators from the finite bias ones . in our work @xcite we proposed a similar scheme for a general mesoscopic conductor .
however , as was pointed out in @xcite and is further discussed below , it is important that one performs a detailed comparison of the projected entanglement and the entanglement obtained from current cross correlation measurements . without such a comparison , there is the possibility that one concludes , based on correlation measurements , finite entanglement where there is none , i.e. the projected entanglement is zero .
we first consider the expression for the current and zero frequency current cross correlators at contacts @xmath173 and @xmath174 at finite temperatures .
we have @xmath175 , \hspace{0.5 cm } i_{b+}=\frac{e}{h}\int de \left[\langle n_{b+}\rangle - f\right ] , \nonumber \\ s_{a+b+}&=&\frac{e^2}{h}\int de \langle \delta n_{a+ } \delta n_{b+}\rangle \label{currnoisered}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath176 is the irreducible correlator . as discussed above
, the many - body state incident on the detectors originates from the sources .
it is the properties of this state that determines the observables @xmath177 and @xmath178 and thus establishes a connection between the emitted state and the physical quantities accessible in a measurement .      in order to better understand the readout problem discussed above , we first discuss the energy resolved properties of the emitted state . if one would have access to energy filters , as proposed in @xcite , or would be working at zero temperature , by combining current and current cross correlations it would be possible to get direct access to the energy resolved quantities @xmath179 and @xmath180 . as is discussed below , by a suitable set of measurements with different settings of the beam splitters at a and b one
could then tomographically reconstruct the ( unnormalized ) density matrix of the state emitted out from the source beam splitters c and d , @xmath181 , with elements given by @xmath182_{ij , kl}=\langle b_{ai}^{\dagger}b_{bj}^{\dagger}b_{bk}b_{al } \rangle\ ] ] we denote @xmath181 the energy resolved reduced density matrix .    by comparing @xmath181 with the expression for the projected density matrix in eq .
( [ projected ] ) we see that it differs by the projection operators .
consequently , the reduced density matrix contains also the contributions from processes with more than one particle at a and/or at b. after some algebra we find the density matrix @xmath183 where we introduced @xmath184 $ ] and the coefficients @xmath185+\chi)(t_d[1-\chi]+\tilde \chi ) , \nonumber
\\ \tilde c_{21}^{21}&=&(t_c[1-\chi]+\chi)(r_d[1-\chi]+\tilde \chi).\end{aligned}\ ] ] a comparison to the projected density matrix in eq .
( [ projected ] ) shows that @xmath181 only differs formally from @xmath155 by the change @xmath186 at a number of places .
this has the consequence that the normalized density matrix @xmath187 , with @xmath188 $ ] depend on energy .
that is , in contrast to @xmath189 both the normalized , emitted two - particle state as well as the emission probability depend on energy .
qualitatively , as discussed above , the difference between @xmath181 and @xmath155 arises from the fact that also states with more than one particle at a and/or b contribute to @xmath181 but not to @xmath155 .
writing @xmath181 on a form similar to eq .
( [ projected2 ] ) one sees that these three and four particle states contribute only to the diagonal part of @xmath181 .
turning to the entanglement , the concurrence production @xmath190 at energy @xmath19 is then @xmath191 from the expression for the concurrence it becomes clear that the separable three and four - particle states are detrimental for the entanglement .
hence , finite temperature leads to a stronger suppression of the reduced , energy resolved density matrix than of the projected one .
this is illustrated in fig .
[ redeconc ] where the corresponding concurrencies are plotted for semitransparent beam - splitters and different values of @xmath192 .    as is clear from the figure , there is an energy @xmath193 above which the concurrence is finite ( up to @xmath194 ) . the energy @xmath193 is given by the condition @xmath195 , as @xmath196-\ln \left[(1-\chi)\sqrt{1 + 4\sqrt{r_ct_cr_dt_d}}-(1+\chi)\right]\right ) \label{encond}\ ] ] what is moreover clear from fig .
[ redeconc ] is that , for all energies , @xmath197 .
the difference is obvious for energies @xmath198 , where @xmath199 . at these energies
the probability for emission of separable three and four particle states is thus large enough to completely suppress the entanglement of the reduced density matrix .
importantly , the relation @xmath197 holds for all settings of the beam splitters @xmath200 and @xmath49 , as is clear by comparing eqs .
( [ conceproj ] ) and ( [ concered ] ) .
the reason for this is that the reduced density matrix contains contributions from all individual particle density matrices @xmath201 with @xmath202 ( e.g. @xmath203 describes one particle at a and two at b ) while the projected density matrix only depends on @xmath204 . since all @xmath205 are separable and the concurrence is a convex quantity , i.e. @xmath206 for @xmath207 , the concurrence @xmath208 is always smaller than @xmath209 .
we point out that this carries over to the total concurrence production found by integrating eq .
( [ concered ] ) over energy ( result not presented here ) .
it follows from eq .
( [ encond ] ) that for a critical temperature @xmath210 the energy @xmath211 , i.e. the entanglement is zero for any energy .
interestingly , this happens for the same temperature as for the projected concurrence , eq .
( [ crittc ] ) .
importantly , at finite temperature , without any energy filters , we do not have access to the energy resolved quantities discussed above , only to the total currents and current correlators measured at contacts @xmath212 . in ref .
@xcite it was discussed how to , at zero temperature , tomographically reconstruct the reduced density matrix using currents and current correlations . extending this scheme to nonzero temperatures
it is natural to define the finite temperature reduced density matrix @xmath213 via the relation @xmath214\rho_r\right\}. \label{noisecurrrel}\end{aligned}\ ] ] we emphasize that @xmath213 is reconstructed from observables already integrated over energy and does hence not depend on energy .
also note that @xmath213 is not given by integrating @xmath181 over energy , in fact the difference between the two density matrices is further discussed below .    in eq .
[ noisecurrrel ] the orbital current operators in the local basis @xmath215 , including the rotations at the detector splitters , are @xmath216 and @xmath217 , with @xmath218 and @xmath219 where @xmath220 $ ] a vector of pauli matrices and @xmath221 the scattering matrix of the beam splitter at a ( b ) .    making use of the results for finite temperature current and current correlations in @xcite we obtain the reduced density matrix @xmath222 where @xmath223 . comparing @xmath213 to both @xmath155 and @xmath181 in eqs .
( [ projected ] ) and ( [ redendens ] ) it is clear that the qualitative effect of finite temperature is the same for the reduced density matrix .
the quantitative effects are however different .
first , the temperature dependence enters via @xmath224 rather than via @xmath225 , giving a much stronger effect of finite temperature .
this is the effect of having access to energy integrated quantities only .
second , in the expression for the average current in eq .
( [ currnoisered ] ) , in the integrand one subtracts @xmath138 which arises due to particles flowing out of the detector reservoirs .
this yields smaller diagonal terms , to be further discussed below .
it is illuminating , just as for @xmath155 , to write @xmath213 as a sum of a diagonal and an interference part , @xmath226+h\rho^{int}. \label{reduced2}\ ] ] from this we see that the effect of increasing temperature is to monotonically increase the amplitude for the separable product state @xmath227 , while the amplitude of the interference component is suppressed .
we can thus conclude the following properties for all three density matrices @xmath228 and @xmath213 : + i ) at zero temperature they all reduce to the same expression , @xmath156 .
+ ii ) increasing temperature leads to a monotonic suppression of the two - particle interference component .
+ iii ) finite temperature introduces an additional diagonal component , different for the three density matrices .    turning to entanglement , introducing the normalized reduced density matrix @xmath229 we can write @xmath230=[r_ct_c+r_dt_d](1-h)+r_ct_d+r_dt_c.\end{aligned}\ ] ]
we then define the total entanglement production during a time @xmath94 as @xmath231 .
it is @xmath232,0\ } \label{concred}\ ] ] here called the reduced entanglement .
as @xmath166 , @xmath233 decreases monotonically with increasing @xmath47 .
it reaches zero at a critical temperature @xmath234 given by the relation @xmath235 for perfect coherence , @xmath169 , we have @xmath236 , close to one half of @xmath237 .
importantly , in contrast to @xmath167 , @xmath234 is independent on the setting of the beam splitters .    by comparing the expressions for the two quantities of main interest , the projected and reduced concurrencies , @xmath166 in eq .
( [ concproj ] ) and @xmath233 in eq .
( [ concred ] ) , we can conclude the following : + i ) for both @xmath166 and @xmath233 the origin of the entanglement is the two - particle interference , in fact the component @xmath156 gives rise to the positive term @xmath238 , identical for @xmath166 and @xmath233 .
+ ii ) for both @xmath166 and @xmath233 finite temperature introduces a negative term , @xmath239 $ ] for @xmath166 and @xmath240 for @xmath233 , which leads to a suppression of the concurrence .
these terms arise from the separable , diagonal components of the corresponding density matrices .
comparing eqs . ( [ concproj ] ) and ( [ concred ] ) quantitatively we find that @xmath241 for @xmath242 independent on @xmath100 ( see fig .
[ fig2 ] ) .
consequently , for beam splitters away from the strongly asymmetrical ( tunneling ) limit , _ the reduced entanglement constitutes a lower bound for the projected entanglement_. in the tunneling limit , however , the reduced entanglement is larger than the projected one . thus , in contrast to the energy - resolved reduced density matrix @xmath181 , @xmath213 can be more entangled than @xmath189 .
the origin of this difference is , as pointed out above , that when calculating ( and measuring ) @xmath213 the average currents flowing out from the detector reservoirs are subtracted , yielding a smaller diagonal component and hence a larger entanglement @xmath233 . importantly ,
since the transparencies @xmath200 and @xmath49 can be controlled and measured via average currents in the experiment , it is always possible to verify independently that the condition in eq .
( [ bondcond ] ) is satisfied .
turning to the experiment @xcite , for the relevant parameters we have @xmath243 , showing the validity of the bound .
however , @xmath244 and based on the measurement @xcite no conclusive statement can be made about @xmath233 and hence not about @xmath166 . in order to detect entanglement via measurements of currents and current correlations ,
one thus need to work at even lower temperature and further reduce the dephasing in the experiment .
a more detailed understanding of this finite temperature readout problem can be obtained by comparing the properties of @xmath160 and @xmath229 . for
perfect coherence @xmath169 and identical beam splitters @xmath245 one can ( up to a local phase rotation ) write @xmath246 a werner state @xcite , with singlet weight [ @xmath3 is the singlet in eq .
( [ introsing ] ) ] @xmath247 increasing @xmath192 from zero , @xmath248 becomes exponentially small while @xmath249 increases linearly .
these qualitatively different behaviors , clearly illustrated in fig .
[ fig2 ] , are a striking signature of how a small @xmath192 , having negligible effect on @xmath250 , leads to a large suppression of @xmath251 .    from eqs .
( [ concproj ] ) and ( [ concred ] ) follows also a counter - intuitive result : _ finite amplitude of the ab - oscillations is no guarantee for finite two - particle entanglement_. this is apparent for @xmath229 in the limit of no decoherence @xmath169 and identical beam splitters @xmath252 , since a separable werner state , @xmath253 , can be decomposed @xcite as @xmath254 with the normalized states at @xmath8 and @xmath9 @xmath255/4}\sin \theta^{a / b}_n|2\rangle , \nonumber \\ \theta_1^{a / b}&=&\theta_3^{a / b}=\mbox{atan}[y^{a / b } ] , \hspace{0.5 cm } \theta_2^{a / b}=\theta_4^{a / b}=-\mbox{acot}[y^{a / b } ] \nonumber \\
y^{a / b}&=&\frac{\sqrt{2-\xi_r}+\sqrt{3\xi_r-2}}{\sqrt{\xi_r}\pm \sqrt{4 - 3\xi_r } } , \hspace{0.5 cm } + ( -)~ \mbox{for}~ a(b)\end{aligned}\ ] ] this _ classically _ correlated state gives , via eq .
( [ noisecurrrel ] ) , ab - oscillations with amplitude @xmath256 . moreover , the reduced local single particle states are completely featureless , @xmath257 which means that there is no single particle aharonov - bohm effect .
the existence of classically correlated two - particle states giving rise to aharonov - bohm oscillations in the current cross correlations but not in the currents provides further motivation for a complete tomographic reconstruction of the reduced density matrix in order to provide an unambiguous experimental demonstration of entanglement .
as pointed out at several places above , the reduced density matrix can be reconstructed by a suitable set of current and current correlations measurements with different settings of the beam splitters parameters , i.e. different @xmath258 .
a detailed description of this scheme is given in @xcite .
here we only emphasize that the necessary tools , controllable reflectionless electronic beams splitters and phase gates , are experimentally available , as demonstrated in e.g. @xcite      another widely discussed @xcite approach to detect the entanglement in mesoscopic conductors is to use a bell inequality .
violation of a chsh - bell inequality @xcite formulated in terms of currents and low - frequency current correlations demonstrates finite entanglement of @xmath213 .
we point out that an optimal bell test , requiring control over all three components of @xmath259 and @xmath260 , demands the same number of measurement and level of experimental complexity as a tomographic reconstruction of @xmath213 .
the chsh - bell inequality is @xmath261 where @xmath262 is the bell parameter for the projected / reduced state .
the bell parameter is formally determined by the projected / reduced density matrix @xmath263 and different settings of the detector beam splitters , reaching its maximum value @xmath264 for an optimal setting of @xmath259 and @xmath265 . from @xmath160 and @xmath229
above , we can , using ref .
@xcite , calculate the maximal bell parameters . for symmetric beam splitters , @xmath266 , we have the simple result @xmath267 where the singlet weights @xmath268 and @xmath269 are given in eq .
( [ singweights ] ) .
this shows that the effects of decoherence and finite temperature enters separately in the bell parameter .
moreover , as pointed out in refs .
@xcite , at zero temperature a bell inequality can in principle be violated for arbitrary dephasing .
we also point out that a detailed investigation of conditions for violation of a bell inequality in the presence of dephasing , in the solid state , was recently performed in ref .
@xcite .
the limiting value for violation @xmath270 for @xmath271 plotted in fig .
it is clear that for the values @xmath192 and @xmath100 of the 2pi - experiment , while @xmath272 in principle can be violated , a detection of entanglement by violating @xmath273 is not possible .
this demonstrates in a striking way the known fact @xcite that there are entangled states that do not give a violation of a bell inequality .
in conclusion , we have investigate the effect of finite temperature on the entanglement production and detection in the fermionic two - particle interferometer , presenting an extended discussion of the results in ref .
@xcite . a calculation of the entanglement of the two - particle state projected out from the emitted
, finite temperature many body state shows that the state emitted in the two - particle interferometer in the experiment by neder et al @xcite is clearly entangled . by comparing the entanglement of the projected two - particle state with the entanglement of the reduced two - particle state , accessible via quantum state tomography based on current and current correlation measurements
, we establish that the entanglement of the reduced state constitute a lower bound for the entanglement of the projected state . in the two - particle interferometer experiment the reduced state is however marginally entangled .
moreover , a finite temperature bell inequality formulated in terms of currents and current correlators can not be violated in the experiment .
this shows that an unambiguous demonstration of the entanglement via measurements of currents and current correlations requires a reduction of the dephasing and the temperature .
the work was supported by the swedish vr , the israeli sf , the minerva foundation , the german israeli foundation ( gif ) and project cooperation ( dip ) , the us - israel binational sf , the swiss nsf and manep .
beenakker , m. kindermann , c.m .
marcus , and a. yacoby , in _ fundamental problems of mesoscopic physics _ , edited by i.v .
lerner , b.l .
altshuler , and y. gefen , nato science series ii .
154 ( kluwer , doordrect , 2004 ) .