the direct and precise measurement of the self - coupling between the electroweak gauge bosons in @xmath2-pair production will be a crucial step in testing the standard model of electroweak interactions and searching for physics beyond it .
it will form an important part of the physics programme at lep2 and at a planned linear @xmath3-collider ( lc ) .
as is well known there are three diagrams at tree level that contribute to the amplitude of @xmath4 in the standard model , one with @xmath5-channel neutrino exchange and the other two with a @xmath6 or @xmath7 in the @xmath8-channel , involving the vertices @xmath1 and @xmath0 .
one can parametrise the corresponding vertex functions in order to quantify the couplings and to compare them with their form in the standard model . in the most general form respecting lorentz covariance
each vertex involves seven complex form factors @xcite , three of which give couplings that violate @xmath9 symmetry .    without further physical assumptions one
is thus left with 28 real parameters whose simultaneous extraction in one experiment looks quite hopeless . given the limited event statistics expected at both lep2 and the lc one will only obtain meaningful errors on a reduced number of coupling parameters at one time .
this may be achieved by imposing certain constraints on the full set of coupling constants ; various suggestions for such constraints based on symmetry considerations have been made in the literature @xcite .
one must however keep in mind that experimental values or bounds on couplings that have been obtained with particular constraints can not be converted into results without constraints or with different ones ; the information lost by assuming relations between couplings can not be retrieved .
although imposing such constraints is certainly legitimate and can be useful we stress that a data analysis with independent couplings will be valuable , both from the point of view of model independence and the capability to compare results of different experiments .
we remark that of course one can also give ( reasonably small ) errors on _ single or few _ couplings in a multi - parameter analysis . in this paper
we propose a parametrisation of the couplings which is well adapted to this end , the statistical errors on the different measured parameters being approximately uncorrelated .
we will work in the framework of optimal observables , a way to extract unknown coupling parameters introduced for the case of one parameter in @xcite that has since been used for various reactions @xcite .
general aspects of this method , in particular its extension to an arbitrary number of parameters , as well as its application to @xmath10 production were discussed in @xcite . in this paper
we investigate again the reaction @xmath11 .
we concentrate here on the decay channels , where one @xmath2 decays hadronically and the other into an electron or muon and its neutrino . calculated with the born level cross section of the standard model the statistics of these channels
is about 3000 events for a collision energy of @xmath12 and @xmath13 integrated luminosity , which are typical planned lep2 parameters , and about 22000 events with @xmath14 at @xmath15 , which might be achieved at the lc .
a complementary source of information is the integrated cross section , which is a quadratic function of the triple gauge couplings .
the combination of information from the total event rate and from observables that make use of the detailed distribution in the final state has for example been used in @xcite , where @xmath9 violation in the decay @xmath16 was investigated .    in sec .
[ sec : method ] of this paper we will further develop some aspects of the method of optimal observables , in particular we will show how to apply it without the linear approximation in the coupling parameters that was used in @xcite . in sec .  [ sec : diagon ] we then propose a parametrisation of the couplings that simultaneously diagonalises certain matrices connected with our observables and with the integrated cross section .
these parameters achieve two goals : their quadratic contribution to the total cross section is a simple sum of squares and the covariance matrix of the corresponding optimal observables is diagonal . the methods which we use for this purpose
are borrowed from the theory of small oscillations of a system with @xmath17 degrees of freedom ( cf .
e.g.  @xcite ) .
our parameters correspond to `` normal coordinates '' and their use in an experimental analysis should in our view present several advantages .
we give some numerical examples for @xmath2-pair production at lep2 and the lc in sec .
[ sec : numeric ] and make some further remarks on how our proposal might be implemented in practice in sec .
[ sec : practice ] .
the last section of this paper gives a summary of our main points .
the method of optimal observables has previously been presented in the approximation that the couplings to be extracted are sufficiently small to allow for a leading order taylor expansion of various expressions . here
we show how to use it beyond this approximation .
let us denote by @xmath18 the real and imaginary parts of the @xmath1 and @xmath0 form factors minus their values in the standard model at tree level .
as the amplitude of our process is linear in these couplings we can write the differential cross section as @xmath19 where @xmath20 is a positive semidefinite symmetric matrix .
@xmath21 collectively denotes the set of measured phase space variables .
the integrated cross section is @xmath22 with the standard model cross section @xmath23 and coefficients @xmath24 the idea of using integrated observables is to define suitable functions @xmath25 of the phase space variables and to extract the unknown couplings from their measured mean values @xmath26 .
let us give the details . from ( [ diffxsection ] ) and ( [ intxsection ] ) we obtain the expectation value @xmath27 $ ] of @xmath28 as @xmath29 - e_0[{{\cal o}}_i ] = \frac{\displaystyle \sum_{j } c_{ij } \ , g_j      + \sum_{jk } q_{ijk } \ , g_j g_k}{\displaystyle 1 + \sum_{j }      { \hat{\sigma}_{1,j } } \ , g_j + \sum_{jk } { \hat{\sigma}_{2,jk } } \ , g_j g_k}\ ] ] with the standard model expectation value @xmath30 = ( \int d\phi \ , { { \cal o}}_i
s_0 ) / \sigma_0 $ ] and coefficients @xmath31 \ , { \hat{\sigma}_{1,j } }   { \hspace{6pt},}\nonumber \\    q_{ijk } & = & \frac{1}{\sigma_0 } \int d\phi \ , { { \cal o}}_i s_{2,jk } -    e_0[{{\cal o}}_i ] \ , { \hat{\sigma}_{2,jk } } { \hspace{6pt}.}\end{aligned}\ ] ] we remark in passing that the coefficients in ( [ expect ] ) can be written in a compact form as @xmath32 { \hspace{6pt},}\hspace{3em }    q_{ijk } { \hspace{0.4em } = \hspace{0.4em}}v_0[{{\cal o}}_i \ , , \ ; s_{2,jk } /s_0 ] { \hspace{6pt},}\nonumber \\    { \hat{\sigma}_{1,j } } & = & e_0[s_{1,j } /s_0 ] { \hspace{6pt},}\hspace{4.4em }    { \hat{\sigma}_{2,jk } } { \hspace{0.4em } = \hspace{0.4em}}e_0[s_{2,jk } /s_0 ] { \hspace{6pt},}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath33 = e_0[f g ] - e_0[f ] \ , e_0[g]$ ] is the covariance of @xmath34 and @xmath35 in the standard model .
note that @xmath36 is symmetric and positive definite , whereas @xmath37 as a matrix in @xmath38 and @xmath39 is symmetric but in general indefinite .
an estimation of the couplings can now be obtained by solving the system ( [ expect ] ) with @xmath27 $ ] replaced by the mean values @xmath26 , @xmath40 = \frac{\displaystyle \sum_{j } c_{ij } \
, g_j      + \sum_{jk } q_{ijk } \ , g_j g_k}{\displaystyle 1 + \sum_{j }      { \hat{\sigma}_{1,j } } \ , g_j + \sum_{jk } { \hat{\sigma}_{2,jk } } \ , g_j g_k }   { \hspace{6pt},}\ ] ] provided of course one has @xmath41 observables for @xmath41 unknown couplings .
when the system ( [ mean ] ) is linearised in the @xmath18 it is easily solved by inversion of the matrix @xmath42 .
one is however not constrained to do so and can instead solve the exact set of equations ( [ mean ] ) . by multiplication with the denominator
it can be rearranged to a coupled set of quadratic equations in the @xmath18 and will in general have several solutions .
some of these may be complex and thus ruled out , but from the information of the @xmath43 alone one can not tell which of the remaining real ones is the physical solution .
we will come back to this point .
the measured mean values @xmath43 are of course only equal to the @xmath27 $ ] up to systematic and statistical errors .
we only consider the latter here , which are given by the covariance matrix @xmath44 of the observables @xmath28 divided by the number @xmath45 of events in the analysis .
to convert the errors on the observables into errors on the extracted couplings we use the quantity @xmath46 \right ) n    v({{\cal o}})^{-1 } { } _ { ij } \left ( { \bar{{{\cal o}}}}_j - e[{{\cal o}}_j ] \right ) { \hspace{6pt},}\ ] ] which depends on the @xmath18 through the @xmath27 $ ] given in ( [ expect ] ) .
solving ( [ mean ] ) is tantamount to minimising @xmath47 with @xmath48 , and a confidence region on the couplings is as usual given by @xmath49 with the constant determined by the desired confidence level .
there are several possible choices for the covariance matrix @xmath50 in ( [ chi ] )
. it can be    1 .
determined from the measured distribution of the observables @xmath28 , 2 .
calculated from the differential cross section ( [ diffxsection ] ) , taking for the @xmath18 the values extracted in the measurement , 3 .
calculated for vanishing couplings @xmath18 , 4 .
calculated as a function of the couplings .
choices 1 .  and 2 .
should lead to the same results in the limit of large @xmath45 where the statistical errors on the measured @xmath44 and @xmath18 become small .
comparison of the covariance matrices obtained by these two methods might indeed be helpful to rule out unphysical solutions of ( [ mean ] ) .
.  in turn will be a good approximation of 2 .
if the couplings are small enough . we consider possibility 4 .  as the least practical one , except maybe for the case of one coupling . for several couplings
the expression of @xmath44 as a function of the @xmath18 involves tensors of rank up to four and is even more complicated than the one for the expectation values ( [ expect ] ) , and the inverse matrix is yet more clumsy . for this reason we will discard choice 4 .  in the following .    in @xcite
we considered an analysis at leading order in the @xmath18 , where one uses the linearised form of ( [ mean ] ) to estimate the couplings : @xmath51 \right )   { \hspace{6pt}.}\ ] ] correspondingly the linear approximation of ( [ expect ] ) is used in the expression ( [ chi ] ) of @xmath47 which then reads @xmath52 where @xmath53 is the inverse covariance matrix of the estimated couplings @xcite . as one works to leading order in the @xmath18
one can approximate @xmath50 by its value for zero couplings , i.e.  choose possibility 3 .  above .
the confidence regions @xmath54 for the measured couplings are then ellipsoids in the space of the @xmath18 with centre at @xmath55 .
the optimal observables @xmath56 discussed in @xcite have the property that to leading order the statistical errors on the estimated couplings are the smallest possible ones that can be obtained with _ any _ method , including e.g.  a maximum likelihood fit to the full distribution of @xmath21 given by the differential cross section ( [ diffxsection ] ) .
note that one can still use the linearised expressions ( [ linearestim ] ) and ( [ linearchi ] ) in an analysis beyond leading order .
the error @xmath57 on the couplings will be given by an ellipsoid with defining matrix ( [ couplingscov ] ) , where @xmath50 is the covariance matrix at the actual values of the couplings .
these errors will in general no longer be optimal , so that when the leading order approximation is not good one might obtain better errors with a different choice of observables .
more importantly , however , the extracted values of the couplings are biased : averaged over a large number of experiments the measured couplings differ from the actual ones by terms quadratic in the @xmath18 .
if instead one uses the full expressions ( [ expect ] ) , ( [ mean ] ) and ( [ chi ] ) one has no bias on the extracted coupling parameters , provided the number @xmath45 of events in the analysis is large enough . let us see if we can find optimal observables for this case . to this end
we expand the differential cross section around some values @xmath58 of the couplings : @xmath59 the corresponding zeroth order cross sections and mean values are @xmath60 and @xmath61 = ( \int d\phi \ , { { \cal o}}_i \widetilde{s}_0 ) / \widetilde{\sigma}_0 $ ] , respectively
. we then can re - express @xmath27 $ ] in ( [ expect ] ) , replacing @xmath18 with @xmath62 , @xmath63 with @xmath64 , and using new coefficients @xmath65 etc .
constructed as in ( [ xsectioncoeffs ] ) , ( [ obscoeffs ] ) . making the same replacements in ( [ mean ] ) we have an alternative set of equations to extract the coupling parameters .
it can be shown that for sufficiently large @xmath45 the confidence regions obtained from ( [ chi ] ) , ( [ confidence ] ) in a nonlinear analysis are again ellipsoids given by @xmath66 one can then write @xmath67 as in ( [ linearchi ] ) , but with @xmath68 of ( [ couplingscov ] ) replaced by @xmath69 where @xmath70 corresponds to an expansion ( [ newdiffxsection ] ) of @xmath71 about the _ actual _ values of the couplings .
the main point of the argument is that for large @xmath45 the statistical errors on the @xmath26 become small , so that the extracted couplings will be sufficiently close to the actual ones to allow for a linearisation of ( [ expect ] ) and ( [ mean ] ) , cf .
@xcite , p.695 , and @xcite .
finally one can construct new observables @xmath72 from ( [ newdiffxsection ] ) .
they will be optimal , i.e.  have minimum statistical error if the @xmath58 are equal to the actual values of the @xmath18 . in the appendix
we show that , up to linear reparametrisations given in ( [ reparam ] ) , this is the only set of @xmath41 integrated observables that measures the @xmath41 couplings with minimum error .
there is hence no choice of observables that would be optimal for _ all _ values of the actual coupling parameters . as these
are unknown one can in practice not write down the truly `` optimal '' observables , but our argument tells us how one can improve on the choice in ( [ optimal ] ) if one has some previous estimates @xmath58 of the couplings ( cf .
also @xcite ) .
one may then choose to perform a leading order analysis as described above , linearising about @xmath73 instead of @xmath74 .
a practical way to proceed could be to estimate the parameters @xmath18 at first using the linearised method around @xmath75 .
suppose this gives as best estimate some values @xmath76 .
then in a second step one could set @xmath77 and use the linearised method around @xmath78 to improve the estimate etc .    at this point
we wish to comment on the `` optimal technique '' for determining unknown parameters in the differential cross section that has been proposed in @xcite .
the `` weighting functions '' @xmath79 there depend on the actual values of the parameters one wants to extract and are thus not `` observables '' . only if one sets the unknown parameters in the @xmath79 equal to some previous estimates of them can one use these functions to weight individual events ; the better these estimates are the more sensitive the functions will be . if one does this then the set @xmath79 is equivalent to our observables ( [ newoptimal ] ) defined for some estimates @xmath58 of the coupling parameters .
we finally remark that if @xmath45 is not large enough the statistical errors on the mean values @xmath26 and thus on the measured couplings might be so large that they lead into a region where a linearisation of ( [ expect ] ) is not a good approximation .
the covariance matrix @xmath80 is then no longer given by ( [ newcouplingscov ] ) .
moreover the errors on the couplings might be asymmetric and the shape of the confidence region defined by ( [ chi ] ) , ( [ confidence ] ) very different from an ellipsoid , so that knowledge of @xmath80 is not sufficient to estimate the errors on the @xmath18 . in such a case
we can not say on general grounds how sensitive our observables are .
incidentally this also holds for other extraction methods such as maximum likelihood fits , whose optimal properties are realised in the limit @xmath81 .
if one is rather far from this limit the sensitivity of a method will have to be determined by other means , e.g.  by detailed monte carlo simulations .
the method we have outlined can of course also be applied if one chooses to reduce the number of unknown parameters by imposing certain linear constraints on the couplings .
one may still use the observables ( [ optimal ] ) corresponding to the _ full _ set of couplings but minimise @xmath47 in ( [ chi ] ) for the _ reduced _ set ; in this case one can of course not take choice 2.for @xmath50 . in general @xmath82 is then different from zero and its value indicates to which extent the particular constraints on the couplings are compatible with the data .
if @xmath45 is large enough @xmath82 follows in fact a @xmath47-distribution with @xmath83 degrees of freedom for @xmath41 observables and @xmath84 independent couplings so that its value can be converted into a confidence level @xcite .
we conclude with a remark on the use of optimal observables in practice
. a realistic data analysis will not be good enough if the born approximation of the differential cross section ( [ diffxsection ] ) is used .
both higher - order theoretical corrections , such as initial state radiation and the finite @xmath2 width , and experimental effects like detection efficiency and resolution will modify the observed distribution of the phase space parameters @xmath21 .
if they are taken into account in the determination of the coefficients in ( [ expect ] ) , ( [ mean ] ) and of the covariance matrix @xmath50 they will _ not _ lead to any bias in the extraction of the couplings and their errors . while this will presumably be done with sets of generated events and
might be computationally intensive one still has to determine only a rather limited number of `` sensitivity '' constants . on the other hand one needs to know the observables @xmath25 of ( [ optimal ] ) as functions over the entire experimental phase space ,
so that the expressions of @xmath85 and @xmath86 used to construct them will in practice be taken from a less sophisticated approximation to the actual distribution of @xmath21 in order to keep them manageable .
the observables are then no longer optimal , and it will depend on the individual case which approximations of @xmath85 , @xmath86 are good enough to obtain observables with a sensitivity close to the optimal one .      in @xcite it was shown how with a suitable combination of all semileptonic @xmath87 decay channels one can define observables that are either even or odd under the discrete transformations @xmath9 and @xmath88 , where @xmath89 denotes charge conjugation , @xmath90 the parity transformation , and @xmath91 the `` naive '' time reversal operation which flips particle momenta and spins but does not interchange initial and final state . under the conditions on the experimental setup and event selection spelt out in @xcite we have two important symmetry properties :    1 .
a @xmath9 odd observable can only have a nonzero expectation value if @xmath9 symmetry is violated in the reaction .
2 .   if the expectation value of a @xmath88 odd observable is nonzero the transition amplitude must have an absorptive part whose phase must satisfy certain requirements in order to give an interference with the nonabsorptive part of the amplitude .
we assume in this analysis that any nonstandard physics in the reaction is due to the triple gauge vertices . in the standard model one needs at least two loops to violate @xmath9 ; to a good accuracy the triple gauge couplings are therefore the only possible source of @xmath9 violation . for our process ,
i.e.  @xmath3 annihilation into four fermions , an absorptive part that satisfies the requirements mentioned in point 2 .  will appear in the standard model already at next - to - leading order in the electroweak fine structure constant , either through nonresonant diagrams or through loop corrections . to leading order , however , they are only due to the imaginary parts of triple gauge couplings .    in this approximation the optimal observables ( [ optimal ] ) are @xmath9 even ( odd ) if they correspond to @xmath9 conserving ( violating ) couplings , and @xmath88 even ( odd ) if they correspond to the real ( imaginary ) parts of form factors .
the coefficient matrix @xmath92 is then block diagonal in four symmetry classes of observables and three - boson - couplings :    1 .
@xmath9 and @xmath88 even 2 .
@xmath9 even and @xmath88 odd 3 .
@xmath9 odd and @xmath88 even 4 .
@xmath9 and @xmath88 odd .    in the leading order analysis one
thus can treat these four classes of couplings separately and benefit from a great reduction of unknown parameters . beyond leading order , however , form factors of any symmetry can contribute to @xmath27 $ ] :    * in the integrated cross section and thus in the denominator of @xmath27 - e_0[{{\cal o}}_i]$ ] in ( [ expect ] ) couplings of all four classes enter quadratically , couplings of class @xmath93 also appear linearly ; * if @xmath28 belongs to class @xmath93 the numerator of @xmath27 -    e_0[{{\cal o}}_i]$ ] has terms linear in the couplings of this class but couplings of all four classes enter quadratically through @xmath94 ; * if @xmath28 belongs to a @xmath9 ( @xmath88 ) odd coupling then the numerator in ( [ expect ] ) is only linear in @xmath9 ( @xmath88 ) odd couplings , but it contains also quadratic terms where a @xmath9 ( @xmath88 ) odd coupling is multiplied with a @xmath9 ( @xmath88 ) even one .
we remark that this leads to different behaviours of @xmath27 $ ] as one or more couplings @xmath18 become large : whereas for observables in classes @xmath95 , @xmath96 and @xmath97 the expectation value goes to zero when a coupling of the same class goes to plus or minus infinity the corresponding limit of an observable in class @xmath93 can be a positive or negative constant or zero .    in a nonlinear analysis one
will therefore in principle have to consider couplings with all symmetries at the same time . in practice one might choose simpler procedures if the linear approximation is expected to be not too bad and if one wants to calculate corrections to it .
one might for instance first analyse the four symmetry classes separately , neglecting in each case the contributions of the three other classes at the r.h.s .
of ( [ mean ] ) and then refine the analysis of a class by taking the values obtained in the first step for the couplings in the other classes as fixed in ( [ mean ] ) .    we emphasise that even beyond the leading order approximation it is still true that a nonzero mean value of a @xmath9 or a @xmath88 odd observable is an unambiguous sign of @xmath9 violation or the presence of absorptive parts in the process , respectively . the extraction of the values of the couplings , however , becomes more involved than in leading order .
we shall now propose a method to analyse the data which presents several advantages in view of the basic problem posed by the large number of unknown three - boson couplings : with limited event statistics significant error bounds can only be obtained for subsets of the coupling parameters , but imposing constraints on the couplings to reduce their number entails a loss of information that can not be retrieved . in view of this
it should be advantageous to use a parametrisation of the couplings which in a given process and at a given c.m .
energy has the following properties :    1 .
it allows to find observables which are only sensitive to one particular coupling parameter .
2 .   the induced errors on the couplings determined from these observables are statistically independent .
with this we can on the one hand give single errors for each parameter , on the other hand we can recover from the single errors the multidimensional error of the full set of couplings , having avoided the loss of information incurred by imposing constraints . from the single errors we can also directly see which combinations of couplings in more conventional parametrisations can be measured with good accuracy and to which one is rather insensitive .
let us remark that in the leading order analysis there is a set of observables satisfying point 1 .  in _ any _ parametrisation of the couplings .
the linear combinations @xmath98 of our optimal observables ( [ optimal ] ) are only sensitive to @xmath18 for each @xmath99 ( cf .  also @xcite ) .
the errors on the couplings determined from these observables are , however , in general not uncorrelated ; in fact their correlations are the same as those obtained with the original set @xmath28 .
this can be seen as follows : going from the @xmath28 to the @xmath100 we must replace @xmath101 so that we have from ( [ couplingscov ] ) @xmath102 in such a case the single errors give an incomplete picture of the situation if correlations are large .
this is illustrated in fig .
[ fig : correlations ] @xmath93 , where the 1@xmath103 ellipsis for two parameters is shown .
their single errors are given by its projection on the coordinate axes and in our example are both rather large .
some linear combinations of them are however measurable with much better precision , which one can only recognise if both errors and their correlations are given . in fig .
[ fig : correlations ] @xmath95 where a set of couplings leading to uncorrelated errors is used the situation is much simpler .
note also that the number of correlations , i.e.  off - diagonals in @xmath80 , is yet modest for two couplings but increases rapidly with their number .
( 0,0 )    ( 5502,3031)(889,-4805 ) ( 1981,-2401)(0,0)[lb ] ( 5131,-2401)(0,0)[lb ] ( 6391,-3706)(0,0)[lb ] ( 3241,-3706)(0,0)[lb ] ( 1116,-2006)(0,0)[lb ] ( 4176,-2006)(0,0)[lb ]    we will now first see that a parametrisation of the couplings satisfying both points 1 .  and 2 .
above can be found in idealised circumstances , and then mention the restrictions one will encounter under more realistic assumptions .
if the leading order analysis is a sufficiently good approximation the solution to our problem is easily found .
starting from a set of couplings @xmath18 and the corresponding optimal observables @xmath28 in ( [ optimal ] ) we can go to another set @xmath104 by @xmath105 where we use vector and matrix notation .
the coefficients in the expansion of the differential cross section and the optimal observables transform as follows : @xmath106 let now @xmath28 be an arbitrary set of observables related to @xmath18 and define the corresponding @xmath107 related to @xmath104 as in ( [ obstransf ] ) .
then we have for the matrices relevant for our analysis the following transformation properties : @xmath108 as shown in @xcite our optimal observables satisfy @xmath109 and @xmath110 so that for them one can choose a transformation @xmath111 which diagonalises all three matrices .
this new set @xmath112 of parameters obviously has the properties 1 .  and 2 .
we were looking for .    beyond the linear approximation of ( [ expect ] ) the expectation value of @xmath107
will still receive contributions from several couplings .
in fact there is no set of observables for which the full nonlinear expression in ( [ expect ] ) satisfies point 1 .
exactly , because the denominator involves quadratic terms in _ all _ couplings , and this can not be changed by any linear transformation of the couplings .
if on the other hand the statistical errors are too large the covariance matrix @xmath80 will not give a good picture of the errors as we discussed in sec .
[ sec : method ] , and its diagonalisation will not ensure point 2 . in the case
however where nonlinear effects in the determination of the couplings and their errors are not too large , i.e.  where the leading order expressions are a good first approximation both points 1 .  and 2 .
above will still be _ approximately _ satisfied in a full nonlinear analysis .
we remark that if one has some previous estimates @xmath58 of the couplings that considerably deviate from zero one may reduce nonlinear effects in the determination of the @xmath18 by working with an expansion of @xmath113 around the @xmath58 as shown in sec .
[ sec : method ] ; in our diagonalisation programme one will then use couplings @xmath114 instead of @xmath18 , the matrix @xmath70 instead of @xmath115 etc .    to the extent that the observables ( [ optimal ] ) are constructed from expressions of @xmath85 and @xmath116 which are only approximations of those that determine the experimentally observed kinematical distribution
the matrices @xmath115 , @xmath50 and @xmath117 will not quite be the same and can not be diagonalised at the same time .
one can then diagonalise either @xmath50 or @xmath68 because they are by definition symmetric and positive definite , whereas @xmath115 is not necessarily so . again , unless such effects are large one will end up with a matrix @xmath118 that is not diagonal but has relatively small off - diagonals .    it should also be borne in mind that the covariance matrix @xmath80 only gives the statistical errors on the couplings , so that even if it is exactly diagonal the final errors may be correlated due to systematics .      the choice of transformation in ( [ couplingstransf ] ) to ( [ matrixtransf ] ) is not unique if one does not require @xmath111 to be orthogonal .
we see in fact no strong argument in favour of an orthogonal transformation and remark that the various parametrisations of the @xmath1 and @xmath0 couplings in the literature are related by non - orthogonal linear transformations .
the freedom to choose @xmath111 can be used to impose additional conditions on the transformation , and the one we propose here is that the transformed quadratic coefficient @xmath119 in the integrated cross section be the unit matrix . in terms of the new couplings one then has @xmath120 where we choose the numbering such that @xmath121 to @xmath122 belong to symmetry class @xmath93 introduced in sec .
[ sec : symmetries ] , i.e.   they are the @xmath9 and @xmath88 even couplings .
only these appear linearly in the cross section , whereas all couplings give a quadratic contribution with coefficient one .
having @xmath123 leads to a convenient simplification of ( [ expect ] ) , ( [ mean ] ) .
moreover , the measurement of the total cross section gives complementary information on the unknown couplings . rewriting ( [ xsectransf ] ) as @xmath124 we see that measuring a cross section @xmath125 within an error @xmath126 constrains the couplings to be in a shell between two hyperspheres with centre at @xmath127 in the space of all couplings as shown in fig .
[ fig : shell ] .
their radii are given by @xmath128 here @xmath129\ ] ] is the smallest value the cross section can attain ; that such a minimum exists has been pointed out in @xcite .
if in ( [ radii ] ) @xmath130 is positive but @xmath131 negative the couplings are inside the hypersphere with radius @xmath132 , and if both @xmath130 and @xmath131 are negative the ansatz ( [ diffxsection ] ) for the cross section is inconsistent with the data within the error @xmath126 .
( 0,0 )    ( 4647,3843)(1339,-5473 ) ( 4231,-3391)(0,0)[lb ] ( 2611,-1726)(0,0)[lb ] ( 5986,-3661)(0,0)[lb ] ( 3401,-3796)(0,0)[lb ] ( 3601,-3166)(0,0)[lb ]    such constraints can be useful to find the physical set of couplings when the solution of ( [ mean ] ) from the measurement of the optimal observables is not unique .
if they are strong enough they might even restrict the couplings to the region where ( [ mean ] ) can be linearised and thus simplify their extraction .
one can of course use the information from the integrated cross section working with any set of couplings , but again the situation is particularly simple with the form ( [ xsectransf ] ) .
we note that the information from the total rate is complementary to what is extracted from the mean values of our observables , which involve normalised kinematical distributions . from an experimental point of view their respective measurements
will presumably have quite different systematic errors .
let us also recall that the the measurement of the mean values @xmath26 times the number @xmath45 of events obtained with a fixed integrated luminosity combines the information of both @xcite .
a nonlinear data analysis as presented in sec .
[ sec : method ] can also be done in this case .
we draw attention to the fact that unphysical solutions of equation  ( [ mean ] ) for @xmath26 and of its analogue for @xmath133 will in general be different .
we shall however not elaborate on this point here .
another aspect of the couplings with the property ( [ xsectransf ] ) is the following .
it is well known that constant coupling parameters deviating from the standard model tree level values lead to amplitudes that violate unitarity @xcite .
the coefficients @xmath134 and @xmath135 in the total cross section @xmath103 increase strongly with the @xmath3 c.m .
energy @xmath136 and the couplings @xmath18 must vanish as @xmath8 becomes large to ensure a decent high - energy behaviour of @xmath103 . in our new parametrisation the quadratic coefficients in @xmath137 are energy independent , and in this sense the new couplings are at a `` natural scale '' at every energy .    to complete this section
we show that a transformation with the properties we require always exists , i.e.  that we can find a matrix @xmath111 that diagonalises @xmath68 in ( [ matrixtransf ] ) and transforms @xmath138 in ( [ quadrattransf ] ) to the unit matrix .
the argument is analogous if one replaces @xmath68 with @xmath50 . by construction
both @xmath68 and @xmath138 are symmetric and positive definite , so our problem is the same as finding normal coordinates for a multidimensional harmonic oscillator in classical mechanics ( cf .
e.g.  @xcite ) . to make this analogy transparent
let us write @xmath139 and @xmath140 ; we then have to find @xmath111 so that @xmath141 with @xmath142 being diagonal
. the elements @xmath143 of @xmath142 are generalised eigenvalues of @xmath144 satisfying @xmath145 where @xmath146 is the @xmath99-th column vector of @xmath111 .
the solution is well known to be @xmath147 where @xmath148 is the orthogonal matrix that transforms @xmath149 to @xmath142 . of course one
need not use ( [ solution ] ) in practice as there are convenient algorithms available to find @xmath111 and @xmath142 . in our numerical calculations
we have used the routine ` eigenvals ` of the algebraic package maple .
we will now give some numerical examples of our method described in the previous section . in this section
we will stay within the framework of a leading order analysis of the observables .
we start from the results in @xcite , where the sensitivity of optimal observables for semileptonic @xmath150-decays was calculated .
we assume a full kinematical reconstruction of the final state , except for the ambiguity one is left with if the jet charge is not known . for the standard model cross section we use the born approximation and neglect effects of the finite @xmath2 width .
to describe the triple boson couplings we take the form factors @xmath151 , @xmath152 ( @xmath153 ) of @xcite ; deviations from their standard model tree level values will be referred to as `` anomalous couplings '' .
let us first look at a c.m .
energy of @xmath12 , which will be attained at lep2 .
the coefficient matrix @xmath115 can be found in table  4 of @xcite and in table  [ tab : coeff190 ] here we give the diagonal elements of the transformed matrix @xmath118 , ordered according to the symmetry of the corresponding observables .
the one standard deviation ellipsoid is diagonal in the couplings @xmath104 , thus its intersections with the coordinate axes equal its projections on these axes .
the errors @xmath154 setting all other @xmath155 to zero are then equal to the errors @xmath156 where all other @xmath155 are arbitrary .
they are given by @xmath157 and are listed in table  [ tab : sens190 ] for an integrated luminosity of @xmath13 .
we immediately remark that a negative diagonal element occurs in the transformed coefficient matrix , which is not allowed because @xmath158 is a covariance matrix and thus positive definite .
we encounter here a problem of numerical instability : small errors in the calculation of the original matrices @xmath115 and @xmath138 can have a large effect on the smallest generalised eigenvalues @xmath159 and their eigenvectors , even to the point that eigenvalues come out with the wrong sign .
this is not only a problem of our particular way of diagonalisation , but also occurs if one diagonalises @xmath115 with an orthogonal matrix ; we find that one of the usual eigenvalues of @xmath115 in the subspace of couplings with symmetry @xmath95 is negative .
such instabilities can cause large errors in the matrix inversion of @xmath115 and @xmath50 .
one needs @xmath160 to calculate the error on the extracted couplings as can be seen from ( [ chi ] ) and ( [ couplingscov ] ) , and large errors on @xmath161 can lead to large uncertainties in the extracted couplings , irrespective of whether @xmath161 is explicitly used to solve the system ( [ mean ] ) .
one will of course aim to calculate @xmath115 and @xmath50 with best possible precision , but such an effort has limits , in particular if they are determined from simulated events and include for instance radiative corrections or detector effects . on a more fundamental level any calculation of these matrices will only be an approximation of the `` exact '' ones that correspond to the kinematical distributions seen in experiment . in this sense
it seems quite inevitable that small eigenvalues ( the usual or our generalised ones ) of @xmath115 and @xmath50 and their eigenvectors are sensitive to imprecisions in the calculation and can lead to large errors or uncertainties in the data analysis .
this holds of course even if one does not obtain eigenvalues with the wrong sign .
we think that also in view of this a diagonalisation is useful , not because it solves the problem but because it makes it explicit !
it allows to easily identify those combinations of couplings which have small corresponding eigenvalues in @xmath115 and @xmath50 and will be the most unsafe ones in the analysis . from ( [ onesigma ] )
we see that they are those combinations for which the statistical errors will be largest . here
the most unsafe coupling parameter is @xmath162 .
one might thus choose to exclude it , and possibly other couplings , from the analysis and work in the remaining subspace of the @xmath104 where the numerics is more stable and where in any case the experiment is most sensitive .
we will come back to this in sec .
[ sec : practice ] .
.[tab : lr190]diagonal elements @xmath159 of the coefficient matrix restricted to the left or right handed subspace of the couplings as explained in the text .
the values in the left handed subspace differ from the corresponding ones in table 1 by at most 3% .
[ cols="^ , > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > " , ]     crrrrrrrrr & & & + @xmath93 & 1.4 & 1.1 & 0.72 & 0.63 & & 0.50 & 0.17 & 0.062 & 0.044 + @xmath95 & 1.3 & 1.0 & 0.79 & 0.26 & & 0.11 & 0.083 & 0.023 & @xmath163 + @xmath96 & 1.2 & 0.58 & 0.32 & & & 0.076 & 0.031 & 0.013 & + @xmath97 & 1.4 & 1.0 & 0.83 & & & 0.24 & 0.040 & 0.026 & +    finally we remark that like in the case for @xmath12 those couplings @xmath104 which give the largest statistical errors in the optimal observable analysis are predominantly related to right handed combinations of form factors as can be seen from the comparison of tables  [ tab : coeff500 ] and [ tab : lr500 ] .
let us sketch how our method of simultaneous diagonalisation might be used in practice .    1 .
one first has to choose which matrix to diagonalise simultaneously with @xmath138 .
these matrices need not be the same ones to be used in the data analysis itself but may be calculated under further approximations .
covariance matrices for the observables and extracted couplings can be evaluated for zero @xmath18 as our entire procedure will only have its desired properties if nonlinear effects are not too large . if one uses the same approximation of the differential cross section ( [ diffxsection ] ) for the construction of the optimal observables ( [ optimal ] ) and the calculation of @xmath115 , @xmath50 and @xmath117 then the latter are all equal and can be diagonalised at the same time .
otherwise one has to choose a positive definite symmetric matrix for the diagonalisation , i.e.  one of the covariance matrices .
the calculation of @xmath80 or of its inverse from ( [ couplingscov ] ) involves however a matrix inversion and might suffer from numerical instabilities , so presumably the best choice will be @xmath50 .
2 .   in the next step one carries out the simultaneous diagonalisation of the chosen matrix and @xmath138 as described in sec .
[ sec : simultan ] and determines the transformation matrix @xmath111 in ( [ couplingstransf ] ) to ( [ matrixtransf ] ) . at this point
it will be useful to test the numerical stability of the transformed matrices , for instance by re - calculating them in the new basis of couplings or by repeating the diagonalisation procedure with slightly modified initial matrices .
one might choose to discard some of the new couplings @xmath104 and the corresponding observables from the analysis if the corresponding matrix elements are found to be instable .
this does not mean that one has to set these couplings to zero . from the measurement of the total cross section one will obtain limits on them , which will also allow to control the contribution they can give to the mean values of those observables that are kept in the analysis because the matrix @xmath118 is not exactly diagonal and because of nonlinear terms in ( [ mean ] ) .
3 .   in the new parametrisation of the couplings
one then carries out the analysis of the data . here
@xmath164 , @xmath118 , @xmath165 and the other coefficients in ( [ expect ] ) will be determined under the most realistic assumptions and with the best precision one can afford .
they will not be exactly diagonal in practice , but should have small off - diagonal elements if the approximations made in step 1 .  and in the construction of the optimal observables are sufficiently good .
4 .   one can then give both single and multidimensional errors on the measured coupling parameters @xmath104 . at this stage one can also present the results in other , more conventional parametrisations of the couplings and
in particular compare with the measurements of other experiments , restricting oneself to whatever subspace of couplings might have been chosen there .
in the first part of this paper we have shown how to extract coupling parameters from the measured mean values @xmath26 of appropriate observables without the approximation that the couplings are small .
errors on the couplings can be obtained from a @xmath47-fit of the @xmath26 . if one puts constraints on the couplings in order to reduce their number the method also gives an indication of how compatible these constraints are with the data .
the `` optimal observables '' discussed in @xcite have statistical errors equal to the smallest possible ones to leading order in the coupling parameters @xmath18 . beyond the leading order approximation
one can obtain more sensitive observables if one has some previous estimate @xmath58 for the couplings , expanding the differential cross section around @xmath58 instead of zero and constructing observables from the corresponding expansion coefficients . in the appendix
we show that up to linear reparametrisations the choice of optimal observables is unique : any other set of observables must give bigger ( statistical ) errors .    in a second part
we have proposed to perform the data analysis using a particular parametrisation @xmath104 of the couplings , which is specific to the process and its c.m .  energy .
it is obtained from the initial set @xmath18 by a linear transformation which diagonalises the covariance matrix @xmath50 of the observables and transforms the matrix @xmath138 of quadratic coefficients in the integrated cross section ( [ intxsection ] ) to unity . in an idealised framework each optimal observable @xmath107 for this parametrisation is only sensitive to one coupling , and the statistical errors on the extracted couplings are uncorrelated . under realistic circumstances both properties can be approximately satisfied provided that the analysis stays in a region of parameter space where the dependence of the mean values @xmath166 on the couplings is not far from linear .
various matrices are then approximately diagonal which should generally facilitate the data analysis . in particular one can directly give errors on single or a small number of couplings , which will be necessary to obtain statistically significant results with a limited number of events . at the same time one can readily present multidimensional errors in parameter space , which is essential to compare with the results of measurements that impose various different constraints on the couplings . having approximately diagonal matrices also allows to easily identify those directions in parameter space which can be measured best and those for which the statistical errors will be large and which are likely to be associated with numerical instabilities , for example in matrix inversions .
one can thus recognise and seek to remedy such problems in an early stage of the analysis .
the measurement of the total cross section @xmath103 gives valuable complementary information on the coupling parameters .
its dependence on the couplings is particularly simple in the parametrisation we propose since the quadratic contributions are @xmath167 times the standard model cross section @xmath168 , i.e.  they have the same form for all couplings
. a measurement of @xmath103 will then restrict the @xmath104 to a shell between two hyperspheres in parameter space .
we have given some numerical examples of our method applied to the semileptonic decay channels in @xmath4 .
in particular we find that the couplings @xmath104 which can be measured best with unpolarised beams predominantly appear in the amplitude for left handed electrons ( or right handed positrons ) , and that the @xmath104 with the largest statistical errors mainly correspond to the opposite lepton helicity .
comparing our results at lep2 and lc energies we see that the coefficients in the linear contributions of the couplings @xmath104 to our observables and to the integrated cross section change much less with energy than in usual parametrisations .
this is because in the new parametrisation the quadratic coefficients in the normalised cross section @xmath169 are by construction energy independent .
we would like to thank ch .
hartmann and m.  kocian for their continued interest in optimal observables for triple gauge couplings .
we gratefully acknowledge discussions with and remarks by j.  blmlein , p.  overmann , n.  wermes , , and p.  m.  zerwas .
this work has in part been financially supported by the eu programme `` human capital and mobility '' , network `` physics at high energy colliders '' , contracts chrx - ct93 - 0357 ( dg 12 coma ) and erbchbi - ct94 - 1342 , and by bmbf , grant .
it was started while one of us ( md ) was at the university of cambridge , and we acknowledge support by the arc programme of the british council and the german academic exchange service ( daad ) , grant 313-arc - viii - vo / scu , which made mutual visits of the cambridge and heidelberg groups possible .
in this appendix we show that the set of observables ( [ newoptimal ] ) , obtained from expanding the differential cross section about the actual values of the couplings , is unique in the sense that up to the linear reparametrisations ( [ reparam ] ) it is the only set of @xmath41 integrated observables which in the limit of large @xmath45 leads to the minimum error on the @xmath41 extracted parameters .    to keep our notation simple we give the proof for the case that the actual values of the @xmath18 are zero .
the expectation value and covariance of functions @xmath34 and @xmath35 are then given by @xmath170 = \frac{\int d\phi \ , f(\phi )   s_0(\phi)}{\int d\phi \ ,
s_0(\phi ) }   { \hspace{6pt},}\hspace{3em }    v_0[f , g ] = e_0[f g ] - e_0[f ] \ , e_0[g ]   { \hspace{6pt}.}\ ] ] in the general case one has instead of @xmath85 the zeroth order coefficient @xmath171 ( [ newdiffxsection ] ) from the expansion about the appropriate values @xmath58 .    for large @xmath45 the covariance matrix for the extracted couplings
is given by ( [ couplingscov ] ) . under a linear reparametrisation of observables , @xmath172 where @xmath173 and @xmath174 are constants and the matrix @xmath173 is nonsingular , the matrices @xmath115 from ( [ obscoeffcompact ] ) and @xmath50 transform according to @xmath175 from ( [ couplingscov ] ) we see that the covariance matrix @xmath80 is unchanged under such a transformation .
for our proof we can hence restrict ourselves to observables with mean value @xmath176 = 0\ ] ] and with a coefficient matrix @xmath177 . from ( [ obscoeffcompact ] )
we then have the condition @xmath178 = \delta_{ij}\ ] ] and the error on the extracted couplings is given by @xmath179   { \hspace{6pt}.}\ ] ]    from @xcite we know that the optimal observables ( [ optimal ] ) lead to the smallest possible error on the @xmath18 , given by the cramr - rao bound . to satisfy our conditions
( [ centred ] ) and ( [ normalised ] ) we take the linear combinations @xmath180    \right)\ ] ] with @xmath181   { \hspace{6pt}.}\ ] ] we assume that the functions @xmath86 are linearly independent
. otherwise some of the parameters @xmath18 are superfluous and can be eliminated ; our assumption is thus that the @xmath18 are an independent set of parameters for the anomalous couplings .
linear independence of the @xmath182 guarantees that @xmath183 is nonsingular , which has tacitly been used at several instances in our paper .
the set @xmath184 is related to the optimal observables @xmath185 by a linear transformation ( [ reparam ] ) and thus gives the same optimal error matrix @xmath80 .
the covariance @xmath186 $ ] defines a scalar product on the hilbert space @xmath187 of sufficiently smooth functions of @xmath21 with the property @xmath188 = 0 $ ] .
the functions @xmath184 span a subspace @xmath189 of @xmath187 , and we define @xmath190 as the orthogonal complement of @xmath189 with respect to the scalar product @xmath33 $ ] .
any set of @xmath41 observables satisfying ( [ centred ] ) can then be written as @xmath191 with @xmath192 , @xmath193 . further decomposing @xmath194 and using the constraint ( [ normalised ] ) we obtain @xmath195 , i.e.@xmath196 finally
, we have from ( [ simplecov ] ) , ( [ decompose ] ) , ( [ first ] ) @xmath197 +                n^{-1 } v_0[{{\cal o}}^{\it ii}_i , { { \cal o}}^{\it ii}_j ]   { \hspace{6pt}.}\ ] ] the first term gives the error on the couplings for the optimal observables @xmath184 , which is minimal . if the observables @xmath28 have minimal error , too , the second term must be zero , so that for each @xmath99 we have @xmath198 = 0 $ ] and thus @xmath199 which completes our proof .    in sec .
[ sec : simultan ] we mentioned that instead of @xmath26 one may use the product @xmath200 measured with fixed luminosity to extract the couplings @xcite . by an argument analogous to the one of this appendix one finds that up to linear reparametrisations our observables ( [ newoptimal ] ) are again the only optimal ones .
in this case linear reparametrisations have to be homogeneous , i.e.  one must have @xmath201 in ( [ reparam ] ) , since adding constants to the observables can change the induced errors on the coupling parameters .
g. gounaris et al . , `` triple gauge boson couplings '' , report of the `` triple gauge couplings '' working group during the lep2 workshop 19941995 , hep - ph/9601233 , in _ physics at lep2 _ , vol .  1
, g.  altarelli and f.  zwirner eds .
, cern report 1996 , and references therein          p. overmann , dortmund preprint do - th 93/24 ; + w. bernreuther , g. w. botz , d. bru , p. haberl and o. nachtmann , z.  phys .
c68 ( 1995 ) 73 ; + d. bru , o. nachtmann and p. overmann , `` cp violation in radiative @xmath7 decays '' , univ .
heidelberg report hd  thep9702 ( 1997 )
r. akers et al .
( opal coll . ) , z.  phys .
c66 ( 1995 ) 31 ; + a. stahl , nucl .
b ( proc .  suppl . ) 40 ( 1995 ) 505 ; + aleph coll .
, `` search for cp violation in the decay @xmath202 '' , paper contributed to the ichep96 conference , warsaw , 2531 july 1996 , report pa 08 - 030 ; + delphi coll .
, `` improved test of cp - violation in @xmath203 using optimized observables '' , paper contributed to the ichep96 conference , warsaw , 2531 july 1996 , report pa 07 - 014 ( 1996 ) ; + n. wermes , `` cp tests and dipole moments in @xmath204-pair production experiments '' , talk given at tau96 workshop , estes park , colorado , usa , 1619 september 1996 , report bonn - he-96 - 10