text:
# Geometric Phases and Quantum Computations

## Abstract

Calculation aspects of holonomic quantum computer (HQC) are considered. Wilczek–Zee potential defining the set of quantum calculations for HQC is explicitly evaluated. Principal possibility of realization of the logical gates for this case is discussed.

The conception of quantum computer (QC) and quantum calculation developed in 80-th  were found to be fruitful both for computer science and mathematics as well as for physics . Although a device being able to perform quantum calculations is far away from practical realization, there is a number of theoretical proposals of such a construct . Recently holonomic realization of QC was proposed ,. It is based on the notion of non-Abelian Berry phase.To perform quantum computations in this approach one needs a parametrically driven quantum system described by the Hamiltonian $`H(𝝀)`$ with adiabatically evolving parameters $`𝝀(t)=(\lambda _1(t),\mathrm{},\lambda _N(t))`$. Adiabaticity means that $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _{min}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the characteristic frequency in the Fourier spectrum of $`𝝀(t)`$ and $`\omega _{min}`$ is the minimal transition frequency in the spectrum of $`H(𝝀)`$. If the spectrum is degenerate then the cyclic evolution of $`N`$ parameters $`\lambda _A(t)`$ results in a unitary transformation of each eigenspace of $`H`$. Such transformations can be treated as computations on the eigenspace representing a part of the qubit space of HQC. These computations are shown to form a universal set of quantum gates for a specific relevant model . For instance, one should choose of independent 2-loops $`𝒞`$ in the control manifold $`M=\{\text{all possible}𝝀\}`$ and then the non-Abelian Berry phases $`U(𝒞)`$ corresponding to each loop represent all basic gates. To produce such gates one should have a possibility to control i.e. for each closed adiabatic curve $`𝒞`$ in $`M`$ one is to know the explicit form of $`U(𝒞)`$. To know that it is necessary to be aware of an explicit expression of non-Abelian Wilczek–Zee potential $`𝑨`$ which determines $`U(𝒞)`$ completely. A more or less universal method of explicit calculation of $`𝑨`$ is to our knowledge up to now absent. For an early overview on this subject see . A variant of Berry phase evaluation for a finite level system relevant to HQC was proposed in  where a specific parametrization of $`SU(n)`$ is used. In this paper we present some less general but to our mind some more effective method of evaluation of non-Abelian Berry phase which can appear to be useful for HQC. For this purpose we restrict ourselves with systems with finite number energy levels described by isospectral Hamiltonians, i.e. by ones whose spectrum does not depend on time via adiabatical evolution of their parameters. At first we demonstrate the method for the Abelian case, then derive the result for the non-Abelian one and in conclusion some possibilities of physical realization of the basic gates.

In veew of above made restrictions the Hamiltonian we consider can be present in the form

$$H(t)=V(t)H_0V^{}(t),$$
(1)
where the $`n\times n`$ matrix $`H_0`$ does not depend on time. As the qubit space must be large enough then the state space of $`H`$ must be so as well. In this case derivation of $`𝑨`$ becomes difficult even if there are few independently evolving parameters that is the case for a typical experimental situation.

We derive an explicit closed expression for $`𝑨`$ in terms of $`H_{ij}(t)`$ that have a direct physical sense. Let us consider the Hamiltonian $`H(𝝀)`$ with $`\lambda _A(t)`$ evolving adiabatically thus Born–Fock theorem  is valid:

$$H(𝝀)\phi _i^{a_i}(𝝀)=E_i(𝝀)\phi _i^{a_i}(𝝀),i=1,\mathrm{},s,a_i=1,\mathrm{}d_i.$$
(2)
Here $`d_i`$ is the degeneration rate and $`_{i=1}^sd_i=n`$. It should be emphasized that the finite-matrix form of the Hamiltonian $`H(𝝀)`$ may be not only the result of an approximation, i.e. one neglects all energy levels whose number is greater than $`n`$ but also a consequence of the symmetry of the system under consideration. This means if the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{𝑯}`$ we start with possesses a Liean symmetry, i.e. it can be represented in the form $`\widehat{𝑯}=c_A(𝝀)\widehat{𝑻}_A`$, where $`\widehat{𝑻}_A`$ are generators of a Lie algebra, then the state space of the system is split in a set of components irreducible with respect to the algebra and for each finite-dimensional component we come to the finite-matrix form.

Cyclic evolution of $`𝝀`$ results  in a monodromy transformation of $`𝝋=(\phi _i^1,\mathrm{},\phi _i^{d_i})`$:

$$𝝋(T)=U(𝒞)𝝋(0),$$
(3)
where $`t`$ parametrizes the curve $`𝒞`$ so that $`𝝀(T)=𝝀(0)`$.

For an illustration we start with Abelian Berry phase that was firstly predicted by Berry . In this case all $`d_i=1`$ and instead of (3) the relation

$$\phi _m(T)=e^{i\gamma _m(𝒞)}\phi _m(0),$$
(4)
where

$$\gamma _m(𝒞)=\underset{𝒞}{}A_m,A_m=i\phi _m|d\phi _m.$$
(5)
As the spectrum of the Hamiltonian is finite, the ket $`|\phi _m`$ is a unit vector $`𝒎`$ in $`𝐂^n`$, so $`A_m`$ is

$$A_m=\frac{i}{2}(𝒎^{}d𝒎𝒎d𝒎^{}).$$
(6)
As the evolution is adiabatic, the spectrum of $`H(t)`$ remains always nondegenerate if it was so at the initial time. Then there is always a nonzero main minor of $`HE_m`$ which we assume to consist always of the first $`n1`$ lines and columns of $`HE_m`$. Denoting the matrix consisting of the first $`n1`$ lines and columns of $`H`$ by $`H_{}`$ we come to the condition

$$det(H_{}E_m)0$$
(7)
Making use of this condition one can represent $`𝒏`$ in tyhe uniform coordinates

$$𝒎=\frac{(𝝃_m,1)}{\sqrt{1+|𝝃_m|^2}}$$

and express $`𝝃_𝒎`$ in terms of $`H_{ij}`$ for $`1i,jn1`$ and $`E_m`$:

$$𝝃_m=(H_{}E_m)^1𝒉,h_i=H_{in},$$
(8)
where $`𝒉`$ is a vector in $`𝐂^{n1}`$ but not in $`𝐂^n`$. Thus we have for $`A_m`$

$$A_m=\frac{i}{2}\frac{(𝝃_{𝒎}^{}{}_{}{}^{}d𝝃_𝒎𝝃_𝒎d𝝃_{𝒎}^{}{}_{}{}^{}).}{1+|𝝃_m|^2},$$
(9)
where $`𝝃_m`$ is completely determined by (8). Note that the result obtained is purely geometrical because it can be expressed of the Kählerian potential

$$F=\mathrm{log}(1+|𝒛|^2)$$

which determines all the geometrical properties of the state space

$$SU(n)/\underset{n1\mathrm{times}}{\underset{}{U(1)\times \mathrm{}\times U(1)}}.$$

Here $`𝒛`$ is a vector in $`𝐂^{N^2}`$ consisting of $`n(n1)/2`$ independent components of all $`𝝃_m`$. One more observation is that for the case $`n=2`$ corresponding to spin in the magnetic field (9) gives well known result

$$A_\pm =\pm \frac{1}{2}\underset{𝒞}{}\frac{\xi ^{}d\xi \xi d\xi ^{}}{1+|\xi |^2}=\pm \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒞),$$

where $`\pm `$ labels spim-up and spin-down states, $`\xi `$ is thought of as a stereographic projection of a point on the unit sphere $`S^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒞)`$ is the solid angle corresponding to the given closed contour on the sphere.

Now we proceed with a more general case of degenerate spectrum. Quantum computation for this case generated by an adiabatic loop in the control manifold is determined by (3) where $`U(𝒞)`$ is presented by a $`𝒫`$-ordered exponent

$$U(𝒞)=𝒫\mathrm{exp}\left(_𝒞𝑨_m\right),(𝑨_m)_{ab}=im_b|dm_a.$$
(10)
The set of eigenvectors $`𝝃_{ma}`$, $`a=1,\mathrm{},d_m`$ must obey the equation

$$(H_{}^{(d_m)}E_m)𝝃_{ma}=h𝒄_a.$$
(11)
Here the matrix $`H_{}^{(d_m)}`$ is constructed from the first $`nd_m`$ lines and columns of $`H`$, $`𝒄_a`$ are arbitrary $`d_m`$-dimensional vectors and $`h`$ is the following $`(nd_m)\times d_m`$-matrix:

$$h=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}H_{1,nd_m+1}& \mathrm{}& H_{1,n}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ H_{nd_m,nd_m+1}& \mathrm{}& H_{nd_m,n}\end{array}\right)$$

Of course it has sense only if the condition

$$det(H_{}^{(d_m)}(t)E_m)0$$
(12)
is valid along the evolution process. The set of vectors $`𝝃_{ma}`$ must be orthogonalized by the standard Gram algorithm and after that we get the orthonormal set of the eigenvectors $`𝒛_a`$ (here and below we has omitted the index $`m`$) in the form

$$𝒛_a=\frac{1}{det\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a1}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}& & & 𝒙_1\\ & \mathrm{\Gamma }_{a1}& & \mathrm{}\\ 𝝃_a|𝝃_1& \mathrm{}& 𝝃_a|𝝃_{a1}& 𝒙_a\end{array}\right),$$
(13)
where $`𝒙_b=(𝝃_b,𝒄_b)`$ and $`𝒄_a`$ is chosen to be the standard orthogonal set $`𝒄_a=(0\mathrm{}\stackrel{a}{\stackrel{}{1}}\mathrm{}0)`$. The matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ are determined by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_a=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1+𝝃_1|𝝃_1& \mathrm{}& 𝝃_1|𝝃_a\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 𝝃_a|𝝃_1& \mathrm{}& 1+𝝃_a|𝝃_a\end{array}\right)=1+Z_a^{}Z_a,$$
(14)
where the $`(nd_m)\times a`$-matrix $`Z_a`$ consists of $`a`$ first lines of the $`(nd_m)\times d_m`$-matrix $`Z=(H_{}^{(d_m)}E_m)^1h`$. Using (14) and (13) we come to the final expression for the matrix-valued $`1`$-form $`𝑨`$:

$$𝑨=\frac{i}{2}\frac{g_{ab}^{ij}(𝝃_{𝒋}^{}{}_{}{}^{}d𝝃_𝒊d𝝃_{𝒋}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝝃_𝒊)+2\omega _{ab}}{det(1+Z_{a1}^{}Z_{a1})det(1+Z_{b1}^{}Z_{b\mathrm{`}})},1ia,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}jb,$$
(15)
where

$$g_{ab}^{ij}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_b^j,\omega _{ab}=𝝃_j\left|d\mathrm{Im}(g_{ab}^{ij})\right|𝝃_i+\underset{i=1}{\overset{min(a,b)}{}}d\mathrm{Im}(g_{ab}^{ii}),$$

and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^i`$ is the cofactor of $`𝝃_i`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$. Note that the change of our basis $`𝒄_a`$ by $`𝒄_a^{}=U_{ab}(𝝀)𝒄_b`$ leads to a standard gauge transformation of $`𝑨`$

$$𝑨^{}=U𝑨U^{}+i(dU)U^{}$$

The formula (15) is the desired expression of $`𝑨`$ in terms of the matrix elements of the Hamiltonian. It is correct if condition (12) is valid. It is not nevertheless a principal restriction because $`d_m`$ does not depend on time due to adiabaticity of the evolution and there is always at least one nonzero $`nd_m`$-order minor of $`H`$. Then, if the minor we choose vanishes somewhere on the loop $`𝒞`$ one can always take local coordinates such that the techniques considered is applicable on each segment of $`𝒞`$.

One more thing to discuss here are quantum gates and their possible physical realization. As the Hamiltonian is an element of a Lie algebra which we assume to be semisimple, generic computations are of course elements of the corresponding Lie group. We represent them in the form

$$U=\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}y_iH_i\right)\underset{\alpha }{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\zeta _\alpha E_\alpha \zeta _\alpha ^{}E_\alpha \right),$$
(16)
where $`y_i`$ are real and $`\zeta _\alpha `$ are complex parameters, $`k`$ is the dimension of the Cartan subalgebra, $`i`$ labels all it’s linearly independent elements, the product is taking over all positive roots of the algebra, and the standard notations for Cartan–Weyl basis have been used. As the action of the first exponent in (16) results in a trivial phase factor, a generic computation is determined by the product over all roots. Thus we come to the conclusion that the elementary factors

$$U_\alpha =\mathrm{exp}\left(\zeta _\alpha E_\alpha \zeta _\alpha ^{}E_\alpha \right),$$
(17)
provide the basis of quantum gates for the model. Their number is e.g. for the first fundamental series $`A_n`$ $`n(n1)/2`$ as it should be. An idea of physical realization of the gates appears if one takes into account that for $`A_n`$ $`E_\alpha `$ can be realized by means of ordinary bosonic creation and annihilation operators, namely $`E_\alpha =a_ia_j`$ for some $`1i,jn`$. Then $`E_\alpha `$ represents nothing but two-mode squeezing operator. Thus the model considered can be applied to optical HQC with $`n`$ laser beams (the case n=2 is considered in ) and the logical gates $`U_\alpha `$ are just two-qubit transformations realized by transformation of two laser beams.

The method presented here enables one to build in principal any computation for HQC described by a Hamiltonian with a stationary spectrum in terms of experimentally measured values, namely the matrix elements of the Hamiltonian. The method depends weakly on the dimension of the qubit space which other models based on various parametrizations of evolution operators of the system are very sensitive to. Application of this method to a concrete physical model will be discussed elsewhere.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

There are nineteen fundamental parameters which cannot be derived from first principles in the Standard Model  with three fermion generations and massless neutrinos. Three of these are the mixing angles of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix  which express the probability for a transition between different quark species through charged weak currents. As yet it is unclear how the number and existence of generations can be derived from first principles of an underlying theory. Thus, no prescription exists on how to calculate the values of the CKM matrix elements. Still, it is important to measure their values to the best precision possible. Up to now the CKM matrix elements have been derived from hadron decays using QCD symmetries to extend the theoretical analysis into a low energy scale. The precision of such measurements is therefore often limited by uncertainties reflecting theoretical models and the assumptions invoked. In particular, the transitions involving top quarks can only be indirectly determined, using either $`\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{d}`$, $`\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{s}`$ mixing or $`\mathrm{b}\mathrm{s}\gamma `$ decays.

The direct observation of the decay products of $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons and top quarks offers a complementary way to determine the CKM matrix elements. In case of $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons one may determine the decay widths of $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons into identified pairs of quarks111To simplify the text, we drop the distinction between particles and antiparticles where the meaning it otherwise clear.. Since the branching ratio of the $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons into a specific pair of quarks $`(q,q^{})`$ is proportional to the square of the CKM matrix element $`|V_{qq^{}}|`$,

$$B(\mathrm{W}qq^{})|V_{qq^{}}|^2,$$

the measurement of the decay fractions allows a direct determination of the CKM matrix elements. Similarly one can relate the transitions of $`B(\mathrm{t}q\mathrm{W})`$ to the CKM matrix elements $`|V_{\mathrm{t}q}|`$. In practice this requires that all decay modes of the $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons and top quarks can be reconstructed with a good signal to background ratio, which is the case at $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ colliders. Experimentally much more complicated is the requirement that all quark species can be individually identified. A first step to determine the CKM matrix elements in $`\mathrm{W}`$ decays has been made at LEP by deriving $`|V_{\mathrm{cs}}|`$ from the total hadronic $`\mathrm{W}`$ branching ratio  or more directly from the measurement of the inclusive decay fraction into charm quarks . In both cases the other CKM matrix elements are used as a crucial input to the analysis when its unitarity is assumed. Our method does not rely on these assumptions and provides a determination of the matrix elements that is complementary to traditional means.

Quark tagging for charm and bottom is based on their well understood and unambiguous special properties, particularly their masses and long lifetimes. The identification of light quarks with a precision needed for a meaningful measurement of the CKM matrix elements is much more involved. Several analyses  have used light flavour tagging methods based on model assumptions such as those used in JETSET  and HERWIG  at the price of sizeable uncertainties. A method was suggested in  to determine individual up, down and strange quark tagging efficiencies from $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ data, thus avoiding inherently ambiguous assumptions about the process of hadronisation. Such an analysis was recently carried out by the OPAL collaboration using 2.8 million $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ decays recorded at LEP .

The main idea for determining the fraction of light flavours is that particles with a large fraction $`x_p=2p/E_{\mathrm{cm}}`$ of the momentum, $`p`$, relative to the centre-of-mass energy, $`E_{\mathrm{cm}}`$, carry information about the primary flavour . At the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ the yields of single tags, where just one jet is tagged by a high $`x_p`$ particle, and the numbers of double tags, where both jets are tagged, can be used to determine the tagging efficiencies $`\eta _q^i`$ with minimal reliance on assumptions about hadronisation. Here $`\eta _q^i`$ is the probability that a quark $`q`$ leads to a particle $`i`$ that has the highest momentum in an event hemisphere222An event hemisphere is defined by the plane perpendicular to the event thrust axis and passing through the origin. In this analysis, we denote hemispheres as representing quark jets, since we are interested in studying the evolution of primary quarks into different hadron types..

The efficiencies can be applied almost directly to the decays of $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons in order to determine the hadronic branching fractions

$$R_{qq^{}}=\frac{B(\mathrm{W}qq^{})}{B_h},$$

where $`B_h`$ is the inclusive branching ratio of the $`\mathrm{W}`$ to hadrons, $`B(\mathrm{W}\mathrm{hadrons})`$. The numbers of single tags and double tags from $`\mathrm{W}`$ boson decays can be expressed by the tagging efficiencies $`\eta _q^i`$ obtained from the analysis of $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ decays and the $`R_{qq^{}}`$. One obtains an over-constrained linear equation system which can be solved for the $`R_{qq^{}}`$. With the current samples at LEP of some 20000 $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons per experiment, the precision of these decay fractions will be fairly limited. The high luminosity at proposed linear $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ colliders both for running at the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ and at high energies above the $`\mathrm{W}`$ pair threshold offers unique possibilities to pursue CKM matrix measurements with substantially higher precision. A similar equation system can be constructed for top decays. In this note we will outline a strategy and estimate the potential precision.

The outline of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 we detail the assumptions on accelerator and detector performance made for this study. The formalism and experimental aspects of the determination of light flavour tagging efficiencies at the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ peak are discussed in Section 3. The method to determine the $`\mathrm{W}`$ boson branching ratios is given in Section 4 and their translation into the CKM matrix elements in Section 5. Direct measurements using top quarks are discussed in Section 6 before concluding in Section 7.

## 2 Assumptions on Data and Detector Performance

For definiteness we assume in this paper the parameters of the TESLA  option for a future $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ linear collider. However, our proposal is in no way restricted to this option and can be pursued at any linear collider allowing for high luminosity measurements at the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ peak (GigaZ) and energies above the top pair threshold. For running at the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ peak we assume an instantaneous luminosity of $`_{\mathrm{Z}^0}=7\times 10^{33}`$ sec-1cm-2 . For a nominal year of running (i.e. 100 days of full efficiency) this implies 70 fb-1 of data, or some factor 500 more than collected by each LEP experiment over five years. We will therefore assume for this study a sample of $`2\times 10^9`$ hadronic $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ decays. At centre-of-mass energies of 500 GeV a luminosity of $`_{HE}=3\times 10^{34}`$ sec-1cm-2 is expected .

The detector capabilities which are relevant for our method to determine the CKM matrix elements are in particular hadron and, to a lesser extent, lepton identification. In addition, it is crucial to identify secondary vertices to tag charm and bottom quarks with high efficiency and purity.

Bottom and charm tagging at TESLA has been discussed in detail in . From these considerations we assume efficiencies and purities as given in Table 1. These identification potentials333The study of  suggests a dependence of the tagging efficiency and purity on the centre-of-mass energy. However, this is due to the optimisation of the tagging algorithms at $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ energies which is then applied to higher energies. Significant improvements can be expected if the algorithms are specifically optimised at high energies . For simplicity we therefore assume the efficiency and purity of the algorithms to be independent of energy. are far better than what has been achieved at LEP because of the smaller beam pipe and the advanced micro vertex detectors foreseen at TESLA. By selecting jets without a prominent secondary vertex one can also increase the purity of a light flavour sample. The optimisation of the purity and efficiency of such tags depends on the process. Different working points are used for the analyses of $`\mathrm{W}`$ boson and top quark production.

No strong emphasis has yet been placed on hadron identification for a TESLA detector. However, the proposed TPC as a central detector offers the possibility to determine the particle species by measuring the ionisation loss. Current estimates assume a d$`E`$/d$`x`$ resolution of 4.5%. However, improvements may be possible . The momentum resolution will be substantially better than at LEP, helping to reconstruct invariant masses of resonances. On the other hand, the acceptance for long-lived particles such as $`\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{S}^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is reduced due to the higher momentum of these hadrons. Their large boost implies that a significant fraction of these will decay outside the tracking detectors. For definiteness we assume the same particle identification capabilities as obtained with the OPAL detector  at LEP, listed in Table 2, and do not attempt to calculate the potential small differences in particle identification efficiencies.

## 3 Tagging Efficiencies from Z0 Decays

### 3.1 Formalism

In this section we briefly summarise the basic formalism to determine tagging efficiencies from $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ data as suggested in  and extrapolate a recent LEP analysis  to TESLA conditions. As mentioned before, charm and bottom tags can be selected with high efficiency and purity using secondary vertex finding. The determination of the efficiency for light flavours is more complicated. The light flavour tags are based on particle types that are easy to identify, have a significant yield and which carry information about the primary flavour. As discussed in  such types are $`\pi ^\pm `$, $`\mathrm{K}^\pm `$, protons, $`\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{S}^0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We consider these particles as tagging particles if they have the scaled momentum in an event hemisphere $`x_p=2p/M_{\mathrm{Z}^0}>0.2`$, where the momentum, $`p`$, is determined in the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ rest frame. Lifetime information yields an excellent separation of light quark jets from those of bottom and charm origin. Thus, we apply the high $`x_p`$ tag only to those jets that have no apparent secondary vertex, i.e. are tagged as light flavours. We assume the efficiencies listed in the fourth row of Table 1. In principle jets can fulfil in parallel the requirements for light, charm and bottom tagging. To avoid double counting we assume the following priority among tags according to the achievable purity : bottom, charm and light flavour tags. If a jet is tagged by more than one of those only the higher priority tag is considered.

In determining the efficiencies $`\eta _{\mathrm{u},\mathrm{d},\mathrm{s}}^i`$ no assumption is made about the details of the hadronisation process like hardness, shape of the fragmentation functions, light flavour composition in the hadronisation phase or the amount of resonance production. No such information from QCD models like JETSET  or HERWIG  is needed. The only assumption that is invoked is that the branching ratios of the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ into fermion pairs are as predicted by the Standard Model . This is consistent with the high precision results obtained at LEP and can, at least for some flavours, be very accurately tested at GigaZ.

As detailed in  the $`\eta _q^i`$ are determined by using tags in event hemispheres of a hadronic $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ decay. Each event is separated into two hemispheres using the plane perpendicular to the thrust axis containing the interaction point. In each hemisphere a secondary vertex is searched for and in case of a light flavour tag the highest momentum particle, labelled $`i`$, subject to the requirement $`x_p>x_{\mathrm{min}.}`$, some minimum value. What can be directly observed are the number of “single-tagged hemispheres” tagged as type $`i`$, labelled $`N_i`$, and the number of “double-tagged events” containing a tag in both hemispheres, labelled $`N_{jk}`$, where $`j`$ and $`k`$ are the tagging particle types. The tagging probability $`\eta _q^i`$ is then given by

$$\eta _q^i=\frac{N_{qi}}{N_q}.$$

for a number, $`N_q`$, of hemispheres which originate from a quark of type $`q`$ and a number, $`N_{qi}`$, of these with tags of type $`i`$. The event counts are related to the tagging probabilities by:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{N_i}{N_{\mathrm{Z}^0}^{\mathrm{had}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{q=\mathrm{d},\mathrm{u},\mathrm{s},\mathrm{c},\mathrm{b}}{}}\eta _q^iR_q`$ (1)
$`\mathrm{and}{\displaystyle \frac{N_{jk}}{N_{\mathrm{Z}^0}^{\mathrm{had}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`(2\delta _{ij})\rho _{\mathrm{Z}^0}{\displaystyle \underset{q=\mathrm{d},\mathrm{u},\mathrm{s},\mathrm{c},\mathrm{b}}{}}\eta _q^j\eta _q^kR_q,`$ (2)
where $`\delta _{jk}=1`$ if $`j=k`$ and zero otherwise and $`N_{\mathrm{Z}^0}^{\mathrm{had}}`$ is the number of hadronic $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ decays. Note that the $`\eta _q^i`$ include possible distortions due to detector effects. The parameter $`\rho _{\mathrm{Z}^0}`$ will not be unity if there are correlations between the tagging probabilities in opposite hemispheres, due to kinematical or geometrical effects, for example. $`R_q`$ is the hadronic branching fraction of the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ to quarks $`q`$:

$$R_q=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{Z}^0q\overline{q}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{had}}}.$$

They are taken to be the Standard Model values .

In  several so-called “hadronisation relations” based on approximate SU(2) symmetries between the different $`\eta _q^i`$ were proposed, such as $`\eta _\mathrm{s}^\mathrm{K}^{}\eta _\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{K}^0}`$. These extra constraints are necessary to solve the system of equations in the case of limited statistics, as at LEP. At a high luminosity $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ collider running at the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ peak a solution can be found with fewer hadronisation relations, although $`\eta _\mathrm{d}^{\pi ^\pm }\eta _\mathrm{u}^{\pi ^\pm }`$ has to be kept. Note however that a systematic uncertainty of up to 2% should be assigned to this relation, following studies with QCD models .

Although the relation $`\eta _\mathrm{d}^{\pi ^\pm }\eta _\mathrm{u}^{\pi ^\pm }`$ is fairly well motivated, it uncertainty would become a limiting factor in the determination of the branching ratios of the $`\mathrm{W}`$ boson and would also make the measurement somewhat model dependent. We prefer to abandon the use of the relation by also taking into account the $`\mathrm{W}`$ determination. The $`\mathrm{W}`$ decays provide a separation of up and down quarks. At the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ the main handle to separate $`\eta _\mathrm{d}^{\pi ^\pm }`$ and $`\eta _\mathrm{u}^{\pi ^\pm }`$ is to tag an up or down event by a high $`x_p`$ pion in one jet and to find a charged kaon (indicating an up quark) or a neutral kaon (indicating a down quark) in the opposite jet. Given the dilution of the signal by decays of strange vector mesons and strange quark events, the discrimination power is only marginal. The resulting uncertainty in the $`\eta _q^i`$ limits the accuracy with which the CKM matrix elements can be determined. On the other hand, since the charged W boson can only decay into a restricted number of quark combinations, these decays discriminate between up and down quarks. For example, a charm quark can only be associated with a down quark, but not with an up quark. As a consequence, a combined fit of $`\mathrm{W}`$ and $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ decays for the $`\eta _q^i`$ and the $`\mathrm{W}`$ branching ratios allows one to find a solution without any assumptions about QCD symmetries.

### 3.2 Experimental aspects of running at the Z0

In addition to secondary vertex finding, the main selection requirements at the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ are to identify hadrons. In order to have sufficient particle separation power with the d$`E`$/d$`x`$ measurement and for the $`V^0`$ reconstruction of $`\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{S}^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ identification, we require jets and tagging particles to be within the central part of the detector. Specifically we require that the polar angle of the thrust axis with respect to the beam direction, $`\theta _{\mathrm{Thrust}}`$, satisfy $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{Thrust}}|<0.8`$ and that the tagging particles have a polar angle of the momentum, $`\theta _p`$, within the range $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _p|<0.9`$. The detailed reconstruction criteria will depend on the performance of the tracking system.

For the luminosities expected at TESLA at the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$, we estimate from a JETSET simulation the number of single- and double-tagged events listed in Table 3. As discussed in  and mentioned in the previous section, the tagging efficiencies $`\eta _q^i`$ can be determined from these measurements with errors as given in Table 4. Also shown in Table 4 are the contributions from a $`\pm 2\%`$ systematic uncertainty in the hadronisation relation $`\eta _\mathrm{d}^{\pi ^\pm }\eta _\mathrm{u}^{\pi ^\pm }`$. In omitting this relation but including data from $`\mathrm{W}`$ decays, the results are independent of any assumption about hadronisation and represent a considerable improvement over the precision reached at LEP. In general the correlations between the various elements are small. The most important correlations are between the $`\eta _q^i`$ of the same tagging particle type. For example, $`\eta _\mathrm{d}^{\pi ^\pm }`$ and $`\eta _\mathrm{u}^{\pi ^\pm }`$ are almost fully anticorrelated.

### 3.3 Systematic uncertainties

In view of the unprecedented number of $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ decays available at GigaZ a detailed evaluation of the systematic uncertainties is unrealistic at this stage. We will just mention some potential distortions and suggest how to estimate them. From past experience we assume that the huge amount of data will provide enough cross checks to keep all these sources of uncertainty under control.

One crucial element of the analysis is charm and bottom quark tagging based on secondary vertices. As shown at LEP and SLD many contributions to uncertainties of their efficiencies and purities can be derived from data.

As discussed in  the major systematic uncertainties in the light quark sector in the LEP analysis are due to the efficiencies and purities of the hadron identification. At LEP these are estimated from relatively pure samples of particles from $`\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{S}^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{D}^0\mathrm{K}^{}\pi ^+`$ decays or photon conversions into an $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ pair, for example. Such cross checks can also be performed at GigaZ where one can expect the much higher statistics to lead to a sizeable improvement of the systematic uncertainty compared to LEP.

Another major uncertainty in the LEP analysis comes from the hadronisation relations, briefly mentioned in Section 3.1. These relations were needed to obtain a stable solution of the equation system. As discussed above, with the higher statistics at GigaZ and the use of $`\mathrm{W}`$ decays these hadronisation relations are no longer needed.

Depending on the actual detector performance it may also be possible to use additional high $`x_p`$ particle types like $`\varphi (1020)`$ mesons, which are very likely to originate from a strange quark, to further constrain the tagging efficiencies.

## 4 Determination of the W branching ratios

### 4.1 Formalism

Neglecting experimental effects, the tagging efficiencies in the rest frame of the $`\mathrm{W}`$ and $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ bosons are almost identical, since the masses are so similar. Therefore, the $`\eta _q^i`$ determined at the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ peak can be used to measure flavour production in $`\mathrm{W}`$ decays in the $`\mathrm{W}`$ rest frame. To determine the branching ratios of the $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons we use both single and double tags. A singly tagged $`\mathrm{W}`$ is where a tag of type $`k`$ is found in just one of the jets. A doubly tagged $`\mathrm{W}`$ is a candidate where particle types $`i`$ and $`j`$ are tagged in each jet belonging to a $`\mathrm{W}`$ boson. This leads to the generic equations:

$`N_k`$ $`=`$ $`N_\mathrm{W}^{\mathrm{had}}{\displaystyle \underset{qq^{}}{}}[\eta _q^k(1{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\eta _q^{}^l)+(1{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\eta _q^l)\eta _q^{}^k]R_{qq^{}}`$ (3)
$`N_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`N_\mathrm{W}^{\mathrm{had}}(10.5\delta _{ij}){\displaystyle \underset{qq^{}}{}}[\eta _q^i\eta _q^{}^j+\eta _q^j\eta _q^{}^i]R_{qq^{}},`$ (4)
where $`\delta _{ij}=1`$ if $`i=j`$, and zero otherwise, which avoids double counting if identical tags are required, and where $`N_\mathrm{W}^{\mathrm{had}}`$ is the number of selected hadronically decaying $`\mathrm{W}`$ candidates. Here we neglected experimental effects, hemisphere correlations, background from non-$`\mathrm{W}`$ events, and assumed the right assignment of particles and jets to $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons. In a real experiment none of the conditions holds exactly. The full equations which account for these complications are given in the Appendix. The number of 31 possible equations over-constrain the six unknown branching ratios, which can be obtained from a $`\chi ^2`$ fit.

As discussed in Section 3.1, to minimise the uncertainties originating from the limited knowledge of the $`\eta _q^i`$, we perform a simultaneous fit for the $`\eta _q^i`$ and the $`\mathrm{W}`$ branching ratios using both $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ and $`\mathrm{W}`$ decays.

### 4.2 Events with W Bosons at TESLA

The high luminosity of TESLA leads to a substantial yield of $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons. The main production processes are $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}\nu _\mathrm{e}\mathrm{W}`$, with a cross section of some 5 pb at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV, and $`\mathrm{W}`$ pair production of some 8 pb. In addition, $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons are produced in top decays, but because of the lower cross section and some complications arising from the multi-jet environment we will not consider them. In total some seven million $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons will be produced in a nominal TESLA year.

We restrict this analysis to $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons that are scattered into the central part of a future TESLA detector because of the experimental requirements of good hadron identification and efficient and pure heavy quark tagging. Within the polar angles $`\theta _\mathrm{W}`$ of the $`\mathrm{W}`$ boson $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _W|<`$0.8 some 700000 hadronically decaying $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons can be retained for $`\mathrm{W}`$ pair production, while some 450000 single hadronically decaying $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons are kept. We will base the following discussion on 5 million usable hadronic $`\mathrm{W}`$ decays, which could be collected in a few years of high energy data taking. Assuming the current knowledge of the CKM matrix444Reference  gives directly measured values and the ranges from a unitarity constraint CKM matrix. For our purposes we adjusted these values such that the individual decay modes add up to exactly five million $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons. We also assumed the decay into up quarks to be exactly as frequent as the one to charm quarks. For the purpose of this analysis these adjustments are unimportant., the expected yields of the different decay modes are listed in Table 5.

### 4.3 Experimental Procedure for W Bosons

The basic strategy is to boost the decay products of $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons into the $`\mathrm{W}`$ rest frame, search in each jet for a secondary vertex or for a light flavour tag. In the latter case we identify the type of the highest momentum particle in each hemisphere, and finally assign the probability $`\eta _q^i`$ obtained from $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ decays that such a tag stems from a certain primary quark flavour. To achieve this one has to first find the proper association of particles to $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons, reconstruct the $`\mathrm{W}`$ boson energy and momentum and identify the tag.

In case of single $`\mathrm{W}`$ production the association of particles to the $`\mathrm{W}`$ boson is unambiguous. This is also true for $`\mathrm{W}`$ pair production where one $`\mathrm{W}`$ decays hadronically and the other into a pair of leptons, denoted ”semi-hadronic”. If both $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons from a pair decay hadronically, the jet assignment is more difficult. After grouping the particles into four jets, three different jet pairings are possible. Our simulation studies using PYTHIA  show that at least for LEP energies this pairing is correct for about 85% of all $`\mathrm{W}`$ pairs555No detailed study exists yet for energies of 500 GeV. We therefore assume for the following evaluation the purity observed at LEP..

In $`\mathrm{W}`$ pair events the energies and momenta of the $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons can be rather precisely reconstructed by fitting the observed momenta and energies of jets and leptons to obey energy and momentum conservation and to combine to have the $`\mathrm{W}`$ mass. This has been shown by the LEP experiments, which use total centre-of-mass energy as given by the accelerator and the fact that the $`\mathrm{W}`$ pairs are produced at rest at $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ colliders. Similarly in single $`\mathrm{W}`$ events the two jets can be constrained to have a mass identical to the mass of the $`\mathrm{W}`$, $`M_\mathrm{W}`$.

To identify the primary quark flavour, each jet is searched for a secondary vertex and classified either as bottom, charm or, if it does not have a secondary vertex, as a light flavour candidate. The efficiencies for the charm, bottom and light flavour tags are listed in Table 1. For the light flavour tags the tracks and clusters assigned to each $`\mathrm{W}`$ boson are then boosted along the reconstructed four momentum of the $`\mathrm{W}`$ candidate into its rest frame. The particles are grouped into two hemispheres with respect to the direction of the thrust axis and in each of these the particle with the highest momentum is identified. These particles are retained if they are in the geometrical acceptance range, fulfil the criteria to identify their species and have a scaled momentum in the $`\mathrm{W}`$ boson rest frame $`x_p=2p/M_\mathrm{W}>0.2`$. The expected numbers of single and double tags in five million $`\mathrm{W}`$ decays are listed in Table 6.

To apply the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ tagging efficiencies to the $`\mathrm{W}`$ decays, several corrections have to be applied, even though the selection and reconstruction resembles closely the one used to determine the $`\eta _q^i`$ at the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$.

* The mass of the $`\mathrm{W}`$ is some 10 GeV below the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ mass. For particle tags this leads to a small difference of the energy spectra due to QCD scaling violations. The resulting differences in the tagging efficiencies at these two energy scales were estimated with $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ continuum events generated with JETSET at centre-of-mass energies equivalent to the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ and the $`\mathrm{W}`$ masses. The fractional changes of the $`\eta _q^i`$ relative to those at the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ are shown in Figure 1. For $`x_p>`$ 0.2 the $`\eta _q^i`$ were found to be 1.7$`\%`$ higher at the $`\mathrm{W}`$ mass. These scaling violations are rather independent of the primary quark flavour. Some dependence on the tagging particle is observed. Note that the latter can be rather precisely determined from data by summing over all flavours.

Furthermore, differences in the detection efficiencies have to be accounted for:

* The high $`x_p`$ particles and those from the secondary vertices from $`\mathrm{W}`$ and $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ decays have different momentum and polar angle distributions in the lab system. This can be inferred from Figures 2 and 3 where the jet energies in single $`\mathrm{W}`$ and $`\mathrm{W}`$ pair events are shown. There is a broad spectrum of jet energies, mostly larger than the jet energy of $``$ 45.5 GeV in $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ decays. This potentially leads to different efficiencies and purities of secondary vertex finding and, for the highest $`x_p`$ particle, momentum resolution and d$`E`$/d$`x`$ efficiencies.
* In addition possible misassignments of particles to $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons and distortions in the reconstruction of the momentum of the $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons have to be taken into account.

The necessary corrections can be estimated using detector simulations. In many cases significant cross checks with data can be performed. In applying the $`\eta _q^i`$ to fully hadronically decaying $`\mathrm{W}`$ pairs, there could emerge in principle a further distortion due to Bose-Einstein or colour reconnection effects. However, as already known from the discussions on the colour reconnection for $`\mathrm{W}`$ pairs at LEP, this affects in particular low momentum particles, whereas the leading particles are rather undistorted .

In addition background from non-$`\mathrm{W}`$ production processes have to be considered. The major backgrounds in the $`\mathrm{W}`$ pair sample with fully hadronic decays are due to $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ continuum quark production with two hard gluons, $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ pair production and top pair production. Early studies at 500 GeV  indicate that these backgrounds can be kept below the 5% level. Background is significantly smaller for semi-hadronic events.

## 5 W Branching Ratios and CKM Matrix Elements

### 5.1 Statistical precision

Following the procedure outlined above we estimate the precisions for the hadronic branching ratios, $`R_{qq^{}}`$, using a $`\chi ^2`$ fit to the observed tagged yields in $`\mathrm{W}`$ and $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ decays. in $`\mathrm{W}`$ and $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ decays. In the following we assume that the $`\mathrm{W}`$ decays only into the known leptons and quarks, except the top quark which is inaccessible because of its mass. If additional decays contribute they probably will either modify the true $`R_{qq^{}}`$ or even imply that $`R_{qq^{}}1`$. As default we assume the Standard Model case in this analysis and constrain $`R_{\mathrm{ub}}=1_{qq^{}}R_{qq^{}}`$, where the sum ranges over all other hadronic branching ratios. The result of this fit is listed in Table 7. We just note that by omitting such a constraint we can determine $`_{qq^{}}R_{qq^{}}`$ with a statistical precision of $`5\times 10^4`$.

Without assuming unitarity, the CKM matrix elements can be obtained from the partial widths of the $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons, in a way similar to what has been used in :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{W}qq^{})=\frac{C_{\mathrm{QCD}}G_\mathrm{F}M_\mathrm{W}^3}{6\sqrt{2}\pi }|V_{qq^{}}|^2,$$
(5)
where $`G_F`$ is the Fermi constant and

$$C_{\mathrm{QCD}}=3\left\{1+\frac{\alpha _\mathrm{s}(M_\mathrm{W})}{\pi }+1.409\left(\frac{\alpha _\mathrm{s}(M_\mathrm{W})}{\pi }\right)^212.77\left(\frac{\alpha _\mathrm{s}(M_\mathrm{W})}{\pi }\right)^3\right\}$$
(6)
expresses the QCD radiative corrections. The partial width is related to the hadronic branching fractions by:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{W}qq^{})=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{W}B_hR_{qq^{}}$$
(7)
with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{W}`$ the total $`\mathrm{W}`$ boson width and $`B_h`$ the inclusive branching ration of the $`\mathrm{W}`$ into hadrons.

The CKM matrix elements can thereby be determined using the measured values of the basic quantities. However, such a measurement may finally be limited by the knowledge of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{W}`$. Given by the very precise measurement of $`G_F`$ in $`\mu `$ decays and lepton universality measurements in $`\tau `$ decays , the latter can be substituted by the measurement of the electronic or muonic partial width of the $`\mathrm{W}`$ leading to

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{W}qq^{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{W}(\mathrm{e},\mu )\nu )}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{W}B_hR_{qq^{}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{W}B_{(\mathrm{e},\mu )}}=C_{\mathrm{QCD}}|V_{qq^{}}|^2,$$
(8)
where $`B_{(\mathrm{e},\mu )}`$ is the electronic or muonic decay fraction of the $`\mathrm{W}`$. Thus, the CKM matrix elements can be related to the measured fraction of $`\mathrm{W}qq^{}`$ decays using the QCD correction factor and the well-measurable ratio $`B_h/B_{(\mathrm{e},\mu )}`$

$$|V_{qq^{}}|=\sqrt{\frac{1}{C_{\mathrm{QCD}}}\frac{B_h}{B_{(\mathrm{e},\mu )}}R_{qq^{}}}.$$
(9)
Currently the ratio $`B_h/B_{(\mathrm{e},\mu )}`$ is known experimentally from LEP data to 1%, but the error should significantly decrease to $`𝒪`$(0.05%) due to the higher yield of $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons at TESLA. The QCD radiative correction is calculated to third order in $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}`$; however, the strong coupling is currently only known to a few percent. Given two billion $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ events the uncertainty could be rather significantly reduced. In fact $`C_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ should be almost identical in $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ and $`\mathrm{W}`$ decays. Both these error contributions are smaller than the uncertainties in $`R_{qq^{}}`$. We obtain the matrix elements given in Table 7, and their correlations are listed in Table 8. We do not show the negligible correlations between the $`|V_{qq^{}}|`$ and the $`\eta _q^i`$ resulting from the combined fit. The results are consistent with the input values.

At this stage we have completely neglected any possible theoretical corrections and uncertainties due to mass effects, electroweak contributions etc.

### 5.2 Systematic Uncertainties

For the envisaged precision and the huge amount of data, a detailed analysis of the potential systematic uncertainties is impossible at this stage. Here we discuss some major uncertainties and indicate ways to estimate their importance. In all cases we believe that they can be kept under control.

* Errors and correlations for $`\eta _q^i`$ from Z0. The uncertainties of the efficiencies $`\eta _q^i`$ from the billion $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ bosons produced at a high luminosity GigaZ propagate into an uncertainty in the branching ratios of the $`\mathrm{W}`$. This is taken into account by the result of the combined fit.

The principal problem will be to keep the systematic uncertainties of the $`\eta _q^i`$ under control to this high level of precision. Some potential uncertainties were mentioned in Section 3.3. Ideally the data at GigaZ and at high energies would be collected with the same detector. In this case many of the potential uncertainties are the same for the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ and the $`\mathrm{W}`$ boson analyses and can be neglected. Otherwise the relative uncertainties between two different detectors in flavour tagging have to be taken into account. Given the large statistics of data to cross check the detector performance, it appears possible to maintain a sufficiently high precision.
* W boson reconstruction. The accuracy of the measurements of the branching ratios, $`R_{qq^{}}`$, depends on how reliably particles and jets can be assigned to W bosons and how well this is understood. Related is the correctness of the $`\mathrm{W}`$ boson reconstruction from a kinematic fit. These affect the determination of the $`x_p`$ values of the tagging particle in the $`\mathrm{W}`$ rest frame.

In part potential misassignments can be estimated from other processes at high energies, like $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{Z}^0\mathrm{Z}^0`$. Our simulation studies suggest that the corresponding error will be unimportant.
* Differences in tagging efficiencies. As discussed in Section 4.3, several subtleties have to be taken into account in translating the tagging efficiencies at the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ to those for the $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons. The differences can be minimised by applying rather similar selection requirements in the two cases.

Here we list potential corrections:

+ relative capability for charm, bottom and light flavour tagging (including particle identification capability) in $`\mathrm{W}`$ pair production at high energies compared to the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ data,
    + QCD scaling violations which slightly change the $`\eta _q^i`$,
    + effects of the different angular acceptance and kinematical and geometrical correlations.

None of these uncertainties appears to impose a substantial problem. Systematic uncertainties can be derived from data.
* Backgrounds. Most of the overall yield from potential background processes will be measured to very high precision and their contribution to the sample of $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons can be well determined. Somewhat more uncertain is their contribution to the light flavour tags. This requires a knowledge of the particle content. For example, the number of $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ continuum events with two hard gluons will probably be quite well known. However, to account for their contribution to the $`\mathrm{W}`$ sample, the leading particle distributions in gluon jets also needs to be understood. A possible way to determine their impact is to study the particle composition in these processes for kinematic properties that cannot be confused with $`\mathrm{W}`$ pair production and extrapolate it to the relevant kinematic configuration.

### 5.3 Some possible improvements

* Particle separation. A better detector performance to separate the hadron species will lead to a better purity of the individual light flavours.
* Tags including charge. As already discussed in , including the charge sign of the tags allows one to improve the flavour purity of the $`\eta _q^i`$ from $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ decays. Charge dependent $`\eta _q^i`$ are even more interesting for both $`\mathrm{W}`$ production processes because of the significant charge asymmetry in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$.
* Polarisation. $`\mathrm{W}`$ pair production at TESLA will lead to polarised $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons, the degree of polarisation depending on the scattering angle, leading down-type jets to be in general more energetic than up-type jets. This effect can be seen in the accumulation of jets with high and low energies in Figure 2, for example. One may use this property to statistically separate between up- and down-type quarks. Ambiguities from the high $`x_p`$ tagging between charged kaons in up and strange quark events, for example, can thereby be reduced. Such separation could become even more powerful if in addition the charge of the tagged particle is used.

## 6 Top quark decays

As yet the CKM matrix elements have only been determined indirectly from processes such as $`\mathrm{b}\mathrm{s}\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{B}^0\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0`$ mixing. In both cases the transition involving top quarks occur at the one loop level. A first direct measurement of the fraction of top decays into bottom quarks can be found in . The high statistics and clean environment at a high energy $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ collider allow more comprehensive and precise direct measurements.

### 6.1 Formalism

To extract the relevant branching ratios of top quarks into the various species of down - type quarks one has to tag just the jet that is produced together with the $`\mathrm{W}`$. An equation system can be constructed relating the number of events, $`N_k`$, identified with a tag $`k`$, out of a number of top decays, $`N_{\mathrm{top}}`$,

$$N_k=N_{\mathrm{top}}\underset{q=\mathrm{d},\mathrm{s},\mathrm{b}}{}\eta _q^kB(\mathrm{t}q\mathrm{W})$$
(10)
which can be easily solved for the branching ratios $`B(\mathrm{t}q\mathrm{W})`$. In the following we assume the absence of any non-standard decay. As was discussed for $`\mathrm{W}`$ decays, such an exotic contribution may become apparent by measuring the branching ratios with high precision.

### 6.2 Top Yields at TESLA

With the luminosity given in Section 2, some 400,000 top quarks will be produced each year. To determine the transition $`\mathrm{t}q\mathrm{W}`$ it is least ambiguous to demand leptonic $`\mathrm{W}`$ decays, thus avoiding any confusion in jet assignments. With such a requirement, some 120000 top quarks per year will be kept. However, it may also be possible to use at least a part of the fully hadronic top decays, providing a significantly larger sample. We will base our discussion on one million well-tagged and reconstructed top quarks in the $`\mathrm{W}l\nu `$ mode. The expected yields of the various decays are listed in Table 9.

### 6.3 CKM Matrix Elements from Top Quark Decays

The branching ratios of the top quark are related to the CKM matrix elements by including higher order corrections summarised in :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{t}q\mathrm{W})|V_{\mathrm{t}q}|^2\times 1.42\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(11)
It should be noted that, in contrast to all other known quarks, the top quark is expected to decay before it hadronises . This renders the determination of the CKM matrix elements independent of uncertainties inherent in hadron physics.

The partial width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{t}q\mathrm{W})`$ can be related to the branching ratios $`B(\mathrm{t}q\mathrm{W})`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{t}q\mathrm{W})=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{top}}B(\mathrm{t}q\mathrm{W})$$
(12)
and thus

$$|V_{\mathrm{t}q}|^2=B(\mathrm{t}\mathrm{qW})\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{top}}}{1.42\mathrm{GeV}}.$$
(13)
Whereas the determination of the branching ratios is straight-forward and will be detailed in the next paragraphs, the measurement of the decay width of the top quark to high precision is less obvious. This is not possible via secondary vertex tagging because of the expected lifetime of $`𝒪(10^{25}`$ sec). Instead other means have been suggested , the most promising one seeming to be single top production $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}\nu _\mathrm{e}\mathrm{tb}`$ . For such a measurement the background from top pair production has to be rejected. Scaling the precision estimated in  to the luminosities foreseen at TESLA, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{top}}`$ should be measurable to $`1\%`$.

Assuming unitarity and that the top quark couples only to down, strange and bottom quarks, the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{top}}`$ should agree with the theoretical expectation and thus

$$|V_{\mathrm{t}q}|^2=B(\mathrm{t}q\mathrm{W})$$
(14)
In general the determination of the branching ratios follows the procedure for the $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons.

* Identification of the $`\mathrm{W}`$ boson decay products and consideration of the remaining jet in a top decay. This is rather straight-forward for leptonic $`\mathrm{W}`$ decays.
* Application of the tagging algorithm to this jet. The light flavour tag should have a very high purity even at the cost of a lower efficiency because of the overwhelming fraction of top decays into bottom quarks. In the following we assume $`ϵ_{\mathrm{uds}}=0.5`$ and $`ϵ_\mathrm{b}=0.01`$. In the absence of FCNC decays, no charm quarks are directly produced. This allows one to reject bottom quarks by a very tight selection against secondary vertices, helping to achieve the preferred high purity of light flavours.
* Different from the situation with $`\mathrm{W}`$ decays, the mass of the colour neutral system in which hadronisation takes place depends on the details of the decays of both the top and anti-top quarks in the same event. This makes the assignment of the $`\eta _q^i`$ somewhat more complicated. Whereas the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ and the $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons are colourless objects and therefore hadronisation proceeds in their respective rest frames, the top quark itself is coloured. Its colour is neutralised by the recoiling anti-top quark. In general the hadronisation should evolve in the $`q\overline{q}^{}`$ system given by the decays $`(\mathrm{t}q\mathrm{W}^+,\overline{\mathrm{t}}\overline{q}^{}\mathrm{W}^{})`$. This requires that the mass $`M_{q\overline{q}^{}}`$ of the $`q\overline{q}^{}`$ system be reconstructed. QCD scaling violations between the $`\eta _q^i`$ at the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ and those at $`M_{q\overline{q}^{}}`$ have to be taken into account. A JETSET simulation for $`M_{q\overline{q}^{}}`$ is shown in Figure 4 and the sizes of the necessary QCD corrections are given in Figure 1.

If at least one of the top quarks decays fully hadronically, distortions may arise from colour reconnection between quarks from the $`\mathrm{W}`$ decay and those directly associated to the top. As mentioned previously, they are expected to be of no importance for our method. The experimental task, however, is complicated for hadronic $`\mathrm{W}`$ decays by the need to resolve the two jets that directly couple to the top quarks. This may require further selections.
* Solution of the equation system (Eq. 10).

The numbers of expected tags are listed in Table 10. The expected precision of the CKM matrix elements involving top quarks are listed in Table 11. Their correlation matrix is given in Table 12.

These results imply that one million top decays allow one to determine the branching ratio $`B(\mathrm{t}\mathrm{bW})`$ to be different from unity with high significance. This implies that the sum of $`B(\mathrm{t}\mathrm{sW})`$ and $`B(\mathrm{t}\mathrm{dW})`$ is larger than zero. The light flavour tagging efficiencies even allow one even to distinguish down and strange quark contributions. As a result the CKM matrix element $`|V_{\mathrm{ts}}|`$ can be determined directly and with reasonable precision. Despite low statistics and still formidable bottom background in the light quark samples, a first upper limit from direct measurements on the $`\mathrm{t}\mathrm{d}`$ transition can be derived. At 95% confidence,

$$B(\mathrm{t}\mathrm{dW})<8\times 10^4.$$

To translate these into reasonably precise $`|V_{\mathrm{t}q}|`$ elements requires that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{top}}`$ be measured with higher precision than what has been suggested so far. If this can be achieved one can set a limit of

$$|V_{\mathrm{td}}|<0.029.$$

## 7 Conclusions

The large samples of $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons and top quarks at a future $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ collider of high energy and luminosity provides the means to directly determine the fundamental CKM matrix elements. The current values are based on hadron decays and deep inelastic scattering results and invoke QCD symmetries. We propose a complementary method which is free of any assumptions on QCD modelling at a low mass scale. In addition the resulting precision is at least competitive to the ones from hadronic decays. In this paper we have only discussed the experimental feasibility. The potential experimental precision may have to be complemented by further theoretical scrutiny of higher order effects.

Compared to the current results for individual measurements as summarised in , there are improvements on all elements in the charm sector. The precision is better than what is anticipated from other measurements in the future. Even measurements of $`|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|`$ at B factories hardly reach the potential TESLA precision because of the anticipated theoretical uncertainty. The results for transitions involving the up quark are a factor three to five worse than those from hadron decays. However, even for these elements the measurement in $`\mathrm{W}`$ boson decays may become an interesting complement.

The direct determination of CKM matrix elements involving top quarks may be pioneered at TESLA. So far only $`|V_{\mathrm{tb}}|`$ has been determined directly using top decays at the Tevatron . The measurement of the branching ratio $`B(\mathrm{t}\mathrm{bW})`$ may be improved at the Tevatron Run 2 and particularly at the LHC. For example,  assumes a 0.2% statistical error for one year of low luminosity running at LHC (10 fb-1). The systematic error is not yet evaluated. Translating this into $`|V_{\mathrm{tb}}|`$ is more complicated and a direct measurement via single top quark production is deemed “challenging”. No direct measurements of $`|V_{\mathrm{td}}|`$ and $`|V_{\mathrm{ts}}|`$ are possible at the LHC. At TESLA not only the dominant decay branching ratio $`B(\mathrm{t}\mathrm{bW})`$ can be measured with similar or better precision compared to the LHC, but also the top transition to light quarks can be probed. The element $`|V_{\mathrm{ts}}|`$ can be determined with a significance of about six standard deviations and, if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{top}}`$ is known to sufficient precision, a significant upper limit on $`|V_{\mathrm{td}}|`$ can be set.

Acknowledgements

In writing this article we profited from the discussion with many colleagues. In particular we are grateful to A. Bellerive, I. Bigi, G. Hanson and N. Nesvadba for carefully reading the document and for important suggestions.

## Appendix A Formulae for Single and Double Tags in W Decays

Equations 3 and 4 show only the general structure of the equation system to solve for the branching ratios of the $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons. As pointed out, these equations become more involved if experimental distortions are taken into account, such as kinematical and geometrical correlations $`\rho _\mathrm{W}`$ between the two jets, and the probability $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{W}\mathrm{jet}}`$ of correctly assigning a jet to a $`\mathrm{W}`$ boson.

For $`N_\mathrm{W}^{\mathrm{had}}`$ denoting the number of accepted hadronically decaying $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons, the number of double tags of types $`i`$ and $`j`$ with a correct assignment of a jet to a $`\mathrm{W}`$ boson is given by

$$N_{ij}^{\mathrm{correct}}=N_\mathrm{W}^{\mathrm{had}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{W}\mathrm{jet}}(10.5\delta _{ij})\rho _\mathrm{W}\underset{qq^{}}{}(\eta _q^i\eta _q^{}^j+\eta _q^j\eta _q^{}^i)R_{qq^{}}$$
(15)
where the sum ranges over all six quark pairs possibly produced in $`\mathrm{W}`$ decays: $`qq^{}`$ = ($`\mathrm{u}\overline{\mathrm{d}}`$, $`\mathrm{u}\overline{\mathrm{s}}`$, $`\mathrm{u}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$, $`\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{d}}`$, $`\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{s}}`$, $`\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$). In $`\mathrm{W}`$ pair events where the two $`\mathrm{W}`$ bosons decay like $`\mathrm{W}_1q_1\stackrel{~}{q_1}`$ and $`\mathrm{W}_2q_2\stackrel{~}{q_2}`$, those with misassigned jets can be approximated by

$$N_{ij}^{\mathrm{misassigned}}=N_\mathrm{W}^{\mathrm{had}}(1\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{W}\mathrm{jet}})(0.50.25\delta _{ij})\left[\underset{q_1\stackrel{~}{q_1}}{}(\eta _{q_1}^i+\eta _{\stackrel{~}{q_1}}^i)R_{q_1\stackrel{~}{q_1}}\right]\left[\underset{q_2\stackrel{~}{q_2}}{}(\eta _{q_2}^j+\eta _{\stackrel{~}{q_2}}^j)R_{q_2\stackrel{~}{q_2}}\right]$$
(16)
In this case an incoherent sum over the branching ratios is assumed. Correlations between wrong combinations slightly modify the equation. As an example assume a true $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}(\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{s}})(\overline{\mathrm{u}}\mathrm{d})`$ event. If, for example, the c quark is combined with the d quark, the other combination is fixed as being $`\overline{\mathrm{s}}\overline{\mathrm{u}}`$. Such a correlation is not accounted for in the above equation. However, it is rather straight-forward to include it. Such a modification is important only if all four quarks are tagged, which is rather unlikely.

In addition one has to estimate the double tags from background, mainly from continuum QCD events with two hard gluons and from $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ pair events. The amount and particle content of these events must be estimated from simulation.

The single tag rate is given by:

$$\begin{array}{cccccccccc}N_i\hfill & =\hfill & \multicolumn{7}{c}{N_W\{}& \\ & & \eta _\mathrm{u}^i[\hfill & 𝒦_\mathrm{d}\hfill & B(\mathrm{W}\mathrm{ud})+\hfill & 𝒦_\mathrm{s}\hfill & B(\mathrm{W}\mathrm{us})+\hfill & 𝒦_\mathrm{b}\hfill & B(\mathrm{W}\mathrm{ub})]\hfill & \\ & +\hfill & 𝒦_\mathrm{u}[\hfill & \eta _\mathrm{d}^i\hfill & B(\mathrm{W}\mathrm{ud})+\hfill & \eta _\mathrm{s}^i\hfill & B(\mathrm{W}\mathrm{us})+\hfill & \eta _\mathrm{b}^i\hfill & B(\mathrm{W}\mathrm{ub})]\hfill & \\ & +\hfill & \eta _\mathrm{c}^i[\hfill & 𝒦_\mathrm{d}\hfill & B(\mathrm{W}\mathrm{cd})+\hfill & 𝒦_\mathrm{s}\hfill & B(\mathrm{W}\mathrm{cs})+\hfill & 𝒦_\mathrm{b}\hfill & B(\mathrm{W}\mathrm{cb})]\hfill & \\ & +\hfill & 𝒦_\mathrm{c}[\hfill & \eta _\mathrm{d}^i\hfill & B(\mathrm{W}\mathrm{cd})+\hfill & \eta _\mathrm{s}^i\hfill & B(\mathrm{W}\mathrm{cs})+\hfill & \eta _\mathrm{b}^i\hfill & B(\mathrm{W}\mathrm{cb})]\hfill & \hfill \}\end{array}$$
(17)
where $`𝒦_q`$ is the probability that jet from quark $`q`$ does not lead to any tag:

$$𝒦_q=[1\rho _\mathrm{W}+(1+\rho _\mathrm{W})\underset{q}{}\eta _q^i].$$
(18)


text:
# The Evolution of Radio Galaxies at Intermediate Redshift

## 1 Introduction

Evolution of radio sources is required to explain the observed number of radio sources and the redshift distribution of radio sources with observed optical counterparts (Longair, 1966; Condon, 1984; Peacock, 1985). Radio emission from high redshift AGN is detectable in wide-field radio sky surveys and the optical counterparts of some $`z>3`$ radio-loud QSOs can be detected on Schmidt photographic plates. However, most radio-loud AGN are radio galaxies and at $`z0.5`$ their faint optical counterparts ($`B_J23`$) make it difficult to obtain the large spectroscopic samples required to measure the evolution of the luminosity function.

Several previous samples of radio galaxies with redshifts are summarized in Table 1. To date, most estimates of the radio galaxy luminosity function have relied on catalogues limited to bright radio flux limits (Kuehr et al., 1981; Wall and Peacock, 1985; Dunlop et al., 1989) or bright optical flux limits (Condon, 1989; Sadler et al., 1989; Machalski and Condon, 1999). These catalogues contain relatively few radio galaxies (as opposed to radio-loud QSOs) at $`z>0.2`$, and consequently shed little light on the radio galaxy luminosity function and its evolution at these redshifts. Samples that have attempted to extend our knowledge of the radio galaxy luminosity function at $`z\mathrm{}>0.2`$, by extending the identification of mJy radio sources to faint optical magnitudes ($`B>22`$) have been limited to relatively small samples of objects (10-60 galaxies) due to the difficultly of obtaining follow-up spectroscopy. As a result, estimates of the radio galaxy luminosity function and evolution obtained from these samples are still subject to significant uncertainty.

With photometric redshifts and color selection, it is possible select and estimate the redshifts of faint early-type galaxies in multicolor imaging surveys (Brown et al., 2000). By matching early-type galaxies with sources from the radio catalogues, it is possible to compile a large uniformly selected catalogue of radio galaxies to measure the evolution of the radio galaxy luminosity function. As the radio galaxies are selected from deep wide-field imaging data, a large catalogue of radio-quiet galaxies is also available to measure the environments of the radio galaxies (Brown et al., 2001).

## 2 The Panoramic Deep Fields

The Panoramic Deep Fields (Brown, 2000) are $`5^{}\times 5^{}`$ images of the South Galactic Pole (SGP) and UK Schmidt field 855 (F855). The images were produced by stacking SuperCOSMOS scans of UK Schmidt photographic plates in $`U`$, $`B_J`$, $`R`$ and $`I`$ bands. Object detection, instrumental photometry and faint object star-galaxy classifications were determined with SExtractor (Bertin and Arnouts, 1996). Photometric calibration of the data was determined with CCD images and published photometry with corrections for dust extinction being derived from the dust maps of Schlegel et al. (1998). The final galaxy catalogues are complete to $`B_J23.5`$ and $`R22`$. Brown (2000) provides a detailed description of the data reduction and calibration of the Panoramic Deep Fields.

Photometric redshifts were calibrated using the polynomial fitting method of Connolly et al. (1995) and $`700`$ Panoramic Deep Field galaxies with spectroscopic redshifts available from the NED database (Brown et al., 2000). Comparison of the photometric redshifts of radio galaxies with spectroscopic redshifts showed that radio galaxy redshifts were systematically underestimated by $`15\%`$. This is almost certainly due to radio galaxies being more luminous and having slightly bluer colors than other early-type galaxies (Sadler et al., 1989; Govoni et al., 2000) To correct for this, the photometric redshifts of radio galaxies in this paper were increased by $`15\%`$ and Figure 2 shows there is good agreement between the corrected photometric and spectroscopic redshifts.

## 3 Selection of Radio Galaxies

The radio galaxy sample consists of Panoramic Deep Field galaxies which are associated with objects in the NVSS source catalogue (Condon et al., 1998). $`B_JR`$ color and photometric redshifts were used to select $`B_J<23.5`$ galaxies which are redder than a non-evolving Sbc where the Sbc colors were determined with the $`k`$corrections of Coleman et al. (1980). The optical galaxies were then matched to radio sources from the NVSS source catalog. The selection of early-type galaxies removes contamination of the radio galaxy sample by QSOs and starbursts. If unified models of radio-loud AGN (Barthel, 1989) are valid, the removal of QSOs from the sample removed radio galaxies viewed at certain orientations. However, as the galaxy photometric redshifts are not usable for QSOs, the removal of QSOs from the sample allowed the measurement of radio galaxy evolution without spectroscopic redshifts.

As the evolution of the radio galaxy population was studied, the criterion used for matching radio and optical sources could not be a function of redshift. High completeness was also required to prevent the estimate of the luminosity function being dominated by corrections for incompleteness. Low contamination of the sample was required so estimates of the luminosity function and radio galaxy environments would not be dominated by galaxies not associated with radio sources.

The brightest NVSS source catalogue positions have $`1\sigma `$ error estimates of $`1^{\prime \prime }`$ while the faintest ($`2.5\mathrm{mJy}`$) source positions have errors of $`\mathrm{}>10^{\prime \prime }`$ (Condon et al., 1998). The sky surface density of $`B_J<23.5`$ galaxies which meet the color selection selection criterion is $`0.5/\mathrm{}^{}`$ so $`\mathrm{}>40\%`$ of $`2.5\mathrm{mJy}`$ sources have an unassociated optical galaxy within $`3\sigma `$ of the radio source position. To prevent the catalogue being dominated by spurious matches to faint radio sources, the radio flux limit was set to $`5\mathrm{m}\mathrm{J}\mathrm{y}`$ which is slightly brighter than completeness limit of the NVSS catalogue.

The Panoramic Deep Fields contain $`9\times 10^4`$ early-type galaxies and $`10^4`$ radio sources making the manual selection of radio galaxies prohibitively time consuming. An obvious automated criterion for selecting optical counterparts to radio sources is to match objects within $`3\sigma `$ of the radio source centroid. However, as many extragalactic radio sources have extended emission, this will be incomplete for a significant fraction of radio sources. Selection criterion using only the angular separation between radio and optical sources can select a large fraction of all radio sources. However, for a fixed angular scale, the projected distance increases with redshift introducing selection effects which are a function of redshift. Large radio sources will be excluded at low redshift but will be included at high redshift where the angular size of the radio sources is less than the selection criterion.

As the optical counterparts of radio sources are physical associations, a selection criterion based on the physical separation of the optical and radio sources can be used to select radio galaxies. While the NVSS catalogue does not contain redshift information, photometric redshifts can be used to estimate the redshifts of optical galaxies and the projected distance between the optical and radio sources. As the size (in physical coordinates) of radio sources does not rapidly evolve between $`z1`$ and $`z0`$ (Buchalter et al., 1998), a selection criterion using a fixed projected distance should not introduce selection effects which are a function of redshift.

To determine the projected distance used as the selection criterion for optical counterparts, the distribution of projected distances between NVSS sources and optical galaxies within $`30^{\prime \prime }`$ of NVSS sources was measured and is plotted in Figure 1. The number of optical counterparts declines rapidly on scales $`<20h^1\mathrm{kpc}`$ ($`h\times 100\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1H_0`$) after which the distribution has a long tail. Approximately $`25\%`$ of the NVSS sources with early-type galaxies within $`30^{\prime \prime }`$ have more than one early-type counterpart which is consistent with much of the tail in Figure 1 being contamination. To reduce the contamination, optical galaxies $`>20h^1\mathrm{kpc}`$ from NVSS sources were excluded from the radio galaxy sample. A complete list of the radio galaxy sample is provided in Table 2.

The completeness of the selection criterion was estimated by applying the $`20h^1\mathrm{kpc}`$ criterion to radio galaxies from the Las Campanas Redshift Survey identified by Machalski and Condon (1999). Approximately $`85\%`$ of radio galaxies identified by Machalski and Condon (1999) were selected with the $`20h^1\mathrm{kpc}`$ criterion. Fluxes in the NVSS source catalogue are estimated by fitting elliptical Gaussians to the radio emission and for $`5\%`$ of radio galaxies where the fits are poor, the fluxes disagree with Machalski and Condon (1999) by $`>5\%`$. At $`z<0.05`$, an increasing fraction of radio galaxies have radio emission resolved into multiple components by the NVSS resulting in $`50\%`$ of radio galaxies having source catalogue flux estimates which disagree with Machalski and Condon (1999).

While contamination is low with the $`20h^1\mathrm{kpc}`$ selection criterion, it is still present in the radio galaxy catalogue. To prevent these objects from biasing the estimate of the luminosity function, a control sample was constructed by randomly repositioning the radio sources and matching them to the galaxy catalogue. This process was repeated 10 times so the control sample size was large enough to not be a significant source of noise in the estimate of the luminosity function.

Approximately $`2\%`$ of radio sources with optical counterparts have 2 optical counterparts resulting in ambiguous redshift estimates. As this is a small fraction of the total catalogue, rejecting these objects from the radio galaxy and control samples only reduced the completeness of the sample by $`4\%`$ and did not significantly bias estimates of the evolution of radio galaxies. The estimates of the space density and luminosity function parameters were renormalized to account for the $`2\%`$ of radio galaxies removed from the catalogue. The final catalogue of radio galaxies contains 230 objects while the control sample (generated with 10 times as many radio sources) contains 229 objects.

## 4 Redshift Distribution

The $`B_J`$ and $`R`$ Hubble diagrams for the optical counterparts of NVSS sources are shown in Figure 3. There is a strong correlation between redshift and magnitude though this is partially due to the use of photometric redshifts which result in objects with the same multicolor photometry having the same redshift estimate. The $`R`$ band Hubble diagram shows evidence of incompleteness at $`z>0.55`$ due to the $`B_J`$ magnitude limit. As the apparent magnitude of a $`M_{B_J}20`$ elliptical at $`z0.55`$ is $`B_J23`$, this is not unexpected. As the incompleteness at $`z>0.55`$ could significantly bias estimates of radio galaxy evolution, the sample was limited to redshifts $`z<0.55`$. At low redshifts, the errors of the photometric redshifts are comparable to the redshift estimates resulting in large errors for the estimates of the radio power. To prevent these objects from introducing errors into the estimate of the luminosity function, only the 196 radio galaxies with $`0.10<z<0.55`$ were used to estimate the luminosity function. The redshift distributions of the radio galaxy sample, the Parkes selected regions(Dunlop et al., 1989) and Phoenix(Hopkins et al., 1998) are shown in Figure 4. The size of the Panoramic Deep Fields results in an improved estimate of the radio galaxy luminosity function at $`z0.4`$ and the broad redshift distribution has allowed the evolution of $`z<0.55`$ radio galaxies to be measured.

## 5 Color Distribution

The color selection criterion applied to the radio galaxy candidates will affect the sample completeness at some level. If a large fraction of radio galaxies have colors bluer than the selection criterion, significant uncertainty is introduced into estimates of the luminosity function and its evolution. The colors of galaxies in the radio galaxy sample are shown as a function of redshift in Figure 5. While most radio galaxies have red colors, some do have colors similar to the selection criterion. However, this could be due to contamination which is comprised mostly of blue galaxies which dominate the faint galaxy population.

The estimated restframe colors of the radio galaxy sample are plotted in Figure 6. Restframe colors were estimated with linear extrapolations from the E and Sbc $`k`$corrections from Coleman et al. (1980). The peak of the distribution is $`0.2`$ magnitudes redder than the $`B_JR=1.01`$ selection criterion. For comparison, the distribution of radio galaxy colors from Govoni et al. (2000) is also shown. If Govoni et al. (2000) sample is representative of all radio galaxies, then $`85\%`$ of radio galaxies were selected by the color selection criterion. However, the distributions in Figure 6 are not identical and a systematic $`\delta (B_JR)=0.1`$ difference between the Govoni et al. (2000) and Panoramic Deep Field colors could alter the completeness by $`10\%`$. For the remainder of the paper, the incompleteness due to the color selection criterion is assumed to be $`15\%`$.

## 6 The 1.4 GHz Luminosity Function

The restframe radio power of the sources was estimated with

$$\mathrm{log}P_{1.4}(\mathrm{WHz}^1)=\mathrm{log}S_{1.4}(\mathrm{mJy})(1\alpha _r)\mathrm{log}(1+z)+2\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{g}D_l(\mathrm{Mpc})+17.185$$
(1)
where $`S_{1.4}`$ is the observed $`1.4\mathrm{GHz}`$ radio flux, $`D_l`$ is the luminosity distance and $`\alpha _r`$ is the radio spectral index which is assumed to be $`0.7`$. The radio luminosity function was estimated with

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(P_{1.4})=\underset{i}{}\frac{1}{V_{max,i}}$$
(2)
(Schmidt, 1968) where $`V_{max,i}`$ is the maximum comoving volume in which the $`i`$th source would be included in the sample. The value of $`V_{max,i}`$ is given by

$$V_{max,i}=\mathrm{\Omega }\eta _i\frac{c}{H_0}_{z_{min}}^{z_{max}}\frac{dV_c}{dz}𝑑z$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the survey area, $`\eta _i`$ is the completeness of the survey for sources with the properties of source $`i`$, $`z_{min}`$ and $`z_{max}`$ are the minimum and maximum redshifts where source $`i`$ would be included in the sample and $`V_c`$ is the comoving volume. The values of $`z_{min}`$ and $`z_{max}`$ were set by the bright and faint flux limits (optical and radio) for the sample and the lower and upper limits for the redshifts over which the luminosity function is determined.

The radio luminosity function of radio galaxies for $`0.10<z<0.30`$ and $`0.30<z<0.55`$ is shown in Figure 7 and listed in Table 3. To be consistent with previous work, the estimates of the luminosity function have been determined with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=1`$ and $`H_0=100\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. The $`0.10<z<0.30`$ space density is comparable to the low redshift samples of Sadler et al. (1989) and Machalski and Godlowski (2000) at $`P_{1.4}>10^{23}\mathrm{WHz}^1`$. Machalski and Godlowski (2000) may suffer incompleteness at $`P_{1.4}<10^{23}\mathrm{WHz}^1`$ as their estimate of the space density decreases with decreasing radio power. The space density of $`0.30<z<0.55`$ radio galaxies is significantly higher than the low redshift samples which is consistent with evolution occurring over the observed redshift range.

To measure the evolution of the radio galaxy luminosity function, the data was been fitted with a 2 power-law function

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(P)d(\mathrm{log}P)=C^{}\left[\left(\frac{P^{}(z)}{P}\right)^\alpha +\left(\frac{P^{}(z)}{P}\right)^\beta \right]^1d(\mathrm{log}P)$$
(4)
(Boyle et al., 1988; Dunlop and Peacock, 1990). The evolution of the luminosity function was assumed to be pure luminosity evolution where

$$P^{}(z)=P^{}(0)(1+z)^{k_L}$$
(5)
(Boyle et al., 1988). The best-fit values for the $`C^{}`$, $`P^{}(0)`$, $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`k_L`$ were obtained by minimizing

$$S=2\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}L$$
(6)
(Marshall et al., 1983) where $`L`$ is the likelihood. The value of $`S`$ is given by

$$S=2\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_{rg}}{}}\mathrm{ln}[\mathrm{\Phi }(P,z_i)]+2f\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_c}{}}\mathrm{ln}[\mathrm{\Phi }(P,z_i)]+2\mathrm{\Phi }(P,z)\mathrm{\Omega }(P,z)\frac{dV}{dz}𝑑z𝑑P$$
(7)
where $`N_{rg}`$ is the number of radio galaxies in the sample, $`N_c`$ is the number of control objects and $`f`$ is the number of radio sources used to produce the radio galaxy catalogue divided by the number of radio sources used to generate the control catalogue. Error estimates for the measured parameters were determined by computing $`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ for each parameter in turn while allowing the other values for the parameters to float (Lampton et al., 1976; Boyle et al., 1988). The errors quoted for the remainder of the paper were determined for $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$ which is equivalent to $`1\sigma `$. The goodness-of-fit of the model was tested using the 2D Kolmogorov-Smirnoff (KS) statistic described by Peacock (1983).

The best-fit estimate of the luminosity function is shown in Figure 8 and the estimates of luminosity function parameters and the KS probability are listed in Table 4. To allow comparison with low redshift samples, the radio power of sources used to estimate the space density have been divided by the estimate of the luminosity evolution. The luminosity function model is comparable to estimates of the luminosity function at low redshift. Also, as shown in Figure 4, the model is a good approximation to the observed redshift distribution of Panoramic Deep Field radio galaxies.

The estimates of the luminosity function parameters are affected by Malmquist bias due to errors in the radio flux and redshift estimates. To correct for this, artificial datasets of radio galaxies were generated using 2 power-law functions. The fluxes and redshifts were then scattered assuming their error distributions can be approximated by Gaussians. The distribution of $`1\sigma `$ values for the radio flux error distribution were determined using the error estimates provided by the NVSS source catalogue. For the photometric redshifts, the errors were estimated by computing the rms of the difference between photometric and spectroscopic redshifts as a function of redshift for early-type galaxies. The parameters which reproduced the observed luminosity function are listed in Table 4. With the exception of $`\beta `$, most parameters changed by $`\mathrm{}<1\sigma `$ and as shown in Figure 8, the estimate of the luminosity function at $`z0`$ is comparable the original estimate.

The estimate of the luminosity function and its evolution assumes that the radio galaxy catalogue is dominated by steep spectrum radio sources which is consistent with previous estimates of the luminosity function (Dunlop and Peacock, 1990). However, if a significant fraction of the radio galaxy catalogue are flat-spectrum sources, a smaller value of $`\alpha _r`$ would be more appropriate for estimating the radio powers and the luminosities of the $`z0.5`$ radio galaxies would be significantly decreased. However, as shown in Table 4, decreasing the value of $`\alpha _r`$ to $`0.5`$ only decreases the estimate of $`k_L`$ by $`1\sigma `$.

The estimates of the luminosity evolution are comparable to previous estimates of the evolution of radio-loud AGN including QSOs (Dunlop and Peacock, 1990). The similarity of radio-loud QSO and radio galaxy evolution is consistent with the unified theory of radio-loud AGN (Barthel, 1989) where radio-loud QSOs and radio galaxies are the same class of object observed at different orientations. The radio evolution of radio galaxies is also similar to the evolution of radio-quiet AGN in the optical and X-ray (Boyle et al., 1988, 1994), starburst galaxies in the radio (Rowan-Robinson et al., 1993) and the star formation rate in the UV (Lilly et al., 1996).

While the similarity of the luminosity function and its evolution to previous work is not unexpected, it does confirm the ability of the techniques used in this work to estimate the radio galaxy luminosity function. If the color selection and photometric redshifts are used to select radio galaxies from deep 4-m imaging, it will be possible to accurately measure the decline of the $`z>4`$ radio-loud AGN luminosity function with redshift and place constraints on the epoch of formation of AGN. The same techniques will also allow wide-field surveys to improve estimates of the $`z0.2`$ radio galaxy luminosity function, clustering and environments.

## 7 Summary

The Panoramic Deep Fields and the NVSS have been used to compile a catalogue of $`B_J<23.5`$ radio galaxies. In this paper we report a new estimate of the radio galaxy luminosity function at $`z>0.1`$ based on this sample. Radio fluxes, multicolor photometry and photometric redshifts have been used to select 230 radio galaxies over $`50\mathrm{}^{}`$. By matching radio sources to optical counterparts with selection criterion that are a function of projected distance, radio galaxies are selected with high completeness without introducing a strong bias as a function of redshift. There is significant evolution of the radio galaxy luminosity function at $`z<0.55`$ which can be parameterized by luminosity evolution where $`P(z)P(0)(1+z)^{k_L}`$ where $`3<k_L<5`$. The observed evolution of radio galaxies is consistent with the same physical process being responsible for the evolution of radio galaxies and radio-quiet AGN. As the estimate of the luminosity function does not require large numbers of spectroscopic redshifts, it will be possible to apply the same techniques to multicolor surveys where the time required to obtain large numbers spectroscopic redshifts is prohibitive.

## 8 Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the SuperCOSMOS unit at Royal Observatory Edinburgh for providing the digitized scans of UK Schmidt photographic plates. The authors also wish to thank Nigel Hambly, Bryn Jones and Harvey MacGillivray for productive discussions of the methods employed to coadd scans of photographic plates. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Michael Brown acknowledges the financial support of an Australian Postgraduate Award.