text:
# Optimized quantum nondemolition measurement of a field quadrature

## I Introduction

In order to be manipulated and transmitted information should be encoded into some degree of freedom of a physical system. Ultimately, this means that the input alphabet should correspond to the spectrum of some observable, i.e. that information is transmitted using quantum signals. At the end of the channel, to retrieve this kind of quantum information, one should measure the corresponding observable. As a matter of fact, the measurement process unavoidably introduces some disturbance, and may even destroys the signal, as it happens in many quantum optical detectors, which are mostly based on the irreversible absorption of the measured radiation. Actually, even in a measurement scheme that somehow preserves the signal for further uses, one is faced by the information gain versus state disturbance trade-off, i.e. by the fact that the more information is obtained, the more the signal under investigation is being modified.

Actually, the most informative measurement of an observable $`X`$ on a state $`|\psi `$ corresponds to its ideal projective measurement, which is also referred to as Von Neumann second kind quantum measurement . In an ideal projective measurement the outcome $`x`$ occurs with the intrinsic probability density $`|\psi |x|^2`$, whereas the system after the measurement is left in the corresponding eigenstate $`|x`$. A projective measurement is obviously repeatable, since a second measure gives the same outcome as the first one. However, the initial state is erased, and the conditional output do not permit to obtain further information about the input signal. The opposite case corresponds to a fully non-destructive detection scheme, where the state after the measurement can be made arbitrarily close to the input signal, and which is characterized by an almost uniform output statistics, i.e. by a data sample that provides almost no information.

Besides fundamental interest, the realization of a projective measurement of the quadrature would have application in quantum communication based on continuous variables. In facts, it provides a reliable and controlled source of optical signals. On the other hand, a fully non-destructive measurement scheme is an example of a quantum repeater, another relevant tool for the realization of quantum network. Between these two extremes we have the entire class of quantum nondemolition (QND) measurements. Such intermediate schemes provide only a partial information about the measured observable, and correspondingly are only partially distorting the signal under investigation. In particular, in this paper, we show how to attain an optimized QND measurement of quadrature i.e. scheme which minimizes the information gain versus state disturbance trade-off.

Most of the schemes suggested for back-action evading measurements are based on nonlinear interaction between signal and probe taking place either in $`\chi ^{(3)}`$ or $`\chi ^{(3)}`$ media (both fibers and crystals) , or on optomechanical coupling . A beam-splitter based scheme has been earlier suggested to realize optical Von Neumann measurement . Here, we focus our attention on an interferometric scheme which requires only linear elements and single-mode squeezers.

A schematic diagram of the suggested setup is given in Fig. 1. The signal under examination $`|\psi _\mathrm{s}`$ and the probe (meter) state $`|\psi _\mathrm{p}`$ are given by

$`|\psi _\mathrm{s}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\psi _\mathrm{s}(x)|x_1}`$ (1)
$`|\psi _\mathrm{p}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\psi _\mathrm{p}(x)|x_2},`$ (2)
where $`|x_j`$, $`j=1,2`$ are eigenstates of the field quadratures $`x_j=1/2(a_j^{}+a_j)`$, $`j=1,2`$ of the two modes, and $`\psi _\mathrm{s}(x)`$ and $`\psi _\mathrm{p}(x)`$ are the corresponding wave-functions. The two beams are linearly mixed in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer with internal phase-shift given by $`\varphi `$. There are also two $`\lambda /4`$ plates, each imposing a $`\pi /2`$ phase-shift. Overall, the interferometer equipped with the plates is equivalent to a beam splitter of transmittivity $`\tau =\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi `$. However, the interferometric setup is preferable to a single beam splitter since it permits a fine tuning of the transmittivity. After the interferometer, one of the two output modes is revealed by homodyne detection, whereas the second mode is firstly displaced by an amount that depends on the outcome of the measurement (feedback assisted amplitude modulation), and then squeezed according to the transmittivity of the interferometer (see details below). As we will see, either by tuning the phase-shift of the interferometer, or by exciting the probe state $`|\psi _\mathrm{p}`$ in a squeezed vacuum, and by varying the degree of squeezing, the action of the setup ranges from a projective to a non-destructive measurement of the field quadrature as follows:

1. the statistics of the homodyne detector ranges from a distribution arbitrarily close to the intrinsic quadrature probability density of the signal state $`|\psi _\mathrm{s}(x)|^2`$ to an almost uniform distribution;
2. the conditional output state, after registering a value $`x_0`$ for the quadrature of the signal mode, ranges from a state arbitrarily close to the corresponding quadrature eigenstate $`|x_0`$ to a state that approaches the input signal $`|\psi _\mathrm{s}`$.

The two features can be summarized by saying that the present scheme realizes the whole set of QND measurements of a field quadrature. In addition, the interferometer can be tuned in order to minimize the information gain versus state disturbance trade-off, i.e. to achieve an optimal QND measurement of quadrature. Such a kind of measurement provides the maximum information about the quadrature distribution of the signal, while keeping the conditional output state as close as possible to the incoming signal.

The paper is structured as follows. In the next Section we analyze the dynamics of the measurement scheme, and describe in details the action of linear feedback and tunable squeezing on the conditional output state and on the homodyne distribution. In Section III we analyze the limiting cases of strongly squeezed and anti-squeezed probes, which correspond to projective and non-destructive measurements respectively. In Section IV we introduce two fidelity measures, in order to quantify how close are the conditional output and the homodyne distribution to the input signal and its quadrature distribution respectively. As a consequence, we are able to individuate an optimal set of configurations that minimize the trade-off between information gain and state disturbance. Section V closes the paper with some concluding remarks.

## II Homodyne interferometry with linear feedback

Let us now describe the interaction scheme in details. The evolution operator of the interferometer is given by $`U(\varphi )=\mathrm{exp}\left[i\varphi \left(a_1^{}a_2+a_2^{}a_1\right)\right]`$, such that the input state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{in}}=|\psi _\mathrm{s}|\psi _\mathrm{p}`$ evolves as

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{out}}`$ $`=`$ $`U(\varphi )|\psi _\mathrm{s}|\psi _\mathrm{p}=`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x_1𝑑x_2\psi _\mathrm{s}(x_1)\psi _\mathrm{p}(x_2)|x_1\mathrm{cos}\varphi +x_2\mathrm{sin}\varphi _1|x_1\mathrm{sin}\varphi +x_2\mathrm{cos}\varphi _2}`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑y_1𝑑y_2\psi _\mathrm{s}(y_1\mathrm{cos}\varphi y_2\mathrm{sin}\varphi )\psi _\mathrm{p}(y_1\mathrm{cos}\varphi +y_2\mathrm{sin}\varphi )|y_1_1|y_2_2}.`$ (5)
After the interferometer the quadrature of one of the modes (say mode $`2`$) is revealed by homodyne detection. The distribution of the outcomes is given by

$`p(X)=\text{Tr}[|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{out}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{out}}|𝕀_1\mathrm{\Pi }_2(X)]\mathrm{\Pi }(X)=|XX|,`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }(x)`$ being the POVM of the homodyne detector. Since the reflectivity of the interferometer is given by $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ from an outcome $`X`$ by the homodyne we infer a value $`x_0=X/\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ for the quadrature of the input signal. The corresponding probability density is given by

$`p(x_0)=\mathrm{sin}\varphi p(X)=\mathrm{tan}\varphi {\displaystyle 𝑑y|\psi _\mathrm{s}(y)|^2\left|\psi _\mathrm{p}\left[\mathrm{tan}\varphi (yx_0)\right]\right|^2},`$ (7)
and the conditional output state for the mode $`1`$

$`|\phi _{x_0}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\mathrm{sin}\varphi }X\mathrm{sin}\varphi |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{out}}=`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{p(x_0)}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑y\psi _\mathrm{s}(y\mathrm{cos}\varphi +x_0\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi )\psi _\mathrm{p}(y\mathrm{sin}\varphi x_0\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\varphi )|y}.`$ (9)
The amplitude of this conditional state is then modulated by a feedback mechanism, which consists in the application of a displacement $`D(x_0\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{tan}\varphi )`$, with $`D(z)=\mathrm{exp}(za^{}\overline{z}a)`$. Such displacing action can be obtained by mixing the mode with a strong coherent state of amplitude $`z`$ (e.g. the laser beam also used as local oscillator for the homodyne detector, see Fig. 1) in a beam splitter of transmittivity $`\tau `$ close to unit, with the requirement that $`z\sqrt{1\tau }=x_0\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{tan}\varphi `$ . An experimental implementation using a feedforward electro-optic modulator has been presented in . The resulting state is given by

$`D(x_0\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{tan}\varphi )|\phi _{x_0}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{p(x_0)}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑y\psi _\mathrm{s}(y\mathrm{cos}\varphi )\psi _\mathrm{p}(y\mathrm{sin}\varphi x_0\mathrm{tan}\varphi )|y}.`$ (10)
Finally, this state is subjected to a single-mode squeezing transformation $`S(r)=\mathrm{exp}[1/2r(a^2a^2)]`$ by a degenerate parametric amplifier (DOPA). By tuning the squeezing parameter to a value $`r^{}=\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ and using the relation $`S(r)|y=e^{r/2}|e^ry`$ we arrive at the final state

$`|\psi _{x_0}`$ $`=`$ $`S(r^{})D(x_0\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{tan}\varphi )|\phi _{x_0}=`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}\varphi }{p(x_0)}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑y\psi _\mathrm{s}(y)\psi _\mathrm{p}\left[(yx_0)\mathrm{tan}\varphi \right]|y}.`$ (12)
The wave-function of this conditional output state is thus given by

$`\psi _{x_0}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{\psi _\mathrm{s}(x)\psi _\mathrm{p}\left[(xx_0)\mathrm{tan}\varphi \right]}{\sqrt{𝑑y|\psi _\mathrm{s}(y)|^2\left|\psi _\mathrm{p}\left[\mathrm{tan}\varphi (yx_0)\right]\right|^2}}}.`$ (13)
Eq. (7) and Eqs. (12,13) summarize the filtering effects of the probe wave-function on the output statistics and the conditional state respectively.

## III Measurements using squeezed or anti-squeezed probes

For the probe mode in the vacuum state we have $`\psi _\mathrm{p}(x)=(2/\pi )^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}(x^2)`$ such that the homodyne distribution of Eq. (7) results

$`p(x_0)=|\psi _\mathrm{s}(x)|^2G(x,x_0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\mathrm{tan}^2\varphi }})`$ (14)
where $``$ denotes convolution and $`G(x;x_0,\sigma ^2)`$ a Gaussian of mean $`x_0`$ and variance $`\sigma ^2`$. The quadrature distribution of the corresponding output state is given by

$`|\psi _{x_0}(x)|^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{p(x_0)}}|\psi _\mathrm{s}(x)|^2G(x,x_0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\mathrm{tan}^2\varphi }})`$ (15)
Eqs (14) and (15) account for the noise introduced by vacuum fluctuations. This noise can be manipulated by suitably squeezing the probe, thus realizing the whole set of QND measurement.

Squeezed or anti-squeezed vacuum probes are described by the wave-functions

$`\psi _{\mathrm{sq}}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }^2)^{1/4}}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{4\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}}\right\}`$ (16)
$`\psi _{\mathrm{asq}}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}{2\pi }}\right)^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }^2x^2}{4}}\right\},`$ (17)
where the information about squeezing stays in the requirement $`0<\mathrm{\Sigma }^21/4`$. Notice that squeezing the probe introduces additional energy in the system. The mean photon number of the states in (17) is given by $`N=(\mathrm{\Sigma }^2+1/\mathrm{\Sigma }^22)/4`$. Using a squeezed vacuum probe Eqs. (14) and (15) rewrites as

$`p(x_0)`$ $`=`$ $`|\psi _\mathrm{s}(x)|^2G(x,x_0,\mathrm{\Sigma }^2/\mathrm{tan}^2\varphi )\stackrel{\mathrm{\Sigma }0}{}|\psi _\mathrm{s}(x_0)|^2`$ (18)
$`|\psi _{x_0}(x)|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p(x_0)}}|\psi _\mathrm{s}(x)|^2G(x,x_0,\mathrm{\Sigma }^2/\mathrm{tan}^2\varphi )\stackrel{\mathrm{\Sigma }0}{}\delta (xx_0).`$ (19)
Eq. (18) says that by squeezing the probe the statistics of the homodyne detectors can be made arbitrarily close to the intrinsic quadrature distribution $`|\psi _\mathrm{s}(x_0)|^2`$, whereas Eq. (19) shows that, for any value of the outcome $`x_0`$, the conditional output $`|\psi _{x_0}`$ approaches the corresponding quadrature eigenstate $`|x_0`$. For $`\mathrm{\Sigma }0`$ the mean energy of the conditional output state $`|\psi _{x_0}`$ increases, since it is approaching a quadrature eigenstate (an exact eigenstate would have infinite energy). Notice that this amount of energy is mostly provided by the probe state itself, rather than by the displacement and squeezing stages of the setup. The improvement in the precision due to squeezing, compared to that of a vacuum probe, can be quantified by the ratio of variances in the filtering Gaussian of Eqs. (15) and (19). Calling this ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$ and thus, for squeezing not too low, $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$.

For an anti-squeezed vacuum probe Eqs. (14) and (15) rewrites as

$`p(x_0)`$ $`=`$ $`|\psi _\mathrm{s}(x)|^2G(x,x_0,(\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\mathrm{tan}^2\varphi )^1)\stackrel{\mathrm{\Sigma }0}{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{x^2}{2\sigma ^2}\}}{\sqrt{2\pi \sigma ^2}}}\sigma ^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\mathrm{tan}^2\varphi }}`$ (20)
$`|\psi _{x_0}(x)|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p(x_0)}}|\psi _\mathrm{s}(x)|^2G(x,x_0,(\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\mathrm{tan}^2\varphi )^1)\stackrel{\mathrm{\Sigma }0}{}|\psi _\mathrm{s}(x)|^2x_0.`$ (21)
Eqs. (20) and (21) says that by anti-squeezing the probe the statistics of the homodyne detectors is approaching a flat distribution over the real axis, and correspondingly that the conditional output can be made arbitrarily close to the incoming signal, independently on the actual value of $`x_0`$.

Notice that, in principle, both projective and non-destructive measurements could be obtained with vacuum probe, simply by varying the internal phase-shift of the interferometer according to Eqs. (14) and (15). However, this would affect also the rate of the events at the output (since $`\varphi `$ governs the transmittivity of the interferometer), and therefore may be not convenient from practical point of view. On the other hand, when a fine tuning of the variances in Eqs. (18-21) is needed (as for example in the optimization of the scheme, see next Section) it can be conveniently obtained by varying $`\varphi `$, without the need of varying the degree of squeezing of the probe.

## IV Optimized QND measurement

So far we considered the two extreme cases of infinitely squeezed or antisqueezed probes. Now we proceed to quanti-fy the trade-off between the state disturbance and the gain of information for the whole set of intermediate cases. There are two relevant parameters: i) how close the output signal is to the input state, and ii) how close the homodyne distribution is to the intrinsic quadrature probability. According to Eq. (12), after the outcome $`x`$ is being registered the conditional output state is given by $`|\psi _x`$. Since the outcome $`x`$ occurs with the probability $`p(x)`$ of Eq. (7), the density matrix describing the output ensemble after a large number of measurements is given by

$`\varrho _{\mathrm{out}}={\displaystyle 𝑑xp(x)|\psi _x\psi _x|}.`$ (22)
Indeed, this is the state that can be subsequently manipulated, or used to gain further information on the system. The resemblance between input and output can be quantified by the average state fidelity

$`F=\psi _\mathrm{s}|\varrho _{\mathrm{out}}|\psi _\mathrm{s}={\displaystyle 𝑑xp(x)\left|\psi _\mathrm{s}|\psi _x\right|^2}.`$ (23)
Inserting Eq. (12) in Eq. (23) we obtain

$`F={\displaystyle 𝑑y^{}𝑑y^{\prime \prime }\left|\psi _\mathrm{s}(y^{})\right|^2\left|\psi _\mathrm{p}(y^{\prime \prime })\right|^2T_\varphi (y^{},y^{\prime \prime })},`$ (24)
where, for the squeezed vacuum probes we are taking into account, the transfer function is given by

$`T_\varphi (y^{},y^{\prime \prime })=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\mathrm{tan}^2\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{(y^{}y^{\prime \prime })^2}{8\sigma _\mathrm{p}^2}}\right\},`$ (25)
$`\sigma _\mathrm{p}^2`$ being the variance of the probe wave-function, i.e. $`\sigma _\mathrm{p}=\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ for squeezed probe and $`\sigma _\mathrm{p}=\mathrm{\Sigma }^1`$ for anti-squeezed probes. F take values from zero to unit, and it is a decreasing function of the probe squeezing.

If also the initial signal is Gaussian the fidelity results

$`F={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}x}{\sqrt{1+2x^2}}}x={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _\mathrm{p}}{\sigma _\mathrm{s}\mathrm{tan}\varphi }},`$ (26)
$`\sigma _\mathrm{s}^2`$ being the variance of the signal’ wave-function. Eq. (26) interpolates between the two extreme cases of the previous Section. In order to check this behavior we evaluate (26) for strong squeezing or anti-squeezing. We have

$`F=\{\begin{array}{cccc}\sqrt{2}x0\hfill & & \hfill x1& \mathrm{squeezed}\mathrm{probe}\\ & & & \\ 1(4x^2)^11\hfill & & \hfill x1& \mathrm{antisqueezed}\mathrm{probe}\end{array}.`$ (30)
In order to quantify how close the quadrature probability of the input signal is to the homodyne distribution at the output we introduce the average distribution fidelity

$`G=\left({\displaystyle 𝑑x\sqrt{p(x)}\left|\psi _\mathrm{s}(x)\right|}\right)^2,`$ (31)
which also ranges from zero to one and it is an increasing function of the probe squeezing. For both Gaussian signal and probe we obtain

$`G=2{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1+x^2}}{2+x^2}}x={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _\mathrm{p}}{\sigma _\mathrm{s}\mathrm{tan}\varphi }},`$ (32)
and therefore

$`G=\{\begin{array}{cccc}1\frac{1}{8}x^41\hfill & & \hfill x1& \mathrm{squeezed}\mathrm{probe}\\ & & & \\ 2x^10\hfill & & \hfill x1& \mathrm{anti}\mathrm{squeezed}\mathrm{probe}\end{array}.`$ (36)
Notice that $`F`$ and $`G`$ are global figures of fidelity , i.e. compare the input and the output on the basis of the whole quantum state or probability distributions rather than by their first moments, as it happens by considering customary QND parameters (see for example , for a more general approach in the case of two-dimensional Hilbert space see ).

As a matter of fact the quantity $`F+G`$ is not constant, and this means that by varying the squeezing of the probe we obtain different trade-off between information gain and state disturbance. An optimal choice of the probe, corresponding to maximum information and minimum disturbance, maximizes $`F+G`$. The maximum is achieved for $`xx_\mathrm{m}1.2`$, corresponding to fidelities $`F[x_\mathrm{m}]86\%`$ and $`G[x_\mathrm{m}]91\%`$. Notice that for a chosen signal, the optimization of the QND measurement can be achieved by tuning the internal phase-shift of the interferometer, without the need of varying the squeezing of the probe. For a nearly balanced interferometer we have $`\mathrm{tan}\varphi 1`$: in this case the optimal choice for the probe is a state slightly anti-squeezed with respect to the signal, i.e. $`\sigma _\mathrm{p}1.2\sigma _\mathrm{s}`$. Finally, the fidelities are equal for $`xx_\mathrm{e}1.3`$, corresponding to $`F[x_\mathrm{e}]=G[x_\mathrm{e}]88\%`$

For non Gaussian signals the behavior is similar though no simple analytical form can be obtained for the fidelities. In this case, in order to find the optimal QND measurement, one should resort to numerical means .

## V Conclusions

In conclusions, we have suggested an interferometric scheme assisted by squeezing and linear feedback to realize an arbitrary QND measurement of a field quadrature. Compared to previous proposals the main features of our setup can be summarized as follows: i) it involves only linear coupling between signal and probe, ii) only single mode transformations on the conditional output are needed, and iii) the whole class of QND measurements may be obtained with same setup either by tuning the internal phase-shift of the interferometer, or by varying the squeezing of the probe.

The present setup permits, in principle, to achieve both a projective and a fully non-destructive quantum measurement of a field quadrature. In practice, however, the physical constraints on the maximum amount of energy that can be impinged into the optical channels pose limitations to the precision of the measurements. This agrees with the facts that both an exact repeatable measurement and a perfect state preparation cannot be realized for observables with continuous spectrum . Of course, other limitations are imposed by the imperfect photodetection and by the finite resolution of detectors . Compared to a vacuum probe, the squeezed/anti-squeezed meters suggested in this paper provide a consistent noise reduction in the desired fidelity figure already for moderate input probe energy. In addition, by varying the squeezing of the probe an optimal QND measure can be achieved, which provides the maximum information about the quadrature distribution of the signal, while keeping the conditional output state as close as possible to the incoming signal.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The problem of scalar mesons is far off the solution up to now. For instance, at present, additional arguments have been added by N.N. Achasov  in favour of the 4-quark nature of $`f_0(980)`$ and $`a_0(980)`$ mesons on the basis of interpretation of the experimental data on the decays $`\varphi \gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0,\gamma \pi ^0\eta `$ . On the other hand, F.E. Close and A. Kirk  have shown that mixing between the $`f_0(980)`$ and $`a_0(980)`$ radically affects some existing predictions of their produciton in $`\varphi `$ radiative decay. Generally, the 4-quark interpretation, beautifully solving the old problem of the unusual properties of scalar mesons, sets new questions. Where are the 2-quark states, their radial excitations and the other members of 4-quark multiplets $`9,9^{},36`$ and $`36^{}`$, which are predicted to exist below 2.5 GeV ?

The discovered states in the scalar sector and their properties do not allow one to make up the scalar $`q\overline{q}`$ nonet and to solve other exiting questions up to now. To draw this conclusion, it is sufficient to compare various variants of assignment of these states to quark-model configurations, for example, -. Generally, difficulites in understanding the scalar-isoscalar sector seem to be related to both the hard-accounting influence of the vacuum (and such effects as the instanton contributions) and a strong model dependence of an information about wide multichannel states.

Obviously, it is important to have a model-independent information on investigated states and on their QCD nature. It can be obtained only on the basis of the first principles (analyticity, unitarity) immediately applied to experimental data analysis. Earlier, we have proposed this method for 2- and 3-channel resonances and developed the concept of standard clusters (poles on the Riemann surface) as a qualitative characteristic of a state and a sufficient condition of its existence . We outline this below for the 2-channel case of the coupled processes $`\pi \pi \pi \pi ,K\overline{K}`$ in the channel with $`I^GJ^{PC}=0^+0^{++}`$. Since, in this work, a main stress is laid on studying lowest states, it is sufficient to restrict oneself to a two-channel approach when considering simultaneously the coupled processes $`\pi \pi \pi \pi ,K\overline{K}`$, though in the future it is nesessary to take into account the thresholds of other coupled processes, first of all, of $`\eta \eta `$ and $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ scatterings. In this work, we are going to show that the large background, which one has obtained earlier in various analyses of the $`s`$-wave $`\pi \pi `$ scattering , hides, in reality, the $`\sigma `$-meson  below 1 GeV and the effect of the left-hand branch-point. Therefore, in the uniformizing variable, one must take into account, besides the branch-points corresponding to the thresholds of the processes $`\pi \pi \pi \pi ,K\overline{K}`$, also the left-hand branch-point at $`s=0`$, related to the background in which the crossing-channel contributions are contained. Furthermore, we shall obtain definite indications of the QCD nature of other $`f_0`$ resonances and of the linear realization of chiral symmetry. In part the results of this report have been published in the works .

Note that recent new analyses of old and new experimental data found a candidate for the $`\sigma `$-meson below 1 GeV (see, e.g., , , -). However, these analyses use either the Breit – Wigner form that is insufficiently-flexible even if modified or the $`K`$-matrix formalism without taking account of the energetic-closed (maybe, important) channels, or specific forms of interactions in the quark models; therefore, there one cannot talk about the model independence of results. Besides, in these analyses, a large $`\pi \pi `$-background is obtained.

The layout of this report is as follows. In Section II, we outline the two-coupled-channel formalism, determine the pole clusters on the Riemann surface as characteristics of multichannel states, and introduce a new uniformizing variable, allowing for the branch-points of the right-hand (unitary) and left-hand cuts of the $`\pi \pi `$-scattering amplitude. In Section III, we analyze simultaneously experimental data on the processes $`\pi \pi \pi \pi ,K\overline{K}`$ in the isoscalar $`s`$-wave on the basis of the presented approach. Note that earlier we have shown in two approaches  and  without and with taking into account the left-hand branch-point $`\sqrt{s}`$ in the uniformizing variable, respectively, that the minimal scenario of the simultaneous description of two coupled processes $`\pi \pi \pi \pi ,K\overline{K}`$ is realized without the $`f_0(1370)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$ that are in the Particle Data Group tables. Therefore, we consider also the variants of description of the indicated processes including these states separately as well as simultaneously, and obtain indications of their QCD nature different from the results of many other works (note that our approach is based on the first principles and is free from dynamic assumtions, therefore, our results are rather model-independent). In the Conclusion, the obtained results are discussed.

## 2 Two-Coupled-Channel Formalism

Here we restrict ourselves to a 2-channel consideration of the coupled processes $`\pi \pi \pi \pi ,K\overline{K}`$. Therefore, we have the 2-channel $`S`$-matrix determined on the 4-sheeted Riemann surface. The matrix elements $`S_{\alpha \beta }`$, where $`\alpha ,\beta =1(\pi \pi ),2(K\overline{K})`$, have the right-hand cuts along the real axis of the $`s`$-plane, starting at $`4m_\pi ^2`$ and $`4m_K^2`$, and the left-hand cuts, beginning at $`s=0`$ for $`S_{11}`$ and at $`4(m_K^2m_\pi ^2)`$ for $`S_{22}`$ and $`S_{12}`$. The Riemann-surface sheets are numbered according to the signs of analytic continuations of the channel momenta

$$k_1=(s/4m_\pi ^2)^{1/2},k_2=(s/4m_K^2)^{1/2}$$
(1)
as follows: signs $`(\text{Im}k_1,\text{Im}k_2)=++,+,,+`$ correspond to the sheets I, II, III, IV.

To obtain the resonance representation on the Riemann surface, we express analytic continuations of the matrix elements to the unphysical sheets $`S_{\alpha \beta }^L`$ ($`L=II,III,IV`$) in terms of those on the physical sheet $`S_{\alpha \beta }^I`$:

$`S_{11}^{II}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{S_{11}^I}},S_{11}^{III}={\displaystyle \frac{S_{22}^I}{detS^I}},S_{11}^{IV}={\displaystyle \frac{detS^I}{S_{22}^I}},`$
$`S_{22}^{II}={\displaystyle \frac{detS^I}{S_{11}^I}},S_{22}^{III}={\displaystyle \frac{S_{11}^I}{detS^I}},S_{22}^{IV}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{S_{22}^I}},`$ (2)
$`S_{12}^{II}={\displaystyle \frac{iS_{12}^I}{S_{11}^I}},S_{12}^{III}={\displaystyle \frac{S_{12}^I}{detS^I}},S_{12}^{IV}={\displaystyle \frac{iS_{12}^I}{S_{22}^I}},`$
Here $`detS^I=S_{11}^IS_{22}^I(S_{12}^I)^2`$; $`(S_{12}^I)^2=s^1\sqrt{(s4m_\pi ^2)(s4m_K^2)}F(s)`$; in the limited energy interval, $`F(s)`$ is proportional to the squared product of the coupling constants of the considered state with channels 1 and 2. These formulas are convenient by that the $`S`$-matrix elements on the physical sheet $`S_{\alpha \beta }^I`$ have, except for the real axis, only zeros corresponding to resonances, at least, around the physical region that is interesting for us. Formulas (2) immediately give the resonance representation by poles and zeros on the 4-sheeted Riemann surface. One must distinguish between three types of 2-channel resonances described by a pair of conjugate zeros on sheet I: (a) in $`S_{11}`$, (b) in $`S_{22}`$, (c) in each of $`S_{11}`$ and $`S_{22}`$. As seen from eqs. (2), to the resonances of types (a) and (b), there corresponds a pair of complex conjugate poles on sheet III shifted relative to a pair of poles on sheet II and IV, respectively. For the states of type (c), one must consider the corresponding two pairs of conjugate poles on sheet III. A resonance of every type is represented by a pair of complex-conjugate clusters (of poles and zeros on the Riemann surface) of a size typical of strong interactions. The cluster kind is related to the state nature. The resonance coupled relatively more strongly to the $`\pi \pi `$ channel than to the $`K\overline{K}`$ one is described by the cluster of type (a); in the opposite case, it is represented by the cluster of type (b) (say, the state with the dominant $`s\overline{s}`$ component); the flavour singlet (e.g. glueball) must be represented by the cluster of type (c) as a necessary condition, if this state lies above the thresholds of considered channels.

Furthermore, according to the type of pole clusters, we can distinguish, in a model-independent way, a bound state of colourless particles (e.g., $`K\overline{K}`$ molecule) and a $`q\overline{q}`$ bound state . Just as in the 1-channel case, the existence of a particle bound-state means the presence of a pole on the real axis under the threshold on the physical sheet, so in the 2-channel case, the existence of a particle bound-state in channel 2 ($`K\overline{K}`$ molecule) that, however, can decay into channel 1 ($`\pi \pi `$ decay), would imply the presence of a pair of complex conjugate poles on sheet II under the second-channel threshold without an accompaniment of the corresponding shifted pair of poles on sheet III. Namely, according to this test, earlier, the interpretation of the $`f_0(980)`$ state as a $`K\overline{K}`$ molecule has been rejected.

For the simultaneous analysis of experimental data on coupled processes, it is convenient to use the Le Couteur-Newton relations  expressing the $`S`$-matrix elements of all coupled processes in terms of the Jost matrix determinant $`d(k_1,k_2)`$, the real analytic function with the only square-root branch-points at $`k_i=0`$. To take into account, in addition to the latter, also the left-hand branch-point at $`s=0`$, the uniformizing variable is used 555The analogous uniformizing variable has been used, e.g., in Ref.  at studying the forward elastic $`p\overline{p}`$ scattering amplitude.

$$v=\frac{m_K\sqrt{s4m_\pi ^2}+m_\pi \sqrt{s4m_K^2}}{\sqrt{s(m_K^2m_\pi ^2)}}.$$
(3)
It maps the 4-sheeted Riemann surface with two unitary cuts and the left-hand cut onto the $`v`$-plane. (Note that other authors have used the parameterizations with the Jost functions at analyzing the $`s`$-wave $`\pi \pi `$ scattering in the one-channel approach  and in the two-channel one . In latter work, the uniformizing variable $`k_2`$ has been used, therefore, their approach cannot be employed near by the $`\pi \pi `$ threshold.)

In Fig.1, the plane of the uniformizing variable $`v`$ for the $`\pi \pi `$-scattering amplitude is depicted. The Roman numerals (I,…, IV) denote the images of the corresponding sheets; the thick line represents the physical region; the points i, 1 and $`b=\sqrt{(m_K+m_\pi )/(m_Km_\pi )}`$ correspond to the $`\pi \pi ,K\overline{K}`$ thresholds and $`s=\mathrm{}`$, respectively; the shaded intervals $`(\mathrm{},b],[b^1,b^1],[b,\mathrm{})`$ are the images of the corresponding edges of the left-hand cut. The depicted positions of poles ($``$) and of zeros ($``$) give the representation of the type (a) resonance in $`S_{11}`$.

On the $`v`$-plane, $`S_{11}`$ has no cuts; however, $`S_{12}`$ and $`S_{22}`$ do have the cuts which arise from the left-hand cut on the $`s`$-plane, starting at $`s=4(m_K^2m_\pi ^2)`$, which further is neglected in the Riemann-surface structure, and the contribution of this cut is taken into account in the $`K\overline{K}`$ background as a pole on the real $`s`$-axis on the physical sheet in the sub-$`K\overline{K}`$-threshold region.

On $`v`$-plane, the Le Couteur-Newton relations are

$$S_{11}=\frac{d(v^1)}{d(v)},S_{22}=\frac{d(v^1)}{d(v)},S_{11}S_{22}S_{12}^2=\frac{d(v)}{d(v)}.$$
(4)
The $`d(v)`$-function already does not possess branch-points and is taken as

$$d=d_Bd_{res},$$
(5)
where $`d_B=B_\pi B_K`$; $`B_\pi `$ contains the possible remaining $`\pi \pi `$-background contribution, related to exchanges in crossing channels (the consequent analysis gives $`B_\pi =1`$); $`B_K`$ is that part of the $`K\overline{K}`$ background which does not contribute to the $`\pi \pi `$-scattering amplitude:

$$B_K=v^4(1v_0v)^4(1+v_0^{}v)^4.$$
(6)
The fourth power in (6) is explained in our work . The function $`d_{res}(v)`$ represents the contribution of resonances, described by one of three types of the pole-zero clusters, i.e.,

$$d_{res}=v^M\underset{n=1}{\overset{M}{}}(1v_n^{}v)(1+v_nv),$$
(7)
where $`M`$ is the number of pairs of the conjugate zeros.

## 3 Analysis of experimental data

We simultaneously analyze the available experimental data on the $`\pi \pi `$-scattering  and the process $`\pi \pi K\overline{K}`$  in the channel with $`I^GJ^{PC}=0^+0^{++}`$. As the data, we use the results of phase analyses which are given for phase shifts of the amplitudes ($`\delta _1`$ and $`\delta _{12}`$) and for moduli of the $`S`$-matrix elements $`\eta _1=|S_{aa}|`$ (a=1$`\pi \pi `$,2$`K\overline{K}`$) and $`\xi =|S_{12}|`$. The 2-channel unitarity condition gives $`\eta _1=\eta _2=\eta ,\xi =(1\eta ^2)^{1/2},\delta _{12}=\delta _1+\delta _2`$.

We consider four variants, in which the following states are taken into account:
Variant 1: The $`f_0(665)`$ and $`f_0(980)`$) with the clusters of type (a), and $`f_0(1500)`$, of type (c);
Variant 2: The same three resonances $`+`$ the $`f_0(1370)`$ of type (b);
Variant 3: The $`f_0(665)`$, $`f_0(980)`$) and $`f_0(1500)`$ $`+`$ the $`f_0(1710)`$ of type (b);
Variant 4: All the five resonances of the indicated types.

The other possibilities of the representation of these states are rejected by our analysis. We consider these variants, because the minimal possibility of the simultaneous description of two coupled processes $`\pi \pi \pi \pi ,K\overline{K}`$ is realized without the $`f_0(1370)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$ .

The $`\pi \pi `$-scattering data are described from the threshold to 1.89 GeV in all the four variants (in addition, we take $`B_\pi =1`$) and are taken from the analysis by B. Hyams et al.  in this energy region, and below 1 GeV, from many works . For the reaction $`\pi \pi K\overline{K}`$, practically all the accessible data are used, but the description ranges are slightly different for various variants and extend from the threshold to $``$ 1.4 GeV for variant 1, to $``$ 1.46 GeV for variant 2, and to $``$ 1.5 GeV for variants 3 and 4. Table 1 demonstrates the quality of fits to the experimental data (the number of fitted parameters is 17 for variant 1, 21 for variants 2 and 3, 25 for variant 4). When calculating $`\chi ^2/\text{N}_{DF}`$, we have rejected the experimental points at 0.61, 0.65, and 0.73 GeV for $`\delta _1`$, at 0.99, 1.65, and 1.85 GeV for $`\eta `$, at 1.111, 1.163, and 1.387 GeV for $`\delta _{12}`$, and at 1.002, 1.265, and 1.287 GeV for $`\xi `$ that give an especially large contribution to $`\chi ^2`$. We note that two variants (1 and 3) are the best, both without the $`f_0(1370)`$, and we stress that this analysis uses the parameterless description of the $`\pi \pi `$ background.

Let us indicate the obtained zero positions, on the $`v`$ plane, of the corresponding resonances best variant 3:

$`\mathrm{for}f_0(665):`$ $`v_1=1.38633+0.230588i,`$ $`v_2=0.9040850.263033i,`$
$`\mathrm{for}f_0(980):`$ $`v_3=1.05103+0.0487473i,`$ $`v_4=0.8641090.0922272i,`$
$`\mathrm{for}f_0(1500):`$ $`v_5=1.2477+0.0321349i,`$ $`v_6=1.240270.0384191i,`$
$`v_7=0.8043330.0179899i,`$ $`v_8=0.7955790.0253985i,`$
$`\mathrm{for}f_0(1710):`$ $`v_9=1.259280.0115127i,`$ $`v_{10}=0.7954290.00629969i.`$
Figures 2 demonstrate the comparison of the obtained energy dependence of four analyzed quantities with the experimental data: The short-dashed lines correspond to variant 1; the long-dashed curves, to variant 2; the dot-dashed ones, to variant 4; and the solid lines, to variant 3.

In Tables 2 and 3, the obtained pole clusters of considered resonances are shown on the corresponding sheets on the complex energy plane ($`\sqrt{s_r}=\mathrm{E}_ri\mathrm{\Gamma }_r`$) for the best variant 3 (without the $`f_(1370)`$) and for variant 4 (with all five states).

The coupling constants of obtained states with $`\pi \pi `$ ($`g_1`$) and $`K\overline{K}`$ ($`g_2`$) systems are calculated through the residues of amplitudes at the pole on sheet II – for resonances of types (a) and (c), and on sheet IV – for resonances of type (b). Expressing the $`T`$-matrix via the $`S`$-matrix as

$$S_{ii}=1+2i\rho _iT_{ii},S_{12}=2i\sqrt{\rho _1\rho _2}T_{12},$$
(8)
where $`\rho _i=\sqrt{(s4m_i^2)/s}`$, and taking the resonance part of the amplitude as

$$T_{ij}^{res}=\underset{r}{}g_{ir}g_{rj}D_r^1(s)$$
(9)
with $`D_r(s)`$ being an inverse propagator ($`D_r(s)ss_r`$), we show the results of that calculation in Table 4. We see that the $`f_0(980)`$ and especially the $`f_0(1370)`$ are coupled essentially more strongly to the $`K\overline{K}`$ system than to the $`\pi \pi `$ one, which tells about the dominant $`s\overline{s}`$ component in these states. The $`f_0(1500)`$ has the approximately equal coupling constants with the $`\pi \pi `$ and $`K\overline{K}`$ systems, which apparently could point up to its dominant glueball component . The coupling constant of the $`f_0(1710)`$ with the $`\pi \pi `$ channel cannot be calculated by this method, unless the description of $`\pi \pi K\overline{K}`$ reaction is obtained in the region of this resonance. But this state is represented by the cluster corresponding to the dominant $`s\overline{s}`$ component.

Let us also present the calculated scattering lengths: For the $`K\overline{K}`$ scattering:
$`a_0^0=1.25\pm 0.11+(0.65\pm 0.09)i,[m_{\pi ^+}^1];(\mathrm{variant1}),`$
$`a_0^0=1.548\pm 0.13+(0.634\pm 0.1)i,[m_{\pi ^+}^1];(\mathrm{variant2}),`$
$`a_0^0=1.19\pm 0.08+(0.622\pm 0.07)i,[m_{\pi ^+}^1];(\mathrm{variant3}),`$
$`a_0^0=1.58\pm 0.12+(0.59\pm 0.1)i,[m_{\pi ^+}^1];(\mathrm{variant4}).`$
Variants 2 and 4 include the $`f_0(1370)`$ unlike variants 1 and 3. We see that $`\mathrm{Re}a_0^0(K\overline{K})`$ is very sensitive to whether this state exists or not.

In Table 5, we compare our results for the $`\pi \pi `$ scattering length $`a_0^0`$ with results of some other theoretical and experimental works.

At first, let us remark about the result of Ref. for the $`\pi \pi `$ scattering length. We think that such a small value (0.23 $`m_{\pi ^+}^1`$) has been obtained, because there has been used an assumption about the negative $`\pi \pi `$ background in the phase shift. Now, from Table 5 we see that our results correspond to the linear realization of chiral symmetry.

We have here presented model-independent results: the pole positions, coupling constants and scattering lengths. Masses and widths of these states that should be calculated from the obtained pole positions and coupling constants are highly model-dependent. For instance, if we suppose that the $`f_0(665)`$ is the $`\sigma `$-meson, then from the known relation

$$g_{\sigma \pi \pi }=(m_\sigma ^2m_\pi ^2)/\sqrt{2}f_{\pi ^0}$$

(here $`f_{\pi ^0}`$ is the constant of weak decay of the $`\pi ^0`$: $`f_{\pi ^0}=93.1`$ MeV), we obtain $`m_\sigma 342`$ MeV.

If we take the resonance part of amplitude in a non-relativistic form (, p. 214)

$$T^{res}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}/2}{E_\sigma Ei\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}/2},$$

then we have (variant 3) $`E_\sigma 570\pm 13`$ MeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}1180\pm 48`$ MeV; for the so-called relativistic form

$$T^{res}=\frac{\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}}{m_\sigma ^2si\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}},$$

the following values are obtained: $`m_\sigma 820\pm 20`$ MeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1180\pm 48`$ MeV.

## 4 Conclusions

On the basis of a simultaneous description of the isoscalar $`s`$-wave channel of the processes $`\pi \pi \pi \pi ,K\overline{K}`$ with a parameterless representation of the $`\pi \pi `$ background, a model-independent confirmation of the $`\sigma `$-meson below 1 GeV is obtained. We emphasize that this is a real evidence of this state, because we have not been enforced to construct the $`\pi \pi `$ background.

A parameterless description of the $`\pi \pi `$ background is given only by allowance for the left-hand branch-point in the proper uniformizing variable. This seems to be related to the fact that the exchanges by nearest $`\sigma `$\- and $`\rho `$-mesons in the crossing channels contribute to the $`\pi \pi `$-scattering amplitude with opposite signs and compensate each other.

Since all the fitted parameters in describing the $`\pi \pi `$ scattering are only the positions of poles corresponding to resonances, we conclude that our model-independent approach is a valuable tool for studying the realization schemes of chiral symmetry. The existence of the low-lying state $`f_0(665)`$ with the properties of the $`\sigma `$-meson and the obtained $`\pi \pi `$-scattering length ($`a_0^0(\pi \pi )0.27[m_{\pi ^+}^1]`$) suggest the linear realization of chiral symmetry.

The analysis of the used experimental data gives the evidence that the $`f_0(980)`$ and especially $`f_0(1370)`$ resonance (if exists – variants 2 and 4), have the dominant $`s\overline{s}`$ component. Note that a minimum scenario of the simultaneous description of processes $`\pi \pi \pi \pi ,K\overline{K}`$ goes without the $`f_0(1370)`$ resonance. The best total $`\chi ^2/\text{N}_{DF}`$ for both the analyzed processes is obtained with the set of states: $`f_0(665)`$, $`f_0(980)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$. The $`K\overline{K}`$ scattering length is very sensitive to whether the $`f_0(1370)`$ state exists or not.

The $`f_0(1500)`$ has the approximately equal coupling constants with the $`\pi \pi `$ and $`K\overline{K}`$ systems, which apparently could point up to its dominant flavour-singlet (e.g., glueball) component .

The $`f_0(1710)`$ is represented by the cluster corresponding to the state with the dominant $`s\overline{s}`$ component. This is in accord with Refs. where the $`f_0(1500)`$ has been considered as a candidate for the scalar glueball. Note that QCD sum rules  and the K-matrix method  showed both the $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$ are mixed states with large admixture of the glueball component. Their conclusions about the glueball component concord to our conclusion as to the $`f_0(1500)`$ but not $`f_0(1710)`$. It seems that the complement of the combined consideration by the $`\eta \eta `$ and $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ channels should not change substantially this situation in view of the relative distance of the $`\eta \eta `$ threshold, and because the glueball component is not coupled to the $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ system. Note also that the conclusion of QCD sum rules  about the existence of light glueballs (below 1 GeV) contradicts the lattice calculations and is not confirmed by our method.

We stress that our results are very decisive, because our approach is based only on the first principles (analyticity-microcausality and unitarity), immediately applied to the analysis of experimental data, and it is free from dynamical assumptions, because a way of its realization is based on the mathematical fact that a local behaviour of analytic functions determined on the Riemann surface is governed by the nearest singularities on all corresponding sheets. It is very important that we were able to describe the considered coupled processes without diminishing the number of fitted parameters by some dynamical assumptions.

We think that multichannel states are most adequately represented by clusters, i.e., by the poles on all the corresponding sheets. Pole clusters give a main effect of resonances, and on the uniformization plane they are their good representation. The pole positions are rather stable characteristics for various models, whereas masses and widths are very model-dependent for wide resonances.