1: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}
2: \usepackage{epsfig}
3: \pagestyle{plain}
4: \topmargin=-0.8in
5: \hoffset=-1.0cm
6: \voffset=1cm
7: \textwidth=160mm
8: \textheight=220mm
9: \def\baselinestretch{1.5}
10:
11: \begin{document}
12: \title{ Single production of the gauge boson $W$ via polarized $e^{-}\gamma$
13: collisions in the littlest Higgs model }
14: \author{Chong-Xing Yue, Feng Zhang, Li-Na Wang, Li Zhou\\
15: %\address{
16: {\small Department of Physics, Liaoning Normal University, Dalian
17: 116029, China}\thanks{E-mail:cxyue@lnnu.edu.cn}\\}
18: \date{\today}
19:
20: \maketitle
21: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22: \begin{abstract}
23: In the framework of the littlest Higgs($LH$) model, we study
24: single production of the standard model($SM$) gauge boson
25: $W_{s}^{-}$ and the heavy gauge boson $W_{H}^{-}$ via polarized
26: $e^{-}\gamma$ collisions. We find that the corrections of the $LH$
27: model to the cross section $\sigma(W_{s}^{-})$ might be observed
28: only for the scale parameter $f\leq 1.5TeV$ and the mixing
29: parameter $c'\geq 0.4$ in future high energy linear $e^{+}e^{-}$
30: collider($LC$) experiment with the center-of-mass($CM$) energy
31: $\sqrt{S}=500GeV$ and a yearly integrated luminosity
32: $\pounds=100fb^{-1}$. However, with a suitably chosen polarization
33: of the initial electron and position beams, the possible signals
34: of the heavy gauge boson $W_{H}^{-}$ can be easily detected via
35: $e^{-}\gamma$ collisions in future $LC$ experiment with
36: $\sqrt{S}=3TeV$ and $\pounds=500fb^{-1}$.
37:
38:
39:
40:
41: \vspace{1cm}
42:
43: PACS number: 12.60.Cn, 14.70.Pw, 13.66.Hk
44:
45: \end{abstract}
46:
47: \newpage
48: \noindent{\bf I. Introduction}
49:
50: The high energy linear $e^{+}e^{-}$ collider $(LC)$ has a large
51: potential for the discovery of new particles$[1]$. Due to its
52: rather clean environment, the $LC$ will be perfectly suited for
53: precise analysis of physics beyond the standard model $(SM)$ as
54: well as for testing the $SM$ with an unprecedented accuracy. A
55: unique feature of the $LC$ is that it can be transformed to
56: $\gamma\gamma$ collisions and $e^{-}\gamma$ collisions with the
57: photon beams generated by the backward Compton scattering of the
58: initial electron and laser beams. Their effective luminosity and
59: energy are expected to be comparable to those of the $LC$. In some
60: scenarios, they are the best instrument for the discovery of
61: signatures of new physics.
62:
63: The $e^{-}\gamma$ collisions can produce particles which are
64: kinematically not accessible in the $e^{+}e^{-} $ collisions at
65: the same collider$[2]$. For example, for the process
66: $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow AB$ with light particle A and new heavy
67: particle B, the discovery limits can be much higher than in other
68: reactions. The $e^{-}\gamma$ collisions can uniquely be identified
69: due to the net $(-1)$ charge in the final state, the process
70: $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow AB$ offers the possibility for both new
71: physics discovery and precision measurements. Thus, the
72: $e^{-}\gamma$ collisions is particularly suitable for studying
73: heavy gauge boson production. In Ref.$[3]$, we have studied single
74: production of the heavy gauge bosons $B_{H},Z_{H}$ and $W_{H}$
75: predicted by the littlest Higgs ($LH$) model$[4]$ via the
76: unpolarized $e^{-}\gamma$ collisions and discuss the possibility
77: of detecting these new particles in future $LC$ experiments. We
78: find that, in wide range of the parameter space preferred by the
79: electroweak precision data, the gauge bosons $B_{H}$ and $Z_{H}$
80: should be observed via detecting the $e^{-}l^{+}l^{-}$ signal.
81: However, the gauge boson $W_{H}$ can not be detected via the
82: process $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow \nu_{e} W^{-}_{H}$.
83:
84: An important tool of the $LC$ is using of the polarized beams. One
85: expects that a high polarization degree between $80\%$ and $90\%$
86: can be reached$[1,5]$. Beam polarization is not only useful for a
87: possible reduction of the background, but might also serve as a
88: possible tool to disentangle different contributions to the signal
89: and to directly analyze the interaction structure of new physics.
90: Beam polarization of the electron and position beams would lead to
91: a substantial enhancement of the production cross section for some
92: specific processes with a suitably chosen polarization
93: configuration. Furthermore, it has been shown that the
94: polarization of the initial laser beam and the electron beam will
95: significantly affect the photon spectrum in $e\gamma$ or
96: $\gamma\gamma$ collisions. Thus, a more detailed study of single
97: production of heavy gauge bosons in $e^{-}\gamma$ collisions with
98: polarized beams is needed. In this paper, we first consider the
99: corrections of the $LH$ model to single production of the $SM$
100: gauge boson$W^{-}_{s}$ via $e^{-}\gamma$ collisions and discuss
101: the possibility of detecting the virtual correction effects in
102: future $LC$ experiment with the center-of-mass($CM$) energy
103: $\sqrt{S}=500GeV$ and a yearly integrated luminosity
104: $\pounds=100fb^{-1}$. We find that the corrections might be
105: observed only for the scale parameter $f\leq 1.5TeV$ and the
106: mixing parameter $c'\geq 0.4$. Then, we study single production of
107: the heavy gauge boson $W_{H}^{-}$ via polarized $e^{-}\gamma$
108: collisions at the $LC$ with the $CM$ energy $\sqrt{S}=3TeV$ and
109: $\pounds=500fb^{-1}$. We find that, for a suitably chosen
110: polarization configuration $(p_{e},p_{\overline{e}})=(-0.8,0.6)$
111: and $(-0.8,-0.6)$, the production cross section of the process
112: $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow \nu_{e} W^{-}_{H}$ can be significantly
113: enhanced and the possible signals of the heavy gauge boson
114: $W_{H}^{-}$ can be easily observed in wide range of the parameter
115: space preferred by the electroweak precision data.
116:
117:
118: Little Higgs theory$[6]$ was recently proposed as a possible
119: mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking $(EWSB)$ and is a
120: compelling possibility for physics beyond the $SM$. The key
121: feature of this kind of theory is that the Higgs boson is a
122: pseudo-Goldstone boson of a spontaneously broken approximate
123: global symmetry. So far, a number of specific models have been
124: proposed. The $LH$ model$[4]$ is one of the simplest and
125: phenomenologically viable models, which has all essential features
126: of the little Higgs theory. So, in the rest of this paper, we will
127: give our results in detail in the context of the $LH$ model.
128:
129: In sec.II, we generally give the formula of the helicity
130: amplitudes and the cross section for the process
131: $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow \nu_{e} W^{-}$, in which $W^{-}$ is the
132: $SM$ gauge boson $W^{-}_{s}$ or the heavy gauge boson $W_{H}^{-}$
133: predicted by the $LH$ model. The relative corrections of the $LH$
134: model to single production of the $SM$ gauge boson $W^{-}_{s}$ in
135: the $LC$ with $\sqrt{S}=500GeV$ and $\pounds=100fb^{-1}$ are
136: calculated in sec.III. The cross section of single production for
137: the heavy gauge boson $W^{-}_{H}$ via polarized $e^{-}\gamma$
138: collisions at the $LC$ with $\sqrt{S}=3TeV$ and
139: $\pounds=500fb^{-1}$ are calculated in sec. IV. The observability
140: of $W_{H}$ are also studied in this section. Section V contains
141: our conclusions.
142:
143: \noindent{\bf II. The helicity amplitudes and the cross section
144: for the process $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow \nu_{e} W^{-}$
145: \hspace*{0.4cm} in the $LH$ model}
146:
147: At the tree-level, there are two Feynaman diagrams contributing
148: to the process $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow \nu_{e} W^{-}$ for single
149: production of the gauge boson $W^{-}$, as shown in Fig.1. The
150: s-channel diagram is induced by the gauge couplings of the gauge
151: bosons $\gamma$ and $W^{-}$ to fermions, while the t-channel
152: diagram involves a triple gauge boson coupling making this process
153: suitable for testing the non-Abelian gauge structure of the
154: theory.
155:
156: \begin{figure}[htb]
157: \vspace{-6cm}
158: \begin{center}
159: \epsfig{file=fig1.ps,width=650pt,height=800pt} \vspace{-20cm}
160: \hspace{-0.5cm} \caption{Feynman diagrams for the process $
161: e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow\nu_{e}W^{-}$.} \label{ee}
162: \end{center}
163: \end{figure}
164:
165:
166: The $LH$ model$[4]$ consists of a non-linear $\sigma$ model with a
167: global $SU(5)$ symmetry and a locally gauged symmetry
168: $SU(2)_{1}\times U(1)_{1}\times SU(2)_{2}\times U(1)_{2}$. The
169: global $SU(5)$ symmetry is broken down to its subgroup $SO(5)$ by
170: a vacuum condensate $f\sim \Lambda_{s}/ 4\pi\sim TeV$, which
171: results in fourteen massless Goldstone bosons. Four of these
172: massless Goldstone bosons are eaten by the $SM$ gauge bosons, so
173: that the locally gauged symmetry $SU(2)_{1}\times U(1)_{1}\times
174: SU(2)_{2}\times U(1)_{2}$ is broken down to its diagonal subgroup
175: $ SU(2)\times U(1)$, identified as the $SM$ electroweak gauge
176: group. This breaking scenario gives rise to the new gauge bosons
177: $W_{H}^{\pm}$. In the $LH$ model, the couplings of the gauge boson
178: W to ordinary particles, which are related our calculation, can be
179: written as$[7]$:
180: \begin{equation}
181: g_{L}^{W\nu_{e} e}=\frac{ie}{\sqrt{2} S_{W}}A,\hspace{0.5cm}
182: g_{R}^{W\nu_{e}e}=0,\hspace{0.5cm} g^{\gamma WW}= -eB,
183: \end{equation}
184: where $S_{W}=\sin\theta_{W}$, $\theta_{W}$ is the Weinberg angle.
185: The coupling constant $B$ is always equal to 1 for the $SM$ gauge
186: boson $W_{s}$ and the heavy gauge boson $W_{H}$, while the
187: coupling constant A is equal to
188: $1-\frac{\nu^{2}}{2f^{2}}c^{2}(c^{2}-s^{2})$ and $-\frac{c}{s}$
189: for the gauge bosons $W_{s}$ and $W_{H}$, respectively.
190: $\nu=246GeV$ is the electroweak scale and $c$ $(s=\sqrt{1-c^{2}})$
191: is the mixing parameter between $SU(2)_{1}$ and $SU(2)_{2}$ gauge
192: bosons.
193:
194:
195: In our calculation, we will neglect the initial state electron
196: mass and think that the initial state electron beams are
197: longitudinally polarized beams. Thus, the negative and positive
198: polarized electrons coincide with their left- and right- chirality
199: states, respectively. In the $SM$ and the $LH$ model, the helicity
200: of the incoming $e^{-}$ is fixed by the massless neutrino
201: $\nu_{e}$, which implies that the right-handed electron has no
202: contributions to the cross section of the process
203: $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow \nu_{e} W^{-}$. In this case, the single
204: production process of the charged gauge boson $W^{-}$ can be
205: written as:
206: \begin{equation}
207: e_{L}^{-}(p_{e})+\gamma(k)\rightarrow\nu_{eL}(p)+W^{-}(p_{W}).
208: \end{equation}
209: The helicity amplitudes of this process can be written as$[8,9]$:
210: \begin{equation}
211: M_{\lambda\lambda^{'}}=\frac{ie^{2}A}{\sqrt{2}S_{W}}
212: \overline{u_{\nu}}(p)T_{\mu\nu}u_{e}(p_{e})
213: \varepsilon^{\nu}(k,\lambda)\varepsilon
214: _{W}^{\mu^{*}}(p_{W},\lambda^{'}),
215: \end{equation}
216: where $\varepsilon^{\nu}(k,\lambda)$ and
217: $\varepsilon^{\mu}_{W}(p_{W},\lambda^{'})$ are the polarization
218: vectors of the initial state photon and final state $W^{-}$,
219: respectively. The helicities $\lambda=\pm1$ and
220: $\lambda^{'}=\pm1,0.$ The tensor $T_{\mu\nu}$ is the sum of the
221: two terms corresponding to the s- and t- channel diagrams:
222: \begin{equation}
223: T_{\mu\nu}=\frac{\gamma_{\mu}(\not p_{e}+\not
224: k)\gamma_{\nu}}{\hat{S}}+
225: \frac{1}{t-M_{W}^{2}}[\gamma^{\rho}-\frac{(\not p-\not
226: q)(k-p_{W})^{\rho}}
227: {M_{W}^{2}}]\Gamma_{\nu\mu\rho} \\
228: \end{equation}
229: with
230: \begin{equation}
231: \Gamma_{\nu\mu\rho}=2p_{W\nu}g_{\mu\rho}+2k_{\mu}g_{\nu\rho}-(p_{W}+k)_{\rho}g_{\mu\nu}
232: ,
233: \end{equation}
234: where $t=(p-p_{e})^{2}$, $\hat{S}$ is the $CM$ energy of polarized
235: $e^{-}\gamma$ collisions, and $ M_{W}$ is the mass of the gauge
236: boson W. The first term of $Eq.(4)$ comes from the s-channel
237: diagram and the second term comes from the t-channel diagram.
238: Since there is pure vector-axial current and the charged gauge
239: bosons $ W^{\pm}$ has only left-handed couplings to the fermions,
240: the s-channel diagram has non-zero contributions to the helicity
241: amplitudes only for $\lambda=-1$ and $\lambda^{'}=-1,0.$
242:
243: Using $Eqs.(3)-(5)$, we can write the helicity amplitudes as:
244: \begin{eqnarray}
245: M_{11}&=&\frac{C_{1}C_{2}\sqrt{\hat{S}}}{t-M_{W}^{2}}(\cos\theta-1)
246: \sin\frac{\theta}{2} , \\
247: M_{1-1}&=&\frac{C_{1}C_{2}}{t-M_{W}^{2}}[2|\vec{p}|\sin\theta-
248: \sqrt{\hat{S}}(1+\cos\theta)\sin\frac{\theta}{2}] , \\
249: M_{10}&=&\frac{C_{2}C_{3}}{t-M_{W}^{2}}[|\vec{p}|(E_{W}+|\vec{p}|)-
250: \sqrt{\hat{S}}E_{W}]\sin\theta\sin\frac{\theta}{2} , \\
251: M_{-11}&=&\frac{C_{1}C_{2}\sqrt{\hat{S}}}{t-M_{W}^{2}}[\sin\theta\cos
252: \frac{\theta}{2}-(1+\cos\theta)\sin\frac{\theta}{2}] , \\
253: M_{-1-1}&=&-C_{1}C_{2}\{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\hat{S}}}\sin\frac{\theta}{2}+
254: \frac{1}{t-M_{W}^{2}}[2|\vec{p}|\sin\theta+\sqrt{\hat{S}}\sin\theta\cos
255: \frac{\theta}{2}\nonumber \\
256: &&-\sqrt{\hat{S}}(\cos\theta-1)\sin\frac{\theta}{2}]\}, \\
257: M_{-10}&=&-C_{2}C_{3}\{\frac{(E_{W}+|\vec{p}|)\cos\frac{\theta}{2}}
258: {\sqrt{\hat{S}}}+\frac{1}{t-M_{W}^{2}}[\sqrt{\hat{S}}(|\vec{p}|+E_{W}
259: \cos\theta)\cos\frac{\theta}{2}\nonumber\\
260: &&-[|\vec{p}|(E_{W}+|\vec{p}|)\sin\theta-\sqrt{\hat{S}}E_{W}\sin\theta]
261: \sin\frac{\theta}{2}]\}
262: \end{eqnarray}
263: with
264: \begin{equation}
265: C_{1}=\frac{ie^{2}}{2S_{W}}\sqrt{\sqrt{\hat{S}}E_{\nu}}A,\hspace{0.5cm}
266: C_{2}=1+\frac{|\vec{p}|}{E_{\nu}},\hspace{0.5cm}
267: C_{3}=\frac{ie^{2}}{\sqrt{2}M_{W}S_{W}}\sqrt{\sqrt{\hat{S}}E_{\nu}}A.
268: \end{equation}
269: In above equations, we have taken the electron momentum to be
270: along the z-axis and the $\theta$ represents the angle between the
271: electron momentum and the W momentum.
272:
273: From above discussions, we can see that the chirality cross
274: sections $\hat{\sigma}_{RL}$ and $\hat{\sigma}_{RR}$ vanish
275: identically. Then the polarized cross section of the process
276: $e^{-}_{L}(p_{e})+\gamma(k)\rightarrow\nu_{e_{L}}(p)+W^{-}(p_{W})$
277: can be written as:
278: \begin{equation}
279: \hat{\sigma}(p_{e},\hat{\xi_{2}},\hat{S})=\frac{1}{4}(1-p_{e})[(1-\xi_{2})
280: \hat{\sigma}_{LL}+(1+\xi_{2})\hat{\sigma}_{LR}],
281: \end{equation}
282: where the Strokes parameter $\xi_{2}$ is given by [10]:
283: \begin{equation}
284: \xi_{2}=\frac{1}{D}\{p_{\bar{e}}r\xi[1+(1-x)(2r-1)^{2}]-p_{L}(2r-1)[\frac{1}{1-x}+(1-x)]\}
285: \end{equation}
286: \begin{equation}
287: D=\frac{1}{1-x}+1-x-4r(1-r)-p_{\bar{e}}p_{L}r\xi(2r-1)(2-x),
288: \end{equation}
289: where $p_{e}$ and $p_{\bar{e}}$ are the degrees of the
290: longitudinal electron and positron polarization, respectively.
291: $p_{L}$ is the laser photon circular polarization.
292: $r=\frac{x}{\xi(1-x)}$. In our calculation, we will take
293: $\xi=4.8$, $p_{L}=1$, and $x_{max}=0.83$ as in Ref.$[11]$.
294:
295: The effective cross section $\sigma(S)$ for the subprocess
296: $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow \nu_{e} W^{-}$ in a $LC$ with the $CM$
297: energy $\sqrt{S}$, where the positron beam with the degree of
298: longitudinal polarization $p_{\bar{e}}$ is converted into the
299: backscattered photon beam, is given by$[10]$:
300: \begin{equation}
301: \sigma(p_{e},p_{\bar{e}},S)=\int_{M_{W}^{2}/S}^{0.83}dx
302: F(x,p_{\bar{e}})\hat{\sigma}(p_{e},\xi_{2},\hat{S}),
303: \end{equation}
304: in which $\hat{S}=xS$, the backscattered photon distribution
305: function $F(x,p_{\bar{e}})$ for $p_{L}=1$ and $\xi=4.8$ is:
306: \begin{equation}
307: F(x,p_{\bar{e}})=\frac{1}{1.83+0.15p_{\bar{e}}}[\frac{1}{1-x}+1-x-
308: 4r(1-r)-4.8p_{\bar{e}}r(2r-1)(2-x)].
309: \end{equation}
310:
311:
312: In the following sections, we will use these formula to calculate
313: the effective cross section of the sub-process
314: $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow \nu_{e} W^{-}$ for $W^{-}=W_{s}^{-}$ or
315: $W_{H}^{-}$.
316:
317: \noindent{\bf III. Single production of the $SM$ gauge boson
318: $W_{s}^{-}$ via polarized $e^{-}\gamma$ collisions \hspace*{0.8cm}
319: in the $LH$ model }
320:
321: The process $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow \nu_{e} W^{-}$ is one of the
322: interesting processes for $e^{-}\gamma$ collisions which can
323: uniquely be identified due to the net(-1) charge in the final
324: state. It offers the possibility for both new physics discovery
325: and precision measurements. Thus, studying this process in some
326: popular specific models beyond the $SM$ is very interesting.
327: Single production of the $SM$ gauge boson $W_{s}^{-}$ via the
328: process $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow \nu_{e} W^{-}_{s}$ receives two
329: kinds of additional contributions in the $LH$ model. One comes
330: from the correction terms to the tree-level $W\nu_{e}e$ coupling
331: shown as $Eq.(1)$ and the other comes from the modification of the
332: relation between the $SM$ parameters and the precision electroweak
333: input parameters.
334:
335: In the $LH$ model, the relation between the Fermi coupling
336: constant $G_{F}$, the $SM$ gauge boson $W_{s}$ mass $M_{W}$ and
337: the fine structure constant $\alpha$ can be written as$[12]$:
338: \begin{equation}
339: \frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}=\frac{\pi\alpha}{2M_{W}^{2}S_{W}^{2}}
340: [1-c^{2}(c^{2}-s^{2})\frac{\nu^{2}}{f^{2}}+2c^{4}\frac{\nu^{2}}
341: {f^{2}}-\frac{5}{4}(c^{'2}-s^{'2})\frac{\nu^{2}}{f^{2}}].
342: \end{equation}
343: So we have
344: \begin{equation}
345: \frac{e^{2}}{S_{W}^{2}}=\frac{4\sqrt{2}G_{F}M^{2}_{W}}{1-c^{2}
346: (c^{2}-s^{2})\frac{\nu^{2}}{f^{2}}+2c^{4}\frac{\nu^{2}}{f^{2}}-\frac{5}{4}
347: (c^{'2}-s^{'2})\frac{\nu^{2}}{f^{2}}}.
348: \end{equation}
349: In the following numerical estimation, we will take
350: $G_{F}=1.16137\times 10^{-5} GeV^{-2}$ and $M_{W}=80.45GeV[13]$ as
351: input parameters and use them to represent other $SM$ input
352: parameters.
353:
354: Except for the $SM$ input parameters, there are three free
355: parameters: the mixing parameters $c$, $c'$, and the scale
356: parameter $f$ in the expression of the relative correction
357: parameter $R=\delta\sigma(W_{s})/\sigma^{SM} (W_{s})$ with
358: $\delta\sigma(W_{s})=\sigma^{LH}(W_{s})-\sigma^{SM}(W_{s})$.
359: $\sigma^{LH}(W_{s})$ and $\sigma^{SM}(W_{s})$ are the production
360: cross sections of the process $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow \nu_{e}
361: W_{s}$ predicted by the $LH$ model and the $SM$, respectively. The
362: value of the relative correction parameter $R$ is insensitive to
363: the degrees of the electron and positron polarization and the $CM$
364: energy $\sqrt{S}$. Thus, in our numerical calculation of this
365: section, we do not consider the polarization of the initial states
366: and take $\sqrt{S}=500GeV$.
367: \begin{figure}[htb]
368: \vspace{-0.5cm}
369: \begin{center}
370: \epsfig{file=fig2.eps,width=320pt,height=280pt} \vspace{-1cm}
371: \hspace{-0.5cm} \caption{The relative correction parameter $R$ as
372: a function of the mixing parameter $c'$ \hspace*{1.8cm} for
373: $f=1TeV$ and three values of the mixing parameter $c$.} \label{ee}
374: \end{center}
375: \end{figure}
376:
377:
378: In the $LH$ model, the custodial $ SU(2)$ global symmetry is
379: explicitly broken, which can generate large contributions to some
380: electroweak observables. If one assumes that the $SM$ fermions are
381: charged only under $U(1)_{1}$, then global fit to the electroweak
382: precision data produces rather severe constraints on the free
383: parameters of the $LH$ model[12,14]. However, if the $SM$ fermions
384: are charged under $U(1)_{1}\times U(1)_{2}$, the constraints
385: become relaxed. The scale parameter $f=1\sim 2TeV$ is allowed for
386: the mixing parameters $c$ and $c'$ in the ranges of $0\sim 0.5$
387: and $0.62\sim 0.73$, respectively[15]. Taking into account the
388: electroweak precision constraints on the $LH$ model, our
389: numerical results are shown in Fig.2, in which we plot the
390: relative correction parameter $R$ as a function of the mixing
391: parameter $c'$ for $f=1TeV$ and three values of the mixing
392: parameter $c$. From Fig.2 one can see that the contributions of
393: the $LH$ model to the process $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow \nu_{e}
394: W^{-}_{s}$ is very small. In most of the parameter space allowed
395: by the electroweak precision data, the absolute value of $R$ is
396: smaller than $5\%$.
397:
398:
399: \begin{figure}[htb]
400: \vspace{-1cm}
401: \begin{center}
402: \epsfig{file=fig3.eps,width=320pt,height=280pt} \vspace{-1cm}
403: \hspace{-0.5cm} \caption{The value of SS as a function of the
404: mixing parameter $c'$ for $c=0.3$ and \hspace*{1.8cm} and three
405: values of the scale parameter $f$.} \label{ee}
406: \end{center}
407: \end{figure}
408:
409: In order to see whether the correction effects of the $LH$ model
410: on the process $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow\nu_{e}W_{s}^{-}$ can be
411: observed in the near future $LC$ experiment with $\sqrt{S}=500GeV$
412: and $\pounds=100fb^{-1}$, we define the statistical significance
413: (SS) of the signal as:
414: \begin{equation}
415: SS=\frac{|\sigma^{LH}(W_{s})-\sigma^{SM}(W_{s})|}{\sqrt{\sigma^{SM}}}\sqrt{\pounds
416: }.
417: \end{equation}
418:
419: In order to ensure that the events are well within the detector
420: range, we demand that the angles of all detectable final particles
421: with the beam pipe are smaller than 15$^{0}$. With this
422: requirement, we assumed that 60$\%$ of the produced $W_{s}$ can be
423: properly reconstructed. In Fig.3, we plot SS as a function of the
424: mixing parameter $c'$ for $c=0.4$ and three values of the scale
425: parameter $f$. From Fig.3 one can see that, for $f=1TeV$ and
426: $0.62\leq c'\leq0.71$, the value of SS is larger than 2, while,
427: for $f\geq 1.5TeV$, its value is smaller than 2 in most of the
428: parameter space. Thus, the correction effects of the $LH$ model on
429: the process $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow\nu_{e}W_{s}^{-}$ might be
430: detected at the $LC$ with $\sqrt{S}=500GeV$ and
431: $\pounds=100fb^{-1}$ only for $f\leq1.5TeV$ and $c'\geq0.4$.
432:
433: \noindent{\bf IV. Single production of the heavy
434: gauge boson $W_{H}^{-}$ via polarized $e^{-}\gamma$ collisions}
435:
436: From above discussions, we can see that the single production
437: cross section $\sigma(W_{H})$ of the heavy gauge boson $W^{-}_{H}$
438: via the process $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow \nu_{e} W^{-}_{H}$
439: dependents on the mixing parameter $c'$ only through the relation
440: between the $SM$ parameters and the precision electroweak input
441: parameters as shown in $Eq.(18)$. Thus, the $c'$ dependence of
442: $\sigma (W_{H})$ is very weak and we can take the fixed value for
443: the mixing parameter $c'$. Taking into account the electroweak
444: precision constraints on the $LH$ model, we assume $c'=0.65$, $
445: c=0.1\sim 0.5$, and $M_{W_{H}}=1\sim 3 TeV$ in our following
446: calculation.
447:
448: Figure 4 shows the dependence of the production cross section
449: $\sigma(W_{H})$ on the mixing parameter $c$ for $\sqrt{S}=3TeV$,
450: $c'=0.65$, and four values of the $W_{H}$ mass $M_{W_{H}}$. To see
451: the effects of the electron and positron beam polarization on
452: $\sigma (W_{H})$, we have chosen the different polarization
453: configuration $(p_{e},p_{\bar{e}})=(0.8,0.6), (0.8,-0.6),
454: (-0.8,0.6), (-0.8,-0.6 )$, and $(0,0)$ in Fig.4. One can see from
455: Fig.4 that the production cross section $\sigma(W_{H})$ is indeed
456: sensitive to the polarization of electron and positron beams. For
457: a suitably chosen polarization configuration, the value of
458: $\sigma(W_{H})$ can be significantly enhanced. For example, for
459: $(p_{e},p_{\bar{e}})=(-0.8,0.6)$, and $(-0.8,-0.6)$, the values of
460: $\sigma(W_{H})$ are larger than those for
461: $(p_{e},p_{\bar{e}})=(0,0)$ in all of the parameter space. If we
462: take $0.1\leq c\leq 0.5$ and $1TeV\leq M_{W_{H}}\leq 2.5TeV$,
463: which is allowed by the electroweak precision constraints, then
464: the single production section $\sigma(W_{H})$ of the heavy gauge
465: boson $W_{H}$ via polarized $e^{-}\gamma$ collisions in the future
466: $LC$ with $\sqrt{S}=3TeV$ are in the ranges of $60fb\sim 1.4\times
467: 10^{-2}fb$, $72.9fb\sim 3.8\times 10^{-3}fb$, and $36.3fb\sim
468: 3.9\times 10^{-3}fb$ for $(p_{e},p_{\bar{e}})=(-0.8,0.6),
469: (-0.8,-0.6)$, and $(0,0)$, respectively. If we assume that the
470: yearly integrated luminosity of the future $LC$ experiment with
471: $\sqrt{S}=3TeV$ is $\pounds=500fb^{-1}$, then there are several
472: tens and up to thousand $W_{H}\nu_{e}$ events to be generated per
473: year.
474:
475: \begin{figure}[htb]
476: \vspace{0cm}
477: \centering
478: \includegraphics[width=3.3in]{fig4a.eps}
479: \hspace{-0.4in}
480: \includegraphics[width=3.3in]{fig4b.eps}
481: \end{figure}
482:
483: \begin{figure}[htb]
484: \vspace{-1cm}
485: \centering
486: \includegraphics[width=3.3in]{fig4c.eps}
487: \hspace{-0.4in}
488: \includegraphics[width=3.3in]{fig4d.eps}
489: \caption{The cross section $\sigma(W_{H})$ as a function of the mixing parameter
490: $c$ for \hspace*{1.8cm} different
491: values of the $W_{H}$ mass $M_{W_{H}}$ and different polarization
492: configurations.}
493: \end{figure}
494:
495: In Fig.4 we have taken that the value of the degree $P_{L}$ of the
496: laser-beam polarization equals to 1. Certainly, we can also take
497: $P_{L}=-1$. In this case, the value of the production cross
498: section $\sigma(W_{H})$ is different from that for the same
499: polarization configuration with $P_{L}=1$. However, the conclusion
500: that a suitably polarization configuration of the initial electron
501: and positron beams can enhance the single production cross section
502: $\sigma(W_{H})$ is not changed.
503:
504:
505: In general, the heavy gauge bosons are likely to be discovered via
506: their decay products. The decay channels $W_{H}^{\pm}\rightarrow
507: l^{\pm}\nu$ can manifest itself via events that contain an
508: isolated charged lepton and missing energy. In this case, the
509: signal of single production of the heavy gauge boson $W_{H}^{-}$
510: via $e^{-}\gamma$ collisions should be an isolated charged lepton
511: associated with large missing energy. For the hadron decay
512: channels $W^{\pm}_{H}\rightarrow qq'$, the signal is a two jet
513: event associated with large missing energy. In the narrow width
514: approximation, the number of the $l^{-}\nu\nu_{e}[2j+\nu_{e}]$
515: events can be approximately written as
516: $N_{W_{H}}=\pounds\sigma(W_{H})\times B_{r}(W^{-}_{H}\rightarrow
517: l^{-}\nu) [B_{r}(W^{-}_{H}\rightarrow qq')] $. The branching ratio
518: $B_{r}(W^{-}_{H}\rightarrow l^{-}\nu[qq'])$ can be easily
519: estimated using the formula given by Ref.$[16]$. The most serious
520: backgrounds for the $l^{-}\nu\nu_{e}$ signal come from the $SM$
521: processes $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow e^{-}Z\rightarrow e^{-}\nu\nu$
522: and $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow W_{s}^{-}\nu_{e}\rightarrow
523: l^{-}\nu\nu_{e}$. The scattered electron in the process
524: $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow e^{-}Z$ has almost same energy
525: $E_{e}\approx\frac{\sqrt{S}}{2}$ for $\sqrt{S}\gg M_{Z}$. Thus,
526: the process $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow e^{-}Z$ could be easily
527: distinguished from the signal$[8,9]$. Furthermore, the cross
528: section for this process decreases as $\sqrt{S}$ increasing,
529: while the cross section for the process $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow
530: \nu_{e} W^{-}_{s}$ is approaching a constant at high energies. So,
531: the most serious background process is $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow
532: \nu_{e} W^{-}_{s}\rightarrow l^{-}\nu\nu_{e}$.
533: \begin{figure}[htb]
534: \vspace{-0.5cm}
535: \centering
536: \includegraphics[width=3.3in]{fig5a.eps}
537: \hspace{-0.4in}
538: \includegraphics[width=3.3in]{fig5b.eps}
539: \caption{The ratio $N$ as a function of $M_{W_{H}}$ for
540: three values of the mixing parameter $c$. \hspace*{1.8cm} The
541: polarization of the initial state beams are taken as
542: $(p_{e},p_{\bar{e}})=(-0.8,0.6)$ \hspace*{1.9cm} and $(-0.8,-0.6)$
543: in Fig.5(a) and Fig.5(b), respectively.}
544: \end{figure}
545:
546:
547:
548: To compare the signal with background and discuss the possibility
549: of detecting the heavy gauge boson $W_{H}^{-}$, we calculate the
550: ratio of signal over square root of the background $(N=N_{W_{H}}/
551: \sqrt{B})$ in the parameter space of the $LH$ model preferred by
552: the electroweak precision data, in which
553: $B=\pounds\sigma(W_{s}^{-})\times B_{r}(W_{s}^{-}\rightarrow
554: l^{-}\nu)$ for the lepton channel $W_{H}^{-}\rightarrow l^{-}\nu$
555: . The dependence of $N$ on the $W_{H}$ mass $M_{W_{H}}$ is shown
556: in Fig.5 for $c'=0.65$ and three values of the mixing parameter
557: $c$. We have taken the polarization of the electron and positron
558: beams as $(p_{e},p_{\bar{e}})=(-0.8,0.6)$, and $(-0.8,-0.6)$ in
559: Fig.5(a) and Fig.5(b), respectively. One can see from Fig.5 that
560: the values of $N$ increase as the mixing parameter $c$ increasing
561: and the $W_{H}$ mass $M_{W_{H}}$ decreasing. With reasonable
562: values of the free parameters, the value of $N$ is larger than 2.
563: This means that, at least, the $W_{H}$ signal can be separated
564: from its $SM$ background at $2\sigma$ confidence level. Thus, the
565: $W_{H}$ signal might be observed via detecting the
566: $l^{-}\nu\nu_{e}$ event.
567:
568: \begin{figure}[htb]
569: \vspace{-0.5cm}
570: \begin{center}
571: \epsfig{file=fig6.eps,width=320pt,height=280pt} \vspace{-1cm}
572: \hspace{-0.5cm} \caption{ In the case of detected the gauge boson
573: $W^{-}_{H}$ via the $l\nu\nu_{e}$ final state, the \hspace*{1.8cm}
574: dependence of the mixing parameter $c$ on the $W_{H}$ mass
575: $M_{W_{H}}$ \hspace*{1.8cm} .} \label{ee}
576: \end{center}
577: \end{figure}
578:
579: Compared to the $SM$ fermions (quarks and leptons), the $W_{H}$
580: mass $M_{W_{H}}$ is very large. For the $W_{H}^{-}$ decay channels
581: $W_{H}^{-}\rightarrow ff'$, we can neglect the fermion masses and
582: there is $Br(W_{H}^{-}\rightarrow l^{-}\nu)\approx
583: Br(W_{H}^{-}\rightarrow qq')$. For the $SM$ gauge boson $W_{s}$,
584: there is $Br(W_{s}^{-}\rightarrow qq')>Br(W_{s}^{-}\rightarrow
585: l^{-}\nu)$. Thus, the values of the ratio N for the lepton
586: channels $W_{H}^{-}\rightarrow l^{-}\nu$ are larger than those for
587: the hadron decay channels $W^{-}_{H}\rightarrow qq'$. The possible
588: signals of the new gauge boson $W_{H}^{-}$ should be more easy
589: observed via detecting the $l^{-}\nu\nu_{e}$ event than via
590: detecting the $qq'\nu_{e}$ event.
591:
592:
593: It is well known that a appropriate cut on the $SM$ background can
594: generally enhance the ratio of signal over square root of the
595: background. It has been shown that, with the suitably cut on the
596: final lepton transverse momentum and rapidity, the $SM$ background
597: $l^{-}\nu\nu_{e}$ can be reduced by more than one order of
598: magnitude$[8]$. Thus, we expect that, as long as the mixing
599: parameter $c>0.3$ and the $W_{H}$ mass $M_{W_{H}}< 2TeV$, the
600: heavy gauge bosons $W_{H}^{\pm}$ should be detected via polarized
601: $e\gamma$ collisions in future $LC$ experiment with
602: $\sqrt{S}=3TeV$ and $\pounds=500fb^{-1}$.
603:
604:
605:
606: If we assume that the heavy gauge boson $W_{H}^{-}$ has been
607: observed in high-energy experiments, such as $LHC$, then we can
608: study the constraints on the free parameters of the $LH$ model via
609: considering the contributions of $W_{H}^{-}$ to the processes
610: $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow l^{-}\nu\nu_{e}$ and $qq'\nu_{e}$, in
611: which $q$ and $q'$ are the $SM$ quarks $u$ and $d$ or $c$ and $s$.
612: At 95$\%$ confidence level, the constraints can be derived from
613: \begin{equation}
614: X^{2}=[\frac{\sigma(SM+W_{H})-\sigma(SM)}{\delta\sigma}]^{2}=3.84,
615: \end{equation}
616: where $\delta\sigma$ is the expected experimental uncertainty
617: about the corresponding cross section. In our numerical
618: estimation, we will assume $\delta\sigma=2\%$, the yearly
619: integrated luminosity $\pounds=500fb^{-1}$, and the polarization
620: of the electron and positron beams as ($P_{e},
621: P_{\overline{e}}$)=(-0.8, -0.6), and take the $l^{-}\nu\nu_{e}$
622: final state as an example. The constraints on the free parameters
623: $c$ and $M_{W_{H}}$ for $c'=0.65$ are showed in Fig.6. From this
624: figure, we can see that the constraints are very weak. For
625: example, as long as the heavy gauge boson $W_{H}$ mass $M_{W_{H}}$
626: is smaller than $2TeV$, the $W_{H}^{-}$ signals can be detected
627: via the $l^{-}\nu\nu_{e}$ final state for $c\geq0.1$. Certainly,
628: we can also obtain the constraints on these free parameters from
629: the $qq'\nu_{e}$ final state. However, the constraints are
630: stronger than those from the $l^{-}\nu\nu_{e}$ final state.
631:
632:
633:
634: \noindent{\bf V. Conclusions }
635:
636: To solve the so-called hierarchy or fine-tuning problem of the
637: $SM$, the little Higgs theory was proposed as a kind of models of
638: $EWSB$ accomplished by a naturally light Higgs sector. For all of
639: the little Higgs models, at least two interactions are needed to
640: explicitly break all of the global symmetries to make the Higgs
641: boson as a pseudo-Goldstone boson. In general, these models
642: predict the existence of the new heavy gauge bosons, colored
643: fermions, and triplet scalars to cancel the quadratically
644: divergent contributions to the Higgs mass induced by the $SM$
645: gauge bosons, Higgs boson, and the top-quark. These new particles
646: might produce characteristic signatures at present or future high
647: energy collider experiments$[7,17]$. Studying the possible
648: signatures of these new particles can help to test little Higgs
649: theory and further to probe $EWSB$ mechanism.
650:
651: The $LH$ model is one of the simplest and phenomenologically
652: viable models, which realizes the little Higgs idea. The high
653: energy $e^{-}\gamma$ collision is particularly suitable for
654: studying single production of the heavy gauge bosons. Thus, in the
655: context of the $LH$ model, we study single production of the $SM$
656: gauge boson $W_{s}^{-}$ and the heavy gauge boson $W_{H}^{-}$ via
657: polarized $e^{-}\gamma$ collisions. We find that the correction of
658: the $LH$ model to the production cross section of the process
659: $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow \nu_{e} W^{-}_{s}$ is very small in most
660: of the parameter space, which is very difficult to be detected in
661: future $LC$ experiment with $\sqrt{S}=500GeV$ and
662: $\pounds=100fb^{-1}$.
663:
664: Beam polarization of the electron and positron beams would lead to
665: a substantial enhancement of the production cross sections for
666: some specific processes with a suitably chosen polarization
667: configuration. Our numerical results show that the cross sections
668: of the process $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow \nu_{e} W^{-}_{H}$ for
669: $(p_{e},p_{\bar{e}})=(-0.8,0.6)$ and $(-0.8,-0.6)$ are larger than
670: those for $(p_{e},p_{\bar{e}})=(0,0)$ in all of the parameter
671: pace. For $0.3<c\leq 0.5$ and $1TeV\leq M_{W_{H}}\leq 2TeV$
672: allowed by the electroweak precision data, the values of the
673: single production cross sections for the heavy gauge boson
674: $W_{H}^{-}$ are in the ranges of $0.46fb\sim 60fb$ and $0.3fb\sim
675: 73fb$ for $(p_{e},p_{\bar{e}})=(-0.8,0.6)$ and $(-0.8,-0.6)$,
676: respectively. With reasonable values of the free parameters and a
677: appropriate cut on the $SM$ background $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow
678: W_{s}^{-}\nu_{e}\rightarrow l^{-}\nu\nu_{e}$, the value of
679: $N_{W_{H}}/\sqrt{B}$ can be significantly large. Thus, the
680: possible signals of the heavy gauge bosons $W_{H}^{\pm}$ might be
681: detected via polarized $e\gamma$ collisions in future $LC$
682: experiment with $\sqrt{S}=3TeV$ and $\pounds=500fb^{-1}$.
683:
684:
685: \vspace{0.5cm} \noindent{\bf Acknowledgments}
686:
687: This work was supported in part by Program for New Century
688: Excellent Talents in University(NCET-04-0290), the National
689: Natural Science Foundation of China under the grant No.10475037,
690: and the Natural Science Foundation of the Liaoning Scientific
691: Committee(20032101).
692:
693: \vspace{0.5cm}
694:
695: \newpage
696:
697: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
698:
699: \bibitem{1}
700: T. Abe et al. [American Linear Collider Group], {\em
701: hep-ex}/{\bf0106057}; J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra et al. [{\it
702: ECFA/DESY } LC Physics Working Group], {\em hep-ph}/{\bf 0106315}; K.
703: Abe et al., [{\it ACFA} Linear Collider Working Group
704: ], {\em hep-ph}/{\bf 0109166}; G. Laow et al.,
705: {\em ILC} Techinical Review Committee, second report, 2003,
706: SLAC-R-606; E. Accomando, et al. [CLIC Physics Working Group],
707: {\em hep-ph}/{\bf 0412251}.
708: \bibitem{2}
709: E. Boos et al., {\em Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A}{\bf
710: 472}(2001)100; B. Badelek et al. [{\it ECFA/DESY } Photon Collider
711: Working Group], {\em hep-ex}/{\bf0108012}; S. J. Brodsky, {\em
712: Intern. J. Mod. Phys. A}{\bf 18}(2003)2871.
713: \bibitem{3}
714: Chong-Xing Yue and Wei Wang, {\em Phys. Rev. D}{\bf71}(2005)015002.
715: \bibitem{4}
716: N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G. Cohen, E. Katz, A. E. Nelson, {\em JHEP}
717: {\bf 0207}(2002)034.
718:
719: \bibitem{5}
720: T. Omori et al, {\em Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A}{\bf
721: 500}(2003)232; G. Moortgat-Pick, {\em hep-ph}/{\bf0410118}.
722: \bibitem{6}
723: For recent review see: M.Schmaltz and D.Tucker-Smith, {\em hep-ph}/{\bf
724: 0502182}.
725: \bibitem{7}
726: T. Han, H. E. Logan, B. McElrath and L. T. Wang, {\em Phys. Rev.
727: D}{\bf 67}(2003)095004.
728: \bibitem{8}
729: F. M. Renard, {\it Z. Phys. C}{\bf 14}(1982)209; F. Cuypers, G. J.
730: van Oldenborgh, R. Ruckl, {\it Nucl. Phys. B}{\bf 383}(1992)45.
731: \bibitem{9}
732: M. Raidal, {\it Nucl. Phys. B}{\bf 441}(1995)49; E. M. Gregores,
733: M. C. Gonzalez-Carcia, and S. F. Novaes, {\em Phys. Rev. D}{\bf56}(1997)2920.
734: \bibitem{10}
735: I. F. Ginzburg et al., {\em Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A}{\bf
736: 219}(1984)5; V. I. Telnov, {\em Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A}{\bf294}(1990)72.
737: \bibitem{11}
738: H. -Y. Zhou et al., {\em Phys. Rev. D}{\bf57}(1998)4205; B. Zhang, Y. -N. Cao,
739: Yu-Ping Kuang, {\em Phys. Rev. D}{\bf 70}(2004)115012; J. -J. Cao, G. -L. Liu,
740: J. -M. Yang, {\it Eur. Phys. J.C} {\bf41}(2005)381.
741: \bibitem{12}
742: R. Casalbuoni, A. Deandrea, M. Oertel, {\bf JHEP 0402}(2004)032;
743: Mu-Chun Chen and S. Dawson, {\it Phys. Rev. D}{\bf70}(2004)015003;
744: Chong-Xing Yue and Wei Wang, {\it Nucl. Phys. B}{\bf
745: 683}(2004)48; W. Kilian and J. Reuter, {\it Phys. Rev. D}{\bf
746: 70}(2004)015004; A. Deandrea, {\it hep-ph}/{\bf 0405120}.
747: \bibitem{13}
748: S. Eidelman et al. [Particle Data Group], {\it Phys. Lett.
749: B}{\bf 592}(2004)1.
750:
751: \bibitem{14}
752: J. L. Hewett, F. J. Petriello and T. G. Rizzo, {\em JHEP} {\bf
753: 0310}(2003)062. C. Csaki, J.Hubisz, G. D. Kribs, P. Meade, and J.
754: Terning, {\it Phys. Rev. D}{\bf 67}(2003)115002.
755: \bibitem{15}
756: C. Csaki et al. {\it Phys. Rev. D}{\bf 68}(2003)035009. T. Gregoire,
757: D. R. Smith and J.
758: G. Wacker, {\it Phys. Rev. D}{\bf 69}(2004)115008.
759: \bibitem{16}
760: H. E. Logan, {\em hep-ph}/{\bf 0307340}; Chong-Xing Yue, Feng Zhang,
761: Wei Wang, {\it Chin. Phys. Lett.} {\bf 22}(2005)1083.
762: \bibitem{17}
763: G. Burdman, M. Perelstein and A. Pierce, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}
764: {\bf 90} (2003) 241802; T. Han. H. E. Logen, B. McElrath and L. T. Wang,
765: {\it Phys. Lett. B}{\bf 563}(2003)191; W. -J. Huo, S. -H.
766: Zhu, {\it Phys. Rev. D}{\bf 68}(2003)097301;
767: Chong-Xing Yue, Shun-Zhi Wang, Dong-Qi Yu, {\it Phys. Rev. D}{\bf
768: 68}(2003)115004; M. Perelstein, M. E. Peskin and A. Pierce, {\it Phys. Rev. D}{\bf
769: 69}(2004)075002; S. C. Park and J. Song, {\it Phys. Rev. D}{\bf
770: 69}(2004)115010; S. Chang, H.-J. He, {\it Phys. Lett. B}{\bf
771: 586}(2004)95; J. -J. Liu, et al., {\it Phys. Rev. D}{\bf
772: 70}(2004)015001; H. E. Logan, {\it Phys. Rev. D}{\bf 70}(2004)115003; Gi-Chol Cho
773: and Aya Omote, {\it Phys. Rev. D}{\bf 70}(2004)057701; G. A.
774: Gonzalez-Sprinberg, R. Martinez, and J.-Alexis Rodriguez,
775: {\em Phys. Rev. D}{\bf 71}(2005)035003;
776: Chong-Xing Yue, Wei Wang, Feng Zhang, {\it Nucl. Phys. B}{\bf 716}(2005)199.
777:
778: \end{thebibliography}
779: \end{document}
780: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
781: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%FIG.5%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
782: