1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: \chapter{Analysis}

3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4: The single $W$ boson production in $\gamma e^{-}\rightarrow W^{-}\nu_{e}$ interactions and $W$ boson pair production in $\gamma\gamma\rightarrow W^{-}W^{+}$ interactions, as well as corresponding background events, are studied on event samples generated with a tree-level Monte Carlo generator WHIZARD \cite{whizard}. Only the hadronic $W$ boson decay channels are considered (simulated), representing $\sim\,68\%$ of all single $W$ boson decay channels in $\gamma e$ collisions and $\sim\,45\%$ of all $WW$ decay channels in $\gamma\gamma$ collisions. The beam spectra in $\gamma e$- and $\gamma\gamma$-colliders at $\sqrt{s_{e^{-}e^{-}}}=500$ GeV are simulated with CIRCE2 \cite{circe2}. The response of the detector has been simulated with SIMDET \cite{simdet4}, a parametric Monte Carlo for the TESLA $e^{+}e^{-}$-detector.

5: \par

6: The hadronic decay channel of a single $W$ boson from $\gamma e^{-}$ collisions is used due to the impossibility to provide all necessary kinematical informations for its reconstruction if the semi-leptonic channel is used. The neutrino produced in a semi-leptonic channel and a variable energy spectrum leave a hadronic $W$ boson decay channel as the only possibility for its reconstruction. In the semi-leptonic decay channel of the $W$ boson pair, the reconstruction of $W$ bosons is still possible with some constraints but leading to worse resolutions. Thus, the hadronic $W$ boson decay channels are used in both cases.

7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

8: \section{Simulation Tools}

9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

10: \textbf{WHIZARD - W, HIggs, Z, And Respective Decays} \cite{whizard},

11: is a Monte Carlo generator for the calculation of multi-particle scattering cross-sections and simulated event samples in the Standard Model, created for studies that concern the physics at linear colliders. For the calculation of tree-level matrix elements WHIZARD uses the external generators O'Mega \cite{omega}, MadGraph \cite{madgraph} which support the beam polarizations and CompHEP \cite{comphep} where the beam polarizations are not taken into account. In this analysis mainly the O'Mega generator is used since it includes the Standard Model anomalous triple gauge boson couplings $g_{1}^{\gamma,Z},\kappa_{\gamma,Z}$ and $\lambda_{\gamma,Z}$. On the other hand, MadGraph can be used for an approximative simulation of QCD effects with the possibility to specify the order in the QCD coupling constant but the interference between different orders of QCD is not included. For the estimation of QCD backgrounds that originate from gluon splitting, the quark flavor summation is still not possible and the contribution from individual quark flavors should be calculated separately. The non-existence of full QCD calculations makes the estimation of the QCD effects incomplete.

12: \par

13: The beamstrahlung, the initial state radiation (ISR) and the beam spectra for the photon collider are included in WHIZARD. The ISR spectrum is calculated in the leading-logarithmic approximation taking the electron structure function from \cite{lipat} with the logarithmic terms up to ${\cal O}(\alpha^{3})$. 

14: \par

15: The event samples generated on the parton level are fragmented and hadronized with PYTHIA \cite{pythia} which uses the Lund string fragmentation scheme \cite{lund}, giving additional quarks, gluons and photons, radiated off the partons to form hadrons. The transition of the primary quarks to the observable hadrons starts with a parton shower i.e. a sequence of consecutive branchings of a mother parton into two daughter partons (some possible branchings of interest are $q\rightarrow qg$, $g\rightarrow gg$ and $g\rightarrow q\bar{q}$ included in PYTHIA). Each daughter is free to branch again in the same way, building a tree-like structure. Branching continues until a cut-off is reached, which is usually chosen to be of order of 1 GeV and gives soft daughter partons, almost collinear to a mother parton. This is not correct for the simulation of additional partons (gluons) with large transverse momentum leading to three or more distinct jets. A better description of branchings is achieved matching the parton shower and the pertubative matrix element calculations for three partons \cite{matching}. The additional weights derived from the three-parton matrix elements are included to the first branching in the shower. Besides the mass ordering in the parton shower, an angle ordering is applied leading to smaller opening angles in each branching relative to the previous one \cite{muller}. An approximative description of branching properties is to generate events with gluons and 'secondary' quarks in the final state using MadGraph (specifying the order in $\alpha_{s}$) and fragmenting them using the Lund string fragmentation scheme. The radiated hard gluons and 'secondary' quarks describe in a proper way distinct jets but an additional problem appears during the shower: the gluon emission is doubly counted since the gluons and 'secondary' quarks are regarded as partons.

16: \par

17: The hadronization in the Lund string scheme \cite{lund} assumes the existence of two quarks connected by the color flux tube like a rubber string and thus, it is called the string hadronization \cite{string}. When quark and anti-quark that form a string start to move apart, a color field between them increases and finally breaks a string. In fact, the color flux tube is interrupted by a virtual $q\bar{q}$ pair coming from the vacuum along the string. When a virtual $q\bar{q}$ pair fluctuates the color field is locally compensated\footnote{If a virtual $q\bar{q}$ pair has a same color as the quarks of the string.} and the string breaks into two pieces. This procedure repeats until the remaining energy of the strings is insufficient to transform a virtual $q\bar{q}$ pair into a real one. Then the string is transformed into hadrons. Hard gluons are included in the strings connecting two nearby quarks and appear as kinks in the string. The splitting of the string produces on-shell hadrons until the invariant mass of remaining string drops below a cut-off and the remainder is split into two on-shell hadrons.

18: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

19: \par

20: \textbf{CIRCE2} \cite{circe2}

21: is a fast parameterization of $\gamma e$ and $\gamma\gamma$ luminosity spectra at a photon collider, supported by the WHIZARD generator that uses adapted histograms of the luminosity distributions given by \cite{telnovv}. Simulated spectra include the effects of multiple interactions, non-linear effects taking into account an effective electron mass and multi-photon scattering, $e^{+}e^{-}$ pair creation in the conversion region for $x>$ 4.8, deflection by magnetic fields and synchrotron radiation in the region between the conversion region and the interaction point, coherent pair creation and beamstrahlung at the interaction point. In this study, it is assumed that the electron beams have 85$\%$ longitudinal polarization and that the laser photons have 100$\%$ circular polarization. A larger distance $b$ between the conversion region and the interaction point has been used for the simulation of $\gamma e$ spectra than for $\gamma\gamma$, in order to decrease the contribution of low energy photons to the $\gamma e$ luminosity spectrum.

22: \par

23: Since the beam spectra affect the sensitivity of experiments for the search of deviations from the Standard Model predictions, they have to be included into the simulation. The luminosity spectra used for the generation of $\gamma e^{-}\rightarrow W^{-}\nu_{e}$ events are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:lumi_ge}. The number of events is normalized to the signal cross-section given by the generator.

24: %

25: \begin{figure}[htb]

26: \begin{center}

27: \epsfxsize=3.0in

28: \epsfysize=3.0in

29: \epsfbox{ge_rl_real_a.eps}

30: \epsfxsize=3.0in

31: \epsfysize=3.0in

32: \epsfbox{ge_rl_parasitic_a.eps}

33: \caption[bla]{$\gamma e$ luminosity spectra (\textit{a}): for the real and (\textit{b}): for the parasitic $\gamma e$ mode, simulated with CIRCE2 for ${\sqrt{s_{ee}}=500}\,{\rm GeV}$. Red areas represent the $|J_{Z}|=1/2$ contribution while grey areas represent the total luminosity for both $J_{z}$ states.}

34: \label{fig:lumi_ge}

35: \end{center}

36: \end{figure}

37: %

38: Assuming an integrated luminosity of 71 fb$^{-1}$ in the region $\sqrt{s_{\gamma e}}\geq 0.8\sqrt{s_{\gamma e}(max)}$ about 3$\cdot 10^{6}$ $W$ bosons in hadronic decay channel will be produced in the real mode in the $|J_{Z}|=3/2$ state. Assuming an integrated luminosity of 52 fb$^{-1}$ in the region $\sqrt{s_{\gamma e}}\geq 0.8\sqrt{s_{\gamma e}(max)}$ about 2.5$\cdot 10^{6}$ $W$ bosons in the hadronic decay channel will be produced in the parasitic mode in the $|J_{Z}|=3/2$ state with highly polarized beams assuming 100$\%$ detector acceptance.

39: \par

40: The luminosity spectra used for the generation of $\gamma\gamma\rightarrow W^{-}W^{+}$ events are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:lumi_gg}. The number of events is normalized to the signal cross-section given by the generator. Assuming an integrated luminosity of 127 fb$^{-1}$ in the region $\sqrt{s_{\gamma\gamma}}\geq 0.8\sqrt{s_{\gamma\gamma}(max)}$ about 4.3$\cdot 10^{6}$ $W$ boson pairs will be produced in the $J_{Z}=0$ state and about 4$\cdot 10^{6}$ $W$ boson pairs will be produced in the $|J_{Z}|=2$ state in the hadronic decay channel with highly polarized beams assuming 100$\%$ detector acceptance.

41: \par

42: All previously mentioned integrated luminosities correspond to one year (10$^{7}$s) of running of an $\gamma e/\gamma\gamma$-collider.

43: %

44: \begin{figure}[htb]

45: \begin{center}

46: \epsfxsize=3.0in

47: \epsfysize=3.0in

48: \epsfbox{gg_j0_a.eps}

49: \epsfxsize=3.0in

50: \epsfysize=3.0in

51: \epsfbox{gg_j2_a.eps}

52: \caption[bla]{$\gamma\gamma$ luminosity spectra (\textit{a}): for the dominating $J_{Z}=0$ state (grey is the total luminosity for both $J_{Z}$) with a $|J_{Z}|=2$ contribution in blue and (\textit{b}): for the dominating $|J_{Z}|=2$ state (grey is the total luminosity for both $J_{Z}$ states) with a $J_{Z}=0$ contribution in red, simulated with CIRCE2 for ${\sqrt{s_{ee}}=500}\,{\rm GeV}$.}

53: \label{fig:lumi_gg}

54: \end{center}

55: \end{figure}

56: %

57: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

58: %\item \textbf{SIMDET Version 4}, \\

59: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

60: \par

61: \textbf{SIMDET Version 4} \cite{simdet4}

62: is a fast simulation tool for an $e^{+}e^{-}$ linear collider detector treating the detector respond in a realistic manner using a parameterization from the $ab$ $initio$ simulation from Monte Carlo program BRAHMS \cite{brahms} that uses GEANT3 \cite{geant3} as a detector simulation. The basic components of the simulated detector are a vertex detector, tracker system (central, intermediate and forward), electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeter, low-angle tagger \cite{tdr4} and low-angle luminosity calorimeter \cite{tdr4}. The output of the simulation is defined as an energy flow object, consisting of electrons, photons, muons, charged and neutral hadrons, and unresolved clusters that deposit energy in the calorimeters. SIMDET also supports external event generators that can be included as well as background events to be overlayed to each processed event. In this analysis only the energy flow objects with a polar angle above $7^{\circ}$ are taken for the $W$ boson reconstruction simulating the acceptance of the photon collider detector as the only difference to the $e^{+}e^{-}$-detector \cite{klaus1}. The low-angle tagger and low-angle luminosity calorimeter are not used since their covering angles are about 30 mrad and they are not foreseen to be implemented inside the $\gamma\gamma$-detector. The best estimates for the energy flow objects are stored such that the physics analysis package VECSUB \cite{vecsub} can be used directly.

63: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

64: \section{$\gamma e^{-}\rightarrow W^{-}\nu_{e}$}

65: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

66: In the case of $\gamma e^{-}\rightarrow W^{-}\nu_{e}$ interactions, hadronic $W$ boson events are characterized by two-jets in the final state ($q^{'}\bar{q}$) and missing momentum due to the neutrino. Only the initial state $|J_{Z}|=3/2$ is considered since it has been found to be more sensitive to anomalous couplings than the state $|J_{Z}|=1/2$. A first event sample is generated on parton level at a fixed center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=450$ GeV using 100$\%$ polarized beams and the ISR with a cut-off energy for the soft-photon radiation $\Delta E=1$ GeV. The second sample is generated on parton level too, using CIRCE2 beam spectra.

67: %

68: \begin{figure}[h]

69: \begin{center}

70: \epsfxsize=3.0in

71: \epsfysize=3.0in

72: \epsfbox{ge_new_eg.eps}

73: \epsfxsize=3.0in

74: \epsfysize=3.0in

75: \epsfbox{gg_new_eg.eps}

76: \caption[bla]{(\textit{a}): $\gamma e$ luminosity spectrum (white) in the real mode - the grey colored area is the contribution from the total $e\gamma$ luminosity spectrum while the blue area is the contribution from the $|J_{Z}|=3/2$ state of the $e\gamma$ spectrum. (\textit{b}): $\gamma e$ luminosity spectrum (black solid line) in the parasitic mode - the red hatched area is the contribution from the total $e\gamma$ luminosity spectrum while the blue area is the contribution from the $|J_{Z}|=3/2$ state of the $e\gamma$ spectrum.}

77: \label{fig:egamma}

78: \end{center}

79: \end{figure}

80: %

81: In the parasitic mode where $\gamma\gamma$ spectra optimized for $|J_{Z}|=2$ are used (left-handed electrons from one side and right-handed electrons from the opposite side), in addition to $\gamma e$ collisions the contribution from collisions of unconverted electrons and Compton backscattered photons is encountered using the $e\gamma$ spectrum for event generation. The contributing $|J_{Z}|=3/2$ part of the $e\gamma$ spectrum is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:egamma}\,$b$ in blue while the total $e\gamma$ luminosity spectrum is colored in red (hatched). Since the $\gamma e$ and $e\gamma$ luminosity spectra are the same the total number of events in the parasitic mode is the sum of both contributions according to their cross-sections. The ratio of the cross-sections is $\sigma_{\gamma e}/\sigma_{e\gamma}\approx$ 5.9 due to the small fraction of unconverted left-handed electrons in $e\gamma$ collisions. In the real mode, where only one electron beam is converted into high energy photons, the $\gamma e$ luminosity dominates over the $e\gamma$ luminosity almost in the whole energy region and $|J_{Z}|=3/2$ state dominates over the $|J_{Z}|=1/2$ state (Fig.~\ref{fig:lumi_ge}\,$a$). The Fig.~\ref{fig:egamma}\,$a$ shows that in the real mode the $e\gamma$ luminosity spectrum is positioned at low center-of-mass energies since the photons are coming from the bremsstrahlung and not from the Compton backscattering. This contribution is thus neglected. A schematic representation of $\gamma e$ and $e\gamma$ contributions in both modes is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:scheme_eg}. 

82: %

83: \begin{figure}[h]

84: \begin{center}

85: \epsfxsize=2.5in

86: \epsfysize=1.25in

87: \epsfbox{real_ge1.eps}

88: \epsfxsize=2.5in

89: \epsfysize=1.25in

90: \epsfbox{parasitic_ge1.eps}

91: \epsfxsize=2.5in

92: \epsfysize=1.25in

93: \epsfbox{real_ge2.eps}

94: \epsfxsize=2.5in

95: \epsfysize=1.25in

96: \epsfbox{parasitic_ge2.eps}

97: \caption[bla]{The starting assumption is that the electrons are 85$\%$ polarized. (\textit{a-b}): Photon - electron interactions that contribute to the luminosity spectrum in the real mode. The upper diagrams in $(a)$ and $(b)$ contribute to the $\gamma e$ spectrum with photons from the Compton backscattering while the lower ones in $(a)$ and $(b)$ contribute to the $e\gamma$ spectrum where bremsstrahlung photons are emitted from the electron beams. (\textit{c-d}): Photon - electron interactions that contribute to the luminosity spectrum in the parasitic mode. The upper diagrams in $(c)$ are $\gamma\gamma$ collisions with the appropriate $J_{Z}$ state ($|J_{Z}|=2$) to ensure the high energy peak for $|J_{Z}|=3/2$ in $\gamma e$ collisions. The second one in $(c)$ and the first one in $(d)$ represent photon - electron interactions in the parasitic mode with unconverted electrons and contribute to the $\gamma e$ spectrum. The third one in $(c)$ and the second one in $(d)$ represent photon - electron interactions in the parasitic mode with unconverted electrons contributing to the $e\gamma$ spectrum.}

98: \label{fig:scheme_eg}

99: \end{center}

100: \end{figure}

101: %

102: \par

103: These events are fragmented and hadronized and passed the detector simulation with and without the corresponding number of pileup events. All events are generated using the O'Mega matrix element generator. The informations about the neutral particles from the calorimeter and tracks from the tracking detector are used to reconstruct the signal and background events. The considered backgrounds depend on the two different modes of the $\gamma e$-collider.

104: \par

105: For the real $\gamma e$ mode the considered backgrounds are the following:

106: \begin{enumerate}

107: \item ${e}{\gamma}{\rightarrow}{e}{Z} {\rightarrow}e {q}{\bar{q}}$ \\

108: events are characterized by two jets originating from the $Z$ boson and can be easily detected due to the high energy isolated electron in the final state. At high energies the $Z$ decay products are distributed along the incident electron, i.e. over the angular region opposite to the signal $W$ bosons \cite{renard}, while the electron can be lost in the beam-pipe or emitted in the dead region of the detector. In order to estimate the contribution of this background in case when the electron cannot be detected, these events are simulated with a kinematic cut which allows only production of electrons at low angles, below $15^\circ$. The preselection cut used to reduce the background contributing to this channel was to reject events with a high energetic electron ($\geq 100\, {\rm GeV}$) in the detector. By this cut $33\%$ of the background events are rejected not affecting the signal efficiency.

109: \item ${\gamma}(e^-){\gamma}{\rightarrow}{q}{\bar{q}}$ \\

110: ($|J_{Z}|=2$) has a large cross-section compared to the signal and represents the interaction between a real, high energy photon and a virtual bremsstrahlung photon. These events are characterized with two-jets in the final state with low invariant masses and thus, the cut on the $W$ boson mass is found to be efficient to reject the largest part of this background.

111: \end{enumerate}

112: \par

113: Additional backgrounds considered for the parasitic $\gamma e$ mode are the following:

114: \begin{enumerate}

115: \item ${\gamma}{\gamma}{\rightarrow}{W}{W}$ \\

116: where one $W$ boson decays leptonically and the other $W$ boson decays hadronically. These events are characterized by two jets in the final state, missing momentum due to the neutrino and by an isolated lepton, $e^{\pm}$ or $\mu^{\pm}$ while the $\tau^{\pm}$ lepton can also decay hadronically. $e^{\pm}$ and $\mu^{\pm}$ originate either from the $W$ boson decay or from the cascade decay of the $W$ boson through a $\tau^{\pm}$ lepton. To reduce the background contributing from this channel in each event it is searched for a lepton in the detector with an energy higher than $5\,{\rm GeV}$. For these leptons a cone of $60^{\circ}$ is defined around their flight directions and the energies of all particles (excluding the lepton) are summed inside the cone. Events with energies smaller than $20\,{\rm GeV}$ were rejected. This cut rejects $\sim70\%$ (without pileup) i.e., $\sim60\%$ (with pileup) of the semileptonic $WW$ background events, not affecting the signal efficiency.

117: \item ${\gamma}{\gamma}{\rightarrow}{q}{\bar{q}}$ \\

118: ($|J_{Z}|=2$) has a large cross-section compared to the signal and represents the interaction between the two real photons. These events are characterized by two jets in the final state.

119: \end{enumerate}

120: \par

121: Due to the different $\gamma\gamma$ luminosities in the two $\gamma e$ modes, the pileup contribution to each mode is different - 1.2 events per bunch crossing for the real mode and 1.8 events per bunch crossing for the parasitic mode and has been included in the simulation of signal and background \cite{schulte}.

122: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

123: \section{$\gamma\gamma\rightarrow W^{+}W^{-}$}

124: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

125: In the case of $\gamma\gamma\rightarrow W^{+}W^{-}$ interactions, the events of the hadronic $WW$ decay channel are characterized by four jets in the final state. For both initial states $J_{Z}=0$ and $|J_{Z}|=2$, the signal events are generated on parton level at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=400$ and 800 GeV, using 100$\%$ polarized beams. The signal events are also generated on parton level using CIRCE2 beam spectra with mixed $J_{Z}$ contributions as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:lumi_gg}. This means that the total cross-section receives a contribution from both $J_{Z}$ states. If the $J_{Z}=0$ state is simulated it contains the $|J_{Z}|=2$ contribution (Fig.~\ref{fig:lumi_gg}\,$a$) and vice-versa (Fig.~\ref{fig:lumi_gg}\,$b$), if not stated differently. These events are fragmented and hadronized, and passed through the detector simulation with and without the pileup events. All signal events are generated using the O'Mega matrix element generator.

126: \par

127: For both initial $J_{Z}$ states the main background comes from $\gamma\gamma\rightarrow q\bar{q}$ events that can mimic the signal, i.e. the four-jet events, when gluons are radiated in the final state. The $\gamma\gamma\rightarrow q\bar{q}$ events are generated with the O'Mega matrix element generator for both $J_{Z}$ states. In the $|J_{Z}|=2$ state the QCD correction to the Born level cross-section is proportional to $\alpha_{s}$ as $(1+k\alpha_{s}/\pi)$ ($\sigma_{2}^{QCD}\sim\sigma_{2}^{0}(1+k\alpha_{s}/\pi)$, with $k$ being of ${\cal O}$(1)). The gluon radiation off the quarks in the final state is well described by Lund parton shower method implemented in PYTHIA\footnote{Matching between the parton shower and the matrix element calculations for three partons.} giving a correction of approximatively 4-5$\%$ to the Born level cross-section. In the used CIRCE2 beam spectrum in Fig.~\ref{fig:lumi_gg}\,$b$, the $|J_{Z}|=2$ state dominantly contributes to the total cross-section while the contribution from the $J_{Z}=0$ state is highly suppressed by a factor $(m_{q}^{2}/s)$ \cite{melles,tkabla} and does not contribute to the total cross-section at the tree-level.

128: \par

129: The next-to leading (NLO) QCD correction to the Born level cross-section, calculated using the three parton matrix elements for $\gamma\gamma\rightarrow q\bar{q}g$ in the $J_{Z}=0$ state, can be larger due to the suppression factor $(m_{q}^{2}/s)$ \cite{fadin}. The higher order radiative corrections $\sim(\alpha_{s}\log^{2}(s/m_{q}^{2}))^{n}$, so called the non-Sudakov double logarithms, are present at each order of perturbation theory. If resummed to all orders they remove that suppression \cite{removal}. At one-loop level, leading $\log^{2}(s/m_{q}^{2})$-terms can lead to a negative cross-section in some restricted phase-space regions (all three contributions, lowest order\footnote{The Born level contribution.}, virtual\footnote{The interference term between one-loop and the tree-level contribution.} and gluon emission\footnote{The tree-level contribution from quark pair production accompanied by gluon emission $\gamma\gamma\rightarrow q\bar{q}g$ well described by the parton shower model in PYTHIA.} are of the same order of magnitude if a small $y_{cut}$ is used) and thus, higher order contributions have to be included to give a well defined and positive cross-section, which is already restored at the two-loop level. This also could be cured if the full NLO calculations would be taken into account. From the theoretical predictions it is found that these corrections might be comparable or even larger than the Born level cross-section for heavy quark production ($c\bar{c}/b\bar{b}$ pair production) \cite{tkabla}. The heavy quark mass acts as an effective infrared cut-off for the double logarithms while for the light quark masses the $y_{cut}$ parameter regulates divergencies. In this analysis massless quarks are assumed, except the $b$ quarks which are assumed to be massive.

130: \par

131: Thus, the NLO QCD correction to the tree-level cross-section in the $J_{Z}=0$ state can be expressed as $\sigma_{0}^{QCD}\sim\sigma_{0}^{0}(1+j\alpha_{s}/\pi)$ with $j>k$, where $j$ is a correction that contains double logarithmic terms. The relative QCD correction in the $J_{Z}=0$ state is expected to be larger than in the $|J_{Z}|=2$ state and cannot be described just by the Lund parton shower model that gives a correction of 4-5$\%$.

132: %

133: \begin{figure}[h]

134: \begin{center}

135: \epsfxsize=2.5in

136: \epsfysize=1.25in

137: \epsfbox{gg_qq_qed.eps}

138: \epsfxsize=2.5in

139: \epsfysize=1.25in

140: \epsfbox{gg_qq_qcd1.eps}

141: \epsfxsize=2.5in

142: \epsfysize=1.25in

143: \epsfbox{gg_qq_qcd2.eps}

144: \epsfxsize=2.5in

145: \epsfysize=1.25in

146: \epsfbox{gg_qq_qcd3.eps}

147: \epsfxsize=2.5in

148: \epsfysize=1.25in

149: \epsfbox{gg_qq_qcd4.eps}

150: \epsfxsize=2.5in

151: \epsfysize=1.25in

152: \epsfbox{gg_qq_qcd5.eps}

153: \caption[bla]{(\textit{a}): Lowest order QCD diagram for $\gamma\gamma\rightarrow q\bar{q}$ simulated with O'Mega matrix element generator. (\textit{b-c}): Diagrams of ${\cal O}(\alpha_{s})$ leading to the three-jet final state and thus, not included into simulation. (\textit{d-f}): Diagrams of ${\cal O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ leading to the four-jet final state, simulated with MadGraph matrix element generator.}

154: \label{fig:qcd}

155: \end{center}

156: \end{figure}

157: %

158: \par

159: Due to the lack of generators that calculate all QCD diagrams together, in order to estimate $\sigma_{0}^{QCD}$, the QCD correction for $\gamma\gamma\rightarrow q\bar{q}$ in the $J_{Z}=0$ state is approximated by the diagrams of ${\cal O}$($\alpha_{s}^{2}$) in the following way: the QCD contribution from each quark flavor is simulated separately using the MadGraph matrix element generator which includes double logarithms and the pure $J_{Z}=0$ luminosity spectrum (without the $|J_{Z}|=2$ contribution). The correction includes the diagrams with an emission of one or two (virtual or real) gluons in the final state shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:qcd}\,$d,e,f$. These are events that result in four distinct jets in the final state and can mimic a signal events - two gluon emission $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow q\bar{q}gg$ and the production of 'secondary' quarks $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow q\bar{q}(g\rightarrow)q\bar{q}$, originating from gluon splitting. The $y_{cut}$ cut parameter ($(p_{a}+p_{b})^{2}>y_{cut}s$; $a,b=q,\bar{q},g/q,g/\bar{q}$) for a variable center-of-mass energy $s$ is defined by generating only events with invariant masses of each parton pair (two-quark, two-gluon or quark-gluon pairs) above 30 GeV. The events are fragmented in the same way as the background for the $|J_{Z}|=2$ state, i.e. a double counting of the gluon emission from the Lund parton shower is included. Then, the $\gamma\gamma\rightarrow q\bar{q}$ events generated with O'Mega generator in the $J_{Z}=0$ state with a $|J_{Z}|=2$ contribution and fragmented with PYTHIA, are added to the QCD ones.

160: \par

161: The tree-level diagram which is taken into account with O'Mega for both $J_{Z}$ states is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:qcd}\,$a$. Diagrams of ${\cal O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ taken into account with MadGraph are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:qcd}\,$d,e,f$ while the diagrams in Fig.~\ref{fig:qcd}\,$b,c$ are included by parton shower model. This QCD estimation is just an approximative one performed in order not to underestimate the background contribution in the $J_{Z}=0$ state. For the full simulation signal and background events are overlayed with 1.8 pileup events per bunch crossing.

162: %\newpage

163: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

164: \section{Pileup Rejection}

165: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

166: In order to simulate realistic physical conditions at photon colliders, the low energy $\gamma\gamma$ events that can produce hadrons (pileup) are mixed with high energy events taking them from a database \cite{schulte}. The pileup contribution depends on the running mode of the collider. For the real $\gamma e$ mode, the pileup contributes with 1.2 events per bunch crossing while in the parasitic $\gamma e$ mode, i.e. in the $\gamma\gamma$ mode, pileup contributes with 1.8 events per bunch crossing. As a consequence of their presence, the angular distributions of signal events are distorted and thus, the angular resolutions are worse. This is reflected in the estimated errors making them larger. Thus, the goal is to minimize the pileup contribution, to restore the corresponding $W$ boson distributions and to increase the efficiency of the signal.

167: \par  

168: In order to minimize the pileup contribution to the high energy signal tracks the first step in the separation procedure was to reject pileup tracks as much as possible. The measurement of the impact parameter of a particle along the beam axis ($z$ axis) with respect to the primary vertex is used for this purpose\footnote{This impact parameter is defined as a $z-$coordinate of the impact point in the $x-y$ plane.}. The logic comes from the fact that the pileup tracks do not originate from the same interaction point as the signal tracks. Thus, their impact parameters should differ from the impact parameters of signal tracks and that information can serve for their identification.

169: %

170: \begin{figure}[p]

171: \begin{center}

172: \epsfxsize=3.0in

173: \epsfysize=3.0in

174: \epsfbox{fig1_gg2.eps}

175: \epsfxsize=3.0in

176: \epsfysize=3.0in

177: \epsfbox{vertex_tracks.eps}

178: \epsfxsize=3.0in

179: \epsfysize=3.0in

180: \epsfbox{fig3_gg2.eps}

181: \epsfxsize=3.0in

182: \epsfysize=3.0in

183: \epsfbox{fig5_gg2.eps}

184: \caption[bla]

185: {(\textit{a}): Simulated primary vertex distribution $PV^{sim}$ per event, projected onto the beam axis. (\textit{b}): Reconstructed primary vertex distribution $PV^{reco}$ per event projected onto the beam axis, using the measurements from the vertex detector. Plot shows the difference between $PV^{reco}$ per event if the pileup is taken into account (red) and without (yellow). (\textit{c}): Normalized $I_{Z}^{reco}$ of good (blue) and bad (red) tracks in event as a deviation from $PV^{reco}$. (\textit{d}): Separation efficiency for signal (good tracks, blue) and pileup (bad tracks, red) tracks for $I_{XY}\leq 2\sigma_{XY}$.}

186: \label{fig:bspot}

187: \end{center}

188: \end{figure}

189: %

190: \par

191: The beamspot length of 300 $\mu$m, foreseen for TESLA, is simulated and shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:bspot}\,$a$, representing the Gaussian distribution of primary vertices per event along the \textit{z}-axis, $PV^{sim}$. This distribution is used as a reference to check the 'quality' of reconstructed vertices using the information about track positions and momenta from the detector. Using the precise measurements from the vertex detector, first the primary vertex of an event is reconstructed as the momentum weighted average $z$-impact parameter, $PV^{reco}$ of all tracks in the event. $PV^{reco}$ per event shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:bspot}\,$b$, is in good agreement with $PV^{sim}$. The deviation from $PV^{reco}$ per event differs if there are pileup tracks leading to a broader distribution than if the events do not contain the pileup tracks, as it is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:bspot}\,$b$. Using $PV^{reco}$, the impact parameters $I_{Z}^{reco}$ of all tracks are recalculated. Having in mind that the tracks can originate from secondary vertices too, only the tracks with transversal impact parameter $I_{XY}$ normalized to its error $\sigma_{XY}$ fullfilling $|I_{XY}/\sigma_{XY}|\leq$ 2 are assumed to originate from the primary vertex. That value came out as a result of the optimization that assumed the rejection of pileup tracks as much as possible while retaining many signal tracks. Their distribution in $I_{Z}^{reco}$ normalized to its error $\sigma_{Z}$, is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:bspot}\,$c$. The high Gaussian distribution belongs to the signal tracks while the lower spreaded distribution comes from the pileup tracks. Selecting the tracks with $|I_{Z}^{reco}|\leq 2\sigma_{Z}$ a large fraction of pileup tracks can be rejected. The separation efficiency is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:bspot}\,$d$; with this cut about $\sim 60-65\,{\%}$ of the pileup tracks and only $\sim 10-15\,{\%}$ of the signal tracks are rejected, for all considered $\gamma e$ and $\gamma\gamma$ modes. All tracks with $|I_{XY}/\sigma_{XY}|>$ 2 are accepted since they could originate from a secondary vertex of a signal. All neutral particles are accepted since information about them can not be obtained from the vertex detector.

192: %

193: \begin{figure}[p]

194: \begin{center}

195: \epsfxsize=3.0in

196: \epsfysize=3.0in

197: \epsfbox{fig1a_geeg.eps}

198: \epsfxsize=3.0in

199: \epsfysize=3.0in

200: \epsfbox{fig1b_geeg.eps}

201: \epsfxsize=3.0in

202: \epsfysize=3.0in

203: \epsfbox{fig1a_ge.eps}

204: \epsfxsize=3.0in

205: \epsfysize=3.0in

206: \epsfbox{fig1b_ge.eps}

207: \caption[bla]{Angle of the track/neutral particle with the beam axis versus their angle with the reconstructed $W$ direction (\textit{a}): for signal only in the parasitic $\gamma e$ mode, (\textit{b}): for signal plus pileup in the parasitic $\gamma e$ mode (\textit{c}): for signal only in the real $\gamma e$ mode, (\textit{d}): for signal plus pileup in the real $\gamma e$ mode. The tracks/neutral particles in the region above the line shown in (\textit{b}) and (\textit{d}) are rejected in the analysis.}

208: \label{fig:tracksge}

209: \end{center}

210: \end{figure}

211: %

212: \par

213: Concerning the $\gamma e$ modes, a further pileup rejection is based on reconstruction of the angle of each track/neutral (energy flow objects, EFOs) particle with respect to the \textit{z}-axis and the angle between the EFO and the flight direction of the reconstructed $W$ boson shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:tracksge}. Rejecting the EFOs positioned in the area shown in ($b$) for the parasitic $\gamma e$ mode and ($d$) for the real $\gamma e$ mode it is possible to decrease a part of the pileup contribution to the signal events. These are basically, the EFOs with a small angle related to the beam axis and large angle related to the $W$ boson direction. Those which are close to the $W$ boson flight direction can not be separated from signal tracks. Previously described pileup rejection in single $W$ production is not applicable for $W$ boson pair production since two $W$ bosons are in the opposite flight directions related to the beam axis. Consequently, the region which is excluded in the $\gamma e$ mode would be the region of other $W$ boson direction in the $\gamma\gamma$ mode.

214: \par

215: The different steps during the separation procedure for the real and parasitic

216: $\gamma e$ mode are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:comparison}. Adding the low energy pileup events, they contribute through the tail in the high mass and high energy region. 

217: %

218: \begin{figure}[p]

219: \begin{center}

220: \epsfxsize=3.0in

221: \epsfysize=3.0in

222: \epsfbox{mass_bck_real.eps}

223: \epsfxsize=3.0in

224: \epsfysize=3.0in

225: \epsfbox{energ_bck_real.eps}

226: \epsfxsize=3.0in

227: \epsfysize=3.0in

228: \epsfbox{mass_bck_paras.eps}

229: \epsfxsize=3.0in

230: \epsfysize=3.0in

231: \epsfbox{energ_bck_paras.eps}

232: \caption[bla]{(\textit{a}): Mass and (\textit{b}): energy distributions of the reconstructed $W$ boson for the real $\gamma e$ mode during the different steps in the track/neutral particle rejection. (\textit{c}): Mass and (\textit{d}): energy distributions of the reconstructed $W$ boson for the parasitic $\gamma e$ mode during the different steps in the track/neutral particle rejection. Initial shape (green-1) without any rejection, after the track rejection using \textit{$I_{Z}$} (red-2) and final shape (blue-3) after the track/neutral particle rejection shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:tracksge}\,$b,d$.}

233: \label{fig:comparison}

234: \end{center}

235: \end{figure}

236: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

237: \section{Event Selection}

238: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

239: After the pileup rejection, the remaining tracks of the event are collected and the analysis is done on the 'event level' applying several successive cuts. A cluster analysis i.e. determination of the number of jets present in the event and reconstruction of the corresponding jet axes is done using the Lund clustering algorithm \cite{algorithm} incorporated in the VECSUB package.

240: \par

241: In the single $W$ boson production channel (two-jet events), the background is rejected applying the same cuts for the real and parasitic $\gamma e$ mode. In order to separate the signal events from the background the events with a number of EFOs larger than 10 and number of charged tracks larger than 5 are accepted only. In addition to the vetos on high energy and isolated leptons cuts on two reconstructed variables, the energy ($100\,{\rm GeV} - 250\,{\rm GeV}$) and the mass ($60\,{\rm GeV} - 100\,{\rm GeV}$) of the reconstructed $W$ boson are applied and shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cuts_real_ge} and Fig.~\ref{fig:cuts_parasitic_ge}. In the real $\gamma e$ mode the ratio of background to signal events is $N_{B}/N_{S}\approx$ 5.4 before the cuts are applied. After the energy cut the ratio is $N_{B}/N_{S}\approx$ 1.8 and $N_{B}/N_{S}\approx$ 0.56 after the mass cut. In the parasitic $\gamma e$ mode the ratio of background to signal events is $N_{B}/N_{S}\approx$ 6.9 before the cuts are applied. After the energy cut the ratio is $N_{B}/N_{S}\approx$ 2.6 and $N_{B}/N_{S}\approx$ 1.07 after the mass cut. The final angular distributions of signal and background events for both $\gamma e$ modes are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:compare_ge}.

242: %

243: \begin{figure}[p]

244: \begin{center}

245: \epsfxsize=6.5in

246: \epsfysize=6.5in

247: \epsfbox{cuts_real_ge.eps}

248: \caption[bla]{Separation of the signal $\gamma e\rightarrow \nu_{e} W$ in the real $\gamma e$ mode (first column) from the background (second column ($\gamma e\rightarrow eZ$) and third column ($\gamma(e^{-})\gamma\rightarrow q\bar{q}$). First row: Energy spectrum of the hadronic final states - the energy cut selects the range between 100 GeV and 250 GeV. Second row: Mass spectrum of the hadronic final states - the mass cut selects the range between 60 GeV and 100 GeV. The ratio of background to signal events is $N_{B}/N_{S}\approx$ 5.4 before the cuts are applied, after the energy cut the ratio is $N_{B}/N_{S}\approx$ 1.8 and $N_{B}/N_{S}\approx$ 0.56 after the mass cut.}

249: \label{fig:cuts_real_ge}

250: \end{center}

251: \end{figure}

252: %

253: \begin{figure}[p]

254: \begin{center}

255: \epsfxsize=6.5in

256: \epsfysize=6.5in

257: \epsfbox{cuts_parasitic_ge.eps}

258: \caption[bla]{Separation of the signal $\gamma e\rightarrow \nu_{e} W$ in the parasitic $\gamma e$ mode (first column) from the background (second column ($\gamma\gamma\rightarrow q\bar{q}$) and third column ($\gamma\gamma\rightarrow WW(q\bar{q}l\nu_{l})$) separation. First row: Energy spectrum of the hadronic final states - the energy cut selects the range between 100 GeV and 250 GeV. Second row: Mass spectrum of the hadronic final states - the mass cut selects the range between 60 GeV and 100 GeV. The ratio of background to signal events is $N_{B}/N_{S}\approx$ 6.9 before the cuts are applied, after the energy cut the ratio is $N_{B}/N_{S}\approx$ 2.6 and $N_{B}/N_{S}\approx$ 1.07 after the mass cut.}

259: \label{fig:cuts_parasitic_ge}

260: \end{center}

261: \end{figure}

262: %

263: \begin{figure}[htb]

264: \begin{center}

265: \epsfxsize=3.0in

266: \epsfysize=3.0in

267: \epsfbox{compare_all_real.eps}

268: \epsfxsize=3.0in

269: \epsfysize=3.0in

270: \epsfbox{compare_all_parasitic.eps}

271: \caption[bla]{Signal and background distributions for $\gamma e\rightarrow W\nu_{e}$ as a function of the $W$ production angle. The different processes are normalized to the same luminosity. The blue area represents the signal. (\textit{a}): The real $\gamma e$ mode. The red contribution corresponds to ${\gamma}(e^-){\gamma}{\rightarrow}{q}{\bar{q}}$ processes and the yellow one corresponds to $\gamma e\rightarrow eZ$. (\textit{b}): The parasitic $\gamma e$ mode. The yellow contribution corresponds to ${\gamma}{\gamma}{\rightarrow}{W}{W}$ while the red one corresponds to ${\gamma}{\gamma}{\rightarrow}{q}{\bar{q}}$ processes.}

272: \label{fig:compare_ge}

273: \end{center}

274: \end{figure}

275: %

276: The efficiency obtained for the real mode is $73\,{\%}$ with a purity of $64\,{\%}$. In the parasitic mode, due to the fact that the pileup is larger than in the case of the real mode, the efficiency is $66\,{\%}$ with a purity of $49\,{\%}$. Background events are mostly distributed close to the beam pipe and an additional cut on the $W$ production angle is applied in order to increase the purity of the signal in both modes. Events in the region below $5^{\circ}$ are rejected leading to a purity of $95\,{\%}$ for the real mode and $72\,{\%}$ for the parasitic mode. This cut has only a small influence on the signal resulting in efficiencies of $70\,{\%}$ and $63\,{\%}$ for the real and parasitic mode, respectively.

277: \par

278: Concerning the $W$ boson pair production (four-jet events), after the rejection of the pileup tracks, the same cuts for background event rejection are applied for both $J_{Z}$ states. Four-jet events are characterized by a high multiplicity so that this feature is used as a first selection criterium to reject the background events. The events are accepted if their number of EFOs is larger than 40 and the number of charged tracks larger than 20. The two-dimensional distribution of the number of EFOs and tracks per event for the $|J_{Z}|=2$ state is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:nct_efo_gg}\,$a$ for signal and in Fig.~\ref{fig:nct_efo_gg}\,$b$ for background.

279: %

280: \begin{figure}[htb]

281: \begin{center}

282: \epsfxsize=3.0in

283: \epsfysize=3.0in

284: \epsfbox{nct_ww_j2.eps}

285: \epsfxsize=3.0in

286: \epsfysize=3.0in

287: \epsfbox{nct_qq_j2.eps}

288: \caption[bla]{Number of EFOs ($x$-axis) and tracks ($y$-axis) per event in $|J_{Z}|=2$ state for (\textit{a}): signal and (\textit{b}): background. Events with number of EFOs $<$ 40 and tracks $<$ 20 are rejected.}

289: \label{fig:nct_efo_gg}

290: \end{center}

291: \end{figure}

292: %

293: \begin{figure}[htb]

294: \begin{center}

295: \epsfxsize=2.in

296: \epsfysize=2.in

297: \epsfbox{pairing_ww1.eps}

298: \epsfxsize=2.in

299: \epsfysize=2.in

300: \epsfbox{pairing_ww2.eps}

301: \epsfxsize=2.in

302: \epsfysize=2.in

303: \epsfbox{boost_ww.eps}

304: \caption[bla]{(\textit{a-b}): Reconstructed $W$ boson masses in $J_{Z}=0$ state after the jet pairing. (\textit{c}): Reconstructed angular distributions for forward (full colored) and backward (hatched colored) $W$ boson in $J_{Z}=0$ state.}

305: \label{fig:pairing}

306: \end{center}

307: \end{figure}

308: %

309: \begin{figure}[htb]

310: \begin{center}

311: \epsfxsize=3.0in

312: \epsfysize=3.0in

313: \epsfbox{coswg_ww_1da_j2.eps}

314: \epsfxsize=3.0in

315: \epsfysize=3.0in

316: \epsfbox{coswg_qq_1da_j2.eps}

317: \caption[bla]{Angles between the two jets within a $W_{F,B}$ boson in the $|J_{Z}|=2$ state for (\textit{a}): signal and (\textit{b}): background. Events out of the range $40^{\circ}<\theta_{jet1,3-jet2,4}<140^{\circ}$ are rejected leading to an improvement of the ratio $N_{B}/N_{S}\approx$ 3.3 to 0.85.}

318: \label{fig:coswg}

319: \end{center}

320: \end{figure}

321: %

322: \begin{figure}[htb]

323: \begin{center}

324: \epsfxsize=3.0in

325: \epsfysize=3.0in

326: \epsfbox{mtot_j0.eps}

327: \epsfxsize=3.0in

328: \epsfysize=3.0in

329: \epsfbox{mtot_j2.eps}

330: \caption[bla]{Signal (blue) and background (red) $(M_{W1}+M_{W2})$ distributions in (\textit{a}): $J_{Z}=0$ state and in (\textit{b}): $|J_{Z}|=2$ state. Events below 125 GeV are selected for the rejection. The different processes are normalized to the same luminosity.}

331: \label{fig:masstot}

332: \end{center}

333: \end{figure}

334: %

335: About 97$\%$ of the signal events and about $\sim 46\%$ of background events survive this cut in both $J_{Z}$ states. The rest of the event is forced into four jets giving three possible combinations into $W$ bosons. The criteria to accept two jet pairs as two $W$ bosons with masses $M_{W1}$ and $M_{W2}$ was that the value $\chi_{min}=[M^{i}_{2jets}-M_{W}(80.423)]^{2}+[M^{j}_{2jets}-M_{W}(80.423)]^{2}$ ($i \neq j$) is minimal per event. An example of the accepted $W$ boson pairs in the $J_{Z}=0$ state are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:pairing}\,$a,b$. Boosted to the center-of-mass system the two $W$ bosons are distributed back-to-back and defined as a forward $W$ boson, $W_{F}$ ($\cos\theta > 0$) and backward $W$ boson, $W_{B}$ ($\cos\theta < 0$) $W$ boson, as it is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:pairing}\,$c$. For each $W_{F,B}$ boson the angle between the two jets boosted to the center-of-mass system is used as next selection criteria. The Fig.~\ref{fig:coswg} shows that accepting the events with $\theta_{J1-J2}$ and $\theta_{J3-J4}$ between 40$^{\circ}$ and 140$^{\circ}$ a large fraction of background events can be rejected since the signal four-jet events are more 'spherical' compared to background four-jet events. After this cut about 88$\%$ of signal events and about 10$\%$ of background events survive in both $J_{Z}$ states. The mass distribution of the two $W$ bosons $(M_{W1}+M_{W2})$ is plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:masstot}. A cut on the mass of the two $W$ bosons is applied accepting the events in the region with a total mass $(M_{W1}+M_{W2})>125$ GeV leaving 84$\%$ of signal events and 4-5$\%$ from background events in both $J_{Z}$ states. Accepting the $W$ bosons with mass range of $M_{W1,W2}=60-100$ GeV the final angular distributions are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:angles_gg}. The signal efficiencies are decreased drastically due to the insufficient pileup rejection which makes the $W$ boson mass distributions broader. About 53$\%$ of signal events and 1.8$\%$ from background events in both $J_{Z}$ states are left. The final ratio of signal to background events after previous cuts is $N_{S}/N_{B}\approx$ 4.3 in the $|J_{Z}|=2$ state while for the $N_{S}/N_{B}$ estimation in the $J_{Z}=0$ state the QCD events should be added. At this stage, in the $J_{Z}=0$ state $N_{S}/N_{B}\approx$ 5 taking into account only the background contribution at the tree-level; the contribution from the $\gamma\gamma\rightarrow q\bar{q}$ cross-section in the $J_{Z}=0$ state is suppressed as $\sim(m_{q}^{2}/s)$ and the estimated background comes from the $|J_{Z}|=2$ state only.

336: %

337: \begin{figure}[htb]

338: \begin{center}

339: \epsfxsize=3.0in

340: \epsfysize=3.0in

341: \epsfbox{angles_j0.eps}

342: \epsfxsize=3.0in

343: \epsfysize=3.0in

344: \epsfbox{angles_j2.eps}

345: \caption[bla]{Signal (blue) and background (red) event distributions as a function of the $W$ production angle in (\textit{a}): $J_{Z}=0$ state (\textit{a}) and (\textit{b}): $|J_{Z}|=2$ state. The different processes are normalized to the same luminosity.}

346: \label{fig:angles_gg}

347: \end{center}

348: \end{figure}

349: %

350: \begin{figure}[p]

351: \begin{center}

352: \epsfxsize=3.0in

353: \epsfysize=3.0in

354: \epsfbox{nct_qqgg_qqqq.eps}

355: \epsfxsize=3.0in

356: \epsfysize=3.0in

357: \epsfbox{coswg_qqgg_qqqq.eps}

358: \epsfxsize=3.0in

359: \epsfysize=3.0in

360: \epsfbox{mtot_qqgg_qqqq1.eps}

361: \epsfxsize=3.0in

362: \epsfysize=3.0in

363: \epsfbox{angle_qqgg_qqqq.eps}

364: \caption[bla]{(\textit{a-b}): QCD background of ${\cal O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ i.e. $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow q\bar{q}gg$ and $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow q\bar{q}g\rightarrow(q\bar{q}q\bar{q})$ in the pure $J_{Z}=0$ state. Different separation steps from (\textit{a-c}) result in the final angular distribution in (\textit{d}). In the plot (\textit{c}) the signal (blue) and ($\gamma\gamma \rightarrow q\bar{q}$ + QCD) background events (green) are compared. (\textit{d}): Final angular distribution of background events from $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow q\bar{q}$ + QCD (green) compared with signal events (blue). The events are normalized to the same luminosity.}

365: \label{fig:qcd_gg0}

366: \end{center}

367: \end{figure}

368: %

369: \par

370: The QCD contribution of ${\cal O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ in the pure $J_{Z}=0$ state from the two gluon emission $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow q\bar{q}gg$ and from the production of 'secondary' quarks $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow q\bar{q}(g\rightarrow)q\bar{q}$ from gluon splitting, simulated with MadGraph, gives four distinct jets unlike in the previous case where the radiated gluons (from Lund parton shower) are mainly soft and collinear with a parent particle. Since the QCD events simulated with MadGraph are fragmented using PYTHIA the gluon emission is double counted at some level. If the same cuts are applied for the QCD background rejection about 14.5$\%$ events survive all cuts in the pure $J_{Z}=0$ state. Fig.~\ref{fig:qcd_gg0}\,$d$ shows the comparison of the signal events with $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow q\bar{q}+QCD$ background events in the final angular distributions. The ratio of $N_{S}/N_{B}^{q\bar{q}+QCD}\approx$ 4.3 is obtained adding the two backgrounds together. 

371: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

372: \subsubsection{Top pair Production}

373: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

374: The $\gamma\gamma\rightarrow t\bar{t}$ background and the QCD contribution through $\gamma\gamma\rightarrow t\bar{t}(g\rightarrow)q\bar{q},t\bar{t}gg$ have been analyzed separately. $\gamma\gamma\rightarrow t\bar{t}$ events are generated with PYTHIA while the MadGraph cross-section is used for the normalization. In spite of top decays via $t^{\pm}\rightarrow W^{\pm}b^{\pm}$ which could considerably contribute as a background distributed over the same kinematical region as the signal (Fig.~\ref{fig:top}), it has been found that the $t\bar{t}$-pair contribution to the total $q\bar{q}$ background is negligible due to the small cross-sections \cite{top1} at the available center-of-mass energies provided by the simulated spectra. Concerning only the top pair production, the $J_{Z}=0$ configuration dominates over the $|J_{Z}|=2$ one below energies of 680 GeV while $|J_{Z}|=2$ starts to dominate at higher energies. Comparing with the cross-section for $q\bar{q}$ production ($u\bar{u},d\bar{d},c\bar{c},s\bar{s},b\bar{b}$) with $\sigma_{q\bar{q}}(M_{q\bar{q}}>50 \textrm{GeV})/\sigma_{t\bar{t}}=760$ represents only 0.13$\%$ of the total cross-section in the $J_{Z}=0$ state and even less in the $|J_{Z}|=2$ state (0.03$\%$). Comparing to the signal cross-sections $\sigma_{WW}/\sigma_{t\bar{t}}\approx$ 431 in the $|J_{Z}|=2$ state and $\approx$ 122 in the $J_{Z}=0$ state. Applying the same cuts as previously described, approximatively $11\%$ of $t\bar{t}$-pairs remain. That finally gives the ratio of signal to $t\bar{t}$ events of $N_{S}/N_{t\bar{t}}\approx 600$ in the $J_{Z}=0$ state at considered center-of-mass energies and thus, can be neglected.

375: \par

376: In the case where one photon originates from the bremsstrahlung as it was the case of the considered background in the real $\gamma e$ mode, the achievable $\sqrt{s}$ is even lower than in the collision of the two Compton photons, much more suppressing the top pair production.

377: %

378: \begin{figure}[p]

379: \begin{center}

380: \epsfxsize=3.0in

381: \epsfysize=3.0in

382: \epsfbox{nct_tt_j0.eps}

383: \epsfxsize=3.0in

384: \epsfysize=3.0in

385: \epsfbox{coswg_tt_j0.eps}

386: \epsfxsize=3.0in

387: \epsfysize=3.0in

388: \epsfbox{angle_tt_j0.eps}

389: \caption[bla]{(\textit{a-b}): Different steps in the separation procedure of $t\bar{t}$-pair events for $J_{Z}=0$. (\textit{c}): Final angular distributions of signal (blue) and $t\bar{t}$ (yellow) events, the $t\bar{t}$ contribution is multiplied by 100. Approximatly $11\%$ of $t\bar{t}$-pairs survive the applied cuts and the $N_{S}/N_{t\bar{t}}\approx 600$ after applied cuts.}

390: \label{fig:top}

391: \end{center}

392: \end{figure}

393: %

394: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

395: \section{Monte Carlo Fit}

396: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

397: For the extraction of the anomalous triple gauge boson couplings $\Delta\kappa_{\gamma}$ and $\Delta\lambda_{\gamma}$ from the reconstructed kinematical variables a ${\chi^{2}}$ and a binned maximum likelihood fit are used. Samples of ${10^{6}}$ SM signal events for single $W$ boson production and $2\cdot {10^{6}}$ signal events for $W$ boson pair production are generated and passed through the detector simulation (Fig.~\ref{fig:fitted_ge_real},~\ref{fig:fitted_ge_parasitic}). The number of signal events obtained after the detector simulation and after all cuts is normalized to the number of events expected after one year of running of an $\gamma e$ and $\gamma\gamma$ collider.

398: %

399: \begin{figure}[p]

400: \begin{center}

401: \epsfxsize=3.0in

402: \epsfysize=3.0in

403: \epsfbox{angle_real.eps}

404: \epsfxsize=3.0in

405: \epsfysize=3.0in

406: \epsfbox{angle_d1_real.eps}

407: \epsfxsize=3.0in

408: \epsfysize=3.0in

409: \epsfbox{angle_p1_real.eps}

410: \caption[bla]{Angular distributions of signal (blue) and background (red) events used in the fit in the real $\gamma e$ mode for (\textit{a}): the production angle $\theta$, (\textit{b}): the decay angle $\theta_{1}$ and (\textit{c}): the azimuthal angle $\phi$ after the detector simulation with included pileup events. A cut of 5$^{\circ}$ is applied.}

411: \label{fig:fitted_ge_real}

412: \end{center}

413: \end{figure}

414: %

415: \begin{figure}[p]

416: \begin{center}

417: \epsfxsize=3.0in

418: \epsfysize=3.0in

419: \epsfbox{angle_parasitic.eps}

420: \epsfxsize=3.0in

421: \epsfysize=3.0in

422: \epsfbox{angle_d1_parasitic.eps}

423: \epsfxsize=3.0in

424: \epsfysize=3.0in

425: \epsfbox{angle_p1_parasitic.eps}

426: \caption[bla]{Angular distributions of signal (blue) and background (red) events used in the fit in the parasitic $\gamma e$ mode for (\textit{a}): the production angle $\theta$, (\textit{b}): the decay angle $\theta_{1}$ and (\textit{c}): the azimuthal angle $\phi$ after the detector simulation with pileup events included. A cut of 5$^{\circ}$ is applied.}

427: \label{fig:fitted_ge_parasitic}

428: \end{center}

429: \end{figure}

430: %

431: \par

432: Each single $W$ boson event is described reconstructing three kinematical variables: the cosine of the $W$ boson production angle ($\cos\theta$) with respect to the ${e^{-}}$ beam direction, the cosine of the $W$ boson polar decay angle $\cos{\theta_{1}}$ i.e. the angle of the fermion with respect to the $W$ boson flight direction measured in the $W$ boson rest frame where both fermions are back-to-back, and the azimuthal decay angle $\phi$ of the fermion with respect to a plane defined by the $W$ boson and the beam axis. In the single $W$ production the $\phi$ angle is measured modulo $\pi$.

433: \par

434: The two $W$ boson events are described reconstructing five kinematical variables: the cosine of the $W$ boson production angle ($\cos\theta$), the cosine of two polar decay angles $\cos\theta_{1,2}$ and two azimuthal angles $\phi_{1,2}$ for each $W$ boson, describing the direction of the fermion in the rest frame of the parent $W$ boson. The axes in the $W$ boson frame are defined such that the $z$-axis is along the parent $W$ boson flight direction and the $y$ axis is in the direction ($\vec{W}\times\vec{b}$) where $\vec{b}$ is the beam direction and $\vec{W}$ is the parent $W$ boson flight direction, and $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle of the fermion in the $x-y$ plane. The polar decay angle  is sensitive to the different $W$ boson helicity states while the azimuthal angle is sensitive to the interference between them. Since in hadronic $W$ boson decays the up- and down-type quarks cannot be separated, only $| \cos \theta_{1,2}|$ are measured as it is explained in Chapter 3. In the $W$ boson pair production the $\phi$ angle is measured in the $2\pi$ range providing an information about the interference between the two $W$ bosons.

435: \par

436: The reconstructed variables after the detector simulation are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:fitted_gg_j0} and Fig.~\ref{fig:fitted_gg_j2}. The pileup tracks in the $W_{F,B}$ boson have tendencies to pull down the signal events close to the beam pipe (Fig.~\ref{fig:pileup}\,$b$) depending on their contribution to the $W$ boson. The pileup distributions for the $\phi$ angle (Fig.~\ref{fig:pileup}\,$c$) will be reflected in each $W$ boson $\phi$ distribution according to the pileup kinematics.

437: %

438: \begin{figure}[p]

439: \begin{center}

440: \epsfxsize=3.0in

441: \epsfysize=3.0in

442: \epsfbox{angle_d1_j0.eps}

443: \epsfxsize=3.0in

444: \epsfysize=3.0in

445: \epsfbox{angle_d2_j0.eps}

446: \epsfxsize=3.0in

447: \epsfysize=3.0in

448: \epsfbox{angle_j0_all.eps}

449: \caption[bla]{Angular distributions of signal (blue) and background (green) events after the detector simulation used in the fit for the $J_{Z}=0$ state for (\textit{a}): the decay angle $\theta_{1}$ of $W_{F}$ (\textit{b}): the decay angle $\theta_{2}$ of $W_{B}$ (\textit{c}): the azimuthal angles ($\phi_{1},\phi_{2}$). Azimuthal distributions are affected by the presence of pileup tracks shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:pileup}.}

450: \label{fig:fitted_gg_j0}

451: \end{center}

452: \end{figure}

453: %

454: \begin{figure}[p]

455: \begin{center}

456: \epsfxsize=3.0in

457: \epsfysize=3.0in

458: \epsfbox{angle_d1_j2.eps}

459: \epsfxsize=3.0in

460: \epsfysize=3.0in

461: \epsfbox{angle_d2_j2.eps}

462: \epsfxsize=3.0in

463: \epsfysize=3.0in

464: \epsfbox{angle_j2_all.eps}

465: \caption[bla]{Angular distributions of signal (blue) and background (yellow) events after the detector simulation used in the fit for the $|J_{Z}|=2$ state for (\textit{a}): the decay angle $\theta_{1}$ of $W_{F}$ (\textit{b}): the decay angle $\theta_{2}$ of $W_{B}$ (\textit{c}): the azimuthal angle ($\phi_{1},\phi_{2}$). Azimuthal distributions are affected by presence of pileup tracks shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:pileup}.}

466: \label{fig:fitted_gg_j2}

467: \end{center}

468: \end{figure}

469: %

470: \begin{figure}[p]

471: \begin{center}

472: \epsfxsize=3.0in

473: \epsfysize=3.0in

474: \epsfbox{angle_j0_allc.eps}

475: \epsfxsize=3.0in

476: \epsfysize=3.0in

477: \epsfbox{angle_j0_allm.eps}

478: \epsfxsize=3.0in

479: \epsfysize=3.0in

480: \epsfbox{angle_p1_pileup_all.eps}

481: \caption[bla]{(\textit{a}): The signal event distribution over the ($\phi_{1},\phi_{2}$) angles without any pileup contribution. (\textit{b}): The signal event distribution over the ($\phi_{1},\phi_{2}$) angles with pileup contribution. The pileup event distribution over ($\phi_{1},\phi_{2}$).}

482: \label{fig:pileup}

483: \end{center}

484: \end{figure}

485: %

486: \par

487: The O'Mega matrix element calculations from WHIZARD are used to obtain weights to reweight the angular distributions as functions of the anomalous TGCs. Each Monte Carlo Standard Model event is weighted by a weight:

488: \[

489: {R({\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma},{\Delta\lambda}_{\gamma}) =

490: 1+A{\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}+B{{{\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}}^{2}}+

491: C{\Delta\lambda}_{\gamma}+D{{{\Delta\lambda}_{\gamma}}^{2}}+

492: E{\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}{\Delta\lambda}_{\gamma}},

493: \]

494: where ${\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}$ and ${\Delta\lambda}_{\gamma}$ are the free parameters. The function ${R({\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma},{\Delta\lambda}_{\gamma})}$ describes the quadratic dependence of the differential cross-section on the coupling parameters and it is obtained in the following way: using the Standard Model events (${\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}={\Delta\lambda}_{\gamma}=0$), the matrix elements of the events are recalculated for a set of five different combinations of ${\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}$ and ${\Delta\lambda}_{\gamma}$ values (Table \ref{tab:set1}).

495: \begin{table}[h]

496: \begin{center}

497: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline

498: & $R_1$& $R_2$& $R_3$& $R_4$& $R_5$ \\ \hline

499: ${\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}$ & 0 & 0 & +0.001 & -0.001  & +0.001 \\ \hline

500: ${\Delta\lambda}_{\gamma}$ & +0.001 & -0.001& 0 & 0 & +0.001 \\ \hline

501: \end{tabular}

502: \end{center}

503: \caption{${\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}$, ${\Delta\lambda}_{\gamma}$ 

504: values used to calculate the reweighting coefficients.}

505: \label{tab:set1}

506: \end{table}

507: %

508: \par

509: The resulting recalculated events carry a weight which is given by the ratio of the new matrix element values compared to the Standard Model ones ($R_{i},i=1-5$). The particle momenta are left unchanged. According to the chosen ${\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma},{\Delta\lambda}_{\gamma}$ combinations from Table \ref{tab:set1} one gets:

510: \begin{eqnarray*}

511:  R_{1} & = & 

512:  1+C\mid{\Delta\lambda}_{\gamma}\mid+D\mid{\Delta\lambda}_{\gamma}^{2}\mid,\\

513:  R_{2} & = & 

514:  1-C\mid{\Delta\lambda}_{\gamma}\mid+D\mid{\Delta\lambda}_{\gamma}^{2}\mid,\\

515:  R_{3} & = & 

516:  1+A\mid{\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}\mid+B\mid{\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}^{2}\mid,\\

517:  R_{4} & = & 

518:  1-A\mid{\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}\mid+B\mid{{{\Delta}

519:  {\kappa}_{\gamma}}^{2}\mid},\\

520:  R_{5} & = & 

521:  1+A\mid{\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}\mid+B\mid{{{\Delta}

522:  {\kappa}_{\gamma}}^{2}\mid}+C\mid{\Delta\lambda}_{\gamma}\mid+

523:   D\mid{{{\Delta\lambda}_{\gamma}}^{2}\mid}+E\mid{\Delta}

524:   {\kappa}_{\gamma}\mid\mid{\Delta\lambda}_{\gamma}\mid, 

525: \end{eqnarray*}

526: %

527: where $|{\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}|$=$|{\Delta\lambda}_{\gamma}|$=0.001. The coefficients \textit{A,B,C,D,E} are deduced for each event from the previous five equations.

528: \par

529: In the single $W$ boson production, four-dimensional ($\cos{\theta}$,$\cos{\theta_{1}},\phi$, energy) event distributions are fitted with MINUIT \cite{min}, minimizing ${\chi^{2}}$ as a function of $\kappa_\gamma$ and $\lambda_\gamma$ taking the Standard Model Monte Carlo sample as ``data'':

530: \[

531: \chi^{2} = \sum_{i,j,k,l}

532: \frac{ \left( z\cdot N^{SM}(i,j,k,l)- n \cdot z \cdot 

533: N^{{\Delta\kappa}_{\gamma},{\Delta\lambda}_{\gamma}}(i,j,k,l) \right)^{2}} 

534: {z \cdot \sigma^{2}(i,j,k,l)} +\frac{(n-1)^{2}}{(\Delta L^{2})},

535: \]

536: where \textit{i, j, k} and \textit{l} run over the reconstructed four-dimensional distribution of $\cos{\theta},\cos{\theta_{1},\phi}$ and the reconstructed $W$ boson energy, $N^{SM}(i,j,k,l)$ are the ``data'' which correspond to the Standard Model Monte Carlo sample, $N^{{\Delta\kappa}_{\gamma},{\Delta\lambda}_{\gamma}}(i,j,k,l)$ is the Standard Model event distribution weighted by the function $R({\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma},{\Delta\lambda}_{\gamma})$ and $\sigma(i,j,k,l)=\sqrt{N^{SM}(i,j,k,l)}$. For $W$ boson pair production, the six-dimensional ($\cos{\theta}$, $\cos{\theta_{1}}$,$\cos{\theta_{2}}$,$\phi_{1}$,$\phi_{2}$, center-of-mass energy) event distributions result in a Poisson distribution for the number of events per bin which cannot be approximated by a Gaussian distribution like in the $\gamma e$ case. Thus, they are fitted with MINUIT, minimizing the log-likelihood function:

537: \begin{eqnarray*}

538: {\log\cal L} & = & -\sum_{i,j,k,l,m,p}[

539: z\cdot N^{SM}(i,j,k,l,m,p)\cdot

540: \log \left(z\cdot n \cdot N^{{\Delta\kappa}_{\gamma},{\Delta\lambda}_{\gamma}}(i,j,k,l,m,p)\right) \\

541:  & & - z\cdot n \cdot N^{{\Delta\kappa}_{\gamma},{\Delta\lambda}_{\gamma}}(i,j,k,l,m,p)] + 

542: \frac{(n-1)^{2}}{2(\Delta L^{2})},

543: \end{eqnarray*}

544: where \textit{i,j,k,l,m} and \textit{p} run over the reconstructed six-dimensional distribution of $\cos{\theta}$, $\cos{\theta_{1}}$, $\cos{\theta_{2}}$, $\phi_{1}$, $\phi_{2}$ and the reconstructed center-of-mass energy, $N^{SM}(i,j,k,l,m,p)$ are the ``data'' which correspond to the Standard Model Monte Carlo sample and $N^{{\Delta\kappa}_{\gamma}{\Delta\lambda}_{\gamma}}$$(i$, $j$, $k$, $l$, $m$, $p)$ is the Standard Model event distribution weighted by the function $R({\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}$, ${\Delta\lambda}_{\gamma})$. 

545: %

546: \begin{figure}[p]

547: \begin{center}

548: \epsfxsize=3.0in

549: \epsfysize=3.0in

550: \epsfbox{fit_10.eps}

551: \epsfxsize=3.0in

552: \epsfysize=3.0in

553: \epsfbox{fit_35.eps}

554: \epsfxsize=3.0in

555: \epsfysize=3.0in

556: \epsfbox{fitt_poisson_10.eps}

557: \epsfxsize=3.0in

558: \epsfysize=3.0in

559: \epsfbox{fitt_poisson_35.eps}

560: \caption[bla]{$zN$ Poisson distributed events from one measurement (\textit{upper plots}) and 10000 different measurements (\textit{lower plots}) are shown for $\mu$=10 (\textit{left plot)} and for $\mu$=35 (\textit{right plot}).}

561: \label{fig:toy1}

562: \end{center}

563: \end{figure}

564: %

565: \par

566: Due to the large CPU power and the disk space needed to simulate the full statistics, the factor ${z}$ is used to set the number of signal events to the expected one after one year of running of a $\gamma e/\gamma\gamma$-collider. Thus, the number $zN$ represents the mean value of a Poisson distributed event sample expected after one year of running of a collider. The fact that events are rescaled in the fit does not influence the correct error estimation. This can be shown using the ``toy-model'' where both, ``data'' and Monte Carlo events, are simulated as two independent sets of $zN$ Poisson distributed events in 100 bins from 10000 measurements and fitted with log-likelihood function for two different cases. In the first case, the mean value is taken to be $\mu=$10 and the factor $z$ in the log-likelihood function (the function written above) is used to rescale the number of events. In the second case, the mean value is taken to be $\mu= z\cdot$10 ($\mu=35$) and the number of events in the log-likelihood function is not rescaled by the factor $z$ since this case represents the full statistics. Thus, the fitted functions in this ``toy-model'' represent 10000 one-dimensional histograms with $zN$ Poisson distributed events around the mean values $\mu =$10 and $\mu =$35 as it is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:toy1}. The ``data'' are fitted to Monte Carlo with the same $\mu$, comparing two statistically different sets: if the ``data'' and Monte Carlo events are identical (Monte Carlo = ``data'') and if the ``data'' and Monte Carlo events are statistically independent (''data''$\neq$Monte Carlo). The Monte Carlo sample is weighted by a fit-function \footnote{The function is linear in the fit parameters and quadratic in the bin number.} depending on two fit-parameters $P_{1}$ and $P_{2}$ which represent two anomalous couplings $\Delta\kappa_{\gamma}$ and $\Delta\lambda_{\gamma}$.

567: The estimated errors of these parameters in Fig.~\ref{fig:toy2} are distributed around the same mean value and show a good agreement between the two different cases; $\mu =$10 (Fig.~\ref{fig:toy2}\, left plots) and  $\mu =$35 (Fig.~\ref{fig:toy2}\, right plots).

568: \par

569: In reality, the generated Monte Carlo sample is larger than the ``data'' sample and thus, normalized to the same number of events as the ``data'' sample. Having both samples, ``data'' and Monte Carlo, of same size the error is underestimated by a factor of $\sqrt{2}$, because Monte Carlo statistics is neglected. Increasing the Monte Carlo statistics this error tends to become negligible i.e. this improves in the error estimation as it is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:toy3} (\textit{two upper plots}) where Monte Carlo statistics is ten times larger than the ``data''. The black line shows the relative deviation $\Delta$ in the $P_{1}$ (\textit{left plot}) and $P_{2}$ (\textit{right plot}) estimations if the sample size is different in ``data'' and Monte Carlo relative to the statistically identical events, i.e. [$\Delta$=(N$_{MC=''data''}$-N$_{MC\neq''data''}$)/N$_{MC=''data''}$], and if the number of events in both samples (``data'' and Monte Carlo) is the same. The black line in Fig.~\ref{fig:toy3} represents the deviation if the full statistics is simulated ($\Delta_{\mu=35}$) and narrower red line in Fig.~\ref{fig:toy3} corresponds to the case with 10 times increased Monte Carlo statistics, both located around zero. The two lower plots in Fig.~\ref{fig:toy3} represent the estimated errors on parameters $P_{1}$ (\textit{left plot}) and $P_{2}$ (\textit{right plot}).

570: \par

571: This model shows that the fit method applied in the present analysis is correct. If ``data'' and Monte Carlo samples are identical, the central value is correctly estimated since the dependence on the coupling is correctly taken into account. The error due to Monte Carlo statistics becomes negligible in the real experiment since a larger sample would be used.

572: %

573: \begin{figure}[p]

574: \begin{center}

575: \epsfxsize=3.0in

576: \epsfysize=3.0in

577: \epsfbox{fitt_ll_35_13.eps}

578: \epsfxsize=3.0in

579: \epsfysize=3.0in

580: \epsfbox{fitt_ll_35_13a.eps}

581: \epsfxsize=3.0in

582: \epsfysize=3.0in

583: \epsfbox{fitt_ll_35_14.eps}

584: \epsfxsize=3.0in

585: \epsfysize=3.0in

586: \epsfbox{fitt_ll_35_14a.eps}

587: \caption[bla]{\textit{Upper plots}: Estimated errors of the first parameter $P_{1}$ in a case (\textit{left plot}): without rescaling factor (0.3859$\cdot 10^{-3}$) and (\textit{right plot}): with a scaling factor $z$ (0.3875$\cdot 10^{-3}$) in the likelihood function. \textit{Lower plots}: Estimated errors of the second parameter $P_{2}$ in a case (\textit{left plot}): without rescaling factor (0.2006$\cdot 10^{-4}$) and (\textit{right plot}): with a scaling factor $z$ (0.2016$\cdot 10^{-4}$) in a likelihood function.}

588: \label{fig:toy2}

589: \end{center}

590: \end{figure}

591: %

592: \begin{figure}[p]

593: \begin{center}

594: \epsfxsize=3.0in

595: \epsfysize=3.0in

596: %\epsfbox{fitt_poisson_11.eps}

597: \epsfbox{fitt_poisson_350_11.eps}

598: \epsfxsize=3.0in

599: \epsfysize=3.0in

600: %\epsfbox{fitt_poisson_12.eps}

601: \epsfbox{fitt_poisson_350_12.eps}

602: \epsfxsize=3.0in

603: \epsfysize=3.0in

604: %\epsfbox{fitt_ll_13.eps}

605: \epsfbox{fitt_ll_350_13.eps}

606: \epsfxsize=3.0in

607: \epsfysize=3.0in

608: %\epsfbox{fitt_ll_14.eps}

609: \epsfbox{fitt_ll_350_14.eps}

610: \caption[bla]{\textit{Upper plots}: Relative deviation $\Delta$ in the fit-parameters $P_{1}$ (\textit{left plot}) and $P_{2}$ (\textit{right plot}) if the simulated events for ``data'' and Monte Carlo are statistically independent relative to the statistically identical events. $\Delta$=(N$_{MC=''data''}$-N$_{MC\neq''data''}$)/N$_{MC=''data''}$. \textit{Lower plots}: Estimated errors $P_{1}$ (\textit{left plot}) and $P_{2}$ (\textit{right plot}). The black solid line corresponds to the full statistics, i.e. $\mu$=35 and the red solid line corresponds to the rescaled case with Monte Carlo statistics increased by a factor 10 relative to the ``data'' statistics.}

611: \label{fig:toy3}

612: \end{center}

613: \end{figure}

614: %

615: \par

616: In the case where the background is included in the fit ${z}$ defines the sum of signal and background events and ${n}\cdot N^{{\Delta\kappa}_{\gamma},{\Delta\lambda}_{\gamma}} \rightarrow [{n} \cdot N_{signal}^{{\Delta\kappa}_{\gamma},{\Delta\lambda}_{\gamma}}+N_{bck}]$. The number of background events is normalized to the effective $W$ boson production cross-section in order to obtain the corresponding number of background events after one year of running of an $\gamma e/\gamma\gamma$-collider. It is assumed that the total normalization (efficiency, luminosity, electron polarization) is only known with a relative uncertainty $\Delta L$. Thus, $n$ is taken as a free parameter in the fit and constrained to unity with the assumed normalization uncertainty. Per construction the fit is bias-free and thus returns always exactly the Standard Model as central values. In all running modes $\Delta L=0.1\%$ is a realistic precision that can be achieved except for the $J_{Z}=0$ state where due to the small number of events the luminosity is expected to be measured with a larger error of $\Delta L=1\%$.

617: \newpage

618: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

619: \section{Error estimations}

620: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

621: Table \ref{tab:bestge} shows the best estimates of statistical errors for the two couplings measured in $\gamma e$ interactions at fixed center-of-mass energy ${\sqrt{s_{\gamma e}}=450}\,{\rm GeV}$ at generator level. Accepting all events, two-dimensional ($\cos\theta,\cos|\theta_{1}|$) and three-dimensional ($\cos\theta,|\cos\theta_{1}|,\phi$) distributions are used in a two-parameter fit. A two-parameter fit means that both couplings are allowed to vary freely as well as the normalization \textit{n}. The number of events is normalized to the number that is expected to be collected with an integrated luminosity of 110 fb$^{-1}$ in the high energy peak. The 3D fit results in a higher sensitivity to ${\lambda}_{\gamma}$ due to the shape sensitivity of the $\phi$ event distribution to the anomalous ${\lambda}_{\gamma}$ values. The sensitivity of the $\phi$ distribution to the anomalous ${\kappa}_{\gamma}$ is negligible as it is clear from Fig.~\ref{fig:phi}. The estimated sensitivities to the $\kappa_{\gamma}$ and ${\lambda}_{\gamma}$ in the 2D two-parameter fit from the analytic formula are presented in Appendix B.

622: %

623: \begin{table}[htb]

624: \begin{center} 

625: \begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|c||c|c|c|} \hline

626: $|J_{Z}|=3/2$ & \multicolumn{3}{|c||}{2D fit} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{3D fit}\\ \hline

627: ${{\Delta}L}$ & 1$\%$ & 0.1$\%$ & 0 & 1$\%$ & 0.1$\%$ & 0 \\ \hline\hline

628: ${\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}{\cdot}10^{-3}$ & 4.3/5.1 & 1.0/1.1 & 0.4/0.5 & 

629:  3.3/3.4 & 1.0/1.0 & 0.4/0.4 \\ \hline

630: ${\Delta}{\lambda}_{\gamma}{\cdot}10^{-4}$ & 18/30 & 15/23 & 15/22 & 2.9/3.1 & 2.7/2.9 & 2.7/2.9 \\ \hline

631: \end{tabular}

632: \end{center}

633: \caption{Estimated statistical errors for ${\kappa}_{\gamma}$ and ${\lambda}_{\gamma}$ from the two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) two-parameter fit at generator level for the real/parasitic $\gamma e$ mode at ${\sqrt{s_{\gamma e}}=450}$ GeV. The number of events in both modes is normalized to the expected one with integrated luminosity of 110 fb$^{-1}$ in the high energy peak.}

634: \label{tab:bestge}

635: \end{table}

636: %

637: \begin{figure}[htb]

638: \begin{center}

639: \epsfxsize=2.5in

640: \epsfysize=2.5in

641: \epsfbox{phi.eps}

642: \caption[bla]{Deviations from the Standard Model event distribution over the $\phi$ angle due to the anomalous couplings $\kappa_{\gamma}$ and $\lambda_{\gamma}$. The sensitivity to the anomalous ${\lambda}_{\gamma}$ is clearly visible in the shape of the distribution.}

643: \label{fig:phi}

644: \end{center}

645: \end{figure}

646: %

647: \par

648: More realistic errors are given in Table \ref{tab:set2} estimated using CIRCE2 spectra at $\sqrt{s_{e^{-}e^{-}}}$ = 500 GeV. A two-parameter four-dimensional (4D) fit at detector level, with and without pileup is performed. In this estimation the cut of $5^{\circ}$ on $W$ boson production angle is not applied. Including the background events and applying the cut of $5^{\circ}$ the obtained statistical errors are shown in Table \ref{tab:set3}. The $\kappa_{\gamma} - \lambda_{\gamma}$ contour plot for the two-parameter fit with pileup and background is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:contour1} assuming a normalization error of 0.1${\%}$.

649: \begin{table}[htb]

650: \begin{center} 

651: \begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|c||c|c|c|} \hline

652: $|J_{Z}|=3/2$ & \multicolumn{3}{|c||}{without pileup} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{with pileup}\\

653: \hline

654: ${{\Delta}L}$ & 1$\%$ & 0.1$\%$ & 0 &

655:  1$\%$ & 0.1$\%$ & 0 \\ \hline\hline

656: ${\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}{\cdot}10^{-3}$ & 3.4/4.0 & 1.0/1.0 & 0.5/0.5 & 

657:  3.5/4.5 & 1.0/1.0 & 0.5/0.5 \\ 

658: \hline

659: ${\Delta}{\lambda}_{\gamma}{\cdot}10^{-4}$ & 4.9/5.5 & 4.5/5.2 & 4.5/5.1 & 

660: 5.2/6.7 & 4.9/6.4 & 4.9/6.4 \\ \hline

661: \end{tabular}

662: \end{center}

663: \caption{Estimated statistical errors for ${\kappa}_{\gamma}$ and ${\lambda}_{\gamma}$ from the two-parameter 4D fit at detector level for the real/parasitic $\gamma e$ mode at ${\sqrt{s_{e^{-}e^{-}}}=500}$ GeV, without and with pileup.}

664: \label{tab:set2}

665: \end{table}

666: %

667: \begin{figure}[htb]

668: \begin{center}

669: \epsfxsize=3.5in

670: \epsfysize=3.5in

671: \epsfbox{contur_ge_real_1.eps}

672: \caption[bla]{1$\sigma$ (dashed lines) and 95$\%$ CL (solid lines) contours in the $\kappa_{\gamma}-\lambda_{\gamma}$ plane obtained from the 4D fit for ${{\Delta}L}=0.1\%$ for real (blue) and parasitic (red) $\gamma e$ modes. The cross denotes the Standard Model values of $\kappa_{\gamma}$ and $\lambda_{\gamma}$.}

673: \label{fig:contour1}

674: \end{center}

675: \end{figure}

676: %

677: \begin{table}[htb]

678: \begin{center}

679: \begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|c|} \hline

680: $|J_{Z}|=3/2$ & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{pileup+background} \\ \hline

681: ${{\Delta}L}$ & 1$\%$ & 0.1$\%$ & 0 \\ \hline\hline

682: ${\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}{\cdot}10^{-3}$ & 3.6/4.8 & 1.0/1.1 & 0.5/0.6 \\ 

683: \hline

684: ${\Delta}{\lambda}_{\gamma}{\cdot}10^{-4}$ & 5.2/7.0 & 4.9/6.7 & 4.9/6.7 \\ 

685: \hline

686: \end{tabular}

687: \end{center}

688: \caption{Estimated statistical errors for ${\kappa}_{\gamma}$ and ${\lambda}_{\gamma}$ from the two-parameter 4D fit at detector level for the real/parasitic $\gamma e$ mode at ${\sqrt{s_{e^{-}e^{-}}}=500}$ GeV, with pileup and background events.}

689: \label{tab:set3}

690: \end{table}

691: %

692: \par

693: The main error on ${\kappa}_{\gamma}$ comes from the luminosity measurement while ${\lambda}_{\gamma}$ is not sensitive to that uncertainty. The two different $\gamma e$ modes give the same estimation for ${\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}$ while ${\Delta}{\lambda}_{\gamma}$ is more sensitive to the different modes. The difference in the estimated ${\Delta}{\lambda}_{\gamma}$ for the two modes is a consequence of the ambiguity in the $W$ boson production angle which is present in the parasitic mode\footnote{In the parasitic mode only $|\cos\theta|$ has been reconstructed.} and due to the fact that the distance between the conversion region and the interaction point is larger in the real mode than in the parasitic mode. A smaller distance $b$ between the conversion and the interaction region, increases the luminosity at the price of a broader energy spectrum at lower energies\footnote{This is the pileup contribution.} in the parasitic $\gamma e$ mode. That decreases the sensitivity of the ${\lambda}_{\gamma}$ measurement.

694: \par

695: The pileup contribution is larger in the parasitic than in the real mode and therefore it influences the $W$ boson distributions (energy and angular) more than in the real mode. This leads to a decrease in sensitivity for ${\lambda}_{\gamma}$ of $\sim 10\,{\%}$ in the real and of $\sim 25\,{\%}$ in the parasitic mode while the influence on ${\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}$ is negligible. The influence of the background is not so stressed as it is for the pileup. In the real mode it is almost negligible while it contributes to the parasitic mode decreasing the sensitivity of ${\lambda}_{\gamma}$ by less than $5\,{\%}$. {All comparisons in $\gamma e$ modes are done assuming ${{\Delta}L}=0.1\%$.

696: \par

697: The correlation between the fit parameters ${\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}$ and ${\Delta}{\lambda}_{\gamma}$ is found to be negligible and it is shown in Table \ref{tab:set4} while ${\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}$ strongly depends on \textit{n}.

698: %

699: \begin{table}[h]

700: \begin{center}

701: \begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|c|} \hline

702: & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{pileup+background}\\ \hline \hline

703: & ${\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}$ & $\textit{n}$ & ${\Delta}{\lambda}_{\gamma}$ \\ \hline \hline

704: ${\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}$ & 1.000 & -0.857 & 0.122 \\ \hline

705: $\textit{n}$ & -0.857 & 1.000 & -0.094 \\ \hline

706: ${\Delta}{\lambda}_{\gamma}$ & 0.122 & -0.094 & 1.000 \\ \hline

707: \end{tabular}

708: \end{center}

709: \caption{Correlation matrix for the two-parameter fit (${{\Delta}L}=0.1\%$) in the real $\gamma e$ mode.}

710: \label{tab:set4}

711: \end{table}

712: %

713: \par

714: The best estimates of statistical errors for the two couplings $\kappa_{\gamma}$ and $\lambda_{\gamma}$ measured in $\gamma\gamma$ interactions at fixed center-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s_{\gamma\gamma}}=400$ and 800 GeV in the pure\footnote{All events are produced either in the $J_{Z}=0$ state or in the $|J_{Z}|=2$ state without any contribution from other helicity combination.} $J_{Z}$ state at generator level are shown in Table \ref{tab:bestgg}. Accepting all events, five angular event distributions ($\cos\theta,|\cos\theta_{1}|,|\cos\theta_{2}|,\phi_{1},\phi_{2}$) are used in the two-parameter fit for both $J_{Z}$ states. The number of events is normalized to the expected number having an integrated luminosity of 110 fb$^{-1}$ in the high energy peak.

715: %

716: \begin{table}[htb]

717: \begin{center} 

718: \begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|c||c|c|c||c|c|c||c|c|c|} \hline

719: \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{110 fb$^{-1}$} & \multicolumn{6}{|c||}{$\sqrt{s_{\gamma\gamma}}=400$ GeV} & \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{$\sqrt{s_{\gamma\gamma}}=800$ GeV} \\ \hline

720: \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{5D fit} & \multicolumn{3}{|c||}{$J_{Z}=0$} & \multicolumn{3}{|c||}{$|J_{Z}|=2$} & \multicolumn{3}{|c||}{$J_{Z}=0$} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$|J_{Z}|=2$} \\ \hline

721: ${{\Delta}L}$ & 1$\%$ & 0.1$\%$ & 0 & 1$\%$ & 0.1$\%$ & 0 & 1$\%$ & 0.1$\%$ & 0 & 1$\%$ & 0.1$\%$ & 0 \\ \hline\hline

722: ${\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}{\cdot}10^{-4}$ & 14.4 & 5.4 & 2.6 & 20.1 & 6.2 & 3.8 & 7.2 & 4.5 & 2.4 & 8.1 & 4.6 & 2.6 \\ \hline

723: ${\Delta}{\lambda}_{\gamma}{\cdot}10^{-4}$ & 3.0 & 3.0 & 3.0 & 1.6 & 1.6 & 1.6  & 1.3 & 1.3 & 1.3 & 0.63 & 0.58 & 0.56 \\ \hline

724: \end{tabular}

725: \end{center}

726: \caption{Estimated statistical errors for ${\kappa}_{\gamma}$ and ${\lambda}_{\gamma}$ from the five-dimensional (5D) two-parameter fit at generator level for the $J_{Z}=0$ and $|J_{Z}|=2$ at $\gamma\gamma$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\gamma\gamma}}=400$ and 800 GeV. The number of events for both $J_{Z}=0$ states is normalized to the expected one with integrated luminosity of 110 fb$^{-1}$ in the high energy peak.}

727: \label{tab:bestgg}

728: \end{table}

729: %

730: The estimated sensitivities are similar to the expected ones from the Chapter 6: the precision of the $\kappa_{\gamma}$ measurement is somewhat better in $J_{Z}=0$ state than in $|J_{Z}|=2$ while the opposite stands for the $\lambda_{\gamma}$ measurement. This is not valid any more for the $\kappa_{\gamma}$ measurement in the $|J_{Z}|=0$ state if $\Delta L=1\%$ which is the more realistic case. The increase of the center-of-mass energy from $\sqrt{s_{\gamma\gamma}}=400$ GeV to $\sqrt{s_{\gamma\gamma}}=800$ GeV leads to an improvement of the $\kappa_{\gamma}$ and $\lambda_{\gamma}$ sensitivities. While at $\sqrt{s_{\gamma\gamma}}=400$ GeV the information about $\kappa_{\gamma}$ is contained mainly in the cross-section at $\sqrt{s_{\gamma\gamma}}=800$ GeV the shape of the event distributions to provides the information about $\kappa_{\gamma}$.

731: \par

732: Event distributions simulated with CIRCE2 spectra at $\sqrt{s_{e^{-}e^{-}}}=500$ GeV and passed through the detector, with or without pileup, are fitted and the results of the two-parameter fit are shown in Table \ref{tab:set5}. To increase the sensitivity of the fit, the sixth distribution, over the center-of-mass energy, is included.

733: \par

734: As in the case of $\gamma e$, the main error on $\kappa_{\gamma}$ comes from the luminosity measurement while $\lambda_{\gamma}$ is not sensitive to that uncertainty. The larger sensitivity of $\lambda_{\gamma}$ than $\kappa_{\gamma}$ to the energy is reflected in the estimated values after the energy beam spectra are included into the simulation. On the other hand, there is always a mixture of both $J_{Z}$ states so that the contribution from the $J_{Z}=0$ state will increase the error on $\lambda_{\gamma}$ in $|J_{Z}|=2$ in addition. In the $|J_{Z}|=2$ for $\Delta L=0.1\%$, $\lambda_{\gamma}$ is also more influenced by pileup which decreases the sensitivity by 50$\%$ while $\Delta\kappa_{\gamma}$ is increased by 10$\%$. In the $J_{Z}=0$ for $\Delta L=1\%$, the pileup decreases the sensitivity in the $\lambda_{\gamma}$ measurement by 45$\%$ and in $\kappa_{\gamma}$ the error is increased by 35$\%$ due to a larger error on the luminosity measurement. Including in the fit the background events the estimated sensitivity in $\kappa_{\gamma}$ decreases $\approx 3\%$ and in $\lambda_{\gamma}$ decreases approximately 5$\%$ for both $J_{Z}$ states (Table \ref{tab:set6}) assuming $\Delta L=1\%$ for the $J_{Z}=0$ state and $\Delta L=0.1\%$ for the $|J_{Z}|=2$ state. The correlation between the fit parameters ${\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}$ and ${\Delta}{\lambda}_{\gamma}$ is found to be stronger than in case of TGCs in $\gamma e$ as it is shown in Table \ref{tab:set7}; ${\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}$ strongly depends on \textit{n}.

735: %

736: \begin{table}[htb]

737: \begin{center} 

738: \begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|c||c|c|c|} \hline

739: \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{6D fit} & \multicolumn{3}{|c||}{without pileup} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{with pileup}\\ \hline

740:  & \multicolumn{3}{|c||}{$J_{Z}=0/|J_{Z}|=2$} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$J_{Z}=0/|J_{Z}|=2$} \\ \hline \hline

741: ${{\Delta}L}$ & 1$\%$ & 0.1$\%$ & 0 & 1$\%$ & 0.1$\%$ & 0 \\ \hline\hline

742: ${\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}{\cdot}10^{-4}$ & 19.9/29.9 & 5.5/6.2 & 2.6/3.7 & 26.9/37.4 & 5.8/6.8 & 3.0/4.6 \\ \hline

743: ${\Delta}{\lambda}_{\gamma}{\cdot}10^{-4}$ & 3.7/3.1 & 3.7/3.1 & 3.7/3.1 & 5.4/4.6 & 5.2/4.6 & 5.2/4.6 \\ \hline

744: \end{tabular}

745: \end{center}

746: \caption{Estimated statistical errors for ${\kappa}_{\gamma}$ and ${\lambda}_{\gamma}$ from the 6D fit at detector level for both $J_{Z}$ states in $\gamma\gamma$ collisions $\sqrt{s_{e^{-}e^{-}}}=500$ GeV, without and with pileup.}

747: \label{tab:set5}

748: \end{table}

749: %

750: \begin{table}[htb]

751: \begin{center}

752: \begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|c|} \hline

753: \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{6D fit} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{pileup+background} \\ \hline

754:  & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$J_{Z}=0/|J_{Z}|=2$} \\ \hline\hline

755: ${{\Delta}L}$ & 1$\%$ & 0.1$\%$ & 0 \\ \hline\hline

756: ${\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}{\cdot}10^{-4}$ & 27.8/37.8 & 5.9/7.0 & 3.1/4.8 \\ \hline

757: ${\Delta}{\lambda}_{\gamma}{\cdot}10^{-4}$ & 5.7/4.8 & 5.6/4.8 & 5.6/4.8 \\ \hline

758: \end{tabular}

759: \end{center}

760: \caption{Estimated statistical errors for ${\kappa}_{\gamma}$ and ${\lambda}_{\gamma}$ from the two-parameter 6D fit at detector level for both $J_{Z}$ states in $\gamma\gamma$ collisions $\sqrt{s_{e^{-}e^{-}}}=500$ GeV, with pileup and background events.}

761: \label{tab:set6}

762: \end{table}

763: %

764: \begin{figure}[htb]

765: \begin{center}

766: \epsfxsize=3.0in

767: \epsfysize=3.0in

768: \epsfbox{contur_gg_4.eps}

769: \epsfxsize=3.0in

770: \epsfysize=3.0in

771: \epsfbox{contur_gg_4a.eps}

772: \caption[bla]{(\textit{a}): 95$\%$ CL contours in the $\kappa_{\gamma}-\lambda_{\gamma}$ plane obtained from the 6D fit for ${{\Delta}L}=0.1\%$ for the $J_{Z}=0$ state (red) and $|J_{Z}|=2$ state (blue). Dotted lines correspond to the events without pileup, dashed lines correspond to the events with pileup and solid lines correspond to the events with pileup and background. The cross denotes the Standard Model values of $\kappa_{\gamma}$ and $\lambda_{\gamma}$. (\textit{b}): 1 $\sigma$ contours in the $\kappa_{\gamma}-\lambda_{\gamma}$ plane obtained from the 6D fit for ${{\Delta}L}=1\%$ (blue) and ${{\Delta}L}=0.1\%$ (red) for the $J_{Z}=0$ state.}

773: \label{fig:contour2}

774: \end{center}

775: \end{figure}

776: %

777: \begin{table}[h]

778: \begin{center}

779: \begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|c||c|c|c|} \hline

780: \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{6D fit} & \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{pileup+background} \\ \hline \hline

781: \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{} & \multicolumn{3}{|c||}{$J_{Z}=0$} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$J_{Z}=2$} \\ \hline \hline

782: & ${\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}$ & $\textit{n}$ & ${\Delta}{\lambda}_{\gamma}$ & ${\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}$ & $\textit{n}$ & ${\Delta}{\lambda}_{\gamma}$ \\ \hline \hline

783: ${\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}$ & 1.000 & -0.994 & -0.173 & 1.000 & -0.719 & 0.554 \\ \hline

784: $\textit{n}$ & -0.994 & 1.000 & 0.225 & -0.719 & 1.000 & 0.010 \\ \hline

785: ${\Delta}{\lambda}_{\gamma}$ & -0.173 & 0.225 & 1.000 & 0.554 & 0.010 & 1.000 \\ \hline

786: \end{tabular}

787: \end{center}

788: \caption{Correlation matrix for the two-parameter fit in the $J_{Z}=0$ state (${{\Delta}L}=1\%$) and in the $|J_{Z}|=2$ state (${{\Delta}L}=0.1\%$).}

789: \label{tab:set7}

790: \end{table}

791: %

792: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

793: \section{Systematic Errors}

794: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

795: Due to the large $W$ boson production cross-sections and achievable luminosities at the photon colliders the statistical errors are comparable with those estimated for the $e^{+}e^{-}$-collider and the main source of error comes from the systematics. Some sources of systematic errors have been investigated, assuming ${{\Delta}L}=0.1\%$ and in some cases ${{\Delta}L}=1\%$. It was found that the largest uncertainty in ${\kappa}_{\gamma}$ comes from uncertainties on the photon beam polarizations. Contrary to the $e^+ e^-$ case the luminosity and polarization measurements are not independent. In $\gamma e$ collisions, the dominant polarization state ($|J_Z| = 3/2$) can be measured accurately with $\gamma e \rightarrow e \gamma$ while the suppressed one ($|J_Z| = 1/2$) can only be measured with worse precision e.g. using $e Z \rightarrow e Z$ \cite{lumi}. To estimate the uncertainty on the TGCs therefore the dominant $|J_{Z}| = 3/2$ part is kept constant while the $|J_Z| = 1/2$ part is changed by 10\%, corresponding to a 1\% polarization uncertainty for ${\cal P}_\gamma=0.9$. This leads to a polarization uncertainty of $0.005$ for $\kappa_\gamma$, corresponding to five times the statistical error while the uncertainty on $\lambda_\gamma$ is negligible. The photon polarization thus needs to be known to 0.1$\%$ - 0.2$\%$ so that ${\kappa}_{\gamma}$ is not dominated by this systematic error. 

796: \par

797: In $\gamma\gamma$ collisions, having ${\cal P}_\gamma=0.9$, the dominant $J_{Z}=0$ or $|J_{Z}|=2$ part is kept constant while the $|J_{Z}|=2$ or $J_{Z}=0$ part is changed resulting in a 1\% polarization uncertainty, in the same way as for the $\gamma e$ mode. In the $J_{Z}=0$ state, the polarization uncertainty of $0.0021$ for $\kappa_\gamma$ corresponds to less than one statistical error assuming ${{\Delta}L}=1\%$ while in the $|J_{Z}|=2$ state, the polarization uncertainty of $0.0018$ for $\kappa_\gamma$ corresponds to less than three times the statistical error assuming ${{\Delta}L}=0.1\%$. The uncertainty on $\lambda_\gamma$ in both $J_{Z}$ states is negligible.

798: \par

799: In order to estimate the error coming from the $W$ boson mass measurement the data sample is recalculated with ${M_{W}}$ decreased/increased by $50\,{\rm MeV}$ (the expected ${\Delta}{M_{W}}$ at LHC is $\sim 15$ MeV) reweighting the Standard Model events. The nominal $W$ boson mass used for the Monte Carlo sample was $M_{W}=80.419\,{\rm GeV}$. As a result of the recalculation we get the ratios of matrix element values corresponding to the nominal $W$ boson mass and the mass $M_{W}^{'}= M_W \pm \Delta M_{W}$. The Monte Carlo sample (MC) is weighted by this ratio and fitted as fake data leaving the reference distributions unchanged. The resulting shift for TGCs is of the order of the statistical error for both coupling parameters for $\Delta M_W = 50\,{\rm MeV}$ and thus negligible with an improved $W$ boson mass measurement. 

800: \par

801: The nonlinear QED effects at the conversion region influence the Compton spectra of the scattered photons in such a way that increasing the nonlinearity $\xi^{2}$ the Compton spectrum becomes broader and shifted to lower energies. To estimate the error that comes from this effect the laser power is decreased changing $\xi^{2}$ from 0.3 to 0.15, increasing the peak energy by 2.5\%.  The ratio of the two Compton spectra is used as a weight function to obtain the ``data'' sample from the MC events.  The sample data obtained in that way are fitted leaving the reference distributions unchanged. It was found that the beam energy uncertainty influences the measurement of the coupling parameters only via the normalization $n$, and the errors ${\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}$ and ${\Delta}{\lambda}_{\gamma}$ are considered as negligible since the value of $n$ is accessible from the luminosity measurement.

802: \par

803: The estimated systematic error for $\kappa_\gamma$ from background uncertainties is smaller than the statistical error if the background cross section is known to better than 3\% in the real $\gamma e$ mode and 1\% in the parasitic $\gamma e$ mode. For $\lambda_\gamma$ the background needs to be known only to 10\% in the parasitic $\gamma e$ mode while there are practically no restrictions in the real $\gamma e$ mode. In the $|J_{Z}|=2$ state the background cross section should be known better than 0.8\% i.e. better than 4\% in order to provide a systematic error smaller than the statistical error for $\kappa_\gamma$ i.e. for $\lambda_\gamma$, respectively. For $J_{Z}=0$ state, assuming ${{\Delta}L}=1\%$, the background cross section should be known better than 0.6\% in order to get the systematic error of $\lambda_\gamma$ measurement smaller than the statistical one. For $\kappa_\gamma$ estimations there are no restrictions on the background cross section due to the large error. Assuming ${{\Delta}L}=0.1\%$ in $J_{Z}=0$ state, the $\kappa_\gamma$ measurement gives a smaller systematic error than the statistical one if the background cross section is known better than 1.1\% while for $\lambda_\gamma$ it still should be known below 0.6\% (Table \ref{tab:set8}).

804: %

805: \begin{table}[h]

806: \begin{center}

807: \begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|c|c||c|c||c|} \hline

808: \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{real $\gamma e$ mode} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{parasitic $\gamma e$ mode} &\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$J_{Z}=0$} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$|J_{Z}|=2$} \\ \hline \hline

809: $\Delta L$ & 0.1$\%$ & 0.1$\%$ & 1$\%$ & 0.1$\%$ & 0.1$\%$ \\ \hline \hline

810: $\kappa_{\gamma}$ & 3$\%$ & 1$\%$ & /$^{*}$ & 1.1$\%$ & 0.8$\%$ \\ \hline

811: $\lambda_{\gamma}$ & /$^{*}$ & 10$\%$ & 0.6$\%$ & 0.6$\%$ & 4$\%$ \\ \hline

812: \end{tabular}

813: \end{center}

814: \caption{Maximal allowed errors on background cross sections for estimation of the systematic errors on $\kappa_\gamma$ and $\lambda_\gamma$ measurements less than one statistical error in $\gamma e$ and $\gamma\gamma$ collisions. ($^{*}$) means that the estimated systematic errors are below one statistical error if the precision of the background cross section exceeds the level of 10\%.}

815: \label{tab:set8}

816: \end{table}

817: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

818: