\section{}

\maketitle

\section{Introduction}
In Parrondo's game~\cite{harmer99b}, in its usually form as a gambling game,
a single agent plays against a bank, with the choice of two games $A$ and $B$,
whose results are determined by the toss of biased coins.
Each of these games is losing when played in isolation
but when played alternately or in some other deterministic or random sequence
(such as $ABAB$ etc.)
can become a winning game.
Because of its anti-intuitive nature, Parrondo's games are also referred to as Parrondo's paradox.
Game $B$ is constructed in such a way that there is a form of feedback from the game state that,
when the game is played by itself,
causes the game to be a losing game.
Interspersing plays of game $A$ disrupts the feedback and the net result can be a winning game.
The feedback can be in the form of dependence on the total capital of the player~\cite{harmer99a},
on the history of previous wins and losses~\cite{parrondo00,kay02}
or, in a multiplayer setting, on the performance of neighbouring players~\cite{toral02}.

Interest in quantum models of Parrondo's games was initiated by Meyer~\cite{meyer02a,meyer02b},
who presented a model analogous to the capital-dependent Parrondo's game,
and was later extended to the history-dependent model~\cite{flitney02b,flitney04b}.
A close quantum analogue of the capital dependent Parrondo's game
was also developed by Ko\u{s}\'{i}k~\cite{kosik07}.

A quantum analogue of a classical discrete random walk
can be obtained by replacing
the classical coin by an SU(2) operator.
If the walker position on a one-dimensional line represents the player's total capital,
a quantum walk becomes a natural setting for a quantum Parrondo's game.
As distinct from the classical case,
in a quantum setting the change from winning to losing
may be achieved by interference effects between the two games.

In the quantum Parrondo's game model of Ref.~\cite{chand11}
two players A and B play alternately.
Winning for player A is defined as motion to the right
while motion to the left is defined as winning for player B.
It is then obvious that when
A and B use their coins alternately that one or the other of them will `win',
or that the expectation of the walker position will be zero,
in which case the players are joint winners, according to the authors' criteria.
This does not have the anti-intuitive aspect that is characteristic of Parrondo's
games nor is it a single player with a choice of two games.
A two-dimensional analogue of this idea has also appeared as an e-print~\cite{ampadu11}.
Despite its failure to meet the criterion as a Parrondo's game the idea
used in Refs.~\cite{chand11,ampadu11}
of biasing a quantum walk using phase factors
can be used to construct a version of a quantum Parrondo's game that relies on quantum interference
to produce the counter-intuitive motion of the walker in a one-dimensional quantum walk.

In this paper
we first introduce quantum walks
and discuss how to control them using the coin parameters and the initial state.
This is well covered in the literature
and is included here briefly only for completeness.
In Sec.~\ref{sec:our_model} the new quantum Parrondo's model is presented
and Sec.~\ref{sec:results} presents results for all combinations of games $A$ and $B$ of length four or less,
giving the regions in parameter space for which the effect can be achieved.
It will be noticed that although the expectation of the walker position
is reversed for some finite number of time steps,
eventually the original bias reasserts itself.
Thus we term this phenomena {\em transient} quantum Parrondo's games.

\section{Basics of quantum walks}
\label{sec:qwalks}
The usefulness of classical random walks in mathematics, theoretical computer science
and computational physics~\cite{papa94,motwani95}
has inspired significant interest in quantum walks,
both in continuous-time~\cite{farhi98,childs02}
and in discrete-time~\cite{aharonov93,meyer96,aharonov01,ambainis01}.
Quantum walks reveal a number of startling differences to their
classical counterparts.
In particular, diffusion on a line is quadratically faster \cite{nayak00,travaglione02},
while propagation across some graphs is exponentially faster \cite{childs02,childs03}.
Quantum walks also show promise as a means of implementing some quantum algorithms~\cite{shenvi03,ambainis04}.
An overview of quantum walks is given in Ref.~\cite{kempe03a}
and a recent comprehensive review appears in Ref.~\cite{va12}.

If a quantum particle moving in discrete time steps along a line
is updated at each step, in superposition, to the left and right,
the global process is necessarily non-unitary~\cite{meyer96}.
However, an additional degree of freedom,
the chirality, taking values $L$ and $R$,
allows unitary quantum walks to be constructed.
Let ${\cal H}_{\rm P}$ be the Hilbert space of discrete particle positions in one-dimension,
spanned by the basis $\{|x\rangle : x \in \mathbb{Z}\}$.
Let ${\cal H}_{\rm C}$ be the Hilbert space of chirality, or ``coin'' states,
spanned by the orthonormal basis $\{|L\rangle, |R\rangle\}$.
A discrete-time, discrete-space quantum walk
on the Hilbert space ${\cal H}_{\rm P} \otimes {\cal H}_{\rm C}$
consists of a unitary operation $\hat{U}$ on the coin state,
followed by the updating of the position to the left or right
according to the result, that is,
\begin{equation}
\hat{E} = (\hat{S} \otimes \hat{\cal P}_{R} \;+\; \hat{S}^{-1} \otimes \hat{\cal P}_{L})
        (\hat{I}_{\rm P} \otimes \hat{U}),
\end{equation}
where $\hat{S}$ is the shift operator in position space,
$\hat{S} |x\rangle = |x+1\rangle$,
$\hat{I}_{\rm P}$ is the identity operator in position space,
and $\hat{\cal P}_R$ and $\hat{\cal P}_L$ are projection operators on the coin space
with $\hat{\cal P}_R + \hat{\cal P}_L = \hat{I}_{\rm C}$, the coin identity operator.
For example, a walk controlled by an unbiased quantum coin
can be carried out by the transformations
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:step1}
\begin{split}
|x, L \rangle &\rightarrow \, \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
        \left( |x-1, L \rangle \,+\, i |x+1, R \rangle \right), \\
|x, R \rangle &\rightarrow \, \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
        \left(i |x-1, L \rangle \,+\, |x+1, R \rangle \right).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
To achieve an unbiased quantum walk with Eq.~(\ref{eq:step1})
we require an initial state
$|\psi_0\rangle = (|0, L \rangle - |0, R \rangle)/\sqrt{2}~$.
The scheme is then equivalent to the Hadamard quantum walk
with initial state $(|0, L\rangle + i |0, R\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$.

Tregenna {\em et al.}~\cite{tregenna03} has shown that with a general initial state
\begin{equation}
\ket{\psi(x,0)} =
	\left( \sqrt{\eta} \ket{R} + e^{i \mu} \sqrt{1-\eta} \ket{L} \right) \otimes \ket{0},
\end{equation}
and with a coin operator of maximum generality (up to an overall phase)
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:general_flip}
\hat{U}(\rho, \theta, \phi) = \begin{pmatrix}
											\sqrt{\rho} 				 & \;e^{i \theta} \sqrt{1-\rho} \\
											e^{i \phi} \sqrt{1-\rho} & \;-e^{i (\theta + \phi)} \sqrt{\rho}
			 						   \end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
$\phi$ disappears in the final dynamics,
while $\theta$ only appears in the combination $\theta + \mu$.
Both $\rho$ and $\eta$ have non-trivial effects on the dynamics
but an unbiased walk requires $\rho = \frac{1}{2}$.

\section{Parrondo's game constructed from alternating coin phases}
\label{sec:our_model}
In the following we will chose the initial state
$|\psi_0\rangle = (|0, L \rangle - |0, R \rangle)/\sqrt{2}~$,
and a more symmetrical form of the coin operator,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:flip}
\hat{U}(\rho, \alpha) = \begin{pmatrix} e^{i \alpha} \sqrt{\rho} & i \sqrt{1-\rho} \\
                         i \sqrt{1-\rho} & e^{-i \alpha} \sqrt{\rho}
                \end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
obtained by multiplying the operator in Eq.~(\ref{eq:general_flip})
by an overall phase $e^{i \alpha}$,
and setting $\theta = \phi = \frac{\pi}{2} - \alpha$.
With $\rho = \frac{1}{2}$ and $\alpha=0$ an unbiased quantum walk is obtained.
However, with $\rho = \frac{1}{2}$ a bias can be introduced,
to the left or right,
by the use of a non-zero phase factor $\alpha$.
If we restrict $\alpha \in [-\frac{\pi}{2}, \frac{\pi}{2}]$,
then $\alpha > 0$ causes average motion to the left while $\alpha < 0$ causes motion to the right.
Introduce the operators
\begin{equation}
\hat{A}(\alpha) = \hat{U}(\frac{1}{2}, \alpha), \;
\hat{B}(\alpha) = \hat{U}(\frac{1}{2}, \beta),
\end{equation}
for some $\alpha, \beta \in [\frac{-\pi}{2}, \frac{\pi}{2}]$.
Connection with Parrondo's games can now be obtained by choosing to use $\hat{A}$ and $\hat{B}$
for games $A$ and $B$, respectively,
with both $\alpha, \beta > 0$.
Thus, quantum walks generated by either $\hat{A}$ or $\hat{B}$ alone
are biased towards the negative (`losing').
The loss is an approximately linear function of the number of time steps $t$.
For example,
$\langle x \rangle |_{t=50} \, \simeq -15.0 \, \sin \alpha$
and $\langle x \rangle |_{t=100} \, \simeq -29.6 \, \sin \alpha$.
However, for some choices of $\alpha$ and $\beta$,
and some combinations of $A$ and $B$,
interference effects can reverse the dynamics
giving a positive expectation value of the walker position (`winning'),
at least up to some finite number of time steps.
Alternately playing $A$ then $B$ $n$-times from the initial state $|\psi_i \rangle$
produces a final state $|\psi_f \rangle$ given by
\begin{equation}
|\psi_f \rangle = ( \hat{B} \otimes \hat{A} )^n \, |\psi_i \rangle.
\end{equation}
The final states for other sequences are produced analogously.

\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
All repeated sequences of four games were tested.
Of these, only $AB$, $ABB$ and $ABBB$ were found to give some positive expectation for the walker
position after 100 time steps.
In each case there is only a small region of values of the phase parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$
that give rise to the positive positions,
as indicated in Figs~\ref{f:AB100}--\ref{f:ABBB100}.
Note that interchanging games $A$ and $B$ only has the effect of reversing the role of $\alpha$ and $\beta$
and gives no new dynamics.
The results for game $A$ alone can be obtained by setting $\alpha = \beta$.
In each case this results in a more negative value of $\langle x \rangle$
for a given number of time steps $t$
than the alternating sequence for near-by values of $\alpha \ne \beta$.

For a sufficiently large number of time steps
all sequences eventually show a return to a negative expectation value for the walker position.
Some examples of the expectation value of the walker for the first 1000 time steps are shown in
Figs.~\ref{f:AB_change_ab}--\ref{f:ABBB_change_ab},
for the sequences $AB$, $ABB$ and $ABBB$, respectively.
The solid (near) straight lines in the right hand figures indicate the result for playing game $A$ only,
for $\alpha = 0.005$.
These graphs indicate that $\langle x \rangle$ has an oscillatory pattern superimposed upon a downward trend.
Decreasing $\alpha$ leads to a lessening of the downward slope,
while decreasing $\beta$ leads to longer periods of oscillation.
A short period, low amplitude oscillation is superimposed upon the longer one.
The amplitude of this oscillation becomes more pronounced as we go from the sequence $AB$ to $ABB$ to $ABBB$,
as close inspection of the figures show.

\section{Conclusion}
We have shown that a quantum walk on a line can give rise to a transient quantum Parrondo's game.
Two different biased coin operators $\hat{A}$ and $\hat{B}$
play the role of the two games in the Parrondo effect.
Bias is achieved by adding a phase factor to the coin operator.
Although each operator,
when used alone,
gives negative expectation values for the walker position as the number of steps increases,
when used in the repeated sequences $AB$, $ABB$ or $ABBB$
can give rise to movement in the positive direction,
for some values of the phase factors.
We have detailed the range of values of these phase factors that give rise
to the Parrondo effect after 100 time steps
for each of these sequences.
The effect is transitory.
For large enough times all sequences eventually result in a negative
expectation value for the  walker position.


\section{Introduction}
\noindent
Among the oldest open problems of hadronic physics, not yet satisfactorily
solved in QCD, there is the problem of predicting hadronic total cross
sections at high energy from first principles.
Present-day experimental observations (up to a center-of-mass total energy
$\sqrt{s} = 7$ TeV, reached at the LHC $pp$ collider \cite{LHC})
seem to support the following asymptotic high-energy behavior:
$\sigma_{\rm tot}^{{}_{(hh)}} (s) \sim B \log^2 s$, with a {\it universal}
(i.e., {\it not} depending on the particular hadrons
involved) coefficient $B \simeq 0.3$ mb \cite{Blogs}. This behavior is
consistent with the well-known {\it Froissart-Lukaszuk-Martin} (FLM)
{\it theorem}~\cite{FLM}, according to which, for $s \to \infty$,
$\sigma^{{}_{(hh)}}_{\rm tot}(s) \le ({\pi}/{m_\pi^2}) \log^2 (
{{s}/{s_0}} )$, where $m_\pi$ is the pion mass and $s_0$ is an
unspecified squared mass scale. As we believe QCD to be the
fundamental theory of strong interactions, we also expect that it
correctly predicts from first principles the behavior of hadronic
total cross sections. However, in spite of all the efforts, a
satisfactory solution to this problem is still lacking.
(For some theoretical supports to the universality of $B$,
see Ref. \cite{DGN} and references therein.)

This problem is part of the more general problem of high-energy
elastic scattering at low transferred momentum, the so-called {\it soft
high-energy scattering}. As soft high-energy processes possess
two different energy scales, the total center-of-mass energy squared
$s$ and the transferred momentum squared $t$, smaller than the typical
energy scale of strong interactions ($|t| \lesssim 1~ {\rm GeV}^2 \ll
s$), we cannot fully rely on perturbation theory (PT). A
nonperturbative (NP) approach in the framework of QCD has been
proposed in~\cite{Nachtmann91} and further developed in~\cite{DFK}:
using a functional integral approach, high-energy hadron-hadron
elastic scattering amplitudes are shown to be governed by the
correlation function (CF) of certain Wilson loops defined in Minkowski
space~\cite{DFK}. This CF can be reconstructed by {\it analytic continuation}
from the CF of two Euclidean Wilson loops
\cite{Meggiolaro97,Meggiolaro05,GM2009}, that can be calculated
using the NP methods of Euclidean Field Theory.
The analytic-continuation relations have allowed the NP investigation
of CFs using some analytical models, such as the \textit{Stochastic
Vacuum Model} (SVM)~\cite{LLCM2}, the \textit{Instanton Liquid Model}
(ILM)~\cite{ILM,GM2010}, the AdS/CFT \textit{correspondence}~\cite{JP},
and they have also allowed a numerical study by Monte Carlo
simulations in \textit{Lattice Gauge Theory} (LGT)~\cite{GM2008,GM2010}.

In what follows, after a brief survey of the NP approach to soft
high-energy scattering in the case of meson-meson {\it elastic}
scattering, and of the numerical approach based on LGT, we will focus
on the search for a new parameterization of the (Euclidean) CF that,
in order: $i)$ fits well the lattice data; $ii)$ satisfies unitarity
after analytic continuation; and, most importantly, $iii)$ leads to a
rising behavior of total cross sections at high energy as $B \log^2 s$,
in agreement with experimental data \cite{GMM}.
In our approach, the coefficient $B$ turns out to be \textit{universal},
i.e, the same for all hadronic scattering processes,
being related to the mass-scale $\mu$ which sets the large
impact-parameter behavior of the CF.

\section{High-energy meson-meson elastic scattering amplitude
and Wilson-loop correlation functions}

\noindent
In the {\it soft} high-energy regime, the elastic scattering amplitude
${\cal M}_{(hh)}$ of two {\it mesons}, of the same mass $m$ for
simplicity, can be reconstructed from the scattering amplitude
${\cal M}_{(dd)}$ of two dipoles of fixed transverse sizes
$\vec{r}_{1,2\perp}$, and fixed longitudinal-momentum fractions
$f_{1,2}$ of the quarks in the two dipoles, after folding with squared
wave functions $\rho_{1,2}=|\psi_{1,2}|^2$ describing the interacting
hadrons~\cite{DFK},
\begin{align}
{\cal M}_{(hh)}(s,t) &= \textstyle\int
d^2\nu~\rho_1(\nu_1)\rho_2(\nu_2){\cal M}_{(dd)} (s,t;\nu_1,\nu_2)
\nonumber \\
&\equiv \langle\langle {\cal M}_{(dd)} (s,t;1,2) \rangle\rangle ,
\label{scatt-hadron}
\end{align}
where $\nu_i\!=\!(\vec{r}_{i\perp},f_i)$ denotes collectively the
dipole variables, $d^2\nu=d\nu_1d\nu_2$, $\int d\nu_i = \int
d^2\vec{r}_{i\perp}\int_0^1 df_i$, and $\int d\nu_i~\rho_i(\nu_i)=1$.
In turn, the dipole-dipole ({\it dd\/})
scattering amplitude is obtained from the (properly normalized) CF of
two Wilson loops (WL) in the fundamental representation, defined in
Minkowski spacetime, running along the paths made up of the quark and
antiquark classical straight-line trajectories, and thus forming a
hyperbolic angle $\chi \simeq \log(s/m^2)$ in the longitudinal plane.
The paths are cut at proper times $\pm T$ as an infrared
regularization, and closed by straight-line ``links'' in the
transverse plane, in order to ensure gauge invariance; eventually,
$T\to\infty$. It has been shown in
\cite{Meggiolaro97,Meggiolaro05,GM2009} that the relevant Minkowskian
CF ${\cal G}_M(\chi;T;\vec{z}_\perp;\nu_1,\nu_2)$ ($\vec{z}_\perp$
being the {\it impact parameter}, i.e., the transverse separation
between the two dipoles) can be reconstructed, by means of
{\it analytic continuation}, from the Euclidean CF of two Euclidean WL,
${\cal G}_E(\theta;T;\vec{z}_\perp;\nu_1,\nu_2) \!\equiv\!
\langle {\cal W}^{{}_{(T)}}_1 {\cal W}^{{}_{(T)}}_2\rangle/(\langle
{\cal W}^{{}_{(T)}}_1 \rangle \langle {\cal W}^{{}_{(T)}}_2 \rangle )
- 1$,
where $\langle\ldots\rangle$ is the average in the sense of the
Euclidean QCD functional integral. The Euclidean WL
${\cal W}^{{}_{(T)}}_{1,2}\!=\! N_c^{-1}\text{Tr}\{T\!\exp [-ig\oint_{{\cal C}_{1,2}}
\!{A}_{\mu}({x}) d{x}_{\mu}]\}$
are calculated on the following quark $[q]$-antiquark $[\bar{q}]$
straight-line paths, ${\cal C}_i :
{X}_i^{{}_{q[\bar{q}]}}(\tau) = {z}_i + \frac{{p}_{i}}{m} \tau +
f^{{}_{q[\bar{q}]}}_i {r}_{i}$,
with $\tau\in [-T,T]$, and closed by straight-line paths in the
transverse plane at $\tau=\pm T$. Here
${p}_{1,2}={m}(\pm\sin\frac{\theta}{2}, \vec{0}_{\perp},
\cos\frac{\theta}{2})$, ${r}_{i} = (0,\vec{r}_{i\perp},0)$, ${z}_i =
\delta_{i1}(0,\vec{z}_{\perp},0)$ and $f_i^{{}_{q}} \equiv 1-f_i$,
$f_i^{{}_{\bar{q}}} \equiv -f_i$.
We define also the CFs with the infrared cutoff removed as ${\cal C}_{E,M}
\equiv\lim_{T\to\infty}{\cal G}_{E,M}$. The {\it dd}
scattering amplitude is then obtained from ${\cal C}_E(\theta;\ldots)$
[with $\theta\in(0,\pi)$] by means of analytic continuation as ($t =
-|\vec{q}_\perp|^2$)
\begin{align}
&{\cal M}_{(dd)} (s,t;\nu_1,\nu_2)
\!\equiv\! -i\,2s \textstyle\int d^2 \vec{z}_\perp
e^{i \vec{q}_\perp \cdot \vec{z}_\perp}
{\cal C}_M(\chi ; \vec{z}_\perp;\nu_1,\nu_2)
\nonumber \\ \label{scatt-loop}
&= -i\,2s \textstyle\int d^2 \vec{z}_\perp
e^{i \vec{q}_\perp \cdot \vec{z}_\perp}
{\cal C}_E(\theta\to -i\chi ; \vec{z}_\perp;\nu_1,\nu_2)\, .
\end{align}
Choosing $\rho_{1,2}$ invariant under rotations and under the exchange
$f_i\to\! 1-f_i$ (see Refs.~\cite{DFK}), ${\cal C}_E$ can be
substituted in~\eqref{scatt-hadron} with the following {\it averaged}
CF:
${\cal C}_E^{ave}(\theta;|\vec{z}_{\perp}|;\hat\nu_1,\hat\nu_2) \equiv
\int\frac{d\phi_1}{2\pi} \textstyle\int\frac{d\phi_2}{2\pi}
\frac{1}{4}\{{\cal C}_E(\theta;\!\vec{z}_{\perp};\nu_1,\nu_2)+
{\cal C}_E(\theta;\!\vec{z}_{\perp};\bar\nu_1,\nu_2) +
{\cal C}_E(\theta;\!\vec{z}_{\perp};\nu_1,\bar\nu_2) +
{\cal C}_E(\theta;\!\vec{z}_{\perp}; \bar\nu_1,\bar\nu_2)\!\}$,
where $\vec{r}_{i\perp} = |\vec{r}_{i\perp}|(\cos\phi_i,\sin\phi_i)$,
 $\hat\nu_i=(|\vec{r}_{i\perp}|,f_i)$ and
 $\bar\nu_i=(-\vec{r}_{i\perp}, 1-f_i)$.
Similarly, one defines the Minkowskian averaged CF,
$\mathcal{C}_M^{ave}$. As a consequence of the (Euclidean)
{\it crossing-symmetry relations}~\cite{GM2006},
$\mathcal{C}_E(\pi-\theta;\vec{z}_{\perp};\nu_1,\nu_2)
\!\!=\!\!\mathcal{C}_E(\theta;\vec{z}_{\perp};\nu_1,\bar\nu_2)
\!\!=\!\!\mathcal{C}_E(\theta;\vec{z}_{\perp};\bar\nu_1,\nu_2)$,
${\cal C}_E^{ave}$ is automatically {\it crossing-symmetric}, i.e.,
${\cal C}_E^{ave}(\pi-\theta;\ldots)={\cal C}_E^{ave}(\theta;\ldots)$.

\section{Wilson-loop correlation functions on the lattice and
comparison with known analytical results}

\noindent
In Refs.~\cite{GM2008,GM2010} two of us performed a Monte Carlo
calculation of ${\cal C}_E$ in {\it quenched} QCD at lattice spacing
$a(\beta=6)\simeq 0.1\,{\rm fm}$, on a $16^4$ hypercubic lattice. We
used loops of transverse size $a$ at angles $\cot \theta\! =\! 0,\pm
1,\pm 2$. The longitudinal-momentum fractions were set to
$f_{1,2}=\frac{1}{2}$ without loss of generality~\cite{GM2010}. We
studied the configurations $\vec{z}_{\perp} \!\parallel
\!\vec{r}_{1\perp}\! \parallel\! \vec{r}_{2\perp}$ (``{\it zzz}''),
$\vec{z}_{\perp} \!\perp \! \vec{r}_{1\perp} \!\parallel\!
\vec{r}_{2\perp}$ (``{\it zyy}'') in the transverse plane, and the
averaged quantity (``{\it ave}'') defined above, for loops at
transverse distances $d \equiv |\vec{z}_\perp|/a = 0,1,2$.

Numerical simulations of LGT provide (within the errors) the true QCD
expectation for ${\cal C}_E$; approximate analytical calculations of
${\cal C}_E$ have then to be compared with the lattice data, in order
to test the goodness of the approximations involved. ${\cal C}_E$ has
been evaluated in the SVM,
${\cal C}^{\rm{}_{(SVM)}}_E\!=\! \textstyle\frac{2}{3}e^{-\frac{1}{3}
K_{\rm S}\cot\theta} + \frac{1}{3} e^{\frac{2}{3} K_{\rm S}\cot\theta} - 1$
\cite{LLCM2}, in PT,
${\cal C}_E^{\rm {}_{(PT)}}\! =\! K_{\rm p} \cot^2\theta$
\cite{BB,Meggiolaro05,LLCM2},
in the ILM,
${\cal C}^{\rm {}_{(ILM)}}_E\!=\! \frac{K_{\rm I}}{\sin\theta}$
\cite{ILM,GM2010},
and, using the AdS/CFT correspondence, for planar, strongly coupled
${\cal N}=4$ SYM at large $|\trpl{z}|$,
${\cal C}^{\rm {}_{(AdS/CFT)}}_E = e^{\frac{K_1}{\sin\theta} +
K_2\cot\theta + K_3\cos\theta\cot\theta}-1$~\cite{JP}.
The coefficients $K_i = K_i(\trpl{z};\nu_1,\nu_2)$ are functions of
$\trpl{z}$ and of the dipole variables $\vec{r}_{i\perp}, f_i$. The
comparison of the lattice data with these analytical calculations,
performed in Ref.~\cite{GM2008} by fitting the lattice data with the
corresponding functional form, is not fully satisfactory, even though
largely improved best fits have been obtained by combining the ILM and
PT expressions into the expression ${\cal C}^{\rm {}_{(ILMp)}}_E =
\frac{K_{\rm Ip1}}{\sin\theta} + K_{\rm Ip2}\cot^2\theta $.
Regarding the energy dependence of total cross
sections, the above analytical models are absolutely unsatisfactory,
as they do not lead to {\it Froissart-like} total cross sections at
high energy, as experimental data seem to suggest. Infact, the SVM,
PT, ILM and ILMp parameterizations lead to asymptotically constant
$\sigma_{\rm tot}^{{}_{(hh)}}$, while the AdS/CFT result leads to
power-like $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{{}_{(hh)}}$~\cite{GP2010}.

\section{How a Froissart-like total cross section can be obtained}

\noindent
We will now introduce, and partially justify, new parameterizations of
the CF that:
i) fit well the data;
ii) satisfy the unitarity condition after analytic continuation; and
iii) lead to total cross sections rising as $B \log^2 s$ in the
high-energy limit \cite{GMM}.
Regarding unitarity, from~\eqref{scatt-hadron} and \eqref{scatt-loop}
one recognizes that the quantity $A(s,|\trpl{z}|)\equiv
\langle\langle\mathcal{C}_M(\chi;\trpl{z};1,2)\rangle\rangle$ is the scattering
amplitude in impact-parameter space, which must satisfy the
{\it unitarity constraint} $|A+1|\leq 1$ (see~\cite{unitarity}). Since
$\int d\nu_i~\rho_i(\nu_i)=1$, this is the case if the following
\textit{sufficient} condition is satisfied (as we can replace
$\mathcal{C}_M\to\mathcal{C}_M^{ave}$ when averaging over the dipole
variables, a similar but weaker \textit{sufficient} condition can be
given in terms of $\mathcal{C}_M^{ave}$):
\begin{equation}\label{unitcorrdd}
|\mathcal{C}_M(\chi;\trpl{z};\nu_1,\nu_2)+1| \leq 1 \qquad
\forall \,\,\trpl{z},~\nu_1,~\nu_2.
\end{equation}
The conditions above constrain rather strongly the possible
parameterizations. For example, conditions ii) and iii) cannot be
simultaneously satisfied if the angular dependence can be factorized,
for in this case the unitarity constraint would imply
$\sigma^{{}_{(hh)}}_{\text{tot}}(\chi)\to \text{const.}$ for
$\chi\to\!\infty$. We shall \textit{assume} that the Euclidean CF can be
written as $\mathcal{C}_E=\exp K_E-1$, where
$K_E=K_E(\theta;\trpl{z};\nu_1,\nu_2)$ is a \textit{real} function
(since $\mathcal{C}_E$ is \textit{real}~\cite{GM2008}). This assumption
is rather well justified: in the large-$N_c$ expansion, $\mathcal{C}_E
\sim\mathcal{O}(1/N_c^2)$, so that $\mathcal{C}_E+1\geq0$ is certainly
satisfied for large $N_c$; all the known analytical models satisfy it;
the lattice data of Refs.~\cite{GM2008,GM2010} confirm it.
The Minkowskian CF is then obtained after analytic continuation:
$\mathcal{C}_M=\exp K_M-1$, with $K_M(\chi;\ldots) = K_E(\theta \to\!
-i\chi;\ldots)$. At large $\chi$, $\mathcal{C}_M$ is expected to obey
the unitarity condition~\eqref{unitcorrdd}, which in this case
reduces to $\text{Re} K_M\leq0\,\,\, \forall \trpl{z}, \nu_1,\nu_2$.

For a {\it confining} theory like QCD, $\mathcal{C}_E$ is expected to
decay exponentially as $\mathcal{C}_E\sim\alpha\,e^{-\mu |\trpl{z}|}$
at large $|\trpl{z}|$, where $\mu$ is some mass-scale proportional to
the mass of the lightest glueball ($M_G\!\simeq\! 1.5$ GeV) or maybe
to the inverse of the so-called \textit{vacuum correlation length}
$\lambda_{vac}$ (e.g., $\mu={2}/{\lambda_{vac}}$ in the SVM), which
has been measured on the lattice~\cite{lambda-vacuum}, both in
\textit{quenched} ($\lambda_{vac}\simeq0.22$ fm) and \textit{full} QCD
($\lambda_{vac}\simeq0.30$ fm). Therefore, we should require the same
large-$|\trpl{z}|$ behavior for $K_E$, i.e., $K_E \sim e^{-\mu |\trpl{z}|}$.

Let us now assume that the leading term of the Minkowskian CF for
$\chi\!\to\!+\infty$ is of the form $\mathcal{C}_M \sim \exp\big(i\,
\beta\,f (\chi)\,e^{-\mu |\trpl{z}|}\big)-1$ [recall
$\chi\simeq\log(s/m^2)$], where $\beta\!=\!\beta(\nu_1,\nu_2)$ is a
function of the dipole variables and $f(\chi)$ is a \textit{real}
function such that $f(\chi)\to\!+\infty$ for $\chi\to\! +\infty$.
In this case, the unitarity condition~\eqref{unitcorrdd} is equivalent
(for large $\chi$) to {$\text{Im}\beta\!\geq\!0$}. This $\trpl{z}$
dependence is expected to be valid only for large enough $|\trpl{z}|$,
but for simplicity we shall first assume that it is valid
$\forall|\trpl{z}|\!\geq\!0$. By virtue of the {\it optical theorem},
$\sigma_{\rm tot}^{{}_{(hh)}} (s)\!\sim \! s^{-1} {\rm Im} {\cal M}_{(hh)}
(s, t\!=\!0)$, we have that
$\sigma^{{}_{(hh)}}_{\text{tot}} \sim {4\pi}{\mu^{-2}} \text{Re} \langle\langle
J(\eta,\beta) \rangle\rangle$, where $J(\eta,\beta)\!\equiv\!\int_0^\infty dy \,
y[1-\exp(i\beta e^{\eta-y})]$, with $f(\chi)=e^\eta$, and $y=\mu
|\trpl{z}|$. Expanding the exponential, integrating term by term, and
deriving with respect to $\eta$, we find
${\partial J}/{\partial \eta}=-\textstyle\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}
{(-z)^n}/({n! n})=E_1(z) + \log(z) + \gamma$,
for $|\arg(z)|<\pi$ ($z=-i\beta e^\eta$), where $\gamma$ is the
Euler-Mascheroni constant and $E_1(z)$ is Schl\"omilch's exponential
integral (see~\cite{GR}). Since $E_1(z) \!\sim\! e^{-z}/z$ at large
$|z|$, for $\text{Re} \, z \ge 0 \Leftrightarrow \text{Im} \beta \geq 0 $, the
asymptotic form of $\partial J/\partial\eta$ is readily obtained;
re-integrating in $\eta$ and substituting back $\eta = \log f(\chi)$,
we find $\sigma^{{}_{(hh)}}_{\text{tot}} \sim
{4\pi}{\mu^{-2}}\textstyle\langle\langle \textstyle\frac{1}{2}\log^2
f(\chi)+\log f(\chi) (\log|\beta| + \gamma)+\dots\rangle\rangle$. If one takes
$f(\chi)= \chi^p e^{n\chi}$, the resulting asymptotic behavior of
$\sigma^{{}_{(hh)}}_{\text{tot}} $ is
\begin{equation}\label{sigmatotlead}
\vspace{-1.48pt}
\sigma^{(hh)}_{\text{tot}} \sim B \log^2 s,
\qquad \text{with:}\qquad B = \textstyle\frac{2\pi n^2}{\mu^2}.
\vspace{-1.48pt}
\end{equation}
The same result is obtained assuming the above approximation for
$\mathcal{C}_M$ only for $|\trpl{z}| \!>\!z_0 \!\gg\!
\mu^{-1},|\bitrpl{r}{i}|$: the difference in
$\sigma^{{}_{(hh)}}_{\text{tot}}$, coming from the integration of
$\mathcal{C}_M$ over the finite region $|\trpl{z}| \!<\! z_0$,
is bounded by a constant due to the unitarity constraint.
The analysis can be repeated for $\mathcal{C}^{ave}$ without altering
any conclusion. We want to emphasize that the above result is
\textit{universal}, depending only on the mass scale $\mu$, which sets
the large-$|\trpl{z}|$ dependence of the CF, since the integration
over the dipole variables does {\it not} affect the leading term.
The \textit{universal} coefficient $B$ is not affected by the masses of
the scattering particles: for mesons of masses $m_{1,2}$, the rapidity
becomes $\chi\sim\log(\frac{s}{m_1 m_2})$, which simply corresponds to
a change of the energy scale implicitly contained in~\eqref{sigmatotlead}.

\section{New analysis of the lattice data}

\noindent
We show now three parameterizations
${\cal C}_E^{{}_{(i)}}=\exp{K_E^{{}_{(i)}}}-1$, $i=1,2,3$,
that satisfy the criteria i)--iii) listed above, together with the
corresponding estimate of the asymptotic total cross section at high
energy \cite{GMM}. We focus our analysis on the averaged CF $\mathcal{C}^{ave}$,
that is \virg{closer} to the hadronic scattering matrix ${\cal M}_{(hh)}$.
As $\mathcal{C}^{ave}$ is \textit{crossing-symmetric}, so are our
parameterizations.

In order to parameterize $K_E$, a possible strategy is to combine
known QCD results and variations thereof. We have then exponentiated
the two-gluon exchange and the one-instanton contribution (i.e., the
ILMp expression), adding a term which could yield a rising cross
section, e.g., a term proportional to $\cos\theta\cot\theta$, as in
the AdS/CFT result. We thus find the following parameterization:
$K_E^{{}_{(1)}}=\frac{K_1}{\sin\theta}+K_2 \cot^2\theta + K_3
\cos\theta\cot\theta$.
Another strategy is suggested again by the AdS/CFT result: one can try
to adapt to QCD analytical expressions obtained in related models,
such as ${\cal N}\!=\!4$ SYM. Although QCD, of course, is not ${\cal N}\!=\!4$
SYM, it is sensible to assume a similar dependence on
$\theta$ (basically assuming the existence of the yet unknown gravity
dual for QCD). In this spirit, the second parameterization that we
propose is: $K_E^{{}_{(2)}} = \frac{K_1}{\sin\theta} + K_2
(\frac{\pi}{2}-\theta) \cot\theta + K_3 \cos\theta\cot\theta$.
Beside the AdS/CFT-like terms, it contains also a $\theta\cot\theta$ term.
Our last parameterization is: $K_E^{{}_{(3)}} = \frac{K_1}{\sin\theta}
+ K_2(\frac{\pi}{2}-\theta)^3 \cos\theta$. While the first term is
\virg{familiar}, the second one is not present in the known analytical
models, but it is a fact that the resulting best fit is extremely good
(see Fig.~\ref{corr1fit}).
In Table~\ref{tab:chi2} we report the values of the chi-squared
per degree of freedom ($\chi^2_{\rm d.o.f.}$) of the best fits
to the lattice data.
\begin{table}
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}
{|l|c|c|c|}
\hline
$\chi^2_{\rm d.o.f.}$ & $d=0$ & $d=1$ & $d=2$\\
\hline
Corr 1 & 2.81 & 1.25 & 0.05 \\
Corr 2 & 0.55 & 0.31 & 0.05 \\
Corr 3 & 0.17 & 0.11 & 0.10 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\scriptsize Chi-squared per degree of freedom for a best fit with the
indicated function.}
\label{tab:chi2}
\end{table}

In the three cases, the unitarity condition $\text{Re} K_M^{{}_{(i)}}\le 0$
is satisfied if $K_2\geq0$: this is actually the case for our best
fits (within the errors). The leading term after analytic continuation
is of the form $\chi^pe^{\chi}$ which, according
to~\eqref{sigmatotlead}, leads to $\sigma^{{}_{(hh)}}_{\text{tot}}
\sim B \log^2 s$. The value of $B=2\pi/\mu^2$, obtained through a fit
of the coefficient of the leading term with an exponential function
$\sim e^{-\mu |\trpl{z}|} $ over the available distances, is found to
be compatible with the experimental result (within the large errors)
in all the three cases (see Table~\ref{tab:lambdavac}). However, this
must be taken only as an estimate, as lattice data are available only
for small $|\trpl{z}|$.

\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig1.eps}}
\caption{\scriptsize Lattice data for ${\cal C}_E^{ave}$ and best fit with
${\cal C}_E^{{}_{(3)}}$.}
\label{corr1fit}
\end{figure}

\begin{table}
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|}
\hline
& $\mu$ (GeV) & $\lambda=\frac{1}{\mu}$ (fm) & $B=\frac{2\pi}{\mu^2}$ (mb) \\
\hline
Corr 1 & $4.64(2.38)$ & $0.042^{+0.045}_{-0.014}$ & $0.113^{+0.364}_{-0.037}$ \\
Corr 2 & $3.79(1.46)$ & $0.052^{+0.032}_{-0.014}$ & $0.170^{+0.277}_{-0.081}$ \\
Corr 3 & $3.18(98)$ & $0.062^{+0.028}_{-0.015}$ & $0.245^{+0.263}_{-0.100}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\scriptsize Mass-scale $\mu$, \virg{decay length} $\lambda=1/\mu$ and
the coefficient $B=2\pi/\mu^2$ obtained with our parameterizations.}
\label{tab:lambdavac}
\end{table}

\section{Conclusions}
\noindent
We have shown how a {\it universal} and {\it Froissart-like} hadron-hadron
total cross section at high energy can emerge in QCD, and we have found
indications for this behavior from the lattice. The functional integral
approach provides the \virg{natural} setting for achieving this result,
since it encodes the energy dependence of hadronic scattering amplitudes
in a single \textit{elementary} object, i.e., the loop-loop CF.


\section{Introduction}

An interface between two conductors presents an obstacle for charge (electron or hole) transport, transmitting a fraction $\tau$ of the incident current and reflecting the remainder $1-\tau$.
Normal reflection plays a central role in Andreev-reflection spectroscopy according to the BTK theory \cite{Blonder1982} which assumes that the transmitted electrons and the retro-reflected holes are affected in the same way.
This allows to measure the transmission coefficient of normal-superconductor interfaces.
Blonder and Tinkham \cite{Blonder1983} explained the usually observed Andreev reflection double-minimum structure - an enhanced resistance around zero bias inside the energy gap - as being due to a combination of tunneling through a dielectric layer and the mismatch of Fermi velocities.
A dielectric oxide \cite{Simmons1964} or water/ice layer \cite{Repphun1995} has to be expected when the contact between the two conductors is not prepared at ultrahigh-vacuum conditions.
Even a contact between two identical metals disrupts the crystal lattice symmetry and should lead to some amount of normal reflection.
Describing the real interface with a $\delta$-function barrier and in the one-dimensional free electron approximation \cite{Landau1977}, the transmission coefficient $\tau = 1 / (1+Z^2)$ can be obtained from \cite{Blonder1983}
\begin{equation}
  Z^2 = Z_b^2 + (1-r)^2/(4 r)
  \label{Z parameter}
  \end{equation}
where $r = v_{F1}/v_{F2}$ is the ratio of Fermi velocities $v_{F1}$ and $v_{F2}$ of the two electrodes.
Thus one could directly measure Fermi-velocity ratios once the contribution $Z_b$ of the dielectric barrier is known.

This seemingly simple situation changed dramatically with the discovery of heavy-fermion superconductors where the 'heavy' conduction electrons form the Cooper pairs \cite{Steglich1979}.
The first point-contact study of those compounds by U.~Poppe \cite{Poppe1985} and Steglich {\it et al.} \cite{Steglich1985} focussed on Giaever-type tunneling to measure the density of states of the new superconductors and the Josephson effect to probe the symmetry of the heavy-fermion order parameter, without considering Andreev reflection.
E.~W.~Fenton \cite{Fenton1985} predicted a huge normal reflection coefficient of interfaces between a heavy-fermion and a conventional metal, corresponding to $Z \gg 1$, because of their very small Fermi velocities down to $1/1000$ of that of conventional metals.
This idea got partial support by a large background residual resistance of those heavy-fermion contacts where the cross-sectional area could be determined independently \cite{Gloos1995,Gloos1996a,Gloos1996b}.
However, the corresponding tunneling-like Andreev reflection anomalies have never been found.

A second approach by Deutscher and Nozi{\`e}res \cite{Deutscher1994} seemed to resolve the question of the puzzlingly small normal reflection.
According to them not the heavy particles cross the interface, but the bare ones.
This suggests that it is not the mismatch of Fermi velocities but that of the Fermi wave numbers that matters for normal reflection.
Equation \ref{Z parameter} remains with $r$ the ratio of Fermi wave numbers.
For interfaces between heavy-fermion compounds and conventional metals this ratio is of order unity, and therefore the $Z$ parameter should be rather small.
Since then many point-contact Andreev reflection experiments on heavy-fermion superconductors have been performed, for example \cite{DeWilde1994,Park2008}, focussing on the symmetry of the superconducting order parameter, and paying less attention to normal reflection.

Meanwhile, the study of the proximity effect at superconducting - normal metal thin film layered structures, which depends strongly on the transparency of the interfaces, has progressed \cite{Attanasio2006,Kushnir2009}.
Such thin films are usually fabricated in ultra-high vacuum, making a dielectric interface barrier unlikely and leaving Fermi surface mismatch to explain normal reflection.
These experiments suggest that $\tau \lesssim 0.5$ (corresponding to $Z \gtrsim 1$) for contacts between simple metals, considerably less than the expected $\tau \approx 1$ ($Z \approx 0$) in free-electron approximation.
One can also measure directly the current perpendicular to plane (CPP) resistance of an interface with a well defined geometry \cite{Pratt2009,Sharma2009} and compare it with electronic-structure calculations \cite{Xu2006,Xu2006b}.
The CPP resistance should contain information about normal reflection, but for us it is difficult to extract.

Measuring spin polarization using Andreev-reflection spectroscopy \cite{Soulen1998} is another research topic that relies heavily on normal reflection.
According to the general point of view \cite{Bugoslavsky2005,Baltz2009}, the true spin polarization is only obtained at highly transparent interfaces when $Z \rightarrow 0$ while the measured polarization drops to zero around $Z \approx 1$ for contacts with conventional ferromagnets like cobalt, iron, and nickel.
This strong $Z$ dependence of the polarisation does not match the results of the Tedrow-Meservey tunneling experiments \cite{Tedrow1973} carried out in the opposite $Z \gg 1$ limit, indicating that the interface transparency affects the measured polarization \cite{Kant2002,Woods2004}.

Although the BTK $Z$ is assumed to be well understood, it is very often treated as a simple fit parameter without further consideration.
We show here for contacts between aluminium, one of the most simple superconductors, and various non-magnetic normal metals, that the $Z$  parameter is very likely not related to Fermi surface mismatch as it is understood today.

\section{Experimental}

Our point contacts were made using the shear (crossed wire) method by gently touching with one sample wire another one.
The wires had diameters of either $0.25\,$mm (all normal metals) or $0.5\,$mm (Al).
The contacts were measured at temperatures down to 0.1\,K in the vacuum region of a dilution refrigerator.
A DC current $I$ with a small superposed AC component $dI$ is injected into
the contact and the voltage drop $V+dV$ across the contact measured to obtain the $I(V)$ characteristics as well as the differential resistance spectrum $dV/dI(V)$.
We estimate the contact radius $a$ by the ballistic Sharvin resistance $R = 2 R_K / (ak_F)^2$ where $R_K = h/e^2$.
In free-electron approximation these metals have typically Fermi wave numbers of $k_F \approx 14\,$nm$^{-1}$ \cite{Ashcroft1976}.
Thus a $1\,\Omega$ contact has a radius of $a \approx 16\,$nm, assuming circular symmetry, or $\sim \! 830\,{\text{nm}}^2$ cross-sectional area.
This agrees reasonably well with the $\pi a^2 R \approx 1.1\,$f$\Omega$m$^2$ CPP resistance of Al - Cu interfaces \cite{Sharma2009}.

We have chosen only contacts that had spectra with the characteristic double-minimum structure of Andreev reflection like the ones in Figures \ref{spectra} and \ref{spectral-shape}, roughly half of all contacts.
The spectra were analysed using the modified BTK theory that includes Dynes' lifetime parameter $\Gamma$ \cite{Plecenik1994}.
The normal resistance agreed with the asymptotic differential resistance at large bias voltages.
Side peaks at finite bias voltage, for example due to the self-magnetic field, were easy to recognize and did therefore not affect the analysis with respect to normal reflection.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{Fig-1.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Differential resistance spectra $dV/dI$ versus bias voltage $V$ of an Al - Au contact in the temperature range from 0.1\,K to 0.9\,K in 0.1\,K steps and above $0.9\,$K in 0.05\,K steps. The insets show a) the superconducting energy gap $2\Delta$ together with the theoretical BCS temperature dependence (solid line), the $Z$ and the $\Gamma$ parameter as function of temperature as well as b) the temperature dependence of the zero bias resistance $dV/dI(V=0)$.}
  \label{spectra}
  \end{figure}

Figure \ref{spectra} shows the spectra of one of the Al - Au contacts as function of temperature.
The extracted energy gap $2\Delta(T)$ follows closely the BCS temperature dependence, while $\Gamma$ and $Z$ remain nearly constant.
As long as the double-minimum structure exists, for this contact up to 0.9\,K, all three parameters can be determined independently (the error bars are smaller than the symbol sizes).
The double minimum collapses into a single one at $T > 0.9\,$K. For those spectra we kept $Z$ constant and fitted only $2\Delta_0$ and $\Gamma$.
The contacts discussed below were measured at $T = 0.1\,$K$ \ll T_c$ to reduce thermal smearing in order to reliably determine $\Gamma$.
Figure \ref{spectral-shape} shows a selection of typical spectra over the accessible resistance range together with fit curves and the extracted parameters.
Noticeable deviations from the BTK-type fit appear only at very large resistances, that is very small contacts.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{Fig-2.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Typical differential resistance spectra $dV/dI$ normalized with respect to the normal contact resistance $R$ versus bias voltage $V$ of Al - Au contacts at $T = 0.1\,$K.
The fits (thin lines) of the low-resistance contacts a) to c) match perfectly the measured curves (thick solid curves). The spectra b) to e) have been shifted vertically in units of 0.15.
They have the following parameters:
a) $R = 3.2\,\Omega$, $2\Delta_0 = 365\,\mu$eV, $\Gamma = 28\,\mu$eV, and $Z = 0.56$.
b) $22.5\,\Omega$, $365\,\mu$eV, $22\,\mu$eV, and $0.55$.
c) $482\,\Omega$, $455\,\mu$eV, $78\,\mu$eV, and $0.44$.
d) $2.1\,$k$\Omega$, $590\,\mu$eV, $102\,\mu$eV, and $0.65$.
e) $1.6\,$k$\Omega$, $560\,\mu$eV, $82\,\mu$eV, and $1.41$.}
 \label{spectral-shape}
  \end{figure}

\section{Results and discussion}

Figure \ref{AlOverview} shows the derived parameters $2\Delta_0 = 2\Delta(T=0)$, $\Gamma$, and $Z$ as function of normal resistance $R$ for contacts between superconducting Al and Au.
The energy gap $2\Delta_0$ agrees well with the literature value of $365\,\mu$eV from below $1\,\Omega$ up to several $10\,\Omega$.
Then the gap increases to about twice its low-resistance value.
The lifetime parameter $\Gamma$ is barely resolvable at contacts with small resistance because of the $\sim \! 10\,\mu$eV thermal smearing.
Between $10\,\Omega \lesssim R \lesssim 100\,\Omega$ the lifetime parameter increases almost linearly, and saturates at round $200\,\mu$eV at high resistances.

Most astonishingly, the $Z$ parameter stays constant at $\sim \! 0.5$ from below $1\,\Omega$ up to several $1000\,\Omega$, that means from contact areas of more than $1000\,$nm$^2$ to less than $1\,$nm$^2$.
Reflection at a dielectric barrier should result in a strong variation of $Z$, depending on how a specific contact is made, because the transmission coefficient depends exponentially on the barrier width and height \cite{Simmons1964}.
The extremely small variation of $Z$ thus indicates a negligibly weak dielectric tunneling barrier.
This appears plausible for shear contacts because the two electrode wires slide along each other, scratching the surfaces and thereby removing a possible oxide or water/ice layer before the contact is formed.
$Z$ increases only in the k$\Omega$ range towards the transition to vacuum tunneling.
At such high resistances the contact consists of only a few conduction channels, each with its own reflection coefficient, where the ones with the large $Z$ are not averaged away.
This might also contribute to the deviations from the BTK-type fits in Figure \ref{spectral-shape}.

\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{Fig-3.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Properties of Al-Au contacts extracted from the modified BTK theory versus normal contact resistance $R$ at $T = 0.1\,$K: a) Superconducting energy gap $2\Delta_0$, b) Dynes lifetime parameter $\Gamma$, and c) $Z$ parameter of normal reflection. The solid lines are the BCS energy gap of Al, the thermal energy $k_B T$ at the measuring temperature, and $Z=0.5$, respectively. Different symbols mark different measurement series.}
  \label{AlOverview}
  \end{figure}

\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{Fig-4.eps}
\caption{(Color online) BTK $Z$ parameter of normal reflection versus normal resistance $R$ of Al in contact with the indicated  metals at $T = 0.1\,$K. Solid lines are $Z=0.5$ as guide to the eye. Different symbols mark different measurement series.}
  \label{Z-Parameters}
  \end{figure}

Contacts with the other normal metals Ag, Cu, Pd, and Pt behave similarly as summarized for the $Z$ parameter in Figure \ref{Z-Parameters}.
However, there appears to be a {\em softening} of $Z$ especially for the Al - Cu contacts at around $R \approx 100\,\Omega$, coinciding with the increasing $2\Delta_0$ and the saturation of $\Gamma$.
The suspicion that this partial reduction of $Z$ results from electrical noise can be discarded because $Z$ recovers at higher resistances which should be even more susceptible to noise.
An alternative explanation for this behaviour might be a real size-dependent property of the contacts, analogue to the Kondo-like zero-bias anomalies \cite{Gloos2009}.

As discussed for the Al - Au contacts, the rather constant $Z$ makes a noticeable dielectric barrier unlikely also for contacts with the other normal metals.
This leaves Fermi surface mismatch to explain the finite $Z$.
The metal combinations presented here should have either $Z \approx 0$ in free-electron approximation or $Z \gtrsim 1$ based on proximity-effect estimates mentioned above.
Our experimental data fit neither of those two limits.
In addition, the argument that excludes tunneling also holds for Fermi surface mismatch because we can not control how the crystallites that actually form the contact are oriented.
Can it be that Fermi surface mismatch does not contribute to normal reflection as measured by Andreev reflection?

Electrons as well as Andreev-reflected holes cross a real dielectric tunneling barrier with a certain probability, while the remainder is normally reflected.
This allows to extract the transmission or the reflection coefficient from a single Andreev-reflection spectrum.
Normal reflection due to Fermi surface mismatch works differently: a certain kind of the incident electrons - those with the wrong wave number and direction of incidence - can not cross the interface.
Since only electrons that have been transmitted can be Andreev-reflected, the retro-reflected holes have already the right properties to be transmitted back through the interface.
If this is correct then Fermi surface mismatch can not be resolved using Andreev-reflection spectroscopy.

\section{Conclusion}
We have found that the BTK $Z$ parameter of interfaces with superconducting Al does neither depend sensitively on the size of the contacts nor on the normal metal.
Its tiny variation over a vast range of contact areas has lead us to conclude the absence of a dielectric tunneling barrier.
The same argument holds for Fermi surface mismatch because of the uncontrollable orientation of the crystallites that form the contact.
Moreover, the average experimental $Z \approx 0.5$ disagrees with the free-electron prediction ($Z \approx 0$) and with the results of the proximity studies ($Z \ge 1$).
The experiments on reflection at or transmission through normal-superconducting interfaces and their interpretation remind us that different methods can yield different results for the same physical property.
In the end we are left with a new -- but at the same time old -- mystery of the origin of the Andreev reflection double minimum anomaly described by $Z$.

\begin{acknowledgments}
E. T.  acknowledges a two-year grant from the Graduate School of Materials Research (GSMR), 20014 Turku, Finland. We thank the Jenny and Antti Wihuri Foundation for financial support.
\end{acknowledgments}