\section{Introduction}
As robots are increasingly integrated into human-robot teams, it is pertinent to design human-robot systems that facilitate trust, communication and interdependent working. The irony of automation \cite{Bainbridge1983} is that without careful analysis of how autonomous systems (i.\,e.~ robots in this context) are introduced and their effect on the work and team, autonomy can reduce situational awareness, decrease attention \cite{Parasuraman2000}, and increase workload, leaving humans to work through tasks too nuanced for automation, in addition to supervision and validation of the autonomy’s actions.

Having the human-in-the-loop to control, supervise, or even with a peer-to-peer relationship with the robotic system, offers a crucial advantage: the benefits of both agents' capabilities whilst mitigating their weaknesses through collaboration. In remotely-operated robotic systems, robots can keep humans from harm and share workload by conducting tasks remotely and autonomously. Humans can take over in abstract situations requiring contextual, imaginative or moral thinking. Both human-robot team members operate interdependently to solve problems, with work allocation changing dynamically depending on the task. Human operator personality traits, trust in the robot, self-trust, and understanding of the system all can play a role in establishing how the system will be used and relied upon \cite{DeVisser2018}.

This paper focuses on team-oriented human factors aspects of remotely operated Human-Initiative (HI) and Mixed-Initiative (MI) robotic systems, in terms of the operator's trust in the system, shared understanding between the robot and the operator, and the effect the Locus of Control (LoC) personality trait has on HRI. This is done through an empirical study in which human operators conducted a search and rescue navigation task via remotely controlling a realistically simulated mobile robot in either MI or HI control.

The MI and HI systems in our testbed allow for dynamic switching between different Levels of Autonomy (LoA) during task execution. Two different LoAs are used: teleoperation, with an operator manually controlling navigation via a joypad; and autonomy, where the robot autonomously navigates towards human-defined waypoints. In HI control, the human operator is solely responsible for switching LoA based on their judgement \cite{Chiou2016IROS_HI}. In MI control, both the operator and the robot's AI have the authority to initiate actions and switch LoA \cite{Chiou2021_arXiv}, meaning the robot is essentially a peer with equal authority. This makes designing HRI uniquely challenging, as transferring control authority fluidly requires communication, trust and shared understanding within the human-robot team.

This paper contributes evidence that MI robotic systems can be appropriately trusted by operators; trust and shared understanding increase over time; and efficient HRI within the MI system is correlated with an operator's familiarity with the system (i.e. understanding). Additionally, this paper contributes by reporting how LoC affects HRI both in MI and HI control. Evidence suggests that operators with average and high LoC are comfortable giving control of the task to the robot’s AI.

\section{Related Work}

\subsection{Trust in Automation and Human-Robot Interaction}
\label{Section:trust_lit}
According to Chen and Barnes \cite{Chen2014}, the most relevant definition of trust is the one from Lee and See \cite{Lee2004}: Trust is \say{the attitude that an agent will help achieve an individual’s goals in a situation characterized by uncertainty and vulnerability}.

Hoff and Bashir \cite{Hoff2015} propose three layers of human-automation trust: dispositional, situational, and learned trust. Schaefer et al. \cite{Schaefer2016} categorise factors that affect trust into three categories; human-related, automation-related (the robot in the current context), and environment-related. Hancock et al. \cite{Hancock2011} conducted a meta-analysis of the trust literature and concluded that robot performance-related factors, such as reliability and failure rate, have the largest influence on trust. They argue that more experimental studies on human-related factors are needed. Schaefer et al. \cite{Schaefer2016} meta-analysis on trust further confirms the importance of both automation and human performance-related factors.

Most recent HRI research suggests that individual differences in trust might stem from whether the robot is perceived as an advanced tool, a human-like teammate \cite{Matthews2020}, and/or by cultural differences \cite{Chien2020}. Robot errors are found to have a profound and lasting effect on trust \cite{Wright2020}. Yang et al. \cite{Yang2017} present a data-based model where trust is either exponentially increasing or decreasing based on the robot's reliability and initial user expectations.

Our literature survey found two studies on trust with control modes similar to HI control, but no studies similar to MI control. In Desai et al., \cite{Desai2012} operators were allowed to switch between fully autonomous and robot-assisted navigation. They found that the effect reduced reliability has on trust becomes less apparent over time. Additionally, when assistance reliability dropped, participants switched to autonomy. Once reliability improved, participants waited longer to switch back to autonomy compared to switching away from autonomy. Nam et al. \cite{Nam2020} proposed computational MDP models to predict an operator's trust levels towards a robotic swarm equipped with a suggestion system regarding LoA switching. They found that the formation shape of the swarm affected trust when task performance was not readily understandable.

In summary, although there is a body of literature on trust in autonomous systems, the field of HRI requires more studies that explore trust in scenarios where operators cooperatively perform tasks using remotely controlled variable-autonomy robotic systems. Often, trust in HRI is studied in tasks with a high level of abstraction or theoretical scenarios \cite{Matthews2020, Wright2020, Wang2016}; when using decision aids or recommendation robots \cite{Yang2017, Wang2016, Nam2020}; or by observing the robotic system conduct a task \cite{Soh2018}. To the best of the authors' knowledge, there is a gap in the literature regarding the empirical investigation of trust in robotic systems where the LoA varies dynamically during task execution. This is especially true for MI robotic systems where the autonomous agent has a peer-to-peer relationship with the operator and can actively take control and change the LoA.

\subsection{Locus of Control}
\label{section:LoC_lit}
Locus of Control (LoC) is a personality trait and refers to the degree people believe that their actions and behaviours affect outcomes in events in their lives. Simply put, it is the degree of control people believe they have over events. It is usually divided into internal and external LoC. An internal LoC means that a person believes that outcomes and events in their life derive primarily from their own actions and efforts, as they see a causal relationship between their behaviour and rewards. In contrast, an external LoC means that a person believes the outcome of events is mostly affected by forces beyond their control, e.g. luck, fate, powerful others \cite{Rotter1966,Furnham1993}.

We hypothesise that due to its nature, LoC affects HRI and consequently performance in systems where the operator needs to cooperate with an autonomous agent to control a remote robot to achieve a task. Despite its potential importance, to the best of the authors' knowledge, there is a lack of research considering the operator's LoC personality trait in human-robot teams. In this paper, we aim to address this gap in the literature by investigating the effect of LoC in HI and MI robotic systems.

Our literature survey found two studies in shared control telepresence robots. Takayama et al. \cite{Takayama2011} found that people with an internal LoC took longer to complete an obstacle course than people with an external LoC. Although not statistically significant, they also report evidence that autonomous assistance seemed to degrade performance for operators with a very high internal LoC. This might suggest that individuals with a high internal LoC have problems giving up control to an autonomous system. In Acharya et al. \cite{Acharya2018} average and high internal locus operators have the same level of performance. Additionally, the high internal LoC operators issued the most commands to the robot and had a high percentage of command conflicts. These results suggest this group may seek more control and grow frustrated with the robot’s response.

These studies will be used to inform our discussion better. However, a direct comparison between our work and \cite{Takayama2011, Acharya2018} cannot be made. This is because our work uses MI and HI control and not shared control, meaning the operator interacts with the robotic system differently. In our MI and HI control implementation, the system has the capability to switch between different LoAs on-the-fly (i.\,e.~ teleoperation and autonomy). In contrast, in shared control, the robot moves according to a scheme for continuously blending control signals from both human and an autonomous agent. Additionally, we use a different LoC scale (i.e. the ICI) as it \cite{Takayama2011} uses the Rotter's scale \cite{Rotter1966} and \cite{Acharya2018} uses an abbreviated version of the LoC Questionnaire (LOCQ). However, all three scales are general measures of LoC.

\section{Mixed-Initiative and Human-Initiative Control Implementations}

In this paper, we assume a human-robot system that has two LoAs: \textit{teleoperation}, in which the human operator controls the robot manually with the joypad; and \textit{autonomy}, in which the operator clicks on a desired location on the map, and the robot's AI plans and executes a trajectory with the robot to that location. The human-robot system is able to switch between these two LoAs by using two different variable autonomy methods: either Human-Initiative (HI) or Mixed-Initiative (MI) control.

The HI control switcher used is detailed in \cite{Chiou2016IROS_HI}. The control switcher allows the operator to switch between different LoAs on-the-fly and at any time by pressing a joypad button. It is based on the ability and authority of a human operator to initiate LoA switches based on their own judgment to perform a task efficiently (e.g. improving task performance or overcoming difficult performance degrading situations). The robot's autonomous agent does not have any authority to switch LoAs.

In contrast, MI control is defined in \cite{jiang2015mixed} as \say{a collaboration strategy for human-robot teams where humans and robots opportunistically seize (relinquish) initiative from (to) each other as a mission is being executed...}. In the current context, MI control refers to the authority of both the robot's MI control switcher and the operator to initiate LoA switches at any moment. The MI control switcher used was proposed in \cite{Chiou2021_arXiv} and uses an expert-guided approach to initiate LoA switches. It assumes the existence of an AI task expert (i.e. a navigation planner in this paper) that given a navigational goal, can provide the expected/ideal task performance for the human-robot system in the absence of performance-degrading factors. The comparison between the system's run-time performance with the expected expert performance yields an online task effectiveness metric called "goal-directed motion error". In essence, this is the difference between the robot's current motion (i.\,e.~ linear velocity) and the motion of the robot required to achieve its goal (i.\,e.~ reach a target location) according to the expert planner. Hence, this metric expresses how effectively the system performs the navigation task, and the MI control switcher uses it to infer if a LoA switch is needed. In practice, the MI control switcher parameters were trained to use this error to initiate LoA switches based on what the human operators did to improve performance on data from previous experiments. For further details regarding the expert-guided MI control switcher, please refer to \cite{Chiou2021_arXiv}.

\section{Experimental Study}

A disaster response inspired experiment in which a remotely operated mobile robot had to navigate and look for a victim was conducted. The aim was, within the context of HI and MI control, to investigate: (i) how learning (i.\,e.~ skills acquisition) and training affects task performance; and (ii) the LoC, trust in the robot, self-trust, and shared understanding between the robot and the operator. The reader can refer to \cite{Chiou2019_SMC_learning_effects} for further information on learning and training effects on task performance. In this paper we investigate (ii) from the perspective of the following hypotheses:

\textbf{H1:} Operators trust the MI and the HI robotic systems to assist them and contribute to the task.

\textbf{H2:} Trust in the variable autonomy robotic systems (i.\,e.~ both in HI and MI), will improve as the operators use the system more.

Additionally, the following exploratory (i.e. more general) hypotheses were investigated:

\textbf{EH1:} Trust in the robot, self-trust, and shared understanding affect HRI in terms of performance, perceived workload, use of autonomy LoA (i.e. how often it is used compared to teleoperation), and LoA switching.

\textbf{EH2:} Locus of control affects HRI in terms of use of the autonomy LoA, performance, levels of trust, and LoA switching.

\subsection{Apparatus and software}

  \begin{figure}[t]
    \centering
     \subfloat[\label{fig:ocu}]{%
       \includegraphics[width=0.49\columnwidth]{figs/ocu.jpg}
     }
     \hfill
     \subfloat[\label{fig:secondary_task}]{%
       \includegraphics[width=0.48\columnwidth]{figs/secondary_example.jpg}
     }
     \caption{\textbf{\ref{fig:ocu}:} The experimental apparatus: the Operator Control Unit (OCU) composed of a laptop, a joypad, a mouse and a screen showing the GUI; and a laptop presenting the secondary task. \textbf{\ref{fig:secondary_task}:} A typical example of the secondary task \cite{Chiou2019_SMC_learning_effects}.}
     \label{fig:ocu_and_secondary_image}
   \end{figure}

Gazebo, a high-fidelity robotic simulator, was used to simulate the environment and the robotic system (see Figs. \ref{fig:arena} and \ref{fig:gui}). The simulated Husky robot was equipped with a laser range finder and an RGB camera. The simulation was used to improve the repeatability of the experiment.

The software\footnote{The GitHub code repository for running the experiment in ROS is available under MIT license:
\url{https://github.com/uob-erl/fuzzy_mi_controller}} used was developed in Robot Operating System (ROS) and is described in more detail in \cite{Chiou2016IROS_HI,Chiou2021_arXiv}. The robot's autonomous navigation uses the framework and algorithms (i.e. Dijkstra's algorithm and the dynamic window approach) from ROS navigation stack \cite{Marder-Eppstein2010}.

The robot was controlled via an Operator Control Unit (OCU) (see Fig. \ref{fig:ocu}). The OCU was composed of a mouse and a joypad as input devices, a laptop running the software and a screen showing the Graphical User Interface (GUI) (see Fig. \ref{fig:gui}).

  \begin{figure}[thpb]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=0.99\columnwidth]{figs/gui.png}
	\caption{\textbf{Left:} video feed from the camera, the control mode in use and the status of the robot. \textbf{Right:} The map (as created by SLAM) showing the position of the robot, the current goal (blue arrow), the AI planned path (green line), the obstacles’ laser reflections (red) and the walls (black). In the map participants had to navigate from point A to point B and then back again to point A \cite{Chiou2019_SMC_learning_effects}.}
	\label{fig:gui}
\end{figure}

 \begin{figure}[thpb]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=0.99\columnwidth]{figs/gazebo2.jpg}
	\caption{The test arena used, simulating a disaster response scenario \cite{Chiou2019_SMC_learning_effects}.}
	\label{fig:arena}
\end{figure}

The experiment's test arena was approximately $576 m^2$ (see Figs. \ref{fig:gui} and \ref{fig:arena}) and the training arena was approximately $72 m^2$. Both arenas had similar level of difficulty.

The software used to display the secondary task was OpenSesame \cite{Mathot2012OpenSesame}, while the images of the stimuli used were previously created and validated for mental rotation tasks in \cite{Ganis2015}.

\subsection{Tasks and Performance Degradation Factors}

Participants had to conduct a primary navigation task and a cognitively demanding secondary task. In the primary task, participants had to navigate from point A in Fig. \ref{fig:gui} to point B (where a victim was located) and back to point A.

In the secondary task, taking place parallel to the primary task, participants were presented with a series of images, each showing a pair of 3D objects (see Fig. \ref{fig:secondary_task}). In some of the images, the objects were identical but rotated by 150 degrees. In the rest of the images, the objects were mirror-image objects with opposite chirality. The operator was required to verbally state whether or not the two objects were identical. The images were displayed on the screen of a laptop placed next to the OCU screen (Fig. \ref{fig:ocu}).

The secondary task represents situations in which the robot operators must interrupt their control of the robot while processing visual or spatial information (e.g. the exact location of a victim or hazard) and relay this information to the rescue team \cite{Murphy2004}.

The secondary task was used to degrade the operator's performance (i.e. teleoperation); artificially generated noise to the laser scanner range measurements was used to degrade autonomous navigation performance (i.e. autonomy). This noise was visible to the operator via the obstacle's laser reflections representation in the GUI (see Fig. \ref{fig:gui}).  In each experimental trial, each of these performance degrading situations occurred once each and at random times. These degrading factors appeared with the restriction that they would not overlap and provide a similar level of degradation in each trial. For every experimental trial, the artificial noise and the secondary task, once initiated, lasted for 30 seconds.

\subsection{Measuring trust, shared understanding and locus of control}
\label{Section:measuring_methods}

Trust and shared understanding were measured by a custom-made 5-point Likert scale questionnaire, with 1 on the scale denoting \say{strongly disagree} and 5 denoting \say{strongly agree}. The questionnaire consisted of 6 questions sub-grouped for measuring three different HRI related aspects. The term team refers to the human-robot team. The questionnaire follows:

\textbf{Q1:} I trusted the robot to do the right thing at the right time.

\textbf{Q2:} The robot’s performance was an important contribution to the team's success.

\textbf{Q3:} I was confident in my ability to complete the task.

\textbf{Q4:} My performance was an important contribution to the success of the team.

\textbf{Q5:} I accurately perceived the robot's intentions.

\textbf{Q6:} The robot accurately perceived my intentions.

\textit{Trust in the robot} scale questions \textbf{Q1} and \textbf{Q2} measure the operator's trust and confidence in the robot's AI capabilities. These questions were previously validated in \cite{Hoffman2013}.

\textit{Operator's self-trust} scale questions \textbf{Q3} (used from \cite{Nikolaidis2017}) and \textbf{Q4} (adapted from \cite{Hoffman2013}) measure the operator's trust and confidence in their abilities.

\textit{Shared understanding} scale questions \textbf {Q5} and \textbf {Q6} measure how well the operator thinks the robot understands their intentions and how well the operator understands the robot's actions and intentions. Both questions were adapted from \cite{Hoffman2013}.

The Internal Control Index (ICI) has been used to measure LoC. ICI is a general measure of LoC based on Likert scale questions and was developed by Duttweiler \cite{Duttweiler1984}. The use of ICI in this study is based on three criteria: a) the ICI was developed to counteract some of the original I-E Scale issues \cite{Furnham1993, Duttweiler1984, Meyers1988}; b) it is known to be among the most reliable scales for measuring LoC \cite{Meyers1988, Maltby1996}; c) the ICI is a general measure of LoC with a single total score.

\subsection{Experimental Protocol}
A total of 20 participants took part, with 10 controlling the robot in HI, and the other 10 in MI. Participants were a random sample from the University's student and staff population (University of Birmingham ethical review no.~ERN 19-0199AP2). The participants' age was between 22-41 years old ($M = 30.4, SD = 4.8$), with 13 of them male and 7 female. Before the experiment, participants completed a custom-made 5-point Likert scale questionnaire assessing their level of experience in playing video games, operating robots, and/or related equipment. The number of experienced participants was balanced between the two conditions (i.\,e.~ between HI and MI). Additionally, participants completed the ICI LoC questionnaire.

Each operator underwent extensive standardised training \cite{Chiou2019_SMC_learning_effects} of approximately 20-25 minutes before the experiment, conducted in a training arena that differed from the experiment arena. Each system and experimental aspect was introduced gradually, and participants were allowed to practice using them: i.\,e.~ the GUI, the different LoAs, how distances from obstacles in the virtual environment mapped to the robot's pose and movement, and the performance degrading factors. Participants practised using either the MI or HI capabilities to switch between LoAs depending on the experimental condition they were allocated. To ensure that all participants had attained a minimum skill level in controlling the robot, they were not allowed to proceed with the experimental trials until they had first demonstrated that they could complete a training obstacle course within a specific time limit, with no collisions, and while presented with the two performance degrading factors.

During the experiment, each group of participants performed 5 identical trials of the same tasks. At the end of the third trial (i.\,e.~ half way through the experiment), all participants had a 3-minute break to reduce the effect of fatigue. At the end of each trial, participants completed the trust and shared understanding questionnaire.

Participants were instructed to perform the primary task (controlling the robot in the navigation task) as quickly and safely (i.\,e.~ minimising collisions) as possible. Additionally, they were instructed that when presented with the secondary task, they should do it as quickly and as accurately as possible (i.\,e.~ to have as many correct answers as possible in the 30 second time limit). They were explicitly told that they should prioritise the secondary task over the primary task and should only perform the primary task if the workload allowed.

The participants could only acquire situation awareness (SA) via the GUI (see Fig. \ref{fig:gui}). When a LoA switch occurred from either the operator or the MI control switcher, the operators were alerted in three different ways: a) by an alarm sound identical to the one denoting autopilot disconnection in aircraft; b) by synthetic speech expressing the LoA the system switched to; c) by a GUI notification.

At the end of the experiment, participants completed a raw NASA-TLX task workload questionnaire \cite{Sharek2011}.

\section{Results and Statistical Analysis}

When comparing the data from the HI and MI conditions, these data were treated as between groups, i.\,e.~ independent samples, with pairwise comparisons conducted with Mann-Whitney U test. When analysing data between different trials of the same condition (i.\,e.~ HI or MI), the data were treated as within-subject/repeated measures. The Wilcoxon signed ranks test was used for within-subject pairwise comparisons and the Spearman's rank for correlations. All tests were two-tailed. We consider a result to be statistically significant when it yields a $p$ value less than $0.05$. The trial number is abbreviated as \textit{t1} for the first trial, \textit{t2} for the second, and so on. For correlations, the metrics were averaged across trials, as is standard practice.

To facilitate some comparison with relevant literature that follows similar grouping \cite{Acharya2018}, the ICI scale was divided proportionally in three categories: operators with an ICI score of a) between $28-65$ have a high external LOC; b) between $66-102$ have an average LOC; c) between $103-140$ have high internal LOC. The minimum possible score of the scale is $28$ and the maximum possible score is $140$. In our sample of participants the lowest ICI score was $96$ and the highest $127$. Thus, all participants fell into the average LOC (4 participants) and high internal (16 participants) categories. The average ICI score of participants in MI and HI (see Table \ref{table:results}) did not show a statistical difference according to a Mann-Whitney U test. This means that our sample (i.e. participants) is equally distributed in terms of ICI between conditions (i.\,e.~ HI and MI). Factors that seem to impact LoC, such as social environment and family structure \cite{Twenge2004} are very hard to control and are outside of the scope of this paper.

The following metrics were analysed in conjunction with trust and LoC: primary task completion time (sec); secondary task number of correct answers; secondary task accuracy (i.\,e.~ the percentage of correct answers from the total responses given); the number of LoA switches; percentage of time spent in autonomy LoA; NASA-TLX score.

\textbf{Results H1:} The mean trust in the robot (i.e. \textbf{Q1} and \textbf{Q2}) across trials was \textit{$M = 4.39, SD = 0.67$} for HI and \textit{$M = 4.71, SD = 0.26$} for MI. The mean self-trust (i.e. \textbf{Q3} and \textbf{Q4}) across trials was \textit{$M = 4.44, SD = 0.56$} for HI and \textit{$M = 4.22, SD = 0.43$} for MI. The mean shared understanding (i.e. \textbf{Q5} and \textbf{Q6}) across trials was \textit{$M = 4.44, SD = 0.61$} for HI and \textit{$M = 4.59, SD = 0.28$} for MI. No statistically significant differences were found in self-trust, trust in robot and shared understanding between HI and MI.

 \textbf{Results H2:} In HI, no significant difference was found between t1 and t5 concerning trust in the robot, self-trust and shared understanding (see Fig. \ref{fig:trust} and Table \ref{table:results}). In contrast, in MI, trust in the robot (\textit{$Z = -2.21, p = .034$}), self-trust (\textit{$Z = -2.59, p = .01$}) and shared understanding (\textit{$Z = -2.56, p = .01$}) are significantly higher in t5 compared to t1 (see Table \ref{table:results}). As can be seen in Fig \ref{fig:trust} there is a clear increase of trust, self-trust, and shared understanding in MI over time.

  \begin{figure*}[t]
     \subfloat[\label{fig:trust_hi}]{%
       \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{figs/trust_HI.png}
     }
     \hfill
     \subfloat[\label{fig:trust_mi}]{%
       \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{figs/trust_mi.png}
     }
     \caption{Mean trust and shared understanding scores across trials for \textbf{\ref{fig:trust_hi}} Human-Initiative and  \textbf{\ref{fig:trust_mi}} Mixed-Initiative. The error bars indicate the standard error. The range of values in the y-axis in both graphs is [1,5] (i.e. a 5-point Likert scale).}
     \label{fig:trust}
   \end{figure*}

\textbf{Results EH1:} In MI, a significant negative correlation was found between shared understanding and operator-initiated LoA switches \textit{$(\rho = -.66, p < .038)$}. A significant negative correlation was found between shared understanding and primary task completion time \textit{$(\rho = -.72, p < .019)$}. No other correlation was found in MI between the trust metrics and any of the other metrics.

In HI, a strong negative correlation was found between self-trust and the NASA-TLX \textit{$(\rho = -0.79, p = 0.006)$}. No other correlation was found between trust in robot, shared understanding and any other metric.

\textbf{Results EH2:} In HI, a significant negative correlation \textit{$(\rho = -.67, p < .034)$} between ICI and trust in the robot was found. No significant correlation was found between ICI and other measured metrics.

In MI, no significant correlation was found between ICI and any of the metrics.

\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\caption{Descriptive statistics and pairwise comparisons.}
\begin{tabular}{lll}
                                    &                                 &                               \\
\textbf{metric \& condition}        & \textbf{descriptive statistics} & \textbf{significance}         \\
\hline
\textbf{Mixed-Initiative:}          &                                 &                               \\
trust in robot t1                   & $M = 4.6 , SD = 0.32$           & \multirow{2}{*}{$p = 0.034$}  \\
trust in robot t5                   & $M = 4.9 , SD = 0.21$           &                               \\
\hline
self-trust t1~                      & $M = 3.75 , SD = 0.8$           & \multirow{2}{*}{$p = 0.01$}   \\
self-trust t5                       & $M = 4.5 , SD = 0.53$           &                               \\
\hline
shared understanding t1             & $M = 4.15 , SD = 0.47$          & \multirow{2}{*}{$p = 0.01$}   \\
shared understanding t5             & $M = 4.8 , SD = 0.35$           &                               \\
\hline
ICI                                 & $M = 111.3 , SD = 10.42$        &                               \\
\hline
\textbf{\textbf{Human-Initiative:}} &                                 &                               \\
trust in robot t1                   & $M = 4.35 , SD = 0.78$          & \multirow{2}{*}{$p > 0.05$}   \\
trust in robot t5                   & $M = 4.55 , SD = 0.21$          &                               \\
\hline
self-trust t1~ ~                    & $M = 4.15 , SD = 1.13$          & \multirow{2}{*}{$p > 0.05$}   \\
self-trust t5~~                     & $M = 4.7 , SD = 0.26$           &                               \\
\hline
shared understanding t1             & $M = 4.25 , SD = 1.11$          & \multirow{2}{*}{$p > 0.05$}   \\
shared understanding t5             & $M = 4.7 , SD = 0.53$           &                               \\
\hline
ICI                                 & $M = 108.7 , SD = 6.1$          &
\end{tabular}
\label{table:results}
\end{table}

\section{Discussion}

\subsection{Trust and shared understanding}
Regarding \textbf{H1}, the results show that operators trusted the robot's capabilities to contribute to the task both in HI and in MI, hence confirming \textbf{H1}. More specifically, in MI, the evidence shows strong levels of trust denoted by the high proportion of \say{strongly agree} responses, especially in t5. Additionally, operators had confidence in their ability to complete the tasks and had a good shared understanding with the robot, both in HI and in MI.

In HI, \textbf{H2} evidence suggests that trust in the robot, trust in self, and shared understanding did not change significantly over time, although some non-significant increase can be observed (see Fig. \ref{fig:trust_hi}). This might suggest that the standardised training has provided participants with a close to maximum trust and understanding they could have for the HI system in the context of this experiment. However, the lack of statistically significant evidence could also be because of the relatively small sample size.

In MI, and in contrast with HI, the evidence presented confirms \textbf{H2} and shows that trust and understanding of the system improved over time. This is important evidence pointing towards two directions: reliability of and familiarity with the system. First, in conjunction with the performance increase over time in \cite{Chiou2019_SMC_learning_effects}, this gives evidence to support the reliability of the MI system in the context of this experiment, backed up by the trust model of Yang et al. \cite{Yang2017} which predicts that trust in a robot increases with robot reliability. Additionally, this further contributes to the current literature (see Section \ref{Section:trust_lit}) in showing that trust is mainly driven by performance (e.g. reliability). Secondly, this increase in trust and shared understanding may be related to the increased amount of HRI which occurs in MI compared with HI. The interaction in the MI condition is more complex and meaningful when compared to HI, as the robot's MI control capabilities are more actively involved and perceivable by the operator via the control-switching initiative. This in turn, could have led to increased familiarity with the system over time. An explanation can be found in \cite{Lee2004}: for trust to grow, humans must be familiar with the system’s operations, methods, and constraints. By understanding the “three Ps” of a system \cite{Lee2004, Chancey2017b}; performance, process, and purpose; an operator can develop an appropriate level of trust in a system. Thirdly, a \say{dip} in trust was observed in t4 as three participants rated their trust lower in t4 compared to t3. However, in t5, trust increased again to the highest level across all trials. The authors predict this could have been due to a few negative interactions by chance in t4. The dip in trust was rapidly reconciled in t5.

Regarding \textbf{EH1} in MI, shared understanding was negatively correlated with both the number of operator-initiated LoA switches and the primary task completion time (shorter time means better performance). These results provide evidence that the more an operator understood the MI system, the less they initiated LoA switches and the better they performed. The above evidence explains and adds to the findings in \cite{Chiou2019_SMC_learning_effects} in which the total number of LoA switches was decreasing over trials (i.e. time). Additionally, the performance improvement over time in \cite{Chiou2019_SMC_learning_effects} suggests that operators become more efficient in LoA switching as they use and understand the system more. Lastly, in MI, the lack of correlation with the use of autonomy LoA might suggest that trust mostly reflects the LoA switching capabilities of the MI control switcher, or the system as a whole, rather than explicitly the autonomy LoA. However, trust and the use of autonomy in both HI and MI conditions were relatively high across participants, and hence a bigger and more diverse sample is required to explore this further.

 Regarding \textbf{EH1} in HI, the negative correlation found between self-trust and the perceived workload (i.e. NASA-TLX) means that the more operators trusted themselves and were confident about operating the robot, the lower their perceived workload. This is possibly due to an absence of assistance from the robot in terms of LoA switching. This is further supported by the lack of evidence of such a correlation in MI, in which the robot's MI control switcher was actively helping with LoA switching and the operators with low self-trust did not experience an increase in workload. This could be because the robot takes some of the burden of control and/or psychologically the active AI role makes operators perceive their workload as less intensive, knowing that the robot's autonomous agent will take the initiative if they do not perform well. However, the causality can be the other way around as the self-perceived ability to use the robot's capabilities can be possibly influenced by workload.

\subsection{Locus of control}
The negative correlation in the HI condition between ICI and trust in the robot means operators with highly internal LoC trust the robot less. This differs in the MI condition, where no correlation was found. An explanation for this may be that individuals who score highly on internal LoC consider themselves solely responsible, negatively impacting how likely they are to trust somebody else to accomplish the task and transfer control and therefore, responsibility.

Additionally, an autonomous system that can take control as in MI, may be more likely to be perceived as an assistant or collaborator rather than a tool \cite{DeVisser2018}. In contrast, in HI control, the robot is more likely to be perceived as a tool, as it is unable to interact with the operator actively and must obey their instructions. With no way to experience the more “intelligent” side of the robot, allowing it to assess human performance and take control when necessary, an operator must actively decide to relinquish control. If the operator has a high internal LoC and no way to become familiar with the robot's reliability, they lack the ability to develop more trust in the robot. This is because trust is based upon familiarity with the robot’s behaviour and this would only be possible through relinquishing control, which goes against their internal LoC.

The absence of correlation evidence between primary task performance and the LoC, both in HI and in MI, is in accordance with the findings of \cite{Acharya2018}, that performance between average and high internal LoC operators are indistinguishable. This makes sense as all of our participants fell into the category of having average or high internal locus of control. Hence, \textbf{EH2} in terms of performance cannot be confirmed in the current study. However, it cannot be rejected either due to the lack of high external LoC participants in our sample, requiring further investigation.

Our results did not find evidence of a correlation between ICI and the number of operator-initiated LoA switches in both MI and HI. This might suggest that LoC is not interacting with the number of commands (i.e. LoA switches in our case) the operators give to the robot. This is contrary to the increased shared control commands given to the robot in \cite{Acharya2018} by the high internal locus operators.

The lack of evidence of correlation both in MI and HI between ICI and the percentage of task time spent in autonomy LoA, in conjunction with the high percentage of time spent in autonomy LoA by the participants, \textit{$M = 79.9, SD = 19.56$} in HI and \textit{$M = 76.8, SD = 18.5$} in MI, might suggest that average and high internal individuals have no issues with giving control to the autonomous navigation in the context of this experiment. This does not agree with the suggestion made by Takayama et al. \cite{Takayama2011} that high internal individuals have problems giving control. However, as mentioned in the related work Section \ref{section:LoC_lit}, a direct comparison with \cite{Acharya2018, Takayama2011} cannot be made.

\subsection{Limitations, insights, and future challenges}

This study aimed to be a starting point towards investigating trust, shared understanding, and locus of control in dynamic variable autonomy systems such as HI and MI. Towards this end, in this section, we will provide insights, discuss how to overcome some of the limitations, and provide suggestions for future research.

First, although we consider the number of participants sufficient to capture some of the trends accurately (e.g. trust increasing in MI over time) it might have prevented us from finding others (e.g. slower increase in trust in HI). Additionally, correlation does not necessarily mean causation. Establishing causation in human factors research can be challenging. Future experiments should include a large number of participants from different age groups and explicitly control for trust, predisposition to robot use, and personality traits so causal relationships can be investigated.

Second, due to the complex nature of HRI in MI, there is a need for an MI specialised framework of trust able to capture its multiple dimensions. For example, the current trust measurement does not explicitly differentiate between trust in the robot's autonomous navigational ability and trust in the robot's LoA switching capabilities in MI. Future work can tackle this by measuring trust based on momentary interactions (e.g. before and after an MI control switcher initiated changes) and investigating the impact of varying the robot’s navigational reliability on the frequency of LoA switching. Additionally, multidimensional post hoc questionnaires measuring trust in the context of MI should be developed. Once such a framework is validated, it can lead to computational models of trust such as in \cite{Chen2018} which can inform the MI system's LoA switching policies. We consider this a major challenge for the field.

Third, there was no explicit effort to convey trust or make the MI system more transparent to the operator but only follow basic guidelines. Hence, transparency and other factors that affect trust were not explicitly controlled or taken into account. Extensive training mitigated some of these problems by explaining how the system works to the operators and providing them with a basic understanding of the MI algorithm. Future work should explicitly investigate and design interfaces that promote transparency in the MI context. This is a crucial step towards true human-robot teaming.

Lastly, similar to other related work, all participants had an average or high internal LoC. This perhaps limits the findings only to those users, excluding those with a high external LoC. A future study should aim to incorporate individuals with a larger variety of LoC, although this is difficult to control for. Another way this could be explored is by studying the LoC of real robot operators, the expectation being they would possess a high level of internal LoC, especially concerning the robot's control.

\section{Conclusion}

This paper presented an empirical investigation of HRI in MI and HI variable autonomy systems in terms of trust in the robot, self-trust, shared understanding between the robot and the operator, and the locus of control personality trait. The evidence presented supports the idea that operators learn to trust (i.e. trust increasing over time) the MI robotic system, and their understanding of the system improves over the course of several interactions in the context of this work. Furthermore, evidence was reported on how LoC affects HRI. Average and high internal LoC operators were found to be comfortable giving control to the robot's AI for conducting the navigation task.

Lastly, this work provided insights and highlighted research areas for advancing human factors and HRI w.r.t trust in variable autonomy robotic systems. Of particular importance is developing a framework for measuring the different dimensions of trust, towards computational models of trust, capable of informing MI LoA switching policies.

\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}


\section{Introduction}

In the standard model (SM) with massless neutrinos, processes with lepton flavor violating (LFV) interactions are
forbidden \cite{Glashow:1961tr}. However, experimental observations of neutrino oscillations show that neutrinos are massive
and mix with each other which leads to violation of lepton flavor conservation \cite{Weinberg:1967tq}.
LFV enters into the charged lepton sector from the neutrino sector via radiative corrections which
are extremely suppressed because of the smallness of the ratio of neutrino mass to the W boson mass \cite{r1,r2}.
The predicted branching fraction for example for $\tau^{-} \rightarrow \ell^{+} \ell^{-} \ell'^{-}$ decays are approximately
$\lesssim 10^{-54}$, where $\ell = e, \mu$ \cite{r2}.
However, an increase of several orders of magnitude is predicted in some extensions of the SM,
such as supersymmetric SM \cite{r3,r4,r5}, resulting in branching fractions observable at experiments.
Therefore,  any  observation of LFV in the charged lepton sector
would be an obvious hint to the presence of physics
beyond  the SM,  and can be an indirect way to search for beyond the SM scenarios.

So far, no LFV interactions among the charged leptons have been observed
and there are several strong constraints from various experiments.
For instance,  $\ell ^{-} \rightarrow e^{-}e^{+}e^{-}$, $\ell \rightarrow e\gamma$ with $\ell = \tau,\mu$,
rare decays of mesons, $Z$ boson decays, decays of Higgs boson and heavy resonances
have been used to probe LFV in different experiments \cite{{Aad:2016wce},{Aaij:2014azz},{Aad:2016blu},{Aaij:2015qmj}, {rr1},{rr2},{rr3},{rr4},{rr5},{rr6}}.
The most stringent  bounds  at $90\%$ CL on the LFV decays of the
$\tau$ leptons into $3e$ were measured by BaBar and Belle \cite{r6,r7}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{B}(\tau^{-}\rightarrow e^{-}e^{+}e^{-}) \leq 2.9 \times 10^{-8}~(\text{BaBar})~,~\mathcal{B}(\tau^{-}\rightarrow e^{-}e^{+}e^{-}) \leq 2.7 \times 10^{-8}~(\text{Belle}),
\end{eqnarray}
The Belle II future prospects for upper limit on $\mathcal{B}(\tau^{-}\rightarrow e^{-}e^{+}e^{-})$
at $90\%$ CL assuming the integrated luminosity of 50 ab$^{-1}$ is $\lesssim 10^{-10}$ \cite{r8}.

The proposed future lepton colliders such as
the International Linear Collider (ILC)~\cite{Aihara:2019gcq,Baer:2013cma,Behnke:2013xla}, the Compact Linear Collider (CLIC)~\cite{Charles:2018vfv,Roloff:2018dqu,Aicheler:2019dhf},
Circular Electron-Positron Collider (CPEC) \cite{CEPC-SPPCStudyGroup:2015csa,CEPC-SPPCStudyGroup:2015esa}
and  Future Circular Collider with electron-positron collisions
(FCC-ee) with highest-luminosity \cite{Abada:2019zxq}
are expected to provide an extraordinary place to perform flavor physics studies.
There are a variety of theories that give rise to LFV.
For instance,  additional fermions present in the type III seesaw model or in the
low-scale seesaw models give rise to large LFV effects
\cite{Esteves:2009vg, Cai:2017mow, Goswami:2018jar,{Das:2014jxa},{Das:2015toa},{Das:2016hof},{Das:2017nvm},{Das:2018usr},{Das:2017gke}}.
 The LFV through $Z$, Higgs boson, and other new degrees of freedom have been studied
 in Refs.\cite{{Delepine:2001di},{Illana:2000ic},{FloresTlalpa:2001sp},{Perez:2003ad},{Cirigliano:2021img},{Buras:2021btx},{Crivellin:2020ebi}},
and Higgs and scalar LFV decays have been presented in  Refs.\cite{{Dev:2017ftk},{Dev:2019ugu},{Goudelis:2011un},{Vicente:2019ykr},{Crivellin:2013wna}}.
If the new degrees of freedom contributing to LFV are heavy comparing to the energy accessible at colliders
then the LFV couplings could be reasonably parameterized via the effective contact interactions.
Experiments can perfectly search for LFV in a model-independent approach, without any theoretical input.
Effective field theories allow for a model-independent interpretation of the experimental results.
However, in a true bottom-up approach, all relevant operators have to be considered
since no symmetry or model consideration is present to suppress some operators with respect to other operators.

LFV $\bar{e}e\bar{e}\tau$ contact interactions have been already studied at future high energy
lepton colliders through $e^{+}e^{-} \rightarrow e^{\pm} \tau^{\mp}$ in Refs.\cite{lfv1,lfv2}.
In Ref.\cite{lfv2}, the LFV contact operators probed via $e^{+}e^{-} \rightarrow e^{\pm} \tau^{\mp}$
process at $\sqrt{s} = 250, 500, 1000, 3000$ GeV considering two main background sources, $\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$
and $e\tau \nu_{e}\nu_{\tau}$. Similar process examined  at $\sqrt{s} = 250, 500, 1000$ GeV  in Ref.\cite{lfv2}
where the effects of polarization of the electron and positron beam have been investigated.
The detector response has been simulated using {\tt Delphes} package  \cite{deFavereau:2013fsa}
and $e^{\pm}\tau^{\mp} \nu_{e}\nu_{\tau}$ has been considered as the main source of background.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the LFV contact interactions of
 $e\bar{e}e\bar{\tau}$ at a future lepton collider. In particular, the focus is on a model independent search
 for various types of four-lepton LFV
interactions leading to the production of $ e^{\pm} \tau^{\mp}$ at the future circular electron-positron collider.
The search is performed at the proposed energies and integrated luminosity benchmarks of the
FCC-ee. Particularly, the analysis is carried out at the center of mass energies
of $157.5$, $162.5$, $240$ and $365{\rm\ GeV}$ with the corresponding integrated luminosities of
$5, 5, 5,$ and $1.5$ ab$^{-1}$, respectively. A realistic detector response is taken into account using
{\tt Delphes} package. The main sources of background processes are
$\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$,  $e^{\pm}\tau^{\mp} \nu_{e}\nu_{\tau}$, $\ell^\pm \ell^ \mp \ell'^\pm \ell'^\mp$,
$\ell^\pm \ell^\mp jj, \ell\nu jj, (\ell=e, \mu,\tau)$, and $jj, (j = \text{jet})$.
Finally, a statistical combination is performed over the results obtained at the four center-of-mass energies.

The layout of this paper is as follows. In section \ref{sec:II} the effective operators describing LFV
are briefly presented.
Section \ref{sec:III} is dedicated to present the
simulation details and  analysis strategy.
In section \ref{sec:IV}, the constraints on LFV couplings and the results of statistical combinations
are given. Finally, section \ref{sec:V} concludes the paper.

\section{The LFV effective Lagrangian} \label{sec:II}

For studying the $\bar{e}e\bar{e}\tau$ LFV couplings, it is customary in the literature to consider
four fermi contact interactions which provide the opportunity to
characterize the new physics effects in a
model-independent framework.
In general, there is a set of six chirality conserving scalar and vector form four-fermi operators
with  $\Delta L=1$ where $\Delta L$ represents the difference between initial and final state lepton numbers \cite{Kuno:1999jp}.
The operators are classified into two types: the scalar type $(S)$ and vector type ($V)$ interactions.
In addition, there are LFV operators containing dipole structures which are tightly constrained by radiative LFV
decays \cite{Tanabashi:2018oca}, therefore, they are not considered in this work.
The effective Lagrangian and the relevant set of operators leading to $e^{\pm} \tau^{\mp}$ production by either a scalar or vector are given by \cite{Kuno:1999jp}:
	\begin{align}
	\label{eq:coupling}
	\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{eff}} & \supset \sum_{\alpha,\beta}\sum_{ij}\dfrac{c_{\alpha\beta}^{ij}}{\Lambda^2}\, \mathcal{O}_{\alpha\beta}^{ij}\,,
	\end{align}
	\begin{eqnarray}
		\label{eq:coupling1}
	\mathcal{O}^{S,ij}_{RL}&=& \left(\overline{\ell}_{jL}{\ell}_{iR}\right) \left(\overline{\ell}_{jL}{\ell}_{jR} \right),\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, \mathcal{O}^{S,ij}_{LR}=
	\left(\overline{\ell}_{iR}{\ell}_{jL} \right) \left(\overline{\ell}_{jR}{\ell}_{jL}\right),\nonumber\\
	\mathcal{O}^{V,ij}_{RR}&=&\left(\overline{\ell}_{iR}\gamma^\mu {\ell_{jR}} \right)
	\left(\overline{{\ell}}_{jR}\gamma_\mu {\ell_{jR}} \right) ,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
	\mathcal{O}^{V,ij}_{LL}=\left(\overline{\ell}_{iL}\gamma^\mu \ell_{jL} \right)
	\left(\overline{\ell}_{V,jL}\gamma_\mu \ell_{jL} \right),\nonumber \\
	\mathcal{O}^{V,ij}_{LR}&=&\left(\overline{\ell}_{iL}\gamma^\mu {\ell}_{jL} \right),
	\left(\overline{\ell}_{jR}\gamma_\mu {\ell}_{jR} \right),\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
	\mathcal{O}^{V,ij}_{RL}= \left(\overline{\ell}_{iR}\gamma^\mu {\ell}_{jR} \right)
	\left(\overline{\ell}_{iL}\gamma_\mu {\ell}_{iL} \right),
	\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal{O}_{\alpha\beta}^{ij}$ are the four fermion leptonic operators, $\Lambda$ is the new physics energy scale, and
$c_{\alpha\beta}^{ij}$s indicate the effective Wilson coupling  between leptons of flavor $i$ and $j$
and $\alpha\beta$  Lorentz structures. The operators are invariant under the SM
gauge symmetry $\rm SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$. It is found that flavor violation among first and
second generations of leptons is tightly constrained by experimental constraints arising from
muon decay into three electron $\mu \rightarrow e e e$ at SINDRUM experiment\cite{Bellgardt:1987du},
the muon transition to $e \gamma$ \cite{TheMEG:2016wtm}, and $\mu-e$ conversion \cite{Bertl:2006up}.
However, constraints on flavor violations between electron and $\tau$ and, muon and $\tau$ are much looser.
As a consequence, we restrict our study to $\bar{e}e\bar{e}\tau$ couplings  using $e^{-}e^{+} \rightarrow e^{\pm} \tau^{\mp}$ process.

In addition to the $\bar{e}e\bar{e}\tau$ four fermi contact interactions,
contact interactions among leptons and quarks (like $\bar{e}e\bar{q}q'$), and electrons and Higgs-$Z$ ($eeHZ$)
are of favourite topics which have been probed in several papers such as Refs. \cite{c1,c2,c3,c4,Crivellin:2013hpa}.

In order to see the dependence of the production rate to the center of mass energy $\sqrt{s}$
and to find a feeling about the sensitivity to different types of operators, the expression for the cross section
of $e^{-}e^{+} \rightarrow e^{\pm} \tau^{\mp}$ process is presented.
The theoretical cross section of $\sigma(e^{-}e^{+} \rightarrow e^{+} \tau^{-})+\sigma(e^{-}e^{+} \rightarrow e^{-} \tau^{+})$
in the presence of all couplings has the following form \cite{Ferreira:2006dg}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma \left( s \right) & = &
\frac{s}{96\pi \Lambda^4}
\Big\{( |c^S_{LR}|^2 + |c^S_{RL}|^2)+ 16 (|c^V_{LL}|^2 + |c^V_{RR}|^2 +  |c^V_{LR}|^2 + |c^V_{RL}|^2) \Big\} .~~~
\label{eq:sigma}
\end{eqnarray}
where in finding the above expression, the lepton masses are set to zero considering the center-of-mass energy scale.
As seen, production rate of the four-fermion interactions grows linearly with the squared center-of-mass energy $s$,
and diverge when $s \rightarrow \infty$. However, one should note that we are working in a non-renormalizable formalism
and  these operators provide an acceptable description of physics at high energy up to an energy scale $\Lambda$.
Another interesting point which is worth mentioning is that the vector type operators contribute to LFV production
of $e\tau$ with a factor of 16 larger than the scalar type operators. Therefore, better sensitivity is expected
to vector type with respect to scalar type operators.

In the next section, we describe the simulation method and details of the analysis
to search for the LFV operators at four energy benchmarks of the FCC-ee.

\section{ Simulation details and analysis strategy}\label{sec:III}

The main goal of this work is to estimate the potential of the  proposed  FCC-ee collider to probe the
effective LFV operators introduced in Eq.\ref{eq:coupling} using $e^{-}e^{+} \rightarrow e^{\pm} \tau^{\mp}$ process.
This section is dedicated to present event generation, simulation of detector effects
and analysis method to find the LFV sensitivity for four energy benchmarks.
In particular, the search is separately  performed at  center-of-mass energies
${365}$, ${240}$, ${162.5}$ and ${157.5}$ GeV with their expected
integrated luminosities of $1.5$, $5$, $5$ and $5 \,{\rm ab}^{-1}$ at FCC-ee collider, respectively \cite{Abada:2019zxq}.
The signal process consists of an electron (or a positron) and a $\bar{\tau}$ lepton (or a $\tau$ lepton) which decays hadronically.
The main background sources which are taken into account in this study are:
\begin{eqnarray*}
	\text{(I)}   	&&   e^- e^+\rightarrow e^\pm\tau^\mp\nu \bar{\nu},\\
	\text{(II)}       &&  e^- e^+\rightarrow \tau^{+}\tau^{-}, 	\\
	\text{(III)}	&&  e^- e^+\rightarrow \ell^\pm \ell^ \mp \ell'^\pm \ell'^\mp\, (\ell, \ell'=e,\mu,\tau),\\
	\text{(IV)}	&&  e^- e^+\rightarrow \ell^\pm \ell^\mp jj\ (\ell=e,\mu,\tau), \\
	\text{(V)} 	&& e^- e^+\rightarrow \ell^\pm\nu jj (\ell=e,\mu,\tau),\\
		\text{(VI)}	&&  e^- e^+\rightarrow jj.
\end{eqnarray*}
The second background, $\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$,  is in particular contributing to
the background composition when one of the $\tau$ leptons decay to an electron and the electron
is reconstructed in the final state.
The third item in the list of backgrounds, $\ell^\pm \ell^ \mp \ell'^\pm \ell'^\mp$, is considered as there is a possibility that
 two of the leptons are scattered to regions of pseudorapidity where detector area is blind or
 two isolated charged leptons are not well reconstructed.
Since jets can be misidentified as electrons and also as
$\tau$ leptons, the fourth to sixth items
must be included in the list of backgrounds to obtain a more realistic assessment of the results.

The effective  Lagrangian introduced in Eq. \ref{eq:coupling}
is implemented in the {\tt FeynRule} program \cite{Alloul:2013bka} and then the Universal FeynRules Output (UFO) model \cite{ufo}
is inserted to {\tt MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO 2.6.6}. The events of signal and backgrounds
are generated at leading order with {\tt MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO  2.6.6} \cite{Alwall:2011uj,Alwall:2014bza,Alwall:2014hca}
including ISR effect. The ISR effects are considered using the {\tt MGISR} plugin in {\tt MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO  2.6.6} \cite{{Chen:2017ipx},{Li:2018qnh}}.
The generated events are passed through {\tt PYTHIA 8} \cite{Sjostrand:2007gs,Sjostrand:2014zea}
for showering, hadronization, and decay of unstable particles.
The detector effects are simulated via {\tt Delphes 3.4.2}~\cite{deFavereau:2013fsa}
according to an ILD-like detector \cite{Behnke:2019sdv}.
For electrons with $p_{T} > 10$ GeV and $|\eta| \leq 2.5$, the identification efficiency in the ILD card
is $95\%$. The electron energy resolution is: $\frac{\Delta E}{E} = \frac{0.15}{\sqrt{E}} + 0.01$.
To calculate the cross section of signal and backgrounds and simulate the events,
the SM relevant input values are set as follows: $M_{Z} = 91.188$ GeV,
mass of $\tau$ lepton $m_{\tau} = 1.777$ GeV, $G_{F} = 1.166\times 10^{-5}$ GeV$^{-2}$,
$\alpha_{e} = 1/127.9$, and $\alpha_{s} = 0.118$.

The  $\tau$ lepton lifetime is  $\sim 290$ femto second, corresponding to $c\tau \sim 87 \mu m$.
The actual decay  length is obtained by multiplying $c\tau$  with $\beta\gamma$ therefore
a $\tau$ lepton with $E=40$ GeV travels around $2$ mm through the detector then decays.
 In  around two  thirds of decays, $\tau$'s decay  hadronically,
 typically to one or three charged mesons (mostly $\pi^{-}\pi^{+}$),
 often associated with neutral pions, and a $\tau$ neutrino.
The $\tau$ tagging efficiency in the ILD simulation card is $40\%$
and the $\tau$ misidentification rate is assumed to be equal $0.1\%$ \cite{potter}.

 Six different signal samples  corresponding to the six operators presented in Eq.\ref{eq:coupling1}
 are generated. In order to generate signal events, we set related effective Wilson coefficient $c_{ij} = 0.1$, with $i=j=L,R$, and $\Lambda=1 $ TeV
 and require pre-selection cuts as $p_T^{\ell}=10{\rm\ GeV}$, pseudorapidity of leptons $|\eta^{\ell}|<3.0$ and angular separation between
 two leptons as $\Delta R = \sqrt{(\Delta\eta)^{2} + (\Delta\phi)^{2}} > 0.3$.
 For generating the background samples, we require the  addition of angular separation between
 leptons and jets, and two jets in the final state to be  $\Delta R_{\ell,j}>0.3$ and the $p_T=10{\rm\ GeV}$ and $|\eta|<3.0$
 are applied on jets in the final state at generator level.

The cross-section and corresponding uncertainties with ISR effect of  backgrounds
as well as signals are given in Table \ref{Table:xsec} for all center-of-mass energies $157.5$, $162.5$, $240$ and $365$ GeV.

\begin{table*}[]
\begin{center}
\tiny
\begin{tabular}{c|cc|cccccc}
\hline \hline
$\sqrt s$ [GeV]    & $c^V_{LR}=0.1$ & $c^S_{LR}=0.1$ & $e \tau\nu\bar{\nu}$ & $\tau\bar\tau $ &  $\ell \bar{\ell }\ell'\bar{\ell' } $ & $\ell \bar{\ell }jj$ & $\ell \nu jj$ & $jj$ \\ \hline  \hline
157.5 &   $4.72\pm0.007$  & $0.29\pm0.0004$ &  $22.33\pm0.07$  &  $11076.5\pm3.4$  & $39.86\pm0.08$ & $80.95\pm0.2$ & $272.9\pm0.4$  & $32032\pm8.1$\\\hline
162.5 &   $5.02\pm0.007$  & $0.31\pm0.0004$ &  $102.12\pm0.3$ &  $10275.8\pm2.9$  & $42.23\pm0.08$ & $83.06\pm0.3$ & $1198.05\pm0.8$ & $29133\pm6.2$ \\	\hline
240   &   $10.98\pm0.04$ & $0.69\pm0.0008$ &  $415.63\pm0.6$ &  $4196.8\pm1.2$   & $86.24\pm0.2$ & $217.8\pm0.5$ & $4552.7\pm1.3$ & $10481\pm3.5$\\	\hline
365   &   $25.26\pm0.07$ & $1.57\pm0.002$ &  $327.59\pm0.5$ &  $1803.6\pm0.6$  & $85.05\pm0.1$ & $195.13\pm0.3$ & $3247.02\pm1.1$ & $4306\pm1.2$ \\			 \hline \hline
\end{tabular}
	\end{center}
	\caption{\small The cross sections of signal $e^- e^+ \rightarrow e^{\pm} \tau^{\mp}$ and main background processes with
	their corresponding uncertainties are presented.
	 The cross section of two signal scenarios are given assuming  $c^V_{LR}=0.1$, $c^S_{LR}=0.1$, and  $\Lambda = 1$ TeV.
	 The cross sections are in unit of fb and are after including the ISR effects.}
	\label{Table:xsec}
\end{table*}

The  signal events are selected  according to the following requirements.
We  ask for exactly  two leptons with opposite charge, one isolated electron  and one $\tau$-tagged  lepton.
It is required that  $p_T^{e}>10 {\rm\ GeV}$, $p_T^{\tau}>20 {\rm\ GeV}$  and pseudorapidity of both leptons must satisfy $|\eta^{\ell}|<2.5$. and $\Delta R_{e,\tau} > 0.5$.
In order to  make sure the electron candidate is well isolated, it is required $\text{RelIso} < 0.15$, where
$\text{RelIso}$ is defined as the ratio of the sum of $p_{\rm T}$ of charged particle tracks inside a cone of size
$0.5$ around the electron track to $p_{\rm T}$ of the electron.
$\tau$ leptons which decay via hadronic  modes are considered.
A $\tau$ lepton in hadronic  decay mode produces a jet containing a few neutral and charged hadrons.
 Therefore, considering the $\tau$ tagging efficiency, a jet is considered potentially as a $\tau$ candidate if
 a generated $\tau$ exists within a  distance
 $\Delta R = \sqrt{(\eta_{\rm jet} - \eta_{\tau})^{2} + (\phi_{\rm jet} - \phi_{\tau})^{2}} = 0.3$
 from the jet axis.

 To suppress the contributions from events with $e^{-}e^{+}$ and $\mu^{-}\mu^{+}$ in the final state,
events that contain two electron or two muon candidates are rejected.
This reduces background events from $\ell^\pm \ell^ \mp \ell'^\pm \ell'^\mp$,
 $\ell^\pm \ell^\mp jj$, and  $\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ with $\tau \rightarrow e \nu_{e} \nu_{\tau}$
 or $\tau \rightarrow \mu \nu_{\mu} \nu_{\tau}$.

 To enhance the sensitivity, we apply additional cuts on the  energy of final state electron
 and the invariant mass of the two leptons $M_{e\tau}$.
 Figure \ref{distribution} displays the distributions of the electron energy in the final state (left plot)
 and invariant mass of final state, i.e. $M_{e\tau}$ (right plot) at a center-of-mass energy of 240 GeV.
 Obviously,  both distributions show  significant difference between
 the shape of signal and background processes.
 The $M_{e\tau}$ distributions for $\ell^\pm \ell^\mp jj$, $\tau^+ \tau^-$ and $\ell^\pm \ell^ \mp \ell'^\pm \ell'^\mp$
 background processes peak at lower values with respect to the signal and even
 the other backgrounds. This is expected as the center-of-mass energy is shared
 among at least four particles in $\ell^\pm \ell^\mp jj$ and $\ell^\pm \ell^ \mp \ell'^\pm \ell'^\mp$ processes.
 Therefore, cutting on  $M_{e\tau}$  suppresses effectively these reducible backgrounds.
 It is notable that the $M_{e\tau}$ distribution has different behaviours
 for $c^{V}_{LL}$ and $c^{V}_{LR}$ which arises from the fact that
 for $LL$ coupling $d\sigma/d\cos\theta \propto (1+\cos\theta)^{2}$
 while for $LR$ coupling $d\sigma/d\cos\theta \propto (1-\cos\theta)^{2}$.
 For the signal events, the energy distribution of the electron is expected to spread around $\sqrt{s}/2$.
 As a result, it is used to further reduce the contributions of the background processes.

\begin{figure*}[htb]
\begin{center}
 {\includegraphics[ scale=0.4]{electron_E240log1.pdf}}
 {\includegraphics[ scale=0.4]{LeptonsInvariantMass240GeV1.pdf}}
 \caption{{\small  Normalized distributions of electron energy(left),
 and invariant mass of two final state charged leptons $M_{e\tau}$ (right)
 are presented  for  signal benchmarks  $c^V_{LL}=0.1$ and $c^V_{RL}=0.1$,
 at $\sqrt{s} = $ 240 GeV.}} \label{distribution}
  \end{center}
  \end{figure*}

 The cut values on $E_{e}$ and $M_{e\tau}$ are optimized such that
 the best limit on the LFV coefficients are obtained. In order to optimize the cuts
  on the invariant mass and energy of the outgoing electron,
   the upper bound on the signal cross section for
  different cut values on $M_{e\tau}$ and $E_{e}$ is obtained.
  The values which gives lowest upper bound on signal cross section are chosen as the optimum values.
 The  cuts on invariant mass of final state $M_{e\tau}$ are found to be greater than
 65${\rm\ GeV}$, 100 and 150${\rm\ GeV}$ for $\sqrt{s}=157.5 - 162.5$, $240$ and $365{\rm\ GeV}$, respectively.
 The optimized lower cuts on energy of electron are obtained to be
 $78.6$, $81.0$, $119.7$ and $182.0 {\rm\ GeV}$  for $\sqrt{s}=157.5$, $162.5$, 240 and $365$ GeV, respectively.
 Table \ref{Table:eff} presents the efficiencies of signal with $c^V_{LR}=0.1$, $c^S_{LR}=0.1$ and
the main SM backgrounds after preselection cuts, $M_{e\tau}$, and $E_{e}$
with $\sqrt{s}=157.5$, $162.5$, 240 and $365{\rm\ GeV}$.
 After applying the cuts, the main background contributions arise from
 $\ell^\pm \ell^ \mp \ell'^\pm \ell'^\mp$,  $\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ and $\ell^{\pm} \ell^{\mp} jj$ and the rest are remarkably suppressed.

\begin{table*}[]
	\begin{center}
		\scalebox{0.85}{
			\begin{tabular}{c |c c|c c c c c}
				\hline \hline
				\multirow{2}{*}{$\sqrt s = 157.5$ GeV} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Signal} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{~~~~~~ SM Backgrounds }\\ \cline{2-8}
				& $c^V_{LR}=0.1$ & $c^S_{LR}=0.1$ & $e \tau\nu\bar{\nu}$ &   $\tau\bar\tau $ &  $\ell \bar{\ell }\ell'\bar{\ell' } $ & $\ell \bar{\ell }jj $ & $\ell\nu jj$ \\ \hline
				(I): Pre-selection cuts   &   $0.1746$  & $0.1698$ &  $0.099$  &  $0.045$  & $4.9\times 10^{-3}$ & $1.4\times 10^{-3}$ & $3.3\times 10^{-4}$ \\
				(II): $M_{e \tau}>65 $ GeV &   $0.1741$  & $0.1697$ &  $0.038$  &  $0.019$  & $2.2\times 10^{-3}$ & $1.8\times 10^{-4}$  & $7.5\times 10^{-5}$ \\
				(III): $E_e > 78.6$ GeV &  $0.0984$  & $0.0831$ &$2.8\times 10^{-8}$ & $1.5\times 10^{-7}$  &   $6.02\times 10^{-6}$  &  $1.7\times 10^{-7}$ & $ 0.0$  \\
				\hline  \hline
				\multirow{2}{*}{$\sqrt s = 162.5$ GeV} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Signal} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{~~~~~~ SM Backgrounds }\\ \cline{2-8}
				& $c^V_{LR}=0.1$ & $c^S_{LR}=0.1$ & $e \tau\nu\bar{\nu}$ &   $\tau\bar\tau $ &  $\ell \bar{\ell }\ell'\bar{\ell' } $ & $\ell \bar{\ell }jj $  & $\ell\nu jj$\\ \hline
				(I): Pre-selection cuts   &   $0.1727$  & $0.1711$ &  $0.106$  &  $0.048$  & $4.9\times 10^{-3}$ & $1.6\times 10^{-3}$ & $4.5\times 10^{-4}$  \\
				(II): $M_{e \tau}>65 $ GeV &   $0.1727$  & $0.1710$ &  $0.041$  &  $0.025$  & $2.4\times 10^{-3}$ & $2.1\times 10^{-4}$ & $1.0\times 10^{-4}$ \\
				(III): $E_e > 81$ GeV &  $0.1122$  & $0.0949$ &$6\times 10^{-8}$ & $2.0\times 10^{-7}$  &   $3.61\times 10^{-6}$  &  $2.1\times 10^{-7}$ & $0.0$ \\
				\hline  \hline
				\multirow{2}{*}{$\sqrt s = 240$ GeV} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Signal} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{~~~~~~ SM Backgrounds }\\ \cline{2-8}
				& $c^V_{LR}=0.1$ & $c^S_{LR}=0.1$ & $e \tau\nu\bar{\nu}$ &   $\tau\bar\tau $ &  $\ell \bar{\ell }\ell'\bar{\ell' } $ & $\ell \bar{\ell }jj $  & $\ell\nu jj$\\ \hline
				(I): Pre-selection cuts   &   $0.2156$  & $0.2137$ &  $0.131$  &  $0.037$  & $8.8\times10^{-3}$ & $6.2\times10^{-3}$ & $4.9\times10^{-4}$ \\
				(II): $M_{e \tau}>100 $ GeV &   $0.2150$  & $0.2134$ &  $0.084$  &  $0.017$  & $1.6\times10^{-3}$ & $2.4\times10^{-4}$  &  $2.0\times10^{-4}$\\
				(III): $E_e > 119.7$ GeV &  $0.1072$  & $0.0989$ &$2.1\times 10^{-8}$ & $1.5\times10^{-7}$  &   $1.2\times 10^{-5}$  &  $2.4\times10^{-7}$ & $ 0.0$  \\
				\hline  \hline
				\multirow{2}{*}{$\sqrt s = 365$ GeV}& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Signal} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{~~~~~~ SM Backgrounds }\\ \cline{2-8}
				& $c^V_{LR}=0.1$ & $c^S_{LR}=0.1$ & $e \tau\nu\bar{\nu}$ &   $\tau\bar\tau $ &  $\ell \bar{\ell }\ell'\bar{\ell' } $ & $\ell \bar{\ell }jj $  & $\ell\nu jj$\\ \hline
				(I): Pre-selection cuts   &   $0.2093$  & $0.2097$ &  $0.133$  &  $0.066$  & $0.012$ & $6.0\times 10^{-3}$ & $5.0\times 10^{-4}$\\
				(II): $M_{e \tau}>150 $ GeV  &   $0.2053$  & $0.2051$ &  $0.093$  &  $0.041$  & $2.0\times 10^{-3}$ & $1.5\times 10^{-4}$ & $2.4\times 10^{-4}$ \\
				(III): $E_e > 182$ GeV &  $0.0993$  & $0.0986$ &$2.6\times 10^{-8}$ & $3.2\times10^{-7}$  &   $2.6\times 10^{-5}$  &  $1.4\times 10^{-7}$ & $ 0.0$  \\
				\hline  \hline
			\end{tabular}}
		\end{center}
		\caption{The efficiencies for signal with $c^V_{LR}=0.1$, $c^S_{LR}=0.1$ and
					the SM backgrounds after selection cuts with $\sqrt{s}=157.5$, $162.5$, 240 and $365{\rm\ GeV}$ are given.}
		\label{Table:eff}
	\end{table*}

As previously indicated, jets could be misidentified as
$\tau$ and electron therefore, processes with jets in the final state
contribute to the background.
The detectors proposed for the future lepton colliders are
expected to have a great performance better than the current modern
multipurpose detectors such as ATLAS and CMS detectors.
The jet fake $\tau$ probability
 is  expected to be $0.1\%$ \cite{potter}.
The rate of background containing jets varies with the center-of-mass energy and
is assessed to be less than $5\%$
of the total
background contributions after all selection criteria.

In the next section, we evaluate the potential sensitivities to LFV
operators at four energy benchmarks.
In addition,  a statistical combination of four center-of-mass energies is presented.

\section{ Results }\label{sec:IV}

The CL$_{\rm s}$ technique \cite{cls1,cls2}
is exploited to find  upper limits on the signal cross section at $95\%$ CL.
Then the limits on the signal rates are translated into the upper limits on the LFV couplings.
In the CL$_{\rm s}$ method, we define log-likelihood functions  $L_{\rm Bkg}$ and $L_{\rm Signal+Bkg}$
for the background hypothesis, and for the signal+background hypothesis as the multiplication of
Poissonian likelihood functions.
The $p$-value for hypothesis of signal+background
and for the background hypothesis are determined using the log-likelihood
ratio $\rm Q =  - 2ln(L_{\rm Signal+Bkg}/L_{\rm Bkg} )$.
The signal cross section is constrained using CL${_{\rm s} = \rm P_{Signal+Bkg}(Q > Q_{0})/(1-P_{Bkg}(Q < Q_{0})) \leq 0.05}$
 which is corresponding to $95\%$ confidence level  where $\rm Q_{0}$ is the expected value of test statistics $\rm Q$.
 The {\tt RooStats} package \cite{roostats} is used to perform the numerical evaluation of the CL$_{\rm s}$.

The predicted constraints at $95\%$ CL for $\sqrt{s} = 157.5 {\rm\ GeV}$ with
$\mathcal{L}=5 \,{\rm ab}^{-1}$, $\sqrt{s} = 162.5 {\rm\ GeV}$ with $\mathcal{L}=5 \,{\rm ab}^{-1}$,  $\sqrt{s}$ = 240 GeV
with $\mathcal{L}=5 \,{\rm ab}^{-1}$ and $\sqrt{s} = 365 {\rm\ GeV}$ with $\mathcal{L}=1.5 \,{\rm ab}^{-1}$  are presented in Table \ref{climits}.
These results are obtained considering only statistical uncertainties and the impacts of systematic and theoretical
sources are neglected.  For illustration, the results are also given in Figure \ref{graph:compare}.
 As seen, the most sensitivity is achieved on vector type LFV couplings, i.e. on $c^V_{LL}$,
 $c^V_{RR}$, $c^V_{RL}$, and $c^V_{LR}$. This is expected as the production rates for the
 vector type LFV couplings are larger than the scalar type by a factor of 16.
 Among various center-of-mass energy scenarios, better sensitivity is expected to be obtained
 from $\sqrt{s} = 365$ GeV for which the signal cross section is largest as $\sigma(e^-e^+ \rightarrow e\tau) \propto s$.
 Although, less amount of data is planned to be collected at $\sqrt{s} = 365$ GeV with respect to
 the other energies, similar sensitivity to other energies at $\sqrt{s} = 365$ GeV is obtained.

To achieve better sensitivity, the results from four energy benchmarks are combined
using the method explained in Ref. \cite{Khachatryan:2016vau}. The combined limits are
given in Table \ref{climits} and Figure \ref{graph:compare}. One can see that
the statistical combination of four energy scenarios improves the bounds by almost a factor of
around 3 to 4 with respect to the results from a single energy benchmark.
It is informative to compare the results from prospects of Belle II with
an integrated luminosity of 50 ab$^{-1}$. The limits from combination are competitive with
those expected from Belle II.  Finally, we compare the results with those which are
expected from a future lepton collider at $\sqrt{s} = 1$ TeV with polarized beams
such that $P(e^{-}) = 0.8$ and $P(e^{-}) = -0.3$ \cite{lfv2}.  The results of combination are sensibly better for both the scalar and vector types of the LFV couplings.

\begin{table}[htbp]
	\begin{center}
		\scalebox{0.8}{
			\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
				\hline	\hline
				\tiny $\sqrt{s}$ (GeV) , $\mathcal{L}$ (ab$^{-1}$) & \tiny $\frac{c^V_{LL}}{\Lambda^2}[\times10^{-9}]$& \tiny $\frac{c^V_{RR}}{\Lambda^2}[\times10^{-9}]$   & \tiny $\frac{c^V_{RL}}{\Lambda^2}[\times10^{-9}]$ & \tiny $\frac{c^V_{LR}}{\Lambda^2}[\times10^{-9}]$ & \tiny $\frac{c^S_{RL}}{\Lambda^2}[\times10^{-9}]$ & \tiny $\frac{c^S_{LR}}{\Lambda^2}[\times10^{-9}]$ \\
				\hline  \hline
				\small $157.5$  , $5$ 		 &\small$5.82$\small& \small$5.46$	&\small$5.74$ &\small$5.36$ &\small 21.18 &\small 22.61	\\
				\small $162.5$  , $5$		 &\small$5.71$& $5.36$	&$5.62$ &	$5.29$ &21.42 &23.12	\\
				\small $240$    , $5$	        &$3.69$& $3.50$	&$3.73$ &	$3.53$ &14.81 &14.74	\\
				\small $365$   , $1.5$	        & 3.93 & 3.94 & 3.92 & 3.93 & 15.80 & 15.80	\\  \hline
				\small Combination             & 1.32 & 1.25 & 1.32 & 1.25 & 5.1 & 5.3	\\ \hline
				\small Belle II		 	       & 1.06 & 1.06 & 1.55 & 1.55 & 4.29 & 4.29	\\ \hline
				\small $\sqrt{s} = 1$	 TeV, pol. beam  &  4.3   &  1.1 &  1.6 & 1.8    &  13 & 5.9 \\ \hline    \hline
			\end{tabular}}
			\caption{ \small The $95\%$ CL expected upper bounds on the scalar and vector type LFV couplings assuming four center-of-mass energies
				as well as the combination are shown.  The limits are in the unit of ${\rm\ GeV}^{-2}$.
				The Belle II future prospects \cite{r8} and the expectation from  $e^{-}e^{+}$
				collider at $\sqrt{s} = 1$ TeV with polarized beam \cite{lfv2} are presented as well.
				\label{climits}}
		\end{center}
	\end{table}

\begin{figure}[htb]
\vspace{0.50cm}
\begin{center}
{\includegraphics[ scale=0.35]{cS_ij.pdf}}
{\includegraphics[ scale=0.355]{cV_ii.pdf}}
{\includegraphics[ scale=0.35]{cV_ij.pdf}}
\caption{{\small Expected constraints at $95\%$CL  on $c^S_{ij}$ (top left)
with  $c^S_{LR}$(dashed-blue) and $c^S_{RL}$(solid-green), $c^V_{ii}$ (top right)
with $c^V_{LL}$(dashed-blue), $c^V_{RR}$ (solid-green), and $c^V_{ij}$ (bottom)
with $c^V_{LR}$(dashed-blue) and $c^V_{RL}$ (solid-green)  from $e^-e^+\rightarrow e\tau$
for four center-mass-energies are shown.  The result of combination of four energies and the prospects from
Belle II with $50\,{\rm ab}^{-1}$ at $90\%$ CL \cite{r8} are presented for comparison.
} \label{graph:compare}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

In order to have a feeling about the impact of systematic uncertainties on the results, we consider conservative
values of uncertainties and re-estimate the sensitivities to the LFV couplings.
In Ref. \cite{opalz}, a search for LFV events at LEP2 with the OPAL detector using a similar final state
as this work has been performed. The analysis has used  the full  data  collected with OPAL
at $\sqrt{s}$ between 189 GeV and 209 GeV. The systematic uncertainty on the signal efficiency is $3.5\%$
and on the number of expected background events is $5\%$. While for the future experiments, the measurements
are expected to be made with more accuracy, we consider a conservative value of $5\%$ uncertainty on both signal selection efficiency and on
background expectation. The  constraints  on $ c^V_{LL}/\Lambda^2$, $ c^V_{RR}/\Lambda^2$, $ c^V_{RL}/\Lambda^2$,
$ c^V_{LR}/\Lambda^2$, $ c^S_{RL}/\Lambda^2$, $ c^S_{LR}/\Lambda^2$,
 derived at $\sqrt{s} = 365$ GeV, are found to be
 $ 4.14 \times 10^{-9}$,  $ 4.15 \times 10^{-9}$, $ 4.12 \times 10^{-9}$, $ 4.13 \times 10^{-9}$, $ 16.57 \times 10^{-9}$, $ 16.65 \times 10^{-9}$ ${\rm\ GeV}^{-2}$.
Comparing with the limits without systematic uncertainties shows that
including an overall $5\%$ uncertainty would not weaken the sensitivity remarkably.

\section{ Summary and conclusions}\label{sec:V}

Lepton flavor violation processes are absent in the SM but appear
in many extensions of the SM. In particular, the branching fractions of
LFV $\tau^{\pm} \rightarrow \ell^{\pm} \ell^{\pm} \ell'^{\mp}$, $\ell, \ell' = e,\mu$
decays are increased in various beyond the SM scenarios.
In this work, the sensitivity of the future circular electron-positron collider, FCC-ee,
to probe the LFV couplings is examined using the $e^-e^+ \rightarrow e^{\pm}\tau^{\mp}$
production. To perform the study,  an effective Lagrangian approach, in particular, four fermi contact interactions with vector and
scalar types are exploited.
In order to find the sensitivity, events are generated for four run scenarios of center-of-mass energies of
$157.5$, $162.5$, $240$, and $365 {\rm\ GeV}$ with their corresponding benchmarks
for the integrated luminosity.
The events are generated using {\tt MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO} considering ISR effect and passed through {\tt PYTHIA 8}
for showering, hadronization, and decay of unstable particles.
A fast detector simulation is carried out by {\tt Delphes} using the ILD detector card.
The signal final state consists of an isolated electron and a $\tau$ lepton. In this study,
the hadronic decays of the $\tau$ lepton are considered for which the branching fraction is around $64\%$.
Based on the final state, the main sources of reducible and irreducible background processes are taken into account.
Cuts on the energy of the final electron and the invariant mass of $e\tau$ system
are applied to suppress the background contributions. Upper limits at $95\%$ CL on the couplings
of various types of LFV couplings have been obtained using the CL$_{\rm s}$ method for the four center-of-mass energies.
 Finally, a statistical combination of results obtained at four center-of-mass energies is performed.
We show that the statistical combination of four center-of-mass energies  increases
the sensitivity to the LFV couplings by a factor of two and larger with respect to the limits obtained at $\sqrt{s} = 365$ GeV.
The results are compared with those obtained from other studies at lepton colliders considering beam
polarizations and with prospects from Belle II. The results of combination are competitive with expectations for
Belle II with 50 ab$^{-1}$.

\section*{Acknowledgments}
S.Tizchang is grateful to  Qiang Li for replying the question about implementing ISR in ${\tt MadGraph 5 \_aMC@NLO}$. S.M. Etesami is grateful to INSF for the financial support.
R. Jafari and S. Tizchang are thankful to the Iran Science Elites Federation
for the financial support.