\section{Introduction}

A nonlinear interferometer (NLI)---characterized by the Lie group SU(1,1) and consisting of two consecutive nonlinear crystals~\cite{Yurke86}---is a potential alternative to a linear interferometer seeded by a squeezed state~\cite{Caves81} for high-precision measurements because of its supreme phase sensitivity~\cite{Chekhova16}.
Indeed, it is said to feature a `Heisenberg scaling' when the gains in both crystals are equal~\cite{Yurke86,Linnemann16}.
It has been suggested that one can suppress the influence of detection loss by using unbalanced gains in the two crystals~\cite{Sparaciari16,Manceau17}, and in fact sub-shot-noise phase sensitivity in an unseeded NLI with this method was recently demonstrated~\cite{Manceau17PRL}.

In this article, we show that (i) the photon statistics of an unseeded and gain-unbalanced NLI lead to a suppression of the deleterious influence of detection loss, (ii) the phase sensitivity is in this case ultimately limited by the \emph{lower} gain and is therefore symmetric with respect to the two crystals, (iii) a comparison to the shot-noise level is not straightforward, and (iv) internal loss breaks the symmetry so that a \emph{higher} gain in the source crystal might be beneficial.
Since NLIs may be intrinsically gain-unbalanced, claiming a Heisenberg scaling has to be carefully justified in each individual case.

An NLI characterized by the SU(1,1) group typically consists of two nonlinear crystals A and B, as shown in Figs.~\ref{fig_degenerate} and~\ref{fig_nondegenerate}.
In the original proposal~\cite{Yurke86}, crystal A is the \emph{source} of the radiation, which is transmitted into crystal B acting as an \emph{analyzer}.
The NLI can be operated at constructive interference where both crystals generate radiation, a method that has, for example, been explored to create and tailor bright squeezed vacuum states of light~\cite
Perez14,Sharapova15,Lemieux16,Beltran17}.
In addition, it was shown that by seeding the NLI with a light field, the phase sensitivity is boosted even further---for both a coherent- and a squeezed-state input field~\cite{Plick10,Li14,Sparaciari16}---and the influence of internal loss may be decreased~\cite{Marino12,Ou12}.
To focus on the physical mechanisms of an NLI, we restrict ourselves in this article to the unseeded case with vacuum input modes, which has no correspondence in a conventional interferometer.

As it is the case in other quantum physical processes with multiple nonlinear crystals, such as induced coherence~\cite{Wang91,Kolobov17}, it is essential that the two crystals are pumped coherently.
Nevertheless, the gains in both crystals can be controlled separately and the relative phase of the pump field can be varied.
In fact, it would be experimentally difficult to ensure that the gain of the source and the gain of the analyzer are \emph{exactly equal}, especially since the number of photons produced scales exponentially with the electric field amplitude of the pump.
Unbalanced gains give an additional degree of freedom to optimize the properties of the NLI.
In this spirit, it was shown theoretically that the deleterious effects of detection loss~\cite{Marino12} can be overcome by intentionally \emph{unbalancing} the gains~\cite{Sparaciari16,Manceau17,Anderson17b}.
This effect was recently demonstrated experimentally~\cite{Manceau17PRL}, for the case in which the analyzer is pumped more strongly than the source.
On the other hand, the significance of the analyzing crystal is questioned by proposals to operate the device in a truncated mode of operation---with only the source as a squeezer~\cite{Anderson17}.
At first sight, these considerations imply an opposite role of the analyzing crystal and make it necessary to investigate the effect of gain unbalancing in more detail to understand the ultimate limit of the sensitivity of the device.
A seeded and gain-unbalanced setup has been investigated in~\cite{Kong13}, but without explicit consideration of the limitations on the sensitivity.

In Sec.~\ref{sec_Theoretical_description} we use simple transformations to derive exact analytical expressions for the detected photon number, its variance, and the phase sensitivity that can be applied to a situation with unbalanced gains, and we show the conditions under which detection loss is significant or can be overcome.
In Sec.~\ref{sec_Phase_sensitivity_for_unbalanced_gain} we calculate the phase sensitivity of a gain-unbalanced NLI.
The effect of internal loss breaks the symmetry between source and analyzer so that---depending on the parameters of the setup---it makes a difference which crystal is pumped more strongly, as we show in Sec.~\ref{sec_Breaking_the_symmetry}.
Because all of these calculations focus on a degenerate NLI, we generalize in Sec.~\ref{sec_Comparison} our approach to compare the results to a nondegenerate setup, before we conclude in Sec.~\ref{sec_Conclusions}.
To keep this paper self-contained, we include the detailed calculations for the degenerate NLI in appendix~\ref{app_Degenerate_configuration}, the quantum Fisher information in a lossless and balanced setup in appendix~\ref{app_Quantum_Fisher_information}, and the nondegenerate NLI in appendix~\ref{app_Non-degenterate_configuration}.

\section{Theoretical description}
\label{sec_Theoretical_description}

There are two intrinsically different approaches to realize an NLI.
The \emph{degenerate} scheme employs two parametric amplifiers (the source and the analyzer) that act as single-mode squeezers.
Alternatively, two-mode squeezers are used in the the \emph{nondegenerate} scheme.
Each type of NLI has its own theoretical description, which in turn has an impact on the overall phase sensitivity, as already pointed out by~\cite{Yurke86}, even though the scaling behavior is very similar.
In this article, we mostly focus on the degenerate NLI shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_degenerate} and use the subscript $\text{d}$ for all quantities derived for the degenerate case.
For a treatment of the nondegenerate setup we refer to appendix~\ref{app_Non-degenterate_configuration}.
For completeness, we discuss in Sec.~\ref{sec_Comparison} the results of the nondegenerate NLI and compare them to the degenerate case.

An NLI as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_degenerate} consists of a source, which we call crystal A, that generates squeezed vacuum through parametric down-conversion.
Its output is transmitted to an analyzing crystal, called crystal B, where it is either further squeezed or un-squeezed, depending on the phase accumulated between the crystals and by the pump.
The output of the analyzer is then detected by detector D$_\text{d}$.
For more details on the derivations of this section, we refer to appendix~\ref{app_Degenerate_configuration}.

\begin{figure}[htb] \centering
\includegraphics[scale=1]{Gain-symmetries-figure0}
    \caption{
    Schematic of a degenerate nonlinear interferometer that consists of two coherently pumped nonlinear crystals A and B.
    Internal loss is modeled by a beam splitter S$_\text{d}$, detector inefficiencies by a beam splitter S$_{\eta_\text{d}}$.
    The bosonic annihilation operator $\hat{a}$ denotes the input mode of the interferometer, the operator $\hat{b}'$ the field detected by detector D$_\text{d}$.
	}
\label{fig_degenerate}
\end{figure}

We assume that the pair generation in each crystal A and B is described by a Bogoliubov transformation
$
\hat{a}'= u_\text{A} \, \hat{a} + v_\text{A} \, \hat{a}^\dagger
$
and
$
\hat{b}= u_\text{B} \, \hat{a}'' + v_\text{B} \, \hat{a}^{\prime\prime\dagger}
$.
Here, $u_\text{A,B}$ and $v_\text{A,B}$ are complex parameters that describe the amplification process.
They are connected to the usual hyperbolic functions and fulfill the relation
$
1= |u_\text{A,B}|^2-|v_\text{A,B}|^2\equiv U_\text{A,B}-V_\text{A,B}
$.
The operators $\hat{a}$ and $\hat{b}$ are photon annihilation operators and $\hat{a}^\dagger$ and $\hat{b}^\dagger$ are photon creation operators that follow the usual bosonic commutation relations, and the different primes describe the field at various instances of the interferometer.
Note that $V_{j}$ corresponds to the number of photons produced by an unseeded crystal.
However, in our setup crystal B will always be seeded by the output of crystal A.

The loss inside the NLI is modeled by a beam splitter S$_\text{d}$, which transforms the input modes $\hat{a}'$ and $\hat{\ell}$ via
$
\hat{a}'' = t_\text{d} \, \hat{a}' + r_\text{d} \, \hat{\ell}
$
and
$
\hat{\ell}' = t_\text{d}^* \, \hat{a}' - r_\text{d}^* \, \hat{\ell}
$
to the output modes, where $T_\text{d}\equiv |t_\text{d}|^2$ and $R_\text{d}\equiv |r_\text{d}|^2$ are the intensity transmittance and reflectivity with $R_\text{d} + T_\text{d} =1$.
We allow for complex $t_\text{d}$ and $r_\text{d}$ so that we can include phases that are accumulated inside the NLI.

With these transformations, the operator describing the output field of crystal B (and therefore neglecting detection loss for the moment) takes the form
\bg\begin{split}\label{e_a_B}
\hat{b}=& \, ( t_\text{d}u_\text{A} u_\text{B} +t_\text{d}^* v_\text{A}^* v_\text{B})\hat{a} +  (t_\text{d}v_\text{A} u_\text{B} +t_\text{d}^* u_\text{A}^* v_\text{B})\hat{a}^\dagger \\
& + r_\text{d} u_\text{B} \hat{\ell} + r_\text{d}^* v_\text{B} \hat{\ell}^\dagger.
\end{split}
\eg
For a vacuum input in modes $\hat{a}$ and $\hat{\ell}$ it is relatively easy to see that the photon number $N_\text{d}(\phi)\equiv\langle\hat{b}^\dagger \hat{b}\rangle$ after crystal B displays interference, that is,
\bg\label{eq_N_d}
N_\text{d}= T_\text{d} V_\text{A} + V_\text{B} +2 T_\text{d} V_\text{A} V_\text{B} - 2 T_\text{d} \sqrt{U_\text{A} V_\text{A} U_\text{B} V_\text{B}} \cos \phi.
\eg
Here we define the phase as $
\phi \equiv \operatorname{arg}\left(u_\text{A} v_\text{A} u_\text{B} v_\text{B}^*t_\text{d}^2\right)+\pi
$.
It includes the phase of the coefficients $u_j$ and $v_j$ and therefore the phase  difference of the laser field that pumps crystal A and B.
The argument of $t_\text{d}$ accounts for the phase accumulated by the photons inside the NLI.
We see that internal loss leads to a decreasing visibility and by that sensitivity, whose scaling might change for a decohering quantum state inside the interferometer~\cite{Demkowicz14}.

The variance of the photon number $\hat{b}^\dagger \hat{b}$ after crystal B may be written as (see appendix~\ref{app_Degenerate_configuration})
\bg\label{e_Delta_N}
\Delta N_\text{d}^2= 2 N_\text{d} (1+ N_\text{d}) - R_\text{d} T_\text{d} V_\text{A}.
\eg
Therefore, the photon statistics in the output of the NLI is, at least for no loss, super-thermal and, due to the fact that $N_\text{d}=N_\text{d}(\phi)$, phase dependent.
Note that $N_\text{d}$ depends on $V_\text{A}$ and $V_\text{B}$ as well as on internal loss.

The phase uncertainty of the NLI without taking detection loss into account is defined as
\bg\label{eq_sensitivity}
\Delta \phi_\text{d}^2 = \Delta N_\text{d}^2\Big/\left|\frac{\partial N_\text{d}}{\partial\phi}\right|^2
\eg
and depends on the phase $\phi$, internal loss $T_\text{d}$, as well as the gains through $V_\text{A}$ and $V_\text{B}$.
Equation~\eqref{eq_sensitivity} is the measure for the phase uncertainty that is usually employed~\cite{Yurke86,Marino12,Sahota15,Szigeti17}.
It implies that the average value of the detected photon number is used to estimate the phase~\footnote{
A phase estimator based on photon the number $N_\text{d}=\mathcal{A}-\mathcal{K}\cos\phi$, where $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{K}$ are defined in accordance with Eq.~\eqref{eq_N_d}, can be defined with the average value $n_p$ after $p$ measurements of $N_\text{d}$ as $\Phi \equiv \arccos [(\mathcal{A}-n_p)/\mathcal{K}]$. Equation~\eqref{eq_sensitivity} then scales additionally with $p^{-1}$. The estimator is, assuming the validity of the central limit theorem, asymptotically unbiased~\cite{Pezze14}
} and a more detailed motivation based on error propagation can be found in~\cite{Pezze08}.
Since only the average photon number is determined, Eq.~\eqref{eq_sensitivity} can be asymptotically linked to the Fisher information if the central limit theorem holds~\cite{Pezze14}.
We see from Eq.~\eqref{e_Delta_N} that in a balanced setup without losses, the variance is not finite and discuss this case separately in the example given below.

We emphasize that other estimators are possible and might even be a better choice than the average value of the photon number, but they might also require further information to be meaningful.
In fact, detecting the statistical properties of the signal might lead to a better estimation of the phase~\cite{Pezze08}.

To model detection loss we introduce, according to Fig.~\ref{fig_degenerate}, a second beam splitter S$_{\eta_\text{d}}$ with transmittance $\eta_\text{d}$ before the detector D$_\text{d}$.
With Eq.~\eqref{eq_sensitivity} we demonstrate in appendix~\ref{app_Degenerate_configuration} that the phase uncertainty including detection loss takes the form
\bg\label{eq_sensi_eta}
\Delta \phi_{\eta\text{d}}^2 =\Delta \phi_{\text{d}}^2 \left( 1 + \frac{1-\eta_\text{d}}{\eta_\text{d}} \frac{N_\text{d}}{\Delta N_\text{d}^2}\right).
\eg
Hence, the phase sensitivity is modified in the presence of detection loss.
In particular, it depends on the inverse Fano factor $N_\text{d}/\Delta N_\text{d}^2$, the ratio of photon number and its variance.
Therefore, the photon statistics is crucial in determining the influence of detection loss.
It is obvious from Eq.~\eqref{eq_sensi_eta} that detection loss is suppressed if the inverse Fano factor is small.
Note that a similar expression for the nondegenerate case was derived in~\cite{Marino12,Sparaciari16} for the sum of the signal of the two output ports in the nondegenerate NLI.
We discuss the limitations for this specific case in Sec.~\ref{sec_Comparison}.
An expression for the phase sensitivity in the degenerate case for equal internal and detection loss was analzed in~\cite{Sahota15}.

\paragraph*{Example: Balanced gain}

In the original work~\cite{Yurke86} the gains in the two crystals were balanced, i.e., $V_\text{A}=V_\text{B}\equiv V$ as well as $U_\text{A} = U_\text{B} \equiv U$, and no internal loss was considered, thus setting $R_\text{d}=0$.
Hence, we find from Eq.~\eqref{eq_N_d} the form $N_\text{d}= 2 UV(1-\cos\phi)$.
From Eq.~\eqref{eq_sensitivity} we obtain
\bg\label{e_sensi_equal}
\left.\Delta \phi_\text{d}^2\right|_{\phi =0}= \left.\frac{1 + 2 UV (1-\cos\phi)}{UV (1+\cos\phi)} \right|_{\phi=0}= \frac{1}{2 U V}.
\eg
Note that $U=1+V$, and that $V$ corresponds to the number of photons that are produced by crystal A and are annihilated by crystal B.
Because $V$ photons are inside the NLI and interact with a possible object, it is said that the NLI has a Heisenberg scaling of the phase sensitivity.
The choice of $\phi=0$ corresponds to the phase where the phase uncertainty $\Delta \phi_\text{d}^2$ is minimal~\cite{Yurke86}.
Therefore, the NLI would be ideally operated at this point.
We show in appendix~\ref{app_Quantum_Fisher_information} that the quantum Fisher information is $2UV$ and therefore, Eq.~\eqref{e_sensi_equal} saturates the quantum Cram\'er-Rao bound.

However, with equal gains and for this phase all photons created by the source are annihilated by the analyzer and we have $N_\text{d}|_{\phi=0}=0$, i.\,e., we expect to measure no photons in the output of the NLI.
This fact is particularly unfavorable because it means that vacuum fluctuations are of the same order of magnitude.
Since in a realistic experiment these fluctuations are introduced by non-perfect detectors---in our treatment modeled by S$_{\eta_\text{d}}$---they significantly reduce the phase sensitivity.

\begin{figure}[htb] \centering
\includegraphics[scale=.99]{Gain-symmetries-figure1}
    \caption{
   Relative deviation of the phase uncertainty under the influence of detection loss $\eta_\text{d}$ from the lossless case for equal gain. We show Eq.~\eqref{e_det_loss_equal} for three different phases $0$, $\pi/10$ and $\pi$ (black, red and blue) for two different gain parameters $V=5$ and $V=25$ (solid and dashed). At destructive interference, the influence of detection loss is the highest and is always the same, independent of the gain.
    }
\label{fig_det_loss}
\end{figure}
The effect becomes obvious when we note that the inverse Fano factor $N_\text{d}/\Delta N^2_\text{d} = 1/(2+2N_\text{d})$ and, following Eq.~\eqref{eq_sensi_eta}, we arrive at
\bg\label{e_det_loss_equal}
\frac{\Delta \phi_{\eta\text{d}}^2}{\Delta \phi_{\text{d}}^2}-1 =\frac{1-\eta_\text{d}}{2\eta_\text{d}}\frac{1}{1+2UV(1-\cos\phi)} .
\eg
To provide a quantitative analysis of the relative deviation of the phase uncertainty from the uncertainty without detection loss, we plot Eq.~\eqref{e_det_loss_equal} in Fig.~\ref{fig_det_loss} as a function of detection loss $\eta_\text{d}$.
The deviation depends on the phase, the loss, and the gain.
For constructive interference ($\phi=\pi$), we see that the deviation is the smallest and even further reduced with increasing gain.
At destructive interference ($\phi=0$), we have a deviation that has a similar functional behavior, but is orders of magnitude larger than for constructive interference.
Moreover, increasing the gain does not decrease the deviation (the black solid and dashed lines overlap).
In fact, it can be easily seen that Eq.~\eqref{e_det_loss_equal} reduces to $\Delta \phi^2_{\eta \text{d}} = \Delta \phi_\text{d}^2 (1+\eta_\text{d})/(2\eta_\text{d})$ for $\phi=0$, in total agreement with the expression for the phase uncertainty of the sum of the two output ports in the nondegenerate NLI discussed in~\cite{Marino12,Sparaciari16}.
If we were not to operate this NLI at or close to destructive interference, we could get a significant number of photons exiting the device and therefore suppress the influence of the detection loss.
However, the minimal phase uncertainty occurs exactly at vanishing $\phi$ and with it at vanishing $N_\text{d}$, and only in this case do we obtain the unique Heisenberg scaling of the uncertainty.

As this example demonstrates, the effect of detection loss in an unseeded NLI is governed by the intensity $N_\text{d}(\phi)$ in the output of the interferometer.
Since we are mainly interested in the phase where its uncertainty is minimal, we do not have the flexibility to operate the interferometer at a different phase, e.g., at constructive interference where $N_\text{d}(\phi)$ is maximal.
However, there is a different option for increasing $N_\text{d}(\phi)$, namely, using different gain values for the two crystals, that is, unbalancing the gains.
If, for example, the source is stronger than the analyzer, all the photons created in crystal A can never be annihilated in crystal B, even if the interferometer is set to destructive interference.
In the opposite case in which the analyzer is weaker than the source, crystal B not only annihilates all photons emerging from crystal A, but overcompensates and creates additional photons.
Therefore, the larger the gain difference, the higher the intensity in the output of the interferometer and the smaller the impact of detection loss.
Hence, we expect a suppression of detection loss for a gain-unbalanced setup~\cite{Sparaciari16,Manceau17,Manceau17PRL}.

\section{Phase sensitivity for unbalanced gain}
\label{sec_Phase_sensitivity_for_unbalanced_gain}

In the section above we established that unbalancing the gain can be beneficial if there is significant detection loss in the NLI.
However, even though the impact of detection loss is reduced, the effect of unbalanced gain on the phase uncertainty itself has not been studied yet.
In this section, we derive the minimal phase uncertainty for vanishing internal loss $R_\text{d}=0$.
For that, we minimize Eq.~\eqref{eq_sensitivity} for arbitrary gains and find that the minimum  uncertainty occurs at the phase
\bg\label{e_phi_min}
\phi_\text{min}=\pm \arctan\sqrt{\frac{V_\text{max} U_\text{max}- V_\text{min} U_\text{min}}{(U_\text{max}+V_\text{max})^2 V_\text{min} U_\text{min} }},
\eg
which leads with Eq.~\eqref{eq_N_d} to the number of photons
\bg
N_\text{d} (\phi_\text{min})= \frac{V_\text{max}-V_\text{min}}{U_\text{min}+V_\text{min}}.
\eg
Here, we defined $V_\text{min} = \operatorname{min}[V_\text{A},V_\text{B}]$ and $V_\text{max}=\operatorname{max}[V_\text{A},V_\text{B}]$ as the smaller and the larger parameter, respectively.
The parameters $U_\text{min}$ and $U_\text{max}$ are defined in an analogous way.
Moreover, we see that $ N_\text{d} (\phi_\text{min})\gg 1$ if $V_\text{min}\ll V_\text{max}$.
In this case, detection loss has practically no impact on the phase uncertainty, which one can directly see from Eq.~\eqref{eq_sensi_eta}.
Note further that for $V_\text{A}\neq V_\text{B}$ the optimal sensitivity is  achieved if the NLI is not operated at destructive interference, $\phi_\text{min}\neq0$.

With the phase from Eq.~\eqref{e_phi_min} we find that the minimal phase uncertainty takes the form
\bg\label{e_Delta_phi_d_min}
\Delta \phi^2_\text{d}(\phi_\text{min}) = \frac{1}{2 U_\text{min}V_\text{min} }.
\eg
Hence, the phase sensitivity is limited by the crystal with \emph{smaller} gain, independent on whether it is crystal A or B.
In the numerical analysis of~\cite{Sparaciari16} it was implicitly seen that the smaller gain limits the sensitivity, but this fact was not commented upon further.

\paragraph*{Quantum limitations}

The attention that NLIs have attracted is due to the scaling behavior of their phase uncertainty, which is often referred to as the `Heisenberg scaling.'
Indeed, we saw from Eq.~\eqref{e_sensi_equal} in a gain-balanced NLI with $V_\text{A}=V_\text{B}=V\gg1$ that $\Delta \phi_\text{d} (0)\cong 1/(\sqrt{2}V)$.
Since $V$ corresponds to the number of photons produced by the source, the connection to the Heisenberg scaling is evident.
However, a disadvantage of a gain-balanced NLI is that it is very susceptible to detection loss.

In an unbalanced setup at high gain, we find from Eq.~\eqref{e_Delta_phi_d_min} that $\Delta \phi_\text{d} (\phi_\text{min})\cong 1/(\sqrt{2}V_\text{min})$, where $V_\text{min}$ is the smaller gain parameter.
If the source is weaker than the analyzer ($V_\text{A}< V_\text{B}$), the sensitivity is limited by $V_\text{A}$ and therefore by the number of photons that interact with the object.
A comparison to the shot-noise level of this photon number seems obvious and the phase sensitivity indeed displays a Heisenberg scaling.
Such phase measurements below the shot-noise level determined by $V_\text{A}$ have recently been performed using direct detection~\cite{Manceau17PRL}.

If the analzyer is weaker than the source ($V_\text{B}<V_\text{A}$), the sensitivity is limited by $V_\text{B}$, which is completely independent of how many photons interacted with the object or were inside the NLI, described by $V_\text{A}$.
However, it is $V_\text{A}$ that is conventionally used~\cite{Sparaciari16} to determine a shot-noise or Heisenberg scaling behavior.
In this case the comparison would be somewhat artificial, because the sensitivity is not limited by this number.

Of course, if the sample in the interferometer is very sensitive and gets easily destroyed by high intensities or if radiation pressure on mirrors degrades the sensitivity, one would always operate the NLI with the smaller number of photons inside and naturally choose $V_\text{A}<V_\text{B}$ so that the analyzer is stronger.
But if there is no limitation on how many photons might interact with an object inside the NLI, there is no preference as to which of the the two gains should be the lower one because the resulting sensitivity is exactly the same.
The interferometer is completely symmetric and the only limiting factor is the crystal with smaller gain, independent of which crystal it is.
Hence, a comparison to a `Heisenberg limit' is not straightforward and has to be justified in each case, let alone the fact that the pump is assumed to be undepleted.
In fact, other variations of an NLI give a phase sensitivity that scales with the shot-noise level of pump photons~\cite{Szigeti17}.

In conclusion, the second crystal has to be considered an essential part of the interferometer.
Of course it is valid to employ truncated schemes~\cite{Anderson17} if the output of an NLI is detected by homodyne detection~\cite{Hudelist14}, but the original proposal~\cite{Yurke86} only involves a much simpler direct detection scheme~\cite{Linnemann16,Manceau17PRL}, in which the analyzing crystal is vital.
On the same note, the quantum Fisher information and the quantum Cram\'er-Rao bound do not specify a particular detection scheme and are usually calculated for the state inside the interferometer~\cite{Sparaciari15,Sparaciari16,Anderson17b,Anderson17}.
Because the analyzer is seen as a part of the detection, the bound is independent of the gain of crystal B and since one optimizes over all possible detection schemes, it is implicitly assumed that this gain can be arbitrarily high.
On the other hand, if one sees crystal B as an integral component of the interferometer, one cannot just optimize over all possible parameters but is restricted by the experimental limitations.

\section{Breaking the symmetry through internal loss}
\label{sec_Breaking_the_symmetry}
In the previous section we pointed out that the  phase sensitivity is limited by the lower gain, and therefore is completely symmetric with respect to the source and analyzer.
If we introduce internal loss, this symmetry is broken.

It is straightforward to see that including internal loss, i.e., a beam splitter S$_\text{d}$ with $T_\text{d}< 1$ in-between the two crystals as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_degenerate}, affects solely the photons created in crystal A and only indirectly through a modified input the action of crystal B.
This fact stands out most clearly by observing that in both Eqs.~\eqref{eq_N_d} and \eqref{e_Delta_N} the quantity $V_\text{A}$ always appears together with the transmittance $T_\text{d}$.
For simplicity we introduce the notation
$
V_t \equiv T_\text{d} V_\text{A},
$
which describes the number of photons that are transmitted from crystal A to crystal B.
In agreement with the previous notation we also use $U_t \equiv 1 + V_t$.
In the following we first give an intuitive explanation of the influence of internal loss on the sensitivity, before turning to the exact results.

If internal loss is small, we can neglect the term $- R_\text{d} T_\text{d}V_\text{A}$ in Eq.~\eqref{e_Delta_N} for the variance.
Moreover, if operated at high gain, $V_t \gg 1  $, the photon number as described in Eq.~\eqref{eq_N_d} takes the form
\bg
N_\text{d}(\phi)\cong V_t + V_\text{B} + 2 V_t V_\text{B} - 2 \sqrt{U_t U_\text{B} V_t V_\text{B}} \cos \phi
\eg
and therefore we arrive at the same result as in Eq.~\eqref{e_Delta_phi_d_min} for the minimal phase uncertainty, with only $V_\text{A}$ replaced by $V_t$.
In fact, an expansion of the exact treatment given below in orders of $R_\text{d}$ gives rise, up to lowest order, to the phase uncertainty $\Delta\phi^2 \cong 1/ (2 U_\text{min} V_\text{min})$, where now $V_\text{min} = \operatorname{min}[V_t,V_\text{B}]$ and $V_\text{max}=\operatorname{max}[V_t,V_\text{B}]$.
Because $V_t$ depends on $T_\text{d}$, the phase uncertainty is independent of the transmittance only if $V_\text{B} < V_t$.
Thus, if internal loss dominates it is better to have a stronger source than analyzer, the opposite case of what was used in~\cite{Sparaciari16,Manceau17,Manceau17PRL}.

However, for a more accurate description of the NLI we derive from \eqref{eq_sensitivity} an expression for the phase where its uncertainty is minimized.
We can perform this calculation analytically, but the expressions are rather cumbersome and we therefore refrain from presenting them.
When we use this phase in Eq.~\eqref{eq_N_d} to calculate the photon number, we find
\begin{widetext}
\bg\label{e_N_loss}
N_\text{d,min}=
\frac{2 (V_\text{B}-V_t)^2 +  \mathcal{L}+ \sqrt{4 (V_\text{B}-V_t)^2 (U_\text{B} +V_t)^2 +4  U_\text{B}V_\text{B} \mathcal{L} +R_\text{d} V_t [2 U_\text{B} V_\text{B} -U_t V_t]+ \mathcal{L}^2 }}{2(U_\text{B}+V_\text{B})(U_t+V_t)},
\eg
\end{widetext}
where we defined a loss-dependent term $\mathcal{L} \equiv R_\text{d} V_t (1 + 8 U_\text{B} V_\text{B}) $.
With this analytic expression we are able to determine the variance $\Delta N^2_\text{d,min} = 2 N_\text{d,min} (1+N_\text{d,min})- R_\text{d} V_t$ from Eq.~\eqref{e_Delta_N}.
The inverse Fano factor $N_\text{d,min}/\Delta N^2_\text{d,min}$ that suppresses the effect of detection loss according to Eq.~\eqref{eq_sensi_eta} can be calculated for different parameters.
We plot this factor in Fig.~\ref{fig_internal_loss}\,(a) on a logarithmic scale.
For $R_\text{d}=0$ unbalancing the gains decreases the influence of detection loss significantly: the dotted line describing the balanced configuration is much higher than the red and blue solid lines with a stronger analyzer and source, respectively.
However, the number of photons transmitted to crystal B, $V_t = (1-R_\text{d}) V_\text{A}$, decreases for $R_\text{d}>0$ and for an initially balanced situation we arrive effectively at a gain-unbalanced setup with $V_t < V_\text{B}$.
Hence, the dotted line decreases rapidly until it is very close to the case of a stronger analyzer (blue line).

For the same reason, a stronger source at first slightly increases the inverse Fano factor because the unbalancing is effectively lowered, making detection loss more significant again.
On the other hand, for a stronger analyzer we see a decrease of the inverse Fano factor, because due to internal loss the gain-unbalancing effectively increases and we have $V_t< V_\text{A} < V_\text{B}$.
Hence, detection loss is further suppressed and in this sense the setup improves.
The plot also demonstrates that it is better to have a stronger analyzer to suppress the effect of detection loss in the presence of internal loss, which is the configuration that was investigated in~\cite{Sparaciari16,Manceau17,Manceau17PRL}.
Note further that only for $R_\text{d}\cong 0 $ we see that there is a significant advantage of gain-unbalancing and in this case it does not matter much which one of the crystals has higher gain.

\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[scale=.98]{Gain-symmetries-figure2} \includegraphics[scale=.98]{Gain-symmetries-figure3}
    \caption{
    Effect of internal loss $R_\text{d}$ on  $N_\text{d,min}/\Delta N^2_\text{d,min}$ in part (a) and on $\Delta\phi^2_\text{d,min}$ in part (b).
    In part (a) we demonstrate that the inverse Fano factor $N_\text{d}/\Delta N_\text{d}^2$ decreases rapidly for the gain-balanced situation (dotted line), because internal loss deteriorates the number of transmitted photons $V_t$.
	Therefore, the gain of crystal A is effectively lower and detection loss is suppressed.
    The same is true if the analyzer is stronger than the source (blue solid line) and the advantage of unbalancing the gain decreases.
    If the source is stronger (red solid line), the inverse Fano factor increases slightly at first.
    Moreover, it is always larger than for the opposite case.
    In part (b) we show that the phase uncertainty (without detection loss) is the smallest for a gain-balanced setup (dotted line).
	For large loss $R_\text{d}$, the case of a stronger source (red line) is very close to the gain-balanced result.
	Moreover, for an unbalanced setup it is always beneficial to work with a stronger source than with a stronger analyzer (blue line).
    }
\label{fig_internal_loss}
\end{figure}

After considering the inverse Fano factor $N_\text{d}/\Delta N_\text{d}^2$ that suppresses detection loss, we now turn to the minimal phase uncertainty itself.
We find the analytical expression
\bg\label{e_delta_phi_loss}
\begin{split}
\Delta \phi_\text{d,min}^2 = &[N_\text{d,min}(U_\text{B} + V_\text{B}) (U_t+V_t)+ U_\text{B} V_t + \\
&U_t V_\text{B} - R_\text{d} V_t][4 U_\text{B} V_\text{B} (U_t-R_\text{d}) V_t]^{-1}
\end{split}
\eg
for the phase uncertainty without detection loss and plot it in Fig.~\ref{fig_internal_loss}\,(b).
Here, the effect of internal loss is exactly opposite to the one on detection loss:
for an unbalanced situation, the phase sensitivity is always better if the source is stronger (red solid line), compared to the case where the analyzer is stronger (blue solid line).
This can be intuitively understood considering that internal loss can affect the output of crystal A directly and the action of crystal B only indirectly by modifying its input.
Hence, it is beneficial to have a stronger source so that the reduced number of photons in the interferometer is still large enough to not limit the sensitivity.

Not surprisingly, for equal gain (using the higher of the two gains for both crystals) always outperforms the unbalanced setup.
However, for sufficiently large loss, the balanced situation is very close to the case of a stronger source.

Since in a gain-unbalanced setup with internal loss a stronger analyzer suppresses the effect of detection loss, whereas a stronger source in addition reduces the influence of internal loss, the latter one seems at first sight advantageous.
However, a stronger source suppresses detection loss not as well as a stronger analyzer and is only beneficial for small internal loss when compared to the balanced setup.
Therefore, the decision which crystal to pump stronger has to be made based on the order of magnitude of the internal and detection losses.
In each individual case, it might be beneficial to have stronger source or a stronger analyzer.

\section{Comparison of degenerate and nondegenerate configuration}

\label{sec_Comparison}

So far we have only considered a degenerate setup.
However, we generalize our results to the case of a nondegenerate NLI (see appendix~\ref{app_Non-degenterate_configuration}) and compare them in this section to the degenerate ones obtained above.
The setup is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_nondegenerate}, where we now have different input and output modes $1$ and $2$.
Even though the expressions for the photon number and variance are different from the degenerate configuration, they are similar enough so that our previous discussion can also be applied---with some limitations---to the nondegenerate case.

\begin{figure}[htb] \centering
\includegraphics[scale=1]{Gain-symmetries-figure4}
    \caption{
    Schematic of a nondegenerate nonlinear interferometer consisting of two coherently pumped nonlinear crystals A and B.
    Internal loss is modeled by a beam splitter S$_\text{1,2}$ in each arm, detection loss by a beam splitter S$_{\eta_{1,2}}$ in front of each detector D$_{1,2}$.
	}
\label{fig_nondegenerate}
\end{figure}

The photon number detected by detector D$_j$ in a nondegenerate as well as a degenerate configuration takes the form
\bg
N_{\eta j}= \eta_j N_j =\eta_j  \left( \mathcal{A}_j - \mathcal{K}_j \cos \phi \right),
\eg
where $\mathcal{A}_j$ is the amplitude and $\mathcal{K}_j$ the contrast of the signal and the index $j=\text{d},1,2$.
Here, $\eta_j$ is the efficiency of the detector $j$ modeled by a beam splitter S$_{\eta j}$ and $T_j$ the transmittance of the beam splitter S$_j$ between the two crystals.
$R_j$ is the corresponding reflectivity.
The explicit form of $\mathcal{A}_j$ and $\mathcal{K}_j$ is summarized in table~\ref{t_comparison} for all cases.
The internal loss in each arm of the NLI may be different and has an effect on the signal and variance~\cite{Xin16}.
Note that $\phi$ is defined slightly different from the degenerate case to account for the different phases in the two branches of the NLI.

\begin{table*}
\caption{\label{t_comparison}
Comparison of degenerate and nondegenerate NLI.
The index $\text{d}$ denotes the degenerate case, $1$ and $2$ the two output ports of the nondegenerate case, and $+$ their sum.
The signal without detection loss has an amplitude $\mathcal{A}_j$ and a contrast $\mathcal{K}_j$.
The variance of the detected signal is $\Delta N_{\eta j}^2$.
In the second part of the table we show the variance $\Delta N_{j}^2$ without detection loss and later the same quantity for vanishing internal loss.
The factor in the second column shows the influence of detection loss in a balanced situation.
The optimal phase uncertainty $\Delta \phi_j^2(\phi_\text{min})$ was calculated for the lossless case.
}
\footnotesize\rm
\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{@{}l*{15}{@{\extracolsep{0pt plus1pt}}l}}
\hline\hline
\addlinespace[.4ex]
$j$& $\mathcal{A}_j$ & $\mathcal{K}_j$ & $\Delta N_{\eta j}^2$ \\
\hline
\addlinespace[.4ex]
$\text{d}$ & $T_\text{d} V_\text{A}+ V_\text{B} + 2 T_\text{d} V_\text{A} V_\text{B} $& $ 2T_\text{d}\sqrt{U_\text{A} U_\text{B} V_\text{A} V_\text{B}}$&$\eta_\text{d} N_\text{d} (1+ \eta_\text{d} + 2 \eta_\text{d} N_\text{d})- \eta_\text{d}^2 R_\text{d} T_\text{d} V_\text{A}$ \\
\arrayrulecolor{gray}\hline
\addlinespace[.4ex]
$1$&$T_1 V_\text{A} + V_\text{B} +(T_1+T_2)V_\text{A} V_\text{B} $ & $ 2\sqrt{T_1 T_2 U_\text{A} U_\text{B} V_\text{A} V_\text{B}}   $ & $\eta_1 N_1 (1+ \eta_1 N_1)$ \\
$2$&$T_2 V_\text{A} + V_\text{B} +(T_1+T_2)V_\text{A} V_\text{B} $ & $ 2\sqrt{T_1 T_2 U_\text{A} U_\text{B} V_\text{A} V_\text{B}} $&$\eta_2 N_1 (1+ \eta_2 N_2)$ \\
$+$&$\mathcal{A}_1+\mathcal{A}_2  $& $ 4\sqrt{T_1 T_2 U_\text{A} U_\text{B} V_\text{A} V_\text{B}} $ &  $(\eta_1 N_1 + \eta_2 N_2) (1+ \eta_1 N_1+ \eta_1 N_1) $\\
&&& $ + \eta_1 \eta_2 (N_1+ N_2) - \eta_1 \eta_2 (T_1+T_2-2T_1 T_2)V_\text{A} $ \\
\arrayrulecolor{black}
\hline
\end{tabular*}
\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{@{}l*{15}{@{\extracolsep{0pt plus1pt}}l}}
\hline
\addlinespace[.4ex]
$j$& $\Delta N_{ j}^2$& $\left.1 + \frac{1-\eta_j}{\eta_j} \frac{N_j}{\Delta N_j}\right|_{\phi=0}$& $\Delta N_j^2$ with $T_j=1$ &  $\Delta \phi_j^2(\phi_\text{min})$  \\
\hline
\addlinespace[.4ex]
$\text{d}$& $ 2 N_\text{d} (1+ N_\text{d}) - R_\text{d} T_\text{d} V_\text{A}  $& $(1+\eta_\text{d})/(2\eta_\text{d})$ & $2 N_\text{d} (1+N_\text{d})$& $1/(2 U_\text{min} V_\text{min})$  \\
\arrayrulecolor{gray}\hline
\addlinespace[.4ex]
$1$ & $ N_1 (1+ N_1)$& $1/\eta_\text{1}$  & $ N_\text{d} (1+N_\text{d})$& $1/(4 U_\text{min} V_\text{min})$ \\
$2$ & $ N_2 (1+ N_2)$&  $1/\eta_\text{2}$  & $ N_\text{d} (1+N_\text{d})$& $1/(4 U_\text{min} V_\text{min})$ \\
$\text{+}$ & $ N_+ (2+ N_+) +  [2 T_1 T_2 - (T_1+T_2)]V_\text{A}$& $(1+\eta_+)/(2\eta_+)$  & $4 N_\text{d} (1+N_\text{d})$& $1/(4 U_\text{min} V_\text{min})$  \\
\arrayrulecolor{black}
\hline\hline
\end{tabular*}
\end{table*}

In the nondegenerate setup one can, in addition to considering both exit ports separately, analyze the sum of the two signals~\cite{Yurke86}.
Without detection loss, we therefore define the sum of the two signals $N_+ \equiv N_1+N_2$.
Ultimately, we are interested in the phase uncertainty $\Delta \phi_j^2$ which can be analogously defined to Eq.~\eqref{eq_sensitivity} where we replace the index $\text{d}$ by $j=1,2,+$.
To obtain the phase uncertainty, we first need the variance of the photon number.

We display in the table the variances $\Delta N_{\eta j}^2$ and $\Delta N_j^2$ with and without detection loss, respectively, and note that only for $j=\text{d},1,2$ the relation
\bg\label{e_Delta_N_j_eta}
\Delta N_{\eta j}^2 = \eta_j^2 \Delta N_j^2 + \eta_j (1-\eta_j) N_j
\eg
holds, but not for the sum of the two signals.
Therefore, the suppression of the detection loss for phase sensitivity of the signal-sum is not as straightforward.
However, if $\eta_1 = \eta_2 \equiv \eta_+$, we also find Eq.~\eqref{e_Delta_N_j_eta} for $j=+$ as predicted by~\cite{Marino12}.
In analogy to appendix~\ref{app_Degenerate_configuration} we arrive at
\bg
\Delta \phi_{\eta j }^2 = \Delta \phi^2_j \left( 1 + \frac{1-\eta_j}{\eta_j} \frac{N_j}{\Delta N_j^2}\right)
\eg
and thus that the inverse Fano factor $N_j/\Delta N_j^2$ determines the suppression of detection loss with $j= \text{d},1,2,+$.
In fact, for a gain-unbalanced scheme and vanishing internal loss we find for the expression in parentheses the factor shown in table~\ref{t_comparison} in agreement with~\cite{Marino12}.
Note that if only one single exit port is detected in the nondegenerate setup, we find a significantly different dependence on detection loss.
We also see that gain-unbalancing suppresses detection loss in the nondegenerate setup, even though for the sum of the two signals and $\eta_1\neq \eta_2$ the treatment is more subtle.

If the internal loss in each arm is equal, i.e., $T_1=T_2=T_\text{d}$, we find $N_1=N_2=N_\text{d}$ and $N_+ = 2 N_\text{d}$.
Moreover, if we assume the lossless case with $T_j=1$, we can express all variances simply by the number of photons in one exit port $N_\text{d}$ (see the third column in the lower part of table~\ref{t_comparison}).
Since all of these results differ only by a factor from the degenerate result, we can use the phase from Eq.~\eqref{e_phi_min} to obtain the minimal uncertainty.
These results are shown in the table as well.
We note that the phase uncertainty is smaller by a factor of two in the nondegenerate case, regardless of using only one detector or both.
In particular, we obtain again that the sensitivity is limited by $V_\text{min}=\operatorname{min}[V_\text{A},V_\text{B}]$.
Hence, we see that the discussion from above similarly applies to the different cases of a nondegenerate setup.
This is also true if we include internal loss in analogy to Sec.~\ref{sec_Breaking_the_symmetry}, even though there are more parameters since there might be different loss in each arm of the NLI.
We therefore refrain from presenting a lengthy discussion of all different cases.

Finally, to compare the sensitivity to the shot-noise level in a nondegenerate setup, one has to remember that $V_\text{A}$ is the number of photons per mode produced by crystal A.
Therefore, the number of photons inside the NLI is $n_+ = 2 V_\text{A}$, whereas in the degenerate case it was $n_\text{d}= V_\text{A}$.
Hence, the shot-noise level could be defined as $1/\sqrt{2V_\text{A}}$ in contrast to the degenerate NLI, where it is $1/\sqrt{V_\text{A}}$.
In case of a stronger analyzer, we have $\Delta \phi_\text{d,min} \cong 1/(\sqrt{2}V_\text{A})=1/(\sqrt{2}n_\text{d})$ and $\Delta \phi_{+\text{,min}} \cong 1/(2V_\text{A})=1/n_+$.
In absolute values, $\Delta \phi_{+\text{,min}}<\Delta \phi_\text{d,min}$.
However, if we assume the same number of photons inside the interferometer, that is, $n_\text{d}= n_+$, we find $\Delta \phi_\text{d,min}=\Delta \phi_{+\text{,min}}/\sqrt{2}$ in contrast to our previous statement.

\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec_Conclusions}

We have demonstrated that the sensitivity of a degenerate NLI is limited by the crystal with the smaller gain, whether it is the source or analyzer crystal.
Hence, the second crystal has to be considered an essential part of the interferometer and its gain is equally important as the one of the source in a setup without internal loss.
Moreover, the sensitivity might not scale at all with the number of photons produced by the source.
We emphasize that a comparison to the shot-noise or Heisenberg limit is only suggestive if the gain of the source is the limiting factor.
If the analyzer is limiting the sensitivity, a comparison to the shot-noise level and a discussion of a `Heisenberg scaling' seems rather artificial.
Together with the discussion of~\cite{Szigeti17}, we therefore hope to raise awareness for the subtleties of claiming a Heisenberg scaling.

In order to suppress the effect of detection loss, it might be beneficial to unbalance the gains of the two crystals on purpose.
Indeed, we showed that detection loss is suppressed by the inverse Fano factor of the photon statistics.
For a gain-balanced NLI, the optimal phase occurs for a vacuum output state and the sensitivity is susceptible to detection loss.
In contrast, unbalancing the gains leads to a significant photon number in the output that suppresses it.

Whereas for this suppression it is irrelevant whether the source or the analyzer is stronger---the NLI is symmetric in this sense---it changes dramatically when internal loss is considered.
Internal loss effectively changes the gain of the source and therefore may increase or decrease the suppression of detection loss.
In addition, this broken symmetry between the two nonlinear crystals has the consequence that a higher gain in the source reduces the effect of internal loss on the phase sensitivity.

To suppress negative effects of internal loss, a stronger source should be used; to additionally suppress detection loss, a stronger analyzer seems beneficial.
In fact, a stronger source with internal loss suppresses detection loss, but not as well as a stronger analyzer.
Hence, the decision on whether to use a higher gain for the source or for the analyzer has to be based on the magnitude of internal and detection losses for each individual case.
We emphasize that these results are valid for a degenerate NLI, but most of them carry over to the nondegenerate case, for which we provide analytical expressions as well.

\acknowledgments{
This research was performed as part of a collaboration within the Max Planck-uOttawa Centre for Extreme and Quantum Photonics, whose support we gratefully acknowledge.
We thank Maria V. Chekhova for valuable comments and discussions.
E.G., S.L., R.F., and R.W.B. are thankful for the financial support by the Canada Excellence Research Chairs program (CERC) and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).
R.F. acknowledges the financial support of the Banting postdoctoral fellowship of the NSERC and S.L. the financial support from Le Fonds de Recherche du Qu\'{e}bec Nature et Technologies (FRQNT).
E.G. is grateful to the Friedrich-Alexander-Universit\"at Erlangen-N\"urnberg for an Eugen Lommel stipend.
}


\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Massive stars ($\geq$ 8 M$_{\odot}$) can inject large amounts of energy to the
neighboring interstellar medium (ISM), hence these stars can
trigger the birth of a new generation of stars including young massive star(s) \citep{deharveng10}.
However, the formation mechanisms of massive stars and their feedback processes are still being debated \citep{zinnecker07,tan14}.
In recent years, the theoretical and observational studies of the cloud-cloud collision (CCC)
process have drawn considerable attention, which can produce massive OB stars and young stellar clusters at the junction of molecular clouds \citep[e.g.,][]{habe92,furukawa09,anathpindika10,ohama10,inoue13,takahira14,fukui14,fukui16,torii15,torii17,haworth15a,haworth15b,dewangan17a,dewangan17b}. \citet{torii17} suggested that the onset of the CCC process in a given star-forming region could be observationally inferred through the detection of a bridge feature
connecting the two clouds in velocity space, the broad CO line wing in the intersection of the two clouds,
and the complementary distribution of the two colliding clouds.
However, such observational investigation is still limited in the literature \citep[e.g.][]{torii17}.

The mid-infrared (MIR) bubble, N49 \citep[{\it l} = 028$\degr$.827; {\it b} = $-$00$\degr$.229;][]{churchwell06} is a very well studied star-forming site containing an H\,{\sc ii} region \citep{watson08,anderson09,deharveng10,everett10,zavagno10,dirienzo12}.
The N49 H\,{\sc ii} region is ionized by an O type star \citep{watson08,deharveng10,dirienzo12} and is situated at a distance of 5.07 kpc \citep{dirienzo12}. We have also adopted a distance of 5.07 kpc to the bubble N49 throughout the present work.
The bubble N49 is classified as a complete or closed ring with an average radius
and thickness of 1$\farcm$32 (or 1.95 pc) and 0$\farcm$32 (or 0.45 pc), respectively \citep{churchwell06}.
\citet{dirienzo12} examined the $^{13}$CO line data and suggested the presence of two velocity components (at $\sim$87 and $\sim$95 km s$^{-1}$) in the direction of the bubble.
Based on the radio recombination line observations, the velocity of the ionized gas in the N49 H\,{\sc ii} region was reported to be $\sim$90.6 km s$^{-1}$ \citep{anderson09}.
Using the APEX 870 $\mu$m dust continuum data, \citet{deharveng10} reported the detection of at least four massive clumps (M$_{clump}$ $\sim$ 190--2300 M$_{\odot}$) toward
the infrared rim of the bubble (see Figure~18 in \citet{deharveng10} and also Figure~1 in \citet{zavagno10}).
An ultracompact (UC) H\,{\sc ii} region and a 6.7 GHz methanol maser emission (MME) \citep[velocity range $\sim$79.4--92.7 km s$^{-1}$;][]{walsh98,szymczak12} are also detected toward the dust condensations, which are seen at the edges of the bubble \citep[e.g.][]{deharveng10,zavagno10,dirienzo12}.
The bubble N49 has also been considered as a candidate of a wind-blown bubble \citep{everett10}.
Using the multi-wavelength data, previous studies suggested that the N49 H\,{\sc ii} region is interacting with its surrounding molecular cloud, and has been cited as a possible site of triggered star formation \citep{watson08,anderson09,zavagno10,deharveng10,dirienzo12}.

Despite the availability of several observational data sets,
the knowledge of the physical environments over larger spatial scale around the bubble is still unknown.
Furthermore, the study of an interaction between molecular cloud components is yet to be performed in the bubble N49 site.
To study the physical environment and star formation processes around the bubble N49,
we revisit the bubble using multi-wavelength data covering from the radio to near-infrared (NIR) wavelengths. Such analysis offers an opportunity to examine the distribution of dust temperature, column density, extinction, ionized emission, kinematics of molecular gas, and young stellar objects (YSOs).

The paper is arranged in the following way.
The details of the adopted data sets are described in Section~\ref{sec:obser}.
Section~\ref{sec:data} gives the outcomes concerning to the physical environment and point-like sources.
In Section~\ref{sec:disc}, we present the possible star formation processes ongoing
in our selected target region. Finally, Section~\ref{sec:conc} summarizes the main results.
\section{Data sets and analysis}
\label{sec:obser}
In this paper, we have chosen a field of $\sim$0$\degr$.42
$\times$ 0$\degr$.42 ($\sim$37.2 pc $\times$ 37.2 pc; centered at $l$ = 28$\degr$.844; $b$ = $-$0$\degr$.220) around the MIR bubble N49 site.
In the following, we provide a brief description of the adopted multi-wavelength data.
\subsection{Radio Centimeter Continuum Map}
Radio continuum map at 20 cm was obtained from the VLA
Multi-Array Galactic Plane Imaging Survey \citep[MAGPIS;][]{helfand06}.
The MAGPIS 20 cm map has a 6\farcs2 $\times$ 5\farcs4 beam size and a pixel scale of 2$\arcsec$/pixel.
\subsection{$^{13}$CO (J=1$-$0) Line Data}
In order to examine the molecular gas associated with the selected target,
the Galactic Ring Survey \citep[GRS;][]{jackson06} $^{13}$CO (J=1$-$0) line data were adopted.
The GRS line data have a velocity resolution of 0.21~km\,s$^{-1}$, an angular resolution
of 45$\arcsec$ with 22$\arcsec$ sampling, a main beam efficiency ($\eta_{\rm mb}$) of $\sim$0.48,
a velocity coverage of $-$5 to 135~km~s$^{-1}$, and a typical rms sensitivity (1$\sigma$)
of $\approx0.13$~K \citep{jackson06}.
\subsection{Far-infrared and Sub-millimeter Data}
We examined the far-infrared (FIR) and sub-millimeter (mm) images downloaded from the {\it Herschel} Space Observatory \citep{pilbratt10,poglitsch10,griffin10,degraauw10} data archives.
Level2$_{-}$5 processed 160--500 $\mu$m images were retrieved through the {\it Herschel} Interactive Processing Environment \citep[HIPE,][]{ott10}.
The beam sizes of the {\it Herschel} images are 5$\farcs$8, 12$\arcsec$, 18$\arcsec$, 25$\arcsec$, and 37$\arcsec$ for 70, 160, 250, 350, and 500 $\mu$m, respectively \citep{poglitsch10,griffin10}.
The plate scales of 70, 160, 250, 350, and 500 $\mu$m images are 3$''$.2, 3$''$.2, 6$''$, 10$''$, and 14$''$ pixel$^{-1}$, respectively.
The {\it Herschel} images at 250--500 $\mu$m are calibrated in units of surface brightness, MJy sr$^{-1}$, while the units of images at 70--160 $\mu$m
are Jy pixel$^{-1}$.

The sub-mm continuum map at 870 $\mu$m (beam size $\sim$19$\farcs$2) was also retrieved from the APEX Telescope Large Area Survey of the Galaxy \citep[ATLASGAL;][]{schuller09}.
\subsection{{\it Spitzer} and {\it WISE} Data}
The photometric images and magnitudes of point sources at 3.6--8.0 $\mu$m were downloaded
from the {\it Spitzer} Galactic Legacy Infrared Mid-Plane Survey Extraordinaire \citep[GLIMPSE;][]{benjamin03} survey (resolution $\sim$2$\arcsec$).
In this work, we used the GLIMPSE-I Spring '07 highly reliable photometric catalog.

We also utilized the Wide Field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE\footnote[1]{WISE is a joint project of the
University of California and the JPL, Caltech, funded by the NASA}; \citet{wright10}) image at 12 $\mu$m (spatial resolution $\sim$6$\arcsec$) and the {\it Spitzer} MIPS Inner Galactic Plane Survey \citep[MIPSGAL;][]{carey05} 24 $\mu$m image (spatial resolution $\sim$6$\arcsec$). Furthermore, the photometric magnitudes of point sources at MIPSGAL 24 $\mu$m \citep[from][]{gutermuth15} were also collected.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:data}
\subsection{MIR bubble N49 and filamentary features}
\label{subsec:u1}
In this section, we present multi-wavelength data to explore the physical environments over larger spatial scale around the bubble N49.
Figure~\ref{fig1}a shows a color-composite map obtained using the {\it Herschel} images
(i.e. 250 $\mu$m (red), 160 $\mu$m (green), and 70 $\mu$m (blue)).
The MIR bubble N49 is prominently seen in the composite map
within a spatial area of 6.5 pc $\times$ 6.5 pc, and the {\it Herschel} images also
reveal embedded filamentary features (i.e. fl-1, fl-2, and fl-3) in our selected field (see arrows in Figure~\ref{fig1}a).
We also find that the bubble appears at the junction of filamentary features.
However, one cannot confirm the physical association between the bubble and filamentary features without knowledge of velocities of molecular gas.
In Figure~\ref{fig1}b, we present the observed $^{13}$CO (J=1--0) profile
in the direction of ``zone I" (see a highlighted box in Figure~\ref{fig1}a), which encompasses spatially some parts of the bubble and the filamentary features.
The spectrum is obtained by averaging the ``zone I" area,
and reveals the presence of at least three velocity components (at peaks around 88, 95, and 100 km s$^{-1}$) along the line of sight.
Based on the $^{13}$CO spectrum, in Figures~\ref{fig2}a and~\ref{fig2}b, we present the overlay of the $^{13}$CO emissions on the {\it Herschel} 350 $\mu$m image.
In Figure~\ref{fig2}a, the $^{13}$CO gas is integrated over a velocity range of 83--91 km s$^{-1}$, and a majority of molecular gas are found toward
the bubble and the filamentary feature ``fl-1".
The distribution of molecular gases linked with two other molecular cloud components is presented in Figure~\ref{fig2}b.
The molecular cloud linked with the filamentary feature ``fl-2" is traced in a velocity range of 92--98.8 km s$^{-1}$, while the molecular cloud associated with the filamentary feature ``fl-3" is depicted in a velocity range of 99--104 km s$^{-1}$.

Figure~\ref{fig2}c displays the {\it Herschel} 350 $\mu$m image overlaid with the MAGPIS 20 cm emission. The ionized emission traced in the MAGPIS map is exclusively seen toward the bubble N49.
In Figure~\ref{fig2}d, the ATLASGAL 870 $\mu$m continuum map is also superimposed with the 870 $\mu$m emission contour, indicating the presence of several condensations toward the filamentary features and the edges of the bubble.
In Figures~\ref{fig2}c and~\ref{fig2}d, despite the difference in spatial
resolution, one can infer that the emission traced in the {\it Herschel} 350 $\mu$m is found to be more prominent compared to the emission detected in the 870 $\mu$m continuum map.
It has also been reported that space-based {\it Herschel} observations could be
considered as almost no loss of large-scale emission with respect to the ground-based APEX dust continuum observations \citep[e.g.][]{liu17}.
In our selected target field, based on the distribution of molecular gas,
Figure~\ref{fig2xx} spatially delineates different elongated filamentary molecular clouds (lengths $\sim$10--19 pc; average widths $\sim$2 pc).

Figure~\ref{fig3} shows a zoomed-in view of the bubble N49 using multi-wavelength images (e.g. {\it Spitzer} 8--24 $\mu$m, WISE 12 $\mu$m, {\it Herschel} 70--500 $\mu$m,
ATLASGAL 870 $\mu$m, GRS $^{13}$CO, and MAGPIS 20 cm). These images reveal a complete or closed ring morphology, containing the ionized emission in the bubble interior \citep[e.g.][]{watson08,zavagno10}. As mentioned before, the N49 H\,{\sc ii} region is powered by an O type star \citep{watson08,deharveng10,dirienzo12}. Furthermore, a double shell-like structure is also observed in the 12-70 $\mu$m and 20 cm maps \citep[e.g.][]{watson08}.
The 6.7 GHz MME and the UCH\,{\sc ii} region are seen at the edges of the bubble.
The UCH\,{\sc ii} region was reported to be ionized by a B0V star \citep[e.g.][]{deharveng10}.
In the panels ``j" and ``k", one can also find the presence of two molecular cloud components in the direction of the bubble \citep[e.g.][]{dirienzo12}.
In Figure~\ref{fig4}a, we present a color-composite map produced using the MIR and FIR images
(i.e. 70 $\mu$m (red), 24 $\mu$m (green), and 12 $\mu$m (blue)). The composite map is also overlaid with the MAGPIS 20 cm continuum emission, depicting the double shell-like structure.
In the composite map, we have also highlighted the previously known UCH\,{\sc ii} region
and two embedded YSOs (i.e. YSO \#1 and YSO\#3; see Figure~1 in \citet{zavagno10}).
Interestingly, the position of the 6.7 GHz MME spatially coincides with the position of the YSO\#3 that can be considered as an infrared counterpart (IRc) of the 6.7 GHz MME. No radio cm emission is detected toward the YSO\#3.
Considering the 6.7 GHz MME as a reliable tracer of a massive YSO (MYSO) \citep[e.g.][]{walsh98,urquhart13}, the YSO\#3 could be a MYSO candidate at its early formation
stage prior to the UCH\,{\sc ii} phase.
Based on the high resolution 6.7 GHz MME observations, \citet{cyganowski09} proposed the presence of a rotating disk associated with YSO\#3.

Together, the bubble N49 is a very promising site, where different early evolutionary stages of massive star formation are present.
\subsection{Kinematics of molecular gas}
\label{sec:coem}
In this section, we present a kinematic analysis of the molecular gas in our selected field.
In Figure~\ref{fig4}b, we show the observed $^{13}$CO (J=1--0) spectrum in the direction of ``Reg 1" (see a solid box in Figure~\ref{fig4}a).
The spectrum is computed by averaging the area ``Reg 1" marked in Figure~\ref{fig4}a.
In the spectrum, an almost flattened profile is observed between two velocity peaks (or molecular cloud components), which can be referred to as a bridge feature at the intermediate velocity range.
This particular outcome indicates a signature of collisions between molecular clouds \citep{takahira14,haworth15a,haworth15b,torii17,bisbas17}. In other words, it also suggests a mutual interaction of clouds \citep[e.g.][]{bisbas17}.

In Figure~\ref{fig5}, we display the integrated GRS $^{13}$CO (J=1$-$0) velocity channel maps (starting from 81 km s$^{-1}$ at intervals of 1 km s$^{-1}$), tracing three molecular components along the line of sight (also see Figure~\ref{fig2xx}).
To further examine the molecular gas distribution in the direction of our selected target field,
in Figure~\ref{fig6}, we show the integrated $^{13}$CO intensity map and the position-velocity maps.  The integrated GRS $^{13}$CO intensity map is shown in Figure~\ref{fig6}a, where
the molecular emission is integrated over 83 to 104 km s$^{-1}$.
The Galactic position-velocity diagrams of the $^{13}$CO emission also reveal three velocity components and the noticeable velocity spread (see Figures~\ref{fig6}b and~\ref{fig6}d).
In the velocity space, we find a red-shifted peak (at $\sim$95 km s$^{-1}$) and a blue-shifted peak (at $\sim$88 km s$^{-1}$) that are interconnected by a lower intensity intermediate velocity emission, suggesting the presence of a broad bridge feature (also see Figure~\ref{fig4}b).
Figure~\ref{fig6}c shows the spatial distribution of three molecular components, similar to those shown in Figures~\ref{fig2}a and~\ref{fig2}b.

Together, molecular line data confirm that the bubble N49 is found in the intersection of two molecular clouds.
The analysis of $^{13}$CO data also gives an observational clue
of the signature of the interaction between molecular cloud components in the bubble site.
The implication of these outcomes is presented in more detail in the discussion Section~\ref{sec:disc}.
\subsection{{\it Herschel} temperature and column density maps}
\label{subsec:temp}
In this section, we present {\it Herschel} temperature and column density maps of the bubble N49. Following the methods described in \citet{mallick15}, these maps are produced from a
pixel-by-pixel spectral energy distribution (SED) fit with a modified blackbody to the cold dust emission at {\it Herschel} 160--500 $\mu$m \citep[also see][]{dewangan15}.
In the following, a brief step-by-step explanation of the adopted procedures is provided.

Before the SED fitting process, using the task ``Convert Image Unit" available in the HIPE software,
we converted the surface brightness unit of 250--500 $\mu$m images to Jy pixel$^{-1}$, same as the unit of 160 $\mu$m image. Next, using the plug-in ``Photometric Convolution" available in the HIPE software, the 160--350 $\mu$m images were convolved to the angular resolution of
the 500 $\mu$m image ($\sim$37$\arcsec$), and then regridded on a 14$\arcsec$ raster.
We then computed a background flux level.
The sky background flux level was estimated to be 0.255, 0.708, 1.395, and $-$0.234 Jy pixel$^{-1}$ for the 500, 350, 250, and
160 $\mu$m images (size of the selected featureless dark region $\sim$10$\farcm$2 $\times$ 9$\farcm$8;
centered at:  $l$ = 27$\degr$.735; $b$ = $-$0$\degr$.681), respectively. The negative flux value at 160 $\mu$m is found due to the arbitrary scaling of the {\it Herschel} 160 $\mu$m image.

Finally, to obtain the temperature and column density maps, a modified blackbody was fitted to the observed fluxes on a pixel-by-pixel basis
\citep[see equations 8 and 9 in][]{mallick15}.
The fitting was performed using the four data points for each pixel, maintaining the column density ($N(\mathrm H_2)$) and the
dust temperature (T$_{d}$) as free parameters.
In the calculations, we adopted a mean molecular weight per hydrogen molecule ($\mu_{H2}$) of 2.8
\citep{kauffmann08} and an absorption coefficient ($\kappa_\nu$) of 0.1~$(\nu/1000~{\rm GHz})^{\beta}$ cm$^{2}$ g$^{-1}$,
including a gas-to-dust ratio ($R_t$) of 100, with a dust spectral index ($\beta$) of 2 \citep[see][]{hildebrand83}.
The temperature and column density maps are shown in Figures~\ref{fig8}a and~\ref{fig8}b, respectively.

The {\it Herschel} temperature map traces the filamentary features in a temperature range of about 16--20~K,
while the N49 H\,{\sc ii} region is seen with considerably warmer gas (T$_{d}$ $\sim$21-24 K).
The filamentary features and the edges of the bubble N49 are traced in the column density map, where several condensations are observed (see Figure~\ref{fig8}b).
One can also compute extinction \citep[$A_V=1.07 \times 10^{-21}~N(\mathrm H_2)$;][]{bohlin78}
using the {\it Herschel} column density map, which can also be used to identify clumps.
In the {\it Herschel} column density map, the ``{\it clumpfind}" \citep{williams94} IDL program helps us to
find clumps and to estimate their total column densities.
Thirty five clumps are found in our selected target field, and are highlighted in Figures~\ref{fig9}a,~\ref{fig9}b, and~\ref{fig9}c. Several column density contour levels were used as an input parameter for the ``clumpfind", and the lowest contour level was considered at 3.5$\sigma$.
Furthermore, the boundary of each clump is also shown in Figure~\ref{fig9}a.
The knowledge of the total column density of each clump also enables to determine
the mass of each {\it Herschel} clump using the following equation:
\begin{equation}
M_{clump} = \mu_{H_2} m_H A_{pix} \Sigma N(H_2)
\end{equation}
where $\mu_{H_2}$ is assumed to be 2.8, A$_{pix}$ is the area subtended by one pixel, and
$\Sigma N(\mathrm H_2)$ is the total column density.
The mass and the effective radius of each {\it Herschel} clump are listed in Table~\ref{tab1}.
The clump masses vary between 1076 M$_{\odot}$ and 20970 M$_{\odot}$.
Three massive clumps (nos. 12, 13, and 14) are also seen in the intersection zone of two molecular clouds (see Figures~\ref{fig9}a and~\ref{fig9}b).
Furthermore, the clumps (nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11) These {\it Herschel} clump sizes are larger than the ones used by \citet{deharveng10}.
are found toward the filamentary feature, ``fl-1",  while
the filamentary feature, ``fl-2" contains clumps (nos. 15, 16, and 17).
The clumps (nos. 1, 4, 5, and 6) are also identified toward the filamentary feature, ``fl-3".

Previously, using the APEX 870 $\mu$m dust continuum data, \citet{deharveng10} computed
the masses of four clumps varying between 190 and 2300 M$_{\odot}$, which are distributed toward the infrared rim of the bubble.
In this paper, we identify two clumps (nos. 12 and 13; M$_{clump}$ $\sim$8480--11538 M$_{\odot}$) around the bubble in the {\it Herschel} column density map (see Figure~\ref{fig9}c), and the masses of these clumps are much higher than the ones
reported by \citet{deharveng10} (i.e. M$_{Herschel}$ $>$ M$_{APEX}$).
More recently, \citet{liu17} studied a star-forming region RCW 79 using the {\it Herschel} data and also compared the masses of clumps derived using the {\it Herschel} data and the APEX 870 $\mu$m continuum map.
They also found M$_{Herschel}$ $>$ M$_{APEX}$, and suggested that there are mass losses in ground-based observations due to the drawback in the data reduction (see \citet{liu17} for more details).
\subsection{Young stellar populations}
\label{subsec:phot1}
In this section, we identify embedded YSOs using the {\it Spitzer} photometric data at 3.6--24 $\mu$m.
A brief description of the selection of YSOs is as follows.\\

1. A color-magnitude plot ([3.6]$-$[24]/[3.6]) has been utilized to separate the different stages of YSOs \citep{guieu10,rebull11,dewangan15}. The plot also enables to distinguish the boundary of possible contaminants
(i.e. galaxies and disk-less stars) against YSOs \citep[see Figure~10 in][]{rebull11}.
The color-magnitude plot of sources having detections in the 3.6 and 24 $\mu$m bands is shown in Figure~\ref{fig10}a. Adopting the conditions given in \citet{guieu10} and \citet{rebull11}, the boundaries of different stages of YSOs and possible contaminants are highlighted in Figure~\ref{fig10}a.
In Figure~\ref{fig10}a, we have plotted a total of 329 sources in the color-magnitude plot.
We find 74 YSOs (15 Class~I; 18 Flat-spectrum; 41 Class~II) and 255 Class~III sources.
One can also infer from Figure~\ref{fig10}a that the selected YSOs are free from the contaminants.
In Figure~\ref{fig10}a, the Class~I, Flat-spectrum, and Class~II YSOs are represented
by red circles, red diamonds, and blue triangles, respectively.\\

2. Based on the {\it Spitzer} 3.6--8.0 $\mu$m photometric data, \citet{gutermuth09} proposed
different schemes to identify YSOs and also
various possible contaminants (e.g. broad-line active galactic nuclei (AGNs), PAH-emitting galaxies, shocked emission
blobs/knots, and PAH-emission-contaminated apertures).
One can also classify these selected YSOs into different evolutionary stages based on their
slopes of the SED ($\alpha_{3.6-8.0}$) estimated from 3.6 to 8.0 $\mu$m
(i.e., Class~I ($\alpha_{3.6-8.0} > -0.3$), Class~II ($-0.3 > \alpha_{3.6-8.0} > -1.6$),
and Class~III ($-1.6> \alpha_{3.6-8.0} > -2.56$)) \citep[e.g.,][]{lada06,dewangan11}.
Following the schemes and conditions
listed in \citet{gutermuth09} and \citet{lada06}, we have also identified YSOs and various possible contaminants
in our selected target field. The color-color plot ([3.6]$-$[4.5] vs [5.8]$-$[8.0]) is presented in Figure~\ref{fig10}b. We select 38 YSOs (8 Class~I; 30 Class~II), and 1 Class~III, which are
plotted in Figure~\ref{fig10}b. In Figure~\ref{fig10}b, Class~I and Class~II YSOs are represented by red circles and blue triangles, respectively.\\

3. Based on the {\it Spitzer} 3.6, 4.5 and 5.8 $\mu$m photometric data,
\citet{hartmann05} and \citet{getman07} utilized a color-color plot ([4.5]$-$[5.8] vs [3.6]$-$[4.5]) to
select embedded YSOs. They proposed color conditions, [4.5]$-$[5.8] $\ge$ 0.7
and [3.6]$-$[4.5] $\ge$ 0.7, to find protostars. The color-color plot ([4.5]$-$[5.8] vs [3.6]$-$[4.5]) is presented in Figure~\ref{fig10}c. This scheme yields 8 protostars in our selected region.\\

Taken together, we have obtained a total of 120 YSOs in our selected target field.
To examine the spatial distribution of these selected YSOs, in Figure~\ref{fig11}a,
these YSOs are shown on the {\it Herschel} column density map.
We find noticeable YSOs toward the filamentary features and the edges of the bubble N49.
It shows signs of an ongoing star formation in the clumps linked with the filamentary
features (see clump nos. 6--17 in Figure~\ref{fig11}a).
Previously, using the {\it Spitzer} photometric data, \citet{dirienzo12} carried out the
SED fitting of sources in the bubble N49 site to identify YSOs.
The previous results concerning the selection of YSOs are in a good agreement with our presented results.
Hence, we have taken the physical parameters (e.g. stellar mass (M$_{*}$) and stellar luminosity (L$_{*}$)) of some selected YSOs from \citet{dirienzo12},
which are distributed toward the filamentary features (fl-1, fl-2, and fl-3) and the edges of the bubble N49
(see Figure~\ref{fig11}b and also Table~\ref{tab2}). One can find more details about the SED fitting procedures of YSOs in \citet{dirienzo12}. In Table~\ref{tab2}, we have listed the physical parameters of the selected thirteen YSOs, and their positions are marked in Figure~\ref{fig11}b.
In the direction of filamentary feature fl-1, at least three YSOs (i.e. s1, s2, and s3; M$_{*}$ $\sim$3.5--5.0 M$_{\odot}$) appear to be found toward the {\it Herschel} clumps (nos. 7, 8, and 9; M$_{clump}$ $\sim$3760--5570 M$_{\odot}$). At least three YSOs (i.e. s11, s12, and s13; M$_{*}$ $\sim$0.1--1.6 M$_{\odot}$) are embedded within the {\it Herschel} clumps (nos. 14 and 15; M$_{clump}$ $\sim$5480--5800 M$_{\odot}$) in the direction of filamentary feature fl-2,
while the filamentary feature fl-3 harboring the {\it Herschel} clumps (nos. 4 and 6; M$_{clump}$ $\sim$1400--3160 M$_{\odot}$) contains at least two YSOs (i.e. s5 and s7; M$_{*}$ $\sim$2.4--4.0 M$_{\odot}$).
Furthermore, at least five YSOs (i.e. s4, s6, s8, s9, and s10; M$_{*}$ $\sim$1.6--6.2 M$_{\odot}$)
are found toward the edges of the bubble N49,
where two {\it Herschel} clumps (nos. 12 and 13; M$_{clump}$ $\sim$8480--11540 M$_{\odot}$) are traced.
Furthermore, the {\it Herschel} clump 12 also contains a MYSO candidate (i.e. an IRc of the 6.7 GHz MME) at its early formation
stage prior to the UCH\,{\sc ii} phase (see Section~\ref{subsec:u1}).

Together, low- and intermediate-mass stars are seen toward the filamentary features,
and various early evolutionary stages of massive star formation (O-type star, UCH\,{\sc ii}
region, and an IRc of the 6.7 GHz MME without any ionized emission) are also investigated in the bubble site.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:disc}
Previously, the bubble N49 has been extensively studied to assess the star formation process
triggered by the expansion of an H\,{\sc ii} region \citep[see][and references therein]{dirienzo12}.
However, the present work provides new insights into the physical processes in the MIR bubble N49 site.
A careful analysis of the large-scale environment of the bubble N49 has been performed in the present work.
At least three different filamentary features (or filamentary molecular clouds) are identified in our selected target
field, and the bubble N49 is seen at the interface of the two filamentary molecular clouds (see Section~\ref{subsec:u1} and also Figure~\ref{fig2xx}).
Several numerical simulations of the CCC process have been carried out and are available in the
literature \citep[e.g.][]{habe92,anathpindika10,inoue13,takahira14,haworth15a,haworth15b,torii17,bisbas17}.
More details of these simulations can be found in \citet{torii17} and \citet{dewangan17b}.
Using the magnetohydrodynamical (MHD) numerical simulations, \citet{inoue13} proposed that
the colliding molecular gas has ability to form dense and massive cloud cores, precursors of massive stars, in the shock-compressed interface, illustrating a theoretical framework for triggered O-star formation.
The observational characteristic features of the CCC are reported in the literature,
which are the complementary distribution of the two colliding clouds, the bridge feature at the intermediate velocity range, and its flattened CO spectrum (e.g. \citet{torii17} and references therein).
The detection of a broad bridge feature in the velocity space represents an evidence of a compressed layer of gas due to the collision
between the clouds seen along the line of sight \citep[e.g.,][]{haworth15a,haworth15b,torii17}.

In our selected target field, a detailed analysis of the molecular line data reveals the bridge feature connecting the two clouds in velocity and the broad CO line wing in the intersection of the two clouds (see Section~\ref{sec:coem}). These evidences confirm that the two clouds are interconnected in space as well as in velocity. The $^{13}$CO profile is obtained in the region ``Reg 1", which is a little away from the H\,{\sc ii} region (see Figure~\ref{fig4}a).
It is because there are some physical mechanisms (such as radiative/mechanical feedback from massive star) which may destroy the
observational signatures of the broad bridge feature in the vicinity of the H\,{\sc ii} region(s).

Furthermore, in the velocity channel maps, we also find a possible complementary pair at [87, 88] km s$^{-1}$ and [95, 96] km s$^{-1}$ (see Figure~\ref{fig5}), where the intermediate velocity range between the two clouds was removed.
All these observed signatures are in agreement with the CCC \citep[e.g.,][]{inoue13,takahira14,haworth15a,haworth15b,torii17,dewangan17b}.
Hence, it appears the onset of the collision of the filamentary molecular clouds in the N49 site.
The massive clumps, embedded YSOs, an UCH\,{\sc ii} region, and an IRc of the 6.7 GHz MME are also
observed in the intersection of the two clouds, and are distributed within a scale of $\sim$5 pc. Adopting the velocity separation (i.e. $\sim$7 km s$^{-1}$) of the two clouds, we compute
a typical collision timescale to be $\sim$0.7 Myr.
A mean age of the Class~I and Class~II YSOs is reported to be $\sim$0.44 Myr and $\sim$1--3 Myr, respectively \citep{evans09}.
The 6.7 GHz MME also indicates the presence of early phases of massive star formation ($<$ 0.1 Myr).
These features provide observational evidences to favour the interpretation that the two filamentary
molecular clouds interacted with each other about 0.7 Myr ago.
Hence, the birth of massive stars and embedded protostars seen in the interface of the
clouds appears to be influenced by the CCC process.
It also implies that one cannot dismiss the possibility of the onset of star
formation prior to the collision in the bubble site.
\section{Summary and Conclusions}
\label{sec:conc}
In this paper, to study the physical environment and star formation processes, we have carried out
an observational study of the bubble N49 site using multi-wavelength data.
The major results of the present work are the following:\\
$\bullet$ {\it Herschel} images reveal the bubble N49 and three filamentary features (``fl-1", ``fl-2", and ``fl-3") in our selected target field. In the {\it Herschel} temperature map, the filamentary features are seen in a temperature range of about 16--20~K,
while the considerably warmer gas (T$_{d}$ $\sim$21-24 K) is found toward the N49 H\,{\sc ii} region.
The filamentary features and the edges of the bubble N49 are traced in the column density map,
where several condensations are investigated.\\
$\bullet$ Using the $^{13}$CO line data, a majority of molecular gas, integrated
over a velocity range of 83--91 km s$^{-1}$,
are distributed toward the bubble and the filamentary feature ``fl-1".
The molecular cloud linked with the filamentary feature ``fl-2" is traced in a velocity
range of 92--98.8 km s$^{-1}$, while the molecular cloud associated with the
filamentary feature ``fl-3" is depicted in a velocity range of 99--104 km s$^{-1}$.\\
$\bullet$ The $^{13}$CO line data analysis indicates the presence of two
velocity cloud components (having velocity peaks at $\sim$88 and $\sim$95 km s$^{-1}$)
in the direction of the bubble, which are separated by $\sim$7 km s$^{-1}$ in the velocity space
and are interconnected by a broad bridge feature.\\
$\bullet$ In the velocity channel maps of $^{13}$CO, a possible complementary
molecular pair at [87, 88] km s$^{-1}$ and [95, 96] km s$^{-1}$ is also traced.\\
$\bullet$ The bubble N49 is found in the spatially overlapped zone of two filamentary molecular clouds.\\
$\bullet$ The photometric analysis of point-like sources reveals noticeable YSOs toward
the filamentary features including the intersection zone of two molecular clouds.
Different early evolutionary stages of massive star formation (O-type star, UCH\,{\sc ii}
region, and an IRc of the 6.7 GHz MME without any ionized emission) are also present in the bubble site. \\
$\bullet$ A typical collision timescale in the bubble site is computed to be $\sim$0.7 Myr.

Considering the observational outcomes presented in this paper, the bubble N49 is an promising site
to explore the formation of massive star(s).
We conclude that in the bubble site, the collision of the filamentary molecular clouds may have
influenced the formation of massive stars and embedded protostars about 0.7 Myr ago.
\acknowledgments
We thank the anonymous reviewer for several useful comments.
The research work at Physical Research Laboratory is funded by the
Department of Space, Government of India.
The Infrared Processing and Analysis Center / California Institute of Technology,
funded by NASA and NSF), archival data obtained with the {\it Spitzer}
Space Telescope (operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute
of Technology under a contract with NASA). This publication makes use of molecular
line data from the Boston University-FCRAO Galactic Ring Survey (GRS).
The GRS is a joint project of Boston University and Five College Radio Astronomy Observatory,
funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under grants AST-9800334,
AST-0098562, and AST-0100793. The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a
facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative
agreement by Associated Universities, Inc.
IZ is supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR).
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{0.6}
\plotone{fg1a.pdf}
\epsscale{0.52}
\plotone{fg1b.pdf}
\caption{\scriptsize a) Large-scale view of the MIR bubble N49 (size of the selected field $\sim$0$\degr$.42
$\times$ 0$\degr$.42 ($\sim$37.2 pc $\times$ 37.2 pc); central coordinates: $l$ = 28$\degr$.844; $b$ = $-$0$\degr$.220).
a) A three color-composite map ({\it Herschel} 250 $\mu$m (red), 160 $\mu$m (green), and 70 $\mu$m (blue) images in log scale). The MIR bubble N49 is prominently seen in the composite map.
Three arrows highlight the embedded filaments. A position of the Class~II 6.7 GHz methanol
maser \citep[from][]{szymczak12} is shown by a star, which is traced in a velocity
range of 79.4 to 92.7 km s$^{-1}$. A scale bar corresponding to 5 pc is shown in the bottom left corner. b) The GRS $^{13}$CO (1-0) spectrum in the direction of a small field (i.e. zone I; see highlighted box in Figure~\ref{fig1}a).
The spectrum reveals three velocity components in the direction of zone I and is obtained by averaging the area.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1}
\plotone{fg2.pdf}
\caption{\scriptsize a) Overlay of the molecular $^{13}$CO gas on the {\it Herschel} 350 $\mu$m image. The $^{13}$CO integrated velocity range is from 83 to 91 km s$^{-1}$.
The $^{13}$CO contours are 40.847 K km s$^{-1}$ $\times$ (0.12, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.55, 0.7, 0.85, 0.95).
b) The $^{13}$CO emissions are superimposed on the {\it Herschel} 350 $\mu$m image.
The cyan and red contours represent $^{13}$CO integrated over two different velocity ranges highlighted in the image. The CO contours (in cyan) are 38.357 K km s$^{-1}$ $\times$ (0.35, 0.4, 0.55, 0.7, 0.85, 0.95), while the levels of red contours are 21.468 K km s$^{-1}$ $\times$ (0.35, 0.4, 0.55, 0.7, 0.85, 0.95).
c) Overlay of the MAGPIS 20 cm contours on the {\it Herschel} 350 $\mu$m image.
The contours (in red) are shown with levels
of 0.0243 Jy/beam $\times$ (0.06, 0.1, 0.14, 0.18).
d) Overlay of the ATLASGAL 870 $\mu$m contour on the ATLASGAL 870 $\mu$m image.
A contour (in cyan) is shown with a level of 0.163 Jy/beam.
In each panel, a scale bar corresponding to 5 pc is shown in the bottom left corner.
In the panels c and d, three arrows highlight the embedded filamentary features.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1}
\plotone{fg3.pdf}
\caption{\scriptsize Overlay of the molecular clouds linked with the filamentary features on the {\it Herschel} 350 $\mu$m image. The $^{13}$CO emissions integrated over three different velocity ranges are presented and the velocity ranges are also given in the figure (also see Figures~\ref{fig2}a and~\ref{fig2}b).
The $^{13}$CO contours (in red) are 38.357 K km s$^{-1}$ $\times$ (0.45, 0.55, 0.7, 0.85, 0.95), while the levels of cyan contours are 40.847 K km s$^{-1}$ $\times$ (0.35, 0.4, 0.45, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 0.95).
The $^{13}$CO contours (in magenta) are similar to those shown in Figures~\ref{fig2}b. A broken contour at 20 cm (in black) represents the location of the bubble N49, and the contour level is 0.0024 Jy/beam. A position of the Class~II 6.7 GHz methanol maser \citep[from][]{szymczak12} is shown by a black star.
The solid box (in cyan) encompasses the area shown in Figures~\ref{fig3}a-l and~\ref{fig4}a. A scale bar corresponding to 5 pc  is shown in the bottom left corner.}
\label{fig2xx}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{0.86}
\plotone{fg4.pdf}
\caption{\scriptsize A multi-wavelength view of the bubble N49. The images are shown at different wavelengths, which are highlighted in the panels. In the panels ``j" and ``k", the $^{13}$CO emissions are superimposed on the {\it Herschel} 250 $\mu$m image. The $^{13}$CO integrated velocity ranges are also shown in these panels.
In the panel ``j", the $^{13}$CO contours are 40.847 K km s$^{-1}$ $\times$
(0.35, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 0.98). In the panel ``k", the $^{13}$CO contours are 38.357 K km s$^{-1}$ $\times$ (0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 0.98). In the panel ``l", the MAGPIS 20 cm emission is superimposed on the {\it Spitzer} 24 $\mu$m image. The MAGPIS contours (in red) are shown with levels
of 0.0018, 0.0035, 0.0045, and 0.005 Jy/beam.
In each panel, a position of the Class~II 6.7 GHz methanol maser is shown by a star.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{0.58}
\plotone{fg5a.pdf}
\epsscale{0.58}
\plotone{fg5b.pdf}
\caption{\scriptsize Three-color composite image ({\it red}, {\it Herschel} 70 $\mu$m; {\it green}, {\it Spitzer} 24 $\mu$m;
{\it blue},{\it WISE} 12 $\mu$m; in log scale) of the bubble N49, which clearly traces a double shell structure. The contours at 20 cm (in navy) are also overlaid on the composite image, and the contour levels are 0.0024 and 0.00353 Jy/beam.
A position of the Class~II 6.7 GHz methanol maser is shown by a star. Previously three known sources (i.e. "UC HII", ``YSO \#1", and ``YSO \#3") are marked and highlighted by arrows in the figure \citep[also see Figure~1 in][]{zavagno10}.
A scale bar corresponding to 3 pc is shown in the bottom left corner.
b) The GRS $^{13}$CO (1-0) spectrum in the direction of a small field (i.e. Reg 1; see highlighted box in Figure~\ref{fig4}a).
The spectrum is obtained by averaging the area, Reg 1.  Two velocity peaks are highlighted by broken lines. An almost flattened profile is found between two velocity peaks (i.e. a bridge feature).}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{0.85}
\plotone{fg6.pdf}
\caption{\scriptsize The $^{13}$CO(J =1$-$0) velocity channel contour maps.
The molecular emission is integrated over a velocity interval, which is given in each panel (in km s$^{-1}$).
The contour levels are 10, 20, 30, 40, 55, 70, 80, 90, and 99\% of the peak value (in K km s$^{-1}$),
which is also given in each panel. In each panel, a contour at 20 cm (in red) represents the location of the bubble N49,
and the contour level is 0.0024 Jy/beam.}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1}
\plotone{fg7.pdf}
\caption{\scriptsize
a) Integrated intensity map of $^{13}$CO (J = 1-0) from 83 to 104 km s$^{-1}$.
The contour levels are 25, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 95\% of the
peak value (i.e. 71.408 K km s$^{-1}$). A contour at 20 cm (in magenta) represents the location of the bubble N49, and the contour level is 0.0024 Jy/beam.
b) Latitude-velocity map of $^{13}$CO.
The $^{13}$CO emission is integrated over the longitude from 28$\degr$.67 to 29$\degr$.09.
c) The $^{13}$CO emissions integrated over three different velocity ranges are presented, and the velocity ranges are also given in the panel (also see Figures~\ref{fig2}a and~\ref{fig2}b).
d) Longitude-velocity map of $^{13}$CO.
The $^{13}$CO emission is integrated over the latitude from $-$0$\degr$.424 to $-$0$\degr$.005.
In both the left panels (i.e. Figures~\ref{fig6}a and~\ref{fig6}c), the scale bar corresponding to 5 pc is shown in the bottom left corner.
Two dotted lines are also shown in both the right panels (i.e. Figures~\ref{fig6}b and~\ref{fig6}d), and are similar to those shown in Figure~\ref{fig4}b.}
\label{fig6}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{0.57}
\plotone{fg8.pdf}
\caption{\scriptsize a) {\it Herschel} temperature map.
b) {\it Herschel} column density ($N(\mathrm H_2)$) map.
One can also compute the extinction value with $A_V=1.07 \times 10^{-21}~N(\mathrm H_2)$ \citep{bohlin78}. A position of the Class~II 6.7 GHz methanol maser is shown by a star in each panel. In both the panels, a small dotted square indicates the area, Reg1, which is similar to those shown in Figure~\ref{fig4}a. In each panel, a contour at 20 cm (in pink) represents the location of the bubble N49, and the contour level is 0.0024 Jy/beam.
In both the panels, the scale bar corresponding to 5 pc is shown in the bottom left corner.}
\label{fig8}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{0.53}
\plotone{fg9a.pdf}
\epsscale{0.485}
\plotone{fg9b.pdf}
\epsscale{0.485}
\plotone{fg9c.pdf}
\caption{\scriptsize The selected {\it Herschel} clumps in our selected target field.
a) The clumps are shown by upside down triangles, and the boundary of each {\it Herschel} clump is also highlighted along with its corresponding clump ID (see Table~\ref{tab1}). A contour at 20 cm (in white) represents the location of the bubble N49, and the contour level is 0.0024 Jy/beam.
b) Overlay of the positions of the clumps (i.e. upside down triangles) along their IDs and the molecular clouds on the {\it Herschel} image at 350 $\mu$m.
The background map and the molecular clouds are similar to those shown in Figure~\ref{fig2xx}.
c) The positions of the clumps (i.e. upside down triangles) along their IDs are also overlaid on the {\it Herschel} column density map.
The background map is similar to those shown in Figure~\ref{fig8}b.
In each panel, the scale bar corresponding to 5 pc is shown in the bottom left corner.}
\label{fig9}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{0.43}
\plotone{fg10a.pdf}
\epsscale{0.46}
\plotone{fg10b.pdf}
\epsscale{0.47}
\plotone{fg10c.pdf}
\caption{\scriptsize Selection of YSOs in our selected field around the MIR bubble N49 (see Figure~\ref{fig1}a).
a) Color-magnitude plot ([3.6] $-$ [24] vs [3.6]) of sources.
The plot enables to identify YSOs belonging to different evolutionary stages (see dashed lines).
The boundary of YSOs against contaminated candidates (galaxies and disk-less stars) is shown
by dotted-dashed lines (in red) (see \citet{rebull11} for more details).
Flat-spectrum and Class~III sources are represented by ``$\Diamond$'' and ``$\Box$'' symbols, respectively.
b) Color-color plot ([3.6]$-$[4.5] vs. [5.8]$-$[8.0]) of sources.
The PAH-emitting galaxies and the PAH-emission-contaminated apertures are marked by ``*'' and ``$\times$'' symbols, respectively (see the text).
A Class~III source is represented by a black square in the plot.
c) Color-color plot ([3.6]$-$[4.5] vs. [4.5]$-$[5.8]) of sources.
In the panels ``a", ``b", and ``c", we show Class~I (circles) and Class~II (open triangles) YSOs.
In the first three panels, an extinction vector is shown and is obtained
using the average extinction laws from \citet{flaherty07}.
In the panels ``b" and ``c", the dot symbols show the stars with only photospheric emissions.
Due to large numbers of stars with photospheric emissions, only some of these stars are randomly marked in
the panels ``b" and ``c".}
\label{fig10}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{0.58}
\plotone{fg11a.pdf}
\epsscale{0.58}
\plotone{fg11b.pdf}
\caption{\scriptsize a) Spatial distribution of YSOs in our selected field around the MIR bubble N49.
The YSOs (Class~I (circles), Flat-spectrum (diamond), and Class~II (triangles)) are overlaid on
the {\it Herschel} column density map.
The background map is similar to the one shown in Figure~\ref{fig8}b.
The YSOs (in red) are selected using the color-magnitude ([3.6] $-$ [24] vs [3.6]) scheme
(see Figure~\ref{fig10}a), while the YSOs (in cyan) are identified using the
color-color ([3.6]$-$[4.5] vs. [5.8]$-$[8.0]) scheme (see Figure~\ref{fig10}b).
The Class~I YSOs selected via the color-color ([3.6]$-$[4.5] vs. [4.5]$-$[5.8])
scheme are highlighted by white circles (see Figure~\ref{fig10}c).
The {\it Herschel} clump IDs 6--17 are also marked in the figure (also see Figure~\ref{fig9}b).
A broken box (in white) encompasses the area shown in Figure~\ref{fig11}b.
b) The positions of some selected YSOs are marked along their IDs on the
{\it Herschel} column density map (see white circles and also Table~\ref{tab2}).
These YSOs are found toward the edges of the bubble and the filamentary features.
The physical properties of these YSOs are listed in Table~\ref{tab2}.}
\label{fig11}
\end{figure*}