format: text

text:
# Silicon-based Quantum Computation

## I Introduction

One of the greatest challenges facing physics at the onset of the twenty-first century is to determine whether or not construction of a large-scale quantum computer is possible both in principle and in terms of practical technical issues. While quantum algorithms have been developed which prove convincingly that quantum computers have capabilities conventional computers cannot duplicate, future applications of these hypothetical machines remain mostly a subject of speculation. It seems likely, however, that if a large-scale quantum computer can be built, then these machines will have a significant impact in the coming century, when information processing technology will only be more important than it is today.

Large-scale conventional computation only became possible when thousands of transistors could be integrated onto a single solid state chip, and it is widely believed that scalable quantum computation will be achieved when solid state quantum logical devices are similarly integrated. It should be stated at the outset, however, that since the likely impediments to large-scale quantum computation will be altogether different from those that faced conventional computers, scaling a solid state quantum computer may not prove to be viable. Ultimately the only test of viability of any quantum computer architecture must come from the laborious development and refinement of experimental candidate devices and architectures.

While by no means assured of success, quantum computer architectures implemented in solids, and especially in semiconductors, have the potential to take advantage of the enormous amount of ingenuity and resources that have gone into the development of contemporary microelectronics. This development will no doubt continue until electronic device sizes approach atomic dimensions, a realm in which a wide variety of device concepts potentially capable of quantum computation will be possible to implement.

Spins are perhaps the ideal qubits embodied in natural systems, and several candidate quantum computer architectures have been developed with spin qubits embedded in solid state materials      . The essence of this author’s published proposal for a solid state quantum computer  is that spins associated with donors in silicon \- the semiconductor that is the mainstay of conventional computer technology - are ideally suited to function as qubits in a quantum computer. This fact is a consequence of the high degree of isolation of electron and nuclear spins at donors in Si from their surroundings at low temperatures ($`T<`$4K). This isolation means that the highly coherent manipulations of the spins necessary for quantum computation are possible if there is a suitable means of controlling the interactions of individual spins with each other and with externally applied fields. In the proposal , control of individual spin dynamics is achieved by applying voltages to metal gates, located adjacent to the donors. The donors must be in prescribed locations within the silicon host to enable accurate gate control, a requirement which will pose perhaps the most significant obstacle to the implementation of the computer design.

Readout of single spin qubits (and also initialization of the qubits) is achieved by a two step process: first, a spin quantum number is transferred to a property of the charge configuration of a system. Second, the charge configuration is determined using sensitive electronic devices. Spin quantum numbers can most easily affect the charge configuration of a two electron system: the Pauli Exclusion Principle requires that two electrons can only occupy the same orbital state if they are in a mutual spin singlet state, with spins pointing in opposite directions. Sensitive electrometers now have resolution much better than a single electron charge, and are thus capable of determining whether two electrons are in a singlet or a triplet state (when the two spins are pointing in the same direction and the electrons cannot occupy the same orbital state).

The computer is capable of performing both logic and measurement operations in parallel and is thus compatible with error correcting algorithms, which will be an inevitable attribute of any large-scale quantum computer. The high degree of isolation of spins in Si means that performing logical operations with the accuracy required ($`10^4`$) for error corrected continuous computation   is in principle possible.

The architecture is not without its deficiencies, and subsequent to the publication of the original proposal several suggestions were made that could lead to improvements of the computer design , ,. Consequently, I will address several specific modifications that will likely need to be incorporated into the architecture if it is to be scaled: firstly, I will discuss techniques that would allow the computer to operate at higher temperatures by refrigerating spins on the computer chip. Secondly, I will describe possible ways in which free electrons can be used to transmit quantum information across large distances on the computer chip , making the execution of quantum algorithms more efficient. Finally, I will discuss approaches to quantum logic that are insensitive to the inevitable fluctuations present in solid state devices .

I will conclude by presenting a specific material and fabrication technology for the computer: high quality Si/SixGe1-x heterostructures grown by molecular beam epitaxy into which single donor ions are deposited during heterostructure growth . The devices and fabrication technologies presented, however, are not intended to be a blueprint for the construction of a quantum computer but rather are an effort to stimulate research and thinking both in the nanostructure and device physics community, as well as in the community focused on theoretical issues of quantum computation and measurement.

## II Electron and Nuclear Spins at Donors in Silicon

For crystals of pure Si at low temperatures ($`T`$), no electrons are in the conduction band, and the material is an insulator. The addition of Column V donors to the Si crystal results in electron states near in energy to the conduction band but weakly bound to the donor sites at low $`T`$. The theory of these weakly bound states was developed in the fifties ; the electron states resemble those in a hydrogen atom, but with an expanded Bohr radius ($`a_B`$15-30 Å) and a reduced binding energy ($`E_b`$ 10-50 meV).

The electron has spin $`S`$=1/2, and all Column V donors have nonzero nuclear spin $`I`$. (In contrast all Group IV elements, including Si, have stable isotopes with $`I`$=0, which means nuclear spins can in principle be entirely eliminated from these materials by isotope refinement.) The simplest system - and the one that has been most exhaustively studied - is P doped Si, in which $`I`$=1/2. The spin Hamiltonian for the nucleus-electron system in Si:P, with magnetic field $`Bz`$ is:

$$H_{en}=\mu _BB\sigma _z^eg_n\mu _nB\sigma _z^n+A\sigma ^e\sigma ^n,$$
(1)
where $`\sigma `$ are the Pauli spin matrices (with eigenvalues $`\pm `$ 1), $`\mu _B`$ and $`\mu _n`$ are respectively the Bohr and nuclear magneton, $`g_n`$ is the nuclear g-factor (=1.13 for 31P), and $`A=\frac{8}{3}\pi \mu _Bg_n\mu _n|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)|^2`$ is the contact hyperfine interaction energy, with $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)|^2`$ the probability density of the electron wave function evaluated at the nucleus . For electrons in Si, $`|g2|10^3`$, and consequently $`g`$=2 is assumed in Eq. 1. Because the electron wave function is strongly peaked at the donor site, the contact hyperfine interaction energy of the electron and the donor nucleus greatly exceeds dipolar spin interactions. The Hamiltonian (1) can readily be solved exactly  and the energy levels for Si:P are plotted in Fig. 1 as a function of $`B`$.

At $`B`$=0 energy eigenstates of Eq. 1 are also eigenstates of the spin exchange operator. The ground state is the singlet ($`|_e_n_e_n`$), lying 4$`A`$ (=120 MHz in Si:P ) below the threefold degenerate triplet excited states. Application of $`B`$ leads to evolution of the states into well defined electron and nuclear spin states as first the electron and then the nuclear Zeeman energies exceed $`4A`$ (Fig. 1b). Transitions between the different energy levels are induced by a radio frequency magnetic field $`B_{rf}`$ applied at a frequency resonant with the energy level difference. The magnitude of the matrix element $`\mu _{eff.}`$ coupling between the levels is plotted in Fig. 1c. At $`B`$=0, couplings for allowed transitions are approximately the same as for an uncoupled electron spin, $`\mu _B`$. As $`B`$ is increased and electron and nuclear transitions become distinct, the coupling between the nuclear states weakens, approaching $`\mu _n`$ at large $`B`$.

There are several reasons why the coupled electron-nucleus system at donors in Si is an excellent building block for quantum computational devices: first, the transition times between the states depicted in Fig. 1 can be exceedingly long at low temperatures and are of order one hour at $`T`$=1 K and $`B`$=0.1 T . Secondly, the linewidths of the transitions are very narrow and are limited by the small percentage of 29Si nuclei with $`I`$=1/2 present in the Si crystal that also interact with the electron via hyperfine interactions . In isotopically purified 28Si (with $`I`$=0), Si:P linewidths are $`<`$ 1 MHz . The most relevant factor for qubits is the phase relaxation time, $`t_\varphi `$. In isotopically purified Si:P, $`t_\varphi `$ exceeds 0.5 msec  , and is probably limited by dipolar interactions between the electron spins. In a quantum computer dipolar interactions can be eliminated as a source of decoherence using compensating algorithms .

## III Quantum Operations with the Si:P System

The Si:P system is a natural two qubit quantum computer : the controlled NOT operation, in which an electron spin flip occurs conditioned on the state of the nuclear spin, is performed by exciting the transition $`|_e_n|_e_n`$, for example. The SWAP operation is performed by exciting the transition $`|_e_n|_e_n`$. The electron and nuclear spins have distinct characteristics that are favorable for quantum computation. The electron spins are de-localized and mobile, and they can couple to additional nuclei via the hyperfine interaction or to other electrons via the exchange interaction. The location of the electron can be controlled by electric fields applied to gates on the Si surface, as is done in conventional Si devices. Electron spins can also in principle be measured using device concepts based on the Pauli Principle. The nuclear spins are much more weakly coupled to the environment, have no orbital degrees of freedom, rotate much more slowly in an applied $`B`$ than electron spins, and are consequently almost ideally suited to function as qubits in a quantum computer.

While a quantum computer architecture has been proposed based on donors in silicon-germanium heterostructures which uses exclusively the electron spins , no common donor exists for these semiconductors that does not possess a nuclear spin. Consequently, it is preferable to adopt an architecture which uses the properties of both the electron and nuclear spins to advantage. In the architecture to be presented here, nuclear spins are the qubits and quantum memory of the computer, while the electrons are used to $`mediate`$ interactions between nuclear spins. Qubit initialization and readout is performed by a combination of transfer of spin between nuclear and electron spins (for example by using the SWAP operation) and measurement operations on the electron spins.

## IV Environment Necessary for Quantum Computation

As was mentioned above, the long relaxation times of Si:P necessary for quantum computation only occur at $`T`$ 4 K. At higher temperatures phonon scattering rapidly decreases the relaxation times . A more stringent requirement placed on the environment necessary for quantum computation is that the spins must be highly polarized. The equilibrium polarization of electrons as a function of $`T`$ and $`B`$ is plotted in Fig. 2. Strong polarization of the electrons requires both high magnetic fields ($`B`$ 1 T) and very low temperatures ($`T`$ 0.1 K). These conditions were assumed in the original quantum computer proposal and are readily obtainable in low temperature experimental laboratories. The extremely long relaxation times of the spins imply that $`nonequilibrium`$ polarizations of the spins are possible in less extreme environments, achieved for example by injection of electrons from ferromagnetic contacts or by optical pumping. I will discuss below a third alternative for polarizing electron spins by using devices which perform $`spinrefrigeration`$. These ideas, if implemented, would enable a spin quantum computer to operate in the more favorable environment of higher temperatures and lower magnetic fields.

## V Gate-Controlled Quantum Logic

The Si:P two qubit quantum computer cannot be integrated into a large-scale quantum computer unless quantum operations can be applied selectively to particular spins (bulk spin resonance operations perform identical operations on all spins in the system). Also, connectivity must be established between spins in order to do arbitrary multi-qubit quantum logic. Both selectivity and connectivity can be achieved by applying electric fields to metal gates adjacent to the spins. An approach to selective single spin quantum logic is shown in Fig. 3. A metal “$`A`$-gate” is located directly above a donor site, separated by a barrier from the Si semiconductor material (possible materials that could be used for the barrier will be discussed below). Application of a voltage bias to the gate creates an electric field which distorts the electron wave function surrounding the donor . This distortion changes the electron density at the donor nuclear site and also the hyperfine interaction energy $`A`$. Because the energy spacings of the spin levels are sensitive to $`A`$, an $`A`$-gate can selectively bring a single Si:P system into (or out of) resonance with a globally applied external $`B_{rf}`$. Single spin quantum logic can thus be performed only at selected sites.

The simplest way to couple additional spins into a quantum computer architecture is to fabricate an array of Si:P sites in close proximity (Fig. 4). As the site separation becomes comparable to the Bohr radius, the electron wave functions begin to overlap. Tunneling of electrons between sites then becomes possible, leading to an exchange interaction between the electron spins and also to an indirect (or electron mediated) exchange interaction between the nuclear spins. For the case when the two electron spins are in the $`|`$ state and are each coupled to the donor nuclear spins by the same hyperfine interaction energy $`A`$, the nuclear spin exchange frequency is approximately:

$$h\nu _J=2A^2(\frac{1}{\mu _BB2J}\frac{1}{\mu _BB}),$$
(2)
where $`J`$ is the electron spin exchange energy, and $`2J<\mu _BB`$ is assumed. The magnitude of $`J`$ between electron spins on donors as a function of their separation $`r`$ can be approximated from equations derived for the case of well- separated H atoms :

$$J(r)E_b(\frac{r}{a_B})^{\frac{5}{2}}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{2r}{a_B}).$$
(3)
This function, with values appropriate for Si, is plotted in Fig. 5. Substantial nuclear spin exchange between donors requires that $`J`$ and $`\mu _BB`$ must be comparable, and consequently the donors and gates must be spaced of order 100 Å apart, a scale which is near the limit of current nanofabrication technology.

Because exchange interactions depend on the overlap of the electron wave functions, they can be effectively controlled by a voltage bias applied to a “$`J`$-gate” lying $`between`$ donor sites (Fig. 4). Exchange interactions lead naturally to the SWAP operation of quantum logic, in which the spin quantum numbers of two qubits are interchanged. The SWAP operation in combination with single spin operations can be used as the primitive operations of a universal quantum computer . In the configuration shown in Fig. 4, a negative voltage bias applied to the $`J`$-gate decouples the adjacent spins. A positive voltage applied to the gate turns on the exchange interaction between the spins. A SWAP operation is performed if the voltage pulse has the appropriate length. Calculating the value of the exchange interaction as a function of separation between donors and of gate voltage in realistic device configurations is difficult and is the subject of current research  . An added complication in Si is that the degenerate band structure leads to oscillatory behavior of the exchange interaction due to interference between electrons in different conduction band minima .

## VI Speed of Computer Operation

The speed of the computer architecture described above is limited by the rate at which single spin operations can be performed. This rate is approximately the product of $`B_{rf}`$ and $`\mu _{eff.}`$, plotted in Fig. 1c. $`B_{rf}`$ cannot be too large or else it will excite transitions between states not resonant with the field. Additionally, large values of $`B_{rf}`$ will introduce eddy current heating of conductors (gate leads for example) in the neighborhood of the computer. A reasonable value of $`B_{rf}`$ is $`10^3`$ T. This value, and a $`\mu _{eff.}`$ appropriate for nuclear spin flips at $`B`$=1 T, yields a single spin operation rate of $`r`$10-100 kHz.

The speed of two spin operations will depend on the strength of the exchange coupling between sites, but can be comparable to or greater than the rate for single spin operations. More relevant is that spins can only interact with their neighbors, so that many SWAP operations must be performed to do a two spin operation on two spins that are far apart.

It is certainly possible to find alternative systems in which gate operations could be performed much more rapidly than the system discussed above. The stringent requirements on the accuracy of logical operations in a quantum computer are likely to be more easily fulfilled in systems with slow dynamics, so the slowness of logical operations of the nuclear spin quantum computer is not necessarily a disadvantage. Clearly, it is the ability to perform quantum algorithms, not the clock speed, which will distinguish any quantum computer from its classical counterparts.

## VII Noise Introduced by Gate Voltage Fluctuations and Gate Calibration

More relevant than the speed of a quantum computer is the $`ratio`$ of the time required for logical operation to the decoherence time of the qubits. If this ratio is less than $`10^4`$, then perfect error correction becomes possible  . The long relaxation times noted above for Si:P were measured in bulk samples with very low doping density. In the computer architecture, however, the spins are located near a surface and beneath metallic gates, which will inevitably introduce additional decoherence mechanisms for the spins. While the degree of degradation of the spin relaxation rates will need to be determined by experiments, it is worthwhile to estimate the decoherence introduced by thermal fluctuations of the gate voltages on the spins. The simplest case to treat is the effect of voltage fluctuations on $`A`$-gates on the spin beneath them. The spin is essentially a voltage controlled oscillator, and voltage fluctuations lead to phase errors (Fig. 6). For a white noise spectrum of voltage fluctuations with spectral density $`S_V`$ the dephasing rate is:

$$t_\varphi ^1=\pi ^2\alpha ^2(V)S_V,$$
(4)
where $`\alpha d\nu /dV`$ is the tuning parameter of the VCO. From Fig. 3, it is clear that $`\alpha `$ can be arbitrarily small if the $`A`$-gate is biased appropriately. To obtain a crude estimate of $`t_\varphi ^1`$, I assume $`\alpha `$ = 100 MHz Volt-1. The Johnson noise on a 50 $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ transmission line at room temperature is $`S_V10^{18}`$ V2Hz-1. These values give $`t_\varphi ^1`$=0.1 sec-1, allowing many thousands of logical operations to be performed in the decoherence time of the computer, and indicating that Si based nuclear spin quantum computers are potentially in the realm where continuous error correction is possible.

A more serious issue arises from low frequency fluctuations ($`1/f`$ noise) of voltages on the gates and of electric fields at the donors arising from charge motion within the semiconductor host. As $`f0`$ these fluctuations become variable offsets of the gates that must be calibrated for the computer to operate properly. In principle each of the gates in the computer can be individually calibrated by performing simple measurements on the operation of each gate. Clearly, however, this process will become increasingly cumbersome as the size of the computer is scaled up, particularly if regular recalibration is necessary. A computer architecture which does not require calibration of individual gates, and is consequently resilient in the presence of low frequency fluctuations, is discussed below.

## VIII Techniques for Single Spin Measurement

The procedures outlined above perform all of the logical operations necessary for quantum computation. The spins must also be prepared in a specified initial state and read out at the end of the calculation. In a computer architecture capable of performing error correction, state preparation and measurement are necessary throughout the process of calculation. For this to be possible the measurement must be rapid, since if the measurement process during error correction were slow, the qubits would decohere during the period in which the measurement was occurring. While the measurement of the magnetic fields induced by electron and even nuclear spins may be possible using advanced magnetic resonance force microscopy  , these techniques are highly unlikely to perform measurements on a time scale comparable to logical operations. While single spin measurements are likely to be both difficult and slow, single charge measurements on a microsecond time scale are now routinely performed using single electron transistor (SET) electrometers , and SET’s may be ideally suited to perform the quantum measurements necessary for quantum computation .

Probably the simplest system in which spin to charge conversion is possible is a system of two electrons in a common potential well. The Pauli Principle forbids both electrons from being in the same orbital state unless they have opposite spins and are in a singlet state. Consequently, in the absence of a magnetic field the lowest energy state of a two electron system is a spin singlet, and triplet states are higher in energy . An electrometer capable of detecting the number of electrons occupying a bound state can thus determine whether two electrons are in a singlet or triplet state.

Measurement of a single electron spin requires that one of the two electrons be in a known spin state, for example, $`|\mathrm{?}`$. (Techniques for preparing electrons in known spin states will be discussed below.) If the state of the system is $`|`$ then a measurement of the two electrons will yield a triplet result. If the two electrons are in the $`|`$ state, then they may be either in a singlet ($`|`$) or a triplet ($`|+`$) state. Scattering between $`|`$ and $`|+`$ is generally much more rapid then scattering between $`|`$ and $`|`$, since scattering between the latter states can only proceed via a spin flip. Consequently, a measurement which determines whether the electrons are in a singlet or triplet state can be used to infer the spin state of the second electron if the measurement time exceeds the time required for scattering between the $`|`$ and $`|+`$ states but is less than the time required for scattering between $`|`$ and $`|`$.

The potential well binding the two electrons can be provided by a donor state in Si. A singly charged donor site, such as Si:P is capable of binding two electrons to form a $`D^{}`$ state only if the electrons are in a singlet state. The binding energy of this state is small, however, and probing it will be difficult  . Doubly charged donors, such as Column VI impurities in Si, have strongly bound two electron states. In Si:Te, the singlet ground state is almost 150 meV below the lowest lying triplet state  . Column VI donors also have stable isotopes with zero nuclear spin, allowing two electron systems to be probed in the absence of an additional hyperfine interaction with the donor nucleus.

An experimental configuration in which a two electron system is probed by a SET is shown in Fig. 7. The SET island lies directly above a donor embedded in Si, which is separated from the SET by a barrier layer. A potential bias between the island and the substrate is capable of ionizing the donor and drawing one of the two electrons to a state at the Si/barrier interface. Charge motion between the interface state and the donor state will change the potential of the SET island and hence the conductance of the SET. Because the binding energy of the donor is different for singlet and triplet spin states, detection of charge motion onto the impurity will allow the spin state of the electrons to be determined.

For an rf-SET , well coupled to a Si:Te donor, a measurement time of order microseconds has been estimated , much smaller then the expected spin flip scattering time ($`||`$) of the system. It may also be possible to measure the spin state using a more conventional FET as an electrometer . Clearly experiments will be necessary to determine the actual speed of measurement and the scattering times in real systems.

Because electron and nuclear spins are coupled by the hyperfine interaction, polarization transfer between electrons and nuclei are possible. Consequently, a nuclear spin can be measured by allowing it to interact with a two electron system in a known spin state, and subsequently measuring the electrons using the procedure discussed above.

## IX Possible Improvements to the Architecture

The quantum computer architecture outlined above shows that quantum computation and single spin measurement in Si nanostructures are theoretically possible using devices that are not extraordinarily different from those being currently fabricated. Nonetheless there are several deficiencies of the architecture that may prevent it from being a practical one, and several improvements on the original design have been suggested. I will focus below on some obvious shortcomings: (1) the computer must operate at extremely low temperatures and in very high DC magnetic fields, (2) quantum logic is only possible between nearest neighbor spins, and these spins must be extremely close together ($`100`$ Å) for the computer to operate, and (3) logical operations must be performed with a precision far exceeding that which is typically obtainable in solid state devices in order to make continuous computation possible. I will discuss below possible modifications to the original architecture which may alleviate the difficulties associated with each of these problems.

### A Spin Refrigeration

While the computer must operate at extremely low temperatures and in high magnetic fields to fully polarize the electrons, a more moderate environment ($`T`$=1-4 K) would vastly simplify the construction of a computer with many components, when power dissipation will inevitably become a factor. Operation at smaller magnetic fields would also be desirable, firstly since many conventional semiconductor components, which may need to be placed near the computer (or even on the same Si chip), are rendered inoperative in large magnetic fields. Secondly, matrix elements connecting hyperfine-coupled nuclear spin states increase with reduced magnetic field (Fig. 1c) and operation of the computer can potentially proceed more rapidly at lower magnetic fields. Finally, altogether different quantum computer architectures may be possible as $`B0`$.

While $`T`$=100 mK is necessary to fully polarize the electron spins in large laboratory magnetic fields, the spin- lattice relaxation time is extremely long even at $`T`$4 K, where $`t_1`$ of electrons on donors still exceeds 1 sec  . Consequently it is relatively easy to create a situation where the spin temperature is much different from the lattice temperature. Construction of a ‘spin refrigerator’ would create highly polarized spins at more modest lattice temperatures and magnetic fields.

Possible methods to introduce nonequilibrium polarizations of the electrons include injection of spins from ferromagnetic contacts and optical pumping. Neither of these techniques alone, however, is likely to achieve the extremely high polarizations necessary for large-scale quantum computation. What would be desirable is an on chip, closed cycle, spin refrigeration device which could increase electron spin polarization.

A possible realization of such a device using the ideas of single spin measurement discussed above is depicted in Fig. 8. Electrons in a partially polarized ‘input’ reservoir proceed in pairs through a ‘dot’ and into an ‘output’ reservoir. On the dot a measurement is performed which distinguishes triplets from singlets. Triplet states are passed through the dot into the output, while singlet pairs are expelled into a heat sink. Because singlet pairs have exactly zero spin polarization, the output reservoir must have higher average polarization than the input reservoir, and hence lower temperature. Such ‘singlet rejection refrigeration devices’ could be cascaded to produce the high polarizations necessary for quantum computation starting from a modestly polarized input, created either thermally or by injection from a ferromagnet. A circulating bath of cooled polarized electrons could polarize the nuclei of a quantum computer via the hyperfine interaction to initialize qubits and provide the ancilla spins necessary for error correction and measurement.

Very recently, an approach to quantum computing has been developed based solely on controlling exchange interactions between spins to perform logical operations on qubits encoded on several spins . Using this approach quantum operations would not require magnetic fields, and spin refrigeration would enable the computer to operate at $`B0`$.

### B Use of Electron Spins as qubits for transport of quantum information

In the quantum computer architecture presented above nuclear spin qubits are coupled to each other via indirect exchange processes mediated by the electrons, and the spatial separation between spin qubits cannot greatly exceed the Bohr radius of the donor impurities. Recent experiments  clearly show, however, that electron spins can effectively transmit quantum information over much larger distances ($`100\mu m`$). While it is important to note that a free electron at a Si interface will have altogether different (and generally shorter) relaxation times than those for an electron bound to a donor, transmitting quantum information using a free electron  has the obvious advantage that the donor nuclei being coupled can be separated over much larger distances than the Bohr radius. Quantum information transport by free electrons could also enable quantum computers to have separated, specialized devices for logic, memory, and measurement. Thus, for example, Te donors below SET’s could be optimized for measurement operations, while P donors below $`A`$-gates could be optimized for quantum logic.

A gated structure in which quantum logic between nuclear spin qubits is mediated by a free electron spin is shown in Fig. 9. First, quantum information is swapped between a donor nuclear spin and an electron bound to the donor by an appropriate rf pulse. The electron is then ionized from the donor by an electric field applied to the gate above the donor and is transmitted to a second donor site through one or more intermediary gates which move the electron along the interface. The electron is then allowed to combine with the second donor and a second SWAP operation is applied to exchange information between the electron and nuclear spin. While the architecture shown in Fig. 9 is similar to that depicted in Fig. 4, the gate dimensions need not be comparable to the donor Bohr radius.

Quantum information in this scenario must be transmitted through a single electron spin. If the mediating electron couples to other electrons through the exchange interaction, then quantum information will be lost. Thus the gate electrodes moving the electron from site to site must store a single electron at a time, and the architecture strongly resembles a single electron charge coupled device (CCD) . Also, the interface along which the electron is transmitted must be almost completely free of trapped charges. A possible quantum computer architecture using these types of devices is shown in Fig. 10. Gate electrodes shuttle single electrons between donors to perform quantum logic and between donors and electron spin measurement devices for measurement of the qubits. The measurement devices also provide a source of polarized spins for qubit initialization and error correction. Such an architecture can be made defect tolerant , since all gates and donor sites do not need to be functional in order to do quantum operations and measurement.

Using electron spins to transmit quantum information over relatively large distance will have obvious advantages in terms of implementing quantum algorithms. While quantum computation  and error correction  are possible using only local gates, efficiency will undoubtedly improve if quantum information can be rapidly transmitted between remote qubits.

### C Modified RF pulses for uniform gate operations

Decoherence can be produced in a quantum system not only by interactions of the qubits with uncontrolled degrees of freedom but also by errors in the logical operations on the qubits. Consequently, the accuracy of gate operations in a quantum computer will need to be $`10^4`$ to be in the regime in which error correction will enable continuous quantum computation. This level of precision will be an extremely difficult requirement to meet in any solid state material, where fluctuations of device properties are inevitable. One possible solution is to perform precise calibration of each individual gate in the computer, an approach which will become increasingly difficult in large computers and will be even more arduous if the calibrations themselves fluctuate. A more attractive possibility pointed out by Benjamin  is to design gate operations which are highly precise despite device fluctuations.

An example of a fluctuation-tolerant approach to single spin rotations is shown in Fig. 11. A rotation induced by an rf pulse will deviate from the desired value if the resonance frequency of the qubit deviates from the frequency of the pulse. If the rf pulse is shaped appropriately, however, the errors associated with small resonance frequency offsets can be drastically reduced. Shaped and composite pulse waveforms for single spin rotations have been developed to improve accuracy of NMR spectroscopy   and of bulk spin resonance quantum logic . Extension of these ideas to two qubit operations - while presumably possible in principle - has not yet been addressed. In the computer architecture shown in Fig. 9, different types of rf pulses are used to perform both one and two qubit operations, and shaped pulses will allow accurate logical operations to be performed despite appreciable device fluctuations. Because the effect of a shaped pulse is independent of the exact resonance frequency of the qubit, low frequency fluctuations of the resonance frequency would not degrade the accuracy of the logical operations of the computer, and the computer could consequently be highly immune to the inevitable 1/$`f`$ noise present in solid state materials.

Another problem with the original architecture is that each gate is a channel coupling to the system that can be a source of decoherence . While this decoherence is an inevitable byproduct of using gates to control logical operations, the magnitude of the decoherence varies with applied gate bias. For example in Fig. 3 gate-induced decoherence is largest when $`\alpha `$ is largest, near $`V=V_1`$, while it is much smaller when $`\alpha 0`$ at $`V=V_0`$ and $`V=V_2`$. Shaped pulses could enable “digitally gated” quantum computer architectures in which the gates are biased only at two low decoherence values, one resonant and one nonresonant with the applied $`B_{rf}`$. Gates associated with idling qubits are biased at their nonresonant value. A logical operation on a spin is performed by rapidly bringing the gate above the spin to its resonant voltage and applying an rf pulse. At the completion of the pulse, the gate is rapidly brought back to its non-resonant setting. In this manner the gates still allow selective operations to be performed on the qubits without introducing decoherence, except during the brief periods when the gates are switched.

Even if shaped pulses are used for quantum logic, it is likely that some degree of calibration will be necessary in any solid state quantum computer. While this may appear to be a fundamental obstacle to large-scale quantum computation, it is important to remember that the classical computational resources associated with the operation of any quantum computer can be large, and consequently a large amount of conventional computer memory and processing power can be devoted to the proper calibration of each gate.

## X Implementing the Architecture in Si/SixGe1-x Heterostructures

In all the device structures discussed above, a barrier material must be present separating the Si containing the donors from the conducting gates. The Si/barrier interface must be almost entirely free of charge and spin defects if the devices are to perform quantum gate operations, especially if free electrons on the interface are to be used to transfer quantum information between remote donors. Silicon oxide and nitride layers - used in conventional MOS structures - are amorphous materials, and their interfaces with Si will inevitably contain charge centers associated with dangling bonds, rendering their use in a quantum computer highly problematic . Various epitaxial barrier materials on Si have been developed, however, that may ultimately have the extraordinarily low defect densities that will be necessary in a quantum computer.

Several oxide materials, including CeO2  and SrTiO3 , are being explored which may grow epitaxially on pure Si. Most promising for application to quantum computation, however, are the heterostructures grown with Group IV elements: Si/SixGe1-x  and Si/SixC1-x. I will focus on Si/SixGe1-x heterostructures because they are the most technologically developed. Si/SixC1-x heterostructures have recently been used to perform the first direct electron spin resonance measurements   on two dimensional electron systems (2DES), and they may thus also be relevant for implementing quantum logical devices.

Because of the lattice mismatch between Si and Ge, SixGe1-x heterostructures must inevitably contain layers that are strained . A high quality (mobility 500,000 cm2/Vsec) 2DES has been formed in these materials by confining the electrons in a strained Si layer between unstrained layers of SixGe1-x on a (100) oriented substrate (Fig. 12a). Because the Si is strained along a (100) axis, the valley degeneracy of the conduction band is broken, and the well is occupied by electrons only in the two valleys with minima on the axis perpendicular to the layers. The electron effective mass in these valleys is anisotropic , and the contours of equal probability density of electron wavefunctions on donors in the Si well are ellipsoidal (Fig. 12b).

Since the Si layer is under strain, its thickness cannot exceed a critical value without the nucleation of dislocations . For Si/Si0.85Ge0.15 this thickness is approximately 200 Å, sufficiently thick so that the electron wavefunction of a donor in the center of the well is almost entirely in pure Si.

Conduction band offsets in Si/SixGe1-x are not large, and consequently electron tunneling through the barrier is a potential source of decoherence. Estimates of the Fowler-Nordheim tunneling rate  depend strongly on the electron mass, however (Fig. 13). While tunneling out of the well is in the direction of the heavier Si electron mass, coupling between valleys may be large enough that tunneling rates will be intermediate between those calculated for the two electron mass values. Experiments will be necessary to determine electron tunneling rates before Si/SixGe1-x devices for quantum computing can be optimized. For $`x`$=0.85 the depth of the well is about 100 meV, probably sufficient to allow the application of large enough electric fields to ionize the donor (Fig. 12c) without excessive tunneling leakage.

Straining the Si layer also reduces the hyperfine interaction energy $`A`$ and the $`g`$-factor anisotropy of the coupled electron-nuclear spin states (Fig. 14) . In the strained well $`A`$ will be approximately 50% of its value in unstrained Si. Also relevant is that fluctuations in static strain (created during device fabrication for example) will affect the values of the resonance frequencies. Fluctuations of the $`g`$ factor caused by strain are actually reduced in highly strained layers, however.

## XI Dopant Introduction by Low Energy Ion Implantation

Finally, I consider possible approaches to introducing single donor ions in controllable locations into the Si. The low density of unwanted impurities introduced into the Si that is required for the computer suggests that both crystal growth and dopant incorporation should be performed in ultra high vacuum in the same apparatus. Possible approaches to dopant placement include nanoassembly using a scanned probe and ion implantation . At the temperatures necessary for optimal growth of high quality material , surface segregation of donors deposited onto a Si surface is substantial , leading to large ($`100`$Å) vertical (and presumably lateral) displacements of deposited donors from their original location. The diffusion of donors once they are incorporated into the bulk is, however, much lower. Low energy ($``$150 eV) ion implantation has consequently been developed as a tool for introducing donors into semiconductors with extremely sharp ($`30`$Å) vertical profiles . A tool which could place donors into Si with the precision necessary for development of the proposed quantum computer would be a low energy focused ion beam with single ion implantation capability  incorporated into a Si MBE growth chamber. The development of such a tool would likely be a significant technological challenge, and many important experiments can first be done to assess the viability of the proposed architecture with simpler techniques and equipment.

## XII Prospects and Conclusions

The obstacles to building a silicon-based quantum computer are enormous, and much research needs to be done before even the viability of the ideas presented above can be determined. Priorities in this research must be: (1) the fabrication of single spin measurement devices, (2) measurement of spin decoherence mechanisms of electrons and nuclei at donors and of free electrons in real Si heterostructure materials, (3) the development of single charge CCD-like devices capable of transporting quantum information on an electron spin, (4) the design of quantum logical operations which are tolerant to the fluctuations inevitable in solid state materials, and finally (5) the demonstration of a technology for placing single donors into a semiconductor substrate at precisely specified locations.

Single spin measurement devices (and also presumably spin refrigerators) will be of interest in their own right, irrespective of their impact on quantum computation. It is likely that they can be fabricated with currently available technology , and they can subsequently be applied to the detailed measurement of decoherence in real nanostructure devices. The development of single charge CCD’s will be an important milestone showing that the extreme material purity necessary for the proposed quantum computer architecture is achievable.

Large-scale quantum computers will need to have fluctuation and defect tolerant designs, both because of the precision that is required for doing quantum logic and because of the inevitable variations in solid state materials from device to device. The technology for donor placement which will need to be developed may also have applications outside of quantum computation, since fluctuations attributable to the random locations of donors are already an issue for ultra-small conventional semiconductor devices.

Because technological advances need to be made on many fronts, it is currently not possible to ascertain whether the architecture for Si-based quantum computers presented above is viable. The outcome of research in the next few years focused on the issues mentioned above, however, will determine whether silicon - the material used in today’s computers -is also capable of being the host material for a revolutionary new type of machine.

## XIII Acknowledgements

The author has benefited from discussions with S. Barrett, X. Hu, G. Lucovsky, S. Lyon, J. Melngailis, R. Schoelkopf, P. Thompson, and E. Yablonovich.


text:
# Hilbertian versus Hilbert W*-Modules, and applications to 𝐿²- and other invariants

## 1. Introduction

Let $`A`$ be a finite von Neumann algebra. Since our goal is a comparison of two categories of Hilbert modules over $`A`$ which are already described in the literature we have to suppose the existence of a faithful normal trace state $`tr`$ on $`A`$ to meet the requirements of one of the concepts under consideration. Basically, this assumption only restricts the center of $`A`$ with respect to its attainable dimension. The restriction is caused by the general type and direct integral decomposition theory of von Neumann algebras, see \[50, V. Th. 2.4, 2.6\]. Since finite von Neumann algebras always admit a center-valued trace functional we can easily extend the comparison of both the categories under consideration allowing general finite von Neumann algebras. The only loss would be that we would have to treat Hilbert W\*-modules over the center of finite von Neumann algebras $`A`$ instead of Hilbert spaces carrying an additional proper $`A`$-module structure as described below. However, for historical reasons we do not invent this more general point of view and consider only the more restrictive setting supposing the existence of a trace state on $`A`$.

One way to define a sort of Hilbert(ian) modules over $`A`$ is the following often used one which has been introduced in connection with geometric applications by W. Lück and by A. Carey, V. Mathai in 1991/92. Basic references are the publications by W. Lück and M. Rothenberg , A. Carey and V. Mathai , M. Rothenberg , M. A. Shubin  and M. Farber , , J. Lott and W. Lück , D. Burghelea, L. Friedlander, T. Kappeler, P. McDonald , W. Lück , T. Schick , H. Reich , A. Carey, V. Mathai and A. S. Mishchenko , and others. Since the authors differ slightly in their denotations we give a comprehensive account at this place adopting the denotations introduced by W. Lück and Th. Schick in the main.

To introduce Hilbertian modules over finite von Neumann algebras $`A`$ with trace functional we begin with some standard Hilbert modules over $`A`$ – the completion of the algebraic tensor products $`AH`$ of $`A`$ by Hilbert spaces $`H`$ with respect to the Hilbert norm induced by the $``$-valued inner product

$$ah,bg=tr(ab^{})h,g_H,\mathrm{where}a,bA,h,gH,$$

The $`A`$-module action is defined as the (left, w.l.o.g.) multiplication of $`A`$ by elements of $`A`$. So all these sets become Hilbert spaces and (left) $`A`$-modules by construction. Following  they are denoted by $`l^2(A)H`$. A Hilbert module over $`A`$ is a Hilbert space $``$ together with a continuous (left) $`A`$-module structure such that there exists an isometric $`A`$-linear embedding of $``$ into one of the standard Hilbert modules $`l^2(A)H`$ over $`A`$. A Hilbertian module over $`A`$ is a topological vector space $``$ with a continuous (left) $`A`$-action such that there exists a scalar product $`.,.`$ on $``$ generating the topology of $``$ and turning $`\{,.,.\}`$ together with the $`A`$-action into a Hilbert module over $`A`$ in the previously defined sense. Any two scalar products $`.,._1`$ and $`.,._2`$ on a Hilbertian module $``$ over $`A`$ that induce one and the same topology on $``$ and turn $`\{,.,._1\}`$ and $`\{,.,._2\}`$, respectively, into concrete Hilbert modules over $`A`$ are linked by a bounded self-adjoint positive $`A`$-linear map $`T:`$ fulfilling the identity $`.,._1T(.),T(.)_2`$ on $`\times `$, \[8, item 1.4\]. A Hilbertian module over $`A`$ is finitely generated if it is embedable as a Hilbert module over $`A`$ into some standard Hilbert module $`l^2(A)^n`$ for finite $`n`$.

If $``$, $`𝒩`$ are two Hilbertian modules over $`A`$, then a bounded $`A`$-linear map $`T:𝒩`$ is called an $`A`$-module morphism. By \[12, I.6. Th.2\] and \[32, Lemma 9.11\] the set of all $`A`$-module morphisms $`\mathrm{End}_A()`$ on a Hilbertian module $``$ has the structure of a von Neumann subalgebra of the type I von Neumann algebra $`\mathrm{End}_{}()`$ of all bounded linear operators on the Hilbert space $``$. Its commutant is precisely $`A`$ itself since the $`A`$-action on $``$ was supposed to be continuous. Hilbertian modules over a fixed finite von Neumann algebra $`A`$ with faithful normal trace state together with the specified $`A`$-module morphisms form a category. This category is one of the two we are going to compare.

The second kind of Hilbert modules over C\*-algebras is widely used in operator algebra theory and its applications. There are also topological applications of this structure, cf.  for example. The theory of Hilbert C\*-modules goes back to the work of I. Kaplansky , W. L. Paschke  and M. A. Rieffel . Contemporary explanation are published in E. C. Lance’s lecture notes  and in I. Raeburn’s and D. P. Williams’ book . For a detailed bibliography on the subject we refer to \[16, Appendix\].

A Hilbert C\*-module over a C\*-algebra $`A`$ is a (left, w. l. o. g.) $`A`$-module $``$ together with a map $`.,._{}:\times A`$ satisfying the following axioms:

(i) $`x,x_{}0`$ for every $`x`$,

(ii) $`x,x_{}=0`$ if and only if $`x=0`$,

(iii) $`x,y_{}=y,x_{}`$ for every $`x,y`$,

(iv) $`ax+by,z_{}=ax,z_{}+y,z_{}`$ for every $`a,bA`$, $`x,y,z`$.

In this setting the map $`.:^+`$ defined by $`x=x,x_{}_A^{1/2}`$, $`(x)`$, is a norm on $``$. In the sequel we always assume $``$ to be complete with respect to this norm. The pair $`\{,.,._{}\}`$ is said to be a Hilbert $`A`$-module, and the map $`.,._{}`$ is referred to as to an $`A`$-valued inner product on $``$.

A morphism of Hilbert C\*-modules over a certain C\*-algebra $`A`$ is a bounded linear map between them intertwining the given actions of $`A`$ on the modules. Hilbert C\*-modules over a fixed C\*-algebra $`A`$ and bounded $`A`$-linear morphisms form another category to be considered.

One of the unpleasant properties of some Hilbert C\*-modules is the general failing of the analog of the Riesz representation theorem for bounded module maps from the Hilbert C\*-module into the C\*-algebra of its coefficients, where the C\*-algebra of coefficients is usually assumed to act on itself by multiplication from the left to become an $`A`$-module. For example, consider the finite von Neumann algebra $`A=l_{\mathrm{}}`$ of all bounded complex sequences and the Hilbert $`A`$-module $`=c_0`$ of all sequences converging to zero equipped with the $`A`$-valued inner product $`x,y_A=ab^{}`$, $`(a,bA)`$. Every bounded $`A`$-linear map from $`c_0`$ to $`l_{\mathrm{}}`$ is given by a multiplication of $`=c_0`$ by some element of $`l_{\mathrm{}}`$ from the right. However, if this factor belongs to $`l_{\mathrm{}}c_0`$ then the resulting map is not representable as $`.,x_A`$ for elements $`xc_0`$. The next bothering fact is the non-adjointability of some bounded module operators on Hilbert C\*-modules. To present an example, consider a finite von Neumann algebra $`A`$ together with one of its maximal left ideals $`I`$. Form the Hilbert $`A`$-module $`=AI`$ equipped with the $`A`$-valued inner product $`(a,i),(b,j)_{}=ab^{}+ij^{}`$, $`(a,bA,i,jI)`$. Then the operator $`T`$ defined by $`T((a,i))=(i,0)`$ fails to be adjointable since its formal adjoint operator does not map $``$ back into itself, but partially into a different set.

For Hilbert C\*-modules over von Neumann algebras (in short: Hilbert W\*-modules) there is a manner to overcome these obstacles on the way to a ’better’ theory within the category of Hilbert W\*-modules. The basic idea is to dilate every Hilbert W\*-module to a larger Hilbert W\*-module that has properties analogous to those known for Hilbert spaces in any respect, and to select a canonically smallest dilation of that kind. W. L. Paschke described the construction of those envelopes in  in 1973. To introduce it we need some further preparation.

For any C\*-algebra $`A`$ denote the set of all bounded $`A`$-linear maps from a given Hilbert $`A`$-module $``$ into $`A`$ by $`^{}`$. This set $`^{}`$ canonically becomes a Banach $`A`$-module that contains an isometrically embedded copy of the original Hilbert $`A`$-module $``$ which can be obtained as the image of the map $`x.,x^{}`$ . In case the C\*-algebra $`A`$ is a von Neumann algebra the $`A`$-valued inner product $`.,._{}`$ on a Hilbert $`A`$-module $`^{}`$ can always be continued to an $`A`$-valued inner product on $`^{}`$ preserving the compatibility with the standard embedding of $``$ into $`^{}`$, \[43, Th. 3.2\]. As a result $`^{}`$ turns out to be a self-dual Hilbert $`A`$-module (i.e. $`^{}(^{})^{}`$), and the Banach algebra of all bounded $`A`$-linear endomorphisms $`\mathrm{End}_A(^{})`$ of $`^{}`$ becomes a von Neumann algebra, \[43, Prop. 3.10\]. If $`A`$ is of type I or II or III, respectively, then $`\mathrm{End}_A(^{})`$ is always exactly of the same type as $`A`$, \[46, Cor. 8.7, Rem.\]. Moreover, $`^{}`$ can be constructed from $``$ in a simple topological way: the unit ball of $`^{}`$ is the completion of the unit ball of $``$ with respect to the topology induced by anyone of the two sets of semi-norms

$$\{f(.,x_{})^{1/2}:fA_{}^+,f=1,x,x1\},$$

$$\{f(.,._{})^{1/2}:fA_{}^+,f=1\},$$

where $`A_{}^+`$ denotes the set of all normal positive functionals on $`A`$, , \[15, Th. 3.2\]. In particular, the biorthogonal complement of any Hilbert $`A`$-submodule $`𝒩`$ with respect to the self-dual Hilbert $`A`$-module $`^{}`$ can be canonically identified with the $`A`$-dual Banach $`A`$-module $`𝒩^{}`$ since these topologies are orthogonality-preserving. Among the various fortunate properties of self-dual Hilbert W\*-modules we mention that another $`A`$-valued inner product $`.,._2`$ on a self-dual Hilbert $`A`$-module $`\{,.,._1\}`$ induces the same norm topology on $``$ if and only if there exists a bounded $`A`$-linear positive operator $`T\mathrm{End}_A()`$ such that the identity $`.,._1T(.),T(.)_2`$ holds on $`\times `$. Furthermore, two self-dual Hilbert $`A`$-modules are unitarily isomorphic if and only if they are isomorphic as Banach $`A`$-modules (\[15, Prop. 2.2\]), a property which sometimes fails to hold for general Hilbert C\*-modules (cf. ) and which also causes the slight difference between the definition of Hilbert C\*-modules and that of Hilbert spaces.

One easily checks that every bounded $`A`$-linear map defined between two Hilbert $`A`$-modules over von Neumann algebras $`A`$ continues to a unique bounded $`A`$-linear map between their $`A`$-dual self-dual Hilbert $`A`$-modules, \[43, Cor. 3.7\]. These circumstances make ’self-dualisation’ of Hilbert W\*-modules a suitable operation to overcome the arising technical difficulties of the general theory of Hilbert C\*-modules and W\*-modules.

Furthermore, self-dual Hilbert W\*-modules over von Neumann algebras $`A`$ can be alternatively described as w\*-closures of formal direct sums (i.e. tuples) of \*weakly closed left ideals of $`A`$: every self-dual Hilbert $`A`$-module $`\{,.,._{}\}`$ is unitarily isomorphic to a Hilbert $`A`$-module

$$𝒩=\{\{a_\alpha \}_{\alpha I}:a_\alpha Ap_\alpha ,0p_\alpha =p_\alpha ^2A\}=:\underset{\alpha I}{}Ap_\alpha ,$$

$$\{a_\alpha \}_{\alpha I},\{a_\alpha \}_{\alpha I}=\underset{S}{sup}\left(\underset{\alpha S}{}a_\alpha a_\alpha ^{}\right),$$

where $``$ denotes the net of all finite subsets of the index set $`I`$, \[43, Th. 3.12\]. Obviously, $`𝒩`$ can be characterized isomorphicly as a direct orthogonal summand of the $`A`$-dual Hilbert $`A`$-module $`^{}`$ of some standard Hilbert $`A`$-module $`=AH`$, where the Hilbert space $`H`$ possesses a Hilbert basis of cardinality $`\mathrm{card}(I)`$. Here the $`A`$-valued inner product on $``$ is usually defined by $`ah,bg_{}=ab^{}h,g_H`$ on elementary tensors.

## 2. Hilbertian modules versus Hilbert W\*-modules

Comparing the direct sum decompositions of (standard) Hilbertian and self-dual Hilbert W\*-modules the similarity between these two categories comes to light. In a first step W. Lück was able to identify the appropriate subcategories of finitely generated Hilbertian modules over $`A`$ with the subcategory of finitely generated projective W\*-modules over $`A`$, \[32, Th. 2.1\], which are precisely the finitely generated Hilbert $`A`$-modules by . Our first goal is to establish the hidden categorical identification in full:

###### Theorem 2.1.

Let $`A`$ be a finite von Neumann algebra that possesses a normal faithful trace state $`tr`$. The two categories

(i) Hilbertian modules over $`A`$, $`A`$-module morphisms;

(ii) self-dual Hilbert W\*-modules over $`A`$, bounded $`A`$-linear morphisms;

are equivalent. The involution of morphisms is intertwined by the linking functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

###### Proof.

We construct a functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ from the first category into the second category and investigate its properties.

Let $`𝒩`$ be a Hilbertian module over $`A`$. Suppose, $`𝒩`$ is already $`A`$-linearly and continuously embedded into a certain standard Hilbertian module $`l^2(A)H`$ for some Hilbert space $`H`$. Consider the intersection $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒩)`$ of $`𝒩`$ with the norm-dense subset $`(AH)^{}l^2(A)H`$. This intersection $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒩)`$ is non-empty and $`A`$-invariant by construction. Moreover, for topological reasons it is complete with respect to the norm $`.=.,._{(AH)^{}}_A^{1/2}`$, and the unit ball of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒩)`$ is complete with respect to the topology induced by the semi-norms $`\{f(.,._{AH})^{1/2}:fA_{}^+,f=1\}`$. By \[15, Th. 3.2\] $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒩)`$ is a self-dual Hilbert W\*-module over $`A`$, and the completion of it with respect to the norm $`.=tr(.,._{\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒩)})^{1/2}`$ recovers $`𝒩`$. Note, that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒩)`$ is a direct orthogonal summand of the Hilbert W\*-module $`(AH)^{}`$ (\[15, Th. 2.8\]), and that the $`A`$-linear projection to it extends to the $`A`$-linear projection from $`l^2(A)H`$ to $`𝒩`$.

Consider two $`A`$-linear continuous embeddings of $`𝒩`$ into $`l^2(A)H_1`$ and $`l^2(A)H_2`$, respectively. The images of $`𝒩`$ in $`l^2(A)H_1`$ and in $`l^2(A)H_2`$ are linked by an isometric $`A`$-linear operator with carrier projections equal to the projections to the embedded copies of $`𝒩`$ in $`l^2(A)H_1`$ and $`l^2(A)H_2`$, respectively. Repeating our construction we obtain two self-dual Hilbert W\*-modules $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(𝒩)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2(𝒩)`$ which are $`A`$-linearly and isometrically isomorphic. By E. C. Lance’s theorem \[25, Th. 3.5\] they are unitarily isomorphic, too. Consequently, the functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ does not depend on the embedding of $`𝒩`$ as a Hilbertian module over $`A`$.

Let $`H`$ be any Hilbert space. Then $`l^2(A)H`$ is the Hilbert norm closure of the self-dual Hilbert $`A`$-module $`\{=(AH)^{},.,._{l_2}\}`$ with respect to the Hilbert space norm $`.=tr(.,._{})^{1/2}`$. For general self-dual Hilbert $`A`$-modules $`\{,.,._{}\}`$ consider their canonical decomposition as $`=_{\alpha I}Ap_\alpha `$ with $`p_\alpha ^2=p_\alpha >0`$ of $`A`$. Obviously, $``$ is an orthogonal direct summand of the self-dual Hilbert $`A`$-module $`(AH)^{}`$ for a certain Hilbert space $`H`$ with $`dim(H)=\mathrm{card}(I)`$, where the orthogonal complement is the self-dual Hilbert $`A`$-module $`()^{}=_{\alpha I}A(1_Ap_\alpha )`$. Hence, the completion of $``$ with respect to the norm $`tr(.,._{})^{1/2}`$ is a Hilbertian module over $`A`$ by definition. This shows the functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to be surjective. At the same time we constructed the inverse functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$.

The respective sets of bounded $`A`$-linear morphisms of both these categories can be seen to coincide looking at the present construction. Since every bounded module map on a self-dual Hilbert $`A`$-module possesses an adjoint and since every bounded module map on a Hilbertian module $`𝒩`$ over $`A`$ preserves the subset $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒩)`$ invariant, the coincidence of both the involutions comes to light. ∎

###### Corollary 2.2.

The Hilbert space orthogonal complement of a Hilbertian module $`𝒩`$ over a finite von Neumann algebra $`A`$ with faithful normal trace state inside a standard Hilbertian module $`l^2(A)H`$ is $`A`$-invariant and, hence, a Hilbertian module, too.

###### Corollary 2.3.

(W. Lück’s theorem, \[32, Th. 2.1\]), \[33, Th. 1.8\]
The functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ identifies the subcategory of finitely generated Hilbertian modules over $`A`$ with the subcategory of finitely generated projective $`A`$-modules (i.e. finitely generated Hilbert $`A`$-modules).

For a proof we have only to recall that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(l^2(A)^N)=(A^N)^{}=A^N`$ for every finite $`N`$.

###### Corollary 2.4.

Let $`𝒩`$ be a Hilbertian module over a certain finite von Neumann algebra $`A`$ that admits a normal trace functional $`tr`$. Suppose, $`𝒩`$ can be identified with a direct summand of the standard Hilbertian module $`l^2(A)H`$ for a certain Hilbert space $`H`$. Then the von Neumann algebra $`\mathrm{End}_A(l^2(A)H)`$ of all bounded $`A`$-linear module maps on $`l^2(A)H`$ is $``$-isomorphic to the W\*-tensor product $`A\overline{}\mathrm{End}_{}(H)`$ and, hence, a type $`\mathrm{II}_{\mathrm{}}`$ von Neumann algebra. The von Neumann algebra $`\mathrm{End}_A(𝒩)`$ can be identified with a full corner of the von Neumann algebra $`\mathrm{End}_A(l^2(A)H)`$, i.e. $`P\mathrm{End}_A(l^2(A)H)P\mathrm{End}_A(𝒩)`$ for the orthogonal projection $`P:l^2(A)H𝒩`$.

Fixing the trace functionals $`tr`$ and $`Tr_{B(H)}`$ on $`A`$ and $`B(H)`$, respectively, the canonical semifinite trace functional $`Tr`$ on $`\mathrm{End}_A(l^2(A)H)`$ defined by $`Tr(aT)=tr(a)Tr_{B(H)}(T)`$ on elementary tensors assigns either a real number $`Tr(P)[0,+\mathrm{})`$ or the symbol $`+\mathrm{}`$ to $`𝒩`$. The assigned value does not depend on the choice of the embedding of $`𝒩`$, and the assigned value is a finite number if and only if $`𝒩`$ is finitely generated.

These elementary conclusions can be derived from standard von Neumann algebra theory identifying the Hilbertian module $`𝒩`$ with its image $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒩)`$ in the category of Hilbert W\*-modules over $`A`$, cf. . If we have two embeddings of $`𝒩`$ into standard Hilbertian modules $`l^2(A)H_1`$ and $`l^2(A)H_2`$, respectively, we may always assume that both $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ are isomorphic Hilbert spaces enlarging the smaller one appropriately. Since there exists a partial isometry $`U`$ between the orthogonal projections $`P_1`$ on $`H_1`$ and $`P_2`$ on $`H_2`$ we obtain $`Tr(P_2)=Tr(UP_2U^{})=Tr(P_1)`$, and so the value is independent of the concrete representation of $`𝒩`$.

## 3. $`L^2`$\- and other invariants of C\*-modules – revisited

The purpose of the present section is to investigate the freedom of choice for (center-valued) semifinite trace functionals on the set of all bounded module operators on some Hilbertian modules, and to translate the obtained results into the language of $`L^2`$-invariants. We rely on the categorical equivalence obtained in the previous section. So the results are much easier to obtain for self-dual Hilbert W\*-modules because of their well-known composition structure. As a result we obtain that the consideration of finitely generated Hilbert $`B`$-modules and their invariants can replace the investigation of the corresponding finitely generated Hilbert $`B^{}`$-modules which arise as categorically equivalent objects of the w\*-completion of the former with respect to the respective $``$-valued inner product $`tr(.,.)`$.

In applications of Hilbertian modules $`l^2(A)H`$ over finite von Neumann algebras $`A`$ with faithful normal trace state $`tr`$ in the theory of $`L^2`$-invariants the properties of the canonical projection $`P_{}^H:l^2(A)H`$ and the stability of some of these properties with respect to changes of the representations of $``$ are of major interest, . One of these invariant properties of the family $`\{P_{}^H:H\mathrm{Hilbert}\mathrm{space}\}`$ is the (non-)existence of a finite $`\mathrm{Z}(A)`$-valued trace value for it, where $`Z(A)`$ denotes the center of $`A`$ which can be canonically identified with the center of $`\mathrm{End}_A(l^2(A)H)`$. Another property is the existence of a Fuglede-Kadison determinant for positive invertible module operators on a Hilbertian $`A`$-module. If a finite trace value exists then generalized Betti-numbers $`b_p^u(C)`$ of chain complexes $`C`$ of Hilbertian modules over $`A`$ and Novikov-Shubin invariants $`\alpha _p(C)`$ can be defined, . However, the value of the trace in $`Z(A)`$ is not uniquely determined, cf. \[50, V. Th. 2.34\] for a description of the variety of faithful semifinite normal extended center-valued traces on type $`\mathrm{II}_{\mathrm{}}`$ von Neumann algebras. To fix a standard $`\mathrm{Z}(A)`$-valued trace $`\tau _o`$ on a C\*-subalgebra of $`\mathrm{End}_A(l^2(A)H)`$ we use a standard $``$-isomorphism

$$\mathrm{End}_A(l^2(A)H)A\overline{}\mathrm{End}_{}(H)$$

(where $`\overline{}`$ denotes the W\*-tensor product of W\*-algebras), and we set

$$\tau _o(aS)=\tau (a)Tr_{B(H)}(S)=\tau Tr_{B(H)})(aS)$$

for $`aA`$ and trace class operators $`S`$ on $`H`$. Here $`\tau `$ denotes the unique faithful normal center-valued trace on $`A`$ (cf. \[50, V. Th. 2.6\]), and $`Tr_{B(H)}`$ is a normal trace on $`B(H)`$ normalized by the requirement that it takes the value one on projections to one-dimensional subspaces of $`H`$, . The following theorem gives a precise description of the situation. It was already partially stated by W. Lück in \[32, Cor. 3.2\]. In difference to his result we do neither require the existence of a finite faithful trace functional on the finite von Neumann algebra $`A`$ nor have any preference for any specific center-valued faithful trace on the C\*-algebra of all bounded module operators. The standard trace $`\tau _o`$ is only a tool to prove the assertions.

###### Theorem 3.1.

Let $`A`$ be a finite von Neumann algebra and $``$ be a self-dual Hilbert $`A`$-module. Then $``$ is finitely generated if and only if for some/every isometric embedding of $``$ into a standard self-dual Hilbert $`A`$-module $`(AH)^{}`$ the canonical projection $`P_{}^H`$ from $`(AH)^{}`$ to $``$ possesses a finite center-valued trace value $`\tau _1(P_{}^H)`$, where $`\tau _1`$ denotes an arbitrary faithful semifinite normal extended center-valued trace given on the type $`\mathrm{II}_{\mathrm{}}`$ von Neumann algebra $`\mathrm{End}_A((AH)^{})`$. In other words, the value $`\tau _1(P)`$ of a center-valued trace $`\tau _1`$ applied to an orthogonal projection $`P\mathrm{End}_A((AH)^{})`$ is finite if and only if $`P((AH)^{})`$ is a finitely generated Hilbert $`A`$-module, despite the concrete value depends on the choice of $`\tau _1`$.

###### Proof.

Every isometric copy of $``$ as an $`A`$-submodule of another Hilbert $`A`$-module $`𝒩`$ is an orthogonal summand of $`𝒩`$ since $``$ is self-dual by assumption, cf. . In case $`=(AH)^{}`$ for some Hilbert space $`H`$ we have the isometric algebraic embedding $`A\mathrm{K}_{}(H)\mathrm{End}_A((AH)^{})`$, where $``$ denotes the algebraic tensor product. Let us fix the standard center-valued trace $`\tau _o`$ on $`A\mathrm{K}_{}(H)`$. The bounded module operators on $`=(AH)^{}`$ that admit a finite center-valued trace are contained in the C\*-algebra of all ’compact’ operators on $``$ which is defined as the norm-closure of the linear hull of the operators $`\{\theta _{x,y}:\theta _{x,y}(z)=z,xy\mathrm{for}x,y,z\}`$, since the trace class operators $`SB(H)`$ are all compact operators. Therefore, projections onto a Hilbert C\*-module $`=(AH)^{}`$ admit a finite value with respect to the fixed standard semifinite center-valued trace $`\tau _o`$ if and only if they are ’compact’ operators, i.e. if and only if their image is a finitely generated Hilbert C\*-module, \[51, Th. 15.4.2, Remark 15.4.3\].

By \[50, Th. 2.34\] the type $`\mathrm{II}_{\mathrm{}}`$ von Neumann algebra $`\mathrm{End}_A((AH)^{})`$ may admit more then just one faithful semifinite normal extended center-valued trace, and an easy classification is available. However, if a projection $`P\mathrm{End}_A((AH)^{})`$ admits a finite center-valued trace value with respect to a certain such trace on $`\mathrm{End}_A((AH)^{})`$, then the von Neumann algebra $`P\mathrm{End}_A((AH)^{})P`$ is of type $`\mathrm{II}_1`$, i.e. also the restriction of the standard faithful center-valued trace $`\tau _o`$ to it would give only finite values in $`Z(A)`$. The converse obviously also holds. This implies our statement. ∎

The theorem has some consequences for the point of view taken for the investigations in the field of $`L^2`$\- and other invariants. The usual approach is to consider the (full) group C\*-algebra $`C^{}(\pi )`$ of the fundamental group $`\pi =\pi _1(M)`$ of a certain compact manifold $`M`$ or, more specifically, of a finite connected CW-complex $`M`$. The C\*-algebra $`C^{}(\pi )`$ admits a canonical finite trace functional, so its bidual von Neumann algebra $`𝒩(\pi )`$ has a finite normal trace functional and, hence, is the block-diagonal sum of $`\sigma `$-finite type $`\mathrm{II}_1`$ and finite type I components. The theorem above suggests that it might be more perspective to consider the category of finitely generated projective $`C^{}(\pi )`$-modules instead of the category of finitely generated projective $`𝒩(\pi )`$-modules. This thought is supported by a number of results of A. Carey, V. Mathai and A. S. Mishchenko  and of D. Burghelea, L. Friedlander and T. Kappeler . They consider the analytic torsion of cone complexes that arise from finite-dimensional non-simply connected Riemannian manifolds $`M`$ and their de Rham complexes $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(M;C^{}(\pi ))`$. Their investigations rely merely on the properties of $`C^{}(\pi )`$ and of finitely generated projective $`C^{}(\pi )`$-modules, and they avoid any weak\* completions of appearing structural elements of the basic constructions. So one might get the idea that Betti-numbers and Novikov-Shubin invariants could be already derived in case $`C^{}(\pi )`$ admits a finite center-valued trace. However, unitarily non-isomorphic finitely generated projective $`C^{}(\pi )`$-modules can have equal dimension values in case $`C^{}(\pi )`$ is infinite-dimensional. Furthermore, the monoid of all finitely generated projective $`C^{}(\pi )`$-modules can fail to have the cancellation property. Also, the extension of the center-valued trace on $`C^{}(\pi )`$ to the standard semifinite center-valued trace on $`\mathrm{End}_A(l^2(A)l^2)`$ may assign a finite value to some orthogonal projection $`P`$ even if the image $`P(l^2(A)l^2)`$ is not finitely generated (cf. G. G. Kasparov’s theorem \[25, Th. 6.2\] applied to countably generated ideals of $`C^{}(\pi )`$). So the entire approach does not work for the situation of general finitely generated projective $`C^{}(\pi )`$-modules without completing them with respect to the standard weak topology.

However, there is another way to classify finitely generated $`B`$-modules over arbitrary unital C\*-algebras $`B`$. It is suggested by the modular frame theory of countably generated Hilbert $`B`$-modules that has been recently worked out by D. R. Larson and the author in . Let $`B=C^{}(\pi )`$ and consider a finitely generated projective $`A`$-module $``$. The module $``$ can be equipped with an $`B`$-valued inner product $`.,.`$ and becomes a finitely generated Hilbert $`B`$-module that way. Conversely, every finitely generated Hilbert $`B`$-module is projective as an $`B`$-module, \[51, Cor. 15.4.8\]. The choice of the $`B`$-valued inner product on $``$ is unique up to a positive invertible bounded module operator $`T`$ on $``$ linking any other inner product structure to a fixed one.

By  every finitely generated Hilbert $`B`$-module $`\{,.,.\}`$ admits at least one finite normalized tight (modular) frame, i.e. a $`k`$-tuple $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_k\}`$ of elements of $``$ such that the equality $`x,x=_{i=1}^kx,x_ix_i,x`$ holds for any $`x`$. Furthermore, a reconstruction formula $`x=_{i=1}^kx,x_ix_i`$ is valid for any $`x`$, so the knowledge of the values $`\{x_i,x_j\}:i,j=1,\mathrm{},k\}`$ turns out to be sufficient to describe the $`B`$-module $``$ up to uniqueness. Note that the elements $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_k\}`$ need not to be ($`B`$-)linearly independent, in general.

###### Theorem 3.2.

Let $`B`$ be a unital C\*-algebra and let $`\{,.,._{}\}`$ and $`\{𝒩,.,._𝒩\}`$ be two finitely generated Hilbert $`B`$-modules. Then the following conditions are equivalent:

* $``$ and $`𝒩`$ are algebraically isomorphic as projective $`B`$-modules.
* $`\{,._{}\}`$ and $`\{𝒩,._𝒩\}`$ are isometrically isomorphic as Banach $`B`$-modules.
* $`\{,.,._{}`$ and $`\{𝒩,.,._𝒩\}`$ are unitarily isomorphic as Hilbert $`B`$-modules.
* There are finite normalized tight (modular) frames $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_k\}`$ and $`\{y_1,\mathrm{},y_l\}`$ of $``$ and $`𝒩`$, respectively, such that $`k=l`$, $`x_i0`$ and $`y_i0`$ for any $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$, and $`x_i,x_j_{}=y_i,y_j_𝒩`$ for any $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},k`$.

###### Proof.

The equivalence of the conditions (i), (ii) and (iii) has been shown for countably generated Hilbert $`B`$-modules in \[20, Th. 4.1\]. The implication (iii)$``$(iv) can be shown to hold setting $`y_i=U(x_i)`$ for the existing unitary operator $`U:𝒩`$ and for $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$. The demonstration of the inverse implication requires slightly more work. For the given normalized tight (modular) frames $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_k\}`$ and $`\{y_1,\mathrm{},y_l\}`$ of $``$ and $`𝒩`$, respectively, we define a $`B`$-linear operator $`V`$ by the rule $`V(x_i)=y_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$. For this operator $`V`$ we have

$`V(x),y_j_𝒩`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}V(x),y_i_𝒩y_i,y_j_𝒩`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{k}{}}}x,x_m_{}V(x_m),y_i_𝒩x_i,x_j_{}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{k}{}}}x,x_m_{}x_m,x_i_{}x_i,x_j_{}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{k}{}}}x,x_m_{}x_m,{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}x_j,x_i_{}x_i_{}`$
$`=`$ $`x,{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{k}{}}}x_j,x_m_{}x_m_{}`$
$`=`$ $`x,x_j_{}`$
for every $`x`$. Consequently,

$$x,x_{}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}x,x_i_{}x_i,x_{}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}V(x),y_i_𝒩y_i,V(x)_𝒩=V(x),V(x)_𝒩$$

for any $`x`$, and the operator $`V`$ is unitary. ∎

###### Corollary 3.3.

Every finitely generated projective $`B`$-module $``$ over a unital C\*-algebra $`B`$ can be reconstructed up to isomorphism from the following data:

* A finite set of algebraic non-zero modular generators $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_k\}`$ of $``$.
* A symmetric $`k\times k`$ matrix $`(a_{ij})`$ of elements from $`B`$, where $`a_{ij}`$ is supposed to be equal to $`x_i,x_j_0`$ for $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},k`$ and for the (existing and unique) $`B`$-valued inner product $`.,._0`$ on $``$ that turns the set of algebraic modular generators $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_k\}`$ into a normalized tight modular frame of the Hilbert $`B`$-module $`\{,.,._0\}`$.

The number of elements in sets of algebraic modular generators of $``$ has a minimum, and it suffices to consider sets of generators of minimal length. Then the modular invariants can be easier compared permuting the elements of the generating sets if necessary.

###### Proof.

The set of algebraic generators $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_k\}`$ of $``$ is a frame with respect to any $`B`$-valued inner product on $``$ which turns $``$ into a Hilbert $`B`$-module. That is the inequality

$$Cx,x\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}x,x_ix_i,xDx,x$$

is satisfied for two finite positive real constants $`C,D`$ and any $`x`$, see \[18, Th. 5.9\]. What is more, for any frame of $``$ there exists another $`B`$-valued inner product $`.,._0`$ on $``$ with respect to which it becomes normalized tight, that is $`x,x_0=_{i=1}^kx,x_i_0x_i,x_0`$ holds for any $`x`$. This inner product is unique, cf. \[18, Cor. 4.3, Th. 6.1\], \[22, Th. 4.4\]. So assertion (iv) of the previous theorem gives the complete statement. ∎

We can say more in case the finitely generated Hilbert $`B`$-module contains a modular Riesz basis, i.e. a finite set of modular generators $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_k\}`$ such that the equality $`0=b_1x_1+\mathrm{}+b_kx_k`$ holds for certain coefficients $`\{b_1,\mathrm{},b_k\}B`$ if and only if $`b_ix_i=0`$ for any $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$. Obviously, a modular Riesz basis is minimal as a set of modular generators, i.e. we cannot drop any of its elements preserving the generating property. However, there can exist totally different Riesz bases for the same module that consist of less elements, cf. \[18, Ex. 1.1\]. Note that the coefficients $`\{b_1,\mathrm{},b_k\}`$ can be non-trivial even if $`b_ix_i=0`$ for any index $`i`$ since every non-trivial C\*-algebra $`B`$ contains zero-divisors. Not every Hilbert C\*-module containing a normalized tight modular frame does possess a modular Riesz basis. An example can be found in \[22, Ex. 2.4\].

In case of finitely generated projective W\*-modules (and therefore, in the case of Hilbertian modules over finite W\*-algebras) we are in the pleasant situation that they always contain a modular Riesz basis by \[43, Th. 3.12\]. Moreover, by spectral decomposition every element $`x`$ of a Hilbert W\*-module $``$ has a carrier projection of $`x,x`$ contained in the W\*-algebra of coefficients $`B`$. So we can ascertain the following fact:

###### Proposition 3.4.

Let $``$ be a finitely generated projective $`B`$-module over a W\*-algebra $`B`$ that possesses two finite modular Riesz bases $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_k\}`$ and $`\{y_1,\mathrm{},y_l\}`$. Then there exists an $`l\times k`$ matrix $`C=(c_{ij})`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},l`$, $`,j=1,\mathrm{},k`$, with entries from $`B`$ such that $`y_i=_{j=1}^kc_{ij}x_j`$ for any $`i=1,\mathrm{},l`$, and analogously, there exists a $`k\times l`$ matrix $`D=(d_{ji})`$ with entries from $`B`$ such that $`x_j=_{i=1}^ld_{ji}y_i`$ for any $`j=1,\mathrm{},k`$.

Suppose the left carrier projections of $`c_{ij}`$ and $`d_{ji}`$ equal the carrier projections of $`y_i,y_i`$ and $`x_j,x_j`$, respectively, and the right carrier projection of $`c_{ij}`$ and $`d_{ji}`$ equal the carrier projections of $`x_j,x_j`$ and $`y_i,y_i`$, respectively. Then the matrices $`C`$ and $`D`$ are Moore-Penrose invertible in $`M_{kl}(B)`$ and $`M_{lk}(B)`$, respectively. The matrix $`C`$ is the Moore-Penrose inverse of $`D`$, and vice versa.

###### Proof.

Since both the modular Riesz bases are sets of modular generators of $``$ we obtain two $`B`$-valued (rectangular, w.l.o.g.) matrices $`C=(c_{ij})`$ and $`D=(d_{ji})`$ with $`i=1,\mathrm{},l`$ and $`j=1,\mathrm{},k`$ such that

$$y_i=\underset{m=1}{\overset{k}{}}c_{im}x_m,x_j=\underset{n=1}{\overset{l}{}}d_{jn}y_n.$$

Combining these two sets of equalities in both the possible ways we obtain

$$y_i=\underset{n=1}{\overset{l}{}}\left(\underset{m=1}{\overset{k}{}}c_{im}d_{mn}\right)y_n,x_j=\underset{m=1}{\overset{k}{}}\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{l}{}}d_{jn}c_{nm}\right)x_m$$

for $`i=1,\mathrm{},l`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},k`$. Now, since we deal with sets of coefficients $`\{c_{ij}\}`$ and $`\{d_{ji}\}`$ that are supposed to admit special carrier projections, the coefficients in front of the elements $`\{y_n\}`$ and $`\{x_m\}`$ at the right side can only take very specific values:

$$\underset{m=1}{\overset{k}{}}c_{im}d_{mn}=\delta _{in}q_n,\underset{n=1}{\overset{l}{}}d_{jn}c_{nm}=\delta _{jm}p_m,$$

where $`\delta _{ij}`$ is the Kronecker symbol, $`p_mB`$ is the carrier projection of $`x_m,x_m`$ and $`q_nB`$ is the carrier projection of $`y_n,y_n`$. So $`CD`$ and $`DC`$ are positive idempotent diagonal matrices with entries from $`B`$. The Moore-Penrose relations $`CDC=C`$, $`DCD=D`$, $`(CD)^{}=CD`$ and $`(DC)^{}=DC`$ turn out to be fulfilled. ∎

Summing up, we can replace the single center-valued trace value that characterizes a finitely generated projective $`A`$-module over a finite von Neumann algebra $`A`$ up to isomorphism by another set of data of a finitely generated projective $`B`$-module over a unital C\*-algebra $`B`$. It consists of a set of non-zero modular generators $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_k\}`$ together with a $`k\times k`$ matrix with entries $`x_i,x_j_0`$, where $`.,._0`$ is supposed to be the $`B`$-valued inner product on the module with respect to which the generating set becomes a normalized tight frame. In the von Neumann case the generators can be described as $`k`$-tuples $`x_i=(0,\mathrm{},0,p_i,0,\mathrm{},0)`$ for orthogonal projections $`p_iA`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$, and the $`k\times k`$ matrix can be chosen to be a diagonal one with the elements $`p_iA`$ on the diagonal. This follows from the general structure of self-dual Hilbert W\*-modules as described by W. L. Paschke at \[43, Th. 3.12\]. For general finitely generated Hilbert $`B`$-modules a diagonal structure of the $`k\times k`$ matrix may not exists for any $`k`$ since cancellation may not hold in the monoid of all finitely generated projective $`B`$-modules. We would like to formulate the problem whether Moore-Penrose type transfer matrices between modular Riesz bases appear for more general C\*-algebras of coefficients then W\*-algebras or monotone complete C\*-algebras, or not.

To derive appropriate invariants for finitely generated Hilbert $`B`$-chain complexes in case $`B`$ is the full group C\*-algebra of the fundamental group of a certain compact manifold $`M`$ has to await another time since the considerations would go beyond the set limits of the present paper.

Acknowledgement: The author is grateful to V. M. Manuilov, A. S. Mishchenko, G. K. Pedersen and E. V. Troitsky for the fruitful discussions, the exchange of ideas and the continuous support during the recent years of collaboration.