text:
# One Complexity Theorist’s View of Quantum ComputingBased on a talk presented at the Second Workshop on Algorithms in Quantum Information Processing at DePaul University, Chicago, January 21, 1999. Realaudio of the talk is available at http://www.cs.depaul.edu/aqip99.

## 1 Introduction

When one starts looking at quantum computation an obvious question comes to mind: Can quantum computers be built? By this I mean can one create a large reliable quantum computer—perhaps to factor numbers using Shor’s algorithm \[Sho97\] faster than any classical computer can factor. There has been some success creating in creating quantum machines with a tiny number of bits, we have many physical and engineering issues to overcome before a large scale quantum machine can be realized.

As a computational complexity theorist, I would like to consider a different and perhaps more important question: Are quantum computers useful? In other words, even if we can build reasonable quantum machines, will they actually help us solve important computational problems not attainable by traditional machines. Realize that the jury is still out on this issue. Grover’s algorithm \[Gro96\] gives only a quadratic speed-up, which means that a quantum machine will have to approach speeds of a traditional computer (on the order of a trillion operations per second) before Grover overtakes brute-force searching.

Shor’s quantum algorithms for factoring and discrete logarithm \[Sho97\] give us better examples. Here we achieve an exponential speed-up from the best known probabilistic algorithms. Factoring alone does not make quantum computing useful. Consider the following paragraph from Shor’s famous paper \[Sho97, p. 1506\]:

> Discrete logarithms and factoring are not in themselves widely useful problems. They have become useful only because they have been found to be crucial for public-key cryptography, and this application is in turn possible only because they have been presumed to be difficult. This is also true of the generalizations of Boneh and Lipton \[BL95\] of these algorithms. If the only uses of quantum computation remain discrete logarithms and factoring, it will likely become a special-purpose technique whose only raison d’etre is to thwart public key cryptosystems.

How useful can quantum computing be? What is the computational complexity of $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$, the class of efficiently quantum computable problems. Does $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$ contain $`\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}`$-complete problems like graph 3-colorability? What is the relationship of $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$ and other more traditional complexity classes like the polynomial-time hierarchy?

These questions are well suited for computational complexity theorists. Many researchers though shy away from quantum complexity as it appears that a deep knowledge of physics is necessary to understand $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$. Also most papers use a strange form of notation that make their results appear more difficult than they really are.

This paper argues that one can think about $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$ as just a regular complexity class, not conceptually much different than its probabilistic cousin $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐏𝐏}`$. We develop a way of looking at computation as matrix multiplications and exhibit some immediate effects of this formulation. We show that $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$ is a rather robust complexity class that has much in common with other classes. We argue that $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐏𝐏}`$ exhibit much of the same behavior particularly in their ability to do searching and hiding of information.

While this paper does not assume any knowledge of physics, we do recommend a familiarity with basic notions of complexity theory as described in Balcázar, Díaz and Gabarró \[BDG88\].

## 2 Computation as Matrix Multiplication

Consider a multitape deterministic Turing machine $`M`$ that uses $`t(n)`$ time and $`s(n)`$ space. Let us also fix some input $`x`$ in $`\{0,1\}^n`$ and let $`t=t(n)`$ and $`s=s(n)`$. We will assume $`t(n)n`$ and $`s(n)\mathrm{log}n`$ are fully time and space constructible respectively. We will always have $`t(n)s(n)2^{O(t(n))}`$.

Recall that a configuration $`c`$ of machine $`M`$ on input $`x`$ consists of the contents of the work tapes, tape pointers and current state. We will let $`C`$ be the number of all configurations of $`M`$ on input $`x`$. Note that a read-only input tape is not considered as part of the configuration and thus we have $`C=2^{O(s)}`$.

For most of the paper, we will refer to the polynomial-time case, where $`t(n)=n^{O(1)}`$ and $`s(n)=2^{t(n)}=2^{n^{O(1)}}`$.

Fix an input $`x`$. Let $`c_I`$ be the initial configuration of $`M(x)`$. We can assume without loss of generality that $`M`$ has exactly one accepting configuration $`c_A`$ and that once $`M`$ enters $`c_A`$ it remains in $`c_A`$.

Define a $`C\times C`$ transition matrix $`T`$ from the description of the transition function of $`M`$. Let $`T(c_a,c_b)=1`$ if one can get from $`c_a`$ to $`c_b`$ in one step and $`T(c_a,c_b)=0`$ otherwise.

###### Observation 2.1

For any two configurations $`c_a`$ and $`c_b`$, $`T^r(c_a,c_b)=1`$ if and only if $`M`$ on input $`x`$ in configuration $`c_a`$ when run for $`r`$ steps will be in configuration $`c_b`$.

In particular we have that $`M(x)`$ accepts if and only if $`T^t(c_I,c_A)=1`$.

Now what happens if we allow $`M`$ to be a nondeterministic machine. Let us formally describe how the transition function $`\delta `$ works for a $`k`$-tape machine (along the lines of Hopcroft and Ullman \[HU79\]).

$$\delta :Q\times \mathrm{\Sigma }\times \mathrm{\Gamma }^k\times Q\times \mathrm{\Gamma }^k\times \{L,R\}^{k+1}\{0,1\}$$

Here $`Q`$ is the set of states, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the input alphabet and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the tape alphabet. The transition function $`\delta (q,a,b_1,\mathrm{},b_k,p,c_1,\mathrm{},c_k,d_0,d_1,\mathrm{},d_k)`$ takes the value one if the transition from state $`q`$ looking at input bit $`a`$ and work tape bits $`b_1`$, $`b_2`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`b_k`$ moving to state $`p`$, writing $`c_1`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`c_k`$ on the work tapes, moving the input head in the direction $`d_0`$ and the tape heads in directions $`d_1`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`d_k`$ respectively is legal.

This $`\delta `$ function yields again a transition matrix $`T`$ in the obvious way: If it is possible to reach $`c_b`$ from $`c_a`$ in one step then $`T(c_a,c_b)=1`$. If it is not possible to go from $`c_a`$ to $`c_b`$ in one transition then $`T(c_a,c_b)=0`$.

A few notes about the matrix $`T`$: Most entries are zero. For polynomial-time computation, given $`c_a`$, $`c_b`$ and $`x`$ one can in polynomial-time compute $`T(c_a,c_b)`$, even though the whole transition matrix is too big to write down in polynomial-time.

Observation 2.1 has a simple generalization:

###### Observation 2.2

For any two configurations $`c_a`$ and $`c_b`$, $`T^r(c_a,c_b)`$ is the number of computation paths from $`c_a`$ to $`c_b`$ of length $`r`$.

We now have that $`M`$ on input $`x`$ accepts if and only if $`T^t(c_I,c_A)>0`$.

We can define $`\mathrm{\#}M(x)=T^t(c_I,c_A)`$ as the number of accepting paths of machine $`M`$ on input $`x`$.

For polynomial-time machines this yields the $`\mathrm{\#}𝐏`$ functions first defined by Valiant \[Val79\].

Now interesting events happen when we allow our $`\delta `$ function to take on nonbinary values. First let us consider $`\delta `$ taking on nonnegative integers. We get a further generalization of Observations 2.1 and 2.2:

###### Observation 2.3

The value of $`T^r(c_a,c_b)`$ is the sum over all computation paths from $`c_a`$ to $`c_b`$ of the product of the values of $`\delta `$ over each transition on the path.

What kind of functions do we get from $`T^t(c_I,c_A)`$ for polynomial-time machines? We still get exactly the $`\mathrm{\#}𝐏`$ functions. Suppose that we have a $`T(c_a,c_b)=k`$. We simply create a new nondeterministic Turing machine that will have $`k`$ computation paths, of length about $`\mathrm{log}k`$, from $`c_a`$ to $`c_b`$. This will only increase the running time by a constant factor.

Now suppose we allow our $`\delta `$ function to take on nonnegative rational values. Remember that the $`\delta `$ function is a finite object independent of the input. Let $`v`$ be the least common multiple of the denominators of all the possible values of the $`\delta `$ function. Define $`\delta _{}=v\delta `$. Let $`T`$ and $`T_{}`$ be the corresponding matrices for $`\delta `$ and $`\delta _{}`$ respective. Note $`T_{}=vT`$.

The values $`T_{}^t`$ still capture the $`\mathrm{\#}𝐏`$ functions. We also have $`T^t=T_{}^t/v^t`$. Since $`v^t`$ is easily computable this does not give us much more power than before.

We can use a restricted version of this model to capture probabilistic machines. Probabilistic machines have

$$\delta :Q\times \mathrm{\Sigma }\times \mathrm{\Gamma }^k\times Q\times \mathrm{\Gamma }^k\times \{L,R\}^{k+1}[0,1]$$

with the added restriction that for any fixed values of $`q`$, $`a`$ and $`b_1,\mathrm{},b_k`$,

$$\underset{p,c_1,\mathrm{},c_k,d_0,d_1,\mathrm{},d_k}{}\delta (q,a,b_1,\mathrm{},b_k,p,c_1,\mathrm{},c_k,d_0,d_1,\mathrm{},d_k)=1.$$

What does this do to the matrices $`T`$? Every row of $`T`$ sums up to exactly one and its entries are all range in between zero and one, i.e., the matrices are stochastic. Note also that stochastic matrices preserve the $`L_1`$ norm, i.e., for every vector $`u`$, $`L_1(uT)=L_1(u)`$. These observations will be useful to us as we try to understand quantum computation.

Now $`T^t(c_I,c_A)`$ computes exactly the probability of acceptance of our probabilistic machine. Keep in mind that $`T`$ still is mostly zero and although the matrix $`T`$ is exponential size, the entries are easily computable given the indices.

We can define the class $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐏𝐏}`$: A language $`L`$ is in $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐏𝐏}`$ if there is a probabilistic matrix $`T`$ as described above and a polynomial $`t`$ such that

* For $`x`$ in $`L`$, we have $`T^t(c_I,c_A)2/3`$.
* For $`x`$ not in $`L`$, we have $`T^t(c_I,c_A)1/3`$.

Using standard repetition tricks to reduce the error we can replace $`2/3`$ and $`1/3`$ above with $`12^{p(|x|)}`$ and $`2^{p(|x|)}`$ for any polynomial $`p`$.

Let us make some variations to the probabilistic model. First let us allow $`\delta `$ to take on arbitrary rational values including negative values. Since the value $`T^t`$ may be negative we will use $`(T^t(c_I,c_A))^2`$ as our “probability of acceptance”. Finally instead of preserving the $`L_1`$ norm, we preserve the $`L_2`$ norm instead. That is for every vector $`u`$, we have

$$L_2(T(u))=L_2(u)=\sqrt{\underset{a}{}u_a^2}.$$

Unlike the $`L_1`$ norm, preserving the $`L_2`$ norm is a global condition, we cannot just require that the squares of the values of the $`\delta `$ function add up to one. Matrices that preserve the $`L_2`$ norm are called unitary.

This model looks strange but still rather simple. Yet this model captures exactly the power of quantum computing!

We can define the class $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$: A language $`L`$ is in $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$ if there is a quantum matrix $`T`$ as described above and a polynomial $`t`$ such that

* For $`x`$ in $`L`$, we have $`(T^t(c_I,c_A))^22/3`$.
* For $`x`$ not in $`L`$, we have $`(T^t(c_I,c_A))^21/3`$.

## 3 Questions

For those who have seen quantum computing talks in the past, many questions may come up.

### 3.1 Where’s the physics?

The presentation of quantum computing above is based mostly on the computation model developed by Bernstein and Vazirani \[BV97\]. We have presented the model here as another complexity model. It does however capture all of the physical power and rules of quantum computation.

Can one study quantum computation without a deep background in quantum mechanics? I say yes. I drive a car without much of a clue as to what a carburetor does. I can program a classical computer and do research on the computational complexity of these computers even though I do not have a real understanding of how a transistor works. I often do research on theoretical computation models such as nondeterminism that have no physical counterpart at all. Given a good model of a quantum computer, computer scientists can study its computational abilities without much knowledge of the physical properties of that model.

### 3.2 Where’s the $``$bra$`|`$ and $`|`$ket$``$ notation?

When researchers in two disciplines try to work they usually find that language forms a major wall between them. Not the base spoken language, but the notation and definitions each one assumes that every first-year graduate student in the field knows and follows. In quantum computing, generally physics notation has prevailed, leading to one of the major barriers to entering the area.

Physicists generally use the Dirac bra-ket notation to represent base quantum states. When computer scientists see this notation, it looks quite foreign and many assume that the complexity of the notation reflects some deep principles in quantum mechanics. Nothing could be further from the truth as the bra-ket notation represents nothing more than vectors.

The notation $`|010`$ is called a “ket” and represents the string $`010`$. In general $`|x`$ with $`x\{0,1\}^k`$ represents the string $`x`$. Concatenation is concatenation: $`|x|y=|xy`$. The strings of length $`k`$ form the basis of a vector space of dimension $`2^k`$. These basis vectors roughly correspond to the configurations described in Section 2.

Now, there is also a “bra” and various rules that apply when putting bras and kets together but these rarely come into play in quantum computing. For the interested reader there are many sources one can read on the subject such as Preskill’s lecture notes \[Pre98\].

Why does the simple looking notation cause such confusion for computer scientists? This notation does not conform to computer science conventions, particular to that of symmetry. When we consider vectors or other groupings of objects, computer scientists always use symmetric brackets such at $`8,3,4`$, $`[0\mathrm{}1]`$, $`(a+b)^{}`$ and $`|x|`$. When typical computer scientists look at a character like “$``$” or “$`|`$” that does not have a counterpart, they consider these as relational operators, making equations like

$`|\psi _1(y)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2^n}}}{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}(1)^{\delta _{x,y}}|x=|\psi _0{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{2^n}}}|y`$ \[BBBV97, p. 1514\] (1)
impossible even to parse.

As this paper suggests, one does not need to know Dirac notation to understand the basics of quantum computation. Unfortunately one is forced to learn it to follow the communication in the field.

If theoretical computer scientists collaborate then they must learn . It does not matter if they like some other mathematical document software, they have to use if they wish to write papers with other computer scientists.

Likewise if you want to truly study quantum computation you will need to learn the Dirac notation. One can easily develop more natural notation for computer scientists but we have already lost the battle. Eventually the notation becomes easier to parse and follow and formulas like Equation (1) seem almost normal. I find it a shame though that computer scientists find it difficult to go to talks on quantum computing not so much because of the complexity of the subject matter but because of the abnormal notation.

### 3.3 Don’t we need arbitrary real and complex numbers to do quantum computation?

In short no. The physics definition allows arbitrary real and complex entries as long as the matrices are unitary. This by itself limits the values to have absolute value at most one. But one can do much better.

If we allow all possible reals, $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$ can accept arbitrarily complicated languages \[ADH97\]. However this result feels like cheating—basically you encode hard languages directly into the entries of the matrix. Thus one requires knowing the language ahead of time to create the machine. A similar trick can also be played with probabilistic machines using noncomputable probabilities.

For fairness we should only allow efficiently computable matrix entries, where we can compute the $`i`$th bit in time polynomial in $`i`$. Independently Adleman, DeMarrais and Huang \[ADH97\] and Solovay and Yao \[SY96\] show that we can simulate a $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$ machine using efficiently computable entries from the set $`\{1,\frac{4}{5},\frac{3}{5},0,\frac{3}{5},\frac{4}{5},1\}`$. Or you can get away with fewer numbers if you don’t mind an irrational: $`\{1,\sqrt{2},0,\sqrt{2},1\}`$.

### 3.4 Don’t we have to require the computation to be reversible?

The matrix $`T`$ as well as any power of $`T`$ is unitary, i.e. it preserves the $`L_2`$ norm. For real valued matrices, $`T`$ is unitary if and only if the transpose of $`T`$ is the inverse of $`T`$. The reader should try the proof himself or it can be found in Bernstein and Vazirani \[BV97, p. 1463\].

In particular this means that $`T`$ is invertible. Even more so the inverse of $`T`$ is itself unitary. If you have a vector $`v`$ over the configurations that gives the value for each configuration, let $`w=T(v)`$. We then have $`T^1(w)=v`$. Given the current entire state of the system we can reverse it to get the previous state.

Don’t think of reversibility as a requirement of quantum computing rather as a consequence. Nevertheless keep in mind that in creating a quantum algorithm at a minimum you will need to create a reversible procedure.

### 3.5 What if there are many accepting configurations?

For traditional models of computation we can usually assume only one accepting configuration. We do this by a cleanup operation—after the machine decides to accept we erase the work tapes, move the head to the left and enter a specified final accepting state.

This procedure will not work for quantum computation since it is not reversible. Bennett, Bernstein, Brassard and Vazirani \[BBBV97\] show an interesting way to get around this problem: Compute whether the quantum machine accepts. Copy the answer to an extra quantum bit. Then reverse the whole process. The unique accepting state is now the initial state with this extra bit turned on.

### 3.6 Don’t we have to allow measurements?

Our formulation of $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$ does not appear to contain any measurements. In fact we are simulating a measurement at the end. A $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$ machine will output “accept” with probability equal to the sum of the squares of the values of the accepting configurations. We have only one accepting configuration so we need just consider $`(T^t(c_I,c_A))^2`$.

One could consider a process that allows measurements during the computation. Bernstein and Vazirani \[BV97\] show that we can push all of the measurements to the end. Basically measurements are linear projections and we can simulate a measurement by doing a rotation and taking one big projection at the end.

## 4 Full Robustness

Section 3 points to the fact that $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$ is quite a robust complexity class. Bernstein and Vazirani \[BV97\] show two more important facts: That $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$ can simulate any deterministic or probabilistic polynomial-time algorithm and $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}^{\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}}=\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$. In other words we can do quantum subroutines and build that directly into the quantum computation. The proofs of these facts are technically quite complicated but here a few points to think about.

Note that a deterministic computation might not be reversible but Bennett \[Ben89\] showed how to simulate any deterministic computation by a reversible computation with only squaring the computation time.

Flipping a truly random coin seems inherently nonreversible: Once flipped how does one recover the previous state? Quantum computing does have one nonreversible operation known as measurements. One can simulate truly random coin tosses using measurements, or as described in Section 3.6 simulating a measurement and doing it at the end.

From these results we can use that standard error reduction techniques to reduce the error in a quantum algorithm to $`2^{p(n)}`$ where $`p`$ is a polynomial and $`n`$ is in the length of the input.

Other complexity classes such as the zero-error version of $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$ (denoted $`\mathrm{𝐄𝐐𝐏}`$ or $`\mathrm{𝐐𝐏}`$) may not have some of the nice robust properties of Section 3 since approximating the matrix entries would no longer keep us in the class.

Space-bounded classes also lack some of the robustness of $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$. For example if we do not allow a measurement until the end even simulating coin flips becomes difficult: we cannot reuse the coins and keep reversibility. See Watrous \[Wat99b\] for a discussion.

## 5 Using This Formulation

Once you have the formulation of quantum machines described in Section 2, one immediately gets interesting results on quantum complexity.

### 5.1 $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐖𝐏𝐏}`$

Suppose we remove the unitary restriction in the definition of $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$ in Section 2. This yields the class $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐖𝐏𝐏}`$. Li \[Li93\] and Fenner, Fortnow, Kurtz and Li \[FFKL93\] defined and studied the class $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐖𝐏𝐏}`$ (stands for Almost-Wide Probabilistic Polynomial-time) extensively. They showed many interesting results for this class.

1. $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐖𝐏𝐏}\mathrm{𝐏𝐏}\mathrm{𝐏𝐒𝐏𝐀𝐂𝐄}`$, where $`\mathrm{𝐏𝐏}`$ is the set of languages accepted by a probabilistic polynomial-time Turing machine where we only require the error probability to be smaller than one-half.
2. The class $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐖𝐏𝐏}`$ is low for $`\mathrm{𝐏𝐏}`$, i.e., for any language $`L`$ in $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐖𝐏𝐏}`$, $`\mathrm{𝐏𝐏}^L=\mathrm{𝐏𝐏}`$.
3. If $`𝐏=\mathrm{𝐏𝐒𝐏𝐀𝐂𝐄}`$ then relative to any generic oracle $`G`$, $`𝐏^G=\mathrm{𝐀𝐖𝐏𝐏}^G`$. This implies that without any assumption there is a relativized world $`A`$ such that $`𝐏^A=\mathrm{𝐀𝐖𝐏𝐏}^A`$ and the polynomial-time hierarchy is infinite.
4. There exists a relativized world where $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐖𝐏𝐏}`$ does not have complete sets, in fact where $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐖𝐏𝐏}`$ has no sets hard for all of $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐏𝐏}`$.

Relativization results show us important limitations on how certain techniques will solve problems in complexity theory. For a background on relativization see the survey paper by Fortnow \[For94\].

Fortnow and Rogers \[FR99\] observed that $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}\mathrm{𝐀𝐖𝐏𝐏}`$ basically falls out of the characterization given in Section 2. From this we have several corollaries.

1. $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}\mathrm{𝐏𝐏}\mathrm{𝐏𝐒𝐏𝐀𝐂𝐄}`$ \[ADH97\]
2. The class $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$ is low for $`\mathrm{𝐏𝐏}`$.
3. There exists a relativized world where $`𝐏=\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$ and the polynomial-time hierarchy is infinite.
4. There exists a relativized world where $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$ has no complete sets, not even any sets hard for $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐏𝐏}`$.

### 5.2 Decision Trees

The oracle results mentioned in Section 5.1 follow from results on decision tree complexity that have interest in their own right. Consider the situation where we wish to compute a function from $`\{0,1\}^N`$ to $`\{0,1\}`$ where access to the input is limited as oracle questions. Here the complexity measure is the number of queries needed to compute the function, not the running time.

Beals, Buhrman, Cleve, Mosca and de Wolf \[BBC<sup>+</sup>98\] show how to vary the matrix model of Section 2 to create special linear transformations that describe a reversible oracle query. One can interleaves matrices describing these transformations with the unitary matrices given by the computation of the Turing machine.

Grover \[Gro96\] shows how to get a nontrivial advantage with quantum computers: He shows that computing the OR function needs only $`O(\sqrt{N})`$ queries although classically $`\mathrm{\Omega }(N)`$ input bits are needed in the worst case.

Bernstein and Vazirani \[BV97\] give a superpolynomial gap and Simon \[Sim97\] gives an exponential gap. Both of these gaps require that there are particular subsets of the inputs to which $`f`$ is restricted.

Beals, Buhrman, Cleve, Mosca and de Wolf \[BBC<sup>+</sup>98\] notice that the characterization given in Section 2 shows that any quantum decision tree algorithm making $`t`$ queries is a polynomial in the queries of degree at most $`2t`$.

Nisan and Szegedy \[NS94\] show that if a polynomial of degree $`d`$ on $`\{0,1\}^N`$ approximates the characteristic function of some language $`L\{0,1\}^N`$ then $`L`$ has deterministic decision tree complexity polynomial in $`d`$.

Combining these ideas, if there is a quantum algorithm computing a function $`f`$ defined on all of $`\{0,1\}^N`$ and using $`t`$ queries then there exists a deterministic algorithm computing $`f`$ using polynomial in $`t`$ queries.

## 6 Probabilistic versus Quantum

Often one hears of the various ways that quantum machines have advantages over classical computation, for example, the ability to go into many parallel states and that states can be entangled with each other. In fact often these properties occur in probabilistic computation as well. The strength of quantum computing lies in the ability to have bad computation paths eliminate each other thus causing some good paths to occur with larger probability. The ability for quantum machines to take advantage of this interference is tempered by their restriction to unitary operations.

Suppose you videotape a football game from the television. Let us say the teams are evenly matched so that either team has an equal probability of winning. Now make a copy of the tape without watching it. Now these videotapes are in some sense entangled. We don’t know who won the game until we watch it but both outcomes will be the same. I can take a videotape to Mars and watch it there and at the end I will instantaneously know the outcome of the game on the other tape.

Entanglement works quite differently for quantum computing. In particular the videotape model fails to capture quantum entanglement—no “hidden variable” theory can capture the effects of quantum entanglement (see a discussion in Preskill \[Pre98\]). However we should not consider entanglement to be of much help in the power of $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$.

When it comes to parallelism there is really no difference between probabilistic and quantum computation. Consider the value $`T^t(c_I,c_A)`$ expanded as follows:

$$T^t(c_I,c_A)=\underset{c_1,\mathrm{},c_{t1}}{}T(c_I,c_1)T(c_1,c_2)\mathrm{}T(c_{t2},c_{t1})T(c_{t1},c_A)$$

One can think of the vector $`c_1,\mathrm{},c_{t1}`$ as describing a computation path, the value

$$T(c_I,c_1)T(c_1,c_2)\mathrm{}T(c_{t2},c_{t1})T(c_{t1},c_A)$$

as the value along that path and the final value as the sum of the values over all paths.

Did this view of parallelism depend on whether we considered quantum or probabilistic computation? Not a bit.

Where does the power of quantum come from? From interference. For probabilistic computation the value

$$T(c_I,c_1)T(c_1,c_2)\mathrm{}T(c_{t2},c_{t1})T(c_{t1},c_A)$$

is always nonnegative. Once a computation path has a positive value it is there to stay. For quantum computation the value could be negative on some path causing cancellation or interference. This allows other paths to occur with a higher probability. The restriction of quantum computers to unitary transformations limits the applications of interference but still we can achieve some useful power from it.

### 6.1 Searching versus Hiding

Randomness plays two important but quite different roles in the theory of computation. Typically we use randomness for searching. In this scenario, we have a large search space full of mostly good solutions. Deterministically we can only look in a relatively small number of places and may miss the vast majority of good solutions. By using randomness we can, with high probability, find the good solutions. Typical examples include primality testing \[SS77\] and searching undirected graphs in a small amount of space \[AKL<sup>+</sup>79\].

However these randomness techniques appear to apply to only a small number of problems. Recent results in derandomization indicate we probably can do as well with deterministically chosen pseudorandom sequences.

We also use randomness to hide information. A computer, no matter how powerful, cannot predict the value of a truly random bit it cannot see. Hiding forms the basis of virtually all cryptographic protocols. Hiding also plays an important role in complexity theory. The surprising strength of interactive proof systems \[LFKN92, Sha92, BFL91, ALM<sup>+</sup>92\] comes from the inability of the prover to predict the verifier’s future coin tosses.

We have the same dichotomy between searching and hiding in quantum bits. For quantum searching we do not necessarily require that most paths have high probability. The use of quantum interference allows us to find some things with certain kinds of structure. Shor’s algorithms for factoring and discrete logarithm \[Sho97\] form the obvious example here.

While we do not expect that there exists any notion of quantum pseudorandom generators, at the moment we still only have a limited collection of problems where quantum search greatly helps over classical methods.

Quantum hiding, like its probabilistic counterpart, has a powerful effect on computation theory. Not only can no computer predict the value of a quantum bit not yet measured but the quantum bit cannot be copied and any attempt at early measurement will change the state of the quantum bit.

Quantum bits do have one disadvantage over probabilistic bits. When we flip a probabilistic coin the original state has been irrevocably destroyed. The reversibility of quantum computation prevents destroying quantum state. However, we can get around this problem by using classical probabilistic bits to determine how to prepare the quantum states. We can always get classical probabilistic bits by measuring an appropriate quantum state.

Quantum hiding in this manner gives powerful tools for quantum cryptography \[BBE92\] and quantum interactive proof systems \[Wat99a\] that go beyond what we believe possible with classical randomness.

## 7 Future Directions

Quantum computation is ripe for complexity theorists. There are still many fundamental questions remaining to be solved.

Is $`\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}`$ in $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$? While we probably cannot answer that problem directly we could show some unlikely consequences like the polynomial-time hierarchy collapses.

Does $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$ sit in the polynomial-time hierarchy? The only evidence against this comes from Bernstein-Vazirani \[BV97\]. In their paper they create a relativized world $`A`$ and a language $`L`$ that sits in $`\mathrm{𝐄𝐐𝐏}^A\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}^A`$ but not $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐏𝐏}^A`$. We cannot prove that $`L`$ sits in the polynomial-hierarchy relative to $`A`$. However the language $`L`$ does sit in deterministic quasipolynomial ($`2^{\mathrm{log}^{O(1)}n}`$) time and by an alternating Turing machine that uses only polylogarithmic alternations where these machines have access to $`A`$. So while we may find it difficult to show $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$ is in the polynomial-time hierarchy, we could show that every language in $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$ is accepted by some alternating Turing machine using polylogarithmic alternations and/or polynomial-time.

For such results we will need more than the fact than $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$ sits in $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐖𝐏𝐏}`$ as described in Section 5.1. Relative to random oracles $`\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}`$ is in $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐖𝐏𝐏}`$ and there exist relative worlds where an infinite polynomial-time hierarchy sits strictly inside of $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐖𝐏𝐏}`$. Somehow we will need to make better use of the unitary nature of the quantum transformations.

Shor’s algorithm shows that quantum machines can defeat many commonly used cryptographic protocols. Can we create one-way functions that no quantum machine can invert better than random guessing? Perhaps we will need such functions computed by quantum machines as well.

Maybe quantum relates to other classes out there? Is $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$ equivalent to the problems having statistical zero-knowledge proof systems? This seems far fetched but we have no evidence against this.

For further reading I recommend that the reader get a hold of SIAM Journal on Computing Volume 26 Number 5 (1997). Half of this issue is devoted to quantum computation and as one can see from the references it has many of the important papers in the area.

Preskill’s course notes \[Pre98\] give a detailed description of quantum computation from the physicists’ point of view. Books on the quantum computation are also starting to appear. An early book by Gruska \[Gru99\] gives a broad range of work on quantum computation.

## Acknowledgments

I wish to thank the organizers of the AQIP ’99 conference for inviting me to give the presentation and inviting me to write this paper based on that presentation for the special issue of the conference.

I have had many exciting discussions on these topics with several top researchers in the field including Harry Buhrman, Peter Shor, Charlie Bennett, Gilles Brassard and Dorit Aharanov. The opinions expressed in this paper remain solely my own.

Dieter van Melkebeek gave many useful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The nearby FR-I radio galaxy NGC 4261 (3C270) is a good candidate for the detection of free-free absorption by ionized gas in an inner accretion disk. The galaxy is known to contain a central black hole with a mass of $`5\times 10^8\mathrm{M}_{}`$, a nearly edge-on nuclear disk of gas and dust with a diameter of $`100`$ pc, and a large-scale symmetric radio structure which implies that the radio axis is close to the plane of the sky. At an assumed distance of 40 Mpc, 1 milliarcsecond (mas) corresponds to 0.2 pc. Previous VLBA observations of this galaxy revealed a parsec-scale radio jet and counterjet aligned with the kpc-scale jet (see Figure 1). The opening angle of the jets is less than $`20^{}`$ during the first 0.2 pc and $`<5^{}`$ during the first 0.8 pc. At 8.4 GHz we found evidence for a narrow gap in radio brightness at the base of the parsec-scale counterjet, just east (left) of the brightest peak which we identified as the core based on its inverted spectrum between 1.6 and 8.4 GHz (see the left part of Figure 2, from Jones and Wehrle 1997). We tentatively identified this gap as the signature of free-free absorption by a nearly-edge on inner disk with a width $`<<0.1`$ pc and an average electron density of $`10^310^8\mathrm{cm}^3`$ over the inner 0.1 pc.

## 2 Observations

We observed NGC 4261 at 1.6 and 4.9 GHz with HALCA and a ground array composed of 7 VLBA antennas plus Shanghai, Kashima, and the DSN 70-m Tidbinbilla antennas at 1.6 GHz (22 June 1999) and 8 VLBA antennas plus the phased VLA at 4.9 GHz (27 June 1999). During both epochs the VLBA antennas at St. Croix and Hancock were unavailable, as was the North Liberty antenna at 1.6 GHz. Data were recorded as two 16-MHz bandwidth channels with 2-bit sampling by the Mark-III/VLBA systems and correlated at the VLBA processor in Socorro. Both channels were sensitive to left circular polarization.

Fringe-fitting was carried out in AIPS after applying a priori amplitude calibration. For VLBA antennas we used continuously measured system temperatures, for the VLA we used measured $`\mathrm{T}_\mathrm{A}/\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{SYS}}`$ values with an assumed source flux density of 5 Jy, and for the remaining antennas we used typical gain and system temperature values obtained from the VSOP web site. Fringes were found to all antennas at 1.6 GHz except HALCA, but the signal/noise ratio to Shanghai and Kashima was very low and these data were not used. The a priori amplitude calibration for Tidbinbilla was dramatically incorrect for unknown reasons. We calibrated Tidbinbilla by imaging the compact structure of the source using VLBA data, then holding the VLBA antenna gains fixed and allowing the Tidbinbilla gain to vary. This produced a good match in correlated flux density where the projected VLBA and Tidbinbilla baselines overlap. At 4.9 GHz fringes were found to all antennas, including HALCA. A similar correction to the a priori amplitude calibration for HALCA and the phased VLA was applied.

In both observations we found that averaging in frequency over both 16-MHz channels in AIPS produced large, baseline-dependent amplitude reductions even though the post-fringe-fit visibility phases were flat and continuous between channels. Averaging over frequency within each 16-MHz band separately fixed this problem. Difmap was used for detailed data editing, self-calibration, and image deconvolution. Both 16-MHz bands were combined during imaging.

Imaging within Difmap used uniform weighting with the weight of HALCA data increased by a factor of 500. Several iterations of phase-only self calibration, followed by amplitude self calibration iterations with decreasing time scales, resulted in good fits ($`\chi ^21`$) between the source model and the data.

## 3 Results

### 3.1 1.6 GHz

Although our image at 1.6 GHz does not include data from HALCA, it does have more than twice the angular resolution of our previous 1.6 GHz image (Jones and Wehrle 1997) due to the addition of Tidbinbilla. The previous image showed a symmetric structure, with the jet and counterjet extending west and east from the core. No evidence for absorption is seen in this image. However, with higher resolution we do detect a narrow gap in emission just east of the core, at the base of the counterjet. The width of the gap is less than 2 mas.

### 3.2 4.9 GHz

We detected fringes to HALCA at 4.9 GHz when the projected Earth-space baselines were less than one Earth diameter. The HALCA data fills in the (u,v) coverage hole between continental VLBA baselines and those to Mauna Kea, and also increases the north-south resolution by a factor of two. Our 4.9 GHz image is shown in Figure 2. Note that the gap in emission is again seen just east of the peak. A careful comparison of brightness along the radio axis at 4.9 and 8.4 GHz shows that the gap is both deeper and wider at 4.9 GHz, as expected from free-free absorption. The region of the gap has a very inverted spectrum, the brightest peak (core) has a slightly less inverted spectrum, and the distant parts of both the jet and counterjet have steep spectra.

## 4 Summary

Our observations at 1.6 and 4.9 GHz appear to confirm the free-free absorption explanation for the sub-parsec radio morphology in NGC 4261. Measurements of the optical depth in the absorbed region and the distance between the absorption and the core as a function of frequency will allow the radial distribution of electron density in the inner parsec of the disk to be determined.

#### Acknowledgements.

We gratefully acknowledge the VSOP Pro-ject, which is led by the Japanese Institute of Space and Astronautical Science in cooperation with many organizations and radio telescopes around the world. This research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

## References

Jones, D.L. & Wehrle, A.E. 1997, ApJ, 484, 186


text:
# Neutrino Masses and Mixing at the Millennium*footnote **footnote *Talk presented at the 5th International Conference on Physics Potential & Development of μ⁺μ⁻ Colliders, San Francisco, December 1999.

## I Neutrino Counting

How many neutrinos are there? Neutrino counting at LEP of $`Z\nu \overline{\nu }`$ decays obtains $`N_\nu =3`$ active flavors — the expected $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$. However, light isosinglet, right-handed “sterile” neutrinos with no gauge boson interactions could also exist. Big Bang Nucleosynthesis determines the equivalent number of massless neutrinos at the time of nucleosynthesis. The bounds inferred ($`N_\nu <3.2`$burles , $`N_\nu <4`$lisi , $`N_\nu <5.3`$olive ) depend on which measurements of the 4He and D/H abundances are used in the analysis. Neutrino oscillation phenomenology for $`N_\nu =3`$ and $`N_\nu =4`$ is very different and both options need to be considered at present.

## II Neutrino Masses

Tree-level mass generation occurs through the Higgs mechanism. The Dirac mass $`m_D`$ arises in a lepton conserving ($`\mathrm{\Delta }L=0`$) interaction (see Fig. 1) and requires a right-handed neutrino. A Majorana mass $`m_M`$ occurs through a $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=2`$ process with only a left-handed light neutrino field and a heavy isosinglet intermediate field $`N^c`$. Then the see-saw mechanismseesaw  with $`m_D10^2`$ GeV and $`m_M>10^{12}`$ GeV generates light neutrinos

$$m_\nu =\frac{m_D^2}{m_M}$$
(1)
that are nearly Majorana. In the case that $`m_Dm_M\mathrm{eV}`$, as can be realized in some modelslangacker ; BLLP , active–sterile neutrino oscillations can take place.

Neutrino mass can alternatively be generated radiatively by new interactionsRMreview , such as the $`R`$-parity violating $`\nu b\stackrel{~}{b}`$ interactiondrees , as illustrated in Fig. 2.

## III Three-Neutrino Oscillatons

The relation of the three-neutrino flavor eigenstates to the mass eigenstates is

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ \nu _\mu \\ \mu _\tau \end{array}\right)=U\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _1\\ \nu _2\\ \nu _3\end{array}\right),$$
(2)
where $`U`$ is the $`3\times 3`$ Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (MNS) mixing matrixMNS . It can be parametrized by

$`U`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{13}c_{12}& c_{13}s_{12}& s_{13}e^{i\delta }\\ c_{23}s_{12}s_{13}s_{23}c_{12}e^{i\delta }& c_{23}c_{12}s_{13}s_{23}s_{12}e^{i\delta }& c_{13}s_{23}\\ s_{23}s_{12}s_{13}c_{23}c_{12}e^{i\delta }& s_{23}c_{12}s_{13}c_{23}s_{12}e^{i\delta }& c_{13}c_{23}\end{array}\right)`$ (10)
$`\times \left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{i\varphi _2}& 0\\ 0& 0& e^{i(\varphi _3+\delta )}\end{array}\right)`$
where $`c_{ij}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij}`$ and $`s_{ij}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{ij}`$. The extra diagonal phases are present for Majorana neutrinos but do not affect oscillation phenomena.

With three neutrinos there are two independent $`\delta m^2`$ and $`\delta m_a^2\delta m_b^2`$ is indicated by the oscillation evidence. The vacuum oscillation probabilities are

$$P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta )=A_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_aB_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_b+ϵ_{\alpha \beta }J\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Delta }_b,$$
(11)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_a\delta m_a^2L/4E_\nu `$. $`A_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the amplitude of the leading oscillation, $`B_{\alpha \beta }`$ the amplitude of the sub-leading oscillation and $`J`$ the CP-violating amplitude; all are determined by the $`U`$ matrix elements. The physical variable is $`L/E_\nu `$, where $`L`$ is the baseline from source to detector and $`E_\nu `$ is the neutrino energy.

## IV Matter Effects

In matter, $`\nu _e`$ scatter differently from $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$wolf , and the effective neutrino mixing amplitude in matter can be very different from the vacuum amplitudeBPPW ; MS . For the leading oscillation the matter and vacuum oscillation mixings are related in the approximation of constant matter density by

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}^m=\frac{\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}}{\left(\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{13}A/\delta m_a^2\right)^2+\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}},$$
(12)
where

$$A=2\sqrt{2}G_FY_e\rho (x)E_\nu .$$
(13)
Here $`Y_e`$ is the electron fraction and $`\rho (x)`$ is the density at path-length $`x`$. The $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ (or $`\nu _e\nu _\tau `$) oscillation argument in matter of constant density is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_a^m=\frac{1.27\delta m_a^2(\mathrm{eV}^2)L(\mathrm{km})}{E_\nu (\mathrm{GeV})}\sqrt{\left(\frac{A}{\delta m_a^2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{13}\right)^2+\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}}.$$
(14)
Resonance enhancements of the oscillation amplitude are possible for $`\delta m_a^2>0`$, while suppression occurs for $`\delta m_a^2<0`$. It is significant that the resonant energies correspond to neutrino energies relevant to the atmospheric and solar anomalies.

$`\mathrm{Earth}:`$ $`E_\nu 15\mathrm{GeV}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_a^2}{3.5\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1.5\mathrm{gm}/\mathrm{cm}^3}{\rho Y_e}}\right)`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{Sun}:`$ $`E_\nu 10\mathrm{MeV}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_b^2}{10^5\mathrm{eV}^2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{10\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^3}{\rho Y_e}}\right).`$ (16)
## V Atmospheric Neutrino Oscillations

The Kamiokande, SuperKamiokande (SuperK), Macro and Soudan atmospheric neutrino measurementsatmos1 ; atmos2  show a $`\mu /e`$ ratio that is about 0.6 of expectations. The SuperK experimentatmos1  has established the dependence of the $`e`$ and $`\mu `$ event rates on zenith angle, or equivalently the baseline $`L`$ (see Fig. 3). $`N(e)`$ is independent of $`L`$ and validates the $`\nu _e`$ flux calculation (within 20%). $`N(\mu )`$ depletion increases with $`L`$. The muon event distributions are will described by $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ vacuum oscillations with a $`\nu _\mu `$ survival probability

$$P(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )=1A_{\mu \tau }\mathrm{sin}^2(1.27\delta m_a^2L/E_\nu )$$
(17)
with $`\delta m_a^2=3.5\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ and maximal or near maximal amplitude

$$A_{\mu \tau }=1_{0.2}^{+0.0}(i.e.,|\theta _{32}45^{}|<13^{}).$$
(18)
With further data accumulationkajita  a slightly lower central value is now indicated ($`\delta m_a^2=2.8\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$). The $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations are not resolved due to smearing of $`L`$ and inferred $`E_\nu `$ values, and equally good fits to the SuperK data are found with oscillation and neutrino decay ($`\nu _2\overline{\nu }_4+J`$) modelsnu-decay , as shown in Fig. 5. A comparison of the unsmeared $`\nu _\mu \nu _\mu `$ probability versus neutrino energy for the oscillation and decay models is shown in Fig. 5. For now we assume the simplest interpretation of the SuperK data, namely oscillations. We note that in the CHOOZ reactor experiment $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ disappearance is not observed at the $`\delta m_a^2`$ scale and the corresponding constraint on 3-neutrino mixing for $`\delta m_a^2=3.5\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ is

$$A_{\mu e}<0.2,|U_{e3}|<0.23,\theta _{13}<13^{}.$$
(19)
## VI Long-Baseline Experiments

Long-baseline experiments are needednu-decay ; bernstein ; BGRW ; shrock ; freund ; rigolin ; camp ; CPV ; derujula ; moreCPV  to

1. confirm the atmospheric evidence for $`P(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )`$ at accelerators;
2. resolve the leading $`\nu _\mu \nu _\mu `$ oscillation and exclude the neutrino decay possibility;
3. precisely measure $`|\delta m_a^2|`$;
4. exclude $`\nu _\mu \nu _s`$ disappearance, although SuperK has now shown that oscillations to sterile neutrinos are excluded at 99% CLkajita ;
5. measure $`|U_{e3}|`$ from $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ appearance, which requires a muon decay source for the neutrino beam;
6. determine the sign of $`\delta m_a^2`$ from matter effects in the Earth’s crust;
7. search for CP violationfreund ; rigolin ; camp ; CPV ; derujula ; moreCPV .

The first long-baseline experiments will measure the energy dependence of the produced muons and measure the neutral-current to charged-current ratio, to partially address the first four issues listed above. The K2K experiment from KEK to SuperK is in operation, with a baseline $`L=250`$ km and mean neutrino energy $`E_\nu =1.4`$ GeV. The MINOS experiment from Fermilab to Soudan, with $`L=732`$ km and possible energies of $`E_\nu =3,6,12`$ GeV will begin in 2002. A 10% precision on $`|\delta m_a^2|`$ may ultimately be possible at MINOSthesis . The ICANOEicanoe  and OPERAopera  long-baseline experiments from CERN to Gran Sasso with $`L743`$ km have been approved.

## VII Neutrino Factories

Muon storage rings could provide intense neutrino beams ($`10^{19}\text{}10^{21}`$ per year) that would yield thousands of charged-current neutrino interactions in a reasonably sized detector (10–50 kt) anywhere on Earthnufactories . These neutrino factories would have pure neutrino beams ($`\nu _e,\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ from stored $`\mu ^+`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e,\nu _\mu `$ from stored $`\mu ^{}`$) with 50% $`\nu _e`$ or $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ components. Detection of wrong-sign muons (the muons with opposite sign to the charge current from the beam muon neutrino) would signal $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ or $`\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ appearance oscillations. We now discuss the capability of a neutrino factory with $`2\times 10^{20}`$ muons a year and a 10 kt detector to resolve the issues raised in the preceding section.

Figure 6 shows the precision attainable in $`\delta m_{32}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$ parameters through $`\nu _\mu `$ survival measurements based on an $`E_\mu =30`$ GeV storage ring and a baseline of $`L=2800`$ km. A statistical precision of a few % on $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$ is possible in $`\nu _\mu `$ disappearance measurements. This accuracy in measuring $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$ would differentiate the bimaximal model predictionbimax1 ; bimax2  of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}=1`$ from the democratic model predictiondemoc  of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}=8/9`$.

Figure 7 gives the tau-lepton yields at $`E_\mu =10`$, 30 and 50 GeV for baselines of $`L=732`$, 2800, and 7332 km in a 1 kt detector for an intensity of $`2\times 10^{20}`$ neutrinos. There would be hundreds of events per year from $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations; however, the signal of $`\nu _e\nu _\tau `$ would be difficult with the $`2\times 10^{20}`$ luminosity.

The wrong-sign muon event rates are approximately proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$. Figure 10 shows the predicted numbers of eventsBGRW  with $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}=0.04`$ for a 10 kt detector at $`L=2900`$ km with an intensity of $`2\times 10^{20}`$ neutrinos.

The observation of $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ appearance oscillations at baselines long enough to have significant matter effects will allow a determination of the sign of $`\delta m_{32}^2`$, and thus determine the pattern of the masses; see Fig. 10. A proof of the principle that the sign of $`\delta m^2`$ can be so determinedBGRW  is given in Fig. 10 for a baseline $`L=2800`$ km. In $`\mu ^+`$ appearance, $`\delta m_{32}^2>0`$ gives a smaller rate and harder spectrum than $`\delta m_{32}^2<0`$, while the results are opposite in $`\mu ^{}`$ appearance.

In optimizing $`E_\mu `$ and $`L`$ for long-baseline experiments to find the sign of $`\delta m_{32}^2`$, $`L=732`$ km is too short (matter effects are small) and $`L=7332`$ km is too far (event rates are low)BGRW ; rigolin . The sensitivity to determine the sign of $`\delta m_{32}^2`$ improves linearly with $`E_\mu `$. There is a tradeoff between energy, detector size and muon beam intensityBGRW . The $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ sensitivity on $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$ and sign $`\delta m_{32}^2`$ for a 10 kt detector is shownBGRW  in Fig. 11 for $`E_\mu =10`$, 30, and 50 GeV.

## VIII Solar Neutrino Oscillations

The solar neutrino experimentssolarexpts  sample different $`\nu _e`$ energy ranges and find different flux deficits compared to the Standard Solar Model (SSM)bahcall-sm  as follows:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\nu _e{}_{}{}^{71}\mathrm{Ga}{}_{}{}^{71}\mathrm{Ge}e\hfill & \begin{array}{c}\mathrm{GALLEX}\hfill \\ \mathrm{SAGE}\hfill \end{array}\hfill & \begin{array}{c}0.60\pm 0.06\hfill \\ 0.52\pm 0.06\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \nu _e{}_{}{}^{37}\mathrm{Cl}{}_{}{}^{37}\mathrm{Ar}e\hfill & \mathrm{Homestake}\hfill & 0.33\pm 0.03\hfill \\ \nu e\nu e\hfill & \mathrm{SuperK}\hfill & 0.47\pm 0.02\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
Thus the $`\nu _e`$ survival probability is inferred to be energy dependent.

Global oscillation fitssolardata  have been made using floating 8B and hep flux normalizations which are somewhat uncertain in the SSM. The relative normalizations from the fits range from 0.5 to 1.2 for the 8B flux and 1 to 25 for the hep flux. These global fits include the data on

1. total rates, assuming all the experiments are okay; the different Cl suppression ratio plays a vital role;
2. the night-day asymmetry, which is observed at the 2$`\sigma `$ levelkajita ; the large angle matter solution gives night rates $`>`$ day rates;
3. seasonal dependence beyond $`1/r^2`$, which can occur for vacuum solutions.

The oscillation analysessolardata  generally agree on the allowed $`\delta m_{21}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}`$ regions for acceptable solutions. Typical candidate solar solutions are given in Table 1. In the case of vacuum oscillations (VO) several discrete regions of $`\delta m_{21}^2`$ are possible.

## IX 3-Neutrino Mixing Matrix

Once the solar oscillation solution is pinned down, and $`\theta _{12}`$ is thus determined, we will have approximate knowledge of the mixing angles of the 3-neutrino matrix, with $`\theta _{23}\pi /4`$ and $`\theta _{13}0`$ from the atmospheric and CHOOZ data. Upcoming experiments are expected to shed light on the solar solution. In the SNO experimentSNO , which is now taking data, and the upcoming ICARUS experimenticarus , the high energy $`\nu _e`$ CC events may distinguish LAM, SAM, and LOW solutions with large hep flux contributions from the VO or the SAM sterile neutrino solutionsBKS99 . Also, the neutral-current to charged-current ratio will distinguish active from sterile oscillations. The Borexinoborex  experiment can measure the VO seasonal variation of the 7Be line flux7Be . The KamLand reactor experimentkamland  to measure the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ survival probability will be sensitive to the LAM and LOW solar solutionsmuray-kam .

The CP phase $`\delta `$ may be measurable at a neutrino factoryfreund ; rigolin ; camp ; derujula  if the solar solution is LAM. The CP violation comes in only at the sub-leading oscillation scale. The CP and T asymmetries for $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillations are

$`A_{\alpha \beta }^{CP}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta )P(\overline{\nu }_\alpha \overline{\nu }_\beta )}{P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta )+P(\overline{\nu }_\alpha \overline{\nu }_\beta )}},`$ (21)
$`A_{\alpha \beta }^T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta )P(\nu _\beta \nu _\alpha )}{P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta )+P(\nu _\beta \nu _\alpha )}}.`$ (22)
An apparent CP-odd asymmetry is induced by matter.

## X Models

For maximal mixing in both atmospheric and solar sectors, there is an unique mixing matrixbimax1

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}& 0\\ 1/2& 1/2& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ 1/2& 1/2& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right).$$
(23)
In this bimaximal mixing model, there would be no CP-violating effects. However, because $`U_{e3}=0`$, long-baseline experiments would have some sensitivity to the sub-leading LAM solar scale oscillations.

Many unification modelsRMreview ; king  predict that the neutrino masses are Majorana and hierarchical, there is no cosmologically significant dark matter, and the SAM solar solution (small $`\theta _{12}`$ mixing) obtains.

## XI Absolute Neutrino Masses

Oscillation phenomena determine only mass-squared differences, leaving the absolute mass scale unknown. However, because the atmospheric and solar $`\delta m^2`$ values are $`(1\mathrm{eV})^2`$, all mass eigenvalues are approximately degenerate if at the $`1`$ eV scale. Thus all neutrino mass eigenvalues are boundedBWW  by the tritium limit from the Troitsk and Mainz experiments,

$$m_j<3\mathrm{eV}\mathrm{for}j=1,2,3.$$
(24)
Neutrinoless double-beta decay (0$`\nu \beta \beta `$) provides a probe of Majorana neutrino mass0nbb  via the diagram in Fig. 12. The rate is proportional to the $`\nu _e\nu _e`$ element of the neutrino mass matrix. The present limit from the Heidelberg experimentbaudis  is

$$M_{\nu _e\nu _e}<0.2\mathrm{eV}\times f,$$
(25)
where the factor $`f`$ represents the theoretical uncertainty in the nuclear matrix elements, which might be as large as a factor of 3. The $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ limit translates to a bound on the summed neutrino Majorana masses ofBW99

$$m_\nu <0.75\mathrm{eV}\times f$$
(26)
in the SAM solar solution. No similar constraints apply to the LAM, LOW or VO solutions where the bound can be satisfied by having opposite CP parity of $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ mass eigenstates. Future sensitivity down to

$$|M_{\nu _e\nu _e}|=0.01\mathrm{eV}$$
(27)
is expectedfuture , which would provide sensitivity down to

$$m_\nu =0.08\mathrm{eV}\times f$$
(28)
in the SAM solution.

## XII Beyond 3 Neutrinos

The LSND evidence for $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillations with $`\delta m^21\mathrm{eV}^2`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta 10^2`$ requires a $`\delta m^2`$ scale distinct from the atmospheric and solar oscillation scales, and thus a sterile neutrino state would be needed to explain all the oscillation phenomena. Then to also satisfy limits from CDHS acceleratorcdhs  and Bugey reactorbugey  experiments, the mass hierarchy must be two separated pairsdoublets , as shown in Fig. 13. Such a scenario would allow even more interesting effects at a neutrino factory, such as large CP violationhattori , since both the leading and sub-leading oscillation scales would be accessible. The MiniBooNE experimentminiboone  will settle whether the LSND evidence is real. Other interest in sterile neutrinos comes from $`r`$-process nucleosynthesis if it occurs in supernovaebaha .

## XIII Neutrino Mass from Cosmology

Measurements of the power spectrum by the MAP and PLANCK satellites may determine $`m_\nu `$ down to $`0.4`$ eVcosmo . The heights of the acoustic peaks can also decide how the mass is distributed among the neutrino flavorsfalk , as illustrated in Fig. 14.

## XIV Summary

We have entered an exciting new era in the study of neutrino masses and mixing. From the SuperK evidence on atmospheric neutrino oscillations, we already have a surprising amount of information about the neutrino mixing matrix (near maximal $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$ and near minimal $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$). The SuperK, SNO, Borexino, KamLand, and ICARUS experiments are expected to differentiate among the candidate solar oscillation possibilities and determine $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}`$. MiniBooNE will tell us whether a sterile neutrino is mandated. Neutrino factories will study the leading oscillations, determine the sign of $`\delta m_a^2`$, measure $`U_{e3}`$, and possibly detect CP violation. The GENIUS $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ experiment and the MAP and PLANCK satellite measurements of the power spectrum will probe the absolute scale of neutrino masses. There is a synergy of particle, physics, nuclear physics, and cosmology occurring in establishing the fundamental properties of neutrinos. A theoretical synthesis should emerge from these experimental pillars.

## Acknowledgments

I thank my collaborators K. Whisnant, T. Weiler, S. Pakvasa, S. Geer, R. Raja, J. Learned, P. Lipari, and M. Lusignoli. This research was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG02-95ER40896 and in part by the University of Wisconsin Research Committee with funds granted by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.


text:
# Projectively Quantization Map

## 1 Introduction

Quantization procedure proposed in this paper is deals with the space of linear differential operators and the corresponding space of symbols viewed as modules over the group of diffeomorphisms $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$ and the Lie algebra of vectors fields $`\mathrm{Vect}(M).`$ This method of quantization have been introduced in the recent papers (, , ).

Let $`𝒟_{\lambda ,\mu }(M)`$ be the space of linear differential operators from the space of $`\lambda `$densities with the space of $`\mu `$densities. The corresponding space of symbols, $`\mathrm{Pol}_\delta (T^{}M),`$ is the space of polynomials on $`T^{}M`$ with values in the space of $`\delta `$densities, where $`\delta =\mu \lambda .`$

We call quantization map, a linear map

$$Q_{\lambda ,\mu }:\mathrm{Pol}_\delta (M)𝒟_{\lambda ,\mu }(M),$$
(1.1)
that is bijective and preserves the principal symbol (see , , ).

There is no quantization map (1.1) equivariant with respect to the action of the group $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$. It is natural to consider a subgroup $`G\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$ (of finite dimension) and to restrict the action of $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$ on the subgroup $`G.`$ There are two interesting cases:

If $`M=𝐑^n`$ is endowed with a flat projective structure, the quantization map is given in . This map is equivariant with respect to the action of the group of projective transformations $`\mathrm{SL}_{n+1}\mathrm{Diff}(𝐑^n)`$. If $`M=𝐑^n`$ is endowed with a flat conformal structure, the quantization map is given in , it is equivariant with respect to the action of the group of conformal diffeomorphisms $`SO(p+1,q+1)\mathrm{Diff}(𝐑^n),`$ where $`(p+q=n).`$ (See also , , , for the one dimensional case.)

A natural and well-known way to define a quantization map is to fix an affine connection on $`M`$ (see, e.g. ). However, there is no canonical quantization map associated to a given connection.

The purpose of this paper is to study the quantization map (1.1) between the space of second-order symbols and the space of second-order linear differential operators satisfying the following properties:

1. It is projectively invariant, i.e. it depend only on the projective class of the affine connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$

2. If $`M=𝐑^n`$ with a flat projective structure, this isomorphism is equivariant with respect to the action of the group of projective transformations $`\mathrm{SL}_{n+1}`$ (resp. infinitesimal projective transformations $`\mathrm{sl}_{n+1}`$).

The method used in this paper follows that of the recent preprint .

## 2 Space of linear differential operators

Let $`M`$ be a manifold of dimension $`n`$ endowed with an affine connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$ We are interested in defining a two parameter family of $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$module (resp. $`\mathrm{Vect}(M)`$module) on the space of linear differential operators. This space was recently studied in recent papers (, , , , , , , ).

### 2.1 Space of tensor densities

For simplicity, we assume $`M`$ oriented throughout this paper.

The space of tensor densities on $`M,`$ $`_\lambda (M),`$ or $`_\lambda `$ for simplify, is the space of sections of the line bundle $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }^nT^{}M)^\lambda ,`$ where $`\lambda 𝐂.`$ As a vector space, tensor densities are isomorphic to the space of complexified functions, but the structure of $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$-module is different. Let us explicit this action:

Let $`f\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$ and $`\varphi _\lambda .`$ In a local coordinates $`(x^i)`$, the action is given by

$$f^{}\varphi =\varphi f^1(J_{f^1})^\lambda ,$$
(2.2)
where $`J_f=\left|\frac{Df}{Dx}\right|`$ is the Jacobian of $`f`$.
In the case $`\lambda =0,`$ $`1`$, the action (2.2) is precisely the standard action of $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$ on the space of functions and differential forms of degree $`n`$ respectively.

Differentiating the action of the flow of a vector field, one gets the corresponding representation of $`\mathrm{Vect}(M).`$

$$L_X^\lambda (\varphi )=X^i_i(\varphi )+\lambda _i(X^i)\varphi ,$$
(2.3)
where $`X=X^i_i\mathrm{Vect}(M).`$

The formulæ (2.2), (2.3) do not depend on the choice of coordinates.

Let us now recall the definition of covariant derivative on tensor densities (cf. ).
Let $``$ be the covariant derivative associated to the affine connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$ If $`\varphi _\lambda `$, then $`\varphi \mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)_\lambda ,`$ given, in a local coordinates, by the formula:

$$_i\varphi =_i\varphi \lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }_i\varphi ,$$
(2.4)
with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{il}^l`$ (summation is understood on repeated indices).

### 2.2 Space of linear differential operators

Consider the space of linear differential operators acting on tensor densities

$$A:_\lambda _\mu .$$

The action of $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$ on $`𝒟(M)`$ depends on two parameters $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$. This action is given by the equation:

$$f_{\lambda ,\mu }(A)=f^{}Af_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1},$$
(2.5)
where $`f^{}`$ is the action (2.2) of $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$ on $`_\lambda `$.

Differentiating the action of the flow of a vector field, one gets the corresponding representation of $`\mathrm{Vect}(M).`$

$`L_X^{\lambda ,\mu }(A)=L_X^\mu AAL_X^\lambda ,`$ (2.6)
where $`X\mathrm{Vect}(M).`$

These formulæ do not depend on the choice of a system of coordinates.
Notation. Denote $`𝒟^k(M)`$ the space of $`k`$order linear differential operators. In a local coordinates $`(x^i),`$ one can write $`A𝒟^k(M)`$

$$A=a_k^{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}\frac{}{x^{i_1}}\mathrm{}\frac{}{x^{i_k}}+\mathrm{}+a_1^i\frac{}{x^i}+a_0,$$

with the coefficients $`a_k^{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}=a_k^{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}(x^1,\mathrm{},x^n)C^{\mathrm{}}(M).`$ We have then a filtration

$$𝒟^0𝒟^1\mathrm{}𝒟^k\mathrm{}$$

Denote by $`𝒟_{\lambda ,\mu }`$ the module of linear differential operators on $`M`$ endowed with the action of $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{Vect}(M)`$) given by (2.5) (resp. (2.6)). The space of $`k`$order linear differential operators, denoted by $`𝒟_{\lambda ,\mu }^k,`$ is a $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$-submodule (resp. $`\mathrm{Vect}(M)`$submodule) of $`𝒟_{\lambda ,\mu }.`$

###### Remark 2.1

The space of linear differential operators viewed as a module over the group of diffeomorphisms is a classical object (see e.g. ). For example, in the case $`M=S^1,`$ the space of sturm Liouville operators $`\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+u(x)`$ is viewed as a submodule of $`𝒟_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}}^2.`$ Also, the modules $`𝒟_{\frac{1k}{2},\frac{1+k}{2}}^k`$ was considered in .

## 3 Space of symbols

The space of symbols, $`\mathrm{Pol}(T^{}M),`$ is the space of functions on the cotangent bundle $`T^{}M`$ polynomial on the fibers. In a local coordinate system $`(x_i,\xi _i),`$ one can write

$$T=\underset{l=0}{\overset{k}{}}T^{i_1,\mathrm{},i_l}\xi _{i_1}\mathrm{}\xi _{i_l},$$

with $`T^{i_1,\mathrm{},i_l}(x^1,\mathrm{},x^n)C^{\mathrm{}}(M).`$

One defines a one parameter family of $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$module (resp. $`\mathrm{Vect}(M)`$module) on the space of symbols by

$$\mathrm{Pol}_\delta (T^{}M):=\mathrm{Pol}(T^{}M)_\delta .$$

Let us explicit this action.

Take $`f\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$ and $`X\mathrm{Vect}(M)`$. Then, in a local coordinates $`(x_i,\xi _i),`$ one has:

$`f_\delta (T)`$ $`=`$ $`f_{}T(J_{f^1})^\delta ,`$ (3.7)
$`L_X^\delta (T)`$ $`=`$ $`L_X(T)+\delta \mathrm{D}(X)T,`$ (3.8)
where

$$L_X=X^i_i\xi _j_i(X^j)_{\xi _i},\mathrm{D}(X)=_iX^i.$$

The space of symbols admits a graduation

$$\mathrm{Pol}_\delta (T^{}M)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{Pol}_{\delta ,k}(T^{}M),$$

where $`\mathrm{Pol}(T^{}M)_{\delta ,k}`$ are the homogeneous polynomials of degree $`k`$ on $`T^{}(M).`$ This graduation is $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$invariant.

Throughout this paper, we will identify the space of symbols with the space of symmetric contravariant tensor fields on $`M.`$

## 4 Flat projective structure and projectively equivalent connection

Let $`M`$ be a manifold of dimension $`n.`$ Recall two notions on projective geometry, the notion of flat projective structure and the notion of projectively equivalent connections (see ).

### 4.1 Flat projective structure

A manifold $`M`$ admits a flat projective structure if there exists an atlas $`\{\varphi _i\}`$ such that the local transformations $`\varphi _i\varphi _j^1`$ are projective transformations.

The most interesting case is when $`M=𝐑^n.`$ In this case, the group $`\mathrm{SL}_{n+1}`$ acts locally on $`𝐑^n`$ by projective transformations. Choosing a local coordinate system, the Lie algebra $`\mathrm{sl}_{n+1}`$ can be identified with the subalgebra of $`\mathrm{Vect}(𝐑^n)`$ generated by the vector fields:

$$_i,x^i_j,x^ix^j_j.$$

The projective Lie algebra $`\mathrm{sl}_{n+1}`$ is a maximal subalgebra of the Lie algebra of polynomial vector fields on $`𝐑^n`$ (cf. ).

### 4.2 Projectively equivalent connections

The notion of projectively equivalent connection is an old notion related to projective geometry of the “paths” studied by H. Weyl in  and T.Y. Thomas in . Weyl gives the following definition:
Two affine connection without torsion, with Christoffel symbols $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{jk}^i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i`$ given on the same system of coordinate $`x^1,\mathrm{},x^n`$, are projectively equivalent, if there exists a differential 1-form with components $`\omega _i,`$ such that

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{jk}^i=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i+\delta _j^i\omega _k+\delta _k^i\omega _j.$$
(4.9)
Geometrically, two affine connections without torsion projectively equivalent give the same unparameterized geodesics (cf. , ).

An affine connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is said to be projectively flat, if they can be written:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i=\frac{1}{n+1}\left(\delta _j^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_k+\delta _k^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_j\right).$$
(4.10)
A manifold $`M`$ endowed with an affine connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, admits a flat projective structure if and only if the connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is projectively flat (cf. ).

## 5 Main theorems

In this section, we will give the quantization map between the space of second-order symbols and the space of second-order linear differential operators. First, decompose the space of symbols into a direct sum

$$\mathrm{Pol}_{\delta ,2}(T^{}M)\mathrm{Pol}_{\delta ,1}(T^{}M),$$

where $`\mathrm{Pol}_{\delta ,2}(T^{}M)`$ is the space of symbols of degree 2, and $`\mathrm{Pol}_{\delta ,1}(T^{}M)`$ the space of symbols of degree less or equal 1. We will construct a quantization map on each of these spaces.

In the case of first order symbols, there exists a quantization map that commutes with the action of $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$ and $`\mathrm{Vect}(M)`$ (see , ).

###### Theorem 5.1

For any $`\delta 1,`$ the map $`Q_{\lambda ,\mu }^1:\mathrm{Pol}_{\delta ,1}(M)𝒟_{\lambda ,\mu }^1(M)`$ given by

$$Q_{\lambda ,\mu }^1(T)=T^i_i+\alpha _i(T^i)+T^0$$
(5.11)
where $`T=T^i\xi _i+T^0,`$ and

$$\alpha =\frac{\lambda }{1\delta }$$
(5.12)
is a projectively invariant isomorphism (i.e. it depends only on the projective class of the affine connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$)

Proof of Theorem 5.1. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ be a symmetric affine connection projectively equivalent to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$ Denote by $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\lambda ,\mu }^1`$ the quantization map written with the connection $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$. We must show

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\lambda ,\mu }^1=Q_{\lambda ,\mu }^1.$$

We need some formulæ (see ):
Recall the covariant derivative on the space of 1-order contravariant tensor fields: Let $`T^i`$ be a tensor, then one has:

$`_j(T^i)`$ $`=`$ $`_jT^i+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jl}^iT^l\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_jT^i.`$ (5.13)
Using the formulæ (4.9), (5.13) one obtains

$$\stackrel{~}{}_i(\varphi )=_i(\varphi )\lambda (n+1)\omega _i\varphi ,\stackrel{~}{}_i(T^i)=_i(T^i)+(1\delta )(1+n)\omega _iT^i.$$

Then after a straightforward calculation:

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\lambda ,\mu }^1(T)=Q_{\lambda ,\mu }^1(T)+(1+n)(\alpha (1\delta )\lambda )\omega _iT^i.$$

Hence $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\lambda ,\mu }^1=Q_{\lambda ,\mu }^1`$ if and only if $`\alpha `$ is given as in (5.12).

###### Remark 5.2

1. If $`M`$ is endowed with a flat projective structure, the isomorphism (5.11) is the unique provided it preserves the principal symbol (cf. ).
2. In the case $`\delta =1,`$ the modules are still isomorphic if $`(\lambda ,\mu )=(0,1).`$ This isomorphism is given by (5.11) with an arbitrary $`\alpha =0.`$

Let us give the quantization map on the space of homogeneous symbols of degree $`2.`$

###### Theorem 5.3

If $`n2,`$ for any $`\delta \frac{n+3}{n+1},\frac{n+2}{n+1},`$ there exists a projectively invariant isomorphism $`Q_{\lambda ,\mu }^2:\mathrm{Pol}_{\delta ,2}(T^{}M)𝒟_{\lambda ,\mu }^2(M)`$ given by

$$Q_{\lambda ,\mu }^2(T)=T^{ij}_i_j+\beta _1_jT^{ij}_i+\beta _2_i_j(T^{ij})+\beta _3R_{ij}T^{ij},$$
(5.14)
where $`T(\xi )=T^{ij}\xi _i\xi _j,`$ the coefficients $`\beta _1,\beta _2,\beta _3`$ are as follows

$`\beta _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2+2\lambda (n+1)}{2+(1+n)(1\delta )}}`$
$`\beta _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda (n+1)(1+\lambda (n+1))}{((1\delta )(1+n)+1)((1\delta )(1+n)+2)}}`$ (5.15)
$`\beta _3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda (\mu 1)(n+1)^2}{(1n)((1\delta )(1+n)+1)}}`$
and $`R_{ij}`$ denote the components of Ricci tensor of the connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$

###### Corollary 5.4

If $`M`$ is endowed with a flat projective structure then:

1. The isomorphism (5.14) has the following form:

$`Q_{\lambda ,\mu }(T)`$ $`=`$ $`T^{ij}_i_j+\beta _1_jT^{ij}_i+\beta _2_i_jT^{ij},`$ (5.16)
where the constants $`\beta _1,\beta _2`$ are as in (5.3).

2. It is the unique map equivariant with respect to the action of $`\mathrm{SL}_{n+1}`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{sl}_{n+1}`$) that preserves the principal symbols (cf. ).

Proof of the Theorem 5.3 Let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ be a connection projectively equivalent to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$ Denote by $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\lambda ,\mu }^2`$ the quantization map written with $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}.`$

We need some formulæ (see ):

The covariant derivative on the space of 2-order contravariant tensor fields reads:

$`_k(T^{ij})`$ $`=`$ $`_kT^{ij}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{lk}^iT^{lj}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{lk}^jT^{il}\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_kT^{ij}.`$ (5.17)
The second-order term in $`Q_{\lambda ,\mu }^2`$ reads:

$`T^{ij}_i_j`$ $`=`$ $`T^{ij}_i_j+(T^{jk}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i+2\lambda T^{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }_j)_i`$
$`+T^{ij}(\lambda ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_j+\lambda _i\mathrm{\Gamma }_j),`$
the first-order term in $`Q_{\lambda ,\mu }^2`$ reads:

$`_jT^{ij}_i`$ $`=`$ $`_jT^{ij}_i(T^{jk}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i+(1\delta )T^{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }_j)_i`$
$`+\lambda (_iT^{ij})\mathrm{\Gamma }_j\lambda T^{ij}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^k\mathrm{\Gamma }_k+(1\delta )\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_j),`$
and the zero-order part of $`Q_{\lambda ,\mu }^2`$ reads:

$`_j_jT^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`_i_jT^{ij}2(1\delta )(_iT^{ij})\mathrm{\Gamma }_j(_iT^{jk})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i`$
$`T^{ij}(_k\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^k+(1\delta )_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_j2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ik}^l\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jl}^k(12\delta )\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^k\mathrm{\Gamma }_k(1\delta )^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_j).`$
Now after calculation one has:

$`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\lambda ,\mu }(T)=Q_{\lambda ,\mu }(T)+[2\beta _2+(1+n)(\lambda \beta _1+2\eta _\delta \beta _2)]_iT^{ij}\omega _j`$
$`+[2\beta _12+(1+n)(2\lambda +\eta _\delta \beta _1)]T^{ij}\omega _j_i`$
$`+[(1+n)(\lambda +\eta _\delta \beta _2)+2\beta _2+(1n)\beta _3]T^{ij}_i\omega _j`$
$`+[(1+n)(\lambda \eta _\delta \beta _2)2\beta _2+\beta _3(n1)]T^{jk}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i\omega _i`$
$`+[(1+n)^2(\lambda ^2+\eta _\delta (\delta \beta _2\lambda \beta _1))+2(1+n)(\lambda (1\beta _1)+\delta \beta _2)+(n1)\beta _3]T^{ij}\omega _i\omega _j`$
where $`\eta _\delta =1\delta .`$

Hence, $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\lambda ,\mu }^2=Q_{\lambda ,\mu }^2`$ if and only if the constants $`\beta _1,\beta _2,\beta _3`$ are given as in (5.3).

Proof of the Corollary 5.4. In this case (see section 4.2), the connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be written, in the coordinates of the flat projective structure, in the form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^k=\frac{1}{n+1}(\delta _i^k\mathrm{\Gamma }_j+\delta _j^k\mathrm{\Gamma }_i).$$

Substituting this formula to the equations (5), (5), (5), and, finally to the map (5.4) one gets the expression (5.16).

The proof of the part 2) is given in .

Let us study the particular values of $`\delta `$ called “resonant”:

###### Proposition 5.5

In the resonant case $`\delta =\frac{n+2}{n+1},\frac{n+3}{n+1}`$, the modules are still isomorphic with the particular values of $`\lambda ,\mu ,\beta _1,\beta _2,\beta _3,`$ given in the table I bellow.

Proof of the proposition 5.5. Replace the particular values of $`\delta `$ in the formula (5). hence, $`Q_{\lambda ,\mu }^2=\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\lambda ,\mu }^2,`$ if and only if the constants $`\lambda ,\mu ,\beta _1,\beta _2,\beta _3`$ is given as in the table I.

###### Remark 5.6

In contrast with the non-resonant case, if $`M`$ is flat and $`\delta =\frac{n+3}{n+1},`$ the isomorphism is not unique. There is a family of isomorphisms with arbitrary constant $`\beta _2.`$

| $`\delta `$ | $`\lambda `$ | $`\mu `$ | $`\beta _1`$ | $`\beta _2`$ | $`\beta _3`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`{\displaystyle \frac{n+3}{n+1}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+1}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{n+2}{n+1}}`$ | $`2\beta _2`$ | . | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1n}}`$ |
| $`{\displaystyle \frac{n+2}{n+1}}`$ | $`0`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{n+2}{n+1}}`$ | $`2`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ |
| $`{\displaystyle \frac{n+2}{n+1}}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+1}}`$ | $`1`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1n}}`$ |

Table I.

It would be interesting to obtain an analogue of the formula (5.14) in the case of higher-order differential operators.

Acknowledgments. I am embedded to C. Duval and V. Ovsienko for the statement of the problem and numerous fruitful discussions.


text:
# FZJ-IKP(TH)-2000-09 The pion charge radius from charged pion electroproduction

\[

## Abstract

We analyze a low–energy theorem of threshold pion electroproduction which allows one to determine the charge radius of the pion. We show that at the same order where the radius appears, pion loops induce a correction to the momentum dependence of the longitudinal dipole amplitude $`L_{0+}^{()}`$. This model–independent correction amounts to an increase of the pion charge radius squared from the electroproduction data by about 0.26 fm2. It sheds light on the apparent discrepancy between the recent determination of the pion radius from electroproduction data and the one based on pion–electron scattering.
PACS nos.: 25.30.Rw, 14.40.Aq, 12.39.Fe
Keywords: Pion electroproduction, pion charge radius, chiral perturbation theory

\]

The charge (vector) radius of the pion is a fundamental quantity in hadron physics. It can essentially be determined in two ways. One method is pion scattering off electrons (or electron–positron annihilation into pion pairs), this leads a pion root–mean–square (rms) radius of

$$r_\pi ^2_V^{1/2}=(0.663\pm 0.006)\mathrm{fm},$$
(1)
if one insists on the correct normalization of the pion charge (vector) form factor, $`F_\pi ^V(0)=1`$ (in units of the elementary charge $`e`$). A more recent determination of the pion vector radius from low–momentum space– and time–like form factor data based on a very precise two–loop chiral perturbation theory representation gives

$$r_\pi ^2_V^{1/2}=(0.661\pm 0.012)\mathrm{fm},$$
(2)
consistent with the value given above. This number can be semi–quantitatively be understood in a naive vector meson dominance picture, $`r_\pi ^2_V^{1/2}=\sqrt{6}/M_\rho 0.63`$fm. The second method is based on charged pion electroproduction, $`\gamma ^{}p\pi ^+n`$. Here, $`\gamma ^{},p,n`$ and $`\pi ^+`$ denote the virtual photon, the proton, the neutron and the positively charged pion, in order. The unpolarized cross section in parallel kinematics decomposes into a transversal and a longitudinal piece.***For a textbook discussion on this issue, we refer the reader to Ref.. While the former is sensitive to the the nucleon axial radius, the latter is quite sensitive to the pion form factor, i.e. to the pion radius for small momentum transfer. A recent measurement at the Mainz Microtron MAMI–II led to a pion radius of

$$r_\pi ^2_V^{1/2}=(0.74\pm 0.03)\mathrm{fm},$$
(3)
which is a sizeably larger value than the one obtained from $`\pi e`$ scattering. It was hinted in Ref. that their larger value for the pion radius might be due to the inevitable model–dependence based on the Born term approach to extract the pion radius. It was also stated that there might be an additional correction obtainable form chiral perturbation theory as it is the case for the nucleon axial radius. Such a correction based on pion loop diagrams had been predicted in 1992 for the axial radius and was verified by the MAMI experiment to a good precision. A list of references pertaining to previous determinations of the nucleon axial radius from (anti)neutrino–proton scattering and pion electroproduction can be found in Ref.. Here, we show that there is indeed a similar kind of correction for the pion radius. This new term modifies the momentum dependence of the longitudinal S–wave amplitude $`L_{0+}^{()}`$ and leads one to expect an even larger pion charge radius than the one given in Eq.(3). It is conceivable that higher order corrections yet to be calculated or contributions from higher multipoles will completely resolve the discrepancy between the pion radius determined from $`\pi e`$ scattering on one side and from charged pion electroproduction on the other.

Chiral perturbation theory allows one to make model–independent statements based solely on the spontaneously and explicitly broken chiral symmetry of QCD. S–matrix elements and transition currents are systematically expanded in external momenta and quark (meson) mass insertions, collectively denoted by a small parameter $`q`$. Based on the underlying power counting, to a given order, one has to consider tree as well as pion loop graphs. Of particular interest are the so–called low–energy theorems, which give predictions to a certain order expressed entirely in terms of measurable quantities (a detailed discussion about this issue can be found in Ref.). Our starting point is the low–energy theorem for the longitudinal dipole amplitude $`L_{0+}^{()}`$, accessible in charged pion electroproduction.We use standard notation for the multipoles, the superscript refers to the isospin, the subscripts are $`l\pm `$, with $`l`$ the orbital angular momentum of the pion–nucleon system and the total angular momentum is $`j=l\pm 1/2`$. For a detailed discussion of the kinematics and multipole decomposition in pion electroproduction, see refs.. It has been derived from baryon chiral perturbation theory to third order in the chiral expansion and reads:

$`L_{0+}^{()}(\mu ,\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`E_{0+}^{()}(\mu ,\nu )`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{eg_{\pi N}}{8\pi m}}(\mu ^2\nu )\{{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _v}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{6}}r_A^2`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{(2+\mu )^2\nu }}{2(1+\mu )^{3/2}(\nu 2\mu ^2\mu ^3)}}`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu 2\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu }}\right)(F_\pi ^V(m^2\nu )1)`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{8\pi ^2F_\pi ^2}}\mathrm{\Xi }_4(\nu \mu ^2)\}+𝒪(q^3),`$ (8)
$`E_{0+}^{()}(\mu ,\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{eg_{\pi N}}{8\pi m}}\{1\mu +C\mu ^2`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`\nu \left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _v}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{6}}r_A^2\right)`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2m^2}{8\pi ^2F_\pi ^2}}\mathrm{\Xi }_3(\nu \mu ^2)\}+𝒪(q^3),`$ (11)
with

$`\mathrm{\Xi }_3(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\rho }}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{4}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\rho }}{2}}\right)`$ (12)
$`+`$ $`2{\displaystyle _0^1}\sqrt{(1x)[1+x(1+\rho )]}`$ (13)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{\sqrt{(1x)[1+x(1+\rho )]}}},`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{\Xi }_4(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{x(12x)}{\sqrt{(1x)[1+x(1+\rho )]}}}`$ (15)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{\sqrt{(1x)[1+x(1+\rho )]}}},`$ (16)
in terms of the dimensionless quantities $`\mu =M_\pi /m`$ and $`\nu =k^2/m^2`$, with $`M_\pi `$ $`(m)`$ the charged pion (nucleon) mass and $`k^20`$ the photon virtuality. Furthermore, $`\kappa _v=\kappa _p\kappa _n=3.71`$ is the isovector anomalous moment of the nucleon, $`F_\pi =92.4`$ MeV the weak pion decay constant, $`g_{\pi N}=13.4`$ the pion–nucleon coupling constant and $`C0.4`$ depends on some low–energy constants. Its precise form is not of interest here but can be found in Ref.. We remark that these expressions have been obtained in a relativistic version of baryon chiral perturbation theory and that some of the kinematical prefactors have not been expanded. However, since we are only after a leading order pion loop effect, the result will not be different from a heavy baryon analysis . For calculating higher order corrections consistently, one either has to use the heavy baryon formalism or the recently proposed infrared regularization . Note also that the dependence of $`L_{0+}^{()}`$ on the axial radius is very weak because the terms $`\nu r_A^2`$ cancel (that is why the axial radius discrepancy discussed before resides in the electric dipole amplitude). As announced, the pion vector form factor $`F_\pi ^V(k^2)`$ appears in the expression for the longitudinal multipole. The pion form factor has the following low–energy expansion,

$$F_\pi ^V(k^2)=1+\frac{1}{6}r_\pi ^2_Vk^2+𝒪(k^4).$$
(17)
Consequently, to separate the pion radius, one should consider the slope of the longitudinal multipole. For doing that, one has to expand the functions $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{3,4}(\nu \mu ^2)`$ in powers of $`k^2=\nu m^2`$ and pick up all terms proportional to $`\nu `$. This gives:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{L_{0+}^{()}}{k^2}}|_{k^2=0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{eg_{\pi N}}{32\pi m}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{mM_\pi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{13}{8m^2}}`$ (18)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}r_\pi ^2_V`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32F_\pi ^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{16}{\pi ^2}}1)+𝒪(M_\pi )\}.`$ (19)
The first four terms are standard , they comprise the conventional dependence on the pion vector radius, recoil effects and the dominant chiral limit behavior of the slope of the longitudinal multipole. The strong $`1/M_\pi ^2`$ chiral singularity stems from the $`k^2`$–derivative of the pion–pole term which appears already at leading order in the chiral expansion.

The last term in Eq.(18) originates from the so–called triangle and tadpole (with three pions coupling to the nucleon at one point) diagrams which are known to play a prominent role in pion photo– and electroproduction (see Fig. 1). The formal reason for the appearance of this new, model–independent contribution at order $`k^2`$ is that one cannot interchange the order of taking the derivative at $`k^2=0`$ and the chiral limit $`M_\pi 0`$. Consequently, all determinations of the pion radius from electroproduction (based on tree-level amplitudes including nucleon and pion form factors) have “measured” the modified radius,

$$\stackrel{~}{r}_\pi ^2_V=r_\pi ^2_V+\frac{3}{32F_\pi ^2}\left(\frac{16}{\pi ^2}1\right).$$
(20)
The novel term on the right–hand-side of Eq.(20) amounts to 0.266 fm2, a bit more than half of the squared pion rms radius, $`r_\pi ^2_V0.44`$fm2. Therefore, from the longitudinal multipole alone, one expects to find a larger pion radius if one analyses pion electroproduction based on Born terms,

$$\stackrel{~}{r}_\pi ^2_V=(0.44+0.26)\mathrm{fm}^2=(0.83\mathrm{fm})^2,$$
(21)
which is even larger than the result of the Mainz analysis, cf. Eq.(3). We point out, however, that the contribution of the pion radius to the derivative of the longitudinal multipole is a factor of ten smaller than the one from the first three terms in the curly brackets in Eq.(18). Therefore, a fourth order analysis is certainly needed to further quantify the “pion radius discrepancy”. Furthermore, the pion form factor contribution to the longitudinal cross section is also present in higher multipoles. In fact, it is known that the convergence of the multipole series for the pion pole term is slow. One should therefore also investigate such effects for these higher multipoles or directly compare the predictions of complete one–loop calculation with the data of the longitudinal electroproduction cross section. For the purpose of demonstrating the significance of chiral loop effects the $`k^2`$-slopes (considered here in Eq.(9) and in Ref. for $`E_{0+}^{()}`$) are, however, best suited. What we have shown here is that as in the case of the nucleon axial mean square radius, the pion loops, which are a unique consequence of the chiral symmetry of QCD, modify the naive Born term analysis and should be taken into account.