format: text

text:
# Qubit Entanglement Breaking Channels

## 1 Introduction

The preceding paper  studied the class of stochastic maps which break entanglement. For a given map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ this means that $`I\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is separable for any density matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on a tensor product space. It was observed that a map is entanglement breaking if and only if it can be written in either of the following equivalent forms

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}R_k\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{F}_\mathrm{k}\rho `$ (1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|\psi _k\psi _k|\varphi _k,\rho \varphi _k`$ (2)
where each $`R_k`$ is a density matrix and $`F_k`$ a positive semi-definite operator. The map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is also trace-preserving if and only if $`_kF_k=_k|\varphi _k\varphi _k|=I`$, in which case the set $`\{F_k\}`$ form a POVM. Henceforth we will only consider trace-preserving maps and use the abbreviations CPT for those which are also completely positive and EBT for those which are also entanglement breaking. An EBT map is called classical-quantum (CQ) if each $`F_k=|kk|`$ is a one-dimensional projection; it is quantum-classical (QC) if each density matrix $`R_k=|kk|`$ is a one-dimensional projection.

Maps which break entanglement can always be simulated using a classical channel; thus, one is primarily interested in those which preserve entanglement. Nevertheless, it is important to understand the distinction. In this paper we restrict attention to EBT maps on qubits, for which one can obtain a number of results which do not hold for general EBT maps. The main new result, which does not hold in higher dimensions, is that every qubit EBT map can be written as a convex combination of maps in the subclass of CQ maps defined above.

Before proving this result in Section 6, we review parameterizations and complete positivity conditions for qubit maps. We also give a number of more specialized results which use the canonical parameterization and/or the fact that positivity of the partial transpose suffices to test entanglement for states on pairs of qubits.

Recall that any CPT map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on qubits can be represented by a matrix in the canonical basis of $`\{I,\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\sigma _3\}`$. When $`\rho =\frac{1}{2}[I+𝕧\sigma ]`$, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )=\frac{1}{2}[I+(𝕥+\mathrm{T}𝕧)\sigma ]`$ where $`𝕥`$ is the vector with elements $`t_k=t_{0k},k=1,2,3`$ and $`\mathrm{T}`$ is a $`3\times 3`$ matrix, i.e., $`𝕋=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \mathrm{𝟘}\\ 𝕥& \mathrm{T}\end{array}\right)`$. Moreover, it was shown in  that we can assume without loss of generality (i.e., after suitable change of bases) that $`\mathrm{T}`$ is diagonal so that $`𝕋`$ has the canonical form

$`𝕋=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ t_1& \lambda _1& 0& 0\\ t_2& 0& \lambda _2& 0\\ t_3& 0& 0& \lambda _3\end{array}\right).`$ (3)
The conditions for complete positivity in this representation were obtained in  and are summarized in Section 4.

In the case of qubits, Theorem 4 of  can be extended to give several other equivalent characterizations.

###### Theorem 1

For trace-preserving qubit maps, the following are equivalent

* $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has the Holevo form (1) with $`\{F_k\}`$ a POVM.
* $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is entanglement breaking.
* $`\mathrm{\Phi }T`$ is completely positive, where $`T(\rho )=\rho ^T`$ is the transpose.
* $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has the “sign-change” property that changing any $`\lambda _k\lambda _k`$ in the canonical form (3) yields another completely positive map.
* $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is in the convex hull of CQ maps.

Conditions (C) thru (E) are special to qubits. Conditions (C) and (D) use the fact  that the PPT (positive partial transpose) condition for separability is also sufficient in the case of qubits.

## 2 Characterizations

In this section, we prove Theorem 1 and provide some results using the canonical parameters. This gives another characterization of qubit EBT maps in the special case of CPT maps which are also unital.

The equivalence $`(A)(B)`$ was proved in  where it was also shown that both are equivalent to the condition that $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is CPT for all $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ in a set of entanglement witnesses and that $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is CPT if and only if $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is. In the case of qubits, it is well-known that it suffices to let $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ be the transpose, which proves the equivalence with (C). Furthermore, changing $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }T`$ is equivalent to changing $`\lambda _2\lambda _2`$ in the representation (3), and is unitarily equivalent (via conjugation with a Pauli matrix) to changing the sign of any other $`\lambda _k`$ which yields $`(C)(D)`$. That $`(E)(A)`$ follows immediately from the facts that CQ maps are a special type of entanglement-breaking maps and the set of entanglement-breaking maps is convex by Theorem 2 of . The proof that shows $`(D)(E)`$ will be given in Section 6. QED.

The proof that (B) $``$ (A) given in  relied on the fact that there is a one-to-one correspondence  (but not a unitary equivalence) between maps $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and states

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }=(I\mathrm{\Phi })(|\beta \beta |)`$ (4)
where $`|\beta =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|00+|11)`$ is one of the maximally entangled Bell states. Moreover, a map is EBT if and only if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is separable since that was shown to be equivalent to writing it in the form (2). One could then apply the reduction criterion for separability  to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }`$. This condition states that a necessary condition for separability of $`\rho `$ is that $`\beta ,\rho \beta \frac{1}{d}`$ for all maximally entangled states. In the case of qubits, this criterion is equivalent to the PPT condition, and hence sufficient, and equivalent to $`\rho \frac{1}{2}I`$, which gives the following result.

###### Theorem 2

A qubit CPT map is EBT if and only if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{1}{2}I`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as in (4).

We now consider entanglement breaking conditions which involve only the parameters $`\lambda _k`$.

###### Theorem 3

If $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an entanglement breaking qubit map written in the form (3), then $`_j|\lambda _j|1`$.

Proof: It is shown in  that a necessary condition for complete positivity is

$`(\lambda _1\pm \lambda _2)^2(1\pm \lambda _3)^2.`$ (5)
When combined with the sign change condition (D), this yields the requirement $`|\lambda _1|+|\lambda _2|1|\lambda _3|`$. QED

For unital qubit channels, the condition in Theorem 3 is also sufficient for entanglement breaking. For unital maps $`𝕥=\mathrm{𝟘}`$ and, as observed in , the conditions in (5) are also sufficient for complete positivity. Since $`_j|\lambda _j|1`$ implies that (5) holds for any choice of sign in $`\lambda _k=\pm |\lambda _k|`$, it follows that any unital CPT map satisfying this condition is also EBT.

###### Theorem 4

A unital qubit channel is entanglement breaking if and only if $`_j|\lambda _j|1`$ \[after reduction to the form (3)\].

Moreover, as will be discussed in section 5 the extreme points of the set of unital entanglement breaking maps are those for which two $`\lambda _k=0`$. Hence these channels are in the convex hull of CQ maps.

For non-unital maps these conditions need not be sufficient. Consider the so-called amplitude damping channel for which $`\lambda _1=\alpha ,\lambda _2=\alpha ,\lambda _3=\alpha ^2,t_1=t_2=0`$, and $`t_3=1\alpha ^2`$. For this map equality holds in the necessary and sufficient conditions

$`(\lambda _1\pm \lambda _2)^2(1\pm \lambda _3)^2t_3^2.`$ (6)
Since the inequalities would be violated if the sign of one $`\lambda _k`$ is changed, the amplitude damping maps are never entanglement breaking except for the limiting case $`\alpha =0`$. Thus there are maps for which $`_j|\lambda _j|=2\alpha +\alpha ^2`$ can be made arbitrarily small (by taking $`\alpha 0`$), but are not entanglement-breaking.

## 3 A product representation

We begin by considering the representation of maps in the basis $`\{I,\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\sigma _3\}`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ have the form (1) and write $`R_k=\frac{1}{2}[I+𝕨^k\sigma ]`$ and $`F_k=\frac{1}{2}[u_0^k+𝕦^k\sigma ]`$. Let $`W,U`$ be the $`n\times 4`$ matrices whose rows are $`(1,w_1^k,w_2^k,w_3^k)`$ and $`(u_0^k,u_1^k,u_2^k,u_3^k)`$ respectively, i.e., $`w_{jk}=w_j^k,u_{jk}=u_j^kk=0\mathrm{}3`$. Let $`𝕋`$ be the matrix $`W^TU`$. Note that the requirement that $`\{F_k\}`$ is a POVM is precisely that the first row of $`𝕋`$ is $`(1,0,0,0)`$. The matrix $`𝕋=W^TU`$ is the representative of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the form (3) (albeit not necessarily diagonal). We can summarize this discussion in the following theorem.

###### Theorem 5

A qubit channel is entanglement breaking if and only if it can be represented in the form (3) with $`𝕋=W^TU`$ where $`W`$ and $`U`$ are $`n\times 4`$ matrices as above, i.e., the rows satisfy $`\left(_{k=1}^3u_{jk}^2\right)^{1/2}u_{0k}`$ and $`\left(_{k=1}^3w_{jk}^2\right)^{1/2}w_{0k}=1`$ for all $`k`$.

We can use this representation to give alternate proofs of two results of the previous section.

To show that $`(A)(D)`$ observe that changing the sign of the j-th column of $`U`$ $`(j=1,2,3)`$ is equivalent to replacing $`F_k`$ by the POVM with $`u_j^ku_j^k`$. The effect on $`𝕋`$ is simply to multiply the $`j`$-th column by $`1`$. The critical property about qubits is that the condition $`F_k>0`$ is equivalent to $`(_j|u_j^k|^2)^{1/2}u_0^k`$ which is unaffected by the replacement $`u_j^ku_j^k`$.

Next, we give an alternate proof of Theorem 3 which is of interest because it may be extendable to higher dimensions.

Proof: Let $`W,U`$ be as in Section 3. Then

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}|\lambda _j|`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left|{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}w_j^ku_j^k\right|`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}|w_j^ku_j^k|={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}|w_j^ku_j^k|`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}|w_j^k|^2\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}|u_j^k|^2\right)^{1/2}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}1u_0^k=1`$
where we have used the fact that $`|𝕨^k|1`$ and $`|𝕦^k|u_0^k`$. That $`_ku_0^k=1`$ is a consequence of the fact that the $`\{F_k\}`$ form a POVM. QED

We now consider the decomposition $`𝕋=W^TU`$ for the special cases of CQ, QC and point channels. If $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a CQ channel, we can assume without loss of generality that $`U=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$. Now write $`W=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 𝕨^1\\ 1& 𝕨^2\end{array}\right)`$. Then

$`𝕋=W^TU=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ & 0& 0& \\ \frac{𝕨^1+𝕨^2}{2}& 0& 0& \frac{𝕨^1𝕨^2}{2}\\ & 0& 0& \end{array}\right).`$ (7)
By acting on the left with a unitary matrix of the form $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \mathrm{𝟘}\\ \mathrm{𝟘}& \pm \end{array}\right)`$ where $``$ is a rotation whose third row is a multiple of $`𝕨^1𝕨^2`$, this can be reduced to the form (3) with $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2=0`$, $`|\lambda _3|=\frac{1}{2}|𝕨^1𝕨^2|`$, and $`𝕥=𝕨^1\left(\begin{array}{c}0,0,\lambda _3\end{array}\right)^T`$ \[since $`\frac{1}{2}(𝕨^1+𝕨^2)=𝕨^1\frac{1}{2}(𝕨^1𝕨^2)`$.\] Indeed, it suffices to choose

$`W=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& t_1& t_2& t_3+\lambda _3\\ 1& t_1& t_2& t_3\lambda _3\end{array}\right).`$ (8)
Note that the requirement $`|𝕥|1`$ only implies $`t_1^2+t_2^2+(t_3+\lambda _3)^21`$; however, the requirement $`|𝕨^k|1`$ implies that $`t_1^2+t_2^2+(t_3\pm \lambda _3)^21`$ must hold with both signs and this is equivalent to the stronger condition

$`t_1^2+t_2^2+(|t_3|+|\lambda _3|)^21`$ (9)
which is necessary and sufficient for a CPT map to reduce the Bloch sphere to a line.

If $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a QC channel, we can assume without loss of generality that $`W=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ and $`U=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}u_0& u_1& u_2& u_3\\ 1u_0& u_1& u_2& u_3\end{array}\right)`$, from which one easily finds that the second and third rows of $`𝕋=W^TU`$ are identically zero and the fourth row is $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}2u_01& 2u_1& 2u_2& 2u_3\end{array}\right)`$. One then easily verifies that multiplication on the right by a matrix as above with $``$ a rotation whose third column is a multiple of $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}u_1& u_2& u_3\end{array}\right)`$ reduces $`𝕋=W^TU`$ to the canonical form (3) with $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2=0`$, $`\lambda _3=2\sqrt{u_1^2+u_2^2+u_2^2}=|𝕦|\mathrm{min}\{2u_0,2(1u_0)\}1`$, and $`t_3=2u_01`$. (Note that $`t_3+\lambda _3|2u_01|+\mathrm{min}\{2u_0,2(1u_0)\}1`$ with equality if and only if the image reaches the Bloch sphere.)

It is interesting to note that for qubits channels, every QC channel is unitarily equivalent to a CQ channel. Indeed, a channel which, after reduction to canonical form has non-zero elements $`\lambda _3`$ and $`t_3`$ with $`|\lambda _3|+|t_3|1`$ and $`|t_3|<1`$ can be written as either a QC channel with

$`W=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)U=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1+t_3& 0& 0& \lambda _3\\ 1t_3& 0& 0& \lambda _3\end{array}\right)`$
or as a CQ channel with

$`W=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& t_3+\lambda _3\\ 1& 0& 0& t_3\lambda _3\end{array}\right)U=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).`$
For point channels $`W=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& t_1& t_2& t_3\end{array}\right)`$ and $`U=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$.

We conclude this section with an example of map of the form (1) with an extreme POVM, for which the corresponding map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is not extreme. Let $`E_k=\frac{1}{3}[I+𝕨^k\sigma ]`$ with $`𝕨^1=(1,0,0),𝕨^2=(\frac{1}{2},0,\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}),𝕨^3=(\frac{1}{2},0,\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2})`$. Then, irrespective of the choice of $`R_k`$, the third column of $`𝕋=W^TU`$ is identically zero, which implies that, after reduction to canonical form, one of the parameters $`\lambda _k=0`$. However, it is easy to find density matrices, e.g., $`R_k=\frac{1}{2}[I+\sigma _k]`$, for which the resulting map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is not CQ or point. But by Theorem 10, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a convex combination of CQ maps and hence, not extreme.

## 4 Complete positivity conditions revisited

Not only is the set of CPT maps convex, in a fixed basis corresponding to the canonical form (3) the set of $`\lambda _k`$ corresponding to any fixed choice of $`𝕥=(t_1,t_2,t_3)`$ is also a convex set which we denote $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝕥`$. We will also be interested in the convex subset $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝕥,\lambda _3}`$ of the $`\lambda _1`$-$`\lambda _2`$ plane for fixed $`𝕥,\lambda _3`$, and in the convex set $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{t_3,\lambda _3}`$ of points $`(t_1,t_2,\lambda _1,\lambda _2)`$ corresponding to fixed $`t_3,\lambda _3`$. Although stated somewhat differently, the following result was proved in .

###### Theorem 6

Let $`𝕥`$ and $`\lambda _3`$ be fixed with $`|t_3|+|\lambda _3|<1`$. Then the convex set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝕥,\lambda _3}`$ consists of the points $`(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)`$ for which $`IR_\mathrm{\Phi }^{}R_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (or, equivalently $`IR_\mathrm{\Phi }R_\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$) is positive semi-definite, where

$`R_\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{t_1+it_2}{(1+t_3+\lambda _3)^{1/2}(1t_3\lambda _3)^{1/2}}& \frac{\lambda _1+\lambda _2}{(1+t_3+\lambda _3)^{1/2}(1t_3+\lambda _3)^{1/2}}\\ & \\ \frac{\lambda _1\lambda _2}{(1+t_3\lambda _3)^{1/2}(1t_3\lambda _3)^{1/2}}& \frac{t_1+it_2}{(1+t_3\lambda _3)^{1/2}(1t_3+\lambda _3)^{1/2}}\end{array}\right).`$ (10)
Similarly, $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{t_3,\lambda _3}`$ also consists of the points $`(t_1,t_2,\lambda _1,\lambda _2)`$ for which $`IR_\mathrm{\Phi }^{}R_\mathrm{\Phi }0`$. Moreover, the extreme points of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{t_3,\lambda _3}`$ are those for which $`R_\mathrm{\Phi }^{}R_\mathrm{\Phi }=I`$.

Although this result is stated in a form in which $`t_3`$ and $`\lambda _3`$ play a special role and does not appear to be symmetric with respect to interchange of indices, the conditions which result are, in fact, invariant under permutations of $`1,2,3`$.

Theorem 6 follows from Choi’s theorem  that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is completely positive if and only if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }`$, given by (4), is positive semi-definite. As noted in , this implies that it can be written in the form

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Phi }(E_{11})& \sqrt{\mathrm{\Phi }(E_{11})}R_\mathrm{\Phi }\sqrt{\mathrm{\Phi }(E_{22})}\\ \sqrt{\mathrm{\Phi }(E_{22})}R_\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Phi }(E_{11})}& \mathrm{\Phi }(E_{22})\end{array}\right)`$ (11)
where $`R_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a contraction. (Note, however, that the expression for $`R_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ given in (10) was obtained by applying this result to the adjoint $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$, i.e, to $`(I\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }})(|\beta \beta |)`$.

Conversely, given a CPT map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and any contraction $`U`$ on $`𝐂^2`$, one can define a $`4\times 4`$ matrix in block form,

$`M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(E_{11})& \sqrt{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(E_{11})}U\sqrt{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(E_{22})}\\ \sqrt{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(E_{22})}U^{}\sqrt{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(E_{11})}& \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(E_{22})\end{array}\right)`$ (12)
It then follows that there is another CPT map which (with a slight abuse of notation) we denote $`\mathrm{\Phi }_U`$ for which $`(I\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }_U})(|\beta \beta |)=M`$. However, (12) need not, in general, correspond to a map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_U`$ which has the canonical form (3) since that requires $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(E_{12})=\sqrt{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(E_{11})}U\sqrt{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(E_{22})}=(t_1+it_2)I+\lambda _1\sigma _x+i\lambda _2\sigma _y`$. For $`U`$ an arbitrary unitary or contraction, we can only conclude that

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\sigma _x)`$ $`=\sqrt{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(E_{11})}U\sqrt{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(E_{22})}+\sqrt{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(E_{22})}U^{}\sqrt{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(E_{22})}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}}t_{1k}\sigma _k`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\sigma _y)`$ $`=\sqrt{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(E_{11})}U\sqrt{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(E_{22})}\sqrt{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(E_{22})}U^{}\sqrt{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(E_{22})}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}}t_{2k}\sigma _k`$
so that the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_U`$ corresponds to a matrix of the form $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ t_{10}& t_{11}& t_{12}& t_{13}\\ t_{20}& t_{21}& t_{22}& t_{23}\\ t_3& 0& 0& \lambda _3\end{array}\right)`$ with $`t_{jk}`$ real.

In order to study the general case of non-zero $`t_k`$, it is convenient to rewrite (10) in the following form (using notation similar to that introduced in ).

$`R_\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{\sqrt{c_{++}c_{}}}}& {\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _+}{\sqrt{c_{++}c_+}}}\\ {\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{}}{\sqrt{c_{}c_+}}}& {\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{\sqrt{c_+c_+}}}\end{array}\right)`$ (13)
where $`\lambda _\pm =\lambda _1\pm \lambda _2`$, $`\tau =t_1+it_2`$, and $`c_{\pm \pm }=1\pm \lambda _3\pm t_3`$, e.g., $`c_+=1+\lambda _3t_3`$. Then

$`IR_\mathrm{\Phi }^{}R_\mathrm{\Phi }M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{11}& m_{12}\\ m_{21}& m_{22}\end{array}\right)`$ (14)
with

$`m_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{|\tau |^2}{c_{++}c_{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\lambda _{}|^2}{c_{}c_+}}`$
$`m_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{|\tau |^2}{c_+c_+}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\lambda _+|^2}{c_{++}c_+}}`$
$`m_{12}=\overline{m}_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\tau }\lambda _+}{c_{++}\sqrt{c_{}c_+}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\tau \lambda _{}}{c_+\sqrt{c_{}c_+}}}`$ (17)
Note that the denominators, although somewhat messy, are essentially constants depending only on $`t_3`$ and $`\lambda _3`$. Considering $`\tau `$ as also a fixed constant it suffices to rotate (and dilate) the $`\lambda _1`$-$`\lambda _2`$ plane by $`\pi /4`$ and work instead with the variables $`\lambda _\pm `$.

The diagonal conditions $`m_{11}0`$ and $`m_{22}0`$ define a rectangle in the $`\lambda _+`$-$`\lambda _{}`$ plane, namely

$`|\lambda _{}|^2`$ $``$ $`c_{}c_+{\displaystyle \frac{c_+}{c_{++}}}|\tau |^2=(1\lambda _3)^2t_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{1\lambda _3+t_3}{1+\lambda _3+t_3}}|\tau |^2`$
$`|\lambda _+|^2`$ $``$ $`c_{++}c_+{\displaystyle \frac{c_{++}}{c_+}}|\tau |^2=(1+\lambda _3)^2t_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{1+\lambda _3+t_3}{1\lambda _3+t_3}}|\tau |^2`$ (19)
These diagonal conditions imply the necessary conditions

$`|\lambda _\pm |^2(1\pm \lambda _3)^2t_3^2`$ (20)
for complete positivity, which also become sufficient when $`\tau =0`$. The determinant condition $`m_{11}m_{22}|m_{12}|^2`$ is more complicated, but basically has the form

$`\left[ab\lambda _+^2\right]\left[cd\lambda _{}^2\right]e\lambda _+^2+f\lambda _{}^2+g\lambda _+\lambda _{}`$ (21)
In particular, we would like to know if the values of $`(\lambda _+,\lambda _{})`$ satisfying (21) necessarily lie within the rectangle defined by (4) and (19) . Extending the lines bounding this rectangle, i.e., $`m_{11}=0`$ and $`m_{22}=0`$ one sees that the $`\lambda _+`$-$`\lambda _{}`$ plane is divided into 9 regions, as shown in Figure 1 and described below.

* the rectangle in the center which we denote $`++`$,
* four (4) outer corners which we denote $``$ since both $`m_{11}<0`$ and $`m_{22}<0`$,
* the four (4) remaining regions (directly above, below and to the left and right of the center rectangle) which we denote as $`+`$ or $`+`$ according to the signs of $`m_{11}`$ and $`m_{22}`$.

We know that the determinant condition (21) is never satisfied in the $`+`$ or $`+`$ regions since $`m_{11}m_{22}|m_{12}|^2<0`$ when $`m_{11}`$ and $`m_{22}`$ have opposite signs. This implies that equality in (21) defines a curve which bounds a convex region lying entirely within the $`++`$ rectangle. Although (21) also has solutions in the $``$ regions as shown in Figure 1, one expects that these will typically lie outside the region for which $`|t_k|+|\lambda _k|1`$, i.e., the rectangle bounded by the line segments satisfying $`|\lambda _++\lambda _{}|2(1|t_1|)`$ and $`|\lambda _+\lambda _{}|2(1|t_2|)`$. However, John Cortese  has shown that this need not necessarily be the case. Nevertheless, one need only check one of the two conditions $`m_{11}>0`$, $`m_{22}>0`$, and might substitute a weaker condition, such as $`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{M}>0`$, to exclude points in the $``$ regions. For example, one could substitute for the diagonal conditions, $`c_{}m_{11}+c_+m_{22}0`$ which is equivalent to

$`\left(\lambda _1^2+\lambda _2^2\right)(1+t_3)+\lambda _3^2(1t_3)(1+t_3)(1|𝕥|)^2+2\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3.`$ (22)
Thus, strict inequality in both (21) and (22) suffice to ensure complete positivity.

In general, when $`𝕥0`$, the convex set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝕥,\lambda _3}`$ is determined by (21), i.e, by the closed curve for which equality holds and its interior. Since changing the sign of $`\lambda _1`$ or $`\lambda _2`$ is equivalent to changing $`\lambda _+\lambda _{}`$, the corresponding set of entanglement breaking maps is given by the intersection of this region with the corresponding one with $`\lambda _+`$ and $`\lambda _{}`$ switched, as shown in Figure 2.

Remark: If, instead of looking at $`IR_\mathrm{\Phi }^{}R_\mathrm{\Phi }`$, we had considered $`IR_\mathrm{\Phi }R_\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$, the matrix $`M`$ would change slightly and the conditions (4) or (19) would be modified accordingly. (In fact, the only change would be to replace $`+t_3`$ by $`t_3`$ in the fraction multiplying $`|\tau |^2`$.) However, the determinant condition (21) would not change. Since $`R_\mathrm{\Phi }^{}R_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`R_\mathrm{\Phi }R_\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$, are unitarily equivalent,

$$det[IR_\mathrm{\Phi }^{}R_\mathrm{\Phi }]=det\left(U[IR_\mathrm{\Phi }R_\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]U^{}\right)=det[IR_\mathrm{\Phi }R_\mathrm{\Phi }^{}].$$

It is worth noting that whether or not $`R_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a contraction is not affected by the signs of the $`t_k`$. (In particular, changing $`t_2t_2`$ takes $`R_\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{R}_\mathrm{\Phi }`$, changing $`t_3t_3`$ takes $`R_\mathrm{\Phi }\sigma _xR_\mathrm{\Phi }^T\sigma _x`$, and changing $`t_1t_1`$ takes $`R_\mathrm{\Phi }\sigma _z\overline{R}_\mathrm{\Phi }\sigma _z`$.) Therefore, one can change the sign of any one of the $`t_k`$ without affecting completely positivity.

By contrast, one can not, in general, change $`\lambda _k\lambda _k`$ without affecting the complete positivity conditions. (Note, however, that one can always change the signs of any two of the $`\lambda _k`$ since this is equivalent to conjugation with a Pauli matrix on either the domain or range. The latter will also change the signs of two of the $`t_k`$.) Changing the sign of $`\lambda _2`$ is equivalent to composing $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with the transpose, so that changing the sign of one of the $`\lambda _k`$ is equivalent to composing $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with the transpose and conjugation with one of the Pauli matrices. Furthermore, if changing the sign of one particular $`\lambda _k`$ does not affect complete positivity, then one can change the sign of any of the $`\lambda _k`$ without affecting complete positivity.

In view of the role of the sign change condition it is worth summarizing these remarks.

###### Proposition 7

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a CPT map in canonical form (3) and let $`T(\rho )=\rho ^T`$ denote the transpose. Then

* $`T\mathrm{\Phi }T`$ is also completely positive, i.e., changing $`t_kt_k`$ does not affect complete positivity.
* $`\mathrm{\Phi }T`$ is completely positive if and only if changing any $`\lambda _k\lambda _k`$ does not affect complete positivity.
* $`\mathrm{\Phi }T`$ is completely positive if and only $`T\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is.

The only difference between $`\mathrm{\Phi }T`$ and $`T\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is that the former changes the sign of $`\lambda _2`$ while the latter changes the signs of both $`t_2`$ and $`\lambda _2`$.

## 5 Geometry

Image of the Bloch sphere

We first consider the geometry of entanglement breaking channels in terms of their effect on the Bloch sphere. It follows from the equivalence with the sign change condition in Theorem 1 that any CPT map with some $`\lambda _k=0`$ is entanglement breaking. We call such channels planar since the image lies in a plane within the Bloch sphere. Similarly, we call a channel with two $`\lambda _k=0`$ linear. If all three $`\lambda _k=0`$, the Bloch sphere is mapped into a point. Note that the subsets of channels whose images lie within points, lines, and planes respectively are not convex. However, they are well-defined and useful classes to consider.

Points: A channel which maps the Bloch sphere to a point has the Holevo form (1) in which the sum reduces to a single term with $`R=\frac{1}{2}[I+𝕥\sigma ]`$ and $`E=I`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )=R\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{E}\rho )=\mathrm{R}\rho `$ and $`𝐓=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \mathrm{𝟘}\\ 𝕥& \mathrm{𝟘}\end{array}\right)`$. when $`|𝕥|=1`$, $`R`$ is a pure state and the map is extreme. It is also a special case of the so-called amplitude damping channels, and (as noted at the end of section 2) these are the only amplitude damping channels which break entanglement.

Lines: When two of the $`\lambda _k=0`$ so that the image of the Bloch sphere is a line, the conditions for complete positivity reduce to a single inequality, which becomes (9) in the case $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2=0`$. Moreover, it is straightforward to verify that any such channel can be realized as a CQ channel. Indeed, it suffices to choose $`W`$ as in (8).

Planar channels: The image of a map with exactly one $`\lambda _k=0`$ lies in a plane. When this is $`\lambda _3`$, the condition $`IR_\mathrm{\Phi }^{}R_\mathrm{\Phi }0`$ becomes

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1|𝕥|^2(\lambda _1\lambda _2)^2& 2(t_1\lambda _1+it_2\lambda _2)\\ 2(t_1\lambda _1it_2\lambda _2)& 1|𝕥|^2(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)^2\end{array}\right)0.`$
where $`|𝕥|^2=t_1^2+t_2^2+t_2^2`$, and the condition on the diagonal becomes

$`(|\lambda _1|+|\lambda _2|)^2+|𝕥|^21.`$ (23)
Now, if either diagonal element is identically zero, then one must have $`t_1\lambda _1=t_2\lambda _2=0`$. Thus, if both $`\lambda _1,\lambda _20`$ and equality holds in the necessary condition (23), one must have $`t_1=t_2=0`$, in which case it reduces to $`(|\lambda _1|+|\lambda _2|)^2+t_3^2=1`$. This implies that a truly planar channel can not touch the Bloch sphere, unless it reduces to a point or a line.

Geometry of $`\lambda _k`$ space

We now consider, instead of the geometry of the images of entanglement-breaking maps, the geometry of the allowed set of maps in $`\lambda _k`$ space. After reduction to the canonical form (3) it is often useful to look at the subset of $`[\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3]`$ which correspond to a particular class of maps. We first consider maps for which $`𝕥=0`$.

###### Theorem 8

In a fixed (diagonal) basis, the set of unital entanglement breaking maps on qubits corresponds to the octahedron whose extreme points correspond to the channels for which $`[\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3]`$ is a permutation of $`[\pm 1,0,0]`$.

Since this octahedron is precisely the subset with $`_j|\lambda _j|1`$ the result follows immediately from Theorem 4. Alternatively, one could use Theorem 10 and the fact that the unital CQ maps must have the form above.

Remarks:

1. The channels corresponding to a permutation of $`[\pm 1,0,0]`$ belong to the subclass known as CQ channels. Hence, the set of unital entanglement breaking maps is the convex hull of unital CQ maps.
2. This octahedron in Theorem 8 is precisely the intersection of the tetrahedron with corners $`[1,1,1],[1,1,1],[1,1,1],[1,1,1]`$ with its inversion through the origin, as shown in Figure 3. (A similar picture arises in studies of entanglement and Bell inequalities. See, e.g., Figure 3 in  or Fig. 2 in ).
3. The tetrahedron of unital maps is precisely the intersection of the four planes of the form $`𝐧[\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3]=1`$ with $`𝐧=[\pm 1,\pm 1,\pm 1]`$ and an odd number of negative signs, i.e., $`n_1n_2n_3=1`$. The octahedron of unital EBT maps is precisely the intersection of all eight planes of this form.
4. If the octahedron of unital entanglement breaking maps is removed from the tetrahedron of unital maps, one is left with four disjoint tetrahedrons whose sides are half the length of the original. Each of these defines a region of “entanglement-preserving” unital channels with fixed sign. For example, the tetrahedron with corners, $`[1,1,1],[1,0,0],[0,10],[1,0,0]`$; this is the interior of the intersection of the plane $`[1,1,1][\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3]=1`$ and the three planes of the form $`𝐧[\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3]=1`$ with $`𝐧=[1,1,1],[1,1,1],[1,1,1]`$. For many purposes, e.g., consideration of additivity questions, it suffices to confine attention to one of these four corner tetrahedrons. Indeed, conjugation with one of the Pauli matrices, transforms the corner above into one of the other four.

We next consider non-unital maps, for which one finds the following analogue of Theorem 8.

###### Theorem 9

Let $`𝕥=(t_1,t_2,t_3)`$ be a fixed vector in $`𝐑^3`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝕥`$ denote the convex subset of $`𝐑^3`$ corresponding to the vectors $`[\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3]`$ for which the canonical map with these parameters is completely positive. Then the intersection of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝕥`$ with its inversion through the origin (i.e., $`\lambda _j\lambda _j`$) is the subset of EBT maps with translation $`𝕥`$.

Remark: The effect of changing the sign of $`\lambda _2`$ is $`\lambda _+\lambda _{}`$ and of changing the sign of $`\lambda _1`$ is $`\lambda _+\lambda _{}`$. In either case, the effect on the determinant condition (21) is simply to switch $`\lambda _+\lambda _{}`$, i.e, to reflect the boundary across the $`\lambda _+=\lambda _{}`$ line. Thus, the intersection of these two regions will correspond to entanglement breaking channels. The remainder will, typically, consist of 4 disjoint (non-convex) regions, corresponding to the four corners remaining after the “rounded octahedron” of Theorem 9 is removed from the “rounded tetrahedron”.

## 6 Convex hull of qubit CQ maps

In  we found it useful to generalize the extreme points of the set of CPT maps $`𝒮`$ to include all maps for which $`R_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is unitary, which is equivalent to the statement that both singular values of $`R_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are $`1`$. In addition to true extreme points, this includes “quasi-extreme” points which correspond to the edges of the tetrahedron of unital maps. Some of these quasi-extreme points are true extreme points for the set of entanglement-breaking maps. However, there are no extreme points of the latter which are not generalized extreme points of $`𝒮`$. This will allow us to conclude the following.

###### Theorem 10

Every extreme point of the set of entanglement-breaking qubit maps is a CQ map. Hence, the set of entanglement-breaking qubit maps is the convex hull of qubit CQ maps.

The goal of the section is to prove this result. Because our argument is somewhat subtle, we also include, at the end of this section a direct proof of some special cases.

First we note that the following was shown in . After reduction to canonical form (3), for any map which is a generalized extreme point, the parameters $`\lambda _k`$ must satisfy (up to permutation) $`\lambda _3=\lambda _1\lambda _2`$. This is compatible with the sign change condition if and only if at least two of the $`\lambda _k=0`$, which implies that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a CQ map.

We now wish to examine in more detail those maps for which $`R_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is not unitary. We can assume, without loss of generality, that the singular values of $`R_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be written as $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _1`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _2`$, that $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2`$, and that $`0\mathrm{cos}\theta _2<1`$. Recall that we showed in Lemma 15 of  that one can use the singular value decomposition of $`R_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to write

$`R_\mathrm{\Phi }=V\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta _1& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{cos}\theta _2\end{array}\right)W^{}=\frac{1}{2}U_++\frac{1}{2}U_{}`$ (24)
where $`U_\pm =V\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\pm \theta _1}& 0\\ 0& e^{i\pm \theta _2}\end{array}\right)W^{}`$. and $`V,W`$ are unitary. Thus, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the midpoint of a line segment in $`𝒮`$ and can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{U+}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_U`$ (25)
with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{U\pm }`$ defined as in (12). Although $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{U\pm }`$ need not have the canonical form (3), they are related so that their sum does.

We now use the singular value decomposition of $`R_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to decompose it into unitary maps in another way.

$`R_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`V\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta _1& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{cos}\theta _2\end{array}\right)W^{}`$
$`=`$ $`V\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta _1+\mathrm{cos}\theta _2}{2}}I+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2}{2}}\sigma _z\right]W^{}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta _1+\mathrm{cos}\theta _2}{2}}VW^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2}{2}}V\sigma _zW^{}.`$ (27)
Moreover, it follows from (27) that

$`\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta _1+\mathrm{cos}\theta _2}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{VW^{}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{V\sigma _zW^{}}+(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _1)\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ (28)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the QC map corresponding to $`M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(E_{11})& 0\\ 0& \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(E_{22})\end{array}\right)`$. Since we have assumed that we do not have $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _1=\mathrm{cos}\theta _2=1`$, equation (28) represents $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as a non-trivial convex combination of at least two distinct CPT maps, the first two of which are generalized extreme points. (Unless $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _1=1`$ or $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _1=\mathrm{cos}\theta _2`$, we will have three distinct points, and can already conclude that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ lies in the interior of a segment of a plane within $`𝒮`$.) Now, the assumption that $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _21`$ suffices to show that the decompositions (28) and (25) involve different sets of extreme points and, hence, that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be written as a point on two distinct line segments in $`𝒮`$. Therefore, there is a segment of a plane in $`𝒮`$ which contains $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and for which $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ does not lie on the boundary of the plane (although the plane might be on the boundary of $`𝒮`$). Thus we have proved the following.

###### Lemma 11

Every map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in $`𝒮`$ lies in one of two disjoint sets which allows it to be characterized as follows. Either

* $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a generalized extreme point of $`𝒮`$, or
* $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is in the interior of a segment of a plane in $`𝒮`$.

Now let $`𝒯`$ denote the set of maps for which $`\mathrm{\Phi }T`$ or, equivalently $`(I)\mathrm{\Phi }`$, is in $`𝒮`$. Since $`𝒯`$ is a convex set isomorphic to $`𝒮`$, its elements can also be broken into two classes as above. The set of entanglement breaking maps is precisely $`𝒮𝒯`$. We can now prove Theorem 6 by showing that the convex hull of CQ maps is $`𝒮𝒯`$.

Proof: Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be in $`𝒮𝒯`$ which is also a convex set. If $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a generalized extreme point of either $`𝒮`$ or $`𝒯`$, then the only possibility consistent with $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ being entanglement-breaking is that it is CQ. Thus we suppose that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ belongs to class II for both $`𝒮`$ and $`𝒯`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ lies within a plane in $`𝒮`$ and within a plane in $`𝒯`$. The intersection of these two planes is non-empty (since it contains $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$) and its intersection must contain a line segment in $`𝒮𝒯`$ which contains $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and for which $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is not an endpoint. Therefore, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is not an extreme point of $`𝒮𝒯`$. Thus all possible extreme points of $`𝒮𝒯`$ must be generalized extreme points of $`𝒮`$ or $`𝒯`$, in which case they are CQ. QED

Remark: Although this shows that all extreme points of $`𝒮𝒯`$ are CQ maps, this need not hold for the various convex subsets, corresponding to allowed values of $`\lambda _k,t_k`$ in a fixed basis, discussed at the start of Section 4. The following remark shows that “most” points in the convex subset $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝕥,\lambda _3}`$ of the $`\lambda _1`$-$`\lambda _2`$ plane can, in fact, be written as a convex combination of CQ maps in canonical form in the same basis. It also shows why it is necessary to go outside this region for those points close to the boundary.

* First consider the set of entanglement-breaking maps with $`\lambda _3=0`$, which is the convex set $`_{t_3}\mathrm{\Xi }_{t_3,0}`$. Every extreme point must be an extreme point of the convex set $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{t_3,0}`$ for some $`t_3`$. By Theorem 6, these are the maps for which $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{1t_3^2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\tau & \lambda _+\\ \lambda _{}& \tau \end{array}\right)`$ is unitary, which implies that either

+ $`t_1=t_2=0`$ and $`(\lambda _1\pm \lambda _2)^2=1t_3^2`$ which implies that either $`\lambda _1=0`$ or $`\lambda _2=0`$ with $`t_3^2+\lambda _j^2=1`$ for $`j=1`$ or $`2`$, or
    + $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2=0`$ and $`|𝕥|^2=1`$.

The first type of extreme point is obviously a CQ map; the second is a “point” channel which, as noted before, is a special case of a CQ map. Thus any map in $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{t_3,0}`$ can be written as a convex combination of CQ maps in $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{t_3,0}`$.

Similar results hold if $`\lambda _1=0`$ or $`\lambda _2=0`$. Therefore, any entanglement breaking channel with some $`\lambda _k=0`$, can be written as a convex combination of CQ channels with at most one non-zero $`\lambda _k`$ in the same basis. Thus any planar channel can be written as a convex combination of CQ channels in the same plane.
* Next consider entanglement-breaking maps with at most one non-zero $`t_k`$. We can assume, without loss of generality, that $`t_1=t_2=0`$ in which case the conditions for complete positivity reduce to (20). Combining this with the sign change condition yields

$`(|\lambda _1|+|\lambda _2|)^2(1|\lambda _3|)^2t_3^2.`$ (29)
It follows that for each fixed value of $`\lambda _3`$ the set of allowable $`(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)`$ form a square with corners $`(0,\pm A_3),(\pm A_3,0)`$ where $`A_3=\sqrt{(1|\lambda _3|)^2t_3^2}`$. Thus, the extreme points of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(0,0,t_3),\lambda _3}`$ are planar channels which, by part(a) are in the convex hull of CQ channels. In particular, a map with $`\lambda _1=0,\lambda _2=\pm A_3`$, can be written as a convex combination of CQ maps with either $`\lambda _2=0`$ or $`\lambda _3=0`$. However, these maps need not necessarily lie in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(0,0,t_3),\lambda _3}`$; we can only be sure that $`\lambda _1=0`$ and $`t_1=0`$, but not that $`t_2=0`$. Thus we can only state that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(0,0,t_3),\lambda _3}`$ is in the convex hull of those CQ maps with $`\lambda _j=0`$ and $`t_j=0`$ for either $`j=1`$ or $`2`$. Although it may be necessary to enlarge the set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(0,0,t_3),\lambda _3}`$ in order to ensure that it is in the convex hull of some subset of CQ maps, these CQ maps will have the canonical form in the same basis, and the same value for $`\lambda _3`$ in that basis.
* Now consider the convex subset $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝕥,\lambda _3}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝕥,\lambda _3}`$ of the $`\lambda _1`$-$`\lambda _2`$ plane corresponding to entanglement breaking maps with $`𝕥,|\lambda _3|`$ fixed. These two regions intersect when either $`\lambda _1=0`$ or $`\lambda _2=0`$ (or, equivalently, $`|\lambda _+|=|\lambda _{}|`$ where $`\lambda _\pm =\lambda _1\pm \lambda _2`$). One can again use part (a) to see that these intersection points can be written as convex combinations of CQ maps in canonical form in the same basis. Since their convex hull has the same property, the resulting parallelogram, as shown in Figure 4, is also a convex combination of CQ maps of the same type. Only for those points in the strip between the parallelogram and the boundary might one need to make a change of basis in order to write the maps as a convex combination of CQ maps.
* Now suppose $`|\lambda _1|=|\lambda _2|=|\lambda _3|=\lambda >0`$. Since any two signs can be changed by conjugation with a Pauli matrix, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is unitarily equivalent to a map with $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2=\lambda _3=\pm \lambda `$. One can then conjugate with another unitary matrix (corresponding to a rotation on the Bloch sphere) to conclude that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is unitarily equivalent to a channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ with $`t_1=|𝕥|=\sqrt{_kt_k^2}`$, and $`t_2=t_3=0`$. It then follows from part (b) that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$, and thus also $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, can be written as a convex combination of CQ channels which have the form described above in the rotated basis. However, these maps need not necessarily have the canonical form in the original basis.

Consider the region $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝕥,\lambda _3}`$ with $`0<\lambda _3=\lambda <\frac{1}{3}`$ and $`|𝕥|^2=12\lambda +3\lambda ^2`$. The maps with $`|\lambda _1|=|\lambda _2|=\lambda `$ lie on the boundary of this region (in fact, at the intersection of the boundary with the $`\lambda _\pm `$ axes, as shown in Figure 5). Since these maps have the form considered in part (d) they can be written as a convex combination of CQ maps; however, those CQ maps need not have the canonical form in the original basis. Nevertheless, every point in the octagon formed from the convex hull of the intersection points of the lines $`|\lambda _+|=|\lambda _{}|`$, $`|\lambda _+|=0`$, and $`|\lambda _{}|=0`$ with the boundary, as shown in Figure 5), can be written as a convex combination of CQ maps as described above.

As another example, consider the set of entanglement breaking maps with $`𝕥=(0,0,t_3)`$ fixed. For any fixed $`\lambda _1`$, the set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝕥,\lambda _1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝕥,\lambda _1}`$ is a convex subset of the $`\lambda _2`$-$`\lambda _3`$ plane. Let $`(\lambda _2,\lambda _3)`$ be a point in this subset that lies between the boundary and a parallelogram as described in (c) above. By considering the associated map as a point in the set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝕥,\lambda _3}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝕥,\lambda _3}`$ instead, one can be sure that it can be written as a convex combination of CQ maps since this subset of the $`\lambda _1`$-$`\lambda _2`$ plane is of the type described in (b). Moreover, these boundary points can be added to the convex hull of CQ maps without need for a change of basis.

One might expect that additional boundary points could be added in various ways with additional ingenuity and bases changes. That this is always true, is the essence of Theorem 10. Only for points near the boundary with two $`t_k`$ non-zero is it necessary to actually make the change of basis used in the proof of this theorem. In other cases, the necessary convex combinations (which are not unique) can be formed using the strategies outlined above.

Acknowledgment: This paper is the outgrowth of discussions with a number of people. I owe a particularly large debt to Peter Shor for stimulating my interest in this topic by communicating the results of  prior to publication. Both M. Horodecki and P. Shor communicated several other results which have now been incorporated into . It is also a pleasure to thank Elisabeth Werner for helpful discussions, particularly regarding section 6; Chris King for many helpful discussions; John Cortese for making stimulating comments, communicating a counter-example to the sufficiency of the determinant condition, and providing many plots, including four of the figures in this paper, which helped to clarify my thinking.

Part of this work was done while visiting the mathematics department at the Amherst campus of the University of Massachusetts; I am grateful to Professor Donald St. Mary for arranging this visit and providing a very hospitable working environment. Finally, I would like to thank Heide Narnhofer for permission to use the postscript files produced by K. Durstberger for Figure 3.


text:
# Untitled Document

SPECIAL WEIGHTS AND ROOTS FOR FINITE LIE ALGEBRAS

H. R. Karadayi

Dept. Physics, Fac. Science, Istanbul Tech. Univ.

80626, Maslak, Istanbul, Turkey

e-mail: karadayi@itu.edu.tr

M. Gungormez

Dept. Physics, Fac. Science, Istanbul Tech. Univ.

80626, Maslak, Istanbul, Turkey

e-mail: gungorm@itu.edu.tr

Abstract

With the introduction of special roots, we show the existence of some special weights with quite interesting properties for finite Lie algebras. We propose and discuss two statements which lead us to an explicit construction of these special weights and roots. It is seen that the special weights provide us a basis to express Weyl group actions directly no matter what the Weyl group elements would be.

I. DEFINITION OF SPECIAL WEIGHTS AND ROOTS

In the Cartan-Weyl tradition of a finite Lie algebra $`_𝐫`$ of rank r , simple roots $`\alpha _i`$’s and their duals, the fundamental dominant weights, $`\lambda _i`$’s play a principal role. Their very definitions and also some of their properties will be given here briefly with reference of the excellent book of Humphreys. Throughout the work, we always assume $`i,j,k=1,2,\mathrm{},r`$ and $`A,B=1,2,\mathrm{}dimW(_𝐫)`$ where $`W(_𝐫)`$ is the Weyl Group of Lie algebra $`_𝐫`$.

Let $`𝒞_𝐫`$ be Cartan-Matrix of $`_𝐫`$. The simple roots can then be thought of as r-dimensional linear vectors satisfying scalar products

$$<\alpha _i,\alpha _j>=(𝒞_𝐫)_{i,j}.$$
$`(I.1)`$
Within the scope of this work, the Root Lattice $`_𝐫`$ and the positive root lattice $`_{𝐫}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}`$ will be considered respectively as is composed out of integral and nonnegative-integral linear superpositions of these simple roots. The Weight Lattice $`𝒲_𝐫`$ is thus defined to be the dual of root lattice. For any two elements $`\lambda ,\alpha 𝒲_𝐫`$, the existence of a non-symmetric scalar product

$$<\lambda ,\alpha >2\frac{(\lambda ,\alpha )}{(\alpha ,\alpha )}$$

is always guaranteed by (I.1) where $`(\lambda ,\alpha )`$ is the symmetrical scalar product which is known to exist for any two r-dimensional vectors. The set

$$(1)\{\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _r\}$$

of fundamental dominant weights are then defined by

$$<\lambda _i,\alpha _j>\delta _{i,j}.$$
$`(I.2)`$
Now we look for some other sets

$$(A)\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_A(1),\mathrm{\Lambda }_A(2),\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_A(r)\},A=1,2,\mathrm{},D$$
$`(I.3)`$
with the property that

$$(\lambda _i,\lambda _j)=(\mathrm{\Lambda }_A(i),\mathrm{\Lambda }_A(j)).$$
$`(I.4)`$
Elements $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_A(i)`$ of these sets will then be called special weights. Note here that (I.4) is central in the definition of special weights. The maximal value D of the number of sets $`(A)`$ has also some implications as will be seen in the following.

To find the special weights explicitly, we need the following two conjectures which lead us in fact the definition of special roots in a natural way.

$`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞}\mathbf{1}}`$

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(i)^+`$ be the subset of $`_{𝐫}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}`$ defined by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(i)^+\{\alpha _{𝐫}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}/<\lambda _i,\alpha >=1\}.$$
$`(I.5)`$
We then have

$$dim\mathrm{\Gamma }(i)^+=dimW(\lambda _i)$$

for $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},r`$.

It is important to notice here that no element of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(i)^+`$ could be equal to an element of the Weyl orbit $`W(\lambda _i)`$ of $`\lambda _i`$. Special weights can then be specified explicitly as a result of our second conjecture:

$`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞}\mathbf{2}}`$

Any element $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_A(i)(A)`$ has the form

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_A(i)=\lambda _i\gamma _A(i)$$
$`(I.6)`$
where $`\gamma _A(i)\mathrm{\Gamma }(i)^+`$ and

$$D=dimW(_𝐫).$$
$`(I.7)`$
Note here, due to notation, that the possibilities $`\gamma _A(i)=\gamma _B(i)`$ or $`\gamma _A(i)=\gamma _A(j)`$ could be valid for some A,B or i,j. Then, it is natural to call $`\gamma _A(i)`$’s encountered in the explicit forms of special weights to be special roots which are in fact elements of the sets

$$(A)\{\gamma _A(1),\gamma _A(2),\mathrm{},\gamma _A(r)\},A=1,2,\mathrm{},D.$$
$`(I.8)`$
We are now ready to state why special weights are so special. Our statement for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_AW(_𝐫)`$ here is simply that

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_A(\lambda _i)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_A(i).$$
$`(I.9)`$
We must emphasize here that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_A`$’s are Weyl group elements whereas $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_A(\lambda _i)`$’s give us their action on the weight lattice. For an explicit construction of Weyl group elements, one of the best that we can do is to find a presentation of Weyl group in terms of which its elements are to be expressed as multiple products of simple reflections, the elements corresponding to simple roots. It is well known however that,except some quite simple ones, this is already what one can not do in almost all cases for which the right hand side of (I.9) proves useful.

In the next section, we will explicitly show how our two conjectures hold in general for

$`A_r`$ Lie algebras. Beside a previous article , a detailed discussion will be given for $`G_2`$ in another work  which is complementary to this one. The case for $`F_4`$ will also be presented by one of the authors separately . Explicit tabulations of special roots are also given for $`E_6`$ and $`E_7`$ . As a nice application of (I.9), we will show, in a subsequent paper , that Weyl character formula can be applied explicitly in almost all cases with only one exception of $`E_8`$ Lie algebra for which we actually need some other tools in explicit calculations .

II. $`A_r`$ LIE ALGEBRAS

In this section, we show how one lets our two conjectures to be true for $`A_r`$ Lie algebras. By presenting $`A_3`$ Weyl group elements in terms of multiple products of its simple reflections we also show that (I.9) is in fact true.

To show the validity of conjecture 1, we seek, for each and every $`\lambda _k`$, the solutions

$$\gamma =m_1\alpha _1+m_2\alpha _2+\mathrm{}+m_r\alpha _r$$
$`(II.1)`$
of the equation

$$(\lambda _k,\gamma )=\frac{1}{2}(\gamma ,\gamma ).$$
$`(II.2)`$
which is in fact equivalent to

$$m_1^2+m_2^2+\mathrm{}m_r^2=m_1m_2+m_2m_3+\mathrm{}+m_{r1}m_r+m_k$$
$`(II.3)`$
where $`m_k`$’s are non-negative integers. This simply shows that the solutions (II.1) are restricted by conditions

$$m_1,m_2,\mathrm{},m_rk,k=1,2,\mathrm{},\frac{r}{2}(\frac{r+1}{2})$$

depending on whether r is an even (odd) integer. Let us note here that the solutions are related for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(k)^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(r+1k)^+`$ due to diagram automorphisms of $`A_r`$ Lie algebras. In result, we can say that we only have a finite number of solutions for any $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(k)^+`$.

To expose these solutions, let us introduce another fundamental system of weights $`\mu _K`$ defined by

$$\alpha _k\mu _k\mu _{k+1}$$
$`(II.4)`$
together with the condition

$$\mu _1+\mu _2+\mathrm{}+\mu _{r+1}0.$$
$`(II.5)`$
Being in coincidence with our earlier works, we would like to call $`\mu _K`$’s fundamental weights  for K=1,2, …, r+1 . The complete set of solutions (II.1) can then be expressed by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(k)^+=\underset{s=0}{\overset{k}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(s)}(k).$$
$`(II.6)`$
Beside the set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}(k)=\{0\}`$ which consists of trivial solution $`\gamma =0`$, any partial set of solutions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(s)}(k)`$ here is supposed to have the form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(s)}(k)\{\mu _{i_1}+\mu _{i_2}+\mathrm{}+\mu _{i_s}(\mu _{j_1}+\mu _{j_2}+\mathrm{}+\mu _{j_s})\}$$
$`(II.7)`$
providing

$$i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_s=1,2,\mathrm{},k,j_1,j_2,\mathrm{},j_s=k+1,k+2,\mathrm{},r+1.$$
$`(II.8)`$
It is important to notice here that no any two indices can take the same value in (II.7). One thus has

$$dim\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(s)}(k)=B[k,s]B[r+1k,s]$$

for which

$$B[n,m]\frac{n!}{(nm)!m!}$$

is the Binomial coefficient. We therefore totally have

$$1+\underset{s=1}{\overset{k}{}}B[k,s]B[r+1k,s]=B[r+1,k]$$

number of solutions. Our conjecture is now clear for $`A_r`$ Lie algebras in view of the fact that $`dimW(\lambda _k)=B[r+1,k]`$.

To show that the conjecture 2 is also holds here, we remark that (I.4) is equivalent to

$$(\gamma _A(i),\gamma _A(j))=\frac{s_i+s_j}{2}$$

where $`\gamma _A(i)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(s_i)}(i)`$, $`\gamma _A(j)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(s_j)}(j)`$ and $`s_i,s_j=1,2,\mathrm{},k`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(k)^+`$, as in (II.6).

Let us illustrate this in the simple but non-trivial example of $`A_3`$. We first need an explicit presentation of $`A_3`$ Weyl group elements $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_A`$’s for $`A=1,2,\mathrm{},24.`$ This will be given on the left-hand side of the following table in terms of multiple products of simple reflections $`\sigma _i`$ which correspond to simple roots $`\alpha _i`$ . Its right-hand side gives us, on the othet hand, the sets of special roots by the aid of which we see that (I.9) is in fact valid for $`A_3`$ Lie algebra.

|  | $`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Sigma }_1& =1\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Sigma }_2& =\sigma _1\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Sigma }_3& =\sigma _2\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Sigma }_4& =\sigma _3\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Sigma }_5& =\sigma _1\sigma _2\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Sigma }_6& =\sigma _1\sigma _3\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Sigma }_7& =\sigma _2\sigma _1\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Sigma }_8& =\sigma _2\sigma _3\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Sigma }_9& =\sigma _3\sigma _2\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Sigma }_{10}& =\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _1\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}& =\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _3\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}& =\sigma _1\sigma _3\sigma _2\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Sigma }_{13}& =\sigma _2\sigma _1\sigma _3\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Sigma }_{14}& =\sigma _2\sigma _3\sigma _2\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Sigma }_{15}& =\sigma _3\sigma _2\sigma _1\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Sigma }_{16}& =\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _1\sigma _3\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Sigma }_{17}& =\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _3\sigma _2\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Sigma }_{18}& =\sigma _1\sigma _3\sigma _2\sigma _1\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Sigma }_{19}& =\sigma _2\sigma _1\sigma _3\sigma _2\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Sigma }_{20}& =\sigma _2\sigma _3\sigma _2\sigma _1\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Sigma }_{21}& =\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _1\sigma _3\sigma _2\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Sigma }_{22}& =\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _3\sigma _2\sigma _1\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Sigma }_{23}& =\sigma _2\sigma _1\sigma _3\sigma _2\sigma _1\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Sigma }_{24}& =\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _1\sigma _3\sigma _2\sigma _1\hfill \end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (1)& =\{0,0,0\}\hfill \\ \hfill (2)& =\{\alpha _1,0,0\}\hfill \\ \hfill (3)& =\{0,\alpha _2,0\}\hfill \\ \hfill (4)& =\{0,0,\alpha _3\}\hfill \\ \hfill (5)& =\{\alpha _1,\alpha _1+\alpha _2,0\}\hfill \\ \hfill (6)& =\{\alpha _1,0,\alpha _3\}\hfill \\ \hfill (7)& =\{\alpha _1+\alpha _2,\alpha _2,0\}\hfill \\ \hfill (8)& =\{0,\alpha _2,\alpha _2+\alpha _3\}\hfill \\ \hfill (9)& =\{0,\alpha _2+\alpha _3,\alpha _3\}\hfill \\ \hfill (10)& =\{\alpha _1+\alpha _2,\alpha _1+\alpha _2,0\}\hfill \\ \hfill (11)& =\{\alpha _1,\alpha _1+\alpha _2,\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3\}\hfill \\ \hfill (12)& =\{\alpha _1,\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3,\alpha _3\}\hfill \\ \hfill (13)& =\{\alpha _1+\alpha _2,\alpha _2,\alpha _2+\alpha _3\}\hfill \\ \hfill (14)& =\{0,\alpha _2+\alpha _3,\alpha _2+\alpha _3\}\hfill \\ \hfill (15)& =\{\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3,\alpha _2+\alpha _3,\alpha _3\}\hfill \\ \hfill (16)& =\{\alpha _1+\alpha _2,\alpha _1+\alpha _2,\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3\}\hfill \\ \hfill (17)& =\{\alpha _1,\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3,\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3\}\hfill \\ \hfill (18)& =\{\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3,\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3,\alpha _3\}\hfill \\ \hfill (19)& =\{\alpha _1+\alpha _2,\alpha _1+2\alpha _2+\alpha _3,\alpha _2+\alpha _3\}\hfill \\ \hfill (20)& =\{\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3,\alpha _2+\alpha _3,\alpha _2+\alpha _3\}\hfill \\ \hfill (21)& =\{\alpha _1+\alpha _2,\alpha _1+2\alpha _2+\alpha _3,\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3\}\hfill \\ \hfill (22)& =\{\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3,\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3,\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3\}\hfill \\ \hfill (23)& =\{\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3,\alpha _1+2\alpha _2+\alpha _3,\alpha _2+\alpha _3\}\hfill \\ \hfill (24)& =\{\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3,\alpha _1+2\alpha _2+\alpha _3,\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3\}\hfill \end{array}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |

In the table above, it is seen that elements of sets $`(A)`$ are chosen, respectively among elements of the sets

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }(1)^+& =\{0,\alpha _1,\alpha _1+\alpha _2,\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3\}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }(2)^+& =\{0,\alpha _2,\alpha _2+\alpha _3,\alpha _1+\alpha _2,\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3,\alpha _1+2\alpha _2+\alpha _3\}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }(3)^+& =\{0,\alpha _3,\alpha _2+\alpha _3,\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3\}\hfill \end{array}$$

which are defined as in the first conjecture.

REFERENCES

\[ 1\] J.E.Humphreys, Introduction to Lie Algebras and Representation Theory, N.Y.,

Springer-Verlag (1972)

\[ 2\] H.R.Karadayi and M.Gungormez, On the Calculation of Group Characters,

math-ph/0008014

\[ 3\] H.R.Karadayi and M.Gungormez, On an Explicit Calculation of Signatures (submitted)

\[ 4\] M.Gungormez, work in preparation

\[ 5\] http://atlas.cc.itu.edu.tr/ $``$ karadayi

\[ 6\] H.R.Karadayi and M.Gungormez, Further Exploration of Weyl Character Formula(submitted)

\[ 7\] H.R.Karadayi and M.Gungormez, Summing over the Weyl Groups of $`E_7`$ and $`E_8`$,

math-ph/9812014

\[ 8\] H.R.Karadayi, Anatomy of Grand Unifying Groups I and II, ICTP preprints,

IC/81/213 and 224

H.R.Karadayi and M.Gungormez, J.Phys.A: Math.Gen., 32 (1999) 1701-1707


text:
# Solutions of Einstein’s field equations related to Jacobi’s inversion problem

## 1 Introduction

The inversion problem for hyperelliptic integrals (integrals over a rational function $`R[x,W(x)]`$ with $`W(x)`$ being the square root of a polynomial of order $`2n+1`$ or $`2n+2`$, $`n=2,3,4,\mathrm{}`$) was formulated by Jacobi in 1832 . Its solution in the ultraelliptic case ($`n=2`$) was presented by Göpel  and Rosenhain . They generalized Jacobi’s theta functions to theta functions depending on two variables. Riemann and Weierstrass solved the general problem in terms of theta functions of $`n`$ variables, cf. , , .

In the course of solving a physical problem within Einstein’s theory of general relativity ,  — the problem of a rigidly rotating disk of dust — we were lead exactly to the ultraelliptic case of Jacobi’s inversion problem . In this letter we will show that a whole class of solutions to the axisymmetric and stationary vacuum Einstein equations may be associated with Jacobi’s inversion problem in the general case.

## 2 The class of solutions

As is well known the axisymmetric and stationary vacuum Einstein equations may be reduced to the Ernst equation

$$(\mathrm{}f)\mathrm{}f=(f)^2$$
(1)
for the complex function $`f(\rho ,\zeta )`$ called the Ernst potential , . The operators $`\mathrm{}`$ and $``$ have their usual three–dimensional meaning applied to an axisymmetric function depending on the cylindrical coordinates $`\rho `$ and $`\zeta `$:

$$\mathrm{}=\frac{^2}{\rho ^2}+\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{}{\rho }+\frac{^2}{\zeta ^2},=(\frac{}{\rho },\frac{}{\zeta }).$$
(2)
Any solution of our class is given by

$$f=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{K_m}{\overset{K^{(m)}}{}}\frac{K^ndK}{W}u_n\right\}$$
(3)
with

$$W=\sqrt{(K+\mathrm{i}z)(K\mathrm{i}\overline{z})\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(KK_j)(K\overline{K}_j)}.$$
(4)
The $`K_m`$ ($`m=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$) are arbitrary complex constants; a bar denotes complex conjugation. The coordinates $`\rho `$ and $`\zeta `$ are combined to the complex coordinate

$$z=\rho +\mathrm{i}\zeta .$$
(5)
The upper integration limits $`K^{(m)}`$ ($`m=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$) are functions of $`\rho `$ and $`\zeta `$ and have to be determined as the solution of the following inversion problem:

$$\underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{K_m}{\overset{K^{(m)}}{}}\frac{K^jdK}{W}=u_j,j=0,1,2,\mathrm{},n1.$$
(6)
The quantities $`u_j`$ ($`j=0,1,2,\mathrm{},n`$) in (6) and (3) are defined as follows: Let $`u_0`$ be any real solution to the (axisymmetric) Laplace equation

$$\mathrm{}u_0=0.$$
(7)
Then the $`u_j`$ ($`j=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$) are real solutions to

$$\mathrm{i}u_{j,z}=\frac{u_{j1}}{2}+zu_{j1,z},j=1,2,\mathrm{},n$$
(8)
where an index “$`,z`$” denotes partial derivation with respect to $`z`$. As a consequence, all $`u_j`$ are solutions to the Laplace equation. The calculation of the $`u_j`$, starting from $`u_0`$, is simply a (path–independent) line integration. If one starts from a solution $`u_0`$ of the Laplace equation that vanishes at infinity one may choose the integration constants such that all $`u_j`$ vanish at infinity as well. In this case one obtains $`f1`$ at infinity, i. e. an asymptotically flat solution to the Einstein equations. It should be noted that the integrations in (3) and (6) have to be performed along the same curves in the two–sheeted Riemann surface (of genus $`n`$) associated with $`W(K)`$ defined by (4). Using a result of Riemann \[cf. , p. 311, Eq. (5)\] it is possible to express $`f`$ in terms of theta functions of $`n`$ variables. On the symmetry axis, $`\rho =0`$, the two zeros $`\mathrm{i}z`$ and $`\mathrm{i}\overline{z}`$ of the polynomial $`W^2`$ coincide. This leads, for $`n2`$, to expressions for the axis values of the Ernst potential in terms of theta functions of $`n1`$ variables. Hence, the class of solutions considered cannot be obtained by applying usual Bäcklund transformations repeatedly to an arbitrary Weyl metric.

The proof that $`f`$ given by (3) – (8) satisfies indeed the Ernst equation (1) consists of two steps:

(i) Combining Eqs. (8) and their complex conjugates with (6) and (3) one obtains

$$\underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{K^{(m)}+\mathrm{i}z}{W^{(m)}}\left(K^{(m)}\right)^jK_{,z}^{(m)}=0,j=0,1,2,\mathrm{},n2,$$
(9)
$$\underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{K^{(m)}\mathrm{i}\overline{z}}{W^{(m)}}\left(K^{(m)}\right)^jK_{,\overline{z}}^{(m)}=0,j=0,1,2,\mathrm{},n2,$$
(10)
and

$$(\mathrm{ln}f)_{,z}=\underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{K^{(m)}+\mathrm{i}z}{W^{(m)}}\left(K^{(m)}\right)^{n1}K_{,z}^{(m)},$$
(11)
$$(\mathrm{ln}f)_{,\overline{z}}=\underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{K^{(m)}\mathrm{i}\overline{z}}{W^{(m)}}\left(K^{(m)}\right)^{n1}K_{,\overline{z}}^{(m)}$$
(12)
where

$$W^{(m)}W\left(K^{(m)}\right).$$
(13)
Purely algebraic manipulations of Eqs. (9)–(12) lead to

$$K_{,z}^{(j)}=(\mathrm{ln}f)_{,z}\frac{W^{(j)}}{K^{(j)}+\mathrm{i}z}\underset{\begin{array}{c}\\ m=1\\ (mj)\end{array}}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{K^{(j)}K^{(m)}},$$
(14)
$$K_{,\overline{z}}^{(j)}=(\mathrm{ln}f)_{,\overline{z}}\frac{W^{(j)}}{K^{(j)}\mathrm{i}\overline{z}}\underset{\begin{array}{c}\\ m=1\\ (mj)\end{array}}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{K^{(j)}K^{(m)}}.$$
(15)
The integrability conditions

$$K_{,z\overline{z}}^{(j)}=K_{,\overline{z}z}^{(j)}$$
(16)
yield, for all $`j`$,

$$\mathrm{}(\mathrm{ln}f)=\alpha (\mathrm{ln}f)^2$$
(17)
with

$$\alpha =\underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left\{\frac{W^{(m)}}{(K^{(m)}+\mathrm{i}z)(K^{(m)}\mathrm{i}\overline{z})}\underset{\begin{array}{c}\\ j=1\\ (jm)\end{array}}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{K^{(m)}K^{(j)}}\right\}.$$
(18)
(ii) Due to the reality of the $`u_j`$, it can easily be verified from Eqs. (6) that the $`K^{(m)}`$ and $`\overline{K}^{(m)}`$ ($`m=1,2,\mathrm{},n)`$ are related such that they form the $`2n`$ zeros of a characteristic polynomial

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(KK_j)(K\overline{K}_j)(K+\mathrm{i}z)(K\mathrm{i}\overline{z})\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\alpha _jK^j\right)^2`$
$`=(1\alpha _{n1}^2){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(KK^{(j)})(K\overline{K}^{(j)}).`$ (19)
The (purely imaginary) quantities $`\alpha _j`$ may be determined from the system of linear algebraic equations

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\alpha _j(K^{(m)})^j=\frac{W^{(m)}}{(K^{(m)}+\mathrm{i}z)(K^{(m)}\mathrm{i}\overline{z})},m=1,2,\mathrm{},n$$
(20)
following from (19) for $`K=K^{(m)}`$ ($`m=1,2,\mathrm{},n)`$ and (4). In particular, it turns out that

$$\alpha _{n1}=\alpha $$
(21)
with $`\alpha `$ defined according to (18). Using (19) together with (3) one finds

$$\frac{f\overline{f}}{f+\overline{f}}=\alpha _{n1}$$
(22)
and consequently, because of (17),

$$\mathrm{}(\mathrm{ln}f)=\frac{f\overline{f}}{f+\overline{f}}(\mathrm{ln}f)^2$$
(23)
which is equivalent to the Ernst equation (1).

## 3 Discussion

For $`n=0`$ the class of solutions (3) reduces to Weyl’s class with $`f=\mathrm{exp}(u_0)`$. The case $`n=1`$ leads to solutions in terms of elliptic functions. A nontrivial and physically meaningful example for $`n=2`$ is the solution of the problem of a rigidly rotating disk of dust . This example provides some justification for the hope that the class of solutions presented will lead to further physical applications in the context of the rotating body problem.

An interesting mathematical question concerns the relation to Korotkin’s finite–gap solutions . It seems to us that those solutions can be obtained for a particular choice of the potential function $`u_0`$ and form therefore a subclass of the solutions presented here.


text:
# Selective Readout and Back-action Reduction for Wideband Acoustic Gravitational Wave Detectors

## Abstract

We present the concept of selective readout for broadband resonant mass gravitational wave detectors. This detection scheme is capable of specifically selecting the signal from the contributions of the vibrational modes sensitive to the gravitational waves, and efficiently rejecting the contribution from non gravitationally sensitive modes. Moreover this readout, applied to a dual detector, is capable to give an effective reduction of the back-action noise within the frequency band of interest. The overall effect is a significant enhancement in the predicted sensitivity, evaluated at the standard quantum limit for a dual torus detector. A molybdenum detector, 1 m in diameter and equipped with a wide area selective readout, would reach spectral strain sensitivities $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\times 10^{23}`$ Hz-1/2 between 2-6 kHz.

The concept of sensitive and broadband acoustic mass gravitational wave (GW) detectors has been recently presented with reference to a dual sphere detector cerdonio1 . Such a novel class of detectors may be of great interest, as they would be sensitive in a broad frequency interval of few kHz in the kHz range, were GW signals from fully relativistic stellar sources are expected sorgenti . A practical implementation of such a detector could suffer from: i) unwanted non-GW active resonant modes in the frequency region of interest, ii) additional thermal noise, due to the low frequency contribution of the high frequency non GW sensitive modes conti2 . These difficulties may be overcome by introducing a geometrically selective readout, capable of specifically selecting the contribution to the signal from all the GW sensitive modes. We have found also an additional bonus: the scheme is capable to give an effective reduction of the back-action noise within the bandwidth. The overall effect is a significant enhancement in the sensitivity.

In a “dual” detector one would measure the differential displacement, driven by the GW, of the nearly faced surfaces of two concentric massive bodies, mechanically resonating at different frequencies cerdonio1 . In this scheme the centers of mass of the two bodies coincide and then remain mutually at rest while the masses resonate. The differential displacement is then only due to the internal vibrational modes, while the centers of mass provide the rest frame for the measurement. This design allows the use of wide bandwidth (non resonant) readouts, evolution in concept and in technology of the resonant readouts used for bar detectors capacitivo .

A basic dual detector can be represented as a simple one dimensional system \[Fig. 1(a)\], where a force $`F_e`$, acting on two different mechanical resonators, is evaluated by a differential measurement of their positions $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$. In the frequency region between the two resonant frequencies, $`F_e`$ drives the slow resonator above its resonance $`\nu _s`$ and the fast one below its resonance $`\nu _f`$. The responses of the two resonators are then out of phase by $`\pi `$ radians and therefore the differential motion $`x_d`$ results in a signal enhancement over the single oscillator responses \[Fig. 1(b)\], as shown by the transfer function $`H_{F_e}=x_d/F_e`$ \[Fig. 1(c)\].

Such a scheme in addition leads to a reduction of the back-action noise, just within the detector bandwidth of interest. In fact the system response to the back-action force, that it is coherently applied with opposite direction on the two masses, is nearly exactly in phase and the consequent differential displacement is highly depressed at a frequency $`f^{}`$, as shown in the transfer function $`H_{ba}=x_d/F_{ba}`$ (Fig. 1c). We measure $`x_d`$ with a displacement amplifier, described by its additive displacement and back-action force noises, with white power spectra $`S_{XX}(\omega )=S_{xx}`$ and $`S_{FF}(\omega )=S_{ff}`$, so that the total displacement noise is $`S_{xx}+|H_{ba}(\omega )|^2S_{ff}`$. The noise power spectrum on the measurement of $`F_e`$, due to the amplifier system, is then:

$$S_{F_e}(\omega )=\left(S_{xx}+|H_{ba}(\omega )|^2S_{ff}\right)/|H_{F_e}(\omega )|^2.$$
(1)
If we take as reference an operation at the Standard Quantum Limit (SQL), we may consider $`S_{xx}S_{ff}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4}`$, and the noise figure can be optimized by adjusting the ratio $`S_{xx}/S_{ff}`$. In a wide bandwidth detection strategy $`S_{xx}`$ and $`S_{ff}`$ must be balanced to give the lowest noise within the bandwidth. In doing so we profit by the subtraction effect in the back-action noise transfer function $`H_{ba}`$, and obtain a dip at the frequency $`f^{}`$, as shown in Fig. 1(d). We finally notice that, to fully exploit the back-action reduction features, $`f^{}`$ should be placed, by a proper choice of the system parameters, amid the oscillator frequencies.

In the case of a three-dimensional body, the dynamics of elastic deformations is given as the superposition of the dynamics of an almost infinite number of normal modes of vibration Love . An obvious way to preserve the convenient features for signal and back action noise outlined above, is to bring the real system to be as close as possible to the idealized two modes system. In fact when only the first quadrupolar mode can be considered for each body, the response to a GW of such a system can again be described by the simple one-dimensional model. This can be accomplished with a novel selective readout we propose here, capable of rejecting a large number of normal modes on the basis of their symmetry. This geometrically based mode selection senses the surface position of a body on specific regions, so that the related deformations can be combined with a weight/sign properly chosen to optimize the total response to normal modes of quadrupolar symmetry. Such a strategy to select specific vibrational modes and to reject a class of unwanted modes is conceptually different from the strategy now employed in GW acoustic detectors. Resonant bar detectors bars  and spherical detectors hamilton ; sfera  reconstruct the amplitude of the normal modes excited by the GWs by the use of resonant displacement readouts coupled to the modes. With a proper choice of the read-out surfaces, the resonant scheme is not sensitive to the thermal noise of out of resonance modes and gives an efficient frequency based mode selection. However this feature necessarily limits the detector bandwidth, due to the thermal noise contribution of the resonant transducer, as in every resonant readout scheme. By contrast the geometrically based mode selection selects gravitationally sensitive normal modes by means of their geometrical characteristics, and shows a significant rejection of non quadrupolar modes without affecting the detector bandwidth. For this reason it can be effectively applied to a “dual” wideband detector.

Without loss of generality, we apply these new concepts to a dual torus detector \[Fig. 2(a)\], a convenient geometry where the advantages of the proposed scheme can be fully exploited. In the dual torus we average the differential displacement in 4 distinct areas $`x_{\mathrm{1..4}}`$ \[Fig. 2(b)\] and combine them to obtain $`X_d=x_1+x_3x_2x_4`$. The detector displays its maximal sensitivity when the GW propagates along the $`z`$ axis, the symmetry axis of the system. The corresponding force does not depend on z and the system response can be well described by plane strain solutions, where the displacements are functions of x and y only and the displacement along z vanishes. All the components of the internal stress are also independent by z. In this case the displacement normal modes of a single torus, eigenfunctions of the free body dynamic equations, are functions of the kind:

$`𝐰_{a,n}^+(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`f_{a,n}\mathrm{cos}(a\theta )𝐢_r+g_{a,n}\mathrm{sin}(a\theta )𝐢_\theta `$
$`𝐰_{a,n}^\times (𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`f_{a,n}\mathrm{sin}(a\theta )𝐢_r+g_{a,n}\mathrm{cos}(a\theta )𝐢_\theta ,`$
where the functions $`f_{a,n},g_{a,n}`$ are linear combinations of Bessel functions of the coordinate $`r`$, with coefficients given by the boundary conditions. The integer $`a`$ represents the angular symmetry of the mode, while n identifies the mode order within the angular family. The orthogonal displacement fields $`𝐰_{a,n}^+,𝐰_{a,n}^\times `$ represent the same radial distribution of the deformation, mutually rotated by $`\frac{\pi }{2a}`$: for this reason they share the same eigenvalue $`\omega _{a,n}`$, called resonant frequency of the mode. Any displacement $`𝐮`$ may be written as linear superposition of these basis functions:

$$𝐮(𝐫,t)=\underset{s,a,n}{}𝐰_{a,n}^s(𝐫)q_{a,n}^s(t),$$
(2)
where the time dependent coefficients are determined by the force acting on the body and $`s=+,\times `$.

A $`+`$ polarized GW propagating along the $`z`$-axis applies on the mass of density $`\rho `$ the force density $`F_{gw}(t)𝐆_{gw}(𝐫)`$:

$`F_{gw}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho \ddot{h}(t)`$
$`𝐆_{gw}(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`r\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta )𝐢_rr\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta )𝐢_\theta .`$ (3)
For symmetry reasons this force can only excite $`𝐰^+`$ quadrupolar ($`a=2`$) modes. A “weight function” approach to the problem will give the mathematical framework to study the selective read-out, which implements the difference $`X_d=x_1+x_3x_2x_4`$ \[Fig. 2(b)\]. If $`𝐮_e`$ and $`𝐮_i`$ are the displacements of the torus $`T_e`$ and $`T_i`$ independent , we define the observable physical quantity of the system as:

$$X_d(t)=[𝐮_e(𝐫,t)+𝐮_i(𝐫,t)]\frac{𝐏_4(𝐫)}{P_N}\text{d}V,$$
(4)
where the “selective” measurement strategy and detection scheme is implemented by the weight function $`𝐏_4(𝐫)=P_4^r(r)P_4^\theta (\theta )𝐢_r`$, where:

$`P_4^r`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (rr_e)\delta (rr_i)`$
$`P_4^\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{4}{}}}(1)^{n+m}\mathrm{\Theta }[\theta +(1)^m\alpha n{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}]`$ (5)
and $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ represents the unit step function. The normalization is $`P_N=S_T`$, area of one sampling region \[Fig. 2(a)\]. Here the term $`P_4^r`$ gives the requested displacement difference $`r_er_i`$ \[Fig. 2(b)\], while $`P_4^\theta `$ reduces the angular integral over 4 distinct regions, $`2\alpha `$ wide, centered around $`\theta =0,\frac{\pi }{2},\pi ,\frac{3\pi }{2}`$ \[Fig. 3(a)\]. A value $`\alpha =0.3`$ rad is assumed to perform the following calculations. For comparison we consider a non selective transducer system, which senses the displacement over a single area, centered for example at $`\theta =0`$. Its weight function $`𝐏_1`$ has angular component $`P_1^\theta =\mathrm{\Theta }(\theta +\alpha )\mathrm{\Theta }(\theta \alpha )+\mathrm{\Theta }(\theta +\alpha 2\pi )\mathrm{\Theta }(\theta \alpha 2\pi )`$, while the radial dependence and the normalization remain the same as $`𝐏_4`$.

When we evaluate the observable Eq. (4), by using the expansion Eq. (2) and the weight functions $`𝐏_4`$ or $`𝐏_1`$, each $`𝐰_{a,n}^+`$ mode contribution depends on its angular symmetry $`a`$. As shown in Fig. 3(b), in both cases the modes contribution oscillates and rapidly decreases, due to the averaging over the area $`S_T`$. But in the case of $`𝐏_4`$ only the symmetry values $`a=2+4k`$, with $`k`$ non negative integer, give non null contributions to our observable Eq. (4). To summarize, the quadrupolar modes family ($`k=0`$) contribution is essentially preserved, many mode families are rejected ($`a2+4k`$, $`k0`$) and the residual higher order families ($`a=2+4k`$, $`k>0`$) give a reduced contribution.

We point out that the normal modes $`𝐰^\times `$, proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}(a\theta )`$, and excited by $`\times `$-polarized gravitational waves, are rejected by $`𝐏_4(𝐫)`$, for every value of $`a`$. When a second transducer system, identical but rotated by $`\pi /4`$, is employed to detect these $`𝐰^\times `$ modes, any $`z`$-axis propagating GW can be fully characterized in terms of intensity and polarization.

The detector sensitivity can be evaluated by the transfer function $`T_{X_d}\stackrel{~}{X}_d(\omega )/\stackrel{~}{F}(\omega )`$, which gives the observable $`X_d`$ induced by a generic driving force density $`F(t)𝐆(𝐫)`$ forcecondition . We call ($`𝐰_{a,n}^s,\omega _{a,n}`$) and ($`𝐯_{a,n}^s,\varpi _{a,n}`$) the normal modes and eigenfrequencies of the torus $`T_e`$ and $`T_i`$, while the loss angles ($`\varphi ,\psi )`$, inversely proportional to the mode quality factor $`Q`$, describe the dissipation. We have:

$`T_{X_d}(\omega )={\displaystyle \underset{s,a,n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐆(𝐫)𝐰_{a,n}^s(𝐫)\text{d}V𝐰_{a,n}^s(𝐫)\frac{𝐏(𝐫)}{P_N}\text{d}V}{\rho _e[(\omega _{a,n}^2\omega ^2)+i\omega _{a,n}^2\varphi _{a,n}(\omega )]}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐆(𝐫)𝐯_{a,n}^s(𝐫)\text{d}V𝐯_{a,n}^s(𝐫)\frac{𝐏(𝐫)}{P_N}\text{d}V}{\rho _i[(\varpi _{a,n}^2\omega ^2)+i\varpi _{a,n}^2\psi _{a,n}(\omega )]}},`$ (6)
where $`𝐏(𝐫)`$ can be $`𝐏_4(𝐫)`$ or $`𝐏_1(𝐫)`$. If $`F(t)`$ and $`𝐆(𝐫)`$ are given by Eq. (3), by Eq. (6) we calculate the system transfer function to a GW, defined as $`H_{gw}(\omega )\stackrel{~}{X}_d(\omega )/\stackrel{~}{h}(\omega )`$. In the simple case $`\rho _e=\rho _i=\rho `$, we have:

$$H_{gw}(\omega )=(\rho \omega ^2/2)T_{X_d}(\omega )|_{𝐆(𝐫)=𝐆_{gw}(𝐫)},$$
(7)
while the more general case is straightforward. The read-out back-action force is applied in the sensing areas with the same intensity but opposite sign for the two bodies, so that its spatial density is given by $`\frac{𝐏(𝐫)}{P_N}`$. The corresponding system transfer function is then:

$$H_{ba}(\omega )T_{X_d}(\omega )|_{𝐆(𝐫)=𝐏(𝐫)/P_N}.$$
(8)
In close analogy with Eq. (1), the transfer functions Eqs. 7 and 8 give the detector sensitivity to GW as: $`S_{hh}(\omega )=\left(S_{xx}+|H_{ba}(\omega )|^2S_{ff}\right)/|H_{gw}(\omega )|^2`$. In Fig. 3(c) we compare the sensitivities of a detector, evaluated for the selective readout $`𝐏_4`$ and for the single area read-out $`𝐏_1`$.

The main effect of the selective readout is to cancel out both thermal and back-action noise contributions due to the non quadrupolar modes, so that a flat response is obtained in the full bandwidth of few kHz and the back action reduction feature is exploited. The detector dimensions are properly chosen to profit by the GW sensitivity of the second order quadrupolar mode of the outer torus. We also notice that the use of large read-out sensing area highly reduces the thermal noise due to the cumulative effect of all the normal modes gillespie . In fact, as the shorter wavelength modes are averaged out, a very good transfer function convergence may be obtained by adding less than 100 modes.

Finite element analysis demonstrates the selective read-out rejection capabilities also for many classes of 3-dimensional vibrational modes. The sensitivity enhancement over the standard readout scheme is then not limited to our plane strain approximation, and the dual torus configuration could be evolved in a complete detector. A practical readout configuration is a series of 4 capacitive transducers, gradiometrically connected and sensed by a single SQUID amplifier. This implements the selective scheme $`𝐏_4`$ and the consequent back-action reduction. The needed sensitivity could be reached as recent progress show that the SQUID amplifiers are approaching the quantum limit, now also in the necessary strong coupling configuration vinante , and that the electric polarization field can be increased up to the material intrinsic limitations kobayashi .

To evaluate the limits of our design, we can evaluate the sensitivity at the SQL of some practical configurations of detector material and geometry. As usual a low dissipation material is required to reduce the effect of the thermal noise. Molybdenum represents an interesting choice, as it shows high cross-section for GWs and its mechanical dissipation was investigated at low temperature giving $`Q/T>2\times 10^8`$ K-1 for acoustic normal modes duffyMo . In Figs. 3 and 4 is shown the SQL sensitivity of a Mo detector with dimensions within the present technological production capabilities. In Fig. 4 we also show the SQL of a detector made of SiC, a ceramic material currently used to produce large mirrors or structures SiC , with mechanical and thermal properties of interest here but not jet characterized in terms of low temperature mechanical dissipation.

The selective readout scheme applied to the dual concept allows the design of detectors tailored for relatively high frequency GW and with very few spurious modes within their wide bandwidth. These features could make the dual torus detector complementary to advanced interferometric detectors, as shown in Fig. 4 by the comparison with the expected sensitivities of LCGT kuroda  and one of the possible setting of Advanced LIGO in narrow band operation ligo2 .