text:
# Quantum torsors with fewer axioms

## 1. Introduction

The notion of a quantum torsor was introduced by Cyril Grunspan  as a noncommutative analog of the classical notion of a torsor in algebraic geometry. An older noncommutative analog is the notion of a Hopf-Galois object as introduced by Kreimer and Takeuchi . If $`H`$ is a Hopf algebra, flat over the base ring $`k`$, a (right) $`H`$-Galois object $`A`$ is a right $`H`$-comodule algebra such that the Galois map $`\beta :AAAH`$ given by $`\beta (xy)=xy{}_{(0)}{}^{}y_{(1)}`$ (where $`\delta :Axx{}_{(0)}{}^{}x{}_{(1)}{}^{}AH`$ is the coaction of $`H`$ on $`A`$) is bijective, and $`A^{\mathrm{co}H}:=\{xA|\delta (x)=x1\}=k`$. We should also require $`A`$ to be a faithfully flat $`k`$-module to have a well-behaved theory of Hopf-Galois objects. If $`A`$ and $`H`$ are commutative, and thus represent an affine scheme $`X`$ and an affine group scheme $`G`$, respectively, then the meaning of the definition is that $`X`$ is a principal homogeneous $`G`$-space, or $`G`$-torsor. An idea going back to Baer  allows to reformulate the notion of a torsor without specifying a group $`G`$, by using a triple multiplication $`X\times X\times XX`$. Grunspan introduces an analog of this notion of torsor for the noncommutative setting. Note that if a torsor $`X`$ as above is represented by a commutative algebra $`T`$, then the triple multiplication corresponds to a triple comultiplication $`\mu :TTTT`$. Deviating from Grunspan’s terminology, we will call a noncommutative torsor an algebra $`T`$ endowed with a triple comultiplication $`\mu :TTT^{\mathrm{op}}T`$ subject to axioms, due to Grunspan, that we will give below (LABEL:torsdef.nme 3.1). Grunspan’s definition of a quantum torsor requires one additional ingredient, an algebra endomorphism $`\theta `$ of $`T`$, subject to certain compatibility conditions with $`\mu `$ (see LABEL:Grundef.nme 3.5). We will refer to such a map as a Grunspan map, so that Grunspan’s quantum torsors are in our terminology noncommutative torsors with a Grunspan map. It is shown already in  that a Grunspan map is unique, if it exists. Thus, having a Grunspan map is a property of a noncommutative torsor, rather than an additional piece of data. There is even a formula for $`\theta `$ in terms $`\mu `$ and the algebra structure of $`T`$, but it is not obvious that this formula really does define a Grunspan map if we do not presuppose one to exist. One of Grunspan’s main results is that (at least over a field) any torsor with Grunspan map has associated with it two natural Hopf algebras over which it is a Hopf-Galois object. Conversely, it was established in  that every Hopf-Galois object has a torsor structure and a Grunspan map.

The punchline of the present paper is that the existence of a Grunspan map is in fact automatic for faithfully flat torsors, and can thus be dropped from the axioms. In fact we will show that every faithfully flat torsor $`T`$ is a Hopf-Galois object over a Hopf algebra naturally constructed from $`TT`$ by means of a descent datum, which in turn is constructed from the torsor comultiplication $`\mu `$. Since every Hopf-Galois object is a torsor with Grunspan map, the Grunspan map is redundant.

## 2. Descent

In this section we very briefly recall the mechanism of faithfully flat descent for extensions of noncommutative rings. This is a very special case of Beck’s theorem; a reference is .

###### Definition 2.1.

Let $`R`$ be a subring of the ring $`S`$, with the inclusion map denoted by $`\eta :RS`$. An $`S/R`$ descent datum on a left $`S`$-module $`M`$ is an $`S`$-module map $`D:MS_RM`$ for which the diagrams

commute (where $`m`$ is induced by the $`S`$-module structure of $`M`$). The pairs $`(M,D)`$ consisting of an $`S`$-module $`M`$ and an $`S/R`$-descent datum $`D`$ on $`M`$ form a category with the obvious definition of morphisms. We will refer to it as the category of ($`S/R`$-)descent data.

###### Theorem 2.2 (Faithfully flat descent).

Let $`\eta :RS`$ be an inclusion of rings. For any left $`R`$-module, an $`S/R`$-descent datum on $`S_RN`$ is given by $`D(sn)=s1nS_RS_RN`$. This defines a functor from the category of left $`R`$-modules to the category of $`S/R`$-descent data.

If $`S`$ is faithfully flat as right $`R`$-module, then this functor is an equivalence. The inverse equivalence maps a descent datum $`(M,D)`$ to $`{}_{}{}^{D}M:=\{mM|D(m)=1m\}`$. In particular, for every descent datum $`(M,D)`$, the map $`f:S_R({}_{}{}^{D}M)smsmM`$ is an isomorphism with inverse induced by $`D`$, i.e. $`f^1(m)=D(m)S_R({}_{}{}^{D}M)S_RM`$.

## 3. Torsors

Throughout the rest of the paper we work over a fixed base ring $`k`$. We will often write $`vwVW`$ for an element of a tensor product of two $`k`$-modules $`V,W`$, even if we know perfectly well that the element in question cannot be assumed to be a simple tensor. Thus $`v`$ and $`w`$ in such an expression are not meaningful symbols by themselves. This is of course in the spirit of Sweedler’s notation $`\mathrm{\Delta }(c)=c{}_{(1)}{}^{}c_{(2)}`$ for comultiplication in a coalgebra.

We define noncommutative torsors by the same axioms like Grunspan’s quantum torsors, but without the endomorphism $`\theta `$ in .

###### Definition 3.1.

A (noncommutative) $`k`$-torsor is a $`k`$-algebra $`T`$ with an algebra map $`\mu :TTT^{\mathrm{op}}T`$ such that the diagrams

commute.

###### Notation 3.2.

Following Grunspan, we use the notation $`\mu (x)=x{}_{}{}^{(1)}x{}_{}{}^{(2)}x^{(3)}`$, in which the axioms read

$$\mu (x{}_{}{}^{(1)})x{}_{}{}^{(2)}x{}_{}{}^{(3)}=x{}_{}{}^{(1)}x{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mu (x{}_{}{}^{(3)})$$

$$x{}_{}{}^{(1)}x{}_{}{}^{(2)}x{}_{}{}^{(3)}=1x$$

$$x{}_{}{}^{(1)}x{}_{}{}^{(2)}x{}_{}{}^{(3)}=x1$$

The key observation for our main result is that every torsor gives rise to a descent datum:

###### Lemma 3.3.

Let $`T`$ be a $`k`$-Torsor. Then

$$D:=(TT)(T\mu ):TTTTT$$

is a $`T/k`$-descent datum on the left $`T`$-module $`TT`$, and satisfies $`(TD)\mu (x)=x{}_{}{}^{(1)}1x{}_{}{}^{(2)}x{}_{}{}^{(3)}=(T\eta TT)\mu (x)`$.

###### Proof.

The definition can be written as $`D(xy)=xy{}_{}{}^{(1)}y{}_{}{}^{(2)}y^{(3)}`$. Left $`T`$-linearity of this map is obvious. We have

$`(TD)\mu (x)`$ $`=x{}_{}{}^{(1)}D(x{}_{}{}^{(2)}x{}_{}{}^{(3)})`$
$`=x{}_{}{}^{(1)}(TT)(x{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mu (x{}_{}{}^{(3)})`$
$`=(TTT)(\mu (x{}_{}{}^{(1)})x{}_{}{}^{(2)}x{}_{}{}^{(3)})`$
$`=x{}_{}{}^{(1)}1x{}_{}{}^{(2)}x^{(3)}`$
and thus

$`(TD)D(xy)`$ $`=xy{}_{}{}^{(1)}D(y{}_{}{}^{(2)}y{}_{}{}^{(3)})`$
$`=xy{}_{}{}^{(1)}D(y{}_{}{}^{(2)}y{}_{}{}^{(3)})`$
$`=xy{}_{}{}^{(1)}1y{}_{}{}^{(2)}y^{(3)}`$
$`=(T\eta TT)D(xy).`$
Finally $`(TT)D(xy)=xy{}_{}{}^{(1)}y{}_{}{}^{(2)}y{}_{}{}^{(3)}=xy`$. ∎

We are now ready to prove the main result:

###### Theorem 3.4.

Let $`T`$ be a faithfully flat $`k`$-torsor. Then

$$H:={}_{}{}^{D}(TT)=\{xyTT|xy{}_{}{}^{(1)}y{}_{}{}^{(2)}y{}_{}{}^{(3)}=1xy\}$$

is a Hopf algebra. The algebra structure is that of a subalgebra of $`T^{\mathrm{op}}T`$, comultiplication and counit are given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(xy)=xy{}_{}{}^{(1)}y{}_{}{}^{(2)}y^{(3)}$$

$$\epsilon (xy)=xy.$$

$`T`$ is a right $`H`$-Galois object under the coaction

$$\delta (x)=x{}_{}{}^{(1)}x{}_{}{}^{(2)}x{}_{}{}^{(3)}.$$

###### Proof.

$`H`$ is a subalgebra of $`T^{\mathrm{op}}T`$ since for $`xy,abH`$ we have

$`D((xy)(ab))`$ $`=D(axyb)`$
$`=ax(yb){}_{}{}^{(1)}(yb){}_{}{}^{(2)}(yb)^{(3)}`$
$`=axy{}_{}{}^{(1)}b{}_{}{}^{(1)}b{}_{}{}^{(2)}y{}_{}{}^{(2)}y{}_{}{}^{(3)}b^{(3)}`$
$`=ab{}_{}{}^{(1)}b{}_{}{}^{(2)}xyb^{(3)}`$
$`=1axyb`$
$`=1(xy)(ab).`$
To see that the coaction $`\delta `$ is well-defined, we have to check that the image of $`\mu `$ is contained in $`TH`$, which is, by faithful flatness of $`T`$, the equalizer of

$$\text{}.$$

But $`(TD)\mu (x)=(T\eta TT)\mu (x)`$ was shown in LABEL:tordesc.nme 3.3. Since $`\mu `$ is an algebra map, so is the coaction $`\delta `$, for which we employ the usual Sweedler notation $`\delta (x)=x{}_{(0)}{}^{}x_{(1)}`$.

The Galois map $`\beta :TTTH`$ for the coaction $`\delta `$ is given by $`\beta (xy)=xy{}_{(0)}{}^{}y{}_{(1)}{}^{}=xy{}_{}{}^{(1)}y{}_{}{}^{(2)}y{}_{}{}^{(3)}=D(xy)`$. Thus it is an isomorphism by faithfully flat descent, LABEL:descthm.nme 2.2. It follows that $`H`$ is faithfully flat over $`k`$.

Since $`\delta `$ is well-defined, so is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_0:TTxyxy{}_{}{}^{(1)}y{}_{}{}^{(2)}y{}_{}{}^{(3)}TTH.$$

To prove that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is well-defined, we need to check that the image of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is contained in $`HH`$, which, by faithful flatness of $`H`$, is the equalizer of

$$\text{}.$$

Now for $`xyH`$ we have

$`(DH)\mathrm{\Delta }_0(xy)`$ $`=(DH)(xy{}_{}{}^{(1)}y{}_{}{}^{(2)}y{}_{}{}^{(3)})`$
$`=xy{}_{}{}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{(1)}y{}_{}{}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{(2)}y{}_{}{}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{(3)}y{}_{}{}^{(2)}y^{(3)}`$
$`=xy{}_{}{}^{(1)}y{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mu (y{}_{}{}^{(3)})`$
$`=(TT\mu )D(xy)`$
$`=(TT\mu )(1xy)`$
$`=1\mathrm{\Delta }_0(xy)`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is an algebra map since $`\mu `$ is, and coassociativity follows from the coassociativity axiom of the torsor $`T`$.

For $`xyH`$ we have $`xy1=xy{}_{}{}^{(1)}y{}_{}{}^{(2)}y{}_{}{}^{(3)}=1xy`$, whence $`xyk`$ by faithful flatness of $`T`$. Thus, $`\epsilon `$ is well-defined. It is straightforward to check that $`\epsilon `$ is an algebra map, that it is a counit for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and that the coaction $`\delta `$ is counital.

In particular, $`H`$ is a bialgebra, and $`T`$ is an $`H`$-Galois extension of $`k`$, since $`xT^{\mathrm{co}H}`$ implies $`x1=x{}_{}{}^{(1)}x{}_{}{}^{(2)}x{}_{}{}^{(3)}=1xTT`$, and thus $`xk`$ by faithful flatness of $`T`$. We may now simply invoke  to conclude that $`H`$ is a Hopf algebra; see also the Appendix. ∎

###### Definition 3.5.

Let $`(T,\mu )`$ be a noncommutative torsor. A Grunspan map for $`T`$ is an algebra endomorphism $`\theta `$ of $`T`$ satisfying

$$(TT^{\mathrm{op}}\theta T^{\mathrm{op}}T)(\mu T^{\mathrm{op}}T)\mu =(T\mu ^{\mathrm{op}}T)\mu $$

$$(\theta \theta \theta )\mu =\mu \theta $$

where $`\mu ^{\mathrm{op}}(x)=x{}_{}{}^{(3)}x{}_{}{}^{(2)}x^{(1)}`$.

Note that the second axiom for $`\theta `$ has the natural interpretation that $`\theta `$ should be an endomorphism of the torsor $`T`$ rather than only the algebra $`T`$. As Grunspan observed, $`\theta `$ is uniquely determined by $`\mu `$, and can be expressed by the formula

$$\theta (x)=x{}_{}{}^{(1)}x{}_{}{}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{(3)}x{}_{}{}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{(2)}x{}_{}{}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{(1)}x{}_{}{}^{(3)}.$$

Given a torsor $`T`$ (without a Grunspan map), we can of course use the last formula to define a $`k`$-module endomorphism of $`T`$, but it seems far from obvious that $`\theta `$ will automatically satisfy the axioms in LABEL:Grundef.nme 3.5. However, we have shown in  that every Hopf-Galois object is a quantum torsor with a Grunspan map. Thus we have:

###### Corollary 3.6.

Every torsor has a Grunspan map.

## 4. Torsors with noncommutative invariants

Once we have realized that the Grunspan map is redundant, the axiom system for a torsor is easily generalized to cover Hopf-Galois extensions of algebras other than the base ring $`k`$.

###### Definition 4.1.

Let $`B`$ be a $`k`$-algebra, and $`BT`$ an algebra extension, with $`T`$ a faithfully flat $`k`$-module. The centralizer $`(T_BT)^B`$ of $`B`$ in the (obvious) $`B`$-$`B`$-bimodule $`T_BT`$ is an algebra by $`(xy)(ab)=axyb`$ for $`xy,ab(T_BT)^B`$.

A $`B`$-torsor structure on $`T`$ is an algebra map $`\mu :TT(T_BT)^B`$; we denote by $`\mu _0:TTT_BT`$ the induced map, and write $`\mu _0(x)=x{}_{}{}^{(1)}x{}_{}{}^{(2)}x^{(3)}`$.

The torsor structure is required to fulfill the following axioms:

(4.1)
$$x{}_{}{}^{(1)}x{}_{}{}^{(2)}x{}_{}{}^{(3)}=1xT\underset{B}{}T$$

(4.2)
$$x{}_{}{}^{(1)}x{}_{}{}^{(2)}x{}_{}{}^{(3)}=x1TT$$

(4.3)
$$\mu (b)=b11bB$$

(4.4)
$$\mu (x{}_{}{}^{(1)})x{}_{}{}^{(2)}x{}_{}{}^{(3)}=x{}_{}{}^{(1)}x{}_{}{}^{(2)}\mu (x{}_{}{}^{(3)})TT\underset{B}{}TT\underset{B}{}T$$

Note that (4.4) makes sense since $`\mu `$ is a left $`B`$-module map by (4.3).

###### Lemma 4.2.

Let $`T`$ be a $`B`$-torsor. Then a $`T/k`$-descent datum on $`T_BT`$ is given by $`D(xy)=xy{}_{}{}^{(1)}y{}_{}{}^{(2)}y^{(3)}`$. It satisfies $`(TD)\mu (x)=x{}_{}{}^{(1)}1x{}_{}{}^{(2)}x^{(3)}`$.

The proof is not essentially different from that of LABEL:tordesc.nme 3.3. Note that $`D(T_BT)T(T_BT)^B`$, so that $`{}_{}{}^{D}(T_BT)(T_BT)^B`$ by descent.

###### Theorem 4.3.

Let $`T`$ be a $`B`$-torsor, and assume that $`T`$ is a faithfully flat right $`B`$-module.

Then $`H:={}_{}{}^{D}(T_BT)`$ is a $`k`$-flat Hopf algebra. The algebra structure is that of a subalgebra of $`(T_BT)^D`$, the comultiplication and counit are given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(xy)=xy{}_{}{}^{(1)}y{}_{}{}^{(2)}y{}_{}{}^{(3)},$$

$$\epsilon (xy)=xy$$

for $`xyH`$. The algebra $`T`$ is an $`H`$-Galois extension of $`B`$ under the coaction $`\delta :TTH`$ given by $`\delta (x)=\mu (x)`$.

###### Proof.

The proof is not essentially different from that of LABEL:mainthm.nme 3.4. The assumption of faithful flatness of $`T_B`$ is used to deduce from bijectivity of the canonical map $`\beta :T_BTTH`$ that $`H`$ is a faithfully flat $`k`$-module, and that $`B=T^{\mathrm{co}H}`$. ∎

###### Lemma 4.4.

Let $`H`$ be a $`k`$-faithfully flat Hopf algebra, and let $`T`$ be a right faithfully flat $`H`$-Galois extension of $`BT`$. Then $`T`$ is a $`B`$-torsor with torsor structure

$$\mu :Txx{}_{(0)}{}^{}x{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[1]}x{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[2]}T(T\underset{B}{}T)^B,$$

where $`h{}_{}{}^{[1]}h{}_{}{}^{[2]}=\beta ^1(1h)T_BT`$, with $`\beta :T_BTTH`$ the Galois map.

It is easy to check that the Lemma and the preceding Theorem establish an equivalence (in a suitable sense) between the notions of $`B`$-torsor and Hopf-Galois extension of $`B`$, much like Grunspan’s torsors do for the case $`B=k`$. Note that in this generalized setting we cannot even hope to obtain an analog of Grunspans $`\theta `$-map, except as an endomorphism of the centralizer $`T^B`$.

## Appendix A bialgebra that admits a Hopf-Galois extension is a Hopf algebra

Let $`H`$ be a $`k`$-bialgebra, and $`A`$ a right $`H`$-Galois extension of $`BA`$ which is a faithfully flat $`k`$-module. Then $`H`$ is a Hopf algebra. This is the main result of . We present a much simpler unpublished proof of this fact due to Takeuchi.

It is well-known that $`H`$ is a Hopf algebra if and only if the map $`\beta _H:HHghgh{}_{(1)}{}^{}h_{(2)}`$ is a bijection. By assumption the map $`\beta _A:A_BAxyxy{}_{(0)}{}^{}y{}_{(1)}{}^{}AH`$ is a bijection. Now the diagram

commutes, where $`(\beta _A)_{13}`$ denotes the map that applies $`\beta _A`$ to the first and third tensor factor, and leaves the middle factor untouched. Thus $`A\beta _H`$, and by faithful flatness of $`A`$ also $`\beta _H`$, is a bijection.


format: text

text:
# Entanglement Breaking Channels

## 1 Introduction

A quantum channel is represented by a stochastic map, i.e., a map which is both completely positive and trace-preserving. We will refer to these as CPT maps. In this paper we consider the special class of quantum channels which can be simulated by a classical channel in the following sense: The sender makes a measurement on the input state $`\rho `$, and send the outcome $`k`$ via a classical channel to the receiver who then prepares an agreed upon state $`R_k`$. Such channels can be written in the form

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}R_k\mathrm{Tr}F_k\rho `$ (1)
where each $`R_k`$ is a density matrix and the $`\{F_k\}`$ form a positive operator valued measure POVM. We call this the “Holevo form” because it was introduced by Holevo in .

It is also natural consider the class of channels which break entanglement.

###### Definition 1

A stochastic map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is called entanglement breaking if $`(I\mathrm{\Phi })(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is always separable, i.e., any entangled density matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is mapped to a separable one.

It is not hard to see that, as shown in the next section, a map is entanglement-breaking if and only if it can be written in the form

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|\psi _k\psi _k|\varphi _k,\rho \varphi _k`$ (2)
in which case it is necessarily completely positive. Furthermore, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is trace-preserving if and only if $`_k|\varphi _k\varphi _k|=I`$, in which case, (2) is a special case of (1). One can show that the converse also holds, so that we have the following result.

###### Theorem 2

A channel can be written in the form (1) using positive semi-definite operators $`F_k`$ if and only if it is entanglement breaking. Such a map is also trace-preserving if and only if the $`\{F_k\}`$ form a POVM or, equivalently, $`_k|\varphi _k\varphi _k|=I`$.

The rather straightforward proof will be given in the next section together with some additional equivalences. We will refer to stochastic maps which are both entanglement-breaking and trace-preserving as EBT.

Of course there are stochastic maps which are not of the form (1). In particular, conjugation with a unitary matrix is not EBT. Channels which break entanglement are particularly noisy in some sense, e.g., a qubit map is EBT if the image of the Bloch sphere collapses to a plane or a line. In the opposite direction, we will show that a channel in $`d`$ dimensions is not EBT if it can be written using fewer than $`d`$ Kraus operators.

###### Theorem 3

The set of EBT maps is convex.

Although this follows easily from the definition of entanglement breaking, it may be instructive to also show directly that the set of maps of the form (1) is convex. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ denote such maps with density matrices $`\{R_j\}_{j=1\mathrm{}m}`$ and $`\{\stackrel{~}{R}_k\}_{k=1\mathrm{}n}`$ and POVM’s $`\{E_j\}_{j=1\mathrm{}m}`$ and $`\{\stackrel{~}{E}_k\}_{k=1\mathrm{}n}`$ respectively. For any $`\alpha [0,1]`$ the map

$`\left[\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }+(1\alpha )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right](\rho )={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}R_j\mathrm{Tr}(\alpha E_j\rho )+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\stackrel{~}{R}_k\mathrm{Tr}[(1\alpha )\stackrel{~}{E}_j\rho ]`$
has the form (1) since $`\{\alpha E_1,\alpha E_2,\mathrm{}\alpha E_m,(1\alpha )\stackrel{~}{E}_1,\mathrm{}(1\alpha )\stackrel{~}{E}_n\}`$ is also a POVM.

Note that we have used implicitly the idea of generating a new POVM as the convex combination of two POVM’s, In this sense, the set of POVM’s is also convex, and one might expect that the extreme points of the set of entanglement-breaking maps are precisely those with an extreme POVM and pure $`R_k`$. However, this is false; at end of Section 3 of , the trine POVM is used to give an example of a qubit channel which is not extreme, despite the fact that the POVM is.

Certain subclasses of EBT maps are particularly important. Holevo called a channel

* classical-quantum (CQ) if each $`F_k=|kk|`$ in the POVM is a one-dimensional projection. In this case, (1) reduces to $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )=_kR_kk,\rho k`$.
* quantum-classical (QC) if each density matrix $`R_k=|kk|`$ is a one-dimensional projection and $`_kR_k=I`$.

If a CQ map has the property that each density matrix $`R_k=|\psi _k\psi _k|`$ is a pure state, we will call it an extreme CQ map. Note that the pure states $`|\psi _k`$ need not be orthonormal, or even linearly independent. We will see in Section 3 that extreme CQ maps are always extreme points of the set of EBT maps, but they are only extreme points for the set of CPT maps if all pairs $`\psi _j,\psi _k`$ are non-zero.

When all $`R_k=R`$ are identical, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the maximally noisy map $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )=R`$ for all $`\rho `$. Because it maps all density matrices to the same $`R`$, its image is a single “point” in the set of density matrices and its capacity is zero. A point channel is extreme if and only if its image $`R`$ is a pure state. A point channel is a special case of a CQ map; however, because all $`R_k=R`$ the sum in (1) can be reduced to a single term with $`E_1=I`$. For $`d>2`$, one can also consider those CQ maps for which some $`R_k`$ are identical; then the POVM can be written as a projective measurement, and the image is a polyhedron.

It is useful to have Kraus operator representations of EBT maps. For $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of the form (1), let $`A_{kmn}=\sqrt{R_k}|mn|\sqrt{F_k}`$ where $`\{|m\}`$ and $`\{|n\}`$ are orthonormal bases. Then one easily verifies that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{kmn}{}}A_{kmn}\rho A_{kmn}^{}={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}R_k\mathrm{Tr}F_k\rho `$ (3)
For CQ and QC maps these operators reduce to $`A_{km}=\sqrt{R_k}|mk|`$ and $`A_{kn}=|kn|\sqrt{F_k}`$ respectively. Moreover, if all density matrices are pure states $`R_k=|\psi _k\psi _k|`$, then one can achieve a further reduction to $`A_k=|\psi _kk|`$ in the case of CQ maps.

Holevo  showed that for EBT maps the Holevo capacity (i.e., the capacity of a quantum channel used for classical communication with product inputs) is additive. This result was extended by King  to additivity of the capacity of channels of the form $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is CQ or QC and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is completely arbitrary. Shor  then proved the additivity of minimal entropy and Holevo capacity when $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is EBT and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ arbitrary. Quite recently, King  showed that the maximal p-norms of EBT channels are multiplicative, and used this to give another proof of Shor’s additivity results for minimal entropy and Holevo capacity. In a related development, Vidal, Dür and Cirac  used Shor’s techniques to prove additivity of the entanglement of formation for a class of mixed states associated with EBT maps.

Because it is important to understand the differences between those channels which break entanglement and those which preserve it, we seek other characterizations of these channels, describe their extreme points, and examine their properties. Results for qubits are given in a related paper  which follows. Some analysis of entanglement breaking channels was also independently presented by Verstraete and Verschelde .

## 2 Equivalent conditions

In this section, we establish a number of equivalent characterizations of EBT maps, some of which were already discussed in the previous section.

###### Theorem 4

The following are equivalent

* $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has the Holevo form (1) with $`F_k`$ positive semi-definite.
* $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is entanglement breaking.
* $`(I\mathrm{\Phi })(|\beta \beta |)`$ is separable for $`|\beta =d^{1/2}_j|j|j`$ a maximally entangled state.
* $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be written in operator sum form using only Kraus operators of rank one.
* $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is completely positive for all positivity preserving maps $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$.
* $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is completely positive for all positivity preserving maps $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$.

A corresponding equivalence holds for CPT and EBT maps with the additional conditions that $`\{F_k\}`$ is a POVM, the Kraus operators $`A_k`$ satisfy $`_kA_k^{}A_k=I`$, and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is trace-preserving.

To prove this result, we will make use of the correspondence  between maps and states given by $`\mathrm{\Phi }(I\mathrm{\Phi })(|\beta \beta |)`$ (Also see  in this context.)

Proof: To show that (A) $``$ (B) note that when $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has the form (1),

$`(I\mathrm{\Phi })(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}R_kT_2\left(\sqrt{E_k}\mathrm{\Gamma }\sqrt{E_k}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\gamma _kR_kQ_k`$
where $`T_2`$ denotes the partial trace, $`\gamma _k=\mathrm{Tr}E_k\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`Q_k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma _l}}T_2\left(\sqrt{E_k}\mathrm{\Gamma }\sqrt{E_k}\right)`$. Thus, for arbitrary $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`(I\mathrm{\Phi })(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is separable.

The implication (B) $``$ (C) is trivial. To see that (C) $``$ (A), observe that since $`(I\mathrm{\Phi })(|\beta \beta |)`$ is separable, one can find normalized vectors $`|v_n`$ and $`|w_n`$ for which

$`(I\mathrm{\Phi })(|\beta \beta |)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}{\displaystyle \underset{jk}{}}|jk|\mathrm{\Phi }(|jk|)`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}p_n|v_nv_n||w_nw_n|`$ (5)
Now let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be the map

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(\rho )=d{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|w_nw_n|\mathrm{Tr}\left(\rho p_n|v_nv_n|\right).`$ (6)
Then one easily verifies that

$`(I\mathrm{\Omega })(|\beta \beta |)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{jkn}{}}|jk||w_nw_n|p_nj,v_nv_n,k`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}p_n|v_nv_n||w_nw_n|`$
where we have used $`|v_n=_j|jj,v_n`$. Since a map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is uniquely determined by its action on the basis $`|jk|`$, and hence by the action of $`(I\mathrm{\Phi })`$ on $`|\beta \beta |`$, we can conclude that $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Omega }`$. For trace-preserving maps, we also need to verify that $`\{dp_n|v_nv_n|\}`$ is a POVM. Taking the partial trace of (5), and using the fact that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is trace-preserving yields

$`T_2\left[(I\mathrm{\Phi })(|\beta \beta |)\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}{\displaystyle \underset{jk}{}}|jk|\mathrm{Tr}(|jk|)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}I`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}p_n|v_nv_n|`$
which is the desired result. Moreover, we have also shown that (C) $``$ (D).

To show that (D) $``$ (A), suppose that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )=_kA_k\rho A_k^{}`$ with $`A_k=|w_ku_k|`$. Then the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be written in the form (1) with $`R_k=|u_ku_k|`$. Moreover, when $`_kA_k^{}A_k=I`$, then $`_k|u_ku_k|=I`$ so that $`F_k=|u_ku_k|`$ defines a POVM.

The equivalence of (E) and (B) follows easily from the fact that a density matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is separable if and only if $`(I\mathrm{\Omega })(\mathrm{\Gamma })>0`$ for all positivity preserving maps $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ . To see that this is equivalent to (F), it suffices to observe that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is positivity preserving if and only if its adjoint $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is and that $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}=\widehat{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$, where the adjoint is taken with respect to the Hilbert Schmidt inner product so that $`\mathrm{Tr}[\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(A)]^{}B=\mathrm{Tr}A^{}\mathrm{\Omega }(B)`$.

It may be interesting to recall that $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is trace-preserving if and only if $`\widehat{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}`$ is unital so that the adjoint of a positivity and trace preserving map preserves POVM’s. Thus, when $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has the form (1), the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is achieved by replacing $`E_k`$ by $`\widehat{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}(E_k)`$.

Conditions (E) and (F) could be weakened slightly since it would suffice to check either for all $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ in some set of entanglement witnesses for the space on which $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ acts. However, one does not expect to be able to weaken them beyond this. Indeed,  and  contain examples of a channels which preserve PPT entanglement, but break other types, i.e., the channel output $`(I\mathrm{\Phi })(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is entangled, yet the partial transpose $`(IT)`$ acting on it always yields a positive semi-definite state $`(IT\mathrm{\Phi })(\mathrm{\Gamma })0`$.

Alternatively, one could also consider maps which are not EBT, but break particular types of entanglement.

## 3 Extreme points

We now give some results about the extreme points of the convex set of EBT maps. In this section we will use some additional results from Choi  who observed that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is completely positive if and only if $`(I\mathrm{\Phi })(|\beta \beta |)`$ is positive semi-definite. When $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is written in the operator sum form

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}A_k\rho A_k^{}`$ (7)
the Kraus operators $`A_k`$ can be chosen as the eigenvectors of $`(I\mathrm{\Phi })(|\beta \beta |)`$ with strictly positive (i.e., non-zero) eigenvalue. (See Leung  for an nice exposition.) Choi  also showed that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is extreme in the set of CPT maps if and only if the set $`\{A_j^{}A_k\}`$ is linearly independent. Since both (7) and this linear independence are preserved when $`A_i_ju_{ij}A_j`$, a sufficient condition for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to be an extreme EBT map is that $`\{A_j^{}A_k\}`$ is linearly independent for some set of operators $`\{A_k\}`$ satisfying (7). Note that the condition that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is also trace-preserving becomes $`_kA_k^{}A_k=I`$.

Recall that an extreme CQ map is one which can be written in the form

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|\psi _k\psi _k|e_k,\rho e_k`$ (8)
with the vectors $`\{e_k\}`$ orthonormal. We can summarize our results as follows.

###### Theorem 5

* If $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an extreme CQ map, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an extreme point in the set of EBT maps.
* If $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an extreme CQ map, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an extreme point in the set of CPT maps if and only if $`\psi _j,\psi _k0j,k`$ when it is written in the form (8).
* If $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is both in the set of EBT maps and an extreme point of the CPT maps, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an extreme CQ map.
* When $`d=2`$, the extreme points of the set of EBT maps are precisely the extreme CQ maps. When $`d3`$ there are extreme EBT maps which are not CQ.

Proof: To prove (A) we assume that $`\mathrm{\Phi }=a\mathrm{\Phi }_1+(1a)\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`0<a<1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ both EBT. Both $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ can be written in the form (2). By combining these, one finds one can write

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}t_j|\varphi _j\varphi _j|f_j,\rho f_j`$ (9)
with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ having the same form, but different $`t_j0`$. By assumption, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be written in the form (8) with $`|e_k`$ orthonormal so that

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(|e_ke_k|)=|\psi _k\psi _k|={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}t_j|e_k,f_j|^2|\varphi _j\varphi _j|.`$ (10)
Since all $`t_j0`$, the rank one projection $`|\psi _k\psi _k|`$ is a linear combination with non-negative coefficients of the projections $`|\varphi _j\varphi _j|`$. This is possible only if those projections $`|\varphi _j\varphi _j|`$ which have non-zero coefficients in (10) are identical to the projection $`|\psi _k\psi _k|`$. Hence, we can conclude that every projection $`|\varphi _j\varphi _j|`$ in (9) is equal to one of the projection $`|\psi _k\psi _k|`$ in (8). Let us now relabel the projections $`|\psi _k^{}\psi _k^{}|`$ so that they are all distinct and let $`E_k^{}=_{ik^{}}|e_ie_i|`$ where the sum is taken over those $`e_i`$ for which the associated projection in (8) is $`|\psi _k^{}\psi _k^{}|`$. Then $`\{E_k^{}\}`$ gives a partition of $`I`$ into mutually orthogonal projections, i.e, a von Neumann measurement, and we can write (dropping the s for simplicity)

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|\psi _k\psi _k|\mathrm{Tr}E_k\rho .`$ (11)
We can also write

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|\psi _k\psi _k|\mathrm{Tr}F_k\rho `$ (12)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_2(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|\psi _k\psi _k|\mathrm{Tr}G_k\rho `$ (13)
with $`\{F_k\}`$ and $`\{G_k\}`$ each a POVM. Since the $`|\psi _k^{}\psi _k^{}|`$ were chosen to be distinct and the $`E_k^{}`$ orthonormal, it follows that $`\mathrm{\Phi }=a\mathrm{\Phi }_1+(1a)\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ if and only if $`E_k=aF_k+(1a)G_k`$. Since $`0F_k,G_kI`$, this is possible only if $`F_k=G_k=E_k`$. But then we have shown that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1=\mathrm{\Phi }_2=\mathrm{\Phi }`$, which proves part (A).

To prove (B) note that the Kraus operators can be chosen as $`A_k=|\psi _kv_k|`$. Thus, $`A_j^{}A_k=\psi _j,\psi _k|e_ke_j|`$ which yields a linearly independent set if and only if none of the $`\psi _j`$ are mutually orthogonal. But this is precisely Choi’s condition for the map to be extreme in the set of all CPT maps.

The proof of part (C) requires Lemma 8 which is of interest in its own right. The proof of (D) when $`d=2`$ is given in the following paper  on qubit EBT maps, while the counter-example establishing (D) for $`d>3`$ is given below.

Remark: Recall that a QC map can be written in the form

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|e_ke_k|\mathrm{Tr}\rho F_k`$ (14)
with the vectors $`\{e_k\}`$ orthonormal. Such maps can never be extreme in the set of CPT maps; their Kraus operators always include a subset of the form $`A_k=|e_kv_k|G_k`$ which can not satisfy Choi’s linear independence condition due to the orthogonality of the $`\{e_k\}`$. In the case of qubits, QC maps are not even extreme in EBT, unless they are also CQ. However, for $`d=4`$, one can have extreme EBT maps which are QC but not CQ.

Example: Let $`\{g_k\}`$ be orthonormal and consider the POVM consisting of a “trine” on span$`\{g_1,g_2\}`$ and the projection on span$`\{g_3,g_4\}`$, i.e.,

$$E_1=\frac{2}{3}|g_1g_1|,E_2=\frac{2}{3}|g_+g_+|,E_3=\frac{2}{3}|g_+g_+|,E_4=|g_3g_3|+|g_4g_4|$$

where $`|g_\pm =\frac{1}{2}|g_1\pm \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}|g_2`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )=_{k=1}^4|e_ke_k|\mathrm{Tr}\rho E_k`$ is an extreme EBT map, which is QC, but not CQ.

To see that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is extreme it suffices to observe that it is essentially the direct sum of maps $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A\mathrm{\Phi }_B`$ where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A:𝐂^2𝐂^3`$ with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A(\rho )=_{k=1}^3|e_ke_k|\mathrm{Tr}\rho E_k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_B:𝐂^2𝐂^1`$ with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_B(\rho )=|e_4e_4|`$ for all $`\rho `$. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A`$ is extreme because it is the adjoint of an extreme CQ map, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_B`$ is the only CPT from map $`𝐂^2`$ to $`𝐂^1`$. We used the fact that proof of part(A) of Theorem 5 extends easily to map from $`𝐂^d`$to $`𝐂^d^{}`$ with $`d^{}<d`$.

A map which is both CQ and QC projects a density matrix $`\rho `$ onto its diagonal in a fixed orthonormal basis. One can generalize this to CPT maps which take a density matrix to its projection onto a block-diagonal one. Such maps have the form $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )=_kE_k\rho E_k`$ where $`E_k`$ are the projections in a von Neumann measurement; they are not EBT when at least one of the projections has rank $`>1`$. The map in the example above is a generalization of CQ in the sense that it is the composition of a block diagonal projection together with an EBT map, and thus could be regarded as “block CQ”. In a similar spirit, one might regard an extreme CQ map for which the $`\psi _k`$ can be split into two mutually orthogonal subsets as “block QC”. With respect to CPT, maps which are both block QC and block CQ could be considered as generalizations of the quasi-extreme points introduced in  for stochastic maps on $`𝐂^2`$.

We now give some results about the number of Kraus operators associated with EBT maps.

###### Theorem 6

If a CPT map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be written with fewer than $`d`$ Kraus operators, then it is not EBT.

Proof: This follows from the fact  that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can always be written using at most $`r\mathrm{rank}[(I\mathrm{\Phi })(|\beta \beta |)`$ Kraus operators. However, it was shown in  that if $`r<d`$, then $`(I\mathrm{\Phi })(|\beta \beta |)`$ is not separable and, hence, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ does not break the entanglement of the state $`|\beta \beta |`$. Alternatively, one could observe that if $`r<d`$, then at least one eigenvalue of $`(I\mathrm{\Phi })(|\beta \beta |`$ is greater than $`1/d`$, while its left reduced density matrix has all eigenvalues equal to $`\frac{1}{d}`$ (since $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is CPT). However, in Ref.  it was shown that if a state is separable, then its the maximal eigenvalue must not exceed the maximal eigenvalue of either of subsystems. QED

###### Lemma 7

If $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a CPT map for which $`\mathrm{rank}[(I\mathrm{\Phi })(|\beta \beta |)]=d`$, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is EBT if and only if $`T\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is completely positive.

This follows immediately from a (non-trivial) result in  which implies that a $`d^2\times d^2`$ density matrix of rank $`d`$ is separable if and only if it has positive partial transpose.

The following lemma is of some interest since one can find examples  of separable matrices of rank $`d`$ whose decomposition into product pure states requires more than $`d`$ products. The additional hypothesis that the reduced density matrix $`\rho _A=\mathrm{Tr}_B\rho `$ also has rank $`d`$ is crucial. The lemma was first proven in . Here we present a simpler proof.

###### Lemma 8

Let $`\rho `$ be a density matrix on $`_A_B`$. If $`\rho `$ is separable, $`\rho `$ has rank $`d`$, and $`\rho _A=\mathrm{Tr}_B\rho `$ has rank $`d`$, then $`\rho `$ can be written as a convex combination of products of pure states using at most $`d`$ products.

Proof: Since $`\rho `$ is separable it can be written in the form

$`\rho ={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}\lambda _i|a_ia_i||b_ib_i|.`$ (15)
Assume that $`k>d`$ and that $`\rho `$ can not be written in the form (15) using less than $`k`$ products. Since $`\rho _A`$ has exactly rank $`d`$, there is no loss of generality in assuming that the vectors above have been chosen so that $`|a_1,|a_2,\mathrm{}|a_d`$ are linearly independent. Moreover, since $`\rho `$ has rank $`d<k`$, the first $`d+1`$ vectors $`|a_i|b_i`$ must be linearly dependent so that one can find $`\alpha _j`$ such that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{d+1}{}}}\alpha _j|a_j|b_j=0.`$ (16)
Now let $`\{|e_k\}`$ be an orthonormal basis for $`_B`$. Then

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{d+1}{}}}\alpha _je_k,b_j|a_j=0k.`$ (17)
Since the first $`d`$ vectors $`|a_j`$ are linearly independent, there is a vector $`𝐱`$ in $`𝐂^{d+1}`$ such that $`_jv_j|a_j=0`$ if and only if $`𝐯`$ is a multiple of $`𝐱`$. Applying this to the coefficients in (17) one finds that there are numbers $`\nu _k`$ such that $`u_je_k,|b_j=\nu _kx_j`$. Let $`|\nu `$ be the vector $`_k\nu _k|e_k`$. Then $`\alpha _j|b_j=x_j|\nu `$. Since $`|b_j`$ was chosen to have norm $`1`$, it follows that when $`\alpha _j0`$, $`\left|\frac{x_j}{\alpha _j}\right|=1`$ and $`|b_j=e^{i\theta _j}|\nu `$. Thus, one can rewrite (15) as

$`\rho ={\displaystyle \underset{j:\alpha _j0}{}}\lambda _j|a_ja_j||b_jb_j|+{\displaystyle \underset{j:\alpha _j=0}{}}\lambda _j|a_ja_j||\nu \nu |.`$ (18)
Suppose that $`t`$ of the $`\alpha _j`$ are non-zero. Since the vectors $`\{a_j:\alpha _j0\}`$ are linearly dependent, the density matrix $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_A=_{j:\alpha _j=0}\lambda _j|a_ja_j|`$ has rank strictly $`<t`$ and can be rewritten in the form $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_A=_{k=1}^t^{}\lambda _j^{}|a_j^{}a_j^{}|`$ using only $`t^{}<t`$ vectors. Substituting this in (18) gives $`\rho `$ as linear combination of products using strictly less than $`k`$ contradicting the assumption that (15) used the minimum number.

Proof of (C): If $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be written with fewer than $`d`$ Kraus operators, it is not entanglement breaking; and if it requires more than $`d`$ Kraus operators, it is not extreme. Hence we can assume that $`\mathrm{rank}[(I\mathrm{\Phi })(|\beta \beta |)=d`$. The result then follows from Lemma 8.

We now show that, for $`d=3`$, the set of entanglement breaking maps has extreme points which are not CQ. Moreover, unlike the $`d=4`$ example considered earlier, there is no decomposition into orthogonal blocks associated with this map.

Counterexample: Let $`|0,|1,|2`$ be an orthonormal basis for $`𝐂^3`$ and consider the following four vectors corresponding to the vertices of a tetrahedron

$`|v_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(+|0+|1+|2\right)`$
$`|v_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(+|0|1|2\right)`$
$`|v_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(|0+|1|2\right)`$
$`|v_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(|0|1+|2\right)`$
and let

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}}|v_iv_i|\mathrm{Tr}\rho |v_iv_i|`$ (19)
We now show that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an extreme point for the set of entanglement-breaking maps. To see this, first recall that any entanglement breaking map $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(\rho )={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\alpha _i|y_iy_i|\mathrm{Tr}\rho |z_iz_i|`$ (20)
Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ be one of the entanglement breaking maps whose convex combination is $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and let $`|y`$ and $`|z`$ be $`|y_i`$ and $`|z_i`$ for some fixed $`i`$ in this above expression for $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Now, consider the six vectors $`|w_{ij}`$ for $`i<j`$, where these are defined so that $`w_{ij}|v_k=0`$ for $`ki,j`$. For example, $`|w_{01}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|1+|2)`$. Then,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(|w_{ij}w_{ij}|)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(|v_iv_i|+|v_jv_j|\right)`$ (21)
so for input $`|w_{ij}w_{ij}|`$, the output has rank 2 and is orthogonal to $`w_{kl}`$, where $`i,j,k,l`$ are all distinct. We thus have that for $`|y`$ and $`|z`$,

$`w_{ij}|y=0\mathrm{or}w_{kl}|z=0`$ (22)
where $`\{i,j,k,l\}`$ is any permutation of $`\{0,1,2,3\}`$, as above.

Now, consider $`|y`$. Suppose it is orthogonal to two of $`w_{01}`$, $`w_{02}`$, and $`w_{12}`$. Then, we must have $`|y=|v_3`$. This means that $`|y`$ is not orthogonal to $`w_{23}`$, $`w_{13}`$ and $`w_{03}`$, which implies in turn that $`|z`$ is orthogonal to $`w_{01}`$, $`w_{02}`$ and $`w_{12}`$, showing that $`|z=|v_3`$ as well.

The other case is when $`y`$ is not orthogonal to at least two of the above three vectors $`w_{01}`$, $`w_{02}`$, $`w_{12}`$; we can assume by symmetry that these two are $`w_{01}`$ and $`w_{02}`$. Then $`z`$ is orthogonal to $`w_{23}`$ and $`w_{13}`$, showing that $`|z=|v_0`$. By the same reasoning as in the last paragraph, we now have that $`|y=|v_0`$ as well.

Thus, all the $`y_i`$ and $`z_i`$ in the above expression for $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ must be one of the four vectors $`v_j`$. It follows easily from this that $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Moreover, we have shown that the Holevo form for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is essentially unique. Hence $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can not be written in the form required for it to be a CQ map. QED

Note that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is not extreme in the set of CPT maps. In fact, it can be represented as a convex combination of CPT maps in several ways. For example, it can be written as the convex combination of the identity map, with weight $`\frac{1}{3}`$, and the average of the three CP maps that first project the state into one of the three planes $`\{|0,|1\}`$, $`\{|0,|2\}`$, $`\{|1,|2\}`$, and then apply the $`\sigma _x`$ operator for that plane interchanging the two basis states, with weight $`\frac{2}{3}`$. It can also be written as a convex combination of the identity and the four maps corresponding to conjugation with a unitary map which reflects across the plane orthogonal to one of the vectors $`|v_j`$.

## 4 Representations in bases

Let $`G_0=d^{1/2}I`$ and let $`G_1\mathrm{}G_{d^21}`$ be a basis for the subspace of self-adjoint $`d\times d`$ matrices with trace zero which is orthonormal in the sense $`\mathrm{Tr}G_j^{}G_k=\delta _{jk}`$. Then $`\{G_k\}`$, $`k=0,1\mathrm{}d^21`$ is an orthonormal basis for the subspace of self-adjoint $`d\times d`$ matrices and every density matrix can be written in the form

$`\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}I+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{d^21}{}}}w_jG_j={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{d^21}{}}}w_jG_j`$ (23)
with $`w_j=\mathrm{Tr}\rho G_j`$ so that $`w_0=d^{1/2}`$. It then follows that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{d^21}{}}}w_j^2=\mathrm{Tr}\rho ^2\mathrm{Tr}\rho =1\mathrm{and}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{d^21}{}}}w_j^2{\displaystyle \frac{d1}{d}}.`$
Then any linear (and hence stochastic) map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on the self-adjoint $`d\times d`$ matrices can be represented as a $`d^2\times d^2`$ matrix $`𝕋`$ with elements $`t_{jk}=\mathrm{Tr}G_j\mathrm{\Phi }(G_k)`$. Now let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a Holevo channel with density matrices $`R_k=_jw_j^kG_j`$ and POVM $`F_k=_nu_n^kG_n`$ ($`k=1\mathrm{}N`$) and write $`\rho =_ix_iG_i`$. Then it is straightforward to verify that $`t_{jn}=_kw_j^ku_n^k`$. Thus, $`𝕋=W^TU`$ where $`W`$ and $`U`$ are the $`d^2\times N`$ matrices with elements $`w_{jk}=w_j^k`$ and $`u_{nk}=u_n^k`$ respectively. The condition that $`\{F_k\}`$ is a POVM is precisely that the first row of $`𝕋`$ is $`(1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$.

Such representations have been studied in more detail for qubits using the Pauli matrices for $`G_k`$. Recently, several generalizations have been consider for $`d=3`$  and higher . Another natural choice of basis has $`G_{jk}=|jk|`$ for some orthonormal basis $`|j`$. In this case some modifications are needed since $`I=_kG_{kk}`$. For $`j<k`$, one could also replace $`G_{jk},G_{kj}`$ by $`2^{1/2}(G_{jk}\pm G_{kj})`$ which act like $`\sigma _x`$ and $`i\sigma _y`$ for the two-dimensional subspace span$`\{|j,|k\}`$. Unfortunately, when $`d>2`$, the requirement that $`R_k`$ and $`F_k`$ are positive semi-definite does not seem easily related to a condition between $`u_0`$ and $`_{j=1}^{d^21}u_j^2`$ in any of these bases. Hence, such representations seem most useful for qubits, as discussed in .

For a CQ or QC channel, $`W`$ and $`U`$ are $`d^2\times d`$ which implies rank($`𝕋`$) $`d`$. Hence the image of a QC or CQ channel lies in a subspace of dim $`d1`$. This raises the question of whether or not a stochastic map for which the image of the set of density matrices lies in a subspace of sufficiently small dimension is always entanglement breaking. (This is true for qubits for which all planar maps are EBT.)

For a basis in which a necessary condition for positive semi-definiteness is $`_{i=1}^{d^21}|x_i|^2x_0^2`$, one can show that EBT implies $`_{j=1}^{d^21}|t_{jj}|1`$. For details, see Ref.

In general, a matrix $`𝕋`$ can be written as a product in many ways. We have shown that $`𝕋`$ represents an entanglement-breaking map if it can be decomposed into a product $`𝕋=W^TU`$ whose elements $`W,U`$ have very special properties. There is also a correspondence between the matrix $`𝕋`$ which represents $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in a basis in the usual sense and the matrix $`(I\mathrm{\Phi })(|\beta \beta |)`$. It would seem that the requirement that $`(I\mathrm{\Phi })(|\beta \beta |)`$ is separable is related to the product decomposition of $`𝕋`$; however, we have not analyzed this. It may be more amenable to the filtering approach advocated by Verstraete and Verschelde .

Acknowledgment: Part of this work was done while the authors participated in the program on Quantum Computation at the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute at Berkeley in November, 2002.

The work of M.H. is supported by EC, grant EQUIP (IST-1999-11053), RESQ (IST-2001-37559) and QUPRODIS (IST-2001-38877). The work of M.B.R, was partially supported by the National Security Agency (NSA) and Advanced Research and Development Activity (ARDA) under Army Research Office (ARO) contract numbers DAAG55-98-1-0374 and DAAD19-02-1-0065, and by the National Science Foundation under Grant number DMS-0074566.


text:
# Minimal Supersymmetric Pati-Salam Theory: Determination of Physical Scales.

## I Introduction

The theories of Grand Unification owe their origin to the beautiful idea of quark-lepton symmetry put forward about thirty years ago by Pati and Salam Pati and Salam (1974). The minimal and original realization is based on a $`G_{PS}=SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times SU(4)_c`$ symmetry, and has been studied thoroughly in the past (for recent work see for example Jeannerot et al. (2000); Babu and Mohapatra (2001) and references therein). It is characterized by a number of interesting and important features

1. it incorporates Left-Right (LR) symmetry Pati and Salam (1974); Mohapatra and Pati (1975); Senjanović and Mohapatra (1975) (on top of the quark-lepton symmetry mentioned above), which leads naturally to the spontaneous breaking of parity and charge conjugation Senjanović and Mohapatra (1975); Senjanović (1979).
2. incorporates a see-saw mechanism for small neutrino masses Gell-Mann et al. (1979); Yanagida (1979); Mohapatra and Senjanović (1980); Glashow (1979a)
3. predicts the existence of magnetic monopoles Polyakov (1974); ’t Hooft (1974); Sen (1985)
4. leads to rare processes such as $`K_L\mu \overline{e}`$ through the lepto-quark gauge bosons (with however a negligible rate for $`M_{PS}10GeV`$) Pati and Salam (1974)
5. in the case of single-step breaking, predicts the scale of quark-lepton (and Left-Right) unification Pati et al. (1983)
6. allows naturally for $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=2`$ process of $`n\overline{n}`$ oscillations (with however a negligible rate unless there are light diquarks in the $`TeV`$ mass region)Kuzmin (1970); Glashow (1979b); Mohapatra and Marshak (1980); Chacko and Mohapatra (1999).
7. last but not least, it allows for implementation of the leptogenesis scenario, as suggested by the see-saw mechanism Fukugita and Yanagida (1986).

Since the scale of unification is large (see below), the Pati-Salam (PS) model can turn out to be indistinguishable from a less unifying theory, such as LR, or a more unifying one such as SO(10). The issue we want to address here is, what could be the smoking gun of a Pati-Salam model?

We believe that this issue should be investigated in the context of the minimal PS theory. Of course, one wishes to appeal to supersymmetry as the usual protection mechanism for large hierarchies. Now, the supersymmetric standard model includes potentially catastrophic $`d=4`$ operators leading to proton decay. The supersymmetric PS model, as any model of the renormalizable see-saw mechanism, solves this problem since it leads to R-parity being an exact symmetry to all orders in perturbation theory Aulakh et al. (1999). As a bonus, the LSP is stable and becomes a natural candidate for the dark matter of the universe.

We will therefore systematically study the minimal supersymmetric Pati-Salam theory, paying special attention to possible low energy predictions. We allow for two-step breaking

$`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times SU(4)_c`$
$`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{BL}SU(3)_c`$
$`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times SU(3)_c`$ (1)
Our findings are as follows. If one ignores non-renormalizable terms, the $`M_c`$ scale is in the range

$$10^{10}GeV<M_c<10^{14}GeV$$
(2)
while at the same time

$$10^{10}GeV>M_R>10^3GeV$$
(3)
In other words, lower $`M_R`$ implies larger $`M_c`$. We find it remarkable that unification allows $`M_R`$ to be close to the experimental limit, and thus potentially observable.

Of course, the lower $`M_R`$, the more fine-tuning needed in order to have neutrinos light. But still, strictly speaking, Dirac neutrino mass can be arbitrary, and thus neutrinos could be light. At the same time $`M_c`$ is pushed to its upper limit $`10^{14}GeV`$ which leads to the well-known monopole problem of theories with symmetry breaking scales above $`10^{11}GeV`$. One can invoke inflation (or some other mechanism, Langacker and Pi (1980); Dvali et al. (1995, 1998)) to solve the problem, but this simply renders the $`SU(4)_c`$ symmetry invisible.

Another extreme is the single-step breaking with $`M_RM_c10^{10}GeV`$. In this case monopoles have a mass $`m_M10^{11}GeV`$, and they are perfectly compatible with all the experimental, astrophysical and cosmological data. At the same time one has the usual leptogenesis scenario Boubekeur (2002) and naturally small neutrino masses; and furthermore $`SU(4)_c`$ could be observable through the possible discovery of magnetic monopoles.

Another interesting consequence of this theory is a “clean”(type I) see-saw mechanism, as we discuss later.

Most important, this theory includes the possibility of existence of light doubly charged supermultiplets (as noticed in the past Aulakh et al. (1997); Chacko and Mohapatra (1997)) with masses in the $`TeV`$ region, and a potentially light (for $`M_RM_c`$) color octet supermultiplet with mass $`M_R^2/M_c`$, which could also be as low as $`TeV`$. Relatively light color octets are known to be present in other theories. Even in the minimal supersymmetric $`SU(5)`$ they could lie much below the GUT scale Bachas et al. (1996).

Non-renormalizable effects suppressed by $`M_{Pl}`$ become important if $`M_R^2>M_WM_{Pl}`$. In this case, the single-step breaking at $`M_RM_c10^{10}GeV`$ turns out to be the only possibility, and the doubly charged supermultiplets become potentially observable with masses in the $`TeV`$ range. However, the color octet becomes heavy, making the theory indistinguishable from the LR model.

A more likely possibility is the existence of non-renormalizable terms cut-off by a much lower scale than $`M_{Pl}`$. Namely, the theory is not asymptotically free above $`M_c`$, and the gauge coupling becomes strong at $`M_F10M_c`$. Including $`1/M_F`$ terms (with $`M_R^2>M_WM_F`$) leads to $`M_R10^7GeV`$, $`M_c10^{12}GeV`$, and the color octet and doubly-charged multiplets have the same mass, $`M_R^2/M_c`$. Again, these particles could be observable and reveal four colour unification. In what follows we discuss these findings at length.

## II The model: minimal PS theory with two-step breaking

It is easy to see that (1) can be achieved with the following minimal set of Higgs-like supermultiplets: (the numbers in parenthesis indicate the $`G_{PS}`$ representations)

$`A(1,1,15)`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }(3,1,10),\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(3,1,\overline{10}),\mathrm{\Sigma }_c(1,3,\overline{10}),\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_c(1,3,10)`$ (4)
The matter supermultiplets are

$$\psi (2,1,4),\psi _c(1,2,\overline{4})$$
(5)
and the minimal light Higgs multiplet is

$$\varphi (2,2,1)$$
(6)
The most general superpotential for the fields (4) is

$$W=mTrA^2+MTr(\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_c\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_c)+Tr(\mathrm{\Sigma }A\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Sigma }_cA\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_c)$$
(7)
where we assume the following transformation properties under Parity

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_c,\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_c,AA$$
(8)
We choose $`A`$ to be a parity-odd field in order to avoid flat directions connecting Left- and Right-breaking minima.

Notice that under $`SU(3)_c`$, the symmetric representation 10 of $`SU(4)_c`$ is decomposed as 10 = 6 + 3 + 1. Clearly, only the singlets of $`SU(3)_c`$ in the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ fields, which we shall denote as $`\mathrm{\Delta },\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }},\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c`$, can take non-vanishing vevs.

This allows for the supersymmetry-preserving symmetry breaking pattern

$$<A>=M_c\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,3)$$
(9)
$`<\mathrm{\Delta }>`$ $`=`$ $`<\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}>=0`$ (10)
$`<\mathrm{\Delta }_c>=M_R\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ , $`<\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c>=M_R\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (15)
(where the matrix in (9) is in $`SU(4)`$ space and those of (15) are in $`SU(2)_R`$ space), with

$$M_cM,M_R\sqrt{Mm}$$
(16)
The mass spectrum is easy to compute

| $`M_c`$ | all states in $`\mathrm{\Sigma },\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$; |
| --- | --- |
|  | the states in $`A`$ except for an octet of color |
|  | the states in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c,\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_c`$ except for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c`$ |
| $`M_R`$ | the fields $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c(1,3,1)`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c(1,3,1)`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c,\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_c`$, |
|  | except for the components $`\delta _c^{++},\overline{\delta }_c^{++}`$ |
|  | and a combination of the singlet components |
| $`M_R^2/M_c`$ | color octet in A |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SUSY}`$ | supermultiplets $`\delta _c^{++},\overline{\delta }_c^{++}`$ |
|  | and a combination of the singlets in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c`$ |
|  | (and all the MSSM superpartners) |

Some comments are in order. The color octet mass is clear, $`mM_R^2/M_c`$, but the situation with $`\delta _c^{++},\overline{\delta }_c^{++}`$ is more subtle, and although it has been discussed before Chacko and Mohapatra (1997) it is worth repeating here. The fields $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c(1,3,1)`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c(1,3,1)`$ responsible for the scale $`M_R`$ are coupled to the $`(1,1,1)`$ field in $`A`$ and so appear in the superpotential only through terms with $`Tr\mathrm{\Delta }_c\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c`$. This implies a larger, accidental $`SU(3)`$ symmetry broken down to $`SU(2)`$, hence five Nambu-Goldstone bosons. But the gauge symmetry $`SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{BL}`$ is broken down to $`U(1)_Y`$, so that three of them are eaten, leaving us with massless states $`\delta _c^{++},\overline{\delta }_c^{++}`$. Of course, they become massive when supersymmetry gets broken, and so they have masses of order $`TeV`$. This is the most interesting prediction of SUSY LR (PS) theories.

However, there is a problem associated with this. Namely, the charge-preserving vacuum lies on a flat direction Kuchimanchi and Mohapatra (1993)

$$<\mathrm{\Delta }_c>=M_R\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{cos}\theta \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta & 0\end{array}\right)<\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c>=M_R\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{cos}\theta & 0\end{array}\right)$$
(17)
(in other words, the potential is $`\theta `$-independent, and charge conservation requires $`\theta =0`$ or $`\theta =\pi /2`$). If the soft breaking terms break also $`SU(2)_R`$, then, of course, one may eliminate the charge breaking vacua. If not, one would have to appeal to higher dimensional operators (which in general break the accidental $`SU(3)`$ symmetry). We discuss this possibility in Section IV.

On top of the above states are the usual quarks and leptons in

$$\psi (2,1,4);\psi _c(1,2,\overline{4})$$
(18)
and the two MSSM Higgs doublet superfields belonging to a combination of the (2,2,1) and the (2,2,15) fields (see below). The fermions $`\psi `$ and $`\psi _c`$ provide a complete representation (we assume no new matter states) and can be used to normalize the $`U(1)`$ generators, such as $`Y`$ or $`BL`$.

## III Unification constraints

From the charge formula in LR symmetric theories, we have $`Y/2=I_{3R}+(BL)/2`$. Using the fact that $`(BL)/2`$ is a generator of $`SU(4)_c`$, we can properly normalize the generators. It is then easy to see that the combination

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha ^1\alpha _Y^1\alpha _L^1\frac{2}{3}\alpha _c^1$$
(19)
(where $`\alpha _Y,\alpha _L`$ and $`\alpha _c`$ are the $`U(1)_Y,SU(2)_L`$ and $`SU(3)_c`$ couplings respectively) is a function of only $`M_R`$ and $`M_c`$.

In what follows, we perform a one-loop analysis, and in order to estimate $`M_c`$ and $`M_R`$ we can safely ignore the difference between $`M_W`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SUSY}`$ noting that it becomes relevant at the two-loop level. It is then easy to show that

for $`M_R^2M_WM_c`$,

$$2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\alpha ^1=12\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_c}{M_W}+8\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_R}{M_W},$$
(20)
and

for $`M_R^2M_WM_c`$,

$$2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\alpha ^1=14\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_c}{M_W}+4\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_R}{M_W}.$$
(21)
In the MSSM, one would get

$$2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\alpha ^1=12\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_U}{M_W}$$
(22)
where $`M_U`$ is the unification scale, $`M_U10^{16}GeV`$.

It is easy to see that in this approximation

$$10^{10}GeVM_c10^{14}GeV$$
(23)
while at the same time

$$10^{10}GeVM_R10^3GeV$$
(24)
As it is clear from (20) and (21), lower $`M_R`$ implies bigger $`M_c`$. It is remarkable that unification constraints allow for the parity breaking scale to be experimentally detectable. Of course since the see-saw mechanism requires $`m_\nu M_R^1`$, small neutrino masses prefer larger $`M_R`$.

A comment is noteworthy here. This is true if we assume that $`m_D`$ (the Dirac neutrino mass) is of the order of the charged lepton or quark masses. In the minimal theory one is tempted to use only a (2,2,1) Higgs to break $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$. Then one has

$$m_D=m_u,m_{\mathrm{}}=m_d$$
(25)
for the down quarks ($`d`$), charged leptons ($`\mathrm{}`$), up quarks ($`u`$) and neutrino Dirac ($`D`$) masses. But $`m_{\mathrm{}}=m_d`$ (at $`M_c`$) fails badly for the first two generations and so (25) cannot really be trusted. One can add a (2,2,15) in order to correct (25), in which case the mass spectrum looks like

$`m_u`$ $`=`$ $`y^1v_u^1+y^{15}v_u^{15}`$
$`m_D`$ $`=`$ $`y^1v_u^13y^{15}v_u^{15}`$
$`m_d`$ $`=`$ $`y^1v_d^1+y^{15}v_d^{15}`$
$`m_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`y^1v_d^13y^{15}v_d^{15}`$ (26)
Clearly, the theory can be made realistic without any change in the unification predictions since only one bi-doublet remains light after the usual fine-tuning. The price is arbitrariness at $`m_D`$ and the inability to predict neutrino masses. Low $`M_R`$ is then phenomenologically allowed and in accord with $`SU(4)_c`$ unification.

A positive note. As is well-known, in LR theories the see-saw mechanism is not type I, i.e. it contains an additional piece $`<\mathrm{\Delta }>M_W^2/M_R`$ Magg and Wetterich (1980); Mohapatra and Senjanović (1981). What happens is the following. The symmetry allows for a coupling in the potential

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V=\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^c+M^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2$$
(27)
which gives a small vev to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$

$$<\mathrm{\Delta }>=\lambda \frac{<\varphi >^2M_R}{M^2}\lambda \frac{M_W^2}{M_R}$$
(28)
Now, in supersymmetry this does not happen, at least at the renormalizable level. We can have higher-dimensional terms in the superpotential

$$\mathrm{\Delta }W=\frac{1}{M_{Pl}}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^c$$
(29)
which imply a tiny, negligible vev $`<\mathrm{\Delta }>M_W^2/M_{Pl}`$.

One could also generate such terms if there are interactions

$$W=\varphi ^2S+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }^cS+MS^2$$
(30)
where $`S=(3,3,1)`$ under $`G_{PS}`$. Integrating out $`S`$ would then give (29) with $`M_{Pl}M`$.

Another possibility would be

$$W=\varphi \mathrm{\Delta }X+\varphi \mathrm{\Delta }^c\overline{X}+MX\overline{X}$$
(31)
where $`X=2,2,\overline{1}0)`$ and $`\overline{X}=2,2,10)`$ under $`G_{PS}`$. The absence of the $`S,X,\overline{X}`$ fields guarantees a type I see-saw at the supersymmetric level.

Now, once supersymmetry is broken, one can generate a nonvanishing but negligible vev for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ Aulakh et al. (1999):

$$<\mathrm{\Delta }>\left(\frac{m_{3/2}}{M_c}\right)^2\frac{m_D^2}{M_R}$$
(32)
which contributes by a tiny factor $`(m_{3/2}/M_c)^210^{14}`$ to the usual see-saw mass term $`m_\nu m_D^2/m_{\nu _R}`$.

In short, the see-saw mechanism takes its canonical form in the minimal model. Of course, since we do not know $`m_D`$ and the right-handed neutrino masses we cannot predict neutrino masses precisely, but the type I form serves for the leptogenesis scenario. Namely, in this case it is the Dirac Yukawa couplings which are responsible for bringing the right-handed neutrinos into equilibrium and also for their decay. Thus one can set constraints on $`m_D`$ and right-handed neutrino masses.

## IV Effects of non-renormalizable terms

The crucial ingredient in obtaining (23) and (24) is the existence of doubly charged supermultiplets at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SUSY}TeV`$. We have not considered higher dimensional operators of the form $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^c\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c)^2/M_{Pl}`$, which are likely to be present and would cure the problem of potential breaking of the electromagnetic charge Mohapatra and Rasin (1996), even if the SUSY breaking terms preserve $`SU(2)_R`$. These terms would also give a mass to the doubly charged states, relevant for $`M_R^2M_WM_{Pl}`$. The unification constraint is now

$$2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\alpha ^1=12\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_c}{M_W}8\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_r}{M_W}+8\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_{Pl}}{M_W}$$
(33)
The only consistent solution is the single-step breaking

$$M_RM_c10^{10}GeV$$
(34)
which guarantees the lightness of the doubly-charged supermultiplets. Since the color octets however become heavy, it is hard to distinguish this theory from the LR models. The only hope would be to find the relatively light magnetic monopoles, but it is hard to imagine an effective production mechanism in the context of supersymmetry.

Now, could there be another source of these masses? In principle, yes. Namely, the large representations we need to achieve the symmetry breaking imply the loss of asymptotic freedom above $`M_c`$. In fact, the gauge coupling becomes strong at the scale $`M_F10M_c`$. Thus, strictly speaking we could imagine operators of the type $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^c\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c)^2/M_F`$ which give a mass $`M_R^2/10M_c`$ to the doubly-charged states. With the color octets and doubly charged particles having basically the same mass, the unification constraint turns out to be

$$2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\alpha ^1=20\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_c}{M_W}8\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_r}{M_W}$$
(35)
Keeping in mind that these effects are important for $`M_R^2M_cM_W`$, one gets

$$10^{12}GeVM_c10^{16}GeV;10^7GeVM_R10^{16}GeV$$
(36)
In other words, for $`M_R10^7GeV`$, the colour octets and doubly charged states lie at the $`TeV`$ scale, since the non-renormalizable terms play no role whatsoever. For $`M_R`$ bigger than $`10^7GeV`$, it becomes harder to find these states, but they still remain comparable in mass. This could be the smoking gun of supersymmetric Pati-Salam theory.

## V Summary and outlook

The minimal renormalizable supersymmetric Pati-Salam theory offers the exciting possibility of low scale parity restoration, even as low as $`TeV`$, thus making it accessible to experiment. The important, crucial prediction of the theory is the existence of doubly charged and color octet supermultiplets with an almost degenerate mass. The discovery of these states would be a signal of four colour unification.

As discussed in the paper, for $`10^3GeVM_R10^7GeV`$ ($`10^{12}GeVM_c10^{14}GeV`$), these particles could be discovered by LHC at the $`TeV`$ scale. In all honesty, such a low $`M_R`$ requires some fine-tuning in order to achieve a small neutrino mass. For larger $`M_R`$ these particles become heavier and less accessible to experiment, however non-renormalizable effects suppressed by a fundamental scale around $`10M_c`$ still guarantee that they have comparable masses.

Breaking of PS symmetry at $`M_c`$ implies the existence of $`U(1)_{BL}`$ monopoles. with mass $`m_M10M_c`$. If produced in a phase transition via the Kibble mechanism, the requirement that their density be less than the critical density then implies $`M_c10^{12}GeV`$. In other words, if non-renormalizable terms cut off by $`M_F10M_c`$ are present, we have the usual GUT (superheavy) monopole and one can invoke inflation or some other mechanism in order to get rid of them. Unfortunately, in this case the number of monopoles, if not zero, is not predictable at all. The single-step breaking at $`M_cM_R10^{10}GeV`$, on the other hand, offers the interesting possibility of potentially detectable intermediate mass monopoles. This however is a delicate point, since as is usual in supersymmetric theories, high-temperature effects would lead to a false vacuum problem. Namely, the phase transition may not occur at all, rending the theory unrealistic (for recent work and references see Bajc et al. (2002)). Whether if this can be avoided and an estimate of the monopole density can be made is beyond the scope of this paper.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Borut Bajc for discussions. The work of A.M. was partially supported by CDCHT-ULA (Project C-1073-01-05-A). The work of G.S. is partially supported by EEC (TMR contracts ERBFMRX-CT960090 and HPRN-CT-2000-00152). A.M. wishes to thank ICTP for hospitality during the course of this work.