format: text

text:
# References

1. Introduction. The Randall-Sundrum (RS) idea  for explaining the weak-scale hierarchy problem has garnered much attention from both the phenomenology and string-theory communities, providing a link between the two which is often absent. RS is a simple and elegant way of generating the TeV scale which characterizes the standard model from a set of fundamental scales which are of order the Planck mass ($`M_p`$). All that is needed is that the distance between a hidden and a visible sector brane be approximately $`b=35/M_p`$ in a compact extra dimension, $`y[0,1]`$. The warping of space in this extra dimension, by a factor $`e^{kby}`$, translates the moderately large interbrane separation into the large hierarchy needed to explain the ratio TeV$`/M_p`$.

However the RS idea as originally proposed was incomplete due to the lack of any mechanism for stabilizing the brane separation, $`b`$. This was a modulus, corresponding to a massless particle, the radion, which would be ruled out because of its modification of gravity: the attractive force mediated by the radion would effectively increase Newton’s constant at large distance scales. An attractive model for giving the radion a potential energy was proposed by Goldberger and Wise (GW) ; they introduced a bulk scalar field with different VEV’s, $`v_0`$ and $`v_1`$, on the two branes. If the mass $`m`$ of the scalar is small compared to the scale $`k`$ which appears in the warp factor $`e^{kby}`$, then it is possible to obtain the desired interbrane separation. One finds the relation $`e^{kb}(v_1/v_0)^{4k^2/m^2}`$.

An important benefit of stabilizing the radion is that cosmology is governed by the usual Friedmann equations, up to small corrections of order $`\rho /`$(TeV)4 . Even with stabilization, there may be a problem with reaching a false minimum of the GW radion potential , but without stabilization, there is a worse problem: an unnatural tuning of the energy densities on the two branes is required for getting solutions where the extra dimension is static , a result which can be derived using the (5,5) component of the Einstein equation $`G_{mn}=\kappa ^2T_{mn}`$. However when there is a nontrivial potential for the radius, $`V(b)`$, the (5,5) equation serves only to determine the shift $`\delta b`$ in the radius due to the expansion, and there is no longer any constraint on the matter on the branes. Although this point is now well appreciated -, it has not previously been explicitly demonstrated by solving the full 5-dimensional field equations using a concrete stabilization mechanism. Indeed, it has been claimed recently that such solutions are not possible with an arbitrary equation of state for the matter on the branes -, and also that the rate of expansion does not reproduce normal cosmology on the negative tension brane despite stabilization . Our purpose is to present the complete solutions, to leading order in an expansion in the energy densities on the branes, thus refuting these claims.

2. Preliminaries. The action for 5-D gravity coupled to the stabilizing scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and matter on the branes (located at $`y=0`$ and $`y=1`$, respectively) is

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}}x\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{1}{2\kappa ^2}R\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{1}{2}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }V(\mathrm{\Phi })\right)}`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}x\sqrt{g}\left(_{m,0}V_0(\mathrm{\Phi })\right)}|_{y=0}+{\displaystyle d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}x\sqrt{g}\left(_{m,1}V_1(\mathrm{\Phi })\right)}|_{y=1},`$
where $`\kappa ^2`$ is related to the 5-D Planck scale $`M`$ by $`\kappa ^2=1/(M^3)`$. The negative bulk cosmological constant needed for the RS solution is parametrized as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=6k^2/\kappa ^2`$ and the scalar field potential is that of a free field, $`V(\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{1}{2}m^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$. The brane potentials $`V_0`$ and $`V_1`$ can have any form that will insure nontrivial VEV’s for the scalar field at the branes, for example $`V_i(\mathrm{\Phi })=\lambda _i(\mathrm{\Phi }^2v_i^2)^2`$ . In ref.  we pointed out that the choice $`V_i(\mathrm{\Phi })=m_i(\mathrm{\Phi }v_i)^2`$ is advantageous from the point of view of analytic calculability (see also ).

We will take the metric to have the form

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`n^2(t,y)dt^2a^2(t,y){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}dx_i^2b^2(t,y)dy^2`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`e^{2N(t,y)}dt^2a_0(t)^2e^{2A(t,y)}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}dx_i^2b(t,y)^2dy^2,`$
where a perturbative expansion in the energy densities of the branes will be made around the static solution:

$`N(t,y)`$ $`=`$ $`A_0(y)+\delta N(t,y);A(t,y)=A_0(y)+\delta A(t,y)`$
$`b(t,y)`$ $`=`$ $`b_0+\delta b(t,y);\mathrm{\Phi }(t,y)=\mathrm{\Phi }_0(y)+\delta \mathrm{\Phi }(t,y).`$ (3)
The perturbations are taken to be linear in the energy densities $`\rho _{}`$ and $`\rho `$ of matter on the Planck and TeV branes, located at $`y=0`$ and $`y=1`$, respectively.

This ansatz is to be substituted into the Einstein equations, $`G_{mn}=\kappa ^2T_{mn}`$, and the scalar field equation

$$_t\left(\frac{1}{n}ba^3\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right)_y\left(\frac{1}{b}a^3n\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\right)+ba^3n\left[V^{}+V_0^{}\delta (by)+V_1^{}\delta (b(y1))\right]=0.$$
(4)
Here and in the following, primes on functions of $`y`$ denote $`\frac{}{y}`$, while primes on potentials of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ will mean $`\frac{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$. The nonvanishing components of the Einstein tensor are

$`G_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`3\left[({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}}{b}}{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{b^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a^{\prime \prime }}{a}}+({\displaystyle \frac{a^{}}{a}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{a^{}b^{}}{ab}}\right)\right]`$
$`G_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{b^2}}\left[({\displaystyle \frac{a^{}}{a}})^2+2{\displaystyle \frac{a^{}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{n^{}}{n}}{\displaystyle \frac{b^{}}{b}}{\displaystyle \frac{n^{}}{n}}2{\displaystyle \frac{b^{}}{b}}{\displaystyle \frac{a^{}}{a}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{a^{\prime \prime }}{a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n^{\prime \prime }}{n}}\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{n^2}}\left[({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}})^2+2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{n}}{n}}2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}}{b}}(2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{n}}{n}}){\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{b}}{b}}\right]`$
$`G_{05}`$ $`=`$ $`3\left[{\displaystyle \frac{n^{}}{n}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a^{}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}}{b}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}^{}}{a}}\right]`$
$`G_{55}`$ $`=`$ $`3\left[{\displaystyle \frac{a^{}}{a}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a^{}}{a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n^{}}{n}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{n^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{n}}{n}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}\right)\right]`$ (5)
and the stress energy tensor is $`T_{mn}=g_{mn}(V(\mathrm{\Phi })+\mathrm{\Lambda })+_m\mathrm{\Phi }_n\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{1}{2}^l\mathrm{\Phi }_l\mathrm{\Phi }g_{mn}`$ in the bulk. On the branes, $`T_m^n`$ is given by

$`T_m^n`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (by)\mathrm{diag}(V_0+\rho _{},V_0p_{},V_0p_{},V_0p_{},0)`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`\delta (b(y1))\mathrm{diag}(V_1+\rho ,V_1p,V_1p,V_1p,0)`$
At zeroth order in the perturbations, the equations of motion can be written as

$`A_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{12}}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}m^2b_0^2\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2\right)+k^2b_0^2;A_0^{\prime \prime }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Phi }_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`4A_0^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{}+m^2b_0^2\mathrm{\Phi }_0,`$ (7)
and the solutions are approximately

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0(y)v_0e^{ϵkb_0y};A_0(y)kb_0y+\frac{\kappa ^2}{12}v_0^2(e^{2ϵkb_0y}1)$$
(8)
where we have normalized $`A_0(0)=0`$, and introduced

$$ϵ=\sqrt{4+\frac{m^2}{k^2}}2\frac{m^2}{4k^2}.$$
(9)
The above approximation is good in the limit $`ϵ1`$, which is the same regime in which the Goldberger-Wise mechanism naturally gives a large hierarchy without fine-tuning the scalar field VEV’s on the branes: $`e^{kb_0}=(v_1/v_0)^{1/ϵ}`$. For small $`ϵ`$, the GW solution coincides with an exact solution of the coupled equations that was presented in ref. .

3. Perturbation Equations. We can now write the equations for the perturbations of the metric, $`\delta A`$, $`\delta N`$, $`\delta b`$, and the scalar field, $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }`$. The equations take a simpler form when expressed in terms of the following combinations:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\delta A^{}A_0^{}\frac{\delta b}{b_0}\frac{\kappa ^2}{3}\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{}\delta \mathrm{\Phi };\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\delta N^{}\delta A^{}$$
(10)
Further simplification comes from realizing that the perturbations will have the form, for example, $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\rho _{}(t)g_0(y)+\rho (t)g_1(y)`$, so that their time derivatives are proportional to $`\dot{\rho }`$ and $`\dot{\rho }_{}`$. Below we will confirm that $`\dot{\rho }=3H(\rho +p)`$, where $`H\sqrt{\rho },\sqrt{\rho _{}}`$ is the Hubble parameter. Therefore time derivatives of the perturbations are higher order in $`\rho `$ and $`\rho _{}`$ than are $`y`$ derivatives, and can be neglected at leading order (except in the (05) Einstein equation, where $`\rho ^{3/2}`$ is the leading order). Using this approximation, we can write the combinations (00), (00)$``$(ii), (05) and (55) of the Einstein equations as

$`4A_0^{}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}_0}{a_0}}\right)^2b_0^2e^{2A_0}`$ (11)
$`4A_0^{}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}+\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}_0}{a_0}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}_0}{a_0}}\right)b_0^2e^{2A_0}`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}_0}{a_0}}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}+\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (13)
$`A_0^{}(4\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{{\rm Y}})+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{3}}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{\prime \prime }\delta \mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{}\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^{}+\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2{\displaystyle \frac{\delta b}{b_0}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}_0}{a_0}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}_0}{a_0}}\right)b_0^2e^{2A_0}`$ (14)
In addition, there is the scalar field equation,

$$\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }=(4\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{{\rm Y}})\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{}+\left(\frac{4\kappa ^2}{3}\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2+b_0^2V^{\prime \prime }(\mathrm{\Phi }_0)\right)\delta \mathrm{\Phi }+4A_0^{}\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^{}+\left(2b_0^2V^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }_0)+4A_0^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{}\right)\frac{\delta b}{b_0}+\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{}\frac{\delta b^{}}{b_0}$$
(15)
Assuming $`Z_2`$ symmetry (all functions symmetric under $`yy`$), the boundary conditions implied by the delta function sources at the branes are

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(t,0)`$ $`=`$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{6}}b_0\rho _{}(t);\mathrm{\Psi }(t,1)={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{6}}b_0\rho (t)`$ (16)
$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(t,0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{2}}b_0(\rho _{}+p_{})(t);\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(t,1)=+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{2}}b_0(\rho +p)(t)`$ (17)
$`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^{}(t,y_n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta b(t,y_n)}{b_0}}\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{}(t,y_n)+(1)^n\left({\displaystyle \frac{b_0}{2}}\right)V_n^{\prime \prime }(\mathrm{\Phi }_0(t,y_n))\delta \mathrm{\Phi }(t,y_n),`$ (18)
where in (18) $`n=0,1`$, $`y_0=0`$ and $`y_1=1`$.

4. Solutions. Naively, it would appear that we have five equations for four unknown perturbations, but of course since gravity is a gauge theory, this is not the case. First, we have the relation $`\frac{}{t}`$\[Eq. 11\] $`+\frac{\dot{a}_0}{a_0}`$\[Eq. 12\] $`=`$ \[Eq. 13\]. Furthermore, the (55) Einstein equation and the scalar equation can be shown to be equivalent, using (00),(ii) and the zeroth order relations (7): \[Eq. (14)\]$`{}_{}{}^{}4A_0^{}\times `$\[Eq. (14$`)]=\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{}\times `$\[Eq. (15)\]. So our system is actually underdetermined because of unfixed gauge degrees of freedom. To see this more directly, consider an infinitesimal diffeomorphism which leaves the coordinate positions of the branes unchanged: $`y=\overline{y}+f(\overline{y})`$, where $`f(0)=f(1)=0`$. The metric and scalar perturbations transform as

$`\delta A`$ $``$ $`\delta A+A_0^{}f;\delta N\delta N+A_0^{}f`$
$`\delta b`$ $``$ $`\delta b+b_0f^{};\delta \mathrm{\Phi }\delta \mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{}f`$ (19)
If desired, one can form the gauge invariant combinations

$$\delta A^{}A_0^{}\frac{\delta b}{b_0}\frac{\kappa ^2}{3}\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{}\delta \mathrm{\Phi };\delta N^{}\delta A^{};\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{\prime \prime }\delta \mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{}\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^{}+\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2\frac{\delta b}{b_0}$$
(20)
the first two are precisely our variables $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ and the last one appears in (55) equation. In terms of these gauge invariant variables, the system of equations closes.

It is now easy to verify the following solution from the (00) and (00)-(ii) equations, i.e., eqs. (11-12). Denoting the warp factor $`\mathrm{\Omega }=e^{A_0(1)}`$, we find

$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2b_0}{6(1\mathrm{\Omega }^2)}}e^{4A_0(y)}\left(F(y)(\mathrm{\Omega }^4\rho +\rho _{})(\mathrm{\Omega }^4\rho +\mathrm{\Omega }^2\rho _{})\right)`$ (21)
$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2b_0}{2(1\mathrm{\Omega }^2)}}e^{4A_0(y)}\left(F(y)(\mathrm{\Omega }^4(\rho +p)+\rho _{}+p_{})+(\mathrm{\Omega }^4(\rho +p)+\mathrm{\Omega }^2(\rho _{}+p_{}))\right)`$ (22)
where

$$F(y)=1(1\mathrm{\Omega }^2)\frac{_0^ye^{2A_0}𝑑y}{_0^1e^{2A_0}𝑑y}e^{2kb_0y}$$
(23)
and the Friedmann equations are

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}_0}{a_0}}\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G}{3}}\left(\rho _{}+\mathrm{\Omega }^4\rho \right)`$ (24)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}_0}{a_0}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}_0}{a_0}}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi G\left(\rho _{}+p_{}+\mathrm{\Omega }^4(\rho +p)\right)`$ (25)
$`8\pi G`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa ^2\left(2b_0{\displaystyle _0^1}e^{2A_0}𝑑y\right)^1\kappa ^2k(1\mathrm{\Omega }^2)^1.`$ (26)
The approximations in eqs. (23) and (26) hold when the back reaction of the scalar field on the metric can be neglected.

In the Friedmann equations (24-25), we note that $`\rho `$ is the bare value of the energy density on the TeV brane, naturally of order $`M_p^4`$, while $`\mathrm{\Omega }^4\rho `$ is the physically observable value, of order (TeV)4. Since $`\rho _{}`$ has no such suppression, it seems highly unlikely that $`\rho _{}`$ should be nonzero today; otherwise it would tend to vastly dominate the present expansion of the universe. We also point out that these equations are consistent only if energy is separately conserved on each brane: $`\dot{\rho }+3H(\rho +p)=0`$ and $`\dot{\rho }_{}+3H(\rho _{}+p_{})=0`$. This can be derived directly by considering the (05) Einstein equation, evaluated at either of the branes. The equations of state on the two branes are completely independent; there is no relation between $`p/\rho `$ and $`p_{}/\rho _{}`$.

5. Stiff potential limit. The above solutions are quite general, but they are not complete because we have not yet solved for the scalar field perturbation, $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }`$. This would generically be intractable, but there is a special case in which things simplify, namely, when the brane potentials $`V_i(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ become stiff. In this case, the boundary condition for the scalar fluctuation becomes $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ at either brane. There is no information about the derivative $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ in this case; although $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }0`$, at the same $`V^{\prime \prime }(\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{}`$ in such a way that the product $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }V^{\prime \prime }(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ remains finite, and eq. (18) is automatically satisfied.

Notice that the shift in $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }`$, eq. (19), respects the boundary conditions on $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }`$. Moreover, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{}`$ is always nonzero for our solution. It is therefore always possible, given some solution $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }`$ which vanishes at the branes, to choose an $`f`$ such that $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }`$ becomes zero. This is a convenient choice of gauge because it simplifies the equations of motion, and we will make it for the remainder of this letter.111The above argument is strictly true only for diffeomorphisms which are constant in time, while for our problem we need $`f(t,y)\rho (t),\rho _{}(t)`$. However, the time variation of such an $`f`$ is of higher order in $`\rho `$ and $`\rho _{}`$, so we can neglect it to leading order in the perturbations. Thus far we have satisfied the (00), (ii) and (05) Einstein equations. As noted above, eqs. (14) and (15) are equivalent, so either one just determines the shift in the radius. Using the former, and defining

$$G(y)=\left[\frac{1}{2}e^{2A_0(y)}+A_0^{}e^{4A_0(y)}_0^ye^{2A_0}𝑑y\right]/_0^1e^{2A_0}𝑑y\frac{kb_0e^{4kb_0y}}{1\mathrm{\Omega }^2},$$
(27)
we find that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta b}{b_0}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b_0}{2\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2}}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }^4(\rho 3p)G+(\rho _{}3p_{})(GA_0^{}e^{4A_0})\right]`$ (28)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{kb_0^2e^{4kb_0y}}{2\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2(1\mathrm{\Omega }^2)}}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }^4(\rho 3p)+\mathrm{\Omega }^2(\rho _{}3p_{})\right];`$
the last expression is found by approximating $`A_0=kb_0y`$ everywhere, which means neglecting the back reaction. Using the zeroth order solution (8) for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, and integrating over $`y`$, we can obtain the shift in the size of the extra dimension,

$$_0^1\delta b𝑑y\frac{\left[\mathrm{\Omega }^4(\rho 3p)+\mathrm{\Omega }^2(\rho _{}3p_{})\right]}{8(ϵkv_0)^2\mathrm{\Omega }^{4+2ϵ}}$$
(29)
We can compare this to the result of ref.  by using their result for the radion mass, $`m_r^2(4/3)\kappa ^2(ϵv_0k)^2\mathrm{\Omega }^{2+2ϵ}`$, and the relation $`k\kappa ^21/M_p^2`$. Then

$$\frac{_0^1\delta b𝑑y}{b_0}\frac{\left[\mathrm{\Omega }^4(\rho 3p)+\mathrm{\Omega }^2(\rho _{}3p_{})\right]}{6kb_0m_r^2M_p^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}$$
(30)
which agrees with ref. , except for small corrections of order $`(1+\mathrm{\Omega }^2)`$.222Our correction factor is $`(1\mathrm{\Omega }^{4+2ϵ})/(1\mathrm{\Omega }^2)`$, while that of ref.  is $`(1\mathrm{\Omega }^2)`$. As is well known, the shift in the radion vanishes when the universe is radiation dominated, because the radion couples to the trace of the stress energy tensor, which vanishes if the matter is conformally invariant.

6. Implications. Above we focused on the shift in the size of the extra dimension due to cosmological expansion, but the more experimentally relevant quantity is the shift in the lapse function, $`n(t,1)`$, evaluated on the TeV brane. As emphasized in ref. , the change in $`n(t,1)`$ between the present and the past determines how much physical energy scales on our brane, like the weak scale, $`M_W`$, have evolved. The time dependence of $`M_W`$ is given by $`M_W(t)/M_W(t_0)=e^{\delta N(t,1)+\delta N(t_0,1)+\delta N(t,0)\delta N(t_0,0)}`$. In terms of the variables of the previous section, $`\delta N^{}=\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{{\rm Y}}+A_0^{}\delta b/b_0`$. We find that

$$_0^1\delta N^{}(t,y)𝑑y\frac{\kappa ^2b_0}{24kb_0}\left((2\rho +3p)e^{2kb}(2\rho _{}+3p_{})\right)+_0^1A_0^{}\frac{\delta b}{b_0}𝑑y$$
(31)
Interestingly, the new non-$`\delta b`$ contribution is present even during radiation domination, is parametrically smaller than the radion part only in the matter dominated era, and then only if the back reaction is small ($`ϵ1`$). If $`M_p\mathrm{\Omega }1`$ TeV, the shift in the energy scale since nucleosynthesis is negligible, and this is the only cosmological constraint on $`\delta N`$. However, near the weak scale, the effect could be more interesting. To first order in the physical energy density $`\rho _p=\mathrm{\Omega }^4\rho `$, at early times,

$$M_W(t)M_W(t_0)\left(1\frac{\rho _p(t)}{8\mathrm{\Omega }^4M_p^2k^2}\right),$$
(32)
assuming that $`\rho _{}=p_{}=0`$. It is conceivable that $`kM_p/30`$—in fact, the RS model requires $`k<M_P`$ for consistency, so that higher dimension operators in the gravitational part of the action do not become important. With these parameters and assuming $`g_{}100`$ relativistic degrees of freedom and $`\mathrm{\Omega }M_p=1`$ TeV, the correction to $`M_W`$ becomes of order unity at a temperature of 130 GeV. Thus the temporal variation in fundamental mass scales might have some relevance for the electroweak phase transition and baryogenesis.

We thank C. Csaki, M. Graesser and G. Kribs for helpful discussions. JC thanks Nordita for its hospitality while this work was being finished.


text:
# Experimental realization of optimal detection strategies for overcomplete states

## I Introduction

The basic building block in quantum communications and information is the qubit, that is a physical system with two orthogonal quantum states. A simple example is the horizontal and vertical states of polarization associated with a single photon. It is also possible to prepare any superposition of vertical and horizontal polarization and these correspond to other states of linear, circular and elliptical polarization. In quantum communications a transmitting party (Alice) might select from a number of possible nonorthogonal polarization states to send to the receiving party (Bob). This idea is the basis of the emerging technology of quantum key distribution phoenix95a . Signal states with nonorthogonal polarizations may also arise as a result of noisy communications channels acting on orthogonal signal states. For certain types of noisy channels, the throughput of information is actually maximized for nonorthogonal signal states fuchs97a .

The message encoded in the transmitted photons must be retrieved by measurement. This can be achieved either by a conventional (von Neumann) measurement or by means of a generalized measurement holevo73b ; helstrom76a ; peres93a . The von Neumann measurement gives answers corresponding to one of a pair of orthogonal polarization states. The generalized measurements presented in this paper give one of three or four possible outcomes corresponding to the elements of a probability operator measure or POM helstrom76a , also called a positive operator-valued measure peres93a .

If there are only two possible states then it is known that a single von Neumann measurement with two possible outcomes will minimize the probability for error in identifying the state helstrom76a ; sasaki96a . State discrimination with this minimum allowed error probability has been demonstrated for weak pulses of polarized light barnett97a . With only two possible states, it is also possible to discriminate between the two possibilities without error if we allow for the possibility of an inconclusive measurement outcome ivanovic87a ; dieks88a ; peres88a ; jaeger95a ; chefles98a . Near error-free discrimination between two nonorthogonal polarization states was first demonstrated by Huttner et al. huttner96a . More recently, we have shown that it is possible to discriminate between nonorthogonal polarization states clarke00a  with the probability for inconclusive outcomes at the quantum limit determined by Ivanovic, Dieks and Peres.

Unambiguous discrimination between two nonorthogonal states of a qubit is an example of a generalized measurement (helstrom76a, ; peres93a, ) in that it requires three possible measurement outcomes but there are only two orthogonal polarizations. Measurements of this kind are required if we wish to perform an optimum measurement on a qubit prepared in more than two different states. In this paper we will describe experiments on polarized light prepared in one of three or four nonorthogonal states. The three states form a so-called trine ensemble holevo73b ; peres92a ; hausladen94a , and take the form of three states of linear polarization separated by an angle of $`60^{}`$. These states may be represented on the Poincaré sphere born87a  as three equidistant points on the equator (see Fig. 1, left). The four states form a tetrad ensemble (davies78a, ) and take the form of two linearly and two elliptically polarized states. These states form the vertices of a tetrahedron on the Poincaré sphere (see Fig. 1, right).

In this paper we describe our experimental realizations of two types of optimal measurements on these trine and tetrad states. The first gives the minimum probability of error in identifying the state (helstrom76a, ; holevo73a, ; yuen75a, ; phoenix00a, ). The second provides the knowledge that the qubit was definitely not prepared in one out of the three or four possibilities, but does not discriminate further between the remaining possibilities phoenix00a . This measurement is known to give the accessible information (i.e., the mutual information maximized with respect to detection strategy) between transmitter and receiver for equal prior probabilities for the trine states sasaki99a . We calculate the mutual information attainable from our experiments and show that it exceeds that which can be obtained by the best von Neumann measurement.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section II the relevant theory of probability operator measures (POMs) is outlined. In Section III our implementation of such POMs in optical networks is described theoretically, followed in Section IV by presentation of the experimental setup and results.

## II Theory

Consider a communication channel in which photons are prepared, with equal prior probabilities, in one of three or four known states of polarization. Our task is to perform a measurement on the light and so retrieve information about the prepared state. We are interested in two types of measurement. The first is designed to minimize the probability of error in identifying the state correctly, and the second is aimed at maximizing the mutual information associated with the communications channel.

Our signal states are realizations of either the trine holevo73b ; peres92a ; hausladen94a  or tetrad davies78a  ensembles. The polarization states making up our trine ensemble are

$`|\psi _1^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(|h+\sqrt{3}|v\right),`$
$`|\psi _2^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(|h\sqrt{3}|v\right),`$
$`|\psi _3^3`$ $`=`$ $`|h,`$ (1)
corresponding to states of linear polarization separated by $`60^{}`$ (see Fig. 1, left). The kets $`|h`$ and $`|v`$ are states of horizontal and vertical polarization respectively. The superscript label denotes the fact that there are three members of the trine ensemble. The states making up our tetrad ensemble are

$`|\psi _1^4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(|h+\sqrt{2}\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i/3}|v\right),`$
$`|\psi _2^4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(|h+\sqrt{2}\mathrm{e}^{+2\pi i/3}|v\right),`$
$`|\psi _3^4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(|h+\sqrt{2}|v\right),`$
$`|\psi _4^4`$ $`=`$ $`|h,`$ (2)
where the superscript label again denotes the number of states in the ensemble. The first two states correspond to elliptical polarizations and the second two represent linear polarizations. We also require the states making up the antitrine and antitetrad ensembles. These are the polarization states that are orthogonal to the trine and tetrad states. We denote the members of the antitrine and antitetrad ensembles by an overbar. The members of the antitrine ensemble are

$`|\overline{\psi }_1^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\sqrt{3}|h|v\right),`$
$`|\overline{\psi }_2^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\sqrt{3}|h+|v\right),`$
$`|\overline{\psi }_3^3`$ $`=`$ $`|v,`$ (3)
and those of the antitetrad ensemble are

$`|\overline{\psi }_1^4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(\sqrt{2}\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i/3}|h+|v\right),`$
$`|\overline{\psi }_2^4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(\sqrt{2}\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i/3}|h+|v\right),`$
$`|\overline{\psi }_3^4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(\sqrt{2}|h+|v\right),`$
$`|\overline{\psi }_4^4`$ $`=`$ $`|v.`$ (4)
The optimum detection strategies require generalized measurements which may be described in terms of the elements of a POM helstrom76a . Each of the possible results ($`y_j`$) of the measurement corresponds to a Hermitian operator, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_j`$, such that the probability of obtaining this result given that the polarization was prepared in the state $`|\psi _k^N`$ is

$$P(y_j|\psi _k^N)=\psi _k^N|\mathrm{\Pi }_j|\psi _k^N,$$
(5)
where $`N`$ is the number of states making up the ensemble (three for the trine and four for the tetrad).

The requirement that the expectation value of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_j`$ is a probability leads to the constraints that all the eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_j`$ are positive or zero and that

$$\underset{j}{}\mathrm{\Pi }_j=𝟙,$$
(6)
where the sum runs over all possible results of the measurement. This description of a measurement is more general than that associated with a conventional (von Neumann) measurement. For a von Neumann measurement the POM elements are projectors onto the orthonormal eigenstates of the measured observable. In general, however, the POM elements will be neither normalized nor orthogonal.

### II.1 Minimum error probability

The problem of finding the measurement which provides the minimum error probability is an old one and it is instructive to present it in a more general form than is strictly necessary for the description of our experiments. Consider a set of possible prepared states with density matrices $`\rho _k`$ and let these occur with prior probabilities $`p_k`$. The lowest error probability will be achieved by a measurement in which we associate a POM element $`\mathrm{\Pi }_k`$ with the statement that the prepared state was $`\rho _k`$. The error probability is then

$$P_e=1\underset{k}{}p_k\mathrm{T}r(\rho _k\mathrm{\Pi }_k),$$
(7)
where the sum gives the probability that the state will be correctly identified. The necessary and sufficient conditions on the POM element for this probability to attain its minimum value holevo73a ; yuen75a  are

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_j(p_j\rho _jp_k\rho _k)\mathrm{\Pi }_k=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ $``$ $`(j,k),`$ (8)
$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}p_k\rho _k\mathrm{\Pi }_k\right)p_j\rho _j\mathrm{𝟎}`$ $``$ $`j.`$ (9)
The general solution for an arbitrary set of states and prior probabilities is unknown but the solution is known for some special cases. We are interested in the pure states making up the trine and tetrad ensembles. These states are overcomplete in that we can resolve the identity as a weighted sum of the corresponding projectors

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}|\psi _k^N\psi _k^N|=𝟙.`$ (10)
If we impose the condition that the states occur with equal prior probabilities then the POM elements that minimize the error probability Eq. (7) are yuen75a ; ban97a

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_k={\displaystyle \frac{2}{N}}|\psi _k^N\psi _k^N|.`$ (11)
This gives for the minimum error probability the value 111 This treatment can be extended to higher dimensional quantum systems. The $`N`$ states form an overcomplete set in a state space of $`D`$ dimensions if they satisfy Eq. (10) with the 2 replaced by $`D`$. The original POM elements are then given by Eq. (11) with the 2 again replaced by $`D`$. This gives the minimum error probability $`1D/N`$ yuen75a .

$`P_e(\text{min})=1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N}}.`$ (12)
This is $`\frac{2}{3}`$ for the trine ensemble and $`\frac{1}{2}`$ for the tetrad. The remaining problem is to determine how we can design experiments for which the POM elements are those given in Eq. (11). Before addressing this problem we consider another scenario in quantum signal detection.

### II.2 Mutual information

The minimum error probability is used as a measure of how precisely one can identify each signal states on average. If instead of identifying each individual state as precisely as possible, one is interested in extracting as much classical information as possible from a sequence of quantum states, a measure commonly used is the Shannon mutual information.

Let us suppose that Alice prepares the ensemble of quantum states $`\{|\psi _k^N\}`$ to encode the classical message $`\{x_k\}`$, where each element appears according to a priori probability $`p_k`$. Let us call this ensemble $`X=\{|\psi _k^N,p_k\}`$. The Shannon entropy of $`X`$ ,

$$H(X)=\underset{k}{}p_k\mathrm{log}p_k,$$
(13)
quantifies how much we know about $`X`$ just from the a priori probabilities $`p_k`$. Actually, the minimum value of $`H(X)`$ is zero, corresponding to knowing everything about $`X`$, and the maximum value of $`H(X)`$ corresponds to knowing nothing better than a random guess for each element of $`X`$, so it is more natural to say that $`H(X)`$ measures what we don’t know about $`X`$. Bob now applies a measurement with $`M`$ possible outcomes $`\{y_j\}`$, characterized by the POM elements $`\{\mathrm{\Pi }_j\}`$. The outcome, say, $`y_j`$, gives Bob more information about $`X`$. The new probability distribution conditioned by $`y_j`$ is

$$P(\psi _k^N|y_j)=\frac{P(y_j|\psi _k^N)p_k}{P(y_j)},$$
(14)
where $`P(y_j)_iP(y_j|\psi _i^N)p_i`$ is the probability of having $`y_j`$, and $`P(y_j|\psi _k^N)`$ is defined by Eq. (5). One can then define the average conditional entropy by

$$H(X|Y)=\underset{j}{}P(y_j)\underset{k}{}P(\psi _k^N|y_j)\mathrm{log}P(\psi _k^N|y_j).$$
(15)
This quantifies the remaining uncertainty about $`X`$ after having the knowledge of the conditioning variable $`Y=\{y_j,P(y_j)\}`$. The information gained as a result of making the measurement $`Y`$ is naturally defined by

$`I(X:Y)`$ $`=`$ $`H(X)H(X|Y),`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}[\text{}p_kP(y_j|\psi _k^N)`$
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{log}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{P(y_j|\psi _k^N)}{_{k^{}=1}^Np_k^{}P(y_j|\psi _k^{}^N)}}\right)].`$ (17)
This is the Shannon mutual information between $`X`$ and $`Y`$. In general, minimizing the average error probability and maximizing the mutual information are different problems, and in fact, one often finds the optimal POMs are different in each case. To extract as much information as possible, Bob has to maximize the mutual information with respect to the POM. The maximum value

$$I_{\mathrm{Acc}}=\underset{\{\mathrm{\Pi }_j\}}{\mathrm{max}}I(X:Y),$$
(18)
is called the accessible information of the ensemble $`X`$. To obtain the accessible information, it is not necessary for the number of measurement outcomes to be the same as the number of signal states. (In the experiments described in this paper, however, these will always be equal.)

The trine and tetrad ensembles comprise nonorthogonal states and hence errors in determining each individual state are inevitable. It is possible, however, to achieve asymptotically error-free transmission of information by employing block coding schemes based on sequences of the states. The accessible information has a practical meaning in this problem. Let $`\{\mathrm{\Pi }_j\}`$ be the POM attaining the accessible information for $`X`$. We consider block sequences of $`\{|\psi _k^N\}`$ of length $`n`$ and choose $`2^k`$ such sequences (codewords) to code classical messages. Suppose that Bob applies $`\{\mathrm{\Pi }_j\}`$ on each states of a received block sequence separately, and guess the codeword sent based on the outcome with any classical procedure. Then if $`k/n<I_{\mathrm{Acc}}`$, Alice and Bob can communicate with an arbitrarily small error by choosing $`n`$ large enough cover91a .

Thus it is important to find the optimal POM and, in particular, to demonstrate its physical implementation in practice, for developing communication technology though a quantum limited channel. The general problem of finding the accessible information for any given set of signal states remains unsolved. The complete results are known for a few special cases davies78a ; sasaki99a ; osaki00a . For the trine states with equal prior probabilities the accessible information is attained for a measurement with POM elements based on the antitrine states

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_j={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}|\overline{\psi }_j^3\overline{\psi }_j^3|.`$ (19)
The optimality of this measurement strategy was conjectured in holevo73a ; peres92a  and finally proven by Sasaki et al. sasaki99a . The corresponding accessible information is $`\mathrm{log}_2\frac{3}{2}=0.585`$ bits. This clearly exceeds the value $`(\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}_23)=0.459`$ bits which is the maximum mutual information attainable for a von Neumann measurement corresponding to finding one of two orthogonal polarizations.

The accessible information for the tetrad ensemble is not so strongly established as it is for the trine ensemble. Davies davies78a  has conjectured that it corresponds to the POM elements

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_j={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\overline{\psi }_j^4\overline{\psi }_j^4|`$ (20)
associated with the antitetrad states. The mutual information associated with this measurement strategy (conjectured to be the accessible information) is $`\mathrm{log}_2\frac{4}{3}=0.415`$ bits. This again exceeds the value of $`\frac{3}{2}(1\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}_23)=0.311`$ bits attained for the best possible von Neumann measurement.

It should be noted that the measurement strategy based on the antitrine and antitetrad states only identifies the correct state with probability $`1/(N1)`$. However, it obtains more information than the minimum error strategy by identifying for certain one of the states that was not sent222 In the antitrine case, this measurement strategy is related to the optimal discrimination between two nonorthogonal states ivanovic87a ; dieks88a ; peres88a ; jaeger95a ; chefles98a , demonstrated experimentally in huttner96a ; clarke00a . If the state to be identified is known to be one of only two of the three possible antitrine states, either $`|\overline{\psi }_j^3`$ or $`|\overline{\psi }_k^3`$, then the three possible outcomes correspond to “not-$`|\overline{\psi }_j^3`$” (i.e. “is $`|\overline{\psi }_k^3`$”), “not-$`|\overline{\psi }_k^3`$”, and “inconclusive”. .

## III Optical implementation

Having described the results that are predicted for various optimal measurements of the trine and tetrad states, we now turn to the implementation of such optimal generalized measurements using specific optical networks to measure photon polarization states. The theoretical operation of the optical networks will be described in the next subsections, followed in Section IV by the description and results of the actual experiments we performed.

The generalized measurements described in the previous section have to be implemented in practice as von Neumann measurements with simple yes/no results, but in an enlarged state space naimark40a ; holevo73a ; helstrom76a ; peres93a . In our experiments, the state space is enlarged by incorporating an interferometer into the measurement apparatus. The enlargement of the state space is realized by the introduction of vacuum modes entering through the unused input port. A single interferometer allows up to four mutually exclusive (orthogonal) possible results from a single photon input state.

In order to describe clearly how our apparatus works, we first set out our sign conventions for the optical components. The main polarizing beam splitters are oriented so that horizontally polarized photons, $`|h`$, go straight through, while vertically polarized photons, $`|v`$, are deflected through an angle of $`\pi /2`$. For the non-polarizing beam splitter, the transmission and reflection coefficients are assumed to be equal (both $`1/\sqrt{2}`$), and since there is only one (non-vacuum) input to it, we take there to be no phase difference between the two outputs. For the quarter and half waveplates, their effect when placed with their fast axis at an arbitrary angle (measured anticlockwise from the horizontal viewed in the direction of travel of the photons) can be described in terms of Jones matrices (see Appendix A). In particular, a half waveplate placed with its axes at an angle of $`\pi /4`$ to the vertical/horizontal rotates $`|v`$ to $`|h`$, and $`|h`$ to $`|v`$, as is well known. A half waveplate with axes at $`\pi /8`$ to the vertical/horizontal and a quarter waveplate with axes at an angle of $`\pi /4`$ both produce maximum mixing between the $`|v`$ and $`|h`$ states, which is what is required to analyze the state obtained when the two arms of the interferometer are recombined. The quarter waveplate is used in the tetrad case, where there is a phase factor of $`i`$ between the components in each arm. A half waveplate placed at the special angle $`\alpha /2=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{arcsin}(1/\sqrt{3})17.63^{}`$, is used to rotate the photon until the amplitude of the $`|h`$ component is reduced to $`\sqrt{2/3}`$ of its initial value.

### III.1 Trine

An optical network that realizes the minimum error probability for the three trine states is depicted in Fig. 2.

This is a variation of recently proposed networks sasaki99a ; phoenix00a . Our trine input states are represented in terms of photon polarization states as in Eq. (1),

$`|\psi _1^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(|h+\sqrt{3}|v\right),`$
$`|\psi _2^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(|h\sqrt{3}|v\right),`$
$`|\psi _3^3`$ $`=`$ $`|h.`$
After passing through the polarizing beam splitter PBS1, the $`|h`$ component of each state goes into the upper arm of the interferometer and the $`|v`$ component goes into the lower arm. The half-waveplate WP5 then rotates the $`|h`$ component such that at the stage specified by the line AA in Fig. 2, the states have been transformed to

$`|\psi _1^3_\mathrm{A}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(\text{}\sqrt{2}|h_\mathrm{U}+|v_\mathrm{U}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}}|v_\mathrm{L},`$
$`|\psi _2^3_\mathrm{A}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(\text{}\sqrt{2}|h_\mathrm{U}+|v_\mathrm{U}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}}|v_\mathrm{L},`$
$`|\psi _3^3_\mathrm{A}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(\text{}\sqrt{2}|h_\mathrm{U}+|v_\mathrm{U}\right),`$ (21)
where the subscripts U and L denote the upper and lower arms of the interferometer respectively. The $`|h_\mathrm{U}`$ part of these states passes out of the interferometer through PBS2 and into photodetector PD3. If the input state was $`|\psi _3^3`$, there is a probability of $`\frac{2}{3}`$ that PD3 will detect the photon. If the input state was $`|\psi _1^3`$ or $`|\psi _2^3`$, there is a probability of $`\frac{1}{6}`$ for each state that PD3 will detect the photon. Turning this round, if PD3 detects the photon, there is a probability of $`\frac{2}{3}`$ that the input state was $`|\psi _3^3`$ and a probability of $`\frac{1}{6}`$ each that the input state was $`|\psi _1^3`$ or $`|\psi _2^3`$.

Continuing through the interferometer, the half waveplate WP6 rotates the component in the lower arm from $`|v_\mathrm{L}`$ to $`|h_\mathrm{L}`$, so at the stage specified by BB in Fig. 2, the states are

$`|\psi _1^3_\mathrm{B}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}|PD3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}|v_\mathrm{U}+\sqrt{3}|h_\mathrm{L}\right),`$
$`|\psi _2^3_\mathrm{B}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}|PD3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}|v_\mathrm{U}\sqrt{3}|h_\mathrm{L}\right),`$
$`|\psi _3^3_\mathrm{B}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{3}}}|PD3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}|v_\mathrm{U}.`$ (22)
It is necessary to arrange the path lengths in the arms of the interferometer such that there is a relative phase of $`\pi /2`$ between the U and L components. Then, after the polarizing beam splitter PBS4 recombines the two components, the half waveplate WP9 mixes the two polarizations such that, at the stage indicated by CC on Fig. 2, the states become

$`|\psi _1^3_\mathrm{C}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}|PD3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(\sqrt{2}|h+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|v\right),`$
$`|\psi _2^3_\mathrm{C}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}|PD3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|h+\sqrt{2}|v\right),`$
$`|\psi _3^3_\mathrm{C}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{3}}}|PD3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}\left(|h|v\right),`$ (23)
Beam splitter PBS6 separates the $`|h`$ and $`|v`$ components so they go into detectors PD1 and PD2 respectively. From this we can see that if PD1 detects the photon, there is a probability of $`\frac{2}{3}`$ that the input state was $`|\psi _1^3`$, and a probability of $`\frac{1}{6}`$ each that it was $`|\psi _2^3`$ or $`|\psi _3^3`$, similarly for PD2 with states $`|\psi _1^3`$ and $`|\psi _2^3`$ interchanged. In other words, after passing through this optical network, the final states (denoted by subscript F) are given by

$`|\psi _1^3_\mathrm{F}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}|PD3{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{3}}}|PD1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}|PD2),`$
$`|\psi _2^3_\mathrm{F}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}|PD3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}|PD1+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{3}}}|PD2,`$
$`|\psi _3^3_\mathrm{F}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{3}}}|PD3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}|PD1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}|PD2.`$ (24)
This is all normalized so the probabilities are given by the square of the amplitudes of each photodetector state. (The photodetector states $`|PD1`$, $`|PD2`$ and $`|PD3`$ are necessarily mutually orthogonal as only one photodetector out of the three can detect the photon.)

In order to implement the POM corresponding to the maximum mutual information, instead of constructing the optical network that corresponds to POM elements $`|\overline{\psi }_j^3\overline{\psi }_j^3|`$, and applying it to the trine states, we use the optical network just described (corresponding to the POM elements $`|\psi _j^3\psi _j^3|`$) and apply it to the antitrine states $`|\overline{\psi }_j^3`$. This is obviously completely equivalent theoretically and more practical experimentally. We find that the state $`|\overline{\psi }_j^3`$ should never trigger photodetector $`j`$. It will, however, lead to detection in either of the remaining two photodetectors with equal probability ($`\frac{1}{2}`$) phoenix00a .

### III.2 Tetrad

The optical network we used to implements the optimal measurement for the tetrad states is shown in Fig. 3. It is similar to the trine network in Fig. 2, with an extra detector PD4. The key differences are a non-polarizing beam splitter (NPBS) in place of PBS2 and WP5 rotated to an angle of $`(\pi /2+\alpha )/2`$.

The four tetrad states are represented as polarized photons as in Eq. (2),

$`|\psi _1^4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(|h+\sqrt{2}\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i/3}|v\right),`$
$`|\psi _2^4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(|h+\sqrt{2}\mathrm{e}^{+2\pi i/3}|v\right),`$
$`|\psi _3^4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(|h+\sqrt{2}|v\right),`$
$`|\psi _4^4`$ $`=`$ $`|h.`$
The tetrad network can be understood most straightforwardly by noting the effect of the half waveplate, WP5, on each of the four tetrad states. Denoting the operation of WP5 by the Jones matrix $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2(\pi /4+\alpha /2)`$,

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2(\pi /4+\alpha /2)|\psi _1^4`$ $`=`$ $`i|\psi _2^4,`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2(\pi /4+\alpha /2)|\psi _2^4`$ $`=`$ $`i|\psi _1^4,`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2(\pi /4+\alpha /2)|\psi _3^4`$ $`=`$ $`|\psi _4^4,`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2(\pi /4+\alpha /2)|\psi _4^4`$ $`=`$ $`|\psi _3^4,`$ (25)
so that, apart from phase factors, state $`|\psi _1^4`$ is converted into $`|\psi _2^4`$ and vice versa, similarly for states $`|\psi _3^4`$ and $`|\psi _4^4`$. Remembering the first beam splitter is $`50/50`$ non-polarizing, the network is thus essentially symmetrical in its operation. The full details are given in Appendix B. The final result is that state $`|\psi _1^4`$ reaches photodetector PD1 with probability $`\frac{1}{2}`$ and each of the remaining photodetectors with probability $`\frac{1}{6}`$. Similarly each of the remaining three states will trigger its associated photodetector with probability $`\frac{1}{2}`$ and the others with probability $`\frac{1}{6}`$.

The maximum mutual information measurement is realized in the same way as for the trine ensemble, by using the antitetrad states as input. If the antitetrad states are introduced into this network then we find that the state $`|\overline{\psi }_j^4`$ should never trigger photodetector $`j`$. It will, however, lead to detection in any of the remaining three photodetectors with equal probability ($`\frac{1}{3}`$).

## IV Experiments

Figure 4 shows the experimental arrangements used for the trine and tetrad experiments. The apparatus was easily converted between the two experiments by changing WP7 from a half to a quarter waveplate and exchanging PBS2 with NPBS. We first discuss the general arrangement and techniques that are common to both experiments (see also Ref. clarke00a , where the same experimental setup is described in more detail). The individual details and results of the two experiments are then described separately in Sections IV.1 and IV.2.

The light source was a mode-locked light Ti:Sapphire laser operating at 780 nm with a repetition rate of 80.3 MHz. The pulse duration of 1 ps corresponds to a pulse length of 300 $`\mu `$m. The repetition rate of the laser ensured that there was only one pulse in the optical system at any one time. The length of each pulse was much shorter than the path length of the interferometer. This meant that each pulse could only interact with one optical component at a time.

The laser light was passed through a 60 $`\mu `$m pinhole to produce a spherical wavefront. Lens L2 then focused the light onto the photodiodes PD1-5 (Centronix, BPX65) through the interferometer. This arrangement minimized the phase distortions across the wavefront as it passed through the non-ideal interfaces of the beamsplitters, maximizing the visibility of the interference. The focus on the detectors was much smaller than the 1 mm2 detector area, yielding almost 100% spatial collection of the light. Losses due to the anti-reflective coatings on the beamsplitters were also small, so almost all the photons entering the interferometer reached the detectors.

The Rochon polarizing beamsplitter PBS1 was used to polarize the light with a linearity of better than 5000:1. The Wollaston polarizing beamsplitter PBS6 was chosen for its similar efficient polarizing properties. The waveplates WP2-4 were then used to prepare the input states, see Appendix A.

In these experiments, we measure the average current from the photodiodes rather than counting discrete photon events. To detect the small quantities of light, phase sensitive detection horowitz89a  was employed using a chopper wheel, differential amplifier and a lock-in amplifier. The differential amplifier was used to reduce the noise of the signal by canceling out common ground loop noise using a darkened detector. The detectors PD1-5 had a nominal quantum efficiency of 83% at 780 nm and were terminated by 10 M$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. At an average laser intensity of 0.1 photons per pulse this corresponds to a detected voltage of 11 $`\mu `$V. With time constants of 10 to 30 seconds, light levels of 0.01 photons per pulse were detectable with an accuracy of approximately 1% and an uncertainty of approximately $`\pm `$2.5%.

Neutral density filters and rotation of the waveplate WP1, in conjunction with PBS1, attenuated the light entering the interferometer to an average of 0.1 photons per pulse. A pick-off beam was measured on PD6 using phase sensitive detection with a separate lock-in amplifier. This photodiode was used to normalize output amplitude variations of the laser light when monitoring PD1-5 during all measurements and calibrations. These detectors, supplied in parallel by a single 9 V source, were calibrated relative to each other to better than 1% by changing the distribution of light around the interferometer.

All the waveplates used in the experiments were housed in specially designed mounts. The waveplate was freely rotated to zero its position, measured optically, and locked in position. It could subsequently be moved by predefined fixed angles, including $`17.63^{}`$ and $`27.37^{}`$, with an accuracy of $`\pm 0.05^{}`$ and repeatability of $`\pm 0.01^{}`$. This enabled quick and accurate changes to the input polarization states in the trine and tetrad experiments. The waveplates were measured to maintain the linearity of the polarization to 1 part in 2000.

The interferometer for the trine experiment was identical to that described in clarke00a . It was constructed from four polarizing beamsplitters mounted on a machined monolithic aluminum block. In a conventional Mach-Zehnder operation, the extinction ratio of the output of the interferometer on detectors PD1 and PD2 was regularly measured to be 200:1. The system was stable enough to be left for over half an hour without significantly impairing this extinction ratio.

For the tetrad experiment the first beamsplitter, NPBS, was non-polarizing with a nominally equal splitting ratio at 780 nm. As the splitting ratio was highly wavelength dependent, the Ti:Sapphire laser was tuned to obtain the most equal splitting ratio, which was estimated to be $`49.5:50.5`$.

### IV.1 Trine Experiment

The interferometer was aligned by using it as a conventional Mach-Zehnder interferometer, with high light powers ($`>>1`$ photon per pulse). The input polarization was set to be linear at $`45^{}`$ to the horizontal and WP5 was rotated to produce vertically polarized light. After alignment, the light entering the interferometer was attenuated to 0.1 photons per pulse and WP5 was rotated by $`17.63^{}`$ so that the polarization of the horizontal component transmitted by PBS2 was rotated anti-clockwise $`35.27^{}`$ from the horizontal. This reduced the amplitude of the horizontal component to $`\sqrt{2/3}`$ of its initial value. The 6 input trine and antitrine states were constructed by rotating waveplate WP2 in 15 degree intervals (WP3,4 are not present in this experiment). The results were obtained by taking measurements for one detector (PD1-3) as the 6 input states were changed. Then the next detector was measured for the same 6 states.

After the relative detector calibrations were taken into account, we normalized the results for each input state such that the total average measured probability on photodiodes PD1-3 summed to unity. The $``$1% total leakage from PBS3 and PBS4 into detectors PD4 and PD5 is not significant. For the purposes of mutual information it is the ratio of counts in photodiodes PD1-3 that is important, because it is these detectors that distinguish between the input states. The results are shown in Fig. 5.

The dependence of the measurements on the angle of WP5 was then investigated. The experiment was repeated as the angle of the WP5 was varied either side of the theoretical value of $`17.63^{}`$. The alignment of the interferometer was checked and adjusted, if necessary, before taking data at each separate angle. Figure 6 shows the root mean squared deviation of the 18 trine and antitrine measurements from the ideal values for each angle.

Before we discuss the results it is useful to review the sources of error. The largest is the noise of the detector signal and from the phase sensitive detection processing. The observed uncertainty in the measurements of the output ports where a zero count rate is expected in the antitrine experiment is approximately $`2.5\%`$. This level of error is often similar to the average signal present. We therefore conclude that the zero count measurements are limited by the detector noise if the measured signal is of order 2%. This has important implications for the errors in the derived mutual information, see Section IV.3. The noise is mainly attributable to the weakness of these signals in comparison to the magnitude of ground loop and stray light noise, and also variations in the chopping wheel frequency leading to varying offsets. We estimate that the error due to the amplitude normalization procedure involving PD6 is less than 0.5%, which is much smaller than the Ti:Sapphire amplitude variations of up to 4% over a few minutes.

A second large source of error is the non-ideal nature of the beamsplitters. The calibrated birefringence properties are given in clarke00a . It is sufficient here to state that when purely horizontal light is input into PSB3, a power leakage of approximately 0.9% towards PBS4 was measured. Even this small amount of reflected light can have large effects on the ratio of light reaching detectors PD1 and PD2 due to interference effects.

The drift of the interferometer during measurements was negligible compared to the above errors. This was evaluated by monitoring the level of destructive interference that could be observed on detectors PD1 and PD2 over several hours using high light intensities.

The results in Fig. 5 demonstrate that the trine and antitrine measurements are in close agreement with theoretical predictions. The ratios $`\frac{2}{3}:\frac{1}{6}:\frac{1}{6}`$ and $`\frac{1}{2}:\frac{1}{2}:0`$ are clearly visible for the respective measurements. The RMS deviation of the trine and antitrine results is 3.8% from the theoretically expected values. Of specific importance are the antitrine measurements which are theoretically expected to be zero. The experimental measurements are indeed very close to zero, with an average value of 1.6%. Fig. 6 also shows that the minimum RMS error from the optimum theoretical values was obtained when the waveplate WP5 was at the angle corresponding to the theoretical value, within the limits imposed by the small number of data points.

Close inspection of Fig. 5 demonstrates the effect of the leakage of PBS3. For antitrine input state $`|\psi _3^3`$ the light on PD1 and PD2 is split into the ratio 46:54. In an ideal experiment there would be no light traveling towards PBS4 from PBS2 and the split would be 50:50. Indeed, this ratio is observed to better than $`\pm 0.2\%`$ if an opaque card is placed between PBS2 and PBS4. The leakage from PBS2, when interfering with the light from PBS3, is enough to skew the results by 8%. This demonstrates the sensitivity of the apparatus to practical sources of error.

### IV.2 Tetrad Experiment

The first beamsplitter PBS1 in the interferometer was changed to a non-polarizing beamsplitter. Alignment of the interferometer was achieved by simulating a conventional Mach-Zehnder operation with vertically polarized input light. Waveplate WP5 was aligned with the slow axis in the vertical direction and WP7, a quarter waveplate, rotated so that there was complete mixing of the output states of the interferometer.

After the alignment, waveplate WP5 was rotated clockwise by $`54.74^{}/2=27.37^{}`$. This corresponds to setting the fast axis at $`125.26^{}/2=54.747^{}`$ anti-clockwise from the horizontal. The angle between two tetrad states is $`125.26^{}`$ on the Poincaré sphere, or $`54.74^{}`$ in polarization.

The four tetrad and four antitetrad polarization states required to perform this experiment were constructed using waveplates WP2-4 as described in Appendix A. We were able to change between the 8 input states in a matter of seconds using the discrete predefined angles in our waveplate holders.

The experiment was performed by measuring the signal on detectors PD1-4 as the input states were changed between the 8 states. The results of the tetrad and antitetrad measurements are shown in Figs. 7 and 8 after calibration and normalization.

As with the trine measurements, it is clear that the experimental results are in good agreement with the theoretical predictions. The $`\frac{1}{2}:\frac{1}{6}:\frac{1}{6}:\frac{1}{6}`$ and $`\frac{1}{3}:\frac{1}{3}:\frac{1}{3}:0`$ ratios for the tetrad and antitetrad states respectively are clearly evident. The overall RMS deviation from the theoretical values is 2.9%. Attention is drawn to the antitetrad states where the count rate is theoretically zero. The average count rate in these four measurements is 0.9%. This low count rate is very significant for the mutual information that can be obtained, see next subsection.

### IV.3 Experimental Mutual Information

The mutual information for both experiments was calculated in bits (log2) using Eq. (17). The conditional probabilities were obtained from the experiment. The values for $`p_k`$ were set to $`\frac{1}{3}`$ and $`\frac{1}{4}`$ for the trine and tetrad cases respectively, corresponding to equal prior probabilities for the input states. The results, summarized in Table 1, are in excellent agreement with the theoretical predictions using the model for detector noise described in Appendix C. The mutual information of both sets of antistates is significantly greater than the best possible von Neumann measurement.

Experimental errors were estimated in a Monte Carlo simulation, assuming a flat $`\pm `$2.5% error distribution in the measurements. The theoretical sensitivity of the mutual information to measurement error was estimated using a simple error model, see Appendix C. The parameter, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, was used to quantify the level of noise. The average signal of the near-zero measurements in the trine and tetrad experiments, 1.6% and 0.9% respectively, was used to obtain the parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.952`$ and $`0.964`$ respectively.

In the antitrine and antitetrad cases it was found that the sensitivity of the mutual information obtained is almost entirely determined by the noise-induced counts at the detector that would, in an ideal experiment, register no counts. This is a consequence of the logarithmic nature of the mutual information. In an ideal experiment, a count in detector PD$`j`$ means that state $`|\overline{\psi }_j^N`$ was definitely not the input state. The knowledge of the input state has therefore been increased by a large amount. Any deviation from theoretically zero count rates in the experiment will lead to a rapid increase in the errors associated with this deduction. Hence, the mutual information will decrease rapidly. Nevertheless, in our experiments, the mutual information obtained for both the antitrine and antitetrad states is still significantly higher than the best possible von Neumann measurement. To our knowledge this is first time this has been achieved experimentally. Measurement errors due to noise are the limiting factor determining the mutual information that can be achieved experimentally. The largest source of noise is due to ground loop noise in the detectors. The use of single photon detectors gated with the pulses of light should reduce this noise considerably and yield further increases in the mutual information obtained.

## V Conclusions

In quantum communications the possible signal states can be nonorthogonal. This leads to problems in recovering the signal by detection. In general, we must accept the presence of errors. We have realized detection strategies that either minimise the error probability or maximise the mutual information for the trine and tetrad states. The mutual information is an important parameter in communications, quantifying the maximum amount of information that can be extracted from a signal. In the context of measuring the polarization of light, probability operator measures provide a means of attaining higher mutual information values than von Neuman measurements. We have presented two separate experiments using heavily attenuated pulses of light to verify the optimal POM on trine and tetrad polarization states of light. We have demonstrated for the first time that the mutual information obtainable using POMs can be significantly higher than the maximum possible mutual information in a von Neuman measurement. This illustrates the principle that generalised measurements can be of greater utility than their more familiar von Neuman counterparts.

Using a flexible free space interferometer we were able to vary all aspects of the measurement process deterministically. The mutual information is extremely sensitive to the noise of the detectors in which very low counts rates are expected. We have demonstrated that practical communications using POMs are feasible.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was funded by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council grant numbers GR/L55216, GR/M60712 and GR/N17393. AC, MS and SMB thank the British Council for financial support.

## Appendix A Making an arbitrary polarization state

The convention used for the orientation of the waveplates is as follows. Viewed in the direction of propagation, the fast axis of the waveplate makes an angle $`\varphi /2`$ with the horizontal in an anti-clockwise direction, and the slow axis similarly makes an angle $`\varphi /2`$ with the vertical. Expressed in Jones matrix notation hecht87a , the action of a half waveplate is thus

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_2(\varphi /2)\left(\begin{array}{c}h\\ v\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\varphi & \mathrm{sin}\varphi \\ \mathrm{sin}\varphi & \mathrm{cos}\varphi \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}h\\ v\end{array}\right),$$
(26)
where $`h`$ and $`v`$ are the amplitudes of horizontal and vertical polarization in the state respectively. Similarly, the action of a quarter waveplate with its fast axis at an angle $`\theta /2`$ to the horizontal is

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4(\theta /2)\left(\begin{array}{c}h\\ v\end{array}\right)`$ (29)
$`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta /2)+i\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta /2)& \frac{i1}{2}\mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \frac{i1}{2}\mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}^2(\theta /2)+i\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta /2)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}h\\ v\end{array}\right)`$ (34)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta i& \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta i\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}h\\ v\end{array}\right),`$ (39)
where the overall phase of $`e^{i3\pi /4}`$ has been dropped.

As can easily be verified using the above expressions, an arbitrary polarization state can be made from horizontally polarized input light using a sequence of three waveplates, quarter-half-quarter, at the appropriate angles, see Fig. 9.

If the input state is $`|h`$ (horizontal polarization), and the orthogonal polarization is $`|v`$, the output state, $`|\psi `$, is given by

$$|\psi =\mathrm{cos}\beta |h+\mathrm{e}^{i\gamma }\mathrm{sin}\beta |v,$$
(40)
where $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi =\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{sin}\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\theta =\mathrm{tan}\beta \mathrm{cos}\gamma `$, with $`\theta `$, $`\varphi `$ specifying the orientation of the three waveplates as given in Fig.9.

## Appendix B Details of tetrad optical implementation

Starting from the input states given by Eq. (2), at the stage indicated by the line AA on Fig. 3, we have

$`|\psi _1^4_\mathrm{A}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|\psi _1^4_\mathrm{L}+i|\psi _2^4_\mathrm{U}\right),`$
$`|\psi _2^4_\mathrm{A}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|\psi _2^4_\mathrm{L}i|\psi _1^4_\mathrm{U}\right),`$
$`|\psi _3^4_\mathrm{A}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|\psi _3^4_\mathrm{L}+|\psi _4^4_\mathrm{U}\right),`$
$`|\psi _4^4_\mathrm{A}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|\psi _4^4_\mathrm{L}+|\psi _3^4_\mathrm{U}\right).`$ (41)
In terms of $`|h`$ and $`|v`$,

$`|\psi _1^4_\mathrm{A}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(|h_\mathrm{L}+\sqrt{2}\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i/3}|v_\mathrm{L}i|h_\mathrm{U}`$
$`+i\sqrt{2}\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i/3}|v_\mathrm{U}\text{}),`$
$`|\psi _2^4_\mathrm{A}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(|h_\mathrm{L}+\sqrt{2}\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i/3}|v_\mathrm{L}+i|h_\mathrm{U}`$
$`i\sqrt{2}\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i/3}|v_\mathrm{U}\text{}),`$
$`|\psi _3^4_\mathrm{A}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}\left(|h_\mathrm{L}+\sqrt{2}|v_\mathrm{L}+\sqrt{3}|h_\mathrm{U}\right),`$
$`|\psi _4^4_\mathrm{A}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}\left(\sqrt{3}|h_\mathrm{L}|h_\mathrm{U}+\sqrt{2}|v_\mathrm{U}\right).`$ (42)
Then the $`|h_\mathrm{L}`$ components can reach photo-detector PD4 and the $`|h_\mathrm{U}`$ components can reach photo-detector PD3, while the $`|v_\mathrm{L}`$ and $`|v_\mathrm{U}`$ components continue round the lower and upper arms of the interferometer respectively. Applying WP6 to $`|v_\mathrm{L}`$, converting it to $`|h_\mathrm{L}`$, the states at the stage indicated by the line BB in Fig. 3 are

$`|\psi _1^4_\mathrm{B}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(\sqrt{2}\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i/3}|h_\mathrm{L}+i\sqrt{2}\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i/3}|v_\mathrm{U}`$
$`i|PD3|PD4\text{}),`$
$`|\psi _2^4_\mathrm{B}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(\sqrt{2}\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i/3}|h_\mathrm{L}i\sqrt{2}\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i/3}|v_\mathrm{U}`$
$`+i|PD3|PD4\text{}),`$
$`|\psi _3^4_\mathrm{B}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}\left(\sqrt{2}|h_\mathrm{L}+\sqrt{3}|PD3|PD4\right),`$
$`|\psi _4^4_\mathrm{B}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}\left(\sqrt{2}|v_\mathrm{U}|PD3+\sqrt{3}|PD4\right).`$ (43)
Finally, the maximal mixing effect of WP9 brings the states into

$`|\psi _1^4_\mathrm{C}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}\left(i\sqrt{3}|hi|vi|PD3|PD4\right),`$
$`|\psi _2^4_\mathrm{C}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}\left(|h\sqrt{3}|v+i|PD3|PD4\right),`$
$`|\psi _3^4_\mathrm{C}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}\left(|h+i|v+\sqrt{3}|PD3|PD4\right),`$
$`|\psi _4^4_\mathrm{C}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}\left(i|h+|v|PD3+\sqrt{3}|PD4\right),`$ (44)
from which the final outcome is easily seen to be

$`|\psi _1^4_\mathrm{F}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}|PD1{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{6}}}|PD2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{6}}}|PD3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}|PD4,`$
$`|\psi _2^4_\mathrm{F}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}|PD1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|PD2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{6}}}|PD3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}|PD4,`$
$`|\psi _3^4_\mathrm{F}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}|PD1+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{6}}}|PD2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|PD3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}|PD4,`$
$`|\psi _4^4_\mathrm{F}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{6}}}|PD1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}|PD2`$ (45)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}|PD3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|PD4,`$
where the amplitudes give the probabilities of each photodetector finding the photon.

## Appendix C Mutual Information Error Model

The mutual information obtained is very sensitive to noise. In this appendix we present a simple model for detector noise and use it to analyze our measurements of mutual information. Rather than attempt to account for all sources of noise, our model simply assumes that the noise randomly distributes a proportion of the detection events among all the detectors.

The probability for detecting a photon in detector $`j`$ (outcome $`y_j`$) is associated with the POM element $`\mathrm{\Pi }_j`$. Noise can cause a photocurrent to occur in a detector in the absence of any photons. Such noise-inducing events are randomly distributed and so we can modify our POM elements to account for these noisy events by replacing POM elements $`\{\mathrm{\Pi }_j\}`$ for an ideal measurement with

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_j^{\mathrm{noise}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Pi }_j+\frac{1\mathrm{\Gamma }}{N}.$$
(46)
Here $`N`$ is the number of measurement outcomes and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a positive number ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$) that characterizes the noise. For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1`$ there is no noise, but for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$, noise accounts for all detection events. The conditional probabilities in the presence of noise become

$$P(y_j|\psi _k^N)=\psi _k^N|\mathrm{\Pi }_j^{\mathrm{noise}}|\psi _k^N.$$
(47)
Given a channel in which the input states $`|\psi _k^N`$ occur with equal probability we find that the mutual information becomes

$`I(\{|\psi _k^N\}:`$ $`\{y_j\})=({\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{\Gamma }}{N}})\mathrm{log}(1+\mathrm{\Gamma })`$
$`+`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{\Gamma }}{N}}\right)\mathrm{log}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{N1}}\right).`$ (48)
If, instead, the antistates $`|\overline{\psi }_k^N`$ are used as input, the mutual information is

$`I(\{|\overline{\psi }_k^N\}:`$ $`\{y_j\})=({\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{\Gamma }}{N}})\mathrm{log}(1\mathrm{\Gamma })`$
$`+`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{\Gamma }}{N}}\right)\mathrm{log}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{N1}}\right).`$ (49)
It is interesting to note that C and 49 differ in form only through the sign of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

We can estimate the value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by considering the probability for the measurement of the antistate $`|\overline{\psi }_k^N`$ to give the result $`y_k`$, corresponding to “not-$`|\overline{\psi }_k^N`$”. This is forbidden for an ideal, noiseless experiment but will occur with probability $`(1\mathrm{\Gamma })/N`$ in the presence of noise. Comparing this with the experimentally observed values provides us with a value for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Figure 10 shows the variation of the mutual information obtained as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is varied. The sensitivity to noise in the antitrine and antitetrad states increases markedly as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ tends to 1. This demonstrates the sensitivity of the mutual information to noise in the detector which, in an ideal experiment, would register no counts. The mutual information of trine and tetrad measurements does not increase as rapidly because there are no detectors in which zero counts are expected.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Let $`𝔻`$ be the open unit disc and $`𝕋`$ its boundary. $`H^p\left(𝔻\right)`$ denotes the Hardy space of analytic functions on $`𝔻`$.
In 1972, Patil in  has given an algorithm to recapture a $`H^p\left(𝔻\right)`$, $`1<p<\mathrm{}`$ function F from its values on E, a positive Lebesgue measure subset of $`𝕋`$. Let $`f`$ be the boundary function of $`F`$ and $`g`$ its restriction on $`E`$.
In fact, using Toeplitz operator techniques he has found a sequence of functions $`g_\lambda `$ uniformly converging on compact subsets of $`𝔻`$ to $`F`$ and also strongly in $`H^p\left(𝔻\right)`$.
The same approximants had been obtained thanks to a Carlman’s fruitful idea by constructing a “quenching” function, enabling us to eliminate in the Cauchy formula, integration over $`𝕋E`$. In fact, we first construct an auxilary function $`\phi H^{\mathrm{}}\left(𝔻\right)`$ satisfying :

1. $`\left|\phi \left(\xi \right)\right|=1`$ ae on $`𝕋E`$.
2. $`\left|\phi \left(\xi \right)\right|>1`$ in $`𝔻`$.

To do so, we solve a suitable Dirichlet problem. If $`u`$ is the bounded harmonic solution in $`𝔻`$ such that :

$$u(x,y)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\text{a.e on}E\hfill & \\ 0\text{on}𝕋E.\hfill & \end{array}$$

then we set $`\phi \left(z\right)=e^{u+iv}`$ where $`v`$ is the harmonic function conjugate with $`u`$. Thus, we obtain the following formula :

$$f\left(z\right)=\underset{m+\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{2\pi i}_E\left(\frac{\phi \left(\xi \right)}{\phi \left(z\right)}\right)^m\frac{f\left(\xi \right)}{\xi z}𝑑\xi $$

L.Baratchart, J.Leblond and J.R Partington have exhibited the same approximants applying optimization methods . Their work was initiated by them and D.Alpay in the $`H^2`$ case, the parametre here is a Lagrange multiplier in .

Mukherjee in , has dealt with the upper half plane case by exhibiting the corresponding sequences $`h_\lambda `$ via the Cayley transform and $`g_\lambda `$ using Wiener-Hopf operator. He has shown that results obtained by Patil remain valid in this case.
We wonder if in the case of the upper half plane we can hope better approximation of $`f`$ out of $`I`$ on the boundary, where $`I`$ is a real bounded interval.
An open question is the almost everywhere convergence of $`g_\lambda `$ to $`f`$ on $`𝕋I`$.

Our aim is to show that in the upper half plane, under appropriate conditions, $`g_\lambda \left(x\right)=O\left(1\right)`$ with respect to $`\lambda `$ out of $`I`$. We show also that even if $`g`$ is the trace of a $`H^2`$ function on $`I`$, the conjecture is false.

We devide mainly our work into four sections. The first one is the introduction. The second one deals with nontangential limits of $`g_\lambda `$ and $`h_\lambda `$ according to whether the interval is symmetrical around 0 or not. In the third part, we give asymptotic behavior of $`g_\lambda `$ with respect to $`\lambda `$ and exhibit a class of functions such that the trace of $`g_\lambda `$ remains bounded on $`I`$. Examples are given in the fourth section.

Notations:

1. $`_+`$ the open upper half plane.
2. $`\chi _I`$ the characteristic function on $`I`$.
3. p.v $``$ the principal value of the integral.
4. $`O\left(f\right)`$ a function not exceeding f with respect to $`\lambda `$ when $`\lambda +\mathrm{}`$.

## 2 Boundary value functions

Let recall the two main theorems of recovering functions in the both cases $`𝔻`$ and $`_+`$.

###### Theorem 1

(\[9, thm 1\])
Let $`E𝕋`$ with m($`E`$) $`>`$ 0. Suppose that $`g`$ is the restriction of f to $`E`$. For each $`\lambda >0`$ define analytic functions $`h_\lambda ,g_\lambda `$ on $`𝔻`$ by :

$$g_\lambda \left(z\right)=\lambda h_\lambda \left(z\right)\frac{1}{2\pi i}_K\frac{\overline{h}_\lambda \left(w\right)g\left(w\right)}{wz}𝑑wz𝔻,$$

$$h_\lambda \left(z\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{4\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\lambda \right)_K\frac{e^{i\theta }+z}{e^{i\theta }z}𝑑\theta \right)z𝔻.$$

$`\text{Then as }\lambda \mathrm{};g_\lambda f\text{unifomly on compact subsets of }𝔻\text{. Moreover for}`$ $`1<p<\mathrm{}\text{we also have}g_\lambda f_p0as\lambda \mathrm{}.`$

###### Theorem 2

(\[11, thm 1\])
Let $`I`$ with $`m(I)>0`$. Suppose that $`FH^2(_+)`$ and $`g`$ is the restriction of $`f`$ to $`I`$. For each $`\lambda >0`$ we define analytic functions on the upper half plane by :

$$h_\lambda \left(z\right)=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2\pi i}\mathrm{ln}(1+\lambda )_I\frac{1+tz}{\left(tz\right)\left(1+t^2\right)}dt)\left)\mathrm{}\right(z)>0,$$

$$g_\lambda \left(z\right)=\lambda h_\lambda \left(z\right)\frac{1}{2\pi i}_I\frac{\overline{h}_\lambda \left(t\right)g\left(t\right)}{tz}𝑑t\mathrm{}\left(z\right)>0.$$

then as $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, $`g_\lambda F`$ uniformly on compact subsets of the upper half plane. Moreover $`g_\lambda f_20`$ as $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$.

We treat two cases $`I=]a,a[`$ where $`a>0`$ and $`I=]a,b[`$ where $`0a<b`$ .

### 2.1 Symmetrical case

Let $`I=]a,a[`$ $`a>0`$, $`g`$ as in theorem 2.

###### Proposition 1

If $`z=x+iy_+`$ then $`h_\lambda (z)h_\lambda (x)`$ as $`y0`$. Where $`h_\lambda (x)=(1+\lambda \chi _I(x))^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{iG_1(x)}`$, $`G_1(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}(1+\lambda )\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{ax}{a+x}}\right|`$.

Remark  : One can find this proposition in . We give a correct proof of this.

Proof :

We know that

$$h_\lambda \left(z\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2\pi i}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\lambda \right)_a^a\frac{1+tz}{\left(tz\right)\left(1+t^2\right)}𝑑t\right)for\mathrm{}\left(z\right)>0.$$

We wish $`\underset{y0}{lim}h_\lambda \left(z\right)`$. We have

$$_a^a\frac{1+tz}{\left(tz\right)\left(1+t^2\right)}𝑑t=_a^a\frac{1}{tz}𝑑t\frac{1}{2}_a^a\frac{2t}{1+t^2}𝑑t.$$

On one hand $`{\displaystyle _a^a}{\displaystyle \frac{2t}{1+t^2}}𝑑t=0`$.

On the other hand,

$$_I\frac{1}{tz}𝑑t=_I\frac{tx}{\left(tx\right)^2+y^2}𝑑t+i_I\frac{y}{\left(tx\right)^2+y^2}𝑑t.$$

It is easy to see that,

$$_I\frac{tx}{\left(tx\right)^2+y^2}𝑑t\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{ax}{a+x}\right|\text{as}y0,$$

and

$$_I\frac{y}{\left(tx\right)^2+y^2}𝑑t\chi _I\left(x\right)\pi \text{as}y0,$$

so

$$h_\lambda \left(z\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2\pi i}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\lambda \right)\left[\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{ax}{a+x}\right|+i\chi _I\left(x\right)\pi \right]\right)\text{as}y0.$$

Finally,

$$h_\lambda \left(x\right)=\left(1+\lambda \chi _I\left(x\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{iG_1\left(x\right)},G_1\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\lambda \right)\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{ax}{a+x}\right|.$$

###### Proposition 2

$`g_\lambda \left(z\right)g_\lambda \left(x\right)`$ a.e as $`y0`$ and

$$g_\lambda \left(x\right)=\frac{1}{2}\lambda \left(h_\lambda \overline{h_\lambda }g\chi _I\right)\left(x\right)+\frac{i}{2\pi }\lambda h_\lambda \left(x\right)p.v_I\frac{\left(\overline{h_\lambda }g\right)\left(t\right)}{xt}𝑑t.$$

Proof :

We have :

$$g_\lambda \left(z\right)=\lambda h_\lambda \left(z\right)\frac{1}{2\pi i}_I\frac{\left(\overline{h}_\lambda g\right)\left(t\right)}{tz}𝑑t\mathrm{}\left(z\right)>0.$$

It is known that if $`f`$ is in $`L^2\left(\right)`$, we can construct an analytic function $`F`$ on $`_+`$ by the integral formula :

$$F\left(z\right)=\frac{1}{\pi i}_{}\frac{f\left(t\right)}{tz}𝑑t\text{and}F\left(z\right)f\left(x\right)+iHf\left(x\right)\text{a.e as}y0$$

where $`H`$ is the Hilbert transform.
One can verify that the result remains valid if $`f`$ is a complex valued function.
Let $`f=\overline{h_\lambda }g\chi _I`$, we see that :

$$g_\lambda \left(z\right)=\lambda h_\lambda \left(z\right)\frac{1}{2\pi i}_I\frac{f\left(t\right)}{tz}𝑑t\text{and as}y0,$$

$$g_\lambda \left(z\right)\lambda h_\lambda \left(x\right)\frac{1}{2}\left(f+iHf\right)\left(x\right)\text{a.e}.$$

Indeed,

$$g_\lambda \left(x\right)=\frac{1}{2}\lambda \left(h_\lambda \overline{h_\lambda }g\chi _I\right)\left(x\right)+\frac{i}{2\pi }\lambda h_\lambda \left(x\right)p.v_I\frac{\left(\overline{h_\lambda }g\right)\left(t\right)}{xt}𝑑t\text{a.e}.$$

Usefull formulas of $`g_\lambda `$ for almost all x are :

$$g_\lambda \left(x\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\lambda }{2\left(1+\lambda \right)}g\left(x\right)+\frac{i\lambda }{2\pi \left(1+\lambda \right)}e^{iG_1\left(x\right)}p.v_I\frac{e^{iG_1\left(t\right)}g\left(t\right)}{xt}𝑑t\hfill & \text{for}xI\hfill \\ \frac{\lambda }{2\pi \left(1+\lambda \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}e^{iG_1\left(x\right)}p.v_I\frac{e^{iG_1\left(t\right)}g\left(t\right)}{xt}𝑑t\hfill & \text{for}xI\hfill \end{array}$$

Remark  :

1. Note that we do not need to integrate in the upper half plane as this is the case in .
2. When $`xI`$, observe that we can omit the p.v notation since in this case $`p.v{\displaystyle _I}={\displaystyle _I}`$.

### 2.2 Nonsymmetrical case

Let $`I=[a,b]`$ where $`0a<b`$, $`g`$ as in theorem 2.

###### Proposition 3

$$h_\lambda \left(z\right)\left(1+\lambda \chi _I\left(x\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{iG_2\left(x\right)}\text{as}y0,\text{where}G_2\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\lambda \right)\left[\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{1+b^2}{1+a^2}\right|+\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{bx}{ax}\right|\right].$$

Proof : What is changing here is the value of the integral $`{\displaystyle _a^b}{\displaystyle \frac{2t}{1+t^2}}𝑑t`$. Going back to the method of proposition 1, we have

$$_a^b\frac{2t}{1+t^2}𝑑t=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1+b^2}{1+a^2}\right)$$

and

$$h_\lambda \left(z\right)\left(1+\lambda \chi _I\left(x\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{\frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\lambda \right)\left[\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{1+b^2}{1+a^2}\right|+\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{bx}{ax}\right|\right]}\text{as}y0.$$

Finally,

$$h_\lambda \left(x\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\left(1+\lambda \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{iG_2\left(x\right)}\hfill & \text{for}xI\hfill \\ e^{iG_2\left(x\right)}\hfill & \text{for}xI\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$$G_2\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\lambda \right)\left[\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{1+b^2}{1+a^2}\right|+\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{bx}{ax}\right|\right].$$

For $`g_\lambda `$ we find the same expression, by substituting $`G_1\left(x\right)`$ in place of $`G_2\left(x\right)`$.

###### Proposition 4

$`g_\lambda \left(z\right)g_\lambda \left(x\right)`$ a.e as $`y0`$ and for almost all x :

$$g_\lambda \left(x\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\lambda }{2\left(1+\lambda \right)}g\left(x\right)+\frac{i\lambda }{2\pi \left(1+\lambda \right)}e^{iG_2\left(x\right)}p.v_I\frac{e^{iG_2\left(t\right)}g\left(t\right)}{xt}𝑑t\hfill & \text{for}xI\hfill \\ \frac{i\lambda }{2\pi \left(1+\lambda \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}e^{iG_2\left(x\right)}_I\frac{e^{iG_2\left(t\right)}g\left(t\right)}{xt}𝑑t\hfill & \text{for}xI\hfill \end{array}$$

## 3 Asymptotic behavior

Suppose $`I=]a,a[`$ and $`x\{a,a\}`$.
In this section we wish to estimate $`g_\lambda \left(x\right)`$ when $`xJ=I`$.
Let $`\phi \left(u\right)=a{\displaystyle \frac{1e^u}{1+e^u}}`$, a change of variable and $``$ be the following conditions :

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}go\phi \text{has no singularities in the strip }0\mathrm{}\left(z\right)<\pi \text{and does not accumulate on}\mathrm{}\left(z\right)=\pi 𝒞_1.\hfill & \\ \delta ]0,1[,\text{such that}go\phi \left(z\right)=O\left(e^{\delta \left|\mathrm{}\left(z\right)\right|}\right)\hfill & \\ \text{as}\mathrm{}\left(z\right)\pm \mathrm{}z\mathrm{\Gamma }_jj\{1,2,3\}𝒞_2.\hfill & \end{array}$$

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_j[R,R]`$ is the following contour and $`b]\pi ,{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{2}}]`$ :

Definition :
$``$ is the class of functions verifying $``$.

###### Theorem 3

Let $`I=]a,a[,g`$ we have : $`g_\lambda (x)=O(1)`$.

Proof : Let $`g`$ be in $``$.
In order to simplify notations, suppose $`go\phi `$ has no singularities on $`\mathrm{}\left(z\right)=\pi `$.
We have

$$g_\lambda \left(x\right)=\frac{\lambda }{2\pi \left(1+\lambda \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}e^{iG_1\left(x\right)}_I\frac{e^{iG_1\left(t\right)}g\left(t\right)}{xt}𝑑t,$$

where

$$G_1\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\lambda \right)\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{ax}{a+x}\right|$$

$$\text{Put}\xi =\frac{\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\lambda \right)}{2\pi },u=\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{at}{a+t}\right|\text{and}\alpha =\frac{a+x}{xa}\text{so,}$$

$$\left|g_\lambda \left(x\right)\right|=\frac{\lambda a}{\pi \left(1+\lambda \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left|ax\right|}\left|_{}\frac{e^{i\xi u}e^ugo\phi \left(u\right)}{\left(e^u+1\right)\left(e^u+\alpha \right)}𝑑u\right|.$$

Note that :

$$\frac{\lambda a}{\pi \left(1+\lambda \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(ax\right)}=O\left(e^{\xi \pi }\right).\left(I\right)$$

Denote $`k(u,\xi )`$, the quotient $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\xi u}e^u}{\left(e^u+1\right)\left(e^u+\alpha \right)}}`$.
We use the residu theorem to estimate $`\left|{\displaystyle _{}}k(u,\xi )go\phi \left(u\right)𝑑u\right|`$.
Firstly, remark that singularities of the integral are of the form :

$$i\left(\pi +2k\pi \right)\text{and}i\left(\pi +2k\pi \right)+\mathrm{ln}\left(\alpha \right)$$

and

$$_\mathrm{\Gamma }k(z,\xi )go\phi \left(z\right)𝑑z=\left(Res(kg,i\pi )+Res(kg,i\pi +\mathrm{ln}\left(\alpha \right))\right)2\pi i.$$

Calculations of both residus show that :

$$Res(kg,i\pi )=\frac{e^{\xi \pi }}{\alpha 1}go\phi \left(i\pi \right)\text{and}Res(kg,i\pi +\mathrm{ln}\left(\alpha \right))=\frac{e^{\xi \pi }e^{i\xi \mathrm{ln}\left(\alpha \right)}}{1\alpha }go\phi \left(i\pi +\mathrm{ln}\left(\alpha \right)\right).$$

On the other hand :

$$_\mathrm{\Gamma }k(z,\xi )go\phi \left(z\right)𝑑z=_R^Rk(u,\xi )go\phi \left(u\right)𝑑u+_0^bk(R+iy,\xi )go\phi \left(R+iy\right)𝑑y$$

$$+_R^Rk(u+ib,\xi )go\phi \left(u+ib\right)𝑑u+_b^0k(R+iy,\xi )go\phi \left(R+iy\right)𝑑y.$$

When $`R+\mathrm{}`$ the first integral is the one we deal with. If we set $`I_1,I_2,I_3\text{and}I_4`$ the four integrals, we have :

$$I_1=\frac{e^{\xi \pi }}{\alpha 1}go\phi \left(i\pi \right)+\frac{e^{\xi \pi }e^{i\xi \mathrm{ln}\left(\alpha \right)}}{1\alpha }go\phi \left(i\pi +\mathrm{ln}\left(\alpha \right)\right)I_2I_3I_4.$$

Put

$$c_1\left(\alpha \right)=\frac{go\phi \left(i\pi \right)}{\alpha 1}\text{and}c_2(\alpha ,\xi )=\frac{e^{i\xi \mathrm{ln}\left(\alpha \right)}}{1\alpha }go\phi \left(i\pi +\mathrm{ln}\left(\alpha \right)\right),$$

so

$$\left|I_1\right|\left|c_1\left(\alpha \right)+c_2(\alpha ,\xi )\right|e^{\xi \pi }+\left|I_2\right|+\left|I_3\right|+\left|I_4\right|.$$

Noting $`c_2(\alpha ,\xi )=c_2\left(\alpha \right)`$, we get :

$$\left|I_1\right|\left(\left|c_1\left(\alpha \right)\right|+\left|c_2\left(\alpha \right)\right|\right)e^{\xi \pi }+\left|I_2\right|+\left|I_3\right|+\left|I_4\right|\left(II\right)$$

Remark  : Note that we can choose x such that $`go\phi `$ does not vanish in $`\mathrm{ln}\left(\alpha \right)+i\pi `$, so $`c_2(\alpha ,\xi )0`$.

Moreover, $`\left|I_2\right|={\displaystyle _0^b}k(R+iy,\xi )go\phi \left(R+iy\right)𝑑y`$ and $`g`$ satisfies $`𝒞_1`$, then
$`\left|go\phi \left(R+iy\right)\right|Me^{\delta R}\text{where}M>0`$. Thus,

$$\left|I_2\right|Me^{\delta R}_0^b\left|k(R+iy,\xi )\right|𝑑y$$

$$M\frac{e^Re^{\delta R}}{\left(e^R1\right)\left(e^R\alpha \right)}_0^be^{\xi y}𝑑y$$

$`\text{when}R+\mathrm{}\left|I_2\right|0.`$
In a similar fashion we show that $`\text{when}R+\mathrm{}\left|I_4\right|0.`$
For $`I_3`$, we see that

$$\left|I_3\right|\left|_{}k(u+ib,\xi )go\phi \left(u+ib\right)𝑑u\right|\text{as}R+\mathrm{}.$$

Without loss of generality, let $`b={\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{2}}`$ and if $`\stackrel{~}{I}_3`$ denotes $`\underset{R+\mathrm{}}{lim}I_3`$, we get :

$$\left|\stackrel{~}{I}_3\right|e^{\frac{3\pi }{2}\xi }_{}\frac{e^{\delta \left|t\right|}e^t}{\left|ie^t+1\right|\left|ie^t+\alpha \right|}𝑑t$$

by the substitution $`t=ln\left(r\right)`$, we see that

$$\left|\stackrel{~}{I}_3\right|e^{\frac{3\pi }{2}\xi }_0^+\mathrm{}\frac{e^{\left|\mathrm{ln}\left(r^\delta \right)\right|}}{\left|ir+1\right|\left|ir+\alpha \right|}𝑑r$$

$$e^{\frac{3\pi }{2}\xi }\left[_0^1\frac{r^\delta }{\left|ir+1\right|\left|ir+\alpha \right|}𝑑r+_1^+\mathrm{}\frac{r^\delta }{\left|ir+1\right|\left|ir+\alpha \right|}𝑑r\right]$$

$$e^{\frac{3\pi }{2}\xi }\left[_0^1\frac{r^\delta }{1+r^2}𝑑r+_1^+\mathrm{}\frac{r^\delta }{1+r^2}𝑑r\right].$$

Finally,

$$\left|\stackrel{~}{I}_3\right|=O\left(e^{\frac{3\pi }{2}\xi }\right).$$

With (I) and (II) this ends the proof.

Remark  :

1. Calculations show that the nonsymmetrical case give the same results.
2. To bound $`\stackrel{~}{I}_3`$, the most important is $`b\pi `$.
3. In the last proof, we supposed that $`go\phi `$ has no singularities on $`\mathrm{}\left(z\right)=\pi `$.
If not, $`go\phi `$ has for instance $`n`$ p les, $`i\pi +\gamma _j`$. Since we can use the residu theorem, we get :

$`Res\left(kgo\phi ^,i\pi +\gamma _j\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\xi \left(i\pi +\gamma _j\right)}e^{i\pi +\gamma _j}}{\left(e^{i\pi +\gamma _j}+1\right)\left(e^{i\pi +\gamma _j}+\alpha \right)}}\underset{ui\pi +\gamma _j}{lim}go\phi \left(ui\pi \gamma _j\right)^{m_j}`$
$`=`$ $`e^{\xi \pi }c_j(\alpha ,\xi ,\gamma _j).`$
$`m_j`$ is the ordre of the pôle $`i\pi +\gamma _j`$. Finally :

$$_\mathrm{\Gamma }k(z,\xi )go\phi ^(z)dz=2i\pi e^{\xi \pi }_{j=1}^nc_j(\alpha ,\xi ,\gamma _j).$$

Then we use the same methode to obtain the desired boundedness.

###### Theorem 4

Suppose that $`g`$ satisfies $`𝒞_2`$ and $`go\phi `$ is meromorphic in the strip $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\{0<\mathrm{}(z)<\pi \}`$ whose poles are in a finite number in this open set.
Then $`g_\lambda (x)+\mathrm{}`$ as $`\lambda +\mathrm{}`$.

Proof : Employing the same methode as in the last theorem and without loss of generality, assume that $`go\phi \left(z\right)`$ has two poles, other than those of $`k`$, in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, say $`\beta _3`$ and $`\beta _4`$. We have,

$$_\mathrm{\Gamma }k(z,\xi )g\left(z\right)𝑑z=\left(Res(kg,i\pi )+Res(kg,i\pi +\mathrm{ln}\left(\alpha \right))+Res(kg,\beta _3)+Res(kg,\beta _4)\right)2\pi i$$

but $`Res(kg,i\pi )`$ and $`Res(kg,i\pi +\mathrm{ln}\left(\alpha \right))`$ are known. If $`j\{3,4\}`$ and $`m_j`$ is the order of the pole $`\beta _j`$, we see that :

$$Res(kg,\beta _j)=\frac{e^{i\xi \mathrm{}\left(\beta _j\right)}e^{\xi \mathrm{}\left(\beta _j\right)}}{\left(1+e^{\beta _j}\right)\left(1+\alpha e^{\beta _j}\right)}\underset{z\beta _j}{lim}go\phi \left(z\right)\left(z\beta _j\right)^{m_j},$$

$$Res(kg,\beta _j)=c_j(\beta _j,\xi )e^{\xi \mathrm{}\left(\beta _j\right)}$$

where,

$$c_j(\beta _j,\xi )=\frac{e^{i\xi \mathrm{}\left(\beta _j\right)}}{\left(1+e^{\beta _j}\right)\left(1+\alpha e^{\beta _j}\right)}\underset{z\beta _j}{lim}go\phi \left(z\right)\left(z\beta _j\right)^{m_j}$$

If $`\left|c_j(\beta _j,\xi )\right|=c_j\left(\beta _j\right)`$, we see that $`\left|Res(kg,\beta _j)\right|=c_j\left(\beta _j\right)e^{\xi \mathrm{}\left(\beta _j\right)}`$.
On the other hand,

$$_\mathrm{\Gamma }k(z,\xi )g\left(z\right)𝑑z=I_1+I_2+I_3+I_4,$$

therefore

$$I_1=c_3(\beta _3,\xi )e^{\xi \mathrm{}\left(\beta _3\right)}+c_4(\beta _4,\xi )e^{\xi \mathrm{}\left(\beta _4\right)}+\left[c_1\left(\alpha \right)+c_2(\alpha ,\xi )\right]e^{\xi \pi }I_2I_3I_4.$$

Put $`\stackrel{~}{I}_j=\underset{R+\mathrm{}}{lim}I_j`$. Since $`\left|\stackrel{~}{I}_2\right|=0`$ and $`\left|\stackrel{~}{I}_4\right|=0`$ we have,

$$\left|\stackrel{~}{I}_1\right|e^{\xi \pi }\left|c_1\left(\alpha \right)+c_2(\alpha ,\xi )+c_3(\beta _3,\xi )e^{\xi \left(\mathrm{}\left(\beta _3\right)\pi \right)}+c_4(\beta _4,\xi )e^{\xi \left(\mathrm{}\left(\beta _4\right)\pi \right)}\right|\left|\stackrel{~}{I}_3\right|.$$

From the last theorem, $`M>0`$ such that $`\left|\stackrel{~}{I}_3\right|e^{b\xi }M`$, then

$$e^{\xi \pi }\left|\stackrel{~}{I}_1\right|\left|c_1\left(\alpha \right)+c_2(\alpha ,\xi )+c_3(\beta _3,\xi )e^{\xi \left(\mathrm{}\left(\beta _3\right)\pi \right)}+c_4(\beta _4,\xi )e^{\xi \left(\mathrm{}\left(\beta _4\right)\pi \right)}\right|e^{\left(\pi b\right)\xi }M$$

Note that $`e^{\left(\pi b\right)\xi }0`$ as $`\xi +\mathrm{}`$. If for instance $`\mathrm{}\left(\beta _3\right)\mathrm{}\left(\beta _4\right)`$ we deduce :

$$e^{\xi \pi }\left|\stackrel{~}{I}_1\right|e^{\left(\pi \mathrm{}\left(\beta _3\right)\right)\xi }\left|\left(c_1\left(\alpha \right)+c_2(\alpha ,\xi )\right)e^{\left(\pi +\mathrm{}\left(\beta _3\right)\right)\xi }+c_3(\beta _3,\xi )+c_4(\beta _4,\xi )e^{\left(\mathrm{}\left(\beta _4\right)\mathrm{}\left(\beta _3\right)\right)\xi }\right|.$$

Finally this last expression $`+\mathrm{}`$ as $`\xi +\mathrm{}`$.

Q.E.D.

###### Corollary 1

If $`go\phi (z)`$ verifies $`𝒞_2`$ then $`𝒞_1`$ is a necessary and sufficient condition to obtain the boundedness of $`g_\lambda (x)`$.

Since $`x`$ is arbitrarily taken, it can lie in a neighborhood $`V`$ of positive measure, where the bounds of $`I`$ are not contained in $`V`$. We get the following :

###### Corollary 2

If $`go\phi (z)`$ verifies $`𝒞_2`$ and not $`𝒞_1`$ then $`g_\lambda (x)+\mathrm{}`$ as $`\lambda +\mathrm{}`$ $`xV`$. So we canot hope the ae convergence of $`g_\lambda `$ on $`𝕋I`$.

Example 2 illustrates this.

## 4 Applications

Let $`g\left(x\right)=g_1\left(x\right)+ig_2\left(x\right)`$.

###### Example 1

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}g_1\left(x\right)=0\hfill & \text{for}x]\mathrm{},a[\hfill \\ g_1\left(x\right)=\sqrt{a^2x^2}\hfill & \text{for}x]a,+a[\hfill \\ g_1\left(x\right)=0\hfill & \text{for}x]a,+\mathrm{}[\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}g_2\left(x\right)=x\sqrt{x^2a^2}\hfill & \text{for}x]\mathrm{},a[\hfill \\ g_2\left(x\right)=x\hfill & \text{for}x]a,+a[\hfill \\ g_2\left(x\right)=x+\sqrt{x^2a^2}\hfill & \text{for}x]a,+\mathrm{}[\hfill \end{array}$$

In $`]a,+a[,g(x)=\sqrt{a^2x^2}ix`$.
To simplify calculations, assume $`a=1`$. We assert that $`g`$. In fact

$$g_1o\phi \left(t\right)=\sqrt{1\left(\frac{1e^t}{1+e^t}\right)^2}=\frac{2e^{\frac{t}{2}}}{1+e^t}$$

and

$$g_2o\phi \left(t\right)=\frac{e^t1}{e^t+1}$$

First, we are going to see that $`g_1o\phi `$ and $`g_2o\phi `$ satisfy $`𝒞_2`$.

Observe that we have easily the equivalence :
$`go\phi `$ verifies $`𝒞_2`$ if and only if $`g_1o\phi `$ and $`g_2o\phi `$ verify the same condition.

It is clear that boundedness from above on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ of $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ are sufficient to do the job.

Case $`g_1`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ :

We have to find $`M`$ and $`\delta ]0,1[`$ such that :

$$\left|\frac{2e^{\left(\frac{R+yi}{2}\right)}}{1+e^{Ryi}}\right|<Me^{\delta R}$$

where $`R`$ is some constant $`>0`$ and $`y[0,b]`$.
For this, one can for instance do

$$\left|\frac{2e^{\left(\frac{R+yi}{2}\right)}}{1+e^{Ryi}}\right|<\frac{2e^{\frac{R}{2}}}{1e^R}<Me^{\delta R}.$$

Case $`g_1`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ :

As before we must find $`M`$ and $`\delta ]0,1[`$ such that :

$$\left|\frac{2e^{\left(\frac{ib+x}{2}\right)}}{1+e^{\left(x+ib\right)}}\right|<Me^{\delta \left|x\right|}x.$$

That is to say :

$$\frac{2e^{\frac{x}{2}}}{e^{2x}+2\mathrm{cos}\left(b\right)e^x+1}<e^{\delta \left|x\right|}.$$

The first side, $`h(x)`$, is a positive function $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ on $``$ whose dénominator does not vanish. Furthermore, $`\underset{x+\mathrm{}}{lim}h(x)=0`$ and so does at $`\mathrm{}`$. Therefore there exists a maximum (function of $`b`$) such that $`h(x)<M(b)`$, where $`\pi <b\frac{3\pi }{2}`$.

Case $`g_2`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ :

It is easy to see that we can have $`\delta ]0,1[`$ and $`M`$ such that :

$$\left|\frac{e^{\left(R+iy\right)}1}{e^{\left(R+iy\right)+1}}\right|Me^{\delta R}.$$

Case $`g_2`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ :

A simple triangular inequatity application provides us the desired constants.

Note that the fact that $`go\phi `$ vérifies $`𝒞_1`$ is an easy exercise.

###### Example 2

$$g_1\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{1+x^2}x$$

$$g_2\left(x\right)=\frac{x}{1+x^2}x$$

After change of variable,

$$go\phi \left(t\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\left(1+e^t\right)^2}{1+e^{2t}}i\frac{1e^{2t}}{1+e^{2t}}\right)$$

This example illustrates theorem 4. In fact, $`Res(kg,i\frac{\pi }{2})=e^{\xi \frac{\pi }{2}}c(\alpha )`$, where $`c(\alpha )`$ is a complex number.
We see that $`|g_\lambda (x)|+\mathrm{}\text{as}\lambda +\mathrm{}`$.

Aknowledjements :

The subject was proposed to me by Professor P.Herve (I.U.T d’ nerg tique et d’économie d’ nergie. Ville d’Avray). I thank J.Leblond (I.N.R.I.A-Sophia Antipolis) and Nicolas Zakic (U.C.B.L) for their valuable suggestions and remarks.