text:
# Axial Vector Duality in Affine NA Toda Models

## 1 Introduction

Two dimensional integrable models represent an important laboratory for testing new ideas and developing new methods for constructing exact solutions as well as for the nonperturbative quantization of 4-D non-abelian gauge theories, gravity and string theory. Among the numerous techniques for constructing 2-D integrable models and their solutions , , the hamiltonian reduction of the Wess-Zumino-Witten (WZW) model (or equivalently the gauged WZW ) associated to a finite dimensional Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ has provided an universal and simple method for deriving the equations of motion (or action ) of 2-d integrable models. In particular, the conformal Toda (CT) models were constructed by implementing a consistent set of constraints on the WZW currents . The method was subsequently extended to construct the conformal affine Toda models (CAT) from infinite dimensional affine algebras, leading to WZW currents satisfying the so called two loop current algebra  .

The affine Toda models consists of a class of relativistic two dimensional integrable models admiting soliton solutions with non trivial topological charge (e.g. the abelian affine Toda models). Among such models we encounter the Non Abelian affine (NA) Toda models which admit electrically charged solitons . In general, the NA Toda models admit solitons with non trivial internal symmetry structure. The formulation and classification of such models with its global symmetry structure is given in terms of the decomposition of an underlying Lie algebraic structure according to a grading operator $`Q`$ and, in terms of a pair of constant generators $`ϵ_\pm `$ of grade $`\pm 1`$. In particular, integrable perturbations of the WZW characterized by $`ϵ_\pm `$ describe the dynamics of the fields parametrizing the zero grade subalgebra $`𝒢_0`$. The action manifests chiral symmetry associated to the subalgebra $`𝒢_0^0𝒢_0`$ due to the fact that $`Y𝒢_0^0,[Y,ϵ_\pm ]=0`$. The existence of such subalgebra allows the implementation of subsidiary constraints within $`𝒢_0^0`$ and the reduction of the model from the group $`G_0`$ to the coset $`G_0/G_0^0`$. The structure of the coset $`G_0/G_0^0`$ viewed according to axial or vector gauging leads to different parametrizations and different actions.

We first discuss the general construction of NA Toda models and its different internal symmetry structure. Next, we discuss the structure of the coset $`G_0/G_0^0=SL(2)U(1)^{n1}/U(1)`$ according to axial and vector gaugings and explicitly construct the associated lagrangians. Subsequently, we show how the chiral symmetry of the group model becomes global under the reduction to the coset. Finally, we show that the axial and vector models are related by canonical transformation  preserving the Hamiltonian which also transforms topological into electric current and vice-versa.

## 2 General Construction of Toda Models

The basic ingredient in constructing Toda models is the decomposition of a Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ of finite or infinite dimension in terms of graded subspaces defined according to a grading operator $`Q`$,

$`[Q,𝒢_l]=l𝒢_l,𝒢=𝒢_l,[𝒢_l,𝒢_k]𝒢_{l+k},l,k=0,\pm 1,\mathrm{}`$ (1)
In particular, the zero grade subspace $`𝒢_0`$ plays an important role since it is parametrized by the Toda fields. The grading operator $`Q`$ induces the notion of negative and positive grade subalgebras and henceforth the decomposition of a group element in the Gauss form,

$`g=NBM`$ (2)
where $`N=\mathrm{exp}(𝒢_<)`$, $`B=\mathrm{exp}(𝒢_0)`$ and $`M=\mathrm{exp}(𝒢_>)`$.

The action for the Toda fields is constructed from the gauged Wess-Zumino-Witten (WZW) action , ,

$`S_{G/H}(g,A,\overline{A})`$ $`=`$ $`S_{WZW}(g)`$ (3)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2xTr\left(A(\overline{}gg^1ϵ_+)+\overline{A}(g^1gϵ_{})+Ag\overline{A}g^1\right)}`$
where $`A=A_{}𝒢_<,\overline{A}=\overline{A}_+𝒢_>`$, $`ϵ_\pm `$ are constant operators of grade $`\pm 1`$. The action (3) is invariant under

$`g^{}=\alpha _{}g\alpha _+,A^{}=\alpha _{}A\alpha _{}^1+\alpha _{}\alpha _{}^1,\overline{A}^{}=\alpha _+^1\overline{A}\alpha _++\overline{}\alpha _+^1\alpha _+,`$ (4)
where $`\alpha _{}𝒢_<,\alpha _+𝒢_>`$. It therefore follows that $`S_{G/H}(g,A,\overline{A})=S_{G/H}(B,A^{},\overline{A}^{})`$.

Integrating over the auxiliary fields $`A,\overline{A}`$, we find the effective action,

$`S_{eff}(B)=S_{WZW}(B){\displaystyle \frac{k}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle Tr\left(ϵ_+Bϵ_{}B^1\right)d^2x}`$ (5)
The equations of motion are given by

$`\overline{}(B^1B)+[ϵ_{},B^1ϵ_+B]=0,(\overline{}BB^1)[ϵ_+,Bϵ_{}B^1]=0`$ (6)
It is straightforward to derive from the eqns. of motion (6) that chiral currents are associated to the subalgebra $`𝒢_0^0𝒢_0`$ defined as $`𝒢_0^0=\{X𝒢_0,\mathrm{such}\mathrm{that}[X,ϵ_\pm ]=0\}`$, i.e.,

$`J_X=Tr\left(XB^1B\right),\overline{J}_X=Tr\left(X\overline{}BB^1\right),\overline{}J_X=\overline{J}_X=0`$ (7)
In order to illustrate the different algebraic structure, consider the following examples within the affine $`𝒢=\widehat{SL}(n+1)`$:

1. Abelian affine Toda

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`(n+1)d+{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\lambda _lH,`$
$`𝒢_0`$ $`=`$ $`U(1)^n=\{h_1,\mathrm{},h_n\}`$
$`ϵ_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}}E_{\pm \alpha _l}^{(0)}+E_{(\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\alpha _n)}^{(\pm 1)}`$
$`𝒢_0^0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}`$ (8)
2. Non Abelian affine Toda

1. $`Q`$ $`=`$ $`nd+{\displaystyle \underset{l=2}{\overset{n}{}}}\lambda _lH,`$
    $`𝒢_0`$ $`=`$ $`SL(2)U(1)^{n1}=\{E_{\pm \alpha _1},h_1,\mathrm{},h_n\}`$
    $`ϵ_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=2}{\overset{n}{}}}E_{\pm \alpha _l}^{(0)}+E_{(\alpha _2+\mathrm{}+\alpha _n)}^{(\pm 1)}`$
    $`𝒢_0^0`$ $`=`$ $`U(1)=\{\lambda _1H\}`$ (9)
    2. $`Q`$ $`=`$ $`(n1)d+{\displaystyle \underset{l=2}{\overset{n1}{}}}\lambda _lH,`$
    $`𝒢_0`$ $`=`$ $`SL(2)SL(2)U(1)^{n2}=\{E_{\pm \alpha _1},E_{\pm \alpha _n},h_1,\mathrm{},h_n\}`$
    $`ϵ_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=2}{\overset{n1}{}}}E_{\pm \alpha _l}^{(0)}+E_{(\alpha _2+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{n1})}^{(\pm 1)}`$
    $`𝒢_0^0`$ $`=`$ $`U(1)U(1)=\{\lambda _1H,\lambda _nH\}`$ (10)
    3. $`Q`$ $`=`$ $`(n1)d+{\displaystyle \underset{l=3}{\overset{n}{}}}\lambda _lH,`$
    $`𝒢_0`$ $`=`$ $`SL(3)U(1)^{n2}=\{E_{\pm \alpha _1},E_{\pm \alpha _2},E_{\pm (\alpha _1+\alpha _2)},h_1,\mathrm{},h_n\}`$
    $`ϵ_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=3}{\overset{n}{}}}E_{\pm \alpha _l}^{(0)}+E_{(\alpha _3+\mathrm{}+\alpha _n)}^{(\pm 1)}`$
    $`𝒢_0^0`$ $`=`$ $`SL(2)U(1)=\{E_{\pm \alpha _1},\lambda _1H,\lambda _nH\}`$ (11)

For the cases where $`𝒢_0^00`$, we may impose consistently the additional constraints $`J_X=\overline{J}_X=0,X𝒢_0^0`$. The construction of the gauged WZW action taking into account the subsidiary constraints reduces the model from the group $`G_0`$ to the coset $`G_0/G_0^0`$ and is given by

$`S_{G_0/G_0^0}(B,A_0,\overline{A}_0)`$ $`=`$ $`S_{WZW}(B){\displaystyle \frac{k}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle Tr\left(ϵ_+Bϵ_{}B^1\right)d^2x}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle Tr\left(\pm A_0\overline{}BB^1+\overline{A}_0B^1B\pm A_0B\overline{A}_0B^1+A_0\overline{A}_0\right)d^2x}`$
where the $`\pm `$ signs correspond to axial or vector gaugings respectively. The action (LABEL:2.12) is invariant under

$`B^{}=\alpha _0B\alpha _0^{},A_0^{}=A_0\alpha _0^1\alpha _0,\overline{A}_0^{}=\overline{A}_0\overline{}\alpha _0^{}(\alpha _0^{})^1`$ (13)
and $`\alpha _0^{}=\alpha _0(z,\overline{z})𝒢_0^0`$ for axial and $`\alpha _0^{}=\alpha _0^1(z,\overline{z})𝒢_0^0`$ for vector cases, i.e.,

$`S_{G_0/G_0^0}(B,A_0,\overline{A}_0)=S_{G_0/G_0^0}(\alpha _0B\alpha _0^{}=g_0^f,A_{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{},\overline{A^{}}_0)`$ (14)
## 3 The structure of the coset $`G_0/G_0^0`$

In this section we discuss the structure of the coset $`G_0/G_0^0`$ constructed according to axial and vector gaugings. We shall be considering the NA Toda models of case $`(2a)`$ where $`𝒢_0^0=U(1)`$. The group element of the zero grade subgroup $`G_0`$ is parametrized as

$`B=e^{\stackrel{~}{\chi }E_{\alpha _1}}e^{R\lambda _1H+_{l=2}^n\phi _lh_l}e^{\stackrel{~}{\psi }E_{\alpha _1}}`$ (15)
According to the axial gauging we can write $`B`$ as an element of the the zero grade subgroup $`G_0`$ is parametrized as

$`B=e^{\frac{1}{2}R\lambda _1H}\left(g_{0,ax}^f\right)e^{\frac{1}{2}R\lambda _1H},\mathrm{where}g_{0,ax}^f=e^{\stackrel{~}{\chi }e^{\frac{1}{2}R}E_{\alpha _1}}e^{_{l=2}^n\phi _lh_l}e^{\stackrel{~}{\psi }e^{\frac{1}{2}R}E_{\alpha _1}}`$ (16)
The effective action is obtained integrating (LABEL:2.12) over $`A_0,\overline{A}_0`$, yielding

$`_{eff}^{ax}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a,b=2}{\overset{n}{}}}\eta _{ab}\phi _a\overline{}\phi _b+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{}\psi \chi }{\mathrm{\Delta }}}e^{\phi _2}V_{ax},\mathrm{\Delta }=1+{\displaystyle \frac{n+1}{2n}}\psi \chi e^{\phi _2}`$ (17)
where $`\psi =\stackrel{~}{\psi }e^{\frac{1}{2}R},\chi =\stackrel{~}{\chi }e^{\frac{1}{2}R}`$, and $`V_{ax}=_{l=2}^ne^{2\phi _l\phi _{l1}\phi _{l+1}}+e^{\phi _2+\phi _n}(1+\psi \chi e^{\phi _2})`$.

The vector gauging can be implemented from the zero grade subgroup $`G_0`$ written as

$`B=e^{u\lambda _1H}\left(g_{0,vec}^f\right)e^{u\lambda _1H},\mathrm{where}g_{0,vec}^f=e^{\stackrel{~}{\chi }e^uE_{\alpha _1}}e^{_{l=1}^n\varphi _lh_l}e^{\stackrel{~}{\psi }e^uE_{\alpha _1}}`$ (18)
Since $`u`$ is arbitrary, we may choose $`u=\frac{1}{2}ln\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}\right)`$ so that

$`g_{0,vec}^f=e^{tE_{\alpha _1}}e^{_{l=1}^n\varphi _lh_l}e^{tE_{\alpha _1}},t^2=\stackrel{~}{\psi }\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ (19)
The effective action for the vector model is

$`_{eff}^{vec}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a,b=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\eta _{ab}\varphi _a\overline{}\varphi _b+{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _1\overline{}\varphi _1}{t^2}}e^{2\varphi _1+\varphi _2}`$ (20)
$`+`$ $`\varphi _1\overline{}ln(t)+\overline{}\varphi _1ln(t)V_{vec}.`$
In terms of a more convenient set of variables,

$`A=e^{\varphi _1}=e^{\frac{n}{n+1}R},B=A^1(1t^2e^{2\varphi _1\varphi _2}),C_i=e^{\varphi _{i+2}\varphi _{i+1}\frac{R}{n}}`$ (21)
we get

$`_{eff}^{vec}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\left(ln(C_i)\overline{}ln(C_iC_{i+1}\mathrm{}C_{n1})+\overline{}ln(C_i)ln(C_iC_{i+1}\mathrm{}C_{n1})\right)`$ (22)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{A\overline{}B+\overline{}AB}{1AB}}V_{vec}`$
where $`V_{vec}=AC_1^2C_2\mathrm{}C_{n1}+\frac{C_2}{C_1}+\frac{C_3}{C_2}+\mathrm{}\frac{C_{n2}}{C_{n1}}+\frac{B}{C_1C_2\mathrm{}C_{n1}^2}`$.

## 4 Chiral and Global Symmetries, from $`G_0`$ to $`G_0/G_0^0`$

Consider the unconstrained model defined in the group $`G_0`$ with action

$`S_{eff}(B)=S_{WZW}(B){\displaystyle \frac{k}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle Tr\left(ϵ_+Bϵ_{}B^1\right)d^2x}`$ (23)
The action (23) is invariant under chiral transformation

$`B^{}(\overline{z},z)=e^{\overline{w}(\overline{z})\lambda _1H}B(\overline{z},z)e^{w(z)\lambda _1H},`$ (24)
which in components reads

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}=\stackrel{~}{\chi }e^{\overline{w}(\overline{z})},\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{}=\stackrel{~}{\psi }e^{w(z)},R^{}=R+\overline{w}+w,\phi _l^{}=\phi _l`$ (25)
and leads to the Noether currents (chiral)

$`J_{\lambda _1H}`$ $`=`$ $`Tr\left(\lambda _1HB^1B\right)=R{\displaystyle \frac{n+1}{n}}\stackrel{~}{\psi }\stackrel{~}{\chi }e^{R\phi _2},\overline{J}_{\lambda _1H}=0`$
$`\overline{J}_{\lambda _1H}`$ $`=`$ $`Tr\left(\lambda _1H\overline{}BB^1\right)=\overline{}R{\displaystyle \frac{n+1}{n}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }\overline{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }e^{R\phi _2},\overline{J}_{\lambda _1H}=0`$ (26)
In addition the model in the group (23) has the following topological currents (non chiral)

$`J_{top,ax}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{\mu \nu }_\nu R,`$
$`J_{top,vec}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{\mu \nu }_\nu u,u={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ln\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}}\right)`$ (27)
When reducing the model from the group $`G_0`$ to the coset $`G_0/G_0^0`$, the chiral symmetry reduces to a global symmetry. For axial factor group element $`g_{0,ax}^f`$ defined in (16), has no $`𝒢_0^0`$ generator (i.e., $`R`$ field to absorb the factor $`\overline{w}+w`$ ) and the symmetry of the axial model consists of transformations (25) such that $`\overline{w}+w=0`$. For the vector factor group element $`g_{0,vec}^f`$ in (19) the invariance of the field $`t^{}=t`$ also implies $`\overline{w}+w=0`$. In both cases, the remaining symmetry is obtained for $`\overline{w}=w=const.`$ corresponding to a global $`U(1)`$. Further, the reduction from the group $`G_0`$ to the coset $`G_0/G_0^0`$ is implemented by imposing the subsidiary constraint

$`J_{\lambda _1H}=\overline{J}_{\lambda _1H}=0`$ (28)
which allows the elimination of one degree of freedom. For the axial gauging we solve the subsidiary constraints (28) for the nonlocal field $`R`$, i.e. the coset $`G_0/G_0^0`$ is implemented by imposing the subsidiary constraint

$`R=\left({\displaystyle \frac{n+1}{n}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\psi \chi }{\mathrm{\Delta }}}e^{\phi _2},\overline{}R=\left({\displaystyle \frac{n+1}{n}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\chi \overline{}\psi }{\mathrm{\Delta }}}e^{\phi _2}`$ (29)
where $`\psi =\stackrel{~}{\psi }e^{\frac{1}{2}R},\chi =\stackrel{~}{\chi }e^{\frac{1}{2}R}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1+\frac{n+1}{2n}\psi \chi e^{\phi _2}`$. For the vector gauging, we define $`h=1+\stackrel{~}{\psi }\stackrel{~}{\chi }e^{\phi _2}`$ and solve the same constraints (28) for the nonlocal field $`u`$,

$`u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n1}{n+1}}+h\right){\displaystyle \frac{R}{h1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\phi _2}}{h1}}\left((h1)e^{\phi _2}\right),`$
$`\overline{}u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n1}{n+1}}+h\right){\displaystyle \frac{\overline{}R}{h1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\phi _2}}{h1}}\overline{}\left((h1)e^{\phi _2}\right)`$ (30)
Finally let us discuss the relation among the topological and Noether charges of the $`G_0`$ and the $`G_0/G_0^0`$. Consider the topological charges defined from (27)

$`Q_{top,ax}^{G_0}={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x_xR={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x\left({\displaystyle \frac{\psi \chi \chi \overline{}\psi }{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right)=Q_{Noether,ax}^{G_0/G_0^0},`$ (31)
$`Q_{top,vec}^{G_0}={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x_xu`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{n1}{n+1}}+h\right){\displaystyle \frac{_tR}{h1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\phi _2}}{h1}}_t\left((h1)e^{\phi _2}\right)\right)`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`Q_{Noether,vec}^{G_0/G_0^0}`$
by virtue of eqns. (29) and (30). The RHS of eqns. (31) and (32) coincide precisely with the Noether charges associated to the global transformations $`\delta \psi =\alpha \psi ,\delta \chi =\alpha \chi `$ and $`\delta \varphi _1=\frac{(n+1)}{n}\delta R=\alpha `$, $`\alpha =`$ const. respectively.

## 5 Axial-Vector Duality

In this section we shall prove that the axial and vector models are related by a canonical transformation. Consider the $`SL(3)`$ vector model

$`_{vec}=lnC\overline{}lnC{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{A\overline{}B+\overline{}AB}{1AB}}AC^2+{\displaystyle \frac{B}{C^2}}`$ (33)
In terms of the new set of more convenient variables

$`a=AB,C=dA^{\frac{1}{2}},d=e^{\frac{1}{2}f},\theta =lnA`$ (34)
the lagrangian (33) becomes

$`_{vec}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+3a}{1a}}\right)\theta \overline{}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\theta \left(\overline{}f+{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{}a}{1a}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\overline{}\theta \left(f+{\displaystyle \frac{2a}{1a}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}f\overline{}fV_{vec}`$
(35)
where $`V_{vec}=d^2+\frac{a}{d^2}`$. The canonical momenta are given by

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \dot{\theta }}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+3a)}{1a}}\dot{\theta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\dot{f}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\dot{a}}{1a}}\right)`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \dot{f}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\dot{\theta }+\dot{f})`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \dot{a}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\theta }}{1a}}`$ (36)
and the hamiltonian is

$`_{vec}`$ $`=`$ $`(1a)\mathrm{\Pi }_a\mathrm{\Pi }_\theta +\mathrm{\Pi }_f^2(1a)\mathrm{\Pi }_a\mathrm{\Pi }_fa(1a)\mathrm{\Pi }_a^2`$ (37)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+3a)}{1a}}\theta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(f^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{2a^{}}{1a}})\theta ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+V_{vec}`$
Consider the following modified lagrangian

$`_{mod}=_{vec}\stackrel{~}{\theta }\left(\overline{P}\overline{}P\right)`$ (38)
where we identify $`\theta =P,\overline{}\theta =\overline{P}`$ , . Integrating by parts and negleting total derivatives,

$`_{mod}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+3a}{1a}}\right)P\overline{P}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}P\left(\overline{}f+{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{}a}{1a}}+\overline{}\stackrel{~}{\theta }\right)`$ (39)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\overline{P}\left(f+{\displaystyle \frac{2a}{1a}}\stackrel{~}{\theta }\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}f\overline{}fV_{vec}`$
Integrating over the auxiliary fields $`P`$ and $`\overline{P}`$ we find the effective action

$`_{eff}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}f\overline{}f{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1a)}{1+3a}}\left(\overline{}f+{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{}a}{1a}}+\overline{}\stackrel{~}{\theta }\right)\left(f+{\displaystyle \frac{2a}{1a}}\stackrel{~}{\theta }\right)V`$
(40)
and the canonical momenta are

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{eff}}{\delta \dot{f}}}={\displaystyle \frac{2a\dot{f}}{1+3a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{1+3a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1a)}{1+3a}}\theta ^{}`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\stackrel{~}{\theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{eff}}{\delta \dot{\stackrel{~}{\theta }}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1a)}{1+3a}}(\dot{\stackrel{~}{\theta }}f^{}){\displaystyle \frac{g^{}}{1+3a}}`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{eff}}{\delta \dot{a}}}={\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{~}{\theta }^{}\dot{f})}{1+3a}}{\displaystyle \frac{2a}{(1a)(1+3a)}}`$ (41)
The hamiltonian is

$`_{mod}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1a)\mathrm{\Pi }_a\stackrel{~}{\theta }^{}+\mathrm{\Pi }_f^2(1a)\mathrm{\Pi }_a\mathrm{\Pi }_fa(1a)\mathrm{\Pi }_a^2`$ (42)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1+3a)}{1a}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\stackrel{~}{\theta }}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(f^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{2a^{}}{1a}})\mathrm{\Pi }_{\stackrel{~}{\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+V_{vec}`$
The canonical transformation

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\theta }^{},\theta ^{}=2\mathrm{\Pi }_{\stackrel{~}{\theta }}`$ (43)
preserves the Poisson bracket structure and provide the equality of the hamiltanians $`_{mod}=_{vec}`$. If we now substitute

$`\stackrel{~}{\theta }=2ln\left({\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{\chi }}\right),a=1+\psi \chi e^{\phi _2},f=\phi _2`$ (44)
in the effective lagrangian $`_{eff}`$ (40), we find

$`_{eff}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\phi _2\overline{}\phi _2+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi \overline{}\psi }{\mathrm{\Delta }}}e^{\phi _2}V`$ (45)
which is precisely the axial lagrangian for $`𝒢_0=SL(3)`$. Therefore the axial and the vector models are related by the canonical transformation (43) preserving the hamiltonians. In fact, $`\theta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ are isometric variables generating Noether charges (31) and (32) under global transformations.

## 6 Concluding Remarks

We have seen that the crucial ingredient which allows the construction of the axial and vector models is the existence of non trivial subgroup $`G_0^0`$ which in the example developed here, $`G_0^0=U(1)`$. The same strategy works equally well for generalized multicharged NA Toda models such as those constructed in ref.  where $`G_0^0=U(1)U(1)`$ or to the homogeneous sine Gordon (HSG) models proposed in .

The question of constructing integrable models with non abelian internal symmetry arises naturally. For instance, in the case of example $`(2c)`$ of section 2 (eqn. (11)), the group model (4) admits invariance under chiral $`𝒢_0^0=SL(2)U(1)`$ transformations and is the natural prototype to describe solitons carrying nonabelian degrees of freedom.

An interesting and intriguing subclass of NA Toda models correspond to the following three affine Kac-Moody algebras, $`B_n^{(1)},A_{2n}^{(2)}`$ and $`D_{n+1}^{(2)}`$. Their axial and vector actions were constructed in  and shown to be identical. In fact, those affine algebras satisfy the no torsion condition proposed in  which is fulfilled by Lie algebras possesseing $`B_n`$-tail like Dynkin diagrams (see for instance appendix N of ). The very same selfdual models were shown to possess an exact S-matrix coinciding with certain Thirring models coupled to affine abelian Toda models in ref. .

Acknowledgments We thank O. Babelon, J.L. Miramontes and J. Sanchez-Guillen for discussions. We are grateful to CAPES, CNPq, FAPESP and UNESP for financial support.


format: text

text:
# The Conal representation of Quantum Statesand Non Trace-Preserving Quantum Operations

## I Introduction

The space of pure states of finite $`d`$-dimensional Quantum Mechanics $`P^d`$, set of rays in the complex Hilbert space $`^d`$, is, as most complex spaces, not easy to visualize. Physical motions, let alone unitary time evolutions, have no clear geometric interpretation. However, the set of hermitian operators on $`^d`$, $`\text{Herm}_d()`$, is a $`(d^21)`$-dimensional *real* vector space, and as such is certainly easier to represent geometrically. States, or more generally density matrices, form of course a subset of $`\text{Herm}_d()`$. The Generalized Bloch Sphere Representation (Eberly -Mahler ) is a famous application of this fact which has proved to be popular and elucidating: a given density matrix can be represented as a real vector inside a (hyper) sphere.
It turns out that this representation defined for density matrices, or unit trace positive elements of $`\text{Herm}_d()`$, is only good at handling unitary or trace preserving quantum operations on density matrices: the former induce rotations of the Bloch vector, the latter affine transformations Zanardi . Individual outcomes of generalized measurements, for example, are not directly representable. Considering the insight the Bloch Sphere representation gave to unitary and trace-preserving operations, it seems interesting, for the mere sake of geometry at first, but mainly to give a useful picture to tackle Quantum Information problems, to extend it to cater for non-trace-preserving quantum operations. This is further motivated by the fact that the space of (semi-definite or definite) positive hermitian operators, thereafter denoted $`\text{Herm}_d^+()`$, *is* a closed convex cone, and that all admissible quantum operations should be a subset of the transformations of this cone.

In spite of being so central in Quantum Information Theory, the tradeoff between how much Shannon Information one may gain about a quantum system *versus* how much Disturbance the observation must necessarily cause to the system, remains extremely difficult to quantify. Quantum cryptographists tend to circumvene the problem: most of their proofs are a witty blend of the particular symmetries of the protocol in question, together with a convoluted machinery. A few attempts have been made to solve the tradeoff Banaszek Barnum , but only one Fuchs  deals with discrete ensembles - namely the case of two equiprobable pure states, and this is already something. Unfortunately the approach involves lengthy algebra and a number of assumptions. One should be able to find a method which gives a glimpse of intuition about the geometry of optimal measurements, and for this purpose, we think that our approach is useful.

In section II we consider general quantum systems of $`d`$ complex dimensions. We give a representation of the set of positive hermitian matrices $`\text{Herm}_d^+()`$ as a subcone of a real Minkowskian cone in $`^{d^2}`$, and analyse geometrical properties of generalized measurements in this setting. We find that our approach is particularly useful to represent per-outcome post-measurement states, and that pure states correspond to certain light-like vectors of the cone. Unitary operators on the complex system become real orthogonal transforms, while positive operators become real positive transforms. Section III should be of special interest for quantum information theorists: we treat the $`d=2`$ one qubit case in full detail. We find further geometrical relations between measurement vectors, state vectors and post-measurement state vectors and give explicit formulae. In section IV we apply our results to a typical Information gain versus Disturbance tradeoff scenario in which Alice gives Eve two equiprobable pure states. Thus we recover Fuchs and Peres’ formula in an elegant and geometrical manner.

## II Conal representation of $`d`$-dimensional quantum systems

The state of such a system is described by a $`d\times d`$ density matrix. We shall express hermitian matrices as real linear combinations of Hilbert-Schmidt-orthogonal hermitian matrices, and then restrict this representation to elements of $`\text{Herm}_d^+()`$, or generalized density matrices. $`\text{Herm}_d^+()`$ turns out to be “isomorphic” to a convex subcone of a cone of revolution in $`^{d^2}`$, or indeed a Minkowskian future cone in $`𝔼^{1,d^21}`$. We then analyse the effects of quantum operations on density matrices in this representation.

### II.1 Hermitian matrices

Let $`\{\tau _i\}`$, $`i\{1,\mathrm{},d^21\}`$, be a Hilbert-Schmidt orthogonal basis (as in (1)) of $`d\times d`$ traceless hermitian matrices, and let $`\tau _0`$ be the identity matrix $`𝕀`$. Throughout this article latin indices will run from $`1`$ to $`d^21`$, greek indices from $`0`$ to $`d^21`$, and repeated indices are summed unless specified. We take the $`\tau _\mu `$’s to satisfy by definition:

$$\mu ,\nu \text{Tr}(\tau _\mu \tau _\nu )=d\delta _{\mu \nu }$$
(1)
with $`\delta `$ the Kronecker delta. $`\{\tau _\mu \}_\mu `$ is a basis of $`\text{Herm}_d()`$, and any hermitian matrix $`A\text{Herm}_d()`$ decomposes on this basis as

$`A`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}\left(\text{Tr}(A)𝕀+\text{Tr}(A\tau _i)\tau _i\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}\text{Tr}(A\tau _\mu )\tau _\mu `$ (2)
Letting $`\underset{¯}{A}=(\underset{¯}{A}_\mu )^{d^2}`$ with $`\underset{¯}{A}_\mu =\text{Tr}(A\tau _\mu )`$ be the component vector of $`A`$ in this particular basis, we have

$`A,B\text{Herm}_d(),AB={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d^2}}\underset{¯}{A}_\mu \underset{¯}{B}_\nu \tau _\mu \tau _\nu `$
$`\text{hence}\text{Tr}AB={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}\underset{¯}{A}.\underset{¯}{B}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}\underset{¯}{A}_\mu \underset{¯}{B}_\mu `$ (3)
We shall call $`\underset{¯}{A}`$ the vector in $`^{d^2}`$, $`\stackrel{}{A}=(\underset{¯}{A}_i)`$ the restricted vector in $`^{d^21}`$, and $`\varphi `$ the coordinate map:

$`\varphi :\text{Herm}_d()`$ $`^{d^2}`$
$`A`$ $`\underset{¯}{A}`$
Equation (3) says that $`\varphi `$ is an isometric isomorphism of $`(\text{Herm}_d(),\text{Tr}())`$ onto $`(^{d^2},(1/d)(.))`$. Therefore any linear operator $`L`$ on $`\text{Herm}_d()`$ defines via $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^1`$ an operator on $`^{d^2}`$, $`M(L)=\varphi L\varphi ^1`$. This definition yields the following “morphism” property :

###### Lemma 1

If $`L_1,L_2`$ are linear operators on $`\text{Herm}_d()`$, then $`M(L_i)=\varphi L_i\varphi ^1`$ for $`i=1,2`$ are endomorphisms of $`^{d^2}`$ and satisfy

$$M(L_1L_2)=M(L_1)M(L_2)$$
(4)
In particular, any complex $`d\times d`$ matrix $`A`$ defines via $`Ad_A:\rho A\rho A^{}`$ a linear operator on $`\text{Herm}_d()`$ which corresponds to a real endomorphism $`M(Ad_A):\underset{¯}{\rho }M(Ad_A)\underset{¯}{\rho }`$ ; and $`Ad_{AB}=Ad_AAd_B`$ implies $`M(Ad_{AB})=M(Ad_A)M(Ad_B)`$. As a direct consequence of this and the previous definitions , calling $`GL_n(𝕂)`$ the group of invertible $`n\times n`$ matrices on the field $`𝕂`$, we get :

###### Lemma 2

For any subgroup $`G`$ of $`GL_d()`$, the following mapping

$`\psi :G`$ $`\psi (G)GL_{d^2}()`$
$`A`$ $`M(Ad_A)=\varphi ^1Ad_A\varphi `$ (5)
is a group homomorphism. $`\psi (G)`$ is a subgroup of $`GL_{d^2}()`$.

Note that since $`\psi (𝕀)=\psi (𝕀)=𝕀`$, $`\psi `$ is not necesseraly injective. Moreover $`\psi `$ is certainly not linear. An interesting subgroup is the Special Unitary group $`SU(d)=\{UGL_d()/UU^{}=𝕀,\text{det}U=1\}`$. We call $`SO(n)=\{OGL_n()/OO^T=𝕀,\text{det}O=1\}`$ the special orthogonal group in $`n`$-dimensions.

###### Lemma 3

Special Unitary transformations on $`\text{Herm}_d()`$, $`Ad_U:\rho U\rho U^{}`$ with $`USU(d)`$, induce rotations of $`^{d^2}`$ about the $`𝕀`$-axis. In fact the linear transforms $`\psi (U):\underset{¯}{\rho }\psi (U)\underset{¯}{\rho }`$ are special orthogonal and $`\psi (SU(d))`$ is a subgroup of $`SO(d^21)`$. It is a proper subgroup when $`d3`$. Moreover, $`\psi (U(d))=\psi (SU(d))`$.

Proof: Let $`\rho =(1/d)(\text{Tr}(\rho )𝕀+\underset{¯}{\rho }_i\tau _i)`$ a hermitian matrix. Using (3) and the fact that $`Ad_U`$ is trace-preserving for $`U`$ unitary:

$`\underset{¯}{U\rho U^{}}.\underset{¯}{U\rho U^{}}`$ $`=(\text{Tr}\rho )^2+\left(\psi (U)\underset{¯}{\rho }\right)_i\left(\psi (U)\underset{¯}{\rho }\right)_i`$
$`=d\text{Tr}(U\rho U^{}U\rho U^{})`$
$`=d\text{Tr}\rho ^2=\underset{¯}{\rho }.\underset{¯}{\rho }`$
$`=(\text{Tr}\rho )^2+\underset{¯}{\rho }_i\underset{¯}{\rho }_i`$
In addition to preserving the first component $`\underset{¯}{\rho }_0=\text{Tr}\rho `$, $`\psi (U)`$ preserves the $`^{d^21}`$ scalar product $`\underset{¯}{\rho }_i.\underset{¯}{\rho }_i`$. For all $`USU(d)`$, there exist $`t`$ and $`Bsu(d)`$ such that $`U=U(t)=\text{exp}(tB)`$. Since $`\text{det}\psi (U(0))=1`$ and $`t\text{det}\psi (U(t))`$ is continuous and has values in $`\{\pm 1\}`$, $`\text{det}\psi (U)=1`$. Thus $`\psi (U)`$ is a special rotation about the $`𝕀`$ -axis of $`^{d^2}`$. By Lemma 2, $`\psi (SU(d))`$ is a subgroup of the special orthogonal group $`SO(d^21)SO(d^2)`$. As for all $`\theta `$, $`Ad_U=Ad_{e^{i\theta }U}`$, $`\psi (U(d))=\psi (SU(d))`$.
Since the $`\{\sqrt{1}\tau _i\}`$ span the Lie algebra $`su(d)`$, $`\psi (SU(d))`$ is the Adjoint group of $`SU(d)`$. For $`d=2`$, we get the whole of $`SO(3)`$, but this is not the case for $`d>2`$, as is easily seen looking at the dimensions:

$`\text{dim}SU(d)`$ $`=d^21`$
$`\text{dim}SO(d^21)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(d^21)(d^22)`$
and $`\text{dim}SU(d)<\text{dim}SO(d^21)`$ for $`d>2`$.$`\mathrm{}`$
All the results of this section remain true of course when we just consider $`\text{Herm}_d^+()`$. From now on, for any $`A`$ complex $`d\times d`$ matrix we shall denote $`\psi (A)=M(Ad_A)`$ the real endomorphism of $`^{d^2}`$.

### II.2 Generalized density matrices

In Zanardi , Zanardi showed using a restriction of a mapping analogous to $`\varphi :A\underset{¯}{A}`$ that $`d\times d`$ density matrices lie in a convex subset of a ball $`S^{d^21}`$. We shall extend this to a convex cone by considering generalized density matrices, by which we mean elements of $`\text{Herm}_d^+()`$. This seems more natural in the sense that we like to think of the space of states of most physical theories and indeed Quantum Mechanics as a space invariant under positive linear combinations and not just convex combinations. In addition, this bigger space allows a per-outcome representation of generalized measurements.
We define generalized pure states to be generalized density matrices which yield pure states after rescaling them to unit trace. Note that these are not the “states of partial purity” of the complex $`d`$-dimensional system, which are singular density matrices. In other words, generalized pure states are not the elements of the boundary of $`\text{Herm}_d^+()`$ in the sense of characteristic functions of cones (see BPS  for example).

###### Proposition 1

The cone of positive hermitian matrices $`\text{Herm}_d^+()`$ is isomorphic to a convex subcone $`C`$ of the following cone of revolution in $`^{d^2}`$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{(\lambda _\mu )^{d^2}/\underset{i=1}{\overset{d^21}{}}\lambda _i^2(d1)\lambda _0^2,\lambda _00\}$$
(6)
The set of generalized pure states verifies $`𝒞=C\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ stands for the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}:`$ We begin as in Zanardi . Let $`𝒫`$ denote the space of (not generalized) pure states in $`\text{Herm}_d()`$. In addition to being positive, $`\rho 𝒫`$ satisfies $`\text{Tr}(\rho ^2)=\text{Tr}(\rho )=1`$, so we have

$`\text{Tr}(\rho ^2)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}\underset{¯}{\rho }.\underset{¯}{\rho }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}\left((\text{Tr}\rho )^2+\underset{¯}{\rho }_i\underset{¯}{\rho }_i\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}\left(1+\underset{¯}{\rho }_i\underset{¯}{\rho }_i\right)=1,\text{hence}`$
$`\underset{¯}{\rho }_i\underset{¯}{\rho }_i`$ $`=d1`$ (7)
The restricted vector $`(\underset{¯}{\rho }_i)`$ is on a $`(d^22)`$-sphere of radius $`\sqrt{d1}`$, $`S^{d^22}`$, where $`S`$ is the corresponding ball. In $`^{d^2}`$, $`\underset{¯}{\rho }`$ pure sits in the intersection of the cylinder (7) and the $`\underset{¯}{\rho }_0=\text{Tr}(\rho )=1`$ hyperplane, in other words on $`S^{d^22}`$ “centered” at $`(1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$.
Any density matrix can be expressed as a positive (convex) linear combination of pure states, and any positive (convex) linear combination of pure states defines a density matrix. Calling $`D`$ the set of (not generalized) density matrices, $`D\overline{\text{Hull}(𝒫)}`$ and $`\text{Hull}(𝒫)D`$. Since $`D`$ is closed, $`D=\overline{\text{Hull}(𝒫)}`$, a well-known result. As $`\varphi :\text{Herm}_d()^{d^2}`$ is linear and bi-continuous, $`\varphi (D)=\varphi \left(\overline{\text{Hull}(𝒫)}\right)=\overline{\varphi (\text{Hull}(𝒫))}=\overline{\text{Hull}(\varphi (𝒫))}`$. This set is a closed convex subset of $`S`$ “centered” at $`(1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$:

$$\varphi (𝒫)S^{d^22}\overline{\text{Hull}(\varphi (𝒫))}S$$

Calling $`S^+\overline{\text{Hull}(\varphi (𝒫))}`$ the image set of density matrices as a subset of $`^{d^21}`$, we get:

$$\rho D\text{Tr}(\rho )=\underset{¯}{\rho }_0=1\text{and}(\underset{¯}{\rho }_i)S^+$$

Now a non-zero $`\underset{¯}{\rho }\text{Herm}_d()`$ is positive if and only if $`(1/\text{Tr}\rho )\rho `$ is positive, that is if and only if $`\left((1/\text{Tr}(\rho ))\underset{¯}{\rho }_i\right)S^+`$. In $`^{d^2}`$, recalling that $`\text{Tr}(\rho )\underset{¯}{\rho }_0`$, this reads

$$\rho \text{Herm}_d^+()\underset{¯}{\rho }\{(\lambda _0,(\lambda _i))^{d^2}/(\lambda _i)\lambda _0S^+\}$$
(8)
This clearly defines a cone $`C`$ in $`^{d^2}`$. As $`S^+S`$, $`C`$ is a subcone of the cone of revolution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ given by (6). $`\varphi `$ being an isomorphism, $`C`$ is convex and isomorphic to $`\text{Herm}_d^+()`$. As pure states correspond to some points on the sphere $`S^{d^22}`$, generalized pure states lie in the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Calling $`𝒞`$ the set of vectors of $`C`$ corresponding to generalized pure states, we have $`𝒞C\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Moreover $`𝒞C\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ follows from the fact that any rescaled positive matrix $`\rho `$ such that $`\text{Tr}(\rho ^2)=\text{Tr}\rho =1`$ is a pure state. Remember that $`𝒞`$ is not the boundary of $`C`$, but a cone over $`\varphi (𝒫)`$, the image set of pure states. $`\mathrm{}`$

As we shall see in detail in section III in $`d=2`$ dimensions, generalized pure states correspond to future-directed light-like vectors of Minkowski space of signature $`(1,3)`$. We have shown that this remains true to a certain extent in $`d`$-complex dimensions, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ being the future light-cone of Minkowski space $`𝔼^{1,d^21}`$ with metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=\text{Diag}(d1,1,\mathrm{},1)`$. Thus the appearance of a Minkowski product is to be expected.

As a consequence of Lemma 3, unitary transforms, since they leave $`\text{Herm}_d^+()`$ invariant, yield rotations which leave $`C`$ (globally) invariant. This fact deserves to be analysed in detail to understand the geometry of $`C`$. As Unitary transforms act transitively on pure states, $`S^+`$ is the closed convex hull of a homogeneous subspace $`\varphi (𝒫)`$ of $`S^{d^22}`$. For the moment however, we shall consider the geometric representation of general quantum operations in $`C`$.

### II.3 Generalized measurements

We call a generalized measurement Nielsen  a finite set $`\{M_m\}_m`$ of complex $`d\times d`$ matrices which satisfy : $`_mM_m^{}M_m=𝕀`$. The set of $`\{E_m\}_m=\{M_m^{}M_m\}_m`$ defines a Positive Operator Valued Measure (POVM), as $`E_m\text{Herm}_d^+()`$ and $`_mE_m=𝕀`$. Given a quantum state or density matrix $`\rho D`$, the generalized measurement $`\{M_m\}_m`$ on $`\rho `$ yields outcome $`m`$ with probability $`p(m)=\text{Tr}(E_m\rho )`$, and if outcome $`m`$ occurs, the post measurement state is $`\rho _m^{}=(1/\text{Tr}(E_m\rho ))(M_m\rho M_m^{})`$. We shall call $`\rho _m=M_m\rho M_m^{}\text{Herm}_d^+()`$ the *unrescaled* post-measurement state.
Recall that any complex matrix can be polar-decomposed into a product of a unitary matrix and a positive matrix. For all $`m`$, there exists $`U_mU(d)`$ and $`A_m\text{Herm}_d^+()`$ such that $`M_m=U_mA_m`$. As $`E_m=M_m^{}M_m=A_mA_m`$, $`A_m=\sqrt{E_m}`$, the positive square root of $`E_m`$. Using this polar decomposition, $`\rho _m^{}`$ is represented in the cone $`C`$ by

$`\underset{¯}{\rho _m^{}}`$ $`\varphi (\rho _m^{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\text{Tr}(E_m\rho )}}\varphi (U_m\sqrt{E_m}\rho \sqrt{E_m}U_m^{})`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\text{Tr}(\sqrt{E_m}\rho \sqrt{E_m})}}\psi (U_m)(\underset{¯}{\sqrt{E_m}\rho \sqrt{E_m}})`$
Thus when outcome $`m`$ occurs, the post-measurement state $`\underset{¯}{\rho _m^{}}`$ of $`\{M_m\}_m`$ is the same as that of $`\{\sqrt{E_m}\}_m`$ up to a rotation $`\psi (U_m)`$, and similarly for the unrescaled states. As a consequence we shall consider the geometrical effects of generalized measurements $`\{\sqrt{E_m}\}_m`$ where $`E_m`$ and $`\sqrt{E_m}`$ are in $`\text{Herm}_d^+()`$ and $`_mE_m=𝕀`$, bearing in mind that the most general measurements just involve rotations on the post-measurement state vectors. For example, in section IV, Eve is free to perform unitary transforms on her post-measurement states, and can decide this according to the outcome $`m`$. The procedure we use to find the Disturbance is to first measure with $`\{\sqrt{E_m}\}_m`$ and then maximise on Unitary transforms acting upon post-measurement states. Using the conal representation, both sets of vectors $`\{\underset{¯}{E_m}\}_m`$ and $`\{\underset{¯}{\sqrt{E_m}}\}_m`$ are in $`C`$, and $`_m\underset{¯}{E_m}=(d,0,\mathrm{},0)`$. This enables us to represent elements of a measurement inside $`C`$, and visualize the action of a particular non-trace-preserving operation $`\sqrt{E_m}`$ on a given density matrix $`\rho `$, in other words find $`\underset{¯}{\rho _m}`$ in terms of $`\underset{¯}{E_m}`$ or $`\underset{¯}{\sqrt{E_m}}`$.

### II.4 Quantum operations represented in $`C`$

One might wonder here why not just rescale all the post-measurement states and only consider the density matrices $`\rho _m^{}`$. The reason for *not* doing so is that the unrescaled states encode extra information: their “height” in the cone, the first component $`\underset{¯}{\rho _m}_0=\text{Tr}(E_m\rho )`$, is simply the probability of their outcomes. Under a given generalized measurement, post-measurement vectors with identical first components are equiprobable. Thus the sections of $`C`$ of constant $`\lambda _0`$ have a clear physical interpretation. We shall need the following simple properties:

###### Lemma 4

For $`A\text{Herm}_d()`$ and $`B,C\text{Herm}_d^+()`$,

$`\text{Tr}(BC)`$ $`0`$
$`\text{Tr}(BABA)`$ $`0`$
Proof: Let $`B=\sqrt{B}\sqrt{B}`$, then $`\text{Tr}(BC)=\text{Tr}(\sqrt{B}C\sqrt{B})0`$ since $`\sqrt{B}C\sqrt{B}\text{Herm}_d^+()`$. Then polar decompose $`A`$ into $`A=U\left|A\right|`$, with $`U`$ unitary and $`\left|A\right|\text{Herm}_d^+()`$. As $`A\text{Herm}_d()`$, $`A=\left|A\right|U^{}=A^{}`$, and

$$\text{Tr}(BABA)=\text{Tr}(BU\left|A\right|B\left|A\right|U^{})=\text{Tr}(U^{}BU\left|A\right|B\left|A\right|)$$

This is non-negative by the previous result since $`U^{}BU,\left|A\right|B\left|A\right|\text{Herm}_d^+()`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Unitary transforms induce rotations in $`C`$, and generalized measurements have the following geometric properties:

###### Proposition 2

The linear transforms $`\psi (\sqrt{E_m}):\underset{¯}{\rho }\underset{¯}{\rho _m}`$ associated to a generalized measurement $`\{\sqrt{E_m}\}_m`$ correspond to real symmetric matrices which are positive. They individually map $`𝒞`$ into itself. In addition, for any generalized pure state $`\theta `$, $`\psi (\theta )`$ maps C into $`𝒞`$.
The probability of outcome $`m`$ for a quantum system in state $`\rho `$ is given by

$$p(m)=\frac{1}{d}\underset{¯}{E_m}.\underset{¯}{\rho }$$
(9)
$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}:`$ By using (2) successively, we have

$`\underset{¯}{\rho _m}_\mu `$ $`=\text{Tr}(\sqrt{E_m}\rho \sqrt{E_m}\tau _\mu )`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}\text{Tr}(\sqrt{E_m}\tau _\nu \sqrt{E_m}\tau _\mu )\underset{¯}{\rho }_\nu `$ (10)
$`M_{\mu \nu }^m\underset{¯}{\rho }_\nu `$
Clearly $`M_{\mu \nu }^m`$ is real symmetric by cyclicity of the trace and the fact that $`\sqrt{E_m}\tau _\nu \sqrt{E_m}`$ and $`\tau _\mu `$ are hermitian. (Actually $`\psi (A)`$ is real for any complex $`d\times d`$ matrix A, and real symmetric for any A hermitian). Let $`\underset{¯}{v}=(\underset{¯}{v}_\mu )^{d^2}`$. Using (10) we get

$`\underset{¯}{v}^T\psi (\sqrt{E_m})\underset{¯}{v}`$ $`=\underset{¯}{v}_\mu M_{\mu \nu }^m\underset{¯}{v}_\nu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}\underset{¯}{v}_\mu \text{Tr}(\sqrt{E_m}\tau _\nu \sqrt{E_m}\tau _\mu )\underset{¯}{v}_\nu `$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}\text{Tr}(\sqrt{E_m}(\underset{¯}{v}_\nu \tau _\nu )\sqrt{E_m}(\underset{¯}{v}_\mu \tau _\mu ))0`$
This follows from Lemma 4 since $`\underset{¯}{v}_\mu \tau _\mu \text{Herm}_d()`$. Hence $`M_{\mu \nu }^m`$ is a positive real (symmetric) matrix.
The properties on purity simply follow from general facts on quantum operations on density matrices which remain true for generalized density matrices:
For $`|u><u|`$ and $`|v><v|`$ generalized pure states, for any $`A`$ complex $`d\times d`$ matrix and any generalized density matrix $`\rho `$,

$`A|u><u|A^{}`$ $`=|Au><Au|\text{and}`$
$`|v><v|\rho |v><v|`$ $`=<v|\rho |v>|v><v|`$ (11)
are generalized pure states. Relation (9) follows from (2) and $`\text{Tr}(\sqrt{E_m}\rho \sqrt{E_m})=\text{Tr}(E_m\rho )`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The following properties will help to give a geometrical intuition of the action of the $`\psi (\sqrt{E_m})`$’s. For $`\sqrt{E_m}=|v><v|`$ pure, $`<v|\rho |v>=\text{Tr}(\sqrt{E_m}\rho )=(1/d)\underset{¯}{\sqrt{E_m}}.\underset{¯}{\rho }`$. Thus using (11):

$$\psi (\sqrt{E_m})\underset{¯}{\rho }=\frac{1}{d}(\underset{¯}{\sqrt{E_m}}.\underset{¯}{\rho })\underset{¯}{\sqrt{E_m}}$$

So $`\psi (\sqrt{E_m})`$ is as was expected a non-normalized projection. For any $`\sqrt{E_m}\text{Herm}_d^+()`$ , the $`d^2`$ eigen-vectors $`\underset{¯}{v^\sigma }`$ of $`\psi (\sqrt{E_m})`$ with eigen-values $`\lambda ^\sigma `$ correspond to $`d^2`$ hermitian matrices $`M^\sigma \varphi ^1(\underset{¯}{v^\sigma })`$ which satisfy $`\sqrt{E_m}M^\sigma \sqrt{E_m}=\lambda ^\sigma M^\sigma `$ (no summation). As a consequence, if $`\underset{¯}{\rho }C`$ is such an eigenvector, then the rescaled density matrix $`\rho `$ is such that $`\rho =\rho _m^{}`$, i.e. $`\rho `$ is unchanged if outcome $`m`$ occurs.

We now give the general expressions for $`\rho _m`$ in terms of $`\rho (1/d)\rho _\mu \tau _\mu `$ and $`\sqrt{E_m}(1/d)\sqrt{\epsilon }_\nu \tau _\nu `$, where we drop the index $`m`$ and do not underline the components of the vectors $`\underset{¯}{\rho }`$ and $`\underset{¯}{\sqrt{E_m}}`$ for convenience. By definition:

$$\rho _m=\frac{1}{d^3}\sqrt{\epsilon }_\mu \rho _\nu \sqrt{\epsilon }_\sigma \tau _\mu \tau _\nu \tau _\sigma $$

Expanding this using $`\tau _0=𝕀`$ and grouping the products of the $`\tau _i`$’s in hermitian terms, we easily derive:

$`\rho _m`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d^3}}\{\sqrt{\epsilon }_0\rho _0\sqrt{\epsilon }_0𝕀+(2\sqrt{\epsilon }_0\rho _0\sqrt{\epsilon }_i+\sqrt{\epsilon }_0\rho _i\sqrt{\epsilon }_0)\tau _i`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\epsilon }_i\rho _0\sqrt{\epsilon }_j+\sqrt{\epsilon }_0\rho _i\sqrt{\epsilon }_j)(\tau _i\tau _j+\tau _j\tau _i)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\epsilon }_i\rho _j\sqrt{\epsilon }_k(\tau _i\tau _j\tau _k+\tau _k\tau _j\tau _i)\}`$ (12)
To push the general $`d`$-dimensional analysis further, we need a particular choice of $`\tau _i`$’s whose anti-commutation relations are convenient. This is subject to current work. We now treat in full detail the $`d=2`$ (one qubit) case and apply our geometric approach to a challenging quantum information theoretical problem.

## III The Qubit Case Pushed Further

Applied to qubit states the representation yields two of the most familiar objects in fundamental physics: the $`2\times 2`$ density matrices yield a Minkowskian future-light-cone in $`𝔼^{1,3}`$ whose vertical sections are nothing but Bloch spheres. The correspondence between light-like vectors and fully determined spins is puzzling, but it requires a little more than one qubit to be investigated further. Meanwhile in this simple case we are able to give explicit coordinates for states posterior to non trace-preserving quantum operations. These formulae remain simple provided Minkowskian products are introduced alongside the Euclideans. They constitute a sufficient armoury to deal, using only four-vectors, with the most general evolutions to happen on a qubit.

### III.1 The Cone and the Bloch Sphere

A suitable Hilbert-Schmidt orthogonal basis for $`2\times 2`$ traceless hermitian matrices is given by the set of Pauli matrices:

$`\tau _1`$ $`=𝐗=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$
$`\tau _2`$ $`=𝐘=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 1\end{array}\right)`$
$`\tau _3`$ $`=𝐙=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$
Together with the identity

$`\tau _0`$ $`=𝕀=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$
one may express any $`2\times 2`$ hermitian matrix as a sum $`A=\frac{1}{2}\underset{¯}{A}_\mu \tau _\mu `$ with the $`\underset{¯}{A}_\mu `$’s real. The positivity conditions for those matrices turns out simple.

###### Lemma 5

The cone of positive hermitian matrices $`\text{Herm}_2^+()`$ is isomorphic to the following cone of revolution in $`^4`$:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=\{(\lambda _\mu )^4/\lambda _0^2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\lambda _i^20,\lambda _00\}`$
Generalized pure states lie on the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Proof: The eigenvalues of $`A`$ are given by $`\lambda _\pm =\frac{1}{2}(\underset{¯}{A}_0\pm \sqrt{\underset{¯}{A}_i\underset{¯}{A}_i})`$. $`A`$ is positive if and only if $`\lambda _+\lambda _{}0`$ and $`\lambda _++\lambda _{}0`$. This is equivalent to:

$`\eta _{\mu \nu }\underset{¯}{A}_\mu \underset{¯}{A}_\nu 0\underset{¯}{A}_00`$ (13)
with $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=\text{Diag}(1,1,1,1)`$. The purity condition is an obvious consequence of Proposition 1. $`\mathrm{}`$

Thus the generalized (not necessarily normalized) density matrices of a qubit cover the whole Minkowskian future-light-cone in $`𝔼^{1,3}`$. Taking a vertical cross-section of the cone is equivalent to fixing the trace $`\underset{¯}{A}_0`$ of the density matrix, which might be thought of physically as the *overall probability of occurrence* for the state. By doing so we are left with only the spin degrees of freedom along $`𝐗`$, $`𝐘`$, $`𝐙`$, therefore each vertical cross-section is a Bloch sphere with radius $`a=\underset{¯}{A}_0`$.

The ability to represent states with different traces is convenient when dealing with quantum ensembles $`\{(p_x,\rho _x)\}_x`$. When we seek to represent non trace-preserving quantum operations the feature becomes absolutely crucial.

### III.2 The Post-measurement State

As we have seen in subsection II.3, the most general quantum operation can be described as $`\{M_m\}_m=\{U_m\sqrt{E_m}\}_m`$ with $`U_m`$ unitary and $`\sqrt{E_m}`$ positive (the only exta feature Kraus operators allow is the possibility to ignore one’s knwoledge of some measurement outcomes, but in our setting this is easily catered for by adding up the undistinguished non-normalized post-measurement states). While the action of $`U_m`$ is well understood in terms of four-vectors (as a mere rotation in the Bloch Sphere, see Lemma 3), the authors of this paper are not aware of a solid geometrical framework for representing the effects of $`\sqrt{E_m}`$ \- other than the one presented here. In Lemma 6, if $`A\sqrt{E_m}`$ while $`\rho `$ is the initial state, then $`A\rho A`$ stands for the (not renormalized) ‘post-measurement’ state when outcome $`m`$ has occurred (up to a unitary evolution $`U_m`$).

###### Lemma 6

Let $`A`$ and $`\rho `$ be two matrices in $`\text{Herm}_2^+()`$. Then:

$`A\rho A=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}[\underset{¯}{\rho }_0(\eta _{\mu \mu ^{}}\underset{¯}{A}_\mu \underset{¯}{A}_\mu ^{})+2\underset{¯}{A}_0(\underset{¯}{A}.\underset{¯}{\rho })]\tau _0`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}[\underset{¯}{\rho }_1(\eta _{\mu \mu ^{}}\underset{¯}{A}_\mu \underset{¯}{A}_\mu ^{})+2\underset{¯}{A}_1(\underset{¯}{A}.\underset{¯}{\rho })]\tau _1`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}[\underset{¯}{\rho }_2(\eta _{\mu \mu ^{}}\underset{¯}{A}_\mu \underset{¯}{A}_\mu ^{})+2\underset{¯}{A}_2(\underset{¯}{A}.\underset{¯}{\rho })]\tau _2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}[\underset{¯}{\rho }_3(\eta _{\mu \mu ^{}}\underset{¯}{A}_\mu \underset{¯}{A}_\mu ^{})+2\underset{¯}{A}_3(\underset{¯}{A}.\underset{¯}{\rho })]\tau _3`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}[\eta _{\nu \nu ^{}}\underset{¯}{\rho }_\nu (\eta _{\mu \mu ^{}}\underset{¯}{A}_\mu \underset{¯}{A}_\mu ^{})+2\underset{¯}{A}_\nu ^{}(\underset{¯}{A}.\underset{¯}{\rho })]\tau _\nu ^{}`$ (14)
Proof: Consider

$`\underset{¯}{A}`$ $`=[\begin{array}{cccc}\alpha & \beta & \gamma & \delta \end{array}]`$
$`\underset{¯}{\rho }`$ $`=[\begin{array}{cccc}a& x& y& z\end{array}]`$
We have:

$`A\rho A=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}[a(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2+\gamma ^2+\delta ^2)+2\alpha (\beta x+\gamma y+\delta z)]\tau _0`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}[x(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2\gamma ^2\delta ^2)+2\beta (\alpha a+\gamma y+\delta z)]\tau _1`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}[y(\alpha ^2\beta ^2+\gamma ^2\delta ^2)+2\gamma (\alpha a+\beta x+\delta z)]\tau _2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}[z(\alpha ^2\beta ^2\gamma ^2+\delta ^2)+2\delta (\alpha a+\beta x+\gamma y)]\tau _3`$ (15)
This formula can be be obtained either by brute force calculation using the Pauli multiplication relations, or by exploiting the fact that Pauli matrices form a Clifford Algebra I.e. $`\{\tau _i,\tau _j\}=2\delta _{ij}\tau _0`$ together with equation (12). Regrouping the terms gives formula (14). $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 1

Let $`A`$ and $`\rho `$ be two matrices in $`\text{Herm}_2^+()`$. $`A\rho A`$ can be expressed as a linear combination of $`\rho `$, $`A`$ and the Identity:

$`A\rho A`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^4}}(\underset{¯}{A}.\underset{¯}{\rho })A+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^5}}(\eta _{\mu \mu ^{}}\underset{¯}{A}_\mu \underset{¯}{A}_\mu ^{})(\rho \rho _0\tau _0)`$
This last corollary provides much geometrical insight on non trace-preserving quantum operations. We find that the effect of $`\sqrt{E_m}`$ is not that difficult to visualize: the resulting state is a weighted sum of $`\sqrt{E_m}`$, the initial state and the identity, with real coefficients.

It is a somewhat strange fact that the structure equation (15) does not become apparent until one brings the Minkowskian product to the rescue. The spurious appearance of special relativistic products in quantum mechanics bears some explanation in this setting however, since the Minkowski metric is intrinsically related to the characteristic function of pointed cones of revolution.

Finally it is important to notice that the results expressed in these two last subsections are invariant under any orthogonal change of basis $`\{\tau _i\}_i`$. This is because rotations about the vertical axis leave the Minkowskian product invariant. The Pauli matrices have been helpful in computing those results, but from now and in the rest of the paper we may consider ourselves in the more general setting of section II.

### III.3 Square and Square Root

In our quest towards representing non trace-preserving quantum operations in the cone we have managed to obtain the probability of occurrence $`p(m)`$ in terms of $`\underset{¯}{E}_m`$ (Proposition 2). In the previous subsection we have also worked out the evolved state $`\underset{¯}{\rho _m}`$, but unfortunately this was done in terms of $`\underset{¯}{\sqrt{E_m}}`$. In order to deal fully with these operations in the Cone formalism we need to understand ways of switching back and forth from $`\underset{¯}{E}_m`$ to $`\underset{¯}{\sqrt{E_m}}`$. The next Lemma is a direct consequence of equation (14) when $`\rho =𝕀`$.

###### Lemma 7

The square of a matrix $`A`$ in $`\text{Herm}_2^+()`$ is given by:

$`A^2`$ $`=\underset{¯}{A}_0A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\eta _{\mu \nu }\underset{¯}{A}_\mu \underset{¯}{A}_\nu )\tau _0`$
Inversely the square root operation obeys:

$`\sqrt{A}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}(A+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\eta _{\mu \nu }\underset{¯}{A}_\mu \underset{¯}{A}_\nu }\tau _0)`$
$`\text{with:}r`$ $`=\sqrt{\underset{¯}{A}_0+\sqrt{\eta _{\mu \nu }\underset{¯}{A}_\mu \underset{¯}{A}_\nu }}`$
Note that $`A`$ is proportional to $`\sqrt{A}`$ if and only if $`A`$ is generalized pure or $`A𝕀`$.
But when we seek to express a function of $`\underset{¯}{E}_m`$ in terms of $`\underset{¯}{\sqrt{E_m}}`$ (or the reverse) the next formulae become convenient.

###### Lemma 8

Let $`A`$ and $`\rho `$ be two matrices in $`\text{Herm}_2^+()`$. The following relations hold:

$`\eta _{\mu \nu }\underset{¯}{\sqrt{A}}_\mu \underset{¯}{\sqrt{A}}_\nu `$ $`=2\sqrt{\eta _{\mu \nu }\underset{¯}{A}_\mu \underset{¯}{A}_\nu }`$
$`\underset{¯}{A}^2.\underset{¯}{\rho }`$ $`=\underset{¯}{A}_0(\underset{¯}{A}.\underset{¯}{\rho }){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\underset{¯}{\rho }_0(\eta _{\mu \nu }\underset{¯}{A}_\mu \underset{¯}{A}_\nu )`$
$`\underset{¯}{\sqrt{A}}.\underset{¯}{\rho }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}(A.\underset{¯}{\rho }+\underset{¯}{\rho }_0\sqrt{\eta _{\mu \nu }\underset{¯}{A}_\mu \underset{¯}{A}_\nu })`$
$`\text{with:}r`$ $`=\sqrt{\underset{¯}{A}_0+\sqrt{\eta _{\mu \nu }\underset{¯}{A}_\mu \underset{¯}{A}_\nu }}`$
On the whole taking the square root of $`\underset{¯}{E}_m`$ is not so easy. It would be much more convenient if we could make all calculations in terms of $`\underset{¯}{E}_m`$, with the added advantage condition:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}E_m`$ $`=2\tau _0`$ (16)
is easily visualized. Results in the following subsection are most useful for this purpose.

### III.4 Inner Products Through Quantum Operations

Consider two states $`\rho ^0`$, $`\rho ^1`$. Suppose they undergo a quantum operation $`\{M_m\}_m=\{U_m\sqrt{E_m}\}_m`$ and outcome $`m`$ occurs. Rather than seeking the coordinates of the rescaled post-measurement states $`\rho _{m}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}`$ and $`\rho _{m}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}`$, we may be interested in their positions *relative to one another*. Note this subsection reuses a number of notational conveniences introduced in section II.

###### Lemma 9

Let $`\rho ^0`$,$`\rho ^1`$ be two initial states in $`\text{Herm}_2^+()`$ and $`\sqrt{E_m}`$ a measurement element in $`\text{Herm}_2^+()`$. The inner products of the post-measurement states satisfy:

$`\underset{¯}{\rho _m^0}.\underset{¯}{\rho _m^1}=`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[2(\underset{¯}{E_m}.\underset{¯}{\rho ^0})(\underset{¯}{E_m}.\underset{¯}{\rho ^1})(\eta _{\mu \mu ^{}}\underset{¯}{E_m}_\mu \underset{¯}{E_m}_\mu ^{})(\eta _{\nu \nu ^{}}\underset{¯}{\rho ^0}_\nu \underset{¯}{\rho ^1}_\nu ^{})]`$
$`\underset{¯}{\rho _{m}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}}.\underset{¯}{\rho _{m}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}}=2{\displaystyle \frac{(\eta _{\mu \mu ^{}}\underset{¯}{E_m}_\mu \underset{¯}{E_m}_\mu ^{})(\eta _{\nu \nu ^{}}\underset{¯}{\rho ^0}_\nu \underset{¯}{\rho ^1}_\nu ^{})}{(\underset{¯}{E_m}.\underset{¯}{\rho ^0})(\underset{¯}{E_m}.\underset{¯}{\rho ^1})}}`$
$`\stackrel{}{\rho _m^0}.\stackrel{}{\rho _m^1}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[(\underset{¯}{E_m}.\underset{¯}{\rho ^0})(\underset{¯}{E_m}.\underset{¯}{\rho ^1})(\eta _{\mu \mu ^{}}\underset{¯}{E_m}_\mu \underset{¯}{E_m}_\mu ^{})(\eta _{\nu \nu ^{}}\underset{¯}{\rho ^0}_\nu \underset{¯}{\rho ^1}_\nu ^{})]`$
$`\stackrel{}{\rho _{m}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}}.\stackrel{}{\rho _{m}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}}=1{\displaystyle \frac{(\eta _{\mu \mu ^{}}\underset{¯}{E_m}_\mu \underset{¯}{E_m}_\mu ^{})(\eta _{\nu \nu ^{}}\underset{¯}{\rho ^0}_\nu \underset{¯}{\rho ^1}_\nu ^{})}{(\underset{¯}{E_m}.\underset{¯}{\rho ^0})(\underset{¯}{E_m}.\underset{¯}{\rho ^1})}}`$ (18)
Proof: By using (3) we have:

$`\underset{¯}{\rho _m^0}.\underset{¯}{\rho _m^1}`$ $`=\underset{¯}{\sqrt{E_m}\rho ^0\sqrt{E_m}}.\underset{¯}{\sqrt{E_m}\rho ^1\sqrt{E_m}}`$
$`=2Tr(\sqrt{E_m}\rho ^0\sqrt{E_m}\sqrt{E_m}\rho ^1\sqrt{E_m})`$
$`=2Tr(E_m\rho ^0E_m\rho ^1)`$
$`=\underset{¯}{E_m\rho ^0E_m}.\underset{¯}{\rho ^1}`$
From there we readily obtain equation (17) by applying equation (14) once. $`\mathrm{}`$

By letting $`\rho ^0=\rho ^1=\rho `$ in the above Lemma we get:

$`\underset{¯}{\rho _m}^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[2(\underset{¯}{E_m}.\underset{¯}{\rho })^2(\eta _{\mu \mu ^{}}\underset{¯}{E_m}_\mu \underset{¯}{E_m}_\mu ^{})(\eta _{\nu \nu ^{}}\underset{¯}{\rho }_\nu \underset{¯}{\rho }_\nu ^{})]`$
$`\underset{¯}{\rho _{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}^2`$ $`=2{\displaystyle \frac{(\eta _{\mu \mu ^{}}\underset{¯}{E_m}_\mu \underset{¯}{E_m}_\mu ^{})(\eta _{\nu \nu ^{}}\underset{¯}{\rho }_\nu \underset{¯}{\rho }_\nu ^{})}{(\underset{¯}{E_m}.\underset{¯}{\rho })^2}}`$
$`\stackrel{}{\rho _m}^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[(\underset{¯}{E_m}.\underset{¯}{\rho })^2(\eta _{\mu \mu ^{}}\underset{¯}{E_m}_\mu \underset{¯}{E_m}_\mu ^{})(\eta _{\nu \nu ^{}}\underset{¯}{\rho }_\nu \underset{¯}{\rho }_\nu ^{})]`$
$`\stackrel{}{\rho _{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}^2`$ $`=1{\displaystyle \frac{(\eta _{\mu \mu ^{}}\underset{¯}{E_m}_\mu \underset{¯}{E_m}_\mu ^{})(\eta _{\nu \nu ^{}}\underset{¯}{\rho }_\nu \underset{¯}{\rho }_\nu ^{})}{(\underset{¯}{E_m}.\underset{¯}{\rho })^2}}`$ (19)
Equation (19) clearly exhibits the general property we stated in Proposition 2: that is if the initial state is generalized pure ($`\eta _{\mu \mu ^{}}\underset{¯}{\rho }_\mu \underset{¯}{\rho }_\mu ^{}=0`$) or the measurement is generalized pure ( $`\eta _{\mu \mu ^{}}\underset{¯}{E_m}_\mu \underset{¯}{E_m}_\mu ^{}=0`$) then we have $`\stackrel{}{\rho _{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}=1`$ (pure), which implies that $`\rho _m`$ is generalized pure.

The above lemma enables us to determine all the *relative positions* (angles and norms) of quantum states using relatively compact formulae which do not involve $`\sqrt{E_m}`$. It is only when the coordinates of each post-measurement state are required that one needs to take the impractical square root of $`E_m`$. But remember we are allowed an arbitrary rotation $`U_m`$ in order to complete the quantum operation. This means we have full freedom to fix the absolute coordinates at will (so long as the relative positions are respected).

Most Quantum Information Theoretical problems seek to evaluate the limits of quantum operations, e.g. quantum cloning Cerf , distinguishability distinguishability , Infomation Gain versus Disturbance tradeoff Banaszek . In these situations the precise individual coordinates of the states after $`Ad_{\sqrt{E_m}}`$ tend not to matter; usually they will need to be rotated anyhow into a position which optimizes the fidelity measure in question. What counts is the relative position of the post-measurement states. Therefore these problems can be treated comfortably in our framework. Section IV provides a good example of such an application.

There are, however, some rare situations where we would like to see quantum operations act step by step, yielding precise coordinates - instead of just fixing the coordinates of the final state as we would do in order to avoid taking the square root of $`E_m`$. This is the case for instance in quantum complexity, where one needs an appreciation of how many basic computational operations it takes to accomplish some calculation. Yet in this type of problems it turns out that the basic operations can be taken to be unitary operators, with measurements only performed at the end (principle of delayed measurement Nielsen ). Therefore these scenarios may still be analyzed comfortably within our conal representation: the basic unitary operators will just be a set of chosen real orthogonal rotations, and the final measurement statistics will be evaluated straight from $`E_m`$.

## IV Application: Information gain versus Disturbance Tradeoff

The following idealized scenario captures a key situation for any quantum cryptographic protocol:

Alice owns a random variable $`X=\{(\frac{1}{2},0),(\frac{1}{2},1)\}`$. According to the outcome $`x`$ she prepares either $`|\psi _0`$ or $`|\psi _1`$, i.e. she runs $`|x|0\stackrel{U}{}|x|\psi _x`$. Eve knows $`U`$ and the distribution $`X`$, but not the particular outcome Alice has drawn. Later Eve gains access to $`|\psi _x`$ and may use of this opportunity to try and learn about $`x`$. How much she learns is quantified using Information theoretical notions. Even though Alice has had to expose $`|\psi _x`$, still she really wanted to keep $`x`$ secret. But now she gets a chance of checking upon Eve’s honesty - by asking her to return $`|\psi _x`$. Suppose Eve’s measurement and further manipulations have modified $`|\psi _x`$ into $`\rho _x`$. Alice then measures $`\{|\psi _x\psi _x|,Id|\psi _x\psi _x|\}`$ and has a probability $`1\psi _x|\rho _x|\psi _x`$ of detecting the felony.

The point is that most quantum cryptographic protocols rely upon the fact that Eve cannot eavesdrop a state without causing it an irreversible, detectable damage. In spite of their central role, Information Gain versus Disturbance tradeoffs upon discrete ensemble states remain largely unknown, due to the mathematical difficulties they raise. In 1995 Fuchs and Peres accomplished the mathematical feat of obtaining an analytic formula for the above case of two non-orthogonal states. But the method they used relies upon a number of “plausible” assumptions - and does not provide a geometrical intuition of what the family of optimal measurements looks like.

The Cone, by enabling a *per outcome* geometrical representation of generalized measurements, permits us to overcome some of these shortcomings and greatly facilitate the derivation of Fuchs and Peres’ formula. We hope this illustrates the power of the geometrical framework developed in this paper.

### IV.1 Information Contribution, Disturbance Contribution

Suppose the $`\{|\psi _x\}_{x=0,1}`$ states Alice prepares verify the following basic relations:

$`\underset{¯}{v^x}`$ $`=\varphi (|\psi _x\psi _x|)`$
$`\underset{¯}{v^0}.\underset{¯}{v^1}`$ $`=d=\sqrt{1c^2}`$
By choosing a suitable basis in the Bloch Sphere and since the $`\{|\psi _x\}_x`$ are pure we may fix:

$`\underset{¯}{v^0}`$ $`=[\begin{array}{cccc}1& c& d& 0\end{array}]`$ (21)
$`\underset{¯}{v^1}`$ $`=[\begin{array}{cccc}1& c& d& 0\end{array}]`$ (23)
The most general thing Eve can ever do is to attack the states with a measurement $`\{M_m\}_m`$. This procedure is equivalent to first measuring $`\{\sqrt{E_m}\}_m`$, and then, conditional to $`m`$, applying the unitary transformation $`U_m`$, with $`E_m`$ and $`U_m`$ defined as in subsection II.3.
It is rather interesting to observe that the second step has no other use but to “repair” the post-measurement states as much as is possible. The first step on the other hand may partially destroy the initial states so as to collect the Information Eve seeks. This is the step we now study in order to quantify her Information Gain.

Let $`Y`$ be the random variable arising from the measurement outcomes, i.e. $`Y=\{(p(m),m)\}_m`$. Eve’s Information Gain is given by:

$`I`$ $`=H(X:Y)=H(Y)H(Y|X)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}p(m)\mathrm{log}(p(m)){\displaystyle \underset{x,m}{}}p(x,m)\mathrm{log}(p(m|x))`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}I_m\text{with}`$
$`I_m`$ $`=p(m)\mathrm{log}(p(m)){\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}p(x,m)\mathrm{log}(p(m|x))`$
$`I_m`$ must be understood as the *Information Contribution* brought by the measurement element:

$`\underset{¯}{\epsilon _m}`$ $`=[\begin{array}{cccc}\alpha & \beta & \gamma & \delta \end{array}]=\varphi (E_m)`$
By making use of the relations (21),(23) and (9) one can express $`I_m`$ geometrically in terms of scalar products in the cone:

$`I_m=`$ $`(p_m+q_m)\mathrm{log}(p_m+q_m)`$
$`+p_m\mathrm{log}(2p_m)+q_m\mathrm{log}(2q_m)`$
$`\text{with}p_m=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +\beta c+\gamma d}{4}}={\displaystyle \frac{\underset{¯}{\epsilon _m}.\underset{¯}{v^0}}{4}}p(0,m)`$ (24)
$`q_m=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \beta c+\gamma d}{4}}={\displaystyle \frac{\underset{¯}{\epsilon _m}.\underset{¯}{v^1}}{4}}p(1,m)`$ (25)
Notice that if $`\underset{¯}{\epsilon _m}`$ is orthogonal to $`\underset{¯}{v^1}`$ (resp. $`\underset{¯}{v^0}`$) then $`I_m=p_m`$ (resp. $`q_m`$). Such a measurement element may be said to be “all or nothing”: it brings a whole bit of information when it occurs, but does so only with probability $`p_m`$ (resp. $`q_m`$). Taken individually these measurement elements seem ideal: they fully identify $`|\psi _x`$ and thus they let you reconstruct the initial state perfectly, with no disturbance at all. The downside is that failure to occur comes at a high price. In order to verify the condition (16) the other measurement elements generally become rather inefficient with respect to the tradeoff. The family of the optimizing $`\{M_m\}_m`$ is not constructed in such simple ways.

Next we seek an expression of the *Disturbance Contribution* brought by each measurement element. For this purpose we must first assume outcome $`m`$ has occurred. Eve knows it, and now she will try to maximize her chances of fooling Alice by applying a carefully tailored unitary evolution $`U_m`$. First we will give $`D_m`$ as a function of $`U_m`$, and next proceed to the maximization which determines $`U_m`$. Remember that upper indices $`x`$ distinguish initial states, while lower indices $`m`$ specify the measurement outcome.

$`p(\text{fool}|m)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}p(x|m)\text{Tr}(|\psi _x\psi _x|U_m\rho _{m}^{x}{}_{}{}^{}U_m)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{_xp(x|m)\underset{¯}{v^x}.\underset{¯}{r_m^x}}{2}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1+_xp(x|m)\stackrel{}{v^x}.\stackrel{}{r_m^x}}{2}}\text{where}`$
$`\underset{¯}{r}_m^x`$ $`=[\begin{array}{cc}1& \stackrel{}{r_m^x}\end{array}]\varphi (U_m\rho _{m}^{x}{}_{}{}^{}U_m)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\varphi (U_m\sqrt{E_m}|\psi _x\psi _x|\sqrt{E_m}U_m)}{p(m|x)}}`$
Negating back to the Disturbance we obtain:

$`D`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}D_m\text{with}`$
$`D_m`$ $`=p(\neg \text{fool},m)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{p(m)_xp(x,m)\stackrel{}{v^x}.\stackrel{}{r_m^x}}{2}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{p(m)_xp(x,m)\stackrel{}{v^x}\stackrel{}{r_m^x}\mathrm{cos}\widehat{(\stackrel{}{v^x},\stackrel{}{r_m^x})}}{2}}`$
In our scenario the $`\{|\psi _x\}_x`$ are pure. Thus by Lemma 2 or equation (19) we have $`\stackrel{}{v^x}\stackrel{}{r_m^x}=1`$. Now let us deal with $`\mathrm{cos}\widehat{(\stackrel{}{v^x},\stackrel{}{r_m^x})}`$ by making the following definitions:

$`\theta `$ $`=\widehat{(\stackrel{}{v^0},\stackrel{}{v^1})}`$
$`\theta _m`$ $`=\widehat{(\stackrel{}{r_m^0},\stackrel{}{r_m^1})}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_m`$ $`=\theta \theta _m`$
$`\omega _m`$ $`=\widehat{(\stackrel{}{r_m^0}+\stackrel{}{r_m^1},\stackrel{}{v^0}+\stackrel{}{v^1})}`$
$`\omega _m`$ is the angle between the bisector of $`(\stackrel{}{r_m^0},\stackrel{}{r_m^1})`$ and that of $`(\stackrel{}{v^0},\stackrel{}{v^1})`$. Given that we want to minimize $`D_m`$ in terms of $`U_m`$ we can safely assume $`\stackrel{}{r_m^0},\stackrel{}{r_m^1},\stackrel{}{v^0},\stackrel{}{v^1}`$ to be coplanar. Thus $`D_m`$ may now be rewritten in terms of those angles as well as $`p_m`$ and $`q_m`$:

$`D_m`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{p_m+q_mp_m\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }_m\omega _m)q_m\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }_m+\omega _m)}{2}}`$
In this equation the values of $`p_m`$, $`q_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_m`$ are fully determined by $`\underset{¯}{\epsilon _m}`$, as described in (24),(25),(17). $`\omega _m`$ on the other hand solely depends on $`U_m`$: it can be chosen at will by rotation in the Bloch Sphere. We now show how Eve must tune $`\omega _m`$ so as to minimize $`D_m`$.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{D_m}{\omega _m}}=0p_m\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }_m\omega _m)q_m\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }_m+\omega _m)=0`$
The minimum occurs at:

$`\omega _m=\mathrm{arcsin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_mq_m}{\sqrt{p_m^2+q_m^2+2p_mq_m\mathrm{cos}(2\mathrm{\Delta }_m)}}}\right)`$
which yields, after simplification:
$`D_m={\displaystyle \frac{p_m+q_m\sqrt{p_m^2+q_m^2+2p_mq_m\mathrm{cos}(2\mathrm{\Delta }_m)}}{2}}`$
### IV.2 The Tradeoff

How many elements should Eve’s measurement contain? Levitin has proved that there exists a two-element measurement $`\{M_m\}_{m=0,1}`$ which maximizes Eve’s Information Gain Levitin . While this was never formally shown to be the case for the measurements which optimize the Information Gain versus Disturbance Tradeoff, there is strong numerical evidence in support of this assumption Fuchs . Suppose this is the case and let $`\underset{¯}{\epsilon _m}_\mu `$ denote the $`\mu ^{th}`$ coordinate of $`\underset{¯}{\epsilon _m}`$. Using the constraint equation (16) we have:

$`\delta \underset{¯}{\epsilon _0}_\mu `$ $`=\delta \underset{¯}{\epsilon _1}_\mu \text{and thus:}`$
$`f{\displaystyle \frac{f}{\underset{¯}{\epsilon _0}_\mu }}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{f}{\underset{¯}{\epsilon _1}_\mu }}`$ (26)
Optimizing the Tradeoff implies finding a stationary point for the Disturbance while keeping the Information Gain fixed. We need to find $`\underset{¯}{\epsilon _0}`$ such that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{D}{\underset{¯}{\epsilon _0}_\mu }}\delta \underset{¯}{\epsilon _0}_\mu =0`$
where the variations $`\delta \underset{¯}{\epsilon _0}_\mu `$ are subject to the additional constraint:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{I}{\underset{¯}{\epsilon _0}_\mu }}\delta \underset{¯}{\epsilon _0}_\mu =0`$
Using equation (26) and $`D=D_0+D_1`$ and $`I=I_0+I_1`$ this gives:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{D_0}{\underset{¯}{\epsilon _0}_\mu }}\delta \underset{¯}{\epsilon _0}_\mu `$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{D_1}{\underset{¯}{\epsilon _1}_\mu }}\delta \underset{¯}{\epsilon _0}_\mu `$ (27)
$`\text{subject to}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{I_0}{\underset{¯}{\epsilon _0}_\mu }}\delta \underset{¯}{\epsilon _0}_\mu `$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{I_1}{\underset{¯}{\epsilon _1}_\mu }}\delta \underset{¯}{\epsilon _0}_\mu `$ (28)
Guided by the geometrical picture of the scenario one may consider the following attack:

$`\underset{¯}{\epsilon _0}`$ $`=[\begin{array}{cccc}1& \beta & 0& 0\end{array}]`$
$`\underset{¯}{\epsilon _1}`$ $`=[\begin{array}{cccc}1& \beta & 0& 0\end{array}]`$
The fact that this is indeed a solution follows from its obvious symmetries:

$`\text{For}\mu 2{\displaystyle \frac{D_0}{\underset{¯}{\epsilon _0}_\mu }}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{D_1}{\underset{¯}{\epsilon _1}_\mu }}\text{and for}\mu =2{\displaystyle \frac{D_0}{\underset{¯}{\epsilon _0}_\mu }}={\displaystyle \frac{D_1}{\underset{¯}{\epsilon _1}_\mu }}`$ (29)
$`\text{For}\mu 2{\displaystyle \frac{I_0}{\underset{¯}{\epsilon _0}_\mu }}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{I_1}{\underset{¯}{\epsilon _1}_\mu }}\text{and for}\mu =2{\displaystyle \frac{I_0}{\underset{¯}{\epsilon _0}_\mu }}={\displaystyle \frac{I_1}{\underset{¯}{\epsilon _1}_\mu }}`$ (30)
Substituting (30) in the constant Information constraint (28), we get $`\delta \underset{¯}{\epsilon _0}_2=0`$. Using this fact together with equation (29) it becomes clear that condition (27) is fulfilled. Thus $`\underset{¯}{\epsilon _0}`$ is a stationary point. We may now proceed to compute the values of the Disturbance and the Information Gain under this family of optimal attacks. First by making a few additional observations:

$`p_0`$ $`=q_1=p`$
$`p_1`$ $`=q_0=q`$
$`D_0`$ $`=D_1=D/2`$
$`I_0`$ $`=I_1=I/2`$
$`D`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{p^2+q^2+2pq+\mathrm{cos}(2\mathrm{\Delta }_m)}`$
$`I`$ $`=1+2p\mathrm{log}(2p)+2q\mathrm{log}(2q)`$
and second by plugging in the relations (18), (21)-(25), we reproduce the exact content of Fuchs and Peres’ formulae:

$`D`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{1+(c^2c^4)(\beta ^22+2\sqrt{1\beta ^2})}`$
$`I`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}((1+\beta c)\mathrm{log}(1+\beta c)+(1\beta c)\mathrm{log}(1\beta c))`$
## V Conclusion

In this paper we considered a linear embedding taking $`d\times d`$ positive hermitian matrices into vectors of $`d^2`$ real entries, $`\varphi :\rho \underset{¯}{\rho }=(\text{Tr}(\rho \tau _\mu ))_\mu `$. It is a well-known fact that the most general evolution a density matrix $`\rho `$ may undergo is a generalised measurement $`\{M_m\}_m=\{U_m\sqrt{E_m}\}_m`$, where the polar decomposition was applied. In order to represent $`M_m`$’s per-outcome effect upon the real vectors we defined $`\psi :A\varphi Ad_A\varphi ^1`$ and showed that $`\psi (U_m)`$ is a real orthogonal transform while $`\psi (\sqrt{E_m})`$ turns out to be a real positive matrix. Thus the geometrical effect of a generalized measurement can be viewed in terms of real transformations only.
Such a nice correspondence suggests quantum mechanics could be expressed elegantly over the real numbers in this manner, quite differently from its formulation in terms of real Jordan algebras Jordan . However we first need to gain more geometrical intuition about the set of real vectors $`\varphi (\text{Herm}_d^+())`$, and the sets of allowed orthogonal and positive transforms. For now we know that $`\varphi (\text{Herm}_d^+())`$ is a subcone of the future-light-cone $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{(\lambda _\mu )^{d^2}/_{i=1}^{d^21}\lambda _i^2(d1)\lambda _0^2,\lambda _00\}`$.
One of the advantages of defining $`\varphi `$ upon $`\text{Herm}_d^+()`$ instead of the restricted set of density matices is that $`E_m=M_mM_m^{}`$ can be visualized. In order to characterize its effects we derived rather compact and powerful formulae for the qubit case, such as the one giving the scalar product of the post-measurement states:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[2(\underset{¯}{E_m}.\underset{¯}{\rho ^0})(\underset{¯}{E_m}.\underset{¯}{\rho ^1})(\eta _{\mu \mu ^{}}\underset{¯}{E_m}_\mu \underset{¯}{E_m}_\mu ^{})(\eta _{\nu \nu ^{}}\underset{¯}{\rho ^0}_\nu \underset{¯}{\rho ^1}_\nu ^{})]`$
By looking at such expressions it becomes apparent that Minkowskian products have a crucial role to play in our framework, and even more so as we showed that pure quantum states correspond to light-like vectors (i.e. they sit on the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$), even in dimensions greater than $`2`$. It seems interesting to notice that BPS states of supersymmetric theories can also be thought of as lying on the boundary of a cone of positive operators BPS , and that their stability is related to that fact. Somehow our setting seems to single out generalized pure states in a more natural way than merely characterizing them as unit rank elements of the boundary of $`\text{Herm}_d^+()`$. The reminiscence of special relativity must be investigated further; this will be a subject for future work.
Pauli matrices together with special relativistic considerations have already brought some fruitful results to quantum information theory. This is the case for instance in Gisin , where some limits of quantum cloning are derived by using the no-signalling condition. Armed with the present representation one should be able tackle more of these difficult quantum information theoretical problems. Already in this paper we recovered Fuchs and Peres’ information gain versus disturbance formula simply and geometrically. In the future we should be able to extend our analysis to the case of two non-equiprobable states. Some highly symmetric $`n`$-states scenarios may well cease to be out of reach.

## VI Acknowlegments

C.E.P would like to thank Gary Gibbons for motivating discussions on convex cones, EPSRC, the DAMTP, and the Cambridge European and Isaac Newton Trusts for financial support. P.J.A would like to thank Louis Salvail for lengthy discussions on methods for information gain versus disturbance tradeoff, Anuj Dawar for his patient listening, EPSRC, Marconi, the Cambridge European and Isaac Newton Trusts for financial support.


text:
# Quantum dissipative systems from theory of continuous measurements

## 1 Introduction

Irreversible behavior is an every day phenomenon in physics, even if the basic theories have simple properties under time reversal. It has long been realized, that in certain limits, an incoherent environment will provide a reservoir for relaxation processes, which in thermal equilibrium will enforce the proper distribution functions. More recently, it has been realized that also observations by measurements introduce decoherence, which from the point of view of the system evolution is equivalent to environmental dephasing. A comprehensive summary of the recent progress in this field is found in Ref. .

In the case of a continuous but weak observation, we can design quantum probability amplitudes conditioned on the continuously observed variable. Such a system can be formulated in a natural way by putting restrictions on the path integral providing the quantum propagator of the system. Such restricted path integrals (RPI) have been found to clarify many questions related to the continuous monitoring of a selected variable . In particular, it can incorporate the unavoidable disturbing effect of the observation back on the system observed. This is termed a minimally disturbing measurement. Non-minimally disturbing continuous measurements have also been suggested . In this paper we pursue the consequences of a simple model for such a measurement.

The RPI approach is basically selective. This means that the measurement readout, or history of observations, is taken into account so that the dynamics of the measured system conditioned by this history is presented by a state vector. It is possible to connect the path integral formulation to the more common master equation approach . This is done by going over to the non-selective description of the continuous measurement. If we take the time evolution conditioned by the given measurement readout (history of observations), express it in terms of a density matrix and then perform a functional summation over all possible observed histories, we obtain an ensemble description comprising all possible histories of observations. The resulting total density matrix obeys a master equation.

The approach to environmental influences making use of master equations goes back a long time, but the recent interest has been kindled by the works of Caldeira and Leggett, Zurek, Unruh and Zurek . In many connections, especially those related to quantum optics, these results are satisfactory, but when applied to frictional Brownian motion they are found to be flawed ; see also the discussions in . The reason is that they are not of the Lindblad form, and hence they cannot preserve the positivity of the density matrix. It is important that this is the case even if the fluctuation-dissipation theorem is fulfilled. Some authors claim that this is of little consequence, but it does signal a possible danger in applications. The point is that even correctly derived master equations fulfilling the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, may not be of the Lindblad form . A discussion of the situation is found in Ref. .

Here we apply the RPI theory of continuous measurements to obtain correct description of frictional Brownian motion. We formulate the RPI description for a non-minimally disturbing continuous observation. Obtaining the phenomenological description of the measurement (including its back-action on the measured system), we go over to the non-selective description and investigate the resulting master equation. It turns out to be of Lindblad form for any choice of the parameters of the measurement.

Then we derive the equations of motion for the first and second moments which turn out to nearly coincide with the expected Ornstein-Uhlenbeck equations. The main correction is a position diffusion coefficient which may be derived from the quantum uncertainty relation. The conditions are found when this term may be omitted. In case of thermal equilibrium of the measured system with thermal reservoir, the strength of the continuous measurement performed by the reservoir is shown to depend on the reservoir’s temperature. If, however, the interaction between the system and reservoir is weak enough, the equilibrium turns out to be impossible, and the relation between the strength of the measurement and the temperature is violated.

The paper is organized in the following way. In Sect. 2 we formulate the RPI description of a (non-minimally disturbing) continuous measurement, derive the corresponding master equation and show that it automatically turns out to be of the Lindblad type. In Sect. 3 we restrict our treatment to the familiar case of a harmonic oscillator. We find that continuously monitoring the momentum of the oscillator (by its environment) leads to the familiar form of the master equation  describing the frictionally driven Brownian motion. This gives the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck-type equations for the first and second moments. In Sect. 4 the equilibrium of the measured system with the (measuring) reservoir having a definite temperature is discussed. Finally Sect. 5 summarizes and concludes our paper.

## 2 Non-minimally disturbing measurement

The restricted path integral (RPI) for the monitoring of a quantum observable $`A(q,p)`$ with the observed history $`a(t)`$ may be formally written  as an ordinary Feynman path integral (in the phase-space representation) with the weight functional of the form

$$w_0[a]=\mathrm{exp}\left\{𝑑t\left[\kappa \left(A(q,p)a(t)\right)^2\right]\right\}$$
(1)
included in the itegrand. In case of non-minimally disturbing monitoring, imaginary terms are also present in the exponent . In the linear approximation this gives

$$w[a]=\mathrm{exp}\left\{𝑑t\left[\kappa \left(A(q,p)a(t)\right)^2\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left(\lambda a(t)B(q,p)+C(q,p)\right)\right]\right\}$$
(2)
Here $`\kappa `$ and $`\lambda `$ are the real parameters which characterize correspondingly the strength of the measurement (monitoring) and non-minimal disturbance produced by it. The real term in the exponent leads to the restriction of the path integral that is analogous to von Neumann’s projecting in case of instantaneous measurements and is necessary for observations. Imaginary terms are responsible for adding phase in the course of the measurement which is not necessary for the observation, hence the terminology ‘non-minimally disturbing measurement’.

With these definitions, the time evolution conditioned on the observation of $`a(t)`$ can be written as a RPI

$`U_{[a]}(q,q^{},t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d[p]{\displaystyle _q^q^{}}d[q]\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle _0^t}dt[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}(p\dot{q}H(q,p))`$ (3)
$`\kappa (A(q,p)a(t))^2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}(\lambda a(t)B(q,p)+C(q,p))]\}.`$
The corresponding evolution operator $`U_{[a]}(t)`$ allows one to express the density matrix at an arbitrary time conditioned on the observation of $`a(t)`$:

$$\widehat{\rho }_{[a]}(t)=U_{[a]}(t)\widehat{\rho }(0)U_{[a]}^{}(t).$$
(4)
The ensemble averaged or total density matrix is obtained from this by carrying out the functional integration over all possible observations (measurement readouts) $`[a]`$:

$$\widehat{\rho }(t)=d[a]\widehat{\rho }_{[a]}(t)$$
(5)
As a result we obtain

$`\widehat{\rho }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d[q^{},p^{}]d[q^{\prime \prime },p^{\prime \prime }]\rho _0(q^{},q^{\prime \prime })}`$ (6)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle _0^t}dt({\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}(p^{}\dot{q}^{}H^{}C^{}){\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}(p^{\prime \prime }\dot{q}^{\prime \prime }H^{\prime \prime }C^{\prime \prime })`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}(A^{}A^{\prime \prime })^2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{8\kappa \mathrm{}^2}}(B^{}B^{\prime \prime })^2+{\displaystyle \frac{i\lambda }{2\mathrm{}}}(A^{}+A^{\prime \prime })(B^{\prime \prime }B^{})]`$
where the notations $`A^{}=A(q^{},p^{})`$, $`B^{\prime \prime }=B(q^{\prime \prime },p^{\prime \prime })`$ etc. are used.

From this we can calculate the master equation for the density matrix by taking the time derivative and noting that all primed operators go to the left of $`\widehat{\rho }`$ and the doubly primed ones to the right.

We still need to resolve the order of $`\widehat{A}`$ and $`\widehat{B}`$ when taken at the same time. Our physical interpretation suggests a solution: as $`\widehat{B}`$ is the back action of observing $`\widehat{A}`$ , the latter should act before the former. We thus obtain the equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\widehat{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}[\widehat{H}+\widehat{C},\widehat{\rho }]{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}[\widehat{A},[\widehat{A},\widehat{\rho }]]{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{8\kappa \mathrm{}^2}}[\widehat{B},[\widehat{B},\widehat{\rho }]]`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i\lambda }{2\mathrm{}}}[\widehat{B},[\widehat{A},\widehat{\rho }]_+].`$
Let us rewrite the master equation (7) by introducing the operator

$$\widehat{l}=\widehat{A}i\frac{\lambda }{2\kappa \mathrm{}}\widehat{B}$$
(8)
Solving for $`\widehat{A}`$ and $`\widehat{B}`$ and inserting into Eq. (7) we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\widehat{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}[\widehat{H}+\widehat{C}i{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa \mathrm{}}{4}}\left(\widehat{l}^2\widehat{l}^2\right),\widehat{\rho }]`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}\left(\widehat{l}^{}\widehat{l}\widehat{\rho }2\widehat{l}\widehat{\rho }\widehat{l}^{}+\widehat{\rho }\widehat{l}\widehat{l}^{}\right)`$
The resulting equation is of the Lindblad form. The original Hamiltonian of the measured system is renormalized by the measurement procedure.

## 3 Special case of a harmonic oscillator

We shall now specialize to the case of a harmonic oscillator,

$$\widehat{H}=\frac{\widehat{P}^2}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\omega ^2\widehat{Q}^2.$$
(10)
Let the momentum operator be monitored and the coordinate operator presents non-minimal disturbance (this means that the momentum is shifted when being monitored):

$$\widehat{A}=\widehat{P},\widehat{B}=\omega \widehat{Q}$$
(11)
The weight factor (2) takes the form

$$w[a]=\mathrm{exp}\left\{𝑑t\left[\kappa \left(pa(t)\right)^2\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left(\lambda \omega a(t)q+C(q,p)\right)\right]\right\}.$$
(12)
Exponential of operator $`\widehat{Q}`$ is the displacement operator for observable $`\widehat{P}`$. Therefore, the non-minimal disturbance (determined by the term proportional to $`q`$ in Eq. (12)) consists in this model in shifting the momentum (the same observable which is measured).

The master equation now becomes (for $`\widehat{C}=0`$)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\widehat{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}[\widehat{H},\widehat{\rho }]{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}[\widehat{P},[\widehat{P},\widehat{\rho }]]{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2\omega ^2}{8\kappa \mathrm{}^2}}[\widehat{Q},[\widehat{Q},\widehat{\rho }]]`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i\lambda \omega }{2\mathrm{}}}[\widehat{Q},[\widehat{P},\widehat{\rho }]_+].`$
This is the well known master equation for a Brownian motion . The Brownian motion of the oscillator is thus interpreted as the effect of monitoring the momentum by a continuously acting environment (reservoir).

The equations for the first moments (mean values of $`\widehat{P}`$ and $`\widehat{Q}`$) following from Eq. (13) are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{P}}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega ^2\widehat{Q}\lambda \omega \widehat{P}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{Q}}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{P}`$ (14)
and the equations for the second moments

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\widehat{P}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\omega ^2\widehat{P}\widehat{Q}+\widehat{Q}\widehat{P}2\lambda \omega \widehat{P}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2\omega ^2}{4\kappa }}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\widehat{P}\widehat{Q}+\widehat{Q}\widehat{P}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda \omega \widehat{P}\widehat{Q}+\widehat{Q}\widehat{P}+2\left(\widehat{P}^2\omega ^2\widehat{Q}^2\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\widehat{Q}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{P}\widehat{Q}+\widehat{Q}\widehat{P}+\kappa \mathrm{}^2.`$ (15)
We can introduce a damping constant in Eqs.(14) and (15) by writing $`\gamma =\lambda \omega `$. Equations (15) are appropriate for an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process except for the diffusion term in position space. The same type of equations follow from the model introduced by Gallis ; see also . Also Diósi  has pointed out that such a term is necessary to obtain a Lindblad form of evolution.

In the classical limit, $`\mathrm{}0`$, Eq. (15) gives the steady-state solution

$$\widehat{P}\widehat{Q}+\widehat{Q}\widehat{P}=0,\widehat{P}^2=\omega ^2\widehat{Q}^2=\frac{\lambda \omega }{8\kappa }$$
(16)
which agrees with the virial theorem. These result in the expression for the mean energy

$$\widehat{H}=\frac{1}{2}\widehat{P}^2+\omega ^2\widehat{Q}^2=\frac{\lambda \omega }{8\kappa }.$$
(17)
The additional diffusion term in the third of Eqs. (15) has got no simple physical interpretation within a classical stochastic model. However, it is easily interpreted in the scheme of measurements as a consequence of the uncertainty relations. The fact that the term is proportional to $`\mathrm{}^2`$ signals its quantum origin. Indeed, with time passing, momentum is measured with better precision, and therefore the uncertainty of the coordinate becomes larger. This may be shown to be expressed by just this term; see  and \[2, Sect. 4.3.4\] for the dual situation when the coordinate is continuously measured and grows more uncertain.

This diffusion term causes a spreading of the position variable according to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{Q}^2\kappa \mathrm{}^2t.`$ If this is required to be much smaller than the steady state value in (16), we find that its effect is negligible if

$$t\frac{\lambda }{8\kappa ^2\omega \mathrm{}^2}.$$
(18)
## 4 Thermal reservoir as an environment

Let us assume that the environment of our (measured) oscillator is a thermal bath at some temperature $`T`$ and the oscillator is in equilibrium with the environment. Then the density matrix of the oscillator corresponds to the Boltzmann distribution in energies, which may be used for calculating mean value of the number of energy level $`\widehat{n}=a^{}a`$ and therefore mean value of energy:

$$\overline{n}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{}\omega /k_BT\right)1},\widehat{H}=\mathrm{}\omega \widehat{n}+\frac{1}{2}=\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2}\mathrm{coth}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2k_BT}$$
(19)
This provides the fluctuation-dissipation theorem which relates the momentum diffusion coefficient and friction coefficient in the form

$$D=\frac{\gamma \mathrm{}\omega }{2}\mathrm{coth}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2k_BT}\right).$$
(20)
This gives in our case

$$\lambda =4\kappa \mathrm{}\mathrm{coth}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2k_BT}\right).$$
(21)
Therefore, the strength of non-minimal disturbance depends on temperature of the measuring reservoir.

From Eq. (21) the inequality

$$\lambda >4\mathrm{}\kappa $$
(22)
follows. We see from this inequality that for $`\lambda >4\mathrm{}\kappa `$, the oscillator may be in thermal equilibrium with the reservoir. It can be shown that the regime of measurement is in this case classical, quantum effects are negligible.

The question naturally arises as to what happens if the non-minimal disturbance of the measurement is small enough (in comparison with the strength of the measurement) so that $`\lambda <4\mathrm{}\kappa `$. In this case the measurement is performed in quantum regime, but the situation seems to contradict the inequality (22). However, we have derived this inequality under the assumption that the distribution of the oscillator over energies is of the Boltzmann form, i.e. the oscillator is in equilibrium with the thermal reservoir. If this inequality is violated, thermal equilibrium of the oscillator with the thermal reservoir is impossible.

All these conclusions are made in the framework of the certain model of the continuous measurement. In this model the momentum is continuously monitored and non-minimally disturbed (see the remark following Eq. (2)). Because of symmetry between momentum and coordinate, the same is valid also if the coordinate is measured and non-minimally disturbed. The conclusions are however not justified if the oscillator is continuously measured but according to another model.

It is also interesting to evaluate the energy shift caused by the observational procedure. Reading off this shift from Eq.(9) and making use of Eq. (11) we obtain

$$i\frac{\kappa \mathrm{}}{4}\left(\widehat{l}^2\widehat{l}^2\right)=\frac{\lambda \omega }{4}\left(\widehat{P}\widehat{Q}+\widehat{Q}\widehat{P}\right).$$
(23)
Combining this with the Hamiltonian (10) we obtain

$`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\widehat{P}^2+\omega ^2\widehat{Q}^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \omega }{4}}\left(\widehat{P}\widehat{Q}+\widehat{Q}\widehat{P}\right)`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\widehat{P}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \omega }{2}}\widehat{Q}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\omega ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2\omega ^2}{4}}\right)\widehat{Q}^2.`$
As $`\lambda \omega `$ is the friction coefficient, the new oscillational frequency is just the correctly shifted one for a damped oscillator:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\sqrt{\left(\omega ^2\frac{\lambda ^2\omega ^2}{4}\right)}.$$
(25)
Thus we find a consistent description of the ordinary Brownian motion process in terms of continuous measurements.

## 5 Conclusion

Non-minimally disturbing continuous quantum measurements were shown to lead to dissipation of the measured system. The resulting model of dissipation is characterized by a Lindblad master equation and thus avoids the difficulties arising in other approaches. Although only measuring a single observable has been considered in the present paper, generalization on the case of measuring two or more observables is straightforward.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

One of the authors (M.B.M.) acknowledges support from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the KTH where the main part of this work was completed. The work was supported in part by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and Russian Foundation of Basic Research.