text:
# Positive operator valued measures covariant with respect to an Abelian group

## 1. Introduction

Let $`G`$ be a topological group and $`H`$ a closed subgroup. Given a unitary representation $`U`$ of $`G`$, it is of interest in Quantum Mechanics and in wavelet analysis to describe the positive operator valued measures $`Q`$ defined on the quotient space $`G/H`$ and covariant with respect to $`U`$. The generalised imprimitivity theorem assures that $`Q`$ exists if and only if there exists a unitary representation $`\sigma `$ of $`H`$ such that $`U`$ is a subrepresentation of the representation unitarily induced by $`\sigma `$.

In his seminal papers  and , Holevo classifies the covariant positive operator valued measures if $`G`$ is of type I and $`H=\{e\}`$, and if $`G`$ is compact and $`H`$ is arbitrary.

In this paper we extend the above result to the case $`G`$ Abelian and $`H`$ arbitrary. We describe the covariant positive operator valued measures in terms of a family $`W_x:E_xE`$ of isometries, where the index $`x`$ runs over the dual group of $`G`$, $`dimE_x`$ equals the multiplicity of the character $`x`$ in $`U`$ and $`E`$ is a fixed (infinite dimensional) Hilbert space. As a byproduct, we define a unitary operator $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ that diagonalises the representation of $`G`$ unitarily induced by a representation of $`H`$ with uniform multiplicity.

As an application of our characterisation, in the final section we give three examples.

1. The *regular* representation of the real line, where the positive operator valued measure describes the *position observable* in one dimension.
2. The *number*-representation of the torus, where the positive operator valued measure describes the *phase observable*.
3. The tensor product of two *number*-representations of the torus, where the positive operator valued measure describes the *phase difference observable*.

## 2. Notations

In this paper, by *Hilbert space* we mean a separable complex Hilbert space with scalar product $`,`$ linear in the first argument, by *group* we mean a locally compact second countable Abelian group and by *representation* a continuous unitary representation of a group acting on a Hilbert space. If $`X`$ is a locally compact second countable topological space, we denote by $`\left(X\right)`$ the Borel $`\sigma `$-algebra of $`X`$ and by $`C_c\left(X\right)`$ the space of continuous complex functions on $`X`$ with compact support. By *measure* we mean a positive measure defined on $`\left(X\right)`$ and finite on compact sets.

In the sequel we shall use rather freely basic results of Harmonic Analysis on Abelian groups, as exposed, for example, in Refs.  and .

We fix a group $`G`$ and a closed subgroup $`H`$. We denote by $`\widehat{G}`$ and $`\widehat{H}`$ the corresponding dual groups and by $`x,g`$ the canonical pairing.

We denote by

$$q:GG/H\text{,}q\left(g\right)=\dot{g}$$

the canonical projection onto the quotient group $`G/H`$. If $`aG`$ and $`\dot{g}G/H`$, we let $`a\left[\dot{g}\right]=q\left(ag\right)=\dot{a}\dot{g}`$ be the natural action of $`a`$ on the point $`\dot{g}`$.

Let $`H^{}`$ be the annihilator of $`H`$ in $`\widehat{G}`$, that is

$$H^{}=\{y\widehat{G}y,h=1\text{ }hH\}\text{.}$$

The group $`H^{}`$ is a closed subgroup of $`\widehat{G}`$ and $`\widehat{G/H}`$ can be identified (and we will do) with $`H^{}`$ by means of

$$y,\dot{g}:=y,gyH^{}\text{}\dot{g}G/H\text{.}$$

Since $`H^{}`$ is closed, we can consider the quotient group $`\widehat{G}/H^{}`$. We denote by

$$\pi :\widehat{G}\widehat{G}/H^{}\text{,}\pi \left(x\right)=\dot{x}$$

the canonical projection. The group $`\widehat{H}`$ can be identified (and we will do) with the quotient group $`\widehat{G}/H^{}`$ by means of

$$\dot{x},h:=x,h\dot{x}\widehat{G}/H^{}\text{}hH\text{.}$$

Let $`\mu _G`$, $`\mu _H`$ and $`\mu _{G/H}`$ be fixed Haar measures on $`G`$, $`H`$ and $`G/H`$, respectively.

We denote by $`\mu _H^{}`$ the Haar measure on $`H^{}`$ such that the Fourier-Plancherel cotransform $`\overline{}_{G/H}`$ is unitary from $`L^2(G/H,\mu _{G/H})`$ onto $`L^2(H^{},\mu _H^{})`$, where $`\overline{}_{G/H}`$ is given by

$$\left(\overline{}_{G/H}f\right)\left(y\right)=_{G/H}y,\dot{g}f\left(\dot{g}\right)\text{d}\mu _{G/H}\left(\dot{g}\right)yH^{},$$

for all $`f\left(L^1L^2\right)(G/H,\mu _{G/H})`$.

Given $`\phi C_c\left(\widehat{G}\right)`$, let

$$\stackrel{~}{\phi }\left(\dot{x}\right):=_H^{}\phi \left(xy\right)\text{d}\mu _H^{}\left(y\right)\dot{x}\widehat{G}/H^{}\text{.}$$

It is well known that $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ is in $`C_c\left(\widehat{G}/H^{}\right)`$ and that $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }0`$ if $`\phi 0`$. Given a measure $`\nu `$ on $`\widehat{G}/H^{}`$, the map

(2.1)
$$C_c\left(\widehat{G}\right)\phi _{\widehat{G}/H^{}}\stackrel{~}{\phi }\left(\dot{x}\right)\text{d}\nu \left(\dot{x}\right)$$

is linear and positive. Hence, by Riesz-Markov theorem, there is a unique measure $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ on $`\widehat{G}`$ such that

$$_{\widehat{G}}\varphi \left(x\right)\text{d}\stackrel{~}{\nu }\left(x\right)=_{\widehat{G}/H^{}}\text{d}\nu \left(\dot{x}\right)_H^{}\varphi \left(xy\right)\text{d}\mu _H^{}\left(y\right)$$

for all $`\varphi L^1(\widehat{G},\stackrel{~}{\nu })`$. One can check that the correspondence $`\nu \stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ preserves equivalence and orthogonality of measures.

Given a finite measure $`\mu `$ on $`\widehat{G}`$, we denote by $`\mu ^\pi `$ the image measure of $`\mu `$ with respect to $`\pi `$, i.e. the measure on $`\widehat{G}/H^{}`$ given by

$$\mu ^\pi \left(A\right)=\mu \left(\pi ^1\left(A\right)\right)A\left(\widehat{G}/H^{}\right)\text{.}$$

We fix a representation $`U`$ of $`G`$ acting on a Hilbert space $``$. Let $`Q`$ be a positive operator valued measure (POVM) defined on $`G/H`$ and acting on $``$. If $`Q`$ satisfies the following properties

1. $`Q\left(G/H\right)=I`$,
2. for all $`X\left(G/H\right)`$,

$$U\left(g\right)Q\left(X\right)U\left(g^1\right)=Q\left(g\left[X\right]\right)gG,$$

it is called *covariant* and $`(U,Q)`$ is said to be a *covariance system*. In particular, if $`Q`$ is a projective measure, $`(U,Q)`$ is called an *imprimitivity system*.

For $`\omega C_c\left(G/H\right)`$, we define the operator

$$M\left(\omega \right):=_{G/H}\omega \left(\dot{g}\right)\text{d}Q\left(\dot{g}\right)\text{.}$$

The map $`\omega M\left(\omega \right)`$ defines uniquely the POVM $`Q`$. In the following we use $`M`$ instead of $`Q`$.

Finally, given a representation $`\sigma `$ of $`H`$, we denote by $`(\mathrm{ind}_H^G\left(\sigma \right),M_0)`$ the imprimitivity system induced by $`\sigma `$ from $`H`$ to $`G`$.

The aim of this paper is to describe all the positive operator valued measures covariant with respect to $`U`$. The generalised imprimitivity theorem (see, for example, Refs.  and ) states that

###### Theorem 2.1.

A POVM $`M`$ based on $`G/H`$ and acting on $``$ is covariant with respect to $`U`$ if and only if there exists a representation $`\sigma `$ of $`H`$ and an isometry $`W`$ intertwining $`U`$ with $`\mathrm{ind}_H^G\left(\sigma \right)`$ such that

$$M\left(\omega \right)=W^{}M_0\left(\omega \right)W$$

for all $`\omega C_c\left(G/H\right)`$.

If $`\sigma ^{}`$ is another representation of $`H`$ such that $`\sigma `$ is contained (as subrepresentation) in $`\sigma `$, then $`(\mathrm{ind}_H^G\left(\sigma \right),M_0)`$ is contained (as imprimitivity system) in $`(\mathrm{ind}_H^G\left(\sigma ^{}\right),M_0^{})`$. Hence, we can always assume that $`\sigma `$ in the previous theorem has infinite multiplicity.

Moreover, there exist a measure $`\nu `$ on $`\widehat{G}/H^{}`$ and an infinite dimensional Hilbert space $`E`$ such that, up to a unitary equivalence, $`\sigma `$ acts diagonally on $`L^2(\widehat{G}/H^{},\nu ;E)`$. The first step of our construction is to diagonalise the representation $`\mathrm{ind}_H^G\left(\sigma \right)`$.

## 3. Diagonalisation of $`\mathrm{ind}_H^G\left(\sigma \right)`$

In this section, given a representation of $`H`$ with uniform multiplicity, we diagonalise the corresponding induced representation.

Let $`\nu `$ be a measure on $`\widehat{G}/H^{}`$ and $`E`$ be a Hilbert space. Let $`\sigma ^\nu `$ be the diagonal representation of $`H`$ acting on the space $`L^2(\widehat{G}/H^{},\nu ;E)`$, that is

$$\left(\sigma ^\nu \left(h\right)\xi \right)\left(\dot{x}\right)=\dot{x},h\xi \left(\dot{x}\right)\dot{x}\widehat{G}/H^{}\text{,}$$

where $`hH`$.

We denote by $`^\nu `$ the space of functions $`f:G\times \widehat{G}/H^{}E`$ such that

* $`f`$ is weakly $`\left(\mu _G\nu \right)`$-measurable;
* for all $`hH`$,

(3.1)
$$f(gh,\dot{x})=\overline{\dot{x},h}f(g,\dot{x})(g,\dot{x})G\times \widehat{G}/H^{}\text{;}$$
* $$_{G/H\times \widehat{G}/H^{}}f(g,\dot{x})_E^2\text{d}\left(\mu _{G/H}\nu \right)(\dot{g},\dot{x})<+\mathrm{}\text{.}$$

We identify functions in $`^\nu `$ that are equal $`\left(\mu _G\nu \right)`$-a.e.. Let $`G`$ act on $`^\nu `$ as

$$\left(\lambda ^\nu \left(a\right)f\right)(g,\dot{x}):=f(a^1g,\dot{x})(g,\dot{x})G\times \widehat{G}/H^{}$$

for all $`aG`$. Define

$$\left(M_0^\nu \left(\omega \right)f\right)(g,\dot{x}):=\omega \left(\dot{g}\right)f(g,\dot{x})(g,\dot{x})G\times \widehat{G}/H^{}$$

for all $`f^\nu `$, $`\omega C_c\left(G/H\right)`$.

One can easily prove the following fact.

###### Proposition 3.1.

The space $`^\nu `$ is a Hilbert space with respect to the inner product

$$f_1,f_2_^\nu =_{G/H\times \widehat{G}/H^{}}f_1(g,\dot{x}),f_2(g,\dot{x})_E\text{d}\left(\mu _{G/H}\nu \right)(\dot{g},\dot{x})\text{.}$$

If $`\phi C_c(G\times \widehat{G}/H^{};E)`$, let

$$f_\phi (g,\dot{x}):=_H\dot{x},h\phi (gh,\dot{x})\text{d}\mu _H\left(h\right)(g,\dot{x})G\times \widehat{G}/H^{}\text{.}$$

Then $`f_\phi `$ is a continuous function in $`^\nu `$ such that $`\left(q\times \mathrm{id}_{\widehat{G}/H^{}}\right)\left(\mathrm{supp}f_\phi \right)`$ is compact, and the set

$$_0^\nu =\{f_\phi \phi C_c(G\times \widehat{G}/H^{};E)\}$$

is a dense subspace of $`^\nu `$. The couple $`(\lambda ^\nu ,M_0^\nu )`$ is the imprimitivity system induced by $`\sigma ^\nu `$ from $`H`$ to $`G`$.

We now diagonalise the representation $`\lambda ^\nu `$. First of all, we let $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ be the measure defined in $`\widehat{G}`$ by Eq. (2.1). Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\nu `$ be the diagonal representation of $`G`$ acting on $`L^2(\widehat{G},\stackrel{~}{\nu };E)`$ as

$$\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^\nu \left(g\right)\varphi \right)\left(x\right)=x,g\varphi \left(x\right)x\widehat{G}$$

for all $`gG`$.

Moreover, given $`\varphi :\widehat{G}E`$ and fixed $`x\widehat{G}`$, define $`\varphi _x`$ from $`H^{}`$ to $`E`$ as

$$\varphi _x\left(y\right):=\varphi \left(xy\right)yH^{}\text{.}$$

###### Theorem 3.2.

There is a unique unitary operator $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ from $`^\nu `$ onto $`L^2(\widehat{G},\stackrel{~}{\nu };E)`$ such that, for all $`f_0^\nu `$,

(3.2)
$$\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }f\right)\left(x\right)=_{G/H}x,gf(g,\dot{x})\text{d}\mu _{G/H}\left(\dot{g}\right)x\widehat{G}\text{.}$$

The operator $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ intertwines $`\lambda ^\nu `$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\nu `$. Moreover,

(3.3)
$$\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\phi \right)(g,\dot{x})=_H^{}\overline{xy,g}\phi \left(xy\right)\text{d}\mu _H^{}\left(y\right)(g,\dot{x})G\times \widehat{H}$$

for all $`\phi C_c(\widehat{G};E)`$.

###### Proof.

We first define $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ on $`_0^\nu `$. Let $`f_0^\nu `$. Fixed $`x\widehat{G}`$, by virtue of Eq. (3.1) the function

$$gx,gf(g,\dot{x})$$

depends only on the equivalence class $`\dot{g}`$ of $`g`$ and we let $`f^x`$ be the corresponding map on $`G/H`$. Due to the properties of $`f`$, $`f^x`$ is continuous and has compact support, so it is $`\mu _{G/H}`$-integrable and we define $`\mathrm{\Sigma }f`$ by means of Eq. (3.2).

We claim that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }f`$ is in $`L^2(\widehat{G},\stackrel{~}{\nu };E)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }f_{L^2(\widehat{G},\stackrel{~}{\nu };E)}=f_^\nu `$. Since the map

$$(x,\dot{g})f^x\left(\dot{g}\right)$$

is continuous, by a standard argument $`\mathrm{\Sigma }f`$ is continuous. Moreover, if $`x\widehat{G}`$ and $`yH^{}`$,

$`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }f\right)\left(xy\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{G/H}}xy,gf(g,\dot{x})\text{d}\mu _{G/H}\left(\dot{g}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{G/H}}y,\dot{g}x,gf(g,\dot{x})\text{d}\mu _{G/H}\left(\dot{g}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\overline{}_{G/H}\left(f^x\right)\left(y\right)\text{.}`$
Indeed,

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }f_{L^2(\widehat{G},\stackrel{~}{\nu };E)}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\widehat{G}}}\mathrm{\Sigma }f\left(x\right)_E^2\text{d}\stackrel{~}{\nu }\left(x\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\widehat{G}/H^{}}}\text{d}\nu \left(\dot{x}\right){\displaystyle _H^{}}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }f\right)\left(xy\right)_E^2\text{d}\mu _H^{}\left(y\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\widehat{G}/H^{}}}\text{d}\nu \left(\dot{x}\right){\displaystyle _H^{}}\overline{}_{G/H}\left(f^x\right)\left(y\right)_E^2\text{d}\mu _H^{}\left(y\right)`$
$`(\text{unitarity of }\overline{}_{G/H})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\widehat{G}/H^{}}}\text{d}\nu \left(\dot{x}\right){\displaystyle _{G/H}}f^x\left(\dot{g}\right)_E^2\text{d}\mu _{G/H}\left(\dot{g}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\widehat{G}/H^{}}}\text{d}\nu \left(\dot{x}\right){\displaystyle _{G/H}}f(g,\dot{x})_E^2\text{d}\mu _{G/H}\left(\dot{g}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{G/H\times \widehat{G}/H^{}}}f(g,\dot{x})_E^2\text{d}\left(\mu _{G/H}\nu \right)(\dot{g},\dot{x})`$
$`=`$ $`f_^\nu ^2\text{.}`$
By density, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ extends to an isometry from $`^\nu `$ to $`L^2(\widehat{G},\stackrel{~}{\nu };E)`$. Clearly, Eq. (3.2) holds and it defines uniquely $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

The second step is computing the adjoint of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Let $`\phi C_c(\widehat{G};E)`$, by standard arguments the right hand side of Eq. (3.3) is a continuous function of $`(g,\dot{x})`$. Moreover, it satisfies Eq. (3.1). We have

$$_H^{}\overline{xy,g}\phi \left(xy\right)\text{d}\mu _H^{}\left(y\right)=\overline{x,g}\overline{}_{G/H}^{}\left(\phi _x\right)\left(\dot{g}\right)(g,\dot{x})G\times \widehat{H}\text{.}$$

First of all, we show that the above function is in $`^\nu `$. Indeed,

$`{\displaystyle _{\widehat{G}/H^{}}}\text{d}\nu \left(\dot{x}\right){\displaystyle _{G/H}}\overline{x,g}\overline{}_{G/H}^{}\left(\phi _x\right)\left(\dot{g}\right)_E^2\text{d}\mu _{G/H}\left(\dot{g}\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle _{\widehat{G}/H^{}}}\text{d}\nu \left(\dot{x}\right){\displaystyle _{G/H}}\overline{}_{G/H}^{}\left(\phi _x\right)\left(\dot{g}\right)_E^2\text{d}\mu _{G/H}\left(\dot{g}\right)`$
$`(\text{unitarity of }\overline{}_{G/H})`$
$`={\displaystyle _{\widehat{G}/H^{}}}\text{d}\nu \left(\dot{x}\right){\displaystyle _H^{}}\phi _x\left(y\right)_E^2\text{d}\mu _H^{}\left(y\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle _{\widehat{G}/H^{}}}\text{d}\nu \left(\dot{x}\right){\displaystyle _H^{}}\phi \left(xy\right)_E^2\text{d}\mu _H^{}\left(y\right)`$
(3.4) $`=\phi _{L^2(\widehat{G},\stackrel{~}{\nu };E)}^2\text{.}`$
Moreover, for all $`f_0^\nu `$, we have

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\phi ,f_^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`\phi ,\mathrm{\Sigma }f_{L^2(\widehat{G},\stackrel{~}{\nu };E)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\widehat{G}/H^{}}}\text{d}\nu \left(\dot{x}\right){\displaystyle _H^{}}\phi \left(xy\right),\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }f\right)\left(xy\right)_E\text{d}\mu _H^{}\left(y\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\widehat{G}/H^{}}}\text{d}\nu \left(\dot{x}\right){\displaystyle _H^{}}\phi _x\left(y\right),\overline{}_{G/H}\left(f^x\right)\left(y\right)_E\text{ d}\mu _H^{}\left(y\right)`$
$`\text{(unitarity of }\overline{}_{G/H}\text{)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\widehat{G}/H^{}}}\text{d}\nu \left(\dot{x}\right){\displaystyle _{G/H}}\overline{}_{G/H}^{}\left(\phi _x\right)\left(\dot{g}\right),f^x\left(\dot{g}\right)_E\text{d}\mu _{G/H}\left(\dot{g}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\widehat{G}/H^{}}}\text{d}\nu \left(\dot{x}\right){\displaystyle _{G/H}}\overline{}_{G/H}^{}\left(\phi _x\right)\left(\dot{g}\right),x,gf(g,\dot{x})_E\text{d}\mu _{G/H}\left(\dot{g}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\widehat{G}/H^{}}}\text{d}\nu \left(\dot{x}\right){\displaystyle _{G/H}}\overline{x,g}\overline{}_{G/H}^{}\left(\phi _x\right)\left(\dot{g}\right),f(g,\dot{x})_E\text{d}\mu _{G/H}\left(\dot{g}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{G/H\times \widehat{G}/H^{}}}\overline{x,g}\overline{}_{G/H}^{}\left(\phi _x\right)\left(\dot{g}\right),f(g,\dot{x})_E\text{d}\left(\mu _{G/H}\nu \right)(\dot{g},\dot{x})\text{.}`$
Since $`_0^\nu `$ is dense, Eq. (3.3) follows. By Eq. (3.4) $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ is isometric, hence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is unitary.

Finally, we show the intertwining property. Let $`aG`$ and $`f_0^\nu `$. Then $`\lambda ^\nu \left(a\right)f_0^\nu `$, and so one has

$`\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\lambda ^\nu \left(a\right)f\right)\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{G/H}}x,gf(a^1g,\dot{x})\text{d}\mu _{G/H}\left(\dot{g}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`x,a{\displaystyle _{G/H}}f^x\left(a^1[\dot{g}]\right)\text{d}\mu _{G/H}\left(\dot{g}\right)`$
$`(\dot{g}a\left[\dot{g}\right])`$
$`=`$ $`x,a{\displaystyle _{G/H}}x,gf(g,\dot{x})\text{d}\mu _{G/H}\left(\dot{g}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^\nu \left(a\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }f\right)\left(x\right)x\widehat{G}\text{.}`$
By density of $`_0^\nu `$, it follows that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\lambda ^\nu \left(a\right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^\nu \left(a\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. ∎

Given $`\omega C_c\left(G/H\right)`$, let $`\stackrel{~}{M_0^\nu }\left(\omega \right)=\mathrm{\Sigma }M_0^\nu \left(\omega \right)\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. Then

###### Proposition 3.3.

For all $`\omega C_c\left(G/H\right)`$ and $`\varphi L^2(\widehat{G},\stackrel{~}{\nu };E)`$,

(3.5)
$$\left(\stackrel{~}{M_0^\nu }\left(\omega \right)\varphi \right)\left(x\right)=_H^{}\overline{}_{G/H}\left(\omega \right)\left(y\right)\varphi \left(xy^1\right)\text{d}\mu _H^{}\left(y\right)x\widehat{G}\text{.}$$

###### Proof.

Let $`\omega C_c\left(G/H\right)`$. We compute the action of $`\stackrel{~}{M_0^\nu }\left(\omega \right)`$ on $`C_c(\widehat{G};E)`$. If $`\phi C_c(\widehat{G};E)`$, let

$$\xi \left(x\right):=_H^{}\overline{}_{G/H}\left(\omega \right)\left(y\right)\phi \left(xy^1\right)\text{d}\mu _H^{}\left(y\right)x\widehat{G}\text{,}$$

which is well defined and continuous. Moreover, for all $`x\widehat{G}`$ and $`yH^{}`$,

(3.6) $`\xi \left(xy\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _H^{}}\overline{}_{G/H}\left(\omega \right)\left(y^{}\right)\phi \left(xyy^1\right)\text{d}\mu _H^{}\left(y^{}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _H^{}}\overline{}_{G/H}\left(\omega \right)\left(y^{}\right)\phi _x\left(yy^1\right)\text{d}\mu _H^{}\left(y^{}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\left(\overline{}_{G/H}\left(\omega \right)\phi _x\right)\left(y\right)\text{.}`$
Here and in the following, convolutions are always taken in $`H^{}`$. If $`\phi ,\psi C_c(\widehat{G};E)`$,

$`\stackrel{~}{M_0^\nu }\left(\omega \right)\phi ,\psi _{L^2(\widehat{G},\stackrel{~}{\nu };E)}=M_0^\nu \left(\omega \right)\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\phi ,\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\psi _^\nu `$
$`={\displaystyle _{\widehat{G}/H^{}}}\text{d}\nu \left(\dot{x}\right){\displaystyle _{G/H}}\text{d}\mu _{G/H}\left(\dot{g}\right)\omega \left(\dot{g}\right)\overline{x,g}\overline{}_{G/H}^{}\left(\phi _x\right)\left(\dot{g}\right),\overline{x,g}\times `$
$`\times \overline{}_{G/H}^{}\left(\psi _x\right)\left(\dot{g}\right)_E`$
$`={\displaystyle _{\widehat{G}/H^{}}}\text{d}\nu \left(\dot{x}\right){\displaystyle _{G/H}}\text{d}\mu _{G/H}\left(\dot{g}\right)\omega \left(\dot{g}\right)\overline{}_{G/H}^{}\left(\phi _x\right)\left(\dot{g}\right),\overline{}_{G/H}^{}\left(\psi _x\right)\left(\dot{g}\right)_E`$
$`\text{(unitarity of }\overline{}_{G/H}\text{ and properties of convolution)}`$
$`={\displaystyle _{\widehat{G}/H^{}}}\text{d}\nu \left(\dot{x}\right){\displaystyle _H^{}}\text{d}\mu _H^{}\left(y\right)\left(\overline{}_{G/H}\left(\omega \right)\phi _x\right)\left(y\right),\psi _x\left(y\right)_E`$
$`={\displaystyle _{\widehat{G}/H^{}}}\text{d}\nu \left(\dot{x}\right){\displaystyle _H^{}}\text{d}\mu _H^{}\left(y\right)\xi \left(xy\right),\psi \left(xy\right)_E\text{,}`$
hence Eq. (3.5) holds on $`C_c(\widehat{G};E)`$.

Let now $`\varphi L^2(\widehat{G},\stackrel{~}{\nu };E)`$. Since

$$\varphi _{L^2(\widehat{G},\stackrel{~}{\nu };E)}^2=_{\widehat{G}/H^{}}\text{d}\nu \left(\dot{x}\right)_H^{}\varphi (xy)_E^2\text{d}\mu _H^{}\left(y\right)<+\mathrm{}\text{,}$$

by virtue of Fubini theorem there is a $`\nu `$-negligible set $`Y_1\widehat{G}/H^{}`$ such that, for all $`x\widehat{G}`$ with $`\dot{x}Y_1`$, $`\varphi _xL^2(H^{},\mu _H^{};E)`$. Moreover, using the definition of $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$, one can check that $`\pi ^1\left(Y_1\right)`$ is $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$-negligible. Then, for $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$-almost all $`x\widehat{G}`$, $`\varphi _x`$ is in $`L^2(H^{},\mu _H^{};E)`$. We observe that the map

$$\dot{g}\omega \left(\dot{g}\right)\left(\overline{}_{G/H}^{}\left(\varphi _x\right)\right)\left(\dot{g}\right)$$

is then in $`\left(L^1L^2\right)(G/H,\mu _{G/H};E)`$ for $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$-almost all $`x\widehat{G}`$, hence its Fourier cotransform is continuous, and we have

(3.7) $`\overline{}_{G/H}\left(\omega \overline{}_{G/H}^{}\left(\varphi _x\right)\right)\left(e\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\overline{}_{G/H}\left(\omega \right)\varphi _x\right)\left(e\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _H^{}}\overline{}_{G/H}\left(\omega \right)\left(y\right)\varphi \left(xy^1\right)\text{d}\mu _H^{}\left(y\right)\text{.}`$
Now, we let $`\left(\phi _k\right)_{k1}`$ be a sequence in $`C_c(\widehat{G};E)`$ converging to $`\varphi `$ in $`L^2(\widehat{G},\stackrel{~}{\nu };E)`$. Then

$$_{\widehat{G}/H^{}}\text{d}\nu \left(\dot{x}\right)_H^{}\left(\phi _k\right)_x\left(y\right)\varphi _x\left(y\right)_E^2\text{d}\mu _H^{}\left(y\right)0$$

and so, possibly passing to a subsequence, there is a $`\nu `$-negligible set $`Y_2\widehat{G}/H^{}`$ such that

$$_H^{}\left(\phi _k\right)_x\left(y\right)\varphi _x\left(y\right)_E^2\text{d}\mu _H^{}\left(y\right)0$$

for all $`x\widehat{G}`$ with $`\dot{x}Y_2`$. This fact means that, for $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$-almost all $`x\widehat{G}`$,

$$\left(\phi _k\right)_x\varphi _x$$

in $`L^2(H^{},\mu _H^{};E)`$. It follows that

$$\omega \overline{}_{G/H}^{}\left(\left(\phi _k\right)_x\right)\omega \overline{}_{G/H}^{}\left(\varphi _x\right)$$

in $`L^1(G/H,\mu _{G/H};E)`$. Then, for $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$-almost all $`x\widehat{G}`$,

$$\overline{}_{G/H}\left(\omega \overline{}_{G/H}^{}\left(\left(\phi _k\right)_x\right)\right)\overline{}_{G/H}\left(\omega \overline{}_{G/H}^{}\left(\varphi _x\right)\right)$$

uniformly, and, using Eqs. (3.6), (3.7),

$`\left(\stackrel{~}{M_0^\nu }\left(\omega \right)\phi _k\right)\left(x\right)=\overline{}_{G/H}\left(\omega \overline{}_{G/H}^{}\left(\left(\phi _k\right)_x\right)\right)\left(e\right)`$
$`\overline{}_{G/H}\left(\omega \overline{}_{G/H}^{}\left(\varphi _x\right)\right)\left(e\right)={\displaystyle _H^{}}\overline{}_{G/H}\left(\omega \right)\left(y\right)\varphi \left(xy^1\right)\text{d}\mu _H^{}\left(y\right)\text{.}`$
Since $`\stackrel{~}{M_0^\nu }\left(\omega \right)\phi _k`$ converges to $`\stackrel{~}{M_0^\nu }\left(\omega \right)\varphi `$ in $`L^2(\widehat{G},\stackrel{~}{\nu };E)`$, Eq. (3.5) follows from unicity of the limit. ∎

## 4. Characterisation of covariant POVMs

We fix in the following an *infinite dimensional* Hilbert space $`E`$. According to the results of the previous sections, the generalised imprimitivity theorem for Abelian groups can be stated in the following way.

###### Theorem 4.1.

A POVM $`M`$ based on $`G/H`$ and acting on $``$ is covariant with respect to $`U`$ if and only if there exist a measure $`\nu `$ on $`\widehat{G}/H^{}`$ and an isometry $`W`$ intertwining $`U`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\nu `$ such that

$$M\left(\omega \right)=W^{}\stackrel{~}{M_0^\nu }\left(\omega \right)W$$

for all $`\omega C_c\left(G/H\right)`$.

To get an explicit form of $`W`$, we assume that $`U`$ acts diagonally on $``$. This means that $``$ is the orthogonal sum of invariant subspaces

(4.1)
$$=\underset{kI}{}L^2(\widehat{G},\rho _k;F_k)\text{,}$$

where $`I`$ is a denumerable set, $`\left(\rho _k\right)_{kI}`$ is a family of measures on $`\widehat{G}`$, $`\left(F_k\right)_{kI}`$ is a family of Hilbert spaces, and the action of $`U`$ is given by

$$\left(U\left(g\right)\varphi _k\right)\left(x\right)=x,g\varphi _k\left(x\right)x\widehat{G}\text{,}$$

where $`\varphi _kL^2(\widehat{G},\rho _k;F_k)`$ and $`gG`$. We will denote by $`P_k`$ the orthogonal projector onto the subspace $`L^2(\widehat{G},\rho _k;F_k)`$.

The assumption (4.1) is not restrictive. Indeed, it is well known that there are a family of disjoint measures $`(\rho _k)_{k\{\mathrm{}\}}`$ and a family of Hilbert spaces $`(F_k)_{k\{\mathrm{}\}}`$ such that $`dimF_k=k`$ and, up to a unitary equivalence, Eq. (4.1) holds.

Given the decomposition (4.1), let $`\rho `$ be a measure on $`\widehat{G}`$ such that

(4.2)
$$\rho (N)=0\rho _k(N)=0kI.$$

We recall that the equivalence class of $`\rho `$ is uniquely defined by the family $`(\rho _k)_{kI}`$.

Finally, we observe also that the equivalence class of $`\rho `$ is independent of the choice of decomposition (4.1). Indeed, if $`G`$ acts diagonally on another decomposition

$$=\underset{kI^{}}{}L^2(\widehat{G},\rho _{}^{}{}_{k}{}^{};F_{}^{}{}_{k}{}^{})\text{,}$$

then

$$\rho _k^{}\left(N\right)=0\text{ }kI^{}\rho _k\left(N\right)=0\text{ }kI\text{.}$$

It follows that the representation $`U`$ defines uniquely an equivalence class $`𝒞_U`$ of measures $`\rho `$ such that relation (4.2) holds. Chosen in this equivalence class a *finite* measure $`\rho `$, we denote by $`𝒞_U^\pi `$ the equivalence class of the image measure $`\rho ^\pi `$. Clearly $`𝒞_U^\pi `$ depends only on $`𝒞_U`$.

We now give the central result of this section.

###### Theorem 4.2.

Let $`U`$ be a representation of $`G`$ acting diagonally on

$$=\underset{kI}{}L^2(\widehat{G},\rho _k;F_k).$$

Given $`\nu _U𝒞_U^\pi `$, let $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_U`$ be the measure given by Eq. $`(\text{2.1})`$. The representation $`U`$ admits covariant positive operator valued measures based on $`G/H`$ if and only if, for all $`kI`$, $`\rho _k`$ has density with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_U`$. In this case, for every $`kI`$, let $`\alpha _k`$ be the densities of $`\rho _k`$ with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_U`$.

Let $`E`$ be a fixed infinite dimensional Hilbert space. For each $`kI`$, let

$$\widehat{G}xW_k\left(x\right)(F_k;E)$$

be a weakly measurable map such that $`W_k\left(x\right)`$ are isometries for $`\rho _k`$-almost all $`x\widehat{G}`$. For $`\omega C_c\left(G/H\right)`$, let $`M\left(\omega \right)`$ be the operator given by

(4.3) $`\left(P_jM\left(\omega \right)P_k\varphi \right)\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _H^{}}\text{d}\mu _H^{}\left(y\right)\overline{}_{G/H}\left(\omega \right)\left(y\right)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _k\left(xy^1\right)}{\alpha _j\left(x\right)}}}\times `$
$`\times W_j\left(x\right)^{}W_k\left(xy^1\right)\left(P_k\varphi \right)\left(xy^1\right)x\widehat{G},`$
for all $`\varphi `$ and $`k,jI`$. Then, $`M`$ is a POVM covariant with respect to $`U`$.

Conversely, any POVM based on $`G/H`$ and covariant with respect to $`U`$ is of the form given by Eq. $`(\text{4.3})`$.

We add some comments before the proof of the theorem.

###### Remark 4.3.

We observe that Eq. $`(\text{4.3})`$ is invariant with respect to the choice of the measure $`\nu _U𝒞_U^\pi `$. Indeed, let $`\nu _U^{}𝒞_U^\pi `$, and $`\beta >0`$ be the density of $`\nu _U`$ with respect to $`\nu _U^{}`$. Clearly

$$\stackrel{~}{\nu _U}=\left(\beta \pi \right)\stackrel{~}{\nu _U^{}}\text{,}$$

so that the densities $`\alpha _k^{}`$ of $`\rho _k`$ with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{\nu _U^{}}`$ are

$$\alpha _k^{}=\left(\beta \pi \right)\alpha _k\text{.}$$

It follows that Eq. $`(\text{4.3})`$ does not depend on the choice of $`\nu _U𝒞_U^\pi `$.

###### Corollary 4.4.

Let $`H`$ be the trivial subgroup $`\{e\}`$. The representation $`U`$ admits covariant positive operator valued measures based on $`G`$ if and only if the measures $`\rho _k`$ have density with respect to the Haar measure $`\mu _{\widehat{G}}`$. In this case, the functions $`\alpha _k`$ in Eq. $`(\text{4.3})`$ are the densities of $`\rho _k`$ with respect to $`\mu _{\widehat{G}}`$.

###### Remark 4.5.

The content of the previous corollary was first shown by Holevo in Ref.  for non-normalised POVM. In order to compare the two results observe that, if $`\varphi \left(L^1L^2\right)(\widehat{G},\rho _k;F_k)`$ and $`\psi \left(L^1L^2\right)(\widehat{G},\rho _j;F_j)`$, Eq. $`(\text{4.3})`$ becomes

$`M\left(\omega \right)\varphi ,\psi _{}={\displaystyle _G}\text{d}\mu _G\left(g\right)\omega \left(g\right){\displaystyle _{\widehat{G}\times \widehat{G}}}x,g\overline{y,g}\sqrt{\alpha _k\left(y\right)\alpha _j\left(x\right)}\times `$
$`\times W_j\left(x\right)^{}W_k\left(y\right)\varphi \left(y\right),\psi \left(x\right)\text{d}\left(\mu _{\widehat{G}}\mu _{\widehat{G}}\right)(x,y)`$
$`={\displaystyle _G}\text{d}\mu _G\left(g\right)\omega \left(g\right){\displaystyle _{\widehat{G}\times \widehat{G}}}K_{U\left(g^1\right)\psi ,U\left(g^1\right)\varphi }(x,y)\text{d}\left(\mu _{\widehat{G}}\mu _{\widehat{G}}\right)(x,y)\text{,}`$
where

$$K_{\psi ,\varphi }(x,y)=\sqrt{\alpha _k\left(y\right)\alpha _j\left(x\right)}W_k\left(y\right)\varphi \left(y\right),W_j\left(x\right)\psi \left(x\right)$$

is a bounded positive definite measurable field of forms (compare with Eqs. $`(4.2)`$ and $`(4.3)`$ in Ref. ).

In order to prove Theorem 4.2, we need the following lemma.

###### Lemma 4.6.

Let $`\rho `$ be a finite measure on $`\widehat{G}`$. Assume that there is a measure $`\nu `$ on $`\widehat{G}/H^{}`$ such that $`\rho `$ has density with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$. Then $`\rho `$ has density with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{\rho ^\pi }`$. In this case, $`\nu `$ uniquely decomposes as

$$\nu =\nu _1+\nu _2\text{,}$$

where $`\nu _1`$ is equivalent to $`\rho ^\pi `$ and $`\nu _2\rho ^\pi `$.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`\nu `$ is a measure on $`\widehat{G}/H^{}`$ such that $`\rho =\alpha \stackrel{~}{\nu }`$, where $`\alpha `$ is a non-negative $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$-integrable function on $`\widehat{G}`$. Then, for all $`\phi C_c\left(\widehat{G}/H^{}\right)`$,

$`\rho ^\pi \left(\phi \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\widehat{G}}}\phi \left(\pi \left(x\right)\right)\text{d}\rho \left(\dot{x}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\widehat{G}/H^{}}}\text{d}\nu \left(\dot{x}\right){\displaystyle _H^{}}\phi \left(\dot{x}\right)\alpha \left(xy\right)\text{d}\mu _H^{}\left(y\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\widehat{G}/H^{}}}\phi \left(\dot{x}\right)\alpha ^{}\left(\dot{x}\right)\text{d}\nu \left(\dot{x}\right)\text{,}`$
where the function

$$\alpha ^{}\left(\dot{x}\right):=_H^{}\alpha \left(xy\right)𝑑\mu _H^{}\left(y\right)0$$

is $`\nu `$-integrable by virtue of Fubini theorem. It follows that

(4.4)
$$\rho ^\pi =\alpha ^{}\nu \text{.}$$

Using Lebesgue theorem, we can uniquely decompose

$$\nu =\nu _1+\nu _2\text{,}$$

where $`\nu _1`$ has base $`\rho ^\pi `$ and $`\nu _2\rho ^\pi `$. From Eq. (4.4), it follows that $`\nu _1`$ and $`\rho ^\pi `$ are equivalent, and this proves the second statement of the lemma. If $`A,B\left(\widehat{G}/H^{}\right)`$ are disjoint sets such that $`\nu _2`$ is concentrated in $`A`$ and $`\nu _1`$ is concentrated in $`B`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{\nu _2}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu _1}`$ are respectively concentrated in the disjoint sets $`\stackrel{~}{A}=\pi ^1\left(A\right)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}=\pi ^1\left(B\right)`$. By definition of $`\rho ^\pi `$, we also have

$$\rho \left(\stackrel{~}{A}\right)=\rho ^\pi \left(A\right)=0\text{.}$$

Since $`\rho `$ has density with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }=\stackrel{~}{\nu _1}+\stackrel{~}{\nu _2}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu _2}`$ is concentrated in $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$, it follows that $`\rho `$ has density with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{\nu _1}\stackrel{~}{\rho ^\pi }`$. The claim is now clear. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 4.2.

Let $`\rho `$ be a finite measure in $`𝒞_U`$. By virtue of Theorem 4.1, $`U`$ admits a covariant POVM $``$ there exists a measure $`\nu `$ in $`\widehat{G}/H^{}`$ such that $`U`$ is a subrepresentation of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\nu `$ each measure $`\rho _k`$ has density with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ $``$ $`\rho `$ has density with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$. From Lemma 4.6, $`U`$ admits a covariant POVM if and only if $`\rho `$ has density with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{\rho ^\pi }`$. Since $`\rho ^\pi 𝒞_U^\pi `$, the first claim follows.

Let now $`M`$ be a covariant POVM. By Theorem 4.1, there is a measure $`\nu `$ on $`\widehat{G}/H^{}`$ and an isometry $`W`$ intertwining $`U`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\nu `$ such that

$$M\left(\omega \right)=W^{}\stackrel{~}{M_0^\nu }\left(\omega \right)W\omega C_c\left(G/H\right)\text{.}$$

Using Lemma 4.6, we (uniquely) decompose

$$\nu =\nu _1+\nu _2\text{,}$$

where $`\nu _1`$ is equivalent to $`\nu _U`$ and $`\nu _2\nu _U`$. Then we have

$`\sigma ^\nu `$ $``$ $`\sigma ^{\nu _U}\sigma ^{\nu _2}`$
$``$ $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }^\nu ,\stackrel{~}{M_0^\nu })(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\nu _U},\stackrel{~}{M_0^{\nu _U}})(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\nu _2},\stackrel{~}{M_0^{\nu _2}})\text{,}`$
i.e. the imprimitivity system $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }^\nu ,\stackrel{~}{M_0^\nu })`$ preserves the decomposition

$$L^2(\widehat{G},\stackrel{~}{\nu };E)L^2(\widehat{G},\stackrel{~}{\nu _U};E)L^2(\widehat{G},\stackrel{~}{\nu _2};E)\text{.}$$

Moreover, since each $`\rho _k`$ has density with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{\nu _U}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu _U}`$ is disjoint from $`\stackrel{~}{\nu _2}`$, it follows that $`W\left(\right)L^2(\widehat{G},\stackrel{~}{\nu _U};E)`$, then we can always assume that the measure $`\nu `$ on $`\widehat{G}/H^{}`$ which occurs in Theorem 4.1 is $`\nu _U`$.

We now characherise the form of $`W`$. For $`kI`$, we can always fix an isometry $`T_k:F_kE`$ such that $`T_k\left(F_k\right)`$ are mutually orthogonal subspaces of $`E`$. Hence, if we define, for $`\varphi _kL^2(\widehat{G},\rho _k;F_k)`$,

$$\left(T\varphi _k\right)\left(x\right):=\sqrt{\alpha _k\left(x\right)}T_k\varphi _k\left(x\right)x\widehat{G}\text{,}$$

$`T`$ is an isometry intertwining $`U`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\nu _U}`$. We define $`W_k=WP_k`$. The operator $`V=WT^{}`$ is a partial isometry commuting with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\nu _U}`$, hence there exists a weakly measurable correspondence $`\widehat{G}xV\left(x\right)\left(E\right)`$ such that $`V\left(x\right)`$ are partial isometries for $`\stackrel{~}{\nu _U}`$-almost all $`x\widehat{G}`$ and

$$\left(V\varphi \right)\left(x\right)=V\left(x\right)\varphi \left(x\right)x\widehat{G}\text{,}$$

where $`\varphi L^2(\widehat{G},\stackrel{~}{\nu _U};E)`$. We have $`W=WT^{}T=VT`$, then

(4.5) $`\left(W_k\varphi _k\right)\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\alpha _k\left(x\right)}V\left(x\right)T_k\varphi _k\left(x\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{\alpha _k\left(x\right)}W_k\left(x\right)\varphi _k\left(x\right)x\widehat{G}\text{,}`$
where we set

$$W_k\left(x\right)=V\left(x\right)T_kx\widehat{G}\text{.}$$

Since $`W`$ is isometric, then $`W_k^{}W_k`$ is the identity operator on $`L^2(\widehat{G},\rho _k;F_k)`$, hence

$$T_k^{}V\left(x\right)^{}V\left(x\right)T_k=I_kx\widehat{G}$$

$`\rho _k`$-almost everywhere, where $`I_k`$ is the identity operator on $`F_k`$. Since $`T_k`$ is isometric and $`V\left(x\right)`$ is a partial isometry for $`\stackrel{~}{\nu _U}`$-almost every $`x\widehat{G}`$ (that is for $`\rho _k`$-almost every $`x\widehat{G}`$), it follows that $`V\left(x\right)^{}V\left(x\right)`$ is the identity on $`\mathrm{ran}T_k`$ and that $`W_k\left(x\right)`$ is isometric, for $`\rho _k`$-almost every $`x\widehat{G}`$. Weak measurability of the maps $`xW_k\left(x\right)`$ is immediate.

The explicit form of $`M`$ is then given by

$`\left(P_jM\left(\omega \right)P_k\varphi \right)\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(W_j^{}\stackrel{~}{M_0^\nu }\left(\omega \right)W_k\varphi \right)\left(x\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha _j\left(x\right)}}}W_j\left(x\right)^{}{\displaystyle _H^{}}\overline{}_{G/H}\left(\omega \right)\left(y\right)\times `$
$`\times \sqrt{\alpha _k\left(xy^1\right)}W_k\left(xy^1\right)\left(P_k\varphi \right)\left(xy^1\right)\text{d}\mu _H^{}\left(y\right)x\widehat{G}\text{,}`$
where $`\varphi `$, $`\omega C_c\left(G/H\right)`$.

Conversely, let $`\widehat{G}xW_k\left(x\right)(F_k;E)`$ be a weakly measurable map such that $`W_k\left(x\right)`$ are isometries for $`\rho _k`$-almost every $`x\widehat{G}`$ and for all $`kI`$. We define, for $`\varphi _kL^2(\widehat{G},\rho _k;F_k)`$,

$$\left(W\varphi _k\right)\left(x\right):=\sqrt{\alpha _k\left(x\right)}W_k\left(x\right)\varphi _k\left(x\right)x\widehat{G}\text{,}$$

then $`W`$ is clearly an intertwining isometry between $`U`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\nu _U}`$ and Eq. (4.3) defines a covariant POVM. ∎

We now study the problem of equivalence of covariant POVMs. To simplify the exposition, we assume that the measures $`\rho _k`$ in decomposition (4.1) are orthogonal.

Let $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ be two covariant positive operator valued measures that are equivalent, i.e. there exists an unitary operator $`S:`$ such that

(4.6) $`SU\left(g\right)`$ $`=`$ $`U\left(g\right)SgG\text{,}`$
(4.7) $`SM\left(\omega \right)`$ $`=`$ $`M^{}\left(\omega \right)S\omega C_c(G/H)\text{.}`$
We have the following result.

###### Proposition 4.7.

Let $`\left(W_j\right)_{jI}`$ and $`\left(W_j^{}\right)_{jI}`$ be families of maps such that Eq. $`(\text{4.3})`$ holds for $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$, respectively.

The POVMs $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ are equivalent if and only if, for each $`kI`$, there exists a weakly measurable map $`xS_k\left(x\right)\left(F_k\right)`$ such that $`S_k\left(x\right)`$ are unitary operators for $`\rho _k`$-almost all $`x`$ and

(4.8)
$$\sqrt{\alpha _k\left(xy\right)}W_j\left(x\right)^{}W_k\left(xy\right)=\sqrt{\alpha _k\left(xy\right)}S_j\left(x\right)^{}W_j^{}\left(x\right)^{}W_k^{}\left(xy\right)S_k\left(xy\right)$$

for $`\left(\rho _j\mu _H^{}\right)`$-almost all $`(x,y)`$.

###### Proof.

By virtue of condition (4.6) and orthogonality of the measures $`\rho _k`$, $`S`$ preserves decomposition (4.1). Moreover, for each $`kI`$, there exists a weakly measurable map $`xS_k\left(x\right)\left(F_k\right)`$ such that $`S_k\left(x\right)`$ is unitary for $`\rho _k`$-almost all $`x`$ and, if $`\varphi _kL^2(\widehat{G},\rho _k;F_k)`$,

$$\left(S\varphi _k\right)\left(x\right)=S_k\left(x\right)\varphi _k\left(x\right)x\widehat{G}\text{.}$$

Condition (4.7) is equivalent to

$$P_jM\left(\omega \right)P_k\varphi =P_jS^{}M^{}\left(\omega \right)SP_k\varphi $$

for all $`\varphi `$, $`\omega C_c\left(G/H\right)`$ and $`j,kI`$. It is not restrictive to assume that the densities $`\alpha _k`$ are measurable functions. Let

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,k}(x,x^{})=\sqrt{\frac{\alpha _k\left(x^{}\right)}{\alpha _j\left(x\right)}}\left(W_j\left(x\right)^{}W_k\left(x^{}\right)S_j\left(x\right)^{}W_j^{}\left(x\right)^{}W_k^{}\left(x^{}\right)S_k\left(x^{}\right)\right),$$

using Eq. (4.3), the previous condition becomes

(4.9)
$$_H^{}_{G/H}\left(\omega \right)\left(y\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,k}(x,xy^1)\left(P_k\varphi \right)\left(xy^1\right)\text{d}\mu _H^{}\left(y\right)=0$$

$`\rho _j`$-almost everywhere for all $`\varphi `$, $`\omega C_c\left(G/H\right)`$ and $`j,kI`$.

Let $`K`$ be a compact set of $`\widehat{G}`$ and $`vF_k`$. In Eq. (4.9) we choose

$$\varphi =\chi _KvL^2(\widehat{G},\rho _k;F_k)$$

and $`\omega C_c\left(G/H\right)`$ running over a denumerable subset dense in $`L^2(G/H,\mu _H^{})`$. It follows that there exists a $`\rho _j`$-null set $`N\widehat{G}`$ such that, for all $`xN`$,

$$\chi _K\left(xy^1\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,k}(x,xy^1)v=0$$

for $`\mu _H^{}`$-almost all $`yH^{}`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,k}`$ is weakly measurable, the last equation holds in a measurable subset $`Y\widehat{G}\times H^{}`$ whose complement is a $`\left(\rho _j\mu _H^{}\right)`$-null set. Define

$$m(x,y)=xy^1(x,y)\widehat{G}\times H^{}\text{.}$$

For all $`(x,y)Ym^1\left(K\right)`$ we then have

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,k}(x,xy^1)v=0\text{.}$$

Since $`F_k`$ is separable and $`\widehat{G}`$ is $`\sigma `$-compact, we get

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,k}(x,xy)=0$$

for $`\left(\rho _j\mu _H^{}\right)`$-almost all $`(x,y)\widehat{G}\times H^{}`$, that is,

$$\sqrt{\alpha _k\left(xy\right)}W_j\left(x\right)^{}W_k\left(xy\right)=\sqrt{\alpha _k\left(xy\right)}S_j\left(x\right)^{}W_j^{}\left(x\right)^{}W_k^{}\left(xy\right)S_k\left(xy\right)$$

for $`\left(\rho _j\mu _H^{}\right)`$-almost all $`(x,y)`$.

Conversely, if condition (4.8) is satisfied for all $`j,kI`$, then clearly $`M`$ is equivalent to $`M^{}`$. ∎

## 5. Examples

### 5.1. Generalised covariant position observables

Let $`=L^2(,\text{d}x)`$, where d$`x`$ is the Lebesgue measure on $``$. We consider the representation $`U`$ of the group $``$ acting on $``$ as

$$\left(U(a)\varphi \right)\left(x\right)=e^{iax}\varphi \left(x\right)x$$

for all $`a`$. By means of Fourier transform, $`U`$ is clearly equivalent to the regular representation of $``$. We classify the POVMs based on $``$ and covariant with respect to $`U`$. With the notations of the previous sections, we have

$$G=\text{}H=\left\{0\right\}\text{}G/H=\text{}\widehat{G}=H^{}=\text{}\widehat{G}/H^{}=\left\{0\right\}\text{.}$$

We choose $`\mu _{G/H}=\frac{1}{2\pi }`$d$`x`$, so that $`\mu _H^{}=`$ d$`x`$, and $`E=`$.

The representation $`U`$ is already diagonal with multiplicity equal to $`1`$, so that in the decomposition (4.1) we can set $`I=\left\{1\right\}`$, $`\rho _1=`$ d$`x`$, $`F_1=`$. Hence, by Corollary 4.4, $`U`$ admits covariant POVMs based on $``$ and $`\alpha _1=1`$.

According to Theorem 4.2, any covariant POVM $`M`$ is defined in terms of a weakly measurable map $`xW_1\left(x\right)`$ such that $`W_1\left(x\right):`$ is an isometry for every $`x`$. This is equivalent to selecting a weakly measurable map $`xh_x`$, with $`h_x_{}=1`$ $`x`$, such that $`W_1\left(x\right)=h_x`$ $`x`$. Explicitly, if $`\varphi L^2(,\text{d}x)`$,

$`\left(M\left(\omega \right)\varphi \right)\left(y\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{}}\overline{}_{}\left(\omega \right)\left(x\right)h_{yx},h_y\varphi \left(yx\right)\text{d}x`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{}}\overline{}_{}\left(\omega \right)\left(yx\right)h_x,h_y\varphi \left(x\right)\text{d}x`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{}}\left({\displaystyle _{}}e^{i\left(yx\right)z}\omega \left(z\right)h_x,h_y\varphi \left(x\right){\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}z}{2\pi }}\right)\text{d}xy.`$
### 5.2. Generalised covariant phase observables

We give a complete characterisation of the covariance systems based on the one-dimensional torus

$$𝕋=\{z\left|z\right|=1\}=\{e^{i\theta }\theta [0,2\pi ]\}\text{.}$$

We have

$$G=𝕋\text{}H=\left\{1\right\}\text{}G/H=𝕋\text{,}$$

$$\widehat{G}=H^{}=\{\left(𝕋zz^n\right)n\}\text{,}$$

$$\widehat{G}/H^{}=\left\{1\right\}\text{.}$$

We choose $`\mu _{G/H}=\frac{1}{2\pi }d\theta =:\mu _𝕋`$, so that $`\mu _H^{}`$ is the counting measure $`\mu _{}`$ on $``$.

Let $`U`$ be a representation of $`𝕋`$. Since $`𝕋`$ is compact, we can always assume that $`U`$ acts diagonally on

$$=\underset{kI}{}F_k\text{,}$$

where $`I`$, and $`F_k`$ are Hilbert spaces such that $`dimF_k`$ is the multiplicity of the representation $`k`$ in $`U`$. Explicitly,

$$\left(U\left(z\right)\varphi _k\right)=z^k\varphi _k$$

for all $`z𝕋`$ and $`\varphi _kF_k`$.

In order to use Eq. (4.1), we notice that $`F_k=L^2(,\delta _k;F_k)`$ (where $`\delta _k`$ is the Dirac measure at $`k`$), so that $`\rho _k=\delta _k`$, . By Corollary 4.4, one has that $`U`$ admits covariant POVMs based on $`𝕋`$ and that $`\alpha _k(j)=\delta _{k,j}`$ (where $`\delta _{k,j}`$ is the Kronecker delta).

Choose an infinite dimensional Hilbert space $`E`$ and, for each $`kI`$, fix an isometry $`W_k`$ from $`F_k`$ to $`E`$. The corresponding covariance system is given by

$`P_jM\left(\omega \right)P_k\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\overline{}_𝕋\left(\omega \right)\left(jk\right)W_j^{}W_kP_k\varphi `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}\omega (e^{i\theta })e^{i(jk)\theta }W_j^{}W_kP_k\varphi \text{d}\theta \text{,}`$
where $`\varphi `$ and $`\omega 𝒞(𝕋)`$.

If $`I=`$ and $`dimF_k=1`$ $`k`$, $`U`$ is the number representation and $`M`$ represents the phase observable (compare with the result obtained in Ref. ).

### 5.3. Covariant phase difference observables

Let $`\mu _𝕋`$ as in the previous section. We consider the following representation $`U`$ of the direct product $`G=𝕋\times 𝕋`$ acting on the space $`=L^2(𝕋\times 𝕋,\mu _𝕋\mu _𝕋)`$ as

$$\left(U(a,b)f\right)(z_1,z_2)=f(az_1,b^1z_2)(z_1,z_2)𝕋\times 𝕋$$

for all $`(a,b)𝕋\times 𝕋`$.

Let $`H`$ be the closed subgroup

$$H=\{(a,b)𝕋\times 𝕋b=a\}𝕋.$$

We classify all the POVMs based on $`G/H`$ and covariant with respect to $`U`$ (for a different approach to the same problem, see Ref. ).

We have

$$G=𝕋\times 𝕋\text{,}G/H𝕋\text{}\widehat{G}=\widehat{𝕋}\times \widehat{𝕋}\times \text{,}$$

$$H^{}=\{(j,k)\times k=j\}\text{,}$$

$$\widehat{G}/H^{}\text{.}$$

We fix $`\mu _{G/H}=\mu _𝕋`$, so that $`\mu _H^{}=\mu _{}`$.

We choose the following orthonormal basis $`\left(e_{i,j}\right)_{i,j}`$ of $``$

$$e_{i,j}(z_1,z_2)=z_1^iz_2^j(z_1,z_2)𝕋\times 𝕋\text{,}$$

so that

$$U(a,b)e_{i,j}=a^ib^je_{i,j}(a,b)𝕋\times 𝕋\text{.}$$

Let $`F_{i,j}=e_{i,j}`$, then $`U`$ acts diagonally on $`F_{i,j}`$ as the character $`(i,j)\times `$. Then, one can choose as decomposition (4.1)

$$=\underset{i,j}{}F_{i,j}\underset{i,j}{}L^2(\times ,\delta _i\delta _j;F_{i,j})$$

With the notations of Section 4, we have $`I=\times `$ and $`\rho _{i,j}=\delta _i\delta _j`$. It follows that $`𝒞_U^\pi `$ is the equivalence class of $`\mu _{}`$. With the choice $`\nu _U=\mu _{}`$, it follows that $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }=\mu _{}\mu _{}`$. According to Theorem (4.2), $`U`$ admits covariant POVMs and $`\alpha _{i,j}(n,m)=\delta _{n,i}\delta _{m,j}`$.

With the choice $`E=`$, we select a map $`(i,j)W_{i,j}`$, where $`W_{i,j}`$ is an isometry from $`F_{i,j}`$ to $``$. Since $`F_{i,j}`$ are one dimensional, there exists a family of vectors $`\left(h_{i,j}\right)_{i,j}`$ in $``$, with $`h_{i,j}_{}=1`$ $`(i,j)\times `$, such that

$$W_{i,j}e_{i,j}=h_{i,j}(i,j)\times \text{.}$$

The corresponding covariant POVM $`M`$ is given, for every $`\varphi `$, by

$`P_{l,m}M\left(\omega \right)P_{i,j}\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{h}{}}_𝕋\left(\omega \right)\left(h\right)\delta _{lh,i}\delta _{m+h,j}h_{i,j},h_{l,m}\varphi ,e_{i,j}e_{l,m}`$
$`=`$ $`\delta _{l+m,i+j}_𝕋\left(\omega \right)\left(jm\right)h_{i,j},h_{l,m}\varphi ,e_{i,j}e_{l,m}\text{.}`$
In particular, if $`l+m=i+j`$, we have

$`M\left(\omega \right)e_{i,j},e_{l,m}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{}_𝕋(\omega )(jm)h_{i,j},h_{l,m}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}\omega (e^{i\theta })e^{i(jm)\theta }h_{i,j},h_{l,m}\text{d}\theta .`$
If $`l+mi+j`$, one has

$$M\left(\omega \right)e_{i,j},e_{l,m}=0\text{.}$$


format: text

text:
# Decoupling of Tensor factors in Cross Product and Braided Tensor Product Algebras11footnote 1Contribution to the Proceedings of the “International Colloquium on Group Theoretical Methods in Physics” (Group24), Paris, July 2002.

## 1 Decoupling of tensor factors in cross product algebras

Let $`H`$ be a Hopf algebra over $`𝐂`$, say, $`𝒜`$ a unital (right, say) $`H`$-module algebra. We denote by $``$ the right action, namely the bilinear map such that, for any $`a,a^{}𝒜`$ and $`g,g^{}H`$

$$\begin{array}{c}:(a,g)𝒜\times Hag𝒜,\\ a(gg^{})=(ag)g^{},(aa^{})g=(ag_{(1)})(a^{}g_{(2)}).\end{array}$$
(1)
We have used the Sweedler-type notation $`\mathrm{\Delta }(g)=g_{(1)}\mathbf{}g_{(2)}`$ for the coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The cross-product algebra $`𝒜>H`$ is $`H𝒜`$ as a vector space, and so we denote as usual $`ga`$ simply by $`ga`$; $`H\mathrm{𝟏}_𝒜`$, $`\mathrm{𝟏}_H𝒜`$ are subalgebras isomorphich to $`H,𝒜`$, and so we omit to write either unit $`\mathrm{𝟏}_𝒜,\mathrm{𝟏}_H`$ whenever multiplied by non-unit elements; for any $`a𝒜`$, $`gH`$ the product fulfills

$$ag=g_{(1)}(ag_{(2)}).$$
(2)
$`𝒜>H`$ is a $`H`$-module algebra itself, if we extend $``$ on $`H`$ as the adjoint action: $`hg=Sg_{(1)}hg_{(2)}`$. If $`H`$ is a Hopf $``$-algebra, $`𝒜`$ a $`H`$-module $``$-algebra, then, as known, these two $``$-structures can be glued in a unique one to make $`𝒜>H`$ a $``$-algebra itself.

###### Theorem 1

 Let $`H`$ be a Hopf algebra, $`𝒜`$ a right $`H`$-module algebra. If there exists a ”realization” $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ of $`𝒜>H`$ within $`𝒜`$ acting as the identity on $`𝒜`$, i.e. an algebra map

$$\stackrel{~}{\phi }:𝒜>H𝒜,\stackrel{~}{\phi }(a)=a,$$
(3)
then $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }(g):=g_{(1)}\stackrel{~}{\phi }(Sg_{(2)})`$ defines an injective algebra map $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }:H𝒜>H`$ such that

$$[\stackrel{~}{\zeta }(g),𝒜]=0$$
(4)
for any $`gH`$. Moreover $`𝒜>H=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }(H)𝒜`$. Consequently, the center of the cross-product algebra $`𝒜>H`$ is given by $`𝒵(𝒜>H)=𝒵(𝒜)\stackrel{~}{\zeta }\left(𝒵(H)\right)`$, and if $`H_c,𝒜_c`$ are Cartan subalgebras of $`H`$ and $`𝒜`$ respectively, then $`𝒜_c\stackrel{~}{\zeta }(H_c)`$ is a Cartan subalgebra of $`𝒜>H`$. Finally, if $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }:𝒜>H𝒜`$ is a $``$-algebra map, then also $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }:H\stackrel{~}{𝒞}`$ is.

The equality $`𝒜>H=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }(H)𝒜`$ means that $`𝒜>H`$ is equal to a product $`𝒜H^{}`$, where $`H^{}\stackrel{~}{\zeta }(H)𝒜>H`$ is a subalgebra isomorphic to $`H`$ and commuting with $`𝒜`$, i.e. $`𝒜>H`$ is isomorphic to the ordinary tensor product algebra $`H𝒜`$. In other words, if $`\{a_I\},\{g_J\}`$ are resp. sets of generators of $`𝒜,H`$, then $`\{a_I\}\{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }(g_J)\}`$ is a more manageable set of generators of $`𝒜>H`$ than $`\{a_I\}\{g_J\}`$. The other statements allow to determine Casimirs and complete sets of commuting observables, key ingredients to develop representation theory.

Well-known examples of maps (3) are the “vector field” or the “Jordan-Schwinger” realizations of the UEA $`U\text{}`$’s (g  being a Lie algebra), where $`𝒜`$ is resp. the Heisenberg algebra on a g -covariant space or a g -covariant Clifford algebra. In the case of e.g. the Heisenberg algebra on the Euclidean space $`𝐑^3`$, the well-known realization of the three generators $`J^{ij}`$, ($`ij`$) of $`\text{}=so(3)`$ as “vector fields” (namely homogeneous first order differential operators)

$$\stackrel{~}{\phi }(J^{jk}):=x^jp^kx^kp^j$$

gives nothing but the orbital angular momentum operator in 1-particle quantum mechanics ($`x_i,p^ii^i`$ denote the position and momentum components respectively). Then

$$\stackrel{~}{\zeta }(J^{jk})=J^{jk}\stackrel{~}{\phi }(J^{jk})=J^{jk}(x^jp^kx^kp^j).$$

gives the difference between the total and the orbital angular momentum, i.e. the “intrinsic” angular momentum (or “spin”), which indeed commutes with the $`x^i,p^i`$’s. Maps $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ have been determined  also for a number of $`U_q\text{g}`$ -covariant, i.e. quantum group covariant, deformed Heisenberg (or Clifford) algebras. So the theorem is immediately applicable to them.

No map $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ can exist if we take as $`𝒜`$ just the space on which the Heisenberg algebra is built (in the previous example $`𝐑^3`$), since one cannot realize the non abelian algebra $`𝒜>H`$ in terms of the abelian $`𝒜`$. Surprisingly, a map $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ may exist if we deform the algebras. For instance, in Ref.  a map $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ realizing $`U_qso(3)`$ has been determined for $`𝒜`$ the $`q`$-deformed fuzzy sphere $`\widehat{S}_{q,M}^2`$. To treat other examples we generalize the previous results by weakening our assumptions. Namely, we require at least that $`H`$ admits a Gauss decomposition

$$H=H^+H^{}=H^{}H^+$$

into two Hopf subalgebras $`H^+,H^{}`$ for each of which analogous maps $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }^+,\stackrel{~}{\phi }^{}`$ (3) coinciding on $`H^+H^{}`$ exist. Then Theorem 1 will apply separately to $`𝒜>H^+`$ and $`𝒜>H^{}`$. What about the whole $`H<𝒜`$?

###### Theorem 2

 Under the above assumptions setting $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^\pm (g^\pm ):=g_{(1)}^\pm \stackrel{~}{\phi }^\pm (Sg_{(2)}^\pm )`$ (where $`g^\pm H^\pm `$ respectively) defines injective algebra maps $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^\pm :H^\pm 𝒜>H^\pm `$ such that $`[\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^\pm (g^\pm ),𝒜]=0`$ for any $`g^\pm H^\pm `$. Moreover

$$𝒜>H=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^+(H^+)\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^{}(H^{})𝒜=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^{}(H^{})\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^+(H^+)𝒜.$$
(5)
Any $`c𝒵(𝒜>H)`$ can be expressed in the form

$$c=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^+\left(c^{(1)}\right)\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^{}\left(c^{(2)}\right)c^{(3)},$$
(6)
where $`c^{(1)}c^{(2)}c^{(3)}H^+H^{}𝒵(𝒜)`$ and $`c^{(1)}c^{(2)}c^{(3)}𝒵(H)𝒵(𝒜)`$; conversely any such $`c`$ $`𝒵(𝒜>H)`$. If $`H_cH^+H^{}`$ and $`𝒜_c`$ are Cartan subalgebras resp. of $`H`$ and $`𝒜`$, then $`𝒜_c\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^+(H_c)`$ \[$`𝒜_c\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^{}(H_c)`$\] is a Cartan subalgebra of $`𝒜>H`$.

If $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }^\pm `$ are $``$-algebra map, then also $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^\pm :H^\pm \stackrel{~}{𝒞}`$ are. If $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }^\pm \left((\alpha ^{})^{}\right)=[\stackrel{~}{\phi }^{}(\alpha ^{})]^{}`$ $`\alpha ^{}𝒜>H^{}`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^\pm (g^{}{}_{}{}^{})=[\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^{}(g^{})]^{}`$, with $`g^{}H^{}`$.

As a consequence of this theorem, $`g^+H^+`$, $`g^{}H^{}`$ $`c^{(1)}c^{(2)}c^{(3)}𝒵(𝒜)H^{}H^+`$ (depending on $`g^+,g^{}`$) such that

$$\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^+(g^+)\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^{}(g^{})=c^{(1)}\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^{}(c^{(2)})\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^+(c^{(3)}).$$
(7)
These will be the ”commutation relations” between elements of $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^+(H^+)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^{}(H^{})`$. Their form will depend on the specific algebras considered.

As an application we consider now the pair $`(H,𝒜)`$ with $`H=U_qso(3)`$ and $`𝒜=𝐑_q^3`$, the (algebra of functions on) the 3-dim quantum Euclidean space, whose generators we denote resp. by $`E^+,E^{},K,K^1`$ and $`p^+,p^0,p^{}`$. In our present conventions

$`p^0p^\pm =q^{\pm 1}p^\pm p^0[p^+,p^{}]=(1q^1)p^0p^0`$ (8)
$`KE^\pm =q^{\pm 1}E^\pm K[E^+,E^{}]_{q^1}={\displaystyle \frac{K^21}{q^21}}`$ (9)
$`\begin{array}{ccc}Kp^0=p^0K,\hfill & Kp^\pm =q^1p^\pm K\hfill & [p^0,E^\pm ]=p^{}\hfill \\ p^\pm E^{}=q^{\pm 1}E^{}p^\pm \hfill & [p^+,E^+]_q=p^0\hfill & [p^{},E^{}]_{q^1}=q^1p^0\hfill \end{array}`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(K)=KK\mathrm{\Delta }(E^\pm )=E^\pm K+\mathrm{𝟏}E^\pm `$ (13)
$`(p^0)^{}=p^0,(p^{})^{}=p^+,K^{}=K,(E^+)^{}=E^{},`$ (14)
where $`[a,b]_w:=abwba`$. The first three relations give the algebra structure of $`𝐑_q^3>U_qso(3)`$ (this underlies the quantum group of inhomogenous transformations of $`𝐑_q^3`$), (13) together with $`\epsilon (E^\pm )=0`$, $`\epsilon (K)=1`$ the coalgebra of $`H`$, (14) the $``$-structure corresponding to compact $`H`$ and “real” $`𝐑_q^3`$ (this requires $`q𝐑`$). The element $`P^2:=qp^+p^{}+p^0p^0+p^{}p^+`$ is central, positive definite under this $``$-structure and real under the other one (that requires $`|q|=1`$). We enlarge the algebra by introducing also the square root and the inverse $`P,P^1`$. Setting $`P=1`$ we obtain the quantum Euclidean sphere $`S_q^2`$, and $`S_q^2>U_qso(3)`$ can be interpreted as the algebra of observables of a quantum particle on $`S_q^2`$. The maps $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }^+,\stackrel{~}{\phi }^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^+,\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^{}`$, the algebra relations among the new generators $`e^+:=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^+(E^+)`$, $`e^{}:=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^{}(E^{})`$, $`k:=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^+(K)=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^{}(K)`$, and the additional central element $`c`$ of the form (6) are given by

$`\stackrel{~}{\phi }^\pm (K)=\eta {\displaystyle \frac{P}{p_0}}\stackrel{~}{\phi }^+(E^+)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(q1)p^0}}p^{}\stackrel{~}{\phi }^{}(E^{})={\displaystyle \frac{q}{(q1)p^0}}p^+`$ (15)
$`k=K{\displaystyle \frac{\eta p_0}{P}}e^+={\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{P}}\left[E^+p^0+{\displaystyle \frac{qp^{}}{1q}}\right]e^{}={\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{P}}\left[E^{}p^0+{\displaystyle \frac{p^+}{1q}}\right]`$ (16)
$`ke^\pm =q^{\pm 1}e^\pm k[e^+,e^{}]_{q^1}={\displaystyle \frac{k^2+\eta ^2}{q^21}}c={\displaystyle \frac{e^+e^{}k^1}{1+q}}+{\displaystyle \frac{kqk^1}{(1q^2)^2}}.`$ (17)
Here $`\eta 𝐂`$, $`\eta 0`$. (17) translates (7), and differs from (9)3 by the presence at the rhs of the “central charge” $`(\eta ^2+1)/(q^21)`$. Only for $`\eta ^2=1`$ can the maps $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }^+,\stackrel{~}{\phi }^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^+,\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^{}`$ be glued into maps $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }`$ respectively; then the latter will be $``$-maps under the non-compact $``$-structure where $`|q|=1`$, but not under (14). In order this to happen we need to take $`\eta 𝐑`$. The $``$-representations of the $`e^+,e^{},k`$ subalgebra for real $`q`$ differ from the ones of $`U_qsu(2)`$ in that they are lowest-weight but not highest-weight representations, or viceversa .

In Ref.  we give maps $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }^\pm `$ for the cross products $`𝐑_q^N>U_qso(N)`$ for all $`N3`$.

## 2 Decoupling of braided tensor products

As known, if $`H`$ is a noncocommutative Hopf algebra (e.g. a quantum group $`U_q\text{g}`$ ) and $`𝒜_1,𝒜_2`$ are two (unital) $`H`$-module algebras the tensor product algebra $`𝒜_1\mathbf{}𝒜_2`$ will not be in general a $`H`$-module algebra. If $`H`$ is quasitriangular a $`H`$-module algebra can be obtained as the braided tensor product algebra $`𝒜^+:=𝒜_1\underset{¯}{}^+𝒜_2`$, which is defined as follows: the vector space underlying the latter is still the tensor product of the vector spaces underlying $`𝒜_1,𝒜_2`$, and so we shall denote as usual $`a_1a_2`$ simply by $`a_1a_2`$; $`𝒜_1\mathrm{𝟏}_{𝒜_2}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{𝒜_1}𝒜_2`$ are still subalgebras isomorphich to $`𝒜_1,𝒜_2`$, and so one can omit to write the units, whenever they are mutiplied by non-unit elements; but the “commutation relation” between $`a_1𝒜_1,a_2𝒜_2`$ are modified:

$$a_2a_1=(a_1^{(1)})(a_2^{(2)}).$$
(18)
Here $`^{(1)}^{(2)}H^+H^{}`$ (again a summation symbol at the rhs has been suppressed) denotes the so-called universal $`R`$-matrix or quasitriangular structure of $`H`$ , and as before $`H^\pm `$ denote some positive and negative Borel Hopf subalgebras of $`H`$. If $`H=U_q\text{g}\text{ }`$, then in the limit $`q1`$ $`H`$ becomes the cocommutative Hopf algebra $`U\text{}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}`$. As a consequence $`a_2a_1a_1a_2`$ and thus $`𝒜^+`$ goes to the ordinary tensor product algebra. An alternative braided tensor product $`𝒜^{}=𝒜_1\underset{¯}{}^{}𝒜_2`$. can be obtained by replacing in (18) $``$ by $`_{21}^1`$. This is equivalent to exchanging $`𝒜_1`$ with $`𝒜_2`$.

$`𝒜^+`$ (as well as $`𝒜^{}`$) is a $``$-algebra if $`H`$ is a Hopf $``$-algebra, $`𝒜_1`$, $`𝒜_2`$ are $`H`$-module $``$-algebras (we use the same symbol $``$ for the $``$-structure on all algebras $`H,𝒜_1`$, etc.), and $`^{}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}=^1`$. In the quantum group case this requires $`|q|=1`$. Under the same assumptions also $`𝒜_1>H`$ is a $``$-algebra.

If $`𝒜_1,𝒜_2`$ represent the algebras of observables of different two quantum systems, (18) will mean that in the composite system their degrees of freedom are ”coupled” to each other. But again one can “decouple” them by a transformation of generators if there exists an algebra map $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_1^+`$, or an algebra map $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_1^{}`$:

###### Theorem 3

. Let $`\{H,\}`$ be a quasitriangular Hopf algebra and $`H^+,H^{}`$ be Hopf subalgebras of $`H`$ such that $`H^+H^{}`$. Let $`𝒜_1,𝒜_2`$ be respectively a $`H^+`$\- and a $`H^{}`$-module algebra, so that we can define $`𝒜^+`$ as in (18), and $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_1^+`$ be a map of the type (3), so that we can define the “unbraiding” map $`\chi ^+:𝒜_2𝒜^+`$ by

$$\chi ^+(a_2):=\stackrel{~}{\phi }_1^+(^{(1)})(a_2^{(2)}).$$
(19)
Then $`\chi ^+`$ is an injective algebra map such that

$$[\chi ^+(a_2),𝒜_1]=0,$$
(20)
namely the subalgebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_2^+:=\chi ^+(𝒜_2)𝒜_2`$ commutes with $`𝒜_1`$. Moreover $`𝒜^+=𝒜_1\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_2^+`$. Finally, if $`^{}=^1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_1^+`$ is a $``$-algebra map then $`\chi ^+`$ is, and $`𝒜_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_2^+`$ are closed under $``$.

By replacing everywhere $``$ by $`_{21}^1`$ we obtain an analogous statement valid for $`𝒜^{},\chi ^{}`$.

Of course, we can use the above theorem iteratively to completely decoupe the braided tensor product algebra of an arbitrary number $`M`$ of copies of $`𝒜_1`$. One can also combine the two methods illustrated here to decouple the tensor factors in ‘mixed’ tensor products such as

$$(𝒜_1>H)\underset{¯}{}^\pm 𝒜_2,𝒜_1\underset{¯}{}^\pm (𝒜_2>H),(𝒜_1\underset{¯}{}^\pm 𝒜_2)>H.$$
(21)


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

We call a fractional equation (FE) a differential equation that contains fractional derivatives or integrals. The awareness of the importance of this type of equation has grown continually in the last decade. Numerous applications have become apparent: wave propagation in a complex or porous media -; random walks with a memory and flights -; kinetic theories of systems with chaotic - and pseudochaotic  dynamics; and others (see  and collections of papers in ). This new type of problem has increased rapidly in areas in which the fractal features of a process or the medium impose the necessity of using non-traditional tools in “regular” smooth physical equations. Exploitation of the fractional calculus for FE provides not only new types of mathematical constructions, but also new physical features of the described phenomenon ,. While the linear FE has attracted fairly broad research activity, the study of nonlinear FE is at its very beginning -.

This paper consists of two parts on the FE properties. The first part is related to a linear FE (LFE) with the second (diffusional) derivative and the fractional derivative of order $`\alpha `$. A goal of this part is to present a solution to the FE and compare roles of different parts of the FE. The second part is related to a nonlinear FE (NLFE) with cubic nonlinearity. We discuss some features of these equations, and possible applications. For a broad discussion of the fractal features of different media where waves propagate, see the elegant review ). In particular, a turbulent media of this type may be considered. We will show that such media lead to NLFEs in a natural way after simple change of the dispersion law.

## 2 The interaction of normalized and anomalous transport

The interest in and relevance of kinetic equations with fractional derivatives is a natural consequence of the realization of the importance of non-Gaussian properties of the statistics of many dynamical systems. There is already a substantial literature studying such equations in one or more space dimensions. In many cases of physical interest it would be reasonable to assume that both Gaussian and anomalous processes would play a role. One typically associates anomalous processes with algebraically decreasing tails of a probability distribution function (PDF), while the bulk of the PDF is expected to be mostly Gaussian in chracter. In this note we explore the interaction of Gaussian and anomalous dynamics by means of a simple model kinetic equation in one space dimension for the PDF. More space dimensions would greatly complicate the analysis, but could readily be carried out.

We consider the kinetic equation with fractional derivatives

$$\frac{P(x,t)}{t^{}}=\frac{^2P}{x^2}+ϵ\frac{^\alpha P}{|x^{}|^\alpha },1<\alpha <2$$
(1)
where $`ϵ`$ is a constant, presumed small, but not necessarily so. The Riesz derivatives $`{\displaystyle \frac{^\alpha P}{|x^{}|^\alpha }}`$ is easily defined for our purposes in Fourier transformed space, so that the Fourier transform of $`{\displaystyle \frac{^\alpha P}{|x^{}|^\alpha }}`$ is $`|k|^\alpha \stackrel{~}{P}(k,t)`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{P}(k,t)`$ is the Fourier transform of $`P(x^{},t)`$. We have not taken a fractional derivative with respect to time. We could do so, but this would be yet another complication in the analysis. We see that the Fourier transform of the right hand side of (1) is $`(k^2+ϵ|k|^\alpha )\stackrel{~}{P}(,t)`$. Thus, for large wavenumber and short wavelength the system exhibits normal, Gaussian transport, while for small wavenumber and large wavelength, the system is anomalous. The two phenomena are equal for wavenumber $`k_T`$

$$k_T=ϵ^{\frac{1}{2\alpha }}.$$
(2)
Thus (1) provides a simple model which mixes both normal and anomalous transport.

It is convenient to change the independent variables from $`x^{},t^{}`$ to $`x,t`$ with the definitions

$$x=ϵ^{\frac{1}{2\alpha }}x^{}$$
(3)
$$t=ϵ^{\frac{2}{2\alpha }}t^{}$$
(4)
so that

$$\frac{P(x,t)}{t}=\frac{^2P}{x^2}+\frac{^\alpha P}{|x|^\alpha }.$$
(5)
The coordinate $`(x^{},t^{})`$ are scaled to the Gaussian transport scale, while $`(x,t)`$ are of a scale in which Gaussian and anomalous transport are comparable. We may easily represent a solution of (5) which also satisfies

$$P(x,0)=\delta (x)$$
(6)
and as a consequence

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}P(x,t)𝑑x=1,$$
(7)
as a Fourier integral:

$$P(x,t)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k\mathrm{exp}[t(k^2+|k|^\alpha )ikx].$$
(8)
We compare (8) with the solution of the equation with only anomalous transport

$$\frac{Q(x,t)}{t}=\frac{^\alpha Q(x,t)}{|x|^\alpha },$$
(9)
where $`Q`$ also satisfies (6) and (7), so that

$$Q(x,t)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k\mathrm{exp}(t|k|^\alpha ikx).$$
(10)
The properties of $`Q(x,t)`$ have been well-explored in the literature. We need such results for comparison with the properties of $`P(x,t)`$.

We develop numerous series expansions of (8) and (10), some convergent and some asymptotic. When we know the behavior of $`P(x,t)`$ and $`Q(x,t)`$ for $`|x|`$ large, we shall also evaluate one spatial moment of $`P(x,t)`$ and $`Q(x,t)`$. With this information in hand we can then provide a description of the interaction of normal and anomalous transport. We start with (8), which we rewrite as

$$P(x,t)=\frac{\mathrm{Re}}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k\mathrm{exp}[t(k^2+k^\alpha )ikx]$$
(11)
We observe that

$$e^{tk^\alpha }=\underset{n0}{\overset{N}{}}(1)^nt^n\frac{k^{\alpha n}}{n!}+R_{N+1}(k,t),$$
(12)
where

$$|R_{N+1}(k,t)|t^{N+1}\frac{k^{\alpha (N+1)}}{(N+1)!}.$$
(13)
Since

$$\left|_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k\mathrm{exp}(tk^2ikx)\right|\frac{t^{(N+1)}}{(N+1)!}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kk^{\alpha (N+1)}e^{tk^2}$$

it is easy to conclude that the integral of the error tends to zero uniformly for all $`x`$ and $`0<\eta tT`$ as $`N\mathrm{}`$, so that

$$P(x,t)=\frac{\mathrm{Re}}{\pi }\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^n\frac{t^n}{n!}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kk^{\alpha n}\mathrm{exp}(tk^2ikx),$$
(14)
or

$$P(x,t)=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi t}}e^{\frac{x^2}{4t}}+\mathrm{Re}\frac{e^{x^2/8t}}{\pi \sqrt{t}}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^n\frac{t^{n(1\frac{\alpha }{2})}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha n+1)}{2^{\frac{\alpha n+1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+1)}D_{\alpha n1}\left(\frac{ix}{\sqrt{2t}}\right),$$
(15)
where $`D_\nu (z)`$ is the Weber function of order $`\nu `$. Again (15) converges uniformly for all $`x`$ in $`0<\eta tT`$. We see that the first term in (15) exhibits Gaussian diffusion and also has unit integral. Hence, the remaining terms, the anomalous transport effects, have zero mean. For $`|x|`$ large and $`n`$ fixed we may employ the asymptotic expansion of the Weber function of large argument, or directly from (15) we obtain the asymptotic expansion for large $`|x|`$:

$$\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{Re}(1)^n\frac{t^n}{n!}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kk^{\alpha n}\mathrm{exp}(tk^2ikx)$$

$$=\frac{(1)^{n+1}}{\pi }\frac{t^b}{n!|x|^{\alpha n+1}}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\alpha \pi n}{2}\right)\left\{\underset{m=0}{\overset{M}{}}\left(\frac{t}{x^2}\right)^m\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha n+2m+1)}{m!}+O\left(\frac{t}{x^2}\right)^{M+1}\right\}$$
(16)
The series (16) is clearly asymptotic and shows the power tail of the PDF, with the leading term from $`n=1`$ being

$$\frac{(t/|x|^\alpha )}{\pi |x|}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +1)\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi \alpha }{2}.$$
(17)
We may obtain another convergent expansion by use of the power series

$$e^{ikx}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}(i)^n\frac{k^nx^n}{n!}+R_{N+1}(k,x),$$
(18)
where

$$|R_{N+1}(k,x)|k^{N+1}\frac{|x|^{N+1}}{(N+1)!}$$
(19)
and thus

$$P(x,t)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^nx^{2n}C_n(t),$$
(20)
where

$$C_n(t)=\frac{1}{(2n)!\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kk^{2N}\mathrm{exp}t(k^2+k^\alpha ).$$
(21)
Although $`C_n(t)`$ does ot appear to be one of the usual special functions it is easy to obtain an asymptotic expansion for $`t`$ large and convergent expansion for $`t`$ small. In particular for $`t`$ small but bounded away from zero:

$$C_n(t)=\frac{t^{n1/2}}{(2n)!2\pi }\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^m}{m!}t^{m(1\alpha /2)}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+\frac{\alpha m}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\right)$$
(22)
and for $`t`$ large

$$C_n(t)=\frac{t^{(2n+1)/\alpha }}{(2n)!2\pi }\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^m}{m!}t^{m(1\frac{2}{\alpha })}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{2(n+m)+1}{2}\right).$$
(23)
We see from (14) and (17) that for $`|x|`$ large $`P(x,t)(\mathrm{const}.)|x|^{\alpha 1}`$. Thus, moments of order $`\alpha `$ do not exist. We examine one, simple relevant moment

$$M=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}|x|𝑑xP(x,t)$$
(24)
and it follows easily that

$$M=\frac{2}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\mathrm{Re}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k\mathrm{exp}[t(k^2+k^\alpha )]\frac{d}{dk}\mathrm{sin}kx.$$
(25)
After integration by parts we obtain

$$M=\frac{2t}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\mathrm{Im}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k(2k+\alpha k^{\alpha 1})\mathrm{exp}[t(k^2+k^\alpha )]e^{ikx}$$
(26)
If we move the path of $`x`$ integration into the upper half-plane we find

$$M=\frac{2t}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k(2+\alpha k^{\alpha 2})\mathrm{exp}t(k^2+k^\alpha )$$
(27)
With the same type of expansion as before we find an expansion convergent in $`0<\eta tT`$

$$M=\frac{t^{1/2}}{\pi }\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^{m+1}\frac{t^{m(1\alpha /2)}}{m!}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{m\alpha 1}{2}\right)$$
(28)
The leading order term $`m=0`$ is just $`2(t/\pi )^{1/2}`$, exactly what one would obtain from a Gaussian. The remaining terms are the corrections from anomalous transport. For $`t`$ large we have the asymptotic expansion

$$M=\frac{2t^{1/\alpha }}{\pi }\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^mt^{m(\frac{2}{\alpha }1)}\frac{(\frac{1}{\alpha })\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{2m1}{\alpha })}{m!}$$
(29)
We now turn to $`Q(x,t)`$ so that we may assess the significance of the preceding results. We start from (10) and we find easily the convergent expansion

$$Q=\frac{1}{\pi \alpha }\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^nt^{1/2}[x/t^{1/\alpha }]^{2n}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{2n+1}{\alpha })}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2n+1)}$$
(30)
while for $`|x|`$ large there is the asymptotic expansion

$$Q\frac{1}{\pi |x|}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^n(t/|x|^\alpha )^n\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n\alpha +1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+1)}\mathrm{sin}\frac{n\pi \alpha }{2}.$$
(31)
Finally, we define $`M_Q`$ as

$$M_Q=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}Q(x,t)|x|𝑑x$$
(32)
so that

$$M_Q=\frac{2}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}x𝑑x\mathrm{Re}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k\mathrm{exp}(k^\alpha t)\frac{d}{dk}\mathrm{sin}kx.$$
(33)
We follow the same procedure as for $`M`$ and we obtain

$$M_Q=\frac{2}{\pi }t^{1/\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }(11/\alpha ).$$
(34)
We are now prepared to compare results and we start with the simplest comparison, $`M`$ and $`M_Q`$. The result (34) for $`\nu `$ is valid for all times, however $`M(t)`$ is very different from (34) for $`t1`$. For $`t`$ large (29) shows

$$M\frac{2}{\pi }\left[t^{1/\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1\frac{1}{\alpha }\right)+t^{11/\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{1}{\alpha }\right)+O(t^{2\frac{3}{\alpha }})\right].$$
(35)
Thus, in leading order and for $`1<\alpha <2`$, $`MM_Q`$. However, the difference between $`M`$ and $`M_Q`$ is not small unless $`t^{1/\alpha }t^{1\frac{1}{\alpha }}`$. For $`\alpha `$ not far from one, this relation holds, but as $`\alpha `$ approaches 2, one requires increasing larger values of $`t`$ in order that $`t^{1/\alpha }`$ dominate $`t^{1\frac{1}{\alpha }}`$. It is clear that the expansion (29) fails at $`\alpha =2`$, and must then be very poor for small values of $`2\alpha `$. An examination of this moment indicates that for $`t`$ sufficiently large the anomalous transport is the limiting form for the case with both Gaussian and anomalous transport, however there may be significant corrections.

When we compare $`P(x,t)`$ and $`Q(x,t)`$ the situation is somewhat more complex. For $`t`$ and $`x\stackrel{<}{}1`$, so that both Gaussian and normal transport may occur we may compare (15),(16) with (30),(31). When $`|x|1`$, $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are substantially different; however for $`t1`$, $`|x|>1`$, one may use (16), and then the leading order terms in (16) match (3) although there are nontrivial corrections of order $`t/x^2`$. When $`t>1`$ but $`|x|1`$, we may compare (21) and (23) with (30). Again the leading order terms agree but there are nontrivial corrections of order $`t^{(\frac{2}{\alpha }1)}`$. Finally, when both $`x`$ and $`t`$ are large, we must decide whether $`|x|^\alpha /t`$ is large or not. If $`|x|^\alpha /t1`$ after a little effort we see that we may use (20) and (23) for $`P(x,t)`$, which again matches $`Q(x,t)`$ in (30), but with corrections. Finally if $`|x|`$ and $`t`$ are both large, as is $`|x|^\alpha /t`$, then we may conclude that (14) and (16) apply for $`P(x,t)`$ which approximates $`Q(x,t)`$ as given by (31). We see that broadly the anomalous transport finally dominates the Gaussian, or normal, transport, although it may take a long time. From another point of view, unless $`ϵ`$ is extremely small, the anomalous transport description is generally more relevant than the normal transport, although there may be significant corrections to the anomalous transport results.

## 3 Fractional generalization of Ginzburg-Landau equation and nonlinear Schrödinger equation

Let us recall the appearance of the nonlinear parabolic equation (see for example ). The simplest way is to consider a symmetric dispersion law $`\omega =\omega (k)`$ for wave propagation in some media, and to represent the wave vector $`𝐤`$ in the form

$$𝐤=𝐤_0+𝜿=𝐤_0+𝜿_{}+𝜿_{}$$
(36)
where $`𝐤_0`$ is the unperturbed wave vector and subscripts $`(,)`$ are taken respectively to the direction $`𝐤_0`$. Considering $`\kappa k_0`$ we have

$$\omega (k)=\omega (|𝐤_0+𝜿|)\omega (k_0)$$

$$+c(|𝐤_0+𝜿|k_0)\omega (k_0)+c\kappa _{}+\frac{c}{2k_0}\kappa _{}^2$$
(37)
where $`c=\omega /k_0`$. The expression (37) corresponds to the linear parabolic equation

$$i\frac{Z}{t}=ic\frac{Z}{x}+\frac{c}{2k_0}\mathrm{\Delta }Z$$
(38)
with respect to a field $`Z=Z(x,𝐫,t)`$, $`x`$ along the $`𝐤_0`$, and the operator correspondence:

$$\nu \omega (k)\omega (k_0)=i\frac{}{t},\kappa _{}=i\frac{}{x},𝜿_{}=i\frac{}{𝐫},𝐫=(y,z)$$
(39)
A generalization to a nonlinear case can be carried out in analogy with (37) through a nonlinear dispersion law depending on the wave amplitude:

$$\omega =\omega (k,|Z|^2)\omega (k,0)+g|Z|^2$$

$$=\omega (|𝐤_0+𝜿|,0)+g|Z|^2$$
(40)
with some constant $`g=\omega (k,|Z|^2)/|Z|^2`$ at $`|Z|^2=0`$. In analogy with (38), the nonlinear parabolic equation takes the form

$$i\frac{Z}{t}=ic\frac{Z}{x}+\frac{c}{2k_0}\mathrm{\Delta }Zg|Z|^2Z$$
(41)
This equation is also known as the nonlinear Schrödinger equation in which any of the coefficients may be complex. Indeed, for a traveling wave $`Z=Z(xct,𝐫)`$ we have

$$ic\frac{Z}{\xi }=\frac{c}{2k_0}\mathrm{\Delta }Zg|Z|^2$$
(42)
with $`\xi =xct`$.

Wave propagation in a media with fractal propeties can be easily generalized from the first step of writing dispersion law (37). Namely, one can replace (37) and (40) by the following:

$$\nu =\omega (k,|Z|^2)\omega (k_0,0)=c\kappa _{}+c_\alpha (𝜿_{}^2)^{\alpha /2}+g|Z|^2$$
(43)
with a fractional value of $`1<\alpha <2`$ and new constant $`c_\alpha `$. This replacement does not affect the nonlinear term which appears for $`\kappa _{}=\kappa _{}=0`$ (see (40)).

Using the connection between the differentiation operator and its Fourier transform

$$(\mathrm{\Delta })^{\alpha /2}(𝜿_{}^2)^{\alpha /2}$$
(44)
we obtain the equation corresponding to (43):

$$i\frac{Z}{t}=ic\frac{Z}{x}\frac{c}{2k_0}(\mathrm{\Delta })^{\alpha /2}Zg|Z|^2Z$$
(45)
or for travelling waves as in (42)

$$ic\frac{Z}{\xi }=\frac{c}{2k_0}(\mathrm{\Delta })^{\alpha /2}Z+g|Z|^2Z$$
(46)
Let us comment on the physical structure of (46). The first term on the right-hand side is related to the wave propagation in a media with fractal properties. The fractal derivative may also appear as a result of ray chaos , or of a superdiffusive wave propagation (see also the discussion in , and corresponding references). The second term on the right-hand side of (45),(46) corresponds to the wave interaction due to the nonlinear properties of the media. Thus, (46) describes fractional processes of self-focusing and related issues.

We may consider a one-dimensional simplification of (46), i.e.

$$c\frac{Z}{\xi }=a\frac{^\alpha Z}{|z|^\alpha }+g|Z|^2Z$$
(47)
with some generalized constants $`c,a,g`$ and then reduce (47) to the case of a propagating wave solution

$$Z=Z(zc\xi )Z(\eta ).$$
(48)
Then (47) takes the form of fractional generalization of the Ginzburg-Landau equation (FGL):

$$a\frac{d^\alpha Z}{d|\eta |^\alpha }+\frac{dZ}{d\eta }+gZ^3=0$$
(49)
for real $`Z(\eta )`$. Now (49) differs from the fractional Burgers equation , in the structure of the nonlinear term. Nevertheless, an analysis similar to , may be performed to obtain some estimates on the solution.

It is well known that the nonlinear term in the equations of (42) type leads to a steepening of the solution and its singularity. The steepening process may be stopped by a diffusional or dispersional term, i.e. by a higher derivative term. A similar phenomenon may appear for the fractional nonlinear equations (47),(49). It has been shown in  that for the fractional Burgers equation there exists a critical value $`\alpha _c`$ such that solution is regular for all time if $`\alpha >\alpha _c`$.

Next, we consider the symmetric solution $`Z(\eta )=Z(\eta )`$ of (48) and assume $`ZIR^2`$. Let us multiply (49) by $`Z`$ and integrate it under the assumption that $`Z`$ is sufficiently small at infinity. We find

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}(aZZ^{(\alpha /2)}+gZ^4)𝑑\eta =0$$
(50)
where we use the notation

$$\frac{d^\alpha Z}{d|\eta |^\alpha }Z^{(\alpha )}$$
(51)
The expression (50) gives a conservation law showing the relative importance of the nonlinear and dispersion terms. Considering $`Z^{(\alpha )}1/\eta ^\gamma `$ we conclude that the term with derivative prevails for small $`\eta `$ if

$$\alpha >2\gamma .$$
(52)
For $`2>\alpha >1`$ the condition (52) shows that the solution is square integrable at $`\eta 0`$.

Finally we observe that (49) may describe a new type of fractional dynamic motion. This topic will be considered elsewhere.

## 4 Conclusion

In this brief paper we have made two remarks related to application of fractional equations in physics. The first remark is related to the competition between normal diffusion and diffusion induced by fractional derivatives, as occur in fractional kinetic theories. It is shown that for large times the fractional derivative term dominates the solution and leads to power type tails. The second remark is related to a new class of equations in which fractional derivative terms are responsible for fractional dispersion. In this case the asymptotics should be defined by a competition between the fractional dispersion and nonlinear terms. We discuss the origin of the fractional Ginzburg-Landau equation and fractional nonlinear Schrödinger equation.

## 5 Acknowledgements

H.W. was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Grant No. DE-FG02-86ER53223. G.Z. was supported by the U.S. Navy Grants No. N00014-96-1-00557 and No. N00014-97-1-0426, and by the U.S. Department of Energy, Grant No. DE-FG02-92ER54184.


text:
# Non-equilibrium dynamics in amorphous Si3B3N7

## Abstract

We present numerical investigations of the dynamics on the energy landscape of a realistic model of the high-temperature ceramic a-Si3B3N7. Below a critical temperature $`T_c2000`$ K the system is no longer in equilibrium, and we predict that the material has a glass transition in this temperature range at high pressure. Analyzing the two-time energy correlation function shows aging in this system, which is linked to the geometrical properties of the energy landscape.

Introduction:  Amorphous nitridic ceramics containing both silicon and boron such as a-SiBN3C or a-Si3B3N7 are synthesized via the sol-gel processJansen97a  and are one of the most exciting new classes of high-temperature materials. Up to now, no crystalline form of these compounds is known. Under standard conditions a-SiBN3C is thermally stable and amorphous up to $`2100`$ K, possesses excellent mechanical and elastic properties, e.g. a high bulk modulus of ca. $`200300`$ GPa, and is stable against oxidation in O2-atmosphere up to $`1700`$ KJansen97a . These compounds appear to form covalent networks with a homogeneous distribution of the cations at least down to a scale of 1 nmWullen00b  and pose many fascinating questions regarding their structure and physical properties.

Probing the glass transition of a-Si3B3N7, the basic representative of nitridic ceramics, is experimentally difficult, since, under standard conditions, decomposition takes place at $`T1900`$ K, i.e. before the ceramic melts. This material is currently considered for high temperature engine applications and its aging properties are therefore of clear technological relevance, beside having theoretical interest within the general framework of glassy dynamics.

Determining whether a possibly non-ergodic system has ”for all practical purposes” reached thermal (quasi-)equilibrium is not straightforward and possibly constitutes an ill-posed question. Physical properties of amorphous systems are known to drift with the time $`t_w`$, or age, elapsed since the quench into the glassy phase. For short observation times $`t_{obs}t_w`$, the drift is undetectable and a state of quasi-equilibrium is revealed by the approximate validity of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem. Concomitant to the violations of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem for $`t_{obs}>t_w`$, the correlation and response functions acquire an additional dependence on $`t_w`$. This breaking of time translational invariance has been observed e.g. in the magnetic susceptibility of spin glasses, both in experimentsNordblad97a  and model simulationsHoffmann88a ; Bouchaud97a , in measurements of $`C_p`$ for a-SeStephens76a , and also in simulations of the dynamical structure factor of e.g. a-SiO2 above the glass transition temperatureKob99a .

To detect ergodicity breaking we use 1) the specific heat $`C_V`$, which we calculate in three different ways, all agreeing in equilibrium but markedly differing if ergodicity is broken, and 2) the two-time energy-energy average $`\varphi (t_w,t_{obs};T)`$, and the related two-time autocorrelation function $`C_E(t_w,t_{obs};T)`$. In quasi-equilibrium, the former equals one and the latter equals a generalized standard equilibrium specific heat $`k_BT^2C_V(t_w,t_{obs};T)`$. The age dependent $`C_V`$ has been studied experimentally, e.g. for charge-density-wave systemsBiljakovic91a , but does not appear to have been theoretically explored outside of two-level systems at very low temperaturesParshin93a .

Since aging is linked to the complexity of the energy landscape of the system, we have investigated some aspects of the latter, emphasizing their relation to the non-equilibrium dynamics.

Model and Techniques:  The model of a-Si3B3N7 consisted of $`162`$ Si-atoms, $`162`$ B-atoms and $`378`$ N-atoms, respectively, in a $`19.1\times 19.1\times 19.1`$ Å3 cubic box. As an interaction potential, we employed a two-body potential from the literatureGastreich00b  based on an-initio energy calculations of hypothetical ternary compounds which reproduces experimental data regarding the structure and vibrational properties of the binary compounds Si3N4 and BN and of molecules containing Si$``$N$``$B units.

The starting configurations for our simulations were generated by relaxation from high temperature melts Hannemann00a . The simulations were performed at fixed temperature and volume, with a Monte-Carlo algorithm using the Metropolis acceptance criterion. In each update, an atom is randomly selected for an attempted move in a random direction, and with an average size chosen to achieve an acceptance rate of $`50`$ %. One Monte-Carlo cycle (MCC) corresponds to $`N_{atom}=702`$ such individual moves. Note that the kinetic energy ($`3/2kT`$ per atom) does not appear in MC-simulations, and that all quantities studied relate to the configurational energy.

The temperatures investigated ranged from 25 to 7000 K. For each temperature up to $`3000`$ K and above $`3000`$ K, $`9`$ and $`3`$ runs, respectively, of length $`t_{total}=2\times 10^5`$ MCC were performed. In addition, for selected temperatures, ensembles of $`100`$ runs of length $`t_{total}=10^6`$ MCC were studied. The energy as function of time was registered every $`10`$ MCC. Along the individual trajectories for $`T=250,\mathrm{},7000`$ K, halting points $`x_H`$ were chosen, from which both conjugate gradient minimizations ($`x_Hx_{min}^{(1)}`$) and a set of $`10`$ stochastic quenches ($`T=0`$ K MC-runs) followed by conjugate gradient minimizations ($`x_Hx_Qx_{min}^{(2)}`$) were performed. In the following, $`t_{init}1000`$ MCC is the initialization time of the MC-simulations needed for the system to reach equilibrium in the ergodic regime (i.e. at high temperatures), while $`t_wt_{init}`$ is the waiting time before the observation begin.

Ergodicity :  To investigate ergodicity versus temperature, we studied the specific heat $`C_V`$ and the two-time energy-energy average

$$\varphi (t_w,t_{obs};T)=\frac{E(t_w)E(t_w+t_{obs})_{ens}}{E(t_w)E(t_w)_{ens}}(T),$$
(1)
where the subscript ”ens” always denotes an average over all trajectories. $`C_V`$ was calculated using three different computational prescriptions. First

$$C_V^a(T)=\frac{E_{t[t_w,t_{total}]}_{ens}(T)}{T},$$
(2)
where time averaging extends from $`t_w`$ to the end of the simulation $`t_{total}`$ and the temperature derivative is performed after the averaging. Secondly

$`C_V^b(T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E(T+\mathrm{\Delta }T;t_w)_{t[t_w,t_w+t_{obs}];t_{obs}t_w}}{2\mathrm{\Delta }T}}`$ (3)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E(T\mathrm{\Delta }T;t_w)_{t[t_w,t_w+t_{obs}];t_{obs}t_w}}{2\mathrm{\Delta }T}}.`$
This emulates a step experiment where the system ages at temperature $`T`$. The time averages over the observation time $`t_{obs}t_w`$ are performed at temperatures $`T\pm \mathrm{\Delta }T`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }T0.1T`$. Finally we gauge the energy fluctuations in $`[t_w,t_w+t_{obs}]`$ by calculating

$$C_V^c(T)=\frac{E^2_{t[t_w,t_w+t_{obs}]}E_{t[t_w,t_w+t_{obs}]}^2_{ens}(T)}{k_BT^2},$$
(4)
for a range of observation times $`t_{obs}`$ which straddles $`t_w`$.

$`C_V^a`$ has no $`t_{obs}`$ dependence. By way of contrast, when increasing $`t_{obs}`$ past $`t_w`$ the observed dynamics in $`C_V^c`$ changes from quasi-equilibrium to off-equilibrium (cf. inset in fig.1). $`C_V^b`$, which mimicks an experiment performed after some relatively long equilibration time $`t_w`$, likely yields the most ”realistic” value for the specific heat for all temperatures.

As shown in fig. 1 the above prescriptions yield, as expected, almost identical results in the high-$`T`$ ergodic dynamical regime, but differ at low $`T`$. This indicates that below $`T_c20003000`$ K ergodicity is broken. Further evidence stems from the observation that for $`T<T_c`$, the motion is subdiffusive, while for $`T>T_c`$ standard diffusion is observed: For $`T>T_c2100`$ K, the diffusion coefficients for B, Si and N, follow a power law $`D(TT_c)^\gamma `$ with $`\gamma =1.7`$, showing structural freezing-in. Similarly, the relaxation times associated with the bond survival probabilities of B-N and Si-N bonds display a rapid increase below $`T_c`$.

Repeating these investigations for a large number of volumes, we find a similar freezing-in of the structure for $`TT_c`$. Furthermore, we determine a critical point in the liquid-gas region of the ternary system ($`p_{cr}0.7`$ GPa and, $`T_{cr}3700`$K ). Since the tendency to decompose is greatly reduced for a supercritical fluid, we predict that a-Si3B3N7 should exhibit a glass transition at a temperature $`T_G17002000`$ K and at a pressure of $`p_G>1`$ GPa. Up to now, high-pressure experiments have only been performed for $`T1000`$ K and $`p2.5`$ GPa.

For $`T>T_c`$, the two-point correlation function always remains very close to the equilibrium value $`1`$. The aging behavior in the glassy phase is shown in fig. 2 for $`T=1250`$ K, and for three different waiting times $`t_w=310^3,10^4,10^5`$. In the non-equilibrium regime $`t_{obs}t_w`$, $`\varphi `$ is seen to deviate strongly from its equilibrium value $`\varphi _{eq}1`$. The closely related autocorrelation function $`C_E(t_w,t_{obs};T)E(t_w)E(t_w+t_{obs})_{ens}E(t_w)_{ens}E(t_w+t_{obs})_{ens}`$ also exhibits the expected aging behavior, i.e. a marked decrease to zero from an almost constant value ($`C_V(t_w)`$) once $`t_{obs}`$ exceeds $`t_w`$. This monotonic dependence on $`t_w`$ of the time range $`t_{obs}[0,t_w]`$ during which (quasi-)equilibrium behavior is still observed, correlates with the stiffening of the response of the system characteristic for aging processes: The longer the system is allowed to equilibrate, the longer is the subsequent time range during which equilibrium-like behavior is observed. This effect concurs with our observation that for $`TT_c`$ we can fit $`E(t;T)`$ (and also $`E(t;T)_{ens}`$) over the interval $`[t_{init},t_{total}]`$ as a logarithmically decreasing function, $`E(t;T)=E_0(T)A(T)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{t}{t_0(T)}\right).`$ Neglecting the fluctuations compared to the drift, one has $`\varphi (t_w,t_{obs};T)\frac{E(t_w+t_{obs})E(t_w)}{E(t_w)E(t_w)}`$. Expanding $`\varphi `$ for $`t_{obs}t_w`$ then yields $`\varphi (t_w.t_{obs};T)1+\frac{A}{|E(t_w)|}\frac{t_{obs}}{t_w}`$. Thus, $`\varphi (t_w,t_{obs};T)`$ substantially deviates from $`1`$ for $`t_{obs}>t_w`$, as observed in the simulations. The inset shows $`C_E(t_w,t_{obs};T)`$ plotted as function of the scaled variable $`t_{obs}/t_w`$. As $`t_{obs}`$ increases, the data appears to collapse on a single curve, indicating that $`t_{obs}/t_w`$ scaling can be expected to hold asymptotically.

Energy landscape:  Finally, we would like to link the non-equilibrium behavior to the properties of the energy landscape of a-Si3B3N7. Figure 3 shows the average energy $`E(t;T,x_{min}^{(1)})_{ens}`$ of local minima $`x_{min}^{(1)}`$ found by applying a conjugate gradient algorithm for logarithmically spaced halting points along several trajectories as a function of time for different temperatures.

We note that $`E(t;T,x_{min}^{(1)})_{ens}`$ decreases logarithmically with time for $`T<T_c`$ analogously to $`E(t;T)_{ens}`$ Angelani01a . A fit of the logarithmic slope yields $`A(T)=76.29T134.56T^2`$, which qualitatively agrees with the low temperature expansion of $`E(t;T)_{ens}`$ for the so-called LS-tree modelsSibani91a , suggesting that the landscape of a-Si3B3N7 might possess some hierarchical aspects in that energy range relevant for $`T<T_c`$.

For fixed simulation time, the deepest local minima are reached for $`T=1750`$ K, which lies right below $`T_c`$. We find a similar behavior for the average energy $`E(T;x_{min}^{(2)})`$ of the local minima $`x_{min}^{(2)}`$ found after quenching plus gradient minimization starting from the holding points $`x_h`$, shown as a function of temperature in fig. 4. We clearly recognize a minimum in this curve at $`T1750`$ K, and the largest increase occurs at $`TT_c`$. Analogous observations are well-known from e.g. global optimization studies of complex systems, where it has been found that reaching the deepest local minima using Monte-Carlo-type search algorithms is achieved by spending most of the search time in the temperature interval slightly below the glass transition temperatureKirkpatrick83a . Thus this result serves as another confirmation that ergodicity breaking is taking place at $`TT_c`$.

The second curve in fig. 4 depicts $`E_{ref}(T)=E(T,x_h)_{t_{obs}}_{ens}(3/2)N_{atom}k_BT.`$ Note that if the motion around the minima were purely harmonic, $`E_{ref}(T)`$ would be the average energy of these minima. However, comparing $`E_{ref}(T)`$ with $`E(T,x_{min}^{(2)})_{t_{obs}}_{ens}`$, we note that an excess energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)=E_{ref}(T)E(T,x_{min}^{(2)})_{t_{obs}}_{ens}>0`$ exists. The growth of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$ is monotonic in $`T`$ and most pronounced for $`TT_c`$. Clearly, in this temperature region the landscape below the halting points, which is ”felt” by the walker, changes and a substantial shift to higher ”reference” values for the vibrational contributions to the potential energy occurs.

Discussion:  The computational analysis of a-Si3B3N7 using $`C_V^{a,b,c}`$ and $`\varphi (t_w,t_{obs};T)`$ shows that this amorphous material can be expected to exhibit a glass transition with a concurrent break in the ergodicity at about $`T_c2000`$ K if pressures high enough to prevent decomposition are applied. Regarding its structural dynamics and aging properties for $`T<T_c`$, a-Si3B3N7 exhibits a general behavior similar to standard test systems (Lennard-Jones, a-SiO2) and CDW systems, insofar as we observe a freezing-in of the structure, and a waiting-time dependence of the two time correlation function and specific heat.

This aging phenomenon is related to the slow non-exponential relaxation dynamics on the energy landscape for $`T<T_c`$, resulting in a logarithmic drift towards lower energies. This applies both to the actual trajectories and the time-sequence of observed local minima. Independent of this aspect of the dynamics, we find that starting around $`T_c`$ the average potential energy greatly exceeds the value associated with harmonic vibrations at $`T_c`$. ’Thermodynamically’, this makes itself felt as a peak in the specific heat, which is often associated with the entropy due to an increased availability of additional amorphous configurations.

One possible origin for this excess energy is trapping Sibani93a ; Schoen97b  due to an approximately exponential growth in the effective local density of states $`g_{loc}(E)\mathrm{exp}(\alpha (EE_{min}))`$, with the growth factor $`\alpha =1/T_{trap}1/T_c`$. In such a case, the exponentially growing region of the deep pockets of the landscape becomes invisible for the random walker for $`T>T_{trap}`$, and the top of this region serves as the reference for the vibrational energy contribution. $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$ would thus refer to the depth of the exponentially growing pockets with $`T_{trap}<T`$. Studies of amorphous networksSchoen00a  and polymersSchoen02a  on lattices have suggested that such trapping might contribute to the glass transition in structural glasses.

Alternatively, the phase space volume of the locally ergodic regions around the saddle points might substantially exceed the one associated with local minima, such that these saddles serve as reference, as has been suggested for small Lennard-Jones systemsCavagna01a . Here, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$ would correspond to the average energy difference between the relevant saddle points and the nearby local minima.

Landscape studies using the threshold algorithmSchoen96a , which can be used to estimate both local densities of states and minima, and the relative size of minimum and transition regionsWevers00a  could resolve this issue, but are not yet computationally feasible. Preliminary explorations of the region ”below” the halting points by performing 10 quench runs for each halting point $`x_h^{(i)}`$ concur with the results obtained inWevers00a  and show that a typical halting point is associated with only one rather circumscribed basin containing many similar minima, and not with a large region of the landscape encompassing very different structures. The latter would be expected if the dynamics were dominated by high-lying saddle points.

###### Acknowledgements.

Funding was kindly provided by the DFG via SFB408.