text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Quantum estimation of states, observables and parameters is, from very basic principles, matter of statistical inference after sampling a population. Why is it so ? And what does this statement exactly mean ? The quantum description of a physical system is intrinsically a statistical one since given an unknown quantum state $`\widehat{\varrho }`$: i) one cannot determine the quantum state from a single measurement (even joint measurement) performed on the system ; ii) it is not possible to measure different observables after copying the state preparation at disposal, since the linearity of quantum mechanics leads to the impossibility of cloning an arbitrary state . In a way, this means that any quantum estimation procedure necessary requires many identical preparations of the system under examination, on which one performs repeated measurements of an observable or of a set of observables.

The full inference of the quantum state from feasible measurements is a hot topic of the last decade. In recent years, experiments have been performed to characterize the quantum state of different physical systems, such as single-mode radiation field , a diatomic molecule , a trapped ion , and an atomic beam . These results stimulated some efforts for efficient data-processing algorithms, in order to extract the maximum available information on the quantum state, since one always deals with finite ensembles , and every detection scheme is affected by noise and imperfections. The need for an efficient data processing is even more stringent in cases where one is not interested in the complete characterization of the state, but only in some specific feature, as when one addresses the problem of characterizing a device, rather than a quantum state, as, for example, the estimation of coupling constants, gain coefficients, or nonlinear susceptibilities.

The most comprehensive quantum estimation procedure is quantum tomography . In quantum tomography the expectation value of an operator is obtained by averaging a special function (usually termed sampling kernel or pattern function) over the experimental data of a sufficiently complete set of observables which is called a “quorum”. For example, in homodyne tomography of radiation the quorum observables are the quadratures of the e.m. field (for varying phase with respect to the local oscillator). The expectation value of a generic operator is obtained by averaging the corresponding pattern function over data. The method is very general and efficient, however, in the averaging procedure, we have fluctuations which result in large statistical errors.

In this paper we review the the maximum-likelihood (ML) principle approach to the quantum estimation problem. The ML idea is to find the quantum state, or the value of the parameters, that are most likely to generate the observed data. This idea can be quantified and implemented using the concept of the likelihood functional. Concerning the estimation of quantum state, in contrast to quantum tomography, the ML method estimates the state as a whole. As a result, a priori knowledge about properties of the density matrix can be incorporated from the very beginning, thus assuring positivity and normalization of matrix, with the result of a substantial reduction of statistical errors . Regarding the estimation of specific parameters, we notice that in all the cases here analyzed the resulting estimators are efficient, unbiased and consistent, thus providing a statistically reliable determination . Moreover, by using the ML method only small samples of data are required for a precise determination.

## 2 Maximum likelihood principle

Here we briefly review the theory of the maximum-likelihood (ML) estimation of a single parameter. The generalization to several parameters, as for example the elements of the density matrix is, in principle, straightforward. The only point that should be carefully analyzed is the parameterization of the multidimensional quantity to be estimated. In the next section the specific case of the density matrix will be discussed.

Let $`p(x|\lambda )`$ the probability density of a random variable $`x`$, conditioned to the value of the parameter $`\lambda `$. The form of $`p`$ is known, but the true value of the parameter $`\lambda `$ is unknown, and will be estimated from the result of a measurement of $`x`$. Let $`x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_N`$ be a random sample of size $`N`$. The joint probability density of the independent random variable $`x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_N`$ (the global probability of the sample) is given by

$`(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_N|\lambda )=\mathrm{\Pi }_{k=1}^Np(x_k|\lambda ),`$ (1)
and is called the likelihood function of the given data sample (hereafter we will suppress the dependence of $``$ on the data). The maximum-likelihood estimator (MLE) of the parameter $`\lambda `$ is defined as the quantity $`\lambda _{\mathrm{ml}}\lambda _{\mathrm{ml}}(\{x_k\})`$ that maximizes $`(\lambda )`$ for variations of $`\lambda `$, namely $`\lambda _{\mathrm{ml}}`$ is given by the solution of the equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda )}{\lambda }}=0;{\displaystyle \frac{^2(\lambda )}{\lambda ^2}}<0.`$ (2)
Since the likelihood is positive the first equation is equivalent to $`L/\lambda =0`$ where

$`L(\lambda )=\mathrm{log}(\lambda )={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{log}p(x_k|\lambda )`$ (3)
is the so-called log-likelihood function.

In order to obtain a measure for the confidence interval in the determination of $`\lambda _{\mathrm{ml}}`$ we consider the variance

$`\sigma _\lambda ^2={\displaystyle \left[\underset{k}{}dx_kp(x_k|\lambda )\right]\left[\lambda _{\mathrm{ml}}(\{x_k\})\lambda \right]^2}.`$ (4)
Upon defining the Fisher information

$`F={\displaystyle 𝑑x\left[\frac{p(x|\lambda )}{\lambda }\right]^2\frac{1}{p(x|\lambda )}},`$ (5)
it is easy to prove  that

$`\sigma _\lambda ^2(NF)^1`$ (6)
where $`N`$ is the number of measurements. The inequality in Eq. (6) is known as the Cramér-Rao bound  on the precision of ML estimation. Notice that this bound holds for any functional form of the probability distribution $`p(x|\lambda )`$, provided that the Fisher information exists $`\lambda `$ and $`_\lambda p(x|\lambda )`$ exists $`x`$. When an experiment has ”good statistics” (i.e. a data sample large enough) the Cramér-Rao bound is saturated.

## 3 Quantum state estimation

In this section we review the the method for the maximum likelihood estimation of the quantum state, focusing attention to the cases of homodyne and spin tomographies . The physical situation we have in mind is an experiment consisting of $`N`$ measurements performed on identically prepared copies of a given system. Quantum mechanically, each measurement is described by a positive operator-valued measure (POVM). The outcome of the $`i`$th measurement corresponds to the realization of a specific element of the POVM used in the corresponding run. We denote this element by $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_i`$. The likelihood is here a functional of the density matrix $`(\widehat{\varrho })`$ and is given by the product

$$(\widehat{\varrho })=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\text{Tr}(\widehat{\varrho }\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_i),$$
(7)
which represents the probability of the observed data. The unknown element of the above expression, which we want to infer from data, is the density matrix describing the measured ensemble.

We restrict ourselves to finite dimensional Hilbert spaces. In this case, it can be proved that $`(\widehat{\varrho })`$ is a concave function defined on a convex and closed set of density matrices. Therefore, its maximum is achieved either on a single isolated point, or on a convex subset of density matrices. In the first case we have a proper reconstruction scheme, namely the set of observables chosen for the measurement provides the complete characterization of the state under examinations. On the other hand, if the maximum is not unique, the set of chosen observables is insufficient, namely it does not constitute a quorum.

In order to optimize the procedure for the maximization of the likelihood function we introduce a specific parameterization of the set of density matrices. A given density matrix can be written in the form

$$\widehat{\varrho }=\widehat{T}^{}\widehat{T},$$
(8)
which automatically guarantees that $`\widehat{\varrho }`$ is positive and Hermitian for any complex lower triangular matrix $`\widehat{T}`$, with real elements on the diagonal. For an $`M`$-dimensional Hilbert space, the number of real parameters in the matrix $`\widehat{T}`$ is $`M+2M(M1)/2=M^2`$, which equals the number of independent real parameters for a Hermitian matrix. This confirms that our parameterization is minimal, up to the unit trace condition.

In numerical calculations, it is convenient to replace the likelihood functional by its natural logarithm, which does not change the location of the maximum. Thus the function subjected to numerical maximization is given by

$$L(\widehat{T})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{ln}\text{Tr}(\widehat{T}^{}\widehat{T}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_i)\lambda \text{Tr}(\widehat{T}^{}\widehat{T}),$$
(9)
where $`\lambda `$ is a Lagrange multiplier accounting for normalization of $`\widehat{\varrho }`$ that equals the total number of measurements $`N`$ . Using this formulation, the maximization problem can be solved by standard numerical procedures for searching the maximum over the $`M^2`$ real parameters of the matrix $`\widehat{T}`$ . The examples presented below use the downhill simplex method .

Our first example is the application of the ML estimation in quantum homodyne tomography of a single-mode radiation field , which is so far the most successful method in measuring nonclassical states of light . The experimental apparatus used in this technique is the homodyne detector. The realistic, imperfect homodyne measurement is described by the positive operator-valued measure

$$\widehat{}(x;\phi )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi (1\eta )}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(x\sqrt{\eta }\widehat{x}_\phi )^2}{1\eta }\right),$$
(10)
where $`\eta `$ is the detector efficiency, and $`\widehat{x}_\phi =(a^{}e^{i\phi }+ae^{i\phi })/2`$ is the quadrature operator ($`[a,a^{}]=1`$), depending on the externally adjustable local oscillator (LO) phase $`\phi `$.

After repeating the measurement $`N`$ times, we obtain a set of pairs $`(x_i;\phi _i)`$ consisting of the outcome $`x_i`$ and the LO phase $`\phi _i`$ for the $`i`$th run, where $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$. The log-likelihood functional is given by Eq. (9) with $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_i\widehat{}(x_i;\phi _i)`$. Of course, for a light mode it is necessary to truncate the Hilbert space to a finite dimensional basis. We shall assume that the highest Fock state has $`M1`$ photons, i.e. that the dimension of the truncated Hilbert space is $`M`$. For the expectation $`\text{Tr}[\widehat{T}^{}\widehat{T}\widehat{}(x;\phi )]`$ it is necessary to use an expression which is explicitly positive, in order to protect the algorithm against occurrence of small negative numerical arguments of the logarithm function. A simple derivation yields

$`\text{Tr}[\widehat{T}^{}\widehat{T}\widehat{}(x;\phi )]={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{M1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}}\left|{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{kj}{}}}k|\widehat{T}|n+jB_{n+j,n}n|xe^{in\phi }\right|^2,`$ (11)
where $`B_{n+j,n}=\left[\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+j}{n}\right)\eta ^n(1\eta )^j\right]^{1/2}`$ and $`n|x=H_n(x)\mathrm{exp}(x^2/2)/\sqrt{2^nn!\pi ^{1/2}}`$ are eigenstates of the harmonic oscillator in the position representation—$`H_n(x)`$ being the $`n`$th Hermite polynomial.

We have applied the ML technique to reconstruct the density matrix in the Fock basis from Monte Carlo simulated homodyne statistics . Fig. 1 depicts the matrix elements of the density operator as obtained for a coherent state and a squeezed vacuum. Remarkably, only 50000 homodyne data have been used for quantum efficiency at photodetectors $`\eta =80\%`$. We notice that the ML method is affected by much smaller statistical errors than conventional tomography. As a comparison one could see that the same precision of the reconstructions in Fig. 1 could be achieved using $`10^7`$$`10^8`$ data samples in conventional tomography of Ref. . On the other hand, in order to find numerically the ML estimate we need to set a priori the cut-off parameter for the photon number, and its value is limited by increasing computation time.

We mention that ML estimation can also be applied to the reconstruction of the quantum state a two-mode field , along with the multi-mode tomographic technique with a single LO .

Finally, we apply the ML procedure for reconstructing the density matrix of spin systems. For example, let us consider $`N`$ repeated preparations of a pair of spin-1/2 particles. The particles are shared by two parties. In each run, the parties select randomly and independently from each other a direction along which they perform spin measurement. The obtained result is described by the joint projection operator over spin coherent states

$$\widehat{}_i=|\mathrm{\Omega }_i^A,\mathrm{\Omega }_i^B\mathrm{\Omega }_i^A,\mathrm{\Omega }_i^B|,$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^B`$ are the vectors on the Bloch sphere corresponding to the outcomes of the $`i`$th run, and the indices $`A`$ and $`B`$ refer to the two particles. As in the previous examples, it is convenient to use an expression for the quantum expectation value $`\text{Tr}(\widehat{T}^{}\widehat{T}\widehat{}_i`$) which is explicitly positive. The suitable form is

$$\text{Tr}(\widehat{T}^{}\widehat{T}\widehat{}_i)=\underset{\mu }{}|\mu |\widehat{T}|\mathrm{\Omega }_i^A,\mathrm{\Omega }_i^B|^2,$$

where $`|\mu `$ is an orthonormal basis in the Hilbert space of the two particles. The result of a simulated experiment with only 500 data for the reconstruction of the density matrix of the singlet state is shown in Fig. 2.

## 4 Parameters estimation in quantum optics

Here we focus our attention on the determination of specific parameters which are relevant in quantum optics, and analyze their ML estimation procedure in some details. In the next two subsections we consider the estimation of the parameters of a Gaussian state and the estimation of the quantum efficiency of both linear and avalanche photodetectors. The reader may found more details in Ref. .

### 4.1 Gaussian state estimation

In this section we apply the ML method to estimate the quantum state of a single-mode radiation field that is characterized by a Gaussian Wigner function. Such kind of states comprises the wide class of coherent, squeezed and thermal states, namely most of the states effectively produced in an optical laboratory. We consider the Wigner function of the form

$`W(x,y)={\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left\{2\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}(xa)^2+\kappa (yb)^2\right]\right\},`$ (13)
and we apply the ML technique starting from homodyne detection to estimate the four real parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta },\kappa ,a`$ and $`b`$. The four parameters are connected to the number of thermal, squeezing and coherent-signal photons in the quantum state as follows

$`n_{th}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}1\right)n_{sq}={\displaystyle \frac{1+\kappa ^2}{4\kappa }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n_{coh}=a^2+b^2.`$ (14)
In fact, the quantum state corresponding to the Wigner function in Eq. (13) writes

$`\widehat{\varrho }=D(\mu )S(r){\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_{th}+1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_{th}}{n_{th}+1}}\right)^{a^{}a}S^{}(r)D^{}(\mu ),`$ (15)
with $`r=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}\kappa `$ and $`\mu =a+ib`$, and where $`S(r)=\mathrm{exp}[r(a^2a^2)/2]`$ and $`D(\mu )=\mathrm{exp}(\mu a^{}\mu ^{}a)`$ denote the squeezing and displacement operators, respectively.

We consider repeated preparations of a Gaussian state, on which we perform homodyne measurements at different phases $`\varphi `$ with respect to the local oscillator. The homodyne distribution is given, for unit quantum efficiency of photodetectors, by the Gaussian

$`p(x,\varphi )=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }^2\kappa }{\pi (\kappa ^2\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi +\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi )}}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{2\mathrm{\Delta }^2\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{[xa\mathrm{cos}\varphi b\mathrm{sin}\varphi )]^2}{\kappa ^2\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi +\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi }}\right\}.`$ (16)
For non-unit quantum efficiency the ideal distribution of Eq. (16) is replaced by a convolution with a Gaussian of variance $`(1\eta )/(4\eta )`$. From Eqs. (3) and (16) one easily evaluates the log-likelihood function for a set of $`N`$ homodyne outcomes $`x_i`$ at random phases $`\varphi _i`$ as follows

$`L={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }^2\kappa }{\pi (\kappa ^2\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi _i+\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _i)}}2\mathrm{\Delta }^2\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{[x_ia\mathrm{cos}\varphi b\mathrm{sin}\varphi )]^2}{\kappa ^2\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi _i+\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _i}}.`$ (17)
The ML estimators $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{ml}},\kappa _{\mathrm{ml}},a_{\mathrm{ml}}`$ and $`b_{\mathrm{ml}}`$ are found upon maximizing Eq. (17) versus $`\mathrm{\Delta },\kappa ,a`$ and $`b`$.

In order to check the reliability of the state reconstruction we performed a set of Monte Carlo simulated experiments, starting from homodyne measurements with quantum efficiencies in the range $`\eta =7090\%`$. For states with average photons in the range $`n_{th}<3`$, $`n_{coh}<5`$, and $`n_{sq}<3`$ and for data samples of size of the order $`N=10^410^5`$ we always found a reconstructed state very close to the theoretical one. 111As a global measure of the goodness of the reconstruction one should consider the normalized overlap $`𝒪`$ between the theoretical and the estimated state
$$𝒪=\frac{\text{Tr}[\widehat{\varrho }\widehat{\varrho }_{\mathrm{ml}}]}{\sqrt{\text{Tr}[\widehat{\varrho }^2]\text{Tr}[\widehat{\varrho }_{\mathrm{ml}}^2]}},$$
which is unit $`𝒪=1`$ if and only if $`\widehat{\varrho }=\widehat{\varrho }_{\mathrm{ml}}`$. As a matter of fact, the quality of the state reconstruction is good enough that other physical quantities that are theoretically evaluated from the experimental values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{ml}},\kappa _{\mathrm{ml}},a_{\mathrm{ml}}`$ and $`b_{\mathrm{ml}}`$ are inferred very precisely. For example, we evaluated the photon number probability of a squeezed thermal state, which is given by the integral

$`n|\widehat{\varrho }|n={\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{[C(\varphi ,n_{th},\kappa )1]^n}{C(\varphi ,n_{th},\kappa )^{n+1}}},`$ (18)
with $`C(\varphi ,n_{th},\kappa )=(n_{th}+\frac{1}{2})(\kappa ^1\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi +\kappa \mathrm{cos}^2\varphi )+\frac{1}{2}`$. The comparison of the theoretical and the experimental results for a state with $`n_{th}=0.1`$ and $`n_{sq}=3`$ is reported in Fig. 3. The statistical error of the reconstructed number probability affects the third decimal digit, and is not visible on the scale of the plot.

As a further development, we mention that the ML estimation of Gaussian Wigner functions also provides a technique to estimate the coupling constants of quadratic Hamiltonians of the form

$`\widehat{H}=\alpha a+\alpha ^{}a^{}+\phi a^{}a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\xi a^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\xi ^{}a^2.`$ (19)
Hamiltonians like that in Eq. (19) describes the interaction of light modes in active optical medium characterized by a second order susceptibility tensor. Actually, the unitary evolution operator $`\widehat{U}=e^{i\widehat{H}t}`$ preserves the Gaussian form of an input state with Gaussian Wigner function, and therefore one can use a Gaussian state to probe and characterize an optical device.

### 4.2 Absolute estimation of the quantum efficiency

The operation of a photodetector is, in principle, very simple: each photon ionizes an atom, and the resulting charge is amplified to produce a measurable pulse. In practice, however, available photodetectors are usually characterized by a quantum efficiency lower than unity, which means that only a fraction of the incoming photons lead to an electric pulse, and ultimately to a ”count”. We may distinguish two main classes of photodetectors. In the first we have detectors where the resulting current proportional to the incoming photon flux: in this case we have a linear photodetector. For example, this is the case of the high flux photodetectors used in homodyne detection. In the second class we have photodetectors operating at very low intensities, which resort to avalanche process in order to transform a single ionization event into a recordable pulse. This implies that one cannot discriminate between a single photon or many photons as the outcomes from such detectors are either a ”click”, corresponding to any number of photons, or ”nothing” which means that no photons have been revealed.

Conventional characterization of photodetectors resorts to prepare a reference state with known intensity, and then measuring which fraction of the signal is actually revealed. This unavoidably leads to rather poor performances when applied in the relevant regime of quantum signals. Detection losses, in facts, distorce the whole probability distribution of the quantity being measured, not only the average value. Moreover, we need the accurate knowledge of the quantum state of the reference signal. In the following, we apply the ML principle to the absolute estimation of the quantum efficiency of both linear and avalanche photodetectors. We show that, along with the reliable characterization of quantum signals, ML method is an effective and statistically efficient tool for characterizing the response of a photodetector to low-intensity and/or nonclassical states.

Let us first study the case of linear photodetectors. As a reference state we consider a squeezed-coherent state, measured by homodyne detection. The effect of non-unit quantum efficiency $`\eta `$ on the probability distribution of homodyne detection is twofold. We have both a rescaling of the mean value and a broadening of the distribution. For a squeezed state $`|x_0,r=D(x_0)S(r)|0`$ with the direction of squeezing parallel to the signal phase and to the phase of the homodyne detection (without loss of generality we set this phase equal to zero and $`x_0,r>0`$ ) we have

$`p_\eta (x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }^2}}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(x\eta x_0)^2}{2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}\right]\mathrm{\Delta }^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(e^{2r}+1\eta \right).`$ (20)
The total number of photons of the state is given by $`n=x_0^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2r`$, whereas the squeezing fraction is defined as $`\gamma =\mathrm{sinh}^2r/n`$. Apart from an irrelevant constant, the log-likelihood function can be written as

$`L(\eta )=\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}\left(\overline{x^2}+\eta x_0^22\eta x_0\overline{x}\right).`$ (21)
The resulting MLE is thus given by

$`\eta _{\mathrm{ml}}=1+e^{2r}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_0^2}}\left\{1\sqrt{1+64x_0^2\left[\overline{x^2}+(1+e^{2r})(x_02\overline{x}+x_0e^{2r})x_0\right]}\right\}`$
A set of Monte Carlo simulated experiments confirmed that the Cramér-Rao bound is attained. The performances of the ML estimation can be compared to the ”naive” estimation based only on the measurement of the mean value, i.e. $`\eta _{\mathrm{av}}=\overline{x}/x_0`$. We expect the naive method to be less efficient, since the quantum efficiency not only rescales the mean value, but also spreads the variance of the homodyne distribution in Eq. (20). In Fig. 4, on the basis of a Monte Carlo simulated experiment, we compare the ML and the average-value methods in estimating the quantum efficiency through homodyne detection on a squeezed state. The advantages of ML method are apparent, especially for the estimation of low values of $`\eta `$.

Let us now consider avalanche photodetectors, which perform the ON/OFF measurement described by the two-value POM

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\mathrm{off}}={\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1\eta )^p|pp|\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\mathrm{on}}=𝐈\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\mathrm{off}},`$ (22)
where $`𝐈`$ denotes the identity operator. With avalanche photodetectors we have only two possible outcomes: ”click” or ”no clicks” which we denote by ”1” and ”0” respectively. The log-likelihood function is given by

$`L(\eta )=(NN_c)\mathrm{log}P_0(\eta )+N_c\mathrm{log}[1P_0(\eta )],`$ (23)
where $`P_0(\eta )=\text{Tr}[\widehat{\varrho }\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\mathrm{off}}]`$ is the probability of having no clicks for the reference state described by the density matrix $`\varrho `$, $`N`$ is the total number of measurements, and $`N_c`$ is the number of events leading to a click. The maximum of $`L(\eta )`$, i.e. the MLE for the quantum efficiency, satisfies the equation

$`P_0(\eta _{\mathrm{ml}})=1{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{N}},`$ (24)
whose solution, of course, depends on the choice of the reference state. The optimal choice would be using single-photon states as a reference. In this case, we have the trivial result $`\eta _{\mathrm{ml}}=N_c/N`$. However, single-photon state are not easy to prepare and generally one would like to test $`\eta `$ for coherent pulses $`|\alpha `$. In this case, we have $`P_0(\eta )=\mathrm{exp}(|\alpha |^2\eta )`$ and

$`\eta _{\mathrm{ml}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\alpha |^2}}\mathrm{log}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{N}}\right).`$ (25)
The Fisher information is given by

$`F=\left({\displaystyle \frac{P_0}{\eta }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{P_0}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{P_1}{\eta }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{P_1}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{P_0(1P_0)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{P_0}{\eta }}\right)^2,`$ (26)
and therefore, for a weak coherent reference one has

$`F={\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2}{e^{\eta |\alpha |^2}1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{|\alpha |^2}}\sigma _\eta `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha |}{\sqrt{\eta N}}}.`$ (27)
## 5 Summary and conclusions

In this paper we reviewed the application of the maximum likelihood principle to the reconstruction of the density matrix of a generic quantum system , as well as to the estimation of relevant parameters in quantum optics . In all cases, the resulting reconstruction algorithm is statistically efficient, and provides the reliable estimation of the quantity of interest using much smaller data samples compared to conventional methods. In particular, the ML estimation of the density matrix allows one to incorporate the natural physical constraints we have on the quantum state, thus leading to a substantial reduction of statistical fluctuations. For quantum-optical parameters, the ML approach provides efficient estimation schemes based on feasible measurements like homodyne detection. The resulting procedures lead to substantial improvement over conventional methods and are of technological interest.

## Acknowledgement

This work has been supported by INFM through the project PRA-97-CAT. The ML estimation algorithm for quantum state ( i.e. the subject of section 3) has been developed by the authors in collaboration with Konrad Banaszek during his stay at the INFM unit of Pavia. MGAP thanks K.B. and Zdenek Hradil for interesting discussions.


format: text

text:
# Detection of [N II] 𝜆5755 Emission from Low Density Ionized Interstellar Gas

## 1 Introduction

Regions of nearly fully ionized hydrogen, having a temperature near 104 K and an electron density of order 10-1 cm-3, are wide spread throughout the disk and halo of the Milky Way and other galaxies. The source of the ionization and heating of this diffuse ionized gas is not yet understood. However, important clues can be found in its optical spectrum, which is characterized by high \[N II\] $`\lambda `$6584/H$`\alpha `$ and \[S II\] $`\lambda `$6716/H$`\alpha `$ line intensity ratios relative to the ratios observed in the much brighter, higher density H II regions around O stars (e.g., Rand 1997; Haffner, Reynolds, and Tufte 1999). Such elevated ratios indicate ionization/excitation conditions in the diffuse ionized gas that differ significantly from conditions in the classical H II regions.

Although photoionization models incorporating a very dilute ionizing radiation field (a low ionization parameter) are generally successful in producing the elevated line ratios (e.g., Sokolowski 1991; Domgörgen & Mathis 1994; Greenawalt, Walterbos. & Braun 1997), they fail to explain some important details of the observations. In particular, pure photoionization models cannot account for the very high \[N II\]/H$`\alpha `$, \[S II\]/H$`\alpha `$, and \[O II\]/H$`\alpha `$ ratios (near unity and above) observed far from the midplane, nor can they explain the observed constancy of \[S II\]/\[N II\], even when the variations in \[S II\]/H$`\alpha `$ and \[N II\]/H$`\alpha `$ from direction to direction are large (e.g., see Rand 1997, 1998; Ferguson et al 1996; Tüllmann et al 2001). Haffner et al (1999) and Reynolds, Haffner, & Tufte (1999, 2000) have shown that these observations could be explained if the variations in \[S II\]/H$`\alpha `$ and \[N II\]/H$`\alpha `$ were the result of variations in the electron temperature of the emitting gas rather than variations in the ionization parameter. Such temperature variations require the existence of an additional source of heat in the low density gas that dominates over the photoionization heating (Reynolds et al 1999).

One prediction of this idea is that the electron temperature in regions of faint, low density ionized gas, where the \[N II\]/H$`\alpha `$ ratios are high, must be significantly greater than the temperature in the higher density, bright H II regions, where the \[N II\]/H$`\alpha `$ ratio is relatively low. A standard method of determining electron temperatures in ionized interstellar gas is to measure the \[N II\]$`\lambda `$5755/\[N II\]$`\lambda `$6584 line intensity ratio. Since \[N II\]$`\lambda `$6584 is one of the brightest lines emitted by diffuse ionized gas, comparable in intensity to the H$`\alpha `$ (Haffner et al 1999), these nitrogen lines are a potentially useful diagnostic, provided that a sufficiently sensitive spectrometer is available to detect the much weaker 5755 Å transition. For densities below 104 cm-3, the situation for the ionized regions considered here, Osterbrock (1989) gives the volume emissivity ratio for the nitrogen lines simply as

$$\frac{ϵ(5755)}{ϵ(6584)}=0.192e^{25,000/T_e}.$$
(1)
Below we present spectra of H$`\alpha `$, \[N II\]$`\lambda `$6584, and \[N II\]$`\lambda `$5755 obtained with the Wisconsin H$`\alpha `$ Mapper (WHAM) in a direction that samples faint low density gas and in directions toward bright, higher density H II regions. The results provide evidence for a significant temperature difference between the two types of ionized regions.

## 2 Observations and Results

The observations were made with the WHAM spectrometer, located on Kitt Peak and operated remotely from Madison, Wisconsin (Haffner et al 1999; Tufte 1997). In 1998 October and 1999 November long integration spectra were obtained of a 3.8 Å (200 km s-1) wide spectral interval centered near the Local Standard of Rest (LSR) velocity of the \[N II\]$`\lambda `$5755 line. The spectral resolution was 12 km s-1 and the beam on the sky was $`1.^\mathrm{o}0`$ in diameter. The observations consisted of a series of integrations (each 300 s or 600 s) toward $`l=130.^\mathrm{o}0`$, b = $`7.^\mathrm{o}5`$, which samples diffuse low density gas. Between each of these “on-source” observations, an integration of approximately equal length was made toward one of a number of higher Galactic latitude, even fainter “off-source” directions: $`135.^\mathrm{o}0,30.^\mathrm{o}0`$; $`135.^\mathrm{o}0,35.^\mathrm{o}0`$; $`135.^\mathrm{o}0,40.^\mathrm{o}0`$; $`142.^\mathrm{o}5,22.^\mathrm{o}5`$; and $`157.^\mathrm{o}0,24.^\mathrm{o}5`$. This technique is described by Tufte, Reynolds, & Haffner (1998) and has been used to detect very faint optical emission lines from high velocity H I clouds. Observations of the fainter, “off-source” directions are necessary because the spectra are contaminated by very weak, unidentified atmospheric emission lines that are comparable to or brighter than the interstellar emission (Hausen et al 2000; Tufte et al 1998). By subtracting the average of the “off-source” spectra from the “on-source” spectrum, we obtain a pure interstellar spectrum of \[N II\]$`\lambda `$5755 toward $`l=130.^\mathrm{o}0`$, b = $`7.^\mathrm{o}5`$. Because diffuse ionized gas covers the entire sky, this process also subtracts a small amount of the interstellar emission. For example, the average H$`\alpha `$ and \[N II\]$`\lambda `$6584 intensity in the “off-source” directions is 16% and 20%, respectively, that toward $`130.^\mathrm{o}0`$, $`7.^\mathrm{o}5`$. For consistency, the same procedure was used to obtain spectra of H$`\alpha `$ and \[N II\]$`\lambda `$6584 for this direction, as well as H$`\alpha `$, \[N II\]$`\lambda `$6584, and \[N II\]$`\lambda `$5755 for seven bright H II regions around O stars (this “on” minus “off” technique was not really necessary in these cases because the interstellar emission was always much brighter than the atmospheric emission —except the geocoronal H$`\alpha `$ line, which is removed by a different procedure; see Reynolds et al 1998).

The direction $`130.^\mathrm{o}0`$, $`7.^\mathrm{o}5`$ is within the region mapped in H$`\alpha `$, \[N II\]$`\lambda `$6584, and \[S II\]$`\lambda `$6716 by Haffner et al (1999). This particular sight line was selected because the H$`\alpha `$ emission is relatively bright, making it possible to detect the exceedingly faint \[N II\]$`\lambda `$5755 line, and because the \[N II\]$`\lambda `$6584/H$`\alpha `$ and \[S II\]$`\lambda `$6716/H$`\alpha `$ ratios (0.43 and 0.27, respectively) are characteristic of diffuse low density gas and are significantly higher than the ratios in the bright H II regions (e.g., for the H II regions considered here, the average ratios are 0.27 and 0.08, respectively). Radial velocity components ranging from near the local standard of rest (LSR) out to about $`80`$ km s-1 are clearly present in the H$`\alpha `$ and \[N II\]$`\lambda `$6584 profiles, indicating that the ionized gas is spread along a large portion of the sight line. A very extended, faint H II region associated with the B1 star $`\varphi `$ Per (4o away and 220 pc distant) appears to dominate the profile near 0 km s-1, while the emission at the most negative velocities is associated with gas more than 2 kpc distant and 300 pc from the midplane in the Perseus arm or beyond (see Haffner et al 1999).

The resulting “on” minus “off” spectra are shown in Figure 1 for $`130.^\mathrm{o}0`$, $`7.^\mathrm{o}5`$ and for one of the H II regions. The \[N II\]$`\lambda `$5755 spectrum toward $`130.^\mathrm{o}0`$, $`7.^\mathrm{o}5`$ has a total “on-source” integration time of 12,300 s (19,500 s “off-source”) and shows the first detection of this nitrogen line from low density ionized gas. Integration times for H$`\alpha `$ and \[N II\]$`\lambda `$6584 in this direction were 660 s and 1020 s (720 s and 1200 s “off”), respectively, while for the H II regions the integration times ranged from 30 s to 60 s for the H$`\alpha `$, 60 s to 120 s for \[N II\]$`\lambda `$6584, and 120 s to 1200 s for \[N II\]$`\lambda `$5755.

Line intensities were calculated by fitting gaussian emission components to the spectra. For $`130.^\mathrm{o}0`$, $`7.^\mathrm{o}5`$ the \[N II\]$`\lambda `$6584 profile indicates four radial velocity components at $`81`$ km s-1, $`61`$ km s-1, $`40`$ km s-1, and $`7`$ km s-1. In the H$`\alpha `$ spectrum these components are not as well defined because of the larger thermal broadening of the hydrogen. Gaussians at these four velocities were fitted to each of the three spectra towards $`130.^\mathrm{o}0`$, $`7.^\mathrm{o}5`$, while single gaussians were used for the H II region spectra. This produced good fits in all cases, and the results are listed in Table 1. The intensity calibrations of the nitrogen lines are based on the H$`\alpha `$ calibration with small corrections for instrument response and atmospheric transmission. Since the principal goal is to compare emission line ratios between the $`130.^\mathrm{o}0`$, $`7.^\mathrm{o}5`$ direction and the bright H II regions, small systematic errors in the absolute calibrations of the individual lines will not affect our conclusions. For \[N II\]$`\lambda `$5755, the position of the baseline was the principal source of uncertainty for the component intensities, and the listed uncertainties were derived by examining many fits using various adopted baselines.

Because interstellar extinction has only a small effect on the emission line ratios, no extinction corrections have been made. The exciting stars for the bright H II regions in our sample have values for EB-V that range from 0.12 to 0.71 (see Reynolds 1988), which according to Mathis (1983) would require correction factors of 1.03 to 1.10 to the observed \[N II\]$`\lambda `$5755/\[N II\]$`\lambda `$6584 intensity ratios. The H I column density toward $`130.^\mathrm{o}0`$, $`7.^\mathrm{o}5`$ is 1.5 $`\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2 (Hartmann and Burton 1998), impling an E$`{}_{BV}{}^{}0.3`$, similar to the average (0.4) toward the H II regions. Thus the comparison of the ratios between this sight line and the H II regions should not be affected significantly by extinction. The principal effect of applying extinction corrections would be to increase all the temperatures derived from equation (1) by about 200 K.

The \[N II\]$`\lambda `$5755/\[N II\]$`\lambda `$6584 and \[N II\]$`\lambda `$6584/H$`\alpha `$ line intensity ratios for the H II regions and for $`130^\mathrm{o}.0`$, $`7.^\mathrm{o}5`$ are plotted in Figure 2. The results listed in Table 1 for the individual velocity components toward $`130^\mathrm{o}.0`$, $`7.^\mathrm{o}5`$ suggest that there may be large variations in the ratios from component to component. Components 1 and 4, for example, appear to have higher \[N II\]$`\lambda `$5755/\[N II\]$`\lambda `$6584 ratios than Components 2 and 3. However, because of severe blending between the components, except for component 4, and because of the relatively low signal to noise of the \[N II\]$`\lambda `$5755 spectrum, only the results for component 4 and for the integrated line profile (the sum of all four velocity components) are plotted in Figure 2.

## 3 Discussion and Conclusions

The emission line \[N II\]$`\lambda `$5755 has been detected for the first time in the faint “diffuse background”, making it possible to explore directly the electron temperature in the low density ionized gas. Figure 2 clearly shows that toward $`130.^\mathrm{o}0`$, $`7.^\mathrm{o}5`$ not only does the gas have a larger \[N II\]$`\lambda `$6584/H$`\alpha `$ ratio than the bright H II regions (a long recognized characteristic of diffuse ionized gas), but that the \[N II\]$`\lambda `$5755/\[N II\]$`\lambda `$6584 ratio is also larger, implying that the faint, diffuse gas has a significantly higher electron temperature Te than the gas in the H II regions. For the H II regions, derived values of Te from equation (1) range from 6400 K to 6900 K, while toward $`130.^\mathrm{o}0`$, $`7.^\mathrm{o}5`$, Te = 9400 $`\pm `$ 400 K (component 4) and 8400 $`\pm `$ 500 K (the integrated profile). Thus, at least for this sight line the enhanced \[N II\]$`\lambda `$6584/H$`\alpha `$ is due in part to an elevated temperature.

To examine more quantitatively the relationship between the intensity ratios and electron temperature, we have plotted as a solid line in Figure 2 the ratios predicted for various temperatures based upon equation (1) and the relationship between \[N II\]$`\lambda `$6584/H$`\alpha `$ and temperature presented by Haffner et al (1999). Interestingly, nearly all of the observations lie above this line. This suggests that no single temperature can account for the observed ratios, not even toward the bright H II regions. The relationship between Te and \[N II\]/H$`\alpha `$ is based on the fact that in photoionized interstellar gas, N+/N $``$ H+/H (e.g., Sembach et al 2000). Thus the offset between the solid line and the observations could be explained if there were a large amount of N++, specifically, if N++ $``$ N+. While this may be possible for some of the H II regions, it cannot be the explanation for the $`130.^\mathrm{o}0`$, $`7.^\mathrm{o}5`$ observations, since the high \[S II\]/H$`\alpha `$ ratio implies a relatively low ionization state for the gas (Haffner et al 1999). A large error in the adopted value for the gas phase abundance N/H also seems improbable (see Meyer, Cardelli, & Sofia 1997 and Afflerback, Churchwell, & Werner 1997). A more likely explanation is that a range of temperatures is present along the line of sight. In this case \[N II\]$`\lambda `$5755, with a higher excitation energy (4.04 eV) than that (1.89 eV) of \[N II\]$`\lambda `$6584, is produced preferentially in the higher temperature regions, resulting in a temperature derived from \[N II\]$`\lambda `$5755/\[N II\]$`\lambda `$6584 that is higher than the temperature derived from \[N II\]$`\lambda `$6584/H$`\alpha `$. The dashed curve in Figure 2 represents a very simple case in which there is an equal mixture (by emission measure) of gas at two temperatures, half at 5000 K and half at the higher temperature indicated along the curve. While this fit is certainly not unique, it demonstrates that a mixture of temperatures can readily explain the observed ratios, and that toward $`130.^\mathrm{o}0`$, $`7.^\mathrm{o}5`$ at least some of the gas has a significantly higher temperature than in the denser H II regions.

The direction $`130.^\mathrm{o}0`$, $`7.^\mathrm{o}5`$ was chosen in part because of its relatively high H$`\alpha `$ intensity. If an inverse relationship exists between temperature and density, then sight lines with fainter emission (lower densities) may have an even higher temperature than that derived for $`130.^\mathrm{o}0`$, $`7.^\mathrm{o}5`$. Furthermore, the derived temperature for $`130.^\mathrm{o}0`$, $`7.^\mathrm{o}5`$ itself would be an underestimate in this case, since higher temperature “offs” would result in a slight oversubtraction of \[N II\]$`\lambda `$5755 relative to \[N II\]$`\lambda `$6584.

The detection of the \[N II\] $`\lambda `$5755 emission has therefore provided strong evidence for a temperature difference between diffuse, low density ionized gas and denser, classical H II regions. However, to explore more fully temperatures and possible variations in temperature within the diffuse ionized medium itself, many additional observations will be needed, observations in directions farther from the midplane, where the \[N II\]$`\lambda `$6584/H$`\alpha `$ and \[S II\]$`\lambda `$6717/H$`\alpha `$ ratios are even larger (and temperatures are higher?) and where the influence of individual O and B stars is less. Unfortunately, because \[N II\]$`\lambda `$5755 is so weak, the use of this line for extensive studies of such faint regions is problematic; in fact, all single-ion diagnostics, which are insensitive to abundance and ionization state, appear to involve lines that are extremely faint. Less ideal, but brighter, temperature sensitive line ratios, such as \[O II\] $`\lambda `$3727/H$`\alpha `$, need to be investigated (Ferguson et al 1996; Otte et al 2001). Since \[O II\] has an excitation energy of 3.3 eV and an intensity comparable to that of H$`\alpha `$, \[O II\]/H$`\alpha `$ perhaps could be used as a temperature diagnostic for diffuse ionized gas, particularly in combination with observations of \[O I\] $`\lambda `$6300 and \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 to monitor oxygen’s ionization state.

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation through grant AST 96-19424.


text:
# Integral Structures on 𝐇-type Lie Algebras

## 1 Introduction

In this paper we prove that every $`𝐇`$-type Lie algebra  possesses a basis with respect to which the structure constants are integers. We are going to call such a basis *an integral basis.* Existence of an integral basis implies via the Mal’cev criterion that all simply connected $`𝐇`$-type Lie groups contain cocompact lattices. Since the Campbell-Hausdorff formula is very simple for two-step nilpotent Lie groups we can actually avoid invoking the Mal’cev criterion and exhibit our lattices in an explicit way.

The theory of $`𝐇`$-type Lie algebras is related very closely to the theory of Clifford algebras and Clifford modules (cf. ) and we are going to use the classification of Clifford modules in our construction.

We briefly recall the definition of $`𝐇`$-type Lie algebras and establish notation and conventions for the sequel. Let $`𝒰`$ and $`𝒱`$ be two finite-dimensional inner product spaces over $``$ of dimensions $`m`$ and $`n`$ respectively. Let $`J:𝒰\text{End}(𝒱)`$, $`zJ_z`$, be a linear mapping satisfying

$`|J_z(v)|`$ $`=`$ $`|z||v|`$ (1.1)
$`J_z\text{ }\text{a}J_z(v)`$ $`=`$ $`|z|^2v`$ (1.2)
for all $`z𝒰`$ and $`v𝒱`$. Such a mapping $`J`$ is called an orthogonal multiplication. Because of (1.2), by the universal property of Clifford algebras \[10, Proposition 1.1, Chapter 1\], $`J`$ extends to an algebra homomorphism $`\varphi `$ of the Clifford algebra $`C(𝒰)`$ into $`\text{End}(𝒱)`$ so that $`𝒱`$ acquires the structure of a module over $`C(𝒰)`$. We will often write $`\varphi (\alpha )v=\alpha v`$ and call $`\alpha v`$ the Clifford product of $`\alpha `$ and $`v`$.

After squaring, polarization of (1.1) yields

$`(J_{z_1}(v),J_{z_2}(v)`$ $`=`$ $`(z_1,z_2)|v|^2`$ (1.3)
$`(J_z(v_1),J_z(v_2))`$ $`=`$ $`|z|^2(v_1,v_2)`$ (1.4)
holding for all $`z,z_1,z_2𝒰`$ and $`v,v_1,v_2𝒱`$. In order not to complicate notation, we use the same notation for norms and inner products in $`𝒰`$ and $`𝒱`$. It follows immediately that

$$(J_z(v_1),v_2)=(v_1,J_z(v_2)),$$
(1.5)
i.e. $`J_z(v)`$ is a skew-adjoint endomorphism of $`𝒱`$, $`J_z^{}=J_z`$. Now the Lie algebra structure is defined on $`𝒩=𝒰𝒱`$ by requiring that $`𝒰`$ be contained in the center and that the bracket of two elements of $`𝒱`$ belong to $`𝒰`$ and satisfy

$$(z,[v_1,v_2])=(J_z(v_1),v_2).$$

In this way, $`𝒩`$ becomes a two-step nilpotent Lie algebra which is referred to as a Heisenberg-type or $`𝐇`$-type Lie algebra. Orthonormal bases $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_m`$ and $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_n`$ of $`𝒰`$ and $`𝒱`$ respectively give rise to the orthonormal basis $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_m,v_1\mathrm{},v_n`$ of $`𝒩`$. The only nonzero structure constants for $`𝒩`$ with respect to this basis occur among numbers $`A_{i,j}^k`$ defined by

$$[v_i,v_j]=A_{i,j}^kz_k.$$
(1.6)
We are now ready to state our main result.

###### Theorem 1.1

For every $`𝐇`$-type Lie algebra $`𝒩=𝒰𝒱`$ as above there exist orthonormal bases $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_m`$ and $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_n`$ of $`𝒰`$ and $`𝒱`$ respectively so that the structure constants $`A_{i,j}^k`$ of the Lie algebra $`𝒩`$ with respect to the basis $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_m,v_1\mathrm{},v_n`$ are integers and in fact take values $`0,1,1`$.

The numbers $`A_{i,j}^k`$ are clearly equal to $`(J_{z_k}(v_i),v_j)=(z_kv_i,v_j)`$, i.e. depend only on the Clifford module structure and the inner product of $`𝒱`$. According to \[10, Proposition 5.16\], every Clifford module, i.e. a finite dimensional module over $`C(𝒰)`$, admits an inner product such that the Clifford multiplication by elements of $`𝒰C(𝒰)`$ is an orthogonal multiplication. We remark that the Clifford multiplication is orthogonal if and only if elements of $`𝒰`$ act by skew-adjoint transformations, i.e. if and only if (1.5) holds.

Thus every Clifford module gives rise to an $`𝐇`$-type Lie algebra and Theorem 1.1 can be reformulated as a statement about Clifford modules as follows.

###### Theorem 1.2

Given an inner product space $`𝒰`$ with an orthonormal basis $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_m`$ and a module $`V`$ over the Clifford algebra $`C(𝒰)`$ there exists an inner product $`(,)`$ on V and an orthonormal basis $`v_1\mathrm{},v_n`$ of $`𝒱=(V,(,))`$ so that the Clifford multiplication $`J_z(v)=zv`$ by elements of $`𝒰`$ satisfies (1.1) and (1.2) and $`(z_iv_p,v_q)`$ is equal to $`0,1`$ or $`1`$ for all $`i,p,q`$.

We will say that the choice of an inner product and a basis for $`V`$ as above is an *integral structure* and that $`V`$ with this additional structure is an *integral Clifford module*. Observe that the fact that the values of $`(e_iv_p,v_q)`$ are $`0,1,1`$ is equvalent to the assertion that each of the generators $`e_i`$ acts on the basis $`v_1,v_2,\mathrm{},v_n`$ by a permutation and, possibly, some changes of sign.

From now on we will abandon the notational distinction between an inner product space $`𝒰`$ and the underlying vector space $`U`$.

## 2 Proof of Theorem 1.2

Since Clifford modules are completely reducible \[10, p. 31\], it suffices to prove Theorem 1.2 for irreducible Clifford modules. Suppose $`dim𝒰=k`$ and let $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_k`$ be an orthonormal basis of $`𝒰`$. We are going to identify $`𝒰`$ with $`^k`$ and $`C(𝒰)`$ with the algebra $`C_k`$ generated over $``$ by $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_k`$ subject to relations

$$e_ie_j=e_je_i,e_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=1.$$
(2.1)
According to the classification of irreducible Clifford modules, for every $`k3(mod4)`$ there exists only one isomorphism class of irreducible modules over $`C_k`$. If $`k=3(mod4)`$ there are two such classes, but the dimensions as vector spaces over $``$ of non-isomorphic modules are equal and the $`𝐇`$-type groups associated to them are isomorphic. We will denote an irreducible module over $`C_k`$ by $`V_k`$.

Classification of irreducible Clifford modules proceeds by induction on $`k`$, cf. \[10, p. 33\], and we shall retrace this induction proving at every stage existence of an integral basis. It will be convenient to first classify $`_2`$-graded Clifford modules. We briefly recall their definition. Denote by $`C_k^0`$ the subspace generated by products of even numbers of generators $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_k`$ and by $`C_k^1`$ the subspace generated by products of an odd number of generators. Then $`C_k^0`$ is a subalgebra, $`C_k^0C_k^1=C_k`$, and

$$C_k^iC_k^jC_k^{i+j}$$

for $`i,j_2`$. A finite dimensional space $`W`$ over $``$ is a $`_2`$-graded Clifford module if $`W=W^0W^1`$ and

$$C_k^iW^jW^{i+j}$$

with $`i,j_2`$.

We need to define an analog of integral structure on $`_2`$-graded Clifford modules (we use definitions and notation of \[4, Chapter 11, Sections 4,6\] regarding $`_2`$-graded tensor products of Clifford algebras and Clifford modules).

###### Definition 2.1

Suppose $`W^0`$ is a module over $`C_k^0`$. A choice of inner product $`(,)`$ on $`W^0`$ and an orthonormal basis $`w_1,\mathrm{}w_m`$ with respect to this inner product is called *integral* if the basis elements are permuted with a possible change in sign by Clifford multiplication by all double products $`e_ie_j`$ and

$$(ze_kw,ze_kw)=|z|^2|w|^2$$

for all $`wW^0`$ and $`z^k`$. We will call $`W^0`$ with the inner product and a basis satisfying the conditions above *integral*.

If $`W^0`$ is the $`0`$-component of a $`_2`$-graded Clifford module $`W`$ then multiplication by $`e_k`$ is an isomorphism of $`W^0`$ onto $`W^1`$. Therefore we can transfer the inner product on $`W^0`$ to $`W^1`$ and define the inner product on $`W^0W^1=W`$ by requiring the two summands to be orthogonal. A simple calculation then shows that the Clifford multiplication by elements of $`^k`$ is an orthogonal multiplication and the elements of the basis $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_m,e_kw_1,\mathrm{}e_kw_m`$ are permuted by Clifford multiplication by every $`e_i`$ with a possible change in sign. In particular, Theorem 1.2 holds for $`W`$. In the sequel we are only going to use inner products such that $`W^0W^1`$ and the multiplication by $`e_k`$ maps $`W^0`$ onto $`W^1`$ isometrically.

Our proof of Theorem 1.2 will be carried out by showing that for every $`k`$ there exists an irreducible $`_2`$-graded Clifford module $`W_k`$ with an integral structure. This will imply that *every* (ungraded) irreducible Clifford module is integral. It will follow *a posteriori* that all $`_2`$-graded Clifford modules are integral. The main fact in the classification of Clifford modules is that if $`W_k`$ and $`W_8`$ are irreducible $`_2`$-graded modules over $`C_k`$ and $`C_8`$ respectively, then $`W_k\widehat{}W_8`$ is an irreducible $`_2`$-graded module over $`C_k\widehat{}C_8C_{k+8}`$. Our proof of Theorem 1.2 will consist of exhibiting an integral irreducible $`_2`$-graded Clifford module $`W_k`$ for $`k=1,\mathrm{},8`$ and then showing that $`W_k\widehat{}W_8`$ is integral if $`W_k`$ carried an integral structure. To handle the low dimensional cases we need the following general lemma.

###### Lemma 2.1

Suppose $`V`$ is an integral module over the algebra $`C_k^0`$. Then $`W=C_k_{C_k^0}V`$ is a $`_2`$-graded module over $`C_k`$ with the $`_2`$-grading given by $`W^0=1V`$ and $`W^1=e_kV`$. Thus $`W^0`$ has integral structure transfered from $`V`$ via the isomorphism $`v1v`$. In addition, if $`V`$ is irreducible as a $`C_k^0`$-module then $`W`$ is irreducible as a $`_2`$-graded module over $`C_k`$.

Proof. This is obvious (see \[4, Chapter 11, Proposition 6.3\]).  $`\mathrm{}`$

Our next task is to describe integral structures on Clifford modules over $`C_k`$ for $`k8`$. For $`k7`$, we refer to the description of (ungraded) Clifford modules given in .

### $`𝐤=1`$

$`i`$ is acting on $``$ by complex multiplication. The real and imaginary parts are $`0`$\- and $`1`$-components of $`_2`$-grading respectively and the standard inner product together with $`1`$ as the basis of the $`0`$-component give the integral structure.

### $`𝐤=2`$

Consider the space of quaternions $``$ equipped with the standard inner product. Identify $`^2`$ with the span of $`i,j`$ and let it act on $``$ by quaternion multiplication. This makes $``$ into an irreducible module over $`C_2`$. In addition, the decomposition $`=\text{span}\{1,k\}\text{span}\{i,j\}`$ is a $`_2`$-grading and the basis $`1,k`$ gives an integral structure.

### $`𝐤=3`$

In this case the space of quaternions becomes a module over the Clifford algebra $`C_3`$ represented in the algebra of endomorphisms of $``$ as the subalgebra generated by quaternion multiplications by $`i`$, $`j`$, and $`k`$. Clearly, the standard basis $`1,i,j,k`$ is permuted with possibly a change in sign by these endomorphisms so that $``$ as a module over $`C_3`$ carries an integral structure. However, this module does not have a natural $`_2`$-graded structure. We regard $``$ as a module over $`C_3^0C_3`$ and apply Lemma 2.1 to create an integral $`_2`$-graded irreducible $`C_3`$-module structure on $`C_3_{C_3^0}`$.

To cover the remaining low-dimensional cases we will use the algebra of octonions $`𝕆`$ with its standard generators $`1,i_1,\mathrm{}i_7`$ and multiplication table given in \[5, Page 448\] with $`c=1`$.

### $`𝐤=4`$

This is analogous to the case $`k=2`$. $`^4`$ is identified with $`\text{span}\{i_1,i_2,i_3,i_4\}`$ which acts on $`𝕆`$ by octonion multiplication. The resulting Clifford module is $`_2`$-graded with the $`0`$-component equal to $`\text{span}\{1,i_5,i_6,i_7\}`$ and the $`1`$-component $`\text{span}\{i_1,i_2,i_3,i_4\}`$. These bases are orthonormal with respect to the standard inner product and give rise to an integral structure. This follows from inspection of the multiplication table.

### $`𝐤=5,6,7`$

We treat these three cases simultaneously. The Clifford algebra $`C_k`$ can be represented as an algebra of endomorphisms of $`𝕆`$ generated by transformations of octonion multiplications by $`i_j`$, $`1jk`$. The resulting Clifford module $`V_k`$ is irreducible but not $`_2`$-graded. As above, we regard it as a module over $`C_k^0`$ which allows us to create an irreducible, $`_2`$-graded, integral Clifford module $`W_k=C_k_{C_k^0}𝕆`$ using Lemma 2.1.

### $`𝐤=8`$

This uses the isomorphism, for every $`k2`$, $`\varphi :C_{k1}C_k^0`$ defined as follows \[4, Chapter 11, Section 6\]. Let $`x=x_0+x_1`$ be the decomposition of $`xC_k`$ into its $`0`$ and $`1`$ components. Then $`\varphi (x)=x_0+e_kx_1`$ where, given standard generators $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_k`$ of $`C_k`$, we regard $`C_{k1}`$ as the subalgebra generated by $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_{k1}`$. The octonions are a module over $`C_7`$ as above (we relabel $`i_j`$ as $`e_j`$) which allows us to regard $`𝕆`$ as a module over $`C_8^0`$ by defining the multiplication $`xo`$ as $`\varphi ^1(x)o`$. Since $`\varphi ^1(e_j)=e_j`$ and $`\varphi ^1(e_8e_j)=e_j`$ for $`j7`$ and $`𝕆`$ was integral as a module over $`C_7`$, the resulting module over $`C_8^0`$ is integral. Applying Lemma 2.1 we obtain an integral, irreducible, $`_2`$-graded module $`W_8=C_8_{C_8^0}𝕆`$. We remark that $`W_8`$ is irreducible as an ungraded Clifford module as well. This is because $`W_8^0`$ is irreducible as a module over $`C_8^0`$ (since the pair ($`W_8^0,C_8^0)`$ is isomorphic to $`(V_7,C_7)`$ and $`V_7`$ is irreducible as a module over $`C_7`$).

We are now ready for the inductive step in the argument. Suppose $`W_k`$ and $`W_l`$ are integral, $`_2`$-graded Clifford modules over $`C_k`$ and $`C_l`$ respectively. Let $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_k`$ and $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_l`$ be the standard generators of $`C_k`$ and $`C_l`$. Suppose $`W_k^0`$ and $`W_l^0`$ are equipped with inner products and integral bases $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_m`$ and $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_n`$ respectively. Recall that as a vector space $`W_k\widehat{}W_l`$ is isomorphic to $`W_kW_l`$ so that we can equip $`W_k\widehat{}W_l`$ with an inner product by requiring that

$$(x_1y_1,x_2y_2)=(x_1,x_2)(y_1,y_2).$$

In particular, different components $`W_k^iW_l^j`$ for $`(i,j)_2\times _2`$ are orthogonal. Under the isomorphism $`C_k\widehat{}C_lC_{k+l}`$, cf. \[4, Corollary 4.8\] (note that our notation differs from the notation in  since we use the symbol $`\widehat{}`$ instead of $``$ to denote the tensor product of $`_2`$-graded algebras), the standard generators of $`C_{k+l}`$ correspond to $`e_11,\mathrm{},e_k1,1f_1,\mathrm{}1f_l`$. To exhibit an integral structure we need a basis of $`(W_kW_l)^0=(W_k^0W_l^0)(W_k^1W_l^1)`$ in addition. The basis that we are going to use is

$$\{v_iw_j,e_kv_if_lw_j1im,1jn\}.$$
(2.2)
###### Lemma 2.2

The bases described above give rise to an integral structure on $`(W_k\widehat{}W_l)^0`$ and, consequently, on $`W_k\widehat{}W_l`$.

Proof. We first verify that the Clifford multiplication by elements of the space $`U`$ spanned by the generators of $`C_k\widehat{}C_l`$ is orthogonal. Recall that it suffices to verify that each element $`zU`$ acts on $`W_k\widehat{}W_l`$ as a skew-symmetric endomorphism. We abuse the notation and write $`z`$ for an endomorphism associated with $`z`$. Clearly,

$`(e_i1)^{}=e_i^{}1=e_i1`$
$`(1f_j)^{}=1f_j^{}=1f_j`$
since Clifford multiplications on $`W_k`$ and $`W_l`$ are orthogonal. Since every element of $`U`$ is a linear combination of such products, our assertion follows.

To verify properties of the integral structure, it suffices to show that elements of the basis (2.2) are permuted up to sign by the double products of generators. There are three cases to consider $`(e_i1)(e_j1)=e_ie_j1`$, $`(1f_i)(1f_j)=1f_if_j`$, and $`(e_i1)(1f_j)=(e_if_j)`$. In the first two cases the action is as desired since the multiplication by $`e_p`$’s permutes $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_m`$ up to sign and the multiplication by $`f_q`$’s acts the same way on $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_n`$. To treat the third case, note that $`e_p=\pm e_ke_pe_k`$ and $`f_q=\pm f_lf_qf_l`$. Thus, up to signs,

$$(e_pf_q)(v_iw_j)=e_ke_pe_kv_if_lf_qf_lw_j=e_kv_i^{}f_lw_j^{}$$

since double products of generators of $`C_k`$ and $`C_l`$ permute up to sign the distinguished bases of $`W_k^0`$ and $`W_l^0`$ respectively. Similarly,

$$(e_pf_q)(e_kv_if_lw_j)=e_pe_kv_if_qf_lw_j=e_kv_i^{}f_lw_j^{}.$$

This proves the lemma.  $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 2.1

Suppose that $`W_k`$ is an irreducible, integral, $`_2`$-graded module over $`C_k`$. Then $`W_kW_8`$ is an irreducible, integral, $`_2`$-graded module over $`C_k\widehat{}C_8C_{k+8}`$ with the integral structure described above.

Proof. All assertions except irreducibility are contained in the lemma above. By \[4, Chapter 11, 6.5\] $`dim_{}W_kW_8=dim_{}W_kdim_{}W_8=16dim_{}W_k`$ is equal to the dimension of an irreducible, $`_2`$-graded Clifford module over $`C_{k+8}`$. It follows immediately that $`W_kW_8`$ is irreducible.  $`\mathrm{}`$ An easy induction using the explicit description of irreducible, $`_2`$-graded Clifford modules over $`C_k,1k8`$ and the lemma above yields existence of an irreducible, $`_2`$-graded Clifford module $`W_k`$ over $`C_k`$ for every $`k`$.

Some additional work is required to show that every (ungraded) Clifford module has an integral structure. Let $`a_k`$ be the dimension of an irreducible Clifford module over $`C_k`$, and let $`b_k`$ denote the dimension of an irreducible, $`_2`$-graded module over $`C_k`$. It follows from \[4, Proposition 6.3, Chapter 11\] that $`a_k=b_k/2`$ and from basic periodicity \[4, 6.5, Chapter 11\] that $`a_{k+8}=16a_k`$ and $`b_{k+8}=16b_k`$. All values of $`a_k`$ and $`b_k`$ can now be computed from Table 1, which summarizes some of the information about Clifford modules of low dimensions.

Recall now (cf. \[4, Chapter 6\]) that if $`k=1,2,4,8(mod8)`$ then the dimensions over $``$ of an irreducible Clifford module and an irreducible $`_2`$-graded Clifford module are equal. Thus $`_2`$-graded Clifford modules $`W_k`$ constructed above are irreducible as (ungraded) Clifford modules. The classification also says that for these values of $`k`$ there exists exactly one isomorphism class of Clifford modules over $`C_k`$ which proves Theorem 1.2 for $`k=1,2,4,8(mod8)`$.

Next consider the case $`k=3(mod4)`$. According to the classification there are two non-isomorphic Clifford modules over $`C_k`$. We are going to show that their direct sum is isomorphic as an ungraded Clifford module to $`W_k`$ and that the integral structure of $`W_k`$ induces integral structures on the two modules. The key role in the proof of this fact is played by the “volume element” $`\omega =e_1e_2\mathrm{}e_k`$. $`\omega `$ belongs to the center of $`C_k`$ and satisfies $`\omega ^2=1`$, cf. \[10, Proposition 3.3, Chapter 1\]. In addition, the multiplication by $`\omega `$ is a symmetric operator on every orthogonal Clifford module. This can be seen as follows. If $`k=4l+3`$, then

$$\omega ^{}=e_k^{}e_{k1}^{}\mathrm{}e_1^{}=(1)^{4l+3}e_ke_{k1}\mathrm{}e_1=(1)^{\frac{(4l+4)(4l+3)}{2}}e_1e_2\mathrm{}e_k=\omega ,$$

since multiplications by $`e_p`$’s are skew-symmetric and $`e_p`$’s anti-commute. Now define $`\varphi _+`$ and $`\varphi _{}`$ to be multiplications by central elements $`(1+\omega )/2`$ and $`(1\omega )/2`$ respectively. $`\varphi _\pm `$ are self-adjoint and satisfiy $`\varphi _\pm ^2=\varphi _\pm `$, i.e. they are orthogonal projections onto their images. Since $`(1+\omega )(1\omega )=0`$ and $`\varphi _++\varphi _{}=1`$ the ranges of these projections are perpendicular. Since $`1\pm \omega `$ are central, they are in fact (ungraded) Clifford submodules $`V_+`$ and $`V_{}`$ of $`W_k`$. Since $`\omega W_k^0=W_k^1`$, $`\varphi _\pm `$ is injective on $`W_k^0`$. A count of dimensions shows that $`W_k=\varphi _+W_k^0\varphi _{}W_k^0`$ is an orthogonal direct decomposition of $`W_k`$ into two Clifford submodules. $`\omega `$ acts on $`V_\pm `$ by multiplication by $`\pm 1`$ so that the two modules are *non-isomorphic*. To conclude our analysis we exhibit integral bases of the two modules. We do the argument for $`V_+`$ since the argument for $`V_{}`$ is identical after $`1+\omega `$ is replaced by $`1\omega `$. Let $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_m`$ be an integral basis of $`W_0`$, i.e. an orthonormal basis which is permuted up to sign by multiplications by double products $`e_ie_j`$. Let

$$v_p=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1+\omega )w_pV_+$$

for $`p=1,\mathrm{},m`$. Since $`\omega W_k^0=W_k^1`$ is perpendicular to $`W_k^0`$, Pythagorean theorem insures that this is an orthonormal basis. For a generator $`e_i`$ of $`C_k`$ we calculate

$$(e_iv_p,v_q)=(e_iw_p+e_i\omega w_p,w_q+\omega w_q)/2.$$

Observe that $`e_i\omega w_p`$ and $`w_q`$ belong to $`W_k^0`$ while $`e_iw_p`$ and $`\omega w_q`$ are in $`W_k^1`$. Therefore the inner product above simplifies to

$$((e_iw_p,\omega w_q)+(e_i\omega w_p,w_q))/2=(e_iw_p,\omega w_q),$$

since $`\omega `$ is central and selfadjoint. Now $`\omega w_q`$ can be expressed as a product of $`e_i`$ times a product of an even number of generators of $`C_k`$. It therefore follows from the definition of an integral basis that $`e_i\omega w_q`$ is up to sign equal to $`e_iw_q^{}`$ so that, finally

$$(e_iv_p,e_iv_q^{})=(v_p,v_q^{})=\delta _{p,q^{}}$$

which proves that the basis $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_m`$ is integral.

The remaining two cases of Theorem 1.2 are $`k=5,6(mod8)`$ say $`k=8l+r`$, with $`r`$ equal to $`5`$ or $`6`$. By the classification, in either case there is only one isomorphism class of irreducible modules over $`C_k`$ and the dimension over $``$ of an irreducible module in this class is equal to the dimension of the Clifford module $`V_+`$ over $`C_{4l+7}`$ constructed above. Clearly, $`C_k`$ can be regarded as the subalgebra of $`C_{4l+7}`$ generated by the first $`k`$ generators so that $`V_+=V_k`$ becomes a module over $`C_k`$. It is irreducible since its dimension is that of an irreducible module and, trivially, integral. Theorem 1.2 is proved.

We conclude this section with a very simple proof, available now, of the fact that two non-isomorphic Clifford modules over $`C_k`$, $`k=3(mod4)`$ give rise to isomorphic $`𝐇`$-type algebras. This is very well known, cf. , but we give the proof for completeness. The structure constants of the $`𝐇`$-type Lie algebra $`UV_+`$ associated to the Clifford module $`V_+`$ have been computed above and are equal to $`(e_iv_p,v_q)=(e_iw_p,\omega w_q)`$ (here $`U=\text{span}\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_k\}`$). In the analogous calculation for $`V_{}`$ $`\omega `$ is replaced by $`\omega `$ so that the corresponding structure constants for the Lie algebra $`UV_{}`$ (with respect to the basis $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_k,v_1^{},\mathrm{},v_m^{}`$ where $`v_p^{}=(1/\sqrt{2})(1\omega )w_p`$ are negatives of the structure constants for $`UV_+`$ if we choose the obvious correspondence between bases of $`V_+`$ and $`V_{}`$. However, if we deploy the set $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_k,v_1^{},\mathrm{},v_1^{},\mathrm{},v_m^{}`$ as the basis for $`UV_{}`$ instead, the structure constants for the two Lie algebras are equal so that the algebras are isomorphic.

## 3 Examples and applications

In this section we show that every simply connected Lie group of Heisenberg type contains a cocompact lattice. We are also going to calculate the isoperimetric dimension of such groups.

We choose and fix an integral basis as in Theorem 1.1. Since $`𝐇`$-type Lie algebras are two-step nilpotent (in particular nilpotent) the exponential mapping is a global diffeomorphism of the Lie algebra and the group. We will therefore use it to identify the two. In addition the Campbell-Hausdorff formula that expresses the group multiplication in terms of the Lie bracket takes a particularly simple form

$$XY=X+Y+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}[X,Y]$$
(3.1)
where $`X,YN=UV`$ as in the Introduction. Let $`U_{}`$ be the abelian subgroup of $`U`$ consisting of linear combination with integer coefficients of the generators $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_k`$ of $`C(U)C_k`$. Let $`V_{}`$ be the lattice in $`V`$ generated by elements of an integral basis. Since $`[V_{},V_{}]U_{}`$ our candidate for the lattice $`L`$ in the group $`(N,)`$ is the subset

$${\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}UV.$$

Verification of this claim is straightforward after first checking that $`X`$ is the inverse of $`X`$ with respect to the group operation. Thus $`L`$ is a subgroup of $`N`$ and it is obviously discreet. The product of an arbitrary element $`u+v`$ of $`N`$ with $`wV`$ is equal to $`u+(1/2)[v,w]+v+w`$ and has $`u+(1/2)[v,w]`$ as its $`U`$ component and $`v+w`$ as the component in $`V`$. Given $`v`$ we can choose $`wV_{}`$ so that $`v+w`$ has all coefficients in the interval $`[0,1]`$ when expanded with respect to the distinguished basis of $`V`$. We can then act on $`u+(1/2)[v,w]`$ by elements $`u_1`$ of $`(1/2)U_{}`$. Since this action is by ordinary translation ($`U_{}`$ is contained in the center of $`N`$) we can easily achieve that $`u+v+(1/2)[v,w]+u_1`$ has its coefficients with respect to the basis $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_k`$ in the interval $`[0,1/2]`$. Hence all coefficients in the expansion of

$$(u+v)(u_1+w)=u+u_1+\frac{1}{2}[v,w]+v+w$$

with respect to the integral basis chosen lie in $`[0,1]`$, which proves the co-compactness of $`L`$.

To calculate the isoperimetric dimension of $`N`$ we will need to calculate the ranks of groups in the lower central series of $`L`$. Using our explicit description of the product in $`N`$ one verifies very easily that the bracket operation of the Lie algebra *coincides* with the commutator operation in the group. We therefore have $`[L,L]=[V_{},V_{}]=U_{}`$. The second equality requires a proof. Observe first that

$$|(z,[v,w])|=|(zv,w)||z||v||w|$$

if $`zU`$, $`v,wV`$. It follows that

$$|[v,w]||v||w|.$$

Now let $`e_i`$ be one of the generators of $`C_k`$. Then $`e_i`$ induces a permutation of the basis vectors of $`V`$ with a possible change in sign. Thus given $`v_p`$, $`e_kv_p=\pm v_q`$ for some $`q`$. It follows that $`|(e_i,[v_p,v_q])|=|(e_1v_p,v_q)|=1`$ so that $`e_i=\pm [v_p,v_q]`$. Thus each of the generators $`e_i`$ is a commutator which proves the claim. We see therefore that

$$L/[L,L]\left({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}U_{}/U_{}\right)V_{}_2V_{}.$$

We remark that there is no ambiguity in the interpretation of the quotient above since $`[L,L]U`$ and the group multiplication by $`uU`$ amounts to the the translation by $`u`$ by (3.1).

A theorem of Bass  gives the estimate of growth of $`L`$ in the word metric with respect to the a finite set of generators. In our case we can take for example the generating set $`S`$ given by the vectors of an integral basis and their negatives. The lower central series of $`L`$ reduces to $`L_0=LL_1=[L,L]L_2=0`$. The ranks of successive quotients are therefore equal to $`dimV`$ and $`dimU`$. If $`d=dimV+2dimU`$ then by Bass’ theorem $`L`$ has polynomial growth of degree $`d`$, i.e. the number $`g(R)`$ of distinct elements of $`L`$ in the metric ball of radius $`R`$ in $`L`$ satisfies

$$g(R)cR^d.$$

where the constant $`c`$ depends on the choice of the generating set. A result of Coulhon and Saloff-Coste  asserts that the Cayley graph of a group of polynomial growth of degree $`d`$ satisfies a $`d`$-dimensional isoperimetric inequality. Since every Lie group has bounded geometry we can invoke Kanai’s theorem  to conclude that the $`𝐇`$-type group under consideration satisfies an isoperimetric inequality of the same kind. More precisely we have the following.

###### Theorem 3.1

Suppose $`N=UV`$ is an $`𝐇`$-type group equipped with a left-invariant metric. There exists a positive constant $`c`$ such that for every relatively compact subset F of $`N`$ with smooth boundary $`F`$ we have

$$\frac{A(F)}{V(F)^{11/d}}c,$$

where $`A(F)`$ and $`v(F)`$ denote the $`n1`$-dimensional volume of the boundary of $`F`$ and $`V(F)`$ stands for the volume of $`F`$.