text:
# Visible compression of commuting mixed states

## I Introduction

The applications of Quantum Mechanics in the fields of communication, computation, and precision measurements are based on the possibility of encoding and manipulating information using quantum states. Thus, one of the most relevant questions in this context is the extension of Shannon’s noiseless coding theorem  to the quantum domain. That is, to find out the minimum amount of resources needed for a faithful storage (encoding) and retrieval (decoding) of quantum states, or, equivalently, the most economical way of compressing them. For pure states, this problem was stated and solved by Schumacher . For mixed states, however, this is still an open problem .

The problem of quantum data compression can be formulated as follows. Alice has a (stationary memoryless) quantum source that produces systems in the state (described by the density operator) $`\rho _k`$ with probability $`p_k`$, where $`k=1,2,\mathrm{},L`$ ($`L`$ finite). Let us consider a sequence $`𝒦`$ of $`N`$ systems which, for simplicity, we consider to be qubits, created by the source. Let us denote by $`\sigma _𝒦^A\rho _{k_1}\rho _{k_2}\mathrm{}\rho _{k_N}`$ the corresponding state . Alice wants to transmit such a state to Bob by using as few qubits as possible. That is: (i) she encodes the sequence in a set of $`M`$ qubits (i.e., with the help of her sequence she prepares them in some state) and sends them to Bob; (ii) he decodes the state (i.e. with the help of the qubits he has received he prepares a sequence of $`N`$ systems in some state $`\sigma _𝒦^B`$). The goal is to find the procedure for which, for sufficiently long sequences, Bob’s state $`\sigma _𝒦^B`$ is “arbitrarily close” to $`\sigma _𝒦^A`$ and, at the same time, $`M`$ is minimal (arbitrarily close means with respect to some measure of fidelity, see below). The quantity $`C=lim_N\mathrm{}M/N`$ is called compression factor.

In the case where the $`\rho _k`$ correspond to pure states one finds that $`C=S(\rho )`$ , where

$$\rho \underset{k=1}{\overset{L}{}}p_k\rho _k,$$
(1)
and

$$S(\rho )\mathrm{tr}[\rho \mathrm{log}_2(\rho )],$$
(2)
is the von Neumann entropy of $`\rho `$. When the $`\rho _k`$ correspond to mixed states, however, the value of $`C`$ is not known (except for the somehow simple case in which the supports of the operators $`\rho _k`$ are orthogonal ). It can be shown that $`S(\rho )CI(\{p_k\},\{\rho _k\})`$ , where

$$I(\{p_k\},\{\rho _k\})=S(\rho )\underset{k}{}p_kS(\rho _k),$$
(3)
is the Levitin–Holevo function. In Ref. , the authors analyze several cases where they are able to show that $`S(\rho )>C`$ by providing explicit protocols. However, none of those protocols achieve the lower bound $`I(\{p_k\},\{\rho _k\})`$. Thus, the question whether this limit can be reached or not is still open. In fact, it has been argued  that in the affirmative case one could assign a definite meaning to the Levitin–Holevo function besides the well known one related to the maximum amount of classical information that can be stored and retrieved in and from quantum states .

There are two different scenarios where quantum data compression of mixed states has been analyzed . In the so–called visible scenario, Alice knows the state $`\sigma _𝒦^A`$ she wants to compress. In the blind one, she does not know it. Obviously, the compression factor in the visible scenario is smaller than or equal to that in the latter one. In particular, for pure states both compression factors coincide .

In this paper we study the compression of quantum mixed states in the visible scenario, and in the case in which the operators $`\rho _k`$ commute with each other. We provide an explicit protocol which reaches the lower bound for the compression factor, which implies that

$$C=I(\{p_k\},\{\rho _k\}).$$
(4)
The basic idea to achieve such compression factor is to let Alice and Bob change the encoding/decoding procedure randomly from sequence to sequence. For that, we will assume that Alice and Bob possess the same random number generator (or, equivalently, that they share a list of random numbers). We will concentrate on the case in which the systems under consideration are qubits. As we will indicate, the generalization to higher dimensional systems is straightforward. Note that, as shown in Ref. , the problem analyzed in this paper is equivalent to the one of classical data compression of probability distributions. We will nevertheless use a quantum mechanical language in view of a possible extension of our protocol to the case in which the operators $`\rho _k`$ do not commute. On the other hand, the reason why our protocol achieves the compression factor (4) can be easily understood in terms of typical subspaces (or typical sequences in the classical case). Thus, we will first explain how our protocol works by using this concept. Once this is clear, a detailed proof can be easily constructed. It has come to our attention that  presents an alternative proof of the achievability of (4) using rate distortion theory.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section II we qualitatively explain our protocol using the concept of typical sequences. In Section III we describe in detail our protocol for the case of two states ($`L=2`$) and show that it achieves the compression factor (4). The protocol can be straightforwardly generalized to $`L>2`$ by following the ideas of Section II. However, we do not include the detailed proofs here since they require an involved notation, and do not add any new idea to the problem. In Section IV we discuss possible extensions of our protocol. Finally, the Appendix is concerned with some technical details.

## II Description in terms of typical sequences

In this section we formulate the problem in terms of typical sequences, which allows us to explain the basic idea of our protocol. We assume that Alice wants to send a sequence of $`N`$ qubits to Bob, each one in state $`\rho _k`$ with probability $`p_k`$, where all the $`\rho _k`$ commute. We can always write

$$\rho _k=\lambda _k|11|+(1\lambda _k)|00|,$$
(5)
Thus, we have

$$\rho =\underset{k=1}{\overset{L}{}}p_k\rho _k=\overline{P}_1|11|+\overline{P}_0|00|,$$
(6)
where

$$\overline{P}_1=\underset{k=1}{\overset{L}{}}p_k\lambda _k,\overline{P}_0=1\overline{P}_1.$$
(7)
These quantities are the probability that the quantum source creates the state $`|1`$ and $`|0`$, respectively.

As mentioned in the introduction, the goal is to compress a sequence of the form $`\sigma _𝒦^A\rho _{k_1}\rho _{k_2}\mathrm{}\rho _{k_N}`$, where $`k_i=1,2,\mathrm{},L`$. We will denote by $`v_k`$ a vector whose elements indicate the positions at which the operator $`\rho _k`$ appears. For example, if we take the sequence

$$\underset{n_1}{\underset{}{\rho _1\rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _1}}\underset{n_2}{\underset{}{\rho _2\rho _2\mathrm{}\rho _2}}\mathrm{}\underset{n_L}{\underset{}{\rho _L\rho _L\mathrm{}\rho _L}}$$
(8)
then $`v_1=(1,2,\mathrm{},n_1)`$, $`v_2=(n_1+1,n_1+2,\mathrm{},n_1+n_2)`$, etc.

If the sequence is sufficiently long, $`\sigma _𝒦^A`$ will contain the state $`\rho _k`$ approximately $`\overline{n}_kNp_k1`$ times. Let us call a sequence which exactly contains such a number of times these operators “typical sequence”. Moreover, since $`\overline{n}_k1`$ we can also apply the same idea within the sequence that Alice wants to send. If we write the operator $`\sigma _𝒦^A`$ in the basis $`\{|i_1|i_2\mathrm{}|i_N\}`$ ($`i_j=0,1`$), most of the contribution will come from states with approximately $`\overline{n}_k\lambda _k`$ ones (and $`\overline{n}_k(1\lambda _k)`$ zeros) at the positions $`v_k`$. Let us call “typical states” those with exactly such numbers of zeros and ones at the positions specified by $`v_k`$. Thus, let us concentrate on a method in which, given a typical sequence, Alice sends Bob enough information so that he can create at random one of the corresponding typical states. It is intuitively clear that if Alice can accomplish this task with $`MNI(\{p_k\},\{\rho _k\})`$ qubits, then she will also be able to send most of the sequences with this amount of qubits and high fidelity.

So, let us now assume that Alice and Bob use their random number generator to create the same random state of $`N`$ qubits, each of them in the state $`|0`$ or $`|1`$ according to the probabilities $`\overline{P}_0`$ and $`\overline{P}_1`$, respectively. Let us denote by $`p`$ the probability that such a state is a typical one for a given typical sequence. In that case, if they create (instead of one) $`1/p`$ such random states, the probability that among them there is a typical one will be very close to one. In that case, Alice just has to tell Bob which of those states randomly generated is the one that corresponds to the typical sequence she is intending to send. The number of qubits to give that information to Bob is $`M=\mathrm{log}_2(1/p)`$. Since

$$p=\frac{\left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{n}_1\\ \overline{n}_1\lambda _1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{n}_2\\ \overline{n}_2\lambda _2\end{array}\right)\mathrm{}\left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{n}_L\\ \overline{n}_L\lambda _L\end{array}\right)}{\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ N\overline{P}_1\end{array}\right)}$$
(9)
we obtain that $`M=\mathrm{log}_2(1/p)NI(\{p_k\},\{\rho _k\})`$ (for $`N1`$).

## III Protocol for two states

In this Section we give the protocol to achieve the compression factor (4). We will show that for any $`ϵ,\delta >0`$ there exists an $`N_0`$ such that the sequences with $`N>N_0`$ qubits can be encoded in $`N[I(p_k,\rho _k)+\delta ]`$ qubits with a fidelity $`\overline{F}>1ϵ`$. Here, $`\overline{F}`$ is the averaged fidelity

$$\overline{F}=\underset{𝒦}{}P_𝒦F(\sigma _𝒦^A,\sigma _𝒦^B),$$
(10)
$`P_𝒦`$ is the probability that Alice sends the sequence $`𝒦`$, and

$$F(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)\mathrm{tr}\left[\sigma _1^{1/2}\sigma _2\sigma _1^{1/2}\right]^{1/2}=\mathrm{tr}[\sigma _1^{1/2}\sigma _2^{1/2}],$$
(11)
where the last equality holds for commuting operators.

We will concentrate in the case where there are only two possible states ($`L=2`$). The general case can be analyzed in the same way as here, although the notation becomes much more involved. Thus, let us assume that Alice wants to send the sequence $`𝒦`$, consisting of $`N`$ qubits in states $`\rho _1`$ or $`\rho _2`$, to Bob. As before, we will call $`n_{1,2}`$ (where $`n_2=Nn_1`$) the number of times the operator $`\rho _{1,2}`$ appears in the sequence, and $`v_{1,2}`$ the positions where it appears. Note that in all these quantities we should write a subscript $`𝒦`$ indicating their dependence on the particular sequence Alice is trying to send. In order to keep the notation simple, and whenever it is clear from the context, we will omit in all the quantities the dependence on the particular sequence. On the other hand, in the protocol given below we will consider that Alice sends classical bits to Bob. Obviously, these classical bits can in turn be encoded in the same number of qubits if we choose the states $`|0`$ and $`|1`$. The protocol consists of the following encoding and decoding procedures:

1. Encoding:

1. Alice selects two integer numbers $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$, with $`0x_in_i`$ according to the following binomial distributions

    $$P(x_i)=\left(\begin{array}{c}n_i\\ x_i\end{array}\right)\lambda _i^{x_i}(1\lambda _i)^{n_ix_i},$$
    (12)
    where $`i=1,2`$.
    2. Using the common random number generator Alice creates $`S`$ random sequences of $`N`$ bits each. Each of the bits is set to 1 or 0 according to the probability $`P_1=(\lambda _1n_1+\lambda _2n_2)/N`$, $`P_0=1P_1`$, respectively. She associates a number between $`1`$ and $`S`$ with each sequence.
    3. If among the $`S`$ sequences there are one or more with exactly $`x_i`$ ones and $`n_ix_i`$ zeros at the positions indicated by $`v_i`$ for both $`i=1,2`$, then she chooses one of them randomly and sends the number associated with that sequence to Bob. Otherwise, she sends the number 0 (which indicates an error). Note that for that she uses $`[\mathrm{log}_2(S+1)+1]`$ bits, where $`[\mathrm{}]`$ denotes the integer part.
    4. She also encodes in a set of $`[\mathrm{log}_2N+1]`$ bits the value of $`n_1`$ and sends it to Bob.
2. Decoding

1. Bob uses the random number generator to create the same $`S`$ random sequences as Alice and assigns the same numbers. Note that Bob knows the values $`n_1`$ (since it has been sent by Alice) and $`n_2=Nn_1`$.
    2. Using the bits sent by Alice, he identifies the random sequence and prepares $`N`$ qubits in the corresponding state (i.e. prepares the qubits in states $`|0`$ or $`|1`$ if the sequence contains a zero or a one at each position). If he receives the error state, he prepares the qubits in a fixed state $`\sigma _0=1𝐥/2^N`$.

Before showing that the above protocol achieves the desired bound, let us make some remarks. Firstly, we can replace the condition imposed by $`\delta >0`$ on the number of bits needed to encode the sequences by requiring that

$$\mathrm{log}_2(S)=N[I(p_k,\rho _k)+f_N],$$
(13)
where $`f_N0`$ as $`N\mathrm{}`$. Note that the number of bits needed to transmit the value of $`n_1`$ can be included in $`f_N`$ since $`\mathrm{log}_2(N+1)/N0`$, and therefore need not be considered. Actually, one can devise a similar encoding and decoding scheme in which this number need not be transmitted. However, our scheme allows for a simpler proof of our statements. Secondly, as it is shown in the Appendix, we can replace the condition imposed by $`ϵ`$ on the averaged fidelity by

$$E\underset{n_1=0}{\overset{N}{}}P_{n_1}E_{n_1}<ϵ$$
(14)
where $`P_{n_1}`$ is the probability that we have a sequence with exactly $`n_1`$ times $`\rho _1`$ and the rest $`\rho _2`$, and $`E_{n_1}`$ is the probability that Alice sends the error bit $`0`$ if she had one of such sequences. Thirdly, we will deal with several binomial distributions, which have the form

$$Q_y\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ y\end{array}\right)p^y(1p)^{ny},$$
(15)
where $`0<p<1`$. We will use the following properties of such distribution: (i) for all $`ϵ>0`$ and $`0<\eta <1/2`$, there exists some $`n_0`$ such that if $`n>n_0`$ then

$$\underset{y=[pnn^{1/2+\eta }]}{\overset{[pn+n^{1/2+\eta }]}{}}Q_y>1ϵ.$$
(16)
This property allows us to restrict the allowed values of the parameters. For the sake of definiteness we will take $`\eta =0.1`$. (ii) For $`n`$ sufficiently large and $`y[pnn^{1/2+\eta },pn+n^{1/2+\eta }]`$

$$Q_y>\frac{1}{2}\frac{e^{(ynp)^2/[2(np(1p)]}}{\sqrt{2\pi np(1p)}}.$$
(17)
Now, let us show that the protocol given above fulfills the desired properties. First, given the fact that $`P_{n_1}`$ follows a binomial distribution, we can restrict the summation in (14) to the values

$$n_1[\overline{n}_1N^{1/2+0.1},\overline{n}_1+N^{1/2+0.1}].$$
(18)
Moreover, the remaining sum is smaller than the maximum value of $`E_{n_1}`$ where $`n_1`$ lies in the interval indicated in Eq. (18). This value can be determined with the help of Eq. (A16). Since $`P(x_{1,2})`$, the probability that Alice selects the values $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ in the step 1(a), is a product of two binomial distributions, again for sufficiently large $`N`$ we can restrict the sums to

$$x_i[n_i\lambda _iN^{1/2+0.1},n_i\lambda _i+N^{1/2+0.1}],i=1,2.$$
(19)
Thus, the problem is reduced to showing that for any $`ϵ>0`$, for sufficiently large $`N`$ we can choose $`S`$ fulfilling (13) and so that the maximum value of $`E(x_{1,2},v_{1,2})`$ with the restrictions (18) and (19) is smaller than $`ϵ`$, and where $`E(x_{1,2},v_{1,2})`$ is the probability that the error state is produced given the values of $`x_{1,2}`$ and $`v_{1,2}`$ (see Appendix). We can always write $`E(x_{1,2},v_{1,2})=[1R(x_{1,2},v_{1,2})]^S`$, where $`R(x_{1,2},v_{1,2})`$ is the probability that if we take a sequence of zeros and ones according to the probabilities $`P_{1,0}`$, the sequence exactly contains $`x_i`$ ones (and the rest zeros) at positions $`v_i`$, for both $`i=1,2`$. Such a probability can be calculated as $`R(x_{1,2},v_{1,2})=Q(x_1+x_2)P(x_{1,2},v_{1,2}/x_1+x_2)`$, where $`Q(x_1+x_2)`$ is the probability that the sequence contains $`x_1+x_2`$ ones and $`P(x_{1,2},v_{1,2}/x_1+x_2)`$ is the probability that those are at the correct positions. The first one is given again by a binomial distribution; by using Eq. (17) one can easily find  that

$$Q(x_1+x_2)K\frac{e^{\alpha N^{0.2}}}{\sqrt{N}}\frac{1}{a_N},$$
(20)
where $`K`$ and $`\alpha `$ are constants (independent of $`N`$). On the other hand

$`P(x_{1,2},v_{1,2}/x_1+x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\begin{array}{c}n_1\\ n_1\lambda _1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}n_2\\ n_2\lambda _2\end{array}\right)}{\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ NP_1\end{array}\right)}}`$ (27)
$``$ $`2^{NI(\{p_k\},\{\rho _k\})N^{1/2+0.2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b_N}}`$ (28)
for sufficiently large $`N`$, as can be checked using the bounds given by Stirling formulas. By choosing $`S=Na_Nb_N`$ we obtain that $`E(x_{1,2},v_{1,2})=[1R(x_{1,2},v_{1,2})]^S[11/(a_Nb_N)]^{Na_Nb_N}0`$ and (13) with $`f_N=[\mathrm{log}_2(N)+o(N^{0.7})]/N0`$ for $`N\mathrm{}`$, as required.

## IV Possible extensions

### A $`d`$-level systems

One can easily generalize our results to $`d`$–level systems. In that case, a quantum source produces $`d`$–level systems (qudits) in the state (described by the density operator) $`\rho _k`$ with probability $`p_k`$. For a faithful transmission of $`N`$ of those systems, $`M`$ qudits (equivalently $`M\mathrm{log}_2(d)`$ qubits) are required. In case all $`\rho _k`$ commute, the compression factor $`C=lim_N\mathrm{}M/N`$ turns out to be $`C=I(\{p_k\},\{\rho _k\})/\mathrm{log}_2(d)`$, where $`I(\{p_k\},\{\rho _k\})`$ is given in (3) and the factor $`\mathrm{log}_2(d)`$ appears because we are dealing with $`d`$–level systems now. The number of qubits per signal states required for a faithful transmission is thus again given by the Levitin-Holevo function $`I(\{p_k\},\{\rho _k\})`$, so the lower bound can be reached also when dealing with $`d`$–level systems.

This can be understood qualitatevely in a similar way as in the qubit case (see Sec. II). The condition that all $`\rho _k`$ commute implies that we can always write

$$\rho _k=\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}\lambda _j^k|jj|.$$
(29)
and thus

$$\rho =\underset{k=1}{\overset{L}{}}p_k\rho _k=\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}\overline{P_j}|jj|,$$
(30)
where $`\overline{P_j}=_{k=1}^Lp_k\lambda _j^k`$. Proceeding in the same vain as in the qubit case, we find that the “typical states” of a certain (typical) sequence have exactly $`Np_k\lambda _j^k`$ states $`|j`$ at the positions $`v_k`$. It is straightforward to calculate the probability $`p`$ that a state of $`N`$ qudits generated randomly according to the probability distribution $`\{\overline{P_i}\}`$ is a typical one for a given sequence. One finds that $`p`$ is given by an expression which is similar to (9), however the binomial factors are replaced by multinomial factors. This is due to the fact that the corresponding distributions are now multinomial instead of binomial. The number of required qubits, $`M\mathrm{log}_2(d)`$, turns out to be $`\mathrm{log}_2(1/p)NI(\{p_k\},\{\rho _k\})`$ (for $`N1`$), which leads to the announced compression factor. Also the detailed proof can be carried out in a similar way, replacing the binomial distributions by multionomial distributions and the corresponding Gaussian curves (see e.g. (17)) by multidimensional Gaussians curves.

### B Decoding without knowing the source

Notice that in our protocol for compressing commuting mixed states we have implicitly assumed, in step 2(b) of the decoding stage, that Bob knows which are the eigenvectors of the density matrices, i.e. $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$. This is of course legitimate in any context where both Alice and Bob are provided with a description of the source.

Let us note here that we can slightly modify the protocol in such a way that it works even if Bob does not have such a description. Indeed, suppose that now the eigenstates are $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}^{}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}^{}`$. All we need is that Alice uses the quantum channel to sent $`N`$ copies of each of these states. Since the $`N`$ copies of (say) $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}^{}`$, $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}^{}^N`$, are supported on the (N+1-dimensional) symmetric subspace of $`N`$ qubits, $`[log(N+1)]`$ qubits are sufficient to transmit them. For large $`N`$, this does not change the communication cost per qubit, $`I(\{p_k\},\{\rho _k\})`$. And thus, once Bob has received and decompressed $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}^{}^N`$ and $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}^{}^N`$, he can use single copies of these states to replace the $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$’s of step 2(b). In this way, he does not need to know the details of the source to prepare faithful sequences $`\sigma _𝒦^B`$.

### C The Levitin-Holevo bound can not always be reached in a blind protocol

In the previous sections, we showed for commuting density operators that in the visible scenario, the bound for the compression factor given by the Levitin–Holevo function can always be reached. Here, we investigate the invisible scenario, i.e. the case where Alice does not know the specific sequence to be sent. We give an example where the Levitin-Holevo bound for the compression factor cannot be reached.

We consider two density operators $`\rho _1=|11|`$, $`\rho _2=1/21𝐥`$ with corresponding probabilities $`p_1=p_2=1/2`$. We will argue that the achievable compression factor $`C`$ is given by the entropy of the operator $`\rho =_kp_k\rho _k`$, $`S(\rho )0.8113`$, which should be compared with $`I(\{p_k\},\{\rho _k\})0.3113`$. We will not give a formal proof of this statement, but will rather argue in terms of typical sequences and the corresponding “typical states” (see Sec. II).

If we write the operator $`\sigma _𝒦^A`$ corresponding to a typical sequence in the basis $`\{|i_1|i_2\mathrm{}|i_N\}`$ ($`i_j=0,1`$), the typical states are those with exactly $`3N/4`$ ones (and $`N/4`$ zeros). Note that Alice can determine with help of a measurement of all qubits in the computational basis which of the typical states she possesses. This can be done without disturbing the signal because she measures in the eigenbasis of $`\sigma _𝒦^A`$. Let us thus assume that Alice knows the typical state she has to transmit. We can take without loss of generality the state

$$|a=\underset{3N/4}{\underset{}{|1|1\mathrm{}|1|1}}\underset{N/4}{\underset{}{|0\mathrm{}|0}}$$
(31)
However, in contrast to the visible case, Alice does not know to which specific (typical) sequence the state $`|a`$ belongs to. In fact, there are many sequences which are compatible with the state $`|a`$, namely all those which have all $`N/2`$ density operators $`\rho _1`$ at the positions $`1,\mathrm{},3N/4`$.

We will show now that the state $`|a`$ has to be transmitted “perfectly” to Bob, since even a small derivation from the state $`|a`$ will lead to a macroscopic error. To this aim, we consider a general coding/decoding procedure. Notice that Bob can measure in the computational basis after decoding the received signal and thereby obtain with some probability a pure state $`|b`$  which is a sequence of zeros and ones. Let us assume that $`|b`$ differs from $`|a`$ only at two positions, e.g. the first and the $`N^{\mathrm{th}}`$ qubits are flipped (note that two states must always differ at an even number of positions, as we assumed that the total number of zeros/ones is fixed). The average error can be written as follows

$$E=P(\sigma _𝒦^A/a)E(b,\sigma _𝒦^A),$$
(32)
where the sum runs over all possible typical sequences $`\sigma _𝒦^A`$, $`P(\sigma _𝒦^A/a)`$ is the probability that we deal with sequence $`\sigma _𝒦^A`$ provided that Alice possesses the state $`|a`$ and $`E(b,\sigma _𝒦^A)`$ is the error for the sequence $`\sigma _𝒦^A`$ given that Bob received the state $`|b`$. Under our previous assumption on $`|a,|b`$, we have that $`E(b,\sigma _𝒦^A)`$ is either one (for all sequences which have $`\rho _1`$ at position one) or zero (for all sequence which have $`\rho _2`$ a position one). As there are

$$q\left(\begin{array}{c}3N/4\\ N/2\end{array}\right)$$
(33)
sequences which are compatible with $`|a`$, we have that $`P(\sigma _𝒦^A/a)=1/q`$ for all those sequences and zero otherwise. It is easy to see that

$$E=\left(\begin{array}{c}3N/41\\ N/21\end{array}\right)/\left(\begin{array}{c}3N/4\\ N/2\end{array}\right)=2/3,$$
(34)
i.e. the average error is already macroscopic even when $`|b`$ differs from $`|a`$ only at two positions. We conclude that in order to have $`E`$ sufficiently small (and thus the fidelity sufficiently close to one), we must have that $`|b=|a`$. This implies that all typical states have to be transmitted perfectly from Alice to Bob, as our analysis is not restricted to the specific choice of $`|a`$. There are

$$g\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ 3N/4\end{array}\right)$$
(35)
typical states, which means that $`\mathrm{log}_2(g)NS(\rho )0.8113N`$ qubits are required for perfect transmission and no further compression is possible . Thus, the Levitin-Holevo bound cannot be reached in this case. On the other hand, if $`p_1=ϵ0`$, it happens that —also in the invisible scenario— the achievable compression factor approaches $`I(\{p_k\},\{\rho _k\})0`$, while $`S(\rho )1`$.

Note that this analysis is not restricted to this specific example but can be generalized to determine the compression factor $`C`$, $`S(\rho )CI(\{p_k\},\{\rho _k\})`$, also in the invisible case.

## V Summary

We have analyzed the compression of mixed states in the visible case and for commuting density operators. We have given a protocol that achieves the compression factor (4), which was known to be a lower bound. Our protocol is based on the creation of the same set of random numbers by Alice and Bob, and choosing among them the one appropriated to the sequence they want to send. This protocol can be extended to the case in which the density operators do not commute. In that case, Alice and Bob can encode the states in the same random subspaces within the typical subspace. This problem will be addressed in a future work.

## Acknowledgments

We thank C. Fuchs for interesting discussions. This work was supported by the Austrian Science Foundation under the SFB “control and measurement of coherent quantum systems (Project 11), the European Community under the TMR network ERB–FMRX–CT96–0087 and project EQUIP (contract IST-1999-11053), the European Science Foundation, and the Institute for Quantum Information GmbH. G.V also acknowledges funding from the EC through grant No. HPMF-CT-1999-00200.

## A Bob’s density operator and Fidelity

We denote by $`\{|\mathrm{\Psi }_m\}_{m=1}^{2^N}`$ the computational basis for the $`N`$ qubits of the sequence, i.e. $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1=|0,0,\mathrm{},0`$, …,$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{2^N}=|1,1,\mathrm{},1`$. According to the protocol given in Section III, Bob’s density operator can be written as follows:

$`\sigma _𝒦^B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x_{1,2}=0}{\overset{n_{1,2}}{}}}P(x_{1,2}){\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{S}{}}}P(t,x_{1,2},v_{1,2})`$ (A3)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{2^N}{}}}P(m/t,x_{1,2},v_{1,2})|\mathrm{\Psi }_m\mathrm{\Psi }_m|`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{x_{1,2}=0}{\overset{n_{1,2}}{}}}P(x_{1,2})E(x_{1,2},v_{1,2}){\displaystyle \frac{1𝐥}{2^N}}.`$
Here, $`P(x_{1,2})`$ is the probability that Alice obtains $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ and is given in (12); $`P(t,x_{1,2},v_{1,2})`$ is the probability that among the $`S`$ random sequences, there are $`t`$ with exactly $`x_{1,2}`$ ones (and the rest zeros) at the positions indicated by $`v_{1,2}`$; $`E(x_{1,2},v_{1,2})P(0,x_{1,2},v_{1,2})`$, i.e. the probability that the error state is produced; $`P(m/t,x_{1,2},v_{1,2})`$ is the probability that given $`t`$ sequences with exactly $`x_{1,2}`$ ones (and the rest zeros) at the positions indicated by $`v_{1,2}`$, and we choose one of them randomly, Bob obtains the sequence of zeros and ones corresponding to $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$. This last can be reexpressed as

$`P(m/t,x_{1,2},v_{1,2})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x=0}{\overset{t}{}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}t\\ x\end{array}\right)P(m/x_{1,2},v_{1,2})^x`$ (A7)
$`\times [1P(m/x_{1,2},v_{1,2})]^{tx}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{t}}`$
$`=`$ $`P(m/x_{1,2},v_{1,2}),`$ (A8)
where $`P(m/x_{1,2},v_{1,2})P(m/1,x_{1,2},v_{1,2})`$. Now, we can perform the sum over $`t`$ in (A3) and obtain

$`\sigma _𝒦^B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x_{1,2}=0}{\overset{n_{1,2}}{}}}P(x_{1,2})[1E(x_{1,2},v_{1,2})]`$ (A11)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{2^N}{}}}P(m/x_{1,2},v_{1,2})|\mathrm{\Psi }_m\mathrm{\Psi }_m|`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{x_{1,2}=0}{\overset{n_{1,2}}{}}}P(x_{1,2})E(x_{1,2},v_{1,2}){\displaystyle \frac{1𝐥}{2^N}}.`$
On the other hand, we can write

$$\sigma _𝒦^A=\underset{x_{1,2}=0}{\overset{n_{1,2}}{}}P(x_{1,2})\underset{m=1}{\overset{2^N}{}}P(m/x_{1,2},v_{1,2})|\mathrm{\Psi }_m\mathrm{\Psi }_m|.$$
(A12)
The fidelity $`F(\sigma _𝒦^A,\sigma _𝒦^B)`$ will be larger than or equal to the one calculated by ignoring the term proportional to the identity operator in (A11). We obtain

$`F(\sigma _𝒦^A,\sigma _𝒦^B)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x_{1,2}=0}{\overset{n_{1,2}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{2^N}{}}}P(x_{1,2})P(m/x_{1,2},v_{1,2})`$ (A14)
$`\times [1E(x_{1,2},v_{1,2})]^{1/2}`$
$``$ $`1E_𝒦,`$ (A15)
where

$$E_𝒦=\underset{x_{1,2}=0}{\overset{n_{1,2}}{}}P(x_{1,2})E(x_{1,2},v_{1,2}),$$
(A16)
and we have used

$$\underset{m=1}{\overset{2^N}{}}P(m/x_{1,2},v_{1,2})=1.$$
(A17)
Thus, the condition

$$E=\underset{𝒦}{}P_𝒦E_𝒦<ϵ,$$
(A18)
automatically implies that $`\overline{F}>1ϵ`$. Now, both $`P_𝒦`$ and $`E_𝒦`$ only depend on the number of times that $`\rho _1`$ appears in $`𝒦`$, and not on how they are placed, so that we can write (14).


format: text

text:
# The Annulus-Filtered 𝐸 and 𝐵 Modes in CMBR Polarization

## 1 Introduction

The CMB anisotropy provides direct information of the oldest relics of large-scale structures left from the Big-Bang. These CMB photons generally contain two kinds of information at every frequency band, the intensity and the polarization. Though the CMB photons are originated at the last scattering surface near red-shift $`z1000`$, they can be re-processed along the light paths before reaching us, notably by the gravitational and Doppler effects. These effects dominantly affect the photon intensity, or the temperature anisotropy; they can also affect the photon polarization, but only to a much lesser degree. Thus, unlike the temperature anisotropy, it is believed that the CMB polarization is a sensitive probe to the universe at a specific epoch when the photon temperature is about $`3000`$ degrees and the photon optical depth $`\tau `$ about $`1/2`$. The CMB polarization is generated at this optical depth through the Thomson scattering of the pre-existing temperature anisotropy by a background of homogeneous free electrons(Rees, 1968; Bond and Efstathiou, 1984; Polnarev, 1985).

Different normal modes in the primordial fluctuations yield different characteristics in the temperature anisotropy, thereby yielding different types of polarization patterns. It has been pointed out that these different polarization patterns can be divided into two classes: the electric-type ($`E`$) pattern and the magnetic-type ($`B`$) pattern(Kamionkowsky et al., 1997; Zaldarriaga and Seljak, 1997; Hu and White, 1997). The primordial density perturbations (scalar modes) generate only the $`E`$ pattern, but the $`B`$ pattern can only be generated by the primordial gravitational waves (tensor modes) and vortex motion (vector modes). Since different patterns were originated from different physics, the ability to separate the $`E`$ and $`B`$ patterns cleanly has become a measure of success for CMB polarization experiments in a forseeable future.

Following the conventional approach to temperature anisotropy, most past works that addressed the CMB polarization tended to focus on how the two kinds of polarization patterns may be separated in the Fourier domain. Such an approach is natural for the wide-sky maps, such as those planned for the MAP and Planck missions. However, for the ground-based and ballon-borne experiments, the wide-sky maps are impossible to obtain, and the adopted strategy is often deep exposure of a small-patch of sky(Staggs et al., 1999; White et al., 1999; Lo et al., 2000). Unlike the wide-sky map, the local maps cannot naturally satisfy the periodic boundary conditions, and hence a brute-force Fourier analysis to extract the power spectrum can often introduce distortion to the original data and produces un-desirable effects. The problem is particularly acute for the $`B`$-mode measurement due to the small $`B`$-mode signals. For this reason, the real-space analysis of local maps has been called for(Seljak and Zaldarriaga, 1998; Zaldarriaga, 1998; Chiueh, 2000; Chiueh & Ma, 2000; Tegmark and de Oliveria-Costa, 2000).

In the past years, an alternative approach has also been examined in an attempt to alleviating the problem of boundary conditions(Zaldarriaga, 1998; Revenu et al., 2000). When the measurements are taken along a ring on the sky, the data will automatically satisfy the periodic boundary condition with discete wavenumbers. As the ring diameter can be over tens of degrees, the large sky coverage of the ring permits one to extract a wide spectrum of discrete modes from the measurement. Though this approach solves the problem of boundary conditions, the separation of $`B`$ and $`E`$ modes is still not natural, as it requires precise short-term calibration of detectors within the individual ringO’Dell et al (2000) and long-term calibration across different ringsRevenu et al. (2000) in order to extract the appropriate Stokes $`Q`$ and $`U`$ to construct $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes.

Recently, it has been proposed that with a suitable projection of the real-space data, one is able to separate the $`E`$ and $`B`$ patterns directly from the local map without resorting to the Fourier analysis(Chiueh, 2000; Chiueh & Ma, 2000). They also illustrate what the visual appearances of the unfamiliar $`E`$ and $`B`$ tensor patterns are in the projected vector space. In these previous works, the polarization tensor is first projected into a vector and a pseudo-vector field through differentiation of the measured data, and these vector fields are further projected into a scalar and a pseudo-scalar through a contour integration of arbitrary shape. The scalar component results from the $`E`$ mode and the pseudo-scalar from the $`B`$ mode.

Though illuminating, this proposed projection, however, suffers from a differential operation on the data for projecting the polarization tensors into vectors, which invariably amplifies the measurement noises. Despite that the differentiation is followed by a contour integration to construct the projected $`E`$ and $`B`$ scalars, which damps out the amplified noises, the noise damping can hardly compensate for the noise amplification. Hence it is desirable to pursue a different method that can also cleanly separate the $`B`$ and $`E`$ patterns in the real space.

A tensor (vector) can be projected into a vector (scalar) through a vector operation, which can either be a projection-derivative or a projection-integration along a given contour. Both have been used in our previous proposalChiueh (2000); Chiueh & Ma (2000). As the differentiation amplifies the data noise, the former is ruled out. For the latter, various projection integrations are available. As will be shown in this paper, the only viable ones, useful for separating the pseudo-tensor patterns from the tensor pattern are those that assume circular integration contours. It has been pointed out that circular-scan observations allow the $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes to be separated(Zaldarriaga, 1998). The present work reinforces this observation and shows that the scanning observation along circles is indeed the only one strategy that permits the $`B`$ and $`E`$ modes to be cleanly separated without involving data differencing.

This result is particularly relevant for the scanning observations conventionally conducted by, for example, balloon-borne and ground-based experiments. The recommended circular scanning observation is nothing but integration of data along a given sky circle over a long period of time without distinguishing variations on the circle. This is to be contrasted to integration along a sky contour of arbitrary shape proposed by (Chiueh, 2000), and contrasted to extraction of discrete modes on a sky circle analyzed by Zaldarriaga (1998). In fact, to achieve the goal of separating $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes, it is also necessary that the polarimeter axis of the detector also rotates as the telescope sweeps along the sky circle. Be precise, the polarimeter axis must always orients toward a fixed direction with respect to the local radial direction of the sky circle. The AMiBA telescope can have this capability(Lo et al., 2000). We will assess how AMiBA is expected to perform using this observational strategy.

This paper is organized as follows. Sec.(2) gives the formulation, with which the constraint on the shape of the integration contour is derived. The implications for the projection integrals with circular contours are examined in Sec.(3). Sec.(4) addresses the measurement of the $`E`$ modes using this method. Sec.(5) discusses the measurement strategy for the much weaker $`B`$ modes. Correlation of $`E`$-mode polarization with temperature anisotropy is addressed in Sec.(6). In Sec.(7), we study how a finite beam width can affect the sharp-beam cases considered in the previous sections, and show that the ability of the circular-scan strategy for separating $`B`$ modes from $`E`$ modes can be much improved via a finite-size beam. Discussions on the AMiBA performance are given in Sec.(8). Conclusions are given in Sec.(9). Throughout this paper, we adopt the flat-sky approximation since the CMB fluctuations of interest are at most few degrees in size.

## 2 Projection Contour Integral

The polarization tensor $`𝐏`$ can be expressed as(Chiueh, 2000)

$`𝐏`$ $`=Q\sigma _x+U\sigma _y=[(\widehat{z}\times )(\widehat{z}\times )]f+[(\widehat{z}\times )+(\widehat{z}\times )]g`$ (1)
$`=Q+iU=4{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\overline{w}^2}}(f+ig)`$
where $`\sigma _x`$ and $`\sigma _y`$ are the ”3” and ”1” components of the Pauli matrices, respectively, and $`f`$ and $`g`$ are real functions denoting the $`E`$ and $`B`$ components, respectively. Moreover, from the third equality on, we have used a complex representation for $`𝐏`$, where $`w=x+iy`$ and $`\overline{w}=xiy`$. A convenient way to construct a scalar from $`𝐏`$ proceeds as follows. Pick a closed contour $`C`$ on the polarization field, contract the tensor $`𝐏`$ with a suitable local tensor to form a scalar/pseudo-scalar at every point on the contour, and then sum up these scalar quantities over the contour to obtain a contour-integrated value. Mathematically, the operation can be written as

$$Y4_C\frac{^2(f+ig)}{\overline{w}^2}\overline{w}𝑑\overline{w}.$$
(2)
where $`\overline{w}d\overline{w}`$ is the local tensor for projecting out the scalar $`Y`$, $`C`$ is the closed contour along which the line integration is performed, and the coordinate $`\overline{w}`$ can be chosen so that the origin is inside the contour. In terms of the Stokes $`Q`$ and $`U`$, Eq.(2) is

$$Y=_C[(xQ+yU)dx(yQxU)dy]i_C[(yQxU)dx+(xQ+yU)dy].$$
(3)
Considering the fact that $`\overline{w}^2A/\overline{w}^2`$ can be expressed as a total derivative, equal to $`[\overline{w}(A/\overline{w})A]/\overline{w}`$, and that $`f`$ and $`g`$ are both analytical functions, we arrive at the following expression for $`Y`$ of Eq.(2),

$$Y=i_C[\frac{F}{y}dx\frac{F}{x}dy],$$
(4)
where $`F\overline{w}((f+ig)/\overline{w})(f+ig)`$. Using the Stokes theorem and the fact that $`^2=4^2/\overline{w}w`$, Eq.(4) can further be rewritten as

$$Y=i^2Fd^2S=i\overline{w}\frac{}{\overline{w}}^2(f+ig)d^2S,$$
(5)
where the surface integration is confined within the area bounded by the contour $`C`$. Instead of placing an integration limit for the surface integral, we may multiply the integrand of Eq.(5) by a top-hat filter function $`W(x,y)`$ and carry out the surface integral without an explicit bound, where $`W(x,y)=1`$ inside the contour $`C`$ and $`W(x,y)=0`$ otherwise. This permits a convenient way to evaluate the second equality of Eq.(5). Note that $`\overline{w}/\overline{w}=(/\mathrm{ln}r)+i(/\varphi )`$ in the polar coordinate. With an integration by part, Eq.(5) becomes

$$Y=i[\frac{W}{\mathrm{ln}r}+2W+i\frac{W}{\varphi }]^2(f+ig)rdrd\varphi .$$
(6)
Note that $`W`$ is a real quantity, and both real and imaginary parts of $`Y`$ generally contain a mixture of the real $`E`$-mode $`f`$ and real $`B`$-mode $`g`$. However, at some special arrangements, $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes can become separated, with $`g`$ contributing only to the real part and $`f`$ only to the imaginary part, or the opposite. These situations only happen when $`r^2W`$ depends either on $`r`$ or on $`\varphi `$, but not on both. The choice of depending only on $`\varphi `$ can be ruled out since such a window function is not compact. Thus, the one and only one choice for the contour must be such that $`W(x,y)=W(r)`$, and moreover $`W(r)=\mathrm{\Theta }(Rr)`$, a circular top-hat filter function of radius $`R`$.

That is, the only scanning trajectory that is capable of projecting out the desired scalar and pseudo-scalar is when it is a circle. The circular scan yields the real part of $`Y`$ to be entirely contributed by the $`B`$ mode and the imaginary part of $`Y`$ by the $`E`$ mode. It also leaves $`Y`$ to depend on a single parameter, i.e., the radius $`R`$ of the circle. The above derivation also proves that a special case of circular-scan observations analyzed by Zaldarriaga Zaldarriaga (1998) is indeed a unique one.

## 3 $`E`$-$`B`$ Amplitude through a Circular Filter

We now examine what quantities of the polarization tensor $`𝐏`$ are to be extracted from the projection integration along a circle. It will also be shown that the projection of $`𝐏`$ defined in Eq.(2) corresponds to physical rotation of the polarimeter axes, so that they remain fixed with respect to the local radial direction along the circle.

Let the circular contour of radius $`R`$ center at $`𝐱_0`$, so that $`r|𝐱𝐱_0|`$. It then follows from Eqs.(3) that

$`Y(R;𝐱_0)`$ $`=iR^2{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}[(\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )Q+\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )U)+i(\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )U\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )Q)]𝑑\varphi `$ (7)
$`=iR^2{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}[r{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\varphi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi }}({\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r}})](f+ig)𝑑\varphi `$
$`=i{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\overline{W}(r)^2(f(𝐱)+ig(𝐱))rdrd\varphi ,`$
where the second equality can be straightforwardly derived from Eq.(2) and the third equality is simply Eq.(6) with a filter function $`\overline{W}(1/r)d(r^2W)/dr`$. Similar expressions for Eq.(7) have also been derived before(Seljak and Zaldarriaga, 1998; Crittenden et al., 2000) based on a related idea in weak lensing studies(Kaiser et al., 1994).

The angular factors on the right of the first equality in Eq.(7) are the familiar ones. It describes how $`Q`$ and $`U`$ rotate as the second-rank tensor components when the coordinate rotates. In fact, these angular factors mean that the polarization tensor $`Q+iU`$ must be rotated to $`Q_0+iU_0`$ of a preferred coordinate $`(x_0,y_0)`$, where the $`x_0`$-direction is along the local radial direction of the sky circle and the $`y_0`$-direction along the local azimuthal direction. This point is central to the present work, in that not only the scanning trajectory should be a circle, but the polarimeter axes of the telescope must rotate as well.

The separation of $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes depends critically on a perfect angular integration and perfect polarimeter-axis alignment. The quantity $`Y`$ thus measures the angular average of $`4r^2(^2f/(r^2)^2)`$ of the $`E`$ mode and $`4r^2(^2g/(r^2)^2)`$ of the $`B`$ mode. It turns out that these unfamiliar derivatives of $`f`$ and $`g`$ have the same power spectra as those of $`^2f`$ and $`^2g`$, respectively. The respective power spectra for $`^2f`$ and $`^2g`$ are $`k^4|f_k|^2`$ and $`k^4|g_k|^2`$, where $`f_k`$ and $`g_k`$ are the Fourier components of $`f`$ and $`g`$. Each power spectrum equals the corresponding power spectrum of the polarization tensor:

$$|Q_k^{E,B}|^2+|U_k^{E,B}|^2=k^4|h_k|^2,$$
(8)
where $`Q_k^{E,B}`$ and $`U_k^{E,B}`$ are the $`E`$ and $`B`$ contributions to the Fourier components of $`Q((^2/x^2^2/y^2)f2(^2/xy)g)`$ and $`U((^2/x^2^2/y^2)g+2(^2/xy)f)`$, respectively, and $`h`$ can be either $`f`$ or $`g`$. Equation (8) is very useful since the measured quantity $`Y_{E,B}`$ can be related to the $`E`$ and $`B`$ mode amplitudes directly. In fact, $`^2f`$ and $`^2g`$ are the topological charge and pseudo-charge in the polarization tensor field $`𝐏`$Chiueh (2000).

Moreover, $`Y_{E,B}(R;𝐱_0)`$ is a random variable since the circle may be centered at any arbitrary origins $`𝐱_0`$. The variance of $`Y_{E,B}`$ can thus be expressed as:

$$(2\pi R^2)\mathrm{\Delta }T_{E,B}(R)Y_{E,B}^2(R;𝐱_0)_{𝐱_0}^{1/2}=[_0^{\mathrm{}}|\overline{W}_k|^2\frac{k^4|h_k|^2}{2\pi A}k𝑑k]^{1/2},$$
(9)
where $`\overline{W}_k`$ is the Fourier component of $`\overline{W}`$, $`\mathrm{}_{𝐱_0}`$ stands for the ensemble average of various $`𝐱_0`$, and $`A`$ for the area over which the $`𝐱_0`$ surface average is conducted. Here, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{E,B}`$ denotes the measured variance of the polarization brightness temperature for mode $`(E,B)`$, and the factor $`2\pi R^2`$ in Eq.(9) arises from the product of two factors: a factor $`R`$, which has been multiplied to the data to construct $`Y`$ in Eq.(2), and the circumference $`2\pi R`$ of the sky circle for the contour integration. The two factors need to be divided away to obtain the sky surface brightness $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{E,B}`$. The measured $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{E,B}(R)`$ contains the polarization spectral information of either mode, subject only to the smearing by a $`k`$-space filter $`|\overline{W}_k|^2`$. The length scale of smearing depends on the radius $`R`$, but the details of smearing depend on the power spectrum of the filter function $`|\overline{W}_k|^2`$.

Finally, we wish to stress that the separation of $`E`$ and $`B`$-modes can, in principle, be achieved with a single-polarization detector. This is because the polarization axis is always rotated to the appropriate direction at every point of the sky circle. On may, for example, align the polarimeter axis to the local radial direction to pick up $`E_r`$ and integrate $`E_r^2`$ over a rotation, and then rotate the axis by $`90^o`$ to integrate $`E_\varphi ^2`$ over another rotation. The $`E`$ mode signal is simply $`E_r^2E_\varphi ^2`$. For $`B`$-mode measurements, one may orient the polarization axis to either $`45^o`$ or $`45^o`$ off the local radial direction, and the $`B`$-mode signal is $`E_{45^o}^2E_{45^o}^2`$. However, detection of the much weaker $`B`$ modes with single-polarization detectors may, in practice, suffer from inaccurate calibration of the two measurements to be subtracted from each other.

## 4 The $`E`$-Mode Measurement

Since $`\overline{W}`$ consists of a top-hat disk and a thin shell, its power spectrum oscillates in the $`k`$ space at a particular phase with a well-defined frequency comparable to $`2R`$, the Gibb’s phenomenon, and the oscillation amplitude declines as $`k^1`$. At the first glance, it appears that such a $`k`$-space filter is too extended to be useful. However, this disadvantage may be turned into an advantage for the polarization measurement. The power spectrum of $`E`$ mode also oscillates in the $`k`$ space with well-defined frequency and phase. This allows for the possibility that one may adjust the scan radius $`R`$ to control the oscillation frequency in the power spectrum of $`\overline{W}`$ so as to optimize the detection of $`E`$-mode signals. One would like to match the frequencies of the two oscillations to maximize the overlap of $`|\overline{W}_k|^2`$ and $`|h_k|^2`$ in Eq.(9). However, this does not necessarily produce the maximal power since the two oscillations may be out of phase, giving destructive interference. The phase of the $`k`$-space oscillation in the $`E`$-mode power spectrum is such that it always oscillates asymptotically as $`\mathrm{sin}(2\pi k/S)`$ for $`k/S2`$, where $`S`$ is the oscillation period; this behavior is rather insensitive to the cosmological parameters, such as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Most power of $`k^2(|Q_k|^2+|U_k|^2)`$ in the $`E`$-mode is contained in between $`k/S=2`$ and $`k/S=5`$. It will turn out that $`|\overline{W}_k|^2`$ has an optimal phase such that it also oscillates as $`\mathrm{sin}(2kR)`$. By adjusting the scan radius $`R`$ so that $`R2\pi /S`$, we can obtain an optimal overlap of $`|\overline{W}_k|^2`$ and $`|h_k|^2`$, whereby considerable power of the $`E`$ polarization is captured.

We now turn to show that $`|\overline{W}_k|^2\mathrm{sin}(2kR)/k`$ at a large $`kR`$. The two dimensional Fourier transformation of $`\overline{W}`$ is

$`\overline{W}_k`$ $`={\displaystyle [2\mathrm{\Theta }(Rr)r\delta (rR)]e^{ikr\mathrm{cos}(\varphi \varphi _k)}d^2𝐫}`$ (10)
$`={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}r𝑑r[2\mathrm{\Theta }(Rr)r\delta (rR)]{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi {\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}J_n(kr)e^{in(\pi /2+\varphi _k\varphi )}`$
$`=2\pi {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}r𝑑rJ_0(kr)[2\mathrm{\Theta }(Rr)r\delta (rR)]`$
$`=2\pi R^2[2{\displaystyle \frac{J_1(kR)}{kR}}J_0(kR)]=2\pi R^2J_2(kR),`$
where the first term of the third equality arises from the disk and the second term from the shell. The two can be combined to become $`2\pi R^2J_2(kR)`$. For $`kR2\pi `$, $`J_2(kR)`$ oscillates as $`\mathrm{cos}(\pi /4kR)/\sqrt{kR}`$. Thus, $`|\overline{W}_k(kR)|^2`$ asymptotically oscillates at a frequency $`2R`$ as $`const.+\mathrm{sin}(2kR)/k`$.

To illustrate how the filter function $`\overline{W}_k`$ captures the oscillating $`E`$ mode power spectrum, we show $`|\overline{W}_k|^2`$ for three suitably chosen $`R`$’s in Fig.(1a), (1b) and (1c), and compare them with the $`E`$-mode power spectra of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c=0.28`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.02`$, the standard flat CDM model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.02`$, and the open CDM model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c=0.28`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.02`$ respectively. Instead of using $`k`$, we have used the conventional spherical-harmonics mode number $`l`$ as the horizontal axis. Identify $`𝐫`$ to be the angle on a flat sky, and the relation $`lk`$ for a large $`l`$ follows. Moreover, the conventional power spectrum in the spherical harmonic space $`C_{E,l}/2\pi `$ is replaced by $`k^4|f_k|^2/2\pi A`$ in Eq.(9). Also shown in Fig.(1) is another $`|\overline{W}_k|^2`$ for a different choice of $`R`$, where the first lobe of $`J_2^2(kR)`$ is just large enough to enclose the major peaks in the $`E`$-mode power spectrum. Such an annulus radius is about a factor of $`34`$ smaller than the choice of $`R`$ that matches the $`E`$-mode oscillation. These are the two specific $`R`$’s that are expected to capture a substantial power of the $`E`$ mode.

Plotted in Fig.(2) are the expected $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_E^2`$ as functions of the circle radius $`R`$ in Fig.(2) for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM, standard flat-CDM and open-CDM cosmologies, where $`R`$ is expressed in unit of arcminute. The primary peak of the polarization brightness corresponds to the smaller one of the two specific $`R`$’s shown in Fig.(1a,b,c). It is expected because the first lobe of $`J_2^2`$ captures a great deal of the $`E`$-mode power. This optimal $`R`$’s that yield the peaks in Fig.(2) capture about $`10\%`$ of the total $`E`$-mode power for all three cosmologies.

There exist secondary peaks in Fig.(2), which partially blend into the primary peaks. These secondary peaks are given by the larger $`R`$ that produces the oscillating $`|W_k|^2`$ to match the oscillating pattern in the $`E`$-mode power spectrum. Apart from the contributions from the two peaks, the E-mode surface brightness is seen to drop rapidly toward large and small $`R`$. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM and standard flat-CDM cosmologies can hardly be distinguishable at the primary peak except for their different amplitudes. However, the two cosmologies are distinguishable by the secondary peaks. By contrast, the two peaks in the open-CDM cosmology are rather distinct from those of the other two cosmologies in both scale and amplitude.

It is also noted that for $`R100`$ arcmin, the $`E`$ mode power declines by almost a factor of $`10`$ from its respective peak values in the three cosmologies. This is the scale on which one expects to detect the $`B`$ mode. The $`E`$ mode on this scale is still much larger than the $`B`$ mode and may create serious contamination for the $`B`$-mode measurement, an issue to be detailed next. In Sec.(7), we will show that a finite beam can cure this problem.

## 5 $`B`$-Mode Measurements

Although we have shown the plausibility of the circle projection method for $`E`$-mode measurements, a naive application of this method to $`B`$-mode measurements may find it difficult to realize, due primary to the expected ten-times-smaller amplitude in the $`B`$ mode. As measurements of $`B`$ modes offer a much greater science return than measurements of $`E`$ modes, intense efforts on the $`B`$-mode detection are expected to be made in a foreseeable future. The main challenge here is to defeat not only the noise but also the leakage from the much stronger $`E`$ modes into $`B`$ modes. According to Eq.(7), the small real part of $`Y`$ (the $`B`$ mode) is actually the residue of cancellation among the much stronger $`E`$-mode signals along the circle. Therefore, the experimental setup for $`B`$-mode measurements can be very different from that for the $`E`$-mode. For example, a telescope that is capable of measuring the $`B`$ mode in a reasonable time span should have a large number of detectors to speed up the observation. In addition, the strategy using single-polarization detectors to measure $`B`$ mode will likely fail, due to the much weaker signals in the presence of stronger $`E`$ modes. Hence, dual-polarization detectors are needed for constructing the Stokes $`Q`$ and $`U`$ simultaneously.

We shall first briefly review the characteristics of $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes. The $`E`$-mode power per log-waveband (i.e., $`\mathrm{log}k`$) peaks at the angular scale about $`1520`$ arc-minutes for the currently most favorable $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology, c.f., Fig.(1a). On the other hand, the $`B`$-mode power per log-waveband is less than 1$`\%`$ of that for the $`E`$-mode and peaks on the angular scale of a couple of degrees. Adopting the circular projection integration, we show in Fig.(3 a, b, c) how the best choice of $`|W_k(R)|^2`$ may capture the $`B`$-mode power spectra for the three cosmologies indicated in Fig.(1). Plotted in Fig.(4) are the squared variances $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_B^2(R)`$ given by Eq.(9). Note that the peak power captures about $`10\%`$ of the total $`B`$-mode power for all three cosmologies. It is fortunate that the $`B`$-mode power concentrates at a much larger scale than where the $`E`$-mode power does by almost one order of magnitude. The scale separation can help extract the weak $`B`$ mode from the CMB polarization in the presence of the strong $`E`$ mode by adopting an appropriate beam size. This is an important subject to be discussed in Sec.(8).

The $`N`$ dual-polarization detectors can be regarded as $`N`$ independent telescopes, which observe the same sky circle so as to enhance the signal collection power. When each detector rotates around the sky circle at a constant rate, the angular integration becomes time integration. Moreover, each detector does its own time integration without referring to others, and therefore the laborious gain calibration across $`N`$ detectors is not needed frequently. The leakage from $`E`$-modes to $`B`$-modes within each detector can in principle be significantly removed after many periods of rotation, a subject to be discussed shortly. The total signal is obtained by summing up the signals collected by each detector after many rotations.

The aforementioned scale separation of $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes yields $`E`$-mode variations at discrete frequencies $`n\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which is about several to ten times higher than the discrete frequencies of $`B`$ modes, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the rotational frequency and $`n`$ an integer. The present projection method is nothing more than to extract the dc component of the signals. In principle, all $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes are periodic in time, and hence the ac signals can be exactly removed in one rotation. In practice, there can be errors introduced in this observing strategy, i.e., the errors in sweeping an exact sky circle at an exact constant rate $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. These are time-dependent drifts associated with mechanical controls and tend to be of low frequency. They introduce a phase error, i.e., multiplying $`c\mathrm{exp}(i\sigma _\omega \alpha (\varphi ))`$ to the integrand of Eq.(7), where $`c`$ is the efficiency in picking up the $`E`$-mode, $`\sigma _\omega `$ characterizes the error magnitude and $`\alpha (\varphi )`$ is some slow function of $`\varphi `$, which is not necessarily periodic in $`\varphi `$. If such an error is a random error instead of a systematic error, it is equivalent to broadening the discrete line frequency, $`n\mathrm{\Omega }n\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ with a small random $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ of variance $`\sigma _\omega `$. That is, one should expect that in reality the measured polarization fluctuations are no longer periodic in time, and therefore it may yield some level of $`E`$-mode leakage into the $`B`$ mode. In the worst case, the efficiency of coupling to $`E`$ modes $`c=1`$, and we shall take this limit for the estimation of the leakage below.

The ac $`E`$-mode leakage, $`\mathrm{exp}[i(n\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Delta }\omega )t]`$ of finite $`n`$, acquires a complex gain factor

$$G\frac{_{j=0}^Ne^{i\mathrm{\Delta }\omega (t_j)T}}{n\mathrm{\Omega }}$$
(11)
after an integration time $`T=2L\pi /\mathrm{\Omega }`$, where the integer $`L`$ is chosen to satisfy $`L\mathrm{\Omega }/2\sigma _\omega `$. But the dc $`B`$-mode signal gains by a factor $`NT`$ during the same time interval. The numerator of Eq.(11) can be regarded as random walks with a unit step size and $`N`$ represents the number of steps. Hence $`|G|`$ increases with the integration time as $`N^{1/2}/n\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and the signal-to-leakage ratio increases with time as $`N^{1/2}n\pi \mathrm{\Omega }/\sigma _\omega `$.

This estimate is only correct for a finite $`n`$. The leakage contributed by the $`E`$ mode of $`n=0`$, which is nearly static and modulated by the low-frequency noise, requires a separate estimate. As mentioned in the last paragraph of Sec.(4), the $`E`$-mode power, over a circle of a couple of degrees, is reduced by almost a factor of $`10`$ from its peak value to a level $`8\times 10^{13}K^2`$ for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology. Note also that the gain factor $`G`$ is complex, and it is only the imaginary part that can make the dc $`E`$ mode leak into the dc $`B`$ mode. Thus, the leakage power from the dc $`E`$ mode is $`8\times 10^{13}`$K$`\times (ImG)^2`$ after an integration time $`NT`$, where

$$ImGT\underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }\omega (t_j)T).$$
(12)
It follows that $`|ImG|TN^{1/2}`$ and the signal-to-leakage ratio increases with time as $`N^{1/2}`$, which is a factor of $`\sigma _\omega /n\pi \mathrm{\Omega }(1)`$ smaller than the leakage caused by the ac $`E`$ modes.

In other words, the dc $`E`$ mode is the dominant contributor to the leakage. From this estimate, we notice that the extreme low-frequency sweeping errors, such as $`1/f`$ noise, may seriously hamper the $`B`$-$`E`$ separation. In the estimate below, it is found that $`N`$ needs to be of order a few hundreds to suppress the $`E`$-mode leakage at a satisfactory level. Nonetheless, such extreme low-frequency noise can be efficiently removed when the calibration of the scanning trajectory is conducted periodically. That is, periodic calibration can modulate the low-frequency noise with a finite-frequency, thereby making such noise under control.

To be specific for estimating the number of rotations required to suppress the $`E`$-mode leakage, we take the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology as a fiducial model. The peak $`B`$-mode power is $`3.6\times 10^{14}K^2`$ at the circle radius $`R2`$ degrees (c.f., Fig.(4)). On the other hand, the expected $`E`$ leakage power at this ring radius is $`8\times 10^{13}N^1K^2`$ (c.f., Fig.(2)). Hence, the minimum $`N`$ is about $`70`$ in order to suppress the leakage down to the $`30\%`$ level of the expected signal power, and the total number of rotations is therefore $`70\times (\mathrm{\Omega }/2\sigma _\omega )`$. As mentioned earlier, the lower bound of $`\sigma _\omega /\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can be set by periodical calibration. Take $`\sigma _\omega /\mathrm{\Omega }0.1`$ as an example; one needs $`350`$ rotations to beat down the $`E`$-mode leakage satisfactorily. For a total integration time several thousand hours (discussed in Sec.(8)), it requires a rotation rate at least one turn per day. In fact, the leakage from the dc $`E`$-mode can be further reduced by the finite beam size. This is the most effective means for $`E`$-mode suppression and will be elaborated in Sec.(8) after the effects of finite beam width are examined in Sec.(7).

We now turn to brief discussions on the potentially most serious contaminants to the $`B`$-mode measurement. The contamination of the scattered polarized photons from the terrestrial environments, such as the 3-degree CMB photons reflected by the ground and observational instruments, can be a serious problem for the polarization measurement. This problem is even more acute for the $`B`$-mode measurement. Nevertheless, uniform illumination of polarized photons to the detector can contribute no net polarization signal after a perfect line integration as the first equality of Eq.(7) shows; neither can the dipole pattern of illuminating sources. In fact, among all multipole patterns, only the quadrupole patterns can contribute to the polarization measurement for the present observing strategy. Serious measures must be taken to guard against the quadrupole-moment scattered lights in the experiment.

The confusion from polarized point sources can also be a serious concern for the CMB polarization measurement, and they generally contribute almost equally to both $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes. They are often synchrotron and dust emission sources; the former is strong at low radio frequencies and the latter dominates at high frequenciesLin et al. (2002). Since the present method measures small patches of sky in the real space, it is possible to identify the point-source suspects through measurements at very low and very high frequencies a priori and to avoid these regions. Point-source confusion may thus be a soluble problem.

## 6 Temperature Anisotropy-Polarization E-Mode Correlation

The $`E`$-mode polarization in the CMBR results from the Thomson scattering off the temperature anisotropy of the primordial adiabatic and/or iso-curvature fluctuations. Therefore, the polarization $`E`$-mode is causally related to the temperature anisotropy, with its phase locked to temperature fluctuations. The correlation between the temperature anisotropy scalar field and the polarization tensor field is conventionally defined in the Fourier space as $`C_{TE,k}=k^2Re[k^2f_kT_k^{}]`$ per $`\mathrm{log}(k)`$ band, where $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes the angular average over the direction of the wave-vector $`𝐤`$. Plotted in Fig.(5,a,b,c) are $`C_{TE,k}`$ of the same three cosmologies as those indicated in Fig.(1). The averaged signals are a factor of few stronger than those of the $`E`$ polarization. In the real space, the inverse Fourier transformation gives

$$C_{TE}(r)=\frac{d^2𝐱_0}{A}^2f(𝐫+𝐱_0)\mathrm{\Delta }T(𝐱_0).$$
(13)
The measured Stokes parameters and temperature anisotropy are subject to different filter functions. While the filter function for the polarization tensor field is $`\overline{W}`$, the filter function $`W_s`$ for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ scalar field is $`W_s(r;R)=r\delta (rR)`$. The Fourier component of $`W_s(r;R)`$ is $`W_{s,k}(R)=2\pi R^2J_0(kR)`$. We define the $`TE`$ correlation by multiplying $`Y_E`$ on the sky circle to the temperature anisotropy on the same circle. The filter-weighted $`TE`$ correlation, in unit of temperature, is thus

$`\overline{C}_{TE}(R)`$ $`=(2\pi R^2)^2Y_E(R;𝐱_0){\displaystyle W_s(r;R)\mathrm{\Delta }T(𝐱_0+𝐫)d^2𝐫}_{𝐱_0}`$ (14)
$`={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}k^2{\displaystyle \frac{Re[f_kT_k^{}]}{2\pi A}}J_0(kR)J_2(kR)k𝑑k.`$
Plotted in Fig.(5 a, b, c) are also the composite filter function $`J_0(kR)J_2(kR)`$ of some choices of $`R`$ for the three cosmologies. Figure (6) shows $`\overline{C}_{TE}(R)`$ as functions of $`R`$ in unit of arcminute. As $`C_{TE}(R)`$ is not a positive definite quantity, the spatial filtering significantly smears out the $`TE`$ correlation and the resulting $`\overline{C}_{TE}`$ gives a relatively small signal strength for all filter sizes $`R`$. Thus, applying the circular-contour integration to measure $`TE`$ correlation is probably not an optimal strategy. Nevertheless, if an experiment has a sufficiently high sensitivity to detect the $`E`$-mode variance, it should also be well within its capability to measure $`\overline{C}_{TE}`$.

## 7 Effects of Finite Beam Width

In a real experiment, the detector beam has a finite width. Even with a finite beam width, the present strategy for separating $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes still holds. Below, we specifically consider the scanning-beam observation with a single detector, where the polarimeter axes are rotated to align with the local radial and azimuthal directions defined by the beam-center position $`𝐑`$. Moreover, the beam also co-rotates with the polarimeter axes so that its orientation remains fixed with respect to the local radial direction. Such a setup measures the following surface brightness weighed by the beam around the circle:

$`Sb(𝐫)=`$ $`i{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _R}{2\pi }}A(𝐫𝐑)[(\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi _R)Q+\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi _R)U)+i(\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi _R)U\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi _R)Q)]`$
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _q}{2\pi }}e^{i2(\varphi _R\varphi )}A(𝐫𝐑)`$ (15)
$`[r{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\varphi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi }}({\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r}})](f+ig),`$
where the second equality of Eq.(7) has been used, $`A(𝐫𝐑)`$ is the rotating beam pattern, and $`\varphi _R`$ the azimuthal angle of the beam center. The beam-center angle $`\varphi _R`$, instead of $`\varphi `$, appears on the right of the first equality because the rotation of polarimeter axes always refers to the beam-center position on the circle. The beam pattern $`A`$ can generally be expanded in terms of the monopole, quadrupole, etc.. When the beam pattern co-rotates with the polarimeter axis, both angles $`\varphi _R`$ and $`\varphi `$ always appear in these multipole moments in the combination, $`\varphi \varphi _R`$. Hence when the beam-center angle $`\varphi _R`$ is integrated out, we obtain an additional radial window function to account for the fact that the finite-size beam measures a sky annulus of finite width rather than an infinitely sharp ring, as illustrated below. The radial window function is a real quantity, and therefore the separability of $`B`$ and $`E`$ modes remains intact.

For the purpose of illustration, we let the beam be symmetric Gaussian with a half width $`d`$, though in practice the beam is not necessary a symmetric one,

$`A(𝐫𝐑)`$ $`=e^{(𝐫𝐑)^2/2d^2}`$ (16)
$`=e^{[r^2+R^22rR\mathrm{cos}(\varphi \varphi _R)]/2d^2}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}I_n(rR/d^2)e^{in(\varphi \varphi _R)}e^{(r^2+R^2)/2d^2},`$
where the circle has been taken to have a radius $`R`$, and $`I_n`$ is the modified Bessel function. The effective area of the beam is $`2\pi d^2`$. The angular average of $`\varphi _R`$ of Eq.(15) can then be carried out without involving $`\varphi `$, and it follows that

$$Sb(𝐫;R,d)=iI_2(rR/d^2)e^{(r^2+R^2)/2d^2}[r\frac{}{r}(\frac{1}{r}\frac{}{r})\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{^2}{\varphi ^2}+\frac{2i}{r}\frac{}{\varphi }(\frac{}{r}\frac{1}{2r})](f+ig).$$
(17)
In the case when the beam is asymmetric, this method also works, as long as the beam shape remains fixed with respect to the local rotating coordinate around the circle. For example, when the beam has a quadrupole component, the beam $`A(\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫^2/2d^2)(A(𝐫𝐑)^2/2d^2)`$ in Eq.(16) will need to be replaced by

$$A[\frac{1}{4}(b^2+a^2)\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫^2+\frac{1}{4}(b^2a^2)((\mathrm{\Delta }x^2\mathrm{\Delta }y^2)\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi _R)+2\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{\Delta }y\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi _R))],$$
(18)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are the long and short axes, respectively, and the $`\varphi _R`$-dependence accounts for the co-rotating beam pattern. The quadrupole moment in the argument of $`A`$ can be re-arranged to become $`(1/4)(b^2a^2)[r^2(\mathrm{cos}(2(\varphi \varphi _R))1)+(\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫)^2]`$. When such a beam is substituted into Eq.(15), the result is similar to Eq.(17) except for a different radial function in Eq.(17). This nice result allows us to carry out the next manipulation for projecting out the $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes as shown below. (We shall not dwell on asymmetric beams in the following discussions, but only to point out here that asymmetric beams pose no problem for the proposed $`EB`$ separation.)

We now perform an angular average of Eq.(17) over $`\varphi `$, corresponding to retaining only the dc component of the signals, and find that

$$\overline{S}b(r;R,d)=iI_2(rR/d^2)e^{(r^2+R^2)/2d^2}[r\frac{}{r}(\frac{1}{r}\frac{}{r})(f(r)+ig(r))].$$
(19)
The real and imaginary parts correspond to the $`B`$ and $`E`$ modes, respectively. Identical to what we have found in Sec.(2), Eq.(19) can be re-written as a surface convolution with a window function $`\overline{W}`$:

$$\overline{S}b(r;R,d)=i[I_2(rR/d^2)e^{(r^2+R^2)/2d^2}]\frac{d^2𝐫^{}}{2\pi r^2}\overline{W}(rr^{})^2(f(𝐫^{})+ig(𝐫^{}))$$
(20)
where $`\overline{W}(rr^{})2\mathrm{\Theta }(rr^{})r\delta (r^{}r)`$. The squared bracket in Eq.(20) sharply peaks at $`r=R`$ when the primary beam width $`d0`$; it becomes $`\delta (rR)/2\pi R`$ and Eq.(20) is then reduced to Eq.(7) of the sharp-beam case.

Moreover, the convolution surface integral of $`𝐫^{}`$ in Eq.(20) can further be expressed as

$$\frac{d^2𝐫^{}}{2\pi r^2}\overline{W}(rr^{})^2h(𝐫^{})=\frac{d^2𝐤}{4\pi ^2}J_2(kr)k^2h_k,$$
(21)
after an identical algebra as before. Finally, the averaged surface brightness over the whole beam becomes

$`\mathrm{\Delta }T(R,d)`$ $`={\displaystyle d^2𝐫\frac{\overline{S}b(r;R,d)}{2\pi d^2}}`$ (22)
$`=i{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐤}{4\pi ^2}[\frac{d^2𝐫}{2\pi d^2}J_2(kr)I_2(rR/d^2)e^{(r^2+R^2)/2d^2}]k^2(f_k+ig_k)}`$
$`=i{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐤}{4\pi ^2}J_2(kR)e^{(k^2d^2/2)}k^2(f_k+ig_k)}`$
and its variance

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T_{E,B}(R,d)=[_0^{\mathrm{}}J_2^2(kR)e^{k^2d^2}\frac{k^4|h_k|^2}{2\pi A}k𝑑k]^{1/2},$$
(23)
where $`|h_k|^2`$ represents either $`|f_k|^2`$ or $`|g_k|^2`$. When $`kd<<1`$, we recover the sharp-beam limit, Eq.(9), from Eq.(23). Figure (7) plots the squared variance of the beam weighed surface brightness of $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes as a function of the annulus radius $`R`$ with various $`d`$’s for the fiducial $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda =0.7`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm}=0.28`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.02`$). The non-zero $`d`$ leads to smearing of the peaks appearing in the sharp-beam limit. Moreover, the drastic decline in the $`E`$-mode power for a non-negligible $`kd`$ is also evident in Fig.(7). This is due to the Gaussian cutoff in Eq.(23).

Similarly, when observed with a finite beam, the $`TE`$ correlation, Eq.(14), becomes

$$\overline{C}_{TE}(R,d)=_0^{\mathrm{}}k^2\frac{Re[f_kT_k^{}]}{2\pi A}J_0(kR)J_2(kR)e^{k^2d^2}k𝑑k.$$
(24)
Shown in Fig.(8) are the $`TE`$ correlation of the fiducial cosmology for various $`d`$’s. Apparently, the Gaussian cutoff is also at work when the beam width is non-negligible.

## 8 Discussions

We return to the discussions on the $`E`$-mode leakage to the $`B`$-mode measurements, especially when the effects of finite beam width are taken into account. Fig.(7) clearly shows that when the half-beam width $`d17`$ arcmin, the peak $`B`$-mode power decreases from the sharp-beam case by a factor about $`1.3`$. But with such a wide beam, the $`E`$-mode power decreases by a factor of $`10`$, as compared with the sharp-beam case, at the radius $`R2`$ degrees. Hence the $`E`$-mode power is only a factor of $`3`$ greater than that of the $`B`$-mode power around $`R2`$ degrees. This is due precisely to the scale separation between $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes; the wide beam yields a small $`kd`$ for $`B`$ modes but a sizable $`kd`$ for $`E`$ modes. That is, one can always choose an appropriate beam to significantly suppress the $`E`$-modes leakage while not to sacrifice the $`B`$-modes. For the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology, a half-beam of $`17`$ arcminutes is near the optimal for $`B`$-mode detection.

We are now in a position to estimate how likely the $`B`$ and $`E`$ modes may be detected by the circular scan strategy in the near future. The AMiBA experimentLo et al. (2000) is equipped with two separate sets of $`19`$ dishes of different sizes, $`30`$cm and $`120`$cm, mounted on a $`6`$m turntable platform. It has $`20`$-GHz wide-band receivers with dual polarization capability and operates at $`90`$ GHz, a frequency window in which the Galactic synchrotron and dust emissions are both minimal. The AMiBA has been designed to operate in the interferometry mode, which has the advantage of easily removing systematic errors. However, AMiBA can also operate in the single-dish mode, to which the present observing strategy applies. In each single dish, both left and right circular-polarization detectors collect independent signals, and the two sets of signals are correlated to obtain the Stokes $`Q`$ and $`U`$. Much like the conventional interferometric measurements, correlation of the two independent signals can significantly remove the systematic errors as well as the electronic $`1/f`$ noise. With the system temperature $`T_s=70`$K, bandwidth $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =20`$Ghz, and antenna efficiency $`\eta _a=70\%`$ for AMiBA, the noise level per antenna per polarization after an integration time $`t_{int}`$ is $`1.22\times (\sqrt{2}T_s/\sqrt{\eta _a^2t_{int}\mathrm{\Delta }\nu })`$ and it amounts to $`1.2`$mK$`/\sqrt{t_{sec}}`$, where the factor $`1.22`$ corrects for the non-Rayleigh-Jeans limit for $`90`$ Ghz and $`t_{sec}`$ is $`t_{int}`$ in unit of seconds. With $`19`$ antennae and dual polarization, the system noise is reduced by $`\sqrt{38}`$ to become $`200\mu `$K$`/\sqrt{t_{sec}}`$.

Thus, in $`3.8`$-hour integration, one obtains a noise level down to $`1.7\mu `$K, which is the expected maximum surface brightness of the $`E`$ mode with the $`1.2`$m AMiBA dish, or $`d=4.2^{}`$ in Fig.(7). In $`35`$ hours, a $`3\sigma `$ $`E`$-mode signal is expected in a single sky annulus of radius in between $`15`$ and $`30`$ arcminutes. The $`B`$-mode peak strength for the AMiBA $`0.3`$m dish, ($`d=17^{}`$ in Fig.(7)) is about $`0.18\mu `$K. It therefore requires about $`340`$ hours to detect an $`1\sigma `$ signal, or $`3000`$ hours for a $`3\sigma `$ $`B`$-mode signal in a single annulus of radius $`2`$ degrees or so.

So far, we have estimated the signals for the single-field measurement, which are in themselves random fluctuations. To beat down the sample variance and construct the $`B`$-mode curves shown in Fig.(7), one needs a more efficient approach for determining the variance of the random signals in the presence of the instrument noise than the deep measurement described above. The combined error $`\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }T^2)`$ of the sample variance and instrument noise is estimated to be

$$\frac{\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }T^2)}{\mathrm{\Delta }T^2}=\frac{\sqrt{2}(1+\sigma _n^2/\mathrm{\Delta }T^2)}{\sqrt{N_{sam}}},$$
(25)
where $`\sigma _n`$ is the variance of the instrument noise per sky annulus and $`N_{sam}`$ the number of independent sky annuli measured. Note that $`\sigma _n^2t_{int}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T^2t_{int}^2`$ and the total observing time is $`N_{sam}t_{int}`$. For a fixed total observing time, we want the single-field integration time $`t_{int}`$ such that $`(\sigma _n/\mathrm{\Delta }T)^21`$. That is, the optimal strategy for the determination of the curves shown in Fig.(7) is to collect signals with $`S/N=1`$ per sky annulus. Thus, the desired integration time per annulus for the $`B`$ mode is therefore $`t_{int}=340`$ hours for AMiBA with a $`17`$ arcmin half-beam. The detemination of $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_B^2`$ at the $`3\sigma `$ level (including the sample variance) requires $`N_{sam}=72`$ or a total integration time $`2.5\times 10^4`$ hours. This amount of total observing time has become too long to be realistic.

Having discussed the capability of AMiBA for the CMB polarization measurement, we briefly turn to a discussion on the optimal instrument that may be able to realistically measure a substantial part of the $`B`$-mode curve shown in Fig.(7). The guiding principle for an optimal telescope is to collect as many photons as possible, and it thus requires as large a light collecting area as possible for a fixed beam size. However, the conventional radio telescopes mostly work in the diffraction-beam regime, where $`A_{phy}\mathrm{\Omega }_b/\lambda ^21`$ with $`A_{phy}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ and $`\lambda `$ being the physical area of the telescope, the beam solid angle and the photon wavelength, respectively, for the reason that these telescopes are designed to maximize the angular resolution for conventional observations. However, the $`B`$ modes are intrinsically of large scale (degree scale), and the measurements of $`B`$ modes thus require low-resolution telescopes. From the discussions given in the beginning of this section, we see that a half-beam width about $`17`$ arcmin can just be appropriate for the $`B`$-mode measurement. At $`\nu =90`$GHz, the dish diameter of a conventional radio telescope that yields a diffraction beam of $`17`$ arcmin is about $`0.3`$ meters. Such a conventional telescope is not optimized. An optimized telescope should adopt multi-mode feeds, where the antenna beam may be made much wider than the diffraction beam. That is, for a fixed beam width, one would like to increase the dish size as much as possible. (Note that the surface brightness signal-to-noise ratio increases linearly with the dish area.) As an example, a $`2`$-meter dish with a $`17`$-arcmin half beam is $`45`$ times more sensitive than a $`0.3`$-meter dish with a $`17`$-arcmin half beam. A large-dish telescope hence has a tremendous advantage over an instrument such as AMiBA, which consists of $`19`$ dishes of $`0.3`$-meter diameter with diffraction beams. With the same noise temperature per detector, such a $`2`$-meter, single-detector telescope gains a factor $`10(`$(ratio of dish area)(ratio of detector number)<sup>1/2</sup>) in detection sensitivity over AMiBA, or a factor $`10^2`$ reduction in the integration time, thereby making the $`B`$-mode power spectrum measurement a feasible task to conduct.

However, there is a caveat for this muli-mode feed approach. The beam pattern and the polarization property can be difficult to control. To attain the sensitivity given by the above example, $`45`$ modes are needed; the multi-mode bolometer currently in operation contains $`10`$ modes or so for the Maxima experiment (private conversation with Paul Richards). Despite the techincal challenges, it is certainly worthwhile to contemplate the next generation experiments for $`B`$-mode measurements along this direction.

## 9 Conclusion

In sum, this work addresses how the CMBR polarization $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes can be separated with a local measurement of Stokes parameters $`Q`$ and $`U`$. For scanning observations, we show that the only scanning trajectory capable of separating $`E`$ and $`B`$ polarization patterns are those that are circles. Moreover, the polarimeter axis also needs to rotate along the circle at the same rate as well. By varying the annulus radius $`R`$, one can measure $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes of various scales. In terms of the conventional power spectrum, this circular scanning observation is equivalent to adopting some particular $`k`$-space filters. We have presented the expected surface-brightness of $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes as well as the $`TE`$ correlation measured through these filters.

Though such a detection strategy contains only the gross information of the polarization power spectrum, it nevertheless exhibits the following good features:

(a) The measured peak power of $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes can be about $`10\%`$ of the total power contained in the CMB polarization fluctuations. The relatively high efficiency makes this strategy attractive for the detection of $`E`$ and $`B`$ polarization fluctuations in the CMB.

(b) The measurement can be conducted on a turntable platform, where all detectors scan the same sky circle, with each detector performing its own integration of Stokes $`Q`$ and $`U`$. The noise in the $`N`$ detectors are all independent and the data gathered by each detector can be straightforwardly summed together to enhance the signal-to-noise ratio. This sweeping-beam strategy is particularly useful for the weak $`B`$-mode detection, as the scan can be on an almost perfect circle, which is needed to avoid the $`E`$-mode leakage. The sweeping-beam strategy also avoids the need for frequent calibration across different detectors, thereby making the observation simple and stable.

(c) The present observing strategy is perfectly valid when the beam has a finite size. This opens up the possibility that one may effectively suppress the $`E`$-mode leakage to the measurements of $`B`$ modes, and the possibility that the observation of the weak CMB polarization signals can be made efficiently by using a large telescope with a finite beam, a beam that is much larger than the diffraction beam.

(d) Even when the beam is asymmetric the circular scan strategy remains valid, provided that the beam shape and orientation remain fixed with respect to the local axes along the circle traced by the beam center.

(e) The present method measures, in effect, the combination of a circular-top-hat-filtered and a circular-ring-filtered polarization patterns. In the Fourier domain, both power spectra of the combined filter and the $`E`$ mode oscillate. There exists a filter (primarily the ring filter) of size $`R`$ for the two oscillations to have the same frequencies and phases, so that a substantial power of $`E`$ mode is picked up. It results in a second peak in the $`E`$-mode surface brightness, which can be used to distinguish the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology from the SCDM cosmology, as shown in Fig.(2).

(f) The measurement is in real space, and it can be sensitive to the spatially localized non-Gaussian features, which can be either genuine CMB signals or confusion radios sourcesLin et al. (2002).

Thus, with the above advantages, the present local observational strategy offers an alternative way to detect the CMBR polarization for the ground-based or balloon-borne experiments, where the observation is confined within a relatively small patch of sky. This method is particularly useful for $`B`$-mode measurements, since $`B`$-mode signals are so weak that deep exposure is indeed needed.

Interestingly, the present method of circular scan can also be applied to the interferometric measurements of CMBR polarizationChiueh, Lin & Ma (2001), an observational strategy that originally aims to directly extract the Fourier power spectrum rather than making the real-space map. The details of how it can be achieved will be reported in a separate paper.

After the submission of this work, we noted a relevant work appearing in the literatureLewis et al. (2002), which addresses the extraction of $`B`$ modes in a circular patch of sky. By suitable linear combinations of signals obtained from different concentric sky annuli, it is possible to extract, apart from the axisymmetric modes, the non-axisymmetric $`B`$ modes.

We thank the AMiBA team for useful discussions. T.C would also like to thank Jeff Peterson and Paul Richards for discussions on the workings of the multi-mode feed bolometer. This work is supported in part by the National Science Council of Taiwan under the grant NSC90-2112-M-002-026.