text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The study of chiral anomalies in field theories over commutative manifolds is a well-established subject whose importance both in Physics and Mathematics cannot be overstated –see ref.  and references therein. The concept of Noncommutative manifold  and the ideas and tools furnished by field theories defined on them may prove decisive  in the quest of understanding the fundamental properties of Nature –see ref.  and references therein. It is therefore no futile endeavor to study the quantum properties of field theories over noncommutative manifolds which have chiral symmetries at the classical level. We shall be modest in this article and restrict our analysis to field theories over noncommutative Minkowski Space-time. We shall study the quantization of chiral fermions coupled to a classical background $`U(N)`$ gauge field when the space-time manifold is noncommutative Minkowski. We refer the reader to ref.  for a quick introduction to noncommutative manifolds and, in particular, to noncommutative space-time.

This article is divided into two main parts. In the first part we shall use path integral methods –i.e. variants of Fujikawa’s method– to compute the chiral gauge anomaly. We shall obtain thus the consistent form and the covariant form of the gauge anomaly. We shall also see that in both cases the gauge anomaly occurs because of the lack of chiral gauge invariance of the fermionic measure. In the second part we shall understand the UV and IR origin of the chiral anomaly by using diagrammatic techniques. In this second part we shall compute the noncommutative counterpart of the famous triangle anomaly for the gauge currents. Before we start off, let us warn the reader that no global anomaly will be considered in the sequel.

## 2 The gauge anomaly in the path integral formalism

Let us take a classical chiral, say, right handed, fermion, $`\psi _\mathrm{R}^j=\mathrm{P}_+\psi ^j`$, ($`\mathrm{P}_+=\frac{1+\gamma _5}{2}`$), carrying the fundamental representation of the group $`U(N)`$. The physics of this fermion interacting with a $`U(N)`$ classical gauge field on noncommutative Minkowski space-time is given by the classical action

$$\mathrm{S}=d^4x\overline{\psi }_i(i/\psi ^i+\mathrm{A}_{\mu j}^i\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{P}_+\psi ^j),$$
(2.1)
where $`\psi ^j`$ is a Dirac fermion carrying the fundamental representation of $`U(N)`$ and the complex matrix $`\mathrm{A}_{\mu j}^i`$, with $`(\mathrm{A}_{\mu j}^i)^{}=\mathrm{A}_{\mu i}^j`$, is the $`U(N)`$ gauge field. The indices $`i,j`$ run from $`1`$ to $`N`$. The previous action is invariant under the following chiral gauge transformations:

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(\delta _\omega \mathrm{A}_\mu \right)_j^i=_\mu \omega _j^ii\mathrm{A}_{\mu k}^i\omega _j^k+i\omega _k^i\mathrm{A}_{\mu j}^k,\hfill \\ (\delta _\omega \psi )^i=i\omega _j^i\mathrm{P}_+\psi ^j\mathrm{and}(\delta _\omega \overline{\psi })_k=i\overline{\psi }_k\omega _i^k\mathrm{P}_{},\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.2)
where $`\mathrm{P}_{}=\frac{1\gamma _5}{2}`$. The complex functions $`\omega _j^i=\omega _i^j`$, $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},N`$, are the infinitesimal gauge transformation parameters. The symbol $``$ denotes the Moyal product of functions on Minkowski space-time. The Moyal product is defined, in terms of Fourier transforms, thus

$$(fg)(x)=\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{i(p+q)_\mu x^\mu }e^{\frac{i}{2}\theta ^{\mu \nu }p_\mu q_\nu }\widehat{f}(p)\widehat{g}(q).$$

Here, $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is an antisymmetric real matrix either of magnetic type or light-like type. It is for these choices of matrix $`\theta `$ that it is likely that a unitary theory exists at the quantum level, this theory being connected by Wick rotation with its counterpart in noncommutative Euclidean space .

The quantum theory in a background classical gauge field is given by $`\mathrm{W}[\mathrm{A}]`$, this functional being formally defined as follows

$$e^{\mathrm{W}[\mathrm{A}]}𝑑\psi 𝑑\overline{\psi }e^{\mathrm{S}[\mathrm{A}]}\mathrm{Z}[\mathrm{A}].$$
(2.3)
To render the path integral above as well-defined as possible we are setting our theory on noncommutative space-time with Euclidean signature. $`\mathrm{S}[\mathrm{A}]`$ is therefore the Euclidean counterpart of the action in eq. (2.1):

$$\mathrm{S}=d^4x\overline{\psi }_ii\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A})_j^i\psi ^j.$$
(2.4)
The operator $`i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A})`$, which acts on Dirac spinors $`\psi ^j`$ as follows

$$i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A})_j^i\psi ^j=i/\psi ^i+\mathrm{A}_{\mu j}^i\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{P}_+\psi ^j,$$
(2.5)
is not an hermitian operator, but it has a well-defined eigenvalue problem since it is an elliptic operator. Actually, the principal symbol of this operator is the same as that of its counterpart in ordinary (commutative) space. Note that we take $`\gamma ^\mu =(\gamma ^\mu )^{}`$ and $`\gamma _5=\gamma ^1\gamma ^2\gamma ^3\gamma ^4`$.

Now, for the theory to make sense at the quantum level, we must demand that $`\mathrm{W}[\mathrm{A}]`$ in eq. (2.3) be invariant under the gauge transformations in eq. (2.2), i.e.

$$\delta _\omega \mathrm{W}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}d^4x\omega _j^i(x)\left(D_\mu [\mathrm{A}]𝒥_\mu \right)_i^j(x)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(2.6)
Here, $`D_\mu [\mathrm{A}]_j^i()=_\mu \delta _j^i()i\mathrm{A}_{\mu j}^i()+i()\mathrm{A}_{\mu j}^i`$ is the covariant derivative. The current $`𝒥_{\mu j}^i`$ is formally defined as follows

$$𝒥_{\mu j}^i(x)\left(\psi _\beta ^j\overline{\psi }_{\alpha i}\right)(x)\left(\gamma _\mu \mathrm{P}_+\right)_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{\delta \mathrm{W}[\mathrm{A}]}{\delta \mathrm{A}_{\mu i}^j(x)},$$
(2.7)
where

$$\mathrm{}=\frac{𝑑\psi 𝑑\overline{\psi }\mathrm{}e^{\mathrm{S}[\mathrm{A}]}}{𝑑\psi 𝑑\overline{\psi }e^{\mathrm{S}[\mathrm{A}]}}.$$
(2.8)
We shall see below that eq. (2.6) does not hold for the quantum theory in spite of the fact that the classical theory is gauge invariant: the gauge symmetry is anomalous at the quantum level. To make correct statements on the properties of $`\mathrm{W}[\mathrm{A}]`$, one must properly define first the formal path integral in eq. (2.3). Since the fermion fields are Grassman fields and the classical action in eq.(2.4) is quadratic in those fields, one aims to define, upon renormalization, $`\mathrm{Z}[\mathrm{A}]`$ as the determinant of a certain operator with eigenvalues, say, $`\left\{\lambda _n\right\}_n`$:

$$\mathrm{Z}[\mathrm{A}]=\left[\underset{n}{}\lambda _n\right]_{\mathrm{ren}}.$$

As in ordinary (commutative) Euclidean space there are two conspicuous choices of $`\left\{\lambda _n\right\}_n`$, namely:

$`\left\{\lambda _n\right\}_n`$ is the set of eigenvalues of $`i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A})`$.

$`\left\{\lambda _n\right\}_n`$ is the set of eigenvalues of $`\sqrt{\left(i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A})\right)^{}i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A})}`$.

The operator $`i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A})`$ has been defined in eq.(2.5) and $`\left(i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A})\right)^{}`$ is its hermitian conjugate. We shall show shortly that choices $`a)`$ and $`b)`$ lead, respectively, to the consistent form and the covariant form of the anomaly. The consistent form –unlike the covariant form– satisfies the noncommutative Wess-Zumino condition  and the covariant form transforms covariantly under gauge transformations. The consistent form does not transform covariantly under gauge transformations. As in the ordinary (commutative) Euclidean space case, for choice b), the current $`𝒥_{\mu j}^i(x)=\left(\psi _\beta ^j\overline{\psi }_{\alpha i}\right)(x)\left(\gamma _\mu \mathrm{P}_+\right)_{\alpha \beta }`$ cannot be obtained, upon renormalization, by functional differentiation of the renormalized $`\mathrm{W}[\mathrm{A}]`$. Hence, the Quantum Action Principle does not hold in the theory constructed with choice b)(see ref. , and references therein, for background information on the Quantum Action Principle). The reader may notice that the results we have just stated are already true if Euclidean space were commutative (see ref.  for case a) and ref.  for case b), see also ref. ).

### 2.1 The consistent form of the anomaly

We have seen above that $`i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A})`$, defined in eq.(2.5), is an elliptic operator. Let us denote the set of its eigenvalues by $`\left\{\lambda _n\right\}_n`$. Then, following ref. , we introduce two basis of eigenspinors, say, $`\{\varphi _n\}_n`$ and $`\{\chi _n\}_n`$ defined as follows

$$i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A})\varphi _n=\lambda _n\varphi _n,\left(i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A})\right)^{}\chi _n=\lambda _n^{}\chi _n,$$
(2.9)
where $`\lambda _n^{}`$ is the complex conjugate of $`\lambda _n`$. We shall also normalize the eigenspinors so that the following equation holds

$$d^4x\chi _n^{}(x)\varphi _m(x)=\delta _{nm}.$$
(2.10)
Now, the Grassman spinor fields $`\psi (x)`$ and $`\overline{\psi }(x)`$ can be expanded thus

$$\psi (x)=\underset{n}{}a_n\varphi _n(x),\overline{\psi }(x)=\underset{n}{}\overline{b}_n\chi _n^{}(x).$$
(2.11)
The coefficients $`\{a_n\}_n`$ and $`\{\overline{b}_n\}_n`$ being Grassman numbers.

To define the path integral in eq. (2.3) we shall define its measure first. We define

$$d\psi d\overline{\psi }\underset{n}{}da_nd\overline{b}_n.$$
(2.12)
Taking into account eq. (2.4) and eqs. (2.9) – (2.11), one readily shows that

$$\mathrm{S}=\underset{n}{}\lambda _n\overline{b}_na_n.$$

Furnished with this equation and eq. (2.12) we are ready to define the path integral in eq. (2.3) as follows

$$𝑑\psi 𝑑\overline{\psi }e^{\mathrm{S}[\mathrm{A}]}=\underset{n}{}da_nd\overline{b}_ne^{_n\lambda _n\overline{b}_na_n}.$$
(2.13)
One can now work out the Grassman integrations to obtain

$$\mathrm{Z}[\mathrm{A}]=\underset{n}{}\lambda _n=\text{}\mathrm{`}\mathrm{det}i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A})\text{}\text{}.$$

Of course, the product of eigenvalues above is ill-defined and needs regularization. One can use Pauli-Villars (PV) regularization, or zeta function regularization, to define a regularized $`\mathrm{Z}[\mathrm{A}]`$ and then renormalized it:

$$\mathrm{Z}[\mathrm{A}]_{\mathrm{PV}\mathrm{regularized}}=\underset{n}{}\frac{\lambda _n}{\lambda _n+M}\stackrel{\mathrm{renormalization}}{}\mathrm{Z}[\mathrm{A}]=\left(\mathrm{det}i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A})\right)_{\mathrm{renormalized}}.$$
(2.14)
We shall not delve more deeply into the renormalization process since we will not need it to obtain the anomaly. Notice that $`\mathrm{Z}[\mathrm{A}]`$ in eq. (2.14) cannot be gauge invariant since, under the infinitesimal gauge transformation, $`g`$, in eq. (2.2), the operator $`i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A})`$ does not undergo a similarity transformation; rather, it changes as follows

$$(1i\omega P_{})i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A}^g)(1+i\omega P_+)=i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A})+O(\omega ^2).$$

However, as also happens in the commutative space-time setting, the modulus of the quantity $`\left(\mathrm{det}i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A})\right)_{\mathrm{renormalized}}`$ can be defined in a gauge invariant gauge, and hence, it is the phase of $`\left(\mathrm{det}i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A})\right)_{\mathrm{renormalized}}`$ which carries the anomaly. Indeed,

$$\mathrm{det}i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A})^2=\mathrm{det}(i/_+i/_{})(\mathrm{det}iD/(\mathrm{A}))^2,$$

and the Dirac operator $`iD/(\mathrm{A})`$ can be regularized in a gauge invariant way by using, for instance, the Pauli-Villars method. Note that $`/_\pm =/P_\pm `$ and $`iD/(\mathrm{A})=i/+\mathrm{A}/`$.

We now turn to the computation of the consistent form of the anomaly. Let us introduce the following definitions

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{Z}[\mathrm{A}+\delta _\omega \mathrm{A}]=𝑑\psi ^{}𝑑\overline{\psi }^{}e^{\mathrm{S}[\mathrm{A}+\delta _\omega \mathrm{A}]}=_nda_n^{}d\overline{b}_n^{}e^{_n\lambda _n[\mathrm{A}+\delta _\omega \mathrm{A}]\overline{b}_n^{}a_n^{}},\hfill \\ \mathrm{Z}[\mathrm{A}]=𝑑\psi 𝑑\overline{\psi }e^{\mathrm{S}[\mathrm{A}]}=_nda_nd\overline{b}_ne^{_n\lambda _n[\mathrm{A}]\overline{b}_na_n},\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.15)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}\psi ^{}=\psi +\delta _\omega \psi =_na_n^{}\varphi _n,\overline{\psi }^{}=\overline{\psi }+\delta _\omega \overline{\psi }=_n\overline{b}_n^{}\chi _n^{},\hfill \\ \psi =_na_n\varphi _n,\overline{\psi }=_n\overline{b}_n\chi _n^{},\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`\delta _\omega \mathrm{A}`$, $`\delta _\omega \psi `$ and $`\delta _\omega \overline{\psi }`$ are given in eq. (2.2), and $`\varphi _n`$ and $`\chi _n`$ are defined in eq. (2.9). Next, let us define $`\delta J`$ as follows:

$$\delta Jid^4x\underset{n}{}\{\chi _n^{}\omega P_+\varphi _n\chi _n^{}\omega P_{}\varphi _n\}=id^4x\underset{n}{}\{\chi _n^{}\omega \gamma _5\varphi _n\}.$$
(2.16)
Then, it is not difficult to show that, under the gauge transformations in eq. (2.2), the measure of the path integrals in eq. (2.15) changes thus

$$\underset{n}{}da_n^{}d\overline{b}_n^{}\underset{n}{}da_nd\overline{b}_n=\delta J\underset{n}{}da_nd\overline{b}_n+O(\omega ^2).$$
(2.17)
Finally, taking into account that $`\delta _\omega \mathrm{Z}[\mathrm{A}]=\mathrm{Z}[\mathrm{A}+\delta \mathrm{A}]\mathrm{Z}[\mathrm{A}]+O(\omega ^2)`$ and eqs. (2.15) – (2.17), one obtains that

$$\delta _\omega \mathrm{W}[\mathrm{A}]=d^4x\omega _j^i(x)\left(D_\mu [\mathrm{A}]𝒥_\mu ^{\mathrm{consistent}}\right)_i^j(x)=id^4x\underset{n}{}\{\chi _n^{}\omega \gamma _5\varphi _n\}.$$
(2.18)
The current, $`𝒥_\mu ^{\mathrm{consistent}}`$, is the current, $`𝒥_\mu `$, in eq. (2.7), when the path integrals in eq. (2.8) are defined as in eq. (2.13). The current has been labeled “consistent” since as we shall see, when properly defined, its gauge divergence satisfies the Wess-Zumino consistency condition. The right hand side of eq. (2.18) needs regularization. To regulate it we shall use the Gaussian cut-off function furnished by $`\{\lambda _n^2\}_n`$:

$$d^4x\omega _j^i(x)\left(D_\mu [\mathrm{A}]𝒥_\mu ^{\mathrm{consistent}}\right)_i^j(x)=i\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}}{lim}d^4x\underset{n}{}\{\chi _n^{}\omega \gamma _5e^{\frac{\lambda _n^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\varphi _n\}.$$
(2.19)
By changing to a plane wave basis, the right hand side of eq. (2.19) can be recast thus

$$i\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}}{lim}d^4x\omega _j^i(x)\mathrm{tr}\{\gamma _5\left(e^{\frac{\widehat{D}^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}e^{ipx}\right)_i^je^{ipx}\}.$$
(2.20)
Here, “$`\mathrm{tr}`$” denotes trace over the Dirac spinor indices. After a long computation , eq. (2.20) leads to

$$d^4x\omega _j^i(x)\left(D_\mu [\mathrm{A}]𝒥_\mu ^{\mathrm{consistent}}\right)_i^j(x)=𝒜^{\mathrm{consistent}}(\mathrm{A},\omega ),$$

with

$$𝒜^{\mathrm{consistent}}(\mathrm{A},\omega )=\frac{i}{24\pi ^2}\mathrm{Tr}d^4x\epsilon _{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3\mu _4}\omega _{\mu _1}\left[\mathrm{A}_{\mu _2}_{\mu _3}\mathrm{A}_{\mu _4}\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{A}_{\mu _2}\mathrm{A}_{\mu _3}\mathrm{A}_{\mu _4}\right].$$
(2.21)
The symbol “Tr” denotes the trace over the $`U(N)`$ generators. The right hand side of this equation is called the consistent form of the gauge anomaly since it satisfies the Wess-Zumino consistency condition, which reads

$$\delta _{\omega _1}𝒜(\mathrm{A},\omega _2)\delta _{\omega _2}𝒜(\mathrm{A},\omega _1)=i𝒜(\mathrm{A},[\omega _1,\omega ]).$$
(2.22)
That the Wess-Zumino condition holds is a consequence of the fact that

$$\left(\delta _{\omega _1}\delta _{\omega _2}\delta _{\omega _2}\delta _{\omega _1}\right)\mathrm{W}[\mathrm{A}]=i\delta _{[\omega _1,\omega _2]}\mathrm{W}[\mathrm{A}],$$

and that the consistent current satisfies the following equation

$$(𝒥_\mu ^{\mathrm{consistent}})_j^i(x)=\frac{\delta \mathrm{W}[\mathrm{A}]}{\mathrm{A}_{\mu i}^j(x)}.$$

The reader should note that eq. (2.21) leads to the conclusion that the triangle anomaly cancellation condition reads now

$$\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{T}^a\mathrm{T}^b\mathrm{T}^c)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},$$

whereas its ordinary (for commutative space-time) is $`\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{T}^a\{\mathrm{T}^b\mathrm{T}^c\})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}`$. The reader is referred to refs.  for further comments on this new anomaly cancellation condition. The reader should also note that the anomaly arises because the Jacobian that gives the change of the fermionic measure –see eq. (2.17)– fails to be trivial when properly regularized. The reader is referred to ref.  for the computation of supersymmetric version of the consistent anomaly above.

One final technical comment. To obtain eq. (2.21) from eq. (2.20) we have dropped an UV divergent contribution which has the form $`\delta _\omega 𝒞(\mathrm{A},\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. This contribution can be absorbed into a renormalization of $`\mathrm{W}[\mathrm{A}]`$ since $`𝒞(\mathrm{A}_\mu ,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is a polynomial in the $``$ product of $`\mathrm{A}_\mu `$ and its derivatives.

### 2.2 The covariant form of the anomaly

The covariant form of the chiral gauge anomaly is obtained by defining the path integral in eq. (2.3) as follows

$$𝑑\psi 𝑑\overline{\psi }e^{\mathrm{S}[\mathrm{A}]}=\underset{n}{}da_nd\overline{b}_ne^{_n\lambda _n\overline{b}_na_n};$$
(2.23)
the real numbers $`\lambda _n`$, which can be chosen so that $`\lambda _n0`$, and the Grassman numbers $`a_n`$ and $`\overline{b}_n`$ are defined thus

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A})\right)^{}i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A})\phi _n=\lambda _n^2\phi _n,i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A})\left(i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A})\right)^{}\varphi _n=\lambda _n^2\varphi _n,\hfill \\ \varphi _n=\frac{1}{\lambda _n}i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A})\phi _n,\mathrm{if}\lambda _n0,\mathrm{and}i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A})\phi _n=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{if}\lambda _n=0,\hfill \\ \phi _n=\frac{1}{\lambda _n}\left(i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A})\right)^{}\varphi _n,\mathrm{if}\lambda _n0,\mathrm{and}\left(i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A})\right)^{}\varphi _n=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{if}\lambda _n=0,\hfill \\ d^4x\phi _n^{}(x)\phi _m(x)=\delta _{nm},d^4x\varphi _n^{}(x)\varphi _m(x)=\delta _{nm},\hfill \\ \psi (x)=\underset{n}{}a_n\phi _n(x),\overline{\psi }(x)=\underset{n}{}\overline{b}_n\varphi _n^{}(x).\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.24)
Upon Grassman integration, eqs. (2.3) and (2.23) lead to

$$\mathrm{Z}[\mathrm{A}]=\underset{n}{}\lambda _n=\text{}\mathrm{`}\mathrm{det}\sqrt{\left(i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A})\right)^{}i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A})}\text{}\text{}.$$
(2.25)
Unlike in the consistent anomaly case, $`\mathrm{Z}[\mathrm{A}]`$ is formally gauge invariant under the infinitesimal gauge transformation, call it $`g`$, of $`\mathrm{A}_\mu `$ in eq. (2.2). Indeed, $`(1i\omega \mathrm{P}_+)\left(i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A}^g)\right)^{}i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A}^g)(1+i\omega \mathrm{P}_+)=\left(i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A})\right)^{}i\widehat{D}(\mathrm{A})+0(\omega ^2)`$, so that $`\lambda _n(\mathrm{A}^g)=\lambda _n(\mathrm{A})+O(\omega ^2)`$. Pauli-Villars regularization, or zeta function regularization, renders rigorous the statements above on the gauge invariance of the regularized $`\mathrm{Z}[\mathrm{A}]`$. We thus conclude, as it is the case for commutative space-time, that $`\delta _\omega \mathrm{W}[\mathrm{A}]=0`$ for $`\mathrm{W}[\mathrm{A}]=\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{Z}[\mathrm{A}]`$, with $`\mathrm{Z}[\mathrm{A}]`$ as defined by the renormalized counterpart of eq. (2.25). Hence, this $`\mathrm{W}[\mathrm{A}]`$ carries no gauge anomaly. Unfortunately, the Quantum Action Principle  does not hold for the field theory defined by it. Indeed, now

$$\frac{\delta \mathrm{W}[\mathrm{A}]}{\delta \mathrm{A}_{\mu i}^j(x)}\left(\psi _\beta ^i\overline{\psi }_{\alpha j}\right)(x)\left(\gamma _\mu \mathrm{P}_+\right)_{\alpha \beta }\left(𝒥_\mu ^{\mathrm{covariant}}\right)_j^i(x),$$
(2.26)
since it can be shown  that the covariant current $`𝒥_\mu ^{\mathrm{covariant}}`$ is not covariantly conserved; i.e.

$$d^4x\omega _j^i(x)\left(D_\mu [\mathrm{A}]𝒥_\mu ^{\mathrm{covariant}}\right)_i^j(x)=𝒜^{\mathrm{covariant}}(\mathrm{A},\omega ),$$

with

$$𝒜^{\mathrm{covariant}}(\mathrm{A},\omega )=\frac{i}{32\pi ^2}\mathrm{Tr}d^4x\omega (x)\epsilon _{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3\mu _4}\mathrm{F}_{\mu _1\mu _2}\mathrm{F}_{\mu _3\mu _4}(x).$$
(2.27)
“Tr” stands for the trace over the $`U(N)`$ generators. Let us remark that $`𝒥_\mu ^{\mathrm{covariant}}`$ in eq. (2.26) is defined so that $`\mathrm{}`$ is given by eq. (2.8) with the path integrals defined as in eqs. (2.23) – (2.25). It can be shown  that $`𝒜^{\mathrm{covariant}}(\mathrm{A},\omega )`$ comes from the nontrivial regularized Jacobian that yields the change of the fermionic measure under the chiral gauge transformations of eq. (2.2). Here, the regularized Jacobian is defined by using a regularization function constructed with the eigenvalues $`\lambda _n^2`$ in eq. (2.24).

eq. (2.27) is the noncommutative counterpart of the ordinary result obtained in . It is clear that $`𝒜^{\mathrm{covariant}}(\mathrm{A},\omega )`$ transforms covariantly under gauge transformations of $`\mathrm{A}_\mu `$ and that it does not satisfies the Wess-Zumino consistency condition in eq. (2.22). It is not difficult to show by explicit computation that the consistent anomaly can be turn into the covariant anomaly by the following redefinition of the currents:

$$\left(𝒥_\mu ^{\mathrm{covariant}}\right)_j^i=\left(𝒥_\mu ^{\mathrm{consistent}}\right)_j^i+𝒳_{\mu j}^i,$$

with

$$𝒳_{\mu j}^i=\frac{i}{48\pi ^2}\epsilon _{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\left(\mathrm{A}_\nu \mathrm{F}_{\rho \sigma }+\mathrm{F}_{\rho \sigma }\mathrm{A}_\nu +i\mathrm{A}_\nu \mathrm{A}_\rho \mathrm{A}_\sigma \right)_j^i.$$

## 3 The gauge anomaly and the triangle Feynman diagrams

The contribution to the consistent anomaly equation –the Euclidean version of this equation is in eq. (2.21)– that comes from the three point contribution -the famous triangle diagrams– to $`\mathrm{W}[\mathrm{A}]`$ reads thus

$$\begin{array}{c}p_3^{\mu _3}\mathrm{W}_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}^{a_1a_2a_3}(p_1,p_2)^{\mathrm{eps}}=\frac{1}{24\pi ^2}\epsilon _{\mu _1\mu _2\alpha \beta }p_1^\alpha p_2^\beta \hfill \\ \left(\mathrm{Tr}\{\mathrm{T}^{a_1},\mathrm{T}^{a_2}\}\mathrm{T}^{a_3}\mathrm{cos}\frac{1}{2}\theta (p_1,p_2)i\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{T}^{a_1},\mathrm{T}^{a_2}]\mathrm{T}^{a_3}\mathrm{sin}\frac{1}{2}\theta (p_1,p_2)\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.28)
$`\mathrm{W}_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}^{a_1a_2a_3}(p_1,p_2)^{\mathrm{eps}}`$ denotes the three point contribution to $`\mathrm{W}[\mathrm{A}]`$ that involves the Levi-Civita pseudotensor. Notice that now we are back in noncommutative Minkowski space-time. As in ordinary Minkowski space, one can understand the occurrence of the gauge anomaly either as an UV effect or as an IR phenomenon, by evaluating in terms of triangle diagrams the left hand side of eq. (3.28). We shall do this in what remains of the current section; further details can be found in ref. .

Chiral anomalies have been computed using Feynman diagrams in refs  as well.

### 3.1 The UV origin of the gauge anomaly

In dimensional regularization –see –the left hand side of eq. (3.28) reads

$$\begin{array}{c}p_3^{\mu _3}\mathrm{W}_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}^{a_1a_2a_3}(p_1,p_2)^{\mathrm{eps}}=e^{\frac{i}{2}\theta (p_1,p_2)}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{T}^{a_1}\mathrm{T}^{a_2}\mathrm{T}^{a_3}\mathrm{}_{\mu _1\mu _2}(p_1,p_2;d)+\hfill \\ e^{\frac{i}{2}\theta (p_1,p_2)}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{T}^{a_2}\mathrm{T}^{a_1}\mathrm{T}^{a_3}\mathrm{}_{\mu _2\mu _1}(p_2,p_1;d),\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$$\mathrm{}_{\mu _1\mu _2}(p_1,p_2;d)=\frac{d^dq}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{\mathrm{tr}^{\mathrm{eps}}\{(q/+p/_1)\overline{\gamma }_{\mu _1}\mathrm{P}_+q/\overline{\gamma }_{\mu _2}\mathrm{P}_+(q/p/_2)(\overline{p/_1}+\overline{p/_2})\mathrm{P}_+\}}{(q^2+i0^+)((q+p_1)^2+i0^+)((qp_2)^2+i0^+)}.$$

The previous Feynman integral, which is the ordinary one, yields upon integration an UV pole at $`d4`$. This UV pole is canceled by the contribution $`(d4)\epsilon _{\mu _1\mu _2\alpha \beta }p_1^\alpha p_2^\beta `$ coming from the trace over the gamma matrices. eq. (3.28) is thus obtained along with the UV interpretation of it. Of course, this is the same interpretation as in ordinary Minkowski space-time; an interpretation which can be found in ref. .

### 3.2 The IR origin of the gauge anomaly

To interpret the nonabelian chiral anomaly on noncommutative Minkowski as an IR phenomenon, we shall follow Coleman and Grossman  and compute $`\mathrm{W}_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}^{a_1a_2a_3}(p_1,p_2)^{\mathrm{eps}}`$ at the point

$$p_1^2=p_2^2=p_3^2=Q^2,p_1+p_2+p_3=0.$$

Some integration  yields

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{W}_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}^{a_1a_2a_3}(p_1,p_2)^{\mathrm{eps}}=\\ \frac{1}{24\pi ^2}\left(\frac{1}{Q^2}\right)\left(\mathrm{Tr}\{\mathrm{T}^{a_1},\mathrm{T}^{a_2}\}\mathrm{T}^{a_3}\mathrm{cos}\frac{1}{2}\theta (p_1,p_2)i\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{T}^{a_1},\mathrm{T}^{a_2}]\mathrm{T}^{a_3}\mathrm{sin}\frac{1}{2}\theta (p_1,p_2)\right)\\ \left(\epsilon _{\mu _1\mu _2\alpha \beta }p_1^\alpha p_2^\beta p_{3\mu _3}+\epsilon _{\mu _3\mu _1\alpha \beta }p_3^\alpha p_1^\beta p_{2\mu _2}+\epsilon _{\mu _2\mu _3\alpha \beta }p_2^\alpha p_3^\beta p_{1\mu _1}\right).\end{array}$$
(3.29)
Hence, we conclude that $`\mathrm{W}_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}^{a_1a_2a_3}(p_1,p_2;p_1^2=p_2^2=p_3^2=Q^2)^{\mathrm{eps}}`$ has an IR singularity at $`Q^2=0`$. The contraction of the right hand side of eq. (3.29) with $`p_3^{\mu _3}`$ erases the singularity at $`Q^2=0`$ and yields the triangle anomaly given in eq. (3.28). An explanation of the IR origin of the gauge anomaly has been obtained thus.

## Acknowledgements

The author heartily thanks the organizers of the Euroconference “Brane New World and Noncommutative Geometry” at Villa Gualino for having granted him the opportunity of presenting this piece of research in such a beautiful and pleasant surroundings. The author is indebted with J.M. Gracia-Bondía for an enjoyable collaboration on anomalies. Finally, the author is grateful to CICyT, Spain, for partial financial support through grant No. PB98-0842.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In recent years interests in the field of quantum computation has grown rapidly (see  for reviews). For a deeper understanding of the fundamental principles and limitations of quantum computing, it is important to investigate optimal operations for unknown states. In a Bloch sphere notation, an unknown qubit has the following form,

$$|\psi (\vartheta ,\phi )=\mathrm{cos}\frac{\vartheta }{2}|0+e^{i\phi }\mathrm{sin}\frac{\vartheta }{2}|1$$
(1)
There have been a number of studies to find optimal manipulations of quantum states. Bužek and Hillery introduced  a universal quantum cloner such that, given a single unknown qubit, it produces two approximate copies of the input qubit. Subsequently, Gisin and Massar generalised it  to a $`N`$ to $`M`$ cloner. These cloners have been proven to be optimal by various researchers . A universal quantum entangler has also been introduced in . It entangles two qubits where one is unknown while the other is a known reference state. Moreover, Mor and Terno introduced a universal quantum disentangler  (also see ). They considered a bipartite state and its transformation into a product state of the reduced density matrices of the two subsystems. Bužek and Hillery considered  a slight different disentangler which extracts an unknown qubit entangled with a reference state. Recently, universal-NOT (U-NOT) transformation has been studied in . The perfect operation of $`|\psi |\psi ^{}`$ is not allowed due to its anti-unitarity. In a single qubit case, the fidelity of imitating such operation was shown to be 2/3. This is same as the measurement fidelity which is the optimal efficiency of measuring an unknown qubit. Universality of these transformations imply that the operations yield the same fidelity regardless of the input states. In , more general universal manipulations of a qubit were derived by the present authors. We considered a linear transformation,

$$|\psi (\vartheta ,\phi )|\psi (\vartheta \alpha ,\phi \beta )$$
(2)
where the transformation of $`\phi `$ by $`\beta `$ can always be done by unitary rotation about the $`z`$-axis. In performing the transformation of $`\vartheta `$, there are two types of approaches we could take. One, which we call the measurement scheme, is to measure the qubit then prepare another qubit according to the transformation in (2). The other approach, which we call the quantum scheme, is by a quantum unitary transformation on the system plus an ancilla. In case of the quantum approach, we found the procedures of unitary transformation that optimise fidelity fall into two classes depending on the phase angle change $`\alpha `$. For $`0\alpha \pi /2`$ the best way is simply an identity map while for $`\pi /2\alpha \pi `$, Bužek et al.’s U-NOT gate is the optimal transformation.

The transformations we will consider in this paper do not respect the symmetry of the Bloch sphere and therefore it does not make sense to impose universality. Hence, we will consider optimisation of the average fidelity without imposing that the fidelity be the same for each input state.

We also want to define an operation which sends a qubit to its orthogonal state,

$$\mathrm{ORTHOG}:|\psi |\psi ^{}$$
(3)
When we impose universality on the operation ORTHOG, it would correspond to the Bužek et al.’s U-NOT gate.

In this paper, we attempt to generalise the linear transformation in (2) to various nonlinear cases. Gisin has proposed  a rather peculiar rotation where upper and lower hemispheres of a Bloch sphere are rotated in opposite directions about the $`z`$-axis. We study both measurement and quantum approaches of this type of nonlinear map and also consider other types of nonlinear operations. Our results are summarised as follows;

* We study a nonlinear transformation as shown in figure 2, which rotates different parts of a Bloch sphere in opposite directions about the $`z`$-axis. When the two parts are upper and lower hemispheres, the optimal map is either identity or the unitary rotation by $`\pi `$. We find the average optimal transformations for general nonlinear rotations.
* Nonlinear ORTHOG gates are studied. We investigate averaged (instead of universal) ORTHOG transformations that are applied only to a partial area of a Bloch sphere as shown in figure 6. Bužek et al.’s U-NOT gate appears as a one particular case when the transformation is applied to the whole Bloch sphere and universality is imposed. In general, we show the optimal map is either identity or the unitary operation $`\sigma _x=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$, a Pauli matrix.
* We consider nonlinear general transformations (i.e. $`(\vartheta ,\phi )(\vartheta \alpha ,\phi )`$) as shown in figure 10. Unlike the ORTHOG-gate, the averaged general transformation has higher fidelity than the universal manipulation of a qubit in general. We show the optimal operations for different values of $`\alpha `$.
* We also show a simple way of measuring an unknown qubit, measurement-based U-NOT and general linear transformation while obtaining the same fidelities as in the case of a conventional method.

In sect. 2, we review a traditional method of qubit measurement and show a simpler way to achieve the same fidelity. This particular way also works equally well for measurement based U-NOT and the general linear transformation in (2). In sect. 3, we study Gisin’s proposed nonlinear rotations. In sect. 4 and 5, we study nonlinear transformation of ORTHOG and the general transformation in (2) where the operations are applied only to chosen areas of a Bloch sphere.

## 2 Measuring an Unknown Qubit

In order to get maximum information about a single unknown qubit, we measure the qubit along any chosen basis $`\{|\varphi ,|\varphi ^{}\}`$ . If the result is $`|\varphi `$, then we guess the qubit to be $`|\varphi `$ and if the result is $`|\varphi ^{}`$, then we guess $`|\varphi ^{}`$. In density matrix terms, the state prepared is written as follows,

$$\rho _1=|\psi |\varphi |^2|\varphi \varphi |+|\psi |\varphi ^{}|^2|\varphi ^{}\varphi ^{}|$$
(4)
Averaging over all possible $`|\varphi `$’s (assuming a uniform distribution over the Bloch sphere), we obtain $`\overline{\rho _1}`$. In order to obtain the fidelity, we take another integral of $`\psi |\overline{\rho _1}|\psi `$ over possible inputs of $`|\psi `$. After the integration, the fidelity turns out to be 2/3.

A simpler way of achieving the same result is as follows. Instead of (4), we measure onto the $`\{|0,|1\}`$ basis. As in the case of (4), if we obtain $`|0`$ then we guess the unknown state to be $`|0`$ and when $`|1`$ is obtained we guess $`|1`$. In a density matrix form, it is

$$\sigma _1=|\psi |0|^2|00|+|\psi |1|^2|11|$$
(5)
We don’t need to take the average of $`\sigma _1`$ since we chose one particular basis $`\{|0,|1\}`$ instead of arbitrary basis. We then take the integral of $`\psi |\sigma _1|\psi `$ over all possible input states $`|\psi `$ and we get the fidelity of 2/3.

In , the U-NOT transformation has been discussed. A measurement-based U-NOT operation has been discussed in  which can be achieved as follows: If we get positive with a guessed state, we prepare the orthogonal state to the guessed state and when the result is negative we prepare the guessed state, i.e.

$$\rho _2=|\psi |\varphi |^2|\varphi ^{}\varphi ^{}|+|\psi |\varphi ^{}|^2|\varphi \varphi |$$
(6)
The result obtained was same as the measurement fidelity of 2/3. We can also use a similar method to that in (5). We measure onto the $`\{|0,|1\}`$ basis and when we get $`|0`$ we prepare $`|1`$ and for $`|1`$, $`|0`$ is prepared. This gives

$$\sigma _2=|\psi |0|^2|11|+|\psi |1|^2|00|$$
(7)
After taking an integral of $`\psi |\sigma _2|\psi `$ over all $`|\psi `$, we again obtain the same fidelity 2/3 as in the case of $`\rho _2`$. In , we considered a general linear transformation

$$(\vartheta ,\phi )(\vartheta \alpha ,\phi )$$
(8)
Even in the case of transformation (8), two density matrices $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$ yield the same results as obtained in . For $`0\alpha \pi /2`$, $`\sigma _1`$ in (5) and for $`\pi /2\alpha \pi `$, $`\sigma _2`$ give the fidelity as shown in figure 1. This fidelity is same as the ones obtained by $`\rho _1`$ in (4) and $`\rho _2`$ in (6).

We have shown that even with a specific basis $`\{|0,|1\}`$, we obtain the same results for measurement of arbitrary states, the U-NOT and the general linear transformation cases. However we will show in the following sections, this particular choice of basis does not give the same results for other measurement based nonlinear transformations.

## 3 Nonlinear Rotations

It is well known that rotations of a qubit about the $`z`$-axis by the angle $`\beta `$ can be achieved unitarily with the following operator,

$$R_z(\beta )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\beta /2}& 0\\ 0& e^{i\beta /2}\end{array}\right)$$
(9)
Gisin has proposed  a rather different rotation of a qubit. For some inputs $`|\psi (\vartheta ,\phi )`$ we rotate by the angle $`\beta `$ about the $`z`$-axis and for different $`(\vartheta ,\phi )`$ we rotate by $`\beta `$. Suppose given an unknown state, we want to transform it as follows

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}0\vartheta <\delta ,\hfill & |\psi (\vartheta ,\phi )|\psi (\vartheta ,\phi +\beta )\hfill \\ \delta \vartheta \pi ,\hfill & |\psi (\vartheta ,\phi )|\psi (\vartheta ,\phi \beta )\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
In a Bloch sphere, this can be drawn as shown in figure 2.

We consider two different approaches in achieving the transformations in (10), measurement and quantum based schemes. We first consider a measurement scheme.

Measurement Scheme Let us consider the case when $`\delta =\pi /2`$. The first thing we could try is to use a similar method to that in (4). That is, we measure onto the guessed basis $`\{|\varphi ,|\varphi ^{}\}`$ (where $`|\varphi `$ is chosen to be in the upper hemisphere) and rotate by $`+\beta `$ if the result is positive and when $`|\varphi ^{}`$ is obtained we rotate by $`\beta `$. In this case, we have the density matrix,

$$\rho _3=|\psi |\varphi |^2|\varphi (\mu ,\nu +\beta )\varphi (\mu ,\nu +\beta )|+|\psi |\varphi ^{}|^2|\varphi ^{}(\mu ,\nu \beta )\varphi ^{}(\mu ,\nu \beta )|$$
(11)
Then we need to take the average of $`\rho _3`$ for all possible $`|\varphi (\mu ,\nu )`$’s where $`0\mu \pi /2`$ and $`0\nu 2\pi `$. If we take an example where $`\beta =\pi /3`$, then the fidelity is obtained as

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\delta =\pi /2}}\psi (\vartheta ,\phi +\pi /3)|\overline{\rho _3}|\psi (\vartheta ,\phi +\pi /3)\mathrm{sin}\vartheta d\vartheta d\phi `$ (12)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\delta =\pi /2}^\pi }\psi (\vartheta ,\phi \pi /3)|\overline{\rho _3}|\psi (\vartheta ,\phi \pi /3)\mathrm{sin}\vartheta d\vartheta d\phi =.58333\mathrm{}`$
where $`\overline{\rho _3}`$ is the averaged $`\rho _3`$. Can we do any better? Let us consider another preparation, $`\rho _1`$ in (4), i.e. we do not rotate by $`+\beta `$ or $`\beta `$. Using the equation in (12), instead of $`\overline{\rho _3}`$ we put $`\overline{\rho _1}`$, then the fidelity is obtained as $`.6111\mathrm{}`$.

Let us consider another method that we considered in sect. 2, i.e. with $`\sigma _1`$ in (5). The fidelity is obtained as

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\delta =\pi /2}}\psi (\vartheta ,\phi +\beta )|\sigma _1|\psi (\vartheta ,\phi +\beta )\mathrm{sin}\vartheta d\vartheta d\phi `$ (13)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\delta =\pi /2}^\pi }\psi (\vartheta ,\phi \beta )|\sigma _1|\psi (\vartheta ,\phi \beta )\mathrm{sin}\vartheta d\vartheta d\phi ={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}`$
This result is also independent of the values $`\beta `$’s since the phase factor is cancelled in $`\psi (\vartheta ,\phi +\beta )|\sigma _1|\psi (\vartheta ,\phi +\beta )`$ and $`\psi (\vartheta ,\phi \beta )|\sigma _1|\psi (\vartheta ,\phi \beta )`$. Also note that 2/3 can be obtained for any $`\delta `$ as well. Since the quantity we are integrating is independent of $`\beta `$, therefore $`\psi (\vartheta ,\phi +\beta )|\sigma _1|\psi (\vartheta ,\phi +\beta )`$ = $`\psi (\vartheta ,\phi \beta )|\sigma _1|\psi (\vartheta ,\phi \beta )`$. Then we can put the two integrals in (13) together which would give the same result regardless of $`\delta `$ in a single integral. Therefore for any $`\beta `$ or $`\delta `$, we can obtain the fidelity of 2/3 according to the transformation in (10) with the measurement preparation of $`\sigma _1`$ of (5).

Quantum Scheme We now discuss how we can achieve the transformation in (10) by unitary operations. One can see that when $`\delta =0,\pi `$ then it can be achieved perfectly by the unitary rotation about the $`z`$-axis. Let us consider the most general transformation on a single qubit. We consider a unitary evolution on the single qubit and some ancilla prepared in a known state $`|Q`$ (this is taken to be normalised). This then gives,

$$\begin{array}{c}|0|Q|1|A+|0|B\hfill \\ |1|Q|0|\stackrel{~}{A}+|1|\stackrel{~}{B}\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
where $`|A,|\stackrel{~}{A},|B,|\stackrel{~}{B}`$ may not be normalised nor orthogonal to each other. From orthogonality and normalisation conditions of (14), we have

$`\begin{array}{c}|A|^2+|B|^2=1\hfill \\ |\stackrel{~}{A}|^2+|\stackrel{~}{B}|^2=1\hfill \end{array}`$ (17)
$`B|\stackrel{~}{A}+A|\stackrel{~}{B}=0`$ (18)
We consider an unknown state in a Bloch sphere as in (1) to go through the transformation in (14) and tracing over the ancilla states yields the following density matrix,

$`\rho ^{out}`$ $`=`$ $`|01|(\mathrm{cos}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}A|B+\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}\stackrel{~}{B}|\stackrel{~}{A}+\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}e^{i\phi }A|\stackrel{~}{A}+e^{i\phi }\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}\stackrel{~}{B}|B)`$ (19)
$`+`$ $`|10|(\mathrm{cos}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}B|A+\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}\stackrel{~}{A}|\stackrel{~}{B}+\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}e^{i\phi }B|\stackrel{~}{B}+e^{i\phi }\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}\stackrel{~}{A}|A)`$
$`+`$ $`|00|(\mathrm{cos}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}|B|^2+\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}|\stackrel{~}{A}|^2+\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}e^{i\phi }B|\stackrel{~}{A}+e^{i\phi }\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}\stackrel{~}{A}|B)`$
$`+`$ $`|11|(\mathrm{cos}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}|A|^2+\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}|\stackrel{~}{B}|^2+\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}e^{i\phi }A|\stackrel{~}{B}+e^{i\phi }\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}\stackrel{~}{B}|A)`$
Since we are considering a transformation which varies depending on the value of the input, we need to get the average value. That is, the fidelity can be obtained by averaging over $`\vartheta `$ and $`\phi `$ instead of imposing a constraint such that it is independent of $`\vartheta `$ and $`\phi `$ as in the universal transformation case.

Let us first consider the case when $`\delta =\pi /2`$. The average fidelity is then

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\pi /2}}\psi (\vartheta ,\phi +\beta )|\rho ^{out}|\psi (\vartheta ,\phi +\beta )\mathrm{sin}\vartheta d\vartheta d\phi `$ (20)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\pi /2}^\pi }\psi (\vartheta ,\phi \beta )|\rho ^{out}|\psi (\vartheta ,\phi \beta )\mathrm{sin}\vartheta d\vartheta d\phi `$
which comes out as

$$F=\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{6}(|B|^2+|\stackrel{~}{B}|^2)+\frac{\mathrm{cos}\beta }{6}(B|\stackrel{~}{B}+\stackrel{~}{B}|B)$$
(21)
We now would like to find the values of $`|B|,|\stackrel{~}{B}|,B|\stackrel{~}{B}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}|B`$ such that the fidelity $`F`$ in (21) is the highest. We know $`\mathrm{cos}\beta `$ is positive for $`0<\beta <\pi /2`$ while it’s negative for $`\pi /2<\beta <\pi `$. Therefore when $`0\beta \pi /2`$, $`|B|^2=1=|\stackrel{~}{B}|^2`$ and $`B|\stackrel{~}{B}=1=\stackrel{~}{B}|B`$ yields the highest fidelity which can be satisfied with $`|B=|0`$,$`|\stackrel{~}{B}=|0`$. This implies that we have $`|A=0=|\stackrel{~}{A}`$ from (17). Similarly, for $`\pi /2\beta \pi `$, $`|B|^2=1=|B|^2`$ and $`B|\stackrel{~}{B}=1=\stackrel{~}{B}|B`$ would give the optimal fidelity. This can be done with the choice of $`|B=|0`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{B}=|0`$. This latter map corresponds to the unitary rotation by $`\pi `$ about the $`z`$-axis while the former map is simply an identity map. The fidelity is given as

$$\frac{2}{3}F1$$
(22)
where the actual dependence on the value of $`\beta `$ is shown in figure 3.

One can easily see that when $`\beta =0`$ and $`\beta =\pi `$, it should be achieved perfectly therefore the fidelity is equal to 1. The fidelity has the lowest value of 2/3 when $`\beta =\pi /2`$.

We now would like to consider a case for arbitrary $`\delta `$, i.e. we want

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}0\vartheta \delta \hfill & \mathrm{rotation}\mathrm{by}+\beta \hfill \\ \delta \vartheta \pi \hfill & \mathrm{rotation}\mathrm{by}\beta \hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
We consider the same output density matrix $`\rho ^{out}`$ in (19) and the fidelity for the transformation (23) is obtained as follows,

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\delta }\psi (\vartheta ,\phi +\beta )|\rho ^{out}|\psi (\vartheta ,\phi +\beta )\mathrm{sin}\vartheta d\vartheta d\phi `$ (24)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _\delta ^\pi }\psi (\vartheta ,\phi \beta )|\rho ^{out}|\psi (\vartheta ,\phi \beta )\mathrm{sin}\vartheta d\vartheta d\phi `$
Let us consider a specific example when $`\beta =\pi /3`$. Then the fidelity in (24) comes out as

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(|B|^2+|\stackrel{~}{B}|^2)+\left(.08333(.1623\mathrm{cos}\delta .018\mathrm{cos}3\delta )i\right)B|\stackrel{~}{B}`$ (25)
$`+\left(.08333+(.1623\mathrm{cos}\delta .018\mathrm{cos}3\delta )i\right)\stackrel{~}{B}|B`$
We need to find the values of $`|B|^2`$,$`|\stackrel{~}{B}|^2`$,$`B|\stackrel{~}{B}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}|B`$ such that the fidelity $`F`$ yields the highest value. Suppose $`B|\stackrel{~}{B}=a+bi`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}|B=abi`$ where $`a,b`$ are real. Then the two terms of $`B|\stackrel{~}{B}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}|B`$ in (25) are written as

$$2(.08333)a+2(.1623\mathrm{cos}\delta .018\mathrm{cos}3\delta )b$$
(26)
One can verify that $`(.1623\mathrm{cos}\delta .018\mathrm{cos}3\delta )`$ is non-negative for $`0\delta \pi /2`$, hence we know that these two terms will be maximum with an appropriate $`a`$ and $`b`$ when $`a^2+b^2=1`$ rather than $`a^2+b^2<1`$. Therefore we can choose $`|B=e^{i\chi /2}|0`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{B}=e^{i\chi /2}|0`$ which implies $`B|\stackrel{~}{B}=e^{i\chi }`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{B}|B=e^{i\chi }`$). We can obtain $`\chi `$ which would give the $`F`$ maximum value as follows,

$$\chi =\mathrm{arccos}\left(\frac{83333.\times 10^3}{\sqrt{6.94+2.63\times 10\mathrm{cos}^2\delta 5.85\mathrm{cos}\delta \mathrm{cos}3\delta +3.25\times 10^1\mathrm{cos}^23\delta }}\right)$$
(27)
Therefore $`\chi `$ is the angle that you want to rotate by and the graph of the value $`\chi `$ and the angle $`\delta `$ is shown in figure 4. It shows that when $`\delta =0`$ it is best to rotate by $`\pi /3`$ and for $`\delta =\pi /2`$ identity map is optimal as we have checked previously. By symmetry, the case of $`\pi /2\delta \pi `$ can be obtained similarly except that we rotate by opposite direction. Other cases of $`\beta `$ can be achieved using the similar methods described above. In figure 5, we show the graph of fidelity and $`\delta `$ for different $`\beta `$’s.

Therefore quantum scheme is always better than or equal to the measurement scheme (which is $`F=2/3`$) as expected.

## 4 Nonlinear ORTHOG Transformations

A NOT-gate is one of the simple operations performed on a classical bit, 0 to 1 and 1 to 0. Just as in the cloning case, the operation which sends a qubit to its orthogonal state is not so simple. In , U-NOT operation for qubits has been studied. Since a perfect U-NOT gate would require anti-unitary operation, they considered the optimal way of imitating perfect U-NOT transformation and showed the optimal fidelity to be 2/3 for a single qubit input. This fidelity was same as the measurement fidelity which we reviewed in sect. 2. Therefore measuring the qubit then preparing another qubit orthogonal to the original one and the quantum unitary transformation were shown to have equal efficiency. In this section, we generalise this result and consider nonlinear ORTHOG transformations. As shown in figure 6, we want to apply ORTHOG-gate to the shown area of a Bloch sphere, i.e.

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}0\vartheta \delta ,\pi \delta \vartheta \pi \hfill & |\psi (\vartheta ,\phi )|\psi (\vartheta \pi ,\phi )\hfill \\ \delta \vartheta \pi \delta \hfill & |\psi (\vartheta ,\phi )|\psi (\vartheta ,\phi )\hfill \end{array}$$
(28)
When $`\delta =0`$, this transformation is simply an identity map and when $`\delta =\pi /2`$, it would correspond to the U-NOT gate (if a universality condition is imposed).

Measurement Scheme In the previous sections, we considered two types of measurement schemes. We now consider these two types in achieving the transformation in (28). For the first type, we could consider the density matrices $`\rho _1`$ in (4) and $`\rho _2`$ in (6). We take the average over all $`|\varphi `$’s then the fidelity is obtained by

$$F_{1,2}=_0^{2\pi }_0^\delta \psi ^{}|\overline{\rho _{1,2}}|\psi ^{}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }+_0^{2\pi }_\delta ^{\pi \delta }\psi |\overline{\rho _{1,2}}|\psi 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }+_0^{2\pi }_{\pi \delta }^\pi \psi ^{}|\overline{\rho _{1,2}}|\psi ^{}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(29)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }=1/(4\pi )\mathrm{sin}\vartheta d\vartheta d\phi `$. Another way is to prepare $`\sigma _1`$ in (5) and $`\sigma _2`$ in (7).

Although the measurement fidelity, the measurement based U-NOT and the measurement based general linear transformation all yielded the same results for both preparations of $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ as shown in sect. 2, it is no longer true in case of nonlinear ORTHOG transformations. The fidelities for $`\rho _{1,2},\sigma _{1,2}`$ are obtained as shown in figure 7. Interestingly, for $`0\delta .82\mathrm{}`$ $`\rho _1`$ is the better preparation while for $`.82\mathrm{}\delta \pi /2`$, it is the $`\sigma _2`$ preparation which gives the higher fidelity.

Quantum Scheme We consider the same transformation (14) and the same conditions (17,18). With $`\rho ^{out}`$ in (19), the fidelity is

$$F=_0^{2\pi }_0^\delta \psi ^{}|\rho ^{out}|\psi ^{}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }+_0^{2\pi }_\delta ^{\pi \delta }\psi |\rho ^{out}|\psi 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }+_0^{2\pi }_{\pi \delta }^\pi \psi ^{}|\rho ^{out}|\psi ^{}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(30)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }=1/(4\pi )\mathrm{sin}\vartheta d\vartheta d\phi `$. Let us consider the simplest case when $`\delta =\pi /2`$ which corresponds to the ORTHOG gate. In that case, the fidelity in (30) becomes

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}|A|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}|\stackrel{~}{A}|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(|B|^2+|\stackrel{~}{B}|^2B|\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{B}|B)`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(|B|^2+|\stackrel{~}{B}|^2+B|\stackrel{~}{B}+\stackrel{~}{B}|B)`$ (32)
Suppose $`|B=(a+bi)|0`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{B}=(c+di)|0`$ where $`a,b,c,d`$ are real. This implies

$$|B|^2=a^2+b^2,|\stackrel{~}{B}|^2=c^2+d^2$$
(33)
then

$$|B|^2+|\stackrel{~}{B}|^2+B|\stackrel{~}{B}+\stackrel{~}{B}|B=(a+c)^2+(b+d)^2$$
(34)
This quantity is always non-negative and the minimum is achieved with $`a=c`$ and $`b=d`$ therefore

$$|B=|\stackrel{~}{B},|A|^2=|\stackrel{~}{A}|^2$$
(35)
What if $`|B`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{B}`$ are not the vectors pointing in the same direction? Since $`|B|^2+|\stackrel{~}{B}|^2+B|\stackrel{~}{B}+\stackrel{~}{B}|B`$ = $`||B+|\stackrel{~}{B}|^2`$ $`0`$, we know (35) is optimal. The U-NOT transformation derived in  is

$$|A=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}|00,|\stackrel{~}{A}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}|11,|B=\sqrt{\frac{1}{6}}(|01+|10),|\stackrel{~}{B}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{6}}(|01+|10)$$
(36)
This is one special case of (35) which is consistent considering the universality of (36).

For arbitrary $`\delta `$, the fidelity is obtained using the formula in (30) which is given as

$$F=X+Y(|B|^2+|\stackrel{~}{B}|^2)+Z(B|\stackrel{~}{B}+\stackrel{~}{B}|B)$$
(37)
where

$`X`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}(\mathrm{cos}3(\pi \delta )\mathrm{cos}3\delta ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{cos}\delta `$ (38)
$`Y`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(\mathrm{cos}2(\pi \delta )\mathrm{cos}2\delta ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}(\mathrm{cos}3(\pi \delta )\mathrm{cos}3\delta )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{cos}\delta `$ (39)
$`Z`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}(\mathrm{cos}3(\pi \delta )\mathrm{cos}3\delta )+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\mathrm{cos}\delta `$ (40)
We would like to find the values of $`|B|^2,|\stackrel{~}{B}|^2,B|\stackrel{~}{B}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}|B`$ such that the fidelity in (37) is maximum. For $`0\delta \pi /2`$, $`X`$ is always positive. The values of $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ as functions of $`\delta `$ are shown in figure 8. When $`Y0`$ and $`Z0`$, then the optimal map can be obtained when $`|B=|0=|\stackrel{~}{B}`$ which is simply an identity map.

Let us consider the case when $`Y<0`$ and $`Z>0`$ in particular when $`|Y||Z|`$. As before, suppose $`|B=(a+bi)|0`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{B}=(c+di)|0`$ where $`a,b,c,d`$ are real numbers. Then

$`Y(B^2+\stackrel{~}{B}^2)+Z(B|\stackrel{~}{B}+\stackrel{~}{B}|B)`$ (41)
$`=`$ $`Y(a^2+b^2+c^2+d^2)+Z(2ac+2bd)`$
$`=`$ $`Y((ac)^2+(bd)^2))+(ZY)(2ac+2bd)`$ (42)
Since $`Y0`$, $`a=c`$ and $`b=d`$ will give the $`Y`$ term in (42) highest, which is zero. Let us consider the term $`(ac+bd)`$. Since we are assuming $`|B`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{B}`$ may not be normalised, we know $`a^2+b^21`$ and $`c^2+d^21`$. We know that the highest value for $`ac+bd`$ will be attained when $`a^2+b^2=1`$ and $`c^2+d^2=1`$. Let us consider

$`ac+bd\stackrel{\mathrm{?}}{}1`$ (43)
$``$ $`ac+\sqrt{(1a^2)(1c^2)}1`$ (44)
$``$ $`(1a^2)(1c^2)(1ac)^2`$ (45)
$``$ $`0a^22ac+c^2=(ac)^2`$ (46)
Therefore from (46), we know (43) is true. Therefore the highest possible value for the $`(ZY)`$ term is achieved when $`a=c`$ (which we choose to be 1) and this also gives the lowest possible value for the $`Y`$ term. If $`B`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ were the vectors pointing different directions, the second term in (41) which is positive will be even less. Therefore our choice of the same state $`|0`$ (or any other normalised state) for $`|B`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{B}`$ is indeed optimal.

Let us consider the case when $`|Y||Z|`$ for $`Y<0`$ and $`Z>0`$. Since $`a^2+c^2\pm 2ac`$ and $`b^2+d^2\pm 2bd`$, we know (41) is non-positive. Therefore the choice of $`|B=0=|\stackrel{~}{B}`$ yields the highest fidelity. For a region where $`Y<0`$ and $`Z<0`$, one can see $`|Y|>|Z|`$ from figure 8. Therefore again $`|B=0=|\stackrel{~}{B}`$ is the optimal map. This map corresponds to the transformation $`|0|1`$, $`|1|0`$ which is one of the Pauli matrices $`\sigma _x\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$. The final optimal map is obtained as follows,

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}0\delta .932197\mathrm{}\hfill & \mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}\hfill \\ .932197\mathrm{}\delta \pi /2\hfill & |0|1,|1|0\hfill \end{array}$$
(47)
where $`\delta =.932197\mathrm{}`$ corresponds to the point when $`|Y|=|Z|`$ for the period $`Y<0`$ and $`Z>0`$. Therefore the optimal map is either an identity map or a $`\sigma _x`$ unitary operation depending on the value of $`\delta `$.

## 5 Nonlinear General Transformations

Motivated by the U-NOT gate, we investigated a general arbitrary manipulation that can be performed on a single qubit by studying the universal linear transformation $`(\vartheta ,\phi )(\vartheta \alpha ,\phi )`$ in . Rather surprisingly, we have found there are only two maps which optimise such transformation, either identity or U-NOT gate depending on $`\alpha `$. In this section, we attempt to generalise this result to nonlinear cases. As shown in figure 10, we want to transform $`|\psi (\vartheta ,\phi )`$ into $`|\psi (\vartheta \alpha ,\phi )`$ only when $`\vartheta `$ is between $`0`$ and an arbitrary angle $`\delta `$, i.e.,

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}0\vartheta \delta ,\hfill & |\psi (\vartheta ,\phi )|\psi (\vartheta \alpha ,\phi )\hfill \\ \delta <\vartheta \pi ,\hfill & |\psi (\vartheta ,\phi )|\psi (\vartheta ,\phi )\hfill \end{array}$$
(48)
When $`\delta =\pi `$, it would correspond to what we have already considered for the universal transformation in .

Measurement Scheme As in the nonlinear ORTHOG transformation case, we consider the same density matrices $`\rho _{1,2}`$ in (4,6) and $`\sigma _{1,2}`$ in (5,7). We also take two examples of $`\alpha `$, $`\alpha =\pi /3`$ and $`\alpha =2\pi /3`$. Then the fidelity is obtained as follows,

$$F_{1,2}=_0^\delta \psi (\vartheta \alpha ,\phi )|\overline{\rho _{1,2}}|\psi (\vartheta \alpha ,\phi )𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }+_\delta ^\pi \psi (\vartheta ,\phi )|\overline{\rho _{1,2}}|\psi (\vartheta ,\phi )𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(49)
where $`0\delta \pi `$ and similarly for $`\sigma _{1,2}`$. As in the nonlinear ORTHOG case, these two preparations yield different results that are shown in figure 11. Therefore the following maps have higher fidelities at least among the measurement preparations, $`\rho _{1,2}`$ and $`\sigma _{1,2}`$,

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}0\delta 0.52\mathrm{},\hfill & \rho _1\hfill \\ 0.52\mathrm{}\delta \pi ,\hfill & \sigma _1\hfill \end{array}$$
(50)
for $`\alpha =\pi /3`$ and

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}0\delta 1.05\mathrm{},\hfill & \rho _1\hfill \\ 1.05\mathrm{}\delta 2.26\mathrm{},\hfill & \sigma _1\hfill \\ 2.26\mathrm{}\delta \pi ,\hfill & \rho _2\hfill \end{array}$$
(51)
when $`\alpha =2\pi /3`$. Let us now investigate a quantum case.

Quantum Scheme Let us first consider the case which we showed in our previous paper , i.e. the transformation in (48) and we take $`\delta `$ to be $`\pi `$. Then the fidelity is obtained as follows,

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\delta =\pi }}\psi (\vartheta \alpha ,\phi )|\rho ^{out}|\psi (\vartheta \alpha ,\phi )𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (52)
$`=`$ $`V+X|B|^2+Y|\stackrel{~}{B}|^2+Z(B|\stackrel{~}{B}+\stackrel{~}{B}|B)`$ (53)
where

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\mathrm{cos}\alpha ,X={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\mathrm{cos}\alpha +.3926\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$ (54)
$`Y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\mathrm{cos}\alpha .3926\mathrm{sin}\alpha ,Z={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$ (55)
The values of $`V,X,Y`$ and $`Z`$ as functions of $`\delta `$ are shown in figure 12. Since $`V`$ is always positive for all $`\alpha `$, let us consider the other three terms. When $`X,Y`$ are both positive, then the maximum $`F`$ is obtained when the $`|B|^2=|\stackrel{~}{B}|^2=B|\stackrel{~}{B}=\stackrel{~}{B}|B=1`$ which can be achieved easily with the choice of $`|B=|\stackrel{~}{B}=|0`$, for instance.

We consider the case when $`X,Y`$ are both negative. As before we assume $`|B=(a+bi)|0`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{B}=(c+di)|0`$. Then (53) is rewritten as follows

$$V+X(a^2+b^2)+Y(c^2+d^2)+Z(2ac+2bd)$$
(56)
Since the $`Z`$ term can always be non-negative with an appropriate sign choices of $`a,b,c,d`$, we do not need to worry about case of different vectors (i.e. different directions) for $`|B`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{B}`$ which would only lessen the value of $`Z`$ term. The $`X,Y`$ and $`Z`$ terms in (56) can be rewritten as follows,

$`Xa^2+Yc^2+Z(2ac)+Xb^2+Yd^2+Z(2bd)`$ (57)
$`=`$ $`Y(c+{\displaystyle \frac{Z}{Y}}a)^2+Y(d+{\displaystyle \frac{Z}{Y}}b)^2+(X{\displaystyle \frac{Z^2}{Y}})(a^2+b^2)`$ (58)
One can check that $`(XZ^2/Y)>0`$ for the region where $`X,Y<0`$. Therefore with the choice of $`a=1,b=0`$ and $`c=Z/Y,d=0`$, the fidelity will be the highest.

Let us consider the case when $`X>0`$ and $`Y<0`$. In this case, we could consider (58) again. The first two terms are always non-positive and the second term is non-negative because $`XZ^2/Y>0`$ for the region where $`X>0,Y<0`$. Then $`a=1`$ and $`c=Z/Y`$ would yield the optimal fidelity. However $`|Z/Y|>1`$ when $`Y`$ is near 0. We then consider the equation in (56) again. Since $`X`$ is positive, we know $`a^2+b^2=1`$ would yield the highest fidelity. Therefore we have (without the $`V`$ term),

$$X+Y(c^2+d^2)+Z(2ac+2\sqrt{1a^2}d)$$
(59)
and we assume $`a,c,d`$ to be non-negative. By taking partial derivatives, we can obtain the maximum value. In this case, it is the end point, $`c=1`$ (and $`a=1`$) that gives the optimal fidelity. The final graph can be obtained as shown in figure 13. Note that unlike the case of nonlinear ORTHOG transformation (where the optimal map was either identity or $`\sigma _x`$), the mapping is continuous for some regions. It shows that the fidelity of averaged general transformation (full line) is higher than the universal general operation case (dotted line) that was obtained in  for $`\alpha .7037\mathrm{}`$.

Next we consider the proposed map in (48) for arbitrary $`\delta `$. The fidelity is then

$$F=_0^\delta \psi (\vartheta \alpha ,\phi )|\rho ^{out}|\psi (\vartheta \alpha ,\phi )𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }+_\delta ^\pi \psi (\vartheta ,\phi )|\rho ^{out}|\psi (\vartheta ,\phi )𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(60)
Using a similar method as in the case of $`\delta =\pi `$ we considered above, we can obtain the optimal fidelities as shown in figure 14. In the figure, we show five different values of $`\alpha `$ where the end point of each line (i.e. when $`\delta =\pi `$) corresponds to the full line we obtained in figure 13.

## 6 Remarks

In this paper, we have studied three types of nonlinear operations. Firstly, we considered nonlinear rotations that rotate different parts of a Bloch sphere (i.e. $`0\vartheta \delta `$ and $`\delta \vartheta \pi `$) in opposite directions about the $`z`$-axis. In case of a measurement-based scheme, we showed that a measurement onto the particular (rather than arbitrary) basis, $`\{|0,|1\}`$, gives 2/3 fidelity. For a quantum unitary transformation, we considered average rotation manipulations. We showed that when the rotations are applied to upper and lower hemispheres of a Bloch sphere (i.e. when $`\delta =\pi /2`$), the optimal map is either identity (for $`0\beta \pi /2`$) or the unitary rotation by $`\pi `$ (for $`\pi /2\beta \pi `$). For general $`\delta `$’s, we found the optimal maps for different values of the rotating angle $`\beta `$. In these cases, the optimal operations correspond to unitary rotations by $`\chi (\delta )`$ about the $`z`$-axis.

Secondly, we studied nonlinear ORTHOG transformations where the operations were applied only to $`0\vartheta \delta `$ and $`\pi \delta \vartheta \pi `$. For a measurement scheme, we found the preparations $`\rho `$’s and $`\sigma `$’s yield different results. For $`0\delta .82\mathrm{}`$, $`\rho _1`$ in (4) yields a higher fidelity while for $`.82\mathrm{}\delta \pi /2`$, $`\sigma _2`$ in (7) is a better preparation. In case of a quantum scheme, we considered a special case when the ORTHOG operation is applied to a whole Bloch sphere (i.e. when $`\delta =\pi /2`$). In this case, we found Bužek et al.’s U-NOT gate appears as a special case of average ORTHOG transformation when universality is imposed. For arbitrary $`\delta `$, we showed the optimal maps are either identity (when $`0\delta .932\mathrm{}`$) or the Pauli matrix $`\sigma _x`$ (when $`.932\mathrm{}\delta \pi /2`$).

Lastly, we considered general transformations, i.e. $`(\vartheta ,\phi )(\vartheta \alpha ,\phi )`$, that are applied only to a partial area of a Bloch sphere ($`0\vartheta \delta `$). In a measurement scheme, we considered four different preparations, $`\rho _{1,2}`$ and $`\sigma _{1,2}`$ when $`\alpha =\pi /3`$ and $`2\pi /3`$. For a quantum scheme, we found that, in general, the average general transformation yields higher fidelities than the universal general linear maps studied in . We also found optimal nonlinear general maps for different values of $`\alpha `$.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Mark Hillery for helpful discussions. L.H. acknowledges support from the Royal Society.