text:
# MEASUREMENT OF THE p̄/p RATIO IN COSMIC RAYS USING THE MOON SHADOW WITH THE L3+C DETECTOR

## 1 Introduction

In 1957, Clark $`^\mathrm{?}`$ postulated the effect of the Moon or the Sun on cosmic rays: as these bodies pass overhead during a transit, they block particles, resulting in shadows in cosmic rays visible by detectors on Earth. The observation of this shadow may be used to check the angular resolution of the apparatus and to evaluate pointing errors. Another use has been proposed in 1990 $`^\mathrm{?}`$: positively charged particles are deflected by the Earth’s magnetic field towards the East. Consequently their absorption by the Moon gives rise to a shadow on the West side of the Moon. Negatively charged primaries (antimatter) are deviated to the opposite side. A shadow on the East side of the Moon would therefore be observed in presence of antimatter in cosmic rays.
Up to now, no antinuclei heavier than antiprotons have been detected. Antiproton flux measurements have been performed by balloon-borne experiments up to 40 GeV (Figure 1). They are consistent with the antiproton production expected from proton interaction in the interstellar medium: $`\mathrm{p}+N_z\overline{\mathrm{p}}+X`$. However one can notice that the $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{p}`$ ratio measurements are still compatible with an increase expected from an extragalactic component or heavy particle decays in the galaxy $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Measurements at higher energies are thus welcome to set constraints on the existence of antimatter in the universe.
A description of the L3+C experiment $`^\mathrm{?}`$ is given in section 2. In section 3, relevant aspects of the Moon shadow study are detailed. Finally, in section 4, the procedure followed to analyse the data is explained, a preliminary measurement of the $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{p}`$ ratio in the TeV region is performed and a 90% C.L. upper limit is inferred.

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |

| Figure 1 : $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{p}`$ ratio versus momentum, adapted from reference 5. The lines are calculations of interstellar antiprotons assuming a pure secondary production during the propagation of cosmic rays in the Galaxy. The L3+C experiment is sensitive to a $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{p}`$ ratio at a few $`\%`$ level, for a primary proton energy between 0.5 TeV and 1 TeV. |  | Figure 2 : The L3 detector. The solenoid, the muon chambers and the scintillator tiles are the main ingredients of the L3+C detector. The sub-detectors located inside the support tube are not used. |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

## 2 The L3+C experiment

L3 (Figure 2) was one of the four particle detectors installed on the Large Electron Positron collider (LEP) site, located underneath the French-Swiss border at CERN. It was designed to make a very precise measurement of leptons and photons produced in $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ collisions. In the late 1990s, it was updated to detect cosmic muons originating from the decay of charged pions produced when a high energy cosmic ray collides with an air nucleus.
One of the assets of the L3 detector was its muon spectrometer. It consisted of two octogonally shaped rings, each with eight ”octants”, located in the 1000 $`\mathrm{m}^3`$ magnetic field of 0.5 T created by the solenoid. Each octant contained precision drift chambers organised in 3 layers to measure the projection of the muon trajectory onto the plane orthogonal to the magnetic field, and layers of drift cells to measure the projection along the magnetic field direction. The momentum resolution achieved by this setup was 2.5% at 45 GeV. Other parts of the L3 detector were not used by the L3+C experiment. The reference time $`t_0`$, when a muon enters the detector, was measured by 202 $`\mathrm{m}^2`$ of additional scintillators covering the upper part of the detector with a 1.5 ns resolution. In order to register events independently of L3 running, new trigger and data acquisition system were made. Since the L3 detector was located under 30 m of molasse, the muon momentum threshold was about 15 GeV and it provided shielding from the electromagnetic and hadronic components of the air showers. In addition to this underground muon detector, an Air Shower (EAS) array of 50 scintillators has been installed at the surface.
The original purpose of L3+C is the measurement of the muon momentum spectrum from 20 to 2000 GeV, which is related to the neutrino flux. Other topics are under study, among which the search for point sources and gamma-ray bursts, where the knowledge of the angular resolution and the pointing error is of primary importance. The study of the Moon shadow will help to determine both quantities in addition to the measurement of the $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{p}`$ ratio at TeV energies in cosmic rays.

## 3 The Moon shadow effect

As already explained in section 1, the Moon shadow effect can be exploited to measure the ratio of antimatter to matter in cosmic rays, using ground-based experiments with $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{C}}`$erenkov detectors, EAS arrays or muon track detectors. The first two methods are sensitive to the total energy of the primary $`E_0`$, so that $`He^4`$ and heavier nuclei participate significantly. Muon experiments are sensitive to the primary energy per nucleon $`E_0/A`$, which strongly favoures protons so that they measure mostly the $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{p}`$ ratio.
The L3+C detector acceptance ranges from zenith angle $`\theta _z=0^{}`$ to almost $`60^{}`$ and is given in Figure 3. The apparent position of the Moon is computed with the SLALIB $`^\mathrm{?}`$ package, taking into account parallax corrections, at any time. The effect of the Earth’s magnetic field has been simulated using the International Geomagnetic Reference Field (IGRF) model. Assuming a proton momentum, the geomagnetic deflection $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{p}=\stackrel{}{p_{initial}}\stackrel{}{p_{detected}}`$ is computed. It is seen in Figure 3 that both the direction and the amount of deflection undergone by primary particles vary with the position of the Moon. It tends to blur the image of the Moon shadow. A new coordinate system, with axis parallel and orthogonal to the computed deflexion has been defined to minimize this effect and will be referred to as ”deflection coordinate system”.

|  | Figure 3 : The L3+C acceptance. $`\alpha _z`$ and $`\theta _z`$ stand respectively for the azimuth and zenith angles. Each pixel corresponds to a direction to the sky. A bipolar structure is observed due to the detector geometry. A transit of the Moon is indicated with dots. For each dot, the geomagnetic deflection is given by an arrow, whose length is proportional to the amount of deflection (see reference arrow in bottom-left corner). |
| --- | --- |

## 4 Analysis procedure for the Moon shadow

As a first step, the background has been subtracted from the data and a smoothing algorithm applied. Results can be seen in figure 4 for two muon momentum ranges. In the deflection coordinate system, the Moon shadow is observed with a $`7\sigma `$ significance with high energy muons (HE: $`p_\mu 100GeV`$, figure 4a) and $`4.9\sigma `$ significance with low energy muons (LE: $`65p_\mu 100GeV`$, figure 4b). It is aligned along the horizontal axis as expected. Both the offset and the elongation due to the geomagnetic field are observed, with a more pronounced effect for low energy muons as expected. Comparing the observed offset to the expected one (MC), the pointing error is deduced to be less than $`0.1^{}`$. From Figure 4c, an effective angular resolution of $`0.43^{}\pm 0.05`$ is deduced for the whole muon sample, including the geomagnetic field effect. A determination of the effective angular resolution without the geomagnetic field effect is performed by projecting both two-dimensional plots on the vertical axis, where the geomagnetic field effect is minimized. This characteristic of the deflection coordinate system allows to extract angular resolution values of $`0.22^{}\pm 0.05`$ and $`0.30^{}\pm 0.07`$ respectively for HE and LE muon samples.

A maximum likelihood fit has been performed on data in the deflection coordinate system with all muons with momentum greater than 65 GeV (HE + LE), assuming that the data can be described as a planar background and 2 symmetric Gaussian deficits for protons and antiprotons:

$$f(x,y)=\underset{plane}{\underset{}{ax+by+c}}\frac{N}{1+r}[\underset{\mathrm{p}deficit}{\underset{}{F_\mathrm{p}(x_0,y_0,\sigma )}}+\underset{\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{p}ratio}{\underset{}{r}}\underset{\overline{\mathrm{p}}deficit}{\underset{}{F_{\overline{\mathrm{p}}}(x_0,y_0,\sigma )}}],$$

where parameters $`x_0`$ and $`y_0`$ express the offset due to the geomagnetic field. Uncertainties on parameters have been computed with a Monte Carlo simulation. A deficit of $`944\pm 320`$ events is reported with $`8\sigma `$ significance. A preliminary $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{p}`$ ratio measurement is obtained: $`r=0.14\pm 0.15`$. An upper limit has been set at 0.13 with $`90\%`$ C.L. using the ”unified approach” $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

## 5 Conclusion

The L3+C experiment is not only one more experiment to observe a significant Moon shadow effect. Its good angular resolution has allowed for the first time to observe clearly the offset and the elongation of the Moon ”muon shadow” expected from the geomagnetic field for 2 different muon energy ranges. Moreover, it allows a better separation of the proton and antiproton deficits. A preliminary measurement of the $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{p}`$ ratio yields an upper limit of 0.13 at $`90\%`$ C.L. for the muon sample with $`E_\mu 65GeV`$.
This analysis is still preliminary since only one third of the data has been reconstructed up to now. A complete reconstruction of the data is on the way. Improvements are also expected from a better description of the deficit and determination of the angular resolution from the study of dimuon events.

## References


format: text

text:
# Generalized Euler Angle Parameterization for 𝑈(𝑁) with Applications to 𝑆𝑈(𝑁) Coset Volume Measures.

## 1 Introduction

Having produced an Euler angle parameterization for $`SU(N)`$ we now turn our attention to explicitly writing down the Euler parameterization for the unitary group, $`U(N)`$ (which was hinted at in the $`SU(N)`$ work of ). Recall that $`U(N)`$ is a subgroup of $`GL(N,)=GL_N()`$, the group of all complex $`N\times N`$ matrices with non-vanishing determinant and requiring $`2N^2`$ parameters to represent. In this manner we can define $`SU(N)`$ to be a subgroup of $`U(N)`$, requiring $`N^21`$ parameters to represent, by adding the extra condition that any element of $`SU(N)`$ has unit determinant. We can therefore expect that not only will the Euler parameterization of $`U(N)`$ be easy to produce but also the group volume, once we exploit some simple group relationships between $`SU(N)`$ and $`U(N)`$.

The importance of such a parameterization and its corresponding volume equation, beyond that discussed in , is that it gives us the ability to calculate the measures and volumes for general $`N`$-dimensional pure and mixed state density matrices, as well as the volumes of the manifolds of operations on pure and mixed states which produce entangled and separable states (which are directly related to the volume of separable and entangled states) without having to resort to extensive numerical computations as in .

## 2 Euler Parameterization of $`U(N)`$

The idea behind the parameterization of $`U(N)`$ is straightforward. Referring to our previous work , for notations and details, as well as to Nakahara , Sattinger , and others we know the following relationship holds between $`SU(N)`$, $`U(N)`$ and $`\text{P}^N`$:

$$\text{P}^N=\frac{SU(N+1)}{U(N)}=\frac{SU(N+1)}{SU(N)\times U(1)}.$$
(2.1)
The $`U(1)`$ in the denominator of the second equality is the $`U(1)`$ element from the $`SU(N+1)`$ group in the numerator, which we know from  to be:

$$U(1)U(1)_{SU(N+1)}=e^{i\lambda _{(N+1)^21}\beta }.$$
(2.2)
Using the $`SU(N)`$ parameterization work done previously , we can write down the Euler parameterization of $`U(N)`$ quite easily.

Recall from  we know we can write down a semi-direct sum for the Lie Algebra for $`SU(N)`$ as

$$L(SU(N))=L(K)L(P),$$
(2.3)
which yields a decomposition of the group,

$$V=KP,$$
(2.4)
where $`VSU(N)`$. From this work, we also know that $`L(K)`$ is comprised of the generators of the $`SU(N1)`$ subalgebra of $`SU(N)`$, and therefore $`K`$ will be the $`U(N1)`$ subgroup obtained by exponentiating this subalgebra, $`\{\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{(N1)^21}\}`$, combined with $`\lambda _{N^21}`$ and thus can be written as (see  for examples)

$$K(N1)=[SU(N1)]e^{i\lambda _{N^21}\varphi }$$
(2.5)
where $`[SU(N1)]`$ represents the $`(N1)^21`$ term Euler angle parameterization of the $`SU(N1)`$ subgroup.

We are now ready to look at the $`U(N)`$ group in general. For a $`UU(N)`$ we have from equations (2.1) and (2.5) as well as from

$$UK(N)=[SU(N)]e^{i\lambda _{(N+1)^21}\beta },$$
(2.6)
where

$`[SU(N)]=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{2kN}{}}A(k,j(N))\right)({\displaystyle \underset{2kN1}{}}A(k,j((N1)))\mathrm{}\left(A(2,j(2))\right)`$
$`\times e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _{N^2(N1)}}\mathrm{}e^{i\lambda _{(N1)^21}\alpha _{N^22}}e^{i\lambda _{N^21}\alpha _{N^21}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{Nm2}{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{2km}{}}A(k,j(m))\right)`$
$`\times e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _{N^2(N1)}}\mathrm{}e^{i\lambda _{(N1)^21}\alpha _{N^22}}e^{i\lambda _{N^21}\alpha _{N^21}},`$
$`A(k,j(m))=`$ $`e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _{(2k3)+j(m)}}e^{i\lambda _{(k1)^2+1}\alpha _{2(k1)+j(m)}},`$
$`j(m)=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & m=N,\hfill \\ \underset{0lNm1}{}2(m+l)\hfill & mN.\hfill \end{array}`$ (2.7)
## 3 Volume of $`U(N)`$

From  the volume of $`SU(N)`$ is known to be

$$V_{SU(N)}=2^{\frac{N1}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{(N1)(N+2)}{2}}\sqrt{N}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\left(\frac{1}{k!}\right).$$
(3.1)
If we use equation (2.2) then from  we can define the following volume for $`U(1)_{SU(N+1)}`$.

$`V_{U(1)_{SU(N+1)}}V_{U(1)_{\lambda _{(N+1)^21}}}`$ $`=`$ $`(N+1){\displaystyle _0^{\pi \sqrt{\frac{2}{(N+1)((N+1)1)}}}}𝑑\alpha _{(N+1)^2+1}`$ (3.2)
$`=`$ $`\pi \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2(N+1)}{N}}}.`$
From equation (2.6) we can write

$$V_{U(N)}=V_{SU(N)}\times V_{U(1)_{\lambda _{(N+1)^21}}},$$
(3.3)
and thus using equations (3.1) and (3.2) we have

$`V_{U(N)}`$ $`=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}^{\frac{N1}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{(N1)(N+2)}{2}}\sqrt{N}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}\right)\pi \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2(N+1)}{N}}}`$
$`=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}^{\frac{N}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{N(N+1)}{2}}\sqrt{N+1}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}\right)`$ (3.4)
for $`N2`$. Note that when $`N=1`$ we generate the volume for the $`U(1)_{SU(2)}`$ group element. Since there can be many different $`U(1)`$’s with different volumes, the fact that $`U(N)`$, when $`N=1`$ gives the $`SU(2)`$ group element volume demands that we limit the use of equation (3.4) to $`N2`$.

With this information in hand, we can now look at the differential volume elements, and corresponding volumes of the full range of $`SU(N)`$ and $`U(N)`$ cosets that are of interest in physics, beginning with the fundamental manifolds which define pure and mixed states.

## 4 Differential Volume Elements for Pure and Mixed States

Now that we have an Euler angle parameterization for both $`SU(N)`$ and $`U(N)`$, for $`N2`$, we are now in a position to look at the group representations of pure and mixed states in terms of our parameterizations.

In general, the manifold of pure states is given by the sequence of maps:

$$U(N1)SU(N)\text{P}^{N1}.$$
(4.1)
These are related to the “Grassmannian” manifolds, which are defined as

$$\text{P}^{N1}G(N,1)=\frac{U(N)}{U(1)\times U(N1)}=\frac{SU(N)}{U(N1)}.$$
(4.2)
On the other hand, the manifold for mixed states (here for rank $`N`$ density matrices with non-degenerate and non-singular eigenvalues) is given by

$$_{ms}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{N1}\times \frac{SU(N)}{(U(1))^{N1}}$$
(4.3)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{N1}`$ can be seen as the $`(N1)`$-dimensional solid angle (with appropriate ranges) derived from the eigenvalues of a suitably parameterized $`(N1)`$-dimensional sphere (see ), and the factor $`(U(1))^{N1}`$ is the maximal torus spanned by the exponentiation of the Cartan subalgebra of the group

$`(U(1))^{N1}`$ $`=U(1)_{SU(2)}\times U(1)_{SU(3)}\times \mathrm{}\times U(1)_{SU(N)}`$
$`=U(1)_{\lambda _3}\times U(1)_{\lambda _8}\times \mathrm{}\times U(1)_{\lambda _{N^21}}.`$ (4.4)
One may also notice that $`_{ms}`$ is stratified by noting that

$$\frac{SU(N)}{(U(1))^{N1}}\text{P}^{N1}\text{P}^{N2}\mathrm{}\text{P}^1,$$
(4.5)
where the $``$, denotes the (possibly) non-trivial topological product of the spaces. These cosets are called flag manifolds and the given topological product follows from the fact that the $`SU(N)`$ groups are products of odd-dimensional spheres (see  and references within).

Now, in order to do any “physically” meaningful calculation on either manifold we require their measures; measures that can be derived by using the Euler angle parameterizations of $`SU(N)`$ and $`U(N)`$. It is to this question that we now turn our attention to.

### 4.1 Pure State Measure

We know that pure states are in $`\text{P}^N`$ and from the previous sections that

$$\text{P}^N=\frac{SU(N+1)}{U(N)}=\frac{SU(N+1)}{SU(N)\times U(1)_{SU(N+1)}}.$$
(4.6)
Using the differential volume element for $`SU(N)`$ from  we can immediately write down the pure state measure as

$`dV_{ps}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{dV_{SU(N+1)}}{dV_{SU(N)}\times dV_{U(1)_{SU(N+1)}}}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{K_{SU(N+1)}d\alpha _{(N+1)^21}\mathrm{}d\alpha _1}{K_{SU(N)}d\alpha _{N^21}\mathrm{}d\alpha _1\times d\alpha _{(N+1)^21}}}`$
$`=\left({\displaystyle \underset{2kN+1}{}}Ker(k,j(N+1))\right)d\alpha _{2N}\mathrm{}d\alpha _1.`$ (4.7)
where from

$$Ker(k,j(N+1))=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha _2)\hfill & k=2,\hfill \\ \mathrm{cos}(\alpha _{2(k1)})^{2k3}\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _{2(k1)})\hfill & 2<k<N+1,\hfill \\ \mathrm{cos}(\alpha _{2N})\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _{2N})^{2N1}\hfill & k=N+1,\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.8)
with the following ranges

$$0\alpha _1\pi ,\text{ and }0\alpha _2\frac{\pi }{2}$$

$$0\alpha _{2j}\frac{\pi }{2},0\alpha _{2j1}2\pi $$

$$\text{ for }2jN.$$
(4.9)
Note that these ranges are from the covering ranges for $`SU(N+1)`$ and not from $`SU(N+1)/Z_{N+1}`$ which are used to calculate the invariant volume for $`SU(N+1)`$ (see the appendices in  for more details). On the other hand, one could use the $`SU(N+1)/Z_{N+1}`$ ranges

$$0\alpha _{2j}\frac{\pi }{2},0\alpha _{2j1}\pi ,$$

$$\text{ for }1jN$$
(4.10)
but then one would need to add a normalization factor of $`2^{N1}`$ in front of the product in equation (4.7) in order to generate the correct volume for $`\text{P}^N`$.

#### 4.1.1 Example Calculation: Two Qubit Pure State Measure

It is interesting to note that equation (4.7) for $`N=3`$ is equivalent to the “natural” measure (referred to in ) derived from the Hurwitz parameterization (see  and references within). To begin, we define a general vector of a random 4-dimensional unitary matrix $`U(4)`$ as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝜼)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}(\theta _3)\\ \mathrm{sin}(\theta _3)\mathrm{cos}(\theta _2)e^{i\varphi _3}\\ \mathrm{sin}(\theta _3)\mathrm{sin}(\theta _2)\mathrm{cos}(\theta _1)e^{i\varphi _2}\\ \mathrm{sin}(\theta _3)\mathrm{sin}(\theta _2)\mathrm{sin}(\theta _1)e^{i\varphi _1}\end{array}\right)$$
(4.11)
where $`0\theta _i\pi /2`$ and $`0\varphi _i2\pi `$ ($`i=1,2,3`$), and $`𝜼=\{\theta _i,\varphi _i\}`$. From this vector one can calculate the corresponding Fubini-Study metric (here given as in )

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}(_{\mu \nu }+_{\nu \mu }),$$
(4.12)
where in this case

$$_{\mu \nu }(𝜼)=\frac{}{\eta _\mu }\mathrm{\Psi }(𝜼)|(1\mathrm{l}_4|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝜼)\mathrm{\Psi }(𝜼)|)|\frac{}{\eta _\nu }\mathrm{\Psi }(𝜼),$$
(4.13)
the square root of the determinant of which yields the invariant measure for $`\text{P}^3`$ under this representation:

$`dV_{ps}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Det}[\sqrt{g}]`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta _1)\mathrm{sin}(\theta _1)\mathrm{cos}(\theta _2)\mathrm{sin}(\theta _2)^3\mathrm{cos}(\theta _3)\mathrm{sin}(\theta _3)^5d\theta _3d\varphi _3\mathrm{}d\theta _1d\varphi _1.`$
The equivalent aspect of our statement comes in when one explicitly evaluates equation (4.7) for $`N=3`$:

$`dV_{ps}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{dV_{SU(4)}}{dV_{SU(3)}\times dV_{U(1)_{SU(4)}}}}`$
$`=\left({\displaystyle \underset{2k4}{}}Ker(k,j(4))\right)d\alpha _6\mathrm{}d\alpha _1`$
$`=\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha _2)\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _4)^3\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _4)\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _6)\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _6)^5d\alpha _6\mathrm{}d\alpha _1`$
$`=2\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _2)\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _2)\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _4)^3\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _4)\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _6)\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _6)^5d\alpha _6\mathrm{}d\alpha _1`$ (4.15)
where the ranges on the $`\alpha _i`$’s are from equation (4.9). Obviously there’s some contradiction between this measure and the one given in equation (4.1.1) but any concern it may raise should be eliminated in the following work.

To begin we note that equation (4.15) can also be derived in the following manner that follows the arguments found in . First we define a pure state as

$$\rho _d^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{4}(1\mathrm{l}_4\sqrt{6}\lambda _{15})$$
(4.16)
and then apply a $`USU(4)`$ to yield

$$\rho =U\rho _d^{}U^{}=\frac{1}{4}(1\mathrm{l}_4\sqrt{6}U\lambda _{15}U^{}).$$
(4.17)
Recalling that a general two qubit density matrix has the form

$$\rho =|\mathrm{\Phi }(𝜶)\mathrm{\Phi }(𝜶)|=\frac{1}{4}(1\mathrm{l}_4+\sqrt{6}𝐧𝝀)$$
(4.18)
we can therefore solve for the components of $`𝐧`$ and in turn $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝜶)`$, via evaluating $`n_j=\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\lambda _j\mathrm{\Phi }`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},15`$. Doing these calculations yields (dropping an overall multiplicative phase term dependent on the $`\lambda _{15}`$ element of the Cartan subalgebra found in $`U(3)`$)

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }(𝜶)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _6)\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _4)\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _2)e^{i(\alpha _1+\alpha _3+\alpha _5)}\\ \mathrm{sin}(\alpha _6)\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _4)\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _2)e^{i(\alpha _1\alpha _3\alpha _5)}\\ \mathrm{sin}(\alpha _6)\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _4)e^{i\alpha _5}\\ \mathrm{cos}(\alpha _6)\end{array}\right).$$
(4.19)
Calculating and taking the determinant of the Fubini-Study metric as before but now under this representation yields the following invariant measure for $`\text{P}^3`$

$$dV_{ps}=\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha _2)\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _4)\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _4)^3\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _6)^5\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _6).$$
(4.20)
One can see that $`|\mathrm{\Phi }(𝜶)`$ is similar to $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝜼)`$ but not equal. Therefore in comparing the two measures we can only note the following:

1. The factor of 2 in equation (4.15) equates to having the range of $`\alpha _1`$ run from $`0`$ to $`2\pi `$ rather than its original range set $`0\alpha _1\pi `$ given in equation (4.9) thus allowing one to conceptually equate $`\theta _i`$ with $`\alpha _{2i}`$ and $`\varphi _i`$ with a functional form of the $`\alpha _{2i1}`$s.
2. Equation (4.1.1) can be generalized to $`\text{P}^N`$ (see )

$$dV_{ps}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\mathrm{cos}(\theta _k)\mathrm{sin}(\theta _k)^{2k1}d\theta _kd\varphi _k$$
(4.21)
which obviously does not have the same form as equation (4.7), but due to the invariance of the integral

$$_0^{\frac{\pi }{2}}\mathrm{sin}(\xi )^m\mathrm{cos}(\xi )d\xi =_0^{\frac{\pi }{2}}\mathrm{sin}(\xi )\mathrm{cos}(\xi )^md\xi $$
(4.22)
does yield the same invariant volume (see the next section and ).

Thus the difference between the two pure state measures is just in the way one initially chooses the distribution of the angles $`𝜼`$ and $`𝜶`$ in the space $`\text{P}^3`$ (and in $`\text{P}^N`$ in general). Since we are most concerned with unitary operators in $`SU(N)`$ acting upon pure state density matrices and not within the more general $`U(N)`$ group, we feel that our representation of the pure state measure is more useful with regards to the overall Euler parameterization of $`SU(N)`$ and $`U(N)`$ than the one given in equation (4.21).

### 4.2 Mixed State Product Measure

From equation (4.3) we can see that, in general, one can write down the mixed-state product measure for $`\rho =U\rho _dU^{}`$ as

$$dV_{ms}=d\mu \times d\left(\frac{G}{H}\right),$$
(4.23)
where $`d\mu `$ defines a measure in the ($`N1`$)-dimensional symplex of eigenvalues of $`\rho _d`$ and $`d(G/H)`$, where $`G=SU(N)`$ and $`H=U(1)_{SU(2)}\times U(1)_{SU(3)}\times \mathrm{}\times U(1)_{SU(N)}`$, defines a “truncated” Haar measure which is responsible for the choice of eigenvectors of $`\rho `$ that ensures $`d\mu `$ is “rotational invariant.”

Now as  and others have noted, $`d\mu `$ is defined via the probability distribution induced on the ($`N1`$)-dimensional symplex but there can be more than one possible $`d\mu `$ that is applicable for a given system since there can be more than one usable probability distribution. As Hall noted:

> …\[I\]f \[mixed states\] described by density operators are allowed, the requirement of unitary invariance (thus there is no preferred measurement basis for extracting information) only implies that the probability measure over the set of possible states is a function of the density operator eigenvalue spectrum alone. Hence a unique probability measure can be specified only via some further principle or restriction, to be motivated on physical or conceptual grounds .

Therefore

> An ensemble of general states of a quantum system is in general described by a probability measure over the density operators of the system. given that probability measures transform in the same way as volume elements under coordinate transformations, and that volume elements are in general properties of metric spaces, this suggests that the distribution of density operators corresponding to a “minimal knowledge” (i. e. most random ensemble of possible states) ensemble may be obtained from the normalized volume element induced by some natural metric on the set of density matrices .

Thus, the volume measure is defined by the choice of metric, and since the metric is invariant under unitary transformations, defining $`d\mu `$ comes down to determining which metric is the most appropriate in defining a statistical distance between two density matrices; especially when one adds the additional requirement that the metric satisfy certain criteria for entanglement measures (see for example  and references within).

Since there are multiple choices for distance measures between two density matrices, and therefore $`d\mu `$, and since we want to keep our discussion as general as possible, we shall defer further discussion on $`d\mu `$ to other papers (for example those previously cited) and just use the most general form of $`d\mu `$ in the spirit equation (4.3) and given in  and references within; the Dirichlet distribution:

$$d\mu =\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s_1+\mathrm{}+s_N)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s_1)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s_N)}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^{s_11}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N1}^{s_{N1}1}(1\underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_j)^{s_N1}d\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{}d\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N1}$$
(4.24)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_j=1`$ and $`1>\mathrm{\Lambda }_j>0`$ are just the eigenvalues of $`\rho _d`$. The Dirichlet distribution provides a means of expressing quantities that vary randomly, independent of each other, yet obeying the condition that there sum remains fixed. In our case, $`s_js>0`$ thus

$`d\mu `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(Ns)}{N\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^{s1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_N^{s1}d\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{}d\mathrm{\Lambda }_N`$
$`=\alpha _s\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^{s1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_N^{s1}d\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{}d\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,`$ (4.25)
where the ranges for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_j`$, we conjecture, are equal to

$$1\mathrm{\Lambda }_N\frac{1}{N}\text{ and }0\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N1}\frac{1}{N}.$$
(4.26)
These ranges disagree with those given by Slater in  for $`N=4`$ but under integration, the difference between those in  and ours is a multiplicative factor of $`N`$ upon the kernel. The benefit of the ranges given here is that they are easily generalized, while those in  are not.

With $`d\mu `$ so defined, we are now free to look at the flag manifold $`G/H`$. By using equations (2.2) and (2.7) we can see that the coset $`G/H`$ can be expressed as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{G}{H}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{SU(N)}{U(1)_{SU(2)}\times U(1)_{SU(3)}\times \mathrm{}\times U(1)_{SU(N)}}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{_{Nm2}\left(_{2km}A(k,j(m))\right)e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _{N^2(N1)}}\mathrm{}e^{i\lambda _{(N1)^21}\alpha _{N^22}}e^{i\lambda _{N^21}\alpha _{N^21}}}{e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _{N^2(N1)}}\mathrm{}e^{i\lambda _{(N1)^21}\alpha _{N^22}}e^{i\lambda _{N^21}\alpha _{N^21}}}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{Nm2}{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{2km}{}}A(k,j(m))\right),`$ (4.27)
where $`A(k,j(m))`$ is defined in equation (2.7). This coset representation comes from the following observation; it allows us to write down the “truncated” Haar measure $`d(G/H)`$ as

$`d\left({\displaystyle \frac{G}{H}}\right)`$ $`=d\left({\displaystyle \frac{SU(N)}{U(1)_{SU(2)}\times U(1)_{SU(3)}\times \mathrm{}\times U(1)_{SU(N)}}}\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{dV_{SU(N)}}{dV_{U(1)_{SU(2)}}\times dV_{U(1)_{SU(3)}}\times \mathrm{}\times dV_{U(1)_{SU(N)}}}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{K_{SU(N)}d\alpha _{N^21}\mathrm{}d\alpha _1}{d\alpha _{N^2(N1)}\mathrm{}d\alpha _{N^21}}}`$
$`=K_{SU(N)}d\alpha _{N(N1)}\mathrm{}d\alpha _1`$ (4.28)
where from

$`K_{SU(N)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{Nm2}{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{2km}{}}Ker(k,j(m))\right),`$
$`Ker(k,j(m))`$ $`=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha _{2+j(m)})\hfill & k=2,\hfill \\ \mathrm{cos}(\alpha _{2(k1)+j(m)})^{2k3}\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _{2(k1)+j(m)})\hfill & 2<k<m,\hfill \\ \mathrm{cos}(\alpha _{2(m1)+j(m)})\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _{2(m1)+j(m)})^{2m3}\hfill & k=m,\hfill \end{array}`$ (4.29)
and $`j(m)`$ is from equation (2.7).

Now the ranges for the $`\alpha `$’s can again be either the covering ranges defined for the first $`N(N1)`$ $`\alpha `$’s of the Euler parameterization of $`SU(N)`$ (see ) or the $`SU(N)/Z_N`$ ranges

$$0\alpha _{2j}\frac{\pi }{2},0\alpha _{2j1}\pi ,$$

$$\text{ for }1j\frac{N(N1)}{2},$$
(4.30)
which would necessitate adding a normalization factor of $`2^{(N1)(N2)/2}`$ to $`K_{SU(N)}`$ in equation (4.28).

Depending on which set of ranges are used, a general mixed-state product measure can thus be written as

$`dV_{ms}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _s\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^{s_11}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N1}^{s_{N1}1}(1{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_j)^{s_N1}d\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{}d\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N1}`$ (4.31)
$`\times \xi K_{SU(N)}d\alpha _1\mathrm{}d\alpha _{N(N1)},`$
where the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ are the non-zero eigenvalues of the corresponding $`N`$-dimensional diagonal density matrix $`\rho _d`$ (see  for more details) and $`\xi `$ is the necessary normalization constant (equal to 1 if one uses the covering ranges for $`SU(N)`$ and equal to $`2^{(N1)(N2)/2}`$ if one uses the generic $`SU(N)/Z_N`$ coset ranges used in calculating the group volume .

#### 4.2.1 Example Calculation: Two Qubit Mixed State Product Measure

For two qubits, equations (4.23), (4.25), and (4.28) yield

$`dV_{ms}=`$ $`d\mu \times d\left({\displaystyle \frac{SU(4)}{U(1)_{SU(2)}\times U(1)_{SU(3)}\times U(1)_{SU(4)}}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\alpha _s\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^{s1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^{s1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_3^{s1}(1{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i)^{s1}d\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{}d\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\times \xi K_{SU(4)}d\alpha _{12}\mathrm{}d\alpha _1`$
$`=`$ $`\alpha _s\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^{s1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^{s1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_3^{s1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_4^{s1}d\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{}d\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$
$`\times \xi \mathrm{sin}(2\alpha _2)\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _4)\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _4)^3\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _6)^5\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _6)`$
$`\times \mathrm{sin}(2\alpha _8)\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _{10})^3\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _{10})\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha _{12})d\alpha _{12}\mathrm{}d\alpha _1`$ (4.32)
where we have used the $`SU(4)`$ differential volume element from  in the last step. The ranges of integration for the $`\alpha _i`$ parameters has already been discussed; ideally they should be the covering ranges for $`SU(4)`$ from  so that $`\xi =1`$. As for the ranges on $`d\mu `$, recall that for two qubits, $`\rho _d`$ is given by

$$\rho _d=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\theta _1\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\theta _2\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\theta _3\right)& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{cos}^2\left(\theta _1\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\theta _2\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\theta _3\right)& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{cos}^2\left(\theta _2\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\theta _3\right)& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{cos}^2\left(\theta _3\right)\end{array}\right)$$
(4.33)
where

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \frac{\pi }{4}\theta _1\frac{\pi }{2},& \mathrm{cos}^1(\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}})\theta _2\frac{\pi }{2},\hfill & \hfill \frac{\pi }{3}\theta _3\frac{\pi }{2},\end{array}$$
(4.34)
thus we have

$$1\mathrm{\Lambda }_4\frac{1}{4}0\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\frac{1}{4}0\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\frac{1}{4}0\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\frac{1}{4}$$
(4.35)
for the ranges of integration on $`d\mu `$. Notice that one could have also used equation (4.26) with $`N=4`$ to achieve these ranges, but it is instructive to see their explicit derivation.

## 5 Volume of $`\text{P}^N`$ and $`SU(N)/(U(1))^{N1}`$

Now we are in a position to give two different methods for calculating the volume for the pure and mixed state manifolds of general $`N`$-dimensional quantum systems. The pure state manifold volume is quite simple and already well known; it is the volume of $`\text{P}^N`$, while the mixed state manifold volume, as we have seen in the previous section, is the product of two different measures - one of which is dependent on the initial distribution of states on the ($`N1`$)-dimensional symplex. Therefore in the mixed state case we shall only worry about calculating the volume contribution from the second measure; the “truncated” Haar measure, since the volume from the $`N1`$ symplex measure can be equated to a general multiplicative constant determined by the initial distribution of states on the $`N1`$ symplex (see for example ):

$$V_{\text{Mixed States}}=V_{\text{Symplex}}\times V_{SU(N)/(U(1))^{N1}}=\omega V_{SU(N)/(U(1))^{N1}}.$$
(5.1)
For example, for the two qubit case described previously, a naive calculation of $`\omega `$ can be seen to be equal to:

$`\omega `$ $`=\alpha _s{\displaystyle _{\frac{1}{4}}^1}{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{1}{4}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{1}{4}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{1}{4}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^{s1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^{s1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_3^{s1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_4^{s1}𝑑\mathrm{\Lambda }_1𝑑\mathrm{\Lambda }_2𝑑\mathrm{\Lambda }_3𝑑\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(4s)}{4\mathrm{\Gamma }(2)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4^{4s}(1+4^s)}{s^4}}\right)`$ (5.2)
for when $`s>0`$ (note that the integration ranges on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$ were reversed in order to keep $`\omega `$ positive).

### 5.1 Volume of $`\text{P}^N`$

Using the results for $`U(N)`$ we can immediately write down the general volume for $`\text{P}^N`$. Using equations (2.1), (3.1) and (3.4) we have

$`V_{\text{P}^N}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{V_{SU(N+1)}}{V_{U(N)}}}={\displaystyle \frac{2^{\frac{N}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{N(N+3)}{2}}\sqrt{N+1}_{k=1}^N\left(\frac{1}{k!}\right)}{2^{\frac{N}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{N(N+1)}{2}}\sqrt{N+1}_{k=1}^{N1}\left(\frac{1}{k!}\right)}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^N}{N!}}.`$ (5.3)
We see that this result also comes from the integration of equation (4.7) over the ranges given in equation (4.9) or equation (4.10)

$$\underset{\alpha ranges}{\int \cdots \int }(_{2kN+1}Ker(k,j(N+1)))d\alpha _{2N}\mathrm{}d\alpha _1=2^{N1}\pi ^N\underset{2kN+1}{}𝕍(k,N+1)$$
(5.4)
where $`𝕍(k,N+1)`$ is, from ,

$$𝕍(k,N+1)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & k=2,\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2(k1)}\hfill & 2<kN+1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.5)
Expansion of this product yields

$$\underset{2kN+1}{}𝕍(k,N+1)=1\times \frac{1}{4}\times \frac{1}{6}\times \mathrm{}\times \frac{1}{2N}=\frac{1}{2^{N1}N!}$$
(5.6)
which when multiplied by the $`2^{N1}\pi ^N`$ factor gives the volume for $`\text{P}^N`$ as previously calculated. One can also see that integration of equation (4.21) using the ranges given for $`𝜼`$ in equation (4.11) will also generate equation (5.3) (see  for example).

We should also note the remarkable results:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\text{Vol}(\text{P}^n)={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^n}{n!}}`$ $`=e^\pi 23.147`$
$`\underset{k\mathrm{}}{\text{lim}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{k}{}}}\text{Vol}(\text{P}^n)0.`$ (5.7)
Thus, in terms of our pure state manifold discussion, we can conclude that as one increases the dimensionality of the system, there will always be a non-zero pure state volume. In the spirit of this result we should also note an interesting introduction to the importance of the pure state manifold $`\text{P}^N`$ for large $`N`$, especially with regard to quantum entanglement, can be found in .

### 5.2 Volume of $`SU(N)/(U(1))^{N1}`$

Recall that the action of a group in the adjoint representation produces interesting orbits; the manifolds of which are called generalized flag manifolds, and appear very often in geometric quantization, density matrices, entangled states, etc. These manifolds can be represented by the coset $`SU(N)/U(1)^{N1}`$; obviously then the volume of such manifolds are quite important to our work. By using equations (3.2) and (4.4) we can write down the general volume for such a coset, $`SU(N)/U(1)_{SU(2)}\times U(1)_{SU(3)}\times \mathrm{}\times U(1)_{SU(N)}`$, as

$`V\left({\displaystyle \frac{SU(N)}{U(1)_{\lambda _3}\times U(1)_{\lambda _8}\times \mathrm{}\times U(1)_{\lambda _{N^21}}}}\right)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{V_{SU(N)}}{V_{U(1)_{\lambda _3}}\times V_{U(1)_{\lambda _8}}\times \mathrm{}V_{U(1)_{\lambda _{N^21}}}}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2^{\frac{N1}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{(N1)(N+2)}{2}}\sqrt{N}_{k=1}^{N1}\left(\frac{1}{k!}\right)}{2\pi \sqrt{3}\pi \mathrm{}\pi \sqrt{\frac{2N}{N1}}}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2^{\frac{N1}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{(N1)(N+2)}{2}}\sqrt{N}_{k=1}^{N1}\left(\frac{1}{k!}\right)}{_{l=1}^{N1}\pi \sqrt{\frac{2(l+1)}{l}}}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^{\frac{N(N1)}{2}}\sqrt{N}_{k=1}^{N1}\left(\frac{1}{k!}\right)}{_{l=1}^{N1}\sqrt{\frac{(l+1)}{l}}}}.`$ (5.8)
But we know

$$\underset{l=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\sqrt{\frac{(l+1)}{l}}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{1}}\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{}\sqrt{\frac{N}{N1}}=\sqrt{N}.$$
(5.9)
Thus we can see that

$$V\left(\frac{SU(N)}{U(1)_{\lambda _3}\times U(1)_{\lambda _8}\times \mathrm{}\times U(1)_{\lambda _{N^21}}}\right)=\pi ^{\frac{N(N1)}{2}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\left(\frac{1}{k!}\right),$$
(5.10)
which is in agreement with . This volume can also be generated via integrating the “truncated” Haar measure, using the appropriate ranges and normalization conditions, given in equation (4.28) (done in detail in ).

For completeness, and with equation (4.5) in mind, we should note the following:

$$\pi ^{\frac{N(N1)}{2}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\pi ^k.$$
(5.11)
Thus equation (5.10) has the following, equivalent representation

$`V\left({\displaystyle \frac{SU(N)}{U(1)_{\lambda _3}\times U(1)_{\lambda _8}\times \mathrm{}\times U(1)_{\lambda _{N^21}}}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\pi ^{\frac{N(N1)}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}\right)={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^k}{k!}}`$ (5.12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}V_{\text{P}^k}.`$
So the volume of our flag manifold is nothing more than the product of the volumes of the complex projective space $`\text{P}^k`$ where $`kN`$ . Notice also that as $`N`$ increases the volume of the flag manifold approaches, but never equals, zero (see equation (5.7)). It is an asymptotic limit which converges to zero from the left on $`^1`$. Thus, since one usually chooses a non-zero probability distribution on the $`N1`$ symplex defining $`d\mu `$ (see equation (4.25)), we can conclude that, as in the pure state case, the mixed state volume measure will never equal zero unless $`V_{\text{Symplex}}`$ does!

## 6 Other $`SU(N)`$ and $`U(N`$) Coset Volumes

Beyond the full pure and mixed state manifolds there are numerous other sub-manifolds that are of interest in physics; the volumes of which have already been calculated (see, for example,  and references within). These sub-manifolds and their volumes give us both a way to confirm our methodology, as well as offering a systematic, rather than numeric, way of computing such quantities. From this work we will then be able to calculate the manifolds that contain the set of entangled and mixed states (either pure or mixed) for specific quantum systems . It should be understood though that the following volume calculations are specific to the $`SU(N)`$ and $`U(N)`$ Euler angle parameterization that we have developed and its corresponding normalizations via the Cartan subalgebra being used. The general question of volume normalization of a manifold, especially when one begins to talk about coset manifolds with specific elements of the Cartan subalgebra being removed will be the subject of a future paper.

### 6.1 Volume of $`SU(N)/SU(P)\times SU(Q)`$

To begin, we would like to be able to write down the general volume of the $`SU(N)/SU(P)\times SU(Q)`$ coset where $`N+1P+Q`$ and $`P,Q1`$. To do this we can use equation (3.1) to generate

$`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{SU(N)}}{V_{SU(P)}\times V_{SU(Q)}}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2^{\frac{N1}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{(N1)(N+2)}{2}}\sqrt{N}_{k=1}^{N1}\left(\frac{1}{k!}\right)}{2^{\frac{P1}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{(P1)(P+2)}{2}}\sqrt{P}_{k=1}^{P1}\left(\frac{1}{k!}\right)\times 2^{\frac{Q1}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{(Q1)(Q+2)}{2}}\sqrt{Q}_{k=1}^{Q1}\left(\frac{1}{k!}\right)}}`$
$`=2^{\frac{(N+1)(P+Q)}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{N(N+1)P(P+1)Q(Q+1)+2}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N}{PQ}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{P1}{}}}k!{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{Q1}{}}}k!.`$ (6.1)
When $`N+1=P+Q`$ we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{SU(N)}}{V_{SU(P)}\times V_{SU(Q)}}}`$ $`=2^{\frac{(N+1)(N+1)}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{(P+Q1)(P+Q)P(P+1)Q(Q+1)+2}{2}}`$
$`\times \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{P+Q1}{PQ}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{P+Q2}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{P1}{}}}k!{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{Q1}{}}}k!`$
$`=\pi ^{(P1)(Q1)}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{P+Q1}{PQ}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{P+Q2}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{P1}{}}}k!{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{Q1}{}}}k!`$ (6.2)
#### 6.1.1 Example Calculation: Volume of $`SU(4)/SU(2)\times SU(2)`$

Defining $`N=4`$, and $`P=Q=2`$, we get from equation (6.1) the volume of the coset $`SU(4)/SU(2)\times SU(2)`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{SU(4)}}{V_{SU(2)}\times V_{SU(2)}}}`$ $`=2^{\frac{54}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{4(5)2(3)2(3)+2}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(2)(2)}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{41}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{21}{}}}k!{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{21}{}}}k!`$
$`=\sqrt{2}\pi ^5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}1!1!`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^5}{6\sqrt{2}}}.`$ (6.3)
Which is equivalent to the volume of $`SU(4)`$, $`\sqrt{2}\pi ^9/3`$, divided by the square of the volume of $`SU(2)`$, $`2\pi ^2`$, as expected. It should also be noted that this is the volume of the manifold that is comprised of all non-local transformations which can be implemented on a two qubit system.

### 6.2 Volume of $`SU(N)/U(P)\times U(1)`$

Beyond the general volume of $`\text{P}^N`$, general flag manifold, and the previous $`SU(N)`$ coset, we would like to be able to write down the general volume of the $`SU(N)/U(P)\times U(1)`$ coset where $`N1P+1`$ and $`P1`$. To do this we can use equations (3.1) and (3.4) as follows

$$\frac{V_{SU(N)}}{V_{U(P)}\times V_{U(1)}}=\frac{2^{\frac{N1}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{(N1)(N+2)}{2}}\sqrt{N}_{k=1}^{N1}\left(\frac{1}{k!}\right)}{2^{\frac{P}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{P(P+1)}{2}}\sqrt{P+1}_{k=1}^{P1}\left(\frac{1}{k!}\right)\times V_{U(1)}}.$$
(6.4)
The problem we now face is how to define $`U(1)`$. If we use equation (3.2), here now defined for $`SU(N)`$, we would generate

$`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{SU(N)}}{V_{U(P)}\times V_{U(1)_{SU(N)}}}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2^{\frac{N1}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{(N1)(N+2)}{2}}\sqrt{N}_{k=1}^{N1}\left(\frac{1}{k!}\right)}{2^{\frac{P}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{P(P+1)}{2}}\sqrt{P+1}_{k=1}^{P1}\left(\frac{1}{k!}\right)\pi \sqrt{\frac{2N}{N1}}}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2^{\frac{N1}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{(N1)(N+2)}{2}}\sqrt{N1}_{k=1}^{N1}\left(\frac{1}{k!}\right)}{2^{\frac{P+1}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{P^2+P+2}{2}}\sqrt{P+1}_{k=1}^{P1}\left(\frac{1}{k!}\right)}}`$
$`=2^{\frac{(N1)(P+1)}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{(N^2+N2)(P^2+P+2)}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N1}{P+1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{P1}{}}}k!.`$ (6.5)
If we demand that $`N1=P+1`$, we can simplify the product terms

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{P1}{}}}k!`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{P+1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{P1}{}}}k!`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1!2!\mathrm{}(P2)!(P1)!}{1!2!\mathrm{}(P2)!(P1)!P(P+1)!}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{P!(P+1)!}}`$ (6.6)
as well as the powers and other factors. Therefore, for this case we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{SU(N)}}{V_{U(P)}\times V_{U(1)_{SU(N)}}}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2^{\frac{(N1)(P+1)}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{(N^2+N2)(P^2+P+2)}{2}}}{P!(P+1)!}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N1}{P+1}}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^{2N3}}{(N2)!(N1)!}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^{2P+1}}{P!(P+1)!}}.`$ (6.7)
Depending on which parameter is used.

Now, if in using equation (3.2), we now define $`U(1)`$ for $`SU(M)`$, $`M<N`$, we would generate

$`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{SU(N)}}{V_{U(P)}\times V_{U(1)_{SU(M)}}}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2^{\frac{N1}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{(N1)(N+2)}{2}}\sqrt{N}_{k=1}^{N1}\left(\frac{1}{k!}\right)}{2^{\frac{P}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{P(P+1)}{2}}\sqrt{P+1}_{k=1}^{P1}\left(\frac{1}{k!}\right)\pi \sqrt{\frac{2M}{M1}}}}`$
$`=2^{\frac{(N1)(P+1))}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{(N^2+N2)(P^2+P+2)}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N(M1)}{M(P+1)}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{P1}{}}}k!,`$ (6.8)
and if we demand $`N1=P+1`$, we can simplify, yielding

$`={\displaystyle \frac{2^{\frac{(N1)(P+1))}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{(N^2+N2)(P^2+P+2)}{2}}}{P!(P+1)!}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N(M1)}{M(P+1)}}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^{2N3}}{(N2)!(N1)!}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N(M1)}{M(N1)}}},`$ (6.9)
which reduces to equation (6.7) when $`M=N`$. Therefore, depending on which $`U(1)`$ we use, we will generate a different volume; the ratio between any two being equal to

$$\frac{V_{SU(N)}/V_{U(P)}\times V_{U(1)_{SU(X)}}}{V_{SU(N)}/V_{U(P)}\times V_{U(1)_{SU(Y)}}}=\sqrt{\frac{Y(X1)}{X(Y1)}}.$$
(6.10)
#### 6.2.1 Example Calculation: Volumes of $`SU(4)/U(2)\times U(1)_{SU(i)}`$ for $`i=2,3,4`$

Defining $`N=4`$ and $`P=2`$ (thus satisfying $`N1=P+1`$ we get from equation (6.9) the volume of the coset $`SU(4)/U(2)\times U(1)_{SU(i)}`$ when $`i=2`$

$$\frac{V_{SU(4)}}{V_{U(2)}\times V_{U(1)_{SU(2)}}}=\frac{\pi ^{243}}{(42)!(41)!}\sqrt{\frac{4(21)}{2(41)}}=\frac{\pi ^5}{12}\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}=\frac{\pi ^5}{6\sqrt{6}},$$
(6.11)
when $`i=3`$

$$\frac{V_{SU(4)}}{V_{U(2)}\times V_{U(1)_{SU(3)}}}=\frac{\pi ^{243}}{(42)!(41)!}\sqrt{\frac{4(31)}{3(41)}}=\frac{\pi ^5}{12}\sqrt{\frac{8}{9}}=\frac{\pi ^5}{9\sqrt{2}},$$
(6.12)
and when $`i=4`$ the volume of the coset $`SU(4)/U(2)\times U(1)_{SU(4)}`$, using equation (6.7) now, is

$$\frac{V_{SU(4)}}{V_{U(2)}\times V_{U(1)_{SU(4)}}}=\frac{\pi ^{243}}{(42)!(41)!}=\frac{\pi ^5}{12}.$$
(6.13)
### 6.3 Volume of $`SU(N)/U(P)\times U(Q)`$

Now we would like to be able to write down the general volume of the $`SU(N)/U(P)\times U(Q)`$ coset for $`N1P+Q`$ and $`P,Q1`$. To do this we can use equations (3.1) and (3.4) as follows

$$\frac{V_{SU(N)}}{V_{U(P)}\times V_{U(Q)}}=\frac{2^{\frac{N1}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{(N1)(N+2)}{2}}\sqrt{N}_{k=1}^{N1}\left(\frac{1}{k!}\right)}{2^{\frac{P}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{P(P+1)}{2}}\sqrt{P+1}_{k=1}^{P1}\left(\frac{1}{k!}\right)\times 2^{\frac{Q}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{Q(Q+1)}{2}}\sqrt{Q+1}_{k=1}^{Q1}\left(\frac{1}{k!}\right)}.$$
(6.14)
Simplification yields

$`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{SU(N)}}{V_{U(P)}\times V_{U(Q)}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2^{\frac{N1}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{(N1)(N+2)}{2}}\sqrt{N}_{k=1}^{N1}\left(\frac{1}{k!}\right)}{2^{\frac{P+Q}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{P(P+1)+Q(Q+1)}{2}}\sqrt{(P+1)(Q+1)}_{k=1}^{P1}\left(\frac{1}{k!}\right)_{k=1}^{Q1}\left(\frac{1}{k!}\right)}}`$ (6.15)
$`=`$ $`2^{\frac{(N1)(P+Q)}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{(N1)(N+2)P(P+1)Q(Q+1)}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N}{(P+1)(Q+1)}}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{P1}{}}}k!{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{Q1}{}}}k!.`$
For the special case when $`N1=P+Q`$ we can go further and eliminate the $`N`$ dependence in the above volume, thus yielding (in one possible representation)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{SU(N)}}{V_{U(P)}\times V_{U(Q)}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\pi ^{(P+Q+PQ)}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{P+Q+1}{(P+1)(Q+1)}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{P+Q}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{P1}{}}}k!{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{Q1}{}}}k!`$ (6.16)
$`=`$ $`\pi ^{(P+Q+PQ)}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{P+Q+1}{(P+1)(Q+1)}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=P}{\overset{P+Q}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{Q1}{}}}k!.`$
#### 6.3.1 Example Calculation: Volume of $`SU(9)/U(4)\times U(4)`$

Defining $`N=9`$, and $`P=Q=4`$, thus satisfying $`N1=P+Q`$, we get from equation (6.16) the volume of the coset $`SU(9)/U(4)\times U(4)`$ to be equal to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{SU(9)}}{V_{U(4)}\times V_{U(4)}}}`$ $`=\pi ^{(4+4+44)}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{4+4+1}{(4+1)(4+1)}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=4}{\overset{4+4}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{41}{}}}k!`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^{24}}{58525286400000}},`$ (6.17)
which is what one would get if they used equations (3.1) and (3.4) separately.

### 6.4 Volume of $`SU(N)/_{i=1}^xU(P_i)\times _{j=1}^yU(1)_{SU(Z_j)}`$

We are now ready to write down the volume for the most general of cosets that we are interested in, $`SU(N)/_{i=1}^xU(P_i)\times _{j=1}^yU(1)_{SU(Z_j)}`$, where

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{x}{}}P_i+\underset{j=1}{\overset{y}{}}1=\underset{i=1}{\overset{x}{}}P_i+yN1,P_i1,$$
(6.18)
and

$$U(1)_{SU(Z_j)}\{U(1)_{SU(2)},U(1)_{SU(3)},\mathrm{},U(1)_{SU(N)}\},$$
(6.19)
where there is no necessary order in the sequential choice of $`U(1)_{SU(Z_j)}`$.

To begin we note the following using equation (3.4)

$`V({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{x}{}}}U(P_i))`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{x}{}}}V_{U(P_i)}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{x}{}}}\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}^{\frac{P_i}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{P_i(P_i+1)}{2}}\sqrt{P_i+1}{\displaystyle }^{P_i1}_{k=1}\right({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}\left)\right)`$
$`=2^{\frac{_{i=1}^xP_i}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{_{i=1}^xP_i(P_i+1)}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{x}{}}}\left(\sqrt{P_i+1}{\displaystyle }^{P_i1}_{k=1}\right({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}\left)\right).`$ (6.20)
We also can simplify the second volume of the three we need via generalizing equation (3.2)

$`V({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{y}{}}}U(1)_{SU(Z_j)})`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{y}{}}}V_{U(1)_{SU(Z_j)}}={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{y}{}}}\pi \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2Z_j}{Z_j1}}}`$
$`=\pi ^y2^{\frac{y}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{y}{}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{Z_j}{Z_j1}}}.`$ (6.21)
We are now in a position to write down the volume for $`SU(N)/_{i=1}^xU(P_i)\times _{j=1}^yU(1)_{SU(Z_j)}`$. Using equations (3.1), (6.18), (6.20), and (6.21) we have

$`V\left({\displaystyle \frac{SU(N)}{_{i=1}^xU(P_i)\times _{j=1}^yU(1)_{SU(Z_j)}}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`2^{\frac{N(1+y+_{i=1}^xP_i)}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{(N1)(N+2)(2y+_{i=1}^xP_i(P_i+1))}{2}}`$ (6.22)
$`\times \sqrt{N}{\displaystyle \frac{_{k=1}^{N1}\left(\frac{1}{k!}\right)_{j=1}^y\sqrt{\frac{Z_j1}{Z_j}}}{_{i=1}^x(\sqrt{P_i+1}^{P_i1}_{k=1}(\frac{1}{k!}\left)\right)}}.`$
For the special case when the “$``$” in equation (6.18) is replaced by “$`=`$” we have

$`V\left({\displaystyle \frac{SU(N)}{_{i=1}^xU(P_i)\times _{j=1}^yU(1)_{SU(Z_j)}}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\pi ^{\frac{(N1)(N+2)(2y+_{i=1}^xP_i(P_i+1))}{2}}`$
$`\times \sqrt{N}{\displaystyle \frac{_{k=1}^{N1}\left(\frac{1}{k!}\right)_{j=1}^y\sqrt{\frac{Z_j1}{Z_j}}}{_{i=1}^x(\sqrt{P_i+1}^{P_i1}_{k=1}(\frac{1}{k!}\left)\right)}}.`$
One could continue simplifying equation (6.22) but it would be only worthwhile if additional knowledge concerning $`Z_j`$ and $`P_i`$ was available.

### 6.5 Grassmann Volume

The general Grassmann manifolds, of which $`\text{P}^N`$ is a special case (see equation (4.2)), have the following definition for $`NM`$

$$G(N,M)=\frac{U(N)}{U(M)\times U(NM)}.$$
(6.24)
Using equation (3.4) we can write down the general expression for the volume of almost any Grassmann manifold:

$`V_{G(N,M)}={\displaystyle \frac{V_{U(N)}}{V_{U(M)}\times V_{U(NM)}}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2^{\frac{N}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{N(N+1)}{2}}\sqrt{N+1}_{k=1}^{N1}\left(\frac{1}{k!}\right)}{2^{\frac{M}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{M(M+1)}{2}}\sqrt{M+1}_{k=1}^{M1}\left(\frac{1}{k!}\right)\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}^{\frac{NM}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{(NM)(NM+1)}{2}}\sqrt{NM+1}_{k=1}^{NM1}\left(\frac{1}{k!}\right)}}`$
$`=\pi ^{M(NM)}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N+1}{(M+1)(NM+1)}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{M1}{}}}k!{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{NM1}{}}}k!`$
$`=\pi ^{M(NM)}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N+1}{(M+1)(NM+1)}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=M}{\overset{N1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{NM1}{}}}k!.`$ (6.25)
The reason for the “almost” above is that for $`M=1`$ we do not regain the volume for $`P^{N1}`$ that we originally calculated in equation (5.3):

$`V_{\text{P}^{N1}}V_{G(N,1)}`$ $`=\pi ^{N1}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N+1}{(1+1)(N1+1)}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N11}{}}}k!`$
$`=\pi ^{N1}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N+1}{2N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N2}{}}}k!`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^{N1}}{(N1)!}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N+1}{2N}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^{N1}}{(N1)!}}.`$ (6.26)
We are “off” by a factor of $`\sqrt{(N+1)/2N}`$ which occurs because of the following reason: equation (3.4), for $`N=1`$, yields $`2\pi `$ which is correct if one is looking for the volume of the $`SU(2)`$ variant of $`U(1)`$ (see equation (3.2) for $`N=1`$), but that is not the case for the $`U(1)`$ components of greater $`SU(N)`$ groups (again see equation (3.2) for $`N2`$), which is the case here. In equation (6.26) we get the factor of $`2\pi `$ from the $`U(1)`$ component, but without the additional contraction term due to the $`\lambda _{N^21}`$ Cartan subalgebra component of $`U(N)`$ from which the $`U(1)`$ term is defined!

The flaw in equation (6.26) can also be seen from equation (4.2):

$$\text{P}^{N1}G(N,1)=\frac{U(N)}{U(1)\times U(N1)}=\frac{SU(N)\times U(1)}{U(1)\times U(N1)}=\frac{SU(N)}{U(N1)}.$$
(6.27)
The $`U(1)`$ term in the numerator is the same as the $`U(1)`$ term in the denominator and as such, in any representation, cancels out, thus leaving the standard coset relationship for $`\text{P}^{N1}`$ which, from equation (5.3), does yield the correct volume for $`\text{P}^{N1}`$. Therefore, if we use equation (3.2) for the $`U(1)`$ term in equation (6.25) (combined with equation (3.4) for the other two terms) when $`M=1`$, we will generate the correct volume for $`\text{P}^{N1}`$

$`V_{G(N,1)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{V_{U(N)}}{V_{U(1)}\times V_{U(N1)}}}={\displaystyle \frac{2^{\frac{N}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{N(N+1)}{2}}\sqrt{N+1}_{k=1}^{N1}\left(\frac{1}{k!}\right)}{\pi \sqrt{\frac{2(N+1)}{N}}\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}^{\frac{N1}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{(N1)(N)}{2}}\sqrt{N}_{k=1}^{N2}\left(\frac{1}{k!}\right)}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^{N1}}{(N1)!}}.`$ (6.28)
Therefore, in general, if we demand that $`M1`$ then equation (6.25) will correctly produce the Grassmann manifold volumes (see  and references within).

## 7 Conclusion

Using the volume equations given herein, we are now in a position to explicitly write down the measures and volumes for the whole range of manifolds which occur in discussions concerning separability and entanglement of multi-particle systems. Therefore, this work allows us to explicitly write down the volumes of the manifolds of the local orbits of a given state $`|\psi `$ with respect to some transformation $`USU(N)`$ (or more generally $`U(N)`$), in a manner that we hypothesize also elucidates the topology of the manifolds as well . Applications beyond quantum information theory are also possible .

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dr. Luis Boya for his informative discussions and calculations with regards to the development of this paper.


text:
# Decoupling behaviour of 𝒪(𝑚_𝑡⁴) corrections to the ℎ⁰ self-couplings

## 1 Introduction

To establish the Higgs mechanism experimentally, the characteristic self-interaction potential must be reconstructed once the Higgs particle will be discovered. This task requires the measurement of the trilinear and quartic Higgs boson self-couplings, as predicted in the Standard Model (SM) or in supersymmetric theories. It is known that relevant radiative corrections, dominated by top-quark/squark loops, affect the Higgs-boson masses and the self-couplings of the neutral Higgs particles in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) . In this context, the investigation of the decoupling behaviour of quantum effects in the Higgs self-interaction could play a crucial role to distinguish between a SM and a MSSM light Higgs boson. Here we are concerned with the one-loop corrections to the self-couplings of the lightest CP-even MSSM Higgs boson $`h^0`$. As a first step, the leading one-loop Yukawa contributions of $`𝒪(m_t^4)`$ to the $`h^0`$ one-particle irreducible (1PI) Green functions were analyzed in details in  studying, both numerically and analytically, the asymptotic behaviour of these corrections in the limit of heavy top squarks, with masses large as compared to the electroweak scale. This talk summarizes results of . The corresponding analysis of the one-loop contributions to the $`h^0`$ self-couplings originating from the Higgs sector itself has been presented recently in .

## 2 Tree-level Higgs boson self-couplings

The trilinear and quartic vertices of the Higgs field $`H`$ in the SM are given by $`\lambda _{HHH}=3gM_H^2/2M_Zc_W`$ and $`\lambda _{HHHH}=3g^2M_H^2/4M_Z^2c_{W}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(HH_{SM}),`$ with the $`\mathrm{SU}(2)_\mathrm{L}`$ gauge coupling $`g`$ and $`c_W=\mathrm{cos}\theta _W`$.

In the MSSM, two parameters, conveniently chosen to be the CP-odd Higgs-boson mass $`M_{A^0}`$ and the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of each doublet, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =v_2/v_1`$, are sufficient to fix all the other parameters of the tree-level Higgs sector . Other masses and the mixing angle $`\alpha `$ in the CP-even Higgs sector are then fixed, and the Higgs boson self-couplings can be predicted. The tree-level trilinear and quartic self-couplings of the lightest MSSM Higgs boson can be written as follows, $`\lambda _{hhh}^0=3gM_Z\mathrm{cos}2\alpha \mathrm{sin}(\beta +\alpha )/2c_W`$ and $`\lambda _{hhhh}^0=3g^2\mathrm{cos}^22\alpha /4c_{W}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}.`$

Obviously, for arbitrary values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`M_{A^0}`$, these couplings are different from the couplings of the SM Higgs boson. However, the situation changes in the so-called decoupling limit of the Higgs sector , defined by considering $`M_{A^0}M_Z`$ yielding a particular spectrum with very heavy $`H^0`$, $`H^\pm `$, $`A^0`$ bosons of similar masses and a light $`h^0`$ boson with a tree-level mass of $`M_{h^0}^{\mathrm{tree}}M_Z|\mathrm{cos}2\beta |`$. This limit also implies $`\alpha \beta \pi /2`$, and one obtains that the $`h^0`$ self-couplings tend towards $`\lambda _{hhh}^0\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}gM_{h^0}^{2\mathrm{tree}}/2M_Zc_W,\lambda _{hhhh}^0\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}g^2M_{h^0}^{2\mathrm{tree}}/4M_Z^2c_{W}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}.`$ Thus, the tree-level couplings of the light MSSM Higgs boson approach the couplings of a SM Higgs boson with the same mass.

## 3 $`𝒪(m_t^4)`$ one-loop contributions

The one-loop leading Yukawa corrections from top and stop loop contributions to the $`h^0`$ vertex functions were derived in  by the diagrammatic method using FeynArts 3 and FormCalc . To obtain the UV-finite renormalized vertex functions, renormalization has to be performed by adding appropriate counterterms. The standard procedure  yields the counterterms for the $`n`$-point $`(n=1,\mathrm{},4)`$ vertex functions expressed in terms of the renormalization constants for fields and parameters, $`\delta Z_{H_{1,2}},\delta v,\delta g^2,\delta g^{}_{}{}^{}2,\delta m_1^2,\delta m_2^2,\delta m_{12}^2`$, which are fixed by imposing the on-shell renormalization conditions. Explicit results for these renormalization constants, with restriction to the dominant $`𝒪(m_t^4)`$ contributions, are listed in . Here we summarize the results for the MSSM renormalized vertex functions.

The discussion of decoupling requires the asymptotic limit in which the $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ masses are very large as compared to the external momenta and to the electroweak scale, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2M_Z^2,M_{h^0}^2.`$ We consider two scenarios.

(i) In the first case we assume that $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_2`$ are both heavy but with masses close to each other , i.e.

$$|m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2||m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2|.$$
(1)
Under this condition the analytical results for the MSSM renormalized vertex functions $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{h^0}^{t,\stackrel{~}{t}(n)}(n=1,\mathrm{},4)`$, become rather simple. The renormalized one-point function vanishes, according to the corresponding renormalization condition: $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h^0}^{t,\stackrel{~}{t}(1)}+\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{h^0}^{t,\stackrel{~}{t}(1)}=0`$. So, by adding the one-loop and counterterm contributions, we are able to write the results for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{h^0}^{t,\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ as follows,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{h^0}^{t,\stackrel{~}{t}(2)}=\mathrm{\Delta }M_{h^0}^2,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{h^0}^{t,\stackrel{~}{t}(3)}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{v}}\mathrm{\Delta }M_{h^0}^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^3}{M_{W}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}}}m_t^4,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{h^0}^{t,\stackrel{~}{t}(4)}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{v^2}}\mathrm{\Delta }M_{h^0}^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^4}{M_{W}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}}}m_t^4,`$ (2)
where $`v=2M_W/g`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{h^0}^2`$ represents the (leading) one-loop correction to the $`h^0`$ mass,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M_{h^0}^2=\frac{3}{8\pi ^2}\frac{g^2}{M_{W}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}m_t^4\mathrm{log}\frac{m_t^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}},$$
(3)
corresponding to the fact that the renormalized two-point function is responsible for a shift in the pole of the $`h^0`$ propagator.

The UV-divergences cancel between the one-loop and the counterterm contributions. Moreover, a logarithmic heavy mass term, which looks like a non-decoupling effect of the heavy particles in the renormalized vertices, disappears when the vertices are expressed in terms of the Higgs-boson mass (see eqs. (3) and (3)) and, therefore, they do not appear directly in related observables, i.e. they decouple.

Notice that, without the non-logarithmic top-mass terms in the trilinear and quartic $`h^0`$ self-couplings in (3), the $`h^0`$ self-couplings at the one-loop level have the same form as the tree-level couplings, with the tree-level Higgs-boson mass replaced by the corresponding one-loop mass $`M_{h^0}^2=M_{h^0}^{2\mathrm{tree}}+\mathrm{\Delta }M_{h^0}^2.`$

To interpret the non-logarithmic top-mass terms $`𝒪(m_t^4)`$ in (3) in a correct way, we have to calculate the equivalent one-loop $`𝒪(m_t^4)`$ contributions in the SM. After the on-shell renormalization of the trilinear and quartic couplings in the SM, one finds that the SM results correspond precisely to the two non-logarithmic terms in (3). Hence, the non-logarithmic top-mass terms are common to both $`h^0`$ and $`H_{SM}`$.

Therefore, we conclude that the $`𝒪(m_t^4)`$ one-loop contributions to the MSSM $`h^0`$ vertices either represent a shift in the $`h^0`$ mass and in the $`h^0`$ triple and quartic self-couplings, which can be absorbed in $`M_{h^0}`$, or reproduce the SM top-loop corrections. The triple and quartic $`h^0`$ couplings thereby acquire the structure of the SM Higgs-boson self-couplings. Heavy top squarks with masses close to each other thus decouple from the low energy theory when the self-couplings are expressed in terms of the Higgs-boson mass in the $`M_{A^0}M_Z`$ limit.

To illustrate these results also quantitatively, we plot in Fig. 1 the ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda _{hhh}/\lambda _{hhh}^0`$ and the $`𝒪(m_t^4)`$ one-loop Higgs-boson mass correction as functions of $`M_{A^0}`$ for different values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The values of the supersymmetric (SUSY) parameters were chosen in such a way that they obey the asymptotic conditions (1) for the squark sector: $`M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}M_{\stackrel{~}{U}}15\text{ TeV}`$ for the diagonal entries in the $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ mass matrix, $`\mu |A_t|1.5\text{ TeV}`$ for the $`\mu `$parameter and the trilinear coupling. The SM parameters are taken from . Clearly, the asymptotic and exact results are in agreement for large $`M_{A^0}`$ values, above 500 GeV, depending in detail on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The agreement of the mass results with the vertex corrections is clearly visible. Therefore, the radiative corrections to $`\lambda _{hhh}`$, although large, disappear when $`\lambda _{hhh}`$ is expressed in terms of $`M_{h^0}`$.

(ii) For the second scenario, we consider a squark sector where the stop mass splitting is of the order of the SUSY mass scale, i.e,

$$|m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2||m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2|.$$
(4)
The analysis has been done numerically, based on the exact results for $`𝒪(m_t^4)`$ corrections to the triple and quartic self-couplings. The set of SUSY parameters has been specified as follows: $`M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}1\text{ TeV},M_{\stackrel{~}{U}}\mu |A_t|500\text{ GeV}`$ . With this choice of SUSY parameters, the top-squark masses are large but their difference is of $`𝒪(M_{\stackrel{~}{U}})`$, such that $`|m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2|/|m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2|0.6`$. In Fig. 2 we present numerical results for the variation of the trilinear coupling and for the $`𝒪(m_t^4)`$ $`h^0`$ mass correction as functions of $`M_{A^0}`$, for different values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The radiative correction to the angle $`\alpha `$ is also taken into account. The non-logarithmic finite contributions to the three-point function owing to the top-triangle diagrams is not taken into account in the figures since it converges always to the SM term.

We can see in Fig. 2 that the relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda _{hhh}/\lambda _{hhh}^0\mathrm{\Delta }M_{h^0}^2/M_{h^0}^{2\mathrm{tree}}`$ is only fulfilled up to a small difference which remains also for large $`M_{A^0}`$. But even in the most unfavorable cases, namely low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`M_{A^0}`$ values, the difference between the $`h^0`$ mass and self-coupling at one-loop does not exceed $`6\%`$ (for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5`$ and $`M_{A^0}=200`$ GeV, it is about $`5\%`$). For large $`M_{A^0}`$, i.e. in the decoupling limit of the MSSM Higgs sector, the difference decreases to the level of 1%. By taking into account that experimental studies indicate that for a SM-like Higgs boson with $`m_h=120`$ GeV at $`1000fb^1`$ a precision of $`\delta \lambda _{hhh}/\lambda _{hhh}=23\%`$ can be reached , it will not be possible to measure this difference e.g. at TESLA.

For very large SUSY scales this small difference, observed in Fig. 2, also vanishes. To show this, we choose the SUSY parameters to be in accordance with the condition (4), as follows: $`M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}15\text{ TeV},M_{\stackrel{~}{U}}\mu |A_t|1.5\text{ TeV}`$. In this case, one gets $`|m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2|/|m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2|0.97`$. The results are given in Fig. 3. Here we see that the difference between the vertex corrections and the Higgs-boson mass disappears. Quantitatively, one finds that for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5`$ and $`M_{A^0}=2`$ TeV it decreases to $`0.03\%`$, and for the most unfavorable case, i.e $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5`$ and $`M_{A^0}=200`$ GeV, it is about $`0.2\%`$.

Therefore, from the numerical analysis one can conclude that also for the case of a heavy stop system with large mass splitting, of the order of the typical SUSY scale, the $`𝒪(m_t^4)`$ corrections to the trilinear $`h^0`$ self-couplings are absorbed to the largest extent in the loop-induced shift of the $`h^0`$ mass, leaving a small difference of at most a few per cent, which can be interpreted as the genuine one-loop corrections when $`\lambda _{hhh}`$ is expressed in terms of $`M_{h^0}`$. Similar results have been obtained also for the quartic $`h^0`$ self-coupling.

## 4 Conclusions

We showed analytically that, in the limit of large $`M_{A^0}`$ and heavy top squarks, with $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}`$ close to each other, all the apparent non-decoupling one-loop effects, which constitute large corrections to the $`h^0`$ self-couplings, are absorbed in the Higgs-boson mass $`M_{h^0}`$, and the $`h^0`$ self-couplings get the same form as the couplings of the SM Higgs boson. Therefore, such a heavy top-squark system decouples from the low energy theory, at the electroweak scale, and leaves behind the SM Higgs sector also in the Higgs self-interactions.

The limiting situations where the $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$-mass difference is of the order of the SUSY mass scale have been also analyzed numerically. Similarly to the previous limit, the radiative corrections to the $`h^0`$ self-couplings are large, but their main part can again be absorbed in the mass $`M_{h^0}`$. For large $`M_{A^0}`$, i.e. in the decoupling limit, the differences between the vertex corrections and the mass results are insignificant.

Therefore, the $`h^0`$ self-interactions are very close to those of the SM Higgs boson for the heavy stop sector and would need high-precision experiments for their experimental verification.

## Acknowledgments

The work of S.P. has been partially supported by the Fundación Ramón Areces. Support by the European Union under HPRN-CT-2000-00149 is greatfully acknowledged. We thank H. Haber for valuable discussions.