text:
# Volumes of Compact Manifolds

## 1 Introduction

Interest in volumes of compact manifolds appearing in physics arises for several reasons. For example, in instanton calculations it is necessary to integrate over the gauge group ; in quantum field theories over curved spaces, the volumes of the compact spaces enter very often . For entangled qubit states the geometry of the corresponding groups $`SU(2n)`$ and quotient spaces $`SU(2n)/U(n)\times U(n)`$ are important; etc.

The main purpose of this paper is to compute the volumes of several types of compact manifolds in a systematic way. We proceed from the most symmetric cases (spheres) to the less symmetric (flag manifolds). Essential ingredients are the scale (“radius”) of the manifold, the setting of coordinates and their ranges. All these spaces will be Riemannian, so we compute the volume with respect to that metric; all our manifolds will also be homogeneous manifolds $`=G/K`$.

We define the manifold $``$ in terms of some parameters $`\{\alpha ^i\}`$ in some local charts, so as to cover the whole manifold. The metric will look locally as

$$g=g_{ij}(\alpha _k)d\alpha ^id\alpha ^j;$$
(1.1)
the associated volume element is

$$\tau =\sqrt{Det\{g_{ij}\}}d\alpha ^1\mathrm{}d\alpha ^n$$
(1.2)
and the volume is (for one chart only)

$$\text{Vol}()=\mathrm{}_{\alpha _0^i}^{\alpha _1^i}\mathrm{}\tau $$
(1.3)
where $`\alpha _0^i,\alpha _1^i`$ is the range of the $`i^{th}`$ parameter; much of our discussion will be about these ranges.

In all cases the scale of the object to be measured will be stated in a “natural” manner; we shall make comparison with other choices made in the literature when convenient: it is not always easy to recognize the different conventions used. In fact, it is only for spheres that the universal criterion is the unit radius, but we shall see that even in this case when we have a manifold described as a product of spheres, the volume will not always be the product of the natural sphere volumes!

This volume problem has been dealt with in the published literature, both physical and mathematical. A fairly complete treatment for group manifolds is presented by Marinov , corrected in ; the volume of the group is extracted from the propagator by an indirect (and complicated) method, in fact as a by-product of the author’s study of curved path integrals . In MacDonald  there is a general synthetic formula for any compact Lie group, with arbitrary scale, in terms of the root lattice; we feel that most physicists will find these formulas hard to apply. For the unitary unimodular group $`SU(n)`$ there is the very clear paper by C. Bernard .

There are many other partial results in the physics literature, some of them contradictory. It was in an effort to overcome these difficulties that we undertook this investigation. A direct antecedent of our paper is the work of M. Byrd , who studied the $`SU(3)`$ case thoroughly. In a further paper we intend to look at the geometry of entangled states more closely ; see also the papers .

We start by collecting some formulas for spheres, as the most symmetric spaces: the isometry group (in physics, this is called the little group) acts transitively in the bundle of bi-planes, and therefore the sectional curvature is constant. Next is the case of projective spaces, in which the isometry group still acts transitively in the bundle of lines, and therefore the geodesics are all equal. Compact group manifolds are symmetric spaces and therefore the curvature is covariantly constant. There is a natural metric (induced from the Killing form in the Lie algebra) which generates an invariant measure (Haar, or more appropriately Hurwitz), but also there is a structure close to the product of odd spheres: the two criteria clash. The action of the group in the adjoint representation produces interesting orbits, the so-called generalized flag manifolds, which appear very often in geometric quantization, density matrices, entangled states, etc. We compute also the volumes of these quotient manifolds; there are still symmetric, or at least homogeneous manifolds, and therefore the scalar curvature is still constant .

## 2 Spheres

The sphere $`S^{d1}`$ is a maximally symmetric space; in fact, the isometry group $`O(d)`$ is transitive (so spheres are homogeneous spaces) and the isotropy group $`O(d1)`$ acts also trans (from here on, we shall use trans for “transitive”) in the unit tangent vectors (hence permutes the geodesics, and all are equivalent, in particular closed with same length) and also trans in the Grassmannian of bi-planes (hence the sectional curvature is constant, in particular the scalar curvature). We have

$`S^{d1}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{O(d)}{O(d1)}},`$
$`X\text{P}^{d2}={\displaystyle \frac{O(d1)}{O(1)\times O(d2)}},`$ $`Y\text{Gr}_{d1,2}={\displaystyle \frac{O(d1)}{O(2)\times O(d3)}}`$ (2.1)
where $`X`$ is the space of lines and $`Y`$ that of bi-planes, in the tangent space to a point.

The volume of the sphere of unit radius embedded in $`^d`$, $`d1`$, is calculated from the auxiliary formula

$$[_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}e^{x^2}𝑑x]^n=\pi ^{\frac{n}{2}}=_0^{\mathrm{}}r^{n1}e^{r^2}𝑑r\times \text{Vol}(S^{n1})$$
(2.2)
or

$$\text{Vol}(S^{d1})=\frac{2\pi ^{\frac{d}{2}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{d}{2})}.$$
(2.3)
For completeness we include a proof by induction. If $`S^{d1}`$ is embedded in $`S^d`$ as the equator, $`S^{d1}S^d`$ and $`\theta _d`$ is the latitude angle, with $`0\theta _d\pi `$, we have for the metric

$$g(S^d)=ds_d^2=d\theta _d^2+\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _d)ds_{d1}^2.$$
(2.4)
We start by setting

$$\text{Vol}(S^0)=\mathrm{}\{\text{North, South}\}=2$$

$$0\theta _i\pi \text{for i: }1,2,\mathrm{},d.$$
(2.5)
Therefore as

$$dV_{S^d}=\tau (S^d)=\sqrt{Det\{g\}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}d\theta _i2$$
(2.6)
we find

$`\text{Vol}(S^d)`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^\pi }\mathrm{sin}^{d1}(\theta _d){\displaystyle _0^\pi }\mathrm{sin}^{d2}(\theta _{d1})\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\theta _12`$
$`={\displaystyle _0^\pi }\mathrm{sin}^{d1}(\theta _d)𝑑\theta _d\times \text{Vol}(S^{d1}).`$ (2.7)
In particular

Sphere: $`S^0,S^1,S^2,S^3,S^4,S^5`$
$`\text{Vol}(S^d):`$ $`2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\pi ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}\pi ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\pi ^2,{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi ^2}{3}},\pi ^3.`$ (2.8)
Explicit useful formulas for the even/odd cases are

$$\text{Vol}(S^{2n+1})=\frac{2\pi ^{n+1}}{n!}\text{ and }\text{Vol}(S^{2n})=\frac{2(2\pi )^n}{(2n1)!!}.$$
(2.9)
Notice the volume is maximal for $`S^6`$, and

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\text{Vol}(S^n)0.$$
(2.10)
These “volumes” are numbers, they have no dimensions (in hypersolid angles). Our convention for the radius $`R=1`$ is extrinsic, that is, depends on the embedding $`S^{d1}^d`$; an equivalent intrinsic criterion is the length of the geodesic:

$$\text{geodesic length}=2\pi \text{ radius }R=1$$
(2.11)
applicable because all geodesics in the sphere are equivalent (see remarks above). Notice also that the scalar curvature is

$$R_{sc}(S_R^n)=\text{Tr}[Ricci]=\text{Tr}[\text{Tr}[Riemann]]=\frac{n(n1)}{R^2}$$
(2.12)
(see ), so $`R_{sc}`$ is not a good scale as it depends on $`n`$. Finally the volume of the unit ball is

$$\text{Vol}(D^n)=_0^1r^{n1}(\text{Vol}(S^{n1}))𝑑r=\frac{\text{Vol}(S^{n1})}{n}.$$
(2.13)
## 3 Projective Spaces

The projective spaces, $`\text{P}^n`$, $`\text{P}^n`$, $`\text{P}^n`$, and $`𝕆\text{P}^2`$ share with the spheres the property of being two-point homogeneous spaces, or symmetric rank-one spaces : the isometry (little) groups act trans on directions, and hence permute the geodesics, which (in the compact case) would all have to be closed and of the same length. These spaces are of constant covariant curvature, as they are symmetric, but not of constant sectional curvature, except $`\text{P}^n`$ of course. One can see how the sectional curvature changes along the real bi-planes e. g. in $`\text{P}^2`$ .

So we have a natural characterization for the scale of projective spaces: namely, the length of a fiducial geodesic. We shall define projective spaces as quotient of spheres, and we shall see that the natural scale for the geodesics is to have length $`\pi `$, not $`2\pi `$ as in the spheres.

### 3.1 Real Projective Spaces

$`\text{P}^n`$ is defined as the set of rays or lines or one-dimensional sub-spaces in $`^{n+1}`$:

$$\text{P}^n=\{\text{lines in }^{n+1}\}.$$
(3.1)
There are many equivalent characterizations:

$$\text{P}^n=\frac{S^n}{S^0}\frac{S^n}{\{\pm 1\}}\frac{S^n}{Z_2}\frac{S^n}{\text{anti-podal map}}=\frac{O(n+1)}{O(n)\times O(1)}=\frac{SO(n+1)}{O(n)}.$$
(3.2)
Any line touches the unit sphere in $`^{n+1}`$ in the two anti-podal points, hence the first characterizations. The orthogonal group $`O(n+1)`$ acts trans in the lines, with little group: stabilizer of a vector in $`O(n)`$ times the two directions in $`O(2)`$, hence the last forms in equation (3.2).

Now we define the volume of $`\text{P}^n`$ as a quotient:

$$\text{Vol}(\text{P}^n)=\frac{\text{Vol}(S^n)}{\text{Vol}(S^0)}=\frac{\text{Vol}(S^n)}{2}=\frac{\pi ^{\frac{n+1}{2}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n+1}{2})}.$$
(3.3)
But this implies that the geodesic length of our $`\text{P}^n`$ is $`\pi `$ and not $`2\pi `$ because the half-meridian from the the North pole to the South pole is already closed in $`\text{P}^n`$! Notice the halving of the volume for $`\text{P}^n`$ is really neglecting a set of measure zero, because $`\text{P}^n`$ as a half-sphere, still has the anti-podal points in the equator identified; but this is a set of measure zero. Thus we get $`\text{Vol}(\text{P}^1)=\pi `$, even though $`\text{P}^1S^1`$ and $`\text{Vol}(S^1)=2\pi `$: the radius has shrunk to 1/2. The case $`n=3`$ is also interesting, because $`\text{P}^3=SO(3)`$, and we shall discuss it later. Notice also $`\text{P}^{2n}`$ is not orientable, hence the volume has to be properly defined with the modulus of the measure.

For $`CROSS`$ spaces (the notation, due to Besse , means $`\underset{¯}{C}`$ompact, $`\underset{¯}{R}`$ank-$`\underset{¯}{O}`$ne, $`\underset{¯}{S}`$ymmetric, $`\underset{¯}{S}`$paces, precisely the sphere and the projective spaces) A. Weinstein has established the following result , which we shall not prove but verify in many examples. If $``$ is a $`CROSS`$, dim $`=n`$, geodesic length=$`l`$, then

$$(\frac{2\pi }{l})^n\frac{\text{Vol}(CROSS)}{\text{Vol(Sphere same dimension)}}=\text{integer}i(CROSS)$$
(3.4)
with equal normalization. For our case of real projective spaces we indeed get

$$i(\text{P}^n)=\frac{\text{Vol}(\text{P}^n)}{\text{Vol}(S^n)}(\frac{2\pi }{\pi })^n=\frac{1}{2}2^n=2^{n1}$$
(3.5)
in agreement with Besse .

### 3.2 Complex Projective Spaces

$`\text{P}^n`$ has the following definition:

$`\text{P}^n=\{\text{Set of lines in }^{n+1}\}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{S^{2n+1}}{S^1}}={\displaystyle \frac{S^{2n+1}}{U(1)}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{U(n+1)}{U(1)\times U(n)}}={\displaystyle \frac{SU(n+1)}{U(n)}}.`$ (3.6)
Here the complex lines in $`^{n+1}`$ intersect the unit sphere $`S^{2n+1}`$ in $`^{n+1}^{2n+2}`$ along a maximal circle $`S^1`$. We again define the volume of $`\text{P}^n`$ as a quotient

$$\text{Vol}(\text{P}^n)=\frac{\text{Vol}(S^{2n+1})}{\text{Vol}(S^1)}=\frac{2\pi ^{n+1}/n!}{2\pi }=\frac{\pi ^n}{n!}$$
(3.7)
using equation (2.9). Again for $`n=1`$ we have $`\text{Vol}(\text{P}^1)=\pi `$, whereas $`\text{P}^1=S^3/S^1S^2`$, and $`\text{Vol}(S^2)=4\pi `$: obviously the geodesic length of our $`\text{P}^1`$ is only $`\pi `$, whereas the volume of the equivalent $`S^2`$ space is $`4=22`$ times as big: the quotient circle includes the anti-pode ($`S^0`$ lies inside $`S^1`$), hence the geodesics are halved. It is remarkable that

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\text{Vol}(\text{P}^n)=e^\pi 23.147.$$
(3.8)
The Weinstein integer for $`\text{P}^n`$ is also easy to compute:

$`i(\text{P}^n)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\text{Vol}(\text{P}^n)}{\text{Vol}(S^{2n})}}({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\pi }})^{2n}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^n/n!2^{2n}}{2(2\pi )^n/(2n1)!!}}={\displaystyle \frac{(2n1)!!}{n!}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}^{n1}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{(2n1)!}{(n1)!n!}}=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n1}{n1}}\right)`$ (3.9)
in full agreement with Besse . For a thorough mathematical study of $`\text{P}^2`$ as an instanton see .

### 3.3 Quaternionic Projective Spaces

$`\text{P}^n`$ has the following definition: let $``$ be the space of quaternions and $`S^3`$ the set of unit quaternions and $`Sp(n)`$, the symplectic group $`C_n`$.

$$\text{P}^n=\{\text{lines in }^{n+1}^{4n+4}\}=\frac{S^{4n+3}}{S^3}=\frac{S^{4n+3}}{Sp(1)}=\frac{Sp(n+1)}{Sp(n)\times Sp(1)}.$$
(3.10)
With the same definition as for $`𝕂=`$ or $``$, we obtain

$$\text{Vol}(\text{P}^n)=\frac{\text{Vol}(S^{4n+3})}{\text{Vol}(S^3)}=\frac{2\pi ^{2n+2}/(2n+1)!}{2\pi ^2}=\frac{\pi ^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}$$
(3.11)
with geodesic length equal to $`\pi `$. Again $`S^3`$ contains the anti-podal point. We obtain $`\text{Vol}(\text{P}^1)=\pi ^2/6`$, whereas $`\text{P}^1S^4`$ and $`\text{Vol}(S^4)=8\pi ^2/3`$. In this case

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\text{Vol}(\text{P}^n)=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\pi )}{\pi }=\frac{\text{I}_{\frac{1}{2}}(\pi )}{\sqrt{2}}3.676,$$
(3.12)
where $`\text{I}_{\frac{1}{2}}(\pi )`$ is the modified Bessel function of the first kind.

The Weinstein number is

$`i(\text{P}^n)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\text{Vol}(\text{P}^n)}{\text{Vol}(S^{4n})}}({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\pi }})^{4n}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^{2n}/(2n+1)!}{2(2\pi )^{2n}/(4n1)!!}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}^{4n}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{(4n1)!!}{(2n+1)!}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}^{2n1}={\displaystyle \frac{(4n1)!}{(2n+1)(2n)!(2n1)!}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2n+1}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{4n1}{2n1}}\right)`$ (3.13)
in full agreement with Besse .

### 3.4 Octonion Projective Space

Over the division algebra of the octonions $`𝕆`$ (or Cayley numbers) there are only $`𝕆\text{P}^1`$, which is equal to $`S^8`$ and $`𝕆\text{P}^2`$ (the Moufang plane), due to the non-associativity of the octonions; and in fact, the definition is different. For example, $`𝕆\text{P}^2`$ is best defined as the hermitian, idempotent, trace-one elements of the exceptional 3 x 3 Jordan algebra over the octonions . But the formulas work just as well and one can formally define:

$$\text{}𝕆\text{P}^n\text{}=\{\text{lines in }𝕆^{n+1}^{8n+8}\}=\frac{S^{8n+7}}{S^7}.$$
(3.14)
In fact, the only two cases are $`𝕆\text{P}^1=S^{15}/S^7=Spin(9)/Spin(8)`$ and $`𝕆\text{P}^2=F_4/Spin(9)`$

$`\delta :S^7S^{15}S^8`$ $`=𝕆\text{P}^1`$
$`Spin(9)F_4`$ $`𝕆\text{P}^2`$ (3.15)
where $`\delta `$ is the fourth Hopf bundle , which is not principal; for $`𝕆\text{P}^2`$ see . $`F_4`$ is the fifty-two dimensional second exceptional Lie group. Thus

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{Vol}(S^{8n+7})}{\text{Vol}(S^7)}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{3!\pi ^{4n}}{(4n+3)!}},`$
$`\text{Vol}(𝕆\text{P}^1)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^4}{7654}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^8}}(\text{Vol}(S^8)={\displaystyle \frac{32\pi ^4}{753}}),`$ (3.16)
and

$$\text{Vol}(𝕆\text{P}^2)=\frac{3!\pi ^8}{11!}.$$
(3.17)
We have Weinstein integer $`i(𝕆\text{P}^1)`$=1 obviously, and

$$i(𝕆\text{P}^2)=\frac{\text{Vol}(𝕆\text{P}^2)}{\text{Vol}(S^{16})}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}^{16}=313=39$$
(3.18)
as it should .

We have grouped the main results from sections 2 and 3 in Table 3.4:

## 4 Group Manifolds: $`SU(2)`$ and $`SO(3)`$

Group manifolds are still symmetric spaces (i. e. with covariant constant curvature) of rank $``$ 1. We start with the $`r=1`$ case which includes $`SU(2)`$ and $`SO(3)=SU(2)/Z_2`$ which will reveal already some complications.

For $`G=SU(2)`$:

$$SU(2)u=\left(\begin{array}{cc}z_1& z_2\\ z_3& z_4\end{array}\right);z_i;u^{}=u^1,\text{ Det }u=1$$
(4.1)
which implies $`z_4=z_1^{}`$ and $`z_3=z_2^{}`$; that is

$$u=\left(\begin{array}{cc}z_1& z_2\\ z_2^{}& z_1^{}\end{array}\right)\text{with}|z_1|^2+|z_2|^2=1.$$
(4.2)
The manifold of the $`SU(2)`$ group is identical with $`S^3`$ (this statement becomes tautological through the equivalence $`SU(2)Sp(1)`$ or $`A_1=C_1`$ in Lie algebra notation).

It is instructive to compute now the volume; write $`z_1=|z_1|e^{i\varphi }`$ and $`z_2=|z_2|e^{i\psi }`$ where the ranges are

$$0\varphi ,\psi 2\pi $$
(4.3)
and

$$|z_1|=\mathrm{cos}(\beta ),|z_1|=\mathrm{sin}(\beta ),\text{and}0\beta \frac{\pi }{2}$$
(4.4)
because $`|z_1|>0`$, $`|z_2|>0`$, and $`|z_1|^2+|z_2|^2=1`$. So

$$u=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}(\beta )e^{i\varphi }& \mathrm{sin}(\beta )e^{i\psi }\\ \mathrm{sin}(\beta )e^{i\psi }& \mathrm{cos}(\beta )e^{i\varphi }\end{array}\right).$$
(4.5)
To calculate the volume, write

$`x`$ $`=\mathrm{cos}(\beta )\mathrm{cos}(\varphi ),y=\mathrm{cos}(\beta )\mathrm{sin}(\varphi ),`$
$`z`$ $`=\mathrm{sin}(\beta )\mathrm{cos}(\psi ),t=\mathrm{sin}(\beta )\mathrm{sin}(\psi )`$ (4.6)
thus the line element is

$$dx^2+dy^2+dz^2+dt^2g(\varphi ,\psi ,\beta )d\varphi ^2+\mathrm{}$$
(4.7)
with

$`dV_{S^3^4}`$ $`=\sqrt{\text{Det}g}d\varphi d\psi d\beta `$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )d\beta d\varphi d\psi `$ (4.8)
giving of course

$$\text{Vol}(S_{R=1}^3)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}2\pi 2\pi =2\pi ^2$$
(4.9)
for the ranges given in equations (4.3) and (4.4). We carried out this elementary calculation because the parameterization was different than the one used in equations (2.2) and (2.5).

A compact group manifold $`𝒢`$ has a natural measure, namely the bi-invariant Haar measure (any locally compact space has a natural left-invariant Haar measure, unique up to a constant; for compact groups, in which the volume is finite, the name Hurwitz measure is more appropriate).

The simplest way to measure invariantly the volume of $`SU(2)`$ is to start from the Cartan-Killing metric in the Lie algebra $`L(𝒢)`$ of $`𝒢`$

$$(x,y)=Tr[\text{Ad}(x)\text{Ad}(y)];\text{for }x,yL(𝒢)$$
(4.10)
and to induce, by the exponential map $`\text{exp}:L(𝒢)𝒢`$, a Riemannian metric on $`𝒢`$, and hence a finite volume element as $`𝒢`$ is always orientable as a manifold (in particular it is parallelizable) and compact. One can use any representation $`\mathrm{\Delta }:x\mathrm{\Delta }(x)`$ instead of the adjoint (Ad).

Let us work with the $`𝒢`$-invariant metric for $`𝒢=SU(2)`$ and see if it coincides with the embedding metric as $`SU(2)=S^3^4`$. We start now from the “Euler” form in the defining representation

$$SU(2)u=e^{i\alpha \sigma _3}e^{i\beta ^{}\sigma _2}e^{i\gamma \sigma _3}.$$
(4.11)
We need to fix the ranges of the angles $`\alpha ,\beta ^{}`$ and $`\gamma `$; the safest way is to convert equation (4.11) to the form given in equation (4.5), namely expanding equation (4.11) with $`\sigma _i^2=1`$

$`u`$ $`=(\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )+i\sigma _3\mathrm{sin}(\alpha ))(\mathrm{cos}(\beta ^{})+i\sigma _2\mathrm{sin}(\beta ^{}))(\mathrm{cos}(\gamma )+i\sigma _3\mathrm{sin}(\gamma ))`$
$`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i(\alpha +\gamma )}\mathrm{cos}(\beta ^{})& e^{i(\alpha \gamma )}\mathrm{sin}(\beta ^{})\\ e^{i(\alpha \gamma )}\mathrm{sin}(\beta ^{}& e^{i(\alpha +\gamma )}\mathrm{cos}(\beta ^{})\end{array}\right)`$ (4.12)
and comparing with equation (4.5) we obtain

$$\beta =\beta ^{},\varphi =\alpha +\gamma ,\psi =\alpha \gamma .$$
(4.13)
The range of $`\{\alpha ,\gamma \}`$ is half of the range $`\{\varphi ,\psi \}`$ and the Jacobian is

$$J\left(\frac{\varphi ,\psi }{\alpha ,\gamma }\right)=2.$$
(4.14)
This is seen also directly from equation (4.12):

$$u(\alpha ,\beta ^{},\gamma )=u(\alpha +\pi ,\beta ^{},\gamma +\pi ).$$
(4.15)
We therefore can choose to write equation (4.13) as

$$0\beta \frac{\pi }{2},0\alpha \pi ,0\gamma 2\pi .$$
(4.16)
To compute now the volume we proceed as in :

1. Compute $`\frac{u}{\alpha _i}`$ ($`1i3`$) in terms of the $`\sigma `$’s and $`u`$ from equation (4.11); that is, express the holonomic vector fields $`\frac{}{\alpha _i}`$ ($`1i3`$) in terms of the invariant anholonomic vector fields $`\sigma _i`$.
2. Invert, to express the invariant frame in terms of the coordinate frame.
3. Dualize, to express the invariant co-frame in terms of the one-forms $`d\alpha `$, $`d\beta `$ and $`d\gamma `$.
4. Express the volume element as the determinant (Jacobian) of the change of frames.

This is a standard procedure, it is carried out in detail e. g. in , and the net result is

$$dV_{SU(2)}=\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )d\alpha d\beta d\gamma .$$
(4.17)
Integration with respect to the ranges given in equation (4.16), yields

$$\text{Vol}(SU(2))=12\pi \pi =2\pi ^2=V_{embed}(S^3).$$
(4.18)
Notice the $`\frac{1}{2}`$ missing in equation (4.17) as compared with equation (4.8) is compensated with the halving of parameter ranges for $`\{\alpha ,\beta \}`$. So the invariant volume coincides with the embedding volume.

Now $`SU(2)`$ has a center $`Z_2`$, and in fact

$$SU(2)=Spin(3),SU(2)/Z_2=SO(3).$$
(4.19)
Also $`SO(3)\text{P}^3`$, as it is obvious from $`SU(2)S^3`$. So let us work the $`SO(3)`$ case.

For $`𝒢=SO(3)`$ we write the “Euler” formula, namely

$$R(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )=R_{oz}(\alpha )R_{oy}(\beta )R_{oz}(\gamma )$$
(4.20)
where we are in the adjoint representation, e. g.

$$R_{oz}(\alpha )=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )& \mathrm{sin}(\alpha )& 0\\ \mathrm{sin}(\alpha )& \mathrm{cos}(\alpha )& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(4.21)
etc. It is well known (e. g.  p. 24) that the ranges are

$$0\alpha ,\gamma 2\pi ,0\beta \pi .$$
(4.22)
We compute the volume as before, starting with $`R/\alpha =(\mathrm{})R`$, etc. The final result is

$$dV_{SO(3)}=\mathrm{sin}(\beta )d\alpha d\beta d\gamma $$
(4.23)
(see e. g.  p. 58), and the volume is

$$\text{Vol}(SO(3))=22\pi 2\pi =8\pi ^2.$$
(4.24)
This is the correct volume for $`\text{P}^3`$ with geodesic length $`2\pi `$, which is our case. From equation (3.3), we had obtained $`\frac{1}{2}(\text{Vol}(S^3))=\pi ^2`$ with geodesic length equal to $`\pi `$.

One might wonder the factor of 2 difference in the angles from equation (4.17), namely $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$ and here from equation (4.23), namely $`\mathrm{sin}(\beta )`$; it is due to the change of generators: with the $`\sigma `$’s we have $`[\sigma _x,\sigma _y]=2i\sigma _z`$, but with the $`J`$’s implicit in equation (4.20) the relation is the usual one $`[J_x,J_y]=iJ_z`$. Notice also the Weinstein number $`i(\text{P}^3)=4`$: for equal length geodesics which is our case, we have $`\text{Vol}(\text{P}^3)/\text{Vol}(S^3)=8\pi ^2/2\pi ^2=4`$.

## 5 The Volume of General Groups : $`SU(n)`$

A Lie group $`𝒢`$ is a symmetric space, $`𝒢=𝒢_{left}\times 𝒢_{right}/𝒢_{diag}`$, and hence of constant scalar curvature; for rank $`>1`$ the geodesics depend on directions, in fact they can be dense, as it is already the case for the torus $`T^2`$. Another normalization is necessary though. Let us start with $`SU(3)`$. In the vector, or defining representation, $`SU(3)`$ acts in $`^3`$, the action being trans in the invariant unit sphere $`S^5^6=^3`$ with the isotropy subgroup $`SU(2)`$

$$\frac{SU(3)}{SU(2)}=S^5;SU(2)SU(3)S^5.$$
(5.1)
The latter is a principal fibre bundle, in fact, locally one certainly has $`SU(3)S^3\times S^5`$ but the invariant volume is not quite the product of the volumes of the spheres. For many purposes, any compact Lie group can be expressed as a (finitely twisted) topological product of odd-dimensional spheres. For a discussion of this point see .

Consider the vector v=$`\{0,0,1\}`$; it describes the whole of $`S^5`$ by actions of $`SU(3)`$; the infinitesimal transformation is $`1\mathrm{l}+\delta 𝒢1\mathrm{l}i\lambda _jdt^j`$ where $`\lambda _j`$ ($`1j8`$) are the Gell-Mann matrices for SU(3) which satisfy

$$Tr[\lambda _i\lambda _j]=2\delta _{ij}.$$
(5.2)
On the other hand, if we describe a point in $`S^5`$ with locally flat infinitesimal coordinates, we would then have a Jacobian between the invariant coordinates $`dt^4\mathrm{}dt^8`$ and the sphere coordinates $`dx^1\mathrm{}dx^5`$; in fact

$$dV_{inv}=dt^4dt^5dt^6dt^7dt^8=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}dx^1dx^2dx^3dx^4dx^5.$$
(5.3)
The detailed calculation is in the appendix of . The factor $`\sqrt{3}/2`$ is just the “stretching” (actually, contracting) of the $`\lambda _8`$ due to:

1. commuting with $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3`$ and
2. satisfying equation (5.2).

The matrix representation of $`\lambda _8`$ is necessarily then

$$\lambda _8=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 2\end{array}\right).$$
(5.4)
In other words: for calculating the invariant volume it is better to think of the second sphere $`S^5`$ as being “stretched” along a single axis by the factor $`\sqrt{3}/2`$. Therefore, with our trace normalization (equation (5.2)) the volume of $`SU(3)`$ is

$$\text{Vol}(SU(3))=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\times \text{Vol}(S^5)\times \text{Vol}(S^3)=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\pi ^32\pi ^2=\sqrt{3}\pi ^5$$
(5.5)
which is in agreement with most of the physics literature, e. g. .

If we parameterize a generic element of $`SU(3)`$ as

$$u=e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _1}e^{i\lambda _2\alpha _2}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _3}e^{i\lambda _5\alpha _4}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _5}e^{i\lambda _2\alpha _6}e^{i\lambda _3\alpha _7}e^{i\lambda _8\alpha _8},$$
(5.6)
one set of ranges of the $`\alpha `$’s that reproduce equation (5.5) is

$$0\alpha _1,\alpha _5\pi ,0\alpha _2,\alpha _4,\alpha _6\frac{\pi }{2},$$

$$0\alpha _3,\alpha _72\pi ,0\alpha _8\sqrt{3}\pi .$$
(5.7)
$`SU(3)`$ embodies all the complications for the $`SU(n)`$ series, the calculation of $`\text{Vol}(SU(n))`$ in terms of $`SU(n1)`$ by induction is now a straightforward matter.

For $`SU(n)`$ write

$$\frac{SU(n)}{SU(n1)}=S^{2n1},SU(n1)SU(n)S^{2n1}.$$
(5.8)
The “stretching” relative to $`SU(n1)`$ occurs again only in the “last” $`\lambda _j`$

$$\lambda _{last}=\lambda _{n^21}=\text{diag}\{1,1,\mathrm{},1,(n1)\}/\chi $$
(5.9)
where $`Tr[\lambda _{last}^2]=2`$ implies $`\chi =\sqrt{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}\right)}`$ and therefore

$`\text{Vol}(SU(n))`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}\right)}}{n1}}\text{Vol}(S^{2n1})\text{Vol}(SU(n1))`$
$`=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2(n1)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^n}{(n1)!}}\text{Vol}(SU(n1)).`$ (5.10)
An “invariant” way of calculating the “stretching” is this: write density matrices for $`SU(n)`$ as

$$\rho =\frac{1}{n}(1\mathrm{l}_n+𝝀𝐱)$$
(5.11)
where $`𝐱^{n^21}`$ and the $`\lambda `$’s satisfy equation (5.2). We have $`\text{Tr}[\rho ]=1`$; for pure states $`\rho ^2=\rho `$ and imposing $`\text{Tr}[\rho ^2]=1`$ we obtain

$$𝐱=x=\sqrt{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}\right)}.$$
(5.12)
So the final formula for $`SU(n)`$ turns out to be

$`\text{Vol}(SU(n))`$ $`=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2(n1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{n1}{2(n2)}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2(2)}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^{k+1}}{k!}}`$
$`=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2^{n1}}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^{k+1}}{k!}}`$
$`=\sqrt{n2^{n1}}\pi ^{(n1)(n+2)/2}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}`$ (5.13)
where we have used $`_{k=1}^{n1}(k+1)=(n1)(n+2)/2`$ in the last step.

Equation (5.13) agrees with the corrected volume in  and with  interpreting his scale $`\lambda `$ (the Lebesgue measure in $`L(SU(3))`$) as our “stretching” factors; it agrees also with . On the contrary, a classical textbook , and a recent paper  omit these “stretching” factors.

For the full unitary group $`U(n)`$ there is a topological direct product decomposition

$$U(n)=SU(n)\times U(1)$$
(5.14)
which can be seen, for example, by factorizing a phase in the first vector component:

$$U(n)U=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\varphi }& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)u,uSU(n).$$
(5.15)
The volume of $`U(n)`$ thus depends on the radius of the $`U(1)`$ factor; if it is $`r=1`$, i. e. not stretched, then

$$\text{Vol}(U(n))=\sqrt{n2^{n+1}}\pi ^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{2}\right)}\underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\frac{1}{k!}.$$
(5.16)
Finally, for the projective unitary group $`PU(n)=U(n)/U(1)=SU(n)/Z_n`$ we obtain, as $`\mathrm{}Z_n=n`$

$$\text{Vol}(PU(n))=\sqrt{\frac{2^{n1}}{n}}\pi ^{(n1)(n+1)/2}\underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\frac{1}{k!}.$$
(5.17)
## 6 Volumes of Other Groups

For the orthogonal groups $`O(n)`$ and $`SO(n)`$ we shall proceed in a similar manner; the rotation group $`SO(n)`$ acting on the vector representation leaves the unit sphere, $`S^{n1}`$, invariant with the isometry group $`SO(n1)`$:

$$\frac{SO(n)}{SO(n1)}=S^{n1},SO(n1)SO(n)S^{n1}.$$
(6.1)
In fact equation (6.1) is the principal bundle of the tangent to the sphere . There is no “stretching” factor with the Lie algebra convention in the vector representation

$$Tr[\lambda _i\lambda _j]=2\delta _{ij}$$
(6.2)
because the Lie algebra of $`SO(n)`$ is comprised of antisymmetric matrices, always of the type

$$\lambda _{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0\end{array}\right),\text{with }Tr[\lambda _{ij}^2]=2.$$
(6.3)
Therefore the volume calculation is elementary, because the spheres act like those with radius one.

Induction starts at $`n=2`$. Of course

$$\text{Vol}(SO(2))=\text{Vol}(S^1)=2\pi $$
(6.4)
and we have

$`\text{Vol}(SO(n))`$ $`=\text{Vol}(S^{n1})\times \text{Vol}(SO(n1))`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{d=2}{\overset{n}{}}}\text{Vol}(S^{d1})`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2^{n1}\pi ^{\frac{(n1)(n+2)}{4}}}{_{d=2}^n\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{d}{2})}}n2.`$ (6.5)
which, e. g. gives $`\text{Vol}(SO(3))=8\pi ^2`$ which is the same value as in equation (4.24). For n even/odd we get

$$\text{Vol}(SO(2n))=\frac{2^{n1}(2\pi )^{n^2}}{_{s=1}^{n1}(2s)!}$$
(6.6)
and

$$\text{Vol}(SO(2n+1))=\frac{2^n(2\pi )^{n(n+1)}}{_{s=1}^{n1}(2s+1)!}.$$
(6.7)
in agreement with , and also with  once a trivial factor of 2 is corrected in the even case. However we disagree with .

The orthogonal group is neither connected nor simply connected; so we have

$$\frac{O(n)}{SO(n)}=Z_2,\frac{Spin(n)}{Z_2}=SO(n)$$
(6.8)
where $`Spin(n)`$ is the universal double covering of the rotation group ($`n3`$). So we obviously obtain the result

$$\text{Vol}(O(n))=\text{Vol}(Spin(n))=2\text{Vol}(SO(n)).$$
(6.9)
Notice the first equation implies a topological direct product $`O(n)=SO(n)\times Z_2`$. In fact, for odd $`n`$, this is a direct product of groups.

Notice also that $`SO(2n)`$ has center $`Z_2`$, therefore the number of central elements in $`Spin(2n)`$ is $`4`$, with two classes:

$`\text{Center}(Spin(4n))`$ $`=Z_2\times Z_2,`$
$`\text{Center}(Spin(4n+2))`$ $`=Z_4.`$ (6.10)
There are no irreducible faithful representations of $`Spin(4n)`$, so the spin group is represented through $`Spin(4n)/Z_2`$, which corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$, the two chiral irreps, and $`SO(4n)`$ which is the vector representation. In particular, there are three subgroups in the center of $`Spin(4n)`$ of type $`Z_2`$. This explains triality for $`SO(8)`$, because then $`dim\mathrm{\Delta }_L=dim\mathrm{\Delta }_R=dim\text{Vector}=8`$.

For the case $`Spin(6)`$ we have something interesting. We compute

$$\text{Vol}(Spin(6))=2\text{Vol}(S^1\times S^2\times \mathrm{}\times S^5)=\frac{256}{3}\pi ^9$$
(6.11)
whereas

$$\text{Vol}(SU(4))=\frac{\sqrt{2}\pi ^9}{3}$$
(6.12)
even though $`SU(4)Spin(6)`$! The “stretching” factor is the culprit, of course.

For the symplectic groups $`Sp(n)`$ the story is pretty much the same, but now the spheres jump by four: first of all

$$Sp(1)=SU(2)=Spin(3)=\{\text{Unit Quaternions}\}$$
(6.13)
with volume $`2\pi ^2`$ (see equation (4.18)). Now the induction is based in the fact that $`Sp(n)`$ acts in $`^n`$ unitarily, and therefore

$$Sp(n)^n=^{2n}=^{4n};Sp(n)S^{4n1}$$
(6.14)
and it is easily seen that the action on the sphere is trans with isotropy group $`Sp(n1)`$. Therefore

$$Sp(n1)Sp(n)S^{4n1}$$
(6.15)
and therefore

$$\text{Vol}(Sp(n))=\text{Vol}(S^3\times S^7\times \mathrm{}\times S^{4n1}).$$
(6.16)
It can also been seen that there is no “stretching” in the Lie algebra matrices of $`Sp(n)`$ (, p. 188); the reason is the same as for the orthogonal group.

From equations (2.3) and (6.16) we obtain

$`\text{Vol}(Sp(n))`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\text{Vol}(S^{4k1})={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^{2k}}{(2k1)!}}\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2^n\pi ^{2n1}}{(2n1)!(2n3)!\mathrm{}3!}},`$ (6.17)
in full agreement with  and . In this case, the product of spheres $`S^3\times S^7\times \mathrm{}=Sp(n)`$ is both topological and metric, with radius one spheres. In particular we obtain $`\text{Vol}(Sp(2))=2\pi ^6/3`$ whereas before we obtained $`Spin(5)=256\pi ^6/3`$ but $`Spin(5)Sp(2)`$, corresponding to Cartan’s $`B_2=C_2`$. It is remarkable that the same normalization, i. e. $`Tr[\lambda _i^2]=2`$ produces such different volumes in similar groups. The reason is, of course, that the normalization is performed in different representations.

As for the exceptional groups we just want to add formulas for the two first cases only, namely $`G_2`$ and $`F_4`$. The groups in the $`E`$-series, $`(E_6,E_7,E_8)`$, although fundamental in $`M`$-Theory, are yet to be fully understood.

Now $`G_2`$ can be defined as the automorphism group of the octonions, or Cayley numbers, $`𝕆`$. The reals $`𝕆`$ are of course invariant and so is the norm:

$$\text{for }q=hq_0,𝐪𝕆\text{ and for }\alpha \text{Aut}𝕆,\alpha (q_0)=q_0,q_0;\alpha (q)=q.$$
(6.18)
Therefore $`G_2`$ leaves the set of unit, imaginary, octonions $`S^6`$ invariant. One can see also that the action is trans with isotropy equal to $`SU(3)`$ (e. g. ):

$$\frac{G_2}{SU(3)}=S^6,SU(3)G_2S^6.$$
(6.19)
So we obtain

$$\text{Vol}(G_2)=\sqrt{3}\pi ^5\frac{16\pi ^3}{15}\xi $$
(6.20)
leaving aside a scale factor $`\xi `$.

As for $`F_4`$, it can be defined as the isometry group of the Cayley-Moufang plane $`𝕆\text{P}^2`$; the dimension of $`F_4`$ is 52 and the little group is $`Spin(9)`$

$$\frac{F_4}{Spin(9)}=𝕆\text{P}^2$$
(6.21)
as shown in . So the volume is

$$\text{Vol}(F_4)=\text{Vol}(𝕆\text{P}^2)\times \text{Vol}(Spin(9))=\frac{2^{25}\pi ^{28}}{5!7!11!}\xi $$
(6.22)
where we have used equations (3.17), (6.9) and have left a free normalization constant $`\xi `$.

We have collected some of more important volumes in the following table:

## 7 Generalized Flag Manifolds

States of quantum systems are generally elements of some homogeneous manifold, $`X=G/K`$. For example, pure states lie in $`\text{P}^{\mathrm{}}`$, the infinite projective space; if attention is directed to a finite number of independent states, as it is the case in quantum computing, encryption, entanglement considerations, etc. the appropriate frame is a finite dimensional Hilbert space, let us say $`^{n+1}`$. Pure states here lie in $`\text{P}^n`$ which is equal to $`SU(n+1)/U(n)`$; marginally mixed states lie within the set of hermitian, unit-trace, positive operators:

$$\{\text{mixed states in }^{n+1}\}\{\rho 𝔈|\rho =\rho ^{},Tr[\rho ]=1,\text{Spectrum}[\rho ]0\},$$
(7.1)
where $`𝔈=\text{End}^{n+1}`$ are all the $`(n+1)\times (n+1)`$ complex matrices. When the spectrum is $`(1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$ or $`\rho ^2=\rho `$ (idempotency) we recover the pure states.

Now the spectrum properties are conserved under conjugation and therefore the types of mixed states (including pure ones) are related to the orbits of the set given in equation (7.1) under the unitary group. Now, up to permutation, the spectral type will be indicated by the number of coincident eigenvalues, subject to the general conditions contained in equation (7.1). Permutations are carried out by the Weyl group (the group generated by reflections in hyperplanes defined by the roots, see e. g.  (p. 284)). For $`SU(n)`$ the group is just $`S_n`$, the permutation of the $`n`$ eigenvalues. Up to permutation, therefore, the spectral types of density matrices are in one-to-one correspondence with partitions of the number $`n`$; we shall explicitly show this for the case $`n=5`$, the results of which are collected in Table 7:

We remind the reader that the number of partitions for large $`n`$ is only known asymptotically; the spectral type is self-explanatory; notice pure states lie in $`\text{P}^{n1}`$ ($`n=5`$ in our case), but some degenerate mixed states will also make a $`\text{P}^{n1}`$ orbit.

The following is to be noticed in the general case $`U(n)/K`$:

1. All these manifolds are homogeneous manifolds, hence they have constant scalar curvature (except $`\{\frac{1}{n},\mathrm{},\frac{1}{n}\}`$, of course, which is just a point).
2. Spaces of the type

$$Y=\frac{U(n)}{U(m)\times U(nm)}$$
(7.2)
are called “Grassmannian.” Explicitly, $`Y`$ is the complex Grassmannian of $`m`$-planes in $`^n`$, to wit

$$Y=Gr_{n,m}$$
(7.3)
(other labels, such as $`Gr_{p,q}`$ are also used). In particular

$$Gr_{n,1}=\text{P}^{n1},Gr_{n,2}=\{\text{bi-planes}\}.$$
(7.4)

We already used the Grassmannian notation, $`Gr`$ in section 2. We shall define these orbits of the unitary group in the adjoint representation as generalized flag manifolds following an extended mathematical usage. The genuine flag manifold corresponds to the $`[1^n]`$ partition:

$$Fl(n)=\frac{U(n)}{U(1)^n}.$$
(7.5)
They enjoy interesting mathematical properties; for example, they are spin and Kähler manifolds, in particular symplectic (see for example ). It is remarkable that the simplest space $`Fl(3)`$ appears as a space of exceptional holonomy .

We come now to the question of the volumes of the generalized flag manifolds; because they are always homogeneous manifolds, $`X=G/K`$, the volume is, of course,

$$\text{Vol}(X)=\frac{\text{Vol}(G)}{\text{Vol}(K)}$$
(7.6)
but, appearances to the contrary, this does not “cut too much ice” because the volume of $`KG`$ depends on which subgroup it is identified with!

We illustrate the case $`n=3`$ ($`n=2`$ is trivial), before attacking the more general case. We have

$$\text{P}^2=\frac{U(3)}{U(1)\times U(2)}Fl(3)=\frac{U(3)}{U(1)^3}=\frac{U(3)}{U(1)\times U(1)\times U(1)}.$$
(7.7)
Now $`\text{P}^2=SU(3)/U(2)`$ also, removing the same $`U(1)`$ factor, and $`U(2)=SU(2)\times U(1)`$; this $`U(1)`$ factor is “the long one” in $`\text{P}^2`$, if one remembers that $`\text{P}^2S^5/S^1`$, so $`S^1S^5`$ and the “last” lambda, $`\lambda _8`$ is of the form diag$`\{1,1,2\}/\sqrt{3}`$. The $`U(1)`$ group, in this case, has the “stretching” factor $`\sqrt{3}/2`$ (see section 5); hence

$$\text{Vol}(\text{P}^2)=\frac{\text{Vol}(SU(3))}{\text{Vol(SU(2))}\times \text{Vol}(S^1)}=\frac{\sqrt{3}\pi ^5}{2\pi ^2\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}2\pi }=\frac{\pi ^2}{2}$$
(7.8)
which coincides with the canonical volume for $`\text{P}^2`$ from equation (3.7).

For the flag manifold we have

$$Fl(3)=\frac{U(3)}{U(1)^3}=\frac{SU(3)}{U(1)\times U(1)}\frac{SU(3)}{U(1)\times U(1)_{long}}$$
(7.9)
thus

$$\text{Vol}(Fl(3))=\frac{\sqrt{3}\pi ^5}{2\pi \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}2\pi }=\frac{\pi ^3}{2}$$
(7.10)
which coincides, as in the $`\text{P}^2`$ case with the “naive” calculation without “stretching”

$$\text{Vol}(Fl(3))_{naive}=\frac{\text{Vol}(S^1\times S^3\times S^5)}{\text{Vol}(S^1\times S^1\times S^1)}=\frac{2\pi 2\pi ^22\pi ^3}{2\pi 2\pi 2\pi }=\frac{\pi ^3}{2}.$$
(7.11)
Now the same the result holds in all generality for the generalized flag manifolds! The “naive” calculation (i. e. neglecting the “stretching” factors) gives the correct results. That is

$$\text{Vol}\left(\frac{U(n)}{\underset{q_i=n}{}U(q_i)}\right)=\frac{\text{Vol}(S^1\times S^3\times \mathrm{}\times S^{2n1})}{\text{Vol}(S^1\times \mathrm{}\times S^{q_i})}.$$
(7.12)
The reason is as follows: both the numerator and the denominator in equation (7.12) have the same rank! Therefore, the dimension of the Cartan subgroups, in fact the Cartan subgroups $`U(1)_1`$, $`U(1)_2`$, up to $`U(1)_{rank}`$ are exactly the same in the numerator and the denominator, so the “stretching” factors themselves cancel completely, and the calculation is thus reduced to the one with the other odd spheres only (starting from $`S^3`$).

So there is nothing else to calculate: for the generic flag manifold the computation is

$$\frac{U(n)}{U(1)^n}=\frac{S^1\times S^3\times \mathrm{}\times S^{2n1}}{S^1\times S^1\times \mathrm{}\times S^1}\text{P}^1\times \text{P}^2\times \mathrm{}\times \text{P}^{n1}$$
(7.13)
where

$$\text{Vol}\left(\frac{U(n)}{U(1)^n}\right)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\frac{\pi ^k}{k!}.$$
(7.14)
That the generalized flag manifolds have homology of the product of projective spaces times spheres can be proved easily  from equation (7.13).

With not too much extra effort we can extend our results to generalized real flag manifolds: there are no “stretching” factors at all! We refrain to give explicit formulas, other than to remark that in

$$X=\frac{O(n)}{\underset{n_i=n}{}O(n_i)}$$
(7.15)
the volumes are computed from the volumes of the corresponding orthogonal groups from section 6 with no corrections.

## 8 Final Remarks

We hope our normalization conventions are plausible and our volume computations useful; as we said in the introduction, there are many different results written in the literature. We have not tried to state the conventions (and, in some cases, the mistakes) of all the authors; rather we have attempted to produce a self-consistent, and uniform way of looking at the volumes of compact groups and some quotient spaces.

Except for spheres, we don’t worry much about parameterizations of manifolds; for $`SU(N)`$ see the explicit calculations in

There are a few points that have been left out, that we want to recall. We have not attempted to calculate the canonical volume for the $`E_{6,7,8}`$ groups, as the defining realizations are rather obscure. We share the belief  that these groups have to be better understood before attempting such a calculation. Also, the exact algebraic characterization of density matrices (e. g. equation (7.1)) is not done, except in the simplest case of $`n=2`$, for then

$$\text{Vol}(\text{all}\text{ mixed states})=_0^1r^2𝑑r(\text{Vol}(S^2=\text{P}^1))=\frac{4}{3}\pi .$$
(8.1)
For $`n3`$, the generic class is the flag manifold with the matrices congruent to

$$\text{diag}\frac{1}{3}\{1+x_3+\frac{x_8}{\sqrt{3}},1x_3+\frac{x_8}{\sqrt{3}},1\frac{2x_8}{\sqrt{3}}\}$$
(8.2)
and the positivity condition is

$$1+x_3+\frac{x_8}{\sqrt{3}}0,1x_3+\frac{x_8}{\sqrt{3}}0,\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}x_8$$
(8.3)
or, in terms of the minors,

$$\lambda _1+\lambda _2+\lambda _30,\lambda _1\lambda _2+\lambda _2\lambda _3+\lambda _3\lambda _10,\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _30$$
(8.4)
which give rise to complicated algebraic restrictions that we shall not try to pursue further in this paper.

Finally, see the recent paper  which attempts to calculate the volumes of some compact Einstein manifolds which appear in $`M`$-theory.

## 9 Acknowledgements

Dr. Luis J. Boya’s work was sponsored by MCyT grant FPA2000-1252 and wishes to thank Prof. R. F. Schwitters for his hospitality at C. P. P. (Austin).


format: text

text:
# Probabilistic Quantum Teleportation

## Abstract

We consider a generalized quantum teleportation protocol for an unknown qubit using non-maximally entangled state as a shared resource. Without recourse to local filtering or entanglement concentration, using standard Bell-state measurement and classical communication one cannot teleport the state with unit fidelity and unit probability. We show that using non-maximally entangled measurements one can teleport an unknown state with unit fidelity albeit with reduced probability. We also give a generalized protocol for entanglement swapping using non-maximally entangled states.

I. Introduction

Many of the quantum information processing protocols typically involve sending quantum states from sender to receiver using quantum and classical channels. Transmission of an intact unknown state from one place to another is very important in the field of quantum information. One amazing discovery in this context is teleportation of an unknown quantum state with the help of a maximally entangled channel, local operation and classical communications . In standard teleportation protocol, Alice performs a Bell-state measurement on the unknown state and one-half of the maximally entangled pair and depending on the measurement outcome Bob applies a local unitary operation to recover the unknown state. This has also been experimentally verified in recent years . The study of quantum teleportation protocol is not only limited to qubits and qudits (systems in $`d`$-dimensional Hilbert spaces) but also to quantum systems in infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces . Quantum teleportation can also be understood as a quantum computation  and it has been even suggested that quantum teleportation will play an important role as a primitive subroutine in quantum computation .

In real situations sender and receiver may not have shared maximally entangled state but some form of non-maximally entangled pure state (due to some imperfection at the source). Usually if one follows the standard protocol, one will not be able to complete the teleportation process with unit fidelity and unit probability. Rather, the fidelity will depend on the parameters of the the unknown state and the teleportation will not be reliable. Of course, if one has several non-maximally entangled pairs one can first perform entanglement concentration  and then recover fewer perfect maximally entangled pairs, and then use one of them to teleport an unknown state using the standard protocol. If Alice and Bob have only one pair, they can perform local filtering  first, and convert a non-maximally entangled pair to maximally entangled pair with certain probability. Then they can follow standard protocol.

In this letter, we consider the question of teleporting an unknown state with unit fidelity but less than unit probability when two parties share a non-maximally entangled state. We should mention that there has been a proposal to teleport an unknown state using any pure entangled state but using generalized measurements such as POVMs . This has been termed as conclusive teleportation. Also, there has been a qubit assisted conclusive teleportation process . However, those protocols are different than ours as we will see below. We provide a simple protocol that uses single shot standard orthogonal projections in non-maximally entangled basis and able to teleport an arbitrary state with unit fidelity albeit less than unit probability, hence probabilistic teleportation. We discuss various special cases from probabilistic to deterministic teleportation of unknown states. Further, we generalize entanglement swapping protocol for non-maximally entangled states.

II. Teleportation with non-maximally entangled state

In this section we present our simple scheme to teleport an unknown state using non-maximally entangled state. Let us consider two observers A and B (conventionally called Alice and Bob) who share a pure non-maximally entangled state as a resource:

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{res}}_{12}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+|n|^2}}(|00_{12}+n|11_{12}),$$
(1)
where $`n`$ is a known complex number. It is understood that qubits ‘1’ and ‘2’ are with Alice and Bob, respectively. Notice that because of the existence of Schmidt decomposition  any two qubit entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^2^2`$ such as

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }=a|00+b|11+c|01+d|10,$$
(2)
can be written as a superposition of two basis vectors. In general given an arbitrary two-qubit state (2), the computational basis $`|00`$ and $`|11`$ need not be the Schmidt basis, but we assume that Alice and Bob know the Schmidt basis and coefficients. Then (1) is the most general non-maximally entangled state up to local unitary transformations relating Schmidt basis and computational basis states. Now Alice receives a qubit in an unknown state $`|\psi _a=(\alpha |0_a+\beta |1_a)`$ with $`|\alpha |^2+|\beta |^2=1`$. Alice wishes to teleport this state to Bob using the non-maximally entangled resource, local operations and classical communications (LOCCs).

In order to send the state, Alice will make a joint measurement on the the two qubits: qubit ‘1’ that is in the entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{res}}_{12}`$ with particle ‘2’ and the other that is in the state $`|\psi _a`$. If Alice performs a measurement in the Bell basis, then the state $`|\psi _a`$ cannot be teleported faithfully, i.e., with unit fidelity and unit probability. However if the measurement is in a non-maximally entangled basis then it is possible for Alice to send the state with unit fidelity, though not with unit probability. Therefore we call our protocol probabilistic quantum teleportation. We will also discuss how it is important to use non-maximally entangled measurements having same amount of entanglement as that of the shared resource. This is like taking out a nail by another nail! To see this we carry out the following analysis.

First we give the most general set of basis vectors for two qubit Hilbert space possessed by Alice. Since Alice can do whatever physical operations within her laboratory we allow the general entangled basis states. If we denote a set of basis vectors as $`\{|00,|01,|10,|11\}`$, known as computational basis, then we can define another set of mutually orthogonal basis vectors as:

$`|\phi _{\mathrm{}}^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+|\mathrm{}|^2}}}(|00+\mathrm{}|11)`$ (3)
$`|\phi _{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+|\mathrm{}|^2}}}(\mathrm{}^{}|00|11)`$ (4)
$`|\psi _p^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+|p|^2}}}(|01+p|10)`$ (5)
$`|\psi _p^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+|p|^2}}}(p^{}|01|10)`$ (6)
Here $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`p`$ are complex numbers in general. We notice that when $`\mathrm{}=p=0`$, this basis reduces to the computational basis which is not entangled. For $`\mathrm{}=p=1`$, it reduces to the Bell basis which is maximally entangled. Therefore this set interpolates between untangled and maximally entangled set of basis vectors. Also note that the set $`|\phi _{\mathrm{}}^\pm `$ and $`|\psi _p^\pm `$ have different amount of entanglement. As measured by von Neumann entropy , the entanglement of $`E(|\phi _{\mathrm{}}^\pm )=(L^2\mathrm{log}_2\mathrm{L}^2\mathrm{L}^2|\mathrm{}|^2\mathrm{log}_2\mathrm{L}^2|\mathrm{}|^2)`$ and of $`E(|\psi _p^\pm )=(P^2\mathrm{log}_2\mathrm{P}^2\mathrm{P}^2|\mathrm{p}|^2\mathrm{log}_2\mathrm{P}^2|\mathrm{p}|^2)`$, respectively are different for these sets with $`L=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+|\mathrm{}|^2}}`$ and $`P=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+|p|^2}}`$ are real numbers. However, when $`\mathrm{}=p`$, then all basis vectors have identical von Neumann entropy.

We can invert the above transformations and we see:

$`|00`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+|\mathrm{}|^2}}}(|\phi _{\mathrm{}}^++\mathrm{}|\phi _{\mathrm{}}^{})`$ (7)
$`|11`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+|\mathrm{}|^2}}}(\mathrm{}^{}|\phi _{\mathrm{}}^+|\phi _{\mathrm{}}^{})`$ (8)
$`|01`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+|p|^2}}}(|\psi _p^++p|\psi _p^{})`$ (9)
$`|10`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+|p|^2}}}(p^{}|\psi _p^+|\psi _p^{})`$ (10)
Using the non-maximally entangled basis states given in (3-6) we can rewrite the combined state of the input and resource state as:

$`|\psi _a|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{res}}_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`N(\alpha |0_a+\beta |1_a)(|00_{12}+n|11_{12})`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`N(\alpha |00_{a1}|0_2+\alpha n|01_{a1}|1_2+\beta |10_{a1}|0_2+\beta n|11_{a1}|1_2)`$
$`=`$ $`N[|\phi _{\mathrm{}}^+_{a1}(L\alpha |0_2+Ln\beta \mathrm{}^{}|1_2)`$
$`+|\phi _{\mathrm{}}^{}_{a1}(L\mathrm{}\alpha |0_2nL\beta |1_2)`$
$`+|\psi _p^+_{a1}(P\beta p^{}|0_2+P\alpha n|1_2)`$
$`+|\psi _p^{}_{a1}(P\beta |0_2+P\alpha np|1_2)].`$
Here $`N=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+|n|^2}},L=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+|\mathrm{}|^2}}`$ and $`P=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+|p|^2}}`$ are real numbers. Above expression is the most general way of rewriting an unknown state and two qubit entangled state. We now wish to have faithful transportation with nonzero probability. Let us consider several scenarios involving various choices of the parameters $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`p`$, given the value of $`n`$. Choice is at the disposal of Alice.

(i)Standard teleportation protocol: Let us choose $`\mathrm{}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^{}}=p^{}=\frac{1}{p}=n`$. In this case $`\mathrm{},n`$ and $`p`$ can be pure phases, i.e., complex numbers of unit modulus. Then faithful teleportation is possible with unit fidelity and unit probability. This is classic teleportation . Bob can regenerate the state $`|\psi _a`$ by applying the local unitary transformation $`\sigma _0=I`$, $`\sigma _z`$, $`\sigma _x`$, or $`i\sigma _y`$ on his qubit. These transformations will correspond to the Alice’s result of measurement $`|\phi _{\mathrm{}}^+`$, $`|\phi _{\mathrm{}}^{}`$, $`|\psi _p^+`$, or $`|\psi _p^{}`$ respectively. Alice can communicate the results of her measurement to Bob using 2 cbits of information over a classical channel. Then Bob with his knowledge of the shared resource state can find out the unitary operation needed to convert the state of his qubit to $`|\psi _a`$. The unitary operations $`\sigma _x`$, $`i\sigma _y`$, and $`\sigma _z`$ correspond to the rotation by $`180^0`$ around the $`x,y`$, and $`z`$ axis respectively. We would also like to emphasize that in a slightly modified version of the classic teleportation protocol, Bob does not have to know the shared resource state; only Alice has to know the shared resource state. In this modified version of the protocol, Alice will encode in two cbits the unitary transformation (instead of the state she has got after the measurement), that Bob has to apply on his qubit to complete the teleportation.

(ii)Probabilistic teleportation protocol: If we make the choice $`\mathrm{}=n=p^{}`$, or $`\mathrm{}=n=\frac{1}{p}`$, or $`\mathrm{}^{}=\frac{1}{n}=p`$, or $`\mathrm{}^{}=\frac{1}{n}=\frac{1}{p^{}}`$, then for any of these choices, reliable teleportation is possible for only two out of four possible results of the measurement. An interesting observation here is that the above choice of parameters refers to the situation where the basis used for joint measurements and the resource state have the same amount of quantum entanglement, namely, $`E(|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{res}})=(N^2\mathrm{log}_2\mathrm{N}^2\mathrm{N}^2|\mathrm{n}|^2\mathrm{log}_2\mathrm{N}^2|\mathrm{n}|^2)`$. For example, in the case of first choice, when the outcome is $`|\phi _{\mathrm{}=n}^{}`$, then the state at Bob’s hand will be $`(\alpha |0\beta |1)`$ and when the outcome is $`|\psi _{p=n}^+`$, then the state at Bob’s hand is $`(\beta |0+\alpha |1)`$. Therefore, when Alice sends two classical bits to Bob he will apply $`\sigma _z`$ in the former and $`\sigma _x`$ in the later case to recover the unknown state with unit fidelity. The total probability of this successful teleportation will be given by

$$P_{\mathrm{succ}}=\frac{2|n|^2}{(1+|n|^2)^2}.$$
(12)
Thus, we can say that using $`E(|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{res}})=(N^2\mathrm{log}_2\mathrm{N}^2\mathrm{N}^2|\mathrm{n}|^2\mathrm{log}_2\mathrm{N}^2|\mathrm{n}|^2)`$ amount of entanglement and two classical bits Alice can teleport an unknown state with unit fidelity and probability given in (12). This is one of the main result of our letter. We see that this probability goes from zero for untangled $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{res}}`$ to one-half for the maximally entangled resource state. (Other one-half will come from the other two possible outcomes of the measurement when the shared resource and joint measurement are maximally entangled sates.) In this sense we can regard our protocol as a generalized quantum teleportation protocol (GQTP) that goes from probabilistic one to deterministic one.

Furthermore, we can amplify the probability statistically by repetitions. We can say that the reciprocal of the average success probability must be the number of repetitions $`R`$ that are required in order to successfully (all the time) teleport an unknown state with unit fidelity. We see that one shall need on the average at least $`R=\frac{(1+|n|^2)^2}{|n|^2}`$ repetitions to get a faithful teleportation with unit probability. Therefore, if Alice and Bob share $`RE(|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{res}})`$ pairs of non-maximally entangled state they can successfully teleport an arbitrary state using local operation and $`2R`$ bits of classical communication. We also notice that as the degree of entanglement increases, the number of required repetitions decreases and becomes one for maximally entangled states as expected. It becomes infinite for the untangled resource state. Thus when no prior shared entanglement exist howsoever many times one tries, it will be impossible to teleport an unknown state with unit fidelity.

Our approach is similar to the filtering approach, however, there is one important difference. In the filtering approach one cannot proceed with the protocol if the filtering does not succeed. In principle, the unknown qubit can be put into memory until the next entangled pair is sent, and so on until a successful filtering event happens. Then one can proceed with the standard teleportation protocol. Such an option is not available in our protocol as it is not till the actual measurement of the qubit has taken place that success or failure is known, and by that time the unknown qubit has been destroyed. Therefore, we also need R copies of the unknown state in order to get faithful (unit fidelity and unit probability) teleportation. Since the state is provided by a third party (say Victor), who knows the state, there is no ‘cost’ involved as he can make one copy or several of them.

There are also four different choices of parameters when only one out of four results of the measurement would lead to faithful teleportation. This choice of parameter values is given by $`\mathrm{}=\frac{1}{n^{}}`$, or $`\mathrm{}=n`$, or $`p=n^{}`$, or $`p=\frac{1}{n}`$. In this case the total probability of faithful teleportation will be $`\frac{|n|^2}{(1+|n|^2)^2}`$. This is half of the scenario given above. We note that unlike in the case of standard teleportation (where only Alice has to know), in probabilistic teleportation both Alice and Bob have to know the shared resource state. Only then, Bob will know what basis Alice has used for making the measurement after he receives classical communication.

(iii)No teleportation: If the values of $`p`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ are not related with that of $`n`$, then teleportation is not possible with unit fidelity. This brings out an interesting point: in order that an arbitrary quantum entangled channel is useful for teleportation we must use an entangled measurement containing the same amount of entanglement as the shared resource state. Even though shared entanglement is regarded as a resource and local entanglement is not (as Alice can create or destroy entanglement), still the above point is worth observing.

Before ending this section it may be noted that present experiments have reported teleportation of qubit with certain success probability less than unity, in spite of the sharing of maximally entanglement . This limitation is a practical limitation on Bell-state detection . Though our protocol behaves in a similar way to the experiments in the sense that teleportation is only successful for a limited subset of the possible measurement results, fundamentally they are different.

III. Entanglement swapping with non-maximally entangled states

Another important prediction of quantum theory is that conditional upon suitable joint measurement, two particles can be found in an entangled state that have never interacted in the past. If there are two maximally entangled pairs then making a Bell measurement on two halves makes other two halves maximally entangled. This is known as entanglement swapping . In this section we will discuss how to generate entanglement between two independent particles using non-maximally entangled states as the starting resource and non-maximal measurements. Let us consider two pairs of qubits ‘$`ab`$’ and ‘$`12`$’. Let them be in non-maximally entangled states $`|\phi _{ab}`$ and $`|\psi _{12}`$. Here,

$`|\phi _{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`M(|00+m|11)_{ab},`$
$`|\psi _{12}`$ $`=`$ $`N(|01+n|10)_{12}`$ (13)
If an observer, Alice, makes a measurement on the qubit pair ‘$`a1`$’, then we wish to analyze the state of the particle ‘$`b`$’ at Bob’s location and the particle ‘$`2`$’ at Charlie’s location. For this, we consider the state of the combined system:

$`|\phi _{ab}|\psi _{12}`$ $`=`$ $`MN(|00+m|11)_{ab}(|01+n|10)_{12}`$
$`=`$ $`MN[LP^{}(|\phi _{\mathrm{}}^+_{a1}+\mathrm{}|\phi _{\mathrm{}}^{}_{a1})(|\psi _p^{}^+_{b2}+p^{}|\psi _p^{}^{}_{b2})`$
$`+mnLP^{}(\mathrm{}^{}|\phi _{\mathrm{}}^+_{a1}|\phi _{\mathrm{}}^{}_{a1})(p^{}|\psi _p^{}^+_{b2}|\psi _p^{}^{}_{b2})`$
$`+nPL^{}(|\psi _p^+_{a1}+p|\psi _p^{}_{a1})(|\phi _{\mathrm{}^{}}^+_{b2}+\mathrm{}^{}|\phi _{\mathrm{}^{}}^{}_{b2})`$
$`+mPL^{}(p^{}|\psi _p^+_{a1}|\psi _p^{}_{a1})(\mathrm{}^{}|\phi _{\mathrm{}^{}}^+_{b2}|\phi _{\mathrm{}^{}}^{}_{b2})]`$
$`=`$ $`MN[LP^{}|\phi _{\mathrm{}}^+_{a1}\{|\psi _p^{}^+_{b2}(1+mnp^{}\mathrm{}^{})+|\psi _p^{}^{}_{b2}(p^{}mn\mathrm{}^{})\}`$
$`+LP^{}|\phi _{\mathrm{}}^{}_{a1}\{|\psi _p^{}^+_{b2}(\mathrm{}mnp^{})+|\psi _p^{}^{}_{b2}(p^{}\mathrm{}+mn)\}`$
$`+PL^{}|\psi _p^+_{a1}\{|\phi _{\mathrm{}^{}}^+_{b2}(n+mp^{}\mathrm{}^{})+|\phi _{\mathrm{}^{}}^{}_{b2}(n\mathrm{}^{}mp^{})\}`$
$`+PL^{}|\psi _p^{}_{a1}\{|\phi _{\mathrm{}^{}}^+_{b2}(npm\mathrm{}^{})+|\phi _{\mathrm{}^{}}^{}_{b2}(np\mathrm{}^{}+m)\}]`$
Here $`N=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+|n|^2}},M=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+|m|^2}},L=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+|\mathrm{}|^2}},P=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+|p|^2}},L^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+|\mathrm{}^{}|^2}}`$, and $`P^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+|p^{}|^2}}`$ are real numbers. We are given the parameters $`m`$ and $`n`$, and we can choose $`\mathrm{},\mathrm{}^{},p`$ and $`p^{}`$. In rewriting the four particle state above, we use the basis $`\{|\phi _{\mathrm{}}^\pm ,|\psi _p^\pm \}`$ for pair ‘$`a1`$’, while for the pair ‘$`b2`$’ the basis $`\{|\phi _{\mathrm{}^{}}^\pm ,|\psi _p^{}^\pm \}`$ is used.

For faithful entanglement swapping parameters $`\mathrm{},p,\mathrm{}^{}`$, and $`p^{}`$ must satisfy a set of conditions. As an illustration, we choose the following set of conditions: (1) $`p^{}=mn\mathrm{}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}=mnp^{}`$ for $`p^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$; (2) $`n\mathrm{}^{}=mp^{}`$ and $`np=m\mathrm{}^{}`$ for $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ and $`p`$. A different set of conditions should lead to similar conclusions. We now consider following situations:

(i)Standard entanglement swapping: First, we state the conditions under which standard entanglement swapping is possible. If we choose $`\mathrm{}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^{}}=p^{}=\frac{1}{p}=\mathrm{}^{}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^{}}=p^{}=\frac{1}{p^{}}=m=n`$, then in this case faithful swapping is possible with unit probability. And all parameters are pure phases and all the considered entangled states are maximally entangled. However, we note that only $`m`$ and $`n`$ need be pure phases, i.e., two initial pairs must be maximally entangled. Measurement basis need not be Bell basis. It can be non-maximally entangled basis with the requirement: $`|\mathrm{}|=|p^{}|`$ and $`|p|=|\mathrm{}^{}|`$. The resulting state at Bob and Charlie’s location will be non-maximally entangled. Note that if the observer for the pair ‘$`a1`$’ and the pair ‘$`b2`$’ use the same basis, then this means $`\mathrm{}=p`$, and all basis vectors have same degree of entanglement.

(ii) Probabilistic entanglement swapping: Two conditions (1) and (2) given above cannot be satisfied simultaneously if the two initial states are not maximally entangled, i.e., when $`m`$ or $`n`$ are not pure phases. In such a case two out of four measurements will lead to reliable entanglement swapping. There are many possible choices for the values of the parameters that would lead to the reliable swapping but with probability less than unity. One such choice is $`\mathrm{}=\frac{1}{n^{}},p^{}=m,p=\frac{1}{m^{}}`$, and $`\mathrm{}^{}=\frac{1}{n}`$. In this case successful swapping probability will be given by

$$P_{\mathrm{succ}}=M^4N^4[|n|^2(1+|m|^2)^2+|m|^2(1+|n|^2)^2].$$
(15)
This reduces to one-half, when the two initial states are maximally entangled (and other half will come from the two other outcomes).

There is an interesting possibility if the entanglement of the two initial states is not maximal, but identical. This happens when $`|m|=\frac{1}{|n|}`$ or $`|m|=|n|`$. In this case three out of four possible measurement results would lead to reliable entanglement swapping and the swapping probability will be:

$$P_{\mathrm{succ}}^{}=3|n|^2N^8(1+|n|^2)^2$$
(16)
For lesser constraints on the parameter values, as in the case of a qubit state teleportation, only one out of four possible measurement results will lead to faithful entanglement swapping. An example of these parameter values is $`\mathrm{}=\frac{1}{n^{}},p^{}=m`$. And there are no constraints on other parameter values.

(iii) No swapping: In this most general case when the parameters values are not related to original resource, entanglement swapping is not possible.

Thus the scheme presented here tries to capture probabilistic and deterministic entanglement swapping protocols for qubits. Since entanglement swapping can be understood as a teleportation of an entangled state, we have generalized to such scenarios as well.

IV. Conclusions

In conclusion, we have shown that it is possible to teleport an unknown state with unit fidelity but less than unit probability using non-maximally entangled states. The difference between the present protocol and the existing ones is that neither we use local filtering nor entanglement concentration and then follow the standard teleportation protocol. It is a single shot teleportation protocol for non-maximally entangled resource without first converting to a maximally entangled pair. The key to this generalization is if one uses non-maximally entangled state as a resource use non-maximally entangled-state measurement containing same amount of entanglement as that of the shared resource instead of the Bell measurement. This also points, perhaps, to a link between global and local entanglement. In some sense ours is a generalized quantum teleportation protocol that encompasses in a simple way probabilistic as well as deterministic (standard) teleportation protocols. In addition we have presented a scheme how to perform entanglement swapping using these resources. In future it will be interesting to extend these probabilistic teleportation schemes for higher dimensional Hilbert space and continuous variable systems. We hope that with the existing technology it may be possible to implement the probabilistic quantum teleportation protocol with ease.