text:
# Charge and Current in the Quantum Hall Matrix Model

## I Introduction

It is well established that the low-energy effective Lagrangian for a quantum Hall (QH) system is a Chern-Simons (CS) gauge theory. For the simplest case of the Laughlin states with filling fraction $`\nu =1/(2m+1)`$ it takes the form,

$`={\displaystyle \frac{k}{4\pi }}ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }a_\mu _\nu a_\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{e}{2\pi }}ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }A_\mu _\nu a_\lambda ,`$ (1)
where $`k=1/\nu `$, and $`A_\mu `$ is the external electromagnetic potential. This Lagrangian (and its generalizations to other fractions, multi-component systems etc.) correctly describes the quantum Hall conductance, and also the ground state degeneracies on higher genus surfaces and edge excitationszee . One can also naturally incorporate quasiparticle currents and edge modes with appropriate quantum numbers.

There are, however, important aspects of the QH liquids that are not incorporated in the CS description. For the Laughlin fractions described by (1) the quantization of the QH conductance corresponds to quantization of $`k`$, which does not follow from any general principle but should be regarded as an input.111 There are, however, microscopic derivations of (1), relying on various mean field approximations, where the quantization of $`k`$ follows from a statistical transmutationzhang92 .  For hierarchical states, the parameter $`k`$ is replaced by a matrix $`𝐊`$ with quantized entries which again are input parameters. Furthermore, it is difficult, within the effective CS framework, to account for the successes of the composite fermion model and to single out the experimentally prominent Jain fractions $`\nu =n/(2pn\pm 1)`$jain1 .

There have been several recent attempts to formulate effective theories for the composite fermions, based on various CS mean field theoriesrecent  and in these approaches the constraint that keeps the electrons in the lowest Landau level (LLL) is very important. On the level of the effective theories this is manifested in the commutation relation

$`[\rho _\stackrel{}{k},\rho _\stackrel{}{p}]=2i\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2}}(\stackrel{}{k}\times \stackrel{}{p})\right)e^{\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2}\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{p}}\rho _{\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{p}},\mathrm{}=(\mathrm{}/eB)^{1/2},`$ (2)
for the Fourier components of the LLL-projected density operator $`\rho `$ girvin  and in a dipole form for the quasiparticle current operator. Neither of these properties is captured by effective CS theories like (1). For instance, from (1) we get $`\rho (x)=j^0=\frac{1}{2\pi }ϵ^{ij}_ia_j=\frac{1}{2\pi }b`$, hence the commutator (2) vanishes $`[\rho _\stackrel{}{k},\rho _\stackrel{}{p}]=4\pi i\mathrm{}\nu (\stackrel{}{p}\times \stackrel{}{k})\delta (\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{p})=0`$.

In view of the above, the recently proposed matrix model for the QH effect is intriguingsuss1 ; poly1 . This model – which can be shown to be a noncommutative version of the effective CS theory (1) – has several appealing features. The quantization of $`k`$ follows from basic principlessuss1 ; nair1  and the specific values corresponding to the Laughlin fractions follow by requiring the underlying particles to be fermions, much as in the microscopic Chern-Simons Ginzburg-Landau approachzhang92 . The classical ground state of the matrix model is an incompressible homogeneous state at the Laughlin filling fractions, and the model also reproduces several important aspects of fractional QH physics, such as the quasihole charge and statistics, and the presence of edge states.

In spite of all this the matrix models have so far not added anything to our understanding of QH physics – the Laughlin states are very well understood – primarily through the Laughlin wave functions, but also from various Chern-Simons mean field theories. The matrix models will be of real physical interest only if they can be generalized to describe other states. As discussed above, an important challenge is to understand the Jain fractions, for which there are very good wave functions, and where the mean field theory explicitly involves “effective fermions” filling auxiliary higher Landau levels.

We think that a generalized matrix model might be useful, since in the existing matrix model it is enough to specify that the original particles are fermions in order to get the correct Laughlin fractions. In Laughlin’s theory it is the combination of fermi statistics and LLL dynamics that determines the wave functions, so, by analogy, we hope that the matrix model encodes the correct LLL dynamics. There are already some indications that this is the case. For a vanishing non-commutativity parameter $`\theta `$ it is obviously true by construction, and it has also been shown that a certain class of solutions to the finite-dimensional matrix model describes independent point particles moving in a stong magnetic field at distances larger than $`\theta /\mathrm{}`$ where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the magnetic lengthpoly1 . It is, however, far from clear that the matrix model captures the full LLL dynamics in general, and in particular for the incompressible states describing the Laughlin liquids. It is the purpose of this paper to study this question, and in particular to construct a conserved electromagnetic current that will allow us to calculate response functions and to see if the charge commutator algebra (2) is satisfied.

We proceed by constructing, in the classical matrix model, a particle density and a corresponding conserved current density which are then coupled minimally to the external electromagnetic potential. The densities are complicated matrix functions, and furthermore, they are not unique – the noncommutativity of the matrices leads to an ordering ambiguity already at the classical level.

Using the infinite dimensional matrix model, which describes the Laughlin states, we calculate the response to weak perturbing fields using linear response. This amounts to calculating the ground state density, the QH response and the density response to weak and slowly varying magnetic fields. We show that the correct QH results are obtained for any choice of matrix ordering in the definition of the densities.

We then turn to the quantum theory and discuss the construction of the density and current operators. There are several constraints on the correct construction: the density must satisfy the commutation relations (2), be properly normalized (i.e. reproduce the correct ground state density for homogeneus states), and in the commutative limit it must reproduce the physics of non-interacting particles in the LLL. The problem of constructing a density and a corresponding conserved current density now involves both a matrix and a quantum ordering problem, and is, in general, very involved.

Our aim is to make this paper fairly self-contained, and accesible to the condensed matter comunity, so we start with a short review of the QH matrix models in the next section. The construction of the classical conserved current and the corresponding Lagrangian is in section 3, and the calculation of the linear response in section 4. The quantization and the discussion of the charge commutation relations is in section 5. We conclude in section 6 with a summary of our results, a guess, and some open problems. Some of the material in this paper was presented in hakarl1 .

## II The Quantum Hall matrix model

The original version of the matrix model, proposed by Susskind, describing particles of charge $`e`$ in a constant magnetic field $`B_z=B`$,222This choice, which we here adhere to, results in the one-particle quantum commutator $`[x,y]=+i\mathrm{}^2`$ and states $`\varphi _n\overline{z}^n\mathrm{exp}\frac{1}{4\mathrm{}^2}|z|^2`$. More common in the condensed matter community is to choose $`B_z=B`$, in which case $`[x,y]=i\mathrm{}^2`$ and $`\varphi _nz^n\mathrm{exp}\frac{1}{4\mathrm{}^2}|z|^2`$.  is given by the Lagrangiansuss1

$`L_0={\displaystyle \frac{eB}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}\{\left(\dot{X^a}i[X^a,\widehat{a}_0]_m\right)ϵ_{ab}X^b+2\theta \widehat{a}_0\},`$ (3)
where $`X^a(t)`$, $`a=1,2`$, and $`\widehat{a}_0(t)`$ are Hermitian matrices – the latter is a Lagrange multiplier imposing a constraint. The area $`\theta `$ that enters $`L_0`$ is the non-commutativity parameter, see (4) below, and in the classical model the average density is given by $`2\pi \theta `$. Quantization introduces $`\mathrm{}`$ and the magnetic length $`\mathrm{}=(\mathrm{}/eB)^{1/2}`$. Since $`2\pi \mathrm{}^2`$ is the area per state in the lowest Landau level, the filling fraction $`\nu `$ will be related to the dimensionless parameter $`\theta /\mathrm{}^2`$. For quantum Hall states, where $`\nu `$ is some odd denominator fraction, $`\theta `$ will be $`O(\mathrm{})`$ and sensitive to quantum corrections. In fact, as discussed briefly below, the relation is $`\nu ^1=\theta /\mathrm{}^2+1`$.

The Lagrangian (3) is formally very similar to the Lagrangian for one particle moving in a strong perpendicular magnetic field $`L_{1p}=\frac{eB}{2}\epsilon _{ab}\dot{x}^ax^b`$, where $`x^a(t)`$ is the position of the particle. In fact, when $`\theta =0`$, (3) reduces, upon solving the constraint, to $`N`$ copies of $`L_{1p}`$ ($`N`$ being the dimension of the matrices $`X^a`$). We note that, when including a potential $`V(\stackrel{}{x})`$, the equations of motion obtained from $`L_{1p}`$ give the drift current $`\dot{x}^a=\frac{1}{eB}ϵ^{ab}_bV(\stackrel{}{x})`$, but not the cyclotron motion. This is as expected since $`L_{1p}`$ corresponds to infinite cyclotron frequency and hence vanishing cyclotron radius for finite velocity.

As mentioned in the introduction, there is a close connection between the matrix model (3) and the CS theory (1) in that the matrix model is equivalent to a non-commutative generalization of the latter. This is how Susskind arrived at (3). He noted that in a hydrodynamical description of the QH fluid one obtains an abelian CS theory with additional non-linear terms. He then proposed the non-commutative abelian CS theory – which to lowest nontrivial order in the non-commutativity parameter $`\theta `$ agrees with the non-linear abelian CS theory – as the effective QH theory.

Varying the Lagrangian (3) with respect to the multiplier $`\widehat{a}_0`$ yields the constraint

$`[X^1,X^2]_m=i\theta ,`$ (4)
where the subscript ”$`m`$” denotes a matrix, as opposed to a quantum, commutator. Taking the trace of (4) we see that $`\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{X}^1\mathrm{X}^2)\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{X}^2\mathrm{X}^1)`$ if $`\theta 0`$. Thus the constraint can only be solved by infinite matrices and, as is well known from quantum mechanics, the solution is essentially unique. The theory is hence rather trivial – there is only one state, corresponding to an incompressible fluid with constant density $`\rho =1/2\pi \theta `$. In order to find other solutions, one must modify the constraint (4). This can be done either by introducing external sourcessuss1 , or by introducing a new dynamical field that couples to $`\widehat{a}_0`$poly1 . The latter approach has the advantage of using finite matrices, which means that all the ordinary rules for matrix manipulations, such as the cyclicity of the trace, can be used. The finite matrix model, due to Polychronakos, is obtained by adding the following piece to the Lagrangian (3)

$`L_b=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(i_0\widehat{a}_0)\mathrm{\Psi },`$ (5)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a complex bosonic $`N`$-vector. The $`X^a`$’s in (3) are now Hermitian $`N\times N`$ matrices and the constraint (4) is modified into

$`[X^1,X^2]_m=i\theta {\displaystyle \frac{i}{eB}}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}.`$ (6)
Taking the trace gives $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }=NeB\theta `$, which allows for finite $`N`$ solutions also when $`\theta 0`$.

The Lagrangian $`L=L_0+L_b`$ is invariant under the $`U(N)`$ gauge transformations

$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $``$ $`U\mathrm{\Psi }`$
$`X^a`$ $``$ $`UX^aU^{}`$
$`\widehat{a}_0`$ $``$ $`U\widehat{a}_0U^{}Ui_0U^{},`$ (7)
where $`U`$ is a $`U(N)`$-matrix.

This classical model was solved in poly1 . Identifying the eigenvalues of the matrices $`X^1`$ and $`X^2`$ as the positions and momenta of the $`N`$ particles respectively, one finds that when the particles are far apart, compared to $`\theta /\mathrm{}`$, they move as $`N`$ independent particles in a strong perpendicular magnetic field (i.e. governed by $`L_{1p}=\frac{eB}{2}\epsilon _{ab}\dot{x}^ax^b`$). On the other hand, when a potential $`(X^a)^2`$ is added – this attracts the particle to the origin – the ground state is indeed a circular droplet with constant bulk density $`\rho 1/2\pi \theta `$. The excitation spectrum is that of the Calogero model – in particular this means that the low lying excitations can be interpreted as surface modes.

The most interesting properties of the matrix models are appearant only after quantization. As usual for gauge theories, there are two ways to handle the constraint. In the first, which is similar to the Gupta-Bleuler quantization of gauge theories, one quantizes the full extended phase space to get the simple canonical commutation relations,

$`[X_{mn}^1,X_{rs}^2]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{eB}}\delta _{ms}\delta _{nr}`$ (8)
$`[\mathrm{\Psi }_m,\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}\delta _{mn},`$
and then implement the constraint (4) or (6) as a projection operator to define physical states. We shall refer to this method as unconstrained quantization.

Alternatively, one proceeds like in Coloumb gauge quantization of a gauge theory, and first solves the “Gauss’ law” constraint (4) or (6) in some suitably choosen gauge (e.g. $`X^1`$ diagonal). Writing the Lagrangian in terms of the physical variables one can then read off the canonical commutation relations. In this approach, there is no projection – all states are physical – but the commutators between the elements of the matrices become complicated. We shall refer to this method as constrained quantization.

The finite matrix model also gives an unambigous relation between the filling fraction $`\nu `$ and the Chern-Simons level $`\theta /\mathrm{}^2`$. This was originally derived by Polychronakos by mapping the matrix model onto the quantum Calogero model with a coupling constant $`\nu ^1(\nu ^11)`$, where $`\nu ^1=\theta /\mathrm{}^2+1`$. From the known ground state of the Calogero model he could then identify $`\nu `$ with the filling fractionpoly1 . The quantum shift in the relation between $`\nu ^1`$ and the level $`\theta /\mathrm{}^2`$ is due to the zero point motion of the particles, as explained by Hellerman and Susskindsuss2 . Assuming the original particles to be fermions, one can furthermore show that the filling fraction is quantized to the Laughlin values $`\nu ^1=2m+1`$.

We should also mention that invariance under large gauge transformations requires the Chern-Simons level $`k`$ to be an integer independent of the physical interpretation of the theorypoly1 ; nair1 . For further discussion of the QH matrix models we refer to suss1 ; poly1 ; poly2 ; mor ; heller .

## III A generalized matrix model

We now generalize the matrix model (3) and (5) to include coupling to an external electromagnetic field, $`A_\mu `$. We use the more general finite dimensional model, $`L=L_0+L_b`$, which has the additional advantage of allowing cyclic permutations in the trace. At the end of the section we comment on the infinite dimensional case – making explicit the modifications this introduces. Since a large constant magnetic field $`B`$, perpendicular to the plane, is already incorporated in the model, we let $`\delta B`$ denote the magnetic field corresponding to $`A_\mu `$ and assume that it has no constant component. To preserve gauge invariance, we must construct a conserved current from the matrix variables. It is useful to remember how to treat a single particle moving along the trajectory $`\stackrel{}{x}(t)`$. Here the particle and current densities are given by $`\rho (\stackrel{}{y},t)=\delta (\stackrel{}{y}\stackrel{}{x}(t))`$ and $`\stackrel{}{j}(\stackrel{}{y},t)=\dot{\stackrel{}{x}}\delta (\stackrel{}{y}\stackrel{}{x}(t))`$, respectively. Current conservation $`\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{j}+_t\rho =0`$ then follows immediately using the chain rule. Using a $`\delta `$-function to define the particle and current densities corresponds to a point particle – but in a non-relativistic theory, one can in fact use any profile function $`f(\stackrel{}{y}\stackrel{}{x}(t))`$, corresponding to a rigid charge distribution moving with velocity $`\dot{\stackrel{}{x}}(t)`$.

In the matrix model, the diagonal elements of the matrices, $`X_{mm}^a`$, can, in a suitable gauge, be interpreted as the guiding center coordinates for the particles when these are far apart compared to $`\theta /\mathrm{}`$poly1 . With this in mind it is natural to define the particle density in the matrix model as

$`\rho (\stackrel{}{y},t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}[\widehat{\delta }(y^aX^a(t))],`$ (9)
where $`\widehat{\delta }(y^aX^a)`$ is a matrix-valued kernel. With the same picture in mind, we make the following guess for the current density related to the guiding center motion,

$`\stackrel{}{j}(\stackrel{}{y},t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}[(\dot{\stackrel{}{X}}i[\stackrel{}{X},\widehat{a}_0]_m)\widehat{\delta }(y^aX^a(t))].`$ (10)
(In the presence of an inhomogeneous magnetic field, there is an additional, purely solenoidal, contribution to the current related to the uncancelled cyclotron motion of neighbouring electrons, which will be discussed below.)

The densities (9) and (10) are invariant under the $`U(N)`$-transformations (II) – provided only that the kernel transforms covariantly: $`\widehat{\delta }U\widehat{\delta }U^{}`$. However, since $`X^a`$ are non-commuting objects there are ordering ambiguities already at the classical level, leading to inequivalent classical theories. For a kernel of the form

$`\widehat{\delta }(y^aX^a)={\displaystyle \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}f(k_a(y^aX^a),\theta k^2)},`$ (11)
where $`f(z,x)`$ is dimensionless and analytic in $`z`$, (10) does indeed give a conserved current. The proof is easy:

$`_t\mathrm{Tr}[k_a(y^aX^a)]^n`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}[k_b(y^bX^b)]^mk_a\dot{X}^a[k_c(y^cX^c)]^{nm1}`$
$`=`$ $`n\mathrm{Tr}k_a\dot{X}^a[k_b(y^bX^b)]^{n1}=_{y^a}\mathrm{Tr}\dot{X}^a[k_b(y^bX^b)]^n`$
and

$`_{y^a}\mathrm{Tr}\left([X^a,\widehat{a}_0][k_b(y^bX^b)]^n\right)`$ $`=`$ $`n\mathrm{Tr}([k_aX^a,\widehat{a}_0][k_b(y^bX^b)]^{n1}`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`n\mathrm{Tr}([k_aX^a,[k_b(y^bX^b)]^{n1}]\widehat{a}_0)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},`$
where we used the cyclic property of the trace. One kernel of the form (11) is

$`\widehat{\delta }_W(y^aX^a)={\displaystyle \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}e^{ik_a(y^aX^a)}g(\theta k^2)},`$ (13)
where $`g(0)=1`$. The special case $`g(x)=1`$ is known as Weyl-ordering. The corresponding densities become, in the $`\widehat{a}_0=0`$ gauge,

$`\rho _\stackrel{}{k}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left(e^{ik_aX^a}\right)g(\theta k^2)`$ (14)
$`j_\stackrel{}{k}^a`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left(\dot{X^a}e^{ik_bX^b}\right)g(\theta k^2).`$
Note the formal similarity to the one-particle densities.

However, more general $`O(2)`$-invariant – and $`U(N)`$-covariant – kernels of the form

$`\widehat{\delta }(y^aX^a)={\displaystyle \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}f(k_a(y^aX^a),ϵ_{ab}k^a(y^bX^b),\theta k^2)}`$ (15)
are possible. (The kernels are assumed to be Hermitian.) For such kernels, (10) does not generally give a conserved current. However, using (9) and current conservation it is straightforward to define a current as an expansion in the matrices $`\dot{X}^a,k^a(y^aX^a)`$ and $`ϵ_{ab}k^a(y^bX^b)`$ that is conserved. An important example of this type is the anti-ordered kernel

$`\widehat{\delta }_{\mathrm{ao}}(zZ,\overline{z}Z^{})={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2k}{(2\pi )^2}e^{\frac{i\overline{k}}{2}(zZ)}e^{\frac{ik}{2}(\overline{z}Z^{})}},`$ (16)
where $`z=y^1+iy^2`$, $`k=k^1+ik^2`$ and $`Z=X^1+iX^2`$. It turns out that the classical limit of the charge density operator in the quantized matrix model discussed below is given by this kernel. The explicit expression for the corresponding conserved current in the $`\widehat{a}_0=0`$ gauge is, using the cyclic property of the trace,

$`j(z,\overline{z})=j_x+ij_y=\mathrm{Tr}\left[\dot{Z}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2k}{(2\pi )^2}e^{\frac{i}{2}(\overline{k}\overline{z}+k\overline{z})}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\frac{1}{n!}(\frac{i\overline{k}}{2}Z)^{nm1}e^{\frac{ik}{2}Z^{}}(\frac{i\overline{k}}{2}Z)^m}\right].`$ (17)
Having defined a particle density and a conserved current it is straightforward to couple the matrix model $`L_0+L_b`$ in (3) and (5) to an external electromagnetic field by adding

$`L_{int}=e{\displaystyle d^2x[\rho (\stackrel{}{x},t)A_0(\stackrel{}{x},t)\stackrel{}{j}(\stackrel{}{x},t)\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{x},t)]}.`$ (18)
We can cast the resulting Lagrangian in a more transparent form by noting that the current always can be written in the form (10) although in general the kernel defining the current will differ from the one defining the charge. For example, the kernel defining the current $`j`$ corresponding to the anti-ordered charge kernel, can be read directly from (17) replacing the ordinary time derivative with the corresponding covariant derivative. The resulting Lagrangian is,

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`e\mathrm{Tr}\{(\dot{X^a}i[X^a,\widehat{a}_0]_m)({\displaystyle \frac{B}{2}}ϵ_{ab}X^b\widehat{A}_a)`$
$`+`$ $`B\theta \widehat{a}_0+\widehat{A}_0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2M}}\delta \widehat{B}\}+\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(i_0\widehat{a}_0)\mathrm{\Psi }.`$
Here the matrices $`\widehat{A}_\mu (X^a,t)`$, $`\mu =0,1,2`$, are related to the ordinary gauge potential using the kernel $`\widehat{\delta }_{(\mu )}`$:

$`\widehat{A}_\mu (X^a,t)={\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2xA_\mu (x^a,t)\widehat{\delta }_{(\mu )}(x^aX^a)},`$ (20)
and the label $`\mu `$ on the kernel reminds us that it in general depends on which component of $`A_\mu `$ it multiplies. In (III) we have also included a term $`\delta \widehat{B}(X^a,t)`$, where $`\delta \widehat{B}`$ is related to the magnetic field $`\delta B(x^a,t)`$, caused by $`A_\mu (x^a,t)`$, via $`\widehat{\delta }`$ as in (20). $`M`$ is the effective mass of the electrons. This is the Simon-Stern-Halperin “magnetic moment” interaction that encodes the variation in the Landau energy in a varying magnetic fieldhalp1 . It gives an additional solenoidal term in the current – due to the non-cancellation of the cyclotron motion currents – that is not included in (10).

Note that the charge and current density operators derived from (III) do not have an explicit dependence on $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, but that there is an implicit dependence since $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ enters the constraint and thus determines the form of the solutions for the matrices $`X^a`$.

It is clear by inspection that the Lagrangian (III) is invariant under the noncommutative gauge transformation (II), and the symmetry under the usual electromagnetic gauge transformation $`\delta A_\mu (x)=_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$ is ensured by construction since the corresponding current is conserved. For general kernels the gauge variation of the matrices $`\widehat{A}_\mu `$ is rather complicated, but for the special case of Weyl ordering it takes a simple form very reminiscent of the commutative case. 333 Using (13), $`\delta A_\mu (x)=_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$ induces the following gauge variations in the matrices $`\delta \widehat{A}_{mn}^a=\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/X^a\right)_{mn}=\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/X_{nm}^a`$ and $`\delta \widehat{A}_0=_0\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ where the matrix-valued function $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(X^a,t)`$ is related to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x^a,t)`$ using the Weyl kernel (13) in (20), and the derivative satisfies $`e^{ik_bX^b}/X^a=ik_ae^{ik_bX^b}`$.

In the extended model (III), the constraint corresponding to (6) is modified and depends on $`A_a`$:

$`[X^a,ϵ_{ab}X^b{\displaystyle \frac{2}{B}}\widehat{A}_a]_m=2i\theta {\displaystyle \frac{2i}{eB}}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{},`$ (21)
and we note that contrary to (6) this does not determine the commutator between $`X^1`$ and $`X^2`$. However, if we pick the gauge $`\widehat{A}_2=0`$, then we can rewrite the constraint as

$`[X^1,X^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{B}}\widehat{A}_1]_m=[X^1,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{eB}}P^1]_m=i\theta {\displaystyle \frac{i}{eB}}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{},`$ (22)
where $`P^1`$ is the momentum conjugate to $`X^1`$ as calculated from the Lagrangian (III). Clearly, the above construction can be carried out in any linear gauge, but we do not know how to handle a general gauge. Note that the simple commutation relation (22) is between $`X^1`$ and $`P^1=eBX^2e\widehat{A}_1`$, not between $`X^1`$ and $`X^2`$, and this makes it hard to evaluate the densities (9) and (10). However, as long as we are interested only in linear response we can expand the expression for the density as will be shown in the next section. That the constraint becomes simple when expressed in canonically conjugate variables, is in fact very important since it assures that the arguments given in suss1  and poly1  for the relation between the parameter $`\theta `$ and the statistics of the underlying particles hold true also in the extended theory (III).

We now comment on the case of the infinite dimensional matrix model (3) and its coupling to an electromagnetic field. The above analysis used the cyclicity of the trace – e.g. in (12) and (17) – which does not hold for infinite matrices. Also, defining the particle density as in the finite dimensional case, i.e. by (9) with the kernel still given by (15), we can due to the lack of cyclicity no longer use expressions like (10) or (17) for the conserved currents. It is however straightforward to construct the conserved currents by carefully keeping track of the matrix ordering. So will for instance the current corresponding to the Weyl-ordered kernel (13) take the form,

$`j^a(\stackrel{}{x})={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2k}{(2\pi )^2}e^{ik_bx^b}\mathrm{Tr}\left[\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\frac{1}{n!}(ik_cX^c)^{nm1}\dot{X}^a(ik_dX^d)^m\right]}.`$ (23)
Other kernels give similar expressions. It is now clear that we cannot rewrite the interacton Lagrangian (18) of the generalized infinite matrix model on the simple form (III). Instead the coupling to the external vector potentials will take the more complicated form,

$`L_\stackrel{}{A}=e{\displaystyle d^2xA_a(\stackrel{}{x},t)\frac{\mathrm{d}^2k}{(2\pi )^2}e^{ik_bx^b}\mathrm{Tr}\left[\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\frac{1}{n!}(ik_cX^c)^{nm1}(D_0X^a)(ik_dX^d)^m\right]},`$ (24)
cf. (17) and (18), where $`D_0X=\dot{X}i[X,\widehat{a}_0]`$ is the covariant time derivative. Varying with respect to $`\widehat{a}_0`$ one however finds that the constraint still has the form (21) (with $`\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$), where $`\widehat{A}_\mu `$ is given by (20) and the kernel $`\widehat{\delta }_{(\mu )}`$ is the same as for finite matrices. The point is that although trace manipulations using cyclicity are not allowed on the level of the Lagrangian, they are permissible in the equations of motion if we (as customary) assume that the variation $`\delta \widehat{a}_0`$ of the multiplier matrix has compact supportharvey2001 .

In the simplest case when the constraint takes the form $`[X^1,X^2]_m=i\theta `$, then (16) – and probably any sensible kernel (15) – can be written as a generalized Weyl kernel (13). Also, if one assumes the Hamiltonian to be a scalar potential, then by using the equations of motion to replace $`\dot{X}_i`$ in (23) by an expression in $`X_j`$’s, one can see that all the considered kernels $`\widehat{\delta }_{(\mu )}`$ are in the infinite case related by factors of the type $`g(\theta k^2)`$ with $`g(0)=1`$. This observation will be useful in the next section.

## IV Linear Response in the classical matrix model

In this section we calculate the response of the infinite dimensional classical matrix model to electromagnetic perturbations in the linear approximation. We remind the reader that this model describes only one state with constant density $`\rho =1/2\pi \theta `$ – nevertheless we obtain non-trivial results.

We shall consider three quantities, the quantum Hall response to a constant electric field, the ground state density, and the response to a weak, static but slowly modulated magnetic field. The two first examples involve response at wave vector $`\stackrel{}{k}=0`$ and the last at small $`\stackrel{}{k}`$, i.e. $`k^2\theta 1`$. From the above discussion of the infinite matrix model it follows that the classical ordering ambiguities will be of no relevance for these quantities since they amount to correction terms $`k^2\theta `$. For simplicity, we use the generalized Weyl-kernel (13), but any choice of the form (11) would do.

### IV.1 The quantum Hall response

We calculate the current response to an applied constant electric field of the form $`A_0=E_ax^a`$. To evaluate the current, we first need to determine $`\dot{X^a}`$ from the equations of motion, a problem very similar to the QH droplet in a quadratic matrix potential considered by Polychronakospoly1 . Varying the Lagrangian with respect to $`X^a`$, yields444Here we again the cyclicity of the trace in the equations of motion. This assumption can be avoided for a kernel that behaves like a $`\delta `$function: $`\mathrm{d}^2xx^a\widehat{\delta }(x,X)=X^a`$ – then we have $`\widehat{A}_0=E_aX^a`$. Substituting this into the Lagrangian and varying with respect to $`X^a`$ gives (25).

$`B\dot{X^a}=ϵ^{ab}E_b\mathrm{𝟏}.`$ (25)
Because of $`\dot{X}^a\mathrm{𝟏}`$, it follows from expressions like (14) or from the discussion at the end of section III, that the electromagnetic current density is given by

$`J_\stackrel{}{k}^a=ej_\stackrel{}{k}^a=ϵ^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{eE_b}{B}}\rho _\stackrel{}{k},`$ (26)
and for $`\rho =\nu /2\pi \mathrm{}^2=\nu eB/h`$ a Fourier transformation yields

$`J^a=\nu {\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{h}}ϵ_{ab}E^b=\sigma _Hϵ^{ab}E_b.`$ (27)
¿From refs. suss1 ; poly1  we know that if the particles described by the matrix model are fermions, then $`\nu ^1=2m+1`$ and (27) gives the Laughlin values for the quantized Hall conductance $`\sigma _H`$.

### IV.2 The ground state density

The response to a constant external electric potential $`\delta A_0`$ will simply give the density of the system

$`\rho (\stackrel{}{x})={\displaystyle \frac{L}{A_0}}=\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{\delta }(x^aX^a).`$ (28)
In the finite case this is difficult to calculate because of the presence of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in the constraint, but in the infinite case the calculation can be conveniently done by using coherent states. Defining eigenstates of the lowering operator

$`a|\alpha =\alpha |\alpha ,\mathrm{where}a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\theta }}}(X^1+iX^2),`$ (29)
and using the commutator $`[a,a^{}]=1`$ appropriate for the infinite matrix model in the absence of external fields, one has

$`\mathrm{Tr}:𝒪(a,a^{}):={\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\alpha \mathrm{d}\overline{\alpha }}{2\pi i}}𝒪(\alpha ,\overline{\alpha }),`$ (30)
where : : indicates normal ordering of the operator $`𝒪(a,a^{})`$.

For the Weyl-ordered kernel (13) ($`g=1`$) we now have,

$`\mathrm{Tr}e^{ik_aX^a}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}e^{i\sqrt{\frac{\theta }{2}}(\overline{k}a+ka^{})}=e^{\frac{\theta |k|^2}{4}}\mathrm{Tr}e^{i\sqrt{\frac{\theta }{2}}kZ^{}}e^{i\sqrt{\frac{\theta }{2}}\overline{k}Z}=`$
$`=`$ $`e^{\frac{\theta |k|^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\alpha \mathrm{d}\overline{\alpha }}{2\pi i}e^{i\sqrt{\frac{\theta }{2}}(k\overline{\alpha }+\overline{k}\alpha )}}=e^{\frac{\theta k^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\alpha }{\pi }e^{i\sqrt{2\theta }k_i\alpha ^i}}=e^{\frac{\theta k^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\theta }}\delta ^2(\stackrel{}{k}),`$
where $`k=k_1+ik_2`$. Substituting (IV.2) in (13) and (28) we obtain the constant density $`\rho =\frac{1}{2\pi \theta }`$, as expected.

Notice that the factor $`e^{\frac{\theta k^2}{4}}`$ does not affect the result because of $`\delta ^2(\stackrel{}{k})`$. For the same reasons it follows from the discussion at the end of section III that the result is independent of the choice of kernel.

### IV.3 Response to a weak perturbing B field

It is in general hard to calculate the response to an external magnetic field since, as explained above, (22) only gives an implicit relation for the matrix $`\widehat{A}^a(X)`$. It can however be done for a weak, and slowly varying perturbing field of the form $`\delta B(\stackrel{}{x})=ϵB\mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{x})`$.

In the $`A^2=0`$ gauge we have $`A^1=\frac{ϵB}{q_2}\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{x})`$, and the constraint (22) (with $`\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$). The annihilation operator then becomes

$`a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\theta }}}(X^1+i(X^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{B}}\widehat{A}^1)),`$ (32)
and $`k_aX^a=\sqrt{\frac{\theta }{2}}(\overline{k}a+ka^{})+\frac{k_2}{B}\widehat{A}^1`$. By expanding in $`ϵ`$ and $`\theta k^2`$, we obtain

$`\rho _k=\mathrm{Tr}e^{ik_aX^a}=\mathrm{Tr}[e^{i\sqrt{\frac{\theta }{2}}(\overline{k}a+ka^{})}(1{\displaystyle \frac{ik_2}{B}}\widehat{A^1}+O(ϵ^2))(1+ϵO(\theta k^2))].`$ (33)
To evaluate

$`\delta \rho _k=\mathrm{Tr}[e^{i\sqrt{\frac{\theta }{2}}(\overline{k}a+ka^{})}({\displaystyle \frac{ik_2}{B}}\widehat{A^1}+ϵO(\theta k^2)+O(ϵ^2))],`$ (34)
we first write

$`\widehat{A}_1(X)={\displaystyle \frac{ϵB}{2q_2}}[e^{iq_aX^a}+e^{iq_aX^a}]={\displaystyle \frac{ϵB}{2q_2}}[e^{i\sqrt{\frac{\theta }{2}}(\overline{q}a+qa^{})}+e^{i\sqrt{\frac{\theta }{2}}(\overline{q}a+qa^{})}+O(ϵ)],`$ (35)
and then calculate the trace with the same method as in subsection B above to get

$`\delta \rho _k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iϵk_2}{2q_2}}\mathrm{Tr}[e^{i\sqrt{\frac{\theta }{2}}(\overline{k}a+ka^{})}[e^{i\sqrt{\frac{\theta }{2}}(\overline{q}a+qa^{})}+e^{i\sqrt{\frac{\theta }{2}}(\overline{q}a+qa^{})}]]+\theta ^1O(ϵ^2)+\theta ^1O(ϵ\theta k^2)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi ϵ}{\theta }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k_2}{q_2}}\left(\delta ^2(\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{k})+\delta ^2(\stackrel{}{q}+\stackrel{}{k})\right)+O(ϵ)+O(\theta k^2)\right].`$
Taking the Fourier transform, we obtain finally

$`\delta \rho (\stackrel{}{x})={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{2\pi \theta }}\left[\mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{x})+O(ϵ)+O(\theta k^2)\right],`$ (37)
which is the density response expected in a quantum Hall system.

## V Charge and current in the quantum matrix model

As discussed in the introduction, the Fourier components of the density operator projected onto the LLL satisfy the non-trivial commutation relation (2). Since the hope is that the QH matrix model captures the physics of the LLL, we would expect the correctly defined density operator to satisfy (2). First notice that in the infinite matrix model, we can easily calculate the poisson brackets of the charge operators (14), and turning these into commutators we get to lowest order in $`\theta `$ and $`\mathrm{}`$,

$`[\rho _\stackrel{}{k},\rho _\stackrel{}{p}]=i\mathrm{}^2(\stackrel{}{k}\times \stackrel{}{p})\rho _{\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{p}}+O(\mathrm{}\theta ,\mathrm{}^2).`$ (38)
This is at first hand quite surprising, since we would expect the $`\theta =0`$ result to be that of the commutative Chern-Simons theory quoted in the introduction, $`[\rho _\stackrel{}{k},\rho _\stackrel{}{p}]=0`$. If we however remember that the infinite matrix model only describes a single state, with density $`\rho _0=1/2\pi \theta `$, we immediately reproduce this result by substituting (IV.2) into the RHS of (38). Since the infinite matrix model does not allow any density fluctuations, we concentrate on the finite model from now on.

At this point we face a serious operator ordering problem. Note that although the charge as defined in (9) with a given kernel (15) defines a definite ordering of the products of operator-valued matrix elements when the kernel is expanded in a power series, any quantum reordering of the operators would correspond to the same classical matrix form, so the question of the correct quantum ordering of (15) arises. We therefore have ordering ambiguites on two levels, on matrix as well as on quantum level.

If we quantize after solving the constraint, we know the correct answer in the $`\theta =0`$ limit, since we can then use commuting diagonal matrices where the entries are simply the coordinates $`z_n=x_n+iy_n`$ and $`\overline{z}_n`$ of the $`N`$ independent particles, which satisfy the LLL commutator $`[z_m,\overline{z}_n]=2\mathrm{}^2\delta _{mn}`$. The anti-ordered operator

$`\rho _k^{\mathrm{ao}}=\mathrm{Tr}e^{\frac{i\overline{k}}{2}Z}e^{\frac{ik}{2}Z^{}}{}_{}{}^{\theta =0}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}e^{\frac{i\overline{k}}{2}z_n}e^{\frac{ik}{2}\overline{z}_n},`$ (39)
where $`Z=X^1+iX^2`$, obeys (2) for $`\theta =0`$. This shows that for $`\theta =0`$ the anti-ordered matrix kernel (16) gives the correct quantum ordering. Unfortunately, this is not true for $`\theta 0`$ – series expansion shows that $`\rho _k^{\mathrm{ao}}`$ no longer satisfies (2).

Below we review an attempt to construct an operator that satisfies the LLL comutator algebra. The basic observation is that for $`N=2`$, the known result (39) can be expressed in terms of quadratic operators which can be generalized to the $`\theta 0`$ case but satisfy a $`\theta `$-independent algebra. In the first version of this paper we erroneously claimed to have an expression in these quadratic operators that satisfied the LLL algebra (2). This conclusion was due to a logical error as will be pointed out.

### V.1 Constrained quantization

Here we follow Polychronakospoly1  and use the matrices

$`X_{mn}^1`$ $`=`$ $`x_m\delta _{mn}`$
$`X_{mn}^2`$ $`=`$ $`y_m\delta _{mn}{\displaystyle \frac{i\theta }{x_mx_n}}(1\delta _{mn}),`$ (40)
which solve the constraint (6) in the gauge $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\sqrt{eB\theta }(1,1,\mathrm{}1)`$. Quantizing, the diagonal matrix elements become canonically conjugate operators, satisfying (in complex notation), $`[z_m,\overline{z}_n]=2\mathrm{}^2\delta _{mn}`$. Note that (V.1) shows that when the particles are far apart $`|\mathrm{\Delta }z|\theta /\mathrm{}`$, the matrix model describes $`N`$ independent particles in the lowest Landau level. It is also clear that the ordering problem is very hard since $`Z`$ is a complicated, $`\theta `$-dependent, operator-valued matrix.

It is not difficult to find some operator that satisfies (2) – in fact $`\rho _k=e^{\frac{i\overline{k}}{2}\mathrm{Tr}Z}e^{\frac{ik}{2}\mathrm{Tr}Z^{}}`$ will do. However, this is nothing but the center of mass density operator, and will not define a good local particle density except in the trivial case of $`N=1`$. We shall demand that in addition to satisfying the quantum commutator algebra, the density operator must also reduce to the right-hand side of (39) in the limit $`\theta =0`$. As advertised above, we have found a solution to this problem for $`2\times 2`$ matrices which is already quite non-trivial, and we now present that construction.

First we decompose the complex $`2\times 2`$ matrix $`Z=X_1+iX_2`$ as

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`\zeta \mathrm{𝟏}+z\sigma ^3+i\vartheta \sigma ^2`$
$`Z^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\zeta }\mathrm{𝟏}+\overline{z}\sigma ^3i\vartheta \sigma ^2,`$ (41)
where $`\sigma ^i`$ are the Pauli matrices, $`\vartheta =\theta /(z+\overline{z})`$, and where we have introduced center of mass and relative coordinates,

$`\zeta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(z_1+z_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}Z`$
$`z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(z_1z_2),`$ (42)
satisfying $`[\zeta ,\overline{\zeta }]=[z,\overline{z}]=\mathrm{}^2`$, while all other commutators vanish.

For $`\theta =0`$ we expand the matrix exponentials in (39) using the explicit expresions (V.1) and the properties of the Pauli matrices to get

$`\rho _k^{\mathrm{ao}}|_{\theta =0}=\mathrm{Tr}e^{\frac{i}{2}\overline{k}Z}e^{\frac{i}{2}kZ^{}}|_{\theta =0}=2{\displaystyle \underset{m,n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{i\overline{k}}{2})^{2m}}{(2m)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{ik}{2})^{2n}}{(2n)!}}e^{\frac{i\overline{k}}{2}\zeta }\left[(z^2)^m(\overline{z}^2)^n{\displaystyle \frac{|k|^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{(z^2)^mz\overline{z}(\overline{z}^2)^n}{(2m+1)(2n+1)}}\right]e^{\frac{ik}{2}\overline{\zeta }}.`$ (43)
Note that since the particles are identical only even powers of the relative coordinate can appear in (43).

Next define the quadratic operators,

$`A`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}Z^2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}Z)^2=`$ $`z^2\vartheta ^2`$
$`\overline{A}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}(Z^{})^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\mathrm{Tr}Z^{})^2=`$ $`\overline{z}^2\vartheta ^2`$ (44)
$`B`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}ZZ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{Tr}Z\mathrm{Tr}Z^{}=`$ $`z\overline{z}+\vartheta ^2.`$
It is easy to verify that they commute with $`\zeta `$ and satisfy the following $`\theta `$-independent algebra,

$`[\zeta ,\overline{\zeta }]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}^2`$
$`[A,B]`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{}^2A`$
$`[\overline{A},B]`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{}^2\overline{A}`$
$`[A,\overline{A}]`$ $`=`$ $`4\mathrm{}^2B2\mathrm{}^4.`$ (45)
This allows us to define a $`\theta `$-dependent density operator by substituting $`z^2A`$, $`\overline{z}^2\overline{A}`$ and $`z\overline{z}B`$ in the series expansion (43) to get,

$`\rho _k=2{\displaystyle \underset{m,n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{i\overline{k}}{2})^{2m}}{(2m)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{ik}{2})^{2n}}{(2n)!}}e^{\frac{i\overline{k}}{2}\zeta }\left[A^m\overline{A}^n{\displaystyle \frac{|k|^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^mB\overline{A}^n}{(2m+1)(2n+1)}}\right]e^{\frac{ik}{2}\overline{\zeta }}.`$ (46)
By construction the commutator algebra of the $`\rho _k`$ is $`\theta `$-independent, so the commutator (2) can in a $`\theta `$-independent way be reduced to a sum of terms of the form $`A^mB^k\overline{A}^n`$. We can however not reduce these terms to sums of terms of the type $`A^mB\overline{A}^n`$ or $`A^m\overline{A}^n`$ without using a $`\theta `$-dependent relation, and thus not conclude that since (43) satisfies the algebra (2), so does (46). This was the logical error referred to above.

We now prove that the classical limit of $`\rho _k`$ in (46) is the anti-ordered classical operator in (39) also for finite $`\theta `$. A general $`2\times 2`$ matrix $`Z`$ with *commuting* elements satisfies:

$`0=Z^2Z\mathrm{Tr}Z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{Tr}^2Z\mathrm{Tr}Z^2\right)\mathrm{𝟏}=(Z\zeta \mathrm{𝟏})^2A\mathrm{𝟏}`$ (47)
where $`\zeta `$ and $`A`$ are defined in (V.1) and (V.1). Using this relation, we can rewrite the *classical* anti-ordered operator,

$`\rho _k^{\mathrm{ao}}=\mathrm{Tr}e^{\frac{i\overline{k}}{2}Z}e^{\frac{ik}{2}Z^{}}=\mathrm{Tr}e^{\frac{i\overline{k}}{2}\zeta }e^{\frac{i\overline{k}}{2}(Z\zeta \mathrm{𝟏})}e^{\frac{ik}{2}(Z^{}\overline{\zeta }\mathrm{𝟏})}e^{\frac{ik}{2}\overline{\zeta }}.`$ (48)
After expanding the matrix exponentials and using (47) to rewrite all even powers of $`(Z\zeta \mathrm{𝟏})^m(Z^{}\overline{\zeta }\mathrm{𝟏})^n`$ in terms of $`A`$, $`\overline{A}`$ and $`B`$, it is a matter of working out a few traces to recover the expansion (46).

### V.2 Unconstrained quantization

In this approach the matrix elements of $`X^a`$ satisfy the quantum commutation relations (8), and the parameter $`\theta `$ enters only via the $`U(1)`$ part of the constraint (6) that defines the physical states. Since the density operator is an observable it must be $`U(N)`$ invariant, and since the commutation relations (8) preserve this invariance, it follows that the commutator of two densities must again be $`U(N)`$ invariant. (Note that since (46) is expressed only in traces it is a manifestly $`U(N)`$ invariant expression, althouth it was derived in a particular gauge.) This would seem to imply that there could be no $`\theta `$-dependence in the operators, but this conclusion does not necessarily follow since we are considering operators on an extended phase space. The commutator (2) might have additional terms proportional to the constraint (6), and this would still give the correct algebra on the physical subspace. However, since the gauge constraint explicitly involves this boundary field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, the density operators can have a non-trivial $`\theta `$-dependence only if they also depend exlicitly on $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, and this would bring us out of the class of operators defined by quantum reorderings of (9). Although we shall not consider this possibility in this paper, it cannot be excluded a priori.

Thus restricting ourselves to $`U(N)`$ invariant combinations of the matrices $`Z`$ and $`Z^{}`$, satisfying $`[Z_{kl},Z_{mn}]=0`$, $`[Z_{kl},Z_{mn}^{}]=2\mathrm{}^2\delta _{kn}\delta _{lm}`$, we note that the classical derivation of (46) based on (48) holds true also in the quantum theory since it did not involve any reordering of $`Z_{kl}`$’s and $`Z_{mn}^{}`$’s. (In the constrained quantization scheme this derivation brakes down since elements of the matrix $`Z`$ do not commute with each other.) The operators $`A`$, $`\overline{A}`$, $`B`$ and $`\zeta `$ are here again defined in terms of the matrices by (V.1) and (V.1), but they do not satisfy the algebra (V.1). Remember that the constrained and unconstrained $`Z`$ are not unitarily equivalent – in that case they would have to satisfy the same algebra – but related via a projection onto the subspace defined by the constraint. The new algebra is however very similar to (V.1), the only difference being the commutator

$`[A,\overline{A}]`$ $`=`$ $`4\mathrm{}^2B6\mathrm{}^4.`$ (49)
This difference can be absorbed by a quantum reordering of (46) in which $`B`$ is replaced by

$`\stackrel{~}{B}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{Tr}(ZZ^{}+Z^{}Z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{Tr}Z^{}\mathrm{Tr}Z=B\mathrm{}^2.`$ (50)
This gives $`[A,\overline{A}]=4\mathrm{}^2\stackrel{~}{B}2\mathrm{}^4`$, while leaving the other commutators unchanged (except for $`B\stackrel{~}{B}`$). Since the operator $`B`$ has the form of a trace of the number operator, it is not surprising that it differs in the two schemes since the number of degrees of freedom are $`N`$ and $`N^2`$ respectively. Note, however, that if the gauge-fixed $`Z`$’s are used, then $`\stackrel{~}{B}=B`$, so (46) with $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ works in both quantization schemes.

### V.3 The conserved quantum current

Just as in the classical case, the current density can be constructed from the particle density by requiering the current to be conserved,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i\overline{k}}{2}}j_k{\displaystyle \frac{ik}{2}}\overline{j}_k=\dot{\rho }_k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}}[\rho _k,H],`$ (51)
where $`H`$ is the full quantum Hamiltonian. From this we can derive two expressions for the current. The first is obtained simply by evaluating the time derivative of (46) and noting that just as in the derivation of a classical current like (23), a $`\overline{k}`$ or a $`k`$ can always be factored from the corresponding expressions, thus defining the complex components of the current. The explicit expressions, containing $`\dot{Z}`$ and $`\dot{Z}^{}`$, are not very illuminating. Alternatively, we can assume some particular form for the Hamiltonian, evaluate the commutator, and derive an explicit expression for the current in terms of the basic matrix operators. We examplify with a Hamiltonian consisting only of an external scalar potental, i.e.

$`H=V(\rho )={\displaystyle \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}V(k,\overline{k})\rho _k}.`$ (52)
With this choice, (51) takes the form

$`\dot{\rho }_k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}V(p,\overline{p})[\rho _k,\rho _p]}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(\mathrm{}^2/2)^n}{n!}V(p,\overline{p})[(\overline{k}p)^n(k\overline{p})^n]\rho _{k+p}},`$ (53)
where we used (2) for the commutator and expanded the exponential and sine functions in a power series. Comparing with (51) we can now directly read off the current,

$`j_k={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{}^2/2)^n}{n!}}\overline{k}^{n1}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}p^nV(p,\overline{p})\rho _{\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{p}}},`$ (54)
which can be written more compactly in real space. A Fourier transformation gives,

$`j(z,\overline{z})={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2\mathrm{}^2)^n}{n!}}_z^{n1}[\rho (z,\overline{z})_{\overline{z}}V(z,\overline{z})].`$ (55)
This expression was derived earlier by Martinez and Stonemart93  using a second quantized formalism. The above derivation is more general in that it applies to any density operator satisfying the algebra (2), and in particular to the matrix model density operator (46).

## VI Summary and open problems

We have extended the classical quantum Hall matrix models of Susskind and Polychronakos to include couplings to an external field. We gave a general prescription for the construction of a conserved current and noticed that it suffers from ordering ambiguities even at the classical level. Nevertheless, zero and low momentum observables can be reliably calculated using the infinite matrix model and in particular we showed that the ground state density, the quantum Hall response and the response to a weak and slowly varying magnetic field agree with what is expected for a fractional QH system.

It is much harder to construct the correct charge and current operators in the quantized matrix model. The difficulties are due to the complicated intermingling of matrix and quantum ordering. In this connection, we also notice the difficulties encountered in a recent attempt by Karabali and Sakita to find good particle coordinates in the quantum matrix modelkara01 . It turns out that the most natural guess, i.e. defining the coordinates via the coherent states of the annihilation operator $`Z_{ij}`$, is not correct in that it does not reproduce the Laughlin wave functions. It is not unlikely that this is related to the failure of the anti-ordered matrix expression (16) to satisfy the correct density operator algebra.

Although not conclusive, our study supports the conjecture that the classical quantum Hall matrix model captures important aspects of the LLL physics not present in the usual effective Chern-Simons theory. At the practical level, the conclusion is, however, rather disappointing since local observables like charges and currents are rather complicated and thus cumbersome to work with. This might perhaps have been anticipated, since the gauge invariant objects in non-commutative theories are inherently nonlocal. On the other hand, it is the very fact that a non-commutative field theory can be viewed as a commutative theory with an infinite number of higher derivative terms, that makes it at all possible that the Landau level structure could be incorporated at the level of an effective Lagrangian.

We end with a comment on the relation between the classical and the quantum models. It is striking that the classical matrix model incorporates features of the FQHE which are related to the Landau level structure and not easily described in conventional mean field approaches. The $`\theta `$-dependent repulsion between the particles is a phase space exclusion effect which can be thought of as the classical counterpart of fermion, or more generally anyon, statistics. In this way the classical matrix model can emulate a fermionic system with Haldane type pseudopotentals. In the case of a quadratic confining potential, this idea is made manifest via the mapping onto the Calogero modelpoly1 , and it would be interesting if a more general connection could be made between the QH matrix model and classical exclusion statisticshll2001 . The analogy between the classical matrix model and the QH system goes even further in that the classical counterpart to the density operator algebra (2) can be interpreted as a quantum commutator algebra of fractionally charged quasi-holeshkp2002 . We hope to return to some of these question in the future.

Acknowledgement: We thank Alexis Polychronakos for many useful comments and suggestions, and Dimitra Karabali for an illuminating discussion about reference kara01, .


format: text

text:
# Kolmogorov - Sinaj entropy on MV-algebras

## 1  Introduction

If $`(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒮,P)`$ is a probability space and $`T:\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a measure preserving transformation (i.e. $`A𝒮`$ implies $`T^1(A)𝒮`$, and $`P(T^1(A))=P(A)`$, the entropy is defined as follows. If $`𝒜=\{A_1,\mathrm{},A_k\}`$ is a measurable partition of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, then

$$H(A)=\underset{i}{}\phi (P(A_i)),$$

where $`\phi (x)=xlogx`$, if $`x>0`$, and $`\phi (0)=0`$. Denote by $`_{i=0}^{n1}T^i(𝒜)`$ the common refinement of the partitions $`𝒜,T^1(𝒜)=\{T^1(A_1),\mathrm{},T^1(A_k)\},\mathrm{},T^{(n1)}(𝒜)=\{T^{(n1)}(A_1),\mathrm{},T^{(n1)}(A_k)\}.`$ Then there exists

$$h(𝒜,T)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}H(\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}T^i(𝒜))$$
(1)
and the Kolomogorov - Sinaj entropy is defined by the formula

$$h(T)=sup\{h(𝒜,T);𝒜\text{is a measurable partition of}\mathrm{\Omega }\}.$$
(2)
Let us try to substitute partitions by fuzzy partitions $`𝒜=\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$, where $`f_j`$ are non-negative, measurable functions, $`_{i=1}^kf_i=1_\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ Put $`m(f_i)=_\mathrm{\Omega }f_i`$ dP. The common refinement of $`𝒜`$ and $`=\{g_1,\mathrm{},g_l\}`$ is defined using products of functions: $`𝒜=\{f_i.g_j;i=1,\mathrm{},k,j=1,\mathrm{},l\}`$. Further $`T^1(𝒜)=\{f_1T,\mathrm{},f_kT\}.`$ Then the entropy can be defined by the formula

$$H(𝒜)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\phi (m(f_i)),$$

and then by (1) and (2). Of course, in this case $`h(T)=\mathrm{}`$, if e.g. the supremum is taken over the all measurable partitions. Therefore P. Maličký suggested (, see also , ) the following modification: instead of $`H(_{i=0}^{n1}T^1(𝒜)`$ to use

$$H_n(𝒜,T)=inf\{H(𝒞);𝒞𝒜,𝒞T^1(𝒜),\mathrm{},𝒞T^{(n1)}(𝒜)\}$$
(3)
and then to define the entropy by the formula

$$h(𝒜,T)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}H_n(𝒜,T).$$
(4)
A natural algebraization of a tribe of functions is an MV-algebra. On a special type of MV-algebras - so-called MV-algebras with product (,) there has been realized the construction of entropy in ,. In the paper, following the Maličký construction (3), (4), we construct entropy on any MV-algebra. Secondly, we need only additivity of considered states instead of usually demended $`\sigma `$-additivity.

In Section 2 we present necessary informations about MV-algebras and some auxiliary results concerning partitions of unity. Then in Section 3 we prove the existence of entropy. Section 4 registers basic facts about isomorphism and entropy and Section 5 contains a counting formula.

## 2  MV-algebras

An MV-algebra $`M=(M,0,1,\neg ,,)`$ is a system where $``$ is associative and commutative with neutral element $`0`$, and, in addition, $`\neg 0=1,\neg 1=0,x1=1,xy=\neg (\neg x\neg y),`$ and $`y\neg (y\neg x)=x\neg (x\neg y)`$ for all $`x,yM`$.

MV-algebras stand to the infinite-valued calculus of Lukasiewicz as boolean algebras stand to classical two-valued calculus.

An example of an MV-algebra is the real unit interval  equipped with the operations

$$\neg x=1x,xy=\mathrm{min}(1,x+y),xy=\mathrm{max}(0,x+y1)$$

It is interesting that any MV-algebra has a similar structure. Let $`G`$ be a lattice-ordered Abelian group (shortly $`l`$-group). Let $`uG`$ be a strong unit of $`G`$, i.e. for all $`gG`$ there exists and integer $`n1`$ such that $`nug`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(G,u)`$ be the unit interval $`[0,u]=\{hG;0hu\}`$ equipped with the operations

$$\neg g=ug,gh=u(g+h),gh=0(g+hu).$$

Then $`([0,u],0,u,\neg ,,)`$ is an MV-algebra and by the Mundici theorem (), up to isomorphism, every MV-algebra $`M`$ can be identified with the unit interval of a unique $`l`$-group $`G`$ with strong unit, $`M=\mathrm{\Gamma }(G,u)`$.

A partition of unity $`u`$ in $`M`$ is an $`k`$-tuple $`𝒜=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_k)`$ of elements of $`M`$ such that

$$a_1+\mathrm{}+a_k=u.$$

If $`𝒜=\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_n\}`$, and $`=\{c_1,\mathrm{}.,c_k\}`$ are partitions of unity, then their common refinement is any matrix $`𝒮=\{c_{ij};i=1,\mathrm{},k,j=1,\mathrm{}l\}`$ of elements of $`M`$ such that

$$a_i=\underset{j=1}{\overset{l}{}}c_{ij},i=1,\mathrm{},k,b_j=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}c_{ij},j=1,\mathrm{},l$$

Although in view of the Mundici theorem the next result is known ( Prop. 2.2 (c), see also ), we mention the proof.

Lemma 1. To any partitions $`𝒜,`$ there exists their common refinement.

Proof. Let $`𝒜=\{a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_n\},=\{b_1,b_2,\mathrm{},b_m\}`$. By the well known Riesz theorem, to any $`a,b,c`$ such that $`0ab+c,b0,c0`$ there exist $`d,e`$ such that $`0db,0ec,`$ and $`a=d+e`$. (Indeed, put $`d=ab,e=aab.)`$ This property can be generalized by induction for a finite number of elements. Therefore, since $`a_1b_1+b_2+\mathrm{}+b_m=u`$, there exist $`c_{11},c_{12},\mathrm{},c_{1m}`$ such that

$$c_{1i}b_i(i=1,\mathrm{}.,m),$$

and

$$a_1=c_{11}+c_{12}+\mathrm{}+c_{1m}.$$

Since $`a_2ua_1=(b_1c_{11})+(b_2c_{12})+\mathrm{}+(b_mc_{1m})`$, there exist $`c_{2i}(i=1,2,\mathrm{},m)`$ such that

$$c_{2i}b_ic_{1i}(i=1,2,\mathrm{},m),$$

and

$$a_2=c_{21}+c_{22}+\mathrm{}+c_{2m}.$$

Continuing the process we construct $`c_{3i}(i=1,2,\mathrm{},m)`$ such that

$$c_{3i}b_ic_{1i}c_{2i}(i=1,2,\mathrm{},m),$$

and

$$a_3=c_{31}+c_{32}+\mathrm{}+c_{3m}.$$

After constructing $`c_{n1,1},c_{n1,2},\mathrm{}c_{n1,m}`$ with $`c_{n1,i}b_i_{j=1}^{n2}c_{ji},a_{n1}=_{j=1}^mc_{n1,j}`$, we put

$$c_{ni}=b_i\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}c_{ji}(i=1,\mathrm{},m)$$

Then evidently

$$b_i=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}c_{ji}(i=1,\mathrm{},m),$$

and

$$c_{n1}+c_{n2}+\mathrm{}+c_{nm}=b_1+\mathrm{}+b_m\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}c_{ji}$$

$$=u\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}c_{ji}=u\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}a_j=a_n.$$

Remark. Common refinements of partitions are not defined uniquely. E.g. let $`M=[0,1],𝒜=\{0.5,0.5\},=\{0.4,0.6\}.`$ Then any matrix

$$t0.1;0.5t$$

$$0.6t;t$$

$`t[0.1,0.5]`$ represents a common refinement of $`𝒜,`$.

## 3  Entropy of dynamical systems

Definition 1. By a dynamical system on an MV-algebra we understand a couple of mappings $`m:M[0,1],\tau :MM`$ satisfying the following conditions:

* $`ifa=b+c,thenm(a)=m(b)+m(c),\tau (a)=\tau (b)+\tau (c)`$
* $`\tau (u)=u,m(u)=1`$
* $`m(\tau (a))=m(a),aM`$

Definition 2. If $`𝒜=\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_n\}`$ is a partition of unity, then its entropy is defined by the formula

$$H(𝒜)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\phi (m(a_i)),$$

where $`\phi (x)=xlogx`$, if $`x>0,\phi (0)=0`$.

Definition 3. If $`𝒜=\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_n\},=\{b_1,\mathrm{},b_k\}`$ are two partitions of unity and $`𝒞=\{c_{ij};i=1,\mathrm{},n,j=1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ is a common refinement of $`𝒜`$ and $``$, then we define

$`H_𝒞(𝒜|)=_{i=1}^n_{j=1}^mm(b_j)\phi (\frac{m(c_{ij})}{m(b_j)}).`$

Lemma 2. $`H_𝒞(𝒜|)H(𝒜)`$.

Proof. Fix $`i`$, and put $`\alpha _j=m(b_j),x_j=\frac{m(c_{ij})}{m(b_j)},j=1,\mathrm{},k.`$ Then $`_{j=1}^m\alpha _j=m(u)=1`$

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}\alpha _jx_j=\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}m(c_{ij})=m(\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}c_{ij})=m(a_i).$$

Since $`\phi `$ is concave, we have

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}\alpha _j\phi (x_j)\phi (\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}\alpha _jx_j),$$

hence

$$H_𝒞(𝒜|)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}m(b_j)\phi (\frac{m(c_{ij})}{m(b_j)})=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}\alpha _j\phi (x_j)\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\phi (\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}\alpha _jx_j)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\phi (m(a_i))=H(𝒜).$$

Lemma 3. $`H(𝒞)=H(𝒜)+H_𝒞(|𝒜)`$ for any common refinement $`𝒞`$ of $`𝒜`$ and $``$.

Proof. It follows by the additivity of logarithms.

$$H(𝒞)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}\phi (c_{ij})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}\phi (m(a_i)\frac{m(c_{ij})}{m(a_i)})$$

$$=\underset{i}{}\underset{j}{}m(c_{ij})logm(a_i)\underset{i}{}\underset{j}{}m(c_{ij}\mathrm{log}\frac{m(c_{ij})}{m(a_i)}$$

$$=\underset{i}{}\mathrm{log}m(a_i)\underset{j}{}m(c_{ij})+\underset{i}{}\underset{j}{}m(a_i)\phi (\frac{m(c_{ij})}{m(a_j)})$$

$$=\underset{i}{}m(a_i)\mathrm{log}m(a_i)+H_𝒞(|𝒜)$$

$$=H(𝒜)+H_𝒞(|𝒜)$$

Corollary. For any common refinement $`𝒞`$ of $`𝒜`$ and $``$ there holds $`H(𝒞)H(𝒜)+H().`$

Lemma 4. For any partition $`𝒜=\{a_1,\mathrm{}.,a_n\}`$ put $`\tau ((𝒜)=\{\tau (a_1),\mathrm{},\tau (a_n)\}`$. Then $`\tau (𝒜)`$ is a partition of unity, too. Moreover, $`H(\tau (𝒜))=H(𝒜)`$.

Proof. By (i) and (iii) of the definition of dynamical system we have

$$\tau (a_1)+\tau (a_2)+\mathrm{}+\tau (a_n)=\tau (a_1+\mathrm{}+a_n)=\tau (u)=u.$$

Moreover, by (iii)

$$H(\tau (𝒜))=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\phi (m(\tau (a_i)))=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\phi (m(a_i))=H(𝒜).$$

Definition 3. For any partition $`𝒜`$ of unity and any positive integer $`n`$ we define

$`H_n(𝒜,\tau )=inf\{H(𝒞);𝒞`$ is a common refinement of $`𝒜,\tau (𝒜),\mathrm{},\tau ^{(n1)}(𝒜)\}`$.

Theorem 1. There exists $`lim_n\mathrm{}\frac{1}{n}H_n(𝒜,T).`$

Proof. It suffices to prove that $`H_{n+m}(𝒜,\tau )H_n(𝒜,\tau )+H_m(𝒜,\tau )`$.We shall use the following notation: $`𝒞𝒜`$, if $`𝒞`$ is a common refinement of $`𝒜`$ and $``$. Let $`𝒞,𝒟`$ be partitions of unity such that

$$𝒞𝒜\tau (𝒜)\mathrm{}\tau ^{(n1)}(𝒜),$$
(5)
$$𝒟𝒜\tau (𝒜)\mathrm{}\tau ^{(m1)}(𝒜).$$
(6)
By (6) we obtain

$$\tau ^n(𝒟)\tau ^n(𝒜)\tau ^{n+1}(𝒜)\mathrm{}\tau ^{n+m1}(𝒜).$$
(7)
Finally consider any partition $``$ such that

$$𝒞\tau _n(𝒟).$$
(8)
By (8), (5) and (7) we obtain

$$𝒜\tau (𝒜)...\tau ^{n+m1}(𝒜),$$

hence

$$H_{n+m}(𝒜)H().$$

Of course, by (8), Corollary and Lemma 4

$$H()H(𝒞)+H(\tau _n(𝒟))$$

$$=H(𝒞)+H(𝒟),$$

hence

$$H_{n+m}(𝒜)H(𝒞)+H(𝒟).$$
(9)
Fix for a moment $`𝒟`$. Since (9) holds for any $`𝒞𝒜\tau (𝒜)\mathrm{}\tau ^{(n1)}(𝒜)`$, by the definition of $`H_n(𝒜)`$ we obtain

$$H_{n+m}(𝒜)H(𝒟)H_n(𝒜),$$

and by a similar argument

$$H_{n+m}(𝒜)H_n(𝒜)H_m(𝒜).$$

## 4  Isomorphism

The aim of the Kolmogorov - Sinaj entropy was to distinguish non -isomorphic dynamical systems. If $`TT^{}`$ implies $`h(T)=h(T^{})`$, then dynamical systems $`T,T^{}`$ with different entropies $`h(T)h(T^{})`$ cannot be isomorphic.

Definition 4. Entropy of an MV-algebra dynamical system $`(M,m,\tau )`$ is defined by the formula

$$h(\tau )=sup\{h(𝒜,\tau );𝒜\text{is a partition of unity}\}$$

where

$$h(𝒜,\tau )=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}H_n(𝒜,\tau ).$$

Definition 5. Two MV-algebra dynamical systems $`(M_1,m_1,\tau _1),(M_2,m_2,\tau _2)`$ are equivalent, if there exists a mapping $`\psi :M_1M_2`$ satisfying the following conditions:

* $`\psi \text{is a bijection}`$
* $`ifa,b,cM_1,a=b+c,\text{then}\psi (a)=\psi (b)+\psi (c).`$
* $`\psi (u_1)=u_2`$
* $`m_2(\psi (a))=m_1(a)\text{ for any}aM_1`$
* $`\tau _2(\psi (a))=\psi (\tau _1(a))\text{ for any}aM_1`$

Theorem 2. If $`(M_1,m_1,\tau _1)`$ and $`(M_2,m_2,\tau _2)`$ are equivalent, then $`h(\tau _1)=h(\tau _2)`$.

Proof. If $`𝒜`$ is any partition of $`u_1`$, then $`\psi (𝒜)`$ is a partition of $`u_2`$, and $`H(𝒜)=H(\psi (𝒜))`$. Let $`\epsilon `$ be an arbitrary positive number. Choose a common refinement $`𝒞`$ of $`𝒜,\mathrm{},\tau _1^{n1}(𝒜)`$ such that

$$H_n+\epsilon >H(𝒞).$$

Evidently $`H(𝒞)H_n(\psi (𝒜))`$. Since

$$H_n(𝒜)+\epsilon H_n(\psi (𝒜))$$

holds for any $`\epsilon >0`$, we have

$$H_n(𝒜)H_n(\psi (𝒜)),$$

hence

$$h_1(\tau _1,𝒜)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}H_n(𝒜)\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}H_n(\psi (𝒜))=h_2(\tau _2,\psi (𝒜)),$$

$$h_1(\tau _1)=sup\{h_1(\tau _1,𝒜);𝒜\}h_2(\tau _2,\psi (𝒜)).$$

Let $``$ be any partition of $`u_2`$. Then $`𝒜=\psi ^1()`$ is a partition of $`u_1`$ and $`\psi (𝒜)=.`$ Therefore

$$h_1(\tau _1)h_2(\tau _2,\psi (𝒜))=h_2(\tau _2,)$$

for any $``$, hence $`h_1(\tau _1)h_2(\tau _2)`$.

## 5 MV-algebras with product

MV-algebra with product (see , , ) is a pair $`(M,.)`$, where $`M`$ is an MV-algebra, and $``$ is a commutative and associative operation on $`M`$ satisfying the following conditions:

* $`u.a=a;`$
* $`ifa,b,cM,a+bu,\text{ }thenc.a+c.bu,\text{ }andc.(a+b)=c.a+c.b.`$

In MV-algebras with product a suitable theory of entropy of the Kolmogorov type has been constructed in . Of course, the construction is different. The main idea is the following. If $`𝒜=\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_k\},=\{b_1,\mathrm{},b_l\}`$ are two partitions of unity, then one defines

$$𝒜=\{a_i.b_j;i=1,\mathrm{},k,j=1,\mathrm{},l\}.$$

The entropy is defined by the formula

$$\overline{h}(𝒜,\tau )=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}H(\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\tau ^i(𝒜)).$$

Evidently $`𝒜`$ is a common refinement of $`𝒜`$ and $``$. Therefore

$$H_n(𝒜,\tau )H(\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\tau ^i(𝒜)),$$

and

$$h(𝒜,\tau )=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}H_n(𝒜,\tau )\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}H(\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\tau ^i(𝒜))=\overline{h}(𝒜,\tau ).$$

We want to study some relations between $`h(𝒜,\tau )`$ and $`\overline{h}(𝒜,\tau )`$. Of course, we shall assume that the given MV-algebra is divisible, i.e. to any $`aM`$ and any $`nN`$ there exists $`bM`$ such that $`a=n.b`$. As it has been shown in  any divisible $`\sigma `$-complete MV-algebra $`M`$ admits a product such that $`(M,.)`$ is an MV-algebra with product.

Theorem 3. Let $`M`$ be a divisible $`\sigma `$-complete MV-algebra, m be continuous, positive state on M (i.e. $`m(a)=0a=0`$). If $`𝒜=\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_k\},=\{b_1,\mathrm{},b_l\}`$ are partitions of unity, and $`𝒜`$ consists of idempotents (i.e. $`a_ia_i=a_i`$ for all i), then $`𝒜`$ is the unique common refinement of $`𝒜`$ and $``$.

Proof. Our main tool is the Dvurečenskij and Mundici modification of the Loomis - Sikorski theorem (, ). By  Theorem 7.2.6 there exists a compact Hausdorff space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, a family $`𝒯`$ of functions $`f:\mathrm{\Omega }[0,1]`$ and a mapping $`\psi :𝒯M`$ satisfying the following properties:

* $`𝒯`$ is a tribe, i.e. $`1_\mathrm{\Omega }𝒯,1f𝒯`$ whenever $`f𝒯`$, and $`\mathrm{min}\{_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}},1\}𝒯`$ , whenever $`f_n𝒯(n=1,2,\mathrm{})`$;
* the natural product $`f.g𝒯`$, whenever $`f𝒯,g𝒯`$;
* $`\psi `$ is an MV-$`\sigma `$-homomorphism from $`𝒯`$ onto $`M`$ preserving the product in $`𝒯`$.

Since $`M`$ is divisible and $`\sigma `$-complete, the tribe $`𝒯`$ contains all constant functions. Indeed, by  theorem 7.1.22 $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ consists of all functions $`m:M[0,1]`$ satisfying the identity $`m(ab)=\mathrm{min}(m(a)+m(b),1)`$, and the tribe $`𝒯`$ is generated by the family of all functions $`\widehat{a}:\mathrm{\Omega }[0,1]`$ defined by $`\widehat{a}(m)=m(a),aM.`$ Of course, divisibility of $`M`$ implies for any $`qN`$ the existence of $`\frac{1}{q}u`$ such that $`qm(\frac{1}{q}u)=1`$. If $`rQ,r=\frac{p}{q}`$, then $`\widehat{ru}(m)=m(ru)=pm(\frac{1}{q}u)=p\frac{1}{q}m(u)=r`$, hence the constant function $`r_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ belongs to $`𝒯`$. Finally $`\sigma `$-completeness of $`M`$ implies that $`𝒯`$ contains all constant functions $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha [0,1]`$.

Since $`𝒯`$ contains all constant fuzzy sets, by the Butnariu - Klement theorem ( Prop. 3.3.,  Theorem 7.1.7) $`𝒯`$ consists of all $`𝒮`$-measurable functions, where $`𝒮=\{A\mathrm{\Omega };\chi _A𝒯\}`$.

Define $`\mu :𝒯[0,1]`$ by $`\mu (f)=m(\psi (f))`$. Evidently $`\mu `$ is a continuous state on the $`MV`$-algebra $`𝒯`$. There exists a probability measure $`P:𝒮[0,1]`$ such that $`\mu (f)=_\mathrm{\Omega }f𝑑P`$ for any $`f𝒯`$.

Let $`\{c_{ij};i=1,\mathrm{},k,j=1,\mathrm{},l\}`$ be any common refinement of $`𝒜`$ and $``$. Since $`\psi `$ is epimorphism, there are $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_k,g_1,\mathrm{},g_l,h_{ij}𝒯`$ such that $`\psi (f_i)=a_i,\psi (g_j)=b_j,\psi (h_{ij})=c_{ij}.`$ Since $`a_i`$ are idempotent, it is not difficult to see ( Prop. 7.1.20) that $`f_i=\chi _{A_i}`$. We have P-almost everywhere

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}h_{ij}=\chi _{A_i},\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}h_{ij}=g_j,i=1,\mathrm{},k,j=1,\mathrm{},l.$$

Therefore

$$h_{ij}=\chi _{A_i}.g_j,$$

P-a.e., hence

$$c_{ij}=\psi (h_{ij})=\psi (\chi _{A_i}).\psi (g_j)=a_i.b_j.$$

Corollary. Let the assumptions of Theorem 3 be satisfied. If $`𝒜`$ consists of idempotent elements, then

$$h(𝒜,\tau )=\overline{h}(𝒜,\tau ).$$

Theorem 4. Let the assumptions of Theorem 3 be satisfied. If $`𝒜`$ consists of idempotent elements, then for any partition $``$ there holds the inequality

$$h(,\tau )h(𝒜,\tau )+H(𝒜)$$

where

$$H(𝒜)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{l}{}}m(b_j)\phi (\frac{m(a_i.b_j)}{m(b_j)}).$$

Proof. It follows by  Prop. 8 and the above Corollary.

Remark. Theorem 4 presents a basic tool for counting entropy in some structures. For details see e.g. , Chapter 10.

Acknowledgement. The author thanks to Professors Daniele Mundici and Anatolij Dvurečenskij for many fruitful discussions and suggestions. The paper was supported by Grant VEGA 1/9056/02.


text:
# Optimal estimation of multiple phases

## I Introduction

The issue of phase estimation has important applications in quantum computation and quantum information theory. For example, it was shown that the existing quantum algorithms can be described in a unified way as quantum interference processes among different computational paths where the result of the computation is encoded in a phase shift . The design of optimal phase measurement procedures is also crucial in various tasks of atomic physics, such as for example methods for precision spectroscopy , and quantum interferometric experiments in quantum optics.

The problem of the optimal estimation of the value of a phase shift experienced by a quantum state has been extensively studied , and in particular a method to derive the optimal measurement procedure in the phase covariant case was reported in Ref. . More recently, a general formulation of the phase estimation problem was considered in Ref. , where a method to derive the optimal positive-operator valued measurement (POVM)  for a generally degenerate phase shift operator was developed. In this work we introduce the problem of simultaneous estimation of several phase shifts undergone by a quantum physical system. More specifically, we address the problem of estimating the values of $`M`$ independent phase-shifts $`\varphi _j`$ ($`j=1,M`$), pertaining to the unitary transformation

$`\rho _{\{\varphi _j\}}=e^{i_{j=1}^M\varphi _j\widehat{H}_j}\rho _0e^{i_{j=1}^M\varphi _j\widehat{H}_j}`$ (1)
where $`\widehat{H}_j`$ represent $`M`$ commuting self-adjoint operators, which are in general degenerate on the Hilbert space $``$ of the considered quantum system and each of them has a discrete spectrum $`S_j`$ ($`S_j`$ can be for example Z, N, or $`\text{Z}_q`$, $`q>0`$) . In Eq. (1) $`\rho _0`$ is a generic initial pure state $`|\psi _0\psi _0|`$ describing a quantum system with arbitrary dimension. We want to point out that the scenario of simultaneous estimation of several phases may be useful to improve the efficiency of quantum information processing tasks where several variables are encoded into phases in the same quantum states.

The paper is organised as follows. In Sect. II we derive a general treatment of the multiple phase estimation problem, extending to the multi-phase case the approach presented in  for the case of single phase estimation. In Sect. III we derive the optimal POVM and the corresponding estimation fidelity for a system of $`N`$ identically prepared “equatorial” three-dimensional systems. We want to point out that the possibility of encoding information in the states of three dimensional systems has been the object of several recent studies, for example in the context of quantum cloning  and quantum cryptography . In Sect. IV we extend these results derived for qutrits to the case of quantum systems with arbitrary finite dimension $`d`$. Finally, we summarise and comment the results presented in Sect. V.

## II Optimal POVM for multiple-phase estimation

In this section we derive the optimal POVM corresponding to the simultaneous estimation of several phase shifts experienced by a pure state $`|\psi _0`$, belonging to the Hilbert space $``$, that undergoes the unitary transformation (1). Following the approach of Ref. , we treat the estimation problem in the general framework of quantum estimation theory . According to this framework, we first define a cost function $`C(\{\overline{\varphi }_j\},\{\varphi _j\})`$ which depends on the set of the $`M`$ estimated values $`\{\overline{\varphi }_j\}`$, that are the results of the estimation procedure, and on the set of the $`M`$ true values $`\{\varphi _j\}`$. This function weights the errors for the estimates $`\{\overline{\varphi }_j\}`$ given the true values $`\{\varphi _j\}`$. The estimation problem then consists in minimizing the average cost $`\overline{C}`$ of the procedure defined as

$`\overline{C}={\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}d\varphi _1{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}d\varphi _2..{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}d\varphi _Mp_0(\{\varphi _j\}){\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}d\overline{\varphi }_1{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}d\overline{\varphi }_2..{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}d\overline{\varphi }_MC(\{\overline{\varphi }_j\},\{\varphi _j\})p(\{\overline{\varphi }_j\}|\{\varphi _j\}),`$ (2)
where $`p_0(\{\varphi _j\})`$ is the a priori probability density for the true values $`\{\varphi _j\}`$ and $`p(\{\overline{\varphi }_j\}|\{\varphi _j\})`$ is the conditional probability of estimating the set of values $`\{\overline{\varphi }_j\}`$ given the true values $`\{\varphi _j\}`$. The average cost is minimized by optimizing the POVM $`d\mu (\{\overline{\varphi }_j\})`$ which appears in the definition of the conditional probability as follows

$`p(\{\overline{\varphi }_j\}|\{\varphi _j\})d\overline{\varphi }_1d\overline{\varphi }_2\mathrm{}d\overline{\varphi }_M=\text{Tr}[d\mu (\{\overline{\varphi }_j\})e^{i_{j=1}^M\varphi _j\widehat{H}_j}\rho _0e^{i_{j=1}^M\varphi _j\widehat{H}_j}].`$ (3)
In this work we consider the general scenario where all the values $`\{\varphi _j\}`$ are a priori uniformly distributed, i.e. the probability density is simply given by $`p_0(\{\varphi _j\})=(1/2\pi )^M`$. Moreover, we consider the case where the errors in the estimates are weighted independently of the values $`\varphi _j`$ of the phases, but they depend only on the values of $`\overline{\varphi }_j\varphi _j`$, so that the cost function becomes an even function of $`M`$ variables, i.e. $`C(\{\overline{\varphi }_j\},\{\varphi _j\})C(\{\overline{\varphi }_j\varphi _j\})`$. From these requirements it follows that also the conditional probability corresponding to the optimal estimation procedure will depend only on the variables $`\overline{\varphi }_j\varphi _j`$, and therefore the optimal POVM will be phase-covariant, i.e. of the form

$`d\mu (\{\overline{\varphi }_j\})=e^{i_{j=1}^M\overline{\varphi }_j\widehat{H}_j}\chi e^{i_{j=1}^M\overline{\varphi }_j\widehat{H}_j}{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{\varphi }_1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{\varphi }_2}{2\pi }}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{\varphi }_M}{2\pi }}.`$ (4)
In the above equation $`\chi `$ is a positive operator satisfying the completeness constraints needed for the normalization of the POVM $`𝑑\mu (\{\varphi _j\})=1𝐥`$, where $`1𝐥`$ denotes the identity operator. Actually, using Eq. (3) and the invariance of the trace under cyclic permutations it can be shown that $`p(\{\overline{\varphi }_j\}|\{\varphi _j\})p(\{\overline{\varphi }_j\varphi _j\})`$ if and only if $`d\mu (\{\overline{\varphi }_j\})`$ is covariant. Therefore the optimization of the phase estimation procedure can be performed by finding the positive operator $`\chi `$ that minimises the average cost for a given cost function $`C(\{\varphi _j\})`$ and a generic initial state $`\rho _0`$.

We will now show explicitly how to derive the optimal POVM for a broad class of cost functions and initial states $`\rho _0`$. First of all we will choose the representation where all the operators $`\widehat{H}_j`$ are diagonal. We have assumed that the operators $`\widehat{H}_j`$ commute, so we can identify a common basis of eigenvectors. The operators $`\widehat{H}_j`$ are generally degenerate, and we will denote by $`|\{n_j\}_\nu `$ a choice of (normalized) eigenvectors corresponding to eigenvalue $`n_j`$ for the operator $`\widehat{H}_j`$, by $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\{n_j\}}`$ the projector onto the corresponding degenerate eigenspace and by $`\nu `$ a degeneracy index, whose maximum value corresponds to the dimension of the degenerate eigenspace.

We will now generalise the projection method developed in  and define $`_{}`$ as the Hilbert space spanned by the (normalized) vectors $`|\{n_j\}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\{n_j\}}|\psi _00`$ with the choice of the arbitrary phases such that $`\{n_j\}|\psi _0>0`$. We can then write the Hilbert space of the system as $`=_{}_{}`$, where the component $`_{}`$ is spanned by states that are orthogonal to $`|\psi _0`$. Hence the POVM can be chosen of the block diagonal form on $`_{}_{}`$, i.e. $`d\mu (\{\varphi _j\})=d\mu _{}(\{\varphi _j\})d\mu _{}(\{\varphi _j\})`$. In this way the component $`d\mu _{}(\{\varphi _j\})`$ of the POVM acting on $`_{}`$ can be chosen arbitrarily because it does not contribute to the average cost. Therefore, the optimisation of the estimation procedure can be performed by optimising only the component $`d\mu _{}(\{\varphi _j\})`$ of the POVM.

In order to optimise the POVM we can assume that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\{n_j\}}|\psi _00`$ for all values of $`\{n_j\}`$, since the resulting POVM will be optimal also for states having zero projection for some of these values. Due to the covariance property (4) and to the argument followed above, we can also write $`\chi =\chi _{}\chi _{}`$. Thus, the problem reduces to finding the positive operator $`\chi _{}`$ that minimizes the cost $`\overline{C}`$ in Eq. (2). In order to accomplish this task, we first rewrite Eq. (2) more conveniently as

$`\overline{C}={\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _2}{2\pi }}..{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _M}{2\pi }}C(\{\varphi _j\})\text{Tr}[\chi e^{i_{j=1}^M\varphi _j\widehat{H}_j}\rho _0e^{i_{j=1}^M\varphi _j\widehat{H}_j}].`$ (5)
We will now express the operator $`\chi _{}`$ on the $`|\{n_j\}`$ basis as follows

$`\chi _{}={\displaystyle \underset{\{n_j\},\{m_j\}}{}}|\{n_j\}\{m_j\}|\chi _{\{n_j\}\{m_j\}}.`$ (6)
The positivity condition for the operator $`\chi `$ implies the inequalities

$`|\chi _{\{n_j\}\{m_j\}}|\sqrt{\chi _{\{n_j\}\{n_j\}}\chi _{\{m_j\}\{m_j\}}}=1,`$ (7)
where the last equality comes from the POVM completeness relation $`𝑑\mu _{}(\varphi )=1𝐥_{}`$.

The cost functions we will consider are $`2\pi `$-periodic functions in the variables $`\{\varphi _j\}`$, and therefore they can be written as

$$C(\{\varphi _j\})=\underset{l_1,l_2,\mathrm{}l_M=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_{\{l_j\}}e^{i_jl_j\varphi _j},$$
(8)
with the condition $`c_{\{l_j\}}=c_{\{l_j\}}`$ due to the fact that the cost is a real and even function. By performing the integrals in Eq. (5) and exploiting the relation $`_0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi e^{i(nm)\varphi }=\delta _{n,m}/2\pi `$ we arrive at the following form of the average cost

$`\overline{C}=c_0{\displaystyle \underset{\{l_j\}0}{}}c_{\{l_j\}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{m_jn_j\}=\{l_j\}}{}}\psi _0|\{n_j\}\{m_j\}|\psi _0\chi _{\{n_j\}\{m_j\}},`$ (9)
where the expression $`\{l_j\}0`$ under the first summation symbol means that the sum contains all the values of the indexes $`l_j`$ apart from the case where they are all zero (this contribution corresponds to the term $`c_0`$ in Eq. (9)) and the expression $`\{m_jn_j\}=\{l_j\}`$ under the second summation means that the equality $`m_jn_j=l_j`$ must hold for all values of the index $`j`$.

Let us now consider the following inequality

$`\text{sign}(c_{\{l_j\}}){\displaystyle \underset{\{m_jn_j\}=\{l_j\}}{}}\psi _0|\{n_j\}\{m_j\}|\psi _0\chi _{\{n_j\}\{m_j\}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{m_jn_j\}=\{l_j\}}{}}|\psi _0|\{n_j\}||\{m_j\}|\psi _0|,`$ (10)
where we remind that we chose $`\{n_j\}|\psi _0>0`$. The above relation becomes an equality if the conditions

$`\chi _{\{n_j\}\{m_j\}}=\text{sign}(c_{\{m_jn_j\}})`$ (11)
can be fulfilled. In this case the minimum cost takes the simple form

$`\overline{C}=c_0{\displaystyle \underset{\{l_j\}0}{}}c_{\{l_j\}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{m_jn_j\}=\{l_j\}}{}}|\psi _0|\{n_j\}||\{m_j\}|\psi _0|.`$ (12)
Notice however that the positivity of $`\chi _{}`$ is not generally guaranteed for any set of values of $`\text{sign}(c_{\{l_j\}})`$.

Let us now define a general class of cost functions, that extends the one considered by Holevo , with

$`c_{\{l_j\}}0,\{l_j\}0.`$ (13)
For this class the conditions (11) are trivially satisfied for all the sets of values $`\{n_j\}`$ and the optimal POVM takes the explicit form

$`d\mu _{}(\{\varphi _j\})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _1}{2\pi }}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _M}{2\pi }}|e(\{\varphi _j\})e(\{\varphi _j\})|,`$ (14)
where the vectors $`|e(\{\varphi _j\})`$ are defined as

$`|e(\{\varphi _j\})={\displaystyle \underset{\{n_j\}}{}}e^{i_jn_j\varphi _j}|\{n_j\}.`$ (15)
In the following sections we will illustrate more explicitly the results presented here by considering specific examples.

## III Double phase estimation for qutrits

As a simple application of the concepts presented above, let us consider the optimal double phase estimation for $`N`$ identical three-dimensional quantum systems (qutrits) all in the state

$`|\psi (\varphi ,\theta )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(|0+e^{i\varphi }|1+e^{i\theta }|2),`$ (16)
where $`\{|0,|1,|2\}`$ represents a basis for the qutrit. In the language of the previous section we identify $`\varphi _1=\varphi `$, $`\varphi _2=\theta `$, $`\widehat{H}_1=|11|`$, $`\widehat{H}_2=|22|`$ and $`|\psi _0=(|0+|1+|2)/\sqrt{3}`$ for each qutrit. For the composite system of $`N`$ qutrits we have $`\widehat{H}_1=_{k=1}^N|11|_k`$ and $`\widehat{H}_2=_{k=1}^N|22|_k`$, where $`|jj|_k`$ denotes the projection operator onto the state $`|j`$ of the $`k`$-th qutrit. The operators $`\widehat{H}_1`$ and $`\widehat{H}_2`$ commute, and they are diagonalised in the basis $`|Nn_1n_2,n_1,n_2_\nu `$ of the states where $`Nn_1n_2`$ qutrits are in the state $`|0`$, $`n_1`$ in the state $`|1`$ and $`n_2`$ in the state $`|2`$. The symbol $`\nu `$ represents the degeneracy index of the corresponding subspace, and in particular it ranges from 1 to $`N!/(Nn_1n_2)!n_1!n_2!`$. Since the state of the $`N`$ qutrits is symmetric under any permutation performed on the qutrits, the states $`|\{n_j\}`$ defined in the previous section by the projection method correspond in this case to the symmetric normalised states of the $`N`$ qutrits, which we will simply denote as $`|Nn_1n_2,n_1,n_2_s`$ (such a state is an equally weighted superposition of $`N!/(Nn_1n_2)!n_1!n_2!`$ components corresponding to all the possible permutations of states with $`Nn_1n_2`$ qutrits in the state $`|0`$, $`n_1`$ in the state $`|1`$ and $`n_2`$ in the state $`|2`$).

In this case the optimal POVM (14) for the cost functions of the generalised Holevo form (13) takes the form

$`d\mu (\varphi ,\theta ){\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta }{2\pi }}|e(\varphi ,\theta )e(\varphi ,\theta )|,`$ (17)
where $`|e(\varphi ,\theta )=_{n_1=0}^N_{n_2=0}^{Nn_1}e^{i(n_1\varphi +n_2\theta )}|Nn_1n_2,n_1,n_2_s`$.

Let us now compute the fidelity of the optimal double phase estimation procedure. As a cost function we can choose for example $`1F`$, where $`F`$ is the fidelity of the estimated state $`|\psi (\overline{\varphi },\overline{\theta })`$ with respect to the true state $`|\psi (\varphi ,\theta )`$. This cost belongs to the class (13), and therefore the corresponding optimal POVM is the one written above. This choice of the cost function is particularly interesting because the fidelity is the figure of merit usually adopted to describe other processes in quantum information theory, such as for instance cloning transformations, and therefore it allows a direct comparison of the efficiency of optimal phase estimation with other procedures.

By the covariance of the procedure we can write the fidelity as

$`F(\varphi ,\psi )=|\psi _0|\psi (\varphi ,\theta )|^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}[3+2\mathrm{cos}\varphi +2\mathrm{cos}\psi +2\mathrm{cos}(\varphi \psi )],`$ (18)
where

$`|\psi _0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3^N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{Nj}{}}}\sqrt{M(N,j,k)}|Njk,j,k_s.`$ (19)
In the above equation we have defined $`M(N,j,k)\frac{N!}{(Njk)!j!k!}`$.

The average fidelity $`\overline{F}`$ of the procedure is then given by

$`\overline{F}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle F(\varphi ,\psi )\text{Tr}[\rho _0d\mu (\varphi ,\psi )]}`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\psi }{2\pi }}[3+2\mathrm{cos}\varphi +2\mathrm{cos}\psi +2\mathrm{cos}(\varphi \psi )]|\psi _0|\psi (\varphi ,\theta )|^2.`$ (21)
By performing the integration in Eq. (21) we have

$`\overline{F}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3^{N+2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j,p=0}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{Nj}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{Np}{}}}\sqrt{M(N,j,k)M(N,p,q)}`$ (23)
$`\times \left[\delta _{k,q}(\delta _{j,p+1}+\delta _{j+1,p})+\delta _{j,p}(\delta _{k,q+1}+\delta _{k+1,q})+\delta _{j+1,p}\delta _{k,q+1}+\delta _{j,p+1}\delta _{k+1,q}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3^{N+1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{Nj1}{}}}M(N,j,k)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{Njk}{j+1}}}.`$ (24)
We want to point out that the fidelity (24) corresponding to the optimal double phase estimation for qutrits is always smaller than the one for equatorial qubits, given in Ref. , where a single phase is estimated.

We want also to stress that, as in the case of qubits, there is a relation between optimal double phase estimation and optimal cloning for states of the form (16). Actually, the fidelity of the optimal double phase estimation (24) for a single qutrit ($`N=1`$) coincides with the cloning fidelity for the optimal $`1M`$ cloning transformations, that take a single input equatorial qutrit and produce $`M`$ output copies , in the limit of an infinite number of output copies, i.e. $`M\mathrm{}`$. Moreover, this result is consistent also with the relation between optimal state estimation  and optimal cloning  for input qutrits whose state is completely unknown (not restricted to the form (16)).

We want to point out that other figure of merits could be considered in order to evaluate the efficiency of the phase estimation procedure. For example, a mean periodic “variance” $`V(\varphi ,\theta )=2(\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi /2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta /2)`$ could be considered as a cost function. In this case the cost function still belongs to the class (13), and therefore, by explicitly calculating the average variance in a similar way as for the average fidelity, we arrive at the form

$`\overline{V}{\displaystyle V(\varphi ,\psi )\text{Tr}[\rho _0d\mu (\varphi ,\psi )]}=2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3^N}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{Nj1}{}}}M(N,j,k)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{Njk}{j+1}}}.`$ (25)
## IV Multiple phase estimation for systems with arbitrary dimension

In this section we generalise the results derived above for qutrits to the case of multiple phase estimation for systems with arbitrary finite dimension $`d`$ (qudits). We will consider the optimal multiple phase estimation for $`N`$ identical $`d`$-dimensional quantum systems all in the state

$`|\psi (\{\varphi _j\})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}}(|0+e^{i\varphi _1}|1+e^{i\varphi _2}|2+\mathrm{}+e^{i\varphi _{d1}}|d1),`$ (26)
where $`\{|0,|1,|2\mathrm{}|d1\}`$ represents a basis for each system.

In the language of section II, we are considering the estimation problem for $`d1`$ phases corresponding to the operators $`\widehat{H}_j=|jj|`$, $`j=1,..,d1`$, and $`|\psi _0=(|0+|1+|2+\mathrm{}+|d1)/\sqrt{d}`$ for each system. For the composite system of $`N`$ qudits we have $`\widehat{H}_j=_{k=1}^N|jj|_k`$, where as in the previous section $`|jj|_k`$ denotes the projection operator onto the state $`|j`$ of the $`k`$-th qudit. The operators $`\widehat{H}_j`$ commute, and they are diagonalised in the basis $`|n_0,n_1,n_2,\mathrm{}n_{d1}_\nu `$ of the states where $`n_0`$ qudits are in the state $`|0`$, $`n_1`$ in the state $`|1`$ and so on, with $`_{j=0}^{d1}n_j=N`$. As in the case of qutrits, $`\nu `$ represents the degeneracy index of the corresponding subspace, and in particular it ranges from 1 to the multinomial $`N!/(Nn_1n_2\mathrm{}n_{d1})!n_1!n_2!\mathrm{}n_{d1}!`$. Analogously to the case of qutrits, the POVM is optimised by choosing the symmetric normalised states of the $`N`$ qudits, which we will simply denote as $`|n_0,n_1,n_2,\mathrm{}n_{d1}_s`$.

The optimal POVM for the cost functions of the generalised Holevo form (13) is given by (14), with $`M=d1`$ and

$`|e(\{\varphi _j\})={\displaystyle \underset{\{n_j\}}{}}e^{i_{j=1}^{d1}n_j\varphi _j}|n_0,n_1,n_2,\mathrm{}n_{d1}_s.`$ (27)
In the above equation the sum over $`\{n_j\}`$ means that the variables $`n_j`$ take all the possible non negative values compatible with the constraint $`_{j=0}^{d1}n_j=N`$.

Let us now compute the fidelity of the optimal multiple phase estimation procedure derived above. As in the case of qutrits we choose a cost function of the form $`1F`$, where $`F`$ is the fidelity of the estimated state $`|e(\{\overline{\varphi }_j\})`$ with respect to the true state $`|e(\{\varphi _j\})`$. This cost belongs to the class (13), and therefore the corresponding optimal POVM is the one mentioned above. By the covariance of the procedure we can write the fidelity as

$`F(\{\varphi _j\})=|\psi _0|\psi (\{\varphi _j\})|^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d^2}}[d+2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{d1}{}}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _j+2{\displaystyle \underset{j>k}{}}\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _j\varphi _k)]`$ (28)
where

$`|\psi _0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{d^N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{n_j\}}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N!}{n_0!n_1!n_2!\mathrm{}n_{d1}!}}}|n_0,n_1,n_2,\mathrm{}n_{d1}_s.`$ (29)
The average fidelity $`\overline{F}`$ of the procedure is now given by

$`\overline{F}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _0}{2\pi }}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _{d1}}{2\pi }}F(\{\varphi _j\})|\psi _0|\psi (\{\varphi _j\})|^2.`$ (30)
By performing the integrations in Eq. (30) we have

$`\overline{F}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d1}{d^{N+1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n_1=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n_2=0}{\overset{Nn_11}{}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{n_{d1}=0}{\overset{Nn_1n_2\mathrm{}1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{N!}{(Nn_1n_2\mathrm{}n_{d1})!n_1!n_2!\mathrm{}n_{d1}!}}`$ (32)
$`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{Nn_1n_2\mathrm{}n_{d1}}{n_1+1}}}.`$
Notice that the fidelity decreases as a function of the dimension $`d`$. For example, in the case of multiple phase estimation on the state of a single qudit it takes the simple form

$`\overline{F_1}={\displaystyle \frac{2d1}{d^2}}.`$ (33)
We also want to point out that the above fidelity is larger than the fidelity of estimation of a single qudit in a completely unknown pure state (not restricted to be of the form (26)). Actually, the fidelity of such a universal procedure, which we will call $`\overline{F}_{univ,1}`$, is given by

$`\overline{F}_{univ,1}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{d+2}}.`$ (34)
## V Conclusions

In this paper we have addressed the problem of simultaneous estimation of several phase shifts induced by a unitary transformation acting on a quantum system. We have derived in a general way the optimal estimation procedure for an arbitrary number of phase shifts and for a wide class of cost functions. We have then specialised the results obtained to the case of “equatorial” qutrits and then generalised them to the case of quantum system with arbitrary finite dimension. An interesting result that was emphasised in this work is the connection between optimal double phase estimation and optimal double phase covariant cloning for qutrits. We expect also that such a connection is valid in arbitrary finite dimension.

Before closing the paper, we want to point out that the scenario of simultaneous estimation of several phases considered in this work may be exploited to design schemes where several variables are encoded into phases in the same quantum states and in this way the efficiency of quantum information processing tasks may be improved.

## Acknowledgements

This work has been supported in part by the EC programs ATESIT (Contract No. IST-2000-29681) and QUPRODIS (Contract No. IST-2002-38877).