text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Flavor changing neutral current decays are important probes for new physics beyond the standard model (SM) . Such currents are absent in the SM at the tree level and their strength is small at the one-loop level due to the GIM mechanism . Furthermore, such transitions can also be CKM suppressed in the SM. Hence, in such decays, any enhancement over the SM expectations is an unambiguous signature for new physics. In this direction, the first observations of the radiative B decays $`(BX_s\gamma )`$ by CLEO  and later by ALEPH  have yielded $`|V_{ts}V_{tb}^{}|0.035`$ which is in conformity with the CKM estimates. However, in radiative decay modes, deviations from SM predictions are sensitive to the photon spectrum which posses considerable experimental difficulties, in particular, measuring the lower end of the spectrum . In parallel, rare semi-leptonic decays $`(bql^+l^{})`$ can provide alternative sources to discover new physics and these are relatively cleaner than pure hadronic decays. The semi-leptonic decays are induced by strong interaction corrected effective Hamiltonians and the matrix elements receive the dominant contributions from loops with virtual top quarks and weak bosons which are proportional to $`V_{tb}V_{tq}^{}`$ with $`q=d,s`$. In such decays, the standard observables such as lepton polarization asymmetries, forward-backward asymmetry and also $`CP`$ violation can be studied kinematically as a function of the invariant di-lepton mass. Within the SM, the semi-leptonic process has earlier been studied by a number of authors .

In the SM, for the decay $`BX_ql^+l^{}`$, the dominant contribution is from the parton level process $`bql^+l^{}`$ and is defined in terms of a set of ten effective operators $`O_1O_{10}`$ . To be specific, we shall take $`q=d`$, and the truncated operator basis is reduced to the following five operators  given to be

$`O_1=(\overline{d}_L^\alpha \gamma _\mu b_L^\alpha )(\overline{c}_L^\beta \gamma ^\mu c_L^\beta ),`$
$`O_2=(\overline{d}_L^\alpha \gamma _\mu b_L^\beta )(\overline{c}_L^\alpha \gamma ^\mu c_L^\beta ),`$
$`O_7=(\overline{d}^\alpha \sigma _{\mu \nu }[m_bP_R+m_dP_L]b^\alpha )F^{\mu \nu },`$
$`O_9=(\overline{d}_L^\alpha \gamma _\mu b_L^\alpha )(\overline{l}\gamma ^\mu l),`$
$`O_{10}=(\overline{d}_L^\alpha \gamma _\mu b_L^\alpha )(\overline{l}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5l),`$ (1)
and the additional operators

$`O_1^u=(\overline{d}_L^\alpha \gamma _\mu u_L^\beta )(\overline{u}_L^\beta \gamma ^\mu b_L^\alpha ),`$
$`O_2^u=(\overline{d}_L^\alpha \gamma _\mu u_L^\alpha )(\overline{u}_L^\beta \gamma ^\mu b_L^\beta ).`$ (2)
In the presence of new physics, there can be new tree level operators due to possible right-handed current-current operators and also operators involving SUSY scalar particles . In this analysis, we do not consider them and will limit to the interactions determined by the SM.

Prior to the advent of the B factories such as BaBar and Belle the best experimental limits for the inclusive branching ratios $`BR(bsl^+l^{})`$ with $`l=e,\mu `$ as measured by CLEO  have been an order higher than the SM estimates . Recently, the first measurement of this decay has been reported by Belle  and is in agreement with the SM expectations and hence further constrains any extensions to the SM. In this context, it is pertinent to exploit the features of the SM which makes it most sensitive to new physics. It has been argued that measuring the various lepton polarizations provides for a comprehensive test of the SM and further can be indicative of new physics .

In this exercise, we examine the SM contribution to $`CP`$ violating effects for the case when one of the leptons is observed in a polarised state. As it turns out, the CP asymmetry is comparable to the unpolarised SM expectations when the lepton is in a specific polarised state. In other words, the net unpolarised $`CP`$ asymmetry (which is a linear sum of the polarised asymmetries) receives unequal contributions from the individual polarised state. This feature can provide for measurements involving new physics search. Note that this conclusion, which is dependent on a specific polarisation state of the lepton is apriori not obvious from the operator structure given in (1); albeit, is well motivated from the observation that the electroweak sector of the SM is polarised (left-handed). Therefore, measurements of decay spectra when one of the final state lepton is in the wrong sign  polarised state will be a key observable to any new physics. By wrong sign polarised state, we mean a lepton with a given polarisation, whose SM decay width is smaller when compared to the unpolarised spectrum.

Our paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we revise the basic theoretical framework and describe various observables such as decay spectra for polarised and unpolarised leptons and polarisation asymmetries. In order to be self contained, we have updated the known results by recalculating all of the existing results taking care of the various theoretical issues involved. In section 3, we derive the CP violating decay rate asymmetries for polarised final state leptons and compare this with the CP violating asymmetry in the unpolarised case. In section 4, we present our numerical results and estimate the feasibility of measuring the $`CP`$ violation in a B factory. Finally, in section 5, we conclude with a summary of the main results.

## 2 Theoretical framework

In this section, we describe our procedure for obtaining the decay spectra. We first perform a detailed analysis and rederive the known parton level results. In doing so, we try to clarify some of the theoretical uncertainties which go as input parameters for our numerical estimates. Our purpose is to ensure that our conclusions have subsumed some of these theoretical difficulties and also to complement the existing literature.

The QCD corrected effective Hamiltonian describing the decay $`bdl^+l^{}`$ in the SM leads to the matrix element

$`M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F\alpha V_{tb}V_{td}^{}}{\sqrt{2}\pi }}[C_9^{\mathrm{eff}}(\overline{d}\gamma _\mu P_Lb)\overline{l}\gamma ^\mu l+C_{10}(\overline{d}\gamma _\mu P_Lb)\overline{l}\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^5l`$ (3)
$`2C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}\overline{d}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{q^\nu }{q^2}}(m_bP_R+m_dP_L)b\overline{l}\gamma ^\mu l],`$
where the notations employed are the standard ones and $`q`$ denotes the four momentum of the lepton pair. In the SM, except for $`C_9^{\mathrm{eff}}`$, the Wilson couplings are real and analytic expressions can be found in the literature . The numerical values of the Wilson coefficients depend on five parameters ($`\mu `$, $`m_t`$, $`m_W`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$, $`\alpha _s(M_Z)`$) which are listed in the appendix of this paper. For a consistent NLO analysis all the coefficients, except $`C_9`$, should be calculated in the leading log approximation; see  for a detailed explanation. We obtain these to be,

$$\begin{array}{c}C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}=0.310,C_{10}=4.181,C_1=0.251,C_2=1.108\\ C_3=1.120\times 10^2,C_4=2.584\times 10^2,C_5=7.443\times 10^3,\\ C_6=3.167\times 10^2,C_9^{\mathrm{NDR}}=4.128.\end{array}$$
(4)
We place a few remarks here. The above numbers differ from the ones used in  and we attribute the main source of this difference in the use of the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ top quark mass $`m_t=165\mathrm{GeV}`$  instead of a pole mass of $`m_t=176\mathrm{GeV}`$. It is noteworthy that the leading log results have been obtained utilizing a two-loop ($`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$) $`\alpha _s`$ with $`\alpha _s(M_Z^2)=0.1183`$. Using a leading order $`\alpha _s`$ with $`\alpha _s^{\mathrm{LO}}(M_Z^2)=0.130`$ as obtained by the CTEQ collaboration from a global LO analysis of parton distribution functions  results in marginal changes, e.g., $`C_1=0.261`$, $`C_2=1.114`$, $`C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}=0.314`$. The value of $`C_9C_9^{\mathrm{NDR}}`$ has been obtained at NLO accuracy in the NDR scheme. On the other hand, the effective coefficient $`C_9^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is scheme independent. It can be parametrized in the following way :

$$C_9^{\mathrm{eff}}=\xi _1+\lambda _u\xi _2,\lambda _u=\frac{V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}}{V_{tb}V_{td}^{}},$$
(5)
with

$`\xi _1`$ $`=`$ $`C_9+0.138\omega (\widehat{s})+g(\widehat{m}_c,\widehat{s})(3C_1+C_2+3C_3+C_4+3C_5+C_6)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g(\widehat{m}_d,\widehat{s})(C_3+C_4){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g(\widehat{m}_b,\widehat{s})(4C_3+4C_4+3C_5+C_6)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}(3C_3+C_4+3C_5+C_6),`$
$`\xi _2`$ $`=`$ $`[g(\widehat{m}_c,\widehat{s})g(\widehat{m}_u,\widehat{s})](3C_1+C_2).`$ (7)
Here, $`\widehat{s}=q^2/m_b^2`$ and $`\widehat{m}_q=m_q/m_b`$ are dimensionless variables scaled with respect to the bottom quark mass. Note that some of the Wilson coefficients in (4) entering (2) and (7) are small and/or add up destructively in such a way that the functions $`\xi _{1,2}`$ in the NLO approximation give the following simple expressions,

$$\xi _14.128+0.138\omega (\widehat{s})+0.36g(\widehat{m}_c,\widehat{s}),\xi _20.36[g(\widehat{m}_c,\widehat{s})g(\widehat{m}_u,\widehat{s})].$$
(8)
In (2), the function $`\omega (\widehat{s})`$ represents one loop corrections to the operator $`O_9`$  and the function $`g(\widehat{m}_q,\widehat{s})`$ represents the corrections to the four-quark operators $`O_1O_6`$  , i.e.,

$`g(\widehat{m}_q,\widehat{s})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}\mathrm{ln}(\widehat{m}_q)+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{27}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}y_q{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}(2+y_q)\sqrt{|1y_q|}\{\mathrm{\Theta }(1y_q)\times `$ (9)
$`[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{1y_q}}{1\sqrt{1y_q}}\right)i\pi ]+\mathrm{\Theta }(y_q1)2\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{y_q1}}}\},`$
with $`y_q4\widehat{m}_q^2/\widehat{s}`$.

In addition to the short distance contributions described above, the decays $`BX_dl^+l^{}`$ also receive long distance contributions from the tree-level diagrams involving $`u\overline{u}`$, $`d\overline{d}`$, and $`c\overline{c}`$ bound states, $`BX_d(\rho ,\omega ,J/\psi ,\psi ^{},\mathrm{})X_dl^+l^{}`$. These effects can be taken into account by modifying the functions $`g(\widehat{m}_q,\widehat{s})`$. In the case of the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ family these pole contributions can be incorporated by employing a Breit-Wigner form for the resonance states  through the replacement

$$g(\widehat{m}_c,\widehat{s})g(\widehat{m}_c,\widehat{s})\frac{3\pi }{\alpha ^2}\underset{V=J/\psi ,\psi ^{},\mathrm{}}{}\frac{M_VBr(Vl^+l^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{all}^V}{sM_V^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{all}^VM_V}.$$
(10)
In (10), the sum includes all $`c\overline{c}`$ bound states $`V`$ with mass $`M_V`$ and total width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{all}^V`$. The $`c\overline{c}`$ long distance contributions to the branching fraction are obviously dominant near the $`J/\psi `$ resonance peak. In addition to this, there can be long distance contributions from real $`u\overline{u}`$, $`d\overline{d}`$ quark pairs giving rise to intermediate vector meson states, i.e., $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$. In many of the existing analysis performed so far, these resonance contributions have been neglected. A plausible reason being, in the decays $`BX_sl^+l^{}`$ they are CKM suppressed. However, in  it has been demonstrated that the $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ resonances contribute quite sizeably to the CP violating decay rate asymmetry and should be taken into account in theoretical studies of this observable.

Following the approach in  we calculate the functions $`g(\widehat{m}_u,\widehat{s})`$, $`g(\widehat{m}_d,\widehat{s})`$ and $`g(\widehat{m}_c,\widehat{s})`$ using a dispersive method. To be precise, $`g(\widehat{m}_u,\widehat{s})`$ and $`g(\widehat{m}_d,\widehat{s})`$ have been calculated exactly along the lines described in  using quark masses $`m_u=m_d=m_\pi `$. Concerning $`g(\widehat{m}_c,\widehat{s})`$, the continuous part has been computed with the dispersive method as well whereas, for simplicity, the $`c\overline{c}`$ resonances have been evaluated according to (10). Finally, the function $`g(\widehat{m}_b,\widehat{s})`$ has been evaluated with help of (9). Note that the contribution of $`g(\widehat{m}_b,\widehat{s})`$ to $`C_9^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ in (5) is negligible.

### 2.1 Unpolarized decay spectrum

In the absence of low energy QCD corrections ($`1/m_b^2`$)  and setting the down quark mass to zero, the unpolarized differential decay width as a function of the invariant mass of the lepton pair is

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\widehat{s}}=\frac{G_F^2m_b^5\alpha ^2}{768\pi ^5}|V_{tb}V_{td}^{}|^2\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}(1,\widehat{s},0)a\mathrm{\Delta }(\widehat{s});a\sqrt{1\frac{4\widehat{m}_{l}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\widehat{s}}}.$$
(11)
In (11), the triangle function $`\lambda `$ is given $`\lambda (a,b,c)=a^2+b^2+c^22(ab+bc+ca)`$ and the kinematic factors are

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(\widehat{s})`$ $`=`$ $`\left[12\mathrm{Re}(C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}C_{9}^{\mathrm{eff}}{}_{}{}^{})F_1(\widehat{s})+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\widehat{s}}}|C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}|^2F_2(\widehat{s})\right](1+{\displaystyle \frac{2\widehat{m}_l^2}{\widehat{s}}})`$
$`+(|C_9^{\mathrm{eff}}|^2+|C_{10}|^2)F_3(\widehat{s})+6\widehat{m}_l^2(|C_9^{\mathrm{eff}}|^2|C_{10}|^2)F_1(\widehat{s}),`$
$`F_1(\widehat{s})`$ $`=`$ $`1\widehat{s},`$
$`F_2(\widehat{s})`$ $`=`$ $`2\widehat{s}\widehat{s}^2,`$
$`F_3(\widehat{s})`$ $`=`$ $`1+\widehat{s}2\widehat{s}^2+\lambda (1,\widehat{s},0){\displaystyle \frac{2\widehat{m}_l^2}{\widehat{s}}}.`$ (12)
The various quantities in the above differential decay width are scaled with respect to the $`b`$ quark mass $`m_b`$ and are indicated by a hat. The physical range for $`\widehat{s}`$ is given by $`4\widehat{m}_l^2\widehat{s}1`$ as is dictated by the threshold factor, $`a`$, and the triangle function in (11). The above differential spectrum has been obtained earlier by Krüger et al.,  (for $`m_l0`$ and $`m_q0`$), Ali et al.,  (for $`m_l=0`$), Grinstein et al., , Buras et al.,  (for $`m_q=0`$ and $`m_l=0`$) and by Hewett  (for $`m_q=0`$, which agrees with our expressions).

As usual we remove uncertainties in (11) due to the $`b`$ quark mass (a factor of $`m_b^5`$) by introducing the charged current semi-leptonic decay rate

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(BX_ce\overline{\nu }_e)=\frac{G_F^2m_b^5}{192\pi ^3}|V_{cb}|^2f(\widehat{m}_c)\kappa (\widehat{m}_c)$$
(13)
where $`f(\widehat{m}_c)`$ and $`\kappa (\widehat{m}_c)`$ represent the phase space and the one-loop QCD corrections to the semi-leptonic decay and can be found in . Therefore the differential branching ratio can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\widehat{s}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{|V_{tb}V_{td}^{}|^2}{|V_{cb}|^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{B(BX_ce\overline{\nu }_e)}{f(\widehat{m}_c)\kappa (\widehat{m}_c)}}\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}(1,\widehat{s},0)a\mathrm{\Delta }(\widehat{s}).`$ (14)
### 2.2 Polarized decay spectrum

The lepton polarisation has been first analyzed by Hewett  and Krüger and Sehgal  who showed that additional information can be obtained on the quadratic functions of the effective Wilson couplings, $`C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`C_{10}`$ and $`C_9^{\mathrm{eff}}`$. In order to calculate the polarised decay spectrum, one defines a reference frame with three orthogonal unit vectors $`𝐞_\mathrm{L}`$, $`𝐞_\mathrm{N}`$ and $`𝐞_\mathrm{T}`$, such that

$`𝐞_\mathrm{L}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_l^{}}{|𝐩_l^{}|}},`$
$`𝐞_\mathrm{N}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_q\times 𝐩_l^{}}{|𝐩_q\times 𝐩_l^{}|}},`$ (15)
$`𝐞_\mathrm{T}`$ $`=`$ $`𝐞_\mathrm{N}\times 𝐞_\mathrm{L},`$
where $`𝐩_q`$ and $`𝐩_l^{}`$ are the three momentum vectors of the quark and the $`l^{}`$ lepton, respectively, in the $`l^+l^{}`$ center-of-mass system. Given the lepton $`l^{}`$ spin direction $`𝐧`$, which is a unit vector in the $`l^{}`$ rest frame, the differential decay spectrum can be written as

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(\widehat{s},𝐧)}{d\widehat{s}}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(\widehat{s})}{d\widehat{s}}\right)_{\mathrm{unpol}}\left[1+(P_\mathrm{L}𝐞_\mathrm{L}+P_\mathrm{T}𝐞_\mathrm{T}+P_\mathrm{N}𝐞_\mathrm{N})𝐧\right],$$
(16)
where the polarisation components $`P_\mathrm{L}`$, $`P_\mathrm{N}`$ and $`P_\mathrm{T}`$ can be constructed as follows;

$$P_\mathrm{i}(\widehat{s})=\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐧=𝐞_\mathrm{i})/d\widehat{s}d\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐧=𝐞_\mathrm{i})/d\widehat{s}}{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐧=𝐞_\mathrm{i})/d\widehat{s}+d\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐧=𝐞_\mathrm{i})/d\widehat{s}},\mathrm{i}=\mathrm{L},\mathrm{N},\mathrm{T}.$$
(17)
The resulting polarisation asymmetries are

$`P_\mathrm{L}(\widehat{s})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a}{\mathrm{\Delta }(\widehat{s})}}\left[12\mathrm{Re}(C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}C_{10}^{})(1\widehat{s})+2\mathrm{Re}(C_9^{\mathrm{eff}}C_{10}^{})(1+\widehat{s}2\widehat{s}^2)\right],`$
$`P_\mathrm{T}(\widehat{s})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi \widehat{m}_l}{2\mathrm{\Delta }(\widehat{s})\sqrt{\widehat{s}}}}\lambda ^{1/2}(1,\widehat{s},0)[2\mathrm{Re}(C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}C_{10}^{})4\mathrm{Re}(C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}C_{9}^{\mathrm{eff}}{}_{}{}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{4}{\widehat{s}}}|C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}|^2`$
$`+\mathrm{Re}(C_9^{\mathrm{eff}}C_{10}^{})|C_9^{\mathrm{eff}}|^2\widehat{s}],`$
$`P_\mathrm{N}(\widehat{s})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi \widehat{m}_la}{2\mathrm{\Delta }(\widehat{s})}}\lambda ^{1/2}(1,\widehat{s},0)\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\mathrm{Im}(C_{9}^{\mathrm{eff}}{}_{}{}^{}C_{10}),`$ (18)
where we differ by a factor of 2 in $`P_\mathrm{T}`$ with respect to the results obtained in . The above expressions for $`P_\mathrm{i}`$ agree with  for the SM case.

As can be seen, the polarisation asymmetries in (18) have different quadratic combinations of the Wilson couplings and any alteration in the values of these couplings can lead to changes in the asymmetries. Thus, these are sensitive to new physics and can also probe the relative signs of the couplings $`C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`C_9^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`C_{10}`$. The normal polarisation asymmetry $`P_\mathrm{N}`$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{Im}(C_9^{\mathrm{eff}}C_{10}^{})`$ and is thus sensitive to the absorptive part of the loop contributed by the charm quark.

The transverse and normal asymmetries $`P_\mathrm{T}`$ and $`P_\mathrm{N}`$, respectively, are proportional to $`\widehat{m}_l`$ and thus the effects can be significant for the case of tau leptons. However, the case for tau leptons is an experimental challenge. One reason is that the tau decays in to final states with a neutrino and this involves uncertainties due to missing energy. Also, the predominant decays of the tau lepton are hadronic and this is an undesirable feature at hadronic colliders. Setting aside these problems, in our analysis, we illustrate the results when the final state lepton is an electron and tau; the results when a muon is produced are almost identical to the electron case.

## 3 CP violation

In the SM, $`CP`$ violation in the decay $`BX_sl^+l^{}`$ is strongly suppressed. This follows from the unitarity of the $`CKM`$ matrix. However, in the semi-leptonic $`B`$ decay, $`BX_dl^+l^{}`$, the $`CP`$ violating effects are not so strongly suppressed. The $`CP`$ asymmetry for this decay can be observed by measuring the partial decay rates for the process and its charge conjugated process . Before turning to a derivation of CP violating asymmetries for the case of polarised final state leptons it is helpful to recall the unpolarised case.

### 3.1 Unpolarized decay spectrum

In the unpolarised case the CP-violating rate asymmetry can be defined by

$$A_{\mathrm{CP}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_0}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_0},$$
(19)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\widehat{s}}\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(bdl^+l^{})}{d\widehat{s}},\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_0\frac{d\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{d\widehat{s}}\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{b}\overline{d}l^+l^{})}{d\widehat{s}}.$$
(20)
The explicit expression for the unpolarized particle decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ has been given in (11). Obviously, it can be written as a product of a real-valued function $`r(\widehat{s})`$ times the function $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\widehat{s})`$, given in (12); $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(\widehat{s})=r(\widehat{s})\mathrm{\Delta }(\widehat{s})`$. Taking the approach as in  we write the matrix elements for the decay and the anti-particle decay as

$$M=A+\lambda _uB,\overline{M}=A+\lambda _u^{}B,$$
(21)
where the CP-violating parameter $`\lambda _u`$, entering the Wilson coupling $`C_9^{\mathrm{eff}}`$, has been defined in (5). Consequently, the rate for the anti-particle decay is then given by

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_0=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0}^{}{}_{|\lambda _u\lambda _u^{}}{}^{}=r(\widehat{s})\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\widehat{s});\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{|\lambda _u\lambda _u^{}}.$$
(22)
Using (11) and (22), the CP violating asymmetry is evaluated to be

$$A_{\mathrm{CP}}(\widehat{s})=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\mathrm{\Delta }+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}=\frac{2\mathrm{Im}(\lambda _u)\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{\Delta }+2\mathrm{Im}(\lambda _u)\mathrm{\Sigma }}2\mathrm{Im}(\lambda _u)\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(\widehat{s})}{\mathrm{\Delta }(\widehat{s})}.$$
(23)
In (23),

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(\widehat{s})=\mathrm{Im}(\xi _1^{}\xi _2)[F_3(\widehat{s})+6\widehat{m}_l^2F_1(\widehat{s})]+6\mathrm{Im}(C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}\xi _2)F_1(\widehat{s})(1+\frac{2\widehat{m}_l^2}{\widehat{s}}).$$
(24)
In the presence of lepton $`l^{}`$ polarisation, the above $`CP`$ asymmetry can get modified and receives a contribution from $`C_{10}`$ through the interference piece with $`C_9^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ in $`|M|^2`$; see (16) and (18). In the following, we discuss this modification.

### 3.2 Polarized decay spectrum

In the polarised case, a CP violating asymmetry can be defined as follows

$$A_{\mathrm{CP}}(𝐧)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐧)\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\overline{}𝐧=𝐧)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_0},$$
(25)
where

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐧)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(\widehat{s},𝐧)}{d\widehat{s}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(bdl^+l^{}(𝐧))}{d\widehat{s}}},`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\overline{}𝐧)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\widehat{s},\overline{}𝐧)}{d\widehat{s}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{b}\overline{d}l^+(\overline{}𝐧)l^{})}{d\widehat{s}}},`$ (26)
and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_0`$ have been defined in the previous section. Further, $`𝐧`$ is the spin direction of the lepton $`l^{}`$ in the $`b`$-decay and $`\overline{}𝐧`$ is the spin direction of the $`l^+`$ in the $`\overline{b}`$-decay. For instance, assuming CP conservation, the rate for the decay of a $`B`$ to a left handed electron should be the same as the rate for the decay of a $`\overline{B}`$ to a right handed positron. More generally, in the CP conserving case, we would have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐧)\stackrel{CPcons.}{=}\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\overline{}𝐧=𝐧)A_{\mathrm{CP}}(𝐧)=0.$$
(27)
The polarised decay spectrum for the $`b`$-decay has already been stated in (16). Using the above definitions the spectrum reads,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐧)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(1+P_\mathrm{i}𝐞_\mathrm{i}𝐧),$$
(28)
where a sum over $`\mathrm{i}=\mathrm{L},\mathrm{T},\mathrm{N}`$ is implied. Analogously, for the corresponding $`CP`$ conjugated process we have the decay spectrum

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\overline{}𝐧)=\frac{1}{2}\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_0(1+\overline{}P_\mathrm{i}\overline{𝐞}_\mathrm{i}\overline{}𝐧).$$
(29)
Note that (28) and (29) define the polarisation asymmetries $`P_\mathrm{i}`$ and $`\overline{}P_\mathrm{i}`$, respectively. With the choice $`\overline{𝐞}_\mathrm{i}=𝐞_\mathrm{i}`$, the $`\overline{}P_\mathrm{i}`$ are constructed from the decay spectrum in complete analogy to the $`P_\mathrm{i}`$ in (17). Moreover, from the condition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐧)=\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\overline{}𝐧=𝐧)`$, in the CP conserving case, it follows that $`\overline{}P_\mathrm{i}=P_\mathrm{i}`$. In the general case we have

$$\overline{}P_\mathrm{i}=P_{\mathrm{i}}^{}{}_{|\lambda _u\lambda _u^{}}{}^{}(\text{for}\overline{𝐞}_\mathrm{i}=𝐞_\mathrm{i}).$$
(30)
Now everything is at hand to calculate the CP violating asymmetries for a lepton $`l^{}`$ with polarisation $`𝐧=𝐞_\mathrm{i}`$; inserting (28) and (29) into (25) one obtains the asymmetry,

$`A_{\mathrm{CP}}(𝐧=\pm 𝐞_\mathrm{i})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_0}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_0}}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0P_\mathrm{i}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0P_\mathrm{i})_{|\lambda _u\lambda _u^{}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_0}}\right]`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[A_{\mathrm{CP}}(\widehat{s})\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }P_\mathrm{i}(\mathrm{\Delta }P_\mathrm{i})_{|\lambda _u\lambda _u^{}}}{\mathrm{\Delta }(\widehat{s})+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\widehat{s})}}\right]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[A_{\mathrm{CP}}(\widehat{s})\pm \delta A_{\mathrm{CP}}^\mathrm{i}(\widehat{s})\right],\mathrm{i}=\mathrm{L},\mathrm{T},\mathrm{N}.`$
On the r.h.s. of (31), $`A_{CP}(\widehat{s})`$ is the unpolarized CP violating asymmetry given in (23). The polarised quantities $`\delta A_{\mathrm{CP}}^\mathrm{i}(\widehat{s})`$ denote the modifications to the unpolarised spectra and will be stated explicitly below. It should be noted that for a given polarisation there are two independent observables, $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}(𝐧=𝐞_\mathrm{i})`$ and $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}(𝐧=𝐞_\mathrm{i})`$ or, alternatively, $`A_{CP}(\widehat{s})=A_{\mathrm{CP}}(𝐧=𝐞_\mathrm{i})+A_{\mathrm{CP}}(𝐧=𝐞_\mathrm{i})`$ (as it must be) and $`\delta A_{\mathrm{CP}}^\mathrm{i}(\widehat{s})=A_{\mathrm{CP}}(𝐧=𝐞_\mathrm{i})A_{\mathrm{CP}}(𝐧=𝐞_\mathrm{i})`$. The polarised CP violating asymmetries can be evaluated by inspecting the polarisation asymmetries in (18). After some algebra one finds the following final results:

$$\delta A_{\mathrm{CP}}^\mathrm{i}(\widehat{s})=\frac{2\mathrm{Im}(\lambda _u)\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{i}(\widehat{s})}{\mathrm{\Delta }(\widehat{s})+2\mathrm{Im}(\lambda _u)\mathrm{\Sigma }(\widehat{s})}2\mathrm{Im}(\lambda _u)\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{i}(\widehat{s})}{\mathrm{\Delta }(\widehat{s})},$$
(32)
with

$`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{L}(\widehat{s})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Im}(C_{10}\xi _2)(1+\widehat{s}2\widehat{s}^2)a,`$
$`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{T}(\widehat{s})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi \widehat{m}_l}{2\sqrt{\widehat{s}}}}\lambda ^{1/2}(1,\widehat{s},0)\left[2\mathrm{Im}(C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}\xi _2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Im}(C_{10}\xi _2)\widehat{s}\mathrm{Im}(\xi _1^{}\xi _2)\right],`$
$`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{N}(\widehat{s})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi \widehat{m}_l}{2\sqrt{\widehat{s}}}}\lambda ^{1/2}(1,\widehat{s},0)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}}{2}}\mathrm{Re}(C_{10}\xi _2)\right]a,`$ (33)
where $`a`$ is the threshold factor defined in (11). It is interesting to note that the asymmetries, $`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{T}(\widehat{s})`$ and $`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{N}(\widehat{s})`$, have different combinations involving the imaginary and real parts of $`\xi _2`$; thereby, show dependence on the corrections to the four-quark operators, $`O_1O_6`$.

## 4 Numerical analysis and discussion

Having given the analytic framework for the various observables, we now turn to a discussion of our numerical results. We reiterate that these results are obtained following the discussions of section 2. In particular, we take in to account the $`\rho \omega `$ resonance structure, which to our knowledge has so far been given little importance except in .

The basic and essential information is summarised in figures 1 to 4. In all our numerical estimates, we have used the parameters stated in the appendix. Furthermore, we have set $`m_d=0`$ in our kinematic analysis as its dependence in $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\widehat{s})`$ (and similar kinematic factors) is negligible. On the other hand, the non-zero value for $`m_d`$ given in the appendix has been used in evaluating the Wilson coupling $`C_9^{\mathrm{eff}}`$. We have checked numerically that the use of small current masses $`m_u=2.3\mathrm{MeV}`$ and $`m_d=4.6\mathrm{MeV}`$ in the calculation of $`C_9^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ would result in appreciable changes of the asymmetries only in the region of the higher $`c\overline{c}`$ resonances ($`\widehat{s}>0.5`$) which is also affected by other theoretical uncertainties; see the discussion below. The theoretically clean region between the $`\rho \omega `$ and the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ resonance remains almost unaffected.

The currently allowed range for the Wolfenstein parameters  is given in ; $`0.190<\rho <0.268`$, $`0.284<\eta <0.366`$. For our analysis we take $`(\rho ,\eta )=(0.25,0.34)`$. In terms of the Wolfenstein parameters, $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$, the parameter $`\lambda _u`$ is given by the relation,

$$\lambda _u=\frac{\rho (1\rho )\eta ^2}{(1\rho )^2+\eta ^2}i\frac{\eta }{(1\rho )^2+\eta ^2}+\mathrm{}.$$
(34)
In Fig. 1, we display the branching ratios for the decay $`bde^+e^{}`$ with unpolarized and longitudinally polarized electrons. The unpolarized branching ratio (solid line) has been obtained with help of (14). The corresponding results for polarised final state leptons have been calculated accordingly using (16). The dash-dotted and dotted lines corresponds to $`𝐧=𝐞_\mathrm{L}`$ and $`𝐧=+𝐞_\mathrm{L}`$, respectively, where the unit vector $`𝐞_\mathrm{L}`$ has been defined in (2.2). As can be seen, in the SM, the decay is naturally left-handed and hence the polarised spectrum for $`𝐧=𝐞_\mathrm{L}`$ compares with the unpolarised spectrum. Whereas, the polarised $`𝐧=𝐞_\mathrm{L}`$ spectrum is far below the unpolarised one; which according to our definition would correspond to a wrong sign decay. In the most relevant kinematical region, between the $`\rho \omega `$ and $`c\overline{c}`$ resonances, the branching ratio is $`3\times 10^7`$. We would like to remind that this is theoretically the cleanest kinematic bin.

In Fig. 2, we present results for the polarised and unpolarised CP violating rate asymmetries calculated according to (31), (32), and (33) for the decay $`bde^+e^{}`$. We find that the asymmetries for $`bd\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ are numerically similar to the results shown here, and hence are not presented. As mentioned earlier, only two of the shown four quantities are linearly independent. As can be observed, $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}(𝐧=𝐞_\mathrm{L})`$ is much larger than the asymmetry with opposite lepton polarization implying that $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}(𝐧=𝐞_\mathrm{L})`$ is quite similar to the unpolarized asymmetry $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}`$; the system is naturally polarized. This can be also seen by the lower half of Fig. 2 where the unpolarized $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}`$ and $`(1)\delta A_{\mathrm{CP}}^\mathrm{L}`$ have been plotted. Here, $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}(𝐧=𝐞_\mathrm{L})`$ would be the average of the two curves (lying in the middle between them). Note that the polarised CP violating asymmetry $`\delta A_{\mathrm{CP}}^\mathrm{L}`$ is comparable and in certain kinematic regions even larger than its unpolarized counterpart. Particularly, in the theoretically clean region, between the $`\rho `$$`\omega `$ and the $`c\overline{c}`$ resonances, we find $`\delta A_{\mathrm{CP}}^\mathrm{L}`$ is about $`8\%`$ when compared to about $`5\%`$ in the unpolarized case . However, in the resonance regions, the polarised asymmetry can reach values as large as up to $`20\%`$ ($`\rho `$$`\omega `$) and $`11\%`$ ($`c\overline{c}`$), respectively.

A few other comments are in order. (i) In our analysis we have utilized the Wolfenstein parameters $`(\rho ,\eta )=(0.25,0.34)`$ which is in the experimentally allowed range given above. However, the results for other values of these parameters can be easily obtained. Noticing that since $`C_9^{\mathrm{eff}}(\widehat{s})`$ only very weakly depends on $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$, almost the entire dependence is due the prefactors containing the CKM matrix elements; particularly, in the expressions for the branching ratio and the CP violating asymmetries. In the case of the branching ratio this is the term $`|V_{tb}V_{td}^{}/V_{cb}|^2=\lambda ^2[(1\rho )^2+\eta ^2]`$; in the case of the CP violating asymmetries it is the factor $`\mathrm{Im}\lambda _u=\eta /((1\rho )^2+\eta ^2)`$. The results for other Wolfenstein parameters can therefore be obtained by simply rescaling the shown results. For instance varying $`(\rho ,\eta )`$ in the allowed range leads to a variation of $`|\mathrm{Im}\lambda _u|`$ in the range $`(0.54÷0.38)`$. (For $`(\rho ,\eta )=(0.25,0.34)`$ we find $`|\mathrm{Im}\lambda _u|=0.5`$.) As can be seen the absolute value of the CP violating asymmetries increases with increasing $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$. On the other hand, the branching ratio mildly decreases with increasing $`\rho `$. (ii) Our results for $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}`$ in the region of the $`\rho \omega `$ resonance are smaller than the values found in . The discrepancy can most probably be traced back on the $`\rho \omega `$ inelastic channel (see the function $`G(s)`$ in ) in which the absorptive part should be omitted below the inelastic threshold $`\sqrt{s}<m_\pi +m_\rho `$. On inclusion of the imaginary part also below this threshold, we find similarly large contributions at the $`\rho \omega `$ resonances. (iii) In addition, the numerical results in the resonance region of the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ family are subject to theoretical uncertainties; usually denoted by a phenomenological factor $`\kappa _V`$ which can vary between 2.35 to 1.00. For our numerical results we have set $`\kappa _V=1`$. The variation of $`\kappa _V`$ can affect the width and the $`CP`$ asymmetry as has been discussed in .

The polarised asymmetries, $`\delta A_{\mathrm{CP}}^\mathrm{N}`$ and $`\delta A_{\mathrm{CP}}^\mathrm{T}`$, are proportional to the lepton mass and therefore only relevant in the case of final state tau leptons. In Fig. 3, branching ratios for the decay $`bd\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ are shown for unpolarized (solid line), longitudinally (dotted), normally (dashed), and transversely (dash-dotted) polarized taus. The corresponding branching ratio is $`𝒪(1\times 10^8)`$, requiring a larger luminosity. With tau leptons as final states, for $`𝐧=\pm 𝐞_\mathrm{N}`$; both rates are very similar, whereas, for $`𝐧=\pm 𝐞_\mathrm{T}`$, the $`𝐞_\mathrm{T}`$ state is strongly favored, as being closer to the unpolarised decay width. Therefore, we would classify the polarised $`𝐧=𝐞_\mathrm{T}`$ spectra as a wrong sign decay.

In Fig. 4, we show both the polarised and unpolarised CP violating rate asymmetries calculated according to (31), (32), and (33) for the decay $`bd\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$. Since $`\delta A_{\mathrm{CP}}^\mathrm{L}`$ and $`\delta A_{\mathrm{CP}}^\mathrm{N}`$ are small we conclude that $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}(𝐧=+𝐞_\mathrm{L})A_{\mathrm{CP}}(𝐧=𝐞_\mathrm{L})`$ and $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}(𝐧=+𝐞_\mathrm{N})A_{\mathrm{CP}}(𝐧=𝐞_\mathrm{N})`$. On the other hand, $`\delta A_{\mathrm{CP}}^\mathrm{T}`$ is comparable to the unpolarised $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}`$ as is indicated by the dash-dotted line in the $`(2,1)`$-panel. This in turn implies that $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}(𝐧=+𝐞_\mathrm{T})`$ is very small. As can be observed, all calculated asymmetries, reach at the maximum about $`10\%`$.

## 5 Summary

We have made a detailed study of the $`CP`$ asymmetry for the process, $`bdl^+l^{}`$, when one of the leptons is in a polarised state. Our results indicate that when a lepton is in a certain polarised state $`(𝐞_\mathrm{L},𝐞_\mathrm{T})`$, the decay rates are comparable to the unpolarised spectrum. For the case of the normally polarised spectrum, both $`\pm 𝐞_\mathrm{N}`$ give similar widths but lower than in the case of $`𝐞_\mathrm{L}`$ and $`𝐞_\mathrm{T}`$. In the rest of the polarisation states, which we had defined to be the wrong sign states, the decay rates and the corresponding asymmetries are lower, in comparison to the unpolarised results. In the regions which are away from resonance, we find the polarised $`CP`$ asymmetries are larger than the corresponding unpolarised asymmetry. As expected, the resonance regions show a large asymmetry and in all of our analysis, we have included the $`\rho \omega `$ resonance states also. However, as discussed, the results at the resonance region suffer from theoretical uncertainties. Barring a small kinematic window, measuring $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}`$ requires $`d`$ quark tagging (due to the dominant background $`bsl^+l^{}`$) ; in addition, for the polarised asymmetries the polarization needs to be measured. However, within the SM given the left-handed nature of the interactions, for the case of the electron, it is dominantly in the $`𝐞_\mathrm{L}`$ state. We note that the results for the electron and muon in a given polarised state do not differ much and hence measuring a muon in a wrong sign polarised state $`(+𝐞_\mathrm{L})`$ can be very sensitive to new physics. Essentially, we need to probe polarised $`(+𝐞_\mathrm{L})`$ muons; which we expect to be possible by (i) angular distribution of the decay products and (ii) through the life time of the $`+𝐞_\mathrm{L}`$ muons, which is enhanced as compared to the $`𝐞_\mathrm{L}`$ state due to the dynamics of the SM interaction (left-handed); this is also evident by their smaller decay width as observed in Fig. 1. The situation for the case of the tau leptons is different and we observe that the $`𝐞_\mathrm{T}`$ polarised state can be most sensitive to new physics (see Fig. 3). We note that the polarisation observables involve different quadratic combinations of the Wilson couplings and hence make for additional consistency checks for the unpolarised SM decay spectra and also for a probe to new physics which can show in loop effects. In this respect, given a real valued $`C_{10}`$ (for the SM), we note that the asymmetries, $`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{T}`$ and $`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{N}`$, can be of relevance through the contributions arising from the real and imaginary parts of the function $`\xi _2`$ to the operators, $`O_1O_6`$.

In order to observe a 3$`\sigma `$ signal for $`A_{CP}(\widehat{s})`$ about $`10^{10}`$ $`B`$ mesons have been estimated to be required . As already mentioned such a measurement requires a good $`d`$-quark tagging to distinguish it from the much more copious decay $`bsl^+l^{}`$ and hence will be a challenging task at future hadronic colliders like LHCb, BTeV, ATLAS or CMS . More dedicated experiments like Super-BABAR and Super-BELLE should be able to achieve this goal. BELLE and BABAR have already measured the rare decay $`bsl^+l^{}`$ which could be measured with great accuracy at these high luminosity upgrades. Given enough statistics, and excellent kaon/pion identification, they may be able to measure $`bdl^+l^{}`$ or the exclusive process $`B\rho l^+l^{}`$.<sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4We thank A. Ali for pointing this out to us. In contrast, for measuring $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}(𝐧=𝐞_\mathrm{L})`$ we need a similar number of produced $`B`$-mesons, provided an efficient polarisation measurement is possible, since the branching rates are very much alike as discussed previously. In this regard, given the almost massless nature of the electrons, the $`CP`$ asymmetry for the decay $`bde^+e^{}`$ would correspond to a polarised asymmetry as in (31). As a result, if our SM expectations for the asymmetry as calculated here (see Fig. 2) are not met with, we might have a reasonable chance to look for new physics in polarised decays. In this paper, we have classified all such polarised decays as wrong sign decays and these could be viable modes in search for new physics.

Acknowledgments

The work of Balaji has been supported by the Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie, Bonn under contract no. 05HT1PEA9. Part of the work of I. S. has been done at the University of Dortmund supported by the ’Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung’, Berlin/Bonn. We thank Frank Krüger and Lalit Sehgal for many useful discussions. I. S. thanks Matthias Steinhauser for helpful comments on the input parameters. We also thank E. Reya and A. Ali for comments and suggestions.

## Appendix A Input Parameters

$$\begin{array}{c}m_b=4.8\mathrm{GeV},m_t=165\mathrm{GeV},m_c=1.3\mathrm{GeV},\\ m_u=m_d=m_\pi =140\mathrm{MeV},\\ m_e=0.511\mathrm{MeV},m_\mu =0.106\mathrm{GeV},m_\tau =1.777\mathrm{GeV}\\ \mu =m_b,B(BX_ce\overline{\nu }_e)=10.4\%\\ M_W=80.423\mathrm{GeV},M_Z=91.1876\mathrm{GeV},\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _W)=0.23,\\ \alpha _{\mathrm{em}}=1/129,\alpha _s(M_Z)=0.1183,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(5)}=230\mathrm{MeV}\\ \lambda =0.2237,A=0.8113,\rho =0.25,\eta =0.34\end{array}$$


format: text

text:
# Une nouvelle estimation extrinsèque du spectre de l’opérateur de Dirac

## 1 Préliminaires

Pour les préliminaires sur la géométrie spinorielle, on se reportera par exemple à .

Nous rappelons quelques faits de base sur la restriction de spineurs à une hypersurface (on pourra aussi consulter ). Considérons une hypersurface riemannienne compacte (connexe) et orientée $`M^m`$ dans une variété riemannienne spinorielle $`(\stackrel{~}{M}^{m+1},g)`$. L’orientation de $`M`$ permet, grâce à l’existence sur $`M`$ d’un champ normal unitaire $`\nu `$ compatible avec les orientations de $`M`$ et de $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, d’induire une structure spinorielle sur $`M`$ à partir de celle de $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, possédant les propriétés suivantes: notons $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\stackrel{~}{M}`$) le fibré des spineurs de $`(M,g)`$ (resp. de $`(\stackrel{~}{M},g)`$), “$`<,>`$” le produit scalaire hermitien naturel de $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$, $``$ (resp. $`\stackrel{~}{}`$) la dérivée covariante canonique sur $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$ (resp. sur $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\stackrel{~}{M}`$), et “$`\underset{M}{}`$” (resp. “$``$”) la multiplication de Clifford de $`TM`$ sur $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$ (resp. de $`T\stackrel{~}{M}`$ sur $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\stackrel{~}{M}`$).

Il existe alors un isomorphisme

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }\stackrel{~}{M}_{|_M}\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Sigma }M\hfill & \text{si }m\text{ est pair}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Sigma }M\mathrm{\Sigma }M\hfill & \text{si }m\text{ est impair}\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
qui est unitaire et qui envoie, pour tout champ $`X`$ tangent à $`M`$ et toute section $`\varphi `$ de $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\stackrel{~}{M}_{|_M}`$, la section $`X\nu \varphi `$ sur $`X\underset{M}{}\varphi `$ et la section $`\stackrel{~}{}_X\varphi `$ sur $`_X\varphi +\frac{A(X)}{2}\underset{M}{}\varphi `$, où $`A`$ est le champ d’endomorphismes de Weingarten de $`TM`$. L’isomorphisme (4) étant désormais assimilé à l’application identité, considérons l’opérateur $`D`$ agissant sur les sections de $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\stackrel{~}{M}_{|_M}`$ par

$$D:=\{\begin{array}{cc}D_M\hfill & \text{si }m\text{ est pair}\hfill \\ D_MD_M\hfill & \text{si }m\text{ est impair,}\hfill \end{array}$$

$`D_M`$ est l’opérateur de Dirac (dit *fondamental*) de $`(M,g)`$. Par définition, $`D`$ est elliptique autoadjoint et $`\text{Spec}(D^2)=\text{Spec}(D_M^2)`$. Nous noterons, en tenant compte de leurs multiplicités, les valeurs propres de $`D_M`$ par $`\lambda _k`$ ($`k1`$), et supposerons la suite $`(|\lambda _k|)_{k1}`$ croissante.
Afin d’estimer ce spectre en fonction d’invariants extrinsèques, nous comparons $`D`$ à un opérateur ici auxiliaire appelé *opérateur de Dirac-Witten*  et défini dans une base orthonormée locale $`(e_j)_{1jm}`$ de $`TM`$ par $`\widehat{D}:=_{j=1}^me_j\stackrel{~}{}_{e_j}`$. Grâce aux propriétés de l’isomorphisme (4), les opérateurs $`D^2`$ et $`\widehat{D}^2`$ sont liés par (cf.  ou , Lemma 2):

$$\widehat{D}^2\varphi =D^2\varphi \frac{m}{2}dH\underset{M}{}\varphi \frac{m^2H^2}{4}\varphi ,$$
(5)
identité valable pour toute section $`\varphi `$ de $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\stackrel{~}{M}_{|_M}`$.

## 2 Résultat principal

Nous nous restreignons maintenant au cas où la variété ambiante $`(\stackrel{~}{M},g)`$ est l’espace hyperbolique réel $`^{m+1}`$ muni de sa métrique standard $`g`$ à courbure sectionnelle $`1`$. En tant que variété riemannienne spinorielle, l’espace hyperbolique possède la propriété remarquable d’admettre des *spineurs de Killing imaginaires*, i.e., il existe des sections non nulles $`\varphi `$ de $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\stackrel{~}{M}`$ satisfaisant, pour tout champ de vecteurs $`X`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{}_X\varphi =\pm \frac{i}{2}X\varphi .$$
(6)
Il est ici à noter que la classification des variétés riemanniennes spinorielles complètes admettant de telles sections a été achevée par H. Baum dans  et , faisant apparaître d’autres exemples que l’espace hyperbolique. Pour les propriétés des spineurs de Killing, on pourra consulter .
Reprenant l’idée introduite dans  d’utiliser la restriction de ces spineurs de Killing comme sections-test dans le principe du Min-Max, nous poussons plus loin la preuve du résultat (3) de C. Bär grâce à l’identité (5) qui permet d’éviter l’emploi de l’inégalité de Cauchy-Schwarz (comparer avec , p. 586). Nous démontrons le théorème suivant:

###### Théorème 1

Soit $`(M,g)`$ une hypersurface riemannienne (immergée) de dimension $`m`$ compacte et orientée de l’espace hyperbolique $`(^{m+1},g)`$. Munissons $`M`$ de la structure spinorielle induite et posons $`N:=2^{[\frac{m+2}{2}]}`$. Alors pour tout $`k\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$,

$$\lambda _k^2\frac{m^2}{4}\left(\underset{M}{sup}H^21\right).$$
(7)
De plus, si (7) est une égalité pour $`k=1`$, alors la courbure moyenne $`H`$ est constante.

Démonstration: Étant donnée une section non nulle $`\varphi `$ de $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{m+1}`$ satisfaisant (6), évaluons le quotient de Rayleigh $`𝒬(D^2,\varphi ):=\frac{_M<D^2\varphi ,\varphi >v_g}{_M<\varphi ,\varphi >v_g}`$. La section $`\varphi `$ vérifiant (6), il vient immédiatement $`\widehat{D}\varphi =\frac{mi}{2}\varphi `$ puis $`\widehat{D}^2\varphi =\frac{m^2}{4}\varphi `$. D’après (5),

$$D^2\varphi =\frac{m^2}{4}\varphi +\frac{m^2H^2}{4}\varphi +\frac{m}{2}dH\underset{M}{}\varphi .$$

Prenons le produit scalaire hermitien de cette identité avec $`\varphi `$ et identifions-en les parties réelles: puisque la multiplication de Clifford par une $`1`$-forme est anti-autoadjointe (cf. ), $`\mathrm{}\text{e}(<dH\underset{M}{}\varphi ,\varphi >)=0`$, dont on déduit que:

$$\mathrm{}\text{e}(<D^2\varphi ,\varphi >)=\frac{m^2}{4}<\varphi ,\varphi >+\frac{m^2H^2}{4}<\varphi ,\varphi >.$$
(8)
Par intégration de cette identité sur $`M`$, nous obtenons

$$𝒬(D^2,\varphi )=\frac{m^2}{4}+\frac{m^2_MH^2<\varphi ,\varphi >v_g}{4_M<\varphi ,\varphi >v_g}\frac{m^2}{4}+\frac{m^2}{4}\underset{M}{sup}H^2.$$

Puisque l’espace hyperbolique admet un espace de dimension $`2.2^{[\frac{m+1}{2}]}`$ de spineurs de Killing imaginaires, l’application du principe du Min-Max donne l’inégalité (7).
Si maintenant (7) est une égalité pour $`k=1`$, alors la caractérisation variationnelle de $`\lambda _1^2`$ entraine, pour la restriction à $`M`$ de tout spineur de Killing imaginaire $`\varphi `$ sur $`^{m+1}`$,

$$D^2\varphi =\lambda _1^2\varphi .$$

L’injection de cette relation dans (8) et le fait qu’un spineur de Killing imaginaire n’admet pas de zéro  donne alors $`\lambda _1^2=\frac{m^2}{4}\left(H^21\right)`$, dont on déduit que $`H`$ doit être constante.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Remarques
a. Ce résultat se révèle analogue à celui de E. Heintze (, Theorem 2.3) pour le laplacien scalaire, et est optimal: pour toute sphère géodésique, (7) est une égalité pour $`k=1`$ (voir ).
b. L’inégalité (7) pour $`k=1`$ demeure évidemment valable sur toute hypersurface (compacte et orientée) de toute variété riemannienne spinorielle admettant un spineur de Killing imaginaire.
c. Pour obtenir un majorant $`L^2`$ analogue à ceux de (1) et (2), il suffirait qu’il existe un spineur de Killing imaginaire de norme *constante* sur $`M`$. Il a néanmoins été démontré  que, sous cette hypothèse, $`M`$ doit être totalement ombilique dans $`^{m+1}`$, i.e., être isométrique à une sphère géodésique de $`^{m+1}`$.

Nous n’excluons pas l’existence lorsque $`\stackrel{~}{M}=^{m+1}`$ d’une telle borne $`L^2`$, qui paraîtrait naturelle au regard de l’estimation obtenue par A. El Soufi et S. Ilias (, Théorème 1) pour la première valeur propre non nulle du laplacien scalaire. Cependant, nous signalons les limites de cette analogie: l’estimation *a priori* (comparer avec , Théorème 2)

$$\lambda _1^2\frac{m^2}{4\mathrm{V}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{l}(M)}_M\left(H^2+R(\iota )\right)v_g$$

sur une hypersurface compacte d’une quelconque variété $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ *conformément* immergée dans la sphère $`S^{m+1}`$ ne peut avoir lieu en dimension $`m=2`$: en effet, la quantité $`_M\left(H^2+R(\iota )\right)v_g`$ est dans ce cas la fonctionnelle de Willmore, qui est invariante par changement conforme de métrique sur $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$. Or le produit $`\lambda _1^2\mathrm{Aire}(S^2)`$ est *non borné* dans la classe conforme de $`\mathrm{can}_{S^2}`$ . Cette différence de comportement entre l’opérateur de Dirac et le laplacien scalaire se retrouve d’ailleurs dans la caractérisation du cas d’égalité de (2) .
Pour l’utilisation des propriétés conformes de l’opérateur de Dirac dans ce contexte, nous renvoyons à .

Nicolas GINOUX
Max-Planck Institut für Mathematik in den Naturwissenschaften, Inselstraße 22 D-04103 Leipzig.
ginoux@mis.mpg.de


text:
# Algebraic Cobordism

## 1. Oriented cohomology theories

Fix a field $`k`$ and let $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐜𝐡}_k`$ denote the category of separated finite-type $`k`$-schemes. We let $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐦}_k`$ be the full subcategory of smooth quasi-projective $`k`$-schemes.

We have described in  the notion of an oriented cohomology theory on $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐦}_k`$. Roughly speaking, such a theory $`A^{}`$ consists of a contravariant functor from $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐦}_k`$ to graded rings (commutative), which is also covariantly functorial for projective equi-dimensional morphisms $`f:YX`$ (with a shift in the grading):

$$f_{}:𝔸^{}(Y)A^{dim_XY}(X).$$

The pull-back $`g^{}`$ and push-forward $`f_{}`$ satisfy a projection formula and commute in transverse cartesian squares. If $`LX`$ is a line bundle with zero-section $`s:XL`$, we have the first Chern class of $`L`$, defined by

$$c_1(L):=s^{}(s_{}(1_X))A^1(X),$$

where $`1_XA^0(X)`$ is the unit. $`A^{}`$ satisfies the projective bundle formula:

1. Let $``$ be a rank $`r+1`$ locally free coherent sheaf on $`X`$, with projective bundle $`q:()X`$ and tautological quotient invertible sheaf $`q^{}𝒪(1)`$. Let $`\xi =c_1(𝒪(1))`$. Then $`A^{}(())`$ is a free $`A^{}(X)`$-module with basis $`1,\xi ,\mathrm{},\xi ^r`$.

Finally, $`A^{}`$ satisfies a homotopy property: if $`p:VX`$ is an affine-space bundle (i.e., a torsor for a vector bundle over $`X`$), then $`p^{}:A^{}(X)A^{}(V)`$ is an isomorphism.

###### Examples 1.1

. (1) The theories $`\mathrm{CH}^{}`$ and $`H_{\text{ét}}^2(,/n())`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐦}_k`$ (also with $`_l()`$ or $`_l()`$ coefficients).

(2) The theory $`K_0[\beta ,\beta ^1]`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐦}_k`$. Here $`\beta `$ is an indeterminant of degree $`1`$, used to keep track of the relative dimension when taking projective push-forward.

###### Remarks 1.2

. (1) In , we consider a more general (dual) notion, that of an oriented Borel-Moore homology theory $`A_{}`$. Roughly, this is a functor from a full subcategory of $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐜𝐡}_k`$ to graded abelian groups, covariant for projective maps, and contravariant (with a shift in the grading) for local complete intersection morphisms. In addition, one has external products, and a degree -1 Chern class endomorphism $`\stackrel{~}{c}_1(L):A_{}(X)A_1(X)`$ for each line bundle $`L`$ on $`X`$, defined by $`\stackrel{~}{c}_1(L)(\eta )=s^{}(s_{}(\eta ))`$, $`s:XL`$ the zero-section. As for an oriented cohomology theory, there are various compatibilities of push-forward and pull-back, and $`A_{}`$ satisfies a projective bundle formula and a homotopy property.

This allows for a more general category of definition for $`A_{}`$, e.g., the category $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐜𝐡}_k`$. As we shall see, the setting of Borel-Moore homology is often more natural than cohomology. On $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐦}_k`$, the two notions are equivalent: to pass from Borel-Moore homology to cohomology, one re-grades by setting $`A^n(X):=A_{ndim_kX}(X)`$ and uses the l.c.i. pull-back for $`A_{}`$ to give the contravariant functoriality of $`A^{}`$, noting that every morphism of smooth $`k`$-schemes is an l.c.i. morphism. We will state most of our results for cohomology theories on $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐦}_k`$, but they extend to the setting of Borel-Moore homology on $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐜𝐡}_k`$ (see  for details).

(2) Our notion of oriented cohomology is related to that of Panin , but is not the same.

## 2. The formal group law

Let $`A_{}`$ be an oriented cohomology theory on $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐦}_k`$. As noticed by Quillen , a double application of the projective bundle formula (PB) yields the isomorphism of rings

$$A^{}(k)[[u,v]]\underset{\begin{array}{c}\\ n,m\end{array}}{lim}A^{}(^n\times ^m),$$

the isomorphism sending $`u`$ to $`c_1(p_1^{}𝒪(1))`$ and $`v`$ to $`c_1(p_2^{}𝒪(1))`$. The class of $`c_1(p_1^{}𝒪(1)p_2^{}𝒪(1))`$ thus gives a power series $`F_A(u,v)A^{}(k)[[u,v]]`$ with

$$c_1(p_1^{}𝒪(1)p_2^{}𝒪(1))=F_A(c_1(p_1^{}𝒪(1)),c_1(p_2^{}𝒪(1))).$$

By the naturality of $`c_1`$, we have the identity for $`X\mathrm{𝐒𝐦}_k`$ with line bundles $`L`$, $`M`$,

$$c_1(LM)=F_A(c_1(L),c_1(M)).$$

In addition, $`F_A(u,v)=u+vmoduv`$, $`F_A(u,v)=F_A(v,u)`$, and $`F_A(F_A(u,v),w)=F_A(u,F_A(v,w))`$. Thus, $`F_A`$ gives a formal group law with coefficients in $`A^{}(k)`$.

###### Remark 2.3

. Note that $`c_1:\mathrm{Pic}(X)A^1(X)`$ is a group homomorphism if and only if $`F_A(u,v)=u+v`$. If this is the case, we call $`A^{}`$ ordinary, if not, $`A^{}`$ is extraordinary. If $`F_A(u,v)=u+v\alpha uv`$ with $`\alpha `$ a unit in $`A^{}(k)`$, we call $`A^{}`$ multiplicative and periodic.

###### Examples 2.4

. For $`A^{}=\mathrm{CH}^{}`$ or $`H^2`$, $`F_A=u+v`$, giving examples of ordinary theories. For the theory $`A=K_0[\beta ,\beta ^1]`$, $`c_1(L)=(1L^{})\beta ^1`$, and $`F_A(u,v)=u+v\beta uv`$, giving an example of a multiplicative and periodic theory.

###### Remark 2.5

. Let $`\stackrel{~}{𝕃}^{}=[a_{ij}|i,j1]`$, where we give $`a_{ij}`$ degree $`ij+1`$, and let $`F\stackrel{~}{𝕃}^{}[[u,v]]`$ be the power series $`F=u+v+_{ij}a_{ij}u^iv^j`$. Let

$$𝕃^{}=\stackrel{~}{𝕃}^{}/F(u,v)=F(v,u),F(F(u,v),w)=F(u,F(v,w)),$$

and let $`F_𝕃𝕃^{}[[u,v]]`$ be the image of $`F`$. Then $`(F_𝕃,𝕃^{})`$ is the universal commutative dimension 1 formal group; $`𝕃^{}`$ is called the Lazard ring (cf. ).

Thus, if $`A^{}`$ is an oriented cohomology theory on $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐦}_k`$, there is a canonical graded ring homomorphism $`\varphi _A:𝕃^{}A^{}(k)`$ with $`\varphi _A(F_𝕃)=F_A`$.

## 3. Algebraic cobordism

The main result of  is

###### Theorem 3.6

. Let $`k`$ be a field of characteristic zero.

1. There is a universal oriented Borel-Moore homology theory $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐜𝐡}_k`$. The restriction of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ to $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐦}_k`$ yields the universal oriented cohomology theory $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐦}_k`$.
2. The homomorphism $`\varphi _\mathrm{\Omega }:𝕃^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(k)`$ is an isomorphism.
3. Let $`i:ZX`$ be a closed imbedding with open complement $`j:UX`$. Then the sequence

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(Z)\stackrel{i_{}}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(X)\stackrel{j^{}}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(U)0$$

is exact.

Idea of construction: We construct $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(X)`$ in steps; the construction is inspired by Quillen’s approach to complex cobordism .

1. Start with cobordism cycles $`(f:YX,L_1,\mathrm{},L_r)`$, with $`Y\mathrm{𝐒𝐦}_k`$ irreducible, $`f:YX`$ projective and $`L_1,\mathrm{},L_r`$ line bundles on $`Y`$ (we allow $`r=0`$). We identify two cobordism cycles if there is an isomorphism $`\varphi :YY^{}`$, a permutation $`\sigma `$ and isomorphisms $`L_j\varphi ^{}L_{\sigma (j)}^{}`$. Let $`𝒵_{}(X)`$ be the free abelian group on the cobordism cycles, graded by giving $`(f:YX,L_1,\mathrm{},L_r)`$ degree $`dim_kYr`$.
2. Let $`^{dim}(X)`$ be the subgroup of $`𝒵_{}(X)`$ generated by cobordism cycles of the form $`(f:YX,\pi ^{}L_1,\mathrm{},\pi ^{}L_r,M_1,\mathrm{},M_s)`$, where $`\pi :YZ`$ is a smooth morphism in $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐦}_k`$, the $`L_i`$ are line bundles on $`Z`$, and $`r>dim_kZ`$. Let $`\underset{¯}{𝒵}_{}(X)=𝒵_{}(X)/^{dim}(X)`$.
3. Add the Gysin isomorphism: If $`LY`$ is a line bundle and $`s:YL`$ is a section transverse to the zero-section with divisor $`i:DY`$, identify $`(f:YX,L_1,\mathrm{},L_r,L)`$ with $`(fi:DX,i^{}L_1,\mathrm{},i^{}L_r)`$. We let $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{}(X)`$ denote the resulting quotient of $`\underset{¯}{𝒵}_{}(X)`$. Note that on $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{}(X)`$ we have, for each line bundle $`LX`$, the Chern class operator

$`\stackrel{~}{c}_1(L):\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{}(X)\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1(X)`$
$`(f:YX,L_1,\mathrm{},L_r)(f:YX,L_1,\mathrm{},L_r,f^{}L)`$
as well as push-forward maps $`f_{}:\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{}(X)\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{}(X^{})`$ for $`f:XX^{}`$ projective.
4. Impose the formal group law: Regrade $`𝕃`$ by setting $`𝕃_n:=𝕃^n`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(X)`$ be the quotient of $`𝕃_{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{}(X)`$ by the imposing the identity of maps $`𝕃_{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{}(Y)𝕃_{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{}(X)`$

$$(\mathrm{id}f_{})F_𝕃(\stackrel{~}{c}_1(L),\stackrel{~}{c}_1(M))=\mathrm{id}(f_{}\stackrel{~}{c}_1(LM))$$

for $`f:YX`$ projective, and $`L,M`$ line bundles on $`Y`$. Note that, having imposed the relations in $`^{dim}`$, the operators $`\stackrel{~}{c}_1(L)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{c}_1(M)`$ are locally nilpotent, so the infinite series $`F_𝕃(\stackrel{~}{c}_1(L),\stackrel{~}{c}_1(M))`$ makes sense.

As the notation suggests, the most natural construction of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is as an oriented Borel-Moore homology theory rather than an oriented cohomology theory; the tranlation to an oriented cohomology theory on $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐦}_k`$ is given as in remark 1.2(1). The proof of theorem 3.6 uses resolution of singularities  and the weak factorization theorem  in an essential way.

###### Remark 3.7

. In addition to the properties of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ listed in theorem 3.6, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(X)`$ is generated by the classes of “elementary” cobordism cycles $`(f:YX)`$.

## 4. Degree formulas

In the paper , Rost made a number of conjectures based on the theory of algebraic cobordism in the Morel-Voevodsky stable homotopy category. Many of Rost’s conjectures have been proved by homotopy-theoretic means (see ); our construction of algebraic cobordism gives an alternate proof of these results, and settles many of the remaining open questions as well. We give a sampling of some of these results.

### 4.1. The generalized degree formula

All the degree formulas follow from the “generalized degree formula”. We first define the degree map $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(X)\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(k)`$.

###### Definition 4.8

. Let $`k`$ be a field of characteristic zero and let $`X`$ be an irreducible finite type $`k`$-scheme with generic point $`i:xX`$. For an element $`\eta `$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(X)`$, define $`\mathrm{deg}\eta \mathrm{\Omega }^{}(k)`$ to be the element mapping to $`i^{}\eta `$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(k(x))`$ under the isomorphisms $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(k)𝕃^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(k(x))`$ given by theorem 3.6(2).

###### Theorem 4.9

(generalized degree formula). Let $`k`$ be a field of characteristic zero. Let $`X`$ be an irreducible finite type $`k`$-scheme, and let $`\eta `$ be in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(X)`$. Let $`f_0:B_0X`$ be a resolution of singularities of $`X`$, with $`B_0`$ quasi-projective over $`k`$. Then there are $`a_i\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(k)`$, and projective morphisms $`f_i:B_iX`$ such that

1. Each $`B_i`$ is in $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐦}_k`$, $`f_i:B_if(B_i)`$ is birational and $`f(B_i)`$ is a proper closed subset of $`X`$ (for $`i>0`$).
2. $`\eta (\mathrm{deg}\eta )[f_0:B_0X]=_{i=1}^ra_i[f_i:B_iX]`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(X)`$.

Proof. It follows from the definitions of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ that we have

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(k(x))=\underset{\begin{array}{c}\\ U\end{array}}{lim}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(U),$$

where the limit is over smooth dense open subschemes $`U`$ of $`X`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(k(x))`$ is the value at $`\mathrm{Spec}k(x)`$ of the functor $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ on finite type $`k(x)`$-schemes. Thus, there is a smooth open subscheme $`j:UX`$ of $`X`$ such that $`j^{}\eta =(\mathrm{deg}\eta )[\mathrm{id}_U]`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(U)`$. Since $`U\times _XB_0U`$, it follows that $`j^{}(\eta (\mathrm{deg}\eta )[f_0])=0`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(U)`$.

Let $`W=XU`$. From the localization sequence

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(W)\stackrel{i_{}}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(X)\stackrel{j^{}}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(U)0,$$

we find an element $`\eta _1\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(W)`$ with $`i_{}(\eta _1)=\eta (\mathrm{deg}\eta )[f_0]`$, and noetherian induction completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 4.10

. Applying theorem 4.9 to the class of a projective morphism $`f:YX`$, with $`X,Y\mathrm{𝐒𝐦}_k`$, we have the formula

$$[f:YX](\mathrm{deg}f)[\mathrm{id}_X]=\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}a_i[f_i:B_iX]$$

in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(X)`$. Also, if $`dim_kX=dim_kY`$, $`\mathrm{deg}f`$ is the usual degree, i.e., the field extension degree $`[k(Y):k(X)]`$ if $`f`$ is dominant, or zero if $`f`$ is not.

### 4.2. Complex cobordism

For a differentiable manifold $`M`$, one has the complex cobordism ring $`MU^{}(M)`$. Given an embedding $`\sigma :k`$ and an $`X\mathrm{𝐒𝐦}_k`$, we let $`X^\sigma ()`$ denote the complex manifold associated to the smooth $``$-scheme $`X\times _k`$. Sending $`X`$ to $`MU^2(X^\sigma ())`$ defines an oriented cohomology theory on $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐦}_k`$; by the universality of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$, we have a natural homomorphism

$$\mathrm{}_\sigma :\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(X)MU^2(X^\sigma ()).$$

Now, if $`P=P(c_1,\mathrm{},c_d)`$ is a degree $`d`$ (weighted) homogeneous polynomial, it is known that the operation of sending a smooth compact $`d`$-dimensional complex manifold $`M`$ to the Chern number $`\mathrm{deg}(P(c_1,\mathrm{},c_d)(\mathrm{\Theta }_M))`$ (where $`\mathrm{\Theta }_M`$ is the complex tangent bundle) descends to a homomorphism $`MU^{2d}`$. Composing with $`\mathrm{}_\sigma `$, we have the homomorphism $`P:\mathrm{\Omega }^d(k)`$. If $`X`$ is smooth and projective of dimension $`d`$ over $`k`$, we have $`P([X])=\mathrm{deg}(P(c_1,\mathrm{},c_d)(\mathrm{\Theta }_{X^\sigma ()}))`$; $`P([X])`$ is in fact independent of the choice of embedding $`\sigma `$.

Let $`s_d(c_1,\mathrm{},c_d)`$ be the polynomial which corresponds to $`_i\xi _i^d`$, where $`\xi _1,\mathrm{}`$ are the Chern roots. The following divisibility is known (see ): if $`d=p^n1`$ for some prime $`p`$, and $`dimX=d`$, then $`s_d(X)`$ is divisible by $`p`$.

In addition, for integers $`d=p^n1`$ and $`r1`$, there are mod $`p`$ characteristic classes $`t_{d,r}`$, with $`t_{d,1}=s_d/pmodp`$. The $`s_d`$ and the $`t_{d,r}`$ have the following properties:

(4.1)
1. $`s_d(X)p`$ is defined for $`X`$ smooth and projective of dimension $`d=p^n1`$. $`t_{d,r}(X)/p`$ is defined for $`X`$ smooth and projective of dimension $`rd=r(p^n1)`$.
2. $`s_d`$ and $`t_{d,r}`$ extend to homomorphisms $`s_d:\mathrm{\Omega }^d(k)p`$, $`t_{d,r}:\mathrm{\Omega }^{rd}(k)/p`$.
3. If $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are smooth projective varieties with $`dimX,dimY>0`$, $`dimX+dimY=d`$, then $`s_d(X\times Y)=0`$.
4. If $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_s`$ are smooth projective varieties with $`_idimX_i=rd`$, then $`t_{d,r}(_iX_i)=0`$ unless $`d|dimX_i`$ for each $`i`$.

We can now state Rost’s degree formula and the higher degree formula:

###### Theorem 4.11

(Rost’s degree formula). Let $`f:YX`$ be a morphism of smooth projective $`k`$-schemes of dimension $`d`$, $`d=p^n1`$ for some prime $`p`$. Then there is a zero-cycle $`\eta `$ on $`X`$ such that

$$s_d(Y)(\mathrm{deg}f)s_d(X)=p\mathrm{deg}(\eta ).$$

###### Theorem 4.12

(Rost’s higher degree formula). Let $`f:YX`$ be a morphism of smooth projective $`k`$-schemes of dimension $`rd`$, $`d=p^n1`$ for some prime $`p`$. Suppose that $`X`$ admits a sequence of surjective morphisms

$$X=X_0X_1\mathrm{}X_{r1}X_r=\mathrm{Spec}k,$$

such that:

1. $`dimX_i=d(ri)`$.
2. Let $`\eta `$ be a zero-cycle on $`X_i\times _{X_{i+1}}\mathrm{Spec}k(X_{i+1})`$. Then $`p|\mathrm{deg}(\eta )`$.

Then

$$t_{d,r}(Y)=\mathrm{deg}(f)t_{d,r}(X).$$

Proof. These two theorems follow easily from the generalized degree formula. Indeed, for theorem 4.11, take the identity of remark 4.10 and push forward to $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(k)`$. Using remark 3.7, this gives the identity

$$[Y](\mathrm{deg}f)[X]=\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}m_i[A_i\times B_i]$$

in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(X)`$, for smooth, projective $`k`$-schemes $`A_j`$, $`B_j`$, and integers $`m_j`$, where each $`B_i`$ admits a projective morphism $`f_i:B_iX`$ which is birational to its image and not dominant. Since $`s_d`$ vanishes on non-trivial products, the only relevant part of the sum involves those $`B_j`$ of dimension zero; such a $`B_j`$ is identified with the closed point $`b_j:=f_j(B_j)`$ of $`X`$. Applying $`s_d`$, we have

$$s_d(Y)\mathrm{deg}(f)s_d(X)=\underset{j}{}m_js_d(A_j)\mathrm{deg}_k(b_j).$$

Since $`s_d(A_j)=pn_j`$ for suitable integers $`n_j`$, we have

$$s_d(Y)\mathrm{deg}(f)s_d(X)=p\mathrm{deg}(\underset{j}{}m_jn_jb_j).$$

Taking $`\eta =_jm_jn_jb_j`$ proves theorem 4.11.

The proof of theorem 4.12 is similar: Start with the decomposition of $`[f:YX](\mathrm{deg}f)[\mathrm{id}_X]`$ given by remark 4.10. One then decomposes the maps $`B_iX=X_0`$ further by pushing forward to $`X_1`$ and using theorem 4.9. Iterating down the tower gives the identity in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(k)`$

$$[Y](\mathrm{deg}f)[X]=\underset{i}{}m_i[B_0^i\times \mathrm{}\times B_r^i];$$

the condition (2) implies that, if $`d|dim_kB_j^i`$ for all $`j=0,\mathrm{},r`$, then $`p|m_j`$. Applying $`t_{d,r}`$ and using the property (4.1)(4) yields the formula. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 5. Comparison results

Suppose we have a formal group $`(f,R)`$, giving the canonical homomorphism $`\varphi _f:𝕃^{}R`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{(f,R)}^{}`$ be the functor

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{(f,R)}^{}(X)=\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(X)_𝕃^{}R,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(X)`$ is an $`𝕃^{}`$-algebra via the homomorphism $`\varphi _\mathrm{\Omega }:𝕃^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(k)`$. The universal property of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ gives the analogous universal property for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{(f,R)}^{}`$.

In particular, let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_+^{}`$ be the theory with $`(f(u,v),R)=(u+v,)`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\times ^{}`$ be the theory with $`(f(u,v),R)=(u+v\beta uv,[\beta ,\beta ^1])`$. We thus have the canonical natural transformations of oriented theories on $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐦}_k`$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_+^{}\mathrm{CH}^{};\mathrm{\Omega }_\times ^{}K_0[\beta ,\beta ^1].$$
(5.2)
###### Theorem 5.13

. Let $`k`$ be a field of characteristic zero. The natural transformations (5.2) are isomorphisms, i.e., $`\mathrm{CH}^{}`$ is the universal ordinary oriented cohomology theory and $`K_0[\beta ,\beta ^1]`$ is the universal multiplicative and periodic theory.

Proof. For $`\mathrm{CH}^{}`$, this uses localization, theorem 4.9 and resolution of singularities. For $`K_0`$, one writes down an integral Chern character, which gives the inverse isomorphism by the Grothendieck-Riemann-Roch theorem. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 6. Higher algebraic cobordism

The cohomology theory represented by the $`^1`$-spectrum $`MGL`$ in the Morel-Voevodsky $`𝔸^1`$-stable homotopy category  gives perhaps the most natural algebraic analogue of complex cobordism. By universality, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^n(X)`$ maps to $`MGL^{2n,n}(X)`$; to show that this map is an isomorphism, one would like to give a map in the other direction. For this, the most direct method would be to extend $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ to a theory of higher algebraic cobordism; we give one possible approach to this construction here.

The idea is to repeat the construction of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$, replacing abelian groups with symmetric monoidal categories throughout. Comparing with the $`Q`$-construction, one sees that the cobordism cycles in $`^{dim}(X)`$ should be homotopic to zero, but not canonically so. Thus, we cannot impose this relation directly, forcing us to modify the group law by taking a limit.

Start with the category $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}(X)_0`$, with objects $`(f:YX,L_1,\mathrm{},L_r)`$, where $`Y`$ is irreducible in $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐦}_k`$, $`f`$ is projective, and the $`L_i`$ are line bundles on $`Y`$. A morphism $`(f:YX,L_1,\mathrm{},L_r)(f^{}:Y^{}X,L_1^{},\mathrm{},L_r^{})`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}(X)_0`$ consist of a tuple $`(\varphi ,\psi _1,\mathrm{},\psi _r,\sigma )`$, with $`\varphi :YY^{}`$ an isomorphism over $`X`$, $`\sigma `$ a permutation, and $`\psi _j:L_j\varphi ^{}L_{\sigma (j)}^{}`$ an isomorphism of line bundles on $`Y`$. Form the category $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}(X)`$ as the symmetric monoidal category freely generated by $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}(X)_0`$; grade $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}(X)`$ by letting $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}_n(X)`$ be the full symmetric monoidal subcategory generated by the $`(f:YX,L_1,\mathrm{},L_r)`$ with $`n=dim_kYr`$.

Next, form $`\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}(X)`$ by adjoining (as a symmetric monoidal category) an isomorphism $`\gamma _{L,s}:(fi:DX,i^{}L_1,\mathrm{},i^{}L_r)(f:YX,L_1,\mathrm{},L_r,L)`$ for each section $`s:YL`$ transverse to the zero-section with divisor $`i:DX`$. Given a morphism $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }:=(\varphi ,\mathrm{}):(f:YX,L_1,\mathrm{},L_r,L)(f^{}:Y^{}X,L_1^{},\mathrm{},L_r^{},L^{})`$ (with $`L\varphi ^{}L^{}`$ via $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$), let $`i^{}:D^{}Y^{}`$ be the map induced by $`\varphi `$, $`s^{}:Y^{}L^{}`$ the section induced by $`s`$, and

$$\psi ^D:(fi:DX,i^{}L_1,\mathrm{},i^{}L_r)(f^{}i^{}:D^{}X,i^{}L_1^{},\mathrm{},i^{}L_r^{}),$$

the morphism induced by $`\psi `$. We impose the relation $`\psi \gamma _{L,s}=\gamma _{L^{},s^{}}\psi ^D`$. Finally, for line bundles $`L,M`$ with smooth transverse divisors $`i_D:DY`$, $`i_E:EY`$ defined by sections $`s:YL`$, $`t:YM`$, respectively, we impose the relation $`\gamma _{L,s}\gamma _{i_D^{}M,i_D^{}t}=\gamma _{M,t}\gamma _{i_E^{}L,i_E^{}s}`$. The grading on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}(X)`$ extends to one on $`\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}(X)`$.

Given $`g:XX^{}`$ projective, we have the functor $`g_{}:\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}(X)\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}(X^{})`$, similarly, given a smooth morphism $`h:XX^{}`$, we have the functor $`h^{}:\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}(X^{})\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}(X)`$. Given a line bundle $`L`$ on $`X`$, we have the natural transformation $`\stackrel{~}{c}_1(L)`$ sending $`(f:YX,L_1,\mathrm{},L_r)`$ to $`(f:YX,L_1,\mathrm{},L_r,f^{}L)`$.

Now let $`𝒞`$ be a symmetric monoidal category such that all morphisms are isomorphisms, and let $`R`$ be a ring, free as a $``$-module. One can define a symmetric monoidal category $`R_{}𝒞`$ with a symmetric monoical functor $`𝒞R_{}𝒞`$ which is universal for symmetric monoidal functors $`𝒞𝒞^{}`$ such that $`𝒞^{}`$ admits an action of $`R`$ via natural transformations. In case $`R=`$, $`_{}𝒞`$ is the standard group completion $`𝒞^1𝒞`$. In general, if $`\{e_\alpha |\alpha A\}`$ is a $``$-basis for $`R`$, then

$$R_{}𝒞=\underset{\alpha }{}𝒞^1𝒞,$$

with the $`R`$-action given by expressing $`\times x:RR`$ in terms of the basis $`\{e_\alpha \}`$.

For each integer $`n0`$, let $`𝕃_{}^{(n)}`$ be the quotient of $`𝕃_{}`$ by the ideal of elements of degree $`>n`$. We thus have the formal group $`(F_{𝕃^{(n)}},𝕃_{}^{(n)})`$.

We form the category $`𝕃^{(n)}_{}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}(X)`$, which we grade by total degree. For each $`f:YX`$ projective, with $`Y\mathrm{𝐒𝐦}_k`$, and line bundles $`L`$, $`M`$, $`L_1,\mathrm{},L_r`$ on $`Y`$, we adjoin an isomophism $`\rho _{L,M}`$

$$f_{}(F_{𝕃^{(n)}}(\stackrel{~}{c}_1(L),\stackrel{~}{c}_1(M))(\mathrm{id}_Y,L_1,\mathrm{},L_r))\stackrel{}{}f_{}(\mathrm{id}\stackrel{~}{c}_1(LM)(\mathrm{id}_Y,L_1,\mathrm{},L_r)).$$

We impose the condition of naturality with respect to the maps in $`𝕃^{(n)}_{}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_n(Y)`$, in the evident sense; the Chern class transformations extend in the obvious manner.

We impose the following commutativity condition: We have the evident isomorphism $`t_{L,M}:F_{𝕃^{(n)}}(\stackrel{~}{c}_1(L),\stackrel{~}{c}_1(M))F_{𝕃^{(n)}}(\stackrel{~}{c}_1(M),\stackrel{~}{c}_1(L))`$ of natural transformations, as well as $`\tau _{L,M}:\stackrel{~}{c}_1(LM)\stackrel{~}{c}_1(ML)`$, the isomorphism induced by the symmetry $`LMML`$. Then we impose the identity $`\tau _{L,M}\rho _{L,M}=\rho _{M,L}t_{L,M}`$. We impose a similar identity between the associativity of the formal group law and the associativity of the tensor product of line bundles.

We also adjoin $`a\tau _{L,M}`$ for all $`a𝕃^{(n)}`$, with similar compatibilities as above, respecting the $`𝕃^{(n)}`$-action and sum. This forms the symmetric monoidal category $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{(n)}(X)`$, which inherits a grading from $`\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}(X)`$. We have the inverse system of graded symmetric monoidal categories:

$$\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{(n+1)}(X)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{(n)}(X)\mathrm{}.$$

###### Definition 5.14

. Set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,r}^{(n)}(X):=\pi _r(B\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_m^{(n)}(X))`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,r}(X):=\underset{\begin{array}{c}\\ n\end{array}}{lim}\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,r}^{(n)}(X)`$.

At present, we can only verify the following:

###### Theorem 5.15

. There is a natural isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}(X)\mathrm{\Omega }_m(X)`$.

Proof. First note that $`\pi _0(\stackrel{~}{𝒵}_m(X))`$ is a commutative monoid with group completion $`𝒵_m(X)`$. Next, the natural map $`\pi _0(\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_{}(X))^+\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{}(X)`$ is surjective with kernel generated by the classes generating $`^{dim}(X)`$. Given such an element $`\psi :=(f:YX,\pi ^{}L_1,\mathrm{},\pi ^{}L_r,M_1,\mathrm{},M_s)`$, with $`\pi :YZ`$ smooth, and $`r>dim_kZ`$, suppose that the $`L_i`$ are very ample. We may then choose sections $`s_i:ZL_i`$ with divisors $`D_i`$ all intersecting transversely. Iterating the isomorphisms $`\gamma _{L_i,s_i}`$ gives a path from $`\psi `$ to 0 in $`B\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_{}(X)`$. Passing to $`B\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_m^{(n)}(X)`$, the group law allows us to replace an arbitrary line bundle witha difference of very ample ones, so all the classes of this form go to zero in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}^{(n)}(X)`$. This shows that the natural map

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}^{(n)}(X)(𝕃^{(n)}_𝕃\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(X))_m$$

is an isomorphism. Since $`(𝕃^{(n)}_𝕃\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(X))_m=\mathrm{\Omega }_m(X)`$ for $`mn`$, we are done. $`\mathrm{}`$

The categories $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_m^{(n)}(X)`$ are covariantly functorial for projective maps, contravariant for smooth maps (with a shift in the grading) and have first Chern class natural transformations $`\stackrel{~}{c}_1(L):\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_m^{(n)}(X)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{m1}^{(n)}(X)`$ for $`LX`$ a line bundle.

We conjecture that the inverse system used to define $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,r}(X)`$ is eventually constant for all $`r`$, not just for $`r=0`$. If this is true, it is reasonable to define the space $`B\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_m(X)`$ as the homotopy limit

$$B\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_m(X):=\underset{n}{holim}B\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_m^{(n)}(X).$$

One would then have $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,r}(X)=\pi _r(B\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_m(X),0)`$ for all $`m,r`$; hopefully the properties of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ listed in theorem 3.6 would then generalize into properties of the spaces $`B\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_m(X)`$.


text:
# Exceeding classical capacity limit in quantum optical channel

## Abstract

The amount of information transmissible through a communications channel is determined by the noise characteristics of the channel and by the quantities of available transmission resources. In classical information theory, the amount of transmissible information can be increased twice at most when the transmission resource (e.g. the code length, the bandwidth, the signal power) is doubled for fixed noise characteristics. In quantum information theory, however, the amount of information transmitted can increase even more than twice. We present a proof-of-principle demonstration of this super-additivity of classical capacity of a quantum channel by using the ternary symmetric states of a single photon, and by event selection from a weak coherent light source. We also show how the super-additive coding gain, even in a small code length, can boost the communication performance of conventional coding technique.

In any transmission of signals at the quantum level, such as a long-haul optical communication where the signals at the receiving end are weak coherent pulses, ambiguity among signals may be more a matter of non-commutativity of quantum states, i.e. $`\widehat{\rho }_0\widehat{\rho }_1\widehat{\rho }_1\widehat{\rho }_0`$ rather than any classical noise. Such states can never be distinguished perfectly even in principle. This imposes an inevitable error in signal detection even in an ideal communications system. It was only recently that communication theory was extended into quantum domain to include this aspect of ambiguity, and the expressions of channel capacity were finally obtained Q\_capacity\_theorems . Classical communication theory Shannon48\_Gallager\_book  describes the special case of the signals prepared in commuting density matrices.

For reliable transmission in the presence of noise, redundancy must be introduced in representing messages by letters, such as $`\{0,1\}`$, so as to correct errors at the receiving side. The capacity is associated with the functional meaning of this channel coding. Messages of $`k`$ \[bit\] are encoded into block sequences of given letters in length $`n`$ $`(>k)`$. The $`nk`$ \[bit\] redundancy allows one to correct errors at the receiving side. For a channel with a capacity $`C`$ \[bit/letter\], it is possible Shannon48\_Gallager\_book  with the rate $`R=k/n<C`$ to reproduce $`k`$ bit messages with an error probability as small as desired by appropriate encoding and decoding in the limit $`n\mathrm{}`$.

In extending the theory of capacity into quantum domain, primary concern is decoding of codewords made of non-commuting density matrices of letters. This is a non-trivial problem of quantum measurement. Actually, the optimal decoding essentially uses a process of entangling letter states constituting codewords prior to the measurement to enhance the distinguishability of signals. Such a process is nothing but a quantum computation on codeword states. This is a new aspect, not found in conventional coding techniques, and leads to a larger capacity. A significant consequence of this so called quantum collective decoding, is that the capacity can increase even more than twice when the code length is doubled. In classical information theory, on the contrary, the capacity can be increased twice at most. This feature, the super-additive quantum coding gain Holevo79\_QuantCap ; PeresWootters91 ; Sasaki98a ; Buck00\_SupAdd ; Usami01\_SupAdd , will be an important design rule for communications at the quantum level.

The theory of capacity, however, generally gives no guidance on how to construct codes that approach the capacity. The practical problem is then to find good codes for small blocks. Although several coding schemes have been proposed to exhibit super-additive coding gain PeresWootters91 ; Sasaki98a ; Buck00\_SupAdd ; Usami01\_SupAdd , little attention has been paid to this topic so far, and no experimental work has been reported yet. In fact, putting these theoretical predictions into practice has been considered as a formidable task with present technologies. In this letter, we experimentally demonstrate the super-additive coding gain by designing a coding circuit for a quantum channel consisting of the ternary symmetric states in a two-state system (qubit) of a single photon.

For binary non-orthogonal pure states, the most basic signals, the super-additive coding gain is predicted Buck00\_SupAdd  for the minimum length, $`n=2`$. The amount of gain, however, is so small to be observed experimentally, that is, 5.2$`\times 10^4`$ \[bit\] as the net increase of retrievable information per letter from the classical limit. For $`n=3`$, the net gain of 0.009 \[bit\] is predicted Sasaki98a , however, this requires quantum gating more than ten steps with high precision, which is something hard to do. Therefore we consider the letter state set that shows the largest amount of the coding gain with the minimum code length, $`n=2`$, among the known codes Sasaki98a ; Buck00\_SupAdd ; Usami01\_SupAdd .

Let us consider the set of the ternary letters $`\{0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\}`$ conveyed by the symmetric states of a qubit system, $`\widehat{\rho }_x=|\psi _x\psi _x|`$ with $`|\psi _0=|0`$, $`|\psi _1=\frac{1}{2}|0\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}|1`$, $`|\psi _2=\frac{1}{2}|0+\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}|1`$. Here $`\{|0,|1\}`$ is the orthonormal basis set. We assume that these states arrive at the receiver’s hand through a noiseless transmission line. If the letter states were prepared in commuting density matrices, they could be distinguished perfectly, and $`\mathrm{log}_23`$ \[bit\] of information (the maximum Shannon entropy of the set $`\{0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\}`$) could be faithfully retrieved per letter, meaning that the capacity would be $`\mathrm{log}_23`$ \[bit/letter\]. However, the states $`\widehat{\rho }_x`$ here are non-commuting, and distinguishing them is always associated with finite errors. In fact, the average error probability can never be lower than 1/3 when they are used with equal prior probabilities Helstrom\_QDET .

The capacity is matheatically given Shannon48\_Gallager\_book  based on the mutual information $`I(X:Y)`$ which is defined from the input variable $`X=\{x\}`$, the output variable $`Y=\{y\}`$, the prior distribution $`\{P(x)\}`$ of $`X`$ and the conditional probability $`\{P(y|x)\}`$ of $`Y`$ for given $`X`$. For the given channel model \[$`P(y|x)`$\], the capacity is defined by $`C=\mathrm{max}_{\{P(x)\}}I(X:Y)`$. In the quantum context, on the other hand, only the input variable $`X`$ and the corresponding set of quantum states $`\{\widehat{\rho }_x\}`$ at the receiver’s hand are given. The output variable $`Y`$ is to be sought for the best quantum measurement, i.e. a POVM $`\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_y\}`$. The channel matrix elements are now given by $`P(y|x)=\mathrm{Tr}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_y\widehat{\rho }_x)`$, and one is to find the optimized quantity Mizuno02\_ImaxExp

$$C_1=\underset{\{P(x)\}}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_y\}}{\mathrm{max}}I(X:Y).$$
(1)
For the ternary set $`\{|\psi _x\}`$, the $`C_1`$ was evaluated as $`0.6454`$ \[bit/letter\] which is attained by using only two of the three letters, say $`\{|\psi _0,|\psi _1\}`$, with equal probability 1/2 and by applying the binary measurement to form a binary symmetric channel Osaki\_Shor\_C1 . The quantity $`C_1`$ is, however, not the ultimate capacity allowed by quantum mechanics. In fact $`C_1`$ specifies the classical capacity limit when the given initial channel is used with classical channel coding FujiwaraNagaoka98 . It is this quantity that limits the performance of all conventional communications systems.

Now let us consider a quantum channel coding of length two. There are nine possible sequences in length two coding of three letters. Peres and Wootters showed PeresWootters91  that $`I(X^2:Y^2)=1.3690`$ \[bit\] of information can be retrieved in principle, which is greater than twice of the classical limit $`2C_1=1.2908`$ \[bit\]. This can be achieved in the following way; only three sequences $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{xx}=|\psi _x|\psi _x`$ $`(x=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})`$ are used as the codewords with equal probability 1/3, and they are decoded by the measurement represented by the elements $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{yy}=|\mathrm{\Pi }_{yy}\mathrm{\Pi }_{yy}|`$ $`(y=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})`$ which compose the orthonormal basis expanding $`\{|\mathrm{\Psi }_{xx}\}`$, that is,

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`c|\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{\sqrt{2}}}|\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{\sqrt{2}}}|\mathrm{\Pi }_{22},`$ (2a)
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s}{\sqrt{2}}}|\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}+c|\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{\sqrt{2}}}|\mathrm{\Pi }_{22},`$ (2b)
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s}{\sqrt{2}}}|\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{\sqrt{2}}}|\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}+c|\mathrm{\Pi }_{22},`$ (2c)
where $`c=\mathrm{cos}\frac{\gamma }{2}=(\sqrt{2}+1)/\sqrt{6}`$, and $`s=\mathrm{sin}\frac{\gamma }{2}=(\sqrt{2}1)/\sqrt{6}`$ ($`\gamma 19.47^{}`$). Fig. 1 shows a geometrical representation of Eq. (2). The super-additive coding gain is $`I(X^2:Y^2)/2C_1=0.0391`$ \[bit/letter\].

To demonstrate this gain, we must be able to entangle two letter states at the receiver’s hand prior to a measurement. Unfortunately quantum gating operations demonstrated to date are not precise enough to observe the small quantum coding gain. Therefore our method for proof-of-principle demonstration is based on the use of two physically different kinds of qubits of a single photon. The first and second letters of a codeword are drawn from the ternary letter state sets made of a polarization and a location qubits, respectively. Then entangling the polarization and location degrees of freedom of a photon can be performed by linear optical components with very high accuracy. The polarization qubit consists of the horizontal $`|H`$ and vertical $`|V`$ polarization states of a single photon. The location qubit for the second letter is realized by guiding the polarization qubit into two different paths A and B through a polarizing beamsplitter (PBS) which reflects the vertical polarization and transmits the horizontal polarization. Thus, the length two coding space is spanned by the two orthonormal basis sets Cerf\_Spreeuw\_Takeuchi\_LinearOpt

$`|00`$ $`=`$ $`|0_P|0_L=|H_A|\mathrm{vacuum}_B,`$ (3a)
$`|01`$ $`=`$ $`|0_P|1_L=|\mathrm{vacuum}_A|H_B,`$ (3b)
$`|10`$ $`=`$ $`|1_P|0_L=|V_A|\mathrm{vacuum}_B,`$ (3c)
$`|11`$ $`=`$ $`|1_P|1_L=|\mathrm{vacuum}_A|V_B.`$ (3d)
The codeword states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{xx}=|\psi _x_P|\psi _x_L`$ are represented in this product space. Thus the increase in resources in our coding format is due to doubling the spatial resource which is analogous to doubling the transmission bandwidth, as opposed to doubling the number of polarized photons. We want then to observe the increase more than double the amount of information transmitted.

An optical circuit for this coding is shown in Fig. 2(a). The angles of the three half waveplates (HWPs) $`\theta `$’s are chosen as $`(\theta _0,\theta _1,\theta _2)`$ =(0, 0, 0), (30, $`30^{}`$, $`15^{}`$), and (30, 30, 15) for $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{00}`$, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{11}`$, and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{22}`$, respectively. This decoding circuit is derived with slight modifications from a general circuit design of Fig. 2(b), which can be applied to any physical qubits. The received codeword is decided to be either of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{00}`$, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{11}`$, or $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{22}`$ according to the detection of a photon by the avalanche photodetector APD0, APD1, or APD2, respectively.

In our experiment, the CW light from a He-Ne laser at the wavelength of 632.8 nm with 1 mW power is strongly attenuated such that about $`10^2`$ photons exist on average in the whole circuit. The signal photons are guided to the Si APDs whose quantum efficiency and dark count are typically 70% and 100 \[count/sec\], respectively, through a multimode optical fiber with coupling efficiency of about 80%. In this setup, the mutual information is evaluated by constructing the 3-by-3 channel matrix $`[P(yy|xx)|\mathrm{\Pi }_{yy}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{xx}|^2]`$ from a statistical data of single-photon events detected by either of the three APDs conditioned on an input codeword $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{xx}`$. The mutual information thus obtained measures the ratio of number of bits retrieved per number of total photon counts. This allows us to simulate communications of “pure” codeword states of two letters by sending and detecting the photons one by one through the channel. The error performance is then determined only by the non-commutativity of the signal states, imperfect alignment of the whole interferometer, and the dark count of the APDs.

Each polarization Mach-Zehnder interferometer must be adjusted simultaneously at a proper operating point. This is done by using a bright reference beam and Piezo transducers with low noise voltage sources. The visibility of the whole interferometer is typically 98%. Once the circuit is adjusted, the reference beam is shut off. The signal light is then guided into the encoder and decoder. Photon counts are measured for five-second duration. This procedure is repeated for each codeword, composing a full sequence of measuring the channel matrix. The temporal stability in this sampling mode corresponds to the relative path length change within 3 nm for at least more than 200 sec, which causes the error in mutual information within $`\pm `$0.005 \[bit\].

An example of the channel matrix measured is shown as a histogram in Fig. 3. Ideally, the diagonal and off-diagonal elements must be $`c^2=`$0.9714 and $`s^2/2=`$0.0143, respectively. The total events counted for 1 sec is of order $`10^6`$, while the average count for the off-diagonal elements is about $`1.9\times 10^4`$. The background photons amount to about 300 \[count/sec\]. Including dark counts, the total background photon count is 2% of the average count for the off-diagonal elements. The mutual information is evaluated as $`I(X^2:Y^2)=1.312\pm 0.005`$ \[bit\]. For experimental clarity, we measured the variation of the mutual information when the codeword state set $`\{|\mathrm{\Psi }_{xx}\}`$ is rotated with respect to the decoder state set $`\{|\mathrm{\Pi }_{yy}\}`$ around the vertical axis in Fig. 1. The result is shown in Fig. 3. The gap between the data points (diamonds) and the ideal curve (solid curve) is mainly attributed to the imperfection of the PBSs. Fluctuation of the data points are mainly due to thermal drifts. The corresponding error bars ($`\pm `$0.005 \[bit\]) are about the same size of the diamonds. The measured mutual information per letter, $`0.656\pm 0.003`$ \[bit/letter\], is clearly greater than the classical theoretical limit $`C_1=0.6454`$ \[bit/letter\], which is the level shown by the dashed lines. The white square represents the experimental $`C_1`$, $`0.644\pm 0.001`$ \[bit/letter\]. This is measured by the circuit for classical decoding of Fig. 2(c), which does not entangle the polarization and location qubits. The retrieved information can never exceed $`2C_1`$. Our results clearly show that when an appropriate quantum circuit for entangling the letter states is inserted in front of the separable decoding, one can retrieve information more than twice per letter.

The super-additive coding gain in small blocks is not only valuable as a proof-of-principle demonstration but also of practical importance in quantum-limited communications. Even a two-qubit quantum circuit like Fig. 2(b) is useful in boosting the performance of a classical decoder. It can be shown that the decoding error can be greatly reduced by inserting the quantum circuit in front of the classical decoder. The quantum circuit processes a received codeword state quantum collectively prior to converting it into a classical signal. We call such a scheme quantum-classical hybrid coding (QCHC). The theoretical error exponents Shannon48\_Gallager\_book  of QCHC and all-classical coding (ACC) in the ternary letter-state case are listed in Table 1 for low and high transmission rates $`R`$. The improvement is more drastic in the higher rate limit. For the rate $`R=0.62`$ \[bit/letter\] (96% of $`C_1`$), it is possible to reduce the decoding error as $`P_e=2^{\frac{n}{2}E(R)}=2^{0.0488n}`$ by an appropriate classical coding with the composite letters {00, 11, 22} assisted by the pair-wise quantum decoding. To achieve a standard error-free criterion $`P_e=10^9`$, QCHC requires the code length $`n=614`$ (307 composite letter pairs), whereas ACC typically needs $`n=57300`$. As codes get longer, the complexity of the decoder, such as the total number of arithmetic operations, increases and eventually limits the effective transmission speed. For some asymptotically good codes, the total number of arithmetic operations is evaluated Hirasawa80  to be typically of order ($`n\mathrm{log}n)^2`$. Then the reduction of code length attained by QCHC will be practically significant in the trade-off between performance and decoding complexity. This suggests a useful application of small scale quantum computation.

The super-additive quantum coding gain should eventually be applied to more practical resources such as optical pulses of coherent states, especially, heavily attenuated coherent states $`\{|\alpha _k\}`$ of phase-shift and/or amplitude-shift keying. Unlike our channel model of single photon polarization and location modes, one must be able to entangle weak coherent pulses with respect to the degrees of phase and/or amplitude. This is another big challenge.

The authors acknowledge J. A. Vaccaro for his valuable comments. This work was supported by the CREST of JST.