text:
# Untitled Document

Nice INLN 03/08    February 2003

ANGULAR INTRICACIES

IN

HOT GAUGE FIELD THEORIES

$`\mathrm{T}.\mathrm{Grandou}`$

Institut Non Linéaire de Nice UMR CNRS 6618; 1361, Route des Lucioles, 06560 Valbonne, France

e-mail:Thierry.Grandou@inln.cnrs.fr

ABSTRACT

It is argued that in hot gauge field theories, ”Hard Thermal Loops” leading order calculations call for a definite sequence of angular averages and discontinuity (or Imaginary part prescription) operations, and run otherwise into incorrect results. The ten years old collinear singularity problem of hot $`QCD`$, provides a striking illustration of that fate.

PACS: 12.38.Cy, 11.10.Wx

Keywords: Hot $`QCD`$, Resummation Program, infrared, mass/collinear singularities,..

1. Introduction

The intrinsic non perturbative nature of non zero temperature Quantum field Theories has long been recognized . Naive thermal perturbation theory can nevertheless be devised, both in imaginary and real time formalisms , but then, it promptly appears that, under certain circumstances, the original perturbative series must be re-organized. Such an example of re-organization is provided by the so called Resummation Program . This program, $`RP`$ for short, is a resummation scheme of the leading order thermal fluctuations which, in the literature, are known under the spell of Hard Thermal Loops. Whenever one is calculating a physical process related to thermal Green’s functions whose external/internal legs are soft, it is mandatory to trade the naive thermal perturbation theory for the $`RP`$. The softness alluded to above, refers to momenta on the order of the soft scale $`gT`$, where $`T`$, the temperature, stands for the hard scale and $`g`$ for any relevant (bare/renormalized) and small enough coupling constant.The $`RP`$ which has been set up in order to remedy an obvious lack of completeness of the naive thermal perturbation theory, has produced interesting results, but has also met serious obstructions in the infrared regime of the theories ,. Within the Resummation Program itself, the solutions proposed so far , however interesting in their own respect, cannot be organized a systematic way and display a crucial dependence on the process under consideration.In the past few years, another resummation scheme of the leading order thermal fluctuations has been proposed by the present author, and seems to avoid all of the infrared problems met by the standard $`RP`$, . In loop calculations (where both resummation schemes are being used as effective perturbation theories, ruling the leading thermal fluctuations) the former only differs the standard $`RP`$, the sequence along which are performed an integration over a looping energy $`p_0`$, on the one hand, and a sum over the number $`N`$ of $`HTL`$-self energy insertions, on the other hand. This new resummation scheme, has accordingly been denoted $`PR`$ for short, and is, by construction, a Perturbative Resummation scheme of the leading order thermal fluctuations. Such is not the case of the $`RP`$. While $`HTL`$ $`n`$-point vertices are purely perturbative objects, effective propagators are not, giving rise to pole residues and dispersion laws that cannot be obtained out of pure thermal perturbation theory. In the infrared limit, in particular, those effective propagators are known to give rise to series in the coupling constant that are no longer Taylor’s but Laurent’s series . In any higher number of loops calculations, this simple, still crucial difference, allows one to foresee easily, why, in the $`RP`$ case and not in the $`PR`$ one, some enhancement mechanisms may occur (and effectively will!) so as to make higher number of loops as important, and even bigger, than lower number of loops diagrams .

In this note, we take advantage of a comparison of the two $`RP`$ and $`PR`$ resummation schemes to point out some overlooked aspects concerning ”the historical derivations” of the famous collinear singularity problem of hot $`QCD`$, . As many of our further calculations have displayed ever since, these aspects are generic and extend beyond the historical derivations to be recalled shortly.We will be using the convention of upper case letters for quadrimomenta and lower case ones for their components, writing, for example $`P=(p_0,\stackrel{}{p})`$. Our conventions for labelling internal and external momenta can be read off Fig.1.

2. The collinear singularity problem of hot $`QCD`$This almost ten years old issue is the following. The soft real photon emission rate out of a Quark-Gluon Plasma in thermal equilibrium involves, in particular, the calculation of the quantity

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\mathrm{\Pi }_R(Q)=i\frac{\mathrm{d}^4P}{(2\pi )^4}(12n_F(p_0))\mathrm{disc}_\mathrm{P}Tr\{{}_{}{}^{}S_{R}^{}(P){}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu }^{}(P_R,Q_R,P_A^{})\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }{}_{}{}^{}S_{R}^{}(P^{}){}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\mu }(P_R,Q_R,P_A^{})\}(2.1)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

The discontinuity is to be taken in the energy variable $`p_0`$, by forming the difference of $`R`$ and $`A`$-indiced $`P`$-dependent quantities, and within standard notations, fermionic HTL self energies, effective propagators and vertices are respectively given by

$${}_{}{}^{}S_{\alpha }^{}(P)=\frac{i}{\text{/}P\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha (P)+iϵ_\alpha p_0},\alpha =R,A,ϵ_R=ϵ_A=ϵ$$
$`(2.2)`$
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha (P)=m^2\frac{\mathrm{d}\widehat{K}}{4\pi }\frac{\text{/}\widehat{K}}{\widehat{K}P+iϵ_\alpha },m^2=C_F\frac{g^2T^2}{8}$$
$`(2.3)`$
$${}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu }^{}(P_\alpha ,Q_\beta ,P_\delta ^{})=ie\left(\gamma _\mu +\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{HTL}(P_\alpha ,Q_\beta ,P_\delta ^{})\right)$$
$`(2.4)`$
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{HTL}(P_\alpha ,Q_\beta ,P_\delta ^{})=m^2\frac{\mathrm{d}\widehat{K}}{4\pi }\frac{\widehat{k}_\mu \text{/}\widehat{K}}{(\widehat{K}P+iϵ_\alpha )(\widehat{K}P^{}+iϵ_\delta )}$$
$`(2.5)`$
where $`\widehat{K}`$ is the lightlike four vector $`(1,\widehat{k})`$. In view of (2.4), four terms come about, three of them proportional to a collinear singularity. These singular terms are the two terms with one bare vertex $`\gamma _\mu `$, the other $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{HTL}`$, plus the term including two $`HTL`$ vertices, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{HTL}`$. Thanks to an abelian Ward identity peculiar to the high temperature limit, a partial cancellation of these collinear singularities occurs, but out of the term including two $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{HTL}`$ vertices, a collinear singularity remains,

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }2i\frac{e^2m^2}{q^2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\widehat{K}}{4\pi }\frac{1}{\widehat{Q}\widehat{K}+iϵ}\right)\frac{\mathrm{d}^4P}{(2\pi )^3}\delta (P\widehat{Q})(12n_F(p_0))\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }\times [Tr\left({}_{}{}^{}S_{A}^{}(P)\text{/}\widehat{Q}\right)Tr\left({}_{}{}^{}S_{R}^{}(P^{})\text{/}\widehat{Q}\right)](2.6)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

where, the soft photon being real, $`Q`$ is the lightlike $`4`$-vector $`Q=q\widehat{Q}=q(1,\widehat{q})`$. In the literature, this result is written in the form

$$\frac{C^{st}}{\epsilon }\frac{d^4P}{(2\pi )^4}\delta (\widehat{Q}P)(12n_F(p_0))\underset{s=\pm 1,V=P,P^{}}{}\pi (1s\frac{v_0}{v})\beta _s(V)$$
$`(2.7)`$
where the overall $`1/\epsilon `$ comes from a dimensionally regularized evaluation of the factored out angular integration appearing in (2.6), and where $`\beta _s(V)`$ is related to the effective fermionic propagator usual parametrization ,

$${}_{}{}^{}S_{\alpha }^{}(P)=\frac{i}{2}\underset{s=\pm 1}{}\text{/}\widehat{P}_s\mathrm{\Delta }_s(p_0+iϵ_\alpha ,p)$$
$`(2.8)`$
with $`\widehat{P_s}=(1,s\widehat{p})`$, the label $`s`$ referring to the two dressed fermion propagating modes. One has then

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_s(p_0+iϵ_\alpha ,p)\mathrm{\Delta }_s^\alpha (p_0,p)=\alpha _s(p_0,p)i\pi ϵ(ϵ_\alpha )\beta _s(p_0,p)$$
$`(2.9)`$
where $`ϵ(x)`$ is the distribution ”sign of $`x`$”.

3. On an improper derivation

The third term, with the two $`HTL`$ vertices, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{HTL}`$, involves two angular integrals $`W_i`$ that are, with $`i\{1,2\}`$,

$$W_i(P,P^{})=\frac{\mathrm{d}\widehat{K}}{4\pi }\frac{\mathrm{d}\widehat{K}^{}}{4\pi }\frac{(\widehat{K}\widehat{K}^{})^i}{(\widehat{K}P+iϵ)(\widehat{K}P^{}+iϵ)(\widehat{K}^{}P+iϵ)(\widehat{K}^{}P^{}+iϵ)}$$
$`(3.1)`$
While $`W_2`$ only is met in the standard $`RP`$ calculation, $`W_1`$ and $`W_2`$ come into play within the $`PR`$ scheme. As shown in , these integrals are given by very cumbersome expressions, so that, following , we will illustrate our point on the two diagrams including one bare vertex $`\gamma _\mu `$, the other $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{HTL}`$. The $`R/A`$ real time formalism conveys us to the expression

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\mathrm{\Pi }_R^{(,;1)}(Q)=ie^2m^2\frac{\mathrm{d}^4P}{(2\pi )^4}(12n_F(p_0))\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }\mathrm{disc}_\mathrm{P}\frac{\mathrm{d}\widehat{K}}{4\pi }\frac{Tr\left({}_{}{}^{}S_{R}^{}(P)\text{/}\widehat{K}{}_{}{}^{}S_{R}^{}(P^{})\text{/}\widehat{K}\right)}{(\widehat{K}P+iϵ)(\widehat{K}P^{}+iϵ)}(3.2)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

where the superscript $`(,;1)`$ in the left hand side refers to a self energy diagram involving two effective propagators and one vertex $`HTL`$ correction. The steps leading to the collinear singularity of (3.2) are as follows (the second reference of , using the $`R/A`$ real time formalism, is followed here). The discontinuity in $`p_0`$ is taken in consistency with the $`R/A`$ formalism, by writing

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\mathrm{disc}_\mathrm{P}\frac{Tr\left({}_{}{}^{}S_{R}^{}(P)\text{/}\widehat{K}{}_{}{}^{}S_{R}^{}(P^{})\text{/}\widehat{K}\right)}{(\widehat{K}P+iϵ)(\widehat{K}P^{}+iϵ)}=\frac{Tr\left({}_{}{}^{}S_{R}^{}(P)\text{/}\widehat{K}{}_{}{}^{}S_{R}^{}(P^{})\text{/}\widehat{K}\right)}{(\widehat{K}P+iϵ)(\widehat{K}P^{}+iϵ)}\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }\frac{Tr\left({}_{}{}^{}S_{A}^{}(P)\text{/}\widehat{K}{}_{}{}^{}S_{R}^{}(P^{})\text{/}\widehat{K}\right)}{(\widehat{K}Piϵ)(\widehat{K}P^{}+iϵ)}(3.3)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

Closing the $`p_0`$ integration contour in the upper half complex $`p_0`$ plane, one selects a pole term coming from the vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{HTL}`$ which reads

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\mathrm{\Pi }_R^{(,;1)}(Q)=e^2m^2\frac{\mathrm{d}^4P}{(2\pi )^3}(12n_F(p_0))\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }\frac{\mathrm{d}\widehat{K}}{4\pi }\frac{\delta (\widehat{K}P)}{\widehat{K}P^{}+iϵ}Tr\left({}_{}{}^{}S_{A}^{}(P)\text{/}\widehat{K}{}_{}{}^{}S_{R}^{}(P^{})\text{/}\widehat{K}\right)(3.4)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`P^{}=P+Q`$, we have indeed, as a building bolck of (3.4), the expression

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\widehat{K}}{4\pi }\frac{\delta (\widehat{K}P)}{\widehat{K}Q+iϵ}Tr\left({}_{}{}^{}S_{A}^{}(P)\text{/}\widehat{K}{}_{}{}^{}S_{R}^{}(P^{})\text{/}\widehat{K}\right)$$
$`(3.5)`$
The angular average therefore develops a collinear singularity in a neighbourhood of $`\widehat{K}=\widehat{Q}`$, not compensated for by the numerator, and whose ”residue” reads

$$\frac{C^{(st)}}{\epsilon }\frac{\delta (\widehat{Q}P)}{q}Tr\left({}_{}{}^{}S_{A}^{}(P)\text{/}\widehat{Q}{}_{}{}^{}S_{R}^{}(P^{})\text{/}\widehat{Q}\right)$$
$`(3.6)`$
The first factor, singular at $`\epsilon =0`$, is obtained by using a dimensional regularization of the angular integral. Up to regular contributions that we do not consider here, this singular piece of (3.5) translates, for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_R^{(,;1)}(Q)`$, into the singular result

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\mathrm{\Pi }_R^{(,;1)}(Q)=\frac{C^{(st)}}{\epsilon }\frac{e^2m^2}{q}\frac{\mathrm{d}^4P}{(2\pi )^3}(12n_F(p_0))\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }\times \delta (\widehat{Q}P)Tr\left({}_{}{}^{}S_{A}^{}(P)\text{/}\widehat{Q}{}_{}{}^{}S_{R}^{}(P^{})\text{/}\widehat{Q}\right)(3.7)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

The contribution of (3.7) to the soft photon emission rate being proportional to its imaginary part, the emission rate is thus plagued with a collinear singularity. In its original (published) version , this result is obtained within the imaginary time formalism, continued to real energies, where the $`RP`$ has been first devised .In a recent article , the analogous $`PR`$ calculation has been proven to be mass/collinear singularity free. In particular, such is the case of any of the contributions to the soft real photon emission rate due to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_R^{(N,N^{};1)}(Q)`$ quantities, the sum of which, on $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$ corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_R^{(,;1)}(Q)`$, as depicted on Fig.1. Thus, at face value, a collinear singularity shows up in a resummation scheme, not in the other. Let us now examine how can this be so.

In a $`PR`$ scheme, one has indeed for the potentially dangerous most part of any $`\mathrm{\Pi }_R^{(N,N^{};1)}`$ quantity, the expression ,

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }ie^2m^2(..)\underset{n,n^{}}{}(m^2)^{(N^{}+N2n^{}2n)}\frac{\mathrm{d}^4P}{(2\pi )^4}(12n_F(p_0))\frac{1}{p^{}p}\left(\frac{[P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^2(P^{})]^n^{}}{(P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+iϵp_0^{})^N^{}}\right)\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }\mathrm{disc}_\mathrm{P}\left(\frac{[P^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^2(P)]^n}{(P^2+iϵp_0)^N}\right)\frac{\mathrm{d}\widehat{K}}{4\pi }\frac{1}{\widehat{K}P+iϵ}\frac{1}{\widehat{K}P^{}+iϵ}(3.8)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

where the discrete sums on $`n`$ and $`n^{}`$ extend over a finite set of integers and need not be furhter specified here. Performing the angular integration, one finds

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\widehat{K}}{4\pi }\frac{1}{\widehat{K}P+iϵ}\frac{1}{\widehat{K}P^{}+iϵ}=\frac{1}{2QP+iϵq}\mathrm{ln}\frac{P^2+2QP+iϵp_0^{}}{P^2+iϵp_0}$$
$`(3.9)`$
The collinear domain is included in the phase space region where $`\widehat{Q}P0`$, where one has

$$\frac{1}{2QP+iϵq}\mathrm{ln}\frac{P^2+2QP+iϵp_0^{}}{P^2+iϵp_0}=\frac{1}{P^2+iϵp_0}\frac{1}{2}\frac{2QP+iϵq}{(P^2+iϵp_0)^2}+..$$
$`(3.10)`$
Obviously, this $`HTL`$-vertex induced behaviour is potentially mass singular by the light cone region $`P^20`$. This means that in a neighbourhood of $`\widehat{Q}P0`$, (3.9) mixes up with partial propagators, $`S_R^{(N(N^{}))}(P(P^{}))`$, own potentially mass singular behaviours. Recalling that we have

$$S_R^{(N)}(P)=\frac{i\text{/}P\left(\text{/}\mathrm{\Sigma }_R(P)\text{/}P\right)^N}{(P^2+iϵp_0)^{N+1}}$$
$`(3.11)`$
the whole integrand structure of (3.8), in the collinear domain, is readily seen to ”boil down” to a simple shift of inverse power

$$\frac{1}{(P^2+iϵp_0)^M}\frac{1}{(P^2+iϵp_0)^{M+1}},M=N+N^{}$$
$`(3.12)`$
As demonstrated in , similar shifts, as well as many more transformations, are proven to leave totally unaffected the robust mass singularity cancellation patterns which guarantee the regular character of the $`PR`$ calculation. That is, in contradistinction with the $`RP`$ scheme, a picture emerges out of the $`PR`$ scheme, where effective vertices potentially mass singular behaviours, melt with partial effective propagators own potentially mass singular behaviours into structural patterns which rule the overall compensation of actual mass/collinear singularities, .

However, it is important to remark that, apart from their constitutive difference, not exactly the same steps have been followed in either $`RP`$ and $`PR`$ schemes. Both resummation schemes are here being developed within the $`R/A`$ real time formalism, so that, starting from the $`PR`$ expression (3.8), exactly the same procedure as followed from (3.3) to (3.7) may be applied, with, as a straightforward result

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\frac{C^{(st)}}{\epsilon }\frac{e^2m^2}{q}(..)\underset{n,n^{}}{}(m^2)^{(N^{}+N2n^{}2n)}\frac{\mathrm{d}^4P}{(2\pi )^3}(12n_F(p_0))\frac{1}{p^{}p}\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }\times \delta (\widehat{Q}P)\frac{[P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^2(P^{})]^n^{}}{(P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+iϵp_0^{})^N^{}}\frac{[P^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_A^2(P)]^n}{(P^2iϵp_0)^N}+..(3.13)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

In words, (3.8) is now discovered to display the same collinear singularity as the one plaguing the $`RP`$ result (3.7), in sharp contradiction with our claim that any $`\mathrm{\Pi }_R^{(N,N^{};1)}(Q)`$ contributes mass/collinear singularity free quantities to the soft photon emission rate.The contradiction is of course only apparent and entirely rooted in the fact that passing from (3.1) to (3.3), the prescription of discontinuity in $`p_0`$ has been commuted with the angular integration on $`\widehat{K}`$. As we have just come to see, in both $`RP`$ and $`PR`$ schemes, the effect of that improper commutation (the discontinuity of the integral is prescribed by the formalisms, and not the integral of the discontinuity!) is to provide the collinear singularity with a somewhat absolute status. In either schemes in effect, the collinear singularity just factors out, in total independence of the remaining integrations to be performed.

The lack of commutativity of the discontinuity and angular integration can be the matter of a direct observation. From (3.9), one has

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\mathrm{disc}_\mathrm{P}\frac{\mathrm{d}\widehat{K}}{4\pi }\frac{1}{\widehat{K}P+iϵ}\frac{1}{\widehat{K}P^{}+iϵ}=\frac{i\pi ϵ(p_0)\mathrm{\Theta }(P^2)}{QP+iϵq}\frac{i\pi }{q}\delta (\widehat{Q}P)\mathrm{ln}\frac{P^2+2QP+iϵp_0^{}}{P^2+iϵp_0}\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }=\frac{i\pi ϵ(p_0)\mathrm{\Theta }(P^2)}{QP+iϵ}(3.14)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

In the right hand side, the term proportional to the distribution $`\delta (\widehat{Q}P)`$, has coefficient zero, and not the collinear singularity $`C^{(st)}/\epsilon `$, as historically derived whithin the reverse, improper sequence. Though the illustration above, (3.5)-(3.6), is given within the $`R/A`$ real time formalism only, it must be noticed that, mutatis mutandis, both the historical derivations of  hinge on a reverse sequence calculation,

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\widehat{K}}{4\pi }\left(\{\mathrm{disc}_\mathrm{P},\mathrm{or}m\}\frac{1}{\widehat{K}P+iϵ}\right)\frac{1}{\widehat{K}P^{}+iϵ}=i\{\frac{1}{2},\mathrm{or}\frac{1}{4}\}d\widehat{K}\frac{\delta (\widehat{K}P)}{\widehat{K}Q+iϵ}$$
$`(3.15)`$
along which a collinear singularity is identified at $`\widehat{K}=\widehat{Q}`$. Then, as advertised after (2.7), one relies on a dimensionally regularized angular integration to find out the singular counterpart

$$i\{\frac{1}{2},\mathrm{or}\frac{1}{4}\}d\widehat{K}\frac{\delta (\widehat{K}P)}{\widehat{K}Q+iϵ}=i\frac{C^{(st)}}{\epsilon }\delta (\widehat{Q}P)$$
$`(3.16)`$
where $`\epsilon `$ is the regularizing parameter of an angular integration performed at $`D=3+2\epsilon `$ spatial dimensions. This derivation, however, is inaccurate. This can be verified by a direct calculation of (3.15)’s right hand side, which gives instead

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\widehat{K}}{4\pi }\left(\mathrm{disc}_\mathrm{P}\frac{1}{\widehat{K}P+iϵ}\right)\frac{1}{\widehat{K}P^{}+iϵ}=\frac{i\pi \mathrm{\Theta }(P^2)\delta (\widehat{p}\widehat{q})}{QPiϵ}$$
$`(3.17)`$
A first important remark is that under subsequent angular ($`\widehat{p}`$) and energy ($`p_0`$) integrations, the above reverse sequence result (3.17) will lead to more singular expressions than the proper sequence one, (3.14). Likewise, the correct prescription of $`+iϵ`$ is not preserved by the sequence (3.17). Now, the point is that nothing like the ”absolute”, overall factoring out collinear singularity of (3.16), i.e. the term $`C^{(st)}/\epsilon `$, ever appears in the final result, and this underlines the illicit character of the manipulations leading to it.Discarding thus (3.16), one may still compare the right hand sides of (3.14) and (3.17). Then, apart from the fact that a non vanishing result is obtained for strictly collinear $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ momenta only, another essential difference comes about immediately, which is the sign distribution $`ϵ(p_0)`$. In real time formalisms, sign distributions have long been noticed to be crucial so as to preserve integrable and non-integrable mass singularity compensations , and as observed here again, they are a natural outcome of the calculational operations proper sequence (3.14).Indeed, this is the very place where intricacies are taking place, between angular averages peculiar to $`n`$-points $`HTL`$-vertices, and discontinuity or Imaginary part prescriptions. Staring at (3.9), for example, one can observe how the angular average is able to correctly reproduce all of the relevant internal legs $`R/A`$ specifications, the $`iϵq`$, $`iϵp_0`$ and $`iϵp_0^{}`$, which do not appear at all in the left hand side. As can be read off , sections 4 and 5, this is not an isolated situation and rather reveals to be general a mechanism.That is, the proper sequence of angular average and discontinuity operations complies with the required, exact sign distributions which otherwise, are clearly endangered.By the way, this elucidates also the intriguing point made in the third reference of , after equation (3.32), which was then left as an issue. There, the discontinuity in $`p_0`$ of the angular integral $`W_2`$ was taken to be

$$\mathrm{disc}W_2(P,P^{})=4i\pi ϵ(p_0)\frac{\mathrm{d}\widehat{K}}{4\pi }\frac{\delta (\widehat{K}P)}{\widehat{K}P^{}+iϵ}\frac{\mathrm{d}\widehat{K}^{}}{4\pi }\frac{(\widehat{K}\widehat{K}^{})^2}{(\widehat{K}^{}P+iϵ)(\widehat{K}^{}P^{}+iϵ)}$$

whereas it is manifest that in conformity with the common use, the reverse improper sequence had been followed. In order to preserve mass singularity cancellations though, the correct sign distribution, $`ϵ(p_0)`$, had to be restored by hand (this restoration was motivated a heuristic way, by recalling that the vertex corrections $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{HTL}`$, were after all nothing but leading order approximations of full order $`g^2`$ expressions, endowed with explicit $`iϵp_0`$ specifications).

Since further, higher number of loops calculations  enforce this peculiarity too, it seems reasonable to conclude that in any $`RP`$ or $`PR`$ calculations, and any real or imaginary time formalism, angular averages should definitely be performed first.

4. The collinear problem and the proper sequence

A full, extensive treatment of the soft real photon emission rate $`RP`$ calculation, as the proper sequence is followed, falls far beyond the scope of the short present note, and could be postponed to a future publication. We will here content ourselves with an illustration of how the collinear singularity problem gets translated when the angular integration is performed first.From (3.2) and (2.8), one obtains

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }im\mathrm{\Pi }_R^{(,;1)}(Q)=ie^2m^2\frac{\mathrm{d}^4P}{(2\pi )^2}(12n_F(p_0))\frac{1}{pp^{}}\underset{s,s^{}=\pm 1}{}ss^{}\beta _s(p_0,p)\beta _s^{}(p_0^{},p^{})\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }+\frac{e^2m^2}{2}\frac{\mathrm{d}^4P}{(2\pi )^3}(12n_F(p_0))\frac{1}{pp^{}}\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }\times \underset{s,s^{}=\pm 1}{}\left(s^{}\beta _s^{}(p_0^{},p^{})(1s\frac{p_0}{p})\mathrm{disc}_\mathrm{P}\mathrm{\Delta }_R^s(P)\mathrm{ln}(\frac{p_0+p}{p_0p})+(PP^{})\right)\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }+e^2m^2\frac{\mathrm{d}^4P}{(2\pi )^3}(12n_F(p_0))\underset{s,s^{}=\pm 1}{}(1s^{}\frac{p_0^{}}{p^{}})\beta _s^{}(p_0^{},p^{})\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }\times (1s\frac{p_0}{p})\mathrm{disc}_\mathrm{P}\mathrm{\Delta }_R^s(P)\frac{1}{2QP}\mathrm{ln}\frac{P^2}{P^2}(4.1)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

where the distribution $`\beta _s(p_0,p)`$ of (2.9), though textbook material, may be worth recalling here in view of the forthcoming comments

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\beta _s(p_0,p)=Z_s(p)\delta \left(p_0\omega _s(p)\right)+Z_s(p)\delta \left(p_0+\omega _s(p)\right)\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }+\frac{m^2}{2p}\frac{(1s\frac{p_0}{p})\mathrm{\Theta }(P^2)}{\left(p(1s\frac{p_0}{p})\frac{m^2}{2p}\left((1s\frac{p_0}{p})\mathrm{ln}|\frac{p_0+p}{p_0p}|+2s\right)\right)^2+\frac{\pi ^2m^4}{4p^2}(1s\frac{p_0}{p})^2}(4.2)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

It is easy to check that the first line of (4.1), with the two functions $`\beta _s`$, is safe. For example, one may rely on the integration contour technique used for energy sum rules, , chapter 6, to show that $`p_0`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$ integrations are well defined. Likewise, inspection shows that no problem is inherited from the second and third lines of (4.1). At $`p_0=\pm p`$, in effect, the potentially dangerous term of $`ln|p_0+p/p_0p|`$ is, according to the value of $`s=\pm 1`$, either depleted by its own squared expression, or cancelled by a factor of $`(1sp_0/p)^2`$.For the last term of (4.1), a potentially singular most contribution to $`m\mathrm{\Pi }_R^{(,;1)}(Q)`$ is generated by taking the discontinuity in $`p_0`$ of the first factor, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R^s(P)`$. One gets

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }e^2m^2\frac{\mathrm{d}^4P}{(2\pi )^2}(12n_F(p_0))\underset{s,s^{}=\pm 1}{}(1s^{}\frac{p_0^{}}{p^{}})\beta _s^{}(p_0^{},p^{})\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }\times (1s\frac{p_0}{p})\beta _s(p_0,p)\frac{1}{2QP}\mathrm{ln}\frac{P^2}{P^2}(4.3)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

The Dirac pieces of both spectral densities $`\beta _s`$ and $`\beta _s^{}`$, pose no problem, whereas the other parts, proportional to the Heaviside distributions $`\mathrm{\Theta }(P^2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }(P^2)`$, and hereafter denoted by $`\widehat{\beta }_{s,s^{}}`$, yield

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }e^2m^2\frac{\mathrm{d}^3p}{(2\pi )^2}_p^{+p}dp_0(12n_F(p_0))\underset{s^{}=\pm 1}{}(1s^{}\frac{p_0^{}}{p^{}})\widehat{\beta }_s^{}(p_0^{},p^{})\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }\times \underset{s=\pm 1}{}(1s\frac{p_0}{p})\widehat{\beta }_s(p_0,p)\frac{1}{2QP}\mathrm{ln}\frac{P^2}{P^2}(4.4)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

In the phase space domain where $`2QP`$ is vanishing, the integrand of (4.4) behaves like

$$(12n_F(pz))\underset{s^{}=\pm 1}{}(1s^{}\frac{q+pz}{p^{}})\widehat{\beta }_s^{}(q+pz,p^{})\times \frac{1}{p^2}\underset{s=\pm 1}{}\widehat{\beta _s}(pz,p)\frac{1}{1+sz}$$
$`(4.5)`$
where we have introduced the scaling variable $`z=p_0/p`$, and where $`p^2(z)=p^2+2qpz+q^2`$. Writing

$$12n_F(pz)=2[n_F(p)n_F(pz)]+\left(12n_F(p)\right)$$
$`(4.6)`$
the last term only, in the right hand side, can possibly induce a singularity by the light cone region ($`z=\pm 1`$), reached from below, and this would be singular contribution can be expressed as

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\frac{e^2m^2}{2\pi }\mathrm{\Theta }(P^2)pdp(12n_F(p))_0^1dz\frac{\widehat{\beta }_{}(pz,p)}{1z}\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }\underset{\eta =\pm 1}{}\left(1+\frac{q+\eta pz}{p^{}(\eta z)}\right)\eta \widehat{\beta }_{}(q+\eta pz,p^{}(\eta z))(4.7)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

where use has been made of the relation $`\beta _s(p_0,p)=\beta _s(p_0,p)`$. Now, against all odds, the light cone ($`1z0`$) behaviours of $`\widehat{\beta }_{}(pz,p)`$, $`\left(1+\frac{q+\eta pz}{p^{}}\right)`$, and $`\widehat{\beta }_{}(q+\eta pz,p^{}(\eta z))`$, make it straightforward to check that the above potentially dangerous most contribution is a regular one indeed.Since, out of the last term of (4.1), no other sign of a possible singularity shows up, it appears that the two $`\mathrm{\Pi }_R^{(,;1)}(Q)`$ contributions to the soft real photon emission rate are regular, in contradistinction with the usual, singular results.

5. Conclusion

In this note, we have stressed that whatever the formalism (real or imaginary time) and the resummation scheme (standard ($`RP`$) or perturbative ($`PR`$)), a definite sequence of angular averages and discontinuity (or Imaginary part) operations, must definitely be preserved. Moreover, this proper sequence is nothing exotic, as it simply corresponds to the sequence naturally prescribed by any real or imaginary time formalism one may use.

Ignoring that proper sequence may lead (and has led) to incorrect derivations and/or results. In particular, infrared singularity cancellation patterns have long revealed to be particularly sensitive to the angular averages and discontinuity operations proper sequence. This is also a point which, we think, should be kept in mind within the context of numerical simulations.

For the hot $`QCD`$ collinear problem met in the $`RP`$ scheme, this point certainly matters a lot. Our rapid analysis of the one effective vertex topologies, $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(,;1)}`$, has not allowed us to detect any relic of a mass/collinear singularity in the soft photon emission rate, the proper sequence being followed.Now, as advertised in section 3, this indicates only that the proper sequence is less singular, under subsequent integrations, than the reverse improper one, and let totally open the issue concerning the two effective vertex topology, $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(,;2)}`$, contribution to the emission rate.In other words, the whole correct settings of the hot $`QCD`$ collinear singularity $`RP`$-problem.. if any! .. has to be worked out again.

References

 N.P. Landsman, ”Quark Matter 90”, Nucl. Phys. A 525, (1991) 397. M. Le Bellac, “Thermal Field Theory” (Cambridge University Press, 1996).  E. Braaten and R. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, (1990) 1338;Nucl. Phys. B337, (1990) 569 .J. Frenkel and J.C Taylor, Nucl. Phys. B334, (1990) 199. R.D. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, (1989) 1129.  R. Baier, S. Peigné and D. Schiff, Z. Phys. C 62, (1994) 337;P. Aurenche, T. Becherrawy and E. Petitgirard, hep-ph 9403320 (unpublished).  A. Niegawa, Mod. Phys. Lett. A10, (1995) 379;F. Flechsig and A. Rebhan, Nucl. Phys. B464, (1996) 279. P. Arnold, G.D. Moore and L.G. Yaffee, JHEP 0206, (2002) 030.

 B. Candelpergher and T. Grandou, Ann. Phys. (NY) 283, (2000) 232; \[arXiv:hep-ph/0009349\]; Nucl. Phys. A 699, (2002) 887.T. Grandou, Acta Physica Polonica B32, (2001) 1185.

 P. Aurenche, F. Gelis, R. Kobes and E. Petitgirard, Z. Phys. C 75, (1997) 315;P. Aurenche, F. Gelis, R. Kobes and H. Zaraket,Phys. Rev. D 58, (1998) 085003, and references therein.F. Gelis, Thèse présentée à l’Université de Savoie, le 10 Décembre 1998.

 T. Grandou, J. Math. Phys. 44, (2003) 611.

 T. Grandou, M. Le Bellac and D. Poizat, Nucl. Phys. B 358, (1991) 408.

 T. Grandou, work in progress.

Figure caption

Fig.1: A graph denoted by $`(N,N^{};1)`$, with $`N(N^{})`$ insertions of $`HTL`$ self energy along the $`P(P^{})`$-line, one bare vertex $`ie\gamma _\mu `$, and one $`HTL`$ vertex correction (2.5). It is a $`PR`$ scheme object. In the standard $`RP`$ scheme, the two internal $`P(P^{})`$-lines are to be replaced with the full effective propagators $`{}_{}{}^{}S_{\alpha }^{}(P(P^{}))`$ of Equation (2.2), and this corresponds to the two $`RP`$ graphs denoted by $`(,;1)`$ in the text.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction:

## 1 Introduction:

In this paper, for the observed $`tW^+b`$ decay , an intensity-ratio equivalence-theorem  for two Lorentz-invariant couplings is shown to be related to symmetries of tWb-transformations, $`A_+=M`$ $`A_{SM}`$, $`P`$ $`A_{SM}`$, $`B`$ $`A_{SM}`$, where $`M,P,B`$ are explicit $`4`$x$`4`$ matrices. These
tWb-transformations relate the standard model’s helicity amplitudes, $`A_{SM}(\lambda _{W^+},\lambda _b)`$, and the amplitudes $`A_+(\lambda _{W^+},\lambda _b)`$ in the case of an additional $`t_Rb_L`$ weak-moment of relative strength $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=E_W/253GeV`$. Versus the standard model’s pure $`(VA)`$ coupling, the additional tensorial coupling can be physically interpreted as arising due to a large chiral weak-transition moment for the top quark. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+`$ is defined by (1) below and the $`(+)`$ amplitudes’ complete coupling is (2). $`E_W`$ is the energy of the final W-boson in the decaying top-quark rest frame. The subscripts $`R`$ and $`L`$ respectively denote right and left chirality of the coupling, that is $`(1\pm \gamma _5)`$. $`\lambda _{W^+}`$, $`\lambda _b`$ are the helicities of the the emitted W-boson and b-quark in the top-quark rest frame. The Jacob-Wick phase-convention  is used in specifying the phases of the helicity amplitudes and so of these transformations.

Due to rotational invariance, there are four independent $`A(\lambda _{W^+},\lambda _b)`$ amplitudes for the most general Lorentz coupling . Stage-two spin-correlation functions were derived and studied as a basis for complete measurements of the helicity parameters for $`tW^+b`$ decay as tests with respect to the most general Lorentz coupling. Such tests are possible at the Tevatron , at the LHC , and at a NLC . In this paper, a subset of the most general Lorentz coupling is considered in which the subscript “$`i`$” identifies the amplitude’s associated coupling: “$`i=`$ SM” for the pure $`(VA)`$ coupling, “$`i=(f_M+f_E)`$” for only the additional $`t_Rb_L`$ tensorial coupling, and “$`i=(+)`$” for $`(VA)+(f_M+f_E)`$ with a top-quark chiral weak-transition moment of relative strength $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=E_W/2`$ versus $`g_L`$. The Lorentz coupling involving both the SM’s $`(VA)`$ coupling and an additional $`t_Rb_L`$ weak-moment coupling of arbitrary relative strength $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+`$ is $`W_\mu ^{}J_{\overline{b}t}^\mu =W_\mu ^{}\overline{u}_b\left(p\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu u_t\left(k\right)`$ where $`k_t=q_W+p_b`$, and

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu =g_L\gamma ^\mu P_L+\frac{g_{f_M+f_E}}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+}\iota \sigma ^{\mu \nu }(kp)_\nu P_R$$
(1)
where $`P_{L,R}=\frac{1}{2}(1\gamma _5)`$. In $`g_L=g_{f_M+f_E}=1`$ units, when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=E_W/2`$ which corresponds to the (+) amplitudes, the complete $`tb`$ coupling is very simple

$$\gamma ^\mu P_L+\iota \sigma ^{\mu \nu }v_\nu P_R=P_R\left(\gamma ^\mu +\iota \sigma ^{\mu \nu }v_\nu \right)$$
(2)
where $`v_\nu `$ is the W-boson’s relativistic four-velocity.

In the $`t`$ rest frame, the helicity-amplitude matrix element for $`tW^+b`$ is
$`\theta _1^t,\varphi _1^t,\lambda _{W^+},\lambda _b|\frac{1}{2},\lambda _1=`$ $`D_{\lambda _1,\mu }^{(1/2)}(\varphi _1^t,\theta _1^t,0)A_i(\lambda _{W^+},\lambda _b)`$ where $`\mu =\lambda _{W^+}\lambda _b`$ in terms of the $`W^+`$ and $`b`$-quark helicities. The asterisk denotes complex conjugation, the final $`W^+`$ momentum is in the $`\theta _1^t,\varphi _1^t`$ direction, and $`\lambda _1`$ gives the $`t`$-quark’s spin component quantized along the $`z`$ axis. $`\lambda _1`$ is also the helicity of the $`t`$-quark if one has boosted, along the “$`z`$” direction, back to the $`t`$ rest frame from the $`(t\overline{t})_{cm}`$ frame. It is this boost which defines the $`z`$ axis in the $`t`$-quark rest frame for angular analysis . Explicit expressions for the helicity amplitudes associated with each “$`i`$” coupling are listed in Sec. 2. We denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the partial-width for the $`tW^+b`$ decay channel and by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L,T}`$ the partial-width’s for the sub-channels in which the $`W^+`$ is respectively longitudinally, transversely polarized; $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_L+\mathrm{\Gamma }_T`$. Similarly, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L|_{\lambda _b=\frac{1}{2}}`$ denotes the partial-width for the W-longitudinal sub-channel with b-quark helicity $`\lambda _b=\frac{1}{2}`$.

The intensity-ratio equivalence-theorem states, “As consequence of Lorentz-invariance, for the $`tW^+b`$ decay channel each of the four ratios $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L|_{\lambda _b=\frac{1}{2}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T|_{\lambda _b=\frac{1}{2}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L|_{\lambda _b=\frac{1}{2}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T|_{\lambda _b=\frac{1}{2}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, is identical for the pure $`(VA)`$ coupling and for the $`(VA)+(f_M+f_E)`$ coupling with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=E_W/2`$, and their respective partial-widths are related by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+=v^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SM}`$.” $`v`$ is the velocity of the W-boson in the t-quark rest frame. Note that this theorem does not require specific values of the mass ratios $`ym_W/m_t`$, and $`xm_b/m_t`$, but that the relative strength of the chiral weak-transition moment for the top quark has been fixed versus $`g_L`$.

The three tWb-transformations, $`A_+=M`$ $`A_{SM}`$, $`P`$ $`A_{SM}`$, $`B`$ $`A_{SM}`$, are related to this theorem. The $`M`$ transformation implies the theorem, but as explained below, $`M`$ also implies the sign and ratio differences of the (ii) and (iii) type amplitude ratio-relations which distinguish the (SM) and (+) couplings. The $`P`$ and $`B`$ transformations more completely exhibit the underlying symmetry relating these two Lorentz-invariant couplings. In particular, these three $`4`$x$`4`$ matrices lead to two “commutator plus anti-commutator” symmetry algebras, and together enable a simple and uniform characterization of the values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+`$, $`ym_W/m_t`$, and $`xm_b/m_t`$. In Sec. 2, it is shown how these three tWb-transformations successively arise from consideration of different types of “helicity amplitude relations” for $`tW^+b`$ decay: The type (i) are ratio-relations which hold separately for the two cases, “$`i=(SM)`$, $`(+)`$”. The type (ii) are ratio-relations which relate the amplitudes in the two cases. By the type (iii) ratio-relations, the tWb-transformation $`A_+=M`$ $`A_{SM}`$ where $`M=v`$ $`diag(1,1,1,1)`$ characterizes the mass scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=E_W/2`$. Similarly, the amplitude condition (iv)

$$A_+(0,1/2)=aA_{SM}(1,1/2),$$
(3)
with $`a=1+O(vy\sqrt{2},x)`$, determines the scale of the tWb-transformation matrix $`P`$ and determines the value of the mass ratio $`ym_W/m_t`$. $`O(vy\sqrt{2},x)`$ denotes small corrections, see below. The amplitude condition (v)

$$A_+(0,1/2)=bA_{SM}(11/2),$$
(4)
with $`b=v^8`$, determines the scale of $`B`$ and determines the value of $`x=m_b/m_t`$. In Sec. 3, two symmetry algebras are obtained which involve the $`M`$, $`P`$, and $`B`$ transformation matrices. Sec. 4 contains some remarks.

## 2 Helicity amplitude relations:

In the Jacob-Wick phase convention, the helicity amplitudes for the most general Lorentz coupling are given in . In $`g_L=g_{f_M+f_E}=1`$ units and suppressing a common overall factor of $`\sqrt{m_t\left(E_b+q_W\right)}`$, for only the $`(VA)`$ coupling the associated helicity amplitudes are:

$`A_{SM}(0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_W+q_W}{m_t}}`$
$`A_{SM}(1,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}`$
$`A_{SM}(0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_Wq_W}{m_t}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{m_tE_W+q_W}}\right)`$
$`A_{SM}(1,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{m_tE_W+q_W}}\right)`$
For only the $`(f_M+f_E)`$ coupling, i.e. only the additional $`t_Rb_L`$ tensorial coupling:

$`A_{f_M+f_E}(0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+}})y`$
$`A_{f_M+f_E}(1,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+}})\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{E_W+q_W}{m_t}}`$
$`A_{f_M+f_E}(0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+}})y\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{m_tE_W+q_W}}\right)`$
$`A_{f_M+f_E}(1,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+}})\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{E_Wq_W}{m_t}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{m_tE_W+q_W}}\right)`$
From these, the amplitudes for the $`(VA)+(f_M+f_E)`$ coupling of (1) are obtained by
$`A_+(\lambda _W,\lambda _b)=A_{SM}(\lambda _W,\lambda _b)+A_{f_M+f_E}(\lambda _W,\lambda _b)`$. For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=E_W/2`$, the $`A_+(\lambda _W,\lambda _b)`$ amplitudes  corresponding to the complete $`tb`$ coupling (2) are

$`A_+(0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y}}(q/E_W){\displaystyle \frac{E_W+q_W}{m_t}}`$
$`A_+(1,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}(q/E_W)`$
$`A_+(0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y}}(q/E_W){\displaystyle \frac{E_Wq_W}{m_t}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{m_tE_W+q_W}}\right)`$
$`A_+(1,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}(q/E_W)\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{m_tE_W+q_W}}\right)`$
We now analyze the different types of helicity amplitude relations involving both the SM’s amplitudes and those in the case of the $`(VA)+(f_M+f_E)`$ coupling: The first type of ratio-relations holds separately for $`i=(SM)`$, $`(+)`$ and for all $`y=\frac{m_W}{m_t},x=\frac{m_b}{m_t},\mathrm{\Lambda }_+`$ values, (i):

$$\frac{A_i(0,1/2)}{A_i(1,1/2)}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{A_i(1,1/2)}{A_i(0,1/2)}$$
(5)
The second type of ratio-relations relates the amplitudes in the two cases and also holds for all $`y,x,\mathrm{\Lambda }_+`$ values. The first two relations have numerators with opposite signs and denominators with opposite signs, c.f. Table 1; (ii): Two sign-flip relations

$$\frac{A_+(0,1/2)}{A_+(1,1/2)}=\frac{A_{SM}(0,1/2)}{A_{SM}(1,1/2)}$$
(6)
$$\frac{A_+(0,1/2)}{A_+(1,1/2)}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{A_{SM}(1,1/2)}{A_{SM}(0,1/2)}$$
(7)
and two non-sign-flip relations

$$\frac{A_+(1,1/2)}{A_+(0,1/2)}=\frac{A_{SM}(1,1/2)}{A_{SM}(0,1/2)}$$
(8)
$$\frac{A_+(1,1/2)}{A_+(0,1/2)}=2\frac{A_{SM}(0,1/2)}{A_{SM}(1,1/2)}$$
(9)
Eqs(7,9), which are not in , are essential for obtaining the $`P`$ and $`B`$ tWb-transformations and thereby the symmetry algebras of Sec. 3 below.

The third type of ratio-relations, holding for all $`y,x`$ values, follows by determining the effective mass scale, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+`$, so that there is an exact equality for the ratio of left-handed amplitudes (iii):

$$\frac{A_+(0,1/2)}{A_+(1,1/2)}=\frac{A_{SM}(0,1/2)}{A_{SM}(1,1/2)},$$
(10)
Equivalently, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=\frac{m_t}{4}[1+(m_W/m_t)^2(m_b/m_t)^2]=E_W/2`$ follows from each of:

$$\frac{A_+(0,1/2)}{A_+(1,1/2)}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{A_{SM}(1,1/2)}{A_{SM}(0,1/2)},$$
(11)
$$\frac{A_+(0,1/2)}{A_+(1,1/2)}=\frac{A_{SM}(0,1/2)}{A_{SM}(1,1/2)},$$
(12)
$$\frac{A_+(0,1/2)}{A_+(1,1/2)}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{A_{SM}(1,1/2)}{A_{SM}(0,1/2)},$$
(13)
From the amplitude expressions given above, the value of this scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+`$ can be characterized by postulating the existence of a tWb-transformation $`A_+=M`$ $`A_{SM}`$ where $`M=v`$ $`diag(1,1,1,1)`$, with $`A_{SM}=[A_{SM}(0,1/2),A_{SM}(1,1/2),A_{SM}(0,1/2),A_{SM}(1,1/2)]`$ and analogously for $`A_+`$.

Assuming (iii), the fourth type of relation is the equality (iv):

$$A_+(0,1/2)=aA_{SM}(1,1/2),$$
(14)
where $`a=1+O(vy\sqrt{2},x)`$.

This is equivalent to the velocity formula $`v=ay\sqrt{2}\left(\frac{1}{1(E_bq_W)/m_t}\right)=ay\sqrt{2}`$ for $`m_b=0`$. In , for $`a=1`$ it was shown that (iv) leads to a mass relation with the solution $`y=\frac{m_W}{m_t}=0.46006`$ ($`x=0`$). The present empirical value is $`y=0.461\pm 0.014`$, where the error is dominated by the $`3\%`$ precision of $`m_t`$. In , for $`a=1`$ it was also shown that (iv) leads to $`\sqrt{2}=v\gamma (1+v)=v\sqrt{\frac{1+v}{1v}}`$ so $`v=0.6506\mathrm{}`$ without input of a specific value for $`m_b`$. However, by Lorentz invariance $`v`$ must depend on $`m_b`$. Accepting (iii), we interpret this to mean that $`a1`$ and in the Appendix obtain the form of the $`O(vy\sqrt{2},x)`$ corrections in $`a`$ as required by Lorentz invariance. The small correction $`O(vy\sqrt{2},x)`$ depends on both $`xm_b/m_t`$ and the difference $`vy\sqrt{2}`$.

Equivalently, by use of (i)-(iii) relations, (14) can be expressed postulating the existence of a second tWb-transformation $`A_+=P`$ $`A_{SM}`$ where

$$Pv\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0& a/v& 0& 0\\ v/a& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& v/2a\\ 0& 0& 2a/v& 0\end{array}\right]$$
(15)
The value of the parameter $`a`$ of (iv) is not fixed by (15).

The above two tWb-transformations do not relate the $`\lambda _b=\frac{1}{2}`$ amplitudes with the $`\lambda _b=\frac{1}{2}`$ amplitudes. From (i) thru (iv), in terms of a parameter $`b`$, the equality (v):

$$A_+(0,1/2)=bA_{SM}(1,1/2),$$
(16)
is equivalent to $`A_+=B`$ $`A_{SM}`$

$$B\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& b\\ 0& 0& 2b& 0\\ 0& v^2/2b& 0& 0\\ v^2/b& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right]$$
(17)
The choice of $`b=v^8=31.152`$, gives

$$Bv\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& v^9\\ 0& 0& 2v^9& 0\\ 0& v^9/2& 0& 0\\ v^9& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right]$$
(18)
and corresponds to the mass relation $`m_b=\frac{m_t}{b}\left[1\frac{vy}{\sqrt{2}}\right]=4.407\mathrm{}GeV`$ for $`m_t=174.3GeV`$.

## 3 Commutator plus anti-commutator symmetry algebras:

The anti-commuting matrices

$$m\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right],p\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& a/v\\ v/a& 0\end{array}\right],q\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& a/v\\ v/a& 0\end{array}\right]$$
(19)
satisfy $`[m,p]=2q,[m,q]=2p,[p,q]=2m`$. Similarly, $`m`$ and

$$r\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& v/2a\\ 2a/v& 0\end{array}\right],s\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& v/2a\\ 2a/v& 0\end{array}\right]$$
(20)
are anti-commuting and satisfy $`[m,r]=2s,[m,s]=2r,[r,s]=2m`$. Note $`m^2=q^2=s^2=1`$, $`p^2=r^2=1`$, and that $`a`$ is arbitrary. Consequently, if one does not distinguish the $`(+)`$ versus SM indices, respectively of the rows and columns, the tWb-transformation matrices have some simple properties:

The anticommuting 4x4 matrices

$$Mv\left[\begin{array}{cc}m& 0\\ 0& m\end{array}\right],Pv\left[\begin{array}{cc}p& 0\\ 0& r\end{array}\right],Qv\left[\begin{array}{cc}q& 0\\ 0& s\end{array}\right]$$
(21)
satisfy the closed algebra $`[\overline{M},\overline{P}]=2\overline{Q},[\overline{M},\overline{Q}]=2\overline{P},[\overline{P},\overline{Q}]=2\overline{M}`$. The bar denotes removal of the overall “$`v`$” factor, $`M=v\overline{M},\mathrm{}`$. Note that $`Q`$ is not a tWb-transformation.

Including the B matrix with $`b`$ arbitrary, the algebra closes with 3 additional matrices

$$\overline{B}\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& d\\ f& 0\end{array}\right],\overline{C}\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& e\\ g& 0\end{array}\right]$$
(22)
$$\overline{G}\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& h\\ k& 0\end{array}\right],\overline{H}\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& j\\ l& 0\end{array}\right]$$
(23)
where

$$d\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& b/v\\ 2b/v& 0\end{array}\right],e\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& b/v\\ 2b/v& 0\end{array}\right],f\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& v/2b\\ v/b& 0\end{array}\right],g\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& v/2b\\ v/b& 0\end{array}\right]$$
(24)
$$h\left[\begin{array}{cc}2ab/v^2& 0\\ 0& b/a\end{array}\right],j\left[\begin{array}{cc}2ab/v^2& 0\\ 0& b/a\end{array}\right],k\left[\begin{array}{cc}1/2v^2ab& 0\\ 0& a/b\end{array}\right],l\left[\begin{array}{cc}1/2v^2ab& 0\\ 0& a/b\end{array}\right]$$
(25)
The squares of the $`2`$x$`2`$ matrices (24-25) do depend on $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`v`$.

The associated closed algebra is: $`[\overline{M},\overline{B}]=0,\{\overline{M},\overline{B}\}=2\overline{C};[\overline{B},\overline{C}]=0,\{\overline{B},\overline{C}\}=2\overline{M};`$
$`[\overline{M},\overline{C}]=0,\{\overline{M},\overline{C}\}=2\overline{B};`$ and $`[\overline{P},\overline{B}]=2\overline{H},\{\overline{P},\overline{B}\}=0;[\overline{H},\overline{P}]=2\overline{B},\{\overline{H},\overline{P}\}=0;`$
$`[\overline{H},\overline{B}]=2\overline{P},\{\overline{H},\overline{B}\}=0`$ . Similarly, $`[\overline{P},\overline{C}]=0,\{\overline{P},\overline{C}\}=2\overline{G};[\overline{M},\overline{H}]=2\overline{G},`$
$`\{\overline{M},\overline{H}\}=0;[\overline{H},\overline{C}]=0,\{\overline{H},\overline{C}\}=2\overline{Q};`$ and $`[\overline{M},\overline{G}]=2\overline{H},\{\overline{M},\overline{G}\}=0;[\overline{P},\overline{G}]=0,`$
$`\{\overline{P},\overline{G}\}=2\overline{C};[\overline{G},\overline{B}]=2\overline{Q},\{\overline{G},\overline{B}\}=0;`$ and $`[\overline{G},\overline{C}]=0,\{\overline{G},\overline{C}\}=2\overline{P};`$
$`[\overline{G},\overline{H}]=2\overline{M},\{\overline{G},\overline{H}\}=0.`$ The part involving $`\overline{Q}`$ is $`[\overline{G},\overline{Q}]=2\overline{B},\{\overline{G},\overline{Q}\}=0;[\overline{B},\overline{Q}]=2\overline{G},`$
$`\{\overline{B},\overline{Q}\}=0;[\overline{C},\overline{Q}]=0,\{\overline{C},\overline{Q}\}=2\overline{H};`$ $`[\overline{H},\overline{Q}]=0,\{\overline{H},\overline{Q}\}=2\overline{C}`$.

This has generated an additional tWb-transformation $`Gv\overline{G}`$; but $`Cv\overline{C}`$ and $`Hv\overline{H}`$ are not tWb-transformations.

Up to the insertion of an overall $`\iota =\sqrt{1}`$, each of these 4x4 barred matrices is a resolution of unity, i.e. $`\overline{P}^1=\overline{P}`$, $`\overline{G}^1=\overline{G}`$, but $`\overline{Q}^1=\overline{Q}`$, $`\overline{B}^1=\overline{B},\mathrm{}`$ .

## 4 Remarks:

(1) Summary: The elements of the three logically-successive tWb-transformations are constrained by the helicity amplitude ratio-relations (i) and (ii). Thereby, the type (iii) ratio-relation fixes $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=E_W/2`$ and the overall scale of the tWb-transformation matrix $`M`$. The amplitude condition (iv), $`A_+(0,1/2)=aA_{SM}(1,1/2)`$ with $`a=1+O(vy\sqrt{2},x)`$, and the amplitude condition (v), $`A_+(0,1/2)=bA_{SM}(11/2)`$ with $`b=v^8`$, determine respectively the scale of the tWb-transformation matrices $`P`$ and $`B`$ and characterize the values of $`m_W/m_t`$ and $`m_b/m_t`$. The overall scale can be set here by $`m_t`$ or $`m_W`$. From an empirical “bottom-up” perspective of further “unification”, $`m_W`$ is more appropriate to use to set the scale since its value is fixed in the SM.

(2) Symmetries and Second Class Currents: The additional $`t_Rb_L`$ weak-moment coupling violates the conventional gauge invariance transformations of the SM and traditionally in electroweak studies such anomalous couplings have been best considered as “induced” or “effective”. Nevertheless, in special “new physics” circumstances such a simple tensorial coupling as (2) might turn out to be fundamental. The “tensorial coupling” is of course a fundamental structure if considered from gravitation viewpoints. However, are the new symmetries associated with the symmetry algebras of Sec. 3 sufficient to overcome the known difficulties  in constructing a renormalizable, unitary quantum field theory involving second class currents  ? The $`f_E`$ component is second class. $`f_E`$ has a distinctively different reality structure, and time-reversal invariance property versus the first class $`V,A,f_M`$ .

(3) Form-factor Investigations: With respect to an “induced” or “effective” $`t_Rb_L`$ tensorial coupling, the physics issue becomes one of investigating and excluding specific sources for producing such an additional weak-moment. One of the better motivated and more developed extensions of the SM is based on supersymmetry. The fundamental source of SUSY breaking and its details remains an important open problem, and the phenomenology associated with the SUSY spectra particles is largely unknown. Nevertheless, in the present context, SUSY provides a more general and useful off-shell theoretical framework in which to consider these theoretical patterns of the helicity amplitudes for $`tW^+b`$ decay. Form factor effects naturally occur. In particular it might be possible to generate an additional effective $`t_Rb_L`$ weak-moment coupling of relative strength $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=E_W/2`$. For what domains, if any, of parameters in R-violating SUSY models would this be possible? Does there exist dynamically salient phenomena and/or persistent features besides the (i)-(v) relations occurring in those parameter domains? In the case of the MSSM, a recent analysis through the one-loop level of SUSY QCD and SUSY electroweak corrections to $`\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$, $`\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_T}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$, and to the partial width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ shows that this is not possible . However, the more general case of R-violating SUSY models remains to be investigated.

(4) Experimental Tests/Measurements: In on-going  and forth-coming  top-quark decay experiments, important information about the relationship of the tWb-transformation symmetry patterns of this paper to the observed top quark decays will come from:
(a) Measurement of the sign of the $`\eta _L\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}|A(1,\frac{1}{2})||A(0,\frac{1}{2})|\mathrm{cos}\beta _L=\pm 0.46(SM/+)`$ helicity parameter  so as to determine the sign of $`cos\beta _L`$ where $`\beta _L=\varphi _1^L\varphi _0^L`$ is the relative phase of the two $`\lambda _b=\frac{1}{2}`$ amplitudes, $`A(\lambda _{W^+},\lambda _b)=|A|\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _{\lambda _{W^+}}^{L,R})`$.
(b) Measurement of the closely associated $`\eta _{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}|A(1,\frac{1}{2})||A(0,\frac{1}{2})|\mathrm{sin}\beta _L`$ helicity parameter. This would provide useful complementary information, since in the absence of $`T_{FS}`$-violation, $`\eta _{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}=0`$ .
(c) Measurement of the partial width for $`tW^+b`$ such as in single-top production \[13-15\]. The $`v^2`$ factor which differs their associated partial widths corresponds to the SM’s $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SM}=1.55GeV`$, versus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+=0.66GeV`$ and a longer-lived (+) top-quark if this mode is dominant.

Acknowledgments:

We thank experimental and theoretical physicists for discussions. This work was partially supported by U.S. Dept. of Energy Contract No. DE-FG 02-86ER40291.

Appendix: The $`O(vy\sqrt{2},x)`$ corrections in $`a`$

In this appendix is listed the form of the $`O(vy\sqrt{2},x)`$ corrections in $`a`$ as required by Lorentz invariance:

For $`a=1+\epsilon (x,y)`$, the (iv) relation is $`v=(1+\epsilon )y\sqrt{2}m_t/(E_W+q)`$ whereas from relativistic kinematics $`v=q/E_W=[(1y^2x^2)^24y^2x^2]^{1/2}/[1+y^2x^2]`$ . By equating these expressions and expanding in $`x`$, one obtains $`\epsilon =R+x^2S`$ where

$`R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{14y^23y^42y^6}{4y^2(1+y^2)^2}}`$
$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{14y^2+y^4}{2y^2(1+y^2)^3}}`$
and $`v=y\sqrt{2}\left[1+R+x^2(S+\frac{1+R}{1y^2})+O(x^4)\right]`$. From the latter equation, $`R=(vy\sqrt{2})/y\sqrt{2}+O(x^2).`$

For a massless b-quark ( $`x=0`$ ) and $`a=1`$ , the (iv) relation is equivalent to the $`\frac{m_W}{m_t}`$ mass relation $`y^3\sqrt{2}`$ $`+y^2+y\sqrt{2}1=0`$, and by relativistic kinematics to the W-boson velocity condition $`v^3+v^2+2v2=0`$ and the simple formula $`v=y\sqrt{2}`$.

Table Captions

Table 1: Numerical values of the helicity amplitudes for the standard model $`(VA)`$ coupling and for the (+) coupling of Eq.(2). The latter consists of an additional $`t_Rb_L`$ weak-moment of relative strength $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+53GeV`$ so as yield a relative-sign change in the $`\lambda _b=\frac{1}{2}`$ amplitudes. The values are listed first in $`g_L=g_{f_M+f_E}=1`$ units, and second as $`A_{new}=A_{g_L=1}/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$. Table entries are for $`m_t=175GeV,m_W=80.35GeV,m_b=4.5GeV`$.


text:
# Quantum operation, quantum Fourier transform and semi-definite programming

## 1 Introduction

Almost all quantum systems in the real world are open in the sense that they suffer from unwanted interactions with the outside world. The dynamics of an open quantum system is usually much more complicated than that of a closed one. One of the most important mathematical tools describing the dynamics of an open quantum system is quantum operation, which has been systematically studied after Kraus’s seminal work . Comparing with other mathematical formalisms coping with open quantum systems, such as master equation, Langevin equation and stochastic differential equation, quantum operations are especially appropriate for depicting discrete state change in discrete time. Recently, the rapid development of quantum information processing technology revives a wide interest on quantum operations due to the fact that quantum information processing systems, for example, quantum computers, suffer from outside noises inevitablly, and that mainly a discrete-time evolution is concerned in these systems. Indeed, quantum operation plays an important role in many active fields such as quantum computation, quantum information, quantum error-correcting codes and quantum fault-tolerant computation  (for an excellent exposition, see  Chapter 8).

There are several equivalent ways to introduce the notion of quantum operation; one of which is given in terms of completely positive (often abbreviated as CP) mappings. Let $``$ denote the Hilbert space of the principal quantum system. A linear mapping $`\kappa `$ on $``$ is positive if it always sends a positive operator to another positive one; and $`\kappa `$ is completely positive if, furthermore, the mapping $`I\kappa `$ is also positive where $`I`$ is the identity mapping acting on an arbitrary ancillary system. Complete positivity is a natural requirement of the real physical world without which the state of the composite system may be invalid after operations on its subsystem. Thus, a quantum operation is defined as a completely positive and trace-preserving linear mapping on the state space $``$. Some representations of the CP mapping have been presented in , also in, and an important one is the operator sum representation:

$$(\rho )=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}A_k\rho A_k^{},$$
(1)
where $`A_k^{}`$ is the conjugate transpose of $`A_k`$. To guarantee the trace-preserving property, the following completeness condition

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}A_k^{}A_k=I$$
(2)
is also required. For some other descriptions of quantum operations, we refer to . As trace-preserving quantum operation is a fundamental mathematical description of quantum channel, a thorough study on quantum operation will help us to understand the limits or capabilities of quantum information processing.

The main goal of this paper is to find the necessary and sufficient conditions for certain kinds of linear mappings to be quantum operations. To motivate our problem, let us consider the trace-preserving quantum operation $`\kappa `$ on a two-level quantum system (or qubit for short). We employ the very useful geometric tool of Bloch sphere to represent a qubit. Then every qubit can be depicted as a vector in it. Recall that the general form of the affine mapping on the Bloch sphere is

$$\stackrel{}{r}=(r_x,r_y,r_z)\stackrel{}{r}^{}=M(r_x,r_y,r_z)+(c_x,c_y,c_z),$$
(3)
where $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{r}^{}`$ are respectively the original and the image vectors under the mapping, $`M`$ is a $`3\times 3`$ real matrix and $`\stackrel{}{c}=(c_x,c_y,c_z)`$ the displacement vector. It is easy to see that the effect of a quantum operation on qubits is just an affine mapping on the corresponding vectors. Conversely, a question naturally arises: whether or not every affine mapping on the Bloch sphere has a corresponding quantum operation? The answer to this question is unfortunately no. In fact, there are very simple affine maps that cannot be images of quantum operations . A sufficient and necessary condition of the special case without any displacement has been found by several research groups  and some special cases of $`(c_x,c_y,c_z)`$ are also considered. In , M. B. Ruskai, S. Szarek and E. Werner have completely solved the general problem for the qubit case. More precisely, given the transition matrix $`M`$ and displacement $`\stackrel{}{c}`$, the sufficient and necessary condition of when such a mapping is completely positive was presented there.

A qubit is the simplest quantum system which has been studied thoroughly. However, quantum systems of higher dimension also concern us in quantum information processing and are relatively less studied. This observation leads us to consider higher dimensional generalization of the above question. To the authors’ best knowledge, the higher dimensional version of this question is still open. In the present paper, we will carefully examine the affine mappings in higher dimensional quantum systems, and give a partial answer to this question. This will certainly give some new insights to the field of quantum information processing and bring a useful mathematical tool for the solutions of some problems in this field.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section $`2`$, we extend the vector representation from qubit to qudit case. This enables us to give a $`d`$-dimensional generalization of affine mappings. Some simple properties of such geometric representation are presented. In Section $`3`$, we focus on a special class of higher dimensional affine mappings where the transition matrix is diagonalized and the displacement vector vanishes. A sufficient and necessary condition of when an mapping in this class is a quantum operation is found. With this condition, one can easily check whether a given mapping in the special case is an image of a quantum operation or not. Some well known results, for example, the universal NOT gate with optimal fidelity in the high dimensional state space, can be recovered. A more general case involving multiple qudits is also discussed. The most interesting thing is that this condition is deeply related to the quantum Fourier transform (QFT for short), and such a surprising connection is not easy to observe if we only deal with the case of qubits. In Section $`4`$, we further consider higher dimensional affine mappings with diagonal transition matrix in which the displacement vector presents. They are of the most common affine mappings in practical use. The problem of determining when such an affine mapping is a quantum operation is then reduced to the semi-positive definite programming problem. We argue that this problem has no simple solution in the general case. However, we are still able to give a simple sufficient condition of it. Finally, we draw a brief conclusion in Section $`5`$.

## 2 A geometric representation of qudits

It is well known that for qubit system, a wonderful geometric representation using Bloch sphere exists. To be specific, the density matrix $`\rho `$ of a qubit can be written as

$$\rho =\frac{I+\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{2},$$

where $`\stackrel{}{r}=(r_x,r_y,r_z)`$ is a $`3`$-dimensional real vector with Euclidean norm $`\stackrel{}{r}1`$. $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }=(X,Y,Z)`$ is a formal vector of Pauli matrices and $`\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{\sigma }=r_xX+r_yY+r_zZ`$ where $`X,Y,Z`$ are Pauli matrices,

$$X=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),Y=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right),Z=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$

It is notable that $`\stackrel{}{r}=1`$ if and only if $`\rho `$ is a pure state, and $`\rho `$ is a mixed state whenever $`\stackrel{}{r}<1`$. Given a vector $`\stackrel{}{r}`$, we can completely determine the corresponding quantum state $`\rho `$ and vise versa. Furthermore, the dynamics of $`\rho `$ can be visualized through the affine operation on $`\stackrel{}{r}`$. The key of a qubit possessing the Bloch sphere vector representation is there exist a set of matrices $`\{X,Y,Z\}`$ which, together with the identity matrix $`I`$, forms a basis of the $`2\times 2`$ matrix space.

To extend such a representation to a higher dimensional state space, we choose a set of generalized Pauli matrices  as the basis. Suppose we have an orthonormal basis {$`|k`$} of a qudit space $``$, if we define $`X`$ as $`X|k=|k+1`$, where the addition is modulo $`d`$, and $`Z`$ as $`Z|k=\omega ^k|k`$, where $`\omega =exp(\frac{2\pi i}{d})`$ is the $`d`$th unity root, then the whole set of the general Pauli matrices in qudit system can be expressed as $`\{\sigma _{p,q}=X^pZ^q:p,q=0,\mathrm{},d1\}`$. For a detailed presentation of the properties the generalized Pauli matrices enjoy, we refer to . Here we only list some of them related to our results (for simplicity, we define $`X_i=X^i,Z_i=Z^i`$):

1. (Multiplication relations)

$$\sigma _{i,j}\sigma _{i^{},j^{}}=\omega ^{i^{}j}\sigma _{(i+i^{}),(j+j^{})}.$$
2. (Hermitian relations)

$$X_i^{}=X_{di},Z_i^{}=Z_{di},$$

$$\sigma _{i,j}^{}=\omega ^{ij}\sigma _{(di),(dj)}.$$
3. (Commutation relations)

$$\sigma _{i,j}\sigma _{i^{},j^{}}=\omega ^{(i^{}jij^{})}\sigma _{i^{},j^{}}\sigma _{i,j}.$$
4. (Orthogonal relations) Suppose the inner product of $`d\times d`$ linear space is defined as $`(A,B)=tr(A^{}B)`$, then

$$(\sigma _{i,j},\sigma _{i^{},j^{}})=d\delta _{i,i^{}}\delta _{j,j^{}},$$

where $`\delta `$ is the Kronecker function.

$$\delta _{i,j}=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,& ifij\\ 1,& ifi=j\end{array}.$$
5. The Pauli matrices $`\{\sigma _{i,j}:i,j=0,1,\mathrm{},d1\}`$ form an orthogonal basis of $`d\times d`$ linear space $`Q`$. That is, for any $`AQ`$,

$$A=\frac{_{i,j}tr(\sigma _{ij}^{}A)\sigma _{i,j}}{d}.$$

The next proposition shows that on a higher dimensional space the matrix composed of all eigenvectors of $`X`$ corresponds exactly to the Fourier transform $`F`$.

###### Proposition 1

Suppose $`F`$ is the quantum Fourier transform on $`d`$-dimensional Hilbert state space $``$, that is

$$F|j=\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{d1}{}}e^{2\pi ijk/d}|k,$$

then $`X_k=F^{}Z_kF`$, where $`\{|j:j=0,1,2,\mathrm{},d1\}`$ is an orthonormal basis of $``$.

Proof. Simple, details omitted.∎

Using this set of generalized Pauli matrices in high dimensional space, we can decompose a density matrix $`\rho `$ of a qudit in the principal Hilbert space $``$ as follows:

$$\rho =\frac{\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{d},$$

where $`\stackrel{}{r}=(tr(\sigma _{00}^{}\rho ),tr(\sigma _{01}^{}\rho ),\mathrm{},tr(\sigma _{d1,d1}^{}\rho ))`$ is a $`d^2`$dimensional vector and $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ is the formal vector such that $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }=(\sigma _{0,0},\sigma _{0,1},\mathrm{},\sigma _{d1,d1})`$, the formal inner product is then defined as

$$\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{\sigma }=\underset{p,q=0}{\overset{d1}{}}r_{p,q}\sigma _{p,q}.$$

The representation here is compatible with the Bloch vector notation since we can simply add $`I`$ and $`1`$ to the Pauli matrices $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ and $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ respectively. Moreover, some properties of Bloch vector notation preserve in the new representation. For example, $`\stackrel{}{r}=\sqrt{d}`$ when $`\rho `$ is a pure state; $`\stackrel{}{r}<\sqrt{d}`$ when $`\rho `$ is a mixed state, while $`\stackrel{}{r}=1`$ if and only if $`\rho `$ is the maximally mixed state $`I/d`$. It is also useful to point out that to make $`\rho `$ a legal quantum state, we always have $`r_{0,0}=tr(\sigma _{0,0}^{}\rho )=tr(\rho )=1`$.

Suppose quantum operation $``$ on $``$ maps $`\rho `$ to $`\rho ^{}`$ with the representation

$$\rho ^{}=\frac{\stackrel{}{r}^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{d},$$
(4)
a simple computation tells us there exists a $`d^2\times d^2`$ dimensional matrix $`M`$ such that

$$\stackrel{}{r}^{}=M\stackrel{}{r}.$$

In other words, every quantum operation leads to an affine mapping with the form

$$\stackrel{}{r}M\stackrel{}{r}.$$
(5)
Then the question raised in the introduction can be more explicitly stated as follows: is every affine mapping with the form (5) a quantum operation on state space $``$? In general, the answer to this question is certainly no. Our purpose of this paper is then to characterize the affine mapping that corresponds to some quantum operation.

Before we go deep into this question, let us first examine some properties that transition matrix $`M`$ and vector $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ must satisfy. We say a quantum operation $``$ is unital if $`(I)=I`$. Otherwise we call it is non-unital. Suppose transition matrix $`M`$ corresponds to a trace-preserving quantum operation $``$, then $`M`$ has the block form

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ c& M^{}\end{array}\right),$$

where $`c`$ is a $`d^21`$ dimensional vector(we often call it as displacement vector), $`M^{}`$ is a $`(d^21)\times (d^21)`$ matrix. Furthermore, if $``$ is unital, we have $`c=0`$ (vector). For $`\rho `$ is a positive operator with trace one, we get $`\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{\sigma }=(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{\sigma })^{}`$ and $`r_{00}=1`$, or equivalently,

$$r_{p,q}^{}=\omega ^{pq}r_{p,q},r_{00}=1,$$

where all the arithmetical operations of the indices are modulo $`d`$, so $`r_{p,q}=r_{dp,dq}`$. The above equations can be considered as a general constraints on the vector $`\stackrel{}{r}`$. With this condition, we can use $`d^21`$ real numbers to represent a qudit state $`\rho `$.

Denote the set of vectors satisfying the above equations as $`V_{d^2}`$. A simple calculation shows that $`V_{d^2}`$ is close under addition and multiplication by a real number; that is, $`\stackrel{}{r_1}+\stackrel{}{r_2}V_{d^2}`$ and $`t\stackrel{}{r_1}V_{d^2}`$ provided that $`\stackrel{}{r_1},\stackrel{}{r_2}V_{d^2}`$ and $`t`$ is a real number. Notice that when $`t`$ is a complex number, $`t\stackrel{}{r_1}V_{d^2}`$ does not necessarily hold. Suppose A is a $`d^2\times d^2`$ matrix which is a linear mapping on $`V_{d^2}`$, then $`A\stackrel{}{r}V_{d^2}`$ for all $`\stackrel{}{r}V_{d^2}`$ if and only if $`(A\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{\sigma })^{}=A\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ for any $`\stackrel{}{r}V_{d^2}`$. Let us further consider a special but very important case where $`A`$ is a diagonal matrix

$$A=diag(\lambda _{0,0},\lambda _{0,1},\mathrm{},\lambda _{d1,d1}),$$

or simply we write $`A=diag(\stackrel{}{\lambda }).`$ Then the condition turns out to be $`\lambda _{p,q}=\lambda _{p,q}^{}`$. So if a quantum operation maps $`\rho `$ with the Bloch vector $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ to $`(\rho )`$ with the Bloch vector $`M\stackrel{}{r}`$, where

$$M=diag(\lambda _{0,0},\lambda _{0,1},\mathrm{},\lambda _{d1,d1})=diag(\stackrel{}{\lambda })$$

is diagonal, then the following conditions must be satisfied:

$$r_{p,q}=\omega ^{pq}r_{p,q}^{},\lambda _{p,q}=\lambda _{p,q}^{}.$$

For the case of qubits, i.e., $`d=2`$, we have the pauli matrices

$$\sigma _{0,0}=I,\sigma _{0,1}=Z,\sigma _{1,0}=X,\sigma _{1,1}=XZ$$

and $`\omega =1`$, then the above conditions about $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ may be rewritten as

$$r_{0,0}=1,r_{0,1}=r_{0,1}^{},r_{1,0}=r_{1,0}^{},r_{1,1}=r_{1,1}^{};$$

that is, $`r_{0,0}=1,r_{0,1},r_{1,0}`$ are real numbers and $`r_{1,1}`$ is pure imaginary number. The conditions about $`M`$ can be rewritten as

$$\lambda _{0,0}=1,\lambda _{0,1}=\lambda _{0,1}^{},\lambda _{1,0}=\lambda _{1,0}^{},\lambda _{1,1}=\lambda _{1,1}^{},$$

all the four numbers $`r_{0,0},r_{0,1},r_{1,0}`$ and $`r_{1,1}`$ are real. Moreover, by introducing $`Y=iXZ`$, we can also make $`r_{1,1}`$ a real number. Then the qubit state $`\rho `$ and real vector $`\stackrel{}{r}=(r_{0,0},r_{0,1},r_{1,0},r_{1,1})`$ are one to one corresponding to each other when $`|\stackrel{}{r}|2`$, and the scalars of the four axes are all real numbers.

## 3 Affine mappings with diagonal transition matrix

In this section, we consider the special affine mappings with diagonal transition matrices $`M`$ and no displacement vectors. The effect of these mappings is just a scalar multiplication by $`\lambda _{p,q}`$ in the direction $`\sigma _{p,q}`$, or

$$\stackrel{}{r}M\stackrel{}{r},$$
(6)
where $`M=diag(\stackrel{}{\lambda })`$ is a diagonal matrix. we can also write

$$(\sigma _{p,q})=\lambda _{p,q}\sigma _{p,q},p,q=0,\mathrm{},d1.$$

It is well known that when qubits are considered, with a suitably chosen axis, many interesting quantum operations have this simple form in the Bloch sphere. The typical examples are bit flip channel and phase damping .

This section is devoted to find the necessary and sufficient condition of such affine mapping to be a quantum operation’s image. As mentioned before, a key feature of a quantum operation is its complete positivity. To determine the complete positivity of $``$, we need the following theorem attributed to Kraus :

###### Theorem 1

Suppose $``$ is a linear operation on Hilbert space $``$, $``$ is an ancillary Hilbert space with the same dimensionality with $``$. Let $`\{|k\}`$ be an orthonormal basis for $``$ and $``$. Then $``$ is CP mapping if and only if the operator

$$(I)(|\alpha \alpha |)$$

is positive, where

$$|\alpha =\underset{k}{}|k|k/\sqrt{d}$$

is the maximal entangled state of the composite system.

Using Kraus’s theorem, to decide whether a given linear mapping is a CP one, we need only examine the positivity of eigenvalues of the operator $`(I)(|\alpha \alpha |)`$.

We now are able to present one of the main results of this paper, namely, a CP condition for an affine mapping $``$ with a diagonal transition matrix and no displacement vector. To one’s surprise, this condition is essentially connected to the quantum Fourier transform $`F`$, which, as we all known, plays a crucial role in quantum computation (for example, quantum Fourier transform is a key step for the Shor’s Factoring algorithm and Discrete Logarithm Problem). To be specific, we have the following theorem.

###### Theorem 2

The linear mapping defined in (6) is a CP one if and only if

$$(FF^{})\stackrel{}{\lambda }0.$$

where $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }=(\lambda _{0,0},\lambda _{0,1},\mathrm{},\lambda _{d1,d1}).`$

Proof. Using the Kraus’s theorem, we need to calculate $`(I)(|\alpha \alpha |)`$. So first we expand $`|kl|`$ as the linear combinations of $`\{\sigma _{i,j}\}`$. By the orthogonality of $`\sigma _{i,j}`$, we get

$$|kl|=\underset{m,n}{}\alpha _{m,n}\sigma _{m,n},$$

where $`\alpha _{m,n}=tr(\sigma _{m,n}^{}|kl|)/d=\omega ^{nl}\delta _{m+l,k}/d.`$ So

$`\begin{array}{cc}& (I)(|\alpha \alpha |)\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill =& {\displaystyle \underset{k,l}{}}|kl|(|kl|)/d\hfill \\ \hfill =& {\displaystyle \underset{l,m,n,q}{}}\omega ^{(q+n)l}\sigma _{m,q}\sigma _{m,n}\lambda _{m,n}/d^3\hfill \\ \hfill =& {\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}\lambda _{m,n}\sigma _{m,n}\sigma _{m,n}/d^2.\hfill \end{array}`$ (12)
The crucial point of the problem is that the set

$$\{\sigma _{m,n}\sigma _{m,n}\}$$

form an Abelian group of order $`d^2`$, which means that this set is closed under the operation of matrix multiplication, matrix inversion, and its elements commute with each other. We prove commutation relation as follows:

$`\begin{array}{cc}& (\sigma _{m,n}\sigma _{m,n})(\sigma _{p,q}\sigma _{p,q})\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill =& (\sigma _{m,n}\sigma _{p,q})(\sigma _{m,n}\sigma _{p,q})\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill =& (\omega ^{np+qm}\sigma _{p,q}\sigma _{m,n})(\omega ^{npqm}\sigma _{p,q}\sigma _{m,n})\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill =& (\sigma _{p,q}\sigma _{p,q})(\sigma _{m,n}\sigma _{m,n}).\hfill \end{array}`$ (20)
Thus, we can simultaneously diagonalize the set of matrices $`\{\sigma _{p,q}\sigma _{p,q}\}`$ as

$$\sigma _{m,n}\sigma _{m,n}=UD(m,n)U^{},$$

where $`D(m,n)`$ is a diagonal matrix, and $`U`$ a unitary matrix. It must be noted that the matrix $`U`$ can be chosen as the same for all the matrices in the set. Then

$$(I)(|\alpha \alpha |)=\frac{1}{d^2}\underset{m,n}{}U\lambda _{m,n}D(m,n)U^{}.$$

The diagonal entries give the desired eigenvalues of $`(I)(|\alpha \alpha |)`$. Define

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_{s,t}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}\underset{k}{}|k\sigma _{t,s}|k,$$

one can easily check

$$(\sigma _{m,n}\sigma _{m,n})|\mathrm{\Phi }_{s,t}=\omega ^{ntsm}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{s,t}.$$

So by (12) we have

$$(I)(|\alpha \alpha |)|\mathrm{\Phi }_{s,t}=\mu _{s,t}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{s,t},$$

where

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{}{\mu }_{st}& =1/d^2{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}\omega ^{ntsm}\lambda _{m,n}\hfill \\ & =1/d{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}(F)_{s,m}(F^{})_{t,n}\lambda _{m,n}\hfill \\ & =1/d[(FF^{})\stackrel{}{\lambda }]_{s,t},\hfill \end{array}`$ (24)
or in matrix representation,

$$\stackrel{}{\mu }=\frac{1}{d}(FF^{})\stackrel{}{\lambda }.$$

For $`(I)(|\alpha \alpha |)`$ is a Hermitian matrix, it is positive if and only if all its eigenvalues are non-negative. This leads to the relation

$$(FF^{})\stackrel{}{\lambda }0.$$

With this we complete the proof of the theorem.∎

There are many ways to gain the result in the theorem and some of them are simpler. But the method given here is a coherent one in the sense that when the displacement vector does not vanish it still works.

Now we consider further the case where $`N`$ qudits are involved. Suppose the generalized Pauli matrices on $`d`$-dimensional Hilbert space $``$ are $`\{\sigma _{p,q}:p,q=0,\mathrm{},d1\}`$. Use this set Pauli matrices, we can obtain an orthogonal basis of operators acting on $`^N`$. For the sake of convenience, we denote $`i=(i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_N)`$ and $`j=(j_1,j_2,\mathrm{},j_N)`$, then we define the orthogonal basis as $`\pi _{i,j}=\sigma _{i_1,j_1}\sigma _{i_2,j_2}\mathrm{},\sigma _{i_N,j_N}`$ ,where $`i_1,j_1,\mathrm{},i_N,j_N`$ are range from $`0`$ to $`d1`$. Then the following theorem is a straightforward generalization of Theorem 2.

###### Theorem 3

Let $``$ be a $`d`$-dimensional Hilbert space, and let $``$ be a linear mapping on Hilbert space $`^N`$ such that

$$(\pi _{i,j})=\lambda _{i,j}\pi _{i,j}.$$

Then $``$ is CP if and only if

$$(FF^{})^N\stackrel{}{\lambda }0.$$

Proof. Same as the previous theorem. We omit the details here.

We should point out here that the quantum Fourier transform $`F`$ in the above theorem is defined on $``$. There is another Fourier transformation $`F^{}`$ which is defined on $`Nd`$-dimensional state space $`^N`$. $`F^{}`$ is not equal to $`F^N`$ in general. This enables us to obtain two different conditions. However, this two conditions are not related since they describe different types of affine mappings which are directly related to the choice of basis. One basis is general Pauli matrices and the other is tensor products of general Pauli matrices.

As a conclusion of this section, we show some simple applications of the above two theorems. First, let us come back to the case of qubits. Notice that in this case, quantum Fourier transform $`F`$ is just the $`Hadamard`$ gate

$$H=(X+Z)/\sqrt{2}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right).$$

For $`H^{}=H`$, the CP condition given in Theorem 3.3 can be rewritten in a more brief form:

$$H^{2N}\stackrel{}{\lambda }0.$$

When only one qubit involves, the condition deduces to $`H^2\stackrel{}{\lambda }`$, or more explicitly(noticing that $`\lambda _{0,0}=1`$)

$$1+\lambda _{0,1}+\lambda _{1,0}+\lambda _{1,1}0,$$

$$1\lambda _{0,1}+\lambda _{1,0}\lambda _{1,1}0,$$

$$1+\lambda _{0,1}\lambda _{1,0}\lambda _{1,1}0,$$

$$1\lambda _{0,1}\lambda _{1,0}+\lambda _{1,1}0,$$

which is similar as the equation (12) in .

Since $`(FF^{})^N\stackrel{}{\lambda }`$ has an entry $`\lambda _{i,j}/d^N`$, a necessary condition for $``$ to be a CP mapping is that $`\lambda _{i,j}0`$. An interesting special case here is when all entries in $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }`$ have some same real value $`p`$ except $`\lambda _{0,0}=1`$. This is in fact a generalized depolarizing channel. In this case, we have two different eigenvalues: $`1+(d^21)p`$ and $`1p`$. The CP condition then becomes

$$1/(d^21)p1.$$

This result is well known and here it comes out to be a direct corollary of our above theorem.

What we would like to point out here is that when $`c`$ is negative , $`1/(d^21)`$ is the limit value we can achieve in this operation. It is also easy to see that this value decreases with $`d`$ increasing. This means that when dimensionality increases, the state space becomes more complicate, and the constraints between the different axes are more rigor.

Let us consider further the case where $`p=1/(d^21)`$. The pure state $`\rho =|\psi \psi |`$ will be mapped to $`(\rho )=(dI\rho )/(d^21)`$. If we treat the operation as an unprecise universal NOT operation, then the fidelity will be

$$\psi ^{}|(\rho )|\psi ^{}=\frac{d}{d^21},$$
(25)
which has been proved optimal in the case of $`d=2`$, see .

Recall from Section 2 that we have the constraints $`\lambda _{p,q}=\lambda _{p,q}^{}`$. So these operations are not completely independent in different axes, and there are conjugate axes such as $`\sigma _{p,q}`$ and $`\sigma _{p,q}`$. Thus, the scalars of a CP operation in this two directions must be conjugated with each other. In the qubit case, since $`\sigma _{i,j}`$ are all self-conjugated, the entries of $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }`$ are all real numbers, and the operation is independent for different axes.

## 4 A more general class of affine mappings

What concerns us in the previous section are affine mappings without displacement vectors. In this section, we consider a more general affine mapping of the form:

$$\stackrel{}{r}M\stackrel{}{r},$$
(26)
where

$$M=diag(\stackrel{}{\lambda })+\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ c& 0\end{array}\right).$$

We denote the first column of $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ c& 0\end{array}\right)`$ as $`\stackrel{}{c}`$. Intuitively, we call $`\stackrel{}{c}`$ as displacement vector. Such kind of affine mappings correspond the most useful non-unital quantum operations in practice. The problem in which we are interested remains when such an affine mapping is an image of a quantum operation. The following theorem is the another main results in our paper which establishes a connection between this problem and the semi-positive definite programming.

###### Theorem 4

The linear mapping defined in (26) is a CP one if and only if

$$I\stackrel{}{c}\stackrel{}{\sigma }+\underset{p,q}{}\lambda _{p,q}\sigma _{p,q}\sigma _{p,q}0.$$

Proof. From

$$(\sigma _{0,0})=\lambda _{0,0}\sigma _{0,0}+\stackrel{}{c}\stackrel{}{\sigma },$$

we get

$$(\sigma _{p,q})=\lambda _{p,q}\sigma _{p,q},(p,q)(0,0)$$

and

$$(I)(|\alpha \alpha |)=\frac{1}{d^2}[I\stackrel{}{c}\stackrel{}{\sigma }+\underset{p,q}{}\lambda _{p,q}\sigma _{p,q}\sigma _{p,q}].$$

Then by the Kraus’s Theorem, the claim in the theorem holds, and we complete the proof.∎

Since the set of matrices $`\{\sigma _{p,q}\sigma _{p,q}\}`$ can be simultaneously diagonalized, we can rewrite the condition in the above theorem as

$$U^{}(I\stackrel{}{c}\stackrel{}{\sigma })U+D0,$$

where $`D=diag((FF^{})\stackrel{}{\lambda })/d.`$

There are many basic problems in quantum information fields which can be reduced to the most general version of the semi-positive definite programming problem; for examples, quantum state discrimination , state estimation , and quantum pattern recognition . The above theorem provides us with an additional example of such problems. Indeed, given $`\stackrel{}{c}`$. To keep $``$ as a CP mapping, we need to determine the range of the diagonal matrix $`D`$. Then through $`D`$ we can immediately get the range of $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }`$, for

$$\stackrel{}{\lambda }=d(F^{}F)\stackrel{}{D},$$

where $`\stackrel{}{D}`$ denotes the vector formed by the diagonal entries of $`D`$. Furthermore, the problem of determining the range of a diagonal matrix $`D`$ to keep $`A+D0`$ for a Hermitian matrix $`A`$ is exactly a semi-positive definite programming problem.

As is well known, there has not yet a general analytic solution for the problem of semi-positive definite programming. We then cannot get a sufficient and necessary condition in an explicit form under which the linear mappings (26) are completely positive for the most general case. Here we propose instead a sufficient condition:

###### Corollary 1

A sufficient condition for the linear mapping defined in (26) to be a CP one is

$$\stackrel{}{c}\mu _{\mathrm{min}},$$
(27)
where

$$\mu _{\mathrm{min}}=\mathrm{min}_{s,t}[(FF^{})\stackrel{}{\lambda }]_{s,t}/d,$$

and

$$\stackrel{}{c}=\sqrt{\underset{p,q}{}|c_{p,q}|^2}$$

is the norm of the displacement vector.

The intuitive meaning of the conclusion is that the affine mapping (26) will be an image of a quantum operation if the norm of the displacement vector $`\stackrel{}{c}`$ is small enough. Of course, here $`\stackrel{}{c}`$ should satisfy the equation $`\stackrel{}{c}\stackrel{}{\sigma }=(\stackrel{}{c}\stackrel{}{\sigma })^{}`$.

Proof. Let $`\stackrel{}{c}\stackrel{}{\sigma }=VD_cV^{}`$ be the spectral decomposition of $`\stackrel{}{c}\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$, where $`D_c`$ is a diagonal matrix and V is some unitary matrix. Since $`tr(\stackrel{}{c}\stackrel{}{\sigma })^2=\stackrel{}{c}^2`$, we have $`\lambda _c\stackrel{}{c}`$, where$`\lambda _c`$ is the maximal absolute value of eigenvalues of $`\stackrel{}{c}\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$. So when (27) holds, $`\mu _{\mathrm{min}}I+D_c0.`$ Finally, we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill I\stackrel{}{c}\stackrel{}{\sigma }+UDU^{}& \mu _{\mathrm{min}}I+I\stackrel{}{c}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\hfill \\ & =IV(\mu _{min}I+D_c)V^{}\hfill \\ & 0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(28)
where $`V`$ is unitary. This completes the proof.∎

The term $`I\stackrel{}{c}\stackrel{}{\sigma }+UDU^{}`$ is quite complicated, so one may hope to derive a simple expression of $`\stackrel{}{c}`$, as what was done in the last section, which can be used to characterize the positivity of the original term $`I\stackrel{}{c}\stackrel{}{\sigma }+UDU^{}`$. Unfortunately, this is impossible in general. The reason is that $`UDU^{}`$ and $`I\stackrel{}{c}\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ do not commute with each other, but they are orthogonal to each other; in other words, we have

$$tr(UDU^{}(I\stackrel{}{c}\stackrel{}{\sigma }))=0$$

This implies that we cannot diagonalize these two terms simultaneously. Otherwise, one of them will be led into a trivial case. Suppose that

$$UDU^{}=I,\lambda _{p,q}=0,(p,q)(0,0),\lambda _{0,0}=1.$$

To keep

$$I(I+\stackrel{}{c}\stackrel{}{\sigma })0,$$

it only needs

$$I+\stackrel{}{c}\stackrel{}{\sigma }0.$$

In other words, in this special case, the only condition that guarantees the left-hand side of the above inequality is positive is then not to move $`\stackrel{}{c}`$ out the unit sphere (of course, we need to require that $`\stackrel{}{c}`$ is a valid geometry representation of a quantum state).

## 5 Conclusion

In this paper, we use the set of generalized Pauli matrices as a tool to present a new geometric representation of a quantum state of qudits. This enables us to introduce affine mappings into the space of qudits. Then we find a sufficient and necessary condition for a special class of affine mappings. This condition is also generalized to the case of $`N`$ qudits. Using this result, we can easily decide whether a given mapping in the class we specified is a CP mapping or not. As an application, we derive the optimal fidelity of the universal $`NOT`$ on $`d`$-dimensional state space:

$$F(\rho ^{},\rho )=\frac{d}{d^21}.$$

Furthermore, we can easily deduce that when $`d=2`$, or in the qubit case, this fidelity is optimal with the value

$$F(\rho ^{},\rho )=\frac{2}{3}.$$

The most interesting thing that we discover here is that the CP condition for this kind of affine mappings is closely related to the quantum Fourier transform.

We also consider some more general affine mappings with diagonal transition matrices and displacement vectors. We point out that the problem of deciding the complete positivity of these mapping is equivalent to the semi-positive definite programming problem. So, it is impossible to derive a general symbolic solution of this problem. However, we still get a sufficient condition which says that when the norm of the displacement vector is small enough, operation under consideration is CP.

Acknowledgement: We thank anonymous referee for helpful comments and informing us of a valuable reference.