arXiv:quant-ph/0604049v6 11 Oct 2006 fasse na nnw tt,ealn netmt ftest the of estimate an enabling state, unknown measureme an its in by called system determined a uniquely of is state quantum every 2 ,4 ] An 5]. 4, 3, [2, o unu rporpy[5,qatmfigrrnig[16] fingerprinting 19]. 18, quantum [17, [15], mechanics cryptography quantum for otpr tde yHga 3,3,3,3] n,Bna n H [40 and Levenshtein of Bannai work and, the 37], consult 36, spaces 35, metric [34, of Hoggar terms by in studied part most spsil”t rhnra ae o h pc fqatmst quantum of space the for bases orthonormal to possible” as ∗ ftedvc,wihi andtruhkoldeo h outpu the of knowledge through gained is which compute information device, quantum quantum the indeed, of of and tests gates, to cloners, paramount distributers, is inform state quantum of quantum component a – important though – overlooked iiedmninlHletsae r sue hogott throughout assumed are investi spaces is Hilbert rev cloning dimensional i will measurement-based optimal Finite we considered and IV be tomography and can t IC-POVMs state III introduce rank-one Sec.’s V, tight In Sec. of in class 31]. then 30, and arous respectively, 29, recently completeness, 28, have 27, designs [24, combinatorial theory Such space. tive r hw ob pia o ierqatmsaetmgah a tomography state quantum linear 2-de for weighted optimal to be equivalent to and shown are IC-POVMs, tight are IC-POVMs form rank-one also tight 26] IC-PO the [25, symmetric the throug (MUBs) are bases tomography members unbiased state rank-one minimal quantum unique [23] The “painless” allow They lcrncades [email protected] address: Electronic hsatceitoue pca ls fI-OM hc ar which IC-POVMs of class special a introduces article This h ucm ttsiso unu esrmn r describ are measurement quantum a of statistics outcome The task a systems, quantum from data classical of retrieval The h xeso fspherical of extension The wi we section next the In follows. as organized is article The unu tt tomography state quantum nttt o unu nomto cec,Uiest fC of University Science, Information Quantum for Institute ewrs unu esrmn,ifrainlcompletene informational measurement, quantum clo Keywords: quantum 03.65.Wj,03.67.-a,02.10.Ud for numbers: optimal PACS be weigh to to shown equivalent are fact measures tomography. in These are members members space. rank-one rank-one minimal the unique the states, being latter the positive-operator-v class, complete Complet exceptional orthono informationally tomography. an state to symmetric by quantum possible” distinguished “painless” as are allows close which measures “as These frame, tight states. a with analogy eitoueacaso nomtoal opeepositive- complete informationally of class a introduce We nomtoal opeePV (IC-POVM) POVM complete informationally ih nomtoal opeeqatmmeasurements quantum complete informationally Tight t dsgs[2 opoetv pcswsfis osdrdb Ne by considered first was spaces projective to [32] -designs 1] eie hspatclproe CPVswt specia with IC-POVMs purpose, practical this Besides [14]. I OPE RJCIEDESIGNS PROJECTIVE COMPLEX II. .INTRODUCTION I. .J Scott J. A. etgtI-OM.W ilso nwa es h entire the sense what in show will We IC-POVMs. tight he s ult suac eursacmlt characterizatio complete a requires assurance Quality rs. ditrs rmteprpcieo unu information quantum of perspective the from interest ed earticle. he ae.Fnly nSc IIw umrz u results. our summarize we VIII Sec. in Finally, gated. n r eeatt onainlsuiso quantum of studies foundational to relevant are and , ts hs CPVswl ecalled be will IC-POVMs These ates. 1 2.Oritrs iswt h ope projective complex the with lies interest Our 42]. 41, , e.sV n I,weersetvl,lna quantum linear respectively, where VII, and VI Sec.’s n 6 ,8 ,1,1,1,1]i n ihtepoet that property the with one is 13] 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, [6, ttsfrajdcoscoc fiptstates. input of choice judicious a for states t litouetento fa of notion the introduce ll s h ocpso prtrfae n informational and frames operator of concepts the ise to rcsig[] h blt opeieydetermine precisely to ability The [1]. processing ation in ncmlxpoetv pc.TeeIC-POVMs These space. projective complex in signs atclrysml tt-eosrcinformula. state-reconstruction simple particularly a h ,i nlg ihatgtfae[0 1 2,“sclose “as 22], 21, [20, frame tight a with analogy in e, tsaitc.Asqec fmaueet ncopies on measurements of sequence A statistics. nt ∗ dmaueetbsdqatmcloning. quantum measurement-based nd s rm hoy obntra design combinatorial theory, frame ss, rcsigdvcssc sqatmtlpres key teleporters, quantum as such devices processing le esrsaebt ebr fthis of members both are measures alued nfc,rcs sesmlso ueqatmstates, quantum pure of ensembles as recast fact, in M SCPVs 2] opeest fmutually of sets Complete [24]. (SIC-POVMs) VMs db oiieoeao-audmaue(POVM) measure positive-operator-valued a by ed tsis ilte eeltesae hspoesis process This state. the reveal then will atistics, ecie yqatmmaueetter,i an is theory, measurement quantum by described lay agr,AbraTN14 Canada 1N4, T2N Alberta Calgary, algary, ga 3,3] o nfidteteto designs of treatment unified a For 39]. [38, oggar prtrvle esrswihae in are, which measures operator-valued eata nebe fpr quantum pure of ensembles as Recast . ysml tt-eosrcinformula state-reconstruction simple ly eso uulyubae ae and bases unbiased mutually of sets e mlbssfrtesaeo quantum of space the for bases rmal e -ein ncmlxprojective complex in 2-designs ted igadlna unu state quantum linear and ning t dsg ncmlxprojec- complex in -design mir[3,btfrthe for but [33], umaier rprisaeused are properties l ih IC-POVMs tight n . 2 space CP d−1 of lines passing through the origin in Cd. In this case each x CP d−1 may be represented by a unit vector x Cd (modulo a phase), or more appropriately, by the rank-one pro∈jector π(x) x x . We will use both representations| i ∈ in this article. Roughly speaking, a complex projective t-design is then a finite≡ | ih subset| of CP d−1 with the property that the discrete average of a polynomial of degree t or less over the design equals the uniform average. Many equivalent definitions can be made in these terms (see e.g. [33, 34, 40, 43]). In the general context of compact metric spaces, for example, Levenshtein [41, 42] calls a finite set D CP d−1 a complex projective t-design if ⊂
1 2 2 2 f x y = dµH(x)dµH(y) f x y (1) D |h | i| ZZC d−1 |h | i| | | x,yX∈D P for any real polynomial f of degree t or less, where µH denotes the unique unitarily-invariant probability measure on CP d−1 induced by the Haar measure on U(d). In the current context we deem it appropriate to make a more explicit (t) definition of a t-design which is specialized to complex projective spaces. With this in mind, let Πsym denote the projector onto the totally symmetric subspace of (Cd)⊗t and consider the following simple fact. Lemma 1.
⊗t d+t−1 −1 (t) dµH(x) π(x) = t Πsym . (2) ZC d−1 P Proof. Use Schur’s Lemma. The LHS of Eq. (2) is invariant under all unitaries U ⊗t which act irreducibly on the totally symmetric subspace of (Cd)⊗t. By considering the monomial x y 2t = tr [π(x)⊗tπ(y)⊗t] in Eq. (1), it can be easily shown that Lemma 1 and Theorem 6 (below) allows the following|h | i| equivalent definition of a complex projective t-design. Definition 2. A finite set D CP d−1 is called a t-design (of dimension d) if ⊂ 1 −1 π(x)⊗t = d+t−1 Π(t) . (3) D t sym | | xX∈D Seymour and Zaslavsky have shown that t-designs in CP d−1 exist for any t and d [44]. It is necessary, however, that the number of design points satisfy [34, 38, 40, 45]
d + t/2 1 d + t/2 1 D ⌈ ⌉− ⌊ ⌋− . (4) | | ≥ t/2 t/2 ⌈ ⌉ ⌊ ⌋ A design which achieves this bound is called tight. Tight t-designs in CP 1 are equivalent to tight spherical t-designs on the Euclidean 2-sphere [via Eq. (46) in Sec. V]. Such designs exist only for t =1, 2, 3, 5 (see e.g. [46]). When d 3 it is known that tight t-designs in CP d−1 exist only for t = 1, 2, 3 [36, 38, 39]. It is trivial that tight 1-designs exist≥ in all dimensions. Tight 2-designs have been conjectured to also exist for all d [24, 27]. Analytical constructions, however, are known only for d 10 and d = 12, 13, 19 [24, 27, 47, 48, 49, 50]. Examples of tight 3-designs are known only for d =2, 4, 6 [34]. When ≤d 3 and t 5 the above bound can be improved by more than one [51, 52, 53]. The concept of t-designs has been≥ generalized≥ to that of weighted t-designs [41, 42]. Each design point x D is then S∈ appointed a positive weight w(x) under the normalization constraint x∈D w(x) = 1. A countable set endowed with a normalized weight function w : S [0, 1] will be called a weightedP set and denoted by the pair (S , w). → Definition 3. A finite weighted set (D, w), D CP d−1, is called a weighted t-design (of dimension d) if ⊂ ⊗t d+t−1 −1 (t) w(x)π(x) = t Πsym . (5) xX∈D The weighted t-designs obviously incorporate the “unweighted” t-designs as the special case w 1/ D . Note that the normalization of w is implied by the trace of Eq. (5). If we instead “trace out” only one subsystem≡ of| these| t-partite operators, we can immediately deduce that every weighted t-design is also a weighted (t 1)-design. A weighted 1- design is known as a tight (vector) frame in the context of frame theory [20, 21, 22], in which− case the unnormalized states x w(x)d x are the frame vectors, and Eq. (5) is the tight frame condition: x x = I. In this | i ≡ | i x∈D | ih | form it is immediatelyp apparent that we must have D d for a weighted 1-design, withP equality only if the frame vectors ex form an orthonormal basis for Cd. The 2-design| | ≥ case is treated in the following theorem.e e | i e 3
Theorem 4. Let (D, w) be a weighted 2-design of dimension d. Then D d2 with equality only if w 1/ D and x y 2 =1/(d + 1) for all x, y D with x = y. | |≥ ≡ | | |h | i| ∈ 6 Proof. By the definition of a weighted 2-design, 2 1 w(x)π(x) π(x) = Π(2) = e e e e + e e e e , (6) ⊗ d(d + 1) sym d(d + 1) | j ih j | ⊗ | kih k| | jih k| ⊗ | kih j | xX∈D Xj,k d Cd where ek k=1 is an orthonormal basis for . Now if we multiply both sides of this equation by A I, where A is an arbitrary{| i} linear operator, and then trace out the first subsystem, we find that ⊗ 1 w(x) tr[π(x)A]π(x) = e A e e e + e e A e e (7) d(d + 1) h j | | j i| kih k| | kih k| | j ih j | xX∈D Xj,k 1 = tr(A)I + A (8) d(d + 1) and thus any A End(Cd) can be rewritten as a linear combination of the design projectors: ∈ A = d w(x) (d + 1) tr[π(x)A] tr(A) π(x) (9) − xX∈D where we have used the fact that a 2-design is also a 1-design, i.e. I = d x∈D w(x)π(x). Consequently, the design Cd Cd2 2P D 2 projectors π(x) span End( ) ∼= , and thus, there must be at least d many. Furthermore, when = d these operators must be linearly independent. Assuming this to be the case, and choosing A = π(y) in Eq.| (9),| for some fixed y D, we find that ∈ w(y)d2 1 π(y) + d w(x) (d + 1) tr[π(x)π(y)] 1 π(x) =0 , (10) − − xX=6 y which, given the linear independence of the design projectors, can be satisfied only if w(y)=1/d2 = 1/ D and tr[π(x)π(y)] = x y 2 =1/(d + 1) for all x = y. The same is true for all y D. | | |h | i| 6 ∈ Theorem 4 is essentially a special case of the results of Levenshtein [41, 42]. In fact, the above lower bound [Eq. (4)] also holds for weighted t-designs, with equality occurring only if the design has uniform weight, i.e. w 1/ D . The current proof, however, takes a form which incorporates the theme of this article. Like in the specific≡ 2-design| | case, more can be said about the structure of t-designs when Eq. (4) is satisfied with equality. Our interest lies only with the 2-designs, however, and thus we defer further results in this direction to the work of Bannai and Hoggar [34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39]. We have introduced complex projective t-designs as a special type of weighted subset of CP d−1. Notice that the weight function of an arbitrary weighted set (S , w) may be trivially extended to a countably additive measure on the power set 2S . We will use this observation to generalize the concept of t-designs one step further. Let B(S ) denote the Borel σ-algebra of S . In the following situation, a set S endowed with a probability measure ω : B(S ) [0, 1], i.e. a (Borel) probability space, will be called a distribution and denoted by the pair (S ,ω). → Definition 5. A distribution (D,ω), D CP d−1, is called a generalized t-design (of dimension d) if ⊆ ⊗t d+t−1 −1 (t) dω(x) π(x) = t Πsym . (11) ZD In this definition the Lebesgue-Stieltjes integral is used, which reduces to a discrete sum when D is countable. A generalized t-design is thus a weighted t-design when D is a finite set. Again, every generalized t-design is also a d−1 generalized (t 1)-design, and by Lemma 1, (CP , µH) is a generalized t-design for all t. By allowing− any distribution of points in CP d−1 which satisfies Eq. (11) to be called a “generalized” t-design, we have in fact contradicted an important purpose of designs, which is to convert integrals into finite sums. In this article, however, we will allow this discrepancy and henceforth refer to both weighted and “generalized” complex projective t-designs as simply t-designs. The task of finding t-designs is facilitated by the following theorem (see e.g. [41, 43]). Theorem 6. Let (S ,ω), S CP d−1, be a distribution. Then for any t 1, ⊆ ≥ 2t d+t−1 −1 dω(x)dω(y) x y t , (12) ZZS |h | i| ≥ with equality iff (S ,ω) is a t-design. 4
Proof. Consider an arbitrary distribution (S ,ω) and define
S dω(x) π(x)⊗t (13) ≡ ZS which has support only on the totally symmetric subspace of (Cd)⊗t. This positive operator can thus have at most d+t−1 dsym = t nonzero eigenvalues λ1,...,λdsym , which satisfy the equations dsym dsym 2 2t 2 tr(S) = dω(x)=1= λk , and tr(S ) = dω(x)dω(y) x y = λk . (14) ZS ZZS |h | i| kX=1 Xk=1 The lower bound [Eq. (12)] is apparent from the RHS of these equations. Under the normalization constraint expressed 2 by the first, the second is bounded below: tr(S ) 1/dsym. Equality can occur if and only if λk =1/dsym for all k, (t) ≥ or equivalently S = Πsym/dsym, which is the defining property of a t-design. This theorem allows us to check whether a distribution of points in CP d−1 forms a t-design by considering only the angles between the supposed design elements. It also shows that t-designs can be found numerically by parametrizing a distribution and minimizing the LHS of Eq. (12). The lower bound is in fact a straightforward generalization of the Welch bound [54].
III. OPERATOR FRAMES
Frame theory [20, 21, 22] provides a natural setting for the study of informationally complete quantum measure- ments [10]. In this section we will introduce some of the important concepts of this theory that are relevant to the current investigation. Before beginning, however, we will need to introduce the concept of a superoperator. Following Caves [55] we will write a linear operator A in vector notation as A). The vector space of all such Cd Cd2 | † operators, End( ) ∼= , equipped with the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product (A B) tr(A B), is a Hilbert space, where we think of (A as an operator “bra” and B) as an operator “ket.” Addition| ≡ and scalar multiplication of operator kets then follows| that for operators, e.g. a| A)+ b B)= aA + bB). The usefulness of this notation becomes apparent when we consider linear maps on operators,| i.e.| superoperators.| Given an orthonormal operator basis d2 Cd Cd Cd4 Ek k=1 End( ), (Ej Ek) = δ(j, k), a superoperator End(End( )) ∼= may be written in two different {ways:} ⊂ | S ∈
= s E E † = s E )(E (s C) . (15) S jk j ⊙ k jk | j k| jk ∈ Xj,k Xj,k
The first representation illustrates the ordinary action of the superoperator,
(A) s E AE † , (16) S ≡ jk j k Xj,k which amounts to inserting A into the location of the ‘ ’ symbol. The second reflects the left-right action, ⊙ A) s E )(E A) = s E tr E †A , (17) S| ≡ jk| j k| jk j k Xj,k Xj,k where the superoperator acts on operators just like an operator on vectors. It is this second “non-standard” action which will be useful in the current context. The identity superoperators relative to the ordinary and left-right actions are, respectively, I I and I E )(E . Further results on superoperators in the current notation can be I ≡ ⊙ ≡ k | k k| found in Ref.’s [56, 57]. P The notion of an informationally complete POVM is naturally related to that of a frame, or more specifically, an “operator” frame. Frames generalize the notion of bases. We call a countable family of operators A(x) x∈X End(Cd) an operator frame if there exist constants 0