Arxiv:Quant-Ph/0611002V2 13 May 2007

arXiv:quant-ph/0611002v2 13 May 2007 otwiet oka h nlgesrcueo pee in spheres on structure analogue the at look to worthwhile ∗ function Ê ult fasto onsfrteeproe:afiiesubset finite a purposes: these for points of D t set capture a quantitatively to of aims quality notion following h The functions such be. “exotic” to thes more “even” more the the distributed, and are includes vectors set test the points more the l oetmt tb vrgn vrafiiesto ntvector unit of set finite a over sensi- averaging D be by could it it estimate so general to in ble compute to hard be might value l uhfo h n prxmtdb umn over summing by approximated one the arbit from deviates much value ily average true whose functions are there over nqatmmcais ntecneto unu informa- quantum of applications context obvious the theory, with In tion vectors) mechanics. unit b quantum complex sphere in real of the set substituting by the (simply spaces vector plex [3]. Ref. article accessible the in releva found the be of can Many references designs. of exploration and construction cl2dsgsaehr nw ytenmsof spher- names complex the bases by of ased known examples here prominent are Two 2-designs ical few. a name to ery POVMs tary aymatrices tary ntr ein a ev stsbd o xmnn conjec- examining for testbeds as serve can designs unitary which unitaries, possible. of as tightly nets unitary as finite of group entire theory identify the the to cover mea- above, Haar aims precise the thus made to sense designs respect the with In taken be sure. to here are Averages lcrncades [email protected] address: Electronic n eoeitouigtento fauiaydsg tis it design unitary a of notion the introducing Before n a dp h ento fshrcldsgst com- to designs spherical of definition the adapt can One ut eety akr ta.itoue h oino a of notion the introduced al. et Dankert recently, Quite uhnt r neetn o aiu esn.Abstractly, reasons. various for interesting are nets Such of = mgn n sitrse nteaeaevleo real a of value average the in interested is one Imagine . t t t re polynomial order -th D -design S {| ag oyo ieauehsbe eoe othe to devoted been has literature of body large A . n ψ 3 ,8 respectively. 8] 5, [3, f scle a called is 1 i endo an on defined 3 ,1]and 10] 8, [3, , . . . , 2 yrpaigtera sphere real the replacing by U osiue ein oe onsfrtenme felement of number the for bounds s Lower and necessary design. simple a a present constitutes We group. unitary entire the hrce also nt rus ute,w kthconnec sketch we Further, entanglement. groups. typical regarding finite of tables character ewe ntr n peia ein n uln ehd f methods outline 5-de and unitary a designs of spherical example and an unitary and discussed between are order wh higher 2-designs approximate of into bases unbiased mutually turn itiue ntesneta h vrg fany of average the that sense the in distributed dsgsapae nRf.[,5 ,7 ,9], 8, 7, 6, 5, [4, Refs. in appeared -designs ( nttt o ahmtclSine,Ipra olg Lon College Imperial Sciences, Mathematical for Institute ecaiytemteaia tutr underlying structure mathematical the clarify We d OS lcetLbrtr,Ipra olg odn Princ London, College Imperial Laboratory, Blackett QOLS, | ) ψ ntedfiiino peia ein 1 2]. [1, designs spherical of definition the in .INTRODUCTION I. K spherical i} vnydsrbtduiais ntesrcueo ntr d unitary of structure the on unitaries: distributed Evenly fcus,fraysc nt set, finite such any for course, Of . ymti nomtoal complete informationally symmetric n p dmninlra sphere real -dimensional over t -design S n equals fteaeaeo ev- of average the if S n .Gos .Adnet n .Eisert J. and Audenaert, K. Gross, D. p ytesto uni- of set the by saeaetaken average ’s uulyunbi- mutually Dtd eray1 2008) 1, February (Dated: S n D That . but ; t uni- rar- t re oyoiloe h eineul h vrg over average the equals design the over polynomial order -th ave he nt y unitary e s ufil h qiaetconditions: equivalent the fulfills ento 1 Definition special this for definition A): V precise Section however, the (see, case state now we designs, interest. w geometrical Lastly, inherent of 16]. be to [15, problem modes the light believe opt of linear states passive of as transformations relevant notably are transformations eemasta hy“oe aycmlmnayaspects” complementary distributio many even “cover their they of that group: means unitary here the concerning tures fuiaymtie on matrices unitary of nrypeevn rnfrain of transformations energy-preserving ytm,Ha vrgsover averages Haar quantum finite-dimensional systems, lea beyond at Going and obtains guess. A one educated VIII functions an Appendix non-polynomial For see methods [14]). problem; other Ref. specific however, this are, ar tackling results (there for the correct functions, be polynomial to of guaranteed averages F of computers. case classical the using averages can Haar designs estimate Naturally, cryptography to [13]. used quantum protocols hiding 2]; data [1, and [12] states random estimation using fidelity and channels ap- estimation been process have quantum designs to unitary plied concretely, counter More unitary found. sensible their be is for it can – applications 11] similar 7, that 6, assume [5, ensem- distribution key finite quantum using to estimation bles optimal and quant tomography from state ranging problems, physical several to solutions t s adnlt sotmli edn re.Designs order. leading in optimal is cardinality ose -designs sms ftepeetwr scnendwt unitary with concerned is work present the of most As o,PicsGt,Lno W P,U and UK 2PE, SW7 London Gate, Princes don, U fcetcieinfrdcdn fasto matrices of set a if deciding for criterion ufficient 1. in opolm nlna pisadquestions and optics linear in problems to tions rfidn ein ueial rb searching by or numerically designs finding or ( ini rsne.W omn nterelation the on comment We presented. is sign d of s (Averages) htfrany for that a conceive can ahvral,terelation the variable, each h arxeeet n hi ope ojgtso a of conjugates complex matrix: their given and elements matrix the efulfilled. be osr od odnS72W UK 2BW, SW7 London Road, Consort e ) lo peia ein aual peri optimal in appear naturally designs spherical Also, . hs r eso ntr arcs evenly matrices, unitary of sets are These . 2 dsgsaedrvd eso o to how show We derived. are -designs Uiaydsg 1 2]) [1, design (Unitary K 1 U Let X k p p ∈D p hc shmgnoso eretoin two degree of homogeneous is which safnto on function a as ( p U p eaplnma in polynomial a be H ( := ) U k = = ) p U ( esigns C U ( Z d d i U ) j . sa is ( , d peri h otx of context the in appear set A U U ) ¯ d i p ( j ooi oe.Such modes. bosonic ntr 2-design unitary ( d ) U n o demands now One . ) D ) 2 yeautn ton it evaluating by ∗ dU d = 2 { aibe.We variables. U k } k =1 ,...,K part fit if ical um (1) be or of 2 to st n e e - 2

2. (Twirling of states) For all ρ ( ) ∈B H ⊗ H 1 (U U ) ρ (U U )† (2) K k ⊗ k k ⊗ k UXk∈D = (U U) ρ (U U)†dU. (3) ⊗ ⊗ ZU(d) (a) (b) 3. (Twirling of channels) For any quantum channel Λ 1 FIG. 1: Visualization of the 12-element Clifford 2-design described U †Λ(U ρU †)U (4) in Section IV C. As up to phases SU(2) SO(3), every qubit uni- K k k k k ≃ Uk ∈D tary corresponds to a three-dimensional rotation. The group SO(3), X in turn, can be pictured as a ball with radius π, where antipodes on the = U †Λ(UρU †)UdU. boundary are identiﬁed. This is done by associating to every rotation 3

U(d) by an angle φ [0,π] about the unit-vector nˆ the point φ nˆ Ê . Z ∈ ∈ Figure (a) shows the four Pauli matrices ½,σx,σy,σz in this rep- The problem has a long history, which is formulated mostly resentation. The non-trivial Pauli operations lie on the boundary of T the ball and hence appear twice: σx, e.g., at (π, 0, 0) . Adding in the second of the three equivalent guises listed above. The ± “twirling” operation originates from invariant theory (where eight further Clifford operations, which correspond to the vertices 2π/√27( 1, 1, 1)T of a cube, we arrive at the 2-design pictured it is sometimes called “transfer homomorphism”) and has, to ± ± ± our knowledge, first been introduced to quantum information in Figure (b). theory in Ref. [17], giving rise to the concept of a “Werner state”. Later, it was noted that in d =2 (i.e., for single qubits), it suffices to average over a finite set of unitaries [18]. A unitary designs. The frame potential is a simple poly- construction for general dimensions – employing non-evenly nomial expression in the matrix elements, which is min- weighted unitaries – appeared in Ref. [19]. DiVincenzo et al. imized exactly for designs. This criterion even allows [13] realized that the Clifford group [20, 23] for qubit systems for numerical searches in spaces of small dimensions. exhibits the property given in Eq. (2); a fact which was later generalized to systems of prime-power dimensions by Chau 4. Can one find designs among matrix groups? Section III [12]. Similar ideas appeared in Ref. [21]. A first concise treats this special case. It turns out that the theory is treatment was given in a master thesis by Dankert [1] (where especially clear when one restricts attention to groups. the term of a unitary t-design has been coined) and in a later The frame potential will be re-interpreted in terms of paper by Dankert et al. [2]. In these publications, the equiva- basic character theory. lence of the criteria in Definition 1 has been made explicit and the question of how to efficiently implement the unitaries of 5. Is it possible to explicitly construct approximate unitary certain designs was addressed. designs? In Section IVB we give an explicit construc- Despite the large amount of interest paid to the problem, tion for turning mutually unbiased bases (MUBs) into the following natural questions have been left open and will unitary matrices which asymptotically approximate 2- partly be answered in this paper: designs. More precisely, the prescription yields a set of unitaries for every prime-power dimension d. These 1. In which dimensions do unitary 2-designs exist and sets approximate 2-designs as d . Also, the car- when can they be explicitly constructed? While we do dinality of such asymptotic designs→is ∞ of the same order not have a general answer to this question, a host of as the lower bound derived earlier. examples is provided in Sections III and IVC. [Note

d d 2 C added in revised version: After this article had been 6. The set of operators (C ) on form a d - submitted, A. Scott made us aware of Ref. [45]. This dimensional Hilbert space.B What is the connection be- extremely general paper proves – among other things tween the unitary designs in U(d) and spherical designs – the existence of unitary designs for every t and d (it d2 in C ? The relation can be made rather explicit in does not provide an explicitly way for constructing the terms of the Jamiołkowski isomorphism and the frame designs). Thus, the question posed above can partly be potential. Both spherical and unitary designs corre- answered afﬁrmatively.] spond to minima of the potential – yet under different 2. What is the minimal number of elements needed for a constraints. This statement is made precise in Section 2-design? See Section IIC for a lower bound, which IIB. we conjecture to be tight in leading order. 7. What about more general concepts such as t-designs for 3. Is there an easy criterion to decide whether a given set t > 2 or substituting U(d) by other groups? We will of matrices constitutes a design? This question is an- discuss this general scenario in Section VA and present swered afﬁrmatively in Section II B. We transfer the an example of a qubit 5-design. concept of a frame potential [3, 31] from spherical to 3

II. GENERAL THEORY B. The frame potential

A. Preliminaries The various -quantifiers in Definition 1 make it hard to identify a given∀ set of matrices as a design. Any exploration In this section we are going to derive a simple criterion for of this structure would thus greatly benefit from a simple cri- identifying 2-designs as well as lower bounds for the number terion for the property of “being a design”. Indeed, for the of elements K they need to contain. Before stating these re- case of spherical designs such a tool is well-known (see Ref. sults, let us shortly recall some general facts about twirling [3] and references therein): a set of vectors ψ1 ,..., ψK d {| i | i} channels and completely positive maps which will be needed is a spherical 2-design in C if and only if in the sequel. 4 2 4 2 Let Ug g∈G be a unitary representation of some group G ψk ψk′ /K =2/(d + d ). (9) { } ′ |h | i| on a Hilbert space . The twirling channel induced by G and Xk,k the representation UH is g The expression on the left-hand side has been linked in Ref. [5] to a concept which appeared in the context of frame theory † T (A)= UgAUg dg, (5) in an equally insightful and enjoyable paper by Benedetto and Zg Fickus [31]. The authors considered a physical model to in- where dg stands for the Haar measure of the group G. De- troduce a notion of “evenly distributed” vectors: if we assume note the projection operators onto the irreducible subspaces that K particles on the unit-sphere with respective coordinates 2 of U by P . For simplicity we assume that the repre- ψk are subject to a repulsive force proportionalto ψk ψk′ , g g i i | i h | i sentation{ } is a{ direct} sum of inequivalent irreducible ones (see then the left-hand-side of Eq. (9) gives the potential of the Appendix VIIIA for the general case). By Schur’s Lemma configuration. Consequently, the quantity is referred to as the 4 2 T (A)= A if and only if A is a linear combination of the Pi’s. (spherical) frame potential [46]. It turns out that 2/(d +d ) is ′ the lowest value the frame potential can possibly attain and so Indeed, setting Pi := Pi/tr Pi, one easily checks that there is a one-one correspondence between global minimizers ′ of the frame energy and spherical 2-designs. T (A)= tr(Pi A)Pi. (6) i Our first result transfers this nice concept to the setting of X unitary designs.

d d C Setting = C , G = U(d) represented as U H ⊗ 7→ Theorem 2 (Frame potential). Let = Uk k=1,...,K be a U U, we arrive at the UU-twirling channel TUU defined ⊗ set of unitaries. Define the frame potentialD {of } to be in Eq. (3), which has played a prominent role in quantum D information theory. In order to identify the irreducible sub- † 4 2 ( )= tr U Uk′ /K . (10) spaces, define the flip operator F which acts by permuting P D | k | Uk ,Uk′ ∈D the tensor factors: F i j = j i . Its eigenspaces are X the sets of symmetric|andi ⊗anti-symmetric | i | i ⊗ | ivectors respectively. The set is a unitary 2-design if and only if ( )=2, which The projection operators onto these spaces will be denoted

is a lowerD bound to the global minimum of theP potential.D

F ½ F by P = (½ + )/2 and P = ( )/2. We have that S A − dim PS = d(d + 1)/2 and dim PA = d(d 1)/2. Theorem 2 allows us to discuss the connection between − Moving on, we recall the well-known correspondence be- unitary and spherical designs quite explicitly. Recall that

d d C tween completely positive maps (cp maps) sending ( ) the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product on (C ) is deﬁned as

d d d B → † B

C C (C ) and states on . Let Λ be such a map. Choose A B HS := tr(A B)/d. In the spirit of the Jamiołkowski

B d ⊗ d h | i d C a basis i i in C and let Ψ := i i i be an (un- map, we can establish an isomorphism between ( ) as a

{| i} | i | i ⊗d | i d d d B

C C C normalized) maximally entangled vector in C . The vector space and . Explicitly, we map U to vU object P ⊗ where ⊗ | i

ij i √ (11) C := (½ Λ) Ψ Ψ = i j Λ( i j ) (7) vU = U j / d. Λ ⊗ | ih | | ih |⊗ | ih | i,j X Here, we have used the notation vij = ( i j ) v and i h | ⊗ h | | i is called the Choi matrix of Λ. It is also known as the process U j = i U j for the respective matrix elements [47]. One h | | i matrix and the correspondencein Eq. (7) goes by the name of checks that vU is a normalized maximally entangled vector | i Jamiołkowski isomorphism. The name is justiﬁed as Λ CΛ if and only if U is unitary. Hence, we can re-phrase Theorem is invertible: 7→ 2 as: is a unitary 2-design if and only if D 4 2 4 Λ( i j )= i 1 CΛ j 1. (8) v v /K =2/d , (12) | ih | h | | i |h Uk | Uk′ i| Uk ,UXk′ ∈D In what follows, we will write TD for the channel induced by a set of unitaries via Eq. (2) and denote the correspond- which is the global minimum of the spherical frame potential D ing Choi matrix by CD. Likewise, CUU designates the Choi for K maximally entangled vectors. Note the close similarity matrix of TUU . to Eq. (9). 4

The relation between unitary designs in U(d) and spheri- Lastly:

d d C cal designs in C now becomes apparent: both corre- ⊗ † spond to minima of the frame potential, yet under different tr(CDCD) constraints. For spherical designs the minimum is taken in the −2 ⊗2 † ⊗2 ⊗2 † ⊗2 = K tr U j i (U ) U ′ i j (U ′ ) set of all normalized vectors; whereas in the unitary case one k | ih | k k | ih | k i,j ′ demands that the vectors are also maximally entangled. X Xk,k −2 † 4 Theorem 2 also facilitates numerical searches for designs = K tr U U ′ = (D). | k k | P on low dimensional spaces. Indeed, the authors have written a k,k′ program for the MatLab computer system, which numerically X 2 minimizes the frame potential of a set of operators on C . If The claim is now immediate. the set has K 12 elements, a multitude of unitary 2-designs is found, while≥ there seem to be no solutions for K < 12. For the construction of approximate unitary designs in Sec- These ﬁndings support Conjecture 4. tion IVB, we record the following corollary. Proof. (of Theorem 2) Using the notation introduced in Sec- Corollary 3. Let be a set of unitary matrices, CUU and CD as deﬁned in SectionD IIA. Then tion II A, let ∆ := CD CUU . Obviously, is a 2-design if 2 − 2 D and only if ∆ 2 := tr ∆ =0. We compute 2 || || | | CUU CD = ( ) 2. || − ||2 P D − tr(∆†∆) = tr(C† C C† C C† C + C† C ) UU UU − UU D − D UU D D and treat the terms in turn. To that end introduce a basis i C. Alowerbound

d d {| i} C in C such that the first ds := dim PS = d(d + 1)/2 vectors⊗ are symmetric and the last d := dim P = d(d Intuitively it is clear that constructing unitary designs be- a A − 1)/2 ones anti-symmetric with respect to F. In the formulas comes more challenging the fewer elements K one allows for below, we will sometimes write iS or iA to indicate the (c.f. Theorem 6.6). This section is devoted to finding a lower subset a given vector belongs to.| Notei | thati the vector Ψ bound for K as a function of the dimension d. | i introduced in Section IIA can be written as Ψ = iS What is the situation to date? Before the present paper, | i is | i⊗ iS + iA iA . One then finds all known families of 2-designs were subgroups of the Clif- | i iA | i ⊗ | i P ford group d in prime-power dimensions d. In the context P ′ of quantumC information, the Clifford group is the set of uni- CUU = iS jS tr( iS jS PS)P + S A | ih |⊗ | ih | S ↔ taries mapping the set of Weyl operators (also known as: gen- iS ,jS X eralized Pauli operators) to itself under conjugation [20]. An = P P ′ + P P ′ . A ⊗ A S ⊗ S introduction into this theory will be given in Section IV C, We have used the abbreviation S A to denote the term where all claims made in this paragraph will be elaborated which follows from the preceding one↔ by a straight-forward on. References [1, 2, 13, 21] use the fact that the full Clifford group constitutes a 2-design. However, as the cardinal- substitution of symmetric by anti-symmetric expressions, and Cd ′ ′ ity of d grows exponentially in d (c.f. Eq. (50)), one might as before P = PS/ tr PS , P = PA/ tr PA. Further: S A hope forC the existence of more optimal designs. Fortunately, in Ref. [12] it has been realized that a particular subgroup of ⊗2 † ⊗2 CD = i j Uk i j (Uk ) /K . the Clifford group already possesses the 2-design property. | ih |⊗ | ih | 5 i,j k ! The group’s order scales as O(d ). What is more, the exis- X X tence of Clifford 2-designs with d2(d2 1) = O(d4) elements Hence, has been established for several dimensions− [12]. As will be 2 2 † −2 −2 explained in Section IV C, d (d 1) is in fact the smallest tr(C CUU ) = d tr(PS PS)+ d tr(PA PA)=2 − UU S ⊗ A ⊗ value a design based on the Clifford group can possibly have and and that value will subsequently be referred to as the Clifford bound. For various reasons to be explained later, we believe † this to be a general lower bound for the cardinality of any tr(CUU CD) 2-design, even for constructions which are not based on the = K−1 tr(P i j ) tr P ′ U ⊗2 i j (U †)⊗2 Clifford group. S | ih | S k | ih | k i,j ! X Xk Conjecture 4. The Clifford bound +S A ↔ d4 d2 (13) = K−1 tr U ⊗2P ′ i i (U †)⊗2 + S A − k S | Sih S| k ↔ i ! XS Xk is a lower bound for the cardinality of any unitary 2-design. = tr(P ′ i i )+ S A S | Sih S | ↔ While we were not able to provethis conjecture,an estimate i XS which equals the Clifford boundin leading order is established † = 2 = tr(CDCUU ). below. 5

Theorem 5 (Lower bound on K). A unitary 2-design in di- III. GROUP DESIGNS mension d has no fewer than d4 2d2 +2 (14) When searching for unitary designs, it might prove helpful − to assume some additional structure in order to narrow down elements. the search space and simplify the proofs. Indeed, sets of uni-

d d 4 tary matrices appear most naturally as representations of finite C Note that a spherical 2-design in C has at least d elements – so the slightly higher frame potential⊗ characteristic groups and (except for our numerical findings), all known de- for unitary 2-designs might allow one to save a few elements signs are matrix groups. It will turn out that the concept of as compared to spherical 2-designs. unitary designs has a very natural interpretation in terms of representation theory. Proof. We follow an idea from Ref. [5]. Let v := U | U i ⊗ ½ v for some maximally entangled vector v . Define a | 0i | 0i homogeneous polynomial p of degree 2, 2 in U by A. Irreducible constituents

p(U) := vU A vU tr( vU vU B). (15) h | | i | ih | We will be concerned with sets of unitaries which form Certainly, Eq. (1) holds and hence, as A and B are arbitrary, d D a finite matrix group on C . It will prove convenient to con- the relation ceive as the image of a representation U : g U of D 7→ g v A v v v /K (16) some finite group G. Recalling the notions of Section II A, it h U | | U i | U ih U | U∈D is clear that the channel TD is nothing but the twirling chan- X nel associated with the representation U. By Eq. (5), TD will = v A v v v dU =: Λ(A) project onto the irreducible subspaces of this representation. h U | | U i | U ih U | Z As any operator of the form Ug Ug commutes with the flip ⊗ must hold and defines a channel A Λ(A). We want to operator F, we know that the symmetric and anti-symmetric

7→ d d C compute the kernel of Λ. subspaces of C will be among the invariant subspaces ⊗

The channel Λ is clearly U ½-covariant: of Ug Ug g G . In general, these spaces are not going ⊗ { ⊗ | ∈ }

† † to be irreducible. We now see what makes representations U

½ ½ ½ Λ((U ½)A(U ) ) = (U ) Λ(A) (U ) . (17) which induce a 2-design special: T = T (and hence ⊗ ⊗ ⊗ ⊗ D UU D is a design) if and only if the representation g Ug Ug has But because for any maximally entangled state (½ V ) v = 7→ ⊗

′ ′ ⊗ | i exactly two irreducible components. ½ (V ½) v for some V , Λ is also V and hence even U ⊗V -covariant,| i for all unitaries U, V⊗. Invoking Schur’s Simple as this observation may be, it must not be underes- Lemma⊗ one concludes that Λ must be a mixture of projec- timated: it allows us to understand designs from a group the- tions onto the U V -invariant subspaces of ( ). What are oretical point of view. The next section will further elaborate these spaces? Let⊗ us ﬁrst identify the irreducibleB H components on this approach. † of U U . The multiples of the identity (M1 for short) clearly form· an irreducible component by themselves. Its comple- ment is the space of trace-less operators (M ). Now, U U † B. Characters 2 · must act irreducibly on M2, because there exists bases of mutually conjugate trace-less operators [48]. Let us devote one paragraph to recall some very basic no- Surely then, M M (multiples of the identity), M

1 ⊗ 1 1 ⊗ tions and results from representation theory [29]. To every ½ M2,M2 M1 (the local observablesof the form ½ X,X ) unitary representation of a ﬁnite group, one ⊗ † †⊗ ⊗ U : g Ug and M2 M2 are invariant under U V U V . A moment 7→ ⊗ ⊗ · ⊗ associates its character ζ(g) = tr Ug. One says that the rep- of thought reveals that they are irreducible (think of cyclic resentation affords ζ. Denote the irreducible representations vectors). Clearly, M1 M1 has no non-trivial intersection (i) ⊗ (irreps)of G by V i and their associated irreducible char- with ker(Λ), while M1 M2,M2 M1 ker(Λ). What { } ⊗ ⊗ ⊂ acters by χi . One introduces a scalar product between char- about M2 M2? Because of Λ’s structure, either any element acters by setting{ } ⊗ † of M2 M2 is in the kernel or else, none is. Setting B = A and evaluating⊗ Eq. (15) we see that ζ,χ := G −1 ζ¯(g)χ(g). (19) h i | | p(U)= v A v 2 0, (18) g |h U | | U i| ≥ X so Λ(A) = 0 if and only if v A v = 0 for all maxi- It is a well-known and fundamental relation that the irre- h | | i mally entangled vectors v . To conclude that M2 M2 has ducible characters are ortho-normal: . The | i ⊗ χi,χj = δi,j no intersection with kerΛ, we only need to assure the exis- fact that any representation reduces toh a directi sum of irreps tence of a single traceless observable X and a single maxi- means that any character can be expanded in terms of the ir- mally entangled state v such that v X X v = 0, which reducible ones and further that ζ,χi gives the number of | i h | ⊗4 | i 6 h i is trivially possible. Hence rankΛ = d dim ker Λ = times ni the i-th irrep occurs in the decomposition of the 4 −4 2 d dim(M1 M2) dim(M2 M1) = d 2(d 1). representation affording ζ. Finally, if ζ = n χ , then − ⊗ − ⊗ − − i i i But the rank of Λ cannot be larger than K, by Eq. (16). ζ 2 = ζ, ζ = n2. || || h i i i P P 6

Now, let ,G,U be as in Section IIIA. We compute the 4. The characters frame potentialD of : D 2 2 χS(g) := (χ(g) + χ(g ))/2, 4 2 2 2 ( ) = tr Ug−1g′ / G (20) χA(g) := (χ(g) χ(g ))/2 P D ′ | | | | − Xg,g = tr U 4/ G | g| | | g are irreducible. X = (tr U U )(tr U U )/ G g ⊗ g g ⊗ g | | Further: g X 2 = ζU (2) , ζU (2) = ζU (2) , 5. The cardinality K = U is a multiple of d and h i || || 1/2d(d 1). |D | 2 ± where ζU (2) (g) = tr(Ug Ug) = ζU (g) is the character of ⊗ d (2) 6. Let be a finite group represented on C by V. If the representation U : g Ug Ug. In other words, the H frame potential of a group design7→ is⊗ the squared norm of the Vh h H Ug g G then ( V ) ( U ). { | ∈ }⊃{ | ∈ } F D ≤F D character of U (2). We can now rederive Theorem 2. By this section’s first 7. The frame potential of a matrix group is an integer. 2 2 paragraph, ζU (2) = i ni , which equals 2 if and only (2) || || 8. A necessary condition for to be a 2-design is that U if U has exactly two irreducible components. This in turn DU is equivalent to U inducingP a 2-design, as has been shown in is irreducible. Section IIIA. Note how much the group structure simplified the proof. 9. For d > 2, there are no real-valued group representations which form a 2-design. It seems remarkable that the frame potential offers a very natural interpretation in terms of two completely unrelated Statement 5 can be used in conjunction with Section IIC structures: from the point of view of frame theory, it is a to derive bounds on K. For example, for d = 2, it holds purely geometrically motivated measure for the “eveness” of a that K 10 by Theorem 5. But we now know that K must distribution. In terms of group representation theory, it seem- be divisible≥ by 2 and 3, so that K 12. As unitary group lessly takes on an algebraic role. designs of order 12 in dimension 2 do≥ indeed exist, we know that the bound is tight. Unfortunately, this is the only case where we can make lower and upper bounds match. Note C. General results and properties also, that 12 is the value predicted by the Clifford bound for d =2, supporting our conjecture. The 6-th point says that “supergroups have lower frame po- Consider a group design = Ug g G . The cen- ter (U) of U are the elementsD of{ which| ∈ commute} with tential than their subgroups”. Again, it is clear that construct- Z D ing designs is easier, the more elementsone allows for. In gen- any Uh. By Schur’s Lemma, if U is irreducible, we have that eral, however, just adding further unitaries to an “almost de- Ug (U) Ug ½. Now choose one representative of each∈ coset Z /⇔ (U) ∝and assemble these unitaries in a set ′ sign” is not going to improve the potential. For group-designs ( ′ is calledD aZtransversal of / (U)). Using Eq. (2), oneD the situation is different, as we now know. seesD that D′ is a 2-design of cardinalityD Z / (U) . From Lastly, statement 7 says that the frame potential of matrix now on, we will restrict attention to such|D| reduced|Z sets.| Con- group is “quantized”. In that sense, there are no “approximate sequently, for any representation U of G, we will define U group designs”. to be a transversal of U g G / (U) and refer to Das { g | ∈ } Z DU the group design induced by U. Proof. The equivalence 1. 2. 3. has been established Using this definition, let us collect and extend the results on in the discussion preceding⇔ the theorem.⇔ Claim 4. is equiv- 2 group designs in the following theorem. alent to 2., as χ = χS + χA. The fifth statement follows from a well-known theorem in representation theory (see Ref. Theorem 6 (Group designs). Let G be a finite group and U a [29]). Point 6. holds true as the number of irreducible com- d unitary representation of G on C affording the character ζ. ponents cannot decrease when passing from a subgroup to a The following are equivalent: supergroup. Claims 7. and 8. should be obvious. Lastly, 9. is valid because for real ζU 1. The set U is a 2-design. D ¯ 1= ζU , ζU = ζU ζU , 1G = ζU (2) , 1G , 2. The representation U (2) : g U U has no more h i h i h i 7→ g ⊗ g than two irreducible components. where 1G : g 1 is the trivial representation. Hence, 1G is a one-dimensional7→ irreducible component of U (2). But for 2 3. It holds that ζ (2) =2. d> 2 we have that ds, da =1. || U || 6 7

D. Harvesting character tables a systematical reassessment of what is already known. Indeed, reading the literature, one gets the impression that some con- The results of Section IIIB enable us to identify designs fusion has arisen due to the fact that several distinct Clifford by just looking at character tables of finite groups. Such ta- groups exist. The one used in Refs. [1, 2, 13, 21] is differ- bles have been the subject to intensive research and are digi- ent from the one in Ref. [12]. Going on, we will review a tally available. We have employed the freely available GAP construction by Chau, which meets the Clifford bound in di- computer system [32] to search the GAP Character Table Li- mensions 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, and outline a way for circumventing a brary version 1.1 [33] for unitary designs. Some findings are no-go theorem which asserts that for any other dimension the compiled in Table I. For each dimension d in which a uni- bound cannot be met. In particular, for d = 9, we present a tary design has been found, one example is included in the subgroup of the Clifford group which is a 2-design of smaller table. To access the listed character tables, pass the name to cardinality than Ref. [12] seems to suggest is possible. CharacterTableFromLibrary(). The column “Irred. Before presenting these results in detail, the reader must en- character no.” gives the position of the design within the list of dure the tour-de-force of technical preparations given in Sec- irreducible characters returned by the Irr() -function. E.g., tion IVA. It is a peculiarity of the theory to be presented that the dialog it works much more smoothly in odd dimensions d than in even ones. While it can be checked that all results in the next gap> t:=CharacterTableFromLibrary("J4");; section also hold for the qubit case, the proofs are given only gap> chr:=Irr(t)[2];; for the case of odd d. gap> Degree(chr); 1333 gap> Norm(chr*chr); A. Introduction 2 gap> This section contains a very brief outline of the general the- confirms that the last item in Table I does indeed belong to a ory. See Ref. [25, 26] and references therein for a more de- unitary group design in dimension 1333. tailed exposition.

IV. PHASE SPACE TECHNIQUES 1. Weyl operators, the Jacobi group & the Clifford group

The title phase space techniques refers to any method em- Let us first gather some well-known facts on finite fields ploying the realted concepts of Weyl operators (also known as [28]. If p is prime and r a positive integer, Fpm denotes the m

generalized Pauli operators), stabilizer states and the Clifford unique ﬁnite ﬁeld of order p . The simplest case occurs for Z group. These structures have played a central role in the the- m = 1, when Fp p, i.e., the set of integers modulo p. m ≃ Now set d = p and choose an r Æ. Out of the base

ory of both spherical and group designs [2, 5, 10, 12, 13]. As ∈ F the following paragraphs require some rather technical prepa- field B := Fd, one can obtain the fields dr by means of rations, we state a summary of the results at this point. a field extension. Extension fields contain the base field as In Section IV B asymptotic unitary designs will be con- a subset. The extension field possesses the structure of an r- structed. By this, we understand a family of sets of uni- dimensionalvectorspace overthe base field. A set of elements of is a basis if it spans the entire field under addition and taries d, such that the matrices in d are d-dimensional and F lim D ( )=2. The intuitionD behind the construction B-multiplication. The operation d→∞ P Dd is as follows: in Section II B, we discussed the relation be- r−1 d k tween the frame potential of operators on C and vectors in d TrF/B f = f d2 C . Hence it is natural to ask whether one can exploit this k=0 relation to turn spherical designs into unitary ones. Obviously, X in order to obtain unitary matrices, we must require the vec- takes on values in the base field and is B-linear. Therefore, tors in the spherical design to be maximally entangled. Recall f,g Tr (fg) that a maximal set of MUBs is a 2-design and, moreover, that h i 7→ F/B such sets can be chosen to consist of stabilizer states [10]. For defines a B-bilinear form. For any basis bi , there exists i { } i bi-partite systems, where each party has prime dimension, it a dual basis b fulfilling the relation TrF/B (b bj ) = δi,j is known that stabilizer states are either maximally entangled (we do not use{ Einstein’s} summation convention). Clearly, if or not entangled at all [30]. It is thus reasonable to assume i f F can be expanded as f = i f bi, with coefficients i ∈ i that among the elements of a maximal set of MUBs, there are f B, then duality implies that f = Tr(fbi). “enough” maximally entangled ones to yield a set of unitaries We∈ will work in the d := pm-dimensionalP Hilbert space

d F with a low frame potential. Fortunately, this intuition turns C spanned by the vectors a a d . Deﬁne a 4 H ≃ {| 2iπ | ∈ }

out to be true and we will ﬁnd sets of O(d ) unitaries in di- F F character of d by χd(a) := exp(i TrF m / (a)). The n p p p mension d = p , which approximate a 2-design as d . relations Secondly, in Section IV C, we will revisit the technique→ ∞ of Clifford twirling. Our main contribution to the theory will be xˆ (q) x = x + q , zˆ (p) x = χ (px) x (21) d | i | i d | i d | i 8 deﬁne the shift and boost operators respectively. The Weyl Proposition 7. Let ps be a power of a prime. Let n

Jp,s Cp,s F is defined as V := Fd d. We introduce the standard symplectic inner product on×V by For the construction in Section IVB, it will be necessary to understand Eq. (28) in more detail. Indeed, it has been ′ p p n , := pq′ qp′. (23) realized before [25, 26, 27] that the Weyl operators in p ,1 q q′ − can be written as tensor products of those in . InW what Wp,n T follows, we will refine this picture. For elements a = (p, q) of V , we set wd(a) := wd(p, q). m Let d = p be a power of a prime, let B = Fd. Let Denote by d := wd(a) a V the collection of all Weyl F = F n be an extension field of B. In F , choose a basis operators. TheW commutation{ | relations∈ } d b over B. Denote the dual basis by bi . Having { i}i=1...n { }i wd(a)wd(b)= χd([a,b])wd(b)wd(a), (24) general relativity conventions in mind, we will adopt the following notation: for an element f F , we denote its expan- ∈ i can be checked to hold. sion coefficients with respect to bi by f and the coefficients

Let S be a symplectic 2 2 matrix with entries in Fd. There for the dual bases by : × fi exists a unitary operator µd(S) deﬁned via † f = f ib = f bi. (30) µd(S) wd(a) µd(S) = wd(Sa) (25) i i i i X X for all a V . We will call µd(S) the metaplectic representa-

∈ dn d ⊗n C tion of S. Up to phase factors, the set of unitaries of the form The Weyl operators in act on = C ( ) , Wd,1 H ≃ µd(S) wd(a) constitute a group, which will be referred to as where we choose the isomorphism to be implemented by the Jacobi group d. J 1 n 1 n The preceding deﬁnition have been made with a single q = q b1 + + q bn q q . (31) d-dimensional particle in mind. We now consider the sit- | i | · · · i 7→ | i⊗···⊗| i uation of n particles, each having d = pm levels. The Lemma 8 (Factoring Weyl operators). Using the notions in-

dn n F Hilbert space becomes C spanned by a a . Let troduced above, the Weyl operators in dn,1 factor as {| i | ∈ d } W p = (p1,...,pn), q = (q1,...,qn). We deﬁne the Weyl oper- 1 n ators as w n (p, q)= w (p , q ) w (p , q ). (32) d d 1 ⊗···⊗ d n wd,n(p, q)= wd(p1, q1) wd(pn, qn). (26) ⊗···⊗ Proof. Denote the common prime ﬁeld Fp of B and F as P .

n n F In this case, the phase space is set to be V = F and It is well-known [28] that TrB/P TrF/B = TrF/P . Hence d d ◦ Eqs. (23,24) continue to make sense if we perceive× products n i j i between elements of p, q Fd as a canonical scalar product: χF (pq) = χB pj q TrF/B (bib ) = χB(piq ). n ∈ pq = i piqi. In complete analogy to the n = 1 case, one i,j i ﬁnds that for any symplectic 2n 2n matrix S with entries in X Y P × Fd, there exists an operator µd,n(S) such that Similarly,

† µd,n(S) wd,n(a) µd,n(S) = wd,n(Sa) (27) xˆ qib xj b = (qi + xi)b F i | ji | ii holds for all a V . Denote the set of Weyl operators ac- i j i ∈ X X X cording to Eq. (26) by d,n and the Jacobi group spanned by = xˆ (qi) xi , W B | i wd,n(a)µd,n(S) a,S by d,n. i { For a Hilbert space} ofJ prime-power dimension ps, we can O zˆ p bi xj b = χ (p xi) xj b now construct an entire family of different Weyl operators and F i | ji B i | ji i j i j Jacobi groups. Indeed, for any n,m such that nm = s, the X X Y X s i Weyl operators wpm,n are p dimensional. Prominent choices = zˆ (p ) x . B i | i include n = 1,m = s (used in Ref. [12]) and n = s,m = 1 i (usedinRefs. [2, 13, 21]). It will turnoutthat all definitionsof O the Weyl operators coincide, while the various Jacobi groups Using Eq. (22), the claim follows. differ. Proposition 7 makes these remarks precise. In order to state it, we need one final definition: the Clifford group Proof. (of Proposition 7) Eq. (28) follows from the previous Cp,n is the set of unitaries mapping the set onto itself under lemma. Saying that p,r = p,r is just rephrasing the defini- p,n J C conjugation. This definition reflects theW general use of word tion of the Clifford group. For Eq. (29) the reader is deferred Clifford group in quantum information theory [23]. to Refs. [25, 26]. 9

2. Stabilizer states (a) 2π states. Further, set ζb (λva) := ζb(λ) := exp(i p Tr(bλ)). (a) Each ζb is easily seen to be a character of Ma. Now deﬁne Using the commutation relations Eq. (24) it is immediate the stabilizer states that to Weyl operators w(a), w(b) commute if and only if (a) −1 [a,b]=0. Now consider the image of an entire subspace := d ζb(λ) w(λva). (38) Bb M of V under w: Xλ We claim that these states constitute a set of MUBs. Indeed w(M)= w(m) m M . ′ { | ∈ } (a) (a ) −2 ′ ′ ′ tr b b′ = d ζb(λ)ζb′ (λ ) tr w(λva + λ va) The latter set consists of commuting operators if for all B B ′ Xλλ m1,m2 M, the symplectic inner product vanishes: −1 ′ ′ ′ ′ ∈ = d ζb(λ)ζb (λ )δλva,λ v (39) [m1,m2]=0. If that condition is fulﬁlled, w(M) is called a ′ a stabilizer group. Consider the operator Xλλ Now if a = a′ then Eq. (39) reduces to ρ := w(m)/ M . (33) M ′ | | (a) (a ) −1 2π ′ m∈M tr ′ = d exp i Tr(λ(b b )) X Bb Bb p − λ One checks that X = δb,b′ (40)

tr ρM = tr w(m)/ M (34) while for ′ we use the property of the finite plane 2 | | a = a F m 6 X that the two lines Ma and Ma′ intersect exactly at λ = 0 to = dδm,0/ M = d/ M . conclude | | | | ′ m (a) (a ) −1 −1 X tr ′ = d ζ (0)ζ ′ (0) = d . (41) Bb Bb b b and, using the fact that M is a linear space, Hence, for a fixed a, the set (a) forms a basis and all {Bb }b −2 ′ d bases corresponding to different values of a are mutually ρM ρM = M w(m + m ) (35) | | unbiased. The computational basis corresponds to the set m,m′ T X M∞ = λ(1, 0) λ F . Repeating the reasoning em- −1 { | ∈ } = M w(m)= ρM . ployed above, one finds that it is unbiased with respect to all | | m X the other ones; hence, we have constructed a maximal set of d +1 MUBs. Hence, if M = d, then ρM = ψM ψM is a rank-one projector and| | ψ is called the stabilizer| ih state| associated | M i with M. The preceding definition can be extended: choose B. Asymptotic designs from MUBs a character ζ of M (i.e., a function M C such that ζ(m + m )= ζ(m )ζ(m )) and set → 1 2 1 2 This section revolves around the following definition.

ρ := ζ(m)w(m)/ M . (36) Definition 9 (Asymptotic 2-designs). Let I Æ be an index M,ζ | | ⊂ m set. A family of sets of unitaries , d I is an asymptotic X Dd ∈ 2-design if the matrices in d are d-dimensional and The calculations Eqns. (34,35) can be repeated and one finds D that also ρM,ζ projects onto a vector, which will be denoted lim ( d)=2. (42) d→∞ P D by ψM,ζ . | i A priori, it is not clear that this definition has any physical relevance. After all, it is conceivable that, even though 3. Mutually unbiased bases the frame potential of converges, the -twirling chan- Dd Dd nels TDd do not become close to the UU-twirling channel in We will recall a well-known construction for MUBs [10]. any sensible metric. Indeed, the question of whether asymp- 2 totic designs are “almost as good” as strict ones cannot be Once again, let F = Fpm be a finite field and V = F the associated phase space. Let answered in general, but depends on the application one has in mind. One particular aspect of this question will be illumi- a nated in Lemma 10. We will show that the series of twirling va = ,Ma = λva a F . (37) 1 { | ∈ } channels TDd does converge to TUU in Dpro-norm. The latter norm has been defined in Ref. [35], a well-readable ac- Clearly, Ma is a one-dimensional subspace of V and hence of count of the merits and perils of different metrics for quan- ′ cardinality Ma = F = d. Because the symplectic form is tum channels. Specifically, let Λ and Λ be channels with | | | | ′ ′ ′ anti-symmetric [a,b] = [b,a] it holds for λva, λ va Ma respective Choi matrices C, C . If ∆ = C C , then ′ ′ − ∈ ′ −1 − that [λv , λ v ] = λλ [v , v ]=0 and hence the spaces M Dpro(Λ, Λ ) := d tr ∆ . Some physical interpretations of a a a a a | | fulfill the requirements of the last section and define stabilizer Dpro-convergence are listed in Ref. [35]. 10

Lemma 10. Let be an asymptotic 2-design. Then the - The validity of Theorem 11 implies the existence of asymp- Dd Dd twirling channels TDd converge to TUU in Dpro-norm. totic 2-designs.

Proof. Let CDd , CUU be the usual Choi matrices, let ∆ = Corollary 12 (Existence of asymptotic 2-designs). Let I be CDd CUU . As quantum channels preserve Hermiticity, the the set of prime-power integers. Then there exists an asymp- Choi− matrices and hence ∆ are Hermitian. Let δ be the set i totic 2-design d, for d I. of eigenvalues of ∆. By Corollary 3, we know that{ }tr ∆ 2 D ∈ | | → 2 2 0. Hence, for all i, δi < 1 eventually and therefore, for large Proof. We compute the frame potential of the d (d d) = | | 4 3 − enough d: d d unitaries d which can be constructed via Eq. (11) from− the maximallyD entangled MUB vectors of Theorem 11: −1 −1 2 Dpro(Λd, ΛUU ) = d δi < d δi | | | | ′ i i 4 (a) (a ) 4 2 ( d) = d ψ ψ ′ /K −1 X 2 X b b = d ∆ 0. P D ′ ′ |h | i| || ||2 → Xa,a Xb,b = d4 1 + (d2 d 1)d−2 /K − − 2d4 (d−1 + d−2) The technically non-trivial part of this section is contained = − 2 (d ). in the next theorem. d4 d3 → → ∞ − Theorem 11 (Mutually unbiased bases). Let d = pm be a

d d 2 C power of a prime. Then in = C exist d +1 MUBs of which d2 d bases are maximallyH entangled⊗ and d+1 bases

factor. − C. Clifford designs F Proof. (of Theorem 11) Let B = Fd, F = d2 . Using the notation of Section IVA1, we assume that a basis for F over Let us review the technique employed in Ref. [1, 2, 13] to (a) construct a 2-design. The construction proceeds in two steps. B has been chosen. For a,b F , let b be a projection onto a stabilizer state in , as defined∈ in SectionB IVA3. Hence First one realizes that twirling an operator ρ by Weyl matri- H ces reduces ρ to its “Weyl-diagonal” components (see below). (a) = d−2 ζ(a)(p, q)w (p, q) Secondly, twirling the resulting operator using the metaplectic Bb b F (p,q)∈M unitaries µ(S) “evens out” the coefficients to yield a U U- X a ⊗ −2 (a) 1 2 invariant state. = d ζ (p, q)wB (p1, q ) wB (p2, q ). b ⊗ Denote by TW the Weyl twirl channel [1, 13]: (p,qX)∈Ma −2 † † Defining 2 , we get TW (ρ)= d w(a) w(a) ρ w(a) w(a) . (45) Na = (p, q) Ma p2 = q =0 ⊗ ⊗ { ∈ | } a∈V (a) −1 (a) 1 X tr2 = d ζ (p, q)wB(p1, q ). (43) b b ′ B Expanding ρ = ′ ρb,b′ w(b) w(b ), we compute: (p,qX)∈Na b,b ∈V ⊗ P Clearly, Na is a B-vector space, so it has cardinality Na = TW (ρ) n (a) | | d for some n. If n = 0, then tr2 b equals ½1, so the state −2 † ′ † B = d ρb,b′ w(a)w(b)w(a) w(a)w(b )w(a) was maximally entangled. If n = 1, Eq. (43) is of the form ⊗ a,b,b′ (a) d of Eq. (36) which makes tr2 a pure state on C . Further, X b −2 ′ ′ B (a) = d ρb,b′ w(b) w(b ) χ( [b + b ,a]) n = 2 would imply Na = Ma and hence b = ρ1 ½2 ⊗ − | | | | B ⊗ b,b′ a (a) X X for some density operator ρ1, which is impossible as b is pure. Lastly, n> 2 N > M , which is absurd.B Hence = ρb,−b w(b) w( b). (46) ⇒ | a| | a| ⊗ − any vector in the standard set of MUBs is either a product or Xb else maximally entangled. 2 The final transformation follows from the fact that χ([b, ]) is Now, (aλ, λ) Na if and only if TrF/B(aλe ) = · ∈ a non-trivial character of V for any b =0. 1 1 . Assume TrF/B(λe2)=0 λ = λ1e aλ = (aλ) e1 The Clifford twirl channel [1, 13] is6 given by that ⇔ ∧ e1 (44) TC(ρ) (47) a = b 1 e −1 † n

= F (U U) ρ (U U) for some . Then 1 and hence |J p | ⊗ ⊗ b B λ = λ1e λa = λ1be1 n

U∈JF ∈ ⇒ p Na = d. Conversely, assume that Na = d. Then for all X | | 1 | | −1 † n

λ = λ1e we must have that λa = be1 for some b B. = F (µ(S) µ(S)) T (ρ) (µ(S) µ(S)) , ∈ |J p | ⊗ W ⊗ Solving for a shows that Eq. (44) must hold. Hence among S∈Sp(p,n) 2 X the d bases associated with the sets Ma, there are exactly B = d factoring ones. Taking the computational basis into where Sp(p,n) denotes the group of symplectic matrices on | | 2n account, the assertion becomes immediate. V = Fp . Using the notation and results of Eq. (46), one 11 concludes: V. MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS

TC(ρ) A. Higher orders and general groups = Sp(p,n) −1 ρ w(Sb) w( Sb) | | b,−b ⊗ − b∈V S∈Sp(p,n) We saw in Section IIA that the effect of the twirling chan- X X nel T induced by some group G and a corresponding unitary

= α ½ + β w(b) w( b), (48) ⊗ − representation Ug depends only on the the decomposition of 06=b∈V X Ug into irreducible constituents (see Appendix VIIIA for a where the constants are given by version of Eq. (6) valid for general representations). Based on this observation, the notion of a group design can

α = ρ0,0, β = ρb,−b. (49) easily be generalized: 06=Xb∈V Definition 13 (General group designs). Let be some group of unitary matrices. Then a finite subgroupU of is a - Eq. (48) follows because the symplectic groupacts transitively D U U ♯ group design of order t if the t-th tensor power of has on V := a V a = 0 and hence maps every element of D V ♯ equally{ often∈ to| every6 } other element. It is evident that T the same number of irreducible constituents as the t-th ten- C sor power of . projects onto exactly two subspaces and is hence equal to TUU U by Section III. The most natural setting for applying the above definition Now let G be some subgroup of Sp(p,n) such that G is given by unitary designs = U(d) of higher order t > 2. acts transitively on V ♯. From the above argument it is clear How many irreducible constituentsU do we expect the represen- ⊗t that Tµ(G) TW = TUU and hence that w(v)µ(S) v tation U U to decompose into? The following lemma ◦ { | ∈ V,S G is a unitary 2-design. An obvious choice is to set answers this7→ question by giving the frame potential for uni- ∈ }n G = Sp(p , 1) which is the basis of Ref. [12]. The advantage tary t-designs, at least in two special cases. of going from the multi-particle picture to the single-particle picture is an exponential reduction of the cardinality of the Lemma 14. The frame potential of a unitary t-design in di- design: mension d is given by

n−1 t! for d t, 2 ≥ Sp(p,n) = pn (p2(n−i) 1) (50) | | − ⌊n/2⌋ n!(n−2i+1) 2 i=0 for d =2. Y i=0 i!(n−i+1) 2n2+n 2(log d)2+log d = O(p )= O(d p p ), Once again,P we can search the GAP library for examples. Table III gives an example of a matrix group G in d = 2, Sp(pn, 1) = pn(p2n 1) = O(p3n)= O(d3) (51) whose 5th tensor power decomposes into 42 irreps, the re- | | − quiredvalue for a 5-design. As a matter of fact, G is very close (see Ref. [36] for a derivation). What possibilities are there to being a 6-design: its 6th tensor power has 133 irreducible to further improve the cardinality? Clearly, any group act- components, whereas the full unitary group U(2) decomposes ing transitively on V ♯ must have order k V ♯ = k(d2 1) into only 132 irreps. Note that the matrices in Table III are not for some integer k. The smallest value is| k =| 1 and hence− unitary in the standard basis. However, as is well-known [24], d2(d2 1) gives a lower bound to the number of elements any representation of a finite group is equivalent to a unitary a Clifford− design arising from such a construction can have one: one can easily construct a similarity transformation map- (c.f. Conjecture 4). In Ref. [12] Chau showed that for ping the given matrices to unitaries. d = 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, such minimal subgroups do exist. He goes Proof. (of Lemma 14) The following facts are well-known on to rule out the existence of any subgroup G of Sp(pn, 1) [24]: (i) there is a one-one correspondence between irre- which has cardinality a multiple of V ♯. Hence no reduction ducible components of the t-th tensor power of U(d) and below d2 Sp(d, 1) = d5 d3 seems to be possible in gen- young frames partitioning the integer into no more than eral. | | − t d parts; (ii) the multiplicityF of the irrep belonging to a specific However, the argument leaves open the possibility of find- frame is given by the dimension d of the corresponding ing subgroups G of Sp(p,n) which act transitively on the F irrep ofF . non-zero elements of the vector space and are smaller than St If d t, the restriction “no more than d parts” becomes Sp(pn, 1) . While we do not know if such groups exist in irrelevant.≥ Using the results of Section III B, we find that the |general, we| know of one example for d = 9. In Table II frame potential of a t-design is we list the generators of a transitively acting subgroup G of ♯ Sp(3, 2) of order 160 = 2 V . It yields a Clifford 2-design of d2 = S = t!, cardinality 2(d4 d2) =| 12,| 960, where the design induced F | t| F by Sp(9, 1) has 58−, 230 elements and the one associated with X Sp(3, 2) consists of 4, 199, 040 unitaries. All claims made where the sum is over all young frames with t boxes. The about the generators can easily be tested by a computer alge- second claim follows in a similar fashion, using well-known bra system. formulas for dF (which can be found, e.g., in Ref. [24]). 12

B. Energy-preserving operations as in linear optics energy-preserving interactions have been applied. Haar averages over SpO(d) would constitute a sensible model for such We will briefly comment on a specific representation of the a system (see also Ref. [15]). Let us give a concrete example. Take i as a basis of the unitary group, which plays a prominent role in linear optics. {| i}i General references for the introductory paragraphs are Refs. vector complex space in which the complex moment matrices [16, 37, 38, 39]. The most central mathematical object in the are defined. It is straightforward to see that the mean energy † description of physical systems of d bosonic modes are the of the first mode is given by E = 1 ΩγΩ 1 . The quantity † h | | i creation and anihilation operators ak,ak. Recall that theset of 2 ¯ † ¯ † 2 unitaries on L (Ê) which keep the vector space spanned by ∆E = 1 (U U)ΩγΩ (U U) 1 dU (55) † U(n)h | ⊕ ⊕ | i the ak,a invariant under conjugation form a projective repre- Z k 2 sentation of the real symplectic group Sp(2d). The represen- 1 (U U¯)ΩγΩ†(U U¯)† 1 dU . tation is referred to as the metaplectic representation. Bosonic − U(n)h | ⊕ ⊕ | i systems are often thought about in terms of their phase space Z description, where these metaplectic operations appear in an gives the expected energy fluctuations of the first mode and is especially natural way. directly amenable to evaluation using unitary 2-designs. The maximal compact subgroup of Sp(2d) is given by the Proof (of Proposition 15). The usual isomorphism between intersection of Sp(2d) with the set of orthogonal transforma- elements and elements can be stated tions SpO(2d) := Sp(2d) O(2d). Physically, the elements U U(d) S SpO(2d) as follows: If∈ , then is∈ given by [38, 40] of SpO(2d) correspond to∩ energy-preserving or passive op- U = X + iY S erations. These operations are exactly the ones which are X Y S(U)= . (56) easily accessible in the laboratory using passive linear optical Y X elements (phase shifts and beam splitters, but no squeezers, − which correspond to elements in Sp(2d) which are not con- Setting tained in O(2d)). It is a well-known fact that SpO(2d)

≃ ½ U(d), which might trigger some hope that our theory could be ½ i

Ω= /√2, (57) ½ applicable to these systems. However, the metaplectic repre- ½ i sentation is infinite-dimensional and in this work we did not − develop the means to cope with such representations. one finds easily that In an indirect approach, we can, however, nevertheless ex- ΩS(U)Ω−1 = U U.¯ (58) ploit the developed formalism: Fortunately, important prop- ⊕ erties of bosonic quantum states can be described entirely As ¯ is certainly a group t-design if is, the statement fol- in terms of objects on the 2d-dimensional phase space. In- lows.D D deed, define the canonical coordinates or quadrature operators r = (x1,...,xd,p1,...,pd) by C. Random entanglement x := (a + a† )2−1/2, p := i(a† a )2−1/2. (52) k k k k k − k A much-studied object in particular in quantum optics are the Originally posed by Lubkin and later popularized by Page, various second moments of the quadrature operators with re- the following questions has a long history: what is the av- spect to a given state. Assuming that all first moments vanish, erage entanglement of a composite system in a pure state the second moments can be conveniently assembled in a real [15, 41, 42, 43]. One motivation for studying such problems symmetric 2d 2d covariance matrix γ, defined as × is to justify the ad hoc “rule of minimal prejudice” employed k in statistical physics, which states that among the ensembles γ l = 2 (tr(rkrl) + tr(rlrk)) . (53) compatible with macroscopic observables the one maximizing An interaction process preserving the energy would then give the entropy is realized in nature. The problem was originally rise to a map stated in terms of the entropy of entanglement of subsystem γ SγST =: γ′, (54) A: S(ρA)= tr(ρA log ρA), but various other measures, for − 2 2 7→ example the purity tr(ρA) = ρA 2 of ρA can be used. The where S SpO(2d). The following proposition assures that latter quantity has the advantage|| that|| its expectation value unitary designs∈ can be used to tackle problems in this context. Proposition 15 (Averaging over passive operations). Let tr [UρU †] 2dU (59) D⊂ k B k2 U(d) be a unitary group design of order t. The image of in ZU(d) D SpO(2d) under the usual isomorphism is then a SpO(2d)- is a Haar integral of a second-order polynomial and can thus group design of order . t be directly evaluated by averaging over a 2-design (above, ρ A setting that can be studied using designs in this way is the projects onto an arbitrary 2-system state vector ψ ). following: consider a system of d interacting bosons. Hav- Based on this observation, we obtain a simple| answeri to a ing a “microcanonical ensemble” in mind, we might be inter- special case of this problem as a corollary to Theorem 11 (c.f. ested in the expected value of various quantities after random Ref. [44] for a much more general, but much longer proof). 13

Corollary 16 (Average entanglement). Let d be the power of VII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

d d C a prime. The average entanglementof pure states on C , 2 ⊗ as measured by the purity, is 2d/(d + 1). The authors thank O. Dahlsten, M. Müller, and A. Serafini Proof. We choose ρ = 0 0 0 0 and average over the for helpful discussions. Support has been provided by the | ih | ⊗ | ih | DFG (SPP 1116), the EU (QAP), the EPSRC, the QIP-IRC, Clifford group d2,1. The image of 0 0 under the action J | i ⊗ | i Microsoft Research, and the EURYI Award Scheme. of d2,1 constitutes of the bases of Theorem 11. The purity of aJ reduced density matrix of a product state equals 1, for a maximally entangled state it is d−1. We can thus compute the average by counting: VIII. APPENDIX (d2 d)d−1 + (d + 1) 2d − = d2 +1 d2 +1 A. General twirling channels as claimed. Eq. (6) gives an explicit formula for a channel twirling over Note that, while the question of finding the expected entan- an irreducible representation Ug. In this section, we state the glement of a pure state is stated in terms of analysis, we could relation for the general case. So assume that g Ug de- (i) 7→ answer this special case by purely combinatorial means. composes into a set of irreps U , which have dimension di and occur with multiplicity ni respectively. The underlying Hilbert space then decomposes as VI. SUMMARY H

ni = C , (60) In this work, we presented a ﬁrst systematic analysis of the H Hi ⊗ i mathematical structure of unitary designs. We pointed out di M where i = C (see, e.g., Ref. [24]). The representation Ug a connection to group representation theory, gave bounds on itself canH be written as the number of elements of a design, made the relationship to spherical designs explicit, and used this connection to con- (i)

U = U ½ . (61) struct approximate unitary designs. Foremost, the pivotal con- g g ⊗ ni i cept of a frame potential has been explored. Intriguingly, the X

latter quantity appears very naturally in different, seemingly ½ Now set P = ½ . The twirling channel becomes unrelated areas. i Hi ⊗ ni While much insight into the structure of unitary designs has ′ been gained, many questions remain unresolved as interest- TA(ρ)= trHi (Pi ρ)Pi, (62) ing open problems: ﬁnding a systematic way for construct- i X ing designs for any choice of parameters t, d or improving the bounds for their cardinalities, to name just two. as can be checked without difﬁculty.

[1] C. Dankert (MSc thesis, University of Waterloo, 2005), [9] A.J. Scott, quant-ph/0604049. quant-ph/0512217. [10] W.K. Wootters and B.C. Fields, Ann. Phys. 16, 391 (1989); S. [2] C. Dankert, R. Cleve, J. Emerson, and E. Livine, Bandyopadhyay, P.O. Boykin, V. Roychowdhury, and F. Vatan, quant-ph/0606161. Algorithmica, 34, 512 (2002); S. Chaturvedi, Phys. Rev. A 65 [3] H. Koenig, Cubature formulas on spheres, http:// 0044301 (2002). analysis.math.uni-kiel.de/koenig/ [11] C.A. Fuchs and M. Sasaki, Quant. Info. Comp. 3, 377 (2003). preprints.html. [12] H.F. Chau, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 51, 1451 (2005). [4] G. Zauner, Quantendesigns – Grundzüge einer nichtkommu- [13] D. DiVincenzo, D.W. Leung, and B.M. Terhal, IEEE Trans. Inf. tativen Designtheory, supervised by A. Neumaier (Doctoral Theory, 48, 580 (2002). thesis, University of Vienna, 1999). Available online at [14] G. Tóth and J.J. Garcia-Ripoll, quant-ph/0609052. http://www.mat.univice.ac.at/ñeun/papers/ [15] A. Serafini, O.C.O. Dahlsten, and M.B. Plenio, physpapers.html. quant-ph/0610090. A. Serafini, O.C.O. Dahlsten, D. Gross, and [5] J.M. Renes, R. Blume-Kohout, A.J. Scott, and C.M. M.B. Plenio, quant-ph/0701051. Caves, J. Math. Phys. 45, 2171 (2004); D.M. Appleby, [16] J.I. Cirac, J. Eisert, G. Giedke, M. Lewenstein, M.B. Plenio, quant-ph/0412001. R.F. Werner, and M.M. Wolf, text book in preparation. [6] A. Hayashi, T. Hashimoto, and M. Horibe, Phys. Rev. A 72, [17] R.F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A 40, 4277 (1989). 032325 (2005). [18] C.H. Bennett, D.P. DiVincenzo, J.A. Smolin, and W.K. Woot- [7] S. Iblisdir and J. Roland, quant-ph/0410237. ters, Phys. Rev. A. 54, 3824 (1996). [8] A. Klappenecker and M. Rötteler, Proceedings of the IEEE In- [19] W. Dür, J.I. Cirac, M. Lewenstein, and D. Bruss, Phys. Rev. A ternational Symposium on Information Theory, 1740 (2005). 61, 062313 (2000). 14

[20] D. Gottesman, quant-ph/9807006. Hochschule, Aachen, Germany, 2004. [21] W. Dür, M. Hein, J.I. Cirac, and H.-J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. A 72, [34] V. Dabbaghian-Abdoly, J. Symbolic Comput. 39, 671 (2005). 052326 (2005). [35] A. Gilchrist, N. K. Langford, and M. A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. A [22] E. Hostens, J. Dehaene, and B. De Moor, Phys. Rev. A 71, 71, 062310 (2005). 042315 (2005). [36] B. Huppert, Endliche Gruppen (Springer, Berlin, 1967). [23] Be aware that the Clifford group which appears in the context [37] P. Kok, W.J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T.C. Ralph, J.P. Dowling, and of quantum information theory [20] has no connection to the G.J. Milburn, quant-ph/0512071. Clifford group used e.g. in the representation theory of SO(n) [38] Arvind, B. Dutta, N. Mukunda, and R. Simon, Pramana 45, 471 [24]. (1995). [24] B. Simon, Representations of finite and compact groups (Amer- [39] J. Eisert and M.B. Plenio, Int. J. Quant. Inf. 1, 479 (2003). ican Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 1996); [40] M.M. Wolf, J. Eisert, and M.B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, W. Fulton and J. Harris, Representation Theory (Springer, New 047904 (2003). York, 1991). [41] E. Lubkin, J. Math. Phys. 19, 5 (1978), D.N. Page, Phys. Rev. [25] D. Gross, J. Math. Phys. 47, 122107 (2006). Lett. 71, 1291 (1993); S.K. Foong and S. Kanno, Phys. Rev. [26] D. Gross, diploma thesis (University of Potsdam, 2005). Avail- Lett. 72, 1148 (1994). able at http://gross.qipc.org. [42] P. Hayden, D.W. Leung, and A. Winter, Comm. Math. Phys. [27] A. Pittenger and M. Rubin, J. Phys. A 38, 6005 (2005) . 265, 95 (2006). [28] D. Jungnickel, Finite fields (BI-Wiss.-Verl., Mannheim, 1993). [43] O. Dahlsten and M.B. Plenio, Quant. Inf. Comp. 6, 527 (2006). [29] I.M. Issacs, Character Theory of Finite Groups (Academic [44] K. Zyczkowski and H.-J. Sommers, J. Phys. A 34, 7111 (2001). Press, New York, 1976). [45] P.D. Seymour and T. Zaslavsky, Adv. Math. 52, 213 (1984). [30] D. Fattal, T.S. Cubitt, Y. Yamamoto, S. Bravyi, and I.L. Chuang, [46] More precisely, Eq. (9) is the second frame potential [5], the quant-ph/0406168; M. Hein, J. Eisert, and H.J. Briegel, Phys. t-th one being induced by a repulsive force proportional to t Rev. A 69, 062331 (2004); K.M.R. Audenaert and M.B. Plenio, ψk ψk′ . As we will be concerned only with the second po- New J. Phys. 7, 73 (2005). tential,h | wei will drop the attribute from now on. [31] J.J. Benedetto and M. Fickus, Advances in Computational [47] The connection between Eq. (11) and the Jamiołkowski isomor- −2 Mathematics 18, 357 (2003). phism Eq. (7) is given by vU vU = d C · † . | ih | U U [32] The GAP Group, GAP – Groups, Algo- [48] Take e.g. Ai,j = i j + j i , Bi,j = i( i j j i ). For | ih | | ih | | ih | − | ih | rithms, Programming, Version 4.4.7, 2006 i = j, all operators Ai,j , Bi,j have the same set of eigenvalues (\protect\vrulewidth0pthttp://www.gap-system.org 1,6 1, 0, 0,... and are thus mutually conjugate. These opera- ). tors− clearly form a basis in the space of trace-less observables. [33] T. Breuer. Manual for the GAP Character Table Library, Ver- sion 1.1. Lehrstuhl D für Mathematik, Rheinisch Westfälische 15

TABLE I: Some group designs found by the GAP system. The group name and character number refer to the names used by the “ctllib” package [33]. d K K/(d4 d2) Group Irred. character no. − 2 12 1 7ˆ2:(3x2A4) 10 3 72 1 2ˆ3.L3(2) 2 4 1920 8 2.HSM10 29 5 25920 43.2 2ˆ6:U4(2) 2 6 40320 32 6.L3(4).2_1 49 8 20160 5 4_1.L3(4) 19 9 19440 3 3.3ˆ(1+4):2S5 25 10 190080 19.2 2.M12.2 22 11 13685760 942. 6xU5(2) 3 12 448345497600 21772800 6.Suz 153 13 4585351680 161501. 2.S6(3) 2 14 87360 2.29 Sz(8).3 4 18 50232960 480 3.J3 22 21 9196830720 47397. 3.U6(2) 47 26 17971200 39. 2F4(2) 2 28 145926144000 237714. 2.Ru 37 41 65784756654489600 23294225607. S8(3) 2 45 10200960 2.49 M23 3 342 460815505920 34. 3.0N 31 1333 86775571046077562880 27483822. J4 2

TABLE II: Generators of a subgroup G of Sp(3, 2) of order 2(d2 1) = 160. The group G acts transitively on the non-zero elements of the 4 − phase space V = F3 and induces a unitary design, as described in Section IV C.

2220 0210 0200 0110 1000 2000 1220 0002 2000 1002 0200 0200 0 1 , 0 1 , 0 1 , 0 1 , 0 1 , 0 1 1202 1002 2002 0001 0020 0020 B C B C B C B C B C B C B C B C B C B C B C B C B 0011 C B 0200 C B 0120 C B 0010 C B 0001 C B 0002 C @ A @ A @ A @ A @ A @ A

TABLE III: Generators of a matrix group G of order 120. Up to a similarity transformation, the group gives rise to a unitary 5-design with 60

elements. In fact, G is an irreducible representation of SL(2, F5) affording the character X.3 as listed in the GAP character library [33]. The 2π repersentation has been constructed using the “Repsn” package [34]. Below, ω = exp( 15 i).

1 0 ω11 ω14 ω11 ω14 ω ω2 ω4 ω8 2(ω11 ω14) ω6 + ω9 − , − 10− − − 4 , − − − 11− −14 − 5 0 1 ! ω ω ω ! ω + ω ω ! − − − −