text:
# Sharp quantum vs. classical query complexity separations11footnote 1Research partially supported by Canada’s NSERC.

## 1 Introduction

Shor’s algorithm  for factoring integers in polynomial-time on a quantum computer evolved from a series of quantum algorithms in the query model. This model appears to be useful for exploring the computational power of quantum information. In the query model, the input data is embodied in a black-box and the goal is to efficiently deduce some property of the black-box. Efficiency is measured in terms of the number of queries made to the black-box. A secondary measure of efficiency is also considered: the number of auxiliary operations that must be performed to generate the input to the queries and process the output. We will implicitly require that the number of auxiliary operations scales polynomially with the number of bits/qubits input to each query.

The first instance of a quantum algorithm outperforming a classical algorithm in the query model was due to Deutsch , where a quantum algorithm is able to solve a 2-bit query problem with one query (see also ), whereas any classical algorithm for the problem requires two queries. (A $`k`$-bit query is one that takes $`k`$ bits/qubits as input and returns $`k`$ bits/qubits as output.) This was extended by Deutsch and Jozsa , who defined an $`(n+1)`$-bit query problem that can be solved exactly with one query by a quantum algorithm whereas it requires $`\mathrm{\Omega }(2^n)`$ queries to solve exactly classically. In spite of the apparent strength of this separation, the problem is only hard in the classical setting if the algorithm must be exact, meaning that no probability of error is tolerated. A bounded-error algorithm is one that is allowed to err, provided that for any black-box instance its error probability is bounded below some constant smaller than $`1/2`$. There is a classical algorithm that solves the problem in  with bounded error using only $`O(1)`$ queries.

Subsequent work by Bernstein and Vazirani  included an $`(n+1)`$-bit query problem that can be solved exactly with a quantum algorithm making one query, whereas any bounded-error classical algorithm for it requires $`n`$ queries. They also showed that a recursively defined version of this problem results in a $`\mathrm{\Theta }(n)`$-bit query problem whose exact quantum and bounded-error classical query complexities are $`O(n\mathrm{log}n)`$ and $`n^{\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{log}n)}`$, respectively. This was improved by Simon , who gives a fairly simple $`O(n)`$ vs. $`\mathrm{\Omega }(2^{n/2})`$ bounded-error quantum vs. bounded-error classical query separation. Brassard and Høyer  later showed that the problem considered by Simon can in fact be solved exactly in the quantum setting with $`O(n)`$ queries.

When cast in the query model, Shor’s factoring algorithm can be viewed as an extension of Simon’s work—it is a quantum algorithm that solves a $`3n`$-bit query problem with bounded-error with $`O(1)`$ quantum queries, while any classical algorithm for this problem requires $`\mathrm{\Omega }(2^{n/3}/\sqrt{n})`$ queries (the lower bound is proved in ).

What is the sharpest quantum vs. classical query complexity separation possible? For problems that can be solved exactly with a single quantum query, it appears that the maximum classical bounded-error query complexity previously-known for such a problem is $`n`$ . However, if the efficiency and performance of the quantum algorithm are relaxed to allow $`O(1)`$ queries and a bounded-error result then there is a problem whose classical bounded-error query complexity is exponential .

Presently, we show that the best of the above two scenarios is possible by exhibiting a $`2n`$-bit query problem such that:

* In the quantum setting, a single query suffices to solve the problem exactly. Moreover, the auxiliary operations are very simple; they consist of $`O(n)`$ Hadamard gates followed by $`O(n^2)`$ classical gate operations that can occur after a measurement is made.
* In the classical setting, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(2^{n/2})`$ queries to the black-box are necessary to solve the problem with bounded error.

The problem that achieves the above, which we call the hidden linear structure problem, is defined over the field $`\text{GF}(2^n)`$ as follows. Assume elements of the finite field $`\text{GF}(2^n)`$ are identified with strings in the set $`\{0,1\}^n`$. Let $`\pi `$ be an arbitrary permutation on $`\text{GF}(2^n)`$ and let $`r\text{GF}(2^n)`$. Define the black-box $`B`$ as computing the mapping from $`\text{GF}(2^n)\times \text{GF}(2^n)`$ to itself defined as $`B(x,y)=(x,\pi (y+sx))`$. The goal of the query problem is to determine the value of $`s`$.

It should be noted that this problem is related to, but different from, the hidden linear function problem considered by Boneh and Lipton . In our problem, the linear structure occurs over the field $`\text{GF}(2^n)`$ (and involves the multiplicative structure of $`\text{GF}(2^n)`$), whereas for the hidden linear function problem of Boneh and Lipton the linear structure is of certain periodic functions from the additive group $`^k`$ to some arbitrary range. This does not result in the quantum vs. classical query complexity separation that we obtain.

It should also be noted that our hidden linear structure problem is a special case of the hidden subgroup problem defined by Brassard and Høyer  and Mosca and Ekert . (This relationship was pointed out to us by Hallgren .) However, using standard techniques for the hidden subgroup problem results in a quantum algorithm solving the hidden linear structure problem with $`\mathrm{\Theta }(n)`$ queries, as opposed to a single query as required by our algorithm.

Finally, one may also consider a variant of our hidden linear structure problem defined over a finite ring (such as $`_{2^n}`$) rather than a field. However, the exponential classical query complexity lower bound depends on the field structure and does not always hold for finite rings. For example, in the case of $`_{2^n}`$, the classical query complexity is $`n+1`$ rather than exponential (this is explained in section 3).

Our single-query quantum algorithm for the hidden linear structure problem is based on an extension of the quantum Fourier transform (QFT) to finite fields whose behavior has natural properties with respect to the field structure. This QFT is motivated and defined in section 2, where an efficient quantum algorithm for it is also given. The quantum algorithm and classical lower bound for the hidden linear structure problem are given in section 3. In section 4, the QFT is generalized to rings of matrices over finite fields.

Related work. Van Dam and Hallgren have independently proposed a definition for QFTs over finite fields that is similar to ours, and have applied these transforms in the context of black-box problems called the “shifted quadratic character problems”. Their work first appeared as  and the preliminary version of this paper appeared as .

## 2 Quantum Fourier transforms for finite fields

In this section we propose a definition for quantum Fourier transforms over finite fields, whose behavior has natural properties with respect to a given field’s structure. We also show how to compute these transformations efficiently.

We assume the reader is familiar with basic concepts regarding finite fields and computations over finite fields (see, for instance, ). As usual, we let $`\text{GF}(q)`$ denote the finite field having $`q=p^n`$ elements for some prime $`p`$. We assume that an irreducible polynomial $`f(Z)=Z^n_{j=0}^{n1}a_jZ^j`$ over $`\text{GF}(p)`$ is fixed, and that elements of $`\text{GF}(q)`$ are represented as polynomials over $`\text{GF}(p)`$ modulo $`f`$ in the usual way. We will write $`x=(x_0,\mathrm{},x_{n1})`$ to denote the field element corresponding to $`x_0+x_1Z+\mathrm{}+x_{n1}Z^{n1}`$, and we identify $`x`$ with the column vector $`\stackrel{}{x}=[x_0,\mathrm{},x_{n1}]^𝖳`$.

###### Definition 2.1

Let $`\varphi :\text{GF}(q)\text{GF}(p)`$ be any nonzero linear mapping (viewing elements of $`\text{GF}(q)`$ as $`n`$ dimensional vectors over $`\text{GF}(p)`$ as above). Then we define the quantum Fourier transform (QFT) over $`\text{GF}(q)`$ relative to $`\varphi `$ (denoted $`F_{q,\varphi }`$) as follows. For each $`x\text{GF}(q)`$,

$$F_{q,\varphi }:|x\frac{1}{\sqrt{q}}\underset{yGF(q)}{}\omega ^{\varphi (xy)}|y$$

for $`\omega =e^{2\pi i/p}`$, and let $`F_{q,\varphi }`$ be extended to arbitrary quantum states by linearity.

A natural choice for $`\varphi `$ is the trace, since this gives a transform independent of the choice of $`f`$. However, we will not require this property, and so we allow $`\varphi `$ to be arbitrary. It should be noted that, for any prime $`q`$, the above Fourier transform is essentially identical in form to the conventional cyclic Fourier transform modulo $`q`$.

An important property of these transformations is illustrated in Figure 1, where $`F`$ denotes the QFT and the two-register gate labeled by $`s\text{GF}(q)`$ denotes the mapping $`|x|y|x|y+sx`$. Let us refer to the latter gate as a controlled-ADDs gate, with its first input called the control register and its second input called the target register. The property illustrated in the figure will be referred to as the control/target inversion property.

In words, conjugating a controlled-ADDs gate by $`FF^{}`$ switches its control and target registers. In the special case of $`\text{GF}(2)`$, $`F`$ is the Hadamard gate and the two-qubit gate is the controlled-NOT gate (when $`s=1`$).

###### Theorem 1

For $`q=p^n`$ and any nonzero linear mapping $`\varphi :\text{GF}(q)\text{GF}(p)`$, $`F_{q,\varphi }`$ is unitary and satisfies the control/target inversion property of Figure 1.

Proof:  First let us show that $`F_{q,\varphi }^{}F_{q,\varphi }|x=|x`$ for every $`x\text{GF}(q)`$. We have

$$\begin{array}{c}F_{q,\varphi }^{}F_{q,\varphi }|x=F_{q,\varphi }^{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{q}}\underset{yGF(q)}{}\omega ^{\varphi (xy)}|y=\frac{1}{q}\underset{yGF(q)}{}\underset{zGF(q)}{}\omega ^{\varphi (xy)\varphi (yz)}|z\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{zGF(q)}{}\left(\frac{1}{q}\underset{yGF(q)}{}\omega ^{\varphi (y(xz))}\right)|z=|x,\end{array}$$

following from the fact that $`\varphi (w)`$ must be uniformly distributed over $`\text{GF}(p)`$ as $`w`$ ranges over $`\text{GF}(q)`$ (since $`\varphi `$ is linear and not identically zero).

Next let us verify that the control/target inversion property holds, namely that for $`A_s`$ and $`B_s`$ defined by $`A_s|x|y=|x|y+sx`$ and $`B_s|x|y=|x+sy|y`$ we have

$$(F_{q,\varphi }^{}F_{q,\varphi })A_s(F_{q,\varphi }F_{q,\varphi }^{})=B_s.$$

To prove this relation holds, let us define

$$|\psi _x=F_{q,\varphi }|x=\frac{1}{\sqrt{q}}\underset{yGF(q)}{}\omega ^{\varphi (xy)}|y$$

for each $`x\text{GF}(q)`$, and note that for $`P_w`$ defined by $`P_w|x=|x+w`$ we have

$$P_w|\psi _x=\frac{1}{\sqrt{q}}\underset{yGF(q)}{}\omega ^{\varphi (xy)}|y+w=\frac{1}{\sqrt{q}}\underset{yGF(q)}{}\omega ^{\varphi (xyxw)}|y=\omega ^{\varphi (xw)}|\psi _x.$$

Now, for each $`x,y\text{GF}(q)`$ we have

$`(F_{q,\varphi }^{}F_{q,\varphi })A_s(F_{q,\varphi }F_{q,\varphi }^{})|x|y`$ $`=`$ $`(F_{q,\varphi }^{}F_{q,\varphi })A_s\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{q}}}{\displaystyle \underset{zGF(q)}{}}\omega ^{\varphi (xz)}|z|\psi _y\right)`$
$`=`$ $`(F_{q,\varphi }^{}F_{q,\varphi })\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{q}}}{\displaystyle \underset{zGF(q)}{}}\omega ^{\varphi (xz)}\omega ^{\varphi (ysz)}|z|\psi _y\right)`$
$`=`$ $`(F_{q,\varphi }^{}F_{q,\varphi })|\psi _{x+sy}|\psi _y`$
$`=`$ $`|x+sy`$$`|y`$
$`=`$ $`B_s|x|y`$
as required.

Next we describe quantum circuits for performing $`F_{q,\varphi }`$ and analyze their complexity. Let $`C(p,\epsilon )`$ denote the minimum size of a quantum circuit approximating the quantum Fourier transform modulo $`p`$ to within accuracy $`\epsilon `$. Note that $`C(p,0)O(p^2\mathrm{log}p)`$  and, for $`\epsilon >0`$, $`C(p,\epsilon )O(\mathrm{log}p\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}p+\mathrm{log}p\mathrm{log}1/\epsilon )`$ when $`\epsilon \mathrm{\Omega }(1/p)`$ .

###### Theorem 2

For $`q=p^n`$ and any nonzero linear mapping $`\varphi :\text{GF}(q)\text{GF}(p)`$, $`F_{q,\varphi }`$ can be performed with accuracy $`\epsilon `$ by a quantum circuit of size $`O(n^2(\mathrm{log}p)^2)+nC(p,\epsilon /n)`$.

Thus, when $`p=2`$ (or any constant), the QFT circuit size is $`O(n^2)`$ in the exact case.

Proof of Theorem 2:  For any choice of $`\varphi `$ (linear and nonzero), there exists a uniquely determined $`n\times n`$ matrix $`M_\varphi `$ over $`\text{GF}(p)`$ such that $`\varphi (xy)=\stackrel{}{x}^𝖳M_\varphi \stackrel{}{y}`$. We show how to efficiently obtain such a matrix $`M_\varphi `$ explicitly for any given $`\varphi `$ below. The quantum circuit performing $`F_{q,\varphi }`$ will depend on $`M_\varphi `$, and we note that $`M_\varphi `$ must be invertible.

We have

$$F_{q,\varphi }|x=\frac{1}{\sqrt{q}}\underset{yGF(q)}{}\omega ^{\stackrel{}{x}^𝖳M_\varphi \stackrel{}{y}}|y=\frac{1}{\sqrt{q}}\underset{yGF(q)}{}\omega ^{\stackrel{}{x}^𝖳\stackrel{}{y}}|M_\varphi ^1\stackrel{}{y}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{q}}\underset{yGF(q)}{}\omega ^{(M_\varphi ^𝖳\stackrel{}{x})^𝖳\stackrel{}{y}}|y.$$

From this we conclude that

$$F_{q,\varphi }=M_\varphi ^1(F_p\mathrm{}F_p)=(F_p\mathrm{}F_p)M_\varphi ^𝖳,$$

where $`F_p`$ denotes the usual quantum Fourier transform modulo $`p`$ and, for $`A\{M_\varphi ^1,M_\varphi ^𝖳\}`$, we identify $`A`$ with the reversible operation that maps each $`|\stackrel{}{x}`$ to $`|A\stackrel{}{x}`$. This relation is illustrated in Figure 2.

The upper bound of $`O(n^2(\mathrm{log}p)^2)+nC(p,\epsilon /n)`$ now follows from the observation that in order to implement $`F_{q,\varphi }`$ with accuracy $`\epsilon `$ it suffices to implement each circuit for $`F_p`$ with accuracy $`\epsilon /n`$ (contributing $`nC(p,\epsilon /n)`$ gates to the final circuit) and to implement the circuit for multiplication by either $`M_\varphi ^𝖳`$ or $`M_\varphi ^1`$ exactly. Let $`A\{M_\varphi ^1,M_\varphi ^𝖳\}`$. Multiplication of an $`n`$-dimensional vector $`v`$ by $`A`$ can be done with $`O(n^2)`$ arithmetic operations in $`\text{GF}(p)`$, each of which can be performed by a circuit of size $`O((\mathrm{log}p)^2)`$, resulting in a circuit of size $`O(n^2(\mathrm{log}p)^2)`$. In order to implement this transformation reversibly within the same size bound, it suffices to be able to invert the computation in this size bound. Inverting this computation is simply multiplication by $`A^1`$, which can be performed in precisely the same size bound. (Note that the circuit itself does not need to invert $`A`$, but rather information about $`A`$ and $`A^1`$ is pre-computed and “hard-coded” into the appropriate circuit for $`F_{q,\varphi }`$.)

Now let us return to the question of determining the matrix $`M_\varphi `$ corresponding to a given $`\varphi `$. First, note that multiplication of field elements satisfies

$$(z_0,\mathrm{},z_{n1})=(x_0,\mathrm{},x_{n1})(y_0,\mathrm{},y_{n1})$$

where

$$z_i=\stackrel{}{x}^𝖳B_i\stackrel{}{y}$$
(1)
for a certain sequence of $`n\times n`$ matrices $`B_0,\mathrm{},B_{n1}`$ over $`\text{GF}(p)`$.

Let us explicitly construct a sequence $`B_0,\mathrm{},B_{n1}`$ that satisfies Eq. 1. To do this, it will be helpful to review the notion of Hankel matrices. An $`n\times n`$ Hankel matrix $`A`$ is a matrix of the form

$$A=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}t_0\hfill & t_1\hfill & t_2\hfill & \mathrm{}& t_{n1}\hfill \\ t_1\hfill & t_2\hfill & t_3\hfill & \mathrm{}& t_n\hfill \\ t_2\hfill & t_3\hfill & t_4\hfill & \mathrm{}& t_{n+1}\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\hfill \\ t_{n1}\hfill & t_n\hfill & t_{n+1}\hfill & \mathrm{}& t_{2n2}\hfill \end{array}\right].$$
(2)
That is, the “anti-diagonals” each contain only one element (or, equivalently, $`A[i,j]`$ depends only on $`i+j`$). The Hankel matrix in Eq. 2 will be denoted $`\mathrm{Hankel}(t_0,t_1,\mathrm{},t_{2n2})`$.

Recall that we have

$$Z^n\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}a_jZ^j(modf(Z)),$$

where $`f`$ is as described at the beginning of the current section. Write $`a_j^{(0)}=a_j`$ for $`j=0,\mathrm{},n1`$. We will actually need numbers $`a_j^{(k)}`$ (for $`j=0,\mathrm{},n1`$, $`k=0,\mathrm{},n2`$) such that

$$Z^{n+k}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}a_j^{(k)}Z^j(modf(Z)).$$

These numbers are easy to obtain. Define an $`n\times n`$ matrix $`V`$ as follows:

$$V=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& a_0\hfill \\ 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& a_1\hfill \\ 0& 1& \mathrm{}& 0& a_2\hfill \\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\hfill \\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 1& a_{n1}\hfill \end{array}\right]$$

Then

$$[a_0^{(k)},\mathrm{},a_{n1}^{(k)}]^𝖳=V^k[a_0,\mathrm{},a_{n1}]^𝖳=V^{k+1}[0,\mathrm{},0,1]^𝖳.$$

Finally, we can describe the matrices $`B_0,\mathrm{},B_{n1}`$. For each $`i=0,\mathrm{},n1`$,

$$B_i=\mathrm{Hankel}(\delta _{0,i},\delta _{1,i},\mathrm{},\delta _{n1,i},a_i^{(0)},a_i^{(1)},\mathrm{},a_i^{(n2)}).$$

(Here, $`\delta _{i,j}`$ is the Kronecker-$`\delta `$ symbol.) A straightforward computation reveals that this choice for $`B_0,\mathrm{},B_{n1}`$ satisfies Eq. 1. It is also not hard to show that these matrices $`B_0,\mathrm{},B_{n1}`$ are the only matrices satisfying Eq. 1, and that each $`B_i`$ is necessarily invertible.

Now, since $`\varphi :\text{GF}(q)\text{GF}(p)`$ is linear and not identically zero, we must have $`\varphi (x)=_{i=0}^{n1}\lambda _ix_i`$ for each $`x\text{GF}(q)`$ for some choice of $`\lambda _0,\mathrm{},\lambda _{n1}\text{GF}(p)`$ (not all 0). At this point we see that $`\varphi (xy)=\stackrel{}{x}^𝖳M_\varphi \stackrel{}{y}`$ for $`M_\varphi =_{i=0}^{n1}\lambda _iB_i`$. Equivalently, we have

$$M_\varphi =\mathrm{Hankel}(\lambda _0,\mathrm{},\lambda _{n1},\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\lambda _ia_i^{(0)},\mathrm{},\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\lambda _ia_i^{(n2)}).$$

In the previous theorem, we have ignored the issue of circuit uniformity. However, it follows from the proof that each circuit for $`F_{q,\varphi }`$ can be generated in polynomial time under a similar assumption on the circuits for performing $`F_p`$.

## 3 The hidden linear structure problem

For a prime power $`q`$, define the hidden linear structure problem over $`\text{GF}(q)`$ as follows. In the classical version, one is given a black-box that maps $`(x,y)\text{GF}(q)\times \text{GF}(q)`$ to $`(x,\pi (y+sx))`$, where $`\pi `$ is an arbitrary permutation on the elements of $`\text{GF}(q)`$ and $`s\text{GF}(q)`$. Analogously, in the quantum case, one is given a black-box performing the unitary transformation that maps $`|x`$$`|y`$ ($`x,y\text{GF}(q)`$) to $`|x`$$`|\pi (y+sx)`$. The goal is to determine the value of $`s`$.

In this section, we give a sharp quantum vs. classical query complexity separation for the hidden linear structure problem. First, in the classical case, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sqrt{q})`$ queries are necessary to solve this problem, even with bounded error. Second, in the quantum case, a single quantum query is sufficient to solve the hidden linear structure problem exactly, provided that one can compute the QFTs $`F_{q,\varphi }`$ and $`F_{q,\varphi }^{}`$. In the case where $`q=2^n`$, the QFT can be performed exactly with only $`O(n^2)`$ basic operations (Hadamard gates and controlled-NOT gates). The result is a single-query exact quantum algorithm to extract $`s`$ with $`O(n^2)`$ auxiliary operations. Moreover, in this case the algorithm can be streamlined so as to consist of $`O(n)`$ Hadamard gates, the single query, and $`O(n^2)`$ classical post-processing after a measurement is made. In the case where $`q`$ is an $`n`$-bit prime, our results are weaker, since the best procedure that we are aware for performing the QFT exactly in that case is $`O(p^2\mathrm{log}p)=O(n4^n)`$.

It should be noted that if the finite fields are relaxed to finite rings then, for the analogous hidden linear structure problem, the quantum vs. classical classical query complexity separation may be much weaker. This is because the classical query complexity of the problem can become much smaller. For example, for the ring $`_{2^n}`$, there is a simple classical procedure solving the hidden linear structure problem with only $`n+1`$ queries. It begins by querying $`(0,0)`$ and $`(2^{n1},0)`$, yielding $`\pi (0)`$ and $`\pi (s2^{n1})`$ respectively. If $`\pi (0)=\pi (s2^{n1})`$ then $`s`$ is even; otherwise $`s`$ is odd. Thus, two queries reduce the number of possibilities for $`s`$ by a factor of 2. If $`s`$ is even then the next query is $`(2^{n2},0)`$, yielding $`\pi (s2^{n2})`$, which determines whether $`smod4`$ is 0 or 2. If $`s`$ is odd then the next query is $`(2^{n2},2^n2^{n2})`$, yielding $`\pi (2^n2^{n2}+s2^{n2})`$, which determines whether $`smod4`$ is 1 or 3. This process can be continued so as to deduce $`s`$ after $`n+1`$ queries. For this reason, our attention is focused on the hidden linear structure problem over fields (though we do consider QFTs for some noncommutative rings in the next section).

We proceed with the classical lower bound.

###### Theorem 3

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sqrt{q})`$ queries are necessary to solve the hidden linear structure problem over $`\text{GF}(q)`$ within error probability $`\frac{1}{2}`$.

Proof:  The lower bound proof is similar to that for Simon’s problem . First, by a game-theoretic argument , it suffices to consider deterministic algorithms where the input data, embodied by the values of $`s`$ and $`\pi `$, is probabilistic. Set both $`s\text{GF}(q)`$ and $`\pi `$ (a permutation on $`\text{GF}(q)`$) randomly, according to the uniform distribution. Consider the information obtained about $`s`$ after $`k`$ queries $`(x_1,y_1),\mathrm{},(x_k,y_k)`$ (without loss of generality, the queries are all distinct). If, for some $`ij`$, the outputs of the $`i^{\text{th}}`$ and $`j^{\text{th}}`$ queries collide in that $`\pi (y_i+sx_i)=\pi (y_j+sx_j)`$, then $`y_i+sx_i=y_j+sx_j`$, which implies that the value of $`r`$ can be determined as

$$s=\frac{y_iy_j}{x_jx_i}$$
(3)
(note that $`x_jx_i0`$, since this would imply that $`(x_i,y_i)=(x_j,y_j)`$). On the other hand, if there are no collisions among the outputs of all $`k`$ queries then all that can be deduced about $`s`$ is that

$$s\frac{y_iy_j}{x_jx_i}$$
(4)
for all $`1i<jk`$. This leaves $`qk(k1)/2`$ values for $`s`$, which are equally likely by symmetry.

Now, consider the probability of a collision occurring at the $`k^{\text{th}}`$ query given that no collisions have occurred in the previous $`k1`$ queries. After the first $`k1`$ queries, there remain at least $`q(k1)(k2)/2>qk^2/2`$ possible values of $`s`$, equally likely by symmetry. Of these values, at most $`k1`$ induce a collision between the $`k^{\text{th}}`$ query and one of the $`k1`$ previous queries. Therefore, the probability of a collision occurring at the $`k^{\text{th}}`$ query is at most

$$\frac{k1}{qk^2/2}\frac{2k}{2qk^2}.$$
(5)
It follows that the probability of a collision occurring at all during the first $`l`$ queries is bounded above by

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{l}{}}\frac{2k}{2qk^2}\frac{l^2}{2ql^2}.$$
(6)
If this probability is to be greater than or equal to $`1/2`$ then $`l^2/(2ql^2)1/2`$, which implies that

$$l\sqrt{2q/3}\mathrm{\Omega }(\sqrt{q}).$$
(7)
Next, we describe the quantum algorithm.

###### Theorem 4

For a given field $`\text{GF}(q)`$, if $`F_{q,\varphi }`$ and $`F_{q,\varphi }^{}`$ can be performed for some nonzero linear mapping $`\varphi `$ then a single query is sufficient to solve the hidden linear structure problem exactly.

Proof:  The quantum procedure is to initialize the state of two $`\text{GF}(q)`$-valued registers to $`|0`$$`|1`$ (where 0 and 1 are respectively the additive and multiplicative identities of the field) and perform the following operations (where $`F=F_{q,\varphi }`$):

1. Apply $`FF^{}`$.
2. Query the black box.
3. Apply $`F^{}F`$.

Then the state of the first register is measured.

Tracing through the evolution of the state of the registers during the execution of the above algorithm, the state after each step is:

1. $`(F|0)(F^{}|1)`$
2. $`(F|s)(U_\pi F^{}|1)`$
3. $`|s(FU_\pi F^{}|1)`$

The transformation from step 1 to step 2 follows from the control/target inversion property, as shown in figure 1. It is clear that the output of the algorithm is $`s`$.

As mentioned previously, the transformation $`F_{2^n,\varphi }`$ for any $`\varphi `$ is particularly simple, and yields the following algorithm.

1. Initialize the state of two $`\text{GF}(2^n)`$-valued registers to the (classical) state $`|0`$$`|M_\varphi \stackrel{}{1}`$.
2. Apply a Hadamard transform to each qubit of each register.
3. Query the black-box.
4. Apply a Hadamard transform to each qubit of each register.
5. Measure the first register, yielding an $`n`$-bit string $`z`$.
6. Classically, compute $`(M_\varphi ^𝖳)^1\stackrel{}{z}`$.

The result will be $`s`$.

## 4 Extension to Rings

It is natural to generalize the concept of controlled addition as we have seen it to rings in general. So, one might ask whether, for all rings, there exist operations corresponding to “quantum Fourier transforms” in the sense that they perform control/target inversion on controlled-addition gates over that ring. While we do not know the answer to this question, we will show that for any commutative ring $`R`$ where such a Fourier transform exists, it is possible to define quantum Fourier transforms for the noncommutative ring of $`m\times m`$ matrices over $`R`$.

Let us introduce some notation. In this section, all matrices are understood to be square matrices. Given an $`m^2`$ array of quantum registers $`\{E_{ij}\}`$ over a commutative ring $`R`$, we associate the state $`|x_{ij}`$ with the register $`E_{ij}`$. We also identify the $`m\times m`$ matrix $`X`$ given by

$$X=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}x_{11}& x_{12}& \mathrm{}& x_{1m}\\ x_{21}& x_{22}& \mathrm{}& x_{2m}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ x_{m1}& x_{m2}& \mathrm{}& x_{mm}\end{array}\right]$$

with the product state

$$|X=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}|x_{ij}=|x_{11}|x_{12}\mathrm{}|x_{1m}|x_{21}\mathrm{}|x_{mm}$$

of the states of the registers. We then make the following definition.

###### Definition 4.1

Let $`F_R`$ be a quantum Fourier transform over a commutative ring $`R`$. Then we define the quantum Fourier transform over $`R^{m\times m}`$ by the following mapping for each matrix $`X=(x_{ij})R^{m\times m}`$:

$$F_{R,m}:|X\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}F_R|x_{ji}.$$

That is, the quantum Fourier transform of $`|X`$ is performed by applying the Fourier transform $`F_R`$ independently to all the quantum registers used to represent $`X`$, and transposing those registers (or their states) within the register array.

Multiplication in matrix rings over $`R`$ will, in general, be non-commutative. Therefore, in working with matrices, we must distinguish between left and right multiplication when defining the controlled addition operators. We define left-controlled addition with parameter $`S`$ (denoted by $`C_S`$) and right-controlled addition with parameter $`S`$ (denoted by $`C_S`$) by the following action on basis states:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}C_S:|X|Y|X|Y+SX\hfill & & C_S:|X|Y|X|Y+XS\hfill \end{array}$$

As well, we introduce left and right controlled addition operators with the roles of the target and control registers reversed:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}D_S:|X|Y|X+SY|Y\hfill & & D_S:|X|Y|X+YS|Y\hfill \end{array}$$

As the order of multiplication becomes important for rings in general, we find it reasonable to make the following expansion of the definition of control/target inversion: a gate $`G`$ performs control/target inversion on controlled addition gates over a given ring if the following equality holds:

$$(G^{}G)C_S(GG^{})=D_S.$$

That is, in addition to the roles of target and control being interchanged, the manner of multiplication (left or right) is switched. In the case where the ring is commutative, this reduces to the definition given previously (see Figure 1). We will now show that the quantum Fourier transform $`F_{R,m}`$ defined above has this property for $`m\times m`$ matrices over $`R`$, when $`F_R`$ is defined and has the control/target inversion property on $`R`$.

For input matrices $`X`$ and $`Y`$ over $`R`$, we denote

$$|X=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}|x_{ij}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }|Y=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}|y_{ij}$$

Let $`E_{ij}`$ represent the register which stores the state $`|x_{ij}`$, and $`F_{ij}`$ represent the register which stores the state $`|y_{ij}`$. Define the operator $`A_{ik}^{ij}(s)`$ as a controlled-ADDs gate which operates on a control register $`E_{ik}`$ and a target register $`F_{ij}`$, and $`B_{ik}^{ij}(s)`$ as a controlled-ADDs gate which operates on a control register $`F_{ik}`$ and a target register $`E_{ij}`$. Then we can decompose $`C_S`$ as the following product of operators:

$$C_S=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}A_{ij}^{ik}(s_{kj})$$

This can be easily verified by testing the effect of this product on the $`ij`$-th target register, where we see that the effect (for basis states) is to add the term $`x_{ik}s_{kj}`$ for each $`1km`$. Control/target inversion is expressed for these gates in the following manner:

$$(F_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{m^2}F_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{m^2})A_{ij}^{ik}(s_{kj})(F_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{m^2}F_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{m^2})=B_{ij}^{ik}(s_{kj}).$$

Here, the quantum Fourier transforms cancel one another out on all registers except the $`ij`$-th target register and the $`ik`$-th control register, where control/target inversion occurs.

Using this decomposition, and applying quantum Fourier transforms to the individual registers before and after this product of gates in the same manner as above, we obtain:

$$\begin{array}{c}(F_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{m^2}F_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{m^2})C_S(F_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{m^2}F_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{m^2})\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}B_{ij}^{ik}(s_{kj})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}B_{ij}^{ik}(s_{kj})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}B_{ik}^{ij}(s_{jk})=D_{S^𝖳}\end{array}$$

That is, the roles of the control and target registers are reversed, and although the manner of multiplication is unchanged, the parameter matrix $`S`$ is transposed.

Note that the quantum Fourier transform $`F_{R,m}`$ on $`m\times m`$ matrices over $`R`$ can be decomposed into an application of $`F_R`$ on each element of the matrix, and transposing the matrix (denoted by the operator $`T_m`$), in any order:

$$F_{R,m}=(F_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{m^2})T_m=T_m(F_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{m^2}).$$

Clearly, $`T_mT_m=I_m`$ (the identity $`m\times m`$ matrix). Then, we can verify that $`F_{R,m}`$ performs control/target inversion on controlled addition gates over $`R^{m\times m}`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}(F_{R,m}^{}F_{R,m})C_S(F_{R,m}F_{R,m}^{})|X|Y\hfill \\ \\ \begin{array}{ccc}& & =(T_mT_m)(F_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{m^2}F_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{m^2})C_S(F_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{m^2}F_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{m^2})(T_mT_m)|X|Y\hfill \\ & & \\ & & =(T_mT_m)D_{S^𝖳}|X^𝖳|Y^𝖳\hfill \\ & & \\ & & =(T_mT_m)|X^𝖳+S^𝖳Y^𝖳|Y^𝖳\hfill \\ & & \\ & & =|X+YS|Y\hfill \\ & & \\ & & =D_S|X|Y,\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

which is what we wished to show.

As for extending the hidden linear structure problem to arbitrary rings, it is not clear for which rings $`R`$ an exponential separation can be achieved. The ability to perform control/target inversion for this problem when $`R=\text{GF}(p^n)^{m\times m}`$ (for example) indicates that the problem can be solved in one query in the quantum case, but we do not have strong classical lower bounds for this case. However, there do exist rings, such as $`\text{GF}(p^n)\times \text{GF}(p^n)`$, where exponential separation can be shown, building on the proof for $`\text{GF}(p^n)`$; thus, the strong separation in the case of finite fields is not an isolated case. Considering the proofs of the classical upper bound for $`_{p^n}`$ and lower bound for $`\text{GF}(p^n)`$, it seems plausible that rings exhibiting a strong separation will have very few zero divisors, or little additive structure among the zero divisors. Both of these statements hold for $`\text{GF}(p^n)\times \text{GF}(p^n)`$, which has a ratio of $`O(1/p^n)`$ zero divisors among its elements, and which only has two ideals which have only a trivial intersection.

## Acknowledgments

R.C. gratefully acknowledges the University of California at Berkeley and the California Institute of Technology where some of the writing and revisions to this paper occurred.


format: text

text:
# The nature of jets: evidence from circular polarization observations

## 1. Introduction

Circular polarization (CP) measurements of extragalactic radio sources have long enjoyed the dubious reputation of being challenging to carry out and hard to interpret. After a period of activity in the 1970’s and early 80’s (summarized by Weiler & de Pater 1983) there have been few new observations until recently.

The renewed interest stems from two developments. First, the Australia Telescope Compact array (ATCA) can now measure CP with a limiting accuracy as low as $`0.01\%`$ (Rayner, Norris & Sault 2000). This remarkable precision is because the array was specifically designed to measure CP, and uses orthogonal linearly polarized feeds at each antenna. Second, the excellent performance of the VLBA has permitted the detection of CP in more than 20 AGN (Wardle et al. 1998, Homan & Wardle 1999, Homan, Attridge & Wardle in preparation). Because the VLBA is equipped with circularly polarized feeds, the limiting accuracy is $`0.1\%`$, some ten times worse than ATCA. In compensation, the VLBA has about one thousand times higher resolution. Most measurements have been of AGN, but we note that CP has also been detected in the Galactic sources Sag A using the VLA (Bower, Falke & Backer 1999) and SS433 using ATCA (Fender et al. 2000).

The promise of CP measurements is that they may permit, depending on the emission mechanism, direct measurement of the magnetic field strength and its polarity, the true magnetic flux carried by a jet (and hence generated at the central engine), the low energy cut-off in the relativistic electron spectrum, and the composition of the radiating plasma - whether it is predominantly an electron-proton plasma or an electron-positron plasma, or a mixture of the two. None of these can be determined directly from measurements of the first three Stokes parameters (total intensity, I, and linear polarization, Q and U). The fourth Stokes parameter, V, corresponding to the circularly polarized component of the radiation field, therefore offers a new way of measuring fundamental physical properties of AGN, and also the smaller scale jets in Galactic X-ray binaries.

## 2. Circular polarization observations of AGN

Following the VLBA detection of CP in the quasar 3C 279 at 15 GHz (in which we argued that the jets were predominantly an electron-positron plasma, Wardle et al. 1998), we published extensive 15 GHz observations of CP in four AGN (3C 84, PKS 0538+134, 3C 273, 3C 279; Homan & Wardle 1999). This was part of a monitoring program in which sources were observed every two months for a year. In each source that was detected (4 out of 13 $`32\%`$, at fractional polarization levels, $`m_C`$, from $`0.3`$ to $`1.0\%`$), the CP signal was somewhat variable but present throughout the year (and with the same sign), setting a minimum time scale for large changes of CP in AGN. The CP signal was always associated with the VLBI core, but often not coincident with it (e.g. 3C 279). Another clear example is 3C 273 (see Figure 1), where the CP signal first appeared in the core concurrent with the appearance of significant linear polarization. It then moved away from the core and down the jet, coincident with a new moving component in total intensity (Homan & Wardle 1999). This behavior shows that the CP is intrinsic to the source (as opposed to a foreground effect or a calibration error). It is most prominent where the optical depth is of order unity (as expected on theoretical grounds, Jones & O’Dell 1977, Jones 1988), and at least in these two quasars is associated with new components or shocks emerging from the optically thick base of the jet.

A VLBA survey of 40 blazars at 5 GHz (Attridge et al. 1998) has been reanalyzed for circular polarization (Homan, Attridge & Wardle, in preparation). We detected CP in 13 sources ($`33\%`$), with $`m_C`$ between $`0.14`$ and $`0.46\%`$, somewhat lower than those measured at 15 GHz. This sample is large enough to look for obvious correlations. We detected CP in 11 out of 29 quasars, but only 2 out of 10 BL Lac objects. This is not yet statistically significant. The only galaxy in the sample, OQ 208, was not detected. More interesting, there was no correlation between the detectability of CP and the fractional linear polarization of the core component.

In a small survey using the VLBA at 8 and 15 GHz, we have detected CP in 3 sources out of 11 ($`27\%`$) at 8 GHz. An image of PKS 1127-114 at 8 GHz is shown in Figure 2. The 15 GHz data are currently being reduced to obtain the CP spectrum.

A more sensitive ATCA survey of of 32 AGN at 5 GHz (Rayner et al. 2000) yielded 17 detections ($`52\%`$) with (integrated) fractional polarization levels $`m_C`$ from $`0.03`$ to $`0.45\%`$. If the 8 galaxies are excluded, only one of which was detected, the detection rate rises to $`65\%`$. (This result may be relevant to unified schemes, e.g. Barthel 1989). Rayner et al. also found no difference in the detection rates for quasars and BL Lac objects, and no dependence on the fractional linear polarization of the source. The most strongly circularly polarized source was the the intra-day variable (IDV) source PKS 1519-273 that varied between $`0.25`$ and $`0.45\%`$ on a time scale of hours (Macquart et al. 2000).

Thus it is clear that detectable circular polarization is a common phenomenon among flat spectrum radio sources, and is associated with the most compact features. It is interesting to compare recent measurements to those made two to three decades ago (Weiler & de Pater 1983, Komesaroff et al. 1984). This can be done for 29 sources if we ignore mismatches in observing wavelength (the older measurements tended to be at longer wavelengths). We find that all sources that exhibited strong CP ($`>0.15\%`$) in the past have been detected recently at comparable levels, and all sources that were weak or not detected in the past are presently also weakly polarized or not detected. Thus despite its variability, the overall level of CP appears to be a persistent property of these sources. As yet we do not understand why some sources consistently exhibit strong CP while others do not.

## 3. Mechanisms for producing circular polarization

The origin of the observed circular polarization signal is far from settled. One clue comes from its spectrum. It is well known that he intrinsic circular polarization of optically thin synchrotron radiation has a spectrum $`m_C\nu ^{0.5}`$, where $`m_C=V/I`$ is the fractional CP. For 3C 279 we argued in favor of Faraday conversion, based in part on the observed steep spectrum (Wardle et al. 1998). However, in other AGN the spectrum of the integrated fractional CP is rather flat (Rayner 2000), while in SS433, Fender et al. (2000) found $`m_C\nu ^{0.9}`$. It is important to note that for a Blandford-Königl (1979) inhomogeneous jet, the CP spectrum may be quite different than for a homogeneous component (see section 4). Coherent emission mechanisms, that may be relevant to AGN cores, and especially to intra-day variable (IDV) sources can generate copious CP, and a particularly interesting new mechanism, scintillation by a birefringent screen, has been proposed by Macquart & Melrose (2000). We now briefly review these mechanisms.

### 3.1. Coherent radiation mechanisms

These have been most recently discussed by Benford & Tzach (2000) and by Bingham et al. (these proceedings). Coherence may arise from particle bunching, or from an anisotropic distribution function leading to a negative absorption coefficient and maser action.

Both cases appear to produce rather high fractional CP (though this may be diluted in a real source) and are intrinsically narrow band phenomena. The latter property can be tested. It appears to be ruled out by the rather flat CP spectrum observed in most AGN over widely separated wavelegths. Even for the IDV source PKS 1519-273, the fluctuations in both I and V were strongly correlated between 4.8 and 8.6 GHz (Macquart et al., these proceedings). Also, over a much narrower frequency range, we find that for sources observed at the VLBA, the CP signal is equally present in all 4 IF bands.

### 3.2. Scintillation

A new and intriguing possibility proposed by Macquart & Melrose (2000) is that of scintillation by a birefringent screen, which can generate circular polarization from the total intensity (Stokes I). In this mechanism, Faraday rotation in the screen causes a very small displacement of the left- and right-hand components of the total intensity. The two amplitude patterns produced by scintillation are therefore also slightly displaced from each other. As they sweep over the antenna there is an instantaneous, fluctuating CP signal, though the time averaged CP must of course be zero.

Macquart & Melrose show that the rms fractional CP can be written as

$$m_C\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }x}{r_{scint}}m_I,$$

where $`m_I`$ is the fluctuation index in total intensity, $`r_{scint}`$ is the linear scale of the scintillation pattern (whether diffractive or refractive) in the observer plane, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ is the relative displacement of the right and left circularly polarized scintillation patterns in the observer plane.

They demonstrate that birefringent scintillation in our own Galaxy produces an insignificant effect for AGN, but may well contribute to the observed CP in pulsars. For AGN (and for Sag A\*) they suggest a screen close to the source. The displacement of the two scintillation patterns at the observer is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x\frac{L\lambda ^3}{2\pi }_rRM,$$

where $`L`$ is the distance from the screen to the observer, and $`_rRM`$ is the transverse gradient in Rotation Measure at the screen. For significant scintillation, they also require that $`\mathrm{\Delta }x/L>\theta _s`$, where $`\theta _s`$ is the angular size of the source. These lead to rather stringent requirements on the screen, and also suggest that it should be mainly a long wavelength phenomenon. Macquart and Melrose apply this mechanism to the quasar 3C 345, and find they require a RM gradient of about $`10^6`$ rad m-2 pc-1. So far, typical RM gradients measured in quasar cores are of the order of a few hundred rad m-2 pc-1 (Taylor 1998), though in the innermost 0.1 pc or less, it could certainly be much higher. A second problem is that such a RM gradient would almost certainly completely depolarise a typical VLBI core or inner component. This might not be a problem for an IDV source such as PKS 1519-273, where the inferred source size is extremely small, or for Sag A\*, which exhibits no detectable linear polarization at any wavelength.

The timescales they derive for scintillation induced CP are very short: a few minutes for diffractive scintillation, and several hours for refractive scintillation. The sign of the induced CP should reverse on these timescales. These are much too short for the observations of most AGN, but again are not a problem for IDVs or Sag A\*. It is also possible that a different source-screen geometry might lead to much longer timescales.

### 3.3. Intrinsic circular polarization

Synchrotron radiation has a small intrinsic component of circular polarization (Legg & Westfold 1968). In a uniform magnetic field, the maximum fractional circular polarization at frequency $`\nu `$ is $`|m_C|1/\gamma `$, where $`\gamma `$ is the Lorentz factor of electrons radiating at $`\nu `$. More realistically, for a combination of a uniform and a tangled field, we can write

$$m_C=1.6\mathrm{\Lambda }(\nu /\nu _B)^{\frac{1}{2}}(B_u/B_{})\mathrm{sin}ϵ,$$

where $`B_u`$ is the uniform component of the magnetic field (assumed here to be parallel to the jet), $`B_{}`$ is the r.m.s. value of the magnetic field in the plane of the sky, $`\nu _B=eB_{}/2\pi mc`$ is the electron gyro frequency, and $`ϵ`$ is the angle between the jet normal and the line of sight in the frame of the emitting fluid ($`\mathrm{cos}ϵ=\delta \mathrm{sin}\theta `$). The factor $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ accounts for the reduction in circular polarization if $`B_z`$ is not also unidirectional (i.e. if there are reversals in direction of $`B_u`$), and if the charges of the radiating particles are not all the same sign. Defining $`f_B=|B_u𝑑l|/|B_u|𝑑l`$, and $`f_C=(n^{}n^+)/(n^{}+n^+)`$, where $`n^{}`$ and $`n^+`$ are the electron and positron densities respectively, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=f_Bf_C`$. The Faraday depth is also reduced by the same factor.

In a real jet, even if the component of magnetic field parallel to the jet is unidirectional at its base ($`f_B1`$), it will decay faster with radius ($`r^2`$) than the transverse field components ($`r^1`$). Further down the jet, the parallel component of field is likely to be dominated by sheared loops of field (e.g. Begelman, Blandford & Rees 1984) and $`f_B`$ (and hence $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) is likely to be small, regardless of whether the jet is composed of electrons and positrons or electrons and protons.

This factor has generally been neglected in the literature, and it should not be. It applies both to the interpretation of circular polarization, and to the interpretation of Faraday rotation. It is sometimes assumed that the value of $`(B_u/B_{})`$ is indicated by the degree of linear polarization, but this may be quite misleading. For instance, in a Laing sheet topolgy (Laing 1980), the fractional linear polarization may approach $`70\%`$, but internal Faraday rotation and the intrinsic component of circular polarization will both be zero.

### 3.4. Faraday conversion

A less well known but equally important mechanism for generating circular polarization is Faraday conversion (Jones & O’Dell 1977; Jones 1988). This is based on the fact that the normal modes for radiative transfer in an anisotropic plasma are not purely circular (which leads to Faraday rotation), but slightly elliptical. The small component of linear birefringence converts Stokes parameter U to V, and vice versa. Both rotation and conversion are caused by the lowest energy relativistic electrons, and therefore serve as a probe of the low energy end of the electron energy distribution, which is otherwise unobservable. An important difference between them is that Faraday rotation is proportional to the electron gyro frequency, $`\nu _B=eB_{}/2\pi mc`$, and hence to the sign of the charge on the electrons, while Faraday conversion is proportional to $`\nu _B^2e^2B^2`$. Thus an equal mixture of electrons and positrons ($`f_C=0`$) can produce Faraday conversion, but not rotation, as can sheared loops of magnetic field ($`f_B=0`$).

It is also important to note that Faraday conversion acts on Stokes U, while the synchrotron mechanism produces only Stokes Q (in the local frame of the magnetic field). Stokes U can be produced stochastically by a tangled field, or, more efficiently, by internal Faraday rotation. At small optical and Faraday depths, the fractional circular polarization produced by conversion is $`m_C\frac{1}{6}\tau _F\tau _Cm_L^2`$, where $`\tau _F`$ and $`\tau _C`$ are the Faraday depth and “conversion depth” respectively, and $`m_L`$ is the fractional linear polarization. For a power law distribution of electron Lorentz factors, $`n(\gamma )\gamma ^2`$ (corresponding to $`\alpha =0.5`$), with a low energy cutoff at $`\gamma =\gamma _{min}`$, $`\tau _F`$ and $`\tau _C`$ can be written as (Jones & O’Dell 1977)

$`\tau _F`$ $``$ $`1.27\tau \mathrm{\Lambda }\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\gamma _{min}}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\gamma _{min}}{\gamma _{min}}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_u}{B_{}}}\mathrm{sin}ϵ`$
$`\tau _C`$ $`=`$ $`0.96\tau \mathrm{ln}(\gamma /\gamma _{min})`$
where $`\gamma `$ is the Lorentz factor of the radiating electrons. These expressions apply to the optically thin, Faraday thin case. The strong wavelength dependence of both $`\tau _F`$ and $`\tau _C`$ imply a very steep CP spectrum, $`m_C\nu ^5`$. As the Faraday depth increases, the effect saturates, and $`m_C\nu ^1`$. At apreciable optical depth, the spectrum flattens further. The reader should refer to Jones & O’Dell (1977) for the complete expressions for a homgeneous source. Also, at significant Faraday and conversion depth there can be nulls and sign reversals in the CP (since $`Q`$ has been converted to $`U`$ etc.) along a single line of sight, or in a uniform slab (Kennett & Melrose 1998). In a real source, where we average over many lines of sight, the effect is more likely to lead to depolarization of both the circularly and linearly polarized radiation.

Certain magnetic field topologies may also produce efficient conversion, without the need for internal Faraday rotation (e.g. Hodge 1982). For instance, in a helical magnetic field, ’Stokes Q’ from the back of the jet may appear as ’Stokes U’ to the front of the jet, depending on the pitch angle. The sign of the CP is determined by whether the helix is left handed or right handed. A force-free magnetic field is another such configuration, though we have not yet calculated the resulting CP in these cases. Since internal Faraday rotation is not invoked here, the CP spectrum will be much less steep, and the problem of sign reversals much less severe.

Finally, the expression for $`m_C`$ at the beginning of this section contains two factors of $`m_L`$, the fractional linear polarization. One factor is because conversion acts on the linearly polarized radiation, and the second factor expresses the conversion efficiency in a partially ordered field. One might therefore expect a strong correlation between $`m_C`$ and $`m_L`$, but this is not generally seen in either the ATCA or the VLBA results (though in 3C 273, CP did not appear until significant linear polarization also appeared in the core). A plausible reason for the lack of an obvious correlation is that the CP originates from the core regions, which are thought to be depolarized by an external Faraday screen (Cawthorne et al 1993, Taylor 1998, Wardle 1998) in the nucleus of the source.

## 4. The circular polarization spectrum, and inhomogeneous jets

In general a steep CP spectrum favors Faraday conversion (Jones & O’Dell 1977), where it can vary in the range $`\nu ^1`$ to $`\nu ^5`$ in an optically thin homogeneous component, while the intrinsic component has a $`\nu ^{1/2}`$ spectrum. Both are flattened by apreciable opacity.

But a flat spectrum can also result for the “core” of a Blandford-Königl (1979) inhomogeneous jet, where the optical surface moves down the jet with increasing wavelength, and this region is seen as the ’core.’ In their canonical case ($`Br^1`$, electron density $`r^2`$, and $`\alpha =0.5`$), the location of the optical surface $`r_{\tau =1}\nu _{obs}^1`$. The Lorentz factor of the electrons radiating at $`\nu _{obs}`$ from that region is $`\gamma \nu _{obs}/\nu _B`$ which is independent of $`\nu _{obs}`$. Since the intrinsic component of CP is $`1/\gamma `$, it too is independent of $`\nu _{obs}`$, and the CP spectrum is flat.

Similar considerations show that Faraday conversion is also independent of $`\nu _{obs}`$ (the Blandford-Königl model is isothermal, so $`\gamma _{min}`$ is also constant). It follows that there will also be no sign reversals at longer wavelengths.

The point is that the simple spectral signatures in homgeneous sources almost certainly will not be seen in real jets, where opacity and inhomgeneity cannot be ignored. Unfortunately, this probably requires numerical simulations using the full equations of polarized transfer to calculate the expected CP.

## 5. Electron Positron Jets?

If the dominant production mechanism for CP in AGN is Faraday conversion, then this requires that the electron energy spectrum extend down to low energies in order to get sufficient mode conversion from linear to circular polarization. The most robust result for 3C 279 (Wardle et al. 1998) was that over a wide range of source models, the low energy cut-off in the electron energy spectrum had to be below $`\gamma _{min}=20`$, and could be much lower. We then suggested that the radiating particles were predominantly an electron-positron pair plasma so that the jet did not carry far more kinetic energy than is observed to be dissipated.

This argument has also been made by others, e.g. Reynolds et al. (1996) for M87 and Hirotani et al. (1999, 2000) for 3C 279 and 3C 345; and see Celotti & Fabian (1993) for a different conclusion. The argument assumes that we can correctly estimate the kinetic energy carried by a jet, which is not altogether clear (c.f. various contributions in these proceedings). However, the argument is greatly strengthened if the presence of low energy particles can be inferred directly from CP measurements.

It should be noted that if $`\gamma _{min}`$ is small enough, then the same low energy particles that cause Faraday conversion will also give excessive Faraday rotation and depolarization unless $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=f_Bf_C`$ is also small. The degeneracy between $`f_B`$ and $`f_C`$ is not easily broken, but if $`f_B`$ can be estimated in some other way, then CP observations could demonstrate the presence of electron-positron pairs (i.e. $`f_C<1`$), independent of the energy argument.

Clearly we would like to apply the same analysis to other sources in which we have detected CP, to see if electron-positron pairs are a general characteristic of extragalactic jets. To do so requires multi-wavelength observations to establish the CP spectrum, and to determine the magnetic field strength from the self-absorption turnover. Such observations are in progress.

## 6. SS433 and Galactic jets

The discovery of circular polarization in the celebrated x-ray binary SS433 (Fender et al 2000) opens the possibility of making high resolution CP observations of this and other Galactic jets, where the similarities and differences compared to AGN jets are equally striking. The ATCA observations found a strong CP signal ($`m_C0.6\%`$ at 1.5 GHz) with a spectral index 0f $`0.9`$. The CP flux density was several mJy, easily detectable with the VLBA, and presumably the local fractional polarization is considerably higher. The CP mechanism is unclear (and its spectrum is complicated by both synchrotron opacity and free-free absorption), but both Faraday conversion and the intrinsic mechanism are possible. The latter is a candidate because the magnetic field is stronger than is typical in AGN – Paragi et al. (1999) estimate 0.4 G at the position of the 1.5 GHz core – and the magnetic field structure may be simpler, with fewer field reversals. If the former applies, then it may be possible to determine whether the composition of the radio jets is primarily pairs or baryonic.

SS433 precesses with a period of 164 days, and the geometry is well understood (Margon & Anderson 1989). This should produce a clear signature in the circular polarization in both the intrinsic and the conversion mechanisms. For most of a period, the sign of CP should be the same in both the jet and the counter jet. But when the jet makes an angle of less than $`75^{}`$ to the line of sight, its sign should reverse. This is a straightforward consequence of relativistic aberration ($`v_{jet}=0.26c`$); for part of each period we are, in effect, looking up the jet instead of down it. Because of the changing geometry, we have a unique opportunity for detailed analysis of the polarization properties of these jets. This may shed light on the physics of extragalactic jets, for which we do not have the luxury of observing from different angles.

## 7. Long-term persistence of the sign of CP

It was pointed out in section 2 that the presence or absence of detectable CP appears to be a persistent property of AGN over two to three decades. Equally interesting, for the ten strongly polarized sources for which we have both recent and historical data, eight show the same sign of circular polarization at both epochs. Komesaroff et al (1984) pointed out that the sign of the CP tended to persist over the few years of their observations. Now it appears that the sign persists over decades (pointed out for a smaller sample by Homan & Wardle, 1999). This is highly significant because it is very much longer than the characteristic time scale of the CP variability and of outbursts in total intensity (typically a year or so). This suggests that the sign is determined by a fundamental and long-lived property of the jets. In both the Faraday conversion and the intrinsic synchrotron mechanisms for generating the observed CP, the sign is determined by the net unidirectional component of the magnetic field, i.e. by the net magnetic flux carried by the jet. It has long been realized that most of the magnetic field consists of sheared and stretched loops (Begelman, Blandford & Rees 1984), and that the true net flux $`\stackrel{}{𝐁}𝑑A`$ must be much smaller than the value of $`B_{rms}\times A`$ ($`A`$ is the area of the jet cross-section) often calculated for synchrotron emitting jets.

CP measurements may permit proper calculation of the net magnetic flux in jets, which, assuming flux conservation, gives the magnetic flux at the central engine. This is a fundamental parameter in electro-magnetic models of jet production (e.g. Blandford & Payne 1982; Lovelace & Romanova 1995; Meier, these proceedings; Begelman, these proceedings ), and may also relate properties of the jet to those of the central massive black hole (Rees, 1984).

## 8. Conclusions

It was stated in the introduction that “circular polarization (CP) measurements of extragalactic radio sources have long enjoyed the dubious reputation of being challenging to carry out and hard to interpret.” This is still true. It is hoped that this review will convince some readers that the unique information contained in such observations makes them, nevertheless, extremely valuable and worthwhile.

#### Acknowledgments.

This work was supported by grants from the NSF and NASA.

## References

Attridge, J. M., Roberts, D. H., & Wardle, J. F. C. 1998, ’VLBA Imaging of a Large Sample of Blazars,’ in Radio Emission from Galactic and Extragalactic Compact Sources, IAU Colloquium 164, ASP Conference Series Vol 144, Eds: J. A. Zensus et al. (ASP: San Francisco), 159-161

Barthel, P. D. 1989, ’Is every quasar beamed?,’ ApJ, 336, 606-611

Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D. & Rees, M. J. 1984, ’Theory of extragalactic radio sources,’ Rev. Mod. Phys., 56, 255-351

Benford, G. & Tzach, D. 2000, ’Coherent synchrotron emission observed: Implications for radio astronomy,’ MNRAS, 317, 497-500

Blandford, R.D. & Königl, A. 1979, ’Relativistic jets as compact radio sources,’ ApJ, 232, 34-48

Blandford, R. D. & Payne, D. G. 1982,’Hydromagnetic flows from accretion discs and the production of radio jets,’ MNRAS, 199, 883-903

Bower, G. C., Falcke, H., & Backer, D. C. 1999, ’Detection of Circular Polarization in the Galactic Center Black Hole Candidate Sagittarius A\*,’ ApJ, 523, L29-L32

Cawthorne, T. V., Wardle, J. F. C., Roberts, D. H., & Gabuzda, D. C. 1993, ’Milliarcsecond Polarization Structure of 24 Objects from thepearson-Readhead Sample of Bright Extragalactic Radio Sources. II. Discussion,’ ApJ, 416, 519-535

Celotti, A. & Fabian, A. C. 1993, ’The kinematic power and luminosity of parsecscale radio jets - an argument for heavy jets,’ MNRAS, 264, 228-236

Fender, R., Rayner, D., Norris, R., Sault, R. J., & Pooley, G. 2000, ’Discovery of circularly polarized radio emission from SS433,’ ApJ, 530, L29-L32

Hirotani, K., Iguchi, S., Kimura, M., & Wajima, K. 1999, ’Pair plasma dominance in the 3C279 jet on parsec scales,’ PASJ, 51, 263-267

Hirotani, K., Iguchi, S., Kimura, M., & Wajima, K. 2000, ’Pair plasma dominance in the parsec-scale relativistic jet of 3C345,’ preprint, astro-ph 0005394

Hodge, P. E., 1982, ’Circular polarization from compact extragalactic radio sources as a result of nonuniform magnetic fields,’ ApJ, 263, 595-598

Homan, D. C. & Wardle, J. F. C. 1999, ’Detection and Measurement of Parsec-Scale Circular Polarization in Four AGN,’ AJ, 118, 1942-1962

Jones, T. W. & O’Dell, S. L. 1977, ’Transfer of polarized radiation in self-absorbed synchrotron sources. I - Results for a homogeneous source,’ ApJ214, 522-539

Jones, T. W. 1988, ’Polarization as a probe of magnetic field and plasma properties of compact radio sources,’ ApJ, 332, 678-695

Kennett, M. & Melrose, D. 1998, ’Propagation-induced circular polarization in synchrotron sources’ Publ. Astron. Soc. Aust., 15, 211-216

Komessaroff, M. M., Roberts, J. A., Milne, D. K., Rayner, P. T. & Cooke, D. J. 1984, ’Circular and linear polarization variations of compact radio sources,’ MNRAS, 208, 409-425

Laing, R. A. 1980, ’A model for the magnetic-field structure in extended radio sources,’ MNRAS, 193, 439-449

Legg, M. P. C. & Westfold, K. C. 1968, ’Elliptic polarization of synchrotron radiation,’ ApJ, 154, 499-514

Lovelace, R. V. E. & Romanova, M. M. 1995, ’MHD Formation of Jets from Accretion Disks,’ in Energy Transport in Radio Galaxies and Quasars, ed. P. E. Hardee, A. H. Bridle, & J. A. Zensus, A.S.P. Conference Series, 100, 25-30

Macquart, J.-P. & Melrose, D. B. 2000, ’Circular polarization induced by scintillation in a magnetized medium,’ ApJ, in press

Macquart, J.-P.,Kedziora-Chudczer, L., Rayner, D. P., & Jauncey, D. L. 2000, ’Strong, Variable Circular Polarization in PKS 1519-273,’ ApJ, 538, 623-627

Margon, B. & Anderson, S. F. 1989, ’Ten years of SS 433 kinematics,’ ApJ, 347, 448-454

Paragi, Z., Vermeulen, R. C., Fejes, L., Schilizzi, R. T., Spencer, R. E., & Strirling, A. M. 1999, ’The inner radio jet region and the complex environment of SS433,’ A&A, 348, 910-916

Rees, M. J. 1984, ’Black hole models for active galactic nuclei,’ Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 22, 471-506

Rayner, D. P., Norris, R. P., & Sault, R. J., 2000, ’Radio circular polarization of active galaxies,’ MNRAS, in press.

Rayner, D. P., 2000, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Tasmania.

Reynolds, C. S., Fabian, A. C., Celotti, A. & Rees, M. J. 1996, ’The matter content of the jet in M87: evidence for an electron-positron jet,’ MNRAS, 283, 873-880

Taylor, G. B. 1998, ’Magnetic Fields in Quasar Cores,’ ApJ, 506, 637-646

Wardle, J. F. C. 1998, ‘Magnetic Fields in AGN,’ in Radio Emission from Galactic and Extragalactic Compact Sources, ASP Conference Series, Vol. 144, IAU Colloquium 164, J.A. Zensus et al., (ed.), (ASP, San Francisco) 97-103

Wardle, J. F. C., Homan, D. C., Ojha, R., & Roberts, D. H. 1998, ‘Electron-Positron Jets Associated with the Quasar 3C 279,’ Nature 395, 457-461

Weiler, K. W. & de Pater, I. 1983, ’A catalog of high accuracy circular polarization measurements’ Ap.J.Supplement, 52, 293-327


text:
# Secure Digital Signal Transmission by Multistep Parameter Modulation and Alternative Driving of Transmitter Variables

## REFERENCES

Chua, L.O., Kocarev, Lj., Eckert, K. & Itoh, M.  “ Experimental chaos synchronization in Chua’s circuit” Int. J. Bifurcation and Chaos 2 705-708.

Cuomo, K.M. & Oppenheim, A. V.  “Circuit implementation of synchronized chaos with application to communication” Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 65-68.

Hayes, S., Grebogi, C. & Ott, E.  “Communicating with chaos” Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 3031-3035.

Kocarev, L. & Parlitz, U.  “General approach for chaotic synchronization with applications to communication” Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 5028-5031.

Lakshmanan, M. & Murali, K.  Chaos in Nonlinear Oscillators: Controlling and Synchronization (World Scientific, Singapore).

Madan, R. N.,  Chua’s circuit: A Paradigm for Chaos (World Scientific, Singapore).

Mensour, B. & Longtin, A.  “Synchronization of delay-differential equations with application to private communication” Phys. Lett. A244, 59-70.

Minai, A. A. & Pandian, T. D.  “Communicating with noise: How chaos and noise combine to generate secure encryption keys” Chaos 8 621-628.

Murali, K. & Lakshmanan, M.  “Transmission of signals by synchronization in a chaotic van der pol-duffing oscillator” Phys. Rev. E48, R1624-1626

Murali, K. & Lakshmanan, M.  “Synchroning chaos in driven chua’s circuit” Int. J. Bifurcations Chaos 3, 1057-1066.

Murali, K. & Lakshmanan, M.  “Secure communication using a compound signal from generalized synchronizable chaotic systems” Phys. Lett. A241, 303-310.

Pecora, L. M. & Carroll, T. L. $`[1990]`$ “Synchronization in chaotic systems” Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 821-823 (1990);

Pecora, L. M. & Carroll, T. L. $`[1991]`$ “Driving systems with chaotic signals” Phys. Rev. A44, 2374-2383.

Pérez, G. & Cerdeira, H.A.  “Extracting messages masked by chaos” Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 1970-1973.

Zhang, Y., Dai, M., Hua, Y., Ni, W, & Du, G.  “Digital communication by active-passive-decomposition synchronization in hyperchaotic systems” Phys. Rev. E58 3022-3027.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The problem of understanding the quark and lepton masses and mixing angles represents one of the major unsolved questions of the standard model. Recently additional information on the fermion mass spectrum has come from the measurement of the atmospheric neutrino masses and mixing angles by Super-Kamiokande . The most recent data disfavours mixing involving a sterile neutrino, and finds a good fit for $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixing with $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}>0.88`$ and a mass square splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2`$ in the $`1.55\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ range at 90% CL . Super-Kamiokande has also provided additional support for solar neutrino mixing. The most recent Super-Kamiokande data does not show a significant day-night asymmetry and shows an energy independent neutrino spectrum, thus it also disfavours the sterile neutrino mixing hypothesis, the just-so vacuum oscillation hypothesis, and the small mixing angle (SMA) MSW  solution . The preferred solution at the present time seems to be the large mixing angle (LMA) MSW solution, although a similar solution with a low mass splitting (the LOW) solution is also possible. A typical point in the LMA MSW region is $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}0.75`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^22.5\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$ .

If one accepts the recent data as evidence for neutrino masses and mixing angles, then the obvious question is how these can be accommodated in the standard model, or one of its supersymmetric extensions. The simplest possibility to account for the smallness of the neutrino masses is the see-saw mechanism  in which one introduces right-handed neutrinos which acquire very large Majorana masses at a super-heavy mass scale. When one integrates out the right-handed neutrinos the “normal sized” Dirac Yukawa couplings, which connect the left-handed to the right-handed neutrinos, are transformed into very small couplings which generate very light effective left-handed physical Majorana neutrino masses. Given the see-saw mechanism, it is natural to expect that the spectrum of the neutrino masses will be hierarchical, since the Dirac Yukawa couplings in the charged fermion sector are observed to be hierarchical, and if they are related to the Dirac neutrino Yukawa couplings then they should also be hierarchical, leading to hierarchical light Majorana masses. 222However this is not guaranteed due to the unknown structure of the heavy Majorana matrix, and for example an inverted neutrino mass hierarchy could result although this relies on some non-hierarchical couplings in the Dirac Yukawa matrix .

Having assumed the see-saw mechanism and a hierarchical neutrino mass spectrum, the next question is how such large (almost maximal) lepton mixing angles such as $`\theta _{23}`$ could emerge? There are several possibilities that have been suggested in the literature. One possibility is that it happens as a result of the off-diagonal 23 entries in the left-handed Majorana matrix being large, and the determinant of the 23 sub-matrix being accidentally small, leading to a neutrino mass hierarchy with large neutrino mixing angles . Another possibility is that the neutrino mixing angles start out small at some high energy scale, then get magnified by renormalization group (RG) running down to low energies . A third possibility is that the off-diagonal elements of the left-handed neutrino Majorana matrix are large, but the 23 sub-determinant of the matrix is small for a physical reason, as would be the case if a single right-handed neutrino were providing the dominant contribution to the 23 sub-matrix . We shall refer to these three approaches as the accidental, the magnification and the single right-handed neutrino dominance (SRHND) mechanisms, respectively.

A promising approach to understanding the fermion mass spectrum is within the framework of supersymmetric (SUSY) unified theories. Within the framework of such theories the quark and lepton masses and mixing angles become related to each other, and it begins to be possible to understand the spectrum. The simplest grand unified theory (GUT) is $`SU(5)`$ but this theory in its minimal version does not contain any right-handed neutrinos. Nevertheless three right-handed neutrinos may be added, and in this theory it is possible to have a large 23 element 333We use Left-Right (LR) convention for Yukawa matrices in this paper. on the Dirac neutrino Yukawa matrix without introducing a large 23 element into any of the charged fermion Yukawa matrices. The problem of maintaining a 23 neutrino mass hierarchy in these models may be solved for example by assuming SRHND . Another possibility within the framework of $`SU(5)`$ is to maintain all the off-diagonal elements to be small, but require the 22 and 32 elements of the Dirac neutrino Yukawa matrix to be equal and the second right-handed neutrino to be dominant, in which case SRHND again leads to a large 23 neutrino mixing angle with hierarchical neutrino masses . However the drawback of $`SU(5)`$ is that it does not predict any right-handed neutrinos, which must be added as an afterthought.

From the point of view of neutrino masses, the most natural GUTs are those like $`SO(10)`$ that naturally predict right-handed neutrinos. However within the framework of $`SO(10)`$ the quark masses and mixing angles are related to the lepton masses and mixing angles, and the existence of large neutrino mixing angles is not expected in the minimal versions of the theory in which the Higgs doublets are in one (or two) $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{}s`$ (ten dimensional representations of $`SO(10)`$) and each matter family is in a $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$. Nevertheless various possibilities have been proposed in $`SO(10)`$ in order to account for the large neutrino mixing angles. Within the framework of minimal $`SO(10)`$ with third family Yukawa unification, it has been suggested that if two operators with different Clebsch coefficients contribute with similar strength then, with suitable choice of phases, in the case of the lepton Yukawa matrices one may have large numerical 23 elements, which add up to give a large lepton mixing angle, while for the quarks the 23 elements can be small due to approximate cancellation of the two contributing operators . This is an example of the accidental mechanism mentioned above, where in addition one requires the quark mixing angles to be small by accident, although it remains to be seen if the LMA MSW solution could be understood in this framework. Moving away from minimal $`SO(10)`$, one may invoke a non-minimal Higgs sector in which one Higgs doublet arises from a $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ and one from a $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$, and in this framework it is possible to understand atmospheric neutrino mixing . Alternatively, one may invoke a non-minimal matter sector in which parts of a quark and lepton family arise from a $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ and other parts from a $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$, and in these models one may account for atmospheric and solar neutrinos via an inverted mass hierarchy mechanism .

We have recently discussed  neutrino masses and mixing angles in a particular string-inspired minimal model based on the Pati-Salam  $`SU(4)\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$ (422) group. As in $`SO(10)`$ the presence of the gauged $`SU(2)_R`$ predicts the existence of three right-handed neutrinos. However, unlike $`SO(10)`$, there is no Higgs doublet-triplet splitting problem since in the minimal model both Higgs doublets are contained in a $`(1,2,2)`$ representation. Moreover, since the left-handed quarks and leptons are in the $`(4,2,1)`$ and the right-handed quarks and leptons in the $`(4,1,2)`$ representations, the model also leads to third family Yukawa unification as in minimal $`SO(10)`$. Although the Pati-Salam gauge group is not unified at the field theory level, it readily emerges from string constructions either in the perturbative fermionic constructions , or in the more recent type I string constructions , unlike $`SO(10)`$ which typically requires large Higgs representations which do not arise from the simplest string constructions. The question of fermion masses and mixing angles in the string-inspired Pati-Salam model has already been discussed for the case of charged fermions , and later for the case of neutrinos . For the neutrino study  it was assumed that the heavy Majorana neutrino mass matrix was proportional to the unit matrix, and only small neutrino mixing angles were considered. Later on a $`U(1)_X`$ family symmetry was added to the model, in order to understand the horizontal hierarchies, although in this case the neutrino spectrum was not analysed at all .

We discussed  neutrino masses and mixing angles in the string-inspired Pati-Salam model supplemented by a $`U(1)_X`$ flavour symmetry. The model involves third family Yukawa unification and predicts the top mass and the ratio of the vacuum expectation values $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, as we also recently discussed in Ref. . It was already known that the model can provide a successful description of the CKM matrix and predicts the down and strange quark masses, although our up-dated analysis differed from that presented previously  partly due to the recent refinements in third family Yukawa unification , but mainly as a result of the recent Super-Kamiokande data which has important implications for the flavour structure of the model. In fact our main focus was on the neutrino masses and mixing angles which were not previously discussed at all in this framework. We assumed a minimal version of the model, and avoided the use of the accidental cancellation mechanism, which in any case has difficulties in accounting for bi-maximal neutrino mixing. We also showed that the mixing angle magnification mechanism can only provide limited increases in the mixing angles, due to the fact that the unified third family Yukawa coupling is only approximately equal to 0.7  and is therefore too small to have a dramatic effect. Instead, we reled on the SRHND mechanism, and we showed how this mechanism may be implemented in the 422 model by appropriate use of operators with “Clebsch zeros” resulting in a natural explanation for atmospheric neutrinos via a hierarchical mass spectrum. We specifically focused on the LMA MSW solution since this is preferred by the recent fits.

## 2 Single Right-handed Neutrino Dominance (SRHND)

Consider two RH neutrinos for simplicity. Then let us write the (Dirac) Yukawa couplings in the LR basis as

$$Y_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& a& d\\ 0& b& e\\ 0& c& f\end{array}\right)$$
(1)
and the heavy Majorana mass matrix as

$$M_{RR}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& X& 0\\ 0& 0& Y\end{array}\right)$$
(2)
Then using the see-saw formula for the light effective Majorana mass matrix $`m_{LL}=Y_\nu M_{RR}^1Y_\nu ^Tv_2^2`$ where $`v_2`$ is the Higgs doublet vacuum expectation value,

$$m_{LL}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{d^2}{Y}+\frac{a^2}{X}& \frac{de}{Y}+\frac{ab}{X}& \frac{df}{Y}+\frac{ac}{X}\\ .& \frac{e^2}{Y}+\frac{b^2}{X}& \frac{ef}{Y}+\frac{bc}{X}\\ .& .& \frac{f^2}{Y}+\frac{c^2}{X}\end{array}\right)v_2^2$$
(3)
Now suppose that the third right-handed neutrino contributions $`\frac{1}{Y}`$ dominate the 23 block of $`m_{LL}`$, then we get an automatic hierarchy even for large 23 mixing:

$$det[m_{LL}]_{23}=m_{\nu _2}m_{\nu _3}0m_{\nu _2}/m_{\nu _3}1$$
(4)
This physical mechanism responsible for the neutrino mass hierarchy is called SRHND. In the limit that only a single right handed neutrino contributes the determinant clearly exactly vanishes and we have $`m_{\nu _2}=0`$ exactly. In the actual situation the third right-handed neutrino dominates, and sub-dominant contributions from the second right-handed neutrino give a small finite mass $`m_{\nu _2}0`$ (suitable for the MSW solution to the solar neutrino problem) whilst maintaining the 23 mass hierarchy. To be precise we have,

$$m_{\nu _1}=0,$$
(5)
$$m_{\nu _2}\frac{(bc)^2}{X}v_2^2$$
(6)
$$m_{\nu _3}\frac{(d^2+e^2+f^2)}{Y}v_2^2$$
(7)
The mixing angles may easily be estimated to be

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta _{23}\frac{e}{f}1,$$
(8)
$$\mathrm{tan}\theta _{13}\frac{d}{\sqrt{e^2+f^2}}1$$
(9)
$$\mathrm{tan}\theta _{12}\frac{a}{bc}1$$
(10)
Thus by a suitable choice of Yukawa couplings it is possible to have a large 12 angle suitable for the LMA MSW solution and a large 23 angle suitable for atmospheric oscillations, while maintaining a small 13 angle consistent with the CHOOZ constraint. Note that the bi-maximal mixing angle scenario does not threaten the 23 mass hieararchy which is maintained by SRHND. In other words, providing SRHND is in operation, the hierarchy is guaranteed in the presence of large mixing angles. This is a very nice feature of SRHND.

## 3 $`U(1)`$ Family Symmetry

Introducing a $`U(1)`$ family symmetry , , ,  provides a convenient way to organise the hierarchies within the various Yukawa matrices. For definiteness we shall focus on a particular class of model based on a single pseudo-anomalous $`U(1)`$ gauged family symmetry . We assume that the $`U(1)`$ is broken by the equal VEVs of two singlets $`\theta ,\overline{\theta }`$ which have vector-like charges $`\pm 1`$ . The $`U(1)`$ breaking scale is set by $`<\theta >=<\overline{\theta }>`$ where the VEVs arise from a Green-Schwartz mechanism  with computable Fayet-Illiopoulos $`D`$-term which determines these VEVs to be one or two orders of magnitude below $`M_U`$. Additional exotic vector matter with mass $`M_V`$ allows the Wolfenstein parameter  to be generated by the ratio

$$\frac{<\theta >}{M_V}=\frac{<\overline{\theta }>}{M_V}=\lambda 0.22$$
(11)
The idea is that at tree-level the $`U(1)`$ family symmetry only permits third family Yukawa couplings (e.g. the top quark Yukawa coupling). Smaller Yukawa couplings are generated effectively from higher dimension non-renormalisable operators corresponding to insertions of $`\theta `$ and $`\overline{\theta }`$ fields and hence to powers of the expansion parameter in Eq.11, which we have identified with the Wolfenstein parameter. The number of powers of the expansion parameter is controlled by the $`U(1)`$ charge of the particular operator. The fields relevant to neutrino masses $`L_i`$, $`N_p^c`$, $`H_u`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are assigned $`U(1)`$ charges $`l_i`$, $`n_p`$, $`h_u=0`$, $`\sigma `$. From Eqs.11, the neutrino Yukawa couplings and Majorana mass terms may then be expanded in powers of the Wolfenstein parameter,

$$M_{RR}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^{|2n_1+\sigma |}& \lambda ^{|n_1+n_2+\sigma |}& \lambda ^{|n_1+n_3+\sigma |}\\ .& \lambda ^{|2n_2+\sigma |}& \lambda ^{|n_2+n_3+\sigma |}\\ .& .& \lambda ^{|2n_3+\sigma |}\end{array}\right)$$
(12)
The conditions which ensure that the third dominant neutrino is isolated require that the elements $`\lambda ^{|n_1+n_3+\sigma |}`$, $`\lambda ^{|n_2+n_3+\sigma |}`$ be sufficiently small.

The neutrino Yukawa matrix is explicitly

$$Y_\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^{|l_1+n_1|}& \lambda ^{|l_1+n_2|}& \lambda ^{|l_1+n_3|}\\ \lambda ^{|l_2+n_1|}& \lambda ^{|l_2+n_2|}& \lambda ^{|l_2+n_3|}\\ \lambda ^{|l_3+n_1|}& \lambda ^{|l_3+n_2|}& \lambda ^{|l_3+n_3|}\end{array}\right)$$
(13)
The requirement of large 23 mixing and small 13 mixing becomes

$$|n_3+l_2|=|n_3+l_3|,|n_3+l_1||n_3+l_3|=1or2$$
(14)
## 4 Examples

Let us consider an example of charges which lead to SRHND with bimaximal mixing,

$$l_i=(2,0,0),n_i=(2,1,1),\sigma =1$$
(15)
then this leads to

$$m_{LL}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^5+2\lambda ^5& \lambda ^3+\lambda ^5+\lambda ^3& \lambda ^3+\lambda ^5+\lambda ^3\\ .& \lambda +2\lambda ^3& \lambda +\lambda ^3+\lambda ^3\\ .& .& \lambda +2\lambda ^3\end{array}\right)$$

where the first entry in each element corresponds to the $`1/Y`$ contributions coming from the right-handed neutrino $`N_{3R}`$, and clearly dominates the 23 block by a factor of $`\lambda ^2`$. In this case it does not dominate the other elements outside the 23 block. The 13 element from $`N_{3R}`$ is suppressed relative to the 23 block elements by a factor of $`\lambda ^2`$, leading to a CHOOZ angle of this order. The subdominant entries in the 12,13,22,23 elements are of the same order, leading to a large 12 angle suitable for LMA MSW.

## 5 Neutrino Masses and Mixing Angles in a Realistic String-Inspired Model

Consider the Pati-Salam gauge group:

$$SU(4)SU(2)_LSU(2)_RU(1)$$
(16)
with fermions in the superfield multiplets

$$F_{L,R}^i=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}u& u& u& \nu \\ d& d& d& e^{}\end{array}\right)_{L,R}^i$$
(17)
The model has the following features:

* predicts three right-handed neutrinos
* has third Family Yukawa Unification
* gives vertical hierarchies from Clebsch coefficients
* horizontal hierarchies from $`U(1)`$ family symmetry
* this gauge group has emerged from explicit type I string constructions.

The Higgs $`h`$ contains the two MSSM Higgs doublets

$$h=\left(\begin{array}{cc}h_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}& h_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}\\ h_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}& h_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}\end{array}\right)$$
(18)
The Higgs $`H,\overline{H}`$ break the Pati-Salam group and $`\theta ,\overline{\theta }`$ break $`U(1)`$ family symmetry.

$$H,\overline{H}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}u_H& u_H& u_H& \nu _H\\ d_H& d_H& d_H& e_H^{}\end{array}\right),\mathrm{}$$
(19)
$$<H>=<\overline{H}>=<\nu _H>M10^{16}GeV$$
(20)
$$<\theta >=<\overline{\theta }>M10^{16}GeV$$
(21)
$$SU(4)_{PS}SU(2)_LSU(2)_RU(1)$$

$$SU(3)_CSU(2)_LU(1)_Y$$

The fermion mass operators (responsible for Yukawa matrices) are:

$$(F_L^i\overline{F}_R^j)h\left(\frac{H\overline{H}}{M^2}\right)^n\left(\frac{\theta }{M}\right)^p$$
(22)
The Majorana mass operators (responsible for $`M_{RR}`$) are:

$$(\overline{F}_R^i\overline{F}_R^j)\left(\frac{HH}{M^2}\right)\left(\frac{H\overline{H}}{M^2}\right)^m\left(\frac{\theta }{M}\right)^q$$
(23)
The $`U(1)`$ family symmetry charges we assume are:

$$F_L^1=1,F_L^2=0,F_L^3=0$$

$$\overline{F}_R^1=4,\overline{F}_R^2=2,\overline{F}_R^3=0$$

| Approximate Structure of the Matrices: | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`\lambda _u(M_X)`$ | $``$ | $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\delta ^3ϵ^5& \delta ^2ϵ^3& \delta ^2ϵ\\ \delta ^3ϵ^4& \delta ^2ϵ^2& \delta ^3\\ \delta ^3ϵ^4& \delta ^2ϵ^2& 1\end{array}\right)`$ |
| $`\lambda _d(M_X)`$ | $``$ | $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\delta ϵ^5& \delta ^2ϵ^3& \delta ^2ϵ\\ \delta ϵ^4& \delta ϵ^2& \delta ^2\\ \delta ϵ^4& \delta ϵ^2& 1\end{array}\right)`$ |
| $`\lambda _e(M_X)`$ | $``$ | $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\delta ϵ^5& \delta ϵ^3& \delta ϵ\\ \delta ϵ^4& \delta ϵ^2& \delta ^2\\ \delta ϵ^4& \delta ϵ^2& 1\end{array}\right)`$ |
| $`\lambda _\nu (M_X)`$ | $``$ | $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\delta ^3ϵ^5& \delta ϵ^3& \delta ϵ\\ \delta ^3ϵ^4& \delta ^2ϵ^2& \delta \\ \delta ^3ϵ^4& \delta ^2ϵ^2& 1\end{array}\right)`$ |
| $`M_{RR}(M_X)`$ | $``$ | $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\delta ϵ^8& \delta ϵ^6& \delta ϵ^4\\ \delta ϵ^6& \delta ϵ^4& \delta ϵ^2\\ \delta ϵ^4& \delta ϵ^2& 1\end{array}\right)`$ |

where $`\delta =\frac{<H><\overline{H}>}{M^2}`$, $`ϵ=\frac{<\theta >}{M}=\frac{<\overline{\theta }>}{M}.`$

If we assume similar expansion parameters $`\delta ϵ\lambda 0.22`$ then the above matrices lead to SRHND with the third right-handed neutrino giving the dominant contribution the 23 block of $`m_{LL}`$.

The neutrino masses at low energies are:

$$m_{\nu _1}=4.84\times 10^8\mathrm{eV},$$

$$m_{\nu _2}=5.79\times 10^3\mathrm{eV},$$

$$m_{\nu _3}=5.39\times 10^2\mathrm{eV}.$$

It is interesting to consider the renormalisation group evolution of neutrino mixing angles at different scales:

$`Q=M_X3\times 10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}`$
$`\mathrm{sin}^2(2\theta _{12})=0.828`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^2(2\theta _{23})=0.890`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^2(2\theta _{13})=0.025`$

$`Q=M_{\nu _3}3\times 10^{14}\mathrm{GeV}`$
$`\mathrm{sin}^2(2\theta _{12})=0.832`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^2(2\theta _{23})=0.908`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^2(2\theta _{13})=0.027`$

$`Q=M_Z`$
$`\mathrm{sin}^2(2\theta _{12})=0.853`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^2(2\theta _{23})=0.943`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^2(2\theta _{13})=0.027`$

## 6 Conclusions

We have assumed the conventional see-saw mechanism, and contructed a hierarchical pattern of three active neutrinos with bi-maximal mixing. In order to enforce the hierarchy we used the SRHND mechanism. This is a very nice way to ensure a neutrino mass hierarchy in the presence of large mixing angles.

We showed how this mechanism can be organised in the framework of a $`U(1)`$ family symmetry, then went on to discuss a realistic string-inspired model which includes such a symmetry. The main features of our approach may be summarised as follows:

* SRHND is a natural and general mechanism for yielding hierarchical neutrino masses in the presence of large 23 mixing.
* SRHND underpins success of string-inspired SUSY Pati-Salam.
* “Clebsch zero” operators play key role
* SRHND models are stable under radiative corrections, but atmospheric mixing can be increased by several per cent.
* SRHND underpins several other models in the literature .