text:
# QUANTUM MEASUREMENT, INFORMATION, AND COMPLETELY POSITIVE MAPS

## 1. INTRODUCTION

Every measuring apparatus inputs the state $`\rho `$ of the measured system and outputs the classical output $`𝐱`$ and the state $`\rho _{\{𝐱=x\}}`$ of the measured system conditional upon the outcome $`𝐱=x`$. In the conventional approach, the probability distribution of the classical output $`𝐱`$ and the output state $`\rho _{\{𝐱=x\}}`$ are determined by the spectral projections of the measured observable by the Born statistical formula and the projection postulate, respectively. This description has been a very familiar principle in quantum mechanics, but is much more restrictive than what quantum mechanics allows. In the modern measurement theory, the problem has been investigated as to what is the most general description of measurement allowed by quantum mechanics. This paper investigates the problem of the determination of all the possible measurements of observables with nondegenerate spectrum and shows that the following conditions are equivalent for measurements of nondegenerate observables: (i) The joint probability distribution of the outcomes of successive measurements depends affinely on the initial state. (ii) The apparatus has an indirect measurement model. (iii) The state change is described by a positive superoperator valued measure. (iv) The state change is described by a completely positive superoperator valued measure. (v) The family of output states is a Borel family of density operators independent of the input state and can be arbitrarily chosen by the choice of the apparatus.

## 2. MEASUREMENT SCHEMES

Let $``$ be a separable Hilbert space. The state space of $``$ is the set $`𝒮()`$ of density operators on $``$. In what follows, we shall give a general mathematical formulation for the statistical properties of measuring apparatuses. For heuristics, we shall consider a measuring apparatus which measures the quantum system $`𝐒`$ described by the Hilbert space $``$. Every measuring apparatus has the output variable that gives the outcome on each measurement. We assume that the output variable takes values in a standard Borel space which is specified by each measuring apparatus. We shall denote by $`𝐀(𝐱)`$ the measuring apparatus with the output variable $`𝐱`$ taking values in a standard Borel space $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with the Borel $`\sigma `$-field $`(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. The statistical property of the apparatus $`𝐀(𝐱)`$ consists of the output distribution $`\mathrm{Pr}\{𝐱\mathrm{\Delta }\rho \}`$ and the state reduction $`\rho \rho _{\{𝐱=x\}}`$. The output distribution $`\mathrm{Pr}\{𝐱\mathrm{\Delta }\rho \}`$ describes the probability distribution of the output variable $`𝐱`$ when the input state is $`\rho 𝒮()`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. The state reduction $`\rho \rho _{\{bx=x\}}`$ describes the state change from the input state $`\rho `$ to the output state $`\rho _{\{𝐱=x\}}`$, when the measurement leads to the output $`𝐱=x`$. The output state $`\rho _{\{𝐱=x\}}`$ is determined up to probability one with respect to the output distribution. The state reduction determines the collective state reduction $`\rho \rho _{\{𝐱\mathrm{\Delta }\}}`$ that describes the output state $`\rho _{\{𝐱\mathrm{\Delta }\}}`$ given that the output of the measurement is in a Borel set $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The collective state reduction is naturally related to the state reduction by the integral formula

$$\rho _{\{𝐱\mathrm{\Delta }\}}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{Pr}\{𝐱\mathrm{\Delta }\rho \}}_\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{\{𝐱=x\}}\mathrm{Pr}\{𝐱dx\rho \}.$$

Formal description of the statistical properties of measuring apparatuses will be given as follows.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a standard Borel space with $`\sigma `$-field $`(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. Denote by $`B(\mathrm{\Lambda },𝒮())`$ the space of Borel families of states for $`(,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. The state space of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the set $`𝒮(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ of probability measures on $`(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. A measurement scheme for $`(,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is the pair $`(𝒫,𝒬)`$ of a function $`𝒫`$ from $`𝒮()`$ to $`𝒮(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and a function $`𝒬`$ from $`𝒮()`$ to $`B(\mathrm{\Lambda },𝒮())`$. The function $`𝒫`$ is called the output probability scheme, and $`𝒬`$ is called the state reduction scheme. Two measurement schemes $`(𝒫,𝒬)`$ and $`(𝒫^{},𝒬^{})`$ are said to be equivalent, in symbols $`(𝒫,𝒬)(𝒫^{},𝒬^{})`$, if $`𝒫=𝒫^{}`$ and $`𝒬\rho `$ and $`𝒬^{}\rho `$ differ only on a null set of the probability measure $`𝒫\rho `$, i.e.,

$$(𝒫\rho )\{x\mathrm{\Lambda }|(𝒬\rho )(x)(𝒬^{}\rho )(x)\}=0,$$

for all $`\rho 𝒮()`$.

The set of equivalence classes of measurement schemes for $`(,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is denoted by $`(,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and we define $`()=_\mathrm{\Lambda }(,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. A measurement theory for $``$ is a pair $`(𝒜,𝐌)`$ consisting of a nonempty set $`𝒜`$ and a function $`𝐌`$ from $`𝒜`$ to $`()`$. An element of $`𝒜`$ is called an apparatus. Every apparatus has its distinctive output variable. We denote the apparatuses with output variables $`𝐱,𝐲,\mathrm{}`$ by $`𝐀(𝐱),𝐀(𝐲),\mathrm{}`$, respectively. We assume that $`𝐱=𝐲`$ if and only if $`𝐀(𝐱)=𝐀(𝐲)`$. The image of $`𝐀(𝐱)`$ by $`𝐌`$ is denoted by $`𝐌(𝐱)`$ instead of $`𝐌(𝐀(𝐱))`$ for simplicity, so that $`𝐌(𝐱)`$ denotes the equivalence class of the measurement scheme corresponding to the apparatus $`𝐀(𝐱)`$. The apparatus $`𝐀(𝐱)`$ is called $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-valued if $`𝐌(𝐱)(,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. For any $`𝐀(𝐱)𝒜`$, the equivalence class $`𝐌(𝐱)`$ of the measurement scheme is called the statistical property of $`𝐀(𝐱)`$. We shall denote by $`(𝒫_𝐱,𝒬_𝐱)`$ a representative of $`𝐌(𝐱)`$; in this case, we shall also write $`𝐌(𝐱)=[𝒫_𝐱,𝒬_𝐱]`$. The function $`𝒫_𝐱`$ is called the output probability of $`𝐀(𝐱)`$ and $`𝒬_𝐱`$ the state reduction of $`𝐀(𝐱)`$ which is determined uniquely up to the output probability one. Two apparatuses $`𝐀(𝐱)`$ and $`𝐀(𝐲)`$ are said to be statistically equivalent, in symbols $`𝐀(𝐱)𝐀(𝐲)`$, if they have the same statistical property, i.e., $`𝐌(𝐱)=𝐌(𝐲)`$.

Suppose that a measurement theory $`(𝒜,𝐌)`$ is given. Let $`𝐀(𝐱)𝒜`$ and $`𝐌(𝐱)=[𝒫_𝐱,𝒬_𝐱]`$. The probability distribution of the output variable $`𝐱`$ in the state $`\rho `$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{Pr}\{𝐱\mathrm{\Delta }\rho \}=(𝒫_𝐱\rho )(\mathrm{\Delta })$$

for all $`\rho 𝒮()`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. This probability distribution is called the output distribution of $`𝐀(𝐱)`$ in $`\rho `$. The output states $`\{\rho _{\{𝐱=x\}}\}_{x\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ of $`𝐀(𝐱)`$ in $`\rho `$ is defined by

$$\rho _{\{𝐱=x\}}=(𝒬_𝐱\rho )(x)$$

for all $`\rho 𝒮()`$ and $`x\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ be standard Borel spaces. For $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$, let $`𝐀(𝐱_j)`$ be a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_j`$-valued apparatus. A successive measurement in the input state $`\rho `$ is a sequence of measurements using $`𝐀(𝐱_1),\mathrm{},𝐀(𝐱_n)`$ such that the input state of the apparatus $`𝐀(𝐱_1)`$ is $`\rho `$ and the input state of the apparatus $`𝐀(𝐱_{j+1})`$ is the output state of the apparatus $`𝐀(𝐱_j)`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},n1`$. The joint probability distribution of the outcomes of the successive measurements using $`𝐀(𝐱_1),\mathrm{},𝐀(𝐱_n)`$ in the input state $`\rho `$ is naturally defined recursively by

$`\mathrm{Pr}\{𝐱_1\mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_n\mathrm{\Delta }_n\rho \}`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Delta }_1}}\mathrm{Pr}\{𝐱_2\mathrm{\Delta }_2,\mathrm{},𝐱_n\mathrm{\Delta }_n\rho _{\{𝐱_1=x_1\}}\}\mathrm{Pr}\{𝐱_1dx_1\rho \}`$
for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1),\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Delta }_n(\mathrm{\Lambda }_n)`$.

Now, we consider the following requirement for a measurement theory $`(𝒜,𝐌)`$:

Mixing law of the $`n`$-joint probability distributions ($`n`$MLPD): For any sequence $`𝐀(𝐱_1),\mathrm{},𝐀(𝐱_n)`$ of apparatuses with values in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$, respectively, if the input state $`\rho `$ is the mixture of $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ such that $`\rho =\alpha \rho _1+(1\alpha )\rho _2`$ with $`0<\alpha <1`$ then we have

$`\mathrm{Pr}\{𝐱_1\mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_n\mathrm{\Delta }_n\rho \}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`\alpha \mathrm{Pr}\{𝐱_1\mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_n\mathrm{\Delta }_n\rho _1\}`$
$`+(1\alpha )\mathrm{Pr}\{𝐱_1\mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_n\mathrm{\Delta }_n\rho _2\}`$
for all $`\rho 𝒮()`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1),\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Delta }_n(\mathrm{\Lambda }_n)`$.

An observable of $``$ is a self-adjoint operator (densely defined) on $``$. We denote by $`E^A`$ the spectral measure of an observable $`A`$. According to the Born statistical formula, we say that an $`𝐑`$-valued apparatus $`𝐀(𝐱)`$ measures an observable $`A`$ if

$$\mathrm{Pr}\{𝐱\mathrm{\Delta }\rho \}=\text{Tr}[E^A(\mathrm{\Delta })\rho ]$$
(3)
for all $`\rho 𝒮()`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐑)`$, where $`𝐑`$ stands for the real number field. A measurement theory $`(𝒜,𝐌)`$ is called nonsuperselective if for any observable $`A`$ there is at least one apparatus measuring $`A`$.

A $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-valued observable of $``$ is a projection valued measure $`E`$ from $`(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ to $`()`$ such that $`E(\mathrm{\Lambda })=I`$. The Born statistical formula is generalized as follows. We say that a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-valued apparatus $`𝐀(𝐱)`$ measures a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-valued observable $`E`$ if

$$\mathrm{Pr}\{𝐱\mathrm{\Delta }\rho \}=\text{Tr}[E(\mathrm{\Delta })\rho ]$$
(4)
for all $`\rho 𝒮()`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. A probability operator valued measure (POVM) for $`(,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is a positive operator valued measure $`F`$ from $`(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ to $`()`$ such that $`F(\mathrm{\Lambda })=I`$. We say that a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-valued apparatus $`𝐀(𝐱)`$ measures a POVM $`F`$ for $`(,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ if

$$\mathrm{Pr}\{𝐱\mathrm{\Delta }\rho \}=\text{Tr}[F(\mathrm{\Delta })\rho ]$$
(5)
for all $`\rho 𝒮()`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. Conventional measurement theory is devoted to measurements of observables but modern theory extends the notion of measurements to measurements of POVMs \[1–5\]. We shall describe in the following requirement the essential feature of the modern approach.

Existence of probability operator valued measures (EPOVM): For any apparatus $`𝐀(𝐱)`$, there exists a POVM $`F_𝐱`$ uniquely such that $`𝐀(𝐱)`$ measures $`F_𝐱`$.

The EPOVM is justified by the following theorem proved in .

###### Theorem 1

For any measurement theory $`(𝒜,𝐌)`$, the EPOVM is equivalent to the 1MLPD.

## 3. COLLECTIVE MEASUREMENT SCHEMES

In order to provide an alternative definition of measurement schemes, we call a pair $`(𝒫,)`$ as a collective measurement scheme if $`𝒫`$ is a function from $`𝒮()`$ to $`𝒮(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $``$ is a function from $`(\mathrm{\Lambda })\times 𝒮()`$ to $`𝒮()`$ satisfying

$$\underset{n}{}(𝒫\rho )(\mathrm{\Delta }_n)(\mathrm{\Delta }_n,\rho )=(\mathrm{\Lambda },\rho )$$
(6)
for any countable Borel partition $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{\Delta }_2,\mathrm{}\}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\rho 𝒮()`$, where the sum is convergent in the trace norm. The function $``$ is called the collective reduction scheme. Two collective measurement schemes $`(𝒫,)`$ and $`(𝒫^{},^{})`$ are said to be equivalent, in symbols $`(𝒫,)(𝒫^{},^{})`$, if $`𝒫=𝒫^{}`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Delta },\rho )=^{}(\mathrm{\Delta },\rho )`$ for all $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ with $`(𝒫\rho )(\mathrm{\Delta })>0`$.

###### Theorem 2

The relation

$$(𝒫\rho )(\mathrm{\Delta })(\mathrm{\Delta },\rho )=_\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒬\rho )(x)d(𝒫\rho )(x)$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`\rho 𝒮()`$, sets up a one-to-one correspondence between the equivalence classes of measurement schemes $`(𝒫,𝒬)`$ and the equivalence classes of collective measurement schemes $`(𝒫,)`$.

Let $`(𝒫,𝒬)`$ be a measurement scheme for $`(,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. The collective measurement scheme $`(𝒫,)`$ defined by (7) up to equivalence is called the collective measurement scheme induced by $`(𝒫,𝒬)`$ and the function $``$ is called the collective reduction scheme induced by $`(𝒫,𝒬)`$.

Let $`(𝒜,𝐌)`$ be a measurement theory satisfying the 1MLPD. For any $`𝐀(𝐱)𝒜`$, define $`_𝐱`$ to be the collective reduction scheme induced by $`(𝒫_𝐱,𝒬_𝐱)`$. The functions $`_𝐱`$ is called the collective reduction of the apparatus $`𝐀(𝐱)`$. The collective output states $`\{\rho _{\{𝐱\mathrm{\Delta }\}}\}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })}`$ of $`𝐀(𝐱)`$ in $`\rho `$ is defined by

$$\rho _{\{𝐱\mathrm{\Delta }\}}=_𝐱(\mathrm{\Delta },\rho )$$

for all $`\rho 𝒮()`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$.

## 4. DAVIES-LEWIS POSTULATE

In what follows, we shall introduce some mathematical terminology independent of particular measurement theory. A superoperator for $``$ is a bounded linear transformation on the space $`\tau c()`$ of trace class operators on $``$. The dual of a superoperator $`L`$ is the dual superoperator $`L^{}`$ defined by $`L^{}A,\rho =A,L\rho `$ for all $`A()`$ and $`\rho \tau c()`$, where $`,`$ stands for the duality pairing defined by $`A,\rho =\text{Tr}[A\rho ]`$ for all $`A()`$ and $`\rho \tau c()`$. A superoperator is called positive if it maps positive operators to positive operators. We denote by $`𝒫(\tau c())`$ the space of positive superoperators. Positive contractive superoperators are called operations .

A positive superoperator valued (PSV) measure is a mapping $``$ from $`(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ to $`𝒫(\tau c())`$ such that if $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{\Delta }_2,\mathrm{}\}`$ is a countable Borel partition of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, then we have

$$(\mathrm{\Lambda })\rho =\underset{n}{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_n)\rho $$

for any $`\rho \tau c()`$, where the sum is convergent in the trace norm. The PSV measure $``$ is said to be normalized if it satisfies the further condition

$$\text{Tr}[(\mathrm{\Lambda })\rho ]=\text{Tr}[\rho ]$$

for any $`\rho \tau c()`$. Normalized PSV measures are called instruments  for short.

Let $``$ be an instrument for $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },)`$. The relation

$$X(\mathrm{\Delta })=(\mathrm{\Delta })^{}I$$
(8)
for all $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, defines a POVM for $`(,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, called the POVM of $``$. The relation $`T=(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ defines a trace preserving operation, called the total operation of $``$.

A measurement theory $`(𝒜,𝐌)`$ is said to satisfy the Davies-Lewis postulate if it satisfies the follows postulate.

Davies-Lewis postulate: For any apparatus $`𝐀(𝐱)`$, there is a normalized PSV measure $`_𝐱`$ satisfying the following relations for any $`\rho 𝒮()`$ and Borel set $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$:

(DL1) $`\mathrm{Pr}\{𝐱\mathrm{\Delta }\rho \}=\text{Tr}[_𝐱(\mathrm{\Delta })\rho ]`$.

(DL2) $`\rho _{\{𝐱\mathrm{\Delta }\}}={\displaystyle \frac{_𝐱(\mathrm{\Delta })\rho }{\text{Tr}[_𝐱(\mathrm{\Delta })\rho ]}}`$.

From Theorem 2, the normalized PSV measure $`_𝐱`$ determines the output state $`\rho _{\{𝐱=x\}}`$ uniquely up to equivalence by

(DL3) $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Delta }}\rho _{\{𝐱=x\}}\text{Tr}[d_𝐱(x)\rho ]=_𝐱(\mathrm{\Delta })\rho .`$

From (DL1), the Davies-Lewis postulate implies 1MLPD. Although the Davies-Lewis description of measurement is quite general, it is not clear by itself whether it is general enough to allow all the possible measurements. The following theorem shows indeed it is the case.

###### Theorem 3

For any nonsuperselective measurement theory, the Davies-Lewis postulate is equivalent to the 2MLPD.

A measurement theory $`(𝒜,𝐌)`$ is called a statistical measurement theory if it is nonsuperselective and satisfies 2MLPD.

###### Theorem 4

Every statistical measurement theory satisfies $`n`$MLPD for all positive integer $`n`$.

## 5. MEASUREMENTS OF OBSERVABLES

An instrument $``$ for $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },)`$ is said to be decomposable if $`(\mathrm{\Delta })^{}A=X(\mathrm{\Delta })T^{}(A)`$ for all $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`A()`$, where $`X`$ is the POVM of $``$ and $`T`$ the total operation. For a given $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-valued observable $`E`$ for $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },)`$, an instrument $``$ is said to be $`E`$-compatible if the POVM of $``$ is $`E`$. i.e., $`^{}(\mathrm{\Delta })I=E(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ for all $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$; such an instrument is also called observable measuring. For an observable $`A`$, an instrument is called $`A`$-compatible if it is $`E^A`$-compatible. The following theorem shows in particular that every observable measuring instrument is decomposable (see \[5, Proposition 4.3\] for the case of completely positive instruments).

###### Theorem 5

Let $`E`$ be a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-valued observable of $``$. Let $``$ be an $`E`$-compatible instrument and $`T`$ its total operation. Then, we have the following statements.

(i) For any $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`\rho \tau c()`$, we have

$$(\mathrm{\Delta })\rho =T[E(\mathrm{\Delta })\rho ]=T[\rho E(\mathrm{\Delta })]=T[E(\mathrm{\Delta })\rho E(\mathrm{\Delta })].$$
(9)
(ii) For any $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`B()`$, we have

$$(\mathrm{\Delta })^{}B=E(\mathrm{\Delta })T^{}(B)=T^{}(B)E(\mathrm{\Delta })=E(\mathrm{\Delta })T^{}(B)E(\mathrm{\Delta }).$$
(10)
All the $`E`$-compatible instruments are determined as follows.

###### Theorem 6

Let $`E`$ be an $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-valued observable of $``$. The relation

$$(\mathrm{\Delta })\rho =T[E(\mathrm{\Delta })\rho ]$$
(11)
for all $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`\rho \tau c()`$ sets up a one-to-one correspondence between the $`E`$-compatible instruments $``$ and the $`E`$-compatible trace preserving operations $`T`$.

From the above theorem, in every statistical measurement theory we have the following: For any apparatus $`𝐀(𝐱)`$ measuring a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-valued observable $`E`$, there is an $`E`$-compatible trace preserving operation $`T`$ such that the statistical property of $`𝐀(𝐱)`$ is represented as follows.

output distribution: $`\mathrm{Pr}\{𝐱\mathrm{\Delta }\rho \}=\text{Tr}[E(\mathrm{\Delta })\rho ]`$ (12)
collective output state: $`\rho _{\{𝐱\mathrm{\Delta }\}}={\displaystyle \frac{T[E(\mathrm{\Delta })\rho ]}{\text{Tr}[E(\mathrm{\Delta })\rho ]}}`$ (13)
## 6. MEASUREMENTS OF NONDEGENERATE OBSERVABLES

Let $`E`$ be a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-valued observable for $``$. We say that $`E`$ is nondegenerate if the commutant of $`E`$ is abelian. Two Borel families $`\{\mathit{\varrho }_x\}_{x\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\{\mathit{\varrho }_x^{}\}_{x\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ of density operators are said to be $`E`$-equivalent if they differ only on an $`E`$-null set, i.e.,

$$E\{x\mathrm{\Lambda }|\mathit{\varrho }_x\mathit{\varrho }_x^{}\}=0.$$

###### Theorem 7

Let $`E`$ be a nondegenerate $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-valued observable of $``$. The Bochner integral formula

$$T\rho =_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathit{\varrho }_x\text{Tr}[\rho dE(x)]$$
(14)
for all $`\rho \tau c()`$ sets up a one-to-one correspondence between the $`E`$-compatible trace preserving operations $`T`$ and the $`E`$-equivalence classes of the Borel families $`\{\mathbf{\varrho }_x\}_{x\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ of density operators indexed by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

From the above theorem, in any statistical measurement theory we conclude the following: For any apparatus $`𝐀(𝐱)`$ measuring an $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-valued observable $`E`$, there is a Borel family $`\{\mathbf{\varrho }_x\}_{x\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ of density operators uniquely up to $`E`$-equivalence such that the statistical property of $`𝐀(𝐱)`$ is represented as follows.

output distribution: $`\mathrm{Pr}\{𝐱\mathrm{\Delta }\rho \}=\text{Tr}[E(\mathrm{\Delta })\rho ]`$ (15)
output state: $`\rho _{\{𝐱=x\}}=\mathit{\varrho }_x`$ (16)
## 7. INDIRECT MEASUREMENT MODELS

An indirect measurement model for $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },)`$ is defined to be a 4-tuple $`(𝒦,\sigma ,U,E)`$ consisting of a separable Hilbert space $`𝒦`$, a density operator $`\sigma `$ on $`𝒦`$, a unitary operator $`U`$ on $`𝒦`$, and a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-valued observable $`E`$ of $`𝒦`$.

If the apparatus $`𝐀(𝐱)`$ has the indirect measurement model $`(𝒦,\sigma ,U,E)`$, then $`𝐀(𝐱)`$ has the instrument $`_𝐱`$ defined by

$$_𝐱(\mathrm{\Delta })\rho =\text{Tr}_𝒦[(IE(\mathrm{\Delta }))U(\rho \sigma )U^{}],$$
(17)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`\rho \tau c()`$ , so that the statistical property of $`𝐀(𝐱)`$ is described by $`_𝐱`$ with relations (DL1) and (DL2). The above instrument $`_𝐱`$ is called the instrument of $`𝐀(𝐱)`$.

Now, we consider the following hypothesis.

Indirect measurability hypothesis:  For any indirect measurement model $`(𝒦,\sigma ,U,E)`$, there is an apparatus $`𝐀(𝐱)`$ with the instrument $`_𝐱`$ defined by (17).

In general, an instrument $`_𝐱`$ is said to be realized by an indirect measurement model $`(𝒦,\sigma ,U,E)`$ if (17) holds for any $`\rho \tau c()`$. In this case, the instrument $``$ is called unitarily realizable. Under the indirect measurability hypothesis, every unitarily realizable instrument represents the statistical property of an apparatus.

In the sequel, a statistical measurement theory $`(𝒜,𝐌)`$ is called a standard measurement theory, if it satisfies the indirect measurability hypothesis. It is natural to consider that any standard measurement theory is consistent with the standard formulation of quantum mechanics.

## 8. COMPLETE POSITIVITY

Let $`𝒟=\tau c()`$ or $`𝒟=()`$. A linear transformation $`L`$ on $`𝒟`$ is called completely positive (CP) iff for any finite sequences of operators $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_n𝒟`$ and vectors $`\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _n`$ we have

$$\underset{ij}{}\xi _i|L(A_i^{}A_j)|\xi _j0.$$

The above condition is equivalent to that $`LI`$ maps positive operators in the algebraic tensor product $`𝒟(𝒦)`$ to positive operators in $`𝒟(𝒦)`$ for any Hilbert space $`𝒦`$. Obviously, every CP superoperators are positive. A superoperator is CP if and only if its dual superoperator is CP. An instrument $``$ is called completely positive (CP) if every operation $`(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is CP. It can be seen easily from (17) that unitarily realizable instruments are CP. Conversely, the following theorem, proved in , asserts that every CP instrument is unitarily realizable.

###### Theorem 8

For any CP instrument $``$ for $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },)`$, there is a separable Hilbert space $`𝒦`$, a unit vector $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in $`𝒦`$, a unitary operator $`U`$ on $`𝒦`$, and a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-valued observable $`E`$ of $`𝒦`$ satisfying the relation

$$(\mathrm{\Delta })\rho =\text{Tr}_𝒦[(IE(\mathrm{\Delta }))U(\rho |\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }|)U^{}]$$

for all $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`\rho \tau c()`$.

The following theorem shows that the complete positivity of observable measuring instruments is determined by their total operations.

###### Theorem 9

Let $`E`$ be a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-valued observable. Then, an $`E`$-compatible instrument is CP if and only if its total operation is CP.

From the above theorem, in any standard measurement theory we conclude the following statement : The statistical equivalence classes of apparatuses $`𝐀(𝐱)`$ measuring a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-valued observable $`E`$ with indirect measurement models are in one-to-one correspondence with the $`E`$-compatible trace preserving CP operations, where the statistical property is represented by (12) and (13).

For the case of nondegenerate observables, we have the following simple characterizations.

###### Theorem 10

Let $`E`$ be a nondegenerate $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-valued observable. Then, every $`E`$-compatible operation is completely positive. Every $`E`$-compatible instrument is completely positive.

From the above theorem and Theorem 8, in the statistical measurement theory we conclude: Every apparatus measuring a nondegenerate ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-valued) observable is statistically equivalent to the one having an indirect measurement model.

Every Borel family $`\{\mathit{\varrho }_x\}`$ of density operators indexed by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ defines an $`E`$-compatible trace preserving operation by Theorem 7, and it is automatically completely positive so that it is realized by an indirect measurement model. Thus, we conclude the following: The statistical equivalence classes of apparatuses $`𝐀(𝐱)`$ measuring a nondegenerate $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-valued observable $`E`$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the Borel family $`\{\mathbf{\varrho }_x\}`$ of density operators indexed by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, where the statistical property is represented by (15) and (16).


format: text

text:
# 11B NMR detection of the magnetic field distribution in the mixed superconducting state of MgB2.

## Abstract

The temperature dependence of the magnetic field distribution in the mixed superconducting phase of randomly oriented MgB2 powder was probed by 11B NMR spectroscopy. Below the temperature of the second critical ($`B_{\mathrm{c2}}`$) field, $`T_{\mathrm{c2}}27`$K, our spectra reveal two NMR signal components, one mapping the magnetic field distribution in the mixed superconducting state and the other one arising from the normal state. The complementary use of bulk magnetization and NMR measurements reveals that MgB2 is an anisotropic superconductor with a $`B_{c2}^c<2.35`$ Tesla anisotropy parameter $`\gamma 6`$.

The recent discovery of superconductivity  in MgB2 has revived the excitement on this area of research because this alloy becomes superconducting at unexpectedly  high temperatures ($`T_c=39`$ K), for ”light” main group elements residing between Be and S in the periodic table. Subsequent studies have shown that MgB2 is a type-II superconductor with Bc1($`0`$)$`0.26`$ Tesla, Bc2($`0`$)$`14`$ Tesla, with a small condensation energy (relative to Nb3Sn and YBa2Cu3O7), a $`\xi _0`$$`4.9`$ nm, and a $`\lambda _0`$$`185`$ nm . However, opinions about the nature of the superconductivity mechanism are still contradictory. Band structure calculations  suggest that MgB2 is a BCS superconductor, where superconductivity results from in-plane electron-phonon coupling on the boron sublattice. The detected isotope effect  and the BCS-type energy gap, that is obtained by tunneling spectroscopy  and 11B NMR , are in support of this model. However, specific heat measurements indicate that the superconducting gap is either anisotropic or two-band-like . Further deviations from the $`s`$-wave model have been detected on the temperature dependence of $`B_{\mathrm{c1}}`$ and $`\lambda `$  as well.

Recently few works presented convincing evidence that the MgB2 is an anisotropic superconductor with an anisotropy parameter $`\gamma =(B_{\mathrm{c2}}^{\mathrm{ab}}/B_{\mathrm{c2}}^c)`$ taking values into interval $`2\gamma 6`$.

In principle, a strong anisotropy in the mixed superconducting state of powder MgB2 \- if present- should be detectable with 11B NMR spectroscopy. As known, for fields $`B_{c1}<B_0<B_{c2}`$ a vortex lattice is formed that gives rise to a characteristic magnetic field distribution with van Hove singularities at fields where $`B=0`$. For a perfect hexagonal vortex lattice the field distribution exhibits a peak at a value $`B_s`$, which corresponds to the saddle point located midway between two vortices, whereas two steps at the maximum ($`B_{\mathrm{max}}`$) and minimum ($`B_{\mathrm{min}}`$) fields are expected . Such a magnetic field distribution should be mapped on the NMR line shape, as the Larmor frequency of the resonating nuclei depends linearly on the local magnetic field. Succesfull mapping of the magnetic field distribution has been already presented in a variety of superconducting materials, like vanadium , and rare earth nickel borocarbides YNi2B2C with 11B NMR . In case of strong anisotropy and in applied field $`B_{\mathrm{c2}}^c<B_0<B_{\mathrm{c2}}^{ab}`$, a powder superconducting sample with randomly oriented grains is expected to give a superposition of magnetic field distributions, ranging in between the normal state and the Abrikosov lattice. It is thus of particular interest to testify the possibility of anisotropy in the mixed superconducting state of MgB2, by performing 11B NMR experiments in magnetic fields fullfilling the above condition.

In this letter we report 11B NMR line shape measurements on powder MgB2 samples in external magnetic fields $`B_0=2.35`$ and $`4.7`$ Tesla, which exhibit a strong asymmetric low frequency broadening at temperatures lower than the temperature of the second critical field ($`T`$$`<`$$`T_{\mathrm{c2}}`$). The low temperature spectra may be decomposed in two components: One component corresponding to the unshifted NMR signal of the normal state, which indicates that a portion of the sample volume remains in the normal state even at the lowest measured temperature of $`5`$ K. A second component, which maps the magnetic field distribution of the vortex lattice in the mixed state (vortex component). Our data provide clear evidence that for a part of the MgB2 grains the Bc2($`0`$)$`<2.35`$ Tesla, whereas for another part of the grains Bc2($`0`$) is sufficiently higher, and according to magnetic and CESR measurements  B$`{}_{}{}^{ab}{}_{\mathrm{c2}}{}^{}`$(0)$`14`$ Tesla. Thus, our results provide a strong experimental evidence that MgB2 is an anisotropic superconductor with an anisotropy parameter $`\gamma 6`$.

High quality MgB2 powder samples were prepared by liquid-vapor to solid reaction in an alumina crucible placed inside a vacuum sealed silica tube, using a 3% excess of Mg. Pure Mg and B powders were thoroughly mixed and subsequently slowly heated up to $`910^\mathrm{o}`$ C. At this temperature the sample annealed for two hours and then cooled slowly down to room temperature. Rietveld refinement of x-ray powder diffraction spectra revealed that the examined sample consists of 95% MgB2, with cell constants equal to $`a=b=3.0849(1)`$ Å and $`c=3.5213(1)`$ Å, and a secondary phase of 5% MgO.

To investigate the mixed state and the magnetic irreversibility of MgB2 we have employed thermomagnetic and isothermal magnetization measurements on a SQUID magnetometer. The upper panel of Figure 1a shows the zero field (ZFC) and field cooling (FC) magnetization curves for a sample with randomly oriented grains, which was also used in the NMR measurements. A marked feature is the observed curvature near the onset of the transition, which has been recently attributed  to the anisotropy of MgB2. Specifically, the onset of the diamagnetic signal occurs at the B$`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{ab}}{}_{\mathrm{c2}}{}^{}`$ which varies with temperature as $`B_{\mathrm{c2}}^{\mathrm{ab}}(T)=B_{\mathrm{c2}}^{\mathrm{ab}}(0)(1T/T_c)^{1.27}`$. Since we examine a powder sample containing randomly oriented grains, we have applied the equation derived by Simon et al  for a uniaxial superconductor with the magnetization lying parallel to the external field, in order to fit the reversible part of the thermomagnetic curves. The solid line in Figure 1a shows the successful reproduction of the experimental data by using an anisotropy ratio $`\gamma `$$`6`$ and an average penetration depth: $`\lambda =(\lambda _{\mathrm{ab}}^2\lambda _c)^{1/3}170`$ nm, in agreement with the values in Ref.. The lower panel of Figure 1a shows the phase diagram that is obtained from the magnetic measurements. This diagram includes the temperature variation of $`B_{\mathrm{c2}}^c`$ which is estimated from $`B_{\mathrm{c2}}^c=B_{\mathrm{c2}}^{\mathrm{ab}}/\gamma `$. In this figure we also include the data of $`H_{c2}^{ab}`$ for $`H>5.5`$ T, from ref. . The irreversibility line is derived from the temperature where the ZFC and the FC branches are separated. Finally, Figure 1b shows the half of the isothermal hysteresis loop at $`T=5`$ K, which indicates that the irreversible magnetization is comparable to the reversible one. This small irreversible magnetization, in the powder sample has been attributed to the surface barriers . The two insets show details of the loop in the regions of 2.35 and 4.7 Tesla, which are used below to reproduce the magnetic field distribution in the vortex lattice.

11B NMR line shape measurements were performed on two spectrometers operating in external magnetic fields with $`B_0=2.35`$ and $`4.7`$ Tesla. The spectra were obtained from the Fourier transformation of half of the echo, following a typical $`\pi /2`$-$`\tau `$-$`\pi `$ spin-echo pulse sequence. In both magnetic fields and in the normal state the length of the $`\pi /2`$ pulse was $`t_p(\pi /2)2`$ $`\mu `$sec, corresponding to a radiofrequency (rf) irradiation field $`B_144`$ Gauss. At room temperature the spectra were found to exhibit the typical powder pattern for a nuclear spin $`I=3/2`$ in the presence of quadrupolar effects with an axially symmetric electric field gradient, in agreement with previous works . The separation of the symmetric satellite lines gives a quadrupolar frequency : $`\nu _Q=2\mathrm{\Delta }\nu ^{(1)}=e^2qQ/2h0.836`$ MHz. In Figure 2 we demonstrate the line shape of the central transition (-$`\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}`$) as a function of temperature in a magnetic field of $`4.7`$ Tesla. The line shape in the normal state is temperature independent and consistent with previous studies . In addition, a second order quadrupolar split of $`6`$ kHz is clearly observed. Considering that for $`I=3/2`$ the second order quadrupolar split is given by : $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu ^{(2)}=(25\nu _Q^2/144\nu _L)[I(I+1)3/4]`$, we obtain a $`\nu _Q0.860`$ MHz, in agreement with the value obtained from the separation of the satellite peaks.

Below $`T_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ ($`27`$ K in $`4.7`$ Tesla) the spectra start to broaden and under the irreversibility temperature an extra signal shows up as a pronounced shoulder in the low frequency part of the spectrum. It is worth noting that such an extra feature was not mentioned in previous NMR studies . By further decreasing temperature the intensity of this shoulder increases and its location shifts to lower frequencies. This behavior is explicit to the magnetic field distribution in the mixed state, as implied by the dotted lines.

A significant part of the signal remains unshifted at the frequency of the normal state NMR signal. The unshifted part of the line shape may be explained if we consider a distribution of $`B_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ caused predominately by anisotropy and not by inhomogeneities, as the observed superconducting transition is extremely sharp. Assuming that the upper critical field depends on the angle of the $`c`$axis in each crystallite then the angular dependence of the second critical field is given by $`B_{\mathrm{c2}}(\theta )=B_{\mathrm{c2}}^{\mathrm{ab}}(1+(\gamma ^21)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )^{1/2}`$. This equation shows that only crystallites with $`B_{\mathrm{c2}}(\theta )>B_\mathrm{o}`$ would give a characteristic signal of a type-II superconductor in the mixed state. If for a part of the grains $`B_\mathrm{o}>B_{\mathrm{c2}}(\theta )`$ then a NMR line shape would be observed, which is the sum of spectra coming from crystallites in the normal state and in the mixed state. Indeed the spectra under $`B_\mathrm{o}=4.7`$ Tesla show an unshifted component which comes from the normal part of the sample, revealing the presence of strong anisotropy.

The two signal components are more clearly resolved in Figure 3, which shows 11B NMR line shapes of the central transition in a magnetic field $`B_0=2.35`$ Tesla. In this field the low frequency shoulder becomes broader and shifts to lower frequencies in comparison to the spectra taken in $`4.7`$ Tesla. This is expected if we consider that the magnetic field distribution in the vortex lattice becomes less dense and exhibits stronger field gradients in lower external magnetic fields. Since a significant part of the signal intensity remains unshifted, then it can be argued that for a part of the grains the $`B_{c2}^c`$ must be lower than $`2.35`$ Tesla. Considering that magnetization measurements give $`B_{c2}14`$ Tesla, and by assuming that $`B_{c2}^{ab}>B_{c2}^c`$ ,  an anisotropy parameter $`\gamma 6`$ is estimated.

Following Ref. , a rough estimation of the singular points (at London limit $`\lambda >>\xi `$) of the field distribution at $`T=5`$ K and $`H=4.7`$ Tesla, gives: $`B_{\mathrm{max}}B1.6\times 0.551\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{o}/4\pi \lambda ^250`$ Gauss, $`B_{\mathrm{min}}B0.6\times 0.551\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{o}/4\pi \lambda ^218`$ Gauss and $`B_sB0.5\times 0.551\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{o}/4\pi \lambda ^215`$ Gauss. In the above estimations we used the experimental value of the magnetic induction at $`T=5`$ K, $`B=4\pi M_{rev}+H_\mathrm{o}14+H_\mathrm{o}`$ Gauss (see inset of Figure 1b) and $`\lambda =170`$ nm.

The estimated values of $`B_{\mathrm{max}}`$, $`B_{\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`B_s`$ are in good agreement with the characteristic points (see arrows in Fig. 2) of the NMR spectrum at $`T=5`$ K. These results indicate that the low frequency shoulder of the NMR spectra is produced by the magnetic field distribution of the vortex lattice.

The extension of the low field tail below the theoretical $`B_{min}`$, and the slightly shifted broad maximum in the experimental magnetic field distribution might originate from small random pertubations by FL pinning or by structural defects in the FLL, which lead to smearing of the ideal field distribution. Deviation from the ideal distribution may be also produced by shearing of the FLL, which leads to splitting of the singularity at $`B_s`$ and to the jump at $`B_{\mathrm{min}}`$, but leaves $`B_{\mathrm{max}}`$ approximately unchanged . Smearing from random shearing would dominate, if long-wavelength compression (flux density gradient) is not present, in particular for small or large $`B`$ values, where the shear modulus $`c_{66}`$ $`0`$ for both $`B/B_{c2}0`$ and $`B/B_{c2}1`$ . On the other hand, the magnetic field distribution is much more sensitive to fluctuations of the FLL density (random compression) than to shear deformations for $`B>>4\pi M`$, if energetically favorable . In such a case, even a small homogeneous compression of the FLL will shift rigidly the magnetic field distribution density , thus leading to smearing of all van Hove singularities. Finally, it should also be noted that in anisotropic superconductors the field distribution deviates from that of an isotropic hexagonal vortex lattice .

In conclusion, 11B NMR line shape measurements on powder MgB2 show up two NMR signal components for $`T<T_{c2}`$: one coming from the vortex lattice from grains in the mixed superconducting state, and another one from grains that are still in the normal state as their orientation in respect to the external magnetic field is such that $`B_o>B_{\mathrm{c2}}(\theta )`$. Our measurements suggest a high anisotropy for the upper critical field with $`\gamma 6`$, in agreement with recent CESR measurements . This experimental result changes the balance in favor of anisotropic superconductivity in MgB2, and should be taken into consideration in theories trying to explain the superconducting state in this material.


text:
# Observing the CMB with the AMiBA

## 1. Introduction

The ASIAA, Taiwan, is building an Array for Microwave Background Anisotropy (AMiBA) in collaboration with the National Taiwan University. The science goals are discussed by Lo et al. (2001). The telescope would be an interferometric array of 19 elements co-mounted on a single fully steerable platform. The array may be configured using either elemental apertures of 1.2 or 0.3 m diameters. Dual polarization receivers would have 20 GHz bandwidth centered at 95 GHz and the system temperature is expected to be about 75 K.

## 2. Imaging capabilities of the AMiBA

Surveys with the AMiBA are proposed to be made with the 19 apertures configured as a hexagonal close-packed array on the platform to maximize the surface brightness sensitivity of the interferometers. The configuration gives a well filled sampling of the u,v-domain with a radial density which peaks at the spacing corresponding to the distance between the centres of the adjacent apertures (which, for engineering reasons, is somewhat larger than the aperture diameters) and tapers off to zero at a u,v-distance five times larger. When the visibility data from single sky pointings are ‘naturally weighted’ — for maximum flux sensitivity — and images are synthesized, the synthetic beam has FWHM of 2.6 arcmin when the 1.2 m apertures are used and 10.4 arcmin when the 0.3 m apertures are used. The primary beam is expected to have HPW of 11 arcmin (1.2 m apertures) and 44 arcmin (0.3 m apertures). The absence of a ‘zero-spacing’ measurement in the interferometer array results in a ‘hole’ in the u,v-coverage at the origin whose size depends on the taper in the illumination at the edges of the apertures. As a result, the main lobe of the synthetic beam is surrounded by a negative bowl which limits the surface brightness sensitivity.

Assuming aperture efficiencies of 0.6, we expect the 1.2 and 0.3 m apertures to have sensitivities about 4100 and 65100 Jy K-1 respectively; antenna temperatures from planets Jupiter and Saturn would be detectable with high signal-to-noise ratio, for calibration, in seconds integration time. When all four cross products are measured between the dual polarization channels of every antenna pair, and images are synthesized in the Stokes parameters using ‘naturally’ weighted visibility data of all the 171 baselines, the rms thermal noise after 1-hr integration time is expected to be 1.4 and 22 mJy beam-1 respectively when 1.2 and 0.3 m apertures are used.

## 3. Confusion limits

I adopt the 90-GHz source counts derived by Holdaway, Owen & Rupen (1994), with 180 sources all sky exceeding 1 Jy and 4400 sources all sky exceeding 100 mJy. The rms confusion noise, owing to these discrete synchrotron sources, is expected to be less than 70 and 2 $`\mu `$Jy beam-1 in the images made respectively with the 0.3 and 1.2 m aperture arrays. The thermal noise will not reach this confusion noise for any reasonable integration time: the images will always be thermal noise limited. Consequently, extragalactic synchrotron sources will only appear in AMiBA images above the instrument thermal noise as well separated discrete sources. The source counts imply that we may expect to detect a source above 1-$`\sigma `$ thermal noise, in any AMiBA pointed observation, only after integration times of 50 and 300 hr respectively with the arrays made of 0.3 and 1.2-m apertures.

Confusion from the primary CMB anisotropy may limit the SZE-cluster survey sensitivity. In Stokes I images made with the 171-baseline array of 1.2-m apertures, the primary CMB contributes an rms image noise of about 2 mJy beam-1 which exceeds the thermal noise in 1-hr integration. However, the T-mode primary anisotropy is expected to vanish at multipoles exceeding $`l2500`$ corresponding to a u,v-distance of 400: all of the T-mode power will be confined to the 1.2-m baselines and may be discriminated using appropriate filtering in $`l`$-space.

## 4. AMiBA sensitivity

I have adopted cosmological parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.37`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.63`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.02`$ and $`h=0.7`$ for computing CMB anisotropy spectra in order to estimate the expected signal variance in AMiBA images. A $`C_l`$ power spectrum decomposition of the SZE anisotropy expected in this cosmological model was provided, for these calculations, by Ue-Li Pen (private communication).

In sky images synthesized using the 0.3 m aperture array, the E-mode CMB polarization signal is expected at appear with an rms of about 5 mJy beam-1. The 171-baseline array with these apertures may image this linearly polarized signal, at 1-$`\sigma `$, in about 18 hr integration per pointing.

An SZE cluster survey with the 171-baseline array made of 1.2-m apertures would be confusion limited, in about 1 hr, because the thermal noise contribution in this time would equal the T-mode confusion noise in the synthetic images. Added in quadrature, the rms image noise in 1-hr integration time would be 2.0 mJy beam-1 and the rms anisotropy signal owing to cosmological clusters, with a contribution about 0.5 mJy beam-1, would be buried in the noise. However, a simpleminded filtering by rejecting the 42 1.2-m baseline data would reject the T-mode confusion and in images synthesized using the $`(17142)`$ baseline visibilities, the 0.3 mJy beam-1 SZE signal may be detectable at 1-$`\sigma `$ in about 30 hr integration in any pointing. It may be noted here that the cosmological evolution in cluster gas properties is poorly understood and predictions of the $`C_l`$ spectra expected from cosmological clusters may have large uncertainties. Consequently, estimates of integration times required for detection of the SZE $`C_l`$s are crude.

## 5. Mosaicing

Scanning the sky with interferometers has long been recognized as a method for decomposing visibility measurements made with finite apertures into equivalent visibilities which may be obtained by dividing the apertures into smaller sections (Ekers & Rots 1979, Rao & Velusamy 1984). Interferometric measurements of CMB anisotropy, which are made with single pointings, provide estimates of the CMB anisotropy power spectrum integrated in $`l`$-space over a range (defined by a telescope filter function) which corresponds to the auto-correlation function of the aperture illumination. A mosaic-mode observation of the CMB anisotropy is a method for decomposing the anisotropy measurements in $`l`$-space (White, Carlstrom, Dragovan & Holzapfel 1999) and improving the $`l`$-space resolution.

Short spacing interferometers have usually been used in interferometric CMB anisotropy measurements to give higher surface brightness sensitivity. However, these suffer from an undesired response to the environment (brightness variations across the ground-sky interface and across terrestrial objects) and are also susceptible to cross-talk (Subrahmanyan 2002). The unwanted response usually dominates the visibility due to the CMB anisotropy. The suggested observing strategy with the AMiBA is drift scanning: the co-mounted array is to be kept stationary with respect to the environment, and the apertures are kept stationary with respect to each other, during the data acquisition. The unwanted environmental response and cross-talk is then to be filtered out of the data stream as a constant.

We believe that this observing strategy has its advantages as compared to tracking arrays with independently mounted elements as well as tracking platforms with co-mounted apertures. First, although tracking arrays may differentiate between the sky signal and spurious coupling by the difference in their fringe rates, the summed environmental coupling and cross-talk would give an unwanted visibility contribution which would inevitably have a slow time varying amplitude. However, for a drift-scanning array of co-mounted elements, the unwanted component would be a constant in amplitude and phase and its subtraction is potentially exact. Second, any baseline in a tracking array which has a small $`v`$-component, either because the baseline is north-south oriented or because the observation is being made at a large hour angle, would have difficulty separating the sky signal from the unwanted response.

Scanning with interferometers has added advantages: as noted above, the time stream may be processed to improve the $`l`$-space resolution. This creates the possibility that the spurious correlations and cross-talk, which are expected to arise in the correlations between the fields in those parts of the two apertures which are the nearest, may be isolated.

Mosaic-mode observing, followed by a decomposition of the visibility measurements in $`u,v`$-space, gives measurements in regions of $`u,v`$-space which have poor sensitivity to sky anisotropy (because they represent correlations between sections of the apertures which are poorly illuminated by the feed). These measurements provide useful ‘control samples’ and may be used to estimate the instrument thermal noise from the data.

### 5.1. Sensitivity in Mosaic-mode observations

The signal and noise are distributed differently across $`l`$-space or, equivalently, $`u,v`$-space. The decomposition of the data obtained in multiple sky pointings — perhaps during a scanning of a sky region with the primary beam — into data distributed in $`l`$-space results in a separation of data with different signal-to-noise ratios. The signal-to-noise ratios in the individual $`l`$-space filters depends on the $`C_l`$ spectrum of the CMB anisotropies and on the aperture illumination function.

As an illustration of the mosaic-mode observing, a particular case is considered here. A two element interferometer is considered, which is made of two 0.3-m apertures, and which are configured close-packed on a common steerable platform to give a 0.3 m baseline. This may represent the interferometer being constructed as a prototype for the AMiBA. Equipped with the 95 GHz AMiBA receivers, the thermal rms noise in the real and imaginary parts of the complex Stokes parameter visibilities is expected to be 0.29 Jy for 1-hr integration time.

A measurement of the CMB anisotropy signal, in a single pointing and with this single baseline, corresponds to a filtering of the CMB anisotropy spectrum with a telescope filter function (TFF) given in Fig. 1. This single filter defines the sensitivity, in $`l`$-space, of the interferometer formed between the pair of 0.3 m apertures. Assuming a ‘flat-band’ CMB power with $`l(l+1)C_l/(2\pi )=4\times 10^{12}`$ ($`(\mathrm{\Delta }T/T)^2`$; dimensionless), the expected signal is 33 mJy rms in the real and imaginary visibilities. In an observation of a single pointing, 39 hr integration would be expected to yield one estimate of the anisotropy power — averaged in $`l`$-space over the range defined by the aperture extent — with unity signal-to-noise ratio.

Consider next a mosaic-mode observation with the two-element interferometer in which an RA strip of the sky is observed in a sequence of eleven pointings spaced 18.1 arcmin apart (the primary beam FWHM is about 44 arcmin). I assume that the platform is steered, in RA, declination, and about a rotation axis, to keep the baseline oriented parallel to the scan direction. Assuming an integration time of 39/11 hr in each pointing (and 39 hr in total), each of the 11 complex visibilities would have a thermal rms noise of 0.15 Jy in the real and imaginary components.

The 11 complex visibilities $`X(n)`$, $`n`$=$`5`$, $`4`$, …., 4, 5 are discrete Fourier transformed:

$$Y(k)=\underset{n=5}{\overset{n=+5}{}}[X(n)e^{\{i2\pi \frac{nk}{N}\}}],$$

with $`N=11`$, to give eleven complex visibilities $`Y(k)`$, $`k`$=$``$5, $``$4, …, 4, 5, distributed in $`l`$-space. These eleven visibilities are measures of the sky anisotropy signal as viewed through a bank of filters, shown in Fig. 2, which span the $`l`$-space range covered by the pair of apertures forming the interferometer.

Adopting once again a ‘flat-band’ CMB anisotropy spectrum, with $`l(l+1)C_l/(2\pi )=4\times 10^{12}`$, the expected rms signal amplitudes, and the signal-to-noise ratios, for the estimate of the signal in each filter, for the eleven measurements $`Y(k)`$, are given in Table 1.

The rms thermal noise in each of these measurements, assuming 39/11 hr integration on each of the 11 pointings, is $`0.15\times \sqrt{11}/\sqrt{2}=0.36`$ Jy.

In place of the eleven measurements $`X(n)`$, each with a signal-to-noise ratio of $`1/\sqrt{11}`$ and with independent noise, the mosaic-mode analysis which combines the information from the multiple pointings simultaneously provides eleven estimates $`Y(k)`$ of the CMB anisotropy power spectrum distributed in $`l`$-space with varying signal-to-noise ratios and with independent noise.

It may be noted that the central filters detect the CMB flat-band power with signal-to-noise exceeding $`1/\sqrt{11}`$ where as the edge channels respond poorly to sky anisotropy. However, the signal-to-noise in the detection of anisotropy in any of the $`l`$-space filters generated via the mosaic-mode observation does not exceed the signal-to-noise attainable if the total time were used in a single pointing. The sum of the squares of the signal-to-noise ratios in the 11 filters, listed in Table 1, is unity, and this is true for any plausible form for the $`C_l`$ spectrum. The mosaicing strategy evaluated here effectively redistributes the observing time equally among the synthetic $`l`$-space filters so that the sum of the squares of the signal-to-noise ratios over all independent filters is invariant and is proportional to the total observing time.

#### Acknowledgments.

The observing schemes discussed here evolved in discussions between members of the AMiBA science and engineering teams.

## References

Ekers, R. D., & Rots, A. H. 1979 in Astrop. & Sp. Sc. Lib., 76, Image Formation from Coherence Functions in Astronomy, ed. C. van Schooneveld (Dordrecht: Reidel), 61

Holdaway, M. A., Owen, F. N., & Rupen, M. P. 1994, MMA array memo No. 123.

Lo, K. Y., Chiueh, T. H., Martin, R. N., Ng, K. W., Liang, H., Pen, U. & Ma, C. P. 2001, to appear in IAU Symp. 201, New Cosmological Data and the Values of the Fundamental Parameters, ed. A. Lasenby & A. Wilkinson (Dordrecht: Reidel)

Rao, A. P., & Velusamy, T. 1984 in Indirect Imaging, ed. J. A. Roberts (Cambridge Univ. Press), 193

Subrahmanyan, R. 2002, in AIP Conf. Proc., 2K1BC workshop on Experimental Cosmology at millimetre wavelengths held at Breuil-Cervinia, Italy, July 2001, ed. M. De Petris & M. Gervasi (New York: AIP)

Sunyaev, R. A., & Zeldovich, Ya. B. 1972, Comm. Astrophys. Sp. Phys., 2, 66

White, M., Carlstrom, J. E., Dragovan, M. & Holzapfel, W. 1999 ApJ, 514, 12


text:
# Quenched QCD at finite temperature with chiral Fermions

## Abstract

We study physics at temperatures just above the QCD phase transition ($`T_c`$) using chiral (overlap) Fermions in the quenched approximation of lattice QCD. Exact zero modes of the overlap Dirac operator are localized and their frequency of occurrence drops with temperature. This is closely related to axial $`U(1)`$ symmetry, which remains broken up to $`2T_c`$. After subtracting the effects of these zero modes, chiral symmetry is restored, as indicated by the behavior of the chiral condensate ($`\overline{\psi }\psi `$). The pseudoscalar and vector screening masses are close to ideal gas values.

With new results from the Brookhaven heavy-ion collider appearing thick and fast , the time seems ripe for making a concerted effort to understand the dynamics of the high-temperature phase of quantum chromodynamics, namely the quark-gluon plasma. There are several puzzles that seem to have resisted a decade of efforts to understand them. The one we focus on involves the static screening of certain excitations of the plasma.

It has long been understood that the screening of currents in a plasma would give us information on its excitations. Currents with certain quantum numbers excite mesons from the vacuum at low temperatures, and should exhibit deconfinement related changes above the QCD phase transition temperature ($`T_c`$) . Detailed studies have shown that this indeed does happen in the vector, and axial-vector channels: the screening above $`T_c`$ is clearly due to nearly non-interacting quark anti-quark pairs in the medium . On the other hand, the scalar and pseudo-scalar screening masses show more complicated behavior— strong deviations from the ideal Fermi gas, and a strong temperature dependence. This puzzling behavior is generic— it has been seen in quenched  and dynamical simulations with two  and four flavors  of staggered quarks, as well as with Wilson quarks . This is the puzzle that we address and solve in this letter.

The new technique we bring to bear on this problem is to use a version of lattice Fermions called overlap Fermions . It has the advantage of preserving chiral symmetry on the lattice for any number of massless flavors of quarks . This is in contrast to other formulations such as Wilson Fermions which break all chiral symmetries or staggered Fermions which break them partially. Since the number of pions and their nature is intimately related to the actually realized chiral symmetry on the lattice, we should expect any realization of chiral Fermions on the lattice to provide insight into the question we address.

The overlap Dirac operator ($`D`$) can be defined  in terms of the Wilson-Dirac operator ($`D_w`$) by the relation

$$D=1D_w(D_w^{}D_w)^{1/2}.$$
(1)
The computation of $`D^1`$ needs a nested series of two matrix inversions for its evaluation (each step in the numerical inversion of $`D`$ involves the inversion of $`D_w^{}D_w`$). This squaring of effort makes a study of QCD with dynamical overlap quarks very expensive. As a first step in this direction, we chose to work with quenched overlap quarks: to study the pattern of chiral symmetry restoration and screening masses at high temperature.

We generated quenched QCD configurations at temperatures of $`T/T_c`$ = 1.25, 1.5 and 2 on $`4\times 8^3`$ and $`4\times 12^3`$ lattices (see Table I). The corresponding couplings are respectively $`\beta =`$ 5.8, 5.8941 and 6.0625. The configurations were separated by 1000 sweeps of a Cabibo-Marinari update. A previous computation  with $`T=0`$ quenched overlap quarks at the nearby couplings of $`\beta =5.85`$ and 6.0 allows us to compare finite and zero temperature physics.

For the matrix $`M=D_w^{}D_w`$, and a given source vector $`b`$, we computed $`y=M^{1/2}b`$ by a conjugate gradient (CG) version of a proposed Lanczös method . CG gives better control over errors than Lanczös or other methods based on approximations using Chebychev or Reeves polynomials. In CG, the vector $`x=M^1b`$ is obtained by iterating the residual vector $`r_{i+1}=r_i\alpha _iMp_i`$ and the direction of change $`p_{i+1}=\beta _{i+1}p_i+r_{i+1}`$, where $`\alpha _i=(r_i,r_i)/(p_i,Mp_i)`$ and $`\beta _{i+1}=(r_{i+1},r_{i+1})/(r_i,r_i)`$. The iterations are stopped when $`(r_i,r_i)<ϵ`$, for a predetermined tolerance $`ϵ`$. Let $`N_s`$ be the number of CG-iterations at stopping. In the orthonormal basis made of $`q_i=r_i/(r_i,r_i)^{1/2}`$, the matrix $`M`$ can be approximated by $`Q^{}𝒯Q`$, where $`Q`$ is made from the set {$`q_i`$} and $`𝒯`$ is a tridiagonal symmetric matrix of dimension $`N_s`$. The non-zero elements of $`𝒯`$ are $`𝒯_{i,i}=1/\alpha _i+\beta _i/\alpha _{i1}`$ and $`𝒯_{i,i+1}=\sqrt{\beta _i}/\alpha _{i1}`$. Denoting by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the diagonal matrix of the eigenvalues of $`𝒯`$, and by $`U`$ its diagonalizer made from the corresponding eigenvectors, the desired solution is $`y=M^{1/2}bQ^{}U^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/2}UQb`$, when the CG iterations are started with $`r_0=p_0=b`$.

A massive overlap operator is defined by

$$D(ma)=ma+(1ma/2)D,$$
(2)
where $`m`$ is the bare quark mass, $`a`$ the lattice spacing, and $`D`$ is defined in (1). We used the usual quark propagator, $`G(ma)=[1D/2]D^1(ma)`$ . We computed $`G`$ on 12 point sources (3 colors and 4 spins) for 10 quark masses from $`ma`$=0.001 to 0.5 using a multimass inversion of $`D^{}D`$. The (negative) Wilson mass term in $`D_w`$, which is an irrelevant regulator, was set to 1.8. The tolerance was $`ϵ=10^6`$ in the inner CG and $`10^4`$ in the outer CG. A rough computation of the eigenvalues of $`D^{}D`$, $`\mu ^2`$, was made on each configuration with a Lanczös method in each chiral sector. Whenever $`\mu ^2O(10^5)`$ was obtained, the few lowest eigenvalues and eigenvectors were refined to a precision of about $`10^8`$ by a Ritz functional minimization.

For each configuration we verified that the Ginsparg-Wilson  relation is satisfied to an accuracy of $`10^9`$, thus ensuring a very precise implementation of chiral symmetry for our simulations. Another test of the precision of our measurements was provided by a check of the chiral Ward identity—

$$a^2\chi _{PS}=\frac{1}{ma}a^3\overline{\psi }\psi ,$$
(3)
where $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$ is the chiral condensate and $`\chi _{PS}`$ is the pseudoscalar susceptibility . In all our computations we found that the equality was satisfied to better than 1 part in $`10^5`$.

For most configurations we found that the spectrum of $`D^{}D`$ starts well away from zero. However, for some configurations we found zero and near-zero modes with $`\mu ^210^4`$ clearly seperated by a gap from the non-zero modes with $`0.1\mu ^2`$ . The non-zero modes clearly came in degenerate pairs of opposite chiralities. For $`T=1.5T_c`$ and $`2T_c`$ the zero modes were all less than $`10^7`$ and of definite chirality. Their numbers decreased rapidly with either increasing $`T`$ or decreasing lattice size (see Table I for details). We constructed a gauge-invariant measure of localization  for a normalised eigenvector $`\mathrm{\Phi }(i)`$ where $`i`$ stands for position, spin and color, as the following sum,

$$\sigma =\underset{\mathrm{sites}}{}\left[\underset{\mathrm{spin},\mathrm{color}}{}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}(i)\mathrm{\Phi }(i)\right]^2.$$
(4)
This varies from unity for an eigenmode localized at just one site to $`1/V`$ for an eigenmode spread uniformly on a lattice of volume $`V`$. On $`4\times 12^3`$ lattices we found $`\sigma (38)\times 10^3`$ for the zero modes and $`\sigma <10^3`$ for the non-zero modes (see Figure 1). At $`T=1.25T_c`$ we also found near-zero modes with $`\mu ^210^4`$. These were as localised as the zero modes, but came paired in parity like the non-zero modes.

The zero modes of chiral Fermions are related to instanton-like configurations . These are, in turn, known to break axial $`U(1)`$ symmetry. For two flavors, the order parameter for the axial $`U(1)`$ symmetry  is the difference of the flavor singlet and triplet scalar susceptibilities—

$$\omega =\chi _S^3\chi _S^0=\frac{4}{m^2}\frac{(n_+n_{})^2}{V},$$
(5)
where $`n_+`$ and $`n_{}`$ are the number of eigenvalues of $`D`$ with left and right handed chiralities, and the difference needs to be evaluated only for the zero modes. In the quenched theory $`\omega `$, if non-zero, is singular in the $`m0`$ limit since $`(n_+n_{})^2`$ is independent of $`m`$. This is related to well known problems with $`\chi _S^0`$ in the quenched theory . Combining our data with , we find some evidence that $`(n_+n_{})^2/V`$ falls as a high power of $`T/T_c`$. Nevertheless in quenched QCD, $`U(1)`$ symmetry is not completely restored even at $`2T_c`$.

Our measurement of $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$ comes from the diagonal part of $`G(ma)`$ on the 12 sources used for each configuration. The analysis proceeds by writing $`G`$ in terms of the eigenvectors $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^\mu `$ of $`D^{}D`$ with eigenvalue $`\mu ^2`$ and chirality $`\alpha `$,

$$G_{ij}=\underset{\mu }{}\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^\mu (i)\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\beta ^\mu (j)\frac{ma\lambda ^2\delta _{\alpha ,\beta }i\mu \lambda (1\delta _{\alpha ,\beta })}{\mu ^2+(ma)^2\lambda ^2},$$
(6)
where $`\lambda ^2=1\mu ^2/4`$. The contribution of a zero mode can be easily read off from the equation above and is seen to be proportional to $`\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ and $`1/ma`$. Since the eigenvector corresponding to the zero mode is localized, its contribution to the condensate depends strongly on the spatial position of the source vector. The remaining modes are delocalized and closely spaced; so the overlap of the eigenvector on the source is averaged out.

Our precise determination of the eigenvectors and eigenvalues allows us to subtract out the zero mode contributions in (6), although it can sometimes be a couple of orders of magnitude larger than the remainder. The subtracted condensate is strikingly identical to that seen in the sample without zero modes, at all the couplings and lattice sizes studied. We found that $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$ varies linearly with $`ma`$ and goes to zero as $`ma0`$. This is how chiral symmetry restoration manifests itself in quenched QCD.

In the thermodynamic and continuum limits, it is not clear whether the near-zero modes are related to chiral symmetry breaking; on any finite $`V`$ they are not, but in these limits they may accumulate at zero. If they do, then $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$ would not go to zero with $`m`$ even above $`T_c`$ in the quenched theory. Clearly, one needs to examine these limits very carefully. At $`T=1.25T_c`$ the number of near-zero modes is insignificant, but it seems that for $`T<1.25T_c`$ their numbers will be larger  and the $`m0`$ limit will have to be taken after the $`V\mathrm{}`$ limit. Quite likely, such a limit may have to be taken at more than one lattice spacing.

For lattice Fermions which satisfy the Ginsparg-Wilson relation , the following identities hold in the chirally symmetric phase as $`ma0`$,

$$C_S(z)=C_{PS}(z)\mathrm{and}C_V(z)=C_{AV}(z).$$
(7)
Here $`C`$ is the screening correlation function in the spatial $`z`$ direction of an operator summed in the other three directions. The subscripts $`PS`$ refer to a pseudo-scalar operator, $`S`$ to a scalar, $`V`$ to a vector and $`AV`$ to an axial-vector . We find that the V and AV correlators indeed agree at all $`z`$ and at all temperatures we studied. This is in agreement with our conclusion that the temperature range we studied has chiral symmetry.

It is clear from the chiral Ward identity (3) that large fluctuations in $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$ due to the zero mode must also lead to similiar non-statistical fluctuations in $`C_{PS}`$. Further, since a zero mode contributes identically to $`C_S`$ and $`C_{PS}`$, the two can even have the same sign if this contribution is large enough . Ignoring the configurations with zero modes, the S and PS correlators do obey the identity in (7), suggesting that simple results could be seen by eliminating the zero mode contribution.

One way to do this is to use the measured $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$’s to subtract the zero modes and construct a new correlator $`\overline{C}_{PS}(z)`$. Alternatively, we could consider the difference, $`(C_S(z)C_{PS}(z))/2`$, which should equal $`\overline{C}_{PS}(z)`$. Figure 3 exhibits the comparison of the three correlators. Similar excellent agreement is also seen for these correlators for all $`ma<0.1`$ and at other $`T`$.

After subtracting the effects of the zero mode, we find that the correlator identities are satisfied for the S/PS sector as well as V/AV. In addition, $`C_V`$ is described well by an ideal gas of overlap quarks on the same lattice, as illustrated in Figure 4 (although the figure shows this only for one quark mass and $`T`$, this is true for all $`T1.25T_c`$ and all $`ma<0.1`$). While $`C_{PS}`$ seems to differ from the ideal gas result, the measured values of the PS screening masses, $`M_{PS}`$, are only 10% smaller than ideal gas screening masses. This difference is small enough to be plausibly explained in a weak-coupling computation, quite unlike earlier results from staggered or Wilson quarks.

Differences between $`T=0`$ mesons and our measurements are extremely clear. For $`T1.25T_c`$, $`M_{PS}`$ is constant and non-vanishing for $`ma0.1`$. In the same temperature range, the ratio $`m_{PS}(T)/m_V(T)`$ is within 10% of unity and quite different from the measured values at $`T=0`$ at nearby couplings $`\beta `$ . Thus, the simple picture that emerges is a property of the high temperature phase of (quenched) QCD.

In conclusion, working with chiral (overlap) Fermions, we have found several new results and a consistent picture of the high temperature phase of quenched QCD. Axial $`U(1)`$ symmetry is not restored even at $`2T_c`$. As a result the thermal ensemble contains gauge fields which give rise to Fermion zero modes of definite chirality. When the effect of these modes is subtracted, $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$ vanishes in the zero quark mass limit, showing that chiral symmetry is restored. Simultaneously, parity doubling is seen in the spectrum of screening masses, which are close to those expected in an ideal Fermi gas, even for the S/PS sector. Since some of these results are not obtained with staggered quarks, it is an interesting question whether the two flavor QCD phase transition is properly described by such a representation of quarks.

Some interesting problems remain to be solved. At $`T1.25T_c`$, there are near-zero modes. It cannot be ruled out that these modes shift the quenched chiral symmetry restoration point away from $`T_c`$. However, this question is crucially related to the evolution of near-zero modes with lattice volume and spacing. Hence the nature of these complications, and the question of whether they are quenched artifacts or remain in full QCD, will only become clear with further studies which are underway.

This work was funded by the IFCPAR as its project 2104-2.