text:
# Cloning a Qutrit To appear in the Journal of Modern Optics for the special issue on “Quantum Information: Theory, Experiment and Perspectives”. Proceedings of the ESF Conference, Gdansk, July 10-18, 2001.

## 1 Introduction

Since its inception, quantum information theory has traditionally been concerned with informational processes involving two-level quantum systems, known as qubits. For example, quantum teleportation, quantum cryptography, quantum computation, or quantum cloning were all developed using qubits as fundamental units of quantum information. Over the last few years, however, there has been a growing interest in quantum informational processes based on multi-level or even continuous-spectrum systems. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, higher-dimensional quantum informational processes seem to be more efficient in certain situations. For example, multi-level quantum cryptographic schemes can be shown to be more secure against eavesdropping than their qubit-based counterparts. Second, the present experimental context makes it reasonable to consider the manipulation of more-than-two-level quantum information carriers. For example, the time-bin implementation of qubits can be relatively straightforwardly extended to three of more time bins. Quantum computation over continuous variables also seems to be a promising avenue, as it can be carried out by manipulating squeezed states of light with only linear optics elements.

In this paper, we extend the concept of quantum cloning from qubits to qutrits (quantum three-level systems). In spite of this apparently simple incremental step of just one more dimension, the question of cloning turns out to be already significantly more complex for qutrits, suggesting that the state-dependent cloning of multi-level systems is a rich field. Quantum cloning is a concept that was first introduced in a seminal paper by Buzek and Hillery, where a universal (or state-independent) and symmetric $`12`$ cloning transformation was introduced for qubits. This transformation was later extended to higher dimensions by Buzek and Hillery and by Werner, but for the special case of universal (state-independent) cloning. In contrast, we will rather focus here on non-universal (or state-dependent) cloning. Our starting point will be a general characterization of asymmetric and state-dependent $`12`$ cloning transformations for $`N`$-level systems, as described in Refs. . Let us first review this formalism before analyzing the special case of $`N=3`$ in details.

Consider an arbitrary state $`|\psi `$ in a $`N`$-dimensional Hilbert space of which we wish to produce two (approximate) clones. The class of cloning transformations we will analyze is such that, if the input state is $`|\psi `$, then the two output clones (called $`A`$ and $`B`$) are produced in a mixture of the states $`|\psi _{m,n}=U_{m,n}|\psi `$:

$`\rho _A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m,n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}p_{m,n}|\psi _{m,n}\psi _{m,n}|`$
$`\rho _B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m,n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}q_{m,n}|\psi _{m,n}\psi _{m,n}|`$ (1)
where the unitary operators

$$U_{m,n}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}e^{2\pi i(kn/N)}|k+m\mathrm{mod}Nk|$$
(2)
correspond to error operators: $`U_{m,n}`$ shifts the state by $`m`$ units (modulo $`N`$) in the computational basis, and multiplies it by a phase so as to shift its Fourier transform by $`n`$ units (modulo $`N`$). Of course, $`U_{0,0}=I`$, which corresponds to no error. In the special case of a qubit ($`N=2`$), we have $`U_{1,0}=\sigma _x`$, $`U_{0,1}=\sigma _z`$, and $`U_{1,1}=i\sigma _y`$, and the corresponding class of so-called Pauli cloners can be investigated exhaustively.

From Eq. (1), it is clear that the clones $`A`$ and $`B`$ are characterized in general by the weight functions $`p_{m,n}`$ and $`q_{m,n}`$, respectively. As we will see below, the class of cloners we will restrict our attention to are defined by a particular relation between these weight functions. More specifically, we will focus on cloners satisfying

$`p_{m,n}`$ $`=`$ $`|a_{m,n}|^2`$
$`q_{m,n}`$ $`=`$ $`|b_{m,n}|^2`$ (3)
where $`a_{m,n}`$ and $`b_{m,n}`$ are two (complex) amplitude functions that are dual under a Fourier transform:

$$b_{m,n}=\frac{1}{N}\underset{x,y=0}{\overset{N1}{}}e^{2\pi i(nxmy)/N}a_{x,y}$$
(4)
Of course, these amplitudes are normalized: $`_{m,n}|a_{m,n}|^2=_{m,n}|b_{m,n}|^2=1`$. Interestingly enough, the cloners obeying Eqs. (1) and (4) form a fairly general class, which contains most cloners discovered so far.

The Fourier transform that underlies the relation between the $`p_{m,n}`$’s and the $`q_{m,n}`$’s is responsible for the complementarity between the quality of the two clones: if clone $`A`$ is very good ($`a_{m,n}`$ is a “peaked” function), then clone $`B`$ is very bad ($`b_{m,n}`$ is a rather “flat” function, so that many error operators $`U_{m,n}`$ act on $`|\psi `$ with significant probabilities). Note that the relation between these dual amplitude functions $`a_{m,n}`$ and $`b_{m,n}`$ can be reexpressed in a simple way by associating them with Fourier transformed amplitude functions $`a_{m,n}^F`$ and $`b_{m,n}^F`$ defined as

$$c_{m,n}^F=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{n^{}=0}{\overset{N}{}}e^{2\pi i(nn^{}/N)}c_{m,n^{}}$$
(5)
or, conversely,

$$c_{m,n}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{n^{}=0}{\overset{N}{}}e^{2\pi i(nn^{}/N)}c_{m,n^{}}^F$$
(6)
where $`c_{m,n}`$ stands for $`a_{m,n}`$ or $`b_{m,n}`$. We have

$`b_{m,n}^F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{}=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}e^{2\pi i(nn^{}/N)}b_{m,n^{}}`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{}=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}e^{2\pi i(nn^{}/N)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{x,y=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}e^{2\pi i(n^{}xmy)/N}a_{x,y}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{y=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}e^{2\pi i(my/N)}a_{n,y}`$
$`=`$ $`a_{n,m}^F`$
Therefore, the Fourier transformed amplitudes $`a_{m,n}^F`$ and $`b_{m,n}^F`$ of the two clones are simply transposed of each other, which will be helpful in the following. The balance between the quality of clones $`A`$ and $`B`$ can be alternatively expressed by an entropic no-cloning uncertainty relation that relates the probability distributions $`p_{m,n}`$ and $`q_{m,n}`$ :

$$H[p_{m,n}]+H[q_{m,n}]\mathrm{log}_2(N^2)$$
(8)
where $`H[p]`$ denote the Shannon entropy of the probability distribution $`p`$. This inequality is actually a special case of an information-theoretic no-cloning uncertainty relation involving the losses of the channels yielding the two clones. Also, more refined uncertainty relations can be found that express the fact that the index $`m`$ of output $`A`$ is dual to the index $`n`$ of output $`B`$, and conversely.

Let us now describe the class of cloning transformations that actually produce the clones characterized by Eq. (1). For this, we need first to define the set of $`N^2`$ generalized Bell states for a pair of N-dimensional systems:

$$|B_{m,n}=N^{1/2}\underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}e^{2\pi i(kn/N)}|k|k+m$$
(9)
with $`m`$ and $`n`$ ($`0m,nN1`$) labelling these Bell states. We will characterize the cloning transformation by assuming that the cloner input is prepared in the joint state $`|B_{0,0}`$ together with a ($`N`$-dimensional) system called a reference system and denoted as $`R`$. We will consider a unitary cloning transformation $`𝒰_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ acting on this input system together with two additional $`N`$-dimensional systems prepared each in an initial state $`|0`$: a blank copy and the cloning machine itself. After transformation, the input system and the blank copy become respectively the clones $`A`$ and $`B`$, while the cloning machine denoted as $`C`$ can be traced over. We will thus be interested in the joint state (after cloning) of the reference $`R`$, the two clones ($`A`$ and $`B`$), and the cloning machine $`C`$, that is

$$(I_R𝒰_{\mathrm{cl}})|B_{0,0}|0|0=|\mathrm{\Psi }_{RABC}$$
(10)
More specifically, we will only consider joint states which can be written as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{RABC}=\underset{m,n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}a_{m,n}|B_{m,n}_{R,A}|B_{m,n}_{B,C}=\underset{m,n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}b_{m,n}|B_{m,n}_{R,B}|B_{m,n}_{A,C}$$
(11)
with $`a_{m,n}`$ and $`b_{m,n}`$ being related by Eq. (4). This construction is very useful because one can easily express the output state resulting from cloning an arbitrary input state $`|\psi `$ simply by projecting the reference system onto an appropriate state. Indeed, before cloning, projecting $`R`$ onto state $`|\psi ^{}`$ amounts to project the input system onto $`|\psi `$ since these two systems are in state $`|B_{0,0}`$. Therefore, as this projection of $`R`$ onto $`|\psi ^{}`$ can as well be performed after cloning, it is easy to write the resulting joint state of the two clones and the cloning machine when the input state is $`|\psi `$. Using $`|B_{m,n}=(IU_{m,n})|B_{0,0}`$, we get

$$|\psi \underset{m,n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}a_{m,n}U_{m,n}|\psi _A|B_{m,n}_{B,C}=\underset{m,n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}b_{m,n}U_{m,n}|\psi _B|B_{m,n}_{A,C}$$
(12)
Now, it is easy to check that tracing over systems $`B`$ and $`C`$ (or $`A`$ and $`C`$) yields the expected final states of clone $`A`$ (or clone $`B`$), in accordance with Eq. (1). Thus, the $`N^2`$ amplitudes $`a_{m,n}`$ (or $`b_{m,n}`$) completely define the state after cloning, Eq. (12), so they completely characterize the class of cloning transformations of interest here.

Finally, let us see how the cloning fidelity can be calculated based on these amplitude matrices $`a_{m,n}`$ or $`b_{m,n}`$. The fidelity of the first clone when copying a state $`|\psi `$ can be written, in general, as

$$F_A=\psi |\rho _A|\psi =\underset{m,n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}|a_{m,n}|^2|\psi |\psi _{m,n}|^2$$
(13)
(Of course, the same relation can be used for the second clone by replacing $`a_{m,n}`$ by $`b_{m,n}`$.) For example, for any state $`|k`$ ($`k=0,\mathrm{}N1`$) in the computation basis, the fidelity of the first clone is equal to

$$F_A=\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}|a_{0,n}|^2$$
(14)
As we will see later on for $`N=3`$, the cloning fidelity for other bases can also be written as a sum of three squared terms of the $`a_{m,n}`$ matrix. This will make it possible to express constraints on the state-dependent cloners of interest.

In the rest of this paper, we will use this general characterization of cloning in order to investigate the state-dependent cloning of a qutrit. Four maximally-conjugate bases can be defined in a three-dimensional space: these bases are such that any basis state in one basis has equal squared amplitudes when expressed in any other basis. We will analyze transformations that optimally clone a subset of these four maximally-conjugate bases for a qutrit. Three interesting situations occur depending on whether we consider a subset of two or three of these bases, or all four bases. The case of a qubit is also treated in Appendix A for completeness111The reader may want to read this Appendix first as an introduction to the concept of state-dependent cloning. The case of a qubit is indeed much simpler to treat than that of a qutrit..

## 2 Cloning a three-level system

In a three-dimensional Hilbert space, one can define four maximally-conjugate (or mutually unbiased) bases. Conventionally, one chooses the first basis to be simply the computation basis $`\{|0,|1,|2\}`$. The second basis is defined as

$`|0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(|0+|1+|2),`$
$`|1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(|0+\gamma |1+\gamma ^2|2),`$
$`|2^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(|0+\gamma ^2|1+\gamma |2)`$ (15)
where $`\gamma =e^{2\pi i/3}`$. Similarly, the third basis is defined as

$`|0^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(|0+|1+\gamma |2),`$
$`|1^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(|0+\gamma |1+|2),`$
$`|2^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(\gamma |0+|1+|2)`$ (16)
while the fourth basis is defined as

$`|0^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(|0+|1+\gamma ^2|2),`$
$`|1^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(|0+\gamma ^2|1+|2),`$
$`|2^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(\gamma ^2|0+|1+|2)`$ (17)
It is easy to check that the scalar product between any two basis states belonging to two distinct bases is $`1/\sqrt{3}`$, as expected. We can also check that the first and second bases are connected by a discrete Fourier transform. The same relation holds for the third and fourth bases.

Let us start by calculating the action of the nine error operators $`U_{m,n}`$ on these basis states. Within each of these four bases, it can be shown that applying $`U_{m,n}`$ to one basis state $`|k`$ yields either $`|k`$ or $`|k+1\mathrm{mod}3`$ or $`|k+2\mathrm{mod}3`$ up to a phase $`\gamma `$ or $`\gamma ^2`$. Using this property, we can express the fidelity of the first (or second) clone in each basis. The fidelity of one of the clones when copying a state $`|\psi `$ is defined as

$$F=\psi |\rho |\psi $$
(18)
where $`\rho `$ is defined in Eq. (1). Note that, unlike the situation for a qubit, there are two possible errors when copying the basis state $`|k`$ (in a given basis) for a qutrit depending on it being transformed into $`|k+1\mathrm{mod}3`$ or $`|k+2\mathrm{mod}3`$. Therefore, we define two disturbances $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ corresponding to these two errors. Remembering that the state of the first clone is completely characterized by the matrix

$$(p_{m,n})=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}p_{0,0}\hfill & p_{0,1}\hfill & p_{0,2}\hfill \\ p_{1,0}\hfill & p_{1,1}\hfill & p_{1,2}\hfill \\ p_{2,0}\hfill & p_{2,1}\hfill & p_{2,2}\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(19)
we can calculate the fidelity and the two disturbances when cloning any basis state in any basis. For example, for the first maximally-conjugate basis, we have

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`p_{0,0}+p_{0,1}+p_{0,2}`$ (20)
$`D_1`$ $`=`$ $`p_{1,0}+p_{1,1}+p_{1,2}`$ (21)
$`D_2`$ $`=`$ $`p_{2,0}+p_{2,1}+p_{2,2}`$ (22)
The cloning of the three last maximally-conjugate bases can be treated together by considering the state

$$|\psi _0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(|0+e^{i\alpha }|1+e^{i\beta }|2\right)$$
(23)
with arbitrary $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. By direct computation, we get the fidelity

$`F=\psi _0|\rho |\psi _0=p_{0,0}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(p_{1,0}+p_{2,0}+p_{1,2}+p_{2,1}+p_{1,1}+p_{2,2})`$ (24)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}(p_{1,0}+p_{2,0})\left[\mathrm{cos}(\alpha +\beta )+\mathrm{cos}(\alpha 2\beta )+\mathrm{cos}(\beta 2\alpha )\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}(p_{1,2}+p_{2,1})\left[\mathrm{cos}(\alpha +\beta +2\pi /3)+\mathrm{cos}(\alpha 2\beta +2\pi /3)+\mathrm{cos}(\beta 2\alpha +2\pi /3)\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}(p_{1,1}+p_{2,2})\left[\mathrm{cos}(\alpha +\beta 2\pi /3)+\mathrm{cos}(\alpha 2\beta 2\pi /3)+\mathrm{cos}(\beta 2\alpha 2\pi /3)\right]`$
Before calculating the disturbances, we need first to define the states

$`|\psi _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(|0+\gamma e^{i\alpha }|1+\gamma ^2e^{i\beta }|2\right)`$
$`|\psi _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(|0+\gamma ^2e^{i\alpha }|1+\gamma e^{i\beta }|2\right)`$ (25)
which, together with $`|\psi _0`$, form an orthonormal basis. We can easily rewrite the second, third, and fourth maximally-conjugate bases in the form $`\{|\psi _0,|\psi _1,|\psi _2\}`$ for well chosen values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. This is of course not true for the first (computational) basis. We can now calculate the disturbances,

$`D_1=\psi _1|\rho |\psi _1=p_{0,1}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(p_{1,1}+p_{2,1}+p_{1,0}+p_{2,2}+p_{1,2}+p_{2,0})`$ (26)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}(p_{1,1}+p_{2,1})\left[\mathrm{cos}(\alpha +\beta )+\mathrm{cos}(\alpha 2\beta )+\mathrm{cos}(\beta 2\alpha )\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}(p_{1,0}+p_{2,2})\left[\mathrm{cos}(\alpha +\beta +2\pi /3)+\mathrm{cos}(\alpha 2\beta +2\pi /3)+\mathrm{cos}(\beta 2\alpha +2\pi /3)\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}(p_{1,2}+p_{2,0})\left[\mathrm{cos}(\alpha +\beta 2\pi /3)+\mathrm{cos}(\alpha 2\beta 2\pi /3)+\mathrm{cos}(\beta 2\alpha 2\pi /3)\right]`$
and

$`D_2=\psi _2|\rho |\psi _2=p_{0,2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(p_{1,2}+p_{2,2}+p_{1,1}+p_{2,0}+p_{1,0}+p_{2,1})`$ (27)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}(p_{1,2}+p_{2,2})\left[\mathrm{cos}(\alpha +\beta )+\mathrm{cos}(\alpha 2\beta )+\mathrm{cos}(\beta 2\alpha )\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}(p_{1,1}+p_{2,0})\left[\mathrm{cos}(\alpha +\beta +2\pi /3)+\mathrm{cos}(\alpha 2\beta +2\pi /3)+\mathrm{cos}(\beta 2\alpha +2\pi /3)\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}(p_{1,0}+p_{2,1})\left[\mathrm{cos}(\alpha +\beta 2\pi /3)+\mathrm{cos}(\alpha 2\beta 2\pi /3)+\mathrm{cos}(\beta 2\alpha 2\pi /3)\right]`$
It can be easily checked that $`F`$, $`D_1`$, and $`D_2`$ are invariant if we replace $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ by $`(\alpha \pm 2\pi /3,\beta \pm 4\pi /3)`$, and that these phase-shifts simply permute cyclically the states $`|\psi _0`$, $`|\psi _1`$, and $`|\psi _2`$. Therefore, the values of $`F`$, $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ are invariant under a cyclic permutation of the states of the maximally-conjugate bases. Note that all the states of the second maximally-conjugate basis fulfill $`\alpha +\beta =\alpha 2\beta =\beta 2\alpha =0`$. Similarly, in the third and fourth maximally-conjugate bases, we have $`\alpha +\beta =\alpha 2\beta =\beta 2\alpha =2\pi /3`$ and $`2\pi /3`$, respectively. For those states, Eqs. (24), (26), and (27) can be quite simplified. For instance, the fidelity and disturbances when cloning any basis state of the second maximally-conjugate basis are given by

$`F^{}`$ $`=`$ $`p_{0,0}+p_{1,0}+p_{2,0}`$
$`D_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`p_{0,1}+p_{1,1}+p_{2,1}`$
$`D_2^{}`$ $`=`$ $`p_{0,2}+p_{1,2}+p_{2,2}`$ (28)
For the third basis, we have

$`F^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`p_{0,0}+p_{1,1}+p_{2,2}`$
$`D_1^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`p_{0,1}+p_{1,2}+p_{2,0}`$
$`D_2^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`p_{0,2}+p_{1,0}+p_{2,1}`$ (29)
while the fourth basis yields

$`F^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`p_{0,0}+p_{1,2}+p_{2,1}`$
$`D_1^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`p_{0,1}+p_{1,0}+p_{2,2}`$
$`D_2^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`p_{0,2}+p_{1,1}+p_{2,0}`$ (30)
In the following, we will be interested in extending to a 3-dimensional space the so-called phase-covariant qubit cloner described in the Appendix. Two extensions can be considered, depending on two or three of the maximally-conjugate bases are copied equally well. The cloner that copies all the four bases with an equal fidelity is simply the universal cloner, as discussed in the last Section.

## 3 Optimal cloner of two maximally-conjugate bases

Here, we consider a state-dependent cloner that clones equally well the third and fourth maximally-conjugate bases. This imposes that

$`p_{1,1}+p_{2,2}=p_{1,2}+p_{2,1}`$
$`p_{1,2}+p_{2,0}=p_{1,0}+p_{2,2}`$
$`p_{1,0}+p_{2,1}=p_{1,1}+p_{2,0}`$ (31)
It is easy to deduce from these constraints together with Eq. (24) that the cloning fidelity for an arbitrary state $`|\psi _0`$ is equal to

$`F=p_{0,0}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(p_{1,0}+p_{2,0}+2(p_{1,2}+p_{2,1}))`$ (32)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\left[p_{1,0}+p_{2,0}(p_{1,2}+p_{2,1})\right]\left[\mathrm{cos}(\alpha +\beta )+\mathrm{cos}(\alpha 2\beta )+\mathrm{cos}(\beta 2\alpha )\right]`$
The function $`\mathrm{cos}(\alpha +\beta )+\mathrm{cos}(\alpha 2\beta )+\mathrm{cos}(\beta 2\alpha )`$ reaches its extremal value $`3/2`$ when $`\alpha +\beta =\alpha 2\beta =\beta 2\alpha =2\pi /3`$ or $`2\pi /3`$, that is, when $`|\psi _0`$ belongs to the third or fourth basis. Therefore, when the second basis is not cloned as well as the third and fourth maximally-conjugate bases, i.e. when $`p_{1,0}+p_{2,0}<p_{1,1}+p_{2,2}`$, there exists no state of the form $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(|0+e^{i\alpha }|1+e^{i\beta }|2)`$ outside the third and fourth bases that is equally well cloned. Similarly, we expect that when the first and second bases are not cloned as well as the third and fourth maximally-conjugate bases, i.e. when $`p_{0,1}+p_{0,2}<p_{1,1}+p_{2,2}`$ and $`p_{1,0}+p_{2,0}<p_{1,1}+p_{2,2}`$, then there exists no state at all outside the third and fourth bases that gets equally well cloned.

Let us now consider a state-dependent qutrit cloner that is characterized by the amplitude matrix

$$(a_{m,n})=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}v& y& y\\ y& x& x\\ y& x& x\end{array}\right)$$
(33)
where $`v,x,`$ and $`y`$ are real parameters obeying the normalization condition $`v^2+4x^2+4y^2=1`$. This matrix corresponds to the probability matrix $`p_{m,n}=a_{m,n}^2`$. It is easy to check that this cloner results in a same fidelity (and same disturbances: $`D_1=D_2`$) for all the basis states of the two last bases $`\{|0^{\prime \prime },|1^{\prime \prime },|2^{\prime \prime }\}`$ and $`\{|0^{\prime \prime \prime },|1^{\prime \prime \prime },|2^{\prime \prime \prime }\}`$:

$`F^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`F^{\prime \prime \prime }=v^2+2x^2`$
$`D_{1,2}^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`D_{1,2}^{\prime \prime \prime }=x^2+2y^2`$ (34)
Of course, we have $`F+D_1+D_2=1`$. Using Eqs. (5), (6), and (7), we get

$$(a_{m,n}^F)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}v+2y& vy& vy\\ y+2x& yx& yx\\ y+2x& yx& yx\end{array}\right)$$
(35)
$$(b_{m,n}^F)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}v+2y& y+2x& y+2x\\ vy& yx& yx\\ vy& yx& yx\end{array}\right)$$
(36)
$$(b_{m,n})=\frac{1}{3}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}v+4x+4y& v2x+y& v2x+y\\ v2x+y& v+x2y& v+x2y\\ v2x+y& v+x2y& v+x2y\end{array}\right)$$
(37)
so that the matrix $`b_{m,n}`$ characterizing the second clone has the same form as $`a_{m,n}`$ with the substitution:

$`v`$ $``$ $`(v+4x+4y)/3`$ (38)
$`x`$ $``$ $`(v+x2y)/3`$ (39)
$`y`$ $``$ $`(v2x+y)/3`$ (40)
Consequently, the states of the two last bases are again copied with the same fidelity (and same disturbances) onto the second clone:

$`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ $`=`$ $`(v^2+6x^2+8y^2+4vx+8xy)/3`$ (41)
$`\stackrel{~}{D}_{1,2}`$ $`=`$ $`(v^2+3x^2+2y^22vx4xy)/3`$ (42)
We will be now interested in finding the optimal cloner, that is the cloner that maximizes the fidelity of the second clone for a given fidelity of the first clone. Maximizing $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ with the constraint that $`F`$ is given and using the normalization condition yields the solution

$`v`$ $`=`$ $`F`$ (43)
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{F(1F)/2}`$ (44)
$`y`$ $`=`$ $`(1F)/2`$ (45)
Hence, the fidelity of the second clone can be written as a function of the fidelity of the first clone

$$\stackrel{~}{F}=\frac{2F}{3}+\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}\sqrt{F(1F)}$$
(46)
which expresses the complementarity between the clones. As expected, $`F=1`$ implies $`\stackrel{~}{F}=1/3`$, and conversely. An interesting special case is the symmetric cloner, which yields two clones of equal fidelity

$$F=\stackrel{~}{F}=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{12}}0.789$$
(47)
It should be noted that Eqs. (46) and (47) hold regardless which bases are optimally cloned, provided that two of them are equally cloned. The two remaining ones are then copied with a lower fidelity $`v^2+2y^2=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{12}}0.644`$. Note also that a more general cloner could be constructed for which these two remaining bases are not cloned with an equal fidelity, but it will not be considered here.

## 4 Optimal cloner of three maximally-conjugate bases

Now, we consider a state-dependent cloner that clones equally well the three last maximally-conjugate bases and for which $`D_1=D_2`$. Again, our result will actually be independent of which three bases are optimally cloned, so we only consider the last three ones for simplicity. This imposes that

$`p_{0,1}+p_{1,1}+p_{2,1}=p_{0,2}+p_{1,2}+p_{2,2}`$
$`p_{1,0}+p_{2,0}=p_{1,1}+p_{2,2}=p_{1,2}+p_{2,1}`$
$`p_{1,1}+p_{2,1}=p_{1,2}+p_{2,0}=p_{1,0}+p_{2,2}`$
$`p_{1,2}+p_{2,2}=p_{1,0}+p_{2,1}=p_{1,1}+p_{2,0}`$ (48)
It is easy to deduce from these constraints together with Eqs. (24), (26), and (27) that the cloning fidelity for an arbitrary state $`|\psi _0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(|0+e^{i\alpha }|1+e^{i\beta }|2)`$ is simply given by

$$F=p_{0,0}+p_{1,0}+p_{2,0}$$
(49)
that is, it coincides with the cloning fidelity of the elements of the three last bases. This simplification occurs because of cyclical compensations in Eq. (24) which originate from the fact that the number of bases that are equally well cloned here is equal to the dimension of the Hilbert space (3 in the present case). This situation generalizes the one encountered with the phase-covariant cloner for a qubit (see Appendix A). In that case, the cloner that clones equally well two maximally-conjugate bases in a Hilbert space of dimension 2 can be shown to clone equally well all the states of an equator of the Bloch sphere. In the present case, the cloner that clones equally well two plus one maximally-conjugate bases clones equally well the generalized equator, i.e., a 1+1 dimensional variety that contains all the states of the form $`|\psi _0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(|0+e^{i\alpha }|1+e^{i\beta }|2)`$.

It can be shown that the general solution of Eq. (4) is a probability matrix $`p_{m,n}`$ of the form

$$(p_{m,n})=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}v^2& x^2& x^2\\ y^2& y^2& y^2\\ z^2& z^2& z^2\end{array}\right)$$
(50)
For instance, we have that $`p_{1,0}+p_{2,0}(p_{1,1}+p_{2,1})`$ = $`(p_{1,1}+p_{2,2}+p_{1,2}+p_{2,1})/2(p_{1,2}+p_{2,0}+p_{1,0}+p_{2,2})/2`$ = $`(p_{1,1}+p_{2,1}(p_{2,0}+p_{1,0}))/2`$, so that $`p_{1,0}+p_{2,0}=p_{1,1}+p_{2,1}`$. But we have $`p_{0,0}+p_{1,0}+p_{2,0}=p_{0,0}+p_{1,1}+p_{2,2}`$, so that $`p_{2,1}=p_{2,2}`$. We deduce in a similar way that one must have $`p_{2,0}=p_{2,1}=p_{2,2}`$, $`p_{1,0}=p_{1,1}=p_{1,2}`$, and $`p_{0,1}=p_{0,2}.`$ It is easy to check that these conditions are also sufficient conditions.

### 4.1 Symmetric cloner

Let us now consider the symmetric state-dependent cloner that clones equally well the three last bases and is characterized by the amplitude matrix

$$(a_{m,n})=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}x+y+z& x+\alpha y+\alpha ^2z& x+\alpha ^2y+\alpha z\\ y& y& y\\ z& z& z\end{array}\right)$$
(51)
where $`x,y,`$ and $`z`$ are real parameters and with the normalisation condition $`3x^2+6x^2+6z^2=1`$. This matrix corresponds to the probability matrix $`p_{m,n}=a_{m,n}^2`$. It is easy to check that this cloner results in a same fidelity (and same disturbance) for all basis states of the three last bases $`\{|0^{},|1^{},|2^{}\}`$, $`\{|0^{\prime \prime },|1^{\prime \prime },|2^{\prime \prime }\}`$ and $`\{|0^{\prime \prime \prime },|1^{\prime \prime \prime },|2^{\prime \prime \prime }\}`$:

$$F^{}=F^{\prime \prime }=F^{\prime \prime \prime }=x^2+2y^2+2z^2+2xy+2yz+2xz$$
(52)
$$D_{1,2}^{}=D_{1,2}^{\prime \prime }=D_{1,2}^{\prime \prime \prime }=x^2+2y^2+2z^2xyyzxz$$
(53)
Of course we have $`F+D_1+D_2=1.`$ By Eqs. (5), (7), (6):

$$(a_{m,n}^F)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}3x& 3y& 3z\\ 3y& 0& 0\\ 3z& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(54)
$$(b_{m,n}^F)=(a_{m,n}^F)$$
(55)
$$(b_{m,n})=(a_{m,n})$$
(56)
which shows that this cloner is symmetric. The cloner is optimal when the fidelity $`x^2+2y^2+2z^2+2xy+2yz+2xz`$ is maximal under the constraint that $`x^2+2y^2+2z^2=1/3`$. By the method of Lagrange, we obtain that the fidelity is extremal when the following equations are satisfied:

$`y+z=\lambda x`$
$`x+z=2\lambda y`$
$`x+y=2\lambda z`$ (57)
where $`\lambda `$ is a Lagrange multiplier. From the last two equations, we deduce that either $`\lambda `$ = $`\frac{1}{2}`$ or $`y=z`$. If $`\lambda `$ = $`\frac{1}{2}`$, then $`x=0`$, $`y=z`$ and $`F=\frac{1}{6}`$ which is a minimum. If $`y=z`$, then $`\lambda =\frac{1\pm \sqrt{17}}{4}`$ and $`F=\frac{5\pm \sqrt{17}}{12}`$. The maximal fidelity is thus equal to

$$F_{max}=\frac{5+\sqrt{17}}{12}0.760$$
(58)
It corresponds to an amplitude matrix

$$(a_{m,n})=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}x+2y& xy& xy\\ y& y& y\\ y& y& y\end{array}\right)$$
(59)
with $`x=\sqrt{\frac{17\sqrt{17}}{102}}`$ and $`y=\sqrt{\frac{17+\sqrt{17}}{408}}.`$ It should be noted that this symmetric cloner exactly coincides with the so-called double-phase covariant qutrit cloner that was independently derived in Ref. .

### 4.2 Asymmetric cloner

Let us now consider the asymmetric state-dependent cloner that clones equally well the three last maximally-conjugate bases, and is characterized by the amplitude matrix

$$(a_{m,n})=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}v& y& y\\ x& x& x\\ x& x& x\end{array}\right)$$
(60)
where $`v,x,`$ and $`y`$ are real parameters and with the normalisation condition $`v^2+6x^2+2y^2=1`$. This matrix corresponds to the probability matrix $`p_{m,n}=a_{m,n}^2`$. It is easy to check that this cloner results in a same fidelity (and same disturbances) for all basis states of the three last bases $`\{|0^{},|1^{},|2^{}\}`$, $`\{|0^{\prime \prime },|1^{\prime \prime },|2^{\prime \prime }\}`$ and $`\{|0^{\prime \prime \prime },|1^{\prime \prime \prime },|2^{\prime \prime \prime }\}`$:

$$F^{}=F^{\prime \prime }=F^{\prime \prime \prime }=v^2+2x^2$$
(61)
$$D_{1,2}^{}=D_{1,2}^{\prime \prime }=D_{1,2}^{\prime \prime \prime }=2x^2+y^2$$
(62)
Of course, we have again $`F+D_1+D_2=1.`$ By use of Eqs. (5), (6), and (7), we get

$$(a_{m,n}^F)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}v+2y& vy& vy\\ 3x& 0& 0\\ 3x& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(63)
$$(b_{m,n}^F)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}v+2y& 3x& 3x\\ vy& 0& 0\\ vy& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(64)
$$(b_{m,n})=\frac{1}{3}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}v+6x+2y& v3x+2y& v3x+2y\\ vy& vy& vy\\ vy& vy& vy\end{array}\right)$$
(65)
Hence, for the second clone, the matrix $`b_{m,n}`$ has again the same form as $`a_{m,n}`$ with the substitution

$`v`$ $``$ $`(v+6x+2y)/3`$ (66)
$`x`$ $``$ $`(vy)/3`$ (67)
$`y`$ $``$ $`(v3x+2y)/3`$ (68)
so that the states of the last three bases are all copied onto the second clone with a same fidelity (and same disturbances):

$`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ $`=`$ $`(v^2+12x^2+2y^2+4vx+8xy)/3`$ (69)
$`\stackrel{~}{D}_{1,2}`$ $`=`$ $`(v^2+3x^2+2y^22vx4xy)/3`$ (70)
For the optimal cloner, we need to maximize $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ for a given value of $`F`$ using the normalisation condition, just as before. However, in contrast with the case of the asymmetric cloner for two maximally-conjugate bases, we have found no simple analytical solution for this problem. A numerical solution and its connections with quantum cryptography will be discussed elsewhere. Note that an asymmetric state-dependent cloner could be constructed for which the last three bases are all copied equally well but with a more general matrix $`a_{m,n}`$ than in Eq. (60). It can be shown however, that the optimal such cloner must necessarily obey Eq. (60) so that this possibility will not be considered here.

## 5 Optimal cloner of all the maximally-conjugate bases

Let us finally consider an asymmetric cloner that copies equally well all four maximally-conjugate bases and for which $`D_1=D_2`$. We already showed that the constraints (4) must be obeyed for cloning equally well the last three maximally-conjugate bases. In order to clone the fourth basis equally well, we must also impose the additional constraints:

$`p_{0,1}+p_{0,2}=p_{1,0}+p_{2,0}`$
$`p_{1,0}+p_{1,2}=p_{0,1}+p_{2,1}`$
$`p_{2,0}+p_{2,1}=p_{0,2}+p_{1,2}`$ (71)
Equivalently, using Eq. (50), we have

$`2x^2=y^2+z^2`$
$`2y^2=x^2+z^2`$
$`2z^2=x^2+y^2`$ (72)
Hence, $`x^2=y^2=z^2`$, and $`p_{m,n}`$ must be of the form

$$(p_{m,n})=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}v^2& x^2& x^2\\ x^2& x^2& x^2\\ x^2& x^2& x^2\end{array}\right)$$
(73)
It is thus natural to consider the following amplitude matrix

$$(a_{m,n})=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}v& x& x\\ x& x& x\\ x& x& x\end{array}\right)$$
(74)
where $`v`$ and $`x`$ are real parameters that satisfy the normalization condition $`v^2+8x^2=1`$. This matrix corresponds to the probability matrix $`p_{m,n}=a_{m,n}^2`$. By use of Eqs. (5), (6), and (7), we have

$$(a_{m,n}^F)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}v+2x& vx& vx\\ 3x& 0& 0\\ 3x& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(75)
$$(b_{m,n}^F)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}v+2x& 3x& 3x\\ vx& 0& 0\\ vx& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(76)
$$(b_{m,n})=\frac{1}{3}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}v+8x& vx& vx\\ vx& vx& vx\\ vx& vx& vx\end{array}\right)$$
(77)
so that, for the second clone, the matrix $`b_{m,n}`$ has the same form as $`a_{m,n}`$ with the substitution:

$`v`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v+8x}{3}}`$ (78)
$`x`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{vx}{3}}`$ (79)
It is convenient here to change the variables $`v`$ and $`x`$ into $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ according to

$`v`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{3}}`$
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{3}}`$ (80)
so that we have

$$(a_{m,n})=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\alpha +\frac{\beta }{3}& \frac{\beta }{3}& \frac{\beta }{3}\\ \frac{\beta }{3}& \frac{\beta }{3}& \frac{\beta }{3}\\ \frac{\beta }{3}& \frac{\beta }{3}& \frac{\beta }{3}\end{array}\right)$$
(81)
$$(b_{m,n})=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\beta +\frac{\alpha }{3}& \frac{\alpha }{3}& \frac{\alpha }{3}\\ \frac{\alpha }{3}& \frac{\alpha }{3}& \frac{\alpha }{3}\\ \frac{\alpha }{3}& \frac{\alpha }{3}& \frac{\alpha }{3}\end{array}\right)$$
(82)
It is easy to check that this cloner results in a same fidelity (and same disturbance) for any qutrit state:

$$F=\alpha ^2+2\frac{\alpha \beta }{3}+\frac{\beta ^2}{3}$$
(83)
$$D_{1,2}=\frac{\beta ^2}{3}$$
(84)
Of course we have $`F+D_1+D_2=1.`$ This is the special case of a state-independent (or universal) N-dimensional cloner, which can be obtained simply by letting

$`a_{m,n}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \delta _{m,0}\delta _{n,0}+\beta /N`$ (85)
$`b_{m,n}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta \delta _{m,0}\delta _{n,0}+\alpha /N`$ (86)
This is consistent with Eq. (4) since the constant function $`1/N`$ is the Fourier transform of $`\delta _{m,0}\delta _{n,0}`$. Thus, $`\alpha =1`$ ($`\beta =0`$) is the case where the first clone is perfect, whereas $`\beta =1`$ ($`\alpha =0`$) is the case where the second clone is perfect. The normalization relation implies that

$$|\alpha |^2+\frac{2}{N}\mathrm{Re}(\alpha \beta ^{})+|\beta |^2=1$$
(87)
which characterizes the balance between the quality of the two clones. In particular, the symmetric universal $`N`$-dimensional cloner corresponds to the case where

$$\alpha ^2=\beta ^2=\frac{N}{2(1+N)}$$
(88)
Using Eq. (14) for the cloning fidelity in the computational basis (since all states are copies with the same fidelity), we recover the standard formula for the universal cloners

$$F=\left(\alpha +\frac{\beta }{N}\right)^2+(N1)\left(\frac{\beta }{N}\right)^2=\frac{3+N}{2(1+N)}$$
(89)
In particular, the symmetric universal qutrit cloner ($`N=3`$) is characterized by a fidelity of 3/4.

## 6 Conclusion

We have investigated several categories of $`12`$ cloning transformations for a three-dimensional system (a qutrit). First, we have analyzed the cloners that optimally copy the states of any two out of the four maximally-conjugate bases. The symmetric cloner of this class has a cloning fidelity of $`\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{12}}0.789`$. Second, we studied the cloners that copy equally well and with the highest fidelity three maximally-conjugate bases. Actually, these cloners can be shown to copy all states of the form $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(|0+e^{i\alpha }|1+e^{i\beta }|2)`$ with the same fidelity for any $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, so they are the natural extension of the phase-covariant qubit cloners. The symmetric cloner of this class copies all these states with a fidelity $`\frac{5+\sqrt{17}}{12}0.760`$, and coincides with the so-called double-phase covariant qutrit cloner analyzed independently in Ref. . Finally, the cloners that optimally copy all four maximally-conjugate bases can be shown to copy all states of a qutrit equally well, so they simply correspond to the universal qutrit cloners. The symmetric universal qutrit cloner has a fidelity of 3/4, in accordance to Ref. . We conclude thus that, quite naturally, the cloning fidelity decreases when we put a stronger requirement on the cloner (namely two, three, or four bases must be copied optimally). This study also suggests that there is still much room for further investigation on multi-level non-universal quantum cloning.

Appendices

## Appendix A Phase-covariant cloner for a qubit

In this Appendix, we show that the phase-covariant qubit cloner  can be obtained in just a few lines by using the general characterization of Pauli cloners of Refs. . The phase-covariant qubit cloner is defined as a transformation that optimally copies all states of the form $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0+e^{i\alpha }|1)`$ for any $`\alpha `$. Here, we rather look for a qubit cloner that copies any two maximally-conjugate bases. Actually, in the Hilbert space of a qubit, there are three maximally-conjugate bases, which correspond to the eigenstates of the three Pauli matrices:

$`|0,|1`$ (90)
$`|0^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|0+|1),|1^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|0|1)`$ (91)
$`|0^{\prime \prime }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|0+i|1),|1^{\prime \prime }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(i|0+|1)`$ (92)
The universal qubit cloning machine  copies the states of each of these three bases with the same fidelity. In contrast, the cloner we will be interested in here is required to optimall copy only the first two bases with the same (and maximum) fidelity. This is equivalent to requiring that the states that on the “equatorial” plane $`x`$-$`z`$ of the Bloch sphere are all shrunk by a same factor. (Note that, conventionally, the phase-covariant qubit cloner is rather required to optimally copy the last two bases, or, by extension, all states of the equatorial plane $`x`$-$`y`$ .) The cloning fidelity can be higher than that of the universal cloner, but this is at the expense of cloning fidelity for the third basis, wich must be lower.

Let us calculate the fidelity of this phase-covariant cloner. Let us consider the effect of the error operators on the elements of the two first bases. We have

$$\begin{array}{cc}U_{0,0}\begin{array}{c}|0|0\hfill \\ |1|1\hfill \end{array}\hfill & U_{0,1}\begin{array}{c}|0|0\hfill \\ |1|1\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ U_{1,0}\begin{array}{c}|0|1\hfill \\ |1|0\hfill \end{array}\hfill & U_{1,1}\begin{array}{c}|0|1\hfill \\ |1|0\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(93)
so the elements of the first basis are left unchanged (up to a sign) by the error operators $`U_{0,0}`$ and $`U_{0,1}`$. Similarly, we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}U_{0,0}\begin{array}{c}|0^{}|0^{}\hfill \\ |1^{}|1^{}\hfill \end{array}\hfill & U_{0,1}\begin{array}{c}|0^{}|1^{}\hfill \\ |1^{}|0^{}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ U_{1,0}\begin{array}{c}|0^{}|0^{}\hfill \\ |1^{}|1^{}\hfill \end{array}\hfill & U_{1,1}\begin{array}{c}|0^{}|1^{}\hfill \\ |1^{}|0^{}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(94)
so the elements of the second basis are left unchanged (up to a sign) under $`U_{0,0}`$ and $`U_{1,0}`$. Now, using the general formula for the cloning fidelity Eq. (13), we find that the elements $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ of the first basis are cloned with the fidelity

$$F=p_{0,0}+p_{0,1}$$
(95)
while the elements $`|0^{}`$ and $`|1^{}`$ of the second basis are cloned with the fidelity

$$F^{}=p_{0,0}+p_{1,0}$$
(96)
The requirement of having a phase-covariant cloner ($`F=F^{}`$) can thus be simply written as $`p_{0,1}=p_{1,0}`$. Consequently, we simply consider a cloner characterized by the amplitude matrix

$$(a_{m,n})=\left(\begin{array}{cc}v\hfill & x\hfill \\ x\hfill & y\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(97)
where $`x`$, $`y`$ and $`v`$ are real and positive, and with the normalization condition $`v^2+2x^2+y^2=1`$. The fidelity $`F`$ (and disturbance $`D=1F`$) of the first clone are thus given in both bases by

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`F^{}=v^2+x^2`$ (98)
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`D^{}=x^2+y^2`$ (99)
For the second clone, Eq. (4) \[or, equivalently, Eq. (7)\], implies that the matrix $`b_{m,n}`$ has the same form as $`a_{m,n}`$ with the substitution

$`v`$ $``$ $`(v+2x+y)/2`$ (100)
$`x`$ $``$ $`(vy)/2`$ (101)
$`y`$ $``$ $`(v2x+y)/2`$ (102)
so that the states of the two conjugate bases are again copied all with a same fidelity (and a same disturbance):

$`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ $`=`$ $`(v^2+2x^2+y^2+2vx+2xy)/2=1/2+vx+xy`$ (103)
$`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ $`=`$ $`(v^2+2x^2+y^22vx2xy)/2=1/2vxxy`$ (104)
We are now interested in finding the cloner that maximizes the fidelity of the second clone $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ for a given fidelity of the first clone $`F`$. A simple constrained maximization calculation yields the solution

$`v`$ $`=`$ $`F`$ (105)
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{F(1F)}`$ (106)
$`y`$ $`=`$ $`1F`$ (107)
so that the maximum fidelity of the second clone can be written as a function of the fidelity of the first clone

$$\stackrel{~}{F}=\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{F(1F)}$$
(108)
This expresses the balance between the quality of the two clones in the case of a phase-covariant qubit cloner. As expected, $`F=1`$ yields $`\stackrel{~}{F}=1/2`$, and conversely. The symmetric phase-covariant cloner yields two clones of equal fidelity

$$F=\stackrel{~}{F}=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{8}}0.854$$
(109)
in agreement with . As expected, this fidelity is slightly higher than the fidelity of the universal qubit cloner, namely F=5/6. In contrast, the third basis is now copied with a fidelity equal to 3/4, that is, lower than the fidelity of the universal cloner.

Acknowledgment

We are grateful to G. M. D’Ariano and P. Lo Presti for communicating us their preliminary results on the double-phase covariant qutrit cloner. T.D. is a Postdoctoral Fellow of the Fonds voor Wetenschappelijke Onderzoek, Vlaanderen. N.C. acknowledges funding by the European Union under the project EQUIP (IST-FET programme).


format: text

text:
# Cosmological Simulations with Adaptive Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics

## 1. Introduction

SPH is the most widely used numerical method for cosmological simulations with gas dynamics. With our collaborators, we have developed a new version of SPH, called Adaptive SPH (ASPH), which addresses some specific limitations of standard SPH (Shapiro et al. 1996; Owen et al. 1998; Martel & Shapiro 2002). For a given number of particles, ASPH resolves much better than standard SPH whenever anisotropic collapse or expansion occurs. ASPH also has a shock-tracking algorithm that can be used to restrict spurious heating by artificial viscosity. ASPH simulations in 3D of explosions during galaxy formation are described elsewhere (Martel & Shapiro 2000, 2001a, b).

## 2. Standard SPH vs. Adaptive SPH (ASPH)

For kernel smoothing in standard SPH to be accurate, the smoothing length $`h`$ must be a few times the mean particle spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$. If $`h\mathrm{\Delta }x`$, spatial variations in the fluid quantities are oversmoothed, leading to a loss of resolution; if $`h<\mathrm{\Delta }x`$, particles lose contact with their nearest neighbors, resulting in a loss of accuracy. Since the mean particle spacing varies with time and space, each particle must carry its own smoothing length, which varies with time to reflect the expansion or contraction of the fluid. This is illustrated in Figure 1. The top row shows a 2D distribution of particles contracting isotropically. We focus on one particle, shown by a large dot. The smoothing length $`h`$ of that particle defines a zone of influence, indicated by a circle. As the fluid contracts, $`h`$ is reduced in proportion to the mean particle spacing. The second row illustrates the case of an anisotropic contraction, the planar collapse of a sinusoidal density perturbation, leading to the formation of a caustic. In the direction of collapse, the smoothing length does not shrink fast enough to keep up with the contraction of the fluid, and eventually greatly exceeds the mean particle spacing, leading to poor resolution. In the transverse direction, the smoothing length shrinks but the fluid does not contract, and horizontal rows of particles progressively lose contact with one another. The third row illustrates the ASPH approach. The smoothing is anisotropic. The smoothing length is replaced by an H-tensor which defines an elliptical zone of influence (ellipsoidal in 3D). This zone of influence deforms and rotates to follow the deformation of the fluid. The smoothing length is now direction dependent, and remains proportional to the mean particle spacing in any direction.

Artificial viscosity is necessary to allow the formation of shocks, but can lead to spurious preheating of gas contracting supersonically far from any shock. In ASPH, the evolution of the H-tensors can be used to track the location of shocks and apply artificial viscosity selectively. This is illustrated in the third row of Figure 1. In ASPH, viscous heating is initially turned off. As the system evolves, the smoothing ellipsoid flattens, with one axis approaching zero length. ASPH uses this to determine when a particle is about to be shocked and turns viscous heating on for that particle. This restricts viscous heating to particles encountering shocks, as needed.

To illustrate how ASPH achieves higher resolution than standard SPH, we focus on a stringent test, the planar collapse of a sinusoidal plane-wave density perturbation, the cosmological pancake problem. The fluctuation grows from linear to nonlinear amplitude and forms a caustic in the dark matter distribution in the plane of symmetry at scale factor $`a=a_c`$, with strong accretion shocks located on each side of the central plane. We use equal-mass dark matter and gas particles, in a universe with $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gas}}=0.5`$, with 64 particles per pancake wavelength $`\lambda _p`$, to evolve the system to $`a=2.333a_c`$. Figure 2 shows gas density, temperature, velocity, and pressure profiles (in computational units) at the final time. The shock is located at $`\mathrm{log}(x/\lambda _p)=1.3`$ (from midplane). The ASPH results are significantly better than the SPH results, which is especially noticeable in the postshock density and temperature profiles. The ASPH profiles follow the exact postshock solution over nearly 3 orders of magnitude in length, while the SPH profiles level off because of limited spatial resolution.

## 3. False Cooling

A serious numerical problem emerges for both algorithms when radiative cooling is added. In Figure 3, we plot a typical cooling function commonly used in cosmological simulations. Let us assume that the rectangle in the top panel of Figure 3 represents the physically relevant region. The cooling rate drops sharply at low and high temperatures. To approximate this behavior, we consider a simplified cooling window function illustrated in the bottom panel of Figure 3. The cooling rate is constant inside a fixed temperature window (Region II), and zero outside that window (Regions I and III).

In principle, when a fluid element is shock-heated from Region I to Region III, it should cross the shock too fast to cool radiatively as it passes thru Region II. The numerical shock has a finite thickness which is unphysically large, however, so the shock transit time, $`t_{\mathrm{shock}}`$, can artificially exceed the physical cooling time in Region II, $`t_{\mathrm{cool}}`$, causing spurious radiative cooling. Since $`t_{\mathrm{shock}}`$ scales like the shock thickness divided by the preshock velocity, it depends on resolution, as the number of particles across the shock tends to be constant. If the cooling rate is so large or the resolution so poor that $`t_{\mathrm{shock}}>t_{\mathrm{cool}}`$, particles will be unable to cross Region II, as cooling forces them back to Region I, and the shock does not form. We call this the False Cooling Problem.

To illustrate this problem, we introduce a window cooling function to the cosmological pancake problem. Figure 4 shows the temperature and pressure profiles at $`a=2.333a_c`$. The shaded area indicates the cooling window. If cooling is slow (left panels), the shocked gas particles are able to cross the cooling window and accumulate correctly in the postshock region. The particles located at the bottom of the cooling window are those whose postshock temperature was inside the cooling window. They cooled after having been shocked. When cooling is fast (right panels), however, particles are incapable of reaching their correct postshock temperature, and the shock does not even form.

## 4. Possible Solution

The false cooling problem only affects particles that are going through a shock transition. If the algorithm could track the location of shocks, then false cooling could be eliminated, simply by not allowing particles undergoing shock transitions to cool. There is already a shock-tracking algorithm in ASPH, which is used to restrict viscous heating. The algorithm identifies particles located in shock transitions and turns viscous heating on for them. We can attempt to solve the false cooling problem by turning cooling off for the same particles, with results as shown in the left panels of Figure 5. Particles are now able to reach the postshock temperature and pressure (compare with the right panels of Fig. 4), and the ASPH solution is close to the exact one. There are some oscillations near the contact discontinuity between hot and cooled gas, but since it involves only a few particles, these oscillations are underresolved and do not feed back into the evolution of the system. The right panel shows an attempt to improve the solution by introducing a small amount of artificial conduction. The oscillations are gone, but the postshock profile is not as well reproduced.

## 5. Summary

Anisotropic smoothing kernels enable the ASPH algorithm to simulate problems involving strongly anisotropic collapse or expansion more accurately than isotropic SPH, with better length resolution for the same number of particles. Additional improvement results because ASPH tracks the location of shocks and restricts viscous heating to particles overtaken by shocks.

We have identified a major problem, called false cooling, which can affect cosmological simulations whenever the cooling rate has temperature peaks. False cooling prevents shocked gas from reaching regions of high temperature where the cooling is low. Solving this problem may require a shock-tracking capability like that of ASPH. Our preliminary results are encouraging.

### Acknowledgments.

We thank Ilian Iliev for help with our Lagrangian hydro simulations. This work was supported by TARP Grant 3658-0624-1999 and NASA Grants NAG5-10825 and NAG5-10826.

## References

Martel, H., & Shapiro, P. R. 2000, Nucl.Phys.B, 80, 09/11 (astro-ph/9904121)

Martel, H., & Shapiro, P. R. 2001a, Rev.Mex.A.A. (SC), 10, 101 (astro-ph/ 0006309)

Martel, H., & Shapiro, P. R. 2001b, in Proceedings of the $`20^{\mathrm{𝑡ℎ}}`$ Symposium on Theoretical Astrophysics, eds. J. C. Wheeler & H. Martel (AIP), in press (astro-ph/0104068)

Martel, H., & Shapiro, P. R. 2002, in preparation.

Owen, J. M., Villumsen, J. V., Shapiro, P. R., & Martel, H. 1998, ApJS, 116, 155

Shapiro, P. R., Martel, H., Villumsen, J. V., & Owen, J. M. 1996, ApJS, 103, 269

Shapiro, P. R., & Struck-Marcell, C. 1985, ApJS, 57, 205


text:
# Large Quark Rotations Neutrino Oscillations and Proton Decay

( July 2001)

The large freedom in the SM fermionic mass matrices allows for large RH and LH quark rotations. This is a natural possibility in view of the observed large leptonic mixing. Proton decay and especially its gauge mediated decay is sensitive also to those mixing angles which are non-relevant in the SM. A model with realistic mass matrices and large rotations is presented. It is shown that the large leptonic mixing leads to enhancement of the proton decay branching ratios involving muons.

Many different sets of fermionic mass matrices are consistent with the phenomenology of the SM. This is due to the huge freedom in the fermionic rotations in the SM:
$`V_{CKM}`$—gives only the difference between the LH up and down quark mixing angles.
RH ROTATIONS—are unobservable in the SM (are equal to the LH rotations only if the mass matrices are hermitian).
All quark mixing angles can be large, and in fact we know that large RH quark rotations go naturally with the observed large LH leptonic mixing in some GUT’s.
In the SM the mass matrices are arbitrary hence the model must be extended to predict them (if not for many other reasons). To find out what the “fundamental” mass matrices in the extended theory are, one needs to know also the mixing angles which are “non relevant” in the SM.
RH mixing can be observed via RH currents directly, or indirectly (if $`W_R`$ is very heavy) in: Baryon-asymmetry induced via Leptogenesis (the relevant rotations are here RH !), Leptoquark interactions, Radiative corrections e.t.c.
In particular, the proton decay branching ratios are the best observables to look for the “non-relevant” rotations. D=6 gauge mediated proton decays involve all RH and LH mixing angles. They are also interesting for the following reasons:
D=5 sparticle induced proton decays depend on yet unobserved sparticles and couplings and therefore involve many unknown parameters. This freedom however does not save SUSY SU(5) from being ruled out. Also extensions of SU(5) and SO(10) must be carefully constructed and are yet on the verge of being excluded . A natural alternative would be to suppress not only the D=4 but also the D=5 contributions (e.g. via a symmetry).
Gauge mediated decays involve only known coupling and masses and the predicted branching ratios are therefore much more reliable in this case. They are the real test of GUTs, because D=5 decays are allowed also in non-GUTs as well. Also, there are recently quite a few models with $`M_X`$ lower than $`10^{16}`$ GeV  where D=6 proton decay can be observable in the near future.

To illustrate our point let me present a renormalizable SUSY SO(10) model with large mixing angles. It is based on mass matrices with a non-hermitian Fritzsch texture induced via a $`U(1)_F`$ global family group. The free parameters are chosen in such a way that all mixing angles will be calculable in terms of the known fermionic masses and mixing.
The best fit for the mixing angles in the case of the favored LMA-MSW solution to the solar neutrino puzzle gives naturally large mixing angles.

1. The Quark LH and RH mixing angles at the GUT scale:
$`\theta _{L}^{u}{}_{12}{}^{}=0.077`$, $`\theta _{L}^{u}{}_{23}{}^{}=1.48`$, $`\theta _{L}^{u}{}_{13}{}^{}=4\times 10^8`$.
$`\theta _{R}^{u}{}_{12}{}^{}=0.045`$, $`\theta _{R}^{u}{}_{23}{}^{}=2.2\times 10^4`$, $`\theta _{R}^{u}{}_{13}{}^{}=1.1\times 10^3`$.
$`\theta _{L}^{d}{}_{12}{}^{}=0.15`$, $`\theta _{L}^{d}{}_{23}{}^{}=1.44`$, $`\theta _{L}^{d}{}_{13}{}^{}=1\times 10^5`$.
$`\theta _{R}^{d}{}_{12}{}^{}=0.33`$, $`\theta _{R}^{d}{}_{23}{}^{}=3\times 10^3`$, $`\theta _{R}^{d}{}_{13}{}^{}=6\times 10^2`$.
2. The mixing angles of the Charged Leptons:

$`\theta _{L}^{\mathrm{}}{}_{12}{}^{}=1.17`$, $`\theta _{L}^{\mathrm{}}{}_{23}{}^{}=1.44`$, $`\theta _{L}^{\mathrm{}}{}_{13}{}^{}=0.0002`$.
$`\theta _{R}^{\mathrm{}}{}_{12}{}^{}=0.002`$, $`\theta _{R}^{\mathrm{}}{}_{23}{}^{}=0.003`$, $`\theta _{R}^{\mathrm{}}{}_{13}{}^{}=0.002`$.

These were used in the calculation of the branching ratios for the proton and neutron decays. The following branching ratios result and are presented together with the case where the mixing is neglected in Table 1.

The branching ratios of the nucleon decay into muons are strongly enhanced and are as large as the decay into $`e^+\pi ^0`$ .
The enhancement of the muon branching ratios is a unique feature of our model because the decay mode $`pe^+\pi ^o`$ is not negligible also in the $`d=5`$ induced decays. In view of the fact that this enhancement is the effect of the large observed leptonic mixing on the $`d=6`$ nucleon decay, we suggest that the observation of a considerable rate for the decay $`p\mu ^+\pi ^o`$ will be a clear indication for a gauge mediated proton decay.

One can say in general, that the branching ratios of the nucleon decay can teach us about the “fundamental” mass matrices as they depend on all mixing angles. The present huge freedom in the mass matrices would then be strongly restricted and one could better understand the origin of the fermionic masses.


text:
# Star Formation Signatures in the Condensation Downstream of HH 80N

## 1 Introduction

HH 80/81/80N is a spectacular and very luminous HH outflow spanning about 5 pc and exhibiting proper motions, close to the exciting source, of up to 1400 km s-1 (Reipurth & Graham, 1988; Martí, Rodríguez, & Reipurth, 1993, 1995, 1998; Heathcote, Reipurth & Raga, 1998; Molinari, Noriega-Crespo & Spinoglio, 2001). HH 80N, the northern counterpart of HH 80/81, is optically invisible, due to the high extinction at this position (Martí et al. 1993), but its radio and far-infrared properties confirm its HH nature (Martí et al. 1993; Molinari et al. 2001). Far-infrared ISO observations show that the strong FUV field radiated by the HH 80/81/80N outflow have induced the formation of a PDR (photo-dissociation region) in its immediately surrounding region (Molinari et al. 2001).

Molecular line observations towards HH 80N (Girart et al., 1994; Girart, Ho & Estalella, 1998) showed that it belongs to the class of Herbig-Haro (HH hereafter) objects, typically of high excitation, that are found to have starless quiescent dense clumps ahead of them. The strong radiation arising from the HH objects penetrates the clumps, releasing the icy mantles from the dust grains and inducing a photon-dominated chemistry, which causes significantly altered chemistry (Taylor & Williams, 1996; Viti & Williams, 1999). Recent observations towards HH 2 have confirmed this chemical scenario (Girart et al. in preparation). However, the presence of IRAS 18163-2042 associated with the HH 80N dense clump suggested that it could be tracing an embedded star (Girart et al. 1998).

This paper presents CS and CO BIMA observations that are part of a molecular line survey towards HH 80N whose complete results will be reported in a forthcoming paper. The observations presented in this paper show infall and outflow signatures associated with the dense clump downstream of HH 80N. The high angular resolution provided by millimeter interferometers, as in this paper, have allowed astronomers to resolve spatially infall kinematical signatures in some low mass star forming cores (Zhou, Evans & Wang, 1996; Ohashi et al., 1997; Saito et al., 1996; Momose et al., 1998; Hogerheijde, 2001). Typically, the infalling gas arises from scales of $`1000`$$`3000`$ AU and the mass infall rates are 1–10$`\times 10^6`$ $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ yr-1. Interestingly, the infall signatures found in HH 80N are similar to that from the dense cores in L1544 (Ohashi et al., 1999) and HH 1/2 (Torrelles et al., 1994), which show infall signatures in the form of an almost ring-like structure in the position-velocity diagram on even larger scales, $`1.5\times 10^4`$ and $`4.5\times 10^4`$ AU, respectively.

## 2 Observations and Results

The observations were carried out between 1999 May and September with the 10-antenna BIMA array111The BIMA array is operated by the Berkeley-Illinois-Maryland Association with support from the National Science Foundation. at the Hat Creek Radio Observatory. The phase calibrator used was QSO 1733-130. Absolute flux calibration was performed by observing Uranus and Mars. The phase center of the observations was $`\alpha (J2000)=18^\mathrm{h}19^\mathrm{m}18\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}62`$; $`\delta (J2000)=20\mathrm{°}40^{}55^{\prime \prime }`$. Two different frequency setups were used in order to observe the CS $`J`$=2–1 and CO $`J`$=1–0 lines, which provided a spectral resolution of 0.3 and 0.5 km s-1, respectively. Maps were made with the $`(u,v)`$ data weighted by the associated system temperatures.

### 2.1 The CS $`J`$=2–1 Emission

The CS emission arises from an elongated structure in the NW to SE direction ($`PA125\mathrm{°}`$), consisting of two well differentiated structures morphologically and kinematically (see Figures 1, 2): (1) The main core is centered at the position of the ammonia core (Girart et al., 1994). The position-velocity plot along the major axis of the CS emission shows an ring-like structure, roughly symmetrical about $`V_{LSR}11.4`$ km s-1. This structure can be explained by inward (or outwards) motions in the condensation (see § 3.1) and resembles that from the starless core L1544 (Ohashi et al., 1999). The physical scale of the dense main core traced by the CS emission, $`0.48\times 0.17`$ pc (assuming a distance of 1.7 kpc: Martí et al. 1993) is larger than that from the NH3 (1,1) (Girart et al., 1994) and the HCO+ $`J`$=3–2 (Girart et al. 1998). This could be due to the higher critical density of these two lines with respect to the CS $`J`$=2–1 transition. (2) A small redshifted ”arm” (hereafter RSE arm) is located SE of the main core and $`15^{\prime \prime }`$ north of the 6 cm continuum emission. The RSE arm exhibits a clear linear velocity gradient with increasing velocity towards the east, i. e., as it gets closer to HH 80N. Table 1 shows the physical parameters of the core traced by the CS $`J`$=2–1 line. Of the total mass measured, 12 $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ (assuming $`X(\mathrm{CS})=2\times 10^9`$), around 10 $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ belong to the main core, and 2 $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ to the RSE arm.

### 2.2 The molecular outflow

The blueshifted and redshifted CO emission traces a clearly bipolar outflow along the E-W direction (lobes BE and RW) and approximately centered at the peak intensity of the CS integrated emission (Fig. 1). The presence of molecular outflows is a clear signpost of star formation within the dense core. The outflow axis is not perpendicular to the major axis of the main core. However, our angular resolution traces scales ($`2\times 10^4`$ AU) much larger than the scales at which the collimation process occurs, $`1`$ AU (Shu et al., 1995). Table 1 shows the physical parameters of the molecular outflow. There is marginal evidence of another bipolar outflow in the N-S direction and also centered in the dense core. In addition to the molecular outflow, there is a redshifted clump that coincides not only spatially with the RSE arm but also kinematically, suggesting that this CO emission traces the same gas as the CS at this location.

## 3 Discussion

### 3.1 The collapse of the main core

The position-velocity plot along the major and the minor axes of the CS emission (Fig. 2) clearly suggests that the gas is either collapsing or expanding radially and that the emission arises from a ring-like or toroidal structure. A similar structure has being observed towards the starless core L1554 from CCS observations (Ohashi et al., 1999). The ratio between the major and minor axes of the CS emission gives an inclination angle of $`70\mathrm{°}`$. As pointed out by Ohashi et al. (1999), the fact that the emission is detected towards a ring-like structure is probably due to a chemical effect, i. e., a decrease of the CS abundance toward the center, possibly because of gas depletion onto grains at higher densities (Rawlings et al., 1992).

We considered a model of a spatially thin ring with both infall and rotation, similar to that of Ohashi et al. (1997, 1999), seen edge-on by the observer. The parameters of the model were the inner and outer radii of the ring, $`R_{\mathrm{inn}}`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{out}}`$, the infall and rotation velocities, $`V_{\mathrm{infall}}`$ and $`V_{\mathrm{rot}}`$, and the intrinsic line width $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{core}}`$. The position-velocity diagram was computed along the projected major and minor axes of the ring, assuming that the intensity was constant for $`R_{\mathrm{inn}}<R<R_{\mathrm{out}}`$, to compare with the observed kinematics. The best fit was obtained for velocities $`V_{\mathrm{infall}}=0.59`$ km s-1, $`V_{\mathrm{rot}}0.20`$ km s-1, and radii of the ring $`R_{\mathrm{inn}}=0.19`$ pc, $`R_{\mathrm{out}}=0.29`$ pc (see Table 1). The observed and synthetic position-velocity diagrams are shown in Fig. 2. This model also applies if the ring is expanding instead of contracting. In this case, the derived infall velocity should be taken as the expantion velocity.

Can the protostellar wind cause the expansion of a ring-like structure? The momentum rate of the ring (see Table 1) is $`2\times 10^5`$ $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ km s-1 yr-1. On the other hand, the momentum rate of the protostellar wind, assuming that it is the same as that from the molecular outflow, is $`1\times 10^5`$ $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ km s-1 yr-1. Although both values are similar, only a small fraction of the wind momentum rate would be transfered to the dense core. First, the dense core, as traced by the CS, shows a relatively flattened structure. Assuming that the ring structure traced by the CS is a torus, then the inner and outer radius derived from the model will imply a semi-aperture angle of the torus as seen from the center of $`12\mathrm{°}`$. Second, the momentum rate distribution of the wind is expected to be anisotropic, i. e., most of the momentum rate of the wind is carried out along the axis of the outflow, e. g., Shu et al. (2000). The X-wind model (Shu et al., 1995) predicts that at a distance of 0.24 pc the fraction of wind mass moving at equatorial angles lower than $`12\mathrm{°}`$ is about 2% of the total wind mass. We expect the momentum rate to scale similarly. Thus the wind that could interact with the dense core has roughly a momentum rate $`2\times 10^7`$ $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ km s-1 yr-1, which is much lower than that measured from the CS kinematics, assuming a typical CS abundance of $`X(\mathrm{CS})=2\times 10^9`$. Thus, the wind would be able to cause the expansion of the ring only if the CS has an unusually high abundance, and if the true momentum rate is much higher than that measured, because of the outflow inclination and the optical depth.

Can the ring-like structure be in contraction? Girart et al. (1994) found that the ammonia emission arises from a smaller region than the CS $`J`$=2–1 and traces a 20 $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ core (see § 2). This mass is similar to that required to cause free-fall collapse for the infall velocity measured at a radius of $`0.24`$ pc. However, the gas pressure and magneticc field should be taken into account. For the intrinsic line width obtained from the model, the virial mass without magnetic field for the CS main core is 9 $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$. This indicates that in the absence of the magnetic field the gas pressure cannot prevent the collapse. Assuming that the ring-like structure is contracting, we can provide a rough upper limit on $`|𝐁|`$, i. e., the main core should be supercritical and the total virial mass (including the magnetic fields) should be no more than the free-fall mass. Following the formulae given by Crutcher (1999) and McKee et al. (1993) we find that for a mass of 20 $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ the collapse is possible for $`|𝐁|<50\mu `$G. Magnetic fields of $`50\mu `$G have been measured in several molecular clouds with similar sizes and line widths as those of HH 80N (Crutcher, 1999). Thus, it seems that there is enough mass to cause collapse while, on the other hand, an expansion would require an unusually high CS abundace and a high correction to the observed CO momentum rate. Therefore, we favour that the CS kinematics is tracing infall.

Compared with most of the low mass regions where a kinematical infall signature has been found (see § 1), the HH 80N main core has a larger mass infall rate (see Table 1). This is probably because it is also a more massive region. Another example is the infalling NH3 core in HH 1/2 (Torrelles et al., 1994), where the infall material also comes from a ring-like structure (toroid) with a similar size and mass as the HH 80N main core. Interestingly, the HH 80N and HH 1/2 star forming cores show clear differences with the other collapsing ring-like structures detected so far. Here, the infalling motions are clearly supersonic with no rotation observed, whereas the infall motions in the starless core L1544 are subsonic and of the order of the rotation speeds (Tafalla et al., 1998; Ohashi et al., 1999; Williams et al., 1999). These differences could be due to an evolutionary effect (L1544 is still a starless core) and/or to the different masses involved in the collapse. The powering source of HH 1/2 is a protostar with an far-IR luminosity of $`50`$ $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$(Harvey et al., 1986), but what about HH 80N?

### 3.2 The evolutionary stage of the HH 80N main core

IRAS 18163-2042 has a luminosity of $`20`$ $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ (Girart et al., 1994), but because of the large position uncertainty it is possible that both the PDR region heated by HH 80N (Molinari et al. 2001) and the protostar embedded in the infalling core contribute to this luminosity, Therefore, this value is a rough upper limit of the protostellar luminosity.

A detailed study of the outflow activity, from a homogeneous sample of low-luminosity embedded YSOs, done by Bontemps et al. (1996) found that the relation between the outflow momentum flux, the envelope mass and the bolometric luminosity depends on the evolutionary stage of the protostars. In particular, the relation between $`F_{\mathrm{CO}}c/L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{env}}/L_{\mathrm{bol}}^{0.6}`$, which should be almost free of any distance and luminosity effects, is useful to distinguish the evolutionary stage of the low mass YSOs, that is, whether they are in the Class 0 or I stage. The values of the measured envelope mass and the corrected momentum rate, $`F_{\mathrm{CO}}=10\dot{P}`$ (the same inclination and opacity correction factor used by Bontemps et al. 1996), suggest that, for the possible range of bolometric luminosities ($``$20 $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$), the HH 80N dense core is in the Class 0 evolutionary stage. Bontemps et al. (1996) also found that the momentum flux and the envelope mass are well correlated for both Class 0 and I objects. However, taking into account the momentum flux of the HH 80N molecular outflow, the dense core is an order of magnitude more massive than what is expected from this correlation. The excess of envelope mass with respect to the outflow strength could be explained if there is multiple star formation going on (e. g., if at unresolved scales the core splits into several clumps, with some of them still pre-stellar).

### 3.3 Interaction between HH 80N and the molecular cloud

There are two observational features that suggests that HH80/81/80N outflow may be interacting with the ambient gas surrounding the infalling main core: First, the clear velocity gradient of the RSE arm seen in both CS and CO emission and its location just above HH 80N (see Fig. 2). Second, the BE lobe of the molecular outflow spreads out to the north at the position where it coincides spatially with the axis of the HH80/81/80N outflow (see Fig. 1: the arrow line indicates the outflow direction of HH 80N). This scenario, where HH 80N and the dense gas are almost co-spatial, suggests that the infalling dense core and the RSE arm may still be affected chemically by the strong UV radiation of HH 80N, as suggested by Girart et al. (1994, 1998), since this radiation is so strong that it has created a PDR region in its closest vicinity (Molinari et al. 2001).

It is unlikely that HH 80N triggered the star formation within the main core: assuming a HH 80N propagation speed of 100–300 km s-1, and using the typical age of a Class 0 source for the YSO embedded in the main core, $`10^4`$ yrs, HH 80N would have to be about 1 to 3 pc away from the main core when the collapse was initiated. Yet, the material from the HH80/81/80N flow was likely present near to the CS core before HH 80N arrived to its proximity: a giant bow shock is observed dowstream of HH80/81 (Heathcote et al. 1998) and the analysis of the line emission from HH80/81/80N shows that the shocks arise at the interface between two fast-moving flows (Molinari et al. 2001). Therfore, it is still possible that the HH80/81/80N outflow has triggered or at least speed up the star formation. There are many uncertainties in our understanding of the dynamics of collapse; these dynamics are determined by the balance of gravity against pressure. Once the collapse is triggered, it is yet not clear how infall proceeds since thermal and non-thermal pressure may support the clump from collapsing, or at least retard an, often assumed, free-fall collapse (Rawlings et al., 1992). In the case of HH 80N, the UV radiation from the shock front may play an important role in the dynamics of the collapse of the dense core since it will highly affect its cooling function. Viti & Williams (1999) showed that the radiation generated in the HH shock drives a rapid chemistry in the dense core, by lifting the icy mantles and therefore enhancing the gas with hydrogenated species, such as NH3 and H2O; the latter, for example, will undoubtedly cool the gas. This would ‘encourage’ the infall. This scenario will be investigated in a further paper.

We would like to thank Jorge Cantó, Frank Shu and the anonymous referee for their valuable comments. JMG is supported by NSF grant AST-99-81363 and by RED-2000 from the Generalitat de Catalunya. RE is partially supported by DGICYT grant PB98-0670 (Spain). SV and DAW thank PPARC for supporting their research.


text:
# Mechanism for Powerlaws without Self-Organization

email: sornette@moho.ess.ucla.edu

Abstract: A recent claim has been made that there must be a self-regulation in the waiting times to see hospital consultants on the ground that the relative changes in the size of waiting lists follow a power law . In agreement with simulations of Frecketon and Sutherland, we explain the general non-self-regulating mechanism underlying this result and derive the exponent value $`2`$ exactly. In addition, we provide links with related phenomena encountered in many other fields.

Keywords: power law distribution, self-organization, self-regulation, Ising, mechanisms for power law distributions

Power law probability distribution (pdf) functions of event or object sizes seem to be an ubiquitous statistical features of natural and social systems. It has repeatedly argued that such an observation calls for an underlying self-organizing mechanism. In the last decade, such claims have been made for instance for earthquakes, weather and climate changes, solar flares, the fossil record, and many other systems, to invoke the relevance of self-organized criticality . This claim is often unwarranted as there are many non-self-organizing mechanisms producing power law distributions . Recently, a similar claim of the existence of self-regulation in the waiting time to see hospital consultants has been made on the ground that the relative changes in the size of waiting lists follow a power law . Using numerical simulations, Frecketon and Sutherland  show however that such a power law for relative changes can be reproduced by the simple non-self-regulating random walk null-hypothesis, which obtains a power law exponent (slope of the log-log plot of the non-cumulative distribution) indistinguishable from $`2`$.

Here, we explain the general non-self-regulating mechanism underlying this result and derive the exponent value $`2`$ exactly. This mechanism is nothing but the effect of the conservation of probability $`P_x(x)dx=P_y(y)dy`$ on the probability distribution function (pdf) $`P_x(x)`$ of a change of a variable $`x`$ to another $`y=f(x)`$. In other words, the objective estimation of the probability of an event is invariant under a change of mathematical description of this event. If the transformation is an inversion $`y=x^{1/\alpha }`$ with $`\alpha >0`$, then

$$P_y(y)=\alpha \frac{P_x(x(y))}{y^{1+\alpha }}.$$
(1)
Suppose that $`P_x(x)`$ goes to a constant for $`x0`$, then the distribution of $`y`$ for large $`y`$ is a power law with a tail exponent $`1+\alpha `$. The uniform fluctuations of $`x`$ close to zero lead to scale-free and arbitrarily large fluctuations of its inverse power $`y`$. The power law form is kept obviously (with a modification of the value of the exponent) if $`P_x(x)`$ itself goes to zero or diverges close to the origin as a power law.

This mechanism operates in many situations. Let us illustrate it in details in a simple well-controlled situation to demonstrate that it also applies to rather complex systems. Consider the Ising model of interacting spins with ferromagnetic interactions which tend to align the spins while thermal fluctuations tend to randomize them. The Ising model is a paradigm of the fight between order and disorder leading to a spontaneous organization by collective behavior and has been used to describe both physical and social phenomena. Here, we recall that the distribution of the relative changes $`\mathrm{\Delta }M/M`$ of magnetization $`M`$ (total normalized sum of the spin values) is a power law pdf, but this power law owes nothing to organization and everything to the “change-of-variable” mechanism with an inversion. Right at the critical temperature $`T=T_c`$, the pdf $`P(M)`$ of magnetization has a very “thin” exponential tail $`P(M)M^{(\delta 1)/2}\mathrm{exp}\{\mathrm{const}M^{\delta +1}\}`$, with $`\delta +15.8`$ for the 3D Ising universality class . The distribution of changes $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ of the magnetization $`M`$ under a fixed number of Monte Carlo steps per site is a Gaussian of standard deviation $`W`$ at $`T=T_c`$ . However, the distribution of the relative changes $`\mathrm{\Delta }M/M`$ is a power law with exponent $`2`$ ! How does it come about?

Large values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M/M`$ come from the limit $`M0`$ rather than $`\mathrm{\Delta }M\mathrm{}`$. The probability $`P(M)`$ goes to a constant for $`M0`$, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ can be approximated by the width $`W`$ of the Gaussian; thus: $`P(X)dX=P(\mathrm{\Delta }M/M)d(\mathrm{\Delta }M/M)=P(M)dM\mathrm{const}dM`$ and $`P(X)=P(M)/(dX/dM)=\mathrm{const}/(d(W/M)/dM)1/X^2`$, in agreement with Jan et al. . The $`1/X^2`$ power law is in fact not restricted to the critical point and is very general since it results simply from the inversion mechanism $`y=x^{1/\alpha }`$ defined above with $`\alpha =1`$. A similar argument has been proposed in  in this context.

The power law pdf for the random walk null-hypothesis studied by Frecketon and Sutherland  results from the choice of the variable which is the relative change in numbers $`(N_{t+1}N_t)/N_t`$. According to the “change-of-variable” mechanism with an inversion, the power law tail is controlled by excursions of the denominator towards small values. Since again $`\alpha =1`$, this predicts the value $`2`$ for the exponent in agreement with the numerical simulations. It is tempting to conclude that the same general mechanism operates for the results of Smethurst and Williams .

The same “change-of-variable” mechanism with an inversion applies in many other situations to create power law pdf’s (see  for details and references):

* In continuous percolation, the pdf of transport coefficients such as conductance, permeability and rupture thresholds and of necks between random holes or random cracks ;
* The pdf of fluid velocities due to the presence of vortices in hydrodynamics ;
* The Holtsmark’s distribution of gravitional forces created by a random distribution of stars in an infinite universe (see  and chapter 17 of  and references therein);
* This result for the Holtsmark’s distribution applies to other fields with a suitable modification of the exponent, such as electric, elastic or hydrodynamics, with a singular power law dependence of the force as a function of the distance to the source (see chapter 17 of  and references therein).
* The statistics

$$T\frac{\sqrt{n}(\overline{x}x)}{[(n1)^1_{j=1}^n(x_j\overline{x})^2]^{1/2}}$$
(2)
occurs in the construction of tests and confidence intervals of the random variable and is described by Student’s distribution, whose power law tail results from the same “change-of-variable” mechanism with an inversion. Here the inversion refers to the fact that the estimated standard deviation in the denominator of $`T`$ can approach zero leading again to large fluctuations of $`T`$. For a demonstration, see chapter 14 of  and references therein.
* Berry’s “battles of catastrophes” ;
* $`7/2`$ power law pdf of density in the Burgers/adhesion model of the universe .

In sum, this communication has explained one among many other mechanisms for power law pdf’s (see chapter 14 of  for a general review) that are not based on self-regulation or self-organization. By this understanding of the main possible mechanisms, and complementing this toolbox with mechanisms relying on collective effects, such as in percolation, criticality and self-organized criticality, it should become possible to identify which one is the most relevant to a given problem.