text:
# On the Evolution of Nonlinear N-body systems: Substructure of a Distant Galaxy Cluster

## 1 Introduction

Fermi-Pasta-Ulam problem has essentially influenced the study of nonlinear N-body systems. Gravitating N-body systems, on one hand, are among systems with complicated properties, on the other hand, globular clusters, galaxies and galaxy clusters are providing possibility to trace observationally many of the obtained conclusions on their dynamics and structure. Particularly, clusters of galaxies which occasionally reveal subgrouping of galaxies in projection, pose the problem of the reconstruction of their 3D-substructure and internal dynamics.

Recent observations supply enough information, including spectroscopical, on high redshift galaxy clusters and therefore provide means to inquire into the evolution of the subclustering properties. Below we report the study of the substructure of the cluster MS1054-03 of redshift 0.8. The analysis is performed by S-tree diagram technique developed for the study of correlations in many dimensional nonlinear systems, in this case of correlations between the parameters of particles of N-body system, by means of geometrical methods of theory of dynamical systems.

## 2 S-tree Graphs and Bounded Subsystems

Let us mention the main concepts of the S-tree method. Consider a set of objects $`𝒜`$ which has to be split into sets. If $`(𝒜)`$ is the set of all subsets, then the set of all pairs of subsets $`(,𝒩)`$ so that $``$ contains $`𝒩`$, will be

$$S(𝒜)=\underset{(𝒜)}{}\underset{𝒩()}{}(,𝒩)(𝒜)\times (𝒜).$$

One can introduce a non-negative function $`𝒫`$, the boundness function to describe the degree of the boundedness of $`𝒩`$ in $``$

$$𝒫:𝒮(𝒜)_+:(,𝒩)𝒫_{}(𝒩).$$

Various choices for the function $`P`$ to correspond the correlation with respect the subgrouping are discussed in, for example, the choice of the projected distances corresponds to the two-point correlation function. Theory of dynamical systems provides a detailed characteristic for N-dimensional systems, the two-dimensional curvature of the configurational space

$$K_{\mu \nu }=R_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }u^\lambda u^\rho ,$$

where $`R_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }`$ is the Riemann tensor, $`u^\lambda `$ is the velocity of geodesics of the phase space, $`\lambda =(a,i),a=1,\mathrm{},N;i=1,2,3`$. The two dimensional curvature is a known tool also for the study of the instability of the many-dimensional systems. Therefore its use enables to link the statistical, chaotic properties of the systems with the emergence of the substructures and their properties. The versions of S-tree used in the studies of clusters of galaxies are applying the two-dimensional curvature for the function $`P`$. S-tree technique is developed further in. Another application of similar graph-theoretical methods is the possibility of comparison of the results of numerical simulations with observed large-scale galaxy distributions.

## 3 Galaxy Associations

S-tree method has been applied to a number of cluster of galaxies, including Coma and Virgo. Various subgroups of galaxies have been detected, with indications for their essential bulk motions. While studying the substructure of Abell clusters of ENACS (European Nearby Abell Cluster Survey of ESO), this method enabled to reveal subgroups of galaxies, denoted as galaxy associations, with marked dynamical properties. The studied sample of ENACS clusters with redshifts up to $`z0.1`$, is shown to contain typically 2-3 subgroups with velocity dispersion around 100-200 $`kms^1`$ with truncated Gaussian velocity distribution. The latter was interpreted as stripping of the subgroup while moving within the cluster. In the case of Coma cluster we had detected a subgroup which has practically dissolved within the main cluster, while another one with survived dynamical identity. Thus, the substructure of nearby clusters supports the view of merging of several subgroups, and hence, non-stationary processes ongoing within the clusters.

That remarkable conclusion had to indicate the primordial nature of the subgroups, galaxy associations, and their emergence with essential bulk velocities. Various consequences of these predictions can be checked via observations, namely, the different star forming properties of the galaxies of the associations and of the main cluster, non-identical properties of the spiral galaxies, of the populations of galactic and intracluster globular clusters. The latter effect has been studied in for the subgroup 2 of the Coma cluster detected in.

In which extent this picture can be accommodated within the cosmological evolution of the clusters? The answer to this question can be anticipated only via the study of high redshift galaxy clusters.

## 4 MS 1054-03 Substructure

The dataset that we used for the galaxy cluster MS 1054-03, contained 73 galaxies with redshifts between $`z=0.813200.84700`$ and stellar magnitudes in the range $`m_B=19.53023.210`$. That dataset has been studied by the very same S-tree code used for the study of nearby clusters, i.e. we deal with identical procedures and computational requirements. The results of the analysis of the substructure of MS 1054-03 are given in Fig.1 of the redshift histograms of the galaxies and Table 1. The main cluster according to S-tree appeared to contain 68 galaxies (of 73 in the initial catalog), of velocity dispersion 1872 $`kms^1`$. The internal substructure of that system revealed only one main system of 35 galaxies (core-1), of velocity dispersion 775 $`kms^1`$. Its more strongly bounded core (core-2) contains 10 galaxies of velocity dispersion 708 $`kms^1`$. Note, although while moving from core-1 to core-2 the number of galaxies decreases drastically, the velocity dispersion does not decrease much. This indicates that while a number of galaxies of lower mass (higher stellar magnitude) are absent in the catalog, nevertheless the main galaxies taken into account at the calculations reflect for the genuine dynamics of the core.

The apparent non-Gaussian velocity distribution of the cluster galaxies might be either intrinsic or due to the non-completeness of the sample, or both. The core-2 of 10 galaxies is dominated by E and S0 types, namely, it contains 3 S0/a, S0, 2 E and E/S0 galaxies (Table 2). Note, that $`z0.5`$ clusters show increased fraction of spirals by a factor of 2-3, increase of fraction of ellipticals but decrease those of S0 galaxies.

Thus, MS 1054-03 revealed a different dynamical substructure as compared with the nearby Abell clusters, containing a single bounded core rather than several subgroups as the latter ones. To understand whether the absence of merging subgroups is a trend of cosmological evolution will need further study of distant clusters.

We thank C.Adami for assistance with the dataset and A.Melkonian with the S-tree code. VG’s visit to Marseille was supported by French-Armenian Jumelage.


format: text

text:
# The nature of power corrections in large 𝛽₀ approximation

## Abstract

We investigate the nature of power corrections and infrared renormalon singularities in large $`\beta _0`$ approximation. We argue that the power correction associated with a renormalon pole singularity should appear at $`O(1)`$, in contrast to the renormalon ambiguity appearing at $`O(1/\beta _0)`$, and give an explanation why the leading order renormalon singularities are generically poles.

The perturbative expansion in weak coupling constant is in general an asymptotic expansion, with the perturbative coefficients growing factorially at large orders. When the large order behavior is sign alternating the series may be Borel resummed. On the other hand, a large order behavior of same sign generally implies presence of nonperturbative effects, and in such a case Borel resummation of the series becomes ambiguous.

According to the heuristic but general argument of Borel resummation of a series with a same sign large order behavior justin , the series is first Borel resummed at an unphysical negative coupling, at which it becomes sign alternating, and then analytically continued back to the positive physical coupling, to yield a resummed amplitude. It turns out that the resummed amplitude obtained in this way has a cut along the positive real axis in the complex coupling plane, and consequently has an ambiguous imaginary part at physical coupling. This unphysical imaginary part is then supposed to be canceled by adding a nonperturbative effect, and the total amplitude is given as the sum of the respective real parts of the Borel resummed amplitude and the nonperturbative effect.

In this brief note we study the nature of the power corrections in large $`\beta _0`$ approximation Beneke and Braun (1995), in which the number of quark flavors $`N_f`$ (or equivalently $`\beta _0(N_f)`$, the first coefficient of QCD beta function), is pushed to (negative) infinity while $`a_sN_f\alpha _s`$ is held fixed, where $`\alpha _s`$ denotes the strong coupling. A characteristic feature of the Borel transform of an amplitude in this scheme is that all known renormalon singularities at leading order are poles (in general renormalon singularities are branch cuts), and the Borel transform is subleading in $`1/\beta _0`$ expansion, vanishing at $`\beta _0\mathrm{}`$. To the author’s knowledge there is no general explanation for the former, except within the special context of a particular calculation, but the latter comes from the very definition of the approximation. Since the leading term in $`a_s`$ expansion comes from a gluon exchange with no fermion bubble inserted, the large $`\beta _0`$ perturbative expansion of a generic amplitude $`A(\alpha _s)`$ takes the form

$$A(\alpha _s)=\frac{1}{\beta _0}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_na_s^{n+1},$$
(1)
where $`a_n`$ are $`\beta _0`$ independent, which gives the Borel transform

$$\stackrel{~}{A}(b)=\frac{1}{\beta _0}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{a_n}{n!}b^n\frac{1}{\beta _0}f(b).$$
(2)
Consequently, the renormalon ambiguity of $`A(\alpha _s)`$ due to a pole in $`f(b)`$ is $`O(1/\beta _0)`$, and vanishes at $`\beta _0\mathrm{}`$. In the following we shall see that these features are simply two sides of the same coin.

We begin by observing an universality present in the nonperturbative effect. Since the Borel resummation of a same sign series is based on a general, model independent argument, the term in the nonperturbative effect that gives rise to the cut singularity along the positive real axis in the coupling plane should be universal for a given large order behavior, or equivalently for a given renormalon singularity in Borel plane, and is independent of the specifics of the underlying theory. Thus, the power correction of a pole singularity in large $`\beta _0`$ approximation must share a common functional form with the nonperturbative effect associated with the same type pole singularity in other models, for instance, such solvable models as the quantum mechanical double well potential or the two-dimensional $`O(N)`$ nonlinear sigma model. In these solvable models the ambiguous term in the nonperturbative effect associated with a pole in Borel plane,

$$\frac{1}{(1b/b_0)^{1+m}},m\text{ a non-negative integer},$$
(3)
assumes the form Lee (2002)

$$\frac{b_0^{1+m}}{m!}e^{b_0/\alpha }\alpha ^m\mathrm{ln}(\alpha ),$$
(4)
where $`\alpha `$ denotes the coupling constant in consideration, and we expect the power correction of a renormalon pole in large $`\beta _0`$ approximation would also contain a term of the same functional form as (4). Note that the cut along the positive axis is provided by the log function. The correspondence between Eq. (3) and (4) can be easily confirmed using the relation

$$A_{\mathrm{PT}}(\alpha \pm iϵ)=_{0\pm iϵ}^{\mathrm{}\pm iϵ}e^{\frac{b}{\alpha }}\stackrel{~}{A}(b)𝑑b,$$
(5)
where $`A_{\mathrm{PT}}`$ denotes the Borel resummed perturbative contribution, and the cancellation of the respective imaginary parts in $`A_{\mathrm{PT}}`$ and the nonperturbative effect.

To see how a nonperturbative term of this type arises in large $`\beta _0`$ approximation we consider the power correction in full QCD. From the renormalization group equation for the power correction of dimension $`n`$ operator the power correction, denoted by $`A_{\mathrm{NP}}`$, may be written as

$$A_{\mathrm{NP}}(\alpha _s)\alpha _s^\nu e^{\frac{n}{2\beta _0\alpha _s}}[1+O(\alpha _s)],$$
(6)
where

$$\nu =n\frac{\beta _1}{2\beta _0^2}+\frac{\gamma _0}{\beta _0}$$
(7)
and

$`\beta _0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}(11{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}N_f),\beta _1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}(102{\displaystyle \frac{38}{3}}N_f).`$ (8)
Here $`\beta _1`$ and $`\gamma _0`$ are the second coefficient of the beta function and the one loop anomalous dimension of the dimension $`n`$ operator, respectively. Since a cut can arise only from the pre-exponential factor the ambiguous term in the power correction, denoted by $`A_{\mathrm{NP}}^{\mathrm{amb}.}`$, may be written as

$$A_{\mathrm{NP}}^{\mathrm{amb}.}=C(a_s)^\nu e^{\frac{n}{2a_s}}[1+\frac{1}{\beta _0}O(a_s)],$$
(9)
where $`C`$ is a real constant that may depend on $`\beta _0`$. We now make an observation that plays a crucial role in the following, namely, that for this power correction to be well-defined at $`\beta _0\mathrm{}`$, $`C`$ must be bounded in the same limit. Thus $`C`$ may be written as

$$C=c_0+O(1/\beta _0),$$
(10)
where $`c_0`$ is a $`\beta _0`$ independent constant.

Then the ambiguous imaginary part due to the branch cut in the power correction is given by

$$\mathrm{Im}A_{\mathrm{NP}}^{\mathrm{amb}.}(a_s\pm iϵ)=\pm c_0\mathrm{sin}(\nu \pi )e^{\frac{n}{2a_s}}a_s^\nu [1+O(1/\beta _0)].$$
(11)
For this to be $`O(1/\beta _0)`$, we have

$$c_0\mathrm{sin}(\nu \pi )O(1/\beta _0),$$
(12)
which allows one to write $`\nu `$ as

$$\nu =\kappa +\frac{\chi }{\beta _0}+O(1/\beta _0^2),$$
(13)
where $`\kappa `$ is an integer and $`\chi `$ is a real constant, and

$$c_0\mathrm{sin}(\nu \pi )=\frac{(1)^\kappa c_0\chi \pi }{\beta _0}[1+O(1/\beta _0)].$$
(14)
With Eq. (13), the expansion of the power correction in $`1/\beta _0`$ gives

$$A_{\mathrm{NP}}^{\mathrm{amb}.}=(1)^\kappa c_0e^{\frac{n}{2a_s}}a_s^\kappa [1\frac{\chi }{\beta _0}\mathrm{ln}(a_s)+O(1/\beta _0^2)],$$
(15)
which contains the logarithmic cut of precisely the type (4) that we were looking for. The corresponding renormalon singularity is a pole,

$$\stackrel{~}{A}(b)=\frac{c_0\chi \kappa !\left(\frac{2}{n}\right)^{1+\kappa }}{\beta _0}\frac{1}{(12b/n)^{1+\kappa }}[1+O(12b/n)].$$
(16)
This shows that the $`1/\beta _0`$ suppression of the renormalon ambiguity and the pole nature of the renormalon singularity share the same origin and are just two sides of the same coin.

Now taking the real and imaginary parts of the power correction we have, to $`O(1/\beta _0)`$,

$`\mathrm{Re}A_{\mathrm{NP}}^{\mathrm{amb}.}(a_s\pm iϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^\kappa c_0e^{\frac{n}{2a_s}}a_s^\kappa [1{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{\beta _0}}\mathrm{ln}(a_s)],`$
$`\mathrm{Im}A_{\mathrm{NP}}^{\mathrm{amb}.}(a_s\pm iϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{(1)^\kappa c_0\pi \chi }{\beta _0}}e^{\frac{n}{2a_s}}a_s^\kappa .`$ (17)
Note that the imaginary part is subleading to the real part, as we claimed, and the functional form for the real part to $`O(1/\beta _0)`$ is different from that of the imaginary part. This shows that the common practice of taking the renormalon ambiguity (imaginary part) as an estimate of the magnitude of the power correction 111For example, Ref. Beneke:1998ui  takes $`\frac{1}{\pi }`$ of the imaginary part as the nonperturbative effect in the case of Adler function. See also sumino . is not only incorrect functionally but also misses the leading contribution which, having no cut, is invisible to the perturbation theory. This missing of the leading power correction by perturbation theory is not unique to this example; It occurs in other models with a pole singularity, for instance, in $`1/N`$ expansion of the two-dimensional $`O(N)`$ nonlinear sigma model sigmamodel , in which the sigma self energy has a dynamically generated mass at $`O[(1/N)^0]`$, which, being free of cut singularity in coupling plane, does not cause any divergent large order behavior. In this model the perturbative weak coupling expansion starts at $`O(1/N)`$, and the renormalon ambiguity, which is necessarily of $`O(1/N)`$, cannot trace the leading order dynamical mass. Essentially the same thing happens with the instanton-antiinstanton caused nonperturbative effect in the double well model, where the cut-free nonperturbative term cannot be traced by perturbation theory Lee (2002).

So far, we assumed implicitly that $`c_0`$ is a non-zero constant. This assumption is natural since there is no reason that $`c_0`$ should vanish. However, if $`c_0`$ is vanishing and $`C`$ is $`O(1/\beta _0)`$, then it is easy to see that $`\nu `$ in Eq. (9) must be a non-integer, which implies that the renormalon singularity should be a cut rather than a pole, and that the real part of the nonperturbative effect occur at the same order as the imaginary part. In large $`\beta _0`$ approximation there is no known renormalon singularity of this type, and we conclude that this possibility is not realized and $`c_0`$ be a nonvanishing constant.

Finally, we apply the discussion so far to an explicit example, the power correction by the dimension four gluon condensate in the Adler function $`D[\alpha _s]`$. In this case the anomalous dimension vanishes, and we have

$$\nu =2\frac{\beta _1}{\beta _0^2}=\frac{2}{\beta _0}\frac{19}{4\pi }+O(1/\beta _0^2),$$
(18)
which is indeed in the form (13) with

$$\kappa =0,\chi =\frac{19}{2\pi }.$$
(19)
The exact Borel transform in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme of the Adler function in large $`\beta _0`$ approximation is given as Beneke:1998ui ; Broadhurst

$$\stackrel{~}{D}(b)=\frac{1}{\pi \beta _0}\frac{e^{\frac{10}{3}}}{(1b/2)}[1+O(1b/2)].$$
(20)
Comparing this with Eq. (16), with $`\kappa ,\chi `$ given in Eq. (19), we find

$$c_0=\frac{4}{19}e^{\frac{10}{3}},$$
(21)
and the real part of the power correction

$$\mathrm{Re}D_{\mathrm{NP}}^{\mathrm{amb}.}(\alpha _s)=c_0e^{\frac{2}{a_s}}[1\frac{19}{2\pi \beta _0}\mathrm{ln}(a_s)],$$
(22)
which is nonvanishing in $`\beta _0\mathrm{}`$. This example shows that the physically relevant real part is indeed $`O(1)`$ compared to the $`O(1/\beta _0)`$ imaginary part, and the cancellation of the ambiguities in the Borel resummed amplitude and nonperturbative effect allows one to recover part of the nonperturbative effect, even those not visible perturbatively, from perturbation theory.

To conclude, based on a general argument on Borel resummation of a same sign large order behavior, we have shown that in general the renormalon singularities in large $`\beta _0`$ approximation should be poles, and the power corrections be of $`O(1)`$ whereas the renormalon ambiguities are $`O(1/\beta _0)`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author is thankful to the support from National Center for Theoretical Sciences, Hsinchu, Taiwan.


text:
# GAIA Photometric Performances

## 1. Introduction

Though the primary goal of the GAIA mission is a study of the Galactic dynamics, photometric as well as spectroscopic observations are also of great importance in order to achieve the main GAIA objectives (ESA 2000). Therefore, an optimal multicolour photometric system, adequate to the main mission goals, has to be designed and analysed in detail. One of the most important steps towards such a PS is an elaboration of a method for unbiased evaluation of the PSs proposed for GAIA in terms of the accuracy of stellar parameters derived (Vansevičius, Bridžius, & Drazdys 2002). A tight time schedule of the pre-launch preparation constrains possibilities of thorough testing of the new PS on real sky objects. Therefore, optimization and further choice of the most suitable PS for the GAIA mission must be entirely based on the synthetic and observed spectral energy distributions (SEDs) and the representative set of a large variety of stellar populations and interstellar medium inside the Galaxy.

We would like to note two key points which have been taken into account for evaluating the GAIA PSs in the present study. The same GAIA observation (Deveikis, Bridžius, & Vansevičius 2002) and parameterization (Bridžius & Vansevičius 2002) methods have been applied to all PSs, and the performance of the PSs has been tested on the PSTT stars, which are of the highest importance to the GAIA mission (ESA 2000).

## 2. Requirements for the GAIA Photometric System

The primary objective of the GAIA mission is to obtain data which allows us to study the composition, formation and evolution of the Galaxy. This priority also constrains the requirements for the GAIA PS. Therefore, metallicity and age variations (RGB, AGB and HB), star formation history (SFH) over the last 14 Gyr (A-K MS stars), and dust distribution within the Galaxy are the most important issues to be assessed by the GAIA PS.

The variety of the object types and astrophysical circumstances presuppose specific requirements for the GAIA PS performance. It is indisputable that the four main parameters ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`\mathrm{log}g`$, \[M/H\], and $`E_{BV}`$) ought to be derived as precisely as possible at the limiting magnitude of the survey, $`V=20`$. However, it is very important to decide which parameters should be determined additionally. Therefore, below we list the most relevant items whose various degree of treatment could significantly influence the final design of the GAIA PS:

* variation of \[$`\alpha `$/Fe\] - should it be determined by PS?
* extinction of the F-K type stars - should it be determined for each individual star by PS or assigned from the 3-D extinction maps?
* binaries - should PS be adapted for their recognition and parameter estimation?
* variable extinction law, $`R_{BV}`$ \- should it be determined by PS?
* chemical peculiarities - should the strong peculiar features (e.g. C, N) be avoided or measured by PS?
* WD, BD, WR, $`\delta `$Cep, T Tau, Mira, C, etc. type stars - which parameters should be derived by PS?

Although it is very important to take all mentioned points into account, present day investigations and discussions are devoted mostly to the first two items. Determination of the interstellar extinction of the F-K type stars is fully accounted (Sūdžius et al. 2002) and can be discussed quantitatively. However, the \[$`\alpha `$/Fe\] problem is still pending due to lack of a proper grid of SEDs. Therefore, only these two items are taken into account for selection of the PSTTs.

## 3. GAIA Photometric System Test Targets (PSTTs)

According to ESA (2000), the stars to be observed with GAIA down to $`G20`$ can be roughly represented by the following proportions of stellar populations (Ms - stands for millions of stars):

* the total number of stars of all types $`>1000`$ Ms;
* disk dwarfs $`780`$ Ms; disk giants $`90`$ Ms;
* thick disk (all types) $`100`$ Ms; halo (all types) $`70`$ Ms;

and spectral types:

* O-B $`2`$ Ms; A $`50`$ Ms; F $`230`$ Ms;
* G $`400`$ Ms; K $`300`$ Ms; M $`55`$ Ms.

In order to evaluate any PS proposed for GAIA we need to select some set of standard objects with which to test a PS. PSTTs ought to cover the most important stellar population types mentioned above and the most characteristic variety of astrophysical circumstances expected to be encountered in the Galaxy. A set of stellar types which would make up a minimum number of PSTTs is presented in Table 1 and in Figure 1. We need to keep this list as short as possible in order to quickly test any new improvements of the GAIA PSs. However, it should also be comprehensive in the sense of the main GAIA goals. The same statements are also valid for other parameters listed below. The proper choice of the PSTTs is a very important issue for GAIA PS development and optimization, therefore, the list is open for discussions and suggestions.

The list of PSTTs is complemented by other astrophysical parameters, representing circumstances which could be encountered in the Galaxy (Table 2), as completely as possible. Two variants of a complete set of models based on distance, D, of the PSTTs or their apparent magnitude, $`V_\mathrm{J}`$, are foreseen. In order to make a grid of PSTTs convenient for computer modelling and analysis, we suggest to use a complete set of various combinations even if one supposes that any particular combination of the parameters is unrealistic and cannot be found in the Galaxy. Therefore, the complete set of models should contain 5625 different combinations of the parameters in total. Such a task can be easily solved even on a PC type computer.

## 4. The 1X GAIA Photometric System

Few different photometric systems have been proposed for the GAIA mission to date: 1F (ESA 2000) and its modification 2F, 2A (Munari 1999), 2G and its modification 3G (Høg, Straižys, & Vansevičius 2000). However, the analysis of their performance has demonstrated that none of them satisfy the requirements for the GAIA PS (Vansevičius et al. 2002). Therefore, taking all valuable findings in those PSs into account, a new photometric system, 1X, is proposed. Evolution of the GAIA PSs and the limiting magnitudes at which they satisfy GAIA goals are shown in Table 3.

The filter transmission curves of the 1X medium band (MB) PS designed for the Spectro telescope are shown in Figure 2. The central wavelength and width of the bands as well as a number of slots, allocated for each filter in the focal plane, are given in Table 4.

## 5. Performance of the 1X Photometric System

The performance of the 1X PS is evaluated in terms of its ability to derive basic stellar parameters: $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`\mathrm{log}g`$, \[M/H\], and $`E_{BV}`$, for the PSTTs. The procedure for simulation of the photometric GAIA observations developed by Deveikis et al. (2002) was used. The simultaneous 4-D stellar parameterization method (Bridžius & Vansevičius 2002) was applied.

Some specific assumptions on the 1X PS application to the GAIA case introduced in the modelling procedure should be noted:

* the design of GAIA-1 is assumed as it is given in ESA (2000);
* only the medium band PS is tested assuming that there is no supplementary information obtained from the GAIA broad band (BB) PS (negligible influence of the BB PS to the performance of MB PS was demonstrated by Vansevičius et al. 2002);
* the total number of slots for MBP filters is assumed to be equal to 15 (as it is foreseen in the Radial Velocity Spectrometer (RVS) design for GAIA-2);
* the maximum of filter transmission curves is set conservatively to 85$`\%`$;
* modelling is performed by employing the SEDs from BaSeL 2.2 (Lejeune, Cuisinier, & Buser 1998) with solar abundance of $`\alpha `$-elements, \[$`\alpha `$/Fe\]=0.0;
* the standard ($`R_{BV}=3.1`$; Cardelli, Clayton, & Mathis 1989) and invariable extinction law is assumed;
* the aperture photometry procedure is applied for the modelling of star measurement.

The results of the 1X PS performance test are presented in Table 5. The typical value of colour excess, $`E_{BV}`$, was assumed for each particular PSTT star. All apparent magnitudes were set to $`V=18`$, therefore, each PSTT was placed at some distance, D. In order to derive the accuracy of the 1X PS more reliably, 100 independent simulations of each PSTT were performed, and deviations of the stellar parameters from the true value were determined. The r.m.s. estimate was employed, and the $`\sigma `$’s of the stellar parameters are tabulated.

We find that performance of the 1X PS at $`V=18`$ is excellent and completely satisfies the requirements raised for the GAIA PS by the main GAIA objectives. The performance of the 1X PS is significantly better, especially if cases of higher extinction are considered, comparing to the previous PSs, 2F & 3G (Figures 3 – 5; $`V=18`$; the r.m.s. estimates of the parameters were derived basing on 100 simulations of each PSTT; for more details see Vansevičius et al. 2002). The 1X PS also performs satisfactory at $`V=19`$, however, there is an obvious necessity to make it more accurate at $`V=20`$.

## 6. Conclusions

We have suggested a set of the GAIA Photometry System Test Targets (PSTTs) selected in order to facilitate easy and comprehensive test of the proposed GAIA PSs. We have introduced a new 1X PS which demonstrates superior performance compared to the PSs proposed for GAIA earlier. The performance of the 1X PS was evaluated taking into account its capability to simultaneously determine the main stellar parameters: $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`\mathrm{log}g`$, \[M/H\], and $`E_{BV}`$, for the PSTT stars, and assuming that no supplementary information is available, except the data obtained by the GAIA medium band PS.

GAIA is assumed to measure stars in the Galaxy down to $`V20`$, however, even the best photometric system (1X) among the PSs, proposed for GAIA to date (end-2002), performs satisfactory only down to $`V19`$. Therefore, we conclude that there is still no optimal PS, in terms of the main GAIA mission goals (ESA 2000), proposed to date. However, excellent accuracy of the stellar parameters determined at $`V=18`$ (1X PS) implies fulfilment of the requirements for GAIA PS at $`V=20`$ after appropriate fine tuning of each band.

Some gain in performance could be achieved by applying different parameterization schemes for the faintest stars ($`V>18`$). Parameterization of these stars should be performed by employing all complementary information obtained by GAIA (parallaxes, spectra, 3-D extinction maps constructed basing on $`E_{BV}`$ derived for the brighter stars, $`V<18`$, etc.). However, such an automatic parameterization procedure is not yet developed.

In order to optimize the GAIA PS, the following supplemental information is urgently needed:

* a homogeneous and complete database of theoretical stellar spectra, especially SEDs of various \[$`\alpha `$/Fe\];
* realistic estimates of the limiting magnitudes and accuracies of the stellar parameters derived from the RVS data;
* determination of the limiting distance, resolution and achievable accuracy of the 3-D extinction maps of the Galaxy;
* realistic models of the photometry procedure, taking into account real sky complexity and accuracy of the post-mission calibrations.

### Acknowledgments.

This work was supported by a Grant of the Lithuanian State Science and Studies Foundation. We are indebted to Valdas Vansevičius for his help on preparation of the article.

## References

Bridžius, A., & Vansevičius, V. 2002, Ap&SS, 280, 41

Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245

Deveikis, V., Bridžius, A., & Vansevičius, V. 2002, Ap&SS, 280, 47

ESA 2000, “GAIA: Composition, Formation and Evolution of the Galaxy”, Technical Report, ESA-SCI(2000)4

Høg, E., Straižys, V., & Vansevičius, V. 2000, “The 3G Photometric System”, Technical Report, Copenhagen University Observatory, GAIA-CUO-078

Lejeune, T., Cuisinier, F., & Buser, R. 1998, A&AS, 130, 65

Munari, U. 1999, Baltic Astronomy, 8, 123

Sūdžius, J., Raudeliūnas, S., Kučinskas, A., Bridžius, A., & Vansevičius, V. 2002, Ap&SS, 280, 109

Vansevičius, V., Bridžius, A., & Drazdys R. 2002, Ap&SS, 280, 31


text:
# Entanglement assisted alignment of reference frames using a dense covariant coding

## Abstract

We present a procedure inspired by dense coding, which enables a highly efficient transmission of information of a continuous nature. The procedure requires the sender and the recipient to share a maximally entangled state. We deal with the concrete problem of aligning reference frames or trihedra by means of a quantum system. We find the optimal covariant measurement and compute the corresponding average error, which has a remarkably simple close form. The connection of this procedure with that of estimating unitary transformations on qubits is briefly discussed.

Entanglement has long been recognized as a powerful resource in quantum communication. Teleportation teleportation  and dense coding dense , for instance, would not be possible without entanglement. Even when entanglement is not strictly necessary, one frequently runs across situations for which the use of entangled states, instead of plain product states, provides a significant improvement. Examples of this can be easily found in the literature. This letter provides yet another interesting instance, which one could refer to as dense covariant coding.

Two interesting problems in quantum communication in which entanglement plays a fundamental role are those of sending the information that specifies (i) a direction in space, i.e., a unit vector $`\stackrel{}{n}_1`$, or (ii) three orthogonal ones (a trihedron) $`𝗇=\{\stackrel{}{n}_1,\stackrel{}{n}_2,\stackrel{}{n}_3\}`$. Whereas (i) has been extensively discussed in the literature direction-1 ; direction-bbm ; direction-2 , only recently significant attention reference-ps ; reference-bbm ; ps2  has been paid to (ii). It has been shown that quantum states can indeed be used to establish a common reference frame between two parties (Alice and Bob). Thus, for instance, atoms or a number of spins (throughout this letter we use the word spin as synonym of spin 1/2 particle) can encode the relative orientation of two trihedra. The fidelity (or alternatively, the mean square error per axis) of the optimal covariant communication protocol (where covariance refers to the set of signal states being the orbit of a group; $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ for the problem at hand) is now known for both, finite and asymptotically large number $`N`$ of copies of the messenger state.

In this letter we show that the intensive use of entanglement yields a remarkable improvement over the approaches for aligning spatial frames discussed above. More specifically, suppose Alice and Bob share a maximally entangled state. Then, we will show that using a covariant protocol it is possible to establish a common reference frame with a mean square error per axis given by $`[1\mathrm{cos}2\pi /(N+3)]/3`$, which behaves as $`2\pi ^2/(3N^2)`$. This protocol bears a great similarity with dense coding as far as the use it makes of entanglement and the remarkable improvement it provides in the transmission of information ariano . Dense coding has mainly been discussed for discrete signals. However, the information we are attempting to transmit has an intrinsically continuous nature: it refers to the relative orientation of Alice and Bob and, in some situations direction-1 ; direction-bbm ; direction-2 ; reference-bbm ; reference-ps ; others ; experiments ; bruss , such information cannot be codified by a series of bits. Indeed, a digital representation of an orientation has no meaning unless it is referred to a common reference frame. No such frame will be assumed to be known to both Alice and Bob unless otherwise stated, though we will use Bob’s to simplify the mathematics. Hence, the messenger will have to be a quantum system with intrinsic orientation. More specifically, in this letter we will consider a system of spins. (See bartlett  for another protocol of sending information without a shared reference frame.) The subject of this letter is also related to the important issue of estimating a unitary operation on qubits ajv . We will come back to this point in the conclusions.

Suppose Alice and Bob have each of them a system of $`N`$ spins and let us call $`_A`$ and $`_B`$ their respective Hilbert spaces (throughout this letter subscripts A and B will always refer to Alice and Bob). Before they start their intergalactic journeys, they prepare the state

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }=\underset{j}{}a_j|\mathrm{\Phi }^j=\underset{j}{}\frac{a_j}{\sqrt{d_j}}\underset{m=j}{\overset{j}{}}|jm_A|jm_B,$$
(1)
where $`j`$ runs from zero to $`N/2`$ for $`N`$ even ($`1/2`$ to $`N/2`$ for $`N`$ odd), $`d_j=2j+1`$ is the dimension of the representation $`𝐣`$ of $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$, and $`_ja_j^2=1`$. Also before departure, they lock the orientation of their systems of $`N`$ spins to that of their respective spacecrafts. When they are far apart, they need to get aligned. Unfortunately, their classical computers crashed and they cannot retrieve the information about the change of their relative orientation. At this point in time, the state of Alice’s and Bob’s spins is still given by (1) but $`|jm_A`$ and $`|jm_B`$ are now referred to Alice’s and Bob’s reference frames respectively (in this presentation the words spacecraft and reference frame are synonyms). Relative to Bob’s reference frame this state can be written as

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }(g)U_A(g)𝕀_B|\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(2)
where $`U_A(g)`$ belongs to the direct sum of irreducible representations of $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ and $`g`$ stands for the three Euler angles of the spacial rotation that takes Bob’s reference frame into Alice’s. With no other resource available, Alice sends her $`N`$ spins to Bob, with the hope that he will retrieve from them the information they need. To do so, he is allowed to perform generalized collective measurements on both Alice’s and his own spins, namely, on the state (2). Note that $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }(g)`$ are maximally entangled in each $`𝐣`$. Note also that in (1) all of these representations appear only once, despite of the fact that in the Clebsch-Gordan decomposition of $`(\mathrm{𝟏}/\mathrm{𝟐})^N`$ they may show up several times. We will show that $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is optimal for the problem at hand provided a suitable choice of $`a_j>0`$ is made (see Eq. 19 below).

The quality of the communication strategy can be quantified by the averaged Holevo’s error holevo

$$h=\underset{r}{}𝑑gh(g,g_r)p(r|g),$$
(3)
where $`h(g,g^{})=_{a=1}^3|\stackrel{}{n}_a(g)\stackrel{}{n}_a(g^{})|^2`$; $`𝗇(g)=\{\stackrel{}{n}_1(g),\stackrel{}{n}_2(g),\stackrel{}{n}_3(g)\}`$ defines the frame Alice is transmitting to Bob; $`𝗇(g_r)=\{\stackrel{}{n}_1(g_r),\stackrel{}{n}_2(g_r),\stackrel{}{n}_3(g_r)\}`$ defines the frame Bob guesses from the outcome $`r`$ of his measurement; and $`dg`$ is the invariant Haar measure of $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$. Each one of these trihedra are labelled with the parameters $`g`$ of the rotation that brings $`𝗇_0=\{\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y},\stackrel{}{z}\}`$ (the unit vectors along Bob’s axes) into the desired orientation. $`p(r|g)`$ is the conditional probability of Bob obtaining the outcome $`r`$ if Alice sends $`𝗇(g)`$. Note that $`h(g,g^{})`$ is related to the character $`\chi _1`$ of the representation $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ of $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ through $`h(g,g^{})=62\chi _1(gg^1)`$. Hence, we just need to compute $`\chi _1`$. From this, the square error per axis, to which we referred above, is $`(3\chi _1)/6`$. Quantum Mechanics tells us that the conditional probability is $`p(r|g)=\mathrm{\Phi }(g)|O_r|\mathrm{\Phi }(g)`$, where $`\{O_r\}`$ is a complete set of positive operators such that $`_rO_r=𝕀`$, namely, the elements of a positive operator valued measurement (POVM) in the whole subspace of $`_A_B`$ where the signal states belong. Recalling the invariance of the Haar measure, $`dg=d(gg^{})`$, we can write

$$\chi _1=\underset{r}{}𝑑g\chi _1(g)|\mathrm{\Phi }(g)|\mathrm{\Psi }_r|^2,$$
(4)
where

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_r\mathrm{\Psi }_r|U_A^{}(g_r)𝕀_BO_rU_A(g_r)𝕀_B.$$
(5)
This definition implicitly assumes that optimal POVM’s can always be chosen to have rank one elements davies . We claim that (a) the states of the form (1) are optimal if the positive coefficients $`a_j`$ are properly chosen. (b) For the optimal POVM one has

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_r=\underset{j}{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_r^j=\underset{j}{}c_{jr}|\mathrm{\Phi }^j;\underset{r}{}c_{jr}^2=d_j^2.$$
(6)
To prove (a) we borrow from ajv  some results concerning the estimation of a $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ transformation, in particular, that the optimal state can be chosen to be $`|\mathrm{\Phi }=_ja_j|\mathrm{\Omega }^j`$, with

$$|\mathrm{\Omega }^j=\frac{1}{\sqrt{d_jn_j}}\underset{m=j}{\overset{j}{}}\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n_j}{}}|jm;\alpha _A|jm;\alpha _B$$
(7)
instead of (1). Here $`\alpha `$ labels the different $`n_j`$ occurrences of $`𝐣`$ in the Clebsch-Gordan decomposition of $`(\mathrm{𝟏}/\mathrm{𝟐})^N`$. We next show that, as far as the evaluation of the maximal $`\chi _1`$ (minimal error) is concerned, we need to consider each $`𝐣`$ only once. Let us define $`v_\alpha ^{(s)}`$, $`s=1,\mathrm{},n_j1`$ as the set of $`n_j(n_j1)`$ complex numbers (which we may regard as the components of $`n_j1`$ orthogonal unit vectors) such that $`_\alpha v_\alpha ^{(r)}v_\alpha ^{(s)}=\delta _{rs}`$ and $`_\alpha v_\alpha ^{(s)}=0`$ (i.e., orthogonal to the $`n_j`$-dimensional vector $`(1,1,\mathrm{},1)`$). We note that the states $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,m}=_\alpha v_\alpha ^{(s)}|jm;\alpha |jm;\alpha `$ satisfy $`\mathrm{\Omega }^j|U_A(g)𝕀_B|\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,m}=_\alpha v_\alpha ^{(s)}𝔇_{mm}^{(j)}(g)/\sqrt{d_jn_j}=0`$, for all $`g`$, $`s`$ and $`m`$, where we have used that $`𝔇_{mm^{}}^{(j)}(g)=jm;\alpha |U(g)|jm^{};\alpha `$. Hence, $`|\mathrm{\Omega }^j`$ effectively lives in only one of the irreducible representations $`𝐣`$ and it can be chosen as in (1) without any loss of generality $`\mathrm{}`$

To prove claim (b) we rewrite (4) as

$$\chi _1=\underset{r}{}\underset{jl}{}a_ja_l𝑑g\chi _1(g)\mathrm{\Phi }^j\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^l|𝒰(g)|\mathrm{\Psi }_r^j\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_r^l,$$
(8)
where $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^j\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^l=|\mathrm{\Phi }^j|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^l`$, the state $`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^l`$ is obtained by applying to $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^l`$ time reversal only in $`_A`$ (analogous definitions hold for $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_r^j\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_r^l`$), and $`𝒰=U_AU_A𝕀_B𝕀_B`$. By Schur’s lemma, (8) is

$$\chi _1=\frac{1}{3}\underset{r}{}\underset{jl}{}a_ja_l\mathrm{tr}_\mathrm{𝟏}(\rho _r^j\stackrel{~}{\rho }_r^l),$$
(9)
where we have defined $`\rho _r^j=\mathrm{tr}_B(|\mathrm{\Psi }_r^j\mathrm{\Phi }^j|)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_r^l=\mathrm{tr}_B(|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_r^l\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^l|)`$ and $`\mathrm{tr}_B`$ ($`\mathrm{tr}_\mathrm{𝟏}`$) stands for the partial trace over $`_B`$ (over the representation $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ invariant subspace, i.e., $`\mathrm{tr}_\mathrm{𝟏}O=_{m=1}^11m|O|1m`$). Using the Schwarz inequality we obtain the bound

$$\mathrm{tr}_\mathrm{𝟏}(\rho _r^j\stackrel{~}{\rho }_r^l)\sqrt{\mathrm{tr}_\mathrm{𝟏}\left(\rho _r^j\rho _r^j𝕀_l\right)\mathrm{tr}_\mathrm{𝟏}\left(𝕀_j\stackrel{~}{\rho }_r^l\stackrel{~}{\rho }_r^l\right)},$$
(10)
where $`𝕀_j`$ ($`𝕀_l`$) is the identity restricted to the representation $`𝐣`$ ($`𝐥`$) subspace. The equality holds if $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_r^j=c_{jr}|\mathrm{\Phi }^j`$ since this choice implies $`\rho _r^j=c_{jr}\mathrm{tr}_B(|\mathrm{\Phi }^j\mathrm{\Phi }^j|)=c_{jr}𝕀_j/d_j`$. To obtain $`_rc_{jr}^2=d_j^2`$ one just has to trace (5) on each irreducible representation subspace $`\mathrm{}`$

With this information we can go back to (4) and cast it as

$$\chi _1\underset{r}{}𝑑g\chi _1(g)\left|\underset{j}{}\frac{a_jc_{jr}}{d_j}\chi _j(g)\right|^2,$$
(11)
where we have used that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^j|U_A^{}𝕀_B|\mathrm{\Phi }^j=\chi _j(g)/d_j`$. To get rid of the coefficients $`c_{jr}`$, note that

$$\underset{r}{}c_{jr}c_{lr}\sqrt{\underset{r}{}c_{jr}^2}\sqrt{\underset{r}{}c_{lr}^2}=d_jd_l.$$
(12)
The equality holds iff

$$c_{jr}=d_j\sqrt{c_r},$$
(13)
where $`_rc_r=1`$. Hence

$$\chi _1𝑑g\chi _1(g)\left|\underset{j}{}a_j\chi _j(g)\right|^2.$$
(14)
The group integral can be easily performed by recalling the Clebsch-Gordan series $`\chi _j(g)\chi _l(g)=_{k=|jl|}^{j+l}\chi _k(g)`$ and the orthogonality of the characters group , namely, $`𝑑g\chi _j(g)\chi _l(g)=\delta _{jl}`$. The result can be conveniently written as

$$\chi _11+𝖺^t\mathrm{𝖬𝖺}.$$
(15)
Here $`𝖺^t=(a_{N/2},a_{N/21},a_{N/22},\mathrm{})`$ is the transpose of $`𝖺`$, and $`𝖬`$ is the tridiagonal matrix

$$𝖬=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 1& & & \\ 1& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \text{0}& \\ & \mathrm{}& 0& 1& \\ & & 1& 0& 1\\ \text{0}& & & 1& \zeta \end{array}\right),$$
(16)
where $`\zeta =1`$ ($`\zeta =0`$) for $`N`$ even (odd). One could also obtain (15) directly from (9) by simply noticing that $`\mathrm{tr}_\mathrm{𝟏}(𝕀_j𝕀_l)=3`$ if $`j+l1|jl|`$ and it vanishes otherwise. The maximal value of the quadratic form in (15) is given by the largest eigenvalue of $`𝖬`$. Its characteristic polynomial is $`P_n(\lambda )=det(𝖬+2\lambda 𝕀)`$, where $`n`$ is the dimension of $`𝖬`$, namely, $`n=N/2+1`$ ($`n=N/2+1/2`$) for $`N`$ even (odd). Note that we have defined the eigenvalues of $`𝖬`$ as $`2\lambda _s`$, where $`\lambda _s`$, $`s=1,2\mathrm{},n`$, are the zeroes of $`P_n(\lambda )`$. The characteristic polynomials obey the simple recurrence relation

$$P_n(\lambda )=2\lambda P_{n1}(\lambda )P_{n2}(\lambda ),$$
(17)
which is that of the Tchebychev polynomials abramowitz , and the initial conditions $`P_0(\lambda )=1`$, $`P_1(\lambda )=2\lambda +\zeta `$. Hence, the solution is $`P_n(\lambda )=U_n(\lambda )+\zeta U_{n1}(\lambda )`$, where $`U_n(\mathrm{cos}\theta )=\mathrm{sin}[(n+1)\theta ]/\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ are the Tchebychev polynomials of the second kind. It is now straightforward to compute the largest eigenvalue of $`𝖬`$. It can be written as $`2\mathrm{cos}[2\pi /(N+3)]`$ and, hence,

$$\chi _1_{\mathrm{max}}=1+2\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi }{N+3}.$$
(18)
One can also verify that the corresponding eigenvector is

$$a_j=\frac{2}{\sqrt{N+3}}\mathrm{sin}\frac{(2j+1)\pi }{N+3}.$$
(19)
Eq. (18) gives an upper bound of the actual $`\chi _1_{\mathrm{max}}`$. We need to show that this bound is indeed saturated by a covariant measurement. To do this, we just trace the conditions under which all the (Schwarz) inequalities used in the proof are saturated. Substituting in (5) the relation $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_r=\sqrt{c_r}d_j|\mathrm{\Phi }^j`$, which follows from (6) and (13), we get

$$O_r=c_rU_A(g_r)𝕀_B|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|U_A^{}(g_r)𝕀_B,$$
(20)
where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=_{j,m}\sqrt{d_j}|j,m_A|j,m_B`$. But for a rescaling factor $`c_r`$, we see that the positive operators $`O_r`$ are all obtained by rotating a fix reference state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$. This exhibits the covariance of the scheme. An immediate choice that saturates the bound (18) is provided by the continuous POVM

$$O(g)=U_A(g)𝕀_B|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|U_A^{}(g)𝕀_B.$$
(21)
Using Schur’s lemma, we get $`𝑑gO(g)=_j𝕀_A^j𝕀_B^j`$, where $`𝕀_A^j`$ ($`𝕀_B^j`$) is the identity in Alice’s (Bob’s) representation $`𝐣`$ subspace. This is the identity in the Hilbert subspace to which all signal states $`|\mathrm{\Phi }(g)`$ belong. Hence, the infinite set $`\{O(g)\}`$ is a POVM for these signal states.

A continuous POVM, such as (21), with infinitely many outcomes is not physically realizable. Hence, it is important to show that optimal POVMs with a finite number of outcomes do exist. The most straightforward way of obtaining a finite (though not necessarily minimal) POVM is by finding a finite set $`\{g_r\}`$, $`r=1,\mathrm{}n(J)`$, of elements of $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ and positive weights $`\{c_r^{}\}`$ such that the orthogonality relation

$$\underset{r=1}{\overset{n(J)}{}}c_r^{}𝔇_{mm^{}}^{(j)}(g_r)𝔇_{nn^{}}^{(l)}(g_r)=C_J\frac{\delta ^{jl}\delta _{mn}\delta _{m^{}n^{}}}{2j+1}$$
(22)
holds for all $`j,lJ=N/2+1`$, where $`C_J=_{r=1}^{n(J)}c_r^{}`$. This discrete version of the standard orthogonality relations of $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ is only valid up to a maximal value $`J`$. The larger $`J`$ is, the larger the $`n(J)`$ that must be chosen. There are many solutions to these equations and we refer the reader to reference-bbm  for details. Once $`\{g_r\}`$ and $`\{c_r^{}\}`$ have been computed, we simply define $`c_r=c_r^{}/C_J`$ and obtain the desired finite POVM elements by substituting these values in (20). Eq. 22 ensures that Schur’s lemma will work for the finite set $`\{g_r,c_r\}`$, thus obtaining $`_rO_r=_j𝕀_A^j𝕀_B^j`$, as it should be.

Let us conclude by summarizing and commenting our results. We present a covariant (and, hence, very natural) scheme for transmitting continuous information efficiently through a quantum channel (the orientation of Alice’s reference frame relative to Bob’s). It requires Alice and Bob to share an entangled state of the form (1). This state can be prepared with, e.g., a number of spins or two hydrogen atoms. We determine the coefficients —given in (19)— which enable Alice to communicate with the smallest error. The procedure is as simple as Alice locking her part of the system to her frame and sending it to Bob, who performs a generalized covariant measurement on the whole Hilbert space. The error, defined in (3), is given by

$$h_{\mathrm{min}}=4\left(1\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi }{N+3}\right),$$
(23)
which follows from the relation $`h=62\chi _1`$. The corresponding asymptotic behavior is $`h_{\mathrm{min}}=8\pi ^2/N^2`$. This is an striking improvement over any other previously known scheme. We also prove that the optimal measurements are covariant POVM’s, which one can choose to be either continuous, Eq. (21), or to have a finite number of outcomes.

Our work bears a strong connection with ajv , where the estimation of a unitary transformation on qubits is studied. This problem and that of aligning reference frames are formally the same. To be more concrete, let us assume Alice is given a black-box that performs an unknown unitary operation on qubits (they not need to be spins in this case) and she is asked to identify it. If she is allowed to apply the unknown operation $`N`$ times, the best she can do is the following ajv : (a) prepare the $`2N`$-qubit state (1) (b) apply $`u(g)\mathrm{𝟏}/\mathrm{𝟐}`$ over $`N`$ qubits which results in the state (2) (c) perform the POVM whose elements are given in (21). Note that now all the states are referred to a unique reference frame: that of Alice (Bob does not play any role in this case). We must stress that this task cannot be perform unless both $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and the POVM elements can be referred to the same reference frame, which requires that the person who performs the measurement, if not Alice herself, must share a reference frame with her.

Another (minor) difference with respect to the alignment of frames concerns the figure of merit used in ajv , which is the fidelity $`F=|\mathrm{tr}[u(g)u^{}(g_r)]|^2/4=\chi _{1/2}^2(gg_r^1)/4`$. Our results can be straightforwardly applied in this context because of the simple relation $`\chi _{1/2}^2(g)=1+\chi _1(g)`$. Hence, for instance, (18) implies that the optimal mean fidelity is

$$\overline{F}=F=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi }{N+3}\right),$$
(24)
whereas for large $`N`$ one has $`\overline{F}=1\pi ^2/N^2+\mathrm{}`$. This extends the results of ajv  to arbitrary $`N`$.

Finally, we would like to point out that our approach resembles the so called continuous dense coding introduced in braunstein , where the communication of a single phase —$`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ group— was discussed. They found that dense coding can improve the channel capacity, but not always does. This is an indication that the absolute optimal scheme for a phase others  does not require bipartite entanglement, contrasting with our approach for $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$, which always improves the efficiency of the communication.

We are grateful to A. Acín and E. Jané for helpful conversations. We acknowledge financial support from Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology project BFM2002-02588, CIRIT project SGR-00185, and QUPRODIS working group EEC contract IST-2001-38877.