text:
# Quasi-symmetric functions and mod 𝑝 multiple harmonic sums

## 1 Introduction

In recent years there has been considerable interest in the multiple zeta values

$$\zeta (i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_k)=\underset{n_1>n_2>\mathrm{}>n_k1}{}\frac{1}{n_1^{i_1}n_2^{i_2}\mathrm{}n_k^{i_k}},$$
(1)
which converge for $`i_1>1`$; see, e.g., . The multiple zeta values are limits of the finite harmonic sums

$$\zeta _n(i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_k)=\underset{nn_1>n_2>\mathrm{}>n_k1}{}\frac{1}{n_1^{i_1}n_2^{i_2}\mathrm{}n_k^{i_k}},$$
(2)
as $`n\mathrm{}`$. In fact, these finite sums themselves are of interest in physics . Both types of quantities are indexed by the exponent string $`(i_1,\mathrm{},i_k)`$: we refer to $`k`$ as the length and $`i_1+\mathrm{}+i_k`$ as the weight.

The multiple zeta values (1) form an algebra under multiplication. In fact, there are two distinct multiplications on the set of multiple zeta values, the harmonic (or “stuffle”) product and the shuffle product, coming from the representation of multiple zeta values as iterated series and as iterated integrals respectively (see §4 of  for a discussion). Only the first of these products applies to the finite sums (2).

In this paper we develop a theory of the mod $`p`$ values ($`p`$ a prime), of the finite harmonic sums (2) when $`n=p1`$. Our main tools are the structure of the algebra $`\mathrm{QSym}`$ of quasi-symmetric functions (which formalizes the harmonic product) and a mod $`p`$ duality result (Theorem 4.7 below) which corresponds to the duality theorem for multiple zeta values (see, e.g., Corollary 6.2 of ). A brief account of the results of §4 of this paper appeared earlier in the last section of .

The theory of mod $`p`$ finite harmonic sums has several interesting differences and similarities to the theory of multiple zeta values. While the values of (1) with length $`k=1`$ are the classical zeta values $`\zeta (i_1)`$, it is well known that the mod $`p`$ value of

$$\zeta _{p1}(i_1)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{p1}{}}\frac{1}{j^{i_1}}$$

is zero when $`p>i_1+1`$. But for $`k=2`$ we have the relation

$$\zeta _{p1}(i_1,1)B_{pi_11}modp,$$

with Bernoulli numbers (see Theorem 6.1 below). In the case of multiple zeta values, it appears that multiple zeta values not expressible in terms of the classical zeta values occur first in weight 8 (e.g., $`\zeta (6,2)`$); for the finite harmonic sums mod $`p`$, the first ones not expressible in terms of Bernoulli numbers appear to occur in weight 8 (i.e., $`\zeta _{p1}(6,1,1)`$).

As we have already mentioned, there is a duality result in both theories. If we code the exponent strings $`(i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_k)`$ occurring in (1) and (2) by the monomial $`x^{i_11}y\mathrm{}x^{i_k1}y`$ in noncommuting variables $`x`$ and $`y`$, then the duality map for multiple zeta values is the anti-automorphism of $`𝐐x,y`$ that exchanges $`x`$ and $`y`$, while that for the mod $`p`$ finite harmonic sums is the automorphism $`\psi `$ of $`𝐙x,y`$ with $`\psi (x)=x+y`$ and $`\psi (y)=y`$.

The dimension of the rational vector space of multiple zeta values of weight $`n`$ was conjectured by D. Zagier  to be the numbers $`d_n`$ given by $`d_1=0`$, $`d_2=d_3=1`$, and $`d_n=d_{n2}+d_{n3}`$. It has been proved by T. Terasoma  and A. B. Goncharov  that the true dimension of this rational vector space is at most $`d_n`$. The corresponding numbers for the finite harmonic sums (2) are the minimal numbers $`c_n`$ of weight-$`n`$ harmonic sums needed to generate all weight-$`n`$ harmonic sums mod $`p`$ for $`p>n+1`$. From the calculations of §7 below, supplemented by the recent results of Kh. Hessami Pilehrood, T. Hessami Pilehrood and R. Tauraso , the first few values of $`c_n`$ are the following.

| $`n`$ | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`c_n`$ | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |

We make the following conjecture.

###### Conjecture 1.

The numbers $`c_n`$ are the Padovan numbers (OEIS sequence A000931), i.e. the sequence with $`c_1=c_2=0`$, $`c_3=1`$ and $`c_n=c_{n2}+c_{n3}`$.

If this conjecture is true, it follows that $`c_n=d_{n3}`$ for $`n4`$, as follows from consideration of the generating functions.

This paper is organized as follows. In §2 we give an exposition of the algebra $`\mathrm{QSym}`$ of quasi-symmetric functions. In §3 we describe the Hopf algebra structure of $`\mathrm{QSym}`$, particularly the antipode, and introduce some integral bases of $`\mathrm{QSym}`$ important in the sequel. In §4 we define bases $`\zeta _n(I)`$ and $`\zeta _n^{}(I)`$ for the set of finite harmonic sums, and prove some basic results about the mod $`p`$ case. In §5 we discuss a particular class of multiple harmonic sums, the height one sums, and express them in terms of Stirling numbers of the first and second kinds. In §6 we obtain some results about $`\zeta _{p1}^{}(I)`$ mod $`p`$ when $`I`$ has short length. Finally, in §7 we apply the preceding results to find sets of products of height one sums that generate all multiple harmonic sums mod $`p`$ through weight 9.

Except for the introduction and some references to later work, this paper is the one written during a stay at the Max Planck Institut für Mathematik (MPIM) in Bonn in 2003-04, and disseminated as the preprint MPI 04-03. The notation has been modified to bring it in line with more recent papers, and some minor mistakes in the preprint have been corrected. While many of the results obtained here appeared in the work of J. Zhao , the author believes the approach and point of view herein differs significantly from other published works.

The author thanks the directors of the MPIM for their hospitality, and also thanks Joe Buhler for his prompt response to a query about irregular primes.

## 2 Harmonic Algebra and Quasi-Symmetric Functions

Let $``$ be the underlying graded abelian group of the noncommutative polynomial algebra $`𝐙x,y`$, where $`x`$ and $`y`$ both have degree 1. For a word $`w`$ of $``$, we refer to the total degree of $`w`$ as its weight (denoted $`|w|`$) and its $`y`$-degree as its length (denoted $`\mathrm{}(w)`$). We can define a commutative multiplication $``$ on $``$ by requiring that it distribute over the addition and that it satisfy the following axioms:

* For any word $`w`$, $`1w=w1=w`$;
* For any word $`w`$ and integer $`n1`$, $`x^nw=wx^n=wx^n`$;
* For any words $`w_1,w_2`$ and integers $`p,q0`$,

$$x^pyw_1x^qyw_2=x^py(w_1x^qyw_2)+x^qy(x^pyw_1w_2)+x^{p+q+1}y(w_1w_2).$$

Note that axiom (H3) allows the $``$-product of any pair of words to be computed recursively, since each $``$-product on the right has fewer factors of $`y`$ than the $``$-product on the left-hand side. Induction on length establishes the following.

###### Theorem 2.1.

The $``$-product is commutative and associative.

We refer to $``$ together with its commutative multiplication $``$ as the (integral) harmonic algebra $`(,)`$. Let $`^1`$ be the additive subgroup $`𝐙1+y`$ of $``$; it is evidently a subalgebra of $`(,)`$. Note that any word $`w^1`$ can be written in terms of the elements $`z_i=x^{i1}y`$, and that the length $`\mathrm{}(w)`$ is the number of factors $`z_i`$ of $`w`$ when expressed this way. We can rewrite the inductive rule (H3) for the $``$-product as

$$z_pw_1z_qw_2=z_p(w_1z_qw_2)+z_q(z_pw_1w_2)+z_{p+q}(w_1w_2).$$
(3)
Now for each positive integer $`n`$, define a homomorphism $`\varphi _n:^1𝐙[t_1,\mathrm{},t_n]`$ of graded abelian groups (where $`|t_i|=1`$ for all $`i`$) as follows. Let $`\varphi _n(1)=1`$ and

$$\varphi _n(z_{i_1}z_{i_2}\mathrm{}z_{i_k})=\underset{1n_1<n_2<\mathrm{}<n_kn}{}t_{n_1}^{i_1}t_{n_2}^{i_2}\mathrm{}t_{n_k}^{i_k}$$

for words of length $`kn`$, and let $`\varphi (w)=0`$ for words of length greater than $`n`$; extend $`\varphi _n`$ additively to $`^1`$. Because the rule (3) corresponds to multiplication of series, $`\varphi _n`$ is an algebra homomorphism of $`(^1,)`$ into $`𝐙[t_1,\mathrm{},t_n]`$, and $`\varphi _n`$ is evidently injective through degree $`n`$. For each $`mn`$, there is a restriction map

$$\rho _{m,n}:𝐙[t_1,\mathrm{},t_m]𝐙[t_1,\mathrm{},t_n]$$

defined by

$$\rho _{m,n}(t_i)=\{\begin{array}{cc}t_i,\hfill & in\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & i>n.\hfill \end{array}$$

The inverse limit

$$𝔓=\underset{n}{proj\; lim}𝐙[t_1,\mathrm{},t_n]$$

is the subalgebra of $`𝐙[[t_1,t_2,\mathrm{}]]`$ consisting of those formal power series of bounded degree. The $`\varphi _n`$ commute with the restriction maps, so they define a homomorphism $`\varphi :^1𝔓`$.

Inside $`𝔓`$ is the algebra of symmetric functions

$$\mathrm{Sym}=\underset{n}{proj\; lim}𝐙[t_1,\mathrm{},t_n]^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n}$$

and also the algebra $`\mathrm{QSym}`$ of quasi-symmetric functions (first described in ). We say a formal series $`p𝔓`$ is in $`\mathrm{QSym}`$ if the coefficient of $`t_{i_1}^{p_1}\mathrm{}t_{i_k}^{p_k}`$ in $`p`$ is the same as the coefficient of $`t_{j_1}^{p_1}\mathrm{}t_{j_k}^{p_k}`$ in $`p`$ whenever $`i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_k`$ and $`j_1<j_2<\mathrm{}<j_k`$. Evidently $`\mathrm{Sym}\mathrm{QSym}`$. An integral basis for $`\mathrm{QSym}`$ is given by the monomial quasi-symmetric functions

$$M_{(p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_k)}=\underset{i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_k}{}t_{i_1}^{p_1}t_{i_2}^{p_2}\mathrm{}t_{i_k}^{p_k},$$

which are indexed by compositions $`(p_1,\mathrm{},p_k)`$. Since $`\varphi (z_{i_1}\mathrm{}z_{i_k})=M_{(i_1,\mathrm{},i_k)}`$, we have the following result.

###### Theorem 2.2.

$`\varphi `$ is an isomorphism of $`(^1,)`$ onto $`\mathrm{QSym}`$.

As is well known, the algebra $`\mathrm{Sym}`$ of symmetric functions is generated by the elementary symmetric functions $`e_i`$, as well as by the complete symmetric functions $`h_i`$. The power-sum symmetric functions $`p_i`$ generate $`\mathrm{Sym}𝐐`$, but only generate a subalgebra of $`\mathrm{Sym}`$ over $`𝐙`$. It is easy to see that $`\varphi (z_1^i)=e_i`$ and $`\varphi (z_i)=p_i`$.

A monomial quasi-symmetric function $`M_I`$ is in $`\mathrm{Sym}`$ exactly when all parts of $`I`$ are the same. Given $`I=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_k)`$, the symmetric group $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$ on $`k`$ letters acts on $`I`$ by $`\sigma I=(i_{\sigma (1)},\mathrm{},i_{\sigma (k)})`$, and the symmetrization

$$\underset{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_k}{}M_{\sigma I}$$
(4)
of $`M_I`$ is evidently in $`\mathrm{Sym}`$. Hence the element (4) can be written as a sum of rational multiples of the power-sums $`p_i=M_{(i)}`$. But in fact (4) is a sum of products of the $`M_{(i)}`$ with integral coefficients that can be given explicitly as follows.

###### Theorem 2.3.

Let $`I=(i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_k)`$ be a composition. Then

$$\underset{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_k}{}M_{\sigma I}=\underset{\text{partitions }=\{B_1,\mathrm{},B_l\}\text{ of }\{1,\mathrm{},k\}}{}(1)^{kl}c()M_{(b_1)}M_{(b_2)}\mathrm{}M_{(b_l)},$$

where $`c()=(\mathrm{card}B_11)!\mathrm{}(\mathrm{card}B_l1)!`$ and $`b_s=_{jB_s}i_j`$.

###### Proof.

While the argument used to prove Theorem 2.2 of  can be adapted to prove this result, we shall use the Möbius inversion formula as follows. The set $`\mathrm{\Pi }_k`$ of partitions of the set $`\{1,\mathrm{},k\}`$, with the partial order given by refinement, is a finite semimodular lattice. We also have, for any $`𝒞=\{C_1,\mathrm{},C_p\}\mathrm{\Pi }_k`$,

$$M_{(c_1)}M_{(c_2)}\mathrm{}M_{(c_p)}=\underset{=\{B_1,\mathrm{},B_l\}𝒞}{}\underset{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_l}{}M_{\sigma (b_1,\mathrm{},b_l)},$$

where $`b_s=_{jB_s}i_j`$ and $`c_s=_{jC_s}i_j`$. Then the Möbius inversion formula gives

$$\underset{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_p}{}M_{\sigma (c_1,\mathrm{},c_p)}=\underset{=\{B_1,\mathrm{},B_l\}𝒞}{}\mu (,𝒞)M_{(b_1)}\mathrm{}M_{(b_l)}.$$
(5)
The conclusion follows by taking $`𝒞=\{\{1\},\{2\},\mathrm{},\{k\}\}`$ in equation (5) and noting that in this case $`\mu (,𝒞)`$=$`(1)^{kl}c()`$ (see , Example 3.10.4). ∎

The rational algebra of quasi-symmetric functions $`\mathrm{QSym}𝐐`$ was shown to be a polynomial algebra by C. Malvenuto and C. Reutenauer . To describe the generators, we put an order on the words of $``$ by setting $`x<y`$ and extending it lexicographically. A word is called Lyndon if it is smaller than any of its proper right factors, i.e. for $`w`$ Lyndon we have $`w<v`$ whenever $`w=uv`$ for $`u,v1`$. Let $``$ be the set of Lyndon words in $`^1`$. Then the following result was proved in .

###### Theorem 2.4.

$`\mathrm{QSym}𝐐`$ is a polynomial algebra on the generators $`\varphi (w)`$, where $`w`$.

The integral structure is more subtle. The result is again that the algebra is polynomial, but one has to use a different set of generators. Let $`^{mod}`$ be the set of modified Lyndon words in $`^1`$, i.e., whenever $`w=z_{i_1}^{p_1}\mathrm{}z_{i_k}^{p_k}`$ has a common factor $`d`$ dividing all the exponents $`p_i`$, replace it with $`v^d`$, where $`v=z_{i_1}^{p_1/d}\mathrm{}z_{i_k}^{p_k/d}`$. The following result was first stated by E. J. Ditters, though the first correct proof seems to be due to M. Hazewinkel .

###### Theorem 2.5.

$`\mathrm{QSym}`$ is a polynomial algebra on the generators $`\varphi (w)`$, where $`w^{mod}`$.

## 3 Quasi-Symmetric Functions as a Hopf Algebra

For definitions and basic results on Hopf algebras we refer the reader to , , and . The algebra $`(^1,)\mathrm{QSym}`$ has a Hopf algebra structure with coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ defined by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(z_{i_1}z_{i_2}\mathrm{}z_{i_n})=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}z_{i_1}\mathrm{}z_{i_j}z_{i_{j+1}}\mathrm{}z_{i_n},$$
(6)
and counit $`ϵ`$ with $`ϵ(u)=0`$ for all elements $`u`$ of positive degree. This extends the well-known Hopf algebra structure on the algebra $`\mathrm{Sym}`$ (as described in ), in which the elementary symmetric functions $`e_i`$ ($`y^i`$) and complete symmetric functions $`h_i`$ are divided powers, while the power sums $`p_i`$ ($`z_i`$) are primitive. The Hopf algebra $`(^1,,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is commutative but not cocommutative. Its (graded) dual is the Hopf algebra of noncommutative symmetric functions as defined in .

Now $`\mathrm{QSym}`$ has various integral bases besides the $`M_I`$, also indexed by compositions. For compositions $`I,J`$, we say $`I`$ refines $`J`$ (denoted $`IJ`$) if $`J`$ can be obtained from $`I`$ by combining some of its adjacent parts. Then the fundamental quasi-symmetric functions are given by

$$F_I=\underset{JI}{}M_J,$$
(7)
and the essential quasi-symmetric functions are given by

$$E_I=\underset{JI}{}M_J.$$
(8)
It will be useful to have some additional notations for compositions. We adapt the notation used the previous section for words, so for $`I=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_k)`$ the weight of $`I`$ is $`|I|=i_1+\mathrm{}+i_k`$, and $`k=\mathrm{}(I)`$ is the length of $`I`$. For $`I=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_k)`$, the reversed composition $`(i_k,\mathrm{},i_1)`$ will be denoted $`\overline{I}`$: of course reversal preserves weight, length and refinement (i.e., $`IJ`$ implies $`\overline{I}\overline{J}`$). We write $`IJ`$ for the juxtaposition of $`I`$ and $`J`$, so $`\overline{IJ}=\overline{J}\overline{I}`$.

Compositions of weight $`n`$ are in 1-to-1 correspondence with subsets of $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n1\}`$ via partial sums

$$(i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_k)\{i_1,i_1+i_2,\mathrm{},i_1+\mathrm{}+i_{k1}\},$$
(9)
and this correspondence is an isomorphism of posets, i.e., $`IJ`$ if and only if the subset corresponding to $`I`$ contains that corresponding to $`J`$. Complementation in the power set thus gives rise to an involution $`II^{}`$; e.g., $`(1,1,2)^{}=(3,1)`$. Evidently $`|I^{}|=|I|`$ and $`\mathrm{}(I)+\mathrm{}(I^{})=|I|+1`$. Also, $`IJ`$ if and only if $`I^{}J^{}`$. The complementation operation commutes with reversal, so the notation $`\overline{I}^{}`$ is unambiguous.

Because of the correspondence (9) between the poset of compositions of $`n`$ and the poset of subsets of $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n1\}`$, it follows that the Möbius function for compositions of $`n`$ is given by

$$\mu (I,J)=(1)^{\mathrm{}(I)\mathrm{}(J)}.$$

Thus, e.g., the Möbius inversion formula applied to equation (8) is

$$M_I=\underset{JI}{}(1)^{\mathrm{}(I)\mathrm{}(J)}E_J.$$
(10)
Since $`\mathrm{QSym}`$ is a commutative Hopf algebra, its antipode $`S`$ is an automorphism of $`\mathrm{QSym}`$ and $`S^2=\mathrm{id}`$. Now $`S`$ can be given by the following explicit formulas: for proof see  or .

###### Theorem 3.1.

The antipode $`S`$ of $`\mathrm{QSym}`$ is given by

* $`S(M_I)=_{I_1I_2\mathrm{}I_l=I}(1)^lM_{I_1}M_{I_2}\mathrm{}M_{I_l};`$
* $`S(M_I)=(1)^{\mathrm{}(I)}E_{\overline{I}}`$.

Part (2) of this result implies a number of facts about the $`E_I`$. First, the $`E_I`$ have almost the same multiplication rules as the $`M_I`$: if $`T`$ is the automorphism of $`\mathrm{QSym}`$ sending $`M_I`$ to $`M_{\overline{I}}`$, then $`ST`$ takes any identity among the $`M_I`$ to an identity among the $`E_I`$ that differs only in signs. For example, since

$$M_{(2)}M_{(3)}=M_{(2,3)}+M_{(3,2)}+M_{(5)}$$

we have

$$E_{(2)}E_{(3)}=E_{(2,3)}+E_{(3,2)}E_{(5)}.$$

Second, the coproduct formula (6), which in terms of the $`M_I`$ says

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(M_I)=\underset{JK=I}{}M_JM_K,$$

can also be written

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(E_I)=\underset{JK=I}{}E_JE_K,$$

because of the standard Hopf algebra relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=(SS)\mathrm{\Delta }^{op}`$. Finally, if we apply $`S`$ to both sides of Theorem 2.3 we obtain, for any composition $`I=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_k)`$,

$$\underset{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_k}{}E_{\sigma I}=\underset{\text{partitions }=\{B_1,\mathrm{},B_l\}\text{ of }\{1,\mathrm{},k\}}{}c()M_{(b_1)}M_{(b_2)}\mathrm{}M_{(b_l)},$$
(11)
where as above $`c()=(\mathrm{card}B_11)!\mathrm{}(\mathrm{card}B_l1)!`$ and $`b_s=_{jB_s}i_j`$.

Now define an automorphism $`\psi `$ of $`𝐙x,y`$ by

$$\psi (x)=x+y,\psi (y)=y.$$
(12)
Evidently $`\psi ^2=\mathrm{id}`$, and $`\psi (^1)=^1`$. Thus $`\psi `$ defines an additive involution of $`^1\mathrm{QSym}`$ (which is not, however, a homomorphism for the $``$-product). We can describe the action of $`\psi `$ on the integral bases for $`\mathrm{QSym}`$ as follows.

###### Theorem 3.2.

For any composition $`I`$,

* $`\psi (M_I)=(1)^{\mathrm{}(I)}F_I`$;
* $`\psi (E_I)=E_I^{}`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`w=w(I)`$ is the word in $`x`$ and $`y`$ corresponding to a composition $`I`$. Then evidently substituting $`y`$ in place of any particular factor $`x`$ in $`w`$ corresponds to splitting a part of $`I`$. With this observation, part (1) is clear (there is also one factor of $`1`$ for each occurrence of $`y`$ in $`w`$).

Now we prove part (2). We have

$$\psi (E_I)=\underset{JI}{}\psi (M_J)=\underset{JI}{}(1)^{\mathrm{}(J)}F_J$$

from part (1). From Example 1 of , $`S(F_I)=(1)^{|I|}F_{\overline{I}^{}}`$, where $`S`$ is the antipode of $`\mathrm{QSym}`$. Thus

$$\begin{array}{c}S\psi (E_I)=\underset{JI}{}(1)^{\mathrm{}(J)+|J|}F_{\overline{J}^{}}=\underset{JI}{}(1)^{\mathrm{}(J^{})}F_{\overline{J}^{}}\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{\overline{J}^{}\overline{I}^{}}{}(1)^{\mathrm{}(\overline{J}^{})}F_{\overline{J}^{}}=\underset{K\overline{I}^{}}{}(1)^{\mathrm{}(K)}F_K.\end{array}$$

Now by Möbius inversion of equation (7)

$$M_I=\underset{IJ}{}(1)^{\mathrm{}(I)\mathrm{}(J)}F_J,$$

and so

$$S\psi (E_I)=(1)^{\mathrm{}(\overline{I}^{})}M_{\overline{I}^{}}$$

Apply $`S`$ be both sides to get

$$\psi (E_I)=(1)^{\mathrm{}(I^{})}(1)^{\mathrm{}(\overline{I}^{})}E_I^{}=E_I^{}.$$

## 4 Finite Multiple Sums and Mod $`p`$ Results

In this section we consider the finite sums

$$\zeta _n(i_1,\mathrm{},i_k)=\underset{nn_1>n_2>\mathrm{}>n_k1}{}\frac{1}{n_1^{i_1}\mathrm{}n_k^{i_k}}$$

and

$$\zeta _n^{}(i_1,\mathrm{},i_k)=\underset{nn_1n_2\mathrm{}n_k1}{}\frac{1}{n_1^{i_1}\mathrm{}n_k^{i_k}};$$

the multiple zeta values are

$$\zeta (i_1,\mathrm{},i_k)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\zeta _n(i_1,\mathrm{},i_k),$$

when the limit exists (i.e., when $`i_1>1`$).

Let $`\rho _n=eT\varphi _n`$, where $`\varphi _n`$ is the map defined in §2, $`T`$ is the automorphism of $`\mathrm{QSym}`$ sending $`M_I`$ to $`M_{\overline{I}}`$, and $`e`$ is the function that sends $`t_i`$ to $`\frac{1}{i}`$. Then $`\rho _n:(^1,)𝐑`$ is a homomorphism sending $`z_{i_1}z_{i_2}\mathrm{}z_{i_k}`$ in $`^1`$ to $`\zeta _n(i_1,\mathrm{},i_k)`$. We can combine the homomorphisms $`\rho _n`$ into a homomorphism $`\rho `$ that sends $`w^1`$ to the real-valued sequence $`n\rho _n(w)`$. We shall write $`\zeta (I)`$ for the real-valued sequence $`n\zeta _n(I)`$ (and similarly for $`\zeta ^{}(I)`$), so $`\rho \varphi ^1`$ sends $`M_I`$ to $`\zeta (I)`$ and $`E_I`$ to $`\zeta ^{}(I)`$. For example, we can apply $`\rho \varphi ^1`$ to equation (10) above to get

$$\zeta (I)=\underset{JI}{}(1)^{\mathrm{}(I)\mathrm{}(J)}\zeta ^{}(J).$$
(13)
Applying the homomorphism $`\rho _n\varphi ^1`$ to Theorem 2.3 and equation (11), we get formulas for symmetric sums of $`\zeta _n(I)`$ and $`\zeta _n^{}(I)`$ in terms of length one sums $`\zeta _n(m)`$ (cf. Theorems 2.1 and 2.2 of ).

###### Theorem 4.1.

For any composition $`I=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_k)`$,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_k}{}}\zeta _n^{}(\sigma I)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\text{partitions }=\{B_1,\mathrm{},B_l\}\text{ of }\{1,\mathrm{},k\}}{}}c()\zeta _n(b_1)\mathrm{}\zeta _n(b_l)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_k}{}}\zeta _n(\sigma I)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\text{partitions }=\{B_1,\mathrm{},B_l\}\text{ of }\{1,\mathrm{},k\}}{}}(1)^{kl}c()\zeta _n(b_1)\mathrm{}\zeta _n(b_l),`$
where $`c()=(\mathrm{card}B_11)!\mathrm{}(\mathrm{card}B_l1)!`$ and $`b_s=_{jB_s}i_j`$.

We consider two operators on the space $`𝐑^𝐍`$ of real-valued sequences. First, there is the partial-sum operator $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, given by

$$(\mathrm{\Sigma }a)_n=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}a_i$$

for $`a𝐑^𝐍`$. Second, there is the operator $``$ given by

$$(a)_n=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{i}\right)(1)^ia_i.$$

It is easy to show that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $``$ generate a dihedral group within the automorphisms of $`𝐑^𝐍`$, i.e., $`^2=\mathrm{id}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }^1`$. It follows that $`(\mathrm{\Sigma })^2=\mathrm{id}`$. We have the following result on multiple sums.

###### Theorem 4.2.

For any composition $`I`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\zeta ^{}(I)=\zeta ^{}(I^{})`$.

###### Proof.

We proceed by induction on $`|I|`$. The weight one case is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\zeta ^{}(1)=\mathrm{\Sigma }^1\zeta ^{}(1)=\zeta ^{}(1)`$, i.e.,

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{(1)^k}{k}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{k},$$

a classical (but often rediscovered) formula which actually goes back to Euler . For $`I=(i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_k)`$, it is straightforward to show that $`\zeta _n^{}(I)=\frac{1}{n}f(n)`$, where $`f𝐑^𝐍`$ is given by

$$f_n=\{\begin{array}{cc}\zeta _n^{}(i_2,\mathrm{},i_k),\hfill & \text{if }i_1=1\text{;}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Sigma }^1\zeta _n^{}(i_11,i_2,\mathrm{},i_k),\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Now suppose the theorem has been proved for all $`I`$ of weight less than $`n`$, and let $`I=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_k)`$ have weight $`n`$. There are two cases: $`i_1=1`$, and $`i_1>1`$. In the first case, let $`(i_2,\mathrm{},i_k)^{}=J=(j_1,\mathrm{},j_r)`$. By the assertion of the preceding paragraph and the induction hypothesis,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }\zeta _n^{}(I)=\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(\frac{1}{n}\zeta _n^{}(J^{})\right)=\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{\Sigma }^1\zeta _n^{}(J)\right)=\zeta _n^{}(j_1+1,j_2,\mathrm{},j_r).$$

But evidently $`I^{}=(j_1+1,j_2,\mathrm{},j_r)`$, so the theorem holds in this case.

If $`i_1>1`$, we instead write $`(i_11,i_2,\mathrm{},i_k)^{}=J=(j_1,\mathrm{},j_r)`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Sigma }\zeta _n^{}(I)=\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{\Sigma }^1\zeta _n^{}(J^{})\right)=\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{\Sigma }\zeta _n^{}(J^{})\right)=\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(\frac{1}{n}\zeta _n^{}(J)\right)\hfill \\ \hfill =\zeta _n^{}(1,j_1,\mathrm{},j_r).\end{array}$$

But $`I^{}=(1,j_1,\mathrm{},j_r)`$, so the theorem holds in this case as well. ∎

The proof of the preceding result is essentially a formalization of the procedure in App. B of . Recalling the automorphism $`\psi `$ of $`^1`$ defined by equation (12), we note that Theorem 4.2, together with part (2) of Theorem 3.2, says that the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{QSym}& \stackrel{\psi }{}& \mathrm{QSym}\\ \rho & & \rho & & \\ 𝐑^𝐍& \stackrel{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}& 𝐑^𝐍\end{array}$$
(14)
commutes.

We now turn to mod $`p`$ results about $`\zeta _{p1}^{}(I)`$ and $`\zeta _{p1}(I)`$, where $`p`$ is a prime. Since the sums $`\zeta _{p1}(I)`$ and $`\zeta _{p1}^{}(I)`$ contain no factors of $`p`$ in the denominators, they can be regarded as elements of the field $`𝐙/p𝐙`$. The following result about length one harmonic sums is well known (cf. , pp. 86-88).

###### Theorem 4.3.

$`\zeta _{p1}(k)0modp`$ for all prime $`p>k+1`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`S=\{1,2\mathrm{},p1\}𝐙/p𝐙`$ be the group of units. For $`cS`$ we have

$$c^k\zeta _{p1}(k)=\underset{aS}{}c^ka^k=\underset{aS}{}(c^1a)^k=\zeta _{p1}(k)\text{in}𝐙/p𝐙$$

since multiplication by any unit of $`𝐙/p𝐙`$ permutes $`S`$, so

$$(c^k1)\zeta _{p1}(k)=0\text{in}𝐙/p𝐙.$$

Choosing $`c1`$, we see that $`\zeta _{p1}(k)=0`$ in $`𝐙/p𝐙`$. ∎

Combining the preceding result with Theorem 4.1 gives the following.

###### Theorem 4.4.

For any composition $`I=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_k)`$ and prime $`p>|I|+1`$,

$$\underset{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_k}{}\zeta _{p1}(\sigma I)\underset{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_k}{}\zeta _{p1}^{}(\sigma I)0modp.$$

In particular it follows that, for $`I=(r,r,\mathrm{},r)`$ ($`k`$ repetitions), we have

$$\zeta _{p1}(I)\zeta _{p1}^{}(I)0modp$$
(15)
for prime $`p>rk+1`$ (cf. Theorem 2.14 of ). There is the following result relating sums associated to $`I`$ and $`\overline{I}`$ (cf. Lemma 3.3 of ).

###### Theorem 4.5.

For any composition $`I`$, $`\zeta _{p1}(I)(1)^{|I|}\zeta _{p1}(\overline{I})modp`$, and similarly $`\zeta _{p1}^{}(I)(1)^{|I|}\zeta _{p1}^{}(\overline{I})modp`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`I=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_k)`$. Working mod $`p`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\zeta _{p1}(I)\underset{p>a_1>\mathrm{}>a_k>0}{}\frac{1}{a_1^{i_1}\mathrm{}a_k^{i_k}}\underset{p>a_1>\mathrm{}>a_k>0}{}\frac{(1)^{i_1+\mathrm{}+i_k}}{(pa_1)^{i_1}\mathrm{}(pa_k)^{i_k}}\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{0<b_1<\mathrm{}<b_k<p}{}\frac{(1)^{i_1+\mathrm{}+i_k}}{b_1^{i_1}\mathrm{}b_k^{i_k}}=(1)^{|I|}\zeta _{p1}(\overline{I}),\end{array}$$

and similarly for $`\zeta _{p1}^{}`$. ∎

An immediate consequence is that $`\zeta _{p1}^{}(I)\zeta _{p1}(I)0modp`$ if $`I=\overline{I}`$ and $`|I|`$ is odd. Another consequence is that $`\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j)\zeta _{p1}(i,j)0modp`$ when $`p>i+j+1`$ and $`i+j`$ is even. This is because

$$\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j)+\zeta _{p1}^{}(j,i)0modp$$

for $`p>i+j+1`$ by Theorem 4.1, while $`\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j)\zeta _{p1}^{}(j,i)modp`$ when $`i+j`$ is even by Theorem 4.5.

We have the following result relating $`\zeta _{p1}^{}(I)`$ and $`\zeta _{p1}^{}(I^{})`$.

###### Theorem 4.6.

$`\zeta _{p1}^{}(I)\zeta _{p1}^{}(I^{})modp`$ for all primes $`p`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`f`$ be a sequence. From the definition of $``$

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }f(n)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{i+1}\right)(1)^if(i),$$

so taking $`n=p1`$ gives

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }f(p1)(1)^{p1}f(p1)f(p1)modp.$$

Now take $`f=\zeta ^{}(I)`$ and apply Theorem 4.2. ∎

Define, for each prime $`p`$, a map $`\chi _p:^1𝐙/p𝐙`$ by $`\chi _p(w)=\rho _{p1}(w)`$. Then we can use the commutative diagram (14) to restate Theorem 4.6 in the following “algebraic” form, which corresponds to the duality theorem for multiple zeta values as formulated in Corollary 6.2 of .

###### Theorem 4.7.

As elements of $`𝐙/p𝐙`$, $`\chi _p(w)=\chi _p(\psi (w))`$ for words $`w`$ of $`^1`$.

For example, since $`\psi (x^2y^3)=x^2y^3xy^4yxy^3y^5`$, we have

$$\zeta _{p1}(3,1,1)\zeta _{p1}(3,1,1)\zeta _{p1}(2,1,1,1)\zeta _{p1}(1,2,1,1)\zeta _{p1}(1,1,1,1,1)modp.$$

(In fact, for $`p>6`$ it follows from Theorem 7.1 below that both sides are congruent mod $`p`$ to $`\frac{1}{2}B_{p5}`$, where $`B_i`$ is the $`i`$th Bernoulli number.)

## 5 Harmonic Sums of Height One

Following the terminology of , we say a word of $`^1`$ of the form $`x^{h1}y^k`$ has height one. We shall call the corresponding multiple harmonic sums $`\zeta _n(h,1,\mathrm{},1)`$ sums of height one. Harmonic sums of this form have a number of special properties, which we discuss in this section.

In this section only we use superscripts for repetition in compositions, so $`(n,1^k)`$ means the composition of weight $`n+k`$ with $`k`$ repetitions of 1. For compositions of this form, we have the following result relating the two kinds of harmonic sums mod $`p`$.

###### Theorem 5.1.

For any prime $`p>k`$,

$$\zeta _{p1}^{}(h,1^{k1})(1)^h\zeta _{p1}(h,1^{k1})modp.$$

###### Proof.

Equate parts (1) and (2) of Theorem 3.1 and apply the homomorphism $`\rho _{p1}`$ to get

$$(1)^{\mathrm{}(I)}\zeta _{p1}^{}(\overline{I})=\underset{I_1\mathrm{}I_l=I}{}(1)^l\zeta _{p1}(I_1)\mathrm{}\zeta _{p1}(I_l)$$
(16)
for any $`p`$. Now set $`I=(1^{k1},h)`$ in equation (16) and reduce both sides mod $`p`$. The hypothesis insures that all terms on the right-hand side are zero mod $`p`$ except the one with $`l=1`$, and so we have

$$(1)^{k1}\zeta _{p1}^{}(h,1^{k1})\zeta _{p1}(1^{k1},h)modp,$$

and the conclusion follows by Theorem 4.5. ∎

Combining the preceding result with the duality theorem gives the following congruence. It can be compared with Theorem 4.4 of , which asserts that $`\zeta (h+1,1^{k1})=\zeta (k+1,1^{h1})`$ for positive integers $`h`$ and $`k`$.

###### Theorem 5.2.

If $`p`$ is a prime with $`p>\mathrm{max}\{k,h\}`$, then

$$\zeta _{p1}(h,1^{k1})\zeta _{p1}(k,1^{h1})modp.$$

###### Proof.

First note that $`(h,1^{k1})^{}=(1^{h1},k)`$. So, combining Theorems 4.6 and 4.5,

$$\zeta _{p1}^{}(h,1^{k1})\zeta _{p1}^{}(1^{h1},k)(1)^{h+k}\zeta _{p1}^{}(k,1^{h1})modp.$$
(17)
Now by the preceding result

$`\zeta _{p1}^{}(h,1^{k1})`$ $`(1)^h\zeta _{p1}(h,1^{k1})modp,`$
$`\zeta _{p1}^{}(k,1^{h1})`$ $`(1)^k\zeta _{p1}(k,1^{h1})modp,`$
so the conclusion follows from congruence (17). ∎

The height one harmonic sums can be written in terms of Stirling numbers. The (unsigned) Stirling numbers of the first kind (Stirling cycle numbers) are given by

$$\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n}{k}\right]=\text{number of permutations of }\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}\text{ with }k\text{ disjoint cycles,}$$

and the Stirling number of the second kind (Stirling subset numbers) are given by

$$\left\{\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n}{k}\right\}=\text{number of partitions of }\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}\text{ with }k\text{ blocks.}$$

For basic properties of Stirling numbers see, e.g., . Note that

$$\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n+1}{k+1}\right]=e_{nk}(1,2,\mathrm{},n),$$

since each side is the coefficient of $`x^k`$ in the expansion of $`x(x+1)\mathrm{}(x+n)`$. Hence

$$\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n+1}{k+1}\right]=n!\underset{nj_1>\mathrm{}>j_{nk}1}{}\frac{j_1\mathrm{}j_{nk}}{n!}=n!\underset{ni_1>\mathrm{}>i_k1}{}\frac{1}{i_1\mathrm{}i_k}=n!\zeta _n(1^k).$$
(18)
An immediate consequence is the following result, which expresses height one sums in terms of Stirling numbers of the first kind.

###### Theorem 5.3.

For positive integers $`h`$, $`k`$, and $`n`$,

$$\zeta _n(h,1^{k1})=\underset{j=k}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{j}{k}\right]}{j^{h1}j!}.$$

###### Proof.

We have

$$\zeta _n(h,1^{k1})=\underset{ni_1>\mathrm{}>i_k1}{}\frac{1}{i_1^hi_2\mathrm{}i_k}=\underset{j=k}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{j^h}\zeta _{j1}(1^{k1})=\underset{j=k}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{j}{k}\right]}{j^h(j1)!}$$

(where we used equation (18) in the last step), from which the conclusion follows. ∎

In doing computations, the following mod $`p`$ result is often useful.

###### Theorem 5.4.

For prime $`p`$ and positive integers $`h,k<p`$,

$$\zeta _{p1}(h,1^{k1})\underset{j=1}{\overset{pk}{}}(1)^j(j)^{ph}(j1)!\left\{\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{pk}{j}\right\}modp.$$

###### Proof.

We start by setting $`n=p1`$ and reversing the order of summation in the preceding result:

$$\zeta _{p1}(h,1^{k1})=\underset{j=1}{\overset{pk}{}}\frac{\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{pj}{k}\right]}{(pj)^{h1}(pj)!}.$$

By Fermat’s theorem, $`(pj)^{1h}(pj)^{ph}(j)^{pj}`$ mod $`p`$. Also, since

$$(1)^{j1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p1}{j1}\right)\frac{(p1)!}{(j1)!(pj)!}modp,$$

it follows that

$$\frac{1}{(pj)!}(1)^j(j1)!modp$$

since $`(p1)!1`$ mod $`p`$ by Wilson’s theorem. Hence

$$\zeta _{p1}(h,1^{k1})\underset{j=1}{\overset{pk}{}}(1)^j(j1)!(j)^{ph}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{pj}{k}\right]modp.$$
(19)
The conclusion then follows from congruence (19) and a mod $`p`$ relation between the two kinds of Stirling numbers:

$$\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n}{k}\right]\left\{\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{pk}{pn}\right\}modp$$

for prime $`p`$ and $`1knp1`$, which follows by induction on $`n`$ using the recurrence relations for the two kinds of Stirling numbers. ∎

## 6 Results for Short Lengths

In this section we prove some results about the sums $`\zeta _{p1}^{}(I)`$ for $`\mathrm{}(I)5`$, which will be useful for the calculations of the next section. (Similar results hold for the $`\zeta _{p1}(I)`$, but the $`\zeta _{p1}^{}(I)`$ are more convenient in view of Theorem 4.6.) Henceforth we will assume that all congruences are mod $`p`$. The following result expresses $`\zeta _{p1}^{}(I)`$ in terms of a Bernoulli number when $`\mathrm{}(I)=2`$ (cf. , Theorem 3.1).

###### Theorem 6.1.

For $`i,j`$ positive and prime $`p>i+j+1`$,

$$\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j)\frac{(1)^i}{i+j}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i+j}{i}\right)B_{pij}.$$

###### Proof.

We use the standard identity expressing sums of powers in terms of Bernoulli numbers (see, e.g., ):

$$\underset{a=1}{\overset{n1}{}}a^r=\frac{1}{r+1}\underset{k=0}{\overset{r}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r+1}{k}\right)B_kn^{r+1k}.$$
(20)
Using Fermat’s theorem and equation (20), we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j)\zeta _{p1}(i,j)=\underset{a=1}{\overset{p1}{}}\frac{1}{a^i}\underset{b=1}{\overset{a1}{}}\frac{1}{b^j}\underset{a=1}{\overset{p1}{}}\frac{1}{a^i}\underset{b=1}{\overset{a1}{}}b^{p1j}\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{a=1}{\overset{p1}{}}\frac{1}{a^j}\frac{1}{pj}\underset{k=0}{\overset{p1j}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{pj}{k}\right)B_ka^{pjk}=\frac{1}{pj}\underset{k=0}{\overset{p1j}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{pj}{k}\right)B_k\underset{a=1}{\overset{p1}{}}a^{pijk}.\end{array}$$

Now $`_{a=1}^{p1}a^{pijk}0`$ unless $`k=pij`$. So the sum reduces to

$$\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j)\frac{1}{pj}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{pj}{pij}\right)B_{pij}(p1)\frac{1}{j}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{pj}{i}\right)B_{pij},$$

from which the conclusion follows. ∎

Since odd Bernoulli numbers are zero, this result implies our earlier observation that $`\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j)0`$ when $`i+j`$ is even. Note also that it implies $`\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,1)B_{p1i}`$ for $`i`$ even, so we can restate it as

$$\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j)\frac{(1)^i}{i+j}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i+j}{i}\right)\zeta _{p1}^{}(i+j1,1),$$
(21)
i.e., all double sums of odd weight $`n`$ can be written in terms of $`\zeta _{p1}^{}(n1,1)`$. In fact, if the weight is odd we can write all triple sums in terms of the same quantity (cf. , Theorem 3.5).

###### Theorem 6.2.

If $`n=i+j+k`$ is odd and $`p>n+1`$, then

$$\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j,k)\frac{1}{2n}\left[(1)^i\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{i}\right)+(1)^{i+j}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{i+j}\right)\right]\zeta _{p1}^{}(n1,1).$$

###### Proof.

From Theorem 3.1 it follows that

$$\zeta _m(I)=\underset{I_1I_2\mathrm{}I_l=I}{}(1)^{\mathrm{}(I)l}\zeta _m^{}(\overline{I}_1)\zeta _m^{}(\overline{I}_2)\mathrm{}\zeta _m^{}(\overline{I}_l)$$
(22)
for any composition $`I`$ and positive integer $`m`$. In particular, for $`\mathrm{}(I)=3`$ we have

$$\zeta _m(i,j,k)=\zeta _m^{}(i)\zeta _m^{}(j)\zeta _m^{}(k)\zeta _m^{}(j,i)\zeta _m^{}(k)\zeta _m^{}(i)\zeta _m^{}(k,j)+\zeta _m^{}(k,j,i).$$

But also, from equation (13),

$$\zeta _m(i,j,k)=\zeta _m^{}(i,j,k)\zeta _m^{}(i+j,k)\zeta _m^{}(i,j+k)+\zeta _m^{}(i+j+k).$$

In the case $`m=p1`$, this gives the congruence

$$\zeta _{p1}^{}(k,j,i)\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j,k)\zeta _{p1}^{}(i+j,k)\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j+k),$$

using Theorem 4.3, and if in addition $`i+j+k`$ is odd, we have

$$2\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j,k)\zeta _{p1}^{}(i+j,k)+\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j+k)$$

from Theorem 4.5. Now use congruence (21). ∎

For a composition $`I=(i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_k)`$ of odd weight and length $`k>1`$ it is convenient to define

$$C(I)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{k1}{}}(1)^{i_1+\mathrm{}+i_j}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{|I|}{i_1+\mathrm{}+i_j}\right),$$
(23)
so Theorem 6.2 says that

$$\zeta _{p1}^{}(I)\frac{1}{2n}C(I)\zeta _{p1}^{}(n1,1)$$

when $`n=|I|`$ is odd and $`\mathrm{}(I)=3`$. It is easy to show that the function $`C`$ mirrors the properties of $`\zeta _{p1}^{}`$ with regard to reversal and duality, i.e., $`C(\overline{I})=C(I)`$ and $`C(I^{})=C(I)`$.

In the even-weight case, we can express all length-4 sums in terms of triple sums and products of lower-weight sums as follows.

###### Theorem 6.3.

If $`n=i+j+k+l`$ is even and $`p>n+1`$, then

$$\begin{array}{c}2\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j,k,l)\zeta _{p1}^{}(i+j,k,l)+\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j+k,l)\hfill \\ \hfill +\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j,k+l)+\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j)\zeta _{p1}^{}(k,l).\end{array}$$

###### Proof.

From equation (22) with $`\mathrm{}(I)=4`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}\zeta _m(i,j,k,l)=\zeta _m^{}(l,k,j,i)+\zeta _m^{}(i)\zeta _m^{}(l,j,k)+\zeta _m^{}(j,i)\zeta _m^{}(l,k)+\zeta _m^{}(k,j,i)\zeta _m^{}(k)\hfill \\ \hfill \zeta _m^{}(i)\zeta _m^{}(j)\zeta _m^{}(l,k)\zeta _m^{}(i)\zeta _m^{}(k,j)\zeta _m^{}(l)\zeta _m^{}(j,i)\zeta _m^{}(k)\zeta _m^{}(l)+\zeta _m^{}(i)\zeta _m^{}(j)\zeta _m^{}(k)\zeta _m^{}(l).\end{array}$$

Set $`m=p1`$ and reduce mod $`p`$ to get

$$\zeta _{p1}(i,j,k,l)\zeta _{p1}^{}(l,k,j,i)+\zeta _{p1}^{}(j,i)\zeta _{p1}^{}(l,k).$$

But equation (13) gives, after reduction mod $`p`$,

$$\zeta _{p1}(i,j,k,l)\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j,k,l)\zeta _{p1}^{}(i+j,k,l)\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j+k,l)\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j,k+l),$$

and the conclusion follows by the use of Theorem 4.5. ∎

If we specialize the preceding result to the case $`k=i,l=j`$, we have

$$2\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j,i,j)\zeta _{p1}^{}(i+j,i,j)+\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,i+j,j)+\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j,i+j)+\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j)^2.$$

But the sum of the first three terms on the right-hand side is zero mod $`p`$ by Theorem 4.4, so

$$2\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j,i,j)\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j)^2.$$
(24)
We note that we also have $`\zeta _{p1}(i,j,i,j)\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j,i,j)`$, which follows from equation (13), Theorem 4.4, and the comments following Theorem 4.5. If $`i`$ and $`j`$ have the same parity, then $`i+j`$ is even and the right-hand side of (24) is zero mod $`p`$ by Theorem 4.5, so in this case

$$\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j,i,j)\zeta _{p1}(i,j,i,j)0.$$

Cf. Theorem 3.18 of .

It is evident that the ideas of the two preceding results can be used to write $`\zeta _{p1}^{}(I)`$, where $`|I|`$ and $`\mathrm{}(I)`$ are of the same parity, in terms of sums of shorter lengths, together with products of sums of lower weight. We state one more result of this type, since we need it for our computations in weight 9; we omit the proof, which is straightforward.

###### Theorem 6.4.

If $`I=(i,j,k,l,m)`$ is a composition of odd weight $`n`$ and $`p>n+1`$, then

$$\begin{array}{c}2\zeta _{p1}^{}(I)\zeta _{p1}^{}(i+j,k,l,m)+\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j+k,l,m)+\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j,k+l,m)+\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j,k,l+m)\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{2n}C(I)\zeta _{p1}^{}(n1,1)+\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j)\zeta _{p1}^{}(k,l,m)+\zeta _{p1}^{}(i,j,k)\zeta _{p1}^{}(l,m),\end{array}$$

where $`C(I)`$ is given by equation (23).

## 7 Calculations in Low Weights

In this section, we find, for $`n9`$, sets of quantities that generate all multiple harmonic sums $`\zeta _{p1}^{}(I)`$ of weight $`n`$ mod $`p`$ when $`p>n+1`$. In fact, all our generators will be sums of the form $`\zeta _{p1}^{}(2h,1,\mathrm{},1)`$ ($`\zeta _{p1}(2h,1,\mathrm{},1)`$ by Theorem 5.1), or products of such sums. To make the notation less cumbersome we will use an abbreviated form in referring to specific sums, e.g., we write $`\zeta _{221}^{}`$ instead of $`\zeta _{p1}^{}(2,2,1)`$. We will also assume that $`p>|I|+1`$ in considering any sum $`\zeta _{p1}^{}(I)`$.

The congruence (15) implies $`\zeta _{p1}^{}(I)0`$ when $`I`$ has length 1 or $`|I|`$, so the only sums $`\zeta _{p1}^{}(I)`$ with $`|I|3`$ that are (possibly) nonzero mod $`p`$ are $`\zeta _{21}^{}B_{p3}`$ and $`\zeta _{12}^{}B_{p3}`$. Now $`p`$ divides the numerator of $`B_{p3}`$ only for certain irregular primes $`p`$, the only examples with $`p<1.2\times 10^7`$ being $`p=16,843`$ and $`p=2,124,679`$ .

For $`I`$ of weight 4 we have $`\zeta _{p1}^{}(I)0`$; this follows from congruence (15) if $`\mathrm{}(I)=1`$ or 4, by the remarks following Theorem 4.5 if $`\mathrm{}(I)=2`$, and by duality if $`\mathrm{}(I)=3`$ (since in that case $`\mathrm{}(I^{})=2`$).

In weight 5, it suffices by duality to consider $`\zeta _{p1}^{}(I)`$ with $`\mathrm{}(I)3`$. Theorems 6.1 and 6.2 give the following result, which implies that all weight 5 sums vanish mod $`p`$ if and only if $`p`$ divides the numerator of $`B_{p5}`$; the only known $`p`$ for which this happens is $`p=37`$, and this is the only such $`p<1.2\times 10^7`$ .

###### Theorem 7.1.

All $`\zeta _{p1}^{}(I)`$ with $`|I|=5`$ are multiples of $`\zeta _{41}^{}B_{p5}`$. In particular, $`\zeta _{32}^{}2\zeta _{41}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{311}^{}\frac{1}{2}\zeta _{41}^{}`$, and $`\zeta _{221}^{}\frac{3}{2}\zeta _{41}^{}`$.

For $`|I|=6`$, it follows from the remarks after Theorem 4.5 and duality that $`\zeta _{p1}^{}(I)0`$ unless $`\mathrm{}(I)=3`$ or 4. By duality it suffices to consider length 3. Here we have the following result, which implies that all harmonic sums of weight 6 vanish if and only if $`p`$ divides $`B_{p3}`$.

###### Theorem 7.2.

All the $`\zeta _{p1}^{}(I)`$ with $`|I|=6`$ are multiples of $`\zeta _{411}^{}\frac{1}{6}B_{p3}^2`$. In particular, $`\zeta _{141}^{}2\zeta _{411}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{312}^{}\zeta _{411}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{321}^{}2\zeta _{411}^{}`$, and $`\zeta _{231}^{}3\zeta _{411}^{}`$.

###### Proof.

From Theorem 4.4, the symmetric sum

$$\zeta _{411}^{}+\zeta _{141}^{}+\zeta _{114}^{}2\zeta _{411}^{}+\zeta _{141}^{}$$

is congruent to zero, from which the statement about $`\zeta _{141}^{}`$ follows. For the same reason

$$\zeta _{3111}^{}+\zeta _{1311}^{}+\zeta _{1131}^{}+\zeta _{1113}^{}2\zeta _{3111}^{}+2\zeta _{1311}^{}$$

is congruent to zero; applying duality, we get $`\zeta _{411}^{}+\zeta _{312}^{}0`$. Theorem 4.4 also gives

$$\zeta _{321}^{}+\zeta _{231}^{}\zeta _{312}^{}\zeta _{411}^{}$$
(25)
Now multiplying in $`\mathrm{QSym}`$ and reducing mod $`p`$, we have

$$0\zeta _1^{}\zeta _{221}^{}\zeta _{1221}^{}+\zeta _{2121}^{}+2\zeta _{2211}^{}\zeta _{321}^{}\zeta _{231}^{}\zeta _{222}^{}\zeta _{2121}^{}+2\zeta _{2211}^{}\zeta _{321}^{}\zeta _{231}^{}.$$

Apply duality (and Theorem 4.5) to obtain from this

$$3\zeta _{321}^{}+2\zeta _{231}^{}0,$$
(26)
and solve congruences (25) and (26) to obtain $`\zeta _{321}^{}`$ and $`\zeta _{231}^{}`$ in terms of $`\zeta _{411}^{}`$.

Finally, $`\zeta _{2121}^{}\frac{1}{2}(\zeta _{21}^{})^2`$ by congruence (24), while from duality we have $`\zeta _{2121}^{}\zeta _{231}^{}`$. Since we’ve already shown $`\zeta _{231}^{}3\zeta _{411}^{}`$, the congruence $`(\zeta _{21}^{})^26\zeta _{411}^{}`$ follows. ∎

In weight 7, we need only consider sums of length 4 or less. By Theorems 6.1 and 6.2 we can express all sums of length 2 and 3 in terms of $`\zeta _{61}^{}B_{p7}`$, as follows.

$`\zeta _{52}^{}`$ $`3\zeta _{61}^{}`$ (27)
$`\zeta _{43}^{}`$ $`5\zeta _{61}^{}`$ (28)
$`\zeta _{511}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{61}^{}`$ (29)
$`\zeta _{421}^{}`$ $`3\zeta _{61}^{}`$ (30)
$`\zeta _{412}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{61}^{}`$ (31)
$`\zeta _{241}^{}`$ $`2\zeta _{61}^{}`$ (32)
$`\zeta _{331}^{}`$ $`2\zeta _{61}^{}`$ (33)
$`\zeta _{322}^{}`$ $`4\zeta _{61}^{}`$ (34)
For the length 4 sums we have the following result.

###### Theorem 7.3.

The length 4 harmonic sums of weight 7 can be written in terms of $`\zeta _{61}^{}B_{p7}`$ and $`\zeta _{4111}^{}`$. In particular $`\zeta _{3121}^{}\zeta _{2221}^{}\zeta _{4111}^{}`$, and

$`\zeta _{1411}^{}`$ $`3\zeta _{61}^{}3\zeta _{4111}^{}`$
$`\zeta _{1321}^{}`$ $`9\zeta _{61}^{}3\zeta _{4111}^{}`$
$`\zeta _{1312}^{}`$ $`9\zeta _{61}^{}+5\zeta _{4111}^{}`$
$`\zeta _{3211}^{}`$ $`6\zeta _{61}^{}+\zeta _{4111}^{}.`$
###### Proof.

Duality gives $`\zeta _{1411}^{}\zeta _{3112}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{3121}^{}\zeta _{2311}^{}`$, and $`\zeta _{2212}^{}\zeta _{1321}^{}`$. Thus, it suffices to consider the seven length-four sums $`\zeta _{4111}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{1411}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{3121}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{2212}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{1312}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{2221}^{}`$, and $`\zeta _{3211}^{}`$. We can obtain relations among these sums and $`\zeta _{61}^{}`$ by multiplying lower-weight sums in $`\mathrm{QSym}`$, reducing mod $`p`$, and then applying congruences (27-34) above to get all terms of length three or less in terms of $`\zeta _{61}^{}`$. For example, multiplying $`\zeta _1^{}`$ by $`\zeta _{411}^{}`$ gives

$$3\zeta _{61}^{}\zeta _{1411}^{}+3\zeta _{4111}^{}.$$
(35)
Similarly, consideration of the products $`\zeta _2^{}\zeta _{311}^{}`$, $`\zeta _2^{}\zeta _{221}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{21}^{}\zeta _{31}^{}`$, and $`\zeta _{11}^{}\zeta _{32}^{}`$ gives respectively

$`3\zeta _{61}^{}`$ $`2\zeta _{3121}^{}+\zeta _{3211}^{}+\zeta _{1411}^{}`$ (36)
$`9\zeta _{61}^{}`$ $`3\zeta _{2221}^{}+\zeta _{2212}^{}`$ (37)
$`3\zeta _{61}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{1312}^{}+3\zeta _{3121}^{}+2\zeta _{3211}^{}`$ (38)
$`3\zeta _{61}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{1411}^{}+\zeta _{2212}^{}+\zeta _{1312}^{}+\zeta _{3211}^{}.`$ (39)
Finally, multiplying $`\zeta _1^{}`$ by $`\zeta _{3111}^{}`$ and using duality gives

$$3\zeta _{61}^{}\zeta _{4111}^{}+\zeta _{1411}^{}+\zeta _{3211}^{}+\zeta _{3121}^{}$$
(40)
The six congruences (35-40) can then be solved for $`\zeta _{61}^{}`$ and $`\zeta _{4111}^{}`$ to obtain the conclusion. ∎

###### Remark.

In fact, there is an additional congruence $`\zeta _{4111}^{}\frac{27}{16}\zeta _{61}^{}`$ found by Kh. Hessami Pilehrood, T. Hessami Pilehrood, and R. Tauraso . Hence all quantities in weight 7 are multiples of $`\zeta _{61}^{}B_{p7}`$.

In weight 8, it suffices by duality to consider $`I`$ with $`\mathrm{}(I)4`$. By Theorem 6.3, we can write all length 4 sums in terms of triple sums and $`\zeta _{41}^{}\zeta _{21}^{}`$, and of course all double sums are zero. So it is enough to consider length 3, where we have the following result.

###### Theorem 7.4.

All length 3, weight 8 sums can be written in terms of $`\zeta _{611}^{}`$ and $`\zeta _{41}^{}\zeta _{21}^{}B_{p5}B_{p3}`$. In particular,

$`\zeta _{521}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{611}^{}+\zeta _{41}^{}\zeta _{21}^{}`$ (41)
$`\zeta _{512}^{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(7\zeta _{611}^{}\zeta _{41}^{}\zeta _{21}^{})`$ (42)
$`\zeta _{431}^{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(25\zeta _{611}^{}9\zeta _{41}^{}\zeta _{21}^{})`$ (43)
$`\zeta _{413}^{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(5\zeta _{611}^{}+\zeta _{41}^{}\zeta _{21}^{})`$ (44)
$`\zeta _{332}^{}\zeta _{422}^{}`$ $`10\zeta _{611}^{}+2\zeta _{41}^{}\zeta _{21}^{}.`$ (45)
###### Proof.

Consideration of the products $`\zeta _1^{}\zeta _{211111}^{}0`$ and $`\zeta _1^{}\zeta _{121111}^{}0`$, using duality, gives respectively

$`\zeta _{611}^{}+\zeta _{521}^{}+\zeta _{431}^{}+\zeta _{341}^{}+\zeta _{251}^{}+\zeta _{161}^{}`$ $`0,`$ (46)
$`\zeta _{521}^{}+\zeta _{512}^{}+\zeta _{422}^{}+\zeta _{332}^{}+\zeta _{242}^{}+\zeta _{152}^{}`$ $`0.`$ (47)
Now from symmetry (Theorem 4.4), $`\zeta _{161}^{}=2\zeta _{611}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{251}^{}\zeta _{521}^{}\zeta _{512}^{}`$, and $`\zeta _{341}^{}\zeta _{431}^{}\zeta _{413}^{}`$. Using these facts, congruences (46-47) reduce to

$`\zeta _{413}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{611}^{}\zeta _{512}^{},`$ (48)
$`\zeta _{332}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{422}^{}.`$ (49)
Now consider the product $`\zeta _1^{}\zeta _{31111}^{}0`$. Using duality, this gives

$$5\zeta _{611}^{}+\zeta _{512}^{}\zeta _{4211}^{}+\zeta _{3311}^{}+\zeta _{2311}^{}.$$

Using Theorem 6.3, the right-hand side can be expressed in terms of triple sums and $`\zeta _{41}^{}\zeta _{21}^{}`$, and then applying the preceding relations we obtain

$$\zeta _{521}^{}6\zeta _{611}^{}2\zeta _{512}^{}.$$
(50)
Applying similar techniques to the product $`\zeta _2^{}\zeta _{2111}^{}`$ and using congruences (48-50) gives congruences (41), (42), and (44).

Finally, using duality on the product $`\zeta _2^{}\zeta _{2112}^{}0`$ gives

$$04\zeta _{1421}^{}+2\zeta _{4112}^{}+2\zeta _{2312}^{}+\zeta _{1331}^{}.$$

Now rewrite this using Theorem 6.3 and apply the previously established relations to obtain (43); congruence (45) then follows. ∎

###### Remark.

It cannot be the case that $`\zeta _{611}^{}=u\zeta _{41}^{}\zeta _{21}^{}`$, where $`u`$ is a unit of $`𝐙/p𝐙`$ for all $`p>9`$, since when $`p=37`$ we have $`\zeta _{611}^{}7`$ and $`\zeta _{41}^{}0`$.

For sums of weight 9, duality allows us to restrict attention to $`\zeta _{p1}^{}(I)`$ with $`\mathrm{}(I)5`$. Using Theorem 6.4 (and Theorem 7.2), we can rewrite the length 5 sums in terms of length 4 sums, $`\zeta _{81}^{}`$, and the product $`\zeta _{411}^{}\zeta _{21}^{}`$. So it is enough to consider the sums $`\zeta _{p1}^{}(I)`$ with $`\mathrm{}(I)=4`$, for which we have the following result.

###### Theorem 7.5.

All length 4, weight 9 harmonic sums can be written in terms of the three quantities $`\zeta _{6111}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{81}^{}B_{p9}`$, and $`\zeta _{21}^{}\zeta _{411}^{}\frac{1}{6}B_{p3}^3`$. In particular,

$`\zeta _{1611}^{}`$ $`3\zeta _{6111}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{19}{3}}\zeta _{81}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{5211}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{6111}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{310}{27}}\zeta _{81}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\zeta _{21}^{}\zeta _{411}^{}`$
$`\zeta _{5112}^{}`$ $`4\zeta _{6111}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{190}{27}}\zeta _{81}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\zeta _{21}^{}\zeta _{411}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{5121}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{6111}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{70}{27}}\zeta _{81}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\zeta _{21}^{}\zeta _{411}^{}`$
$`\zeta _{2511}^{}`$ $`2\zeta _{6111}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{89}{27}}\zeta _{81}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\zeta _{21}^{}\zeta _{411}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{2151}^{}`$ $`7\zeta _{6111}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{544}{27}}\zeta _{81}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\zeta _{21}^{}\zeta _{411}^{}`$
$`\zeta _{1521}^{}`$ $`3\zeta _{6111}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{137}{9}}\zeta _{81}^{}\zeta _{21}^{}\zeta _{411}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{4311}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{6111}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{13}{3}}\zeta _{81}^{}`$
$`\zeta _{4131}^{}`$ $`6\zeta _{6111}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{56}{3}}\zeta _{81}^{}\zeta _{21}^{}\zeta _{411}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{4113}^{}`$ $`7\zeta _{6111}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{133}{9}}\zeta _{81}^{}+\zeta _{21}^{}\zeta _{411}^{}`$
$`\zeta _{3411}^{}`$ $`2\zeta _{6111}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{20}{9}}\zeta _{81}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{3141}^{}`$ $`8\zeta _{6111}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{182}{9}}\zeta _{81}^{}+\zeta _{21}^{}\zeta _{411}^{}`$
$`\zeta _{1431}^{}`$ $`4\zeta _{6111}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{64}{3}}\zeta _{81}^{}+\zeta _{21}^{}\zeta _{411}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{4221}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{6111}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{82}{27}}\zeta _{81}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\zeta _{21}^{}\zeta _{411}^{}`$
$`\zeta _{4212}^{}`$ $`4\zeta _{6111}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{617}{27}}\zeta _{81}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\zeta _{21}^{}\zeta _{411}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{4122}^{}`$ $`3\zeta _{6111}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{370}{27}}\zeta _{81}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\zeta _{21}^{}\zeta _{411}^{}`$
$`\zeta _{2421}^{}`$ $`2\zeta _{6111}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{124}{27}}\zeta _{81}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\zeta _{21}^{}\zeta _{411}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{2412}^{}`$ $`2\zeta _{6111}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{110}{9}}\zeta _{81}^{}`$
$`\zeta _{2241}^{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{122}{27}}\zeta _{81}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\zeta _{21}^{}\zeta _{411}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{3321}^{}`$ $`2\zeta _{6111}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{290}{27}}\zeta _{81}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\zeta _{21}^{}\zeta _{411}^{}`$
$`\zeta _{3312}^{}`$ $`2\zeta _{6111}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{289}{27}}\zeta _{81}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\zeta _{21}^{}\zeta _{411}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{3231}^{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{292}{27}}\zeta _{81}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\zeta _{21}^{}\zeta _{411}^{}`$
$`\zeta _{2331}^{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\zeta _{81}^{}\zeta _{21}^{}\zeta _{411}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{3213}^{}`$ $`4\zeta _{6111}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{64}{3}}\zeta _{81}^{}`$
$`\zeta _{3132}^{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{43}{27}}\zeta _{81}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\zeta _{21}^{}\zeta _{411}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{2322}^{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{28}{3}}\zeta _{81}^{}`$
$`\zeta _{3222}^{}`$ $`6\zeta _{81}^{}.`$
###### Proof.

There are 56 length-4 sums, but by reversal (Theorem 4.5) we can reduce to 28 of them. Next we go from 28 length-4 sums to 14 length-4 sums, together with $`\zeta _{81}^{}`$, by considering various products in $`\mathrm{QSym}`$. For example, from the products $`\zeta _1^{}\zeta _{422}^{}`$, $`\zeta _2^{}\zeta _{421}^{}`$, and $`\zeta _2^{}\zeta _{412}^{}`$ respectively, we obtain the relations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{23}{3}}\zeta _{81}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{2241}^{}+\zeta _{4122}^{}+\zeta _{4212}^{}+\zeta _{4221}^{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{73}{3}}\zeta _{81}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{2421}^{}+2\zeta _{4221}^{}+\zeta _{4212}^{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{23}{3}}\zeta _{81}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{2412}^{}+\zeta _{4212}^{}+2\zeta _{4122}^{}`$
which we can use to write $`\zeta _{2241}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{2421}^{}`$, and $`\zeta _{2412}^{}`$ in terms of $`\zeta _{4221}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{4212}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{4122}^{}`$, and $`\zeta _{81}^{}`$. Similarly, we eliminate $`\zeta _{1611}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{2511}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{2151}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{1521}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{3411}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{3141}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{1431}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{2331}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{3213}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{3132}^{}`$, and $`\zeta _{2322}^{}`$. Now we consider the eight products $`\zeta _1^{}\zeta _{311111}^{}`$, $`\zeta _1^{}\zeta _{221111}^{}`$, $`\zeta _1^{}\zeta _{131111}^{}`$, $`\zeta _1^{}\zeta _{113111}^{}`$, $`\zeta _1^{}\zeta _{212111}^{}`$, $`\zeta _1^{}\zeta _{211211}^{}`$, $`\zeta _1^{}\zeta _{211121}^{}`$, and $`\zeta _1^{}\zeta _{122111}^{}`$. Using duality and rewriting in terms of our 14 length-4 sums, we have the relations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{28}{3}}\zeta _{81}^{}`$ $`2\zeta _{6111}^{}+\zeta _{5121}^{}+\zeta _{5112}^{}+\zeta _{4131}^{}+\zeta _{4113}^{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{11}{3}}\zeta _{81}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{5211}^{}+\zeta _{4221}^{}+\zeta _{4212}^{}\zeta _{3321}^{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{29}{3}}\zeta _{81}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{5112}^{}2\zeta _{4122}^{}+\zeta _{3312}^{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{61}{3}}\zeta _{81}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{4113}^{}+\zeta _{4122}^{}+2\zeta _{3312}^{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\zeta _{81}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{4311}^{}\zeta _{4221}^{}+\zeta _{3321}^{}+\zeta _{3312}^{}`$
$`11\zeta _{81}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{4113}^{}+\zeta _{3141}^{}+\zeta _{4311}^{}+\zeta _{3321}^{}+\zeta _{3231}^{}+\zeta _{4122}^{}+\zeta _{4212}^{}+\zeta _{4221}^{}`$
$`13\zeta _{81}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{5211}^{}+\zeta _{5112}^{}+\zeta _{5121}^{}+\zeta _{4122}^{}\zeta _{4221}^{}\zeta _{3231}^{}\zeta _{3321}^{}\zeta _{3312}^{}`$
$`6\zeta _{81}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{3222}^{}.`$
We can use these congruences to solve for all the length-4 sums in terms of the seven quantities $`\zeta _{81}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{6111}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{5211}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{5112}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{5121}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{4311}^{}`$, and $`\zeta _{4221}^{}`$.

From duality, $`\zeta _{41211}^{}\zeta _{33111}^{}`$. Expanding out both sides using Theorem 6.4, we obtain the congruence

$$\zeta _{5211}^{}+\zeta _{4311}^{}+\zeta _{4131}^{}+\zeta _{4122}^{}\zeta _{6111}^{}+\zeta _{3411}^{}+\zeta _{3321}^{}+\zeta _{3312}^{},$$

which (after rewriting in terms of our seven chosen quantities), allows us to solve for $`\zeta _{4221}^{}`$ in terms of the remaining six quantities. Now apply Theorem 6.4 similarly to the duality relations $`\zeta _{41112}^{}\zeta _{15111}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{12411}^{}\zeta _{31122}^{}`$, and $`\zeta _{21411}^{}\zeta _{31131}^{}`$ to obtain respectively

$`\zeta _{4311}^{}+2\zeta _{5121}^{}+\zeta _{5211}^{}2\zeta _{61111}^{}+21\zeta _{81}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{21}^{}\zeta _{411}^{}`$ (51)
$`3\zeta _{4311}^{}\zeta _{5121}^{}+4\zeta _{5211}^{}6\zeta _{61111}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{91}{3}}\zeta _{81}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{21}^{}\zeta _{411}^{}`$ (52)
$`3\zeta _{4311}^{}+2\zeta _{5121}^{}+\zeta _{5211}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{89}{3}}\zeta _{81}^{}`$ $`\zeta _{21}^{}\zeta _{411}^{}.`$ (53)
Add 3 times congruence (51) to congruence (52), and compare the resulting expression for $`\zeta _{21}^{}\zeta _{411}^{}`$ with that obtained by adding congruence (53) to (52); the result is

$$\zeta _{5121}^{}\zeta _{5211}^{}+\frac{80}{9}\zeta _{81}^{}.$$
(54)
Next substitute congruence (54) into the result of subtracting congruence (52) from (51) to get

$$\zeta _{4311}^{}\zeta _{6111}^{}+\frac{13}{3}\zeta _{81}^{}.$$
(55)
Using congruences (54) and (55), any of the congruences (51-53) can be used to write $`\zeta _{5211}^{}`$ in terms of $`\zeta _{6111}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{81}^{}`$, and $`\zeta _{21}^{}\zeta _{411}^{}`$.

Finally, consideration of the product $`\zeta _{11}^{}\zeta _{2221}^{}`$ gives the relation

$$\begin{array}{c}3\zeta _{3231}^{}+3\zeta _{3321}^{}+3\zeta _{4221}^{}+2\zeta _{3222}^{}+2\zeta _{2331}^{}+\zeta _{2241}^{}+\zeta _{2421}^{}\hfill \\ \hfill 3\zeta _{31221}^{}+3\zeta _{32121}^{}+2\zeta _{32211}^{}+2\zeta _{22131}^{}+\zeta _{21231}^{}+\zeta _{23121}^{},\end{array}$$

which can be used to write $`\zeta _{5112}^{}`$ in terms of $`\zeta _{6111}^{}`$, $`\zeta _{81}^{}`$, and $`\zeta _{21}^{}\zeta _{411}^{}`$. ∎

###### Remarks.

1. The only primes $`p<1.2\times 10^7`$ with $`B_{p9}0`$ are $`p=67`$ and $`p=877`$ . Here is a table of the values of our generators at these primes, and at $`p=16,843`$, computed using Mathematica and Theorem 5.4.

| $`p`$ | 67 | 877 | 16,843 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\zeta _{6111}^{}`$ | 7 | 253 | 16,690 |
| $`\zeta _{81}^{}`$ | 0 | 0 | 14,820 |
| $`\zeta _{21}^{}\zeta _{411}^{}`$ | 4 | 354 | 0 |

2. J. Zhao conjectured that

$$\zeta _{6111}^{}\frac{1}{9}\zeta _{21}^{}\zeta _{411}^{}+\frac{1889}{648}\zeta _{81}^{}$$

(see \[32, Prop. 3.12\]). This conjecture is consistent with the data in the preceding remark.

3. The congruence of the preceding remark is indeed true .


format: text

text:
# Quantum partial teleportation as optimal cloning at a distance

## I Introduction

One from main tasks of quantum information processing is how to optimally distribute an unknown quantum state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of a qubit to another distant qubit. A perfect quantum teleportation teleth  where Alice completely transmits unknown qubit state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ to distant Bob’s qubit, is a particular example of this task. As a resource, they share a pair of qubits in a maximally entangled state which can be distributed apriori and then, in advantage, they perform only local operations and classical communication (LOCC) in an actual time of the state transmission. After this complete quantum teleportation, Alice has no information about input qubit state. A conditional version of qubit teleportation of a polarization state of photon was experimentally demonstrated using a simple Bell-state analyzer based on balanced beam splitter teleexp . Recently, also conditional long-distance quantum teleportation of a time-bin qubit in telecommunication fibers has been realized Marcikic03 .

In this paper, we extend the conditional teleportation scheme to partial optimal teleportation of single replica of unknown qubit state. The partial teleportation means that Alice preserves an imperfect copy $`\rho _S`$ of input state and Bob obtains the other imperfect copy $`\rho _S^{}`$. In the partial teleportation the fidelities of copies $`F_S=\mathrm{\Psi }|\rho _S|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`F_S^{}=\mathrm{\Psi }|\rho _S^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ can be controled by an asymmetry in the Bell state measurement. The optimality in this case says that for a given fidelity of Alice’s copy with initial state, Bob cannot in principle obtain a higher fidelity of his copy. This extension of teleportation can be straightforwardly implement into the recent conditional teleportation experiments teleexp , using the Bell-state analyzer beam splitter or fiber coupler with a variable reflectivity. Further, we propose a scheme for teleportation from $`N`$ identical replicas of a qubit state to a single distant copy.

The partial transmission of a quantum state is dissimilar to classical information processing because perfect cloning of an unknown quantum state is impossible nocloning . Thus the fidelities of the copies after the partial teleportation are limited by the fidelities in optimal quantum cloning. Previously, universal symmetric optimal quantum cloners were theoretically proposed to locally distribute an unknown pure quantum state of a qubit to the copies cloningth1 ; Gisin97 ; cloningth2 ; Bruss98 ; cloningth3  and were also realized experimentally symmclonexp . To locally duplicate an unknown quantum state of a qubit with unbalanced fidelities, the asymmetric quantum cloners were theoretically discussed asymmclonth . The asymmetric $`12`$ optimal cloning produces two copies from a single replica of an unknown state and obtained state-independent fidelities $`F_S`$ and $`F_S^{}`$ of the copies saturate cloning inequality asymmclonth

$$(1F_S)(1F_S^{})(1/2(1F_S)(1F_S^{}))^2.$$
(1)
This inequality sets the tightest no-cloning bound on fidelities of $`12`$ cloning device that duplicates an unknown qubit state to another qubit with isotropic noise. Thus if the equality occurs in (1) then for given fidelity $`F_S`$ one cannot obtained a better fidelity $`F_S^{}`$. Previously experimentally performed symmetric quantum cloning with identical fidelities $`F_{S,S^{}}=5/6`$ arises as a particular case. An enhancement of the fidelities $`F_S^{}=5/6`$ of a single additional copy can be obtained only if we have $`N>1`$ identical replicas of the input state and implement symmetric $`NN+1`$ cloning Gisin97 ; Bruss98 . Then a single additional copy of quantum state can be produced with fidelity

$$F_{NN+1}=\frac{(N+1)^2+N}{(N+1)(N+2)},$$
(2)
which approaches unity as the number $`N`$ of replicas increases. From the point of view of quantum cloning, the schemes proposed below can be also reviewed as a conditional implementation of optimal universal quantum cloning at a distance. These proposal can be also view as a new tele-cloning procedure in comparison with Ref. telecl .

The paper is organized as follows. In the Sec. II, we design the partial conditional teleportation scheme and prove that it represents optimal asymmetric $`12`$ cloning at a distance. We also discuss local implementation of U-NOT gate, LOCC reversibility of partial teleportation and the sequential partial teleportation. Further, in Sec. III the partial conditional symmetric $`NN+1`$ teleportation is described and it is proved that it produces $`N+1`$ copies with optimal fidelities. Simultaneously, this scheme locally realizes optimal U-NOT gate for $`N`$ multiple replicas of input state. In the last Sec. IV experimental implementations of these schemes for the polarization and time-bin qubits are shortly discussed.

## II Optimal $`12`$ asymmetric cloning at a distance

A schematic setup for partial conditional teleportation of a qubit is depicted in Fig. 1. In fact, this is a feasible modification of the previous experiment on teleportation of a polarization state of photon teleexp . It is based on conditional and partial Bell-state measurement which can be simply implemented by an unbalanced beam splitter with a variable reflectivity $`R`$, $`0R1/2`$. After mixing two photons $`S,I`$ on beam splitter we restrict our teleportation only to such cases when both photons leave the beam splitter separately. Then we may effectively describe the unbalanced beam splitter by the following transformation:

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }_{SI}`$ $``$ $`(TR)|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }_{SI},`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }_{}_{SI}`$ $``$ $`T|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }_{}_{SI}R|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{SI},`$ (3)
which corresponds to the projection

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{SI}^{}(R)=\left((12R)1_S1_I+2R|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}_{SI}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}|\right)$$
(4)
on input polarization state of two photons. Assuming that entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}_{IS^{}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|VH_{IS^{}}|HV_{IS^{}})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }_{}_{IS^{}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{IS^{}})`$ is shared by Alice and Bob, we can prove that Alice can conditionally perform partial teleportation of an unknown qubit state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_S`$ to Bob. Performing projective measurement $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{SI}^{}(R)1_S^{}`$ on a state of total system $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_S|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}_{IS^{}}`$ we obtain the following local states of clones $`S,S^{}`$ and anti-clone $`I`$

$`\rho _{S,S^{}}(R)`$ $`=`$ $`F_{S,S^{}}(R)|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|+(1F_{S,S^{}}(R))|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}|,`$
$`\rho _I(R)`$ $`=`$ $`(1F_I(R))|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|+F_I(R)|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}|`$
with the following fidelities:

$`F_S(R)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2P(R)}}\left((12R)^2+(1R)^2\right),`$
$`F_S^{}(R)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2P(R)}}\left(R^2+(1R)^2\right),F_I(R)={\displaystyle \frac{(1R)^2}{2P(R)}},`$
where $`P(R)=13R+3R^2`$. It can be proved that the fidelities $`F_S`$ and $`F_S^{}`$ saturate the inequality (1) and therefore the distribution of input state between clone $`S`$ and distant clone $`S^{}`$ is optimal. The symmetric distribution can be obtained for the reflectivity $`R=1/3`$. In this case we also obtain optimal U-NOT gate with fidelity $`F_{UNOT}=2/3`$ if we take the anticlone $`I`$ as output of the U-NOT. This U-NOT optimally approximates a transformation $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$ U-NOT , only by mixing the input state with the random mixed state on unbalanced beam splitter with $`R=1/3`$.

Now we show that we can probabilistically transform any asymmetric cloner with $`R,T0`$ to complete conditional teleportation with unit fidelity only by local measurements on Alice’s clone and ancilla, classical communication with Bob and state filtration on Bob’s qubit. Assuming input state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_S=\alpha |V_S+\beta |H_S`$, the state after projection (4) can be expanded in the following way:

$`\alpha (12R)|VVH_{SIS^{}}\beta (12R)|HHV_{SIS^{}}`$
$`\alpha (1R)|VHV_{SIS^{}}+\alpha R|HVV_{SIS^{}}+`$
$`\beta (1R)|HVH_{SIS^{}}\beta R|VHH_{SIS^{}}.`$ (7)
Generalizing an idea of the state restoration from Ref. (Bruss01 ), we can measure polarization in basis $`|V,|H`$ on Alice’s clone and ancilla and the results send to Bob. The measurement can be experimentally implemented using polarization beam splitter followed on both outputs by single photon detectors which is, in fact, an asymmetric version of Bell state measurement in teleportation experiment Bell . If we select only such results when the orthogonal polarizations $`|V_S|H_I`$ ($`|H_S|V_I`$) are detected then the Bob’s state changes to new one, proportional to $`\alpha (1R)|V_S^{}\beta R|H_S^{}`$ ($`\alpha R|V_S^{}+\beta (1R)|H_S^{}`$). These states can be conditionally transform to initial state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_S`$ by the local filtering $`R|V_S^{}V|(1R)|H_S^{}H|`$ ($`R|H_S^{}H|+(1R)|V_S^{}V|`$). On the other hand, Bob can help Alice to conditionally restore initial state on her clone. Bob has to perform measurement in basis $`|V,|H`$ on qubit $`S^{}`$ and Alice the same measurement on qubit $`I`$. If the detected state is $`|H_I|V_S^{}`$ ($`|V_I|H_S^{}`$) then a state of the Alice clone is converted to state proportional to $`\alpha (1R)|V_S\beta (12R)|H_S`$ ($`\alpha (12R)|V_S+\beta (1R)|H_S`$) which is equal to initial state after conditional state projection $`(12R)|V_SV|(1R)|H_SH|`$ ($`(12R)|H_SH|+(1R)|V_SV|`$). Thus we can at least conditionally prove in feasible experiment that asymmetric cloning procedure is conditionally LOCC reversible.

We shortly discuss a sequence of two partial teleportations in which Alice can conditionally symmetricly distribute an unknown quantum state among three Bobs if they share singlets $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$, as is depicted in Fig. 2. Since this scheme is a sequence of partial teleportations we need to generally evaluate the fidelities of clones after every step of the procedure. To find $`R_1,\mathrm{},R_{M1}`$ for a symmetric distribution of $`M`$ clones we have to solve a set of quadratic equations for fidelities with condition $`F_1,\mathrm{},F_M`$, which can be performed numerically. Analytically, we can present the simplest example for $`M=3`$, in which we set $`R_1=3/8`$, $`R_2=1/3`$ to obtain symmetric distribution. At result, we obtain the same fidelity of all three clones $`F=29/380.763`$. It is slightly worse in comparison with the fidelity $`F=7/90.777`$ of optimal $`13`$ cloning Gisin97 ; Bruss98 . Thus we cannot generally use a sequence of asymmetric optimal cloners to distribute information to many users in optimal way. It is apparently dissimilar with classical-like universal cloning when we with a given probability swap an unknown state to one from the $`M`$ users and to the others we send completely randomized state. In this case, the fidelity of cloning $`F_M=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{1}{M}\right)`$ is always less than optimal universal cloning $`F_{1M}=\frac{2M+1}{3M}`$ but this classical-like $`1M`$ cloning can be implemented by a sequence of $`12`$ classical-like cloners.

## III Optimal $`NN+1`$ cloning at a distance

The setup for symmetric teleportation from $`N`$ identical replicas of input state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_S`$ on single distant copy is depicted in Fig. 3. It is an extension of the previous setup by additional unbalanced beam splitters $`BS_2BS_N`$ placed in mode $`I`$ which have specific reflectivities $`R_2,\mathrm{},R_N`$. Thus we implement the following sequence of projective measurements $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{SN,I}^{}(R_N)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{S2,I}^{}(R_2)\mathrm{\Pi }_{S1,I}^{}(R_1)1_S^{}`$ on a state of total system $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{SN}\mathrm{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{S2}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{S1}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}_{IS^{}}`$ and optimize the reflectivities $`R_n`$ in such a way to achieve symmetric distribution of state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in $`N+1`$ copies. To obtain it we must adjust the reflectivities according to

$$R_n=\frac{1}{n+2},$$
(8)
where $`n=1,\mathrm{},N`$ and then Alice obtains $`N`$ optimal clones of input state in modes $`S_1,\mathrm{},S_N`$, single anti-clone in mode $`I`$ and on the other hand, Bob has at a distance a single clone in mode $`S^{}`$. To prove this, we calculate the probabilities that state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$ can be detected in the particular output modes $`S^{}`$ and $`I`$

$$p_S^{}^{}=\frac{1}{P(N)}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}(12R_k)^2,p_I^{}=\frac{1}{P(N)}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}(1R_k)^2.$$
(9)
and in modes $`S_n`$

$$p_{S_n}^{}=\frac{1}{P(N)}R_n^2\underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(1R_k)^2\underset{k=n+1}{\overset{N}{}}(12R_k)^2.$$
(10)
For $`R_k`$ given by (8), the total probability $`P(N)`$ of success can be determined from normalization condition $`_{n=1}^Np_{S_n}^{}+p_S^{}^{}+p_I^{}=1`$ and is equal to $`P(N)=4/((N+1)(N+2))`$. Consequently, the fidelity of $`n`$-th clone is $`F_n=1p_{S_n}^{}`$ and inserting reflectivities (8) we can simply prove that all photons in the modes $`S_1,\mathrm{},S_N`$ have the same fidelity equal to (2). The distant Bob’s clone in the mode $`S^{}`$ has a fidelity $`F_{n+1}^S^{}=1p_S^{}^{}`$ and using (8) we can subsequently prove that the clone has fidelity equal to (2). Apart from $`N+1`$ clones the setup produces also single anti-clone in the mode $`I`$. Using (9) for fidelity between the anti-clone and state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$, we can simply calculate that the final anti-clone has the fidelity

$$F_I=\frac{N+1}{N+2}.$$
(11)
As the number of replicas increases we obtain a better and still optimal approximation of the U-NOT gate for $`N`$ replicas. For demonstration of local U-NOT with $`N`$ replicas we need no source of entanglement and only $`N`$ unbalanced beam splitters having reflectivity according to Eq. (8) with single port in completely random polarization state is required.

## IV Experimental implementations

An experimental realization of partial teleportation as optimal asymmetric $`12`$ cloning of a polarization state of a photon depicted in Fig. 1 is straightforward modification of a well-known previous experiment demonstrating the total teleportation of polarization state teleexp . We only have to be able to control the reflectivity of the beam splitter in the Bell-state measurement. Using single pair of photons in state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$ and more input photons prepared as the identical replicas which can be directly extracted from pump beam by strong attenuation $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ we can implement teleportation as $`NN+1`$ optimal cloning. In this way, we also experimentally demonstrate the usefulness of the multiple copies to locally realize U-NOT gate with a higher fidelity.

These schemes can be also implemented in the experiments on long-distance teleportation of time-bin qubit Marcikic03 . A time-bin qubit is a quantum superposition of a photon in a different time-bins $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_S=\alpha |1,0_S+\beta |0,1_S`$, where basis state $`|1,0_S`$ corresponds to first time-bin and $`|0,1_S`$ to the second one. To teleport time-bin qubit Alice and Bob use shared time-bin entangled state

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|1,0_I|1,0_S^{}+|0,1_I|0,1_S^{}),$$
(12)
which can be produced from type I nonlinear down-conversion, where the pump pulse is splitted to two separate ones by unbalanced Michelson interferometer. If we restrict only to cases when two photons are emitted either by first pumping pulse or second one we have exactly state (12). The Bell-state measurement was performed by mixing of two time-bin qubits in balanced fiber coupler followed by two single photon detectors and if both the detectors register photons in different time-bins the teleportation (up to an unitary operation on Bob side) has been successfully performed Marcikic03 .

To implement our idea of partial teleportation to time-bin qubit we need only an optical fiber coupler with variable coupling for the Bell-state projection. If we take into account only detection events when both detectors register only single photon in different time-bins we can describe an action of the variable coupler on basis states $`|1,0`$ and $`|0,1`$ by the same relations as in Eqs. (II). A calculation of partial teleportation of time-bin qubit can be done with the help of previous analysis. Let us consider thought unitary operation $`U_S^{}`$ which converts the state (12) to the state $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|1,0_I|0,1_S^{}|0,1_I|1,0_S^{})`$. This operation consists of mutual flip of basis states $`|1,0_S^{}|0,1_S^{}`$ and phase shift $`|1,0_S^{}|1,0_S^{}`$, $`|0,1_S^{}|0,1_S^{}`$. Then we obtain analogical teleportation scheme with shared $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$-like state as has been discussed above. After successful teleportation we implement second thought unitary operation $`U_S^{}^{}`$ on time-bin qubit $`S^{}`$ and due to $`U_S^{}^{}U_S^{}=1`$ we obtain in fact the same result as with the state (12) shared between Alice and Bob. Thus after this teleportation we have the same fidelities $`F_S(R)`$ and $`F_I(R)`$ with input state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_S`$, however the Bob time-bin qubit is in the state having the $`F_S^{}(R)`$ with transformed state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=\alpha |0,1_S^{}\beta |1,0_S^{}`$. Therefore Bob has to perform unitary physical operation $`U_S^{}`$ on time-bin qubit $`S^{}`$ to obtain the demanded state having fidelity $`F_S^{}(R)`$ with state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_S`$.

In this paper we propose two extended conditional teleportation schemes as asymmetric $`12`$ and $`NN+1`$ cloning at a distance which can be straightforwardly implemented in the recent quantum teleportation experiments. Further, we discuss an experiment on the conditional LOCC reversibility of the partial teleportation and a conditional realization of optimal U-NOT operation on the multiple copies.

Acknowledgments The work was supported by the project LN00A015, Post-doc grant 202/03/D239 of Czech grant agency and CEZ: J14/98 of the Ministry of Education of Czech Republic. I would like to thank to Markus Aspelmeyer, Časlav Brukner, Nicolas Cerf, Jaromír Fiurášek, Petr Marek and L. Mišta Jr., for stimulating and fruitful discussions.