text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

####

There has recently been much interest, particularly from string theorists, in noncommutative geometry  . Part of this interest has focused on the construction of noncommutative scalar solitons, first addressed by Gopakumar et al. . Explicit constructions were carried out for $`\theta =\mathrm{}`$ using an isomorphism between the star product and the simple harmonic oscillator (SHO) basis. These solutions were then extrapolated to large but finite $`\theta `$ using the perturbed equations of motion, and some specific examples of solutions were constructed. Classical stability was addressed only as an order-of-magnitude argument: a stable solution at large $`\theta `$ changes mass eigenvalues by $`𝒪(1/\theta )`$, allowing one to conclude that angular fluctuations (in the form of $`U(\mathrm{})`$ transformations) give rise to instability in some solutions while still ensuring stability against radial fluctuations. Existence of the solitons was then more thoroughly addressed in  and , where it was discovered that a potential bounded from below produces a critical $`\theta `$ below which there exists no solution; an unbounded potential will always yield a solution for any nonzero $`\theta `$. This creates a need for detailed stability analysis at finite $`\theta `$. In this paper we report progress in this direction.

####

The paper is structured as follows. In section 2 we review the construction of noncommutative solitons. In section 3 we present the tools necessary to determine radial stability of a solution. In section 4 we generalize on the stability behavior for all theories. We find that at the last point of existence, the critical value $`(\theta m^2)_c`$, all level-1 solutions have almost neutral stability in that their eigenvalue is virtually identical to a critical eigenvalue which we calculate. The small deviation away from this critical eigenvalue is a product entirely of the corrections to the vacuum solution and thus to leading order is a function of the $`\varphi ^3`$ coefficient in the potential. For a negative coefficient (those found in typical false-vacuum solutions) the solution will be unstable, whereas for a positive coefficient it will be stable. For higher-level solutions we find an ambiguity in extrapolating solutions to finite $`\theta `$ which prevents us from making any general statements. For these stability may be determined by comparing the fluctuation eigenvalues to critical values which we calculate.

## 2 Construction of Noncommutative Solitons

####

One begins with a field theory of a single scalar $`\varphi `$ in $`(2+1)`$ dimensions with noncommutativity in the (complex) spatial directions $`z`$ and $`\overline{z}`$,

$$E=\frac{1}{g^2}d^2z(_z\varphi _{\overline{z}}\varphi +V(\varphi )),$$
(2.1)
where $`d^2z=dxdy`$. Fields in this non-local action are multiplied using the Moyal star product

$$(AB)(z,\overline{z})=e^{\frac{\theta }{2}(_z_{\overline{z}^{}}_z^{}_{\overline{z}})}A(z,\overline{z})B(z^{},\overline{z}^{})|_{z=z^{}}.$$
(2.2)
The most convenient way to obtain solutions to this theory is taking the $`\theta \mathrm{}`$ limit, rescaling $`zz\sqrt{\theta }`$, $`\overline{z}\overline{z}\sqrt{\theta }`$. The kinetic term is then negligible and we can focus upon solutions to $`V^{}(\varphi )=0`$. As $`\varphi `$ is now an operator this may appear difficult, but it becomes greatly simplified by using the procedure outlined in  whereupon radially symmetric $`\varphi (r)`$ can be written in terms of projection operators in the SHO basis,

$`\varphi (r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}c_n|nn|,`$ (2.3)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}c_n\varphi _n(r).`$ (2.4)
so $`(\varphi \varphi )(r)=\varphi (r)`$. It is then simple to see we can write all radially symmetric solutions to the equation of motion in the form of Eq. (2.3), with $`c_n`$ satisfying an equation of motion. Angular transformations may then be performed by a $`U(\mathrm{})`$ transformation, which is an exact symmetry in the $`\theta =\mathrm{}`$ limit. The moduli space of all solutions in this limit can then be divided into unique levels. For example, a “level 2” solution can be obtained by acting with a $`U(N)/U(N2),N\mathrm{}`$ symmetry on

$$\varphi =c(\varphi _0+\varphi _1).$$
(2.5)
Stability determination is easy: if $`c`$ is a minimum (local or global), the solution is stable. If it is a maximum, it is unstable.

####

Upon making $`\theta `$ large but finite, one introduces the kinetic term

$$K=\frac{2\pi }{g^2}\mathrm{Tr}[a,\varphi ][\varphi ,a^{}].$$
(2.6)
This will now break the $`U(\mathrm{})`$ symmetry and change the equation of motion. Stability determination requires examining the effect of angular fluctuations and radial fluctuations. Level 1 solution stability was considered in the following terms by . Angular fluctuations may be introduced in the form of fluctuations of $`U`$ which connect $`\varphi _0`$ to $`\varphi _m,m0`$. These force the solution to decay to $`\varphi _0`$. Now consider radial fluctuations for this solution. Since we expect these to change by only $`𝒪(1/\theta )`$, it is stable or unstable as before.

####

There is, however, a need for general stability analysis, valid at any finite $`\theta `$. Zhou  and Durhuus et al.  have analyzed the conditions which allow soliton solutions at finite $`\theta `$. It is the stability determination at finite $`\theta `$ that we present here. We consider angular fluctuations by using a kind of Bogomolnyi bound on $`𝒪(1/\theta )`$ kinetic fluctuations as explained by Gopakumar and Headrick ,

$`\delta K(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{g^2}}\left[\left(\mathrm{Tr}\varphi \right)+2{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha _{},|i_{}}{}}|\alpha |a|i|^2\right],`$ (2.7)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{g^2}}\mathrm{Tr}\varphi `$ (2.8)
where $`_{}`$ is the Hilbert space of projection operators corresponding to $`\{\varphi _0,\mathrm{},\varphi _{n1}\}`$ and $`_{}`$ is the Hilbert space of all others. This shows that radially symmetric solutions saturate the bound, and it is these solutions we focus upon here. One can then use the procedure presented in the next section to determine radial fluctuation stabilty at finite $`\theta `$. We should comment on how much we can trust our conclusions, if we can only trust angular stability to $`𝒪(1/\theta )`$. First, angular fluctuations typically cost more energy and should be less significant than radial fluctuations at any $`\theta `$. Second, since it was shown in  that $`(\theta m^2)_c13.92`$ for $`\varphi ^4`$ theories, $`1/\theta m^2`$ is likely still a somewhat small parameter.

## 3 Radial Fluctuation Stability

### 3.1 Determination of Radial Fluctuation Eigenvalues

####

One of the nice features of the SHO basis expansion of the soliton solutions is that we have an explicit basis $`\{c_n\}`$ from which to compute energy $`E(\{c_n\})`$, equations of motion $`E/c_n=0`$, and fluctuation matrix $`^2E/c_nc_m`$. The latter must have all positive eigenvalues for a stable solution.

####

The energy is given as

$$E(\{c_n\})=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}[(2n+1)c_n^22(n+1)c_{n+1}c_n+\theta V(c_n)]$$
(3.1)
and thus the stability matrix is

$$\frac{^2E}{c_nc_m}=[\theta V^{\prime \prime }(c_n)+2(2n+1)]\delta _{nm}2(n+1)(\delta _{n,m+1}+\delta _{n,m1})$$
(3.2)
which is more clearly written as

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\theta V^{\prime \prime }(c_0)+2& 2& & \\ 2& \theta V^{\prime \prime }(c_1)+6& 4& \\ & 4& \theta V^{\prime \prime }(c_2)+10& 6\\ & & 6& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right).$$
(3.3)
We may determine the eigenvalues by putting this in the upper-diagonal form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\theta V^{\prime \prime }(c_0)+2& 2& & \\ & \theta V^{\prime \prime }(c_1)+6\frac{2^2}{\theta V^{\prime \prime }(c_0)+2}& 4& \\ & & \theta V^{\prime \prime }(c_2)+10\frac{4^2}{\theta V^{\prime \prime }(c_1)+6\frac{2^2}{\theta V^{\prime \prime }(c_0)+2}}& 6\\ & & & \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)$$
(3.4)
from which we can read off the eigenvalues

$$\lambda _n=\theta V^{\prime \prime }(c_n)+2(2n+1)\frac{(2n)^2}{\lambda _{n1}}.$$
(3.5)
### 3.2 Restrictions on Eigenvalues

####

It seems we have an obvious method to determine the eigenvalues: armed with the $`\{c_n\}`$ of a solution, compute $`\lambda _0`$ and see if it is positive. If it is, compute $`\lambda _1`$ and see if it is, and so forth. But we need to determine the positivity of all $`\lambda _n`$, not just the first few; how can we determine all of them? We do this by assuming $`\lambda _n>0`$, and then considering what bound is placed on $`\lambda _n`$ that ensures $`\lambda _{n+1}`$ is positive. This is done by using the recurrence relation

$$\lambda _n=\frac{(2(n+1))^2}{\theta V^{\prime \prime }(c_{n+1})+2(2n+3)\lambda _{n+1}},$$
(3.6)
then setting $`\lambda _{n+1}=0`$ to get

$$\lambda _n>\frac{(2(n+1))^2}{\theta V^{\prime \prime }(c_{n+1})+2(2n+3)}.$$
(3.7)
Note that this is more restrictive than simply $`\lambda _n>0`$. Now assuming that $`\lambda _{n+1}>0`$, what bound on $`\lambda _n`$ now ensures that $`\lambda _{n+2}`$ is positive? Using the relation between $`\lambda _{n+1}`$ and $`\lambda _{n+2}`$ and then setting the latter to 0,

$$\lambda _n>\frac{(2(n+1))^2}{\theta V^{\prime \prime }(c_{n+1})+2(2n+3)\frac{(2(n+2))^2}{\theta V^{\prime \prime }(c_{n+2})+2(2n+5)}}.$$
(3.8)
Similarly, this is again more restrictive than the previous condition. Thus the condition placed on $`\lambda _n`$ so that all $`\lambda `$ after it are positive is the obvious limit,

$`\lambda _n`$ $`>`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2(n+1))^2}{\theta V^{\prime \prime }(c_{n+1})+2(2n+3)\frac{(2(n+2))^2}{\theta V^{\prime \prime }(c_{n+2})+2(2n+5)\mathrm{}}}}`$ (3.9)
$``$ $`\lambda _n^{crit}`$ (3.10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2(n+1))^2}{\theta V^{\prime \prime }(c_{n+1})+2(2n+3)\lambda _{n+1}^{crit}}}.`$ (3.11)
This appears to be of little practical use since we need to know all $`\{c_n\}`$ explicitly. But since we are only interested in finite-energy solutions we know all $`c_n0`$ for large $`n`$ and we can get away with $`V^{\prime \prime }(c_n)m^2+𝒪(c_n)`$. Thus our strategy is this: compute the first few $`\lambda _n`$ by hand using the $`\{c_n\}`$, making sure each is positive. When the remaining $`c_n`$ are small ($`c_n=0`$ at $`\theta =\mathrm{}`$), simply check whether the last $`\lambda _n`$ computed by hand exceeds $`\lambda _n^{crit}`$ plus a small correction due to the small $`c_n`$. If it does, the solution is stable. Since we already have explicit expressions for $`\lambda _n`$, the first part of this is already done; all that remains is to calculate explicit expressions for $`\lambda _n^{crit}`$ for $`V^{\prime \prime }(c_n)=m^2`$ and work out the correction terms. This can be done by considering a general potential

$$V(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2+\frac{1}{3}a\varphi ^3+\mathrm{}$$
(3.12)
allowing us to approximate $`V^{\prime \prime }(c_n)m^2+2ac_n`$. If $`a=0`$, we use the next non-vanishing term. We then compute $`\lambda _n(\theta m^2)`$ and the perturbation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda _n^{crit}(\theta m^2)`$:

$`\lambda _n^{crit}(\theta m^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2(n+1))^2}{\theta m^2+2(2n+3)\lambda _{n+1}^{crit}}},`$ (3.13)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda _n^{crit}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(2\theta ac_{n+1}{\displaystyle \frac{}{(\theta m^2)}}+\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda _{n+1}^{crit}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\lambda _{n+1}^{crit}}}\right)\lambda _n^{crit}`$ (3.14)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _n^{crit}}{2(n+1)}}\right)^2(2\theta ac_{n+1}\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda _{n+1}^{crit}).`$ (3.15)
### 3.3 Calculation of $`\lambda _n^{crit}(\theta m^2)`$

####

We now use Eq. (3.13) to derive an explicit formula for $`\lambda _n^{crit}(\theta m^2)`$. At first glance this appears to be just our stability matrix eigenvalues if all $`V^{\prime \prime }(c_n)=m^2`$, and thus $`\lambda _0^{crit}=\theta m^2+2`$, etc. In fact this is not the case. The reason is that this has two roots, determined by the method by which we compute the $`\lambda _n`$. Computing in the order $`\lambda _0,\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{n1}`$ selects one root, whereas computing $`\lambda _{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{},\lambda _{n+1}`$ selects the other. Since our $`\lambda _n^{crit}`$ clearly depends upon the higher $`\lambda `$’s as just explained, we need to choose this latter root. In the appendix we show that

$$\lambda _0^{crit}(\theta m^2)=\theta m^2+2\frac{2}{e^{\theta m^2/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,\frac{\theta m^2}{2})}$$
(3.16)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(a,z)`$ is the incomplete Gamma function. This can be used with the recursion relation Eq. (3.13) to easily calculate the next terms. We plot $`\lambda _0^{crit}(\theta m^2)`$ in Figure 1; the qualitative behavior for all levels is similar.

####

Two important results are immediately obvious from the solution. First, as $`\theta m^2\mathrm{}`$ we see $`\lambda _n^{crit}0`$, as we would expect from the interpretation that the eigenvalues decouple and must simply be positive “on their own”. Second, the critical eigenvalues aren’t real for $`m^2<0`$, so, as expected, there are no stable solutions unless there is a stable true vacuum.

####

We then consider the corrections $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda _n^{crit}`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda _n^{crit}=2\theta a\left(\frac{\lambda _n^{crit}}{2(n+1)}\right)^2\left(c_{n+1}+\left(\frac{\lambda _{n+1}^{crit}}{2(n+2)}\right)^2\left(c_{n+2}+\mathrm{}\right)\right).$$
(3.17)
Since we know $`\lambda _n^{crit}2(n+1),`$

$`|\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda _n^{crit}|`$ $``$ $`|2\theta a(c_{n+1}+c_{n+2}+\mathrm{})|`$ (3.18)
$``$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{2\theta a}{m^2}}\left(V^{}(c_{n+1})+V^{}(c_{n+2})+\mathrm{}\right)\right|`$ (3.19)
The convergence of Eq. (3.19) was proved by  so this correction is well-defined. In fact the corrections are very small in most circumstances.

## 4 General Stability Analysis

####

Naturally one wonders what general statements about a solution’s stability are possible without checking the eigenvalues numerically.

### 4.1 Stability of the Gaussian

Let us focus on the Gaussian case to begin with; this is the unique level-1 solution at $`\theta =\mathrm{}`$ which is stable with respect to angular fluctuations. The solution requires $`(ϵ1/\theta m^2)`$

$`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}c_0`$ $``$ $`c,`$ (4.20)
$`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}c_n`$ $``$ $`0`$ (4.21)
uniformly in $`n`$ for $`n1`$. Let us quickly review the procedure to construct solutions at finite $`\theta `$, given in . The perturbed equation of motion is

$$(ϵ^2+1)\varphi =b\varphi _0$$
(4.22)
for some scale parameter $`b`$. This can be solved in Fourier-space as

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(k)=b\frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0(k)}{1+ϵk^2}.$$
(4.23)
Using expressions for $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(k)`$ in terms of Laguerre polynomials $`L_n(x)`$ we can then calculate the solution from

$$c_n(ϵ)=b_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{e^xL_n(x)}{1+2ϵx}𝑑x.$$
(4.24)
The normalization of $`L_n(x)`$ is such that $`_0^{\mathrm{}}e^xL_n(x)L_m(x)𝑑x=\delta _{mn}`$. We determine $`b`$ by matching boundary conditions in Eq. (4.20) and Eq. (4.21) to get

$$V^{}(bF(ϵ))=m^2b(F(ϵ)1),F(ϵ)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{e^x}{1+2ϵx}𝑑x.$$
(4.25)
As explained in more detail by  and , the soliton ceases to exist when there is no such $`b`$. Just as finding solutions to the equation of motion at $`\theta =\mathrm{}`$ meant finding the real roots of $`V^{}`$, we can think of this as finding the real roots of

$$V_{eff}^{}(bF(ϵ))V^{}(bF(ϵ))m^2b(F(ϵ)1).$$
(4.26)
####

At $`ϵ_c1/(\theta m^2)_c`$ the solution must also satisfy $`V_{eff}^{}/b=0`$ (see Figure 2, for example), so

$$V^{\prime \prime }(b_cF(ϵ_c))=m^2\left(1\frac{1}{F(ϵ_c)}\right).$$
(4.27)
Plugging this into our expression for $`\lambda _0`$ provides a simple answer for the eigenvalue at the last point of existence for the solution, completely independent of potential:

$`\lambda _0((\theta m^2)_c)`$ $`=`$ $`\theta V^{\prime \prime }(c_0(ϵ_c))+2`$ (4.28)
$`=`$ $`(\theta m^2)_c\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(ϵ_c)}}\right)+2`$ (4.29)
$`=`$ $`\lambda _0^{crit}((\theta m^2)_c)`$ (4.30)
where we use the identity proved in the appendix.

####

Then our Gaussian stability comes down to only determining the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda _0^{crit}`$. If positive, it is slightly unstable; if negative, it is slightly stable. Examining the form of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda _0^{crit}`$ in Eq. (3.15) we see this is entirely determined by the sign of the $`\varphi ^3`$ coefficient $`a/3`$, since it was shown in  all $`c_n>0`$ if they come from $`c_n=0`$ at $`\theta =\mathrm{}`$.

####

We provide an example of this using the false-vacuum potential given by ,

$$V(\varphi )=3\varphi ^2\frac{5}{3}\varphi ^3+\frac{1}{4}\varphi ^4.$$
(4.31)
####

This is graphed in Figure 3. Choose the solution $`\varphi =3\varphi _0`$ at $`\theta =\mathrm{}`$, so that we begin with a stable solution. It is easy to show that for this potential $`(\theta m^2)_c=46.1488`$. From the procedure outlined this implies

$`\lambda _0((\theta m^2)_c)`$ $`=`$ $`0.0771,`$ (4.32)
$`\lambda _0^{crit}((\theta m^2)_c)`$ $`=`$ $`0.0771,`$ (4.33)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda _0^{crit}((\theta m^2)_c)`$ $`=`$ $`0.0355.`$ (4.34)
In Figure 4 we plot $`\lambda _0`$ and $`\lambda _0^{crit}`$ near the critical point, seeing that indeed the solution has nearly neutral stability at its critical point. When we then consider the effect of raising the critical eigenvalue by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda _0^{crit}((\theta m^2)_c)=0.0355`$, we know it is unstable.

### 4.2 Higher Levels

####

Let us now attempt to extend this to the level-$`n`$ solution,

$$\varphi =c(\varphi _0+\mathrm{}+\varphi _{n1}).$$
(4.35)
Now $`\varphi (x)`$ will obey

$$(ϵ^2+1)\varphi (x)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}b_j\varphi _j(x)$$
(4.36)
and we can obtain coefficients from

$$c_i=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}b_jF_{ij}(ϵ)$$
(4.37)
where

$$F_{ij}(ϵ)_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{e^x}{1+2ϵx}L_i(x)L_j(x)𝑑x$$
(4.38)
which is clearly symmetric under $`ij`$. The equations of motion combined with boundary conditions are

$$\frac{1}{m^2}V^{}(c_i)=b_i+\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}b_jF_{ij}.(i=0,\mathrm{},n1)$$
(4.39)
Now rewrite this in the $`\{c_i\}`$ basis using the substitution

$$b_i=𝐅_{ij}^1c_j$$
(4.40)
where $`𝐅_{ij}^1`$ is the matrix inverse of $`𝐅_{ij}\{F_{ij}\}`$. These equations then need to be decoupled to obtain solutions for each $`c_i`$. For $`\theta =\mathrm{}`$ this decoupling is trivial since $`F_{ij}(ϵ=0)=\delta _{ij}`$, producing $`V^{}(c_i)=0`$ as expected. But at finite $`\theta `$ the equations will include terms such as $`V^{}(V^{}(c_i))`$ and be of higher order. This implies there will be an increase in the number of solutions. It is then potentially ambiguous how to extrapolate $`\theta =\mathrm{}`$ solutions into finite $`\theta `$, and thus it is unclear how one could single out the solution which remains at lowest $`\theta `$. To our knowledge, this solution ambiguity has not been discussed before.

####

Let us demonstrate this concept explicitly in a level-2 solution. Eq. (4.39) becomes

$`V^{}(c_0)`$ $`=`$ $`b_0(F_{00}1)+b_1F_{01},`$ (4.41)
$`V^{}(c_1)`$ $`=`$ $`b_0F_{01}+b_1(F_{11}1).`$ (4.42)
Changing basis allows us to write these as

$`V^{}(c_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha c_0+\beta c_1,`$ (4.43)
$`V^{}(c_1)`$ $`=`$ $`\beta c_0+\gamma c_1.`$ (4.44)
where

$$\alpha =\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\mathrm{\Delta }F_{11}),\beta =\frac{F_{01}}{\mathrm{\Delta }},\gamma =\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\mathrm{\Delta }F_{00}),\mathrm{\Delta }F_{00}F_{11}F_{01}^2.$$
(4.45)
These are easily decoupled to get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^2}}V^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}\left(V^{}(c_1)\gamma c_1\right)\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }}\left(V^{}(c_1)\gamma c_1\right)+\beta c_1,`$ (4.46)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^2}}V^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}\left(V^{}(c_0)\alpha c_0\right)\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\beta }}\left(V^{}(c_0)\alpha c_0\right)+\beta c_0.`$ (4.47)
####

We show in Figure 5 the solutions to Eq. (4.47) at various values of $`\theta `$, using the same false vacuum potential as we did in the Gaussian case. Multiple solutions are clearly evident at finite $`\theta `$, each of which has a different $`(\theta m^2)_c`$.

## 5 Conclusion

####

We have presented the conditions by which radial stability of a noncommutative scalar soliton may be determined. One may explicitly calculate the stability eigenvalues of the solution and then compare these to critical eigenvalues which ensure the stability of the system. For a level-1 solution, we found that the existence and stability of a system are closely intertwined, allowing one to make definite statements about the stability of a system at its critical existence point. For level-$`n`$ solitons we do not believe such a general statement can be made, due to the nonuniqueness of solutions at finite $`\theta `$.

####

There are many possible extensions of the analysis presented here. The first would be a complete analysis of these extra level-$`n`$ solutions at finite $`\theta `$. Another would be a comparison with the work by Aganagic et al.  in which unstable solitons in noncommutative gauge theory were addressed. Also interesting would be to place this in the context of the large literature in which noncommutative methods have been applied to unstable D-branes and tachyonic condensation. Yet another is that our methods only address classical stability and it would be very interesting to include quantum stability.

## 6 Acknowledgements

####

The author thanks D. Tong, B. Greene, D. Goldfeld, R. Gopakumar, and H. Peiris for helpful comments. This work was supported by a GAANN Fellowship from the United States Department of Education.

## 7 Appendix: Equivalence of formulae

####

Here we present a proof for the equality of

$$x(11/F(x))+2=\lambda _0^{crit}(x)$$
(7.48)
where

$`F(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^u}{1+2u/x}}𝑑u`$ (7.49)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}}e^{x/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,{\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}})`$ (7.50)
and

$$\lambda _n^{crit}(x)=\frac{(2(n+1))^2}{x+2(2n+3)\lambda _{n+1}^{crit}(x)}.$$
(7.51)
We can re-write Eq. (7.48) as

$`x+1{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _0^{crit}(2x)}{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x}{F(2x)}}`$ (7.52)
$`x+1{\displaystyle \frac{1^2}{x+3\frac{2^2}{x+5\mathrm{}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^x\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,x)}}`$ (7.53)
To prove this we use an identity found in Perron  §82 formula (26)

$$x+\alpha +\beta +1\frac{(\alpha +1)(\beta +1)}{x+\alpha +\beta +3\frac{(\alpha +2)(\beta +2)}{x+\alpha +\beta +5\mathrm{}}}=\frac{\beta _0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{e^uu^{\beta 1}}{(x+u)^\alpha }𝑑u}{_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{e^uu^\beta }{(x+u)^{\alpha +1}}𝑑u}$$
(7.54)
which holds for $`\beta 0,\alpha 0,x0`$. We note that

$`\underset{\beta 0}{lim}\beta {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^uu^{\beta 1}𝑑u`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{\beta 0}{lim}\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta )`$ (7.55)
$`=`$ $`1.`$ (7.56)
Using this we take the $`\alpha =0,\beta 0`$ limit of Eq. (7.54) to find

$`x+1{\displaystyle \frac{1^2}{x+3\frac{2^2}{x+5\mathrm{}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{e^u}{x+u}𝑑u}}`$ (7.57)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^x\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,x)}}.`$ (7.58)
We thank D. Goldfeld for providing us with this proof.


format: text

text:
# A new proof for the existence of mutually unbiased basesThis work was supported in part by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) project MDA 972-99-1-0017 (note that the content of this paper does not necessarily reflect the position or the policy of the government and no official endorsement should be inferred), and in part by the U.S. Army Research Office/DARPA under contract/grant number DAAD 19-00-1-0172. The research of Farrokh Vatan was partly performed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), California Institute of Technology, under contract with National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Emails: som@ee.ucla.edu, boykin@ee.ucla.edu, vwani@ee.ucla.edu, Farrokh.Vatan@jpl.nasa.gov

## 1 Introduction

A $`d`$–level quantum system is described by a density operator $`\rho `$ that requires $`d^21`$ real numbers for its complete specification. A maximal orthogonal quantum test performed on such a system has, without degeneracy, $`d`$ possible outcomes, providing $`d1`$ independent probabilities. It follows that in principle one requires at least $`d+1`$ different orthogonal measurements for complete state determination.

Since the quantum mechanical description of a physical system is characterized in terms of probabilities of outcomes of conceivable experiments consistent with quantum formalism, in order to obtain full information about the system under consideration we need to perform measurements on a large number of identically prepared copies of the system. The different measurements are performed on several subensembles. However, there may be redundancy in the measurement results as the probabilities will not, in general, be independent of each other unless a minimal set of measurements satisfying appropriate criteria is specified. This minimal set need not be necessarily optimal in the sense it may not serve the best way to ascertain the quantum state. However, intuitively speaking, a minimal set of measurements can be reasonably close to an optimal set if they mutually differ as much as possible, thereby ruling out possible overlaps in the results which become crucial in case of error prone measurements. The characterization and proving the existence of such a minimal set of measurements for complete quantum state determination is therefore of fundamental importance.

It has been shown that measurements in a special class of bases, i.e. mutually unbiased bases, not only form a minimal set but also provide the optimal way of determining a quantum state. Mutually unbiased measurements (MUM), loosely speaking, correspond to measurements that are as different as they can be so that each measurement gives as much new information as one can obtain from the system under consideration. In other words the MUM operators are maximally noncommuting among themselves. If the result of one MUM can be predicted with certainty, then all possible outcomes of every other measurement, unbiased to the previous one are equally likely.

As noted earlier mutually unbiased bases (MUB) have a special role in determining the state of a finite dimensional quantum system. Ivanovic  first introduced the concept of MUB in the context of quantum state determination, where he proved the existence of such bases when the dimension is a prime by an explicit construction. Later Wootters and Fields  showed that measurements in MUB provide the minimal as well as optimal way of complete specification of the density matrix. The optimality is understood in the sense of minimization of statistical errors in the measurements. By explicit construction they showed the existence of MUB for prime power dimensions and proved that for any dimension $`d`$ there can be at most $`d+1`$ MUB. However the existence of MUB for other composite dimensions which are not power of a prime still remains an open problem.

In this paper we give a constructive proof of the results earlier obtained by Ivanovic, Wootters, and Fields  with a totally different method. The two distinct features of our new proof are:

* Our approach is based on developing an interesting connection between maximal commuting bases of orthogonal unitary matrices and mutually unbiased bases, whereby we find a necessary condition for existence of MUB in any dimension. We then provide a constructive proof of existence of MUB in composite dimensions which are power of a prime. This allows us to connect encryption of quantum bits , which uses unitary bases of operators, to quantum key distribution, which uses mutually unbiased bases of quantum systems.
* Another advantage of our method is that we provide an explicit construction of the MUB observables (operators) as tensor product of the Pauli matrices for dimensions $`d=2^m`$. This answers a critical related question: how can these mutually unbiased measurements be actually performed and what are the observables to which these measurements correspond to. When $`d=2`$ the mutually unbiased operators are the three Pauli matrices, but unfortunately this observation cannot be generalized in a straightforward way to higher dimension. In addition to the obvious importance of mutually unbiased bases in the context of quantum state determination and foundations of quantum mechanics, recently it has also found useful applications in quantum cryptography where it has been demonstrated that using higher dimensional quantum systems for key distribution has possible advantages over qubits, and mutually unbiased bases play a key role in such a key distribution scheme . Thus the fact that we provide an explicit construction of the MUB observables can turn out to be crucial in the application of MUB in quantum cryptography with systems with more than two states.

Before continuing it is useful to provide a formal definition of mutually unbiased bases.

Definition. Let $`B_1=\{|\phi _1,\mathrm{},|\phi _d\}`$ and $`B_2=\{|\psi _1,\mathrm{},|\psi _d\}`$be two orthonormal bases in the $`d`$ dimensional state space. They are said to be mutually unbiased bases (MUB) if and only if $`\left|\phi _i|\psi _j\right|=\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}`$, for every $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},d`$. A set $`\{_1,\mathrm{},_m\}`$ of orthonormal bases in $`^d`$ is called a set of mutually unbiased bases (a set of MUB) if each pair of bases $`_i`$ and $`_j`$ are mutually unbiased.

The simplest example of a complete set of MUB is obtained in the case of spin 1/2 particle where each unbiased basis consists of the normalized eigenvectors of the three Pauli matrices respectively. However, the analysis of a set of MUB corresponding to a two level quantum system does not capture one of the basic features of MUB, i.e., its importance in determining the quantum state. In the case of two level systems, the density operator has three independent parameters and almost any choice of the three measurements is sufficient to have the complete knowledge of the system. This is not true in general for any other dimension greater than two, where the existence of MUB becomes more crucial in the context of minimal number of required measurements for quantum state determination.

In Section 2 we show the existence of $`p+1`$ MUB in the space $`^p`$, for any prime $`p`$. This result first shown by Ivanovic  by explicitly defining the mutually unbiased bases. Here we show that these bases are in fact bases each consists of eigenvectors of the unitary operators

$$Z,X,XZ,\mathrm{},XZ^{d1},$$

where $`X`$ and $`Z`$ are generalizations of Pauli operators to the quantum systems with more than two states (see, e.g., ).

In Section 3 we show that there is a useful connection between mutually unbiased bases and special types of bases for the space of the square matrices. These bases consist of orthogonal unitary matrices which can be grouped in maximal classes of commuting matrices. As a result of this connection we show that every MUB over $`^d`$ consists of at most $`d+1`$ bases.

Finally, in Section 4 we present our construction of MUB over $`^d`$ when $`d`$ is a prime power. The basic idea of our construction is as follows. When $`d=p^m`$, imagine the system consists of $`m`$ subsystems each of dimension $`p`$. Then the total number of measurements on the whole system, viewed as performing measurement on every subsystem in their respective MUB is $`(p+1)^m`$. We show that these $`(p+1)^m`$ operators fall into $`p^m+1`$ maximal noncommuting classes where members of each class commute among themselves. The bases formed by eigenvectors of each such mutually noncommuting class are mutually unbiased. It should be mentioned that the operators in each maximal commuting class have the same structure as the stabilizers of additive quantum error correcting codes (see, e.g., ).

One of the referees has brought to our attention that there is a close connection between the MUB problem and the problem of determining arrangements of lines in the Grassmannian spaces so that they are as far apart as possible  (see also ). This problem (and some other combinatorial problems discussed in ) can be related to the problem of finding the maximum number of lines through the origin of $`^d`$ that are either perpendicular or are at angle $`\theta `$, where $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =1/\sqrt{d}`$. Any MUB $``$ defines such a line–set: consider all lines through the origin defined by all vectors in the bases of $``$. In , for the case of $`d=2^m`$, with an approach similar to the one presented in this paper, such line–sets are constructed.

Notation. Let $`𝕄_d()`$ be the set of $`d\times d`$ complex matrices. In a natural way, the set $`𝕄_d()`$ is a $`d^2`$–dimensional linear space. Each matrix $`A`$ in $`𝕄_d()`$ can be also naturally considered as a $`d^2`$–dimensional complex vector $`|v_A`$, where the entries of the matrix $`A`$ being regarded as the components of the vector $`|v_A`$. In this way, for matrices $`A,B𝕄_d()`$ we can define the inner product $`A,B`$ of matrices as the inner product $`v_A|v_B`$ of vectors. It is easy to check that

$$A,B=\mathrm{Tr}\left(A^{}B\right).$$

We say the matrices $`A,B𝕄_d()`$ are orthogonal if and only if $`A,B=0`$.

## 2 Construction of sets of MUB for prime dimensions

Ivanovic  for the first time showed that for any prime dimension $`d`$, there is a set of $`d+1`$ mutually unbiased bases. In that paper the bases are given explicitly. Here we show that there is a nice symmetrical structure behind these bases, and their existence can be derived as a consequence of properties of Pauli operators on $`d`$–state quantum systems. The core of our construction is the following theorem.

###### Theorem 2.1

Let $`_1=\{|\phi _1,\mathrm{},|\phi _d\}`$ be an orthonormal basis in $`^d`$. Suppose that there is a unitary operator $`V`$ such that $`V|\phi _j=\beta _j|\phi _{j+1}`$, where $`|\beta _j|=1`$ and $`|\phi _{d+1}=|\phi _1`$; i.e., $`V`$ applies a cyclic shift modulo a phase on the elements of the basis $`_1`$. Assume that the orthonormal basis $`_2=\{|\psi _1,\mathrm{},|\psi _d\}`$ consists of eigenvectors of $`V`$. Then $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ are MUB.

Proof. Assume that $`V|\psi _k=\lambda _k|\psi _k`$. Then $`|\lambda _k|=1`$. Now, for every $`k=1,\mathrm{},d`$, we have

$`\left|\psi _k|\phi _1\right|`$ $`=`$ $`\left|\lambda _{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\psi _k\left|V\right|\phi _1\right|`$
$`=`$ $`\left|\beta _1\psi _k|\phi _2\right|`$
$`=`$ $`\left|\psi _k|\phi _2\right|.`$
A similar argument shows

$$\left|\psi _k|\phi _1\right|=\left|\psi _k|\phi _2\right|=\mathrm{}=\left|\psi _k|\phi _d\right|.$$

Therefore,

$$\left|\psi _k|\phi _j\right|^2=\frac{1}{d},1jd.$$

Thus $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ are MUB.

Throughout this section, we suppose that $`d`$ is a prime number, and all algebraic operations are modulo $`d`$. We consider $`\{|0,|1,\mathrm{},|d1\}`$ as the standard basis of $`^d`$. We define the unitary operators $`X_d`$ and $`Z_d`$ over $`^d`$, as a natural generalization of Pauli operators $`\sigma _x`$ and $`\sigma _z`$:

$`X_d|j`$ $`=`$ $`|j+1,`$ (1)
$`Z_d|j`$ $`=`$ $`\omega ^j|j,`$ (2)
where $`\omega `$ is a $`d^{\mathrm{th}}`$ root of unity; more specifically $`\omega =\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/d)`$. We are interested in unitary operators of the form $`X_d\left(Z_d\right)^k`$. Note that

$$X_d\left(Z_d\right)^k|j=\left(\omega ^k\right)^j|j+1.$$

###### Theorem 2.2

For $`0k,\mathrm{}d1`$, the eigenvectors of $`X_d\left(Z_d\right)^k`$ are cyclically shifted under the action of $`X_d\left(Z_d\right)^{\mathrm{}}`$.

Proof. The eigenvectors of $`X_d\left(Z_d\right)^k`$ are

$$|\psi _t^k=\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{d1}{}}\left(\omega ^t\right)^{dj}\left(\omega ^k\right)^{s_j}|j,t=0,\mathrm{},d1,$$
(3)
where $`s_j=j+\mathrm{}+(d1)`$. Then $`|\psi _t^k`$ is an eigenvector of $`X_d\left(Z_d\right)^k`$ with eigenvalue $`\omega ^t`$, because

$`X_d\left(Z_d\right)^k|\psi _t^k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{d1}{}}}\left(\omega ^t\right)^{dj}\left(\omega ^k\right)^{s_j}\left(\omega ^k\right)^j|j+1`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{d1}{}}}\left(\omega ^t\right)^{dj}\left(\omega ^k\right)^{s_{j+1}}|j+1`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{d1}{}}}\left(\omega ^t\right)^{dj+1}\left(\omega ^k\right)^{s_j}|j`$
$`=`$ $`\omega ^t|\psi _t^k.`$
The action of $`X_d\left(Z_d\right)^{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`|\psi _t^k`$ is as follows:

$`X_d\left(Z_d\right)^{\mathrm{}}|\psi _t^k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{d1}{}}}\left(\omega ^t\right)^{dj}\left(\omega ^k\right)^{s_j}\left(\omega ^{\mathrm{}}\right)^j|j+1`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{d1}{}}}\left(\omega ^t\right)^{dj+1}\left(\omega ^k\right)^{s_{j1}}\left(\omega ^{\mathrm{}}\right)^{j1}|j`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^t\mathrm{}}{\sqrt{d}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{d1}{}}}\left(\omega ^t\right)^{dj}\left(\omega ^k\right)^{s_j}\left(\omega ^k\right)^{j1}\left(\omega ^{\mathrm{}}\right)^j|j`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^{t+k\mathrm{}}}{\sqrt{d}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{d1}{}}}\left(\omega ^t\right)^{dj}\left(\omega ^k\right)^{s_j}\left(\omega ^\mathrm{}k\right)^j|j`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^{t+k\mathrm{}}}{\sqrt{d}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{d1}{}}}\left(\omega ^{t+k\mathrm{}}\right)^{dj}\left(\omega ^k\right)^{s_j}|j`$
$`=`$ $`\omega ^{t+k\mathrm{}}|\psi _{t+k\mathrm{}}^k.\text{ }`$
Note that the standard basis $`\{|0,|1,\mathrm{},|d1\}`$ is the set of the eigenvectors of $`Z_d`$. From (3) it follows that the $`\left|j|\psi _t^k\right|^2=\frac{1}{d}`$. Therefore, we have proved the following construction.

###### Theorem 2.3

For any prime $`d`$, the set of the bases each consisting of the eigenvectors of

$$Z_d,X_d,X_dZ_d,X_d\left(Z_d\right)^2,\mathrm{},X_d\left(Z_d\right)^{d1},$$

form a set of $`d+1`$ mutually unbiased bases.

Example $`d=2`$. By Theorem 2.3, the eigenvectors of the operators $`\sigma _z`$, $`\sigma _x`$, and $`\sigma _x\sigma _z`$ form a set of mutually unbiased bases; i.e., the following set

$$\begin{array}{c}\{|0,|1\},\hfill \\ \{\frac{|0+|1}{\sqrt{2}},\frac{|0|1}{\sqrt{2}}\},\hfill \\ \{\frac{|0+i|1}{\sqrt{2}},\frac{|0i|1}{\sqrt{2}}\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Example $`d=3`$. The set of the eigenvectors of the following unitary matrices form a set of MUB (here $`\omega =\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/3)`$):

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& \omega ^2\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& \omega & 0\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& \omega \\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& \omega ^2& 0\end{array}\right).$$

## 3 Bases for unitary operators and MUB

In this section we study the close relation between MUB and a special type of bases for $`𝕄_d()`$. Here we are dealing with classes of commuting unitary matrices. The following lemma shows that the maximum size of such class is $`d`$.

###### Lemma 3.1

There are at most $`d`$ pairwise orthogonal commuting unitary matrices in $`𝕄_d()`$.

Proof. Let $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_m`$ be pairwise orthogonal commuting unitary matrices in $`𝕄_d()`$. Then there is a unitary matrix $`U`$ such that the matrices $`B_1,\mathrm{},B_m`$, where $`B_j=UA_jU^{}`$, are diagonal. Moreover, $`B_j,B_k=A_j,A_k`$; so $`B_j`$ and $`B_k`$ are orthogonal for $`jk`$. Let $`|𝒃_j^d`$ be the diagonal of $`B_j`$. Then $`B_j,B_k=𝒃_j|𝒃_k`$. So the vectors $`|𝒃_1,\mathrm{},|𝒃_m`$ are mutually orthogonal; therefore, $`md`$

Let $`=\{U_1,U_2,\mathrm{},U_{d^2}\}`$ be a basis of unitary matrices for $`𝕄_d()`$. Without loss of generality, we can assume that $`U_1=1𝐥_d`$, the identity matrix of order $`d`$. We say that the basis $``$ is a maximal commuting basis for $`𝕄_d()`$ if $``$ can be partitioned as

$$=\left\{1𝐥_d\right\}𝒞_1\mathrm{}𝒞_{d+1},$$
(4)
where each class $`𝒞_j`$ contains exactly $`d1`$ commuting matrix from $``$. Note that $`\{1𝐥_d\}𝒞_j`$ is a set of $`d`$ commuting orthogonal unitary matrices, which by Lemma 3.1 is maximal.

###### Theorem 3.2

If there is a maximal commuting basis of orthogonal unitary matrices in $`𝕄_d()`$, then there is a set of $`d+1`$ mutually unbiased bases.

Proof. Let $``$ be a maximal commuting basis of orthogonal unitary matrices in $`𝕄_d()`$, where (4) provides the decomposition of $``$ into maximal classes of commuting matrices. For any $`1jd+1`$, let

$$𝒞_j=\{U_{j,1},U_{j,2},\mathrm{},U_{j,d1}\}.$$

We also define $`U_{j,0}=1𝐥_d`$; then

$$𝒞_j^{}=\{U_{j,0},U_{j,1},U_{j,2},\mathrm{},U_{j,d1}\}$$

is a maximal set of commuting orthogonal unitary matrices. Thus for each $`1jd+1`$, there is an orthonormal basis

$$𝒯_j=\{|\psi _1^j,|\psi _2^j,\mathrm{},|\psi _d^j\}$$

such that every matrix $`U_{j,t}`$ (for $`0td1`$) relative to the basis $`𝒯_j`$ is diagonal. Let

$$U_{j,t}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{d}{}}\lambda _{j,t,k}|\psi _k^j\psi _k^j|.$$
(5)
Let $`M_j`$ be a $`d\times d`$ matrix whose $`k^{\mathrm{th}}`$ row is the diagonal of the right-hand side matrix of (5); i.e.,

$$M_j=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\lambda _{j,0,1}& \lambda _{j,0,2}& \mathrm{}& \lambda _{j,0,d}\\ \lambda _{j,1,1}& \lambda _{j,1,2}& \mathrm{}& \lambda _{j,1,d}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \lambda _{j,d1,1}& \lambda _{j,d1,2}& \mathrm{}& \lambda _{j,d1,d}\end{array}\right).$$

Then $`M_j`$ is a unitary matrix. Note that the first row of $`M_j`$ is the constant vector $`(1,1,\mathrm{},1)`$. We consider the classes $`𝒞_1`$ and $`𝒞_2`$. Then for $`0s,td1`$, the orthogonality condition implies

$$\mathrm{Tr}\left(U_{1,s}^{}{}_{}{}^{}U_{2,t}\right)=d\delta _{s,0}\delta _{t,0}.$$

But, since $`\mathrm{Tr}\left(|\psi _k^1\psi _{\mathrm{}}^2|\right)=\psi _k^1|\psi _{\mathrm{}}^2^{}`$,

$`\mathrm{Tr}\left(U_{1,s}^{}{}_{}{}^{}U_{2,t}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{d}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{d}{}}}\lambda _{1,s,k}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\lambda _{2,t,\mathrm{}}|\psi _k^1\psi _k^1|\psi _{\mathrm{}}^2\psi _{\mathrm{}}^2|\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{d}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{d}{}}}\lambda _{1,s,k}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\lambda _{2,t,\mathrm{}}\psi _k^1|\psi _{\mathrm{}}^2\mathrm{Tr}\left(|\psi _k^1\psi _{\mathrm{}}^2|\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{d}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{d}{}}}\lambda _{1,s,k}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\lambda _{2,t,\mathrm{}}\left|\psi _k^1|\psi _{\mathrm{}}^2\right|^2.`$
Therefore

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{d}{}}\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{d}{}}\lambda _{1,s,k}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\lambda _{2,t,\mathrm{}}\left|\psi _k^1|\psi _{\mathrm{}}^2\right|^2=d\delta _{s,0}\delta _{t,0},0s,td1.$$
(6)
The system of equations (6) can be written in the following matrix form

$$AP=\mathrm{\Lambda },$$

where

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`M_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}M_2,`$
$`P`$ $`=`$ $`(\left|\psi _1^1|\psi _1^2\right|^2,\left|\psi _1^1|\psi _2^2\right|^2,\mathrm{},\left|\psi _d^1|\psi _d^2\right|^2)^\mathrm{T},`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`(d,0,0,\mathrm{},0)^\mathrm{T}.`$
Note that $`A`$ is a unitary matrix and its first row is the constant vector $`(1,1,\mathrm{},1)`$. Then from $`P=A^1\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ it follows

$$\left|\psi _s^1|\psi _t^2\right|^2=\frac{1}{d},1s,td.$$

By repeating the same argument for the classes $`𝒞_j`$ and $`𝒞_k`$, we conclude that

$$\{𝒯_1,\mathrm{},𝒯_{d+1}\}$$

is a set of MUB.

Before we continue, we prove the following useful simple lemma.

###### Lemma 3.3

For any integers $`m`$ and $`n`$ such that $`0<mn`$ we have

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}e^{2\pi i\frac{mk}{n}}=0.$$

Proof. We have

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(e^{2\pi i\frac{m}{n}}\right)^k=e^{2\pi i\frac{m}{n}}\frac{\left(e^{2\pi i\frac{m}{n}}\right)^n1}{e^{2\pi i\frac{m}{n}}1}=0.\text{ }$$

The converse of Theorem 3.2, in the following sense, holds.

###### Theorem 3.4

Let $`_1,\mathrm{},_m`$ be a set of MUB in $`^d`$. Then there are $`m`$ classes $`𝒞_1,\mathrm{},𝒞_m`$ each consisting of $`d`$ commuting unitary matrices such that matrices in $`𝒞_1\mathrm{}𝒞_m`$ are pairwise orthogonal.

Proof. Suppose that

$$_j=\{|\psi _1^j,\mathrm{},|\psi _d^j\}.$$

Then

$$\psi _s^j|\psi _t^j=\delta _{s,t},1s,td,$$

and

$$\left|\psi _s^j|\psi _t^k\right|^2=\frac{1}{d},1j<kd,1s,td.$$

We label the matrices in the class $`𝒞_j`$ as

$$𝒞_j=\{U_{j,0},U_{j,1},\mathrm{},U_{j,d1}\},$$

where

$$U_{j,t}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{d}{}}e^{2\pi i\frac{tk}{d}}|\psi _k^j\psi _k^j|,0td1.$$

Note that $`U_{j,0}=1𝐥_d`$. Then $`U_{j,s}`$ and $`U_{j,t}`$ are commuting, because both are diagonal relative to the basis $`_j`$. We now show that all these matrices are orthogonal. First we note that

$`U_{j,s},U_{k,t}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left(U_{j,s}^{}{}_{}{}^{}U_{k,t}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x=1}{\overset{d}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{y=1}{\overset{d}{}}}e^{2\pi i\frac{tysx}{d}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(|\psi _x^j\psi _x^j|\psi _y^k\psi _y^k|\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x=1}{\overset{d}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{y=1}{\overset{d}{}}}e^{2\pi i\frac{tysx}{d}}\left|\psi _x^j|\psi _y^k\right|^2.`$
Thus, by Lemma 3.3, if $`j=k`$, then

$`U_{j,s},U_{j,t}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x=1}{\overset{d}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{y=1}{\overset{d}{}}}e^{2\pi i\frac{tysx}{d}}\delta _{x,y}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x=1}{\overset{d}{}}}e^{2\pi i\frac{x(ts)}{d}}`$
$`=`$ $`d\delta _{s,t}.`$
If $`jk`$ and $`(s,t)(0,0)`$, then

$`U_{j,s},U_{k,t}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x=1}{\overset{d}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{y=1}{\overset{d}{}}}e^{2\pi i\frac{tysx}{d}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{x=1}{\overset{d}{}}}e^{2\pi i\frac{sx}{d}}\right)^{}\left({\displaystyle \underset{y=1}{\overset{d}{}}}e^{2\pi i\frac{ty}{d}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`0.\text{ }`$
As an immediate corollary of the above theorem, we have the following upper bound on the size of a set of MUB.

###### Theorem 3.5

Any set of mutually unbiased bases in $`^d`$ contains at most $`d+1`$ bases.

Proof. If a set of MUB contains $`m`$ bases, then by Theorem 3.4, there are at least $`1+m(d1)`$ pairwise orthogonal matrices in the $`d^2`$–dimensional space $`𝕄_d()`$. Therefore, $`1+m(d1)d^2`$, thus $`md+1`$

## 4 Construction of a set of MUB for prime powers

### 4.1 The Pauli group

To construct a maximal set of MUB in $`=^{p^m}`$, where $`p`$ is a prime number, we consider the Hilbert space $``$ as tensor product of $`m`$ copies of $`^p`$; i.e.,

$$=\underset{m\mathrm{times}}{\underset{}{^p\mathrm{}^p}}.$$

Like the case of $`^p`$, we build a set of MUB as the sets of eigenvectors of special types of unitary operators on the background space $``$. On the space $`^p`$ we considered the generalized Pauli operators $`X_p`$ and $`Z_p`$, defined by equations (1) and (2). On the space $``$, we consider the tensor products of operators $`X_p`$ and $`Z_p`$.

We denote the finite field $`\{0,1,\mathrm{},p1\}`$ by $`𝔽_p`$. Let $`\omega =e^{2\pi i/d}`$ be a primitive $`p^{\mathrm{th}}`$ root of unity. Then

$$Z_pX_p=\omega X_pZ_p.$$

Therefore, if $`U_1=\left(X_p\right)^{k_1}\left(Z_p\right)^\mathrm{}_1`$ and $`U_2=\left(X_p\right)^{k_2}\left(Z_p\right)^\mathrm{}_2`$ then

$$U_2U_1=\omega ^{k_1\mathrm{}_2k_2\mathrm{}_1}U_1U_2.$$
(7)
We are interested on unitary operators on $`=^p\mathrm{}^p`$ (the tensor product of $`m`$ copies of $`^p`$) of the form

$$U=M_1\mathrm{}M_m,\text{where }M_j=\left(X_p\right)^{k_j}\left(Z_p\right)^\mathrm{}_j\text{}0k_j,\mathrm{}_jp1\text{.}$$
(8)
To describe an operator of the form (8) it is enough to specify the powers $`k_j`$ and $`\mathrm{}_j`$. So we represent an operator (8) by the following vector of length $`2m`$ over the field $`𝔽_p`$:

$$(k_1,\mathrm{},k_m|\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_m),$$

or equivalently as

$$X_p(k_1,\mathrm{},k_m)Z_p(\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_m).$$

If we let $`\alpha =(k_1,\mathrm{},k_m)`$ and $`\beta =(\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_m)`$, then $`\alpha ,\beta 𝔽_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}`$ and we denote the corresponding operator by

$$X_p(\alpha )Z_p(\beta ).$$

The Pauli group $`(p,m)`$ is the group of all unitary operators on $`=^p\mathrm{}^p`$ (the tensor product of $`m`$ copies of $`^p`$) of the form

$$\omega ^jX_p(\alpha )Z_p(\beta ),$$
(9)
for some integer $`j0`$ and vectors $`\alpha ,\beta 𝔽_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}`$, where $`\omega =\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/p)`$. In this section we are mainly interested in the subset $`_0(p,m)`$ of $`(p,m)`$ of the operators of the form (9) with $`j=0`$. Note that $`_0(p,m)`$ is not a subgroup, but generators of subgroups of the Pauli group can always be considered as subsets of $`_0(p,m)`$.

If the operators $`U`$ and $`U^{}`$ in $`_0(p,m)`$ are represented by the vectors

$$(k_1,\mathrm{},k_m|\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_m)\text{and}(k_1^{},\mathrm{},k_m^{}|\mathrm{}_1^{},\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_m^{}),$$

respectively, then $`U`$ and $`U^{}`$ are commuting if and only if

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}k_j\mathrm{}_j^{}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}k_j^{}\mathrm{}_j=0modp.$$

We can state this condition equivalently in the following form.

###### Lemma 4.1

If $`U=X_p(\alpha )Z_p(\beta )`$ and $`U^{}=X_p(\alpha ^{})Z_p(\beta ^{})`$, for $`\alpha ,\beta ,\alpha ^{},\beta ^{}𝔽_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}`$, then $`U`$ and $`U^{}`$ are commuting if and only if

$$\alpha \beta ^{}\alpha ^{}\beta =0modp.$$
(10)
A set $`X_p(\alpha _1)Z_p(\beta _1),\mathrm{},X_p(\alpha _t)Z_p(\beta _t)`$ of operators in $`_0(p,m)`$ is represented by the $`t\times (2m)`$ matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha _1& \beta _1\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \alpha _t& \beta _t\end{array}\right).$$

Before we continue, we would like to get an explicit formula for the action of a $`_0(p,m)`$ operator $`X_p(\alpha )Z_p(\beta )`$. Let $`\alpha =(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _m)`$ and $`\beta =(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _m)`$. The standard basis of the Hilbert space $`=^p\mathrm{}^p`$ consists of the vectors $`|j_1\mathrm{}j_m`$, where $`(j_1,\mathrm{},j_m)𝔽_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}`$. Then

$$X_p(\alpha )Z_p(\beta )|j_1\mathrm{}j_m=\omega ^{j_1\beta _1+\mathrm{}+j_m\beta _m}|(j_1+\alpha _1)\mathrm{}(j_m+\alpha _m).$$

Equivalently,

$`X_p(\alpha )Z_p(\beta )|a`$ $`=`$ $`\omega ^{a\beta }|a+\alpha ,a𝔽_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{m},`$ (11)
$`X_p(\alpha )Z_p(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a𝔽_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}}{}}\omega ^{a\beta }|a+\alpha a|,`$ (12)
where the operations are in the field $`𝔽_p`$.

###### Theorem 4.2

Let $`U=X_p(\alpha )Z_p(\beta )`$ and $`U^{}=X_p(\alpha ^{})Z_p(\beta ^{})`$ be operators in $`_0(p,m)`$. If $`UU^{}`$, i.e., $`(\alpha ,\beta )(\alpha ^{},\beta ^{})`$, then the operators $`U`$ and $`U^{}`$ are orthogonal.

Proof. We have

$`U,U^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left(U^{}U^{}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \underset{a𝔽_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{b𝔽_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}}{}}\omega ^{\beta ^{}b\beta a}|aa+\alpha |b+\alpha ^{}b|\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a𝔽_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}}{}}\omega ^{\beta ^{}b\beta a}a+\alpha |a+\alpha ^{}.`$
If $`\alpha \alpha ^{}`$, then $`a+\alpha |a+\alpha ^{}=0`$, for every $`a𝔽_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}`$. Thus in this case $`U,U^{}=0`$. If $`\alpha =\alpha ^{}`$ and $`\beta \beta ^{}`$ then, by Lemma 3.3,

$`U,U^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a𝔽_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}}{}}\omega ^{(\beta ^{}\beta )a}`$
$`=`$ $`0.\text{ }`$
### 4.2 The general construction

Our scheme for constructing a set of MUB is based on Theorem 3.2. The maximal commuting orthogonal basis for $`𝕄_{p^m}()`$ with partition of the form (4) is such that each class $`\{1𝐥_p\}𝒞_j`$, in the following sense, is a linear space of operators in the Pauli group $`(p,m)`$. Let

$$X_p(\alpha _1)Z_p(\beta _1),\mathrm{},X_p(\alpha _{p^m})Z_p(\beta _{p^m})$$

be the operators in the class $`\{1𝐥_p\}𝒞_j`$. We say that this class is linear if the set of the vectors

$$_j=\{(\alpha _1|\beta _1),\mathrm{},(\alpha _{p^m}|\beta _{p^m})\}$$

form an $`m`$–dimensional subspace of $`𝔽_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{2m}`$. In this case, to specify a linear class, it is enough to present a basis for the subspace $`_j`$. Such a basis can be represented by an $`m\times (2m)`$ matrix. So instead of listing all operators in the classes $`𝒞_1,\mathrm{},𝒞_{p^m+1}`$, we could simply list the $`p^m+1`$ matrices representing the bases of these classes.

More specifically, the bases of linear classes of operators in our construction are represented by the matrices

$$(0_m|1𝐥_m),(1𝐥_m|A_1),\mathrm{},(1𝐥_m|A_{p^m}),$$

where $`0_m`$ is the all–zero matrix of order $`m`$ and each $`A_j`$ is an $`m\times m`$ matrix over $`𝔽_p`$. It easy to see what conditions should be imposed on the matrices $`A_j`$ so that the requirements of Theorem 3.2 satisfied. The following lemma gives a simple necessary and sufficient condition for operators in each class commuting. Note that in a linear class of operators, if the basic operators are commuting then any pair of operators in these class will commute.

###### Lemma 4.3

Let $`S`$ be a set of $`m`$ operators in $`_0(p,m)`$, and $`S`$ be represented by the matrix $`(1𝐥_m|A)`$, where $`1𝐥_m`$ is the identity matrix of order $`m`$ and $`A`$ is an $`m\times m`$ matrix over $`𝔽_p`$. Then the operators in $`S`$ are pairwise commuting if and only if $`A`$ is a symmetric matrix.

Proof. Let $`A=(a_{jk})`$. Then, by (10), $`S`$ is a set of commuting operators if and only if $`a_{jk}a_{kj}=0modp`$, for every $`1j<km`$. Since $`a_{jk}𝔽_p`$, $`S`$ is a set of commuting operators if and only if $`A`$ is symmetric.

The other condition is that the classes $`𝒞_j`$ and $`𝒞_k`$ should be disjoint. This condition is met if the span of the matrices $`(1𝐥_m|A_j)`$ and $`(1𝐥_m|A_k)`$ are disjoint. The last condition is equivalent to $`𝒙A_j𝒙A_k`$, for every non–zero $`𝒙𝔽_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}`$. The last condition is equivalent to $`det(A_jA_k)0`$. Thus we can summarize our construction in the following theorem.

###### Theorem 4.4

Let $`\{A_1,\mathrm{},A_{\mathrm{}}\}`$ be a set of symmetric $`m\times m`$ matrices over $`𝔽_p`$ such that $`det(A_jA_k)0`$, for every $`1j<k\mathrm{}`$. Then there is a set of $`\mathrm{}+1`$ mutually unbiased bases on $`^{p^m}`$.

More specifically, the $`\mathrm{}+1`$ bases of the above theorem are represented by the matrices

$$(0_m|1𝐥_m),(1𝐥_m|A_1),\mathrm{},(1𝐥_m|A_{\mathrm{}}).$$

Example $`d=4`$. The four matrices (over $`𝔽_2=\{0,1\}`$) which satisfy the conditions of Theorem 4.4 are

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(13)
Therefore the classes of maximal commuting operators are

$`𝒞_0`$ $`=`$ $`\{ZI,IZ,ZZ\},`$
$`𝒞_1`$ $`=`$ $`\{XI,IX,XX\},`$
$`𝒞_2`$ $`=`$ $`\{YI,IY,YY\},`$
$`𝒞_3`$ $`=`$ $`\{XZ,ZY,YX\},`$
$`𝒞_4`$ $`=`$ $`\{YZ,ZX,XY\},`$
where

$$I=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),X=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),Y=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)=XZ,Z=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$

We represent this basis explicitly. To this end, we naturally represent each basis by a $`4\times 4`$ matrix such that the $`j^{\mathrm{th}}`$ row of this matrix is the components of the $`j^{\mathrm{th}}`$ vector of the corresponding basis with respect to the standard basis $`|00,|01,|10,|11`$: the first matrix is $`_0=1𝐥_4`$, and

$`_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\end{array}\right),`$ $`_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 1& \hfill i& \hfill i& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill i& \hfill i& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill i& \hfill i& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill i& \hfill i& \hfill 1\end{array}\right),`$
$`_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill i& \hfill i\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill i& \hfill i\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill i& \hfill i\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill i& \hfill i\end{array}\right),`$ $`_4={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 1& \hfill i& \hfill 1& \hfill i\\ \hfill 1& \hfill i& \hfill 1& \hfill i\\ \hfill 1& \hfill i& \hfill 1& \hfill i\\ \hfill 1& \hfill i& \hfill 1& \hfill i\end{array}\right).`$
Note that, in this case, the mutually unbiasedness condition is equivalent to the condition that $`_i_i^{}=1𝐥_4`$, for every $`0i4`$, and each entry of $`_i_j^{}`$, for $`0i<j4`$, has absolute value equal to $`\frac{1}{2}`$.

### 4.3 Construction for $`d=p^m`$

By Theorem 4.4, to construct $`p^m+1`$ mutually unbiased bases in $`^{p^m}`$, we only need to find $`m`$ symmetric nonsingular matrices $`B_1,\mathrm{},B_m𝕄_m()`$ such that the matrix $`_{j=1}^mb_jB_j`$ is also nonsingular, for every nonzero vector $`(b_1,\mathrm{},b_m)𝔽_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}`$. Because if this condition satisfied then the $`p^m`$ matrices

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}a_jB_j,(a_1,\mathrm{},a_m)𝔽_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{m},$$

satisfy the condition of Theorem 4.4.

Example $`d=8`$. The following eight $`3\times 3`$ matrices determine a set 9 mutually unbiased bases on $`^8`$. Let $`A_1=\mathrm{𝟎}_3`$ (the zero matrix), $`A_2=1𝐥_3`$, and

$`A_3=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 0& 1& 1\end{array}\right)`$ $`A_4=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$ $`A_5=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$
$`A_6=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right)`$ $`A_7=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 1\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ $`A_8=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$
Note that these matrices are of the following general form:

$$a_1\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)+a_2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 0& 1& 1\end{array}\right)+a_3\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 0\end{array}\right),a_1,a_2,a_3𝔽_2.$$

Wootters and Fields  have found the following general construction for the matrices $`B_1,\mathrm{},B_m`$. Let $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _m`$ be a basis of $`𝔽_{p^m}`$ as a vector space over $`𝔽_p`$. Then any element $`\gamma _i\gamma _j𝔽_{p^m}`$ can be written uniquely as

$$\gamma _i\gamma _j=\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{m}{}}b_{ij}^{\mathrm{}}\gamma _{\mathrm{}}.$$

Then $`B_{\mathrm{}}=\left(b_{ij}^{\mathrm{}}\right)`$; i.e., the $`(i,j)^{\mathrm{th}}`$ entry of $`B_{\mathrm{}}`$ is $`b_{ij}^{\mathrm{}}`$.

#### 4.3.1 A set of MUB for the case $`d=p^2`$

We would like to mention here that for the case $`d=p^2`$, there is a more explicit construction. We find $`p^2`$ matrices $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_{p^2}`$ over $`𝔽_p`$ which satisfy the conditions of Theorem 4.4. For this purpose, we let

$$A_j=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a_j& b_j\\ b_j& sa_j+tb_j\end{array}\right),a_j,b_j𝔽_p,$$

where $`s,t𝔽_p`$ are two constants which their value need to be determined. By construction, the matrix $`A_j`$ is symmetric, so we have to choose the values of the parameters $`s`$ and $`t`$ such that $`det(A_jA_k)0`$, for every $`1j<kp^2`$. Let $`\alpha =a_ja_k`$ and $`\beta =b_jb_k`$. Then $`(\alpha ,\beta )(0,0)`$, and we have

$$det(A_jA_k)=D(\alpha ,\beta )=\left|\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & \beta \\ \beta & s\alpha +t\beta \end{array}\right|=s\alpha ^2+t\alpha \beta \beta ^2.$$

If $`\alpha =0`$, then $`D(\alpha ,\beta )=\beta ^20`$. Suppose now that $`\alpha 0`$, and let $`\beta /\alpha =\gamma `$. Then

$$D(\alpha ,\beta )=\alpha ^2(\gamma ^2t\gamma s).$$

Thus $`D(\alpha ,\beta )0`$ if the quadratic polynomial $`\gamma ^2t\gamma s`$ is irreducible over $`𝔽_p`$. Since for every prime $`p`$ there is at least one irreducible quadratic polynomial over $`𝔽_p`$, it is possible to choose the parameters $`s,t𝔽_p`$ such that $`D(\alpha ,\beta )0`$, for every $`\alpha ,\beta 𝔽_p`$.

Example $`d=4`$. The four matrices (13) are obtained from the irreducible polynomial $`x^2+x+1`$ over $`𝔽_2`$. Therefore, all those matrices are of the following form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ a& a+b\end{array}\right),a,b𝔽_2.$$

Example $`d=9`$. The polynomial $`x^2+x+2`$ is irreducible over $`𝔽_3`$. Therefore, the matrices $`A_j`$ are of the general form of

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ b& a+2b\end{array}\right).$$

So the nine matrices are

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& 0\\ 0& 2\end{array}\right),`$
$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 2\end{array}\right),`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 2\\ 2& 1\end{array}\right),`$
$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 2\\ 2& 2\end{array}\right),`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right),`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& 2\\ 2& 0\end{array}\right).`$
## 5 Conclusion

In this paper we partially solved the problem of existence of sets of MUB in composite dimensions. We formulated an interesting connection between maximal commuting basis of orthogonal unitary matrices and sets of MUB. We obtained the necessary condition for the existence of sets of MUB in any dimension. Using these we proved the existence of sets of MUB for dimensions which are prime power. We provided a sharp upper bound on the size of any MUB for any dimension. We expressed the sets of MUB observables as tensor products of Pauli matrices. However we could not apply this method when the dimension $`d`$ is a product of different primes instead of being a prime power (the simplest case that belongs to this category is when $`d=6`$) because if we do so the convenient properties of the case $`d=p^m`$ no longer remain valid. For instance Theorem 4.4 does not hold in this case.

A useful application of our result is in secure key distribution using higher dimensional quantum systems. Specifically we note that the protocol suggested by Bechmann–Pasquinucci and Tittel  using four dimensional quantum system will become more efficient if all the five mutually unbiased bases are used in the protocol instead of only two as suggested by the authors.

Note added: After we submitted our paper for this journal and posted it on the Los Alamos quant–ph web site, a related paper  was posted on that e–print server. In that paper, with an approach similar to that introduced by us in this paper, in the case of $`d=2^m`$, the authors discuss the relationship between MUB and the commuting bases of unitary matrices, similar to what we have presented in this paper.