text:
# Singularity-free Cosmological Solutions with Non-rotating Perfect Fluids

## I Introduction

A number of singularity theorems proved in the late sixties of the last century and afterwards led to a belief that a singularity free cosmological solution in general relativity is not possible unless one violates the strong energy condition and/or causality. Here we are not intererested in a critique of these theorems or of the justification of the belief about the non-existence of singularity free solutions. We simply note that when in 1990 Senovilla  presented a non-singular solution with a perfect fluid having $`\rho =3p>0`$, it appeared to be something exceptional. Shortly afterwards, Ruiz and Senovilla  presented a family of non-singular solutions for perfect fluids with or without an equation of state. None of these investigations were motivated by a specific search for non-singular solutions but came as a by-product of an exhaustive investiagtion of $`G_2`$ cosmologies with the following mathematically simplifying assumptions:

> (a) The two killing vectors commute and are hyper-surface orthogonal.
>
> (b) The metric tensor components are separable functions i.e., one can write $`g_{\mu \nu }=T_{\mu \nu }R_{\mu \nu }`$ where $`T^,`$s and $`R^,`$s are functions of the time coordinate $`t`$ and the space coordinate $`r`$ respectively. The coordinates $`t`$ and $`r`$ are respectively the lines tangential to the velocity vector and the space coordinate orthogonal to the spaces spanned by the killing vectors.
>
> (c) All the functions $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ are expressible as powers of a single function of $`t`$.

Ruiz and Senovilla did not assume cylindrical symmetry but noted with surprise that all singularity free solutions discovered by them had this symmetry and wondered whether ”this type of symmetry could have some relevance to the avoidance of singularity.”

Somewhat later, Mars  gave up the assumption that the killing vectors are hyper-surface orthogonal and used an ”ansatz of separation of variables in comoving coordinates” analogous to the assumption (b) above. However, the condition of separatibilty as usually understood does not fully hold good in his solution. \[The exception is $`g_{\varphi \varphi }=r^2\mathrm{cosh}(2at)+a^2r^4\mathrm{cosh}^1(2at)`$.\] Mars’s solution had the equation of state $`\rho =p`$. Ruiz and Senovilla have clearly demonstrated that the only non-singular solutions satisfying their assumptions are given by their equation (58), Mars’s work showed that the generalization to non-orthogonal $`G_2`$ adds merely one member to the family of non-singular solutions with non-rotating perfect fluids.

It is not unreasonable to think that these non-singular solutions (discovered, so to say accidentally) are just a subset of measure zero amongst an infinite family of non-singular solutions - the discovery of the particular ones has been facilitated by their simple mathematical form originating from the very strong assumptions of Ruiz and Senovilla. Such a view would have been confirmed if during the last decade some non-singular solution outside the already discovered family were found. But as nothing like that has happened, it is tempting to nurse the alternative idea that the already discovered solutions exhaust all possible non-singular solutions with non-rotating perfect fluids irrespective of any other consideration. The present investigation was motivated by such an idea and establishes this result by deducing all the assumptions of Ruiz and Senovilla as well as Mars from the condition of non-singularity. But first let us spell out the meaning of different terms used by us:

(i) Non-singularity: It is meant to indicate that none of the physical or geometrical scalars blow up even at infinity. The metric tensor components may blow up (indeed some do blow up in Ruiz-Senovilla and Mars solutions) at spatial or temporal infinity but they must be bounded and continuous in the finite region of space-time. We make no use of the sophisticated idea of geodesic completeness in consideration of singularity. Rather we feel that identifying singularities with incompleteness of null and/or timelike geodesics is in the ultimate analysis ’a piece of opportunism as it allows many theorems to be proved’ .

(ii) Non-rotating: The fluid flow is assumed to be hydrodynamic so that one can introduce a comoving coordinate system with the velocity vector hyper-surface orthogonal, i.e., $`\omega ^\mu =ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \sigma }v_\nu v_{\alpha ;\sigma }=0.`$

(iii) Perfect fluid - The energy stress tensor is of the form $`T_\nu ^\mu =(p+\rho )v^\mu v_\nu p\delta _\nu ^\mu `$ in the usual notation. This means that we are just leaving out viscosity, heat flow etc so that the solution presented by Dadhich et al  are outside our purview.

(iv) Cosmological: The energy tensor obeys the strong energy condition - in particular for the perfect fluid we take somewhat stronger constraint $`0p\rho `$. The pressure and the density must not vanish anywhere except at infinity. We thus exclude the case of a complete vacuum or a bounded distribution of matter. We shall exclude any discontinuity in $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ \- although that is not inconsistent with absence of singularities, such discontinuities are unusual for simple cosmological models. This will allow us to use a single coordinate system as globally valid.

(v) We further introduce the physical assumption that changes of $`p`$ and $`\rho `$ are in the same direction for any change of the coordinates. Such a condition seems natural for any physically acceptable model.

It is easy to see that in the absence of rotation, a non-singular cosmological solution of the desired type must have both acceleration and expansion non-vanishing. For, in the absence of acceleration, expansion will necessarily be associated with a collapse singularity as in the Friedmann models and the expansion free case is not of interest in cosmology. (They are usually studied as stellar models.)

Dadhich  has claimed that instead of all the assumptions of Ruiz and Senovilla, if one, besides our assumptions, assumes that in the comoving coordinate system, the metric tensor is diagonal and separable into functions of time and space coordinates, one is uniquely led to the family discovered by Ruiz and Senovilla. But the additional assumptions of Dadhich are quite strong and leave out Mars’s non-diagonal metric. Our treatment is free of these shortcomings and assumes nothing besides the five conditions stated above.

It may be of some interest to note a paper by Senovilla . The Senovilla paper adopts the metric:

$$ds^2=T^{2(1+n)}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{2n(n1)}(dt^2+dr^2)+T^{2(1+n)}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{2n}\mathrm{\Sigma }^2d\varphi ^2$$

$$+T^{2(1n)}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{2(1n)}dz^2$$

where $`T`$ is a function of $`t`$ alone and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a function of $`r`$ alone. This metric satisfies all the conditions used by Ruiz-Senovilla in their deduction of the singularity free perfect fluid solutions, which under the circumstances are shown to be only such solutions. Specifically the assumptions are existence of $`G_2`$, orthogonal separable metric, all time functions in the metric are powers of a single function. Thus any non-singular solution (they are not explicitly displayed) that  may imply which differs from that of the Ruiz-Senovilla will either violate the perfect fluid condition (note that Senovilla allows $`p_rp_z`$) or violates the strong energy condition. (Senovilla himself points out that there are ”almost FLRW model” which are singularity free but ”violate energy conditions”.)

## II The coordinate system and the functions $`p`$, $`\rho ,\dot{v}_\mu `$ and $`\theta `$

The non-rotating condition allows us to write the metric in the form:

$$ds^2=g_{00}dt^2+g_{ik}dx^idx^k(i,k=1,2,3)$$
(1)
with the fluid velocity components

$$v^i=0,v^0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g_{00}}}$$
(2)
The acceleration vector has the components

$$\dot{v}_i=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{ln}g_{00}),i;\dot{v}_0=0.$$
(3)
Thus the acceleration vector is confined to the three space orthogonal to $`v^\mu `$and in that space it is a gradient vector. Hence we can align a space-like coordinate (say $`x^1=r`$) along this vector which will be orthogonal to the other three coordinate lines and hence (1) will be reduced to

$$ds^2=g_{00}dt^2+g_{11}dr^2+g_{ab}dx^adx^b$$
(4)
with

$$\dot{v}_a=0,;(a,b=2,3)$$
(5)
We shall consider the domain of the coordinates to extend from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$. In particular we note that as the tangent to the $`r`$ coordinate lines is a gradient vector, any $`r`$-line cannot form a closed loop. Thus $`r`$ has to run from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$ (or in case the $`r`$-lines diverge from a point as the radial lines in spherical or cylindrical symmetry, $`r`$ will run from zero to $`\mathrm{}`$.

One may wonder whether the metric form (4) is globally valid with a single coordinate system. However, we note that our condition (iv) setting our idea of a cosmological solution ensures this global validity. Obviously, because of (5) and (3), $`g_{00}`$ is a function of $`r`$ and $`t`$ only (not of $`x^2,x^3`$). From the relation $`T_{\nu ;\mu }^\mu =0`$, we get for perfect fluids,

$$p,_i=\frac{p+\rho }{2}(\mathrm{ln}g_{00}),_i$$
(6)
Hence $`p`$ is also a function of $`r`$ and $`t`$ only. Writing equation (6) in the form

$$(p+\rho )=\frac{2p,_i}{(\mathrm{ln}g_{00}),_i}$$

one sees that $`\rho `$ is also a function of $`r`$ and $`t`$ only. From the other divergence relation

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{g_{00}}}\dot{\rho }=\frac{p+\rho }{2}\theta $$
(7)
one sees that $`\theta `$ is also a function of $`r`$ and $`t`$ only. Summing up, the scalars $`p,\rho ,\theta `$ and the metric tensor component $`g_{00}`$ (whose gradient determines the acceleration) are all functions of $`r`$ and $`t`$ only.

## III The vanishing of some first derivatives

In two communications , the present author established that for non-singular, non-rotating cosmological solution, both the space-time average and the space average (defined in a suitable manner), of each of the scalars that appear in the Raychaudhuri equation vanish. These results in turn require that for distributions of perfect fluid which are not bounded, these scalars must vanish both at spatial and temporal infinity. Thus $`p,\rho ,\sigma ,\theta ,\dot{v}^\mu ;_\mu `$ all vanish at $`r,t\pm \mathrm{}`$. Consequently the positive definite quantities like $`p,\rho ,\sigma ^2,\theta ^2`$ must have at least one maximum both in $`r`$ and $`t`$.

Consider now the case of pressure $`p`$. As it is a function of $`r`$ and $`t`$, the maximum in $`p`$ in $`r`$ defined by $`\frac{p}{r}=0`$ and $`\frac{^2p}{r^2}<0`$ will be a line in the $`r,t`$ space. Along this line we shall have,

$$0=d_L(\frac{p}{r})=\frac{^2p}{r^2}dr_L+\frac{^2p}{rt}dt_L$$
(8)
The subscript $`L`$ indicating that differentials along the line are to be taken. Also as $`\frac{^2p}{r^2}<0`$ all along the line, the integral $`\frac{^2p}{r^2}𝑑r_L`$ will diverge if the domain of integration be infinite but $`\frac{^2p}{r^2}𝑑r_L`$ on integration gives $`(\frac{p}{r})_L`$ and will be finite for all limits of integration. Thus the only way to satisfy (8) is to have $`dr_L=0`$ and $`\frac{^2p}{rt}`$ also zero at all points on the line. Thus this line is a $`t`$-line defined by a constant value of $`r`$.

An exactly similar analysis leads to the conclusion that $`(\frac{p}{t})=0`$ line is a $`t`$-constant line, i.e., a $`r`$ coordinate line and over it also $`\frac{^2p}{rt}`$ vanishes. choosing the intersection of these two orthogonal lines as the origin ($`r=0,t=0`$) we may sum up as follows:

$$\frac{p}{r}=0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{r}=0$$

$$\frac{p}{t}=0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{t}=0$$
(9)
$$\frac{^2p}{rt}=0\mathrm{if}\mathrm{either}\mathrm{r}=0\mathrm{or}\mathrm{t}=0$$

Exactly similarly,

$$\frac{\rho }{r}=0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{r}=\mathrm{constant}=\mathrm{r}_0(\mathrm{say})$$

$$\frac{\rho }{t}=0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{t}=\mathrm{constant}=\mathrm{t}_0(\mathrm{say})$$
(10)
$$\frac{^2\rho }{rt}=0\mathrm{if}\mathrm{either}\mathrm{r}=\mathrm{r}_0\mathrm{or}\mathrm{t}=\mathrm{t}_0$$

We have introduced $`r_0,t_0`$ to indicte the possibility that the maximum of $`p`$ may not coincide with the maximum of $`\rho `$. However, Such a situation will go against our assumption (v). Hence we have $`r_0=t_0=0`$.

Next consider the case of $`(\mathrm{ln}g_{00})`$. In view of equation (6), the zero of $`\frac{p}{r}`$ is also a zero of $`\frac{(\mathrm{ln}g_{00})}{r}`$.

From (6), we get,

$$\frac{p/r}{p}=\frac{1}{2}(1+\frac{\rho }{p})\frac{(\mathrm{ln}g_{00})}{r}$$

If the integral extends from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$, $`p0`$, and hence as $`(1+\frac{\rho }{p})`$ is finite and positive everywhere, $`g_{00}+\mathrm{}`$ as $`r\pm \mathrm{}`$. Again, from (7), by a suitable similar integration, $`|detg_{ik}||h|+\mathrm{}`$ as $`t\pm \mathrm{}`$. But $`\theta `$ and $`\dot{v}^\mu ;_\mu `$ vanish at the infinities, consequently $`g_{00}+\mathrm{}`$ also at $`t\pm \mathrm{}`$ and $`|h|\mathrm{}`$ as $`r\pm \mathrm{}`$. Hence both $`|h|`$ and $`g_{00}`$ must have minimum with respect to both $`r`$ and $`t`$.

That these minina will occur at $`r=0`$ and $`t=0`$ again follows from (6), (7), (9) and (10). A further investigation of the vanishing of $`\sigma ^2`$ and $`\dot{v}^\mu ;_\mu `$ at the infinities show that $`g_{rr}`$ and $`\gamma `$ (the two dimensional metric determinant = $`\frac{|h|}{|g_{11}|}`$) also blow up at the infinities.

Thus we get

$$2\dot{v}^\mu =\frac{(\mathrm{ln}g_{00})}{r}=0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{r}=0$$

$$\frac{(\mathrm{ln}g_{00})}{t}=0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{t}=0$$
(11)
$$\frac{^2(\mathrm{ln}g_{00})}{rt}=0\mathrm{if}\mathrm{either}\mathrm{r}=0\mathrm{or}\mathrm{t}=0$$

Similarly from (7), we get,

$$\frac{\mathrm{ln}|h|}{r}=0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{r}=0$$

$$2\sqrt{g_{00}}\theta =\frac{\mathrm{ln}|h|}{t}=0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{t}=0$$
(12)
$$\frac{^2\mathrm{ln}h}{rt}=0\mathrm{if}\mathrm{either}\mathrm{r}=0\mathrm{or}\mathrm{t}=0$$

The pair of orthogonal lines $`r=0`$ and $`t=0`$ are the lines of vanishing of first derivatives of $`p,\rho ,\mathrm{ln}g_{00},\mathrm{ln}h`$. It is easy to see that at no other value of $`r`$, can $`\frac{p}{r}`$ vanish. If possible let us suppose that at $`r=R(0),\frac{p}{r}=0`$. From our previous analysis, it is clear that non-singularity requires that this cannot be an isolated point but would be the entire $`t`$ coordinate line at which $`r=R`$. Also as $`r=R`$ follows the maximum of $`p`$ at $`r=0`$, $`\frac{^2p}{r^2}`$ will benegative or zero over the entire line. Consider now the Raychaudhuri equation,

$$2\sigma ^2+\frac{1}{3}\theta ^2+\frac{4\pi }{3}(\rho +3p)=\dot{v}^\mu ;_\mu \dot{\theta }$$
(13)
where

$$\dot{\theta }=\theta ,_\mu v^\mu =\frac{1}{\sqrt{g_{00}}}\frac{\theta }{t}$$

and $`\dot{v}^\mu ;_\mu =\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}(\dot{v}^1\sqrt{(g_)}),_1`$.

Now all the terms of the left hand side of (13) are positive and the first term on the right is zero or negative as we have just seen. Hence $`\dot{\theta }`$ is negative at all points on the line and

$$_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{\theta }{t}𝑑t>0$$

which contradicts the condition of regularity that $`\theta `$ is zero at both $`t\pm \mathrm{}`$.

In a similar manner it is easy to see that there is no other zero of $`\frac{p}{t}`$ except at $`t=0`$.

## IV Expressions of the different variables in terms of separated functions

The results of the last section allow us to express $`p`$ in the following form

$$p=\mathrm{\Sigma }R_iT_iQ(r,t)$$

where $`R^{}`$s are linearly independent functions of $`r`$ having $`\frac{R}{r}=0`$ at $`r=0`$ and vanishing at $`r\pm \mathrm{}`$. $`T^{}`$s are similarly functions of $`t`$ alone. We have put in the summation to take care of the possibility that there may be more than one function satisfying the imposed conditions. (Indeed if $`f(r)`$ is one such function then any positive power of $`f(r)`$ will satisfy the same condition.) $`Q(r,t)`$ is any function involving both $`r`$ and $`t`$ (if possible). However, as there is no other zero of $`\frac{p}{r}`$ and $`\frac{p}{t}`$ except those covered in $`R^{}`$s and $`T^{}`$s, the drivarive of $`Q(r,t)`$ with respect to $`r`$ and $`t`$ cannot have any zero. Cosequently, if $`Q`$ is to be bounded everywhere, it must be a constant and can be absorbed in the $`R^{}`$s and $`T^{}`$s. (It is assumed that the summation may be over infinite terms to include all possible $`R^{}`$s and $`T^{}`$s.)

The functions $`R`$ and $`T`$ will be determined by the field equations which are second order partial differential equations - hence there can be at most two linearly independent $`R`$ functions and two $`T`$ functions. So finally,

$$p=R_pT_p+\overline{R}_p\overline{T}_p$$
$`(14)`$
and similarly

$$\rho =R_\rho T_\rho +\overline{R}_\rho \overline{T}_\rho $$
$`(14b)`$
$$\mathrm{ln}g_{00}=R_0T_0+\overline{R}_0\overline{T}_0$$
$`(14c)`$
$$\mathrm{ln}h=R_hT_h+\overline{R}_h\overline{T}_h+M(x^a)$$
$`(14d)`$
where the unbarred and barred functions with the same subscript are linearly independent.

As yet, we have not proved that $`h`$ is independent of the coordinates $`x^2,x^3`$, hence we have added the term $`M(x^a)`$ in (14d). No such term is required in the other three expressions as $`p,\rho ,\mathrm{ln}g_{00}`$ have been shown to be functions of $`r`$ and $`t`$ only.

Putting in the expressions (14a,b,c) in equation (6), we get,

$$R_p^{}T_p+\overline{R}_p^{}\overline{T}_p=\frac{1}{2}(R_pT_p+\overline{R}_p\overline{T}_p+R_\rho T_\rho +\overline{R}_\rho \overline{T}_\rho )(R_0^{}T_0+\overline{R}_0^{}\overline{T}_0)$$
$`(15)`$
where superscript primes indicate differentiation with respect to $`r`$.

Using now the non-linear dependence of the barred and unbarred functions, we get from equation (15),

$$\mathrm{ln}g_{00}=R_0+T_0$$
$`(16a)`$
$$\rho =aR_pT_p+b\overline{R}_p\overline{T}_p$$
$`(16b)`$
$$p=R_pT_p+\overline{R}_p\overline{T}_p$$
$`(16c)`$
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are constants and $`R_0,T_0`$ are different from those in (14c). Also,

$$\mathrm{ln}\overline{R}_p=\frac{1+b}{1+a}\mathrm{ln}R_p$$

and

$$R_0=\frac{2}{1+a}\mathrm{ln}R_p=\frac{2}{1+b}ln\overline{R}_p$$

.

Similarly plugging in (14d) in equation (7), we get,

$$\mathrm{ln}|h|=R_h+T_h+M(x^a)$$
$`(17a)`$
$$\mathrm{ln}\overline{T}_p=\frac{1+b}{1a}\frac{a}{b}\mathrm{ln}T_p$$
$`(17b)`$
$$T_h=\frac{2}{1+a}\mathrm{ln}T_p$$
$`(17c)`$
.

We have already noted that $`g_{11}`$ and $`\gamma `$ also blow up at the infinities of $`r`$ and $`t`$. Hence they also must be expressible in form similar to the above. Keeping in mind the relation $`|h|=|\gamma ||g_{11}|`$, we can write,

$$\mathrm{ln}|g_{11}|=R_1+T_1+N(x^a)$$
$`(18a)`$
$$\mathrm{ln}|\gamma |=R_\gamma +T_\gamma +P(x^a)$$
$`(18b).`$
Note that we can make transformations $`\overline{t}=f(t)`$ and $`\overline{r}=\varphi (r)`$ to have

$$\mathrm{ln}|g_{11}|\mathrm{ln}g_{00}=N(x^a)$$

or, $`g_{11}/g_{00}=`$ a function of $`x^a`$.

## V Proof of the existence of $`G_2`$

We shall proceed in several steps. The first step is to prove that in the solutions that we are seeking, shear must be non-vanishing.

For this it is necessary to use the field equation

$$R_{0i}=8\pi (TT_{0i})$$
$`(19)`$
The above equation for a perfect fluid in irrotational motion can be written in the form

$$\sigma _{i;\alpha }^\alpha \sigma _i^l\dot{v}_l=\frac{2}{3}\theta ,_i$$
$`(20)`$
In our present coordinate system this becomes

$$\sigma _{i|k}^k=\frac{2}{3}\theta ,_i$$
$`(21)`$
where $`|k`$ indicates covariant differentiation with the three space metric. If now $`\sigma _i^k`$ vanishes, $`\theta `$ will be spatially uniform and then either the situation is static ($`\theta =0`$) or the solution will have singularities.

If the three non-zero values of shear eigenvalues are $`S_1,S_2`$ and $`S_3`$, we get

$$S_1=[\frac{1}{2}\frac{}{t}(\mathrm{ln}|g_{11}|\frac{1}{6}\frac{}{t}(\mathrm{ln}h)]\frac{1}{\sqrt{g_{00}}}$$
$`(22)`$
i.e., it is a function of $`r`$ and $`t`$ only.

In the next step we show that $`\sigma ^2`$ and $`\dot{v};_\mu ^\mu `$ are independent of the coordinates $`x^a`$. Looking back at equation (13), we see that in view of (16) and (17) all the terms except $`2\sigma ^2`$ and $`\dot{v};_\mu ^\mu `$ are functions of $`r`$ and $`t`$ only. Hence we must have,

$$(2\sigma ^2),_a=(\dot{v};_\mu ^\mu ),_a$$

But

$$\dot{v};_\mu ^\mu =\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}(\dot{v}_1g^{11}\sqrt{g}),_1$$

$$=\frac{e^{N/2}}{g_{00}}[(\mathrm{ln}g_{00}),_{11}+\frac{1}{2}[(\mathrm{ln}g_{00}),_1(\mathrm{ln}\gamma ),_1]$$

Excepting $`e^{N/2}`$, $`g_{00}`$ and the term within the braces are functions of $`r`$ and $`t`$ only and these have no zero for finite values of $`r`$ and $`t`$. Thus,

$$(2\sigma ^2),_a=(e^{N/2}),_a\times \mathrm{a}\mathrm{non}\mathrm{vanishing}\mathrm{expression}\mathrm{depending}\mathrm{on}r\mathrm{and}t.$$

Consequently, if $`N`$ is not a constant $`(2\sigma ^2),_a`$ or $`(\dot{v};_\mu ^\mu ,_a`$ will have no zero in the finite region of $`r`$ and $`t`$. But as $`\sigma ^2`$ vanishes at $`t=0`$ for all values of $`r`$ and $`x^a`$ and $`(2\sigma ^2),_a`$ or $`(\dot{v};_\mu ^\mu ,_a`$ also vanish there, and it follows that $`N`$ is a constant and hence

$$S_{1,a}=S_{2,a}=S_{3,a}=0$$
$`(23)`$
$$g_{11,a}=0$$

We now come to the last step of our proof of existence of $`G_2`$. For this we introduce three orthonormal vectors $`\lambda _{1|}^i,\lambda _{2|}^i,\lambda _{3|}^i`$, the three unit eigenvectors of the shear tensor. Using the following formulas given in Eisenhart’s book

$$\sigma _{ij;k}\lambda _{h|}^i\lambda _{l|}^j\lambda _{m|}^k=(S_hS_l)\gamma _{hlm}(hl)$$

$$\sigma _{ij;k}\lambda _{h|}^i\lambda _{h|}^j\lambda _{l|}^k=\lambda _{l|}^k\frac{S_h}{x^k}$$

we get from (21),

$$\frac{2}{3}\theta ,_1=[S_{1,1}+\frac{1}{\lambda _{|1}^1}(S_1S_2)\gamma _{122}+\frac{1}{\lambda _{|1}^1}(S_1S_3)\gamma _{133}]$$
$`(24)`$
$$0=[S_{2,2}+\frac{1}{\lambda _{|2}^2}(S_2S_3)\gamma _{233}+\frac{1}{\lambda _{|2}^2}(S_2S_1)\gamma _{211}]$$
$`(25)`$
$$0=[S_{3,3}+\frac{1}{\lambda _{|3}^3}(S_3S_2)\gamma _{322}+\frac{1}{\lambda _{|3}^3}(S_3S_1)\gamma _{311}]$$
$`(26)`$
where $`\gamma ^{}`$s are Ricci relation coefficients. As $`g_{11,a}=0`$, $`\lambda _{1|}^i`$ is geodetic in the three space. Hence $`\gamma _{211}=\gamma _{311}=0.`$ Now from (25) and (26) as $`S_{i,a}=0`$ we get, if $`S_2S_3`$

$$\gamma _{233}=\gamma _{322}=0$$
$`(27)`$
If $`S_2=S_3`$, then the existence of $`G_2`$ can be readily proved but as will be apparent from our later discussion, this case will lead to the vanishing of shear and hence to singular solutions. From (27), owing to the antisymmetry $`\gamma _{abc}=\gamma _{bac}`$, it follows that all the $`\gamma ^{}s`$ involving the subscripts 2 and 3 vanish and consequently the two spaces spanned by $`x^2`$ and $`x^3`$ are all flat; i.e., we may choose coordinates such that $`g_{ab,c}=0`$. Thus all the metric tensor components are independent of $`x^a`$ \- the space time admits translations along $`x^2`$ and $`x^3`$.

## VI Cylindrical Symmetry

From the field equations, one can deduce in case of irrotational motion of a perfect fluid (cf. Ellis ).

$${}_{}{}^{}R=\frac{2}{3}\theta ^2+2\sigma ^2+16\pi \rho $$
$`(28)`$
where $`{}_{}{}^{}R`$ is the Ricci scalar for the three space $`t=`$ const. Now by direct calculation,

$${}_{}{}^{}R_{1}^{1}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g_{11}}}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{r}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Theta }^22\mathrm{\Sigma }^2$$
$`(29)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are the ’expansion’ and ’shear scalar’ for the unit space-like vector $`\xi ^i=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g_{11}}}\delta _1^i`$, i.e.,

$$\mathrm{\Theta }=\xi _{|i}^i=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g_{11}}}(\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{\gamma }),_1$$

$$2\mathrm{\Sigma }^2=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ik}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ik}$$

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ik}=\frac{1}{2}(\xi _{i|k}+(\xi _{k|i})\frac{1}{2}(g_{ik}+(\xi _i\xi _k)\xi _{|m}^m$$

where $`|i`$ indicates covariant differentiation with the three spaces metric. The reader may note the similarity between equation (29) and the Raychaudhuri equation in the 4-dimensional space time. Again with $`G_2`$,

$${}_{}{}^{}R=^{}R_1^1\frac{1}{\sqrt{g_{11}}}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{r}\mathrm{\Theta }^2$$
$`(30)`$
Combining (28), (29) and (30), one gets,

$$\frac{2}{\sqrt{g_{11}}}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{r}\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Theta }^2=\frac{2}{3}\theta ^2+2\sigma ^2+16\pi \rho +2\mathrm{\Sigma }^2$$
$`(31)`$
For the three space at $`t=0`$, $`\theta ^2=\sigma ^2=0`$ and we get from (31)

$$(\frac{2}{\sqrt{g_{11}}}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{r}+\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Theta }^2)>0$$
$`(32)`$
The inequality (32) shows that $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ would blow up leading to the collapse of the two-space (i.e., $`\gamma =0`$). This will not mean a singularity iff $`x^2`$ or $`x^3`$ or both be angle coordinate so that $`\gamma `$ will naturally vanish at $`r=0`$. However both cannot be angle coordinates for then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$ would vanish at $`r=0`$ and (31) would make $`\rho `$ blow up at that point. With one only of $`x^2,x^3`$ being angle coordinate both the left hand side as well as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$ would blow up leaving a finite difference for $`\rho `$.

Thus one of the translations is along an angle coordinate indicating that we have cylindrical symmetry.

## VII Relation between different time functions

Let us identify $`x^2`$ as the angle coordinate. Then the condition of elementary flatness gives $`S_1=S_2`$. Plugging in this result in (24), we get

$$S_{1,1}+3\frac{S_1}{2}(\mathrm{ln}g_{33}),_1=\frac{2}{3}\theta ,_1$$

or

$$\frac{1}{2}S_1(\mathrm{ln}g_{00}),_13\frac{S_1}{2}(\mathrm{ln}g_{33}),_1=\frac{1}{3}\theta (\mathrm{ln}g_{00}),_1$$

so that

$$\frac{(\mathrm{ln}g_{33}),_1}{(\mathrm{ln}g_{00}),_1}=\frac{2}{3}\frac{\frac{(S_1}{2}\frac{\theta }{3})}{S_1}$$
$`(33)`$
From what we have proved it is clear that the left hand side of (33) is a function of $`r`$ alone while the right hand side a function of $`t`$ only. Hence both sides must be constant. So that we have

$$S_2=S_1=n\theta ;S_3=2n\theta $$
$`(34)`$
where $`n`$ is a constant. Equation (34) leads to the desired result that $`T_1=T_2=T_0`$, and $`T_h`$ are expressible as powers of a single time function. Equations (17b) and (17c) then show that $`T_p`$ and $`\overline{T}_p`$ are also of the same type. Hence we have deduced the assumption (c) of Ruiz and Senovilla.

At this stage it is clear that we have been able to deduce all the assumptions made by Ruiz and Senovilla except the hypersurface orthonormality of the killing vectors. This is as it should be for Mars has shown that non-singular solutions do exist where the killing vectors are not hypersurface orthogonal. Also, our demonstration of separatibility stops at that of $`\gamma `$ and does not include the non-diagonal $`g_{ab}`$. This again is consistent with Mars’s finding.

Thus we may claim to have achieved our objective namely that with our conditions (i) to (v), the already known solutions given by Ruiz-Senovilla and Mars are the only possible non-singular solutions.

## VIII Concluding Remarks

It is tempting to ask whether the present work can be extended to more general cases, i.e., whether one can establish specific conditions about non-singular cosmological solutions when one or more of the conditions of irrotational motion, perfect fluidity and $`\frac{p}{\rho }>0`$ is given up. Already there exist quite a number of imperfect fluid non-singular solutions but they vary widely in their characteristics. Thus besides cylindrically symmetric solutions, there are also spherically symmetric solutions  and even an oscillatory solution . In fact for imperfect fluids, the divergence relations $`T_{\mu ;\nu }^\nu =0`$ written out explicitly are much more complicated than (6) and (7) and do not seem amenable for simple general analysis. again if rotation be present, non-diagonal terms $`g_{0i}`$ appear in the metric tensor and further calculation becomes much involved. So far as the condition $`\frac{p}{\rho }>0`$ is concerned, the present author believes that it can be done away with although right now he is not in a position to show that.

Acknowledgements:

The author’s thanks are due to the members of the Relativity and Cosmology Center, Jadavpur University and N. Dadhich of Inter University center for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Pune (India), for helpful discussions.


format: text

text:
# Quantum learning and universal quantum matching machine

## I Introduction

Distinguishing quantum systems is one of the central tasks in quantum information theory. We have a useful formalism known as quantum detection and estimation theory for dealing with this problem Helstrom\_QDET ; Holevo\_book ; PeresBook . Recent progress in quantum communication and computation provides motivations to generalize this theory and apply it to various new situations. Depending on our purposes there may be various scenaria in the problem of distinguishing quantum systems. The systems to be distinguished can be sometimes a set of given quantum states, and sometimes a set of possible quantum dynamics. These systems are usually generated by a quantum source which is expected to have certain characteristic features. If the source generates a completely random phenomena, then it is impossible to extract any meaningful information from it and therefore such a case will not come into our consideration. In a broad sense, we may then essentially have three possible circumstances:

* (1) the source identity, i. e. a set of possible quantum systems and associated probability distribution, is completely known;
* (2) the source identity is unknown, but it belongs to a parametrized family of quantum systems and probability distributions;
* (3) the source is known to be stationary and ergodic, but no other information is available.

The case $`(1)`$ has long been a main subject of quantum detection and estimation theory. However, the other two cases are becoming of practical importance in quantum information technology. Suppose, for example, we are interested in finding efficient representations of incoming random sequences of quantum states. If the source identity is completely known then we have well known theorems on the asymptotic average length of codewords and efficient coding algorithms are being developed and will be of practical use in the near future.

Consider then the situation in which the source identity is not completely known, which is indeed the case when dealing with a realistic quantum source. The obvious way to proceed would be by direct estimation of the source identity, which is then used in the coding algorithm in place of the unknown information of the source. When the source is known to be a member of a parametric family then the unknown parameters are readily estimated from the incoming training data. With enough data the estimate will be sufficiently close to the truth and the representation will be nearly optimal. On the other hand, if only a limited number of training data are available, one has to consider an appropriate estimation strategy which would hopefully be not only asymptotically optimal when the length of the training set tends to infinity, but be also optimal for intermediate amounts of training data. This kind of problem is known as learning strategy in conventional information theory, in particular in pattern matching theory Fu76 ; Fukunaga90 . Reasonable criteria which are usually assumed for a good strategy are:

* (i) no knowledge of the source is required;
* (ii) the delay due to the learning process is not long;
* (iii) the strategy should be simple and easy to implement.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a formalism for the quantum learning strategy and to apply it to the problem of distinguishing quantum systems in cases $`(2)`$ and $`(3)`$. In a recent paper Sasaki\_Carlini\_Jozsa2001a , the authors considered the problem of quantum pattern matching, in which each pattern class $`𝒞_i`$ is represented by a known quantum state $`|g_i`$ called a template state, and the task is to find a template which optimally matches a given unknown quantum state $`|f`$. Namely we have assumed that the input states $`|f`$ are given as quantum information (i.e. unknown quantum states) whereas the template states $`|g_i`$’s with known identities are given as classical information. Our goal was to obtain the best template as classical information (i.e. knowledge of the identity of the best $`|g_i`$) via a suitable matching strategy which is represented by a probability operator measure (POM), also referred to as a positive operator valued measure (POVM).

In the present paper we relax the ingredients of our previous formulation in the following way. That is, instead of fully knowing the identities of the template states we may be given only some finite number ($`K`$) of copies of each template (so our original formulation is equivalent to $`K=\mathrm{}`$). One matching strategy would then be to apply state estimation to the sets of $`K`$ copies and proceed as in our original formulation with the resulting estimated state identities. But this is unlikely to be an optimal strategy, since any intermediate measurement process generally degrades the classification performance, as shown in Ref. Sasaki\_Carlini\_Jozsa2001a . Following the criteria (i)$``$(iii), we should consider a more fully quantum procedure which, for any input $`|f`$, identifies the best template class without attempting to obtain any further information about the identities of the template states themselves.

Unfortunately, however, it seems still difficult to deal with this problem in general contexts. Therefore, we mainly consider here some tractable cases in order to illustrate how the quantum matching strategy should work in general. In particular, we assume that we a priori know that the input feature state $`|f`$ and the template states $`|g_1`$ and $`|g_2`$ belong to the following parametrized families of pure quantum states:

$`|f`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|+\mathrm{e}^{if}|\right),`$ (1)
$`|g_1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|+\mathrm{e}^{ig_1}|\right),`$ (2)
$`|g_2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|+\mathrm{e}^{ig_2}|\right),`$ (3)
where the parameters $`f`$, $`g_1`$, and $`g_2`$ are completely unknown. In this model, we will compare the semiclassical matching strategy which is obtained by a natural extension of the conventional matching strategy, and its fully quantum counterpart which we will identify as the universal quantum matching machine.

## II Semiclassical Matching Machine

We are now given only some finite number ($`K`$) of identical samples of each template $`|g_i`$ which represent the features of a class $`𝒞_i(=1,\mathrm{},M)`$, but whose state identities are completely unknown. The input state $`|f`$ is also given as an unknown quantum state and we have $`N`$ identical copies of $`|f`$. For simplicity we set $`M=2`$, i.e., we study the problem of binary classification. Thus we start with a system described by the state

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }|f^N|g_1^K|g_2^K.$$
(4)
We first analyze a semiclassical strategy which is a natural extension of conventional matching strategies. That is, we first apply state estimation to the template states, design a classifier based on the results, and then apply this to measure and classify the input feature state. (see Fig. 1).

This strategy is represented by two kinds of POMs; the first is for estimating the identities of the given unknown template states from the sets of $`K`$ samples $`\widehat{g}_1^K\widehat{g}_2^K`$ ($`\widehat{g}_i`$ is understood as $`|g_ig_i|`$). This POM is indexed by the possible outcomes $`\{g_1^{},g_2^{}\}`$ about the template identities and is denoted by $`\{\widehat{\mu }(g_1^{},g_2^{})\}`$. The other is for classifying the input feature state with $`N`$ samples $`\widehat{f}^N`$. This POM consists of two elements $`\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1(g_1^{},g_2^{}),\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2(g_1^{},g_2^{})\}`$ and should be the optimal matching strategy for the estimated templates $`\{\widehat{g}_1^{},\widehat{g}_2^{}\}`$, which was already given in our previous paper Sasaki\_Carlini\_Jozsa2001a . In this way each classifier POM element depends on the estimated parameters $`\{g_1^{},g_2^{}\}`$.

The problem here is then to find the optimal estimation strategy $`\{\widehat{\mu }(g_1^{},g_2^{})\}`$. Such a strategy should maximize the following average score:

$$\overline{S}^{\mathrm{SC}}\underset{(g_1^{},g_2^{})}{}\underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}\left(\frac{1}{2\pi }\right)^3_0^{2\pi }𝑑g_1𝑑g_2𝑑f\mathrm{Tr}\left[\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_j(g_1^{},g_2^{})\widehat{f}^N\right]\mathrm{Tr}\left[\widehat{\mu }(g_1^{},g_2^{})\widehat{g}_1^K\widehat{g}_2^K\right]\times |f|g_j|^2.$$
(5)
The second trace-term in Eq. (5) is the conditional probability of having the outcomes $`\{g_1^{},g_2^{}\}`$ for the template states $`\{\widehat{g}_1^K,\widehat{g}_2^K\}`$. The first trace-term is then the conditional probability that the input state $`\widehat{f}`$ is classified into the $`j`$-th class when an appropriate matching strategy is applied to the $`N`$ identical input samples $`\widehat{f}^N`$, and $`|f|g_j|^2`$ is the conditional score.

Using the conventional terminology of pattern matching theory, the POM $`\{\widehat{\mu }(g_1^{},g_2^{})\}`$ corresponds to the learning process to train the classifier $`\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_j(g_1^{},g_2^{})\}`$ with given training samples $`\{\widehat{g}_1^K,\widehat{g}_2^K\}`$. A well known method is the adaptive learning algorithm in which one first measures each pair of the training samples $`\{\widehat{g}_1,\widehat{g}_2\}`$ and then updates the classifier parameters step by step for $`K`$ iterations under some appropriate updating rules. In contrast, the optimal learning strategy is expected to be a POM $`\{\widehat{\mu }(g_1^{},g_2^{})\}`$ acting collectively on the state $`\widehat{g}_1^K\widehat{g}_2^K`$, i.e., fully exploiting the power of quantum entanglement.

The main purpose of this section is to develop a Bayesian formulation for the optimal learning strategy. First we introduce the score operators

$$\widehat{W}(g_j)\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }𝑑f\widehat{f}^N|f|g_j|^2,$$
(6)
just as in our previous paper, and rewrite Eq. (5) as

$$\overline{S}^{\mathrm{SC}}=\underset{(g_1^{},g_2^{})}{}\left(\frac{1}{2\pi }\right)^2_0^{2\pi }𝑑g_1𝑑g_2\mathrm{Tr}\left[\widehat{\mu }(g_1^{},g_2^{})\widehat{g}_1^K\widehat{g}_2^K\right]\underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}\mathrm{Tr}\left[\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_j(g_1^{},g_2^{})\widehat{W}(g_j)\right].$$
(7)
We then further introduce a learning score operator

$$\widehat{G}(g_1^{},g_2^{})\left(\frac{1}{2\pi }\right)^2_0^{2\pi }𝑑g_1𝑑g_2\widehat{g}_1^K\widehat{g}_2^K\underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}\mathrm{Tr}\left[\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_j(g_1^{},g_2^{})\widehat{W}(g_j)\right],$$
(8)
and rewrite Eq. (7) as

$$\overline{S}^{\mathrm{SC}}=\underset{(g_1^{},g_2^{})}{}\mathrm{Tr}\left[\widehat{\mu }(g_1^{},g_2^{})\widehat{G}(g_1^{},g_2^{})\right].$$
(9)
Thus the problem of finding the optimal learning strategy reduces to the estimation problem of the classifier parameters $`g_1^{}`$ and $`g_2^{}`$ through the learning score operator $`\widehat{G}(g_1^{},g_2^{})`$.

Let us now proceed with the explicit calculation. We first need to evaluate $`_{j=1}^2\mathrm{Tr}\left[\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_j(g_1^{},g_2^{})\widehat{W}(g_j)\right]`$. If the score operator $`\widehat{W}(g_j)`$ were replaced by $`\widehat{W}(g_j^{})`$, then this quantity would be nothing but the average score appearing in the quantum template matching problem discussed in our previous paper Sasaki\_Carlini\_Jozsa2001a . In our previous work, the set $`\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1,\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2\}`$ was designed for the a priori known parameters $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ of the template states. On the other hand, the POM $`\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1(g_1^{},g_2^{}),\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2(g_1^{},g_2^{})\}`$ here should be designed for the estimated parameters $`\{g_1^{},g_2^{}\}`$, while the score operators correspond to the unknown template states $`\widehat{g}_1`$ or $`\widehat{g}_2`$.

By definition, the POM $`\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1(g_1^{},g_2^{}),\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2(g_1^{},g_2^{})\}`$ should maximize the average score for $`\widehat{W}(g_j^{})`$ instead of $`\widehat{W}(g_j)`$, i.e. we should maximiize

$$\overline{S}^{}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}\mathrm{Tr}\left[\widehat{W}(g_j^{})\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_j(g_1^{},g_2^{})\right]=\frac{1}{2}+\mathrm{Tr}\left[\left(\widehat{W}(g_1^{})\widehat{W}(g_2^{})\right)\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1(g_1^{},g_2^{})\right],$$
(10)
where the resolution of the identity $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1(g_1^{},g_2^{})+\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2(g_1^{},g_2^{})=\widehat{I}`$ was used in the second equality. The score operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1(g_1^{},g_2^{})`$ should be then taken to maximize $`\mathrm{Tr}\left[\left(\widehat{W}(g_1^{})\widehat{W}(g_2^{})\right)\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(g_1^{},g_2^{})\right]`$, that is, it should be the projection onto the subspace corresponding to the positive eigenvalues of the operator $`\widehat{W}(g_1^{})\widehat{W}(g_2^{})`$. The score operators are built from the tensor product of $`N`$ identical copies of the input system, $`|f^N`$, and they are most appropriately described on the $`N+1`$ dimensional totally symmetric bosonic subspace of $`^N`$, $`_B`$, where $`\{|m\}`$ is the occupation number basis for the $``$ component. The score operators can then be written in the form

$$\widehat{W}(g_j^{})=\frac{1}{2^{N+1}}\left[\underset{m=0}{\overset{N}{}}2|mm|+\underset{m=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\sqrt{\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ m\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ m+1\end{array}\right)}\left(\mathrm{e}^{ig_j^{}}|m+1m|+\mathrm{e}^{ig_j^{}}|mm+1|\right)\right].$$
(11)
Therefore

$$\widehat{W}(g_1^{})\widehat{W}(g_2^{})=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{2^{N+1}}\underset{m=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\sqrt{\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ m\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ m+1\end{array}\right)}\left(\mathrm{e}^{i(\mathrm{\Theta }+\pi /2)}|m+1m|+\mathrm{e}^{i(\mathrm{\Theta }+\pi /2)}|mm+1|\right),$$
(12)
where we have introduced $`\mathrm{\Theta }\frac{g_1^{}+g_2^{}}{2}`$ and $`\theta \frac{g_1^{}g_2^{}}{2}`$. Eq. (12) can also be rewritten as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{W}(\mathrm{\Theta }+\frac{\pi }{2},\theta )\widehat{W}(g_1^{})\widehat{W}(g_2^{})=\widehat{V}(\mathrm{\Theta }+\frac{\pi }{2})\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{W}(0,\theta )\widehat{V}^{}(\mathrm{\Theta }+\frac{\pi }{2}),$$
(13)
where

$$\widehat{V}(\mathrm{\Theta })\underset{m=0}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{e}^{im\mathrm{\Theta }}|mm|,$$
(14)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{W}(0,\theta )\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{2^{N+1}}\underset{m=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\sqrt{\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ m\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ m+1\end{array}\right)}\left(|m+1m|+|mm+1|\right).$$
(15)
Let the spectral decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{W}(0,\theta )`$ be

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{W}(0,\theta )=\underset{m=0}{\overset{N}{}}\lambda _m|\lambda _m\lambda _m|,$$
(16)
and introduce the POM

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1=\underset{\lambda _m0}{}|\lambda _m\lambda _m|,\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_2=\underset{\lambda _m<0}{}|\lambda _m\lambda _m|.$$
(17)
Note that the $`\{|\lambda _m\}`$, and hence the $`\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_j\}`$, do not depend on $`\theta `$ while the eigenvalues $`\lambda _m`$ are proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}\theta `$. The optimal strategy for maximizing $`\overline{S}^{}`$ (Eq. (10)) is then expressed by the POM

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_j(g_1^{},g_2^{})\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_j(\mathrm{\Theta })=\widehat{V}(\mathrm{\Theta }+\frac{\pi }{2})\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_j\widehat{V}^{}(\mathrm{\Theta }+\frac{\pi }{2}).$$
(18)
The parameter $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ represents the relative position of the pair of the estimated states $`\widehat{g}_1^{}`$ and $`\widehat{g}_2^{}`$ from the $`\widehat{\sigma }_x`$-axis in the Bloch sphere. This is the only parameter needed to specify the classifier, that is, the one to be learned from the training samples $`\{\widehat{g}_1^K,\widehat{g}_2^K\}`$. The angle $`\theta `$ between $`\widehat{g}_1^{}`$ and $`\widehat{g}_2^{}`$ in the Bloch sphere, on the other hand, is irrelevant for the design of the classifier. The state configuration is depicted in Fig. 2.

Using Eq. (18) we then obtain

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\mathrm{Tr}\left[\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_j(g_1^{},g_2^{})\widehat{W}(g_j)\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\mathrm{Tr}\left[\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_j(\mathrm{\Theta })\widehat{W}(g_j)\right]`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\mathrm{Tr}\left[\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{W}({\displaystyle \frac{g_1+g_2}{2}}\mathrm{\Theta },{\displaystyle \frac{g_1g_2}{2}})\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\left[\mathrm{sin}(g_1\mathrm{\Theta })\mathrm{sin}(g_2\mathrm{\Theta })\right]R_N,`$
where

$$R_N\frac{1}{2^{N+1}}\underset{m=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\sqrt{\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ m\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ m+1\end{array}\right)}m|\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1|m+1.$$
(20)
Therefore the learning score operator in Eq. (8) can be also rewritten as

$$\widehat{G}(\mathrm{\Theta })=\left(\frac{1}{2\pi }\right)^2_0^{2\pi }𝑑g_1𝑑g_2\widehat{g}_1^K\widehat{g}_2^K\left\{\frac{1}{2}+\left[\mathrm{sin}(g_1\mathrm{\Theta })\mathrm{sin}(g_2\mathrm{\Theta })\right]R_N\right\}.$$
(21)
Then the average score of Eq. (9) finally reads

$$\overline{S}^{\mathrm{SC}}=\underset{\mathrm{\Theta }}{}\mathrm{Tr}\left[\widehat{\mu }(\mathrm{\Theta })\widehat{G}(\mathrm{\Theta })\right].$$
(22)
After the integration of $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$, the learning score operator $`\widehat{G}(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ is represented by

$$\widehat{G}(\mathrm{\Theta })=\frac{1}{2}\widehat{C}\widehat{C}+\frac{R_N}{2}\left[\widehat{D}(\mathrm{\Theta })\widehat{C}\widehat{C}\widehat{D}(\mathrm{\Theta })\right],$$
(23)
where

$`\widehat{C}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^K}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{K}{}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}K\\ k\end{array}\right)|kk|,`$ (26)
$`\widehat{D}(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2^K}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{K1}{}}}\sqrt{\left(\begin{array}{c}K\\ k\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}K\\ k+1\end{array}\right)}\left(\mathrm{e}^{i\mathrm{\Theta }}|k+1k|\mathrm{e}^{i\mathrm{\Theta }}|kk+1|\right).`$ (31)
The basis $`\{|k\}`$ is the symmetric bosonic basis for the system of $`K`$ identical copies of the template states $`\widehat{g}_1^K`$ or $`\widehat{g}_2^K`$. Although we have not succeeded yet in deriving the optimal POM $`\{\widehat{\mu }(\mathrm{\Theta })\}`$ maximizing the above score $`\overline{S}`$ for general $`K`$, in order to show how the method works we present here as an example three different kinds of optimal learning strategies for the case $`K=1`$.

The first one is the group covariant continuous POM. First observe that the spectral decomposition of $`\widehat{G}(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ is as follows

$$\widehat{G}(\mathrm{\Theta })=\frac{(1+2R_N)}{8}|a_+(\mathrm{\Theta })a_+(\mathrm{\Theta })\left|+\frac{1}{8}\right|TT\left|+\frac{1}{8}\right|a_0(\mathrm{\Theta })a_0(\mathrm{\Theta })\left|+\frac{(12R_N)}{8}\right|a_{}(\mathrm{\Theta })a_{}(\mathrm{\Theta })|,$$
(32)
where we have introduced

$`|a_+(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{e}^{i(\mathrm{\Theta }+\frac{\pi }{2})}|+\sqrt{2}|S+\mathrm{e}^{i(\mathrm{\Theta }+\frac{\pi }{2})}|),`$ (33)
$`|a_0(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{e}^{i(\mathrm{\Theta }+\frac{\pi }{2})}\right|+\sqrt{2}|S\mathrm{e}^{i(\mathrm{\Theta }+\frac{\pi }{2})}|),`$ (34)
$`|a_{}(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\mathrm{e}^{i(\mathrm{\Theta }+\frac{\pi }{2})}\right|+\mathrm{e}^{i(\mathrm{\Theta }+\frac{\pi }{2})}|),`$ (35)
$`|T`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\right|+|),`$ (36)
$`|S`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\right||).`$ (37)
If we symbolically denote

$$\widehat{G}(\mathrm{\Theta })=\frac{1}{8}\stackrel{~}{G}(\mathrm{\Theta })\frac{1}{8}|TT|,$$
(38)
the optimal POM can be written as

$$\widehat{\mu }(\mathrm{\Theta })=\stackrel{~}{\mu }(\mathrm{\Theta })|TT|,$$
(39)
and the average score is given by

$$\overline{S}^{\mathrm{SC}}=\frac{1}{8}+\frac{1}{8}\mathrm{Tr}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }},$$
(40)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }𝑑\mathrm{\Theta }\stackrel{~}{\mu }(\mathrm{\Theta })\stackrel{~}{G}(\mathrm{\Theta }).$$
(41)
So we would like to find the POM $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ maximizing $`\mathrm{Tr}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$. We can see that the square root measurement based on the maximum eigenvalue state $`|a_+(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ is actually the optimal POM. In fact, using

$$\widehat{a}=\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }d\mathrm{\Theta }|a_+(\mathrm{\Theta })a_+(\mathrm{\Theta })|=\frac{1}{4}||+\frac{1}{2}|SS|+\frac{1}{4}||,$$
(42)
the square root measurement is constructed by

$`\stackrel{~}{\mu }(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ $`=`$ $`|\stackrel{~}{\mu }(\mathrm{\Theta })\stackrel{~}{\mu }(\mathrm{\Theta })|,`$ (43)
$`|\stackrel{~}{\mu }(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ $``$ $`\widehat{a}^{\frac{1}{2}}|a_+(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ (44)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{i(\mathrm{\Theta }+\frac{\pi }{2})}|+|S+\mathrm{e}^{i(\mathrm{\Theta }+\frac{\pi }{2})}|.`$
We then have

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=(1+\sqrt{2}R_N)||+(1+2\sqrt{2}R_N)|SS|+(1+\sqrt{2}R_N)||.$$
(45)
It is almost straightforward to prove that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\stackrel{~}{G}(\mathrm{\Theta })0`$ (i.e., by seeing the eigenvalues 3, 1, and 0), and that $`[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\stackrel{~}{G}(\mathrm{\Theta })]\stackrel{~}{\mu }(\mathrm{\Theta })=0`$. Thus the POM of Eq. (43) is optimal Holevo73\_condition ; Yuen ; Helstrom\_QDET ; Holevo\_book , and the maximum average score is

$$\overline{S}_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{SC}}=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{R_N}{\sqrt{2}}.$$
(46)
The POM in Eq. (44) is group covariant as specified by

$`|\stackrel{~}{\mu }(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{V}(\mathrm{\Theta })|\stackrel{~}{\mu }(0)`$ (47)
$`\widehat{V}(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{i\mathrm{\Theta }}||+|SS|+\mathrm{e}^{i\mathrm{\Theta }}||.`$ (48)
The second optimal learning strategy is the discrete version of the above strategy. Actually there are many equivalent discrete POMs attaining the same maximum average score $`\overline{S}_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{SC}}`$. The strategy requiring the minimum number of outputs is most appreciated practically. This can be directly read from Eq. (43) as $`\{\stackrel{~}{\mu }(0),\stackrel{~}{\mu }(\frac{2\pi }{3}),\stackrel{~}{\mu }(\frac{4\pi }{3})\}`$.

These two strategies have been derived from quantum estimation theory in the standard way, that is, by taking the symmetry of the operator $`\widehat{G}(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ into account. On the other hand, we may also derive another solution from intuitive considerations in the following way. Since the parameters $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ specifying the template states are completely unknown, the two template states are independent, i.e., there is no a priori correlation between them, and they are just described by the product state $`|g_1|g_2`$. It might then be sensible to expect that there should exist an optimal learning strategy based on the separate measurement on each template state. Yet the relative direction between the two measurements might be correlated for us to be able to choose the appropriate classifier $`\{\mathrm{\Omega }_1(\mathrm{\Theta }),\mathrm{\Omega }_2(\mathrm{\Theta })\}`$. We may then apply a von Neumann measurement on each template to know about the state identity. Let us define the two von Neumann measurements

$`|A_\pm `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|\pm |\right),`$ (49)
$`|B_\pm `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|\pm i|\right).`$ (50)
We can then show that the four output POM with the corresponding guesses for $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}|\mu (\mathrm{\Theta }_0)\hfill & =\hfill & |A_+|B_+,\mathrm{\Theta }_0\hfill & =\hfill & 3\pi /4\hfill \\ |\mu (\mathrm{\Theta }_1)\hfill & =\hfill & |A_+|B_{},\mathrm{\Theta }_1\hfill & =\hfill & \pi /4\hfill \\ |\mu (\mathrm{\Theta }_2)\hfill & =\hfill & |A_{}|B_+,\mathrm{\Theta }_2\hfill & =\hfill & 3\pi /4\hfill \\ |\mu (\mathrm{\Theta }_3)\hfill & =\hfill & |A_{}|B_{},\mathrm{\Theta }_3\hfill & =\hfill & \pi /4.\hfill \end{array}$$
(51)
is also an optimal learning strategy. Actually, it can be seen that $`_{i=0}^3\mathrm{Tr}\left[|\mu (\mathrm{\Theta }_i)\mu (\mathrm{\Theta }_i)|\widehat{G}(\mathrm{\Theta }_i)\right]`$ is just the maximum average score $`\overline{S}_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{SC}}`$. Note that in this case, however, the POM of Eq. (51) is no longer group covariant.

## III Universal Quantum Matching Machine

The strategies described in the previous section would be a good and practical matching strategy. But this is not optimal and there is a more fully quantum procedure which extracts only the required information, i. e., the classical information on which class is best matched with $`|f`$, without attempting to obtain any further information about the identities of the template states themselves. The total system at our hand is now represented by the state

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }|f^N|g_1^K\mathrm{}|g_M^K.$$
(52)
The optimal strategy can then be defined by a straightforward extension of the Bayesian formulation given in our previous work Sasaki\_Carlini\_Jozsa2001a , with the score operators now defined by

$$\widehat{W}_i\left(\frac{1}{2\pi }\right)^M𝑑g_1\mathrm{}𝑑g_M𝑑f|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|\times |f|g_i|^2P(\widehat{f}),$$
(53)
where $`P(\widehat{f})`$ is the a priori probability distribution of the input feature parameter (taken here as uniform, i.e. $`P(\widehat{f})=\frac{1}{2\pi }`$). The new ingredients in the present formulation are just the additional integrations over the unknown parameters for the template states. The fully quantum optimal strategy is obtained as a POM $`\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_i\}`$ that maximizes the following average score

$$\overline{S}^{\mathrm{QM}}=\underset{i}{\overset{M}{}}\mathrm{Tr}(\widehat{W}_i\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_i).$$
(54)
Once parametrized families of input and template states are specified, the obtained solution is expected to work equally well for any states belonging to such families by its definition. In this sense we might call this optimal POM as a universal quantum matching machine.

### III.1 Example: Two state system with $`M=2`$ and $`K=1`$

Although the definition of the universal quantum matching machine is straightforward, it is in general a difficult task to derive an explicit expression for the corresponding POM. Here we present an illustrative example to demonstrate how the universal quantum matching machine works and attains a performance which cannot be reached by any other conventional (semiclassical) matching strategy.

As usual by now, the full input system $`|f^N`$ is most appropriately described on the $`N+1`$ dimensional totally symmetric bosonic subspace $`_B`$ as

$$|f^N=\underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}\sqrt{\frac{1}{2^N}\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ k\end{array}\right)}\mathrm{e}^{ikf}|k,$$
(55)
where $`\{|k\}`$ is the occupation number basis of the $``$-component. In the case of a binary matching problem ($`M=2`$) we have the two score operators

$`\widehat{W}_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{N+2+2K}}}`$ $`[`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{K}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{K}{}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ k\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}K\\ m\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}K\\ n\end{array}\right)|k,m,nk,m,n|`$ (62)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\sqrt{\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ k\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ k+1\end{array}\right)}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{K1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{K}{}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}K\\ n\end{array}\right)\sqrt{\left(\begin{array}{c}K\\ m\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}K\\ m+1\end{array}\right)}`$ (73)
$`\times `$ $`(|k+1,m,nk,m+1,n|+|k,m+1,nk+1,m,n|)],`$ (74)
$`\widehat{W}_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{N+2+2K}}}`$ $`[`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{K}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{K}{}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ k\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}K\\ m\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}K\\ n\end{array}\right)|k,m,nk,m,n|`$ (81)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\sqrt{\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ k\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ k+1\end{array}\right)}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{K}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{K1}{}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}K\\ m\end{array}\right)\sqrt{\left(\begin{array}{c}K\\ n\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}K\\ n+1\end{array}\right)}`$ (92)
$`\times `$ $`(|k+1,m,nk,m,n+1|+|k,m,n+1k+1,m,n|)],`$ (93)
where $`|k,m,n|k|m|n`$, and $`\{|k\}`$, $`\{|m\}`$, and $`\{|n\}`$ are the occupation number basis of the $``$-component for $`|f^N`$, $`|g_1^K`$, and $`|g_2^K`$, respectively. We are to maximize the following quantity

$`\overline{S}^{\mathrm{QM}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\mathrm{Tr}\left[(\widehat{W}_1\widehat{W}_2)\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1\right].`$ (94)
As already explained in section II below Eq. (10), the problem reduces to finding the subspace corresponding to the positive eigenvalues of the operator $`\widehat{W}_1\widehat{W}_2`$. From Eqs. (62) and (81) we have in the case of $`K=1`$ that,

$`\widehat{W}_1\widehat{W}_2={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2^{N+4}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\sqrt{\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ k\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ k+1\end{array}\right)}\times [`$ $``$ $`|k+1,00k,S||k,Sk+1,00|`$ (99)
$`+`$ $`|k+1,Sk,11|+|k,11k+1,S|],`$ (100)
where the state $`|k+1,00`$ is understood as $`|k+1|0|0`$. (Note that in the $`K=1`$ case we have that $`|S(|01|10)/\sqrt{2}=(||)/\sqrt{2}`$, i.e., the bosonic space for the template states reduces to the original one-qubit space.) The operator $`\widehat{W}_1\widehat{W}_2`$ can be finally arranged into a direct sum as

$$\widehat{W}_1\widehat{W}_2=\underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{W}_k,$$
(101)
where

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{W}_k{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2^{N+4}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\sqrt{\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ k\end{array}\right)}[`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ k+1\end{array}\right)}\left(|k+1,00k,S|+|k,Sk+1,00|\right)`$ (106)
$`+`$ $`\sqrt{\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ k1\end{array}\right)}(|k,Sk1,11|+|k1,11k,S|)],(1kN1),`$ (109)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{W}_0\frac{\sqrt{2N}}{2^{N+4}}\left(|1,000,S||0,S1,00|\right),$$
(110)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{W}_N\frac{\sqrt{2N}}{2^{N+4}}\left(|N,SN1,11|+|N1,11N,S|\right).$$
(111)
Subsequently, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{W}_k`$’s are diagonalized as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{W}_k{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2^{N+4}}}\sqrt{\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ k\end{array}\right)}\sqrt{\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ k+1\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ k1\end{array}\right)}\left(|k_+k_+||k_{}k_{}|\right),(1kN1),`$ (118)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{W}_0\frac{\sqrt{2N}}{2^{N+4}}\left(|1_+1_+||1_{}1_{}|\right),$$
(119)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{W}_N\frac{\sqrt{2N}}{2^{N+4}}\left(|N+1_+N+1_+||N+1_{}N+1_{}|\right),$$
(120)
where

$$|k_\pm \frac{\sqrt{\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ k+1\end{array}\right)}|k+1,00+\sqrt{\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ k+1\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ k1\end{array}\right)}|k,S\pm \sqrt{\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ k1\end{array}\right)}|k1,11}{\sqrt{2}\sqrt{\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ k+1\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ k1\end{array}\right)}},$$
(121)
for $`1kN1`$,

$$|1_\pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|1,00+|0,S\right),$$
(122)
and

$$|N+1_\pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\pm |N,S+|N1,11\right),$$
(123)
respectively. Therefore the optimal matching strategy is described by the POM

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N+1}{}}|k_+k_+|,\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_2=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N+1}{}}|k_{}k_{}|,$$
(124)
and the optimal attainable average score is given by

$$\overline{S}^{\mathrm{QM}}=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2^{N+4}}\left(2\sqrt{N}+\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\sqrt{\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ k\end{array}\right)}\sqrt{\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ k+1\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ k1\end{array}\right)}\right).$$
(125)
This score $`\overline{S}^{\mathrm{QM}}`$ obtained by the universal quantum matching machine should be compared with the optimal score $`\overline{S}^{\mathrm{SC}}`$ of the semiclassical matching strategy based on the learning process. Fig. 3 shows the average score by the two kind of matching strategies as a function of $`N`$, the number of input feature samples. The big dots represent the average score by the universal quantum matching machine in the case of $`K=1`$. This is larger than the one by the optimal semiclassical matching strategy based on the learning process, shown by the big circle. As $`K`$ increases, we expect larger score although the values can not be plotted because we have not succeeded yet in deriving the optimal solution for general $`K`$. For $`K=\mathrm{}`$, we have derived the maximum attainable score in Sasaki\_Carlini\_Jozsa2001a , which is shown by the solid line in Fig. 3. The dashed line is for the semiclassical matching by majority voting.

## IV Concluding remarks

We have considered a full quantum extension of the binary quantum pattern matching problem which was addressed in the recent paper Sasaki\_Carlini\_Jozsa2001a . In such a problem, given unknown template states $`|g_1^K`$ and $`|g_2^K`$, and an input feature state $`|f^N`$, we are to decide to which template the input feature state is closest in the sense of the fidelity criterion. We have presented two kinds of matching strategies, that is, a semiclassical matching strategy based on learning and a universal quantum matching strategy. In particular, we have explicitly derived the Bayes optimal learning strategy for the semiclassical matching and the optimal universal quantum matching strategy in the case of one copy, $`K=1`$, for the template states, and an arbitrary number $`N`$ of copies of the input state. Our previous results in Sasaki\_Carlini\_Jozsa2001a  correspond to the case of $`K=\mathrm{}`$.

For general $`K2`$, the Bayes optimal solutions for both the semiclassical learning strategy and the universal quantum matching strategy are still not known. Concerning the optimal learning strategy used in the semiclassical matching problem, one of the interesting questions would be whether there exists an optimal separable strategy of the type as described in Eq. (51). From a preliminary analysis of the case of $`K=2`$, the POM similar to Eq. (51), which is now the product made of two 3-output von Neumann measurements, does not satisfy the Bayes optimal condition for state estimation. What would then the optimal learning strategy look like in this case? Of course there should be a group covariant POM which is generally an entangled measurement on the two templates. Is such an entangled measurement the only optimal learning strategy? If so, it would be surprising because the two templates have no a priori correlation. Or are there other kinds of separable measurements? As for the universal quantum matching machine, the problem would just reduce to finding the appropriate division of the Hilbert space, but for larger $`K`$ this becomes a tedious task.

The reader might feel that the model used in this paper is in some respect artificial. In fact, this model is still far away from practically encountered situations. However, we may say that an important aspect of quantum pattern matching problem is already seen. Namely, there certainly exists a full quantum matching procedure as the universal quantum matching machine which is strictly superior to the straightforward extension of the conventional matching strategy based on the learning process of the classifier with the training template samples. The derived universal quantum matching machine, i.e., the POM in Eq. (124), provides a typical matching model for extracting the meaningful information about the best template class without attempting to obtain any further information about the identities of the template states themselves, excluding any intermediate measurement process. In the similar spirit, it is worth mentioning the recent work on the comparison of two unknown quantum pure states BarnettCheflesJex2002 , where the quantum optimal comparing strategies are derived for several criteria.

In practical applications, the input and the template systems will be more complicated, and possibly associated with secondary features which are not relevant to the pattern classification. So, as already pointed out in Sasaki\_Carlini\_Jozsa2001a , it would be of practical concern how to enhance the features of interest and to quarry the essential components (subspaces) of the quantum system for the pattern classification. In the scenario where the input and template identities are completely unknown, we might rely on a two stage procedure: first estimate the input and template identities to extract important features by using some set of aymptotically vanishing measure of the given samples; then discard redundant parts of the input and the template systems, and cut an effective subspace out of the original quantum Hilbert space; finally, after the feature enhancement process, carry out a fully quantum pattern classification procedure in the smaller space. Thus, in a sense, we see that the quantum pattern matching problem naturally involves aspects of both state estimation and state discrimination. The former is necessary for the learning process and the feature enhancement, while the latter is used for the pattern classification. In this direction, it would be also interesting to study effective quantum matching algorithms which are simple enough in structure and easy to be implemented, although not necessarily Bayes optimal.

Similarly to the case of the conventional pattern matching problem, the quantum matching algorithm complexity will be an important future problem. It is in fact believed that the complexity in some image recognition problems is in the NP-complete class. How can the quantum pattern matching problem be treated from the point of view of quantum computational complexity? If there will be some progress in the synthesis of a quantum network for the obtained optimal POM in the Bayesian approach, then it will be possible to search near optimal quantum matching algorithms whose complexity might be eventually lower than that of the corresponding conventional semiclassical approaches.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to thank R. Jozsa for helpful discussions.


text:
# Correlation length by measuring empty space in simulated aggregates

## Abstract

We examine the geometry of the spaces between particles in diffusion-limited cluster aggregation, a numerical model of aggregating suspensions. Computing the distribution of distances from each point to the nearest particle, we show that it has a scaled form independent of the concentration $`\varphi `$, for both two- (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) model gels at low $`\varphi `$. The mean remoteness is proportional to the density-density correlation length of the gel, $`\xi `$, allowing a more precise measurement of $`\xi `$ than by other methods. A simple analytical form for the scaled remoteness distribution is developed, highlighting the geometrical information content of the data. We show that the second moment of the distribution gives a useful estimate of the permeability of porous media.

PACS: 61.43.Hv, 82.70.Gg, 47.55.Mh, 02.70.-c

Substantial attention has been paid to cluster-cluster aggregation as a computational model of gelation in colloidal suspensions, aerogels, aggregating emulsions, etc. . There is a large literature analysing the structure of individual aggregates, in terms of fractal geometry . However it is now properly understood  that, in irreversibly aggregating systems at non-zero particle concentration $`\varphi `$, clusters, while fractal at intermediate length scales, must inevitably become space-filling at the largest scales, as clusters pack to form a ‘gel’ with a well defined correlation length $`\xi `$. Direct analysis of the gel structure remains rare , although it is fundamental to a gel’s macroscopic physical properties. Colloidal gels and aerogels are porous media and, as such, the geometry of their ‘pores’ or vacancies is of prime importance, influencing the flow of permeating solvents and gel stability under external stresses such as gravity . Here, using the diffusion-limited cluster aggregation (DLCA) model , we examine the structure of the space inside the porous gel. DLCA is perhaps the simplest realistic model of aggregation in colloidal suspensions, and has been shown to qualitatively reproduce many features of experimental systems . We show that examination of the void structure in the simulated gel leads to a measure of the correlation length $`\xi `$ of unprecedented precision, while the scaling with $`\varphi `$ also gives an estimate of the cluster fractal dimension at scales smaller than $`\xi `$. We further find that, at low $`\varphi `$, the pore structure is independent of $`\varphi `$, i.e. DLCA particle gels have statistically identical structure regardless of particle concentration.

In fractal aggregates, there is no single well-defined pore size, since spaces of all sizes are present. To investigate the distribution of void sizes we require a suitable measure; but it is difficult to avoid some arbitrariness in delineating the extent of a void . Marine cartographers face a similar problem: where does one sea end and the next begin? We bypass the problem as follows. If an adventurer adrift in a boat sights land nearby, (s)he cannot be sure whether (s)he is on a small lake, or near the edge of a large ocean. However, if (s)he knows that the nearest land is far away, (s)he can infer the existence of a large body of water. Hence information on the distribution of void sizes can be gained by measuring the remoteness, i.e. the distance to the nearest particle, of all points in an aggregated system. This distribution of remoteness should not be interpreted, as in Ref. , as the distribution of void sizes. The former is only an indirect measure of the latter.

The DLCA algorithm is implemented as follows. A square (2D) or cubic (3D) grid, with periodic boundary conditions, is occupied by a randomized population of particles at concentration $`\varphi `$. Each particle performs a random walk on the lattice until it finds a particle on a neighbouring site. The two then stick irreversibly. A cluster of particles thus formed continues its random walk, at a rate inversely proportional to its radius of gyration, forming ever larger aggregates on contact with neighbouring clusters. The growing flocs have a fractal geometry characterised by a dimension $`d_f`$ which is lower than the space dimension $`d`$, so that, on the scale of a cluster of ‘mass’ $`M`$ and radius $`r`$, the mean concentration ($`M/r^dr^{d_fd}`$) decreases as the cluster grows. When the clusters grow to such a size ($`\xi `$) that their mean concentration ($`\xi ^{d_fd}`$) matches the overall system concentration $`\varphi `$, mass conservation demands that the clusters must fill space. Assuming a concentration-independent fractal dimension (evidenced in the limit of low $`\varphi `$ ), the correlation length in the ‘gels’ varies as $`\xi \varphi ^{1/(dd_f)}`$. To avoid artifacts in the simulations, the correlation length $`\xi `$ must be both significantly larger than the lattice parameter $`a`$, and smaller  than the system size $`L`$, $`L\xi a`$.

We analyse the ‘gel’ structure after all particles have aggregated. The fact that the particle positions are confined to the lattice is irrelevant when finding the distribution of remoteness; we visit all points in the system, and measure the Euclidean distance to the nearest particle (contrast Ref. ). For each gel, we compile a histogram of remoteness $`h(R)`$, which is normalized so that $`h(R)\text{d}R`$ is the probability that a point chosen at random has a remoteness in the range $`R\pm \text{d}R/2`$. It is significant that we find $`h(R)`$ to be normalizable. This is not the case for

similar analyses of isolated fractal clusters , where an artificial boundary must be imposed as the empty space surrounding a cluster is, in principle, limitless. The distributions we measure contain a natural cut-off, revealing that no points in the system are more remote than some finite distance.

Given the hypothesis that the correlation length is the only relevant length scale present, the cut-off distance must be a fixed fraction of $`\xi `$, as must other lengths such as the mean remoteness $`R`$. To check whether a single length scale characterises the geometry at various $`\varphi `$, we re-scale each histogram by its mean $`R`$, and define a scaled remoteness distribution $`p(x)`$ with unit mean and unit norm, by $`p(x)=Rh(Rx)`$, where $`x`$ is remoteness measured in units of the mean (Figs. 1 and 2 for $`d=2`$ and $`d=3`$ respectively). Points at the smallest values of $`x`$ are affected by grid artifacts, but otherwise, the data collapse very well onto a single master curve for each value of $`d`$.

No fitting was required to achieve the data collapse in Figs. 1 and 2, since the scale factor $`R`$ is a well defined property of the gel. Furthermore, when we plot this length scale, the mean remoteness, against concentration $`\varphi `$ in Fig. 3, we obtain remarkably clear power-law behaviour. As discussed, a power-law relationship between $`\varphi `$ and any length scale proportional to $`\xi `$ is expected at these low concentrations, but the almost complete absence of noise was quite unforeseen. Compare equivalent plots in the literature  using the length scale obtained from the peak in the structure factor. We deduce that moments of the remoteness distribution are precise, noise-free measures of the length scale present in the gel.

Further confirmation that $`R`$ is a measure of, though much smaller than, the correlation length $`\xi `$ comes from the gradients of the lines in Fig. 3, which are respectively $`1.67\pm 0.05`$ and $`0.73\pm 0.03`$ for $`d=2`$ and $`d=3`$. Given our expected gradient $`1/(dd_f)`$, this implies a fractal dimension $`d_f=1.40\pm 0.02`$ for $`d=2`$, in agreement with the accepted value of 1.42 (see e.g. ), and $`d_f=1.63\pm 0.05`$ for $`d=3`$, marginally below the accepted zero-concentration value of 1.80.

To find the constant of proportionality relating $`R`$ to the more commonly used measure of the correlation length, from the peak in the structure factor at wavevector $`q_{\mathrm{max}}`$, we compute the ratio $`R/\xi =Rq_{\mathrm{max}}/2\pi `$ for each gel, and find a constant value $`0.034\pm 0.004`$ for $`d=2`$, and $`0.121\pm 0.007`$ for $`d=3`$. We also measure higher moments of the remoteness distribution (table I).

To understand the shapes of the master curves in Figs. 1 and 2, we take as our starting point the fact that the gelled aggregate is self-similar on scales smaller than the correlation length. On some scale, we may picture the structure as a set of amorphous blobs and cavities. These cavities contain points with a range of remoteness, characterised by a normalized remoteness distribution $`f(R)`$. The precise form of $`f(R)`$ depends on the shape of the cavity. If we ‘zoom in’ to a smaller length scale $`\sigma `$, we notice that the blobs are themselves aggregates of blobs and cavities. By self-similarity, those smaller cavities have a normalized remoteness distribution $`f(R/\sigma )/\sigma `$, i.e. of the same shape as the larger cavities, but scaled down. Thus, compiling the overall histogram of remoteness, $`h(R)`$, we get contributions proportional to $`f(R/\sigma )`$ from all scales $`\sigma `$, up to a largest scale $`\chi \xi `$. The magnitude of the contribution from each length scale is as yet undetermined. Let us call it $`c(\sigma )`$. Hence,

$$h(R)=_0^\chi c(\sigma )f(R/\sigma )\text{d}\sigma .$$
(1)
We have expressed $`h(R)`$, the remoteness distribution for a complex fractal aggregate, in terms of $`f(R)`$, the distribution of remoteness in some ‘primal’ cavity with a simple (albeit unknown), non-fractal geometry. Equation (1) may be regarded as a definition of $`f(R)`$.

Since the geometry is self-similar on all length scales $`\sigma `$ in the integration, $`0\sigma \chi `$ (ignoring a lower cut-off due to the grid), $`c(\sigma )`$ must be a function with no characteristic length scale, i.e. a power of $`\sigma `$ up to the cut-off $`\chi `$. In fact, we have no prior justification for the cut-off to be sharp since, in principle, scale-invariance could be lost gradually over a range of scales up to $`\chi `$. Nevertheless, the hypothesis will be validated by the data. We define the as yet undetermined exponent $`\nu `$ by $`c(\sigma )=c_0\sigma ^{\nu 2}`$. The constant coefficient $`c_0`$ is fixed by the normalizations of $`h(R)`$ and $`f(R)`$ as $`c_0=\nu \chi ^\nu `$. As mentioned, the distribution of remoteness $`h(R)`$ is not synonymous with the distribution of void sizes. We may identify $`c(\sigma )`$ as the latter, while $`f(R)`$ contains information on the void shapes.

Recasting (1) in terms of the scaled master curve $`p(x)=Rh(Rx)`$, and putting $`z=Rx/\sigma `$, yields

$$p(x)=\frac{\nu }{x}\left(\frac{x}{x_0}\right)^\nu _{x/x_0}^{\mathrm{}}z^\nu f(z)\text{d}z$$
(2)
where $`x_0\chi /R`$, which is not a free parameter: from Eq. (1), $`x_0^1=x_f\nu /(\nu +1)`$ where $`x_f`$ is the mean of the distribution $`f(x)`$. Without loss of generality, we set the size scale of the cavity described by $`f(x)`$ so that

the most remote point within it is separated by unity from the nearest boundary. Hence $`f(x)=0`$ for $`x>1`$, implying $`p(x)=0`$ for $`x>x_0`$. So we interpret $`x_0`$ as the point on the $`x`$-axis of Figs. 1 and 2 at which the graph falls to zero, i.e. the value, in units of $`R`$, of the natural upper cut-off in the remoteness distribution.

The value of the parameter $`\nu `$ can be calculated by examining the small-$`x`$ behaviour of Eq. (2). An object closely related to the remoteness distribution is the Minkowsky cover , the locus of points lying within a fixed distance, $`R`$ say, of a fractal set. For small $`R`$, the volume of the Minkowsky cover grows as $`R^{dd_f}`$ . Our distribution $`h(R)`$ is proportional to the perimeter of the Minkowsky cover, i.e. the derivative of its volume with respect to $`R`$. Hence, we require $`p(x)x^{dd_f1}`$ in the limit of small $`x`$. As $`x0`$, the integral in Eq. (2), assuming it is convergent, tends to a constant, so that $`p(x)x^{\nu 1}`$ and we identify $`\nu =dd_f`$.

It remains only to determine the form of the primal distribution $`f(x)`$, i.e. the geometry of the basic cavity. We know it is normalized and must vanish for $`x>1`$. We shall discuss some further features but, because Eq. (2) already embodies many of the correct properties for a gelled aggregate, we find the results to be insensitive to the precise form of the function $`f`$.

Let us examine how $`f(x)`$ vanishes as $`x`$ approaches unity from below. Consider a circular cavity with unit radius in 2D, inside which are drawn contours of equal distance from the edge, i.e. concentric circles. The cavity’s remoteness distribution $`f(R)`$ is proportional to the length of the contour at a distance $`R`$ from the edge. Hence, as we approach the centre of the cavity, $`R1`$, $`f(R)`$ falls linearly to zero. This would also be the case, in 2D, for a triangular cavity, or any regular polygon. In the centre (most remote part) of a 3D cavity, on the other hand, the distribution vanishes quadratically, since it is proportional to the area of an equal-remoteness surface. Hence, one might consider substituting the normalized distribution $`f_{\mathrm{trial}}=(1x)^{d1}d`$ for $`0<x<1`$ into Eq. (2), thus building the fractal texture from a set of regular ‘lagoons’ of all sizes. This formula was not used for the curves in Figs. 1 and 2, despite good agreement with the 2D data, as it has shortcomings in 3D. For $`d=3`$, $`\nu 1.2`$ so that, as $`x0`$, the integral in Eq. (2) diverges if $`f(0)`$ is finite. At small $`x`$, we demand $`p(x)x^{dd_f1}`$, which requires $`p`$ to be an increasing function of $`x`$ for $`d=3`$, where $`d_f1.8`$. When we construct a surface of constant distance around a tree-like ‘branch’, near the branch the area of the surface must grow as the distance from the branch is increased, because the branch is convex. But the negative gradient of $`f_{\mathrm{trial}}`$ describes only concave lagoons. According to our data, such a function builds an adequate picture of the spaces in a 2D aggregate, since the aggregate with $`d_f1`$ is sufficient to partition 2D space into concave lagoons of all sizes. But in 3D, branches form an imperfect cage which has significant convex structure.

To acknowledge the existence of both concave and convex parts of the aggregate, we use the simplest possible function $`f(x)`$ that vanishes in the correct way (with a power $`d1`$) both at $`x=0`$ and $`x=1`$. We construct a piecewise smooth function that is the lower envelope of two polynomials: $`c_1x^{d1}`$ and $`c_2(1x)^{d1}`$ with constant coefficients $`c_1=\beta ^{1d}d`$ and $`c_2=(1\beta )^{1d}d`$ chosen to ensure that it is continuous and normalized. The position of the cusp where the two parts meet, at $`x=\beta `$, is the only free parameter of our model. The mean of this function is at $`x_f=(1+[d1]\beta )/(d+1)`$ so that we may eliminate the parameter $`\beta `$ in favour of $`x_0`$ which we fit to the measured value of the cutoff in the master curves.

We find best values $`x_0=6.5\pm 1.0`$ and $`3.5\pm 0.2`$ for $`d=2`$ and $`3`$ respectively. These one-parameter fits are the curves shown in Figs. 1 and 2. Our single formula reproduces the data very accurately both for $`d=2`$ and $`d=3`$, even in the tails of the distributions, until the data become noisy.

The second moment of $`h(R)`$ has a special significance to porous media. At low Reynolds’ number, the mean flow rate, $`u`$, of a solvent of viscosity $`\eta `$ through a porous medium subject to a pressure drop per unit length $`P`$, is given by Darcy’s law , $`u=kP/\eta `$, where the permeability $`k`$ is a squared length scale that depends only on the geometry of the porous medium. To avoid complex hydrodynamic calculations, $`k`$ is often estimated by the Carman-Kozeny (CK) relation , $`k(1\varphi )^3/5S^2`$, in terms of the specific surface area $`S`$. However, since the flow velocity at any given point is not as dependent on the total surface present as it is on the distance to the nearest obstacle, the CK relation mis-calculates the porosity in materials with more than one characteristic pore size. For instance, the flow rate through a set of parallel cylindrical holes, of various radii $`a`$, can be calculated exactly using Poiseuille’s formula , yielding $`k=(1\varphi )a^4/8a^2`$, which, expressed in terms of the remoteness, is $`k=3R^2/4`$. By substituting the surface area of the holes into the CK formula, one obtains $`k_{\mathrm{CK}}(1\varphi )a^2/10`$, which approximates the exact value only for a sharply peaked distribution of radii, for which $`a^4a^2^2`$. The approximation fails too for a polydisperse set of parallel-sided channels, where the exact result can be expressed as $`k=R^2/2`$. We therefore propose an approximate rule of thumb $`k0.6R^2`$, which continues to hold for polydisperse pores and for rough surfaces while, in both cases, the CK equation fails. The new formula has been shown to yield results of the correct order of magnitude for fractal particulate gels . However, like the CK equation, the new formula lacks information on pore topology, so must also fail in certain cases, e.g. where some pores are closed. There is then no alternative to a full hydrodynamic computation.

The shape of the remoteness distribution carries information on the geometry in the DLCA simulations, and confirms (by scaling onto a master curve) that, statistically speaking, all the simulations at the low concentrations considered, give rise to the same geometry: the particle gel ‘pore’ structure is independent of concentration. The mean remoteness, an easy quantity to measure in the simulations, is proportional to the correlation length (at least in the range of concentrations studied), hence giving a measure of the gel’s characteristic length scale that is considerably less noisy, and perhaps more easily determined, than other measures. The second moment of the remoteness distribution provides an estimate of the permeability of the gel. These coordinate-independent measures of real-space length scales could be applied to a range of other phenomena, such as the void geometry in reaction-limited aggregation  and in earlier stages of aggregation , or the $`\varphi `$-dependence at higher concentrations  when the structure is no longer controlled solely by the zero-concentration critical phenomena.

RMLE acknowledges the support of the Royal Society and the Royal Society of Edinburgh.