text:
# The Decay Lifetime of Polarized Fermions in Flight

## I The charged weak currents in the SM

In order to describe the parity violation in weak interactions, all of fundamental fermions are divided into two classes, LH chirality state and RH chirality state, in the standard model (SM). They are defined as

$$\psi __L=\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma __5)\psi ,\psi __R=\frac{1}{2}(1\gamma __5)\psi ,$$
$`(1)`$
respectively. And we have

$$\psi =\psi __L+\psi __R.$$
$`(2)`$
The LH chirality state is different from the RH chirality state. The former is the SU(2)-doublet state whereas the latter the SU(2)-singlet state, hence they have different gauge transformations. Especially, RH chirality state has zero weak isospin and is only present in neutral weak currents. Therefore, there exist the only LH chirality states in charged weak currents. The interaction Lagrangians for charged weak lepton current and charged weak quark current read, respectively

$$_\mathrm{}W=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g__2\overline{e}__L\gamma _\mu W_\mu ^+\nu __L+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g__2\overline{\nu }__L\gamma _\mu W_\mu ^{}e__L,$$
$`(3)`$
$$_{qW}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g__2\overline{d}__L\gamma _\mu W_\mu ^+u__L+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g__2\overline{u}__L\gamma _\mu W_\mu ^{}d__L,$$
$`(4)`$
where $`g__2`$ is the coupling constant corresponding to SU(2). Obviously, all of fermions are in the LH chirality states and all of antifermions while in the RH chirality states in decay processes.

For example, the weak interaction in muon decay is successfully described by four-fermion interaction Hamiltonian. We denote the matrix element by

$$Mg_{_{\epsilon \mu }}^\gamma \overline{e}_\epsilon |\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma |(\nu _e)_n(\overline{\nu }_\mu )_m|\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma |\mu _\mu ,$$
$`(5)`$
where $`\gamma =S,V,T`$ indicates a scalar, vector or tensor interaction; and $`\epsilon ,\mu =R,L`$ indicate a right- or left-handed chirality of the electron or muon. The chiralities $`n`$ and $`m`$ of the $`\nu _e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ are then determined by the values of $`\gamma ,\epsilon `$ and $`\mu `$. All the coupling constants have been obtained entirely from experiments without any model assumption. The experiments on muon decay show $`g_{_{RL}}`$, $`g_{_{RR}}`$, $`g_{_{LR}}`$ to be zero, and at least one of the two coupling, $`g_{_{LL}}^V`$ or $`g_{_{LL}}^S`$, to be nonzero. The experiments on inverse muon decay provides a lower limit for pure $`VA`$ interaction with $`|g_{_{LL}}^V|>0.960`$. Thus the measurements give a strong support to the standard model which sets $`g_{_{LL}}^V=1`$ and all the others being zero, and then indicate that the charged weak current is dominated by a coupling to left-handed chirality fermions. Therefore, the negative muon decay can be written as

$$\mu __L^{}e__L^{}+\overline{\nu }_{e_R}+\nu _{\mu _L}.$$
$`(6)`$
And the matrix element (5) has the form

$$M=\frac{g__2}{4m_W^2}(\overline{\nu }_{\mu _L}\gamma _\mu \mu __L)(\overline{e}__L\gamma _\mu \nu _{e_L}).$$
$`(7)`$
Similarly, the neutron decay can be written as

$$n__Lp__L+e__L+\overline{\nu }__R,$$
$`(8)`$
and the corresponding matrix element is

$$M=\frac{g__2}{4m_W^2}(\overline{p}__L\gamma _\mu n__L)(\overline{e}__L\gamma _\mu \nu _{e_L}).$$
$`(9)`$
## II Helicity and chirality

The Dirac equation has the form in Pauli metric

$$(\gamma _\mu _\mu +mc^2)\psi =0,$$
$`(10)`$
where $`m`$ is the rest mass and $`\psi `$ is four-component spinor. The projection of spin vector $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ along the direction of fermion momentum is known as the helicity or polarization:

$$h=\frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}}{\stackrel{}{p}},$$
$`(11)`$
where $`h`$ is a constant of the motion with eigenvalues $`\pm 1`$. Taking the simplest case of $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ : $`p_z=p`$, when $`h=+1`$ and $`h=1`$, we have the RH helicity state $`\psi _{_{Rh}}`$ and the LH helicity state $`\psi _{_{Lh}}`$, respectively

$$\psi _{_{Rh}}=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ \frac{pc}{E+mc^2}\\ 0\end{array}\right)e^{^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(pzEt)}},\psi _{_{Lh}}=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ 0\\ \frac{pc}{E+mc^2}\end{array}\right)e^{^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(pzEt)}}$$
$`(12)`$
Setting

$$\psi =\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi \\ \chi \end{array}\right),$$
$`(13)`$
where $`\phi `$ and $`\chi `$ are two-component spinors, we may rewrite (10) as a set of two coupled equations for $`\phi `$ and $`\chi `$:

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}c\chi =(Emc^2)\phi ,\\ \stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}c\phi =(E+mc^2)\chi .\end{array}$$
$`(14)`$
We have then

$$\phi =\frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}c}{Emc^2}\chi ,\chi =\frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}c}{E+mc^2}\phi .$$
$`(15)`$
On the other hand, $`\psi __L`$ and $`\psi __R`$ are the eigenfunctions of the chirality operator $`\gamma __5`$, satisfying respectively

$$\gamma __5\psi __L=\psi __L,\gamma __5\psi __R=\psi __R.$$
$`(16)`$
For describing the relation between the chirality state and the helicity state, we introduce two linear combination function of $`\phi `$ and $`\chi `$

$$\varphi __R=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\phi +\chi ),\varphi __L=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\phi \chi ).$$
$`(17)`$
Then

$$\phi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\varphi __R+\varphi __L),\chi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\varphi __R\varphi __L).$$
$`(18)`$
Substituting into formula (13), we get

$$\psi =\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi \\ \chi \end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi __L\\ \varphi __L\end{array}\right)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi __R\\ \varphi __R\end{array}\right).$$
$`(19)`$
Comparing with Eq.(2) this gives

$$\psi __L=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi __L\\ \varphi __L\end{array}\right),\psi __R=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi __R\\ \varphi __R\end{array}\right).$$
$`(20)`$
Hence, instead of Eq.(14), we find the Dirac equation in Weyl (chiral) representation:

$$\{\begin{array}{c}(E\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}c)\varphi __R=mc^2\varphi __L,\\ (E+\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}c)\varphi __L=mc^2\varphi __R.\end{array}$$
$`(21)`$
Obviously, both $`\varphi __L`$ and $`\varphi __R`$ are not the eigenfunction of helicity operator $`h`$. When $`m=0`$ or $`Em`$, however, they are the eigenfunction of helicity operator $`h`$. For example, because neutrino has zero mass, the helicity state of neutrino is identical with its chirality state.

In general, for $`h=1`$, we obtain from Eq.(21)

$$\left|\frac{\varphi __R}{\varphi __L}\right|_{Lh}=\frac{mc^2}{E+pc}=\sqrt{\frac{cv}{c+v}}=W,$$
$`(22)`$
where $`v`$ is the fermion velocity and $`W`$ is the Weyl parameter introduced in . Once $`v>0`$, a LH polarized fermion has $`h=1`$ explicitly and $`\varphi __L>\varphi __R`$ implicitly. One can see that the hidden amplitude of RH chirality state decreases with the increases of $`v`$ until $`\varphi __R0`$ when $`vc`$, showing that a high-energy fermion can be LH polarized without hidden RH spinning instability. With $`v=0`$, we have $`\varphi __R=\varphi __L`$, i.e. the hidden amplitude of LH chirality state is equal to that of RH chirality state and one even can not discriminate its polarization being LH or RH .

Similarly, for $`h=+1`$, we obtain

$$\left|\frac{\varphi __R}{\varphi __L}\right|_{Rh}=\frac{mc^2}{Epc}=\sqrt{\frac{c+v}{cv}}=\frac{1}{W}.$$
$`(23)`$
Once $`v>0`$, a RH polarized fermion has $`h=1`$ explicitly and $`\varphi __R>\varphi __L`$ implicitly. The latter decreases with the increase of $`v`$ until $`\varphi __L0`$ when $`vc`$, showing that a high-energy fermion can be RH polarized without hidden LH spinning instability.

## III The lifetime of polarized fermions

Usually, in calculating the decay probability $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of a fermion (muon or neutron) in weak interactions, one defined the lifetime $`\tau =1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ being that of fermion at rest and its spin direction being averaged. So no discrimination between helicities was involved. Now we will take the velocity dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for polarized fermion into account. To this purpose, the absolute square of spinor $`\psi `$ reads

$$\psi ^2=\varphi __L^2+\varphi __R^2=\varphi __L^2\left(1+\frac{\varphi __R^2}{\varphi __L^2}\right).$$
$`(24)`$
Which leads to

$$\varphi __L^2=\frac{\psi ^2}{1+\left|\frac{\varphi __R}{\varphi __L}\right|^2}.$$
$`(25)`$
Since the charged weak current originates from the left-handed chirality state only, from Eqs. (3) and (4) or the matrix element (7) and (9), we get the ratio of $`\varphi __L^2`$ in a RH helicity state to that in a LH helicity state, yielding the relevant ratio of decay probability for moving fermion in weak interactions,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}=\frac{\varphi __L_{_{Rh}}^2}{\varphi __L_{_{Lh}}^2}=\frac{1+W^2}{1+\frac{1}{W^2}}=W^2=\frac{cv}{c+v}.$$
$`(26)`$
From

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R+\mathrm{\Gamma }_L)\text{and}\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{\mathrm{}}{\tau },$$
$`(27)`$
we find the RH polarized fermion lifetime $`\tau __R`$ and LH polarized fermion lifetime $`\tau __L`$, respectively

$$\tau __R=\tau \frac{c}{cv}\text{and}\tau __L=\tau \frac{c}{c+v},$$
$`(28)`$
where $`\tau `$ is the average lifetime. According to the theory of special relativity, we may write $`\tau `$ as

$$\tau =\frac{\tau __0}{\sqrt{1(v/c)^2}},$$
$`(29)`$
where $`\tau __0`$ is the lifetime of fermion at rest. Therefore

$$\tau __R=\frac{\tau __0}{\sqrt{1(v/c)^2}}\frac{c}{cv}\text{and}\tau __L=\frac{\tau __0}{\sqrt{1(v/c)^2}}\frac{c}{c+v}.$$
$`(30)`$
It is easy to see that the $`\tau __R`$ is greater than $`\tau __L`$, which shows the lifetime asymmetry of left-right handed polarized fermion. The lifetime asymmetry is simply expressed by the familiar parameter $`\beta `$ in special relativity

$$\text{lifetime asymmetry}\frac{\tau __R\tau __L}{\tau __R+\tau __L}=\beta =\frac{v}{c}.$$
$`(31)`$
When $`v=0`$, we find

$$\tau __R=\tau __L=\tau __0,(\beta =0).$$
$`(32)`$
When $`vc`$, we find

$$\tau __R\mathrm{},\tau __R\mathrm{},(\beta 1).$$
$`(33)`$
In particular, when $`v=\frac{1}{2}c,\beta =\frac{1}{2}`$, the lifetime of the LH polarized fermions has a minimum value $`\tau __L=\tau _{min}=0.77\tau __0`$.

It is not difficult to prove that the lifetimes of antifermions in motion are given by

$$\overline{\tau }__R=\frac{\tau __0}{\sqrt{1(v/c)^2}}\frac{c}{c+v}\text{and}\overline{\tau }__L=\frac{\tau __0}{\sqrt{1(v/c)^2}}\frac{c}{cv}.$$
$`(34)`$
## IV Summary and discussion

The Dirac equation is invariant under a space reflection $`\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}`$, provided the spinor field $`\psi (\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ undergoes the corresponding transformation

$$\psi (\stackrel{}{x},t)\psi (\stackrel{}{x},t)=\gamma __4\psi (\stackrel{}{x},t).$$
$`(35)`$
Applying (35) to (1) we get

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\psi __L(\stackrel{}{x},t)=\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma __5)\psi (\stackrel{}{x},t)\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma __5)\psi (\stackrel{}{x},t)=\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma __5)\gamma __4\psi (\stackrel{}{x},t)=\gamma __4\psi __R(\stackrel{}{x},t),\\ \psi __R(\stackrel{}{x},t)=\frac{1}{2}(1\gamma __5)\psi (\stackrel{}{x},t)\frac{1}{2}(1\gamma __5)\psi (\stackrel{}{x},t)=\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma __5)\gamma __4\psi (\stackrel{}{x},t)=\gamma __4\psi __L(\stackrel{}{x},t).\end{array}$$
$`(36)`$
It means that despite the invariance of Dirac equation under transformation (35), the LH and RH chirality components of $`\psi `$ transform each other. Alternatively, it would be better to consider the space inversion transform here in terms of two-component spinors $`\varphi __L`$ and $`\varphi __R`$ regardless of the theory being invariant or not after the following transformation:

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\varphi __L(\stackrel{}{x},t)\varphi __L(\stackrel{}{x},t)\varphi __R(\stackrel{}{x},t),\\ \varphi __R(\stackrel{}{x},t)\varphi __R(\stackrel{}{x},t)\varphi __L(\stackrel{}{x},t).\end{array}$$
$`(37)`$
It is easy to see that under the space inversion the Dirac equations (21) is invariant, showing that the law of motion of a Dirac particle preserves the parity symmetry. On the other hand, the equations (28) and (34) are also invariant, respectively, under a space reflection and the transformation (37). It means that the $`\tau __L`$ is always smaller than $`\tau __R`$ for fermions in flight and the $`\tau __R`$ is always smaller than $`\tau __L`$ for antifermions in any one of inertial systems. It is just because only the LH chirality components $`(\varphi __L)`$ of fermions participates in the decay process whereas their RH chirality components $`(\varphi __R)`$ do not. For example, under the space inversion (37), a moving fermion with $`h=1`$ having $`\varphi __L>\varphi __R`$ and $`\tau __L=\tau /(1+\beta )`$ will transform into a fermion moving in opposite direction with $`h=+1`$ having $`\varphi __R>\varphi __L`$ and $`\tau __R=\tau /(1\beta )`$. Hence the property that the lifetime $`\tau __L`$ of the LH polarized fermion is shorter than the lifetime $`\tau __R`$ of the RH polarized fermion in flight ( with a same speed in the same inertial system ) shows a serious violation of parity symmetry. More intuitively, since a neutron having a spin $`\stackrel{}{S}_n`$ will emit an electron $`e^{}`$ and an antineutrino $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ basically in the backward direction to $`\stackrel{}{S}_n`$, we may imagine a decaying neutron being like a ”comet” with its head oriented to $`\stackrel{}{S}_n`$ and its tail composed of $`e^{}`$ and an $`\overline{\nu }_e`$. Obviously, this neutron is by no means an isotropic object in $`\beta `$ decay. Rather, it is just like a highly anisotropic ”comet”. A space inversion would transform it into an unexisting (ridiculous) ”comet” with its tail parallel to $`\stackrel{}{S}_n`$, showing the parity violation. Moreover, if we push the rest ”comet” into motion either along with or opposite to the direction of $`\stackrel{}{S}_n`$, we will find left-right asymmetry of the lifetime in its decay, showing $`\tau __L<\tau __R`$ with the same speed. To our understanding, it is just this strange phenomenon relevant to the parity violation that was overlooked in the past.

As seen from formula (31), the lifetime asymmetry $`\beta `$ increases with $`v`$ increases, and is negligible at low energy. In neutron decay, for example, $`\beta =0.046`$ when neutron kinetic energy $`T=1`$ MeV, and $`\beta =0.145`$ when $`T=10`$ MeV. Published neutron lifetime were measured using thermal or cold neutron beams. The energy of these beams is below 1 eV, and too small for the lifetime asymmetry effect to be observe. One actually lacks experimental evidence in support of this rather natural consequence of the SM or pure V-A theory. In view of the important implications of these observations, we report them here now in the hope that they may stimulate and encourage further experimental investigations on the question of polarized fermion lifetime in either beta or muon decays.

Since $`\tau _R>\tau _L`$, an unpolarized neutron beams would gradually turn into RH polarized in propagation process. Due to neutron decay, according to formula (8), the amount of LH protons and LH electrons would be predominant in the final state. In fact, as early as 1956 T.D.Lee and C.N.Yang pointed out:“There must exist two kinds of protons $`p_R`$ and $`p_L`$, the right-handed one and the left-handed one. Furthermore, at the present time the protons in laboratory must be predominantly of one kind in order to produce the supposedly observed asymmetry”. If the lifetime asymmetry of polarized fermion in flight described above is correct, one kind of helicity fermions would be more abundant than another kind in some region of the universe. The measured polarized fermion lifetime may be crucial for further understanding of the weak interactions and there might be important consequences for cosmology and astrophysics. Especially, it would be closely related to various neutrino anomalies.


format: text

text:
# Fourier-Mukai number of a K3 surface

## 0.  Introduction

In his papers \[Mu 1,2,3\], Mukai discovered the fundamental importance of manifolds with equivalent bounded derived categories of coherent sheaves. Such manifolds are now known as Fourier-Mukai (FM) partners, which have been the focus of attention in several contexts of mathematics.

The aim of this note is to derive an explicit counting formula for the FM number, i.e. the cardinality of the set $`FM(X)`$ of FM partners, for a projective K3 surface $`X`$ in terms of the Néron-Severi lattice $`NS(X)`$ and the Hodge structure $`(T(X),𝐂\omega _X)`$ of the transcendental lattice $`T(X)`$ (Counting Formula 2.3), and to give then three applications (Corollary 2.7, Theorems 3.3 and 4.1).

The Counting Formula 2.3 is inspired by an earlier work of Bridgeland, Maciocia \[BM\]. Our proof here is based on the fundamental result of Mukai \[Mu3\] and Orlov \[Or\] (see also \[BM\], \[HLOY1\] and Theorem 2.2 for summary), and the theory of primitive embeddings of lattices due to Nikulin \[Ni1\]. What we actually need here is a sort of equivariant version of the theory in \[Ni1\]. Namely, we introduce the notion of $`G`$-equivalence classes of primitive embeddings of an even non-degenerate lattice $`T`$ into an even unimodular indefinite lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, where $`G`$ is a prescribed subgroup of the orthogonal group $`O(T)`$ (Definition 1.1), and we find a formula for the cardinality of the set $`𝒫^{G\text{-eq}}(T,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ of $`G`$-equivalence classes of the primitive embeddings $`\iota :T\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (Theorem 1.4).

We give a precise formula for $`|𝒫^{G\text{-eq}}(T,\mathrm{\Lambda })|`$ in §1. Such a natural and useful formula like Theorem 1.4 is clearly not unexpected. However, we are unable to find this general formula anywhere in the literature, and so we give a proof in Appendix A. We remark that in the special case $`G=\{\text{id}\}`$, the formula is given explicitly in \[MM\].

We deduce the Counting Formula 2.3 in §2.

We shall then give three applications.

First, as an immediate consequence of the Counting Formula, we see that a K3 surface $`X`$ such that $`\rho (X)3`$ and $`detNS(X)`$ is square free, has no FM partner other than $`X`$ itself (Corollary 2.7 3)). This is in sharp contrast to the cases of $`\rho =1,2`$ described in \[Og1\] (See also Corollary 2.7 4) and Theorem 3.3). We shall also show how some of known cases are derived from our Counting Formula (Corollary 2.7 1) and 4)).

Next, as an arithmetical application, we recast two famous questions on class numbers, after Gauss, circa 1800, into geometric terms of FM partners of K3 surfaces of Picard number 2 (Theorem 3.3, Questions I’ and II’ in §3). Here we recall the two questions on the class number $`h(p)`$ of the real quadratic field $`𝐐(\sqrt{p})`$ for a prime number $`p1mod4`$:

Question I. Are there infinitely many primes $`p`$ such that $`h(p)=1`$?

Question II. Is there a sequence of primes $`p_1,p_2,\mathrm{}`$ such that $`h(p_k)\mathrm{}`$?

Our reformulations (Questions I’ and II’) of these arithmetical questions might afford us a new geometrical approach to studying them via moduli of stable sheaves on a family of K3 surfaces (cf. Theorem 2.2 and an argument in §4).

Finally, for a more geometrical application, we shall construct explicitly a pair of smooth projective families of K3 surfaces, $`f:𝒳\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`g:𝒴\mathrm{\Delta }`$, with a sequence $`\{t_k\}_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ such that $`lim_k\mathrm{}t_k=0`$ and $`𝒳_{t_k}𝒴_{t_k}`$, but $`𝒳_0\simeq ̸𝒴_0`$ (Theorem 4.1). Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a unit disk. This explicitly shows the non-Hausdorff nature of the moduli space of unpolarized K3 surfaces. We carry out the construction in §4.

We remark that, aside from the three applications here, the Counting Formula 2.3 has also been applied to a study of Kummer structures on a K3 surface \[HLOY2\].

Acknowledgement. We thank Professors B. Gross and K. Zuo for their interest in this work. We also thank C. Madonna for communications on our previous note \[HLOY1\]. Main part of this collaboration was done during the first and third named authors’ stay at Harvard University. They would like to express their thanks to the Harvard University and the Education Ministry of Japan for financial support. The second named author is supported by NSF grant DMS-0072158. The third named author would like to express his thanks to the organizers for their invitation to the conference.

## 1. G-equivalence classes of primitive embeddings

The goal of this section is Theorem 1.4. Here we shall a need a $`G`$-equivariant version of the notion of primitive embeddings \[Ni1\].

Unless otherwise stated, by a lattice $`L:=(L,(,))`$, we mean a pair of a free $`𝐙`$-module $`L`$ of finite rank and its non-degenerate symmetric integral-valued bilinear form $`(,):L\times L𝐙`$. We set $`L^{}=\text{Hom}(L,𝐙)`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(\mathrm{\Lambda },(,))`$ be an even, unimodular, indefinite lattice. Consider an even lattice $`T`$ which admits at least one primitive embedding $`\iota _0:T\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and a subgroup $`GO(T)`$. The group $`G`$ is not necessarily a finite group. Let $`S`$ be a lattice isomorphic to the orthogonal lattice $`\iota _0(T)^{}`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and choose an isomorphism $`\iota _0^S:S\iota _0(T)^{}`$. Throughout §1, the objects $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`T`$, $`\iota _0`$, $`G`$, $`S`$ and $`\iota _0^S`$ are fixed.

###### Definition 1.1.

Two primitive embeddings $`\iota :T\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\iota ^{}:T\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are called $`G`$-equivalent if there exist $`\mathrm{\Phi }O(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`gG`$ such that the following diagram commutes:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{\Lambda }& \stackrel{\mathrm{\Phi }}{}& \mathrm{\Lambda }& \\ \iota & & \iota ^{}& \\ T& \stackrel{g}{}& T& .\end{array}$$

Our main interest in this section is the set of all primitive embeddings:

$$𝒫(T,\mathrm{\Lambda }):=\{\iota :T\mathrm{\Lambda };\text{primitive}\text{embedding}\},$$

and the set of $`G`$-equivalence classes, i.e. the quotient set

$$𝒫^{G\text{-eq}}(T,\mathrm{\Lambda }):=𝒫(T,\mathrm{\Lambda })/G\text{-equivalence}.$$

We denote the restriction of the bilinear form $`(,)`$ on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to $`S`$ and $`T`$, respectively, by $`(,)_S`$, $`(,)_T`$. These coincide with the original bilinear forms of $`S`$ and $`T`$. (Here and hereafter, we often identify $`T`$ and $`S`$ with the primitive sublattices $`\iota _0(T)`$ and $`\iota _0(T)^{}=\iota _0^S(S)`$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ via the fixed isomorphisms $`\iota _0`$ and $`\iota _0^S`$. ) Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is unimodular and $`S`$ and $`T`$ are primitive in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we have surjective maps $`\pi _S:\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}S^{}`$, $`\pi _T:\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}T^{}`$ defined by $`\pi _S(l)=(l,)|_S`$, $`\pi _T(l)=(l,)|_T`$, and natural isomorphisms induced by $`\pi _S`$ and $`\pi _T`$ (\[Ni1, Corollary 1.6.2\]):

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& \overline{\pi }_S& & \overline{\pi }_T& \\ S^{}/S& \stackrel{}{}& \mathrm{\Lambda }/(ST)& \stackrel{}{}& T^{}/T.\end{array}$$

Here the last isomorphisms are written explicitly as $`\overline{\pi }_S(l\text{mod}ST)=l_S\text{mod}S`$ and $`\overline{\pi }_T(l\text{mod}ST)=l_T\text{mod}T`$, where $`l_S,l_T`$ are defined by the orthogonal decomposition $`l=l_S+l_T`$ made in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐐=(ST)𝐐`$. We make the identifications $`SS^{}S𝐐`$ and $`TT^{}T𝐐`$ via the respective nondegenerate forms $`(,)_S`$ and $`(,)_T`$.

As it is defined by \[Ni1, §1\], the discriminant group $`(A_S,q_S)`$ of the lattice $`(L,(,)_L)`$ is the pair of the abelian group $`A_L:=L^{}/L`$ and a natural quadratic form $`q_L:A_L𝐐/2𝐙`$ defined by $`q_L(x\text{mod}L):=(x,x)_{L𝐐}\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}𝐙`$. Here $`(,)_{L𝐐}`$ is the natural $`𝐐`$-linear extension of the bilinear form $`(,)_L`$ of $`L`$.

###### Proposition 1.2.

(\[Ni1, Corollary 1.6.2\]) Put $`\sigma _0=\overline{\pi }_S\overline{\pi }_T^1:A_T\stackrel{}{}A_S`$. Then $`\sigma _0`$ is an isometry: $`\sigma _0:(A_T,q_{A_T})(A_S,q_{A_S})`$.

As it is well-known, primitive embedding of $`T`$ into $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are closely related to the so-called genus of the lattice $`S`$. We shall briefly recall this here.

###### Definition-Theorem 1.3.

Let $`M`$ be an even lattice. The set of isomorphism classes of the lattices $`M^{}`$ satisfying the following equivalent conditions 1) and 2), are called the genus of $`M`$, and will be denoted by $`𝒢(M)`$:

* $`M^{}𝐙_pM𝐙_p`$ for all primes $`p`$, and $`M^{}𝐑M𝐑`$.
* $`(A_M^{},q_M^{})(A_M,q_M)`$, and $`\text{sgn}M^{}=\text{sgn}M`$ where $`\text{sgn}M`$ is the signature of the lattice $`M`$.

The equivalence of 1) and 2) is due to \[Ni1, Corollary 1.9.4\]. From the condition 2), we have $`\text{det}M^{}=\text{det}M`$ and $`\text{rank}M^{}=\text{rank}M`$ if $`M^{}𝒢(M)`$. It is well-known that the genus $`𝒢(M)`$ is a finite set (see e.g. \[Cs, Page 128, Theorem 1.1\]).

Consider the genus $`𝒢(S)`$ of $`S`$ and put: $`𝒢(S)=\{S_1,S_2,\mathrm{},S_m\}(S_1:=S)`$. By definition, we have an isomorphism $`(A_S,q_S)(A_{S_j},q_{S_j})`$ for each $`S_j𝒢(S)`$. Since $`\sigma _0:(A_T,q_T)(A_S,q_S)`$ by Proposition 1.2, we can then choose an isomorphism for each $`S_j𝒢(S)`$: $`\phi _j:(A_T,q_T)\stackrel{}{}(A_{S_j},q_{S_j})`$.

Throughout §1, these isomorphisms $`\phi _j`$ ($`1jm`$) are fixed. Now consider an arbitrarily primitive embedding $`\iota :T\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We have, by Proposition 1.2,

$$(A_{\iota (T)^{}},q_{\iota (T)^{}})(A_T,q_T)(A_S,q_S)$$

and also $`\text{sgn}\iota (T)^{}=\text{sgn}\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{sgn}T`$. Therefore there exists a unique $`j=j(\iota )\{1,2,\mathrm{},m\}`$ and an isomorphism $`S_j\stackrel{}{}\iota (T)^{}`$. If two primitive embeddings $`\iota :T\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\iota ^{}:T\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are $`G`$-equivalent, there exist elements $`\mathrm{\Phi }O(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`gG`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }\iota =\iota ^{}g`$. Since the restriction $`\mathrm{\Phi }|_{\iota (T)}`$ is then an isometry from $`\iota (T)`$ to $`\iota ^{}(T)`$, we have $`S_{j(\iota )}\iota (T)^{}\iota ^{}(T)^{}S_{j(\iota ^{})}`$, which implies that $`j(\iota )=j(\iota ^{})`$, i.e. $`S_{j(\iota )}=S_{j(\iota ^{})}`$ in $`𝒢(S)`$. Therefore setting

$$𝒫_j(T,\mathrm{\Lambda }):=\{\iota :T\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒫(T,\mathrm{\Lambda })|\iota (T)^{}S_j\},$$

$$𝒫_j^{G\text{-eq}}(T,\mathrm{\Lambda }):=\{[\iota :T\mathrm{\Lambda }]𝒫^{G\text{-eq}}(T,\mathrm{\Lambda })|\iota (T)^{}S_j\},$$

we have the following well-defined disjoint unions:

$$𝒫(T,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}𝒫_j(T,\mathrm{\Lambda }),𝒫^{G\text{-eq}}(T,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}𝒫_j^{G\text{-eq}}(T,\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$

The following is a generalization of \[MM\], which will be proved in Appendix A:

###### Theorem 1.4.

For each $`j`$, we have $`|𝒫_j^{G\text{-eq}}(T,\mathrm{\Lambda })|=|O(S_j)O(A_{S_j})/G|`$. In particular,

$$|𝒫^{G\text{-eq}}(T,\mathrm{\Lambda })|=\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}|O(S_j)O(A_{S_j})/G|.$$

Here $`O(S_j)`$ acts on $`O(A_{S_j})`$ through the natural map $`O(S_j)O(A_{S_j})`$, $`h\overline{h}`$. $`G`$ acts on $`O(A_{S_j})`$ through the composite of the natural map $`GO(T)O(A_T)`$ and the adjoint map $`\text{ad}(\phi _j):O(A_T)O(A_{S_j})`$.

## 2.  FM number of a K3 surface

Let $`D(X)`$ be the derived category of bounded complexes of coherent sheaves on a smooth projective variety $`X`$. A smooth projective variety $`Y`$ is called a Fourier-Mukai (FM) partner of $`X`$ if there is an equivalence $`D(Y)D(X)`$ as triangulated categories. We denote by $`FM(X)`$ the set of isomorphism classes of FM partners of $`X`$.

###### Definition 2.1.

We call the cardinality $`|FM(X)|`$ of the set $`FM(X)`$ the Fourier-Mukai (FM) number of $`X`$.

A FM partner of a K3 surface is again a K3 surface by a result of Mukai \[Mu3\] and Orlov \[Or\] (See also \[BM\]).

By a K3 surface, we mean a smooth projective surface $`X`$ over $`𝐂`$ with $`𝒪_X(K_X)𝒪_X`$ and $`h^1(𝒪_X)=0`$. We denote by $`(,)`$ the symmetric bilinear form on $`H^2(X,𝐙)`$ given by the cup product. Then $`(H^2(X,𝐙),(,))`$ is an even unimodular lattice of signature $`(3,19)`$. This lattice is isomorphic to the K3 lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{K3}}:=E_8(1)^2U^3`$ where $`U`$ is the hyperbolic lattice (an even unimodular lattice of signature (1,1)). An isomorphism $`\tau :H^2(X,𝐙)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{K3}}`$ is called a marking and a pair $`(X,\tau )`$ is called a marked K3 surface. We denote by $`NS(X)`$ the Néron-Severi lattice of $`X`$ and by $`\rho (X)`$ the Picard number, i.e. the rank of $`NS(X)`$. The lattice $`NS(X)`$ is primitive in $`H^2(X,𝐙)`$ and has signature $`(1,\rho (X)1)`$. We call the orthogonal lattice $`T(X):=NS(X)^{}`$ in $`H^2(X,𝐙)`$ the transcendental lattice. $`T(X)`$ is primitive in $`H^2(X,𝐙)`$ and has signature $`(2,20\rho (X))`$. We denote by $`\omega _X`$ a nowhere vanishing holomorphic two form on $`X`$. Then one has a natural inclusion

$$𝐂\omega _X𝐂\overline{\omega }_XT(X)𝐂.$$

This defines a Hodge structure $`(T(X),𝐂\omega _X)`$ of weight 2 on $`T(X)`$. Note that $`T(X)`$ is the minimal primitive sublattice of $`H^2(X,𝐙)`$ such that $`T(X)𝐂`$ contains $`𝐂\omega _X`$.

The following is a fundamental theorem due to Mukai and Orlov. This connects three aspects of FM partners of K3 surfaces. Statement 1) is categorical, 2) is arithmetical, and 3) is geometrical.

###### Theorem 2.2.

(\[Mu3\],\[Or\]) Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be K3 surfaces. Then the following statements are equivalent:

* $`D(Y)D(X)`$;
* There exists a Hodge isometry $`g:(T(Y),𝐂\omega _Y)\stackrel{}{}(T(X),𝐂\omega _X))`$;
* $`Y`$ is a two dimensional fine compact moduli space of stable sheaves on $`X`$ with respect to some polarization on $`X`$.

For the rest of this section, $`X`$ will be a K3 surface. Our Counting Formula 2.3 follows from specializing Theorem 1.4 to the case

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=H^2(X,𝐙),(T,𝐂\omega )=(T(X),𝐂\omega _X),S=NS(X),G=O_{Hodge}(T(X),𝐂\omega _X).$$

Note that in this case the group $`G`$ is a finite cyclic group of order $`2I`$ such that $`\phi (2I)|\text{rk}T(X)`$. (See Appendix B for proof.)

The aim of this section is to prove the following theorem:

###### Theorem 2.3.

(The Counting Formula)  Set $`𝒢(NS(X))=\{S_1=S,S_2,\mathrm{},S_m\}`$ where $`m=|𝒢(NS(X))|`$. Then,

$$|FM(X)|=\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}|O(S_j)O(A_{S_j})/O_{Hodge}(T(X),𝐂\omega _X)|.$$

Moreover the $`j`$-th summand here coincides with the number of FM partners $`YFM(X)`$ with $`NS(Y)S_j`$.

Proof. By Theorem 1.4, it suffices to show the following:

###### Theorem 2.4.

There is a natural bijective correspondence

$$𝒫^{Geq}(T(X),H^2(X,𝐙))FM(X).$$

Moreover, under this bijection a primitive embedding $`\iota `$ with $`\iota (T)^{}S_j`$ corresponds to a FM partner $`Y`$ of $`X`$ with $`NS(Y)S_j`$.

Our proof of Theorem 2.4 is based on Theorem 2.2 and the two most fundamental facts about K3 surfaces, namely, the global Torelli theorem and the surjectivity of period map (See e.g. \[BPV, Chapter VIII\] and the references therein).

In what follows, for convenience, we identify $`H^2(X,𝐙)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{K3}`$ through a fixed marking $`\tau _X`$ and set $`(T,𝐂\omega )=(T(X),𝐂\omega _X)H^2(X,𝐙)`$ under the natural inclusion. We proceed in five steps.

Step 0. For an arbitrary primitive embedding $`\iota :T\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{K3}}`$, there exists a marked K3 surface $`(Y,\tau _Y)`$ with the commutative diagram:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\tau _Y:& H^2(Y,𝐙)& \stackrel{}{}& \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{K3}}\\ & & & \iota \\ \iota ^1\tau _Y|_{T(Y)}:& (T(Y),𝐂\omega _Y)& & (T,𝐂\omega )\end{array}$$

###### Proof.

This follows immediately from the surjectivity of the period map and the minimality of $`T`$. ∎

Step 1. There is a map $`\stackrel{~}{c}:𝒫(T,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{K3}})FM(X)`$, i.e. there exists a FM partner $`Y(\iota )`$ for each primitive embedding $`\iota :T\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{K3}}`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\iota :T\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{K3}}`$ be a primitive embedding, then by Step 0. we have a marked K3 surface $`(Y,\tau _Y)`$ with the commutative diagram in Step 0. Then, by Theorem 2.2, we have $`YFM(X)`$. Assume there exists another marked K3 surface $`(Y^{},\tau _Y^{})`$ with the commutative diagram in Step 0 ($`Y`$ replaced by $`Y^{}`$). Then

$$\tau _Y^1\tau _Y^{}:(H^2(Y^{},𝐙),𝐂\omega _Y^{})(H^2(Y,𝐙),𝐂\omega _Y)$$

is a Hodge isometry, which means that $`Y^{}Y`$ by the Torelli theorem (See e.g. \[BPV\]). Therefore there exists a well-defined map $`\stackrel{~}{c}:𝒫(T,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{K3}})FM(X)`$. ∎

Step 2. The map $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$ is surjective.

###### Proof.

Let $`YFM(X)`$ and fix a marking $`\tau _Y:H^2(Y,𝐙)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{K3}}`$. Then by Theorem 2.2, we have a Hodge isometry $`g:(T(Y),𝐂\omega _Y)\stackrel{}{}(T(X),𝐂\omega _X)`$ and the following commutative diagram in which $`T^{}=\tau _Y(T(Y)),\omega ^{}=\tau _Y(\omega _Y)`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{K3}}& \underset{\tau _Y}{\overset{}{}}& H^2(Y,𝐙)& & H^2(X,𝐙)& \underset{\tau _X}{\overset{}{}}& \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{K3}}\\ \iota _Y& & & & & & \iota _X\\ (T^{},𝐂\omega ^{})& \stackrel{}{}& (T(Y),𝐂\omega _Y)& \underset{g}{\overset{}{}}& (T(X),𝐂\omega _X)& \stackrel{}{}& (T,𝐂\omega )\end{array}$$

The map $`\iota :=\iota _Y\tau _Y|_{T(Y)}g^1\tau _X^1|_T:T\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{K3}}`$ is then a primitive embedding and $`Y=\stackrel{~}{c}(\iota )`$. ∎

Step 3. If two primitive embeddings $`\iota ,\iota ^{}:(T,𝐂\omega )\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{K3}}`$ are $`G`$-equivalent, then $`\stackrel{~}{c}(\iota )=\stackrel{~}{c}(\iota ^{})`$. This together with the surjectivity in Step 2 entails that the map $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$ descends to a surjective map $`c:𝒫^{G\text{-eq}}(T,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{K3}})FM(X)`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`\iota ,\iota ^{}:(T,𝐂\omega )\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{K3}}`$ are $`G`$-equivalent, and denote $`Y=\stackrel{~}{c}(\iota ),Y^{}=\stackrel{~}{c}(\iota ^{})`$. We also fix markings $`\tau _Y,\tau _Y^{}`$ of $`Y`$ and $`Y^{}`$. Then we have the following commutative diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}H^2(Y,𝐙)& \underset{\tau _Y}{\overset{}{}}& \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{K3}}& \underset{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\overset{}{}}& \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{K3}}& \underset{\tau _Y^{}}{\overset{}{}}& H^2(Y^{},𝐙)\\ & & \iota & & \iota ^{}& & \\ (T(Y),𝐂\omega _Y)& \stackrel{}{}& (T,𝐂\omega )& \underset{g}{\overset{}{}}& (T,𝐂\omega )& \stackrel{}{}& (T(Y^{}),𝐂\omega _Y^{})\end{array}$$

where $`\mathrm{\Phi }O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{K3}})`$ and $`gG=O_{Hodge}(T,𝐂\omega )`$. From this diagram, we have a Hodge isometry $`\tau _Y^{}^1\mathrm{\Phi }\tau _Y:(H^2(Y,𝐙),𝐂\omega _Y)(H^2(Y^{},𝐙),𝐂\omega _Y^{})`$, which implies $`YY^{}`$ by the global Torelli theorem. ∎

Step 4. The induced map $`c:𝒫^{G\text{-eq}}(T,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{K3}})FM(X)`$ is injective.

###### Proof.

Take two $`G`$-equivalence classes $`[\iota ],[\iota ^{}]𝒫^{G\text{-eq}}(T,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{K3}})`$ and denote $`Y=c([\iota ])=\stackrel{~}{c}(\iota )`$, $`Y^{}=c([\iota ^{}])=\stackrel{~}{c}(\iota ^{})`$. We fix markings $`\tau _Y,\tau _Y^{}`$ for $`Y`$ and $`Y^{}`$, respectively. To see the injectivity we show that $`f:Y^{}Y`$ implies $`[\iota ^{}]=[\iota ]`$. Denote the Hodge isometry $`f^{}:(H^2(Y,𝐙),𝐂\omega _Y)(H^2(Y^{},𝐙),𝐂\omega _Y^{})`$ associated with the isomorphism $`f:Y^{}Y`$. Then we have the following commutative diagram:

ΛK3τYH2(Y,𝐙)fH2(Y,𝐙)τYΛK3

ι
 ι(T,𝐂ω)(T(Y),𝐂ωY)(T(Y),ωY)(T,𝐂ω)matrixsubscriptΛK3subscriptsuperscriptsimilar-tosubscript𝜏𝑌superscript𝐻2𝑌𝐙subscriptsuperscriptsimilar-tosuperscript𝑓superscript𝐻2superscript𝑌𝐙subscriptsuperscriptsimilar-tosubscript𝜏superscript𝑌subscriptΛK3absent

ι
 missing-subexpressionmissing-subexpressionmissing-subexpressionabsentsuperscript𝜄𝑇𝐂𝜔superscriptsimilar-to𝑇𝑌𝐂subscript𝜔𝑌superscriptsimilar-to𝑇superscript𝑌subscript𝜔superscript𝑌superscriptsimilar-to𝑇𝐂𝜔\begin{matrix}\Lambda_{\text{K3}}&\smash{\mathop{\longleftarrow}\limits^{\sim}_{\tau_{Y}}}&H^{2}(Y,\mathbf{Z})&\smash{\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits^{\sim}_{f^{*}}}&H^{2}(Y^{\prime},\mathbf{Z})&\smash{\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits^{\sim}_{\tau_{Y^{\prime}}}}&\Lambda_{\text{K3}}\cr\uparrow\hbox to0.0pt{\hss$\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\iota\;$}}\;\;$}&&\cup&&\cup&&\uparrow\hbox to0.0pt{$\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\iota^{\prime}$}}$\hss}\cr(T,\mathbf{C}\omega)&\smash{\mathop{\longleftarrow}\limits^{\sim}}&(T(Y),\mathbf{C}\omega_{Y})&\smash{\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits^{\sim}}&(T(Y^{\prime}),\mathbf{\omega}_{Y^{\prime}})&\smash{\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits^{\sim}}&(T,\mathbf{C}\omega)\cr\end{matrix}
From this diagram we obtain;

ΛK3ΦΛK3

ι
 ι(T,𝐂ω)g(T,𝐂ω)matrixsubscriptΛK3subscriptsuperscriptsimilar-toΦsubscriptΛK3absent

ι
 missing-subexpressionabsentsuperscript𝜄𝑇𝐂𝜔subscriptsuperscriptsimilar-to𝑔𝑇𝐂𝜔\begin{matrix}\Lambda_{\text{K3}}&\smash{\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits^{\sim}_{\exists\Phi}}&\Lambda_{\text{K3}}\cr\uparrow\hbox to0.0pt{\hss$\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\iota\;$}}\;\;$}&&\uparrow\hbox to0.0pt{$\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\iota^{\prime}$}}$\hss}\cr(T,\mathbf{C}\omega)&\smash{\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits^{\sim}_{\exists g}}&(T,\mathbf{C}\omega)\cr\end{matrix}
where $`gO_{Hodge}(T,𝐂\omega )`$. We then conclude $`[\iota ]=[\iota ^{}]`$ in $`𝒫^{G\text{-eq}}(T,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{K3}})`$. ∎

It now follows that $`c`$ is bijective. The second assertion in the theorem is clear from the construction of $`c`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

In an actual application of the Counting Formula 2.3, we need to determine the genus of $`NS(X)`$. The following theorem due to \[Ni1, Theorem 1.14.2\] is very useful when $`\rho (X)`$ is large:

###### Theorem 2.5.

Let $`S`$ be an even indefinite non-degenerate lattice. If $`rkS2+l(S)`$, then $`𝒢(S)=\{S\}`$ and the natural map $`O(S)O(A_S)`$ is surjective. Here $`l(S)`$ is the minimal number of generators of $`A_S`$, e.g. $`l(A_S)=1`$ when $`A_S`$ is cyclic.

###### Corollary 2.6.

If $`\rho (X)l(NS(X))+2`$, then $`FM(X)=\{X\}`$.

###### Proof.

By Theorem 2.5, we have $`𝒢(NS(X))=\{NS(X)\}`$. Then, by the Counting Formula, we have $`|FM(X)|=|O(NS(X))O(A_{NS(X)})/O_{Hodge}(T(X),𝐂\omega _X)|`$. Since the natural map $`O(NS(X))O(A_{NS(X)})`$ is surjective again by Theorem 2.5, we have $`|FM(X)|=1`$. ∎

###### Corollary 2.7.

* (cf. \[Mu1, Proposition 6.2\]) If $`\rho (X)12`$, then $`FM(X)=\{X\}`$. In particular, $`FM(KmA)=\{KmA\}`$.
* If $`\rho (X)3`$ and $`detNS(X)`$ is square-free, then $`FM(X)=\{X\}`$.
* If $`X𝐏^1`$ is a Jacobian K3 surface, i.e. an elliptic K3 surface with a section, then $`FM(X)=\{X\}`$.
* (cf. \[Og1, Proposition 1.10\]) Assume that $`\rho (X)=1`$ and $`NS(X)=𝐙H`$ with $`(H^2)=2n`$. Then $`|FM(X)|=2^{\tau (n)1}`$. Here $`\tau (1)=1`$, and $`\tau (n)`$ is the number of prime factors of $`n2`$, e.g. $`\tau (4)=\tau (2)=1`$, $`\tau (6)=2`$.

Proof.

1): This follows from Corollary 2.6 and the following calculation: $`l(NS(X))=l(T_X)rkT(X)10\rho (X)2`$.

2): Since $`\text{det}NS(X)`$ is square-free, it follows that $`A_{NS(X)}`$ is cyclic. Then $`l(NS(X))=1`$. Since $`\rho (X)3`$, the result follows from Corollary 2.6.

3): The unimodular hyperbolic lattice $`U`$ is a direct summand of $`NS(X)`$, say $`NS(X)=UN`$, by the assumption. Thus, $`l(NS(X))=l(N)rkN=\rho (X)2`$. Therefore, the result follows from Corollary 2.6.

4): We assume $`n2`$. The case $`n=1`$ is similar and easier. Since $`NS(X)=𝐙H`$ with $`(H^2)=2n`$, we have $`𝒢(NS(X))=\{NS(X)\}`$, $`O(NS(X))O_{Hodge}(T(X),𝐂\omega _X))𝐙/2`$ and $`(A_{NS(X)},q_{NS(X)})(𝐙/2n,q_{2n})`$. Here $`q_N`$ on $`𝐙/N`$ is defined by $`q_N(1)=1/N`$. Therefore, $`|FM(X)|=|O(𝐙/2n,q_{2n})|/2`$ by the Counting Formula. By a straightforward calculation (cf. \[Og1\]), we have also $`|O(𝐙/2n,q_{2n})|=2^{\tau (n)}`$. ∎

## 3.  Class Numbers and Fourier-Mukai Numbers

In this section, we focus on K3 surfaces of $`\rho (X)=2`$ (Theorem 3.3) and recast the two class number problems, Questions I and II in Introduction, in corresponding geometrical terms (Questions I’ and II’).

We begin by recalling the following fact which is well-known to experts (see \[Ni 1, 2\] and \[Mo\]). This proposition shows that every question about the class numbers of real quadratic fields can, in principle, be recast in terms of K3 surfaces.

###### Proposition 3.1.

For any even hyperbolic lattice with $`rkS10`$, there is a projective K3 surface $`X`$ with $`NS(X)S`$. In particular, for every rank 2 even hyperbolic lattice $`S`$, there is a projective K3 surface $`X`$ with $`NS(X)S`$.

Next we briefly recall some basic background on class numbers from \[Cs\] and \[Za\]. Let $`D`$ be an odd fundamental discriminant, i.e. a rational integer $`D`$ such that $`D1mod4`$ and $`D`$ square-free. Put $`K:=𝐐(\sqrt{D})`$, and let $`𝒪_K`$ denote its ring of integers. Throughout this section, this $`D`$ is fixed. Let $`H(D)`$ denote the narrow ideal class group of $`𝒪_K`$, i.e. the quotient of the group of fractional ideals of $`𝒪_K`$, by the subgroup of principal fractional ideals with positive norm. A theorem of Hurwitz says that $`H(D)`$ is finite. The number $`h(D)=|H(D)|`$ is the class number of $`K`$.

###### Theorem 3.2.

(\[Za\], \[Cs\]) The following three sets are in natural 1-1 correspondence:

* The class group $`H(D)`$.
* The set $`(D)`$ of proper, i.e. $`SL(2,𝐙)`$-equivalence classes of integral binary quadratic forms $`ax^2+bxy+cy^2`$ with discriminant $`b^24ac=D`$.
* The set $`(D)`$ of proper, i.e. orientation-preserving, isomorphism classes of even hyperbolic rank 2 lattices $`S`$ with $`detS=D`$.

Note that every class in $`(D)`$ can be represented by a pair $`(𝐙^2,\left(\begin{array}{cc}2a& b\\ b& 2c\end{array}\right))`$, where the matrix represents the bilinear form with respect to the standard base of $`𝐙^2`$. Two such pairs are properly isomorphic if and only if their matrices are conjugate under $`SL(2,𝐙)`$.

We recall a few more facts about the sets $`H(D),(D),(D)`$. For details, see \[Za, §12\] and \[Cs, Chap. 14 §3\]. Consider the exact sequence

$$0𝒥H(D)\stackrel{sq}{}H(D)^20$$

where $`sq(x)=x^2`$ and $`𝒥`$ is the kernel of $`sq`$. It is known that $`|𝒥|=|H(D)/H(D)^2|=2^{n1}`$, where $`n`$ is the number of prime factors of $`D`$. Given a rank 2 even lattice $`L`$ with $`detL=D`$, let $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(L)`$ be the set of proper isomorphism classes of lattices in the same genus as $`L`$. The set of genera $`\{\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(L)|[L](D)\}`$ is a principal homegeneous space of the group $`H(D)/H(D)^2`$. Therefore, there are $`[L_1],\mathrm{},[L_{2^{n1}}](D)`$, and a decomposition:

$$(D)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{2^{n1}}{}}\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(L_k)$$

where the genera $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(L_k)`$ all have the same cardinality. Now the subset $`𝒥H(D)`$ consists of the ideal classes of the so-called 2-sided ideals. This means that, under the correspondence $`H(D)(D)`$, each element in $`𝒥`$ corresponds to a class in $`(D)`$ representable as a pair $`(𝐙^2,\left(\begin{array}{cc}2a& b\\ b& 2c\end{array}\right))`$ such that $`(𝐙^2,\left(\begin{array}{cc}2a& b\\ b& 2c\end{array}\right))(𝐙^2,\left(\begin{array}{cc}2a& b\\ b& 2c\end{array}\right))`$ under $`SL(2,𝐙)`$. In particular the number of such classes in $`(D)`$ is $`|𝒥|=2^{n1}`$.

Now we have:

###### Theorem 3.3.

If $`D=p`$ is a prime and $`X`$ is a K3 surface with $`\rho (X)=2`$ and $`detNS(X)=p`$, then $`|FM(X)|=(h(p)+1)/2`$.

Remark. For each prime number $`p1mod4`$, there is a K3 surface $`X`$ such that $`NS(X)S_0`$ by Proposition 3.1. Here $`S_0=(𝐙^2,\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& 1\\ 1& \frac{1p}{2}\end{array}\right))`$. Note that $`S_0`$ is an even hyperbolic lattice of rank $`2`$ and of $`detS_0=p`$.

###### Proof.

Put $`S=NS(X)`$. Since $`D=p`$, i.e. $`n=1`$, it follows that $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(S)=(D)`$, hence $`h(p)=|\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(S)|`$. Since $`𝒢(S)`$ consists of isomorphism (not necessarily proper) classes of lattices, it follows that $`𝒢(S)`$ is the orbit space of the group $`\sigma =GL(2,𝐙)/SL(2,𝐙)(C_2)`$ acting on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(S)`$. Since $`|𝒥|=1`$ because $`n=1`$, it follows that there is just one class $`[L]\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(S)`$ (in fact, $`[L]=[S_0]`$) which is fixed by $`\sigma `$ acting on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(S)`$. Since $`\sigma `$ is an involution, it follows that $`|𝒢(S)|=(|\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(S)|+1)/2`$. On the other hand, the group $`A_S`$ has $`p`$ elements. Since $`p`$ is prime, it follows that $`A_S𝐙/p`$, and that $`O(A_S)=\{\pm id\}`$. Since the group $`O_{Hodge}(T(X),𝐙\omega _X)`$ obviously contains $`\pm id`$, it follows that each of the quotients $`O(A_{S_i})/O_{Hodge}(T(X),𝐂\omega _X)`$ in the Counting Formula for $`|FM(X)|`$ has just 1 element. Therefore $`|FM(X)|=|𝒢(S)|.`$ Now we are done. ∎

From a table \[Fl\], for a prime $`1297`$ ($`1\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}`$), we have $`h(1297)=11`$. Then for any K3 surface $`X`$ with $`\rho (X)=2`$ and $`detNS(X)=1297`$, we have $`|FM(X)|=6`$. In this case the value $`|FM(X)|`$ is not a power of $`2`$, either. This example may be contrasted to the case $`\rho (X)=1`$, where $`|FM(X)|`$ is always a power of $`2`$ (Corollary 2.7 4).)

$`p`$ $`h(p)`$ $`|FM(X)|`$  $`229`$ $`3`$ $`2`$  $`257`$ $`3`$ $`2`$  $`401`$ $`5`$ $`3`$  $`577`$ $`7`$ $`4`$  $`733`$ $`3`$ $`2`$  $`761`$ $`3`$ $`2`$  $`1009`$ $`7`$ $`4`$  $`1093`$ $`5`$ $`3`$  $`1129`$ $`9`$ $`5`$  $`1229`$ $`3`$ $`2`$  $`1297`$ $`11`$ $`6`$  $`1373`$ $`3`$ $`2`$  $`1429`$ $`5`$ $`3`$  $`1489`$ $`3`$ $`2`$
By Theorem 3.3, Gauss’ questions can now be stated in the following geometrical form:

Question I’.Are there infinitely many K3 surfaces $`X`$, with each $`X`$ having $`\rho (X)=2`$ and $`FM(X)=\{X\}`$, such that the numbers $`|detNS(X)|`$ are distinct primes?

Question II’.Is there a sequence of K3 surfaces $`X_1,X_2,\mathrm{}`$ with $`\rho (X_k)=2`$ and $`|FM(X_k)|\mathrm{}`$ such that the numbers $`|detNS(X_k)|`$ are primes?

## 4. Non-Hausdorff properties of the moduli of K3 surfaces

In this section, we shall show the following:

###### Theorem 4.1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a unit disk in $`𝐂`$. Then there is a pair of smooth projective families of K3 surfaces $`𝒳\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`𝒴\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and a sequence $`\{t_k\}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ such that

$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}t_k=0,𝒳_{t_k}𝒴_{t_k}\text{b}ut𝒳_0\simeq ̸𝒴_0.$$

In our construction, we shall make use of the 3-rd characterization of FM partners of a K3 surface in Theorem 2.2. We begin by recalling a few facts about the $`3`$-rd characterization, i.e. $`2`$-dimensional fine compact moduli spaces of stable sheaves on a K3 surface $`X`$.

Set $`\stackrel{~}{NS}(X):=H^0(X,𝐙)NS(X)H^4(X,𝐙)`$. We call $`\stackrel{~}{NS}(X)`$ the extended Néron-Severi lattice of $`X`$. For $`v=(r,H,s)\stackrel{~}{NS}(X)`$ and an ample class $`ANS(X)`$, we denote by $`M_A(v)`$ (resp. $`\overline{M}_A(v)`$) the coarse moduli space of stable sheaves (resp. the coarse moduli space of $`S`$-equivalence classes of semi-stable sheaves) $``$ with respect to the polarization $`A`$ with $`\mu ()=v`$. Here $`\mu ()`$ is the so-called Mukai vector of $``$, which is defined by $`\mu ():=\text{ch}()\sqrt{td_X}`$. By \[Ma1, 2\] (see also \[Mu3\]), the space $`\overline{M}_A(v)`$ is a projective compactification of $`M_A(v)`$, and $`\overline{M}_A(v)=M_A(v)`$ if all the semi-stable sheaf $``$ with $`\mu ()=v`$ is stable, for instance if $`(r,s)=1`$.

The following theorem essentially due to Mukai \[Mu3\] is proved in \[Or\] in the course of the proof of Theorem 2.2:

###### Theorem 4.2.

If $`YFM(X)`$, then $`YM_H((r,H,s))`$ where $`H`$ is ample, $`r>0`$ and $`s`$ are integers such that $`(r,s)=1`$ and $`2rs=(H^2)`$, and vice versa.

In our proof, we need is the following relative version:

###### Lemma 4.3.

Let $`\pi :(𝒳,)`$ be a smooth projective family of K3 surfaces. Let $`f:\overline{}`$ be a relative moduli space of the $`S`$-equivalence classes of semi-stable sheaves of $`\pi `$ with respect to the polarization $``$ with Mukai vectors $`(r,_t,s)`$. If $`r>0`$, $`(r,s)=1`$ and $`2rs=(_t^2)`$, then $`f`$ is projective and gives a relative FM family of $`\pi `$, i.e. $`\overline{}_tFM(𝒳_t)`$ for all $`t`$.

###### Proof.

The existence of $`f`$ and its projectivity over $``$ are shown by Maruyama \[Ma1\] and \[Ma2\]. By the definition, we have $`\overline{}_t=\overline{}__t((r,_t,s))`$. Since $`(r,s)=1`$, $`2rs=(_t^2)`$ and $`_t`$ is ample on $`𝒳_t`$, it follows that $`\overline{}_t=_{H_t}((r,_t,s))FM(𝒳_t)`$ by Theorem 4.2. ∎

Proof of Theorem 4.1. Consider the number

$$m:=\text{max}\{\rho (X)|X\text{is a K3 surface with}|FM(X)|2\}.$$

Such a number $`m`$ exists and satisfies $`m11`$ by Corollary 2.7 1) and 4). Take one such $`X`$ and choose then $`YFM(X)`$ such that $`Y\simeq ̸X`$. Write $`Y=M_H(r,H,s)`$ as in Theorem 4.2.

Let us consider the Kuranishi family $`u:𝒰𝒦`$ of $`X`$. The base space $`𝒦`$ is assumed to be a small polydisk in $`H^1(X,T_X)^{20}`$. Choosing a marking $`\tau :R^2u_{}_𝒰\mathrm{\Lambda }\times 𝒦`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the K3 lattice, we consider the period map

$$\pi :𝒦𝒫=\{[\omega ](\mathrm{\Lambda })|(\omega .\omega )=0,(\omega .\overline{\omega })>0\}(\mathrm{\Lambda })^{21}.$$

By the local Torelli theorem (see e.g. \[BPV, Chapter VIII\]), $`𝒦`$ is isomorphic, via $`\pi `$, to an open neighborhood in $`𝒫`$, which we again denote by $`𝒫`$. In what follows, we identify $`𝒦`$ with $`𝒫`$.

Set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0:=\tau _0(NS(X))`$. Let us consider the subset $`𝒦^0`$ of $`𝒦=𝒫`$ defined by the linear equations $`([\omega ],\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)=0`$. This $`𝒦^0`$ parametrizes K3 surfaces $`𝒰_t`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\tau _t(NS(𝒰_t))`$, or in other words, $`𝒦^0`$ is the subspace of $`𝒦`$ in which $`NS(X)`$ is kept to be algebraic. Since $`rank\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=\rho (X)=m`$, we have $`\text{dim}𝒦^0=20m1`$. Let us take a generic small one-dimensional disk $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ such that $`0\mathrm{\Delta }𝒦^0`$ and consider the family $`\phi :𝒳\mathrm{\Delta }`$ induced from $`u:𝒰𝒦`$. By definition, there is an invertible sheaf $``$ on $`𝒳`$ such that $`_0=H`$. Since ampleness is an open condition, $``$ is $`\phi `$-ample. Therefore, the morphism $`\phi `$ projective. By \[Og2, Main Theorem\], we see that $`NS(𝒳_t)\mathrm{\Lambda }_0NS(X)`$ for generic $`t\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and that the set $`𝒮:=\{s\mathrm{\Delta }|\rho (𝒳_s)>m\}`$ is everywhere dense in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with respect to the Euclidean topology.

Let us consider the family of FM partners $`f:𝒴\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`\phi :𝒳\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with Mukai vectors $`(r,_t,s)`$. This exists by Lemma 4.3. By the definition of $`m`$, $`𝒮`$ and $`f`$, one has $`𝒴_0Y\simeq ̸X𝒳_0`$ and $`𝒴_s𝒳_s`$ for $`s𝒮`$. Then, any sequence $`\{t_k\}𝒮`$ with $`lim_k\mathrm{}t_k=0`$ satisfies the desired property. ∎

## Appendix A Proof of Theorem 1.4

In this appendix, for completeness, we shall give a sketch of a proof of Theorem 1.4. Throughout this appendix, we use the same notation as in §1.

Let $`T`$ and $`S`$ be the even lattices defined at the beginning of Section 1 and fix $`S_j𝒢(S)`$. The goal is to show the following equality:

$$|𝒫_j^{G\text{-eq}}(T,\mathrm{\Lambda })|=|O(S_j)O(A_{S_j})/G|,$$

which clearly implies the first equality in Theorem 1.4. This equality is a consequence of Propostions A.7 and A.9 below.

###### Definition A.1.

(\[Ni1, §1\]) An over-lattice $`L=(L,(,)_L)`$ of $`S_jT`$ is a pair consisting of a $`𝐙`$-module such that $`S_jTLS_j^{}T^{}`$ and the bilinear form $`(,)_L`$ given by the restriction of $`(,)_{S_j^{}}(,)_T^{}`$ to $`L`$. An over-lattice $`L`$ is called integral if its bilinear form $`(,)_L`$ is $`𝐙`$-valued. An integral over-lattice is a lattice in our sense.

###### Definition A.2.

We denote by $`𝒰_j:=𝒰(S_jT)`$ the set of over-lattices $`L=(L,(,)_L)`$ of $`S_jT`$ such that $`L`$ is integral, unimodular and such that the inclusion $`TL`$ is primitive. We also denote by $`_j`$ the subset of $`𝒰_j`$ which consists of even lattices.

###### Lemma A.3.

(\[Ni1, §1\]) Let $`L𝒰_j`$. Then:

* The orthogonal lattice $`T^{}`$ in $`L`$ coincides with $`S_j`$, and the inclusion $`S_jL`$ is primitive.
* The natural projections $`\overline{\pi }_{L,S_j}`$ and $`\overline{\pi }_{L,T}`$ (see §1 for definition) are group isomorphisms.
* $`L`$ is even, i.e. $`L_j`$ if and only if $`q_{S_j}(\phi _L(x))=q_T(x)(xA_T)`$, where $`\phi _L:=\overline{\pi }_{L,S_j}\overline{\pi }_{L,T}^1:A_T\stackrel{}{}A_{S_j}`$.

###### Proof.

This follows directly from Proposition 1.2. See also \[Ni1, §1\]. ∎

Remark. 1) The relation $`q_{S_j}(\phi _L(x))=q_T(x)(xA_T)`$ is nothing but that the isomorphism $`\phi _L`$ is in fact an isometry of the discriminant lattices

$$\phi _L:(A_T,q_T)\stackrel{}{}(A_{S_j},q_{S_j}).$$

2) The isometry $`\phi _L:(A_T,q_T)\stackrel{}{}(A_{S_j},q_{S_j})`$ associated to $`L_j`$ recovers $`L`$ explicitly as: $`L/(S_jT)=\{\phi _L(a)a|aA_T\}S_j^{}/S_jT^{}/T`$. ∎

###### Lemma A.4.

For an arbitrary isometry $`f:(A_T,q_T)\stackrel{}{}(A_{S_j},q_{S_j})`$, we define the over-lattice $`L^f`$ of $`S_jT`$ by: $`L^f/(S_jT)=\{f(a)a|aA_T\}`$. Then $`L^f`$ is an element of $`_j`$, and the associated isometry $`\phi _{L^f}(=\overline{\pi }_{L^f,S_j}\overline{\pi }_{L^f,T}^1)`$ coincides with $`f`$.

###### Proof.

This is an old result known as gluing methods, see \[CoS, Chap. 4\] for example, and also follows immediately from Proposition 1.2. ∎

By Lemma A.3, 3), each $`L_j`$ gives rise to an isometry $`\phi _L:(A_T,q_T)\stackrel{}{}(A_{S_j},q_{S_j})`$. Combininig this with Proposition 1.2, we obtain the following bijective correspondence such that $`L\phi _L,fL^f`$ are inverses of each other:

$$_j=(S_jT)\{\phi :(A_T,q_T)\stackrel{}{}(A_{S_j},q_{S_j})\}.$$

###### Lemma A.5.

Fix an isometry $`\phi _j:(A_T,q_T)\stackrel{}{}(A_{S_j},q_{S_j})`$. Then the following map is bijective: $`\mu _j:O(A_{S_j})_j;\sigma L^{\sigma \phi _j}`$.

###### Proof.

The assignment $`\sigma \sigma \phi _j`$ gives a bijection between $`O(A_{S_j})`$ and the set $`\{\phi :(A_T,q_T)\stackrel{}{}(A_{S_j},q_{S_j})\}`$. Combining this bijection with Lemma A.3, we obtain the result. ∎

###### Definition A.6.

1) Two over-lattices $`L,L^{}_j`$ are called $`G`$-equivalent if there exist isometries $`\mathrm{\Phi }:L\stackrel{}{}L^{}`$ and $`g:T\stackrel{}{}T`$ such that $`gG`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }|_T=g`$:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{\Phi }:& L& \stackrel{}{}& L^{}\\ & & & \\ g:& T& \stackrel{}{}& T\end{array}$$

2) We denote the set of $`G`$-equivalence classes of the elements of $`_j`$ by $`_j^{G\text{-eq}}`$.

Remark. By Lemma A.3, 1), the orthogonal lattice $`T^{}`$ in $`L`$ coincides with $`S_j`$ for all $`L𝒰_j`$. Therefore when $`L`$ and $`L^{}`$ are $`G`$-equivalent, the isometry $`\mathrm{\Phi }:L\stackrel{}{}L^{}`$ determines $`f:=\mathrm{\Phi }_{S_j}O(S_j)`$ as well as $`g=\mathrm{\Phi }|_TG`$. Conversely any pair $`(f,g)O(S_j)\times G`$ induces an isometry $`fg:S_j^{}T^{}\stackrel{}{}S_j^{}T^{}`$. Moreover, this isometry sends an over-lattice $`LS_j^{}T^{}`$ to an over-lattice $`L^{}=(fg)(L)S_j^{}T^{}`$. Clearly $`L`$ and $`L^{}`$ are $`G`$-equivalent. ∎

###### Proposition A.7.

The bijective map $`\mu _j:O(A_{S_j})_j`$ in Lemma A.5 descends to the bijective map: $`\overline{\mu }_j:O(S_j)O(A_{S_j})/G_j^{G\text{-eq}}`$, where the double coset is defined as in Theorem 1.4.

###### Proof.

Let $`\sigma _1,\sigma _2O(A_{S_j})`$. Assume $`L^{\sigma _1\phi _j}`$ and $`L^{\sigma _2\phi _j}`$ are $`G`$-equivalent over-lattices of $`S_jT`$, where $`\phi _j:(A_T,q_T)\stackrel{}{}(A_{S_j},q_{S_j})`$ is a fixed isometry. By definition of $`G`$-equivalence, we have isometries $`\mathrm{\Phi }:L^{\sigma _1\phi _j}\stackrel{}{}L^{\sigma _2\phi _j}`$ and $`g:T\stackrel{}{}T`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }|_T=gG`$. By Lemma A.3, 1), $`S_j=T^{}`$ in both $`L^{\sigma _1\phi _j}`$ and $`L^{\sigma _2\phi _j}`$, and thus we have $`\mathrm{\Phi }(S_jT)=S_jT`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{S_j}:=\mathrm{\Phi }|_{S_j}O(S_j)`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T:=\mathrm{\Phi }|_T=gG`$. Now we have $`L^{\sigma _2\phi _j}/(S_jT)=\{\sigma _2\phi _j(a)a|aA_T\}`$, and

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(L^{\sigma _1\phi _j}/(S_jT))`$ $`=\{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{S_j}\sigma _1\phi _j(a)\overline{g}(a)|aA_T\}`$
$`=\{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{S_j}\sigma _1\phi _j\overline{g}^1(a)a|aA_T\}.`$
Comparing these two equations, we obtain $`\sigma _2=\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{S_j}\sigma _1(\phi _j\overline{g}^1\phi _j^1)`$, which implies $`[\sigma _1]=[\sigma _2]`$ in $`O(S_j)O(A_{S_j})/G`$.

To see that the map $`\mu _j`$ is well-defined on the double coset $`O(S_j)O(A_{S_j})/G`$, let us assume $`[\sigma _1]=[\sigma _2]`$ in the double coset. Then there exist $`fO(S_j)`$ and $`gG`$ such that $`\sigma _2=\overline{f}\sigma _1(\phi _j\overline{g}\phi _j^1)`$. Now it is clear from the above calculations that for the $`𝐐`$-linear extensions $`fg:S_j^{}T^{}S_j^{}T^{}`$ we have $`(fg)(L^{\sigma _1\phi _j})=L^{\sigma _2\phi _j}`$. Then, by Remark after Definition A.6, $`L^{\sigma _1\phi _j}`$ and $`L^{\sigma _2\phi _j}`$ are $`G`$-equivalent.

These two observations show that the map $`\mu _j`$ descends to a well-defined injective map $`\overline{\mu }_j`$. Since $`\mu _j`$ is surjective, so is $`\overline{\mu }_j`$. ∎

Let $`[\iota ]𝒫_j^{G\text{-eq}}(T,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. Then, by definition, $`\iota (T)^{}S_j`$. We choose a representative $`\iota :T\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of this $`G`$-equivalence class. We also fix an isometry $`\sigma :S_j\stackrel{}{}\iota (T)^{}`$. Now consider the isomorphism $`\sigma \iota :S_jT\stackrel{}{}\iota (T)^{}\iota (T)`$ and its extension to the dual lattices. Then one has the following commutative diagram:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\sigma \iota :& S_j^{}T^{}& \stackrel{}{}& (\iota (T)^{})^{}\iota (T)^{}\\ & & & \\ & L(\sigma ,\iota )& \stackrel{}{}& \mathrm{\Lambda }\\ & & & \\ \sigma \iota :& S_jT& \stackrel{}{}& \iota (T)^{}\iota (T)\end{array}$$

where we define the over-lattice $`L(\sigma ,\iota )`$ of $`S_jT`$ by $`L(\sigma ,\iota ):=(\sigma \iota )^1(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is even integral unimodular, so is $`L(\sigma ,\iota )`$, i.e. $`L(\sigma ,\iota )_j`$.

###### Lemma A.8.

The over-lattices $`L(\sigma ,\iota )`$ above satisfy the following:

* If $`\sigma :S_j\stackrel{}{}\iota (T)^{}`$ and $`\sigma ^{}:S_j\stackrel{}{}\iota (T)^{}`$, then $`[L(\sigma ,\iota )]=[L(\sigma ^{},\iota )]`$ as an element of $`_j^{G\text{-eq}}`$.
* If $`\iota :T\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\iota ^{}:T\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are $`G`$-equivalent primitive embeddings $`𝒫_j(T,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, then $`[\iota ]=[\iota ^{}]`$ in $`𝒫_j^{G\text{-eq}}(T,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`[L(\sigma ,\iota )]=[L(\sigma ,\iota ^{})]`$ in $`_j^{G\text{-eq}}`$.

###### Proof.

Both claims are immediate from a diagram similar to the above and the definition of $`G`$-equivalence. Details are left for readers. ∎

###### Proposition A.9.

* The following map is well-defined:

$$\xi :𝒫_j^{G\text{-eq}}(T,\mathrm{\Lambda })_j^{G\text{-eq}},[\iota ][L(\sigma ,\iota )]$$
* The map $`\xi :𝒫_j^{G\text{-eq}}(T,\mathrm{\Lambda })_j^{G\text{-eq}}`$ is bijective.

###### Proof.

The well-definedness of the map $`\xi `$ is immediate by Lemma A.8. To show surjectivety, let $`[K]`$ be in $`_j^{G\text{-eq}}`$. Then we have $`S_jTKS_j^{}T^{}`$, and $`TK`$ is primitive. Let $`\iota _K:TK`$ be an inclusion. Since $`K`$ is an even unimodular indefinite lattice, there exists an isometry $`f:K\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by the theorem of Milnor (see \[Se\]). Then for the embedding $`\iota :=f\iota _K:T\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\sigma :=f|_{S_j}:S_j\stackrel{}{}\iota (T)^{}`$ we have $`K=L(\sigma ,\iota )`$, that is $`[K]=\xi ([\iota ])`$. To show the injectivity of $`\xi `$, assume $`[L(\sigma ,\iota )]=[L(\sigma ^{},\iota ^{})]`$ in $`_j^{G\text{-eq}}`$. Then we have:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}(\iota (T)^{})^{}\iota (T)^{}& \stackrel{}{}& S_j^{}T^{}& \stackrel{}{}& S_j^{}T^{}& \stackrel{}{}& (\iota ^{}(T)^{})^{}\iota ^{}(T)^{}\\ & & & & & & \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }& \stackrel{}{}& L(\sigma ,\iota )& \underset{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\overset{}{}}& L(\sigma ^{},\iota ^{})& \stackrel{}{}& \mathrm{\Lambda }\\ & & & & & & \\ \iota (T)^{}\iota (T)& \underset{\sigma \iota }{\overset{}{}}& S_jT& \underset{\mathrm{\Phi }_{S_j}\mathrm{\Phi }_T}{\overset{}{}}& S_jT& \underset{\sigma ^{}\iota ^{}}{\overset{}{}}& \iota ^{}(T)^{}\iota ^{}(T)\end{array}$$

where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{S_j}:=\mathrm{\Phi }|_{S_j}O(S_j)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T:=\mathrm{\Phi }|_TG`$. If we define $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=(\sigma ^{}\iota ^{})\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma \iota )^1:\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we see that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\iota =\iota ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_T`$, which means that $`[\iota ]=[\iota ^{}]`$ in $`𝒫_j^{G\text{-eq}}(T,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. This completes the proof. ∎

## Appendix B The group of Hodge isometries

In this appendix, we shall give a proof of the following Proposition applied in previous sections. This is probably well-known to experts. Our proof here is similar to an argument in \[Ni2\]\[St\].

###### Proposition B.1.

Let $`T`$ be a lattice of signature $`(2,\text{rank}T2)`$ and $`(T,𝐂\omega )`$ be a weight two Hodge structure on $`T`$, i.e. $`\omega `$ is an element of $`T𝐂`$ such that $`(\omega ,\omega )=0`$ and $`(\omega ,\overline{\omega })>0`$. Assume the following minimality condition on $`T`$: if $`T^{}T`$ is primitive and $`\omega T^{}𝐂`$, then $`T^{}=T`$. Then $`O_{Hodge}(T,𝐂\omega )`$ is a cyclic group of even order, say, $`2I`$ such that $`\phi (2I)|\text{rank}T`$. Here $`\phi (J)=|(𝐙/J)^\times |`$ is the Euler function. Moreover, if $`g`$ is a generator of $`O_{Hodge}(T,𝐂\omega )`$, then $`g(\omega )=\zeta _{2I}\omega `$, where $`\zeta _{2I}`$ is a primitive $`2I`$-th root of unity.

We proceed in five steps.

Step 1. $`|O_{Hodge}(T,𝐂\omega )|<\mathrm{}`$.

###### Proof.

Put $`t:=\text{rank}T`$. Let $`P:=\text{Re}\omega ,\text{Im}\omega `$. Then $`P`$ is a positive definite $`2`$-dimensional plane by $`(\omega ,\omega )=0`$, $`(\omega ,\overline{\omega })>0`$. Set $`N:=P^{}`$ in $`T𝐑`$. Since $`\text{sgn}T=(2,t2)`$, $`N`$ is a negative definite. Let $`gO_{Hodge}(T,𝐂\omega )`$. By definition of $`O_{Hodge}(T,𝐂\omega )`$, we have $`g(P)=P`$ and $`g(N)=N`$. Therefore, via the assignment $`g(g|P,g|N)`$, we have an embedding $`O_{Hodge}(T,𝐂\omega )O(P)\times O(N)`$. This should be continuous. Since $`P`$ and $`N`$ are both definite, $`O(P)\times O(N)`$ is compact. Since $`O_{Hodge}(T,𝐂\omega )O(T)`$ is discrete, this implies the result. ∎

Let $`gO_{Hodge}(T,𝐂\omega )`$. Then $`g(\omega )=\alpha (g)\omega `$ for some $`\alpha (g)𝐂^\times `$. The assignment $`g\alpha (g)`$ defines a group homomorphism $`\alpha :O_{Hodge}(T,𝐂\omega )𝐂^\times `$.

Step 2. $`\alpha `$ is injective.

###### Proof.

Let $`g\text{Ker}\alpha `$. Since $`g`$ is defined over $`𝐙`$ (i.e. $`g`$ is represented by a matrix of integral entries with respect to integral basis of $`T`$), the invarinat set $`T^g:=\{xT|g(x)=x\}`$ is a primitive sublattice of $`T`$ such that $`T^g𝐂=(T𝐂)^g\omega `$. Thus, by the minimality condition, we have $`T^g=T`$. This means $`g=\text{id}_T`$. ∎

Step 3. $`O_{Hodge}(T,𝐂\omega )𝐙/2I`$ for some $`I𝐍`$.

###### Proof.

By Steps 1 and 2, $`O_{Hodge}(T,𝐂\omega )`$ is isomorphic to a finite subgroup of the multiplicative group $`𝐂^\times `$ of the field $`𝐂`$. Such groups are always cyclic. Therefore $`O_{Hodge}(T,𝐂\omega )`$ is a finite cyclic group. Since the involution $`id_T`$ is an element of $`O_{Hodge}(T,𝐂\omega )`$, the order of $`O_{Hodge}(T,𝐂\omega )`$ is also even. ∎

Set $`O_{Hodge}(T,𝐂\omega )=g`$. Then $`\text{ord}(g)=2I`$.

Step 4. All the eigenvalues of $`g`$ (on $`T𝐂`$) are primitive $`2I`$-th roots of unity.

###### Proof.

Since $`\text{ord}(g)=2I`$, all the eigenvalues of $`g`$ are $`2I`$-th roots of unity. Since $`\alpha `$ is injective, $`g(\omega )=\zeta _{2I}\omega `$, where $`\zeta _{2I}`$ is a primtive $`2I`$-th root of unity. Let $`d`$ be a positive integer such that $`d|2I`$ and $`d2I`$. Suppose that $`g`$ admits a primitive $`d`$-th root of unity $`\zeta _d`$ as its eigenvalue. Then $`g^d`$ has an eigenvalue $`1`$. Since $`g`$ is defined over $`𝐙`$, there is $`xT\{0\}`$ such that $`g^d(x)=x`$. Since $`g^d(\omega )=\zeta _e\omega `$, where $`e=2I/d>1`$ and $`\zeta _e`$ is a primitive $`e`$-th root of unity, we have

$$(x,\omega )=(g^d(x),g^d(\omega ))=(x,\zeta _e\omega ).$$

This implies $`(x,\omega )=0`$, because $`\zeta _e1`$ by $`e>1`$. However, we have then $`\omega (x)^{}𝐂`$, a contradiction to the minimality condition of $`T`$. Therefore all the eigenvalues of $`g`$ are primitive $`2I`$-th roots of unity. ∎

Step 5. $`\phi (2I)|t=\text{rank}T`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`g`$ is defined over $`𝐐`$ and the primitive $`2I`$-th roots of unity are mutually conjugate over $`𝐐`$, their multiplicities as eigenvalue of $`g`$ are the same, say $`m`$. Combining this with the fact that the number of primitive $`2I`$-th roots of unity is $`\phi (2I)`$, we have $`m\phi (2I)=t`$. This implies $`\phi (2I)|t`$. ∎


text:
# Design of Strongly Modulating Pulses to Implement Precise Effective Hamiltonians for Quantum Information Processing

## I Introduction

The past decade has seen a substantial interest in improving coherent quantum control. Coherent control had origins in both nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)  and optical spectroscopy . For an overview of advances in both fields, the reader is referred to . Since coherent control’s inception, many different techniques have been used both to improve selectivity and to reduce the duration of control pulses. For spin systems, the Fourier transform has been used to approximate the excitation profile in the limit of low power and no spin-spin couplings  and more complete analytic solutions have been developed to aid in general pulse design and analysis . Alternatively, very sophisticated shaped pulses have been designed using a variety of computer-aided methods  or feedback from system observables . Equivalent analytic theories , computer-aided methods  and feedback techniques  have also been developed by the optics community. Similar techniques are also used in other fields such as the control of trapped ions .

The development of liquid-state NMR systems as prototype quantum information processors  has enabled experimental demonstration of quantum algorithms , quantum error correction , and quantum simulations . These experiments built upon well-established spectroscopic techniques developed over the past four decades, such as using low-power (soft) shaped radio-frequency (RF) pulses to obtain selective operations. However, the selective pulses employed to date have the disadvantage that low power implies long duration. This not only introduces errors due to relaxation, or decoherence, but also allows significant evolution under the action of the internal Hamiltonian. In the past, this evolution was rarely of concern because there was little importance placed on implementing a particular operation. For example, in spectroscopy there are entire classes of propagators that selectively excite a single spin from its equilibrium state, but for applications such as quantum computing the transformation must act as expected for all input states. A second problem with soft-pulse techniques is that selective pulses simultaneously applied to different spins interfere with each other, thus causing significant deviation from the desired action . To address some of these problems, several groups precalculate these errors and incorporate corrections into their analysis and pulse design . However, not all errors can be corrected using these techniques , and it would be preferable to average out unwanted evolution by the use of strong control fields, so that no additional corrections are required.

In this paper, we present a procedure for finding high-power pulses that strongly modulate the system’s dynamics to produce precisely a desired spin-selective unitary propagator. These operations, or gates, allow arbitrary rotations of each spin around independent single-spin axes, while refocusing the internal evolution. They are “self-contained,” in the sense that they can be placed back to back in longer sequences without requiring additional computational resources or post-experiment corrections. By using high-power, pulse durations are decreased by almost an order of magnitude, thereby significantly reducing the effects of relaxation. Finally, the use of strong modulation also opens the possibility of incorporating robustness against slowly varying or time independent incoherent errors such as those caused by static field or RF inhomogeneities . Our control methods are the first to combine all of these features.

The pulses presented here have been applied in recent Quantum Information Processing (QIP) experiments to demonstrate algorithms , study notions of measurement , and test new methods for noise control . They promise to be increasingly useful in future NMR QIP experiments, where larger numbers of qubits will necessitate increasing the number of homonuclear spins. In addition, these methods can be adapted to develop improved pulses for selective spectroscopy  and imaging . Finally, although presented within the context of NMR, these methods are applicable to any system where the total Hamiltonian is well known and the external degrees of freedom allow for universal control, both requirements of any quantum information processor.

## II Control of Quantum Information

In the standard model of quantum computing, an algorithm can be expressed as a series of unitary operations that maps a set of input states to a particular set of output states. The physical implementation of an algorithm requires the use of a quantum system with a Hamiltonian that contains a sufficient set of externally controlled parameters to allow for the generation of a universal set of gates . The task of control is to find a time-dependent sequence of values for these control parameters that modulates the system’s dynamics in order to generate a particular gate to the required precision.

Given a control sequence, solving for the effective Hamiltonian is straightforward. Unfortunately, going the other way is much more difficult. That is, finding an RF waveform that produces a propagator with desired properties is an inverse problem. Traditionally, analytic techniques, such as average Hamiltonian theory , have been used to determine an appropriate control sequence. With modern computer resources, numerical methods provide a more efficient and accurate solution to this problem.

### A Gate Fidelity as a Metric for Control

A metric of a gate’s performance should describe the quality of a general transformation, including the possibility of non-unitary evolution. Unfortunately, such information is not conveniently accessible by experiment, so we choose a metric comprised only of sets of state measurements. For an input state, $`\rho _{in}`$, the ideal transformation maps the system to a theoretical output state, $`\rho _{th}`$, i.e.,

$$\rho _{in}\rho _{th}.$$
(1)
On the other hand, a simulated or experimentally implemented control sequence will produce a different output state, $`\rho _{out}`$, i.e.,

$$\rho _{in}\rho _{out}.$$
(2)
Noting that $`\rho `$ is Hermitian, the projection between these two states, defined as

$$P(\rho _{th},\rho _{out})=\frac{trace(\rho _{th}\rho _{out})}{\sqrt{trace(\rho _{th}^2)trace(\rho _{out}^2)}},$$
(3)
quantifies how similar in ’direction’ the two states are. This metric is analogous to the dot product between two vectors, varying from $`1`$ for anti-parallel states to $`1`$ for identical states. A value of zero indicates orthogonal density matrices. In order to account for non-unitary evolution, a second term multiplies the projection yielding the attenuated correlation, namely,

$`C(\rho _{th},\rho _{out})=P(\rho _{th},\rho _{out})\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{trace(\rho _{out}^2)}{trace(\rho _{in}^2)}}}`$ (4)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{trace(\rho _{th}\rho _{out})}{\sqrt{trace(\rho _{th}^2)trace(\rho _{in}^2)}}}.`$ (5)
We define the gate fidelity, F, of a transformation as

$$F=\overline{C(\rho _{th},\rho _{out})},$$
(6)
where $`\overline{C}`$ represents the average attenuated correlation over an orthonormal set of input density operators (i.e., $`Trace[\rho _j\rho _k]=\delta _{jk}`$) that span the Hilbert space. It should be noted that $`F`$ is maximized (with a value of one) when the implemented and ideal transformations are the same, and is insensitive to differences in the global phase between the ideal and implemented transformation.

We can derive a useful alternate form for the gate fidelity in terms of the actual and theoretical transformations instead of the input-output state relations. This form is both easier to compute and has intuitive appeal in that knowledge of the transformation can be directly translated to gate fidelities. First we assume that our ideal transformation is unitary, and the implemented transformation is a completely positive, trace-preserving linear map . In other words, the implemented transformation takes normalized density operators to normalized density operators and if the system starts as subsystem of an entangled system, then the full system’s density operator also maps in a reasonable way. Under these assumptions, Eq. (1) and (2) are explicitly given by

$$\rho _{th}=U_{th}\rho _{in}U_{th}^{},$$
(7)
and

$$\rho _{out}=\underset{\mu }{}A_\mu \rho _{in}A_\mu ^{},$$
(8)
where the $`A_\mu `$ satisfy

$$\underset{\mu }{}A_\mu ^{}A_\mu =𝟙.$$
(9)
We now show that the gate fidelity reduces to

$$F=\underset{\mu }{}|Trace(U_{th}^{}A_\mu )/N|^2,$$
(10)
where N is the dimension of the Hilbert space. Using the normalized Pauli basis, $`\sigma _j`$, as the orthonormal input density operators and the cyclic properties of the trace, Eq. (6) becomes

$`F={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N^2}{}}}Tr[(U_{th}\sigma _jU_{th}^{})({\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}A_\mu \sigma _jA_\mu ^{})]/N^2`$ (11)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N^2}{}}}Tr[\sigma _j{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}U_{th}^{}A_\mu \sigma _jA_\mu ^{}U_{th}]/N^2.`$ (12)
Expanding the product of $`U_{th}^{}A_\mu `$ in terms of the orthonormal Pauli basis ($`U_{th}^{}A_\mu =_kB_\mu ^k\sigma _k`$), yields

$`={\displaystyle \underset{j\mu }{}}Tr[\sigma _j({\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}B_\mu ^k\sigma _k)\sigma _j({\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}B_{\mu }^{m}{}_{}{}^{}\sigma _m)]/N^2`$ (13)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{j\mu km}{}}B_\mu ^kB_{\mu }^{m}{}_{}{}^{}Tr[\sigma _j\sigma _k\sigma _j\sigma _m]/N^2.`$ (14)
Because the $`\sigma `$ basis is orthogonal, only terms where $`k=m`$ contribute. Therefore, Eq. (14) reduces to

$$F=\underset{j\mu k}{}|B_\mu ^k|^2Tr[\sigma _j\sigma _k\sigma _j\sigma _k]/N^2.$$
(15)
If $`\sigma _k`$ is not proportional to identity, it will anti-commute with exactly half the $`\sigma _j`$ terms in the sum, while commuting with the other half. Therefore, two sets of terms cancel and have no contribution to F. Defining $`\sigma _1`$ to be the element that is proportional to identity, Eq. (15) further reduces to

$`F={\displaystyle \underset{j\mu }{}}|B_\mu ^1|^2Tr[\sigma _j\sigma _j]/N^3`$ (16)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{j\mu }{}}|B_\mu ^1|^2/N^3={\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}|B_\mu ^1|^2/N.`$ (17)
This is clearly equal to Eq. 10. Thus, the gate fidelity corresponds to how well the actual transformation reverses the action of $`U_{th}^{}`$. In this form it is obvious that the gate Fidelity is independent of which orthonormal basis of input states are used as $`\rho _{in}`$.

### B NMR as an Example System

As an example, liquid-state NMR is used to demonstrate how to find control sequences to implement particular gates. In NMR, spins in a large static magnetic field (in our case, 9.7 T) are controlled via external RF pulses. The internal spin Hamiltonian is composed of both Zeeman interactions with the applied field modified by electron screening (chemical shift) and scalar couplings with other spins. Together these provide the QIP requirements of addressability and conditional logic respectively. In terms of spin operators, the internal Hamiltonian is

$$H_{int}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\omega _kI_z^k+2\pi \underset{j>k}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}J_{kj}I^kI^j,$$
(18)
where $`\omega _k`$ represent the chemical shifts of the spins, $`J_{kj}`$ the coupling constant between spins $`k`$ and $`j`$, and $`n`$ is the number of spins. The external Hamiltonian describing the coupling between the spins and an oscillating RF field generated by a single transmitter is

$$H_{ext}(\omega _{RF},\varphi ,\omega ,t)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}e^{i(\omega _{RF}t+\varphi )I_z^k}(\omega I_x^k)e^{i(\omega _{RF}t+\varphi )I_z^k},$$
(19)
where $`\omega _{RF}`$ is the transmitter’s angular frequency, $`\varphi `$ the initial phase, and $`\omega `$ the power . Of course, additional species can be added by including appropriate terms in $`H_{int}`$ and an additional $`H_{ext}`$ for each additional RF field.

Using this knowledge of the internal Hamiltonian and the form of the external Hamiltonian, the parameter values that generate the desired gate must be determined. Here, a quality factor $`Q=1\sqrt{F}`$ is minimized by searching through the mathematical parameter space using the Nelder-Mead Simplex algorithm . While this function has many local minima, the Simplex algorithm often succeeds in finding satisfactory solutions. Our goal is to show that sufficient, implementable control sequences can be found. Finding the optimal solution is much more challenging and based on our system and control parameter values, is not expected to improve pulse performance significantly. We have parameterized the control sequence as a cascade of RF pulses with fixed power, transmitter frequency, initial phase, and pulse duration ($`\tau `$). As will be seen, this is a particularly convenient and completely general parameterization, but we make no claims that it is the only, nor necessarily the best choice. If the RF power is constant over the duration of a pulse, i.e., the pulse’s amplitude is square, the total Hamiltonian $`H_{tot}=H_{int}+H_{ext}`$ can be made time independent by transforming into the frame that rotates at the frequency of the transmitter. This allows the Liouville-von Neumann equation of motion to be solved by a single diagonalization. Initially, the starting density matrix is the same in both frames ($`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(0)=\rho (0)`$), so that at the end of the pulse, the density matrix in the new frame is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\tau )=e^{iH_{eff}\tau }\rho (0)e^{iH_{eff}\tau },$$
(20)
where $`H_{eff}`$ is the effective Hamiltonian in the new frame . Transforming this density matrix back to the original rotating frame gives

$$\rho =U_z(\tau )^1e^{iH_{eff}\tau }\rho (0)e^{iH_{eff}\tau }U_z(\tau ),$$
(21)
where

$$U_z(\tau )=(e^{i\omega _{RF}_{k=1}^nI_z^k\tau }).$$
(22)
Therefore, in the original rotating frame, the transformation is given by

$$U_{period}(\tau )=U_z^1(\tau )e^{iH_{eff}\tau }.$$
(23)
Because the evolution under the whole sequence is given in the original rotating frame, no additional resources are required to concatenate pulses, nor is any mathematical correction required at the end of an experiment.

Cascading these periods yields the net transformation

$$U_{net}=\underset{m=1}{\overset{N}{}}U_z^1(\tau _m)e^{iH_{eff}^m(\omega ^m,\omega _{RF}^m,\varphi ^m)\tau _m}$$
(24)
where the index $`m`$ refers to the $`m^{th}`$ period, i.e., to the $`m^{th}`$ square pulse, with a corresponding set of 4 parameters. In other words, $`N`$ constant amplitude pulse periods, each with a different transmitter frequency and initial phase, are applied in series. Clearly, a single period is not sufficient to generate an arbitrary transformation; therefore the number of periods is increased until a suitable net transformation is found. Using desktop computing resources, this yields convergence times for three- and four-spin systems that are typically seconds to minutes.

In addition to the desired propagator, $`U_{ideal}`$, an initial set of starting parameters for the pulse shape is required. While this initial guess must be reasonable (i.e., in the vicinity of the solution), many different starting points typically converge to equally deep minima. We have observed that the number of acceptable solutions for this parameterization is very large, allowing experimental implementation issues to be considered. For example, experimental limitations do not allow arbitrarily high powers or frequencies to be implemented. To keep the algorithm from returning infeasible solutions, a penalty function that increases as the parameter value moves towards infeasible solutions is added to the quality factor. Penalty functions are also used to guide the algorithm towards more favorable pulse solutions. In our case, penalties are placed on high powers, large frequencies, and negative- or long-time periods.

## III Simulations

The methods described above were used to obtain a set of pulses that implement each of a set of important single-spin gates. To study the performance of these gates, propagators for each of the pulses were simulated under different conditions. First, the performance of the pulses under idealized experimental conditions is considered. Second, the gate fidelity is simulated as a function of systematic distortions of the pulse parameters. From these results, the relative importance of implementation precision is determined. Finally, simulations show that a pulse generates quite different evolutions as a test spin’s resonant frequency is varied over a range of chemical shifts.

### A Ideal Pulse Simulations

Pulses were created for three- ($`{}_{}{}^{13}C`$-labeled Alanine) and four- ($`{}_{}{}^{13}C`$-labeled Crotonic acid) spin homonuclear systems. The chemical shifts and scalar coupling constants for each of these systems are listed in Fig. 1. As a representative set, each of the single spin $`\pi /2`$, and nearest-neighbor paired $`\pi `$ pulses were simulated with the relevant characteristics summarized in Table I and example waveforms shown in Fig. 2. The duration of the pulses are on the order of $`200\mu `$s for the three-spin system and $`420\mu `$s for the four-spin system, both significantly shorter than those that could be obtained using low-power pulses. The average fidelities for each system are $`0.9995`$ and $`0.995`$, demonstrating that, at least under ideal conditions, control sequences that implement the desired transformation with high fidelity can be found.

The ultimate goal of control in quantum computing is to attain fault-tolerant computation. While it has been proven that perfect control is not required , estimates of the precision needed vary from $`0.9999`$ to $`0.999999`$ depending on the assumptions used. These simulations predict an achievable level of control that approaches the most optimistic estimates for fault tolerant computation. As expected, the pulse duration decreases with increasing chemical shifts dispersion (selectivity condition) and, for the case that $`J_{jk}<<\left|\omega _k\omega _j\right|`$, the fidelity of the sequence decreases with increasing ratio of the couplings (bilinear terms) to chemical shift.

### B Variations in the External Hamiltonian

The external RF parameters are determined by a minimization procedure, suggesting that small variations of the external parameters should have little effect on the quality of the pulses. To check this assumption, the gate fidelity was calculated as each of the six pairs of the four control parameters were varied over a range of errors typical of an experimental implementation. As a sample set, one pulse for each of the two systems is presented here. The results shown in Fig. 3 demonstrate the natural robustness against typical variations in the initial phase, frequency, and duration of each period. Clearly, the sequence is most sensitive to power variations. For the pulses listed in Table I, if the power’s amplitude is changed by $`5\%`$ the average fidelity falls to $`0.96\pm 0.01`$ for Alanine pulses and $`0.94\pm 0.04`$ for Crotonic acid pulses. For the 25 pulses used in  the average fidelity at $`5\%`$ amplitude deviation is $`0.97\pm 0.02`$. For $`10\%`$ deviation, the gate fidelity drops to $`0.86\pm 0.03`$ for the Alanine pulses and $`0.81\pm 0.12`$ for the Crotonic acid pulses. This pulse sensitivity to RF amplitude suggests that RF inhomogeneity may be a leading cause of experimental errors. While techniques to select homogeneous regions are available , the loss in signal to noise is significant, especially if multiple coils are used. Instead, because these errors are incoherent in nature, it is possible to design pulse sequences that refocus such homogeneities. Preliminary results confirm that sequences can be re-optimized in the presence of significant inhomogeneity.

### C Variations in the Internal Hamiltonian

For NMR spectroscopy, the goal is to excite selectively spins in a band of frequencies leaving all other possible spins (with unknown precession frequencies) along the $`z`$ axis. This requires that the propagator for spins at any other frequency be, at most a phase change. With detailed knowledge of the internal Hamiltonian, the effect of the applied RF field needs only be considered at the resonance frequencies of the chemical species present in the given molecule. By relaxing the requirement that the effective Hamiltonian be zero for all chemical shifts other than those in the band of excitation, an RF shape can be found that more efficiently implements the desired gate for the frequencies of concern yielding high-power yet selective pulses. To demonstrate this idea more clearly, the gate fidelities of the two sample pulses considered in the sub-section B were calculated as a function of a test spin’s resonant frequency. As can be seen in Fig. 4, the fidelity is close to unity only near the resonance frequency for which the pulse was designed to work. This stresses the necessity of having accurate knowledge of the system’s Hamiltonian. On the other hand, looking at the region immediately around the resonance we see the fidelity falls off quite slowly. This implies that small variations in the chemical shift do not significantly affect the fidelity of the pulses. For example, in the experiments presented below, the unwanted scalar couplings to the hydrogen atoms, which are equivalent to errors in the resonance frequency, were automatically refocused by the control pulse. It should be noted that no constraint was used to require this robustness, but that it results from the use of strongly modulating pulses. If this natural robustness is not sufficient, additional constraints can be added. Of course, this robustness also implies that selective pulses will be harder to design for spin systems where the spectrum is dense.

## IV Experimental Demonstrations

In this section we experimentally demonstrate the efficacy of a representative set of pulses via both spectra and reconstructed density matrices. Each waveform was discretized by sampling at a constant rate that was faster than the largest phase modulation during any of the periods (sample times of order $`0.5\mu s`$). Simulations of the sampled waveform confirmed that the decrease in the gate fidelity was acceptably small. All experimental tests were carried out on the three carbons of $`{}_{}{}^{13}C`$-labeled Alanine (see Fig. 1 for internal Hamiltonian parameters) using a Bruker Avance spectrometer.

First, a series of selective single-spin pulses were applied to the thermal state to demonstrate that these selective rotations fully refocus the internal Hamiltonian and so can be concatenated arbitrarily. Fig. 5 shows sample sequences and the resulting spectra. In addition, because the internal Hamiltonian is fully refocused, applying selective transformations on different spins sequentially has an effect equivalent to applying all the appropriate transformations to each of the spins simultaneously (neglecting relaxation). With simultaneous, fully self-refocused $`\pi `$ pulses, selective couplings can be efficiently implemented using previously published techniques , and is demonstrated in Fig. 5.

Second, the projection and attenuated correlation between the expected and experimentally determined results of different control sequences were measured for a set of input states. While spectra contain information about the observables of the current state of the system (single-spin transitions in the case of NMR), a single spectrum does not contain enough information to reconstruct the entire state of the system (density matrix). By using “read-out” pulses that rotate different elements of the density matrix into the single-spin transitions, every term of the density matrix can be determined . In our case, seven repetitions of the experiment, each with a different readout pulse, are sufficient to reconstruct the density matrix . Using this method to determine $`\rho _{out}`$, the projections and attenuated correlations, averaged over three different input states, and under the action of six different pulses, are measured and listed in Table II. The input states considered are of the form

$$\rho _{in}=I_j^1+I_j^2+I_j^3,$$
(25)
for $`j=x,y,z`$.

Because the pulses are short with respect to the decoherence times, which are all greater than 200ms, the difference between the projection and the correlation indicates incoherent evolution (e.g., RF inhomogeneity) has caused significant errors. This is demonstrated by the fact that the ratio of the correlation to the projection, or the attenuation, is on the order of the projection (see Table II). This further supports the need to address errors caused by inhomogeneous effects. Robustness to inhomogeneity can be added as a criterion in pulse determination; the additional resource requirements (time, power, etc.), however, are not known. Decreases in the coherent errors are also desirable, but such improvements must first be sought through improved experimental implementation. While the goal of fault tolerance clearly hasn’t been met, these results indicate that experimental implementation is nearing ideal simulation results.

## V Conclusions

The ability to implement faithfully a desired unitary transformation is at the heart of any future implementation of a quantum computer. Any control technique should minimize the effects of decoherent errors while retaining the required addressability. We have demonstrated a method to find control sequences that use detailed knowledge of the system’s Hamiltonian and high-power pulses to create a desired gate by strongly modulating the system’s dynamics. These gates are short in duration yet selective, implementing the correct unitary transformation. The effect of these control sequences has been simulated under various conditions and experimentally demonstrated by NMR. Finally, avenues for future improvements are within the reach of current technologies.

## VI Acknowledgements

We are grateful to L. Viola, E. Knill and R. Laflamme for stimulating discussions. This work was supported by the National Security Agency and Advanced Research and Development Activity under Army Research Office contract number DAAD19-01-1-0519, by the Defense Sciences Office of the DARPA under contract number MDA972-01-1-0003, and by NSF.