text:
# Neutral hydrogen in dwarf galaxies

## 1 Introduction.

In this paper we we present the kinematical information extracted from HI maps of the dwarf galaxy sample described by Stil $`\&`$ Israel (2002; hereafter Paper I). As neutral atomic hydrogen is one of the most extended observable components of a galaxy, its line emission provides an excellent tool to probe galaxy mass distributions. The dopplershift of a line profile is a direct measure of the projected rotation velocity at the position sampled. Its linewidth is a measure of the macroscopic chaotic motion of the gas and reflects its physical condition. Both rotation and velocity dispersion can be measured out to the edge of the HI distribution, which usually extends far beyond the stellar distribution. In the outer regions, rotational velocities are more or less constant, implying the presence of large amounts of matter even at the largest distances to the center. These rotation velocities are about three times higher than expected if only stars and gas would contribute to the mass; thus the amount of ‘unseen’ or ‘dark’ mass is about an order of magnitude higher than that associated with luminous matter.

It is interest to determine the detailed kinematical conditions governing late-type dwarf galaxies. These galaxies are gas-rich, dynamically simple and relatively easy to observe. Their rotation curves trace the distribution of dark matter more directly than those of more massive galaxies, where the mass-to-light ratio of the stellar disk and bulge is a critical parameter. Interestingly, it has been suggested that in some dwarf galaxies, the stellar contribution to the total mass is quite small (Broeils 1992), and that this contribution decreases with decreasing maximum rotation curve velocity (Broeils 1992, Swaters 1999),

## 2 Velocity field and rotation curve

We determined intensity-weighted mean velocities in order to make maximum use of the information contained in spectra with limited signal-to-noise ratios. Noise was further suppressed by only using data from the areas delineated by the cleaning masks (cf. Paper I). The intensity-weighted velocity fields of our galaxy sample are shown in Fig. 4.

We have determined rotation curves by iteratively fitting to the observed velocity field the parameters found with the tilted-ring method (Warner et al. 1973), incorporated in the GIPSY packages as the task ROTCUR (Begeman 1987). Note that the inclination and the location of the kinematic center can be determined only if the rotation curve flattens at the outer radii (i.e. shows the onset of differential rotation). In order to obtain robust solutions, we performed a large number of fits where each parameter was free in 25 to 30 fits, allowing calculation of the r.m.s. scatter of each parameter at all radii. Solution of $`v(r)\mathrm{sin}i`$ can also directly be compared to observed major axis position-velocity maps (Sect. 3). Although the product $`v(r)\mathrm{sin}i`$ is well-constrained, the separate solutions for $`v(r)`$ and $`i`$ in general are not unique. In particular, at inclination angles $`50^{}`$, $`v(r)`$ and $`i`$ cannot be fitted independently (Begeman 1987).

Depending on galaxy HI extent and surface brightness, we performed fits on full-resolution ($`13.5^{\prime \prime }`$) or low-resolution (30<sup>′′</sup>) data. As a consistency check, we used both low and full resolution data for DDO 47, DDO 48 and NGC 2976. The results are presented in Table 1 and 2. In total, 13 out of 29 galaxies in the sample could so be fitted. For the remainder, a complete analysis was not feasible. There, we required the rotation center to coincide with the HI center of mass which was found to be correct at least for all the objects listed in Tables 1. In addition, we assigned to these objects a low ($`30^{}`$), average ($`60^{}`$) or high ($`80^{}`$) inclination based on the appearance of the HI isophotes. The results of fits to the high-resolution data, but restricted by these assumptions, are given in Table 3 and Table 4. The center coordinates in Table 3 are those of the HI-intensity-weighted mean position in $`\alpha _{1950}`$ and $`\delta _{1950}`$. They typically change only by a few arcseconds if different intensity thresholds are applied. The errors quoted for position angle and systemic velocity represent their scatter between different radii. Note that the velocities listed in Table 4 have not been corrected for inclination. These $`v(r)\mathrm{sin}i`$ values, as indeed also the position angle, depend only weakly on the assumed inclination.

## 3 Major axis position-velocity diagrams

The projected rotation curve, $`v(r)\mathrm{sin}i`$, can be visualized as a position-velocity slice. We include such maps in Fig. 4, which show intensity as a function of position along the kinematic major axis and heliocentric velocity. Position angles and central positions were taken from Tables 1 or 3, in order of preference. We have also included in Fig. 4 the rotation curve points listed in Tables 2 and 4.

Virtually all of the observed galaxies show a velocity gradient. However, in poorly-ordered velocity fields, it is not clear whether or not this represents. In Fig. 1 we show, however, that observed velocity gradients tend to align with the major axis of the HI isophotes, although a few significant misalignments exist suggesting a rotating disk (e.g. DDO 47, DDO 63, DDO 165 and also Sextans A as shown by Skillman et al. 1988). We suspect that much of the width of the distribution in Fig. 1 is caused by errors in the determination of major axis position angle from the HI distribution, although the magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ PA is not correlated with the total brightness of the galaxy in HI (or in blue light).

The position-velocity maps of three very-low luminosity dwarf galaxies ($`M_\mathrm{B}>14`$) betray high ratio of rotational to random velocities: those of DDO 47, DDO 52 and DDO 87. The existence of rotationally supported dwarfs of such low luminosity is remarkable if simple arguments based on the luminosity-linewidth relation for large spirals are applied to dwarf galaxies (Lo et al. 1993, Stil $`\&`$ Israel, in preparation). In addition, the rotation curves of DDO 52 and DDO 87 show clear signs of flattening. They illustrate the increase in the number of extremely low luminosity galaxies known to be largely supported by rotation (cf. Carignan & Beaulieu 1989, Côté 1997). Indeed, with the exception of DDO 47 Fig. 4 as well as Tables 2 and 4 include few convincing examples of pure solid-body rotation.

## 4 Velocity dispersion

The linewidth in a single synthesized beam carries information about the velocity dispersion of the ensemble of HI clouds contained within the beam. This information is, unfortunately, confused with the signatures of other effects such as warps or flares of the HI layer, the extent to which HI structures are resolved, and the rotation velocity gradient over the beam. Warps and flares bring HI from different galactocentric radii into the line of sight, but they only cause confusion in highly inclined galaxies.

Excluding lines of sight with low signal-to-noise ratios, we have used Gaussian fitting to obtain the mean velocity dispersions tabulated in Table 5. To first order, we corrected the maps for finite velocity resolution and linear velocity gradients over the beam according to the relation

$$\sigma ^2=\sigma _{obs}^2\sigma _{inst}^2\frac{1}{2}b^2\left(v\right)^2$$

where $`\sigma _{obs}`$ is the dispersion of a Gaussian $`e^{\frac{1}{2}v^2/\sigma _{obs}^2}`$ fitted to the line profile at each position, $`\sigma _{inst}=20.8493\mathrm{\Delta }v`$ is the dispersion of a Gaussian corresponding to the velocity resolution of the Hanning-smoothed data, and $`v`$ is the local velocity gradient over the beam, assumed to be of the form $`e^{x^2/b^2}`$. We calculated the velocity gradient at each position from model velocity fields constructed with the rotation curves presented in the previous section. No correction for galaxy inclination was applied. The procedure is described in more detail in Appendix A.

The high velocity dispersion in NGC 3738 is probably an artifact resulting from too small a beam/velocity gradient correction caused by the marginally resolved steep velocity gradient of the galaxy. Excluding NGC 3738, we find a mean velocity dispersion of $`8.6\pm 0.34\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ at $`13^{\prime \prime }`$ resolution and $`9.5\pm 0.38\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ at $`27^{\prime \prime }`$ resolution. Although the difference between the two results is significant, its magnitude is only 10$`\%`$. Moreover, these values are consistent with those in the literature (Shostak $`\&`$ Van der Kruit 1984, Skillman et al. 1988). As the physical area contributing to the measured velocity dispersion increases with galaxy distance squared, we show in Fig. 2 mean velocity dispersions as a function of beam surface area for both the $`13^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`27^{\prime \prime }`$ resolution maps. The systematic increase in mean velocity dispersion with physical beam area increasing by two orders of magnitude is no more than about $`2\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. As our results are thus effectively insensitive to linear resolution on scales of $``$ 0.1 kpc and larger, we may compare the velocity dispersions of galaxies at various distances without fear of introducing large systematic effects.

Finally, we show mean velocity dispersions as a function of inclination in Fig. 3. We used tilted-ring inclinations and, lacking these, inclinations estimated from optical axial ratios assuming an intrinsic axial ratio of 0.15. The result is not sensitive to the exact value of this intrinsic axial ratio. For instance, use of the higher values suggested by the work of Staveley-Smith et al. (1992), increases $`\mathrm{sin}i`$ values by at most 0.08. The upper and lower panels in Fig. 3 show velocity dispersions before and after the correction for inclination. The upper panel shows velocity dispersions increasing at the highest inclinations ($`\mathrm{sin}i>0.9`$; $`i>65^{}`$). This increase has disappeared completely in the corrected set in the lower panel. The widths of local line profiles depend on inclination only through the observed velocity gradient over the beam, which is steeper on average for high inclination angles. Thus, all observed galaxies, irrespective their absolute luminosity (-12.8 mag $`>`$ M$`{}_{\mathrm{B}}{}^{}>`$ -17.6 mag) are have mean velocity dispersions of about 10$`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, very similar to that of spiral galaxy disks. We will return to this result in a forthcoming paper.

The velocity dispersion maps shown in Fig. 4 are corrected for the local velocity gradient over the beam. Note that the steep inner rotation curves of NGC 2537 and NGC 3738 are not completely resolved, resulting in artificially large linewidths.

## 5 Individual objects

DDO 22: The HI axial ratio suggests that this galaxy is seen at a high inclination. A region of high HI column density is present in the southern side of the galaxy. The kinematic and HI major axes appear to be misaligned.

DDO 43: The HI axial ratio indicates a face-on orientation. Parallel velocity contours in a regular velocity field mark a rapidly rising rotation curve. The kinematic and optical major axes are roughly perpendicular.

DDO 46: The HI distribution shows a U-shaped high-column density ridge. The velocity field is reasonably symmetric with respect to the kinematic minor axis, but asymmetric with respect to the major axis. The rotation curve is almost flat at the edge of the HI distribution.

DDO 47: Spiral structure in the outer HI disk was reported by Puche $`\&`$ Westpfahl (1994). No optical emission appears associated with the spiral arms. Regularly shaped, elliptical outer HI isophotes suggest a disk seen at low inclination. A number of high column density regions are distributed evenly over the disk. There is a deep hole in the HI distribution at $`\alpha =7^\mathrm{h}39^\mathrm{m}8^\mathrm{s}.1,\delta =16^{}54^{}31^{\prime \prime }`$. The velocity field presents one of the few clear examples of solid-body rotation, as does the major axis XV diagram.

DDO 48: This is probably a nearly edge-on disk with a regular velocity field. The rotation curve rises rapidly near the center and flattens gradually outwards.

NGC 2537: The HI distribution consists of a U-shaped high column-density ridge. The velocity field, irregular in the north, exhibits the characteristic spider shape of a flattening rotation curve, also evident in the XV map. NGC 2537 is sometimes classified as a Blue Compact Dwarf (BCD) galaxy and is also known as the Bear Paw Galaxy (Schorn 1988). UGC 4278 is a nearby companion. NGC 2537A occurring just east of NGC 2537 on PSS plates is not visible in the HI data. The large linewidths in the center are an artifact of the unresolved velocity gradient.

UGC 4278: The rotation curve may show a turnover. NGC 2537 is $`16^{}.6`$ away at PA = $`328^{}`$.

DDO 52: Most of the HI is in a low-column-density disk, with a peak $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}=1.510^{21}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. The velocity field is regular with a hint of a flattening rotation curve. The XV diagram shows a rather high ratio of rotational to random velocity, despite its small amplitude.

DDO 63: The HI is concentrated in a ring with a high column density, with a five times lower central minimum ($`N_{\mathrm{HI}}=2.410^{20}\mathrm{cm}^2`$) at $`\alpha =9^\mathrm{h}36^\mathrm{m}3^\mathrm{s}.1`$ $`\delta =71^{}24^{}44^{\prime \prime }`$. The kinematic and HI major axes are misaligned by about $`30^{}`$. The rotation velocity is comparable to the HI velocity dispersion. The ring dominates the XV map. DDO 63 has also been studied by Puche & Westpfahl (1994) and Tully et al. (1978). The latter find the same kinematic/HI axis misalignment, and a comparable well-ordered, small-amplitude rotation velocity.

NGC 2976: The outer HI isophotes are well represented by ellipses. The two continuum sources (Paper I) are near to but not precisely coincident with the high HI column density regions ($`N_{\mathrm{HI}}3.510^{21}\mathrm{cm}^2`$) on either side of the galaxy at $`\alpha =9^\mathrm{h}43^\mathrm{m}1^\mathrm{s}.2`$, $`\delta =68^{}9^{}44^{\prime \prime }`$ (NW) and $`\alpha =9^\mathrm{h}43^\mathrm{m}19^\mathrm{s}.1`$, $`\delta =68^{}7^{}49^{\prime \prime }`$ (SE). The emission at upper left in the velocity field map is unrelated G alactic foreground HI. The rotation curve flattens near the edge of the HI disk. A detailed optical study of NGC 2976 was presented by Bronkala et al. (1992).

DDO 64: A high-column-density ridge dominates the HI structure of this probably nearly edge-on galaxy. The velocity field is poorly resolved along the minor axis. The XV map shows nearly solid-body rotation with only a hint of flattening. The feature south of DDO 64 is UGC 5272B, the feature north of it is probably noise.

DDO 68: At low column density levels, DDO 68 is reasonably symmetrical. High-column-density regions are found in the north and east of the galaxy. A deep hole devoid of HI emission is located at $`\alpha =9^\mathrm{h}53^\mathrm{m}52^\mathrm{s}.2`$, $`\delta =29^{}4^{}15^{\prime \prime }`$. Low signal-to-noise regions contribute to the irregular appearance of the velocity field. The ratio of rotational to random velocity is low.

DDO 73: The HI isophotes suggest a nearly face-on orientation. However, both velocity field and XV map indicate projected rotational velocities considerably in excess of the HI velocity dispersion.

DDO 83: The HI column density is high throughout the galaxy. The velocity field is regular and spider-like. The rotation curve rises strongly near the center and flattens at the edge of the HI disk.

DDO 87: The HI is distributed over a low-column-density disk with a number of small high column density regions, unresolved at $`13^{\prime \prime }`$ resolution. The fragmented appearance of the velocity field is the result of low signal-to-noise ratios. The XV map shows a nearly flat rotation curve in the outer regions. The low luminosity of DDO 87 is inferred from its association with the M81 group (Huchtmeier $`\&`$ Skillman 1998).

Mk 178: This galaxy is poorly resolved spatially. Its HI structure, kinematics and luminosity are similar to DDO 63, DDO 125 and DDO 165.

NGC 3738: The HI column density is high everywhere, with a central peak $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}=4.510^{21}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. The velocity profile and the XV map indicate a steep velocity gradient, which is difficult to fit with the tilted ring method. The indicated rotation velocity was fitted by eye to the XV map. The high velocity dispersion is an artifact of the large velocity gradient in this marginally resolved galaxy.

DDO 101: HI extent is too limited to show structure.

DDO 123: The HI is distributed evenly throughout the disk of this face-on galaxy. Irregularities in the velocity field coincide with low signal-to-noise regions. The rotation curve rises out to the edge of the HI disk.

Mk 209: The peak of the high-column-density region is $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}=2.910^{21}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. The velocity field appears regular but could not be fitted properly because of insufficient resolution. The velocity gradient was fitted manually to the XV map; it is consistent with a solid body rotation curve. HI in Mk 209 (IZw 36) has also been observed with the VLA by Viallefond et al. (1987).

DDO 125: The HI is mainly concentrated in two high-column-density regions, separated by a low-column density center, suggesting a fragmented ring. The velocity field shows a velocity gradient along the major axis. Rotation is clearly demonstrated by the XV map. HI in DDO 125 was studied in detail by Tully et al. (1978).

DDO 133: The HI isophotes are well-represented by ellipses at the level of $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}=310^{20}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. The rotation curve flattens slightly outwards.

DDO 165: Most of the HI is located in a ring. The velocity field is highly irregular. The maximum velocity gradient is along a line from SE to NW in position angle $`120^{}140^{}`$. The rotation velocity was fitted to the XV map assuming solid-body rotation. However, the emission in the XV map is mainly due to the ring.

DDO 166: A ridge of high-column-density HI extends over the eastern side of this face-on galaxy. The velocity field has a strong gradient, in spite of the small inclination suggested by the HI isophotes. The isovelocity contours are twisted into an S-shape at the eastern side of the galaxy. Thean et al. (1997) have published VLA HI maps of NGC 5033, DDO 166 and UGC 8314.

DDO 168: Two very high HI column density regions ($`N_{\mathrm{HI}}610^{21}\mathrm{cm}^2`$) occur near the center of the galaxy at $`\alpha =13^\mathrm{h}12^\mathrm{m}16^\mathrm{s}.8`$, $`\delta =46^{}11^{}0^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`\alpha =13^\mathrm{h}12^\mathrm{m}15^\mathrm{s}.8`$, $`\delta =46^{}11^{}30^{\prime \prime }`$. The position angle of the velocity gradient changes over the disk by approximately $`20^{}`$. The peculiar structure of DDO 168 is not unique. Similar very-high column density regions combined with twisted velocity fields have been observed in other ‘amorphous galaxies’ such as NGC 1140 (Hunter et al. 1994) and IZw 18 (Viallefond et al. 1987, Van Zee et al. 1998). A detailed study of the mass distribution in DDO 168 was performed by Broeils (1992).

DDO 185: The HI column density map suggests a disk seen at a high inclination. The isovelocity contours are regularly spaced, consistent with the rising rotation curve shown by the position-velocity map. DDO 185 (=Holmberg IV) was used as a calibrator galaxy for the Tully-Fisher relation by Kraan-Korteweg et al. (1988).

DDO 190: The highest column densities are found on the west. The velocity field is somewhat irregular, but rotation is clearly visible. The XV map shows a hint of flattening of the rotation curve on the NW side.

DDO 216: The HI is located in the southern half of the (optical) galaxy (Sandage 1986, Lo et al 1993). There is little sign of rotation in the velocity field and XV maps. In fact, the velocity gradient suggested by the XV map may represent a single HI cloud at a discrepant velocity. For a VLA study of DDO 216, see Lo et al. (1993).

DDO 217: The HI is distributed relatively evenly over the disk. The velocity field shows differential rotation over most of the galaxy. The difference in position angle between the inner region and the outer disk is clearly visible in the velocity field map. The XV map shows a rapid rise of the rotation velocity near the center and a gradual increase in the outer disk.

Appendix A: Correction for the velocity gradient

We assume a well-resolved velocity field so that second and higher order derivatives of the velocity field can be neglected. We also assume an HI disk of negligible thickness so that all lines of sight cross the disk at a single radius, implying the one-dimensional linear situation sketched in Fig. 6. We choose the x-axis along the velocity gradient, with the zeropoint at the center of the Gaussian beam. The intensity-weighted mean velocity over the beam corresponds to that of position $`x_0`$, which is not necessarily the center of the beam.

We now divide the beam into many ($`N`$) lines of sight, each with a large number of identical elements ($`M`$) with velocities $`v_{ik}`$, $`k=1\mathrm{}M`$ at position $`x_i`$, $`i=1\mathrm{}N`$. This definition includes an implicit integration over the coordinate perpendicular to the velocity gradient. The elements are identified with individual HI clouds of very small intrinsic velocity dispersion. At every position $`x_i`$ we define the mean velocity $`v_i`$ as $`v_i=\frac{1}{M}_kv_{ik}`$, which is related to the intensity-weighted mean velocity $`v_0`$ and the velocity gradient $`v`$ through

$$v_iv_0=(x_ix_0)v$$

The velocity dispersion of the elements at position $`x_i`$ is $`\sigma _i=\frac{1}{M1}_k(v_{ik}v_i)^2`$. Substitution of $`v_i=v_0+(x_ix_0)v`$ and evaluation of the cross-product yields

$$\sigma _i^2=\frac{1}{M1}\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}\{(v_{ik}v_0)^2$$

$$2(v_{ik}v_0)(x_ix_0)v+(x_ix_0)^2(v)^2\}$$

The third term is independent of $`k`$. For the second term we may write

$$2(x_ix_0)v\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}(v_{ik}v_0)=$$

$$\frac{2M}{M1}(v_iv_0)(x_ix_0)v=$$

$$\frac{2M}{M1}(x_ix_0)^2(v)^2$$

Therefore, we have

$$\sigma _i^2=$$

$$\frac{1}{M1}\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}(v_{ik}v_0)^2\frac{M}{M1}(x_ix_0)^2(v)^2$$

The intensity-weighted mean velocity dispersion over the beam is

$$\sigma ^2=\frac{\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}w_i\sigma _i^2}{_{i=1}^Nw_i}$$

with weight $`w_i=e^{x^2/b^2}I_i`$. Therefore, with $`M1`$

$$\sigma ^2=$$

$$\frac{\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}w_i\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}(v_{ik}v_0)^2}{(M1)_{i=1}^Nw_i}(v)^2\frac{\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}w_i(x_ix_0)^2}{_{i=1}^Nw_i}$$

This equation is of the general form

$$\sigma ^2=\sigma _{obs}^2\mathrm{\Omega }_Ib^2(v)^2$$

where $`\sigma _{obs}`$ is the observed dispersion of a local line profile, corrected for the instrumental spectral resolution. The second term is the line broadening due to the velocity gradient over the beam. Note that the velocity gradient $`v`$ is a function of position if the galaxy is not in solid-body rotation, necessitating use of a model velocity field constructed from the rotation curve in order to calculate $`v`$ at every position. The coefficient $`\mathrm{\Omega }_I>0`$ is a weighted mean of the intensity distribution over the beam. If we assume a constant intensity (i.e. $`I_i=I_0`$) over the Gaussian beam $`e^{(x^2/b^2)}`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Omega }_I=\frac{1}{2}`$ :

$$\sigma ^2=\sigma _{obs}^2\frac{1}{2}b^2(v)^2$$

The error introduced by the assumption of a constant intensity can be estimated by calculating the correction for simple analytical intensity distributions. For any assumed intensity distribution

$$x_0=\frac{\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}w_ix_i}{_{i=1}^Nw_i}$$

and $`\sigma ^2`$ can be calculated. The coefficients $`\mathrm{\Omega }_I`$ are given for three types of intensity distribution in Table 6).

Shallow intensity gradients do not make much of a difference. To first order, the effect of an intensity gradient is to shift the distribution of $`w_i`$ in the direction of the intensity gradient. Since the beam function falls off rapidly for large x, only large gradients produce a significant difference with constant intensity. The greatest effect on the correction for the velocity gradient is brought about by the symmetric distribution. If the emission is highly concentrated towards the center of the beam, the velocity gradient has no effect. On the other hand, if the emission is concentrated in the wings of the beam, the effect of the velocity gradient is maximal. If the intensity does not change more than 50% over the beam, the error in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_I`$ introduced by the assumption of constant intensity is of the order of 10%.


format: text

text:
# Optimal parameter estimation of depolarizing channel

## I Introduction

In order to design a reliable communication system one requires a priori knowledge of the property of a channel. Precise knowledge of the channel allows us to devise appropriate coding, modulation, and filtering schemes. In general, the channel property is not stationary, so one should first acquire and then track the optimal operating point of each device by monitoring the condition of the channel. It is important, therefore to know how to estimate the channel property in an efficient way, that is, as precisely as possible with minimum resources.

A reasonable assumption is that we know that the channel belongs to a certain parameterized family, and only the values of the parameters are not known. To know them one may input a probe system in an appropriate state into the channel and make a measurement on the output state. Only when an infinite amount of input resource is available, one can determine the channel parameters with perfect accuracy. In the quantum domain, however, the resource is often restricted for various reasons. For example, when one is to monitor a fast quantum dymanics at cryogenic temperatures, the input probe power should be kept as low as possible so as to prevent the system from heating up while obtaining meaningful data in a short time. This restricts the available amount of probe particles. Furthermore, preparing the probe in an appropriate quantum state is usually an elaborate process. Thus to find the efficient estimation strategy relying only on a restricted amount of input resource is of practical importance.

In estimating a quantum channel parameter, given a finite amount of input resource, both the input probe state and the measurement of the output state need to be optimized. This double maximization problem has been studied in the context of estimation of SU($`d`$) unitary operation Acin01 . Estimating a noisy quantum channel has been discussed in the literature Fujiwara01 ; Fischer01 ; Cirone01 . In ref. Fujiwara01 , the locally unbiased estimator and the Cramér-Rao bound are extensively discussed for the depolarizing channel for a qubit system. The locally optimal strategy, which achieves the Cramér-Rao bound at a local point of the parameter space was derived when two qubits at most are used. This result would be useful in the limit of large ensemble of the input probe. In such a limit, of course, one can establish the channel parameter with a very high degree of accuracy. To improve the rate at which the estimation accuracy grows with the number of probe particles, one may first apply some preliminary estimation using a part of probe particles to establish the most likely value of the parameter, and then use the locally optimal strategy around this value to get the final estimate Barndorff98 ; Gill00 ; Hayashi02 . Refs. Fischer01 ; Cirone01  focus on several noisy qubit channels. They study some reasonable, although not optimal, strategies based on maximum likelyhood estimator, and derive the asymptotic behavior of the cost as a function of the number of input probe qubits.

In contrast, we are concerned here with the Bayes optimal strategy which minimizes the average cost. The scenario we have in mind is that one has no particular knowledge about the a priori parameter distribution, and the available number of probe particles is strictly limited. We then take into account the possibility of rather large errors. We seek the strategy that works equally well for all possible values of the parameter on average, that is, the strategy which is more universal for various possible situations.

It seems difficult for us to study this problem for the most general probe state. In this paper we deal with the depolarizing channel by assuming that we dispose of $`M`$ pairs of probe particles and only bipartite entanglement can be formed in each pair. This might be a practically sensible assumption from the view point of optical implementation given current technology. Our problem is to find the best estimation strategy to minimize the average cost. We consider the quadratic of a cost function.

## II Qubit case

Let $`\widehat{\rho }`$ be a density operator in the 2 dimensional Hilbert space $`_2`$. The depolarizing channel $`_\theta `$ maps a density operator $`\widehat{\rho }`$ to a density operator which is a mixture of $`\widehat{\rho }`$ and the maximally mixed state,

$$_\theta \widehat{\rho }=\theta \widehat{\rho }+\frac{1\theta }{2}\widehat{I}.$$
(1)
The parameter $`\theta `$ represents the degree of randomization of polarization. For the map $`_\theta `$ to be completely positive, the parameter $`\theta `$ must lie in the interval $`\frac{1}{3}\theta 1`$.

Let us start with two qubit systems as the input probe. For simplicity we only consider a pure state family of the probe $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}=|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|`$. This may be represented in the Schmidt decomposition

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\sqrt{x}|0|e_0+\sqrt{1x}|1|e_1,$$
(2)
where $`\{|0,|1\}`$ and $`\{|e_0,|e_1\}`$ are orthonormal basis sets for the first and second probe particle, respectively. What is the best way to use this state? There are two possibilities to consider;

* Input one qubit of the pair into the channel keeping the other untouched leading to the output state

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1(\theta )(_\theta \widehat{I})|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|,$$
(3)
* Input both qubits into the channel and have the output state

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2(\theta )(_\theta _\theta )|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|.$$
(4)

A measurement is described by a probability operator measure (POM) $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}(\theta )`$ Helstrom\_QDET ; Holevo\_book , also referred to as a positive operator valued measure (POVM) Peres\_book . The average cost for the quadratic cost function is given by

$$\overline{C}_i(x)=_{\frac{1}{3}}^1𝑑\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{\frac{1}{3}}^1𝑑\theta (\stackrel{~}{\theta }\theta )^2z(\theta )\mathrm{Tr}\left[\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}(\stackrel{~}{\theta })\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i(\theta )\right],$$
(5)
where $`z(\theta )`$ is the a priori probability distribution of $`\theta `$, and $`_{\frac{1}{3}}^1𝑑\stackrel{~}{\theta }\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}(\stackrel{~}{\theta })=\widehat{I}`$. It is assumed that we have no a priori knowledge about $`\theta `$, that is, $`z(\theta )=\frac{3}{4}`$. Given the channel $`_\theta `$, we are to find the optimal probe $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and the POM $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}(\theta )`$ minimizing the average cost $`\overline{C}(x)`$.

It is convenient to introduce the risk operator

$`\widehat{W}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle _{\frac{1}{3}}^1}𝑑\theta ^{}(\theta \theta ^{})^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i(\theta ^{}),`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`\widehat{W}^{(2)}2\theta \widehat{W}^{(1)}+\theta ^2\widehat{W}^{(0)},`$ (7)
where $`\widehat{W}^{(k)}\frac{3}{4}_{\frac{1}{3}}^1𝑑\theta \theta ^k\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i(\theta )`$. The average cost is then

$$\overline{C}(x)=\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }},\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\frac{1}{3}}^1𝑑\theta \widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}(\theta )\widehat{W}(\theta ).$$
(8)
For a fixed probe state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, the optimal POM $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}(\theta )`$ is derived from the necessary and sufficient conditions to minimize the average cost Holevo73\_condition ; YuenKennedyLax75 :

* $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{}`$, and $`\left[\widehat{W}(\theta )\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right]\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}(\theta )=0`$ for all $`\theta `$,
* $`\widehat{W}(\theta )\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}0`$ for all $`\theta `$.

The optimal solution for a single parameter estimation with a quadratic cost is well known Personick71b ; Helstrom\_QDET . The optimal POM is constructed by finding the eigenstate $`|\theta `$ of the minimizing operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ which is defined by

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}\widehat{W}^{(0)}+\widehat{W}^{(0)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}=2\widehat{W}^{(1)},$$
(9)
that is, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}(\theta )=|\theta \theta |`$ so that $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}|\theta =\theta |\theta `$. We then have $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\widehat{W}^{(2)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}\widehat{W}^{(0)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ from which the conditions (i) and (ii) are easily verified.

For a discrete system, one can find the optimal POM with finite elements. Let the spectral decomposition of $`\widehat{W}^{(0)}`$ for our two-qubit system be

$$\widehat{W}^{(0)}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\omega _i|\omega _i\omega _i|.$$
(10)
Then the minimizing operator is

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{4}{}}\frac{2}{\omega _i+\omega _j}|\omega _i\omega _i\left|\widehat{W}^{(1)}\right|\omega _j\omega _j|.$$
(11)
Let the spectral decomposition of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ be

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\theta _i|\theta _i\theta _i|.$$
(12)
The optimal POM is then given by

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}(\theta )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\delta (\theta \theta _i)|\theta _i\theta _i|.$$
(13)
This implies that the measurement has 4 outputs at most and we then estimate the channel parameter as one of 4 $`\theta _i`$’s. Before going on to derive the optimal strategies, let us define some notations. As seen below the output states $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i(\theta )`$’s can be written as a direct sum

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i(\theta )=\widehat{\psi }_i(\theta )\widehat{\varphi }_i(\theta ),$$
(14)
where $`\widehat{\psi }_i(\theta )`$ is in the subspace $`_\psi `$ spanned by $`|\mu _1|0|f_0`$ and $`|\mu _2|1|f_1`$, and $`\widehat{\varphi }_i(\theta )`$ in the subspace $`_\varphi `$ spanned by $`|\nu _1|0|f_1`$ and $`|\nu _2|1|f_0`$. In the following all 2$`\times `$2 matrices represent density operators in $`_\psi `$ with $`|\mu _1=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ and $`|\mu _2=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right)`$.

Case (a):

The output state $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1(\theta )`$ is given by

$`\widehat{\psi }_1(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\begin{array}{cc}(1+\theta )x& 2\theta \sqrt{x(1x)}\\ 2\theta \sqrt{x(1x)}& (1+\theta )(1x)\end{array}\right],`$ (17)
$`\widehat{\varphi }_1(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\theta }{2}}\left[(1x)|\nu _1\nu _1\left|+x\right|\nu _2\nu _2|\right].`$ (18)
The elements of the risk operator are

$`\widehat{W}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(\left[\begin{array}{cc}2x& \sqrt{x(1x)}\\ \sqrt{x(1x)}& 2(1x)\end{array}\right]\widehat{\phi }_1\right),`$ (21)
$`\widehat{W}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{27}}\left(\left[\begin{array}{cc}8x& 7\sqrt{x(1x)}\\ 7\sqrt{x(1x)}& 8(1x)\end{array}\right]\widehat{\phi }_1\right),`$ (24)
$`\widehat{W}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{27}}\left(\left[\begin{array}{cc}6x& 5\sqrt{x(1x)}\\ 5\sqrt{x(1x)}& 6(1x)\end{array}\right]\widehat{\phi }_1\right),`$ (27)
where $`\widehat{\phi }_1=(1x)|\nu _1\nu _1\left|+x\right|\nu _2\nu _2|`$. After a lengthy but straightforward calculation (see Appendix A) we have

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}=\frac{2}{9}\left[\begin{array}{cc}1+x& 2\sqrt{x(1x)}\\ 2\sqrt{x(1x)}& 2x\end{array}\right]\frac{1}{9}\widehat{I}_\varphi .$$
(28)
To diagonalize $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ we introduce $`r=\sqrt{1+12x(1x)}`$ and

$$\mathrm{cos}\gamma =\sqrt{\frac{r1+2x}{2r}},\mathrm{sin}\gamma =\sqrt{\frac{r+12x}{2r}}.$$
(29)
The eigenstates and eigenvalues are then

$$\begin{array}{ccc}|\theta _1\hfill & =\mathrm{cos}\gamma |\mu _1+\mathrm{sin}\gamma |\mu _2,\hfill & \theta _1=(3+r)/9,\hfill \\ |\theta _2\hfill & =\mathrm{sin}\gamma |\mu _1+\mathrm{cos}\gamma |\mu _2,\hfill & \theta _2=(3r)/9,\hfill \\ |\theta _3\hfill & =|\nu _1,\hfill & \theta _3=1/9,\hfill \\ |\theta _4\hfill & =|\nu _2,\hfill & \theta _4=1/9.\hfill \end{array}$$
(30)
The average cost finally reads

$$\overline{C}_1(x)=\mathrm{Tr}(\widehat{W}^{(2)}\mathrm{\Theta }\widehat{W}^{(0)}\mathrm{\Theta })=\frac{8}{81}\left[1+(x\frac{1}{2})^2\right].$$
(31)
This is minimized by the maximally entangled state input

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|0|f_0+|1|f_1\right),$$
(32)
for which $`\theta _1=\frac{5}{9}`$ and $`\theta _2=\theta _3=\theta _4=\frac{1}{9}`$. Therefore the optimal measurement is actually constructed by the two projectors

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1=|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|,\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_2=\widehat{I}|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|,$$
(33)
with the associated guesses $`\theta _1=\frac{5}{9}`$ and $`\theta _2=\frac{1}{9}`$, respectively. The minimum average cost is $`\overline{C}_{1\mathrm{m}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}}=\frac{8}{81}`$.

Case (b):

The output state $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2(\theta )=\widehat{\psi }_2(\theta )\widehat{\varphi }_2(\theta )`$ is given by

$`\widehat{\psi }_2(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{4}(\frac{1}{2}x)\theta +\theta ^2& \theta ^2\sqrt{x(1x)}\\ \theta ^2\sqrt{x(1x)}& \frac{1}{4}+(\frac{1}{2}x)\theta +\theta ^2\end{array}\right],`$ (36)
$`\widehat{\varphi }_2(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\theta ^2}{4}}\widehat{I}_\varphi .`$ (37)
The elements of the risk operator are

$`\widehat{W}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{27}}\left[\begin{array}{cc}4+9x& 7\sqrt{x(1x)}\\ 7\sqrt{x(1x)}& 139x\end{array}\right]`$ (40)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{27}}\widehat{I}_\varphi ,`$ (41)
$`\widehat{W}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{27}}\left[\begin{array}{cc}7x& 5\sqrt{x(1x)}\\ 5\sqrt{x(1x)}& 7(1x)\end{array}\right]`$ (44)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{27}}\widehat{I}_\varphi ,`$ (45)
$`\widehat{W}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{405}}\left[\begin{array}{cc}4+75x& 61\sqrt{x(1x)}\\ 61\sqrt{x(1x)}& 7975x\end{array}\right]`$ (48)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{11}{405}}\widehat{I}_\varphi .`$ (49)
The minimizing operator is (see Appendix LABEL:ap\_b)

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}=\frac{1}{17[13+8x(1x)]}\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& c\\ c& b\end{array}\right]\frac{1}{5}\widehat{I}_\varphi ,$$
(50)
where

$$\begin{array}{ccc}a\hfill & =\hfill & 7x(3520x+2x^2),\hfill \\ b\hfill & =\hfill & 7x(17+16x+2x^2),\hfill \\ c\hfill & =\hfill & 9[92x(1x)]\sqrt{x(1x)}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(51)
To diagonalize it we use $`r=\sqrt{(ab)^2+4c^2}`$ and

$$\mathrm{cos}\gamma =\sqrt{\frac{r+ab}{2r}},\mathrm{sin}\gamma =\sqrt{\frac{ra+b}{2r}}.$$
(52)
We then have the similar eigenstates to Eq. (30) and the eigenvalues $`\theta _1=\theta _+`$, $`\theta _2=\theta _{}`$, and $`\theta _3=\theta _4=\frac{1}{5}`$ with

$$\theta _\pm =\frac{119[1+2x(1x)]\pm r}{34[13+8x(1x)]}.$$
(53)
The average cost is then

$$\overline{C}_2(x)=\frac{8[391+606x(1x)10x^2(1x)^2]}{2295[13+8x(1x)]}.$$
(54)
This is an upward convex function, symmetric with respect to $`x=\frac{1}{2}`$. The minimum is attained at $`x=0,1`$, that is, by separable input states. This reads $`\overline{C}_{2\mathrm{m}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}}=\frac{184}{1755}`$.

The average costs for cases (a) and (b) are shown in Fig. 1: $`\overline{C}_1(x)`$ (solid line) and $`\overline{C}_2(x)`$ (dashed line). We see that $`\overline{C}_{1\mathrm{m}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}}<\overline{C}_{2\mathrm{m}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}}`$ so that the optimal estimation strategy, using two probe qubits, is to prepare them as a maximally entangled pair and to input one qubit of the pair into the channel keeping the other untouched. The estimation is then obtained by applying the two element POM, Eq. (33), as described in Case (a). This strategy is represented schematically in Fig. 2.

When $`M`$ maximally entangled pairs $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^M`$ are available, it is best to use them so as to have the output $`[(_\theta \widehat{I})|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|]^M`$. The optimal measurement for this can be derived straightforwardly. This is discussed in the next section as a part of an arbitrary finite dimensional case.

## III $`d`$-dimensional case

The action of the depolarizing channel on a $`d`$ dimensional system is described by

$$_\theta \widehat{\rho }=\theta \widehat{\rho }+\frac{1\theta }{d}\widehat{I}.$$
(55)
Complete positivity then implies $`\frac{1}{d^21}\theta 1`$. For $`d3`$, we have not succeeded in finding the optimal probe state, even when we restrict ourselves to a pure state. In this section we focus on the most plausible input state, that is, the maximally entangled state, and consider the estimation using $`M`$ entangled pairs. Only for $`d=2`$, is the optimality ensured.

It might be interesting to compare the three cases specified by the three different outputs;

* $`M`$ product states of the pair

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`(_\theta \widehat{I})|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|,`$ (56)
$`=`$ $`\theta |\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|+{\displaystyle \frac{1\theta }{d^2}}\widehat{I}\widehat{I},`$
where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the maximally entangled state,
* $`M`$ product states of the pair

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`(_\theta _\theta )|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|,`$ (57)
$`=`$ $`\theta ^2|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|+{\displaystyle \frac{1\theta ^2}{d^2}}\widehat{I}\widehat{I},`$
* $`2M`$ product states of

$`\widehat{\psi }(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`_\theta |00|,`$ (58)
$`=`$ $`\theta |00|+{\displaystyle \frac{1\theta }{d}}\widehat{I}.`$

(The input state in case (c) can be any pure state in the $`d`$ dimensional space.) Let us first consider the case (a). We denote Eq. (56) as

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\theta )=f_0(\theta )\widehat{a}_0+f_1(\theta )\widehat{a}_1,$$
(59)
where

$$\widehat{a}_0|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|,\widehat{a}_1\widehat{I}|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|,$$
(60)
and

$$f_0(\theta )=\theta +\frac{1\theta }{d^2},f_1(\theta )=\frac{1\theta }{d^2}.$$
(61)
The output state can then be represented as

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\theta )^M=\underset{m=0}{\overset{M}{}}f_0(\theta )^{Mm}f_1(\theta )^m\widehat{A}_m,$$
(62)
where

$$\widehat{A}_m=\underset{(i_1+\mathrm{}i_M=m)}{}\widehat{a}_{i_1}\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_{i_M},$$
(63)
is the projector onto the symmetric subspace. The risk operator is

$$\widehat{W}(\theta )=\underset{m=0}{\overset{M}{}}[\omega _m^{(2)}2\theta \omega _m^{(1)}+\theta ^2\omega _m^{(0)}]\widehat{A}_m,$$
(64)
where $`\omega _m^{(k)}_{\frac{1}{3}}^1𝑑\theta \theta ^kf_0(\theta )^{Mm}f_1(\theta )^m`$. The optimal POM is

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}(\theta )=\underset{m=0}{\overset{M}{}}\delta (\theta \theta _m)\widehat{A}_m,$$
(65)
where

$$\theta _m\frac{\omega _m^{(1)}}{\omega _m^{(0)}},$$
(66)
We then note that

$$\widehat{W}(\theta )\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\underset{m=0}{\overset{M}{}}(\theta \theta _m)^2\omega _m^{(0)}\widehat{A}_m0,$$
(67)
from which it can easily be seen that the conditions (i) and (ii) hold. The minimum average cost is

$$\overline{C}_1(M)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{M}{}}\left[\omega _m^{(2)}\frac{(\omega _m^{(1)})^2}{\omega _m^{(0)}}\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}M\\ m\end{array}\right)(d^21)^m.$$
(68)
The other cases can be dealt with in a similar manner. In the case (b), we just put

$$f_0(\theta )=\theta ^2+\frac{1\theta ^2}{d^2},f_1(\theta )=\frac{1\theta ^2}{d^2}.$$
(69)
The minimum average cost $`\overline{C}_2(M)`$ is then given by the same expression as Eq. (68) with $`\omega _m^{(k)}`$’s defined by $`f_0(\theta )`$ and $`f_1(\theta )`$ of Eq. (69).

In the case (c), we use

$$\widehat{a}_0|00|,\widehat{a}_1\widehat{I}|00|,$$
(70)
and

$$f_0(\theta )=\theta +\frac{1\theta }{d},f_1(\theta )=\frac{1\theta }{d}.$$
(71)
The minimum average cost is

$$\overline{C}_{\mathrm{SEP}}(M)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{2M}{}}\left[\omega _m^{(2)}\frac{(\omega _m^{(1)})^2}{\omega _m^{(0)}}\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}2M\\ m\end{array}\right)(d1)^m.$$
(72)
The three costs $`\overline{C}_1(M)`$, $`\overline{C}_2(M)`$, and $`\overline{C}_{\mathrm{SEP}}(M)`$ are plotted in Fig. 3 $`(d=2)`$, Fig. 4 $`(d=3)`$, and Fig. 5 $`(d=10)`$. In the figures another average cost $`\overline{C}_{\mathrm{ML}}(M)`$ is also plotted. This cost is by the strategy belonging to the case (c), but unlike the one attaining $`\overline{C}_{\mathrm{SEP}}(M)`$, the estimator is made by the maximum likelyhood principle for which

$$\theta _m=\frac{md}{2M(d1)},$$
(73)
instead of Eq. (66), and leads to the analytic expression

$$\overline{C}_{\mathrm{ML}}(M)=\frac{1}{2M}\frac{d^5(d+3)}{6(d^21)^3}$$
(74)
It is this strategy that was used in ref. Cirone01  for the case of $`d=2`$.

For $`d3`$, the minimum average cost is always attained by a separable probe state. Only in the two dimensional case, is it the bipartite entangled probe that attains the minimum average cost. It is worth mentioning the depolarizing channel with the narrower parameter region $`0\theta 1`$, which is a more commonly used model with an well defined interpretation of randomized probability of $`\theta `$. We found that the best probe in this model is always a separable state. In this sense a separable state is generally an adequate probe state for the depolarizing channel estimation as far as the comparison with a bipartite entangled probe state is concerned.

## IV Concluding remark

When we have several identical samples at our disposal, it might be desirable to apply the best collective measurement on the whole system. This means preparing a single multi-qubit state followed by an optimized measurement. We might also consider performing a preliminary measurement on a part of the system and then feedback this back to deal with the remaining part. But in the case of the previous section, the collective measurement on $`M`$ identical output pairs or $`2M`$ identical output particles is not necessary. The action of the depolarizing channel on a maximally entangled state always results in a statistical mixture between the input state and its orthogonal complement (Eq. (59)). Estimating the channel parameter is nothing but determining this mixing ratio, which is a classical distribution. Therefore the optimal measurement is realized by a separable type constructed by the binary orthogonal projectors $`\{\widehat{a}_0,\widehat{a}_1\}`$ according to Eq. (63). In the case where the output state includes the channel parameter as a quantum distribution, that is, the parameter appears in the off diagonal components in the density matrix, the optimal measurement would be a collective measurement. When the channel includes a unitary opreration, we will have to face this problem. Channel estimation for such a case is a future problem.

It is a remaining problem to see how effective the multipartite entangled probe is. However, in the estimation of decoherence channel under the power constraint scenario, that is, under a given and fixed number of probe particles, it seems more common that entanglement is not necessary. In fact, in the cases of the amplitude damping channel and dephasing channel, there is no merit to use entangled probe. In the amplitude damping channel, for example, the best probe is to input the most highly excited state. An entangled probe is rather wasteful because this includes the state components other than the excited state and these components are less sensitive to the damping.

Finally it might be interesting to study the multi parameter case, such as the Pauli channel estimation. We may then ask how to optimaize (in Bayesian sense) the simultaneous measurement on the noncommuting observables as well as searching for appropriate probe states.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Mr. K. Usami, Dr. Y. Tsuda, and Dr. K. Matsumoto for helpful discussions. This work was supported, in part, by the British Council, the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and by the Scottish Executive Education and Lifelong Learning Department.

*

## Appendix A Derivation of Eq. (28)

For obtaining the minimizing operator $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ in Eq. (28), we first diagonalize $`\widehat{W}^{(0)}`$ by $`\widehat{U}_0=\widehat{u}_0\widehat{I}_\varphi `$ where

$$\widehat{u}_0=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\gamma _0& \mathrm{sin}\gamma _0\\ \mathrm{sin}\gamma _0& \mathrm{cos}\gamma _0\end{array}\right],$$
(75)
with $`r_0=\sqrt{13x(1x)}`$ and

$$\mathrm{cos}\gamma _0=\sqrt{\frac{r_01+2x}{2r_0}},\mathrm{sin}\gamma _0=\sqrt{\frac{r_0+12x}{2r_0}}.$$
(76)
The spectral decomposition

$$\widehat{W}^{(0)}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\omega _i|\omega _i\omega _i|.$$
(77)
is given by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}|\omega _1\hfill & =\widehat{u}_0|\mu _1,\hfill & \omega _1=(1+r_0)/3,\hfill \\ |\omega _2\hfill & =\widehat{u}_0|\mu _2,\hfill & \omega _2=(1r_0)/3,\hfill \\ |\omega _3\hfill & =|\nu _1,\hfill & \omega _3=(1x)/3,\hfill \\ |\omega _4\hfill & =|\nu _2,\hfill & \omega _4=x/3.\hfill \end{array}$$
(78)
We then calculate

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{4}{}}\frac{2}{\omega _i+\omega _j}|i\omega _i\left|\widehat{W}^{(1)}\right|\omega _jj|,$$
(79)
where

$$\begin{array}{ccc}|1\hfill & =|\mu _1,\hfill & \\ |2\hfill & =|\mu _2,\hfill & \\ |3\hfill & =|\nu _1,\hfill & \\ |4\hfill & =|\nu _2.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(80)
This gives

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\psi \frac{1}{9}\widehat{I}_\varphi ,$$
(81)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\psi =\frac{1}{9}\left[\begin{array}{cc}\frac{4r_0(1+r_0)+3x(1x)}{r_0(1+r_0)}& \frac{3(12x)\sqrt{x(1x)}}{r_0}\\ \frac{3(12x)\sqrt{x(1x)}}{r_0}& \frac{4r_0(1r_0)3x(1x)}{r_0(1r_0)}\end{array}\right].$$
(82)
The minimizing operator is given by $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}=\widehat{U}_0\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\widehat{U}_0^{}`$ which results in Eq. (28).

## Appendix B Derivation of Eq. (50)

The unitary operator for diagonalizing $`\widehat{W}^{(0)}`$ in Eq. (41) is $`\widehat{U}_0=\widehat{u}_0\widehat{I}_\varphi `$ where

$$\widehat{u}_0=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\gamma _0& \mathrm{sin}\gamma _0\\ \mathrm{sin}\gamma _0& \mathrm{cos}\gamma _0\end{array}\right],$$
(83)
with $`r_0=\sqrt{81128x(1x)}`$ and

$$\mathrm{cos}\gamma _0=\sqrt{\frac{r_09(12x)}{2r_0}},\mathrm{sin}\gamma _0=\sqrt{\frac{r_0+9(12x)}{2r_0}}.$$
(84)
The spectral decomposition

$$\widehat{W}^{(0)}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\omega _i|\omega _i\omega _i|.$$
(85)
is given by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}|\omega _1\hfill & =\widehat{u}_0|\mu _1,\hfill & \omega _1=(17+r_0)/54,\hfill \\ |\omega _2\hfill & =\widehat{u}_0|\mu _2,\hfill & \omega _2=(17r_0)/54,\hfill \\ |\omega _3\hfill & =|\nu _1,\hfill & \omega _3=5/27,\hfill \\ |\omega _4\hfill & =|\nu _2,\hfill & \omega _4=5/27.\hfill \end{array}$$
(86)
We then have

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\psi \frac{1}{5}\widehat{I}_\varphi ,$$
(87)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\psi =\left[\begin{array}{cc}\frac{7[r_0+916x(1x)]}{r_0(17+r_0)}& \frac{8(12x)\sqrt{x(1x)}}{17r_0}\\ \frac{8(12x)\sqrt{x(1x)}}{17r_0}& \frac{7[r_09+16x(1x)]}{r_0(17r_0)}\end{array}\right].$$
(88)
Substituting this to $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}=\widehat{U}_0\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\widehat{U}_0^{}`$, we have Eq. (50).