text:
# Quantum testers for hidden group properties11footnote 1Research partially supported by the EU 5th framework programs QAIP IST-1999-11234 and RAND-APX IST-1999-14036, and by CNRS/STIC 01N80/0502 and 01N80/0607 grants, and by OTKA T030059, T030132, and NWO-OTKA N34040 grants.

## 1 Introduction

In the paradigm of property testing one would like to decide whether an object has a global property by performing random local checks. The goal is to distinguish with sufficient confidence the objects which satisfy the property from those objects that are far from having the property. In this sense, property testing is a notion of approximation for the corresponding decision problem. Property testers, with a slightly different objective, were first considered for programs under the name of self-testers. Following the pioneering approach of Blum, Kannan, Luby and Rubinfeld \[BK95, BLR93\], self-testers were constructed for programs purportedly computing functions with some algebraic properties such as linear functions, polynomial functions, and functions satisfying some functional equations \[BLR93, RS96, Rub99\]. The notion in its full generality was defined by Goldreich, Goldwasser and Ron and successfully applied among others to graph properties \[GGR98, GR97\]. For surveys on property testing see \[Gol98, Ron00, KMS00, Fis01\].

Quantum computing is an extremely active research area (for surveys see e.g. \[RP00, Aha98, Pre98, NC00\]), where a growing trend is to cast quantum algorithms in a group theoretical setting. In this setting, we are given a finite group $`G`$ and, besides the group operations, we also have at our disposal a function $`f`$ mapping $`G`$ into a finite set. The function $`f`$ can be queried via an oracle. The complexity of an algorithm is measured by the number of queries (i.e. evaluations of the function $`f`$), and also by the overall running time counting one query as one computational step. We say that an algorithm is query efficient (resp. efficient) if its query complexity (resp. overall time complexity) is polynomial in the logarithm of the order of $`G`$. The most important unifying problem of group theory for the purpose of quantum algorithms has turned out to be the Hidden Subgroup Problem (HSP), which can be cast in the following broad terms: Let $`H`$ be a subgroup of $`G`$ such that $`f`$ is constant on each left coset of $`H`$ and distinct on different left cosets. We say that $`f`$ hides the subgroup $`H`$. The task is to determine the hidden subgroup $`H`$.

While no classical algorithm can solve this problem with polynomial query complexity, the biggest success of quantum computing until now is that it can be solved by a quantum algorithm efficiently whenever $`G`$ is Abelian. We will refer to this algorithm as the standard algorithm for the HSP. The main tool for this solution is Fourier sampling based on the (approximate) quantum Fourier transform for Abelian groups which can be efficiently implemented quantumly \[Kit95\]. Simon’s xor-mask finding \[Sim97\], Shor’s factorization and discrete logarithm finding algorithms \[Sho97\], and Kitaev’s algorithm \[Kit95\] for the Abelian stabilizer problem are all special cases of this general solution. Fourier sampling was also successfully used to solve the closely related Hidden Translation Problem (HTP). Here we are given two injective functions $`f_0`$ and $`f_1`$ from an Abelian group $`G`$ to some finite set such that, for some group element $`u`$, the equality $`f_0(x+u)=f_1(x)`$ holds for every $`x`$. The task is to find the translation $`u`$. Indeed, the HTP is an instance of the HSP in the semi-direct product $`G_2`$ where the hiding function is $`f(x,b)=f_b(x)`$. In that group $`f`$ hides the subgroup $`H=\{(0,0),(u,1)\}`$. Ettinger and Høyer \[EH00\] have shown that the HTP can be solved in cyclic groups $`G=_n`$ by a two-step procedure: an efficient quantum algorithm followed by an exponential classical stage without further queries. They achieved this by applying Fourier sampling in the Abelian direct product group $`G\times _2`$. In a recent work, we have shown \[FMSS02\] that HTP can be solved by an efficient quantum algorithm in some groups of fixed exponent, for instance when $`G=_p^n`$ for any fixed prime number $`p`$. This gives a quantum polynomial time algorithm for the HSP in $`G_2`$ using the quantum reduction of HSP to HTP \[EH00\]. In strong opposition to these positive results, a natural generalization of the HSP has exponential quantum query complexity even in Abelian groups. In this generalization, the function $`f`$ may not be distinct on different cosets. Indeed, the unordered database search problem can be reduced to the decision problem whether a function on a cyclic group has a non-trivial period or not.

Two different extensions of property testing were studied recently in the quantum context. The first approach consists in testing quantum devices by classical procedures. Mayers and Yao \[MY98\] have designed tests for deciding if a photon source is perfect. These tests guarantee that if a source passes them, it is adequate for the security of the Bennett-Brassard \[BB84\] quantum key distribution protocol. Dam, Magniez, Mosca and Santha \[DMMS00\] considered the design of testers for quantum gates. They showed the possibility of classically testing quantum processes and they provided the first family of classical tests allowing one to estimate the reliability of quantum gates.

The second approach considers testing deterministic functions by a quantum procedure. Quantum testing of function families was introduced by Buhrman, Fortnow, Newman, and Röhrig \[BFNR02\], and they have constructed efficient quantum testers for several properties. One of their nicest contributions is that they have considered the possibility that quantum testing of periodicity might be easier than the corresponding decision problem. Indeed, they succeeded in giving a polynomial time quantum tester for periodic functions over $`_2^n`$. They have also proved that any classical tester requires exponential time for this task. Independently and earlier, while working on the extension of the HSP to periodic functions over $``$ which may be many-to-one in each period, Hales and Hallgren \[HH00, Hal02\] have given the essential ingredients for constructing a polynomial time quantum tester for periodic functions over the cyclic group $`_n`$. But contrarily to \[BFNR02\], their result is not stated in the testing context.

In this work, we construct efficient or query efficient quantum testers for two hidden group properties, that is, existential properties over groups whose decision problems have exponential quantum query complexity. We also introduce a new technique in the analysis of quantum testers.

Our main contribution is a generalization of the periodicity property studied in \[HH00, BFNR02\]. For any finite group $`G`$ and any normal subgroup $`K`$, a function $`f`$ satisfies the property LARGER-PERIOD($`K`$) if there exists a normal subgroup $`H>K`$ for which $`f`$ is $`H`$-periodic (i.e. $`f(xh)=f(x)`$ for all $`xG`$ and $`hH`$). For this property, we give an efficient tester whenever $`G`$ is Abelian (Theorem 1). This result generalizes the previous periodicity testers in three aspects. First, we work in any finite Abelian group $`G`$, while previously only $`G=_n`$ \[HH00\] and $`G=_2^n`$ \[BFNR02\] were considered. Second, the property we test is parametrized by some known normal subgroup $`K`$, while previously only the case $`K=\{0\}`$ was considered. Third, our query complexity is only linear in the inverse of the distance parameter, whereas the previous works have a quadratic dependence. These improvements are possible due to our more transparent analysis. We refine the standard method of classical testing, which consists in showing that a function $`f`$ that passes the test can be corrected into another function $`g`$ that has the desired property, and which is close to $`f`$. The novelty of our approach is that here the correction is not done directly; it involves an intermediate correction via a probabilistic function.

The main technical ingredient of the periodicity test in Abelian groups is efficient Fourier sampling. This procedure remains a powerful tool also in non-Abelian groups. Unfortunately, currently no efficient implementation is known for it in general groups. Therefore, when dealing with non-Abelian groups, our aim is to construct query efficient testers. We construct query efficient testers for two properties. First, we show that the tester used for LARGER-PERIOD($`K`$) in Abelian groups yields a query efficient tester when $`G`$ is any finite group and $`K`$ any normal subgroup (Theorem 2). Second, we study in any finite group $`G`$ the property $`\text{COMMON-COSET-RANGE}(k,t)`$ (for short $`\text{CCR}(k,t)`$) related to the HTP. Let $`f,g`$ be two functions from $`G`$ to a finite set $`S`$. By definition, $`(f,g)`$ satisfies $`\text{CCR}(k,t)`$ if $`f`$ and $`g`$ have identical ranges within each coset for a normal subgroup $`HG`$ of size at most $`k`$, and which is the normal closure of a subgroup generated by at most $`t`$ elements. The heart of the tester for $`\text{CCR}(k,t)`$ is again Fourier sampling applied in the direct product group $`G\times _2`$. Our tester is query efficient in any group if $`k`$ is polylogarithmic in the size of the group (Theorem 3).

Different lower bounds can be proven on the query complexity of $`\text{CCR}(k,t)`$. One observes easily that unordered database search can be reduced to $`\text{CCR}(k,1)`$ in Abelian groups of exponent $`k`$, and therefore $`\text{CCR}(k,1)`$ is quantumly exponentially hard to decide. Moreover, we show that classical testers also require an exponential number of queries for this problem even if $`k`$ is constant (Theorem 4). We show this by adapting the techniques of \[BFNR02\], who proved the analogous result for classical testers for periodicity.

## 2 Preliminaries

### 2.1 Fourier sampling over Abelian groups

For a finite set $`D`$, let the uniform superposition over $`D`$ be $`|D=\frac{1}{\sqrt{|D|}}_{xD}|x`$, and for a function $`f`$ from $`D`$ to a finite set $`S`$, let the uniform superposition of $`f`$ be $`|f=\frac{1}{\sqrt{|D|}}_{xD}|x|f(x)`$. For two functions $`f,g`$ from $`D`$ to $`S`$, their distance is $`\mathrm{𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗍}(f,g)=|\{xD:f(x)g(x)\}|/|D|`$. The following proposition describes the relation between the distance of two functions and the distance between their uniform superpositions. In this paper, $``$ denotes the $`L_2`$-norm of a vector.

###### Proposition 1.

For functions $`f,g`$ defined on the same finite set, $`\mathrm{𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗍}(f,g)=\frac{1}{2}|f|g^2`$.

Let $`G`$ be a finite Abelian group and $`HG`$ a subgroup. The coset of $`xG`$ with respect to $`H`$ is denoted by $`x+H`$. We use the notation $`<X>`$ for the subgroup generated by a subset $`X`$ of $`G`$. We identify with $`G`$ the set $`\widehat{G}`$ of characters of $`G`$, via some fixed isomorphism $`y\chi _y`$. The orthogonal of $`HG`$ is defined as $`H^{}=\{yG:hH,\chi _y(h)=1\}`$, and we set $`|H^{}(x)=\sqrt{\frac{|H|}{|G|}}_{yH^{}}\chi _y(x)|y.`$ The quantum Fourier transform over $`G`$, $`\mathrm{QFT}_G`$, is the unitary transformation defined as follows: For every $`xG`$, $`\mathrm{QFT}_G|x=\frac{1}{\sqrt{|G|}}_{yG}\chi _y(x)|y`$. The main property about $`\mathrm{QFT}_G`$ that we use is that it maps the uniform superposition on the coset $`x+H`$ to the uniform superposition on $`H^{}`$, with appropriate phases.

###### Proposition 2.

Let $`G`$ be a finite Abelian group, $`xG`$ and $`HG`$. Then $`|x+H\stackrel{\mathrm{QFT}_G}{}|H^{}(x)`$.

The following well known quantum Fourier sampling algorithm will be used as a building block in our quantum testers. In the algorithm, $`f:GS`$ is given by a quantum oracle.

Fourier sampling$`{}_{}{}^{f}(G)`$    Create zero-state $`|0_G|0_S`$.    Create the superposition $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{|G|}}_{xG}|x`$ in the first register.    Query function $`f`$.    Apply $`\mathrm{QFT}_G`$ on the first register.    Observe and then output the first register.

The above algorithm is actually the main ingredient for solving the HSP on Abelian groups with hiding function $`f`$.

### 2.2 Property testing

Let $`D`$ and $`S`$ be two finite sets and let $`𝒞`$ be a family of functions from $`D`$ to $`S`$. Let $`𝒞`$ be the subfamily of functions of interest, that is, the set of functions possessing the desired property. In the testing problem, one is interested in distinguishing functions $`f:DS`$, given by an oracle, which belong to $``$, from functions which are far from every function in $``$.

###### Definition 1 ($`\delta `$-tester).

Let $`𝒞`$ and $`0\delta <1`$. A *quantum* (resp. *probabilistic*) *$`\delta `$-tester* for $``$ on $`𝒞`$ is a quantum (resp. probabilistic) oracle Turing machine $`T`$ such that, for every $`f𝒞`$,
1. if $`f`$ then $`𝖯𝗋[T^f\text{accepts}]=1`$,
2. if $`\mathrm{𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗍}(f,)>\delta `$ then $`𝖯𝗋[T^f\text{rejects}]2/3`$,
where the probabilities are taken over the observation results (resp. the coin tosses) of $`T`$.

By our definition, a tester always accepts functions having the property $``$. We may also consider testers with two-sided error, where this condition is relaxed, and one requires only that the tester accept functions from $``$ with probability at least 2/3. Of course, the choice of the success probability $`2/3`$ is arbitrary, and can be replaced by $`\gamma `$, for any constant $`1/2<\gamma <1`$.

## 3 Periodicity

In this section, we design quantum testers for testing periodicity of functions from a finite group $`G`$ to a finite set $`S`$. For a normal subgroup $`HG`$, a function $`f:GS`$ is $`H`$-periodic if for all $`xG`$ and $`hH`$, $`f(xh)=f(x)`$. Notice that our definition describes formally right $`H`$-periodicity, but this coincides with left $`H`$-periodicity since $`H`$ is normal. The set of $`H`$-periodic functions is denoted by $`\mathrm{Per}(H)`$. For a known normal subgroup $`H`$, testing if $`f\mathrm{Per}(H)`$ can be easily done classically by sampling random elements $`xG`$ and $`hH`$, and verifying that $`f(xh)=f(x)`$. On the other hand, testing if a function has a non-trivial period is classically hard even in $`_2^n`$ \[BFNR02\]. The main result of this section is that we can test query efficiently by a quantum algorithm an even more general property: Does a function have a strictly larger period than a known normal subgroup $`KG`$? Indeed, we test the family

$$\text{LARGER-PERIOD(}K\text{)}=\{f:GSHG,H>K\text{ and }f\text{ is }H\text{-periodic}\}.$$

Moreover when $`G`$ is Abelian, our tester is efficient.

For the sake of clarity we first present the result for Abelian groups. This enables us to highlight the new technique that we use. The standard way to ensure that the functions the tester accepts with high probability are close to functions having the desired property, is based on a direct correction process. This process has to produce a corrected function which has the desired property, and is close to the original function. This is the approach taken by \[HH00, BFNR02\]. The novelty of our approach is that the correction is not done directly; it involves an intermediate corrected probabilistic function. This two-step process makes a more refined and cleaner analysis possible, and allows us to prove that our tester works in any finite group, whereas previous works only considered the groups $`_n`$ \[HH00\] and $`_2^n`$ \[BFNR02\]. Moreover, the query complexity of our algorithm turns out to be linear in the inverse of the distance parameter, unlike the quadratic dependence of the previous works.

### 3.1 Abelian case

In this subsection, we give our algorithm for testing periodicity in abelian groups. Theorem 1 below states that this algorithm is efficient. The algorithm assumes that $`G`$ has an efficient exact quantum Fourier transform. When $`G`$ only has an efficient approximate quantum Fourier transform, the algorithm has two-sided error. Efficient implementations of approximate quantum Fourier transforms exist in every finite Abelian group \[Kit95\].

Test Larger period$`{}_{}{}^{f}(G,K,\delta )`$    $`N4\mathrm{log}(|G|)/\delta `$.    For $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$ do $`y_i\text{Fourier sampling}^f(G)`$.    Accept iff $`<y_i>_{1iN}<K^{}`$.

###### Theorem 1.

For a finite set $`S`$, finite Abelian group $`G`$, subgroup $`KG`$, and $`0<\delta <1`$, Test Larger period$`(\mathrm{G},\mathrm{K},\mathrm{\delta })`$ is a $`\delta `$-tester for LARGER-PERIOD($`K`$) on the family of all functions from $`G`$ to $`S`$, with $`O(\mathrm{log}(|G|)/\delta )`$ query complexity and $`(\mathrm{log}(|G|)/\delta )^{O(1)}`$ time complexity.

Let $`S`$ be a finite set and $`G`$ a finite Abelian group. We describe now the ingredients of our two-step correction process. First, we generalize the notion of uniform superposition of a function to uniform superposition of a probabilistic function. By definition, a probabilistic function is a mapping $`\mu :x\mu _x`$ from the domain $`G`$ to probability distributions on $`S`$. For every $`xG`$, define the unit $`L_1`$-norm vector $`|\mu _x=_{sS}\mu _x(s)|s`$. Then the uniform superposition of $`\mu `$ is defined as $`|\mu =\frac{1}{\sqrt{|G|}}_{xG}|x|\mu _x`$. Notice that $`|\mu `$ has unit $`L_2`$-norm when $`\mu `$ is a (deterministic) function, otherwise its $`L_2`$-norm is smaller.

A function $`f:GS`$ and a subgroup $`HG`$ naturally define an $`H`$-periodic probabilistic function $`\mu ^{f,H}`$, where $`\mu _x^{f,H}(s)=\frac{|f^1(s)(x+H)|}{|H|}`$. The value $`\mu _x^{f,H}(s)`$ is the proportion of elements in the coset $`x+H`$ where $`f`$ takes the value $`s`$. Observe that when $`f`$ is $`H`$-periodic $`|\mu ^{f,H}=|f`$, and so $`|\mu ^{f,H}=1`$, otherwise $`|\mu ^{f,H}<1`$.

First, we give the connection between the probability that Fourier sampling outputs an element outside $`H^{}`$, and the distance between $`|f`$ and $`|\mu ^{f,H}`$.

###### Lemma 1.

$`|f|\mu ^{f,H}^2=𝖯𝗋[\text{Fourier sampling}^f(G)\text{ outputs }yH^{}].`$

###### Proof.

The probability term is $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{|G|}}_{xG}|\{0\}^{}(x)|f(x)\frac{1}{\sqrt{|G||H|}}_{xG}|H^{}(x)|f(x)^2`$, since $`yH^{}`$ iff $`y\{0\}^{}H^{}`$. We apply the inverse quantum Fourier transform $`\mathrm{QFT}_G^1`$, which is $`L_2`$-norm preserving, to the first register in the above expression. The probability becomes $`|f\frac{1}{\sqrt{|G||H|}}_{xG}|x+H|f(x)^2`$, using Proposition 2. Changing the variables, the second term inside the norm is

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{|G|}}\underset{xG}{}|x\frac{1}{|H|}\underset{hH}{}|f(xh)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{|G|}}\underset{xG}{}|x\frac{1}{|H|}\underset{hH}{}|f(x+h),$$

where the equality holds because $`H`$ is a subgroup of $`G`$. We conclude by observing that, by definition of $`\mu ^{f,H}`$, $`\frac{1}{|H|}_{hH}|f(x+h)=_{sS}\mu _x^{f,H}(s)|s=|\mu _x^{f,H}`$. ∎

Second, we give the connection between $`\mathrm{𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗍}(f,\mathrm{Per}(H))`$ and the distance between $`|f`$ and $`|\mu ^{f,H}`$.

###### Lemma 2.

$`\mathrm{𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗍}(f,\mathrm{Per}(H))2|f|\mu ^{f,H}^2.`$

###### Proof.

It will be useful to rewrite $`|f`$ as a probabilistic function $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{|G|}}_{xG}|x_{sS}\delta _x^f(s)|s`$, where $`\delta _x^f(s)=1`$ if $`f(x)=s`$ and $`0`$ otherwise. Let us define the $`H`$-periodic function $`g:GS`$ by $`g(x)=𝖬𝖺𝗃_{hH}f(x+h)`$, where ties are decided arbitrarily. In fact, $`g`$ is the correction of $`f`$ with respect to $`H`$-periodicity. Proposition 1 and the $`H`$-periodicity of $`g`$ imply $`\mathrm{𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗍}(f,\mathrm{Per}(H))\frac{1}{2}|f|g^2`$. We will show that $`|g|\mu ^{f,H}|f|\mu ^{f,H}`$. This will allow us to prove the desired statement using the triangle inequality. Observe that for any function $`h:GS`$, we have

$$|h|\mu ^{f,H}^2=\frac{1}{|G|}\underset{xG}{}\underset{sS}{}|\delta _x^h(s)\mu _x^{f,H}(s)|^2.$$
(1)
Moreover for every $`xG`$, one can establish

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_{sS}|\delta _x^g(s)\mu _x^{f,H}(s)|^2& =& |1\mu _x^{f,H}(g(x))|^2+_{sg(x)}(\mu _x^{f,H}(s))^2\hfill \\ & =& 1+_{sS}(\mu _x^{f,H}(s))^22\mu _x^{f,H}(g(x))\hfill \\ & & 1+_{sS}(\mu _x^{f,H}(s))^22\mu _x^{f,H}(f(x))\hfill \\ & =& _{sS}|\delta _x^f(s)\mu _x^{f,H}(s)|^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
where the inequality follows from $`\mu _x^{f,H}(f(x))\mu _x^{f,H}(g(x))`$, which in turn follows immediately from the definition of $`g`$.

From (1) and (2) we get that $`|g|\mu ^{f,H}|f|\mu ^{f,H}`$, which completes the proof. ∎

Lemmas 1 and 2 together can be interpreted as the robustness \[RS96, Rub99\] in the quantum context \[DMMS00\] of the property that Fourier sampling$`{}_{}{}^{f}(G)`$ outputs only $`yH^{}`$: if $`f`$ does not satisfy exactly the property but with error probability less than $`\delta `$, then $`f`$ is $`2\delta `$-close to a function that satisfies exactly the property. Using that fact, we can now prove Theorem 1.

###### Proof of Theorem 1.

If $`f\text{LARGER-PERIOD(}K\text{)}`$, that is $`f`$ is $`H`$-periodic for some $`H>K`$, then the quantum state before the observation of $`\text{Fourier sampling}^f(G)`$ is

$`(\mathrm{QFT}_GI)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{|G|}}}{\displaystyle \underset{xG}{}}|x|f(x)\right)`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{QFT}_GI)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{|G||H|}}}{\displaystyle \underset{xG}{}}|x+H|f(x)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{|G||H|}}}{\displaystyle \underset{xG}{}}|H^{}(x)|f(x).`$
Above, $`I`$ denotes the $`|S|\times |S|`$ identity matrix. Therefore, $`\text{Fourier sampling}^f(G)`$ only outputs elements in $`H^{}`$. Since $`H^{}<K^{}`$, the test always accepts.

Let $`f`$ be now $`\delta `$-far from LARGER-PERIOD($`K`$). Then for every $`H>K`$ $`\mathrm{𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗍}(f,\mathrm{Per}(H))>\delta `$, and by Lemmas 1 and 2, $`𝖯𝗋[\text{Fourier sampling}^f(G)\text{ outputs }yH^{}]>\delta /2`$. Using these inequalities, we can upper bound the acceptance probability of the test as follows.

$`𝖯𝗋[<y_i>_{1iN}<K^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`𝖯𝗋[H>K,<y_i>_{1iN}H^{}]`$
$`=`$ $`𝖯𝗋[xGK,y_i<K,x>^{}\text{ for }1iN]`$
$``$ $`|G|\left(\underset{H>K}{𝖬𝖺𝗑}\left\{𝖯𝗋[\text{Fourier sampling}^f(G)\text{ outputs }yH^{}]\right\}\right)^N`$
$`<`$ $`|G|(1\delta /2)^N1/3.`$
### 3.2 General case

We start with a few definitions. For any $`d\times d`$ matrix $`M`$, define $`|M=\sqrt{d}_{1i,jd}M_{i,j}|M,i,j`$. Let $`G`$ be any finite group and let $`\widehat{G}`$ be a complete set of finite dimensional inequivalent irreducible unitary representations of $`G`$. Thus, for any $`\rho \widehat{G}`$ of dimension $`d_\rho `$ and $`xG`$, $`|\rho (x)=\sqrt{d_\rho }_{1i,jd_\rho }(\rho (x))_{i,j}|\rho ,i,j`$. The quantum Fourier transform over $`G`$ is the unitary transformation defined as follows: For every $`xG`$, $`\mathrm{QFT}_G|x=\frac{1}{\sqrt{|G|}}_{\rho \widehat{G}}|\rho (x)`$. For any $`HG`$ set $`H^{}=\{\rho \widehat{G}:hH,\rho (h)=I_{d_\rho }\}`$, where $`I_{d_\rho }`$ is the $`d_\rho \times d_\rho `$ identity matrix. Let $`|H^{}(x)=\sqrt{\frac{|H|}{|G|}}_{\rho H^{}}|\rho (x)`$.

###### Proposition 3.

Let $`G`$ be a finite group, $`xG`$ and $`HG`$. Then $`|xH\stackrel{\mathrm{QFT}_G}{}|H^{}(x)`$.

###### Proof.

We first prove that when $`H`$ is normal, the matrix $`L=_{hH}\rho (h)`$ is $`|H|I_{d_\rho }`$ if $`\rho H^{}`$, and $`0`$ otherwise. By definition of $`H^{}`$, the condition $`\rho H^{}`$ implies $`\rho (h)=I_{d_\rho }`$ for every $`hH`$, which gives the first part of the above. Now suppose that $`\rho H^{}`$. Observe that since $`H`$ is normal, $`L`$ commutes with $`\rho (x)`$ for every $`xG`$. Therefore according to Schur’s lemma (see for instance \[Ser77, Chap. 2, Prop. 4\]), $`L=\lambda I_{d_\rho }`$ for some $`\lambda `$. Since $`\rho H^{}`$, we can pick some $`hH`$ such that $`\rho (h)I_{d_\rho }`$; then applying $`\rho (h)L=L`$ gives a contradiction if $`\lambda 0`$. This proves the second part of the above.

We now complete the proof of the proposition as follows.

$`\mathrm{QFT}_G|xH`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{|H|}}}{\displaystyle \underset{hH}{}}\mathrm{QFT}_G|xh`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{|H||G|}}}{\displaystyle \underset{hH}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho \widehat{G}}{}}|\rho (xh)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{|H||G|}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho \widehat{G}}{}}|{\displaystyle \underset{hH}{}}\rho (xh)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{|H||G|}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho \widehat{G}}{}}|\rho (x)L`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{|H|}{|G|}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho H^{}}{}}|\rho (x)`$
$`=`$ $`|H^{}(x),`$
where the penultimate equality follows from the above property of the matrix $`L`$. ∎

We now give our algorithm for testing periodicity in a general finite group $`G`$. In the algorithm, $`\text{Fourier sampling}^f(G)`$ is as before, except that we only observe the representation $`\rho `$, and not the indices $`i,j`$. Thus, the output of $`\text{Fourier sampling}^f(G)`$ is an element of $`\widehat{G}`$. $`K`$ is assumed to be a normal subgroup of $`G`$. For any $`\rho \widehat{G}`$, $`\mathrm{ker}\rho `$ denotes its kernel.

Test Larger period$`{}_{}{}^{f}(G,K,\delta )`$    $`N4\mathrm{log}(|G|)/\delta `$.    For $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$ do $`\rho _i\text{Fourier sampling}^f(G)`$.    Accept iff $`_{1iN}\mathrm{ker}\rho _i>K`$.

We now prove the robustness of the property that $`\text{Fourier sampling}^f(G)`$ outputs only $`\rho H^{}`$, for any finite group $`G`$, normal subgroup $`H`$ and $`H`$-periodic function $`f`$. This robustness corresponds to Lemmas 1 and 2 of the Abelian case.

###### Lemma 3.

Let $`f:GS`$ and $`HG`$. Then

$$\mathrm{𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗍}(f,\mathrm{Per}(H))2𝖯𝗋[\text{Fourier sampling}^f(G)\text{ outputs }\rho H^{}].$$

###### Proof.

The proof has the structure of the Abelian case (see Lemmas 1 and 2). Define $`|\mu ^{f,H}`$ in the same way. Observe that Lemma 2 is true in a general finite group. The proof of Lemma 1 follows the one for the Abelian case. The only difference is that we have to use Proposition 3 instead of Proposition 2. ∎

Our second theorem states that Test Larger period is a query efficient tester for LARGER-PERIOD($`K`$) for any finite group $`G`$.

###### Theorem 2.

For a finite set $`S`$, finite group $`G`$, normal subgroup $`KG`$, and $`0<\delta <1`$, Test Larger period$`(\mathrm{G},\mathrm{K},\mathrm{\delta })`$ is a $`\delta `$-tester for LARGER-PERIOD($`K`$) on the family of all functions from $`G`$ to $`S`$, with $`O(\mathrm{log}(|G|)/\delta )`$ query complexity.

###### Proof.

The proof is similar to that of the Abelian case. Note that, while upper bounding the acceptance probability of the test when $`f`$ is $`\delta `$-far from LARGER-PERIOD($`K`$), one has to consider only those normal subgroups $`H`$ of the form $`H=\text{Normal-closure}(<K,x>)`$, where $`x`$ ranges over $`GK`$. ∎

## 4 Common Coset Range

In this section, $`G`$ denotes a finite group and $`S`$ a finite set. Let $`f_0,f_1`$ be functions from $`G`$ to $`S`$. For a normal subgroup $`HG`$, we say that $`f_0`$ and $`f_1`$ are $`H`$-similar if on all cosets of $`H`$ the ranges of $`f_0`$ and $`f_1`$ are the same, that is, the multiset equality $`f_0(xH)=f_1(xH)`$ holds for every $`xG`$. The couple of functions $`(f_0,f_1)`$ can equivalently be considered as a single function $`f:G\times _2S`$, where by definition $`f(x,b)=f_b(x)`$. We will use $`f`$ for $`(f_0,f_1)`$ when it is convenient in the coming discussion. We denote by $`\mathrm{Range}(H)`$ the set of functions $`f`$ such that $`f_0`$ and $`f_1`$ are $`H`$-similar. We say that $`H`$ is $`t`$-generated, for some positive integer $`t`$, if it is the normal closure of a subgroup generated by at most $`t`$ elements. The aim of this section is to establish that for any positive integers $`k`$ and $`t`$, the family $`\text{COMMON-COSET-RANGE}(k,t)`$ (for short $`\text{CCR}(k,t)`$), defined as

$$\text{CCR}(k,t)=\{f:G\times _2SHG,|H|k,H\text{ is }t\text{-generated},f_0\text{ and }f_1\text{ are }H\text{-similar}\},$$

can be tested by the following quantum test. Note that a subgroup of size $`k`$ is always generated by at most $`\mathrm{log}k`$ elements, therefore we always assume that $`t\mathrm{log}k`$.

Test Common coset range$`{}_{}{}^{f}(G,k,t,\delta )`$    $`N2kt\mathrm{log}(|G|)/\delta `$.    For $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$ do $`(\rho _i,b_i)\text{Fourier sampling}^f(G\times _2)`$.    Accept iff $`HG,|H|k,H\text{ is }t\text{-generated}i(b_i=1\rho _iH^{})`$.

We first prove the robustness of the property that when $`\text{Fourier sampling}^f(G\times _2)`$ outputs $`(\rho ,1)`$, where $`G`$ is any finite group, $`HG`$ and $`f\mathrm{Range}(H)`$, then $`\rho `$ is not in $`H^{}`$.

###### Lemma 4.

Let $`S`$ be a finite set and $`G`$ a finite group. Let $`f:G\times _2S`$ and $`HG`$. Then $`\mathrm{𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗍}(f,\mathrm{Range}(H))|H|𝖯𝗋[\text{Fourier sampling}^f(G\times _2)\text{ outputs }(\rho ,1)\text{ such that }\rho H^{}]`$.

###### Proof.

We use the notations of Section 3.1 for $`f_0`$ and $`f_1`$. We define $`|f,H=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\mu ^{f_0,H}|\mu ^{f_1,H})`$, and the multiplicity functions $`m_x^{f_b,H}=|H|\mu _x^{f_b,H}`$.

First, we prove that $`\mathrm{𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗍}(f,\mathrm{Range}(H))|f,H^2|H|/2`$. For this, we define a function $`g_1:GS`$, the correction of $`f_1`$. The definition is done according to the cosets of $`H`$ in $`G`$. For every $`xG`$ and $`sS`$, the function $`g_1`$ remains identical to $`f_1`$ in $`𝖬𝗂𝗇\{m_x^{f_0,H}(s),m_x^{f_1,H}(s)\}`$ elements of $`xH`$, and the value of $`g_1`$ at those elements is $`s`$; at the remaining elements of $`xH`$, the values of $`g_1`$ are defined so as to make the multisets $`f_0(xH)`$ and $`g_1(xH)`$ equal. If we define $`g_0=f_0`$ then clearly $`g=(g_0,g_1)`$ is in $`\mathrm{Range}(H)`$, and $`\mathrm{𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗍}(f,g)=\mathrm{𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗍}(f_1,g_1)/2`$. Since in every coset $`xH`$, $`f_1`$ and $`g_1`$ have different values in $`_{sS}|m_x^{f_0,H}(s)m_x^{f_1,H}(s)|/2`$ elements, we have $`\mathrm{𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗍}(f,g)=\frac{1}{4|G|}_{xG/H}_{sS}|m_x^{f_0,H}(s)m_x^{f_1,H}(s)|`$. The right hand side becomes $`|f,H^2|H|/2`$ if we replace the terms $`|m_x^{f_0,H}(s)m_x^{f_1,H}(s)|`$ by their respective squared values. This can only increase it since the values $`m_x^{f_b,H}(s)`$ are integers. Thus, $`\mathrm{𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗍}(f,g)|f,H^2|H|/2`$.

We now prove that $`|f,H^2=2𝖯𝗋[\text{Fourier sampling}^f\text{ outputs }(\rho ,1)\text{ such that }\rho H^{}]`$. The probability term is $`\frac{1}{2\sqrt{|H||G|}}_{xG}|H^{}(x)|1(|f_0(x)|f_1(x))^2`$. We apply the inverse quantum Fourier transform $`\mathrm{QFT}_G^1`$, which is $`L_2`$-norm preserving, to the first register in the above expression. Using Proposition 3 and the fact that $`H`$ is a subgroup of $`G`$, the probability becomes $`\frac{1}{2|H|\sqrt{|G|}}_{xG}_{hH}|x|1(|f_0(xh)|f_1(xh))^2`$. Now one can conclude the above statement and hence the lemma, since by definition of $`m^{f_b,H}`$, the equality $`_{hH}|f_b(xh)=_{sS}m_x^{f_b,H}(s)|s`$ holds. ∎

Our next theorem implies that $`\text{CCR}(k,t)`$ is query efficiently testable when $`k`$ is polynomial in $`\mathrm{log}|G|`$.

###### Theorem 3.

For any finite set $`S`$, finite group $`G`$, integers $`k1`$, $`1t\mathrm{log}k`$, and $`0<\delta <1`$, Test Common coset range$`(\mathrm{G},\mathrm{k},\mathrm{t},\mathrm{\delta })`$ is a $`\delta `$-tester for $`\text{CCR}(k,t)`$ on the family of all functions from $`G\times _2`$ to $`S`$, with $`O(kt\mathrm{log}(|G|)/\delta )`$ query complexity.

###### Proof.

First consider the case $`f\text{CCR}(k,t)`$, that is $`f`$ is in $`\mathrm{Range}(H)`$ for some $`HG`$, $`|H|k`$ and $`H`$ is $`t`$-generated. From the proof of Lemma 4, we see that whenever $`\text{Fourier sampling}^f(G\times _2)`$ outputs an element $`(\rho ,1)`$, then $`\rho H^{}`$. Thus the test always accepts.

Now, let $`f:GS`$ be $`\delta `$-far from $`\text{CCR}(k,t)`$ and let $`H`$ be a $`t`$-generated normal subgroup of size at most $`k`$. Then $`\mathrm{𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗍}(f,\mathrm{Range}(H))>\delta `$ and by Lemma 4, $`𝖯𝗋[\text{Fourier sampling}^f\text{ outputs }(\rho ,1):\rho H^{}]>\delta /|H|\delta /k`$. Using these inequalities we can upper bound the acceptance probability of the test, which is

$`𝖯𝗋[HG,|H|k,H\text{ is }t\text{-generated}i(b_i=1\rho _iH^{})]`$
$`=`$ $`𝖯𝗋[u_1,\mathrm{}u_tG,\text{Normal-closure}(<u_1,\mathrm{}u_t>)=H,|H|ki(b_i=1\rho _iH^{})]`$
$``$ $`|G|^t\left(\underset{HG,|H|k,H\text{ is }t\text{-generated}}{𝖬𝖺𝗑}\{𝖯𝗋[\text{Fourier sampling}^f\text{ outputs }(\rho ,b):(b=1\rho H^{})]\}\right)^N`$
$`<`$ $`|G|^t(1\delta /k)^N1/3.`$
## 5 A classical lower bound

Let $`G`$ be any Abelian group with exponent $`k`$. In this section, we study the property $`\text{CCR}(k,1)`$ for $`k=(\mathrm{log}|G|)^{O(1)}`$. We already know from Theorem 3 that this problem has a query efficient quantum tester. We now prove an exponential lower bound on the classical testing query complexity of this problem. Recall that the exponent of a group $`G`$ is the smallest integer $`m`$ such that $`x^m=1`$ for every element $`xG`$. We prove our lower bound by adapting the proof of Theorem 4.2 of Buhrman et al. \[BFNR02\]. We use Yao’s minimax principle. We construct two probability distributions $`D_1^{}`$ and $`D_2^{}`$ on the set of pairs of functions $`(f_0,f_1)`$, $`f_0,f_1:GS`$, where $`S`$ is a finite set of size $`|S|=|G|^3`$. Let $`D_1^{}`$ be the uniform distribution on pairs of injective functions $`(f_0,f_1)`$ such that $`f_0(x)=f_1(x+u)`$ for some element $`uG`$ and all $`xG`$. Thus, $`f_0`$ and $`f_1`$ are $`<u>`$-similar, and $`|<u>|k`$. Let $`D_2^{}`$ be the uniform distribution on pairs of injective functions $`(f_0,f_1)`$ such that the ranges $`f_0(G)`$ and $`f_1(G)`$ are disjoint. Thus, $`D_1^{}`$ is supported on positive instances of $`\text{CCR}(k,1)`$, and $`D_2^{}`$ is supported on negative instances of $`\text{CCR}(k,1)`$ which are $`1/2`$-distant from positive instances.

As in \[BFNR02\], instead of working with $`D_1^{},D_2^{}`$, we shall work with distributions $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ on pairs of functions $`(f_0,f_1)`$, approximating distributions $`D_1^{}`$ and $`D_2^{}`$ respectively. $`D_1`$ is got by choosing $`f_1:GS`$ and $`uG`$ independently and uniformly at random, and setting $`f_0:GS`$ to be $`f_0(x)=f_1(x+u)`$ for all $`xG`$. Since the probability that $`f_1`$ is not injective is at most $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{|G|}{2}\right)/|G|^3=O(1/|G|)`$, we get that $`D_1D_1^{}_1=O(1/|G|)`$, where $`_1`$ denotes the $`L_1`$-norm or the total variation distance. $`D_2`$ is got by choosing $`f_0:GS`$ and $`f_1:GS`$ independently and uniformly at random. The probability that at least one of $`f_0,f_1`$ is not injective is $`O(1/|G|)`$. The probability that their ranges $`f_0(G)`$ and $`f_1(G)`$ are not disjoint is also $`O(1/|G|)`$. Thus, $`D_2D_2^{}_1=O(1/|G|)`$.

By applying the proof technique of Theorem 4.2 of \[BFNR02\] for distributions $`D_1,D_2`$, we get the following theorem.

###### Theorem 4.

Let $`G`$ be a finite Abelian group and let $`k`$ be the exponent of $`G`$. For testing $`\text{CCR}(k,1)`$ on $`G`$, any classical randomized bounded error query algorithm on $`G`$ requires $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\sqrt{|G|})`$ queries.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Mark Ettinger, Peter Høyer and Gábor Ivanyos for sharing their knowledge and ideas about the subject with us.


format: text

text:
# Method for direct observation of coherent quantum oscillations in a superconducting phase qubit

## I Introduction

As is known the persistent current qubit (phase qubit) is one of the candidates as a key element of a scalable solid state quantum processor.Mooij et al. (1999); Orlando et al. (1999) The basic dynamic manifestations of a quantum nature of the qubit are macroscopic quantum coherent (MQC) oscillations (Rabi oscillations) between its two basis states, which are differed by the direction of macroscopic current in the qubit loop.

Up till now the Rabi oscillations in time domain Nakamura, Pashkin, and Tsai (a); Vion et al. (2002) or as a function of the perturbation power Yu et al. (2002); Martinis et al. (1998) have been detected indirectly through the statistics of switching events (e.g. escapes into continuum). In either case the probabilitiy $`P(t)`$, or $`P(E)`$, was to be obtained and analyzed to detect the oscillations.

More attractive in the long run is a direct detection of MQC oscillations through a weak continuous measurement of a classical variable, which would implicitly incorporate the statistics of quantum switching events, not destroying in the same time the quantum coherence of the qubit.Averin ; Korotkov (2001); Korotkov and Averin (2001)

In this paper we describe the approach which allows a direct measuring of MQC oscillations of macroscopic current flowing in a loop of a phase qubit. This qubit variety has the advantage of larger tolerance to external noise, especially to dangerous random background charge fluctuations.Blatter, Geshkenbein, and Ioffe (b) To be specific, we will use the example of three-junction small-inductance phase qubit (persistent current qubitOrlando et al. (1999)) where level anticrossing was already observed.van der Wal et al. (2000)

In our method a resonant tank circuit with known inductance $`L_T`$, capacitance $`C_T`$ and quality factor $`Q_T`$ is coupled with a target Josephson circuit through the mutual inductance $`M`$ (Fig. 1). The method was successfully applied to a three-junction qubit in classical regime,Il’ichev et al. (2002) when the hysteretic dependence of ground-state energy on the external magnetic flux was reconstructed in accordance to the predictions of Ref. Orlando et al., 1999.

The phase qubit is biased by external magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$. Assuming small qubit self-inductance, we neglect the shielding current. Therefore the flux through the qubit loop is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(t)=\mathrm{\Phi }_x+\mathrm{\Phi }_{ac}(t),$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_x`$ is a time independent external flux, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ac}(t)`$ is a monochromatic high frequency flux from the external source.

If time-dependent external flux is applied to the qubit, the latter will be in a time-dependent superposition of states $`|0`$ and $`|1`$. If the frequency of external flux is in resonance with the interlevel spacing of the qubit, the average current in the qubit loop will oscillate with the frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which depends on the amplitude of external flux and can be made much smaller than the frequency of external signal. These smaller oscillations which are called Rabi oscillations can be detected with the aid of a high quality tank circuit coupled inductively to the qubit loop.

Below we find the expression for the current in a qubit loop in presence of electromagnetic resonant excitation for zero and non zero temperatures. We show that for typical parameters of three-junction phase qubit the current oscillations in a qubit loop give rise to the voltage oscillations across the tank with the amplitude which can be at the $`\mu `$V level that makes a direct detection of Rabi oscillation possible.

## II Quantum dynamics of 3JJ phase qubit

Quantum dynamics of three-junction phase qubit has been studied in detail in Ref. Orlando et al., 1999. The qubit consists of a loop with three Josephson junctions. The loop has very small inductance, typically in pH range. It insures effective decoupling of qubit from external environment. Two Josephson junctions have equal critical current $`I_C`$ and capacitance $`C`$, while the critical current and capacitance of a third junction is a little bit smaller, $`\alpha I_C`$, $`\alpha C`$ where $`0.5<\alpha <1`$. If the Josephson coupling energy $`E_J=I_C\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2\pi `$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=h/2e`$ is a flux quantum, is much more than the Coulomb energy $`E_C=e^2/2C`$, then the phase of a Cooper pair wave function is well defined. As was shown in Refs. Orlando et al., 1999; Mooij et al., 1999 in the vicinity of $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2`$ this system has two quantum stable states which macroscopically differ by the direction of the current circulating in a qubit loop. In the absence of high frequency excitation the quantum properties of the qubit are described by Hamiltonian (Eq. (12) in Ref. Orlando et al., 1999):

$$H_0=\frac{P_\phi ^2}{2M_\phi }+\frac{P_\theta ^2}{2M_\theta }+U(f,\varphi ,\theta )$$
(2)
where $`P_\phi =i\mathrm{}/\phi `$, $`P_\theta =i\mathrm{}/\theta `$, $`M_\phi =(\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2\pi )^22C`$, $`M_\theta =(\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2\pi )^22C(1+2\alpha )`$;

$`U(f,\phi ,\theta )=E_J\{2+\alpha 2\mathrm{cos}\phi \mathrm{cos}\theta `$
$`\alpha \mathrm{cos}[2\pi (f+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+2\theta ]\}`$ (3)
Here $`\phi =(\phi _1+\phi _2)/2`$, $`\theta =(\phi _1\phi _2)/2)`$, where $`\phi _1`$, $`\phi _2`$ are gauge-invariant phases of two Josephson junctions with equal critical currents. In contrast to Ref. Orlando et al., 1999, in (II) we define the flux bias $`f=\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0\frac{1}{2}`$ as a small parameter measuring the departure from degeneracy. At the degeneracy point $`f=0`$ potential energy (II) shows two minima with equal energies $`\epsilon _0`$ at the points $`\phi =0`$, $`\theta =\pm \theta _c,`$ where $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _c=1/2\alpha `$. The tunneling between the minima lifts the degeneracy leading to the energy levels $`E_\pm =\epsilon _0\pm \mathrm{\Delta }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a tunneling matrix element between two minima. However, at the degeneracy point the current in a qubit loop vanishes, so that it is necessary to move a little bit away from this point. In order to find the levels in the close vicinity of degeneracy point we expand potential energy (II) near its minima taking account for linear terms in $`f`$ and quadratic terms in quantum variables $`\varphi `$, $`\theta `$. With the use of the technique described in Ref. Orlando et al., 1999 we find the following expression for the energies of two levels:

$$E_\pm =\epsilon _0\pm \sqrt{E_J^2f^2\lambda ^2(\alpha )+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}$$
(4)
where we take offset at the degeneracy point, i. e., f=0 corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_X=\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2`$;

$$\epsilon _0=E_J\left(\left(2\frac{1}{2\alpha }\right)+\sqrt{\frac{1}{\alpha (E_J/E_C)}}\left(1+\sqrt{2\alpha 1}\right)\right)$$
(5)
$`\lambda (\alpha )=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\alpha }}(\sqrt{4\alpha ^21}+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{(E_J/E_C)}}}`$ (6)
$`\times ({\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha ^21}{\sqrt{4\alpha ^21}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha ^2+1}{\sqrt{2\alpha +1}(4\alpha ^21)}}))`$
Expression (4) differs from corresponding equation in Ref. van der Wal et al., 2000 by a factor $`\lambda (\alpha )`$ which explicitly accounts for the dependence of the energies $`E_\pm `$ on $`\alpha `$ and $`E_J/E_C`$. The stationary state wave functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm `$ are eigenfunctions of Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ : $`H_0\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm =E_\pm \mathrm{\Psi }_\pm `$. They can be written as the superpositions of the wave functions in the flux basis, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_L,\mathrm{\Psi }_R`$ where $`L`$, $`R`$ stand for the left, right well, respectively: $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm =\text{a}_\pm \mathrm{\Psi }_L+\text{b}_\pm \mathrm{\Psi }_R`$.

$$a_\pm =\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\sqrt{(\epsilon _+E_\pm )^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}};b_\pm =\frac{\epsilon _+E_\pm }{\sqrt{(\epsilon _+E_\pm )^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}};$$
(7)
where $`\epsilon _+=\mathrm{\Psi }_L|H_0|\mathrm{\Psi }_L`$; $`\epsilon _{}=\mathrm{\Psi }_R|H_0|\mathrm{\Psi }_R`$. For stationary states the current circulating in a qubit loop can be calculated either as the average of a current operator $`\widehat{I_q}=I_C\mathrm{sin}(\phi +\theta )`$ over stationary wave functions or as a derivative of the energy over the external flux:

$$I_q=\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm |\widehat{I_q}|\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm =\frac{E_\pm }{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\pm I_Cf\frac{\lambda ^2(\alpha )}{\pi }\frac{E_J}{\mathrm{}\omega _0}$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{}\omega _0=E_+E_{}`$.

Suppose we apply to the qubit the excitation on a frequency close to a gap frequency $`\omega =\mathrm{}\omega _01`$ GHz. The corresponding perturbation term is then added to Hamiltonian $`H_0`$: $`H_{int}=V(\varphi ,\theta )\mathrm{cos}(\omega t)`$ where $`V(\varphi ,\theta )`$ in the vicinity of the left (right) minimum is as follows:

$`V_{L,R}(\theta ,\phi )=`$ $`E_J{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\alpha }}f_{ac}(\sqrt{4\alpha ^21}\pm \phi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha ^21}{\sqrt{4\alpha ^21}}}`$ (9)
$`\pm (\theta \theta _C^\pm )^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha ^2+1}{\sqrt{4\alpha ^21}}})`$
$$\theta _C^\pm =\pm \theta _C+2\pi f\frac{12\alpha ^2}{4\alpha ^21}$$
(10)
Throughout the paper we assume $`f0`$, so that the bottom of the left well is higher than the bottom of the right well. Accordingly, in Eqs. (9) and (10) the upper sign refers to right minimum, the lower sign refers to left minimum. The quantity $`f_{ac}`$ in Eq. (9) is the amplitude of excitation field in flux units: $`f_{ac}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{ac}/\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. The high frequency excitation induces the transitions between two levels which result in a superposition state for the wave function of the system: $`\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=C_+(t)\mathrm{\Psi }_++C_{}(t)\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$. The coefficients $`C_\pm (t)`$ are obtained from the solution of time dependent Schrodinger equation with proper initial conditions for $`C_\pm (t)`$. We assume that before the excitation the system was at the lower energy level: $`C_{}(t=0)=1;C_+(t=0)=0`$. The corresponding solution for $`C_\pm (t)`$ in the rotating wave approximation is as follows: Landau and Lifshitz (1958)

$`C_{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\frac{E_{}}{\mathrm{}}t}e^{i\frac{\omega \omega _0}{2}t}\left[\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }ti{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \omega _0}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }t\right]`$
$`C_+(t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\frac{E_+}{\mathrm{}}t}e^{i\frac{\omega \omega _0}{2}t}\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_r}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }t`$ (11)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r=\frac{|\mathrm{\Psi }_+|V|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}}{2\mathrm{}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\sqrt{\frac{(\omega \omega _0)^2}{4}+\mathrm{\Omega }_r^2}`$. At resonance $`(\omega =\omega _0)`$ we get $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_r`$. Taking $`\mathrm{\Psi }_L`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_R`$ as ground state oscillatory wave functions in the left, right well, respectively, we calculate matrix element $`\mathrm{\Psi }_+|V|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$ and obtain for Rabi frequency:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_r=\frac{E_J}{\mathrm{}}f_{ac}|\lambda (\alpha )|\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{}\omega _0}$$
(12)
As is seen from Eq. (12) by a proper choice of excitation power ($`f_{ac}`$ in our case) the frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r`$ can be made much lower the gap frequency $`\mathrm{\Delta }/h`$. Now we calculate the average current in a superposition state:

$`I_q`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }(t)|\widehat{I_q}|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`|C_+(t)|^2\mathrm{\Psi }_+|\widehat{I_q}|\mathrm{\Psi }_++|C_{}(t)|^2\mathrm{\Psi }_{}|\widehat{I_q}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$
where we neglect high frequency $`\omega _0`$ term. Accounting for the expression (8) for the current in stationary states we obtain at resonance the following expression for the average current flowing in a qubit loop:

$$I_q=I_Cf\frac{\lambda ^2(\alpha )}{\pi }\frac{E_J}{\mathrm{}\omega _0}\mathrm{cos}2\mathrm{\Omega }_rt$$
(14)
At finite temperature the calculation of the current in a qubit loop in presence of high frequency excitation is based on the density matrix equation: $`i\mathrm{}\dot{\rho }(t)=[\left(H_0+H_{int}(t)\right),\rho (t)]`$ with initial conditions at thermal equilibrium: $`\rho _{++}(0)=\rho _{++}^{eq}`$; $`\rho _{}(0)=\rho _{}^{eq}`$; $`\rho _+(0)=\rho _+(0)=0`$, where $`\rho _{++}^{eq}`$, $`\rho _{}^{eq}`$ are equilibrium density matrix elements : $`\rho _{++}^{eq}=\frac{1}{Z}e^{\frac{E_+}{k_BT}}`$; $`\rho _{}^{eq}=\frac{1}{Z}e^{\frac{E_{}}{k_BT}}`$, $`Z=e^{\frac{E_+}{k_BT}}+e^{\frac{E_{}}{k_BT}}`$.

In the rotating wave approximation the diagonal elements of density matrix at resonance ($`\omega =\omega _0`$) are as follows:

$$\rho _{}(t)=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _0}{2k_bT}\mathrm{cos}2\mathrm{\Omega }_rt,$$
(15)
$`\rho _{++}(t)=1\rho _{}(t)`$.

Now we find the average current at resonance for nonzero temperature:

$`I_q`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_+|\widehat{I_q}|\mathrm{\Psi }_+\rho _{++}(t)+\mathrm{\Psi }_{}|\widehat{I_q}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}\rho _{}(t)`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`I_C{\displaystyle \frac{E_Jf\lambda ^2(\alpha )}{\pi \mathrm{}\omega _0}}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega _0}{2k_BT}}\right)\mathrm{cos}2\mathrm{\Omega }_rt`$
In order to estimate the Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r`$ we take the following qubit parameters: $`I_C=400`$ nA, $`\mathrm{\Delta }/h=0.3`$ GHz, $`\alpha =0.8`$, $`L=15`$ pH, $`E_J/E_C=100`$. We take the amplitude of time-dependent flux which is coupled to qubit from high frequency source $`f_{ac}=1\times 10^4`$. We set the flux offset from degeneracy point $`f=3.5\times 10^4`$, so that $`\mathrm{}\omega _0=2\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\omega _0/2\pi =0.85`$ GHz. For these values we obtain from Eq. (12)the Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r/2\pi =32`$ MHz.

## III The interaction of the phase qubit with a tank circuit

The problem of a coupling a quantum object to the classical one, which is dissipative in its nature, has no unique theoretical solution. A rigorous approach is to start from exact Hamiltonian which describes the qubit-tank circuit system:

$$H=H_0+H_T+H_{0T}+H_{TB}+H_B$$
(17)
where $`H_0`$ is the qubit Hamiltonian given in Eq. (2), $`H_T`$ is the tank circuit Hamiltonian

$$H_T=\frac{Q^2}{2C_T}+\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^2}{2L_T}$$
(18)
where $`Q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are a quantum operators of the charge at the capacitor and of magnetic flux trapped by the inductor of a tank circuit, respectively. The operators obey commutator relation $`[\mathrm{\Phi },Q]=i\mathrm{}`$. The interaction Hamiltonian between the qubit and the tank, $`H_{0T}`$ is:

$$H_{0T}=\frac{M}{L}\widehat{I}_q\mathrm{\Phi }$$
(19)
where $`M`$ is inductive coupling between qubit and the tank; $`H_B`$ is the Hamiltonian of a thermal bath coupled to the tank via interaction $`H_{TB}=\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`\alpha `$ is the coupling constant between the tank and dissipative environment, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the dynamic variable of thermal bath $`H_B`$.

The equations of motion for tank circuit variables are as follows:

$$\frac{dQ}{dt}=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{L_T}\frac{M}{L}\widehat{I}_q+\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }$$
(20)
$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{dt}=\frac{Q}{C_T}$$
(21)
From these two equations we get for the voltage operator $`\widehat{V}=Q/C_T`$ across the tank:

$$\frac{d^2\widehat{V}}{dt^2}+\omega _T^2\widehat{V}=M\omega _T^2\frac{d\widehat{I}_q}{dt}+\alpha \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dt}$$
(22)
The averaging of this equation over the bath leads to the dissipative equation for the average voltage, $`V`$, across the tank (see, for example, Ref. Weiss, 1999):

$$\ddot{V}+\frac{\omega _T}{Q_T}\dot{V}+\omega _T^2V=M\omega _T^2\frac{dI_q}{dt}.$$
(23)
where $`Q_T=\omega _TR_TC_T1`$ is the tank quality factor, $`\omega _T=1/\sqrt{L_TC_T}`$.

In the spirit of selective quantum evolution approach,Korotkov (2001) we interpret Eq. 23 as follows. Suppose the qubit is in a pure state, $`a|0+b|1.`$ The tank voltage is measured (in quantum-mechanical sense) at certain times $`t_k=\mathrm{\Delta }t,2\mathrm{\Delta }t,\mathrm{}`$. Each time the qubit state is also measured, since there is correspondence between $`V(t_k)`$ and qubit current, which thereby takes value either $`0\left|\widehat{I}_q(t_k)\right|0`$ or $`1\left|\widehat{I}_q(t_k)\right|1`$, with appropriate probability. Averaging $`V(t_k)`$ over intervals $`\mathrm{\Delta }T\mathrm{\Delta }t,`$which are still small compared to other characteristic times in the system, would yield Eq. 23.

The quantity to be detected is the oscillating voltage across the tank which at resonance is $`V=V_a\mathrm{cos}2\mathrm{\Omega }_rt`$, where the voltage amplitude, $`V_a`$ is:

$$V_a=MQI_Cf\frac{2\lambda ^2(\alpha )}{\pi }\frac{E_J}{\mathrm{}\omega _0}\mathrm{\Omega }_r.$$
(24)
It is the presence of these voltage oscillations in the detected signal which reveals the existence of Rabi oscillations in the qubit.

The Eq. (23) is still quantum equation since the average voltage $`V`$ is a quantum operator of the voltage across the tank averaged over the bath degrees of freedom. Therefore, our problem is reduced to the problem of measuring a weak external force (in our case, $`MdI_q/dt`$) by a dissipative oscillator. As is known (see, for example, Ref. Braginsky and Khalili, 1995) a classical descriptions of such oscillator requires that the quantum fluctuations of the detector variable (i. e. $`V`$ in our case) in the measurement bandwidth be smaller than the amplitude induced in the tank coil by external signal, $`MQ_TdI_q/dt`$. According to the fluctuation-dissipation theorem the quantum fluctuations of the voltage $`V`$ are given by the spectral density:

$$S_V(\omega )=2ReZ(\omega )\mathrm{}\omega \mathrm{coth}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2k_BT}\right)$$
(25)
where $`Z^1(\omega )=(1/R_T+1/i\omega L_T+i\omega C_T)`$ is the impedance of a tank circuit.

Below we take the following parameters of the tank circuit: $`L_T=50`$ nH, $`Q=1000`$, inductive coupling to qubit, $`k^2=M^2/LL_T=10^4`$. We assume the tank is tuned to the frequency of oscillating current in the qubit, i. e., $`\omega _T/2\pi =2\mathrm{\Omega }_r/2\pi =64`$ MHz, hence, $`C_T=124`$ pF. We take the flux amplitude which is coupled to qubit from high frequency source $`f_{ac}=1\times 10^4`$. We set the flux offset from degeneracy point $`f=3.5\times 10^4`$, so that $`\mathrm{}\omega _0=2\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\omega _0/2\pi =0.85`$ GHz. For these values we obtain for the voltage amplitude at resonance $`V_a`$ 0.7 $`\mu `$V.

From Eq. (25) we estimate the voltage fluctuations across the tank circuit coil at resonance ($`\omega =\omega _T`$) :

$$V_n=\sqrt{\frac{S_V(\omega _T)}{Z(\omega _T)}}\omega _TL_TQ_T\sqrt{B}$$
(26)
where $`B=\omega _T/2\pi Q_T`$ is the bandwidth of the tank circuit. We perform the calculations for $`T=10`$ mK. For the voltage fluctuations we get $`V_n10`$ nV. Thus, we see that the voltage fluctuations across the tank coil is much smaller than the signal amplitude from the qubit. Therefore, we may treat the tank circuit as a classical object and the voltage $`V(t)`$ as the classical variable coupled through Eq. 23 to the qubit degree of freedom, where the current $`I_q`$ in Eq. 23 is calculated as the average of a current quantum operator over the qubit statistical operator.

## IV The effects of qubit relaxation and decoherence

The estimations we made above are very promising, however, our derivation is made under a strong assumption: we neglected the decoherence due to interaction of the qubit with external environment and with a measuring device. In fact, the possibility of detection of Rabi frequency depends crucially on relaxation, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_r`$, and decoherence, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\phi `$ rates, which lead to the decay of Rabi oscillations. The detection is in principle possible if period of oscillations is small compared to $`min[1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\phi ,1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_r]`$. The decoherence is caused primarily by coupling of a solid state based phase qubit to microscopic degrees of freedom in the solid. Fortunately this intrinsic decoherence has been found to be quite weak:Tian et al. (2000) the intrinsic decoherence times appeared to be on the order of 1 ms which is several orders of magnitude more than period of current oscillations we estimated before: $`\pi /\mathrm{\Omega }_r=15.6`$ ns. However, the external sources of decoherence are more serious. In our method these are the microwave source which induces the Rabi oscillations and the tank circuit which has to detect them. From this point two structures of microwave source has been analyzed: coaxial line that is inductively coupled to the qubitvan der Wal (2001) and on-chip oscillator based on overdamped DC SQUID.Crankshaw and Orlando  The analysis has shown the relaxation and decoherence rates were on the order of 100 $`\mu `$s at 30 mK for coaxial line, and 150 $`\mu `$s and 300 $`\mu `$s for relaxation and decoherence, respectively, for on-chip oscillator at 1 GHz. Here we estimate decoherence times that are due to a tank circuit using the expressions for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_r`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\phi `$ fromGrifoni, Paladino, and Weiss (c)

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_r\frac{1}{T_r}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{}\omega _0}\right)^2J(\omega _0)\mathrm{coth}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _0}{2k_BT}\right)$$
(27)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\phi \frac{1}{T_\phi }=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_r}{2}+2\pi \eta \left(\frac{E_Jf\lambda }{\mathrm{}\omega _0}\right)^2\frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{}}$$
(28)
where dimensionless parameter $`\eta `$ reflects the Ohmic dissipation. It depends on the strength of noise coupling to the qubit. In our subsequent estimations we take $`\eta =5\times 10^3`$ which is relevant for weak damping limit. Below we use the approach described in Ref. Tian, Lloyd, and Orlando, d in its simplified form.van der Wal (2001); Crankshaw and Orlando ; Orlando et al. (2002) While it is not mathematically rigorous, nevertheless it gives a correct order of magnitude of relaxation times. The quantity $`J(\omega _0)`$ is the zero temperature spectral density of the fluctuations of the gap energy of the qubit: $`J(\omega )=<\delta \epsilon (\omega )\delta \epsilon (\omega )>/\mathrm{}^2`$. The fluctuations $`\delta \epsilon `$ are due to the flux noise $`\delta f`$, which is supplied to the qubit by a tank circuit. From Eq.(5) we get $`\delta \epsilon =\left(4E_J^2\lambda ^2f/\mathrm{}\omega _0\right)\delta f`$, where $`\delta f=M\delta I/\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. The current noise $`\delta I`$ in a tank circuit inductance comes from two independent parts: Johnson-Nyquist voltage noise in a tank circuit resistance with a spectral density at $`T=0`$: $`S_V(\omega )=2\mathrm{}\omega ReZ(\omega )`$, where $`Z^1(\omega )=(1/R_T+1/i\omega L_T+i\omega C_T)`$ is the impedance of a tank circuit, and from a current noise of preamplifier with a spectral density $`S_A`$. Therefore, we get for $`J(\omega _0)`$: $`J(\omega _0)=\left(4E_J^2\lambda ^2fM/\mathrm{}^2\omega _0\mathrm{\Phi }_0\right)^2S_I(\omega _0)`$, where $`S_I(\omega )=\left[S_V(\omega )ReZ(\omega )+S_A\left|Z(\omega )\right|^2\right]/\omega ^2L^2`$ is the spectral density of a current noise in the tank circuit inductance. Since $`\omega _0>>\omega _T,S_I(\omega _0)\left(2\mathrm{}\omega _0/R_T+S_A\right)\left(\omega _T/\omega _0\right)^4`$. For the estimation we take $`T=10`$ mK, $`R_T=20`$ k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`S_A=10^{26}`$ A<sup>2</sup>/Hz, $`\omega _T/2\pi =64`$ MHz, other parameters being the same as before. We find that the contribution to the relaxation of a tank circuit noise and of preamplifier noise is approximately 0.1 s<sup>-1</sup> and 22 s<sup>-1</sup>, respectively. Therefore total relaxation is determined by preamplifier noise giving relaxation time $`T_r45`$ ms. The decoherence rate is dominated by a second term in (28), which is equal $`5.4\times 10^6`$ s<sup>-1</sup> giving decoherence time $`T_\phi =185`$ ns, which is approximately ten oscillation periods of circulating current. These estimations clearly show the possibility of detection of Rabi frequency in MHz range with the aid of conventional rf circuitry.

Here we did not consider the effect of a tank circuit back action on the qubit which can give additional contribution to the relaxation and decoherence rates. In order to reduce the back action effect of a tank circuit and to further enhance the MQC signal it may be advantageous for detection of Rabi oscillations to use a two dimensional array of identical phase qubits coupled to a tank circuit. Modern technology allows several thousands of weakly coupled phase qubits to be obtained on a chip.van der Wal (2001) Preliminary experiments showed that the behavior of macroscopic current in such a system is completely analogous to that of longitudinal magnetization in NMR: the collective reversal of the persistent currents in the qubit loops when sweeping the flux bias within a degeneracy point has been observed.van der Wal (2001)

In conclusion, we have shown that Rabi oscillations (in MHz range) of the current circulating in a qubit loop which are induced by high frequency external source (in GHz range) can be detected in MHz range as the voltage oscillations in the high quality tuned tank circuit inductively coupled to the qubit.

The authors thank D-wave Sys. Inc. for partial support and A. Zagoskin, A. M. van den Brink, M. Amin, A. Smirnov, N. Oukhanski, and M. Fistul for useful discussions.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Chiral $`p`$-forms enter in the spectrum of type IIB superstring and it can be shown that a string can couple directly to a chiral $`p`$-form . A chiral $`p`$-form has a number of properties which are very peculiar. Although its excitations obey Bose statistics, it shares many of the features of fermionic fields like a field equation which is linear in derivatives; it leads to species doubling if one attempts to define it on a lattice  and it gives rise to gravitational anomalies .

We can describe chiral bosons by a $`p`$-form gauge potentials $`B_p`$. The $`B_p`$’s curvatures $`H_{p+1}=dB_p`$ satisfy, as equations of motions, a Hodge (anti) self-duality condition in a space-time with dimension $`D=2(p+1)`$. The values of $`p`$ are restricted to even values by the self-consistency of such equation in space-times with Minkowskian signature $`\eta _{ab}=(1,1,1,\mathrm{},1)`$. The restriction on $`p`$ makes $`D=2,6,10,\mathrm{}`$, be the relevant dimensions of the chiral boson theories.

Chiral bosons are important in superstring and supergravity theories, and more recently $`M`$ theory. Two dimensional chiral bosons (scalar) are basic ingredients in string theory. The six-dimensional ones belong to the supergravity and tensor multiplets in $`N=1,D=6`$ supergravity theories. They are necessary to complete the $`N=2,D=6`$ supermultiplet of the $`M`$-theory five-brane. Finally a ten dimensional chiral bosons appears in $`IIB,D=10`$ supergravity.

In this work we study the dual projection technique introduced by Wotzasek et al in . This technique, strictly related to canonical transformation , has been presented in the study of electromagnetic duality groups. The difference between both concepts is that the dual projection is performed at the level of the actions while the canonical transformation is at the Hamiltonian level. However, in this work we will consider only first-order actions. Furthermore, the equivalence between the dual projection and the canonical transformation becomes manifest . The most useful and interesting point in this dual projection procedure is that it is not based on evidently even-dimensional concepts and may be extended to the odd-dimensional situation. But we will not analyze this feature here.

This work is motivated by the fact that coupling chiral fields to external gravitational fields reveals the presence of notons . Noton is a nonmover field at classical level, carrying the representation of the Siegel symmetry , that acquires dynamics upon quantization. At the quantum level, it was shown , that its dynamics is fully responsible for the Siegel anomaly.

The Wess-Zumino-Witten-Novikov (WZWN)  model is a conformal field theory that has been used in the past to reproduce various two dimensional systems like Toda field theories, black holes and others. Recently it was carried out the connection of this model to a combination of three dimensional topological BF and Chern-Simons gauge theories defined on a manifold with boundaries using a direct application of non-Abelian T duality on the WZWN nonlinear sigma model .

In this work we discuss the dual projection of non-Abelian chiral fields coupled to external gravitational backgrounds which is a result from the diagonalization of the first-order form of an action that describes the chiral WZWN model.

The Lorentz covariant approach to describe chiral bosons, proposed by Pasti, Sorokin and Tonin (PST) , has been studied in . The quantum behavior of the PST models in the framework of the algebraic renormalization  was analyzed in . Differently of  it introduces only one scalar auxiliary field, but in a non-polynomial way.

The PST procedure has important roles on the construction of a covariant effective action for the $`M`$-theory five-brane , covariant actions for supersymmetric chiral bosons  and to rederive the gravitational anomaly for the chiral bosons .

Here we disclose the presence of the noton in four models using the dual projection. In one we corroborate, in a clearer manner, the result found in . Hence, we propose three new formulations for the Hull noton: two different Lorentz invariant versions of PST Siegel’s chiral boson and a supersymmetric formulation.

The sequence of the paper is: in the next section we review the dual projection applied to the Abelian chiral model and to the Principal Chiral Model as examples. In section III we carry out the dual projection of the chiral WZWN model. The analysis of two different versions of PST $`D=2`$ chiral bosons and the supersymmetric one () are analyzed in section IV. Finally, the conclusion and perspectives are discussed in the last section.

## 2 The dual projection: a review

The separation of a scalar field into its chiral components has been introduced by Mandelstam  in its seminal paper on 2D bosonization. The chiral splitting for the non-Abelian side has been studied by Polyakov and Wiegman . However, the Abelian limit of Polyakov-Wiegman decomposition does not coincide with Mandelstam’s chiral decomposition. The chiral separation in  is based on a first-order theory while that of  is second-order. Mandelstam’s chiral decomposition scheme can be obtained as a constraint over the theory requiring the complete separability of the original action.

The dual projection in $`D=2(2p+1)`$ dimensions leads to a diagonal form of the action. Here, differently from , the two pieces manifest completely unlike features: while one piece is chiral, responsible for the dynamic sector of the theory, the other carry the algebraic component, as shown in . We select here only two examples, among others, in the literature where the dual projection succeed.

### 2.1 The Siegel chiral boson

In this section we will make a brief review of the main results obtained in . We begin with the Siegel original classical Lagrangian density for a chiral scalar field ,

$$=_+\varphi _{}\varphi \lambda _{++}(_{}\varphi )^2=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{g}g^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha \varphi _\beta \varphi $$
(1)
where the metric

$$g^{++}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},g^+=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},g^{}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\lambda _{++},$$
(2)
and the Lagrangian (1) describes a lefton . A lefton (or a righton) is a particle which, besides to carry the dynamics of the theory, it is liable for the symmetry too. This characterizes exactly a Siegel mode. It is different from a Floreanini-Jackiw’s (FJ’s) mode . Even if the FJ particle be a left-mover, it is only responsible for the dynamics. Hence it is not a lefton.

The symmetry content of the theory is well described by the Siegel algebra, a truncate diffeomorphism that disappears at the quantum level. Hence (1) is invariant under Siegel gauge symmetry which is an invariance under the combined coordinate transformation and a Weyl rescaling of the form

$$x^{}\stackrel{~}{x}^{}=x^{}ϵ^{}\text{and}\delta g_{\alpha \beta }=g_{\alpha \beta }_{}ϵ^{}.$$
(3)
The fields $`\varphi `$ and $`\lambda _{++}`$ transform under (3) as follows:

$`\delta \varphi `$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{}_{}\varphi `$
$`\delta \lambda _{++}=_+ϵ^{}`$ $`+`$ $`ϵ^{}_{}\lambda _{++}_{}ϵ^{}\lambda _{++},`$ (4)
and $`\varphi `$ is invariant under the global axial transformation

$$\varphi \stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\varphi +\overline{\varphi }.$$
(5)
It is well known that fixing the value of the multiplier as $`\lambda _{++}=1`$ in (1) we can obtain the FJ model.

We will now begin to introduce the dual projection. This is done introducing a dynamical redefinition in the phase space of the model. Using (1) in Lorentz coordinates we can obtain the canonical momentum as

$$\pi =\frac{}{\dot{\varphi }}=\dot{\varphi }\lambda _{++}(\dot{\varphi }\varphi ^{})$$
(6)
and so we have that

$$\dot{\varphi }=\frac{\pi \lambda _{++}\varphi ^{}}{1\lambda _{++}}.$$
(7)
After a little algebra, substituting (6) and (7) into (1), the Lagrangian in the first-order form reads

$$=\pi \dot{\varphi }\frac{\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2}\frac{1}{2}\frac{(\pi \lambda _{++}\varphi ^{})^2}{1\lambda _{++}}\frac{\lambda _{++}}{2}\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}.$$
(8)
As we said above, we have to fix the value of the multiplier as $`\lambda _{++}1`$ to get the FJ form. This value of $`\lambda _{++}`$ promotes a reduction of the phase space of the model to

$$\pi \varphi ^{},$$
(9)
and consequently the third term in (8) reduces to zero as $`\lambda _{++}1`$. Therefore the dynamics of the system will be described by a FJ action. The above behavior in (9) suggests the following canonical transformations:

$$\varphi =\phi +\sigma \text{and}\pi =\phi ^{}\sigma ^{},$$
(10)
and we stress that these fields are independent as they originate from completely different actions. After substituting (10) into (8) to perform the dual projection we find a diagonalized Lagrangian,

$$=\phi ^{}\dot{\phi }\phi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\sigma ^{}\dot{\sigma }\eta _+\sigma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}$$
(11)
where

$$\eta _+=\frac{1+\lambda _{++}}{1\lambda _{++}}.$$

The effect of dual projection procedure into the first-order Siegel theory, equation (8) was the creation of two different internal spaces leading to the $`Z_2`$ group of dualities (a discrete group with two elements)  and the other is the diffeomorphism group of transformations. Clearly we can see that the chirality/duality group and the symmetry group are in different sectors. The first is obviously a FJ mode and the other is a noton mode. This result is complementary to the established knowledge, where the FJ action is interpreted as a gauge fixed Siegel action . Under this point of view, we look at the gauge fixing process as the condition that sets the noton field to vanish. It can be proved  that this noton is totally responsible for the symmetries, both classically and quantically. We finally can say that the importance of the inclusion of a normalized external noton - the Hull mechanism - is, conveniently, to cancel the Siegel anomaly .

### 2.2 The Principal Chiral Model

As a non-Abelian example, let us next extend the separability condition, due to the dual projection, discussed above to the non-Abelian bosons following only the main steps given in .

The most obvious choice would be to consider an action given by a bilinear gradient of a matrix-valued field $`g`$ taking values on some compact Lie group $`G`$, which would be the natural extension of the free scalar Abelian field. This is the action for the Principal Chiral Model (PCM) that reads

$$𝒮_{PCM}(g)=\frac{1}{2}d^2xtr\left(_\mu g^\mu \stackrel{~}{g}\right).$$
(12)
Here $`g:R^{1,1}G`$ is a map from the 2 dimensional Minkowski space-time to $`G`$ and let us write for simplicity $`\stackrel{~}{g}=g^1`$. This action, however, puts some difficulties. First of all, by examining its field equation we learn that, it does not represent a free field. The Jacobian of the field redefinition does not involve a time-derivative and can be reabsorbed in the normalization of the partition function. Let us write the PCM in its first-order form as

$$𝒮_{PCM}(g,P)=d^2xtr\left(_\tau gP\right)+\frac{1}{2}d^2xtr\left(PgPg\right)+\frac{1}{2}d^2xtr\left(\stackrel{~}{g}_\sigma g\stackrel{~}{g}_\sigma g\right)$$
(13)
and redefine the fields $`g`$ and $`P`$, which is an auxiliary field, through non-Abelian canonical transformations

$$g=AB\text{and}P=\epsilon \left(\stackrel{~}{B}_\sigma \stackrel{~}{A}_\sigma \stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{A}\right)$$
(14)
where, remembering our notation, we have that: $`\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{B}=A^1,B^1`$ respectively. The action for the PCM now reads

$$𝒮_{PCM}(A,B)=𝒮_\epsilon \left(A\right)+𝒮_\epsilon \left(B\right)+\epsilon d^2xtr\left[\stackrel{~}{A}\left(_\tau A_\sigma B_\sigma A_\tau B\right)\stackrel{~}{B}\right]$$
(15)
where

$$𝒮_\epsilon \left(A\right)=d^2xtr\left(\epsilon _\sigma \stackrel{~}{A}_\tau A_\sigma \stackrel{~}{A}_\sigma A\right),$$
(16)
and $`𝒮_\epsilon (B)`$ is analogous. We see that due to the non-Abelian nature of the fields, the cross-term cannot be eliminated, so that a complete separation cannot be achieved. This fact should be expected. In the canonical approach, we have for their field equations the pair

$$_\tau I=_\sigma J\text{and}_\tau J=_\sigma I[I,J],$$
(17)
where $`I=_\tau g\stackrel{~}{g}`$ and $`J=_\sigma g\stackrel{~}{g}`$. The second equation is a sort of Bianchi identity, which is the integrability condition for the existence of $`g`$. Looking at this pair of equations one can appreciate that chirality is not well defined in this model. However, this picture changes drastically with the inclusion of the Wess-Zumino topological term, i.e., when we consider the WZWN model . The first equation in (17) changes to $`_\tau I=_\sigma J+\rho [I,J]`$, with $`\rho Z`$, producing a more symmetric set of equations. In particular for $`\rho =\pm 1`$ it is known that the currents above describe two independent affine Lie algebras. One expects then that with the introduction of the topological term, one would be able to obtain an identical mixing term, such that in the total action they could cancel each other. With the topological term

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(g)=\frac{1}{3}d^3xϵ^{ijk}tr\left[\stackrel{~}{g}_ig\stackrel{~}{g}_jg\stackrel{~}{g}_kg\right],$$
(18)
we have now the complete WZWN model defined on the group manifold $`_G`$, based on the Lie algebra $`G`$, where $`g_G`$ and $``$ is a three dimensional ball whose the boundary is the two dimensional surface $``$ .

Using the first of the field redefinitions (14), it is a lengthy but otherwise straightforward algebra to show that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(A,B)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(A)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(B)+d^2xtr\left[\stackrel{~}{A}\left(_\tau A_\sigma B_\sigma A_\tau B\right)\stackrel{~}{B}\right].$$
(19)
Next, we can bring results (15) and (19) into the WZWN action , which is described by

$$𝒮_{WZWN}(g)=\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}𝒮_{PCM}(g)+\frac{n}{4\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(g).$$
(20)
We mention the appearance of an extra parameter, both in the action and in the canonical formalism, playing the role of coupling constant. In terms of the chiral variables, the WZWN model reads

$`𝒮_{WZWN}(A,B)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^2}}𝒮_\epsilon (A)+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{4\pi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(A)\right]+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^2}}𝒮_\epsilon (B)+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{4\pi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(B)\right]`$ (21)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\lambda ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{4\pi }}\right){\displaystyle d^2xtr\left[\stackrel{~}{A}\left(_\tau A_\sigma B_\sigma A_\tau B\right)\stackrel{~}{B}\right]}.`$
We can appreciate that the separability condition is only achieved at the critical points, as expected. But also that our choice of $`\epsilon `$ is now dependent on which of the critical points we choose: $`4\pi \epsilon =\lambda ^2n`$. The result is the non-Abelian version of the dual projection, and corresponds to the sum of two Lagrangians describing non-Abelian chiral bosons of opposite chiralities, each one having the form proposed by Sonnenschein . We will see that a change of the critical point automatically switches the chirality of $`A`$ and $`B`$ by changing the sign of $`\epsilon `$. Indeed, in order to obtain separability, we must have either

$$(i)\frac{\lambda ^2n}{4\pi }=\epsilon =1$$
(22)
or

$$(ii)\frac{\lambda ^2n}{4\pi }=\epsilon =1.$$
(23)
In the first case we find the set of chiral equations as

$$_x\left(\stackrel{~}{A}_+A\right)=0\text{and}_{}\left(\stackrel{~}{B}_xB\right)=0$$

whose solution reads respectively

$$A=A_{}(x^{})h_A(t)\text{and}B=h_B(t)B_+(x^+).$$

In the second case, the chiral equations are

$$_x\left(\stackrel{~}{A}_{}A\right)=0\text{and}_+\left(\stackrel{~}{B}_xB\right)=0$$

and the solutions read

$$A=A_+(x^+)h_A(t)\text{and}B=h_B(t)B_{}(x^{}).$$

The arbitrary functions of time $`h_A(t)`$ and $`h_B(t)`$ represent, in fact, the zero modes of the solutions of the chiral equations. Note that in both cases the general solution for $`g(x^+,x^{})`$ is given as

$$g=A_\epsilon (x^\epsilon )h_A(t)h_B(t)B_\epsilon (x^\epsilon ).$$

As in the Abelian case, the constraint $`h_A(t)=h_B^1(t)`$ becomes necessary in order that $`g=AB`$ satisfies the equation of motion for the WZWN model. This constraint is the only memory left for the chiral bosons stating that they belong to the same non-chiral field. More details about the dual projection of PCM and the coupling with gravity can be seen in .

## 3 The new formulations of Hull’s noton

There are indications that a deeper understanding of such issues as string dynamics and fractional quantum Hall effect phenomenology can be achieved by treating the chiral sectors in a more independent way. However, coupling chiral fields to external gauge and gravitational fields is problematic. As we said above (it was discussed in ) the coupling of chiral (Abelian) fields to external gravitational backgrounds can be achieved by diagonalization (dual projection) of the first-order form of a covariant scalar action. The theory reduces then to a sum of a left and a right FJ’s actions , circumventing the problems caused by the lack of manifest Lorentz invariance.

In this section we intend to supply the literature with new formulations of Hull’s noton: the chiral WZWN model (using the dual projection), with two different versions of PST formulations of the chiral bosons and with the supersymmetric case. We hope that the use of the dual projection formalism and consequently the disclosure of a Hull’s noton mode inside these models may help to gain a new insight into the structures of these theories. The redefinition of the fields in the first-order form of the action naturally reveals the two-dimensional internal structure hidden into the theory.

Note that in the last subsection, what we showed was the dual projection applied in a nonchiral model. Now the interesting touch is to see what will be disclosed in a well defined chiral model.

### 3.1 The chiral WZWN model

We know that the action for the chiral WZWN model  for a particle which moves to the left, the so-called left mover is given by

$$S(g)=d^2xtr\left(_+g_{}\stackrel{~}{g}+\lambda _{}g_{}\stackrel{~}{g}\right)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(g)$$
(24)
where, for convenience we write $`\lambda =\lambda _{++}`$ and $`gG`$ was defined in the last section. This action can be seen as the WZWN action immersed in a gravitational background, with a characteristic truncated metric tensor:

$$S(g)=\frac{1}{2}d^2x\sqrt{\eta _+}\eta _+^{\mu \nu }tr\left(_\mu g_\nu \stackrel{~}{g}\right)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(g)$$
(25)
with $`\eta ^+=det(\eta _{\mu \nu }^+)`$ and

$$\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\eta _+}\eta _+^{\mu \nu }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \frac{1}{2}\\ \frac{1}{2}& \lambda \end{array}\right)$$
(26)
where $`\lambda `$ transforms like in the Abelian case and $`g`$ as a scalar.

In Lorentz coordinates we can write (24) as

$`S(g)={\displaystyle d^2xtr\left[\frac{1}{2}(1+\lambda )\dot{g}\dot{\stackrel{~}{g}}\frac{1}{2}(1\lambda )g^{}\stackrel{~}{g}^{}\frac{\lambda }{2}(\dot{g}\stackrel{~}{g}^{}+g^{}\dot{\stackrel{~}{g}})\right]}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(g)`$ (27)
This action can be written in its Faddeev-Jackiw’s first-order form making the following transformation which introduces an auxiliary field $`𝒫`$,

$$\frac{1}{2}\dot{g}\dot{\stackrel{~}{g}}𝒫\dot{g}+\frac{1}{2}𝒫g𝒫g$$

where $`𝒫=\dot{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$.

Now we can write that

$`S(g)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2xtr\left[(1+\lambda )𝒫\dot{g}+\frac{1}{2}(1+\lambda )𝒫g𝒫g\frac{1}{2}(1\lambda )g^{}\stackrel{~}{g}^{}\frac{\lambda }{2}(\dot{g}\stackrel{~}{g}^{}+g^{}\dot{\stackrel{~}{g}})\right]}`$ (28)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(g).`$
For convenience, let us promote the following transformation of variables,

$$𝒫=\frac{1}{1+\lambda }𝒫,$$

and substituting in (28) we have that,

$`S(g)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2xtr\left[𝒫\dot{g}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{(1+\lambda )}𝒫g𝒫g\frac{1}{2}(1\lambda )g^{}\stackrel{~}{g}^{}\frac{\lambda }{2}(\dot{g}\stackrel{~}{g}^{}+g^{}\dot{\stackrel{~}{g}})\right]}`$ (29)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(g).`$
Making again another transformation, i.e.,

$$𝒫𝒫+\lambda \dot{\stackrel{~}{g}}$$

hence,

$$S(g)=d^2xtr\left[𝒫\dot{g}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{1+\lambda }(𝒫g𝒫g\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\lambda 𝒫g^{})\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{(1+\lambda )}g^{}\stackrel{~}{g}^{}\right]+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(g).$$

Let us redefine the fields $`g`$ and $`𝒫`$ through the following canonical transformation,

$`g=Nhg^{}=N^{}h+Nh^{},`$ (30)
where $`N`$, as before, will play the role of a Hull’s nonmover field, the noton.

Using (9) to justify a first choice for $`𝒫`$, let us construct it with two numerical (or not) coefficients which will be determined in a further analysis,

$$𝒫=a\stackrel{~}{h}\stackrel{~}{N}^{}+b\stackrel{~}{h}^{}\stackrel{~}{N},$$
(31)
but note the non-Abelian feature of this different construction. An important observation is that the coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$ incorporate the roles of the separability points described in the last section. We will show below that this form of the field $`𝒫`$ is the only possible general form in order to promote the dual projection.

As we mentioned, it can be shown  that the dual projection of the Wess-Zumino term, using the redefinition (30) has the form

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(N,h)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(N)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(h)+{\displaystyle d^2xtr\left(\stackrel{~}{N}N^{}\dot{h}\stackrel{~}{h}\stackrel{~}{N}\dot{N}h^{}\stackrel{~}{h}\right)}.`$ (32)
We can see that the dual projection of (32) brings an extra term that can not be split, so this term has to be eliminated. To perform this elimination it is easy to see that the cast of the field $`𝒫`$ has to have some term proportional to the extra term in (32). Other forms of such field do not afford the elimination of this term, as we said before.

The canonical transformations (30) and (31) lead us to an action with fields taking values in the internal space. Substituting the redefinitions (30), (31) and (32) into (3.1) we can show that,

$`S(N,h)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(N)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(h)+{\displaystyle }d^2xtr\{a\stackrel{~}{N}^{}\dot{N}+b\stackrel{~}{h}^{}\dot{h}(a1)\stackrel{~}{N}\dot{N}\dot{h}\stackrel{~}{h}`$ (33)
$``$ $`(b+1)\stackrel{~}{N}\dot{N}h^{}\stackrel{~}{h}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\lambda }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{2}}+\lambda a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\stackrel{~}{N}^{}N^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\lambda }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{2}}+\lambda b+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\stackrel{~}{h}^{}h^{}`$
$`+`$ $`2(ab+1)\stackrel{~}{N}^{}Nh\stackrel{~}{h}^{}\}.`$
To eliminate the extra terms we have to find $`a`$ and $`b`$ solving the following very simple system

$$a\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\text{and}b+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},$$
(34)
which solution is

$$a=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\text{and}b=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}ab=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}.$$
(35)
Instead of applying directly these solutions, let us promote a short analysis making $`a=b=ϵ`$. With this new form for the solution, the canonical transformations are

$$g=Nh\text{and}p=ϵ\stackrel{~}{h}\stackrel{~}{N}^{}ϵ\stackrel{~}{h}^{}\stackrel{~}{N},$$
(36)
and substituting it in (33) we have the action given by

$`S(N,h)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2xtr\left[ϵ\dot{N}\stackrel{~}{N}^{}\frac{ϵ^2+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\lambda ϵ+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}{2(1+\lambda )}N^{}\stackrel{~}{N}^{}\right]}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(N)`$ (37)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle d^2xtr\left[ϵ\dot{h}\stackrel{~}{h}^{}\frac{ϵ^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\lambda ϵ+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}{2(1+\lambda )}h^{}\stackrel{~}{h}^{}\right]}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(h),`$
and finally we can say that

$`S(N,h)_{ϵ=1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2xtr\left(\dot{N}\stackrel{~}{N}^{}+N^{}\stackrel{~}{N}^{}\right)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(N)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle d^2xtr\left(\dot{h}\stackrel{~}{h}^{}+\eta h^{}\stackrel{~}{h}^{}\right)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(h),`$
$`S(N,h)_{ϵ=1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2xtr\left(\dot{N}\stackrel{~}{N}^{}+\eta N^{}\stackrel{~}{N}^{}\right)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(N)`$ (38)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle d^2xtr\left(\dot{h}\stackrel{~}{h}^{}+h^{}\stackrel{~}{h}^{}\right)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(h),`$
where

$$\eta =\frac{1\lambda }{1+\lambda }.$$

Since we are working in a $`D=2`$ dimensions, i.e., $`0`$-form $`(D=2(2p+1))`$, each reduced phase space carries the representation for half the number of degrees of freedom of the original system. This is a feature different from $`D=4p`$, where the duality symmetric systems maintains the phase space structure intact . For the interested read, an analysis of the WZWN duality groups is depicted in .

We see in (3.1) that in accordance with the value of $`ϵ`$, $`N`$ and $`h`$ change roles. For $`ϵ=1`$, $`N`$ is the chiral field and $`h`$ is the non-Abelian Hull’s noton. For $`ϵ=1`$, vice versa. This shows a certain dependence of the dual projection on a certain parameter, but it is immaterial since what we want to show is the presence, in the chiral WZWN, of a chiral mode and mainly the presence of a non-Abelian Hull’s noton.

This result corroborates the one found in . However, there, the noton was found using the soldering technique  of two non-Abelian chiral bosons, showing a destructive interference. Our work shows a different way to obtain the same result. Besides, we explain the result in  in a clearer way since now we can see both chiral particles and realize what is happening. As the WZWN model has a chiral mode and an algebraic mode, in the fusion (soldering) of opposite non-Abelian chiral models, the opposite chiral particles interfere destructively disappearing from the spectrum. Only the Hull noton survives, which as having no dynamics, does not interact destructively. In other words, we show that the Hull noton was already there, on the chiral WZWN model and consequently it is not just a product of soldering both opposite models as can be understood from .

### 3.2 The PST self-dual formulation

It can be shown  that one of the possibilities to recover the manifest Lorentz invariance of the FJ model, as in the case of Maxwell theory, is introducing an unit-norm time-like auxiliary vector field $`u_m(x)`$ in the FJ action, and to write the action in the form

$$S=d^2x\left(_+\varphi _{}\varphi u^m_mu^n_n\right)$$
(39)
where $`_m=_m\varphi ϵ_{mn}^n\varphi `$. Because of its properties, $`u_m`$ contains only one independent component. It was proved in  that (39) reduces to the Siegel action  and also that $`u_m`$ is the gradient of a scalar. It will be used below.

In Minkowski space we can write the Lagrangian density of (39) as

$$=\dot{\varphi }^2\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(u^0+u^1)^2(\dot{\varphi }+\varphi ^{})^2$$
(40)
and following the procedure to promote the dual projection in first-order actions we have, after a little algebra, that

$$=\pi \dot{\varphi }\frac{\left[\pi +\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(u^0+u^1)^2\varphi ^{}\right]^2}{4\left[1(u^0+u^1)^2\right]}[1+(u^0+u^1)^2]\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}$$
(41)
where $`\pi `$ is the canonical momentum.

Now, as before, we can use the convenient canonical transformations,

$$\varphi =\pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\rho +\sigma )\text{and}\pi =\pm \sqrt{2}(\rho ^{}\sigma ^{}).$$
(42)
where one of these fields will represent the FJ particle and the other, of course, the noton, as we will see.

Substituting these transformations in (41) and after an algebraic work we have an action in terms of $`\sigma `$ and $`\rho `$, which take values in the internal space,

$$=\left(\sigma ^{}\dot{\sigma }\sigma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)+\left(\rho ^{}\dot{\rho }\eta _1\rho _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)$$
(43)
where

$$\eta _1=\frac{1+(u^0+u^1)^2}{1(u^0+u^1)^2}.$$

As we can easily see the $`\sigma `$ field describes a FJ chiral boson that now, at first sight, carries the dynamics of the system and the $`Z_2`$ duality group. However, in  it was shown that in all even dimensions, both $`SO(2)`$ and $`Z_2`$ duality symmetric groups could co-exist. As we have analyzed in the anterior section, the $`\rho `$ field is responsible for the algebra  of the system. Hence, $`\rho `$ is the PST Hull’s noton formulation.

The other possibility (see ), which is more appropriate from the quantum point of view, is to construct a Lorentz covariant action like the following

$$S=d^2x\left(_+\varphi _{}\varphi +\frac{1}{u^2}u^m_mu^n_nϵ^{mn}u_m_nB\right)$$
(44)
where $`B(x)`$ is an auxiliary scalar field. After eliminating $`B`$ through the field equations and taking the values for $`u_m`$, the Lagrangian density of the above action can be written as

$$=_+\varphi _{}\varphi \frac{_+\widehat{\phi }}{_{}\widehat{\phi }}(_{}\varphi )^2,$$
(45)
where $`\widehat{\phi }`$ is an another auxiliary field that helps in the solution of the equation for $`u_m`$, i.e., $`u_m(x)=_m\widehat{\phi }(x)`$. Hence, $`u_m(x)`$ can be seen as the gradient of a scalar $`\widehat{\phi }(x)`$.

In this case it is easy to see that the equation (45) has the same form as the Siegel chiral boson, where

$$\lambda \frac{_+\widehat{\phi }}{_{}\widehat{\phi }}$$

and with a straightforward association we already have the solution given in

$$=\rho ^{}\dot{\rho }\rho _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\sigma ^{}\dot{\sigma }\eta _2\sigma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},$$
(46)
where we have again $`\sigma `$ as the noton and

$$\eta _2=\frac{1\frac{_+\widehat{\phi }}{_{}\widehat{\phi }}}{1+\frac{_+\widehat{\phi }}{_{}\widehat{\phi }}}.$$

In the face of this result we can make an analogous analysis for this second possibility of Lorentz invariance restoration as we made it for the first one and stress that the dynamics/$`(Z_2+SO(2))`$ duality groups and algebra group are carried by $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ respectively. We see clearly that Hull’s noton is present whatever the way we formulate the Siegel chiral boson.

### 3.3 The supersymmetric formulation

The superfield generalization of (44) is

$$S=d^2x𝑑\theta ^+\left(D_+\mathrm{\Phi }_{}\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{D_+\mathrm{\Lambda }}{_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }}(_{}\mathrm{\Phi })^2\right)$$
(47)
where we are considering the bosonic superfields

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x^{},x^+,\theta ^+)=\varphi (x)+i\theta ^+\psi _+(x)$$

and

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(x^{},x^+,\theta ^+)=\widehat{\phi }(x)+i\theta ^+\chi _+(x),$$

which obey the conventional transformation laws under global shifts

$$\delta \theta ^+=ϵ^+,\delta x^+=i\theta ^+ϵ^+\text{and}\delta x^{}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}$$

in $`n=(1,0)`$ flat superspace and where

$`D_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta ^+}}+i\theta ^+_+`$
$`D_+^2`$ $`=`$ $`i_+`$ (48)
is the supercovariant derivative.

After making the relevant substitutions described above in (47) we can write

$$S=d^2x𝑑\theta ^+\left\{\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\theta ^+}_{}\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\theta ^+}\frac{(_{}\mathrm{\Phi })^2}{_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }}+i\theta ^+\left[_+\mathrm{\Phi }_{}\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{_+\mathrm{\Lambda }}{_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }}(_{}\mathrm{\Phi })^2\right]\right\}.$$
(49)
Using the well known properties of the supersymmetric integrals we finally have that,

$$=_+\mathrm{\Phi }_{}\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{_+\mathrm{\Lambda }}{_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }}(_{}\mathrm{\Phi })^2,$$
(50)
where a hidden global complex number is of no consequence here since it does not affect the equations of motion and may be ignored. With this form, we can make in (50) the same association that we made in (45). So, we can write, considering that now we are in a superspace that,

$$=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\dot{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\dot{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\eta _3\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},$$
(51)
where

$$\eta _3=\frac{1\frac{_+\mathrm{\Lambda }}{_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{1+\frac{_+\mathrm{\Lambda }}{_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }}}.$$

The superfield $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ represents the super-FJ chiral boson in the superspace formulation and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the supersymmetric Hull’s noton, the supernoton<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2A very interesting study of the duality groups in supersymmetric models can be seen in ..

## 4 Conclusion

We have diagonalized the non-Abelian chiral field, disclosing a two dimension internal structure for some compact Lie group $`G`$. This result was expected based on the results found in  where it was shown that notons, being not dynamicals, couples to the gravitational backgrounds but not to the electromagnetic field. Therefore, if a gauge coupling is introduced before dual projection, it will be completely decoupled by the dual projection procedure. Since the analysis was always effected for first-order systems, an equivalence between the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian approaches permitted us to use the concept of canonical transformations. In other words we can say that the dual projection demanded a change of variables which was, in the phase space, a canonical transformation.

In  it was proposed two ways to restore the manifest Lorentz invariance of the FJ theory. The first was introducing an unit-norm time-like auxiliary vector field in the FJ action and constructing an action equivalent to the Siegel model. The other is constructing an action in the light of the Maxwell manifestly Lorentz invariant duality symmetric action proposed in , which is shown to be also Siegel’s equivalent on the mass shell. We show that in both cases the noton is present. Our last result concerns the superfield generalization of the above action and a supersymmetric formulation of the noton, the supernoton has been constructed.

As a straightforward perspective we can diagonalize superiors orders of chiral $`p`$-forms and the investigation of the dual projection of superfield supergravity generalization of the duality symmetric models is in course.

## 5 Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics and acknowledge the help of the High Energy Section and the Science Institute of the Federal University of Itajubá (Minas Gerais, Brazil) where part of this work was made. And professor C. Wotzasek for valuable discussions. This work was partially done at the High Energy section within the framework of the guest-scientist Scheme of the Abdus Salam ICTP.