text:
# Comparison of unitary transforms

## I Introduction

Various tasks of quantum information processing require the use of quantum networks which realise desired quantum operations on a chosen input state. The networks may be formed by arrays of elementary gates, realising single or two particle operations. With increasing complexity, it will become important to locate a possible error that can cause the malfunctioning of the whole network. The error, or erroneous gate, could be found by measuring its properties using some estimation strategy pres ; acin1 ; acin2 ; janz ; dari1 ; dari2 ; dari3 ; aha ; cir . The estimation of a whole set of gates, however, might be rather time consuming. Moreover, we may not be interested in what the error is, only if there is an error or not. Therefore, it will be better to perform a simpler check only to see whether the gate performs correctly or not. This leads us to consider testing whether two gates are the same or different by comparing them to each other. Similarly it might be favorable to test gates on a production line when a master gate is available. The produced gates could then simply be compared to the master gate, and if a deviation in the behaviour of the gate is found, it will be discarded. Transformation comparison is closely related to state comparison steve .

In the following we will discuss strategies for comparing unitary transforms. The choice of comparison strategy will naturally depend on what is already known about the transforms, and also on the resources available for the test. In the present work, a restriction is made to when each transform may be used only once, and to when the transforms are completely unknown. Other situations will be commented upon at the end. The focus will also be on unambiguous transformation comparison, meaning that whenever a result “different” or “same” is obtained, the result is also correct. In general, this forces us to accept inconclusive comparison outcomes, giving no information idp . It is also possible to compare unitary transformations using other types of strategies, such as minimum-error comparison strategies. We will return to this possibility at the end.

It seems reasonable to assume that any unambiguous, minimum-error, or any other type of comparison strategy, would have to involve the action of the transforms to be compared upon some test state, followed by a measurement (or measurements) of the changed test state. To be more specific, we have to build a network where each transform occurs once, feed a test quantum state through the network, and then measure the output state. The transforms may be used in any way inside the network; in parallel, acting on different qubits or particles, in series, acting on a particle one transform after the other, or possibly even in the form of controlled-U operations. This picture includes the possibility of entanglement with an environment, for example, the case where two transforms U and V act in some way on two particles, which may be entangled with other particles (or with each other). To be general, one should also allow for sequential measurements, with actions conditional on previous measurement results. As we allow each transform to be used only once, sequential measurements will be of limited use.

To be able to say anything definite and unambiguous about whether the transforms are the same or different, we have to choose the test state and the network in such a way that certain output results are unambiguously associated with the transforms being the same or different. From this point of view, it is clear that, if the unitary transforms are completely unknown, a comparison can never give the definite answer that the transforms (two or more) are identical. To obtain this information, we would have to reliably distinguish between the case when the transforms are exactly the same, and when they are arbitrarily close, but still not identical. That this is not possible can be seen by a continuity argument similar to the one for state comparison steve . The transforms being the same would have to be associated with the output state lying in a certain known subspace $`H_{id}`$ of the total allowed state space. When the transforms are almost, but not completely identical, the output state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{diff}`$ will lie almost, but not completely, in this subspace:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{diff}=\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_{id}+\beta |\mathrm{\Psi }^{},$$
(1)
where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{id}`$ lies in the subspace $`H_{id}`$, and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ lies in the complementary subspace. By making the transformations arbitrarily close, $`\beta `$ can be made arbitrarily small, and there is no measurement that would distinguish unambiguously between $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{id}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{diff}`$ for any arbitrarily small $`\beta `$. Such a measurement would have to contain a measurement operator $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{id}`$ for which, with a finite success probability $`p_{same}`$ to detect the transforms as “same”,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{id}|\mathrm{\Pi }_{id}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{id}=p_{same}\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Psi }_{diff}|\mathrm{\Pi }_{id}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{diff}=0\beta .$$
(2)
This forces the probability $`p_{same}`$ to be zero, meaning that we can never unambiguously determine a set of transformations to be identical, unless we have additional information about the transforms, for example, that they belong to a certain given set of transforms.

In contrast, it is possible to obtain the unambiguous knowledge that the transformations are different. To treat the problem in its full generality, with the transforms to be compared appearing in an arbitrary network as described above, is difficult. We will limit the discussion to the case when the transforms appear in parallel, as shown for two transforms $`U`$ and $`V`$ in Fig. (1). An input state is sent through a preparation network, then acted upon by $`U`$ and $`V`$ as shown, and finally measured. We have to be able to associate certain outcomes unambiguously with the transforms being different.

We will first concentrate on comparing two single qubit transformations. These represent the simplest elements of quantum networks, and the ideas involved are demonstrated in a clear way. Here we present different comparison strategies, one using only a single qubit as a test state, and another strategy involving two qubits in a singlet state. These are shown to succeed more often than a third strategy using two nonentangled qubits. The strategies will then be generalised to comparison of more than two transforms, and to transforms of higher dimension. We end with conclusions.

## II Comparing two unitary qubit transformations

We will start with comparing two unknown single qubit transformations $`U`$ and $`V`$. A general way of parametrising $`2\times 2`$ unitary transforms is to write them as $`SU(2)`$-transforms with a global phase,

$$U=e^{i\phi _u}\left(\begin{array}{cc}a_u& \hfill b_u\\ b_u^{}& \hfill a_u^{}\end{array}\right),V=e^{i\phi _v}\left(\begin{array}{cc}a_v& \hfill b_v\\ b_v^{}& \hfill a_v^{}\end{array}\right)$$
(3)
with $`|a_{u(v)}|^2+|b_{u(v)}|^2=1`$. We see that four real parameters suffice to determine each transform. The global phase will matter whenever a unitary transform may or may not be applied to a physical system, such as in an interferometric setup, or in a controlled-U gate. For this reason, we cannot regard transforms which have different global phases, but otherwise are identical, as equivalent. Surprisingly enough, it is found that a single particle test state is enough to test, in a single run, for differences in three of these four degrees of freedom. We will also consider the effect of entanglement using a two particle singlet test state, contrasting this method to a two particle non-entangled strategy.

### II.1 Single qubit strategy

Assume that, apart from two single copies of $`U`$ and $`V`$, only one test qubit is available. Let us for the moment think about photons, with the two qubit basis states being horizontal and vertical polarisation, although the discussion applies to any two-level system. A strong reason for considering what may be done with only one test particle is that any unitary transform, acting on one photon, may be achieved with linear optical elements. This means that it will be possible to realise in an experiment any single-qubit test strategy.

We will start by considering one intuitive example strategy, then generalising the argument to obtain an optimal single particle comparison strategy. As shown in Fig. (2), we may for example split the photon with a beam splitter, not necessarily 50/50, let $`U`$ and $`V`$ act in one path each, recombine the two paths with another beam splitter, not necessarily identical to the first, and detect in which path and with what polarisation the photon exits. Phase shifts, not included in the figure, may be added at any point in the network.

The first beam splitter can be thought of merely as a state preparation device. A general single photon test state is

$$|\psi _{in}=c\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right)_u+d\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}\right)_u+e\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right)_v+f\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}\right)_v,$$
(4)
where $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right)_{u(v)},\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}\right)_{u(v)}`$ are the basis states of the photon in the paths going through $`U`$ and $`V`$, and $`|c|^2+|d|^2+|e|^2+|f|^2=1`$. Any state of this form can be prepared by a linear state preparation network built with polarising and non-polarising beam splitters, phase shifts and polarisation rotations. After $`U`$ and $`V`$ acting in the paths, the state is given by

$`|\psi _{out}`$ $`=`$ $`U\left[c\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}}\right)_u+d\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}}\right)_u\right]+V\left[e\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}}\right)_v+f\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}}\right)_v\right]`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`e^{i\phi _u}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a_ucb_ud}{b_u^{}c+a_u^{}d}}\right)_u+e^{i\phi _v}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a_veb_vf}{b_v^{}e+a_v^{}f}}\right)_v.`$
To get a unique signal of dissimilarity we have to project on measurement states which are orthogonal to the output state obtained when $`U=V`$, i.e., to the state

$$|\psi _{out,U=V}=e^{i\phi }\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{acbd}{b^{}c+a^{}d}\right)_u+e^{i\phi }\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{aebf}{b^{}e+a^{}f}\right)_v.$$
(6)
The measurement is, in general, described by a probability operator measure (POM) strategy, but, in this case, only a simple projective measurement using a beam splitter (and phase shifts) will be required. We can choose for instance $`d=f=0`$ and $`c=e=1/\sqrt{2}`$, so that

$$|\psi _{in}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right)_u+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right)_v\right],$$
(7)
representing a horizontally polarised photon, split equally between the two paths. When $`U=V`$, the output state is

$$|\psi _{out,U=V}=\frac{e^{i\phi }}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a}{b^{}}\right)_u+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a}{b^{}}\right)_v\right].$$
(8)
This will always be orthogonal to the states

$`|\psi _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}}\right)_u\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}}\right)_v\right]`$
$`|\psi _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}}\right)_u\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}}\right)_v\right].`$ (9)
Whenever the photon is found exiting in either of these two states, $`U`$ and $`V`$ must have been different. In practice, the detection can be effected by recombining the two paths by a second non-polarising beam splitter with the matrix

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \hfill 1\\ 1& \hfill 1\end{array}\right)$$
(10)
written in the ($`u,v`$) basis, meaning that if $`U=V`$, the output state is

$$|\psi _{out}=e^{i\phi }\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a}{b^{}}\right)_u.$$
(11)
Whenever the photon is exiting in the $`v`$ path, $`U`$ and $`V`$ must have been different. Note that even if $`U`$ and $`V`$ are not identical, the photon may be found in path $`u`$. We can calculate the success rate for detecting the two transformations as different. The result reads

$`P_{diff}`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _{out}|\psi _1\psi _1|\psi _{out}+\psi _{out}|\psi _2\psi _2|\psi _{out}`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(|e^{i\phi _u}a_ue^{i\phi _v}a_v|^2+|e^{i\phi _u}b_ue^{i\phi _v}b_v|^2\right).`$
If $`U=V`$, meaning $`a_u=a_v`$, $`b_u=b_v`$ and $`\phi _u=\phi _v`$, $`P_{diff}`$ is equal to zero as required for an unambiguous result. If $`U=V`$, they will never be detected as different. If we want to obtain an overall measure for the detection efficiency, $`P_{diff}`$ should be averaged over all possible transforms $`U`$ and $`V`$:

$$\overline{P}_{diff}=𝑑U𝑑VP_{diff}\mu (U)\mu (V)=\frac{1}{2}.$$
(13)
Here, $`\mu `$ has to be taken as the correct group-invariant measure, given for $`SU(2)`$ in group . For $`SU(2)`$ with an additional overall phase $`\phi `$, the correct measure is given by

$$dU\mu (U)=d\theta d\alpha d\beta d\phi \frac{\mathrm{cos}2\theta }{8\pi ^3},$$
(14)
where $`a=\mathrm{cos}\theta e^{i\alpha }`$, $`b=\mathrm{sin}\theta e^{i\beta }`$, $`0<\theta <\pi /2`$, $`0<\alpha <2\pi `$, $`0<\beta <2\pi `$, $`0<\phi <2\pi `$, and similarly for $`dV\mu (V)`$. This result, $`\overline{P}_{diff}=1/2`$, is due to the fact that the dimension of the subspace spanned by the states (9) is two out of a total of four dimensions. Integrating over all possible $`U`$ and $`V`$ corresponds to integrating over all possible output states (5) in the four-dimensional Hilbert space. Projecting onto two of these four dimensions obviously restricts the integration to these two dimensions, yielding $`\overline{P}_{diff}=2/4=1/2`$.

The result obtained is not dependent on the polarisation of the state $`|\psi _{in}`$ in Eq. (7). Any other basis is equally suited. In general, what we have to find is measurement states

$$|\psi _{diff}=\stackrel{~}{c}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right)_u+\stackrel{~}{d}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}\right)_u+\stackrel{~}{e}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right)_v+\stackrel{~}{f}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}\right)_v$$
(15)
orthogonal to the state $`|\psi _{out,U=V}`$ in Eq. (6). The fact that the orthogonality has to hold for all possible $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`\phi `$ leads to the condition

$$\stackrel{~}{c}^{}c+\stackrel{~}{e}^{}e=\stackrel{~}{d}^{}d+\stackrel{~}{f}^{}f=\stackrel{~}{c}^{}d+\stackrel{~}{e}^{}f=\stackrel{~}{d}^{}c+\stackrel{~}{f}^{}e=0,$$
(16)
giving

$$ed=cf\mathrm{and}\stackrel{~}{e}\stackrel{~}{d}=\stackrel{~}{c}\stackrel{~}{f}.$$
(17)
This means that the polarisation in the two paths has to be the same, but any polarisation will do. The measurement states have to be adjusted according to (16) to match the polarisation of the test state. The probability to detect a difference will be optimal when the probabilities for the photon to be in each path are equal, both equal to 1/2. Thus our intuitive first example of strategy with the test state (7) proved to be one of the optimal one-photon test strategies with a test state of the form (4).

Let us note that the single photon strategy fails to detect a difference in $`U`$ and $`V`$ whenever $`P_{diff}=0`$ without the transforms being identical. If we write $`a=|a|e^{i\alpha }`$ and $`b=|b|e^{i\beta }`$, with $`|b|^2=1|a|^2`$, the strategy fails to distinguish the transforms characterized by $`(|a|,\alpha ,\beta ,\phi )`$ and $`(|a|,\alpha +\delta ,\beta +\delta ,\phi \delta )`$, for any $`\delta `$. Therefore, it effectively detects differences in three parameters out of the four necessary to parametrize a general single qubit unitary transformation. It is of course possible to apply a mixed strategy, using two or more different polarisations for the test state, for example, a choice of two different polarisations with probability 1/2 each. One will then have a nonzero probability of detecting any kind of difference in $`U`$ and $`V`$, even if the overall difference detection probability does not increase.

It is possible to further generalise the argument to any strategy where at most one particle passes through $`U`$ or $`V`$, but allowing for example entanglement with an environment. The general input state then reads

$`|\psi _{in}`$ $`=`$ $`c|+_u|0_v|\varphi _c_E+d|_u|0_v|\varphi _d_E+e|0_u|+_v|\varphi _e_E`$ (18)
$`+`$ $`f|0_u|_v|\varphi _f_E+g|0_u|0_v|\varphi _g_E,`$
where $`|+_{u,v}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right)_{u,v}`$ and $`|_{u,v}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}\right)_{u,v}`$ refer to single photons in the $`u`$ or $`v`$ path. The vacuum state $`|0_{u,v}`$ denotes that no photons are present in the $`u`$ or $`v`$ path. The states $`|\varphi _E`$ are arbitrary but fixed environment states, describing the state of any particles which $`U`$ and $`V`$ will not explicitly act on, and may be selected so as to optimise the strategy. The constants $`c,d,e,f`$ and $`g`$, whose absolute values sum to 1, are also chosen to optimise the strategy.

The transforms $`U`$ and $`V`$ are then allowed to act in their respective paths, giving an output state $`|\psi _{out}`$ exactly as before. By measuring $`|\psi _{out}`$, we now have to judge whether $`U`$ and $`V`$ are different or not. Any generalised measurement strategy may be described as a projective measurement in a higher-dimensional Hilbert space per . A requirement for an unambiguous comparison strategy is therefore that there exists at least one measurement state

$`|\psi _{diff}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{c}|+_u|0_v|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\stackrel{~}{c}}_E+\stackrel{~}{d}|_u|0_v|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\stackrel{~}{d}}_E+\stackrel{~}{e}|0_u|+_v|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\stackrel{~}{e}}_E`$ (19)
$`+`$ $`\stackrel{~}{f}|0_u|_v|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\stackrel{~}{f}}_E+\stackrel{~}{g}|0_u|0_v|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\stackrel{~}{g}}_E`$
which is orthogonal to the output state $`|\psi _{out,U=V}`$ whenever $`U`$ and $`V`$ are identical. Here, $`|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_E`$ denote environment states, and $`\stackrel{~}{c},\stackrel{~}{d},\stackrel{~}{e},\stackrel{~}{f}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ are constants. There may exist several linearly independent measurement states, as in the explicit example above.

As for the vacuum part of the general input state (18), the fact that the orthogonality condition has to hold for all $`\phi _u=\phi _v`$ leads to the requirement

$$\stackrel{~}{g}^{}g\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\stackrel{~}{g}}|\varphi _g=0,$$
(20)
and although it is possible to have $`g0`$, after a quick consideration one realises that $`g=0`$ is optimal: Due to condition (20), a nonzero $`g`$ will not contribute to the success probability, but can only decrease it, since a nonzero $`g`$ forces the absolute values of $`c`$, $`d`$, $`e`$ and $`f`$ to be smaller.

To investigate whether entanglement with the environment may be useful or not, let us not embark on any lengthy algebraic calculation, but instead use an intuitive argument. In the general input state (18), if $`|\varphi _c_E|\varphi _e_E`$ or $`|\varphi _d_E|\varphi _f_E`$, then it is possible to obtain which-path information, that is, knowledge about whether the single photon passed through $`U`$ or $`V`$, by a measurement on the environment. This inevitably degrades the success rate of the comparison, which relies on our inability to determine whether the photon passed through $`U`$ or $`V`$ in the same way which-path information degrades the visibility in an interferometer. We are thus led to $`|\varphi _c_E=|\varphi _e_E`$ and $`|\varphi _d_E=|\varphi _f_E`$. On the other hand, if $`|\varphi _c_E=|\varphi _e_E|\varphi _d_E=|\varphi _f_E`$, this may be used to realise a mixed strategy employing either the test polarisation $`|+`$ or $`|`$ with desired probabilities. If $`|\varphi _c|\varphi _d`$, the selection is made by a detection of the environment state in the $`\{|\varphi _c_E,|\varphi _d_E\}`$ basis. This will not affect the comparison success probability, as it is independent of the polarisation of the test state.

In applications such as dense coding dense , entanglement may be used to enhance the distinguishability of a set of unitary transforms. This is partly due to the enlarged Hilbert space arising from having two qubits instead of one. Here we have effectively enlarged the dimension of the avaliable Hilbert space from two to four by introducing and extra degree of freedom — a choice of two paths — to a single qubit (photon), without the explicit use of entanglement. As another option, entanglement between two photons, one passing through $`U`$, the other through $`V`$, may enhance the comparison success rate, not always, but in certain cases. This will be considered next.

### II.2 Two qubit singlet strategy

Let us consider a strategy which involves the use of a singlet state. Experimentally, a singlet state of two photons may be prepared using parametric down-conversion. The test input state reads

$$|\psi _{in}=|\psi ^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right)_u\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}\right)_v\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}\right)_u\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right)_v\right].$$
(21)
The singlet has the property that it remains invariant under the action of any two-particle transformation of the form $`U_uU_v`$.

The output state after passing through the transform $`U_uV_v`$ as in Fig. 3 reads

$`|\psi _{out}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i(\phi _u+\phi _v)}[Re(a_ua_v^{}+b_ub_v^{})|\psi _{in}+iIm(a_ua_v^{}+b_ub_v^{})|\psi ^++`$ (22)
$`Re(b_ua_va_ub_v)|\mathrm{\Phi }^++iIm(b_ua_va_ub_v)|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}],`$
where

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right)_u\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right)_v\pm \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}\right)_u\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}\right)_v\right]$$
(23)
and

$$|\psi ^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right)_u\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}\right)_v\pm \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}\right)_u\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right)_v\right]$$
(24)
are the Bell states. If $`U=V`$, then the output state is

$$|\psi _{out}=e^{2i\phi }|\psi _{in}.$$
(25)
If the output state is found in any Bell state other than the singlet, then this indicates that the transformations are different. This requires a projection onto the antisymmetric versus the symmetric subspace, and may be implemented with a non-polarising beam splitter zeil . The overall success probability reads

$$P_{diff}=1[Re(a_ua_v^{}+b_ub_v^{})]^2.$$
(26)
The averaged success rate, in analogy with Eq. (13), is found to be 3/4. This is because the measurement space, spanned by the three Bell states other than the singlet, is now three-dimensional. We should note that it is also possible to start with any $`|\psi _{in}`$ in the subspace $`\widehat{1}|\psi ^{}\psi ^{}|`$ orthogonal to the singlet state, whereby a detection of the output state in $`|\psi ^{}`$ indicates that the transforms were different. In this case, however, the comparison success rate will be only 1/4, since the measurement space now has only one dimension out of four.

The singlet strategy can discriminate between all possible $`SU(2)`$ transformations, but cannot detect global phase differences $`\phi _u\phi _v`$. This means that, like the single photon strategy, it can detect differences in three of the four parameters. Two runs of the single photon strategy with average success rate 1/2 each will have the same overall success rate, 3/4, as one run of the singlet strategy. Thus it would seem as if the use of entanglement carries limited advantage. However, in the strictest sense of the requirement “only one use of $`U`$ and $`V`$ are allowed”, two runs of the single photon strategy would not be permitted, even if the average number of photons passing through $`U`$ and $`V`$ is one each. Also, the singlet strategy is more efficient when it comes to detecting small differences in the $`SU(2)`$ part of $`U`$ and $`V`$. For a difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =\theta _u\theta _v`$, the single photon and singlet strategies have difference detection probabilities of $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ and $`\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ respectively, meaning that for a small difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$, the singlet strategy is a factor of four better than the one-photon strategy, or a factor of two better than two single photon runs. On the other hand, the single-photon interferometric scheme is capable of detecting overall phase differences, where the singlet strategy fails. The choice of strategy depends on the type of difference to be detected. As already noted above, the single photon strategy introduces extra degrees of freedom to a single photon in allowing two different paths, so that the dimensionality of the test space for in the single photon strategy (four) equals that of the singlet strategy (four).

### II.3 A non-entangled two particle strategy

We may also compare the singlet strategy to a non-entangled two particle strategy based on state comparison steve . Starting with two particles in the same state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, apply $`U`$ to one of them and $`V`$ to the other, as in Fig. 4.

There exists no unambiguous test telling us whether the particles are still the same state, but if they are found to be different, then we can infer that $`U`$ and $`V`$ must have been different. The probability for this strategy to succeed in detecting a difference in $`U|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`V|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is steve

$$P_{diff}=\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }|\psi ^{}\psi ^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{2}(1|\mathrm{\Psi }|U^{}V|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2).$$
(27)
Choosing $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right)`$ (the integrated overall success probability cannot depend on the state chosen if the transforms are completely unknown), and using the facts that $`Re(a_ua_v^{}+b_ub_v^{})=Re(a_ua_v^{}+b_u^{}b_v)|a_ua_v^{}+b_ub_v^{}|=|\mathrm{\Psi }|U^{}V|\mathrm{\Psi }|`$ and $`Re(a_ua_v^{}+b_ub_v^{})1`$, this can be seen to be less than or equal to the success probability of the singlet strategy. The difference in comparison with the singlet strategy is a manifestation of gain due to entanglement. The overall averaged success probability for one run of the non-entangled two-photon strategy is 1/4. This may be realised by integrating Eq. (27) directly, or by noting that detecting $`U|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`V|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ as different corresponds to finding them in an antisymmetric state, in other words, in $`|\psi ^{}`$, which is one of four orthogonal basis states.

An advantage of the single photon and non-entangled strategies is that they are easily generalised to comparison of many transforms and transforms of higher dimension, as will be seen below.

## III Comparison of many unitary qubit transforms

It is straightforward to generalise the single photon comparison strategy to the case when $`N`$ $`2\times 2`$ unitary transformations are to be compared. Denote the transforms by $`U_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, where

$$U_i=e^{i\phi _i}\left(\begin{array}{cc}a_i& \hfill b_i\\ b_i^{}& \hfill a_i^{}\end{array}\right).$$
(28)
We want to find a strategy which tells us when all $`U_i`$ are not identical, that is, when at least one $`U_i`$ differs from the rest. In analogy with the comparison between two $`2\times 2`$ unitary transforms, use the single photon test state

$$|\psi _{in}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right)_i,$$
(29)
where $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right)_i`$ and $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}\right)_i`$ are the basis states (e.g. polarisation) of a particle in the path going through $`U_i`$. This test state may be obtained using a non-polarising beam splitter, which is a linear device splitting an incident particle into $`N`$ different paths with equal probability $`1/N`$ each, independent of the polarisation igor . As when comparing two transforms, the same freedom in choosing the polarisation applies here; as long as the polarisation is the same in all paths, any polarisation may be used. After action with $`U_i`$ in the different paths the output state reads

$$|\psi _{out}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}e^{i\phi _i}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a_i}{b_i^{}}\right)_i.$$
(30)
If all $`U_i`$ are identical, meaning $`a_i=a,b_i=b`$, and $`\phi _i=\phi `$ for all $`i`$, then

$$|\psi _{out,id}=\frac{e^{i\phi }}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a}{b^{}}\right)_i=e^{i\phi }\left[a\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right)_i+b^{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}\right)_i\right]e^{i\phi }(a|\mathrm{\Psi }_{id}^1+b^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{id}^2).$$
(31)
This state is orthogonal to states of the form

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{ij}^1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right)_i\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right)_j\right],|\mathrm{\Psi }_{ij}^2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}\right)_i\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}\right)_j\right],ij.$$
(32)
These states form an overcomplete basis for the subspace orthogonal to the one spanned by states of the form (31). Whenever the photon is detected in this orthogonal subspace, this shows unambiguously that at least one of the $`U_i`$ was not identical to the others. The detection can be effected by combining the $`N`$ paths with a second non-polarising $`2N`$-port beam splitter, similar to the one used for the test state preparation. The state $`|\psi _{out,id}`$ will then be mapped onto $`e^{i\phi }\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a}{b^{}}\right)_1,`$ and whenever the photon is exiting in a path $`i1`$, we know that the $`U_i`$ were not all the same.

The success probability to detect a difference reads

$`P_{diff,N}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1;i>j}{\overset{N}{}}}\psi _{out}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{ij}^1\mathrm{\Psi }_{ij}^1|\psi _{out}+\psi _{out}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{ij}^2\mathrm{\Psi }_{ij}^2|\psi _{out}`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1;i>j}{\overset{N}{}}}(|e^{i\phi _i}a_ie^{i\phi _j}a_j|^2+|e^{i\phi _i}b_ie^{i\phi _j}b_j|^2).`$
To obtain the overall success probability to detect differences in $`N`$ transforms, we should integrate $`P_{diff,N}`$ over all possible transforms $`U_i`$. Alternatively, we may use

$$P_{diff,N}=1\psi _{out}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{id}^1\mathrm{\Psi }_{id}^1|\psi _{out}\psi _{out}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{id}^2\mathrm{\Psi }_{id}^2|\psi _{out}.$$
(34)
Integrating this over $`U_i`$, we obtain $`\overline{P}_{diff,N}=11/N`$. Again, this is consistent with the fact that the dimension of the subspace spanned by the states in Eq. (32) is $`2N2`$, the dimension of the total Hilbert space being $`2N`$, so that $`\overline{P}_{diff,N}=(2N2)/2N=11/N`$. As the number of transforms grows, it is, loosely speaking, more likely that at least one of them differs from the rest, and our probability to detect a difference approaches unity. Of course, for any number of transforms selected at random, the chance that they are all exactly equal is zero; in this sense, the probability for randomly selected transforms to be different is one. But when the number of transforms increase, our probability of unambiguously detecting a difference also approaches unity.

In analogy with the non-entangled two particle comparison strategy for two transforms in Sec. II.3, it is also possible to compare many unitary transforms by applying each transform to a copy of a state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, and then comparing the states. Whenever all the transforms are identical, all the states will also be identical, and the total state will be symmetric. Thus, whenever the joint state of all the test particles is found outside the totally symmetric subspace, the transforms cannot all have been identical. (The particles may be distinguished through their spatial locations, otherwise we could not apply one unitary transform to each specific particle.) The overall comparison success rate $`\overline{P}_{diff}`$ will be equal to $`1D_s/2^N`$, where $`2`$ is the dimension of each unitary transform, $`N`$ is the number of transforms to be compared and $`D_s`$ is the dimension of the totally symmetric subspace for $`N`$ $`2`$-dimensional systems.

For example, for comparing three $`2\times 2`$ transforms, one may construct the three-particle states

$$|\psi _{ij}^0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|01_{ij}|10_{ij})|0_k\mathrm{and}|\psi _{ij}^1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|01_{ij}|10_{ij})|1_k,$$
(35)
where $`i,j,k`$ may be any permutation of 1,2,3, referring to the three particles, and $`|0`$, $`|1`$ are the single particle basis states. The projector onto the non-totally symmetric subspace may then be formed as

$$\widehat{1}\widehat{P}_{symm}=\frac{1}{3}\underset{ij}{}\left(|\psi _{ij}^0\psi _{ij}^0|+|\psi _{ij}^1\psi _{ij}^1|\right).$$
(36)
It follows that this method is related to pairwise comparison of the particle states.

## IV Comparison of unitary transforms of higher dimension

It is also possible to consider comparison of unitary transforms with a dimension higher than $`2\times 2`$. Below we will briefly suggest strategies for this. Physically, a $`4\times 4`$ transform may describe a two-qubit operation, or a single-particle operation on a single physical system with four dimensions. A “mathematical” comparison strategy derived for comparing $`4\times 4`$ unitary transforms would work in both cases, but the physical implementations are different.

As before, we have to act with the transforms on a test state, which may be a multi-particle state, selecting the test state and the way the transforms are used so that certain outcomes indicate unambiguously that the transforms were different. It is straightforward to generalise the single-particle strategy used above; we will sketch the extension here. Let us consider the case of two $`M\times M`$ unitary matrices $`U`$ and $`V`$, with matrix elements $`a_{ij}`$ and $`b_{ij}`$. Denote the $`M`$ basis states in the $`u`$ and $`v`$ paths by $`|i_{u,v}`$, where $`i=1,\mathrm{}M.`$ Using the test state

$$|\psi _{in}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|1_u+|1_v),$$
(37)
we may compare the first columns of $`U`$ and $`V`$. The test state

$$|\psi _{in}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|i_u+|i_v)$$
(38)
compares the $`i`$th columns of $`U`$ and $`V`$. If a general comparison of all columns is desired, then we may employ a mixed strategy, e.g. selecting the $`M`$ states (38) with probability $`1/M`$ each. The success probability to detect a difference in $`U`$ and $`V`$ for this mixed strategy is

$$P_{diff}=\frac{1}{4M}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{M}{}}|a_{ij}b_{ij}|^2.$$
(39)
If $`U`$ and $`V`$ are single particle transforms, then this is still a true single particle comparison strategy, meaning that it is possible to implement for example with linear optics. Otherwise, if $`U`$ and $`V`$ are multi-particle operations, the test state is a multi-particle state, the basis states $`|i`$ being multi-particle states. It is a straightforward mathematical task to generalise this type of comparison strategy to the case of more than two $`M\times M`$ transforms. The averaged comparison success probability will be $`11/N`$, where $`N`$ is the number of transforms.

The singlet strategy in Sec. II.2 employed the concept of an invariant subspace, as the singlet is invariant under $`UU`$. When comparing $`N`$ $`N`$-dimensional unitary transforms, it is possible to generalise this idea. A totally antisymmetric state of $`N`$ $`N`$-dimensional particles (a Slater determinant) is invariant if the same unitary transform is applied to all $`N`$ particles. Detection of the system in any other state than the totally antisymmetric state after application of one transform to each particle therefore means that the transforms cannot all have been identical. It is here understood that the Slater determinant refers to the internal degree of freedom of the $`N`$ particles, which may be distinguished because of different spatial location. Otherwise we could not apply one specific transform to each particle. The dimension of the total internal Hilbert space is therefore $`N^N`$, and, since there is only one totally antisymmetric state, the averaged comparison success probability is 1-1$`/N^N`$. This may be compared with the averaged success probability of the single particle strategy, $`11/N`$. A non-entangled strategy based on state comparison succeeds with a probability 1-$`D_s/N^N`$, where $`D_s`$ is the dimension of the totally symmetric subspace.

If the number of transforms to be compared is not equal to their dimensionality, then we still have to look for the lowest dimensional invariant subspaces. We may choose a test state lying in the lowest dimensional invariant subspace available, apply the transforms to be compared, and then check whether the output state remains in the same subspace or not. Strictly speaking the subspace does not even have to be invariant, it will suffice if we are able to unambiguously predict in which subspace $`H_{id}`$ the output state will lie if the transforms are identical. An output state in the space complementary to $`H_{id}`$ will then indicate a difference in the transforms. The comparison of two two-qubit transformations, for instance, would require us to work with the following four-particle states:

$`|\psi _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|1_1|0_2|0_3|1_4|0_1|1_2|1_3|0_4)`$
$`|\psi _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|1_1|1_2|0_3|0_4|0_1|0_2|1_3|1_4)`$
$`|\psi _3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|1_1|1_3(|0_2|1_4|1_2|0_4)`$ (40)
$`|\psi _4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|0_1|0_3(|0_2|1_4|1_2|0_4)`$
$`|\psi _5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|0_2|0_4(|0_1|1_3|1_1|0_3)`$
$`|\psi _6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|1_2|1_4(|0_1|1_3|1_1|0_3).`$
These states span the non-totally symmetric subspace ($`|0`$ and $`|1`$ are the qubit basis states). Its complementary subspace is the symmetric subspace, which is ten-dimensional. A test state lying either in the subspace spanned by the states (IV) or in the totally symmetric subspace will remain in the same subspace whenever the two transforms are identical. A detection of the output state in the complementary subspace therefore unambiguously implies that the transforms were different. Starting in the lower dimensional non-totally symmetric subspace, however, will yield a higher comparison success probability, $`D_s/4^2=10/16`$, as opposed to $`110/16`$ when starting in the ten-dimensional symmetric subspace.

The non-entangled strategy based on state comparison makes use of the totally symmetric subspace as a starting space. We may use it for comparing any number of unitary transforms of any dimension, by acting with the transforms to be compared upon copies of a test state, and then comparing all the test states. Although an entangled strategy may perform better, because it can use an invariant subspace with a lower dimension, a non-entangled strategy may be easier to implement experimentally. The single particle strategy is clearly the easiest to realise. Its success probability also scales favorably as $`11/N`$ with the number of transforms.

## V Some remarks on comparison of partially known transforms

If we have additional information about the transforms, then we may use this knowledge in selecting the test state and the way in which to use the (single) copies of the transforms available, and in how to detect differences and similarities from the output state. This is possible whatever strategy chosen, using a single particle or a many particle test state, for unambiguous and minimum-error strategies, or for any other type of comparison strategy. The same freedom to select for example entangled test states applies.

It will always be possible to use the universal comparison strategies considered above, but it may be possible to improve on the success probability $`P_{diff}`$, and also to obtain an unambiguous answer that the transformations are identical. This is the case if the two transforms are known to be members of a given set, e.g. $`\{U_1,U_2\}`$. There are then four possibilities for the output state, depending on whether $`U=V=U_1`$, $`U=V=U_2`$, $`U_1=UV=U_2`$, or $`U_2=UV=U_1`$, and we have to distinguish the two former ones from the two latter ones. In other words, we have to distinguish the subspace spanned by the two output states when $`U=V`$ from the subspace spanned by the output states when $`UV`$. In general, these two subspaces are nonorthogonal, and cannot be perfectly discriminated. But in analogy with state discrimination, it will be possible to unambiguously distinguish these two possibilities, allowing for inconclusive results. It will be possible to obtain an unambiguous answer not only that $`U`$ and $`V`$ are different, but also that they are identical. We could also choose to make a minimum-error measurement.

If we are given the information that $`U`$ and $`V`$ are both controlled-NOT gates, but not in which basis, then, if they have the same basis, $`UV`$ will be the identity operator. This implies that if $`UV`$ applied to a state changes the state, the bases of the two controlled-NOT gates $`U`$ and $`V`$ must have been different, and this can be used for comparison. This same argument may be useful when any cyclic transformations are to be compared.

## VI Conclusions

In this paper we have considered the situation where one is interested in whether two or more unitary transforms are the same or different. No knowledge about the individual transforms is desired, only whether there is a difference or not. It is indeed possible to compare the transforms without first estimating them. A “trial” copy of a transform may also be compared to a master copy. This can be used to test for defects in the “trial” copy, and may, in this sense, be used as a way of transformation estimation. We have considered unambiguous comparison strategies, which allows us to make confident statements about the transforms. When the transforms are completely unknown, it is not possible to obtain an unambiguous result that the transforms are identical, but it is possible to detect them as different.

We have treated the case of comparing two $`2\times 2`$ unitary transforms in depth, and made some generalisations. Three types of unambiguous comparison strategies were derived: a single particle strategy, a singlet strategy employing the concept of invariant subspaces, and a non-entangled two particle strategy. Success probabilities are calculated for these strategies. Obvious extensions to the present work include a deeper treatment of transformation comparison when there is knowledge about the transforms.

The conceptual connection to state comparison is obvious steve . One may also draw an analogy to the Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm for determining whether a function is balanced or constant with a single application of the function deutsch . Here, the function values are not interesting, only whether the function is balanced or equal. Similarly, we have devised strategies for determining whether unitary transforms are different or not, without obtaining information about what the transforms actually are. The feature that collective information may be obtained without knowledge of the parts of a system is characteristic of many quantum algorithms vs. their classical counterparts. It is connected to the possibility of choosing the measurement basis for a quantum system more freely than for a classical system.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the Scottish Executive Education and Lifelong Learning Department. The financial support by GACR 202/01/0318 and EU IST-1999-13021 for I.J., and by the EU Marie Curie program, project number HPMF-CT-2000-00933 for E. A. is gratefully acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# Bouncing Braneworlds

## Abstract

We study cosmological braneworld models with a single timelike extra dimension. Such models admit the intriguing possibility that a contracting braneworld experiences a natural bounce without ever reaching a singular state. This feature persists in the case of anisotropic braneworlds under some additional and not very restrictive assumptions. Generalizing our study to braneworld models containing an induced brane curvature term, we find that a FRW-type singularity is once again absent if the bulk extra dimension is timelike. In this case, the universe either has a non-singular origin or commences its expansion from a quasi-singular state during which both the Hubble parameter and the energy density and pressure remain finite while the curvature tensor diverges. The non-singular and quasi-singular behaviour which we have discovered differs both qualitatively and quantitatively from what is usually observed in braneworld models with spacelike extra dimensions and could have interesting cosmological implications.

Following the seminal papers , most braneworld models with extra dimensions assume that extra dimensions are spacelike, so that the brane is embedded in a Lorentzian multidimensional manifold. However, there is no a priori reason why extra dimensions cannot be timelike, and the observational constraints on such braneworld models were discussed in . More recently, such models were under consideration in . In this letter, we demonstrate that a timelike extra dimension could, in the case of the simplest braneworld model, lead to interesting new features. For instance, a contracting braneworld generically bounces as it reaches a high density thereby leading to the absence of the ‘big crunch’ and ‘big bang’ singularities of general relativity. We consider both Friedmann–Robertson–Walker (FRW) and Bianchi I scenarios and demonstrate that, under some additional and not very restrictive assumptions, the presence of anisotropy does not modify this conclusion.

In this letter, we consider the case where a four-dimensional hypersurface (brane) is the boundary of a five-dimensional Riemannian manifold (bulk) with nondegenerate Lorentzian induced metric. The action of the theory has the natural general form

$$S=M^3\left[_{\mathrm{b}ulk}\left(2\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)2ϵ_{\mathrm{b}rane}K\right]+_{\mathrm{b}rane}\left(m^2R2\sigma \right)+_{\mathrm{b}rane}L(h_{ab},\varphi ).$$
(1)
Here, $``$ is the scalar curvature of the five-dimensional metric $`g_{ab}`$ in the bulk, and $`R`$ is the scalar curvature of the induced metric $`h_{ab}=g_{ab}ϵn_an_b`$ on the brane, where $`n^a`$ is the vector field of the inner unit normal to the brane. The quantity $`K=K_{ab}h^{ab}`$ is the trace of the symmetric tensor of extrinsic curvature $`K_{ab}=h^c{}_{a}{}^{}_{c}^{}n_b`$ of the brane. The parameter $`ϵ=1`$ if the signature of the bulk space is Lorentzian, so that the extra dimension is spacelike, and $`ϵ=1`$ if the signature is $`(,,+,+,+)`$, so that the extra dimension is timelike. Since the induced metric on the brane is assumed to be Lorentzian, the signature of the extra dimension coincides with the type of the unit normal $`n^a`$ to the brane. The symbol $`L(h_{ab},\varphi )`$ denotes the Lagrangian density of the four-dimensional matter fields $`\varphi `$ the dynamics of which is restricted to the brane so that they interact only with the induced metric $`h_{ab}`$. All integrations over the bulk and brane are taken with the natural volume elements $`\sqrt{ϵg}d^5x`$ and $`\sqrt{h}d^4x`$, respectively, where $`g`$ and $`h`$ are the determinants of the matrices of components of the metric in the bulk and of the induced metric on the brane, respectively, in the coordinate basis. The symbols $`M`$ and $`m`$ denote, respectively, the five-dimensional and four-dimensional Planck masses, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the five-dimensional cosmological constant, and $`\sigma `$ is the brane tension. In this paper, we use the notation and conventions of .

Variation of action (1) gives the equation of motion in the five-dimensional bulk:

$$𝒢_{ab}+\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{ab}=0,$$
(2)
and on the brane:

$$m^2G_{ab}+\sigma h_{ab}=ϵM^3S_{ab}+\tau _{ab},$$
(3)
where $`𝒢_{ab}`$ and $`G_{ab}`$ are the Einstein’s tensors of the corresponding spaces, $`S_{ab}K_{ab}Kh_{ab}`$, and $`\tau _{ab}`$ denotes the four-dimensional stress–energy tensor of matter on the brane.

Using the Gauss relation on the brane, one obtains the constraint equation

$$ϵ\left(R2\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)+K_{ab}K^{ab}K^2=0.$$
(4)
Then, expressing the extrinsic curvature $`K_{ab}`$ from (3), one obtains the following scalar equation on the brane :

$$ϵM^6\left(R2\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)+\left(m^2G_{ab}+\sigma h_{ab}\tau _{ab}\right)\left(m^2G^{ab}+\sigma h^{ab}\tau ^{ab}\right)\frac{1}{3}\left(m^2R4\sigma +\tau \right)^2=0,$$
(5)
where $`\tau =h^{ab}\tau _{ab}`$.

Before proceeding further, we pose to discuss the significance of the timelike character of the extra dimension. We emphasize that, in the theory under consideration, the extra dimension is accessible only for the gravitational field, while all matter fields are constrained to the brane and are propagating on the background of the induced Lorentzian metric. Thus, the dynamics of the matter fields on the brane has the standard properties of quantum field theory in curved Lorentzian spacetime, and the effect of the extra timelike dimension tells only in the gravitational sector. An important issue demanding further investigation is related to the tachyonic nature of the Kaluza–Klein gravitational modes that could in principle lead to violation of causality and unitarity on the brane. Some discussion of this issue within the context of braneworld models with more than one time like dimension can be found in .

In passing, we mention that a generalization of the Randall–Sundrum solution  to the case of arbitrary signature of the extra dimension and arbitrary Ricci-flat vacuum brane can be written in the form

$$ds^2=ϵdy^2+\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{ϵ\sigma }{3M^3}y\right)h_{\alpha \beta }(x)dx^\alpha dx^\beta ,$$
(6)
where $`h_{\alpha \beta }(x)`$ are the components of the Ricci-flat metric on the brane, which is situated at $`y=0`$, and the bulk coordinate is in the range $`y0`$. Equation (6) is supplemented by the constraint $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{e}ff}=0`$, where the expression for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{e}ff}`$ is given by Eq. (10) below. One can see that, for $`ϵ=1`$ and negative brane tension $`\sigma `$, the gravity appears to be ‘localized’ at the brane (it is, perhaps, more appropriate to speak of ‘deflation’ in the case of timelike extra dimension).

In this letter, we study cosmological implications of this braneworld theory. We first consider a homogeneous and isotropic cosmological model with the cosmological time $`t`$, scale factor $`a(t)`$, energy density $`\rho (t)`$, and pressure $`p(t)`$. In this case, by integrating Eq. (5), one obtains the following equation :

$$m^4\left(H^2+\frac{\kappa }{a^2}\frac{\rho +\sigma }{3m^2}\right)^2=ϵM^6\left(H^2+\frac{\kappa }{a^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6}\frac{C}{a^4}\right),$$
(7)
where $`C`$ is the integration constant, $`H\dot{a}/a`$, and $`\kappa =0,\pm 1`$ corresponds to the spatial curvature of the universe. For $`m=0`$, which corresponds to the Randall–Sundrum limit , this equation reduces to

$$H^2+\frac{\kappa }{a^2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6}+\frac{ϵ\sigma ^2}{9M^6}+\frac{2ϵ\sigma \rho }{M^6}+\frac{ϵ\rho ^2}{M^6}+\frac{C}{a^4}.$$
(8)
Introducing the notation

$$G_\mathrm{N}=\frac{3ϵ\sigma }{4\pi M^6},$$
(9)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}+\frac{ϵ\sigma ^2}{3M^6},$$
(10)
one can write Eq. (8) as follows:

$$H^2+\frac{\kappa }{a^2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{e}ff}}{3}+\frac{8\pi G_\mathrm{N}\rho }{3}+\frac{ϵ\rho ^2}{M^6}+\frac{C}{a^4}.$$
(11)
Thus, $`G_\mathrm{N}`$ is the effective gravitational constant, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{e}ff}`$ is the effective cosmological constant on the brane. (For $`ϵ=1`$, Eq. (11) reduces to the well-known results .)

A FRW universe described by (11) is embedded in the bulk with the metric

$$ds^2=f(r)du^2+\frac{ϵdr^2}{f(r)}+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa ,$$
(12)
where

$$f(r)=ϵ\left(\kappa \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }r^2}{6}\frac{C}{r^2}\right)$$
(13)
and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa `$ is the standard Euclidean three-dimensional metric corresponding to $`\kappa `$, which satisfies the vacuum bulk equation (2). The position of the brane is described by the equation $`r=a(u)`$.

The function $`f(r)`$ is assumed to be positive in the domain of action of the coordinate $`r`$, which, in particular, implies that at least one of the constants $`\kappa `$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or $`C`$ must be nonzero. Metric (12) has singularities and horizons in the bulk for certain values of the constants. We will not concern ourselves with this issue, assuming that such singularities can be avoided, for instance, by the introduction of another brane. Although the presence of another brane can affect the evolution and spectrum of perturbations (as in the case in the Randall–Sundrum model), it does not modify the general equations of the cosmological evolution of the brane.

We first discuss some interesting consequences of Eq. (8) or (11) for $`ϵ=1`$. Specifically, as we briefly noted in , the fact that the $`\rho ^2`$ term on the right-hand side of (11) has a negative sign, leads a contracting universe to bounce instead of reaching the singular state $`\rho \mathrm{}`$, $`R_{abcd}R^{abcd}\mathrm{}`$ — typical of general relativistic ‘big crunch’ singularities. In order that the subsequent evolution of the universe be compatible with observations, one requires the brane tension $`\sigma `$ to be negative so that the effective gravitational constant, given by (9), is positive. The additional requirement that the bounce take place at densities greater than that during cosmological nucleosynthesis leads to the constraint  |σ|>

(1MeV)4𝜎>

superscript1MeV4|\sigma|\ \lower-1.5pt\vbox{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{$>$\hss}\lower 5.3pt\vbox{\hbox{$\sim$}}}}\ (1{\rm MeV})^{4}. Since $`ϵ=1`$, a braneworld with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}0`$ in (10), must have a positive bulk cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$.

As the universe collapses to high densities, the negative $`\rho ^2`$ term grows much faster than the remaining terms on the right-hand side of (11) leading to $`H0`$ and to the inevitable bounce of the braneworld. This feature appears to be quite generic, since it depends neither upon the equation of state of matter nor upon the spatial curvature of the universe. The simplest singularity-free bouncing braneworld model (with $`C`$, $`\kappa `$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ equal to zero) has the form

$$H^2=\frac{8\pi G_\mathrm{N}\rho }{3}\frac{\rho ^2}{M^6}.$$
(14)
An example of a bouncing universe containing radiation is shown in Fig. 1. It is easy to show that a spatially closed universe ($`\kappa =1`$) with matter satisfying $`\rho +3p>0`$ will be ‘cyclic’ in the sense that it will pass through an infinite number of nonsingular expanding-collapsing epochs. As demonstrated in , a massive scalar field in such a universe usually leads to an increase in the amplitude of consecutive expansion cycles and to a gradual amelioration of the flatness problem.

In passing, we note that cosmological braneworld equations with $`\rho ^2`$ correction terms of negative sign on the right-hand side were also recently discussed in  in the context of the Randall–Sundrum two-brane model with a bulk scalar field stabilizing the radion. We also note that bouncing and cyclic braneworlds were discussed in  in the context of the usual theory with spacelike extra dimension where the bulk metric is that of a charged anti de Sitter black hole. In this case, the bounce occurs if the black-hole charge is sufficiently high. In our model, the bounce is quite a generic feature.

Next, let us consider the case of a homogeneous but anisotropic braneworld described by the Bianchi I metric

$$ds^2=dt^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}a_i^2(t)\left(dx^i\right)^2.$$
(15)
In this case, Eq. (5) with $`m=0`$ gives the following closed equation on the brane:

$$6\dot{H}+12H^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(H_iH\right)^2=4\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{e}ff}+\frac{2ϵ}{3M^6}\left[\sigma (\rho 3p)\rho (\rho +3p)\right],$$
(16)
where we used the notation of (10) and

$$H_i=\frac{\dot{a}_i}{a_i},H=\frac{1}{3}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}H_i=\frac{\dot{a}}{a},a=\left(a_1a_2a_3\right)^{1/3}.$$
(17)
The last term on the left-hand side of Eq. (16) is the shear scalar of the spatial section of the universe: $`\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(H_iH\right)^2\sigma _{\alpha \beta }\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }`$. Because of the presence of this term, and because the evolution of the shear tensor $`\sigma _{\alpha \beta }`$ is not specified on the brane (see ), Eq. (16) cannot be integrated completely, but the result of its integration can be written in the form

$$H^2+\frac{1}{3a^4}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(H_iH\right)^2a^3\dot{a}dt=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{e}ff}}{3}+\frac{8\pi G_\mathrm{N}\rho }{3}+\frac{ϵ\rho ^2}{M^6}+\frac{C}{a^4},$$
(18)
where the notation is the same as in (9) and (10). We emphasize that Eq. (18) describing the evolution of the Bianchi I brane is absolutely general.

As we noted, the behaviour of the second term on the left-hand side is not specified and, in principle, can be arbitrary. Nevertheless, our conclusion about the bounce of the contracting universe in the case of a timelike extra dimension ($`ϵ=1`$) remains valid as long as the shear scalar $`\sigma _{\alpha \beta }\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(H_iH\right)^2`$ does not grow faster than $`a^8`$ as $`a0`$ during the contraction of a radiation dominated universe. As before, the bounce is caused by the negative $`\rho ^2`$ term on the right-hand side. However, in the case of the anisotropic model, the bounce is taking place only as regards the overall expansion $`\dot{a}/a`$, while the behaviour of the shear tensor remains unspecified in general; this leaves open the possibility that such a universe bounces only in a given spatial patch.

As an example of bouncing behaviour, the shear can be specified  by the additional assumption that the so-called nonlocal energy density on the brane $`𝒰`$, which is determined by the projection of the Weyl tensor to the brane, either vanishes or is negligible. This leads to

$$\sigma _{\alpha \beta }\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(H_iH\right)^2=\frac{6\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}{a^6},\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{c}onst,$$
(19)
which clearly reinforces our earlier conclusion about the bounce. Indeed, the integral in Eq. (18) can now be evaluated to give

$$H^2=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{e}ff}}{3}+\frac{8\pi G_\mathrm{N}\rho }{3}+\frac{ϵ\rho ^2}{M^6}+\frac{C}{a^4}+\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}{a^6},$$
(20)
and it is immediately clear that the $`\rho ^2`$ term on the right-hand side, which grows as $`a^8`$ during the radiation-dominated contraction stage, dominates over the last (shear) term. The same result is obtained in a slightly more general setup , if the nonlocal energy density $`𝒰`$ is assumed to behave like radiation, $`𝒰a^4`$. Note that, although the universe bounces, the behaviour of the individual components of the shear tensor $`\sigma _{\alpha \beta }`$ (hence also of the individual components $`H_i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$) is not fully specified in the above examples.

The collapse of a scalar-field dominated universe is even more likely to lead to a bounce because the energy density $`\rho _\varphi `$ of the field $`\varphi `$ during contraction becomes kinetic-dominated, $`\dot{\varphi }^2/2V(\varphi )`$, so that $`\rho _\varphi a^6`$, which makes the $`\rho ^2`$ term in (11) grow much faster than in the case of radiation .

So far, we have been assuming $`m=0`$ in the action (1). Let us return to a homogeneous and isotropic universe but drop this constraint, i.e., extend our study to braneworld models whose action contains the induced curvature term on the brane. The cosmological equation (7) corresponding to this model can be solved with respect to the Hubble parameter:

$`H^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{a^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho +\sigma }{3m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2ϵ}{\mathrm{}^2}}\left[1\pm \sqrt{1+ϵ\mathrm{}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho +\sigma }{3m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{C}{a^4}}\right)}\right]`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{C}{a^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{\mathrm{}^2}}\left[1\pm \sqrt{1+ϵ\mathrm{}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho +\sigma }{3m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{C}{a^4}}\right)}\right]^2,`$ (22)
where we introduce the length parameter

$$\mathrm{}=\frac{2m^2}{M^3}.$$
(23)
Similar equations were obtained in  for the case of $`ϵ=1`$. The ‘$`\pm `$’signs in (22) correspond to two different ways of bounding the bulk space by the brane, depending on whether the inner normal to the brane points in the direction of increasing or decreasing bulk coordinate $`r`$ in (12). Alternatively, the two different signs in (22) could correspond to the two possible signs of the five-dimensional Planck mass $`M`$. The model with the ‘$``$’ sign is the one that passes smoothly to the previously considered case of $`m=0`$ in the sense that the right-hand side of (22) with ‘$``$’ sign can formally be expanded in powers of $`m`$. The right-hand side of (22) with ‘$`+`$’ sign formally diverges as $`m0`$.

Since model (22) with ‘$``$’ sign passes smoothly to the model described by Eq. (11) as $`m0`$, it is clear that, for sufficiently small values of $`m`$, the evolution described by (22) with ‘$``$’ sign will not be very different from that described by the limiting Eq. (11) with the same initial values of the scale factor and energy density, and the bounce will take place in the case of $`ϵ=1`$. This is explained by the fact that the last term in the second line of (22) has a negative sign and grows by absolute value during the contracting phase. In particular, the bounce will definitely take place in the case of spatially flat or closed universe with zero dark-energy term ($`C=0`$) if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}^2/6<1`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }m^4/M^6<3/2`$. If the value of $`m`$ is not so small as to lead to the bounce of the contracting universe, then such a universe will reach a singularity similar to that of the case $`ϵ=1`$ described in our paper . Specifically, as the universe collapses, its energy density $`\rho `$ grows and can, under certain assumptions, exceed the dark radiation term under the square root in (22). Further increase in $`\rho `$ will cause the expression under the square root to reach zero, heralding the formation of a cosmological singularity beyond which the solution cannot be continued. This singularity is unusual, since the energy density and pressure remain finite, while the space-time curvature of the brane and its extrinsic curvature tend to infinity as the singularity is approached (see  for more details).

Our general conclusions are therefore the following:

1. The four-dimensional cosmological evolution of a Randall–Sundrum-type model with a timelike extra dimension is non-singular both in the past and in the future provided matter satisfies the weak energy condition $`\rho +p0`$. The ‘big crunch/big bang’ singularities are also absent in a broad class of anisotropic Bianchi I braneworld models with a timelike extra dimension.

2. The presence of an ‘induced’ brane curvature term in the higher-dimensional action (1) can trigger the formation of an initial or final singularity even when the extra dimension is timelike. However, the properties of this singularity are unusual since the Hubble parameter remains finite while the curvature tensor diverges as the singularity is approached.

Thus, braneworlds with timelike extra dimensions have properties which are fundamentally different both from standard general-relativistic behaviour and from the properties of braneworld models with spacelike extra dimensions, and which could have interesting cosmological implications. The important issue of the tachyonic nature of Kaluza–Klein gravitational modes in such theories and the related problem of unitarity has been discussed in  but demands more extensive examination.

Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge support from the Indo-Ukrainian program of cooperation in science and technology sponsored by the Department of Science and Technology of India and Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine. The work of Yu. S. was also supported in part by the INTAS grant for project No. 2000-334. The authors acknowledge useful discussions with Katrin Heitmann and Salman Habib.