THE ROLE OF FRAME FORCE IN QUANTUM

DETECTION

JOHN J. BENEDETTO AND ANDREW KEBO

Abstract. A method is given to construct tight frames that minimize

an error term, which in quantum physics has the interpretation of the
probability of a detection error. The method converts the frame problem
into a set of ordinary differential equations using concepts from classical
mechanics and orthogonal group techniques. The minimum energy solu-
tions of the differential equations are proven to correspond to the tight
frames that minimize the error term. Because of this perspective, sev-
eral numerical methods become available to compute the tight frames.
Beyond the applications of quantum detection in quantum mechanics,
solutions to this frame optimization problem can be viewed as a gener-
alization of classical matched filtering solutions. As such, the methods
we develop are a generalization of fundamental detection techniques in
radar.

1. Introduction
We shall define a frame optimization problem which resembles classical
mean square error (MSE) optimization, but is generally only equivalent
to MSE in geometrically structured problems, see the Appendix (Section
A.5). In fact, our technical goal is to construct a so-called tight frame that
minimizes an error term, which in quantum physics has the interpretation of
the probability of a detection error. As such, we shall also refer to our frame
optimization problem as a quantum detection problem. Our setting is tight
frames because of the emerging applicability of such objects in dealing with
the robust transmission of data over erasure channels such as the internet
[14, 30, 40], multiple antenna code design for wireless communications [39],
A/D conversion in a host of applications [8, 7, 32], quantum measurement
and encryption schemes [49, 50, 10, 25, 24], and multiple description coding
[31, 54], among others. The complexity of some of these applications goes
beyond MSE, cf., matched filtering in the quantum detection setting [6],
matched filtering in applied general relativity [1, 2, 59], and minimization
for multiscale image decompositions [55], see also [28] for orthogonal MSE
matched filter detection. Furthermore, quantum detection has applications

2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 42C99, 34G99; secondary 81Q10,

65T99.
Key words and phrases. tight frames, potential energy, orthogonal group, differential
equations, quantum measurement.
1
2 JOHN J. BENEDETTO AND ANDREW KEBO

in optical communications, including the detection of coherent light signals

such as radio, radar, and laser signals [38, 45, 44, 43], and applications in
astronomy as a means of detecting light from distant sources [38, 56].
The frame optimization problem is defined in Section 1.2 along with the
definition of frames. Section 1.1 includes background material for the prob-
lem from the quantum mechanics point of view. Section 1.3 is devoted to an
outline of our solution, as well as an outline of the structure of the paper.
1.1. Background. In quantum mechanics, the definition of a von Neumann
measurement [33, 52, 58] can be generalized using positive-operator-valued
measures (POMs) and tight frames [38, 22, 25], see the Appendix (Section
A.1) for POMs and Section 1.2 for tight frames. This generalized defini-
tion of a quantum measurement allows one to distinguish more accurately
among elements of a set of nonorthogonal quantum states. We can formu-
late our frame optimization problem of Section 1.2 in terms of quantum
measurement. In this case the frame optimization problem becomes a quan-
tum detection problem for a physical system whose state is limited to be in
only one of a countable number of possibilities, see Appendix (Section A.2).
These possible states are not necessarily orthogonal. We want to find the
best method of measuring the system in order to distinguish which state the
system is in. Mathematically, we want to find a tight frame that minimizes
an error term Pe . In the context of quantum detection in quantum me-
chanics, Pe is in fact the probability of a detection error, see the Appendix
(Sections A.1 - A.4) for details.
The quantum detection problem we consider has not been solved analyt-
ically in quantum mechanics. Kennedy, Yuen, and Lax [61] gave necessary
and sufficient conditions on a POM so that it minimizes Pe . In fact, they
show that Pe is minimized if and only if the corresponding POM satisfies
a particular operator inequality. Wooter [37] gave a construction of a tight
frame that seems to have a small probability of a detection error, but he did
not completely justify his construction. Helstrom [38] solved the problem
completely for the case in which the quantum system is limited to be in
one of two possible states. Peres and Terno [49] solved a slightly different
problem where they optimized two quantities. They constructed a POM
that maximized an expression representing the information gain and min-
imized another expression representing the probability of an inconclusive
measurement.
1.2. Definitions and problem. A frame can be considered as a general-
ization of an orthonormal basis [17, 20, 60, 18, 9]. Let H be a separable
Hilbert space, let K ⊆ Z, and let {ei }i∈K be an orthonormal basis for H.
An orthonormal basis has the property that
X
∀x ∈ H, kxk2 = |hx, ei i|2 .
i∈K
We use this property to motivate the definition of a frame.
 THE ROLE OF FRAME FORCE IN QUANTUM DETECTION 3

Definition 1.1. Let H be a separable Hilbert space and let K ⊆ Z. A set

{ei }i∈K ⊆ H is a frame for H with frame bounds A and B, 0 < A < B, if
X
∀x ∈ H, Akxk2 ≤ |hx, ei i|2 ≤ Bkxk2 .
i∈K

A frame {ei }i∈K for H is a tight frame if A = B. A tight frame with frame
bound A is an A-tight frame.
Problem 1.2. Let H be a d-dimensional Hilbert space. Given a sequence
{xi }N N
i=1 ⊆ H of unit normed vectors and a sequence {ρi }i=1 ⊆ R of positive
weights that sums to 1. The frame optimization problem is to construct a
1-tight frame {ei }N
i=1 that minimizes the quantity,
N
X
Pe ({ei }N
i=1 ) = 1 − ρi |hxi , ei i|2 , (1.1)
i=1
taken over all N -element 1-tight frames. Such a tight frame exists by a
compactness argument, see Theorem A.7 in the Appendix (Appendix A.4)
for a proof. Our goal is to quantify this existence.
We have taken N
P
i=1 ρi = 1 because of the probabilistic interpretation in
the Appendix. This condition is not required in the main body of the paper,
even though we use it as a technical convenience in Section 3.
1.3. Outline. The frame optimization problem (1.1) has many applications
as implied in the first paragraph of the Introduction. To illustrate the con-
nection between the frame optimization problem and quantum mechanics,
beyond Section 1.1, and as a background for some of our technology, we
have included an Appendix, as mentioned in Section 1.1. In Section A.1 we
present quantum measurement theory in terms of POMs; and then motivate
a quantum detection problem in Sections A.2 - A.4. In particular, Section
A.4 expounds the remarkable and elementary relationship between POMs
and tight frames. Using this relationship, we formulate this quantum de-
tection problem as the frame optimization problem of Section 1.2. Figure
1 describes our solution to these equivalent problems; and, in particular, it
highlights some of the various techniques that we require.
We begin in Section 2 with preliminaries from classical Newtonian me-
chanics [46] and the recent characterization of finite unit normed tight frames
as minimizers of a frame potential [5] associated with the notion of frame
force.
In Section 3 we use Naimark’s theorem to simplify the frame optimization
problem by showing that we only need to consider orthonormal sets in place
of 1-tight frames. We then use the concept of the frame force [5] to construct
a corresponding force for the frame optimization problem. In Section 4 we
use the orthogonal group O(N ) as a means to parameterize orthonormal sets.
With this parameterization, we construct a set of differential equations on
O(N ) and show that the minimum energy solutions correspond exactly to
4 JOHN J. BENEDETTO AND ANDREW KEBO

Frame optimzation Section Quantum mechanical

= =
problem A.4 quantum detection problem

Section 1.2 Sections A.1, A.2, A.3

Minimize Quantum measurement
!
Pe = 1 − N i=1 ρi |"xi , ei #|
2 POMs
1-tight frames {ei }Ni=1 ⊆ R
d Countable outcomes X

# #
Section 3 Section A.4
Minimize
!
Pe = 1 − N ! 2
i=1 ρi |"xi , ei #|
POMs = 1-tight frames
ONBs {e!i }N
i=1 ⊆ R
N

(Naimark)
# #
Section 4.1 Section 2.3
"
SO(N ) and Newton’s Frame force and
equation potential energy

# #
Section 4.2 Sections 4.3, 4.4, 5
SO(N ) and theoretical
! Numerical methods,
minimum energy
solutions of friction, example
frame optimzation problem

Figure 1. Outline of the solution.

" !!!"! $#B%&'(

!!!!! !
!
A
the 1-tight frames that minimize the error term Pe . With this perspective,
we comment on how different numerical methods can be used to approximate
the 1-tight frames that solve the frame optimization problem.
Finally, in Section 5, we give an example of computing a solution to the
frame optimization problem for the case N = 2. The purpose of Section 5
is to serve as an introduction to the ongoing numerical work found in [41].
 THE ROLE OF FRAME FORCE IN QUANTUM DETECTION 5

2. Preliminaries
2.1. Newtonian mechanics of 1 particle. Suppose x : R → Rd is twice
differentiable. For t ∈ R, we denote the derivative of x at t as ẋ(t) and the
second derivative as ẍ(t). x(t) is interpreted as the position of a particle in
Rd at time t ∈ R. A force acting on x is a vector field F : Rd → Rd , and it
determines the dynamics of x by Newton’s equation
ẍ(t) = F (x(t)). (2.1)
The force F is a conservative force if there exists a differentiable function
V : Rd → R such that
F = −∇V,
where ∇ is the d-dimensional gradient. V is called the potential of the force
F . The following elementary theorem [46] shows that energy is conserved
under a conservative force.
Theorem 2.1. If x : R → Rd is a solution of Newton’s equation (2.1) and
the force is conservative, then the total energy, defined by
1
E(t) = [ẋ(t)]2 + V (x(t)), t ∈ R,
2
is constant with respect to the variable t.
2.2. Central force. Suppose we have an ensemble of particles in Rd that
interact with one another by a conservative force F : Rd × Rd → Rd . Given
two particles a, b ∈ Rd , a ”feels” the force from b given by F (a, b), i.e., as
functions of time ä(t) = F (a(t), b(t)). This action defines the dynamics on
the entire ensemble. If the force is conservative, then there exists a potential
function V : Rd × Rd → R such that
F (a, b) = −∇a−b V (a, b),
where ∇a−b is the gradient taken by keeping b fixed and differentiating with
respect to a. The force F is a central force if its magnitude depends only on
the distance ka − bk, that is, if there exists a function f : R+ → R such that
∀a, b ∈ Rd , F (a, b) = f (ka − bk)[a − b].
(R+ = (0, ∞).) In this case, the same can be said of the potential, that is,
if the force is conservative and central, then there is a function v : R+ → R
such that
∀a, b ∈ Rd , V (a, b) = v(ka − bk). (2.2)
Computing the potential corresponding to a conservative central force is
not difficult. In fact, for any a, b ∈ Rd , the condition,
F (a, b) = −∇(a−b) V (a, b),
implies that
∀r ∈ R+ , v 0 (r) = −rf (r), (2.3)
6 JOHN J. BENEDETTO AND ANDREW KEBO

which, in turn, allows us to compute V because of (2.2). To verify (2.3),

first note that
√ 2 x1 2
 
x1 +...+xd
d .. = x .
 
∀x = (x1 , . . . , xd ) ∈ R , ∇kxk = 

.  kxk
√ 2 xd 2
x1 +...+xd

Thus, writing x = a − b ∈ Rd , we compute

x
−∇V (a, b) = −∇v(kxk)kxk = −v 0 (kxk)∇kxk = −v 0 (kxk) ;
kxk
and, setting the right side equal to F (a, b) = f (kxk)x, we obtain
v 0 (kxk) = −kxkf (kxk),
which is (2.3).

2.3. Frame force. Two electrons with charge e and positions given by
x, y ∈ R3 ”feel” a repulsive force given by Coulomb’s law. Particle x ”feels”
the force F (x, y), exerted on it by particle y, given by the formula,
e2
F (x, y) = K (x − y),
kx − yk3
where K is Coulomb’s constant. Suppose we have a metallic sphere where a
number of electrons move freely and interact with each other by the Coulomb
force. An unresolved problem in physics is to determine the equilibrium
positions of the electrons, that is, to specify an arrangement of the electrons
where all of the interaction Coulomb forces cancel so that there is no motion
[4, 3]. This phenomena corresponds to the minimization of the Coulomb
potential.
In [5], Fickus and one of the authors used this idea to characterize all finite
unit normed tight frames, see Theorems 2.2 and 2.3. The goal was to find
a force, which they called frame force, such that the equilibrium positions
on the sphere would correspond to finite unit normed tight frames. Given
two points x, y ∈ Rd . By definition, the particle x ”feels” the frame force
F F (x, y), exerted on it by particle y, given by the formula,
F F (x, y) = hx, yi(x − y). (2.4)
It can be shown that F F (x, y) is a central force with the frame potential
F P given by
1
F P (x, y) = |hx, yi|2 .
2
Let {xi }i=1 ⊆ R be a unit normed set, i.e., {xi }N
N d
i=1 ⊆ S
d−1 , the unit sphere
d
in R . The total frame potential is
N X
N

X
T F P {xi }N
i=1 = |hxm , xn i|2 .
m=1 n=1
 THE ROLE OF FRAME FORCE IN QUANTUM DETECTION 7

The equilibrium points of the frame force on S d−1 produce all finite unit
normed tight frames in the following way.
Theorem 2.2. Let N ≤ d. The minimum value of the total frame potential,
for the frame force (2.4) and N variables, is N ; and the minimizers are
precisely all of the orthonormal sets of N elements in Rd .
Theorem 2.3. Let N ≥ d. The minimum value of the total frame potential,
for the frame force (2.4) and N variables, is N 2 /d; and the minimizers are
precisely all of the finite unit normed tight frames of N elements for Rd .

3. A classical mechanical interpretation of the frame

optimization problem
In this section we shall use the concept of frame force defined by (2.4) to
give the frame optimization problem an interpretation in terms of classical
mechanics, even though it is essentially equivalent to a quantum detection
problem from quantum mechanics. To this end we first reformulate Problem
1.2 in terms of orthonormal bases instead of 1-tight frames. This can be done
by means of Naimark’s theorem [19, 25]. In fact, each tight frame can be
considered as a projection of an equal normed orthogonal basis, where the
orthogonal basis exists in a larger ambient Hilbert space. The following is
a precise statement of Naimark’s theorem, see [16], and see [19, 47] for full
generality.
Theorem 3.1. (Naimark) Let H be a d-dimensional Hilbert space and
let {ei }Ni=1 be an A-tight frame for H. There exists an orthogonal basis
{e0i }N 0 0 0
i=1 ⊆ H for H , where H is an N -dimensional Hilbert space such that
H is a linear subspace of H , where each ke0i k = A, and for which
0

∀i = 1, . . . , N, PH e0i = ei ,
where PH is the orthogonal projection of H 0 onto H.
We now prove the converse of Naimark’s theorem, that is, we prove the
assertion that the projection of an orthonormal basis gives rise to a 1-tight
frame.
Proposition 3.2. Let H 0 be an N -dimensional Hilbert space and let {e0i }N i=1
be an orthonormal basis for H 0 . For any linear subspace U ⊆ H 0 , {PU e0i }N
i=1
is a 1-tight frame for U , where PU denotes the orthogonal projection of H 0
onto U .
Proof. For any x ∈ U , note that PU x = x. Since {e0i }N i=1 is an orthonormal
basis for H 0 we can write
XN N
X N
X
kxk2 = |he0i , xi|2 = |he0i , PU xi|2 = |hPU e0i , xi|2 .
i=1 i=1 i=1

Since this is true for all x ∈ U , it follows that {PU e0i }N

i=1 is a 1-tight frame
for U . 
8 JOHN J. BENEDETTO AND ANDREW KEBO

Theorem 3.3. Let H be a d-dimensional Hilbert space, and let {xi }N i=1 ⊆ H
be a sequence of unit normed vectors with a sequence {ρi }N i=1 ⊆ R of positive
0
weights that sums to 1. Let H be an N -dimensional Hilbert space such that
H is a linear subspace of H 0 , and let {ei }N i=1 be a 1-tight frame for H that
minimizes Pe over all N element 1-tight frames for H, i.e.,
Pe ({ei }N N N

i=1 ) = inf Pe ({yi }i=1 ) : {yi }i=1 a 1-tight frame for H .

(A minimizer exists by Theorem A.7.) Assume {e0i }N i=1 is an orthonormal

basis for H 0 that minimizes Pe over all orthonormal bases for H 0 , i.e.,
Pe ({e0i }N N N 0

i=1 ) = inf Pe ({yi }i=1 ) : {yi }i=1 an orthonormal basis in H .

Then
0 N 0 N
Pe ({ei }N
i=1 ) = Pe ({ei }i=1 ) = Pe ({PH ei }i=1 ),
where PH is the orthogonal projection onto H.
Proof. Since each xi ∈ H, note that PH xi = xi ; and so, using the fact that
PH is self-adjoint, we have
N
X N
X
Pe ({e0i }N
i=1 ) = 1− ρi |hxi , e0i i|2 =1− ρi |hPH xi , e0i i|2
i=1 i=1
XN
= 1− ρi |hxi , PH e0i i|2 = Pe ({PH e0i }N
i=1 ).
i=1

It remains to show that Pe ({ei }N 0 N

i=1 ) = Pe ({ei }i=1 ). By Proposition 3.2,
{PH e0i }N
i=1 is a 1-tight frame for H. Thus, by the definition of the set
{ei }N
i=1 ⊆ H, it follows that

Pe ({e0i }N 0 N N
i=1 ) = Pe ({PH ei }i=1 ) ≥ Pe ({ei }i=1 ).

Now, by Naimark’s theorem, there exists an orthonormal basis {yi }N

i=1 ⊆
H0 such that
{PH yi }N N
i=1 = {ei }i=1 .
Hence, we have
N
X N
X
Pe ({ei }N
i=1 ) = 1− 2
ρi |hxi , ei i| = 1 − ρi |hxi , PH yi i|2
i=1 i=1
XN N
X
= 1− ρi |hPH xi , yi i|2 = 1 − ρi |hxi , yi i|2
i=1 i=1
0 N
= Pe ({yi }N
i=1 ) ≥ Pe ({ei }i=1 ),

where the last inequality follows from the definition of the set {e0i }N 0
i=1 ⊆ H .
The result follows. 
 THE ROLE OF FRAME FORCE IN QUANTUM DETECTION 9

We conclude that finding an N element 1-tight frame {ei }N i=1 for H that
minimizes Pe over all N element 1-tight frames is equivalent to finding an
orthonormal basis {e0i }N 0
i=1 for H that minimizes Pe over all orthonormal
bases for H 0 . Once we find {e0i }N 0
i=1 ⊆ H that minimizes Pe , we project back
0 N
onto H, and {PH ei }i=1 is a 1-tight frame for H that minimizes Pe over all
N element 1-tight frames.
Consequently, the frame optimization problem can be stated in the fol-
lowing way.
Problem 3.4. Let H be a d-dimensional Hilbert space, and let {xi }N i=1 ⊆ H
N
be a sequence of unit norm vectors with a sequence {ρi }i=1 ⊆ R of positive
weights that sums to 1. Assume N ≥ d. Let H 0 be an N -dimensional
Hilbert space such that H is a linear subspace of H 0 . The frame optimization
problem is to find an orthonormal basis {e0i }N 0
i=1 ⊆ H that minimizes Pe over
all N element orthonormal sets in H 0 .
Using the definition of the frame force in Section 2.3, the frame optimiza-
tion problem can now be given a classical mechanical interpretation in the
case where H = Rd . This interpretation motivates our approach in Section
4. Let H ⊆ H 0 = RN . We want to find an orthonormal basis {e0i }N i=1 ⊆ H
0
0
that minimizes Pe over all orthonormal bases in H . We consider the quan-
tity Pe as a potential
N
X N
X
V = Pe = ρi (1 − |hxi , e0i i|2 ) = Vi ,
i=1 i=1

where each
 2 !
1
Vi = ρi (1 − hxi , e0i i2 ) = ρi 1 − 1 − kxi − e0i k2 ,
2

and where we have used the fact that kxi k = ke0i k = 1 as well as the relation
kxi − e0i k2 = hxi − e0i , xi − e0i i = kxi k2 − 2hxi , e0i i + ke0i k2 = 2 − 2hxi , e0i i.
Since each Vi is a function of the distance kxi − e0i k, Vi corresponds to
a conservative central force between the points xi and e0i given by Fi =
−∇i Vi , where ∇i is an N -dimensional gradient taken by keeping xi fixed
and differentiating with respect to the variable e0i . Setting x = kxi − e0i k, we
can write
"  2 #
1
Vi (xi , e0i ) = vi (kxi − e0i k) = ρi 1 − 1 − x2 .
2

Taking the derivative with respect to x gives

   
1 1
vi0 (x) = −2ρi 1 − x2 (−x) = 2ρi 1 − x2 x = −xfi (x),
2 2
10 JOHN J. BENEDETTO AND ANDREW KEBO

so that
 
1 2
fi (x) = −2ρi 1− x .
2
Therefore, the corresponding central force can be written as
 
1
Fi (xi , ei ) = fi (kxi −ei k)(xi −ei ) = −2ρi 1 − kxi − ei k (xi −e0i ) = −2ρi hxi , e0i i(xi −e0i ).
0 0 0 0 2
2

Fi is frame force!
Thus, the setup for the frame optimization problem can be viewed as a
physical system, where the given vectors {xi }N i=1 are fixed points on the unit
sphere in H 0 ; and we have a ”rigid” orthonormal basis {e0i }N i=1 which moves
according to the frame force Fi between each e0i and xi . The problem is to
find the equilibrium set {e0 i }ni=1 . These are the points where all the forces
Fi balance and produce no net motion. In this situation, the potential V
obtains an extreme value, and, in particular, we shall consider the case in
which V is minimized.

4. Solution of frame optimization problem

4.1. Differential equations on O(N ). Using Newton’s equation and the
orthogonal group O(N ), we produce a system of differential equations asso-
ciated with the setup of Section 3.
Let {bi }N 0
i=1 be a fixed orthonormal basis for H . Since O(N ) is a smooth
compact N (N − 1)/2-dimensional manifold [51], there exists a finite number
of open sets Uk , k = 1, . . . , M, in RN (N −1)/2 and smooth mappings Θk :
Uk → O(N ), k = 1, . . . , M, such that
M
[
Θk (Uk ) = O(N ).
k=1

Since any two orthonormal bases are related by an orthogonal transfor-

mation, then, for each k = 1, . . . , M , we can smoothly parameterize the or-
thonormal basis {bi }N
i=1 in terms of N (N −1)/2 real variables (q1 , . . . , qN (N −1)/2 ) ∈
Uk by the rule

{e0i (q1 , . . . , qN (N −1)/2 )}N N

i=1 = {Θk (q1 , . . . , qN (N −1)/2 )bi }i=1 ,

which defines a family of orthonormal bases {e0i }N 0

i=1 for H . As k goes from 1
0
to M , we obtain all possible orthonormal bases in H . We now use Newton’s
equation to convert the frame forces Fi , i = 1, . . . , N , acting on an orthonor-
mal basis {e0i }N 0
i=1 for H into a set of differential equations that determines
the dynamics of coordinate functions q(t) = (q1 (t), . . . , qN (N −1)/2 (t)) ∈
[C 2 (R)]N (N −1)/2 .
 THE ROLE OF FRAME FORCE IN QUANTUM DETECTION 11

We treat Pe as a potential and use Newton’s equation to obtain

 
∂Pe
∂q1 (q(t))
 
q̈1 (t)
..  .. 
q̈(t) = −∇V = −∇Pe (q(t)) ⇒   = − ,
 
.  . 
∂Pe
q̈N (N −1)/2 (t) ∂q (q(t))
N (N −1)/2

where V = Pe . Note that

N
∂V ∂ X
− = − Vi
∂qj ∂qj
i=1
N N
X ∂e0i X ∂e0
= − ∇Vi · =2 ρi hxi , e0i i(e0i − xi ) · i
∂qj ∂qj
i=1 i=1
N 0 N
∂e0i
   
0 ∂ei
X X
0 0
= 2 ρi hxi , ei i ei , −2 ρi hxi , ei i xi , .
∂qj ∂qj
i=1 i=1

Using the fact that he0i , e0i i = 1 and taking the derivative of this expression
with respect to qj give
   
∂ 0 0 ∂ 0
e ,e + e0i , ei = 0.
∂qj i i ∂qj
Consequently,
 
∂ 0 0
e ,e = 0,
∂qj i i
and we have
N
∂e0i
 
∂V X
0
= −2 ρi hxi , ei i xi , .
∂qj ∂qj
i=1
Therefore, Newton’s equation of motion becomes the N (N − 1)/2 equa-
tions,
N
∂e0i
X  
0
q̈j (t) = −2 ρi hxi , ei i xi , , j = 1, . . . , N (N − 1)/2. (4.1)
∂qj
i=1

By Theorem 2.1, it can be shown that if (q1 (t), . . . , qN (N −1)/2 (t)) is a

solution to (4.1), then the energy,
N (N −1)/2
1 X
E(t) = |q̇i (t)|2 + Pe (q1 (t), . . . , qN (N −1)/2 (t)),
2
i=1

is a constant in time t.
We summarize the relationship between the parameterized orthogonal
group and the solutions of Newton’s equation in Figure 2. The analytic
assertions of this relationship are the content of Theorems 4.1 and 4.2.
12 JOHN J. BENEDETTO AND ANDREW KEBO

RN (N −1)/2
∪
R Uk O(N ) H ! = RN
q Θk Wi
e!i

Figure 2. Relation between the orthogonal group and the

solutions of Newton’s equation of motion. Wi is defined for
all θ ∈ O(N ) by Wi (θ) = θbi ∈ RN .

Theorem 4.1. Let H be a d-dimensional Hilbert space, and let {xi }N i=1 ⊆ H
be a sequence of unit norm vectors with a sequence {ρi }N i=1 ⊆ R of positive
0 N
weights that sums to 1. Assume {e i }i=1 is an orthonormal basis that mini-
mizes Pe . Let Θk (q̃1 , . . . , q̃N (N −1)/2 ) ∈ O(N ) have the property that

∀i = 1, . . . , N, e0i (q̃1 , . . . , q̃N (N −1)/2 ) = e0 i .

Then the constant function,

(q1 (t), . . . , qN (N −1)/2 (t)) = (q̃1 , . . . , q̃N (N −1)/2 ), (4.2)

is a solution of Newton’s equation of motion in O(N ) that minimizes the

energy E, and
N
∂e0i
X  
∀j = 1, . . . , N (N −1)/2, ρi hxi , e0i (q̃1 , . . . , q̃N (N −1)/2 )i xi , (q̃1 , . . . , q̃N (N −1)/2 ) = 0.
∂qj
i=1
(4.3)

Proof. First, since {e0i }N

i=1 minimizes Pe at the point (q̃1 , . . . , q̃N (N −1)/2 ), we
must have
∂Pe
∀j = 1, . . . , N (N − 1)/2, (q̃1 , . . . , q̃N (N −1)/2 ) = 0.
∂qj

Since
N
∂e0i
 
∂Pe X 0
= ρi hxi , ei i xi ,
∂qj ∂qj
i=1

we have (4.3).
 THE ROLE OF FRAME FORCE IN QUANTUM DETECTION 13

Second, we show that (4.2) is a solution of Newton’s equation. Because

(q1 (t), . . . , qN (N −1)/2 (t)) is constant with respect to t, we have
∂Pe
q̈i (t) = 0 = −2 (q1 , . . . , qN (N −1)/2 ))
∂qj
N
∂e0i
X  
= −2 ρi hxi , e0i (q1 (t), . . . , qN (N −1)/2 (t))i xi , (q1 (t), . . . , qN (N −1)/2 (t)) .
∂qj
i=1

Therefore, (q1 (t), . . . , qN (N −1)/2 (t)) is a solution of Newton’s equation.

Finally, for each i = 1, . . . , N (N − 1)/2, we have q̇i (t) = 0, and so the
energy E satisfies
E = Pe .
Since e0i (q̃1 , . . . , q̃N (N −1)/2 ) minimizes Pe , it follows that the energy is mini-
mized. 
The following theorem relates the solutions of Newton’s equation with the
frame optimization problem.
Theorem 4.2. Given the hypotheses of Theorem 4.1. Let (q1 (t), . . . , qN (N −1)/2 (t))
be a solution of Newton’s equation of motion that minimizes the energy E.
Then (q1 (t), . . . , qN (N −1)/2 (t)) is a constant solution, i.e.,
dqi
∀i = 1, . . . , N (N − 1)/2, (t) = 0,
dt
and
{PH e0i (q1 (t), . . . , qN (N −1)/2 (t))}N
i=1 ⊆ H
is a 1-tight frame for H that minimizes Pe .
Proof. Suppose (q1 (t), . . . , qN (N −1)/2 (t)) is a solution of Newton’s equations
of motion that minimizes the energy E. Assume that (q1 (t), . . . , qN (N −1)/2 (t))
is not a constant solution. Denote by (q̃1 , . . . , q̃N (N −1)/2 ) a point from The-
orem 4.1 such that
{e0i (q̃1 , . . . , q̃N (N −1)/2 )}N
i=1
is an orthonormal basis that minimizes Pe . Since (q1 (t), . . . , qN (N −1)/2 (t)) is
not a constant solution, there exists a t0 ∈ R such that the kinetic energy
N (N −1)/2
1 X
T = |q̇i (t0 )|2 6= 0,
2
i=1

and, by Theorem 2.1, the energy is constant. Thus, for all t, we have
E(q1 (t), . . . , qN (N −1)/2 (t)) = T (q1 (t0 ), . . . , qN (N −1)/2 (t0 )) + Pe (q1 (t0 ), . . . , qN (N −1)/2 (t0 ))
> Pe (q̃1 , . . . , q̃N (N −1)/2 ) = E(q̃1 , . . . , q̃N (N −1)/2 ),
which contradicts the assumption that (q1 (t), . . . , qN (N −1)/2 (t)) is a solu-
tion that minimizes the energy E. It follows that (q1 (t), . . . , qN (N −1)/2 (t))
14 JOHN J. BENEDETTO AND ANDREW KEBO

must be a constant solution. Hence, T = 0, and so (q1 (t), . . . , qN (N −1)/2 (t))

minimizes E = Pe . By Theorem 3.3 it follows that
{PH e0i (q1 (t), . . . , qN (N −1)/2 (t))}N
i=1 ⊆ H

is a 1-tight frame for H that minimizes Pe . 

4.2. Parameterization on SO(N ). Let {bi }N i=1 be a fixed orthonormal

basis for H 0 . We can locally parameterize the elements in O(N ) by N (N −
1)/2 variables so that θ(q1 , . . . , qN (N −1)/2 ) ∈ O(N ). We obtain a smooth
parameterization of {bi }Ni=1 by setting

∀i = 1, . . . , N, e0i (q1 , . . . , qN (N −1)/2 ) = θ(q1 , . . . , qN (N −1)/2 )bi . (4.4)

O(N ) has two connected components, SO(N ) and G(N ) = O(N )\SO(N ).
The parameterization (4.4) depends on the choice of which component,
SO(N ) or G(N ), we find or choose θ(q1 , . . . , qN (N −1)/2 ).

Lemma 4.3. Let {bi }N i=1 be a fixed orthonormal basis for an N -dimensional
Hilbert space H 0 , and let ξ : H 0 → H 0 denote the linear transformation
defined by

−bi , if i = 1
ξ(bi ) =
bi , if N > i > 1.
Define the function g : SO(N ) → G(N ) by
∀θ ∈ SO(N ), g(θ) = θ · ξ.
Then g is a bijection.
Proof. For all θ ∈ SO(N ), it is clear that g(θ) ∈ G(N ) since
det(θ) = 1 ⇒ det(g(θ)) = det(θ · ξ) = det(θ) · det(ξ) = −1 ⇒ g(θ) ∈ G(N ).
With respect to the basis {bi }N
i=1 , we can write ξ as
 
−1 0
 0 1 
ξ= .
 
. .
 . 
1
Thus, ξ is invertible, and hence injective. The surjectivity is elementary to
check, and so g is a bijection. 
Theorem 4.4. Let {bi }N i=1 be a fixed orthonormal basis for the real N -
dimensional Hilbert space H 0 , and let {xi }N 0
i=1 ⊆ H be a sequence of unit
normed vectors with a sequence {ρi }N
i=1 ⊆ R of positive weights that sums to
1. Consider the error function Pe : O(N ) → R defined by
N
X
∀θ ∈ O(N ), P (θ) = 1 − ρi |hxi , θbi i|2 .
i=1
 THE ROLE OF FRAME FORCE IN QUANTUM DETECTION 15

Since SO(N ) is compact and P is continuous on O(N ), there exists θ0 ∈

SO(N ) such that
∀θ ∈ SO(N ), P (θ0 ) ≤ P (θ).
Similarly, since G(N ) is compact, there exists θ00 ∈ G(N ) such that
∀θ ∈ G(N ), P (θ00 ) ≤ P (θ).
Then,
P (θ0 ) = P (θ00 ).
Proof. First, note that, for any θ ∈ SO(N ),
N
X
P (g(θ)) = 1 − ρi |hxi , g(θ)bi i|2
i=1
XN
= 1− ρi |hxi , θ · ξbi i|2
i=1
N
X
= 1 − ρ1 |hx1 , θ(−b1 )i|2 − ρi |hxi , θbi i|2
i=2
N
X
= 1 − ρ1 |hx1 , θ(b1 )i|2 − ρi |hxi , θbi i|2
i=2
= P (θ).
We complete the proof by contradiction. Suppose that P (θ0 ) 6= P (θ00 ). Con-
sider the case that P (θ00 ) > P (θ0 ). Then g(θ0 ) ∈ G(N ) has the property that
P (θ00 ) > P (θ0 ) = P (g(θ0 )) which contradicts the definition of θ00 ∈ G(N ). A
similar argument works for the case with P (θ00 ) < P (θ0 ) by considering the
function g −1 : G(N ) → SO(N ). 
By the above theorem, it suffices to do the parameterization in our anal-
ysis over SO(N ).
4.3. Friction. Since our force is conservative, the energy E(t) for the so-
lutions of Newton’s equation is a constant function. If these solutions are
not minimum energy solutions, it is possible that if we add a friction term
to the original equations, then the new set of solutions may converge to a
minimum energy solution. These modified equations of motion with friction
are
∂Pe
∀j = 1, . . . , N (N − 1)/2, q̈j + = −q̇j . (4.5)
∂qj
Theorem 4.5. Assume that (q1 (t), . . . , qN (N −1)/2 (t)) is a solution to the
modified equations of motion (4.5). The energy E satisfies
N (N −1)/2
d X
E(t) = − q̇i (t)2 . (4.6)
dt
i=1
16 JOHN J. BENEDETTO AND ANDREW KEBO

Proof. Multiplying the modified equations of motion (4.5) by q̇j and sum-
ming over j give
N (N −1)/2   N (N −1)/2
X ∂Pe X
q̈j + q̇j = − q̇j2 .
∂qj
j=1 j=1

The first term on the left side is

N (N −1)/2 N (N −1)/2
X d 1 X
q̈j q̇j = [q̇j ]2 ,
dt 2
j=1 j=1

and the second term on the left side is

N (N −1)/2
X ∂Pe dPe
q̇j = .
∂qj dt
j=1

Therefore, we have
 
N (N −1)/2 N (N −1)/2
d d 1 X
2
X
E(t) = [q̇j (t)] + Pe (q(t)) = −
 q̇j (t)2 ,
dt dt 2
j=1 j=1

and this is (4.6). 

4.4. Numerical considerations. Recall that Theorem 4.1 states that the
minimum energy solutions satisfy
N  
X ∂ei
ρi hxi , ei (q(t))i xi , (q(t)) = 0. (4.7)
∂qj
i=1

This opens the problem to numerical approximations. For example a multi-

dimensional Newton iteration can be used to approximate these (q1 , . . . , qN (N −1)/2 )
that satisfy (4.7). Furthermore, the error Pe can now be considered as a
smooth function of the variables q = (q1 , . . . , qN (N −1)/2 ), i.e.,
N
X
Pe (q) = 1 − ρi |hxi , ei (q)i|2 . (4.8)
i=1

As such, other numerical methods become available. For example, the con-
jugate gradient method can be used to approximate a 1-tight frame that
minimizes Pe as written in (4.8), see [41] for this and for the implementa-
tion of multidimensional Newton iteration.
The modified equations with friction, viz., (4.5), give a method of taking a
tight frame with a particular detection error and constructing another tight
frame with a smaller detection error. Let {bi }N i=1 be a fixed orthonormal
basis for an N -dimensional Hilbert space H 0 . Suppose we have a 1-tight
frame {ei }N
i=1 for the d-dimensional Hilbert space H with a given error, and
we want to find another 1-tight frame with a smaller error. Let {e0i }N i=1 be
 THE ROLE OF FRAME FORCE IN QUANTUM DETECTION 17

the orthonormal basis for H 0 obtained from {ei }N i=1 by Naimark’s theorem,
and let Θ(q1 , . . . , qN (N −1)/2 ) be a local parameterization of SO(N ) such that
0 N
{Θ(0, . . . , 0)bi }N
i=1 = {ei }i=1 .
Assume q(t) is a solution of the modified equations of motion with friction,
viz., (4.5), with initial conditions
q(0) = q̇(0) = 0.
If q is not a constant solution then, by Theorem 4.5, for all t > 0 where the
solution is defined, we obtain that
{PH Θ(q(t))bi }N
i=1
is a 1-tight frame with a smaller detection error than that associated with
{e0i }N
i=1 . In this case, there are numerical methods available for approximat-
ing the solution q, and, hence, leading to the construction of 1-tight frame
minimizers. For example, one can use a Runge-Kutta method, see [41].
It is possible that the parametrized error Pe (q) has many local minima.
Conjugate gradient methods applied to the original equations (4.1) (as pre-
viously mentioned) and solutions to the modified equations of motion (4.5)
can be used to determine these minima. It seems natural that simulated an-
nealing global minimization algorithms [42] can be used to refine our local
minimization technique.
It should be pointed out that numerical methods have been developed,
using semidefinite programming [26], to approximate tight frames that solve
a modified quantum detection problem. As far as the actual quantum de-
tection problem, a matricial iterative scheme has been developed [21], which
can be considered as an alternative to our approach. Our analysis, using
concepts inspired by geometry and classical physics, can be generalized to
approximate tight frames that minimize other types of error terms, see [41].
There has been analogous work using ideas from classical mechanics to de-
velop numerical methods that approximate solutions for a variety of other
mathematical problems, e.g., see [34, 35, 48, 36].

5. Example for N = 2
Consider the case where we are given {xi }2i=1 ⊆ H = R2 with a sequence
{ρi }2i=1 of positive weights that sum to 1.
We want to find an orthonormal system {e0i }2i=1 that minimizes Pe . SO(2)
is a 1-dimensional manifold. A parameterization of SO(2) can be given for
all q ∈ [0, 2π) :  
cos(q) − sin(q)
Θ(q) = .
sin(q) cos(q)
Let {bi }2i=1 be the standard orthonormal basis for H = R2 . We construct
the parameterized orthonormal set by defining
   
cos(q) − sin(q)
e01 (q) = Θ(q)b1 = , e02 (q) = Θ(q)b2 = .
sin(q) cos(q)
18 JOHN J. BENEDETTO AND ANDREW KEBO

Now, assume q is a function of time. We have

   
d 0 d cos(q(t)) − sin(q(t))
e (q(t)) = = = e02 (q(t)),
dq 1 dq sin(q(t)) cos(q(t))
and
   
d 0 d − sin(q(t)) − cos(q(t))
e2 (q(t)) = = = −e01 (q(t)).
dq dq cos(q(t)) − sin(q(t))
Substituting these derivatives of e0i into Newton’s equation of motion (4.1)
give
q̈(t) = 2[ρ2 hx2 , e02 (q(t))ihx2 , e01 (q(t))i − ρ1 hx1 , e01 (q(t))ihx1 , e02 (q(t))i],
which is a second-order ordinary differential equation.
In R2 , the minimizer can be explicitly found. To this end and to simplify
the notation, we begin by writing
e0i = e0i (q(t)) and q = q(t).
Next, denote the given vectors by
   
a c
x1 = and x2 = .
b d
As such, we obtain
2
X
ρi he0i , xi i2 = ρ1 (a cos(q) + b sin(q))2 + ρ2 (−c sin(q) + d cos(q))2
i=1
= (ρ1 a2 + ρ2 d2 ) cos2 (q) + 2(ρ1 ab − ρ2 cd) cos(q) sin(q) + (ρ1 b2 + ρ2 c2 ) sin2 (q)
= (ρ1 a2 + ρ2 d2 − ρ1 b2 − ρ2 c2 ) cos2 (q) + 2(ρ1 ab − ρ2 cd) cos(q) sin(q) + (ρ1 b2 + ρ2 c2 )
= α cos2 (q) + β cos(q) sin(q) + γ,
where
α = (ρ1 a2 + ρ2 d2 − ρ1 b2 − ρ2 c2 )
β = 2(ρ1 ab − ρ2 cd)
γ = (ρ1 b2 + ρ2 c2 ).
Hence, we have
2
X
ρi he0i , xi i2 = cos(q)[α cos(q) + β sin(q)] + γ
i=1
p
= α2 + β 2 cos(q)[cos(ξ) cos(q) + sin(ξ) sin(q)] + γ,
where ξ ∈ [0, 2π) has the property that
α β
cos(ξ) = p , sin(ξ) = p .
α2 + β2 α + β2
2
 THE ROLE OF FRAME FORCE IN QUANTUM DETECTION 19

Using the relation cos(A) cos(A+B) = 12 [cos(2A+B)+cos(B)], we compute

2
X p
ρi he0i , xi i2 = α2 + β 2 cos(q)[cos(ξ) cos(q) + sin(ξ) sin(q)] + γ
i=1
p
= α2 + β 2 cos(q)[cos(q − ξ)] + γ
p
α2 + β 2
= [cos(2q − ξ) + cos(ξ)] + γ.
2
Therefore, to minimize the error Pe , we want to maximize 2i=1 ρi hxi , e0i i2 ,
P
and this occurs exactly when q = ξ/2+πn for some integer n. Consequently,
we can write our solution as
 
1 2(ρ1 ab − ρ2 cd)
q = tan−1 + πn
2 (ρ1 a2 + ρ2 d2 − ρ1 b2 − ρ2 c2 )
for some n ∈ N.

Acknowledgment
We would like to thank Dr. Stephen Bullock and Professors John R.
Klauder and Shmuel Nussinov for their illuminating comments. This work
was partially funded by ONR Grant N0001-4021-0398 for the first named
author, by an NSF-VIGRE Grant to the University of Maryland for the
second named author, and by NSF-DMS Grant 0219233 for both authors.

Appendix A. Appendix
A.1. Quantum measurement theory. Quantum theory gives the prob-
ability that a measured outcome lies in a specified region [38, 58, 11], see
Definition A.4. These probabilities are defined in terms of positive operator-
valued measures.
Definition A.1. Let B be a σ-algebra of sets of X, and let H be a separable
Hilbert space. A positive operator-valued measure (POM) is a function Π :
B → L(H) such that:
1. ∀ U ∈ B, Π(U ) is a positive self-adjoint operator H → H,
2. Π(∅) = 0 (zero operator),
∞ ∞
* ! +
[ X
∞
3. ∀ disjoint {Ui }i=1 ⊆ B, x, y ∈ H ⇒ Π Ui x, y = hΠ(Ui )x, yi ,
i=1 i=1
4. Π(X) = I (identity operator).
Every dynamical quantity in quantum mechanics, e.g., the energy or mo-
mentum of a particle, corresponds to a space of outcomes X and a POM
Π. We think of X as the space of all possible values the dynamical quantity
can attain. X could be countable or uncountable.
20 JOHN J. BENEDETTO AND ANDREW KEBO

Example A.2. (1) Suppose we wanted to measure the energy of a hy-

drogen atom. The energy levels of a hydrogen atom are discrete,
and X consists of all the possible discrete energy levels. Hence, X
is countable. In this case, H = L2 (R3 ) and B is the power set of X.
(2) On the other hand, if we were measuring the position of an electron
orbiting its nucleus, then X is the space of all possible spatial lo-
cations of the electron, i.e., X = R3 which is uncountable. In this
case, H = L2 (R3 ) and B is the Borel algebra of R3 .
See [33, 58] for discussions of the notion of the state of a system and the
model of physical systems in terms of Hilbert spaces.
Definition A.3. Given a separable Hilbert space H, a measurable space
(B, X), and a POM Π. If the state of the system is given by x ∈ H with
kxk = 1, then the probability that the measured outcome lies in a region
U ∈ B is defined by
PΠ (U ) = hx, Π(U )xi.
This definition can be viewed as that of a POM measurement, cf., [27] for
an alternative definition.
Typically in quantum mechanics, measurements are modeled using reso-
lutions of the identity [52, 33, 22]. Using POMs in the theory of quantum
measurement instead of traditional resolutions of the identity have some
advantages. For example, in some situations, using a POM measurement
decreases the likelihood of making a measurement error [50]. Also, the foun-
dation of quantum encryption, where messages cannot be intercepted by an
eavesdropper, is based on the theory of POM measurements [10]. Physical
realizations of POM measurements can be found in [13, 12].
A.2. Quantum mechanical quantum detection. We define the quan-
tum detection problem as given in [25, 24].
Suppose we have a separable Hilbert space H corresponding to a physical
system, but that we cannot determine beforehand the state of the physical
system. However, suppose we do know that the state of the system must
be in one of a countable set {xi }i∈K ⊆ H (where K ⊆ Z) of possible unit
normed states with corresponding sequence {ρi }i∈K of probabilities that
sum to 1. By this we mean that ρi is the probability that the system is
in the state xi . The problem is to determine the state of the system, and
the only way to do this is to perform a measurement. Consequently, the
problem is to construct a POM Π with outcomes X = K with the property
that if the state of the system is xi for some i ∈ K, then the measurement
asserts that the system is in the ith state with high probability

1 if i = j
P (j) = hxi , Π(j)xi i ≈
0 if i 6= j.
If the state of the system is xi , then hxi , Π(j)xi i is the probability that
the measuring device outputs j. Thus, hxi , Π(i)xi i is the probability of a
 THE ROLE OF FRAME FORCE IN QUANTUM DETECTION 21

correct measurement. Since each xj occurs with probability ρj , the average

probability of a correct measurement is
X
E(correct) = E({hxi , Π(i)xi i}i∈K ) = ρi hxi , Π(i)xi i.
i∈K

Quite naturally, the probability of a detection error, i.e., the average proba-
bility that the measurement is incorrect, is given by
X
Pe = 1 − ρi hxi , Π(i)xi i. (A.1)
i∈K

Hence, we want to construct a POM Π that minimizes Pe , and this is the

quantum mechanical quantum detection problem corresponding to Problems
1.2 and 3.4.

A.3. A closer look at the quantum detection error. We shall verify

our assertion in Section A.2 that Pe , defined by (A.1), is the average of
the probabilities of incorrect measurements. If the state of the system is xi
for some i ∈ K and if i 6= j, then hxi , Π(j)xi i is the probability that we
incorrectly measure the system to be xj , an incorrect measurement. Thus,
the average probability of an incorrect measurement is given by
X
E(incorrect) = E({hxi , Π(j)xi i}i6=j ) = ρi hxi , Π(j)xi i.
i6=j

We want to show that Pe = E(incorrect). To verify this, note that

* +
X X X X X
ρi hxi , Π(j)xi i + ρi hxi , Π(i)xi i = ρi hxi , Π(j)xi i = ρi xi , Π(j)xi
i6=j i∈K i,j∈K i∈K j∈K
X X
= ρi hxi , Ixi i = ρi = 1.
i∈K i∈K

Therefore,
X X
Pe = 1 − ρi hxi , Π(i)xi i = ρi hxi , Π(j)xi i = E(incorrect).
i∈K i6=j

A.4. Using tight frames to construct POMs. The theory of tight frames
can be used to construct POMs. Let H be a separable Hilbert space and
let K ⊆ Z. Assume {ei }i∈K ⊆ H is a 1-tight frame for H. Define a family
{Π(w)}w⊆K of self-adjoint positive operators on H by the formula,
X
∀x ∈ H, Π(w)x = hx, ei iei .
i∈w

It is clear that this family of operators satisfies conditions 1-3 of the defini-
tion of a POM. Since {ei }i∈K is a 1-tight frame, we also have
X
∀x ∈ H, Π(K)x = hx, ei iei = x,
i∈K
22 JOHN J. BENEDETTO AND ANDREW KEBO

and so condition 4 is satisfied, where X = K. Thus, Π, constructed in this

manner, is a POM.
Remark A.4. In this case, the detection error Pe becomes
X
Pe = 1 − ρi hxi , Π(i)xi i
i∈K
X
= 1− ρi hxi , hei , xi iei i (A.2)
i∈K
X
= 1− ρi |hxi , ei i|2 .
i∈K

Thus the quantum mechanical quantum detection problem reduces to finding

a 1-tight frame that minimizes the right side of (A.2); and this right side is
the basic error term (1.1) of the frame optimization problem.
The following result is a converse of our construction of a POM (for the
σ-algebra of all subsets of Z) for a given 1-tight frame for H.
Theorem A.5. Let H be a d-dimensional Hilbert space. Given a POM
Π with a countable set X. There exists a subset K ⊆ Z, a 1-tight frame
{ei }i∈K for H, and a disjoint partition {Bi }i∈X ⊆ B of K such that
X
∀i ∈ X and ∀x ∈ H, Π(i)x = hx, ej iej .
j∈Bi

Proof. For each i ∈ X, Π(i) is self-adjoint and positive by definition (noting

positive implies self-adjoint in the complex case). Thus, by the spectral
theorem, for each i ∈ X, there exists an orthonormal set {vj }j∈Bi ⊆ H and
positive numbers {λj }j∈Bi such that
X X
∀x ∈ H, Π(i)x = λj hx, vj ivj = hx, ej iej ,
j∈Bi j∈Bi

where
p
∀j ∈ Bi , ej = λj vj .
Since Π(X) = I we have that
X
∀x ∈ H, x = Π(X)x = hx, ej iej .
j∈∪i Bi

It follows that {ej }j∈K is a 1-tight frame for H. 

Consequently, if the Hilbert space H is finite-dimensional, analyzing quan-
tum measurements with a discrete set X of outcomes reduces to analyzing
tight frames.
Keeping in mind that we want to construct and compute solutions to the
frame optimization problem, we now prove that solutions do in fact exist.
The proof uses a compactness argument. We start with a lemma.
 THE ROLE OF FRAME FORCE IN QUANTUM DETECTION 23

Lemma A.6. Assume that {ei }N i=1 is an A-tight frame for a d-dimensional
Hilbert space H. Then,
√
∀i = 1, . . . , N, kei k ≤ A.
Proof. Note that for any 1 ≤ k ≤ N we have
N
X
2
Akek k = |hek , ei i|2
i=1
X
= kek k4 + |hek , ei i|2 .
i6=k
Hence, X
kek k4 − Akek k2 = − |hek , ei i|2 ≤ 0,
i6=k
and so
kek k2 − A ≤ 0. 
Theorem A.7. Suppose H is a d-dimensional Hilbert space, and let {xi }N i=1 ⊆
N
H be a sequence of vectors with a sequence {ρi }i=1 ⊆ R of positive numbers
that sums to 1. There exists a 1-tight frame {ei }N i=1 ⊆ H for H that mini-
mizes the error
XN
Pe = 1 − ρi |hxi , ei i|2 ,
i=1
where the minimization is taken over all 1-tight frames for H of N elements.
Proof. Let F be the set of all N element 1-tight frames. We can write this
set as
N
( )
X
N ∗
F = {vi }i=1 ⊆ H : vi vi = I ,
i=1
where v ∗ : H → K, K = R or K = C, is defined by
∀x ∈ H, v ∗ x = hx, vi.
Also, for any set {ui }N
i=1 ⊆ H, define the norm,
N
X
k{ui }N
i=1 k = kui kH ,
i=1
where k · kH is the norm on H; and define the operator norm for any d × d
matrix M as
kM k = sup kM vkH .
kvkH =1
(We are using k · kH to distinguish between other norms in this proof.)
We shall first verify that F is closed in H. Suppose we have a sequence
{{uki }N ∞
i=1 }k=1 ⊆ F such that

lim k{uki }N N
i=1 − {ui }i=1 k = 0
k→∞
24 JOHN J. BENEDETTO AND ANDREW KEBO

for some set {ui }N i=1 ⊆ H. Then, given any  > 0, there exists a k > 0
such that k{uki }N N N
i=1 − {ui }i=1 k < . To show {ui }i=1 ∈ F we begin with the
estimate,
N N N

X X X X N
∗ ∗ k k ∗ k k ∗
u u − I = u u − u (u ) + u (u ) − I

i i i i i i i i

i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1
N N

X X
= ui u∗i − uki (uki )∗


i=1 i=1
N
X
= sup hv, uki iuki − hv, ui iui

kvkH =1
i=1

H
N
X
≤ sup khv, uki iuki − hv, ui iui kH
kvkH =1 i=1

XN  
≤ sup khv, uki iuki − hv, uki iui kH + khv, uki iui − hv, ui iui kH
kvkH =1 i=1

XN  
= sup |hv, uki i|kuki − ui kH + |hv, uki − ui i|kui kH
kvkH =1 i=1
 
≤ sup k{uki }N
i=1 − {ui }N
i=1 k max kuki kH + k{uki }N
i=1 − {ui }N
i=1 k max kuki kH
kvkH =1 1≤i≤N 1≤i≤N

≤ 2 max kuki kH ≤ 2,

1≤i≤N

where in the last inequality, we used Lemma A.6 with A = 1. Since  > 0 is
arbitrary, it follows that
N
X
ui u∗i = I,
i=1

and hence {ui }N

i=1 ∈ F. Thus, F is closed.
F is also bounded since, given any {ui }Ni=1 ∈ F , we know by Lemma A.6
that
N
X
k{ui }N
i=1 k = kui kH ≤ N.
i=1

Let {xi }Ni=1 ⊆ H be the fixed sequence as given in the hypothesis, and
define the function f : F → R, which depends on {xi }N
i=1 , by

N
X
∀{ei }N
i=1 ∈ F, f ({ei }N
i=1 ) = 1 − ρi |hxi , ei i|2 .
i=1
 THE ROLE OF FRAME FORCE IN QUANTUM DETECTION 25

Given any {ui }N N

i=1 , {vi }i=1 ∈ F , we have
 
X N N
X 
|f ({vi }N ) − f ({u }N
)| = ρ |hx , u i|2
− ρ |hx , v i|2

i=1 i i=1  i i i i i i 
 
i=1 i=1
N
X
ρi |hxi , ui i|2 − |hxi , vi i|2 
 
≤
i=1
XN
= ρi (|hxi , ui i| − |hxi , vi i)(|hxi , ui i| + |hxi , vi i|)
i=1
XN
≤ C |hxi , ui i − hxi , vi i|
i=1
XN
= C |hxi , ui − vi i|
i=1
XN
≤ C kxi kH kui − vi kH
i=1
≤ C max kxi kH k{ui }N N
i=1 − {vi }i=1 k,
1≤i≤N

where, by Lemma A.6,

C = max kxi kH (kui kH + kvi kH ) ≤ 2 max kxi kH .
1≤i≤N 1≤i≤N

Therefore, f is continuous on F . Since F is compact, it follows that there

exists {ei }N
i=1 ∈ F that minimizes f . 

A.5. MSE criterion. As mentioned earlier, some authors have solved a

frame optimization problem using the MSE error. MSE error coincides with
the quantum detection error Pe when the weights are all equal and the given
vectors have an additional structure known as geometrical uniformity, see
[23, 57, 29].
Definition A.8. Let Q = {Ui }N i=1 be a finite Abelian group of N unitary
linear operators on a Hilbert space H. A set {xi }N
i=1 ⊆ H is geometrically
uniform if there exists an x ∈ H such that
{xi }N N
i=1 = {Ui x}i=1 .

Definition A.9. Let H be a separable Hilbert space, let K ⊆ Z, and let

{xi }i∈K be a frame for H. The associated frame operator is the mapping
S : H → H defined by
X
∀y ∈ H, S(y) = hy, xi ixi .
i∈K
26 JOHN J. BENEDETTO AND ANDREW KEBO

Problem A.10. Given a unit normed set {xi }N i=1 ⊆ H, where H is d-

dimensional, and a sequence {ρi }N
i=1 ⊆ R of positive weights that sums to
1. The weighted MSE problem is to construct a 1-tight frame {ei }N i=1 that
minimizes
X N
E= ρi kxi − ei k2 ,
i=1
taken over all N -element 1-tight frames for H.
A unique solution of the weighted MSE problem can be constructed if all
of the weights are equal and if {xi }N
i=1 is a frame for H [15, 23, 25, 24, 27,
21, 53].
Theorem A.11. Let {xi }N i=1 be a frame for H with frame operator S.
{S −1/2 N
xi }i=1 is the unique 1-tight frame such that
N
(N )
X X
−1/2 2 2 N
kxi − S xi k = inf kxi − ei k : {ei }i=1 1-tight frame for H ,
i=1 i=1

and, with S having eigenvalues {λj }dj=1 , we have

N
X d
X
kxi − S −1/2 xi k2 =
p
(λj − 2 λj + 1).
i=1 j=1

Further, if {xi }Nis geometrically uniform then {S −1/2 xi }N

i=1 i=1 minimizes
the detection error Pe if all of the weights are equal, and {S −1/2 xi }N
i=1 is a
geometrically uniform set under the same Abelian group Q associated with
{xi }N
i=1 .

Remark A.12. According to Theorem A.11, {S −1/2 xi }N i=1 is the unique 1-

tight frame that minimizes the MSE. However, it is not the unique minimizer
of Pe . For example, the set {(−1)j S −1/2 xi }N
j=1 is also a minimizer of Pe .

References
1. F. Acernese, F. Barone, R. De Rosa, A. Eleuteri, S. Pardi, G. Russo, and L. Milano,
Dynamic matched filter technique for gravitational wave detection from coalescing bi-
nary systems, Classical and Quantum Gravity 21 (2004), no. 5, (electronic).
2. , Dynamic matched filters for gravitational wave detection, Classical and Quan-
tum Gravity 21 (2004), no. 20, (electronic).
3. Eric Lewin Altschuler and Antonio Pérez-Garrido, Global minimum for Thomson’s
problem of charges on a sphere, Phys. Rev. E (3) 71 (2005), no. 4, 047703, 4. MR
MR2140003
4. N. Ashby and W. E. Brittin, Thomson’s problem, Amer. J. Phys. 54 (1986), 776–777.
5. John J. Benedetto and Matthew Fickus, Finite normalized tight frames, Adv. Comput.
Math. 18 (2003), no. 2-4, 357–385. MR 1968126 (2004c:42059)
6. John J. Benedetto and Andrew Kebo, Matched filtering and quantum detection,
preprint.
7. John J. Benedetto, Alex Powell, and Özgur Yilmaz, Second order Sigma-Delta quan-
tization of finite frame expansions, Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal. (2005), to appear.
 THE ROLE OF FRAME FORCE IN QUANTUM DETECTION 27

8. , Sigma-Delta quantization and finite frames, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory

(2005), to appear.
9. John J. Benedetto and David F. Walnut, Gabor frames for L2 and related spaces,
Wavelets: Mathematics and Applications, Stud. Adv. Math., CRC, Boca Raton, FL,
1994, pp. 97–162. MR 1247515 (94i:42040)
10. Charles H. Bennett, Quantum cryptography using any two nonorthogonal states, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 68 (1992), no. 21, 3121–3124. MR 1 163 546
11. Sterling K. Berberian, Notes on Spectral Theory, Van Nostrand Mathematical Studies,
No. 5, D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., Princeton, N.J.-Toronto, Ont.-London, 1966. MR
32 8170
12. Howard E. Brandt, Positive operator valued measure in quantum information process-
ing, Amer. J. Phys. 67 (1999), no. 5, 434–439. MR 2000a:81023
13. , Quantum measurement with a positive operator-valued measure, J. Opt. B
Quantum Semiclass. Opt. 5 (2003), no. 3, S266–S270, Wigner Centennial (Pécs, 2002).
MR 2004g:81012
14. Peter G. Casazza and Jelena Kovačević, Equal-norm tight frames with erasures,
Adv. Comput. Math. 18 (2003), no. 2-4, 387–430, Frames. MR MR1968127
(2004e:42046)
15. Peter G. Casazza and Gitta Kutyniok, A generalization of Gram-Schmidt orthogonal-
ization generating all Parseval frames, Advances in Comp. Math., to appear.
16. Wojciech Czaja, Remarks on Naimark’s duality, Proc. Amer. Math. Society (2006),
to appear.
17. Ingrid Daubechies, Ten Lectures on Wavelets, CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series
in Applied Mathematics, vol. 61, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
(SIAM), Philadelphia, PA, 1992. MR MR1162107 (93e:42045)
18. Ingrid Daubechies, A. Grossmann, and Y. Meyer, Painless nonorthogonal expansions,
J. Math. Phys. 27 (1986), no. 5, 1271–1283. MR MR836025 (87e:81089)
19. Chandler Davis, Geometric approach to a dilation theorem, Linear Algebra and Appl.
18 (1977), no. 1, 33–43. MR 58 7179
20. Richard J. Duffin and A. C. Schaeffer, A class of nonharmonic Fourier series, Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc. 72 (1952), 341–366. MR 0047179 (13,839a)
21. Yonina C. Eldar, Least-squares inner product shaping, Linear Algebra Appl. 348
(2002), 153–174. MR 2003f:65074
22. , von Neumann measurement is optimal for detecting linearly independent
mixed quantum states, Phys. Rev. A (3) 68 (2003), no. 5, 052303, 4. MR 2004k:81047
23. Yonina C. Eldar and Helmut Bölcskei, Geometrically uniform frames, IEEE Trans.
Inform. Theory 49 (2003), no. 4, 993–1006. MR 2004f:94015
24. Yonina C. Eldar and G. David Forney, Jr., On quantum detection and the square-
root measurement, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 47 (2001), no. 3, 858–872. MR
2002f:94001
25. , Optimal tight frames and quantum measurement, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory
48 (2002), no. 3, 599–610. MR 2003c:94006
26. Yonina C. Eldar, Alexandre Megretski, and George C. Verghese, Designing optimal
quantum detectors via semidefinite programming, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 49
(2003), no. 4, 1007–1012. MR 1984485 (2004f:81022)
27. Yonina C. Eldar and Alan V. Oppenheim, Quantum signal processing, Signal Process-
ing Mag. 19 (2002), 12–32.
28. Yonina C. Eldar, Alan V. Oppenheim, and D Egnor, Orthogonal and projected orthog-
onal matched filter detection, Signal Processing 84 (2004), 677–693.
29. G. David Forney, Jr., Geometrically uniform codes, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 37
(1991), no. 5, 1241–1260. MR 1136662 (92j:94018)
28 JOHN J. BENEDETTO AND ANDREW KEBO

30. Vivek K. Goyal, Jelena Kovačević, and Jonathan A. Kelner, Quantized frame expan-
sions with erasures, Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal. 10 (2001), no. 3, 203–233. MR
MR1829801 (2002h:94012)
31. Vivek K. Goyal, Jelena Kovačević, and Martin Vetterli, Multiple description transform
coding: Robustness to erasures using tight frame expansions, Proc. IEEE Int. Symp.
on Information Th. (Cambridge, MA) (1998), 408.
32. , Quantized frame expansions as source-channel codes for erasure channels,
Proc. IEEE Data Compression Conference (1999), 326–335.
33. David Griffiths, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1995.
34. V. Gudkov, J. E. Johnson, and S. Nussinov, Approaches to network classification,
arXiv: cond-mat/0209111 (2002).
35. V. Gudkov and S. Nussinov, Graph equivalence and characterization via a continuous
evolution of a physical analog, rXiv: cond-mat/0209112 (2002).
36. V. Gudkov, S. Nussinov, and Z. Nussinov, A novel approach applied to the largest
clique problem, arXiv: cond-mat/0209419 (2002).
37. Paul Hausladen and William K. Wootters, A “pretty good” measurement for distin-
guishing quantum states, J. Modern Opt. 41 (1994), no. 12, 2385–2390. MR 95j:81030
38. Carl W. Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation theory, J. Statist. Phys. 1
(1969), 231–252. MR 40 3855
39. Bertrand M. Hochwald, Thomas L. Marzetta, Thomas J. Richardson, Wim Sweldens,
and Rüdiger L. Urbanke, Systematic design of unitary space-time constellations, IEEE
Trans. Inform. Theory 46 (2000), no. 6, 1962–1973.
40. Roderick B. Holmes and Vern I. Paulsen, Optimal frames for erasures, Linear Algebra
Appl. 377 (2004), 31–51. MR 2021601 (2004j:42028)
41. Andrew Kebo, Numerical computation of optimal quantum frames, preprint.
42. S. Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt, Jr., and M. P. Vecchi, Optimization by simulated anneal-
ing, Science 220 (1983), no. 4598, 671–680. MR 702485 (85f:90091)
43. J. R. Klauder, The design of radar signals having both high range resolution and high
velocity resolution, Bell System Technical Journal 39 (1960), 809–820.
44. J. R. Klauder, A. C. Price, S. Darlington, and W. J. Albersheim, The theory and
design of chirp radars, Bell System Technical Journal 39 (1960), 745–808.
45. John R. Klauder, Optical coherence before and after Wiener, Proceedings of the Nor-
bert Wiener Centenary Congress, 1994 (East Lansing, MI, 1994) (Providence, RI),
Proc. Sympos. Appl. Math., vol. 52, Amer. Math. Soc., 1997, pp. 195–211. MR
1440914 (98g:78010)
46. Jerry B. Marion and Stephen T. Thornton, Classical Dynamics of Particles and Sys-
tems, fourth ed., Harcourt Brace & Company, 1995.
47. M. A. Naimark, Spectral functions of a symmetric operator, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR,
Ser. Mat. 4 (1940), 277–318.
48. S. Nussinov and Z. Nussinov, A novel approach to complex problems, arXiv: cond-
mat/0209155 (2002).
49. Asher Peres and Daniel R. Terno, Optimal distinction between non-orthogonal quan-
tum states, J. Phys. A 31 (1998), no. 34, 7105–7111. MR 99f:81034
50. Asher Peres and William K. Wootters, Optimal detection of quantum information,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 (1991), 1119–1122.
51. Wulf Rossmann, Lie groups, Oxford Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 5, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 2002, An introduction through linear groups. MR 1889121
(2003f:22001)
52. Walter Rudin, Functional Analysis, second ed., International Series in Pure and Ap-
plied Mathematics, McGraw-Hill Inc., New York, 1991. MR 1157815 (92k:46001)
53. Steve Smale and Ding-Xuan Zhou, Shannon sampling and function reconstruction
from point values, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 41 (2004), no. 3, 279–305 (electronic).
MR 2058288 (2005b:94022)
 THE ROLE OF FRAME FORCE IN QUANTUM DETECTION 29

54. Thomas Strohmer and Robert W. Heath, Jr., Grassmannian frames with applications
to coding and communication, Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal. 14 (2003), no. 3, 257–
275. MR 1984549 (2004d:42053)
55. Eitan Tadmor, Suzanne Nezzar, and Luminita Vese, A multiscale image representation
using hierarchical (BV, L2 ) decompositions, Multiscale Model. Simul. 2 (2004), no. 4,
554–579 (electronic). MR 2113170 (2005h:68163)
56. John R. Tucker and Marc J. Feldman, Quantum detection at millimeter wavelengths,
Rev. Mod. Phys. 57 (1985), no. 4, 1055–1113.
57. Richard Vale and Shayne Waldron, Tight frames and their symmetries, Constr. Ap-
prox. 21 (2005), no. 1, 83–112. MR 2105392 (2005h:42063)
58. John von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, 1955, Translated by Robert T. Beyer. MR 16,654a
59. Clifford M. Will and Nicolas Yunes, Testing alternative theories of gravity using LISA,
Classical and Quantum Gravity 21 (2004), 4367.
60. Robert M. Young, An Introduction to Nonharmonic Fourier Series, first ed., Academic
Press Inc., San Diego, CA, 2001. MR 1836633 (2002b:42001)
61. Horace P. Yuen, Robert S. Kennedy, and Melvin Lax, Optimum testing of multiple hy-
potheses in quantum detection theory, IEEE Trans. Information Theory IT-21 (1975),
125–134. MR 53 1370

Department of Mathematics, University of Maryland, College park, MD

20742, USA
E-mail address: jjb@math.umd.edu

Department of Mathematics, University of Maryland, College park, MD

20742, USA
E-mail address: akebo@math.umd.edu