Quantum information and quantum computing:

an overview and some mathematical aspects∗

Maurice R. Kibler†
CNRS/IN2P3, Institut de Physique Nucléaire, 69622 Villeurbanne, France
Faculté des Sciences et Technologies, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 69622 Villeurbanne, France
Université de Lyon, 69361 Lyon, France

Abstract
arXiv:1811.08499v1 [quant-ph] 9 Nov 2018

The aim of the present paper is twofold. First, to give the main ideas behind quantum computing
and quantum information, a field based on quantum-mechanical phenomena. Therefore, a short
review is devoted to (i) quantum bits or qubits (and more generally qudits), the analogues of the
usual bits 0 and 1 of the classical information theory, and to (ii) two characteristics of quantum
mechanics, namely, linearity (which manifests itself through the superposition of qubits and the
action of unitary operators on qubits) and entanglement of certain multi-qubit states (a resource
that is specific to quantum mechanics). Second, to focus on some mathematical problems related
to the so-called mutually unbiased bases used in quantum computing and quantum information
processing. In this direction, the construction of mutually unbiased bases is presented via two
distinct approaches: one based on the group SU(2) and the other on Galois fields and Galois rings.

1 Introduction
In the present days, there is a growing interest for the field of quantum information and quantum
computing. Such a field emerged at the beginning of the 1980s when Feynman (and other scientists)
asked the question: is it possible to simulate the behaviour of a quantum system by using a classical
computer? Then, the question evolved towards how to use quantum systems to do computations. This
led to the idea of a quantum computer based on quantum physics with the hope to solve problems
that would be intractable or difficult to solve with a classical computer. A fact in favour of a quantum
computer is the law by Moore according to which the size of electronic and spintronic devices for a
classical computer should approach 10 nm in 2020, the scale where quantum effects become important.
The field of quantum information and quantum computing is at the crossroads of experimental and
theoretical quantum physical sciences (physics and chemistry), discrete mathematics and informatics
with the aim of building a quantum computer. We note in passing that physics, mathematics, infor-
matics and engineering have already greatly benefited from the enormous amount of works achieved
along the line of quantum information and quantum computing.
The unit of classical information is the bit (possible values 0 and 1). In a quantum computer,
classical bits (0 and 1) are replaced by quantum bits or qubits (that interpolate in some sense between
0 and 1). The most general qubit is a normalized vector |ψi in the two-dimensional Hilbert space C2

|ψi = a|0i + b|1i, |a|2 + |b|2 = 1, a ∈ C, b∈C (1)

where |0i and |1i are the elements of an orthonormal basis in C2 . The result of a measurement of
|ψi is not deterministic since it gives |0i or |1i with the probability |a|2 or |b|2 , respectively. The
∗
Paper from an invited talk at the 20th International Workshop on Computer Algebra in Scientific Computing (CASC,
Lille, 2018). This paper does not appear in the proceedings of CASC 2018 because it was not ready in due time.
†
email: m.kibler@ipnl.in2p3.fr

1
 N
consideration of N qubits leads to work in the 2N -dimensional Hilbert space C2 . Note that the
notion of qubit, corresponding to C2 , is a particular case of the one of qudit, corresponding to Cd
N
(d not necessarily in the form 2N ). A system of N qudits is associated with the Hilbert space Cd .
In this connection, the techniques developed for finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces are of paramount
importance in quantum computation and quantum computing.
From a formal point of view, a quantum computer is a system producing qubits, the state of which
can be controlled and manipulated via unitary transformations. These transformations correspond to
the product of elementary unitary operators called quantum gates (the analogues of the logic gates of
a classical computer) acting on one, two or more qubits. Measurement of the qubits out-coming from
a quantum circuit of quantum gates yields the result of a (quantum) computation. In other words,
a realization of quantum information processing can be performed by preparing a quantum system
in a quantum state, then submitting this state to unitary transformations and, finally, reading the
outcome from a measurement.
The two basic characteristics of quantum mechanics used in a quantum computer are linearity
(principle of superposition of quantum states) and entanglement. The superposition principle gives
resources: the quantum computer can be in several states at the same time. This leads to a massive
quantum parallelism with a speed up of computations (for N qubits, 2N computations can be achieved
in parallel through the use of quantum algorithms). Entanglement, i.e. the fact that certain quantum
systems made of two or more sub-systems behave as an indissociable entity, is at the root of quantum
computing and quantum teleportation. In quantum mechanics, each measurement on a quantum
system perturbs the system and the superposition principle makes impossible to duplicate a quantum
state (no-cloning theorem). The two latter points and the use of the so-called mutually unbiased bases
(MUBs), to be defined in Section 3, are the basic ingredients of quantum cryptography (illustrated by
the BB84 protocol, the first protocol of quantum cryptography).
The aim of this paper is to present to a community of computer engineers and mathematicians the
basic grounds of quantum information and quantum computing as well as some mathematical aspects
and related open problems.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 deals with the general framework of quantum infor-
mation and quantum computing (i.e. information and computing based on quantum physics): some of
the concepts and ideas evoked above are further described. In Section 3, we address some mathemat-
ical aspects of quantum information; in particular, we review some of the methods for constructing
mutually unbiased bases (more precisely, methods based on the group SU(2) and on Galois rings and
Galois fields). Sections 2 and 3 are mainly based on Refs. [1] and [75], respectively. References [2]-[77]
constitute an incomplete list (in chronological order) of original works of relevance for an in-depth
study of Sections 2 and 3. Finally, the reader will find in Ref. [78] some calculations with the help of
the Python language illustrating the derivation of mutually unbiased bases according to the methods
described in Section 3.

2
2 The general framework of quantum information and quantum
computing
2.1 Quantum mechanics in a few words
Classical physics does not apply in the microscopic world. It is not appropriate for describing, ex-
plaining and predicting physical and chemical phenomena at the atomic and sub-atomic level. The
convenient theory for quantum systems (i.e. molecules, atoms, nuclei and elementary particles) is
quantum mechanics, an extension of the old quantum theory mainly due to Planck, Einstein, Bohr
and Sommerfeld (the word quantum comes from the fact that the energy exchanges between light and
matter occur in a quantized form). Quantum mechanics, which is often used in conjunction with some
other theories like relativity and quantum field theory, can be presented in two equivalent ways: wave
mechanics initiated by de Broglie and Schrödinger and matrix mechanics pioneered by Heisenberg,
Born and Jordan. It is not our purpose to list in detail the postulates of quantum mechanics. We
shall restrict ourselves with four aspects of the Copenhagen interpretation which are indispensable in
quantum information and quantum computing.
• In both presentations of quantum mechanics, the state of a closed quantum system is described
by a vector (in matrix mechanics) or a wave function (in wave mechanics), noted |ψi in both cases,
belonging to a finite or infinite Hilbert space H.
• In quantum information and quantum computing, the space H is finite-dimensional (isomorphic
to C2 for qubits or Cd for qudits) and the (normalized) vector |ψi, defined up to a phase factor, can
be the result (arising from an evolution or transformation of a vector |ψ ′ i)

|ψi = U |ψ ′ i

of the action of a unitary operator U (or quantum gate) on |ψ ′ i. (We are not concerned here with
dynamical systems for which the time evolution of ψ in the wave picture is given by the Schrödinger
equation, in the non-relativistic case, or the Dirac equation, in the relativistic case, two linear equa-
tions).
• In quantum information and quantum computing, |ψi is given by a linear combination of the
eigenvectors of an observable in the matrix formulation. An observable A is associated with a mea-
surable physical quantity (energy, position, impulsion, spin, etc.). It is represented by a self-adjoint
operator A acting on the space H. The possible outcomes of a measurement of an observable A are
the real eigenvalues of the operator A. Measurement in quantum mechanics exhibits a probabilistic
nature. More precisely, if (in the case of the finite-dimensional Hilbert space H = Cd )
d−1
X
|ψi = cn |ϕn i, cn ∈ C (2)
n=0

where the ϕn given by

A|ϕi i = λi |ϕi i, i = 0, 1, · · · , d − 1

are the orthormalized eigenvectors of A, then a measurement of A will give λk with the probability

|ck |2 = |hϕk |ψi|2

3
where hϕk |ψi stands for the inner product of |ψi by |ϕk i (we suppose that the spectrum of A is
non-degenerate). Hence, before measurement, the quantum system is in several states being a linear
combination of the states |ϕn i and, after measurement, the quantum system is in a well-defined state
|ϕk i. Measurement leads to a reduction of the wave packet or wave function collapse. In terms of
measurement of qudits, what precedes can be formulated as follows. Let |ψi as given by Eq. (2)
be a qudit describing a quantum system before measurement. A measurement of |ψi in a basis
{ϕi i : i = 0, 1, · · · , d − 1} of Cd yields the state

hϕi |ψi hϕi |ψi

p |ϕi i = |ϕi i
hψ|ϕi ihϕi |ψi |hϕi |ψi|

with the probability

p(i) = |hψ|ϕi i|2

Observe that the factor hϕi |ψi|hϕi |ψi|−1 is a simple phase factor without importance. By way of
example, in the case of C2 , measurement of the qubit |ψi = a|0i + b|1i in the basis {|0i, |1i} of C2
yields |0i or |1i (up to unimportant phase factors) with the probabilities |a|2 or |b|2 , respectively.
• A postulate of quantum mechanics of considerable interest in quantum information and quantum
computing concerns the description of a system composed of several sub-systems. The state vector
for the system is build from tensors products of the state vectors of the various sub-systems. This
may lead to entangled vector states for the composite system. Entanglement constitutes another
important resource for quantum information and quantum computing besides the linearity and the
non deterministic nature of quantum mechanics. As an example, suppose we have a system of qubits
made of two two-level sub-systems. The Hilbert space for the system is H = C4 ∼ C2 ⊗ C2 , where the
first and second C2 corresponds to the first and second sub-systems, respectively. By tensor product,
we can take

{|0i1 ⊗ |0i2 , |0i1 ⊗ |1i2 , |1i1 ⊗ |0i2 , |1i1 ⊗ |1i2 }

as a basis for C4 , where the indices 1 and 2 refer to the first and the second qubits, respectively. Two
kinds of states can be considered in C4 , namely separable or non entangled states as
1 √
|ψs i = |0i1 ⊗ (|0i2 + 3|1i2 )
2
and non separable or entangled states as
1
|ψns i = √ (|0i1 ⊗ |1i2 + |1i1 ⊗ |0i2 )
2
For the non entangled state |ψs i, measurement of the qubit 1 yields |0i1 with the probability 1 while
measurement of the qubit 2 leads either to |0i2 with the probability 41 or to |1i2 with the probability 34 ;
therefore, the result of a measurement for one qubit does not depend on the result of a measurement
for the other qubit. The situation turns out to be entirely different for the entangled state |ψns i: a
measurement of the first qubit leads either to |0i1 with the probability 21 or to |1i1 with the probability
1
2 ; once one of the two results has been obtained, we immediately know what would be the result if
we perform a measurement on the second qubit; it is thus unnecessary to make a measurement on the

4
second qubit and this may be sum up as follows:

result of a measurement of qubit 1 ⇒ state of qubit 2 (without measurement)

|0i1 ⇒ |1i2
|1i1 ⇒ |0i2

and conversely

result of a measurement of qubit 2 ⇒ state of qubit 1 (without measurement)

|1i2 ⇒ |0i1
|0i2 ⇒ |1i1

Entanglement may also occur for more than two qubits. For entangled states, there are strong cor-
relations between the results of measurements of the qubits. This effect is essential for quantum
information and quantum computing.
Unfortunately, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” (where the Copenhagen interpre-
tation developed). In fact, entanglement is also an inconvenience: entanglement of qubits with their
environment leads to errors. This is known as the effect of decoherence an important drawback for
the building of a quantum computer. One way to fight against errors due to decoherence and other
effects of noise is to develop quantum error-correcting codes.

2.2 Qubits and qudits

2.2.1 Qubits

Let
B2 = {|0i, |1i}

be an orthonormal basis called the computational basis of the Hilbert space C2 . Any normalized (to
unity) vector |ψi, see Eq. (1), in C2 is called a quantum bit or qubit. From the quantum mechanical
point of view, a qubit describes a state of a two-level quantum system. In the absence of measurement
(and decoherence), the state |ψi is a superposition of |0i and |1i. A measurement of the state |ψi yields
either |0i (with the probability |a|2 ) or |1i (with the probability |b|2 ). Therefore, the superposition of
the states |0i and |1i is lost after the measurement. In matrix form, we take

1 0 a
     
|0i = , |1i = , |ψi =
0 1 b

From a group-theoretical point of view, |0i and |1i can be considered as the basis vectors for the
fundamental irreducible representation 21 of SU(2), in the chain SU(2) ⊃ U(1), with

1 1 1 1
|0i = | , i, |1i = | , − i (3)
2 2 2 2
in the notations of quantum angular momentum theory.
The state |ψi can be associated with a point (x, y, z, t) of the sphere S 3 in R4 according to

C2 → S 3 : a|0i + b|1i 7→ (x, y, z, t)

5
 |ψi |0i |1i √1 (|0i + |1i) √1 (|0i − |1i) √1 (|0i + i|1i) √1 (|0i − i|1i)
2 2 2 2
(ξ, η, ζ) (0, 0, 1) (0, 0, −1) (1, 0, 0) (−1, 0, 0) (0, 1, 0) (0, −1, 0)

Table 1: Correspondence between qubits |ψi = cos 2θ |0i + eiϕ sin θ2 |1i and points (ξ = sin θ cos ϕ,
η = sin θ sin ϕ, ζ = cos θ) of the Bloch sphere S 2 in R3

with a = x + iy and b = z + it. In fact, the point (x, y, z, t) can be visualized as a point (1, θ, ϕ) of the
sphere S 2 in R3 , referred to as the Bloch sphere, since ψ can be re-written as
θ θ
ψ = cos |0i + eiϕ sin |1i, 0 ≤ θ ≤ π, 0 ≤ ϕ < 2π (4)
2 2
up to a global multiplicative phase factor. The application

S 3 → S 2 : (x, y, z, t) 7→ (1, θ, ϕ)
S1
corresponds to the first Hopf fibration S 3 −→ S 2 of compact fibre S 1 . Any qubit as given by Eq. (4)
can be represented by a point on the Bloch sphere. Table 1 gives the correspondence between some
remarkable qubits |ψi and points on the Bloch sphere. Any unitary transformation acting on a qubit
|ψi corresponds to a rotation around an axis passing through the centre of the Bloch sphere.
Note that the sets
   
|0i + |1i |0i − |1i |0i + i|1i |0i − i|1i
B0 = √ , √ , B1 = √ , √ , B2 = {|0i, |1i} (5)
2 2 2 2
appearing in Table 1 are three orthonormal bases of the space C2 . In addition, the vectors in B0 , B1
and B2 are eigenvectors of the Pauli matrices σ1 , σ2 and σ3 (defined in Eq. (9) below), respectively.
The bases B0 , B1 and B2 constitute the simplest example of the so-called MUBs to be studied in
Section 3.

2.2.2 Qudits

The generalisation from the two-dimensional Hilbert space C2 to the d-dimensional Hilbert space Cd
(d > 2) is immediate. Given an orthonormal basis (called the computational basis)

Bd = {|ni : n = 0, 1, · · · , d − 1} (6)

of Cd , any normalized vector

d−1
X d−1
X
|ψi = cn |ni, |cn |2 = 1, ci ∈ C, i = 0, 1, · · · , d − 1
n=0 n=0

is called a qudit. From the point of view of quantum mechanics, the states |ni can be realized as
generalized angular momentum states with

|ni = |j, mi, n = j − m, d = 2j + 1 (7)

where for fixed j, the index m takes the values −j, −j + 1, · · · , j. This yields the correspondence

|0i = |j, ji, |1i = |j, j − 1i, ···, |d − 1i = |j, −ji

6
between qudits and angular momentum states. (Let us recall that the angular momentum state |j, mi
is a common eigenstate of the square J 2 of a generalized angular momentum and of the z-component
Jz of the angular momentum.) Therefore, |ψi can be re-written
j
X
|ψi = dj−m |j, mi
m=−j

in the angular momentum basis {|j, mi : m = −j, −j + 1, · · · , j}. For instance, a qutrit |ψi can be
written
|ψi = c0 |0i + c1 |1i + c2 |2i

in the ternary basis {|0i, |1i, |2i} or

|ψi = d2 |1, −1i + d1 |1, 0i + d0 |1, 1i

in the balanced basis {|1, −1i, |1, 0i, |1, 1i} associated with the angular momentum j = 1.

2.2.3 Qudits with d = 2N

In the case where d = 2N , the corresponding qudits can be obtained from tensor products. For
example, for d = 4 a basis of C4 ∼ C2 ⊗ C2 is

1 0
   

1 1 0 1 0 1
           
|0i ⊗ |0i = ⊗ =   , |0i ⊗ |1i = ⊗ = 
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0
0 0
   

0 1 0 0 0 0
           
|1i ⊗ |0i = ⊗ =  , |1i ⊗ |1i = ⊗ = 
1 0 1 1 1 0
0 1

Then, the most general quartit |ψi is made of the superposition of tensor products of two qubits. In
detail, we have

|ψi = a|0i ⊗ |0i + b|0i ⊗ |1i + c|1i ⊗ |0i + d|1i ⊗ |1i

where a, b, c, d ∈ C (usually, in |ii ⊗ |ji the state |ii refers to the first qubit and |ji to the second).
It is interesting to remark that the vectors |ψi for d = 2, 22 and 23 are associated with the Hopf
S1 S3
fibrations S 3 −→ S 2 (connected to complex numbers), S 7 −→ S 4 (connected to quaternions) and
S7
S 15 −→ S 8 (connected to octonions). Entanglement for d = 22 and 23 can be discussed in terms of
fibrations on spheres [20]. In the same vein, we may ask the question of the interest for entanglement
of Cayley-Dickson algebras for d = 2N with N > 3 and of fibrations on hyperboloids [12].

2.3 Physical realizations of qubits

According to R. Landauer, information is physical so that qubits are realised by quantum systems,
more specifically by two-level quantum systems, the qubits |0i and |1i corresponding to two different

7
(energy) levels. We shall not be concerned here with the physical realization of qubits (and qudits). It
is enough to say that any two-level quantum system may be considered as a qubit. Therefore, qubits
can be carried out by nuclear spins, trapped ions, neutral atoms and Bose-Einstein condensates, two
different polarizations of a photon, and Josephson tunnel nanojunctions. For instance, in nuclear
magnetic resonance, the nuclear spins of an atom in an organic molecule can be aligned (giving the
state |0i) or anti-aligned (giving the state |1i) with an applied constant magnetic field; in generalized
angular momentum terminology, we have the quantum states given by Eq. (3) and corresponding to
the spin j = 12 . Similarly, for an ion cooled and trapped by electric fields in a cavity, qubits can be
implemented as electronic states (ground state for |0i, excited state for |1i). Vibrational states can
also be used for realizing qubits (zero-phonon state for |0i, one-phonon state for |1i).

2.4 Entanglement
2.4.1 Generalities

Entanglement occurs only in quantum physics. It has no analogue in classical physics. The notion of
entanglement goes back to the famous paper by Einstein, Poldosky and Rosen. In quantum physics,
two (or more than two) particles are said to be entangled if the quantum state of each particle depends
of the quantum state(s) of the other(s) or cannot be described independently of the quantum state(s)
of the other(s). In other words, there exist correlations between the physical properties of a system
of entangled particles. More generally, two entangled sub-systems S1 and S2 are not independent so
that the global system {S1 , S2 } must be considered as a whole even after separation by an arbitrary
distance. Then, a measurement made on one sub-system gives an information on the other (without
measurement on the other sub-system). On the contrary, for a non entangled system consisting of two
sub-systems, a measurement on one sub-system does not give in general an information on the other
sub-system.
As an example, let us consider a system consisting of two particles, system having a total spin
equal to 0. If the spin of one particle is measured to be 12 on a certain axis, then we know (without
any measurement) that the spin on the other particle on the same axis is − 21 because
1 1
0= −
2 2
The two particles are not independent, even after separation. They still behave like an indivisible
system of spin 0.
Entanglement contradicts the principle of locality. There is non locality in the sense that what
happens in some place depends of what happens in another place. Indeed, quantum mechanics is a
non local, non deterministic and linear physical theory.

2.4.2 Entanglement of qubits

In quantum information, the notion of entanglement occurs for multi-qubit systems. Let us consider
a two-qubit system. There are two possibilities.
• The system is non entangled (or separable); it is then described by a state |ψs i ∈ C2 ⊗ C2 such
that
|ψs i = (a|0i + b|1i) ⊗ (c|0i + d|1i)

8
which can be re-written as

|ψs i = ac|0i ⊗ |0i + ad|0i ⊗ |1i + bc|1i ⊗ |0i + bd|1i ⊗ |1i

where a|0i + b|1i and c|0i + d|1i refer to the first and second qubit, respectively.
• The system is entangled (or non separable); it is then described by a state |ψns i ∈ C4 such that

|ψs i = A|0i ⊗ |0i + B|0i ⊗ |1i + C|1i ⊗ |0i + D|1i ⊗ |1i

cannot be written as the tensor product of two qubits in C2 .

It is clear that a necessary and sufficient condition for an arbitrary two-qubit state

|ψi = α|0i ⊗ |0i + β|0i ⊗ |1i + γ|1i ⊗ |0i + δ|1i ⊗ |1i

of C4 to be non entangled is
αδ − βγ = 0

Therefore, if αδ − βγ 6= 0, then the state is entangled. The degree of entanglement of an arbitrary

normalized two-qubit state |ψi is characterized by the concurrence defined by
1
C = |αδ − βγ|, 0≤C ≤ (8)
2
Non entangled states correspond to C = 0, maximally entangled states to C = 12 . (A maximally
entangled state is such that the density operator for each qubit is half the identity operator; it corre-
sponds to a maximum value of the entropy.) Equation (8) can be straightforwardly generalized to the
case
d−1 X
X d−1
|ψi = aij |ii ⊗ |ji
i=0 j=0

of two qudits for which the concurrence C is defined as

1
C = det(aij ), 0≤C≤ √
dd
in agreement with Eq. (8) for d = 2.
Example 1. Let us consider the four states (⊕ stands for the addition modulo 2)
1
|βxy i = √ [|0i ⊗ |yi + (−1)x |1i ⊗ |y ⊕ 1i], x, y = 0, 1
2
called Bell states (in reference to the work on the so-called Bell inequalities) or EPR pairs (in reference
to the paper by Einstein, Poldosky and Rosen). As a particular case
1
|β01 i = √ (|0i1 ⊗ |1i2 + |1i1 ⊗ |0i2 )
2
where the first qubit (qubit 1) and the second one (qubit 2) are clearly emphasized in order to avoid
confusion. The result of a measurement of the qubit 1 gives
• either |0i1 (with the probability 12 ) so that the qubit 2 is a priori (without measurement) in the
state |1i2

9
 • or |1i1 (with the probability 21 ) so that the qubit 2 is a priori (without measurement) in the
state |0i2
but no measurement can lead to both qubits 1 and 2 in the same state (|0i or |1i). The result of a
measurement of the qubit 1 provides information on the qubit 2 and reciprocally. It is then unnecessary
to make a measurement of one qubit once the result of the measurement of the other is known. Similar
conclusions can be obtained for the three other Bell states β00 , β10 and β11 . The four Bell states are
maximally entangled (they correspond to C = 12 ).
In passing note that
|βxy i = (−1)xy [(σ1 )y (σ3 )x ] ⊗ σ0 |β00 i

where σ0 , σ1 and σ3 are three of the four Pauli matrices

1 0 0 1 1 0 0 −i
       
σ0 = , σ1 = , σ3 = , σ2 = iσ1 σ3 = (9)
0 1 1 0 0 −1 i 0
Thus, any Bell state |βxy i can be obtained from |β00 i.
Example 2. Let us consider the separable state
1 1
|ψi = (a|0i + b|1i) ⊗ √ (|0i + 2|1i) = √ (a|0i ⊗ |0i + 2a|0i ⊗ |1i + b|1i ⊗ |0i + 2b|1i ⊗ |1i)
5 5
tensor product of two normalized qubits. A measurement of the first qubit gives either |0i with the
2a 2
probability |a|2 = | √a5 |2 + | √ 5
| or |1i with the probability |b|2 = | √b5 |2 + | √2b5 |2 while a measurement
of the second qubit gives either |0i with the probability 15 = | √a5 |2 + | √b5 |2 or |1i with the probability
4 2a 2 2b 2
5 = | 5 | + | 5 | . Therefore, a measurement on one qubit does not provide information on the other
√ √

qubit (the state |ψi corresponds to C = 0).

It is important to realize that entanglement of qubits (as in Example 1) and more generally of
qudits has no analogue for classical bits. To be clear, the bits in 00 or 01 or 10 or 11 are not correlated.
This is not the case for the quantum bits in any of the Bell states βxy .

2.5 Quantum gates

2.5.1 One-qubit gates

In a classical computer, bits are handled with the help of logic gates (there exist seven basic logic
gates: AND, OR, XOR, NOT, NAND, NOR, and XNOR). A quantum computer processes qubits
arranged in registers. It is equipped with quantum gates which perform unitary transformations on
qubits. Quantum gates can be represented by unitary matrices. Table 2 gives some examples of
quantum gates [G] for one-qubit systems together with their matrix representations G. The actions
of the one-qubit gates of Table 2 on the qubit |xi (with x = 0 or 1) are given by

|xi → [I] → |xi, |xi → [NOT] → |x ⊕ 1i

|xi → [Sθ ] → eixθ |xi, |xi → [H] → √1 (|0i + (−1)x |1i) ≡ √1 (|x ⊕ 1i + (−1)x |xi)
2 2

(as an example, the quantum circuit |xi → [Sθ ] → eixθ |xi is described by the action Sθ |xi = eixθ |xi).
Therefore, by linearity

a|0i + b|1i → [NOT] → b|0i + a|1i

10
 a|0i + b|1i → [Sθ ] → a|0i + eiθ b|1i
a|0i + b|1i → [H] → √1 (a + b)|0i + √1 (a − b)|1i
2 2
a|0i + b|1i → [H] → [H] → a|0i + b|1i

(the last circuit reflects that H 2 = I). Note that the most general qubit can be obtained from the
sequence [H] → [S2θ ] → [H] → [S π2 +ϕ ] of one-qubit gates since

|0i → [H] → [S2θ ] → [H] → [S π2 +ϕ ] → cos θ|0i + eiϕ sin θ|1i

or
S π2 +ϕ HS2θ H|0i = cos θ|0i + eiϕ sin θ|1i

up to the phase factor eiθ .

2.5.2 Multi-qubit gates

Quantum gates for two-qubit systems are important. For example, let us mention the controlled-NOT
gate [CNOT ] defined via
|xi ⊗ |yi → [CNOT ] → |xi ⊗ |y ⊕ xi

or in operator form
CN OT |xi ⊗ |yi = |xi ⊗ |y ⊕ xi

where the first input qubit |xi and the second input qubit |yi are called control qubit and target qubit,
respectively. Here, the corresponding quantum circuit has two inputs (|xi and |yi) and two outputs
(|xi and |y ⊕ xi). In matrix form, we have the permutation matrix

1 0 0 0
 
0 1 0 0
CN OT = 
 
0 0 0 1


0 0 1 0

Clearly, (CN OT )2 = I. Note that

CN OT |xi ⊗ |0i = |xi ⊗ |xi (10)

where x = 0 or 1; however, this result does not mean that an arbitrary state |ψi = a|0i + b|1i can be
cloned by using the gate [CNOT ] since we generally have (see Section 2.6)

CN OT |ψi ⊗ |0i 6= |ψi ⊗ |ψi

to be compared with Eq. (10). Note also that

|xi ⊗ |yi → [H ⊗ I] → [CNOT ] → |βxy i

or
|βxy i = CN OT (H ⊗ I)|xi ⊗ |yi

11
 gate [G] identity gate [I] not gate [NOT] phase gate [Sθ ] Hadamard gate [H]
1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1
       
1
matrix form G I= N OT = Sθ = H = √2
0 1 1 0 0 eiθ 1 −1

Table 2: Four basic quantum gates for one-qubit systems; the gates [I] and [NOT] also denoted [X]
are associated with the Pauli matrices σ0 or I and σ1 or σx , respectively; the two other Pauli matrices
σ2 or σy and σ3 or σz define two further one-qubit gates denoted as [Y] and [Z], respectively

that shows the interest of the gate [CNOT ] for producing Bell states (i.e. entangled states) from non
entangled states. (By [H ⊗ I], we mean that the quantum gates [H] and [I] act on |xi and |yi,
respectively. Hence, H ⊗ I stands for the direct product of the matrices H and I.)
More generally, the quantum gate [Uf ] is defined through

|xi ⊗ |yi → [Uf ] → |xi ⊗ |y ⊕ f (x)i

or in an equivalent way
Uf |xi ⊗ |yi = |xi ⊗ |y ⊕ f (x)i
where f stands for the function f : {0, 1} → {0, 1}. Clearly, (Uf )2 = I.
Another important two-qubit gate is the controlled phase gate [CPθ ] such that

|xi ⊗ |yi → [CPθ ] → |xi ⊗ eixyθ |yi

or
CPθ |xi ⊗ |yi = |xi ⊗ eixyθ |yi

with
1 0 0 0
 
0 1 0 0 
CPθ = 
 
0 0 1 0 


0 0 0 eiθ
Note that
[CNOT ] = [I ⊗ H] → [CP π2 ] → [CP π2 ] → [I ⊗ H]
so that the gate [CNOT ] can be obtained from the gates [I ⊗ H] and [CP π2 ].
There exist other two-qubit gates. Moreover, use is also made of n-qubit gates (n > 2). The
advantage of the quantum gates over the classical logic gates is that all the quantum gates are reversible
or invertible due to the unitary property of the matrices representing quantum gates; this is not always
the case for classical logic gates.
The preceding examples are sufficient for illustrating how works the algorithm set up by Deutsch
and Jozsa [1].

2.5.3 Quantum computing algorithms

The Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm addresses the following problem: to find with only one measurement if
the function
f : {0, 1}⊗n → {0, 1}

12
is constant or balanced (f is balanced means either f (0) = 0 and f (1) = 1 or f (0) = 1 and f (1) = 0;
f is constant means f (0) = f (1) = 0 or 1). The classical algorithm requires 2n−1 + 1 evaluations of f
whereas only one measurement is necessary in order to get the answer. For n = 1, the proof based on
the quantum circuit [H ⊗ H] → [Uf ] → [H ⊗ I] of two-qubit gates is as follows. It is easy to show that

|0i ⊗ |1i → [H ⊗ H] → [Uf ] → [H ⊗ I] → |xi ⊗ |yi

alternatively
|xi ⊗ |yi = (H ⊗ I)Uf (H ⊗ H)|0i ⊗ |1i
where
1
|xi ⊗ |yi = ±|0i ⊗ √ (|0i − |1i) if f is constant
2
1
|xi ⊗ |yi = ±|1i ⊗ √ (|0i − |1i) if f is balanced
2
Then, the result of a single measurement of the first output qubit can be
 |0i ⇒ f is constant


or

|1i ⇒ f is balanced
Therefore, a single measurement (instead of two in the classical case) is sufficient for getting the
answer. The Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm is of little interest. However, it shows the superiority of the
quantum approach on the classical one (namely, only one measurement instead of 2n−1 + 1 evaluations
in the general case where f : {0, 1}⊗n → {0, 1}).
Let us briefly mention two other historical algorithms, viz, the Shor algorithm and the Grover
algorithm [1]. The Shor algorithm concerns the search of the period of a periodic function and is used
for the factorization of a composite integer into prime factors. It constitutes an alternative to the
classical RSA code. The Grover algorithm makes it possible to find an item in an unstructured data
√
basis consisting of n entries; the quantum speed up for this algorithm is n → n (O(n) researches for
√
the classical case and O( n) for the quantum case). The two preceding algorithms are based on the
massive quantum parallelism. They formally show the superiority of a (still hypothetical) quantum
computer on a classical one. The present evolution is towards quantum cryptography.

2.6 No-cloning theorem

We may ask the question: does there exist a unitary operator (or quantum gate) U such that

U |ψi ⊗ |0i = |ψi ⊗ |ψi (11)

where |ψi = a|0i + b|1i is an arbitrary qubit. As a consequence of the linearity of quantum mechanics,
the answer is no: it is not possible to clone an arbitrary qubit |ψi [7]. This result can be proved in
the following way. Suppose that there exists U such that Eq. (11) is true. Then, by linearity

U |ψi ⊗ |0i = U (a|0i + b|1i) ⊗ |0i

= U (a|0i ⊗ |0i + b|1i ⊗ |0i)
= aU |0i ⊗ |0i + bU |1i ⊗ |0i
= a|0i ⊗ |0i + b|1i ⊗ |1i (12)

13
On another side, we have

U |ψi ⊗ |0i = |ψi ⊗ |ψi

= (a|0i + b|1i) ⊗ (a|0i + b|1i)
= a2 |0i ⊗ |0i + ab(|0i ⊗ |1i + |1i ⊗ |0i) + b2 |1i ⊗ |1i (13)

Compatibility between Eqs. (12) and (13) yields

a2 = a (⇒ a = 0, 1), b2 = b (⇒ b = 0, 1), ab = 0 (⇒ a = 0 or b = 0)

The sole solutions are (a = 1, b = 0) and (a = 0, b = 1) in agreement with Eq. (10). There are no
solution in the general case. This proves the no-cloning theorem (a theorem that does not have an
analogue in classical information).
Another way to understand this result is to realize that in order to clone an arbitrary state
|ψi = a|0i + b|1i one must measure it so that one gets |0i or |1i, two states that differ from |ψi in
general.

2.7 Quantum teleportation

It is not possible to clone an arbitrary quantum state. However, it is feasible to teleporte it, i.e. to
transfer it from one place to another without an effective transportation. In other words, without a
material transportation of a qubit, it is possible to transmit at distance the information contained in
the qubit. We shall not deal here with some physical device making teleportation possible. We shall
rather limit ourselves to the corresponding quantum algorithm [14].
Suppose someone, Alice, wants to send a qubit |ψi = a|0i + b|1i (for which she does not know a
and b) to somebody, Bob, by a quantum circuit and the possibility of using a classical communication
channel. The only requirement for Bob and Alice is to dispose of and EPR pair |β00 i, the first qubit
of which belongs to Alice and the second one to Bob. Thus, the entry |ϕ0 i of the quantum circuit is

|ϕ0 i = |ψi ⊗ |β00 i

1
= (a|0i1 + b|1i1 ) ⊗ √ (|0i2 ⊗ |0i3 + |1i2 ⊗ |1i3 )
2
1
= √ [a|0i1 ⊗ (|0i2 ⊗ |0i3 + |1i2 ⊗ |1i3 ) + b|1i1 ⊗ (|0i2 ⊗ |0i3 + |1i2 ⊗ |1i3 )]
2
1
= √ [a(|0i1 ⊗ |0i2 ⊗ |0i3 + |0i1 ⊗ |1i2 ⊗ |1i3 ) + b(|1i1 ⊗ |0i2 ⊗ |0i3 + |1i1 ⊗ |1i2 ⊗ |1i3 )]
2
where qubits 1 and 2 refer to the Alice qubit and qubit 3 to the Bob qubit. Then, Alice sends her
qubits to a controlled-NOT gate producing the state
1
|ϕ1 i = √ [a(|0i1 ⊗ |0i2 ⊗ |0i3 + |0i1 ⊗ |1i2 ⊗ |1i3 ) + b(|1i1 ⊗ |1i2 ⊗ |0i3 + |1i1 ⊗ |0i2 ⊗ |1i3 )]
2
1
= √ [a|0i1 ⊗ (|0i2 ⊗ |0i3 + |1i2 ⊗ |1i3 ) + b|1i1 ⊗ (|1i2 ⊗ |0i3 + |0i2 ⊗ |1i3 )]
2
Next, qubit 1 goes to an Hadamard gate giving
1
|ϕ2 i = [a(|0i1 + |1i1 ) ⊗ (|0i2 ⊗ |0i3 + |1i2 ⊗ |1i3 ) + b(|0i1 − |1i1 ) ⊗ (|1i2 ⊗ |0i3 + |0i2 ⊗ |1i3 )]
2

14
which can be re-arranged as
1
|ϕ2 i = [(|0i1 ⊗ |0i2 ) ⊗ (a|0i3 + b|1i3 ) + (|0i1 ⊗ |1i2 ) ⊗ (a|1i3 + b|0i3 )
2
+ (|1i1 ⊗ |0i2 ) ⊗ (a|0i3 − b|1i3 ) + (|1i1 ⊗ |1i2 ) ⊗ (a|1i3 − b|0i3 )]

Measurement of qubits 1 and 2 by Alice can give

|0i1 ⊗ |0i2 with the probability 14 , |0i1 ⊗ |1i2 with the probability 1
4
|1i1 ⊗ |0i2 with the probability 14 , |1i1 ⊗ |1i2 with the probability 1
4

Suppose Alice gets |0i1 ⊗ |0i2 . Then, she communicates this result to Bob by a classical channel
(telephone or mail). Thus, Bob knows that |ψi is a|0i3 + b|1i3 . Should Alice have got |0i1 ⊗ |1i2 or
|1i1 ⊗ |0i2 or |1i1 ⊗ |1i2 , then Bob would obtain a|0i3 + b|1i3 after the use of the gates [X] or [Z] or
[T] with T = ZX on the states a|1i3 + b|0i3 or a|0i3 − b|1i3 or a|1i3 − b|0i3 , respectively. In all cases,
the qubit |ψi = a|0i + b|1i has been teleported. This proof shows that entanglement (via the EPR
pair) plays a crucial role in teleportation.

3 Some mathematical aspects: mutually unbiased bases

3.1 Introducing MUBs
3.1.1 Generalities about MUBs

Unitary operator bases in the Hilbert space Cd are of pivotal importance for quantum information and
quantum computing as well as for quantum mechanics in general. The interest for unitary operator
bases started with the seminal work by Schwinger [4]. In this connection, MUBs play a key role in
quantum information and quantum computing. Two distinct orthonormal bases of Cd are said to be
unbiased if and only if the modulus of the inner product of any vector of one basis with any vector of
the other one is equal to √1 (see the detailed definition in Section 3.1.2).
d
MUBs proved to be useful in classical information theory (network communication protocols) [16,
46]. They play an important role in quantum mechanics as for the discrete Wigner function [10, 28, 33,
41, 42, 54, 61], for the solution of the Mean King problem [19, 25, 32, 33, 42], for the understanding of
the Feynman path integral formalism [56, 62] and potentially for studies of the Weyl-Heisenberg group
in connection with quantum optics. MUBs are of central importance in quantum information theory
as for instance in quantum state tomography (deciphering an unknown quantum state) [37, 55, 77],
quantum cryptography (secure quantum key exchange) [8, 24] and quantum teleportation [14]. Along
this line, measurements corresponding to MUBs are appropriate for an optimal determination of the
density matrix of a quantum system and the use of MUBs ensure the maximum of security for quantum
communication (especially in the BB84 quantum cryptography protocol). Let us also mention that
MUBs are connected with the notion of maximal entanglement of quantum states a result of great
importance for quantum computing.
There exist numerous ways of constructing sets of MUBs (e.g., see [57, 63, 64]). Most of them are
based on discrete Fourier transform over Galois fields and Galois rings [13, 16, 27, 28, 29, 35, 40, 71, 75],
discrete Wigner distribution [10, 28, 33, 41, 54], generalized Pauli spin matrices [21, 22, 26, 29],

15
mutually orthogonal Latin squares [32, 34], graph theory [73], finite and projective geometries [48, 60],
convex polytopes [39], complex projective 2-designs [18, 38, 66], quantum angular momentum theory
[43], group theoretical methods [23, 44, 49, 52], discrete phase states [67] and Hadamard matrices
[72]. In this section, from quantum theory of angular momentum theory (or, in mathematical terms,
from the Lie algebra A1 of the group SU(2) or SU(2, C) or SL(2, C)) we shall derive a formula for a
complete set of MUBs in dimension p with p prime. Moreover, we shall construct complete sets of
MUBs in dimension pm with p prime and m positive integer from the additive characters of the Galois
field GF(pm ) for p odd and of the Galois ring GR(22 , m) for p = 2.

3.1.2 Definition of MUBs

◮ Definition. Let Ba and Bb two distinct orthonormal bases

Ba = {|aαi : α = 0, 1, · · · , d − 1}, Bb = {|bβi : β = 0, 1, · · · , d − 1}

of the Hilbert space Cd . The bases Ba and Bb (a 6= b) are said to be unbiased if and only if
1
∀α ∈ Zd , ∀β ∈ Zd : |haα|bβi| = √ (14)
d
where h | i denotes the inner product of Cd [4, 5, 9, 10]. In other words, the inner product haα|bβi
has a modulus independent of α and β. The relation
1
|haα|bβi| = δa,b δα,β + √ (1 − δa,b )
d
makes it possible to describe both the cases Ba = Bb and Ba 6= Bb . ◭
As a typical example, the bases B0 , B1 and B2 of C2 , see Eq. (5), constitute a set of 3 MUBS
whose basis vectors are specific qubits.

3.1.3 Well-known results about MUBs

The main results concerning MUBs are [5, 13, 18, 34, 36]:

1. MUBs are stable under unitary or anti-unitary transformations. More precisely, if two unbiased
bases undergo the same unitary or anti-unitary transformation, they remain mutually unbiased.

2. The number N (d) of MUBs in Cd cannot exceed d + 1. Thus

N (d) ≤ d + 1

3. The maximum number d + 1 of MUBs is attained when d is a power pm (m ≥ 1) of a prime

number p. Thus
N (pm ) = pm + 1

4. When d is a composite number, N (d) is not known but it can be shown that

3 ≤ N (d) ≤ d + 1
Q mi
As a more accurate result, for d = i pi with pi prime and mi positive integer, we have

min(pm
i ) + 1 ≤ N (d) ≤ d + 1
i

16
 By way of illustration, let us mention the following cases.

• In the particular composite case d = 6 = 2 × 3, we have

3 ≤ N (6) ≤ 7

and it was conjectured that N (6) = 3. Indeed, in spite of an enormous amount of computational
works, no more than three MUBs were found for d = 6.

• For d = 15 = 3 × 5 and d = 21 = 3 × 7, there are at least four MUBs.

• For d = 676 = 22 × 132 , we have

22 + 1 = 5 ≤ N (676) ≤ 677

but it is known how to construct at least six MUBs.

A set of d + 1 MUBs in Cd is referred to as a complete set. Such sets exist for d = pm (p prime,
m positive integer) and this result opens the way to establish a link between MUBs and Galois fields
and/or Galois rings.
For d composite (different from a power of a prime), the question to know if there exist complete
sets in dimension d, i.e. to know if N (d) can be equal to d + 1, is still an open problem (in 2018).
Indeed, for d different from a power of a prime, it was conjectured (SPR conjecture [31]) that the
problem of the existence of a set of d + 1 MUBs in Cd is equivalent to the problem of whether there
exist a projective plane of order d. As another conjecture for d composite (different from a power of
a prime), the problem of the existence of a set of d + 1 MUBs in Cd is equivalent to the one of the
existence of a decomposition of the Lie algebra of SU(d) into d + 1 Cartan subalgebras of dimension
d − 1.

3.1.4 Interests of MUBs

MUBs are or relevance in advanced quantum mechanics. From a very general point of view, MUBs are
closely connected to the principle of complementarity introduced by Bohr in the early days of quantum
mechanics. This principle, quite familiar in terms of observables like position and momentum, tells
that for two non-commuting observables, if we have a complete knowledge of one observable, then
we have a total uncertainty of the other. Equation (14) indicates that the development in the basis
Ba of any vector of the basis Bb is such that each vector of Ba appears in the development with the
probability d1 . This is especially interesting when translated in terms of measurements, the bases Ba
and Bb corresponding to the (non-degenerate) eigenvectors of two non-commuting observables.
A significance of MUBs in terms of quantum measurements can be seen as follows. Let A and
B be two non-degenerate (i.e. with multiplicity-free eigenvalues) self-adjoint (or hermitian) operators
associated with two observables A and B of a quantum system with the Hilbert space Cd of dimension
d. Suppose that the eigenvectors of A and B yield two unbiased bases Ba and Bb , respectively. When
the quantum system is prepared in an eigenvector |bβi of the observable B, no information can be

17
obtained from a measurement of the observable A. This result follows from the development in the
basis Ba of any vector of the basis Bb
d−1
X
|bβi = |aαihaα|bβi
α=0

which shows that the d probabilities

1
|haα|bβi|2 = , α, β = 0, 1, · · · , d − 1
d
of obtaining any state vector |aαi in a measurement of A are equal.
Indeed, the two operators A and B do not commute. The two corresponding observables A and
B are said to be complementary (Bohr’s principle of complementarity introduced in the early days of
quantum mechanics): a precise knowledge of one of them implies a total uncertainty of the other (or, all
possible results of measurements of the other one are equally probable). This can be made more explicit
through the generalized Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Let A and B be two hermitian operators
associated with two observables and |ψi a vector of Cd . The generalized Heisenberg uncertainty
principle can be expressed as
1
∆A∆B ≥ |hψ|[A, B]− |ψi|
2
where [A, B]− = AB − BA and ∆O stands for the standard deviation
p
∆O = hψ|O 2 |ψi − hψ|O|ψi2

of the operator O = A or B.‡ Therefore, if A and B correspond to observables generating MUBs,

then a precise knowledge of A yields a complete indeterminacy of B and vice versa.
Note that
d2 − 1
d+1=
d−1
is the number of different measurements to fully determine a quantum state for a quantum system
in dimension d. (This follows from the fact that a d × d density matrix, that is to say an Hermitian
matrix with a trace equal to 1, contains d2 − 1 real parameters and each measurement gives d − 1 real
parameters.) Note also that d2 − 1 and d − 1 are the number of generators and the rank of the special
unitary group SU(d) in d dimensions, respectively, and that for d = p (prime number) their ratio p + 1
is the number of disjoint sets of p − 1 commuting generators of SU(p).
The rest of the paper is structured in the following way. In Section 3.2, we give a complete solution,
based on a nonstandard approach to the Lie algebra of the group SU(2) (equivalently, to the quantum
theory of angular momentum), for the construction of MUBs in the case where d = p is a prime
number. Further developments are discussed in Section 3.3 in relation with Weyl pairs. Sections 3.4
and 3.5 are concerned with the construction of MUBs from Galois fields (for d = pm , a power of an
odd prime number) and Galois rings (for d = 2m , a power of the even prime number), respectively.
(See Refs. [30, 45, 47] for the formalism of Galois quantum systems.)
‡
The most familiar example is for d infinite. The position A = x and the momentum B = px (along the x direction)
of a particle are complementary observables. They satisfy the commutation relations [x, px ]− = i~, where ~ is the Planck
constant. Hence, ∆x∆px ≥ 12 ~ so that more precise is ∆x more imprecise is ∆px and vice versa.

18
3.2 Group-theoretical construction of MUBs
3.2.1 Standard basis for SU(2)

Equation (7) shows that the vectors |ni (with n = 0, 1, · · · , d − 1) of the computational basis (6) can
be viewed as the basis vectors |j, mi (with m = j, j − 1, · · · , −j) for the irreducible representation
(j) of SU(2) in the chain SU(2) ⊃ U(1). In the language of group theory (and quantum angular
momentum theory), the vector |j, mi is a common eigenvector of the Casimir operator J 2 (the square
of an angular momentum) and of a Cartan generator Jz (the z component of the angular momentum)
of the Lie algebra A1 of the group SU(2). More precisely, we have the eigenvalue equations

J 2 |j, mi = j(j + 1)|j, mi, Jz |j, mi = m|j, mi

with the orthonormality relations

hj, m|j, m′ i = δm,m′ , m, m′ = j, j − 1, · · · , −j

In other words, the computational basis Bd can be visualized as the basis

B2j+1 = {|j, mi : m = j, j − 1, · · · , −j}

known as the standard basis for the irreducible representation (j) of SU(2) or the angular momen-
tum basis corresponding to the angular momentum quantum number j, referred to as spin angular
momentum for j = 21 .

3.2.2 Nonstandard bases for SU(2)

As far as the representation theory of SU(2) is concerned, we can replace the complete set {J 2 , Jz }
by another complete set of two commuting operators. For instance, we may consider the set {J 2 , va },
where the unitary operator va is defined by

 |j, −ji if m = j


va |j, mi =
 (j−m)a
ω |j, m + 1i if m = j − 1, j − 2, · · · , −j

where
2π
ω = ei 2j+1

is a primitive (2j + 1)-th root of unity and a is a fixed parameter in the ring Z2j+1 . The operator va
takes its origin in a polar decomposition of the two generators E± = J± of the group SU(2). For fixed
a, the common eigenvectors of J 2 and va provide an alternative basis to that given by the common
eigenstates of J 2 and Jz . This can be made precise by the following result.

◮ Proposition. For fixed j and a (with 2j ∈ N∗ and a ∈ Z2j+1 ), the 2j + 1 common eigenvectors of
J 2 and va can be taken in the form
j
1 X 1
|jα; ai = √ ω 2 (j+m)(j−m+1)a+(j+m)α |j, mi
2j + 1 m=−j

19
with α = 0, 1, · · · , 2j. The corresponding eigenvalues of va are given by

va |jα; ai = ω ja−α |jα; ai

Then, the spectrum of va is non-degenerate. ◭

The inner product

hjα; a|jβ; ai = δα,β , α, β = 0, 1, · · · , 2j

shows that for fixed j and a

Ba = {|jα; ai : α = 0, 1, · · · , 2j}

is an orthonormal set which provides a nonstandard basis for the irreducible representation (j) of
SU(2). For fixed j, there exists 2j + 1 orthonormal bases Ba since a can take 2j + 1 distinct values
(a = 0, 1, · · · , 2j).

3.2.3 Bases in quantum information

We now go back to quantum information. By introducing

|aαi = |jα; ai

together with the change of notations (7), the eigenvectors of va can be written as
1 X 1 (n+1)(d−n−1)a−(n+1)α
|aαi = √ ω2 |ni
d n∈Z
d

2π
where ω = ei d . The vector |aαi satisfies the eigenvalue equation
1
va |aαi = ω 2 (d−1)a−α |aαi

For fixed d and a, each eigenvector |aαi is a linear combination of the qudits |0i, |1i, · · · , |d − 1i and
the basis

Ba = {|aαi : α = 0, 1, · · · , d − 1}

is an alternative to the computational basis Bd . For fixed d, we therefore have d + 1 remarkable bases
of the d-dimensional space Cd , namely, Bd and Ba for a = 0, 1, · · · , d − 1.
The operator va can be represented by a d-dimensional unitary matrix Va . The matrix Va , built
on the basis Bd with the ordering 0, 1, · · · , d − 1 for the lines and columns, reads

0 ωa 0 ··· 0
 
0 0
. ω 2a ··· 0 
.. .. .. 
Va =  .. . . ··· .
 

(d−1)a
 
0 0 0 ··· ω 
1 0 0 ··· 0

20
The eigenvectors of Va are
1 X 1 (n+1)(d−n−1)a−(n+1)α
φ(aα) = √ ω2 φn
d n∈Z
d

with α = 0, 1, · · · , d − 1, where φn with n = 0, 1, · · · , d − 1 are the column vectors

1 0 0
     
0 1 0
φ0 =  ..  , φ1 =  ..  , · · · , φd−1 =  .. 
     
. . .
0 0 1

representing the qudits |0i, |1i, · · · , |d − 1i, respectively. The vectors φ(aα) satisfy the eigenvalue
equation
1
Va φ(aα) = ω 2 (d−1)a−α φ(aα)

with the orthonormality relation

φ(aα)† φ(aβ) = δα,β

for α, β = 0, 1, · · · , d − 1.
The matrix Va can be diagonalized by means of the d-dimensional matrix Ha of elements
1 1
(Ha )nα = √ ω 2 (n+1)(d−n−1)a−(n+1)α
d
with the lines and columns of Ha arranged from left to right and from top to bottom in the order
n, α = 0, 1, · · · , d − 1. Indeed, by introducing the d × d permutation matrix

1 0 0 ··· 0 0
 
0 0 0 ··· 0 1
 
 
0 0 0 ··· 1 0
P =  .. .. ..
 .. .. 
 . . . ··· . . 

0 0 1 ··· 0 0
 

0 1 0 ··· 0 0

we can check that

ω0 0 ··· 0
 

1  0
 ω1 ··· 0 
(Ha P )† Va (Ha P ) = ω 2 (d−1)a  .. .. ..

 . . ··· .


0 0 ··· ω d−1

from which we recover the eigenvalues of Va . Note that the complex matrix Ha is a unitary matrix
for which each entry has a modulus equal to √1 . Thus, Ha is a generalized Hadamard matrix. This
d
establishes a connection between MUBs and Hadamard matrices [34, 50, 51, 59, 63, 65, 72].

21
3.2.4 MUBs for d = p (p prime)

Going back to the case where d is arbitrary, we now examine an important property for the couple
(Ba , Bd ) and its generalization to couples (Ba , Bb ) with b 6= a (a, b = 0, 1, · · · , d − 1). For fixed d and
a, we verify that
1
|hn|aαi| = √ , n, α = 0, 1, · · · , d − 1
d

which shows that Ba and Bd are two unbiased bases of the Hilbert space Cd .
Other examples of unbiased bases can be obtained for d = 2 and 3. We easily check that the bases
B0 and B1 for d = 2 are unbiased. Similarly, the bases B0 , B1 and B2 for d = 3 are mutually unbiased.
Therefore, by taking into account the computational basis Bd , we end up with d + 1 = 3 MUBs for
d = 2 and d + 1 = 4 MUBs for d = 3. This is in agreement with the general result according to which,
in dimension d, the maximum number d + 1 of MUBs is attained when d is a prime number or a power
of a prime number. The results for d = 2 and 3 can be generalized through the following proposition.

◮ Proposition. For d = p, p a prime number, the bases B0 , B1 , · · · , Bp form a complete set of p + 1

MUBs. The p2 vectors |aαi, with a, α = 0, 1, · · · , p − 1, of the bases B0 , B1 , · · · , Bp−1 are given by a
single formula, namely
1 X 1 (n+1)(p−n−1)a−(n+1)α 2π
|aαi = √ ω2 |ni, ω = ei p (15)
p
n∈Fp

that gives the p basis vectors for each basis Ba . In matrix form, |aαi and |ni are replaced by φ(aα)
and φn , respectively. ◭

Proof. First, the computational basis Bp is clearly unbiased to any of the p bases B0 , B1 , · · · , Bp−1 .
Second, let us consider
p−1
1 X i πp {(a−b)k2 +[(b−a)p+2(β−α)]k}
haα|bβi = e
p
k=0

for b 6= a. The inner product haα|bβi can be rewritten by making use of the generalized quadratic
Gauss sum [17]
|w|−1
X π 2 +vk)
S(u, v, w) = ei w (uk
k=0

where u, v and w are integers such that u and w are co-prime, uw is non-vanishing and uw + v is
even. This leads to
1
haα|bβi = S(u, v, w), u = a − b, v = −(a − b)p − 2(α − β), w=p
p
√
It can be shown that |S(u, v, w)| = p. Consequently

1
|haα|bβi| = √
p

for b 6= a and α, β = 0, 1, · · · , p − 1. This completes the proof. 

22
 In many of the papers dealing with the construction of MUBs for d = p a prime number or d = pm
a power of a prime number, the explicit derivation of the bases requires the diagonalization of a set
of matrices. The formula (15) arises from the diagonalization of a single matrix. It allows to derive
in one step the p(p + 1) vectors (or qupits, i.e. qudits with d = p) of a complete set of p + 1 MUBs in
Cp via a single formula easily encodable on a classical computer.
Note that, for d arbitrary, the inner product haα|bβi can be rewritten as
 
haα|bβi = Ha † Hb
αβ

in terms of the generalized Hadamard matrices Ha and Hb . In the case where d = p is a prime number,
we find that   
 Ha † Hb  = |haα|bβi| = √1

 αβ  p
Therefore, the product Ha † Hb is another generalized Hadamard matrix [63].
Finally note that the passage, given by Eq. (15), from the computational basis Bp = {|ni : n =
0, 1, · · · , p − 1} to the the basis B0 = {|0αi : α = 0, 1, · · · , p − 1} corresponds to a discrete Fourier
transform. Similarly, the passage from the basis Bp to the the basis Ba = {|aαi : α = 0, 1, · · · , p − 1}
with a = 1, 2, · · · , p − 1 corresponds to a quadratic discrete Fourier transform.
Example: d = 2. In this case, relevant for a spin j = 12 or for a qubit, we have ω = eiπ and
a, α ∈ F2 . The matrices of the operators va are
0 1 0 −1
   
V0 = = σ1 , V1 = = −iσ2
1 0 1 0
The d + 1 = 3 MUBs B0 , B1 and B2 are the following:
1 1
   
|0i + |1i 1 |0i − |1i 1
B0 : |00i = √ =√ , |01i = − √ = −√
2 2 1 2 2 −1
1 1
   
|0i − i|1i i |0i + i|1i i
B1 : |10i = i √ =√ , |11i = −i √ = −√
2 2 −i 2 2 i
1 0
   
B2 : |0i = , |1i =
0 1
to be compared with Eq. (5).
Example: d = 3. This case corresponds to an angular momentum j = 1 or to a qutrit. Here, we
2π
have ω = ei 3 and a, α ∈ F3 . The matrices of the operators va are
0 1 0 0 ω 0 0 ω2 0
     

V0 =  0 0 1  , V1 =  0 0 ω 2  , V2 =  0 0 ω 
1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
The d + 1 = 4 MUBs B0 , B1 , B2 and B3 are the following:
|0i + |1i + |2i ω 2 |0i + ω|1i + |2i ω|0i + ω 2 |1i + |2i
B0 : |00i = √ , |01i = √ , |02i = √
3 3 3
ω|0i + ω|1i + |2i 2
|0i + ω |1i + |2i 2
ω |0i + |1i + |2i
B1 : |10i = √ , |11i = √ , |12i = √
3 3 3
ω 2 |0i + ω 2 |1i + |2i ω|0i + |1i + |2i |0i + ω|1i + |2i
B2 : |20i = √ , |21i = √ , |22i = √
3 3 3
B3 : |0i, |1i, |2i

23
This can be transcribed in terms of column vectors as follows:
 2
1 ω ω
   
1   1   1  2
B0 : |00i = √ 1 , |01i = √ ω , |02i = √ ω
3 3 3
1 1 1
 2
ω 1 ω
   
1   1  2 1  
B1 : |10i = √ ω , |11i = √ ω , |12i = √ 1
3 3 3
1 1 1
 2
ω ω 1
   
1 1 1
B2 : |20i = √  ω 2  , |21i = √  1  , |22i = √  ω 
3 3 3
1 1 1
1 0 0
     

B3 : |0i =  0  , |1i =  1  , |2i =  0 

0 0 1
To close this section, note that it is not necessary to treat separately the cases p odd and p even:
the formula (15) for |aαi is valid both for p even prime (p = 2) and for p odd prime. In the case where
p is odd, there exists a useful alternative formula to Eq. (15) as shown in the next section.

3.2.5 MUBs for d = p (p odd prime)

In the special case where d = p is an odd prime number, the formula

1 X (an+α)n i 2π
|aαi′ = √ ω |ni, ω = e p (16)
p
n∈Fp

provides an alternative to the formula (15). Indeed, it can be shown that

Ba ′ = {|aαi′ : α = 0, 1, · · · , p − 1}

where a can take any of the values 0, 1, · · · , p − 1 constitutes an orthonormal basis of Cd and that the
p bases Ba ′ (a = 0, 1, · · · , p − 1) form, with the computational basis Bp , a complete set of p + 1 MUBs.
The proof, based on the properties of Gauss sums, is analogous to that given in Section 3.2.4.
It is to be emphasized that for p even prime (p = 2) the bases B0 ′ , B1 ′ and B2 do not form a
complete set of MUBs while the proposition given in Section 3.2.4 is valid for p odd prime and equally
well for p even prime. The interest of Eq. (16) is that it can be easily extended in the case where Fp
is replaced by the Galois field GF(pm ) with m > 1.

3.2.6 MUBs for d power of a prime

We may ask what becomes the proposition in Section 3.2.4 when the prime number p is replaced by
an arbitrary (not prime) number d. In this case, the formula (15), with p replaced by d, does not
provide a complete set of d + 1 MUBs. However, it is easy to verify that the bases B0 , B1 and Bd are
three MUBs in Cd , in agreement with the well-known result according to which the number of MUBs
in Cd , with d arbitrary, is greater than or equal to 3.
m
The formula (15) for Cp can be used for deriving a complete set of pm + 1 MUBs in Cp (p prime
and m ≥ 2) by tensor products of order m of vectors in Cp . The general case is very much involved.
Hence, we shall limit ourselves to the case d = 22 .

24
 The case d = 4 corresponds to the spin angular momentum j = 32 . The four bases Ba for
a = 0, 1, 2, 3 consisting of the vectors |aαi calculated for d = 4 from Section 3.2.3 and the computational
basis B4 do not constitute a complete set of d + 1 = 5 MUBs. Nevertheless, it is possible to find
d + 1 = 5 MUBs because d = 22 is the power of a prime number. Indeed, another way to deal with the
search for MUBs in C4 is to consider two systems of qubits associated with the spin angular momenta
j1 = 21 ⇔ d1 = p = 2 and j2 = 21 ⇔ d2 = p = 2. Then, bases of C4 can be constructed from tensor
products |aαi ⊗ |bβi which are eigenvectors of the operator va ⊗ vb , where va corresponds to the first
system of qubits and vb to the second one. Obviously, the set

Bab = {|aαi ⊗ |bβi : α, β = 0, 1}

is an orthonormal basis of C4 . Four of the five MUBs for d = 22 = 4 can be constructed from the
various bases Bab . It is evident that B00 and B11 are two unbiased bases since the modulus of the
inner product of |1α′ i ⊗ |1β ′ i by |0αi ⊗ |0βi is
1 1
|h0α|1α′ ih0β|1β ′ i| = √ = √
4 d
A similar result holds for the two bases B01 and B10 . However, the four bases B00 , B11 , B01 and B10
are not mutually unbiased. A possible way to overcome this no-go result is to keep the bases B00 and
B11 intact and to re-organize the vectors inside the bases B01 and B10 in order to obtain four MUBs.
We are thus left with the four bases

W00 ≡ B00 , W11 ≡ B11 , W01 , W10

which together with the computational basis B4 give five MUBs. In detail, we have

W00 = {|0αi ⊗ |0βi : α, β = 0, 1}

W11 = {|1αi ⊗ |1βi : α, β = 0, 1}
W01 = {λ|0αi ⊗ |1βi + µ|0α ⊕ 1i ⊗ |1β ⊕ 1i : α, β = 0, 1}
W10 = {λ|1αi ⊗ |0βi + µ|1α ⊕ 1i ⊗ |0β ⊕ 1i : α, β = 0, 1}

where the addition ⊕ should be understood modulo 4; furthermore

1−i 1+i
λ= , µ=
2 2
and the vectors of type |aαi are given by the formula (15). As a résumé, only two formulas are
necessary for obtaining the d2 = 16 vectors |ab; αβi for the bases Wab , namely

W00 , W11 : |aa; αβi = |aαi ⊗ |aβi

W01 , W10 : |aa ⊕ 1; αβi = λ|aαi ⊗ |a ⊕ 1βi + µ|aα ⊕ 1i ⊗ |a ⊕ 1β ⊕ 1i

for all a, α, β in F2 . A simple development of W00 , W11 , W01 and W10 gives the following expressions.

The W00 basis:

1
|00; 00i = (|0i ⊗ |0i + |0i ⊗ |1i + |1i ⊗ |0i + |1i ⊗ |1i)
2

25
 1
|00; 01i = (|0i ⊗ |0i − |0i ⊗ |1i + |1i ⊗ |0i − |1i ⊗ |1i)
2
1
|00; 10i = (|0i ⊗ |0i + |0i ⊗ |1i − |1i ⊗ |0i − |1i ⊗ |1i)
2
1
|00; 11i = (|0i ⊗ |0i − |0i ⊗ |1i − |1i ⊗ |0i + |1i ⊗ |1i)
2
or in column vectors
1 1 1 1
       

1 1

 −1 
1  1 1 
 1 −1 

 , , ,

2 1 2 1  2  −1  2  −1 
   

1 −1 −1 1
The W11 basis:
1
|11; 00i = (|0i ⊗ |0i + i|0i ⊗ |1i + i|1i ⊗ |0i − |1i ⊗ |1i)
2
1
|11; 01i = (|0i ⊗ |0i − i|0i ⊗ |1i + i|1i ⊗ |0i + |1i ⊗ |1i)
2
1
|11; 10i = (|0i ⊗ |0i + i|0i ⊗ |1i − i|1i ⊗ |0i + |1i ⊗ |1i)
2
1
|11; 11i = (|0i ⊗ |0i − i|0i ⊗ |1i − i|1i ⊗ |0i − |1i ⊗ |1i)
2
or in column vectors
1 1 1 1
       

 i 
1  −i 
1 1 i  1 −i 
   
,  ,  ,
2 i  2 i  2  −i  2  −i 
  

−1 1 1 −1
The W01 basis:
1
|01; 00i = (|0i ⊗ |0i + |0i ⊗ |1i − i|1i ⊗ |0i + i|1i ⊗ |1i)
2
1
|01; 11i = (|0i ⊗ |0i − |0i ⊗ |1i + i|1i ⊗ |0i + i|1i ⊗ |1i)
2
1
|01; 01i = (|0i ⊗ |0i − |0i ⊗ |1i − i|1i ⊗ |0i − i|1i ⊗ |1i)
2
1
|01; 10i = (|0i ⊗ |0i + |0i ⊗ |1i + i|1i ⊗ |0i − i|1i ⊗ |1i)
2
or in column vectors
1 1 1 1
       

1 1   −1 
1 1 −1   1 
1
   
 , , ,
2  −i  2 i  2  −i  2 i 
   

i i −i −i
The W10 basis:
1
|10; 00i = (|0i ⊗ |0i − i|0i ⊗ |1i + |1i ⊗ |0i + i|1i ⊗ |1i)
2
1
|10; 11i = (|0i ⊗ |0i + i|0i ⊗ |1i − |1i ⊗ |0i + i|1i ⊗ |1i)
2
1
|10; 01i = (|0i ⊗ |0i + i|0i ⊗ |1i + |1i ⊗ |0i − i|1i ⊗ |1i)
2
1
|10; 10i = (|0i ⊗ |0i − i|0i ⊗ |1i − |1i ⊗ |0i − i|1i ⊗ |1i)
2

26
or in column vectors
1 1 1 1
       

 −i 
1 1 i   i 
1 1 −i 
   
 , ,  ,
2 1  2  −1  2 1  2  −1 
  

i i −i −i
The computational basis:

|0i ⊗ |0i, |0i ⊗ |1i, |1i ⊗ |0i, |1i ⊗ |1i

or in column vectors
1 0 0 0
       
0 1 0 0
 ,  ,  ,
       
0 0 1 0
 

0 0 0 1

It is to be noted that the vectors of the bases W00 and W11 are not entangled (i.e. each vector is
the tensor product of two vectors) while the vectors of the bases W01 and W10 are entangled (i.e. each
vector is not the tensor product of two vectors). In fact, all the state vectors for W01 and W10 are
maximally entangled (the entanglement entropy is maximum for W01 and W10 and vanishes for W00
and W11 ).
Generalization of the formulas given above for two systems of qubits can be obtained in more
complicated situations (two systems of qupits, three systems of qubits, etc.). The generalization of
the bases W00 and W11 is immediate. The generalization of W01 and W10 can be achieved by taking
linear combinations of vectors such that each linear combination is made of vectors corresponding to
the same eigenvalue of the relevant tensor product of operators of type va .

3.3 Weyl pairs

3.3.1 Shift and phase operators

Let us go back to the case d arbitrary. The matrix Va can be decomposed as

Va = XZ a , a = 0, 1, · · · , d − 1

where
0 1 0 ··· 0 1 0 0 ··· 0
   
0 0 1 ··· 0 0 ω 0 ··· 0 
. .. .. ..   
X =  ..
2π
. . ··· . , Z = 0 0 ω2 ··· 0 , ω = ei
    d
   .. .. .. .. 
0 0 0 ··· 1 . . . ··· . 
1 0 0 ··· 0 0 0 0 ··· ω d−1
The matrices X and Z satisfy

 φd−1 , n = 0


Zφn = ω n φn , n = 0, 1, · · · , d − 1, Xφn = φn−1 mod d =


φn−1 , n = 1, 2, · · · , d − 1

27
The linear operators corresponding to the matrices X and Z are known in quantum information as
flip or shift and clock or phase operators, respectively. The unitary matrices X and Z ω-commute in
the sense that

XZ − ωZX = Od

In addition, they satisfy

X d = Z d = Id

where Id and Od are the d-dimensional unity and zero matrices, respectively. The last two equations
show that X and Z constitute a so-called Weyl pair [2].
Note that the Weyl pair (X, Z) can be deduced from the master matrix Va via

X = V0 , Z = V0 † V1

which shows a further interest of the matrix Va . Indeed, the matrix Va condensates all that can be
done with the matrices X and Z. This has been seen in Section 3.2.4 with the derivation of a single
formula for the determination from Va of a complete set of p + 1 MUBs when d = p is prime whereas
many other determinations of such a complete set needs repeated use of the matrices X and Z.
A connection between X and Z can be deduced from the expression of (Ha P )† Va (Ha P ) given in
3.2.3. By taking a = 0, we obtain

(H0 P )† X(H0 P ) = Z ⇔ X = (H0 P )Z(H0 P )†

where H0 is the matrix of a discrete Fourier transform that allows to pass from the vectors φn (n =
0, 1, · · · , d − 1) to the vector φ(0, α) according to
X 1 X −i 2π nα
φ(0, α) = (H0 )nα φn = (−1)α √ e d φn
n∈Zd
d n∈Z
d

cf. the expression of φ(a, α) in 3.2.3.

3.3.2 Generalized Pauli matrices

For d arbitrary, let us define the matrices

Uab = X a Z b , a, b ∈ Zd

The matrices Uab belong to the unitary group U(d). The d2 matrices Uab are called generalized Pauli
matrices in dimension d. They satisfy the trace relation
 
tr Uab † Ua′ b′ = d δa,a′ δb,b′

Thus, the set {Uab : a, b ∈ Zd } of unitary matrices is an orthogonal set with respect to the Hilbert-
Schmidt inner product. Consequently, the d2 pairwise orthogonal matrices Uab can be used as a basis
of Cd×d .

28
 Example 1. The case d = 2 ⇔ j = 12 (⇒ ω = eiπ and a, b = 0, 1) corresponds to the two-
dimensional ordinary Pauli matrices of quantum mechanics. The matrices X a Z b are
1 0 0 1 1 0 0 −1
       
0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1
I2 = X Z = , X=X Z = , Z=X Z = , Y =X Z =
0 1 1 0 0 −1 1 0
so that the matrices X and Z generate the ordinary Pauli matrices. Indeed, we have

I2 = σ0 , X = V0 = σ 1 , Y = XZ = V1 = −iσ2 , Z = σ3

in terms of the usual (Hermitian and unitary) Pauli matrices.

2π
Example 2. The case d = 3 ⇔ j = 1 (⇒ ω = ei 3 and a, b = 0, 1, 2) yields nine three-dimensional
matrices. More precisely, the matrices X and Z generate I3 = X 0 Z 0 and

X = V0 , X 2, Z, Z 2, XZ = V1 , X 2Z 2, XZ 2 = V2 , X 2Z

In the detail, the matrices X a Z b are

1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
     
0 0 0 1 0 2
X Z = 0 1 0 , X Z = 0 ω
  0  , X Z = 0
 ω2 0
0 0 1 0 0 ω 2 0 0 ω
0 1 0 0 ω 0 0 ω2 0
     
1 0 1 1 2 1 2
X Z = 0 0 1 , X Z = 0 0
  ω  , X Z = 0
 0 ω
1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 ω2 0 0 ω
     

X 2Z 0 =  1 0 0  , X 2Z 1 =  1 0 2 2
0 , X Z = 1 0 0
0 1 0 0 ω 0 0 ω2 0
They constitute a natural extension in dimension d = 3 of the usual Pauli matrices.

3.3.3 Weyl pair and groups

For arbitrary d, the Weyl pair (X = V0 , Z = V0† V1 ) is a basic ingredient for generating the Pauli
group Pd in d dimensions and the Lie algebra of the linear group GL(d, C) in d dimensions, groups of
central interest in group theory, quantum mechanics and quantum information.

The Pauli group. For arbitrary d, let us define the matrices

2π
Vabc = ω a Ubc = ω a X b Z c , a, b, c ∈ Zd , ω = ei d

The matrices Vabc are unitary and satisfy

  ′
tr Vabc † Va′ b′ c′ = ω a −a d δb,b′ δc,c′

In addition, we have the following result.

◮ Proposition. The set {Vabc : a, b, c ∈ Zd } is a finite group of order d3 , denoted Pd , for the internal
law (matrix multiplication)

Vabc Va′ b′ c′ = Va′′ b′′ c′′ , a′′ = a + a′ − cb′ , b′′ = b + b′ , c′′ = c + c′

29
It is a non-commutative (for d ≥ 2) nilpotent group with nilpotency class equal to 3. ◭

The group Pd is called the Pauli group in dimension d. It is of considerable importance in quantum
information, especially for quantum computation and for quantum error-correcting codes. The group
Pd is a sub-group of the unitary group U(d). The normalizer of Pd in U(d) is called Clifford group
(denoted as Cd ) in d dimensions. More precisely, Cd is the set {U ∈ U(d) : U Pd U † = Pd } endowed
with matrix multiplication. The Pauli group Pd as well as any other invariant sub-group of Cd are
useful for quantum error-correcting codes in the case of N -qubit systems corresponding to d = 2N .
Moreover, the Pauli group is connected to the Heisenberg-Weyl group. In fact, the group Pd
corresponds to a discretization of the Heisenberg-Weyl group HW (R). From an abstract point of
view, the group HW (R) is the set S = {(x, y, z) : x, y, z ∈ R} equipped with the internal law
S × S → S defined via

(x, y, z)(x′ , y ′ , z ′ ) = (x + x′ − zy ′ , y + y ′ , z + z ′ )

This group is a non-commutative Lie group of order 3. It is non-compact and nilpotent with a
nilpotency class equal to 3. The passage from HW (R) to Pd amounts to replace the infinite field R
by the finite ring Zd so that HW (R) gives HW (Zd ) ≡ Pd .
The three generators of HW (R) are
 
1 ∂ 1 ∂ 1 ∂ ∂
H= , Q= , P = −y
i ∂x i ∂y i ∂z ∂x

They satisfy the commutation relations

[Q, P ]− = iH, [P, H]− = 0, [H, Q]− = 0

Therefore, the Lie algebra hw(R) of HW (R) is a three-dimensional nilpotent Lie algebra with nilpo-
tency class equal to 3. The commutation relations of Q, P and H are reminiscent of the Heisenberg
commutation relations. As a matter of fact, the Heisenberg commutation relations correspond to
an infinite-dimensional irreducible representation by Hermitian matrices of hw(R). The Lie algebra
hw(R) also admits finite-dimensional irreducible representations at the price to abandon the Hermitian
character of the representation matrices.

The linear group. The Weyl pair consisting of the generalized Pauli matrices X and Z in d
dimensions can be used for constructing a basis of the Lie algebra of U(d). More precisely, we have
the two following propositions.

◮ Proposition. For arbitrary d, the set {X a Z b : a, b ∈ Zd } forms a basis for the Lie algebra gl(d, C)
of the linear group GL(d, C) or for the Lie algebra u(d) of the unitary group U(d). The Lie brackets
of gl(d, C) in such a basis are
X X
[X a Z b , X e Z f ]− = (ab, ef ; ij)X i Z j
i∈Zd j∈Zd

with the structure constants

 
(ab, ef ; ij) = δi,a+e δj,b+f ω −be − ω −af

30
where a, b, e, f, i, j ∈ Zd . ◭

Note that the commutator [Uab , Uef ]− = Uab Uef − Uef Uab and the anti-commutator [Uab , Uef ]+ =
Uab Uef + Uef Uab of Uab and Uef are given by
 
[Uab , Uef ]± = ω −be ± ω −af Uij , i = a + e, j = b + f

Consequently, [Uab , Uef ]− = 0 if and only if af − be = 0 (mod d) and [Uab , Uef ]+ = 0 if and only if
af − be = 12 d (mod d). Therefore, all anti-commutators [Uab , Uef ]+ are different from 0 if d is an odd
integer.

◮ Proposition. For d = p, with p a prime number, the simple Lie algebra sl(p, C) of the special linear
group SL(p, C) or its compact real form su(d) of the special unitary group SU(d) can be decomposed
into a sum of p + 1 Abelian subalgebras of dimension p − 1

sl(p, C) = V0 ⊕ V1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Vp

where each of the p + 1 subalgebras V0 , V1 , · · · , Vp is a Cartan subalgebra generated by a set of p − 1

commuting matrices. ◭

A similar result holds for d = pm , a power of a prime number [6, 11, 15, 52, 63].
The decomposition of sl(p, C), called orthogonal decomposition of sl(p, C), is trivial for p = 2. In
fact, for p = 2 we have the following decomposition

su(2) = σ1 ⊕ σ2 ⊕ σ3

in terms of vector space sum.

3.3.4 MUBs and the special linear group

According to the orthogonal decomposition proposition, in the case where d = p is a prime number
(even or odd), the set {X a Z b : a, b ∈ Zp } \ {X 0 Z 0 } of cardinality p2 − 1 can be partitioned into p + 1
subsets containing each p − 1 commuting matrices.
As an example, let us consider the case d = 5. For this case, we are left with the six following sets
of four commuting matrices

V0 = {01, 02, 03, 04}, V1 = {10, 20, 30, 40}, V2 = {11, 22, 33, 44}
V3 = {12, 24, 31, 43}, V4 = {13, 21, 34, 42}, V5 = {14, 23, 32, 41}

where ab is used as an abbreviation of X a Z b .

More generally, for d = p with p prime, the p + 1 sets of p − 1 commuting matrices are easily seen
to be

V0 = {X 0 Z a : a = 1, 2, · · · , p − 1}
V1 = {X a Z 0 : a = 1, 2, · · · , p − 1}
V2 = {X a Z a : a = 1, 2, · · · , p − 1}
V3 = {X a Z 2a : a = 1, 2, · · · , p − 1}

31
 ..
.
Vp−1 = {X a Z (p−2)a : a = 1, 2, · · · , p − 1}
Vp = {X a Z (p−1)a : a = 1, 2, · · · , p − 1}

Each of the p + 1 sets V0 , V1 , · · · , Vp can be put in a one-to-one correspondence with one basis of the
complete set of p + 1 MUBs. In fact, V0 is associated with the computational basis while V1 , V2 , · · · , Vp
are associated with the p remaining MUBs in view of

Va ∈ Va+1 = {X b Z ab : b = 1, 2, · · · , p − 1}, a = 0, 1, · · · , p − 1

More precisely, we have

Z ∈ V0 , X ∈ V1 , XZ ∈ V2 , ···, XZ p−1 ∈ Vp

The eigenvectors of the p + 1 unitary operators

Z, X, XZ, ···, XZ p−1

generate p + 1 MUBs (one basis is associated with each of the p + 1 operators).

3.4 Galois field approach to MUBs

m
The existence of a complete set of pm + 1 MUBS in Cp (p prime and m positive integer) is an
m
indication of a possible utility of Galois fields and Galois rings for the construction of MUBs in Cp
(p prime, m ≥ 2). Indeed, the passage from the case d = p to the case d = pm (p prime, m ≥ 2) can
be achieved by considering the Galois field GF(pm ) for p odd prime and the Galois ring GR(22 , m) for
p = 2 [27, 75]. In this section, we shall deal with the construction of a complete set of pm + 1 MUBs
m
in Cp , corresponding to the case of m qupits, via the use of the Galois field GF(pm ) for p odd prime
and m greater than 1.

3.4.1 The computational basis

We first have to define the computational basis Bpm in the framework of GF(pm ), p odd prime and
m
m ≥ 2. The vectors of the basis Bpm of the Hilbert space Cp can be labeled by the elements x of the
Galois field GF(pm ). This can be done in two ways according to as the elements x are taken in the
monomial form (x = 0, αℓ with ℓ = 1, 2, · · · , pm − 1) or in the polynomial form (x = [x0 x1 · · · xm−1 ]
with x0 , x1 , · · · , xm−1 ∈ Fp ). In both cases, we have

Bpm = {|0i or φ0 , |1i or φ1 , ···, |pm − 1i or φpm −1 }

in terms of vectors or column vectors. More precisely, this can be achieved as follows.

• In the monomial form, we define the vectors of Bpm via the correspondences

x = 0 7→ |0i or φ0 , x = αℓ 7→ |ℓi or φℓ with ℓ = 1, 2, · · · , pm − 1

where α is a primitive element of GF(pm ).

32
 • In the polynomial form, we can range the vectors of Bpm in the order 0, 1, · · · , pm − 1 by adopting
the lexicographical order for the elements [x0 x1 · · · xm−1 ].

These notations are reminiscent of those employed for the computational basis

Bp = {|0i or φ0 , |1i or φ1 , ···, |p − 1i or φp−1 }

corresponding to the limit case m = 1.

3.4.2 Shift and phase operators for GF(pm )

The notion of Weyl pair can be extended to any Galois field GF(pm ) with p (even or odd) prime and
m ≥ 2. Let x and y be two elements of GF(pm ) and φy be the basis column vector of Bpm associated
with y. For fixed x, we define the matrices X̂x (shift operators) and Ẑx (phase operators) via the
actions
2π
X̂x φy = φy−x , Ẑx φy = χ(xy)φy = ei p Tr(xy) φy

where y is arbitrary. One easily verifies the properties

X̂x+y = X̂x X̂y = X̂y X̂x , Ẑx+y = Ẑx Ẑy = Ẑy Ẑx

and
2π
X̂x Ẑy − χ(xy)Ẑy X̂x = Opm , χ(xy) = ei p
Tr(xy)

In the limit case m = 1 (i.e. for the base field Fp ) the matrices

X = X̂1 , Z = Ẑ1

corresponding to x = y = 1 satisfy
i 2π
XZ − e p ZX = Op

to be compared with the relations satisfied by the Weyl pair (X, Z) defined in 3.3.1.

3.4.3 Bases in the frame of GF(pm )

We might use the Weyl pair (Xx , Zy ) defined in the framework of GF(pm ), see Section 3.4.2, for
m
determining a complete set of pm + 1 MUBs in Cp in a way similar to that used for m = 1 with the
help of the matrix Va for a in Fp . However, it is quicker to start from the alternative formula (16)
m
giving MUBs in Cp in order to generate a formula for Cp giving back Eq. (16) in Cp in the limit case
m = 1. In this direction, a possible way to pass from the basis vector
1 X i 2π
√ e p (ax+α)x |xi
p
x∈Fp

m
of Cp to a basis vector of Cp is to replace
i 2π (ax+α)x
e p , a, α, x ∈ Fp

by
2π
Tr(ax2 +αx)
χ(ax2 + αx) = ei p , a, α, x ∈ GF(pm )

33
where χ is the canonical additive character of GF(pm ). This yields the two following propositions.

◮ Proposition. For p odd prime and m ≥ 2, the set

Ba = {|aαi : α ∈ GF(pm )}

where
1 2π
Tr(ax2 +αx)
ei
X
|aαi = √ m p |xi, a ∈ GF(pm )
p
x∈GF(pm )
m
constitutes an orthonormal basis of Cp . ◭

Proof. See the proof of the next proposition. 

Note that for m = 1

Tr(ax2 + αx) = ax2 + αx

so that the vector |aαi coincides with the vector |aαi′ derived in Section 3.2.5. This explains why we
m
chose to extend the alternative formula (16) valid for Cp to the case Cp . Indeed, the same kind of
extension applied to the formula (15) is not possible since Tr[ 12 n(p − n)a + nα] does not make sense.

3.4.4 MUBs in the frame of GF(pm )

◮ Proposition. For p odd prime and m ≥ 2, the pm bases Ba , a ranging in GF(pm ), constitute with
m
the computational basis Bpm a complete set of pm + 1 MUBs in Cp . ◭

Proof. Let |aαi and |bβi two vectors belonging to the bases Ba and Bb , respectively. We have
1 X i 2π Tr[(b−a)x2 +(β−α)x]
haα|bβi = e p , a, b, α, β ∈ GF(pm )
pm
x∈GF(pm )

By using [3, 17, 75]

 
√ m
 
2π 2
i p Tr(ux +vx) 
u ∈ GF(pm )∗ ,
 X

 e = p , v ∈ GF(pm )
x∈GF(pm ) 

(valid for p odd prime), we obtain

δ if b = a

 α,β

|haα|bβi| =
 √1

if b 6= a
pm

or in compact form
1
|haα|bβi| = δa,b δα,β + √ m (1 − δa,b )
p

which shows that Ba is an orthonormal basis and that the couple (Ba , Bb ) with b 6= a is a couple of
unbiased bases. Of course, each basis Ba is unbiased to the computational basis Bpm . We thus end
up with a total of pm + 1 MUBs as desired. 

The previous result applies in the limit case m = 1 for which we recover the p + 1 MUBs in Cp .

34
3.5 Galois ring approach to MUBs
In dimension d = 2m , m ≥ 2, the use of the Galois field GF(2m ) for constructing a complete set of
m
2m + 1 MUBs in C2 according to the method employed in Section 3.4 for d = pm , p odd prime, would
lead to a no-win situation because gcd(2, 2m ) 6= 1 (while gcd(2, pm ) = 1 for p odd prime). For d = 2m ,
which corresponds to the case of m qubits, we can use the Galois ring GR(22 , m), denoted R4m too,
m
for constructing MUBs in C2 .

3.5.1 Bases in the frame of GR(22 , m)

We start with the residue class ring

GR(22 , m) = Z22 [ξ]/hPm (ξ)i

where Pm (x) is a monic basic irreducible polynomial of degree m (i.e. its restriction Pm (x) = Pm (x)
modulo 2 is irreducible over Z2 ). The 2m vectors of the computational basis B2m are labeled by the
2m elements of the Teichmüller set Tm associated with the ring Z22 [ξ]/hPm (ξ)i. Thus

B2m = {|xi : x ∈ Tm }

(the set Tm and the ring GR(22 , m) contain 2m and 4m elements, respectively).
◮ Proposition. For a and α in Tm , let
1 X 1 X i 2π Tr(ax+2αx) 1 X Tr(ax+2αx)
|aαi = √ χ[(a + 2α)x]|xi = √ e 4 |xi = √ i |xi
2m x∈T 2m x∈T 2m x∈T
m m m

where χ is an additive character vector of GR(22 , m) and the trace takes its values in Z4 . For fixed a
in Tm , the set
Ba = {|aαi : α ∈ Tm }
m
constitutes an orthonormal basis of C2 . ◭
Proof. See the proof of the next proposition. 
Note that for m = 1
Tr(ax + 2αx) = ax + 2αx

so that
1 X ax+2αx
|aαi = √ i |xi (18)
2 x∈F
2

to be compared with the vector

1 X i 2π [ 1 ax(2−x)+αx] 1 X ax(2−x)+2αx
|aαi = √ e 2 2 |1 − xi = √ i |1 − xi (19)
2 x∈F 2 x∈F
2 2

given by the formula (15). In view of the fact that

iax+2αx = iax(2−x)+2αx

for x = 0 and x = 1, the two vectors |aαi in Eqs. (18) and (19) are the same up to an interchange of
the vectors |0i and |1i.

35
3.5.2 MUBs in the frame of GR(22 , m)

◮ Proposition. The 2m bases Ba , with m ≥ 2 and a ranging in the Teichüller set Tm associated
with the Galois ring GR(22 , m), constitute with the computational basis B2m a complete set of 2m + 1
m
MUBs in C2 . ◭
Proof. Let |aαi and |bβi two vectors belonging to the bases Ba and Bb , respectively. We have
1 X i π Tr[(b−a+2β−2α)x]
haα|bβi = e2
2m
x∈Tm

By using [3, 17, 75]

0 if u ∈ 2Tm , u 6= 0



  
X π  
i 2 Tr(ux) 
e  = 2m if u = 0


  
x∈Tm 

√


2m otherwise
we obtain
δ if b = a

 α,β

|haα|bβi| =
 √1

if b 6= a
2m
or in compact form
1
|haα|bβi| = δa,b δα,β + √ (1 − δa,b )
2m
which shows that Ba is an orthonormal basis and that the couple (Ba , Bb ) with b 6= a is a couple of
unbiased bases. Of course, each basis Ba is unbiased to the computational basis B2m . We thus end
up with a total of 2m + 1 MUBs and we are done. 
The previous result applies in the limit case m = 1 for which we can recover the 2 + 1 MUBs in
C2 .

3.5.3 One-qubit system

For m = 1, the 2m = 2 vectors of the computational basis B2 are labeled with the help of the two
elements of the Teichmüller set T1 = Z2 of the Galois ring GR(22 , 1) = Z22 . Thus, the basis B2 is
1 0
   
B2 : |0i = , |1i =
0 1
The vectors |aαi of the basis Ba (a ∈ T1 ) are given by (see 3.5.1)
1
1 X (a+2α)x
|aαi = √ i |xi, α ∈ T1 = {0, 1}
2 x=0

This yields the two unbiased bases

|0i + |1i |0i − |1i
B0 : |00i = √ , |01i = √
2 2
|0i + i|1i |0i − i|1i
B1 : |10i = √ , |11i = √
2 2

36
which, together with the computational basis B2 , form a complete set of 2 + 1 = 3 MUBs in C2 . Note
that the bases B0 and B1 are in agreement (up to phase factors and a rearrangement of the vectors
inside B1 ) with the bases B0 and B1 derived in Section 3.2.4.

3.5.4 Two-qubit system

For m = 2, the 2m = 4 vectors of the computational basis B4 are labeled with the help of the four
elements of the Teichmüller set T2 = {0, β 1 , β 2 = 3 + 3β, β 3 = 1} of the Galois ring GR(22 , 2) (here,
we use β instead of α in order to avoid confusion with the index α in |aαi). Thus, the basis B4 is
1 0 0 0
       
0 1 0 0
B4 : |0i =   , |β 1 or 1i =   , |β 2 or 2i =   , |β 3 or 3i =  
       
0 0 1 0
0 0 0 1
The vectors |aαi of the basis Ba (a = 0, β 1 or 1, β 2 or 2, β 3 or 3) are given by (see 3.5.1)
1 X Tr(ax+2αx)
|aαi = i |xi, α ∈ T2 = {0, β 1 , β 2 = 3 + 3β, β 3 = 1}
2
x∈T2

with
Tr(ax + 2αx) = ax + 2αx + φ(ax + 2αx)
where φ is the generalized Frobenius map GR(22 , 2) → GR(22 , 2). The correspondence between the
indexes a, α in |aαi and the elements 0, β 1 , β 2 , β 3 of T2 is as follows

0 ↔ a or α = 0, β 1 ↔ a or α = 1, β 2 ↔ a or α = 2, β 3 ↔ a or α = 3

This yields the four unbiased bases

1 1 1 1
       

11  −1 
1 1 1  1 −1 
   
B0 : |00i =   , |01i =   , |02i =   , |03i = 
2 1 2 1  2  −1  2  −1 


1 −1 −1 1
1 1 1 1
       

1 −i  1 i  1 i  1 −i 

   
B1 : |12i =   , |11i =   , |13i =   , |10i = 
2 1  2  −1  2 1  2  −1 


i i −i −i
1 1 1 1
       

1 1 
  1  −1 
  1  −1 
  1 1 

B2 : |21i =   , |22i =  , |20i = , |23i =

2  −i  2 i  2  −i  2 i 
    

i i −i −i
1 1 1 1
       

 i 
1  −i 
1 1 i  1 −i 
   
B3 : |33i =  , |32i = , |31i = , |30i =
2 i  2 i  2  −i  2  −i 
      

−1 1 1 −1
We thus end up with 4 + 1 = 5 bases (B0 to B4 ) which form a complete set of MUBs in C4 . Note that
the bases B0 , B1 , B2 and B3 coincide with the bases W00 , W10 , W01 and W11 derived from tensor

37
products, respectively; for the purpose of comparison, the vectors |aαi are listed in the same order for
each of the couples (B0 , W00 ), (B1 , W10 ), (B2 , W01 ) and (B3 , W11 ), see 3.2.6.

4 Closing remarks
During the last two decades, quantum information and quantum computing have been the object of
considerable progresses both in theoretical and experimental physical sciences, scientific engineering,
discrete mathematics and quantum informatics. In the present days, there exit several quantum
computer languages and, although quantum devices are mainly developed in academic and private
laboratories, the scientific community has access to some quantum computers (e.g., access to the
5-qubit quantum computer of the IBM Quantum Experience [79]) and to quantum simulators (e.g.,
access to the 41-qubit ATOS Quantum Learning Machine [80]). In the medium term, the accent shall
be put, among others, on (i) the development of new quantum algorithms that outperform classical
ones, (ii) the production of qubits robust to decoherence, (iii) the increase of the lifetime of quantum
memories, (iv) the development of quantum networks working over a few thousands of kilometres (v)
the realization of 50-100 qubit computers, and (vi) the test of quantum supremacy. Long way before
the realization of a universal quantum computer!
From the side of the mathematical aspects of MUBs, some further developments and a few open
problems should be mentioned. It would be interesting to see if Cayley-Dickson algebras of dimension
d = 2N could be used for providing a geometrical approach to entanglement of N qubits with N > 3.
Furthermore, the problem of the determination of the maximum number N (d) of MUBs in composite
dimension d is still an unsolved problem (except in the case where d is a power of a prime number).
The two conjectures listed in Section 3.1.3 do not very much help, probably because they lead to
two equivalent problems for which the solutions are as difficult to find as those of the initial problem.
As far as the second conjecture is concerned, the recent work [76] on orthogonal decompositions
of sl(n, R) over a finite commutative ring with identity R is very appealing. Finally, even in the
simplest case where d = 6, the maximum number N (6) of MUBs is not known (to the best of the
author knowledge). However, for d = 6 there are numerous numerical evidences that N (6) = 3
[18, 36, 51, 53, 58, 59, 69, 70]. The number N (6) = 3 is equal indeed to the number of weak mutually
unbiased bases associated with the smallest prime divisor of 6 (the recently introduced notion of weak
√ √
MUBs in dimension d corresponds to the definition (14) where d is replaced by f where f is a
prime divisor of d [68, 74]).

Acknowledgements
This paper was presented at the 20th International Workshop on Computer Algebra in Scientific Com-
puting (CASC 2018). The author wishes to thank Vladimir P. Gerdt (Dubna) for his kind invitation
to give an invited talk at CASC 2018 and Andreas Weber (Bonn) for his encouragement to put the
text of the talk in a form convenient for a community of computer engineers and mathematicians. He
is also indebted to Wolfram Koepf (Kassel) and François Boulier (Lille) for their logistic help during
the preparation of this paper.

38
References
[1] M.A. Nielsen and I.L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge (2003).

[2] H. Weyl, The Theory of Groups and Quantum Mechanics (Dover Publications, New York, 1931).

[3] A. Weil, On some exponential sums, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 34 (1948) 204-207.

[4] J. Schwinger, Unitary operator bases, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 46 (1960) 570-579.

[5] I.D. Ivanović, Geometrical description of quantal state determination, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 14 (1981)
3241-3245.

[6] A.I. Kostrikin, I.A. Kostrikin and V.A. Ufnarovskiı̆, Orthogonal decompositions of simple Lie algebras
(type An ), Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklov 158 (1981) 105-120. (in Russian)

[7] W.K. Wootters and W.H. Zurek, A single quantum cannot be cloned, Nature 299 (1982) 802.

[8] C.H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing, Proc.
IEEE Int. Conf. Computers, Systems, and Signal Processing, Bangalore, India (1984) 175-179.

[9] W.K. Wootters, Quantum mechanics without probability amplitudes, Found. Phys. 16 (1986) 391-405.

[10] W.K. Wootters, A Wigner function formulation of finite-state quantum mechanics, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 176
(1987) 1-21.

[11] J. Patera and H. Zassenhaus, The Pauli matrices in n dimensions and finest gradings of simple Lie algebras
of type An−1 , J. Math. Phys. 29 (1988) 665-673.

[12] D. Lambert and M. Kibler, An algebraic and geometric approach to non-bijective quadratic transforma-
tions, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 21 (1988) 307-343.

[13] W.K. Wootters and B.D. Fields, Optimal state-determination by mutually unbiased measurements, Ann.
Phys. (N.Y.) 191 (1989) 363-381.

[14] C.H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W.K. Wootters, Teleporting an unknown
quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (1993) 1895.

[15] A.I. Kostrikin and P.H. Tiep, Orthogonal decompositions and integral lattices (Walter de Gruyter, Berlin,
1994).

[16] A.R. Calderbank, P.J. Cameron, W.M. Kantor and J.J. Seidel, Z4 –Kerdock codes, orthogonal spreads,
and extremal Euclidean line-sets, Proc. London Math. Soc. 75 (1997) 436-480.

[17] B.C. Berndt, R.J. Evans and K.S. Williams, Gauss and Jacobi sums (Wiley, New York, 1998).

[18] G. Zauner, Quantendesigns: Grundzüge einer nichtcommutativen Designtheorie, Diploma Thesis, Univer-
sity of Wien (1999).

[19] B.-G. Englert and Y. Aharonov, The mean king’s problem: prime degrees of freedom, Phys. Lett. A 284
(2001) 1-5.

[20] R. Mosseri and R. Dandoloff, Geometry of entangled states, Bloch spheres and Hopf fibrations, J. Phys.
A: Math. Gen. 34 (2001) 10243-10252.

39
[21] S. Bandyopadhyay, P.O. Boykin, V. Roychowdhury and F. Vatan, A new proof for the existence of mutually
unbiased bases, Algorithmica 34 (2002) 512-528.

[22] J. Lawrence, Č. Brukner, and A. Zeilinger, Mutually unbiased binary observable sets on N qubits, Phys.
Rev. A 65 (2002) 032320 (5pp).

[23] S. Chaturvedi, Aspects of mutually unbiased bases in odd prime power dimensions, Phys. Rev. A 65 (2002)
044301 (3pp).

[24] N.J. Cerf, M. Bourennane, A. Karlsson and N. Gisin, Security of quantum key distribution using d-level
systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 127902 (4pp).

[25] P.K. Aravind, Solution to the King’s problem in prime power dimensions, Z. Naturforsch. 58a (2003) 85-92.

[26] J. Lawrence, Mutually unbiased bases and trinary operator sets for N qutrits, Phys. Rev. A 70 (2004)
012302 (10pp).

[27] A. Klappenecker and M. Rötteler, Constructions of mutually unbiased bases, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci.
2948 (2004) 137-144.

[28] K.S. Gibbons, M.J. Hoffman and W.K. Wootters, Discrete phase space based on finite fields, Phys. Rev.
A 70 (2004) 062101 (23pp).

[29] A.O. Pittenger and M.H. Rubin, Mutually unbiased bases, generalized spin matrices and separability,
Linear Algebr. Appl. 390 (2004) 255-278.

[30] A. Vourdas, Quantum systems with finite Hilbert space, Rep. Prog. Phys. 67 (2004) 267-320.

[31] M. Saniga, M. Planat and H. Rosu, Mutually unbiased bases and finite projective planes, J. Opt. B:
Quantum Semiclassical Opt. 6 (2004) L19-L20.

[32] A. Hayashi, M. Horibe and T. Hashimoto, Mean king’s problem with mutually unbiased bases and orthog-
onal Latin squares, Phys. Rev. A 71 (2005) 052331 (4pp).

[33] J.P. Paz, A.J. Roncaglia and M. Saraceno, Qubits in phase space: Wigner-function approach to quantum-
error correction and the mean-king problem, Phys. Rev. A 72 (2005) 012309 (19pp).

[34] P. Wocjan and T. Beth, New construction of mutually unbiased bases in square dimensions, Quantum Inf.
Comput. 5 (2005) 93-101.

[35] C. Archer, There is no generalization of known formulas for mutually unbiased bases, J. Math. Phys. 46
(2005) 022106 (11pp).

[36] M. Grassl, On SIC-POVMs and MUBs in dimension 6, in Proceedings ERATO Conference on Quantum
Information Science (EQIS’04), J. Gruska editor, Tokyo (2005) 60-61 and arXiv:0406175v2 [quant-ph]
(2009).

[37] M. Grassl, Tomography of quantum states in small dimensions, Elec. Notes Discrete Math. 20 (2005)
151-164.

[38] A. Klappenecker and M. Rötteler, Mutually unbiased bases are complex projective 2-designs, in Proceedings
of the 2005 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (Adelaide, Australia) (2005) 1740-1744.

[39] I. Bengtsson and Å. Ericsson, Mutually unbiased bases and the complementary polytope, Open Syst. Inf.
Dyn. 12 (2005) 107-120.

40
[40] T. Durt, About mutually unbiased bases in even and odd prime power dimensions, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.
38 (2005) 5267-5283.

[41] A.O. Pittenger and M.H. Rubin, Wigner functions and separability for finite systems, J. Phys. A: Math.
Gen. 38 (2005) 6005-6036.

[42] T. Durt, About the Mean King’s problem and discrete Wigner distributions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 20
(2006) 1742-1760.

[43] M.R. Kibler, Angular momentum and mutually unbiased bases, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 20 (2006) 1792-1801.

[44] M.R. Kibler and M. Planat, A SU(2) recipe for mutually unbiased bases, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 20 (2006)
1802-1807.

[45] A. Vourdas, Galois quantum systems, irreducible polynomials and Riemann surfaces, J. Math. Phys. 47
(2006) 092104 (15pp).

[46] R.W. Heath, T. Strohmer and A.J. Paulraj, On quasi-orthogonal signatures for CDMA systems, IEEE
Trans. Inf. Theory 52 (2006) 1217-1226.

[47] A. Vourdas, Quantum systems in finite Hilbert space: Galois fields in quantum mechanics, J. Phys. A:
Math. Theor. 40 (2007) R285-R331.

[48] A.B. Klimov, J.L. Romero, G. Björk and L.L. Sánchez-Soto, Geometrical approach to mutually unbiased
bases, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 40 (2007) 3987-3998 and 40 (2007) 9177.

[49] P. Šulc and J. Tolar, Group theoretical construction of mutually unbiased bases in Hilbert spaces of prime
dimensions, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 40 (2007) 15099 (13pp).

[50] M. Aschbacher, A.M. Childs and P. Wocjan, The limitations of nice mutually unbiased bases, J. Algebr.
Comb. 25 (2007) 111-123.

[51] I. Bengtsson, W. Bruzda, Å. Ericsson, J.-Å. Larsson, W. Tadej and K. Życzkowski, Mutually unbiased
bases and Hadamard matrices of order six, J. Math. Phys. 48 (2007) 052106 (21pp).

[52] P.O. Boykin, M. Sitharam, P.H. Tiep and P. Wocjan, Mutually unbiased bases and orthogonal decompo-
sitions of Lie algebras, Quantum Inf. Comput. 7 (2007) 371-382.

[53] P. Butterley and W. Hall, Numerical evidence for the maximum number of mutually unbiased bases in
dimension six, Phys. Lett. A 369 (2007) 5-8.

[54] G. Björk, J.L. Romero, A.B. Klimov and L.L. Sánchez-Soto, Mutually unbiased bases and discrete Wigner
functions, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 24 (2007) 371-378.

[55] A.B. Klimov, C. Muñoz, A. Fernández and C. Saavedra, Optimal quantum-state reconstruction for cold
trapped ions, Phys. Rev. A 77 (2008) 060303(R) (4pp).

[56] G. Svetlichny, Feynman’s integral is about mutually unbiased bases, arXiv:0708.3079v3 [quant-ph] (2008).

[57] M.R. Kibler, Variations on a theme of Heisenberg, Pauli and Weyl, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 41 (2008)
375302 (19pp).

[58] S. Brierley and S. Weigert, Maximal sets of mutually unbiased quantum states in dimension six, Phys.
Rev. A 78 (2008) 042312 (8pp).

41
[59] S. Brierley and S. Weigert, Constructing mutually unbiased bases in dimension six, Phys. Rev. A 79 (2009)
052316 (13pp).

[60] D.M. Appleby, SIC-POVMS and MUBS: geometrical relationships in prime dimension, in AIP Conference
Proceedings, Foundations of Probability and Physics-5 (Växjö, Sweden, 2008) 1101 (2009) 223-232.

[61] O. Albouy, The isotropic lines of Z2d , J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 42 (2009) 072001 (8pp).

[62] J. Tolar and G. Chadzitaskos, Feynman’s path integral and mutually unbiased bases, J. Phys. A: Math.
Theor. 42 (2009) 245306 (11pp).

[63] M.R. Kibler, An angular momentum approach to quadratic Fourier transform, Hadamard matrices, Gauss
sums, mutually unbiased bases, the unitary group and the Pauli group, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 42 (2009)
353001 (28pp).

[64] T. Durt, B.-G. Englert, I. Bengtsson and K. Życzkowski, On mutually unbiased bases, Int. J. Quantum
Inf. 8 (2010) 535-640.

[65] P. Diţă, Hadamard matrices from mutually unbiased bases, J. Math. Phys. 51 (2010) 072202 (20pp).

[66] G. Zauner, Quantum designs: Foundations of a noncommutative design theory, Int. J. Quantum Inf. 9
(2011) 445-507.

[67] M. Daoud and M.R. Kibler, Phase operators, phase states and vector phase states for SU3 and SU2,1 , J.
Math. Phys. 52 (2011) 082101 (21pp).

[68] M. Shalaby and A. Vourdas, Weak mutually unbiased bases, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 45 (2012) 052001
(15pp).

[69] D. McNulty and S. Weigert, The limited role of mutually unbiased product bases in dimension six, J. Phys.
A: Math. Theor. 45 (2012) 102001 (5pp).

[70] D. McNulty and S. Weigert, All mutually unbiased product bases in dimension six, J. Phys. A: Math.
Theor. 45 (2012) 135307 (22pp).

[71] I. Ghiu, Generation of all sets of mutually unbiased bases for three-qubit systems, Phys. Scr. T153 (2013)
014027 (5pp).

[72] D. Goyeneche, Mutually unbiased triplets from non-affine families of complex Hadamard matrices in di-
mension 6, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 46 (2013) 105301 (15pp).

[73] C. Spengler and B. Kraus, Graph-state formalism for mutually unbiased bases, Phys. Rev. A 88 (2013)
052323 (21pp).

[74] T. Olupitan, C. Lei and A. Vourdas, An analytic function approach to weak mutually unbiased bases,
Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 371 (2016) 1-19.

[75] M.R. Kibler, Galois Fields and Galois Rings Made Easy, ISTE Press–Elsevier, London and Oxford (2017).

[76] S. Sriwongsa and Y.M. Zou, Orthogonal abelian Cartan subalgebra decomposition of sln over a finite
commutative ring, Linear and Multilinear Algebra DOI: 10.1080/03081087.2018.1433626, arXiv:1802.02275
[math.RA] (2018).

[77] H.S.S. Rao, S. Sirsi and K. Bharath, Mutually disjoint, maximally commuting set of physical observables
for optimum state determination, arXiv:1809.06762 [quant-ph] (2018)

42
[78] Y. Trifa, Utilisation et construction de bases mutuellement non biaisées en théorie de linformation quan-
tique, Rapport de stage, IPN Lyon – ENS Lyon (2018).

[79] https://quantumexperience.ng.bluemix.net/qx/experience (IBM Quantum Experience).

[80] https://atos.net/en/insights-and-innovation/quantum-computing/atos-quantum (ATOS Quantum Learn-

ing Machine)

43