Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: many communication protocols implicitly require that the communicating parties share a reference frame  @xcite . for instance , if one party , alice , transmits qubits to another party , bob , using spin-1/2 particles , the quantum state of the collection can only be recovered by bob if he and alice share a reference frame for orientation . lacking such a shared reference frame ( for instance , by lacking knowledge of the relation between their local reference frames ) is equivalent to having a noisy channel ; the density operator relative to bob s local frame is the average over rotations of the density operator relative to alice s local frame . for a single qubit , such an average over rotations yields complete decoherence  no information about the quantum state survives nonetheless , alice and bob can still achieve perfect classical and quantum communication by encoding the information into the rotationally - invariant degrees of freedom of many qubits  @xcite . indeed , in the limit of large numbers , the cost of not sharing a reference frame is only logarithmic in the number of systems . similarly , if alice and bob lack a phase reference , they can still encode classical and quantum information in phase - invariant states of composite systems  @xcite . however , such communication schemes are technically challenging to implement because they make use of highly entangled states of many qubits  @xcite . such schemes will be referred to here as `` calibration - free '' . a more straightforward strategy for coping with the lack of a shared reference frame is for alice and bob to begin their communication protocol by setting up a shared reference frame , that is , they begin by calibrating or aligning their local reference frames . thereafter alice transmits her quantum systems normally . this strategy is illustrated in figure  [ fig : figure1 ] . the problem of aligning reference frames using finite communication resources has been well studied  @xcite . if only finite communication resources are devoted to the task , then the token of alice s reference frame that is transmitted to bob will be of bounded size . assuming the reference frame in question is associated with a continuous degree of freedom , this bound leads to a nonzero probability of error in the decoding of messages . nonetheless , this scheme has two advantages over its calibration - free counterpart : ( i ) alice does not need to implement any entangling operations to encode classical bits or logical qubits into the physical qubits , nor does bob require such operations to decode ( they may require entangling operations to prepare and measure the reference frame token , but the preparation and measurement they require is always the same and their effort does not scale with the size of the message ) ; ( ii ) if alice wishes to communicate a classical bit string or a string of logical qubit states , she can encode one logical bit or qubit per physical qubit , and bob can decode one logical bit or qubit per physical qubit ( in other words , the blocks of physical qubits into which they encode and decode their logical bits and qubits can be as small as one , unlike the calibration - free scheme ) . by virtue of ( ii ) , alice does not need to know the entire message string at the outset to achieve her optimal communication rate , nor does bob need to store all of the systems coherently until he has received the entire sequence of physical qubits , whereas such capabilities are required to achieve the optimal rate of communication in the calibration - free scheme . we are therefore motivated to explore how well alice can communicate quantum information to bob after supplying him with a bounded - size token of her reference frame .     by the state @xmath0 and the system @xmath1 by the state @xmath2 . bob , who is not correlated with alice s reference frame , describes the joint state of @xmath3 and @xmath1 as the twirling of alice s description , namely @xmath4 . b ) we can consider alice s act of adjoining the reference frame token to the system together with the twirling as an encoding operation @xmath5 . composing this with bob s decoding operation @xmath3 , the resulting channel can be described as an effective @xmath6.,width=302 ]    the general case we consider is that of a reference frame associated with a compact lie group @xmath7 . if the system is prepared in the state @xmath2 and the reference frame token in the state @xmath8 relative to alice s local reference frame , then relative to bob s local reference frame , the pair is in the state @xmath9 = \mathcal{g } ( |e\rangle \langle e| \otimes \rho ) \,,\ ] ] where @xmath10 averages over the collective action of the group and is termed the @xmath7-twirling operation ( see figure  [ fig : figure1 ] ) . this state encodes @xmath2 . we consider the case where the reference frame token is prepared in a particular state @xmath8 , suggested by previous investigations  @xcite , which is near - optimal for transmitting information about the group element and which makes the mathematics particularly simple . we then determine how well bob can reconstruct the state @xmath2 . it turns out that the recovery ( or decoding ) operation @xmath11 that is equal to the hilbert - schmidt adjoint of @xmath5 , normalized to be trace - preserving , is provably near - optimal ( in a sense we will define later ) . the composition of encoding and decoding yields an effective decoherence of the form @xmath12 where @xmath13 is a probability distribution over the group with @xmath14 the group - invariant measure , @xmath15 and @xmath16 are unitary representations of @xmath7 on the system @xmath1 and the reference frame token @xmath3 respectively . with our particular choice of reference state @xmath8 , we find that @xmath17 for all @xmath18 , ensuring that @xmath19 is a @xmath7-invariant map ( it commutes with the action of every @xmath20 ) . the figure of merit relative to which the decoding operation is judged to be near - optimal is the entanglement fidelity . we also demonstrate two distinct ways of implementing this decoding operation . the first is an obvious scheme : bob estimates the orientation of the token relative to his local frame and then re - orients the system appropriately . we call this the `` measure and re - orient '' scheme . the second is less intuitive , but reveals more about the structure of the problem : bob projects into the virtual subsystems that support the representation of the group induced by _ relative _ transformations of the system and token and implements an isometry that maps these onto a single hilbert space . we call this the `` extract from the relational subsystems '' scheme . these relational subsystems are the places in the hilbert space of the combined token and system where the quantum information associated with @xmath2 is to be found . their characterization is the key technical result of the article . the second scheme is also particularly interesting because , with a slight modification , it can yield a decoding that is probabilistically perfect , that is , one which sometimes fails but which yields a perfect decoding when it succeeds . we work out the explicit form of the recovery operation @xmath11 and the effective decoherence @xmath19 for several interesting examples : ( i ) a phase reference ; ( ii ) a cartesian frame ( representing an orthogonal triad of spatial directions ) ; ( iii ) a reference direction ( representing a single spatial direction ) . in each case , we consider a system consisting of a single qubit . the explicit form of the decoherence map is actually quite simple in this case . because @xmath19 is a @xmath7-invariant map , it follows from the results of ref . @xcite that it is a sum of irreducible @xmath7-invariant maps called moments . but in the case of a qubit , there is only a single nontrivial moment  the @xmath7-twirling map @xmath10 . thus , we have @xmath21 where @xmath22 is the identity map . we show that for our examples , @xmath23 is inversely proportional to the size of the reference frame token , @xmath24 where the size of the reference frame is given by the quantum number of the highest irreducible representation appearing in the state of the token . it is also shown that in probabilistically perfect decoding schemes , the probability of failure is inversely proportional to the size of the reference frame token . these results are specific to the special form of reference frame state that we consider here . the idea that bounded - size quantum reference frames induce an effective decoherence is not new . the effect of a bounded - size clock , which is a kind of phase reference , has been considered previously by many authors @xcite and that of a bounded - size directional frame has been considered by poulin  @xcite . our results go beyond this work in several ways . for one , the case of a cartesian frame , which is particularly significant given that it is representative of the general non - abelian case , has not been examined before . more significantly , we consider many different sorts of reference frames within a unified framework and we provide insight into the structure of the problem . it should be noted that although our method can be applied to a system of arbitrary dimension , we here obtain explicit expressions for the effective decoherence only in the case of the simplest possible system : a qubit . we hope to provide a discussion of the foundational implications of modeling bounded - size reference frames by effective decoherence in a subsequent paper .    finally , it is worth pointing out that the problem of communication in the presence of a bounded - size reference frame has interesting connections with a disparate set of topics in quantum information theory and the theory of quantum reference frames : _ partially correlated reference frames . _ when some information is known about the relative orientation of alice and bob s local reference frames , they are said to share partially correlated reference frames . this is a resource that interpolates between having and lacking a shared reference frame . its quality can be characterized by the probability distribution over the relative orientation  the more peaked the distribution , the better the correlation . what can be achieved with this resource is an interesting question that has only begun to be addressed . we gain some insight into the question in this article because the `` measure and re - orient '' implementation of the recovery operation begins with a reference frame alignment protocol  @xcite that leaves alice and bob holding partially correlated reference frames . _ programmable operations . _ there have been many investigations into the possibility of encoding an operation into a quantum state such that the state can subsequently be used to implement the operation on another system . if the system into which the operation is encoded is bounded in size , then it is known that one can only achieve an approximate version of the operation or a perfect version with non - unit probability  @xcite . the token of the quantum reference frame in our communication protocol is an instance of a program that encodes the unitary that relates alice s local reference frame to bob s . bob subsequently uses it to implement the inverse of this unitary on the system . our results therefore provide interesting examples of both approximate and unambiguous programmable operations . _ measures of the quality of a quantum reference frame . _ our results also contribute to the project of quantifying the extent to which a quantum reference frame of bounded size can stand in for one of unbounded size  @xcite , an important element of a resource theory of quantum reference frames . for instance , a measure of the strength of the effective decoherence associated with the bounded - size reference frame may serve as an operational measure of its quality .    _ private channels . _ if no party besides bob has a sample of alice s rf , then alice and bob are said to possess a _ private _ shared reference frame . these have been shown to constitute a novel kind of key that is useful for private communication schemes  @xcite . our results establish a lower bound on the fidelity between input and output in private communication schemes that rely on bob possessing a bounded - size token of alice s reference frame . they also establish a bound on the probability of achieving perfect fidelity by post - selection . this cryptographic application provides a particularly useful perspective on bob s recovery operation : the message is encoded in the relative orientation between the system and the token of alice s reference frame in the same way that the plain - text in classical cryptography is encoded in the bit - wise parity of the cypher - text message and the key . bob decodes by using the token of alice s frame as a key .    _ dense coding . _ as noted above in point ( ii ) , the calibration - free communication scheme requires alice to know the entire message to be sent prior to transmitting any systems to bob if she is to achieve the maximum rate . in the communication scheme that first sets up a bounded - size reference frame , alice can transmit to bob the quantum token of her local reference frame prior to knowing anything about the message . consequently , alice can use the quantum channel at an early time , when it is perhaps cheaper , to enhance the communication capacity at a future time , when it is known what message is to be sent . sending the frame token is therefore akin to establishing entanglement in a dense coding scheme  @xcite . one difference , however , is that the fidelity of communication is never perfect for a bounded - size token whereas a single maximally - entangled state allows for perfect communication of one qubit .      in this section , we present some formal mathematical tools that are useful for describing classical and quantum reference frames . we follow the notation of  @xcite , to which we refer the reader for further details . suppose alice and bob are considering a single quantum system described by a hilbert space @xmath25 . let this system transform via a representation of a group @xmath7 relative to some reference frame . we will restrict our attention to lie groups that are compact , so that they possess a group - invariant ( haar ) measure @xmath14 , and act on @xmath25 via a _ unitary _ representation @xmath26 , ensuring that they are completely reducible  @xcite . let @xmath20 be the group element that describes the passive transformation from alice s to bob s reference frame . furthermore , suppose that @xmath27 is completely unknown , i.e. , that alice s reference frame and bob s are uncorrelated . it follows that if alice prepares a system in the state @xmath2 on @xmath25 relative to her frame , then it is represented relative to bob s frame by the state @xmath28 = \int_g \text{d}g\ , u(g ) \rho u^\dag(g )    \ , . \label{eq : averagedstate}\ ] ] the action of the representation @xmath26 of the ( compact lie ) group @xmath7 on @xmath25 yields a very useful structure . it allows for a decomposition of the hilbert space into a direct sum of _ charge sectors _ , labeled by an index @xmath29 , where each charge sector carries an inequivalent representation @xmath30 of @xmath7 . each sector can be further decomposed into a tensor product of a subsystem @xmath31 carrying an irreducible representation ( irrep ) of @xmath7 and a subsystem @xmath32 carrying a trivial representation of @xmath7 . that is , @xmath33 note that this tensor product does not correspond to the standard tensor product obtained by combining multiple qubits : it is _ virtual _  @xcite . the spaces @xmath31 and @xmath32 are therefore _ virtual subsystems_.    expressed in terms of this decomposition of the hilbert space , the map @xmath10 takes a particularly simple form , given by @xmath34 = \sum_q ( \mathcal{d}_{\mathcal{m}^{(q ) } } \otimes    \mathcal{i}_{\mathcal{n}^{(q)}})[\pi^{(q ) } \rho \pi^{(q ) } ] \,,\ ] ] where @xmath35 is the projection into the charge sector @xmath29 , @xmath36 denotes the trace - preserving operation that takes every operator on the hilbert space @xmath37 to a constant times the identity operator on that space , and @xmath38 denotes the identity map over operators in the space @xmath39 . a proof of this result is provided in ref . @xcite . note that the operation @xmath10 has the general form of _ whereas decoherence typically describes correlation with an environment to which one does not have access , in this case the decoherence describes correlation with a reference frame to which one does not have access  @xcite . consider a communication scheme wherein alice prepares a system @xmath3 in a pure quantum state @xmath8 and sends it to bob as a quantum sample of her reference frame , together with a system @xmath1 ( a collection of qubits for example ) that is described by a quantum state @xmath2 relative to her reference frame . let @xmath3 transform via the unitary representation @xmath16 of @xmath7 , and @xmath1 via the unitary representation @xmath15 . the lack of a shared reference frame between alice and bob implies that the transmitted composite @xmath40 is described relative to bob s reference frame by the @xmath7-invariant state @xmath41 \ , ,    \label{eq : ginvstate}\ ] ] where @xmath42 is the @xmath7-twirling operation of  ( [ eq : averagedstate ] ) for the representation @xmath43 of @xmath7 . this map @xmath5 will be referred to as the _ encoding map_. note that its input space is @xmath44 ( the bounded operators on @xmath45 ) , while its output space is @xmath46 . it maps @xmath2 to a @xmath7-invariant state of the composite @xmath40 . it is useful to define the set of states @xmath47 which form the orbit under the representation @xmath16 of @xmath7 of the fiducial state @xmath8 ( associated with the identity element of the group ) . by expressing the @xmath7-twirling operation explicitly and making use of these , we can express the encoding operation as @xmath48 the encoding map clearly depends on the choice of the state @xmath8 for the reference frame . we turn to this choice now . we begin by considering what properties of a quantum state make it a good representative of a reference frame for the group @xmath7 ( the case wherein the reference frame is associated with a coset space will be considered in section  [ sec : direction ] ) ; for a more complete discussion , see  @xcite . states @xmath49 corresponding to different orientations of the reference frame must be distinct , so at the very least one requires that the the fiducial state @xmath8 is not invariant with respect to @xmath7 or any subgroup thereof . to emulate a perfect reference frame for @xmath7 , these states must in fact be perfectly distinguishable , @xmath50 where @xmath51 is the delta - function on @xmath7 defined by @xmath52 for any continuous function @xmath53 of @xmath7 , where @xmath54 is the identity element in @xmath7 . if the states latexmath:[$\ {    requirements , then @xmath16 is the _ left regular representation _ of @xmath7 . in the case of a lie group , the dimensionality of any system @xmath56 that carries the regular representation must necessarily be infinite . we refer to such an infinite - dimensional quantum rf as _ unbounded _ ; such systems and states were considered in ref . @xcite . if the hilbert space dimensionality of the system @xmath3 serving as a quantum rf is finite , then we say that the quantum rf is _ of bounded size_. if the rf is associated with a lie group , having a continuum of elements , then a bound on the size of the rf implies that the condition ( [ eq : deltafunction ] ) can not be satisfied precisely . in this case , a key question is : what state on @xmath3 is the best approximation to a perfect reference frame ? the answer will depend on the figure of merit for the task at hand , but we will make use of a generic construction  @xcite that illustrates the key features . suppose the representation @xmath16 reduces to a set of irreps @xmath57 , @xmath58 where the tensor product is the one appearing in the decomposition ( [ eq : hdecompfull ] ) of @xmath59 and where @xmath60 is the identity on @xmath61 . we are interested in a special subset of these irreps , namely , the @xmath62 that appear in the decomposition of @xmath16 a number of times greater than or equal to their dimension @xmath63 , i.e. those for which @xmath64 we denote the set of @xmath29 that label such irreps by @xmath65 and , in what follows , we will be restricting our attention to only these irreps . also , for irreps @xmath66 , choose an arbitrary subspace @xmath67 with dimension @xmath63 , i.e. , with dimension equal to that of @xmath68 . we now define a new hilbert space @xmath69 as @xmath70 which is of dimension @xmath71 the state of @xmath3 that we will use for our quantum rf is @xmath72 where @xmath73 is an arbitrary basis for @xmath31 , and @xmath74 an arbitrary basis for @xmath75 . note that the orbit of @xmath8 under @xmath7 has support in @xmath69 . the embedding @xmath76 provides a way of embedding @xmath8 in the original hilbert space @xmath59 , and in addition @xmath16 acts on the hilbert space @xmath69 in the obvious way . if @xmath65 contained all irreps of @xmath7 , then @xmath16 would be the ( left ) regular representation , and for a lie group the hilbert space @xmath69 would be infinite dimensional . if the quantum rf is of bounded size , then a limited set of irreps appear in @xmath65 . we note that , for the problem of optimally encoding a reference frame relative to a maximum likelihood figure of merit , given a general hilbert space @xmath59 the optimal states will not have this precise form  @xcite . however , such optimal states do take the form of eq .   when restricted to @xmath69 . these are the states of interest here . the restriction to irreps having the special property of eq . ( [ eq : specialproperty ] ) is in fact critical for our analysis , because only in this case can we define a useful _ right _ action of @xmath7 on the hilbert space  @xcite . consider the representation @xmath77 of @xmath7 defined by its action on the covariant set   as @xmath78 to obtain an explicit form for this right action in terms of the decomposition of eq .  , we make use of the fact that the state @xmath8 is maximally entangled across the virtual tensor products @xmath79 . thus , we have for any transformation @xmath80 on a subsystem @xmath68 the identity @xmath81 where @xmath82 denotes the transpose , @xmath83 the complex conjugate , and we have made use of the fact that @xmath62 is unitary . given that the complex conjugate of a representation @xmath62 of @xmath7 is also a representation of @xmath7 ( called the conjugate representation and denoted by @xmath84 ) , we can define a representation @xmath77 by @xmath85 in contrast to @xmath16 , the representation @xmath77 acts on the subsystems @xmath86 irreducibly according to the conjugate representation @xmath87 , and leaves the subsystems @xmath68 invariant . clearly , the two actions @xmath16 and @xmath77 commute . furthermore , it is easy to verify that @xmath77 satisfies eq . ( [ eq : rightaction ] ) .    as the states of the reference frame are restricted to the hilbert space @xmath69 , it is useful to consider our encoding operation @xmath5 of eq . ( [ eq : encoding ] ) with fiducial state @xmath8 of eq . ( [ eq : chiribella ] ) as a map from @xmath44 to @xmath88 . for the remainder of this paper , we consider the encoding map to be defined thus .    finally , we note that the map @xmath5 with the fiducial state @xmath8 chosen to be of the form  ( [ eq : chiribella ] ) is unital . ( because the input and output spaces of @xmath5 are of differing dimension , we define _ unital _ for such a trace - preserving map as one which maps the ( normalized ) completely mixed state to the completely mixed state . ) this result is seen as @xmath89 where @xmath90 is the dimension of @xmath45 . here , we have used the fact that the maximally - entangled states @xmath91 in eq . ( [ eq : chiribella ] ) have reduced density matrices on @xmath92 that are proportional to the identity . it is illustrative to investigate the action of the encoding map   ( the fiducial state @xmath8 will be assumed to be given by eq . ( [ eq : chiribella ] ) except in the final section of the article ) and to explicitly identify the subsystems of @xmath93 into which the system s state is encoded . the details of this section require extensive use of the virtual tensor product structure of @xmath94 induced by the unitary representation @xmath95 of @xmath7 , given in eq . , as well as an application of the stinespring theorem for covariant maps  @xcite ; this section may be skipped on first reading . to facilitate this , we first state the main result of this section prior to our detailed investigation of the encoding map . main result : : :    according to eq . , the joint hilbert space    @xmath94 can be decomposed under the    representation @xmath95 of @xmath7 as    @xmath96    where @xmath97 are the set of irreps @xmath29 of    @xmath7 that appear in the decomposition of    @xmath95 . the encoding map   yields    @xmath7-invariant density operators which , in terms of the    decomposition  , are block - diagonal in the irreps    @xmath98 and , within each block , have the form of a    tensor product of the completely mixed state on the subsystem    @xmath99 and some non - trivial state on the    subsystem @xmath100 . thus , the action    of the encoding can be expressed as @xmath101 where    @xmath102 is the identity operator on    @xmath99 , and    @xmath103 is a trace - decreasing map from states    on @xmath45 to states on    @xmath100 . we show below that , under    the assumption that @xmath45 is an irrep of    @xmath7 , each of these encodings    @xmath103 takes the form    @xmath104    where @xmath105 is the identity operator on    a hilbert space @xmath106 carrying an irrep    @xmath87 of @xmath7 , and    @xmath107    is a linear map satisfying    @xmath108 . in addition , each map @xmath109 takes a very simple form ,    which depends on the irrep @xmath29 . specifically , there is a    subset of irreps @xmath110 such that , for    @xmath111 , the map @xmath109 is    a bijective isometry , that is , a unitary ; in these instances , the map    @xmath103 can be inverted and @xmath2    can be recovered perfectly . for @xmath29 not in    @xmath112 , the map @xmath109 is an    isometry that is not surjective , i.e. , it maps onto a _ proper    subspace _ of @xmath113 . the map @xmath103 is not invertible in these    cases . we can identify the relational degrees of freedom in which the message is encoded by investigating how relational transformations act on the hilbert space @xmath94 . the subsystems @xmath99 carry an irreducible representation of @xmath7 corresponding to the collective action @xmath95 and describe collective degrees of freedom . in contrast , the subsystems @xmath100 are relational . however , not all degrees of freedom in @xmath100 describe relations of the system @xmath1 to the reference frame @xmath3 ; some of these describe relations among the parts of @xmath3 ( or among the parts of @xmath1 if the latter are composite systems ) . we seek to identify , for each irrep @xmath29 , the precise subsystem of @xmath100 into which the message state @xmath2 is encoded . the system hilbert space @xmath45 carries a representation @xmath15 of @xmath7 . if we act with @xmath7 on the system but not on the rf , this will induce a relative transformation of the two ; however , this action alone is not @xmath7-invariant . while it is possible to construct a @xmath7-invariant action of @xmath15 by using the techniques of refs . @xcite , it is much more straightforward to make use of the right action @xmath77 of @xmath7 defined in eq . ( [ eq : rightaction ] ) . this action commutes with the left action @xmath16 , and thus also commutes with the collective action @xmath95 of @xmath7 . by acting with @xmath114 for @xmath18 on a state @xmath115 of the form , we have @xmath116 where we have used the invariance of the haar measure . the action of @xmath114 on @xmath117 yields another invariant state , but one which is now an encoding of the transformed state @xmath118 . thus , @xmath114 acts as a transformation of the relation between @xmath1 and @xmath3 . a map @xmath5 satisfying eq . is called _ @xmath7-covariant_.    as @xmath77 is a relational action , it acts on the subsystems @xmath100 in eq .  ; we now decompose these subsystems according to the irreps of @xmath7 under the action of @xmath77 , and in doing so identify the subsystems in which we find the image of @xmath2 under the encoding map .    at this stage , we restrict our attention to the case where @xmath15 is an irrep of @xmath7 , labelled @xmath119 . it appears straightforward ( although with substantially more burdensome notation ) to extend our results to the general case wherein this restriction is relaxed . indeed , the u(1 ) example considered in sec . [ sec : phase ] provides evidence of the generality of our theorem . however , we do not consider the general case here .    recall that the reference frame @xmath3 has a hilbert space given by eq .  , and the system s hilbert space is @xmath120 . thus , @xmath121 where @xmath122 denotes that the irreps @xmath123 and @xmath119 couple to the irrep @xmath29 , @xmath124 is the multiplicity space for the irrep @xmath29 in tensor representation @xmath125 , and where @xmath97 is the set of all irreps that are obtained by coupling some irrep @xmath126 to @xmath119 . comparing the expression above with eq . , the subsystems @xmath100 are given by @xmath127 we use the fact that if @xmath122 , then @xmath128  @xcite , and that @xmath129  @xcite . thus , @xmath130 where each subsystem @xmath131 on the right - hand side carries an irrep @xmath132 of @xmath7 under the action @xmath77 . ( we note that in the examples presented in the latter sections , with groups @xmath133 and @xmath134 , the subsystems @xmath135 are trivial and can be ignored . )    at this stage , we will make use of the @xmath7-covariance of the encoding map @xmath5 , given by eq .  , to determine how the message is encoded into the relational subsystems @xmath100 . as the state @xmath136 is @xmath7-invariant under the action of @xmath95 for any @xmath2 , it can be expressed according to the hilbert space decomposition   as @xmath137 where @xmath102 is the identity operator on @xmath99 and @xmath138 is an ( unnormalized ) density operator on @xmath100 . this expression defines a set of trace - decreasing superoperators @xmath139 ; note that the latter can be naturally embedded in the full multiplicity spaces @xmath140 of the combined system . from eq . ( [ eq : unital ] ) , we see that the maps @xmath103 are also unital in that @xmath141 is proportional ( because @xmath103 is trace - decreasing ) to the identity on @xmath100 . also , as @xmath77 commutes with @xmath95 , we have that each term @xmath103 is itself @xmath7-covariant , satisfying @xmath142 . we now make use of the stinespring theorem for covariant cp maps  @xcite ; in particular , we use a form due to keyl and werner  @xcite for unital covariant cp maps . there exists another unitary representation @xmath143 of @xmath7 on a space @xmath106 and an _ intertwiner _ ( linear map ) @xmath144 satisfying @xmath108 with @xmath145 such that @xmath146    the form of eq .   allows us to identify a suitable stinespring extension . the representation @xmath147 acts on @xmath100 through what appears to be ( ignoring the limits on the sum @xmath148 ) a tensor representation of an irrep @xmath87 with an irrep @xmath119 . thus , we can choose our stinespring extension in a minimal way such that @xmath143 acts on @xmath106 irreducibly as the irrep @xmath87 of @xmath7 . the operators @xmath109 intertwine the representation @xmath147 with the collective representation @xmath149 on @xmath113 . we now consider two cases :    * case a : * if @xmath98 is such that , for all @xmath123 obtained via @xmath150 then @xmath126 , ( i.e. , @xmath65 contains all of the irreps @xmath123 that one can obtain by @xmath150 ) , then the direct sum hilbert space in eq . is given by @xmath151 where @xmath152 denotes that these spaces are unitarily equivalent ; that is , the map @xmath109 is a bijective isometry and simply represents the clebsch - gordan transformation relating the tensor product of two irreps with the direct sum decomposition of @xmath100 given in  . let @xmath153 denote the set of irreps satisfying this condition . * case b : * if , however , @xmath98 is such that the condition of case a fails ( i.e. @xmath65 does _ not _ contain all of the irreps @xmath123 that one can obtain by coupling @xmath87 and @xmath119 ) , then the intertwiner is no longer surjective . rather , the intertwiner maps @xmath100 onto a proper subspace of @xmath113 , specifically the subspace defined by the carrier space of the irreps @xmath132 , with @xmath126 , obtained through the coupling of the irrep @xmath87 on @xmath106 with the irrep @xmath119 on @xmath45 . ( this space is necessarily a proper subspace of @xmath154 because , by the conditions of case b , @xmath65 does not contain all irreps obtained in this coupling . ) a set of basis states for this subspace can be calculated explicitly in any particular instance using the clebsch - gordan coefficients for the group @xmath7 . we now turn to the probabilities of each of these cases . we note that @xmath155 = { \rm tr}[\mathcal{e}^{(q)}(\rho)]$ ] is the probability that the system is encoded into the irrep @xmath29 . we now prove that , for the case where @xmath45 carries an irrep @xmath15 of @xmath7 , this probability is independent of @xmath2 . using eq . ( [ eq : eq ] ) , we have @xmath156 \nonumber \\    & = \int { \rm d}g \frac{d_q}{d_r } { \rm tr}_{\bar{\mathcal{n}}^{(q)}_{rs}}\bigl[v^{(q^*)}(g ) a^{(q)\dag } \bigl(i_{\mathcal{k}^{(q ) } } \otimes \rho    \bigr ) \nonumber \\    & \qquad \times a^{(q ) } v^{(q^*)}(g)^{-1 } \bigr ] \nonumber \\    & = \frac{d_q}{d_r } { \rm tr}_{\bar{\mathcal{n}}^{(q)}_{rs}}\bigl [ a^{(q)\dag } \bigl(i_{\mathcal{k}^{(q ) } } \otimes    \int { \rm d}g\ , u_s(g)\rho u_s(g)^{-1 }    \bigr)a^{(q ) } \bigr ] , \nonumber \\    % & = \frac{d_q}{d_s d_r } { \rm tr}_{\bar{\mathcal{n}}^{(q)}_{rs}}\bigl [ a^{(q)\dag}a^{(q)}\bigr]\end{aligned}\ ] ] where in the second line we have used the g - invariance of @xmath103 and in the third line we have used eq .  ( [ eq : intertwiner ] ) . because @xmath45 is an irrep , it follows that @xmath157 where @xmath158 , and therefore @xmath159 is independent of @xmath2 for all @xmath29 . the su(2 ) case , presented in sec . [ sec : cartesian ] , provides an explicit example of this . we note that for the general case , where the system does not carry an irrep of @xmath7 , then this probability can be state - dependent . for example , if @xmath45 is a direct sum of irreps @xmath119 , then @xmath160 where @xmath161 is the projector onto the @xmath119 irrep of @xmath45 . in this case , for @xmath162 ( where @xmath163 is unitary ) , we have @xmath164 , independent of @xmath2 . however , for @xmath165 , the weight @xmath159 can depend on @xmath2 . this occurs for the u(1 ) case , as seen explicitly in sec . [ sec : phase ] .    with each map @xmath103 now defined through eq . ( [ eq : eq ] ) , we can explicitly express @xmath5 in kraus operator form as @xmath166 , where @xmath167 and where @xmath168 is a basis for @xmath99 and @xmath169 is a basis for @xmath106 . finally , we point out a useful expression for @xmath103 ( which applies regardless of whether @xmath45 carries an irrep of @xmath7 ) . from eq . ( [ eq : eofrho ] ) , it is clear that @xmath170 combining this with the expression for @xmath5 in eq . ( [ eq : ginvstate ] ) and making use of eq . ( [ eq : generaldecoherencedfulldfree ] ) , we obtain @xmath171\,.\ ] ] this form will be used frequently when working out explicit examples . in the communication protocol we are considering , bob s task is to recover the quantum message @xmath2 by implementing a decoding map @xmath172 . a useful recovery map to consider is the following @xmath173 where the adjoint for superoperators is defined relative to the hilbert - schmidt inner product , @xmath174)= \mathrm{tr}(\mathcal{e}[a ] b)$ ] . the map @xmath11 is completely positive and linear , because the superoperator adjoint preserves these features . it is also trace - preserving . to see this fact , observe that @xmath175 , where @xmath176 is the identity operator on @xmath69 ; consequently , for @xmath177 , we have @xmath178=\mathrm{tr}[\rho_{rs}\mathcal{r}^{\dag}(i_{s } ) ] = \mathrm{tr}[\rho_{rs}]$ ] . we have therefore verified that @xmath11 is a valid quantum operation that can be implemented deterministically . assuming that there is no prior information about the input state to @xmath5 , the map @xmath179 is precisely the `` approximate reversal '' operation for @xmath5 proposed by barnum and knill  @xcite which yields an error no more than twice that of the optimal reversal operation . the error here is defined in terms of the deviation from unity of the average entanglement fidelity for an arbitrary input ensemble .      given a superoperator @xmath180 , the adjoint @xmath181 is easily determined through a kraus decomposition of @xmath180 . specifically , if @xmath182=\sum_{i } k_{i}\rho k_{i}^{\dag}$ ] then @xmath183=\sum_{i}k_{i}^{\dag } \rho k_{i}$ ] . the expression  ( [ eq : encoding ] ) for the encoding map @xmath5 provides one kraus decomposition : the covariant set of operators @xmath184 , where @xmath185 . it follows that a covariant set of kraus operators for @xmath186 is @xmath187 where @xmath188 and consequently @xmath189 = d_r \int\mathrm{d}g\bigl (   \langle g| \otimes u_{s}^{\dag}(g)\bigr ) \rho_{rs}\bigl ( |g\rangle \otimes u_{s}(g)\bigr )   \,.\ ] ] from this expression , we see that one way in which @xmath11 can be implemented is as follows : measure the covariant povm @xmath190 on @xmath1 , and finally discard @xmath3 and the measurement result @xmath27 . we refer to this as the `` measure and re - orient '' implementation of the decoding map . ( it is the adjoint of the `` prepare and @xmath7-twirl '' implementation of the encoding map . ) so we see that the decoding map we are considering is in fact the most obvious recovery scheme one can imagine ! bob simply estimates the relative orientation between alice s reference frame and his own by measuring how the sample @xmath3 of alice s rf is oriented , then re - orients the system appropriately ( i.e. in such a way that it is finally oriented relative to his rf in precisely the way that it was initially oriented relative to alice s rf ) . one can view the system @xmath3 as a cryptographic key or calibrating system that contains the information for how to recover the quantum state of @xmath1 . it is noteworthy that this implementation of bob s decoding map does not require any entangling operations between @xmath3 and @xmath1 . bob can achieve it with local operations and classical communication ( locc ) between @xmath3 and @xmath1 . because bob does not need to possess @xmath1 to implement the appropriate measurement on @xmath3 , it follows that alice can subsequently transmit an arbitrary number of systems and bob can decode these with the same fidelity as the first . consider the action of the decoding map on states @xmath115 , i.e. , on states of the form of eq .  . after a measurement on @xmath3 having outcome @xmath191 , followed by a transformation @xmath192 to system @xmath1 , the reduced density operator on @xmath1 is @xmath193 & = d_r \int \text{d}g\ , |\langle g|g'\rangle |^{2}\ , u_s((g')^{-1}g)\rho u_s^{\dag}((g')^{-1}g ) \nonumber \\    & = d_r \int \text{d}g\ , | \langle e|g\rangle |^{2}\ , u_s(g)\rho u_s^{\dag } ( g)\ , , \label{eq : method2}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where the simplification occurs because d@xmath27 is invariant . note that the result is independent of the outcome @xmath191 . it is straightforward to check that this state is normalized , as @xmath194 . this is precisely how a state @xmath2 relative to alice s frame would be redescribed relative to bob s frame if their relative orientation @xmath27 was known to be distributed according to the probability distribution @xmath195 . if @xmath196 as a function of @xmath27 is highly peaked around the identity group element @xmath197 then the only unitary that will contribute significantly in the integral will be the identity operation , and we will have @xmath198\simeq\rho$ ] . it is the narrowness of the distribution @xmath196 , a measure of the quality of the quantum reference frame , that determines the degree to which one can recover the quantum information .    we see that for bounded - size samples of alice s reference frame , the decoding map we have described achieves _ approximate error correction_. further on , we will show that the degree to which it deviates from perfect error correction is inversely proportional to the size of the quantum reference frame . recall that the `` measure and re - orient '' implementation of the recovery operation @xmath11 was inferred from the adjoint of the kraus decomposition @xmath199 of @xmath5 . we exhibited a different kraus decomposition of the encoding operation in eq . ( [ eq : krause ] ) . the adjoint of the latter provides a novel kraus decomposition of @xmath11 and therefore also a new way of implementing the recovery operation . we will refer to it as the `` extract from the relational subsystems '' implementation . we find that @xmath200 can be written as @xmath201\bigr ) \,,\ ] ] where we define @xmath202 \,,\ ] ] as a map from @xmath203 to @xmath44 . recalling the form of the encoding map @xmath103 of eq . ( [ eq : edecomp2 ] ) , we see that @xmath204 . this implementation of the decoding map @xmath11 differs from the `` measure and re - orient '' scheme in that it requires joint ( i.e. nonseparable ) operations on @xmath3 and @xmath1 . specifically , it is implemented via a joint unitary on @xmath40 followed by a trace on @xmath3 . finally , we highlight another decomposition of @xmath205 that will be useful to us further on . it is the one obtained by taking the adjoint of eq . ( [ eq : equsefulform ] ) , @xmath206      given eqs . ( [ eq : edecomp1 ] ) and ( [ eq : decodingdecomposition ] ) , the composition @xmath19 can be written as @xmath207 = \sum_{q\in q_{rs } } \mathcal{r}^{(q)}\circ\mathcal{e}^{(q)}[\rho]\ , . \label{eq : composition}\ ] ] substituting the expressions for @xmath103 and @xmath205 in eqs . ( [ eq : eq ] ) and ( [ eq : rq ] ) , we obtain @xmath207 = \sum_{q\in q_{rs } } \frac{d_q}{d_r } \mathrm{tr}_{\mathcal{k}^{(q)}}\bigl [    a^{(q)}a^{(q)\dag}\bigl ( i_{\mathcal{k}^{(q)}}\otimes\rho\bigr ) a^{(q)}a^{(q)\dag}\bigr]\ , . \label{eq : composition2}\ ] ]    we now consider the two subsets of @xmath97 from sec .  [ subsec : relsubsystems ] . in case a , where @xmath208 , the intertwiner @xmath109 is a bijective isometry , and consequently @xmath209 is the identity and @xmath210 = ( d_q^2/d_r ) \rho$ ] . therefore , in this case the quantum information is perfectly recovered by the decoding map . in case b , however , @xmath211 is a non - trivial projection on @xmath113 and the recovery is not perfect . we can express eq . ( [ eq : composition2 ] ) as @xmath212   = \bigl ( \sum_{q\in q_{rs}^{\mathrm{ok } } } \frac{d_q^2}{d_r } \bigr ) \rho \\   +   \sum_{q\notin q_{rs}^{\mathrm{ok } } } \frac{d_q}{d_r } \mathrm{tr}_{\mathcal{k}^{(q)}}\bigl[p^{(q)}\bigl ( i_{\mathcal{k}^{(q)}}\otimes\rho\bigr ) p^{(q)}\bigr]\ , . \label{eq : composition3}\end{gathered}\ ] ] this is just an alternative kraus decomposition of the effective decoherence map of eq . ( [ eq : method2 ] ) . we have shown two very distinct ways of implementing one and the same decoding operation . if we describe the reference frame token @xmath3 as an ancilla , then what we have is an example wherein a single map can be implemented either by a joint unitary followed by a trace on the ancilla , or by a measurement of the ancilla followed by a unitary rotation on the system that depends on the outcome of the measurement . the existence of many different implementations of an operation is familiar in quantum information theory . for instance , griffiths and niu have made use of a similar multiplicity of possibilities for the optimal eavesdropping strategies in quantum cryptography  @xcite . the multiplicity of ways of implementing a single operation is analogous to the multiplicity of mixtures that lead to the same density operator . two kraus decompositions of our @xmath7-invariant recovery operation differ in their transformation properties under the group : one is a @xmath7-covariant set of operators ( a continuous set in the case of a lie group ) and the other is a discrete set of @xmath7-invariant operators . similarly , a @xmath7-invariant density operator @xmath2 on a finite - dimensional hilbert space admits two sorts of convex decompositions : a spectral decomposition with a discrete number of @xmath7-invariant elements , and the decomposition induced by @xmath2-distortion of a g - covariant povm ( continuous if @xmath7 is a lie group ) @xcite .    recognizing this multiplicity of convex decompositions and the fact that no particular decomposition is preferred has been important for resolving many conceptual confusions  @xcite . furthermore , each decomposition may yield important insights . in quantum optics , for example , a poissonian mixture of number eigenstates is equivalent to a uniform mixture over coherent states with the same mean number but differing in phase . the decomposition into states with well - defined phase is particularly useful for making predictions about wave - like phenomena , such as interference experiments , whereas the number state decomposition is best for particle - like phenomena , such as determining number statistics  @xcite . similarly , each of the two decompositions we have provided of our decoding operation provides some insight into our problem . the `` measure and re - orient '' scheme is clearly the most intuitive and demonstrates that joint operations on reference token and system are not necessary to implement our recovery map . the `` extract from relational subsystems '' scheme demonstrates that if bob begins by measuring the irrep of the composite of @xmath3 and @xmath1 , he learns whether the state was in a `` good '' irrep or not and consequently whether or not he has achieved a perfect decoding . this sort of post - selectively perfect decoding operation is discussed in the following section . thus far we have only judged decoding schemes by their average performance . it is also possible to say something about the best and worst case performance . the `` measure and re - orient '' scheme is not particularly interesting in this regard : one achieves precisely the same fidelity of recovery regardless of the outcome of the covariant measurement on the rf token , so that the best and worst case recoveries are equivalent to the average . on the other hand , in the `` extract from the relational subsystems '' scheme , we found that the fidelity of the recovery depends on the irrep of the composite of rf token and system into which the input state was encoded . furthermore , given that the decoding operation was incoherent over these irreps , it is always possible to make a projective measurement that distinguishes these . depending on the measurement outcome , one can achieve decodings with fidelities that are sometimes better and sometimes worse than the average . indeed , by enhancing the `` extract from the relational subsystems '' scheme with such a measurement , bob can achieve _ perfect _ decoding with some probability . specifically , if he finds one of the `` good '' irreps , @xmath162 , then @xmath103 is invertible and the decoding operation @xmath205 of eq . ( [ eq : rq ] ) recovers the quantum message perfectly . ( of course , if he achieves one of the `` bad '' irreps , @xmath213 , then he achieves a decoding that is worse than the average . ) recalling eq . ( [ eq : composition3 ] ) and making use of eq . ( [ eq : dr ] ) , the probability of perfect recovery is @xmath214 such a decoding scheme achieves post - selectively perfect error correction @xcite . it is akin to achieving unambiguous discrimination of a set of nonorthogonal quantum states  @xcite .    for this implementation of the decoding , note that bob must be able to store the quantum token of alice s reference frame coherently until the time when he receives the message systems . another point worth noting : if alice is sending a large number of systems and bob wishes to implement probabilistically perfect error correction on some subset of them , he must wait until he has collected all of the systems in that subset . the reason is that he must perform a joint measurement on the composite of these and the rf token . furthermore , after his measurement is complete , he has disrupted the state of the rf token and he can no longer achieve perfect error correction for any other systems . the tradeoffs involved in such postselectively perfect decoding schemes are an interesting topic for future research . finally , we can consider modifying the encoding operation rather than the decoding in a similar way . note that if , immediately after implementing her encoding operation , alice implements a projective measurement of the irrep of the composite of rf token and system , she can come to know whether a subsequent decoding operation will achieve a perfect recovery or not . in addition , if it happens that alice has a classical description of the quantum message rather than merely having a sample , then she can prepare the quantum state many times and only initiate transmission when her measurement finds one of the `` good '' irreps . in this case , the quantum message is perfectly encoded into a pure @xmath7-invariant state of the composite of system and rf token . such a scheme therefore achieves a relational encoding akin to the one presented in bartlett _ the precise connection of our results to the latter encoding is an interesting topic for future research ( as is the application of the mathematical tools developed here to the general problem of calibration - free communication schemes discussed in the introduction ) . the quantum state of a harmonic oscillator is always referred to some phase reference  @xcite . in this example , we consider using one quantum harmonic oscillator ( a single mode ) as a phase reference for another , and investigate the effect of bounding the maximum number @xmath215 of excitations in the phase reference . specifically , consider the single - mode rf to be prepared in the bounded - size phase eigenstate @xmath216 where @xmath217 is the fock state with @xmath218 excitations . this state is of the form of our general state ( [ eq : chiribella ] ) for the case of @xmath219 u(1 ) . for the system , we consider a qubit encoded in the two - dimensional subspace spanned by @xmath220 and @xmath221 . note that the system we consider does not carry an irrep of u(1 ) , and in fact u(1 ) has only one - dimensional irreps . because our main result concerning the representation of the encoding map , presented in sec . [ subsec : relsubsystems ] , was only proven under the assumption that @xmath45 is an irrep , the u(1 ) example can not be presented as a special case of this result . nonetheless , we find the u(1 ) example to be in accord with the general result , suggesting that our theorem applies more generally .    for simplicity , we consider a system prepared in an arbitrary pure state @xmath222 our results will directly extend to the mixed - state case via the linearity of convex combination . the overlap of the rf state @xmath223 with its rotated version is @xmath224 rotations in u(1 ) act on the qubit system state as @xmath225 evaluating eq . ( [ eq : method2 ] ) then gives @xmath226}{1-\cos \theta }    \left(\begin{smallmatrix }    |\alpha |^{2 } & \alpha \beta ^{\ast } e^{i\theta } \\ \alpha ^{\ast } \beta e^{-i\theta } & |\beta |^{2 }    \end{smallmatrix}\right)\,.\ ] ] noting that @xmath227}{1-\cos \theta } & = n_{r}+1\ , , \\ \int \tfrac{d\theta } { 2\pi } \tfrac{1-\cos [ ( n_{r}+1 ) \theta ] } { 1-\cos \theta } e^{i\theta } & = n_{r}\,,\end{aligned}\ ] ] which also gives the normalization , we have @xmath228 \ , , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath10 here denotes the u(1)-twirling operation ( the dephasing map ) . it follows that in the `` measure and re - orient '' scheme for decoding , regardless of the outcome of the measurement , the reduced density operator is with probability @xmath229 the state @xmath230 , while with probability @xmath231 it is completely dephased in the @xmath232 basis . the overall effect of encoding and decoding is to implement a partial dephasing .      because the irreps of u(1 ) are all one - dimensional , we have @xmath233 and consequently , by eq . ( [ eq : edecomp1 ] ) , the encoding operation @xmath5 may be expressed simply as @xmath234 . by virtue of eq . ( [ eq : equsefulform ] ) , each operation @xmath235 may in turn be expressed as @xmath236\pi^{(n ) } \,,\ ] ] which evaluates for different values of @xmath237 as : @xmath238 the decoding operation has the form @xmath239 where @xmath240 . one easily verifies that @xmath241 maps @xmath242 to @xmath220 and @xmath243 to @xmath221 , so that @xmath244 \propto \begin{cases }    \left\vert 0\right\rangle , & n=0 \\    \alpha \left\vert 0\right\rangle + \beta \left\vert 1\right\rangle ,    & 0<n < n_{r}+1 \\ \left\vert 1\right\rangle , & n = n_{r}+1\ , . \end{cases}\ ] ] the probability of the outcome @xmath245 is @xmath246 , of @xmath247 is @xmath248 , and of each of the other outcomes is @xmath231 . weighting the decoded states @xmath249 by these probabilities , we can verify that eq . ( [ eq : partialdephasing ] ) is recovered .    in this particular example , taking the adjoint of the encoding operation as one s recovery operation is actually optimal . the proof is as follows . for @xmath250 , the recovery operation is perfect and consequently optimal . otherwise , the action of the encoding map is to measure the system in the @xmath251 basis and update it to one of two orthogonal states [ as can be inferred from eq . ( [ eq : u(1)encodingcases ] ) ] . it is a well - known result that the update map that maximizes the entanglement fidelity is simply the lders rule ( or projection postulate )  @xcite , and this is precisely what the composition of the encoding with the recovery operation achieves . the fact that the optimal recovery operation can be achieved using a `` measure and reorient '' scheme shows that having the classical resource of partially correlated reference frames that is obtained by this scheme is just as good as having the quantum reference frame token , at least for the purpose of optimizing average - case performance in decoding . this is a surprising result because one might have expected the quantum resource to always do better . finally , by implementing a projective measurement of the total number and post - selecting on finding @xmath252 , it is clear that bob can achieve perfect decoding . this occurs with probability @xmath253 for a cartesian frame , the relevant group is the rotation group . rather than @xmath254 to allow for spinor representations of the rotation group . ] the charge sectors ( irreps ) are labeled by a nonnegative integer or half - integer @xmath255 , and the irreps are @xmath256-dimensional with the standard basis @xmath257 . we bound the size of our reference frame token by bounding @xmath255 . recall that the fiducial state for the frame , eq . ( [ eq : chiribella ] ) , requires us to work in a subspace @xmath258 satisfying eq . ( [ eq : specialproperty ] ) . in the cartesian case , we are confined to @xmath255 values such that @xmath259 . we denote the largest such value by @xmath260 . ( as an example , for an even number @xmath237 of spin-1/2 particles , only the highest irrep , @xmath261 , fails to satisfy eq . ( [ eq : specialproperty ] ) , and consequently @xmath262 . see  @xcite . ) for simplicity , we restrict our attention to integer values of @xmath260 ( similar results can be obtained if one also allows non - integer values ) . the fiducial state of the rf token is @xmath263 where @xmath264    the system is taken to be a spin-@xmath265 particle . because this is an irrep of su(2 ) , the general results of sec .  [ subsec : relsubsystems ] apply . we choose the following parametrization of su(2 ) , @xmath266 describing a rotation by angle @xmath267 about the unit vector @xmath268 . let @xmath269 where @xmath270 is the fiducial rf state of eq . ( [ eq : spinchiribella ] ) . then @xmath271 where @xmath272 is the spin-@xmath255 irrep of su(2 ) , and @xmath273 $ ] are the characters of su(2 ) . these characters are independent of @xmath274 and @xmath275 . they are given by @xmath276}{\sin[\omega /2]}\,,\ ] ] using the following identity @xmath277}{2\sin[\omega/2 ] } = 1/2 + \sum_{k=1}^n \cos(k\omega)\,,\ ] ] we find that @xmath278(1+\cos\omega)}{\sin\omega(1-\cos\omega ) } \\ - 2 ( { j_r}+1)\frac{\cos[\omega({j_r}+ 1)]}{(1-\cos\omega)}\bigr)^2\,.\end{gathered}\ ] ]    in terms of this parametrization , the su(2 ) invariant measure is @xmath279 where @xmath280 , @xmath281 , and @xmath282 . for the rotation @xmath283 on the qubit system in this parametrization , we have @xmath284 it follows that the composition of encoding and decoding maps , given by eq . ( [ eq : method2 ] ) , is @xmath285    \label{eq : su(2)method1}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath10 is the su(2)-twirling operation ( which is completely decohering for a single qubit ) . next , we determine the precise nature of the relational subsystems where the quantum information is encoded . in this example , the multiplicity spaces play a key role . we begin by describing the group - induced structure of the hilbert spaces , both for the rf and the total system . under the action of the representation @xmath16 of su(2 ) , the hilbert space for the reference frame is decomposed as @xmath286 the joint system @xmath40 , consisting of the rf plus a spin-1/2 qubit , carries a collective representation @xmath287 of su(2 ) which can easily be determined using standard angular momentum coupling . for coupling a spin-@xmath255 irrep to a spin-1/2 irrep , we have @xmath288 . thus , the hilbert space of the joint system @xmath40 has a similar decomposition under the action of @xmath95 , given by @xmath289 the multiplicity spaces for the joint system @xmath40 are related to those of the rf as @xmath290    for simplicity , we consider the qubit state to be pure , expressed in the standard angular momentum basis as @xmath291 the encoded state within the @xmath292th irrep is @xmath293 to evaluate this expression , we first evaluate @xmath294 where we recall that @xmath295 is defined on the subsystem @xmath296 . therefore , the state  ( [ eq : jmpurestate ] ) is an unnormalized vector on @xmath297 . we transform @xmath298 to a coupled basis using clebsch - gordan coefficients @xmath299 . in terms of the bases used in ( [ eq : spinchiribella ] ) and ( [ eq : spinqubitpure ] ) , we have @xmath300 we note that the states @xmath301 for @xmath302 ( @xmath303 ) form a basis of @xmath304 ( @xmath305 ) . it follows that the full set of states @xmath306 form a basis of @xmath297 . we have @xmath307 we use the following clebsch - gordan identity , @xmath308 to obtain @xmath309 we now consider two cases for @xmath292 separately .    for @xmath310 , we note that the multiplicity space @xmath297 is unitarily equivalent to the tensor product of a spin-@xmath292 and a spin-1/2 system coupled to total angular momentum @xmath311 . that is , @xmath312 where @xmath313 carries an irrep @xmath292 of su(2 ) and @xmath152 denotes unitary equivalence . we explicitly define the bijective isometry @xmath314 via its adjoint action on a basis for @xmath315 as @xmath316 in terms of this new subsystem structure for the multiplicity spaces , we can express ( [ eq : intermediatestep ] ) as @xmath317 where @xmath318 is defined by eq . ( [ eq : spinqubitpure ] ) . it follows that the encoded state for an irrep @xmath292 where @xmath319 is @xmath320 \nonumber \\    & = \sum_{m =- j}^j \langle j , m| ( |e_{j_r } \rangle \langle e_{j_r}| \otimes \rho)|j , m\rangle \nonumber \\    & = \frac{2j+1}{d_r } a^{(j)\dag}\bigl ( i_{\mathcal{k}^{(j ) } } \otimes \rho \bigr ) a^{(j ) } \ , , \quad j < j_r+\tfrac{1}{2}\ , .    \label{eq : usualjqubit}\end{aligned}\ ] ] because @xmath321 is bijective , ( specifically , because the set of states @xmath322 are orthogonal ) we find the qubit faithfully encoded into the relational subsystem whenever @xmath323 .    however , for the result @xmath324 , the multiplicity space @xmath297 is exceptional ; see  ( [ eq : su2multspacedirectsum ] ) . we can not factorize @xmath297 as in eq . ( [ eq : magicdecomp ] ) . nonetheless , we can still introduce a hilbert space @xmath325 which carries an irrep @xmath326 of su(2 ) and in terms of it we can define an isometry @xmath327 , by modifying eq . ( [ eq : intertwineraction ] ) to include only the @xmath328 term in the sum . this isometry is simply not surjective . it follows that the set of states @xmath329 are no longer orthogonal . therefore , the map @xmath330 is no longer invertible . the action of @xmath331 can be viewed as a projection of uncoupled states on @xmath332 onto the subspace of states which couple to total angular momentum @xmath260 . the probability assigned to each irrep @xmath292 is @xmath333 \nonumber \\    & = \begin{cases } \frac{(2j+1)^2}{d_r } \ , , & j < j_r+\frac{1}{2}\ , , \\    \frac{(2j_r+1)(j_r+1)}{d_r } \ , , & j = j_r+\frac{1}{2}\ , . \end{cases}\end{aligned}\ ] ] we note that these probabilities satisfy @xmath334 .    the decoding map within each irrep @xmath292 takes the form @xmath335 \nonumber \\    & = ( 2j+1 ) \langle e_{j_r}| i_{\mathcal{m}^{(j)}_{rs } } \otimes ( \cdot ) |e_{j_r}\rangle \,.\end{aligned}\ ] ] for @xmath319 , eq . ( [ eq : usualjqubit ] ) gives @xmath336 for @xmath337 , we make use of eq . ( [ eq : exceptionaljqubit ] ) and find @xmath338\,,\end{gathered}\ ] ] where @xmath10 is the su(2)-twirling operation ( complete decoherence ) . averaging over the irreps with the weights given in eq . ( [ eq : probscartesian ] ) , we find the decoded state to be @xmath339\nonumber \\    & \qquad + \tfrac{(2j_r+1)(j_r+1)}{d_r } \bigl ( \tfrac{2j_r}{6({j_r}+1)}\mathcal{i } + \tfrac{(2j_r+3)}{3({j_r}+1)}\mathcal{g } \bigr ) [ \rho ] \nonumber \\    & = \bigl ( \tfrac{j_r}{{j_r}+1}\mathcal{i } + \tfrac{1}{{j_r}+1}\mathcal{g } \bigr ) [ \rho ] \,,\end{aligned}\ ] ] thereby verifying that eq . ( [ eq : su2effectivedecoherence ] ) is recovered . we note that our recovery operation is perfect in the non - exceptional irreps and therefore optimal there . in the exceptional irrep , the error incurred in recovery is at most twice that of the optimal recovery , as described in sec . [ sec : decoding ] , by virtue of being of the form of barnum and knill s approximate reversal . we leave it as an open problem to to prove whether this recovery is in fact optimal , or if not , to identify what form an optimal recovery map would take . post - selectively perfect decoding is achieved if bob implements a projective measurement that distinguishes the irreps and obtains @xmath340 . by eq . ( [ eq : probscartesian ] ) and eq . ( [ eq : drcartesian ] ) ( or by eq . ( [ eq : pperfect ] ) directly ) , we see that the probability for this to occur is @xmath341 a directional rf identifies only a single direction in space , as opposed to a full set of axes . such an rf is not associated directly with a lie group , but rather with a coset space . specifically , although su(2 ) may provide a group of transformations between all possible directional rfs , any one directional rf is invariant under u(1 ) rotations about its axis of symmetry ; the relevant coset is then su(2)/u(1 ) .    because of this distinction , we expect this example to proceed differently from the other two . the distinction is immediately apparent because there is no obvious candidate for a fiducial reference state as in eq . ( [ eq : chiribella ] ) . instead , we take the directional rf to be in an su(2)-coherent state of size @xmath260 , so that the fiducial state is @xmath342 we consider a qubit system which is described relative to alice s local cartesian frame by the state @xmath343 where @xmath344 . note first of all that even if bob shared a classical reference direction with alice , her @xmath345 axis for instance , his description of the system is still related to alice s by a dephasing operation . the reason is that he _ only _ shares alice s @xmath345-axis , and so the rotation about @xmath345 that relates his local @xmath346-axis to hers is completely unknown . averaging over rotations @xmath347 yields the dephasing operation @xmath348 = \int_0^{2\pi } \frac{d\theta}{2\pi } r_z(\theta ) \rho r^\dag_z(\theta ) \\ = |\alpha|^2 |0\rangle \langle 0| + |\beta|^2 |1\rangle \langle 1|\,.\ ] ] consequently , if bob has a bounded - size token of alice s @xmath345-axis , his decoding will yield a state that approaches @xmath349 rather than @xmath2 as one increases the size of the token . define @xmath350 where @xmath351 . the encoding of @xmath2 relative to bob s local cartesian frame is the following state of the composite of rf token and system @xmath352 to decode , bob measures the covariant povm @xmath353 on the rf token and reorients the system accordingly . the net result is @xmath354 the effect of this map will be particularly simple given that @xmath270 is invariant under u(1 ) rotations about the @xmath355-axis .    for this calculation , it will be easiest to use euler angles to parametrize su(2 ) : @xmath356 where @xmath357 $ ] . ( we note this parametrization is different from that used in sec . [ sec : cartesian ] . ) with this parametrization , @xmath358^{2{j_r}}\,,\end{aligned}\ ] ] and thus @xmath359^{4{j_r}}$ ] . we can express @xmath360 as a @xmath361 matrix in the @xmath355-basis as @xmath362 and our qubit system in bloch vector notation as @xmath363 using the identities @xmath364 we find that @xmath365 \,,\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath10 is the su(2)-twirling operation , and @xmath366 is the dephasing operator defined in eq . ( [ eq : dephasing ] ) . first , we note that the rf token , consisting of only a spin-@xmath260 system , does not possess a multiplicity space . when coupling this spin-@xmath260 system to the spin-1/2 qubit , the resulting collective system is described by @xmath367 and does not possess any multiplicity spaces either .    given that the fiducial state , eq . ( [ eq : fiducialdirection ] ) , is not of the form of eq . ( [ eq : chiribella ] ) , the derivation of eq . ( [ eq : edecomp1 ] ) is no longer valid . nonetheless , the encoding map defined by eq . ( [ eq : encodingdirection ] ) may still be written in the form of eq . ( [ eq : edecomp1 ] ) , namely , @xmath368 where @xmath369\,,\ ] ] which is of the same form as eq . ( [ eq : equsefulform ] ) . to see that this decomposition exists , simply express eq . ( [ eq : encodingdirection ] ) as @xmath370 where @xmath10 is the su(2)-twirling operation . then , using eq . ( [ eq : generaldecoherencedfulldfree ] ) and eq . ( [ eq : hdecomp_direction ] ) , we have @xmath371 \,,\end{aligned}\ ] ] which is equivalent to eqs . ( [ eq : qqq ] ) and  ( [ eq : qqq2 ] ) . note that @xmath372 is still a map from @xmath44 to @xmath373 , but in this case @xmath374 , so that it maps density operators to scalars . specifically , @xmath375 we see that the encoding operation in this case can be described as follows : after adjoining the rf token to the system , destructively measure the total angular momentum @xmath376 of the composite and upon obtaining quantum number @xmath292 , reprepare the system in the associated su(2)-invariant state @xmath377 .    the decoding operation defined in eq . ( [ eq : decodingdirection ] ) is clearly proportional to the hilbert - schmidt adjoint of the encoding operation . consequently , it admits a decomposition into irreps via the adjoints of eq . ( [ eq : qqq ] ) , namely , @xmath378    \,,\ ] ] where @xmath379 is a map from @xmath380 to @xmath44 . this is of the same form as eq . ( [ eq : decodingdecomposition ] ) . to determine @xmath381 , we calculate the adjoint of eq . ( [ eq : qqq2 ] ) and determine the normalization by requiring that @xmath382=1 $ ] for all @xmath292 . we obtain @xmath383 where @xmath384 . except for the constant of proportionality , this has the form of eq . ( [ eq : rqusefulform ] ) . it evaluates to @xmath385 [ which one could also infer by taking the adjoint of eq . ( [ eq : ejexplicit ] ) ] . consequently , the decoding operation may be described as follows : destructively measure the total angular momentum ( squared ) , @xmath376 , on the composite of rf token and system and upon obtaining quantum number @xmath386 , reprepare the system in one of the two states in eq . ( [ eq : rjp ] ) .    the composition of encoding and decoding yields @xmath387 \,,\end{aligned}\ ] ] in agreement with eq . ( [ eq : effectivedecoherencedirection ] ) . we note that this coincides with the result obtained by poulin  @xcite . this recovery operation is of the form of the approximate reversal operation described by barnum and knill  @xcite and is therefore near - optimal in the sense described in sec . [ sec : decoding ] . although it is not itself the optimal recovery map , the latter is easy to find in this example and we do so presently .    given that the only pure states of the system that one can hope to reconstruct in the limit of an unbounded rf token are the @xmath388 eigenstates , denoted here by @xmath389 and @xmath390 , it is natural to take as our figure of merit the average input - output fidelity equally weighted over these two input states ( because then one can achieve fidelity 1 in the limit of an unbounded rf token ) . the only information about the state of the system that is encoded in @xmath136 is encoded in the relative weights of its two su(2)-invariant terms . consequently , the optimal decoding operation must consist of a determination of @xmath292 followed by a repreparation of the system state . we make use of previous work on the optimal estimation of the relative angle between a spin-1/2 system and a spin-@xmath260 reference frame @xcite . these results show that a measurement of @xmath376 on the composite is in fact optimal for estimating whether the system state was @xmath389 or @xmath390 given a uniform prior over the two . it is also shown there that the posterior probabilities one ought to assign to these two states upon obtaining outcomes @xmath391 and @xmath392 are @xmath393 in order to optimize the fidelity , one must reprepare the state that is most likely given the outcome , so that one should reprepare @xmath389 given the ` @xmath394 ' outcome and @xmath395 given the ` @xmath396 ' outcome . @xmath11 falls short of this optimal recovery because , by eq . ( [ eq : rjp ] ) , it does not reprepare @xmath389 given the ` @xmath394 ' outcome ; instead , it prepares a mixed state reflecting bob s knowledge of the state given the measurement outcome . we thank robin blume - kohout , j .- c . boileau , matthias christandl and renato renner for helpful discussions . sdb acknowledges the support of the australian research council . rws acknowledges support from the royal society . pst acknowledges the support of the aif , icore , mitacs , and jsps .
Abstract:

Answer: typical quantum communication schemes are such that to achieve perfect decoding the receiver must share a reference frame with the sender . indeed , if the receiver only possesses a bounded - size quantum token of the sender s reference frame , then the decoding is imperfect , and we can describe this effect as a noisy quantum channel . we seek here to characterize the performance of such schemes , or equivalently , to determine the effective decoherence induced by having a bounded - size reference frame . we assume that the token is prepared in a special state that has particularly nice group - theoretic properties and that is near - optimal for transmitting information about the sender s frame . we present a decoding operation , which can be proven to be near - optimal in this case , and we demonstrate that there are two distinct ways of implementing it ( corresponding to two distinct kraus decompositions ) . in one , the receiver measures the orientation of the reference frame token and reorients the system appropriately . in the other , the receiver extracts the encoded information from the virtual subsystems that describe the relational degrees of freedom of the system and token . finally , we provide explicit characterizations of these decoding schemes when the system is a single qubit and for three standard kinds of reference frame : a phase reference , a cartesian frame ( representing an orthogonal triad of spatial directions ) , and a reference direction ( representing a single spatial direction ) .