The SIC Question: History and State of Play

Christopher A. Fuchs,1 Michael C. Hoang,2 and Blake C. Stacey1

1Physics Department, University of Massachusetts Boston2Computer Science Department, University of Massachusetts Boston

(Dated: July 12, 2017)

Recent years have seen significant advances in the study of symmetric informationally complete(SIC) quantum measurements, also known as maximal sets of complex equiangular lines. Previously,the published record contained solutions up to dimension 67, and was with high confidence completeup through dimension 50. Computer calculations have now furnished solutions in all dimensions upto 151, and in several cases beyond that, as large as dimension 844. These new solutions exhibitan additional type of symmetry beyond the basic definition of a SIC, and so verify a conjecture ofZauner in many new cases. The solutions in dimensions 68 through 121 were obtained by AndrewScott, and his catalogue of distinct solutions is, with high confidence, complete up to dimension 90.Additional results in dimensions 122 through 151 were calculated by the authors using Scott’s code.We recap the history of the problem, outline how the numerical searches were done, and pose someconjectures on how the search technique could be improved. In order to facilitate communicationacross disciplinary boundaries, we also present a comprehensive bibliography of SIC research.

I. INTRODUCTION

The problem of symmetric, informationally complete quantum measurements [1–4] stands at the confluence ofmultiple areas of physics and mathematics. SICs, as they are known for short, tie into algebraic number theory [5–8],higher-dimensional sphere packing [9], Lie and Jordan algebras [10, 11], finite groups [12, 13] and quantum informationtheory [14–23]. Without the study of SICs, one might think that the intersection of all these subjects would haveto be the empty set. And yet, for all that, a SIC is a remarkably simple mathematical structure, as structures go.Consider the complex vector space Cd. To a physicist, this is the Hilbert space associated with a d-level quantumsystem. Let {|ψj〉} be a set of exactly d2 unit vectors in Cd such that

|〈ψj |ψk〉|2 =1

d+ 1(1)

whenever j 6= k. The set {|ψj〉}, which can be associated with a set of pairwise equiangular lines through the origin,is a SIC.

One can prove that no more than d2 vectors in a d-dimensional Hilbert space can be equiangular. That is, if {|ψj〉}is a set of vectors, and |〈ψj |ψk〉|2 = α for every j 6= k, then that set can have at most d2 elements. In addition, fora maximal set the value of α is fixed by the dimension; it must be 1/(d+ 1). So, a SIC is a maximal equiangular setin Cd; the question is whether they can be constructed for all values of the dimension. Despite a substantial numberof exact solutions, as well as a longer list of high-precision numerical solutions [4, 8, 24], the problem remains open.

Exact solutions, found by hand in a few cases and by computer algebra software in the others, are known in thefollowing dimensions:

d = 2–24, 28, 30, 31, 35, 37, 39, 43, 48, 124. (2)

The historical record of exact solutions has been spread over several publications [4, 8, 25, 26]. For several years, themost extensive published set of numerical results went as high as dimension d = 67 [4]. Now, numerical solutions areknown in all dimensions up to and including d = 151, as well as a handful of other dimensions up to d = 844. Thesenumerical solutions were found using code designed and written by Scott, who extended the results of [4] throughd = 121 using his personal computer over several years of dedicated effort. In addition, Scott found solutions in aset of dimensions (d = 124, 143, 147, 168, 172, 195, 199, 228, 259, 323) by taking advantage of particular simplifyingassumptions that are applicable in those dimensions [24]. Further close study of these properties led to a solution ford = 844 [26]. Because dimension d = 121 was pushing the limits of what was computationally feasible without thosesimplifying assumptions, the authors calculated solutions in dimensions 122 through 151 by running Scott’s code onthe Chimera supercomputer at UMass Boston. In turn, Scott was able to employ another algorithm (outlined below)to refine the numerical precision of these results.

The solutions from all of these search efforts are available together at the following website:

http://www.physics.umb.edu/Research/QBism/

arX

iv:1

703.

0790

1v3

[qu

ant-

ph]

11

Jul 2

017

2

An intriguing feature of the SIC problem is that some numerical solutions, if extracted to sufficiently high precision,can be converted to exact ones [8, 25]. Most recently, this technique was used to derive an exact solution in dimensiond = 48. Another interesting aspect is that the number of distinct SIC constructions varies from one dimension toanother. (The sense in which two SICs can be equivalent will be discussed in detail below.) One reason computationalresearch is valuable, beyond extending the list of dimensions in which SICs are known, is that it provides what islikely a complete picture for many values of the dimension. This is important for understanding the subtle connectionbetween SICs and algebraic number theory [5], a connection that brings a new angle of illumination to Hilbert’stwelfth problem [6, 7].

SICs are so called because, thanks to the rules of quantum theory, a SIC in Cd specifies a measurement procedurethat can, in principle, be applied to a d-level quantum system. For example, a SIC in C2 is a set of four equiangularlines, and it is a mathematical model of a measurement that a physicist can perform on a single qubit. The term“informationally complete”—the “IC” in “SIC”—means that if one has a probability distribution for the possibleoutcomes of a SIC experiment, one can compute the probabilities for the possible outcomes of any other experimentcarried out on the target system [17]. So, while one can pose the question of their existence using pure geometry,SICs are relevant to applied physics. Indeed, SIC measurements have recently been performed or approximated inthe laboratory [27–34], and they are known to be optimal measurements for quantum-state tomography [35].

A SIC provides a frame—more specifically, an equiangular tight frame—for the vector space Cd. Given a finite-dimensional Hilbert space H with an inner product 〈·, ·〉, a frame for H is a set of vectors {vj} ⊂ H such that for anyvector u ∈ H,

A||u||2 ≤∑j

|〈vj , u〉|2 ≤ B||u||2, (3)

for some positive constants A and B. The frame is equal-norm if all the vectors {vj} have the same norm, and theframe is tight if the “frame bounds” A and B are equal. The ratio of the number of vectors to the dimension ofthe space is known as the redundancy of the frame [36]. For more on this terminology and its history, we refer toKovacevic and Chebira [37, 38]. In our experience, the language of frames is more common among those who cometo SICs from pure mathematics or from signal processing than among those motivated by quantum physics.

Any vector in Cd can be represented by its inner products with all the SIC vectors. In quantum physics, one alsoconsiders the set of Hermitian operators on Cd. This set in fact forms a Hilbert space itself, with a dimension of d2,and the inner product given by the Hilbert–Schmidt formula

〈A,B〉 = tr(AB). (4)

Rewriting the SIC vectors {|ψj〉} as rank-1 projection operators,

Πj = |ψj〉〈ψj |, (5)

we construct a nonorthogonal basis for the Hilbert space of Hermitian operators. Because the inner products of theseprojectors are uniform, given by

tr(ΠjΠk) =dδjk + 1

d+ 1, (6)

then it is straightforward to find a shifting and rescaling that orthogonalizes the basis {Πj}, at the cost of makingthe operators non-positive-semidefinite. In fact, there are two choices:

Q±j = ±√d+ 1 Πj +

1∓√d+ 1

dI. (7)

The bases {Q±j } have interesting properties with regard to Lie algebra theory [11] and the study of quantum proba-

bility [20, 39].

II. GENERATING SICS WITH GROUPS

All known SICs have an additional kind of symmetry, above and beyond their definition: They are group covariant.Each SIC can be constructed by starting with a single vector, known as a fiducial vector, and acting upon it withthe elements of some group. It is not known in general whether a SIC must be group covariant. Because such anassumption greatly reduces the search space [4, 5], it has been the only method used so far: The fact that we only

3

know of group-covariant SICs could potentially be an artifact of this. (However, we do have a proof that all SICsin d = 2 and d = 3 are group covariant [40].)

In all cases but one, the group that generates a SIC from a fiducial is an instance of a Weyl–Heisenberg group. Wecan define this group as follows. First, fix a value of d, and let ω = e2πi/d. Let {|0〉, |1〉, . . . , |d− 1〉} be an orthonormalbasis for the Hilbert space Hd = Cd. Then, construct the shift and phase operators

X|j〉 = |j + 1〉, Z|j〉 = ωj |j〉, (8)

where the shift is modulo d. These operators satisfy the Weyl commutation relation,

X lZα = ω−lαZαX l. (9)

In a sense, the operators X and Z come as close as possible to commuting, without actually doing so: The only costto exchanging their order is a phase factor determined by the dimension.

The Weyl–Heisenberg displacement operators in dimension d are defined by

Dlα = (−eiπ/d)lαX lZα. (10)

The product of two displacement operators is, up to a phase factor, a third:

DlαDmβ = (−eiπ/d)αm−βlDl+m,α+β . (11)

Therefore, by allowing the generators to be multiplied by phase factors, we can define a group, known as the Weyl–Heisenberg group in dimension d. This group dates back to the early days of quantum physics. Weyl introduced thegenerators X and Z as long ago as 1925 in order to define what one might mean by the quantum theory of discretedegrees of freedom [41–43] (see also [44, pp. 2055–56]). This group, and structures derived from it, are criticallyimportant in quantum information and computation; for example, this is the basic prerequisite for the Gottesman–Knill theorem, which indicates when a quantum computation can be efficiently simulated classically [45]. The closerelationship between SICs and the Weyl–Heisenberg group suggests that SICs are a kind of structure that quantumphysics should have been studying all along.

Zhu has proved that in prime dimensions, group covariance implies Weyl–Heisenberg covariance [46]. The oneknown exception to the rule of Weyl–Heisenberg covariance is the Hoggar SIC [47, 48], which lives in a prime-powerdimension, d = 8. As in all other dimensions, there is a Weyl–Heisenberg SIC, but there is also the Hoggar SIC. Likemany other exceptions to mathematical classifications, it is related to the octonions [9, 13].

One example of a Weyl–Heisenberg SIC can be constructed by taking the orbit of the following two-dimensionalvector under the Weyl–Heisenberg displacement operators:

∣∣∣ψ(qubit)0

⟩=

1√6

( √3 +√

3

eiπ/4√

3−√

3

). (12)

This orbit is a set of four vectors. In the Bloch sphere representation, they form the vertices of a regular tetrahedroninscribed within the sphere.

An example in dimension d = 3, one which is remarkable for the further subtle symmetries it possesses beyond evengroup covariance, is the orbit of

∣∣∣ψ(Hesse)0

⟩=

1√2

01−1

(13)

under the Weyl–Heisenberg displacements. This set of vectors is known as the Hesse SIC [40, 49, 50], thanks to itsrelation with the Hesse configuration familiar from design theory and the study of cubic curves, specifically nonsingularcubic curves in complex projective two-space [12, 16, 51, 52].

III. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

In order to understand the current state of SIC research, one must grasp how people came to the SIC question, whatother structures they think are related, what tools they suspect are applicable, and so forth. A physicist, motivatedby quantum information theory, is apt to have a different mental context than a pure mathematician driven by the

4

abstract appeal of geometry. To attempt to foster an interdisciplinary discussion, we provide in this section a briefhistorical overview.

The Hesse SIC can be extracted from a 1940 article by H. S. M. Coxeter [53], which discusses what he later calledthe “Hessian polyhedron” [51]. This polyhedron lives in three-dimensional complex vector space and has 27 vertices(which correspond to the 27 lines on a cubic surface [54]). The vectors in the Hesse SIC are a subset of those vertices.Mathematicians were studying SICs in d = 2 and d = 3 more explicitly as early as the 1970s, in the terminology ofcomplex equiangular lines [55]. Stuart Hoggar found a SIC in dimension d = 8 a few years later [47], by consideringthe diagonals of a quaternionic polytope and converting their coordinates to complex numbers. The SICs in d = 2and d = 3, together with the Hoggar lines in d = 8, still stand out among the known SICs; various unusual attributesthey possess have led them to be designated the sporadic SICs [7, 9].

In a 1987 article, Richard Feynman used a construction that is in retrospect a d = 2 SIC to study the probabilitytheory of a qubit. SICs entered quantum theory more generally starting with the work of Gerhard Zauner, who beganto consider the problem in the 1990s [44, p. 1941]. By 1999, Zauner had found the connection with the Weyl–Heisenberggroup and proven SIC existence up to d = 5 [1]. He also posed a conjecture that the search for Weyl–Heisenberg SICscould be simplified by considering a particular unitary operator [1], a conjecture we will describe in detail below.

Independently of Zauner, Carlton Caves developed the idea of a SIC as representing a quantum measurement [2],motivated originally by attempts to prove the “quantum de Finetti theorem” [56]. SICs turned out to have more sym-metry than was necessary for that proof, but they soon took on a life of their own in quantum information theory [23].The term “SIC” (first pronounced as “sick,” and later like “seek”) dates to this period. A 2004 paper, “SymmetricInformationally Complete Quantum Measurements” [3], introduced them to the mainstream of the quantum infor-mation community, and reported numerical solutions for dimensions up to d = 45. In a later survey, Andrew Scottand Markus Grassl extended these numerical results up to dimension d = 67 [4]. Further work by Scott establishedWeyl–Heisenberg SICs in all cases up to d = 121 without exception. Moreover, these results together are probably acomplete catalogue of all distinct Weyl–Heisenberg SICs up to dimension d = 90 [24]. In later sections, we will givean overview of how these searches were done.

Exact solutions were found more slowly. Having exact expressions for SIC fiducial vectors allowed Appleby et al.to discover a connection with Galois theory [57]. In turn, this led to further relations with algebraic number theory,a frankly mysterious development that is still under active investigation [5–8].

An exhaustive treatment of SIC research would require transgressing many disciplinary boundaries, and woulddoubtless grow to an intimidating length. In order to provide at least a helpful ordering on the literature, we havemade our bibliography as comprehensive as possible. We note in particular a selection of papers that address SICsin the context of abstract algebra [8, 10, 11, 58], algebraic number theory [5–7, 57], category theory [59], finitegroup theory [9, 12, 13, 21, 46, 60–62], quantum computing and contextuality [13, 20, 39, 63–67], and quantumentanglement [19, 68–70]. We also note the significant number of student theses written in whole or in part on theSIC problem [1, 18, 25, 71–78].

Before moving on, we note that the real analogue of the SIC problem, i.e., finding maximal sets of equiangularlines in real vector spaces, has also been of considerable interest to mathematicians [79–81]. The maximal number ofequiangular lines in a d-dimensional vector space is not d2, but only d(d + 1)/2. That is, if we have a set of N unitvectors {vi} in a d-dimensional vector space, such that

|〈vi, vj〉| = α ∀ i 6= j, (14)

then the size N of the set cannot exceed d(d+ 1)/2. Moreover, while the complex bound of d2 has been saturated inevery dimension that we have been able to check, it is known that the real bound of d(d+ 1)/2 is not even attainedfor all values of d. For example, in d = 7, one can construct a set of 7 · 8/2 = 28 equiangular lines, but this is also thebest that can be done in d = 8. In fact, the only known instances where the bound of d(d+ 1)/2 can be attained aredimensions 2, 3, 7 and 23 [81].

There is a sign freedom in this definition of the angle, since Eq. (14) is satisfied if the inner product 〈vi, vj〉 is either+α or −α. The presence of this discrete choice means that investigations of real equiangular lines often have a rathercombinatorial flavor. In contrast, when we take the magnitude of a complex inner product, we discard a continuousquantity, a phase that in principle can be anywhere from 0 to 2π. Generally speaking, the “feel” of the real andcomplex problems differ, as is evidenced by the different areas of mathematical expertise brought to bear upon them.However, subtle and unanticipated points of contact between the real and complex cases do exist [13].

5

IV. HOW TO SEARCH FOR SICS NUMERICALLY

As before, let {|j〉} be an orthonormal basis for the Hilbert space Hd = Cd. In this basis, the fiducial vector canbe written

|ψ0〉 =∑j

aj |j〉, (15)

for some set of coefficients {aj}.Acting with the Weyl–Heisenberg operator Dlβ on the fiducial vector |ψ0〉 produces a new vector, whose squared

innner product with the fiducial vector is

[F]βl =∣∣〈ψ0|X lZβ |ψ0〉

∣∣2 =

∣∣∣∣∣∣∑j

a∗jaj+lω−jβ

∣∣∣∣∣∣2

. (16)

The right-hand side has the form of the magnitude squared of a Fourier coefficient, i.e., of a power spectrum.Specifically, the set of squared inner products between

∣∣ψ(l,β)

⟩and |ψ0〉 for any given value of l is the power spectrum

of the sequence

f(l)j = a∗jaj+l. (17)

By the Wiener–Khinchin theorem, we know that the power spectrum of a sequence is the Fourier transform of the

autocorrelation of that sequence [82]. Therefore, the autocorrelation of the sequence f(l)j , when put through the

Fourier transform, will yield the sequence [F]βl. The set of autocorrelation sequences for all values of l forms amatrix. Using ? to denote the correlation of two sequences, we can write the elements of this matrix as

[G]kl = (f (l) ? f (l))k =∑j

aja∗j+ka

∗j+laj+k+l. (18)

The matrix G is in many situations more convenient to work with than the original matrix F, because G lacks phasefactors and treats both of its indices on equal footing. For example, it is apparent from the definition of G that

[G]kl = [G]lk. (19)

This is equivalent to a property of the matrix F that is less obvious to the eye:

[F]lm =1

d

∑α,β

ω−αl+βm[F]βα. (20)

If we take the Fourier transform of the columns of the matrix G,

F ({[G]kl})β =∑k

ω−kβ [G]kl, (21)

we recover the squared inner products between the candidate SIC vectors and the fiducial. This means that ifthe vectors {

∣∣ψ(l,β)

⟩} really do comprise a SIC, then the matrix G must take a very specific form. Every entry

in F ({[G]kl})β must equal 1/(d+ 1), except for the element at l = β = 0, which equals 1. Recalling that a constant

sequence is the discrete Fourier transform of a Kronecker delta function, we can deduce the desired values of [G]kl.The result is that if |ψ〉 is a Weyl–Heisenberg fiducial vector, then

[G]kl =∑j

aja∗j+ka

∗j+laj+k+l =

δk0 + δl0d+ 1

. (22)

This implication also works in reverse, thanks to the transitivity of the group action.The basic idea of finding SICs numerically is to use standard optimization methods to find a fiducial vector that

makes [G]kl as close to the desired form as possible. Note that, when G is constructed from a SIC fiducial,∑k,l

|[G]kl|2 =2

d+ 1. (23)

6

One can prove [83] that this is a lower bound. In general,∑k,l

|[G]kl|2 ≥2

d+ 1, (24)

and the inequality is saturated if and only if the input vector is truly a SIC fiducial.This naturally suggests a way to find SIC fiducial vectors: Minimize the LHS of the inequality in Eq. (24), aiming

for the lower bound given on the RHS. During our time investigating the SIC question, we have at various pointsimplemented this idea in Mathematica, in Python and in C++ using the GNU Scientific Library. We find in generalthat numerical optimization finds a local minimum quickly, but a local minimum might only imply inner productsbetween the vectors that are correct to a few decimal digits. A way around this problem is to repeat the optimizationmany times, starting from different points in the search space. Since these trials can run concurrently, the problemis amenable to parallelization. This is the approach we followed when using the Chimera supercomputer to obtainsolutions in dimensions 122 through 151. Scott’s implementation, which we employed on Chimera, uses a C++ codefor a limited-memory quasi-Newton optimization algorithm, L-BFGS, due to Liu [84].

As is evident from Figure 1, the time required to obtain solutions did not increase steadily with the dimension.For example, d = 146 took eleven days of computer time and d = 148 required twelve days, but d = 147 took only18 hours. Likewise, Chimera spent 28 days trying to find a d = 151 solution before succeeding, but it found a SICin d = 150 in only two hours. (These figures are all for “wall clock” elapsed time. The number of processor-hoursdevoted was greater, since we ran Scott’s code in parallel on 96 of Chimera’s cores.) We suspect the variation is dueto different numbers of inequivalent solutions existing in different dimensions: The more solutions, the easier it is tohit upon one of them.

FIG. 1: Time (in hours) spent searching for a Weyl–Heisenberg SIC in dimensions 122 through 151.

Once we have a numerical result in hand, we can refine its precision. This requires a code that uses multi-precisionarithmetic, which will run more slowly than the optimization in the first step [24]. The fiducial vectors availableat [24] and at the website referenced above were obtained in this way and are accurate to 150 digits.

Before moving on, we note a conjecture, based on numerical evidence, that hints at additional hidden structure in

7

the SIC problem. Note that the definition of G implies

|[G]k,l| = |[G]−k,l| = |[G]k,−l| = |[G]−k,−l| = |[G]l,k| = |[G]−l,k| = |[G]l,−k| = |[G]−l,−k| . (25)

Here, indices are to be interpreted modulo d. Because any autocorrelation attains its maximum at zero offset, we alsoknow immediately that the elements of G cannot be larger in the middle of the matrix than they are on the edges:

|[G]kl| ≤ [G]0l. (26)

The Fourier transform of [G]kl over the index k is, by the Wiener–Khinchin theorem, the power spectrum of f (l).Because power spectra are nonnegative, we can say that

[G]−k,l = [G]∗k,l. (27)

Are there additional symmetries or redundancies, not so apparent from the definition? By happenstance, one ofthe authors (CAF) observed that imposing a subset of the constraints in Eq. (22) was sufficient to find a SIC fiducialvector [44, pp. 1252–59]. Specifically, by finding a solution to the simultaneous equations

[G]0k =δk0 + 1

d+ 1, (28)

[G]1k =δk0d+ 1

, (29)

[G]2k =δk0d+ 1

, (30)

one finds a solution to all the equations in (22). The redundancies in Eq. (25) are sufficient to imply that this holds upto d = 5. We call the idea that it remains true in all dimensions the “3d conjecture.” It has been verified numericallyup to dimension d = 28 [83]. If the 3d conjecture is indeed true, it would reduce the complexity of the problem, asmeasured by the number of simultaneous equations to solve, from quadratic in the dimension to linear.

V. ZAUNER SYMMETRY

Is there any way to narrow the search space for SIC fiducial vectors? To see how to answer this in the affirmative,we must elaborate upon the group theory we discussed in the previous sections. The Clifford group for dimension dis the “normalizer” of the Weyl–Heisenberg group: It is the set of all unitary operators that, acting by conjugation,map the set of Weyl–Heisenberg operators in dimension d to itself. We saw earlier how the orbit of a vector underthe Weyl–Heisenberg group can be a SIC; likewise, we can study the orbit of a vector under the entire Clifford group.

For our purposes in this note, the important point is that if we conjugate a Weyl–Heisenberg operator Dkl by aClifford unitary U , we obtain a Weyl–Heisenberg operator Dk′l′ , possibly with an additional phase. Details on theconstruction and representation of the Clifford group in any finite dimension d can be found in Appleby [85].

It was conjectured by Zauner [1], and independently by Appleby, that in every dimension d > 2, a Weyl–HeisenbergSIC fiducial exists that is an eigenvector of a certain order-3 Clifford unitary, which is now known as the Zaunerunitary. Acting on the Weyl–Heisenberg generators, the Zauner unitary effects the change

XmZn 7→ X−nZm−n, (31)

up to an overall phase factor. (See equation (3.10b) of Zauner [1], or equation (127) of Appleby [85].) Applying thisagain yields

X−nZm−n 7→ Xn−mZ−n−m+n = Xn−mZ−m, (32)

and a third iteration gives

Xn−mZ−m 7→ XmZn−m+m = XmZn, (33)

confirming that this operation has order 3.How might assuming the Zauner conjecture simplify the search for SICs? First, we will make some remarks on this

from an algebraic perspective, and then we will address the point in a way suited to numerical optimization. Let |ψ〉be a candidate fiducial vector, and suppose that it is an eigenvector of the Zauner unitary U with unit eigenvalue:

U |ψ〉 = |ψ〉. (34)

8

Consequently,

|〈ψ|XnZm|ψ〉|2 =∣∣〈ψ|U†XnZmU |ψ〉

∣∣2 . (35)

As U is a Clifford unitary, requiring that |ψ〉 is an eigenvector of U implies degeneracies among the elements of thematrix F.

Because

Xa 7→ Za 7→ X−aZ−a, (36)

the Zauner unitary sends the left edge of F to the top edge and then to the main diagonal. More generally, specifyinga column of F (which is equivalent to fixing a column of G) and imposing the Zauner condition means that the sameconstraint also simultaneously fixes a row and a diagonal.

Earlier, in Eq. (20), we saw that a symmetry of G implied a Fourier-type relation among the elements of F. Wehave expressed the Zauner condition as a degeneracy within F, but what does it imply for G? The result can befound straightforwardly, and it closely resembles Eq. (20):

[G]kl =1

d

∑α,β

ωkα+lβ [G]β,α−l. (37)

This the expression of Zauner symmetry in the G matrix. A special case of note: If we set k = l = 0, then

[G]00 =1

d

∑α,β

[G]β,α =1

d

∑α,β

[G]α,β . (38)

We note that the assumption that the fiducial is a Zauner eigenvector is enough to prove some additional cases ofthe 3d conjecture, up to dimension d = 9, in a straightforward way. In dimension d = 5, the basic symmetries ofG imply that the 3d constraints automatically specify the entire matrix G, and thus also fix F to have the desiredform for a SIC. By imposing the condition that our initial vector is a Zauner eigenvector, we can extend this up todimension d = 8. This can be seen directly by drawing an 8× 8 grid and shading in the appropriate squares.

In fact, we can carry this argument a little further. We obtain G by Fourier transforming the columns of F.Therefore, if we specify {[G]k0}, we automatically fix {[F]k0}, and by Eq. (25), we set the values of {[G]0k} as well.Imposing the Zauner condition fixes {[F]0k} in terms of {[F]k0}. Specifically, for k 6= 0, we have

[F]0k = [F]k0 = [G]k0 = [G]0k =1

d+ 1. (39)

Recalling that

[F]0k =∑l

[G]lk, (40)

we therefore find that

[G]0k =∑l

[G]lk. (41)

In other words, the Zauner condition implies that if we add up the entries in a column, leaving out the entry on thetop row, they must all cancel out and leave zero. We knew already, thanks to the Wiener–Khinchin theorem andEq. (27), that the imaginary parts will sum to zero. Now we can establish this for the real parts as well.

The left-most column of G is also its top row, which tells us the averages of each column of F. So, if the Zaunerorbits leave only one element in a column unspecified, then we can fill in that element, because we know the averageover the whole column vector. This proves the 3d conjecture in dimension d = 9.

We now turn to the simplification that the Zauner conjecture provides for numerical search efforts. By postulatingthat the SIC fiducial we are looking for is a Zauner eigenvector, we can significantly reduce the effective size of thesearch space. First, suppose that U is a unitary of order n, so that

Un = I, (42)

and the eigenvalues of U can all be written

λm = exp

(2πim

n

), (43)

9

with m an integer. The projector onto the eigenspace with this eigenvalue is

Pm =1

n

n−1∑j=0

1

λjmU j . (44)

We can restrict our numerical search to this subspace by projecting our vectors into it,

|ψ〉 → Pm|ψ〉, (45)

at each iteration of the optimization algorithm.Most of the known solutions were found by postulating Zauner symmetry. Scott has also found several solutions

by assuming that the fiducial was an eigenvector of another Clifford unitary. For an in-depth exposition of thesevariations, see [24].

VI. EXHAUSTIVE SEARCHES

Suppose that |ψ0〉 ∈ Hd is a vector in a Weyl–Heisenberg SIC, and let U be a Clifford unitary. Applying U to thevector |ψ0〉 will yield some vector,

|χ0〉 = U |ψ0〉. (46)

The Weyl–Heisenberg orbit of |ψ0〉 is a SIC, so what about the orbit of |χ0〉 under the same group? We define

|χkl〉 = Dkl|χ0〉, (47)

and we consider the squared magnitudes of the inner products

|〈χ0|χkl〉|2 = |〈ψ0|U†DklU |ψ0〉|2. (48)

Because U is a Clifford unitary, it maps Dkl to some Weyl–Heisenberg operator Dk′l′ , with any phase factor droppingout when we take the magnitude of the inner product. So,

|〈χ0|χkl〉|2 = |〈ψ0|ψk′l′〉|2, (49)

meaning that the image of our original SIC under the mapping U is also a SIC. One way in which the Hesse SIC isremarkable is that it is invariant under the entire Clifford group. For contrast, we can take the vector

∣∣∣ψ(Norrell)0

⟩=

1√2

011

, (50)

which differs from the Hesse SIC fiducial in Eq. (13) by a sign. The orbit of this vector under the Clifford group is aset of four separate SICs, comprising 36 vectors in all—the so-called Norrell states, which are significant in the theoryof quantum computation [52, 86].

We consider two SICs equivalent if they can be mapped into each other by a Clifford unitary. In fact, it is convenientto extend the Clifford group by including the anti-unitary operation of complex conjugation. The extended Cliffordgroup for dimension d, EC(d), is the set of all unitary and anti-unitary operators that send the Weyl–Heisenberggroup to itself. For (extensive) details, we again refer to Appleby [85, 87].

In order to search the space as exhaustively as possible and create a catalogue of all essentially unique SICs,Scott’s code chooses initial vectors at random under the unitarily invariant Haar measure on the complex projectivespace CP d−1. Once enough solutions are found—generally, this means hundreds of them—the code then refines theirprecision, as described above. Then, we must identify unique orbits under the extended Clifford group. This last stepis computationally demanding, because we must translate each solution vector |ψ〉 by each element in the extendedClifford group EC(d). However, in the process, Scott’s algorithm also finds the stabilizer group of each fiducial, whichis important information. The task of determining when two SICs are equivalent up to a unitary or anti-unitarytransformation has been discussed in depth by Zhu [18], and we expect that additional theoretical insights may leadto an improved algorithm for this step.

Following this procedure, Scott has carried out exhaustive searches in dimensions up to d = 90. We stronglyexpect his catalogue of solutions to be complete up to that point: All Weyl–Heisenberg SICs in those dimensions areequivalent to the ones tabulated, up to equivalence under the extended Clifford group.

10

VII. DISCUSSION

In the preceding sections, we have described the process of finding SIC fiducial vectors numerically. However, somepatterns among SICs have only become apparent when exact solutions were studied carefully. Suppose we refrainfrom taking the magnitude-squared in our definition of a SIC, Eq. (1). Then

〈ψj |ψk〉 =eiθjk√d+ 1

, (51)

for some set of phases {eiθjk}. (In fact, one can reconstruct the SIC from knowing the phases [10].) It was recentlydiscovered that when d > 3, for all the known Weyl–Heisenberg SICs, these phases have a remarkable meaning inalgebraic number theory: They are units in ray class fields and extensions thereof [5]. This is a topic to which we canhardly do justice here, and indeed, treatments accessible to anyone who is not already an algebraic number theoristhave only recently been attempted [6, 7]. For now, we content ourselves with the observation that this area of numbertheory is the territory of Hilbert’s twelfth problem, one of the still outstanding questions on history’s most influentiallist of mathematical challenges [88]. (Specialists may recall that according to the Kronecker–Weber theorem, anyabelian extension of the rationals is contained in a cyclotomic field. When we instead consider abelian extensions ofreal quadratic fields, the analogue of the cyclotomic fields are the ray class fields. The phases of Weyl–Heisenberg SICsappear to be playing a role regarding ray class fields much like the role that roots of unity play with cyclotomic fields.Moreover, recalling Eq. (14), it is intriguing that in the real-vector-space version of equiangular lines, we discard aphase factor that is a unit among the ordinary integers, while in the complex Weyl–Heisenberg case, the phases turnout to be units among algebraic integers.) From Hilbert space to Hilbert’s twelfth problem! What physicist wouldever have anticipated that? And who could turn down the opportunity to intermingle two subjects that had seemedso widely separated?

SICs have found relevance, not just in quantum computation, but in signal-processing tasks like high-precisionradar [89] and speech recognition [90]. In February 2016, our colleague Marcus Appleby attended a conference inBonn, Germany on uses of the Weyl–Heisenberg group. Many participants were engineers, including representativesfrom the automotive and cell-phone industries. Appleby was told that if he managed to construct a SIC in dimension2048, he should patent it [91]. At the moment, dimension 2048 is beyond our abilities for algebraic or numericalsolutions, but this may not always be the case.

VIII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are deeply indebted to Andrew J. Scott, the guru of SIC numerical solutions, for code and for discussions. Wealso thank Marcus Appleby for many conversations, and Gary McConnell for email feedback on the original arXivversion of this article. This research was supported in part by MCH’s Oracle Undergraduate Research Fellowship atUMass Boston.

IX. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

MCH ran the calculations on Chimera to find SICs in dimensions 122 through 151. BCS wrote the paper. CAFdirected the research, contributed to the bibliography and worked with BCS in revising the paper.

[1] G. Zauner, Quantendesigns. Grundzuge einer nichtkommutativen Designtheorie. PhD thesis, University of Vienna, 1999.http://www.gerhardzauner.at/qdmye.html. Published in English translation: G. Zauner, “Quantum designs:foundations of a noncommutative design theory,” Int. J. Quantum Inf. 9 (2011) 445–508.

[2] C. M. Caves, “Symmetric informationally complete POVMs.”http://info.phys.unm.edu/~caves/reports/infopovm.pdf, 2002.

[3] J. M. Renes, R. Blume-Kohout, A. J. Scott, and C. M. Caves, “Symmetric informationally complete quantummeasurements,” J. Math. Phys. 45 (2004) 2171–2180.

[4] A. J. Scott and M. Grassl, “Symmetric informationally complete positive-operator-valued measures: A new computerstudy,” J. Math. Phys. 51 (2010) 042203.

[5] M. Appleby, S. Flammia, G. McConnell, and J. Yard, “Generating ray class fields of real quadratic fields via complexequiangular lines,” arXiv:1604.06098.

11

[6] I. Bengtsson, “The number behind the simplest SIC-POVM,” Found. Phys. (2016) online before print,arXiv:1611.09087.

[7] M. Appleby, S. Flammia, G. McConnell, and J. Yard, “SICs and Algebraic Number Theory,” Found. Phys. (2017)online before print, arXiv:1701.05200.

[8] M. Appleby, T.-Y. Chien, S. Flammia, and S. Waldron, “Constructing exact symmetric informationally completemeasurements from numerical solutions,” arXiv:1703.05981.

[9] B. C. Stacey, “Sporadic SICs and the normed division algebras,” Found. Phys. 47 (2017) online before print,arXiv:1605.01426.

[10] D. M. Appleby, S. T. Flammia, and C. A. Fuchs, “The Lie algebraic significance of symmetric informationally completemeasurements,” J. Math. Phys. 52 (2011) 022202, arXiv:1001.0004.

[11] D. M. Appleby, C. A. Fuchs, and H. Zhu, “Group theoretic, Lie algebraic and Jordan algebraic formulations of the SICexistence problem,” Quantum Inf. Comput. 15 (2015) 61–94, arXiv:1312.0555.

[12] H. Zhu, “Super-symmetric informationally complete measurements,” Ann. Phys. (NY) 362 (2015) 311–326,arXiv:1412.1099.

[13] B. C. Stacey, “Geometric and information-theoretic properties of the Hoggar lines,” arXiv:1609.03075.[14] C. A. Fuchs, “QBism, the perimeter of Quantum Bayesianism,” arXiv:1003.5209.[15] G. N. M. Tabia, “Experimental scheme for qubit and qutrit symmetric informationally complete positive

operator-valued measurements using multiport devices,” Phys. Rev. A 86 (2012) 062107, arXiv:1207.6035.[16] G. N. M. Tabia and D. M. Appleby, “Exploring the geometry of qutrit state space using symmetric informationally

complete probabilities,” Phys. Rev. A 88 (2013) no. 1, 012131.[17] C. A. Fuchs and R. Schack, “Quantum-Bayesian coherence,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 85 (2013) 1693–1715, arXiv:1301.3274.[18] H. Zhu, Quantum state estimation and symmetric informationally complete POMs. PhD thesis, National University of

Singapore, 2012. http://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/bitstream/handle/10635/35247/ZhuHJthesis.pdf.[19] M. A. Graydon and D. M. Appleby, “Quantum conical designs,” J. Phys. A 49 (2016) 085301, arXiv:1507.05323.[20] H. Zhu, “Quasiprobability representations of quantum mechanics with minimal negativity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016)

no. 12, 120404, arXiv:1604.06974.[21] A. Szymusiak and W. S lomczynski, “Informational power of the Hoggar symmetric informationally complete positive

operator-valued measure,” Phys. Rev. A 94 (2015) 012122, arXiv:1512.01735.[22] M. Appleby, C. A. Fuchs, B. C. Stacey, and H. Zhu, “Introducing the Qplex: A novel arena for quantum theory,”

arXiv:1612.03234.[23] C. A. Fuchs and B. C. Stacey, “QBism: Quantum theory as a hero’s handbook,” arXiv:1612.07308.[24] A. J. Scott, “SICs: Extending the list of solutions,” arXiv:1703.03993.[25] T.-Y. Chien, Equiangular lines, projective symmetries and nice error frames. PhD thesis, University of Auckland, 2015.

https://www.math.auckland.ac.nz/~waldron/Tuan/Thesis.pdf.[26] M. Grassl and A. Scott, “Fibonacci–Lucas SIC-POVMs,” arXiv:1707.02944.[27] J. Du, M. Sun, X. Peng, and T. Durt, “Realization of entanglement assisted qubit-covariant symmetric informationally

complete positive operator valued measurements,” Phys. Rev. A 74 (2006) 042341.[28] T. Durt, C. Kurtsiefer, A. Lamas-Linares, and A. Ling, “Wigner tomography of two-qubit states and quantum

cryptography,” Phys. Rev. A 78 (2008) 042338.[29] Z. E. D. Medendorp, F. A. Torres-Ruiz, L. K. Shalm, G. N. M. Tabia, C. A. Fuchs, and A. M. Steinberg, “Experimental

characterization of qutrits using symmetric informationally complete positive operator-valued measurements,” Phys.Rev. A 83 (2011) no. 5, 051801(R), arXiv:1006.4905.

[30] W. M. Pimenta, B. Marques, T. O. Maciel, R. O. Vianna, A. Delgado, C. Saavedra, and S. Padua, “Minimumtomography of two entangled qutrits using local measurements of one-qutrit symmetric informationally completepositive operator-valued measure,” Phys. Rev. A 88 (2013) no. 1, 012112, arXiv:1312.1119.

[31] Z. Bian, J. Li, H. Qin, X. Zhan, and P. Xue, “Experimental realization of a single qubit SIC POVM on via aone-dimensional photonic quantum walk,” arXiv:1412.2355.

[32] Y.-Y. Zhao, N. k. Yu, P. Kurzynski, G.-Y. Xiang, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, “Experimental realization of generalizedqubit measurements based on quantum walks,” Phys. Rev. A 91 (2015) no. 4, 042101, arXiv:1501.05096.

[33] N. Bent, H. Qassim, A. A. Tahir, D. Sych, G. Leuchs, L. L. Sanchez-Soto, E. Karimi, and R. W. Boyd, “Experimentalrealization of quantum tomography of photonic qudits via symmetric informationally complete positive operator-valuedmeasures,” Phys. Rev. X 5 (2015) 041006.

[34] H. Sosa-Martinez, N. K. Lysne, C. H. Baldwin, A. Kalev, I. H. Deutsch, and P. S. Jessen, “Experimental study ofoptimal measurements for quantum state tomography,” arXiv:1706.03137.

[35] A. J. Scott, “Tight informationally complete quantum measurements,” J. Phys. A 39 (2006) 13507–13530,arXiv:quant-ph/0604049.

[36] B. Et-Taoui, “Complex conference matrices, complex Hadamard matrices and complex equiangular tight frames,” inConvexity and Discrete Geometry Including Graph Theory, K. Adiprasito, I. Barany, and C. Vilcu, eds., pp. 181–91.Springer, 2016. arXiv:1409.5720.

[37] J. Kovacevic and A. Chebira, “Life beyond bases: The advent of frames (part 1),” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 24(2007) no. 4, 86–104.

[38] J. Kovacevic and A. Chebira, “Life beyond bases: The advent of frames (part 2),” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 24(2007) no. 5, 115–25.

[39] J. B. DeBrota and C. A. Fuchs, “Negativity bounds for Weyl–Heisenberg quasiprobability representations,” Found.

12

Phys. (2017) online before print, arXiv:1703.08272.[40] L. P. Hughston and S. M. Salamon, “Surveying points in the complex projective plane,” Advances in Mathematics 286

(2016) 1017–1052, arXiv:1410.5862.[41] H. Weyl, The Theory of Groups and Quantum Mechanics. Dover, 1931. Translated from the German Gruppentheorie

und Quantenmechanik (S. Hirzel, 1928) by H. P. Robertson.[42] E. Scholz, “Introducing groups into quantum theory (1926–1930),” Historia Mathematica 33 (2006) 440–90,

arXiv:math/0409571.[43] E. Scholz, “Weyl entering the ‘new’ quantum mechanics discourse,” in Conf. on the History of Quantum Physics

(Berlin, 2–6 July 2007), Vol. 2. Berlin, 2007. http://www2.math.uni-wuppertal.de/~scholz/preprints/HQ_1_ES.pdf.[44] C. A. Fuchs, “My Struggles with the Block Universe,” arXiv:1405.2390.[45] D. Gottesman, “The Heisenberg representation of quantum computers,” in Group22: Proceedings of the XXII

International Colloquium on Group Theoretical Methods in Physics, S. P. Corney, R. Delbourgo, and P. D. Jarvis, eds.International Press, 1999. arXiv:quant-ph/9807006.

[46] H. Zhu, “SIC POVMs and Clifford groups in prime dimensions,” J. Phys. A 43 (2010) 305305, arXiv:1003.3591.[47] S. G. Hoggar, “Two quaternionic 4-polytopes,” in The Geometric Vein: The Coxeter Festschrift, C. Davis,

B. Grunbaum, and F. A. Sherk, eds. Springer, 1981.[48] S. G. Hoggar, “64 lines from a quaternionic polytope,” Geometriae Dedicata 69 (1998) 287–289.[49] L. Hughston, “d = 3 SIC-POVMs and elliptic curves,” PIRSA:07100040.[50] H. B. Dang, K. Blanchfield, I. Bengtsson, and D. M. Appleby, “Linear dependencies in Weyl-Heisenberg orbits,”

Quantum Information Processing 12 (2013) no. 11, 3449–3475, arXiv:1211.0215.[51] H. S. M. Coxeter, Regular Complex Polytopes. Cambridge University Press, second ed., 1991.[52] B. C. Stacey, “SIC-POVMs and compatibility among quantum states,” Mathematics 4 (2016) no. 2, 36,

arXiv:1404.3774.[53] H. S. M. Coxeter, “The polytope 221 whose twenty-seven vertices correspond to the lines on the general cubic surface,”

Am. J. Math. 62 (1940) no. 1, 457–86, JSTOR:2371466.[54] J. C. Baez, “27 lines on a cubic surface.”

http://blogs.ams.org/visualinsight/2016/02/15/27-lines-on-a-cubic-surface/, 2016.[55] P. Delsarte, J. M. Goethels, and J. J. Seidel, “Bounds for systems of lines and Jacobi polynomials,” Philips Research

Reports 30 (1975) 91–105.[56] C. M. Caves, C. A. Fuchs, and R. Schack, “Unknown quantum states: The quantum de Finetti representation,” J.

Math. Phys. 43 (2002) no. 9, 4537–59, arXiv:quant-ph/0104088.[57] D. M. Appleby, H. Yadsan-Appleby, and G. Zauner, “Galois automorphisms of a symmetric measurement,” Quantum

Inf. Comput. 13 (2013) 672–720, arXiv:1209.1813.[58] H. Zhu, “Tomographic and Lie algebraic significance of generalized symmetric informationally complete measurements,”

Phys. Rev. A 90 (2014) 032309, arXiv:1408.0560.[59] J. van de Wetering, “Quantum theory is a quasi-stochastic process theory,” arXiv:1704.08525.[60] M. Appleby, I. Bengtsson, S. Brierley, M. Grassl, D. Gross, and J.-A. Larsson, “Monomial representations of the Clifford

group,” Quantum Inf. Comput. 12 (2012) no. 5–6, 0404–31, arXiv:1102.1268.[61] I. Bengtsson, “A remarkable representation of the Clifford group,” arXiv:1202.3559.[62] T.-Y. Chien and S. Waldron, “Nice error frames, canonical abstract error groups and the construction of SICs,” Lin. Alg.

App. 516 (2017) 93–117. https://www.math.auckland.ac.nz/~waldron/Preprints/NiceErrorFrames/ne-frames.pdf.[63] I. Bengtsson, K. Blanchfield, and A. Cabello, “A Kochen-Specker inequality from a SIC,” Phys. Lett. A 376 (2012)

374–376, arXiv:1109.6514.[64] A. Cabello, “Minimal proofs of state-independent contextuality,” arXiv:1201.0374.[65] C. A. Fuchs and B. C. Stacey, “Some negative remarks on operational approaches to quantum theory,” in Quantum

Theory: Informational Foundations and Foils, G. Chiribella and R. W. Spekkens, eds., pp. 283–305. Springer, 2016.arXiv:1401.7254.

[66] M. Howard and E. T. Campbell, “Application of a resource theory for magic states to fault-tolerant quantumcomputing,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) no. 9, 090501, arXiv:1609.07488.

[67] O. Andersson, P. Badziag, I. Bengtsson, I. Dumitru, and A. Cabello, “Self-testing properties of the elegant Bellinequality,” arXiv:1706.02130.

[68] B. Chen, T. Li, and S.-M. Fei, “General SIC measurement-based entanglement detection,” Quantum InformationProcessing 14 (2015) 2281–2290.

[69] S.-Q. Shen, M. Li, and X.-F. Duan, “Entanglement detection via some classes of measurements,” Phys. Rev. A 91(2015) 012326.

[70] M. A. Graydon and D. M. Appleby, “Entanglement and designs,” J. Phys. A 49 (2016) 33LT02, arXiv:1507.07881.[71] J. M. Renes, Frames, Designs, and Spherical Codes in Quantum Information Theory. PhD thesis, The University of

New Mexico, 2004. http://www.iap.tu-darmstadt.de/tqp/grp_jrenes/docs/diss2side.pdf.[72] M. Khatirinejad, Regular structures of lines in complex spaces. PhD thesis, Simon Fraser University, 2008.

http://summit.sfu.ca/item/9188.[73] H. Yadsan-Appleby, Gaussian and Covariant Processes In Discrete And Continuous Variable Quantum Information.

PhD thesis, University College London, 2012. http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1385569/.[74] G. N. M. Tabia, Geometry of Quantum States from Symmetric Informationally Complete Probabilities. PhD thesis,

University of Waterloo, 2013. http://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/10012/7685/1/Tabia_Gelo_Noel.pdf.

13

[75] D. Andersson, “An enthusiast’s guide to SICs in low dimensions,” Master’s thesis, Stockholm University, 2014.http://kiko.fysik.su.se/en/thesis/david_andersson_thesis.pdf.

[76] K. Blanchfield, Geometry and Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. PhD thesis, Stockholm University, 2014.http://kiko.fysik.su.se//en/thesis.html.

[77] H. B. Dang, Studies of symmetries that give special quantum states the “right to exist”. PhD thesis, University ofWaterloo, 2015. arXiv:1508.02703.

[78] B. C. Stacey, Multiscale Structure in Eco-Evolutionary Dynamics. PhD thesis, Brandeis University, 2015.arXiv:1509.02958.

[79] N. J. A. Sloane, “A002853: Maximal size of a set of equiangular lines in n dimensions,” in On-Line Encyclopedia ofInteger Sequences. OEIS, 2015. http://oeis.org/A002853.

[80] G. Greaves, J. H. Koolen, A. Munemasa, and F. Szollosi, “Equiangular lines in Euclidean spaces,” J. CombinatorialTheory, Series A 138 (2016) 208–35, arXiv:1403.2155.

[81] I. Balla, F. Draxler, P. Keevash, and B. Sudakov, “Equiangular lines and spherical codes in Euclidean space,”arXiv:1606.06620.

[82] N. Wiener, Time Series. MIT Press, 1964.[83] D. M. Appleby, H. B. Dang, and C. A. Fuchs, “Symmetric informationally-complete quantum states as analogues to

orthonormal bases and minimum-uncertainty states,” Entropy 16 (2014) 1484–1492.[84] Y. Liu. https://sourceforge.net/projects/hlbfgs/, 2012.[85] D. M. Appleby, “Symmetric informationally complete-positive operator valued measures and the extended Clifford

group,” J. Math. Phys. 46 (2005) 052107, arXiv:quant-ph/0412001.[86] V. Veitch, S. A. H. Mousavian, D. Gottesman, and J. Emerson, “The resource theory of stabilizer computation,” New J.

Phys. 16 (2014) 013009, arXiv:1307.7171.[87] D. M. Appleby, “Properties of the extended Clifford group with applications to SIC-POVMs and MUBs,”

arXiv:0909.5233.[88] J. Gray, The Hilbert Challenge. Oxford University Press, 2001.[89] S. D. Howard, A. R. Calderbank, and W. Moran, “The finite Heisenberg-Weyl groups in radar and communications,”

EURASIP Journal on Applied Signal Processing 2006 (2006) 1–11.[90] R. Balan, B. G. Bodmann, P. G. Casazza, and D. Edidin, “Painless reconstruction from magnitudes of frame

coefficients,” J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 15 (2009) 488–501.[91] M. Appleby. Email communication, 26 February 2016.[92] M. Ahmadi, H. B. Dang, G. Gour, and B. C. Sanders, “Quantification and manipulation of magic states,”

arXiv:1706.03828.[93] O. Albouy and M. R. Kibler, “A unified approach to SIC-POVMs and MUBs,” J. Russian Laser Research 28 (2007)

429–438.[94] D. Andersson, I. Bengtsson, K. Blanchfield, and H. B. Dang, “States that are far from being stabilizer states,” J. Phys.

A 48 (2014) 345301, arXiv:1412.8181.[95] D. M. Appleby, “Symmetric informationally complete measurements of arbitrary rank,” Opt. Spect. 103 (2007) 416–428,

arXiv:quant-ph/0611260.[96] D. M. Appleby, “SIC-POVMs and MUBs: Geometrical relationships in prime dimension,” arXiv:0905.1428.[97] D. M. Appleby, A. Ericsson, and C. Fuchs, “Properties of QBist state spaces,” Found. Phys. 41 (2011) 564–579,

arXiv:0910.2750.[98] M. Appleby, “Galois calculations using Magma,” PIRSA:12020149.[99] P. K. Aravind, “MUBs and SIC-POVMs of a spin-1 system from the Majorana approach,” arXiv:1707.02601.

[100] C. H. Baldwin, Efficient and robust methods for quantum tomography. PhD thesis, University of New Mexico, 2016.arXiv:1701.01764.

[101] M. A. Ballester, “Optimal estimation of SU(d) using exact and approximate 2-designs,” arXiv:quant-ph/0507073.[102] T. Bar-On, “The probability interpretation of Wigner function by SIC-POVM,” Eur. Phys. J. D 54 (2009) no. 1,

137–38.[103] T. Bar-On, “Discrete Wigner function by symmetric informationally complete positive operator valued measure,” J.

Math. Phys. 50 (2009) no. 7, 072106.[104] A. Belovs, “Welch bounds and quantum state tomography,” Master’s thesis, University of Waterloo, 2008.

https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/4159/ABelovs.pdf.[105] R. Beneduci, T. Bullock, P. Busch, C. Carmeli, T. Heinosaari, and A. Toigo, “An operational link between MUBs and

SICs,” Phys. Rev. A 88 (2013) no. 3, 032312, arXiv:1306.6002.[106] I. Bengtsson and H. Granstrom, “The frame potential, on average,” Open Syst. Inf. Dyn. 16 (2009) 145–156.[107] I. Bengtsson, “From SICs and MUBs to Eddington,” in Quantum groups, quantum foundations, and quantum

information: a festschrift for Tony Sudbery, York, 29-30 Sept. 2008, vol. 254 of Journal of Physics: Conference Series,p. 012007, IOP Publishing. 2010. arXiv:1103.2030.

[108] I. Bengtsson and K. Zyczkowski, “On discrete structures in finite Hilbert spaces,” arXiv:1701.07902.[109] B. G. Bodmann, D. W. Kribs, and V. I. Paulsen, “Decoherence-insensitive quantum communication by optimal

C∗-encoding,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 53 (2007) 4738–4749.[110] B. G. Bodmann, P. G. Casazza, D. Edidin, and R. Balan, “Frames for linear reconstruction without phase,” in

Information Sciences and Systems, 2008. CISS 2008. 42nd Annual Conference on, pp. 721–726. IEEE, 2008.[111] B. G. Bodmann and H. J. Elwood, “Complex equiangular Parseval frames and Seidel matrices containing pth roots of

14

unity,” Proc. AMS 138 (2010) no. 12, 4387–4404.[112] S. Brandsen, M. Dall’Arno, and A. Szymusiak, “Communication capacity of mixed quantum t-designs,” Phys. Rev. A

94 (2016) no. 2, 022335, arXiv:1603.06320.

[113] W. Bruzda, D. Goyeneche, and K. Zyczkowski, “Quantum measurements with prescribed symmetry,”arXiv:1704.04609.

[114] X. Cao, J. Mi, and S. Xu, “Two constructions of approximately symmetric informationally complete positiveoperator-valued measures,” J. Math. Phys. 58 (2017) no. 6, 062201.

[115] C. Carmeli, T. Heinosaari, and A. Toigo, “Sequential measurements of conjugate observables,” J. Phys. A 44 (2011)no. 28, 285304, arXiv:1105.4976.

[116] C. Carmeli, T. Heinosaari, and A. Toigo, “Informationally complete joint measurements on finite quantum systems,”Phys. Rev. A 85 (2012) no. 1, 012109, arXiv:1111.3509.

[117] P. G. Casazza and D. Cheng, “Associating vectors in Cn with rank 2 projections in R2n: With applications,”arXiv:1703.02657.

[118] E. C. Chaparro Sogamoso, D. Angulo, and K. M. Fonseca-Romero, “Single plane minimal tomography of double slitqubits,” arXiv:1703.04260.

[119] T.-Y. Chien and S. Waldron, “A characterisation of projective unitary equivalence of finite frames,” arXiv:1312.5393.[120] T.-Y. Chien, V. Flynn, and S. Waldron, “Tight frames for cyclotomic fields and other rational vector spaces,” Linear

Algebra and its Applications 476 (2015) 98–123.[121] S. Colin, J. Corbett, T. Durt, and D. Gross, “About SIC POVMs and discrete Wigner distributions,” Journal of Optics

B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics 7 (2005) no. 12, S778–S785.[122] M. Dall’Arno, G. M. D’Ariano, and M. F. Sacchi, “Informational power of quantum measurements,” Physical Review A

83 (2011) 062304.[123] M. Dall’Arno, “Accessible information and informational power of quantum 2-designs,” Physical Review A 90 (2014)

no. 5, 052311.[124] M. Dall’Arno, F. Buscemi, and M. Ozawa, “Tight bounds on accessible information and informational power,” Journal

of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 47 (2014) no. 23, 235302.[125] M. Dall’Arno, “Hierarchy of bounds on accessible information and informational power,” Phys. Rev. A (2015) 012328.[126] B.-G. Englert, D. Kaszlikowski, H. K. Ng, W. K. Chua, J. Rehacek, and J. Anders, “Efficient and robust quantum key

distribution with minimal state tomography,” quant-ph/0412075.[127] B. Et-Taoui, “Equiangular lines in Cr,” Indagationes Mathematicae 11 (2000) no. 2, 201–07.[128] B. Et-Taoui, “Equiangular lines in Cr (part II),” Indagationes Mathematicae 13 (2002) no. 4, 483–86.[129] C. Ferrie and J. Emerson, “Frame representations of quantum mechanics and the necessity of negativity in

quasi-probability representations,” J. Phys. A 41 (2008) 352001.[130] C. Ferrie and J. Emerson, “Framed Hilbert space: hanging the quasi-probability pictures of quantum theory,” New

Journal of Physics 11 (2009) 063040.[131] R. P. Feynman, “Negative probability,” in Quantum Implications: Essays in Honour of David Bohm, pp. 235–48.

Routledge, 1987. http://cds.cern.ch/record/154856.[132] M. Fickus, “Maximally equiangular frames and Gauss sums,” J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 15 (2009) 413–427.[133] M. Fickus, D. G. Mixon, and J. C. Tremain, “Steiner equiangular tight frames,” Lin. Alg. App. 436 (2012) no. 5,

1014–27.[134] S. N. Filippov and V. I. Man’ko, “Symmetric informationally complete positive operator valued measure and probability

representation of quantum mechanics,” J. Russian Laser Research 31 (2010) 211–231.[135] S. Flammia, “On SIC-POVMs in prime dimensions,” J. Phys. A 39 (2006) 13483–13493.[136] C. A. Fuchs and M. Sasaki, “Squeezing quantum information through a classical channel: Measuring the quantumness

of a set of quantum states,” Quantum Inf. Comput. 3 (2003) 377–404, arXiv:quant-ph/0302092.[137] C. A. Fuchs, “On the quantumness of a Hilbert space,” Quantum Inf. Comput. 4 (2004) 467–478,

arXiv:quant-ph/0404122.[138] C. A. Fuchs and R. Schack, “A Quantum-Bayesian route to quantum state space,” Found. Phys. 41 (2011) 345–356.[139] C. A. Fuchs, “Charting the shape of quantum-state space,” in Quantum Communication, Measurement and Computing

(QCMC): The Tenth International Conference, T. Ralph and P. K. Lam, eds., AIP Conference Proceedings Vol. 1363,pp. 305–314. American Institute of Physics, Melville, NY, 2011.

[140] C. A. Fuchs, “Notwithstanding Bohr, the reasons for QBism,” arXiv:1705.03483.[141] C. Godsil and A. Roy, “Equiangular lines, mutually unbiased bases, and spin models,” European J. Comb. 30 (2009)

246–262.[142] G. Gour and A. Kalev, “Construction of all general symmetric informationally complete measurements,” J. Phys. A 47

(2014) 335302.[143] D. Goyeneche and A. C. de la Torre, “Quantum state reconstruction from dynamical systems theory,” arXiv:1103.3213.[144] D. Goyeneche and A. C. de la Torre, “Quantum tomography meets dynamical systems and bifurcations theory,” J.

Math. Phys. 55 (2014) 062103.[145] D. Goyeneche and O. Turek, “Equiangular tight frames and unistochastic matrices,” arXiv:1607.04528.[146] D. Goyeneche and O. Turek, “Equiangular tight frames and unistochastic matrices,” J. Phys. A 50 (2017) no. 24,

245304.[147] M. Grassl, “On SIC-POVMs and MUBs in dimension 6,” arXiv:quant-ph/0406175.

15

[148] M. Grassl, “Tomography of quantum states in small dimensions,” Electronic Notes in Discrete Mathematics 20 (2005)151–164.

[149] M. Grassl, “Computing equiangular lines in complex space,” in Mathematical Methods in Computer Science: Essays inMemory of Thomas Beth, J. Calmet, W. Geiselmann, and J. Muller-Quade, eds., pp. 89–104. Springer, 2008.

[150] M. A. Graydon, “Quaternionic quantum dynamics on complex Hilbert spaces,” Foundations of Physics 43 (2013)656–664.

[151] M. Graydon, Conical Designs and Categorical Jordan Algebraic Post-Quantum Theories. PhD thesis, University ofWaterloo, 2017. arXiv:1703.06800.

[152] M. A. Herman and T. Strohmer, “High-resolution radar via compressed sensing,” Signal Processing, IEEE Transactionson 57 (2009) 2275–2284.

[153] K. Hulek, “Projective geometry of elliptic curves,” in Algebraic Geometry — Open Problems, C. Ciliberto, F. Ghione,and F. Orecchia, eds., vol. 997 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, pp. 228–266. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1983.

[154] J. Jedwab and A. Wiebe, “Constructions of complex equiangular lines from mutually unbiased bases,” arXiv:1408.5169.[155] J. Jedwab and A. Wiebe, “A simple construction of complex equiangular lines,” in Algebraic Design Theory and

Hadamard Matrices, pp. 159–169. Springer, 2015. arXiv:1408.2492.[156] A. Kalev, J. Shang, and B.-G. Englert, “Experimental proposal for symmetric minimal two-qubit state tomography,”

Physical Review A 85 (2012) 052115.[157] A. Kalev, J. Shang, and B.-G. Englert, “Symmetric minimal quantum tomography by successive measurements,” Phys.

Rev. A 85 (2012) 052116.[158] J. Kayser, K. Luoma, and W. T. Strunz, “Geometric characterization of true quantum decoherence,” arXiv:1508.04027.[159] M. Khatirinejad, “On Weyl-Heisenberg orbits of equiangular lines,” J. Algebr. Comb. 28 (2008) 333–349.[160] A. Khrennikov and B. C. Stacey, “Aims and scope of the special issue, “Quantum Foundations: Informational

Perspective”,” Found. Phys. (2017) online before print.[161] I. H. Kim, “Quantumness, generalized spherical 2-design and symmetric informationally complete POVM,” Quantum

Inf. Comput. 7 (2007) 730–737, arXiv:quant-ph/0608024.[162] A. Klappenecker, M. Rotteler, I. E. Shparlinski, and A. Winterhof, “On approximately symmetric informationally

complete positive operator-valued measures and related systems of quantum states,” J. Math. Phys. 46 (2005) 082104.[163] H. Konig and N. Tomczak-Jaegermann, “Norms of minimal projections,” Tech. Rep. 11/17/92, Banach Archive, 1992.

arXiv:math.FA/9211211.[164] H. Konig, “Cubature formulas on spheres,” Mathematical Research 107 (1999) 201–12.

http://analysis.math.uni-kiel.de/koenig/inhalte/cubonsph.pdf.[165] R. Konig and R. Renner, “A de Finetti representation for finite symmetric quantum states,” J. Phys. A 46 (2005)

122108, arXiv:quant-ph/0410229.[166] J.-A. Larsson, “SIC POVMs and the Discrete Affine Fourier Transform (the linear canonical transform).”

http://www.akademietraunkirchen.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/

SIC-POVMs-and-the-Discrete-Affine-Fourier-Transform.pdf, 2010.[167] R.-D. Malikiosis, “Spark deficient Gabor frames,” arXiv:1602.09012.[168] W. Matthews, S. Wehner, and A. Winter, “Distinguishability of quantum states under restricted families of

measurements with an application to quantum data hiding,” Comm. Math. Phys. 291 (2009) no. 3, 813–43,arXiv:0810.2327.

[169] D. Mixon, Sparse signal processing with frame theory. PhD thesis, Princeton University, 2012. arXiv:1204.5958.[170] G. McConnell, “Some non-standard ways to generate SIC-POVMs in dimensions 2 and 3,” arXiv:1402.7330.[171] O. Oreshkov, J. Calsamiglia, R. Munoz-Tapia, and E. Bagan, “Optimal signal states for quantum detectors,” New J.

Phys. 13 (2011) 073032.[172] M. Oszmaniec, L. Guerini, P. Wittek, and A. Acın, “Simulating positive-operator-valued measures with projective

measurements,” arXiv:1609.06139.[173] D. Petz and L. Ruppert, “Efficient quantum tomography needs complementary and symmetric measurements,” Reports

on Mathematical Physics 69 (2012) 161–177.[174] D. Petz and L. Ruppert, “Optimal quantum-state tomography with known parameters,” J. Phys. A 45 (2012) 085306.[175] D. Petz, L. Ruppert, and A. Szanto, “Conditional SIC-POVMs,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 60 (2014)

351–356.[176] M. Planat and Z. Gedik, “Magic informationally complete POVMs with permutations,” arXiv:1704.02749.[177] A. E. Rastegin, “Uncertainty relations for MUBs and SIC-POVMs in terms of generalized entropies,” Eur. Phys. J. D

67 (2013) 269.[178] A. E. Rastegin, “Notes on general SIC-POVMs,” Phys. Scr. 89 (2014) 085101.[179] J. Rehacek, B.-G. Englert, and D. Kaszlikowski, “Minimal qubit tomography,” Phys. Rev. A 70 (2004) 052321.[180] J. M. Renes, “Equiangular spherical codes in quantum cryptography,” Quantum Inf. Comput. 5 (2005) 81–92,

arXiv:quant-ph/0409043.[181] J. I. Rosado, “Representation of quantum states as points in a probability simplex associated to a SIC-POVM,”

Foundations of Physics 41 (2011) no. 7, 1200–1213, arXiv:1007.0715.[182] J. I. Rosado, “Probing the geometry of quantum states with symmetric POVMs,” arXiv:1309.7309.[183] M. Saraceno, L. Ermann, and C. Cormick, “Phase-space representations of SIC-POVM fiducial states,” Phys. Rev. A 95

(2016) no. 3, 032102, arXiv:1612.02351.[184] W. S lomczynski and A. Szymusiak, “Highly symmetric POVMs and their informational power,” Quant. Info. Proc. 15

16

(2014) no. 1, 505–606, arXiv:1402.0375.[185] W. S lomczynski and A. Szczepanek, “Quantum dynamical entropy, chaotic unitaries and complex Hadamard matrices,”

arXiv:1612.03363.[186] A. Szymusiak, “Maximally informative ensembles for SIC-POVMs in dimension 3,” J. Phys. A 47 (2014) 445301,

arXiv:1405.0052.[187] A. Szymusiak, “Pure states that are ‘most quantum’ with respect to a given POVM,” arXiv:1701.01139.[188] S. Waldron, “Frames for vector spaces and affine spaces,” Linear Algebra and its Applications 435 (2011) 77–94.[189] S. Waldron, “Group frames,” in Finite Frames: Theory and Applications, P. G. Casazza and G. Kutyniok, eds.,

pp. 171–91. Springer, 2013.[190] W. K. Wootters, “Quantum measurements and finite geometry,” Found. Phys. 36 (2006) no. 1, 112–26,

arXiv:quant-ph/0406032.[191] W. K. Wootters, “Symmetric informationally complete measurements: Can we make big ones out of small ones?,”

PIRSA:09120023.[192] Z.-P. Xu, J.-L. Chen, and H.-Y. Su, “State-independent contextuality sets for a qutrit,” Phys. Lett. A 379 (2015)

no. 34–5, 1868–70, arXiv:1501.01746.[193] H. Zhu, Y. S. Teo, and B. G. Englert, “Two-qubit symmetric informationally complete positive operator valued

measures,” Phys. Rev. A 82 (2010) 042308, arXiv:1008.1138.[194] H. Zhu and B.-G. Englert, “Quantum state tomography with fully symmetric measurements and product

measurements,” Phys. Rev. A 84 (2011) 022327, arXiv:1105.4561.[195] H. Zhu, “Mutually unbiased bases as minimal Clifford covariant 2-designs,” Phys. Rev. A 91 (2015) no. 6, 060301,

arXiv:1505.01123.