following classical protocols , quantum information protocols were initially formulated in terms of qubits that are manipulated unitarily in order to realize computational and communication tasks that may over perform their classical analogs @xcite .
a different , but widespread approach to process quantum information involves using continuous variables ( cv ) @xcite . among the most important advances in the field of cv quantum information
are the realization of quantum teleportation @xcite , as well as quantum cryptography protocols , which rely on states defined in a continuous variables representation @xcite .
universality for manipulation of continuous variables quantum states was defined in ref .
@xcite , and subsequently measurement based quantum computation was generalized from the discrete to the continuous realm @xcite .
manipulating quantum information in continuous or discrete variables , on its usual circuit based formulation , involves the application of unitary gates . while such gates , in the discrete variable ( dv ) case can be expressed in terms of su(2 ) transformations , a general unitary in cv is composed by polynomials of conjugate operators with a continuous unbounded spectrum , such as position and momentum of a particle , or the electromagnetic field quadratures .
even though , in the general case , a direct correspondence between universal operations in dv and cv has not been established , it was shown by gottesman , kitaev and preskill ( gkp ) in ref .
@xcite , that such a correspondence exists for a family of states that , while being defined in cv , can be used to encode a qubit . moreover , the gkp encoding is also at the heart of the demonstration showing that fault - tolerant measurement - based quantum computation with cv cluster states is possible @xcite .
a drawback of this encoding is that it relies on non - physical states .
furthermore , physical states that are close to them are of extremely challenging experimental realization with optical field quadratures . in addition , the gkp encoding has the specific purpose of quantum computation applications . in the more general context of quantum mechanics ,
quantum computing presents the particular aspect of requiring measurements realized in the computational basis only .
however , a number of important quantum mechanics or quantum information related tasks , such as bell inequalities violation @xcite , quantum state tomography @xcite , and fundamental tests of quantum mechanics @xcite , rather rely on the recovery of binary information through the measurement of different mutually unbiased bases . for
these applications , one should build a formalism offering an analogy of pauli matrices in phase space not only from the operational point of view , as proposed in @xcite , but also from a measurable perspective .
moreover , in order to build a complete toolbox to manipulate and measure discrete quantum information encoded in cv , one should also define how to perform rotations between different measurement bases .
in the present article we create a framework to manipulate and measure binary quantum information encoded in continuous variables using the formalism of modular variables ( mv ) @xcite , which allows us to naturally identify discrete structures in continuous variable states .
we further introduce adapted operations and observables which enable us to manipulate and readout the encoded discrete quantum information in terms of the corresponding cv logical states .
our formulation shows that , if one is interested in recovering quantum information by measuring binary observables defined in cv , one can loosen the requirements imposed on the gkp states .
our results have immediate experimental impact which we demonstrate by applying them to the transverse degrees of freedom of single photons .
the structure of this paper is as follows . in the next section
we give an introduction to the modular variables formalism , including the definition of the modular position and momentum operators and the resulting representation in terms of their common eigenstates . in sec .
[ sec : qipframework ] we present our main results and show how to process discrete quantum information encoded in logical states expressed in the modular variables representation .
further on , measurements of judiciously chosen modular variables are revealed to enable the readout the encoded discrete quantum information from the corresponding logical states .
section  [ sec : expproposal ] is devoted to the discussion of an experimental implementation of our ideas using the transverse degrees of freedom of single photons . finally , we conclude in sec .  [
sec : conclusion ] .
in the modular variables ( mv ) formalism , pairs of canonically conjugate observables are expressed in terms of modular and integer parts , respectively . in the case of the position and momentum operators this leads to @xcite : @xmath0 where @xmath1 , @xmath2 ( @xmath3 ) has integer eigenvalues , and @xmath4-\ell/4 $ ] ( @xmath5-\pi/\ell$ ] ) is the modular position ( momentum ) operator with eigenvalues in the interval @xmath6 ( @xmath7 ) ( see fig .
[ fig_1 ] ( a ) and ( b ) ) .
the center of the domains containing modular variables @xmath8 and @xmath9 is not of further importance and was chosen for future convenience .     and @xmath10 , respectively , and of ( b ) the bounded spectra of the modular position and momentum operator .
the red arrows indicate the displacements implementing the logical pauli operators @xmath11 , @xmath12 , and @xmath13 .
( c ) representation of the transverse distribution of a single photon created in a source s with a gaussian wave function which is transformed into a periodic diffraction pattern by passing through a grating with slit distance @xmath14 . in experiments , such a diffraction grating can be implemented easily using a spatial light modulator ( slm ) . ]
the separation ( [ eq : defmodvar ] ) , in modular and integer parts , proved itself useful for the detection of entanglement in spatial interference patterns @xcite .
furthermore , measurements of more general modular variables , namely periodic functions of position and momentum operators , have been used recently in proposals to test the clauser - horne - shimony - holt ( chsh ) @xcite , the leggett - garg @xcite and noncontextuality inequalities @xcite .
later on , in sec .
[ sec : readoutmodvar ] , we provide a general framework suitable to deal with measurements of such modular variables based on the above introduced modular representation .
further on it can be shown that the modular position and momentum operators , @xmath15 and @xmath16 , commute  @xcite : @xmath17=0 $ ] , which leads to the definition of the modular basis @xmath18 , consisting of the common eigenstates of the these two modular operators .
consequently , in terms of the modular basis we can write @xmath19 , with a normalized wave function @xmath20 written in the modular representation . the modular representation is especially convenient when dealing with periodically symmetric states , _
e.g. _ the gkp states . as a matter of fact , using the definition of @xcite and the notation @xmath21 for the logical gkp qubits , one has simply that , in the modular basis : @xmath22 and @xmath23 , showing that the gkp states naturally emerge from the modular basis . a formal definition of the modular basis and related expressions , as well as an example of @xmath20 will be discussed in the next section .
formally , the modular eigenstates @xmath24 can be defined as superposition of position or momentum eigenstates ( distinguished by subscripts @xmath25 and @xmath26 , respectively ) : @xmath27 fulfilling the completeness and the orthogonality relation : @xmath28 where @xmath29 and @xmath30 are dirac @xmath31 functions defined on the intervals @xmath32 and @xmath7 , respectively ( for brevity , we will omit in the following the superscripts @xmath33 and @xmath10 ) .
inversely , we can define the position and momentum eigenstates in terms of the new modular eigenstates , as : @xmath34 hence , an arbitrary state in position representation @xmath35 transformed to the modular representation , reads : @xmath36 where @xmath37 is called modular wave function of @xmath38 .
the same representation was introduced by j. zak in 1967 under the term @xmath39-representation @xcite .
the modular variables representation is particularly well suited for wave functions that obey a certain periodicity in position or momentum space .
for example , the state @xmath40 , representing a comb of @xmath31 functions with distance @xmath14 in position space , becomes in the modular representation @xmath41 , namely a single @xmath31 peak at the origin , if we set @xmath42 .
this state , together with @xmath43 , are examples of the logical qubit state introduced in the gkp paper @xcite .    instead
, a more physical state can be obtained if we replace the @xmath31 comb by a comb of finitely squeezed gaussian spikes with width @xmath44 and a gaussian envelope with width @xmath45 ( see fig .
[ fig_2](b ) ) .
the wave function of such a state in position representation , reads : @xmath46 with a normalization factor @xmath47 . in the limit @xmath48 and @xmath49 , of a large envelope and sufficiently thin spikes , respectively , the latter can be approximated by @xmath50 .
then , transforming eq .
( [ app : eq : approxgkp ] ) to the modular representation with the help of eq .
( [ app : eq : modvareigenstates ] ) , yields : @xmath51 where @xmath52 and @xmath42 . to obtain the above result we used that according to the poisson sum formula we have @xmath53 , and that in the limit of large gaussian envelopes we can approximate @xmath54 . a possible experimental platform allowing for the production of such periodic states
is given by the transverse degrees of freedom of single photons , as illustrated in fig .
[ fig_1](c ) .
labeling quantum states using bounded continuous variables enables the definition of two disjoint sets of equal size for each one of the variables . such a splitting can be done in infinitely many ways , and in order to illustrate the principles of our ideas we discuss in detail the splitting of the domain of the variable @xmath8 into two subintervals @xmath55 and @xmath56 . as a consequence ,
we obtain a continuum of two - level systems spanned by the states @xmath57 in terms of which we can express a general state @xmath38 as : @xmath58 where @xmath59 with a complex function @xmath60 such that @xmath61 and two real functions , @xmath62 and @xmath63 , defined on @xmath64 .
the mathematical expressions allowing to switch back and forth between the position and modular representation can be found in appendix  [ app : logicalqubits ] .
equation  ( [ eq : generalstate ] ) can be seen as a weighted continuous superposition of pure qubit states @xmath65 for each subspace with fixed @xmath8 and @xmath9 .
we stress that , so far , no approximation has been made , and state ( [ eq : generalstate ] ) is simply an alternative way of writing an arbitrary state expressed in a continuous basis .
note that the choice of @xmath33 is also arbitrary , and modifying it for a given state modifies the definition of the functions appearing in ( [ eq : generalstate ] ) and ( [ eqn : continuousqubit ] ) .    in the following , in order to encode discrete quantum information in cv states , we assume that @xmath66 and @xmath67 are constant functions such that eq .
( [ eq : generalstate ] ) becomes @xmath68 with logical qubit states , defined as : @xmath69 the logical qubit states ( [ eq : logical0 ] ) and ( [ eq : logical1 ] ) reflect a dichotomization of the hilbert space with respect to the modular position @xmath8 .
the exact choice of @xmath60 is arbitrary as long as it emerges from a properly defined modular wave function @xmath20 ( see appendix  [ app : logicalqubits ] ) . in fig .
[ fig_2](a ) we plot the modulo square of these states in the case where @xmath60 is given by a two dimensional gaussian function centered at the origin with standard deviations @xmath44 and @xmath70 in the modular position and momentum variables , respectively . in position space the same states are represented by two shifted combs of gaussian spikes with width @xmath44 and gaussian envelope of width @xmath71 ( see fig .
[ fig_2](b ) ) .
this example corresponds to the well known non - perfect gkp states introduced in @xcite .
we now discuss the manipulation of the introduced logical states through appropriate unitary operations and their analogy to ordinary pauli matrices .     and @xmath72 , respectively , in the modular representation ( see eq .
( [ eq : generalstate ] ) ) with @xmath60 , @xmath62 and @xmath63 chosen as explained in the text and @xmath73 .
the full widths at half maximum ( fwhm ) of the distributions are indicated by @xmath74 and @xmath75 .
( b ) plot of the wave function @xmath76 of the same two logical states in the position representation . in momentum space
the same functions with switched roles of @xmath77 and @xmath78 represent the logical states @xmath79 . ]      in this section , we introduce some single qubit logical operations acting on the qubit structure ( [ app : eq : contqubitrep2 ] ) that is naturally embedded in every state @xmath38 .
we start by expressing the single mode phase space displacement operator @xmath80 in the modular representation .
to do so , we calculate first its action on a modular eigenstate ( [ app : eq : modvareigenstates ] ) , yielding : @xmath81 over - lined expressions denote the corresponding modular parts in position or momentum , respectively .
equation ( [ app : eq : dispop ] ) shows that a phase space displacement by @xmath82 leads to a displacement of the corresponding modular position and momentum accompanied by the generation of additional phase factors .
the latter encode information about the change of the discrete position and momentum values , @xmath83 and @xmath84 , induced by the displacement .
now , by setting the displacements in eq .
( [ app : eq : dispop ] ) equal @xmath85 , @xmath86 and @xmath87 , @xmath88 , respectively , and by splitting the @xmath8-integration we reveal the following two operators : @xmath89 where @xmath90 with @xmath91 .
we thus see that the weyl - heisenberg operators act as ordinary pauli operators ( @xmath92 and @xmath93 ) on each of the qubit subspaces defined by @xmath94 .
the analog of the third pauli operator @xmath95 can be obtained from the product of the former two @xmath96 , yielding : @xmath97 with @xmath98 on the other hand , using the commutation rules for the phase space displacement operator , we find that @xmath99 , yielding @xmath100 .
thus , as illustrated in fig .
[ fig_1](b ) , the three displacements implementing the logical pauli operations ( [ eq : sigmaz ] ) , ( [ eq : sigmax ] ) and ( [ eq : sigmay ] ) , form a triangular in phase space that encloses an area of @xmath101 . the latter is closely related to the fact that the anti - commutators between the displacements ( [ eq : sigmax ] ) , ( [ eq : sigmaz ] ) and ( [ eq : sigmay ] ) , vanish @xcite , yielding the anti - commutation relations of our logical pauli operators : @xmath102 as expected form the algebra of pauli matrices .    however , despite the similarities , the logical operations defined above are not completely equivalent to a pauli algebra in the general case .
this becomes apparent from their commutation relations which are found to be @xmath103=2i\hat z^\dagger$ ] , @xmath104=2i\hat y^\dagger$ ] and @xmath105=2i\hat x^\dagger$ ] .
they resemble those of the pauli matrices , but since the operators @xmath11 , @xmath12 and @xmath13 are not hermitian , they deviate in the fact that the commutator between each of them yields the adjoint of the third one .
we further note that , in the subspace spanned by the gpk states @xmath106 and @xmath107 , the operators @xmath11 , @xmath12 and @xmath108 are hermitian ( @xmath109 , @xmath110 and @xmath111 ) .
hence , in this subspace , the above commutation relations become equal to those of a real pauli algebra .
the fact that we are dealing with a nonperfect pauli algebra has some consequences .
for instance , if we calculate the square of one of the logical pauli operators we get : @xmath112 with @xmath113 , which differs from an identity through the appearance of an @xmath8 dependent phase factor under the integral .
similarly , such phase factors also appear when manipulating the states @xmath114 and @xmath115 with one of the logical operations ( [ eq : sigmaz ] ) , ( [ eq : sigmax ] ) or ( [ eq : sigmay ] ) .
we will see later on that these phase factors become irrelevant if one considers only protocols involving a specific class of modular variables as readout observables . in light of the definition of these readout observables , which will be given in sec .
[ sec : readoutmodvar ] , we will also introduce appropriate rotation operators allowing to perform measurements according to different mutually unbiased bases of the logical space ( see sec .
[ sec : modularrotations ] ) .
consequently , the logical states and pauli operations , together with the modular readout observables and the corresponding rotations ( see secs .
[ sec : readoutmodvar ] and [ sec : modularrotations ] ) , establish a solid framework to handle cv quantum information from a quantum measurement point of view .
a qubit phase gate @xmath116 can be realized using the shear operation @xmath117 with @xmath118 .
it transforms the logical pauli operators , ( [ eq : sigmaz ] ) and ( [ eq : sigmax ] ) , as : @xmath119 and @xmath120 . in this case , the shear implements a rotation of @xmath11 around the @xmath121-axis of the bloch sphere .
further on , the hadamard gate @xmath122 can be directly realised using a rescaled fourier transform @xmath123 , with @xmath124 chosen as above , which transforms the logical pauli operators as @xmath125 and @xmath126 . in combination with the above defined logical phase - gate , we can define the fourier transformed shear @xmath127 which then implements a @xmath101-rotation of @xmath13 around the @xmath25-axis , namely @xmath128 and @xmath129 .
finally , the two - qubit clifford generator @xmath130 can be realized by the two - mode gaussian unitary @xmath131 which implements the operations @xmath132 and @xmath133 , with @xmath134 .
note , that the logical controlled - phase gate @xmath135 follows from @xmath130 by an additional application of @xmath136 on the second mode .
note that these logical operations implement the desired clifford group operation only when acting on perfect gkp logical states @xmath41 and @xmath43 .
therefore , the finite squeezing of the logical states @xmath114 and @xmath72 leads to a faulty implementation of the above defined logical clifford operations which manifests itself by a washing out of the signal @xcite .
in order to circumvent such errors one can apply gkp error correction to the encoded states @xcite , which keeps the squeezing on a tolerable level .
this problem does not occur if we manipulate our logical qubits with the rotation operator defined in sec .
[ sec : modularrotations ] .
an experimental implementation of these rotations using the transverse degrees of freedom of single photons will be discussed later on in sec .
[ sec : expproposal ] .
we will move on now and show how measurements of suitably defined modular variables allow to retrieve binary quantum information that is encoded in terms of our modular logical states .
we start by defining the observables @xmath137 , which are the analogous to the pauli matrices from the point of view of a measurement : @xmath138 with @xmath139 , @xmath140 a real and bounded function and @xmath141 defined as in eqs .
( [ eq : sigz ] ) , ( [ eq : sigx ] ) and ( [ eq : sigmaxpy ] ) .
as we show in appendix  [ app : gammaprop ] , the sum over @xmath142 of the modulo squares of the expectation value of these observables is bounded by @xmath143 .
moreover , restricted to our logical space , defined by @xmath114 and @xmath72 , these expectation values can be expressed as @xmath144 where @xmath145 and @xmath146 .
hence , we find that the expectation values of the observables ( [ eq : gammas ] ) are proportional to the bloch vector of the encoded qubit states , whereas the proportionality factors are determined by the overlap of @xmath147 with @xmath140
. we can also define spatial and temporal correlators among observables of the kind of eq .
( [ eq : gammas ] ) , which have already been proven to be useful in the context of testing quantum mechanical properties in cv in @xcite .
all these works involve measurements of particularly chosen modular variables that can be expressed in the form of eq .
( [ eq : gammas ] ) .
the form of the operators ( [ eq : gammas ] ) is chosen so as to be operationally analogous to the logical pauli operations , defined in eqs .
( [ eq : sigmaz ] ) , ( [ eq : sigmax ] ) and ( [ eq : sigmay ] ) .
interestingly , unwanted phase factors , appearing when manipulating the states @xmath114 and @xmath115 with some logical operation , disappear .
for instance , if we consider the operator @xmath148 ( see eq .
( [ eq : logicalzsquared ] ) ) and apply it to an arbitrary state of the logical space @xmath149 , we obtain @xmath150 , where @xmath151 differs from @xmath38 by a modular position ( momentum ) dependent phase factor , but we have @xmath152 , for all @xmath139 .
therefore , for implementations of protocols involving measurements of the expectation values @xmath153 , the @xmath148 operator acts as the identity .
similarly , phase factors that appear due to the application of the logical pauli operations ( [ eq : sigmaz ] ) , ( [ eq : sigmax ] ) and ( [ eq : sigmay ] ) to a logical state @xmath38 , are invisible to measurements of the expectation values of ( [ eq : gammas ] ) .
consequently , this allows one to establish a solid framework for handling discrete quantum information encoded in the cv logical states @xmath114 and @xmath115 .    in appendix
[ app : conditions ] , we discuss the conditions a general phase space observable @xmath154 , where @xmath155 is a real - valued function , has to fulfill such that it can be written in the form ( [ eq : gammas ] ) . in general , we find that the observables ( [ eq : gammas ] ) are given by periodic phase space observables , meaning observables that can be expressed as : @xmath156 where @xmath157 are complex fourier coefficients obeying the normalization condition @xmath158 , and @xmath14 and @xmath159 denote to the periodicities in position and momentum of the corresponding phase space representation of @xmath154 . all three observables ( [ eq : gammas ] ) can be expressed as ( [ eq : doublefourier ] ) with different choices of @xmath157 , @xmath14 and @xmath159 ( see appendix  [ app : conditions ] ) .
examples of such observables are , for instance , @xmath160 , @xmath161 and @xmath162 , where @xmath163 , @xmath164 and @xmath165 .
we note that the general definition of the observables ( [ eq : gammas ] ) leads only in the case @xmath166 , for all @xmath142 , to a real set of pauli operators .
however , if one wants to favour the experimental accessibility of such observables via positive operator valued measurements ( see sec .
[ sec : measurementpovm ] and ref .
@xcite ) , it is desirable to keep the freedom of choice of the functions @xmath140 .
this leads , in the general case where @xmath140 is given by a continuous function , to an operator with a continuous spectrum .
once we have created the possibility of retrieving quantum information through measurement of binary observables defined in cv , one can complete the set of qubit like operations by defining arbitrary rotations on the encoded subspaces .
however , since the operators @xmath11 , @xmath12 and @xmath13 are unitary but not hermitian , arbitrary rotations can not be generated by simply exponentiating them with the proper multiplicative factors , as is true for the pauli matrices @xcite .
this can be done only if we consider the operators ( [ eq : gammas ] ) in the special case , @xmath166 , for all @xmath8 , @xmath9 and @xmath142 ( in the following denoted by @xmath167 ) , which then can be used to define @xmath168 where @xmath169 and @xmath170 indicates the axis of rotation . equation ( [ eq : rotations ] ) allows to perform rotations of the general observables ( [ eq : gammas ] ) without changing the function @xmath140 and thus to implement measurements in different mutually unbiased bases of the corresponding logical space .
note that , in contrary to logical operations introduced in @xcite , the operators ( [ eq : rotations ] ) perform well not only on the subspace spanned by perfect gkp states but also on the space spanned by the more general logical states @xmath114 and @xmath72 .
a proposal of an experimental implementation of these rotation operations using the spatial distribution of single photons is discussed in sec .
[ app : implementationlogops ] .
in the following , we assume that the coordinates @xmath171 and @xmath172 refer to the transverse position and momentum of a single photon . these variables are related to the object or source plane ( position plane ) and the fourier plane ( momentum plane ) of a single - photon field . if we remain in the paraxial approximation , @xmath173 ( see fig .
[ fig_1](c ) ) , the wave function of this field can be seen as the wave function of a single point particle , here being the photon .
we restrict ourselves to the one dimensional case because the hilbert space associated to the two dimensional spatial photon field is a tensor product of the hilbert spaces associated with the two orthogonal transverse directions of the photon @xcite .
a general quantum state of the transverse momentum ( or position ) of the photon can be written in the modular basis , as shown in ( [ app : eq : contqubitrep1 ] ) .        , or optionally
@xmath174 if placing lenses ( l1,l2 ) before and after the slm .
finally , the photons are measured with a spatially resolving detector ( d ) .
, scaledwidth=50.0% ]    one major advantage in using the transverse degrees of freedom of single photons is that we can very efficiently produce states with a periodic wave function , as those presented in fig .
[ fig_2 ] . to do so
, we simply pass the photons through a periodic diffraction grating , as indicated in fig .
[ fig_3 ] .
if the photon , which is impinging on the grating , has a gaussian transverse wave function @xmath175 , with width @xmath71 , and the transmission function of the grating is given by @xmath176 , where @xmath177}$ ] with slit width @xmath44 and distance @xmath14 , the resulting wave function of the diffracted photons has the form  ( [ app : eq : approxgkp ] ) .
hence , by by adjusting the slit widths and distances of the grating , we can produce the logical qubit states @xmath178 and @xmath179 . in fig .
[ fig_3 ] , the photons are sent through a lens system before the grating in order to prepare them in approximate plane waves .
this allows us additionally to adjust the width @xmath71 of the gaussian envelope of the wave function ( [ app : eq : approxgkp ] ) , which corresponds to the quality of the prepared plane waves .
experimentally gratings are often realized using spatial light modulators ( slms ) ( see fig .
[ fig_1](c ) ) .
note that the free propagation of the diffracted photons will lead to a blurring in the photon s transverse wave function .
this effect is mainly due to the finite envelope of the photons transverse wave function and can be minimized by improving the quality of the prepared plane waves before the grating .
the dependency of the blurring on the number of irradiated slits was studied in @xcite by calculating the fidelity of the initially prepared wave function with its revivals after multiples of a specific propagation distance , referred to as talbot distance .
it was shown that , for currently available diffraction gratings , a fidelity higher than @xmath180 can be maintained for a propagation distance of about 10 times the talbot distance . for larger propagation distances one could possibly improve the fidelity using the earlier mentioned gkp error correction procedure to the transverse field of the photons .
once it is known how to prepare single photons in the corresponding logical states @xmath114 and @xmath72 , we can try to entangle a pair of photons and further use it for the realization of quantum information protocols .
one possibility to do so is by producing polarization entangled states in a type-2 parametric down - conversion process and subsequently swapping the polarization entanglement to the spatial distributions of the two photons , as suggested in @xcite .
therefore , the photons are sent through a mach - zehnder interferometer made up of polarization dependent beam - splitters , half- and quater - wave plates and diffraction gratings .
the output states of the interferometers will yield to 50% the desired spatially entangled photons , while the other half of the emerging photons has to be discarded .
details of the procedure can be found in @xcite .
all our following discussion about experimental implementations of single qubit rotations or measurements of readout observables rely on an optical element , called spatial light modulator ( slm ) .
a slm consists usually of some transparent or reflective screen that is divided into a certain number of pixels whose diffraction index can be adjusted individually . in this way , one can impose spatial phase or amplitude modulations on a light beam that is transmitted or reflected by the slm . in particular , it is possible to implement operations of the form @xmath181 , where @xmath182 is an arbitrary user - defined function .
similarly , one can implement phase modulations in momentum space by combining a slm with the fourier transform @xmath123 , which itself is realized optically with lenses , where @xmath124 is related to the focal length @xmath183 of the lens and the wave length @xmath184 through the relation @xmath185 ( see also fig .
[ fig_3 ] ) @xcite .
the above discussion leads us to a linear optical implementation of the logical rotation operator @xmath186 where @xmath169 and @xmath170 defines the axis of rotation .
we focus on rotation around the two main axes corresponding to the operators @xmath187 and @xmath188 , which by composition allow to implement any desired single qubit rotation .
therefore , we remind the reader that @xmath189 with the step function @xmath190 that takes the value @xmath191 if @xmath192 and @xmath193 if @xmath194 . by means of the discussion in the appendix  [ app : conditions ] we know that eq . ( [ app : eq : gamma1z ] ) reads in the position representation as follows : @xmath195 where @xmath196 is a @xmath33-periodic rectangular function taking the value @xmath191 if @xmath197 and @xmath193 if @xmath198 , with integers @xmath199 . hence , the rotation operator ( [ app : eq : rotations ] ) reads : @xmath200 which is a simple position phase gate that can be implemented through the slm operation @xmath201 with @xmath202 .
similarly , we can write @xmath203 where @xmath204 takes the value @xmath205 if @xmath192 or @xmath205 if @xmath194 . and again , by following the arguments in appendix  [ app : conditions ] , we find that eq .
( [ app : eq : gamma1x ] ) can be written in the momentum representation as @xmath206 where @xmath207 is a @xmath208-periodic rectangular function taking the value @xmath191 if @xmath209 and @xmath193 if @xmath210 , with integers @xmath211 . from eq .
( [ app : eq : gammaxmom ] ) then follows directly @xmath212 which is a position phase gate that can be implemented with a slm operation programmed with the function @xmath213 , sandwiched between two fourier transforms , as discussed previously .
we first recall that the observables @xmath214 , with @xmath139 , correspond to phase space operators @xmath154 fulfilling certain periodicity constraints , as discussed in the appendix  [ app : conditions ] .
if we further consider only those readout observables that can be expressed as a function of a general quadrature @xmath215 , we can write them in the corresponding diagonal form @xmath216 where the subscript denotes the @xmath217-representation . examples , as mentioned previously , are @xmath218 , @xmath219 and @xmath220}$ ] , being functions of @xmath221 , @xmath222 and @xmath223 , where @xmath224 and @xmath225}$ ] . accordingly
, the expectation value of the operator ( [ app : eq : fdiagquad ] ) reads : @xmath226 which is solely determined by the probability density @xmath227 .
we can reproduce the same reasoning in a bipartite system where we get for a product of two readout observables @xmath228 : @xmath229 and the corresponding expectation value : @xmath230 with the joint - probability density @xmath231 .    in an experimental setup with pairs of single photons
we can determine the position or momentum probability densities @xmath232 or @xmath233 , by detecting the position of the photons in the near- or far - field with respect to the output plane of the source of the photons .
position measurements of single photons can be performed either by scanning a single photon counter in the transverse plane of the photon or by using a single - photon sensitive camera @xcite .
arbitrary quadratures @xmath217 can be assessed via fractional fourier transforms realized with lens systems @xcite , allowing to determine arbitrary distributions @xmath234 .
finally , we can use eq .
( [ app : eq : expecfquad ] ) to calculate expectation values of the desired readout observables @xmath214 .
the same measurement schemes can be applied to entangled pairs of photons ( see sec .
[ sec : creationwavefkt ] ) , using respectively two single photon counters or two single photon sensitive cameras , in order to determine the joint - probability distributions @xmath235 .
the expectation values of the observables @xmath214 , @xmath139 , can also be measured indirectly .
figure  [ fig_4 ] ( a ) shows the quantum circuit that allows for a indirect measurement of the expectation values of ( [ eq : gammas ] ) in their general form by coupling the cv system to an ancilla qubit and performing controlled unitary operations . in the following , we assume that the spectrum of the operators @xmath214 is bounded by one .
let us define the following povm elements ( effects ) : @xmath236 which satisfy the relation @xmath237 .
the probability to obtain the outcome @xmath238 or @xmath239 is thus given by @xmath240 or @xmath241 , respectively , and we can calculate @xmath242 . hence , the expectation value of every @xmath214 can always be measured in terms of a two - valued povm .
more generally , if the spectrum of @xmath214 is bounded between @xmath243 and @xmath244 , one can simply rescale the spectrum of the corresponding povm to reproduce the same argument @xcite .    ) .
@xmath122 depict hadamard gates and a controlled unitary gate @xmath245 is applied if the ancilla is in the state @xmath246 .
the expectation value of ( [ eq : gammas ] ) is given by @xmath247 , where @xmath248 ( @xmath249 ) are the probabilities of detecting the ancilla in the state @xmath246 ( @xmath250 ) .
in the case of the specific example mentioned in the text we choose @xmath251 , @xmath12 , @xmath13 .
( b ) proposal of an experimental implementation of circuit ( a ) using the spatial field of single photons passing through a mach - zehnder interferometer .
controlled unitaries are realized by linear optical transformations inserted in one arm of the interferometer .
unitaries of the form @xmath252 or @xmath253 can be implemented using a slm and lenses ( l ) allowing us to switch from the position to the momentum space . ]
consider the quantum circuit shown in fig .
[ fig_4](a ) which implements the operation @xmath254 on the initial state @xmath255 . hence , by measuring the ancilla state in the basis @xmath256 , we project the system state onto @xmath257 with the probability @xmath258 , which is equivalent to measuring the povm @xmath259 with the corresponding effects @xmath260 . with a general unitary operator @xmath261 , where @xmath262 is a real function of position and momentum operator ,
we can also write @xmath263\}$ ] , leading to @xmath264\rangle}$ ] . now , in order to measure any of the observables @xmath214 , we define @xmath265 , with the corresponding phase - space operator @xmath266 ( see appendix  [ app : conditions ] ) , yielding @xmath267 .
the above measurement strategy can be straightforwardly implemented with single photons passing through balanced mach - zehnder interferometers , as depicted in fig .
[ fig_4](b ) .
therein , the spatial distribution of the single photons represent the cv system and the path of the interferometer the state of the ancilla .
controlled unitary operations are realized via linear optical elements placed in one of the arms of the interferometer , and measurements of the ancilla state by detecting photons that exit form one of the two output ports using single photon bucket detectors .
a slm , with the option of additionally placing it in the fourier plane between to lenses , allows us to perform arbitrary position or momentum phase gates , @xmath268 or @xmath269 , where @xmath270 is user defined on the slm .
as discussed previously @xmath25 and @xmath26 can be considered as the near- and far - field variables with respect to the output plane of the source .
phase gates @xmath271 in terms of an arbitrary quadrature @xmath272 can be realized through fractional fourier transform before and after the slm @xcite .
hence , we have the ability to implement a broad class of unitaries on the spatial distribution of the photons allowing us to measure expectation values through @xmath273}\rangle}$ ] , yielding @xmath274 .
at this point we note that the direct measurement of the observables @xmath214 , as described in this section , is less expensive in terms of the number of measurements needed in order to determine the expectation values @xmath274 , as compared to the indirect measurement strategy introduced in the previous section @xcite .
moreover , there is no need for a spatially resolving detection of the photons .
we presented a general framework which allows us to encode , manipulate and readout discrete quantum information in phase space in terms of continuous variables states .
this is possible by using the modular variables formalism that naturally leads to an intuitive definition of a qubit and the necessary universal manipulations .
we demonstrate its strong relationship with the gkp formalism , and show that as far as one is interested in performing quantum protocols involving expectation values of bounded periodic observables , so called modular variables , it is possible to encode binary quantum information in more general states than the gkp ones . a possible experimental implementation using the transverse degrees of freedom of single photons
was discussed , as well .    from a fundamental point of view , our framework shows how to reveal naturally discrete structures of states and operations written in a continuous variable representation .
furthermore , it provides a unifying formalism that shows how , in general , measurements of modular variables can be employed in quantum information protocols .
finally , an application of our ideas in hybrid quantum systems , which use cv besides some discrete degree of freedom , as is the case for single photons , could be advantageous for future experimental implementations of quantum information protocols .
the authors are indebted to f. de melo , o. jimnez faras , l. aolita , a. d. ribeiro , n. menicucci , r. n. alexander , g. ferrini , a. laversanne - finot and t. douce for inspiring discussions .
the authors acknowledge financial support by anr / cnpq hide , anr comb , faperj , cnpq and capes / cofecub project ph 855 - 15 .
to show , that every state in the modular representation can indeed be written as in eq .
( [ eq : generalstate ] ) , we start from eq .
( [ app : eq : modvarstate ] ) and split the integration over @xmath8 into two equally sized domains : @xmath275 next , we redefine the complex modular wave function @xmath276 in the following way : @xmath277 where @xmath278 is complex amplitude , and @xmath279 , @xmath280 and @xmath63 are real functions , all defined on the domain @xmath281 .
these functions directly relate to the modular wave function @xmath282 through : @xmath283 and @xmath284 hence , we can express every state as : @xmath285 with @xmath286 later on we will , for technical reasons , express certain operators in a slightly modified basis defined as @xmath287 , which involve additional @xmath9-dependent phase factors which can be absorbed in the definition of the wave function @xmath60 . in the case of the above discussed example of a comb of gaussian spikes with gaussian enelope @xmath60 becomes a gaussians with periodic boundary conditions .
note that it is equivalently possible to define such a qubit structure in terms of the modular momentum @xmath9 . in this case , one splits the integration over @xmath9 , in eq .
( [ eqn : arbstate ] ) , into two parts and obtains a similar result to eqs .
( [ app : eq : contqubitrep1 ] ) and ( [ app : eq : contqubitrep2 ] ) , now with @xmath288 where the @xmath26-subscripts in eq .
( [ app : eq : contqubitrep3 ] ) refer to the splitting with respect to @xmath9 .
furthermore , this intrinsic qubit structure can be generalized to qudit systems by splitting the integration in eq .
( [ eqn : arbstate ] ) into @xmath124-parts instead of two , as discussed also in @xcite .
however , in the context of this work we will restrict ourselves to the above presented case of @xmath289 .
the readout of the encoded logical state can be performed using the observables defined in eq .
( [ eq : gammas ] ) of the main text . for convenience ,
we reproduce their definition here : @xmath290 where @xmath291 where @xmath140 are real functions defined on the domain @xmath64 . in sec .
[ app : conditions ] we will show which class of general phase space operators @xmath154 obey such a representation , however , for the moment we take their form as granted to discuss several important properties .
first , we note that the matrix elements of the operators ( [ app : eq : sigx ] ) , ( [ app : eq : sigz ] ) and ( [ app : eq : sigy ] ) read :    @xmath292 , \label{eqapp : sigzxpmatel}\\ \langle\bar x ' , \bar p ' | \hat\sigma_{x}(\bar x_0 , \bar p_0 ) |\bar x , \bar p\rangle&=\delta(\bar p-\bar p_0 ) \delta(\bar p'-\bar p_0 ) \nonumber \\ & \times \left[\delta(\bar x'-\bar x_0)\delta(\bar x-\frac{\ell}{2}-\bar x_0)e^{-i\bar p\ell/2 } + \delta(\bar x'-\frac{\ell}{2}-\bar x_0)\delta(\bar x-\bar x_0)e^{i\bar p\ell/2}\right],\label{eqapp : sigxxpmatel } \\
\langle\bar x ' , \bar p ' | \hat\sigma_{y}(\bar x_0 , \bar p_0 ) |\bar x , \bar p\rangle&=-i\delta(\bar p-\bar p_0 ) \delta(\bar p'-\bar p_0 ) \nonumber \\ & \times\left[\delta(\bar x'-\bar x_0)\delta(\bar x-\frac{\ell}{2}-\bar x_0)e^{-i\bar p\ell/2 } -\delta(\bar x'-\frac{\ell}{2}-\bar x_0)\delta(\bar x-\bar x_0)e^{i\bar p\ell/2}\right].\label{eqapp : sigyxpmatel}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    now , using eqs .
( [ app : eq : sigx])-([eqapp : sigyxpmatel ] ) , we can show that the @xmath293-dependent pauli matrices @xmath294 , with @xmath295 , fulfill the relation : @xmath296 \label{eq : xppaulirelation}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath297 and @xmath298 .
the relation ( [ eq : xppaulirelation ] ) resembles the one of a real pauli algebra with additional @xmath31 functions ensuring that the products of pauli operators corresponding to different subspaces , labeled by @xmath293 and @xmath299 , respectively , vanish .
further on , we can calculate the expectation value of the observables ( [ app : eq : gammas ] ) with respect to an arbitrary cv state expressed in the modular representation ( [ app : eq : approxgkp ] ) , yielding :      in the second step of the computation ( [ eqapp : expecgammax ] ) we dropped terms that are proportional to cross products of @xmath31 functions as , for instance , @xmath301 , because , upon integration of @xmath302 and @xmath303 over the interval @xmath55 , such terms are only nonzero in a single point being a set of measure zero , and thus the integration vanishes .
equivalently , the expectation values of the observables @xmath304 and @xmath187 read : @xmath305 or in vector notation we can write @xmath306 with @xmath307 further on , by summing over the squares of the expectation values ( [ eqapp : expecgammax ] ) , ( [ eq : expecgammay ] ) and ( [ eq : expecgammaz ] ) we can show :    @xmath308 \nonumber   \\ \leq & \big ( \max_{\bar x,\bar p,\beta}|\zeta_\beta{(\bar x,\bar p)}|\big)^2   \iint_{-\ell/4}^{\ell/4}d\bar x \bar x ' \iint_{-\pi/\ell}^{\pi/\ell } d\bar p d\bar p '   |f(\bar x , \bar p ) |^2 |f(\bar x ' , \bar p ' ) |^2   \nonumber \\ & \times\underbrace { \frac{1}{2}\left[\sum_{\beta = x , y , z}v_\beta^2 ( \bar x,\bar p)+\sum_{\beta = x , y , z } v_\beta^2 ( \bar x',\bar p ' )   \right]}_{=1 } \nonumber \\ = & \big ( \max_{\bar x,\bar p,\beta}|\zeta_\beta{(\bar x,\bar p)}|\big)^2 \left(\int_{-\ell/4}^{\ell/4}d\bar x \int_{-\pi/\ell}^{\pi/\ell } d\bar p \ |f ( \bar x , \bar p)|^2 \right)^2    \leq \big ( \max_{\bar x,\bar p,\beta}|\zeta_\beta{(\bar x,\bar p)}|\big)^2 , \label{eqn : expecgammaapp}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where we use that @xmath309 ^ 2\geq 0 $ ] and that the bloch vector of a pure qubit state is normalized to @xmath310 . for the example discussed in the main text , we have @xmath311 , which shows that @xmath312 is contained in a unit sphere .      let s consider an arbitrary observable in phase space , _ i.e. _ a valid function of the position and momentum operator , expressed in the modular basis : @xmath313 with the matrix elements @xmath314 , which , by using the definition of the modular eigenstates in eq .
( [ app : eq : modvareigenstates ] ) , can be expressed as @xmath315 further on , if we assume that the function @xmath154 is periodic with respect to @xmath171 and @xmath172 with period @xmath33 and @xmath10 , respectively , we can rewrite it as a double fourier series : @xmath316 where @xmath157 are the complex fourier coefficients obeying the normalization condition @xmath158 , and we have , by definition , @xmath317 . in the following , we discuss how one can construct the observables ( [ app : eq : gammas ] ) from periodic operators of the form @xmath154 .      to start , we assume a modular operator that is diagonal in the modular position and momentum with the following matrix elements : @xmath318 which fulfill the periodicity condition @xmath319
. then we obtain @xmath320 where we defined ( for @xmath321 and @xmath322 ) @xmath323 with the phases @xmath324 which , up to now , can assume any value .
now , if we assume a phase space operator of the form ( [ app : eq : doublefourier ] ) , with @xmath325 , and use eq .
( [ app : eq : genmodvarop2 ] ) we get @xmath326 where we used @xmath327 . we thus find that periodic phase space operators with periodicity @xmath33 and @xmath10 in @xmath171 and @xmath172 , respectively , lead to diagonal operators in the modular representation with matrix elements @xmath328 . moreover , to obtain the operator @xmath187 , the condition @xmath329 needs to be enforced as well .
the latter is true if @xmath330 , for all even @xmath199 , leading to the following form of the diagonal elements in eq .
( [ eq : fzdiagel ] ) : @xmath331 which correspond to the phase space observable : @xmath332 hence , with eq .
( [ eq : fzobservable ] ) we provide a specific class of modular variables which in the modular representation can be expressed in the form of @xmath187 , with @xmath333 chosen according to eq .
( [ eq : f_z ] ) .
a particular example of the observable ( [ eq : fzobservable ] ) is given by choosing only two nonzero coefficients @xmath334 and @xmath335 , leading to @xmath336 and @xmath337 .
further on , we want to find the conditions on the general periodic phase space operator ( [ app : eq : doublefourier ] ) , such that it can be brought in the form ( [ app : eq : gammaxcond ] ) .
therefore , we assume @xmath344 and @xmath330 , for all even @xmath211 , which yields : @xmath345 , \label{app : eq : matrixelex}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where we split up the domain of @xmath346 with the two rectangular functions @xmath347 and @xmath348 , defined in terms of the heaviside stepfunction @xmath349 . with this eq .
( [ app : eq : matrixelex ] ) becomes : @xmath350 \nonumber \\ = & \tilde f_x(\bar x,\bar p ) \delta(\bar p-\bar p ' ) \nonumber \\ & \times\left\{\begin{array}{llrl } e^{+i\bar p\ell/2}\ , \delta(\bar x+\ell/2-\bar x ' ) , & \mathrm{for } & -\frac{\ell}{4}&\le \bar{x } \le \frac{\ell}{4 } \\
e^{-i\bar p\ell/2}\ , \delta(\bar x-\ell/2-\bar x ' ) , & \mathrm{for } & \frac{\ell}{4}&\le \bar{x } \le \frac{3\ell}{4 } \end{array}\right .
, \label{app : eq : matrixelex1}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath351 we thus find that all operators of the form @xmath352 where we set @xmath344 and @xmath330 , for all even @xmath211 , can be expressed as @xmath188 with @xmath353 and @xmath354 .
an example of eq .
( [ eq : fxobservable ] ) is given by the operator @xmath355 , where only @xmath356 and @xmath357 are nonzero , which is equal to @xmath188 with @xmath358 .
finally , we consider a modular operator defined by the matrix elements @xmath359 with the periodicity properties @xmath360 and @xmath361 , leading to @xmath362   \nonumber \\    & = \int_{-\ell/4}^{\ell/4 } d\bar x \int_{-\pi/\ell}^{\pi/\ell } d\bar p   \ , \tilde f_y(\bar x,\bar p ) \hat\sigma_x(\bar x , \bar p ) \equiv \hat\gamma_y.\end{aligned}\ ] ] where we defined @xmath363 with @xmath364 .
further on , consider the phase space operator ( [ app : eq : doublefourier ] ) , with @xmath365 and @xmath366 , yielding the matrix elements @xmath367 , \label{app : eq : matrixeley}\end{aligned}\ ] ] with @xmath368 we thus find that all operators of the form @xmath369 where we set @xmath365 , @xmath366 and @xmath330 , for all even @xmath199 and @xmath211 , can be expressed as @xmath304 with @xmath370 and @xmath371 .
an example of eq .
( [ eq : fyobservable ] ) is given by @xmath372 , corresponding to the case where only @xmath373 and @xmath374 are nonzero , which is equal to @xmath304 with @xmath375 .


the yokonuma  hecke algebras ( of type gl ) , denoted @xmath1 , have been used by j. juyumaya and s. lambropoulou to construct invariants for various types of links , in the same spirit as the construction of the homflypt polynomial from usual hecke algebras .
we refer to @xcite and references therein . in particular , the algebras @xmath1 provide invariants for classical links and the natural question was to decide if these invariants were equivalent , or not , to the homflypt polynomial .
this study culminated in the recent discovery @xcite that these invariants are actually topologically stronger than the homflypt polynomial ( _ i.e. _ they distinguish more links ) .    in @xcite , another approach to study invariants coming from yokonuma
hecke algebras was developed .
the starting point was the fact that the algebra @xmath1 is isomorphic to a direct sum of matrix algebras with coefficients in tensor products of usual hecke algebras .
this allowed an explicit construction of markov traces on @xmath2 from the known markov trace on hecke algebras ( on hecke algebras , there is a unique markov trace up to normalisation , and it gives the homflypt polynomial ) .
in addition to its usefulness for the construction of markov traces , the approach via the isomorphism also helps to study the resulting invariants .
indeed some properties of the invariants follow quite immediately from a precise understanding of the isomorphism ( see paragraph * 4 * below ) .
independently of which approach is used , another ingredient was added in @xcite : a third parameter in the invariants . while the first two parameters come from the algebra @xmath1 , this third parameter @xmath3 has its origin in the framed braid group , and corresponds to a certain degree of freedom one has when going from the framed braid group to the algebra @xmath1 .
more precisely , we can deform the standard surjective morphism from the framed braid group algebra to its quotient @xmath1 into a family of morphisms ( depending on @xmath3 ) respecting the braid relations and the markov conditions .
another way of interpreting the parameter @xmath3 is that it modifies the quadratic relation satisfied by the generators of @xmath1 .
its existence explains ( or is reflected in ) the fact that different presentations for @xmath1 were used before .
lambropoulou invariants correspond to certain specialisations of this parameter @xmath3 , depending on the chosen presentation .
so the parameter @xmath3 unifies every possible choices and yields more general invariants .
it is indicated in ( * ? ? ?
* remark 8.5 ) that changing the presentation seems to give a non - equivalent topological invariant .
.2 cm * 2 . * in this paper , we consider the affine yokonuma
hecke algebras ( of type gl ) , denoted @xmath4 .
they were introduced in @xcite in connections with the representation theory and the jucys
murphy elements of the classical yokonuma  hecke algebras .
our main goal here is to generalise for @xmath4 the whole approach to link invariants via the isomorphism theorem .
the invariants are in general for links in the solid torus .
the classical links are naturally contained in the solid torus links and , restricted to them , the obtained invariants correspond to the invariants obtained in @xcite from @xmath1 ( naturally seen as a subalgebra of @xmath4 ) . specialising the parameter @xmath3
, we identify the juyumaya
lambropoulou invariants among them . for those invariants ,
we emphasize that we recover some known results @xcite by a different method and furthermore obtain some new results already in this particular case .
we start with an isomorphism between the algebra @xmath4 and a direct sum of matrix algebras with coefficients in tensor products of affine hecke algebras .
as done in @xcite , the isomorphism can be proved repeating the same arguments as for @xmath1 ( see @xcite where the proof for @xmath1 is presented , as a particular case of a more general result by g. lusztig @xcite ) . here
we sketch a short different proof for @xmath4 using the known result for @xmath1 .
we also prove the analogous theorem for the cyclotomic quotients of @xmath4 ( with ariki  koike algebras replacing affine hecke algebras ) .
useful for concrete use , the formulas for the generators are simple and given explicitly .    concerning links ,
s. lambropoulou constructed invariants , analogues of the homflypt polynomial , for links in the solid torus from affine hecke algebras @xcite .
then , it was explained in @xcite how to obtain invariants for those links from the algebras @xmath4 , unifying the methods of j. juyumaya and s. lambropoulou for @xmath1 and the construction of s. lambropoulou for affine hecke algebras .
due to the recent results of @xcite , it is expected that the invariants obtained from @xmath4 are stronger than the ones obtained from affine hecke algebras .    here
we follow the alternative approach which uses the isomorphism to construct markov traces on the family of algebras @xmath5 . to sum up ,
the markov traces are constructed and can be calculated with the following steps : for an element of @xmath4 , apply first the isomorphic map to obtain an element of the direct sum of matrix algebras ; then , for each matrix , apply the usual trace which results in an element of a tensor product of affine hecke algebras ; finally apply a tensor product of markov traces on affine hecke algebras .
our result consists in obtaining the compatibility conditions relating the markov traces appearing in different matrix algebras so that the preceding procedure eventually results in a genuine markov trace on @xmath5 .    with the definition used here , for a given @xmath6 , the set of markov traces on @xmath5 forms a vector space .
from the isomorphism , a set of distinguished markov traces appears naturally , which spans the set of all markov traces constructed here .
thus , our study of markov traces ( and of invariants ) is reduced to the study of these  basic " markov traces ( and of the corresponding  basic " invariants ) .
it turns out that these basic markov traces are indexed , for a given @xmath6 , by the non - empty subsets @xmath7 together with a choice , denoted formally by @xmath8 , of @xmath9 arbitrary markov traces on affine hecke algebras .
we note that if we restrict to @xmath1 , the parameter @xmath8 disappears and the basic markov traces on @xmath2 are indexed , for a given @xmath6 , only by the non - empty subsets @xmath7 .
this recovers a result of @xcite .
.2 cm * 3 .
* throughout the paper , we intended to give in details the connections between the two approaches , so that one would be able to pass easily from one to the other .
this will allow in particular to specialise and translate all our results on the invariants to juyumaya
lambropoulou invariants as well .    roughly speaking
, j. juyumaya and s. lambropoulou constructed invariants from @xmath1 in two steps @xcite .
the same approach was followed in @xcite for @xmath4 .
first a certain trace map , analogous to the ocneanu trace and satisfying a certain positive markov condition , was constructed .
then a rescaling procedure was implemented , in order to produce genuine invariants .
the rescaling procedure amounts to two things : a renormalisation of the generators and a renormalisation , depending on @xmath10 , of the trace . in the approach presented here , the first step is included from the beginning in a more general quadratic relation for the generators .
the second step is already included in the definition of a markov trace , namely that it is a family , on @xmath10 , of trace maps satisfying the two markov conditions . as a consequence , to obtain invariants here , one directly applies the markov trace and no rescaling procedure is needed .    for the comparison ,
our first task is to explain that juyumaya
lambropoulou approach is equivalent to considering certain markov traces ( with the definition used here ) and to relate their variables with the parameters considered here .
then we need to identify these markov traces in terms of the ones constructed via the isomorphism theorem .
we obtain finally the explicit decomposition of these markov traces in terms of the basic markov traces indexed by @xmath7 and @xmath8 as above .
in particular , for @xmath1 , this results in an explicit formula for the juyumaya  lambropoulou invariants , as studied in @xcite , in terms of the basic invariants constructed here .
we note that , in this case , the parameter @xmath8 is not present , and that juyumaya
lambropoulou invariants are also parametrised , for a given @xmath6 , by non - empty subsets of @xmath11 .
nevertheless , they do not coincide with the basic invariants and the comparison formula is not trivial ( see formulas ( [ compare2 ] ) in section [ sec - inv ] ) . in general , for @xmath4 , we obtain the expression of the invariants constructed in @xcite in terms of the basic invariants constructed here .
concerning the third parameter @xmath3 , we recall that it was not present in the previous approach . actually
, one need to specialise it to a certain value in our invariants to recover the juyumaya
 lambropoulou invariants .
the two different presentations of @xmath1 that were used , as in @xcite , correspond to two different values of @xmath3 that we give explicitly . similarly , for @xmath4 , the invariants constructed in @xcite correspond to a certain specialisation of @xmath3 .
.2 cm * 4 . *
we conclude this introduction by describing the main properties obtained for the invariants .
as explained before , they follow quite directly from a precise understanding of the isomorphism , and are expressed easily in terms of the basic invariants defined here .
the main results are :    * for @xmath6 and a non - empty subset @xmath7 , the corresponding invariants coincide with invariants corresponding to @xmath12 and the full set @xmath13 .
therefore , we only have to consider the full sets @xmath11 for different @xmath6 . *
further , given a number @xmath0 of connected components of a link , the invariants corresponding to @xmath11 are zero if @xmath14 .
so , given @xmath0 , we only have to consider @xmath15 .
moreover , with the comparison results explained in paragraph * 3 * , it is easy to deduce the similar properties for invariants obtained via juyumaya
lambropoulou approach .
the first item remains true as it is .
the second item results in an explicit formula expressing , if @xmath14 , the invariants corresponding to @xmath11 in terms of the invariants corresponding to @xmath13 with @xmath16 .
specialising @xmath17 to the appropriate values and restricting to classical links , we recover with the first item a result of @xcite .
the second item in this case was proved only for @xmath18 also in @xcite .
let @xmath19 and @xmath20 and @xmath21 be indeterminates .
we work over the ring @xmath22 $ ] .
the properties of the affine yokonuma  hecke algebras recalled here can be found in @xcite .
we use @xmath23 to denote the symmetric group on @xmath10 elements , and @xmath24 to denote the transposition @xmath25 . the affine yokonuma
hecke algebra @xmath4 is generated by elements @xmath26 subject to the following defining relations ( [ def - aff1])([def - aff3 ] ) : @xmath27 g_ig_{i+1}g_i & = & g_{i+1}g_ig_{i+1 } & & \mbox{for $ i=1,\ldots , n-2$,}\\[0.1em ] x_1\,g_1x_1g_1 & =   & g_1x_1g_1\,x_1   & & \\[0.1em ] x_1g_i & = & g_ix_1 & & \mbox{for $ i=2,\ldots , n-1$,}\\[0.1em ] \end{array}\ ] ] @xmath28 g_it_j & = & t_{s_i(j)}g_i & & \mbox{for $ i=1,\ldots , n-1 $ and $ j=1,\ldots , n$,}\\[0.1em ] t_j^d    & =   &   1 & & \mbox{for $ j=1,\ldots , n$,}\\[0.2em ] x_1t_j & = & t_jx_1 & & \mbox{for $ j=1,\ldots , n$ , } \end{array}\ ] ] @xmath29 where @xmath30 .
the elements @xmath31 are idempotents and we have : @xmath32    let @xmath33 and let @xmath34 be a reduced expression for @xmath35 . since the generators @xmath36 of @xmath4 satisfy the same braid relations as the generators @xmath24 of @xmath23 , matsumoto s lemma implies that the following element does not depend on the reduced expression of @xmath35 : @xmath37    elements @xmath38 of @xmath4 are defined inductively by @xmath39 the elements @xmath40 commute with each other .
they also commute with the generators @xmath41 and they satisfy @xmath42 if @xmath43 .    for @xmath44
, we set @xmath45 .
the following set of elements forms a basis of @xmath4 : @xmath46 this fact has the following consequences :    @xmath47 recall that the yokonuma
hecke algebra @xmath1 is presented by generators @xmath48 , @xmath41 and defining relations those in ( [ def - aff1])([def - aff3 ] ) which do not involve the generator @xmath49 .
we have that @xmath1 is isomorphic to the subalgebra of @xmath4 generated by @xmath50 ( hence the common names for the generators ) .
@xmath47 in particular , the commutative subalgebra @xmath51 of @xmath4 generated by @xmath41 is isomorphic to the group algebra of @xmath52 .
@xmath47 by definition , the affine hecke algebra ( of type gl ) is @xmath53 .
we have , for any @xmath6 , that the quotient of @xmath4 by the relations @xmath54 , @xmath55 , is isomorphic to @xmath56 .
we denote by @xmath57 the corresponding surjective morphism from @xmath4 to @xmath56 , and the generators of @xmath56 are denoted @xmath58 .
@xmath47 the subalgebra of @xmath56 generated by @xmath59 is the usual hecke algebra , denoted @xmath60 .
we also have @xmath61 .
let @xmath62 be the set of _
@xmath63-compositions _ of @xmath10 , that is the set of @xmath63-tuples @xmath64 such that @xmath65 .
we denote @xmath66 .    for @xmath66 ,
the young subgroup @xmath67 is the subgroup @xmath68 of @xmath69 , where @xmath70 acts on the letters @xmath71 , @xmath72 acts on the letters @xmath73 , and so on .
the subgroup @xmath67 is generated by the transpositions @xmath24 with @xmath74 .
we denote by @xmath75 the algebra @xmath76 ( by convention @xmath77 $ ] ) .
it is isomorphic to the subalgebra of @xmath56 generated by @xmath78 and @xmath79 , with @xmath80 , and is a free submodule with basis @xmath81 .
similarly , we have a subalgebra @xmath82 of the hecke algebra @xmath60 .
it is naturally a subalgebra of @xmath75 ( generated only by @xmath79 , with @xmath80 ) .    for @xmath66 ,
let @xmath83 be the index of the young subgroup @xmath67 in @xmath23 , that is , @xmath84 we define the _ socle _ @xmath85 of a @xmath63-composition @xmath86 by @xmath87 0 &   \text{if $ \mu_a=0 $ , } \end{array}\right.\ \ \ \ \ \
\text{for $ a=1,\dots , d$.}\ ] ] the composition @xmath85 belongs to @xmath88 where @xmath0 is the number of non - zero parts in @xmath86 .
we denote by @xmath89 the set of all socles of @xmath63-compositions , or in other words , @xmath89 is the set of @xmath63-compositions whose parts belong to @xmath90 .
we note that there is a one - to - one correspondence between the set @xmath89 and the set of non - empty subsets of @xmath11 , given by @xmath91 0 &   \text{if $ a\notin s$. } \end{array}\right.\ ] ]      let @xmath93 be the set of roots of unity of order @xmath63 .
a complex character @xmath94 of the group @xmath52 is characterised by the choice of @xmath95 for each @xmath96 .
we denote by @xmath97 the set of complex characters of @xmath52 , extended to the subalgebra @xmath98 of @xmath4 .    for each @xmath99
, we denote by @xmath100 the primitive idempotent of @xmath92 associated to @xmath94 .
then the set @xmath101 is a basis of @xmath92 .
therefore , from the basis ( [ basis ] ) of @xmath4 , we obtain the following other basis of @xmath4 : @xmath102    [ [ permutations - pi_chi . ] ] * permutations @xmath103 . * + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    let @xmath104 . for @xmath105 , we let @xmath106 be the number of elements @xmath107 such that @xmath108 . then the sequence @xmath109 is a @xmath63-composition of @xmath10 which we denote by @xmath110 .    for a given @xmath66 , we consider a particular character @xmath111 such that @xmath112 .
the character @xmath113 is defined by @xmath114 \chi_0^{\mu } ( t_{\mu_1 + 1})&=&\ldots & = & \chi_0^{\mu } ( t_{\mu_1+\mu_2})&= & \xi_2\ , \\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots   \\ \chi_0^{\mu } ( t_{\mu_1+\dots+\mu_{d-1}+1})&=&\ldots & = & \chi_0^{\mu } ( t_{n})&= & \xi_d\ .\\ \end{array}\right.\ ] ] the symmetric group @xmath23 acts on the set @xmath97 by the formula @xmath115 .
the stabilizer of @xmath113 under the action of @xmath23 is the young subgroup @xmath67 . in each left coset in @xmath116
, there is a unique representative of minimal length .
so , for any @xmath104 such that @xmath117 , we define a permutation @xmath118 by requiring that @xmath103 is the element of minimal length such that : @xmath119
we present isomorphism theorems for the algebras @xmath4 and their cyclotomic quotients .
we sketch a short proof , which uses the corresponding result for @xmath1 ( see ( * ? ? ?
* section 3.1 ) ) .
we are still working over @xmath22 $ ] .      for @xmath66 , we consider the algebra @xmath120 of matrices of size @xmath83 with coefficients in @xmath75 .
we recall that @xmath83 , given by ( [ mmu ] ) , is the number of characters @xmath104 such that @xmath117 .
so we index the rows and columns of a matrix in @xmath120 by such characters .
moreover , for two characters @xmath121 such that @xmath122 , we denote by @xmath123 the matrix in @xmath120 with 1 in line @xmath94 and column @xmath124 , and 0 everywhere else .
[ theo - iso ] the affine yokonuma
hecke algebra @xmath4 is isomorphic to @xmath125 , the isomorphism being given on the elements of the basis ( [ e - basis ] ) by @xmath126 where @xmath104 , @xmath127 and @xmath128 ( @xmath129 is the length function on @xmath23 ) .
we start with explicit formulas for the images of the generators of @xmath4 given below in ( [ form - t])([form - g ] ) , and we check that the images of the generators satisfy all the defining relations ( [ def - aff1])([def - aff3 ] ) of @xmath4 . for the relations not involving the generator @xmath49 ,
this is already known from the isomorphism theorem for @xmath1 .
we omit the remaining straightforward verifications .
thus , formulas ( [ form - t])([form - g ] ) induce a morphism of algebras , and we check that it coincides with @xmath130 given by ( [ iso - aff ] ) . again , for the images of the elements of the basis of the form @xmath131 , this is already known from the @xmath1 situation .
the multiplication by @xmath132 is straightforward .
it remains to check that @xmath130 is bijective .
the surjectivity follows from a direct inspection of formula ( [ form - x ] ) together with the already known fact that every @xmath133 is in the image of @xmath130 .
the injectivity can be checked directly .
indeed , assume that a certain linear combination @xmath134 is in the kernel of @xmath130 . then for every @xmath135 , we obtain that @xmath136 where the sum is over @xmath137 such that @xmath138 . for @xmath139 satisfying this condition
, we have @xmath140 if and only if @xmath141 , and therefore every coefficients in the above sum are @xmath142 .    [ [ formulas - for - the - generators . ] ] * formulas for the generators . * + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    here , we give the images under the isomorphism @xmath130 of the generators of @xmath4 .
we recall that @xmath143 in @xmath4 , the sum being over @xmath97 .
let @xmath104 and set @xmath144 .
then , by definition of @xmath103 , it is straightforward to see that @xmath145 , where @xmath146 and @xmath147 .
* let @xmath148 .
we have : @xmath149 it follows that the image of @xmath31 , @xmath150 , is a sum of diagonal matrices ; the coefficient in position @xmath94 is 1 if @xmath151 , and 0 otherwise .
* let @xmath148 .
we have : @xmath152 * let @xmath153 .
we have : @xmath154 { \boldsymbol{1}}_{\chi,\chi}\,\og_{\pi_{\chi}^{-1}(i ) } & \text{if $ s_i(\chi)=\chi$\ . } \end{array}\right.\ ] ] the first line follows from @xmath155 if @xmath156 . the second line follows from @xmath157 if @xmath158 .
let @xmath159\backslash\{0\}$ ] be an @xmath160-tuple of non - zero parameters for a certain @xmath161 ( equivalently , one could consider @xmath162 as indeterminates and work over the extended ring @xmath163 $ ] ) . the cyclotomic yokonuma
hecke algebra @xmath164 is the quotient of the affine yokonuma
hecke algebra @xmath4 by the relation @xmath165 it is shown in @xcite that the algebra @xmath164 is a free @xmath22$]-module with basis @xmath166 in particular , if @xmath167 , @xmath164 is isomorphic to the yokonuma
hecke algebra @xmath1 .
similarly , the cyclotomic hecke algebra @xmath168 ( or the ariki  koike algebra ) is the quotient of the affine hecke algebra @xmath169 by the relation @xmath170 .
equivalently , it is the quotient of the cyclotomic yokonuma
hecke algebra @xmath164 by the relations @xmath54 , @xmath55 .
it is a free @xmath22$]-module with basis @xmath171 .    for @xmath66 , we set @xmath172 . by definition , @xmath173 is the quotient of the algebra @xmath75 by the relations @xmath174    the cyclotomic yokonuma
hecke algebra @xmath164 is isomorphic to the direct sum @xmath175 .
let @xmath176 be the ( two - sided ) ideal of @xmath4 generated by the left hand side of the relation ( [ rel - cyc ] ) .
for @xmath66 , let @xmath177 be the ideal of @xmath75 generated by the left hand sides of the relations ( [ rel - cyc - mu ] ) .
the corollary follows from theorem [ theo - iso ] together with the fact that @xmath178 .
it remains to check this fact .
the inclusion  @xmath179 " follows at once from formula ( [ form - x ] ) for @xmath180 . for the other inclusion , let @xmath66 .
let @xmath181 such that @xmath182 , so that there is a character @xmath94 with @xmath117 and @xmath183 .
again , formula ( [ form - x ] ) for @xmath180 gives @xmath184 .
therefore , for every generators of @xmath177 , we have in @xmath185 a matrix in @xmath186 with the generator as one diagonal element and @xmath142 everywhere else .
as @xmath185 is an ideal , this shows that @xmath187 is included in @xmath185 .
from now on , we extend the ground ring @xmath22 $ ] to @xmath188 $ ] , and we consider our algebras over this extended ring .      a markov trace on the family of algebras @xmath5 is a family of linear functions @xmath190\}_{n\geq1}$ ] satisfying : @xmath191 \rho_{d , n+1}(xg_n)=\rho_{d , n+1}(xg_n^{-1})=\rho_{d , n}(x)\ , \quad & \text{$n\geq1 $ and $ x\in \hy_{d , n}$. } \end{array}\ ] ] a markov trace on the family of algebras @xmath192 is a family of linear functions @xmath193\}_{n\geq1}$ ] satisfying : @xmath194 \tau_{n+1}(x\og_n)=\tau_{n+1}(x\og_n^{-1})=\tau_n(x)\ , \quad & \text{$n\geq1 $ and $ x\in \hh_{n}$. } \end{array}\ ] ]    recall the definition of @xmath89 from section [ sec - def ] . for each @xmath195 and each @xmath181 such that @xmath196 , we choose a markov trace @xmath197 on @xmath189 . by convention , @xmath198 $ ] and maps of the form @xmath199 are identities on @xmath200 .
below in ( [ rho - n ] ) , each term in the sum over @xmath66 acts on @xmath120 .
we skip the proof of the following theorem .
it can be done exactly as in ( * ? ? ?
* lemma 5.4 ) .
[ theo - mark ] the following maps form a markov trace on @xmath5 : @xmath201    roughly speaking , to construct a markov trace on @xmath4 , after having applied the isomorphism @xmath130 and the usual trace of a matrix , we must choose and apply a markov trace on each component of @xmath202 for each @xmath86 .
this choice of markov traces is restricted : if @xmath86 and @xmath203 have the same number of non - zero components , the chosen markov traces must coincide ; otherwise , they can be chosen independently .    [
[ basic - markov - traces . ] ] * basic markov traces .
* + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    recall the bijection ( [ bij - soc ] ) between @xmath89 and non - empty subsets of @xmath204 . following the theorem
, we define some distinguished markov traces as follows :    * choose a non - empty @xmath7 and consider the associated @xmath205 . choose a markov trace @xmath206 on @xmath189 for each @xmath207 , and set @xmath208 , @xmath209 , in ( [ rho - n ] ) .
* then , in ( [ rho - n ] ) , set all other markov traces @xmath197 with @xmath210 to be @xmath142 .
we denote formally the choice of markov traces in the first item by @xmath8 and denote by @xmath211 the resulting markov trace on @xmath5 .
we call it a _ basic _ markov trace .
every markov traces constructed in the preceding theorem is a linear combination of basic markov traces @xmath211 , where @xmath212 and @xmath8 vary .
a map on @xmath4 can be seen , up to @xmath130 , as acting on the direct sum of matrix algebras .
this way , for a given @xmath212 , the maps @xmath213 are non - zero only on the summands @xmath120 such that @xmath214 , that is , such that @xmath215 if and only if @xmath207 . as examples :    * if @xmath216 then @xmath213 is non - zero only on @xmath120 , for @xmath217 with @xmath10 in position @xmath218 . in this case ,
@xmath219 ; * we will see that it is enough to consider the situation @xmath220 . in this case
, @xmath213 is non - zero only on @xmath120 , for @xmath86 with all parts different from 0 .
[ rem - mark ] * ( i ) * by restriction to the subalgebra @xmath1 of @xmath4 , a markov trace on @xmath5 reduces to a markov trace on @xmath2 ( and similarly for @xmath56 and @xmath60 ) . on @xmath221 , there is a unique markov trace up to a normalisation factor .
therefore , the choice of the markov traces @xmath222 in the theorem above reduces , for @xmath1 , to a choice of an overall factor @xmath223 for each @xmath195 .
this is the result proved in @xcite .
in other words , for @xmath1 , the basic markov traces are parametrised by @xmath89 , or equivalently , by the non - empty subsets of @xmath11 .    *
( ii ) * let @xmath224 be the space of markov traces on @xmath225 .
the space spanned by the basic markov traces @xmath213 is isomorphic to @xmath226 if we restrict to a subspace of @xmath224 of dimension @xmath227 , we obtain a space of markov traces on @xmath228 of dimension @xmath229 . in particular , for @xmath1 , the dimension is @xmath230 .
we note that a full description of the space @xmath224 does not seem to be known ( and similarly for the cyclotomic quotients @xmath168 others than @xmath60 ) .
let @xmath3 be another indeterminate .
we work from now on over the ring @xmath231 $ ] and we consider now all algebras over this extended ring @xmath232 .
we sketch a construction of invariants with values in @xmath232 for @xmath233-framed solid torus links .
we refer to @xcite for definitions and fundamental results ( as the analogues of alexander and markov theorems ) concerning solid torus links and their @xmath233-framed versions .
note that any invariant for @xmath233-framed links is also an invariant of non - framed links , simply by considering links with all framings equal to 0 .
the set of classical links is naturally included in the set of solid torus links ( in other words , the braid group is naturally a subgroup of the affine braid group ) .
the construction here includes , by restriction to the subalgebras @xmath1 , the construction for @xmath233-framed classical links explained in ( * ? ? ?
* section 6 ) . as the construction and
the results equally apply to the classical and the solid torus situations , we will simply use the word _
link _ to refer to both types of links .      as in @xcite
, we denote by @xmath234 the affine braid group on @xmath10 strands , and by @xmath235 the @xmath233-framed affine braid group .
the generators of @xmath235 are denoted @xmath236 .
the defining relations are ( [ def - aff1])-([def - aff2 ] ) with @xmath36 replaced by @xmath237 and @xmath49 by @xmath238 .
the algebra @xmath4 is thus a quotient of the group algebra of @xmath235 by the relation ( [ def - aff3 ] ) .
the subgroup of @xmath235 generated by @xmath239 is @xmath234 .
the algebra @xmath169 is a quotient of the group algebra of @xmath234 by the relation @xmath240 , @xmath241 . finally , the subgroup @xmath242 of @xmath234 is the classical braid group .    [
[ invariants - ptau_luv - from - hh_n . ] ] * invariants @xmath243 from @xmath169 . *
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    let @xmath244 be a markov trace on @xmath189 . from the alexander and markov theorems for non - framed links ( see @xcite ) , we construct the invariant @xmath245 , for a link @xmath246 , as follows : @xmath247\ , \ ] ] where @xmath248 is a braid closing to @xmath246 and @xmath249 is the natural morphism from @xmath250 to @xmath56 , given on the generators by @xmath251 , @xmath241 and @xmath252 .    from the fact that there is a unique markov trace ( up to normalisation ) on the usual hecke algebras @xmath253 , all the invariants @xmath254 , restricted to the set of classical links , reduce ( up to normalisation ) to the unique invariant coming from @xmath60 , the homflypt polynomial .
[ [ invariants - p_ldsboldsymboltauuvgamma - from - hy_dn . ] ] * invariants @xmath255 from @xmath4 . * + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    we consider the following map from @xmath256 $ ] to @xmath4 given on the generators by : @xmath257 one proves as in ( * ? ? ?
* section 6 ) that , first , @xmath258 extends to a morphism of algebras , and moreover , that the following procedure defines invariants for @xmath233-framed links .
let @xmath259 be a markov trace on @xmath5 .
for a @xmath233-framed link @xmath246 , the invariant @xmath260 is defined as follows @xmath261 where @xmath248 is a @xmath233-framed braid closing to @xmath246 .    from the preceding section ,
it is enough to consider the basic markov traces @xmath262 .
we denote by @xmath263 the corresponding invariant and refer to it as a _
basic _ invariant .
if we restrict a basic invariant to the set of classical @xmath233-framed links , it does not depend on @xmath8 , and coincides with the invariants constructed in @xcite .
[ quadr - gamma ] in the definition of the maps @xmath258 , a rule @xmath264 would be enough to give a morphism of algebras .
the condition @xmath265 is necessary for the construction of invariants .
we note that , considering the map @xmath258 is equivalent to changing the quadratic relations @xmath266 to @xmath267 .
the role of @xmath3 is therefore to interpolate between different presentations of @xmath4 .
[ [ for - non - framed - links - from - hh_n- . ] ] * for non - framed links from @xmath56 @xcite . *
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    define @xmath268 , @xmath269 , by the following formulas : @xmath270 similarly , we have the images @xmath271 of @xmath272 in @xmath56 .    let @xmath273 $ ] be a set of parameters with @xmath274 . from the results in @xcite ( see remark [ rem - compare0 ] below ) , we have a unique markov trace on @xmath189 , which satisfies in addition @xmath275 the corresponding invariant of non - framed links is denoted @xmath276 .
[ rem - compare0 ] in @xcite , the quadratic relation of @xmath56 was @xmath277 and a certain trace @xmath278 , depending on another parameter @xmath279 was constructed .
setting @xmath280 , an invariant @xmath281 was obtained , by rescaling the generators , @xmath282 , and then rescaling the trace .
this is equivalent , in our approach , to setting @xmath283 in conclusion , we have @xmath284 .    [ [ for - zdz - framed - links - from - hy_dn- . ] ] * for @xmath233-framed links from @xmath4 @xcite . *
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    recall that @xmath93 is the set of @xmath63-th roots of unity .
fix a non - empty subset @xmath285 and , for each @xmath286 , a set @xmath287 of parameters in @xmath188 $ ] with @xmath288 .
denote formally @xmath289 the set @xmath290 with @xmath286 .    from the results of @xcite ( and @xcite in the non - affine case ) , we have a unique markov trace , denoted @xmath291 , on @xmath5 which satisfies in addition , for all @xmath209 , @xmath292 where the parameters @xmath293 are given by @xmath294 the corresponding invariant of @xmath233-framed links , we denote @xmath295 . by restriction to classical @xmath233-framed links , the parameters
@xmath289 do not appear , and we obtain invariants labelled by @xmath63 and @xmath227 , denoted @xmath296 ( see remarks below ) .
[ rem - compare1 ] * ( i ) * in @xcite , the quadratic relation of @xmath4 was @xmath297 and a certain trace @xmath278 , depending on another parameter @xmath279 was constructed . an invariant @xmath298 was obtained . with @xmath299 ,
this is equivalent , in our approach , to setting @xmath300 in conclusion , we have @xmath301 . note that the construction in @xcite corresponds to the particular case @xmath302 here .    *
( ii ) * the restriction of the above procedure to the subalgebra @xmath1 ( the non - affine case ) gives the comparison of invariants constructed here with the invariants studied in @xcite .
the invariants only depend on @xmath63 and @xmath227 ( not on @xmath289 ) , and were denoted in @xcite by @xmath303 .    * ( iii ) * originally , in @xcite , invariants ( in the non - affine case ) were constructed using @xmath1 with a different quadratic equation , namely with @xmath304 .
a certain trace @xmath305 , depending on a parameter @xmath306 was constructed and invariants , denoted @xmath307 in @xcite , were obtained . with the same @xmath308 as above , the rescaling of the generators is now @xmath309 .
a short calculation and comparison with the formula in remark [ quadr - gamma ] shows that @xmath20 and @xmath21 are as in item * ( i ) * , while now @xmath310 . as a conclusion
, we have , for any classical @xmath233-framed link @xmath246 , @xmath311      we fix as above @xmath227 and @xmath289 . it remains to identify the markov trace @xmath291 in terms of the basic markov traces @xmath211 constructed after theorem [ theo - mark ] .
for each @xmath313 , let @xmath8 be obtained by taking , for each @xmath314 , the markov trace @xmath315 in position @xmath218 .
then we have @xmath316    denote @xmath317 the markov trace on @xmath5 defined by the right hand side of ( [ compare1 ] ) . to prove the proposition
, we need to check that condition ( [ cond - x ] ) is satisfied .    for @xmath318
, it is a straightforward verification . for @xmath319
, one may check the equivalent condition @xmath320 .
we note that it is enough to take @xmath321 , where @xmath322 is such that @xmath117 where @xmath214 for some @xmath323 , and such that @xmath324 ( otherwise the condition is @xmath325 ) .
then the condition can be checked by a straightforward calculation of both sides .
one may use : an explicit description of the embedding @xmath326 on the matrix algebras side ( see ( * ? ? ? * section 3.4 ) ) ; and the fact that @xmath327 for @xmath55 ( induction on @xmath328 ) .
we note that formula ( [ compare1 ] ) is a triangular change of basis , with inverse @xmath329 in particular , restricting to @xmath1 , we can forget the parameters @xmath289 on one hand , and the choice @xmath8 on the other .
the proposition expresses the juyumaya
lambropoulou invariant associated to @xmath285 in terms of our basic invariants associated to @xmath7 .
the formulas are ( with notations as in remark [ rem - compare1 ] and coefficients @xmath330 as in ( [ compare1 ] ) ) : @xmath331
as consequences of the construction using the isomorphism theorem , we prove several properties of the constructed invariants , focusing essentially on the non - framed links .
we emphasize that these properties are valid for all non - framed links ( classical and solid torus ) .
let @xmath6 and @xmath212 a non - empty subset of @xmath11 .
we denote @xmath332 .
let @xmath8 be any choice of @xmath333 markov traces on @xmath189 .
the following result says that , for non - framed links , it is enough to consider the situation @xmath220 for each @xmath6
.          let @xmath66 be such that @xmath214 , that is , such that @xmath215 if and only if @xmath207 . to @xmath86 , we associate the composition @xmath338 , where @xmath339 are the non - zero parts of @xmath86 and @xmath340 .
we have @xmath341 and , in turn , @xmath342 and @xmath343 .
let @xmath104 with @xmath117 .
for every @xmath55 , by hypothesis on @xmath86 and @xmath94 , there exists @xmath344 such that @xmath345
. then we set @xmath346 .
this defines a bijection between the characters @xmath104 with @xmath117 and the characters @xmath347 with @xmath348 .
this bijection allows to identify the spaces @xmath120 and @xmath349 .
we have moreover @xmath350 .
recall the formulas ( [ form - x])-([form - g ] ) giving the images of the generators @xmath351 under @xmath130 .
it is then immediate to see that @xmath352 and @xmath353 coincide in the summand @xmath354 , for any @xmath355 in the subalgebra of @xmath4 generated by @xmath351 .
[ rem - compare2 ] here we restrict to a classical non - framed link @xmath246 . with the comparison formulas ( [ compare2 ] ) of the preceding section , a straightforward consequence of proposition [ prop1 ] is the corresponding result for the juyumaya
 lambropoulou invariants .
namely , we have @xmath356 where @xmath357 . in this case , this was proved in ( * ? ? ?
* proposition 4.6 ) by a different approach .
in particular if @xmath358 , we recover the homflypt polynomial .
let @xmath66 and @xmath359 for some @xmath360 .
we will say that @xmath361 is a _ refinement _ of @xmath86 if @xmath362 can be partitioned into @xmath63 disjoint subsets ( possibly empty ) : @xmath363 , such that @xmath364 for all @xmath365 . as examples ,
every composition @xmath366 is a refinement of the composition @xmath367 , while the composition @xmath368 is a refinement of every composition @xmath369 .    for a permutation @xmath370
, we denote @xmath371 the collection of lengths of the cycles of @xmath372 and we consider it as a composition of @xmath10 ( the order is not relevant here ) .
then , it is immediate that a permutation @xmath370 is conjugate to an element of @xmath373 if and only if @xmath371 is a refinement of @xmath86 .    for a @xmath233-framed affine braid @xmath374 , we define its _ underlying permutation _ @xmath375 as the image of @xmath376 by the natural group homomorphism from @xmath235 to @xmath377 ( defined by @xmath378 , @xmath379 and @xmath380 ) .
note that @xmath381 , for @xmath55 .
let @xmath383 . as @xmath258 is a group homomorphism , we have @xmath384 . in @xmath352 ,
in the matrix corresponding to @xmath66 , the coefficient on the diagonal in position @xmath94 is @xmath385 .
and we have @xmath386 .
this is equal to 0 if @xmath387 . now
@xmath388 if and only if @xmath389 , and this is impossible if @xmath390 is not a refinement of @xmath86 .    now we will combine this general result on the isomorphism @xmath130 with two elementary facts .
first , if a composition @xmath86 has strictly more non - zero parts than another composition @xmath361 , then @xmath361 can not be a refinement of @xmath86 .
second , the closure of a ( @xmath233-framed , affine ) braid @xmath376 is a ( @xmath233-framed ) link with @xmath0 connected components if and only if @xmath390 has exactly @xmath0 non - zero parts .
thus we have obtained the following result .
finally , combining this corollary with proposition [ prop1 ] for a non - framed link @xmath246 , we conclude our study by determining which basic invariants it is enough to consider given the number of connected components of @xmath246 .
[ cor - fin2 ] let @xmath246 be a non - framed link with @xmath0 connected components .
every invariant for @xmath246 obtained here from ( affine ) yokonuma  hecke algebras is a combination of the following basic invariants : @xmath394 in particular , for a non - framed knot ( @xmath395 ) , it is enough to consider the algebras @xmath396 .
[ rem - compare3 ] here we restrict to a classical @xmath391-framed link @xmath246 with @xmath0 connected components . in this particular case , we give the translation of corollary [ cor - fin1 ] in terms of juyumaya  lambropoulou invariants , following formula [ compare2 ] ( we write the formulas for the invariants @xmath397 ; the same formulas hold for @xmath398 ) .
a straightforward analysis leads to @xmath399 note that the rescaling of the variable @xmath279 comes from the fact that the expressions relating @xmath400 with @xmath401 depend on @xmath402 .
if moreover @xmath246 is a classical non - framed link with @xmath0 connected components , with remark [ rem - compare2 ] , it is enough to consider @xmath403 , and we obtain @xmath404 this formula is the generalisation , for @xmath405 , of ( * ? ? ?
* theorem 5.8 ) . as a consequence ,
the analogue of corollary [ cor - fin2 ] holds as well for these invariants : it is enough to consider @xmath406 , @xmath407 , @xmath408 .
this generalises ( * ? ? ?
* theorem 7.1 ) for @xmath409 , obtained by a different method .