\section{Introduction}
All groups in the present paper are supposed to be finite. Given two subgroups $H$ and $K$ of a
group $G$, the product $HK = \{hk \ | \ h \in H, k \in K\}$ is not always a subgroup of $G$. $H$ and $K$
\textit{permute}  if $HK=KH$, or equivalently, if $HK$ is a subgroup of $G$. $H$ is said to be
\textit{permutable} (or \textit{quasinormal}) in $G$, if it permutes with every subgroup of $G$. It is possible
to strengthen this notion in various ways.   $H$  is
\textit{S--permutable} (or \emph{S--quasinormal}) in $G$, if $H$ permutes with all Sylow  subgroups of $G$
(for all primes in the set $\pi(G)$ of the prime divisors of $|G|$). Historically, O. Kegel introduced S--permutable subgroups in 1962, generalizing a well--known result of O. Ore of 1939, who proved that permutable subgroups
are subnormal (see \cite{ls,rs} for details). Roughly speaking, this notion deals with subgroups which are permutable with maximal subgroups. Several authors investigated the topic in the successive years and we mention \cite{a,bh,ps,rs}  for our aims.

The \textit{subgroup lattice} $\mathrm{L}(G)$ of a group $G$  is the set of all subgroups of $G$ and is a complete bounded lattice with respect to the set inclusion, having initial element the
trivial subgroup $\{1\}$ and final element $G$ itself (see \cite{gg,rs}). Its binary operations $\wedge, \vee$ are
defined by $X \wedge Y=X\cap Y$, $X\vee Y=\langle X \cup Y\rangle$, for all $X,Y\in
\mathrm{L}(G)$. Furthermore,  $\mathrm{L}(G)$ is \textit{modular}, if all the subgroups of $G$ satisfy the
\textit{modular law}. $G$ is  modular, if $\mathrm{L}(G)$ is modular (see \cite[Section
2.1]{rs}). This notion is important, because of the following concept. A group $G$ is \textit{quasihamiltonian},
if all its subgroups are permutable. By a result of K. Iwasawa  \cite[Theorem 2.4.14]{rs}, quasihamiltonian
groups are classified, but, at the same time, these groups are
characterized to be nilpotent and modular (see \cite[Exercise 3, p.87]{rs}).

Now we recall some terminology from \cite{ps}, which will be useful in the rest of the paper. Any non--empty set of subgroups $\mathrm{S}(G)$ of $G$ may be always regarded  as a sublattice of $\mathrm{L}(G)$ having initial element ${\underset{S \in \mathrm{S}(G)}\bigwedge} S$ and final element  ${\underset{S \in \mathrm{S}(G)}\bigvee} S$. The symbol $\mathrm{S}^\perp(G)$ denotes the set of all subgroups $H$ of $G$  which are permutable with all $S \in \mathrm{S}(G)$ and it is easy to check that
$\mathrm{S}^\perp(G)$ is a sublattice  of  $\mathrm{L}(G)$ (see \cite[Section 1]{ps}). There is a wide literature when we choose
$\mathrm{S}(G)$ to be equal to the sublattice $\mathrm{M}(G)$ of all maximal subgroups of $G$, or to
the sublattice $\mathrm{sn}(G)$ of all subnormal subgroups of $G$, or also to
the sublattice $\mathrm{n}(G)$ of all normal subgroups of $G$. Consequently,
$\mathrm{L}^\perp(G)$ is the sublattice of all permutable subgroups of $G$,
$\mathrm{M}^\perp(G)$ that of the subgroups permutable with all maximal subgroups of $G$ and so on for
$\mathrm{sn}^\perp(G)$ and $\mathrm{n}^\perp(G)=\mathrm{L}(G)$. Immediately, the role of the operator $\perp$ appears to be very intriguing for the structure of $G$ and several authors investigated this aspect. For instance, $G$ is  quasihamiltonian if and only if $\mathrm{L}(G)=\mathrm{L}^\perp(G)$.

In Section 2 we will describe a notion of probability on $\mathrm{L}(G)$, beginning from groups  in which the subgroups in $\mathrm{sn}(G)$ permutes with those in $\mathrm{M}(G)$. The generality of the methods  (we follow \cite{cms,dn,elr,r1,mst,nr,r2,r3,mt}) may be translated in terms of arbitrary sublattices, satisfying a prescribed restriction.  Section 3 shows some consequences on the size of $|\mathrm{L}(G)|$.

\section{Measure theory on subgroup lattices}
The following notion has analogies with \cite[Definitions 2.1,3.1,4.1]{elr} and \cite[Equation 1.1]{r2}
and will be treated as in \cite{cms,dn,elr,r1,mst,nr,r2,r3,mt}.

\begin{defn}\label{d:1}For a group $G$,
\begin{equation}\label{ed:1}spd(G)= \frac{|\{(X,Y)\in \mathrm{sn}(G) \times \mathrm{M}(G) \ | \ XY=YX\}|}{|\mathrm{sn}(G)| \ |\mathrm{M}(G)|},\end{equation}  is the subgroup S--commutativity  degree of $G$.
\end{defn}
$0<spd(G)\le 1$ denotes the  probability that a randomly picked pair $(X,Y) \in \mathrm{sn}(G) \times \mathrm{M}(G)$ is permuting, that is, $XY=YX$.  \eqref{ed:1} may be rewritten, introducing
the function $\chi :
\mathrm{sn}(G) \times \mathrm{M}(G) \rightarrow \{0,1\}$ defined by
\begin{equation}\chi(X,Y)=\left\{\begin{array}{lcl} 1,&\,\,& \mathrm{if} \ XY=YX,\\
0,&\,\,& \mathrm{if} \ XY\not= YX,\end{array}\right.\end{equation} in the following form
\begin{equation}\label{e:temp3}
spd(G)= \frac{1}{|\mathrm{sn}(G)| \ |\mathrm{M}(G)|} {\underset{(X,Y)\in \mathrm{sn}(G) \times \mathrm{M}(G)} \sum}\chi(X,Y).
\end{equation}
In Definition \ref{d:1} and \eqref{e:temp3}, we may replace $\mathrm{sn}(G) \times \mathrm{M}(G)$ with $\mathrm{S}(G) \times \mathrm{T}(G) $, where $\mathrm{S}(G)$ and $\mathrm{T}(G)$ are two arbitrary sublattices of $\mathrm{L}(G)$. We have chosen $\mathrm{sn}(G) \times \mathrm{M}(G)$,  because  \cite{a,bh} describe the structure of the groups in which the subnormal subgroups permute with all Sylow subgroups (called $PST$--\textit{groups}). If $\mathrm{Syl}(G)$ is the set of all Sylow subgroups of $G$, $\mathrm{Syl}(G)\subseteq \mathrm{M}(G)$ and this means that we have already a classification for a group $G$ such that $\mathrm{sn}(G) \subseteq \mathrm{Syl}(G)^\perp$.

\eqref{e:temp3} allows us to  to treat the problem from the point of view of the measure theory on groups. A computational advantage may be found in a formula for $spd(G_1 \times G_2)$, where $G_1$ and $G_2$ are two given groups.
\begin{cor}\label{c:1} Let $G_i$ be a family of groups of coprime orders for $i=1,2,\ldots,k$. Then
$spd(G_1 \times G_2 \times \ldots \times G_k)=spd(G_1) \ spd(G_2) \ \ldots \ spd(G_k).$
\end{cor}
The techniques of proof are straightforward applications of \eqref{e:temp3} and the details are omitted. However, it is good to note that Corollary \ref{c:1} shows the stability  with respect to forming direct products of $spd(G)$: this  fact was proved in \cite{cms,dn,elr,r1,mst,r2,r3,mt} in different contexts. Another basic property is to relate $spd(G)$ to quotients  and subgroups of $G$.

Let $G=NH$ for a normal subgroup $N$ of $G$ and a subgroup $H$ of $G$ isomorphic to $G/N$ (briefly, $H \simeq G/N$). In general, it is easy to check that $\mathrm{sn}(G/N)$ is lattice isomorphic to $\mathrm{sn}(H)$ (briefly, $\mathrm{sn}(G/N) \sim \mathrm{sn}(H)$) and that $\mathrm{M}(G/N) \sim \mathrm{M}(H)$.
We will concentrate  on some special classes of groups, satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{a:1}
\Big(\mathrm{sn}(G/N) \times \mathrm{M}(G/N)\Big) \sim \Big(\mathrm{sn}(H) \times \mathrm{M}(H)\Big) \subseteq \mathrm{sn}(G) \times \mathrm{M}(G)\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{a:2}  \mathrm{sn}(N) \times \mathrm{M}(N) \subseteq \mathrm{sn}(G) \times \mathrm{M}(G).
\end{equation}
\eqref{a:1}--\eqref{a:2}, jointly with \eqref{e:temp3}, allow us to conclude
\begin{equation}\label{lb1}   \sum_{(X,Y)\in \mathrm{sn}(G) \times \mathrm{M}(G)} \chi(X,Y) \ge  \sum_{(X,Y)\in \mathrm{sn}(N) \times \mathrm{M}(N)} \chi(X,Y);\end{equation}
{\small
\begin{equation}\label{lb2}  \sum_{(X,Y)\in \mathrm{sn}(G) \times \mathrm{M}(G)}\ge  {\underset{(X/N,Y/N)\in \mathrm{sn}(G/N) \times \mathrm{M}(G/N)} \sum} \chi(X/N,Y/N)=\sum_{(Z,T)\in \mathrm{sn}(H) \times \mathrm{M}(H)} \chi(Z,T)\end{equation}
}
and  consequently
\begin{equation}\label{lb3} 2 |\mathrm{sn}(G)| \ |\mathrm{M}(G)| \ spd(G)\ge   \sum_{(X,Y)\in  \mathrm{sn}(N) \times \mathrm{M}(N)} \chi(X,Y) + \sum_{(Z,T)\in  \mathrm{sn}(H) \times \mathrm{M}(H)} \chi(Z,T).\end{equation}
\[=    |\mathrm{sn}(N)| \ |\mathrm{M}(N)| \ spd(N) + |\mathrm{sn}(G/N)| \ |\mathrm{M}(G/N)| \ spd(G/N).\]
Similar techniques have been used by  T\v{a}rn\v{a}uceanu \cite{mt} in order to study
the \textit{subgroup commutativity degree}
\begin{equation}sd(G)=\frac{|\{(X,Y)\in \mathrm{L}(G)^2 \ | \ XY=YX\}|}{|\mathrm{L}(G)|^2}=\frac{1}{|\mathrm{L}(G)|^2}{\underset{(X,Y)\in
\mathrm{L}(G)^2}\sum}\chi(X,Y).\end{equation}  \cite{mt} can be seen as a natural extension, to the context of the lattice theory, of the concept of \textit{commutativity degree}
\begin{equation}d(G)=\frac{|\{(x,y)\in G^2 \ | \ xy = yx\}|}{|G|^2}=\frac{1}{|G|^2}{\underset{x\in
G}\sum}|C_G(x)|,\end{equation} where $C_G(x)=\{g\in G \ | \ gx=xg\}$. There are several contributions on $d(G)$ in \cite{cms,dn,elr,r1,mst,nr,r2,r3}. The main strategy of investigation is to begin with the case of equality at 1 and then  describe the situation, when we leave this extremal case. Upper and lower bounds will measure the distance from known classes of groups.
For instance, $d(G)=1$ if and only if $G$ is abelian; $sd(G)=1$ if and only if $\mathrm{L}(G)=\mathrm{L}(G)^\perp$. Therefore the next  are   mile stones for the rest of the paper.

\begin{cor}\label{c:2}In a group $G$ we have $spd(G)=1$ if and only if $\mathrm{sn}(G)\subseteq \mathrm{M}^\perp(G)$ or  $\mathrm{M}(G)\subseteq \mathrm{sn}^\perp(G)$.
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}It follows from the above considerations.
\end{proof}

\begin{cor}\label{c:3}If $G$ is a nilpotent group, then $spd(G)=1$.
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}Application of Corollary \ref{c:2}, noting that $\mathrm{M}(G) \subseteq \mathrm{n}(G) \subseteq \mathrm{sn}^\perp(G)$.
\end{proof}

\begin{cor}\label{c:4}In a group $G$ we have $\frac{|\mathrm{sn}(G)| \ |\mathrm{M}(G)|}{|\mathrm{L}(G)|^2} \ spd(G) \le \ sd(G)$ and the equality holds if and only if $\mathrm{sn}(G)=\mathrm{M}(G)=\mathrm{L}(G)$.
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}Since $\mathrm{sn}(G) \times \mathrm{M}(G) \subseteq \mathrm{L}(G)^2$,
$\{(X,Y)\in \mathrm{sn}(G) \times \mathrm{M}(G) \ | \ XY=YX\} \subseteq \{(X,Y)\in \mathrm{L}(G)^2 \ | \ XY=YX\}$ and then
\[
|\mathrm{sn}(G)| \ |\mathrm{M}(G)| \ spd(G)=|\{(X,Y)\in \mathrm{sn}(G) \times \mathrm{M}(G) \ | \ XY=YX\}|\]
\[ \leq |\{(X,Y)\in \mathrm{L}(G)^2 \ | \ XY=YX\}|= |\mathrm{L}(G)|^2 \ sd(G)
\]
from which the inequality follows. The rest is clear.
\end{proof}

Corollary \ref{c:3} clarifies the situation for nilpotent groups. Then we proceed to study solvable groups. Unfortunately, these cannot be described as in \cite[Proposition 2.4]{mt}: Different techniques are necessary. We recall that an abelian group $A$ of order $n=p_1^{n_1} p_2^{n_2} \ldots p_m^{n_m}$, for suitable powers of $p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_m\in \pi(A)$,  has a canonical decomposition of the form $A\simeq A_1 \times A_2 \times \ldots A_m,$ where $n_1, \ldots, n_m$ are positive integers and $A_1,A_2 \ldots, A_m$ are the primary factors. It is well--known that $|\mathrm{L}(A)|=|\mathrm{L}(A_1)|  \cdot |\mathrm{L}(A_2)| \cdot \ldots  \cdot |\mathrm{L}(A_m)|.$ In case $p=p_1=p_2= \ldots=p_m$  \cite[Proposition 3.2]{mtbis} shows that the number of maximal subgroups of the elementary abelian $p$--group $\mathbb{Z}_{p^{\alpha_1}} \times \mathbb{Z}_{p^{\alpha_2}}  \times \ldots \times \mathbb{Z}_{p^{\alpha_k}} $ is equal to $\frac{p^k-1}{p-1}$, for suitable integers $1 \le \alpha_1 \le \alpha_2 \le \ldots \le \alpha_k$ and $k\ge1$.

\begin{lem}\label{l:1} Let $N=\mathbb{Z}_{p^{\alpha_1}} \times \mathbb{Z}_{p^{\alpha_2}}$ be a non--trivial normal abelian subgroup of $G$ with $0\le \alpha_1+ \alpha_2$ and $1 \le \alpha_1 \le \alpha_2$ such that $G/N$ is of prime order and \eqref{a:1}--\eqref{a:2} are satisfied. Then
\[spd(G) \ge \frac{ f(p,\alpha_1,\alpha_2)}{2 \ |\mathrm{sn}(G)| \ |\mathrm{M}(G)|},\]
where $f(p,\alpha_1,\alpha_2)=\frac{1}{p^2-2p+1} \Big( (\alpha_2-\alpha_1+1)p^{\alpha_1+3}+2p^{\alpha_1+2}-
(\alpha_2-\alpha_1-1)p^{\alpha_1+1}-(\alpha_1+\alpha_2-1)p^2-(\alpha_1+\alpha_2+11)p+(\alpha_1+\alpha_2+5)\Big)$ is a polynomial function depending only on $N$.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}

We note that $G=HN$, where $G/N\simeq H$ is of prime order, so that it is meaningful to formulate the conditions in \eqref{a:1} and \eqref{a:2}, requiring that they are satisfied.
From \eqref{lb3},
\begin{equation}\label{solv:1}spd(G) \ge \frac{|\mathrm{sn}(N)| \ |\mathrm{M}(N)| spd(N)+|\mathrm{sn}(G/N)| \ |\mathrm{M}(G/N)| spd(G/N) }{2 \
|\mathrm{sn}(G)| \ |\mathrm{M}(G)|}\end{equation}
 $|\mathrm{sn}(G/N)|=|\mathrm{M}(G/N)|=2$, by a counting argument, and $spd(N)=spd(G/N)=1$, by Corollary \ref{c:3}, then
\begin{equation}\label{solv:2}
= \frac{|\mathrm{sn}(N)| \ |\mathrm{M}(N)|}{2 \ |\mathrm{sn}(G)| \ |\mathrm{M}(G)|} +\frac{4}{2 \ |\mathrm{sn}(G)| \ |\mathrm{M}(G)|}
= \frac{1}{2 \ |\mathrm{sn}(G)| \ |\mathrm{M}(G)|} \left( |\mathrm{sn}(N)| \ |\mathrm{M}(N)|  + 4\right)\end{equation}
\cite[Theorem 3.3]{mtbis} implies $|\mathrm{sn}(N)|=|\mathrm{L}(N)|=\frac{1}{(p-1)^2}[(\alpha_2-\alpha_1+1)p^{\alpha_1+2}-(\alpha_2-\alpha_1-1)p^{\alpha_1+1}-(\alpha_1+\alpha_2+3)p+(\alpha_1+\alpha_2+1)]$, and, as noted above, $|\mathrm{M}(N)|=\frac{p^2-1}{p-1}=p+1$, hence
\begin{equation}\label{solv:3}
= \frac{1}{2 \ |\mathrm{sn}(G)| \ |\mathrm{M}(G)|}  \ \cdot \  \Big(\frac{p+1}{(p-1)^2} \Big((\alpha_2-\alpha_1+1)p^{\alpha_1+2} -(\alpha_2-\alpha_1-1)p^{\alpha_1+1}\end{equation}
\[-(\alpha_1+\alpha_2+3)p+(\alpha_1+\alpha_2+1)\Big)+ 4\Big) \]
in order to write better the above expression we introduce the coefficients
\[C_1=\alpha_2-\alpha_1+1; \ C_2=\alpha_2-\alpha_1-1; \ C_3=\alpha_1+\alpha_2+3; C_4=\alpha_1+\alpha_2+1\]
and then we get
\[
= \frac{1}{2 \ |\mathrm{sn}(G)| \ |\mathrm{M}(G)|} \Big(\frac{1}{(p-1)^2} \  (C_1p^{\alpha_1+3}+(C_1-C_2)p^{\alpha_1+2}-
C_2p^{\alpha_1+1}\]\[+(4-C_3)p^2-(8+C_3)p+(4+C_4)\Big).\]
Developping  the computations in the brackets, we get the  polynomial $f(p,\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$.
\end{proof}

Lemma \ref{l:1} may be adapted to $sd(G)$ in the following way.

\begin{lem}\label{l:2} Let $N=\mathbb{Z}_{p^{\alpha_1}} \times \mathbb{Z}_{p^{\alpha_2}}$ be a non--trivial normal subgroup of $G$ with $0\le \alpha_1+ \alpha_2$ and $1 \le \alpha_1 \le \alpha_2$ such that $G/N$ is of prime order. Then
\[sd(G) \ge \frac{g(p,\alpha_1,\alpha_2)}{2 \ |\mathrm{L}(G)|^2},\] where $g(p,\alpha_1,\alpha_2)= \frac{1}{(p-1)^4}\Big((\alpha_2-\alpha_1+1)p^{\alpha_1+2}-(\alpha_2-\alpha_1-1)p^{\alpha_1+1}-(\alpha_1+\alpha_2+3)p+(\alpha_1+\alpha_2+1)\Big)^2+ 4$ is a polynomial function depending only on $N$.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof} We note that $G=HN$, where $G/N\simeq H$ is of prime order.
 \eqref{a:1} is in this case $\mathrm{L}(G/N)^2 \sim \mathrm{L}(H)^2 \subseteq \mathrm{L}(G)^2$ and is always satisfied. Analogously, \eqref{a:2} becomes $\mathrm{L}(N)^2 \subseteq \mathrm{L}(G)^2$ and is satisfied, too. Then \eqref{lb3} becomes
\begin{equation}\label{solv:1bis}sd(G) \ge \frac{|\mathrm{L}(N)|^2 sd(N)+|\mathrm{L}(G/N)|^2 spd(G/N) }{2 \ |\mathrm{L}(G)|^2}\end{equation}
and, from the assumptions, $|\mathrm{L}(G/N)|=2$, $sd(G/N)=sd(N)=1$ but again \cite[Theorem 3.3]{mtbis} implies $|\mathrm{L}(N)|^2=\frac{1}{(p-1)^4}\Big((\alpha_2-\alpha_1+1)p^{\alpha_1+2}-(\alpha_2-\alpha_1-1)p^{\alpha_1+1}-(\alpha_1+\alpha_2+3)p+(\alpha_1+\alpha_2+1)\Big)^2$. Therefore
\begin{equation}\label{solv:2bis}
=\frac{1}{2 \ |\mathrm{L}(G)|^2} \Big( \frac{1}{(p-1)^4}\Big((\alpha_2-\alpha_1+1)p^{\alpha_1+2}-(\alpha_2-\alpha_1-1)p^{\alpha_1+1}\end{equation} \[-(\alpha_1+\alpha_2+3)p+(\alpha_1+\alpha_2+1)\Big)^2+ 4\Big),\]
where it appears clear what is the polynomial function $g(p,\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$, which we are looking for.
\end{proof}

As usual $Fit(G)$ denotes the  \textit{Fitting subgroup} of $G$.

\begin{thm}\label{t:1} Let $G$ be a solvable group in which $C=C_G(Fit(G))=\mathbb{Z}_{p^{\alpha_1}} \times \mathbb{Z}_{p^{\alpha_2}}$, for  $0\le \alpha_1+ \alpha_2$, $1\le \alpha_1 \le \alpha_2$, $p$ a prime  and $|G:C|$ a  prime.
\begin{itemize} \item[(i)]If \eqref{a:1}--\eqref{a:2} are satisfied, then
$spd(G) \ge \frac{ f(p,\alpha_1,\alpha_2)}{2 \ |\mathrm{sn}(G)| \ |\mathrm{M}(G)|},$
where $f(p,\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$ is a polynomial function depending only on $C$.
\item[(ii)] $sd(G) \ge \frac{g(p,\alpha_1,\alpha_2)}{2 \ |\mathrm{L}(G)|^2},$ where $g(p,\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$ is a polynomial function depending only on $C$.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}

\begin{proof} Since $G$ is solvable, it is well--known that $C$ is an abelian normal subgroup of $G$. Then our position is correct in assuming  $C=\mathbb{Z}_{p^{\alpha_1}} \times \mathbb{Z}_{p^{\alpha_2}}$, with $0\le \alpha_1+ \alpha_2$, $1\le \alpha_1 \le \alpha_2$, $p$ prime and  $G/C$ is of prime order. Now (i) is an application of Lemma \ref{l:1} and (ii)  of Lemma \ref{l:2}.
\end{proof}

The lower bound in Lemma \ref{l:2} for $sd(G)$ is more precise than the following bound, which was the first to be presented in literature.

\begin{cor}[See \cite{mt}, Corollary 2.6]\label{2.6}
A group $G$ possessing a normal abelian subgroup of prime index has $|\mathrm{L}(G)|^2 \ sd(G)\ge |\mathrm{L}(N)|^2+2|\mathrm{L}(N)| +1$.
\end{cor}

A different  restriction is obtained when we multiply up \eqref{lb1}--\eqref{lb2}.

\begin{prop}\label{p:1}  Let  $N$ be a normal subgroup of a group $G=NH$ satisfying \eqref{a:1} and \eqref{a:2}. Then \[spd(G)\ge \frac{1}{|\mathrm{sn}(G)| \ |\mathrm{M}(G)|}    \sqrt{{\underset{(Z,T)\in \mathrm{sn}(H) \times \mathrm{M}(H)}{\underset{(X,Y)\in \mathrm{sn}(N) \times \mathrm{M}(N)} \sum}} \chi(X,Y) \ \chi(Z,T)}.\]
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}  From \eqref{lb1}--\eqref{lb2} and the Cauchy inequality for numerical series,
\[ |\mathrm{sn}(G)|^2 \ |\mathrm{M}(G)|^2 \ spd(G)^2\ge  \   \sum_{(X,Y)\in \mathrm{sn}(N) \times \mathrm{M}(N)} \chi(X,Y) \ \cdot \ \sum_{(Z,T) \in \mathrm{sn}(H) \times \mathrm{M}(H)} \chi(Z,T)\]
\begin{equation}\label{lb4} \ge   {\underset{(Z,T)\in \mathrm{sn}(H) \times \mathrm{M}(H)}{\underset{(X,Y)\in \mathrm{sn}(N) \times \mathrm{M}(N)} \sum}} \chi(X,Y) \ \chi(Z,T).
\end{equation}
All are positive quantities and then, extracting the square root, the result follows.

\end{proof}

The next result answers in a certain sense to \cite[Problem 4.1]{mt}.

\begin{cor}\label{c:p1}  Let  $N$ be a normal subgroup of a group $G=NH$. Then
\[   sd(G)\ge \frac{1}{|\mathrm{L}(G)|^2}    \sqrt{{\underset{(Z,T)\in \mathrm{L}(H)^2}{\underset{(X,Y)\in \mathrm{L}(N)^2} \sum}} \chi(X,Y) \ \chi(Z,T)}.\]
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}Firstly, we note that the corresponding versions of \eqref{a:1} and \eqref{a:2} for $sd(G)$ are always satisfied. Then we argue as in Proposition \ref{p:1}.
\end{proof}

\section{Applications and final considerations}
The symmetric group on 3 elements $S_3=\mathbb{Z}_2 \ltimes \mathbb{Z}_3=\langle a,b \ | \ a^3=b^2=1, b^{-1}ab=a^{-1}\rangle$ has $sd(S_3)=\frac{5}{6}$ (see \cite[p.2510]{mt}), is metabelian and satisfies the description in Theorem \ref{t:1}, since it is an example of a \textit{primitive group of affine type} (see \cite{dm}). This group was the origin of our investigation. In fact, a primitive group $P$ of affine type is a semidirect product with normal factor $Fit(P)$. Furthermore, $Fit(P)$ turns out to be elementary abelian  and  $C_P(Fit(P))=Fit(P)$. This means that Theorem \ref{t:1} gives a good description for the subgroup commutativity degree and for the subgroup S--commutativity degree of such groups. While \cite{dn,elr,r1,nr,r2,r3} show that we may classify a group, when restrictions on $d(G)$ are given, the problem is still open for $sd(G)$ and $spd(G)$. We illustrate  one case, involving $sd(G)$. This is to justify the interest in Section 2 in the new bounds.

\begin{cor}
A metabelian group $G$ with $|G'|$ and $|G/G'|$ of prime orders is cyclic, whenever the  bound in Corollary \ref{2.6} is achieved with  $sd(G)=\frac{5}{6}$.
\end{cor}

\begin{proof} We begin from
$|\mathrm{L}(G)|^2 \ \frac{5}{6} = |\mathrm{L}(N)|^2+2|\mathrm{L}(N)| +1$, which becomes
$|\mathrm{L}(G)|^2 \ \frac{5}{6} = 4+4 +1=9$,  then $2\le|\mathrm{L}(G)|=\sqrt{\frac{56}{5}}=\sqrt{11.2}<4$. This implies either $|\mathrm{L}(G)|=2$ or $|\mathrm{L}(G)|=3$. In the first case, $G$ is cyclic of prime order. In the second case, $G$ is lattice isomorphic to $C_{p^2}$ for a suitable prime $p$. In both cases $G$ is cyclic.
\end{proof}

The control of $|\mathrm{L}(G)|$ was the main ingredient in the previous proof.
Unfortunately, formulas for the growth of $\mathrm{L}(G)$ are  hard to find and  \cite{sh}  helps our investigations. The \textit{M\"obius number} of  $\mathrm{L}(G)$ is a number which allows us to control the size of $|\mathrm{L}(G)|$. In case of a symmetric group $S_n$, it is denoted by $\mu(1,S_n)$ and was conjectured to be $(-1)^{n-1} \ (|\mathrm{Aut}(S_n)|/2)$ for all $n>1$ (see \cite[p.1]{sh}). For $n\leq 11$, this was proved by H. Pahlings. Recent progresses are summarized below.

\begin{thm}[See \cite{sh}, Theorems 1.6, 1.8, 1.10]\label{t:sh}\
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] Let $p$ be a prime. Then $\mu(1,S_p)=(-1)^{p-1} \ \frac{p!}{2}$.
\item[(ii)]Let $n=2p$ and $p$ be an odd prime. Then
\[\mu(1,S_n)=\left\{\begin{array}{lcl} -n!,&\,\,& \mathrm{if} \ n-1  \ \mathrm{is \ prime \ and} \ p \equiv 3\mod 4,\\
\frac{n!}{2},&\,\,& \mathrm{if} \ n=22,\\
-\frac{n!}{2},&\,\,& \mathrm{otherwise.}
\end{array}\right.\]
\item[(iii)]  Let $n=2^a$ for an integer $a\geq 1$. Then $\mu(1,S_n)=-\frac{n!}{2}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}

 Let $\mu(1,G)\in\{\mu(1,S_p),\mu(1,S_n)\}$, being $\mu(1,S_p)$ and $\mu(1,S_n)$ the values in Theorem \ref{t:sh} under the given restrictions on $n$ and $p$. In a certain sense, the following result specifies our considerations on $S_3$, when we have an arbitrary primitive group of affine type for which the subgroup lattice is growing as  $S_n$.

\begin{cor}\label{bound}
Under the assumptions of Theorem \ref{t:1}, let $G$ be a solvable group such that $|\mathrm{L}(G)|=\mu(1,G)$. Then
$sd(G) \ge \frac{g(p,\alpha_1,\alpha_2)}{2 \ \mu(1,G)^2},$ where $g(p,\alpha_2,\alpha_2)$ is a polynomial function depending only on $C_G(Fit(G))$.
\end{cor}

\section*{Acknowledgement}
The second author thanks  D.E. Otera  and the Universit\'e Paris-Sud 11 for the  hospitality  during the month
of May 2010, in which the significant part of the present project has been done. We are also grateful to some colleagues,
who  detected two fundamental problems in the original version of the manuscript, allowing us to enlarge our perspectives of study in the present version.


\section{Introduction}

One of the most fundamental questions in entanglement theory is whether one entangled state can be converted to another by only performing local quantum operations on each subsystem while allowing classical communication among the parties.  Protocols of this form are known as LOCC and they constitute the class of operations unable to increase the amount of entanglement in a multi-party system on average.  When one state can be transformed into another via LOCC with a non-zero probability, the two states are said to SLOCC (stochastic LOCC) related.  Much research has been devoted to studying SLOCC transformations with special attention placed on reversible SLOCC convertibility since this property provides one way of identifying states with the same type of entanglement \cite{Dur-2000a, Verstraete-2003a}.  However, SLOCC convertibility does not consider the probability of transformation success, a quantity having obvious operational importance, and beyond the bipartite pure states \cite{Vidal-1999a}, very little is known about the feasible probability rates of converting states using LOCC.

In this article, we study the optimal LOCC convertibility among $N$-qubit W-class states.  Such states are of the form $\sqrt{x_0}\ket{00\cdots 0}+\sqrt{x_1}\ket{10\cdots 0}+\sqrt{x_2}\ket{01\cdots 0}+\cdots+\sqrt{x_N}\ket{00\cdots 1}$ with the $N$-party W state $\ket{W_N}$ corresponding to $x_0=0$ and $x_i=\frac{1}{N}$ for $1\leq i\leq N$.  W-class states represent a very important family of states since they posses a high degree of robustness with respect to loss of entanglement \cite{Briegel-2001a} and non-local correlations \cite{SenDe-2003a} in the presence of noise.  Furthermore, many specific quantum cryptography and communication protocols have been designed which utilize W-type entanglement (see \cite{Wang-2009a} and references within).  Experimental setups have been proposed for the production of multiqubit W states \cite{Bastin-2009a} with the generation of $\ket{W_4}$ already realized \cite{Wieczorek-2009a}.  For the special case of three qubits, partial results concerning optimality of LOCC conversion rates have been obtained \cite{Yildiz-2010a}.

In the general multiparty setting, Kinta\c{s} and Turgut recently made significant progress in understanding LOCC transformations of W-class states \cite{Kintas-2010a}.  They prove an upper bound on the optimal probability of converting two such states, and the first part of our article derives a necessary condition for when this rate can be achieved.  We then move on to construct a general procedure for converting two W-class states which provides a lower bound on the optimal conversion probability.  The necessary condition for achieving Kinta\c{s} and Turguts' bound we obtain in the first part turns out to be sufficient when using our constructed protocol thus proving optimality.  Since much of our analysis relies on results reported in \cite{Kintas-2010a}, we will try to stay as consistent as possible with the notation established there.  In the final section, we turn to the problem of converting symmetric W-class states; i.e. those states which remain invariant under a permutation of parties.  It has been shown that two multiqubit symmetric states are related by a reversible SLOCC transformation if and only if the transformation can be accomplished by a permutation invariant SLOCC filtering operation \cite{Mathonet-2010a}.  In other words, if $\ket{\psi}$ and $\ket{\phi}$ are $N$-qubit SLOCC equivalent symmetric states: $\bigotimes_{i=1}^N A_i\ket{\psi}=\ket{\phi}$, then there exists an operator $M$ such that $M^{\otimes N}\ket{\psi}=\ket{\phi}$.  However, one question still left open is whether the same probability of transformation can be achieved in the symmetric case.  If a filter $\bigotimes_{i=1}^N A_i$ succeeds in transformation with probability $p$, does there necessarily exist a symmetric filter $M^{\otimes N}$ that transforms with the same probability?  We show that in general the answer is no and often the transformation can be achieved with a greater probability when only a single party acts non-trivially.  At the same time, we further observe the single party strategy to not be optimal in general.  These results nicely demonstrate the complexity in analyzing issues of LOCC optimality as no simple general result appears to exist, even in the symmetric multiqubit case.

For simplicity, we introduce the notation $\ket{\vec{0}}=\ket{0}^{\otimes N}$ and $\ket{\vec{i}}=\ket{0}^{\otimes i-1}\ket{1}\ket{0}^{\otimes n-i}$ so that the $N$-party W state can be expressed as $\ket{W_N}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{i=1}^N\ket{\vec{i}}$.  A state $\ket{\Psi}$ is defined as a W-class state if there exists invertible operators $A_i$ such that $\bigotimes_{i=1}^N A_i\ket{W_N}=\ket{\Psi}$.  Equivalently, a state is in the W class if it is SLOCC equivalent to the state $\ket{W_N}$ \cite{Dur-2000a}.  Each $A_i$ can be written in the form $U_i\tilde {A}_i$ with $\tilde{A}_i=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}a&b\\0&c\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ and $a,c$ being real.  Then every W-class state $\ket{\Psi}$ is of the form $\sum_{i=0}^N\sqrt{x_0}\ket{\vec{i}}$ up to the application of local unitaries; i.e. $\ket{\Psi}=\bigotimes_{i=1}^N U_i\sum_{i=0}^N\sqrt{x_i}\ket{\vec{i}}$ for unitaries $U_i$.  Furthermore, for three or more parties the coefficients $x_i$ are unique to each W-class state \cite{Kintas-2010a}.  To easily see this, observe that $\bigotimes_{i=1}^N U_i\sum_{i=0}^N\sqrt{x_i}\ket{\vec{i}}=\bigotimes_{i=1}^N V_i\sum_{i=0}^N\sqrt{x'_i}\ket{\vec{i}}$ implies $\sum_{i=0}^N\sqrt{x_i}\ket{\vec{i}}=\bigotimes_{i=1}^N W_i\sum_{i=0}^N\sqrt{x_i}\ket{\vec{i}}$ for some unitaries $W_i$.  But this means that each party's reduced state is the totally mixed state which is possible only for the bipartite state $\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}(\ket{01}+\ket{10})$.  Thus, we can unambiguously represent every multipartite W-class state by $\ket{\vec{x}}$ where $\vec{x}=(x_1,\cdots,x_N)$ is its unique coefficient vector with $x_0=1-\sum_{i=1}^Nx_i$.

The main result presented in \cite{Kintas-2010a} is that whenever party $k$ performs a measurement on state $\ket{\vec{x}}$, for each outcome $\lambda$ occurring with probability $p_\lambda$, the components transform as
\begin{align}
\label{Eq:coords change}
x_j&\to s_\lambda x_j\;\;\text{for}\;j\not=k,0, &x_k&\to \{\frac{x_k}{t_\lambda},0\}
\end{align} such that $\sum_\lambda p_\lambda s_\lambda=1$ and $\sum_\lambda \frac{p_\lambda}{t_\lambda}\leq 1$.  From these relations, it follows that under any LOCC transformation with outcomes indexed by $\lambda$, the vector components are non-increasing on average:
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:CompMono}
x_i\geq\sum_{\lambda}p_\lambda x_{i,\lambda}.
\end{equation}
Consequently, for the transformation $\ket{\vec{x}}\to\ket{\vec{y}}$, the maximum probability of success $p_{max}$ is bounded by $p_{max}\leq \min_i\{r_i\}$ where $r_i=\frac{x_i}{y_i}$.  In the remainder of the article we will assume that $r_1\leq r_2\leq\cdots\leq r_N$ as any other ordering can be accounted for by relabeling.  Thus, $p_{max}\leq r_1$ and the next two sections will prove the following result.
\begin{theorem}
For W-class states $\ket{\vec{x}}$ and $\ket{\vec{y}}$, $\ket{\vec{x}}\to\ket{\vec{y}}$ with optimal probability $r_1$ if and only if $r_2\geq r_0$.
\end{theorem}

\section{Upper Bounds}

We begin with a more detailed description of a general W-class LOCC transformation.  We can model every $m$-round LOCC protocol transforming $\ket{\vec{x}}\to\ket{\vec{y}}$ by a tree split into $m$ segments with $e^{(ij)}$ denoting the $j^{th}$ edge in the $i^{th}$ segment.  The tree begins with a single node representing the initial state $\ket{\vec{x}}$ and ends after the $m^{th}$ segment with each final node representing a different outcome state.   We will say a \textbf{branch} is any uni-directional connected path that traverses the entire length of the tree.  It is a \textbf{success branch} if its final state is $\ket{\vec{y}}$; otherwise, the branch is a \textbf{failure branch}.  An edge is called an \textbf{intermediate edge} if it contains at least one successful branch traveling through it; otherwise it is called a \textbf{failure edge}.  Let $\mathcal{I}^{(i-1,j)}$ denote the set of indices such that $k\in\mathcal{I}^{(i-1,j)}$ iff $e^{(i,k)}$ is an intermediate edge connected to edge $e^{(i-1,j)}$.  Likewise, let $\mathcal{F}^{(i-1,j)}$ denote the set of indices such that $k\in\mathcal{F}^{(i-1,j)}$ iff $e^{(i,k)}$ is a failure edge connected to edge $e^{(i-1,j)}$.  The set $\mathcal{I}^{(0,0)}$ (resp. $\mathcal{F}^{(0,0)}$) will contain the indices corresponding to the intermediate (resp. failure) edges connected to the starting node of the tree.  Finally, denote the state obtained following edge $e^{(i,j)}$ by $\ket{\vec{x}^{(i,j)}}$ with components $x^{(i,j)}_l$, and let $p_{i,j}$ be the probability of moving along edge $e^{(i,j)}$.  From the definitions, we have $\sum_{k\in\mathcal{I}^{(i-1,j)}}p_{i,k}+\sum_{k\in\mathcal{F}^{(i-1,j)}}p_{i,k}=1$ for every $i,j$.

With this formalism, we can systematically calculate the total success probability of obtaining $\ket{\vec{y}}$ from $\ket{\vec{x}}$.  A branch is successful if and only if it travels only along intermediate edges.  So the total probability is given by summing over all possible intermediate edge paths.  This value is given by
\begin{align}
\label{Eq:LOCCtotalProb}
P(\ket{\vec{x}}\to\ket{\vec{y}})&=\sum_{k_1\in\mathcal{I}^{(0,0)}}p_{1,k_1}\cdots\sum_{k_m\in\mathcal{I}^{(m-1,k_{m-1})}}p_{m,k_m}\notag\\&=\sum_{k_1\in\mathcal{I}^{(0,0)}}\cdots\sum_{k_m\in\mathcal{I}^{(m-1,k_{m-1})}}\prod_{i=1}^mp_{i,k_i}.
\end{align}
Starting from the state $\ket{\vec{x}}$ and repeatedly applying \eqref{Eq:CompMono}, we have
\begin{widetext}
\begin{align}
\label{Eq:LOCCIneq}
x_l\geq&\sum_{k_1\in\mathcal{I}^{(0,0)}}p_{1,k_1}x_l^{(1,k_1)}+\sum_{k_1\in\mathcal{F}^{(0,0)}}p_{1,k_1}x_l^{(1,k_1)}\notag\\
\geq&\sum_{k_1\in\mathcal{I}^{(0,0)}}p_{1,k_1}\left(\sum_{k_2\in\mathcal{I}^{(1,k_1)}}p_{2,k_2}x_l^{(2,k_2)}+\sum_{k_2\in\mathcal{F}^{(1,k_1)}}p_{2,k_2}x_l^{(2,k_2)}\right)+\sum_{k_1\in\mathcal{F}^{(0,0)}}p_{1,k_1}x_l^{(1,k_1)}\notag\\
\cdots\;\;\geq&\sum_{k_1\in\mathcal{I}^{(0,0)}}\cdots\sum_{k_m\in\mathcal{I}^{(m-1,k_{m-1})}}\prod_{i=1}^mp_{i,k_i}x_l^{(m,k_m)}
+\sum_{k_1\in\mathcal{I}^{(0,0)}}\cdots\sum_{k_{m-1}\in\mathcal{I}^{(m-2,k_{m-2})}}\sum_{k_m\in\mathcal{F}^{(m-1,k_{m-1})}}\prod_{i=1}^mp_{i,k_i}x_l^{(m,k_m)}\notag\\
&+\sum_{k_1\in\mathcal{I}^{(0,0)}}\cdots\sum_{k_{m-2}\in\mathcal{I}^{(m-3,k_{m-3})}}\sum_{k_{m-1}\in\mathcal{F}^{(m-2,k_{m-2})}}\prod_{i=1}^{m-1}p_{i,k_i}x_l^{(m-1,k_{m-1})}\cdots +\sum_{k_1\in\mathcal{F}^{(0,0)}}p_{1,k_1}x_l^{(1,k_1)}.
\end{align}
\end{widetext}
This equation is quite informative since we know that for $k_m\in\mathcal{I}^{(m-1,k_{m-1})}$ we have $x_l^{(m,k_m)}=y_l$.  Then by dividing both sides of \eqref{Eq:LOCCIneq} by $y_l$ and using \eqref{Eq:LOCCtotalProb}, we have
\begin{equation}
r_l\geq P(\ket{\vec{x}}\to\ket{\vec{y}})+ \text{``Failure Edges''}
\end{equation}
where ``Failure Edges'' refers to the non-negative quantity of all but the first term in the final inequality of \eqref{Eq:LOCCIneq}.  Physically, it is the average of the $l^{th}$ component of all failure states produced after some measurement on a success branch.

For $P(\ket{\vec{x}}\to\ket{\vec{y}})=r_1$, this requires strict equalities in \eqref{Eq:LOCCIneq} and furthermore, the ``Failure Edge'' terms must vanish.  This latter condition means that $x_1^{(i,j)}=0$ for every failure edge $e^{(i,j)}$ connected to a success branch.  We combine these results in the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{Thm:LOCCopt}
If $\ket{\vec{x}}\to\ket{\vec{y}}$ by LOCC with probability $r_1$, then
\begin{itemize}
\item[\upshape(i)] if $e^{(i,j)}$ is an edge connected to a success branch, $x_1^{(i,j)}>0$ implies $e^{(i,j)}$ is an intermediate edge, and
\item[\upshape(ii)] $x_1^{(i-1,j)}= \sum_{k\in\mathcal{I}^{(i-1,j)}}p_{i,k}x_1^{(i,k)}$ for every $i,j$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{comment}
\begin{lemma}
For any $i,j$, we must have $P(\vec{x}_{i,j}\to\vec{y})=\frac{x^1_{i,j}}{y^1}\leq \frac{x^l_{i,k_1}}{y^l}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that
\begin{equation}
P(\vec{x}\to\vec{y})=\sum_j P(\vec{x}\to\vec{x}_{i,j})P(\vec{x}_{i,j}\to\vec{y}).
\end{equation}
For $i=1$, we have
\begin{align}
P(\vec{x}\to\vec{y})&=\sum_{k_1\in\mathcal{I}_{0,0}} P(\vec{x}\to\vec{x}_{1,k_1})P(\vec{x}_{1,k_1}\to\vec{y})\notag\\
&\leq \sum_{k_1\in\mathcal{I}_{0,0}} P(\vec{x}\to\vec{x}_{1,k_1})\frac{x^1_{1,k_1}}{y^1}=\frac{x^1}{y^1}
\end{align}
where the final equality follows from the previous theorem.  So for $P(\vec{x}\to\vec{y})=\frac{x^1}{y^l}$, we must have $P(\vec{x}_{1,k_1}\to\vec{y})=\frac{x^1_{1,k_1}}{y^1}\leq\frac{x^l_{1,k_1}}{y^1}$.  Now we proceed by induction by first assuming that $P(\vec{x}_{m,j}\to\vec{y})=\frac{x^1_{m,j}}{y^1}$.  We have
\begin{align}
P(\vec{x}_{m,j}\to\vec{y})&=\sum_{k\in\mathcal{I}_{m,j}}P(\vec{x}_{m,j}\to\vec{x}_{m+1,k})P(\vec{x}_{m+1,k}\to\vec{y})\notag\\
&\leq \sum_{k\in\mathcal{I}_{m,j}}P(\vec{x}_{m,j}\to\vec{x}_{m+1,k})\frac{x^1_{m+1,k}}{y^1}=\frac{x^1_{m,j}}{y^1}
\end{align}
which by our inductive assumption implies $P(\vec{x}_{m+1,k}\to\vec{y})=\frac{x^1_{m+1,k}}{y^1}\leq\frac{x^l_{m+1,k_1}}{y^l}$.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
Combining relations \eqref{Eq:coords change} with this lemma, the following becomes apparent.
\begin{corollary}
If $\ket{\vec{x}}\to\ket{\vec{y}}$ by LOCC with probability $r_1$, there always exists at least one success branch such that the measurements along each edge satisfy $s_\lambda t_\lambda\geq 1$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
For any success branch, assume that in the first round measurement $s_\lambda t_\lambda<1$ for all $\lambda$.  Then $1=\sum_\lambda p_\lambda s_\lambda<\sum_\lambda \frac{p_\lambda}{t_\lambda}$ which is impossible.  Hence, there must be some outcome with $s_\lambda t_\lambda\geq 1$, and since the first component of the initial state is nonzero (it must be or else party one would unentangled with all other parties), the first component of the resultant state will likewise be nonzero.  Consequently, by Lemma \ref{Thm:LOCCopt}, the edge corresponding to outcome $\lambda$ is an intermediate edge.  Consider the round two measurement performed along this edge and repeat the previous argument.  This can be subsequently done for all $m$ rounds thus identifying a success branch in which all edges correspond to measurement outcomes satisfying $s_\lambda t_\lambda\geq 1$.
\end{proof}

Now for any transformation occurring with probability $r_1$, let p* denote one of the success branches described by this corollary and let its edges be $e^{(i,v_i)}$.  Along p* we can divide the protocol into three parts encoded by index sets $A$, $B$, and  $C$ where $i\in A$ if party 1 performs a measurement along $e^{(i,v_i)}$, $i\in B$ if party 2 performs a measurement along $e_{i,v_i}$, and $i\in C$ if neither parties 1 or 2 perform a measurement along $e^{(i,v_i)}$.  From \eqref{Eq:coords change}, we have the following transformations during each edge in p*:
\begin{align}
i\in& A\Rightarrow &x_1^{(i,v_i)}&=\frac{x_1^{(i-1,v_{i-1})}}{t_i}, &x_2^{(i,v_i)}&=s_i x_2^{(i-1,v_{i-1})},\notag\\ &&x_0^{(i,v_i)}&=s_i x_0^{(i-1,v_{i-1})},&&\notag\\
i\in& B\Rightarrow &x_1^{(i,v_i)}&=s_i x_1^{(i-1,v_{i-1})}, &x_2^{(i,v_i)}&=\frac{x_2^{(i-1,v_{i-1})}}{t_i},\notag\\ &&x_0^{(i,v_i)}&\geq s_i x_0^{(i-1,v_{i-1})},&&\notag\\
i\in& C\Rightarrow &x_1^{(i,v_i)}&=s_i x_1^{(i-1,v_{i-1})}, &x_2^{(i,v_i)}&=s_i x_2^{(i-1,v_{i-1})},\notag\\
&&x_0^{(i,v_i)}&\geq s_i x_0^{(i-1,v_{i-1})}.&&
\end{align}
This implies the following relationship between the initial and final components:
\begin{align}
y_1&=\prod_{i\in A, j\in B, k\in C}\frac{1}{t_i}s_js_k x_1,&
y_2&=\prod_{i\in A, j\in B, k\in C}s_i\frac{1}{t_j}s_k x_2,\notag\\
y_0&=\prod_{i\in A, j\in B, k\in C}s_is_js_k x_0.&
\end{align}
Substituting $y_1$ into $y_0$ yields
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:prod1}
y_0=\prod_{i\in A}s_it_i\frac{y_1}{x_1}x_0,
\end{equation} while dividing $y_1$ by $y_2$ gives
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:prod2}
\frac{y_1}{y_2}\prod_{i\in A}s_it_i=\prod_{i\in B} s_it_i\frac{x_1}{x_2}\geq \frac{x_1}{x_2}
\end{equation}
where the last inequality follows from the fact that $s_it_i\geq 1$ along every edge in p*.  Then substituting \eqref{Eq:prod1} into \eqref{Eq:prod2} gives the bound
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:r2bound}
r_2\geq r_0.
\end{equation}

\section{Lower Bounds}

In this section, we construct a specific protocol to obtain a lower bound for the maximum probability of transforming two W-class states.  In the protocol, there will be a single success branch with edges $e^{(i)}$ and states $\ket{\vec{x}^{(i)}}$ whose $k^{th}$ component is $x_k^{(i)}$.  Only two types of measurements will be performed for each acting party $k$: TYPE 1 (T1) which has an outcome $\lambda$ such that $t_\lambda=p_\lambda$ and $x_{0,\lambda}=s_\lambda x_0$, and TYPE 2 (T2) in which $s_\lambda=\frac{1}{p_\lambda}$ for some outcome.  From \cite{Kintas-2010a}, T1 and T2 measurements can always be performed on state $\ket{\vec{x}}$ for any choice of $p_\lambda$ and $s_\lambda$ so long as $p_\lambda s_\lambda\leq 1$ and $\frac{p_\lambda}{t_\lambda}\leq 1$.  Consequently, whenever $x_k>y_k$, a T2 measurement can be performed by party $k$ with $s_\lambda=p_\lambda=1$ and $t_\lambda=r_k$.  In this case, the coordinates of parties 1 through $n$ do not change on average, and so by normalization neither does the $0^{th}$ coordinate.  By explicitly solving for the scale factor $t_\lambda$ on party $k$, we have that in a T2 measurement by party $k$ on state $\ket{\vec{x}^{(i-1)}}$ the coordinates change as:
\begin{align}
\label{Eq:coords change MOSM/PSM}
x^{(i)}_j&=\frac{x_j^{(i-1)}}{p_i}\;\;\text{for}\;j\not=k, &x^{(i)}_k&=1-\frac{1-x_k^{(i-1)}}{p_{i}}.
\end{align}

For the transformation of $\ket{\vec{x}}$ to $\ket{\vec{y}}$ it is sufficient to reach some round $i$ in which $r^{(i)}_k\geq 1$ for all $k\geq 1$.  When $r^{(i)}_k>1$, as previously noted, the $k^{th}$ party can deterministically transform the state such that $r^{(i+1)}_k=1$ and all nonzero components are unchanged.  The basic idea of the protocol described here is to systematically raise each $k^{th}$ component closer to $y_k$ one at a time in a ``piggy-back'' fashion where $r_1^{(1)}$ is first increased and made equal to $r_2^{(2)}$, then both of them are increased and made equal to $r_3^{(3)},\cdots,$ etc.  Eventually, each $k^{th}$ component will be raised to $y^k$ or possibly greater.  The next simple lemma provides the tools for a precise implementation of this idea.
\begin{lemma}
\label{Lem:MOSM/PSM prop}
{\upshape (i)} If $r_{k+1}^{(i-1)}\geq r_{0}^{(i-1)}\geq r_k^{(i-1)}$, there exists a $\ket{\vec{x}^{(i)}}$ and a T1 measurement by party $k$ transforming $\ket{\vec{x}^{(i-1)}}\to\ket{\vec{x}^{(i)}}$ such that $r_{k+1}^{(i)}\geq r^{(i)}_{k}=r^{(i)}_{0}$ and $s_ip_i=\frac{r_k^{(i-1)}}{r^{(i-1)}_{0}}$.  {\upshape (ii)} If $r_{k+1}^{(i-1)}\geq r^{(i-1)}_{k}\geq r^{(i-1)}_{k-1}$, there exists a $\ket{\vec{x}^{(i)}}$ and a T2 measurement by party $k$ transforming $\ket{\vec{x}^{(i-1)}}\to\ket{\vec{x}^{(i)}}$ such that $r_{k+1}^{(i)}\geq r^{(i)}_{k}=r^{(i)}_{k-1}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(i)  In any T1 measurement we have $r_k^{(i)}=\frac{r_k^{(i-1)}}{p_i}$ and $r^{(i)}_{0}=s_ir^{(i-1)}_{0}\leq s_ir^{(i-1)}_{k+1}=r^{(i)}_{k+1}$.  Setting these equal gives $s_ip_i=\frac{r_k^{(i-1)}}{r^{(i-1)}_{0}}\leq 1$ from which any choice of $s_i$ and $p_i$ satisfying this provides a realizable protocol.  (ii)
For a T2 measurement, $r_{k-1}^{(i)}=\frac{r_{k-1}^{(i-1)}}{p_i}\leq\frac{r_{k+1}^{(i-1)}}{p_i}=r^{(i)}_{k+1}$ and $y_{k}r^{(i)}_{k}=1-\frac{1}{p_i}(1-y_{k}r^{(i-1)}_{k})$.  Equality is achieved with the choice $p_i=1-y^{k}(r^{(i-1)}_{k}-r^{(i-1)}_{k-1})$.
\end{proof}

We now state the result of the protocol as a theorem and then give its proof by constructing the transformation procedure.
\begin{theorem}
\label{Thm:MainLowerBound}
Let $\ket{\vec{x}}$ and $\ket{\vec{y}}$ be two W-class states with $r_1\leq r_2\leq\cdots\leq r_N$ where $r_k=\frac{x_k}{y_k}$ and $y_k\not=0$ for $k=0,\cdots,N$.  If $r_1\geq r_0$, then $\ket{\vec{x}}$ can be converted to $\ket{\vec{y}}$ with probability $r_1$.  Otherwise, let $h$ be the largest integer such that $r_{0}> r_{h}$.  Then $\ket{\vec{x}}$ can be converted to $\ket{\vec{y}}$ with probability \[r_h\left(\frac{r_{h-1}}{r_0}\right)\dots\left(\frac{r_1}{r_0}\right).\]
\end{theorem}
\noindent\textbf{Protocol -}

The protocol can be divided into two parts: in the first only T1 measurements are performed, and in the second only T2s.  If $r_1>r_0$, proceed to the second part and let $h=1$, $p_1=1$, and $r_i^{(1)}=r_i$ for all parties $i$.  In round one, party $h$ performs a T1 such that $r_h^{(1)}=r_0^{(1)}$ with $s_1p_1=\frac{r_h}{r_0}$.  In round two, party $h-1$ performs an T1 such that $r_{h-1}^{(2)}=r_0^{(2)}=r_h^{(2)}$ with $s_2p_2=\frac{r_{h-1}^{(1)}}{r^1_{(0)}}=\frac{r_{h-1}}{r_0}$.  This process is continued for $h$ rounds.  The end result is $r^{(h)}_h=s_{h}r_h^{(h-1)}=s_hs_{h-1}s_{h-2}\cdots s_2\frac{r_h}{p_1}$, and $r^{(h)}_n\geq\cdots\geq r^{(h)}_{h+1}\geq r^{(h)}_h=r^{(h)}_{h-1}=\cdots\geq r_0^{(h)}$, where the last inequality is always tight when $r_0\geq r_1$.  The next part of the protocol now begins with only T2 measurements performed.  In round $h+1$ party $h+1$ performs a T2 with probability $p_{h+1}$ such that $r_{h+1}^{(h+1)}=r^{(h+1)}_h=\cdots\geq r_0^{(h+1)}$ with $r^{(h+1)}_{h}=\frac{1}{p_{h+1}}r^{(h)}_h$.  Next, party $h+2$ performs a T2 with probability $p_{h+2}$ such that $r^{(h+2)}_{h+2}=r^{(h+2)}_{h+1}=r^{{h+2}}_h=\frac{1}{p_{h+2}p_{h+1}}r^{(h)}_h$.  This process is continued until right before some round $l$ in which $r_{l-1}^{(l-1)}\leq 1$ and $r^{(l-1)}_l\geq 1$.  Note such a round will exist because in every round $j$ satisfying $r_0^{(j)}\leq r_N^{(j)}$, there is always some component $i\not=0$ with $r_i^{(j)}\geq 1$.  Returning to the protocol, in round $l$, party $l$ applies a T2 measurement with $p_{l}=r_{l-1}^{(l-1)}$.  As a result, $r^{(l)}_i\geq 1$ for all $i\geq 1$ since $r_i^{(l)}=1$ for $1\leq i< l$, $r_l^{(l)}\geq 1$ by \eqref{Eq:coords change MOSM/PSM}, and $r_j^{(l)}\geq r_l^{(l)}$ for $j\geq l$.  The total probability is
\begin{align*}
&p_1p_2...p_{l-1}p_{l}=\frac{p_1p_2...p_{l-1}}{p_{h+1}p_{h+2}...p_{l-1}}r^{(h)}_h=p_1\cdots p_h r^{(h)}_h\\
&=p_1\cdots p_h s_hs_{h-1}s_{h-2}\cdots\frac{r_h}{p_1}=r_h\left(\frac{r_{h-1}}{r_0}\right)\dots\left(\frac{r_1}{r_0}\right).
\end{align*}

In order for this protocol to be suitable for any W-class transformation, we must consider the cases when $y_k=0$.  If $y_k=0$ for $k\geq 1$, then the $k^{th}$ party simply first disentangles itself with probability one from the rest of the system and the above protocol is performed on the $N-1$ party state $\ket{\vec{x}'}$ where $x'_0=x_0+x_k$ and $x'_j=x_j$ with $j\geq 1$.  If $y_k=0$ for $k=0$, then party $i$ specified by $x_i=\max_{j\geq 1}\{x_j\}$ performs the filter $M=\sqrt{\lambda}\left(\begin{smallmatrix}1&-\sqrt{\frac{x_0}{x_i}}\\0&1\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ with success probability $\lambda(1-x_0)$ where $\lambda=\frac{2x_i}{x_0+2x_i+\sqrt{x_0^2+4x_ix_0}}$.  This changes the coordinates as $x_i\to\frac{x_i}{1-x_0}$, and hence the constructed protocol can be implemented with an overall success probability of $\lambda r_1$.

Our protocol is most general in that it and the derived success probability apply to all W-class transformations, even those whose target state is not $N$-partite entangled.  As an example, we compute the probability for an arbitrary W-state distillation.
\begin{corollary}
Let $\ket{\vec{x}}$ be an $N$-party W-class state.  Then
\[P_{max}(\ket{\vec{x}}\to\ket{W_N})\geq \frac{2x_Nx_1N}{x_0+2x_N+\sqrt{x_0^2+4x_Nx_0}}.\]
\end{corollary}

Observe that in Theorem \ref{Thm:MainLowerBound}, the lower bound becomes $r_1$ whenever $r_2\geq r_0$.  Combined with the results of the previous section, we see that $P_{max}(\ket{\vec{x}}\to\ket{\vec{y}})=r_1$ if and only if $r_2\geq r_0$.

\section{General Features of Symmetric Transformations}

The symmetric W-class states constitute a one parameter family of states which make them easier to analyze.  Any such state can be represented as $\ket{s}=\sqrt{1-s}\ket{\vec{0}}+\sqrt{\frac{s}{N}}\sum_{i=1}^N\ket{\vec{i}}$.  Note that the state $\ket{W_N}$ corresponds to $s=1$.  The optimal probability of converting $\ket{s}\to\ket{t}$, at least by a one-shot measurement, can be numerically computed by brute force using Lagrange multipliers.  However, in this section we are less concerned with analytic expressions for optimal conversion probabilities and more with general properties of transforming symmetric states.

In particular, it was recently shown that one multi-qubit symmetric state can be reversibly converted into another if and only if the transformation is feasible by a protocol in which each party performs the same one-shot measurement.  However, one question that was not investigated is whether the optimal one-shot success probability can always obtained by a symmetric filter.  Here, we answer this question by examining the transformation of an arbitrary tripartite symmetric W-class state to the target state $\ket{W_3}$.  An optimal symmetric one-shot measurement with success probability $q$ can be expressed as $(A\otimes A\otimes A)\ket{s}=\sqrt{q}\ket{W_3}$ with the operator $A$ satisfying $A^\dagger A\leq I$ and $\det(I-A^\dagger A)=0$.  For comparison, we will consider the same transformation when only a single party acts non-trivially: $(A\otimes I\otimes I)\ket{s}=\sqrt{p}\ket{W_3}$.  Note that any conversion among symmetric W-class states can always be achieved with a non-zero probability by the action of just a single party up to a local basis change.

Studying the difference in optimal conversion rates between a multiparty symmetric filter and a single party filter is of interest because it sheds light on two competing intuitions.  On the one hand, when more parties act, the ``work of conversion'' can be distributed, and in light of the overall symmetry, it seems reasonable to expect that it's best for this work to be shared equally in the form of identical filters.  On the other hand, if only one party performs a measurement, there are fewer possibilities for failure.  Below we show that neither of these intuitions are true in general.

In both cases without loss of generality we can take $A$ to have the form $A=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}a&b\\0&c\end{smallmatrix}\right)$.  Then the comparative optimization problems become
\begin{align}
&\max \;p &&\max \;q\notag\\
&\text{subject to:}&&\text{subject to:}\notag\\
&a\sqrt{1-s}+b\sqrt{\frac{s}{3}}=0, &&a^3\sqrt{1-s}+3ba^2\sqrt{\frac{s}{3}}=0,\notag\\
&c\sqrt{s}=\sqrt{p}, &&a^2c\sqrt{s}=\sqrt{q},\notag\\
&a=c,&&
\end{align}
with both satisfying the common constraint that $b^2=(1-a^2)(1-c^2)$.  The respective solutions as functions of $s$ are
\begin{align*}
p_{max}(s)&=\frac{1}{2}(3-s-\sqrt{3(1-s)(3+s)}),\\
q_{max}(s)&=\frac{(3+9s-\beta(s))^2(-3+3s+\beta(s))}{48(1+2s)(1-s+\beta(s))},
\end{align*}
where $\beta(s)=\sqrt{3(1-s)(3+5s)}$.

The difference $p_{max}(s)-q_{max}(s)$ is plotted in Fig. \ref{plot} as $s$ varies between zero and one.  From it, we see that in general, the optimal strategy for transforming two symmetric states involves neither a symmetric measurement nor the action of just a single party.  For the particular class of transformations we consider here, the two strategies have the same maximum efficiency only when $s=\frac{3}{61}(3+8\sqrt{3})$.  However, the difference in optimal probabilities is never greater than 1.4\%.  It should also be noted that neither of these schemes may be the overal optimal protocol.  While further numerical analysis could provide an answer to this question, we do not persue it here as we consider the reported result of greater interest.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{plot
\caption{\label{plot} The difference in maximum transformation probabilities when only one party measures ($p_{max}(s)$) versus an identical filter by all parties ($q_{max}(s)$).}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
In this article, we have investigated the LOCC convertibility of $N$-party W-class states.  For a large family of transformations, we have proven their optimal conversion rate to achieve the upper bound of $\min_i\{\frac{x_i}{y_i}\}$.  The question of transforming symmetric states was considered in the context of W-class states.  Despite the necessity of SLOCC equivalent states to be related by a symmetric measurement, we have found that this symmetry cannot be extended to the measurement achieving optimality.  A future direction of research might involve considering the W-class transformations when $r_0>r_2$.  However, preliminary numerical work on this problem has revealed the computation to be quite unyielding.  It would also be interesting to know when the lower bound of Theorem \ref{Thm:MainLowerBound} is optimal.

{\bf Acknowledgments}
\\
We thank Benjamin Fortescue for helpful discussions in the development of this work as well as support from the funding agencies CIFAR, CRC, NSERC, and QuantumWorks.


\section*{Introduction}
\date{July 26, 2010}

One of the fundamental achievements of quantum topology was a discovery of
a  non-trivial connection  between monoidal categories and 3-manifolds. This connection was first observed by O. Viro and V. Turaev   and later generalized  in the papers of    J. Barrett, B. Westbury, A. Ocneanu, S. Gelfand,   D. Kazhdan and others. Their results  may be summarized by
saying that every spherical fusion category $\mathcal C$ over $\mathbb C$ with $\dim (\mathcal C)\neq 0$ gives rise to   a    topological invariant $\vert
M\vert_{\mathcal C}\in \mathbb C$ of any closed oriented 3-dimensional  manifold $M$. A prototypical example of a spherical fusion category is   the category ${\textsc{Rep}} (G)$ of finite-dimensional complex representations of a finite group $G$.  This category  allows nice operations on objects and morphisms: direct sums, tensor products, left and right dualization. Moreover,  ${\textsc{Rep}} (G)$
 contains a finite family of \lq\lq simple" objects (=  irreducible representations) such that all objects split as  direct sums of the objects of this family.  Certainly, the sets of morphisms in ${\textsc{Rep}} (G)$ are  finite-dimensional complex vector spaces.  Axiomatizing these properties, one obtains    a notion of a  fusion category, see  \cite{ENO}. The condition of sphericity \cite{BW2}  on a  fusion category $\mathcal C$    says that  the \lq\lq left" and   \lq\lq right"   dimensions of   the objects of $\mathcal C$ are equal.   The resulting $\mathbb C$-valued dimension of objects of $\mathcal C$ is   preserved under isomorphisms in~$\mathcal C$.  This allows one to define the dimension $\dim (\mathcal C)$ of a  spherical fusion category $\mathcal C$  as the
sum of the squares of the dimensions of the  isomorphism classes of
simple objects. For $\mathcal C={\textsc{Rep}} (G)$, the dimension of objects is the usual dimension of the underlying vector spaces and  $\dim ({\textsc{Rep}} (G))=\vert G\vert$.  The class of spherical fusion categories includes the categories of type ${\textsc{Rep}} (G)$   and many other categories some of which will be discussed below.
 The class of spherical fusion categories is believed to be \lq\lq big  but not too big" so that one may hope for some kind of classification.

  The  invariant of a 3-manifold $M$ associated with $ {\textsc{Rep}} (G)$ is nothing but the number of homomorphisms from the fundamental group of $M$ to $G$.   In general, the  invariant $\vert
M\vert_{\mathcal C}$ associated  with a  spherical fusion category $\mathcal C$ is not determined by  the fundamental group.  The definition of~$\vert M\vert_{\mathcal C}$ is rather subtle and proceeds in terms of   state sums on a triangulation of~$M$.
The key algebraic ingredients of these state sums are the so-called
$6j$-symbols associated with~$\mathcal C$.

The formula
$(M,\mathcal C)\mapsto \vert M\vert_{\mathcal C}$ defines  a pairing  between homeomorphism classes of closed oriented 3-manifolds and
spherical fusion categories of non-zero dimension. A study of this pairing leads to
natural questions both in algebra and topology. One usually studies  the topological aspects. Is the pairing $(M,\mathcal C)\mapsto \vert M\vert_{\mathcal C}$ sufficiently strong to distinguish the 3-sphere from   other 3-manifolds? (The answer is \lq\lq yes").
Is it sufficiently strong to distinguish arbitrary 3-manifolds up to homeomorphism?
(The answer is \lq\lq no", see \cite{Fun}).

We shall  focus on   algebraic questions and specifically on the following reconstruction problem:    To what extent a spherical fusion
category can be reconstructed from  the associated 3-manifold invariants? The rational for this problem is that the  number  $\vert
M\vert_{\mathcal C}$ may be viewed as a generalized dimension  of $\mathcal C$ determined by $M$.  The reconstruction problem is intriguing already for the categories of type ${\textsc{Rep}} (G)$. Is it true that for any non-isomorphic finite groups $G_1, G_2$, there is a closed oriented 3-manifold $M$ such that the numbers of homomorphisms from $\pi_1(M)$ to $G_1$ and $G_2$ are different? We do not know the answer.

In this paper, we
study   the reconstruction problem  for  an interesting class of spherical fusion
categories  recently introduced by Tambara and Yamagami \cite{TY}.
A   Tambara-Yamagami   category
$\mathcal{TY}(A,\chi,\nu)$ is determined by   a bicharacter $\chi$
on a finite abelian group $A$   and   a sign $\nu=\pm 1$. By a {\it
bicharacter} on $A$ we mean a  non-degenerate symmetric bilinear
pairing $\chi:A\times A\longrightarrow S^1$; the non-degeneracy of
$\chi$ means that the adjoint homomorphism $A\to \mathrm{Hom} (A, S^1)$ is
bijective. The pair $(A, \chi)$ will be called a {\it bicharacter
pair}.

Two bicharacter pairs $(A, \chi)$ and $(A', \chi')$   are said to be
isomorphic if there is an isomorphism $A \cong  A' $ transforming
$\chi $ into $\chi' $. It is known that two Tambara-Yamagami
categories, $\mathcal{TY}(A,\chi,\nu)$ and
$\mathcal{TY}(A',\chi',\nu')$, are monoidally
 equivalent if and only if  the pairs $(A,\chi)$ and $(A',\chi')$ are isomorphic and $\nu=\nu'$.

Each bicharacter pair  $(A, \chi)$ splits uniquely as an orthogonal sum
$$(A,\chi)= \bigoplus_{p} (A^{(p)}, \chi^{(p)}),$$
where $p$ runs over all prime natural numbers,
$A^{(p)}\subset A$ is the abelian $p$-group consisting of the elements of $A$ annihilated by a sufficiently big power of
$p$, and $\chi^{(p)}:A^{(p)}\times A^{(p)} \longrightarrow S^1$ is the restriction of $\chi$ to $A^{(p)}$.
 In the sequel, the order of a group $A$ is denoted $\vert A\vert$.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm-one}
Let $\mathcal C=\mathcal{TY}(A,\chi,\nu)$ and $\mathcal C'=\mathcal{TY}(A',\chi',\nu')$ be two Tambara-Yamagami categories such that $\vert M \vert_{\mathcal C}= \vert M \vert_{\mathcal C'}$ for all closed oriented 3-manifolds~$M$.

(a) We have $\vert A\vert=\vert A'\vert$ and if $\vert A\vert$ is not a positive power of $4$, then $\nu=\nu'$.

(b) For every odd prime $p$,  the pairs $(A^{(p)}, \chi^{(p)})$ and $(A'^{(p)}, \chi'^{(p)})$ are isomorphic.
\end{theorem}

Combining the claims (a) and (b) we obtain the following corollary.

\begin{corollary}\label{cor-one}
Let $\mathcal C=\mathcal{TY}(A,\chi,\nu)$ and $\mathcal C'=\mathcal{TY}(A',\chi',\nu')$ be two Tambara-Yamagami categories such that
 $\vert M \vert_{\mathcal C}= \vert M \vert_{\mathcal C'}$ for all closed oriented 3-manifolds~$M$. If $\vert A\vert$
   is odd, then the bicharacter pairs $(A , \chi )$ and $(A' , \chi' )$ are isomorphic and $\nu=\nu'$.
\end{corollary}

We conjecture a similar claim in the case where $\vert A\vert$ is even.

The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-one}   is based on an explicit computation of $\vert M \vert_{\mathcal C}$ for the lens spaces $L_k=L_{k,1}$ with $k=0,1, 2,\ldots$ Recall that $L_k $ is the closed oriented 3-manifold obtained from the 3-sphere $S^3$
 by surgery along a trivial knot in $S^3$  with   framing $k$. In particular, $L_0=S^1 \times S^2$, $L_1=S^3$, and $L_2=\mathbb
{R} { P}^3$. The manifolds  $\{L_k\}_{k}$ are pairwise non-homeomorphic; they are distinguished by the fundamental group
$\pi_1(L_k)=\mathbb{Z}/k\mathbb{Z}$.

To formulate our computation of $\vert L_k \vert_{\mathcal C}$, we recall
the notion of a Gauss sum. Let $A$ be a finite abelian group and
$\chi:A\times A\longrightarrow S^1$ be  a symmetric bilinear form  (possibly
degenerate). A {\it quadratic map} associated with~$\chi$ is a map
$\mu:A\to S^1$ such that for all $a,b\in A$,
\begin{equation*}
\mu(a+b)=\chi(a,b)\, \mu(a)\, \mu(b) .
\end{equation*}
In other words,  the coboundary of $\mu$ is equal to $\chi$. Such a
$\mu$ always exists (see, for example, \cite{Klep}) and  determines
the normalized  {\it Gauss sum}
$$\gamma(\mu)= \vert A\vert^{-1/2} \vert A^\perp_\chi \vert^{-1/2} \sum_{a\in A }  \mu(a) \in \mathbb C,$$
where $$A^\perp_\chi=\{a\in A\, \vert \, \chi(a,b)=1 \,\ {\text {for
all}}\,\ b\in A\}$$ is the  annihilator of $\chi$. (If $\chi$ is a
bicharacter, then $A^\perp_\chi=\{0\}$.) The normalization is chosen
so that either $\gamma(\mu)=0$ or $\vert \gamma(\mu)\vert=1$ (see
Lemma~\ref{lemma-twominus} below).

Denote by $Q_\chi$ the set of quadratic maps associated with $\chi$.
This set has precisely $\vert A\vert$ elements; this follows from
the fact that any two quadratic maps associated with~$\chi$ differ
by a homomorphism $A\to S^1$. Every integer $k\geq 0$ determines a
subgroup $A_k=\{a\in A\, |\, ka =0\}$ of $A$ and a number
$$\zeta_k (  \chi)=  \vert A\vert^{-1/2} \vert A_k \vert^{-1/2} \sum_{ \mu\in Q_\chi}  \gamma(\mu)^k\in \mathbb C.$$
For example, $A_0=A$ and $\zeta_0(\chi)=1$.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm-two}
Let $\mathcal C=\mathcal{TY}(A,\chi,\nu)$  be a Tambara--Yamagami category.
For any odd integer $k\geq 1$,   we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq-odd}
\vert L_{k} \vert_{\mathcal C}= \frac {\vert A_{k}\vert }{2\vert A\vert} .
\end{equation}
For any even integer $k\geq 0$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq-even}
\vert L_{k}\vert_{\mathcal C}=\frac{\vert A_{k}\vert +\nu^{k/2}\vert A\vert^{1/2}\vert A_{k/2}\vert^{1/2}\zeta_{k/2}
(\chi)}{2\vert A\vert}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

For $k=0$, Formula~\eqref{eq-even} gives $\vert S^1 \times S^2 \vert_{\mathcal C} =1$ which is known to be true for all spherical fusion categories $\mathcal C$.

Our proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-two} is based on two results. The first is the equality $\vert M \vert_{\mathcal C}= \tau_{\mathcal Z(\mathcal C)} (M)$ recently established in \cite{TVi}. Here $\mathcal C$ is an arbitrary spherical fusion category
of non-zero dimension, $\mathcal Z(\mathcal C)$ is the Drinfeld-Joyal-Street center of $\mathcal C$, and $\tau_{\mathcal Z(\mathcal C)}(M)$ is the Reshetikhin-Turaev invariant of $M$. The second result is the computation of the center of $\mathcal C=\mathcal{TY}(A, \chi,\nu)$ in \cite{GNN}.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{sec-1} we recall the Tambara-Yamagami category and its center  and  prove Theorem~\ref{thm-two}. In Sections~\ref{sec-3} and~\ref{sec-3(a)} we prove respectively claims (a) and (b) of Theorem~\ref{thm-one}.

This paper was started during the visit of VT to the University of
Caen in June 2010. VT would like to thank the University of Caen for
hospitality. The work of V.~Turaev  was partially supported by the
NSF grant DMS-0904262.

\section{The   Tambara-Yamagami categories and their centers}\label{sec-1}

In this section,   $(A,\chi)$ is a bicharacter pair,  $\nu=\pm 1$,
and  $n=\vert A\vert$.

\subsection{The   category $\mathcal{TY}(A,\chi,\nu)$}\label{subsec-1}
The  simple objects of the Tambara-Yamagami category $\mathcal
C=\mathcal{TY}(A,\chi,\nu)$ are all elements $a$ of $ A$ and an
additional object $m$. The unit object of $\mathcal C$ is the zero
element  $0\in A$. All other objects of $\mathcal C$ are finite
direct sums of the simple objects. The tensor product in $\mathcal
C$ is determined by the following fusion rules:
$$
a\otimes b=a+b \, \, {\text {and}} \, \,  a\otimes m=m\otimes a=m \, \ {\text{for all}} \,\ a,b\in A,\ {\text {and}}\ \,
m\otimes m=\bigoplus_{a\in A} a.
$$
The category $\mathcal C$ is associative but generally speaking not strictly associative. For any simple objects $U,V,W$ of    $\mathcal C$, the associativity isomorphism $\phi_{ U,V,W}: (U\otimes V) \otimes W\to U \otimes (V \otimes W)$  is  given by the following formulas (where $a,b,c$ run over $A$):\\
$$\begin{array}{lcl}
\phi_{a,b,c} = id_{a+b+c},\hfill \phi_{a,b,m} = id_m,\hfill
\phi_{m,a,b} = id_m,\\ \phi_{a,m,b} = \chi(a,b)id_m,\hfill
\phi_{a,m,m} = \displaystyle\bigoplus_{b\in A}id_b,\hfill
\phi_{m,m,a} = \displaystyle\bigoplus_{b\in A}id_b,\\
\phi_{m,a,m} = \displaystyle\bigoplus_{b\in A}\chi(a,b)id_b,\,
\hfill \phi_{m,m,m} = ( {\nu} n^{-1/2}
\chi(a,b)^{-1}id_m)_{a,b}.
\end{array}$$
The unit isomorphisms are trivial. The duality in $\mathcal C$ is defined
by $a^*=-a$ for  all $a\in A$ and  $m^*=m$. The left duality
morphisms in $\mathcal C$  are the identity maps $ 0\to a\otimes
a^*,\ a^*\otimes a\to 0$ for $a\in A$, the inclusion $
0\hookrightarrow  m\otimes m $  and $\nu  n^{1/2}$ times the obvious
projection $  m\otimes m \to 0$. The right duality morphisms in
$\mathcal C$ are the identity maps $ 0\to a^*\otimes a,\ a\otimes
a^*\to 0$ for $a\in A$, $\nu$ times the inclusion $ 0\hookrightarrow
m\otimes m $  and $n^{1/2}$ times the obvious projection $  m\otimes
m\to 0$.

We define a fusion category as a $\mathbb C$-linear  monoidal category with
compatible left and right dualities such that all objects are direct
sums of simple objects, the number of isomorphism classes of simple
objects is finite, and the unit object is simple. (An object $V$ is
simple if ${\rm End } (V)=\mathbb C \, id_V$.) The condition of sphericity
says that the left and right dimensions of all objects are equal.    A basic reference on the theory of fusion categories
is \cite{ENO}. It is easy to see that $\mathcal C=\mathcal{TY}(A,\chi,\nu)$
is a spherical fusion category of dimension $2n$.

\subsection{The   center}\label{subsec-2}  The center $ {\mathcal Z(\mathcal C)} $ of $\mathcal C=\mathcal{TY}(A,\chi,\nu)$  was computed in \cite{GNN},
Prop.\@ 4.1. The category $ {\mathcal Z(\mathcal C)} $ has  three types of   simple objects whose description together with
the corresponding quantum dimensions and twists is as follows:

(1) $2n$ invertible objects $X_{(a,\varepsilon)}$, where $ a$ runs
over $ A$ and $ \varepsilon$ runs over complex square roots of
$\chi(a,a)^{-1}$. Here $\dim(X_{(a,\varepsilon)})=1$ and $
\theta_{(a,\varepsilon)}=\chi(a,a)^{-1}$;

(2) $\frac{n(n-1)}{2}$ objects $Y_{(a,b)}$ parameterized by
unordered pairs $(a,b)$, where $a,b\in A,\ a\neq b$. Here
$\dim(Y_{(a,b)})=2$ and $ \theta_{(a,b)}=\chi(a,b)^{-1}$;

(3) $2n$ objects $Z_{(\mu,{\Delta})}$, where $\mu $ runs over
$Q_\chi$ and ${\Delta}$ runs over the square roots of $ {\nu}
\gamma(\mu)$. Here $\dim(Z_{(\mu,{\Delta})})=  n^{1/2}$ and
$\theta_{(\mu,{\Delta})}={\Delta}$.

Denote by $I$ the set of the (isomorphism classes of) simple objects of $\mathcal Z(\mathcal C)$. The dimension
of $\mathcal Z(\mathcal C)$ is computed by
$$\dim \mathcal Z(\mathcal C)=\sum_{i\in I} (\dim(i))^2=2n \times 1 + \frac{n(n-1)}{2} \times 4+ 2n \times n=4n^2.$$
We will need the following more general computation.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-one}
For an  integer $k\geq 0$, set
$
\tau_{k}= \sum_{i\in I}\theta_i^{k}(\dim(i))^2
$,
where $\theta_i$ and $\dim(i)$ are the twist and the dimension of $i\in I$.
If $k$ is odd, then  $ \tau_{k} = 2n \vert A_{k}\vert$.   If $k$ is even, then $
\tau_{k}  = 2n ({\vert A_{k}\vert} + {\nu^{k/2}}\vert A\vert^{1/2}\vert A_{k/2}\vert^{1/2}
\zeta_{k/2} (\chi)) $.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof} A direct computation shows that $
\tau_{k}=2u_k+nv_k$, where    $$
u_k=\sum_{a\in A}\chi(a,a)^{-k}+\sum_{(a,b)\in A^2, a\neq b}\chi(a,b)^{-k} $$ and   $v_k=\sum_{({\mu}, \Delta) }{\Delta}^k $.
Since $\chi$ is non-degenerate,
$$
u_k=\sum_{a,b\in A}  \chi(a,b)^{-k}=\sum_{a,b\in A}\chi(a,b^{-k}) =n \, |A_k|.
$$
If $k$ is odd, then the contributions of the pairs $({\mu}, \Delta)$ and $({\mu}, -\Delta)$ to $v_k$ cancel each other so that $v_k=0$ and  $ \tau_{k} = 2n \vert A_{k}\vert$.
For  even  $k$,
$$v_k=\sum_\mu 2  ({\nu} \gamma (\mu) )^{k/2}=2 {\nu^{k/2}}\vert A\vert^{1/2}\vert A_{k/2}\vert^{1/2}\zeta_{{k/2}} (\chi).$$
\end{proof}

\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm-two}}\label{sec-2}
Since $\mathcal C=\mathcal{TY}(A,\chi,\nu)$ is a spherical fusion category
of non-zero dimension, it determines for any closed oriented
3-manifold $M$  a   state sum invariant  $\vert M\vert_{\mathcal C}\in \mathbb C$,
see \cite{TV}, \cite{BW}. By a theorem of M\"uger \cite{Mug}, the
category $\mathcal Z(\mathcal C)$ is modular in the sense of~\cite{Tur}. A modular
category endowed with a square root $\mathcal D$ of its dimension
gives rise to the Reshetikhin-Turaev invariant of any $M$ as above.
The RT-invariant of $M$ determined by $\mathcal Z(\mathcal C)$ and the square root
$\mathcal D=2n=\tau_1$ of $\dim \mathcal Z(\mathcal C)$ will be denoted by
$\tau_{\mathcal Z(\mathcal C)}(M)$. A theorem of Virelizier and Turaev \cite{TVi}
implies that  $\vert M\vert_{\mathcal C}=\tau_{\mathcal Z(\mathcal C)}(M)$ for all $M$.
By \cite{Tur}, Chapter II, 2.2, for all $k\geq 0$,
\begin{equation*}
\tau_{\mathcal Z(\mathcal C)}(L_{k})={\mathcal D}^{-2}\sum_{i\in I}\theta_i^{k}(\dim(i))^2=4n^{-2} \tau_k.
\end{equation*}
Substituting the expression for $\tau_k$ provided by Lemma~\ref{lemma-one}, we obtain the claim of the theorem.

\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-one}(a)}\label{sec-3}

We start with a well known lemma. In this lemma we call a quadratic
map $\mu :A\to S^1$ {\it homogeneous} if $\mu(na)=(\mu(a))^{n^2}$
for all $n\in \mathbb{Z}$ and $a\in A$.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-twominus}   Let $A$ be a finite abelian group and $\mu :A\to S^1 $ be a quadratic map
  associated with a symmetric bilinear form $\chi:A\times A \to
  S^1$. Set $A^\perp=A^\perp_\chi\subset A$.

  - If $\mu(A^\perp)\neq 1$, then $\gamma(\mu)= 0$.

  - If $\mu(A^\perp)= 1$, then $\vert
  \gamma(\mu)\vert=1$.

  - If $\mu(A^\perp)= 1$ and $\mu$ is homogeneous, then
  $\gamma(\mu)$ is an 8-th complex root of unity.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
We have
$$ \vert  A\vert \, \vert A^\perp \vert\,  \vert \gamma(\mu)\vert^2= \vert \sum_{a\in A} \mu(a)\vert^2=
\sum_{a, b\in A}\mu(a)\overline {\mu(b)} =\sum_{a, b\in A}\mu(a){\mu(b)}^{-1}$$
$$=\sum_{a, b\in A} \mu(a+b) {\mu(b)}^{-1} =\sum_{a, b\in A} \chi (a,b)  \mu(a).$$
When $b$ runs over $A$, the complex number $\chi(a,b)$ runs over a finite subgroup of $S^1$.
We have  $\sum_{b\in A} \chi(a,b)=0$ unless this subgroup is trivial. The latter holds if and only if
$a\in A^\perp$ and in this case $\sum_{b\in A}  \chi(a,b)=\vert A\vert$. Therefore,
$$\vert  A\vert \, \vert A^\perp \vert\,  \vert \gamma(\mu)\vert^2=
\vert  A\vert \, \sum_{a\in A^\perp} \mu(a).$$ The restriction of
$\mu$ to $A^\perp$ is a group homomorphism $A^\perp\to S^1 $. If
$\mu(A^\perp)\neq 1$, then $\sum_{a\in A^\perp} \mu(a)=0$ and
therefore $\gamma(\mu)=0$. Suppose now that   $\mu(A^\perp)= 1$.
Then $\sum_{a\in A^\perp} \mu (a)=\vert A^\perp\vert$ and therefore
$\vert
  \gamma(\mu)\vert=1$. The equality  $\mu(A^\perp)= 1$ also ensures that $\mu$ is the composition of the projection $A\to A'= A/A^\perp$
   with a quadratic map $\mu':A'\to S^1 $
  associated with the non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form $ A'\times A' \to S^1$ induced by $\chi$.
   It follows from the definitions that $\gamma(\mu)=\gamma(\mu')$. If $\mu$ is homogeneous, then so is $\mu'$. It is known (see, for instance, \cite{Sc}, Chapter 5, Section 2)
   that  for any  homogeneous quadratic map on a finite abelian group associated with a non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form, the corresponding  invariant $\gamma$ is an $8$-th root of unity.
    This implies the last claim  of the lemma.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-two} Let $(A,\chi)$ be a bicharacter pair.
  For any integer $k \geq 1 $, either
$\zeta_k (\chi)=0$ or $  \zeta_k (\chi) $ is an $8$-th root
of unity. If $k=1$ or $k$ is divisible by $8\vert A\vert$,
then $\zeta_k(\chi)=1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Pick a
  quadratic  map $\mu_0:A\to S^1$ associated with $\chi$.
Observe that for every integer $k $, the function $\mu_0^{k}:A\to
S^1$ carrying any $ c\in A$ to $ (\mu_0(c))^{k}$ is a  quadratic
map associated with the symmetric  bilinear form $\chi^{k}:A\times
A\to S^1$ defined by $\chi^{k}(a,b)= (\chi (a,b) )^{k}$. We claim
that for all $k\in \mathbb{Z}$,
\begin{equation}\label{prin}\zeta_k(\chi)=\gamma (\mu_0^{-k})\,
(\gamma (\mu_0))^k.
\end{equation} Indeed, since $\chi$ is non-degenerate, any quadratic map
$\mu:A\to S^1$ associated with $\chi$   can be expanded in the form
$\mu(a)= \chi (a, c)\, \mu_0(a)$ for a unique $c=c(\mu)\in A$. Since
$\chi(a,c) \, \mu_0(a)=\mu_0(a+c)\, \mu_0(c)^{-1}$ for all $a,c\in
A$, we have
$$
 \zeta_k(\chi)= |A|^{-1/2} |A_k|^{-1/2}\sum_{\mu\in Q_\chi}(|A|^{-1/2}\sum_{a\in A}
\mu(a))^k
$$
$$
= |A|^{-1/2} |A_k|^{-1/2} \sum_{c\in A} (|A|^{-1/2}\sum_{a\in
A}\chi(a,c)\, \mu_0(a))^k$$ $$= \{ |A|^{-1/2} |A_k|^{-1/2}
\sum_{c\in A}\mu_0(c)^{-k}\}\{|A|^{-1/2}\sum_{b\in
A}\mu_0(b)\}^{k}$$
$$=\gamma (\mu_0^{-k})\, (\gamma (\mu_0))^k.
$$
In the last equality we use  the obvious fact that
$A^\perp_{\chi^{-k}}=A_k$.

We can always choose  $\mu_0:A\to S^1$ to be homogeneous. Then
$\mu_0^{-k}$ also is homogeneous. Since $\chi$ is non-degenerate,
the previous lemma implies that $\gamma (\mu_0)$ is an $8$-th root
of unity and $\gamma (\mu_0^{-k})$ is either zero or an $8$-th root
of unity. This implies the first claim of the lemma.

For $k=1$, Formula~\eqref{prin} gives
$$\zeta_1(\chi)= \gamma (\mu_0^{-1})\, \gamma (\mu_0) ={\gamma
(\overline{\mu_0})} \, \gamma (\mu_0)=\overline{\gamma (\mu_0)} \,
\gamma (\mu_0)= 1,$$ where the
 overbar  is the complex conjugation.

Observe that $\mu_0^{2n}=1$ for $n=\vert A\vert$. Indeed,  for any
$a\in A$,
 $$1=\mu_0(0)=\mu_0(2na)=  (\mu_0(a))^{2n} \chi(a,a)^{n(n-1)}$$
 $$=
 (\mu_0(a))^{2n}
 \chi(na,(n-1) a)=    (\mu_0(a))^{2n}.$$
 Therefore for all   $k\in 2n\mathbb{Z}$, we have $\gamma
 (\mu_0^{-k})=1$. If $k \in 8 \mathbb{Z}$, then   $(\gamma
 (\mu_0))^k=1$. Hence, if $k\in 8n\mathbb{Z}$, then $\zeta_k(\chi)=\gamma (\mu_0^{-k})\,
(\gamma (\mu_0))^k=1$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-one}(a)}
For $k=1$, Formula~\eqref{eq-odd} gives $\vert L_{1}\vert_{\mathcal C}=(2\vert A\vert )^{-1}$. Thus,
$$\vert A\vert =\vert L_{1}\vert_{\mathcal C}^{-1}/2=\vert L_{1}\vert_{\mathcal C'}^{-1}/2=\vert A'\vert.$$
This and Formula~\eqref{eq-odd} implies that $\vert A_k\vert =\vert
A'_k\vert$ for all odd $k\geq 1$.

Set $n=\vert A\vert=\vert A'\vert $. Suppose that $\nu\neq\nu'$. Assume for concreteness that $\nu=-1$
and $\nu'=+1$. Formula~\eqref{eq-even} with $k=2$ and Lemma~\ref{lemma-two} show that
$$\vert A_{2}\vert -n^{1/2}=2n\vert L_{2}\vert_{\mathcal C}=2n\vert L_{2}\vert_{\mathcal C'}=\vert A'_{2}\vert + n^{1/2}.$$
Thus, $\vert A_{2}\vert -\vert A'_{2}\vert= 2n^{1/2}$. Therefore,
$n=m^2$ for an integer $m\geq 1$. Since $n$ is not a positive power
of $4$,   either $m=1$ or $m$ is  not a power of $2$. If $m=1$, then
$A=A'=\{0\}$ and so $A_{2}=  A'_{2}=\{0\}$ which contradicts the
equality $\vert A_{2}\vert -\vert A'_{2}\vert= 2m$.

Suppose that $m=n^{1/2}$ is  not a power of $2$. Pick an odd divisor
$\ell\geq 3$   of $m $. Applying Formula~\eqref{eq-even} to
$k=2\ell$, we obtain that
$$\vert A_{k}\vert - m\vert A_{\ell} \vert^{1/2}  \zeta_{\ell} (  \chi)=\vert A'_{k}\vert + m \vert A'_{\ell} \vert^{1/2}  \zeta_{\ell} (  \chi').$$
Note that $\vert A_{k}\vert=\vert A_{2}\vert\, \vert A_{\ell}\vert$
and similarly for $A'$. Since $\ell$ is odd, we have $\vert
A_\ell\vert =\vert A'_\ell \vert$. Therefore
$$\vert A_{2}\vert -\vert A'_{2}\vert= m \vert A_{\ell} \vert^{-1/2}  (\zeta_{\ell} (  \chi')+\zeta_{\ell} (  \chi)).$$
The right-hand side of this equality must be a real number that cannot exceed $2m \vert A_{\ell} \vert^{-1/2}$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma-two}. Thus, $\vert A_{2}\vert -\vert A'_{2}\vert \leq 2m \vert A_{\ell} \vert^{-1/2}$.
Since $\ell$ divides $n$, we have $A_\ell\neq 1$ so that $ \vert A_{\ell} \vert \geq  2$. This
 gives $\vert A_{2}\vert -\vert A'_{2}\vert \leq 2m /\sqrt{2}$ which contradicts the equality
  $\vert A_{2}\vert -\vert A'_{2}\vert= 2m$. This contradiction shows that $\nu=\nu'$.

\subsection{Remarks} (i) It is easy to extend the argument above to show that the conclusion of Theorem~\ref{thm-one}(a) holds also for $\vert A\vert=4$.

(ii) Let in the proof above $\vert A\vert=\vert A'\vert=n$ be  a
positive power of $2$ and $\nu=-1,\nu'=1$. Formula~\eqref{eq-even}
with $k=2\ell$, where $\ell\geq 3$ is odd, shows that
$$\vert A_{2\ell}\vert-n^{1/2}\vert A_{\ell}\vert^{1/2}\zeta_{\ell}(\chi)=2n\vert L_{2\ell}\vert_{\mathcal C}=
2n\vert L_{2\ell}\vert_{\mathcal C'}=\vert A'_{2\ell}\vert+n^{1/2}\vert
A'_{\ell}\vert^{1/2}\zeta_{\ell}(\chi').$$ But now $A_{\ell}=\{0\}$,
so $\vert A_{\ell}\vert=1$, $\vert A_{2\ell}\vert=\vert A_{2}\vert$
and similarly for $A'$. This  gives $\vert A_{2}\vert- \vert
A'_{2}\vert=n^{1/2}(\zeta_{\ell}(\chi')+\zeta_{\ell}(\chi))$.
Comparing with the equality $\vert A_{2}\vert-\vert A'_{2}\vert=
2n^{1/2}$ obtained above, we conclude that
$\zeta_{\ell}(\chi')+\zeta_{\ell}(\chi)=2$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma-two},
this is possible if and only if $\zeta_{\ell}(\chi)=
\zeta_{\ell}(\chi')= 1$  for all odd $l\geq 3$.

(iii)   The number $\zeta_k(\chi)$ is closely related to the
Frobenius-Schur indicator  $\nu_{2k}(m)$ of the   object $m$ of the
  category $\mathcal C=\mathcal{TY}(A,\chi,\nu)$ computed by Shimizu \cite{Sh}.
Indeed, substituting $n=2k, V=m$ in    formula (3) of \cite{Sh} and
taking into account that $\dim(\mathcal C)=2|A|$, $
\theta_m=\Delta$, $ \dim(m)= |A|^{1/2}$, we obtain
$$
\nu_{2k}(m)=\frac{1}{2|A|^{1/2}}\sum_{\mu,\Delta}\Delta^{2k}=  |A|^{-1/2}\sum_{\mu\in Q_{\chi}} [\nu\gamma(\mu)]^k=
\nu^k |A_k|^{1/2} \zeta_k(\chi)
$$
(our sign $\nu$ is equal  to Shimizu's $sgn(\tau)$).  This and
Lemma~\ref{lemma-two} give another proof of the following results of
Shimizu (see \cite{Sh}, Theorem 3.5): the number $|A_k|^{-1/2}
\nu_{2k}(m) $ is either $0$ or an 8-th complex root of unity for all
$k$;   this number is   $0$ if and only if for some (and then for
any) $\mu\in Q_\chi$, there is $a=a_\chi\in A_k$ such that
$\mu(a)^k=1$. The latter claim follows   from
Lemma~\ref{lemma-twominus}, Formula~\eqref{prin}, and the equality
$A^\perp_{\chi^{-k}}=A_k$.

\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-one}(b)}\label{sec-3(a)}

\subsection{Preliminaries on bicharacters}\label{prelimbich} Any finite abelian group $A$ splits uniquely as a direct sum $A=\oplus_{p}\, A^{(p)}$, where $p\geq 2$
runs over all prime integers and $A^{(p)}$ consists of all
elements of $A$ annihilated by a sufficiently big power of $p$.
The group $A^{(p)}$ is a $p$-group, i.e., an abelian group
annihilated by a sufficiently big power of $p$.  Given a bicharacter
$\chi$ of $A$, we   have $\chi (A^{(p)}, A^{(p')})=1$ for any
distinct $p,p'$. Therefore the restriction, $\chi^{(p)}$, of $\chi$
to $A^{(p)}$ is a bicharacter and we have an orthogonal splitting
$(A,\chi)=\oplus_{p} \, (A^{(p)} , \chi^{(p)})$.

Fix a prime integer $p\geq 2$ and recall the properties of
bicharacters on $p$-groups, see, for example, \cite{De} for a
survey.   Given a bicharacter $\chi$ on a finite abelian $p$-group
$A$, there is an orthogonal splitting $(A,\chi)=\oplus_{{s}\geq
1} (A_{s}, \chi_{s})$, where $A_{s}$ is a direct sum of several
copies of $\mathbb{Z}/p^{{s}}\mathbb{Z}$ and $\chi_{s}:A_{s} \times A_{s}\to
S^1$ is a bicharacter. The rank of $A_{s}$ as a
$\mathbb{Z}/p^{{s}}\mathbb{Z}$-module depends only on $A$ and is denoted
${r}_{p,s} (A)$.

Assume from now on that $p\neq 2$. Then the splitting
$(A,\chi)=\oplus_{{s}\geq 1} (A_{s}, \chi_{s})$ is unique up to
isomorphism and each   $\chi_{s}$ is  an orthogonal sum of
bicharacters on ${r}_{s} (A)$ copies of the cyclic abelian group
$\mathbb{Z}/p^{{s}}\mathbb{Z}$.  Using the canonical injection
$\mathbb{Z}/p^{{s}}\mathbb{Z}\hookrightarrow S^1, z\mapsto e^{2\pi i z/p^{{s}}}$, we
can view $\chi_{s}$ as a pairing with values in the
ring~$\mathbb{Z}/p^{{s}}\mathbb{Z}$. This allows us to consider the determinant
$\det\chi_{s}\in \mathbb{Z}/p^{{s}}\mathbb{Z}$ of $\chi_{s}$. Since $\chi_{s}$ is
non-degenerate, $\det \chi_{s} $  is coprime with $p$. Let
$$\sigma_{p, s}(\chi)=(\frac{\det \chi_{s} }{p})  \in \{\pm 1\}
$$ be the corresponding Legendre symbol.  Recall that for    an
integer $d$ coprime with~$p$,   the   Legendre symbol
$(\frac{d}{p})$ is equal to $1$ if $d \,(\mathrm{mod}\ p)$ is a quadratic
residue
  and to $-1$
  otherwise, see, for example, \cite{IR}.
   If ${r}_{p,s} (A )=0$,
then by definition $\sigma_{p, s}=1$. It follows   from the
definitions that the integers $\{{r}_{p,s}\}_{s}$ are additive and
the signs $\{\sigma_{p,s}\}_{s}$ are multiplicative with respect to
orthogonal summation of bicharacter pairs. A theorem due to H.
Minkowski, E. Seifert, and C.T.C.\ Wall says that these invariants
form a complete system:  two bicharacters, $\chi_1$ and $\chi_2$, on
$p$-groups $A_1$ and $A_2$, respectively, are isomorphic if and
only if ${r}_{p,s}(A_1)={r}_{p,s}(A_2)$ and
$\sigma_{p,s}(\chi_1)=\sigma_{p,s}(\chi_2)$ for all ${s}\geq 1$.

For shortness, when  $p$ is specified, we   denote ${r}_{p,s} (A)$
and $\sigma_{p, s}(\chi)$ by $r_s(A)$ and $\sigma_{ s}(\chi)$,
respectively.

\subsection{Computation of $\zeta_k$}\label{compos}  Consider the $\mathbb C$-valued invariants $\{\zeta_k\}_{k\geq 1}$ of
bicharacters defined in the introduction. It is easy to deduce from
the definitions that $ \zeta_k(\chi\oplus\chi') = \zeta_k(\chi)\,
\zeta_k(\chi')  $  for any bicharacters $\chi, \chi'$  and any $k$.
Thus, the formula $\chi\mapsto\zeta_k(\chi)$ defines a
multiplicative function from the semigroup of bicharacter pairs
(with operation being the orthogonal sum $\oplus$) to $\mathbb C$.

Fix an odd prime   $p \geq 3$. We now compute $\zeta_k$ on the
bicharacters on $p$-groups. For any
 odd  integer $a$, set    $\varepsilon_{a}=i=\sqrt{-1}$ if $a\equiv 3 (\mathrm{mod}\ 4)$ and $\varepsilon_{a}=1$ otherwise.
For any integers $  k, s \geq
  1$, we have $gcd(k,p^s)=p^t$ with
$0\leq t \leq s$.   Set
$$ \alpha_{ k,s}= k s + s-t\quad {\text {and}} \quad
\beta_{ k,s}=
\frac{\varepsilon^k_{p^s}}{\varepsilon_{p^{s-t}}} \,
(\frac{h}{p})^{k s + s-t} \, (\frac{k'}{p})^{s-t}  \in \{\pm
1, \pm i\},$$ where $h=({p^s+1})/{2}\in \mathbb{Z}$ and $k'=
{k}/{p^t}\in \mathbb{Z}$.   Note that $gcd(h,p)=1$ so that the Legendre
symbol $(\frac{h}{p})$ is defined. If $t<s$, then $gcd(k',p)=1$
so that the Legendre symbol $(\frac{k'}{p})$ is defined; if
$t=s$, then by definition, $(\frac{k'}{p})^{s-t}=1$.

\begin{lemma} \label{zetal}
For any $  k \geq 1$  and any bicharacter $\chi$ on   a
$p$-group $A$,
\begin{equation} \label{zetal1}
\zeta_k(\chi)= \prod_{s\geq 1} \, \beta_{ k, s}^{r_{s}(A)}\, [\sigma_{s} (\chi)]^{\alpha_{ k,s}}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof   is based on the following classical Gauss formula: for
any integer $d$ coprime with $p$,
\begin{equation} \label{gauss}
\sum_{j=0}^{p^s-1} \exp(\frac{2\pi i}{p^s}dj^2) =p^{\frac{s}{2}}\varepsilon_{p^{s}} (\frac{d}{p})^{s}.
\end{equation}
A more general formula holds for any integer $d$: if
$gcd(d,p^s)=p^t$ with $0\leq t\leq s$ and $d'= {d}/{p^t}$, then
\begin{equation} \label{gauss+}
\sum_{j=0}^{p^s-1} \exp(\frac{2\pi i}{p^s}dj^2)=p^t\sum_{j=0}^{p^{s-t}-1} \exp(\frac{2\pi i}
{p^{s-t}}d'j^2)=p^{\frac{s+t}{2}}\varepsilon_{p^{s-t}} (\frac{d'}{p})^{s-t},
\end{equation}
where, by definition, for $t=s$,   the expression
$(\frac{d'}{p})^{s-t}$ is equal to 1.

We  now prove   \eqref{zetal1}. It is clear that both sides of
\eqref{zetal1} are multiplicative with respect to orthogonal
summation of bicharacters. The results stated in
Section~\ref{prelimbich} allow us to reduce the proof of
\eqref{zetal1} to the case where    $A=\mathbb{Z}/p^s \mathbb{Z}$ for some $s\geq
1$. We must prove that for any bicharacter $\chi:A\times A\to
S^1$,
\begin{equation} \label{zetal1--}
\zeta_k(\chi)=   \beta_{ k, s} \, [\sigma_{s} (\chi)]^{\alpha_{ k,s}}.
\end{equation}

Set as above $h=({p^s+1})/{2} $ and $k'= {k}/{p^t} $, where
$gcd(k,p^s)=p^t$ with $0\leq t \leq s$. The bicharacter $\chi$
is given by $\chi(a,b)= \exp(\frac{2\pi i}{p^s}\Delta ab)$ for all $
a,b\in A$, where $\Delta$ is an integer coprime with $p$. Observe
that the map $\mu_0:A\to S^1$ carrying any $a\in A$ to $
\exp(\frac{2\pi i}{p^s}h\Delta a^2)$   is a quadratic map associated
with  $ \chi$. Formula (\ref{gauss})  and the multiplicativity of
the Legendre symbol imply that
$$
\gamma(\mu_0 )=p^{-s/2}\sum_{j=0}^{p^s-1} \exp(\frac{2\pi i}{p^s}h\Delta j^2)=
\varepsilon_{p^{s}} (\frac{h}{p})^{s} (\frac{\Delta}{p})^{s}
=
\varepsilon_{p^{s}} (\frac{h}{p})^{s}\, [\sigma_s(\chi)]^s.
$$
Similarly, Formula (\ref{gauss+}) implies that
$$
 \sum_{c\in A}\mu_0(c)^{-k}= \sum_{j=0}^{p^s-1}\overline{\exp(\frac{2\pi i}{p^s}k h\Delta j^2)}=
p^{(s+t)/2} {\varepsilon_{p^{s-t}}^{-1}}(\frac{h}{p})^{s-t}(\frac{k'}{p})^{s-t} [\sigma_s(\chi)]^{s-t}.
$$
Since $|A|=p^s$ and $|A_k|=gcd(k,p^s)=p^t$, we have
$$\gamma(\mu_0^{-k})=
|A|^{-1/2} |A_k|^{-1/2}\sum_{c\in A}\mu_0(c)^{-k}=
{\varepsilon_{p^{s-t}}^{-1}}(\frac{h}{p})^{s-t}(\frac{k'}{p})^{s-t}
[\sigma_s(\chi)]^{s-t}.$$ These computations and
Formula~\eqref{prin} imply that  $$ \zeta_k(\chi)= \gamma
(\mu_0^{-k})\, (\gamma (\mu_0))^k=
\frac{\varepsilon^k_{p^s}}{\varepsilon_{p^{s-t}}}
(\frac{h}{p})^{k s + s-t}(\frac{k'}{p})^{s-t}
[\sigma_s(\chi)]^{k s + s-t}.
$$
This is equivalent to Formula~\eqref{zetal1--}.
\end{proof}

Note one   special case of Lemma~\ref{zetal}: if $k$ is divisible by
$2\vert A\vert$, then $\zeta_k(\chi)= \prod_{s\geq 1} \, \beta_{
k, s}^{r_{s}(A)}$. Indeed, in this case for all $s$ such that
$\mathbb{Z}/p^s \mathbb{Z}$ is a direct summand of $A$, we have $gcd(k,p^s)=p^s$
and $\alpha_{ k,s}  = k s \in 2\mathbb{Z}$. For all other $s$, we
have $\sigma_{s} (\chi)=1$. Therefore $[\sigma_{s} (\chi)]^{\alpha_{
k,s}}=1$ for all $s$.

\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-one}(b)} We begin with a few  remarks concerning the subgroups $(A_k)_{k }$
of $A$ defined in the introduction. Using the splitting $A=\oplus_p
\, A^{(p)}$, one easily checks that $A_{kl}=A_k \oplus A_l$ for any
relatively prime integers $k, l$. For any prime $p$, the integers
$(\vert A_{p^m}\vert)_{m\geq 1}$ depend only on the group $A^{(p)}$
and determine the isomorphism class of $A^{(p)}$.   Indeed,
$A^{(p)}=\oplus_{s\geq 1}(\mathbb{Z}/p^s\mathbb{Z})^{r_{p,s}}$ for
$r_{p,s}=r_{p,s}(A)\geq 0$. Given $m\geq 1$,
$$A_{p^m}=(A^{(p)})_{p^m}= \oplus_{s= 1}^m (\mathbb{Z}/p^s\mathbb{Z})^{r_{p,s}}\, \oplus \, \oplus_{s>m}(\mathbb{Z}/p^m\mathbb{Z})^{r_{p,s}}.$$
Hence,
$$ \log_p (\vert A_{p^{m+1}}\vert/\vert A_{p^m}\vert)=r_{p,m+1}+r_{p,m+2} + \cdots .$$
Therefore, the sequence $(\vert A_{p^m}\vert)_{m\geq 1}$ determines
  the sequence $\{r_{p,s}(A)\}_{s\geq 1}$ and so determines the isomorphism
type of $A^{(p)}$.

Formula~\eqref{eq-odd} and the assumptions of the theorem imply that, for all odd $k\geq 1$,
$$\vert A_k\vert=2n\vert L_{k} \vert_{\mathcal C}=2n \vert L_{k}\vert_{\mathcal C'}=\vert A'_k\vert,$$
where $n=\vert A\vert=\vert A'\vert $. By the previous paragraph,
$A^{(p)}\cong A'^{(p)}$ for all   prime  $p \neq 2$, and for all
$s\geq 1$,
\begin{equation}\label{tok}
r_{p,s}(A^{(p)})=r_{p,s}(A)=r_{p,s}(A')=r_{p,s}(A'^{(p)}).
\end{equation}
  Since $n =\prod_{p\geq 2} \vert A^{(p)}\vert $, we also have
$\vert A^{(2)}\vert=\vert A'^{(2)}\vert$.

Let $N\geq 2$ be a  positive   power of 2 annihilating both
$A^{(2)}$ and $A'^{(2)}$. Then $A_{{N}}= A^{(2)}$ and $A'_{{N}}=
A'^{(2)}$. For any odd integer $\ell\geq 1$,
$$\vert A_{{N}\ell}\vert=\vert A_{{N}}\vert\, \vert A_\ell\vert=\vert A^{(2)}\vert\, \vert A_\ell\vert= \vert A'^{(2)}\vert\,
 \vert A'_\ell\vert=\vert A'_{{N}}\vert\,\vert A'_\ell\vert=\vert A'_{{N}\ell}\vert.$$
Similarly, $\vert A_{2N\ell}\vert=\vert A'_{2N \ell} \vert$.
Applying \eqref{eq-even} to $k=2N \ell$, we obtain   $\zeta_{ {N}
\ell} (\chi)=\zeta_{ {N} \ell} (\chi')$.

Fix from now on an odd prime $p$. The identity \eqref{tok} shows
that
 to prove that the bicharacter pairs
$(A^{(p)}, \chi^{(p)})$ and $(A'^{(p)}, \chi'^{(p)})$
  are isomorphic, it is enough to  verify that $\sigma_{ s}
  (\chi^{(p)})=\sigma_{ s}
  (\chi'^{(p)})$ for all $s\geq 1$.  Set
  $$\ell=   \frac{\vert A \vert}{\vert A^{(2)}\vert \vert A^{(p)}\vert}=
  \prod_{q\geq 3, q\neq p} \vert A^{(q)} \vert=
  \prod_{q\geq 3, q\neq p} \vert A'^{(q)} \vert=\frac{\vert A' \vert}{\vert A'^{(2)}\vert \vert A'^{(p)}\vert}, $$
  where $q$ runs over all odd primes distinct from $p$.
  Clearly, $\ell $ is an odd integer. For any $N$ as  above, $\zeta_{ {N} \ell} (\chi)=\zeta_{ {N} \ell}
  (\chi')$. Observe that
  $$\zeta_{ {N} \ell} (\chi)=\zeta_{ {N} \ell} (\chi^{(2)})
  \prod_{q\geq 3} \zeta_{ {N} \ell} (\chi^{(q)}),$$
  where $q$ runs over all odd primes. Since $N\ell$ is divisible by
  $2\vert A^{(q)} \vert$ for   $q\neq p$, the   remark at the end of
  Section~\ref{compos} implies that $ \zeta_{ {N} \ell}
  (\chi^{(q)})= \zeta_{ {N} \ell} (\chi'^{(q)}) \neq 0$ for all  $q\neq p$. Replacing if
  necessary $N$ by a bigger power of 2, we can assume that $N$ is
  divisible by $8 \vert A^{(2)} \vert=8 \vert A'^{(2)} \vert$. The last claim of Lemma~\ref{lemma-two} yields $ \zeta_{ {N} \ell}
  (\chi^{(2)})= \zeta_{ {N} \ell} (\chi'^{(2)})=1$. Combining these
  equalities, we obtain that $\zeta_{ {N} \ell} (\chi^{(p)})=\zeta_{ {N} \ell}
  (\chi'^{(p)})$. Expanding both sides as in Formula~\eqref{zetal1}
  and using Formula~\eqref{tok} and
  the inclusions $  \sigma_{ s}
  (\chi^{(p)}) ,   \sigma_{ s} (\chi'^{(p)})\in \{\pm 1\} $, we
  obtain that
  $$\prod_{{\rm {odd}}\,  s\geq 1} \sigma_{ s}
  (\chi^{(p)})= \prod_{{\rm {odd}}\, s\geq 1}  \sigma_{ s} (\chi'^{(p)}).$$
  Replacing in this argument $\ell$ by $\ell p, \ell p^2, \ell p^3 , \ldots $,   we similarly  obtain that for all odd $u\geq 1$ and   even $v\geq 2$,
$$\prod_{{\rm {odd}}\,  s\geq u} \sigma_{ s}
  (\chi^{(p)})= \prod_{{\rm {odd}}\, s\geq u}  \sigma_{ s} (\chi'^{(p)}), \quad
\prod_{{\rm {even}}\,  s\geq v} \sigma_{ s}
  (\chi^{(p)})= \prod_{{\rm {even}}\, s\geq v}  \sigma_{ s} (\chi'^{(p)}) .$$
These equalities easily imply that $\sigma_{ s}
  (\chi^{(p)})= \sigma_{ s} (\chi'^{(p)})$ for all $s$.