1: \documentstyle[spie,epsf,12pt]{article}
2: \voffset 0.80 true cm
3: \hoffset 0.40 true cm
4: \setlength{\textwidth}{168mm}
5: \setlength{\textheight}{218mm}
6:
7: \title{\hphantom{AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA}
8: Measures of Decoherence}
9: \author{{\Large Leonid Fedichkin, Arkady Fedorov and Vladimir Privman}}
10:
11:
12: \begin{document}
13:
14: \maketitle
15:
16: \centerline{Center for Quantum Device Technology,}
17:
18: \centerline{Department of Physics and}
19:
20: \centerline{Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,}
21:
22: \centerline{Clarkson University, Potsdam, New York\ 13699--5720}
23:
24: \begin{abstract}
25: Methods for quantifying environmentally induced decoherence
26: in quantum systems are investigated. We formulate criteria for measuring
27: the degree of decoherence and consider several representative examples,
28: including a spin interacting with the modes of a
29: bosonic, e.g., phonon, bath. We formulate an approach based on the operator
30: norm measuring the deviation of the actual density matrix from the ideal
31: one which would describe the system without environmental interactions.
32:
33: \noindent{\bf Keywords:\ }decoherence, environment, quantum computing,
34: relaxation, spin, thermalization
35:
36: \end{abstract}
37:
38: \noindent{}{\bf Citation:\ } \ Proc. SPIE \underline{5105}, 243-254 (2003)
39:
40: \noindent{}{\bf E-print:\ } \ \,\ cond-mat/0303158 at www.arxiv.org
41:
42:
43: \section{Introduction}
44: Evolution of a quantum system exposed to an environment is described by the
45: density matrix and deviates from the ideal, usually pure-state, dynamics.
46: In this work, we consider the problem of quantifying this deviation by
47: single numerical measures, derived from the full set of the density matrix
48: elements. Depending on their strength and nature, environmental interactions
49: can lead to various relaxation and even measurement-type processes. We
50: will use the term ``decoherence'' generically. Our focus will be on the
51: environmental effects that represent ``noise'' and cause small deviations
52: from the desired isolated-system dynamics. Establishment of the threshold
53: criteria for fault-tolerant quantum computation,\cite{Aharonov} has made
54: estimation of the noise due to the environmental effects important for
55: evaluating quantum computing systems.
56:
57: Superposition of quantum states is crucial in utilizing quantum
58: parallelism for quantum computation. Therefore quantum algorithms usually deal with pure
59: or nearly pure states. There are actually two possible measures of decoherence:
60: deviation from {\em a\/} pure state, and deviation from a {\em particular\/} pure
61: state, or nearly-pure mixed state, which can be time-dependent. Even if the state of
62: the system remains pure, it might
63: deviate from the dynamics desired for a particular controlled quantum process.
64: The ultimate goal of the studies of the type reported here would be to
65: identify simple numerical measures of degree of decoherence occurring during the ``clock''
66: times of quantum computing gate functions, to compare
67: with the fault-tolerance requirements in various quantum error correction schemes.
68:
69: Let us assume that a quantum system of interest, denoted by $S$, is
70: prepared at time $t=0$ in some pure quantum state $|\varphi\rangle$.
71: At times $t>0$, the system can be subject to noise, i.e., coupling
72: to the modes of the environment, but also to ``controlling'' interactions
73: required for quantum computing. Here we consider a system only exposed to the
74: environmental noise, because the degree of decoherence can be
75: usually approximately evaluated for time scales shorter than or comparable to the times
76: of quantum control. The quantum system can then be described by the reduced
77: density operator, $\rho (t)$, which can be obtained from the overall density operator
78: by tracing over all the environmental degrees of freedom.
79:
80: For the initial
81: state, the density matrix has the form $ \rho (0) =
82: | \varphi \rangle \langle\varphi |$. The interaction with the
83: surrounding, which is usually assumed to be a large macroscopic
84: system in thermal equilibrium at temperature $T$, leads to thermalization of the
85: quantum system. The reduced density matrix of the system for large times
86: should approach
87: \begin{equation}
88: \rho \to {{e^{ - \beta H_S } }}\Big / {{{\rm Tr}_{\, S} \left(e^{ -
89: \beta H_S } \right)}}, \qquad {\rm as} \;\; t \to \infty,
90: \end{equation}\par\noindent
91: where $\beta = 1/kT$. Here $ H_S$ is the Hamiltonian of the system. In the energy
92: eigenbasis, $|\phi_n \rangle$, the density matrix elements behave as follows,
93: \begin{equation}
94: \label{eq2}
95: \rho _{mn} = \langle \phi_m | \rho | \phi_n \rangle \to 0, \qquad {\rm as} \;\; t \to \infty \qquad (m \ne n),
96: \end{equation}\par\noindent
97: \begin{equation}
98: \label{eq3}
99: \rho _{nn} = \langle \phi_n | \rho | \phi_n \rangle \to e^{ -
100: \beta E_n }\Big / \sum\limits_k e^{ -
101: \beta E_k }, \qquad {\rm as} \;\; t \to \infty .
102: \end{equation}\par\noindent
103: Usually, thermalization sets in as the slowest relaxation process,
104: and its description requires a phenomenological Markovian assumption.\cite{therm4,therm2,therm1}
105:
106: In this work, we consider several approaches to measuring the degree
107: of decoherence due to interactions with the environment. In Section 2, we
108: discuss the approach based on the asymptotic relaxation time scales. The entropy and
109: idempotency-defect measures are addressed in Section 3. The fidelity measure of
110: decoherence is discussed in Section 4. Next, in Section 5, we
111: present our results on the operator norm measures of decoherence.
112: Section 6 presents a discussion of an approach to eliminate the initial-state
113: dependence of the decoherence measures, as well as of extensivity properties
114: for multiqubit systems.
115:
116: \section{Relaxation Time Scales}
117: Markovian approximation schemes typically yield exponential
118: approach to the limiting values of the density matrix elements for
119: large times.\cite{therm4,therm2,therm1} For the two-state
120: system, this defines the thermalization time scales $T_1$ and
121: $T_2$, associated, respectively, with the approach by the diagonal
122: (thermalization) and off-diagonal (dephasing, decoherence) density-matrix
123: elements to their limiting values; see
124: (\ref{eq2},\ref{eq3}). More generally, for large times we expect
125: \begin{equation}
126: \rho _{nn} (t) - \rho _{nn}(\infty) \propto e^{ - t/T_{nn} } ,
127: \end{equation}\par\noindent
128: \begin{equation}
129: \rho _{nm} (t) \propto e^{ - t/T_{nm} } \qquad (n \ne m) .
130: \end{equation}\par\noindent
131: The shortest time among $T_{nn}$ is
132: often identified as $T_1$. Similarly, $T_2$ can be defined as the
133: shortest time among $T_{n \ne m}$. These definitions yield the
134: characteristic times of thermalization and decoherence.
135:
136: For decoherence and thermalization times, the following inequality
137: commonly holds, $T_2 \le T_1 $,\cite{therm2} though this relation
138: usually does not apply within Markovian approximations. Therefore, the
139: decoherence time is a more crucial parameter for quantum computing
140: considerations. The time scale $T_2$ is compared to the ``clock''
141: times of quantum control, i.e., the quantum gate functions,
142: $T_g$, in order to ensure the fault-tolerant error correction criterion
143: $T_g/T_2 \leq O\left( 10^{-4}\right) $.\cite{Vincenzo}
144:
145: The disadvantages of this type of
146: analysis are that the exponential behavior of the density matrix elements
147: in the energy basis is applicable only for large times, whereas
148: for quantum computing applications, the short-time behavior
149: is usually relevant.\cite{short}
150: Moreover, while the energy basis is natural
151: for large times, the choice of the preferred basis is not obvious for
152: short and intermediate times.\cite{short,basis} Therefore, the
153: time scales $T_1$ and $T_2$ have limited applicability in evaluating quantum
154: computing error correction criteria. Their obvious advantage is in that
155: of all the measures discussed in this article, they are the only experimentally
156: observable time scales, as long as no multi-qubit quantum computer was built.
157:
158: \section{Quantum Entropy}
159: An alternative approach is to calculate the entropy\cite{Neumann}
160: of the system,
161: \begin{equation}
162: S(t)=- {\rm Tr}\left( \rho \ln \rho \right),
163: \end{equation}\par\noindent
164: or the idempotency defect, called also the first order entropy,\cite{Kim,Zurek,Zagur}
165: \begin{equation}
166: \label{trace}
167: s(t)=1 - {\rm Tr} \left( \rho ^2 \right).
168: \end{equation}\par\noindent
169: Both expressions are basis independent, have a minimum at pure
170: states and effectively describe the degree of the state's
171: ``purity.'' Any deviation from the pure state leads to the
172: deviation from the minimal values, 0, for both measures,
173: \begin{equation}
174: S_{\,\rm pure\ state}(t)= s_{\,\rm pure\ state}(t)= 0.
175: \end{equation}
176:
177: Let us consider a simple
178: example of a two-level system in the excited state
179: $|1\rangle$ at $t=0$, which decays to a ground state $|0\rangle$ via
180: the interaction with a reservoir at zero temperature $T=0$,
181: e.g., the spontaneous decay of an atom in vacuum due to the
182: electromagnetic field. Except for very short times,\cite{therm2}
183: the dynamics of the system is well described by the following
184: density matrix,
185: \begin{equation}\label{atom}
186: \rho _{11} (t) = e^{ - \Gamma t} , \qquad \rho _{00} (t) = 1 - e^{ - \Gamma t} ,
187: \end{equation}\par\noindent
188: \begin{equation}\label{atom1}
189: \rho _{01} (t) = \rho _{10} (t) = \rho _{01} (0) = \rho _{10} (0) =
190: 0,
191: \end{equation}\par\noindent
192: where $\Gamma$ is the rate of the spontaneous decay.
193: \begin{figure}[t]
194: \epsfxsize=16cm\epsfbox{Fig1.eps}
195: \caption{Entropy measures of decoherence for the
196: two-state spontaneous decay model. The upper curve: the full entropy.
197: The lower curve: the first-order entropy.}
198: {}
199: \hphantom{A}
200: \hrule
201: \end{figure}
202:
203: In Figure~1, we plot the two entropy measures of
204: decoherence as functions of time, for $\Gamma = 1$. Both curves
205: illustrate that these measures determine deviations from
206: ``purity,'' but are not sensitive to deviations from any particular
207: pure (or mixed) state. It is likely that entropy measures are
208: useful in situations when the system has evolved little from
209: a particular initial pure state under its own dynamics and environmental
210: influences. Entropy deviations can thus be used to quantify degree of
211: decoherence/relaxation for short times,\cite{short} when the system
212: is still sufficiently far from any but the ideal pure state
213: (corresponding to evolution under $H_S$ only).
214:
215: One can derive\cite{Kim} the short-time perturbative expansion
216: for $s(t)$. Let $R(t)$ denote the density matrix of the system
217: plus environment, and, for definiteness, assume that the system is
218: initially in the pure state $|\psi \rangle$, unentangled with the
219: environmental bath ($B$) of modes which are described by the density
220: matrix $\theta$. Then,
221: \begin{equation}\label{e2}
222: \rho (t)={\rm Tr}_{\,B} R(t) ,
223: \end{equation}\par\noindent
224: \begin{equation}\label{e1}
225: R(t)=e^{-iHt}R(0)\, e^{iHt},
226: \end{equation}\par\noindent
227: \begin{equation}
228: R(0)=\left( \, |\psi \rangle \langle \psi |\, \right ) \otimes
229: \theta ,
230: \end{equation}\par\noindent
231: \begin{equation}
232: H = H_S + H_B + V,
233: \end{equation}\par\noindent
234: where $H$ is the total Hamiltonian, $H_S$ is the Hamiltonian of
235: the quantum system, $H_B$ is the Hamiltonian of the environmental
236: bath, $V$ is the interaction Hamiltonian. Here we use the units
237: $\hbar =1$, and we omit the direct product symbol in what follows. We
238: get the expansion of the form
239: \begin{equation}\label{e3}
240: s(t)=\left( t / \tau_s \right)^2 + o (t^2),
241: \end{equation}\par\noindent
242: \begin{equation}\label{e4}
243: 1/(2\tau_s^2)=
244: \langle \left(\langle V\rangle _B\right )^2 \rangle _S + \langle
245: \left (\langle V\rangle _S \right )^2 \rangle _B - \langle
246: \langle V^2 \rangle _S \rangle _B - \left (\langle \langle
247: V\rangle _S \rangle _B \right )^2,
248: \end{equation}\par\noindent
249: where $\langle ...\rangle_B$, $\langle ...\rangle_S$ denote
250: averaging with respect to $\theta$ and $\rho(0)$, respectively.
251: Here, as usual, average of an operator stands for the trace of its
252: product with the density matrix. Obviously, $\langle \langle
253: ...\rangle _S \rangle _B = \langle \langle
254: ...\rangle _B \rangle _S\,$. The expression (\ref{e4}) is only
255: well defined when all the traces yield final results, which should
256: be usually the case for finite-temperature thermal initial bath
257: density matrix $\theta$, or for projection-operator $\theta$. More
258: sophisticated short-time approximations have been proposed;\cite{short}
259: see below.
260:
261: For an instructive example, let us consider next a rather general
262: model of the two-level system interacting with a boson-mode
263: reservoir.\cite{Leggett} As usual, to evaluate the density
264: operator dynamics, we have to use some approximations. For short
265: time scales, we apply the recently developed short-time approximation,\cite{short}
266: rather than the straightforward perturbative
267: expansion (\ref{e3}). The Hamiltonian of the system has the form,
268: \begin{equation}\label{3}
269: H = H_S + H_B + V =-\displaystyle\frac{\Omega}{2}\sigma _z + \sum\limits_k {\omega_k
270: a_k^{\dagger} a_k} + \sigma _x \sum\limits_k {(g_k a_k^\dagger
271: + g_k^* a_k )}.
272: \end{equation}\par\noindent
273: Here $ H_S={-(\Omega / 2)}\sigma _z$ is the Hamiltonian of the
274: quantum system, $ H_B= \sum\limits_k {\omega_k a_k^{\dagger}
275: a_k}$ is the Hamiltonian of the bath modes, and the remaining
276: term, $ V$, is the interaction Hamiltonian; $a_k,\, a_k^\dagger$
277: are the boson annihilation and creation operators; $ \sigma_i\;
278: (i=x,y,z)$ are the Pauli matrices; $\Omega>0$ is the energy gap.
279: The eigenstates of $ \sigma_x$ will be denoted by
280: \begin{equation}\label{4}
281: \sigma _x | \pm \rangle = \pm | \pm \rangle ,
282: \end{equation}\par\noindent
283: where $|\pm\rangle= \left(|0\rangle \pm |1 \rangle\right)/\sqrt
284: 2$, and $|0 \rangle=\mid\uparrow \rangle,$ $|
285: 1\rangle=\mid\downarrow \rangle$ are the ground and excited states
286: respectively.
287:
288: Now, to obtain the short time dynamics of the system, one can use
289: the approximation,\cite{short}
290:
291: \begin{equation}\label{short-time}
292: \rho _{mn} (t) = \sum\limits_{ { p, q=0,1 \atop \mu , \nu = \pm 1 }} {} \{
293: e^{i(E_q + E_n - E_p - E_m )t/2} \langle m|\mu \rangle\langle
294: \mu |p\rangle\langle q|\nu \rangle\langle \nu |n \rangle
295: \rho _{pq} (0) e^{ - B^2 (t)(\eta
296: _\mu - \eta _\nu )^2 /4 + iC(t)(\eta _\mu ^2 -
297: \eta _\nu ^2 )}\},
298: \end{equation}\par\noindent
299: \begin{equation}\label{spectral function}
300: B^2 (t) \equiv 8 \sum\limits_k {} \displaystyle \frac{{\left | {g_k }
301: \right | ^2 }}{{\omega _k ^2 }}\sin ^2 {\displaystyle{{\omega _k t}
302: \over 2}}\coth {\displaystyle{{\beta \omega _k } \over
303: 2}},
304: \end{equation}\par\noindent
305: \begin{equation}
306: C(t) \equiv \sum\limits_k {} \displaystyle\frac{{\left| {g_k }
307: \right|^2 }}{{\omega _k ^2 }}(\omega _k t - \sin \omega _k
308: t).
309: \end{equation}\par\noindent
310: Here the Roman-labeled states, $|i\rangle$, are the eigenstates of
311: $ H_S$ corresponding to the
312: eigenvalues $E_i=(-1)^{(i+1)} \Omega /2$, with $i = m,n,p,q = 0, 1$.
313: The Greek-labeled states, $|\zeta \rangle$, are the $\pm $ eigenstates
314: of $\sigma_x$ in (\ref{4}), with eigenvalues $\eta _\zeta = \zeta$, where $\zeta =
315: \mu, \nu = \pm 1$. Evaluation of
316: (\ref{short-time}) yields the following expressions,
317: \begin{equation}\label{evolution}
318: \rho _{ 11 } (t) = \frac{{1}}{2}\left [ 1 + e^{ - B^2 (t)} \right
319: ] \rho _{ 11 } (0) + \frac{{1}}{2}\left[1 - e^{ - B^2
320: (t)}\right]\rho _{ 00 } (0),
321: \end{equation}\par\noindent
322: \begin{equation}
323: \rho _{ 10 } (t) =
324: \frac{{1}}{2} e^{ -i\Omega t} \left[1 + e^{ -
325: B^2 (t)} \right]\rho _{ 10} (0) +
326: \frac{{1}}{2}\left[1 - e^{ - B^2 (t)} \right]\rho _{
327: 01 } (0).
328: \end{equation}\par\noindent
329: It transpires that the time-dependence of the density matrix
330: elements within this approximation is not exponential. For
331: estimation of the departure from the initial pure state, we obtain
332: \begin{equation}\label{1qubrho}
333: s(t)=1-{\rm Tr}\left(\rho ^2\right)
334: =\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\left[1-e^{-2B^2(t)}\right]\left\{\left[\rho
335: _{11}(0)-\rho _{00}(0)\right]^2+4\left| \rho _{01}(0)\right|
336: ^2\sin ^2[(\Omega/2)t-\gamma _0]\right\},
337: \end{equation}\par\noindent
338: where $\rho_{01}=|\rho_{01}|e^{- i \gamma_0}$.
339:
340: Note that this result depends on the spectral function $B^2(t)$,
341: defined in (\ref{spectral function}). This function is
342: obtained by integration over the bath mode frequencies. When the
343: summation in (\ref{spectral function}) is converted to
344: integration in the limit of infinite number of the bath modes,\cite{basis,vanKampen,Palma}
345: \begin{equation} \label{Bint}
346: B^2 (t) = 8 \int d \omega N(\omega) |g(\omega)|^2 \omega^{-2}
347: \sin ^2 {\displaystyle{{\omega t} \over 2}}
348: \coth {\displaystyle{{\beta \omega} \over 2}} ,
349: \end{equation}\par\noindent
350: where $N(\omega)$ is the density of states. In many realistic
351: models of the bath, the density of states increases as a power of
352: $\omega$ for small frequencies and has a cutoff at large
353: frequencies (Debye cutoff in the case of a phonon bath). Therefore,
354: approximately setting
355: \begin{equation} \label{Bint2}
356: N(\omega) |g(\omega)|^2 \propto \omega^n
357: \exp \left(- \omega / \omega_c \right)
358: \end{equation}\par\noindent
359: can yield a good qualitative estimate of the relaxation behavior.\cite{vanKampen,Palma}
360: For a popular case of Ohmic dissipation,\cite{Leggett} $n=1$, the time dependence of $B^2(t)$ is sketched
361: in Figure 2. One can identify the initial stage of quadratic
362: growth of the spectral function, the intermediate region of
363: logarithmic growth, and the linear large-time behavior.
364: \begin{figure}[t]
365: \epsfxsize=16cm\epsfbox{Fig2.eps}
366: \caption{Schematic plot of the spectral function $B^2 (t)$ for Ohmic
367: dissipation.\cite{Palma,basis} The ``quiet'' regime
368: $t < \omega^{-1}_c$ corresponds to $B^2(t)\propto (\omega_c t)^2$, the
369: ``quantum'' regime $\omega^{-1}_c < t < \beta$ corresponds to
370: $B^2(t)\propto \ln(\omega_c t)$, and ``thermal'' regime $t\gg\beta,$ corresponds to $B^2(t)\propto t/\beta$.}
371: {}
372: \hphantom{A}
373: \hrule
374: \end{figure}
375:
376: The result (\ref{1qubrho}) illustrates two common features of
377: the decoherence measures. The first is the explicit dependence on
378: the initial density matrix elements. The second is the
379: time-dependence that involves the spectral frequencies of the
380: system. We note that the spectral function $B^2(t)$ is monotonic.
381: However, the expression (\ref{1qubrho}) also contains
382: oscillatory time dependence with the period $2\pi/\Omega$, which
383: obviously reflects the property of the system's internal dynamics
384: rather than its deviation from a pure state. If the initial
385: density matrix is diagonal, $\rho_{01}=0$, then we have $s(t)=
386: 2^{-1}\{1-[\rho _{00 } (0) - \rho _{ 11 } (0)]^2 e^{ - 2B^2
387: (t)}\}$, which has no such oscillations.
388:
389: \section{Fidelity}
390: \label{Fidelity}
391:
392: Writing the total Hamiltonian as usual,
393: \begin{equation}\label{f0}
394: H=H_S+H_B+V,
395: \end{equation}\par\noindent
396: let us now define the fidelity,\cite{Fidelity,Fidelity2}
397: \begin{equation}\label{f1}
398: F(t)={\rm Tr}_{\,S} \left[ \, \rho _{\rm ideal}(t) \, \rho (t) \, \right],
399: \end{equation}\par\noindent
400: where the trace is over the system degrees of freedom, and $\rho_{\rm ideal}(t)$
401: represents the pure-state evolution of the system under the constant $H_S$ only,
402: without interaction with the environment ($V=0$),
403: \begin{equation}\label{f2}
404: \rho _{\rm ideal}(t)= e^{-iH_S t}\rho(0)\, e^{iH_S t}.
405: \end{equation}
406:
407: The fidelity provides a certain measure of decoherence in terms of
408: the difference between the ``real,'' environmentally influenced,
409: $\rho (t)$, evolution and the ``free'' evolution, $\rho_{\rm
410: ideal} (t)$. It will attain its maximal value, 1, only provided
411: $\rho (t) = \rho_{\rm ideal} (t)$. This property relies on the
412: fact the $ \rho_{\rm ideal} (t)$ remains a projection operator
413: (pure state) for all times $t \geq 0$.
414:
415: Let us consider the two-level system decaying from the excited to
416: ground state, (\ref{atom},\ref{atom1}). In this case, there
417: is no internal system dynamics,
418: \begin{equation}
419: \rho _{\rm ideal} (t) =\left(
420: \begin{array}{cc}
421: 0 & 0 \\
422: 0 & 1
423: \end{array}
424: \right),
425: \end{equation}\par\noindent
426: \begin{equation}
427: \rho (t)=\left(
428: \begin{array}{cc}
429: 1-e^{-\Gamma t} & 0 \\
430: 0 & e^{-\Gamma t}
431: \end{array}
432: \right),
433: \end{equation}\par\noindent
434: and the fidelity is a monotonic function of time,
435: \begin{equation}\label{f3}
436: F(t)=e^{-\Gamma t}.
437: \end{equation}\par\noindent
438:
439: Note that the requirement that $\rho_{\rm ideal}(t)$ is pure-state (projection operator),
440: excludes any $T>0$ thermalized state as the initial system state.
441: For example, let us consider the infinite-temperature initial
442: state of our two level system. We have
443: \begin{equation} \rho (0)=\rho _{\rm ideal}(t)=\left(
444: \begin{array}{cc}
445: 1/2 & 0 \\
446: 0 & 1/2
447: \end{array}
448: \right),
449: \end{equation}\par\noindent
450: which is not a projection operator. The spontaneuos-decay density matrix is then
451: \begin{equation}
452: \rho (t)=\left(
453: \begin{array}{cc}
454: 1-(e^{-\Gamma t}/2) & 0 \\
455: 0 & e^{-\Gamma t}/2
456: \end{array}\right).
457: \end{equation}\par\noindent
458: The fidelity is constant,
459: \begin{equation}\label{f3.1}
460: F(t)=1/2,
461: \end{equation}\par\noindent
462: and it does not provide any useful information of the time-dependence of the decay process.
463:
464: We can derive the short-time perturbative expansion\cite{Fidelity}
465: for $F(t)$,
466: \begin{equation}
467: F(t)=1-(t / \tau _F )^2+o (t^2),
468: \end{equation}\par\noindent
469: \begin{equation}\label{f5}
470: 1/\left(2\tau _F^2\right)=\langle\langle V^2\rangle _S\rangle
471: _B-\langle\left(\langle V\rangle_S\right )^2\rangle_B,
472: \end{equation}\par\noindent
473: which should be compared to (16).
474:
475: Let us now turn to the example of the two-level system in the
476: short-time approximation; see (\ref{3}), et seq. Coherent
477: evolution of the two-level system due to the Hamiltonian $H_S$, is
478: described by
479: \begin{equation}\label{free}
480: \rho_{\rm ideal}(t)=\left(
481: \begin{array}{cc}
482: \rho _{00}(0) & \rho _{01}(0)e^{i\Omega t} \\
483: \rho _{10}(0)e^{-i\Omega t} & \rho _{11}(0)
484: \end{array}
485: \right).
486: \end{equation}\par\noindent
487: A straightforward calculation gives
488: \begin{equation}\label{f6}
489: F(t)=1 - \displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\left[1-e^{-B^2(t)}\right]\left\{\left[\rho
490: _{11}(0)-\rho _{00}(0)\right]^2+4\left| \rho _{01}(0)\right|
491: ^2\sin ^2[(\Omega/2)t-\gamma _0]\right\}.
492: \end{equation}\par\noindent
493: This result should be compared to (\ref{1qubrho}) While not
494: identical, it has similar features, including the system-frequency
495: oscillations.
496:
497: \section{Norm of deviation}
498: In this section we propose to use the operator norms \cite{Kato}
499: that measure the deviation of the system from the ideal state, to
500: quantify the degree of decoherence. Such measures do not require the
501: initial density matrix to be pure-state. We define the deviation
502: according to
503: \begin{equation}\label{deviation}
504: \sigma(t) \equiv \rho(t) - \rho_{\rm ideal} (t) .
505: \end{equation}\par\noindent
506: We can use, for instance, the
507: eigenvalue norm,
508: \begin{equation}\label{n11}
509: \left\|\sigma \right\|_{\lambda} = {\max_i} \left|
510: {\lambda _i } \right|,
511: \end{equation}\par\noindent
512: or the trace norm,
513: \begin{equation}\label{tracenorm}
514: \left\| \sigma \right\|_{{\rm Tr}} = \sum\limits_i {\left|
515: {\lambda _i } \right|},
516: \end{equation}\par\noindent
517: etc., where $\lambda_i$ are the eigenvalues of the deviation
518: operator, (\ref{deviation}).
519:
520: For more precise definitions, let us consider an arbitrary linear
521: operator $A$. One of the possible ways to define the norm of $A$ is\cite{Kato}
522: \begin{equation}\label{n2}
523: \left\| A \right\| = \mathop {\sup }\limits_{\varphi \ne 0}
524: \left[ {\frac{{ \langle \varphi |A^ \dagger A|\varphi \rangle }}{{
525: \langle \varphi |\varphi \rangle }}} \right]^{1/2}.
526: \end{equation}\par\noindent
527: Since density operators are bounded, their norms, as well
528: the norm of the deviation, can be always evaluated. Furthermore,
529: since the density operators are Hermitean, this definition
530: obviously reduces to the eigenvalue norm (41). We also note that
531: $\left\| A \right\|=0$ implies that $A=0$.
532:
533: The calculation of these norms is sometimes simplified by the observation that
534: $\sigma(t)$ is traceless. Specifically, for two-level systems, we get
535: \begin{equation} \left\| \sigma
536: \right\|_{\lambda} = \sqrt {\left| {\sigma _{00} } \right|^2
537: + \left| {\sigma_{01} } \right|^2 } = {1 \over 2}
538: \left\| \sigma \right\|_{{\rm Tr}}.
539: \end{equation}\par\noindent
540: Therefore, for tow-state systems, we will only consider the eigenvalue norm.
541: For our example of the two-level system undergoing spontaneous decay,
542: the norm is
543: \begin{equation}
544: \left\| \sigma
545: \right\|_{\lambda} = 1 - e^{-\Gamma t} .
546: \end{equation}\par\noindent
547: Thus, in this case $\left\| \sigma
548: \right\|_{\lambda} = 1 - F(t)$.
549:
550: Next, consider the two-level system coupled to a bath of modes, in
551: the short-time approximation; see (\ref{3}), et seq.
552: The coherent (ideal) evolution of the system due to the
553: Hamiltonian $H_S$, is described by (\ref{free}). One can then
554: obtain the result
555: \begin{equation}\label{n1qubit}
556: \left\| \sigma(t) \right\|_{\lambda} = \frac{1}{2}\left[ 1 - e^{
557: - B^2 (t)}\right] \left\{\left[\rho _{11} (0) - \rho _{00}
558: (0)\right]^2 + 4 \left| \rho _{01} (0) \right|^2 \sin ^2
559: [(\Omega /2)t -\gamma_0]\right\}^{1/2},
560: \end{equation}\par\noindent
561: which should be compared to (\ref{1qubrho}) and (\ref{f6}). At
562: $t=0$, the value of the norm is equal to 0, and then it increases
563: to positive values, with superimposed modulation at the system's
564: energy-gap frequency.
565:
566: \section{Arbitrary Initial States, Multiqubit Systems}
567:
568: The measures considered in the preceding sections quantify decoherence of a system
569: provided its initial state is given. However, this is not always the
570: case. Usually, it will be necessary to obtain an upper-bound estimate of
571: decoherence for an arbitrary initial state. For example, in
572: quantum teleportation schemes, the quantum state to be teleported is
573: not known. In quantum computing, the ideal state of
574: a quantum register is theoretically specified for each
575: step of a quantum algorithm. But from the practical point of view,
576: the bookkeeping becomes intractable even for few-gate algorithms.
577: Furthermore, even the preparation of the initial state can introduce noise.
578:
579: To characterize decoherence for an arbitrary initial state, pure or mixed, we propose to use
580: the maximal norm, $D$, which is determined as an operator
581: norm maximized over all initial density matrices. For instance, we can define
582: \begin{equation}\label{normD}
583: D(t) = \sup_{\rho (0)}\bigg(\left\| \sigma (t,\rho (0))\right\|_{\lambda} \bigg).
584: \end{equation}\par\noindent
585: For the two-level system coupled to a bosonic bath, with the dynamics
586: described by the Hamiltonian (\ref{3}), the expression of the maximal
587: norm is elegant and compact,
588: \begin{equation}\label{D1qubit}
589: D(t) = \frac{1}{2}\left[ 1 - e^{ - B^2 (t)}\right] .
590: \end{equation}\par\noindent
591: The result is monotonic and contains no oscillations due to the
592: internal system dynamics, as shown in Figure 3.
593: \begin{figure}[t]
594: \epsfxsize=16cm\epsfbox{Fig3.eps}
595: \caption{Norm of the deviation from the ideal dynamics for the density
596: matrix of a spin interacting with an Ohmic bath of bosonic modes, in the
597: short-time approximation. The upper curve: the maximal norm $D(t)$;
598: the lower curves: the $\left\| \sigma
599: \right\|_{\lambda}$ norms for three different initial states $\rho
600: (0)$, chosen to illustrate the overall pattern.}
601: {}
602: \hphantom{A}
603: \hrule
604: \end{figure}
605:
606: In principle, the calculation of the maximal norm for a large-scale
607: multiqubit system should be formidable task, since it implies
608: maximization over an exponentially large (in the number of
609: qubits) set of coefficients of the initial density matrix.
610: However, for specific applications, we can use approximate upper bounds
611: calculated by evaluating norms for small subsystems.
612: Consider a multiqubit system $S$ consisting of two separate
613: {\em unentangled\/} subsystems $S_2$ and $S_2$, at time $t$, with decoherence norms
614: $D_1$ and $D_2$, respectively. Let us denote the density matrix of the
615: full system and its deviation as $\rho$ and $\sigma$, respectively, and
616: use the same notation with indices 1 and 2 for the two subsystems. For
617: brevity, we use the superscript $(i)$ to denote the ``ideal'' density
618: matrices. The overall norm $D(t)$ can then be written as
619: \begin{equation}\label{D12}
620: D = \sup_{\rho (0)} \left(\left\| \sigma \right\|_{\lambda}
621: \right)
622: = \sup_{\rho (0)} \left(\left\| \rho - \rho ^{(i)}\right\|_{\lambda}
623: \right)
624: = \sup_{\rho (0)} \left(\left\| \rho_1 \rho_2 - \rho_1 ^{(i)} \rho_2 ^{(i)}\right\|_{\lambda}
625: \right)
626: = \sup_{\rho (0)} \left(\left\| \sigma_1 \rho_2 + \rho_1 ^{(i)} \sigma_2\right\|_{\lambda} \right)
627: \end{equation}\par\noindent
628: and estimated by using the following sequence of inequalities,
629: \begin{equation}\label{ineq1}
630: D= \sup_{\rho (0)} \left(\left\| \sigma_1 \rho_2 + \rho_1 ^{(i)} \sigma_2\right\|_{\lambda}
631: \right)
632: \leq
633: \sup_{\rho (0)} \left(\left\| \sigma_1 \rho_2 \right\|_{\lambda}
634: \right)
635: +
636: \sup_{\rho (0)} \left(\left\| \rho_1 ^{(i)} \sigma_2\right\|_{\lambda} \right),
637: \end{equation}\par\noindent
638:
639: \begin{equation}\label{ineq2}
640: \sup_{\rho (0)} \left(\left\| \sigma_1 \rho_2
641: \right\|_{\lambda}
642: \right)
643: +
644: \sup_{\rho (0)} \left(\left\| \rho_1 ^{(i)} \sigma_2\right\|_{\lambda} \right)
645: \leq
646: \sup_{\rho_1 (0)}\left(\left\| \sigma_1
647: \right\|_{\lambda}
648: \right)
649: +
650: \sup_{\rho_2 (0)}\left(\left\| \sigma_2\right\|_{\lambda}
651: \right)=
652: D_1 + D_2 \, .
653: \end{equation}\par\noindent
654: The inequality $D \leq D_1 + D_2$ is, of course, approximate, because we have assumed that the
655: interaction with the bath, and with each other, left the subsystems unentangled at
656: time $t$. However, it provides an indication that, perhaps with
657: a smart choice of a decomposition into subsystems which are initially not significantly
658: entangled, the maximal norm can be approximately considered an extensive quantity, linear in the number of
659: qubits, at least for short times. It is expected that for larger times, the relaxation process {\em rates\/}
660: are the additive quantities growing linearly with the number of qubits, as long as no quantum
661: error correction is involved.
662:
663: In conclusion, we have considered several approaches to
664: quantify decoherence: relaxation times, entropy and fidelity measures,
665: and norms of deviation. The latter measures offer certain
666: advantages, and we defined the maximal measure that is not
667: dependent on the initial state and, at least for short times,
668: is approximately extensive in the number of qubits.
669:
670: This research was supported by the National Security Agency and
671: Advanced Research and Development Activity under Army Research
672: Office contract DAAD-19-02-1-0035, and by the National Science
673: Foundation, grants DMR-0121146 and ECS-0102500.
674:
675: \vfill\newpage
676:
677: \begin{thebibliography}{15}
678:
679: \bibitem{Aharonov}
680: D.~Aharonov and M.~Ben-Or, e-prints quant-ph/9611025 and quant-phys/9906129 (at~www.arxiv.org).
681:
682: \bibitem{therm4}
683: A.~Abragam, \emph{The Principles of Nuclear Magnetism\/} (Oxford
684: University Press, 1961).
685:
686: \bibitem{therm2}
687: K.~Blum, \emph{Density Matrix Theory and Applications\/} (Plenum, New York, 1996).
688:
689: \bibitem{therm1}
690: N.~G.~van Kampen, \emph{Stochastic Processes in Physics and
691: Chemistry\/} (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1992).
692:
693: \bibitem{Vincenzo}
694: D.~P.~DiVincenzo, e-print quant-ph/0002077 (at www.arxiv.org).
695:
696: \bibitem{short}
697: V.~Privman, \emph{J.\ Stat.\ Phys.\/} \textbf{110}, 957 (2003).
698:
699: \bibitem{basis}
700: D.~Mozyrsky and V.~Privman, \emph{J.\ Stat.\ Phys.\/} \textbf{91} 787 (1998).
701:
702: \bibitem{Neumann}
703: J.~von Neumann, \emph{Mathematical Foundations of Quantum
704: Mechanics\/} (Princeton University Press, 1983).
705:
706: \bibitem{Kim}
707: J.~I.~Kim, M.~C.~Nemes, A.~F.~R.~de~Toledo~Piza and H.~E.~Borges,
708: \emph{Phys.~Rev.~Lett.\/} \textbf{77}, 207 (1996).
709:
710: \bibitem{Zurek}
711: W.~H. Zurek, S.~Habib and J.~P.~Paz,
712: \emph{Phys.~Rev.~Lett.\/} \textbf{70}, 1187 (1993).
713:
714: \bibitem{Zagur}
715: J.~C.~Retamal and N.~Zagury,
716: \emph{Phys.~Rev.~A\/} \textbf{63}, 032106 (2001).
717:
718: \bibitem{Leggett}
719: A.~J.~Leggett, S.~Chakravarty, A.~T.~Dorsey, M.~P.~A.~Fisher, A.~Garg
720: and W.~Zwerger, \emph{Rev.~Mod.~Phys.\/} \textbf{59}, 1 (1987).
721:
722: \bibitem{vanKampen}
723: N.~G.~van Kampen, \emph{J.~Stat.~Phys.\/} \textbf{78}, 299 (1995).
724:
725: \bibitem{Palma}
726: G.~M.~Palma, K.~A.~Suominen, A.~K.~Ekert,
727: \emph{Proc.~Roy.~Soc.~Lond.~A\/} \textbf{452}, 567 (1996).
728:
729: \bibitem{Fidelity}
730: B.~J. Dalton, e-print quant-ph/0209071 (at www.arxiv.org).
731:
732: \bibitem{Fidelity2}
733: L.-M.~Duan and G.-C.~Guo, \emph{Phys.~Rev.~A\/} \textbf{56}, 4466 (1997).
734:
735: \bibitem{Kato}
736: T.~Kato, \emph{Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators\/} (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995).
737:
738: \end{thebibliography}
739:
740: \end{document}
741: