# Full text of "Entanglement preservation for multilevel systems under non-ideal pulse control"

## See other formats

Entanglement preservation for multilevel systems under non-ideal pulse control O (N >^' oo Oh' > rn o o X Z. Y. Xui-iB and M. Fenglll ^ State Key Laboratory of Magnetic Resonance and Atomic and Molecular Physics, Wuhan Institute of Physics and Mathematics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan 430071, China ^ Craduate School of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China We investigate how to efTectively preserve the entanglement between two noninteracting multi- level oscillators coupled to a common reservoir under non-ideal pulse control. A universal char- acterization using fidelity is developed for the behavior of the system based on Nakajima-Zwanzig projection operator technique. Our analysis includes the validity of the approximation method and the decoherence-suppression by the non-ideal pulse control. The power of our strategy for pro- tecting entanglement is numerically tested, showing potential applications for quantum information processing. PACS numbers: 03.65.Yz, 03.65. Ud, 03.67.Pp, 02.30.Yy Entanglement is a distinctive feature of quantum cor- relation [l| and hasplayed a key role in quantum infor- mation processing 2]. However, due to an unavoidable interaction with the surrounding environment [3] , the en- tanglement among realistic quantum systems is fragile or may even disappear completely after a finite interval, known as entanglement sudden death [4]. Thus, seeking entanglement protection among open quantum systems becomes a rewarding but challenging task in quantum information science. Recently, a variety of strategies to combat disentanglement have been proposed, including uantum error correction [5| , decoherence free subspaces , qubits embedded in structured reservoirs [3, and vacuum- induced coherence on the entanglement l8!|. In addition, the most widely used methods in experiments are with dynamical control by external fields, such as quantum feedback control B, dynamical decoupling [T^, and quantum Zeno effect [lll |. However, most of the above mentioned concerns are fo- cused on the well defined two-level systems, i.e., qubits. For multilevel systems, the interaction between the en- vironment and systems may cause disentanglement due to leakage outside of the protected subspace or even the encoded subspace ^^. Although we may in principle suppress the disentanglement by employing ideal bang- bang (BB) control, it could not work well in real physical systems due to the required arbitrarily strong and instan- taneous pulse constraints [li|- In this work, we would like to answer following ques- tions: (i) How to describe the leakage induced disentan- glement of multilevel systems in a universal form? (ii) Whether and how well can we preserve entanglement of multilevel systems by non-ideal pulse control? For these purposes, we study a model of two noninteracting mul- tilevel oscillators resonantly coupled to a common reser- voir under realistic pulse control without the assumption of idealized zero- width pulses. We will develop a uni- versal description using fidelity for the leakage induced disentanglement of the open quantum system based on Nakajima-Zwanzig projection operator technique [3|. To our knowledge, it is the first time to present such a uni- versal expression, which is of no particular dependence on the choice of the entangled states to be protected. We will present an example to show how well our strategy can protect entangled states from leakage or decoherence under non-ideal pulse control. Importantly, due to the relatively free constraints for the pulses, our strategy can be well met in a variety of experimental situations. FIG. 1: (color online). Leakage induced disentanglement of two noninteracting multilevel oscillators A and B coupled to a common reservoir. The outer, middle, and inner circles represent a set of subspaces spanned by combined oscillators A and B, the encoded subspace, and the entangled state a to be protected (i.e., protected subspace), respectively. The wavy arrows represent leakage. We first consider two identical multilevel oscillators A and B undergoing longitudinal decay into a common zero-temperature bosonic reservoir. The resonant fre- quency ujQ and the dipolar coupling to the reservoir can be dynamically modulated by external fields with AC- Stark shifts A(t) and interaction strength e{t). The total Hamiltonian of the composite two-oscillator system plus the reservoir can be given by "H = Hs + Hr + Hi, where (with h=l) ■Hs N + A(t)] (. a\aA a^gaB (1) 'Electronic address; T Electronic address: zhenyuxu.wipm@gmail.coni| mangfeng@wipm.ac.cn| Hr = y^^uJiblbi (2) ni = (4 I e{t)gibi+R.c. (3) are Hamiltonians of the controlled system, the reservoir and their interaction [l3,[l3|- ^j (^]) (j — ^i ^) is the an- nihilation (creation) operator of the jth oscillator, w; and ai {aj) are, respectively, the frequency and the annihila- tion (creation) operator of the ^th mode of the reservoir with the coupling gi to the oscillators. In the interaction picture, the Hamiltonian above is rewritten as Hiit) ^S{t)R{t) + S^{t)R''{t), (4) where S{t) = X(t)(a^-ha|j), with7W(i) = £{t)e'fo ^iHi) the modulation function, and R{t) = X); ffi^ie*^""""'^*- The dynamics of the density matrix p{t) of the combined system-reservoir is governed by the von Neumann equa- tion, ^^p{t)^-z[ni{t),pit)]^c{t)p{t), (5) with C{t) the Liouville super-operator Q. It is conve- nient to check that [H,J\f] — with the number op- erator JV — a\aA + a\cLB + ^ibibi, implying J\f to be a conserved quantity. For multilevel oscillators, the system may suffer from disentanglement due to leak- age from the protected subspace (or even from the en- coded subspace) by the interaction with reservoir [shown in Fig. 1]. For example, we take levels \Q)j and |l)j (j = A, B) to span the encoded subspace for qubits, and prepare the initial state of the system-reservoir in (a|ll)AB+/3|00)^B)|0)fl, where \Q)r denotes the vacuum state of the reservoir. The system will be losing entan- glement or even evolving outside the encoded subspace e.g., to the state \2Q)ab\Q)r or |02)AB|0)fl. Therefore, our primary aim is to construct a measure for the leakage induced disentanglement. In the present work, we assume the system to be initially prepared in an entangled state a, which is to be protected. We need a measure to characterize how far the disentangled state tr_R{p(i)} is away form the protected state a [i.e., we consider the leakage out of the protected subspace, rep- resented by the dark blue (black) wavy arrows in Fig. 1] . Such a measure can be J'(cr,trfl;{p(t)}), where ^{x,y) = tr ^/xy^/x\ (6) is the fidelity to measure the distance between the density matrices x and y Q, Hal . Our following aim is to seek a master equation for Q{t) — F{a,trR{p{ty\)(J, which can be accomplished by employing the Nakajima-Zwanzig projection opera- tor technique [3j. To eliminate the system- reservoir co- herence, we first define the relevant part of p{t) with a super-operator T' [16]: V p{t) ^ F{a,trBXp{t)))a ® PR, (7) where pn is supposed to be a stationary state of the reservoir in thermal equilibrium at zero temperature [14| . Since the initial state of the system is prepared in the state (T, i.e., Vp(0) = a ® pR, we may get a time-local homogeneous master equation of 'Pp{t) as d_ dt Vp{t)^lC{t)Vp{t). (8) Here /Cfi) describes the time-convolutionless (TCL) gen- erator [3|. By restricting Eq. (8) to the second- order expansion of the system-reservoir coupling, i.e., /C(t) = /p dsVC{t)C{s)V (the TCL second-order approx- imation), we thus obtain the equation for Q{t) as, M!) = _ /■ dsF{a,iiR{[ni{t), [H/(s), Q{t) (g> pR]]})a. ot Jo (9) Inserting g{t) ~ Ttci{t)cr into Eq. (9) with the notation J^tci{t) = T{a,trji{p{t)}, we obtain J^tci(t) = exp [ dT f dsK{s,T) Jo Jo (10) where K(s, r) is the integral kernel with the form K(s,t) = J-[CT,G(s)e(r,T-s)+H.c.], (11) G{t) ^tTn{Rit)RKO)pR} E/l5/ \2 i(uJo-uJi)t /(ia;J(w)e**^'^°~")' is the reservoir correlation function with the sum over all transition matrix elements related to mode (^{i)- ^(w) is the spectral density, characterizing the reservoir spectrum 17]. We could model J{uj) by sev- eral typical spectrum functions, such as the Lorentzian or from sub-Ohmic to super-Ohmic forms [l7[. In what fol- lows, we consider, as an example, the oscillators interact- ing resonantly with a common reservoir with Lorentzian spectral distribution J(^) = loT' 27r {ujo - w)2 -I- r2 ' (12) where 70 is the system decay rate in the Markovian limit and r is the spectral width of the coupling H, w hich has been widely employed in quantum optics |14| . In addition, e(ti,t2) = [S{ti),SHt2)a] = M{ti)M*lt2)a, with a = [{a A + a^), {a a + as)""] fully depending on the choice of the protected state a. Therefore, we have K(s, r) = l^e-'^'J' [a,M{T)M*{T - s)ct + H.c] , (13) and particularly, if the protected state is a pure state o' = \x) (xli Eq- (13) reduces to K(s,r) = r/7ore *£(T)e(r — s) cos d^XiO , (14) with r] = (xl^lx), where we have assumed s{t) to be real. Eq. (13) or Eq. (14) is one of the main results in this paper. We mention that Eq. (13) [or Eq. (14)] is universal for any entangled states to be protected. Let us go to some details below with two examples. Example 1 — We consider the oscillators as qubits, i.e., the protected state within {|0)a, |1)a} ® {|0)si |1)b}- Specifically, we assume the protected states to be in an extended Werner-like state (EWL) [ill (a) (b) 1-r (15) where r e [0,1] and |e) = |$) = a\ll)AB + /3|00)ab or 1^) — a\lQ) AB + li\^'^) AB ■ For the sake of conciseness, we consider two extreme cases: (i) For r = 1, the EWL state reduces to the Bell- like pure state cr = |e) (e|. We can get 77 = 2|a|2 or 77 = [a + f3\^ when |e) = |$) and |e) = |^), respectively, (ii) In the case of r = 0, the EWL state becomes totally mixed as CT = (|6I)as (11|-|00)ab (00|)/2 with \e) = \ll) AB + (|02)ab + \2Q)ab)/V2. The lengthy discussion for the case of < r < 1 will be left elsewhere. Example 2 — We consider the oscillators as qutrits, i.e., the protected state within the subspace spanned by {\Q)a, |1)a, |2)a} ® {|0)i3, |1)b, |2)b}. We obtain 77 = 4|a|^ -I- 2|/3|^ when the protected state is given by cr = |x)(xl with Ix) = a\22)AB+P\n)AB+ imAB- It is straightforward to extend the cases to other entangled states or higher dimensional systems, and the only dif- ference will be the value of the coefficient J- (or 77) . It is necessary to check whether and to what ex- tent the second-order TCL approximation can well char- acterize the dynamics of the two-oscillator system un- dergoing decay to a common reservoir. For conve- nience of description, we first ignore the external con- trol, i.e., A(i) = and £{t) = 1. In order to make a comparison between the exact and TCL solutions, we consider the state of oscillator-reservoir initially pre- pared in |*(0)) = (a|10)AB + /3|01)Ai3) ® \Q)r, i.e., at most one excitation of the reservoir at an arbitrary time: |*(t)) = Cxn{t)m ab\()) r + Cnimi) ab\Q) r + Y.iCi{t)\m)AB\h)R, where [1;)^ = h\\Q)R is the reser- voir state with one excitation in the mode I. Only in this case, is there an exact analytical solution to the fidelity by directly solving the Schrodinger equation i g^ = T-L\^{t)) [1^. For simplicity, considering the initial state of the oscillators in [*) = {\IQ)ab + \^'^)ab)IV2, one immediately has rl*>^ 1, PZl{t) = -\c,,{t) + Coi{t)\\ (16) where Cio(i) = C'oi(i) e-"/2 [cosh(Kt/2) + (F/k) sinh(Ki/2)] /^/2 K = Vr(r-47o) solution reduces to ■l*>. with The corresponding approximate -^L W==cxp -270 t + -,-rt -1 r (17) We have plotted Fig. 2 for the validity of TCL ap- proximation, where the TCL approximation is valid in 1 1 0.8 .£•0.6 0) il 0-4 \ \ \ 0.8 exact TCL exact TCL .£■0.6 il o-i 0.2 V. 10TO 0.2 V, :-' FIG. 2: (color online). The fidelity for the initial state (ilO)As + \QI)ab)/V2 as a function of 70* with (a) V = IO70 and (b) F = 70. The solid (red) lines and dot-dashed (blue) lines represent the exact analytical solution and TCL approx- imate solution, respectively. describing the true dynamics of the system in the weak coupling regime, i.e., F >• 70 [See Fig. 2(a)]. But if F is comparable or smaller than 70, the agreement between the exact analytical and the approximate solutions oc- curs only for the short-time behavior, e.g., t < F~^, as shown in Fig. 2(b). In what follows, as an illustration, we will concen- trate on the entanglement preservation by some non-ideal pulses by means of Eq. (13) or (14) within the short- time regime. Unlike idealized BB control, which requires unrealistic arbitrarily strong and instantaneous control pulses, we are going to employ non-ideal impulse phase modulation with e{t) = 1 and a periodic rectangular in- teraction pulse |12l |: m A/A, for nT - A<t < nT, 0, otherwise. (18) rnT where T, A and A = j^^_^ \{t)dt are the period, width and interaction intensity of pulses, which are also the three main control parameters in the scheme. By nu- merical treatment, we seek, using the non-ideal quantum control, the solution to the equation SJ^tci{t;T,A,A) = with respect to all control parameters at time t (l3 |. As an example, we employ the pure entangled state to be protected, and the extension to a gen- eral mixed entangled state is straightforward. We as- sume ?7 = 1 [corresponding to, for example, entan- gled qubit state (|11)as + |00)ab)/V2 or qutrit state {\22)ab + |11)as+ 2|00)as)/V^] and consider the case with F = 7o, which yields the fidelity to be J-tci{t) = exp This makes /o dT /; ds7o'e-'^«^ cos(/;_^ d^\{0) it possible to study the entanglement preservation on the timescale of 7(^^. To have a comparison, the fidelities of two oscillators undergoing decay with and without external field con- trol are depicted in Fig. 3. It is clear that the fidelity drops fast within the timescale of 7,^^ in the absence of the pulse control. In contrast, in the presence of pulse control, despite the pulses with difference in pulse period T, pulse width A and interaction intensity A, the fidelity FIG. 3: (color online). The fidelity for an initial pure state witli 77 = 1 [e.g., for (|11)ab + |00)as)/V2 and (|22)as + |11)as+ 2|00)as)/\/6] as a function of 7of in non-Markovian regime F = 70, where (a) no external field control is per- formed; (b) '~(d) non- ideal impulsive phase modulation of the coupling with fixed A, A; A, T; and T, A, respectively. The solid (black) lines represent the approximate solutions of 5J-tc!(i;r, A, A) = with respect to variable control parame- ters T, A, and A at an arbitrary time t, respectively. would be more or less maintained. We have found that the pulse control viforks better with T decreasing, pro- vided the fixed A and A. As shown in Fig. 3(b), when A = TT, T := A = 0.057q'"'^, the fidelity nearly remains to be 1. This may be understood as that the control in this case equals to an addition of a constant frequency A/T to the oscillator frequency wq, and thereby G is oscillat- ing fast, i.e., the minimum overlap between the reservoir correlation spectral and the modulation spectral. So the fidelity keeps nearly 1. But for the fixed values of A = tt and T — Q.l^^^, as plotted in Fig. 3(c), the control seems weakly dependent on the pulse width. Fig. 3(d) demonstrates the dependence of the control effect on the interaction intensity A: the increase of A leads to a better control. The above analysis can be extended to oscillators un- der other modulations with realistic parameters. In ad- dition, in future work we will explore the details of the leakage, which would be helpful for deeply understand- ing the physical mechanism behind the dynamics of mul- tilevel systems as well as for seeking efficient ways to prevent disentanglement of multilevel systems. Practi- cally, it would be of great interest to test our strategy experimentally by real physical systems, e.g., using two entangled atoms confined in optical microcavities j2(| . In conclusion, based on the Nakajima-Zwanzig projec- tion operator technique, we have characterized by fidelity the disentanglement of two multilevel oscillators coupled to a common reservoir. We have developed a universal expression which well fits the exact solution in weak cou- pling regime and strong coupling regime within a short- time period. We have also investigated the behavior of the oscillators under non-ideal pulse control, which shows that entanglement could be well protected with high fi- delity. We expect that our strategy would be useful for better understanding dissipative dynamics of the multi- level open quantum systems and for better operations in quantum information processing. This work is supported by the National Natural Sci- ence Foundation of China under Grant No. 10774163. [1] R. Horodecki et al, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009). [2] M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2000). [3] H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007). [4] T. Yu and J. H. Eberly, Science 323, 598 (2009). [5] I. Sainz and G. Bjork, Phys. Rev. A 77, 052307 (2008). [6] J. Kempe et al, Phys. Rev. A 63, 042307 (2001). [7] B. Bellomo, R. L. Franco and G. Compagno, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 160502 (2007); B. Bellomo et al, Phys. Rev. A 78, 060302(R) (2008). [8] S. Das and G. S. Agarwal, e-print arXiv: 1004.0564 [9] A. R. R. Carvalho and J. J. Hope, Phys. Rev. A 76, 010301(R) (2007); A. R. R. Carvalho et al, ibid. 78, 012334 (2008). [10] See, e.g., G. Gordon and G. Kurizki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 110503 (2006); G. Gordon, J. Phys. B 42, 223001 (2009), and references therein. [11] S. Maniscalco et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 090503 (2008). [12] L.-A. Wu, G. Kurizki, and P. Brumer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 080405 (2009). [13] L. Viola and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. A 58, 2733 (1998). [14] M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy, Quantum Optics (Cam- bridge University Press, New York, 1997); D. F. Walls and G. J. Milburn, Quantum Optics (Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 2008). [15] R. Jozsa, J. Mod. Opt. 41, 2315 (1994). [16] Our evaluation of entanglement preservation is not re- stricted to the use of fidelity, but for any measure of the distance between two density matrices, e.g., trace dis- tance [2]. However, the definition here provides an intu- itive justification: When the protected state is a pure state a = |x) {x\, we have Vp{t) = atrii{p{t)}a (g) pR. So a can be taken as a projection operator to project a leaked state to the protected state, which is in agreement with the statement in Ref. [13 ]. [17] A. J. Leggett et aZ., Rev. Mod. Phys. 59, 1 (1987). [18] R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A 40, 4277 (1989). [19] B. M. Garraway, Phys. Rev. A 55, 2290 (1997). [20] K. J. Vahala, Nature (London) 424, 839 (2003).