Skip to main content

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).