Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Maximal entanglement achievable by controlled dynamics - WWW.OLOSCIENCE.COM

Maximal entanglement achievable by controlled dynamics - WWW.OLOSCIENCE.COM

Ratings: (0)|Views: 21|Likes:
Published by Fausto Intilla
We consider the feedback control of quantum systems comprised of any number of bosonic degrees
of freedom. We derive a general upper bound for the logarithmic negativity achievable, at steady
state, with continuous Gaussian measurements on the environment and linear driving on the system.
Our results apply to rotatingwave system-bath couplings and to any quadratic system’sHamiltonian.
Furthermore, we apply this upper bound to parametric processes, show it to be tight, and compare it
to feedback strategies limited to local measurements.
We consider the feedback control of quantum systems comprised of any number of bosonic degrees
of freedom. We derive a general upper bound for the logarithmic negativity achievable, at steady
state, with continuous Gaussian measurements on the environment and linear driving on the system.
Our results apply to rotatingwave system-bath couplings and to any quadratic system’sHamiltonian.
Furthermore, we apply this upper bound to parametric processes, show it to be tight, and compare it
to feedback strategies limited to local measurements.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Science
Published by: Fausto Intilla on Oct 13, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/18/2010

pdf

text

original

 
Maximal entanglement achievable by controlled dynamics
Alessio Serafini
1
and Stefano Mancini
2
1
Department of Physics & Astronomy, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom
2
Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit`a di Camerino, I-62032 Camerino, Italy
(Dated: October 13, 2009)We consider the feedback control of quantum systems comprised of any number of bosonic degreesof freedom. We derive a general upper bound for the logarithmic negativity achievable, at steadystate, with continuous Gaussian measurements on the environment and linear driving on the system.Ourresultsapply to rotating wave system-bath couplingsand to any quadraticsystem’sHamiltonian.Furthermore, we apply this upper bound to parametric processes, show it to be tight, and compare itto feedback strategies limited to local measurements.
PACS numbers: 03.67.Bg, 02.30.Yy, 42.50.Dv
The field of quantum control is central in the currentrise of quantum technologies [1,2]. In particular, the control of the coherent resources of quantum states is of crucial practical interest. Most valuable, and delicate,among such resources is certainly quantum entangle-ment, whose control is a primary requisite for quantuminformation and communication [3,4]. In this paper, we focus on bosonic quantum systemssubject to quadratic Hamiltonians and losses, and de-rive bounds on the maximal entanglement achievable, between specific bipartitions, through continuous feed- back based on general Gaussian measurements and lin-ear driving [5]. The class of dynamics and feedbackstrategies covered in our study is of great practical rel-evance in quantum optics, and is applicable to moregeneral continuous variable systems. Because entan-glement is
not
a linear figure of merit in the quantumstate’s parameters, one cannot address the questions weareabout to tackle with standardoptimisation tools, likesemi-definite programming [6], but rather requires themore detailed, specific analysis we shall present.
Notation –
We consider systems of 
degrees of free-doms described by pairs of canonical operators: defin-ing a vector of operators ˆ
x
=
ˆ
q
1
,
ˆ
 p
1
,...,
ˆ
q
,
ˆ
 p
, one has
ˆ
x
 j
,
ˆ
x
k
=
i
 jk
, where
is the (2
)
×
(2
) symplecticform:
 jk
=
δ
 j
+
1
,
k
1
(
1)
 j
/
2
δ
 j
,
k
+
1
1
+
(
1)
 j
/
2, interms of Kroneker deltas
δ
 j
,
k
. Also,
a
 j
=
(ˆ
x
 j
+
i
ˆ
 p
 j
)
/
√ 
2.For a system with such a phase-space structure wecan define “Gaussian states” as the states with a Gaus-sian Wigner function. These states are completely deter-mined by the vector of means
ˆ
x
, and by the covariancematrix (CM)
σ 
, with entries
σ
 jk
=
ˆ
x
 j
ˆ
x
k
+
ˆ
x
 j
ˆ
x
k
,where
ˆ
o
=
(ˆ
o
− 
ˆ
o
) for operatorˆ
o
. The – always nec-essary – Robertson-Schr¨odinger uncertainty relation isalso su
cient for Gaussian states to be physical [7]:
σ 
+
i
0
.
(1)WewillconsiderHamiltoniansˆ
 H 
thatareatmostofthesecond-order in ˆ
x
, so that their resulting free evolutionsare a
ne in phase-space:ˆ
 H 
=
(1
/
2)ˆ
x
 H 
ˆ
x
ˆ
x
B
u
(
t
),wherethe“Hamiltonianmatrix”
 H 
isrealandsymmetricand
B
is real. The second term of ˆ
 H 
is a ‘linear driving’proportional to a time-dependent input
u
(
t
): this termwill describe the control exerted over the system.The system is considered to be open and such thateach degree of freedom has its own channel to interactwith the environment. Though thermal noise can also be treated along the lines we will present here, in thisstudy we specialise for simplicity to pure losses, whichare the main source of decoherence in quantum opticalsettings. We will thus assume a beam splitter-like (“ro-tating wave”) interaction
a
 j
b
 j
+
a
 j
b
 j
between each modeand the associated mode of the bath, with ladder op-erator
b
 j
. Under the conditions set out above, the firstmoments of the canonical operators evolve according tod
 ˆx
/
d
t
=
A
ˆ
x
+
B
u
(
t
), while the second moments obeyd
σ 
/
d
t
=
A
σ 
+
σ 
 A
+
½ 
.
(2)Here,the“driftmatrix”
 A
=
(
 H 
½ 
)
/
2,and
½ 
istheiden-tity matrix with dimension clear from the context. Wewill only address stable systems, for which (
 A
+
 A
T
)
<
0.Note that, for Gaussian states, these equations describethe complete dynamics of the system.As customary in the context of feedback control, wewill now assume thatthe degreesof freedomof theenvi-ronment can be continuously monitored on time-scaleswhich are short with respect to the system’s responsetime[8]. Because of the rotating wave interaction be-tweensystemandenvironment, instantaneousGaussianmeasurements on the environment degrees of freedomresults into measuring the operators
ˆ
a
½ 
+
ˆ
a
Υ 
, wherethe vector ˆ
a
=
(
a
1
,...,
a
)
contains all the annihila-tion operators of the system, and the complex matrix
Υ 
parametrises the Gaussian measurement. In turn,
Υ 
defines the so called “unravelling matrix”
U
, given by
U
12
½ 
+
Re[
Υ 
] Im[
Υ 
]Im[
Υ 
]
½ 
Re[
Υ 
]
.
(3)The only conditions on
Υ 
are that
U
be symmetric and
 
2positive semi-definite. The outcome of the measure-ments on the environment is recordedas a “current”
y
=
C
 ˆx
+
d
w
dt
,where
C
=
√ 
2
U
1
/
2
¯
C
and¯
C
 jk
=
(
δ
2
 j
1
,
k
+
δ
2(
 j
)
,
k
)for
j
,
k
[1
,...,
2
]. Finally, d
w
is avectorofrealWienerincrements satisfying d
w
d
w
=
½ 
d
t
.The
conditional
evolution of the moments under suchcontinuous measurements can also be derived by stan-dard techniques (Itˆo calculus). It amounts to a di
ff 
usiveequation with a stochastic component for the first mo-ments
ˆ
x
, and to a
deterministic
Riccati equation for thesecondmoments[6]. Inourreasoningstofollow, wewillnotmakeuseofthedetailsofsuchequationsdirectly. Wewill be interested in stable systems, and will determinethe maximal entanglement achievable at steady state.Hence, all we need to remark is that the set of CMs
{
σ 
}
that are
stabilising solutions
[9] of the Riccati equation forthe second moments can be characterised as follows [6]:
 A
σ 
+
σ 
 A
T
+
½ 
0
.
(4)TogetherwithInequality(1),thisrelationshipcompletelydetermines the set of stabilising solutions of our condi-tional dynamics.The final ingredient to be added is the possible de-pendence of the linear drive
u
(
t
) on the history of themeasurement record
y
(
s
) for
s
<
t
, which a
ff 
ects bothfirst and second moments of the
unconditional
, ‘average’,evolution (whereas second moments of the
conditional
states are una
ff 
ected by the linear driving), and closesthe control loop. We will denote the unconditional state by
̺ 
. Note that, for our class of dynamics,
̺ 
is a statisti-cal mixture of states with the same conditional CM
σ 
,obeying Inequality (4), and varying first moments. ForGaussian states, this implies that
̺ 
can be obtained froma Gaussian state
̺ 
0
with CM
σ 
and vanishing first mo-ments by local operations and classical communicationalone:
̺ 
=
L
(
̺ 
0
), where
L
is some LOCC map.The typical aim of control over some time interval isto minimise the expected value of a
cost function
[1,9]. Our cost function will be the entanglement of Gaussianmulti-mode steady states for bipartitions of 1 versus(
1) modes and ‘bi-symmetric’ bipartitions (
i.e.,
in-variant under the permutation of local modes). Such anentanglement can be quantified by the logarithmic neg-ativity
E
, which is in turn determined, for a Gaussianstate with CM
σ 
, as
log
2
˜
 ν
, where ˜
 ν
2
is the smallesteigenvalue of (
σ 
˜
σ 
˜
T
), being˜
the (skew-symmetric)partial transposition of 
[10,11]. Clearly, ˜
 ν
is
not
aquadratic cost function (
i.e.
, it is not linear in
σ 
). Thisis why, albeit dealing with linear systems with Gaussiannoise, we cannot resort to optimisation methods mutu-ated from classical LQG control problems [6].
General results –
Hereafter,we present our main findingsas three lemmas leading to a final proposition. Proofs of these statements may be found in appendix.Our investigation starts o
ff 
from a corollary of Ref.[12]:
Lemma 1 (Bound on smallest symplectic eigenvalue)
The smallest partially transposed symplectic eigenvalue
˜
 ν
of a generic CM
σ 
is bounded from below as follows
˜
 ν
2
λ
1
λ
2
,
(5)
λ
1
and
λ
2
being the two smallest eigenvalues of 
σ 
.
Next, the uncertainty principle entails:
Lemma 2 (Uncertainty relation for CMs’ eigenvalues)
Let
{
λ
 j
}
and
{
λ
 j
}
be, respectively, the
2
N increasingly-ordered and decreasingly-ordered eigenvalues of an N-modeCM
σ 
. Then one has:
λ
 j
λ
 j
1 for 1
j
.
(6)As an immediate corollary of Lemma 2, one obtains
λ
1
λ
2
1
λ
1
λ
2
.
(7)
Lemma 3 (Bound on eigenvalues of steady state CMs)
Let
σ 
be a conditional CM at steady state obtained undercontinuous Gaussian measurements, pure losses and a Hamiltonian matrix H. The product of the two largesteigenvalues
λ
1
and
λ
2
of 
σ 
is bounded as follows:
λ
1
λ
2
1
α
1
α
2
,
(8)
where
{
α
 j
}
are the (strictly positive) eigenvalues of 
(
 A
 A
)
in increasing order, and A
=
12
(
 H 
½ 
)
.
The chain of Inequalities (5),(7) and (8)leads to ˜
 ν
2
α
1
α
2
,
(9)which constrains the maximal logarithmic negativityachievable for states conditioned by Gaussian measure-ments. Further, and more generally, one has:
Proposition 1 (Maximal unconditional entanglement)
The logarithmic negativity E
(
̺ 
)
of any
1
versus
(
1)
modes or bi-symmetric bipartition of an unconditional steadystate achievable by continuous Gaussian feedback and lineardriving is bounded by:E
(
̺ 
)
max
0
,
12log
2
(
α
1
α
2
)
.
(10)
 Applications
Clearly, the eigenvalues
{
α
 j
}
can be analyt-ically or numerically determined for general quadraticHamiltonians, describing a wide variety of systems of practical interest (bosonic atoms, trapped ions, nano-mechanical resonators and Josephson junctions, just to
 
3mention afew). Here,wewill focuson yet anotherinter-esting case where our results apply and can be handledanalytically: the case of parametric interactions, whicharethe stateofthe arttechnology to generatecontinuousvariable entanglement in quantum optics.The parametric interaction between modes
j
and
k
isdescribedby the Hamiltonian
χ
(ˆ
x
 j
ˆ
 p
k
+
ˆ
 p
 j
ˆ
x
k
) [13]. We willassumeequalinteractionstrengths
χ
 betweenanypairof modes, considera(
m
+
n
)-modebipartition,anddescribeanalyticallythescalingofthecontroloftheentanglementwith the number of modes
m
and
n
(we have
m
+
n
=
).In point of fact, we will see that our bounds in thiscasearetight, andyield theactualoptimal entanglementachievable by Gaussian filtering. Due to the symmetryof the system under the exchange of any two modes, theentanglement between the
m
- and the
n
-modes subsys-tems can be reduced to two-mode entanglement [14]: alocal symplectic transformation exists that turns the ma-trix
A
into an equivalent two-mode drift matrix¯
 A
, plusa direct sum of decoupled single-mode matrices that areirrelevant for the entanglement. The matrix¯
 A
reads:¯
 A
=
(
m
1)
χ
0
√ 
mn
χ
00
(
m
1)
χ
0
√ 
mn
χ
√ 
mn
χ
0 (
n
1)
χ
00
√ 
mn
χ
0
(
n
1)
χ
½ 
2
.
(11)For the system to be stable one must require:
χ <
12(
1)
.As
A
is symmetric and invertible, the ‘free’ steadystate CM
σ 
 f 
can be promptly determined from Eq. (2):
σ 
 f 
=
 A
1
/
2. Its smallest partially transposed sym-plectic eigenvalue, which determines the asymptoticentanglement in the absence of control, is given by1
/
[(1
+
2
χ
)(1
+
2(
1)
χ
)]. Instead, the bound of In-equality (9) for any steady state CM
σ 
with Gaussianfeedback control reads˜
 ν
2
(1
2
χ
)[1
2(
1)
χ
]
.
(12)This lower bound is attained by the CM
R
T
diag(
α
4
,α
3
,α
1
,α
2
)
R
, where
R
is the orthogonaltransformation that diagonalises¯
 A
and
{
α
 j
}
are theeigenvalues of 
¯
 A
in increasing order. This solutionalso saturates the Inequalities(4) and (1). Both the free asymptotic entanglement and the optimal one underGaussian filtering have thus been obtained analyti-cally. Quite remarkably, in the symmetric situationconsidered, none of these quantities depends on thechosen bipartition, but only on the total number of modes involved: the same amount of entanglement can be obtained regardless of the bipartition considered.Note also that the ‘optimal unravelling’, that is thematrix
U
granting maximal entanglement, may also bestraightforwardly derived from the optimal state [6].
Local control –
Such an optimal entanglement is in gen-eral achievedby filtering the system through
global
mea-surements on the environment, as no restrictions wereassumed for the unravelling matrix
U
. This applies tosituations where the environments of the two local sub-systems can be combined before being measured (like,
e.g.
, for a parametric crystal in a cavity). We intend nowto provide a lower bound on the entanglement achiev-able under
local
control, where the environmental de-grees of freedom pertaining to the separate subsystemscannot be combined, and compare it to the upper boundwe obtained above. To this end, we will adopt direct(Markovian) feedback [5] and set
u
(
t
)
=
F
y
(
t
). The un-conditional evolution of the system is then described byd
σ 
/
d
t
=
A
σ 
+
σ 
 A
T
+
D
,
(13)with drift and di
ff 
usion matrices modified as
A
=
¯
 A
+
BFC
and
D
=
½ 
C
T
F
T
B
T
BFC
+
2
BFF
T
B
T
. Wealso choose a specific form of 
U
and
BF
. Since in the freedynamics, governed by the drift matrix of Eq. (11), thequadratures
p
1
and
p
2
are less noisy than
q
1
and
q
2
, itis advantageous to measure locally
p
1
and
p
2
and drivewith the respective currents the quadratures
q
2
and
q
1
.However, dueto the possible asymmetry of the two sub-systems for
m
n
, we have to consider di
ff 
erent drivingamplitudes
µ
1
and
µ
2
for their quadratures. All thiscorresponds to setting
U
33
=
U
44
=
1,
√ 
2(
BF
)
24
=
µ
2
,
√ 
2(
BF
)
43
=
µ
1
, and all other entries of 
U
and
BF
vanish-ing. We canthen find thesteadystate solution ofEq.(13)as a function of the two feedback amplitudes
µ
1
and
µ
2
,and evaluate its logarithmic negativity. It turns out thatthe maximum logarithmic negativity at steady state isattained for
µ
2
=
µ
1
n
/
m
. Hence, we are left with the en-tanglementdependingononeparameter,overwhichweminimise numerically in the stable region, determined by (
 A
+
 A
T
)
<
0. As a case of study, we have consideredasystemof6modesandsummarisedtheresultsinFig.1.Localcontrolisveryclosetooptimalglobalcontrolinthecase of a balanced bipartition. However, the more un- balanced the bipartition, the more degraded the control,although numerics indicate that infinite entanglementcan always be retrieved close to instability.
Conclusion –
We have derived bounds on the entangle-ment achievable, at steady state and for various biparti-tions, in multimode linear bosonic systems subjected tocontinuous feedbackcontrol. Our investigation not onlyappliesto quantuminformation processingandstateen-gineering, as shown, but also yields a technique for op-timisation problems lying beyond the LQG scenario.
 Appendix – Proofs of mathematical statements.
Henceforth,
|
v
will stand for a unit vector in the phase space
Γ
and
v
|
will be its dual under the Euclidean scalar product.Also, note that the uncertainty relation (1) is equivalentto the two following conditions [12,15]:
σ 
1
/
2
T
σ 
σ 
1
/
2
1
,
and
σ 
>
0
.
(14)
Proof of Lemma1.
The squared symplectic eigenvalue˜
 ν
2
isthesmallesteigenvalueofthematrix
σ 
1
/
2
˜
T
σ 
˜
σ 
1
/
2
:

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->