10 1142@S0217732320502442

Modern Physics Letters A
2050244 (14 pages)

© World Scientific Publishing Company
DOI: 10.1142/S0217732320502442
by UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE on 09/12/20. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
The quantum speed limit time of a two-qubit XYZ spin chain

with intrinsic decoherence
Lu Hou∗,‡ , Bin Shao† and Yuguang Zhu∗

∗ School
of Information Engineering and Technology,
Changzhou Institute of Industry Technology, Changzhou 213164, P. R. China
Mod. Phys. Lett. A Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
† School of Physics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, P. R. China

‡ hlukaoyan@163.com
Received 11 February 2020

Revised 23 May 2020
Accepted 22 June 2020
Published 18 August 2020
We study the quantum speed limit (QSL) time of the two-qubit XYZ spin chain model
with the influence of intrinsic decoherence. We show that the intrinsic decoherence can
suppress the evolution of this system, no matter what initial states the two qubits start
from. The investigation of entanglement reveals that quantum correlation is the physical
reason for the acceleration of the system. In addition, we also demonstrate that for
different initial states, external magnetic field may have opposite influence on QSL time
and it mainly derives from the inhibition of entanglement as magnetic field increases.
Keywords: Quantum speed limit; intrinsic decoherence; entanglement; magnetic field.
1. Introduction
How to improve the evolution efficiency of a quantum system from a given initial
state to a target state is a vital task, which is present in many areas of research,
for example, detecting the bound of quantum computation,1 coming up with an
efficient quantum optimal control protocols,2,3 and supplying the accuracy of limi-
tation in quantum metrology.4,5 However, the evolutionary velocity cannot become
arbitrary and all evolution of quantum models must obey the Heisenberg time-
energy uncertainty relation which imposes a fundamental limitation time of the
quantum evolution process. This minimum evolution time constraint between two
distinguishable states is known as quantum speed limit (QSL) time, and it is a
critical factor to represent the maximal speed during the evolution of quantum sys-
tems. For closed quantum systems, which undergo unitary evolution in Schrödinger
‡ Corresponding author.
2050244-1
L. Hou, B. Shao & Y. Zhu
dynamics, two types of QSL bounds have been proposed by Mandelstam–Tamm

(MT)6 and Margolus–Levitin (ML),7 respectively. Their theories show that the en-
ergy spread ∆E of system MT and the mean energy E of its ground state ML
determine the unified QSL time bound τQSL = max{π~/(2∆E), π~/(2E)} and this
time bound has been proven to be tight.8,9 Since the fact that an actual quan-
tum system is inevitable to interact with surroundings, it is essential to extend the

above conclusion to an open quantum system situation. There has been some fruit-
ful research aiming to solve this problem.10–13 Therefore, Deffner and Lutz proved
that by employing a geometric approach, a modified version of MT and ML unified
bound for open quantum systems when evolving from a pure state is formulated.12
Later, for extending the initial evolution state to a mixed counterpart, relative pu-
rity was adopted to derive a generic bound.13 Besides these, the QSL time of open
quantum systems has been increasingly investigated in recent years.14–17 For the
purpose of obtaining a faster speed of evolution, many efforts have been made to
shorten the QSL time. It has been found that non-Markovianity,12 the population
of excited state,18–20 as well as the external field driving21 have been successfully
confirmed by utilizing the cavity QED model in the relevant experiment achieve-
ment22 and play essential roles in accelerating evolution process. In addition, some
recent investigations show that the dynamical decoupling pulses also can have a
positive influence on reducing QSL time of quantum systems.23–25 Furthermore, as
a crucial resource of quantum information, the positive effect on speedup of evo-
lution from entanglement has been carefully studied in the previous works,26–30
and these results reveal the close connection between the correlation of quantum
systems and their evolution.
However, the entangled quantum states are unstable when disturbed by sur-
rounding environment, as well as automatically destroyed as the quantum system
evolves and both situations can cause the loss of quantum coherence, which is called
quantum decoherence. In order to solve this problem, several approaches have been
put forward, and among these findings, Milburn30 came up with a useful and simple
model called intrinsic decoherence, which seeks to modify Schrödinger equation in
such a way that coherence is automatically destroyed as the physical properties of
the system approach a macroscopic level. There have been many studies on the
effect of intrinsic decoherence on entangled systems such as Heisenberg chains.31–33
For example, in Ref. 31, under the situation of intrinsic decoherence, the entan-
glement of two-qubit Heisenberg spin chains endures an oscillating behavior as
magnetic field increases. Besides, for two Tavis–Cummings atoms, considering the
intrinsic decoherence effect, the entanglement of system is sensitive not only to the
initial state but also to the photon numbers in environment.34 Furthermore, from
the investigation of Liu et al.,35 it is found that the intrinsic decoherence has ob-
vious influence on the tripartite Bell-inequality, which reveals the relation between
multipartite entanglements and decoherence. Enlightened by these results, it is nat-
ural for us to consider whether the intrinsic decoherence has any influence on QSL
time of a two-qubit system. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the QSL time
2050244-2
The QSL time of a two-qubit XYZ spin chain with intrinsic decoherence
of two-qubit Heisenberg XYZ spin chain in an external magnetic field under the
influence of intrinsic decoherence governed by Milburn equation. From the study
of relation between QSL time and decoherence parameter, we can explore how the
intrinsic decoherence affects the speed of evolution of the two-spin system.
The paper is arranged as follows. In Sec. 2, the model of a two-qubit Heisenberg
XYZ spin chain with intrinsic decoherence under a magnetic field is introduced.
Moreover, in Sec. 3, we introduce the derivation of QSL time for both closed and
open quantum systems. In Sec. 4, we obtain the QSL time of our system and aim at
studying the behavior of QSL by analyzing the intrinsic decoherence factor based
on two different initial states, separate and maximum entangled states. Meanwhile,
we aim at researching the variations of entanglement and find the inner link be-
tween entanglement and QSL when the intrinsic decoherence exists, also obtain the
function of external magnetic field on adjust evolution speed of system. In the final
section, the conclusions of the paper are given.
2. Physical Model
Since the Heisenberg models are the potential candidates of quantum computation
and construction of quantum computer,36 they are also useful in quantum state
transfer.37 Of all the Heisenberg spin chains, the XYZ model has the most common
interaction between spins in the Heisenberg chain, and by setting the strengths of
coupling constant, the XYZ chain can be changed into other models. Therefore, it
is universal to study this kind of Heisenberg chain.
The Hamiltonian of N -qubit anisotropic XYZ Heisenberg spin chain in an ex-
ternal uniform magnetic field B along z-axis is expressed as
N
1 X
Jx σix σi+1
x
+ Jy σiy σi+1
y
+ Jz σiz σi+1
z
+ B σiz + σi+1
z

H= , (1)
2 i=1
where σiα (α = x, y, z) are the Pauli operators of the ith qubit, Jα (α = x, y, z) is

the coupling constant of Heisenberg interaction. If we set Jx 6= Jy 6= Jz , the spin
system is called XYZ chain. Here, we consider a two-qubit Heisenberg XYZ spin
chain in an external magnetic field. The Hamiltonian of our system reads
H = J σ1+ σ2− + σ1− σ2+ + ∆ σ1+ σ2+ + σ1− σ2− + Jz σ1z σ2z + B (σ1z + σ2z ) , (2)

where J = Jx + Jy is the coupling constant for two near spins and we set J = 1
for simplicity. The value of ∆ = (Jx − Jy )/(Jx + Jy ) is limited between 0 and 1,
which measures the anisotropy in XY plane. σ ± = (σ x ± iσ y )/2 are the raising
and lowering operators. It is easy to get the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the
Hamiltonian, which are expressed as
E1 = Jz − G, E2 = Jz + G,
(3)
E3 = −Jz − J, E4 = −Jz + J,
2050244-3
|φ1 i = sin θ|00i − cos θ|11i,

|φ2 i = cos θ|00i + sin θ|11i,
1 (4)
|φ3 i = √ (|01i − |10i),
2
1
|φ4 i = √ (|01i + |10i),
2
where Jz is the Heisenberg interaction along z-direction, and |1i, |0i are the spin-up
and spin-down states. The coefficients of |φ1 i and |φ2 i are written as

G + 2B
θ = arctan ,
J∆ (5)
p
G = 4B 2 + (J∆)2 .
From the form of eigenvectors in Eq. (4), it is clear to see that the eigenvectors
are maximally entanglement states, which makes the XYZ model become an ideal
resource to investigate the decoherence evolution process.
Because the evolution of quantum systems inevitably undergoes decoherence, an
efficient approach is necessary to modify it from the view of standard quantum me-
chanics. Based on this, Milburn30 proposed a simple model that on sufficiently short
time steps, the system does not evolve continuously under unitary evolution but
rather in a stochastic sequence of identical unitary transformations. This method
assumes that the equation contains a term on behalf of the decay of quantum co-
herence in the energy eigenstate basis and dynamics of the system is governed by
the following master equation30 :
dρ(t) γ
= −i[H, ρ(t)] − [H, [H, ρ(t)]], (6)
dt 2
where γ is the intrinsic decoherence parameter which is a constant minimum time
step, that is to say, 1/γ is the frequency of the stochastic sequence of identical
unitary transformations as the system evolving. When γ → 0, the Milburn equation
reduces to the standard von Neumann one, meanwhile, as the value of γ becomes
larger, the system tends to far away from unitary evolution. The formal solution of
Eq. (6) can be given as
∞
X (γt)k
ρ(t) = M k (t)ρ(0)M †k (t), (7)
k!
k=0
where ρ(0) is the initial state of the system and M k = H k exp(−iHt) exp(− γt 2
2 H ).
Inserting the complete relation of the energy eigenstate into Eq. (7), we can obtain
the explicit expression of the density matrix as follows:

X γt
ρ(t) = exp − (Em − En )2 − i(Em − En )t hφm |ρ(0)|φn i|φm ihφn |, (8)
mn
2
2050244-4
where Em,n and |φmn i are the eigenvalues and the corresponding eigenvectors of the
XYZ system, given in Eqs. (3) and (4), respectively. It has been proven that with
different evolution initial states, the influence from intrinsic decoherence can cause
different change in quantum entanglement31 as well as quantum teleportation.32
Therefore, in the following part, we will discuss the evolution speed when the system
evolves from two different initial states.
3. Theory of QSL Time for Quantum Systems

At the outset, the QSL time problems are focused on the evolution process from
an initial state to its orthogonal state of an isolated quantum system. Resorting to
the uncertainty inequality for two Hermitian observables, it is natural to extend it
to system’s Hamiltonian H, which we can get
1
∆A · ∆H ≥ |h[A, H]i| . (9)
2
According to the Schrödinger equation, Eq. (9) is rewritten as

~ ∂
∆A · ∆E ≥ hAi , (10)
2 ∂t
where ∆E is the statistic energy spread under the system Hamiltonian H. ∆A can
p by the fidelity F (t) between initial state |ϕ0 i and its final state |ϕt i,
be replaced
∆A = F (t)(1 − F (t)), so the above inequation is changed to

2∆E 1 dF
≥p . (11)
~ F (1 − F ) dt
After integrating each side over time interval [0, t], we can obtain
~ β(ε)
t≥ , (12)
2 ∆E
√
where β(ε) = π2 arccos ε and here ε represents the fidelity F (t). This inequation is
the MT speed limit for the value of ε from 0 to 1.6 For the situation of orthogonal
evolution, the value of β is 1 and the maximum of speed limit time is ~/2∆E.
Another speed limit for closed system is ML inequality,7 which is on the base of
average energy of system. Governed by the Hamiltonian H, a system evolves from
initial state |φ0 i to a final state |φt i at time t. Here, it is easy to get the following
expression to describe this evolution:
X
hφt | φ0 i = hφ0 |eitH/~ |i = |cn |2 eitEn /~ . (13)
n
By using the trigonometric inequality cos θ ≥ 1 − π2 (θ + sin θ), Eq. (13) is separated
into the real and imaginary parts, which is expressed as
2tE
Rehφt | φ0 i ≥ 1 − − Imhφt | φ0 i. (14)
~
2050244-5
For the two orthogonal states, the inner product of initial state and final state is 0,
i.e. Rehφt | φ0 i = Imhφt | φ0 i = 0. Hence, the quantum speed limit time of the ML
type is ~/2E.
However, basing on the fact that quantum systems inevitably interact with their
environment, it is reasonable to treat them as open. Therefore, how to expand the
above limit to quantum non-unitary evolution of open systems is vital. Among the
efforts to solve this problem, a unified bound, including both MT and ML types,
has been derived by Deffner and Lutz.12 By employing the von Neumann trace
inequality and Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, they derived the QSL time for an open
system as
τQSL = max{τ1 , τ2 , τ∞ } (15)
with
sin2 [Γ (ρ0 , ρτ )]
τp = 1 τ
R , (16)
τ 0 dt kLt ρt kp
where τ is the driving time of the evolution process and the evolution is governed
by the time-dependent non-unitary equation ρ̇t = Lt ρt . kXk = (α1p + · · · + αnp )1/p
with p = 1, 2, ∞ denoting the p norm and the elements
p in thenorm are singular
values of X. The Bures angle Γ (ρ0 , ρτ ) = arccos hφ0 |ρτ |φ0 i characterizes the
distance between the initial state ρ0 = |φ0 ihφ0 | and its final state ρτ . It has been
proven that the operator norm, i.e. p = ∞ has the smallest value,38 so the speed
limit time for a quantum system under environmental effect is τQSL = τ∞ .
In order to analyze the optimal evolution time of a quantum qubit that is
initially prepared in arbitrary states, it is essential to extend the above method
to make the QSL time more universal. Zhang et al. put forward a theory of QSL
time aiming at mixed initial states.13 By using the definition of relative purity41
f (τ + τD ) = tr[ρτ +τD ρτ ]/tr(ρ2τ ), we can measure the distance between the initial
state and the terminal state can be measured. As a result, the speed of evolution
can be represented by the derivative of relative purity as f˙(t) = tr[ρτ ρ̇t ]/tr(ρ2τ ).
According to the same deduction methods as Deffner’s and Lutz’s, we can get the
QSL time of an open system as
( )
1 1
τQSL = max Pn , pP × |f (τ + τD ) − 1|tr(ρ2τ ), (17)
n 2
σ
l=1 l l℘ l=1 σl
−1 τ +τD
Xdt. The parameters σl and ℘l are the singular values42 of
R
with X = τD τ
the master equation ρ̇t = Lt ρt which governs this open system and the mixed
initial state ρτ , respectively. If we set the initial state at the situation of pure one,
the equation can be turned into the conclusion in Ref. 12. Due to the fact that the
arbitrary evolved states are mixed under the general non-unitary quantum evolution
of open systems, we will use Eq. (17) as the computing method of QSL time in the
following part.
2050244-6
4. The QSL Time of the Two-Qubit XYZ Model with Intrinsic

Decoherence
4.1. The QSL time for separate initial state
In the first case, we assume that the two qubits are both prepared in spin-down
states, therefore, the initial state of the two-qubit system is in a separate state
ρ(0) = |00ih00|. On account of the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the XYZ spin
chain and its evolved state in Eq. (8), the time evolution of the density matrix in
the standard basis {|00i, |01i, |10i, |11i} is shown as follows31 :
ρ(t) = (1 − u)|00ih00| + v|00ih11| + v ∗ |11ih00| + u|11ih11| (18)
with
1
u= sin2 (2θ)[1 − cos(2Gt) exp(−2G2 γt)],
2
1 1 (19)
v = sin(4θ) + sin(2θ) exp(−2G2 γt)
4 2
× sin2 (θ) exp(2iGt) − cos2 (θ) exp(−2iGt) .

In order to demonstrate how the intrinsic decoherence affects the QSL time of the
system, we calculate the value of the QSL time when the two qubits start in the
separate initial state ρ(0) = |00i. Inspired by Eq. (17) and the exact solution ρ(t)
in Eqs. (18) and (19), one can derive the QSL time of the two-qubit XYZ model as
1 − |1 − uτD |
τQSL = 1
R τD p . (20)
τD 0
u̇2 + |v̇|2 dt
Here, we set the driven time, i.e. the actual evolution time of the system as τD . It
can be seen from the above result that the intrinsic decoherence parameter γ has an
obvious influence on the change of the minimal evolution time, which shows that the
destruction of quantum coherence has an effect on the QSL time. To have a better
understanding of the quantum speedup of the evolution process in the situation
of intrinsic decoherence, we depict the QSL time as a function of γ with different
values of anisotropy parameter ∆ in Fig. 1. It is worth noting that when the two-
qubit system starts its evolution from a separate state, the value of QSL time can
increase as the parameter γ becomes larger. That is to say, under the influence of
intrinsic decoherence, the theoretical optimal evolution speed endures an obvious
suppression comparing with the standard quantum evolution process without the
effect of intrinsic decoherence which is shown at the point of γ = 0 in the figure.
In addition, varied anisotropy parameters (Fig. 1(a)) could also influence the QSL
time besides intrinsic decoherence. From the picture, we can see that the behavior of
QSL time remains in the above increased trend with γ in all the cases of anisotropy
parameters, while as anisotropy rises, the QSL time is enhanced. Similarly, from
Fig. 1(b), we can see under different situations of coupling constant the intrinsic
decoherence still leads to the increase of QSL and the coupling J between the two
qubits reduces.
2050244-7
(a) (b)
Fig. 1. (Color online) The QSL time τQSL as a function of the intrinsic decoherence parameter γ
control by an external magnetic field B = 0.2 during the driving time τD = 1. (a) The anisotropy
parameters are set as ∆ = 0.1 (blue line), ∆ = 0.2 (black line), ∆ = 0.3 (red line). The value of
J is 1 for simplicity. (b) The coupling strength are set as J = 1 (blue solid line), J = 0.5 (green
dotted line) and J = 0.1 (purple dash dot line) and the anisotropy parameter is 0.1.
For the sake of exploring the physical reason for the speed-up process, in what
follows, we have an investigation on the influence from the quantum entanglement
of the two qubits enlightened by the research in Refs. 20–23 which demonstrate
that entanglement is a resource that can enhance the evolution speed of quantum
systems. Entanglement between two qubits can be described by concurrence C,43,44
with C = 0 for a separable state and C = 1 for a maximally entangled state. For
the ρ(0) = |00ih00| initial state of the two-qubit XYZ model, the concurrence of it
can be expressed as31

1 2
sin2 (4θ) 1 − cos (2Gt) exp −2G2 γt

C=
4
1/2

+ sin2 (2θ) sin2 (2Gt) exp −4G2 γt . (21)
In the following pictures, we examine the behavior of concurrence with the change of
intrinsic decoherence parameter in Fig. 2. From the result of concurrence, it clearly
shows that at the given driving time t = 1, the value of concurrence decays gradually
with the rise of γ, which indicates as the intrinsic decoherence is enhancing, the
entanglement of the two-qubit system is more susceptible to suppression. Also,
these trends appear similar under different values of anisotropy parameters and
smaller value of ∆ may cause less entanglement. If we compare this conclusion
with the QSL time in Fig. 1, it can be seen that the trends of QSL time and
entanglement are opposite, i.e. larger values of entanglement are corresponding to
smaller QSL time at the similar intrinsic decoherence parameter values, while as
entanglement diminishes along with the increasing of γ, the optimal evolution time
rises as well. Thus, our research reveals that quantum entanglement is a significant
cause of accelerating the evolution process of the two-qubit system under intrinsic
decoherence.
2050244-8
Fig. 2. (Color online) The concurrence as a function of the intrinsic decoherence parameter γ
with different values of ∆ = 0.1 (blue line), ∆ = 0.2 (black line), ∆ = 0.3 (red line). The control
field is B = 0.2 and the driving time t = 1. The other parameter in this figure is set as J = 1.
Moreover, in order to investigate the behavior of QSL time under the influence
of external magnetic field, we numerically analyze QSL time for the two-qubit spin
chain as a function of decoherence parameter γ and magnetic field B in Fig. 2.
From the result in this picture, it is clear to observe that the value of QSL time de-
cays with the increase of magnetic field, which indicates that the maximal evolution
speed of the system can be raised when a larger external field is applied. Our result
for the initial separate state is in accordance with the conclusion in Ref. 21 and the
previous research by us in Ref. 19, which reveal the positive influence from external
field on QSL time. There have been some efforts to optimally control the evolu-
tion speed of quantum systems by adjusting external control field. Poggi et al.45
successfully optimized the evolution time of a two-level quantum system resorting
to a driving field. Also, researchers have made a relevant experiment in cavity QED
to testify the external environment control on the evolution acceleration of quan-
tum system.22 All the findings indicate that the external classical field is an ideal
candidate for the speed-up dynamical process of quantum systems and a suitable
magnetic field strength can effectively manipulate the potential accelerating evolu-
tion process. Moreover, the figure also demonstrates that the influences on the QSL
time from intrinsic decoherence and from magnetic field are adverse. Therefore, it is
reasonable to reduce the impact of intrinsic decoherence on the QSL time evolving
from the initial separate state by using the appropriate external control.
4.2. The QSL time for entangled initial state

In what follows, we investigate the two qubits prepared in an initial entanglement
state, |Φ(0)i = a|00i + b|11i, where parameters a andb are under the condition of
|a|2 + |b|2 = 1. Then at time t, the system evolves according to the density matrix
ρE (t) denoted by Eq. (18) as31
ρ(t) = (σ − $)|00ih00| + Ω|00ih11| + Ω∗ |11ih00| + (σ + $)|11ih11|, (22)
2050244-9
Fig. 3. The QSL time τQSL of initial separate two-qubit state as a function of the intrinsic
decoherence parameter γ and the magnetic field B. The driving time is τD = 1. Other parameters
are set as ∆ = 0.1 and J = 1.
where
1 2 2 1
σ= a sin (2θ) − ab sin(4θ) + b2 (sin4 θ + cos4 θ),
2 2

1 2 2 2
$ = sin 2θ ab cos(2θ) + (b − a ) sin(2θ) exp(−2G γt) cos(2Gt) ,
2 (23)
1
Ω= [sin2 (2θ) + cos2 (2θ) cos(2Gt) exp(−2G2 γt)
2
− i cos(2θ) sin(2Gt) exp(−2G2 γt)].
Based on the expression of QSL time in Eq. (16), the τQSL of the two qubits initially
prepared in an entangled state can be expressed as
1 − |(σ + $)(a2 + b2 ) + ab(Ω + Ω∗ )|
τQSL = R τD q . (24)
1 2 + |Ω̇|2 dt
τD 0 $̇
Here, we set the coefficients a and b are real numbers for simplicity. In order to
study the influence on optimal evolution time from the intrinsic decoherence under
the condition of initial maximal entangled state, we first draw the QSL time as a
function of intrinsic decoherence parameter γ with different values of anisotropy
parameters. From the numerical result in Fig. 4, we can observe that for the given
initial maximally entangled state, the evolution speed limit time increases signif-
icantly along with the value of intrinsic decoherence parameter rising, which is
identical to the consequence when the system evolves from a separate state. Thus,
we can consider that the intrinsic decoherence can lead to the increase of QSL time
either for the situation of entangled or separate initial state and this conclusion is
appropriate for different anisotropy parameters and coupling constants. However,
in contrast with the effect of anisotropy parameter on QSL time when evolving
from a separate state, smaller value of ∆ may cause larger QSL time as the initial
2050244-10
(a) (b)
Fig. 4. (Color online) The QSL time τQSL as a function of the intrinsic decoherence parameter
γ controlled by an external magnetic field B = 0.2 with driving time τD = 1. (a) The anisotropy
parameters are set as ∆ = 0.1 (blue line), ∆ = 0.2 (black line), ∆ = 0.3 (red line). The value of
J is 1 for simplicity. (b) The coupling strength is set as J = 1 (blue solid line), J = 0.5 (green
dotted line) and J = 0.1 (purple dash dot line) and the anisotropy parameter is 0.1. The initial
state is assumed as |Φ(0)i = √1 (|00i + |11i).
2
state is maximum entangled (Fig. 4(a)), and the similar phenomenon also occurs
as the coupling strength J lessens (Fig. 4(b)).
In order to research the effect of entanglement, in Fig. 5, the concurrence C as a
function of intrinsic decoherence parameter γ is plotted. The value of concurrence
declines as the intrinsic decoherence increases, which is identical to the phenomenon
when the system evolves from a separate state, and under different conditions of
anisotropy parameter, the trends are invariant. Comparing with the results in Fig. 4,
this descending trend of entanglement corresponds to the rise of QSL time, that is
to say, when the evolution starts from a maximum entangled state, entanglement
can also lead to the reduce of optimal evolution time just like the phenomenon
when the system evolves from separate state.
Fig. 5. (Color online) The concurrence C as a function of the intrinsic decoherence parameter γ
with different values of ∆ = 0.1 (blue line), ∆ = 0.2 (black line), ∆ = 0.3 (red line). The control
field is B = 0.2 at given driving time t = 1. The coupling strength in this figure is set as J = 1.
The initial state of the two qubits is set as |Φ(0)i = √1 (|00i + |11i).
2
2050244-11
Fig. 6. The QSL time τQSL of initial maximum entangled two-qubit state as a function of the
intrinsic decoherence parameter γ and the magnetic field B. The driving time is τD = 1. Other
parameters are set as ∆ = 0.1 and J = 1.
In Fig. 6, we add the effect of external magnetic field and study the change
of QSL time as a function of magnetic field and intrinsic decoherence. What dis-
tinguished from the case of initial separate state is that the existence of magnetic
field can cause the increase of QSL time when the two-qubit system evolving from
an initial maximum entangled state, especially for large values of intrinsic deco-
herence, and the result we find reveals an obvious difference comparing with the
situation of separate state in Fig. 3. We further investigate the relation between the
external field and concurrence with various intrinsic decoherence parameters, which
are shown in Fig. 7. Comparing with the situation of initial separate state, the in-
crease of magnetic field can lead to a significant amplitude change of concurrence
(a) (b)
Fig. 7. (Color online) The concurrence Cof initial separate state (a) and maximum entangled
state. (b) as a function of the magnetic field Bwith different intrinsic decoherence γ = 0.3 (green
dot dash line), γ = 0.5 (red dot line), γ = 0.8 (blue solid line). The driving time is τD = 1. Other
parameters are set as ∆ = 0.1 and J = 1.
2050244-12
from maximal entanglement to almost null when the two-qubit system is initially
prepared in maximum entangled state. This finding indicates that the external
magnetic field has stronger influence on the evolution of system for entangled ini-
tial state than the initial separate counterpart. Furthermore, the figure also gives
us a possible reason for the suppressed phenomenon of evolution speed in Fig. 6.
Within the same interval of magnetic field, the decrease of entanglement is corre-
sponding to the enhancement of QSL time, which implies that when the system
evolves from maximal entangled state, the external magnetic field can decelerate
dynamical evolution of the system (or equivalently, the increase of QSL time) by
restraining entanglement.
5. Conclusion
In conclusion, we have investigated the effect of intrinsic decoherence on the QSL
time of the two-qubit XYZ spin chain model. Our result show that for both initial
separate and maximum entangled states, the intrinsic decoherence can suppress
the optimal evolution speed. By studying the variation of concurrence, we can
find that larger entanglement corresponds with smaller QSL time under the same
influence of intrinsic decoherence, which verifies that quantum entanglement can
result in the accelerating dynamical evolution of the two-qubit system. Furthermore,
we also research whether the external magnetic field control can affect the speed
of evolution of the system. It is interesting to demonstrate that the QSL time
has connection with the external control, whereas the external magnetic field has
different influence on QSL as different initial states. The magnetic field can lead to
a speed-up evolution for initial separate state, however, for initial entangled state,
it may cause deceleration of evolution. Combining with the previous entanglement
theory, we calculate the relation between concurrence and magnetic field and find
that this difference may stem from the inhibition of entanglement as magnetic field
increases.
Our conclusions in the paper may be helpful to elucidate about the control
of evolution speed when quantum systems are subjected to decoherence. Mean-
while, a question arises as to whether there are other reasons that could reduce
the QSL time of quantum systems under decoherence, which is expected to study
further.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the financial support by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China under Grant No. 11875086 and the foundation of the key scientific research
team of Changzhou Institute of Industry Technology (Grant No. ZD201813101002).
References
1. S. Lloyd, Nature 406, 1047 (2000).
2. C. Avinadav, R. Fischer, P. London and D. Gershoni, Phys. Rev. B 89, 245311 (2014).
2050244-13
3. G. C. Hegerfeldt, Phys. Rev. A 90, 032110 (2014).

4. S. Lloyd and L. Maccone, Nat. Photonics 5, 222 (2011).
5. S. Alipour, M. Mehboudi and A. T. Rezakhani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 120405 (2014).
6. L. Mandelstam and I. Tamm, J. Phys. (USSR) 9, 249 (1945).
7. N. Margolus and L. B. Levitin, Physica 120D, 188 (1998).
8. L. B. Levitin and T. Toffoli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 160502 (2009).

9. S. Fu, N. Li and S. Luo, Commun. Theor. Phys. 54, 661 (2010).
10. M. M. Taddei, B. M. Escher, L. Davidovich and R. L. de Matos Filho, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 110, 050402 (2013).
11. A. del Campo, I. L. Egusquiza, M. B. Plenio and S. F. Huelga, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110,
050403 (2013).
12. S. Deffner and E. Lutz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 010402 (2013).
13. Y. J. Zhang, W. Han, Y. J. Xia, J. P. Cao and H. Fan, Sci. Rep. 4, 4890 (2014).
14. M. R. Frey, Quantum Inf. Process. 15, 3919 (2016).
15. S. Deffner and S. Campbell, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 50, 453001 (2017).
16. K. Xu, Y. J. Zhang, Y. J. Xia, Z. D. Wang and H. Fan, Phys. Rev. A 98, 022114
(2018).
17. L. P. Garcia-Pintos and A. del Campo, New J. Phys. 21, 033012 (2019).
18. Z. Y. Xu, S. L. Luo, W. L. Yang, C. Liu and S. Q. Zhu, Phys. Rev. A89, 012307
(2014).
19. L. Hou, B. Shao, Y. B. Wei and J. Zou, J. Phys. A 48, 495302 (2015).
20. M. Yu, M. F. Fang and H. M. Zou, Chinese Phys. B 27, 010303 (2018).
21. Y. J. Zhang, W. Han, Y. J. Xia, J. P. Cao and H. Fan, Phys. Rev. A91, 032112 (2015).
22. A. D. Cimmarusti, Z. Yan, B. D. Patterson, L. P. Corcos, L. A. Orozco and S. Deffner,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 233602 (2015).
23. Y. J. Song, Q. S. Tan and L. M. Kuang, Sci. Rep. 7, 43654 (2017).
24. Y. B. Wei, J. Zou, Z. M. Wang, B. Shao and H. Li, Phys. Lett. A 380, 397 (2016).
25. L. Hou, Y. B. Wei, B. Shao and J. Zou, Eur. Phys. J. D 72, 128 (2018).
26. J. Batle, M. Casas, A. Plastino and A. R. Plastino, Phys. Rev. A 72, 032337 (2005).
27. L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh and V. Vedral, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 517 (2008).
28. F. Frowis, Phys. Rev. A 85, 052127 (2012).
29. Y. B. Wei, J. Zou, Z. M. Wang and B. Shao, Sci. Rep. 6, 19308 (2015).
30. G. J. Milburn, Phys. Rev. A 44, 5401 (1991).
31. B. Shao, T. H. Zeng and J. Zou, Commun. Theor. Phys. 44, 255 (2005).
32. Z. He, Z. Xiong and Y. Zhang, Phys. Lett. A 354, 79 (2006).
33. M. Qin and Z. Z. Ren, Quantum Inf. Process. 14, 6 (2015).
34. J. L. Guo and H. S. Song, Physica A 388, 2254 (2009).
35. B. Q. Liu, B. Shao and J. Zou, Phys. Lett. A 374, 1970 (2010).
36. G. Burkard, D. Loss and D. P. DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. B 59, 2070 (1999).
37. M. Christandl, N. Datta, A. Ekert and A. J. Landahl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 187902
(2004).
38. B. Simon, Trace Ideals and Their Applications (Springer, 2005).
39. F. Kheirandish, S. Akhtarshenas and H. Mohammadi, Phys. Rev. A 77, 042309 (2008).
40. D. Park, Quantum Inf. Process. 18, 172 (2019).
41. K. M. R. Audenaert, Quantum Inf. Comput. 14, 31 (2014).
42. R. Bhatia, Matrix Analysis (Springer, 1997).
43. S. Hill and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 5022 (1997).
44. W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2245 (1998).
45. P. M. Poggi, F. C. Lombardo and D. A. Wisniacki, EPL 104, 40005 (2013).
2050244-14

10 1142@S0217732320502442

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 1142@S0217732320502442

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modern Physics Letters A

2050244 (14 pages)

The quantum speed limit time of a two-qubit XYZ spin chain

Lu Hou∗,‡ , Bin Shao† and Yuguang Zhu∗

† School of Physics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, P. R. China

Received 11 February 2020

Keywords: Quantum speed limit; intrinsic decoherence; entanglement; magnetic field.

dynamics, two types of QSL bounds have been proposed by Mandelstam–Tamm

tum system is inevitable to interact with surroundings, it is essential to extend the

section, the conclusions of the paper are given.

where σiα (α = x, y, z) are the Pauli operators of the ith qubit, Jα (α = x, y, z) is

|φ1 i = sin θ|00i − cos θ|11i,

evolves from two different initial states.

3. Theory of QSL Time for Quantum Systems

τQSL = max{τ1 , τ2 , τ∞ } (15)

4. The QSL Time of the Two-Qubit XYZ Model with Intrinsic

4.2. The QSL time for entangled initial state

3. G. C. Hegerfeldt, Phys. Rev. A 90, 032110 (2014).

8. L. B. Levitin and T. Toffoli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 160502 (2009).

You might also like