ARTICLE IN PRESS

Physica E 40 (2008) 878–882

www.elsevier.com/locate/physe

Quantum computing in decoherence-free subspaces with coupled

charge qubits
Zhi-Bo Fenga,b,, Xin-Ding Zhangb
a
National Laboratory of Solid State Microstructures, Department of Physics, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China
b
Institute for Condensed Matter Physics, School of Physics and Telecommunication Engineering, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510631, China
Received 3 September 2007; accepted 22 October 2007
Available online 9 November 2007

Abstract

We present a simple but feasible quantum computing scheme in decoherence-free subspace by coupling four identical superconducting
Josephson circuits. Two physical charge qubits are encoded to a logical one by connecting them with a common superconducting
quantum interference device (SQUID). Well-controllable coupling between two logic qubits is further proposed by using a variable
electrostatic transformer to construct the two-qubits controlled-phase gate. Taking into account the symmetry of system-bath
interaction, our scheme may be helpful to suppress collective noises.
r 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

PACS: 03.67.Lx; 03.67.Pp; 85.25.Cp

Keywords: Quantum computing; Superconducting charge qubit; Decoherence-free subspace

Towards practical quantum computation (QC), devices
of superconducting Josephson circuits (DSJC) behaved as
artificial quantum two-level systems have many advan-
tages, such as convenient control, flexible design and
accurate readout [1–4]. A number of schemes concerning
multi-qubit operations with DSJC have been reported
[5–8]. To further implement scalable quantum computers,
high fidelity quantum operations, especially the two-qubit
gate operations are preferred. One of the critical problems
we are facing is how to couple two individual qubits
efficiently. Some significant proposals of realizing con-
trollable coupling between superconducting Cooper-pair
boxes have been put forward, including inductance
coupling [9–11], junction coupling [12], LC-resonator
coupling [13], etc. In particular, the coupling of charge
qubits can be achieved through a shared dc-SQUID device
[14,15]. Recently, a novel method to couple two charge
qubits by a variable electrostatic transformer was presented
Corresponding author at. National Laboratory of Solid State
Microstructures, Department of Physics, Nanjing University, Nanjing
210093, China.
E-mail address: zbfeng010@163.com (Z.-B. Feng).
theoretically [16] and experimentally realized in Ref. [17].
Despite the progress achieved, more efforts are required to
implement multi-qubit operations with DSJC based on
well-controlled interqubit coupling.
With the steps heading for practical, scalable quantum
computing, decoherence effects during quantum operations
have attracted increasing attention. As is well known,
quantum coherence is fragile, especially for the solid
quantum systems such as superconducting charge qubits
(SCQs). Decoherence caused by the system–environment
interaction may seriously destruct quantum operations.
Fortunately some available schemes have been proposed to
tackle the problem, e.g., quantum error correcting/avoid-
ing codes [18–20] and geometric QC [21–24], etc. Further-
more, depending on the symmetry of system-bath
interaction, one can choose a sort of decoherence-free
subspaces (DFS) to implement QC [18–20,25,26]. The DFS
idea has been experimentally tested in Ref. [27], and
generalized to noiseless subsystems in Ref. [28].
For SCQs, the charge noises are mainly the Ohmic
noise originated from external control circuits, and the
background charge fluctuations [29–31]. Here we attempt
to construct a set of universal quantum gates in a

1386-9477/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.physe.2007.10.086
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Z.-B. Feng, X.-D. Zhang / Physica E 40 (2008) 878–882 879

well-designed DFS which is immune to the collective discussed in more details below, two subblocks a and b are
decoherence effects. In detail, two physical SCQs are coupled by a variable electrostatic transformer C m [16].
coupled by a common SQUID to form a decoherence-free Since the system is operated in the charging regime, the
subsystem, which acts as a logical qubit. The two-logic- extra Cooper-pairs nk in the kth box is a good quantum
qubit gate is realized through coupling together two number, which acts as qubit jnk i. Near the charging energy
subsystems with a variable electrostatic transformer. The degeneracy point ðngk ¼ 12Þ, only two charge states, say nk ¼
qualitative analysis given out in the last place shows that 0 and 1, play a dominant role [1]. Within the charge
our scheme may be helpful for isolating quantum opera- eigenbasis fj1i, j0igðkÞ , the system Hamiltonian in spin-12
tions from some major decoherence resources. representation reads [14–16]
X  E Jk ðkÞ

1. Dynamics of the coupled Cooper-pair boxes ^
H¼ ðkÞ
k s^ z  s^
k¼1;2;3;4
2 x
See Fig. 1(a), the system we investigate consists of four E Ja ^ ðaÞ E Jb ^ ðbÞ
 R  R þ Gs^ ð2Þ
z s^ ð3Þ
z . ð2Þ
identical SCQs (signed as k ¼ 1; 2; 3 and 4). For each SCQ, 2 x 2 x
a superconducting island (Cooper-pair box) is coupled to a Here the charging energies are k ¼ E ck ð1  2ngk Þ=2 for k ¼
ring by two symmetric Josephson junctions characterized 1 and 4, where the charging energy scale is E ck ¼ 2e2 =C Sk ,
by coupling energy E J0 and capacitance C J . Gate voltage with total capacitance of the kth box C Sk ¼ C k þ 2C J , and
V gk is applied to the kth box through the capacitance C k , ngk ¼ C k V gk =2e is the corresponding gate charge. How-
then the charging energy of Cooper-pairs is changed by ever, for the qubits 2 and 3, due to the modification of the
V gk inducing gate charges. The flux Fk threading the loop charging energy dcm [16] of the variable transformer C m ,
of the kth SQUID can modulate the Josephson coupling the charging energies become
energy. Each two qubits 1 and 2 (3 and 4) are connected k ¼ E ck ð1  2ngk Þ=2 þ dcm , (3)
with a dc SQUID to form the subblock-a (b) [14,15]. The
SQUID-m is pierced by a magnetic flux Fm , which provides where the total capacitances are then C Sk ¼ C k þ 2C J þ
a tunable Josephson coupling C mk , with C mk being one part of C m (see Fig. 1(b)).
Assuming that Fig. 1(b) has a symmetric structure, c ¼
E Jm ¼ 2E ð0Þ
Jm cosðpFm =F0 Þ, (1) C mk =C Sk for k ¼ 2 and 3, we have
where F0 ¼ h=2e is the fluxon, m ¼ a; b. Choosing small dcm ¼ ðDm =2Þ cosð2pq0 Þ cosð2pcÞ, (4)
junction capacitances of SQUID-a (b), we can obtain that
where Dm is the characteristic energy gap of the transfor-
the electrostatic energy between boxes 1 and 2 (3 and 4) is
mer junction, and the induced charge is
much smaller than the corresponding Josephson energy
[14]. In this case, the effect of electrostatic coupling energy X 1

q0 ¼ qc þ c ngk  , (5)
can be ignored. To obtain a controlled gate operation, as k
2
P
with qc ¼ ðV c =2eÞ k C mk ð1  cÞ. The effective Josephson
coupling energies are

a b E Jk ¼ 2E J0 cosðpFk =F0 Þ, (6)

k ¼ 1; 2; 3 and 4. The average phase difference across two
(0) (0)
EJa EJb Josephson junctions of the kth SQUID is denoted by jk ,
EJ0 Φ1 Φ2 Cm Φ3 Φ4 which is canonically conjugate to nk , i.e., ½jk , nk  ¼ i.
CJ Φa Φb
Pauli operators s^ ðkÞ ^ ðkÞ
p ðp ¼ z, xÞ satisfy s z j1i
ðkÞ
¼ j1iðkÞ and
C1 C2 C3 C4
s^ ðkÞ
z j0i
ðkÞ
¼ j0iðkÞ , s^ ðkÞ
x j1i
ðkÞ
¼ j0iðkÞ and s^ ðkÞ
x j0i
ðkÞ
¼ j1iðkÞ .
Vg1 Vg 2 Vg3 Vg4
For SQUID-a (b), average phase difference ja ðjb Þ is
relevant with extra Cooper-pairs n1 and n2 ðn3 and n4 Þ, this
yields
Cm2 Ec Cm3 cos ja ¼ ðjn1 ; n2 þ 1ihn1 þ 1; n2 j þ h:c:Þ=2.
An analogous relation can be written for jb . Therefore, the
EJ ðaÞ
above operator is R^ ¼ s^ ð1Þ
þ s
x ^ ð2Þ þ s^ ð1Þ s^ ð2Þ
  þ , with inversion
Vc operators s^ ðkÞ ðkÞ
þ ¼ j1i h0j and s ^ ðkÞ ðkÞ
 ¼ j1i h0j, or s ^ ðkÞ
 ¼
ðkÞ ðkÞ
ðs^ x  is^ y Þ=2. The last term G is the coupling strength
Fig. 1. (a) Schematic diagram of the coupled charge qubits, which consists between the two subsystems, in the tight-binding limit
of four identical SCQs. The qubits 1 and 2 (3 and 4) are coupled by the E c 5E J , it takes the form [16]
SQUID-a (b) to construct the subblock-a (b), respectively. Through a
variable electrostatic transformer C m , the inter-subblock coupling can be Dm
G¼ cosð2pq0 Þ½1  cosð2pcÞ. (7)
switchable. (b) The equivalent circuit of C m proposed in Ref. [16]. 2
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
880 Z.-B. Feng, X.-D. Zhang / Physica E 40 (2008) 878–882

E c and E J are the charging and Josephson coupling
energies of the transformer C m .
2. Quantum gate operations in DFS
Based on the symmetry of the system-bath interaction,
we may choose a smaller space to encode logic qubits from
the state space of an isolated subsystem. For example, in
the subsystem-a, the charge eigenbasis span a space fj11i12 ,
j10i12 , j01i12 , j00i12 g. When the system-bath interaction
has the form of Z^  B, ^ where Z^ ¼ s^ ð1Þ þ s^ ð2Þ , B^ is a
z z
random bath operator, there exist ðZ^  BÞj10i ^ 12
¼ 0 and
^ ^ 12 ^ 12
ðZ  BÞj01i ¼ 0, since Zj10i ¼ 0 and Zj01i ^ 12
¼ ðaÞ
0[18,19]. We consider the subspace
C a :¼ spanfj10i12 ; j01i12 g,
and define j1iaL ¼ j10i12 and j0iaL ¼ j01i12 as logic qubits.
For a random state jci 2 C a , ðZ^  BÞjci
^ ¼ 0, which means
that DFS C a is immune to the sz -type common bath.
In the followings, we show in detail how to physically
realize two single-logic gates U z and U x in the DFS.
First, the coupling between the two subsystems should
be switched off. In the light of Eqs. (5) and (7), the
inter-subsystem coupling can be controlled by q0 induced
by the voltages V g2;3 and V c . When Dm is determined and c
is not an integer, the inter-subsystem coupling will be
vanished, G ¼ 0 as long as q0 ¼ 14. Otherwise, the
coupling is switched on. As a special example, if the gate
voltages V g2;3 work at the degeneracy point, we have q0 ¼ 14
when
eðC 2 þ 2C J þ C m2 Þ
Vc ¼ .
2ðC 2 þ 2C J ÞðC m2 þ C m3 Þ
Secondly, if the mutual inductance between the two
subsystems is very small, the magnetic interaction between
subsystem-a and b can be negligible. From Eq. (2), the
Hamiltonian of the decoupled subsystem-a is given by
on j1iaL and j0iaL in the DFS C a can be achieved
ðaÞ
U z ¼ expðifz R^ z Þ, (9)
where fz ¼ 21 tz =_ is the rotation angle around the
z-axis.
Next we demonstrate the logic-qubit gate U x through
tuning appropriate parameters. When the applied fluxes
Fa aF0 =2 and F1;2 ¼ F0 =2, the intraqubit and interqubit
coupling energies are, respectively, E Ja a0 and E J1;2 ¼ 0.
Furthermore, when the gate voltages V g1;2 are modulated
to the degeneracy point ðng1;2 ¼ 12Þ, the charging energies
will be 1;2 ¼ 0. As a result, the subsystem-a Hamiltonian is
ðaÞ
reduced to H^ x ¼ E Ja R^ x =2, which only remains the
interqubit coupling. The corresponding evolution operator
ðaÞ
is U x ¼ expðiH^ tx =_Þ, with the evolution time tx . Since
x
ðaÞ ðaÞ
R^ x j1iaL ¼ j0iaL and R^ x j0iaL ¼ j1iaL , the rotation gate U x in
DFS C a as
ðaÞ
U x ¼ expðifx R^ x Þ, (10)
can be constructed, fx ¼ E Ja tx =2_ is the rotation angle
around the x-axis.
Finally, we need to construct a nontrivial two-logic-
qubit gate, which is usually important and crucial for QC.
The initially isolated subsystems a and b can be coupled by
adjusting G from 0 to appropriate coupling strength Ga
[16,17]. In coupled system, since the subsystem-b has a
similar basis fj1ibL , j0ibL g, two-logic-qubits span a space
C ab :¼ spanfj11iLL ; j10iLL ; j01iLL ; j00iLL g,
here the superscripts have been neglected.
By setting the fluxes Fk and Fa;b to F0 =2, we have E Jk ¼
0 (k ¼ 1, 2, 3, 4) and E Ja;b ¼ 0. The coupled system
Hamiltonian equation (2) will be
X
H^ cp ¼ Gs^ ð2Þ
z s ^ ð3Þ
z þ k s^ ðkÞ
z .
k¼1;2;3;4

ðaÞ X E Jk ðkÞ

E Ja ^ ðaÞ Without loss of generality, the charging energies k
H^ ¼ k s^ ðkÞ  ^
s  R . (8)
k¼1;2
z
2 x
2 x can be remained here. Since s^ ð2Þ ^ ð3Þ
z s z j11iLL ¼ j11iLL ,
s^ z s^ z j10iLL ¼ j10iLL , s^ z s^ z j01iLL ¼ j01iLL , s^ ð2Þ
ð2Þ ð3Þ ð2Þ ð3Þ
z s ^ ð3Þ
z j00iLL
Note that the charging energy is 2 ¼ E c2 ð1  2ng2 Þ=2 under ¼ j00iLL , we further obtain the unitary evolution
the decoupled condition of q0 ¼ 14. The controllability of operator U^ cp ¼ expðiH^ cp tcp =_Þ in the DFS C ab ,
the isolated subsystem provides us the possibility of with tcp being the duration. After the unitary operation,
constructing the single-logic gates. the logic-qubits will acquire the phase-shifts [32]
The first goal is to derive the single-logic-qubit gate U z . j11iLL ! eig11 j11iLL , j10iLL ! eig10 j10iLL , j01iLL !
From Eqs. (1) and (6), when Fa;1;2 are all equal to F0 =2, the e j01iLL , and j00iLL ! eig00 j00iLL . As a result, the
ig01
intraqubit and interqubit couplings are E Ja;1;2 ¼ 0. Addi- controlled-phase gate on logic-qubits can be written as
tionally, we appropriately choose the gate voltages V g1;2 to 2 ig11 3
get 1 ¼ 2 . Hence, the system Hamiltonian is described e 0 0 0
ðaÞ ðaÞ 6 0 eig10 0 0 7
by H^ ¼ 1 ðs^ ð1Þ  s^ ð2Þ Þ. We define R^ ¼ ðs^ ð1Þ  s^ ð2Þ Þ=2
z z z z z z U^ cp ¼ 6
6 7
7, (11)
ðaÞ ðaÞ 4 0 0 eig01 0 5
satisfying R^ z j1iaL ¼ j1iaL and R^ z j0iaL ¼ j0iaL . In the
logic-quibt state space fj1iaL ,j0iaL g, the unitary operator is 0 0 0 eig00
ðaÞ
U z ¼ expðiH^ z tz =_Þ, with tz being the evolution time. where g11 ¼ ðG  1 þ 2  3 þ 4 Þtcp =_, g10 ¼ ðG  1 þ
After the operation, logic-qubits will acquire the corre- 2 þ 3  4 Þtcp =_, g01 ¼ ðG þ 1  2  3 þ 4 Þtcp =_ and
sponding phases fz , and then the rotation gate operation g00 ¼ ðG þ 1  2 þ 3  4 Þtcp =_.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Z.-B. Feng, X.-D. Zhang / Physica E 40 (2008) 878–882
The operation of switching on the inter-subsystem
coupling G will also result in the changing of dcm
simultaneously. We consider the following case to specify
this effect. When all the gate voltages V gk are operated at
the degeneracy point, from Eqs. (3) and (4), the charging
energies will be 1 ¼ 4 ¼ 0, 2 ¼ 3 ¼ dcm , in which dcm
varies only with V c P as dcm ¼ ðDm =2Þ cosða1 pV c =eþ
a2 Þ cosð2pcÞ, where a1 ¼ k C mk ð1  cÞ and a2 ¼ 6cp are
constants. With such a capacitive coupling between the
boxes 2 and 3, the effects of dcm on boxes 1 and 4 can be
ignored. IfR dcm is a time-dependent parameter, dynamic
t
phases i 0a dcm ðtÞ dt=_ [16] will be acquired only for the
charge states j1ið2;3Þ and j0ið2;3ÞR, where ta is the duration. We
t
note for simplicity that fa ¼ 0 a dcm ðtÞ dt=_, and then logic-
qubits will acquire phases as j1iaL ! eifa j1iaL ,
j0iaL ! eifa j0iaL , j1ibL ! eifa j1ibL and j0ibL ! eifa j0ibL .
After the switching operation, U^ cp will operate on logic-
qubit states with initial phases fj11iLL , e2ifa j10iLL ,
e2ifa j01iLL , j00iLL g. Since a universal quantum gate is
irrelevant to the initial states, the switching time direction
will not affect the logic-qubits gate operation.
So far, based on the SCQs with controllable couplings,
a universal set of gates in the encoded DFSs can be
obtained.
3. Discussion and conclusion
For SCQs that are operated in the charging regime, the
fluctuations of the flux through the dc-SQUID loops
couple to qubit variable s^ x , which is proved not to be the
dominant noise [31]. The relatively strong decoherence
effects are usually caused by the charge noises, including
Ohmic noise originated from external control circuits and
low-frequency 1=f noise coming from the background
charge fluctuations [29–31].
Generally one can model the noises as oscillator baths.
The Hamiltonian of the closed system can be characterized
by spin-boson model
H^ ¼ H^ S þ H^ B þ H^ SB ,
where H^ S and H^ B are the system and bath energies. Since
each charge qubit is either coupled to an individual or a
common (collective) noise [31], the system-bath interaction
takes the form [15]
X [20] D.A. Lidar, I.L. Chuang, K.B. Whaley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998)
H^ SB ¼ ðs^ zðiÞ þ s^ zðjÞ Þ  B^ c þ s^ ðkÞ ^
z  Bk ,
k¼i;j
where B^ c and B^ k are correspondingly the common and
independent bath operator. According to the encoded
DFS, the effect of common bath will be eliminated.
Therefore, for quantum gate operations, the enhancement
of gate fidelity may be possible. In order to remove the
collective charge noise, Zhou et al. [33] proposed a robust
quantum information processing on pair-encoded charge
qubits, by using two closely spaced cooper-pair boxes with
a common bias lead. In two strongly capacitively coupled
881
charge qubits, there exists common noise due to the
correlation between charge fluctuations of the two boxes. It
is believed helpful for significantly suppressing the deco-
herence effect [34]. If the four charge qubits with identical
device parameters are subjected to the same environment
as much as possible, the effect of the independent bath
will be suppressed, even if there is a small symmetry
breaking perturbation parameterized by Z in the order of
OðZÞðZ51Þ [35].
In summary, we propose a theoretical scheme to
realize QC in the DFS with SCQs. By taking advantage
of controllable couplings, a universal set of gates can
be constructed. In our scheme, the computational bases
are all encoded in the subspace immune to the s^ z -type
of decoherence. Taking into account the effects of
charge noise in SCQs, we qualitatively analyze the
value of DFS scheme combating certain decoherence
effects. We hope this work is helpful to experimentally
implement high fidelity quantum gate operations with
DSJC.
References
[1] Y. Makhlin, G. Schön, A. Shnirman, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73 (2001) 357.
[2] Y. Nakamura, Y.A. Pashkin, J.S. Tsai, Nature (London) 398 (1999)
786;
J.R. Friedman, et al., Nature (London) 406 (2000) 43.
[3] C.H. van der Wal, et al., Science 290 (2000) 773;
D. Vion, et al., Science 296 (2002) 886.
[4] Y. Yu, et al., Science 296 (2002) 889.
[5] Yu.A. Pashkin, et al., Nature (London) 421 (2003) 823;
T. Yamamoto, et al., Nature (London) 425 (2003) 941.
[6] A.J. Berklay, et al., Science 300 (2003) 1548;
R. McDermott, et al., Science 307 (2005) 1299.
[7] A. Izmalkov, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 037003.
[8] S.L. Zhu, Z.D. Wang, P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 100502;
S.L. Zhu, Z.D. Wang, K.Y. Yang, Phys. Rev. A 68 (2003) 034303;
G.P. He, et al., Phys. Rev. A 68 (2003) 012315.
[9] J.Q. You, J.S. Tsai, F. Nori, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 197902.
[10] J. Lantz, et al., Phys. Rev. B 70 (2004) 140507(R).
[11] M. Wallquist, et al., New J. Phys. 7 (2005) 178.
[12] J.Q. You, J.S. Tsai, F. Nori, Phys. Rev. B 68 (2003) 024510.
[13] F. Plastina, G. Falci, Phys. Rev. B 67 (2003) 224514.
[14] J. Siewert, R. Fazio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 257905.
[15] M. Cholascinski, Phys. Rev. B 69 (2004) 134516.
[16] D.V. Averin, C. Bruder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 057003.
[17] H. Paik, et al., IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 15 (2005) 8223.
[18] L.M. Duan, G.C. Guo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 1953.
[19] P. Zanardi, M. Rasetti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 3306.
2594.
[21] P. Zanardi, M. Rasetti, Phys. Lett. A 264 (1999) 94;
J. Pachos, P. Zanardi, M. Rasetti, Phys. Rev. A 61 (2000) 010305.
[22] L.M. Duan, J.I. Cirac, P. Zoller, Science 292 (2001) 1695.
[23] S.L. Zhu, Z.D. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 097902;
S.L. Zhu, Z.D. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 187902.
[24] X.D. Zhang, et al., Phys. Rev. A 71 (2005) 014302.
[25] L.-A. Wu, P. Zanardi, D.A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (2005) 130501.
[26] X.D. Zhang, Q. Zhang, Z.D. Wang, Phys. Rev. A 74 (2006) 034302.
[27] L. Viola, et al., Science 293 (2001) 2059.
[28] E. Knill, R. Laflamme, L. Viola, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 2525;
P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. A 63 (2001) 012301;
J. Kempe, et al., Phys. Rev. A 63 (2001) 042307.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
882 Z.-B. Feng, X.-D. Zhang / Physica E 40 (2008) 878–882

[29] O. Astafiev, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 267007. [33] X.X. Zhou, et al., Phys. Rev. A 69 (2004) 030301(R).
[30] T. Duty, et al., Phys. Rev. B 69 (2004) 140503(R). [34] J.Q. You, X. Hu, F. Nori, Phys. Rev. B 72 (2005) 144529.
[31] M. Governale, M. Grifoni, G. Schön, Chem. Phys. 268 (2001) 273. [35] D. Bacon, D.A. Lidar, K.B. Whaley, Phys. Rev. A 60 (1999) 1944;
[32] D.A. Lidar, L.-A. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 017905. M.J. Storcz, et al., Phys. Rev. A 72 (2005) 052314.