Distance Bounds on Quantum Dynamics
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PHYSICAL REVIEW A 78, 012308 ͑2008͒ Distance bounds on quantum dynamics Daniel A. Lidar Departments of Chemistry, Electrical Engineering, and Physics, Center for Quantum Information Science & Technology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA Paolo Zanardi Department of Physics, Center for Quantum Information Science & Technology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA Kaveh Khodjasteh Department of Physics, Center for Quantum Information Science & Technology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA and Department of Physics and Astronomy, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755, USA ͑Received 29 March 2008; published 7 July 2008͒ We derive rigorous upper bounds on the distance between quantum states in an open-system setting in terms of the operator norm between Hamiltonians describing their evolution. We illustrate our results with an example taken from protection against decoherence using dynamical decoupling. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.78.012308 PACS number͑s͒: 03.67.Lx, 03.67.Pp I. INTRODUCTION extensively ͑Sec. II͒. We mention the trace norm and opera- When an open quantum system undergoes a dynamical tor norm, and a norm that mixes them via a duality between evolution generated by a Hamiltonian, how far does its state the Schrödinger and Heisenberg pictures. We then briefly evolve from itself compared to the magnitude of the Hamil- review the accepted distance measures between states so as tonian? This is a fundamental question that is central to to quantify the meaning of an expression such as ʈ ͑ ͒ 0ʈ͑ ͒͑ ͒ quantum-information science ͓1͔ and quantum control ͓2,3͔. S t − S t Sec. III . Next, we discuss how to compute the In order to make it more precise, suppose that the unitary effective Hamiltonian ⍀͑t͒ using the Magnus expansion or propagator of the evolution, U͑t͒, which is related to the Thompson’s theorem, and introduce a generalized effective ˙ i superoperator generator ͑Sec. IV͒. Since in many applica- Hamiltonian H͑t͒ via the Schrödinger equation U=−ប HU,is written in terms of an effective Hamiltonian ⍀͑t͒ as U͑t͒ tions one is interested not in the distance between states gen- =exp͓−it⍀͑t͒/ប͔. The effective Hamiltonian can in turn by erated by unitary, closed-system evolution, but instead in the calculated from the Hamiltonian H͑t͒ using a Dyson or Mag- distance between states of systems undergoing nonunitary, nus expansion. If the system S is “open,” it is coupled to a open-system dynamics, we prove an upper bound on the dis- bath B and its time-evolved state is given via the partial trace tance between such system-only states in terms of the dis- ͑ ͒ ͑ ͒͑ ͒ ͑ ͒† ͓ ͔ ϩ ͑ ͒ operation by S t =TrB U t 0 U t 4,5 . In the context of tance between the full “system bath” states Sec. V .We quantum information, the question we have stated pertains to then come to our main result: an upper bound on the distance the problem of “quantum memory”: i.e., what is between system states in terms of the distance between ͑ef- ʈ ͑ ͒ ͑ ͒ʈ ʈ⍀͑ ͒ʈ ʈ ͑ ͒ʈ ͒ ϩ S t − S 0 compared to t or H t ? When the issue fective Hamiltonians describing the system bath dynamics is quantum computation or general quantum control, one is ͑Sec. VI͒. We find the intuitive result that the distance is interested in comparing two time-evolved states: the “ideal” upper bounded by a function depending on the spectral di- 0͑ ͒ ameter of the difference between the effective Hamiltonians. state S t , which is error free and is described by an “ideal” effective Hamiltonian ⍀0͑t͒͑e.g., for a quantum algorithm͒, We present a discussion of our result in terms of an example ͑ ͒ and the “actual” state S t , which undergoes the full noisy borrowed from decoherence control using dynamical decou- dynamics described by the total effective Hamiltonian ⍀͑t͒. pling ͑Sec. VII͒. We conclude in Sec. VIII with some open Then the question becomes the following: what is questions. ʈ ͑ ͒ 0͑ ͒ʈ ʈ⍀͑ ͒ ⍀0͑ ͒ʈ ʈ ͑ ͒ 0͑ ͒ʈ S t − S t compared to t − t or H t −H t ? The memory question can, of course, be seen as a special case of the computation question. II. UNITARILY INVARIANT NORMS Here we prove bounds that answer these fundamental questions. Our bounds have immediate applications to prob- Unitarily invariant norms are norms satisfying, for all uni- ͓ ͔ lems in decoherence control ͓6͔ and fault-tolerant quantum tary U,V 8 , computation ͓7͔, as they quantify the sense in which a dis- ͑ ͒ tance between effective Hamiltonians describing the evolu- ʈUAVʈ = ʈAʈ . ͑1͒ tion should be made small, in order to guarantee a small ui ui distance between a desired and actual state. To begin, we first recall the definition and key properties We list some important examples. of so-called unitarily invariant norms, as we use such norms ͑i͒ The trace norm: 1050-2947/2008/78͑1͒/012308͑7͒ 012308-1 ©2008 The American Physical Society LIDAR, ZANARDI, AND KHODJASTEH PHYSICAL REVIEW A 78, 012308 ͑2008͒ ͑ ͒ ʈ⌫ ⌳⌫†ʈ ʈ ͑⌳͒ † †ʈ ʈAʈ ϵ Tr͉A͉ = ͚ s ͑A͒, ͑2͒ i.e., V is unitary ; then, 1 2 ϱ,1=sup V2V1 V1V2 1 1 i ʈ⌳ʈ ʈ⌳ʈ i =sup 1 = ϱ,1. Therefore the OT norm is also submul- tiplicative. However, note that unlike the case of the standard ͉ ͉ϵͱ † ͑ ͒ ͑ where A A A and si A are the singular values eigenval- operator norm, there is no simple expression for ʈ⌳ʈϱ in ͉ ͉͒ ,1 ues of A . terms of the singular values of ⌳. ͑ ͒ V denotes the Hilbert-Schmidt dual ء⌳ ii The operator norm: Let be an inner product space On the other hand, if ʈ ʈϵͱ͚ ͉ ͉2͗ ͘ equipped with the Euclidean norm x i xi ei ,ei , of ⌳, i.e., Vۋ͚ V V ͕ ͖ ⌳ V where x= ixiei and =Sp ei . Let : . The opera- X͔͒ ∀ ,X, ͑12͒͑ء⌳tor norm is Tr͓⌳͑͒X͔ =Tr͓ ʈ⌳xʈ then one can prove the following identity ͓see, e.g., Sec. 2.4 ʈ⌳ʈ ϵ ͑⌳͒ ͑ ͒ ϱ sup = max si . 3 of Ref. ͓10͔ or Eq. ͑9͒ of Ref. ͓11͔͔: xV ʈxʈ i 13͒͑ .͒ء⌳͑ X͒ʈϱ = maxs͑ء⌳ϱ: = sup ʈءʈ⌳ʈϱ = ʈ⌳ʈ Therefore ʈ⌳xʈՅʈ⌳ʈϱʈxʈ. In our applications V=L͑H͒ is the ,1 i ʈXʈϱ=1 i space of all linear operators on the Hilbert space H, ⌳ is a superoperator, and x= is a normalized quantum state: For example, for completely positive maps ͓1,4,5͔ ⌳ ʈʈ ͚ † ͑ ͕ ͖ ͒ 1 =Tr =1. = iAi Ai where Ai are the Kraus operators , it is easily ⌳ ͚ † ͑ ͒ ⌳ iAi Ai. The duality 12 between and = ء iii͒ The Frobenius, or Hilbert-Schmidt, norm: verified that͑ is the duality between the Heisenberg and Schrödinger ء⌳ ʈ ʈ ϵ ͱ † ͑ ͒2 ͑ ͒ A 2 Tr A A = ͱ͚ si A . 4 pictures. i All unitarily invariant norms satisfy the important property III. DISTANCE AND FIDELITY MEASURES of submultiplicativity ͓9͔: Various measures are known that quantify the notion of ʈABʈ Յ ʈAʈ ʈBʈ . ͑5͒ ui ui ui distance and fidelity between states. For example, the dis- The norms of interest to us are also multiplicative over ten- tance measure between quantum states 1 and 2 is the trace sor products and obey an ordering ͓9͔ distance ʈA Bʈ = ʈAʈ ʈBʈ , i =1,2,ϱ, 1 i i i D͑ , ͒ϵ ʈ − ʈ . ͑14͒ 1 2 2 1 2 1 ʈAʈϱ Յ ʈAʈ Յ ʈAʈ , 2 1 The trace distance is the maximum probability of distinguishing from : namely, D͑ , ͒ ʈ ʈ Յ ʈ ʈ ʈ ʈ ʈ ʈ ʈ ʈ ͑ ͒ 1 2 1 2 AB ui A ϱ B ui, B ϱ A ui. 6 ͑͗ ͘ ͗ ͘ ͒ ͗ ͘ =max0ϽPϽI P 1 − P 2 , where P i =Tr iP and P is a pro- There is an interesting duality between the trace and operator jector, or more generally an element of a positive operator- norm ͓9͔: valued measure ͑POVM͓͒1͔. The fidelity between quantum states and is ʈ ʈ ͕͉ ͑ † ͉͒ ʈ ʈ Յ ͖ ͑ ͒ 1 2 A 1 = max Tr B A : B ϱ 1 , 7 ͑ ͒ϵʈͱ ͱ ʈ ͱͱ ͱ ͑ ͒ F 1, 2 1 2 1 = 1 2 1, 15 ʈ ʈ ͕͉ ͑ † ͉͒ ʈ ʈ Յ ͖ ͑ ͒ A ϱ = max Tr B A : B 1 1 , 8 ͉͉͗͘ ͉͉͗͘ which reduces for pure states 1 = and 2 = to F͉͑͘,͉͒͘=͉͉͉͗͘. The fidelity and distance bound each ͉ ͑ ͉͒ Յ ʈ ʈ ʈ †ʈ ʈ †ʈ ʈ ʈ ͑ ͒ Tr BA A ϱ B 1, B ϱ A 1. 9 other from above and below ͓12͔: In the last three inequalities A and B can map between spaces 1−D͑ , ͒ Յ F͑ , ͒ Յ ͱ1−D͑ , ͒2, ͑16͒ of different dimensions. If they map between spaces of the 1 2 1 2 1 2 same dimension, then so that knowing one bounds the other. Many other measures ͓ ͔ ʈ ʈ ͉ ͑ † ͉͒ ͑ ͒ exist and are useful in a variety of circumstances 1 . A 1 = max Tr B A . 10 B†B=I We now define another norm, which we call the “operator- IV. GENERATORS OF THE DYNAMICS trace” norm ͑O-T norm͒: A.