Volume 2010, Issue 1 365653

Research Article

Open Access

Quantum Computing in Decoherence-Free Subspace Constructed by Triangulation

Qiao Bi,

Corresponding Author

Qiao Bi

[email protected]

Department of Physics School of Science Wuhan University of Technology Wuhan 430070, China , whut.edu.cn

Centre for Advanced Nanotechnology University of Toronto Toronto, Canada , M5S 3E4, utoronto.ca

Search for more papers by this author

Liu Guo,

Liu Guo

Department of Physics School of Science Wuhan University of Technology Wuhan 430070, China , whut.edu.cn

Search for more papers by this author

H. E. Ruda,

H. E. Ruda

Centre for Advanced Nanotechnology University of Toronto Toronto, Canada , M5S 3E4, utoronto.ca

Search for more papers by this author

Qiao Bi,

Corresponding Author

Qiao Bi

[email protected]

Department of Physics School of Science Wuhan University of Technology Wuhan 430070, China , whut.edu.cn

Centre for Advanced Nanotechnology University of Toronto Toronto, Canada , M5S 3E4, utoronto.ca

Search for more papers by this author

Liu Guo,

Liu Guo

Department of Physics School of Science Wuhan University of Technology Wuhan 430070, China , whut.edu.cn

Search for more papers by this author

H. E. Ruda,

H. E. Ruda

Centre for Advanced Nanotechnology University of Toronto Toronto, Canada , M5S 3E4, utoronto.ca

Search for more papers by this author

First published: 16 February 2010

https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/365653

Citations: 2

Academic Editor: Nai-Huan Jing

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

A formalism for quantum computing in decoherence-free subspaces is presented. The constructed subspaces are partial triangulated to an index related to environment. The quantum states in the subspaces are just projected states which are ruled by a subdynamic kinetic equation. These projected states can be used to perform ideal quantum logical operations without decoherence.

1. Introduction

Recent publications have formulated a remarkable theory for Decoherence-Free (DF) subspaces and subsystems in which quantum computing is performed in a DF subspace although the total space is still subject to decoherence [1–23]. Many proposals have considered the Born-Markov approximation or restrictions on the type of decoherence (e.g., symmetric and collective decoherence). However, there have been a number of reports on DF subspaces that do not invoke the Born-Markov approximation and do not place constraints on the type of decoherence [24]. These have significance for practical experimental implementation. So far, the most general framework may be called operator quantum error correction (OQEC), which encompasses active error correction and leads to improved threshold results in fault tolerant quantum computing [25–28], and has initiated the development of a structure theory for passive error correction [29, 30]. Experimentally, DF subspaces have recently been observed under some conditions, which shows that such DF subspaces do indeed exist, allowing logical qubits to be encoded without decoherence [22–34]. However, a practical procedure to construct DF subspace is still not a trivial problem, and hence, impedes building practical quantum logic gates. For this study, we present a different scheme to construct a DF subspace based on the Schrödinger type of subdynamic kinetic equation (SSKE) which was inspired by theory of the subdynamics in Brussels-Austin school [35, 36].

2. Subdynamic Formalism

Consider a general quantum open system S interacting with an environment B, whose Hamiltonian is written as H(t) = H_S(t) + H_B + λH_int with coupling number λ. If one chooses the eigenprojectors and its orthogonal projectors of free Hamiltonian H₀(t) = H_S(t) + H_B as P_n and Q_n, respectively (this is possible since the free Hamiltonian is assumed to be easily diagonalized), then by means of the subdynamics theory [37] one can introduce a creation (destruction) correlation operator (as a type of resolvent) as

(2.1)

where E_n(t) is an eigenvalue of H(t). This allows one to construct a Schrödinger type of kinetic equation for a projected state as

(2.2)

where the projected wave function ϕ_proj is defined as

(2.3)

where the operator Π_n(t) is expressed by

(2.4)

and the wave function φ(t) satisfies the original Schrödinger equation, while the intermediate operator Θ is defined as

(2.5)

The creation operator C_n(t) is independent of the representation with respect to the projectors P_n, Q_n and is not necessarily self-adjoint in the sense of extended functional space. This reveals that the eigenvalues of the intermediate operator may be complex and the corresponding evolution operator corresponding to two nonunitary semigroups evolutions, respectively. Using the physical boundary conditions, such as ϵ-rule [35], we can determine which semigroup is the correct one. Therefore, the evolution of the projected density operator for the open system can be time asymmetric and may exist in the generalized functional space beyond Hilbert space, such as rigged Hilbert space [38, 39]. This time asymmetric evolution is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics.

Moreover, by replacing the Hamiltonian H(t) with the Liouvillian L(t) and wave function φ with density operator ρ, as well as using the same approach as above, the SSKE can be transformed to the Liouvillian type of SKE (LSKE) for a quantum open system:

(2.6)

The creation (destruction) correlation operator can be available by means of subdynamics theory. In fact, by introducing the eigen-projectors of the total Hamiltonian Π_n(t), using the Heisenberg equation considering the eigenvalue problem of Π_n(t) and the definition of the creation (destruction) operators, one can obtain the basic operator equation of the creation operator and its solutions can be expressed as the retarded or advanced integrals, corresponding to the two kinds of time evolution semigroups: t ∈ [0, +∞) or t ∈ (−∞, 0] and continuations of up and down half complex planes. In the same way, the basic equation for the destruction operator and relevant solution can be given.

This construction of SSKE or LSKE in subspace can be related to the original Schrödinger or Liouville equation. For instance, using the intertwining relations from subdynamics theory [35, 36, 40] Ω(t)Θ(t)Ω⁻¹(t) = H(t), one can arrive at the original Schrödinger equation

(2.7)

where the similarity operator is defined as

(2.8)

which is also not necessarily unitary. The eigenvectors of the time-independent total Hamiltonian H can be given by the eigenvectors of H₀, ϕ_n, as |φ_n〉 = (P_n + C_n)|ϕ_n〉 with the same structure of eigenvalues as Θ.

The second-order approximation for the LSKE also corresponds to the Master, Boltzmann, Pauli, and Fokker-Plank equations of kinetic theory and Brownian motion. For example, from the LSKE for a time-independent open system S, one can easily deduce the general Master equation by using Born-Markovian approximation. Indeed, if assuming that projector as

(2.9)

giving the reduced density operator for system S as Pρ = ρ_S, then a general Markovian equation can be obtained. This equation can also be reduced to a type of Lindblad equation or Boltzmann equation [41].

3. Decoherence-Free Partial Triangular Subspace

An interesting advantage using the above formalism is to construct a precise decoherence-free (DF) subspace. It is remarkable that the projected space on which subdynamics operates is a kind of DF subspace that occurs naturally by choosing a suitable basis to expand that subspace. In fact, if decoherence exists in a system arising from interactions with its environment, then the spectral decomposition of the Hamiltonian can be expressed using the subdynamic formalism as

(3.1)

where it is not very difficult to see that the eigenprojector P_n for the free Hamiltonian H₀(t) is invariant while the eigenvalue

is changed to

. This produces a phase shift for the evolution state

(3.2)

which leads to a type of decoherence in the subspaces. For example, if the entangled states evolution in the subspace is

before the interaction is exerted from the environment, then after the interaction the evolution of the state in the subspace becomes

(3.3)

Hence for constructing an ideal DF subspace, one has to find a procedure to cancel the change of the eigenvalues. How can one realize it? The key idea is to use the partial triangulation.

For example, let us consider a typical two-qubit quantum computing system S, consisting of the spins S₁ and S₂, such as the two electrons of two ³¹P confined in a germanium/silicon heterostructure of an electron spin-resonance transistor [42, 43] or the two electrons confined in two quantum dots [44]. Ignoring the influence of the environment, the Hamiltonian can be written using the Heisenberg model as H_S(t) = J(t)S₁ · S₂, where J(t) is the time-dependent exchange coupling parameter determined by the specific model considerations. In the case of spins of the two electrons (e.g., confined in two vertically, laterally, coupled quantum dots [45]), J is the difference in the energies of two-electrons ground state, a spin singlet at zero magnetic field, and the lowest spin-triplet state; J is also a function of the electric and magnetic field and the interdot distance. Using the relationship between S₁ · S₂ and the square of the sum of S₁ and S₂, the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of S₁ · S₂ can be found from S₁ · S₂ = (1/2)(S² − (3/2)) by

(3.4)

A quantum Controlled-Not (CN) gate can be given by the sequence of operations

(3.5)

where U_sw is an ideal swap operator which can exchange the quantum states of qubits 1 and 2 and is determined generally by an evolution operator U_s(J(τ)) by adjusting the coupling time between the two spins in the evolution of the system. For the particular spin-spin coupling duration τ_s, where

(mod 2 π), U_sw = U_s(π), and the swap operator which can exchange the quantum states of qubits 1 and 2 is given by [44]

(3.6)

In the presence of the environment, the nonideal action of the swap operation must be considered because it may introduce decoherence in the ideal swap operation. Here the environment is assumed to consist of a set of two-level particles randomly embedded in an environment B. This is a pure dephasing model whose Hamiltonian is given by

, and the Hamiltonian coupling the two-qubit spin system is

(3.7)

where

(

) is raising/lowering operator for the kth two-level particle, characterized by a generally complex coupling parameter g_k. Then, the Hamiltonian for the total system is H(t) = H_S(t) + H_B + λH_int, and the corresponding complete set of eigenvectors for H_S(t) + H_B is denoted as {|{k} ⊗ ϕ_j〉, 〈ϕ_j ⊗ {k}|}.

To control the induced decoherence, we choose the time-independent eigen-projectors of H_S(t) + H_B as

(3.8)

and Q_nk as Q_nk + P_nk = 1, n = 1, …, 4. Using the definition of the eigen-projectors P_nk, the spectral decomposition of the intermediate operator Θ is given by two cases:

(3.9)

(3.10)

where E_1k(t) and E_2k(t) are the eigenvalues of the total Hamiltonian, corresponding to the eigen-projectors of Θ(t), P_1k, and P_2k, respectively. This shows that the eigen-projectors P_nk of Θ(t) are invariant and independent of the interaction in the constructed subspace; however, for n = 1,2, the eigenvalues are changed (index n is still diagonal to H_int, while index k is off-diagonal to H_int), which may introduce a phase shift in the evolution operator as a kind of decoherence.

For canceling this phase shift, we consider the triangular decomposition of the H_int as

, where

is upper-triangular part of H_int and

is lower-triangular part of H_int. Then it is easy to find that

(3.11)

which shows that

part and

part are to be moved out in the upper-triangular or lower-triangular subspace Φ_utri(Φ_dtri), respectively. Here the upper-triangular (or lower-triangular) subspace Φ_utri(Φ_dtri) can be defined by introducing upper-triangular (or lower-triangular) projector and upper-triangular (or lower-triangular) inner product given by

, k^′ ≤ k (or k^′ ≥ k), and 〈k|A|k^′〉, for any operator A with k ≤ k^′ (or k^′ ≥ k). For instance, any operator A defined in this upper-triangular subspace with respect to the index k can only be represented as

. Therefore we can construct the DF upper-triangular (or lower-triangular) subspace Φ_utri with respect to the environmental index k and, in the same time, enable the Hilbert space ℋ_S to be invariant for the quantum computing system S, that is, ℋ_S ⊗ Φ_utri, in which one can allow the interaction terms in (3.10) to be zero

(3.12)

This demonstrates that the constructed intermediate operator Θ(t) on the upper-triangular subspace ℋ_S ⊗ Φ_utri is independent upon the interaction part of the original Hamiltonian H_int; consequently the phase shift introduced by H_int is canceled in the subspaces although the total system experiences the decoherence introduced by H_int.

In the upper-triangular subspace ℋ_S ⊗ Φ_utri, the quantum Controlled-Not logic operation

can be executed by using a sequence of operations and its relevant swap operator U_sw remains invariant before and after interaction from the environment. This can be described by the following formula:

(3.13)

The above formalism can be extended to a general dephasing situation, for instance, a register of N two-level elements immersed in a quantized environment, whose Hamiltonian is described by

(3.14)

From the preceding study, the procedure to construct the upper-triangular subspaces is simple, that is, if one performs the relevant quantum logical operations using the state ϕ(0), then one should perform the normal inner product with respect to the index n for the quantum computing system and the upper-triangular inner product with respect to the index k for the environment, and remember that the evolution of the states is described by exp (−iΘ(t)t)ϕ(0) in the upper-triangular subspace. The general considerations for the above model are given below.

4. General DF Subspace Constructed by Triangulation

Different models treat the interaction of the system with its environments quite differently; here, we propose a general procedure to construct a DF subspace by triangulation. Suppose that the states used in quantum computing system are the eigenvectors of the free Hamiltonian H₀ = H_S(t) + H_B, then the corresponding matrix of the Hamiltonian H₀ is diagonal. Thus the spectral decomposition for the intermediate operator Θ based on the above subdynamics formalism can be given by Θ = Tr_k(∑_n,kE_n(t)P_nk) = H_S(t), where P_nk is an eigen-projector of H₀, and E_n(t) is an eigenvalue of H_S.

Now, if the system is subject to decoherence induced from the environment by (a general) H_int, then (suppose) the matrix of Hamiltonian becomes off-diagonal to the index introduced from environment (and is diagonal to the index from the original system). Thus, one can construct the upper-triangular subspace ℋ_s ⊗ Φ_utri by defining the rule of upper-triangular inner product in this space such that , for k ≤ k^′; , only for the index related to the environment k > k^′. This leads to an upper-triangular matrix of H_int. Using this upper-triangular property, the interaction terms in the Θ operator should be zero ; thus, the spectral decomposition of Θ = H_S maintains invariance, that is, Θ = Tr_k(∑_n,kE_n(t)P_nk + 0) = H_S, where P_nk is now chosen as an upper-triangular eigen-projector with respect to k.

It may be necessary to emphasize that the states required to perform quantum computing in the DF (triangular) subspace are just the projected states ψ^proj(t) which can be spanned by {φ_nk = ϕ_n ⊗ ψ_k}. The projected states are measurable in this subspace since {φ_nk = ϕ_n ⊗ ψ_k} is orthogonal (and triangular with k) and distinguishable, where the triangular inner product only is valid to the index which is related to the environment; here it means k, while for an other index relevant to the original system, such as n, the normal inner product is still used. Finally, one may ask whether the rule of the upper-triangular inner product in this space restricts or changes the original Controlled-Not logic operation and results in errors. The answer is no, as one can see there is no influence on decoherence to the quantum Controlled-Not logic operation in (3.13). The term relative to the environment

(4.1)

now cannot influence the original quantum Controlled-Not logic operation

(4.2)

The entanglement between the system and environment is canceled in the constructed partial triangular subspace although it exists indeed in the original total space or even in the subspace with the normal inner product. The role of upper-triangular inner product with respect to the index from environment in the subspace is only to cancel the decoherence (phase shift) from the environment. Then, how can one realize the above procedure in the practical procedure for the quantum computing? We suppose to establish an additional measure or count system to read or calculate some dates, such as the eigenvalues and eigenvectors from the original system, and transfer the relevant dates to the expression in the frame of the partial triangular subspace based on (2.2) and the rule of the partial triangular product. Here the key is to establish a transformation system for the constructed partial triangular subspace, which allows the eigenvalues and eigenvectors from the original system to be expressed in the partial triangular subspace.

5. Conclusions and Remarks

A scheme for quantum computing in the DF triangular subspaces is presented. The DF subspaces are ruled by the subdynamic kinetic equation (SKE). The used quantum computing states in the DF subspaces are just the projected states ϕ_proj(t) in the DF triangular subspaces. Moreover, this DF subspace is partial upper-triangular, in which an inner product is only upper-triangulated to index k corresponding to environment. That means, in a quantum computing process, that if one takes the upper-triangular inner product with respect to k and keeps the ordinary inner product to be invariance with respect to the index related to original quantum computing system, then the decoherence in the subdynamic spaces can be completely cancelled. The Markovian and non-Markovian decoherence and collective decoherence as studied in recent publications seem not to present any restrictions on the DF subspace considered here, and this proposal may be useful generally for the register of N two-level elements immersed in a quantized environment.

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by the grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant no. 60874087) as well as Canadian NSERC, CIPI, MMO, and CITO.

References

1 Giulini D., Joos E., Kiefer C., Kupsch J., Stamatescu I.-O., and Zeh H. D., Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory, 1996, Springer, Berlin, Germany.
10.1007/978-3-662-03263-3
Google Scholar
2 Zanardi P. and Rasetti M., Error avoiding quantum codes, Modern Physics Letters B. (1997) 11, no. 25, 1085–1093, https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217984997001304, MR1605352.
10.1142/S0217984997001304
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
3 Zanardi P. and Rasetti M., Noiseless quantum codes, Physical Review Letters. (1997) 79, no. 17, 3306–3309, 2-s2.0-0000631011.
10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.3306
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
4 Zanardi P., Virtual quantum subsystems, Physical Review Letters. (2001) 87, no. 7, 4, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.077901, 077901, 2-s2.0-0347949096.
10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.077901
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
5 Barenco A., Berthiaume A., Deutsch D., Ekert A., Jozsa R., and Macchiavello C., Stabilization of quantum computations by symmetrization, SIAM Journal on Computing. (1997) 26, no. 5, 1541–1557, MR1471993, https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539796302452, ZBL0885.68059.
10.1137/S0097539796302452
Web of Science® Google Scholar
6 Duan L.-M. and Guo G.-C., Preserving coherence in quantum computation by pairing quantum bits, Physical Review Letters. (1997) 79, no. 10, 1953–1956, 2-s2.0-3543120873.
10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.1953
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
7 Lidar D. A., Chuang I. L., and Whaley K. B., Decoherence-free subspaces for quantum computation, Physical Review Letters. (1998) 81, no. 12, 2594–2597, 2-s2.0-0000967082.
10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.2594
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
8 Lidar D. A., Bacon D., and Whaley K. B., Concatenating decoherence-free subspaces with quantum error correcting codes, Physical Review Letters. (1999) 82, no. 22, 4556–4559, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.4556, 2-s2.0-0000897035.
10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.4556
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
9 Bacon D., Kempe J., Lidar D. A., and Whaley K. B., Universal fault-tolerant quantum computation on decoherence-free subspaces, Physical Review Letters. (2000) 85, no. 8, 1758–1761, 2-s2.0-0030261324, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.1758.
10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.1758
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10 Shabani A. and Lidar D. A., Theory of initialization-free decoherence-free subspaces and subsystems, Physical Review A. (2005) 72, no. 4, 14, 042303, 2-s2.0-69649108545, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.72.042303.
10.1103/PhysRevA.72.042303
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
11 Gordon G., Kurizki G., and Lidar D. A., Optimal dynamical decoherence control of a qubit, Physical Review Letters. (2008) 101, no. 1, 4, 010403, 2-s2.0-0037185482, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.010403.
10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.010403
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12 Lidar D. A., Towards fault tolerant adiabatic quantum computation, Physical Review Letters. (2008) 100, no. 16, 4, 160506, 2-s2.0-33646884627, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.160506.
10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.160506
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13 Kunikeev S. D. and Lidar D. A., Spin density matrix of a two-electron system. II. Application to a system of two quantum dots, Physical Review B. (2008) 77, no. 4, 19, 045320, 2-s2.0-38349149454, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.77.045320.
10.1103/PhysRevB.77.045320
Web of Science® Google Scholar
14 Shabani A. and Lidar D. A., Maps for general open quantum systems and a theory of linear quantum error correction, Physical Review A. (2009) 80, no. 1, 11, 012309, 2-s2.0-3042656008, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.80.012309.
10.1103/PhysRevA.80.012309
Google Scholar
15 Oreshkov O., Brun T. A., and Lidar D. A., Fault-tolerant holonomic quantum computation, Physical Review Letters. (2009) 102, no. 7, 4, 070502, 2-s2.0-10344245055, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.070502.
10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.070502
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16 De Filippo S., Quantum computation using decoherence-free states of the physical operator algebra, Physical Review A. (2000) 62, no. 5, 6, 052307, 2-s2.0-0000006017, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.62.052307.
10.1103/PhysRevA.62.052307
Web of Science® Google Scholar
17 Schön C. and Beige A., Analysis of a two-atom double-slit experiment based on environment-induced measurements, Physical Review A. (2001) 64, no. 2, 9, 023806, 2-s2.0-0001515017.
10.1103/PhysRevA.64.023806
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
18 Viola L., Quantum control via encoded dynamical decoupling, Physical Review A. (2002) 66, no. 1, 10, 012307, 2-s2.0-0037011956.
10.1103/PhysRevA.66.012307
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
19 Gheorghiu-Svirschevski S., From Davydov solitons to decoherence-free subspaces: self-consistent propagation of coherent-product states, Physical Review E. (2001) 64, no. 5, 17, 051907, 2-s2.0-29444452267.
10.1103/PhysRevE.64.051907
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
20 Facchi P. and Pascazio S., Quantum Zeno subspaces and dynamical superselection rules, The Physics of Communication: Proceedings of the XXII Solvay Conference on Physics, November 2001, Delphi Lamia, Greece, 251–286.
Google Scholar
21 Qiao B., Ruda H. E., and Zhan M. S., Two-qubit quantum computing in a projected subspace, Physical Review A. (2002) 65, no. 4, 11, 042325, 2-s2.0-5844382059.
10.1103/PhysRevA.65.042325
Web of Science® Google Scholar
22 Tame M. S., Paternostro M., and Kim M. S., One-way quantum computing in a decoherence-free subspace, New Journal of Physics. (2007) 9, 201, 2-s2.0-14344275557, https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/9/6/201.
10.1088/1367-2630/9/6/201
Web of Science® Google Scholar
23 Bény C., Kempf A., and Kribs D. W., Generalization of quantum error correction via the Heisenberg picture, Physical Review Letters. (2007) 98, no. 10, 4, 100502, 2-s2.0-8744266947, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.100502.
10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.100502
Web of Science® Google Scholar
24 Lidar D. A. and Whaley K. B., F. Benatti and R. Floreanini, Decoherence-free subspaces and subsystems, Irreversible Quantum Dynamics, 2003, 622, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 83–120, Lecture Notes in Physics.
10.1007/3-540-44874-8_5
Google Scholar
25 Kribs D., Laflamme R., and Poulin D., Unified and generalized approach to quantum error correction, Physical Review Letters. (2005) 94, no. 18, 4, 180501, 2-s2.0-0000391504, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.180501.
10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.180501
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
26 Kribs D. W., Laflamme R., Poulin D., and Lesosky M., Operator quantum error correction, Quantum Information and Computation. (2006) 6, no. 4-5, 382–399, 2-s2.0-28844439654.
10.26421/QIC6.4-5-6
Web of Science® Google Scholar
27 Bennett C. H., DiVincenzo D. P., Smolin J. A., and Wootters W. K., Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction, Physical Review A. (1996) 54, no. 5, 3824–3851, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.54.3824, 2-s2.0-6144244168.
10.1103/PhysRevA.54.3824
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
28 Knill E. and Laflamme R., Theory of quantum error-correcting codes, Physical Review A. (1997) 55, no. 2, 900–911, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.55.900, 2-s2.0-0000120611.
10.1103/PhysRevA.55.900
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
29 Choi M.-D. and Kribs D. W., Method to find quantum noiseless subsystems, Physical Review Letters. (2006) 96, no. 5, 4, 050501, 2-s2.0-28844508718, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.050501.
10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.050501
Web of Science® Google Scholar
30 Knill E., Protected realizations of quantum information, Physical Review A. (2006) 74, no. 4, 11, 042301, 2-s2.0-14844362515, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.74.042301.
10.1103/PhysRevA.74.042301
Web of Science® Google Scholar
31 Kwiat P. G., Berglund A. J., Altepeter J. B., and White A. G., Experimental verification of decoherence-free subspaces, Science. (2000) 290, no. 5491, 498–501, 2-s2.0-0001118163, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.290.5491.498.
10.1126/science.290.5491.498
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
32 Zhang Q., Yin J., Chen T.-Y. et al., Experimental fault-tolerant quantum cryptography in a decoherence-free subspace, Physical Review A. (2006) 73, no. 2, 4, 020301, 2-s2.0-27744592090, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.73.020301.
10.1103/PhysRevA.73.020301
Web of Science® Google Scholar
33 Mohseni M., Lundeen J. S., Resch K. J., and Steinberg A. M., Experimental application of decoherence-free subspaces in an optical quantum-computing algorithm, Physical Review Letters. (2003) 91, no. 18, 4, 187903, 2-s2.0-0037526430.
10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.187903
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
34 Altepeter J. B., Hadley P. G., Wendelken S. M., Berglund A. J., and Kwiat P. G., Experimental investigation of a two-qubit decoherence-free subspace, Physical Review Letters. (2004) 92, no. 14, 147901, 2-s2.0-0032516155, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.147901.
10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.147901
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
35 Antoniou I. and Tasaki S., Generalized spectral decompositions of mixing dynamical systems, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry. (1993) 46, 425–474, https://doi.org/10.1002/qua.560460311.
10.1002/qua.560460311
Web of Science® Google Scholar
36 Petrosky T. and Prigogine I., Alternative formulation of classical and quantum dynamics for non-integrable systems, Physica A. (1991) 175, no. 1, 146–209, https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4371(91)90273-F, 2-s2.0-44949280293.
10.1016/0378-4371(91)90273-F
Web of Science® Google Scholar
37 Qiao B., Subdynamics Theory and Application in Complex Dynamical System, 1998, Wuhan University of Technology Press, Wuhan, China.
Google Scholar
38 Bohm A., Doebner H. D., and Kielanowski P., Irreversibility and Causality, Semigroups and Rigged Hilbert Spaces, 1998, Springer, Berlin, Germany.
10.1007/BFb0106772
Google Scholar
39 Bohm A. and Gadella M., Dirac Kets, Gamow Vector and Gel′fand Triplets, 1989, Springer, Berlin, Germany.
10.1007/3-540-51916-5
Google Scholar
40 Qiao B. and Ruda H. E., Quantum computing using entanglement states in a photonic band gap, Journal of Applied Physics. (1999) 86, no. 9, 5237–5244, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.371505, 2-s2.0-44049120431.
10.1063/1.371505
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
41 Balescu R., Equilibrium and Non-Equilibrium Statistical Mechanics, 1975, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA.
Google Scholar
42 Kane B. E., A silicon-based nuclear spin quantum computer, Nature. (1998) 393, no. 6681, 133–137, 2-s2.0-0030864049, https://doi.org/10.1038/30156.
10.1038/30156
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
43 Vrijen R., Yablonovitch E., Wang K. et al., Electron-spin-resonance transistors for quantum computing in silicon-germanium heterostructures, Physical Review A. (2000) 62, no. 1, 10, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.62.012306, 012306, 2-s2.0-0041471621.
10.1103/PhysRevA.62.012306
Web of Science® Google Scholar
44 Loss D. and Divincenzo D. P., Quantum computation with quantum dots, Physical Review A. (1998) 57, no. 1, 120–126, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.57.120, 2-s2.0-0026960448.
10.1103/PhysRevA.57.120
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
45 Coish W. A. and Loss D., Quantum computing with spins in solids, http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0606550.
Google Scholar

Citing Literature

All articles

Quantum Computing in Decoherence-Free Subspace Constructed by Triangulation

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Subdynamic Formalism

3. Decoherence-Free Partial Triangular Subspace

4. General DF Subspace Constructed by Triangulation

5. Conclusions and Remarks

Acknowledgment

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Quantum Computing in Decoherence-Free Subspace Constructed by Triangulation

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Subdynamic Formalism

3. Decoherence-Free Partial Triangular Subspace

4. General DF Subspace Constructed by Triangulation

5. Conclusions and Remarks

Acknowledgment

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information