text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It was Feynman’s insight to realize that quantum systems cannot be efficiently simulated on conventional classical computers . Subsequently, Deustch suggested that if one could build computers exploiting the principles of quantum theory one might be able to speed up the computation process compared to classical approaches . Quantum computers aim to make use of quantum interference and entanglement between different parts of a bulk quantum system to give such an essential difference .

In recent years an important question has been: What will it take for quantum computers to surpass their conventional classical counterparts in speed and efficiency? The answer consists of algorithms and their efficient implementation. The first promising algorithms for quantum computers were discovered by Deutsch and Jozsa for function testing , by Shor for factoring  and by Grover for searching . While the efficiency of these algorithms is today well established, the conditions for achieving quantum efficiencies have been the subject of recent controversy . Indeed, experimental implementations of Grover’s algorithm on pseudo-pure state machines using liquid-state Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR)  have been claimed to already achieve quantum efficiencies  in spite of their apparent inability to have produced entanglement to date . Similarly, the Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm has been implemented on NMR quantum computers .

The aim of this paper is to argue that the original version of Grover’s algorithm  on multiple qubits necessarily involves quantum entanglement, even though the initial and target states are product states. Further, by counting each active molecule as contributing to the computational resources for pseudo-pure state machines, we show in a non-asymptotic analysis that not only is entanglement necessary to achieve a speed-up in quantum searching, but it must be present throughout the computation. If one uses a different resource counting method there may be speed-up without entanglement. Thus, we have resolved the role played by entanglement in quantum searching on one whole class of quantum computers. This non-asymptotic result unequivocally proves that a class of liquid-state NMR machines  cannot be used for performing faster-than-classical quantum computation.

## 2 Efficiency in Quantum Computation

Typically, efficiency is quantified by relative ‘speed’ or how the number of steps needed to complete an algorithm scales with the size of the ‘input’ the algorithm is fed. Two ubiquitous ‘exponential’ problems are searching and factoring: All known algorithms for solving them on conventional computers scale roughly exponentially with input size (e.g., the length of the list to be searched or size of the number to be factored). Discoveries of ‘fast’ quantum algorithms  set new bounds on computational goals and standards.

In order to determine the efficiency of an algorithm on a quantum computer, the conventional measure of ‘speed’ must first be re-evaluated. Clearly, for the scaling behavior to be a sensible measure of efficiency that may be used to compare the performance of very different kinds of computers, there must be no ‘hidden costs’ that grow in an unreasonable manner (i.e., faster than the scaling itself). For example, any increase in the size of the computer itself, or number of resources it utilizes relative to the input, should not exceed the scaling of the number of steps.

Pseudo-pure state quantum computers are welcome candidates for such re-valuations. Indeed, such machines have been implemented using liquid-state NMR and have been proposed for a wide variety of quantum algorithms  and their efficiency has already been determined for asymptotically large systems (i.e., many qubits) for Shor’s factoring algorithm. It was found that, in this asymptotic limit, an absence of entanglement would lead to an exponential decrease in the probability for obtaining the correct answer . Thus, if Shor’s algorithm were to be implemented on such machines, an exponentially large number of resources would be required to boost this low probability. Because Shor’s algorithm provides an exponential speed-up, it may not be so surprising that the weirdest features of quantum mechanics, i.e., entanglement, are required for its implementation.

An important caveat of this analysis stems from the extreme unlikelihood of constructing a sufficiently large machine that could be subjected to such asymptotic analysis. For example, it was observed that for liquid-state NMR implementations the signal scales as $`n/2^n`$ with increasing numbers $`n`$ of qubits (i.e., active spins) . This inherent scaling problem suggests that regardless of entanglement or speed-up there seems little hope of ever reaching the asymptotic regime.

The situation is very different for Grover’s search algorithm. First, Grover’s quantum algorithm provides a much more modest quadratic (as opposed to exponential) speed-up over any search on a conventional computer; thus one might expect it to be more robust with respect to a loss of entanglement. Secondly, there have now been several experiments demonstrating this algorithm on small (few-qubit) NMR machines and claiming quantum efficiencies . For these experiments, the asymptotic signal scaling mentioned above is not relevant, and the entanglement question thus becomes the primary consideration in assessing speed-up.

In fact, speed-up in Grover’s algorithm can be evaluated quite naturally in terms of query complexity. The query complexity formulation yields a non-asymptotic result which may be applied to any size problem. We argue that, in pure-state as well as pseudo-pure state implementations, if only separable (i.e., unentangled) states are accessed then the speed-up predicted by Grover’s algorithm fails to materialize. There exists a peculiar exception (though one not accessible to existing pseudo-pure state machines) for a search space of size four where entanglement is not necessary. Since generalizations of this interesting exception are as yet unknown, the heuristic claim that entanglement is necessary for a scalable quantum computation implementing Grover’s algorithm still holds. Our conclusion is also consistent with the analysis of Grover’s algorithm, implemented on a device exploiting only superposition, but at the cost of scalability due to exponentially growing resources . It should be noted that in addition to the necessary condition we analyze the sufficient condition for speed-up of quantum searching on pseudo-pure state machines.

The outline of the paper is as follows. In section 3, we begin with a straight-forward demonstration that the pure-state version of Grover’s algorithm involves entanglement during the quantum searching operation. In section 4, we analyze the quantum search that can be implemented on pseudo-pure states and derive a bound on the purity parameter for the pseudo-pure states to be separable. In section 5, to determine the necessity of entanglement in the pseudo-pure state version, two complementary criteria are derived: one for the presence of entanglement (as a function of the number of qubits) and one for the query complexity of the algorithm, yielding a measure of speed-up relative to the classical algorithm. We impose these two criteria in the few-qubit regime, one at a time, and obtain a one-to-one relation between entanglement and speed-up, showing both that there can be no speed-up without entanglement, and, conversely, that in case a speed-up is in fact achieved, entanglement must be present throughout the computation. In section 6, we discuss how pseudo-pure states are not good candidates for mimicking pure-state dynamics. Finally, we discuss the implications of our results.

## 3 Quantum searching with pure states and entanglement

According to the standard formulation of the search problem , we are given an unknown binary function $`f(x)`$, which returns $`1`$ for a unique ‘target’ value $`x=y`$ and $`0`$ otherwise, over the domain $`x=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{},N1`$, with $`N=2^n`$. Our goal is to find $`y`$ such that $`f(y)=1`$. In Grover’s algorithm, the $`N`$ inputs are mapped onto the states of $`n`$ quantum bits (qubits) such as spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particles. The quantum problem thus becomes one of maximizing the overlap between the state of these $`n`$ qubits and target state $`|y`$. This is equivalent to maximizing the probability of obtaining the desired state upon measurement. The initial state of these qubits is taken to be an equal superposition of all possible bit strings, i.e.,

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{x=0}{\overset{N1}{}}|x.$$
(1)
The Grover operator defined as $`G=I_0H^nI_yH^n`$ is used repeatedly in the algorithm, where $`I_0=\text{1}\text{1}2|\mathrm{\Psi }_0\mathrm{\Psi }_0|`$, $`I_y=\text{1}\text{1}2|yy|`$ with $`|y`$ being the target (ideally the final) state and $`H`$ is the Hadamard transformation. Thus, the Grover operator corresponds to a small rotation in the two-dimensional subspace spanned by the initial and target states. Each such rotation requires a single evaluation of $`f`$. Thus, unlike a classical search, the quantum search monotonically rotates the state towards the target.

Let us start by considering the pure-state version of Grover’s algorithm. After $`k`$ iterations of the Grover operator the combined $`n`$ qubit state (1) evolves to

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_k=\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta _k}{\sqrt{N1}}\underset{xy}{}|x+\mathrm{sin}\theta _k|y,$$
(2)
where $`\theta _k=(2k+1)\theta _0`$ and $`\theta _0`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _0=1/\sqrt{N}`$. The search is complete when $`\theta _k\pi /2`$ which takes $`O(\sqrt{N})`$ iterations of the Grover operator and hence this many evaluations of the function $`f`$.

We will now show that although the initial and target states are product states the intermediate states through which system evolves are entangled. Since these states are superpositions of product states they are expected to be entangled. But how much entanglement is there in these intermediate states? This is difficult to quantify, as we do not have a proper measure of entanglement for quantum systems consisting of an arbitrary number of subsystems. However, we can consider the system as being bipartite, with one subsystem consisting of a single qubit and the second subsystem all the rest. In this way, we will be able to quantify the bipartite entanglement by calculating the reduced density matrix of any single qubit. We then ask how close this reduced state is to a maximally entangled qubit (using say the Hilbert-Schmidt norm criterion).

The reduced density matrix of the $`\mathrm{}`$th qubit is

$`\rho _{\mathrm{}}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tr}_{1,2,..,\mathrm{}1,\mathrm{}+1,..n}(|\mathrm{\Psi }_k\mathrm{\Psi }_k|)`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`a_k^2H|00|H+b_k^2|j_{\mathrm{}}j_{\mathrm{}}|+{\displaystyle \frac{a_kb_k}{\sqrt{N}}}(2|j_{\mathrm{}}j_{\mathrm{}}|+|\stackrel{~}{j}_{\mathrm{}}j_{\mathrm{}}|+|j_{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{j}_{\mathrm{}}|),`$
where $`a_k=\sqrt{N/(N1)}\mathrm{cos}\theta _k`$, $`b_k=\mathrm{sin}\theta _k\mathrm{cos}\theta _k/\sqrt{N1}`$ and the single bit $`\stackrel{~}{j}_{\mathrm{}}=1j_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`(j_{\mathrm{}}=0,1)`$. Without loss of generality we take $`j_{\mathrm{}}=1`$ and the density matrix $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}(k)`$ can be expressed in standard form, i.e.,

$$\rho _{\mathrm{}}(k)=\frac{1}{2}[\text{1}\text{1}+\stackrel{}{s}(k)\stackrel{}{\sigma }]=[1s(k)]\frac{\text{1}\text{1}}{2}+s(k)P,$$
(4)
where $`\stackrel{}{s}(k)\mathrm{tr}[\rho _{\mathrm{}}(k)\stackrel{}{\sigma }]`$, $`\stackrel{}{s}(k)\stackrel{}{s}(k)=s(k)^21`$ and $`P`$ is a pure state projector. The components of the Bloch vector $`\stackrel{}{s}(k)`$ after $`k`$ iterations are

$`s_x(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N2}{N1}}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N1}}}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _k`$
$`s_y(k)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`s_z(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N1}}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _k\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _k.`$ (5)
The bipartite entanglement in the pure state may be characterized by calculating the von Neumann entropy of this reduced state. Using the expansion formula

$$\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{1s}{2}\text{1}\text{1}+sP\right)=\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{1s}{2}\right)+P\mathrm{log}\left(1+\frac{2s}{1s}\right),$$
(6)
which holds for any $`0s<1`$, the von Neumann entropy may be calculated to be given by

$`S[\rho _{\mathrm{}}(k)]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tr}[\rho _{\mathrm{}}(k)\mathrm{log}\rho _{\mathrm{}}(k)]`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{1s(k)}{2}}\mathrm{log}[1s(k)]{\displaystyle \frac{1+s(k)}{2}}\mathrm{log}[1+s(k)].`$
The right-hand-side of this expression is independent of the choice of the remaining qubit $`\mathrm{}`$. Therefore, (7) holds for any one qubit versus $`(n1)`$ qubit partioning. It shows that the reduced density matrix of the single qubit does not arise from a maximally entangled state of $`n`$ qubits, as the von Neumann entropy is not exactly unity. Since the reduced state of Eq. (3) is not pure the full state must be entangled. To see how impure the state in Eq. (3) is one may calculate the linear entropy $`L(\rho )`$ of it which is given by

$$L[\rho _{\mathrm{}}(k)]=\mathrm{tr}[\rho _{\mathrm{}}(k)\rho _{\mathrm{}}(k)^2]=\frac{1s(k)^2}{2}.$$
(8)
If the linear entropy is zero the state is pure and as it approaches $`\frac{1}{2}`$ the state approaches a completely random mixture. In the quantum search algorithm the parameter $`s(k)`$ can never be zero because that would mean that $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _k`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _k`$ are simultaneously zero, which cannot be satisfied. So although the reduced density matrix of the qubit may lie close to the completely mixed state it can never become the identity one.

We now calculate the Hilbert-Schimdt norm of the difference of two density matrices: namely, the completely mixed one and the reduced state given by Eq. (3). This will yield a measure of closeness to the completely mixed state. This Hilbert-Schmidt distance for $`k`$th iteration during quantum search algorithm is given by

$`d(k)^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{1}\text{1}}{2}}\rho _{\mathrm{}}(k)_{HS}^2=\mathrm{tr}[{\displaystyle \frac{\text{1}\text{1}}{2}}\rho _{\mathrm{}}(k)]^2`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}L[\rho _{\mathrm{}}(k)]={\displaystyle \frac{s(k)^2}{2}}.`$
The distance $`d(k)`$ provides an idea of how the reduced state of an individual qubit behaves during the $`k`$th iteration. It shows that the reduced density matrix of the qubit differs from a completely random mixture by an order of $`O(s(k))`$. One can see from Eq. (5) and (9) that for $`\theta _0=\mathrm{sin}^1(1/\sqrt{N})`$ and for $`\theta _k=\pi /2`$ the reduced density matrix of any remaining qubit is pure, implying that the whole state must have been non-entangled. Thus, we see that although the initial and target states are separable, the intermediate states through which the system evolves are always entangled.

## 4 Quantum searching with pseudo-pure state and entanglement

In the following we discuss the issue of entanglement in quantum searching with pseudo-pure states. These states naturally arise in liquid-state NMR machines. Here one faces the difficulty of accessing a pure state because the system is in thermal equilibrium at room temperature. Instead, one implements Grover’s algorithm on a near random ensemble of molecular spins in a liquid, with a small preference for the spins to point along an external magnetic field; the size of this preference is quantified by the purity parameter $`ϵ`$ \[typically $`O(10^5)`$\] . For a sufficiently low spin polarization (corresponding to a sufficiently low purity parameter), the system can be well-approximated by a pseudo-pure state representation described by

$$\rho =\frac{1ϵ}{N}\text{1}\text{1}_N+ϵ|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|,$$
(10)
where $`\text{1}\text{1}_N`$ is the identity matrix of dimension $`N`$. (In the high $`ϵ`$ regime, an exact description can be obtained by reverting to the full Boltzmann distribution.) Since, for experimentally feasible values of $`ϵ`$ (now and in the foreseeable future), the pseudo-pure state description suffices, we henceforth restrict our discussion to them.

Let us now consider quantum searching on pseudo-pure quantum states. After $`k`$ iterations of the Grover search operator, one obtains the state

$$\rho _k=\frac{1ϵ}{N}\text{1}\text{1}_N+ϵ|\mathrm{\Psi }_k\mathrm{\Psi }_k|,$$
(11)
where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_k`$ is given by Eq. (2)

Let us first look at the diagonal form of the reduced state of any remaining qubit (denoted by the index $`\mathrm{}`$) in the pure state given in Eq. (5). This has positive eigenvalues $`\lambda _1(k)`$, $`\lambda _2(k)`$ which are independent of $`\mathrm{}`$ but depend on the iteration index $`k`$. These eigenvalues sum to one and their product, after some calculation, is given by

$$\lambda _1(k)\lambda _2(k)=\frac{N(N2)}{2(N1)^2}\mathrm{sin}^2(2k\theta _0)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _k.$$
(12)
This allows us to decompose the full state at step $`k`$ into a Schmidt basis

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_k=\sqrt{\lambda _1(k)}|g^{}|e\sqrt{\lambda _2(k)}|e^{}|g,$$
(13)
where $`\{|e,|g\}`$ describes an orthonormal basis for the $`\mathrm{}`$th qubit and $`\{|e^{},|g^{}\}`$ is a pair of Hilbert space vectors for the other $`(n1)`$ qubits. This expression will help us to derive a bound on the purity parameter.

In order to study the entanglement present in the pseudo-pure state given by Eq. (11) let us project it onto the 4-dimensional subspace spanned by the set $`\{|g^{}|g`$, $`|g^{}|e`$, $`|e^{}|g`$, $`|e^{}|e\}`$. The resulting 4-dimensional density matrix is

$$\rho _k^{(4)}=\frac{N}{4+ϵ(N4)}\left(\frac{1ϵ}{N}\text{1}\text{1}_4+ϵ|\mathrm{\Psi }_k\mathrm{\Psi }_k|\right).$$
(14)
The boundary between separability and entanglement for such 4-dimensional states may be specified in terms of the so-called fidelity $`F`$. The states (14) are separable when $`F\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|\rho _k^{(4)}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\frac{1}{2}`$ and are entangled otherwise , where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|g^{}|e|e^{}|g`$. Since projection onto a subspace cannot create entanglement, it follows from this condition that if the original unprojected state (11) is separable, then we must have

$$ϵϵ_k\frac{1}{1+N\sqrt{\lambda _1(k)\lambda _2(k)}}.$$
(15)
Similarly, the original state (at stage $`k`$ of the search) is entangled whenever $`ϵ>ϵ_k`$. Similar bounds have been earlier derived when the pure state part was a maximally entangled state . However, the present bound quantifies the separability region of pseudo-pure states for each iteration $`k`$ during Grover’s algorithm. Thus one can tell at each stage of computation whether the state is entangled for a given value of purity parameter.

## 5 Speed-up and Entanglement for Pseudo-pure states

Let us now return to a careful re-evaluation of what it means for a pseudo-pure state implementation of Grover’s algorithm to demonstrate a speed-up compared to a classical search on a conventional computer. First, we note that the important common element in either a quantum or a classical search algorithm is the repeated need of evaluating the function $`f`$. Thus, we shall restrict our comparison to its number of evaluations. This is formally known as studying the query complexity of the problem. Second, since Grover’s algorithm is probabilistic, there is no upper-bound to the worst-case number of evaluations. Instead, we study the expected number of evaluations for finding the target. To be fair then, we must compare this with the expected number of function-evaluations on a conventional computer. If we exclude the use of an exponentially growing auxiliary memory to store failed trials then this classical query complexity is

$$𝒩_{\mathrm{class}}=\frac{(N+2)(N1)}{N}$$
(16)
for finding a single object out of $`N`$ entries. This value may be achieved by systematically stepping through the $`N`$ possible locations for the object and evaluating $`f`$ to see if the object is there. If it is not found in this way by step $`N1`$ then we would know it is at the final location $`N`$. (The specific value for classical query complexity quoted in Ref.  for $`N=8`$ can be obtained from our general result $`𝒩_{\mathrm{class}}`$ above).

How does this compare to the expected number of function evaluations for quantum search on pseudo-pure state implementations? The probability of finding the target state after $`k`$ iterations is

$$p(k)=y|\rho _k|y=\frac{[1+ϵ(N\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _k1)]}{N}<1.$$
(17)
This probability must be amplified statistically through repetitions or parallelism. The expected number of repetitions required to identify the target is just the reciprocal of this probability. Each such repetition involves $`k`$ function-evaluations for each run of the algorithm, plus one to test the result. In order to give Grover’s algorithm its maximal advantage, we shall optimize the speed (rather than the probability). Thus, the optimal expected number of function evaluations is just

$$𝒩_{\mathrm{pseudo}}=\frac{\mathrm{min}_k(k+1)}{p(k)}\frac{(k_{\mathrm{opt}}+1)}{p(k_{\mathrm{opt}})},$$
(18)
where $`k_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ is the optimal number of iterations of the Grover operator. Thus, a pseudo-pure state quantum computer can search faster than a conventional computer, provided

$$𝒩_{\mathrm{pseudo}}<𝒩_{\mathrm{class}}.$$
(19)
In the above analysis we have utilized the standard projective measurement which is a desirable operation in any quantum information processing unit. However, the liquid-state NMR machines use weak measurements and the success probability obtained in a strong measurement is always greater than the success probability for a weak measurement. So in our analysis we give extra benefit to the experimental situation in tolerating the error. In any case, if we take weak measurement the situation for NMR machines will be no better (as that will increase the number $`𝒩_{\mathrm{pseudo}}`$).

We have now developed the tools to effectively answer the question: Can Grover’s algorithm yield a speed-up on any existing pseudo-pure state implementations ? Since all liquid-state NMR experiments performed so far have generated only separable ensembles , with purity parameters that fit well our pseudo-pure state treatment above, let us see what effect separability has on efficiency. From Eq. (15) separability throughout the search implies $`ϵ\mathrm{min}_{k=0}^{k_{opt}}ϵ_k`$. Thus, separability places an upper bound on the purity parameter (see values for this bound in Ref. ) and hence a lower bound, $`𝒩_{\mathrm{pseudo}}^{(\mathrm{min})}`$, on the quantum query complexity. This lower bound is given in Table 1 for the optimized Grover algorithm for search spaces up to $`n=8`$ qubits. (The trend we find continues for arbitrarily large numbers of qubits.) The surprising observation is that, for more than $`4`$ qubits, the optimal quantum strategy is not to use the liquid-state NMR machine at all and simply guess the answer (equivalent to sampling the initial random state). Clearly, this is never as good as a systematic conventional search.

Table 1    $`n`$  $`N`$  $`k_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ $`𝒩_{\mathrm{pseudo}}^{(\mathrm{min})}`$  $`𝒩_{\mathrm{class}}`$  1 2 0 2 1  2 4 1 2 2.25  3 8 1 5.48 4.38  4 16 2 12.89 8.44  5 32 0 32 16.47  6 64 0 64 32.48  7 128 0 128 64.49  8 256 0 256 128.50

Curiously, we note that our table shows a speed-up even without entanglement for the $`n=2`$ qubit implementation. That this algorithm requires no entanglement in this case, has also been noted for the pure-state implementation of Grover’s algorithm  (with a similar result for the two qubit implementation of the Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm ). This occurs because the separable target state can be reached by a single application of the Grover operator from the separable initial state; hence the evolution has passed through no entangled states. Without entanglement in the two-qubit case there is also no penalty to the efficiency when enforcing separability through a reduced purity parameter. Despite this curiosity, this speed-up is only possible for unphysically large purity parameters, $`ϵ>23/270.852`$, where the pseudo-pure description is no longer valid for liquid-state implementations. This observation and the above analysis show that entanglement is necessary for obtaining a speed-up in Grover’s algorithm on a liquid-state NMR machine relative to a classical computer. Let us emphasize that for pure-state machines (e.g., ion-traps) the two-qubit implementation of Grover’s algorithm is realistic and will yield a speed-up of 2.25 (omitting the now superfluous final testing function-evaluation).

As we have seen, the presence of some entanglement is essential to obtain a speed-up, except in the two-qubit case. But how much of it? Let us impose the speed-up condition (19) to obtain a lower bound $`ϵ_{\mathrm{speed}\mathrm{up}}(k_{\mathrm{opt}})`$ on the purity parameter within the pseudo-pure state approximation. After iteration $`k`$, condition (15) implies entanglement is present whenever $`ϵ_{\mathrm{speed}\mathrm{up}}(k_{\mathrm{opt}})>ϵ_k`$. We studied this relation numerically for $`2<n20`$ qubits with $`0<kk_{\mathrm{opt}}\pi /4\theta _01/2`$, and found that entanglement was present after every iteration except possibly the last step of the algorithm when $`\theta _{k_{\mathrm{opt}}}>\pi /2`$. Thus, we may draw the much stronger conclusion that, for more than two qubits, some degree of entanglement is necessary during the entire computation in order to obtain any speed-up for Grover’s algorithm on a liquid-state NMR machine.

To better understand the repercussions of this result, let us directly address the main objections raised about the role of entanglement in performing real quantum computation in this system. The most dismissive argument has been that quantum computational efficiency derives only from the unitary evolution of quantum states, but is independent of the type of states being used (Laflamme in Ref. ). Now, for the sake of clarity, let us adopt the definition of quantum computing suggested by the same proponent in the same context, namely: Quantum computing consists of efficiently evolving from initial to final density matrices by unitary operations. Since it is not enough to reach the final state probabilistically, we have calculated the query complexity of the problem in detail (assuming perfect unitary evolution). Thus our analysis clearly proves that unitarity alone is not enough to achieve quantum efficiencies.

A different objection correctly points out that liquid-state NMR machines are not exactly described by the pseudo-pure state formalism, and hence the bounds we derive above for entanglement and separability may not be applicable. Indeed, corrections to this bound are necessary in the few-qubit regime, where the bounds for the purity parameter are high. However, in most likelihood, these corrections will not alter our results and may even strengthen them (by raising the lower bound for entanglement). Further, noting that existing liquid-state NMR machines are remarkably far from reaching this range of purity parameters, any possibility of speed-up is quite out of the question.

## 6 Dynamics of Pseudo-pure versus pure states

Granted that entanglement is needed to achieve quantum efficiencies, it has been argued  that the ability of liquid-state NMR machines to physically follow unitary quantum evolution qualifies them as efficient simulators (without speed-up). The reasoning is based on the realization that the observable operators are traceless . Thus, the expectation value of any traceless observable on a pure quantum state is the same, up to a scale factor, as it would be on a pseudo-pure state. This is because for a traceless observable $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ the average in pseudo-pure state is $`\mathrm{tr}(\rho \mathrm{\Theta })=ϵ\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Theta }|\mathrm{\Psi }`$. However, in the quantum world fluctuations play as important a role as expectation values. In general, if an observable is traceless its square need not be. In this case the quantum fluctuations of an operator on a pure state are not equal to those fluctuations on the corresponding pseudo-pure state. For example, if $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a traceless operator its root-mean-square fluctuations on pseudo-pure states are determined by

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Theta })_{\mathrm{pseudo}}^2=ϵ(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Theta })_{\mathrm{pure}}^2+(1ϵ)\left(\frac{\mathrm{tr}(\mathrm{\Theta }^2)}{N}+ϵ\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{pure}}^2\right).$$
(20)
As a simple example, consider $`\mathrm{\Theta }=d\rho /dϵ=P\text{1}\text{1}/N`$, where $`P=|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|`$. It is a traceless operator, but its square is not. The uncertainty of the operator $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ on the pure state is zero, whereas on the pseudo-pure state it is

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Theta })_{\mathrm{pseudo}}^2=(1ϵ)\left(1\frac{1}{N}\right)\left[\frac{1}{N}ϵ\left(1\frac{1}{N}\right)\right].$$
(21)
In fact, very rarely will it be the case that all the moments (even for the restricted class of traceless operators) are related by simple scale-factors to those produced by a liquid-state NMR quantum computation. Thus, despite the correct expectation values being accessible for traceless operators, we cannot say that liquid-state NMR quantum computers have good dynamics.

## 7 Conclusion and discussion

In conclusion we have shown that the original version of Grover’s algorithm implemented on qubits necessarily generates quantum entanglement during the computation process. Further, we have shown that a quantum computer in a non-entangled pseudo-pure state requires more iterations than a classical computer to perform a virtual database search if one uses our method of counting the number of queries. Thus, for any existing liquid-state NMR set-ups our results preclude any possibility of speed-up in running Grover’s algorithm. This conclusion is based on exact calculations for pseudo-pure state implementations, which show that entanglement is essential throughout the computation. Moreover, even a modest reduction of entanglement is tantamount to a total loss of speed-up. Despite the decisive results reached for pseudo-pure state implementations of this algorithm, we found that entanglement-free speed-up would be possible for the two-qubit case (search space of size four) of Grover’s algorithm on pure-state machines such as ion-trap quantum computers. Our analysis has been with respect to a specific non-asymptotic regime and does not find a way for scalable computation without entanglement. Finally, our analysis does not resolve how other NMR experiments should to be interpreted such as quantum teleportation without entanglement.

Note added: After we completed this work, a recent article has even implemented the quantum search algorithm using only the wave nature of classical Fourier optics  which involves no entanglement! However, one should not be surprised into thinking that this is a contradiction to our findings presented here. What happens with classical devices implementing the search algorithm is that the number of resources needed increases prohibitively with the size of the input.

Acknowledgements: SLB thanks N. Cohen for discussions. AKP gratefully thanks EPSRC for financial support for the year 1998-2000 during which this work was carried out.


format: text

text:
# Stochastic backgrounds of gravitational waves

## 1 Motivations

A possible target of gravitational wave (GW) experiments is given by stochastic backgrounds of cosmological origin. In a sense, these are the gravitational analog of the 2.7 K microwave photon background and, apart from their obvious intrinsic interest, they would carry extraordinary informations on the state of the very early universe and on physics at correspondingly high energies. To understand this point, one should have in mind the following basic physical principle:

* a background of relic particles gives a snapshot of the state of the universe at the time when these particles decoupled from the primordial plasma.

The smaller is the cross section of a particle, the earlier it decouples. Therefore particles with only gravitational interactions, like gravitons and possibly other fields predicted by string theory, decouple much earlier than particles which have also electroweak or strong interactions. The condition for decoupling is that the interaction rate of the process that mantains equilibrium, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, becomes smaller than the characteristic time scale, which is given by the Hubble parameter $`H`$,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }H\mathrm{decoupled}$$
(1)
(we set $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$). A simple back-of-the-envelope computation shows that, for gravitons,

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{H}\right)=\left(\frac{T}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\right)^3,$$
(2)
so that gravitons are decoupled below the Planck scale $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}10^{19}`$ GeV, i.e., already $`10^{44}`$ sec after the big-bang. This means that a background of GWs produced in the very early universe encodes still today, in its frequency spectrum, all the informations about the conditions in which it was created.

For comparison, the photons that we observe in the CMBR decoupled when the temperature was of order $`T0.2`$ eV, or $`310^5`$ yr after the big bang. This difference in scales simply reflects the difference in the strength of the gravitational and electromagnetic interactions. Therefore, the photons of the CMBR give us a snapshot of the state of the universe at $`t310^5`$ yr. Of course, from this snapshot we can also understand many things about much earlier epochs. For instance, the density fluctuations present at this epoch have been produced much earlier, and the recent Boomerang data indicate that they are compatible with the prediction from inflation. Therefore, from the photon microwave background we can extract informations on the state of the Universe at much earlier times than the epoch of photon decoupling. In this case, conceptually the situation is similar with trying to understand the aspect that a person had as a child from a picture taken when he was much older. Certainly many features can be inferred from such a picture. Gravitational waves, however, provide directly a picture of the child, and therefore give us really unique informations.

It is clear that the reason why GWs are potentially so interesting is due to their very small cross section, and the very same reason is at the basis of the difficulty of the detection. In the next sections we will review the experimental aspects of the search for stochastic backgrounds and the theoretical expectations. Details and more complete references can be found in ref. .

## 2 Characterization of stochastic backgrounds of GWs

The intensity of a stochastic background of GWs can be characterized by the dimensionless quantity

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}(f)=\frac{1}{\rho _c}\frac{d\rho _{\mathrm{gw}}}{d\mathrm{log}f},$$
(3)
where $`\rho _{\mathrm{gw}}`$ is the energy density of the stochastic background of gravitational waves, $`f`$ is the frequency ($`\omega =2\pi f`$) and $`\rho _c`$ is the present value of the critical energy density for closing the universe. In terms of the present value of the Hubble constant $`H_0`$ and Newton’s constant $`G_N`$, the critical density is given by $`\rho _c=3H_0^2/(8\pi G_N)`$. The value of $`H_0`$ is usually written as $`H_0=h_0\times 100`$ km/(sec–Mpc), where $`h_0`$ parametrizes the existing experimental uncertainty. However, it is not very convenient to normalize $`\rho _{\mathrm{gw}}`$ to a quantity, $`\rho _c`$, which is uncertain: this uncertainty would appear in all the subsequent formulas, although it has nothing to do with the uncertainties on the GW background itself. Therefore, we rather characterize the stochastic GW background with the quantity $`h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}(f)`$, which is independent of $`h_0`$. All theoretical computations of a relic GW spectrum are actually computations of $`d\rho _{\mathrm{gw}}/d\mathrm{log}f`$ and are independent of the uncertainty on $`H_0`$. Therefore the result of these computations is expressed in terms of $`h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}`$, rather than of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}`$.

To understand the effect of the stochastic background on a detector, we need however to think in terms of amplitudes of GWs. A stochastic GW at a given point $`\stackrel{}{x}=0`$ can be expanded, in the transverse traceless gauge, as

$$h_{ab}(t)=\underset{A=+,\times }{}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑f𝑑\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}\stackrel{~}{h}_A(f,\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})e^{2\pi ift}e_{ab}^A(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}),$$
(4)
where $`\stackrel{~}{h}_A(f,\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})=\stackrel{~}{h}_A^{}(f,\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$. $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is a unit vector representing the direction of propagation of the wave and $`d\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}=d\mathrm{cos}\theta d\varphi `$. The polarization tensors can be written as $`e_{ab}^+(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})=\widehat{m}_a\widehat{m}_b\widehat{n}_a\widehat{n}_b,e_{ab}^\times (\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})=\widehat{m}_a\widehat{n}_b+\widehat{n}_a\widehat{m}_b,`$ with $`\widehat{m},\widehat{n}`$ unit vectors ortogonal to $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ and to each other. With these definitions, $`e_{ab}^A(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})e^{A^{},ab}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})=2\delta ^{AA^{}}`$. For a stochastic background, assumed to be isotropic, unpolarized and stationary, we can define the spectral density $`S_h(f)`$ from the ensemble average of the Fourier amplitudes,

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_A^{}(f,\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})\stackrel{~}{h}_A^{}(f^{},\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{})=\delta (ff^{})\frac{1}{4\pi }\delta ^2(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }},\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{})\delta _{AA^{}}\frac{1}{2}S_h(f),$$
(5)
where $`\delta ^2(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }},\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{})=\delta (\varphi \varphi ^{})\delta (\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{})`$. $`S_h(f)`$ has dimensions Hz-1 and satisfies $`S_h(f)=S_h(f)`$. The choice of normalization is such that

$$𝑑\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}𝑑\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{}\stackrel{~}{h}_A^{}(f,\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})\stackrel{~}{h}_A^{}(f^{},\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{})=\delta (ff^{})\delta _{AA^{}}\frac{1}{2}S_h(f).$$
(6)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}`$ and $`S_h`$ are related by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}(f)=\frac{4\pi ^2}{3H_0^2}f^3S_h(f).$$
(7)
In general, theoretical predictions are expressed more naturally in terms of $`h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}(f)`$, while the equations involving the signal-to-noise ratio and other issues related to the detection are much more transparent when written in terms of $`S_h(f)`$. Eq. (7) is the basic formula for moving between the two descriptions.

The characteristic amplitude $`h_c(f)`$ is instead defined from

$$h_{ab}(t)h^{ab}(t)=2_{f=0}^{f=\mathrm{}}d(\mathrm{log}f)h_c^2(f).$$
(8)
$`h_c(f)`$ is dimensionless, and represents a characteristic value of the amplitude, per unit logarithmic interval of frequency. The factor of two on the right-hand side of eq. (8) is part of the definition, and is motivated by the fact that the left-hand side is made up of two contributions, given by $`\stackrel{~}{h}_+^{}\stackrel{~}{h}_+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{h}_\times ^{}\stackrel{~}{h}_\times `$. In a unpolarized background these contributions are equal, while the mixed term $`\stackrel{~}{h}_+^{}\stackrel{~}{h}_\times `$ vanishes, eq. (5). The relation betheen $`h_c`$ and $`S_h`$ is

$$h_c^2(f)=2fS_h(f).$$
(9)
Actually, $`h_c(f)`$ is not yet the most useful dimensionless quantity to use for the comparison with experiments. In fact, any experiment involves some form of binning over the frequency. In a total observation time $`T`$, the resolution in frequency is $`\mathrm{\Delta }f=1/T`$, so one does not observe $`h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}(f)`$ but rather

$$_f^{f+\mathrm{\Delta }f}d(\mathrm{log}f)h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}(f)\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }f}{f}h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}(f),$$
(10)
and, since $`h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}(f)f^3S_h(f)f^2h_c^2(f)`$, it is convenient to define

$$h_c(f,\mathrm{\Delta }f)=h_c(f)\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }f}{f}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(11)
Using $`1/(1\mathrm{yr})3.17\times 10^8`$ Hz as a reference value for $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$, and $`10^8`$ as a reference value for $`h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}`$, one finds

$$h_c(f,\mathrm{\Delta }f)=7.111\times 10^{22}\left(\frac{1\mathrm{mHz}}{f}\right)^{3/2}\left(\frac{h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}(f)}{10^8}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }f}{3.17\times 10^8\mathrm{Hz}}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(12)
## 3 Characterization of the detectors

The response of a detector is characterized by two important quantities: the strain sensitivity $`\stackrel{~}{h}_f`$, which gives a measure of the noise in the detector, and the pattern functions $`F^A(\theta ,\varphi )`$, which reflect the geometry of the detector.

### 3.1 Strain sensitivity

The total output of the detector $`S(t)`$ is in general of the form

$$S(t)=s(t)+n(t)$$
(13)
where $`n(t)`$ is the noise and $`s(t)`$ is the contribution to the output due to the gravitational waves. Both are taken to be dimensionless quantities. If the noise is gaussian, the ensemble average of the Fourier components of the noise, $`\stackrel{~}{n}(f)`$, satisfies

$$\stackrel{~}{n}^{}(f)\stackrel{~}{n}(f^{})=\delta (ff^{})\frac{1}{2}S_n(f)$$
(14)
(actually, non-gaussian noises are potentialy very dangerous in GW experiments, and must be carefully minimized or modelled). The above equation defines the function $`S_n(f)`$, with $`S_n(f)=S_n(f)`$ and dimensions Hz-1.

The factor $`1/2`$ is conventionally inserted in the definition so that the total noise power is obtained integrating $`S_n(f)`$ over the physical range $`0f<\mathrm{}`$, rather than from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$,

$$n^2(t)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑fS_n(f).$$
(15)
The function $`S_n`$ is known as the spectral noise density. This quantity is quadratic in the noise; it is therefore convenient to take its square root and define the strain sensitivity $`\stackrel{~}{h}_f`$

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_f\sqrt{S_n(f)},$$
(16)
where now $`f>0`$; $`\stackrel{~}{h}_f`$ is linear in the noise and has dimensions Hz-1/2.

### 3.2 Pattern functions

GW experiments are designed so that their scalar output $`s(t)`$ is linear in the GW signal: if $`h_{ab}(t)`$ is the metric perturbation in the transverse-traceless gauge,

$$s(t)=D^{ab}h_{ab}(t).$$
(17)
$`D^{ab}`$ is known as the detector tensor. Using eq. (4), we write

$$s(t)=\underset{A=+,\times }{}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑f𝑑\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}\stackrel{~}{h}_A(f,\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})e^{2\pi ift}D^{ab}e_{ab}^A(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}).$$
(18)
It is convenient to define the detector pattern functions $`F_A(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$,

$$F_A(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})=D^{ab}e_{ab}^A(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}),$$
(19)
so that

$$s(t)=\underset{A=+,\times }{}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑f𝑑\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}\stackrel{~}{h}_A(f,\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})F_A(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})e^{2\pi ift},$$
(20)
and the Fourier transform of the signal, $`\stackrel{~}{s}(f)`$, is

$$\stackrel{~}{s}(f)=\underset{A=+,\times }{}𝑑\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}\stackrel{~}{h}_A(f,\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})F_A(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}).$$
(21)
Explicit expressions for the pattern functions of various detectors can be found in ref. .

### 3.3 Single detectors

For a stochastic background the average of $`s(t)`$ vanishes and, if we have only one detector, the best we can do is to consider the average of $`s^2(t)`$. Using eqs. (5) and (20),

$$s^2(t)=F_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑fS_h(f),$$
(22)
where

$$F\frac{d\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{4\pi }\underset{A=+,\times }{}F^A(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})F^A(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})$$
(23)
is a factor that gives a measure of the angular efficiency of the detector. For interferometers $`F=2/5`$, while for cilindrical bars $`F=8/15`$.

In a single detector a stochastic background will manifest itself as an eccess noise. Comparing eqs. (15) and eq. (22), we see that the signal-to-noise ratio at frequency $`f`$ is

$$\mathrm{SNR}=\left[\frac{FS_h(f)}{S_n(f)}\right]^{1/2}.$$
(24)
We use the convention that the SNR refers to the GW amplitude, rather than to the GW energy. Since $`h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}(f)h_c^2(f)`$ the SNR for the amplitude is the square root of the SNR for the energy, hence the square root in eq. (24).

Using eq. (7) and $`S_n(f)=\stackrel{~}{h}_f^2`$, we can express this result in terms of the minimum detectable value of $`h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}`$, at a given level of SNR, as

$$h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}^{\mathrm{min}}(f)10^2\frac{(\mathrm{SNR})^2}{F}\left(\frac{f}{100\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z}}\right)^3\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{h}_f}{10^{22}\mathrm{Hz}^{1/2}}\right)^2.$$
(25)
### 3.4 Correlated detectors

A much better sensitivity can be obtained correlating two (or more) detectors. In this case we write the output $`S_i(t)`$ of the $`i`$th detector as $`S_i(t)=s_i(t)+n_i(t)`$, where $`i=1,2`$ labels the detector, and we consider the situation in which the GW signal $`s_i`$ is much smaller than the noise $`n_i`$. We correlate the two outputs defining

$$S_{12}=_{T/2}^{T/2}𝑑t_{T/2}^{T/2}𝑑t^{}S_1(t)S_2(t^{})Q(tt^{}),$$
(26)
where $`T`$ is the total integration time (e.g. one year) and $`Q`$ is a real filter function. The simplest choice would be $`Q(tt^{})=\delta (tt^{})`$. However, if one knows the form of the signal that one is looking for, i.e. $`S_h(f)`$, it is possible to optimize the form of the filter function. It turns out that the optimal filter is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}(f)=c\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(f)S_h(f)}{S_n^{(1)}(f)S_n^{(2)}(f)}$$
(27)
with $`c`$ an arbitrary normalization constant; $`S_h(f)`$ is the spectral density of the signal and $`S_n^{(i)}(f)`$ the noise spectral densities of the two detectors. Since in general $`S_h(f)`$ is not known a priori, one should perform the data analysis considering a set of possible filters. For many cosmological backgrounds, a simple set of power-like filters $`S_h(f)f^\alpha `$ should be adequate. Actually, many of the most interesting cosmological backgrounds are expected to be approximately flat within the window of existing or planned experiments.

The function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(f)`$ in eq. (27) is the (unnormalized) overlap reduction function; it is defined as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(f)\frac{d\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{4\pi }\left[\underset{A}{}F_1^A(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})F_2^A(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})\right]\mathrm{exp}\left\{2\pi if\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{x}}{c}\right\},$$
(28)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{x}`$ is the separation between the two detectors. It gives a measure of how well the two detectors are correlated; for instance, if the distance between them is much bigger than the typical wavelength of the stochastic GWs, the two detectors do not really see the same GW backgrounds, and noting is gained correlating them. It also depends on the relative orientation between them.

It is conventional to introduce the (normalized) overlap reduction function $`\gamma (f)`$

$$\gamma (f)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(f)}{F_{12}},$$
(29)
where

$$F_{12}\frac{d\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{4\pi }\underset{A}{}F_1^A(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})F_2^A(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})|_{\mathrm{aligned}}.$$
(30)
Here the subscript means that we must compute $`F_{12}`$ taking the two detectors to be perfectly aligned, rather than with their actual orientation. If the two detectors are of the same type, e.g. two interferometers or two cylindrical bars, $`F_{12}`$ is the same as the constant $`F`$ defined in eq. (23). The use of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(f)`$ is more convenient when we want to write equations that hold independently of what detectors (interferometers, bars, or spheres) are used in the correlation (furthermore, in the case of the correlation between an interferometer and the scalar mode of a sphere $`F_{12}=0`$, so this normalization is impossible; then, one just uses $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(f)`$, which is the quantity that enters directly in the SNR).

The SNR for two correlated detectors, with optimal filtering, is

$$\mathrm{SNR}=\left[2T_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑f\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(f)\frac{S_h^2(f)}{S_n^2(f)}\right]^{1/4}.$$
(31)
Comparing with eq. (24) we see that now the SNR is given by an integral over all frequencies, rather then by a comparison of $`S_h(f)`$ with $`S_n(f)`$ at fixed $`f`$. We denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$ the frequency range where both detectors are sensitive and at the same time the overlap reduction function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(f)`$ is not much smaller than one. Then, if the integration time $`T`$ is such that $`T\mathrm{\Delta }f1`$, correlating two detectors is much better than working with the single detectors.

Finally, it can be useful to define a dimensionless characteristic noise associated to the correlated detectors. It turns out that the quantity that is meaningful to compare directly to the characteristic dimensionless amplitude $`h_c(f)`$ of the GW (defined in sect. 2) is a characteristic noise $`h_n(f)`$ defined by

$$h_n(f)\frac{1}{(\frac{1}{2}T\mathrm{\Delta }f)^{1/4}}\left(\frac{fS_n(f)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(f)}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(32)
The characteristic noise $`h_n(f)`$ is a useful but approximate concept, since the correct expression of the SNR for correlated detectors is obtained integrating over all frequencies, eq. (31), and not comparing $`h_n(f)`$ and $`h_c(f)`$ at fixed $`f`$.

## 4 Experiments

### 4.1 Resonant bars

There are five ultracryogenic resonant bars around the world, in operation since a few years:

Compared to interferometers, they are narrow band detectors, since they operate in a frequency band of the order of a few Hz, with resonant frequency of the order of 900 Hz (it should be observed, however, that with recent improvement in the electronics, EXPLORER has now a useful band of the order of a few tens of Hz). Fig. 1 shows the sensitivity curve of NAUTILUS.

### 4.2 Ground-based interferometers

The first generation of large scale interferometers is presently under construction. LIGO consists of two detectors, in Hanford, Washington, and Livingston, Louisiana, with 4 km arms. VIRGO is under construction near Pisa, and has 3 km arms. Somewhat smaller are GEO600, near Hannover, with 600m arms and TAMA300 in Japan; these smaller interferometers also aim at developing advanced techniques needed for second-generation interferometers. Fig. 2 shows the planned VIRGO sensitivity curve. Interferometers are wide-band detectors, and will cover the region between a few Hertz up to approximately a few kHz. Comparing the data in fig. 2 with eq. (25) we see that used as single detectors, VIRGO and LIGO could measure

$$h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}>10^2.$$
(33)
As discussed in the previous section, much more interesting values can be obtained correlating two interferometers, an interferometer and a bar, or two bars. The values for one year of integration time are given in table 2.

### 4.3 Advanced interferometers

The interferometers presently under construction are the first generation of large-scale interferometers, and second generation interferometers, with much better sensitivities, are under study. In particular, the first data from the initial LIGO are expected by 2002, and the improvements leading from the initial LIGO to the advanced detector are expected to take place around 2004-2006.

The overall improvement of LIGOII is expected to be, depending on the frequency, one or two orders of magnitude in $`\stackrel{~}{h}_f`$. This is quite impressive, since two order of magnitudes in $`\stackrel{~}{h}_f`$ means four order of magnitudes in $`h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}(f)`$ and therefore interesting sensitivity, $`h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}`$ of order $`10^5`$, even for a single detector, without correlations.

Correlating two advanced detectors one could reach extremely interesting values: the sensitivity of the correlation between two advanced LIGO is estimated to be

$$h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}5\times 10^{11}.$$
(34)
### 4.4 The space interferometer LISA

This project, approved by ESA and NASA, is an interferometer which will be sent into space around 2010. Going into space, one is not limited anymore by seismic and gravity-gradient noises; LISA could then explore the very low frequency domain, $`10^4`$ Hz $`<f<1`$ Hz. At the same time, there is also the possibility of a very long path length (the mirrors will be freely floating into the spacecrafts at distances of $`5\times 10^6`$ km from each other!), so that the requirements on the position measurement noise can be relaxed. The goal is to reach a strain sensitivity $`\stackrel{~}{h}_f=4\times 10^{21}\mathrm{Hz}^{1/2}`$ at $`f=1`$ mHz. At this level, one expects first of all signals from galactic binary sources, extra-galactic supermassive black holes binaries and super-massive black hole formation. Concerning the stochastic background, going to low frequencies provides a terrific advantage: eq. (7) tells that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}(f)f^3S_h(f).$$
(35)
The ability to perform an interferometric measurement is encoded into the spectral density of the noise, $`S_n(f)`$, and with a single detector we can measure $`S_h(f)S_n(f)`$. Then, if we are able to reach a good value of $`S_n`$ at low frequency, eq. (35) shows that we are able to measure a very small value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}`$, thanks to the factor $`f^3`$. Going down by a factor $`10^5`$ in frequency, say from 10 Hz to 1 mHz, the factor $`f^3`$ provides an improvement by a factor $`10^{15}`$! Even used as a single detector, LISA can therefore reach very interesting sensitivities. Indeed, in terms of $`h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}`$ the sensitivity of LISA corresponds to

$$h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}(f=1\mathrm{mHz})1\times 10^{12}.$$
(36)
We can now also understand why it is instead very difficult to build a good detector of stochastic GWs at high frequencies, $`f1`$ kHz. One can imagine to build an apparatus that measures extremely small displacements, at high frequencies, so that at some $`f1`$ kHz, the spectral density of the noise $`S_n(f)`$ is very small. However, the quantity which is relevant for the comparison with theoretical prediction, and on which strong theoretical bounds exist at all frequencies, is $`h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}`$, and once one translates the sensitivity in terms of $`h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}`$, it will be very poor because the factor $`f^3`$ now works in the wrong direction.

## 5 Bounds on $`h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}`$

In Fig. 3 we show the most relevant bounds on stochastic GW backgrounds, together with the experimental sensitivities discussed above. On the horizontal axis we cover a huge range of frequencies. The lowest value, $`f=10^{18}`$ Hz, corresponds to a wavelength as large as the present Hubble radius of the universe; the highest value shown, $`f=10^{12}`$ Hz, has instead the following meaning: if we take a graviton produced during the Planck era, with a typical energy of the order of the Planck or string energy scale, and we redshift it to the present time using the standard cosmological model, we find that today it has a frequency of order $`10^{11}`$ or $`10^{12}`$ Hz. This value therefore is the maximum possible cutoff of spectra of GWs produced in the very early universe. The maximum cutoff for astrophysical processes is of course much lower, of order 10 kHz . So this huge frequency range encompasses all the GWs that can be considered. Let us now discuss in turn the various bounds.

### 5.1 Nucleosynthesis bound

The outcome of nucleosynthesis depends on a balance between the particle production rates and the expansion rate of the universe, measured by the Hubble parameter $`H`$. Einstein equation gives $`H^2G_N\rho `$, where $`\rho `$ is the total energy density, including of course $`\rho _{\mathrm{gw}}`$. Nucleosynthesis successfully predicts the primordial abundances of deuterium, 3He, 4He and 7Li assuming that the only contributions to $`\rho `$ come from the particles of the Standard Model, and no GW contribution. Therefore, in order not to spoil the agreement, any further contribution to $`\rho `$ at time of nucleosynthesis, including the contribution of GWs, cannot exceed a maximum value. The bound is usually written in terms of an effective number of neutrino species $`N_\nu `$, and, applied to GWs, reads

$$_{f=0}^{f=\mathrm{}}d(\mathrm{log}f)h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}(f)5.6\times 10^6(N_\nu 3).$$
(37)
The limit on $`N_\nu `$ is subject to various systematic errors, which have to do mainly with the issues of how much of the observed 4He abundance is of primordial origin, and of the nuclear processing of 3He in stars. Different bounds on $`N_\nu `$ have therefore been proposed. The analysis of ref.  gives $`N_\nu <3.2`$ at 95% c.l.; this is shown in fig. 3, together with a more conservative bound $`N_\nu <4`$. Note that the nucleosynthesis bound is really a bound over the total energy density, i.e. over the integral of $`h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}(f)`$ over $`d\mathrm{log}f`$. However, if the integral cannot exceed this value, also its positive integrand cannot exceed it over a sizable range of frequencies. The actual bound on $`h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}(f)`$ depends on its frequency dependence, and if for instance $`h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}(f)`$ is approximatly constant between two frequencies $`f_{\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`f_{\mathrm{max}}`$, the bound on $`h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}`$ is stronger by a factor $`\mathrm{log}(f_{\mathrm{max}}/f_{\mathrm{min}})`$. Of course, the nucleosynthesis bound applies only to GW produced before nucleosynthesis, and is not relevant for GW of astrophysical origin.

### 5.2 Bounds from millisecond pulsars

Millisecond pulsar are an extremely impressive source of high precision measurements . For instance, the observations of the first msec pulsar discovered, B1937+21, after 9 yr of data, give a period of $`\mathrm{1.557\hspace{0.17em}806\hspace{0.17em}468\hspace{0.17em}819\hspace{0.17em}794\hspace{0.17em}5}\pm \mathrm{0.000\hspace{0.17em}000\hspace{0.17em}000\hspace{0.17em}000\hspace{0.17em}000\hspace{0.17em}4}`$ ms. As a consequence, pulsars are also a natural detector of GWs, since a GW passing between us and the pulsar causes a fluctuation in the time of arrival of the pulse, proportional to the GW amplitute $`h_c(f)`$. If the uncertainty in the time of arrival of the pulse is $`ϵ`$ and the total observation time is $`T`$, this ‘detector’ is sensitive to $`h_c(f)ϵ/T`$, for frequencies $`f1/T`$. The highest sensitivities can then be reached for a continuous source, as a stochastic background, after one or more years of integration, and therefore for $`f10^910^8`$ Hz. Based on the data from PSR B1855+09, ref.  gives a limit, at $`ff_{}=4.4\times 10^9`$ Hz (at 90% c.l.),

$$h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}(f_{})<4.8\times 10^9.$$
(38)
Since the resolution on $`h_c(f)`$ is proportional to $`1/T`$ and $`h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}h_c^2`$, the bound for $`f>f_{}`$ is

$$h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}(f)<4.8\times 10^9\left(\frac{f}{f_{}}\right)^2,$$
(39)
and therefore it is quite significant (better than the nucleosynthesis bound) even for $`f10^2f_{}`$. For $`f<f_{}`$, instead, the pulsar provides no limit at all. With the observation time the bound will improve steadily and will move toward lower and lower frequencies. It is given by the wedge-shaped curve in fig. 3.

### 5.3 Bound from COBE

Another important constraint comes from the COBE measurement of the fluctuation of the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). The basic idea is that a strong background of GWs at very long wavelengths produces a stochastic redshift on the frequencies of the photons of the 2.7K radiation, and therefore a fluctuation in their temperature (Sachs-Wolfe effect). The analysis of refs. , where the effect of multipoles with $`2l30`$ is included, gives a bound

$$h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}(f)<7\times 10^{11}\left(\frac{H_0}{f}\right)^2,(3\times 10^{18}\mathrm{Hz}<f<10^{16}\mathrm{Hz}).$$
(40)
This bound is stronger at the upper edge of its range of validity, $`f30H_010^{16}`$ Hz, where it gives

$$h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}(f)<7\times 10^{14},(f\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{16}\mathrm{Hz}).$$
(41)
## 6 Theoretical predictions

Many cosmological production mechanisms have been proposed in recent years. Four examples are shown in fig. 4:

Inflation. The amplification of vacuum fluctuations at the transition between an inflationary phase and the radiation dominated era produces GWs shown as the curve $`(a)`$ in fig. 4 and is one of the oldest  and most studied examples. The condition that the COBE bound is not exceeded puts a limit on the value of $`h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}`$ at all frequencies, which is below the experimental sensitivities, even for LISA. So, while it is one of the best studied examples, it appears that it is not very promising from the point of view of detection.

String cosmology. In a cosmological model which follows from the low energy action of string theory  the amplification of vacuum fluctuations can give a much stronger signal . The model has two free parameters that reflect our ignorance of the large curvature phase. The curve $`(b)`$ in fig. 4 shows the very interesting signal that could be obtained for some choice of these parameters, while for other choices the value of $`h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}`$ at VIRGO/LIGO or at LISA frequencies becomes unobservably small.

Cosmic strings. These are topological defects that can exist in grand unified theories , and vibrating, they produce a large amount of GWs, shown in curve $`(c)`$ of fig. 4. Cosmic strings are characterized by a mass per unit length $`\mu `$, and the most stringent bound on $`G_N\mu `$ comes from msec pulsars, and it is of order $`10^6`$.

Phase transitions. Another possible source of GWs is given by phase transitions in the early universe. In particular, a phase transition at the electroweak scale would give a signal just in the LISA frequency window, while the QCD phase transition is expected to give a signal peaked around $`f=4\times 10^6`$ Hz. However, the signal is sizable only if the phase transition is first order and, unfortunately, in the Standard Model with the existing bounds on the Higgs mass, there is not even a phase transition but rather a smooth crossover, so that basically no GW is produced. However, in supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model, the transition can be first order, and a stronger signal could be obtained. Depending on the strength of the transition, one could even get a signal such as curve $`(d)`$ of fig. 4.

Finally, there are very interesting astrophysical backgrounds, coming from a large number of unresolved sources. These are displayed in fig. 5. For a discussion, see  and the contribution of Raffaella Schneider to these proceedings. Another important issue, especially for LISA, is also how to discriminate cosmological from astrophysical backgrounds, see eg. .

The conclusion that emerges looking at fig. 3 is that in the next few years, with the first generation of ground based interferometers, we will have the possibility to explore five new order of magnitude in energy densities, probing the content in GWs of the universe down to $`h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{gw}}10^5`$. At this level, the nucleosynthesis bound suggest that the possibility of detection are quite marginal. It should not be forgotten, however, that nucleosynthesis is a (beautiful) theory, with a lot of theoretical input from nuclear reaction in stars, etc., and its prediction is by no means a substitute for a measurement of GWs. With the second generation of ground based interferometers and with LISA, we will then penetrate quite deeply into a region which experimentally is totally unexplored, and where a number of explicit examples (although subject to large theoretical uncertainties) suggest that a positive result can be found.


text:
# EXCITED HEAVY BARYON MASSES FROM THE 1/𝑁_𝑐 EXPANSION OF HQET

## 1 Introduction

Experimentally, a lot of data for orbitally excited heavy baryons have been accumulating $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The following charmed baryon states have been found, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c(2593)^+`$ with $`I(J^P)=0(\frac{1}{2}^{})`$ which is denoted as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}(\frac{1}{2}^{})^+`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c(2625)^+`$ with $`I(J^P)=0(\mathrm{?})`$ denoted as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}(\frac{3}{2}^{})^+`$, where $`\mathrm{?}`$ is $`\frac{3}{2}^{}`$ from the quark model, and its strange analogues $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{c1}(\frac{3}{2}^{})`$.

Theoretical understanding of these baryons is necessary. The heavy quark effective theory (HQET) $`^\mathrm{?}`$ provides a systematic way to investigate hadrons containing a single heavy quark. To obtain detailed prediction, however, some non-perturbative QCD methods have to be used, such as lattice simulation, $`1/N_c`$ expansion $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$, chiral Lagrangian and QCD sum rules. In this talk we report the application of the $`1/N_c`$ expansion method $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$.

Let us first make a brief review of the HQET $`^\mathrm{?}`$. It is an effective field theory of QCD for heavy hadrons. In the limit $`m_Q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}\mathrm{}`$, the heavy quark spin-flavor symmetry (HQS) is explicit. The 4-velocity $`v`$ of the heavy quark becomes a good quantum number. Because $`m_Q`$ is unusable, it can be removed by redefining the heavy quark field:

$$h_v=e^{im_Qvx}Q.$$
(1)
The effective Lagrangian is then

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=\overline{h}_vvDh_v+O(1/m_Q).$$
(2)
The hadron mass is expanded as

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_H+O(1/m_Q)$$
(3)
in the effective theory, that is

$$M_H=m_Q+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_H+O(1/m_Q).$$
(4)
Second, let us come to the $`1/N_c`$ expansion $`^\mathrm{?}`$. This is a non-perturbative method of QCD. The idea is to extract out the non-perturbative information of $`SU(N_c)`$ gauge theory by taking $`N_c\mathrm{}`$. The $`N_c`$ counting rules are given as follows. The interaction vertex is $`g_s/\sqrt{N_c}`$; the quark propagator keeps unchanged; and the gluon propagator is represented by double lines, one for quarks and the other for anti-quarks.

For the mesons, the non-perturbative properties can be observed from the analysis of the planar diagrams. The large $`N_c`$ limit is quite successful. Because the meson decay amplitude $`1/\sqrt{N_c}`$, mesons and glue states are free and stable. This agrees qualitatively with color confinement. Another example is the explanation of the Zweig’s rule.

For the baryons, the diagrammatic method does not work. The Hartree approximation can be adopted. The observation is that in the $`N_c\mathrm{}`$ limit, interaction between any pair of quarks is negligible ($`1/N_c`$); the total potential on an individual quark, which is $`1`$, is a sum of many small terms, therefore it can be regarded as the background potential or a c-number potential. For ground state baryons, the many-body wave function is written as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{N_c},t)=\underset{1}{\overset{N_c}{}}\varphi (x,t),$$
(5)
where $`\varphi (x,t)`$ is one-body state. Interesting results for large $`N_c`$ baryons can be obtained. The baryon-(anti-)baryon interaction is order $`N_c`$. And the baryon-meson interaction is order 1. However, the Hartree potential is not known, in which the two-body, three-body, and many-body interactions are the same important. One conjecture is that baryons are solitons of the mesonic theory, skyremions $`^\mathrm{?}`$!

Something more can be said about the large $`N_c`$ baryons $`^\mathrm{?}`$. For the ground state baryons, there is a contracted SU(2$`N_f`$) light quark spin-flavor symmetry (LQS) in the large $`N_c`$ limit. This was first obtained from the chiral perturbation theory of baryon-pion interactions in deriving the consistent conditions for the coupling constants in the large $`N_c`$ limit. It can be also understood in the Hartree picture. This makes a $`1/N_c`$ expansion based on the spin-flavor structure practically possible for the baryons. Many quantitative predictions and further extensions of the above result have been made $`^\mathrm{?}`$. In fact, this expansion is another scheme of the $`1/N_c`$ expansion. This can be simply seen from considering the masses of the non-strange baryons,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill M_H& =& N_c\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}+O(1)+O(\frac{1}{N_c})+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & =& N_c\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{\mathrm{QCD}}+c_1\frac{S^2}{N_c}+c_2\frac{(S^2)^2}{N_c^2}+\mathrm{},\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
where the first line is the ordinary $`1/N_c`$ expansion, and the second one the expansion based on the spin-flavor structure. Of course, in the $`N_c\mathrm{}`$ limit, $`M_H=\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_H=N_c\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}=N_c\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{\mathrm{QCD}}=m_{proton}`$ which is not so useful.

## 2 Excited Heavy Baryons in the $`1/N_c`$ Expansion

For the charmed baryons like $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}(\frac{1}{2}^{})^+`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}(\frac{3}{2}^{})^+`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{c1}(\frac{3}{2}^{})^+`$, we analyze their masses $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_H`$ in the $`1/N_c`$ expansion. The classification of them is according to the angular momentum $`J`$, the isospin $`I`$ and the total angular momentum of the light degrees of freedom $`J^l`$ which becomes a good quantum number due to HQS. In this case, the excited hadron spectrum shows the degeneracy of pair of states which are related to each other by HQS. Constituently there are two ways for the $`L=1`$ excitation. One is that the heavy quark is excited; the other is that one light quark is excited. Correspondingly under the LQS, the $`N_c1`$ light quarks are in the symmetric and mixed representation, respectively.

### 2.1 Symmetric Representation

In the symmetric representation, the picture for the light quarks is essentially the same as that of the ground state heavy baryons. The spin-flavor decomposition rule is $`I=S^l`$ for the non-strange baryons, where $`S^l`$ is the total spin of the light quark system. Note that the light quark system as a whole has $`L=1`$ orbital angular momentum. All possible states of excited heavy baryons are listed in Table 1.

In the Hartree–Fock picture of the baryons, the $`N_c`$ counting rules require us to include many-body interactions in the analysis. However, a large part of these interactions are spin-flavor irrelevant. Namely this part contributes in the order $`N_c\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ universally to all the baryons with different spin-flavor structure in Table 1. The mass splittings among the baryons can be obtained. For the purely light quark contribution to $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_H`$, the $`1/N_c`$ analysis goes the same as that to the ground state heavy baryons. There is LQS at the leading order of the $`1/N_c`$ expansion. The mass splitting due to the violation of LQS started from $`S_{}^{l}{}_{}{}^{2}/N_c`$. However, different from the ground state baryons, formally the orbital angular momentum of the heavy quark has more dominant contribution to $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_H`$ than $`O(1/N_c)`$. This is because of the orbital-light-quark-spin interactions. After summing up all the relevant many-body interactions, this order $`O(1)`$ contribution is $`\stackrel{}{L}\stackrel{}{S^l}f({\displaystyle \frac{S_{}^{l}{}_{}{}^{2}}{N_c^2}})`$, where $`f`$ is a general function which can be Taylor expanded. The mass $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_H`$ can be written simply as

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_H^0=N_c\stackrel{~}{c}_0+\stackrel{~}{c}_1\stackrel{}{L}\stackrel{}{S^l}+O\left(\frac{1}{N_c}\right),$$
(7)
where coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{c}_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ ($`i=0,1`$). There should be also a term proportional to $`L^2`$ in the above equation, which gives constant contribution to $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_H^0`$ for a given light quark representation, and therefore has been absorbed into the leading term. The term $`\stackrel{}{L}\stackrel{}{S^l}`$ can be rewritten as $`J_{}^{l}{}_{}{}^{2}S_{}^{l}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ with $`\stackrel{}{J^l}`$ being defined as $`\stackrel{}{J^l}=\stackrel{}{L}+\stackrel{}{S^l}`$. Therefore

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_H^0=N_cc_0+c_1(J_{}^{l}{}_{}{}^{2}S_{}^{l}{}_{}{}^{2})+O\left(\frac{1}{N_c}\right),$$
(8)
where coefficients $`c_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$.

### 2.2 Mixed Representation

In the mixed representation, all states are listed in Table 2. Again, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_H^{}`$ is trivially $`N_c\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ at the leading order of the $`1/N_c`$ expansion. The spin-flavor dependence, however is more complicated. For the spectrum of excited light baryons, see ref. $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

The many-body Hamiltonians related to the spin-flavor structure which involve orbital angular momentum $`L`$ give $`O(1)`$ contribution. We use the following operators which were used in $`^\mathrm{?}`$ to analyze $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_H`$,

$`H_{LS}`$ $``$ $`\widehat{a}^{}\stackrel{}{L}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{a}`$
$`H_T`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c}}G^{ia}G_{ia}`$
$`H_1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c}}\widehat{a}^{}L^i\tau ^a\widehat{a}G_{ia}`$
$`H_2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c}}\widehat{a}^{}\{L^i,L^j\}\sigma _i\tau ^a\widehat{a}G_{ja}.`$ (9)
The first one $`H_{LS}`$ is one-body Hamiltonian, while the others are two-body Hamiltonians. $`G_{ia}`$ are the generators of the spin-flavor symmetry group SU(4), given by

$$G^{ia}=\widehat{a}^{}\sigma ^i\tau ^a\widehat{a}$$
(10)
with $`\sigma ^i`$ and $`\tau ^a`$ being the spin and isospin matrices, respectively. Such structure gives coherent addition over $`N_c2`$ core quarks. The first $`G^{ia}`$ in $`H_T`$ acts on the excited quark, the other $`G_{ia}`$’s on the $`N_c2`$ unexcited light quarks, namely the core quarks. In our case, all the operators must be understood as the ones acting on the light degrees of freedom. Note that the higher order many-body Hamiltonian which contains more factor of $`G_{ia}`$ can be reduced to those given in Eq.(9).

The contributions to the baryon masses due to these Hamiltonians are obtained by calculating the baryonic matrix elements. The matrix elements of these operators between the states of light quarks which specify the states of excited heavy baryons are given as follows,

$`I_c={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};II_3;S^lS_3^l,l=1m^{}|H_T|I_c={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};II_3;S^lS_3^l,l=1m`$
$`=`$ $`2c_T\delta _{S^l,S^l}\delta _{S_3^l,S_3^l}\delta _{m,m^{}}(1)^{1S^lI}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}S^l& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}\\ 1& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{2}& 1& \frac{1}{2}\\ \frac{1}{2}& I& \frac{1}{2}\end{array}\right\},`$
$`I_c={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};II_3;l=1,S^l,J^lJ_3^l|H_{LS}|I_c={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};II_3;l=1,S^l,J^lJ_3^l`$
$`=`$ $`c_{LS}(1)^{S^lS^l}\sqrt{(2S^l+1)(2S^l+1)}{\displaystyle \underset{j=\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}}{}}(2j+1)\{j(j+1)23/4\}`$
$`\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& S^l\\ 1& J^l& j\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& S^l\\ 1& J^l& j\end{array}\right\},`$
$`I_c={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};II_3;l=1,S^l,J^lJ_3^l|H_1|I_c={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};II_3;l=1,S^l,J^lJ_3^l`$
$`=`$ $`6\overline{c}_1(1)^{IJ^l+S^lS^l1}\sqrt{(2S^l+1)(2S^l+1)}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{2}& 1& \frac{1}{2}\\ \frac{1}{2}& I& \frac{1}{2}\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}S^l& 1& S^l\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ S^l& J^l& S^l\end{array}\right\},`$
$`I_c={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};II_3;l=1,S^l,J^lJ_3^l|H_2|I_c={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};II_3;l=1,S^l,J^lJ_3^l`$
$`=`$ $`3\overline{c}_2(1)^{1+J^l+I+S^l+2S^l}\sqrt{(2S^l+1)(2S^l+1)}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{2}& 1& \frac{1}{2}\\ \frac{1}{2}& I& \frac{1}{2}\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}2& 1& 1\\ J^l& S^l& S^l\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}S^l& S^l& 2\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& 1\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& 1\end{array}\right\},`$ (38)
where $`I_c`$ is the isospin of the core quarks. In real world ($`N_c=3`$), there is only one quark in the core so $`I_c`$ always equals $`\frac{1}{2}`$. With these matrix elements, we can express the excited heavy baryon mass up to the zeroth order of $`1/N_c`$:

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_H^{}=N_c\overline{c}_0+H_{LS}+H_T+\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}H_i,$$
(39)
where $`c_{LS}`$, $`c_T`$, and $`\overline{c}_i`$’s are the coefficients $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$.

### 2.3 Mixing

It is necessary to consider the mixing between the baryons with light quarks in the spin-flavor symmetric and mixed representations. When they have same good quantum numbers of ($`J`$, $`I`$, $`J^l`$), there is no physical way to distinguish them. This consideration will give the physical spectrum. Because of the light quark spin-flavor symmetry at the leading order of $`1/N_c`$ expansion, the baryons with same ($`J`$, $`I`$, $`J^l`$) quantum numbers but in different representations do not mix. ($`S^l`$ is a good quantum number in $`N_c\mathrm{}`$.) $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The mixing occurs at the sub-leading order. The classification of baryons by the spin-flavor symmetry is therefore physical at the leading order. For the physical spectrum, the mixing results in a deviation from $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_H^0`$. By denoting the mixing mass as $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ which is of $`O(1)`$, the mass matrix for the baryons with same ($`J,I,J^l`$) is written as

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_H^0& \stackrel{~}{m}\\ \stackrel{~}{m}& \overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_H^{}^0\end{array}\right).$$
(40)
The mass difference $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_H^0\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_H^{}^0`$ is $`O(1)`$. Taking $`\stackrel{~}{m}<\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_H^{}^0\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_H^0`$ for illustration, the physical masses are corrected to be

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_H\hfill & \hfill & \overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_H^0\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}^2}{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_H^{}^0\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_H^0},\hfill \\ \overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_H^{}\hfill & \hfill & \overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_H^{}^0+\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}^2}{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_H^{}^0\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_H^0}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(41)
The $`1/N_c`$ expansion of $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ is parameterized as

$$\stackrel{~}{m}=\stackrel{~}{m}_0+O(1/N_c),$$
(42)
where $`\stackrel{~}{m}_0`$ is universal due to LQS. To the order of $`O(1)`$, the spectrum is,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{(\frac{1}{2}(\frac{3}{2}),0,1)}\hfill & =\hfill & N_cc_0+2c_1\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_0^2}{kc_{LS}\frac{1}{6}\overline{c}_1\frac{1}{4}\overline{c}_22c_1},\hfill \\ \overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{(\frac{1}{2},1,0)}\hfill & =\hfill & N_cc_02c_1,\hfill \\ \overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{(\frac{1}{2}(\frac{3}{2}),1,1)}\hfill & =\hfill & N_cc_0\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_0^2}{k},\hfill \\ \overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{(\frac{3}{2}(\frac{5}{2}),1,2)}\hfill & =\hfill & N_cc_0+4c_1,\hfill \end{array}$$
(43)
where $`k`$ is an $`O(1)`$ constant which is what remains after the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_H^{}^0`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_H^0`$ cancellation. Note that the masses of the states $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},1,0)`$ and $`({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}),1,2)`$ are not affected by the mixing, because there are no physical states with the same good quantum numbers in the mixed representation. From the above spectrum, we see that $`c_1>0`$. The states $`({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}),1,2)`$ is always the highest states. They are heavier than the other states at least by $`4c_1`$ through requiring the states $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}),0,1)`$ to be the lowest. If $`2c_1>{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_0^2}{k}}`$, the requirement implies

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_0^2}{kc_{LS}\frac{1}{6}\overline{c}_1\frac{1}{4}\overline{c}_22c_1}>4c_1.$$
(44)
In this case, the spectrum pattern is

$$M(\frac{1}{2}(\frac{3}{2}),0,1)<M(\frac{1}{2},1,0)<M(\frac{1}{2}(\frac{3}{2}),1,1)<M(\frac{3}{2}(\frac{5}{2}),1,2).$$
(45)
On the other hand, if $`2c_1<{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_0^2}{k}}`$, the requirement is

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_0^2\left(\frac{1}{kc_{LS}\frac{1}{6}\overline{c}_1\frac{1}{4}\overline{c}_22c_1}\frac{1}{k}\right)>2c_1,$$
(46)
which gives the spectrum

$$M(\frac{1}{2}(\frac{3}{2}),0,1)<M(\frac{1}{2}(\frac{3}{2}),1,1)<M(\frac{1}{2},1,0)<M(\frac{3}{2}(\frac{5}{2}),1,2).$$
(47)
The experimentally found baryons $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}(\frac{1}{2})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}(\frac{3}{2})`$ correspond to the $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}),0,1)`$ states. More data are needed to fix the unknown parameters $`c_i`$’s, $`\overline{c_i}`$’s, $`k`$ and $`c_{LS}`$. In the near future, experiments will check the above predicted spectrum. Hopefully one of the above mass patterns will be picked out. It will be a check for the validity of our method, if the parameters are in the reasonable range ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$) and meanwhile satisfy the relations given above.

## 3 Summary

In summary, we have reported the $`1/N_c`$ expansion method in studying the spectra of the $`L=1`$ orbitally excited heavy baryons within the framework of HQET. The analysis is very simple for the baryons with light quarks being in the spin-flavor symmetric representation, compared to that for the heavy baryons with light quarks in the mixed representation. The simplicity is an unique feature. It can be seen from the point that the light quark system is in the ground state and it is the heavy quark that is orbitally excited. However the mixing effect due to the baryon states in the mixed representation corrects the spectrum pattern in the sub-leading order of $`1/N_c`$ expansion. The effect is important to get the realistic spectra at this order. The general pattern of the baryon spectrum has been given, which will be verified by the experiments in the near future. The $`1/m_Q`$ and SU(3) corrections have been considered in ref. $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Certain mass relations for the baryons $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}^{()}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{c1}^{()}`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{c1}^{(^{})()}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c1}^{()}`$ have been derived. The same analysis can be applied to the bottom baryons.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and BK21 Program of the Ministry of Education of Korea.

## References