text:
# Field Theory of Spin-Singlet Quantum Hall States

\[

## Abstract

We formulate a field theory for a class of spin-singlet quantum Hall states which have been proposed for the quantized Hall plateaus observed at the second lowest Landau level (the Haldane-Rezayi state and its variants). A new essential ingredient is a class of super Chern-Simons field. We show that the known properties of the states are consistently described by it. We also give a $`2+1`$ dimensional hierarchical construction. Implications of the proposal are discussed and a new physical picture of composite particles emerges.
PACS.73.40 Hm, 11.30 Pb, 11.25 Hf

\]

Introduction Recently, new phenomena in the high Landau levels of the two-dimensional electron gas attract much attention . Among them is the quantized Hall plateau found at $`\nu =5/2`$ , where $`\nu `$ is the filling of Landau levels and its denominator is even. This is a unique exception to the odd-denominator rule–the fractional quantized Hall plateaus are always found around filling fractions with odd-denominators.

Haldane and Rezayi proposed an ansatz wave function for the $`\nu =5/2`$ state which is spin-singlet. The tilted field experiments show a collapse of the gap in accordance with the proposal of Haldane and Rezayi . Although it has some attractive features as a candidate for the $`\nu =5/2`$ plateau, it was argued  that the hollow-core model in which the ansatz wave function gives the exact ground state is not a good approximation to the system with Coulomb interaction at the second lowest Landau levels (N=1 LL) .

Numerical studies  of the Coulomb model show that the ground state at $`\nu =5/2`$ may be the spin-polarized state proposed by Moore and Read. This direction attracts some attention . However, the discussions pose problems in some important respects.

First of all, as this state is spin-polarized, a new explanation for the results of tilted field experiments is required. Until now, some suggestions such as the effect of thickness of samples have been made. Although the role of spin at N=1 LL is largely unknown, it has been pointed out that, in specimens to realize fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE), the effective Zeeman energy can be so small that the spin degrees of freedom are not frozen out . Another unsatisfactory feature is in its failure of implementing the idea of hierarchy . In view of Jain’s successful idea and the prominent role of $`\nu =1/2,1/4,\mathrm{}`$ composite Fermi liquid  in FQHE at the lowest Landau level (N=0 LL), it has been proposed that FQHE at N=1 LL may be also dictated by a hierarchy of very different kind .

The state also has a difficulty in $`2+1`$ dimensional field theoretical interpretation. There have been some proposals of $`2+1`$ dimensional field theory all based on $`SU(2)`$ Chern-Simons gauge theory at level 2  (except the one proposed in Ref.). A problem in these proposals is that they are valid only at special unrealistic filling fraction, or require an elimination of superfluous degrees of freedom, of which a physical meaning is unclear. This stems from the fact that the pairing in the state is given by two-dimensional $`c=1/2`$ Majorana fermion for which no direct $`2+1`$ dimensional interpretation is known.

For a class of spin-singlet quantum Hall states, namely permanent quantum Hall states (variants of the Haldane-Rezayi state) are identified as hierarchical states formed on the Haldane-Rezayi state. These states inherit most features of the HR state. Indeed, the recent experiments at the plateaus around $`\nu =5/2`$ ($`\nu =7/3,8/3\mathrm{})`$ suggest a close relation between these plateaus.

In this paper, we propose a 2+1 dimensional field theory of the Haldane-Rezayi state and its variants (permanent quantum Hall states). A new essential ingredient is a class of super Chern-Simons field. We show that the known properties of the states are consistently described by it. We also give a 2+1 dimensional hierarchical construction. Implications of the proposal are discussed and new physical picture of composite particle at N=1 LL emerges.

Permanent quantum Hall state For the FQHE at N=0 LL, wave functions were given by conformal blocks of 2 dimensional conformal field theory in the bulk ($`\mathrm{CFT}_2`$) while edge excitations were described by 1+1 dimensional theory on the edge ($`\mathrm{CFT}_{1+1}`$). There $`\mathrm{CFT}_2`$ and $`\mathrm{CFT}_{1+1}`$ were equivalent and the global symmetry of CFT was generated by the gauge symmetry of 2+1 dimensional CS theory. These are all based on the relation between the CS theory and CFT . We expect that this scheme is at work also for N=1 LL, but with one extension. In the HR or permanent QH states, $`\mathrm{CFT}_2`$ and $`\mathrm{CFT}_{1+1}`$ are slightly different although their space of states coincides and the partition functions are equal with an inclusion of non-trivial flux . This flux is only accounted for by the twist of the boundary condition in $`\mathrm{CFT}_{1+1}`$. Thus the field content of the 2+1 dimensional theory will respect the symmetry of $`\mathrm{CFT}_2`$. We shall use this as a guiding principle for constructing a proper 2+1 dimensional field theory. Especially the boundary action deduced from the 2+1 dimensional theory should be the one for $`\mathrm{CFT}_2`$.

Let us recall $`\mathrm{CFT}_2`$ of the $`\nu =1/q(q=p+1,p`$:even integer) permanent QH state. As observed in , the pairing part of the permanent state can be written as a conformal block of $`c=1`$ bosonic ghosts $`\beta `$-$`\gamma `$ . In terms of these fields and a chiral boson $`\phi `$, the electrons in the permanent state are represented by $`\beta e^{i\sqrt{q}\phi },\gamma e^{i\sqrt{q}\phi }`$. There is a bosonization scheme for the $`\beta `$-$`\gamma `$ system  in which $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are bosonized into $`c=2`$ symplectic fermion system and a chiral boson $`\varphi `$ with negative signature as follows:

$`\beta =\theta ^{}e^\varphi ,\gamma =\theta ^{}e^\varphi .`$ (1)
$`\varphi `$ and $`\phi `$ may be generated by U(1) CS fields in 2+1 dimensional theory. For the $`c=2`$ part, there is a Parisi-Soulas supersymmetry, which indicates an emergence of a fermionic gauge symmetry in 2+1 dimensions.

These considerations lead us to consider the generators of gauge symmetry $`P^\mu `$,$`Q,\stackrel{~}{Q}(\mu =0,1)`$ where $`P^\mu `$ is for U(1) symmetry, $`Q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ are for possible supersymmetry. We assume that the U(1) gauge symmetries commute $`[P^\mu ,P^\nu ]=0`$. To construct a proper commutation relations involving $`Q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ one must take into account an important observation in Ref. that the formation of filled LL for composite fermions should affect the pairing. A simple way to implement it is to consider $`Q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ forming a representation of $`P^\mu `$. However, the effect of filled LL on pairing is noninvertible in the sense that the converse effect that filled LL affects unpaired composite fermions to form a pair do not occur. But the converse effect is inevitable when $`Q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ form a representation. To avoid it, we may take $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ as a fermionic central extension of an ordinary supersymmetry algebra as follows:

$`[P^\mu ,P^\nu ]=0,\{Q,Q\}=2\gamma _\mu P^\mu ,[P^\mu ,Q]=2i\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{~}{Q},`$ (2)
where we set $`\gamma ^0=\gamma ^1=\gamma _0=\gamma _1=1`$. Other commutatators are all set to zero. These commutation relations satisfy the Jacobi identity and form a graded Lie algebra. We may define an invariant metric by the trace

$`\mathrm{Tr}(P^\mu P^\nu )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta ^{\mu \nu },\mathrm{Tr}(\stackrel{~}{Q}Q)={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}.`$ (3)
In (2), supercharges appear unsymmetrically. To treat them in a symmetric way, we may take a basis in spin by $`Q^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(Q+\stackrel{~}{Q}),Q^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(Q\stackrel{~}{Q})`$. Similar enlarged gauge symmetry has been known in supergravity  and also studied in the relation between CS theory and superstring theories .

The one-form gauge field has the expansion

$`𝒜=iA^\mu P_\mu +\psi Q\stackrel{~}{\psi }\stackrel{~}{Q},`$ (4)
where $`A^\mu `$ is U(1) gauge field, $`\psi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ are real fermionic gauge fields. We consider the CS action for $`𝒜`$ ( with $`k=1`$ ),

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \mathrm{Tr}(𝒜d𝒜+\frac{2}{3}𝒜^3)}`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}A^\mu }dA_\mu +i\stackrel{~}{\psi }d\psi +i\psi \gamma ^\mu \psi A_\mu .`$ (6)
The coupling to a source is achieved by the addition of a term $`𝒥𝒜`$. The field equation is $`d𝒜+[𝒜,𝒜]=𝒥`$, which is in components

$`dA^\mu `$ $`+`$ $`i\psi \gamma ^\mu \psi =J^\mu ,d(\psi _{}+\psi _{})=J_Q,`$ (7)
$`d(\psi _{}`$ $``$ $`\psi _{})2(\psi _{}+\psi _{})\gamma ^\mu A_\mu =J_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}.`$ (8)
The third equation tells that when two sources with fermions with opposite spins get closer, they will be deflected by the bosonic gauge fields. This is a kind of dynamics supposed to happen in the permanent states.

The action has the gauge symmetry $`\delta 𝒜=d\mathrm{\Lambda }+[𝒜,\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ on a closed space. However on a space with boundary such as cylinder, it is necessary to add a boundary action. We will now show that it actually coincides with the action of $`\mathrm{CFT}_2`$ of the permanent state. To derive it, we note that the field equation with no source is solved by $`𝒜_\alpha =𝒰^1_\alpha 𝒰,𝒰=\mathrm{exp}(X),X=i\phi ^\mu P_\mu +i\theta Qi\stackrel{~}{\theta }\stackrel{~}{Q}`$. In components, $`A_\alpha ^\mu =_\alpha \phi ^\mu i\theta \gamma ^\mu _\alpha \theta ,\psi _\alpha =_\alpha \theta ,\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\alpha =_\alpha \stackrel{~}{\theta }+\gamma ^\mu \theta _\alpha \phi _\mu \gamma ^\mu _\alpha \theta \phi _\mu `$. By using the solution, we get the boundary action for the cylinder ($`g_+=g_+=1`$)

$`S_\mathrm{B}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \{A_+^\mu A_\mu +i\psi ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{\psi }_\alpha \}d^2\sigma }+i{\displaystyle ϵ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }\psi _\alpha \gamma _\mu \psi _\beta A_\gamma ^\mu d^3\sigma }`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }\{(_+\phi ^\mu i\theta \gamma ^\mu _+\theta )(_{}\phi _\mu i\theta \gamma _\mu _{}\theta )`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`i^\alpha \theta [_\alpha \stackrel{~}{\theta }+\gamma ^\mu \theta _\alpha \phi _\mu \gamma ^\mu _\alpha \theta \phi _\mu ]iϵ^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha \phi ^\mu \theta \gamma _\mu _\beta \theta \}d^2\sigma .`$ (11)
Calculation shows that some terms including four fermi terms cancel. Then we have

$`S_\mathrm{B}={\displaystyle \{_+\phi ^\mu _{}\phi _\mu +i^\alpha \theta _\alpha \stackrel{~}{\theta }iϵ^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha \phi ^\mu \theta \gamma _\mu _\beta \theta \}d^2\sigma }.`$ (12)
In (12), we notice that a field redefinition of $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }+\theta F`$ generates a term similar to the last one. By taking $`F`$ satisfying $`_\alpha F=\gamma ^\mu ϵ_{\alpha \beta }^\beta \varphi _\mu `$, we end up with

$`S_\mathrm{B}={\displaystyle \{_+\phi ^\mu _{}\phi _\mu +i^\alpha \theta _\alpha \stackrel{~}{\theta }\}d^2\sigma }.`$ (13)
This is the action for $`\mathrm{CFT}_2`$ of the $`\nu =1`$ permanent state. For the $`\nu =1/q`$ state, we add additional CS term $`\frac{p}{2}A^1dA^1`$ to the Lagrangian. This is because $`A^1`$ gives rise to the Laughlin-Jastrow factor for filled LL in the ground state wave function which, for the Laughlin state, comes from the CS field for flux attachment.

The field redefinition to get the action (13) spoils the explicit relation between the local supersymmetry and the global supersymmetry $`Q_{\mathrm{global}}^a,P_{\mathrm{global}}^0,P_{\mathrm{global}}^1`$. But the correspondence can be given by characterizing representations by the charges under two U(1) symmetries and the fermions.

Thus we have shown that the CS theory based on the algebra (2) leads to the correct $`\mathrm{CFT}_2`$ of the permanent QH state. This implies that it is a proper field theory for the state. For $`\mathrm{CFT}_{1+1}`$, we should take the corresponding unitary theory which has the same partition function as the $`\mathrm{CFT}_2`$ .

(Quasi-) Particles from the Wilson lines  In Ref., it was realized that earlier concept of flux attachment  is promoted to vortex attachment. This is natural from the CS field theoretic point of view since composite (quasi-)particles can now be expressed by the Wilson lines. This is readily extended to our case.

The Wilson line in our system is

$`W=\mathrm{Tr}_{}P\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle _C}𝒜)`$ (14)
where $`P`$ indicates the path-ordered product, $`C`$ is a contour and $`\mathrm{Tr}_{}`$ is the trace for a representation of $``$ of the source. Wave functions are obtained as an expectation value in the presence of $`W`$ with the position braket at a time slice. For $`N`$ Wilson lines, their current is a sum of delta functions at their contours $`𝒥=_{i=1}^Nj^sT_s\delta (C_i)`$ where $`T_s`$ represents the generators of the gauge group. We identify the species of Wilson lines by their representation under $`Q_{\mathrm{global}}^a,P_{\mathrm{global}}^0`$ and $`P_{\mathrm{global}}^1`$, denoting them by the fermions and the charges as $`(\psi _s^a,q^0,q^1)`$. Here $`s`$ represents the holonomy for the fermion.

First of all, we consider $`(\psi _\mathrm{R}^{},1,q),(\psi _\mathrm{R}^{},1,q)`$ where $`R`$ represents the trivial holonomy. From the relation between CS theory and the $`\mathrm{CFT}_2`$, these Wilson lines correspond to $`\theta ^{}e^\varphi e^{i\sqrt{q}\phi },\theta ^{}e^\varphi e^{i\sqrt{q}\phi }`$ i.e. composite fermions in the system. The ground state of the permanent QH state for $`2N`$ electrons is obtained as a collection of $`N`$ $`(\psi _\mathrm{R}^{},1,q)`$ and $`N`$ $`(\psi _\mathrm{R}^{},1,q)`$ (with uniform background field for $`A^1`$).

Let us next consider quasiparticles. For the paired state, the elementary quasiparticle will appear with flux halved. It is a configuration of $`A^1`$ with a holonomy $`e^{i\pi }`$. Also such quasiparticle generates a non-trivial phase shift for $`A^0`$ or $`\psi ^a`$. As shown in Ref., the consistency of the edge theory admits the existence of such a configuration only for $`\psi ^a`$. For $`\psi ^a`$, the holonomy in the configuration is $`e^{i\pi }`$. We denote this species as $`\psi _{\mathrm{NS}}`$. Thus the elementary quasiparticle and quasihole are characterized as the species $`(\psi _{NS}^a,0,1)`$, $`(\psi _{NS}^a,0,1)`$.

It is possible to characterize the paired condensate by gauge symmetry breaking. For FQHE at N=0 LL, U(1) gauge symmetry is spontaneously broken by the condensation of composite boson . In our case, two species of composite fermions condensate. The super gauge symmetry is divided into two parts one of which vanishes in the configuration of one species of composite fermion. A collection of one species breaks half of the super gauge symmetry. When both species are present, both parts of the super gauge symmetry are broken.

We also note that half of the supersymmetry which doesn’t vanish in the configuration of one species of composite fermion produce a fermionic zero mode in the configuration. The configuration with a fermionic zero mode gives the remaining species of quasiparticle in the system. It corresponds to the logarithmic field in the $`\mathrm{CFT}_2`$.

Hierarchy The construction we have considered can be extended to hierarchical scheme. As in FQHE at N=0 LL, we introduce $`m`$ kinds of flux described by $`m`$ U(1) CS gauge field $`A^l(l=1,\mathrm{},m).`$ The couplings between $`\phi _i`$ are specified by an integer matrix $`K`$ . The Jain’s hierarchy is obtained by taking $`K`$ as $`K_{ln}=\pm \delta _{ln}+pC_{ln}`$ where $`p`$ is an even integer and $`C_{ln}=1`$ for $`l,n=1,\mathrm{},m`$. The filling fraction is given by $`\nu =m/(mp\pm 1)`$. As shown in , this system of U(1) CS fields is equivalent to the system of SU(m) CS field at level 1 and U(1) CS field at level $`1/\nu `$. As above, we extend this U(1) symmetry to (2) by introducing fermionic CS fields $`\psi `$, $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ and bosonic field $`A^0`$. The composite fermions are expressed by the Wilson lines of $`(\psi ^{},\mathrm{𝟏},1,1/\nu ),(\psi ^{},\mathrm{𝟏},1,1/\nu )`$ where $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ stands for the fundamental representation of SU(m). The quasiparticles under the presence of the collection of composite fermions reproduce the ones given in .

The Haldane-Rezayi state Let us turn to the $`\nu =1/p`$ HR state. The permanent state is formed by integer QHE (IQHE) on the HR state. Then, for the HR state, one expect that $`Q`$ and $`P`$ may be decoupled since no LL for composite fermion is formed there. This may be simulated by scaling $`P`$ to zero. However it also requires the vanishment of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ through the algebra (2), thus does not lead to a sensible construction.

Actually alternative viewpoint is possible: the HR state is a permanent QH state with IQHE turned off. This results in an algebraic relation of wave functions. It is known that the determinant of the HR wave function and the permanent factor of the permanent state wave function have a simple relation

$`\mathrm{det}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{(z_i^{}z_j^{})^2}}\right)=\mathrm{per}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_i^{}z_j^{}}}\right)\mathrm{det}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_i^{}z_j^{}}}\right).`$ (15)
Here $`\mathrm{det}\left(\frac{1}{z_i^{}z_j^{}}\right)`$ is interpreted as the factor to ‘turn off‘ IQHE. It is the same as the pairing part of the 331 state , and thus arises from the U(1) CS theory at level 1. Its generator actually coincides with $`P^1`$ in the algebra (2). For the permanent QH state, we also took $`P^1`$ to implement the even number of flux for composite fermion. For the HR state, we do not do so not to change the level of the U(1) CS gauge field. Thus we take the algebra (2) for the gauge symmetry of the pairing part only, and take another U(1) CS field $`A^2`$ at level $`p`$ for the flux of composite fermion. Composite fermions are given by the Wilson lines of $`(\psi _R^{},1,1,p)`$ and $`(\psi _R^{},1,1,p)`$

At first sight, it does not correspond to the known $`c=2+1`$ $`\mathrm{CFT}_2`$ of the HR state since it contains additional two bosons for pairing part and gives $`c=0+1`$. Evidences that it actually does describe the HR state are in order.

First the chiral operator product algebra (OPA) generated by the CS theory coincides with the known OPA of the HR state. Since the OPA determines the correlation between quasiparticles, their statistics and topological order, it implies that the proposed theory is describing the HR state. Also the cylinder partition function generated by the OPA using the fermionic character formula agrees with the one for $`\mathrm{CFT}_2`$ except for the contribution from the central charge.

Second evidence is concerned with the central charge. In Ref., it was shown that the so-called ‘flaming‘ dependence of the phase of the partition function of a CS theory determines the central charge. For convenience, we take the large $`k`$ limit and consider one-loop calculation. It involves the determinant of the fermions. The proposed model has a nice feature that the fermions couples to the bosonic CS fields off-diagonally, thus the absolute value of the fermion determinant and the determinant from boson cancel in the pairing part. Thus the flaming dependence of the pairing part comes only from the phase of the fermion determinant and gives $`c=2`$. This value of the central charge is also necessary to achieve the modular invariance of the cylinder partition function by the twisting mechanism of Ref., since, otherwise, each part of the partition function wouldn’t transform linearly under the modular transformations. This indicates the necessity of a correction to the naive counting of the central charge in the extended version of the CS-CFT correspondence. For the permanent state, half of the phase dependence is shown to be canceled by the boson determinant, and thus the flaming dependence tells that it has $`c=1+1`$. These calculations are expected to be one-loop exact by virtue of supersymmetry. The flaming dependences also indicate the consistency of our proposal.

In this theory, spin degrees of freedom interact with the U(1) CS field. It is expected as in Ref. for the permanent QH states, but is unexpected for the HR state. The algebra (2) may be intrinsic to spin-singlet pairing.

We remark that the characterization of the paired condensate via spontaneous breaking of the super gauge symmetry is valid also for the HR state. Accordingly the concept of composite particle may be modified. At $`\nu =1/2`$, composite fermion is formed by electron and vortex while, at $`\nu =5/2`$, composite fermion may be formed by electron and supersymmetric vortex (Fig.1).

Discussions We add a matter to our theory by the Wilson lines, which may be suitable for an application to knot theory. It is also possible to couple a second-quantized matter by the supermultiplet containing complex boson while respecting the local symmetry. We plan to address a precise formulation in a subsequent paper. Such a formulation enables a quantitative study of the dynamical mechanism of pair formation while qualitative behavior can be deduced within our approach as we now describe.

Perturbative treatment of quasiparticle at the $`\nu =1/2`$ state  is justified by the renormalization group flow of a scaling onto the Fermi surface  with the proviso of renormalization of the effective mass. Based on this, in Ref., it was shown that the U(1) CS field is highly pair breaking. For the Coulomb interaction, one must resort to a softening of the interaction by the thickness of real specimen for pairing to occur.

Now let us apply the same method to our case. In our case, strong fluctuation of the U(1) CS gauge field for a spin-singlet pair is suppressed by the contribution from the fermionic gauge field for spin. Thus the pair breaking effect is largely tamed for the spin-singlet pair. This reduction of pair breaking effect of composite fermions suggests a similar mechanism at the microscopic level. Actually an example of such mechanism is already known : the HC model . There the pairing is induced by the reduction of zero-th order pseudopotential between electrons. Our observation implies that, if a HC-like model is really valid at N=1 LL, it should involve spin as its essential cause. Indeed, tilted field experiments have been suggesting that the spin degrees of freedom may be important at N=1 LL.

Finally it may be interesting to apply our construction to similar planer systems such as given in Ref.. We plan to address this issue .

Acknowledgement The author is grateful to Mahito Kohmoto for useful discussions and to Takashi Nakano at RCNP of Osaka University for correspondence.


format: text

text:
# Control of open quantum system dynamics

## Abstract

We investigate the control resources needed to effect arbitrary quantum dynamics. We show that the ability to perform measurements on a quantum system, combined with the ability to feed back the measurement results via coherent control, allows one to control the system to follow any desired open-system evolution. Such universal control can be achieved, in principle, through the repeated application of only two coherent control operations and a simple “Yes-No” measurement.

03.65.Bz, 05.30.-d, 89.70.+c

Ever since the discovery of quantum mechanics more than a century ago, the problem of controlling quantum systems has been an important experimental issue . A variety of techniques are available for controlling quantum systems, and a detailed theory of quantum control has been developed . Methods of geometric and coherent control are particularly powerful for controlling the coherent dynamics of quantum systems . In coherent control, a series of semiclassical potentials described by Hamiltonians $`\{H_i\}`$ are applied to the system. A basic result in coherent control is that, for a finite dimensional quantum system, only a small set of Hamiltonians is required to enact any desired unitary transformation on the system . In general, only two different Hamiltonians will suffice to achieve such universal control . Thus, arbitrarily complicated time evolutions can be built up out of simple building blocks.

In this Letter we investigate the corresponding question for open-system, incoherent dynamics. Can an arbitrarily complicated open-system dynamics be built up by applying coherent control together with only a few basic open-system operations? Unlike the case of Hamiltonian dynamics, where complete control can be attained purely in terms of open-loop manipulations as implied above, this turns out to be possible only if closed-loop control (i.e., feedback) is allowed. We show that only one simple coupling to a measurement apparatus, combined with the ability to coherently manipulate the system and feed back the measurement results by the repeated application of a few basic control operations, allows one to enact arbitrary open-system dynamics.

Let us first review the basic result of coherent control theory mentioned above. Consider an $`n`$-dimensional quantum system, $`S`$, and suppose that one can apply potentials corresponding to a set of Hamiltonians $`\{\pm H_i\}`$, so that one can apply unitary operators of the form $`e^{\pm iH_{i_n}t_n}\mathrm{}e^{\pm H_{i_1}t_1}`$. Note that $`e^{iH_2\mathrm{\Delta }t}e^{iH_1\mathrm{\Delta }t}e^{iH_2\mathrm{\Delta }t}e^{iH_1\mathrm{\Delta }t}=e^{[H_1,H_2]\mathrm{\Delta }t^2}+O(\mathrm{\Delta }t^3)`$, where $`[H_1,H_2]`$ is the commutator of $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$. Repeating this procedure shows that applying Hamiltonians from the set allows one to enact any coherent evolution of the form $`e^{iAt}`$, where $`A`$ belongs to the algebra generated from the set by commutation. The time evolution is stroboscopic, matching up to the desired one at discrete intervals, and approximate. But the error of approximation can be made as small as desired by making $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ sufficiently small. Since typically only a small number of Hamiltonians (two, e.g.) are required to generate all possible Hamiltonians via commutation, arbitrary coherent transformations can be built up from a small set of simple building blocks. This coherent control technique is open-loop because no information about the state of the system is required to enforce the desired dynamics.

Now consider open-system dynamics. The simplest way to describe an open quantum system is to embed it in a closed quantum system. Let the quantum system and environment be described by a joint density matrix $`\rho _{SE}`$. The time evolution of $`\rho _{SE}`$ is given by a unitary transformation $`\rho _{SE}U\rho _{SE}U^{}`$. Before the transformation the system on its own is described by a reduced density matrix $`\rho _S=\mathrm{tr}_E\rho _{SE}`$. Afterward, its state is $`\mathrm{tr}_EU\rho _{SE}U^{}`$. It is then immediately clear that if one has the ability to enact any coherent transformation on the system and environment taken together, then one can enact any desired open-system transformation of the system on its own .

In general, however, one does not have control over the system’s environment, but only over the system itself. If the system and the environment are initially uncorrelated, so that $`\rho _{SE}(0)=\rho _S\rho _E`$, the time evolution of $`S`$ can be described by a completely-positive, trace-preserving map $`\rho _S_kA_k\rho _SA_k^{}`$, where $`_kA_k^{}A_k=𝟙`$ and the so-called Kraus operators $`A_k`$ can be derived from the embedding of the previous paragraph . The most general infinitesimal limit of such a time evolution is given by the Lindblad equation :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho _S}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`i[H,\rho _S]`$ (1)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}a_{ij}\left(F_i^{}F_j\rho _S+\rho _SF_i^{}F_j2F_j\rho _SF_i^{}\right),`$ (2)
where $`H=H^{}`$ is the effective system Hamiltonian (the natural Hamiltonian possibly renormalized by a Lamb-shift term), $`\{F_i\}`$ is a basis for the space of bounded traceless operators on $`S`$, and $`𝙰=𝙰^{}=\{a_{ij}\}`$ is a positive semi-definite matrix. After diagonalizing $`𝙰`$, Eq. (2) can be cast in the equivalent canonical form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho _S}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`i[H,\rho _S]`$ (3)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left(L_k^{}L_k\rho _S+\rho _SL_k^{}L_k2L_k\rho _SL_k^{}\right),`$ (4)
for a set of bounded, traceless Lindblad operators $`\{L_k\}`$ . The Lindblad equation is a Markovian master equation that defines a quantum dynamical semigroup: integrating the Lindblad equation over time $`t`$ defines an open-system transformation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t\mathrm{\Lambda }_s=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{t+s}`$ for $`t,s0`$.

Suppose that, in analogy with the infinitesimal open-loop prescription of the closed-system case, one attempts to build up arbitrary open-system evolutions by applying coherent operations associated with Hamiltonians $`\{H_i\}`$ together with some set of open-system infinitesimal operations described by Lindblad operators $`\{L_k\}`$. Clearly, the implementation of the coherent part of the dynamics, corresponding to $`H`$, poses no problem. However, one quickly arrives at an impasse while trying to enact the open-system operation corresponding to an arbitrary $`𝙰`$, as the infinitesimal transformations $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}`$ are not invertible in general. This has a drastic effect in determining the set of matrices $`𝙰`$ that can be reached by composition of infinitesimal open-loop transformations. If we can apply infinitesimal operations corresponding to two different Lindblad equations specified by $`𝙰`$ and $`𝙰^{}`$, then we can generate an infinitesimal operation corresponding to $`𝙰+𝙰^{}`$. But it is not in general possible to build up an arbitrary positive semi-definite matrix by adding together a finite set of positive semi-definite matrices. Indeed, it has been shown recently that even in the case of a simple two-state quantum system a continuous set of distinct non-unitary open-loop transformations is required to generate an arbitrary Markovian dynamics .

Turn now to closed-loop control. In closed-loop control one performs measurements on the system and feeds back the results of these measurements by applying operations that are a function of the measurement results. Although both the system and the measurement apparatus are quantum-mechanical in principle, the feedback operations we consider here involve feeding back classical, not quantum information. The case of feeding back quantum information via fully coherent quantum feedback was addressed in . Note that closed-loop control is intrinsically non-Markovian in that the feedback loop retains memory of the system’s state at previous times . As will now be shown, such non-Markovian feature is essential to allow for the generation of arbitrary open-system dynamics, including arbitrary Markovian Lindblad evolutions, based on a few simple operations.

To analyze closed-loop control, we need to describe quantum measurements. Quantum measurement is a special case of an open-system time evolution. A generalized quantum measurement can always be described by letting the system to be measured interact with an auxiliary environment (or ancilla) and then performing a conventional von Neumann measurement on the latter . In terms of Kraus operators, a generalized measurement corresponds to a set of operators $`A_{km}`$ such that $`_{km}A_{km}^{}A_{km}=𝟙`$. Suppose that the state of $`S`$ is $`\rho _S`$ as above. The measurement then gives the result $`k`$ with probability $`p_k=\mathrm{tr}_mA_{km}\rho _SA_{km}^{}`$, leaving $`S`$ in the state $`\rho _k=_mA_{km}\rho _SA_{km}^{}/p_k`$. The information that can be gathered about a quantum system is maximized for so-called “pure” measurements , in which case a single value value of $`m`$ occurs. We will restrict to pure measurements henceforth.

A particularly interesting class of pure measurements occurs when the Kraus operators are positive (hence Hermitian). Such measurements, which can be realized by coupling the system to a suitable “pointer variable” of the measuring apparatus, are the “least disturbing” measurements that can be effected on $`S`$ . As such, they supply a natural analogue of von Neumann’s model of projective measurements. Suppose that one can perform such a generalized measurement corresponding to a set of positive operators $`B_k`$, and feed back the results by applying a coherent transformation $`U_k`$ when the $`k`$-th outcome is found. The net effect on the system is to apply the transformation

$$\rho _S\underset{k}{}U_kB_k\rho _SB_k^{}U_k^{}.$$
(5)
That is, feedback gives rise to an open-system operation corresponding to Kraus operators $`A_k=U_kB_k`$. But, from the polar decomposition theorem, any operator can be written $`A_k=U_k|A_k|`$, where $`|A_k|=\sqrt{A_k^{}A_k}`$ is positive and $`U_k`$ is defined to be $`𝟙`$ on the kernel $`𝒦`$ of $`A_k`$ and $`A_k|A_k|^1`$ on the orthogonal subspace $`𝒦^{}`$ . As a consequence, the ability to make a generalized measurement corresponding to an arbitrary positive operator ($`|A_k|`$) together with the ability to apply an arbitrary coherent unitary transformation conditioned on the result of that measurement ($`U_k`$), allows one to enact an arbitrary open-system operation ($`A_k=U_k|A_k|`$).

The polar decomposition provides a natural separation of a general quantum operation in terms of a measurement step, followed by a feedback step. This decomposition, which has been implicitly used throughout the history of quantum measurement , has recently proven useful to investigate the trade-off between information and disturbance in quantum feedback control . In our context, since we have assumed the ability to build up arbitrary coherent transformations, we need only to find a way to perform measurements corresponding to arbitrary positive operators in order to enact an arbitrary open-system time evolution.

Consider the simplest possible example of a quantum measurement, a so-called “Yes-No” measurement  in which the measurement apparatus $`M`$ consists of a single two-level quantum system with states $`|0`$, $`|1`$. Assume that $`\rho _M=|00|`$ initially, and couple the system to the apparatus via an interaction Hamiltonian $`H=\gamma XY`$, where $`\gamma >0`$ is a coupling constant, and $`X`$, $`Y`$ are Hermitian operators acting on $`S`$, $`M`$ respectively. We choose $`X`$ to be a positive operator projecting onto a pure state of $`S`$, and let $`Y=|01|+|10|=\sigma _x`$. The state of the system and apparatus after they interact for a time $`t`$ is

$`\rho _{SM}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\mathrm{cos}(\gamma tX)i\mathrm{sin}(\gamma tX)\sigma _x\right)\rho _S\rho _M`$ (7)
$`\left(\mathrm{cos}(\gamma tX)+i\mathrm{sin}(\gamma tX)\sigma _x\right).`$
Now make a von Neumann measurement of $`0,1`$ on the ancilla. The result $`0`$ occurs with probability $`p_0=\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{cos}^2(\gamma tX)\rho _S`$, in which case $`S`$ is in the state $`\rho _0=\mathrm{cos}(\gamma tX)\rho _S\mathrm{cos}(\gamma tX)/p_0`$. The result $`1`$ occurs with probability $`p_1=\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{sin}^2(\gamma tX)\rho _S`$, leaving $`S`$ in the state $`\rho _1=\mathrm{sin}(\gamma tX)\rho _S\mathrm{sin}(\gamma tX)/p_1`$. In other words, this Yes-No measurement corresponds to Hermitian Kraus operators $`\mathrm{cos}(\gamma tX),\mathrm{sin}(\gamma tX)`$.

The ability to perform arbitrary coherent transformations on the system can now be used to transform this simple Yes-No measurement into an arbitrary Yes-No measurement. This can be accomplished by applying an average Hamiltonian technique  during the system’s coupling to the auxiliary quantum system in the course of the measurement. Before the von Neumann measurement is made on the ancilla, perform the following sequence of rapid coherent transformations on the system: Apply a unitary transformation $`V_1`$, wait for a time $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$, then perform the transformation $`V_1^{}`$; now apply a second transformation $`V_2`$, wait for a time $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$, and perform the transformation $`V_2^{}`$; etc., for $`N`$ periods. Assume that the $`V_i`$’s are effected on a time scale short compared with the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$, and let $`_i\mathrm{\Delta }_i=\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. Repeat $`N=t/\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ times. If $`N`$ is large, then to lowest order in $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ the net effect of these repeated transformations is to replace $`X`$ in Eq. (7) by $`\overline{X}=_i(\mathrm{\Delta }_i/\mathrm{\Delta }t)V_i^{}XV_i`$.

Starting from a given projector $`X`$ onto a pure state, any positive operator with unit trace can be written in the form $`\overline{X}`$ for some $`V_i`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i0`$. But with an appropriate choice of the operator $`\overline{X}`$, and the parameters $`\gamma `$, $`t`$, any pair of positive Kraus operators can be represented in the form $`B_0=\mathrm{cos}(\gamma t\overline{X})`$, $`B_1=\mathrm{sin}(\gamma t\overline{X})`$. So our simple measurement procedure together with the ability to perform coherent control translates into the ability to make arbitrary two-outcome minimally disturbing measurements.

Now add feedback. Performing the von Neumann measurement on the ancilla and feeding back the result of of the measurement by applying $`U_0`$ if the result is $`0`$ and $`U_1`$ if the result is $`1`$ gives an open-system time evolution $`\rho _SA_0\rho _SA_0^{}+A_1\rho _SA_1^{}`$, where $`A_0=U_0\mathrm{cos}(\gamma t\overline{X})`$ and $`A_1=U_1\mathrm{sin}(\gamma t\overline{X})`$. But, by polar decomposition, any set of two Kraus operators can be written in this form. As a result, the ability to perform coherent control combined with the ability to perform a single, simple measurement on the system translates into the ability to enact an arbitrary two-operator open-system time evolution.

Generalized measurements with more than two outcomes can be constructed in a straightforward way . For example, if one can make measurements corresponding to arbitrary $`A_0,A_1`$, a measurement corresponding to arbitrary Hermitian $`B_0,B_1,B_2`$, with $`B_0^2+B_1^2+B_2^2=𝟙`$, can be enacted as follows. Perform a measurement corresponding to $`B_0,B_1^{}=\sqrt{B_1^2+B_2^2}`$. If the result of this measurement is $`0`$, do nothing. If the result of this measurement is $`1`$, perform a second measurement corresponding to $`A_0=B_1B_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$, $`A_1=B_2B_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ (note that $`B_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ is well-defined on the set of states that result when the first measurement has outcome $`1`$). This measurement is generally not Hermitian, but the previous paragraph shows that we can do arbitrary generalized measurements with two outcomes. The outcome $`0`$ then corresponds to $`B_0`$, the outcome $`10`$ corresponds to $`B_1`$, and the outcome $`11`$ corresponds to $`B_2`$. Arbitrary measurements with multiple (possibly non-Hermitian) outcomes can be built up by allowing feedback and by following an analogous procedure.

To summarize, the ability to perform a single simple measurement on the system, together with the ability to apply coherent control to feed back the measurement results, allows one to enact an arbitrary finite-time open-system evolution $`\rho _S_kA_k\rho _SA_k^{}`$.

Now turn to the case of infinitesimal open-system time evolutions governed by the Lindblad equation. To address infinitesimal time evolutions, we can imagine that the interaction between the system and the ancilla representing the measurement apparatus only takes place for a short period of time. Accordingly, the unitary propagator $`\mathrm{exp}(iHt)`$ evolving the system and apparatus together can be expanded to second order in time. By writing $`H=\gamma XY`$ as above, one gets

$`\rho _{SM}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _S\rho _Mi\gamma t(X\rho _SY\rho _M\rho _SX\rho _MY)`$ (8)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2t^2}{2}}(X^2\rho _SY^2\rho _M2X\rho _SXY\rho _MY`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`\rho _SX^2\rho _MY^2).`$ (10)
The time evolution for the system on its own is obtained by tracing over the measurement apparatus and taking the small-time limit (i.e., $`t`$ small but finite ). This results in the Lindblad equation for the system,

$$\frac{d\rho _S}{dt}=ia[X,\rho _S]b(X^2\rho _S2X\rho _SX+\rho _SX^2),$$
(11)
where $`a=\gamma \mathrm{tr}_MY\rho _M=0`$ and $`b=(\gamma ^2t/2)\mathrm{tr}_MY^2\rho _M`$ = $`\gamma ^2t/2`$ for $`\rho _M=|00|`$, $`Y=\sigma _x`$. That is, comparing with (4), the simple coupling above results in a single Lindblad operator $`L=\sqrt{2b}X`$.

To complete the infinitesimal measurement and feed back the classical information, continue just as in the non-infinitesimal case, by making a von Neumann measurement on the auxiliary system. If the result is $`0`$, do nothing; if the result is $`1`$, apply the coherent transformation $`U`$ to $`S`$. By using Eq. (10) and tracing over $`M`$, the resulting state of the system is

$$\rho _S(t)=\rho _S\frac{\gamma ^2t^2}{2}\left(X^2\rho _S2UX\rho _SXU^{}+\rho _SX^2\right).$$
(12)
In the small-time limit, this gives rise to a Lindblad equation (4) with $`L=\sqrt{2b}UX`$. That is, feeding back the result of the infinitesimal measurement yields a Lindblad equation with a single Lindblad operator proportional to $`UX`$, where $`X`$ is a unit-trace positive operator and $`U`$ is of our choosing.

The average Hamiltonian techniques described above can now be used to construct an infinitesimal measurement corresponding to an arbitrary positive operator $`\overline{X}`$. Here, care must be taken to insure that the sequence of average Hamiltonian operations $`V_i`$ can be performed within the small “coarse-graining” time $`t`$ above. Note that what is important in the derivation of the Lindblad equation (11) is not that $`t`$ be small but rather that $`\gamma t`$ be small: accordingly, even though the relevant control time scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is not vanishingly small, $`\gamma `$ can always be made sufficiently small that the averaging operations can be fit within a time $`t`$ for which the derivation holds. Feeding back the results of the measurement allows one to enact a Lindblad equation governed by an arbitrary single Lindblad operator $`L=\sqrt{2b}U\overline{X}`$.

The same conclusion could have been also established directly from the ability to implement arbitrary two-operator open-system evolutions. In fact, in the small-time limit discussed above, the quantum operation specified by $`A_0=U_0\mathrm{cos}(\gamma t\overline{X})`$ $`𝟙(\gamma ^\mathrm{𝟚}𝕥^\mathrm{𝟚}/\mathrm{𝟚})\overline{𝕏}^\mathrm{𝟚}`$, $`A_1=U_1\mathrm{sin}(\gamma t\overline{X})`$ $`\gamma tU_1\overline{X}`$, with $`U_0=𝟙,𝕌_\mathrm{𝟙}=𝕌`$, is formally equivalent to the Lindblad equation (4) with $`L=\sqrt{2b}U\overline{X}`$. In terms of the matrix A appearing in (2), the ability to generate an arbitrary Lindblad operator $`L=_ic_iF_i`$, $`c_i𝐂`$, translates into the ability to generate any rank-one matrix $`𝙰=\{c_ic_j^{}\}`$ . As noted above, Lindblad equations with multiple $`L_k`$ can be enacted by performing the operations corresponding to each of the $`L_k`$ in succession. So by making a simple infinitesimal measurement, manipulating it by average Hamiltonian techniques, and coherently feeding back the results of the measurement, one can enact in principle an arbitrary Lindblad equation. The enactment is scaled in time, stroboscopic, and approximate, but the scaled time interval of the stroboscopic evolution and the error in the approximation can be made as small as possible by increasing the number of control operations per step.

In conclusion, coherent control combined with feedback allows one to enact an arbitrary open quantum system dynamics. In contrast to the case of closed quantum systems, in which an arbitrary Hamiltonian time evolution can be enacted using only a few open-loop operations, the open-loop control of open-system dynamics requires in general an infinite repertoire of independent operations. But closing the loop and feeding back the results of the measurements allows any desired open-system transformation to be enacted using only the coherent tools required for Hamiltonian control together with a single, simple quantum measurement. The ability to implement a similar control strategy in the appropriate small-time limit allows the construction of any desired continuous-time Markovian evolution described by a Lindblad master equation as well.

This work was supported by DARPA/ARO under the QUIC initiative.
Corresponding author: slloyd@mit.edu