text:
# The Energy of a Dyonic Dilaton Black Hole

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The energy-momentum localization has been a problematic issue since the outset of the theory of relativity. A large number of definitions of the gravitational energy have been given since now. Some of them are coordinate independent and other are coordinate-dependent. An adequate coordinate-independent prescription for energy-momentum localization for all the type of space-times has not given yet in General Relativity.

We remark that it is possible to evaluate the energy and momentum distribution by using various energy-momentum complexes. The physical interpretation of these nontensorial energy-momentum complexes have been questioned by a number of physicists, including Weyl, Pauli and Eddington. There prevails suspicion that different energy-momentum complexes could give different energy distributions in a given space-time. Virbhadra and his collaborators have considered many space-times and have shown that several energy-momentum complexes give the same and acceptable result for a given space-time.

Many authors obtained dilaton black hole solutions and studied theirs properties -. Garfinkle, Horowitz and Strominger (GHS)  obtained a form of static spherically symmetric charged dilaton black hole solutions which exhibit several different properties compared to the Reissner-Nordström (RN) black holes. In their theory the gravity is coupled to the electromagnetic and dilaton fields and can be described by the four-dimensional effective string action.

Chamorro and Virbhadra  obtained in the Einstein’s prescription the energy of a charged dilaton black hole based on the GHS  solutions. They found that the energy distribution which has the expression $`E(r)=M\frac{Q^2}{2r}(1\beta ^2)`$, depends on the mass $`M`$, electric charge $`Q_e`$ and the coupling parameter $`\beta `$ between the dilaton and the Maxwell fields. For the value $`\beta =0`$ they obtained the energy distribution in the Reissner-Nordström (RN) field. Also, only for $`\beta =1`$ the energy is confined to its interior, and for all other values of $`\beta `$ the energy is shared by the interior and exterior of the black holes. The total energy of the charged dilaton black hole is independent of $`\beta `$ and is given by the mass parameter of the black hole. With increasing the radial distance, $`E(r)`$ increases for $`\beta =0`$ (RN metric) as well for $`\beta <1`$, decreases for $`\beta >1`$, and remains constant for $`\beta =1`$.

S. S. Xulu  get the same energy distribution as Chamorro and Virbhadra  by using the Tolman’s prescription. The energy distribution that is given by $`E(r)=M\frac{Q^2}{2r}(1\beta ^2)`$ can be interpreted as the ”effective gravitational mass” that a neutral test particle ”feels” in the GHS space-time. Also, the ”effective gravitational mass” becomes negative at radial distances less than $`\frac{Q^2}{2M}(1\beta ^2)`$.

Virbhadra and Parikh  investigated, in the Einstein’s prescription , the energy of a static spherically symmetric charged dilaton black hole and found that the entire energy is confined to its interior with no energy shared by the exterior of the black hole. This result is similar to the case of the Schwarzschild black hole and unlike the RN black hole.

Cheng, Lin and Hsu (CLH)  using the standard spherical coordinate system which is more suitable for describing the structure of the charged dilaton black hole, obtained the more general solutions which are the dyonic dilaton black hole solutions. The GHS solutions can be obtained from the CLH solutions as special cases when electric or magnetic charges are switched off.

I-Ching Yang, Ching-Tzung Yeh, Rue-Ron Hsu and Chin-Rong Lee  employing the Einstein’s energy-momentum complex obtained that the energy distribution of a dyonic dilaton black hole depends on the mass $`M`$, electric charge $`Q_e`$, magnetic charge $`Q_m`$ and asymptotic value of the dilaton $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$.

In this paper we compute the energy distribution of a dyonic dilaton black hole by using the Tolman’s prescription  . We obtain the same result as obtained by I. Ching-Yang, Ching-Tzung Yeh, Rue-Ron Hsu and Chin-Rong Lee . We also make a discussion of the results. We use the geometrized units $`(G=1,c=1)`$ and follow the convention that the Latin indices run from $`0`$ to $`3`$.

## 2 THE ENERGY DISTRIBUTION IN THE TOLMAN’S PRESCRIPTION

The static, spherical symmetric dyonic dilaton black hole solutions are in terms of the standard spherical coordinate

$$ds^2=\mathrm{\Delta }^2dt^2\frac{\sigma ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}dr^2r^2d\theta ^2r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2$$
(1)
where

$$\sigma ^2=\frac{r^2}{r^2+\lambda ^2},$$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2=1\frac{2M}{r^2}\sqrt{r^2+\lambda ^2}+\frac{\beta }{r^2},$$

$$\lambda =\frac{1}{2M}(Q_e^2e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }_0}Q_m^2e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }_0}),$$
(2)
$$\beta =Q_e^2e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }_0}+Q_m^2e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }_0},$$

$$e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}=e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }_0}(1\frac{2\lambda }{\sqrt{r^2+\lambda ^2}+\lambda }).$$

The only non-zero components of the electromagnetic field tensor are

$$F_{01}=\frac{Q_e}{r^2}e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}$$
(3)
and, respectively

$$F_{23}=\frac{Q_m}{r^2}.$$
(4)
The properties of the dyonic dilaton black holes are characterized by the mass $`M`$, electric charge $`Q_e`$, magnetic charge $`Q_m`$ and asymptotic value of the dilaton $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. Their structures are similar to that of the RN  black holes.

The Tolman’s energy-momentum complex  is given by

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_i^k=\frac{1}{8\pi }U_i^{kl},_l,$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}}`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}}`$ are the energy and momentum components.

We have

$$U_i^{kl}=\sqrt{g}(g^{pk}V_{ip}^l+\frac{1}{2}g_i^kg^{pm}V_{pm}^l),$$
(6)
with

$$V_{jk}^i=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i+\frac{1}{2}g_j^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{mk}^m+\frac{1}{2}g_k^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{mj}^m.$$
(7)
The energy-momentum complex $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_i^k`$ also satisfies the local conservation laws

$$\frac{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_i^k}{x^k}=0.$$
(8)
The Tolman’s energy-momentum complex gives the correct result if the calculations are carried out in quasi-Cartesian coordinates.

We transform the line element (1) to quasi-Cartesian coordinates $`t,x,y,z`$ according to

| $`x=r\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\phi ,`$ |
| --- |
| $`y=r\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi ,`$ |
| $`z=r\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ |

(9)
and

$$r=(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(10)
The line element (1) becomes

$$ds^2=\mathrm{\Delta }^2dt^2(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2)\frac{\sigma ^2/\mathrm{\Delta }^21}{r^2}(xdx+ydy+zdz)^2.$$
(11)
The only required components of $`U_i^{kl}`$ in the calculation of the energy are the following

$$U_0^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}01}}=\frac{x\mathrm{\Pi }}{r^2},$$

$$U_0^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}02}}=\frac{y\mathrm{\Pi }}{r^2},$$
(12)
$$U_0^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}03}}=\frac{z\mathrm{\Pi }}{r^2}.$$

In the relations (12) we denote by $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\sigma (1\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\sigma ^2}).$$
(13)
The components of the pseudotensor $`U_i^{kl}`$ are calculated with the program Maple GR Tensor II Release 1.50.

The energy and momentum in the Tolman’s prescription are given by

$$P_i=\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_i^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}}𝑑x^1𝑑x^2𝑑x^3.$$
(14)
Using the Gauss’s theorem we obtain

$$P_i=\frac{1}{8\pi }U_i^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}\alpha }n_\alpha 𝑑S,$$
(15)
where $`n_\alpha =(x/r,y/r,z/r)`$ are the components of a normal vector over an infinitesimal surface element $`dS=r^2\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\phi `$.

Using (2), (12), (14) and applying the Gauss’s theorem we evaluate the integral over the surface of a sphere with radius $`r`$

$$E(r)=\frac{1}{8\pi }\frac{\sigma }{r}(1\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\sigma ^2})r^2\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\phi .$$
(16)
We find that the energy within a sphere with radius $`r`$ is given

$$E(r)=M+\frac{M\lambda ^2}{r^2}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{r^2+\lambda ^2}}[\frac{\beta \lambda ^2}{r^2}+\lambda ^2+\beta ].$$
(17)
The energy distribution depends on the mass $`M`$, electric charge $`Q_e`$, magnetic charge $`Q_m`$ and asymptotic value of the dilaton $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$.

The energy is shared both by the interior and by the exterior of the black hole.

## 3 DISCUSSION

The subject of the localization of energy continues to be an open one. Bondi  sustained that a nonlocalizable form of energy is not admissible in relativity. Other authors consider that because the energy-momentum complexes are not tensorial objects and give results which are coordinate dependent they are not adequate for describing the gravitational field.

The results obtained by Chamorro and Virbhadra , Xulu , Virbhadra and Parikh  and I-Ching Yang, Ching-Tzung Yeh, Rue-Ron Hsu and Chin-Rong Lee  support the idea that several energy-momentum complexes can give the same result for a given space-time.

We obtain the same result as obtained by Y-Ching Yang, Ching-Tzung Yeh, Rue-Ron Hsu and Chin-Rong Lee . This is an encouraging result and, also, it is one more proof that the Einstein’s and Tolman’s energy-momentum complexes can give the same result for a static spherically symmetric solution. The energy distribution depends on the mass $`M`$, electric charge $`Q_e`$, magnetic charge $`Q_m`$ and asymptotic value of the dilaton $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. The energy is shared both by the interior and by the exterior of the black hole.

We obtain the same expression for the energy distribution as in the case of Schwarzschild black holes as $`Q_e,Q_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ vanish.

For $`Q_e=0`$ or $`Q_m=0`$ we find the case of the pure electric or pure magnetic charged black hole and the energy distribution is always positive except at the singular point $`r=0`$.

If the dilaton field was suppressed $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=0`$, $`\lambda =0`$ (or $`Q_e=Q_m`$) the dilaton gravity will reduce to the Einstein-Maxwell theory and the dilaton dyonic black hole solutions will become to be Reissner-Nordström solutions.

In the case of the ADM mass we obtain the same result as the result of Virbhadra

$$M_{ADM}=E(r)_r\mathrm{}=M$$
(18)
From (18) we deduce that the ADM mass does not depend on the coordinate representation of the black hole.

Also, the concept of a black hole lends support to the idea that the gravitational energy is localizable.


format: text

text:
# Restricted feedback control of one-dimensional maps

## I Introduction

Recent success controlling complex dynamics of nonlinear physical and chemical systems  has opened the door for the control of biological rhythms. Some researchers have speculated about the medical implications of controlling heart-rate dynamics or brain rhythms . However, biological systems typically have characteristics that require special consideration. For example, biological control studies to date  have required that the control interventions be unidirectional — only allowing shortening of a parameter. Such a restriction is somewhat analogous to trying to balance a broomstick vertically on one’s palm using horizontal hand movements in only one direction. Intuitively, one might expect that such a restriction would limit controllability. However, as we will demonstrate in this paper, such a restriction introduces some surprising complexity to the stability properties of controlled one-dimensional map systems.

In fact, the unidirectional restriction can actually improve the controllability of some systems . In this paper, we will show how restricted control can introduce stability zones that do not exist in the unrestricted case. Furthermore, we will show that some of these zones were present in recent cardiac control experiments . Finally, we will exploit the structure of the stability zones in robust new control algorithms that automatically adapt the control feedback parameter.

## II Delayed feedback control of systems described by one-dimensional maps

In this study we will consider the control of systems whose dynamics can be described by one-dimensional maps:

$$X_{n+1}=f(X_n,\lambda ),$$
(1)
where $`X_n`$ is the variable to be controlled and $`\lambda `$ is an experimentally accessible system parameter. The goal is to stabilize the system state point $`\xi _n=[X_n,X_{n1}]`$ about an unstable period-1 fixed point $`\xi ^{}=[X^{},X^{}]`$, where $`X^{}=f(X^{},\lambda )`$, by perturbing $`\lambda `$ by an amount:

$$\delta \lambda _n=\frac{\alpha }{2}(X_{n1}X_n),$$
(2)
where $`\alpha `$ is the feedback gain parameter.

The advantage of such a control scheme is that relatively little *a priori* system information is required to implement control and stabilize $`\xi ^{}`$. The only requirement is knowledge of the sign of $`\frac{f}{\lambda }`$ so that perturbations can be applied in the correct direction. In fact, knowledge of the value of $`\xi ^{}`$ is unnecessary because the controlled system’s fixed point is identical to that of the uncontrolled system. Furthermore, if the fixed point drifts during the course of the control (as is common for biological systems), the controlled system will track the fixed point, provided that the system stays in the stable range of the feedback gain parameter $`\alpha `$.

The control algorithm of Eq. 2 is an example of delayed feedback control, a technique that has been used in a variety of modeling and experimental studies . In section IV we will present an example of a biological system with constraints that restrict the control algorithm — only allowing unidirectional perturbations of $`\lambda `$. The purpose of this study is to examine the implications of such a restriction.

### A Linear stability analysis of unrestricted delayed feedback control

For unrestricted control, in which $`\delta \lambda _n`$ can be positive or negative, linearizing the controlled system about a fixed point at the origin gives:

$`X_{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`AX_n+\beta (Y_nX_n),`$ (3)
$`Y_{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`X_n,`$ (4)
where $`A\frac{f}{X}|_\xi ^{}`$ and $`\beta \frac{\alpha }{2}\left(\frac{f}{\lambda }\right)|_\xi ^{}`$.

The eigenvalues of Eq. 3 are $`\left(A\beta \pm \sqrt{(A\beta )^2+4\beta }\right)/2`$. The fixed point is stable provided that both eigenvalues fall inside the unit circle. This condition is met when:

$$1<\beta <\frac{1}{2}(A+1),$$
(5)
for $`A<1`$ . Note that the stability zone shrinks to zero for $`A3`$, thereby limiting the applicability of the unrestricted control algorithm to maps with a sufficiently shallow slope (i.e., $`3A<1`$) at $`\xi ^{}`$. Furthermore, for $`A>1`$ there exists no real value for $`\beta `$ such that the eigenvalues fall within the unit circle. Thus, unstable positively-sloped fixed points cannot be stabilized.

## III Restricted delayed feedback control

Restricting the above control algorithm by only allowing shortening of $`\lambda `$ gives the following controller:

$`\delta \lambda _n=\mathrm{\Theta }_n{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}(X_{n1}X_n),`$ (6)
where

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_n`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }(X_nY_n)>0,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (9)
Thus, when $`\mathrm{\Theta }_n=1`$ the control is active (i.e., a perturbation is delivered), and when $`\mathrm{\Theta }_n=0`$ the control is inactive (i.e., no perturbation is given).

### A Linear stability analysis of restricted delayed feedback control

The restricted control algorithm of Eq. 6 gives the following linearized controlled system:

$`X_{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`AX_n+\mathrm{\Theta }_n\beta (Y_nX_n),`$ (10)
$`Y_{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`X_n.`$ (11)
Geometrically, the restriction of Eq. 9 means that perturbations will only be applied if the state point $`\xi _n`$ lies above the return-map line of identity $`X_{n+1}=X_n`$. The dynamical effects of this restriction depend on the sign of the slope at $`\xi ^{}`$.

#### 1 Restricted control for $`A<1`$

Typical dynamics of restricted control for negatively-sloped unstable directions ($`A<1`$) are depicted in Fig 1. This figure shows eight control trials of a linear map with $`A=4`$ for different values of $`\beta `$; there are four examples of stable control and four examples of unstable control.

Figure 1(a) shows a case in which the restricted control algorithm failed to stabilize the unstable fixed point $`\xi ^{}`$ \[which is located at the intersection of the uncontrolled system map (solid line) and the line of identity (dotted line), and is denoted by a solid triangle\] with $`\beta =2.80`$. The dot-dash lines correspond to the system maps when $`\lambda `$ is perturbed. A series of arrows originate at the initial state point and connect consecutive state points (solid circles, numbered consecutively). In this case, the initial state point ($`1`$) is followed by a control intervention, which causes the next iterate ($`2`$) to fall below the line of identity. According to Eq. 9, the next iterate ($`3`$) will be uncontrolled and therefore will fall on the solid line. Furthermore, because the first controlled iterate ($`2`$) was less than the fixed point, the next iterate ($`3`$) will be above the line of identity, leading to a control intervention at the fourth iterate ($`4`$). Thus, control is applied every other iterate so that the sequence of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_n`$ is 0101…. In this case, the fixed point is not stabilized because control fails to direct the system closer to the fixed point (i.e., the arrows spiral away from $`\xi ^{}`$).

Figure 1(b) shows control with the same value of $`A`$, but using a slightly more negative $`\beta `$ value, $`\beta =3.1`$. For these parameter settings, it can be seen that control is also applied every other iterate so that the sequence of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_n`$ is again 0101…. However in this case, the fixed point is stabilized successfully because the control interventions direct the system closer to the fixed point (i.e., the arrows spiral towards $`\xi ^{}`$). Note that in order to maximize the clarity of the control sequence diagram, the axes in panel (a) are not scaled the same as those for panel (b). Similarly, for all of Fig. 1, axes from different panels are not necessarily scaled the same.

Figure 1(c) shows a trial in which $`\beta `$ was decreased to $`3.23`$. As in the previous example, the first controlled iterate ($`3`$) is below the line of identity (dictating that the next iterate ($`4`$) is uncontrolled). However, in this case the perturbation is larger than would occur with the parameter settings of Fig. 1(b), such that the controlled iterate ($`3`$) is slightly larger than the fixed point. This dictates that the next iterate ($`4`$) is below the line of identity, which leads to a second consecutive uncontrolled iterate ($`5`$). Thus, control is applied in a 001001… sequence. This sequence is stable for $`\beta =3.23`$ because the control perturbations direct the system closer to the fixed point. However, if $`\beta `$ is decreased to $`3.40`$, it can be seen from Fig. 1(d) that this generates a 001001… control sequence that is unstable because the system is directed away from the fixed point.

If $`\beta `$ is made more negative, then a new control sequence is achieved. Figure 1(e) shows an unstable 011011… sequence for $`\beta =5.50`$. In this case, the first perturbation is so large that the controlled iterate ($`2`$) is above the line of identity, dictating that the next iterate ($`3`$) is also controlled. The second controlled iterate ($`3`$) is below the line of identity and below the fixed point, thereby producing the 011011… sequence. In this case, the fixed point is not stabilized because the control perturbations moved the state point away from the fixed point. However, when $`\beta `$ is decreased to $`5.76`$, as seen in Fig. 1(f), a 011011… sequence stabilizes the fixed point.

Like the transition from the stable 0101… sequence to the stable 001001… sequence depicted in Figs. 1(b) and (c), there is a transition from the stable 011011… sequence to the stable 00110011… sequence as $`\beta `$ is decreased further. Figure 1(g) shows the stable 00110011… case for $`\beta =5.798`$. The 00110011… sequence becomes unstable as $`\beta `$ is decreased still further; Figure 1(h) depicts this case for $`\beta =5.95`$.

The progression of unstable and stable periodic control sequences continues indefinitely as $`\beta `$ is decreased. In fact, the switching parameter $`\mathrm{\Theta }_n`$ imposes the following progression of control sequences as $`\beta `$ is decreased from zero: unstable $`01^1`$, stable $`01^1`$, stable $`001^1`$, unstable $`001^1`$, unstable $`01^2`$, stable $`01^2`$, stable $`001^2`$, unstable $`001^2`$, …, unstable $`01^{\mathrm{}}`$, stable $`01^{\mathrm{}}`$, stable $`001^{\mathrm{}}`$, unstable $`001^{\mathrm{}}`$, where $`1^k`$ denotes $`k`$ consecutive ones (control perturbations) before the sequence repeats itself.

Because of the progression of the control sequences imposed by the switching term $`\mathrm{\Theta }_n`$, $`X_{k+1}`$ can be expressed as:

$$X_{k+1}=e_kX_0,$$
(12)
where $`e_k`$ is given by the following iterative expression:

$$e_k=(A\beta )e_{k1}+\beta e_{k2},$$
(13)
with $`e_0=A`$ for all sequences and $`e_1=A^2+\beta (1A)`$ for the $`01^k`$ sequences or $`e_1=A^2`$ for the $`001^k`$ sequences.

The boundaries of the stability zones can be computed by using the criterion that stable sequences move the system closer to the fixed point after one control sequence. Because $`X_{k+1}`$ is the last iterate of the first $`01^k`$ control sequence and $`X_{k+2}`$ is the last iterate of the first $`001^k`$ sequence, the stability conditions are $`e_k<1`$ and $`e_{k+1}<1`$ for the $`01^k`$ and $`001^k`$ sequences, respectively. Therefore, the boundaries are given by $`k`$ degree polynomials in $`\beta `$. For example, the $`k=1`$ control sequences are stable for $`1+A+1/A\beta 1+A`$ for $`A<1`$ . Figure 2 depicts the stability zones (shaded regions) for $`k=1`$ and $`k=2`$. The boundaries between the stable $`01^k`$ and $`001^k`$ sequences are defined by the condition $`e_k=0`$ (dotted curves in Fig. 2). These curves mark the optimal parameter values for a given stability region, because the fixed point is reached after a single control sequence $`01^k`$.

The striking feature of this analysis is that the domain of control is extended by the restriction of Eq. 9 . In fact, Fig. 2 shows that for all $`A<1`$, stable control sequences exist for the restricted system. This is in contrast with the unrestricted system, for which stable control sequences exist only for $`A>3`$, as shown by the dashed triangular region marking its stability zone (according to Eq. 5).

While there are an infinite number of stable zones corresponding to an arbitrary number $`k`$ consecutive control perturbations, the stability zones are bounded by the curve $`\beta =A22\sqrt{1A}`$. This boundary is computed by recognizing that as $`k`$ approaches infinity, control is always active and $`X_{n+1}>X_n`$ for every iterate. Thus, the algorithm behaves just like the unrestricted control of Eq. 3 with real eigenvalues greater than one — a condition met only when $`\beta `$ is below the boundary.

#### 2 Restricted control for $`A>1`$

Typical dynamics of restricted control for positively-sloped unstable directions ($`A>1`$) are depicted in Fig 3. This figure shows four control trials of a linear map, with $`A=2.1`$, for different values of $`\beta `$; there are three examples of unstable control and one example where $`\xi ^{}`$ is controlled.

Figure 3(a) shows an unstable $`01^{\mathrm{}}`$ sequence for $`\beta =1.5`$. In this case, the perturbations are so small that all state points lie above the line of identity. The control slows the exponential growth (which would be marked by a rapid exit from $`\xi ^{}`$ along the solid line), but fails to force an approach to $`\xi ^{}`$.

If $`\beta `$ is decreased to $`\beta =2.5`$, then the perturbations are large enough so that the first controlled $`X_n`$ is smaller than the previous $`X_{n1}`$. $`\xi _n`$ then falls below the line of identity, thereby generating the $`01^1`$ control sequence depicted in Fig. 3(b). In this case, the sequence is unstable because a given controlled point is further from $`\xi ^{}`$ than the previous controlled point.

For $`\beta =3.5`$, control is successful; the state point approaches $`\xi ^{}`$ in a $`01^1`$ sequence as shown in Fig. 3(c). Such control is successful for a noise-free model system. However, for a real-world system, once the state point is sufficiently close to $`\xi ^{}`$, noise will eventually kick $`\xi _n`$ to the opposite side of $`\xi ^{}`$. Subsequent $`\xi _n`$ will fall below the line of identity, causing the control to be deactivated and leading to an exponential departure from $`\xi ^{}`$.

When $`\beta `$ is increased further, the first perturbation can be so large that the state point will be kicked to the other side of $`\xi ^{}`$ as shown in Fig. 3(d) for $`\beta =4.5`$. Again, control is subsequently deactivated and the system diverges from the fixed point.

The boundaries between the different control sequences are depicted in Fig. 4. The unstable $`01^{\mathrm{}}`$ sequence occurs for $`\beta <A`$. This boundary was computed by finding the value for $`\beta `$ such that the first controlled iterate falls on the line of identity; this occurs for $`\beta =A`$. For $`\beta >A`$, the first controlled iterate lies below the line of identity, thereby shutting the control off for the next iterate. Thus, $`\beta =A`$ marks the boundary between the $`01^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`01^1`$ sequences. The boundary between unstable and stable $`01^1`$ sequences was computed by finding the value for $`\beta `$ such that the iterate subsequent to control is equal to the previous uncontrolled iterate; this occurs for $`\beta =1+A`$. For slightly larger $`\beta `$ values, the iterate subsequent to control is closer to $`\xi ^{}`$ than the previous uncontrolled iterate. Thus, the unstable $`01^1`$ sequence is bounded by $`A<\beta <1+A`$. The final boundary marks the end of the converging $`01^1`$ sequence and can be found by determining the value for $`\beta `$ such that the first controlled iterate lands at $`\xi ^{}`$. This occurs for $`\beta =A^2/(A1)`$. For $`\beta >A^2/(A1)`$, the first controlled iterate, and all subsequent iterates, lie below the line of identity thereby shutting of the control. Therefore, the converging $`01^1`$ sequence occurs in the shaded region $`1+A<\beta <A^2/(A1)`$ , and the unstable $`010^{\mathrm{}}`$ sequence occurs for $`\beta >A^2/(A1)`$.

Thus, for $`A>1`$ the best that the restricted control algorithm can offer is a temporary reversal of divergence from the fixed point. However, in section V A we will make a simple modification to the restricted control algorithm for $`A>1`$ that will keep the system in the vicinity of $`\xi ^{}`$ in the presence of noise.

## IV Experimental observation of restricted control sequences

As described in Ref. , we have studied the control of a particular cardiac conduction interval, known as the atrioventricular (AV) nodal conduction time, in *in vitro* rabbit heart experiments. Because of the nonlinear excitation properties of AV-nodal tissue, the dynamics of AV-nodal conduction can bifurcate from a period-1 regime (where every impulse propagates through the AV-node at the same rate) to a period-2 regime (where propagation time alternates in a long, short, long, etc. pattern on a beat-to-beat basis) during rapid atrial excitation. It has been demonstrated  that these dynamics can be described by a period-doubling bifurcation of a one-dimensional map of the form of Eq. 1 where $`X_n`$ is the AV-nodal conduction time and $`\lambda _n`$ is the time between when the AV-node finishes conducting one impulse and when it starts conducting the next.

The goal in Ref.  was to eliminate the alternating rhythm by stabilizing the underlying period one fixed point $`X^{}`$. This was achieved by delivering electrical stimuli to the atrial tissue in order to transiently shorten $`\lambda _n`$. Because there is no practical way to lengthen $`\lambda _n`$, the timing of the electrical stimuli was determined by the restricted controller of Eq. 6.

Although the *in vitro* rabbit cardiac system of Ref.  was not linear, application of the restricted control algorithm resulted in several of the control sequences predicted in the above linear system for $`A<1`$. These control sequences were especially clear at the initiation of control when perturbations were largest.

For example, Fig. 5(a) shows the variable $`X_n`$ and the control parameter $`\lambda _n`$ during an unstable $`01^1`$ sequence for a feedback gain $`\alpha =3.3`$ (corresponding to a negative $`\beta `$ because $`\frac{f}{\lambda }<0`$ in the cardiac control experiments). The first controlled beat is indicated by the arrow and corresponds to a negative perturbation of $`\lambda _0`$ (all control perturbations are negative as imposed by the switching term $`\mathrm{\Theta }_n`$). Because the system was nonlinear, oscillatory growth of $`X_n`$ was quenched and the original large amplitude alternation of $`X_n`$ was reduced in magnitude — but not eliminated.

When $`\alpha `$ was increased to $`5.0`$ (as shown in Fig. 5(b); corresponding to a later segment of the same control trial that is shown in Fig. 5(a)), the system shifted to a stable $`001^1`$ sequence that eliminated the alternation of $`X_n`$. After the fourth perturbation to $`\lambda _n`$ (beat 303), the system shifted to a stable $`01^1`$ sequence. This shift resulted from the close proximity of the $`01^1`$ and $`001^1`$ stable zones (Fig. 2); noise or drift in the system can cause such transitions.

Figure 5(c) shows a stable $`001^2`$ control sequence that eliminated the alternation of $`X_n`$ in a different rabbit heart using $`\alpha =2.5`$. (Note that the $`\alpha `$ values from distinct trials are independent.) Similar to the sequence transitions in Fig. 5(b), the system switched to its adjacent stable $`01^2`$ control sequence shortly after the control was initiated, and later switched back to the stable $`001^2`$ control sequence.

## V Modifications to the restricted control algorithm

### A Automatic adaptation of the feedback gain for $`A<1`$

Figure 5(a) (unsuccessful) and (b) (successful) demonstrate that successful control is dependent on the proper choice of $`\alpha `$. Such dependence is a critical limitation given that the information required to determine the correct value of $`\alpha `$ ($`A`$, $`\xi ^{}`$, and $`\frac{f}{X}|_\xi ^{}`$) cannot be easily determined prior to control. Furthermore, the nonstationarities typical of biological systems imply that the appropriate value of $`\alpha `$ may drift over time, thereby increasing the likelihood of control failure if $`\alpha `$ is fixed. To eliminate the limitations of a fixed $`\alpha `$ value chosen prior to control, we have developed a new technique that adaptively estimates $`\alpha `$ . This adaptive approach is especially appropriate for applications (e.g., cardiac arrhythmia control) that cannot afford control failure of the type shown in the control attempt of Fig. 5(a).

This new technique exploits the structure of the stability zones to automatically adapt $`\alpha `$ such that $`\xi ^{}`$ is stabilized more robustly. Because multiple perturbations away from the fixed point are not desirable, the optimal stability zone is the $`k=1`$ zone. Furthermore, because the stable $`k=1`$ zone has the largest area, it will be the most robust to noise and drifting system parameters. To target this zone, $`\alpha `$ is adapted according to:

$`\alpha _n`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\alpha _{n1}+\delta \alpha \hfill & \text{if }\mathrm{\Theta }_{n4}\text{ … }\mathrm{\Theta }_{n1}\text{ = 0101 or 1010},\hfill \\ \alpha _{n1}\delta \alpha \hfill & \text{otherwise},\hfill \end{array}`$ (16)
where $`\delta \alpha `$ is a small increment. When $`\left(\frac{f}{\lambda }\right)|_\xi ^{}`$ is negative (as in the cardiac experiments of Ref. ), $`\alpha `$ and $`\delta \alpha `$ are positive. Otherwise they are negative.

The algorithm of Eq. 16 is motivated by examining the stability zones in Fig. 2. For $`k=1`$, optimal control occurs when $`\beta `$ is at the boundary between stable $`01^1`$ and stable $`001^1`$ (dotted curve of Fig. 2). If $`\beta `$ is too large, the control sequence will be $`01^1`$ (unstable if $`\beta `$ is so large that it is above the k=1 stability region or stable if $`\beta `$ is within the stability region but above the optimal control boundary). In such a case, the adaptation of Eq. 16 will decrease $`\beta `$. In contrast, if $`\beta `$ is too small, the control sequence will be $`001^1`$ or some sequence with $`k>1`$ (unstable if $`\beta `$ is so small that it is below the $`k=1`$ stability region or stable if $`\beta `$ is within the stability region but below the optimal control boundary). In such a case, the adaptation of Eq. 16 will increase $`\beta `$. Thus, the adaptation will adjust the system so that it oscillates between the stable $`01^1`$ and stable $`001^1`$ sequences, provided that the increment $`\delta \alpha `$ is small enough so that the stepsize of $`\beta `$ is sufficiently less than the height of the $`k=1`$ stability zone. Specifically, the condition $`|\delta \alpha |<|A\left(\frac{f}{\lambda }\right)|_\xi ^{}|^1`$ ensures that the stepsize is less than half the height of the zone.

To illustrate the adaptive algorithm, we implemented the restricted controller of Eq. 6 with the feedback gain $`\alpha `$ replaced by $`\alpha _n`$ given by Eq. 16. $`\alpha _0`$ was randomly chosen between $`5`$ and $`10`$ and $`\delta \alpha =0.1`$. We applied this controller to the quadratic map:

$$X_{n+1}=\lambda _nX_n(1X_n)+\zeta _n,$$
(17)
where $`\zeta _n`$ is a normally-distributed random variable with a mean of zero and a variance of 0.001. The goal was to stabilize the fixed point $`X^{}=(\lambda _01)/\lambda _0`$. Note that for the quadratic map, $`\left(\frac{f}{\lambda }\right)|_\xi ^{}=\frac{\lambda 1}{\lambda ^2}`$ is positive. Thus, the sign of the perturbations is opposite to that of the cardiac experiments of Ref. .

Figure 6 shows the results of an adaptive control trial of the quadratic map. For $`1n500`$, $`\lambda _0=3.30`$, corresponding to an uncontrolled stable period-2 orbit. Control was initiated at iterate $`n=125`$ with an arbitrary initial value of $`\alpha _n=5.25`$. The adaptive algorithm rapidly stabilized $`\xi ^{}`$ as the adaptations of $`\alpha _n`$ kept the system in the $`k=1`$ stability zone. The control was deactivated at $`n=375`$ and the period-2 cycle returned.

At $`n=500`$, $`\lambda _0`$ was switched to $`3.52`$, which corresponds to a period-4 rhythm. Control was reactivated at $`n=625`$ with an arbitrary initial value of $`\alpha _n=8.85`$. The adaptive control stabilized $`\xi ^{}`$ until the control was turned off at iterate 875. At $`n=1000`$, $`\lambda _0`$ was switched to 3.65, which is in the chaotic regime. Control was reactivated at $`n=1125`$ with an arbitrary initial value of $`\alpha _n=5.63`$. $`\xi ^{}`$ was stabilized after approximately 160 iterates. When control was deactivated at $`n=1375`$ the chaos resumed. The oscillations in $`\alpha _n`$, as governed by Eq. 16, are apparent in each control phase of the trial.

To demonstrate the ability of the adaptive algorithm to track a drifting fixed point, we applied the control algorithm to a quadratic map with $`\lambda _0=3.0`$ and $`\lambda _n`$ increased by an increment of 0.001 every iterate ($`\lambda _{n+1}=\lambda _n+0.001`$). As seen in Fig. 7, the small increments to $`\lambda _0`$ introduced a slow drift in the system dynamics and fixed point. Control was initiated at iterate 250 while the system was in its period-2 regime. Control was maintained for 500 iterates. During this period, $`X^{}`$ drifted from $`X^{}=0.692`$ to $`X^{}=0.736`$. Nevertheless, the control algorithm had no trouble tracking $`X^{}`$. In fact, it can be seen that when control was deactivated at $`n=750`$, the system had passed into the chaotic regime, an occurrence that did not disrupt control. However, if the feedback gain was held fixed rather than adapted, then control could not have been maintained for the entire control period (not shown).

### B Control of fixed points for $`A>1`$

In section III A 2, we demonstrated that the restricted control algorithm can induce a transient approach towards $`\xi ^{}`$ when $`A>1`$. However, as mentioned, if the system is kicked to the other side of $`\xi ^{}`$, control is deactivated and the system diverges from $`\xi ^{}`$. If the algorithm could detect such an occurrence and reverse the sign of the perturbations, then $`\xi ^{}`$ could be approached from the opposite side of $`\xi ^{}`$ . This idea motivates the following modification of the restricted control algorithm:

$`\delta \lambda _n=\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_n{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _n}{2}}(X_{n1}X_n),`$ (18)
where

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_n`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }\mathrm{\Phi }_n(X_nY_n)>0,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise},\hfill \end{array}`$ (21)
and

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }\mathrm{\Theta }_{n4}\text{ … }\mathrm{\Theta }_{n1}\text{ = 1000},\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (24)
For stable control, a fixed value of the feedback gain ($`\alpha _n=\alpha _0`$) is chosen so that $`1+A<\beta <A^2/(A1)`$. In order to adaptively control fixed points with $`A>1`$, the controller in Eq. 18 can be used with a modified adaptive feedback gain algorithm:

$`\alpha _n`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\alpha _{n1}+\delta \alpha \hfill & \text{if }\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{n4}\text{ … }\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{n1}\text{ = 0101 or 1010},\hfill \\ \alpha _{n1}\delta \alpha \hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (27)
Such a combination is feasible because the control-sequence boundaries for $`A>1`$ dictate that Eq. 27 will direct the system towards the converging 0101… sequence (see Fig. 4). However, as in the case when $`A<1`$, the increment in the feedback gain should be chosen such that $`\alpha _n`$ remains in the stable 0101… zone. Choosing $`|\delta \alpha |<|(A1)\left(\frac{f}{\lambda }\right)|_\xi ^{}|^1`$ ensures that the increment is less than half of the height of the zone.

In order to illustrate the control of an unstable fixed point with $`A>1`$, we applied the modified control algorithm to the cubic map:

$$X_{n+1}=4(m+1)X_n^3+6(m+1)X_n^2(2m+3)X_n+\lambda _n+\zeta _n,$$
(28)
where $`\lambda _n`$ is perturbed according to Eq. 18 with $`\lambda _0=1`$, $`m`$ is the slope of the map at the fixed point $`X^{}=0.5`$, and $`\zeta _n`$ is a normally-distributed random variable with a mean of zero and a variance of 0.001.

Figure 8 illustrates control of the cubic map without adaptation of the feedback gain ($`\alpha _n`$ is fixed at $`\alpha _0=8.0`$). For $`1n500`$, $`m=2.2`$, corresponding to an uncontrolled stable period-2 orbit. After control was initiated at $`n=125`$, $`X^{}`$ was stabilized after about 80 iterates. Stabilization of $`X^{}`$ was maintained until control was deactivated at $`n=375`$, after which the system returned to the period-2 orbit. At $`n=500`$, $`m`$ was set to $`2.7`$, which moved the system into the chaotic regime. Control was initiated at $`n=625`$. After about 10 iterates, $`X^{}`$ was controlled for about 20 iterates. The system subsequently escaped control for about 30 iterates before control was recaptured and maintained until the algorithm was deactivated at $`n=875`$.

The adaptive feedback gain algorithm is illustrated in Fig. 9, which shows control of a drifting cubic map with $`m_{n+1}=m_n+0.001`$ and $`m_0=2.0`$. Control was activated for $`250<n<750`$. The fixed point was controlled successfully during this period. The fixed point location does not change for the drifting cubic map, but the system drifts into the chaotic regime by the end of the control period.

## VI Conclusion

Surprisingly, the typical biological restriction of unidirectional control perturbations enhances the controllability of fixed points with $`A<1`$ in systems described by one-dimensional maps. Because biological systems typically drift over time, dynamic control algorithms must adapt to system nonstationarities. Although the restricted delayed feedback control technique allows for moderate tracking of the fixed point as long as the system remains within a stability zone, it is ill-suited for systems with significant drift. For such systems, automatic adaptation of the feedback gain parameter ensures that the drifting system is directed to, and remains within, the largest stability zone. Thus, with the dual benefits of the increased stability of unidirectional restricted control and the adaptability of on-the-fly gain estimation, such control techniques could be of significant value to the control of biological systems. Indeed, a recent set of clinical experiments  have shown that adaptive restricted control of this type can successfully eliminate the same alternating AV-nodal conduction rhythm that was controlled in the rabbit experiments of Ref. . Furthermore, we have shown that simple modifications of the restricted control algorithm can control fixed points with $`A>1`$ — an impossible task for the unrestricted feedback controller. Thus, this algorithm may also have applicability in physical systems that allow bidirectional perturbations.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported, in part, by a grant from the American Heart Association (0030028N) \[DJC\].

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

Fig. 8

Fig. 9


text:
# Neutrino Oscillation and CP Violation

## 1 Introduction

Many experiments and observations have shown evidences for neutrino oscillation one after another. The solar neutrino deficit has long been observed. The atmospheric neutrino anomaly has been found and recently almost confirmed by SuperKamiokande. All of them can be understood by neutrino oscillation and hence indicates that neutrinos are massive and there is a mixing in lepton sector. Relevant parameters will be determined more precisely in near future.

Thus completely unknown parameters for the lepton sector will be

| $`U_{e3}`$ | : Last Mixing |
| --- | --- |
| $`\mathrm{sin}\delta `$ | : CP Violation |
| sign of $`\delta m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2`$ |  |

in near future.

Then how we determine them is a big problem and it is the main topic of the conference. In this article we will pay attention to CP violating phase.

What energy range is suitable for observing CP violation? Since CP-violation effect arise as three(or more)-generation phenomena, we should make an experiment with “not too high” and “not too low” energy to see “3-generation”. In an oscillation experiment, there are two energy scales,

$`E\{\begin{array}{c}\delta m_{31}^2L\hfill \\ \delta m_{21}^2L\hfill \end{array}.`$ (3)
Then the above energy range is expected to be suitable for a neutrino oscillation experiment to see CP violation in lepton sector.

Indeed in high energy the first two lightest states seem “degenerate”.

$`\delta m_{21}^20`$
and hence the oscillation term for CP violation becomes 0:

$`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }_{21}+\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }_{32}+\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }_{31}+\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}0.`$
In low energy the heaviest (two) state(s) “decouple(s)”.

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2^{}s\mathrm{}`$
and therefore the oscillation term is averaged away within finite resolution for neutrino energy:

$`\begin{array}{cccccc}& \mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }_{21}& +& \mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }_{32}& +& \mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}.\\ \text{ oscillating out}& & & & & \\ & 0& & 0& & 0\end{array}`$ (7)
From this consideration,

$`\delta m_{21}^2LE\delta m_{31}^2L`$ (8)
will be the best energy range.

Moreover, to avoid the uncertainty due to matter effect, lower energy and shorter baseline length are better.

Experimentally there are two energy region for neutrino experiment. One is $`E_\nu `$ 0.1-1 GeV and the other $`E_\nu >5`$ GeV which is considered extensively in the context of neutrino factory.

## 2  Oscillation probability $`P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta )`$
for $`E`$ 0.1-1 GeV and $`L`$ O(100) Km

In this subsection we will consider the neutrino oscillation experiment with $`E_\nu `$ 0.1-1 GeV. For this energy region the suitable baseline length $`L`$ to see CP violation is determined to be on the order of 100 km by the “3 generation condition” (3).

For this setting, the transition probability is calculated to be

$`P(\nu _\mu \nu _e)`$
$`=`$ $`4|U_{e3}U_{\mu 3}|^2\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{31}}{2}}`$
$`+`$ $`4\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}(U_{e3}^{}U_{\mu 3}U_{e2}U_{\mu 2}^{})\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_{21}^2}{\delta m_{31}^2}}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_{31}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }_{31}`$
$`\mathrm{CPV}!!`$ $``$ $`4\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}(U_{e3}^{}U_{\mu 3}U_{e2}U_{\mu 2}^{})\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_{21}^2}{\delta m_{31}^2}}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_{31}\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{31}}{2}}`$
$``$ $`4\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}(U_{e2}^{}U_{\mu 2}U_{e1}U_{\mu 1}^{})\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_{21}^2}{\delta m_{31}^2}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{31}^2}{2}}\right)^2`$
$``$ $`A\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{31}}{2}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{31}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }_{31}`$
$`+`$ $`C\mathrm{\Delta }_{31}\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{31}}{2}}`$
$`+`$ $`D\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{31}^2}{2}}\right)^2`$
up to the leading(second) order of small values,

$`U_{e3}`$, $`\frac{\delta m_{21}^2}{\delta m_{31}^2}`$ and $`\frac{a}{\delta m_{31}^2},`$

here $`a`$ denotes the matter effect.

There are two comments here: 1) What we can observe are not mixing angles of a certain parameterization but values of certain combination of couplings which are $`AD`$ in this case. Without paying attention to this fact, we will not understand correctly the uncertainties on the mixing parameters due to uncertainties of an experiment. 2) For this setting the matter effect, which is the serious obstacle for detecting CP violation, gives only a subleading effect, and in this sense the neutrino energy and the baseline length assumed here seems very preferable. To observe asymmetry in the transition probability means directly the fact that there is a CP violation in lepton sector.

Current bounds on coefficients:

$`A`$ $``$ $`0.05`$
$`B`$ $``$ $`0.006`$
$`C`$ $``$ $`0.006`$
$`D`$ $``$ $`0.001`$
with $`U_{e3}0.15`$ and $`\frac{\delta m_{21}^2}{\delta m_{31}^2}<3\times 10^2.`$ Due to the different energy dependence, these four terms can contribute the oscillation probability equivalently!!

In eq.(2), base functions,

$`\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{31}}{2}},\mathrm{\Delta }_{31}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }_{31},\mathrm{\Delta }_{31}\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{31}}{2}},\mathrm{\Delta }_{31}^2`$
are independent! Since

$`\{\begin{array}{ccc}L& =& 300\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\hfill \\ \delta m_{31}^2& =& 3\times 10^3\hfill \end{array}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{31}}{2}}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{2}\pi \hfill & \mathrm{at}& E700\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}\hfill \\ \frac{3}{2}\pi \hfill & \mathrm{at}& E250\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}\hfill \end{array}`$ (14)
in the energy region considered here their behaviors are completely different from each other and hence it is expected that the coefficients $`AD`$ are determined rather well.

In fig.2, it is shown how many neutrinos and antineutrinos in detection are necessary to see CP violation when all the mixing parameters except CP violating phase are determined precisely as indicated in the caption.

According to Konaka, for SK size detector (20kt detector) we will have 1000 $`\mu `$ neutrinos in detection per year with the first stage of Japan Hadron Facility(JHF). Then if $`\mathrm{sin}\delta `$ is large, we can detect CP violation with several years run without before neutrino factory runs.

There is another fruit using the current setting. Though these 4 coefficients seem to be independent, The following relation between coefficients

$`4AD=B^2+C^2`$ (15)
must be satisfied if there are only 3-generation neutrinos. 111Exactly speaking, this relation holds up to $`\frac{\delta m_{21}^2}{\delta m_{31}^2}`$. If we know the value of $`\frac{\delta m_{21}^2}{\delta m_{31}^2}`$, then    $`4A(\stackrel{~}{D}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{B}}{2}})=\stackrel{~}{B}^2+\stackrel{~}{C}^2,`$   where    $`B`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{B}\times {\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_{21}^2}{\delta m_{31}^2}}`$    $`C`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{C}\times {\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_{21}^2}{\delta m_{31}^2}}`$    $`D`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{D}\times ({\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_{21}^2}{\delta m_{31}^2}})^2`$    In other words we may check the unitarity of lepton sector.

## 3 High energy? Low energy?

As noted in the previous section, what we observe are not angles of a certain parameterization but values of certain combination of couplings. We should verify which combination of the couplings are determined well in an oscillation experiment and how we extract CP phase essentially. By this consideration we can understand what kind of uncertainty in experiment affects the uncertainty of determining angles. Here we will consider how CP violation is observed in an oscillation experiment as an example of this idea.

To observe CP violation means to measure the area of the unitarity triangle of the lepton sector. To measure the area there are two ways: 1) Direct measurement. 2) First determining the triangle then calculating it. The first way is strong against other uncertainties, those of other parameters, experiments and so on, since whether there is CP violation is determined by the fact that the area is not 0.

Indeed we have two ways of the determination. The observables $`AD`$ corresponds the elements of the unitarity triangle indicated in fig.3. $`C`$ is the area itself. Thus to determine $`C`$ corresponds to direct measurement. On the other hand, the length of the bottom line is determined by $`A`$, that of right line corresponds to $`D`$ and the angle between them is obtained by $`B`$. With these three parameters the triangle are fixed completely and the area is calculated according to the unitarity relation, eq.(15).

Which of “direct measurement” or “unitarity” determines the CP violation essentially?

In higher energy region, the transition probability takes the form,

$`P(\nu _\mu \nu _e)=(A+B+D)\mathrm{\Delta }_{31}^2+C\mathrm{\Delta }_{31}^3+\mathrm{}.`$
Thus an experiment in higher energy becomes sensitive to only the combination222Of course, the matter effect distinguishes these observables, though the separation is weaker than the case considered in section 2. of $`A+B+D`$ and the direct CP measure, $`C`$, becomes less determined. It means CP violation is measured by the unitarity relation, eq.(15) and hence the determination of CP violation is easily influenced by uncertainty in the experiment.

On the contrary, in lower energy region $`C`$ is a good observable and hence we can tell whether CP violation is there rather strictly.

With this consideration how important the 3-generation property is. The best energy range for CP violation is in the range given in eq.(8).

## 4  Discussion

To see CP violation, we have to see 3-generation of neutrinos simultaneously and hence the energy range, $`\delta m_{21}^2LE\delta m_{31}^2L.`$, is found to be preferable for it. More to say to avoid the matter effect the shorter baseline length is better. Indeed an experimental setup,

$`E\mathrm{O}(100)\mathrm{MeV}\mathrm{and}L\mathrm{O}(100)\mathrm{km},`$ (16)
is very feasible and much richer information on $`\nu ^{}`$s can be obtained. In this region we can see not only transition but also full oscillation and the observables are the combination of couplings $`AD`$ in eq.(2).

Large part of parameter space which will be probed by neutrino factory can be surveyed by the conventional beam with the setup (16). Why don’t you consider such a possibility seriously?

## Acknowledgments

The author thanks a. Konaka and M. Koike for useful discussions. This research was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research of the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, #12047221, #12740157.


text:
# A sequence of unsharp measurements enabling a real time visualization of a quantum oscillation

## 1 Introduction

Recently, considerable progress has been made in the experimental and theoretical study of single quantum systems in atomic traps and optical cavities as well as in the context of solid-state physics (coupled quantum dots). In many cases the physical situation may be described by means of a two level system with states $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ under the influence of a periodic driving potential $`V(t)`$. The resulting motion of the normalized state

$$|\psi =c_1|1+c_2|2$$
(1)
involves oscillations of the probabilities $`|c_1(t)|^2`$ and $`|c_2(t)|^2`$ called Rabi oscillations. The usual way to measure the dynamics of $`|c_2(t)|^2`$ employs many projection measurements of an observable with eigenstates $`|1`$ and $`|2`$. For this purpose an ensemble is prepared in the initial state and a projection measurement is carried out at time $`t_0`$ on each member of the ensemble leading to the determination of $`|c_2(t_0)|^2`$. Repeating the procedure for different times $`t`$ one obtains the Rabi oscillations of $`|c_2(t)|^2`$.

This procedure fails if there is only one single quantum system available and the objective is to visualize its motion in real time. Imagine, e.g., there is a single two-level system performing only once a hundred Rabi oscillations. Is there a method to visualize them? There are two complementary conditions such a method must meet. The measurement must not disturb the system too much, so that its evolution remains close to the undisturbed case. On the other hand, the coupling of the measurement apparatus to the two level system should nevertheless be so strong that the readout shows accurately enough the modified dynamics of the system (including the disturbance by the measurement).

This can clearly not be achieved by standard measurements which project onto an eigenstate of the measured observable. They disturb the system too strongly. For instance, the well known Quantum Zeno effect shows that it is possible to detect perfectly the modified dynamics of a system at the price of loosing all information about the undisturbed motion. The measurement disturbs the dynamics so much as to make the system stay in one of the eigenstates of the observable. A more promising strategy to fulfill our demands is to carry out appropriate sequences of generalized measurements. Generalized measurements differ from projection measurements in that the probabilities of their outcomes are in general given by the expectation values of positive operators instead of projection operators.

The theory of generalized measurements in which observables are represented by positive operator valued measures (POVM) has intensively been studied . For a survey see Busch et al. . These measurements are in their generic form also called unsharp, as we will do, or non-ideal, weak, soft or fuzzy, thereby paying attention to one of their different properties. They have been investigated theoretically in connection with the problem of joint non-ideal measurements of incompatible observables, c.f., Busch et al. . Recent quantum optical measurements like the Haroche-Ramsey set-up have been analyzed too with respect to the question of complementarity by de Muynck and Hendrikx  using the concept of generalized measurements. Martens and de Muynck  address the question of which measurements extract the most information about the system. Information extraction and disturbance has been widely discussed in quantum information theory, as e.g., in the context of continuous measurement and feedback control by Doherty et. al. . We will deal instead with sequences of discrete unsharp measurements which are separated in time and show that, if appropriately chosen, they may provide a real time visualization of Rabi oscillations.

In the context of continuous quantum measurements of energy the question of visualization of oscillations has been addressed in  in a phenomenological approach, which was based on the application of restricted path integrals . In  it had been indicated, that for continuous measurements a correlation may exist between the time-dependent measurement readout and modified Rabi oscillations between energy eigenstates. This visualization of a state evolution has been numerically verified in , to our best knowledge for the first time (compare also ). Oscillations in coupled quantum dots measured by a quantum point contact are treated in an approach to continuous quantum measurements using stochastic master equations by Korotkov . For a quantum trajectory approach see Goan et al. .

A realization scheme for the continuous fuzzy measurement of energy and the monitoring of a quantum transition has then been given in . The intention was to present a microphysical basis for the phenomenologically motivated continuous measurement scheme. Inspired by this article we give below an independent treatment which is solely based on successive single-shot measurements of the generalized type (POVM). All concepts necessary to introduce an appropriate measurement readout, to justify this choice and to specify different measurement regimes are based on these single measurements. This is also the case for the numerical evaluation which makes use of the simulation of single unsharp measurements and the otherwise undisturbed dynamical evolution (Rabi oscillations) between the measurements. Our intention is to keep our treatment as general as possible but nevertheless readable for those who may be able to design experimental realizations. We will give an application to a particular quantum optical setup in a subsequent paper .

This paper is organized as follows: In Sect. 2 we specify the particular subclass of unsharp measurements on which our considerations are based. In Sect. 3 a succession of these unsharp measurements is studied. In addition we introduce the concept of a ’best guess’ based on the outcome of one series of $`N`$ consecutive measurements (N-series). In Sect. 4 a Hamiltonian is introduced generating the Rabi oscillations we want to measure by means of series of unsharp measurements with time $`\tau `$ between two consecutive measurements. An appropriate measurement readout is defined and different regimes of measurement are specified. Finally the results of the numerical analysis (specified in App. C) are presented in Sect. 5. In order not to interrupt the flux of the presentation we postponed the detailed motivation of the particular choice of generalized measurements to App. A and some technical considerations concerning the measurement readout to App. B.

## 2 Single unsharp measurements

For later use we introduce in this section a well known special class of generalized measurements and discuss how they may be experimentally realized.

### 2.1 A particular class of single unsharp measurements

We discuss measurements on a two-level system (S) with orthonormed states $`|1`$ and $`|2`$, which are eigenstates of an observable $`A`$ represented by a self-adjoint operator. This observable may be for example energy or spin. We perform a particular kind of generalized measurement, that is a measurement which can be represented by means of a Positive Operator Valued Measure (POVM). Its operational meaning will become clearer in Subsection 2.2, where we describe its realization. The measurement is specified as follows: There are only two outcomes or pointer readings denoted by $`+`$ and $``$. The duration of the measurement is $`\delta \tau `$. Depending on the outcome the normalized initial state $`|\psi (0)`$ of S is tranformed due to the measurement into one of the related states $`|\psi _\pm (\delta \tau )`$,

$$|\psi (0)|\psi _\pm (\delta \tau )=M_\pm |\psi (0)$$
(2)
with so-called operations, which are required to be diagonal:

$`M_+`$ $`:=`$ $`u_1^+|11|+u_2^+|22|,`$ (3)
$`M_{}`$ $`:=`$ $`u_1^{}|11|+u_2^{}|22|.`$ (4)
We add to this first requirement an important second one: $`u_{1,2}^+`$ and $`u_{1,2}^{}`$ are assumed to be positive. Here and in the following an overall phase factor $`\mathrm{exp}(\text{i}\phi _\pm )`$ is omitted without loss of generality. A justification for both requirements is given in App. A. Let us introduce

$$p_1:=(u_1^+)^2=1(u_1^{})^2,p_2:=(u_2^+)^2=1(u_2^{})^2.$$
(5)
We will characterize the measurement later on by the parameters

$$p_0:=\frac{1}{2}(p_1+p_2),\mathrm{\Delta }p:=p_2p_1.$$
(6)
According to the specifications above, we restrict ourselves to a particular class of generalized measurements with commuting hermitean operations, which will prove to be useful for our purpose. Throughout the paper we discuss selective measurements, which are non-destructive. We use the Schrödinger picture unless otherwise stated. Note, that the state vectors will in general not be normalized.

The probabilities $`p_\pm `$ for the outcomes $`+`$ and $``$ to occur if the measurement is performed on the state $`|\psi (0)`$ are given by the expectation value of the so-called effects

$`E_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`M_\pm ^{}M_\pm ,`$ (7)
$`E_++E_{}`$ $`=`$ $`1`$ (8)
according to

$$p_\pm =E_\pm _{\psi (0)}.$$
(9)
This leads to $`0p_{1,2}1`$ and $`p_++p_{}=1`$. One may also write

$`E_+`$ $`:=`$ $`p_1|11|+p_2|22|,`$ (10)
$`E_{}`$ $`:=`$ $`(1p_1)|11|+(1p_2)|22|.`$ (11)
The effects $`E_+`$ and $`E_{}`$ are semi-positive operators. Because of the property (8) they constitute a POVM. It is a characteristic trait of the type of measurements in question that the effects are in general not projections: $`E_\pm ^2E_\pm `$. We call this the genuine case.

Only in the limiting cases with $`p_1=1`$ and $`p_2=0`$ (or with indices $`1`$ and $`2`$ interchanged), i.e. $`|\mathrm{\Delta }p|=1`$, we obtain a projection operator valued measure (PVM). Looking at the resulting states $`|\psi _\pm (\delta \tau )`$ in this limit we see that they are identical with $`|1`$ or $`|2`$. Accordingly, if the initial state $`|\psi (0)`$ is $`|2`$, we obtain reliably $`+`$ as measurement outcome and $``$ for $`|1`$ (or with indices $`1`$ and $`2`$ interchanged). This well known von Neumann measurement is called a sharp measurement.

The opposite limit is characterized by $`|\mathrm{\Delta }p|1`$. Then $`E_\pm `$ are nearly proportional to the identity operator and the probabilities $`p_\pm `$ of the outcomes become nearly independent of the initial state $`|\psi (0)`$. Even if the initial state is $`|1`$ (or $`|2`$), there are finite probabilities for both outcomes $`+`$ and $``$. Because in the genuine case the generalized measurement does not allow a fully reliable conclusion regarding the initial state, it is called an unsharp (or non-ideal) measurement. With $`E_\pm `$ of the form (10) and (11) it is generally accepted to refer to it as an unsharp measurement of the observable $`A`$ . Because it is not evident what this notation could mean from an operational point of view, we discuss an explicit realization below. In the limit $`|\mathrm{\Delta }p|1`$, the measurement changes the state only a little as can be seen from equations (3) and (4). Regarding its influence on the state, an unsharp measurement may also be called weak or soft. Below we will make use of the fact that single measurements with different degrees of weakness may be introduced by choosing the parameters $`p_0`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }p|`$ appropriately.

### 2.2 Realization of unsharp measurements

It is known that the unsharp measurements above can be realized by coupling the two-level systems S to a meter M and performing a projection measurement on M only (c.f. Neumark’s theorem ). It is to be expected, that in this way experiments with unsharp measurements of the class we are discussing may in practice be performed for example in the domain of quantum optics or condensed matter physics. We give therefore some details:

The two-level system in the state

$$|\psi (0)=c_1|1+c_2|2$$
(12)
interacts with another two-level system with orthonormed states $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm `$ which acts as the meter M. Its initial state is $`|\mathrm{\Phi }(0)`$. Hence the initial state of the compound system is $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=|\psi (0)|\mathrm{\Phi }(0)`$. It is then assumed that the interaction lasting for the time $`\delta \tau `$ results in the particular unitary development

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)`$ $``$ $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(\delta \tau )`$
$`=`$ $`u_1^+c_1|1|\mathrm{\Phi }_++u_1^{}c_1|1|\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$
$`+`$ $`u_2^+c_2|2|\mathrm{\Phi }_++u_2^{}c_2|2|\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$
with positive $`u_{1,2}^+,u_{1,2}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=\mathrm{\Psi }(\delta \tau )=1`$.

After $`\delta \tau `$ a sharp measurement on the meter alone is performed which, depending on the outcome $`+`$ or $``$, projects on the state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_+`$ or $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ with $`P_\pm :=1|\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm \mathrm{\Phi }_\pm |`$. These two pointer readings $`+`$ and $``$ are taken as the measurement outcomes of Section 2.1. The readout $`+`$ occurs with probability

$$p_+=P_+_{\mathrm{\Psi }(\delta \tau )}=(u_1^+)^2|c_1|^2+(u_2^+)^2|c_2|^2,$$
(14)
which agrees with $`p_+`$ of (9). In this case the state of the compound system after the measurement is the product state

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_+(\delta \tau )=|\mathrm{\Psi }(\delta \tau )=(u_1^+c_1|1+u_2^+c_2|2)|\mathrm{\Phi }_+=|\psi _+(\delta \tau )|\mathrm{\Phi }_+$$
(15)
with $`|\psi _+(\delta \tau )`$ as given in equations (2) with (3) and (4). In order to obtain the final state for the measurement readout $``$ one simply has to interchange the indices $`+`$ and $``$. The class of unsharp measurements of Section 2.1 is thus reconstructed.

The device specified above shows clearly that the unsharpness in question is of genuine quantum nature. It cannot be traced back to an imperfect measurement procedure, which itself may for example be caused by an imperfectly fixed pointer showing from time to time $`+`$ although the meter state is $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$. The reason is instead that the quantum dynamics leading to the unitary development (2.2) does not correlate $`|1`$ only with $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_+`$ and $`|2`$ only with $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ but allows the appearance of the states $`|2|\mathrm{\Phi }_+`$ and $`|1|\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ in the superposition.

## 3 N-series of successive unsharp measurements

### 3.1 One N-series

We will now perform on the same single system $`N`$ unsharp measurements of the type specified above with the same parameters in an immediate succession. This is called an N-series. Later on we will allow the measurements to be separated in time by $`\tau `$. A motivation to use N-series will be given below. Since the operations $`M_+`$ and $`M_{}`$ commute, the final state after the N-series will not depend on the order of $`+`$ and $``$ results. For any particular sequence of results with a total number $`N_+`$ of results $`+`$ the state is transformed for $`\tau =0`$ according to

$$|\psi (0)M(N_+,N)|\psi (0)$$
(16)
with

$$M(N_+,N):=M_+^{N_+}M_{}^{(NN_+)}.$$
(17)
Now we discard the information about the order of the results, i.e., we restrict ourselves to the information that the total number of $`+`$ results is $`N_+`$, regardless when they occurred in the sequence. As measurement outcome attributed to the total N-series we take in the following the relative frequency of positive results

$$r:=\frac{N_+}{N}.$$
(18)
In order to transcribe for this type of unsharp measurement the scheme of Section 2.1, which is based on the equations (2), (7) and (9) for non-normalized state vectors, we have to work out the related operations and effects. The probability $`p(N_+,N)`$ that $`N_+`$ positive results are measured in an N-series is $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{N_+}\right)`$ times the probability that a particular ordered sequence of $`N_+`$ positive and $`NN_+`$ negative results is obtained:

$$p(N_+,N)=E(N_+,N)_{\psi (0)},$$
(19)
where the effect $`E(N_+,N)`$ is given by

$`E(N_+,N)=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{N_+}}\right)M^{}(N_+,N)M(N_+,N)`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{N_+}}\right)\left[p_1^{N_+}(1p_1)^{(NN_+)}|11|+p_2^{N_+}(1p_2)^{(NN_+)}|22|\right].`$
The corresponding probability is

$`p(N_+,N)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{N_+}}\right)(p_1^{N_+}(1p_1)^{(NN_+)}|c_1|^2`$
$`+p_2^{N_+}(1p_2)^{(NN_+)}|c_2|^2).`$
To complete the scheme we write the pure state resulting after the N-series in the form

$$|\psi _{N_+}=\sqrt{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{N_+}\right)}M(N_+,N)|\psi (0).$$
(22)
In order to quantify by how much an N-series of measurements affects the state, we calculate for arbitrary values of $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ the fidelity, which shows how closely the post-measurement state resembles the pre-measurement state. The fidelity $`F(N)`$ between the pure state $`|\psi (0)`$ before the measurements and the state

$$\rho =\underset{N_+=0}{\overset{N}{}}|\psi _{N_+}\psi _{N_+}|$$
(23)
after the N-series is equal to the square of root of the overlap between $`|\psi (0)`$ and $`\rho `$

$$F(N):=\sqrt{\psi |\rho |\psi }.$$
(24)
Please note, that $`|\psi _{N_+}`$ is unnormalized. After some algebra one finds

$$F(N)=\sqrt{12|c_1|^2|c_2|^2(1b)},$$
(25)
where

$$b:=\left(\sqrt{p_1p_2}+\sqrt{(1p_1)(1p_2)}\right)^N.$$
(26)
Equation (25) shows that for all choices of the parameters $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ the fidelity assumes its minimum for $`|c_1|^2=|c_2|^2=1/2`$ and its maximum for $`|c_1|^2=1`$ and $`|c_2|^2=0`$ (or with indices interchanged).

Fidelity may serve as a direct measure for the weakness of the influence of an N-series of weak measurements on the pre-measurement state. This becomes evident by looking at the limiting cases: for extremely sharp measurements with $`p_1=1`$ and $`p_2=0`$ (or vice versa) the fidelity equals the fidelity $`F=\sqrt{12|c_1|^2|c_2|^2}`$ of a projection measurement. The maximal fidelity $`F=1`$ is obtained for infinitely weak measurements with $`p_1=p_2`$.

For an infinite N-series the limit $`lim_N\mathrm{}F=\sqrt{12|c_1|^2|c_2|^2}`$ equals for all values of $`p_1=1`$ and $`p_2=0`$ with $`p_1p_2`$ the fidelity of an projection measurement. That such an iteration of measurements produces an eigenstate has theoretically been discussed in . For an experimental scheme which realizes a projection measurement by an iteration of unsharp measurements see .

### 3.2 Best guess for the outcome of one N-series

For the moment we refer again to repeated measurements on the same initial state $`|\psi (0)`$ (ensemble approach). The statistical expectation value of $`r=N_+/N`$ reads

$`(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{N_+=0}{\overset{N}{}}}r(N_+)p(N_+,N)`$
$`=`$ $`p_1|c_1|^2+p_2|c_2|^2.`$
The latter equation follows with (3.1). In a similar way we obtain the variance $`\sigma ^2(r)`$:

$$\sigma ^2(r)=|c_1|^2|c_2|^2(\mathrm{\Delta }p)^2+\frac{1}{N}\left(|c_1|^2p_1(1p_1)+|c_2|^2p_2(1p_2)\right).$$
(28)
Based on (3.2) it is easy to relate $`|c_2|^2`$ of the initial state $`|\psi (0)`$ with the expectation value $`(r)`$ of an N-series of unsharp measurements starting with $`|\psi (0)`$:

$$|c_2|^2=\frac{(r)p_1}{\mathrm{\Delta }p}.$$
(29)
Please note, that both quantities $`|c_2|^2`$ and $`(r)`$ refer to an ensemble represented by the state $`|\psi (0)`$.

If only one N-series is measured as will be the case below, only a best guess $`G_2`$ for the quantity $`|c_2|^2`$ can be obtained. Equation (28) suggests to choose it as

$$G_2:=\frac{rp_1}{\mathrm{\Delta }p}.$$
(30)
The standard deviation of the best guess $`G_2`$ is then given by

$`\sigma (G_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (r)}{|\mathrm{\Delta }p|}}`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{|c_1|^2|c_2|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{|c_1|^2p_1(1p_1)+|c_2|^2p_2(1p_2)}{(\mathrm{\Delta }p)^2}}}.`$
It specifies how accurate $`|c_2|^2`$ of the pre-measurement state $`|\psi (0)`$ can be estimated by means of one N-series. $`\sigma (G_2)`$ can be decreased by increasing $`N`$ or $`|\mathrm{\Delta }p|`$.

In case of a single measurement ($`N=1`$), the standard deviation $`\sigma (G_2)`$ assumes its minimal value $`|c_1||c_2|`$ for $`|\mathrm{\Delta }p|=1`$, i.e., for a projection measurement ($`p_1=1`$ and $`p_2=0`$ or vice versa). For all other choices of the parameters $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ ($`|\mathrm{\Delta }p|<1`$) and other choices of $`N`$, there is a larger standard deviation. This justifies to call these measurements unsharp, because they provide less reliable information about $`|c_2|^2`$.

As we will see below, there are physical situations in which the parameters are fixed and have to be chosen with $`|\mathrm{\Delta }p|<1`$. Eq. (3.2) shows that in this case the standard deviation decreases with increasing number of repetitions $`N`$ so that it is favorable to refer to N-series. This is the reason why we will now make use of them.

## 4 Measurement of a dynamically driven state by a sequence of N-series

### 4.1 Best guess as measurement readout

We refer in the following not to an ensemble but to one single two-level quantum system. It is driven by an external periodical influence with frequency $`\omega `$ to perform resonant Rabi oscillations, if it is not disturbed by measurements. In the Schrödinger picture its undisturbed dynamics is therefore given by

$$H=a_1|11|+a_2|22|+\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_R}{2}(|21|\mathrm{exp}\{i\omega t\}+|12|\mathrm{exp}\{i\omega t\})$$
(32)
with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_R=2\pi /T_R`$ and Rabi period $`T_R`$. Because of the resonance we have: $`\omega =(a_2a_1)/\mathrm{}`$.

It is our intention to visualize the undisturbed behaviour in time of $`|c_2(t)|^2`$, i.e., in our case the Rabi oscillations. A sharp measurement implies a drastic change of $`|\psi (t_0)`$ into $`|1`$ or $`|2`$. A succession of projection measurements will in fact result approximately in the Zeno effect. Unsharp measurements can be weak and may change the state less. If their parameters are properly adjusted, one can therefore expect that these measurements are superior for our purpose. Accordingly many unsharp measurements of the type specified in Sect. 2.1 are performed on this system with time $`\tau `$ between two consecutive measurements. The unitary development between the measurements is determined by the Hamiltonian $`H`$. It is assumed that the time $`\tau `$ is much larger than the duration $`\delta \tau `$ of a single unsharp measurement ($`\tau \delta \tau `$). Again we bundle up $`N`$ unsharp measurements to an N-series of total duration $`\mathrm{\Delta }t:=N\tau `$, so that in fact a sequence of N-series is obtained with outcomes $`r(t_m)`$ at $`t_m=m\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ with $`m=1,2\mathrm{}`$. In order to resolve the Rabi oscillations we require $`\mathrm{\Delta }tT_R`$. As outlined in Appendix B the best guess $`G_2(t_m)`$ related to $`r(t_m)`$ by

$$G_2(t_m)=\frac{r(t_m)p_1}{\mathrm{\Delta }p}$$
(33)
can still be used as approximation for $`|c_2(t_m)|^2`$ even if a driving influence is present. However, it will only be a good approximation if the number $`N`$ of measurements within a N-series is not too large. More precisely, $`N`$ has to fulfill inequality (45). The sequence $`\left(G_2(t_m)\right)`$ obtained from the outcomes of the successive N-series serves as the measurement readout.

### 4.2 Level resolution time and the different regimes of measurement

How unsharp (or weak) must the underlying single measurement of Section 2 for our purpose be? A measure for the strength of the driving influence in (32) is given by the frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_R`$. A strong influence corresponds to a short Rabi period of the oscillations between the two levels $`|1`$ and $`|2`$. On the other hand measurements on the system, even if they are unsharp, modify and hinder this primary time development of the state of the system. We have therefore two contrary influences on the two-level system. For a comparison we want to introduce a characteristic time which represents the reciprocal strength of the disturbing influence of the measurement alone. To this end we discuss in a first step again one N-series with $`\tau =0`$.

The two states $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ of the two-level system correspond to $`|c_2|^2=0`$ and $`|c_2|^2=1`$. According to (3.2) the standard deviation $`\sigma (G_2)`$ of the best guess $`G_2`$ improves with increasing $`N`$. How large must $`N`$ be in order to obtain a standard deviation smaller than $`1`$, so that one can discriminate between the two values of $`|c_2|^2`$ above? We have to demand

$$1\sigma ^2(G_2).$$
(34)
$`\sigma (G_2)`$ depends on $`|c_1|`$ and $`|c_2|`$ of the initial state. But this requirement should be fulfilled for any initial state. We may therefore take in (34) the maximum value of $`\sigma (G_2)`$

$$1\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{N}\frac{p_1(1p_1)+p_2(1p_2)}{2(\mathrm{\Delta }p)^2},$$
(35)
which amounts to

$$N\frac{4p_0(1p_0)}{3(\mathrm{\Delta }p)^2}+\frac{4}{9}.$$
(36)
In fact we are interested in unsharp measurements within the N-series which are repeated after a time $`\tau >0`$. In order to discuss the influence of the measurements separately, we consider the absence of the driving influence ($`g=0`$). Then the operator of the dynamical evolution between the measurements commute with $`M_\pm `$. Therefore independent from the initial state altogether a finite interval of time not larger than

$$T_{lr}=\tau N_{lr}=\tau \frac{4p_0(1p_0)}{3(\mathrm{\Delta }p)^2}$$
(37)
is needed in order to obtain a variance of the related best guess so small as to resolve the levels with high probability. We call $`T_{lr}`$ the level resolution time.

We return to the situation when in addition the driving external influence is active too. The complete setup is then characterized by two time scales: the level resolution time $`T_{lr}`$ and the Rabi period $`T_R`$. There are three physically different regimes: for $`T_{lr}T_R`$ the succession of measurements is strong or sharp enough to push the state to one of the states $`|1`$ or $`|2`$ before the Rabi oscillation becomes manifest. Connected with this is a small variance. Therefore $`G_2(t_m)`$ will correspond well to the disturbed $`|c_2(t_m)|^2`$ but the readout will not reflect the underlying Rabi oscillations. We call this the quantum jump regime for reasons to be seen later. For $`T_RT_{lr}`$ on the other hand, the measurement influence on the state dynamics is so weak, that the state and therefore $`|c_2(t_m)|^2`$ shows the Rabi oscillations. But because of the large variance of $`G_2`$, a single readout $`G_2(t_m)`$ will in general not be significantly related to $`|c_2(t_m)|^2`$ but will show a fuzzy behaviour. The state motion thus cannot be read off from $`G_2(t_m)`$. We call this the Rabi regime. Of particular interest is the intermediate regime characterized by $`T_{lr}/T_R1`$. One can expect that this regime shows two features: on one hand the state motion is still close to the Rabi oscillations and on the other hand the readout $`G_2(t_m)`$ follows closely the $`|c_2(t_m)|^2`$ of the state. In this case the state motion would be made visible as intended, without modifying too much the original Rabi oscillations by the influence of the measurement.

The numerical simulations show that the intermediate regime can rather be characterized by the condition

$$f:=3\pi T_{lr}/T_R1$$
(38)
than by $`T_{lr}/T_R1`$. In the following we use $`f`$ instead of $`T_{lr}`$ as measure of fuzziness.

## 5 Results of the numerical analysis

We discuss the three regimes by considering one typical example for each regime. The characteristic traits can be read off from Figs. 1– 3. In all three cases we have chosen $`\tau =0.002T_R`$ and $`N=25`$, so that condition (45) is fulfilled. Figs. 1a– 3a show as function of $`t/T_R`$

* the $`|c_2|^2`$-curve of the state motion (black),
* the $`G_2`$-curve representing the measurement readout (gray) and
* the processed $`G_2`$-curve obtained after noise reduction (dashed).

The noise reduction is sketched in Appendix C. The related Figs. 1b– 3b show the respective Fourier spectra gained by discrete Fourier transform of the $`|c_2|^2`$-curve (black) and the measurement readout $`G_2`$ (grey). The peaks at $`k=0`$ are caused by the non-vanishing average value of the curves. In the three regimes we find characteristically different results:

### 5.1 Quantum jump regime

With fuzziness $`f=0.07`$ there is a rather strong influence of the measurements on the time evolution of the state. The single measurement is still rather sharp and close to a projection measurement. Accordingly, we observe in Fig. 1, that the Rabi oscillations of $`|c_2|^2`$, which would appear in the absence of the measurements are completely destroyed. The $`|c_2|^2`$-curve (black) shows jumps between extended periods with values approximately equal to $`0`$ or $`1`$. This means that if the state of the system is close to an eigenstate $`|1`$ or $`|2`$, it has a high probability to stay there. The $`G_2`$-curve of the measurement readout (gray) reflects very well the $`|c_2|^2`$-curve of the state. The peaks of the $`|c_2|^2`$-curve pointing upwards and downwards follow the direction of the corresponding peaks of the $`G_2`$-curve. The processed $`G_2`$-curve (dashed) reflects the quantum jump regime even better. In this regime there is a rather good agreement between the readout and the $`|c_2|^2`$-curve, but there is no characteristic indication of the undisturbed dynamics. The Fourier spectra show a very good correlation, as can be seen in Fig. 1b.

### 5.2  Rabi regime

The other extreme can be found in the Rabi regime. We have chosen a high fuzziness $`f=63`$. The single measurements are so unsharp and their influence on the motion of the state so weak, that the Rabi oscillations remain nearly undisturbed. This can be seen from the $`|c_2|^2`$-curve (black) in Fig. 2a. In contrast to this the $`G_2`$-curve of the measurement readout (grey) is very fuzzy. The single measurement results lie far away from the interval $`[0,1]`$. The processed $`G_2`$-curve (dashed) shows also no correlation, neither in phase nor amplitude with the $`|c_2|^2`$-curve. Turning to the Fourier spectra (Fig. 2b), we see that the Rabi frequency of the $`|c_2|^2`$-curve (black) is represented well. On the other hand, no frequency can be attributed to the measurement readout (gray curve). In this regime the measurement readout does not allow a conclusion on the motion of the state as represented by the $`|c_2|^2`$-curve.

### 5.3 Intermediate regime

Finally we turn with a fuzziness of $`f=0.98`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }p|=0.08`$ to a parameter choice, which leads to representative curves for the intermediate regime. According to the Fourier spectrum (black) in Fig. 3b the $`|c_2|^2`$-curve is dominated by one frequency, which differs only little from the Rabi frequency $`T_R`$. In this regime the $`|c_2|^2`$-curve, which would characterize the state motion if no measurement were performed, is not much modified. The important point is that now the $`G_2`$-curve of the measurement readout (grey) shows a correlation with the $`|c_2|^2`$-curve regarding the phase: if the $`|c_2|^2`$-curve has a maximum, the $`G_2`$-curve is in the upper domain and for a minimum correspondingly. Regarding the Fourier spectrum of the measurement readout (grey curve in Fig. 3b), there is still a lot of noise, but a clear peak indicates the frequency of the $`|c_2|^2`$-curve. The measurement readout follows therefore closely the $`|c_2|^2`$-curve of the state motion in phase and frequency. This is even more convincing for the processed $`G_2`$-curve (dashed curve in Fig. 3a).

## 6 Discussion and conclusions

The normalized state $`|\psi (t)=c_1(t)|1+c_2(t)|2`$ of a single two-level system performs oscillations under the influence of a resonant time dependent driving field. It is assumed that there is only one realization of this process available. We ask the question whether it is possible to visualize in real time the evolution of the system as far as it is given by $`|c_2(t)|^2`$.

This result can clearly not be obtained by means of standard measurements which result in projections. Generalized measurements, can be discussed by means of positive operator valued measures (POVM). For our goal we restrict to a particular subclass of unsharp measurements, which have a simple structure so that an experimental realization should be possible. The pointer values of this measurements are $`+`$ and $``$. We perform a sequence of measurements separated in time leading to the pointer readings $`++++\mathrm{}`$. It can be shown that it is favorable to transform a series of $`N`$ pointer readings to one point of a measurement readout which is defined as best guess $`G_2(t)`$ for $`|c_2(t)|^2`$.

The single unsharp measurement must be weak enough as not to disturb the evolution of the system too much. On the other hand it must not be too weak in order to give information about the state of the system. We determined analytically the domains for the different open parameters such that this ’intermediate’ regime of measurement can be reached. The numerical analysis finally shows that for this intermediate regime the real time visualization of $`|c_2(t)|^2`$ can be obtained to a satisfactory amount. The readout $`G_2(t)`$ reflects rather well the resulting $`|c_2(t)|^2`$, which itself shows only a slight modification of the undisturbed Rabi oscillations.

Note that above the Rabi frequency of the unitary development was assumed to be known. If this is not the case a feed-back mechanism must be introduced so that after a certain time from the beginning of the measurements a visualization can be reached. This project is subject of future research.

## 7 Acknowledgment

The authors thank Peter Marzlin for many stimulating discussions. This work has been supported by the Optik Zentrum Konstanz.

## Appendix A: How to choose the operations

In order to detect the dynamics of $`|c_2|^2`$ we choose measurements with particular operations corresponding to a particular POVM. We justify this choice as follows:

Since our measurement scheme contains consecutive measurements, it is important to consider in which state the system is left after one measurement. We require the operations, which describe the transformation of the state up to a phase factor, to be such that the states $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ are not changed due to the measurement. Hence these states should be eigenstates of the operations $`M_+`$ and $`M_{}`$ in agreement with (3) and (4).

We now address the question why $`M_\pm `$ should be positive operators, thus $`u_{1,2}^+,u_{1,2}^{}>0`$ in (3) and (4) (second requirement of Sect. 2.1). In the context of quantum feedback control one makes use of the fact that the operations may be decomposed into ’modulus’ and ’phase’, in our case:

$$M_\pm =U_\pm |M_\pm |,$$
(39)
where $`U_\pm `$ are unitary operators and $`|M_\pm |:=\sqrt{M_\pm ^{}M_\pm }`$. While the ’modulus’ $`|M_\pm |`$, because of its relation to the effects $`E_\pm =|M_\pm |^2`$, is connected to the acquisition of information, the unitary operators $`U_\pm `$ represent rather an additional Hamiltonian evolution, not leading to any increase of information about the system (compare Wiseman  and Doherty et al. ). If thus $`U_\pm `$ cannot be used as a feedback to compensate the influence of $`|M_\pm |`$, it only adds to the disturbance by the measurement and should be set $`U_\pm =1`$ (a global phase factor $`\mathrm{exp}(i\phi _\pm )`$ is always neglected).

That the additional evolution represented by $`U_\pm `$ is indeed obstructive in our case can be made clear as follows. To be diagonalizable the $`M_\pm `$ have to be normal, i.e., $`[M_\pm ^{},M_\pm ]=0`$ which amounts to $`[|M_\pm |^2,U_\pm ]=0`$. Hence $`U_\pm `$ and $`|M_\pm |`$ have a simultaneous basis of eigenvectors, which has to be $`|1`$ and $`|2`$, because $`M_\pm `$ is required to be diagonal in that basis. Now if $`U_\pm `$ is diagonal with respect to $`|1`$ and $`|2`$, it can be written as:

$$U_\pm =\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\text{i}}{2}\sigma _z\theta _\pm )$$
(40)
for some angle $`\theta `$ and $`\sigma _z`$ as Pauli operator. In order to illustrate the corresponding different influences on the state motion, we refer to the Bloch sphere. The resonant Rabi oscillations which our system performs in the absence of measurements can be represented by a rotation of the normalized Bloch vector in the y-z-plane (given that the initial state lies in this plane) . The measurement induces a change of the state given by $`M_\pm `$. The contribution due to $`|M_\pm |`$ leads to a jump of the Bloch vector towards one of the ’poles’ on the Bloch sphere at $`(0,0,1)`$ and at $`(0,0,1)`$. The Bloch vector thereby does not leave the plane spanned by the state before the measurement and the z-axis. $`U_\pm `$ on the other hand forces the Bloch vector to leave this plane. As a consequence $`U_\pm `$ cannot compensate the change due to $`|M_\pm |`$ and the influence of $`|M_\pm |`$ is inevitable. Beyond that, a unitary evolution $`U_\pm 1`$ disturbs the original Rabi oscillations heavily in a succession of measurements by leading the Bloch vector out of the y-z-plane. Therefore we have to choose $`U_\pm =1`$ in order to disturb the Rabi oscillations by the action of the operations $`M_\pm `$ as little as possible. In an experimental situation with nontrivial unitary transformations $`U_\pm `$ the state change due to $`U_\pm `$ could be compensated by means of feedback (compare Wiseman ).

## Appendix B: Upper limit for $`N`$

In this Appendix we describe under which circumstances the concept of the best guess as introduced in Sect. 3 can also be used for N-series with dynamical evolution due to the Hamiltonian in (32) between the single measurements.

Consider a N-series of unsharp measurements which are separated by the unitary evolution according to (32). In the interaction picture the state after the first N-series thus reads:

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(M_k\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}H_I\tau \right)\right)|\psi (0)$$
(41)
with $`M_k=M_+,M_{}`$ and $`H_I:=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_R(|21|+|12|)/2`$. We have to discuss for this new situation again the concept of a best guess. If we may commutate unitary evolution and operations representing the change due to the measurement, so that

$$|\psi (\mathrm{\Delta }t)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}H_I\mathrm{\Delta }t\right)\stackrel{~}{M}(N_+,N)|\psi (0)$$
(42)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{M}(N_+,N):=\sqrt{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{N_+}\right)}M(N_+,N),$$
(43)
we are back to the situation described in Section 3.2 and the best guess $`G_2(t_m)`$ of (30) may be taken as a good candidate to approximate $`|c_2(t_m)|^2`$. The underlying commutators are

$$[M_\pm ,\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}H_I\tau \right)]=\sigma _y(u_1^\pm u_2^\pm )\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\pi \tau }{T_R}),$$
(44)
where $`\sigma _y`$ represents the Pauli operator. Although the commutators are small for $`\tau /T_R1`$, their contribution accumulates and is no longer negligible if the number $`N`$ of measurements within the N-series is too large.

A lengthy calculation shows that for $`N\tau /T_R1`$ the term (41) may be approximately written in the form (42), if

$$(N1)^2\frac{\mathrm{max}\{u_1^+,u_2^{}\}}{2\mathrm{max}\{|u_2^+u_1^+|,|u_2^{}u_1^{}|\}}\frac{T_R}{\pi \tau }.$$
(45)
Here it was assumed that the matrix elements of the operation $`M_+`$ fulfill $`u_1^+>u_2^+`$. Otherwise the indices $`1`$ and $`2`$ in (45) have to be permutated.

## Appendix C: Simulation procedure and noise reduction

In this appendix the procedure is described we employed to simulate the measurements of Rabi oscillations on the computer. It is denoted here in form of four instructions:
1) Evolve initial state unitarily according to the undisturbed dynamics of the system; $`|\psi (0)|\psi (\tau )=\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{\text{i}}{\mathrm{}}H_I\tau \}|\psi (0).`$
2) Simulate single unsharp measurement in two steps. First generate a random outcome by a Monte Carlo method according to the probabilities $`p_\pm =E_\pm _{\psi (\tau )}`$. Then change the state depending on the outcome $`|\psi (\tau )M_\pm |\psi (\tau )`$.
3) N-series: Carry out instructions 1) and 2) $`N`$ times, every time replacing the initial state by the state obtained after the previous unsharp measurement. After the N-series record $`|c_2(t_1=N\tau )|^2`$ of the current state and the measurement readout, i.e., the best guess $`G_2(t_1)`$ for $`|c_2(t_1)|^2`$. The best guess is calculated from the number of $`+`$-results (c.f. equation (30)).
4) Simulate $`M`$ times an N-series of unsharp measurements, always inserting as initial state the state obtained from the previous N-series. The total record of the simulation will then consist of a sequence of readouts $`G_2(t_m)`$ and squared components of the state $`|c(t_m)|^2`$ with $`t_m=m\mathrm{\Delta }t,m=1\mathrm{}M`$.

The readouts from the simulated measurements can now be processed to eliminate noise. We used the following method.
The sequence $`(G_2(t_m))`$ is expressed by means of discrete Fourier transform as $`G_2(t_m)=_{l=0}^{M1}a(\omega _l)\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _lt_m)`$, with $`\omega _l=2\pi l/T`$. From the power-spectrum ($`|a(\omega _l)|^2`$) the main peak (if present) is identified with the modified Rabi frequency and the noise is estimated.

The noise is reduced by transforming the Fourier coefficients employing a Wiener filter $`\varphi _l`$ : $`a(\omega _l)a(\omega _l)\varphi _l`$. Further noise reduction is achieved by omitting higher frequencies in the Fourier series which cannot be related to the original Rabi oscillation. We truncated the Fourier series after the $`2l`$-th term, where $`\omega _l`$ is the frequency of the main peak of the power spectrum.

The resulting filtered and truncated Fourier series leads to a new sequence of best guesses $`(G_2(t_m))`$ in the text referred to as ’processed measurement readout’ or ’processed $`G_2`$-curve’.