format: text

text:
# Decoherence and gate performance of coupled solid state qubits

## I Introduction

Quantum computation has been shown to perform certain tasks much faster than classical computers shorsalgorithm ; grover ; deutsch . Presently, very mature physical realizations of this idea originate in atomic physics, optics, and nuclear magnetic resonance. These systems are phase coherent in abundance, however, scaling up the existing few-qubits systems is not straightforward. Solid state quantum computers have the potential advantage of being arbitrarily scalable to large systems of many qubits divincenzo1 ; bkane ; orlando . Their most important drawback is the coupling to the many degrees of freedom of a solid state system. Even though recently there has been fast progress in improving the decoherence properties of experimentally realized solid state quantum bits nakamura ; stonybrook ; quantronium ; fluxqubitrabi , this remains a formidable task.

Quite a lot is known about decoherence properties of single solid state qubits, see e.g. \[marlies, ; caspar, ; makhlin1, \], but much less is known about systems of two or more coupled qubits milburn ; governale ; thorwart . However, only for systems of at least two qubits, the central issue of entanglement can be studied. The physically available types of qubit coupling can be classified as Heisenberg-type exchange which is typical for real spin-1/2-systems, and Ising-type coupling, which is characteristic for pseudospin setups, where the computational degrees of freedom are not real spins. In the latter, the different spin components typically correspond to distinct variables, such as charge and flux quantronium ; wilhelmmooij  whose couplings can and have to be engineered on completely different footing. Previous work governale ; thorwart  presented the properties of a system of two coupled solid state qubits which are coupled via $`\sigma _y^{(i)}\sigma _y^{(j)}`$ type coupling as proposed in makhlin1  as the current-current coupling of superconducting charge quantum bits.

On the other hand, many systems such as inductively coupled flux qubits orlando , capacitively coupled charge qubits pashkin ; nakamura  and other pseudo-spin systems Blick  are described by a $`\sigma _z^{(i)}\sigma _z^{(j)}`$ Ising-type coupling. This indicates that the computational basis states are coupled, which i.e. in the case of flux qubits are magnetic fluxes, whereas $`\sigma _{x/y}`$ are electric charges. The $`\sigma _z`$-observable is a natural way of coupling, because it is typically easy to couple to. We will study a two qubit-system coupled this way that is exposed to Gaussian noise coupling to $`\sigma _z`$, the “natural” observable. This e.g. accounts for the crucial effect of electromagnetic noise in superconducting qubits. We will compare both the case of noise that affects both qubits in a correlated way and the case of uncorrelated single-qubit errors. We determine the decoherence properties of the system by application of the well known Bloch-Redfield formalism and determine quality factors of a CNOT gate for both types of errors and feasible parameters of the system.

## II Model Hamiltonian

We model the Hamiltonian of a system of two qubits, coupled via Ising-type coupling. Each of the two qubits is a two-state system that is described in pseudo-spin notation by the single-qubit Hamiltonian caspar

$$𝐇_{sq}=\frac{1}{2}ϵ\widehat{\sigma }_z\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\sigma }_x\text{,}$$
(1)
where $`ϵ`$ is the energy bias and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the tunnel matrix element. The coupling between the qubits is determined by an extra term in the Hamiltonian $`𝐇_{\mathrm{qq}}=\frac{K}{2}\widehat{\sigma }_z^{(1)}\widehat{\sigma }_z^{(2)}`$ that represents e.g. inductive interaction (directly or via flux transformer) in the case of flux qubits orlando ; hannes . Thus, the complete two-qubit Hamiltonian in the absence of a dissipative environment reads

$$𝐇_{2qb}=\underset{i=1,2}{}\left(\frac{1}{2}ϵ_i\widehat{\sigma }_z^{(i)}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_i\widehat{\sigma }_x^{(i)}\right)\frac{1}{2}K\widehat{\sigma }_z^{(1)}\widehat{\sigma }_z^{(2)}\text{.}$$
(2)
The dissipative (bosonic) environment is conveniently modeled as either a common bath or two distinct baths of harmonic oscillators, coupling to the $`\sigma _z`$ components of the two qubits. This approach universally models baths which produce Gaussian fluctuations, such as the noise from linear electrical circuits. An example for a situation described by a common bath is long correlation length electromagnetic noise from the experimental environment or noise generated or picked up by coupling elements such as flux transformers orlando . Short correlation length radiation or local readout and control electronics coupling to individual qubits caspar  might be described as coupling to two uncorrelated baths of harmonic oscillators.

One should note that if the number of qubits is increased to more than two, there might also occur dissipative effects which neither affect all qubits nor only a single qubit but rather a cluster of qubits thus enhancing the complexity of our considerations dfsforqc .

In the case of two uncorrelated baths, the full Hamiltonian reads

$`𝐇_{2qb}^{2b}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_i\widehat{\sigma }_z^{(i)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_i\widehat{\sigma }_x^{(i)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{\sigma }_z^{(i)}\widehat{X}^{(i)}\right)`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K\widehat{\sigma }_z^{(1)}\widehat{\sigma }_z^{(2)}+𝐇_{B_1}+𝐇_{B_2}\text{,}`$
where each qubit couples to its own, distinct, harmonic oscillator bath $`𝐇_{B_i}`$, $`i=1,2`$, via the coupling term $`\sigma _z^{(i)}\widehat{X}^{(i)}`$, $`i=1,2`$, that bilinearly couples a qubit to the collective bath coordinate $`\widehat{X}^{(i)}=\zeta _\nu \lambda _\nu x_\nu `$. We again sum over the two qubits. In the case of two qubits coupling to one common bath, we model our two qubit system with the Hamiltonian

$`𝐇_{2qb}^{1b}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}\left(ϵ_i\widehat{\sigma }_z^{(i)}+\mathrm{\Delta }_i\widehat{\sigma }_x^{(i)}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K\widehat{\sigma }_z^{(1)}\widehat{\sigma }_z^{(2)}`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\widehat{\sigma }_z^{(1)}+\widehat{\sigma }_z^{(2)}\right)\widehat{X}+𝐇_B\text{,}`$
where $`𝐇_B`$ denotes one common bath of harmonic oscillators.

The appropriate starting point for our further analysis is the singlet/triplet basis, consisting of $`|:=(1,0,0,0)^T`$, $`(1/\sqrt{2})(|+|):=(0,1,0,0)^T`$, $`|:=(0,0,1,0)^T`$ and $`(1/\sqrt{2})(||):=(0,0,0,1)^T`$. In the case of flux qubits, the $``$ and $``$ states correspond to clockwise and counterclockwise current respectively.

In this basis, the undamped Hamiltonian $`𝐇_{2qb}`$, equation (2), of the two qubit system assumes the matrix form

$`𝐇_{2qb}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}ϵ+K& \eta & 0& \mathrm{\Delta }\eta \\ \eta & K& \eta & \mathrm{\Delta }ϵ\\ 0& \eta & Kϵ& \mathrm{\Delta }\eta \\ \mathrm{\Delta }\eta & \mathrm{\Delta }ϵ& \mathrm{\Delta }\eta & K\end{array}\right)\text{,}`$ (9)
with $`ϵ=ϵ_1+ϵ_2`$, $`\eta =(\mathrm{\Delta }_1+\mathrm{\Delta }_2)/\sqrt{2}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta =(\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ=ϵ_1ϵ_2`$. From now on, we concentrate on the case of equal parameter settings, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ and $`ϵ_1=ϵ_2`$.

If we now also express the coupling to the dissipative environment in this basis, we find in the case coupling to two uncorrelated distinct baths that

$`𝐇_{2qb}^{2b}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}ϵs+K& \eta & 0& 0\\ \eta & K& \eta & \mathrm{\Delta }s\\ 0& \eta & Kϵ+s& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{\Delta }s& 0& K\end{array}\right)`$ (14)
with $`s=X_1+X_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }s=X_1X_2`$. Here the bath mediates transitions between the singlet and triplet states, the singlet is not a protected subspace.

In the case of two qubits with equal parameters that are coupled to one common bath we obtain the matrix

$`𝐇_{2qb}^{1b}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}ϵs+K& \eta & 0& 0\\ \eta & K& \eta & 0\\ 0& \eta & Kϵ+s& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& K\end{array}\right)\text{,}`$ (19)
where $`s=2\widehat{X}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }s=0`$. One directly recognizes that compared to (14) in this case thermalization to the singlet state is impeded, because (19) is block-diagonal in the singlet and triplet subspaces. The singlet and triplet are completely decoupled from each other and in the case of one common bath the singlet is also completely decoupled from the bath and thus protected from dissipative effects. Therefore, a system in contact with one common bath that is prepared in the singlet state will never experience any decoherence effects. The singlet state is a protected subspace (DFS) whaley , although a trivial, one-dimensional one.

## III Eigenenergies and eigenstates of the two-qubit Hamiltonian

We calculate exact analytical eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the unperturbed two-qubit system Hamiltonian in the aforementioned symmetric case of (9), which reads

$`𝐇_{2qb}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}ϵ+K& \eta & 0& 0\\ \eta & K& \eta & 0\\ 0& \eta & Kϵ& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& K\end{array}\right)\text{.}`$ (24)
This Hamiltonian is block-diagonal and the largest block, the triplet, is three-dimensional, i.e. it can be diagonalized using Cardano’s formula. Details of that calculation are given in Ref. Diplomarbeit, . The case of non-identical qubits is more easily handled numerically.

In the following, $`|E1`$, $`|E2`$, $`|E3`$ and $`|E4`$ denote the eigenstates of the two-qubit system. The eigenenergies of the unperturbed Hamiltonian (24) depend on the three parameters $`K`$, $`ϵ`$ and $`\eta `$. Figure 1 displays the eigenenergies in more detail for typical experimentally accessible values.

The parameters that are choosen for the parameters $`ϵ`$, $`\eta `$ and $`K`$ in figure 1 correspond to what can be reached in flux qubits. They typically assume values of a few GHz resembling the parameters of known single- and two-qubit experiments in Delft caspar  and at MIT MIT . Therefore, we will use a characteristic energy scale $`E_s`$, which is typically $`E_s=1`$ GHz. The corresponding scales are $`t_s=1`$ ns, $`\omega _s=2\pi 1`$ GHz and $`T_s=\nu _s(h/k_B)=4.810^2`$ K. Panel 1) shows that for large values of $`ϵ`$, two of the eigenenergies are degenerate (namely for $`ϵ\eta ,K`$ the states $`|E1`$ and $`|E4`$ equal the states $`(1/\sqrt{2})(||)`$ and $`(1/\sqrt{2})(|+|)`$, hence the eigenenergies are degenerate) while near zero energy bias (magnetic frustation $`f=1/2`$) all four eigenenergies might be distinguished. Note also that therefore at zero energy bias the transition frequency $`\omega _{14}=\omega _{41}`$ has a local maximum, which, as will be shown below, can only be accessed via non-symmetric driving.

If $`K`$ is set to a big positive value corresponding to large ferromagnetic coupling (figure 1, panel 2), $`K=10E_s`$) the Hamiltonian (24) is nearly diagonal and hence the eigenstates in good approximation are equal to the singlet/triplet basis states. In this case $`|E3`$ equals the triplet state $`(1/\sqrt{2})(|+|)`$, $`|E2`$ and $`|E4`$ equal $`|`$ and $`|`$ respectively for positive values of $`ϵ`$. For large negative values of $`ϵ`$, the two states $`|E2`$ and $`|E4`$ become equal $`|`$ and $`|`$ with a pseudo-spin-flip between clockwise and counter-clockwise rotating current at $`ϵ=0`$ when going from positive to negative $`ϵ`$. In the case of large ferromagnetic coupling, the ground state tends towards the superposition $`(1/\sqrt{2})(|+|)`$. Panel 2) shows that only for $`ϵ`$ equal to zero, both $`|E2=|`$ ($`|E2=|`$ for negative $`ϵ`$) and $`|E4=|`$ ($`|E4=|`$ for negative $`ϵ`$) have the same energies (which one would expect if the $`(1/2)K\sigma _z^{(1)}\sigma _z^{(2)}`$ term in the Hamiltonian dominates), because if $`ϵ`$ is increased the $`ϵ_i\widehat{\sigma }_z^{(i)}`$ (i=1,2) terms in the Hamiltonian change the energy.

For large antiferromagnetic coupling, $`|K|ϵ,\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the states $`|`$ and $`|`$ are favorable. In this limit, the ground state tends towards $`(1/\sqrt{2})(|+|)`$ and the energy splitting between $`(1/\sqrt{2})(|+|)`$ and $`(1/\sqrt{2})(||)`$ vanishes asymptotically, leaving the ground state nearly degenerate.

From figure 1, panel 3), one directly recognizes that the singlet eigenenergy crosses the triplet spectrum, which is a consequence of the fact that the singlet does not interact with any triplet states. At zero energy bias (magnetic frustration $`f=1/2`$ for a flux qubit), none of the eigenstates equal one of the triplet basis states (e.g. as observed for a large energy bias $`ϵ`$), they are rather nontrivial superpositions. This is elucidated further in the next paragraph. The inset of panel 2) depicts the level anti-crossing between the eigenenergies of the two states $`|E2`$ and $`|E4`$ due to quantum tunneling.

In general, the eigenstates are a superposition of singlet/triplet states. Figure 2 shows, how singlet/triplet states combine into eigenstates for different qubit parameters. The first eigenstate $`|E1`$ equals $`(1/\sqrt{2})(||)`$ for all times while the other eigenstates $`|E2`$, $`|E3`$ and $`|E4`$ are in general superpositions of the singlet/triplet basis states. For large values of $`|ϵ|`$, the eigenstates approach the singlet/triplet basis states. In particular at typical working points, where $`ϵ5\mathrm{\Delta }`$ caspar  the eigenstates already nearly equal the singlet/triplet basis states. Hence, although the anticrossing described above corresponds to the anticrossing used in stonybrook ; casparscience  to demonstrate Schrödinger’s cat states, entanglement is prevalent away from the degeneracy point. For an experimental proof, one still would have to show that one has successfully prepared coherent couplings by spectroscopically tracing the energy spectrum. Note, that for clarity, in figure 2 the inter-qubit coupling strength $`K`$ is fixed to a rather high value of $`E_s`$ that also sets the width of the anti-crossing, which potentially can be very narrow.

### III.1 Spectroscopy

As a first technological step towards demonstrating coherent manipulation of qubits, usually the transition frequencies between certain energy levels are probed casparscience ; stonybrook , i.e. the energy differences between the levels. Figures 3 and 4 depict the transition frequencies between the four eigenstates. The transition frequencies are defined as $`\omega _{nm}=(E_nE_m)/\mathrm{}`$ and $`\omega _{nm}=\omega _{mn}`$. The transitions between the singlet state $`|E1`$ and the triplet states are forbidden in the case of one common bath, due to the special symmetries of the Hamiltonian (4), if the system is driven collectively through a time dependent energy bias $`ϵ_1(t)=ϵ_2(t)`$. However, in the case of two distinct baths the environment can mediate transitions between the singlet state and the triplet states.

Not all transition frequencies have local minima at $`ϵ=0`$. The frequencies $`\omega _{41}`$ and $`\omega _{34}`$ have local maxima at zero energy bias $`ϵ`$. This can already be inferred from figure 1, panel 1), the energy of the eigenstate $`|E4`$ has a local minimum at $`ϵ=0`$. Similarily, the substructure of $`\omega _{34}`$ can be understood from figure 1: the frequency $`\omega _{34}`$ has a local maximum at $`ϵ=0`$, because of the local minimum of the eigenenergy of the state $`|E4`$. First, if $`ϵ`$ is increased, the level spacing of $`|E4`$ and $`|E3`$ decreases. Then, for larger values of $`ϵ`$ the level spacing of $`|E4`$ and $`|E3`$ increases again. Thus, the structure observed for $`\omega _{34}`$ around $`ϵ=0`$ emerges in figure 4.

## IV Bloch-Redfield-Formalism

In order to describe decoherence in the weak damping limit, we use the Bloch-Redfield-Formalism argyres . It provides a systematic way of finding a set of coupled master equations which describes the dynamics of the reduced (i.e. the reservoir coordinates are traced out) density matrix for a given system in contact with a dissipative environment and has recently been shown to be numerically equivalent to the more elaborate path-integral scheme Hartmann . The Hamiltonian of our two qubit system in contact with a dissipative environment, eqs. (3) and (4), has the generic “system+bath” form

$$𝐇_{op}(t)=𝐇_{2qb}+𝐇_B+𝐇_{int}\text{,}$$
(25)
where $`𝐇_B`$ is a bath of harmonic oscillators and $`𝐇_{int}`$ inherits the coupling to a dissipative environment. In our case the effects of driving are not investigated. In Born approximation and when the system is only weakly coupled to the environment, Bloch-Redfield theory provides the following set of equations for the reduced density matrix $`\rho `$ describing the dynamics of the system blum ; weiss

$$\dot{\rho }_{nm}(t)=i\omega _{nm}\rho _{nm}(t)\underset{kl}{}R_{nmk\mathrm{}}\rho _k\mathrm{}(t)\text{,}$$
(26)
where $`\omega _{nm}=(E_nE_m)/\mathrm{}`$, and $`\underset{n,m,k,\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{max}}|\text{Re}(R_{nmk\mathrm{}})|<\underset{nm}{\mathrm{min}}|\omega _{nm}|`$ must hold. The Redfield relaxation tensor $`R_{nmk\mathrm{}}`$ comprises the dissipative effects of the coupling of the system to the environment. The elements of the Redfield relaxation tensor are given through golden rule rates weiss

$`R_{nmk\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _\mathrm{}m{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nrrk}^{(+)}+\delta _{nk}{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}rrm}^{()}`$ (27)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}mnk}^{(+)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}mnk}^{()}\text{.}`$
### IV.1 Two qubits coupled to two distinct baths

We now evaluate the Golden rule expressions in (27) in the case of two qubits, each coupled to a distinct harmonic oscillator bath. Here, $`\stackrel{~}{H}_I(t)=\mathrm{exp}(iH_Bt/\mathrm{})H_I\mathrm{exp}(iH_Bt/\mathrm{})`$ denotes the coupling between system and bath in the interaction picture, and the bracket denotes thermal average of the bath degrees of freedom. Writing down all contributions gives

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}mnk}^{(+)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{i\omega _{nk}t}<e^{i(H_{B_1}+H_{B_2})t/\mathrm{})}`$ (28)
$`\times \left(\sigma _{z,\mathrm{}m}^{(1)}\widehat{X}^{(1)}+\sigma _{z,\mathrm{}m}^{(2)}\widehat{X}^{(2)}\right)`$
$`\times e^{i(H_{B_1}+H_{B_2})t/\mathrm{})}`$
$`\times (\sigma _{z,nk}^{(1)}\widehat{X}^{(1)}+\sigma _{z,nk}^{(2)}\widehat{X}^{(2)})>\text{,}`$
where $`\sigma _{z,nm}^{(i)}`$ ($`i=1,2`$) are the matrix elements of $`\widehat{\sigma }_z^{(i)}`$ with respect to the eigenbasis of the unperturbed Hamiltonian (24) and likewise for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}mnk}^{()}`$.

We assume ohmic spectral densities with a Drude-cutoff. This is a realistic assumption i.e. for electromagnetic noise caspar  and leads to integrals in the rates which are tractable by the residue theorem. The cutoff frequency $`\omega _c`$ for the spectral functions of the two qubits is typically assumed to be the largest frequency in the problem, this is discussed further in section IV.5

$$J_1(\omega )=\frac{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\omega }{1+\frac{\omega ^2}{\omega _c^2}}\text{ and }J_2(\omega )=\frac{\alpha _2\mathrm{}\omega }{1+\frac{\omega ^2}{\omega _c^2}}\text{.}$$
(29)
The dimensionless parameter $`\alpha `$ describes the strength of the dissipative effects that enter the Hamiltonian via the coupling to the environment, described by $`s`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }s`$. In order for the Bloch-Redfield formalism, which involves a Born approximation in the system-bath coupling, to be valid, we have to assume $`\alpha _{1/2}1`$. After tracing out over the bath degrees of freedom, the rates read

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}mnk}^{(+)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\mathrm{}}}\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }^1J_1(\omega _{nk})+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2J_2(\omega _{nk})\right]`$ (30)
$`\times \left(\mathrm{coth}(\beta \mathrm{}\omega _{nk}/2)1\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4\pi \mathrm{}}}\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }^2M(\omega _{nk},2)+\mathrm{\Lambda }^1M(\omega _{nk},1)\right]`$
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{}mnk}^1=\sigma _{z,\mathrm{}m}^{(1)}\sigma _{z,nk}^{(1)}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{}mnk}^2=\sigma _{z,lm}^{(2)}\sigma _{z,nk}^{(2)}`$ and

$$M(\mathrm{\Omega },i)=𝒫\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\omega \frac{J_i(\omega )}{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}(\mathrm{coth}(\beta \mathrm{}\omega /2)\mathrm{\Omega }+\omega )\text{,}$$
(31)
here $`𝒫`$ denotes the principal value. Likewise,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}mnk}^{()}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\mathrm{}}}\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }^1J_1(\omega _\mathrm{}m)+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2J_2(\omega _\mathrm{}m)\right]`$ (32)
$`\times \left(\mathrm{coth}(\beta \mathrm{}\omega _\mathrm{}m/2)+1\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4\pi \mathrm{}}}\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }^2M(\omega _{lm},2)+\mathrm{\Lambda }^1M(\omega _{lm},1)\right]\text{.}`$
The rates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}mnk}^{(+)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}mnk}^{()}`$ might be inserted into (27) to build the Redfield tensor. Note here that for $`\omega _{nk}0`$ and $`\omega _{lm}0`$ respectively, the real part of the rates (which is responsible for relaxation and dephasing) is of value $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}mnk}^{(+)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}mnk}^{()}=\frac{1}{4\beta \mathrm{}}\left[\sigma _{z,\mathrm{}m}^{(1)}\sigma _{z,nk}^{(1)}\alpha _1+\sigma _{z,lm}^{(2)}\sigma _{z,nk}^{(2)}\alpha _2\right]`$.

To solve the set of differential equations (26), it is convenient not to use the superoperator notation but either to write $`\rho `$ as a vector. In general the Redfield equations (26) without driving are solved by an ansatz of the type $`\rho (t)=B\mathrm{exp}(\stackrel{~}{R}_i)B^1\rho (0)`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{R}_i`$ is a diagonal matrix. The entries of this diagonal matrix are the eigenvalues of the Redfield tensor (27), written in matrix form, including the dominating term $`i\omega _{nm}`$ (cf. equation 26). Here, the reduced density matrix $`\rho =(\rho _{11},\mathrm{},\rho _{44})^T`$ is written as a vector. The matrix $`B`$ describes the basis change to the eigenbasis of $`\stackrel{~}{R}_i`$, in which $`\stackrel{~}{R}_i`$ has diagonal form.

### IV.2 Two qubits coupled to one common bath

For the case of two qubits coupled to one common bath we perform the same calculation as in the last section, which leads to expressions for the rates analogous to eqs. (32)

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}mnk}^{(+)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }J(\omega _{nk})\left(\mathrm{coth}(\beta \mathrm{}\omega _{nk}/2)1\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{\Lambda }}{4\pi \mathrm{}}}`$
$`\times 𝒫{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\omega {\displaystyle \frac{J(\omega )}{\omega ^2\omega _{nk}^2}}\left(\mathrm{coth}(\beta \mathrm{}\omega /2)\omega _{nk}\omega \right)\text{,}`$
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{}mnk}=\sigma _{z,\mathrm{}m}^{(1)}\sigma _{z,nk}^{(1)}+\sigma _{z,\mathrm{}m}^{(1)}\sigma _{z,nk}^{(2)}+\sigma _{z,\mathrm{}m}^{(2)}\sigma _{z,nk}^{(1)}+\sigma _{z,lm}^{(2)}\sigma _{z,nk}^{(2)}`$, and

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}mnk}^{()}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }J(\omega _\mathrm{}m)\left(\mathrm{coth}(\beta \mathrm{}\omega _\mathrm{}m/2)+1\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{\Lambda }}{4\pi \mathrm{}}}`$
$`\times 𝒫{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\omega {\displaystyle \frac{J(\omega )}{\omega ^2\omega _\mathrm{}m^2}}\left(\mathrm{coth}(\beta \mathrm{}\omega /2)\omega _\mathrm{}m+\omega \right)\text{,}`$
The difference between the rates for the case of two distinct baths (30), (32) are the two extra terms $`\sigma _{z,lm}^{(1)}\sigma _{z,nk}^{(2)}`$ and $`\sigma _{z,lm}^{(2)}\sigma _{z,nk}^{(1)}`$. They originate when tracing out the bath degrees of freedom. In the case of one common bath there is only one spectral function, which we also assume to be ohmic $`J(\omega )=(\alpha \mathrm{}\omega )/(1+\frac{\omega ^2}{\omega _c^2})`$. For $`\omega _{nk}0`$ and $`\omega _{lm}0`$ respectively the real part of the rates is of the value $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}mnk}^{(+)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}mnk}^{()}=\frac{\alpha }{4\beta \mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{, for }\omega _{lm},\omega _{nk}0`$.

### IV.3 Dynamics of coupled flux qubits with dissipation

The dissipative effects affecting the two qubit system lead to decoherence, which manifests itself in two ways: The system experiences energy relaxation on a time scale $`\tau _R=\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^1`$ ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ is the sum of the relaxation rates of the four diagonal elements of the reduced density matrix; $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R=_n\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ are the eigenvalues of the matrix $`R_{n,m,n,m}`$, $`n,m=1,\mathrm{},4`$.), called relaxation time, into a thermal mixture of the system’s energy eigenstates. Therefore the diagonal elements of the reduced density matrix decay to the value given by the Boltzmann factors. The quantum coherent dynamics of the system are superimposed on the relaxation and decay on a usually shorter time scale $`\tau _{\phi _{ij}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\phi _{ij}}^1`$ ($`i,j=1,\mathrm{},4;ij`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\phi _{nm}}=\text{Re}R_{n,m,n,m}^{1b,2b}`$) termed dephasing time. Thus dephasing causes the off diagonal terms (coherences) of the reduced density matrix to tend towards zero.

First, we investigate the incoherent relaxation of the two qubit system out of an eigenstate. At long times, the system is expected to reach thermal equilibrium, $`\rho _{eq}=(1/Z)e^{\beta H}`$. Special cases are $`T=0`$ where $`\rho _{eq}`$ equals the projector on the ground state and $`T\mathrm{}`$ where all eigenstates are occupied with the same probability, i.e. $`\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}=(1/4)\widehat{1}`$. Figure 5 and 6 illustrate the relaxation of the system prepared in one of the four eigenstates for temperatures $`T=0`$ and $`T=21E_s`$ respectively. The qubit energies $`K`$, $`ϵ`$ and $`\eta `$ are all set to $`E_s`$ and $`\alpha `$ is set to $`\alpha =10^3`$. From figure 1 one recognizes relaxation into the eigenstate $`|E2`$, the ground state for this set of parameters.

At low temperatures ($`T=0`$), we observe that for the case of two distinct uncorrelated baths a system prepared in one of the four eigenstates always relaxes into the ground state. In the case of two qubits coupling to one common bath, this is not always the case, as can be seen in the upper left panels of figs. 5 and 6. This can be explained through our previous observation, that the singlet is a protected subspace: Neither the free nor, unlike in the case of distinct baths, the bath-mediated dynamics couple the singlet to the triplet space. Moreover, we can observe that relaxation to the ground state happens by populating intermediate eigenstates with a lower energy than the initial state the system was prepared in at $`t=0`$ (cf. figure 1).

For high temperatures ($`T21E_s`$) the system thermalizes into thermal equilibrium, where all eigenstates have equal occupation probabilities. Again, in the case of one common bath, thermalization of the singlet state is impeded and the three eigenstates $`|E2`$, $`|E3`$ and $`|E4`$ have equal occupation probabilites of $`1/3`$ after the relaxation time.

If the system is prepared in a superposition of eigenstates, e.g. $`|E3`$ and $`|E4`$ as in Fig. 7, which are not in a protected subspace, we observe coherent oscillations between the eigenstates that are damped due to dephasing and after the decoherence time the occupation probability of the eigenstates is given by the Boltzmann factors. This behaviour is depicted in figure 7. Here for $`\alpha =10^3`$, the cases of $`T=0`$ and $`T=2.1E_s`$ are compared. When the temperature is low enough, the system will relax into the ground state $`|E2`$, as illustrated by the right column of figure 7. Thus the occupation probability of the state $`(1/\sqrt{2})(|E3+|E4)`$ goes to zero. Here, in the case of zero temperature, the decoherence times for the case of one common or two distinct baths are of the same order of magnitude. The left column illustrates the behaviour when the temperature is increased. At $`T=2.1E_s`$ the system relaxes into an equally populated state on times much shorter than for $`T=0`$.

For low temperatures the characteristic time scale for dephasing and relaxation is somewhat shorter for the case of one common bath ($`\tau ^{1b}/\tau ^{2b}0.9`$ for $`\alpha =10^3`$). This can be explained by observing the temperature dependence of the rates shown in figure 8. Though for the case of one common bath two of the dephasing rates are zero at $`T=0`$, the remaining rates are always slightly bigger for the case of one common bath compared to the case of two distinct baths. If the system is prepared in a general superposition, here $`|E3`$ and $`|E4`$, nearly all rates become important thus compensating the effect of the two rates which are approximately zero at zero temperature and leading to faster decoherence.

If $`\alpha `$ and therefore the strength of the dissipative effects is increased from $`\alpha =10^3`$ to $`\alpha =10^2`$, the observed coherent motion is significantly damped. Variation of $`\alpha `$ leads to a phase shift of the coherent oscillations, due to renormalization of the frequencies governale . However, in our case the effects of renormalization are very small, as discussed in chapter IV.5, and cannot be observed in our plots.

### IV.4 Temperature dependence of the rates

Figure 8 displays the dependence of typical dephasing rates and the relaxation rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ on temperature. These decoherence rates are the inverse decoherence times. The rates are of the same magnitude for the case of one common bath and two distinct baths. As a notable exception, in the case of one common bath the dephasing rates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\phi _{21}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\phi _{12}}`$ go to zero when the temperature is decreased while all other rates saturate for $`T0`$. This phenomenon is explained later on. If the temperature is increased from $`T_s=(h/k_B)\nu _s=4.810^2\text{ K}`$ the increase of the dephasing and relaxation rates follows a power law dependence. It is linear in temperature $`T`$ with a slope given by the prefactors of the expression in the Redfield rates that depends on temperature. At temperature $`T0.1E_s`$, the rates show a sharp increase for both cases. This roll-off point is set by the characteristic energy scale of the problem, which in turn is set by the energy bias $`ϵ`$, the transmission matrix element $`\eta `$ and the coupling strength $`K`$. For the choice of parameters in figure 8 the characteristic energy scale expressed in temperature is $`T0.1E_s`$.

Note that there is also dephasing between the singlet and the triplet states. When the system is prepared (by application of a suitable interaction) in a coherent superposition of singlet and triplet states the phase evolves coherently. Then two possible decoherence mechanisms can destroy phase coherence. Firstly, “flipless” dephasing processes, where $`E`$ remains unchanged. These flipless dephasing processes are described by the terms for $`\omega _{lm},\omega _{nk}0`$ in the rates, eqs. (32) and (LABEL:eq:rate\_1bath). Obviously these terms vanish for $`T0`$, as the low-frequency component of Ohmic Gaussian noise is strictly thermal. Secondly, relaxation due to emission of a boson to the bath is also accompagnied by a loss of phase coherence. This process in general has a finite rate at $`T=0`$. This explains the T-dependence of the rates in the single-bath case: $`|E1`$ alone is protected from the environment. As there are incoherent transitions between the triplet-eigenstates even at $`T=0`$, the relative phase of a coherent oscillation betweeen $`|E1`$ and any of those is randomized and the decoherence rates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\phi _{3/4,1}}`$ are finite even at $`T=0`$. As a notable exception, $`|E2`$, the lowest-energy state in the triplet subspace, can only be flipped through absorption of energy, which implies that the dephasing rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\phi _{21}}`$ also vanishes at low temperature. The described behaviour can be observed in figure 8.

If the parameters $`ϵ`$ and $`\eta `$ are tuned to zero, thus $`K`$ being the only non-vanishing parameter in the Hamiltonian, all dephasing and relaxation rates will vanish for $`T=0`$ in the case of one common bath. This behaviour is depicted in figure 9. It originates from the special symmetries of the Hamiltonian in this case and the fact that for this particular two qubit operation the system Hamiltonian and the coupling to the bath are diagonal in the same basis. This special case is of crucial importance for the quantum gate operation as described in V and affects the gate quality factors.

### IV.5 Renormalization effects

Next to causing decoherence, the interaction with the bath also renormalizes the qubit frequencies. This is mostly due to the fast bath modes and can be understood analogous to the Franck-Condon effect, the Lamb shift, or the adiabatic renormalization Leggett . Renormalization of the oscillation frequencies $`\omega _{nm}`$ is controlled by the imaginary part of the Redfield tensor governale

$$\omega _{nm}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{nm}:=\omega _{nm}\text{Im}R_{nmnm}\text{.}$$
(35)
Note that $`\text{Im}R_{nmnm}=\text{Im}R_{mnmn}`$ due to the fact that the correlators in the Golden Rule expressions have the same parity. The imaginary part of the Redfield tensor is given by

$`\text{Im}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}mnk}^{(+)}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{\mathrm{}mnk}^{1\mathrm{b},2\mathrm{b}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi \mathrm{}}}𝒫{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\omega J(\omega )\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega ^2\omega _{nk}^2}}\right)`$ (36)
$`\times \left[\text{coth}(\beta \mathrm{}\omega /2)\omega _{nk}\omega \right]`$
and

$`\text{Im}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}mnk}^{()}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{\mathrm{}mnk}^{1\mathrm{b},2\mathrm{b}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi \mathrm{}}}𝒫{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\omega J(\omega )\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega ^2\omega _{lm}^2}}\right)`$ (37)
$`\times \left[\text{coth}(\beta \mathrm{}\omega /2)\omega _{lm}+\omega \right]\text{,}`$
where $`𝒫`$ denotes the principal value and $`C_{\mathrm{}mnk}^{1\mathrm{b},2\mathrm{b}}`$ are pre-factors defined, in the case of two distinct baths, according to $`C_{\mathrm{}mnk}^{2\mathrm{b}}=\frac{1}{4}\left[\sigma _{z,\mathrm{}m}^{(1)}\sigma _{z,nk}^{(1)}+\sigma _{z,\mathrm{}m}^{(2)}\sigma _{z,nk}^{(2)}\right]`$ and in the case of one common bath $`C_{\mathrm{}mnk}^{1\mathrm{b}}=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Here, for simplicity, we assumed $`\alpha _1=\alpha _2=\alpha `$ and thus $`J_1(\omega )=J_2(\omega )=J(\omega )`$. Evaluation of the integral leads to the following expression for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}mnk}^{(+)}`$

$`\text{Im}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}mnk}^{(+)}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{\mathrm{}mnk}^{1\mathrm{b},2\mathrm{b}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \omega _c^2\omega _{nk}}{2\pi (\omega _c^2+\omega _{nk}^2)}}[\psi (1+c_2)+\psi (c_2)`$ (38)
$`2\text{Re}[\psi (ic_1)]\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\omega _c}{\omega _{nk}}}]\text{,}`$
with $`c_1:=(\beta \mathrm{}\omega _{nk})/(2\pi )`$, $`c_2:=(\beta \mathrm{}\omega _c)/(2\pi )`$. In the case of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}mnk}^{()}`$ the expression is

$`\text{Im}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}mnk}^{()}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{\mathrm{}mnk}^{1\mathrm{b},2\mathrm{b}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \omega _c^2\omega _\mathrm{}m}{2\pi (\omega _c^2+\omega _\mathrm{}m^2)}}[\psi (1+c_2)+\psi (c_2)`$ (39)
$`2\text{Re}[\psi (ic_1)]+\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\omega _c}{\omega _\mathrm{}m}}]\text{,}`$
with $`c_1:=(\omega _\mathrm{}m\beta \mathrm{})/(2\pi )`$. The terms in (38) and (39) which are linear in $`\omega _c`$ give no net contribution to the imaginary part of the Redfield tensor governale . To illustrate the size of the renormalization effects, the ratio of the renormalization effects to the frequencies which are renormalized is depicted in figure 10.

If $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are large and the digamma functions can be approximated by a logarithm the resulting expression for the renormalization effects will be independent of temperature. The temperature dependence of (38) and (39) at higher temperatures, where $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are small and the renormalization effects are very weak is shown in figure 10. The rates (38) and (39) diverge logarithmically with $`\omega _c`$ in analogy to the well-known ultraviolet-divergence of the spin Boson model Leggett . When comparing the upper left ($`T=0`$) and upper right ($`T=2.1E_s`$) panel, one recognizes that for the first case one common bath gives somewhat smaller renormalization effects than two distinct baths, while in the second case for $`T=2.1E_s`$ the renormalization effects deviate only slightly (see the behaviour for $`\omega _{23}`$) and the renormalization effects are smaller for the case of two distinct baths. The effects of renormalization are always very small ($`|\text{Im}(R_{n,m,n,m})/\omega _{nm}|`$ below 1% for our choice of parameters) and are therefore neglected in our calculations. However, having calculated (38) and (39), these are easily incorporated in our calculation. The case of large renormalization effects is discussed in Ref. kehrein, .

We only plotted the size of the renormalization effects for $`\omega _{12}`$, $`\omega _{14}`$ and $`\omega _{34}`$, because in general all values of $`\omega _{nk}`$ are of the same magnitude and give similar plots. The size of the renormalization effects diverges linearly with $`\alpha `$, the dimensionless parameter which describes the strength of the dissipative effects.

For flux qubits, the cutoff frequency $`\omega _c`$ is given by the circuit properties. For a typical first order low-pass LR filter in a qubit circuit caspar , one can insert $`R=50`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (typical impedance of coaxial cables) and $`L1`$ nH (depends on the length of the circuit lines) into $`\omega _{LR}=R/L`$ and gets that $`\omega _{LR}510^{10}`$ Hz. $`\omega _{LR}`$ is the largest frequency in the problem (see again caspar , chapter 4.5) and $`\omega _c\omega _{LR}`$ should hold. Then $`\omega _c10^{13}`$ Hz (=$`10^4E_s`$) as cutoff frequency is a reasonable assumption.

## V Gate Quality Factors

In the last section IV, we evaluated the dephasing and relaxation rates of the two-qubit system that is affected by a dissipative environment. Furthermore, we visualized the dynamics of the two-qubit system. This does not yet allow a full assessment of the performance as a quantum logic element. These should perform unitary gate operations and based on the rates alone, one can not judge how well quantum gate operations might be performed with the two qubit system. Therefore, to get a quantitative measure of how our setup behaves when performing a quantum logic gate operation, one can evaluate gate quality factors GateQualityFactors . The performance of a two-qubit gate is characterized by four quantities: the fidelity, purity, quantum degree and entanglement capability. The fidelity is defined as

$$=\frac{1}{16}\underset{j=1}{\overset{16}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{in}^j|U_G^+\rho _G^jU_G|\mathrm{\Psi }_{in}^j\text{,}$$
(40)
where the density matrix obtained from attempting a quantum gate operation in a hostile environment is $`\rho _G^j=\rho (t_G)`$, which is evaluated for all initial conditions $`\rho (0)=|\mathrm{\Psi }_{in}^j\mathrm{\Psi }_{in}^j|`$. The fidelity is a measure of how well a quantum logic operation was performed. Without dissipation the reduced density matrix $`\rho _G^j`$ after performing the quantum gate operation, applying $`U_G`$ and the inverse $`U_G^+`$ would equal $`\rho (0)`$. Therefore the fidelity for the ideal quantum gate operation should be 1.

The second quantifier is the purity

$$𝒫=\frac{1}{16}\underset{j=1}{\overset{16}{}}\text{tr}\left((\rho _G^j)^2\right)\text{,}$$
(41)
which should be 1 without dissipation and $`1/4`$ in a fully mixed state. The purity characterizes the effects of decoherence.

The third quantifier, the quantum degree, is defined as the maximum overlap of the resulting density matrix after the quantum gate operation with the maximally entangled states, the Bell-states

$$𝒬=\underset{j,k}{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{me}^k|\rho _G^j|\mathrm{\Psi }_{me}^k\text{,}$$
(42)
where the Bell-states $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{me}^k`$ are defined according to

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{me}^{00}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|+|}{\sqrt{2}}}\text{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{me}^{01}={\displaystyle \frac{|+|}{\sqrt{2}}}\text{,}`$ (43)
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{me}^{10}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{||}{\sqrt{2}}}\text{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{me}^{11}={\displaystyle \frac{||}{\sqrt{2}}}\text{.}`$ (44)
For an ideal entangling operation, e.g. the UXOR gate, the quantum degree should be 1. The quantum degree characterizes nonlocality. It has been shown nonlocality  that all density operators that have an overlap with a maximally entangled state that is larger than the value $`0.78`$ thorwart  violate the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequality and are thus non-local.

The fourth quantifier, the entanglement capability $`𝒞`$, is the smallest eigenvalue of the partially transposed density matrix for all possible unentangled input states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{in}^j`$. (see below). It has been shown peres  to be negative for an entangled state. This quantifier should be -0.5, e.g. for the ideal UXOR, thus characterizing a maximally entangled final state. Two of the gate quality factors, namely the fidelity and purity might also be calculated for single qubit gates marlies . However, entanglement can only be observed in a system of at least two qubits. Therefore, the quantum degree and entanglement capability cannot be evaluated for single qubit gates.

To form all possible initial density matrices, needed to calculate the gate quality factors, we use the 16 unentangled product states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{in}^j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},16`$ defined thorwart  according to $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_a_1|\mathrm{\Psi }_b_2`$, ($`a,b=1,\mathrm{},4`$), with $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1=|`$, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_2=|`$, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_3=(1/\sqrt{2})(|+|)`$, and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_4=(1/\sqrt{2})(|+i|)`$. They form one possible basis set for the superoperator $`\nu _G`$ with $`\rho (t_G)=\nu _G\rho (0)`$ GateQualityFactors ; thorwart . The states are choosen to be unentangled for being compatible with the definition of $`𝒞`$.

### V.1 Implementation of two-qubit operations

#### V.1.1 Controlled phase-shift gate

To perform the UXOR operation, it is necessary to be able to apply the controlled phase-shift operation together with arbitrary single-qubit gates. In the computational basis ($`|00`$, $`|01`$, $`|10`$, $`|11`$), the controlled phase-shift operation is given by

$`U_{CZ}(\phi )`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& e^{i\phi }\end{array}\right)\text{,}`$ (49)
and for $`\phi =\pi `$, up to a global phase factor,

$$U_{CZ}=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{\pi }{4}\sigma _z^{(1)}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{\pi }{4}\sigma _z^{(2)}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{\pi }{4}\sigma _z^{(1)}\sigma _z^{(2)}\right)\text{.}$$
(50)
Note that in (50) only $`\sigma _z`$-operations, which commute with the coupling to the bath, are needed. The controlled phase-shift operation together with two Hadamard gates and a single-qubit phase-shift operation then gives the UXOR gate.

#### V.1.2 UXOR gate

Due to the fact that the set consisting of the UXOR (or CNOT) gate and the one-qubit rotations, is complete for quantum computation barenco , the UXOR gate is a highly important two-qubit gate operation. Therefore we further investigate the behaviour of the four gate quality factors in this case. The UXOR operation switches the second bit, depending on the value of the first bit of a two bit system. In the computational basis, this operation has the following matrix form

$`U_{XOR}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right)\text{.}`$ (55)
Up to a phase factor, the two-qubit UXOR (or CNOT) operation can be realized by a sequence of five single-qubit and one two-qubit quantum logic operation. Each of these six operations corresponds to an appropriate Hamiltonian undergoing free unitary time evolution $`\mathrm{exp}((i/\mathrm{})𝐇_{op}t)`$. The single-qubit operations are handled with Bloch-Redfield formalism, like the two-qubit operations. We assume dc pulses (instantaneous on and off switching of the Hamiltonian with zero rise time of the signal) or rectangular pulses

$`U_{XOR}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _x^{(2)}+\sigma _z^{(2)}}{\sqrt{2}}}\right)\right)`$ (56)
$`\times U_{CZ}(\pi )`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\sigma _z^{(1)}\right)`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _x^{(2)}+\sigma _z^{(2)}}{\sqrt{2}}}\right)\right)\text{,}`$
where $`U_{CZ}(\pi )`$ is given by (50). This generic implementation has been chosen in order to demonstrate the comparison to other coupling schemes thorwart  as well as for computational convenience, it is not necessarily the optimum scheme for application under cryogenic conditions, where slow rise-time AC pulses are preferred. Table 1 shows the parameters we inserted into the one- and two-qubit Hamiltonian to receive the UXOR operation.

In our case we assumed $`\xi =E_s`$. However, there is no restriction in the use of other values for $`\xi `$. For a typical energy scale of 1 GHz, the resulting times from table 1 are in the nanosecond range.

To better visualize the pulse sequence needed to perform the quantum UXOR operation, which was already given in table 1, figure 11 depicts the values of the elements of the Hamiltonians. Interestingly enough we find that for the only two-qubit operation included in the UXOR operation $`ϵ`$ and $`\eta `$ are zero. Thus $`K`$ is the only non-zero parameter and $`𝐇_{2qb}`$ assumes diagonal form. For flux qubits, implementing the pulse sequence figure 11 involves negative and positive values tuning the magnetic frustration through the qubit loop below or above $`f=1/2`$. Note that e.g. for realistic models of inductively coupled flux qubits, it is very difficult to turn on the interaction Hamiltonian between the two qubits without the individual $`\sigma _z`$ terms in the Hamiltonian. However, for the pulse sequence given in (56), we might simply perform the third, fourth and fifth operation of (56) at once using only the Hamiltonian with both the individual $`\sigma _z`$ terms and the inter-qubit coupling.

To obtain the final reduced density matrix after performing the six unitary operations (56), we iteratively determine the density matrix after each operation with Bloch-Redfield theory and insert the attained resulting density matrix as initial density matrix into the next operation. This procedure is repeated for all possible unentangled initial states given in the last section. We inserted no additional time intervals between the operations. This is usually needed, if one applies Bloch-Redfield formalism, because it is known to violate complete positivity on short timescales. However, we circumvent this problem in our calculations by dropping the memory after each operation, when we iteratively calculate the reduced density matrix. This procedure may lead to small inaccuracies as compared to using QUAPI thorwart , which however should not affect our main conclusions.

### V.2 Temperature dependence

#### V.2.1 Controlled phase-shift gate

We have analyzed the gate quality factors in the cases of a common and of two distinct baths respectively. In figure 12 the temperature dependence of the deviations of the four gate quality factors from their ideal values are depicted as a log-log plot.

At temperatures below $`T=2.510^2`$ K $`0.5T_s`$, the purity and fidelity are clearly higher for the case of one common bath, but if temperature is increased above this characteristic threshold, fidelity and purity are slightly higher for the case of two baths.

In the case of one common bath the fidelity, purity and entanglement capability are approaching their ideal value 1, when temperature goes to zero. This is related to the fact that in the case of one common bath all relaxation and dephasing rates vanish during the two-qubit step of the controlled phase-shift gate due to the special symmetries of the Hamiltonian, when temperature goes to zero as depicted in figure 9.

The controlled phase-shift operation creates entanglement. The creation of entanglement is impeded by decoherence effects that vanish when temperature approaches zero. Therefore, the entanglement capability exhibits the same behaviour as the fidelity and purity. For zero dissipation ($`\alpha =0`$) the quantum degree has the value 0.5 but the entanglement capability is -0.5 thus characterizing a maximum entangled state. The reason is that the Bell-states, which are generated by the controlled phase-shift gate from the input states, result in a basis that is different from the used basis, but can be transformed using only local transformations.

Furthermore, for finite dissipation, figure 9 shows that also for the case of two distinct baths, there are only three non-vanishing rates for $`T0`$. The system, being prepared in one of the 16 initial states, might relax into one of the eigenstates that is an entangled state.

We observe the saturation of the deviation for the case of two baths and can directly recognize the effects of the symmetries of the controlled phase-shift operation. For given $`\alpha `$, the fidelity and purity cannot be increased anymore by lowering the temperature in the case of two distinct baths. Interestingly enough, we find that for two qubits coupling to one common bath, the situation is different for temperatures below $`0.5T_s`$. Above a temperature of $`T_s=4.810^2`$ K, the decrease of the gate quality factors shows a linear dependence on temperature for both cases of one common or two distinct heat baths before it again saturates at about $`10^2`$ K $`10^4T_s`$. Finite decoherence effects in the fidelity, purity and entanglement capability at $`T=0`$ for the case of two distinct baths are resulting from the coupling of the system to the environment of harmonic oscillators, which (at $`T=0`$) are all in their ground states and can be excited through spontaneous emission. But for the case of one common bath, the deviation from the ideal fidelity goes to zero, when temperature goes to zero. This is due to the special symmetries ($`K`$ is the only nonvanishing parameter in the two-qubit operation) of the Hamiltonian, which rules out spontaneous emission. These symmetries are also reflected in the temperature dependence of the rates, figure 9. There, for one common bath, all rates vanish for $`T0`$. Note that these rates only describe the two-qubit part of the operation. However, the single-qubit part behaves similarly because the terms in the single-qubit Hamiltonian are als $`\sigma _z`$.

#### V.2.2 UXOR gate

Different to the last section, we now add two single-qubit operations (Hadamard gates) to the controlled phase-shift operation that do not commute with the coupling to the bath. In figure 13, the deviations of the gate quality factors from their ideal values are depicted as a log-log plot. Again, at temperatures below $`T=2.510^2`$ K$`0.5E_s`$, the purity and fidelity are higher for the case of one common bath, but if temperature is increased above this characteristic threshold, fidelity and purity are higher for the case of two baths. Note that we have chosen a rather large $`\alpha `$, this value can substantially be improved by means of engineering caspar .

The fidelity and purity are clearly higher for the case of one common bath, when temperature is decreased below $`0.5T_s`$. This is related to the fact that in the case of one common bath all relaxation and dephasing rates vanish during the two-qubit-step of the UXOR, due to the special symmetries of the Hamiltonian, when temperature goes to zero as discussed in the last paragraph. However, the quantum degree and the entanglement capability tend towards the same value for both the case of one common and two distinct baths. This is due to the fact that both quantum degree and entanglement capability are, different than fidelity and purity, not defined as mean values but rather characterize the “best” possible case of all given input states. This results in the same value for both cases.

In the recent work by Thorwart and Hänggi thorwart , the UXOR gate was investigated for a $`\sigma _y^{(i)}\sigma _y^{(j)}`$ coupling scheme and one common bath. They find a pronounced degradation of the gate performance, in particular, the gate quality factors only weakly depend on temperature. They set the strength of the dissipative effects to $`\alpha =10^4`$. Their choice of parameters was $`ϵ10E_s`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }1E_s`$ and $`K0.5E_s`$ which is on the same order of magnitude as the values given in table 1. As can be seen in figure 13, we also observe only a weak decrease of the gate quality factors for both the case of one common bath and two distinct baths in the same temperature range discussed by Thorwart and Hänggi, both for $`\alpha =10^3`$ and $`\alpha =10^4`$ and overall substantially better values. This is due to the fact that for $`\sigma _y^{(i)}\sigma _y^{(j)}`$ coupling, the Hamiltonian does not commute with the coupling to the bath during the two-qubit steps of the UXOR pulse sequence.

We observe the saturation of the deviation for both the case of two baths and one common bath. For given $`\alpha `$, the fidelity and purity can not be increased anymore by lowering the temperature, different from the behaviour for the controlled phase-shift gate that was discussed in the last section. This is due to the application of the Hadamard gate whose Hamiltonian does not commute with the coupling to the bath. Above a temperature of $`10^2`$ K, the decrease of the gate quality factors shows a linear dependence on temperature for both cases. Here, different from the controlled phase-shift gate, we observe finite decoherence effects in all four gate quantifiers also at $`T=0`$, both for the case of one common or two distinct heat baths. These decoherence effects are resulting from the coupling of the system to the environment of harmonic oscillators, which (at $`T=0`$) are all in their ground states and can be excited through spontaneous emission as already described above.

The dotted line in figure 13 shows that the temperature has to be less than about $`T=21E_s=1`$ K in order to obtain values of the quantum degree being larger than $`𝒬0.78`$. Only then, the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequality is violated and non-local correlations between the qubits occur as described in thorwart .

### V.3 Dependence on the dissipation strength

The deviations from the ideal values of the gate quantifiers possess a linear dependence on $`\alpha `$ as expected. Generally (if no special symmetries of the Hamiltonian are present) there are always finite decoherence effects also at $`T=0`$. Therefore, we can not improve the gate quality factors below a certain saturation value, when lowering the temperature thorwart , as was also discussed in the last section. By better isolating the system from the environment and by carefully engineering the environment caspar  one can decrease the strength of the dissipative effects characterized by $`\alpha `$. In order to obtain the desired value of 0.999 99 for $``$, $`𝒫`$ and $`𝒬`$ thorwart , $`\alpha `$ needs to be below $`\alpha =10^6`$ at $`T=0.21E_s`$.

### V.4 Time resolved UXOR operation

To investigate the anatomy of the UXOR quantum logic operation, we calculated the occupation probabilities of the singlet/triplet states after each of the six operations, of which the UXOR consists. This time resolved picture of the dynamics of the two-qubit system, when performing a gate operation, gives insight into details of our implementation of the UXOR operation and the dissipative effects occuring during the operation. Thus we are able to completely characterize the physical process, which maps the input density matrix $`\rho _0`$ to $`\rho _{out}`$ in an open quantum system GateQualityFactors . When the system is prepared in the state $`|=|00`$ the UXOR operation (55) does not alter the initial state and after performing the UXOR operation the final state should equal the initial state $`|=|00`$.

This can clearly be observed in figure 14. During the UXOR operation occupation probabilities of the four states change according to the individual operations given in (56). At $`T=21E_s`$, the case of 2 baths differs significantly from the case of one common bath. After the third operation (the two-qubit operation; only there the distinction between one common or two distinct baths makes sense) occupation probabilities are different for both environments resulting in a less ideal result for the case of two baths.

In figure 14, the resulting state after performing the UXOR operation always deviates more from the ideal value (for $`\alpha =0`$, i.e. no dissipation) for the case of two distinct baths, if all other parameters are fixed and set to the same values for the both cases. The state $`P_{|00}`$ is less close to the ideal occupation probability 1 and the other singlet/triplet states are also less close to their ideal value for the case of two distinct baths. The case of two distinct baths also shows bigger deviations from the ideal case ($`\alpha =0`$) during the UXOR operation (see figure 14). But, if the system is initially prepared in the state $`|=|11`$ the case of two distinct baths shows bigger deviations from the ideal case during the UXOR operation, while the resulting state is closer to the ideal case for two distinct baths compared to one common bath.

In figures 14 and 15 it looks like there would be no decoherence effects (or at least much weaker decoherence effects) after performing the (first two) single-qubit operations. However, not all input states are affected by the decoherence effects the same way. And when we regard all possible input states, there are finite decoherence effects. This can be explained with figure 16. Figure 16 depicts the time resolved purity when performing the UXOR operation. We clearly observe that there are finite decoherence effects for the first single-qubit operations in (56) as well. The difference between the single-qubit and two-qubit operations is the steeper decrease of the purity due to stronger decoherence in the case of the two-qubit operation. The upper panel in figure 16 depicts the behaviour of the purity for $`T0`$. Decoherence due to the $`\sigma _z`$ terms in the Hamiltonian will vanish for $`T0`$ in the case of one common bath.

## VI Conclusion

We presented a full analysis of the dynamics and decoherence properties of two solid state qubits coupled to each other via a generic type of Ising coupling and coupled, moreover, either to a common bath, or two independent baths.

We calculated the dynamics of the system and evaluated decoherence times. From the temperature dependence of the decoherence rates (figure 8), we conclude that both types of environments show a similar behaviour; however, in the case of one common bath, two of the decoherence rates are zero, and the remaining ones are slightly larger than in the case of two distinct baths. This temperature dependence is also reflected in the characteristics of the gate quality factors from quantum information theory, which are introduced as robust measures of the quality of a quantum logic operation. We illustrate that the gate quality factors depend linearly on $`\alpha `$, as expected. The time resolved UXOR operation (figures 14 and 15) again illustrates the difference between one common and two distinct baths, and moreover we observe that single-qubit decoherence effects $`\sigma _z`$ during the UXOR operation are weak. The time scales of the dynamics of the coupled two qubit system are comparable to the time scales, which were already observed in experiments and discussed in the literature caspar .

The question, whether one common bath or two distinct baths are less destructive regarding quantum coherence can not be clearly answered. For low enough temperatures, coupling to one common bath yields better results. However, when the temperature is increased two distinct baths do better; in both temperature regimes, though, the gate quantifiers are only slightly different for both cases.

Compared to the work of Thorwart thorwart , the interaction part of our model Hamiltonian possesses symmetries (the Hamiltonian of the two-qubit operation and the errors commute) that lead to better gate quality factors. Furthermore, analysis of the symmetries and error sources of our model system can lead to improved coupling schemes for solid state qubits. Milburn and co-workers on the other hand focused on comparison of classical and quantum mechanical dynamics milburn  and estimated the decoherence properties of two coupled two-state systems.

Governale governale  determined the decoherence properties of two coupled charge qubits whose Hamiltonian differs from (2) by the type of inter-qubit coupling, namely $`\sigma _y^{(1)}\sigma _y^{(2)}`$ coupling. However, introducing the quality factors gives a measure to judge how certain qubit designs perform quantum gate operations.

As a next step, one should consider driving, to be able to observe and discuss Rabi oscillations in systems of two coupled qubits. It should be investigated, how the decoherence properties are modified, if one adds more qubits to the system.

We thank B. Singh, L. Tian, M. Governale, M.C. Goorden, A.C.J. ter Haar, H. Aschauer, R. Raussendorf, A.J. Leggett, P. Hänggi, C.J.P.M. Harmans, H. Gutmann, U. Hartmann and J. von Delft for fruitful discussions.

We acknowledge financial support from ARO, Contract-No. P-43385-PH-QC, and DAAD, Contract-No. DAAD/NSF D/0104619.


text:
# 𝑍⁰ and 𝑊 transverse momentum spectra at the LHC

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under DE-FG02-86ER-40251.


text:
# Multi-graviton theory, a latticized dimension, and the cosmological constant

## I Introduction and summary

It is well known that the weak-field limit of the Einstein gravity reduces to the theory of a single massless spin-two field spin2 . We call the second-order symmetric tensor field $`h_{\mu \nu }`$, which represents deviation from a flat space ($`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu }`$), as a “graviton”. Multi-graviton theories have been studied by Boulanger et al. Boulanger ; BDGH . They have shown that there is no consistent interaction of gravitons and the possible action is a sum of replicated Pauli-Fierz actions PF .

In this paper, we consider a model for a multi-graviton theory with nearest-neighbor couplings in the theory space. To be precise, the gravitons are not interacting each other in our model, but they have a discrete mass spectrum. The simplest model is explained in Sec. II. In the limit of a large number of gravitons, the mass spectrum of gravitons resembles that of the Kaluza-Klein (KK) theory. Therefore our model is equivalent to the KK theory with a discretized dimension.

The emergence mechanisms of a space dimension have been suggested in refs. Sugamoto ; Bander ; JLM , which is in the stream of dimensional deconstruction ACG ; HPW . Recently the authors have been informed of ref. AGS , in which the gravity with the theory space is also argued. Although our model for the gravitation theory with a discretized dimension is very simple, it may be a toy model adequate for studying qualitative features of more complicated theory and mechanisms included in it.

For example, we evaluate the vacuum energy in our model in Sec. III. We also consider a model in the continuous $`(4+\delta )`$ dimensional space-time with a discretized dimension. We show that an arbitrary small amount of positive vacuum energy can be obtained if $`(4+\delta )=6,10,\mathrm{}`$.

## II multi-graviton theory and a latticized dimension

The lagrangian for a massless spin-two field can be written as

$$_0=\frac{1}{2}_\lambda h_{\mu \nu }^\lambda h^{\mu \nu }+_\lambda h^\lambda {}_{\mu }{}^{}_{\nu }^{}h^{\nu \mu }_\mu h^{\mu \nu }_\nu h+\frac{1}{2}_\lambda h^\lambda h,$$
(1)
where $`hh_\mu ^\mu `$. This corresponds with the weak-field limit of the Einstein gravity.

The lagrangian for a massive graviton with the Stückerberg fields St  is known as Hamamoto

$$_m=_0\frac{m^2}{2}(h_{\mu \nu }h^{\mu \nu }h^2)2(mA^\mu +^\mu \phi )(^\nu h_{\mu \nu }_\mu h)\frac{1}{2}(_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu )^2,$$
(2)
where a constant $`m`$ corresponds to the mass of graviton. We have omitted here the gauge fixing term as well as the ghost terms. The lagrangian (2) is invariant under the following transformations:

$`h_{\mu \nu }`$ $``$ $`h_{\mu \nu }+_\mu \xi _\nu +_\nu \xi _\mu ,`$ (3)
$`A_\mu `$ $``$ $`A_\mu +m\xi _\mu _\mu \zeta ,`$ (4)
$`\phi `$ $``$ $`\phi +m\zeta ,`$ (5)
where $`\xi `$ and $`\zeta `$ are local parameters.

Next we consider a multi-graviton ($`N`$-graviton) theory Boulanger ; BDGH  given by the lagrangian

$$\overline{}_0=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left[\frac{1}{2}_\lambda h_{\mu \nu }^k^\lambda h^{k\mu \nu }+_\lambda h^{k\lambda }{}_{\mu }{}^{}_{\nu }^{}h^{k\nu \mu }_\mu h^{k\mu \nu }_\nu h^k+\frac{1}{2}_\lambda h^k^\lambda h^k\right].$$
(6)
It can be said that a massless graviton lives in each “theory space”, which is labeled by $`k`$.

Now, instead of adding the mere mass term to the lagrangian (6), we put the term including couplings of other gravitons with the nearest-neighbor suffix:

$`\overline{}_m`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{}_0{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left[(h_{\mu \nu }^kh_{\mu \nu }^{k+1})^2(h^kh^{k+1})^2\right]`$ (7)
$`2{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left[m(A^{k\mu }A^{k1\mu })+^\mu \phi ^k\right](^\nu h_{\mu \nu }^k_\mu h^k){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(_\mu A_\nu ^k_\nu A_\mu ^k)^2.`$
In this notation, one should read as $`h^{k+N}=h^k`$, $`h^0=h^N`$, $`h^{N+1}=h^1`$, and so on.

It is interesting to see that the multi-graviton lagrangian is invariant under the transformations:

$`h_{\mu \nu }^k`$ $``$ $`h_{\mu \nu }^k+_\mu \xi _\nu ^k+_\nu \xi _\mu ^k,`$
$`A_\mu ^k`$ $``$ $`A_\mu ^k+m\xi _\mu ^km\xi _\mu ^{k+1}_\mu \zeta ^k,`$
$`\phi ^k`$ $``$ $`\phi ^k+m\zeta ^km\zeta ^{k1}.`$ (8)
As in the case with 5D QED studied by Hill and Leibovich HL1 , $`N1`$ massive gravitons and one massless graviton are described by the lagrangian. The eigenvalues for the mass matrix are

$$M_p^2=4m^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\pi p}{N}\right)(p=1,\mathrm{},N).$$
(9)
Massive vector and scalar fields are absorbed by the massive graviton fields by means of the transformations (8) and then they have correct spin-degree of freedom, five.

On the other hand, massless vector and scalar fields are survived. The massless degree of freedom of the spin-two, one, zero fields are described as

$$\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}h_{\mu \nu }^k,\overline{A}_\mu =\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}A_\mu ^k,\overline{\phi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\phi ^k.$$
(10)
When we make the following combination

$$H_{\mu \nu }=\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }+\overline{\phi }\eta _{\mu \nu },$$
(11)
it becomes a massless graviton and then the kinetic term of $`\overline{\phi }`$ takes a canonical form Hamamoto .

We find that the field content of our model is very akin to the one of the KK theory KK . Suppose that we considered the five-dimensional metric as

$$ds^2=(\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu })dx^\mu dx^\nu 2A_\mu dx^\mu dy+(1+2\phi )dy^2,$$
(12)
or

$$A_\mu =h_{\mu y},\phi =h_{yy}.$$
(13)
When we take the weak-field limit of the five-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert action, the lagrangian density appears to be of the form (7), provided that the derivative with respect to the extra dimensional coordinate $`y`$ is replaced by the difference operation, namely

$$\frac{h_{\mu \nu }}{y}\mathrm{\Delta }_yh_{\mu \nu }\frac{h_{\mu \nu }(x,y+ϵ)h_{\mu \nu }(x,y)}{ϵ},$$
(14)
and we define $`h_{\mu \nu }^k(x)h_{\mu \nu }(x,kϵ)`$ with $`ϵ=m^1`$.

The mass spectrum and spin degrees of freedom in the KK theory have been explained by ref. CZ . Our multi-graviton model can be regarded as a discrete version of the KK theory. Thus the transformation (8) can also be derived in the similar manner to ref. CZ .

The simplest way to get actions for multi-graviton system is the discretization of extra dimensions in generalized KK theories. The counting of the four-dimensional fields can be done by the completely parallel way to the analysis in ref. HLZ ; GRW . If we consider the discretized version of the KK theory in $`M_4T^d`$ (where $`M_4`$ denotes the four-dimensional Minkowsky spacetime and $`T^d`$ is a $`d`$ dimensional torus), we obtain a tower of massive spin-two states, $`(d1)`$ tower of massive spin-one states, and $`d(d1)/2`$ tower of massive spinless states. As well, we obtain the following massless states: one spin-two, $`d`$ spin-one, and $`d(d+1)/2`$ spinless states.

It is an important problem whether all of the field contents are necessary or not in the view of the four-dimensional gravity. In other words, we are interested in the possibility of the multi-graviton theory whose continuum limit does not coincide with a higher-dimensional theory. Particularly, the presence of the massless vector and scalar fields are unwanted when we wish to consider a phenomenological model. Attempts to solve this problem by imposing discrete symmetries in the theory space and discretization of non-abelian KK theories will be considered elsewhere.

## III vacuum energy

In this section, we evaluate the one-loop vacuum energy density in the model of the previous section. We will also offer an extension of the model, which includes both latticized and continuous extra dimensions, and the vacuum energy is estimated in the model.

Recently, the scenarios explaining the small positive cosmological constant in the present universe ($`10^{47}\mathrm{GeV}^4`$, according to Sahni ) are discussed through the study of the Casimir-like energy in the higher-dimensional theories Gupta ; Milton . Because the latticized model would have different UV behavior from that of continuum model, we expect a novel expression of the cosmological constant.

First, we consider one scalar degree of freedom which has the mass spectrum discussed in the previous section. Then the vacuum energy density in the one-loop calculation is written by the zeta-function technique Hawking  as

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}det[^2+M_p^2]=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d\zeta (s)}{ds}|_{s=0},$$
(15)
where

$$\zeta (s)=\frac{\mu ^{2s}}{16\pi ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}\underset{p}{}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tt^{s3}\mathrm{exp}(M_p^2t),$$
(16)
with

$$M_p^2=4m^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\pi p}{N}\right).$$
(17)
Here the constant $`\mu `$ has the dimension of mass.

The calculation of the zeta function can be done by the similar method used in refs. fw ; mi . Using the formula

$$\mathrm{exp}\left[4m^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta /2)t\right]=e^{2m^2t}\underset{\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{}\theta I_{\mathrm{}}(2m^2t),$$
(18)
where $`I_\nu (x)`$ is the modified Bessel function, we can write the zeta function as

$$\zeta (s)=\frac{\mu ^{2s}}{(4\pi )^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}\underset{p}{}\underset{\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi p\mathrm{}}{N}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tt^{s3}e^{2m^2t}I_{\mathrm{}}(2m^2t).$$
(19)
For simplicity, we assume $`N3`$. Carrying out the summation over $`p`$ first, we find that only the terms of $`\mathrm{}=qN(q:integer)`$ survive. Then we find

$$\zeta (s)=\frac{\mu ^{2s}N}{(4\pi )^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}\left[_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tt^{s3}e^{2m^2t}I_0(2m^2t)+2\underset{q=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tt^{s3}e^{2m^2t}I_{qN}(2m^2t)\right].$$
(20)
According to ref. GR , the integration can be carried out and is found to be

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tt^{s3}e^{2m^2t}I_{\mathrm{}}(2m^2t)=(4m^2)^{2s}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{5}{2}s)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}2+s)}{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}+3s)}.$$
(21)
Therefore the zeta function is written as

$$\zeta (s)=\frac{Nm^4}{\pi ^2}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{4m^2}\right)^s\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{5}{2}s)}{\sqrt{\pi }}\left[\frac{1}{(s1)(s2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(3s)}+\frac{2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}\underset{q=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(qN2+s)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(qN+3s)}\right].$$
(22)
Now we obtain

$$\frac{d\zeta (s)}{ds}|_{s=0}=\frac{3Nm^4}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\overline{\mu }^2}{4m^2}\right)\frac{3m^4}{2\pi ^2}\underset{q=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{q(q^2N^21)(q^2N^24)},$$
(23)
where

$$\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\overline{\mu }^2}{4m^2}\right)=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{4m^2}\right)+\psi (3)\psi (5/2)+\frac{3}{2}.$$
(24)
Because there are five states in each mass level, the vacuum energy in the multi-graviton model in the previous section is

$$V=V_R\frac{15Nm^4}{32\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\overline{\mu }^2}{4m^2}\right)\frac{15m^4}{4\pi ^2}\underset{q=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{q(q^2N^21)(q^2N^24)},$$
(25)
where $`V_R(\overline{\mu })`$ is the renormalized vacuum energy.

According to ref. Cherednikov , we require the invariance of $`V`$ with respect to the scale $`\overline{\mu }`$ and we choose $`V_R(\overline{\mu }_R)=0`$ for a normalization point $`\overline{\mu }_R`$. Then we find

$$V=\frac{15Nm^4}{32\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\overline{\mu }_R^2}{4m^2}\right)\frac{15m^4}{4\pi ^2}\underset{q=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{q(q^2N^21)(q^2N^24)}.$$
(26)
Unfortunately, this vacuum energy density is negative, for $`\overline{\mu }_R`$ is considered as a cutoff due to a scale of a new physics, $`\overline{\mu }_R>m`$. The boundary condition $`V_R(\overline{\mu }_R)=0`$ can be interpreted as the expectation that the new physics forces the vacuum energy or cosmological constant to vanish at such a high-energy scale.

Let us consider the extension of our model to the one with $`4+\delta `$ dimensional continuous spacetime. Here the extra $`\delta `$ dimensional space is taken as $`(S^1)^\delta `$ with a common radius $`b`$. One can regard the new model as the theory with a latticized circle and $`\delta `$ continuous circles. In this model the mass spectrum of the gravitons is expressed as

$$M_{p,𝐧}^2=4m^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\pi p}{N}\right)+\frac{𝐧^2}{b^2},$$
(27)
where $`𝐧=(n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_\delta )`$ and all the components take integer values.

Using the Poisson resummation formula

$$\underset{𝐧}{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{𝐧^2}{b^2}t\right)=\left(\frac{\pi b^2}{t}\right)^{\delta /2}\underset{𝐧}{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\pi ^2b^2𝐧^2}{t}\right),$$
(28)
we can express the zeta function, in which in the present time the summation over $`𝐧`$ is involved, as

$`\zeta (s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^{2s}N(2\pi b)^\delta }{(4\pi )^{2+\delta /2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐧}{}}[{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dtt^{s\delta /23}\mathrm{exp}(2m^2t\pi ^2b^2𝐧^2/t)I_0(2m^2t)`$ (29)
$`+2{\displaystyle \underset{q=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dtt^{s\delta /23}\mathrm{exp}(2m^2t\pi ^2b^2𝐧^2/t)I_{qN}(2m^2t)].`$
If $`\delta `$ is odd, all the terms in the parentheses are finite and lead to no logarithm term in the vacuum energy. The vacuum energy can be found to be finite and negative in this case, as in the case of the KK theory with torus compactification. Thus we assume that $`\delta `$ is even.

For even $`\delta `$, in the limit $`s0`$, only the first term with $`𝐧=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is divergent in the parentheses on the right hand side of (29) if $`N`$ is larger than $`2+\delta /2`$. Thus, after taking account of the degrees of freedom, the vacuum energy density in our extended model takes the form

$$V=V_R(1)^{\delta /2}\frac{(5+\delta )(2+\delta )Nm^4}{4\pi ^2}(4\pi m^2b^2)^{\delta /2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{5+\delta }{2})}{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(3+\frac{\delta }{2})^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\overline{\mu }^2}{4m^2}\right)\mathrm{},$$
(30)
where

$$\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\overline{\mu }^2}{4m^2}\right)=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{4m^2}\right)+2\psi (3+\delta /2)\psi (5/2+\delta /2)+\gamma ,$$
(31)
($`\gamma `$ is the Euler’s constant) and $`\mathrm{}`$ means the positive finite terms.

As seen from the sign of logarithmic term, we can obtain the positive vacuum energy after taking account of the renormalization discussed above; in other words, we have the positive cosmological constant when $`\delta =4k+2`$ $`(k=0,1,2,\mathrm{})`$, such as $`\delta =2`$ ($`D=4+\delta =6`$), $`\delta =6`$ ($`D=10`$), and so on.

We will further investigate the possibility of the arbitrarily small cosmological constant. Since the contribution from the finite $`q`$ terms in the zeta function can be estimated as at most $`O(N^4)`$, it can be neglected if a large $`N`$ is assumed. Further if $`mb1`$, we find

$`V`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(5+\delta )(2+\delta )Nm^4}{4\pi ^2}}(4\pi m^2b^2)^{\delta /2}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{5+\delta }{2})}{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(3+\frac{\delta }{2})^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mu }_R^2}{4m^2}}\right)`$ (32)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(5+\delta )(2+\delta )N}{4\pi ^{(4+\delta )/2}(2\pi b)^4}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{4+\delta }{2}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{𝐧\mathrm{𝟎}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(𝐧^2)^{(4+\delta )/2}}}(mb1).`$
Therefore when $`(2\pi mb)^{4+\delta }\mathrm{ln}(\overline{\mu }_R/m)O(1)`$, an arbitrary small vacuum energy can be obtained. Note that the condition does not include $`N`$ in this approximation.

The difficulty of the present model in this section is the problem of tuning the scale of the extra dimensions. The model does not provide a mechanism to determine the value of $`b`$, because there is no minimum value of $`V`$ as a function of $`b`$. We should consider either the value of $`b`$ is due to the other mechanism or $`b`$ takes an appropriate value only in the present universe. For the latter case, the motion of $`b`$ may play a role of quintessence or dark energy, as similar to the suggestion in ref. WR . This possibility will be considered elsewhere.

In this paper, we only considered the vacuum energy at the one-loop level. Even at the same level, the correction to the Newton constant may also be induced in general. This would be related with the restriction or determination of the scale of the extra dimensions as well as the scale of $`m`$.

We should investigate the nature of coupling to the matter fields and the back reaction problem in the case with a small cosmological constant. Through such studies, the case with strong gravity will also be revealed.

Finally, we remember that we have not treated the hierarchy problem in this paper. It will be clarified by the further study whether incorporating supersymmetry (and its break-down) into the model is necessary or not.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors thank the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics at Kyoto University. Discussions during the YITP workshop YITP-W-02-18 on “Quantum Field Theories: Fundamental Problems and Applications” were useful to complete this work. We would like to thank K. Sakamoto and Y. Cho for his valuable comments and for the reading the manuscript.