text:
# Transport through quantum dots in mesoscopic circuits

## Abstract

We study the transport through a quantum dot, in the Kondo Coulomb blockade valley, embedded in a mesoscopic device with finite wires. The quantization of states in the circuit that hosts the quantum dot gives rise to finite size effects. These effects make the conductance sensitive to the ratio of the Kondo screening length to the wires length and provide a way of measuring the Kondo cloud. We present results obtained with the numerical renormalization group for a wide range of physically accessible parameters.

Since the pioneer work of Goldhaber-Gordon and coworkers reporting the observation of Kondo effect in a single quantum dot (QD) GG , many different circuit and dot configurations have been designed and studied QDE . In a single electron transistor or QD built on a semiconductor heterolayer, the most relevant parameters can be controlled by applying voltages. The possibility of their continuous variation allows to investigate different regimes with different number of electrons localized in the dot QDT . States with a well defined number of electrons tend to be stabilized by the Coulomb interaction, a phenomenon known as Coulomb blockade. When an odd number of electrons is stable in the dot and the total spin is $`S=1/2`$, the coupling with the leads gives rise to the usual Kondo effect. The Kondo effect is the magnetic screening of the dot spin by the electrons of the host kondo . The screening occurs by the formation of a spin singlet involving the dot spin and the host electron’s spins. This screening is nearly fully developed below a characteristic temperature $`T_K`$ known as the Kondo temperature. The size of the screening cloud, the spatial extension of the singlet wave function, is the Kondo screening length $`\xi _K\mathrm{}v_F/T_K`$ where $`v_F`$ is the Fermi velocity. For a typical QD the Kondo temperature $`T_K`$ is of the order of magnitude of one degree and the Kondo screening length can be up to one micron. In these circuits, the conductance through the QD and their temperature dependence gives information on the occurrence of the Kondo effect and ultimately on the development of the Kondo cloud. The complete development of the Kondo effect is reflected by an ideal conductance $`2e^2/h`$ as observed in some low temperature measurements QDE .

The smallness of $`T_K`$ makes it possible to alter the Kondo ground state by finite size effects. It was shown that whenever the characteristic size of the system is reduced and the mean level spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ becomes of the order or larger than $`T_K`$, finite size effects become important finite ; nos1\_termo ; nos2\_din ; affleck1 ; affleck . Then, in any nanoscopic system with a QD coupled to one dimensional leads or wires of the order of one micron of length, the Kondo effect may be subject to size effects. Based precisely on these effects, Simon and Affleck made two proposals to measure the Kondo screening length affleck1 ; affleck . The first one concerns a closed loop with a QD. The persistent current induced by a magnetic flux threading the ring is sensitive to the screening length and is reduced when the circumference of the ring is smaller than $`\xi _K`$. The second proposal, which is also the subject of the present work, considers a QD coupled to mesoscopic leads.

In what follows we study a QD attached to quantum wires as schematically shown in Fig. 1(a). By a quantum wire we mean a narrow wire with a small number of channels. The wires are weakly coupled at one end to the QD and at the other to three dimensional macroscopic contacts that act as a reservoir. The Hamiltonian of the system is then given by

$$H=H_D+H_W+H_C+H_{DW}+H_{CW},$$
(1)
where the first three terms corresponding to the dot, wire and contact Hamiltonians are

$$H_D=\underset{\sigma }{}E_dd_\sigma ^{}d_\sigma +Ud_{}^{}d_{}d_{}^{}d_{},$$
(2)
where $`d_\sigma ^{}`$ creates an electron with spin $`\sigma `$ and energy $`E_d`$ in the quantized state of the QD and $`U`$ is the Coulomb repulsion for electrons in this state,

$$H_W=\underset{\eta ,\sigma ,n}{\overset{N}{}}\epsilon _Wc_{\eta n\sigma }^{}c_{\eta n\sigma }t_0\underset{\eta ,\sigma ,n}{\overset{N1}{}}(c_{\eta n\sigma }^{}c_{\eta (n+1)\sigma }+h.c.),$$
(3)
with $`\eta =R,L`$ denoting the right and left wires described by the conventional one dimensional tight binding model. For simplicity, as in Ref. affleck, , the contact Hamiltonian $`H_C`$ describes two linear chains with a hopping matrix element $`t_0`$. The last two terms of the Hamiltonian describe the coupling of these three components: $`H_{DW}=t_{DW}_{\eta ,\sigma }(d_\sigma ^{}c_{\eta 1\sigma }+h.c.)`$ and $`H_{CW}=t_{CW}_{\eta ,\sigma }(c_{\eta N\sigma }^{}a_{\eta 1\sigma }+h.c.)`$, where $`a_{\eta 1\sigma }`$ creates an electron in the first site of the contact $`\eta `$.

The parameters $`E_d`$ and $`U`$ can be estimated and related to a gate voltage using a capacitance model for the QD capacitance .

If $`t_{DW}=t_{CW}=0`$ the wires are isolated and their energy spectrum corresponds to a set of $`N`$ states. Around the Fermi energy these states are separated by a characteristic energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}v_F\pi /L4t_0/N`$ where $`L=aN`$ is the wire length and $`a`$ the lattice constant. When the wires are connected to the contacts with a non zero $`t_{CW}`$, the wire states become resonances of width $`\gamma `$. The local density of states at the wire end $`\rho _W(\omega )`$, consists of a collection of resonant states characterized by the two energy scales $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\gamma `$ nos2\_din . This structure of the system that hosts the QD may drastically change the Kondo screening and consequently the linear conductance of the circuit. Using the Keldysh formalism Meir  the conductance can be put as:

$$G(T)=\frac{2e^2}{h}2\pi 𝑑\omega (\frac{f(\omega )}{\omega })\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega )\rho _D(\omega )$$
(4)
where $`f(\omega )`$ is the Fermi function, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega )=\pi (t_{DW})^2\rho _W(\omega )`$ and $`\rho _D(\omega )`$is the QD spectral density kondo . This simple formula gives the conductance of the central part of the circuit: QD plus wires. It can be obtained calculating the current through the CW-links Meir  and expressing it in terms of the QD spectral density. The spectral densities are calculated using the numerical renormalization group (NRG) technique nrg1 ; nrg2 . The linear conductance as function of $`E_d`$ is shown in Fig. 1(b) for $`t_{CW}=t_0`$ corresponding to long wires ($`L\mathrm{}`$) without constrictions. At high temperatures two Coulomb peaks and the central Coulomb blockade valley are clearly observed. The Coulomb peaks are due to $`E_d`$ or $`E_d+U`$ being aligned with the Fermi energy. The central valley, away from the Coulomb blockade peaks, has one electron localized at the dot and corresponds to the Kondo regime. As the temperature is lowered, the conductance at the central Kondo valley increases indicating the occurrence of the Kondo screening. In this case $`\rho _W(\omega )`$ is constant around the Fermi level and $`\rho _D(\omega )`$ develops a Kondo resonance as shown in Fig. 2(a). At zero temperature at the center of the Kondo valley $`2\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(E_F)\rho _D(E_F)=1`$, a situation known as the unitary limit, and the conductance is simply $`2e^2/h`$. For finite wires with a constriction ($`t_{CW}<t_0`$) that generates a fine structure with peaks separated by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in $`\rho _W(\omega )`$, the low temperature conductance shows finite size effects in the whole range of $`E_d`$ as shown in Fig. 1(c). At these low temperatures, the conductance becomes sensitive to the relative position of the Fermi energy $`E_F`$ and the structure of $`\rho _W(\omega )`$. We distinguish three cases: i) the Fermi level lying at a wire resonant state, a maximum in $`\rho _W(\omega )`$ (the at-resonance case), ii) exactly between two resonances, a minimum in $`\rho _W(\omega )`$ (the off-resonance case) and iii) intermediate situations. As shown in 1(c) for the at-resonance and off-resonance cases, a conductance of $`2e^2/h`$ is obtained at the Coulomb blockade valley, while for intermediate situations strong anomalies are obtained. These results correspond to the low temperature limit, for $`T>\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the structure of $`\rho _W(\omega )`$ becomes unimportant and all three curves of Fig. 1(c) collapse into a single one that reproduces the high temperature behavior of Fig. 1(b).

The behavior of the transmission close to the Coulomb peaks can be understood in terms of a simple single particle resonant state lying above (for $`E_d0`$) or below (for $`E_dU`$) the Fermi energy. If $`E_dU/2`$, the center of the Coulomb blockade valley, the behavior is dominated by the Kondo physics. Let us now concentrate in the Kondo regime ($`E_d<0`$ and $`E_d+U>0`$) and define a reference Kondo temperature $`T_K^0`$ nrg1  of the system with infinitely long quantum wires ($`L\mathrm{}`$). If a system with finite wires is such that $`T_K^0\mathrm{\Delta }`$, on the scale of the characteristic Kondo energy the host local density of states can be averaged to its mean value and the finite size effects are washed out for any temperatures $`TT_K^0`$. This means that as the temperature is lowered and the Kondo screening starts to develop, the finite size effects are unimportant. Conversely, if the system were such that $`T_K^0\mathrm{\Delta }`$, we expect strong finite size effects at any temperature $`T\mathrm{\Delta }`$, i.e. even before the Kondo effect of the reference system starts to develop.

In a circuit built on a semiconductor heterolayer, the position of $`E_F`$ relative to the wire structure as well as the coupling to the reservoirs ($`t_{CW}`$) can be varied applying gate voltages QDE . In Fig. 3 the conductance as a function of temperature for different values of the parameters is shown. In what follows we analyze these results according to the position of the Fermi level relative to the structure of the wire density of states $`\rho _W(\omega )`$.

i) At-resonance case: For $`t_{CW}=0`$ the central QD with the attached wires form an isolated system and the QD spectral density is given by a collection of delta-functions. For this case of a small isolated system, which has been studied in some detail nos2\_din , the QD spectral density $`\rho _D(\omega )`$ has two delta-functions with relatively strong weight around the Fermi energy. One is just above and the other just below $`E_F`$. As the system is coupled to the macroscopic contacts ($`t_{CW}0`$) the delta functions in $`\rho _D(\omega )`$ acquire a finite width. However, for weak coupling the double structure around the Fermi energy is clearly observed and the Kondo resonance has a minimum at $`E_F`$. In Fig. 2(b) a low frequency detail of the QD spectral densities for the at-resonance case is shown. As the temperature increases, the whole structure is washed out. The conductance obtained from Eq. (4) for a relatively long quantum wire with $`T_K^0=3\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is shown in Fig 3(a) for different values of the wire-contact coupling strength $`t_{CW}/t_0`$. For an ideal coupling ($`t_{CW}=t_)`$) the conductance increases as $`T`$ decreases to reach the value $`2e^2/h`$. For $`t_{CW}<t_0`$, as $`T`$ is lowered and approaches the energy scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the structure in $`\rho _D(\omega )`$ becomes relevant and the conductance departs from the $`t_{CW}=t_0`$ case. As $`T0`$, the ideal value is recovered generating a minimum in the conductance. In the low temperature regime, the QD acts as a perfect link between the right and left wires creating a single wire of length $`2L`$. The at-resonance condition implies that the Fermi level is aligned with a wire state giving an ideal conductance. For short wires with $`T_K^0<\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the screening develops for temperatures $`T\mathrm{\Delta }`$ nos1\_termo  and the conductance is not very sensitive to the confinement effects \[Fig. 3(b)\].

ii) Off-resonance case: . For $`T_K^0>\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and high temperatures the fine structure if $`\rho _W(\omega )`$ is not important and the conductance for the at-resonance and off-resonance cases behaves in the same way. For low temperatures, again the QD acts as a perfect link, the resulting effective wire of length $`2L`$ has resonant states separated by $`\mathrm{\Delta }/2`$, rather than by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and one of them is aligned with $`E_F`$. Although the at-resonance an off-resonance spectral densities are quite different \[Figs. 2(b) and 2(c)\], the temperature dependence of the conductance is similar \[Fig. 3(a)\], in fact the product $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega )\rho _D(\omega )`$ has qualitatively the same structure in both cases giving a conductance that does not clearly distinguish the two situations. For short wires, as the temperature increases, the conductance rapidly diminishes from its low temperature value $`G2e^2/h`$ \[Fig. 3(b)\].

iii) Intermediate case: This situation where the Fermi level lies at an arbitrary position with respect to wire states generates a quite different behavior at low temperatures. Again for $`T>\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the quantization effects are irrelevant and the conductance is not distinguished from that of the previous cases. At low temperatures the conductance, never reaches the value $`2e^2/h`$ \[see full symbols in Figs. 3(c) and 3(d)\]. Even if the QD were behaving as a perfect link, the resulting $`2L`$ wire states would not be aligned with $`E_F`$.

The conductance as a function of $`\epsilon _W`$ for short ($`T_K^0<\mathrm{\Delta }`$) wires is shown in Fig. 4 for different temperatures. As discussed above, for low temperatures both the at-resonance and off-resonance cases give a conductance close to its ideal value $`2e^2/h`$, as shown in Fig. 4(a). In agreement with the results of Ref. affleck, , for intermediate temperatures ($`TT_K^0`$), the off-resonance case gives a small conductance \[see Fig. 4(b)\]. This change of behavior looks like a change in the periodicity of $`G`$ vs $`\epsilon _W`$. Finally at high enough temperatures the amplitude of the oscillations goes to zero \[see Fig. 4(c)\]. For long wires, as can be deduced from Fig. 3(c), the intermediate regime is never observed i.e. the system does not show a doubling of periodicity in $`G`$ vs $`\epsilon _W`$. In quantum wires with one channel, the condition $`T_K^0\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is equivalent to $`L\xi _K^0`$ and these results of $`G(T)`$ vs $`\epsilon _W`$ could be used to measure the Kondo screening length.

Finally we analyze the finite size effects on the phase shift introduced by the QD oreg . We define an energy dependent transmission as $`t_\sigma (\omega )=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega )G_{D\sigma }(\omega )`$ where $`G_{D\sigma }(\omega )`$ is the retarded Green’s function for a spin-$`\sigma `$ electron in the QD level. The conductance as given by equation (4) is the thermal average of $`1/\pi _\sigma Im[t_\sigma (\omega )]`$. The phase of the transmission for a spin-$`\sigma `$ electron, $`\varphi _\sigma (\omega )=\mathrm{arg}[t_\sigma (\omega )]`$, is shown in Fig. 5 for a system with finite wires. On a large energy scale, the low temperature behavior of $`\varphi _\sigma (\omega )`$ qualitatively reproduces the results of Gerland et al.Costi , it has a maximum (minimum) for $`\omega E_d/2`$ \[$`\omega (E_d+U)/2`$\] and a large phase lapse for $`\omega 0`$. This large phase lapse at zero frequency shows novel features due to the confinement effects. A zoom of the low frequency details in Fig. 5(b), shows the behavior of $`\varphi _\sigma (\omega )`$ for $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }`$ with a superstructure consistent with that of the Kondo peak. These effects in the transmission phase shift would determine the current in Aharonov-Bohm interferometers with two arms and an embedded QD.

A logical step in the development of molecular electronics is the connection of quantum wires to single electron transistors to be used as building blocks. The reduction of the quantum wires dimensions down to the micron lengthscale may change the system properties. For such devices to be useful, a detailed knowledge of the behavior of the transmission phase shift and the conductance trough this system is needed. In this paper we have shown how these properties change when the QD is connected to finite quantum wires. In particular, the behavior of the system is very sensitive to the length of the quantum wires and to the position of the Fermi level relative to the structure of the local density of states. The confinement introduces anomalous features in the temperature dependence of the conductance and the energy dependence of the phase shift. For single channel wires in the Kondo regime the response of the system depends on whether the Kondo screening lenght is shorter or larger than the quantum wire length. Finite size effects are not only relevant in the Kondo regime, the Coulomb blockade peaks of the conductance are also strongly affected as shown in Fig. 1.

This work was partially supported by the CONICET and ANPCYT, Grants N. 02151 and 99 3-6343.


format: text

text:
# The rotating wave system-reservoir coupling: limitations and meaning in the non-Markovian regime

## I Introduction

During the last few decades a huge deal of attention has been devoted to the study of the quantum dynamics of dissipative systems. The theory of open quantum systems, indeed, is essential for the understanding of a variety of physical phenomena in different fields of physics, such as, for example, quantum optics and solid state physics gardiner . Moreover, very recently, there has been an increasing interest in the effects of decoherence, due to the unavoidable coupling with external environmentptzurek ; zurek81 ; zurek82 , on the dynamics of quasi-closed systems used for quantum computing and quantum information processing. The usual approach for studying decoherence and dissipation effects starts by prescribing a total Hamiltonian for the closed total system (system+reservoir). Then, after tracing over the reservoir variables and performing, if necessary, appropriate approximations, one finally derives a Master Equation ruling the dynamics of the dissipative quantum system. One of the most commonly done assumptions for describing open quantum systems is the so-called Born-Markov approximation which basically consists in neglecting memory effects of the reservoir. In other words one assumes that the correlation time of the reservoir, characterizing the time scale on which the reservoir memory would feed back to the system, is much shorter than the typical system time scale. When such condition is satisfied it is possible to derive a Master Equation describing the time evolution of the dissipative system for times longer than the correlation time of the reservoir. Under this approximation the resulting Master Equation is called Markovian Master Equations and of course does not describe appropriately systems interacting with natural or engineered structured reservoirs, such as atoms decaying in photonic band gap materials or atom lasers. It has been very recently demonstrated by Ahn et al. Ahn  that non-Markovian reservoirs may be of potential interest for quantum information processing since a quantum system is decohered slower in a non-Markovian reservoir than in a Markovian one.

In this paper we firstly derive the time–convolutionless Master Equation describing a quantum harmonic oscillator of frequency $`\omega _0`$ interacting with a bosonic reservoir represented as an infinite chain of harmonic oscillators of frequencies $`\{\omega _i\}`$ fkm65 ; fk87 ; legget . The method used, exploiting a superoperatorial formalism, leads to a non-Markovian Master Equation spoiled of reservoir memory kernelstcl ; petruccionebook . In words one says that such a Master equation is local in time. Our aim is to analyze differences and analogies in the dynamical behaviour of this specific open system in correspondence with two different prefixed system-reservoir couplings. The first choise is the following:

$$\widehat{H}_{sr}^{\mathrm{RWA}}=\alpha \underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{}\sqrt{\frac{\omega _i}{2}}(g_i\widehat{a}\widehat{b}_i^{}+h.c.)\alpha (\widehat{a}\widehat{R}^{}+\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{R}),$$
(1)
usually referred to as Rotating Wave (RW) coupling. In Eq. (1), $`\widehat{a}`$ and $`\widehat{b}_i`$ are the annihilation operators of the system and reservoir harmonic oscillators respectively and $`\alpha `$ is the adimensional coupling constant. Note that, for the sake of simplicity, in the paper we use adimensional position and momentum operators for the system oscillator.

The second form of the system–reservoir interaction Hamitonian examined in this paper is the so-called Feynman-Vernon (FV) coupling fvc :

$$\widehat{H}_{sr}=\alpha \widehat{X}\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{}\sqrt{\omega _i}\left(g_i^{}\widehat{b}_i+g_i\widehat{b}_i^{}\right)\alpha \widehat{X}\left(\widehat{R}+\widehat{R}^{}\right),$$
(2)
where the operator $`\widehat{X}`$ is related to the creation and annihilation operators of the quantum harmonic oscillator simply as

$$\widehat{X}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\widehat{a}+\widehat{a}^{}\right).$$
(3)
While the first interaction Hamiltonian is very often used in describing quantum optics systems cfunction  and atom lasers atomlaser , the second one leads to the Master Equation for Quantum Brownian Motion bmotion . Using the Hamiltonian given by Eq. (1) instead of the more general one given by Eq. (2) is usually motivated saying that the counter rotating terms $`\widehat{a}\widehat{b}_j`$ and $`\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{b}_j^{}`$, appearing in Eq. (2), do not conserve the total unperturbed energy and thus give a negligible contribution to the system dynamics in the weak coupling limit cfunction .

The main result of this paper is that, in the non-Markovian regime, the contribution given by the counter-rotating terms is not negligible and experimentally measurable, also when the weak coupling limit is invoked.

The paper is structured as follows. In Sec. II we introduce the superoperator formalism for the derivation of non-Markovian generalized Master Equations. In Sec. III we specialize the generalized Master Equations to the cases of Rotating Wave and Feynman-Vernon couplings and we compare them in Sec. IV. Finally in Sec. V we present conclusions.

## II Derivation of the Master Equation: an operatorial approach

Let us consider an open quantum system interacting with an environment whose physical nature needs not to be specified at this moment. We indicate the total Hamiltonian as follows

$$\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_0+\widehat{H}_E+\alpha \widehat{H}_{\mathrm{int}},$$
(4)
where $`\widehat{H}_0`$, $`\widehat{H}_E`$ and $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{int}}`$ stand for the system, environment and interaction Hamiltonians respectively and $`\alpha `$ is the coupling constant. The Van Neumann-Liouville equation for the total system, in the interaction picture, is the following

$$\frac{d\stackrel{~}{\rho }(t)}{dt}=\frac{\alpha }{i\mathrm{}}[\widehat{H}_I(t),\stackrel{~}{\rho }(t)]\frac{\alpha }{i\mathrm{}}𝐇_I^S(t)\stackrel{~}{\rho }(t).$$
(5)
In Eq. (5), $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ and $`\widehat{H}_I(t)`$ are the density matrix and the interaction Hamiltonian of the total system respectively, in the interaction picture, and the superoperator $`𝐇_I^S(t)`$ is defined as $`𝐇_I^S(t)=[\widehat{H}_I(t),]`$. In the rest of the paper, given a certain operator $`\widehat{A}`$, we will use the following notation for the “commutator ”and “anticommutator”superoperators:

$$𝐀^S=[\widehat{A},]𝐀^\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{\widehat{A},\}.$$
(6)
In deriving the generalized Master Equation we assume that at $`t=0`$ system and environment are uncorrelated, that is $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(0)=\widehat{\rho }(0)\widehat{\rho }_E(0)`$, with $`\widehat{\rho }`$ and $`\widehat{\rho }_E`$ density matrices of system and environment respectively and that the environment is stationary, i.e. $`[\widehat{H}_E,\widehat{\rho }_E]=0`$.

A formal solution of Eq. (5) can be written as

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }(t)=𝐓(t)\stackrel{~}{\rho }(0),$$
(7)
where the superoperator $`𝐓(t)`$ is defined as the solution of the equation:

$$\dot{𝐓}(t)=\frac{\alpha }{i\mathrm{}}𝐇_I^S(t)𝐓(t),$$
(8)
with $`𝐓(0)=\mathrm{𝟏}`$. Remembering that $`\widehat{\rho }(t)=Tr_\mathrm{E}\left\{\stackrel{~}{\rho }(t)\right\}`$ and that $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(0)=\widehat{\rho }(0)\widehat{\rho }_E(0)`$, after tracing over the environmental variables, Eq. (7) becomes

$`\widehat{\rho }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`Tr_\mathrm{E}\left\{𝐓(t)\widehat{\rho }_E(0)\right\}\widehat{\rho }(0)`$ (9)
$``$ $`𝐓(t)\widehat{\rho }(0)(1+𝐌(t))\widehat{\rho }(0),`$
where we have indicated with $`𝐓(t)`$ the superoperator $`(1+𝐌(t))=Tr_\mathrm{E}\left\{𝐓(t)\widehat{\rho }_E(0)\right\}`$, acting on the space $`_\mathrm{s}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$, with $`_\mathrm{s}`$ Hilbert space of the system. Differentiating now Eq. (9) yields

$$\frac{d\widehat{\rho }(t)}{dt}=\dot{𝐌}(t)\widehat{\rho }(0).$$
(10)
Inserting in Eq.(10) the expression for $`\widehat{\rho }(0)`$ obtained inverting Eq. (9) gives

$$\frac{d\widehat{\rho }(t)}{dt}=\left(\dot{𝐌}(t)\right)\left[1+𝐌(t)\right]^1\widehat{\rho }(t)𝐊(t)\widehat{\rho }(t).$$
(11)
In the previous equation we have defined a new superoperator $`𝐊(t)`$ acting on the space $`_\mathrm{s}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ too. At this point it is worth spending few words on the existence of $`𝐊(t)`$, that is of the inverse superoperator $`\left[1+𝐌(t)\right]^1`$. To this aim, we recast $`𝐊(t)`$ in the form

$$𝐊(t)=\left(\dot{𝐌}(t)\right)\left[1+𝐌(t)\right]^1=\left(\dot{𝐌}(t)\right)\underset{n}{}\left(𝐌(t)\right)^n$$
(12)
As discussed in petruccione  for weak couplings such series converges at any time $`t`$. For generic coupling, however, the convergence radius of the series depends both on $`\alpha `$ and on $`t`$. For this reason one has always to pay special attention to such a problem when working for intermediate or even strong coupling regimes.

Now, it is easy to convince oneself that a formal solution of Eq.(8) may be written as

$`𝐓(t)=\mathrm{exp}_c\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{i\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _0^t}𝐇_I^S(t_1)𝑑t_1\right]{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{i\mathrm{}}}\right)^n{\displaystyle _0^t}{\displaystyle _0^{t_1}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{t_{n1}}}𝐇_I^S(t)𝐇_I^S(t_1)\mathrm{}𝐇_I^S(t_n)𝑑t_1\mathrm{}𝑑t_n,`$ (13)
where the subscript $`c`$ in the exponential stands for the Dyson chronological order, i.e. $`t_n>t_{n1}\mathrm{}>t_1>t`$. Inserting such an expression into Eq. (11) with the help of Eq. (9) and collecting all the terms proportional to the same power in $`\alpha `$, it is possible to demonstrate that the following expansion holds:

$$𝐊(t)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝐤_n(t)$$
(14)
with

$$𝐤_n(t)=\left(\frac{\alpha }{i\mathrm{}}\right)^n_0^t_0^{t_1}\mathrm{}_0^{t_{n1}}𝐇_I^S(t)𝐇_I^S(t_1)\mathrm{}𝐇_I^S(t_n)_{o.c.}𝑑t_1\mathrm{}𝑑t_n.$$
(15)
In the previous equation we have indicated with $`\mathrm{}_{o.c.}`$ the temporal ordered cumulants kubo . As an example, we report the expression of the first and second cumulants, respectively:

$`𝐇_I^S(t)_{o.c.}`$ $`=`$ $`𝐇_I^S(t)`$
$`𝐇_I^S(t)𝐇_I^S(t_1)_{o.c.}`$ $`=`$ $`𝐇_I^S(t)𝐇_I^S(t_1)𝐇_I^S(t)𝐇_I^S(t_1).`$ (16)
The form of Eq. (15) resembles the result obtained by Van Kampen in the context of stochastic differential equations artvk1 ; artvk2 .

The origin of the expansion given by Eqs. (14) and (15) can be understood as follows. Let us write the superoperator $`𝐊(t)`$ defined by Eq. (12) in following symbolic form

$$𝐊(t)=\frac{\delta }{\delta t}ln\left[\mathrm{exp}_c\left(\alpha _0^t𝐇_I^S(t_1)𝑑t_1\right)\right],$$
(17)
where

$$\frac{\delta }{\delta t}F[𝐀(t)]\left(\frac{d}{dt}𝐀(t)\right)F[𝐀(t)]$$
(18)
In Eq. (17) the symbol $`\mathrm{}=tr_E\left\{\mathrm{}\widehat{\rho }_E\right\}`$ describes an operation of average over the environmental degrees of freedom. The expression $`\mathrm{exp}_c(\alpha _0^t𝐇_I^S(t_1)dt_1))`$ can thus be seen as the generalization, in the superoperator formalism, of the concept of characteristic functional vkbook . As a consequence the superoperator $`ln\left[\mathrm{exp}_c\left(\alpha _0^t𝐇_I^S(t)\right)\right]`$ is the generalization of the generator of cumulants introduced in standard textbooks. This circumstance makes it clear why the integrand in Eq. (15) is called temporal ordered cumulant. In view of Eq. (17) the existence problem of the superoperator $`𝐊(t)`$ can be traced back to the convergence of the series of cumulants in Eq.(14).

In order to derive the explicit form of the generalized Master Equation, let us assume a bilinear interaction Hamiltonian of the form:

$$\widehat{H}_I(t)=\alpha \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\widehat{A}_i(t)\widehat{E}_i(t)=\alpha \widehat{\stackrel{}{A}}(t)\widehat{\stackrel{}{E}}(t),$$
(19)
where $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{A}}(t)(\widehat{A}_1(t),\widehat{A}_2(t),\mathrm{},\widehat{A}_n(t))`$ and $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{E}}(t)(\widehat{E}_1(t),\widehat{E}_2(t),\mathrm{},\widehat{E}_n(t))`$ are system and environment operators respectively. In the weak coupling limit we may stop the cumulant expansion given in Eq.(14) to the second order in the coupling constant. In view of Eqs.(11) and (14) (15) , this leads to the following Master Equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\rho }(t)}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{i\mathrm{}}}𝐇_I^S(t)\widehat{\rho }(t)`$ (20)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle _0^t}\left[𝐇_I^S(t)𝐇_I^S(t_1)𝐇_I^S(t)𝐇_I^S(t_1)\right]𝑑t_1\widehat{\rho }(t).`$
Assuming for simplicity that the form of the environmental density matrix satisfy the condition $`\widehat{E}=0`$ (as for example in the case of a thermal reservoir), one can show that the first term of Eq.(20) vanishes at every time $`t`$. The explicit manipulation of the second term is presented in Appendix A and leads to the following final form of the non-Markovian generalized Master Equation:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\rho }(t)}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle _0^t}\left[\kappa _{i,j}(\tau )𝐀_i^S(t)𝐀_j^S(t\tau )i\mu _{i,j}(\tau )𝐀_i^S(t)𝐀_j^\mathrm{\Sigma }(t\tau )\right]𝑑\tau \right)\widehat{\rho }(t)`$ (21)
$``$ $`\left[𝐃(t)ı𝐆(t)\right]\widehat{\rho }(t)𝐋(t)\widehat{\rho }(t),`$
where definitions of Eq.(6) have been used. In Eq.(21) we have introduced the environment correlation $`\kappa _{i,j}(\tau )`$ and susceptibility $`\mu _{i,j}(\tau )`$ matrices, with $`\tau =tt_1`$. Such quantities, characterizing the temporal behavior of the environment, are defined as follows

$$\kappa _{i,j}(\tau )=\frac{\alpha ^2}{2\mathrm{}^2}\{\widehat{E}_i(\tau ),\widehat{E}_j(0)\},$$
(22)
$$\mu _{i,j}(\tau )=\frac{i\alpha ^2}{2\mathrm{}^2}[\widehat{E}_i(\tau ),\widehat{E}_j(0)].$$
(23)
The form of Eq. (21) has a clear physical meaning. One can show that the superoperator $`𝐃(t)`$ is strictly connected with diffusion (decoherence) processes only leshouches . The superoperator $`𝐆(t)`$, describing the dissipation processes and frequency renormalization, on the other hand, arises from a quantum mechanical treatment of the environment and, indeed, vanishes when a semiclassical description of the environment is used (see also Eq.(23)) leshouches .

In the next section we further carry on the calculations in order to obtain and compare the two non-Markovian Master Equations corresponding to the Rotating Wave and Feynman-Vernon couplings respectively.

## III Rotating Wave and Feynman-Vernon couplings in the non-Markovian regime

Let us consider a quantum harmonic oscillator whose Hamiltonian is given by:

$$\widehat{H}_0=\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _0}{2}\left(\widehat{P}^2+\widehat{X}^2\right)=\mathrm{}\omega _0\left(\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}+1/2\right),$$
(24)
with $`\omega _0`$ frequency of the harmonic oscillator. The system interacts with a bosonic reservoir at $`T`$ temperature of Hamiltonian

$$\widehat{H}_E=\mathrm{}\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\omega _i\left(\widehat{b}_i^{}\widehat{b}_i+1/2\right),$$
(25)
with $`\omega _i`$ frequencies of the reservoir oscillators.

### III.1 Feynman-Vernon coupling

Let us begin discussing the Feynman-Vernon interaction Hamiltonian, given by Eq.(2). Such a coupling is of the form of Eq.(19) where, in the interaction picture, $`\widehat{A}(t)=\widehat{X}(t)`$ and $`\widehat{E}(t)=\widehat{R}(t)+\widehat{R}^{}(t)`$. Our aim is to manipulate Eq.(21) in order to obtain the specific non-Markovian generalized Master Equation appropriate for our system. In this section we will sketch the main steps of the derivation. More details can be found in Appendix B.

First of all let us write the Master Equation given in Eq.(21) in the Schrödinger picture. Introducing the superoperator

$$𝐓_0(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}𝐇_0^St\right],$$
(26)
with $`\widehat{H}_0`$ given by Eq.(24), and transforming in the Schrödinger picture the superoperator $`𝐋(t)`$ defined in Eq.(21)

$$𝐋_S(t)=𝐓_0(t)𝐋(t)𝐓_0^1(t),$$
(27)
our generalized Master Equation becomes

$$\frac{d\widehat{\rho }_S(t)}{dt}=\left[\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}𝐇_0^S𝐃_S(t)+i𝐆_S(t)\right]\widehat{\rho }_S(t),$$
(28)
with $`\widehat{\rho }_S`$ density matrix of the harmonic oscillator in the Schrödinger picture. In Appendix B we show that the superoperators $`𝐃_S(t)`$ and $`𝐆_S(t)`$ can be recast in the form

$$𝐃_S(t)=_0^t\kappa (\tau )𝐗^S\left(\mathrm{cos}\omega _0\tau 𝐗^S\mathrm{sin}\omega _0\tau 𝐏^S\right)𝑑\tau ,$$
(29a)
$$𝐆_S(t)=_0^t\mu (\tau )𝐗^S\left(\mathrm{cos}\omega _0\tau 𝐗^\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{sin}\omega _0\tau 𝐏^\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)𝑑\tau ,$$
(29b)
where $`𝐏^S`$ and $`𝐏^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are the “commutator”and “anticommutator”superoperators associated to the operator

$$\widehat{P}=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\right),$$
(30)
and $`\kappa (\tau )\kappa _{1,1}(\tau )`$ and $`\mu (\tau )\mu _{1,1}(\tau )`$ are defined by Eqs. (22)-(23). Inserting Eqs.(29a)-(29b) into Eq.(28) we get

$$\frac{d\widehat{\rho }_S(t)}{dt}=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}𝐇_0^S\left[\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(t)(𝐗^S)^2\mathrm{\Pi }(t)𝐗^S𝐏^S\frac{i}{2}r(t)(𝐗^\mathrm{𝟐})^S+i\gamma (t)𝐗^S𝐏^\mathrm{\Sigma }\right]\widehat{\rho }_S(t).$$
(31)
The time dependent coefficients appearing in the previous equation are defined as follows

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^t}\kappa (\tau )\mathrm{cos}(\omega _0\tau )𝑑\tau ,`$ (32)
$`\gamma (t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^t}\mu (\tau )\mathrm{sin}(\omega _0\tau )𝑑\tau ,`$ (33)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^t}\kappa (\tau )\mathrm{sin}(\omega _0\tau )𝑑\tau ,`$ (34)
$`r(t)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle _0^t}\mu (\tau )\mathrm{cos}(\omega _0\tau )𝑑\tau .`$ (35)
From the form of Eq.(31), and remembering that $`𝐇_0^S`$ may be written as

$$𝐇_0^S=\frac{1}{2}\left[(𝐏^\mathrm{𝟐})^S+(𝐗^\mathrm{𝟐})^S\right],$$
(36)
it is not difficult to convince oneself that the term having coefficient $`r(t)`$ gives a renormalization of the oscillator frequency.
As usually done in standard textbooks cfunction , this term can be included in the definition of $`\omega _0`$. In the following we neglect such term since it is possible to prove that such an approximation is always justified in the weak coupling regime $`\alpha 1`$, provided that the reservoir frequency cut–off remains finite.

Under these conditions, the Master Equation, in the interaction picture with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{H}_0`$, assumes the form

$$\frac{d\widehat{\rho }(t)}{dt}=\left[\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(t)(𝐗^S)^2(t)\mathrm{\Pi }(t)𝐗^S(t)𝐏^S(t)+i\gamma (t)𝐗^S(t)𝐏^\mathrm{\Sigma }(t)\right]\widehat{\rho }(t).$$
(37)
The time dependent superoperators appearing in Eq.(37) are those related to the operators

$`\widehat{X}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{X}\mathrm{cos}(\omega _0t)+\widehat{P}\mathrm{sin}(\omega _0t),`$ (38)
$`\widehat{P}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{P}\mathrm{cos}(\omega _0t)\widehat{X}\mathrm{sin}(\omega _0t).`$ (39)
Eq. (37) can be exactly solved in an operatorial way and the solution has an operatorial form prl . This fact may be exploited to fully disclose both the short time non-Markovian and the asymptotic Markovian behaviors characterizing the dynamics of the system, as we will see in Section IV.

### III.2 Rotating Wave coupling

The generalized Master Equation correspondent to the interaction Hamintonian given by Eq. (1), derived following the same procedure presented in the previous subsection, is (see also Appendix C)

$$\frac{d\widehat{\rho }(t)}{dt}=\left[\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\mathrm{RWA}}(t)𝐚_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{S}𝐚^S\frac{\gamma ^{\mathrm{RWA}}(t)}{2}\left(𝐚_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{S}𝐚^\mathrm{\Sigma }𝐚^S𝐚_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right)+\frac{ı}{2}r^{\mathrm{RWA}}(t)\left(𝐚_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{S}𝐚^\mathrm{\Sigma }+𝐚^S𝐚_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right)\right]\widehat{\rho }(t).$$
(40)
The time dependent coefficients appearing in this equation are defined as follows

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\mathrm{RWA}}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^t}\kappa ^{\mathrm{RWA}}(\tau )𝑑\tau ,`$ (41)
$`\gamma ^{\mathrm{RWA}}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^t}\mu _R^{\mathrm{RWA}}(\tau )𝑑\tau ,`$ (42)
$`r^{\mathrm{RWA}}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle _0^t}\mu _I^{\mathrm{RWA}}(\tau )𝑑\tau ,`$ (43)
where

$$\kappa ^{\mathrm{RWA}}(\tau )=\frac{\alpha ^2}{2\mathrm{}^2}\{\widehat{\stackrel{~}{R}}(\tau ),\widehat{\stackrel{~}{R}}^{}(0)\}+\{\widehat{\stackrel{~}{R}}^{}(\tau ),\widehat{\stackrel{~}{R}}(0)\},$$
(44a)
$$\mu _R^{\mathrm{RWA}}(\tau )=\frac{ı\alpha ^2}{2\mathrm{}^2}[\widehat{\stackrel{~}{R}}(\tau ),\widehat{\stackrel{~}{R}}^{}(0)]+[\widehat{\stackrel{~}{R}}^{}(\tau ),\widehat{\stackrel{~}{R}}(0)],$$
(44b)
$$\mu _I^{\mathrm{RWA}}(\tau )=\frac{ı\alpha ^2}{2\mathrm{}^2}[\widehat{\stackrel{~}{R}}(\tau ),\widehat{\stackrel{~}{R}}^{}(0)][\widehat{\stackrel{~}{R}}^{}(\tau ),\widehat{\stackrel{~}{R}}(0)],$$
(44c)
and $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{R}}(t)`$ is the operator (see Appendix B)

$$\widehat{\stackrel{~}{R}}(t)\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{}\sqrt{\frac{\omega _i}{2}}g_i\widehat{b}_ie^{ı(\omega _i\omega _0)t}.$$
(45)
In the Schrödinger picture Eq. (40) takes the form

$$\frac{d\widehat{\rho }_S(t)}{dt}=\left[\frac{1}{ı\mathrm{}}𝐇_{\mathrm{𝟎}}^{}{}_{}{}^{S}+ır^{\mathrm{RWA}}(t)\left(𝐚^{}𝐚\right)^S\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\mathrm{RWA}}(t)𝐚_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{S}𝐚^S\frac{\overline{\gamma }^{\mathrm{RWA}}(t)}{2}\left(𝐚_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{S}𝐚^\mathrm{\Sigma }𝐚^S𝐚_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right)\right]\widehat{\rho }_S(t)$$
(46)
The term proportional to $`r^{\mathrm{RWA}}(t)`$ gives rise to a renormalization of the oscillator frequency as for the Feynman-Vernon case, described in the previous subsection. Therefore, proceeding with the same considerations and passing to the interaction picture, we obtain the following generalized Master Equation for the system

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\rho }}{t}}=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\mathrm{RWA}}(t)+\gamma ^{\mathrm{RWA}}(t)}{2}}\left[\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\widehat{\rho }2\widehat{a}\widehat{\rho }\widehat{a}^{}+\widehat{\rho }\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\right]`$ (47)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\mathrm{RWA}}(t)\gamma ^{\mathrm{RWA}}(t)}{2}}\left[\widehat{a}\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{\rho }2\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{\rho }\widehat{a}+\widehat{\rho }\widehat{a}\widehat{a}^{}\right].`$
Let us note that this Master Equation, differently from the one obtained for the FV coupling (see Eq. (37)), is in the Lindblad form as far as the time dependent coefficients $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\mathrm{RWA}}(t)\pm \gamma ^{\mathrm{RWA}}(t)`$ are positive. This is usually the case for typical reservoir spectra and parameters, as we have discussed in pra .

## IV Comparison between the RW and the Feynman-Vernon coupling models

In the previous section we have seen that starting from a FV coupling or from a RW coupling of an harmonic oscillator with a thermal reservoir it is possible to obtain a generalized Master Equation local in time describing the dynamics of the oscillator. This fact is not surprising. Indeed, as underlined by Paz and Zurek in leshouches , “perturbative Master Equations can always be shown to be local in time ”. It is worth noting that, as far as the FV interaction model is concerned, an exact Master Equation, valid for every value of the coupling strength, has been derived MEexact .

The Master Equations we have derived in the paper are based on the weak coupling assumption but do not rely on the Born-Markov approximation so we are able to examine the non-Markovian short time behavior of the system under study. In addition such equations of course describe the correct Markovian long time asymptotic behavior pra .

The different structure of the two Master Equations given by Eq. (37) and Eq. (47), traceable back to the two different coupling Hamiltonians, are responsible for the occurrence of some physically transparent changes in the oscillator dynamics, more marked in short time regime.

To better understand the physical origin of such differences let us have a closer look at the two interaction Hamiltonians:

$$\widehat{H}_{sr}^{\mathrm{RWA}}=\alpha \left(\widehat{a}\widehat{R}^{}+\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{R}\right)$$
(48a)
$$\widehat{H}_{sr}^{\mathrm{FV}}=\alpha \left[\left(\widehat{a}\widehat{R}^{}+\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{R}\right)+\left(\widehat{a}\widehat{R}+\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{R}^{}\right)\right]$$
(48b)
We take advantage of a pictorial representation of the four different interaction terms appearing in Hamiltonian (48b) (see fig 1).

The events represented in the first two diagrams (a,b) are processes of absorption or emission in which energy is conserved. The last two diagrams (c,d), on the contrary, describe events not corresponding to real absorption and emission processes. For this reason such processes are called virtual processes. In the second order in perturbation theory both the two real and virtual processes combine to give rise to real processes hereafter called alpha and beta processes respectively (see fig.2).

Thus when we use the Feynman-Vernon coupling instead of the Rotating Wave one, the channels through which the oscillator exchanges energy with the reservoir are doubled. The asymptotic long time behavior describes, of course, thermalization in both cases.

These particular features give rise to different predictions of the short time behavior of physical quantities, such as for example the mean number of quanta $`\widehat{n}(t)`$ of the system oscillator (heating function), depending on which of the two system-reservoir coupling models is used. We show in the following that such different behaviors are, in principle, experimentally observable and thus relevant for the correct description of the complete dynamics of the system.

Let us consider, as initial state of the system, the vacuum. It is well known that, in this case, due to the interaction with the thermal reservoir at $`T`$ temperature, the system experiences heating processes leading to thermalization. In reference pra  it has been shown that, for the FV coupling, the non-Markovian time evolution of $`\widehat{n}(t)`$, in the weak coupling limit, is given by prl ; pra

$$\widehat{n}(t)\stackrel{t<<\omega _c^1}{}\left[2\alpha ^2_0^{\mathrm{}}\omega |g(\omega )|^2(n(\omega )+\frac{1}{2})𝑑\omega \right]\frac{t^2}{2},$$
(49)
where $`n(\omega )`$ is the mean number of reservoir excitations at $`T`$ temperature and $`g(\omega )`$ is the reservoir spectral density.

For the RW coupling, similar calculations yields the following expression

$$\widehat{n}^{\mathrm{RWA}}(t)\stackrel{t<<\omega _c^1}{}\left[\alpha ^2_0^{\mathrm{}}\omega |g(\omega )|^2n(\omega )𝑑\omega \right]\frac{t^2}{2}.$$
(50)
Comparing these last two equations one sees immediately that, for short time intervals, $`\widehat{n}(t)2\widehat{n}^{\mathrm{RWA}}(t)`$, meaning that the system–reservoir FV coupling model predicts an initial heating of the system faster than the one predicted by the RW coupling model. This fact can be easily traced back to the doubling of channels for energy exchange illustrated in Fig. (1).

On the other hand, in the long time asymptotic limit, $`\widehat{n}(t)`$ and $`\widehat{n}^{\mathrm{RWA}}(t)`$ have, as expected, the same temporal behavior prl ; pra :

$$n(t>>\omega _0^1)=n^{\mathrm{RWA}}(t>>\omega _0^1)n(\omega _0)(1exp[\pi \alpha ^2\omega _0|g(\omega _0)|^2t]),$$
(51)
since, due to the time–energy uncertainty principle, for long times $`t`$, $`\beta `$ processes (see Figure 2) are very unlikely to happen in the weak coupling regime.

Summing up the two system–reservoir coupling models under scrutiny predict the same asymptotic long time behavior for the observable $`\widehat{n}(t)`$ but different non–Markovian short time behaviors. It is worth noting that, once known the system and reservoir parameters, the only phenomenologic constant is the coupling constant $`\alpha `$. Such quantity is usually estimated from the experiments engineer . If we now assume that experiments may be performed in all the relevant time scale, that is both in the asymptotic long time regime and in the non–Markovian short time regime, one can use the value of the coupling constant experimentally measured in the asymptotic long time regime (see Eq. (51)) to verify if the correct short time behavior is actually the one predicted by Eq. (49) (FV coupling) or the one given by Eq. (50) (RW coupling). In fact, one would expect that, since the complete Feynman–Vernon coupling is more general than the RW coupling, it is also more fundamental and thus it should give the correct description of the dynamics of the system.

## V The RWA in the Feynman-Vernon model: comparison with the RW model

Let us now consider again the final form of the generalized Master Equation, given by Eq. (37) with Eqs. (38)-(39), derived for the FV coupling. To further simplify the calculation one could think to perform a Rotating Wave Approximation (RWA) averaging on an interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ the rapidly oscillating trigonometric functions appearing in Eq.(37) through Eqs.(38)-(39). Under such conditions, that is for $`2\omega _0\mathrm{\Delta }t1`$, Eq. (37) assumes the form

$$\frac{d\widehat{\rho }(t)}{dt}=\left[\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(t)}{2}\left((𝐗^S)^2+(𝐏^S)^2\right)+i\frac{\gamma (t)}{2}\left(𝐗^S𝐏^\mathrm{\Sigma }𝐏^S𝐗^\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)\right]\widehat{\rho }(t).$$
(52)
Having in mind Eqs.(3) and (30), after some straightforward calculations the following Master Equation is obtained

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\rho }}{t}}=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(t)+\gamma (t)}{2}}\left[\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\widehat{\rho }2\widehat{a}\widehat{\rho }\widehat{a}^{}+\widehat{\rho }\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\right]`$ (53)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(t)\gamma (t)}{2}}\left[\widehat{a}\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{\rho }2\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{\rho }\widehat{a}+\widehat{\rho }\widehat{a}\widehat{a}^{}\right],`$
with $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(t)`$ and $`\gamma (t)`$ defined by Eqs.(32)-(33). It is important to note that Eqs.(53) is in the Lindblad form as far as the sum and difference coefficients $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(t)\gamma (t))`$ and $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(t)+\gamma (t))`$ are positive prl .

Another interesting feature of Eq. (53) is that it has the same structure of the Master Equation obtained starting from the RW coupling (see Eq. (47)). Indeed, one sees immediately that the difference between the Master Equation obtained starting form the FV coupling and performing after the RWA, and that one obtained starting from the RW coupling *relies only on the time dependent coefficients of the ME*. Let us have a closer look at the form of such coefficients. In the limit of continuous modes they are written as:

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(t)=2\alpha ^2_0^t_0^{\mathrm{}}\omega |g(\omega )|^2(n(\omega )+\frac{1}{2})\mathrm{cos}[\omega \tau ]\mathrm{cos}[\omega _0\tau ]𝑑\omega 𝑑\tau ,$$
(54a)
$$\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\mathrm{RWA}}(t)=\alpha ^2_0^t_0^{\mathrm{}}\omega |g(\omega )|^2(n(\omega )+\frac{1}{2})\mathrm{cos}[(\omega \omega _0)\tau ]𝑑\omega 𝑑\tau ,$$
(54b)
$$\gamma (t)=2\alpha ^2_0^t_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\omega }{2}|g(\omega )|^2\mathrm{sin}[\omega \tau ]\mathrm{sin}[\omega _0\tau ]𝑑\omega 𝑑\tau ,$$
(55a)
$$\gamma ^{\mathrm{RWA}}(t)=\alpha ^2_0^t_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\omega }{2}|g(\omega )|^2\mathrm{cos}[(\omega \omega _0)\tau ]𝑑\omega 𝑑\tau ,$$
(55b)
where $`n(\omega )=\left(exp[\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{kT}]1\right)^1`$ is the number of reservoir excitations at $`T`$ temperature. In the following we assume an Ohmic environment characterized by a reservoir spectral density having frequency cut-off $`\omega _c`$, as for example the Drude spectral density

$$|g(\omega )|^2=\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{\omega _c^2}{\omega _c^2+\omega ^2}.$$
(56)
A noticeable difference between the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(t)(\gamma (t))`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\mathrm{RWA}}(t)(\gamma ^{\mathrm{RWA}}(t))`$ coefficients is that in the last one the anti-resonant term $`\mathrm{cos}[(\omega +\omega _0)\tau ]`$ is absent. Such a circumstance leads to distinguishable short time behaviors of the FV and RW coefficients.

It is indeed possible to prove that in $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(t)`$, for $`t\omega _c^1`$, alpha and beta processes give rise to the same contributions linear in $`t`$ so that $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(t)2\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\mathrm{RWA}}(t)`$.

As far as $`\gamma (t)`$ is concerned, on the contrary, the same processes cancel each other at the first order in $`t`$ in such a way that, for $`t\omega _c^1`$, $`\gamma (t)t^3`$ whereas $`\gamma ^{\mathrm{RWA}}(t)t`$.

In the asymptotic Markovian long time regime we have, as expected, that $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(t\omega _c^1)\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\mathrm{RWA}}(t\omega _c^1)`$ and $`\gamma (t\omega _c^1)\gamma ^{\mathrm{RWA}}(t\omega _c^1)`$, as shown in Fig. 3

At this point it is worth making some considerations on the validity of the RWA performed to derive Eq.(53). As we have already said at the beginning of this section, the RWA consists in neglecting terms oscillating at the frequency $`2\omega _0`$. In other words performing the RWA amounts at looking at the course-grained structure of the dynamics of the systems. For this reason we cannot describe correctly the dynamical features in a time interval such as $`\mathrm{\Delta }t\omega _0^1`$. Very often one deals with situations in which the characteristic frequency of the system $`\omega _0`$ is smaller or much smaller than the reservoir frequency cut $`\omega _c`$. Under this circumstances, normally, we cannot rely on the short time expressions of the FV coefficients $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(t)`$ and $`\gamma (t)`$ since they are valid for times $`t\omega _c^1\omega _0^1`$. However, there are two cases in which one can use the Master Equation given by Eq. (53) to describe correctly the non-Markovian short time behavior of the system:

1. whenever one wants to look at situations in which $`\omega _0>\omega _c`$, as discussed for example in petruccione ; heatingtheory1 ;
2. whenever we are interested in the mean value of a certain class of observables, like for instance the number operator $`\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}(t)`$ (see prl ).

In this last case, indeed, it has been shown prl  that,in the weak coupling limit, it is equivalent to use the solution of the the Master Equations (37) or (53) since they lead to the the same analytic expressions for the expectation value of the observable of the class before mentioned.

## VI Summary and Conclusions

We have described a procedure, based on superoperator formalism, to derive, in the weak coupling limit, non–Markovian generalized Master Equations local in time. Such a method is equivalent to the time–convolutionless projection operator technique in the sense that it leads to the same generalized Master Equation. We apply this procedure to derive the Master Equation for a specific system, namely a quantum harmonic oscillator coupled to a thermal reservoir at $`T`$ temperature. We compare two different microscopic system–reservoir coupling models: the Feynman–Vernon and the rotating wave couplings. Both couplings are bilinear, but the first one is more general and thus, in this sense, it is more fundamental. Very often however, in quantum optics systems, the Rotating Wave coupling is used because the counter rotating terms not conserving the unperturbed energy cannot contribute to the system dynamics cfunction . The main result of our paper is to establish under which conditions such a claim is effectively correct. By comparing the analytic solutions of the heating function relative to the two different coupling models (FV and RW couplings) we conclude that, even in the weak coupling limit, the counter rotating terms give indeed a significant contribution in the non–Markovian short time regime. Such a contribution is actually experimentally measurable, provided that one can perform experiments in all the time scale relevant for the system dynamics. To this purpose it is worth noting that in the context of trapped ions experiments have been performed in which the system (single harmonic oscillator) is first cooled down to its zero point energy and then coupled to a properly engineered reservoir engineer . We note that, in such experiments, it is possible not only to choose at will the reservoir parameters, but also to engineer the coupling and control the coupling strength. Therefore, the great experimental advances of the trapped ion techniques could make it possible to perform an experiment aimed at proving the relevant role, in the short time dynamics, of the usually neglected counter rotating terms.

One of the reasons for which one usually prefers to work with master equations derived starting from the RW coupling model is related to the fact that the resulting Master Equation, in the Born–Markov approximation, is in the Lindblad form differently from the case in which the Feynman–Vernon coupling is assumed (see Master Equation for Brownian motion). We have demonstrated here that also the non–Markovian Master Equation obtained starting from the RW coupling is in the Lindblad form, for some value of the relevant system and reservoir parameter. Moreover, by looking at the analytic expression of the time dependent coefficients of our non–Markovian generalized Master Equations one can infer the conditions under which one passes from Lindblad to non Lindblad Master Equations. Remembering that the Master Equations given by Eqs. (47) and (53) are of Lindblad type when their time dependent coefficients are positive, indeed, it is not difficult to convince oneself that such conditions are simply related to the change of the sign of the coefficients. Therefore the form of the RW Master Equations derived in this paper allows to study the border separating two very different physical regimes characterized by very different system dynamics petruccione  and, for this reason, makes it possible to gain more insight in the fundamental dissipative processes of one of the most extensively studied physical systems: a harmonic oscillator coupled to a thermal reservoir.

Another new result we have obtained in this paper stems from the comparison between the master equations derived in the following two cases:

1) Feynman–Vernon system reservoir coupling followed by the RWA performed after tracing over the reservoir degrees of freedom;

2) Rotating Wave system reservoir coupling.

Stated another way we look at the differences in the system dynamics arising from the two following approximations respectively:

1) average over rapidly oscillating terms after tracing over the reservoir variables;

2) neglecting the counter rotating terms in the initial microscopic coupling model.

We have shown that the Master Equation obtained from the Feynman–Vernon coupling, after performing the RWA, is of the Lindblad type and it actually has the same structure of the RW Master Equation, with different time dependent coefficients. We have demonstrated that these two different approximations lead to different short time behaviors, while in the asymptotic long time Markovian regime the two correspondent Master Equations do coincide. However we have proved that performing the RWA after tracing over the reservoir variables is a less restrictive approximation than starting with the RW coupling model. Indeed, differently from the RW Master Equation, the Feynman–Vernon one + RWA, takes into account the virtual photon exchanges relevant in the short time dynamics and thus it predicts the correct non–Markovian short time behavior, provided that $`t\omega _0^1`$.

## VII Acknowledgements

One of the authors (S.M.) acknowledges financial support from Finanziamento Progetto Giovani Ricercatori anno 1999, Comitato 02.

## Appendix A The general Master Equation

In this Appendix we sketch the derivation of Eq. (21) from Eq. (20). Let us consider an interaction Hamiltonian with the form

$$\widehat{H}_I(t)=\alpha \widehat{A}_i(t)\widehat{E}_i(t)=\alpha \widehat{\stackrel{}{A}}(t)\widehat{\stackrel{}{E}}(t),$$
(57)
where for simplicity we have used Einstein notation. Using some algebraic properties of the superoperators one can show that if $`[\widehat{A}_i,\widehat{E}_i]=0`$ then

$$(\widehat{A}_i(t)\widehat{E}_i(t))^S=\frac{1}{2}\left(𝐀_{𝐢}^{}{}_{}{}^{S}𝐄_{𝐢}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Sigma }}+𝐀_{𝐢}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Sigma }}𝐄_{𝐢}^{}{}_{}{}^{S}\right).$$
(58)
Exploiting the properties of the trace and the assumption $`\widehat{E}=0`$ one gets

$$tr_E\left\{𝐄_i^S\widehat{\rho }_E(0)\right\}0,tr_E\left\{𝐄_i^\mathrm{\Sigma }\widehat{\rho }_E(0)\right\}=0.$$
(59)
Consequently

$$𝐇_{𝐈}^{}{}_{}{}^{S}(t)=tr_E\left\{𝐄_i^S\widehat{\rho }_E(0)\right\}=\frac{1}{2}\left(𝐄_i^\mathrm{\Sigma }(t)𝐀_i^S(t)+𝐄_i^S(t)𝐀_i^\mathrm{\Sigma }(t)\right)=0.$$
(60)
In the same manner it is not difficult to show that

$$𝐇_{𝐈}^{}{}_{}{}^{S}(t)𝐇_{𝐈}^{}{}_{}{}^{S}(t_1)=\frac{1}{4}\left(𝐄_i^\mathrm{\Sigma }(t)𝐄_j^\mathrm{\Sigma }(t_1)𝐀_i^S(t)𝐀_j^S(t_1)+𝐄_i^\mathrm{\Sigma }(t)𝐄_j^S(t_1)𝐀_i^S(t)𝐀_j^\mathrm{\Sigma }(t_1)\right),$$
(61)
where the equalities

$$𝐄_i^S(t)𝐄_j^\mathrm{\Sigma }(t_1)=𝐄_i^S(t)𝐄_j^S(t_1)0,$$
(62)
have been used. After some algebraic manipulation one gets

$$𝐄_i^\mathrm{\Sigma }(t)𝐄_j^\mathrm{\Sigma }(t_1)=2\{\widehat{E}_i^\mathrm{\Sigma }(tt_1),\widehat{E}_j^\mathrm{\Sigma }(0)\},$$
(63)
$$𝐄_i^\mathrm{\Sigma }(t)𝐄_j^S(t_1)=2[\widehat{E}_i^\mathrm{\Sigma }(tt_1),\widehat{E}_j^\mathrm{\Sigma }(0)],$$
(64)
where the square an curl brackets indicate the commutator and anti-commutator respectively.

Substituting these expressions into Eq.(20) and using the definitions of the correlation and susceptibility matrices one obtains the general Master Equation given by (21).

## Appendix B Derivation of FV Master Equation

In this appendix we present the superoperatorial mathematical properties allowing to derive the final form of the FV Master Equation, given by Eq. (37) discussed in this paper. First of all let us consider the following superoperatorial relations

$$[𝐀^S,𝐁^S]=[𝐀^\mathrm{\Sigma },𝐁^\mathrm{\Sigma }]=[\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]^S$$
(65a)
$$[𝐀^S,𝐁^\mathrm{\Sigma }]=[\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]^\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$
(65b)
Such these equations and having in mind the Baker-Hausdorff formula one gets

$$𝐀^{S(\mathrm{\Sigma })}(t)\mathrm{exp}\left[ı𝐁^St\right]𝐀^{S(\mathrm{\Sigma })}\mathrm{exp}\left[ı𝐁^St\right]=\left(\mathrm{exp}\left[ı\widehat{B}^St\right]\widehat{A}\mathrm{exp}\left[ı\widehat{B}^St\right]\right)^{S(\mathrm{\Sigma })}=\left(\widehat{A}(t)\right)^{S(\mathrm{\Sigma })}.$$
(66)
The previous relation says that the time evolution of superoperators is ruled by equations analogue to those of the operators in Dirac’s formalism. Then, specifying Eq. (21) to the system under scrutiny and using Eqs. (24) and (28) yields

$`𝐃_S(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^t}\kappa (\tau )𝐓_0(t)𝐗^S(t)𝐗^S(t\tau )𝐓_0^1(t)𝑑\tau ={\displaystyle _0^t}\kappa (\tau )𝐗^S𝐗^S(\tau )𝑑\tau ,`$ (67a)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^t}\kappa (\tau )𝐗^S\left(\mathrm{cos}\omega _0\tau 𝐗^S\mathrm{sin}\omega _0\tau 𝐏^S\right)𝑑\tau `$
$`𝐆_S(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^t}\mu (\tau )𝐓_0(t)𝐗^S(t)𝐗^\mathrm{\Sigma }(t\tau )𝐓_0^1(t)𝑑\tau ={\displaystyle _0^t}\mu (\tau )𝐗^S𝐗^\mathrm{\Sigma }(\tau )𝑑\tau `$ (67b)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^t}\mu (\tau )𝐗^S\left(\mathrm{cos}\omega _0\tau 𝐗^\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{sin}\omega _0\tau 𝐏^\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)𝑑\tau .`$
## Appendix C Derivation of the RW Master Equation

In this Appendix we underline the essential steps in the derivation of the RW Master Equation given by Eq. (40). Let us note that, in interaction picture, the Hamiltonian given by Eq. (1) assumes the form

$$\widehat{H}_{sr}^{\mathrm{RWA}}(t)=\alpha \underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{}\sqrt{\frac{\omega }{2}}(g_i\widehat{a}e^{ı\omega _0t}\widehat{b}_i^{}e^{ı\omega _it}+h.c.).$$
(68)
From a mathematical point of view it is convenient to associate all the time dependent phase factors to the reservoir operators as follows

$$\widehat{H}_{sr}^{\mathrm{RWA}}(t)\alpha \left(\widehat{a}\widehat{\stackrel{~}{R}}^{}(t)+\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{\stackrel{~}{R}}(t)\right),$$
(69)
with

$$\widehat{\stackrel{~}{R}}(t)\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{}\sqrt{\frac{\omega }{2}}g_i\widehat{b}_ie^{ı(\omega _i\omega _0)t}$$
(70)
For the system here considered, thus, the operators appearing in the bilinear form defined in Eq. (19) are $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{A}}(t)=\widehat{\stackrel{}{A}}=(\widehat{a},\widehat{a}^{})`$ and $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{E}}(t)=(\widehat{\stackrel{~}{R}}^{}(t),\widehat{\stackrel{~}{R}}(t))`$.

Exploiting the properties of superoperators given by Eq. (65), with some algebraic manipulation, the Master Equation given by Eq.(21) can be recast in the form given by Eq. (40). Finally we write such a Master Equation in the Schrödinger picture exploiting of the following property

$$𝐓_0(t)𝐚_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{S}𝐚^{S(\mathrm{\Sigma })}𝐓_0^1(t)=(\widehat{a}^{}e^{ı\omega _0t})^S(\widehat{a}e^{ı\omega _0t})^{S(\mathrm{\Sigma })}=𝐚_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{S}𝐚^{S(\mathrm{\Sigma })},$$
(71)
with $`𝐓_0(t)`$ defined by Eq. (26). Concluding, we note that, the superoperator proportional to $`r^{\mathrm{RWA}}(t)`$, appearing in Eq.(21), can be recast in the form

$$\frac{1}{2}\left(𝐚_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{S}𝐚^\mathrm{\Sigma }+𝐚^S𝐚_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right)=\left(\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\right)^S.$$
(72)
Thus the corresponding term in the RW Master Equation is a frequency renormalization term. Neglecting this term and going back to the interaction picture one gets the final form of the Master Equation, given by Eq. (47).


text:
# Quantum control and the Strocchi map

## 1 Introduction

The mathematical structures of classical and quantum mechanics are usually regarded as essentially different. However, many years ago Strocchi, by identifying the real and imaginary parts of the wave function with coordinates and momenta, has shown that quantum evolution may be mapped onto a classical Hamiltonian system. In particular this setting suits nicely a geometrical interpretation of quantum mechanics. This formulation of quantum mechanics, first proposed by Strocchi, has since been rediscovered and extended by many authors    . Some applications of the Strocchi map to the evolution of finite-dimensional quantum systems were considered in  and structures relevant to the relation of classical to quantum mechanics were studied in . A particularly interesting extension to the original ideas of the Strocchi map was the realization that, in addition to the symplectic form, characteristic of Hamiltonian evolution, quantum mechanics also has a positive-definite real inner product. Together they endow the quantum Hilbert space with the structure of a Käller manifold . We will discuss this more general framework of the Strocchi map. However, for simplicity and whenever possible, we will adhere to the original intuitive coordinate formulation of Strocchi.

The aim of this work is to discuss quantum control in the geometrical setting provided by the Strocchi map. Quantum time-evolution will correspond to smooth Hamiltonian dynamics in a classical-like phase-space and measurements to jumps in the phase-space. This is very different from the situation in classical feedback control, where the measurements needed for the feedback action are not supposed to change the state of the system or to change it only very little. However, in some cases, rather than being a nuisance, the state disturbance introduced by quantum measurement adds additional power to quantum feedback control and, in particular, it changes the question of controllability. Non unitarily controllable systems may become controllable by “measurement plus evolution”.

The paper is organized as follows: In section 2 a review is made of the properties of the Strocchi map as well as some extensions needed to describe quantum evolution and control in both the von Neumann and positive-operator-valued measure approaches. In section 3, a new quantum control method is proposed which combines free quantum evolution and quantum measurement to reach a desirable quantum state. Finally, in section 4, quantum analogs of classical nonlinear and optimal control methods are shortly discussed.

## 2 Geometrical formulation of quantum mechanics. The Strocchi map

Consider a basis $`\left\{|k\right\}`$ in a separable complex Hilbert space $`^{}`$. A general quantum state $`|\psi `$ is

$$|\psi =\underset{k}{}\psi _k|k$$
(1)
Define

$$\psi _k=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(q_k+ip_k\right)$$
(2)
where $`\{q_k,p_k\}`$ is a numerable set of real phase-space coordinates. Then the scalar product in the complex Hilbert space $`^{}`$

$$\psi ^{^{}}|\psi =\frac{1}{2}\underset{k}{}\left(q_k^{^{}}q_k+p_k^{^{}}p_k\right)+i\left(q_k^{^{}}p_kp_k^{^{}}q_k\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left\{G(\psi ^{^{}},\psi )+i\mathrm{\Omega }(\psi ^{^{}},\psi )\right\}$$
(3)
decomposes into the sum of a positive real inner product

$$G(\psi ^{^{}},\psi )=\frac{1}{2}\underset{k}{}\left(q_k^{^{}}q_k+p_k^{^{}}p_k\right)$$
(4)
and a symplectic form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(\psi ^{^{}},\psi )=\frac{1}{2}\underset{k}{}\left(q_k^{^{}}p_kp_k^{^{}}q_k\right)$$
(5)
Considering $`^{}=(,J)`$ as a real Hilbert space $``$ with a complex structure $`J`$, the triple $`(J,G,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ equips $``$ with the structure of a Kähler space because

$$G(\psi ^{^{}},\psi )=\mathrm{\Omega }(\psi ^{^{}},J\psi )$$
(6)
The Schrödinger equation $`i\frac{}{t}|\psi =H|\psi `$ becomes the set of Hamilton’s equations

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{d}{dt}q_k\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{}{p_k}\hfill \\ \frac{d}{dt}p_k\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{}{q_k}\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
associated to the symplectic form $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\psi ^{^{}},\psi )`$ and the “classical” Hamiltonian

$$=\frac{1}{2}\underset{k,j}{}\left\{\left(q_kq_j+p_kp_j\right)\text{Re}H_{kj}+\left(p_kq_jq_kp_j\right)\text{Im}H_{kj}\right\}$$
(8)
with $`H_{kj}=k|H|j`$.

One sees that the time evolution of quantum mechanics is equivalent to the classical dynamics of a numerable set of coupled oscillators. What is unique to quantum mechanics is the special role played by the symmetric form $`G(\psi ^{^{}},\psi )`$.

Let $`𝒮`$ be the Hilbert sphere, that is, the space of normalized $`\left(\psi =1\right)`$ functions in the Hilbert space $``$. $`G(\psi ^{^{}},\psi )`$ defines a metric in $`𝒮`$. Consider now a measurement of an observable $`A`$ which, for simplicity, we assume to have a (possibly degenerate) discrete spectrum. Let $`a`$ be a (degenerate) eigenvalue of $`A`$ and $`P_a`$ the projector on the subspace $`V_a`$ of $`𝒮`$ associated to this eigenvalue. After the measurement of $`A`$ is performed and the value is found to be $`a`$ , the quantum state changes from $`\psi 𝒮`$ to $`\psi _a=\frac{P_a\psi }{P_a\psi }𝒮`$ and the probability to find this value is $`P_a\psi ^2`$. The metric $`G(\psi ^{^{}},\psi )`$ provides a nice geometrical interpretation of the measurement process in quantum mechanics.

Given $`\psi 𝒮`$ and $`\varphi V_a𝒮`$ it is easy to see that

$$(\psi \varphi ,\psi \varphi )$$
(9)
is minimal when $`\varphi =\psi _a`$. Because $`(\psi \varphi ,\psi \varphi )=G(\psi \varphi ,\psi \varphi )`$ one concludes that the measurement projects $`\psi `$ on the element of $`V_a`$ that is closest to $`\psi `$ in the $`G`$metric. The probability for this projection is

$$p_a=P_a\psi ^2=\left(1\frac{1}{2}G(\psi \frac{P_a\psi }{P_a\psi },\psi \frac{P_a\psi }{P_a\psi })\right)^2$$
(10)
Therefore, whereas the symplectic form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ determines time-evolution, the $`G`$metric controls the measurement process. It is the special role played by the metric that, in this framework, sets apart quantum from classical mechanics.

In the numerable basis $`\left\{|k\right\}`$ of finite or infinite cardinality $`\chi `$, each pure quantum state is represented by a point $`(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p})`$ in a “phase-space” of dimension $`2\chi `$. Similarly a mixed state will be described by a density on the same space. The density matrix for a mixed state of the form $`\rho \left(t\right)=_n\rho _n|\psi _n\left(t\right)\psi _n\left(t\right)|`$ $`\left(_n\rho _n=1\right)`$ becomes, using the notations in Eq.(2)

$$\rho \left(t\right)=𝑑\stackrel{}{q}𝑑\stackrel{}{p}\rho (\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p})\underset{k,k^{^{}}}{}\left(q_k\left(t\right)+ip_k\left(t\right)\right)\left(q_k^{^{}}\left(t\right)ip_k^{^{}}\left(t\right)\right)|kk^{^{}}|$$
(11)
Using the equations of motion (7) and integration by parts one obtains the following classical-like equation for the “phase-space” density

$$\frac{d}{dt}\rho (\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p})=\frac{\rho }{\stackrel{}{q}}\frac{}{\stackrel{}{p}}+\frac{\rho }{\stackrel{}{p}}\frac{}{\stackrel{}{q}}=\{\rho ,\}$$
(12)
In the Strocchi map framework, the (unobserved) dynamics of quantum states is a continuous symplectic evolution in a phase space. On the other hand, measurement of a state is represented by jumps in phase space. Because the basis $`\left\{|k\right\}`$ is arbitrary, we may suppose that this is a basis of eigenstates of the set $`𝒦`$ of observables that is being measured. Let the state before the measurement be $`(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p})`$. When a measurement is performed and the results registered to be $`k`$, the state jumps from $`(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p})`$ to $`\left(\stackrel{}{q}=\frac{q_k}{\sqrt{q^2+p^2}}\stackrel{}{e_k},\stackrel{}{p}=\frac{p_k}{\sqrt{q^2+p^2}}\stackrel{}{e_k^{^{}}}\right)`$where $`\stackrel{}{e_k}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{e_k^{^{}}}`$ are unit vectors along the $`k`$coordinate and the $`k`$momentum.

In feedback control, the results of a measurement are used to correct the driving forces and different corrections will be associated to different results of the measurement. Therefore the kind of measurement of interest in quantum control is a selective one, that is, one in which the result of the measurement is registered. However, in quantum mechanics, even if the results of the measurement are no registered, the state of the system (or our information about it) is changed anyway. For such non-selective measurements one obtains a mixed state. If, for example the initial state is a normalized pure state, corresponding to the phase space vector $`(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p})`$, after the measurement the state corresponds to a phase-space density

$$\rho (\stackrel{}{\mu },\stackrel{}{\nu })=\underset{k}{}\left(q_k^2+p_k^2\right)\delta \left(\stackrel{}{\mu }\frac{q_k}{\sqrt{q^2+p^2}}\stackrel{}{e_k}\right)\delta \left(\stackrel{}{\nu }\frac{p_k}{\sqrt{q^2+p^2}}\stackrel{}{e_k^{^{}}}\right)$$
(13)
The above considerations refer to complete quantum mechanical projections, that is to (selective or non-selective) outputs of quantum mechanical measurements. A description of the behavior of a quantum system under continuous observation also exists. It uses generalized quantum measurements implemented as positive operator-valued measures. Caves and Milburn assume that any measurement takes a certain amount of time and that, in the infinitesimal time interval $`dt`$, the measurement of the observable $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ corresponds to the operation

$$\rho P_\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho P_\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(14)
with

$$P_\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\alpha \right)=\left(\frac{\pi }{2sdt}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}e^{sdt\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha \right)^2}$$
(15)
and $`𝑑\alpha P_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\left(\alpha \right)P_\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\alpha \right)=1`$. Applying $`P_\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\alpha \right)`$ to any state one obtains a superposition of eigenstates of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with eigenvectors centered around $`\alpha `$ and $`s`$ defines the resolution (or the strength) of the measurement. Notice however, that $`P_\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\alpha \right)`$ is not a projection. It is supposed to represent a generalized selective measurement. For a non-selective measurement, that is, one where the results are not recorded,

$$\rho 𝑑\alpha P_\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\alpha \right)\rho P_\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\alpha \right)$$
(16)
From Eqs.(15)-(16) and the unconditional evolution $`\frac{d\rho }{dt}=i[H,\rho ]`$ , the following non-selective continuous observation equation for the density matrix is obtained

$$\frac{d\rho }{dt}=i[H,\rho ]\frac{s}{2}[\mathrm{\Lambda },[\mathrm{\Lambda },\rho ]]$$
(17)
This equation is physically appealing, in the sense that, for example, the last double commutator term displays a mechanism for the damping of non-diagonal terms in the density matrix. Notice however that the $`P_\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\alpha \right)`$ operations are quantum mechanical projections only in the limit of infinite strength, or infinite time.

Because the choice of basis is arbitrary we may, without loss of generality, choose a basis of eigenstates of the measured observable $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Then, one has the following equation for the matrix elements of the density matrix

$$\frac{d}{dt}\rho _{kk^{^{}}}=ik\left|[H,\rho ]\right|k^{^{}}\frac{s}{2}\left(\lambda _k\lambda _k^{^{}}\right)^2\rho _{kk^{^{}}}$$
(18)
leading to the damping of non-diagonal terms, $`\lambda _k`$ and $`\lambda _k^{^{}}`$ being the eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the states $`|k`$ and $`|k^{^{}}`$.

From the Strocchi map “phase-space” density point of view, Eq.(18) means that, if the initial state is a pure state $`\rho _0(\stackrel{}{\mu },\stackrel{}{\nu })=\delta \left(\stackrel{}{\mu }\stackrel{}{q}\right)\delta \left(\stackrel{}{\nu }\stackrel{}{p}\right)`$, (in addition to the Hamiltonian evolution) continuous observation splits the density into several components which, when $`t\mathrm{}`$, converge to a density as in (13). Independently of the conceptual interest of generalized measurements and continuous observation, the important point to retain is that the operation of measurement modifies Hamiltonian evolution. Hence, it might play for quantum control a role similar to the one that is played by dissipation in non-linear classical control techniques.

## 3 Control by measurement plus evolution

As seen before, in the Strocchi map phase-space, undisturbed time-evolution is a smooth Hamiltonian dynamics in phase-space, whereas measurements correspond to jumps in the phase-space. This last aspect is very different from the situation in classical feedback control, where the measurements needed for the feedback action are not supposed to change the state of the system or to change it only very little. However in some cases, rather than being a nuisance, the state disturbance introduced by quantum measurement adds additional power to quantum feedback control. In particular it changes the question of controllability.

For quantum systems with Hamiltonian

$$H\left(t\right)=H_0+\underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}u_j\left(t\right)H_j$$
(19)
Huang, Tarn and Clark obtained a general result on controllability involving the Lie algebras generated by the free and control Hamiltonians. A bounded quantum system with finite energy has a finite number $`N`$ of allowed states. For this case a necessary and sufficient condition for controllability is that the Lie algebra generated by $`\{H_{0,}H_1,\mathrm{},H_r\}`$ be $`u\left(N\right)`$  (or $`su\left(N\right)`$ if phases are not important) because this is the smallest group that acts transitively on the complex sphere $`S_{}^{N1}`$.

When the Strocchi map is used to describe quantum evolution of the $`N`$level system, the phase-space has dimension $`2N`$ with coordinates $`\{q_k,p_k\}`$. The set of transformations that need to be available to have controllability is the $`U\left(N\right)`$ subgroup of $`SO\left(2N\right)`$ corresponding to the real linear canonical transformations, that also preserve the form $`G(\psi ^{^{}},\psi )`$ (Eq.(4)). It contains $`N\left(N1\right)/2`$ one-parameter subgroups of the type

$$\begin{array}{ccc}q_i^{^{}}\hfill & =\hfill & q_i\mathrm{cos}\theta +q_j\mathrm{sin}\theta \hfill \\ q_j^{^{}}\hfill & =\hfill & q_i\mathrm{sin}\theta +q_j\mathrm{cos}\theta \hfill \\ p_i^{^{}}\hfill & =\hfill & p_i\mathrm{cos}\theta +p_j\mathrm{sin}\theta \hfill \\ p_j^{^{}}\hfill & =\hfill & p_i\mathrm{sin}\theta +p_j\mathrm{cos}\theta \hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
$`N\left(N1\right)/2`$ of type

$$\begin{array}{ccc}q_i^{^{}}\hfill & =\hfill & q_i\mathrm{cos}\theta p_j\mathrm{sin}\theta \hfill \\ q_j^{^{}}\hfill & =\hfill & p_i\mathrm{sin}\theta +q_j\mathrm{cos}\theta \hfill \\ p_i^{^{}}\hfill & =\hfill & p_i\mathrm{cos}\theta +q_j\mathrm{sin}\theta \hfill \\ p_j^{^{}}\hfill & =\hfill & q_i\mathrm{sin}\theta +p_j\mathrm{cos}\theta \hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
and $`N`$ of type

$$\begin{array}{ccc}q_i^{^{}}\hfill & =\hfill & q_i\mathrm{cos}\theta p_i\mathrm{sin}\theta \hfill \\ p_i^{^{}}\hfill & =\hfill & q_i\mathrm{sin}\theta +p_i\mathrm{cos}\theta \hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
Suppose now that $`𝒜=\{H_{0,}H_1,\mathrm{},H_r\}_{LA}`$ is a proper subalgebra of $`u\left(N\right)`$. Then each orbit of the subgroup $`G(𝒜)U\left(N\right)`$ does not cover $`S_{}^{N1}`$. $`S_{}^{N1}`$ becomes a fiber space with the orbits of $`G(𝒜)`$ as fibers and base $`U\left(N\right)/G(𝒜)`$. Then a goal state $`\psi _f`$ can only be reached from $`\psi _0`$ if $`\psi _0`$ and $`\psi _f`$ belong to the same fiber. The system is not controllable purely by the action of the unitary evolution $`\mathrm{exp}\left(i\tau H(\tau )\right)𝑑\tau `$ but may be controllable by the joint action of measurement plus evolution in the following sense:

Theorem: Given any goal state $`\psi _f`$ , there is a family of observables $`M\left(\psi _f\right)`$ such that measurement of one of these observables on any $`\psi _0`$ plus unitary evolution leads to $`\psi _f`$ if $`G(𝒜)`$ is either $`O\left(N\right)`$ or $`Sp\left(\frac{1}{2}N\right)`$.

Proof: If $`G(𝒜)=O\left(N\right)`$ or $`Sp\left(\frac{1}{2}N\right)`$ we may choose an orthonormal basis $`\left\{\varphi _i\right\}`$ for $`S^{N1}`$ in the orbit $`G(𝒜)\psi _f`$. Construct an observable $`M=_ia_iP_{\varphi _i}`$, $`P_{\varphi _i}`$ being the projector on $`\varphi _i`$. Measuring this observable on any state $`\psi _0`$ and recording the measured value $`a_k`$ the state becomes $`\varphi _k`$ and then, by unitary evolution, $`\psi _f`$ may be reached.

Remarks:

(i) Because of both the arbitrary nature of the eigenvalues $`a_i`$ and of the orthonormal basis, there is a large family of observables appropriate for this type of control.

(ii) In the result above the state $`\psi _f`$ is fixed, but $`\psi _0`$ is arbitrary. If both $`\psi _0`$ and $`\psi _f`$ are fixed a much simpler set of controlling interactions $`H_j`$ may be sufficient. $`\psi _0`$ being fixed, one constructs the $`M`$ observable by $`N1`$ vectors in the $`N1`$-dimensional subspace orthogonal to $`\psi _0`$ plus a single vector in the orbit $`G(𝒜)\psi _f`$ , non-orthogonal to $`\psi _0`$. Then, $`G(𝒜)`$ may be a much smaller subgroup than the ones in the theorem.

One sees that, if properly used, the state disturbing effects of quantum measurement, rather than being a nuisance, add controlling power over quantum processes.

Examples:

(i) A simple example of non-controllable 3-level system has been discussed by Solomon and Schirmer. Let

$$H=H_0+u\left(t\right)H_1$$
(23)
with

$$H_0=\mu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1\end{array}\right);H_1=d\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0\end{array}\right)$$
(24)
$`H_0`$ and $`H_1`$ generate the algebra of $`SO\left(3\right)`$, therefore the system is not controllable by unitary evolution. The Strocchi map evolution equations are

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill \stackrel{}{q}\\ \hfill \stackrel{}{p}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \hfill A\\ \hfill A& \hfill 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill \stackrel{}{q}\\ \hfill \stackrel{}{p}\end{array}\right)$$
(25)
$`A`$ being the matrix $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mu & u\left(t\right)d& 0\\ u\left(t\right)d& 0& u\left(t\right)d\\ 0& u\left(t\right)d& \mu \end{array}\right)`$. Eq.(25) splits in block form

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill \stackrel{}{q+ip}\\ \hfill \stackrel{}{qip}\end{array}\right)=i\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill A\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill \stackrel{}{q+ip}\\ \hfill \stackrel{}{qip}\end{array}\right)$$
(26)
exhibiting the $`SO\left(3\right)`$ nature of the control. In terms of the Hilbert space wave functions, Eq.(26) means that $`\psi ^{}`$ cannot be reached from $`\psi `$. Three one-parameters subgroups of the $`SO\left(3\right)`$ control group, to be used later on, are

$`h_1\left(\theta \right):`$

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill \stackrel{}{q^{^{}}}\\ \hfill \stackrel{}{p^{^{}}}\end{array}\right)`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta +1\right)& 0& \frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta 1\right)& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta & 0\\ 0& \mathrm{cos}\theta & 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta & 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta 1\right)& 0& \frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta +1\right)& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta & 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta & 0& \frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta +1\right)& 0& \frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta 1\right)\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta & 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta & 0& \mathrm{cos}\theta & 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta & 0& \frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta 1\right)& 0& \frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta +1\right)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill \stackrel{}{q}\\ \hfill \stackrel{}{p}\end{array}\right)`$ (38)
$`h_2\left(\theta \right):`$

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill \stackrel{}{q^{^{}}}\\ \hfill \stackrel{}{p^{^{}}}\end{array}\right)`$ (41)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta +1\right)& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta & \frac{1}{2}\left(1\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)& 0& 0& 0\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta & 0& 0& 0\\ \frac{1}{2}\left(1\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta & \frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta +1\right)& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta +1\right)& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta & \frac{1}{2}\left(1\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)\\ 0& 0& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \\ 0& 0& 0& \frac{1}{2}\left(1\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta & \frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta +1\right)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill \stackrel{}{q}\\ \hfill \stackrel{}{p}\end{array}\right)`$ (50)
$`h_3\left(\theta \right):`$

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill \stackrel{}{q^{^{}}}\\ \hfill \stackrel{}{p^{^{}}}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}\mathrm{cos}\theta & 0& 0& \mathrm{sin}\theta & 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{cos}\theta & 0& 0& \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta & 0& 0& \mathrm{cos}\theta & 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{sin}\theta & 0& 0& \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill \stackrel{}{q}\\ \hfill \stackrel{}{p}\end{array}\right)$$
(51)
Although not controllable by unitary evolution alone, the system is controllable by measurement plus evolution. Consider, for example,

$`\psi _f=\left\{\stackrel{}{q}=(0,0,0),\stackrel{}{p}=(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}},0,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})\right\}`$ as the goal state. By applying $`h_1\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)`$ and $`h_2\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)h_1\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)`$ to this state one obtains an orthogonal set

$$\begin{array}{c}\psi _1=\left\{\stackrel{}{q}=(0,1,0),\stackrel{}{p}=(0,0,0)\right\}\hfill \\ \psi _2=\left\{\stackrel{}{q}=(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}},0,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}),\stackrel{}{p}=(0,0,0)\right\}\hfill \\ \psi _3=\left\{\stackrel{}{q}=(0,0,0),\stackrel{}{p}=(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}},0,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})\right\}\hfill \end{array}$$
(52)
Denoting by $`P_i`$ the projectors on the states $`\psi _i`$, measurement of an arbitrary state by any one of the observables in the family

$$\underset{i}{}a_iP_i$$
(53)
projects it on the fiber of $`\psi _f`$ and then, by unitary evolution, $`\psi _f`$ may be reached.

(ii) So far, control by measurement plus evolution has been discussed for finite-dimensional spaces. However the same technique may be used in infinite-dimensional spaces to reach a large number of states. This is illustrated for kicked motions in the torus. Let $`\stackrel{}{x}=\left(x_1,x_2[\pi ,\pi )\right)`$ be coordinates in the 2-torus $`T^2`$ and the system Hamiltonian $`H`$ be

$$H=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}+\underset{n}{}\left\{\frac{1}{2}u_1\left(t\right)\left(\stackrel{}{x}Ai+iA\stackrel{}{x}\right)+u_2\left(t\right)x_1+u_3\left(t\right)x_2\right\}\delta \left(tn\tau \right)$$
(54)
The switching functions $`u_i\left(t\right)`$ take values $`0`$ or $`\pm 1`$ and the matrix $`A`$ is chosen such that $`M=\mathrm{exp}\left(A\right)`$ is a hyperbolic 2x2 matrix with integers entries and determinant one, this being the condition that insures unitarity of the Floquet operator. The system is a controlled version of the configurational quantum cat, a system that describes a charged particle acted upon by electromagnetic pulses. When $`u_1\left(t\right)0`$ the Floquet operator has continuous spectrum and quantum chaos, in the sense of positive quantum Lyapunov exponents . The free and kicked components of the Floquet operator are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}U_0\hfill & =\hfill & \mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\tau \right)\hfill \\ U_1\hfill & =\hfill & \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}\left(\stackrel{}{x}Ai+iA\stackrel{}{x}\right)\right)\hfill \\ U_2\hfill & =\hfill & \mathrm{exp}\left(ix_1\right)\hfill \\ U_3\hfill & =\hfill & \mathrm{exp}\left(ix_2\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(55)
$`U_0`$ corresponds to free propagation, $`U_1`$ to the action of a linear vector field and $`U_2,U_3`$ to scalar potentials. The eigenstates of momentum form a numerable normalized basis

$$|\stackrel{}{k}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x}}\stackrel{}{k}=(k_1,k_2)k_i$$
(56)
which is dense on the Hilbert space of the system. The kicks $`U_1`$ act on these states as follows

$$U_1|\stackrel{}{k}=|M^1\stackrel{}{k}$$
(57)
By the action of kicks of type $`U_1`$ the momentum eigenstates move along hyperbolas. The kicks $`U_2`$ and $`U_3`$ move between different hyperbola. In between kicks, free propagation just changes the phase of the states.

Given now an arbitrary state $`\psi `$ , measuring its momentum the state becomes projected on a momentum eigenstate with known eigenvalue, if the result of the measurement is recorded. By switching on the appropriate sequence of kicks $`U_i`$ it is then possible to reach any momentum eigenstate. Therefore one sees that with measurement and three controlling fields one can, from an arbitrary $`\psi `$, reach any state in an infinite-dimensional dense set.

## 4 Nonlinear and optimal control

Classical control is a very mature field where many useful techniques and results have been found, many of them still without parallel in quantum control. The Strocchi map, yielding a picture of quantum evolution as Hamiltonian dynamics in a classical-like phase-space, may be the appropriate tool to carry over techniques from classical to quantum control. We will give two examples:

(i) Optimal control

Optimal control is an important issue both in classical and quantum control and, in quantum control, it has been discussed using variational techniques  . However, in classical control, Pontryagin maximum principle provides a more general framework in the sense that it does not require differentiability and can handle piecewise continuous and magnitude-limited control. We now show how to carry over this principle to quantum control using the Strocchi map.

In addition to the $`2N`$ phase-space variables $`\left(x_k=q_k;x_{k+N}=p_k\right)`$ with dynamical laws

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\frac{d}{dt}x_k\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{d}{dt}q_k\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{}{p_k}\hfill & =\hfill & X_k\hfill \\ \frac{d}{dt}x_{k+N}\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{d}{dt}p_k\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{}{q_k}\hfill & =\hfill & X_{k+N}\hfill \end{array}$$
(58)
obtained from (7), we introduce a variable $`x_0`$ with dynamical law

$$\frac{d}{dt}x_0=X_0(x,u,t)$$
(59)
with

$$F=_0^TX_0(x,u,t)𝑑t$$
(60)
being the performance functional to be minimized. If, for example, minimal controlling energy is desired $`X_0(x,u,t)=\left|u\left(t\right)\right|^2`$, etc.

Then, for each variable in the set$`\stackrel{}{x}=(x_0,q_1,\mathrm{},q_N,p_1,\mathrm{},p_N)`$ an adjoint variable $`\varphi _i`$ is defined and a new “Hamiltonian” $`𝐇(x,\varphi ,u)`$

$$𝐇(x,\varphi ,u)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{2N}{}}\varphi _iX_i(x,u)$$
(61)
For each specified initial $`\left(x_k=q_k=q_k(0),x_{k+N}=p_k=p_k(0)\right)`$and final state $`\left(x_k=q_k=q_k(T),x_{k+N}=p_k=p_k(T)\right)`$, the optimal control that, in time $`T`$, minimizes the functional $`F`$ is obtained by integration of

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{d}{dt}x_k\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{}{\varphi _k}𝐇(x,\varphi ,u)\hfill \\ \frac{d}{dt}\varphi _k\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{}{x_k}𝐇(x,\varphi ,u)\hfill \\ \stackrel{}{u}\hfill & =\hfill & \mathrm{arg}\mathrm{max}_{\stackrel{}{u}\mathrm{\Omega }}𝐇(x,\varphi ,u)\hfill \end{array}$$
(62)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ being the domain of allowed controls.

In the variational formulation of optimal quantum control, the technique that has been used is to minimize the functional

$$J=\psi \left(T\right)\left|\left(1\mathrm{\Pi }\right)\right|\psi \left(T\right)+_0^TX_0(\psi ,u,t)𝑑t+_0^T\text{Im}\zeta \left(t\right)\left|i_tH\right|\psi \left(t\right)$$

$`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ being the projector onto the target state. The first two equations in (62) correspond to the Schrödinger equation and to the equation for the Lagrange multiplier $`\zeta \left(t\right)`$, whereas the third one corresponds to the equation obtained by variation $`\delta \stackrel{}{u}`$ of the control parameters. However the set (62) is more general in that it does not require differentiability in $`u`$ of $`J`$ and allows the specification of arbitrary control domains $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

(ii) Sliding mode techniques in quantum control

A very robust tool used in classical control is the technique of variable structure control leading to sliding modes. The design of a variable structure control has two steps. First, a switching surface must be chosen so that the dynamical system restricted to the surface has the desired dynamics. Second, a switched control must be found to drive the system to the switching surface and, upon interception, to maintain it there. For this step a Lyapunov function approach is used, the gradient of the Lyapunov function being negative in the neighborhood of the switching surface. In this way the tangent vectors to the state trajectory point towards the surface. The system is attracted to the switching surface and, once having intercepted it, remains there for all subsequent times. Then, the state trajectory is said to be a sliding mode.

From the very nature of the technique one sees that, at least close to the switching surface, the dynamics must have a dissipative component and therefore a purely Hamiltonian control cannot be used. However, as seen in Section 1, observation introduces non-Hamiltonian effects which might play for quantum dynamics the same role as dissipation in classical control.

Consider again the non-controllable example of the previous section and suppose that one wants to stabilize the middle energy level. Starting from an arbitrary initial state one measures the energy. If the result is zero we are done because it means that the state was projected on the middle level. Otherwise if the result is $`+\mu `$ or $`\mu `$, one knows from the controlling subgroups in Eqs.(29-51), that there is a control that changes the upper or the lower level into a state with a 50% probability of being projected on the middle energy state by an energy measurement. One performs this control plus measurement operation until the result of the measurement is zero. Afterwards the control is switched off. If there are no disturbances the state remains in the middle level. Otherwise if there are some decoherent interaction with the environment, the state should be periodically measured. If the disturbance is small or if the intervals between measurements are small, there is a high probability that the system will be projected back on the middle level, without any need for further controlling operations.

## 5 Conclusions

In addition to a formulation of quantum control in a symplectic geometry setting, the main result of this work is the proposal of a new protocol for quantum control, which we have called “control by measurement plus evolution”. It extends the scope of quantum controllability and is applicable both to finite and infinite-dimensional level systems.

Different aspects of quantum control are united in the framework of the Strocchi map, allowing new insights in optimal control and nonlinear control techniques. We think that the potential of this picture is not exhausted and more analogies with classical problems may be used to obtain progress in the quantum domain.