text:
# Introduction

## Introduction

The worldline formalism was invented by Feynman  simultaneously with modern relativistic second-quantized QED, but for a long time it was used only occasionally for actual calculations. Eventually, the observation of a close relation between the worldline formalism and the infinite-string-tension limit of string path integrals triggered further developments of the worldline formalism for QCD  and QED , particularly for gauge particle amplitudes. Certain computational advantages of this formalism were subsequently recognized and led to numerous applications. Among them, the progress achieved for QED amplitudes with all-order couplings to an external background field is particularly remarkable . The formalism works most elegantly for constant electromagnetic background fields and can be extended to a derivative expansion in the electromagnetic background . For a comprehensive review of the worldline formalism in QED and beyond, see .

In the present work, we intend to demonstrate that the worldline formalism is moreover perfectly suited for numerical computations. This is because the path integral over closed loops in spacetime can be approximated by a finite ensemble of loops, which allows for a simple and fast evaluation of expectation values. The latter include observables depending on an arbitrary background field.

We illustrate this proposal by means of a simple example: the one-loop effective action of Euclidean scalar QED in three dimensions. The computational task boils down to the calculation of the Wilson loop expectation value using a loop ensemble.

As a first step, we verify the method in Sect. 2 by considering the constant-magnetic-field case, which can also be solved analytically. This serves as a benchmark test for the concrete procedure that we propose. In a second step, the numerical method is applied to a magnetic field resembling a step function in one spatial direction (Sect. 3). This idealized field configuration represents the simplest configuration, which is inaccessible to the standard analytical method for inhomogeneous fields: the derivative expansion. As our main result, we observe diffusion of the magnetic field: the field takes influence on the region of vanishing background field by inducing a nonzero action density therein.

Our conclusions are summarized in Sect. 4, where possible generalization and the road to further application of worldline numerics are sketched.

## 1 The worldline approach
to functional determinants

### 1.1 Setup

Our starting point is the unrenormalized Euclidean one-loop effective action of scalar QED in $`D`$ dimensions in worldline representation , corresponding to the determinant of the gauge-covariant Klein–Gordon operator

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^1[A]=\underset{1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{dT}{T}\mathrm{e}^{m^2T}𝒩\underset{x(T)=x(0)}{}𝒟x(\tau )\mathrm{e}^{\underset{0}{\overset{T}{}}𝑑\tau \left(\frac{\dot{x}^2}{4}+\mathrm{i}e\dot{x}A(x(\tau ))\right)},$$
(1)
where the superscript “1” indicates the one-loop level111In an abuse of nomenclature, we call the one-loop contribution to the total effective action also “effective action” in the following. The reader should always keep in mind that the Maxwell term (and all higher-order terms) must be added.; a gauge-invariant UV regularization at a scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has been performed at the lower bound of the $`T`$ integral for the sake of definiteness. In Eq. (1), we encounter a path integral over closed loops in spacetime. Note that there are no other constraints to the loops except differentiability and closeness; in particular, they can be arbitrarily self-intersecting and knotty. The normalization can be determined from the zero-field limit,

$$𝒩𝒟x(\tau )\mathrm{e}^{\underset{0}{\overset{T}{}}𝑑\tau \frac{\dot{x}^2}{4}}\stackrel{!}{=}\text{Tr}\mathrm{e}^{^2T}=\frac{d^Dp}{(2\pi )^D}\mathrm{e}^{p^2T}=\frac{1}{(4\pi T)^{D/2}}.$$
(2)
Solving Eq. (2) for $`𝒩`$ and inserting this into Eq. (1) leads us to the compact formula

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^1[A]=\frac{1}{(4\pi )^{D/2}}d^Dx_0\underset{1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{dT}{T^{(D/2)+1}}\mathrm{e}^{m^2T}W[A]_x.$$
(3)
Here we have split off the integral over the zero-modes of the path integral, $`d^Dx_0`$, where $`x_0`$, the so-called loop center of mass, corresponds to the average position of the loop: $`x_0^\mu :=(1/T)_0^T𝑑\tau x^\mu (\tau )`$. In Eq. (3), we introduced the Wilson loop

$$W[A(x)]=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}e\underset{0}{\overset{T}{}}𝑑\tau \dot{x}(\tau )A(x(\tau ))}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}e{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑xA(x)}},$$
(4)
and $`(\mathrm{})_x`$ denotes the expectation value of (…) evaluated over an ensemble of $`x`$ loops; the loops are centered upon a common average position $`x_0`$ (“center of mass”) and are distributed according to the Gaussian weight $`\mathrm{exp}[_0^T𝑑\tau \frac{\dot{x}^2}{4}]`$.

The following $`\tau `$-integral substitution, $`\tau =:Tt`$, is of crucial importance for the numerical realization of the path integral; it suggests introducing unit loops $`y`$,

$$y(t):=\frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}x(Tt),t[0,1],$$
(5)
which are parameterized with a unit propertime $`t`$. The remaining integrals can be rewritten accordingly:

$$\underset{0}{\overset{T}{}}𝑑\tau \frac{\dot{x}^2(\tau )}{4}=\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑t\frac{\dot{y}^2(t)}{4},\underset{0}{\overset{T}{}}𝑑\tau \dot{x}(\tau )A(x(\tau ))=\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑t\dot{y}(t)[\sqrt{T}A(\sqrt{T}y(t))].$$
(6)
The important advantage is constituted by the fact that the expectation value of $`W[A]`$ can now be evaluated over the unit-loop ensemble $`y`$,

$$W[A(x)]_xW[\sqrt{T}A(\sqrt{T}y)]_y,$$
(7)
where the exterior $`T`$-propertime dependence occurs only as a scaling factor of the gauge field and its argument. In other words, while approximating the loop path integral by a finite ensemble of loops, it suffices to have one single unit-loop ensemble at our disposal; we do not have to generate a new loop ensemble whenever we go over to a new value of $`T`$.

Inserting Eq. (7) into Eq. (3), we arrive at the final formula (dropping the subscript of $`x_0`$):

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^1[A]=\frac{1}{(4\pi )^{D/2}}d^Dx\underset{1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{dT}{T^{(D/2)+1}}\mathrm{e}^{m^2T}W\left[\sqrt{T}A(\sqrt{T}y)\right]_y+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{t}.,$$
(8)
where we have formally added counter-terms (c.t.) which correspond to a renormalization of the physical parameters. The details of the c.t.’s depend on the dimension, but not on the type of the background field, and will be discussed in the following.

### 1.2 Renormalization

For an accurate evaluation of the effective action of Eq. (8), an analytic calculation of the counter-terms is inevitable in order to obtain accurate results by the numerical procedure. In the following, we will confine ourselves to the important cases of $`D=3`$ and $`D=4`$ dimensions at the one-loop level.

Let us first discuss the analytical treatment: while for $`D=3`$ the effective action is rendered finite by dropping a field-independent constant, the complete effective action in the 4-dimensional case is renormalized in such a way that the quadratic term in the field strength is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{quadr}.}=\frac{1}{4g_R^2}d^4xF_{\mu \nu }(x)F_{\mu \nu }(x),$$
(9)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ is the field strength tensor, and $`g_R`$ represents the renormalized coupling. In practice, this is done by subtracting the (infinite) quadratic term of the one-loop contribution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ and absorbing it into the bare Maxwell term.

These UV divergencies of the effective action emerge from the lower bound of the propertime integral in Eq. (8), i.e., $`T0`$. For small values of the propertime, the Wilson loop expectation value can be calculated exactly (e.g., using heat-kernel techniques):

$$W[\sqrt{T}A(\sqrt{T}y)]_y=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\frac{1}{12}T^2F_{\mu \nu }[A](x)F_{\mu \nu }[A](x)+𝒪(T^4),$$
(10)
where $`x`$ is the loop center of mass. The key observation is that, even for $`D=4`$, the terms of order $`T^4`$ are UV-finite upon the propertime integration in Eq. (8). Hence, the completely renormalized effective action, which is suitable for numerical simulations, is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1[A]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^{D/2}}}{\displaystyle }d^Dx{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dT}{T^{(D/2)+1}}}\mathrm{e}^{m^2T}[`$ $`W[\sqrt{T}A(\sqrt{T}y)]1_y`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}T^2F_{\mu \nu }[A](x)F_{\mu \nu }[A](x)]`$
$`+c_D{\displaystyle d^DxF_{\mu \nu }[A](x)F_{\mu \nu }[A](x)},`$
where

$$c_3=\frac{1}{96\pi }\frac{1}{m}+𝒪(1/\mathrm{\Lambda }),c_4=\frac{1}{12}\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}C\right)+𝒪(m^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2).$$
(12)
Here $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ denotes the UV cutoff, and $`C`$ is Euler’s number. In the $`D=4`$ case, the term $`c_4`$ will be absorbed into the bare Maxwell term, defining the running of the coupling, and the cutoff can subsequently be sent to infinity. In $`D=3`$, the theory is super-renormalizable and the term $`c_3`$ represents only a finite shift of the coupling, introducing no running. In the first two lines of Eq. (1.2), we have already sent the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ two infinity, leaving us with a perfectly finite expression. Note that in the case $`D=3`$, the term of order $`T^2`$ in Eq. (10) corresponds to a singularity $`1/\sqrt{T}`$, which is integrable. Hence, the subtraction of this term from the propertime integral is not mandatory. However, aiming at worldline numerics, the perfect control over the behavior of the integrand at small propertime $`T`$ is required in order to augment the accuracy of the numerical evaluation of the propertime integral.

Now, the numerical renormalization is similar in spirit to the analytical one, but is complicated by a further problem: evaluating $`W`$ with the aid of the loop ensemble does not produce the small-$`T`$ behavior of Eq. (10) exactly, but, of course, only within the numerical accuracy. Unfortunately, even the smallest deviation from Eq. (10) will lead to huge errors, if we naively plug such a result into Eq. (12); this is because of the factors of $`T`$ in the denominator of the integrand for $`T0`$.

Our solution to this problem is to fit the numerical result for $`W`$ to a polynomial in $`T`$ in the vicinity of $`T=0`$, employing Eq. (10) as a constraint for the first coefficients. Of course, such a fit is completely justified because of our exact knowledge of $`W`$ for small $`T`$. This fit not only represents the renormalization procedure, solving the UV problems, but also facilitates a more precise estimate of the error bars (see below). Finally, employing this fitting procedure only close to $`T=0`$, the infrared behavior ($`T\mathrm{}`$) of the integrand remains untouched, and our approach is immediately applicable, also in the case $`m=0`$.

Both renormalization procedures, the analytical as well as the numerical, generalize straightforwardly to higher dimensions; here, either additional subtractions from the integrand (for the analytical case), or polynomial fits with higher-order constraints (for the numerical case) are required: for example, increasing the dimension by 2 requires one more subtraction/constraint in the small-$`T`$ behavior of the integrand.

Finally, it should not be concealed that these procedures become increasingly difficult to higher order in perturbation theory for massive theories in $`D4`$. Then, a mass renormalization is also necessary, requiring careful analyses of the UV behavior of double propertime integrals .

### 1.3 Numerical simulation

Now, the route to the effective action is clear:

1. generate a unit loop ensemble distributed according to the weight $`\mathrm{exp}[_0^1𝑑t\dot{y}^2/4]`$, e.g., employing the technique of normal (Gaussian) deviates;
2. compute the integrand for arbitrary values of $`T`$ (and $`x`$); this involves the evaluation of the Wilson loop expectation value for a given background gauge field;
3. perform the renormalization procedure and add the c.t.’s to the integrand;
4. integrate over the propertime $`T`$ in order to obtain the Lagrangian, and also over $`x`$ for the action.

From a general viewpoint, there are two sources of systematical error which are introduced by reducing the degrees of freedom from an infinite to a finite amount: first, the loop path integral has to be approximated by a finite number of loops; second, the propertime $`t`$ of each loop has to be discretized. Contrary to this, the spacetime does not require discretization, i.e., the loop ensemble is generated in the continuum.

Of course, the various steps can be carried out using different numerical methods; let us outline our choice of tools in detail. For this purpose, let $`N_l`$ denote the number of loops which are used to estimate the Wilson loop expectation value in Eq. (7), and $`n_l`$ the number of space points which are employed to specify a particular loop. The points of a particular loop $`y_i,i=1\mathrm{}n_l`$, are generated by a standard heat bath algorithm, where the boundary conditions $`y_1=0`$, $`y_{nl}=0`$ are enforced. After a proper thermalization, all coordinates $`y_i`$ are shifted equally in order to implement the center of mass condition $`y_i=x_0`$. This procedure is then repeated $`N_l`$ times to generate the loop ensemble.

Approximating $`W`$ of Eq. (7) by an average over a finite number of loops, the standard deviation provides an estimate of the statistical error. Approximating the loops by the finite number $`n_l`$ of space points results in a systematic error that can be estimated by repeating the calculation for several values $`n_l`$. The number $`n_l`$ should be chosen large enough to reduce this systematic error to well below the statistical one. It will turn out that the choice $`N_L=1000`$ and $`n_l=100`$ yields results, for the applications below, which are accurate at the per cent level. We stress, however, that $`20000`$ (dummy) heat bath steps are required to properly thermalize the loop ensemble.

## 2 Benchmark test:
constant magnetic background field

Since analytic results are available for the case of a constant magnetic background field $`B`$, we will investigate in this section the efficiency of our numerical loop approach to the scalar functional determinant.222Incidentally, another exactly solvable system is known  with a background field resembling a solitonic profile in one dimension. For simplicity, we consider three Euclidean spacetime dimensions, $`D=3`$. Up to a field-independent constant, the one-loop effective-action density (Lagrangian) $`^1`$ for scalar QED in $`D=3`$ is given by

$$^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^1(B)/V_3=\frac{B^{3/2}}{(4\pi )^{3/2}}g\left(\frac{m^2}{B}\right),$$
(13)
where $`V_3`$ denotes the volume and

$$g(z)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dT}{\sqrt{T}}I(T,z),\text{ }I(T,z)=\frac{1}{T^2}\left[\frac{T}{\mathrm{sinh}T}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\right]\mathrm{exp}\{zT\}.$$
(14)
The exact integrand $`I(T,z)`$ in Eq. (14) is compared with our loop estimate in Fig. 1 for the case $`m^2=0`$, i.e., $`z=0`$. The numerical estimate for $`g(m^2/B)`$ is also shown. The agreement between the two curves is satisfactory and the exact results for $`I(T,z)`$ as well as for $`g(m^2/B)`$ lie well within the error bars produced by the numerics.

As mentioned above, the error bars correspond to the statistical error of the ensemble average. Regarding the quantity $`W`$ with its dependence on $`T`$, the original error bars are rather independent of $`T`$; but multiplying $`W`$ by a $`T`$-dependent function (cf. Eq. (8)) causes a modulation of the error bars. In particular for $`T0`$, the $`1/\sqrt{T}`$ singularity leads to an unbounded enhancement of the error bars for small $`T`$ in the function $`I(T,x)`$ (see left panel of Fig. 1). Fortunately, the integrand in this regime is known exactly as given in Eq. (10) in the form of an asymptotic series. As mentioned above for the numerical renormalization procedure, this information can be used for a constraint fit of the numerical result to a polynomial in $`T`$ around $`T=0`$, keeping the first terms corresponding to Eq. (10) fixed. Then, the error bars of the ensemble average translate into errors for the higher coefficients of the polynomial. This polynomial is then matched to the pure numerical result at that value of $`T`$ where the error bars of the two results are comparable. The final result is visible on the left panel of Fig. 1.

It should be noted, that the error bars in Fig. 1 (and the following figures) are highly correlated from point to point, since the same loop ensemble has been used for the evaluation of each point. This correlation can, of course, easily be reduced by updating the loop ensemble with a few heat bath steps inbetween at the expense of computational time.

## 3 Magnetic-field diffusion

In this section, we study the one-loop effective action of Eq. (1.2) for the case of a magnetic background field, resembling a step function in space. In particular, we consider a time-like constant background field $`B`$, i.e., a field which is independent of the third coordinate called Euclidean time. We choose the $`B`$ field, being a (pseudo-)scalar over the spatial $`xy`$ plane, as

$$B(x,y)=\theta (x)B_0,\stackrel{}{A}(x,y)=\theta (x)\frac{1}{2}(y,x)B_0,$$
(15)
where $`\theta (x)`$ is the step function, i.e.,

$$\theta (x)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1},x0,\text{ }\theta (x)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},x<0.$$

Note that because of the sudden variation of the background field at the step, the effective action cannot be obtained within a derivative expansion. By contrast, such a discontinuity represents no obstacle for the numerical worldline approach proposed in this work. Discontinuities do not induce (artificial) singularities, but are smoothly controlled by the properties of the loop ensemble. This ensemble resembles a cloud, exhibiting finite extension and slowly varying density, and being centered at some particular spacetime point $`x_0`$ which is the center of mass of each loop in the cloud. While running with this $`x_0`$ towards and across the step, that part of the volume of the loop cloud which “feels” the magnetic field increases smoothly; therefore, the effective-action density (effective Lagrangian) $`^1`$, being the propertime integrated information of what the loop cloud measures, will be smooth, too.

In order to numerically evaluate the effective action for the case of Eq. (15), we employ the loop approach outlined in the previous section. This approach provides for statistical error bars which allow to estimate whether the number of loop ensembles is large enough. In order to study the systematic errors, such as the limited number of spacetime points $`n_l`$ specifying a loop and the limited number $`n_T`$ of thermalization sweeps, we shall employ three sets of loop ensembles (see Table 1). Defining

$$g(\frac{m^2}{B_0^2},xB_0^{1/2}):=\frac{(4\pi )^{3/2}}{B_0^{3/2}}^1(\stackrel{}{x}=(x,0,0))$$
(16)
in analogy to Eq. (13), the final numerical result for the effective action is shown in Fig. 2, left panel. As expected, the effective-action density is nonzero even in the region $`x<0`$ where the background field $`B(\stackrel{}{x})`$ vanishes. For increasing mass, the contributions from large propertime $`T`$ are exponentially suppressed in the integrand. Since the propertime controls the size of the loop cloud, the large loop clouds contribute less to the action density when the mass is large. Hence, the effective-action density for an increasing mass becomes reduced. (From an alternative viewpoint, the limit of large mass and small field are identical for dimensional reasons.)

We find that the effective action decreases exponentially in the “forbidden” region, which is depicted in Fig. 2, right panel; here we defined the quantity

$$g(\frac{m^2}{B_0},xB_0^{1/2})=:\mathrm{exp}[S\left(xB_0^{1/2}\right)],$$
(17)
and plotted $`S(xB_0^{1/2})`$ for several values of the scalar mass $`m`$. This phenomenon of obtaining a nonzero effective-action density even in a region where the background field vanishes may be called quantum diffusion of the magnetic field.

Large values of $`S`$ imply that the effective-action density $`g(m^2/B_0,xB_0^{1/2})`$ is small due to cancellations. In this case, a sufficiently large number of loop points $`n_l`$ and of thermalization sweeps is requested. The results indicate that the function $`S(xB_0^{1/2})`$ can be fitted for $`x\sqrt{B_0}`$ by the ansatz

$$S(y)=\alpha +\beta y,y=xB_0^{1/2},$$
(18)
where the quantities $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ depend on $`m^2/B_0`$. The diffusion depth $`l`$ of the magnetic field can be defined as the inverse of $`\beta `$, i.e., $`l=1/(\beta \sqrt{B_0})`$. An estimate of this parameter has been plotted versus the mass $`m`$ in Fig. 3. As expected, the diffusion coefficient $`\beta `$ rises with increasing mass scale $`m`$. The function

$$\beta (m^2/B_0)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.7627}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3.255}\left(\frac{m^2}{B_0}\right)^{1/2}$$
(19)
nicely fits the high quality numerical data set A (see figure 3).

In order to get an understanding of these numbers, let us perform the following heuristic consideration: at a first glance, one might expect that the magnetic diffusion obeys the simple law $`\mathrm{e}^{\text{const.}mx}`$, since the mass seems to be the only scale in the field-free region of space; this would correspond to $`\beta =\text{const.}(m^2/B_0)^{0.5}`$. However, if this simple law were true, the massless limit $`m=0`$ would be obscure, since then the magnetic field would diffuse into the field-free region without any damping. Hence, there must be an additional dependence of the exponent on the magnetic field in order to account for a reasonable massless limit. Moreover, the mass is indeed not the only scale in the field-free region, because the loop cloud is a nonlocal object that always “feels” the strength of the magnetic field. In fact, it is the constant first term in $`\beta `$ in Eq. (19) that exactly accounts for this dependence of the magnetic diffusion on the strength of the magnetic field. Only for larger masses (or weaker fields), $`m^2B_0/4`$, the intuitively expected diffusion law of the form $`\mathrm{e}^{\text{const.}mx}`$ begins to dominate; in this regime, we find

$$l\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.31}/m.$$
(20)
In the present work, the precision of the numerics for the action density in the field-free region restricts the investigation to mass values of $`m^2<1.5B_0`$; beyond this, the strong exponential decrease beyond the step prohibits a reliable analysis of the diffusion depth.

## 4 Conclusion and Outlook

Beyond any particular result of the present work, we would like to remark in the first place that our approach to the worldline formula (see Eq. (8)) for the one-loop effective action offers a vivid picture of the quantum world. Consider a spacetime point $`x`$ at a propertime $`T`$; then, the loop ensemble is centered upon this point $`x`$ and resembles a loop cloud with Gaussian “density” and “spread”. Increasing or lowering the propertime $`T`$ corresponds to bloating or scaling down the loop cloud or, alternatively, zooming out of or into the microscopic world. The effective-action density at each point $`x`$ finally receives contributions from every point of the loop cloud according to its Gaussian weight (times the mass term and other factors) and averaged over the propertime. This gives rise to the inherent nonlocality and nonlinearity of the effective action, because every point $`x`$ is influenced by the field of any other point in spacetime experienced by the loop cloud.

In particular, we considered the one-loop contribution to the effective action in scalar electrodynamics in three spacetime dimensions; in the beginning, we were able to reproduce the analytically well-known case of a constant magnetic background field, serving as a testing ground for our numerical procedures including renormalization to one-loop order. Incidentally, the zero-mass limit (or, alternatively, the ultra-strong magnetic field limit) is also covered by our approach without additional difficulties.

We furthermore tackled the problem of a step-function-like magnetic background field, illustrating the stability of our approach also for discontinuous field configurations. For this case, we observed a diffusion of the magnetic field, i.e., nonzero action density even at a distance from the magnetic field. This phenomenon is obviously nonlocal, since an expansion around a point of zero background field gives a zero result to any finite order. But the diffusion phenomenon appears to be also nonperturbative in the same sense as the Schwinger mechanism of pair production , at least for not too large values of the mass; this is suggested by the functional form of the diffusion for small mass: $`exp(S(xB_0^{1/2}))\mathrm{exp}(0.7627\sqrt{B_0}x)`$; this result cannot be expanded in terms of the coupling constant, being rescaled in the field (only an expansion in terms of the square root of the coupling constant is possible).

Perhaps the main advantage of the numerical worldline approach to functional determinants is that no a-priori information, such as certain symmetries of the background field or a suitably chosen set of base functions, has to be exploited; if the loop ensemble has been thermalized properly, any background field can immediately be plugged into the algorithm.

One drawback of the numerical approach lies in the fact that it applies only to Euclidean quantum field theory; this is because the action governing the distribution of the loops must be positive.

The present paper paves the way to further generalizations such as fermionic functional determinants; our approach could facilitate a systematic numerical investigation of these determinants. Results could be compared with several results known from analytical considerations (see, e.g., ). Although the treatment of fermions in the worldline formalism can be most elegantly formulated via Grassmann representations (see, e.g., ), a numerical approach has to rely on a bosonic representation of the path integrals . In practice, this means that the Dirac algebraic elements in the worldline action are accompanied by a path-ordering prescription. Similar complications occur for nonabelian gauge fields and color-charged fermions or scalars. Whereas such path ordering is difficult to deal with in analytical approaches, a numerical evaluation can immediately take care of such a prescription. This is because the loops are discretized in the propertime parameter anyway, consisting of $`n_l`$ “links”; the path ordering then is nothing but a simple (matrix-)multiplication of these links.

Recently , a new approach was designed to improve the still un-pleasant situation  when lattice QCD is studied at finite baryon densities: the basic idea to circumvent the problems  with lattice fermions is a calculation of the continuum  fermion determinant for arbitrary entries of the gluon field, which subsequently is the subject of a lattice discretization. This program was successfully applied to the case of heavy quarks . The formulation of the present paper stirs the hope that the concept of  might be extended to the realistic case of light quarks.

Further possible and straightforward applications can be found in the context of estimating quantum energies to solitonic fields (see ), or in the context of thermal field theory or Casimir vacua (for analytical worldline approaches, see, e.g., ). The latter cases are connected with a compactification of the Euclidean spacetime manifold; these topological modifications can be imposed directly on the loop ensemble in our approach. For example, compactifying the Euclidean time direction at finite temperature will result in closed loops that wind several times around the time-like cylinder. Work in these directions is in progress.

Finally, it is obvious that the step-like magnetic field is not physical at all in a strict sense, because such a sharp drop-off cannot be produced by real laboratory magnets; nevertheless, the step-like field can be regarded as a limiting case of a real physical situation, being useful for an estimate of possible effects caused by rapid variations of a magnetic field. For instance, as a matter of principle, magnetic diffusion can be included in the discussion of the Aharonov-Bohm effect: if the propagating particle is no longer considered as a quantum mechanical point particle, but as a quantum field, it will be affected by the quantum diffusion of the solenoid’s magnetic field; but a measurable effect can only arise, if the particle’s distance from the solenoid is of the order of a few Compton wavelengths.

Beyond that, we would like to mention that our results for the step-like magnetic field are of some significance for the experiments being currently performed at PVLAS (Legnaro) and BMV (Toulouse) , in which is measured the optical birefringence of the quantum vacuum exposed to a magnetic field. For example in the PVLAS experiment, the polarization axis of a laser beam is affected by a (6–9 T)-magnetic field with a diameter of 1 m; the magnetic field drops off over a distance of 10 cm, and the question arises as to whether this drop-off will influence the rotation of the polarization axis as predicted by a constant-field QED calculation.

The refractive indices of the modified vacuum are proportional to the energy density induced by the magnetic field (for a review, see ). For weak magnetic fields, the energy density is directly related to the (Euclidean) effective-action density. Provided that our present results also hold for $`D=4`$ spinor QED at least qualitatively, we can exclude any further influence of the drop-off region, since the magnetic diffusion in this case ($`mB`$) occurs at the order of a Compton wavelength $`1/m`$. This “zero-result” is supported by considerations within a derivative expansion, where the natural expansion parameter is given by the Compton wavelength over the length of the field variation (e.g., $`4\times 10^{12}`$ for the PVLAS). Only the constant-field result integrated over the size of the magnet including the drop-off region need be taken into account.

## Acknowledgement

We would like to thank W. Dittrich for helpful discussions and for carefully reading the manuscript. H.G. gratefully acknowledges insightful discussions with C. Schubert. K.L. is indebted to H. Reinhardt for encouragement and support. This work has been supported in part by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under contract Gi 328/1-1.


format: text

text:
# Note on Invariants of the Weyl Tensor

## 1 Introduction

It is well known (see  and ) that the two algebraic invariants

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{}_{}{}^{+}C_{abcd}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}C_{}^{abcd},`$ (1)
$`J`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{}_{}{}^{+}C_{abcd}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}C_{}^{cd}{}_{ef}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}C_{}^{efab},`$ (2)
where $`{}_{}{}^{+}C`$ is the self-dual part of the Weyl tensor, provide a partial classification of the Weyl tensor. Moreover, if $`\chi `$ is the cross ratio of any four null directions then

$$I^3\left[\left(\chi +1\right)\left(\chi 2\right)\left(\chi \frac{1}{2}\right)\right]^2=6J^2\left[\left(\chi +\omega \right)\left(\chi +\omega ^2\right)\right]^3$$
(3)
where $`\omega =e^{\frac{2\pi i}{3}}.`$ In particular $`I^3=6J^20`$ $``$ $`\chi \{0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$ $``$ (2,1,1) or (2,2).

## 2 Classification

For any $`F_{abcd}`$ with symmetries similar to the ones of $`{}_{}{}^{+}C`$ we define

$$J_F=F_{abcd;rs}F^{abcd}{}_{;tu}{}^{}\overline{F}_{efgh;}^{}{}_{}{}^{rs}\overline{F}_{}^{efgh;tu};$$
(4)
remark that for any null field $`F,`$ $`J_F`$ is the invariant $`J`$ in . We are particularly interested in $`J_A,`$ $`J_B`$ and $`J_{{}_{}{}^{+}C}`$ where

$`A_{abcd}`$ $`=`$ $`IB_{abcd}J^+C_{abcd}`$ (5)
$`B^{ab}_{cd}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{}_{}{}^{+}C_{}^{ab}{}_{rs}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}C_{}^{sr}{}_{cd}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}I{}_{}{}^{+}\delta _{cd}^{ab}`$ (6)
where $`\delta _{cd}^{ab}=\frac{1}{2}\left(g_{ad}g_{bc}g_{ac}g_{bd}i\eta _{abcd}\right),`$ $`\eta `$ being the Levi-Civita tensor. Notice that when $`I^3=6J^2`$ the tensor $`A`$ is null ($`A_{abcd}=6\mathrm{\Psi }_2^2(3\mathrm{\Psi }_2\mathrm{\Psi }_4\mathrm{\Psi }_3^2)N_{ab}N_{cd})`$ in the case (2,1,1) and it vanishes in the more degenerate cases (see ); for $`I=J=0`$ the tensor $`B`$ is null ($`B_{abcd}=4\mathrm{\Psi }_3^2N_{ab}N_{cd})`$ in the (3,1) case and zero otherwise. Moreover

$`J_A`$ $`=`$ $`\left|96\mathrm{\Psi }_2^2(3\mathrm{\Psi }_2\mathrm{\Psi }_4\mathrm{\Psi }_3^2)\rho ^2\right|^4,`$ (7)
$`J_B`$ $`=`$ $`\left|8\mathrm{\Psi }_3\rho \right|^8.`$ (8)
In conclusion, for space-times admitting an expanding congruence we have the following classification:

\- $`I^36J^2,`$ $`I0,`$ $`J0:`$ (1,1,1,1);

\- $`I^3=6J^20`$, $`J_A0:`$ (2,1,1);

\- $`I^3=6J^20`$, $`J_A=0:`$ (2,2);

\- $`I=J=0,`$ $`J_B0:`$ (3,1);

\- $`I=J=0,`$ $`J_B=0,`$ $`J_{{}_{}{}^{+}C}0:`$ (4);

\- $`I=J=0,`$ $`J_B=0,`$ $`J_{{}_{}{}^{+}C}=0:`$ (-).

## 3 Further remarks on the (3,1) case

For $`I=J=0`$ case we can alternatively use the first order invariant obtained in

$$J_P=C^{abcd;e}C_{amcn;e}C^{lmrn;s}C_{lbrd;s}$$
(9)
to distinct (3,1) case from more degenerate ones.

We did not investigate systematically invariants of second order but we mention that if

$$D_{rst}={}_{}{}^{+}C_{abcd;r}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}C_{}^{abcd}_{;st}$$
(10)
then

$$D=D_{\left[rs\right]t}\overline{D}^{\left[rs\right]t}$$
(11)
has the following expression for a (3,1) Robinson-Trautman solution with $`P=P(\sigma ,\xi ,\eta ):`$

$`D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{36p^4}{r^{14}}}\left(K_\xi ^2+K_\eta ^2\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left(K_\xi ^2+K_\eta ^2\right)K+p\left(K_{\xi \eta }^2K_{\xi \xi }K_{\eta \eta }\right)\right]`$
$`+9{\displaystyle \frac{p^4}{r^{13}}}\left[(K_\xi ^2+K_\eta ^2)^2\right],_\sigma .`$
Remark that for (3,1) and (4) cases, the geometry of each light cone is independent of the one of its neighbors; and both $`J_P`$ and $`J_B`$ depend only on the geometry of each individual light cone. However, the invariant $`D`$ also depends on the rate of change of the geometry from one light cone to another.

References

 Peres A ”Invariants of General Relativity II - Classification of spaces” *Il Nuovo Cimento* 18 (1960) 36.

 Penrose R and Rindler W ”Spinors and Space-time Vol. 2” (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

 Niţă B and Robinson I ”An Invariant of Null Spinor Fields” *Class. Quantum Grav.* 17 (2000) 2153.

 Pravda V ”Curvature invariants in type III space-times” *Class. Quantum Grav.* 16 (1999) 3321.


text:
# Storing quantum dynamics in quantum states: stochastic programmable gate for U(1) operations

## Abstract

We show how quantum dynamics can be captured in the state of a quantum system, in such a way that the system can be used to stochastically perform, at a later time, the stored transformation perfectly on some other quantum system. Thus programmable quantum gates for quantum information processing are feasible if some probability of failure —that we show to decrease exponentially with the size of the storing resources— is allowed.

Quantum Information Science investigates the potential of Quantum Mechanics to process and transmit information in novel ways. Quantum systems are usually conceived as containers for data, which is processed by means of a unitary evolution. In this Letter we will explore to which extend Quantum Mechanics allow for the processing itself —i.e. instead of the data— to be stored in a quantum system. In particular, we will present a scheme to encode unitary transformations in, and to stochastically retrieve them from, quantum states. The practical importance of this result relies on the fact that, once the operation has been captured in a quantum state, it can be processed by means of any standard state manipulation technique. And thus, for instance, the operation can be simply kept for later use, but it can also be transmited to a remote party (e.g., using teleportation) or can by estimated by means of a proper measurement.

The storage of operations is, as explained below, necessarily imperfect. Our scheme will fail with a probability $`ϵ`$ that exponentially decreases with the number of qubits in which the operation has been encoded. More specifically, we will show how to store, using $`N`$ qubits and with probability $`ϵ=2^N`$ of failure in its later retrieval, an arbitrary rotation of a qubit around the $`\widehat{z}`$ axis. For $`N=1`$ we will prove that our scheme is optimal, i.e., it has the minimal error probability ever possible, whereas for $`N>1`$ several evidence in the same direction will be presented.

Let us start by considering two quantum systems, that we will call program and data registers, with corresponding Hilbert spaces $`_P`$ and $`_D`$. A program state $`|U_P`$ will be said to store the transformation $`U`$, if some “fixed” protocol employing $`|U`$ is able to perform $`U`$ on an arbitrary data state $`|d_D`$. Here, a “fixed” protocol means that the manipulation of the joint state

$$|d|U$$
(1)
does not require knowing the operation $`U`$ nor the data $`|d`$. A device able to transform state (1) into

$$U|d|_{d,U},$$
(2)
where $`|_{d,U}`$ is just some residual state, is known as a programmable quantum gate . Thus, in a similar fashion as most “classical” computers take both program and data as input bit strings, a programmable or universal quantum gate is a device whose action $`U`$ on an arbitrary data state $`|d`$ is completely determined by the program state $`|U`$.

Nielsen and Chuang analyzed in Ref.  the possibility of constructing one such gate. Its total dynamics are described in terms of a fixed unitary operator G,

$$G[|d|U]=(U|d)|_U,$$
(3)
where the residual state $`|_U`$ was showed to be independent of $`|d`$. Also the following important result was proved: any two inequivalent operations $`U`$ and $`V`$ require orthogonal program states, that is $`U|V=0`$, if the same transformation $`G`$ is to implement them according to Eq. (3). This means that in order to perfectly store one operation $`U_i`$, chosen from a finite set $`\{U_i\}_{iI}`$, a vector state $`|U_i`$ belonging to an orthonormal basis $`\{|U_i_P\}_{iI}`$ has to be used. In other words, different operations of the gate necessarily correspond to mutually distinguishable programs. This has two direct implications. First, a classical binary string could have been used in the first place as a program (there is no gain in using quantum states for this purpose). The second consequence concerns the feasibility of such gates: even for the simplest data register, a qubit (i.e. $`_D=𝒞^2`$), the set of unitary transformations, $`SU(2)`$, is infinite. Therefore no universal gate implementing an arbitrary (say) one-qubit operation can be constructed using a program register whose Hilbert space $`_P`$ has finite dimension.

Here we will assume, nevertheless, that only $`N`$ qubits are available as a program register, and thus $`_P=𝒞^{2N}`$ is finite dimensional. For simplicity, we will restrict our attention to one-qubit operations of the form

$$U_\alpha \mathrm{exp}(i\alpha \frac{\sigma _z}{2}),$$
(4)
for an arbitrary angle $`\alpha [0,2\pi )`$, which correspond to arbitrary rotations around the $`\widehat{z}`$ axis of a spin $`1/2`$ particle . We would then like to answer the question: To what extend can $`N`$ qubits store an arbitrary operation $`U_\alpha `$?

The quality of the storage is determined by how well the operation can be retrieved, that is, by how well it can be finally performed on the unknown data state $`|d`$. One possibility would be to consider approximate transformations, with the output state of the gate being an approximation to $`U_\alpha |d`$. But this can already be achieved by classically encoding a truncated binary expansion of the angle $`\alpha `$. Alternatively, as we will next discuss, stochastic transformations may be considered. In this case the programmable gate does not always succeed at performing $`U`$ after processing the program $`|U`$, but when it does succeed, then the output state is exactly $`U_\alpha |d`$. Of course, we also want to be able to know whether the gate achieved its goal or not. Reasonably, the a priori probability of success is a good figure of merits for this kind of programmable gates. Since in principle such probability $`p_\alpha ^d`$ may depend both on the data $`|d`$ and on the operation $`U_\alpha `$ under consideration, we will use its average

$$p_{C^2}d(d)\frac{d\alpha }{2\pi }p_\alpha ^d$$
(5)
to quantify the performance of the gate.

Let us suppose, first, that only one qubit, i.e. $`N=1`$, is available to encode any of the transformations $`U_\alpha `$. In this case the equatorial state

$$|\alpha \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(e^{i\alpha /2}|0+e^{i\alpha /2}|1)$$
(6)
can be used to store $`U_\alpha `$, in the sense that a CNOT gate, $`|00|I+|11|\sigma _x`$, —taking the data and program register as control and target qubits, respectively— will be able to transform the data state $`|d`$ according to $`U_\alpha `$, with probability $`1/2`$, for all $`|d`$ and all $`U_\alpha `$ (see FIG. 1). Indeed, it is straightforward to check that

$$|d|\alpha \stackrel{\text{C-NOT}}{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(U_\alpha |d|0+U_\alpha ^{}|d|1),$$
(7)
and therefore a projective measurement in the $`\{|0,|1\}`$ basis of the program register will make the data qubit collapse either into the desired state $`U_\alpha |d`$ or into the wrong state $`U_\alpha ^{}|d`$, with the announced probabilities.

In order to see that no scheme exists better than the one above, let us consider the most general stochastic programmable gate using a single qubit as a program register. It can always be represented by a unitary transformation $`G_s`$ given by

$`G_s[|d|U_\alpha |0]`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{p_\alpha ^d}(U_\alpha |d)|\tau _\alpha ^d`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`\sqrt{1p_\alpha ^d}|\chi _\alpha ^d,`$ (9)
taking the data and program states, together with a fixed state $`|0`$ of a third (ancillary) system $`_A`$, into $`U_\alpha |d`$ with probability $`p_\alpha ^d`$. Note that all kets appearing in Eq. (9) are normalized vectors. We demand that for all possible $`d,d^{},\alpha ,\alpha ^{}`$, the state $`\tau _\alpha ^d|\chi _\alpha ^{}^d^{}_D`$ vanishes. This is equivalent to requiring that by means of a measurement —onto the support $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\tau _P_A`$ of the vectors $`|\tau _\alpha ^d`$ and its complementary subspace $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\tau ^{}`$— we are able to know whether the gate succeeded or not.

Since $`G_s`$ is a linear transformation, by decomposing $`|d`$ as $`a|\overline{0}+b|\overline{\pi }`$, where $`a,b`$ are complex coefficients ($`|a|^2+|b|^2=1`$) and $`|\overline{0}(|0+|1)/\sqrt{2}`$, $`|\overline{\pi }i(|0|1)/\sqrt{2}`$, we obtain that the RHS of Eq. (9) must be equal to

$`a[\sqrt{p_\alpha ^{\overline{0}}}(U_\alpha |\overline{0})|\tau _\alpha ^{\overline{0}}+\sqrt{1p_\alpha ^{\overline{0}}}|\chi _\alpha ^{\overline{0}}],`$ (10)
$`+b[\sqrt{p_\alpha ^{\overline{\pi }}}(U_\alpha |\overline{\pi })|\tau _\alpha ^{\overline{\pi }}+\sqrt{1p_\alpha ^{\overline{\pi }}}|\chi _\alpha ^{\overline{\pi }}].`$ (11)
This implies that the probability of success $`p_\alpha ^d`$ and the vector $`|\tau _\alpha ^d`$, from now on $`p_\alpha `$ and $`|\tau _\alpha `$, do not depend on the data $`|d`$. On the other hand, the most general codification scheme of $`U_\alpha `$ on a qubit, $`[0,2\pi )𝒞^2`$, can be parameterized as $`|U_\alpha A(\alpha )|\underset{¯}{0}+B(\alpha )|\underset{¯}{\pi }`$, where $`A(\alpha )`$ and $`B(\alpha )`$ are complex functions ($`U_\alpha |U_\alpha =|A(\alpha )|^2+|B(\alpha )|^2+2\text{Re}[A(\alpha )B^{}(\alpha )\underset{¯}{0}|\underset{¯}{\pi }]=1`$) and the states $`|\underset{¯}{0}`$ and $`|\underset{¯}{\pi }`$ correspond to the (not necessarily orthonormal) programs $`|U_0`$ and $`|U_\pi `$. Expanding now $`|U_\alpha `$ in Eq. (9) we find that its RHS must read

$`A`$ $`(\alpha )[\sqrt{p_0}U_0|d|\tau _0+\sqrt{1p_0}|\chi _0^d]`$ (12)
$`+`$ $`B`$ $`(\alpha )[\sqrt{p_\pi }U_\pi |d|\tau _\pi +\sqrt{1p_\pi }|\chi _\pi ^d]`$ (13)
for any $`|d`$, which readily implies that the states $`|\tau _\alpha (|\tau )`$ do not depend on $`\alpha `$ and that $`\sqrt{p_\alpha }U_\alpha =A(\alpha )\sqrt{p_0}U_0+B(\alpha )\sqrt{p_\pi }U_\pi `$. This last equation leads to $`A(\alpha )=\sqrt{p_\alpha /p_0}\mathrm{cos}(\alpha /2)`$ and $`B(\alpha )=\sqrt{p_\alpha /p_\pi }\mathrm{sin}(\alpha /2)`$. If we now substitute these in state $`|U_\alpha `$, from its normalization we obtain

$$p_\alpha =(\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\alpha }{2}}{p_0}+\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\alpha }{2}}{p_\pi }+2\frac{\mathrm{cos}\frac{\alpha }{2}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\alpha }{2}\text{Re}[\underset{¯}{0}|\underset{¯}{\pi }]}{\sqrt{p_0p_\pi }})^1.$$
(14)
Recall that our goal is to maximize the average probability of success (5). Without loss of generality we can require that $`p_0p_\alpha `$ , which corresponds to choosing $`\text{Re}[\underset{¯}{0}|\underset{¯}{\pi }]=0`$. It is now easy to compute $`p`$, which reads $`\sqrt{p_0p_\pi }`$. Substituting all the previous findings in Eq. (9), and computing the scalar product of $`G_s[|\overline{0}|\underset{¯}{0}|0]`$ and $`G_s[|\overline{\pi }|\underset{¯}{\pi }|0]`$ we obtain

$$0=\sqrt{p_0p_\pi }+\sqrt{1p_0}\sqrt{1p_\pi }\chi _0^{\overline{0}}|\chi _\pi ^{\overline{\pi }}.$$
(15)
That is, $`\sqrt{p_0p_\pi }`$ is at most $`\sqrt{1p_0}\sqrt{1p_\pi }`$. The most favorable case corresponds to $`p_0=1p_\pi `$, and therefore the maximal $`p=\sqrt{p_0p_\pi }`$ is $`1/2`$, achieved when $`p_\alpha =1/2`$ is constant. This ends the proof that Eqs. (6) and (7) constitute the optimal protocol for storing and stochastically retrieving an operation $`U_\alpha `$ in a single qubit, with the associated error $`ϵ1p`$ being $`1/2`$.

We now move to consider the storage of $`U_\alpha `$ using more qubits, $`N>1`$. When the previous scheme fails, not only has the data $`|d`$ not yet been processed properly, but in addition it has been modified in an unwished manner (which is unknown to the user of the gate) into $`U_\alpha ^{}|d`$. However, a single second go of the previous gate may correct $`U_\alpha ^{}|d`$ into $`U_\alpha |d`$ at once. This is achieved by just inserting $`U_\alpha ^{}|d`$ in the gate of Eq. (7), together with a new program state, namely $`|2\alpha `$ (see FIG. 2). That, is, the two-qubit program $`|\alpha |2\alpha `$ stores $`U_\alpha `$ with a probability of failure $`ϵ=1/4`$ in the retrieval stage.

In case of a new failure, the state of the system becomes $`U_\alpha ^3|d`$. We can insert again this state, together with state $`|4\alpha `$, into the elementary gate. If we keep on obtaining failures, we can try to correct the state as many times as wished, provided that the state $`|2^{l1}\alpha `$ is available at the $`l`$th attempt. Therefore, for any $`N`$, the $`N`$-qubit state

$$|U_\alpha ^N\underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}|2^{l1}\alpha $$
(16)
can be used to implement the transformation $`U_\alpha `$ with probability $`1(1/2)^N`$ . The corresponding stochastic programmable gate (see FIG. 3), consists of the unitary transformation of $`|d|U_\alpha ^N`$ into

$$\frac{1}{2^{N/2}}(\sqrt{2^N1}U_\alpha |d|\tau +U_\alpha ^{(2^N1)}|d|\chi )$$
(17)
and of a posterior measurement of the program register (either in state $`|\tau `$ or $`|\chi |1^N`$, $`\tau |\chi =0`$). Its failure probability, $`ϵ=(1/2)^N`$, decreases exponentially with the size $`N`$ of the program register.

We are tempted to conjecture that, for any $`N`$, Eqs. (16)-(17) define again an optimal protocol to store and stochastically retrieve $`U_\alpha `$. Notice, on the one hand, that the $`N`$-qubit unknown state $`|U_\alpha ^N`$ has maximal entropy, since $`𝑑\alpha /(2\pi )|U_\alpha ^NU_\alpha ^N|=(I/2)^N`$, where $`I`$ is the identity operator in $`𝒞^2`$. That is, this program state carries as much information as possible, with $`N`$ bits of information about $`\alpha `$ being extractable from it for large $`N`$ . On the other hand, we will now prove that our scheme is the optimal way of retrieving $`U_\alpha `$ from the program $`|U_\alpha ^N`$ as given in Eq. (16).

Indeed, let $`G_s^N`$ be a unitary transformation producing $`U_\alpha |d`$ from $`|d|U_\alpha ^N`$, with probability $`p_\alpha `$ (we already learned, from the single-qubit case, that the probability of success is independent of the data state $`|d`$). From $`G_s^N`$ we can construct another gate $`G_s^{}^N`$ with constant probability of success $`p_\alpha ^{}=p_{G_s^N}`$, where $`p_{G_s^N}𝑑\alpha /(2\pi )p_\alpha `$ is the average probability of success of $`G_s^N`$, precisely the quantity to be maximized. The construction goes as follows. Given a program state $`|U_\alpha ^N`$, we will randomly choose an angle $`\alpha _0[0,2\pi )`$ and will transform the program into $`|U_{\alpha +\alpha _0}^N`$. This can be achieved by performing $`U_{\alpha _0}U_{\alpha _0}^2\mathrm{}U_{\alpha _0}^{2^{N1}}`$ on $`|U_\alpha ^N`$. Then we will run $`G_s^N`$ on $`|d`$ using the new program, to obtain $`U_{\alpha +\alpha _0}|d`$ with probability $`p_{\alpha +\alpha _0}`$. Finally, we will perform $`U_{\alpha _0}^{}`$ on $`U_{\alpha +\alpha _0}|d`$. The overall effect is the promised gate $`G_s^{}^N`$, and therefore we only need to optimize over programmable gates with constant success probability $`p`$,

$$|d|U_\alpha ^N|0\sqrt{p}U_\alpha |d|\tau _\alpha +\sqrt{1p}|\chi _\alpha ^d.$$
(18)
Let us choose the data $`|d`$ to be an equatorial state $`|\beta `$ of angle $`\beta `$, so that $`U_\alpha |\beta =|\alpha +\beta `$. Unitarity of the whole transformation $`G_s^{}`$ implies, if $`\beta ^{}\pi +\beta +\alpha \alpha ^{}`$, that

$$\beta ^{}|\beta U_\alpha ^{}^N|U_\alpha ^N=(1p)\chi _\alpha ^{}^\beta ^{}|\chi _\alpha ^\beta $$
(19)
(notice that $`\beta ^{}|U_\alpha ^{}^{}U_\alpha |\beta =0`$). The absolute value of the LHS of Eq. (19) is now at most $`1p`$. But we can easily compute the above scalar products using Eq. (6), to get the bound $`(\mathrm{sin}2^{N1}(\alpha \alpha ^{}))/2^N1p.`$ Finally, taking $`\alpha \alpha ^{}=\pi (1/2)^N`$ we get that $`p1(1/2)^N`$, as we wanted to prove. Thus, once the operation $`U_\alpha `$ has been encoded in $`N`$ qubits as $`|U_\alpha ^N`$, the optimal extraction protocol necessarily fails with probability $`ϵ=(1/2)^N`$. However, whether our encoding is also optimal, remains as an open question for $`N>1`$.

Notice that if we want to warrant a priori a successful implementation of $`U_\alpha `$, infinitely many qubits are required for the program register, as originally stated in . Interestingly enough, the average length of the program required to perform $`U_\alpha `$ with certainty is, in contrast, very small. Indeed, since with probability $`p_1=1/2`$ the gate of Eq. (7) achieves the goal after using a single-qubit program; with probability $`p_2=1/4`$ a two-qubit program is sufficient; etc, the average length $`N`$ of the required program is

$$N\underset{N=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_NN=\underset{N=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{N}{2^N}=2.$$
(20)
That is, on average, a two-qubit program is sufficient to store and retrieve with certainty any operation $`U_\alpha `$.

Let us finally comment on how the storage of operations can be applied in the context of quantum remote control, as introduced by Huelga et al. in . Suppose two distant parties, Alice and Bob, try to process some data state $`|d`$ of, say, a qubit, according to some unitary operation $`U`$. Alice possesses a device able to perform $`U`$, whereas Bob has the qubit in state $`|d`$. Their goal is that Bob ends up with the processed state $`U|d`$. If the internal state of Alice’s device cannot be teleported, then the optimal protocol  is to use standard teleportation  to send the data from Bob to Alice, who will use the device to process it and will teleport it back to Bob. This scheme requires two-way classical communication, and the coexistence in time and space of the data $`|d`$ and the device that performs $`U`$.

If, alternatively, Alice codifies the operation $`U`$ in a quantum state using the scheme we have discussed, and then teleports the state to Bob, classical communication only from Alice to Bob is required to achieve quantum remote control. In addition Bob can receive the codified operation even when the data state $`|d`$ is not yet available. The price to be paid, however, is that the scheme only succeeds with some probability. Taking into account that a general $`SU(2)`$ operation decomposes into three rotations $`U_\alpha `$ , each of these requiring, on average, a two-qubit program, and that teleportation of an equatorial state uses $`1`$ bit of communication and $`1`$ ebit of entanglement , we conclude that on average $`6`$ ebits of entanglement have to be consumed and Alice has to send $`6`$ bits of communication to Bob in order to remotely perform a general $`USU(2)`$.

Summarizing, we have presented a scheme for storing any unitary operation in a finite number of qubits, in a way that it can be stochastically retrieved at a later time. It would be interesting to know which are the minimal resources needed, per operation, in order to store and retrieve a large amount of them with asymptotic perfection. The results of Dür et al  represent a promising first step in this direction.

We thank W. Dür for useful comments. This work was supported by the Austrian Science Foundation (SFB project 11), the Spanish newspaper “La Vanguardia”, the Institute for Quantum Information GmbH and the European Community (HPMF-CT-1999-00200 and EQUIP project IST-1999-11053).