format: text

text:
# Exploring Noiseless Subsystems via Nuclear Magnetic Resonance

## I Introduction

Quantum information processing (QIP) holds the promise of solving problems in quantum simulation, quantum computation, and secure communication that have no known efficient solution in classical information processing Nielsen and Chuang (2000). While QIP can be, in principle, abstractly characterized without reference to the details of a specific implementation, physically realizing quantum information and its manipulation is essential to practically exploit its unique capabilities Viola et al. (2001a). Real physical systems are invariably exposed to environmental noise and decoherence due to incomplete isolation from their surroundings, as well as to operational errors caused by imperfect manipulations. Thus, physical realizations of QIP are confronted with the challenge of achieving noise control during storage and processing of quantum information.

Thanks to a series of recent investigations, major progress has been witnessed on the theory front of reliable QIP. On one side, powerful “accuracy threshold theorems” for fault-tolerant quantum error correction (QEC) Shor (1996); A.Yu.Kitaev (1997); Aharonov and Ben-Or (1996); Knill et al. (1998); Preskill (1998) ensure that, if the integrated effect of the noise per qubit and computational step remains sufficiently small, arbitrarily accurate QIP is still possible, in principle, with reasonable resource overheads. On the other side, alternative noise control techniques have become available as options complementing and expanding the applicability of conventional QEC. These methods include both passive error control codes based on decoherence-free subspaces (DFSs) Zanardi and Rasetti (1997); Duan and Guo (1997); Lidar et al. (1998) and noiseless subsystems (NSs) Knill et al. (2000); Viola et al. (2000); De Filippo (2000); Zanardi (2001), and active error suppression schemes relying on dynamical decoupling Viola et al. (1999a); Zanardi (1999a); Viola et al. (1999b); Vitali and Tombesi (1999); Viola (2002); Viola and Knill (2002), along with a variety of device-dependent schemes for reducing systematic and calibration errors Freeman et al. (1980); Shaka and Freeman (1983); Cummins and Jones (2000); Fortunato et al. (2002a).

In retrospect, what constitutes the unifying conceptual feature of these advances, and what ultimately made them possible, is the realization that protecting quantum information against noise need not require the overall state of the physical device supporting QIP to be perfect Knill and Laflamme (1997). Defining in what sense quantum information can be accurately stored in the noisy state of a physical system leads to think of all possible noise control options in terms of the emergence of logical subsystems (or “abstract” quantum particles) which are or can be made immune to noise Knill et al. (2000); Viola et al. (2000); Knill et al. (2002) . In the former case, the occurrence of a NS directly ties into the existence of symmetry properties of the natural noise process, and error-free information storage is ensured without requiring active intervention Knill et al. (2000); Viola et al. (2001a). In the latter case, an external control action is instead necessary to appropriately symmetrize the dynamics Viola et al. (2000); Zanardi (2001); Wu and Lidar (2002) or to enforce noiselessness by a process that incorporates active recovery operations as well Knill et al. (2000). The basic intuition remains, nevertheless, unchanged.

While the implications of the subsystem approach are still being investigated, the idea of separating the abstract information-carrying degrees of freedom from the implemented qubit degrees of freedom has proven useful beyond the original motivation of gaining noise protection. In particular, the notion of a subsystem has led to an operational prescription for realizing logical qubits in physical systems Viola et al. (2001a), and the analysis of the resources required to universally control subsystem-encoded qubits has resulted in an encoded universality approach Bacon et al. (2000); Viola et al. (2000), where the notion of universality may be tailored to the set of physically available interactions. More recently, the idea of a NS has shown to also underlie topological approaches to QIP Zanardi and Lloyd (2002).

From the experimental point of view, the significance of the NS notion has only recently begun to be explored. In particular, the first implementation of a non-trivial NS for general collective noise in a three-qubit liquid-state nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) quantum information processor was reported by Viola et al. Viola et al. (2001b). Here, we deepen our earlier investigation in two ways: by presenting an expanded description of the theoretical analysis and experimental methodology underlying Viola et al. (2001b); by reporting additional experimental results which may further shed light on the relevance of NSs within present-day quantum information technology.

## II Theoretical background

### II.1  Noiseless subsystems: From simple examples to the general definition

We begin by trying to build the intuition underlying the NS idea based on simple considerations and prototype examples Viola et al. (2001a); Knill et al. (2002). It is a well-known lesson in physics that the occurrence of symmetries in a system generally implies the existence of “conserved quantities”, and that these can be exploited to ease the understanding of the system’s behavior. In its essence, the NS approach adapts this lesson to the QIP-motivated task of achieving protection against noise. This is done by noticing that even though the system as a whole may be experiencing errors, some of its properties may still remain unaffected by them. Thus, if information can be represented in terms of the abstract degrees of freedom (DOFs) corresponding to such conserved quantities, noiselessness may be ensured in spite of the fact that the errors evolve the overall system’s state.

This intuition applies to both classical and quantum information storage. A simple classical example arises by considering two bits subject to errors which either flip both bits with probability $`p`$, or leave them alone with probability $`1p`$. This error model has the property that it preserves the parity $`P(s)`$ of a state $`s`$ of the bits, where $`P(s)`$ is defined as the sum (mod 2) of the bit string $`s`$. Thus, the two values of $`P`$ can be used together with the (non-conserved) value of, say, the first physical bit to label the four possible states of the two bits:

$`00`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{𝟶}0`$
$`01`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{𝟷}0`$
$`10`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{𝟷}1`$
$`11`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{𝟶}1.`$
The above table establishes a correspondence between the state space of the physical system (left hand side) and the one of a pair of abstract subsystems (right hand side). In the resulting representation, the first member of the abstract pair (the parity bit) carries the information to be protected, while the second (the “syndrome” bit) experiences the effect of the errors. In this case, parity provides a classical NS, and the information resides in this protected DOF.

Many of the above features carry over to the quantum-mechanical case. In quantum systems, the presence of symmetries (hence of conserved quantities) is associated with the existence of operators that commute with all possible errors. First, consider a simple two-qubit example which corresponds to complete depolarization on qubit 2. This error model is defined by the set of error operators $`\{E_a\}=\{.5\sigma _a^{(2)},a=0,x,y,z\}`$, $`\sigma _0^{(2)}=𝟙^{(\mathrm{𝟚})}`$. Clearly, no joint state of the two qubits is protected. However, a one-qubit state can be stored in the first physical qubit without being affected by the errors: qubit 1 is a “trivial” quantum NS. Mathematically, this intuition is made precise by observing that, because $`[E_a,\sigma _u^{(1)}]=0`$ for every error and $`u=x,y,z`$, all the expectations of $`\sigma _u^{(1)}`$ – hence the state of qubit 1 – are protected from noise: $`\sigma _u^{(1)},u=x,y,z`$, define the observables of this trivial NS qubit.

In general, knowing the symmetries of the error model suffices for identifying possible protected DOFs, in a way similar to what happens in the above simple example: one first determines the set of operators that commute with the possible errors, and then in this set identifies appropriate combinations that algebraically behave like the observables (the Pauli operators) for abstract qubits Viola et al. (2001a). If $`S`$ is a (finite-dimensional) quantum system interacting with some environment $`E`$, a description of noise on $`S`$ which suffices for discussing error protection and error correction properties can be obtained by constructing the appropriate interaction algebra $`𝒜`$ Knill et al. (2000). Let the open-system evolution of $`S`$ involve coupling operators $`J_a`$, where the $`J_a`$ are traceless and we assume, for the moment, that the internal Hamiltonian $`H_S`$ of $`S`$ alone can be either set to zero or identified with one of the $`J_a`$. Then $`𝒜`$ contains all the complex linear combinations of arbitrary products of the $`J_a`$ and the identity. If $`S`$ is initialized in the state $`\varrho _{in}`$, and the evolution is depicted in terms of a quantum operation Kraus (1983),

$$\varrho _{in}\varrho _{out}=(\varrho _{in})=\underset{a}{}E_a\varrho _{in}E_a^{},\underset{a}{}E_a^{}E_a=𝟙,$$
(1)
then $`𝒜`$ collects all the possible errors that the coupling to $`E`$ can induce for arbitrary strength or interaction time. The commutant $`𝒜^{}`$ of $`𝒜`$, which collects all operators on $`S`$ that commute with arbitrary errors in $`𝒜`$, is the relevant structure to be used in generalizing the symmetry argument given above. By construction, both $`𝒜`$ and $`𝒜^{}`$ are (multiplicative) sub-algebras of the full algebra $`𝒜_S`$ of operators on $`S`$. Within the Hamiltonian framework for the composite system $`S`$, $`E`$ adopted here, they are also naturally closed under the $``$ operation, making some standard results from the representation theory of operator algebras directly applicable Burrow (1965); Arveson (1976); Landsman (1998). The symmetry properties of error models corresponding to $`𝒜`$ can be visualized by thinking of the largest group of unitary operators contained in $`𝒜^{}`$ as the symmetry group for the problem.

Suppose that $`S`$ consists of $`n`$ physical qubits, in which case the state space $`(^2)^n`$, and $`𝒜_S`$ can be identified with the algebra of complex matrices Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}()`$ acting on $`^N`$, $`N=2^n`$. Then three possibilities are worth examining:

* If $`𝒜^{}`$ consists only of scalar multiples of the $`𝟙`$, no useful symmetries are present. Mathematically, this condition is equivalent to the fact that the error algebra $`𝒜`$ acts “irreducibly” on $``$, hence $`𝒜=𝒜_S`$ by the Schur lemma Knill et al. (2000); Burrow (1965). Because the error process is contributed by all operators on $`S`$, no protected DOF exists.
* Suppose instead that $`𝒜^{}`$ is non-trivial, which implies that $`𝒜`$ is a proper sub-algebra of $`𝒜_S=`$ Mat$`{}_{N}{}^{}()`$. If $`𝒜\text{Mat}_m()`$ for some integer $`m`$, then one can show Burrow (1965) that there exists a change of basis $`U`$ on $``$, and integers $`d,r`$ with $`md+r=N`$,

$$U:^N^m^d^r,$$
(2)
such that, in the resulting representation, all error operators leave the factor $`^m`$ unaffected:

$$U𝒜U^{}=𝟙_𝕞\text{Mat}_𝕕()𝕆_𝕣,$$
(3)
where $`𝕆_r`$ accounts for the action on the remaining summand $`^r`$. Situations where a NS can be directly identified with a subset of the physical qubits belong to this category. The above trivial two-qubit example, for instance, corresponds to $`N=4`$, $`m=d=2,r=0`$.
* If $`𝒜`$ is again strictly contained in $`𝒜_S`$, but it cannot be identified with the operator algebra of a $`m`$-dimensional quantum DOF, a theorem from the representation theory of operator algebras (the Wedderburn theorem, Arveson (1976); Landsman (1998); see also Thirring (1983)) still implies that a transformation $`U`$ to a new basis exists where, as above, the action of the errors takes a simple block-factorized form:

$$U:^N^{m_1}^{d_1}\mathrm{}^m_{\mathrm{}}^d_{\mathrm{}},$$
(4)
with $`_jm_jd_j=N`$, and

$$U𝒜U^{}=𝟙_{𝕞_\mathrm{𝟙}}\text{Mat}_{𝕕_\mathrm{𝟙}}()\mathrm{}𝟙_𝕞_{\mathrm{}}\text{Mat}_𝕕_{\mathrm{}}.$$
(5)
Because, in this representation, the action of any error operator in $`𝒜`$ is only experienced by the “syndrome factors” $`^{d_j}`$ in the decomposition (4), each of the co-factors $`^{m_j}`$ can be identified with the state space of a $`m_j`$-dimensional NS under $`𝒜`$ Knill et al. (2000); not (a).

It is worth noting that, with respect to the same basis (4), the action of operators commuting with the errors becomes “dual” to the one of the errors themselves,

$$U𝒜^{}U^{}=\text{Mat}_{m_1}()𝟙_{𝕕_\mathrm{𝟙}}\mathrm{}\text{Mat}_𝕞_{\mathrm{}}()𝟙_𝕕_{\mathrm{}},$$
(6)
implying that a non-trivial transformation is now enforced on the noiseless DOFs. Also, whenever $`d_j=1`$ for some $`j`$, the syndrome subsystem becomes effectively a classical DOF with a one-point configuration space. Thus, $`^{m_j}^{m_j}`$, and the $`j`$th summand in the decomposition (4) can accordingly be identified with a DFS under $`𝒜`$ Knill et al. (2000); Zanardi (2001).

Because of the abstract algebraic nature of the subsystem identification given by (4)-(5), the mapping between the states of the information-carrying NSs and the states of the underlying physical qubits may in general become very indirect. However, the method for constructing a NS from appropriate observables in $`𝒜^{}`$ may be applied in general Knill et al. (2002). We now make these considerations explicit in the situation that is relevant to the experimental implementation.

### II.2 Collective noise for three qubits

The collective error behavior provides the paradigmatic situation for discussing passive noise control through both DFSs and NSs, and in particular for realizing the simplest non-trivial noiseless quantum subsystem. Collective error models have been extensively analyzed in the theory literature Zanardi and Rasetti (1997); Lidar et al. (1998); Knill et al. (2000); Kempe et al. (2001a); Wu and Lidar (2002), and experimentally investigated in the QIP context in optical Kwiat et al. (2000), trapped-ion Kielpinski et al. (2001), and liquid-state NMR Viola et al. (2001b); Fortunato et al. (2002b) devices. For a system $`S`$ composed of $`n`$ qubits as above, collective noise behavior arises whenever a single environment $`E`$ couples to the individual particles without distinguishing among them. This results in error models that are characterized by permutation symmetry. Whether or not the natural dynamics of $`S`$ alone, ruled by $`H_S`$, actually respects this symmetry (as assumed so far) is an important issue with both conceptual and practical implications. While deferring a more detailed discussion of this point to a later stage, we begin by examining the consequences of permutation symmetry.

In particular, let us focus on the situation where $`S`$ is composed of three qubits, implying that $`^8`$, and the full operator algebra $`𝒜_S\text{Mat}_8()`$. For the purpose of characterizing collective error models, the crucial property is that only global error generators $`J_u=(\sigma _u^{(1)}+\sigma _u^{(2)}+\sigma _u^{(3)})/2`$, $`u=x,y,z`$, may be present in the system-environment interaction. By definition, $`J_u`$ is the projection of the total spin angular momentum along the $`\widehat{u}`$-axis (in units $`\mathrm{}`$). In NMR with spin-1/2 nuclei, for instance, interactions of this type may arise from uniform, fully-correlated magnetic fields which fluctuate in direction and strength, leading to evolutions which can be semi-classically described as Ernst et al. (1994)

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{123}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{123}=e^{i(\theta _xJ_x+\theta _yJ_y+\theta _zJ_z)}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{123},$$
(7)
for random variables $`\theta _u`$, $`u=x,y,z`$. In the formalism of quantum operations, collective error processes are characterized by completely positive dynamical maps of the form (1), where the possible errors $`E_a`$ are constrained to commute with all possible particle permutations. Thus, the largest interaction algebra $`𝒜_c`$ resulting from arbitrary collective interactions consists of all the totally symmetric operators on three qubits. Because the dimension of the subspace of totally symmetric operators for $`n`$ qubits is given by $`(n+1)(n+2)(n+3)/6`$ Zanardi (1999b), $`𝒜_c`$ is a 20-dimensional sub-algebra of $`𝒜_S`$. This implies that a description of the most general collective error model on three qubits can be accomplished by using an error basis with at most 20 (linearly independent) operators, out of the possible 64 needed for representing arbitrary noise in the absence of symmetries. By writing

$$𝒜_c=\text{span}\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_a|a=0,\mathrm{},19\}𝒜_S,$$
(8)
an explicit basis of operators $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_a`$ can be constructed by fully symmetrizing the standard Pauli product operator basis for three qubits. Let us introduce compact notations to describe operators that are invariant under the full set of qubit permutations:

$`\widehat{ZZ}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _z^{(1)}\sigma _z^{(2)}+\sigma _z^{(2)}\sigma _z^{(3)}+\sigma _z^{(3)}\sigma _z^{(1)},`$
$`\widehat{ZX}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _z^{(1)}\sigma _x^{(2)}+\sigma _x^{(1)}\sigma _z^{(2)}+\sigma _z^{(1)}\sigma _x^{(3)}+\sigma _x^{(1)}\sigma _z^{(3)}+\sigma _z^{(2)}\sigma _x^{(3)}+\sigma _x^{(2)}\sigma _z^{(3)},`$
$`\widehat{ZZZ}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _z^{(1)}\sigma _z^{(2)}\sigma _z^{(3)},`$
$`\widehat{ZZX}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _z^{(1)}\sigma _z^{(2)}\sigma _x^{(3)}+\sigma _x^{(1)}\sigma _z^{(2)}\sigma _z^{(3)}+\sigma _z^{(1)}\sigma _x^{(2)}\sigma _z^{(3)},`$
$`\widehat{XYZ}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _x^{(1)}\sigma _y^{(2)}\sigma _z^{(3)}+\sigma _y^{(1)}\sigma _x^{(2)}\sigma _z^{(3)}+\sigma _z^{(1)}\sigma _y^{(2)}\sigma _x^{(3)}+\sigma _x^{(1)}\sigma _z^{(2)}\sigma _y^{(3)}+\sigma _y^{(1)}\sigma _z^{(2)}\sigma _x^{(3)}+\sigma _z^{(1)}\sigma _x^{(2)}\sigma _y^{(3)},`$ (9)
and so forth. Then a basis for $`𝒜_c`$ is given by the $`𝟙`$, the three linear operators $`J_u`$, the six quadratic operators $`\widehat{XX},\widehat{YY},`$ $`\widehat{ZZ},\widehat{XZ},\widehat{XY},\widehat{YZ}`$, and the ten cubic operators resulting from the above construction.

As noted earlier, the symmetry properties of a given error model appear explicitly in the commutant of the error algebra. In the case of $`𝒜_c`$, the commutant $`𝒜_c^{}`$ contains the subgroup $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ of unitary operators that implement permutations of the particles e.g., a swap $`\pi _{12}`$ between qubit 1, 2 means $`\pi _{12}|i_1|j_2|k_3=|i_2|j_1|k_3=|j_1|i_2|k_3`$. In fact, one can show that the whole $`𝒜_c^{}`$ consists of linear combinations of operators in $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, expressing the fact that $`𝒜_c^{}`$ coincides with the group algebra $`𝒮_3`$ of the permutation group $`𝒮_3`$ under the above representation in $``$ Burrow (1965); Zanardi (2001); Knill et al. (2002). Physically, because the error generators $`J_u`$ are also the generators for the global rotations of the qubits, $`𝒜_c^{}`$ can be regarded as containing the operators which remain invariant under such rotations. Thus, operators in $`𝒜_c^{}`$ can be constructed from the identity and the simplest invariant operators Knill et al. (2000); Viola et al. (2001a):

$$s_{12}=\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{(1)}\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{(2)},s_{23}=\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{(2)}\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{(3)},s_{31}=\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{(3)}\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{(1)},$$
(10)
where $``$ denotes the usual dot product. Note that $`s_{jk}`$ is nothing but the Heisenberg spin coupling between spins $`j,k`$. As it turns out, every operator in $`𝒜_c^{}`$ can be realized, in principle, through the application of Heisenberg Hamiltonians of the form (10) Kempe et al. (2001b). By observing that the total angular momentum observable $`J^2=\stackrel{}{J}\stackrel{}{J}`$ simply rewrites in terms of the above operators, collective symmetry immediately implies a conserved quantity, given by the eigenvalues $`j(j+1)`$ of $`J^2`$.

### II.3 Abelian error models

Suppose that the system-environment interaction is contributed by a single global error generator $`J_{\widehat{v}}=\stackrel{}{J}\widehat{v}`$, $`\widehat{v}\widehat{v}=1`$. Then, in the absence of an independent quantizing direction (provided, for instance by $`H_S`$), the resulting interaction algebra is abelian, and the corresponding error models accounts for collective decoherence (unrecoverable loss of phase information) with respect to the fixed basis of eigenstates of $`\sigma _{\widehat{v}}`$. The choice $`\widehat{v}=\widehat{z}`$ singles out the $`z`$ basis. For three qubits, the relevant error algebra $`𝒜_z`$ can be constructed from the generator $`J_z`$ and the $`𝟙`$, and can be identified with the sub-algebra of $`𝒜_c`$ spanned by the four axially symmetric and permutation-invariant operators, i.e.

$$𝒜_z=\text{span}\{𝟙,𝕁_𝕫,\widehat{},\widehat{}\}𝒜_𝕔,$$
(11)
For instance, an error model in this class that will be of practical significance is a full-strength (or “crusher”, borrowing from the NMR terminology) collective $`z`$-dephasing on three qubits, which may be described by a quantum operation $`_z`$ with Kraus operation elements $`K_a^z`$, $`a=0,\mathrm{},3`$:

$`K_0^z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left(𝟙+\mathrm{𝟚}𝕁_𝕫+\widehat{}+\widehat{}\right),`$
$`K_1^z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left(𝟙\mathrm{𝟚}𝕁_𝕫+\widehat{}\widehat{}\right),`$
$`K_2^z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left(3𝟙+\mathrm{𝟚}𝕁_𝕫\widehat{}\mathrm{𝟛}\widehat{}\right),`$
$`K_3^z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left(3𝟙\mathrm{𝟚}𝕁_𝕫\widehat{}+\mathrm{𝟛}\widehat{}\right).`$ (12)
In a similar way, collective decoherence about the $`\widehat{x}`$ axis can be described by effectively switching from the $`z`$ to the $`x`$ basis, i.e. by mapping $`𝒜_z𝒜_x=H𝒜_zH`$, where $`H`$ represents a collective Hadamard transform. Accordingly, a crusher collective $`x`$-error process corresponds to $`_x=\{K_a^x\}`$, with operation elements obtained from (12) via the appropriate rotations.

For later purposes of comparison between encoded and un-encoded information, the description of the noise process induced by a three-qubit error model on a physical information-carrying qubit will be useful. In general, by treating one of the qubits as the data qubit ($`𝚍`$) and the remaining ones as ancillae ($`𝚊_1`$, $`𝚊_2`$), the partial trace operation over the ancillae

$$\rho _{in}=\text{Tr}_{𝚊_1,𝚊_2}\{\varrho _{in}\}\text{Tr}_{𝚊_1,𝚊_2}\{(\varrho _{in})\}=𝒬(\rho _{in})$$
(13)
associates to a three-qubit process $``$ a one-qubit process $`𝒬`$ on the data qubit $`𝚍`$ alone, provided that the latter is initially uncorrelated with the ancillae and the initial state $`|𝚊_1𝚊_2`$ is known. For the experimental realization, the choice $`|𝚊_1𝚊_2=|00`$ will be relevant. It is then readily seen that the above $`_z`$ process corresponds, for instance, to applying a one-qubit map of the form

$$\rho E_+^z\rho E_+^z+E_{}^z\rho E_{}^z,$$
(14)
where $`E_\pm ^z=(𝟙\pm \sigma _𝕫)/\mathrm{𝟚}`$ are the usual $`z`$-idempotents, $`(E_\pm ^z)^2=E_\pm ^z`$. As expected from physical intuition, this process is nothing but crusher phase damping on the (un-encoded) data qubit.

### II.4 Non-abelian error models

Whenever two non-commuting error generators are relevant, the interaction algebra describing the resulting error process is non-abelian. In practice, we shall be interested at error models obtainable by using abelian noise processes as building blocks. Let $`_x`$, $`_y`$, $`_z`$ denote crusher dephasing about $`\widehat{x}`$, $`\widehat{y}`$, $`\widehat{z}`$, respectively, with associated error algebras $`𝒜_x`$, $`𝒜_y`$, $`𝒜_z`$, as above. A simple way for inducing non-abelian error processes is through the sequential composition of abelian errors along different axes. In particular, crusher isotropic collective decoherence corresponds to cascading crusher noise processes about all three axes Havel et al. (2001). For instance, $`_y_z_x=_{yzx}`$, with Kraus operators specified by the 64 (linearly dependent) products $`K_c^yK_b^zK_a^x`$, $`a,b,c=0,\mathrm{},3`$, of the operators given in the previous subsection. While composite noise processes of this sort may not naturally occur in physical systems, they can be enforced in liquid-state NMR using readily available non-unitary control methods to be described later (see also Havel et al. (2001)). In terms of error algebras, the operators describing the composite noise process $`_{yzx}`$ can be thought to belong to an error algebra $`𝒜_{yzx}`$ which arises from the multiplication of the single-axis algebras,

$$𝒜_{yzx}=𝒜_y𝒜_z𝒜_x=\text{span}\{K_c^yK_b^zK_a^x,K_a^xK_b^zK_c^y\}𝒜_c.$$
(15)
In fact, one can show that $`𝒜_{yzx}`$ is the full collective algebra $`𝒜_c`$ by checking that a basis $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_a`$ of permutation-invariant operators (such as the one given in (9)) is contained in $`𝒜_{yzx}`$. It also turns out that the full $`𝒜_c`$ may be generated from the composition of abelian error processes involving two non-commuting axes, e.g. $`_z_x=_{zx}`$.

By reasoning as in the abelian case, the one-qubit map $`𝒬`$ describing the effect of a crusher composite noise processes at the single-qubit level can be derived by evaluating the partial trace (13) on the appropriate sets of 16 (for two-axes noise) or 64 (for three-axes noise) Kraus operators. The result is effective full depolarization on the physical data qubit, corresponding to a map of the form

$$\rho \frac{1}{4}\left(\rho +\underset{u=x,y,z}{}\sigma _u\rho \sigma _u\right).$$
(16)
### II.5  The role of the self-Hamiltonian

From a physical point of view, it is worth pointing out that while noise processes that involve both quantum decoherence (phase damping) and dissipation (amplitude damping) always correspond to non-abelian error algebras, a non-commutative error algebra does not necessarily indicate the presence of genuine energy dissipation in the system. In general, in the absence of an internal Hamiltonian, $`H_S=0`$, every noise process is effectively equivalent to (adiabatic) decoherence. For instance, because all the basic operation elements in (12) are Hermitian, crusher collective dephasing as defined above is, consistently, a unital process, describing damping of phase information in the $`z`$ basis. Composition of dephasing operations along non-commuting axes results in depolarization, which is still unital and can be regarded as decoherence in all bases.

Because $`H_S`$ is rarely zero in real systems, the interplay between the internal dynamics and the actual error generators $`J_a`$ turns out to be crucial for characterizing the overall open-system dynamics. Clearly, it is always possible to construct the interaction algebra $`𝒜`$ by including $`H_S`$, as done so far, among the defining interaction operators. In particular, the assumption $`H_S=ϵJ_z`$ is implicit in the original definition of the collective noise model Zanardi and Rasetti (1997). Regardless of whether $`H_S`$ commutes or not with the $`J_a`$, if a non-trivial NS is supported by the algebra $`𝒜`$ constructed in this way, this NS is completely stable against time evolution. Therefore this procedure is, in principle, ideal for devising robust quantum memories.

However, including $`H_S`$ among the defining operators for $`𝒜`$ is not desirable when the $`𝒜`$ becomes irreducible (thus without useful symmetries) or when $`H_S`$ is regarded as a resource for effecting noise-protected manipulations of information. Suppose that an error algebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}`$ is defined starting from the $`𝟙`$ and the $`J_a`$ alone. Then $`H_S`$ may or may not belong to $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{}`$. From the point of view of reliable QIP, situations falling into the first category are the most favorable, as the natural Hamiltonian directly implements a non-trivial logical evolution on any NS supported by $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}`$ Fortunato et al. (2002b); Viola (2002); Lidar and Wu (2001). If $`H_S\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{}`$ instead, then $`H_S`$ may still preserve a given NS Kempe et al. (2001a); Fortunato et al. (2002b), but most likely it will have the undesired effect of causing leakage outside the intended space. While various schemes are available in principle to cope with these effects Nielsen and Chuang (2000); Wu et al. (2002), it is not clear to what extent these may be viable with realistic control resources.

In liquid-state NMR systems, collective error models may naturally play a role in describing relaxation from fully correlated fields in homo-nuclear species Ernst et al. (1994); Redfield (1965). However, the assumption that $`H_S`$ is proportional to $`J_z`$ is invalid due to the chemical shift effects. For the specific molecule used in the current implementation, $`H_S`$ (to be explicitly given later) will turn out to satisfy none of the properties of belonging to the full collective error algebra $`𝒜_c`$ or its commutant $`𝒜_c^{}`$. Nevertheless, the system may be used to demonstrate how robustness against $`𝒜_c`$ can be achieved by constructing an appropriate NS.

### II.6 The three spin-1/2 noiseless subsystem

Because, as noted earlier, the eigenvalue $`j`$ of the total angular momentum $`J^2`$ is conserved, simultaneous eigenstates of $`J^2,J_z`$ are a natural basis to describe the state of the three particles. The possible values of $`j`$ are $`j=3/2,1/2`$, corresponding to a decomposition of $``$ as the direct sum of two invariant subspaces, $`_{3/2}_{1/2}`$, respectively. The quantum numbers $`j,j_z`$ suffice for completely labeling basis states in $`_{3/2}`$, which is the four-dimensional subspace spanned by totally symmetric states (i.e., states in $`_{3/2}`$ transform under particle permutations as the one-dimensional symmetric irreducible representation of $`𝒮_3`$). However, with $`j=1/2`$ and $`j_z=\pm 1/2`$ this is no longer true for the subspace $`_{1/2}`$, which is also four-dimensional as the eigenvalue $`j=1/2`$ is in fact doubly degenerate. Physically, this degeneracy accounts for the fact that there are two distinct paths for obtaining a total angular momentum $`j=1/2`$ out of three elementary 1/2 spins. Let $`\mathrm{}=0,1`$ be an additional quantum number that labels these two possible paths. Because collective errors do not have access to the quantum numbers of the individual spins, and the resulting global quantum numbers are the same in both paths, the noise can neither distinguish which value of $`\mathrm{}`$ is realized, nor change that value. Thus, $`\mathrm{}`$ corresponds to a conserved, two-dimensional DOF under the noise. In fact, this is the NS we are seeking Knill et al. (2000); Viola et al. (2001a); Viola and Fortunato (2002).

More formally, basis states in $`_{1/2}`$ are labeled by two quantum numbers, $`|\mathrm{},j_z`$, with $`\mathrm{}=0,1,j_z=\pm 1/2`$. For fixed $`\mathrm{}`$ (fixed path), the resulting subspace carries a copy of the two-dimensional irreducible representation of the angular momentum group $`su(2)`$ corresponding to $`j=1/2`$. There are two such copies, and operators in $`𝒜_c`$ do not mix them and act identically on both. For fixed $`j_z`$, one obtains instead a copy of the two-dimensional irreducible representation $`[\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}1}]`$ (in Young tableau notation) of the permutation group $`𝒮_3`$ Burrow (1965); Peres (1995). There are again two such copies, and now operators in $`𝒜_c^{}`$ do not mix them and act identically on both not (b). With respect to the interaction algebra $`𝒜_c`$, we can thus identify the DOF corresponding to $`\mathrm{}`$ with a subsystem $`L`$, which is fully protected against errors, and the DOF corresponding to $`j_z`$ with a syndrome spin-1/2 subsystem $`Z`$, which instead experiences the errors. We write $`_{1/2}_L_Z`$, and make this identification explicit through the following correspondence with states in the computational basis Viola et al. (2001a):

$`|\mathrm{𝟶}_L|+1/2_Z`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(|001+\omega |010+\omega ^2|100\right),`$
$`|\mathrm{𝟶}_L|1/2_Z`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(|110+\omega |101+\omega ^2|011\right),`$
$`|\mathrm{𝟷}_L|+1/2_Z`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(|001+\omega ^2|010+\omega |100\right),`$
$`|\mathrm{𝟷}_L|1/2_Z`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(|110+\omega ^2|101+\omega |011\right),`$ (17)
where $`\omega =\mathrm{exp}(i2\pi /3)`$. Note that two of the totally symmetric states spanning $`_{3/2}`$ are $`|000,|111`$, while the remaining two are obtained from (II.6) by dropping the $`\omega ,\omega ^2`$ phase factors. Thus, the full set of basis states for $`_{3/2}`$ and $`_{1/2}`$ provides an explicit realization of the general state space decomposition given in (4), with $`U`$ being the rotation needed to bring the computational basis to the appropriate angular momentum basis, and $`N=8,m_1=1,d_1=4,m_2=2,d_2=2`$, respectively. Equivalently, the NS qubit living in $`_L`$ can be identified by combining the $`𝟙`$ and the invariant operators (10) into three operators $`\sigma _u^{(L)}𝒜_c^{}`$ that behave algebraically like the Pauli operators. This gives Viola et al. (2001a)

$$\sigma _x^{(L)}=\frac{1}{2}\left(𝟙+𝕤_{\mathrm{𝟙𝟚}}\right)_{\mathrm{𝟙}/\mathrm{𝟚}},\sigma _𝕪^{(𝕃)}=\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟛}}}{\mathrm{𝟞}}\left(𝕤_{\mathrm{𝟚𝟛}}𝕤_{\mathrm{𝟛𝟙}}\right)_{\mathrm{𝟙}/\mathrm{𝟚}},\sigma _𝕫^{(𝕃)}=𝕚\sigma _𝕩^{(𝕃)}\sigma _𝕪^{(𝕃)},$$
(18)
where $`P_{1/2}=𝟙/\mathrm{𝟚}(𝕤_{\mathrm{𝟙𝟚}}+𝕤_{\mathrm{𝟚𝟛}}+𝕤_{\mathrm{𝟛𝟙}})/\mathrm{𝟞}`$ denotes the projector onto the subspace $`_{1/2}`$. Note that the logical $`\sigma _x^{(L)}`$ observable is simply the restriction to $`_{1/2}`$ of the permutation $`\pi _{12}`$ swapping qubits 1 and 2.

### II.7  Collective operators in the noiseless subsystem/syndrome representation

It is instructive to take a closer look at the action of the error generators $`J_u`$ and of some relevant collective error processes directly in terms of the decomposition

$$U=_{3/2}_{1/2}_{3/2}_L_Z,$$
(19)
where $`U`$ effects the change of basis mentioned above and the subsystem identification within $`_{1/2}`$ is explicitly given by (II.6). By using the identity $`1+\omega +\omega ^2=0`$, it is easy to verify that the restriction of the collective noise generators $`J_u`$ to the $`_{1/2}`$ subspace acts as follows:

$`2J_xP_{1/2}`$ $``$ $`𝟙^{(𝕃)}(\sigma _𝕩^{()}),`$
$`2J_yP_{1/2}`$ $``$ $`𝟙^{(𝕃)}(\sigma _𝕪^{()}),`$
$`2J_zP_{1/2}`$ $``$ $`𝟙^{(𝕃)}(+\sigma _𝕫^{()}).`$ (20)
Thus, the $`J_u`$ act as single-qubit errors on the syndrome subsystem alone. Explicitly, this means that if, for instance, the initial state of the system is given by

$$P_{1/2}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{123}=|\mathrm{\Psi }=(\alpha |\mathrm{𝟶}+\beta |\mathrm{𝟷})_L(\gamma |+1/2+\delta |1/2)_Z,$$
(21)
for appropriate coefficients, then the result of a collective rotation by, say, $`\theta _y`$ about $`\widehat{y}`$ is

$`e^{i\theta _yJ_y}|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`(\alpha |\mathrm{𝟶}+\beta |\mathrm{𝟷})_Le^{+i\theta _y\sigma _y^{(Z)}/2}(\gamma |+1/2+\delta |1/2)_Z`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`(\alpha |\mathrm{𝟶}+\beta |\mathrm{𝟷})_L\left((\gamma \mathrm{cos}(\theta _y/2)+\delta \mathrm{sin}(\theta _y/2))|+1/2+(\delta \mathrm{cos}(\theta _y/2)\gamma \mathrm{sin}(\theta _y/2))|1/2\right)_Z,`$
while a collective $`z`$ rotation is simply

$`e^{i\theta _zJ_z}|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`(\alpha |\mathrm{𝟶}+\beta |\mathrm{𝟷})_Le^{i\theta _z\sigma _z^{(Z)}/2}(\gamma |+1/2+\delta |1/2)_Z`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`(\alpha |\mathrm{𝟶}+\beta |\mathrm{𝟷})_L(\gamma e^{i\theta _z/2}|+1/2+\delta e^{+i\theta _z/2}|1/2)_Z,`$
and so on. Two observations are worth making. First, if either $`\delta `$ or $`\gamma `$ is zero, then (23) is a direct manifestation of the fact that each of the pairs of states in (II.6) with fixed $`j_z`$ is a one-qubit DFS against pure $`z`$ noise not (b). As explained in Sect. IIIB, initialization of the ancillae qubits as $`|𝚊_1𝚊_2=|00`$ will correpond to encode into the $`j_z=1/2`$ subspace, thus $`\gamma =0`$ in the implementation. Second, Eqs. (22) and (23) together show that encoding into the $`Z`$ subsystem would instead result in a qubit fully controllable in terms of homogeneous local unitaries Masanes et al. (2002) i.e., transformations of the form $`U^{(1)}U^{(2)}U^{(3)}`$ on the physical qubits – for instance, non-selective (“hard”) $`\pi `$ pulses about two non-commuting axes.

A procedure similar to the one outlined above may be applied to picture the effect of an arbitrary, known error model. Take, for instance, crusher collective $`z`$-dephasing with Kraus operators $`_z=\{K_a^z\}`$ given in (12). One finds that

$`\widehat{ZZ}P_{1/2}`$ $``$ $`𝟙^{(𝕃)}(𝟙^{()}),`$
$`\widehat{ZZZ}P_{1/2}`$ $``$ $`𝟙^{(𝕃)}(\sigma _𝕫^{()}).`$ (24)
Thus, when restricted to $`_{1/2}`$, the action of both $`K_0^z`$ and $`K_1^z`$ is zero, whereas

$`K_2^zP_{1/2}`$ $``$ $`𝟙^{(𝕃)}𝔼_+^{()},`$
$`K_3^zP_{1/2}`$ $``$ $`𝟙^{(𝕃)}𝔼_{}^{()}.`$ (25)
This just means that the action of crusher collective phase errors on the physical system can be pictured as a crusher phase damping channel on the syndrome subsystem $`Z`$ alone. Because, as we shall also comment later, the state of the latter abstract subsystem is mapped, upon decoding, into the state of a physical ancilla qubit carrying the error syndrome Knill et al. (2002), this means that the physical syndrome subsystem will have experienced full phase damping under the same conditions. By the same reasoning, the action of crusher composite noise processes can be understood in terms of the composition of phase-damping channels affecting the $`Z`$ subsystem along various axes, translating into depolarization of the physical syndrome subsystem. These observations will be corroborated by experiment.

### II.8  Verifying infinite-distance error-correcting properties

As a result of the above analysis, quantum information encoded in the $`L`$ subsystem is protected indefinitely in time, without requiring any active intervention. In the language of QEC Knill et al. (2000), this stability against the full collective algebra $`𝒜_c`$ characterizes $`L`$ as an infinite-distance QEC code for arbitrary collective errors. Formally, this follows from the fact that to the NS one can associate a QEC in the usual (subspace) sense by choosing an initial reference state $`|\epsilon _Z`$ in the syndrome subsystem (corresponding to “no error”), and by letting the code subspace $`𝒞`$ be defined by

$$𝒞=\text{span}\left\{|0_C=|0_L|\epsilon _Z,|1_C=|1_L|\epsilon _Z\right\}.$$
(26)
Then the basis states of $`𝒞`$ verify the necessary and sufficient conditions for recovery from all errors in $`𝒜_c`$ Knill and Laflamme (1997); Yang and Gea-Banacloche (2001),

$$i_C|E_a^{}E_b|j_C=\alpha _{ab}\delta _{i,j},E_a,E_b𝒜_c,$$
(27)
for appropriate coefficients $`\alpha _{ab}`$ – independent of the logical index $`i,j`$. Note that, a priori, infinite-distance behavior as expressed by (27) applies regardless of whether $`L`$ is supported by a DFS or by a proper NS. For a DFS, the syndrome state is fixed thus it can be effectively disregarded. For a NS, however, the fact that errors are allowed to evolve the state $`|\epsilon _Z`$ non-trivially implies that the latter may be effectively arbitrary. In both situations, no recovery is needed for maintaining information in $`L`$ Knill et al. (2000).

In a NS-QEC experiment, one is interested at inferring robustness properties of the encoded information by looking at the code performance under a given set of quantum processes. Suppose that, as mentioned in the previous subsection, verification is constrained to having initialized the syndrome subsystem in the state $`|1/2_Z`$. What kind of conclusions can one draw? The analysis is relatively simple under the assumption of perfect implementation fidelity. The relevant points can be summarized as follows:

* Verifying that quantum information is preserved under the implementation of an error process with Kraus operators $`\{K_a\}`$ implies stability under any error operator $`K\text{span}\{K_a\}`$ Knill and Laflamme (1997).
* If the set of correctable error operators contains an error algebra $`𝒜`$ i.e., $`\text{span}\{K_a\}𝒜`$, the implementation verifies infinite-distance behavior under $`𝒜`$ Knill et al. (2000).
* Verifying a NS under $`𝒜`$ requires verifying infinite-distance QEC for every possible initial state of the syndrome subsystem.

These observations can be applied to analyze both abelian and non-abelian collective error models. For instance, suppose we observe stability under crusher $`x`$ noise. Then we can conclude that operators in $`𝒜_x`$ have identity action on $`L`$ when $`Z`$ is initialized to $`|1/2_Z`$. However, because the state $`|+1/2_Z`$ can be reached from $`|1/2_Z`$ by application of error operators in $`𝒜_x`$, one has effectively verified a NS against $`𝒜_x`$. While a similar argument applies to $`y`$ noise, the state of the $`Z`$ subsystem is preserved under $`z`$ noise. Thus, observation of stability under $`𝒜_z`$ for fixed initialization in $`|1/2_Z`$ only implies the verification of a DFS-behavior under $`𝒜_z`$. A proper NS-behavior under the full collective $`𝒜_c`$ can be inferred, in principle, in various ways. Keeping the experimental $`|1/2_Z`$ preparation constraint in mind, the simplest procedure is to ensure stability under a family of quantum processes whose sets of Kraus operators globally span $`𝒜_c`$. For instance, one can check that

$$\text{span}\{K_a^uK_b^v,K_b^vK_a^u|a,b=0,\mathrm{},3\}=𝒜_c$$
(28)
for any choice of a composite crusher process which involves two non-commuting axes $`\widehat{u},\widehat{v}`$ e.g., $`_{zy}`$ and $`_{yz}`$. The implemented set of processes are discussed in Sect. IVB-C. One may notice that the error operators describing $`_{yz}`$ are obtainable as a subset of the errors operators induced by $`_{yzx}`$. Thus, the implemented set is sufficient to infer that a NS for the most general collective noise has verified, at least in the limit of sufficiently high fidelity. Establishing what minimum fidelity threshold is required for inferring NS-verification under non-ideal conditions is a separate interesting issue, whose analysis is beyond the scope of this work.

The three-qubit NS turns out to provide the smallest code capable to correct one qubit against the full $`𝒜_c`$. The same, infinite-distance protection can be accomplished by using a DFS, but the most efficient DFS requires four physical qubits Zanardi and Rasetti (1997). It is worth noting that, for a given physical system, more efficient codes may exist if additional symmetries are present beside the permutational one. If, for instance, axial symmetry also applies (i.e., the error model belongs to the class of collective single-axis phase damping), then a three-dimensional subspace of $``$ may be protected with infinite distance by a DFS (corresponding to a fixed $`j_z`$ eigenvalue, $`j_z=\pm 1/2`$). The situation is summarized in Table I.

## III Experimental design and methods

### III.1 Liquid-state nuclear magnetic resonance

All experiments were performed using liquid-state NMR techniques on a sample of <sup>13</sup>C labeled alanine (Fig. 1) in D<sub>2</sub>O solution, using a 300 MHz Bruker avance spectrometer. The spin’s evolution is governed by the internal Hamiltonian $`H_S`$, which in the weak coupling limit is accurately described by

$$H_S=\pi \underset{k=1,2,3}{}\nu _k\sigma _z^k+\frac{\pi }{2}\underset{j>k=1}{\overset{3}{}}J_{kj}\sigma _z^k\sigma _z^j,$$
(29)
where $`\nu _k`$ represents the chemical shift frequency of the $`k`$th spin, and $`J_{kj}`$ the coupling constant between spins $`k`$ and $`j`$, respectively (in Hz units). Radio frequency (RF) pulses are used to modulate the dynamics to produce the desired net evolution in the spin frame where the above internal Hamiltonian is defined. The interaction with the control field generated from a single transmitter has the form Fortunato et al. (2002a)

$$H_{ext}(\omega _{RF},\varphi ,\omega ,t)=\underset{k}{}e^{i(\omega _{RF}t+\varphi )\sigma _z^k/2}(\omega \sigma _x^k/2)e^{i(\omega _{RF}t+\varphi )\sigma _z^k/2},$$
(30)
where the transmitter’s angular frequency $`\omega _{RF}`$, the initial phase $`\varphi `$, and the power $`\omega `$ are tunable over an appropriate parameter range. NMR QIP has been extensively discussed in the literature Cory and et.al. (2000). At room temperature, NMR qubits exist in highly mixed, separable states and so NMR QIP relies on “pseudo-pure” (p.p.) states whose traceless (or “deviation”) component is proportional to that of the corresponding pure state. The identity component of the density matrix is unobservable and, if the dynamics are unital, constant. The assumption of unital behavior has been validated experimentally, see Sect. IVD. Under these circumstances, the evolution of a p.p. state is equivalent to the one of the corresponding pure state. The 3-spin p.p. ground state $`\varrho _z=|000000|`$ was generated using standard gradient-pulse techniques whose details can be found in Teklemariam et al. (2001). State preparation was experimentally verified by tomographically reconstructing the 3-spin density matrix Chuang et al. (1998). A constant amount of identity component was added to all reconstructed density matrices such that the ground state fidelity with respect to the intended 3-spin p.p. state was optimized.

### III.2 Encoding and decoding quantum networks

It is essential that the experimental procedure is designed to allow for the protection of an arbitrary one-qubit state, $`|\psi _{in}=\alpha |0+\beta |1`$, with $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ potentially unknown. Because collective errors affect the $`Z`$ subsystem hence induce a non-trivial evolution the encoded states, the decoding transformation $`U_{dec}`$ must map the entire set of encoded basis states (II.6) back to the computational basis properly. Thus, a good decoding transformation provides an explicit realization of the mapping $`U^1`$ appearing in (19). Given $`U_{dec}`$, an encoding transformation may be obtained by letting $`U_{enc}=U_{dec}^1`$. Various choices are possible in principle, differing in the identification they establish between the state space of the abstract $`L`$ and $`Z`$ qubits and the physical qubits. The choice of $`U_{dec}`$ we implemented maps $`L`$, $`Z`$ into the data qubit 2 and the ancilla qubit 3, respectively:

$`|\mathrm{𝟶}_L|+1/2_Z|j=1/2,\mathrm{}=0,j_z=+1/2`$ $``$ $`|001`$
$`|\mathrm{𝟷}_L|+1/2_Z|j=1/2,\mathrm{}=1,j_z=+1/2`$ $``$ $`|011`$
$`|\mathrm{𝟶}_L|1/2_Z|j=1/2,\mathrm{}=0,j_z=1/2`$ $``$ $`|000`$
$`|\mathrm{𝟷}_L|1/2_Z|j=1/2,\mathrm{}=1,j_z=1/2`$ $``$ $`|010.`$ (31)
The fact that (31) only specifies $`U_{dec}`$ on the $`_{1/2}`$ subspace is reflected by the fact that the value of the first ancilla qubit remains set to zero. $`U_{dec}`$ is uniquely determined by also defining its action on the $`|j=3/2,j_z`$ states spanning $`_{3/2}`$ or, equivalently, the mapping with the remaining four computational basis states:

$`|j=3/2,j_z=+3/2`$ $``$ $`|100`$
$`|j=3/2,j_z=+1/2`$ $``$ $`i|111`$
$`|j=3/2,j_z=1/2`$ $``$ $`i|110`$
$`|j=3/2,j_z=3/2`$ $``$ $`|101.`$ (32)
Having determined $`U_{dec}`$, no general efficient procedure is known for designing a logical network of realizable one- and two-qubit operations effecting $`U_{dec}`$. The implemented networks for $`U_{dec}`$ and $`U_{enc}`$ are shown in Fig. 2. Due to the weak strength of the $`J_{13}`$ coupling, no direct gates between spins 1 and 3 are used. For practical convenience, $`U_{enc}`$ is simplified by using qubit 3 as the information carrier (i.e., switching qubits 2 and 3 with respect to the output) and by taking advantage of the knowledge of the starting state $`|00`$ of the input ancillae. Thus, the implemented $`U_{enc}`$ effects the transformation

$$U_{enc}|00\psi _{in}(\alpha |\mathrm{𝟶}_L|1/2_Z+\beta |\mathrm{𝟷}_L|1/2_Z)=|\psi _{in}_L|1/2_Z.$$
(33)
The logical gates involved in the NS encoding and decoding circuits were first mapped into ideal pulse sequences via standard quantum network methods Cory and et.al. (2000). Pulses were then implemented by strongly modulating the internal Hamiltonian (29) of the alanine molecule with externally controlled RF magnetic fields as mentioned above. Details of pulse design can be found in Fortunato et al. (2002a). Combinations of rotations that were used in multiple places in the sequence were merged into a single pulse and directly implemented. In practice, inaccurate preparation of the ancilla state $`|𝚊_1𝚊_2=|00`$ and operational errors may result in unintentionally populating states in the $`_{3/2}`$ subspace. Given the decoding action (32), this could contribute to observable signal upon discarding qubits 1 and 3. The fact that contributions originating from $`_{3/2}`$ remained negligibly small was inferred in the implementation from the absence of appreciable double- and triple-coherence decay modes and from the stability of the observed signal against applied noise strength Viola et al. (2001b) (See also Sect. IVB).

It is worth emphasizing the difference between the ability to encode an arbitrary quantum state and the ability to accomplish a desired state preparation. While the latter is appropriate in the context of initializing a quantum algorithm, the former is crucial for quantum memory purposes (see also Kielpinski et al. (2001)) and for QEC in general. In the specific case, much simpler procedures would suffice for initializing the system into a desired, known NS state. For instance, one can observe that with an appropriate choice of basis a NS always contains a state which is the tensor product between a two-qubit singlet and a one-qubit logical state (see Viola et al. (2001a) for explicit encoded states alternative to (II.6)). Then, similar to the case of initialization in a DFS Zanardi and Rossi (1999), synthesizing a NS state may be achieved by relying on a unitary transformation that prepares singlet states. Alternatively, one could exploit appropriate non-unitary control such as cooling, as suggested in DiVincenzo et al. (2000). For either DFSs or NSs, the existence of such initialization procedures does not automatically translate into the existence of an efficient way for effecting a general encoding. From this point of view, a systematic comparison of network complexity for DFSs vs NSs is worth being examined in more detail, and will be addressed elsewhere.

### III.3  Heisenberg representation of collective noise

As discussed in Sect. IIA, it is unlikely that noise symmetries directly imply the preservation of one (or more) of the natural subsystem’s DOF (such as the states of the physical spins). Yet, an abstract information-carrying subsystem not identifiable with any of the physical qubits exists through the subsystem identification (II.6) Viola et al. (2001a); Knill et al. (2002). The decoding operation corresponds to extracting the abstract protected DOF by mapping it to the natural DOF associated with the data qubit. In the abstract NS/syndrome representation, the desired error-correcting behavior translates into the property that collective errors act only on the $`Z`$ subsystem, as discussed earlier and explicitly verified in (20). An equivalent description can be constructed directly in terms of the physical DOFs by looking at the error algebra $`𝒜_c`$ in an appropriate Heisenberg representation determined by $`U_{dec}`$.

Let $`E_a𝒜_c`$ be any collective error operator. The state of the entire system after it has been encoded into the NS, affected by the collective error, and then decoded from the NS is given by

$$|\psi _{out}_𝚍|0_{𝚊_1}|\varphi _{out}_{𝚊_2}=U_{dec}E_aU_{dec}^{}|\psi _{in}_𝚍|0_{𝚊_1}|\varphi _{in}_{𝚊_2}=E_a^H|\psi _{in}_𝚍|0_{𝚊_1}|\varphi _{in}_{𝚊_2},$$
(34)
where the Heisenberg-transformed error operator $`E_a^H`$ is defined by $`E_a^H=U_{dec}E_aU_{dec}^{}`$. Because $`E_a`$ is in $`𝒜_c`$, the action of $`E_a^H`$ can be inferred by knowing the transformed collective generators $`J_u^H`$, $`u=x,y,z`$. Using the decoding network of Fig. 2, and recalling that $`𝚍`$, $`𝚊_1`$, $`𝚊_2`$ denote the data, the first and second ancilla qubit, respectively, one finds

$`2J_x^H`$ $`=`$ $`E_+^{𝚊_1}(\sigma _x^{𝚊_2})𝟙^𝚍+𝔼_{}^{𝚊_\mathrm{𝟙}}\sigma _𝕩^{𝚊_\mathrm{𝟚}}(𝟙^𝚍\mathrm{𝟚}\mathrm{cos}(\pi /\mathrm{𝟛})\sigma _𝕪^𝚍\mathrm{𝟚}\mathrm{sin}(\pi /\mathrm{𝟛})\sigma _𝕫^𝚍)`$
$`2J_y^H`$ $`=`$ $`E_+^{𝚊_1}(\sigma _y^{𝚊_2})𝟙^𝚍+𝔼_{}^{𝚊_\mathrm{𝟙}}\sigma _𝕪^{𝚊_\mathrm{𝟚}}(𝟙^𝚍\mathrm{𝟚}\mathrm{cos}(\pi /\mathrm{𝟛})\sigma _𝕪^𝚍\mathrm{𝟚}\mathrm{sin}(\pi /\mathrm{𝟛})\sigma _𝕫^𝚍)`$
$`2J_z^H`$ $`=`$ $`E_+^{𝚊_1}(+\sigma _z^{𝚊_2})𝟙^𝚍+𝔼_{}^{𝚊_\mathrm{𝟙}}\sigma _𝕫^{𝚊_\mathrm{𝟚}}(𝟙^𝚍+\mathrm{𝟚}\sigma _𝕫^𝚍).`$ (35)
The above equations make it explicit that the action of any collective error is identity on the data bit, provided that the state of the first ancilla $`𝚊_1`$ qubit is properly set to $`|0`$. This identity action is the counterpart of the one expressed in the Schrödinger picture by Eqs. (20). On the other hand, the second ancilla qubit $`𝚊_2`$ is in general evolved non-trivially by the noise. According to (35), the protection afforded by the NS can be equivatently understood as a rotation of the error algebra such that the abstract protected DOF is identified with the data qubit conditionally to the state of the first ancilla qubit.

### III.4  Design of the evolution period

In order to verify the behavior of the NS code in a controlled setting, the delay period between encoding and decoding needs to be carefully designed so as to implement an effective evolution under a precisely known error model. An important building block for the procedure is the ability to implement a “no-op” evolution i.e., an evolution corresponding to the identity operation that provides the reference of no applied errors.

Additional constraints exist because, as mentioned, the assumptions made on $`H_S`$ in Sec. II are not achievable in the current experimental setting. In particular, $`H_S`$ does not itself respect the permutational symmetry of the collective error model, neither does it belong to the commutant $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_c^{}`$ of the collective error algebra, causing the system to depart from the protected NS. The net, unwanted evolution induced by $`H_S`$ over the delay period can be averaged out by using refocusing techniques Ernst et al. (1994); Jones and Knill (1999). The implemented sequences of $`\pi `$ pulses are depicted in Fig. 3.

Because the system evolves through intermediate states outside the NS during the refocusing cycle, protection of the quantum data cannot be expected if noise is acting over the entire evolution period. However, what is crucial for verifying the robustness of the intended NS is that the information resides inside the protected space while the noise is applied. This can be achieved by making sure that the basic building block for engineering collective noise processes is a $`z`$-gradient, in which case $`H_S𝒜_z^{}`$, and by applying the noise only during the sub-interval of the decoupling cycle corresponding to the identity frame (i.e., to the free evolution sub-interval) Ernst et al. (1994); Viola et al. (1999b); not (c). While this suffices for testing collective dephasing processes along $`\widehat{z}`$, error algebrs of the form $`𝒜_x`$, $`𝒜_y`$ can also be probed, by simply sandwiching a $`z`$-noise process with the appropriate collective rotation pulse about either the $`\widehat{x}`$ or $`\widehat{y}`$ axis Havel et al. (2001). Finally, cascades of noise blocks involving different axes were implemented by applying multiple noise blocks in series during a longer evolution period.

### III.5 Implementation of collective error models

Two different engineered noise models were implemented to test both the weak and strong noise limits Viola et al. (2001b). Both relied on linear magnetic field gradients in order to create an incoherent evolution over the spatial distribution of the sample Sodickson and Cory (1998). The net phase evolution caused by a gradient pulse for a spin located $`\delta _z`$ from the center of the sample is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(\delta _z)=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\gamma \frac{dB_z}{dz}\delta _z\right),$$
(36)
where $`\gamma `$ is the gyro-magnetic ratio of the nuclear species and determines how strongly the magnetic moment of the spin couples to the magnetic field. A strong gradient pulse causes spins at the edge of the sample to evolve through many cycles, producing an almost uniform distribution of phases across the sample. In the absence of molecular motion, the effects of this incoherent evolution could be refocused by a reverse gradient pulse. However, in liquid samples at room temperature, the spins are undergoing a random spatial diffusion that renders this incoherent process effectively irreversible, resulting in unrecoverable loss (i.e. decoherence) of the quantum information. The exponential attenuation of the signal associated with the combined gradient-diffusion process is described by a factor Sodickson and Cory (1998),

$$A=\mathrm{exp}\left(Dk^2(t)𝑑t\right),$$
(37)
where $`D`$ is the molecular diffusion coefficient and $`k(t)=\gamma t(dB_z/dz)`$. For a gradient pulse of duration $`\delta `$, and a diffusion period of duration $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ followed by an inverse gradient also of duration $`\delta `$, the total attenuation of the coherence reduces to

$$A=\mathrm{exp}\left(D\gamma ^2(dB_z/dz)^2\delta ^2(\mathrm{\Delta }+\frac{2\delta }{3})\right).$$
(38)
Therefore, one can associate this evolution with a $`T_2`$-like process, $`\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau )`$, where $`1/\tau `$ represents the relevant, effective noise strength. By equating $`A=\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau )`$, the elapsed time $`t=\mathrm{\Delta }+2\delta `$ being the duration of the gradient-diffusion process, the noise strength is given by

$$\frac{1}{\tau }=D\gamma ^2(dB_z/dz)^2\delta ^2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }+\frac{2\delta }{3}}{\mathrm{\Delta }+2\delta }.$$
(39)
This reduces to the simpler expression quoted in Cory et al. (1998) if $`2\delta \mathrm{\Delta }.`$ According to (39), the noise strength can be tuned by changing either the holding duration $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ or the gradient strength $`dB_z/dz`$. In order to keep the effects of other natural decoherence mechanisms fixed in different experimental runs, only the gradient strength was varied in practice (decoherent implementation). Each effective noise rate $`1/\tau `$ was independently measured using a stimulated echo sequence Sodickson and Cory (1998).

If no reverse gradient is applied to refocus the magnetization, then the evolution remains incoherent until the ensemble signal is acquired, at which time the spatial degrees of freedom are traced over rendering the evolution effectively irreversible. Therefore, the crusher noise limit can be probed by using a strong gradient pulse with no reverse gradient pulse (incoherent implementation). The details of the no-op sequences and the different noise implementations are given in Fig. 3.

## IV Results

### IV.1  Metric of control

We used the entanglement fidelity Schumacher (1996) as the reliability measure quantifying how well quantum information was preserved under the evolution of an implemented super-operator $`𝒬`$. Given an operator-sum decomposition of $`𝒬`$ in terms of Kraus operators $`\{A_\mu \}`$, and an input state $`\rho `$, the entanglement fidelity can be computed as

$$F_e(𝒬,\rho )=\underset{\mu }{}Tr(\rho A_\mu )Tr(\rho A_\mu ^{}).$$
(40)
For a uniform distribution of input states, the maximally mixed input state, $`\rho =𝟙/\mathrm{𝟚}`$, is used to characterize the un-biased channel performance. The entanglement fidelity can then be inferred from experimentally available data once it is expressed in terms of either pure state fidelities or relative input-output spin polarizations. Under the additional assumption of unital dynamics, i.e., $`𝒬(𝟙)=𝟙`$, the relevant expressions for single-qubit quantum process tomography are, respectively:

$$F_e(𝒬)=\frac{1}{2}\left(F_{|+x}+F_{|+y}+F_{|+z}1\right),$$
(41)
or, equivalently,

$$F_e(𝒬)=\frac{1}{4}\left(1+p_x+p_y+p_z\right).$$
(42)
In (41), the pure state input-output fidelity $`F_{|\psi }=\text{Tr}\{|\psi \psi |𝒬(|\psi \psi |)\}`$, and $`|u`$, $`u=x,y,z`$, are the eigenvectors of the corresponding Pauli operator with positive eigenvalue (thus, $`|+z=|0`$, $`|z=|1`$) Knill et al. (2001); Viola et al. (2001b). In (42), $`p_u=\text{Tr}\{\sigma _u𝒬(\sigma _u)\}/2`$ represents the relative output polarization given input $`\sigma _u`$ Cory et al. (1998); Knill et al. (2001); Fortunato et al. (2002b). The implementation allowed to explicitly validate the consistency of the above expressions within experimental accuracy.

### IV.2  Weak collective noise along a single axis

The ability of the NS to protect quantum information against weak collective noise was tested using the gradient-diffusion techniques described above. The entanglement fidelity of the data qubit was experimentally determined from Eq. (41) as a function of noise strength for single axis collective noise. Separate experiments were carried over for extracting the behavior of both the NS-encoded qubit and the un-encoded data spin. The results are summarized in Fig. 4. The measured curves are fitted to a decaying exponential function, $`F_e=A\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau )+B`$, as expected for a dephasing channel induced by a single-axis noise mechanism. The un-encoded data’s fit is characterized by $`A=0.51\pm 0.04`$ and $`B=0.43\pm 0.03`$, confirming the expected decaying contribution. The NS data’s fit is instead characterized by $`A=0.03\pm 0.03`$ for both $`y`$ and $`z`$ noise, with constant coefficients $`B=0.62\pm 0.02`$ and $`B=0.64\pm 0.02`$, respectively.

For all implementations, departures from the expected ideal behavior may be explained by pulse imperfections as well as by naturally occurring relaxation processes, whose effects are assumed to be independent of the applied noise strength. First, the fact that the decaying contribution (coefficient $`A`$) is small for both of the encoded situations indicates that the data resides in the NS during the application of the noise, which makes it insensitive to collective errors. Second, the fact that the constant term (coefficient $`B`$) is greater than $`0.50`$ Bennett et al. (1996), confirms that quantum information is retained, in principle, for arbitrary noise strengths despite significant imperfections in the implementation of the encoding and decoding operations. Finally, the extrapolation of the data bounds the performance of the NS in the strong noise limit.

As discussed in Sect. IIG-H, unlike the case of a noiseless subspace the encoded NS states are not eigenstates of all noise operators. This implies, in general, a decay of the full-state fidelity due to evolution of the ancillae qubits under the action of the noise. Because the system always resides, within the experimental accuracy, in the spin-1/2 subspace, the ancilla $`𝚊_1`$ remains unchanged by the application of the noise while the ancilla qubit $`𝚊_2`$, which is mapped from the syndrome $`Z`$, is decohered by the action of $`y`$ noise operators. For the case of collective $`z`$ noise, and with initialization in a fixed $`j_z`$ subspace, the system resides into a DFS, as noticed repeatedly. Thus, the state of the second ancilla qubit remains also unchanged under the $`z`$-dephasing process. These behaviors are experimentally confirmed in Fig. 5. Note that because $`|𝚊_2`$ is always initialized to $`|0`$, $`F_e`$ does not provide an appropriate metric. An average input-output fidelity is evaluated instead, resulting from a uniform average over the data input states.

### IV.3  Incoherent implementation to mimic strong collective noise

A variety of incoherent collective noise processes were also implemented to explore the strong noise limit and to establish robustness of the implemented NS against the full, non-abelian $`𝒜_c`$. The entanglement fidelity data, again calculated via Eq. (41), are presented in Table 2 Viola et al. (2001b). As expected, the un-encoded qubit’s entanglement fidelity drops to $`0.50`$ for single axis noise (corresponding to a full-strength dephasing channel), and to $`0.25`$ for a cascade of non-commuting noise blocks (inducing a full-strength depolarizing channel). For the NS-encoded case, the entanglement fidelity again departs from unity due to pulse errors and non-collective natural decoherence mechanisms, but it is changed only slightly under the action of different noise blocks. The significant improvement in the amount of information retained under a cascade of strong noise mechanisms confirms the expected benefits of the NS encoding already indicated by the weak noise data.

### IV.4  Experimental determination of channel super-operators

To gain further insight about the quantum processes realized in the experiment, the direct reconstruction of the super-operators describing some representative crusher dephasing channels was also obtained, leading to explicit sets of single-qubit Kraus operators. The measurement of the input-output relations for the set of input states $`|+x+x|`$, $`|+y+y|`$, $`|+z+z|`$, and $`|zz|`$ is sufficient to allow the determination of a Kraus form for a desired super-operator Childs et al. (2001); Havel (2002). While this analysis assumes that the channel is trace-preserving, unitality is now not assumed, thereby allowing to independently test this assumption.

Table 3 collects the experimentally determined one-qubit super-operators and corresponding entanglement fidelities, calculated via Eq. (40) ($`\rho =𝟙/\mathrm{𝟚}`$) for five representative channels. Because the diagonal elements in each of the channel super-operators measure the relative polarizations $`p_u`$ introduced in (42), $`F_e(𝒬)`$ can equivalently be evaluated from the trace of the relevant super-operator representation (up to a factor 1/4).

First, the entanglement fidelity values are consistent with the ones calculated via Eq. (41). Second, the data show that the unitality assumption is broken by an average deviation no larger than $`5\%`$. Finally, it is worth stressing that the measured super-operators contains complete information on the relative contributions of coherent vs decoherent errors. For instance, the purity of an output state $`\rho _{out}`$, given by $`\xi =\text{Tr}\{\rho _{out}^2\}`$ for a given input state $`𝟙,\sigma _𝕩,\sigma _𝕪,\sigma _𝕫`$ can be inferred from the sum of the squares of the elements of each row of the super-operator.

## V Conclusions

We presented a thorough theoretical and experimental investigation of the significance of a NS in the context of quantum information protection. This exploration demonstrates both the utility of the NS and its limitations. In particular, the assumption that the internal Hamiltonian is either proportional to one of the noise operators or that it is trivially zero is not valid for the NMR implementation, and is unlikely to be met exactly in any experimental realization of a quantum information processor. If such assumptions are at least approximately met, NSs represent the most efficient means for protecting quantum information in the presence of noise interactions with dominant symmetry components. For the example of the 3-qubit collective noise model, our experimental results convincingly demonstrate improvements in protecting information against a class of both abelian and non-abelian collective error models. Finally, experimentally reconstructed single-qubit super-operators provide detailed information about the properties and the relative contributions of coherent and decoherent errors in the implementation.

## VI Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Security Agency and Advanced Research and Development Activity under Army Research Office contract number DAAD19-01-1-0519, by the Defense Sciences Office of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency under contract number MDA972-01-1-0003, and by the Department of Energy under contract W-7405-ENG-36. L.V. also gratefully acknowledges support from a J. R. Oppenheimer Fellowship. We thank Grum Teklemariam and Nicolas Boulant for help with implementation, and Greg Boutis, Roberto Onofrio, and Seth Lloyd for valuable discussions.


text:
# Fast quantum logic gates with trapped ions interacting with external laser and quantized cavity field beyond the Lamb-Dicke regime

## Abstract

A scheme to implement quantum logic gates by manipulating trapped ions through interaction with monochromatic external laser field and quantized cavity field, beyond the Lamb-Dicke regime, is presented. Characteristic times, for implementing ionic state transitions using non-resont laser pulse or quantized cavity field, show a sharp decline for a relatively large Lamb-Dicke parameter value of $`\eta _L=\eta _c=0.2`$ , and are seen to decrease further with increase in number of initial state vibrational quanta $`m`$.

Quantum computation is equivalent to performing a number of unitary operations on a multi qubit quantum system. A single qubit unitary gate and two-qubit controlled-NOT(CN) gate constitute a typical universal set for implementation of multi qubit logic gates . Manipulation of trapped cold two-level ions interacting with laser field , offers a mechanism for realizing unitary operations needed to construct quantum logic gates in Lamb-Dicke regime  and beyond . Ions in a trap placed inside a high-Q cavity with a single mode quantized field, radiated by an external laser field , offer a much more versatile physical system. The advantage over ion-trap system comes from additional degrees of freedom and the constraints to which ionic motion is subjected to, due to quantization of the cavity field. The state transfer between cavity field mode and motional states of trapped ion has been suggested  and other experiments with ion trap placed inside a cavity have been proposed . On the experimental side, a trapped ion has been used to probe the cavity field , and coherent coupling of an ion to the cavity field has been achieved . For experimental realization of quantum logic gates involving several qubits, the ion state manipulation time is an extremely important factor. We propose the construction of a Hadamard gate, quantum phase gate, and controlled-NOT gate, through manipulation of internal and vibrational states of cold trapped ions placed inside a single mode high-Q cavity. Ionic state manipulation involves selective adjustment of laser-ion and quantized field-ion detuning parameters. Working in the region beyond the Lamb-Dicke regime ($`\eta _L<1`$ and $`\eta _c<1`$, where $`\eta _L`$ and $`\eta _c`$ are Lamb-Dicke (LD) parameters relative to the external laser and cavity field respectively), we find considerable reduction in time needed to implement elementary qubit operations. Implementation of controlled-NOT gate in double Lamb-Dicke regime($`\eta _L1`$ and $`\eta _c1`$), has been proposed in ref. .

Consider a two-level ion confined in a trap placed inside a high-finesse cavity. The ion is radiated by the single mode cavity field of frequency $`\omega _c`$ and an external laser field of frequency $`\omega _L`$ and phase $`\varphi `$. Entanglement of internal states of the ion, vibrational states of ionic center of mass, and the states of quantized cavity field, through interaction of ion with external laser and the cavity field, provides basic mechanism for qubit state rotations in Hilbert space. The system Hamiltonian, for the case when center of the trap is close to the node of cavity field standing wave, is given by

$$\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_0+\widehat{H}_{int},$$
(1)
$$\widehat{H}_0=\mathrm{}\nu \left(\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}+\frac{1}{2}\right)+\mathrm{}\omega _c\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{b}+\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _0}{2}\sigma _z,$$
(2)
$`\widehat{H}_{int}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }[\sigma _+\mathrm{exp}[i\eta _L(\widehat{a}^{}+\widehat{a})i(\omega _Lt+\varphi )]+h.c.]`$ (4)
$`+\mathrm{}g(\sigma _++\sigma _{})\left(\widehat{b}^{}+\widehat{b}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left[\eta _c(\widehat{a}^{}+\widehat{a})\right],`$
where $`\widehat{a}^{}(\widehat{a})`$ and $`\widehat{b}^{}(\widehat{b})`$ are creation(destruction) operators for vibrational phonon and cavity field photon respectively and $`\omega _0`$ the transition frequency of the two-level ion. The ion-phonon and ion-cavity coupling constants are $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`g`$, whereas $`\sigma _k(k=z,+,)`$ are the Pauli operators qualifying the internal state of the ion.

In the interaction picture, determined by unitary transformation $`U_0(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left[i\widehat{H_0}t/\mathrm{}\right]`$, the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H_I}`$ reads as

$`\widehat{H}_I`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }[\sigma _+\widehat{O}_0^L\mathrm{exp}\left[i(\delta _{0L}t\varphi )\right]+h.c.]`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }[\sigma _+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(i\eta _L)^k\widehat{O}_k^L\widehat{a}^k\mathrm{exp}\left[i((\delta _{0L}k\nu )t\varphi )\right]+h.c.]`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }[\sigma _+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(i\eta _L)^k\widehat{a}^k\widehat{O}_k^L\mathrm{exp}\left[i((\delta _{0L}+k\nu )t\varphi )\right]+h.c.]`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{}g[\sigma _+\widehat{b}^{}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1,3,..}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(i^{k1}\eta _{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{k})\widehat{a}^k\widehat{O}_k^c\mathrm{exp}\left[i(\delta _{0c}+k\nu +2\omega _c)t\right]+h.c.]`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{}g[\sigma _+\widehat{b}^{}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1,3,..}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(i^{k1}\eta _{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}\right)\widehat{O}_k^c\widehat{a}^k\mathrm{exp}\left[i(\delta _{0c}k\nu +2\omega _c)t\right]+h.c.]`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{}g[\sigma _+\widehat{b}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1,3,..}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(i^{k1}\eta _{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}\right)\widehat{O}_k^c\widehat{a}^k\mathrm{exp}\left[i(\delta _{0c}k\nu )t\right]+h.c.]`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{}g[\sigma _+\widehat{b}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1,3,..}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(i^{k1}\eta _{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}\right)\widehat{a}^k\widehat{O}_k^c\mathrm{exp}\left[i(\delta _{0c}+k\nu )t\right]+h.c.],`$ (11)
where $`\delta _{0L}=\omega _0\omega _L`$, $`\delta _{0c}=\omega _0\omega _c`$, and

$$\widehat{O}_k=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\eta ^2}{2}\right)\underset{p=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(i\eta )^{2p}\widehat{a}^p\widehat{a}^p}{p!\left(p+k\right)!}\text{ .}$$
(12)
The matrix element of diagonal operator $`\widehat{O}_k`$ for a given vibrational state $`m`$ is given by

$$m\left|\widehat{O}_k\right|m=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\eta ^2}{2})\underset{p=0}{\overset{m}{}}\frac{(i\eta _L)^{2p}m!}{p!\left(p+k\right)!(mp)!}.$$
(13)
We may note that the case where center of the trap lies close to the anti node of cavity standing wave field can be treated in an analogous fashion.

We next examine the construction of quantum logic gates namely Hadamard gate, phase gate, and Controlled-NOT gate by proper choice of detuning parameters $`\delta _{0L}`$ and $`\delta _{0c}`$, and phase $`\varphi `$ for ionic state manipulation. For this purpose, we consider the time evolution of the system for the special choices (i) $`\delta _{0L}=0`$ that is the resonant laser field, (ii) $`\delta _{0L}=k\nu `$, non resonant laser pulse, and (iii) $`\delta _{0c}=k\nu `$ where the quantized cavity field is resonant with $`k^{th}`$ blue-shifted vibrational side band.

Case I. Resonant laser Pulse, $`\delta _{0L}=0`$

In rotating wave approximation, the relevant part of Hamiltonian is

$$\widehat{H_1}=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }[\sigma _+\widehat{O}_0^L\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _1)+\sigma _{}\widehat{O}_0^L\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _1)].$$
(14)
We work in the basis $`|g,m,n,|e,m,n,`$ where $`m,n=0,1,..,\mathrm{}`$, denote the state of ionic vibrational motion and quantized cavity field, respectively. The state of the system at a time $`t,`$ starting from initial states $`|g,m,n`$, and $`|e,m,n`$, is given respectively by

$$|g,m,n\mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }F_{m,m}^Lt\right)|g,m,ni\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _1)\mathrm{sin}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }F_{m,m}^Lt\right)|e,m,n,$$
(15)
and

$$|e,m,n\mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }F_{m,m}^Lt\right)|e,m,ni\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _1)\mathrm{sin}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }F_{m,m}^Lt\right)|g,m,n,$$
(16)
where the real matrix element $`F_{m,m}^L=m\left|\widehat{O}_0^L\right|m`$. In the approximation, $`\eta _L1,`$ $`F_{m,m}^L`$ approaches $`1`$ for all values of $`m,`$ whereas for $`\eta _L<1`$ in the region beyond the Lamb-Dicke regime, the matrix element $`F_{m,m}^L<1`$.

Case II. Non resonant laser pulse, $`\delta _{0L}=k\nu `$, $`k=1,2,..\mathrm{}`$

The time evolution, in rotating wave approximation, is governed by the term

$$\widehat{H_2}=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }\left[\sigma _+\left(i\eta _L\right)^k\widehat{O}_k^L\widehat{a}^k\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _2)+\sigma _{}\left(i\eta _L\right)^k\widehat{a}^k\widehat{O}_k^L\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _2)\right].$$
(17)
The initial states $`|g,m,n`$, and $`|e,m,n`$, evolve as

$`|g,m,n`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{cos}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }F_{mk,m}^Lt\right]|g,m,n`$ (19)
$`i\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _2)\mathrm{sin}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }F_{mk,m}^Lt\right]|e,mk,n,\text{ for}mk;`$
$`|g,m,n`$ $``$ $`|g,m,n,\text{ for}m<k,`$ (20)
$`|e,m,n`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{cos}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }F_{m+k,m}^Lt\right]|e,m,n`$ (22)
$`i\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _2)\mathrm{sin}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }F_{m+k,m}^Lt\right]|g,m+k,n\text{.}`$
Here the matrix element $`F_{mk,m}^L`$ stands for

$$F_{mk,m}^L=i^k\left[\underset{i=0}{\overset{k1}{}}\eta _c\sqrt{(mi)}\right]mk\left|\widehat{O}_k^L\right|mk,$$
(23)
and $`F_{m,mk}^L=\left(F_{mk,m}^L\right)^{}.`$

Case III. Quantized field in resonance with $`k^{th}`$ blue shifted vibrational sideband, $`\delta _{0c}=k\nu `$ , $`k=1,3,..\mathrm{}`$.

Neglecting quickly vibrating terms the Hamiltonian reduces to

$$\widehat{H_3}=\mathrm{}g\left[\sigma _+\widehat{b}\left(i^{k1}\eta _c^k\right)\widehat{a}^k\widehat{O}_k^c+\sigma _{}\widehat{b}^{}\left(\left(i\right)^{k1}\eta _c^k\right)\widehat{O}_k^c\widehat{a}^k\right]\text{.}$$
(24)
From the initial states $`|g,m,n`$, and $`|e,m,n`$, the system evolves as

$`|g,m,n`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{cos}\left[g\sqrt{n}F_{m+k,m}^ct\right]|g,m,n`$ (26)
$`i\mathrm{sin}\left[g\sqrt{n}F_{m+k,m}^ct\right]|e,m+k,n1,`$
$`|e,m,n`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{cos}\left[g\sqrt{n+1}F_{mk,m}^ct\right]|e,m,n`$ (28)
$`i\mathrm{sin}\left[g\sqrt{n+1}F_{mk,m}^ct\right]|g,mk,n+1\text{ for}mk;`$
$`|e,m,n`$ $``$ $`|e,m,n,\text{ for}m<k,`$ (29)
with the matrix element, $`F_{mk,m}^c=mk|i^{k1}\eta _c^k\widehat{O}_k^c\widehat{a}^k|m`$ given by

$$F_{mk,m}^c=(i^{k1})\left[\underset{i=0}{\overset{k1}{}}\eta _c\sqrt{(mi)}\right]mk|\widehat{O}_k^c|mk.$$
(30)
For the special case $`k=1`$,

$$F_{m1,m}^c=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\eta _c^2}{2}\right)\eta _c\sqrt{m}\underset{p=0}{\overset{m1}{}}\frac{(i\eta _c)^{2p}\left(m1\right)!}{\left(p+1\right)!p!\left(m1p\right)!}.$$
(31)
We notice that for a given value of $`\eta _c`$, the characteristic frequencies, $`\left[g\sqrt{\left(n+1\right)}F_{mk,m}^c\right]`$ and $`\left[g\sqrt{n}F_{m+k,m}^ct\right]`$ vary with the number of initial state vibrational and quantized field quanta. Choosing $`m,`$ $`n`$ and $`\eta _c`$ to give large value for the matrix element $`F_{mk,m}^c`$, can reduce the time required for implementing a quantum logic operation involving states $`|e,m,n`$ and $`|g,mk,n+1`$. We may recall here that with the center of trap close to standing wave anti node, transitions involve state change by $`k`$ quanta, where $`k=0,2,4,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$.

Implementation of quantum logic gates

A Hadamard gate rotates single qubit states as below

$$|0\frac{|0+|1}{\sqrt{2}},|1\frac{|0|1}{\sqrt{2}}.$$
(32)
A controlled-NOT gate on the other hand transforms two-qubit states as

$`|0,0`$ $``$ $`|0,0\text{ ,}|0,1|0,1,`$ (33)
$`|1,0`$ $``$ $`|1,1\text{ , }|1,1|1,0,`$ (34)
i.e., target qubit changes (does not change) state if the control qubit (vibrational state) has value one (zero). An application of a Hadamard gate, followed by a phase gate and another application of a Hadamard gate results in the implementation of a controlled-NOT gate. The phase gate involving a special phase shift of $`\pi `$, results in the following elementary operation,

$`|0,0`$ $``$ $`|0,0\text{ ,}|0,1|0,1,`$ (35)
$`|1,0`$ $``$ $`|1,0\text{ , }|1,1|1,1.`$ (36)
With the cavity initially prepared in the vacuum state consider the initial states $`|g,m,0`$ and $`|e,m,0`$. The internal state of the ion is the target qubit whereas state of center of mass motion acts as control qubit. Choosing $`\delta _{0L}=0`$, $`\varphi _1=\frac{\pi }{2}+2\pi p,(p=1,2..)`$ and applying a laser pulse for time $`t_{m,m}`$, such that $`\left[\mathrm{\Omega }F_{m,m}^Lt_{m,m}\right]=\frac{\pi }{4},`$ we get from Eqs. (15 and 16)

$$|g,m,0\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|g,m,0|e,m,0\right),$$
(37)
$$|e,m,0\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|e,m,0+|g,m,0\right).$$
(38)
This is the first step to implement a Hadamard gate. Next, a non-resonant pulse with $`\delta _{0L}=k\nu ,k=1,2\mathrm{}`$, interacting with the ion for time, $`t_{m+k,m}=\pi /(\mathrm{\Omega }F_{m+k,m}^L)`$, may be used to switch the sign of state $`|e,m,0`$ for $`m<k`$, as verified from Eqs. (19\- 22) and shown by Wei et al . Tuning the quantized cavity field to $`k^{th}`$ blue shifted vibrational sideband by choosing $`\delta _{0c}=k\nu `$,$`k=1,3,..\mathrm{}`$, for an interaction time, $`t_{mk,m}=\pi /(gF_{mk,m}^c)`$, switches the sign of state $`|e,m,0`$ with $`mk`$ (Eqs. (26 and 28). The end result of this two step process is implementation of a Hadamard gate,

$$|g,m,0\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|g,m,0+|e,m,0\right),$$
(39)
$$|e,m,0\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|g,m,0|e,m,0\right).$$
(40)
As the dependence of the matrix elements $`F_{m,m}^L`$, $`F_{m+k,m}^L`$ and $`F_{mk,m}^c`$ on Lamb-Dicke parameters varies with $`m`$ and $`k`$, these choices determine the implementation time for Hadamard gate, which is $`t_H=t_{m,m}+t_{m+k,m}`$ for $`m<k`$, and $`t_H=t_{m,m}+t_{mk,m}`$ for $`mk`$.

To implement the phase gate, choose $`\delta _{0c}=k\nu `$, and the interaction time of the ion with the cavity field to be $`t_P=\pi /(gF_{mk,m}^c)`$. From Eqs. (26-29), we find that

$`|g,m,0`$ $``$ $`|g,m,0;\text{for  all }m,`$ (41)
$`|e,m,0`$ $``$ $`|e,m,0;\text{for}m<k,`$ (42)
$`|e,m,0`$ $``$ $`|e,m,0;\text{for}mk,`$ (43)
or the phase gate of Eq. (36) is implemented. The quantized cavity field states serve as the auxiliary qubit in the implementation of phase gate required to implement a controlled-NOT quantum logic gate. An important observation is that the the cavity is initially in the vacuum state and is left in the vacuum state in the end . As such successive quantum logic gates can be implemented even in the presence of cavity losses.

The speed of operation, in ionic state manipulation, is extremely important for successful experimental realization. The operation time should not be so long as to allow the decoherence due to interaction with environment to dominate the scene. To analyze the switching times, we consider the control-bit vibrational phonons to take values $`m`$ and $`m1`$ ($`m=1,4,9,`$ and $`16).`$ Table I and II list the expected ion-laser/quantized field interaction times $`t_{m,m}`$ and $`t_{m1,m}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }=g=2\pi \times 140`$ kHz and the choices $`\eta _L=\eta _c=0.02`$ (LD regime), and $`0.2`$ (beyond LD regime). Experimentally cold ion traps with parameter values given above have been realized successfully  and ions in vibrational state with $`m`$ up to $`16`$ obtained . In experiments performed with trapped Calcium ions and optical cavities , ion-cavity coupling $`g6MHz.`$

In the Lamb-Dicke regime ($`\eta _L=\eta _c=0.02`$) , the characteristic time, $`t_{m,m}^1`$, needed during the realization of a Hadamard gate is independent of $`m`$ since $`F_{m,m}1.`$ Working beyond the Lamb-Dicke limit ($`\eta _L=\eta _c=0.2`$ here), $`F_{m,m}<1,`$ causes an increase in $`t_{m,m}^2`$ with increasing $`m`$ . The last column in table I shows that for $`m=16,`$ $`t_{16,16}^2`$ is twice as large as $`t_{1,1}^1.`$ We may consider $`2\mu s`$ to be the characteristic time for the step involving interaction of ion with resonant laser pulse.

The characteristic time, $`t_{m1,m}=\pi /(gF_{m1,m})`$, for implementing ionic state transition using off resonance laser pulse or quantized cavity field, is seen to decrease with increase in the number of initial state quanta $`m,`$ for $`\eta _L=\eta _c=0.02`$, as well as $`0.2.`$ In addition for the case $`\eta _L=\eta _c=0.2`$ , that is going out from LD regime, $`t_{m1,m}`$ shows a sharp decline for all $`m`$ values considered. In general for a given $`m`$ value $`t_{m1,m}`$ is larger in comparison with $`t_{m,m}.`$ Usually the control qubit is encoded by vibrational quanta $`0`$ and $`1`$. We notice however that working beyond the LD regime, large $`m`$ values result in shorter times for ionic state manipulation. For example the choice $`m=16,`$ results in $`t_{0,1}^1/t_{15,16}^2=28.5`$. It is exciting to think that by choosing hotter initial ionic states, the state manipulation time can come down from $`178\mu s`$ to $`6\mu s`$. We conclude that faster ionic state manipulation for implementing quantum logic gates is achieved in ion trap - optical cavity system, by working beyond the Lamb-Dicke regime rather than in Lamb-Dicke regime. Recently a coherence time of $`1`$ ms for qubits based on single Ca<sup>+</sup> ion has been reported . We must recall however that the optical cavity decay time is, $`\tau _c2\mu s`$ . In comparison, the ionic state manipulation times for operations involving change of cavity state, are still quite large and much needs to be done in the experimental field.

###### Acknowledgement 1

S.S.S would like to thank Unicamp for hospitality. This work is partially supported by CNPq, Brazil.