text:
# Does a single zealot affect an infinite group of voters ?

## Abstract

A method for studying exact properties of a class of inhomogeneous stochastic many-body systems is developed and presented in the framework of a voter model perturbed by the presence of a “zealot”, an individual allowed to favour an opinion. We compute exactly the magnetization of this model and find that in one ($`1d`$) and two dimensions ($`2d`$) it evolves, algebraically ($`t^{1/2}`$) in $`1d`$ and much slower ($`1/\mathrm{ln}t`$) in $`2d`$, towards the unanimity state chosen by the zealot. In higher dimensions the stationary magnetization is no longer uniform: the zealot cannot influence all the individuals. Implications to other physical problems are also pointed out.

Researchers have devoted much attention to the field of non-equilibrium many-body stochastic processes Privman . In particular the study of exact solutions of prototypical models such as the voter model Liggett  has proven to be fruitful for understanding a large class of non-equilibrium phenomena Privman . However, more realistic systems taking into account the important dynamical effects of inhomogeneities, constraints and disorder (see e.g. Privman ; dis  and references therein) are less understood. To gain comprehension of these situations, exact results for systems modeling inhomogeneous situations in any dimension are desirable, but rather scarce dis .

In this work, motivated by these considerations, and with the voter model as a paradigm, we present techniques for computing exact properties (in any dimension) of a class of stochastic many-body systems with inhomogeneities.

The voter model is an Ising-like model where an “individual” (or spin) associated to a lattice site $`𝐫`$ can have two different opinions $`\sigma _𝐫=\pm 1`$ Liggett . The dynamics of the system is implemented by randomly chosing one individual and assigning to it the value of the spin of one of its randomly chosen nearest neigbors. In the voter model, the global magnetization is conserved and the dynamics is $`Z_2`$ symmetric (invariance under the global inversion $`\sigma _𝐫\sigma _𝐫`$). The importance of the voter model stems from the fact that it is one of a very few stochastic many-body systems that are solvable in any dimension and is useful for describing the kinetics of catalytic reactions K1 ; Frachebourg ; Ben , in studying coarsening phenomena Ben ; Dornic  and as a prototype model of opinion dynamics Vazquez .

For the sake of concretness, and without loss of generality, we specifically present our method and techniques in the framework of an inhomogeneous voter model where, to mimic in a simple manner the fact that a group of agents may have heterogeneous interactions, the conventional voter dynamics is supplemented by the presence of a “zealot”: a biased individual who favours one opinion. We study the effect of this perturbation by computing the exact long-time magnetization, which is no longer conserved, in dimensions $`d=1,2`$ and $`3`$. In low-dimensions the zealot drastically affects the dynamics: the system evolves towards unanimity with the latter. The approach to the stationary state is algebraic in $`1d`$ and logarithmically slow in $`2d`$. In $`d3`$, the effect of the zealot is less dramatic and the local stationary magnetization is a non-trivial function of the distance to this biased individual. These findings, although formulated in an “opinion dynamics” language, are, as pointed out hereafter, relevant to other physical problems.

The inhomogeneous voter model that we study is defined on a hypercubic lattice of size $`(2L+1)^d`$, where individuals, labelled by a vector $`𝐫`$ having components $`Lr_iL`$ (with $`i=1,\mathrm{},d`$), may interact according to the usual voter dynamics. In addition, we now consider that a zealot, at site “0”, tends to favour the diffusion of the $`+1`$ opinion via the interaction with his neighbors: the zealot is the only individual in the system allowed to change his state from $`1`$ to $`+1`$ (with rate $`\gamma >0`$) without regards to his neighbors, with whom he nevertheless interacts. According to the spin formulation of the model, the state of the system is described by the collection of all spins: $`S\{\sigma _𝐫\}`$. In this language, the dynamics of the model is governed by the usual voter model transition-rate Privman ; K1 ; Frachebourg ; Liggett  supplemented by a local term involving the local zealot’s reaction. The spin-flip rate, $`w_𝐫(S)w(\sigma _𝐫\sigma _𝐫)`$, therefore reads

$`w_𝐫(S)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2d}}\sigma _𝐫{\displaystyle \underset{𝐫^{}}{}}\sigma _𝐫^{}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}\left(1\sigma _\mathrm{𝟎}\right)\delta _{𝐫,\mathrm{𝟎}}.`$ (1)
Here the sum on right-hand side (r.h.s.) runs over the $`2d`$ nearest neighbors $`𝐫^{}`$ of site $`𝐫`$ and $`\tau 1/\beta d>0`$ defines the time scale. The probability distribution $`P(S,t)`$ satisfies the master equation:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}P(S,t)={\displaystyle \underset{𝐫}{}}\left[w_𝐫(S^𝐫)P(S^𝐫,t)w_𝐫(S)P(S,t)\right],`$ (2)
where the state $`S^𝐫`$ differs from $`S`$ only by the spin-flip of $`\sigma _𝐫`$. With the master equation (2), in the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$, the equation of motion of the local magnetization $`S_𝐫(t)_S\sigma _𝐫P(S,t)`$ reads:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dS_𝐫(t)}{d(\beta t)}}=\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐫S_𝐫(t){\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\beta }}\left(S_\mathrm{𝟎}(t)1\right)\delta _{𝐫,\mathrm{𝟎}}.`$ (3)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐫`$ denotes the discrete Laplace operator: $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐫S_𝐫(t)2dS_𝐫(t)+_𝐫^{}S_𝐫^{}(t)`$.

The last term on the r.h.s. of Eq.(3) is due to the effect of the zealot and only appears in the case where $`𝐫=\mathrm{𝟎}`$.

An important consequence of Eq.(3) is that the only possible uniform final magnetization is $`S_𝐫(\mathrm{})=1`$, i.e. the state favoured by the zealot. However, in $`d3`$, as shown hereafter, the stationary magnetization profile turns out to be non-uniform (but isotropic).

Using the properties of the modified Bessel functions of the first kind, $`I_r(t)`$ Abramowitz , we obtain the formal solution of Eq.(3):

$`S_𝐫(t)={\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}S_𝐤(0){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}\left[e^{2\beta t}I_{k_ir_i}(2\beta t)\right]`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`\gamma {\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t^{}\left[1S_\mathrm{𝟎}(tt^{})\right]{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}\left[e^{2\beta t^{}}I_{r_i}(2\beta t^{})\right].`$
To obtain an explicit expression for the magnetization we solve the self-consistent integral equation (4) for $`𝐫=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and then plug the result back into (4). For this purpose it is useful to denote the Laplace transform of a product of Bessel functions (multiplied by an exponential term)

$`\widehat{I}_𝐫(s,\beta ){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{st}\left[e^{2d\beta t}I_{r_1}(2\beta t)\mathrm{}I_{r_d}(2\beta t)\right].`$ (5)
This quantity can be rewritten in terms of Watson integrals, or “lattice Green-functions”:

$`\widehat{I}_𝐫(s,\beta ){\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{d^d𝐪}{(2\pi )^d}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i𝐪.𝐫}}{s+2\beta [d_{i=1}^d\mathrm{cos}q_i]}},`$ (6)
where $`𝐪=(q_1,\mathrm{},q_d)`$ is a $`d`$dimensional vector.

Laplace-transforming Equation (4), and using the convolution theorem, we obtain the following expression for the Laplace transform of the local magnetization:

$`\widehat{S}_𝐫(s){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{st}S_𝐫(t)={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma \widehat{I}_𝐫(s,\beta )}{s\left[1+\gamma \widehat{I}_\mathrm{𝟎}(s,\beta )\right]}},`$ (7)
where, for technical simplicity, we consider the zero initial magnetization state: $`S_𝐤(0)=0`$.

The exact expression for the long-time magnetization is obtained by Laplace-inverting the $`s0`$ expansion of Eq.(7) and paying due attention to the situations where the integrals (6) are divergent. In the sequel the norm of the vector $`𝐫`$ is denoted $`r`$.

We first consider the one-dimensional problem. In this case, the quantity (5) reads Abramowitz :

$`\widehat{I}_𝐫(s,\beta )\widehat{I}_r(s,\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left\{[\sqrt{s+4\beta }\sqrt{s}]/(2\sqrt{\beta })\right\}^{2r}}{\sqrt{s(s+4\beta )}}}.`$ (8)
It should be noticed that the $`s0`$ behavior of (8) diverges as $`s^{1/2}`$.

Laplace-inverting the $`s0`$ expansion of (7), together with the expression of (8) for $`r=0`$, we get ($`\beta t\mathrm{}`$):

$`S_0(t)=1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\gamma }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\pi t}}}.`$ (9)
In the more general case, where $`r>0`$, the local magnetization is obtained similarly from (7) and (8) \[in the limit $`s0`$, with $`r\sqrt{s}`$ kept fixed\]:

$`S_r(t)\mathrm{erfc}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{2\sqrt{\beta t}}}\right),`$ (10)
where $`\mathrm{erfc}(z)`$ is the usual complementary error function Abramowitz . The expression (10) is valid for $`\beta t1`$, and is particularly useful in the scaling limit where both $`r\mathrm{}`$ and $`t\mathrm{}`$, but where the ratio $`r/\sqrt{\beta t}`$ is finite.

When $`r`$ is finite (i.e. $`0<r<\mathrm{}`$ ) and $`\beta t\mathrm{}`$, we obtain the following long-time behavior:

$`S_r(t)=1{\displaystyle \frac{r+(2\beta /\gamma )}{\sqrt{\pi \beta t}}}`$ (11)
In two dimensions, the integral (6) is also divergent in the long-time regime $`s0`$ and therefore its main contribution arises from $`q^2q_1^2+q_2^20`$. In this sense, we first expand (6) for small $`s`$ in the case where $`𝐫=\mathrm{𝟎}`$:

$`\widehat{I}_\mathrm{𝟎}(s,\beta )\underset{s0}{\overset{}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \beta }}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{s}{\beta }}\right],`$ (12)
which implies that the long-time behavior of the average-opinion of the zealot is

$`S_\mathrm{𝟎}(t)S_\mathrm{𝟎}(\mathrm{})\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \beta }{\gamma }}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}\beta t}},`$ (13)
where $`S_\mathrm{𝟎}(\mathrm{})=1`$.

For the other individuals we proceed similarly and from (6), with $`r1`$, we have:

$`\widehat{I}_𝐫(s,\beta )\underset{s0}{\overset{}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \beta }}K_0\left(r\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{s}{\beta }}}\right),`$ (14)
where $`K_0(x)`$ is the usual modified Bessel function of the third kind Abramowitz . Using the small argument expansion of such a Bessel function Abramowitz , we find that the long-time behavior in the region where $`\beta tr^21`$ is

$`S_𝐫(t)S_𝐫(\mathrm{}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}r^2}{\mathrm{ln}\beta t}},`$ (15)
where the stationary magnetization corresponds again to the unanimous opinion, as in $`1d`$: $`S_𝐫(\mathrm{})=1`$.

The regime where $`r^2\beta t\mathrm{}`$ should still be discussed separately. In fact, in this regime, from (7), (12) and (14) we have :

$`\widehat{S}_𝐫(s)\underset{s0,r\mathrm{}}{\overset{}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2K_0\left(r\sqrt{s/\beta }\right)}{s\mathrm{ln}\left(s/\beta \right)}},`$ (16)
where $`s0`$ and $`r\mathrm{}`$, but $`r\sqrt{s/\beta }`$ is finite.

From results (10), (11) and (15), (16) we infer that in low-dimensions, at large time, the effect of the zealot appears at two length scales: (i) The opinion of individuals “close” ($`r^2\beta t`$) to the zealot evolves algebraically ($`t^{1/2}`$) in $`1d`$ and logarithmically ($`1/\mathrm{ln}t`$) in $`2d`$ towards the unanimous opinion $`S_𝐫(\mathrm{})=1`$. (ii) For individuals “far” ($`r^2\beta t\mathrm{}`$) from the zealot, the local magnetization evolves as a smooth scaling function of $`ur^2/2\sqrt{\beta t}`$ in $`1d`$. This is however no longer the case in $`2d`$, where, due to logarithmic terms arising in (16), the magnetization has not a scaling form. A qualitatively similar result, but within a different context, has recently been reported in Reference Majumdar . One can also notice that results (10), (11) and (15), (16) are (mainly) independent of the rate $`\gamma `$: for the long-time behavior of the local magnetization; in low-dimensions, only the fact that there is a biased individual (i.e. $`\gamma >0`$) matters.

We therefore conclude that both in $`1d`$ and $`2d`$ the zealot eventually affects all the individuals: the number of voters having a final $`+1`$ opinion are within a “circle” whose radius increases as $`\sqrt{\beta t}\mathrm{}`$.

We now study the three-dimensional situation, and then consider its generalization to the case where $`d3`$.

When $`d3`$, the integrals (6) are well defined for all the values of $`s`$, and in particular when $`s0`$. Therefore, conversely to what happens in $`1d`$ and $`2d`$, to determine the long-time behavior of the magnetization we cannot simply focus on the $`q0`$ expansion of (6). Fortunately, very recently Glasser and Boersma have been able to explicitly compute (6) in the $`3d`$ case where $`s=0`$ Glasser . We now take advantage of these findings to compute the stationary magnetization in $`3d`$. We therefore introduce a triplet $`(a_𝐫,b_𝐫,c_𝐫)`$ of rational numbers depending on $`𝐫`$, given in Table 2 of Reference Glasser , and the quantity $`g_0\left(\frac{\sqrt{3}1}{96\pi ^3}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\left(\frac{1}{24}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\left(\frac{11}{24}\right)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)`$ is Euler’s Gamma function Abramowitz .

With help of the results obtained in Glasser , we are in position to compute the $`3d`$ stationary local magnetization (SLM) by taking the $`s0`$ limit in (7):

$`S_𝐫(\mathrm{})={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma \left[a_𝐫g_0^2+c_𝐫g_0+\frac{b_𝐫}{\pi ^2}\right]}{g_0\left[2\beta +\gamma g_0\right]}},`$ (17)
In particular, for $`𝐫=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ we have the triplet $`(a_\mathrm{𝟎},b_\mathrm{𝟎},c_\mathrm{𝟎})=(1,0,0)`$ Glasser  and thus obtain $`S_\mathrm{𝟎}(\mathrm{})=\frac{\gamma g_0}{2\beta +\gamma g_0}`$.

To gain, in a simple manner, some further insight of the behavior of the discrete expression (17) when $`r\mathrm{}`$, it turns out to be fruitful to take the continuum limit of (3). In this limit the SLM is $`𝒮(𝐫,\mathrm{})`$, and we have to solve the problem of determining the electric potential due to a “charge” at the origin. One should pay due attention to the fact that this electrostatic reformulation needs to be supplemented by additional information since, from the continuum limit of (3), the charge is a priori an unknown quantity. To overcome this difficulty, in $`3d`$, we take advantage of our knowledge of the discrete version of the problem and, with (17), we compute the charge at site $`𝐫=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ as $`\frac{\gamma }{\beta }[1S_\mathrm{𝟎}(\mathrm{})]=\frac{2\gamma }{2\beta +\gamma g_0}`$. We therefore obtain the following $`3d`$ continuum stationary equation:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮(𝐫,\mathrm{})={\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma }{2\beta +\gamma g_0}}\delta ^3(𝐫),`$ (18)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the $`3d`$-Laplacian operator and $`\delta ^3(𝐫)`$ denotes the $`3d`$-Dirac delta function.

The solution of Eq. (18) depends on $`\gamma `$ and reads:

$`𝒮(𝐫,\mathrm{})={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2\pi (2\beta +\gamma g_0)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}(r>0).`$ (19)
Comparing the predictions of the results (17) and (19), we notice that they agree very well, even for finite $`r`$: For instance, when $`\gamma =2\beta `$, at $`𝐫=(3,1,0)`$, we have $`S_𝐫(\mathrm{})=0.0339`$ and $`𝒮(𝐫,\mathrm{})=0.0334`$, whereas for $`𝐫=(3,1,1)`$ $`S_𝐫(\mathrm{})=0.0319`$ and $`𝒮(𝐫,\mathrm{})=0.0319`$.

Results (17) and (19) show that in $`3d`$ (conversely to what happens in low-dimensions) the SLM is an isotropic (which is clear from (6) and (19)) but non-uniform function decaying with the norm of $`𝐫`$: $`S_𝐫(\mathrm{})𝒮(𝐫,\mathrm{})=\frac{A_3(\gamma )}{r}`$, where the amplitude is given by (19) \[and $`r>0`$\]. The reasoning can be extended to dimensions $`d>3`$, where the electrostatic reformulation gives the result (for $`r>0`$): $`𝒮(𝐫,\mathrm{})=\frac{A_d}{r^{d2}}`$. Again the computation of the amplitude $`A_d`$ requires the explicit knowledge of $`\widehat{I}_\mathrm{𝟎}(s=0,\beta )`$ in dimensions $`d>3`$.

Despite the fact that in $`d3`$ the $`s0`$ analysis of (6) is a difficult task, we can infer (for $`r`$ finite) the long-time behavior from (4): $`S_𝐫(t)S_𝐫(\mathrm{})(\beta t)^{1\frac{d}{2}}`$.

From Eq.(4) we can also compute the total magnetization: $`M(t)_𝐫S_𝐫(t)=M(0)+\gamma _0^t𝑑\tau \left[1S_\mathrm{𝟎}(\tau )\right]`$. This expression shows that in the voter model ($`\gamma =0`$) the quantity $`M(t)`$ is conserved, which is no longer the case when $`\gamma >0`$. With the help of the results (9), (13) and (17), we obtain the long-time behavior of $`M(t)`$ \[here $`M(0)=0`$\]:

$`M(t)\{\begin{array}{ccc}(\beta t)^{1/2}\hfill & \text{}d=1\text{ }\hfill & \\ \beta t/\mathrm{ln}t\hfill & \text{}d=2(\beta t\mathrm{})\hfill & \\ \beta t\hfill & \text{}d3.\hfill & \end{array}`$ (23)
These results show that in this inhomogeneous voter model the saturation time $`t_s`$, that is, the time necessary to have $`M(t_s)`$ comparable to the size $`L^d`$ (where $`L\mathrm{}`$) of the system, scales as $`\beta t_sL^2`$ in $`1d`$, $`\beta t_sL^2\mathrm{ln}L`$ in $`2d`$, and $`\beta t_sL^d`$ for $`d3`$. These statements are in agreement with results obtained for other models (see e.g.K1 ).

In this work we have developed a method to compute some exact properties of a class of stochastic many-body problems with inhomogeneities and have explicitly presented this approach in the framework of an inhomogeneous voter model where the usual voter dynamics is perturbed by the local presence of a single zealot. For this “opinion dynamics” problem, we have computed exactly, in dimensions $`d=1,2`$ and $`3`$, the long-time magnetization (mean-average opinion of each voters). From our exact results we have seen that in low-dimensions the zealot (i.e. the inhomogeneity) always affects the mean-average opinion and that its effect propagates as $`t^{1/2}`$. In fact the mean opinion of individuals approaches, algebraically in $`1d`$ \[see (11)\], according to the scaling expression (10), and logarithmically slowly in $`2d`$ \[see (15)\], the unanimity state favoured by the zealot. These results are (mainly) independent of the strength of the biased individual. In $`3d`$ the situation is completely different and the (stable) stationary mean-average opinion of a voter is no longer uniform but follows the non-trivial isotropic function (17) that decays with the inverse of the distance to the zealot \[see (19)\], a result also obtained in the continuum limit via a suitable electrostatic reformulation, and then extended to the case where $`d>3`$. The findings obtained in this work, and the differences between the behaviors observed in low-dimensions and in $`d3`$, can be qualitatively understood in realizing that the local magnetization is the solution of a diffusion-like equation (3) supplemented by a local boundary term (the zealot) and taking into account the fact that in $`1d`$ and $`2d`$ random-walks are recurrent (which, in our case, implies that all individuals interact with the zealot), while in $`d3`$ they are transient, and therefore there is a finite probability that individuals never interact with the zealot Privman ; Liggett . It is instructive to compare our results to those obtained in the conventional voter model K1 ; Frachebourg ; Ben ; Dornic : the presence of the zealot clearly implies that the magnetization is no longer conserved and that the dynamics is not translationally invariant. This comparison also shows that a single inhomogeneity (here, the zealot) can deeply affect the stationary and the long-time properties of an interacting spin system, whose perturbed dynamical behavior depends on the dimension $`d`$.

Despite the fact that our method and results have been formulated in an “opinion dynamics” language, we emphasize that they have a broad physical relevance and can be applied to a large class of stochastic many-body problems. As a physical illustration we can consider the kinetics of the monomer-monomer catalysis on an inhomogeneous substrate that locally desorps preferentially one species of monomer K1 ; Frachebourg ; prep . Identifying spins $`+1`$ ($`1`$) with $`A`$ ($`B`$) particles, the monomer-monomer reaction can be mapped onto an Ising model with mixed voter and Kawasaki dynamics K1 ; Frachebourg , whose time-scales are respectively defined by $`1/\beta d`$ and $`1/\beta ^{}d`$, and an inhomogeneous term \[as in (1)\] that mimics the local desorption (at $`𝐫=\mathrm{𝟎}`$), with rate $`\gamma `$, of particles of species $`B`$ K1 ; prep . For this model, with $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }\beta +\beta ^{}`$, the local concentration $`c_𝐫(t)`$ of $`A`$ particles obeys to $`(d/(\stackrel{~}{\beta }dt))c_𝐫(t)=\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐫c_𝐫(t)(\gamma /\stackrel{~}{\beta })(c_\mathrm{𝟎}(t)1)\delta _{𝐫,\mathrm{𝟎}}`$, whereas the concentration of $`B`$ particles, at site $`𝐫`$, is $`1c_𝐫(t)`$ prep . Comparing the equation for $`c_𝐫`$ with Eq. (3), it is clear that the concentration of particles in the catalysis problem can immediately be inferred from the above results for $`S_𝐫(t)`$ prep . Another field of pertinence of this work, according to the well-known relation between the ($`1d`$) voter and Glauber-Ising models Glauber ; K1 ; Frachebourg , is the area of inhomogeneous magnetism. We can also mention that our method, which can take into account the presence of many inhomogeneities and can deal with systems of more than two states per site, is of direct relevance for a large class of reaction-diffusion models Privman . In this context, a diffusive model of interacting particles where an homogeneous source is in competition with a local trap has been solved prep .

We thank P.L. Krapivsky, S. Redner and L. Zuppiroli for valuable discussions and reading the manuscript. Financial support of the vice-president (VPF) of the EPFL and of the Swiss National Science Foundation under the fellowship 81EL-68473 are acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The analysis of BPS states in various compactifications of string theory has been of fundamental importance in exploring non-perturbative phenomena, dualities and quantum geometry. In particular in type II theory compactified on a Calabi-Yau threefold, where BPS states have a description as D-branes wrapped on various supersymmetric cycles (and generalizations thereof), this study has revealed some remarkable physical and mathematical structures. The low energy effective theory of such a Calabi-Yau compactification is a four-dimensional $`𝒩=2`$ supergravity theory, coupled to a number of massless abelian vector- and hypermultiplets, and in this theory BPS states have a description complementary to the D-brane picture as solutions to the field equations preserving $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry. The simplest solutions of this kind are spherically symmetric black holes, first studied in . As noted in , not all charges support such solutions. This is natural, since also in the full string theory, the BPS spectrum is only a subset of the full charge lattice. However, it turns out that the true BPS spectrum and the spectrum of spherically symmetric black holes do not match , the latter being too small. To reconcile the two, one has to drop the restricion to spherically symmetric solutions with a single charge center, and consider multicentered composites as well . Indeed, $`𝒩=2`$ supergravity has regular BPS “bound state” solutions describing configurations of distinct (typically mutually nonlocal) charges at rest at certain equilibrium separations from each other. These solutions are in general stationary but non-static, as they can carry an intrinsic angular momentum, much like the monopole-electron system in ordinary Maxwell electrodynamics. Furthermore their existence is subject to certain moduli-dependent stability conditions, matching similar conditions appearing in the D-brane description of BPS states . With these ingredients, supergravity predictions for the BPS spectrum of the full string theory were given in .

The equations of motion for general stationary BPS configurations were derived in . In , non-static black hole composites were considered as solutions, and some of their properties were analyzed directly from the equations, assuming existence. A proof of existence was later given in , however without giving explicit analytic expressions for the metric, scalars and vectors. In what follows, we will show how such closed form expressions can be found. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, it turns out that the full solution can be built from a single function, namely the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy (i.e. the horizon area) of a single BPS black hole as a function of its charges. If the latter is known analytically, the same is true for the complete space-time geometry and all fields involved, for arbitrary values of the moduli at spatial infinity.

Some examples of non-static multicentered solutions were studied earlier in , for supergravity with $`R^2`$-corrections, focusing mainly on how to take the curvature corrrections into account in an iterative approximation scheme. The zeroth order part of those results can be obtained as a special case of the general construction outlined in this note. An explicit expression for the off-diagonal part of the metric was not given in . We show how this part can be obtained in closed form without too much additional effort, and note that requiring its regularity leads to constraints on the positions of the centers and to certain stability conditions, confirming general expectations .

## 2 Notation and setup

### 2.1 General formalism

We will assume that the supergravity theory under consideration arises from compactification of type IIB string theory on a Calabi-Yau threefold, thus giving a concrete geometric interpretations to the various quantities involved. The generalization to arbitrary supergravity theories determined by abstract special geometry data will be obvious.

Compactification of IIB on a Calabi-Yau manifold $`X`$ gives as four-dimensional low energy theory $`𝒩=2`$ supergravity coupled to $`n_v=h^{1,2}(X)`$ massless abelian vectormultiplets and $`n_h=h^{1,1}(X)+1`$ massless hypermultiplets, where the $`h^{i,j}(X)`$ are the Hodge numbers of $`X`$. The hypermultiplet fields will play no role in the following and are set to arbitrary constant values.

The complex scalars in the vector multiplets are the complex structure moduli of $`X`$. The geometry of the corresponding scalar moduli space $``$, parametrized with $`n_v`$ coordinates $`z^a`$, is special Kähler . In what follows we recall some general facts and useful formulas in special geometry (in the IIB geometric setting).

The basic objects in special geometry are $`(i)`$ a vector space $`V`$, here identified with the $`2n_v+2`$ dimensional vector space of harmonic 3-forms $`H^3(X,)`$, for which we pick an arbitrary basis $`\{\mathrm{\Theta }_A\}`$; $`(ii)`$ an antisymmetric bilinear form $`,`$, here identified with the intersection product on $`H^3(X,)`$,

$$Q_1,Q_2=_XQ_1Q_2=Q_1^AI_{AB}Q_2^B,\text{where }I_{AB}=\mathrm{\Theta }_A,\mathrm{\Theta }_B;$$
(2.1)
and $`(iii)`$ a $`V`$-valued holomorphic function111single-valued only on the covering space $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ of $``$, here identified with the holomorphic 3-form on $`X`$,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_0(z)=\mathrm{\Omega }_0^A(z)\mathrm{\Theta }_A=I^{AB}X_B(z)\mathrm{\Theta }_A,\text{where }X_A=\mathrm{\Theta }_A,\mathrm{\Omega }_0=_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_A}\mathrm{\Omega }_0,$$
(2.2)
with $`I^{AB}(I^1)^{AB}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_A`$ the 3-cycle Poincaré dual to $`\mathrm{\Theta }_A`$. The vector $`X_A`$ is called the holomorphic period vector.

The special Kähler metric $`g_{a\overline{b}}=_a\overline{}_{\overline{b}}𝒦`$ on $``$ is derived from the Kähler potential

$$𝒦(z,\overline{z})=\mathrm{ln}i\mathrm{\Omega }_0,\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_0=\mathrm{ln}\left(i\overline{X}_AI^{AB}X_B\right).$$
(2.3)
It is useful to introduce also the normalized 3-form and period vector

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=e^{𝒦/2}\mathrm{\Omega }_0,Z_A=e^{𝒦/2}X_A$$
(2.4)
Note that $`Z_A`$ has non-holomorphic dependence on the moduli through $`𝒦`$. The Kähler covariant derivative $`D_a`$ is defined on these normalized objects as $`D_a_a+_a𝒦/2`$. Then $`D_a\mathrm{\Omega }H^{2,1}(X)`$, and since $`\mathrm{\Omega }H^{3,0}(X)`$, one has $`\mathrm{\Omega },D_a\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }},D_a\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$. Furthermore

$$\mathrm{\Omega },\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}=i,D_a\mathrm{\Omega },\overline{D}_{\overline{b}}\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}=ig_{a\overline{b}}.$$
(2.5)
The low energy dynamics of the vector fields is also determined by special geometry. The type IIB self-dual five-form field strength $`=d𝒜`$ descends to the four dimensional electromagnetic field strengths $`F^I=dA^I`$ and their magnetic duals $`G_I`$ by the decomposition $`=F^I\beta _IG_I\alpha ^I`$, where $`\{\alpha ^I,\beta _I\}_{I=1,\mathrm{},n_v+1}`$ is a fixed standard $`,`$-symplectic basis222i.e. $`\alpha ^I,\beta _J=\delta _J^I`$ and $`\alpha _I,\alpha _J=\beta ^I,\beta ^J=0`$. of harmonic 3-forms on $`X`$. The fields $`G_I`$ and $`F^I`$ are not independent: they are related by the self-duality constraint on $``$.In the four dimensional context, we refer to the $`H^3(X,)`$-valued field $``$ as the total electromagnetic field strength.

The lattice of electric and magnetic charges is identified with $`H^3(X,)`$. The origin of a charge $`\mathrm{\Gamma }H^3(X,)`$ in type IIB string theory (at $`g_s0`$) is a D3-brane wrapped around the cycle Poincaré dual to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

### 2.2 Example: diagonal $`T^6`$

Let $`X_\tau `$ be the diagonal $`T^6`$  with modulus $`\tau `$, that is, $`X_\tau =E_\tau \times E_\tau \times E_\tau `$, where $`E_\tau `$ is the 2-torus with standard complex structure parameter $`\tau =b+ia`$ (valued in the upper half plane). This gives a consistent truncation of the full $`\text{IIB}/T^6`$ theory, if moreover we only consider charges $`\mathrm{\Gamma }H^3(X,)`$ invariant under the permutation symmetry of the three 2-tori.

Type IIB string theory on $`X_\tau `$ is mirror (or T-dual333By T-dualizing along the horizontal direction in each $`T^2`$) to IIA on $`Y=E_\tau ^{}\times E_\tau ^{}\times E_\tau ^{}`$, with $`E_\tau ^{}`$ the 2-torus with area $`a=\mathrm{Im}\tau `$ and $`B`$-field flux $`b=\mathrm{Re}\tau `$ (which together determine the complexified Kähler class of $`Y`$). There are four charges $`\mathrm{\Gamma }H^3(X,)`$ invariant under the permutation symmetry, mirror to D0-, D2-, D4- and D6-branes on the IIA side. Denoting the standard complex coordinate in the $`i`$-th $`T^2`$ by $`z^i=u^i+\tau v^i`$, these charges are explicitly:

$`D0`$ $``$ $`dv^1dv^2dv^3`$ (2.6)
$`D2`$ $``$ $`dv^1dv^2du^3+dv^1du^2dv^3+du^1dv^2dv^3`$ (2.7)
$`D4`$ $``$ $`du^1du^2dv^3du^1dv^2du^3dv^1du^2du^3`$ (2.8)
$`D6`$ $``$ $`du^1du^2du^3.`$ (2.9)
The holomorphic 3-form on $`X`$ is $`\mathrm{\Omega }=dz^1dz^2dz^3`$. With respect to the (D0,D2,D4,D6)-basis, the period vector is $`X=(1,3\tau ,3\tau ^2,\tau ^3)`$. So the D0-brane is mirror to a D3-brane wrapped in the $`u^i`$-directions, and so on. The intersection matrix is

$$I=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 3& 0\\ 0& 3& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(2.10)
the special Kähler potential on moduli space is $`𝒦=\mathrm{ln}(8a^3)`$, and the corresponding metric is $`g_{\tau \overline{\tau }}=3/4a^2`$.

## 3 BPS equations of motion

In this section we recall the BPS field equations for a general stationary black hole composite. The $`𝒩=2`$ supergravity plus vector multiplet action is, in units with $`G_N=1`$,

$$S_{4d}=\frac{1}{16\pi }d^4x\sqrt{h}R\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}g_{a\overline{b}}dz^ad\overline{z}^{\overline{b}}F^IG_I.$$
(3.1)
The action for a probe BPS particle of charge $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is

$$S_p=|Z|𝑑s+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma },𝒜,$$
(3.2)
where $`Z=Z_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }^AZ_A`$. providing a source for the fields in (3.1). A BPS metric is of the form

$$ds^2=e^{2U}\left(dt+\omega _idx^i\right)^2e^{2U}dx^idx^i,$$
(3.3)
where $`U`$ and $`\omega `$, together with the moduli fields $`z^a`$, are time-independent solutions of the following equations :

$`2e^U\mathrm{Im}\left(e^{i\alpha }\mathrm{\Omega }\right)`$ $`=`$ $`H,`$ (3.4)
$`\mathbf{}d\omega `$ $`=`$ $`dH,H,`$ (3.5)
with $`\alpha `$ an unknown real function, $`H(𝐱)`$ a given $`H^3(X,)`$-valued harmonic function (on flat coordinate space $`^3`$), and $`\mathbf{}`$ the Hodge star operator on *flat* $`^3`$. For $`N`$ charges $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s`$ located at coordinates $`𝐱_s`$, $`p=1,\mathrm{},N`$, in asymptotically flat space, one has:

$$H=\underset{s=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_s}{|𝐱𝐱_s|}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{Im}\left(e^{i\alpha }\mathrm{\Omega }\right)_{r=\mathrm{}}.$$
(3.6)
The boundary condition on $`\alpha `$ at $`r=\mathrm{}`$ is that it equals the phase of the total central charge, $`\alpha =\mathrm{arg}Z_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, with $`Z_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }^AZ_A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=_s\mathrm{\Gamma }_s`$.

The total electromagnetic field $`=d𝒜`$ is furthermore given by

$$𝒜=2e^U\mathrm{Re}\left(e^{i\alpha }\mathrm{\Omega }\right)(dt+\omega )+𝒜_d,$$
(3.7)
where $`𝒜_d`$ is a Dirac magnetic monopole type vector potential obtained from

$$d𝒜_d=2\mathbf{}d\left(e^U\mathrm{Im}\left(e^{i\alpha }\mathrm{\Omega }\right)\right)=\mathbf{}dH$$
(3.8)
Not all positions of the charges are allowed , as equation (3.5) leads to an integrability condition, obtained by acting with $`d\mathbf{}`$ on both sides of the equation: for all $`s=1,\mathrm{},N`$

$$\underset{t=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_s,\mathrm{\Gamma }_t}{|𝐱_s𝐱_t|}=2\mathrm{Im}\left(e^{i\alpha }Z_s\right)_{r=\mathrm{}}.$$
(3.9)
In the case of just two charges $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, this simplifies to

$$|𝐱_1𝐱_2|=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{2\mathrm{Im}(e^{i\alpha }Z_1)_{r=\mathrm{}}}.$$
(3.10)
Obviously, the separation has to be positive, so positivity of the right hand side gives a necessary condition on the moduli at spatial infinity for existence of a solution. It is indeed common in $`𝒩=2`$ theories for BPS states to exist only in certain regions of moduli space. When one goes from a region where the state exist to one where it doesn’t, the BPS state decays into its constituents, which is energetically only possible on a wall of marginal stability, where the phases of the central charges of the constituents align, that is $`\mathrm{arg}Z_1=\mathrm{arg}Z_2`$. From (3.10) it follows indeed that the separation diverges when such a wall is approached.

## 4 Solutions

### 4.1 Solutions for $`U`$ and $`z`$: general case

We now turn to the construction of explicit solutions. We start by showing that if we use certain preferred holomorphic coordinates on $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, solutions to (3.4) can be expressed in terms of a single function $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ on $`H^3(X,)`$, proportional to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy function. Consider first more generally for an arbitrary $`QH^3(X,)`$ the equation

$$2\mathrm{Im}(\overline{C}\mathrm{\Omega })=Q$$
(4.1)
in $`n_v+1`$ unknown complex variables, $`z^a`$ and $`C`$. Expressed in components by computing intersection products with a basis $`\{\mathrm{\Theta }_A\}`$, this becomes

$$2\mathrm{Im}(\overline{C}Z_A)=I_{AB}Q^B.$$
(4.2)
These are $`2n_v+2`$ real equations, so we can in general expect a finite number of solutions $`C_{}(Q)`$, $`z_{}(Q)`$ for a given $`Q`$. Now note that by taking the intersection product of (4.1) with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and using $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }},\mathrm{\Omega }=i`$, we get $`C_{}(Q)=Z_Q|_{z_{}(Q)}=Q^AZ_A|_{z_{}(Q)}`$, while taking intersection products with $`D_a\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and using $`\mathrm{\Omega },D_a\mathrm{\Omega }=\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }},D_a\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ results in $`Q^AD_aZ_A|_{z_{}(Q)}=0`$, which in turn implies $`_a|Q^AZ_A|^2|_{z_{}(Q)}=0`$. Similarly $`\overline{}_{\overline{a}}|Q^AZ_A|^2|_{z_{}(Q)}=0`$. Defining the function444If the solution $`C_{}(Q)`$, $`z_{}(Q)`$ is not unique, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(Q)`$ will be multi-valued. This will generically be the case when $``$ has conifold-type singularities . Also, for a range values of $`Q`$, there may be no solution at all.

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(Q)|Q^AZ_A|^2|_{z_{}(Q)}=|C_{}(Q)|^2,$$
(4.3)
we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{Q^A}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|Q^AZ_A|^2}{Q^A}}|_{z_{}(Q)}+_a|Q^AZ_A|^2|_{z_{}(Q)}{\displaystyle \frac{z_{}^a}{Q^A}}+\overline{}_{\overline{a}}|Q^AZ_A|^2|_{z_{}(Q)}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{z}_{}^{\overline{a}}}{Q^A}}`$
$`=`$ $`(\overline{Z}_QZ_A+Z_Q\overline{Z}_A)|_{z_{}(Q)}+0+0`$
$`=`$ $`2\mathrm{Re}(\overline{C}_{}Z_A|_{z_{}(Q)}).`$
Therefore we find that a solution to (4.1) for a given $`Q`$ satisfies

$$2\overline{C}Z_A=_A\mathrm{\Sigma }iI_{AB}Q^B,$$
(4.4)
and, since $`Z_A=e^{𝒦/2}X_A`$:

$$t_A\frac{X_A}{X_0}=\frac{_A\mathrm{\Sigma }iI_{AB}Q^B}{_0\mathrm{\Sigma }iI_{0B}Q^B},$$
(4.5)
where the $`0`$-index refers to some suitably chosen basis element. Locally, $`n_v`$ of the $`t_A`$ can be used as holomorphic coordinates on $`\stackrel{~}{}`$. They are the usual “special” coordinates of special geometry. Thus, (4.5) together with (4.3) gives the values for $`|C|`$ and the moduli solving (4.1) in terms of a single function $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (which of course may still be hard to compute). Note that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a homogeneous function of degree two, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\lambda Q)=\lambda ^2\mathrm{\Sigma }(Q)`$, since (4.4) implies

$$Q^A_A\mathrm{\Sigma }=2\overline{C}Q^AZ_A=2|Q^AZ_A|^2=2\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$
(4.6)
Now we apply all this to solve the BPS field equation (3.4), which is of the form (4.1) with $`Q=H(𝐱)`$ and $`C=e^{U(𝐱)}e^{i\alpha (𝐱)}`$, so

$$e^{2U}=\mathrm{\Sigma }(H)\text{ and }t_A\frac{X_A}{X_0}=\frac{_A\mathrm{\Sigma }(H)iI_{AB}H^B}{_0\mathrm{\Sigma }(H)iI_{0B}H^B}.$$
(4.7)
If $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is multi-valued, the relevant branch is selected by continuity and the fact that the solution is unambiguous at infinity (since it is given by the boundary conditions). An obvious necessary condition for existence of the solution is furthermore that $`H`$ stays within the domain of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ everywhere.

To connect $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy, consider the case of a single charge $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at the origin, i.e. $`H=\mathrm{\Gamma }/rC`$. Then we find for the horizon area of the BPS black hole thus produced, from (4.7) and the degree two homogeneity property of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$:

$$A=4\pi \underset{r0}{lim}r^2e^{2U}=4\pi \underset{r0}{lim}r^2\mathrm{\Sigma }(\mathrm{\Gamma }/rC)=4\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }(\mathrm{\Gamma }),$$
(4.8)
and therefore for the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy function $`S_{BH}`$

$$S_{BH}(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }(\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$
(4.9)
So we see that if $`S_{BH}`$ is explicitly known, the full solution (for $`U`$ and the moduli in special coordinates) can be constructed explicitly as well. As a side remark, note that homogeneity of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and (4.7) similarly imply that the moduli at the horizon $`r=0`$ are fixed to the value obtained by replacing $`H\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the expression for $`t_A`$, and in particular are independent of the moduli at infinity (apart for possible $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-branch selection). This is the well-known attractor mechanism of $`𝒩=2`$ BPS black holes .

Computing $`S_{BH}`$ in $`𝒩=2`$ supergravity theories analytically can be quite involved, and has only been done in limits where the periods become polynomial in the special coordinates (e.g. large complex structure (radius) limits in compactification of IIB (IIA) on a Calabi-Yau) . This usually proceeds through solving an equation of the form (4.1) (with $`Q=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$), and along the way one derives the corresponding expressions for the $`t_A`$ as well. In practice it is often more convenient to directly use those formulas rather than computing the $`t_A`$ from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ using (4.7). The only point of this section is then the prescription that the full solution is obtained from the horizon computations essentially by substituting the harmonic function $`H`$ for the charge $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Alternatively, in some cases, one can compute the entropy function microscopically . Then this section gives a recipe to construct the full supergravity solution just from this piece of microscopic information. In fact, using (4.5), one can in principle reconstruct the full special geometry from knowledge of the entropy function alone.

### 4.2 Solutions for $`U`$ and $`z`$: diagonal $`T^6`$ example

In the case of the diagonal $`T^6`$ example of section 2.2, the function $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is given by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(Q)=\sqrt{D(Q)}`$, with $`D(Q)`$ the discriminant function :

$$D=3p^2q^2+4p^3u+4q^3v+6uqpvu^2v^2$$
(4.10)
where we have denoted the components of $`Q`$ with respect to the $`(D0,D2,D4,D6)`$-basis as $`(u,q,p,v)`$, so $`Q^AX_A=u+3q\tau 3p\tau ^2v\tau ^3`$. For the corresponding modulus $`\tau =b+ai`$ we get (using (4.5) or directly from ):

$$\tau =b+ai=\frac{pquv+i\sqrt{D}}{2(p^2+qv)}.$$
(4.11)
For charges $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s=(\widehat{u}_s,\widehat{q}_s,\widehat{p}_s,\widehat{v}_s)`$ at positions $`𝐱_s`$, the harmonic function $`H`$ of (3.6) is, with $`r_s|𝐱𝐱_s|`$:

$`H(𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`(u(𝐱),q(𝐱),p(𝐱),v(𝐱))`$ (4.12)
$`=`$ $`(_s{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{u}_s}{r_s}}c_0,_s{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{q}_s}{r_s}}c_2,_s{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}_s}{r_s}}c_4,_s{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{v}_s}{r_s}}c_6),`$ (4.13)
where

$$(c_0,c_2,c_4,c_6)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{8a^3}}\mathrm{Im}[e^{i\alpha }(\tau ^3,\tau ^2,\tau ,1)]|_{r=\mathrm{}}$$
(4.14)
and $`\alpha =\mathrm{arg}(\widehat{u}+3\widehat{q}\tau 3\widehat{p}\tau ^2\widehat{v}\tau ^3)`$ with $`(\widehat{u},\widehat{q},\widehat{p},\widehat{v})=_s(\widehat{u}_s,\widehat{q}_s,\widehat{p}_s,\widehat{v}_s)`$. The metric factor $`e^{2U}`$ of the solution is then obtained as $`e^{2U(𝐱)}=\sqrt{D(𝐱)}`$ with the $`𝐱`$-dependent $`(u,q,p,v)`$ from (4.13) plugged into (4.10), and the modulus field $`\tau (𝐱)`$ similarly from (4.11).

Note that for the solution to exist, we need $`D0`$ everywhere. In particular this requires $`D(\mathrm{\Gamma }_s)0`$ for all charges $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s`$. Recall furthermore that the constraint (3.9) has to be satisfied.

A simple spherically symmetric example is provided by considering a charge $`(\widehat{u},0,\widehat{p},0)`$, $`\widehat{u},\widehat{p}>0`$, with $`\tau _{\mathrm{}}=ia_{\mathrm{}}`$. Then we get $`e^{2U}=\sqrt{D}=2\sqrt{p^3u}`$, $`\tau =i\sqrt{u/p}`$, with $`u=\widehat{u}/r+\sqrt{a_{\mathrm{}}^3/2}`$, $`p=\widehat{p}/r+1/\sqrt{2a_{\mathrm{}}}`$, reproducing the usual D0-D4 BPS black hole solution with zero $`B`$-field.

As a specific example of a two-centered solution, consider the charges $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=(4,0,1,0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=(0,4,0,1)`$. Notice that $`D(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1)=D(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)=16`$ while $`D(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)=125`$, so a two-centered solution can indeed exist whereas a single centered one cannot. From (3.10), we find for the separation of the charges

$$|𝐱_1𝐱_2|=19\sqrt{2a}|X|/(12a^4+12b^4+24a^2b^2+25a^239b^2+12)|_{r=\mathrm{}}$$
(4.15)
with $`X=X_1+X_2=4+12\tau 3\tau ^2\tau ^3`$. Therefore a necessary condition for existence of the solution is

$$12a^4+12b^4+24a^2b^2+25a^239b^2+12<0.$$
(4.16)
The zero locus of the left hand side consists of two branches, one with $`b>0`$ (shown in fig. 1) and the other with $`b<0`$. On the $`b<0`$ branch, we have $`\mathrm{arg}Z_1=\mathrm{arg}Z_2+\pi `$, and on the $`b>0`$ branch, we have $`\mathrm{arg}Z_1=\mathrm{arg}Z_2`$. As discussed at the end of section 3, on general grounds, only the latter branch can be a boundary between a region where the BPS state exists and a region where it does not. Therefore, the only region in which the BPS bound state can exist is the region inside the branch with $`b>0`$.555When one tries to construct a solution with $`\tau `$ at $`r=\mathrm{}`$ inside the other branch, one finds that $`D`$ becomes negative and the solution breaks down.

To be completely explicit, let us pick the point $`b=1`$, $`a=1/4`$, which lies inside the stable domain. The separation of the charges is then $`|𝐱_1𝐱_2|4.29899`$, and

$$H(\frac{4}{r_1}5.47809,\frac{4}{r_2}+5.83671,\frac{1}{r_1}+5.83091,\frac{1}{r_2}5.48245).$$
(4.17)
The corresponding image of the map $`\tau (𝐱)`$ is plotted in fig. 1. It has the profile of a “fattened split flow”, as anticipated in , with starting point $`\tau _{\mathrm{}}=1+i/4`$ and its two legs at $`r_1=0`$ and $`r_2=0`$ ending on the attractor points of respectively $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, i.e. $`\tau =2i`$ and $`\tau =i/2`$.

### 4.3 Solutions for $`\omega `$

We now turn to the solution of (3.5). First we consider the case of two centers, which generalizes straightforwardly to the case of an arbitrary number of centers thanks to the linearity of (3.5). Let the position of the centers be $`𝐱_1=(0,0,l)`$ and $`𝐱_2=(0,0,l)`$, and denote $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\kappa `$. Then according to the integrability condition (3.10), we have $`2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}(e^{i\alpha }Z_1)_{\mathrm{}}=2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}(e^{i\alpha }Z_2)_{\mathrm{}}=\kappa /2l`$, so (3.5) becomes

$$d\omega =\kappa \mathbf{}\left(r_2^1dr_1^1r_2^1dr_1^1(2l)^1dr_1^1+(2l)^1dr_2^1\right).$$
(4.18)
Introducing spherical coordinates $`(r,\theta ,\varphi )`$, and using the identities

$$r_1^2=r^2+l^2+2rl\mathrm{cos}\theta ,r_2^2=r^2+l^22rl\mathrm{cos}\theta ,(r_1r_2)^2=l^4+r^42l^2r^2\mathrm{cos}2\theta $$
(4.19)
and

$$\mathbf{}dr=r^2\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi ,\mathbf{}d\theta =\mathrm{sin}\theta drd\varphi ,$$
(4.20)
we get for (4.18):

$`d\omega `$ $`=`$ $`\kappa l{\displaystyle \frac{2r(l^2+r^2)(1\mathrm{cos}2\theta )dr+r^2(l^2r^2)\mathrm{sin}2\theta d\theta }{(l^4+r^42l^2r^2\mathrm{cos}2\theta )^{3/2}}}d\varphi `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2l}}(\mathrm{sin}\theta _1d\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2d\theta _2)d\varphi ,`$
where $`\theta _1`$, $`\theta _2`$ are the angles with the $`z`$-axis in a spherical coordinate system with origin at $`𝐱_1`$ resp. $`𝐱_2`$ (related to the central spherical coordinates by $`r\mathrm{cos}\theta r_1\mathrm{cos}\theta _1=l=r_2\mathrm{cos}\theta _2r\mathrm{cos}\theta `$). Integrating this equation gives for $`\omega `$ (up to $`\omega \omega +df`$ gauge transformations):

$$\omega =\frac{\kappa }{2l}\left(\frac{l^2r^2}{(l^4+r^42l^2r^2\mathrm{cos}2\theta )^{1/2}}+1\mathrm{cos}\theta _1+\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\right)d\varphi .$$
(4.21)
Note that the correct cancellations of terms occur on all segments of the $`z`$-axis to make this solution non-singular. If we had not implemented the integrability constraint (3.10), this would not have been the case, and we would have had a physical singularity on the $`z`$-axis.

Asymptotically for $`r\mathrm{}`$, we have $`\omega \frac{\kappa }{r}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi =\frac{\kappa }{r^3}(xdyydx)`$, which implies  that the angular momentum of this spacetime is $`𝐉=(0,0,\kappa /2)`$, in agreement with the general result of .

In the case of an arbitrary number of centers $`𝐱_s`$, satisfying the constraint (3.9), we get the following for (3.5):

$$\mathbf{}d\omega =\underset{s<t}{}\kappa _{st}(r_t^1dr_s^1r_s^1dr_t^1R_{st}^1dr_s^1+R_{st}^1dr_t^1),$$
(4.22)
where $`R_{st}=|𝐱_s𝐱_t|`$. Clearly the solution to this equation can be written as

$$\omega =\underset{s<t}{}\omega _{st}$$
(4.23)
with $`\omega _{st}`$ the two-center solution of (4.21) for the centers $`𝐱_s`$ and $`𝐱_t`$.

### 4.4 Solution for $``$: general case

Using (4.4) with $`C=e^{i\alpha }e^U`$, and $`e^{2U}=\mathrm{\Sigma }(H)`$, expression (3.7) for the total electromagnetic field $`=d𝒜`$ can be written as follows:

$$𝒜^A=I^{AB}_B\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Sigma }(H)(dt+\omega )+𝒜_d^A,$$
(4.24)
where, introducing spherical coordinates $`(r_s,\theta _s,\varphi _s)`$ around each center $`𝐱_s`$,

$$𝒜_d=\underset{s}{}\mathrm{cos}\theta _sd\varphi _s\mathrm{\Gamma }_s.$$
(4.25)
For a probe particle with charge $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ in this background, the second term in (3.2) becomes

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_p,𝒜=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^A_A\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Sigma }(H)(dt+\omega )+\mathrm{\Gamma }_p,𝒜_d$$
(4.26)
Note also that (3.2) and (3.7) imply that the potential for a static probe is

$$V=2e^U|Z_p|\mathrm{sin}^2[(\alpha _p\alpha )/2]$$
(4.27)
where $`\alpha _p=\mathrm{arg}Z_p`$. The probe is therefore in (BPS) equilibrium wherever $`\alpha _p=\alpha `$.

## 5 Dependence of entropy on moduli

The existence of multi-centered black hole bound states implies that entropy is not determined by charge only. If, say, a certain charge supports a spherically symmetric black hole solution, and in a certain region of moduli space also a multi-centered black hole solution, the entropy associated to the charge will jump when crossing into that region.

Here we give an explicit example of this phenomenon. Consider the charges $`Q_1=(0,q,0,v)`$, $`Q_2=(u,0,0,0)`$, $`Q=Q_1+Q_2`$, with $`u,q,v>0`$. The corresponding periods are $`X_1=3q\tau v\tau ^3`$, $`X_2=u`$, the discriminants are

$`D(Q_1)`$ $`=`$ $`4q^3v`$ (5.1)
$`D(Q_2)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (5.2)
$`D(Q)`$ $`=`$ $`4q^3vu^2v^2,`$ (5.3)
and the attractor points

$`\tau _{}(Q_1)`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{q}{v}}}`$ (5.4)
$`\tau _{}(Q_2)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (5.5)
$`\tau _{}(Q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{uv+i\sqrt{4q^3vu^2v^2}}{2qv}}.`$ (5.6)
If $`D(Q)>0`$, a single-centered black hole solution always exists. To find the region in the upper half plane where a two-centered solution exists as well, we compute the $`(Q_1,Q_2)`$ line of marginal stability $`\mathrm{Im}(X_1\overline{X}_2)=0`$, $`\mathrm{Re}(X_1\overline{X}_2)>0`$. Writing $`\tau =b+ia`$:

$`\mathrm{Im}(X_1\overline{X}_2)`$ $`=`$ $`ua(3qv(3b^2a^2))`$ (5.7)
$`\mathrm{Re}(X_1\overline{X}_2)`$ $`=`$ $`8uvb(b^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{q}{v}}),`$ (5.8)
so the marginal stability line is the hyperbole branch

$$a=\sqrt{3}\sqrt{b^2\frac{q}{v}},b>\sqrt{\frac{q}{v}}.$$
(5.9)
The condition for stability is

$$Q_1,Q_2\mathrm{Im}(X_1\overline{X}_2)>0.$$
(5.10)
Because $`Q_1,Q_2=uv`$, this implies that the stable region is the region to the right of the MS line. In type IIA language, this means we have to turn on a sufficiently large B-field to have a stable two-centered BPS solution.666or more generally a multicentered solution consisting of a core black hole of charge $`Q_1`$ and a cloud of charge $`(1,0,0,0)`$ particles (i.e. D0-branes) on a sphere with radius equal to the equilibrium distance. Note that $`\sqrt{D(Q)}<\sqrt{D(Q_1)}+\sqrt{D(Q_2)}`$, so the two-centered solution with charges $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$, if it exists, has in fact more entropy than the single centered solution.

The microscopic prediction which follows from this is that the moduli space of this D-brane system will develop a new branch at a certain critical value of the B-field (in IIA), with an exponentially larger cohomology than the original branch.

## 6 Conclusions

We have shown how non-static multi-centered BPS solutions of $`𝒩=2`$ supergravity can be constructed analytically. In particular we argued that this can be done explicitly whenever the BPS entropy as a function of charge is known explicitly. This allowed us to verify directly some properties of these solutions inferred earlier in . We also gave an explicit example of moduli-dependent entropy.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Bobby Acharya, Mike Douglas, Brian Greene and Greg Moore for stimulating discussions.


text:
# Quantum teleportation using cluster states

## Abstract

A protocol of quantum communication is proposed in terms of the multi-qubit quantum teleportation through cluster states (Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 910 (2001)). Extending the cluster state based quantum teleportation on the basic unit of three qubits (or qudits), the corresponding multi-qubit network is constructed for both the qubits and qudits (multi-level) cases. The classical information costs to complete this communication task is also analyzed. It is also shown that this quantum communication protocol can be implemented in the spin-spin system on lattices.

Quantum communication, a way of communication based on various features of quantum coherence (such as quantum entanglement and quantum non-cloning, which undoubtedly have no counterparts in classical worlds), are more reliable and efficient than any classical communication methodNi . Quantum teleportation Be  is one of the most remarkable protocols among those tasks of quantum communication, which completes the striking task of remotely preparing an unknown quantum state of a particle without sending this particle itself. Since proposed by Bennett et. al, quantum teleportation has attracted much attention from both experimentalists Bou ; Kimble ; Mati ; Kim ; Peng ; Dur  and theoreticians Dur ; Wer ; Yu ; Zeng . Appropriate choice and measurements of entangled states are crucial to the implementation of those quantum communication protocols.

Recently, a novel kind of entangled states - cluster states was introduced with their remarkable properties such as maximal connectedness and persistency of entanglementBri . They can be used to build a one-way universal quantum computer associated with only single-qubit measumentsRau . It was also pointed out that those computers can be implemented physically since the creation of the cluster states needs only the Ising-type interationsBri , which can be easily found in various condensed matter systems with proper spin-spin coupling on latticesBri  and even in the cold atom system in optical latticesDu . Very recently, with an intrinsically algebraic consideration, we generalized the concept of cluster states to the more general case with qudits (multi-level systems) and then demonstrate their quantum correlation features and the fundamental computational properties in many aspects Zzxs .

In this letter the cluster state is chosen as the source of entanglement to propose a novel protocol of quantum communication. The essence and functioning of this quantum teleportation scheme using the cluster state can be viewed as an identity quantum logic gate, which was originally used in the schem of measurement-based one-way quantum computersBri  only based on the cluster state and the corresponding single quantum measurements. The advantage of this implementation is its scalability: a basic “unit” can be easily constructed for a smallest (three-qubit) quantum logic network and then this unit can be naturally enlarged to form a more-qubit network. Moreover, this protocol can be realized in the spin-spin system on lattices, which physically guarantees the scalability and implies that the communication can be carried out from certain lattice sites to those at a long distance. With those considerations we will explicitly build the quantum network for a quantum teleportation of $`N`$-qubits and $`N`$-qudits. We also analyze the entanglement and classical information costs to complete the teleportation task on a cluster.

We first view that the original procedure of quantum teleportation protocol mainly depends on quantum measurement with respect to four Bell states, the complete set of maximally entangled state of two particles. It was discovered that the Bell states can be produced by a proper interaction from certain factorized states. In fact, using the Pauli matrices $`\sigma _s(s=x,y,z)`$ defined for qubit states $`|0`$ and $`|1`$, we write the tensor product operatorRau1  $`S^{ab}=\frac{1}{2}(I+\sigma _z^a+\sigma _z^b\sigma _z^a\sigma _z^b)`$ acting on particles $`a`$ and $`b`$. Experimentally, this can be easily realized as a time evolution governed by the Ising-type interaction Hamiltonian, i.e. $`H_I=\mathrm{}g\underset{ba=1}{}\sigma _z^a\sigma _z^b`$ for a spin-lattice systemsBri  or a cold atom system in optical latticesDu . Define $`|\pm _s=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0_s\pm |1_s)`$($`s=1,2,3,..)`$. It is easy to check that $`S^{ab}`$ transfer four factorized states $`\{|\pm _a|\pm _b`$,$`|\pm _a|_b\}`$ of particles $`a`$ and $`b`$ into four Bell basis vectors $`|B_{\pm 1}(ab)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0_a|_b\pm |1_a|+_b)`$ and $`|B_{\pm 0}(ab)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0_a|+_b`$ $`\pm `$ $`|1_a|_b)`$. Therefore, for a given two particle wave function $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{ab}`$, the quantum measurements on its unitary transformation $`S^{ab}`$ $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{ab}`$ with respect to four states $`|\pm _a|\pm _b`$ and $`|\pm _a|_b`$ are exactly equivalent to a Bell-measurement with respect to $`|B_{\pm 1}(ab)`$ and $`|B_{\pm 0}(ab)`$. In this sense the results of the single particle measurements on $`|\pm _a`$ and $`|\pm _b`$ will determinate the Bell-measurements on $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{ab}`$. We call this “two-step Bell-measurement”.

With the above observations we now turn to consider how to teleport a state of a single particle located in site $`1`$ of the lattice to another particle located in site $`3`$. Since the controlled evolution governed by the above mentioned “Ising” type interaction plus the single particle measurements can realize a two-step Bell-measurement, a quantum telportation can be naturally viewed as an identity quantum logic gate on the one way quantum compute. To be more concrete, we consider the simplest quantum logic network which can implement the identity gateRau1  shown in Fig. 1. There is a linear array of three sites on lattice and three spins attached on these sites interact with each other through the “Ising” type interaction. For this physical system we can propose our protocol of quantum teleportation using cluster states in three steps:

I. Initially, Alice holds two particles $`1`$ and $`2`$ and let the particle $`1`$ be in an unknown state $`|\psi _{in}=|\pi (\alpha ,\beta )=`$ $`\alpha |0_1+\beta |1_1`$ (where $`|\alpha |^2+|\beta |^2=1`$) and the particle $`2`$ in the state $`|+_2`$. Bob holds particle $`3`$ in the state $`|+_3`$. After an evolution derived by the Ising type interaction for a length time $`t`$ (governed by the equation $`\pi =g(t)𝑑t`$), the unitary transformation $`S=S^{12}S^{23}`$ on the initial product state$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=|\pi _1(\alpha ,\beta )|+_2|+_3`$ will result in a three particle entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$. It is noticed that, since $`S^{12}`$ commutes with $`S^{23}`$, the unitary transformation $`S`$ can be decomposed into two independent sub-steps.

II. Alice measure $`\sigma _x^1`$ and $`\sigma _x^2`$ for her particles $`1`$ and $`2`$ in the single-particle basis $`|\pm `$ respectively and then tell Bob which $`(x_{1,}x_2)`$ of the four possible results about $`\frac{1}{2}(\sigma _x^{(1)}+1`$ $`)`$ and $`\frac{1}{2}(\sigma _x^{(2)}+1`$ $`)`$, where $`x_1,x_2(0,1)(+,)`$. In this sense the total wave function $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ collapses onto

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_3(t)x_{1,}x_2|S^{12}S^{23}|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=B_\eta |S^{23}|\mathrm{\Psi }(0).$$
(1)
That is just the projection of $`|\mathrm{\Phi }(t)=S^{23}|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)`$ onto the Bell basis $`|B_\eta =S^{12}|x_{1,}x_2`$, where the role of $`S^{23}`$ (which transforms the factorized state $`|+_2|+_3`$ to a maximally entangled state $`\frac{1}{2}(|0_2|_3+|1_2|+_3)`$) is to distribute an entanglement source to Alice and Bob.

III. According to this result $`(x_1,x_2)`$ Bob make an $`(\alpha ,\beta )independent`$ unitary transformation

$$U_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=(\sigma _x^{(3)})^{x_2+1}(\sigma _z^{(3)})^{x_1+1}$$
(2)
on his particle $`3`$ to obtain unknown state $`|\pi _3(\alpha ,\beta )=\alpha |0_3+\beta |1_3`$ for particle $`3`$ exactly. In fact, according to the “one way quantum computer ” theoryRau1 , we have the measurement induced output $`|\psi _{out}=U_\mathrm{\Sigma }|\psi _{in}`$. Here, $`U_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the extra rotation we should carry out in order to finish our task of teleportation. Since we measure particles $`1`$ and $`2`$ in $`\sigma _x`$ basis, $`U_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ must belong to the Pauli algebra generated by $`\sigma _s^{(3)}(s=1,2,3)`$ and thus has the form $`U_\mathrm{\Sigma }=(\sigma _z^{(3)})^{x_1+1}(\sigma _x^{(3)})^{x_2+1}`$, which is determined by the outcomes of measurement results ($`+,`$) in $`\sigma _x`$ basis. Thus a one-way unitary transformation $`U_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ is sufficient to transform particle $`3`$ to$`|\pi _3(\alpha ,\beta )|\psi _{in}`$.

It is noticed that the steps I and II together implement an identity quantum logic gate on the cluster. However, it should be emphasized that the quantum teleportation cannot be implemented only using cluster state and one-qubit measurement. Indeed, the step III must be carried out, i.e. we should make a unitary transformation on the output particle $`3`$ to ensure that the state of particle $`3`$ is exactly that one of particle $`1`$. This is the main difference between quantum teleportation and quantum computation based on cluster state. In fact, in the measurement-based quantum computation, we only need the output $`|\psi _{out}=U_\mathrm{\Sigma }|\psi _{in}`$ (other than $`|\psi _{in}`$) itself to readout the result of computing. Finally we come to the conclusion that, to implement quantum teleportation on a cluster is equivalent to realize an identity quantum logic gate on the same cluster. Thus, our task remains to construct a quantum logic network to implement an identity quantum logic gate and find the explicit form of the unitary transformation $`U_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in terms of the outcomes of the measurements.

Based on the detailed analysis above, it is straightforward to suggest a general protocol for cluster-based quantum teleportation to transport $`multi`$-qubit information between the two sets of qubits located on the lattice sites with a long distance. Essentially, it is a general identity quantum logic gate realized with a quantum network formed by a cluster plus the appropriate single particle measurements (as Fig.2). This cluster-based quantum network can be formally divided into three parts, the input $`(I)`$ unit with $`N`$ qubits, the output unit $`(O)`$ with $`N`$ qubits and the connection block $`(B)`$-the body part. When we input a $`N`$ qubit state $`|\psi _{in}`$, the output $`|\psi _{out}=U_\mathrm{\Sigma }|\psi _{in}`$ is induced by the single qubit measurements performed simultaneously on all sites of $`I`$ and $`B`$. This seems simple, but one should pay attention to the corresponding problem of information cost. As well-known, to teleport an arbitrary $`N`$-qubits states, at least $`N`$ ebits ($`N`$ entanglement pairs) and $`2N`$ classical bits of information must be used. Can we reach this tightly lower bound using an entangled cluster state? The answer is affirmative and we will also show how to build the quantum logic network to realize such quantum communication with the tightly lower bound of cost of information as follows. A one-dimensional chain cluster is sufficient to realize our entanglement sources. In fact, we can use ordered indices to label qubits in the one-dimensional cluster of $`M(`$even number$`)`$ qubits. Therein the qubits with odd and even indices (odd- and even-bit)can form two subsystems with $`M/2`$ qubits respectively. Then a maximally entangled state can form between these two subsystems. This conclusion can be reached by observing that, by measuring all the qubits with odd indices in the chain cluster with respect to the $`\sigma _z`$ -basis, all the qubits with even indices will be projected onto the $`\sigma _x`$ -basis. Then there is a one-to-one correspondence between the measurement result and the projection result. Thus, we will have $`N`$-ebits of entanglement if we use a one-dimensional cluster state of $`2N`$-qubits and give the odd-qubits to Alice and the even-qubits to Bob.

With above general consideration for the information cost in the cluster-based teleportation of $`N`$-qubits, we can embark on constructing a proper cluster to implement quantum teleportation of unknown $`N`$ qubit state. Without loss of generality, we consider the quantum teleportation of $`2`$-qubit state on the six qubit cluster as shown in Fig. 2 (a).

According to Ref. Rau1 , the corresponding cluster state is defined by the following equations:

$`\sigma _x^{(1)}\sigma _z^{(3)}\sigma _z^{(4)}|\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`|\varphi ,`$ (3)
$`\sigma _x^{(2)}\sigma _z^{(4)}|\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`|\varphi ,`$ (4)
$`\sigma _z^{(1)}\sigma _x^{(3)}\sigma _z^{(5)}|\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`|\varphi ,`$ (5)
$`\sigma _z^{(1)}\sigma _z^{(2)}\sigma _x^{(4)}\sigma _z^{(5)}\sigma _z^{(6)}|\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`|\varphi ,`$ (6)
$`\sigma _z^{(3)}\sigma _z^{(4)}\sigma _x^{(5)}|\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`|\varphi ,`$ (7)
$`\sigma _z^{(4)}\sigma _x^{(6)}|\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`|\varphi .`$ (8)
The above system of equation can be simplified as

$`\sigma _x^{(1)}\sigma _x^{(5)}|\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`|\varphi ,`$ (9)
$`\sigma _x^{(2)}\sigma _x^{(6)}\sigma _z^{(6)}|\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`|\varphi ,`$ (10)
$`\sigma _z^{(1)}\sigma _x^{(3)}\sigma _z^{(5)}|\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`|\varphi ,`$ (11)
$`\sigma _z^{(2)}\sigma _x^{(3)}\sigma _x^{(4)}\sigma _z^{(6)}|\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`|\varphi .`$ (12)
For the measurement pattern Rau1 $`\{\sigma _x^{(1)},\sigma _x^{(2)},\sigma _x^{(3)},\sigma _x^{(4)}\}`$, we obtain the measurement result $`\{s_1,s_2,s_3,s_4\}`$. Based on the theorem $`1`$ in Ref. Rau1 , we conclude that the realized unitary transformation in the two particle Hilbert space of qubit $`5`$ and $`6`$ is an identity $`I`$ . Correspondingly the extra rotation $`U_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is

$$U_\mathrm{\Sigma }=(\sigma _z^{(5)})^{s_1}(\sigma _x^{(5)})^{s_3}(\sigma _z^{(6)})^{s_2}(\sigma _x^{(6)})^{s_3+s_4}.$$
(13)
After obtaining the measurement results through classical channels, one needs to perform the unitary gate $`U_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ in the output unit. Then the input state is determinately teleported to the output unit.

With the aid of the connecting natures of the cluster state, the above quantum teleportaion protocol for $`2`$-qubit state can be generalized directly to the case with $`N`$-qubit state. Along the vertical direction, we extend the above cluster to that with $`3N`$ qubits, shown as in Fig. 2 (c). After measuring Pauli operator $`\sigma _x`$ in the input unit and the connection block of the cluster, thereafter performing the proper unitary transformation, depending on the former measurement results, the quantum teleportaion of $`N`$\- qubit state is completed from the input unit to output part. Another way to extend the protocol is to quantum teleport a state to a longer distance through many medial qubits. Contrast to the above extension along the vertical direction, we extend the cluster along the horizontal direction as in Fig. 2 (b). This expansion might be understood as connection of the basic units of quantum teleportation in sequence. Thus, to complete such quantum teleportation, we also need to measure $`\sigma _x`$ for all the qubits in the input unit and the body part of the cluster, and then to perform a measurement-dependent unitary transformation in the output part. It must be emphasized that *only the collective measurement results (more precisely, the sums of the measured values of $`\sigma _x`$ in every horizontal line)* can influence the final unitary transformation in the output part. Accordingly, the classical information cost to implement this teleportation protocol for every one qubit state is two bits, which is exactly the same as that in the original protocol suggested by Bennett et alBe .

Extending the cluster in both vertical and horizontal directions, we obtain a two dimensional lattice array of qubits as demonstrated in Fig. 2 (d). Obviously, the same procedure as above can complete quantum teleportaion on this lattice. In addition, if provided with a large lattice of spins, we can chose the proper cluster by measuring $`\sigma _z`$ to delete the redundant qubits from the lattice. Then, as long as the cluster for quantum teleportation can be formed in the lattice, we can teleport the state of the input qubits to the output qubits, whichever sites they locate.

So far our investigation has centered in how to teleport the state of qubits using cluster state. Then a natural question arises: Can we quantum teleport the state of qudits ($`d`$-level system) in a similar way? To teleport the state of qudits, it is indispensable to generalize the concept of cluster state of qubits for qudits. Most recently, we have just carried out this generalization successfully Zzxs  and proved two useful theorems parallel to that in Ref. Rau1 . With this generalization we can parallel propose the protocol of qudit based quantum teleportation.

Let us begin with the simplest case—the quantum teleportation of one qudit state. We take a cluster of three qudits as Fig.1. The higher dimensional cluster state Zzxs  is defined by

$`X_1^{}Z_2|\varphi _𝒞`$ $`=`$ $`|\varphi _𝒞,`$ (14)
$`Z_1X_2^{}Z_3|\varphi _𝒞`$ $`=`$ $`|\varphi _𝒞,`$ (15)
$`Z_2X_3^{}|\varphi _𝒞`$ $`=`$ $`|\varphi _𝒞,`$ (16)
where the generalized Pauli operators$`Z`$ and $`X`$ are the generators of quantum plane algebra with $`q^d=1`$ Sun . The $`Z`$-diagonal representation of $`Z`$ and $`X`$ given by

$`Z`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k_0}{\overset{d1}{}}}|kq_d^kk|,`$ (17)
$`X`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{d1}{}}}|kk+1|,`$ (18)
for $`q_d=e^{i\frac{2\pi }{d}}.`$From Eqs. 14-16, we obtain

$`X_1X_3^{}|\varphi _𝒞`$ $`=`$ $`|\varphi _𝒞,`$ (19)
$`Z_1^{}X_2Z_3^{}|\varphi _𝒞`$ $`=`$ $`|\varphi _𝒞.`$ (20)
When we obtain the measurement results $`\{s_1,s_2\}`$ for the measurement pattern $`\{X_1,X_2\}`$, the fundamental theorem $`2`$ proved in Ref. Zzxs  determines the unitary transformation on the third qudit $`UU_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Here, $`U`$ is defined by

$$UX_3U^{}=X_3^{},UZ_3U^{}=Z_3^{},$$
(21)
and $`U_\mathrm{\Sigma }=Z_3^{s_1}X_3^{s_2}`$. To complete this quantum teleportation, one needs to perform a unitary transformation $`U_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}U`$ on the third qudit. Therefore, in the same way as in the qubit case, the above one-qudit quantum teleportation scheme can be extended to the quantum teleportation of $`N`$-qudit state , and even be extended to the quantum teleportation of qudit states through a large two dimensional lattice.

To sum up, we have universally proposed a novel protocol for quantum teleportation of qubits and qudits based on cluster states. According to the analysis about the properties of entanglement resources, a cluster composed of $`3N`$ qubits (or qudits) suffices to teleport a $`N`$ qubit (or qudit) state. When the cluster is extended to form a two or higher dimensional lattice, this protocol of quantum teleportation can still work well.

Acknowledgements

The work of D. L. Z is partially supported by the National Science Foundation of China (CNSF) grant No. 10205022. The work of Z.X is also supported by CNSF (Grant No. 90103004, 10247002).The work of C.P.S is supported by the CNSF( grant No.90203018) and the knowledged Innovation Program (KIP) of the Chinese Academy of Science and the National Fundamental Research Program of China with No 001GB309310.


text:
# Electronic compressibility and charge imbalance relaxation in cuprate superconductors

## Abstract

In the material SmLa1-xSrxCuO4-δ with alternating intrinsic Josephson junctions we explain theoretically the relative amplitude of the two plasma peaks in transmission by taking into account the spatial dispersion of the Josephson Plasma Resonance in $`c`$ direction due to charge coupling. From this and the magnetic field dependence of the plasma peaks in the vortex solid and liquid states it is shown that the electronic compressibility of the CuO2 layers is consistent with a free electron value. Also the London penetration depth $`\lambda _{ab}1100\mathrm{\AA }`$ near $`T_c`$ can be determined. The voltage response in the $`IV`$-curve of a Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8 mesa due to microwave irradiation or current injection in a second mesa is related to the nonequilibrium charge imbalance of quasiparticles and Cooper pairs and from our experimental data the relaxation time $`100\mathrm{p}\mathrm{s}`$ is obtained.

, , , , , , ,

The theoretical analysis of optical and transport properties of intrinsic Josephson junctions in high-$`T_c`$ superconductors allows to extract key microscopic parameters of the CuO2-layers, such as the electronic compressibility and the charge imbalance relaxation rate, which are hard to obtain otherwise.

In optical transmission or reflectivity experiments (cf. Fig. 1a) the Josephson Plasma Resonance (JPR) of Cooper pairs oscillating between the layers, creates a peak in the loss function $`L(\omega )`$ (e.g. in TBCCO ). Recently, in the novel material SmLa1-xSrxCuO4-δ with alternating junctions two plasma peaks were observed with a high ratio of their amplitudes . This can only be explained, if the spatial dispersion of the JPR in $`c`$ direction due to charge fluctuations of the superconducting condensate, is taken into account, see Fig. 2 and Ref. . Using the data in  we find that the electronic compressibility of the layers is consistent with a free electron value. This corresponds to a $`c`$ axis dispersion $`\alpha `$ of the (bare) JPR frequencies, $`\omega _l^2=\omega _{0,l}^2(1+\alpha k_z^2)`$, $`l=1,2`$ with $`\alpha =(ϵ_0/4\pi es)(\mu /\rho )0.4`$ ($`ϵ_0`$ background dielectric constant, $`s=6.3\mathrm{\AA }`$ interlayer distance, $`\mu `$ chemical potential, $`\rho `$ 2d charge density). This result is confirmed by the magnetic field dependence of the plasma peaks , using the dependence of the critical current densities, which is well known in the vortex liquid state and has been newly derived for the vortex solid . The parameter $`\alpha `$ is not only relevant to understand the coupled dynamics of stacks of intrinsic Josephson junctions, e.g. for THz applications, but might also provide an important input for microscopic theories of high-$`T_c`$-superconductivity. Beyond that, the $`c`$-axis quasiparticle conductivity $`\sigma _1410(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{m})^1`$ and the London penentration depth $`\lambda _{ab}=1100\mathrm{\AA }`$ at $`T=10\mathrm{K}`$ (near $`T_c`$) parallel to the layers can be accurately determined. Our theory for $`L(\omega )`$ quantitatively improves Ref.  by taking into account the different conductivities $`\sigma _l`$ in the junctions in accordance with their different current densities and the influence of the discrete atomic structure. Our results are in principle also applicable for microwave absorption experiments in a cavity (Fig. 1b).

From a theoretical point of view the inclusion of the wavevector dependence of the dielectric function $`ϵ(\omega ,𝐤)`$ poses a nontrivial problem and requires to go beyond the conventional Fresnel theory . Generally, for systems with spatial dispersion (e.g. phonons ), multiple eigenmodes with different group velocities are excited in the crystal and at certain extremal frequencies, where the group velocity vanishes, the atomic structure of the crystal enters explicitly in optical properties. The possibility to stop light dynamically by affecting the JPR in an external magnetic field might serve as a building block for a future magneto-optical device, e.g. to store photonic qubits .

Further, we perform two different transport experiments on Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8, in order to investigate nonequilibrium effects beyond the coupling $`\alpha `$ : (1) In $`2`$-point measurements of the $`IV`$-curves in the presence of high-frequency irradiation ($`I_{\mathrm{rf}}`$) of frequency $`f`$ a shift of the voltage of Shapiro steps of $`3\%`$ from the canonical value $`V_s=\mathrm{}f/2e`$ has been observed due to the resistance at the $`NS`$-contact (Fig. 1c, first discussed in ). (2) In the $`IV`$-curves of double-mesa structures an influence of the dc voltage $`V_1`$ measured at one mesa on the dc quasiparticle current $`I_2`$ injected into the other mesa is detected (Fig. 1d). Both effects can be explained by charge-imbalance on the superconducting layers between resistive and superconducting junctions, where Cooper pairs and quasiparticles are transformed into each other. With the help of a recently developed theory  we get the charge imbalance relaxation time as $`70450\mathrm{p}\mathrm{s}`$ (depending on the sample).

In conclusion, the optical spectroscopy of the Josephson plasma resonance in SmLa1-xSrxCuO4-δ suggests a free electronic compressibility of the superconducting CuO2-layers and a London penetration depth $`\lambda _{ab}=1100\mathrm{\AA }`$ near $`T_c`$. From the analysis of the resistive state in the presence of microwave irradiation or current injection a charge imbalance relaxation time of the order $`100\mathrm{p}\mathrm{s}`$ is obtained.

The authors thank for fruitful discussions with G. Blatter, M. Dressel, B. Gorshunov, D. van der Marel, A. Pimenov, and Z.-X. Shen and acknowledge financial support of the Swiss NCCR ”MaNEP”, the U.S. DOE, the German DFG and the Bayerische Forschungsstiftung.