Introduction Results Conclusions Zeno effect for quantum computation and control Gerardo Paz-Silva (1) , Ali Rezakhani (1,2) , Jason Dominy (1) , Daniel Lidar (1) (1) Center for Quantum Information Science & Technology, University of Southern California (2) Sharif University of Technology, Tehran 2nd International Conference on Quantum Error Correction University of Southern California December 7, 2011 Gerardo Paz-Silva, Ali Rezakhani, JMD, Daniel Lidar arXiv:1104.5507
29
Embed
Zeno effect for quantum computation and controlqserver.usc.edu/qec11/slides/Dominy_QEC11.pdfIntroduction Results Conclusions Youkzee – (Encoded Weak Quantum Zeno Effect) protocol
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
IntroductionResults
Conclusions
Zeno effect forquantum computation and control
Gerardo Paz-Silva(1), Ali Rezakhani(1,2), Jason Dominy(1),Daniel Lidar(1)
(1)Center for Quantum Information Science & Technology,University of Southern California
(2)Sharif University of Technology, Tehran
2nd International Conference on Quantum Error CorrectionUniversity of Southern California
December 7, 2011
Gerardo Paz-Silva, Ali Rezakhani, JMD, Daniel Lidar arXiv:1104.5507
IntroductionResults
Conclusions
The problemThe solutions
That unavoidable bath
System: e.g., n qubits
coupled to
Bath: uncontrollable, unknown, and devious, butbounded in operator norm
H = HS ⊗HB
H = HS ⊗ IB + IS ⊗ HB + HSB
USB = eiHT
Gerardo Paz-Silva, Ali Rezakhani, JMD, Daniel Lidar arXiv:1104.5507
IntroductionResults
Conclusions
The problemThe solutions
That unavoidable bath
System: e.g., n qubits
coupled to
Bath: uncontrollable, unknown, and devious, butbounded in operator norm
H = HS ⊗HB
H = HS ⊗ IB + IS ⊗ HB + HSB
USB = eiHT
Decoherence ...
Gerardo Paz-Silva, Ali Rezakhani, JMD, Daniel Lidar arXiv:1104.5507
IntroductionResults
Conclusions
The problemThe solutions
That unavoidable bath
System: e.g., n qubits
coupled to
Bath: uncontrollable, unknown, and devious, butbounded in operator norm
H = HS ⊗HB
H = HS ⊗ IB + IS ⊗ HB + HSB
USB = eiHT
Decoherence ...
Gerardo Paz-Silva, Ali Rezakhani, JMD, Daniel Lidar arXiv:1104.5507
IntroductionResults
Conclusions
The problemThe solutions
From the arsenal of anti-decoherence solutions
Passive methods:decoherence-free subspaces
Active methods:Closed-loop
Quantum error correction (QEC)Open-loop
Dynamical decouplingQuantum Zeno (QZ) effect: (Misra & Sudarshan, 1977)well known method for protection of given states usingprojective measurements
Gerardo Paz-Silva, Ali Rezakhani, JMD, Daniel Lidar arXiv:1104.5507
IntroductionResults
Conclusions
The problemThe solutions
From the arsenal of anti-decoherence solutions
Passive methods:decoherence-free subspaces
Active methods:Closed-loop
Quantum error correction (QEC)Open-loop
Dynamical decouplingQuantum Zeno (QZ) effect: (Misra & Sudarshan, 1977)well known method for protection of given states usingprojective measurements
Gerardo Paz-Silva, Ali Rezakhani, JMD, Daniel Lidar arXiv:1104.5507
IntroductionResults
Conclusions
The problemThe solutions
From the arsenal of anti-decoherence solutions
Passive methods:decoherence-free subspaces
Active methods:Closed-loop
Quantum error correction (QEC)Open-loop
Dynamical decouplingQuantum Zeno (QZ) effect: (Misra & Sudarshan, 1977)well known method for protection of given states usingprojective measurements
Gerardo Paz-Silva, Ali Rezakhani, JMD, Daniel Lidar arXiv:1104.5507
IntroductionResults
Conclusions
The problemThe solutions
This talk
DesiderataCan we protect an arbitrary state or subspace usingthe QZE?If so, how well, given finite resources? I.e.,finite number of non-projective (weak) measurements
Gerardo Paz-Silva, Ali Rezakhani, JMD, Daniel Lidar arXiv:1104.5507
IntroductionResults
Conclusions
The problemThe solutions
This talk
DesiderataCan we protect an arbitrary state or subspace usingthe QZE?If so, how well, given finite resources? I.e.,finite number of non-projective (weak) measurements
Gerardo Paz-Silva, Ali Rezakhani, JMD, Daniel Lidar arXiv:1104.5507
IntroductionResults
Conclusions
The problemThe solutions
QZ cartoon
measurements slow down system evolution; “watched pot never boils”
T/M
M weak measurements in time T , both M,T <∞
Gerardo Paz-Silva, Ali Rezakhani, JMD, Daniel Lidar arXiv:1104.5507
IntroductionResults
Conclusions
The problemThe solutions
QZ cartoon
measurements slow down system evolution; “watched pot never boils”
T/M
Mao, undated
M weak measurements in time T , both M,T <∞
Gerardo Paz-Silva, Ali Rezakhani, JMD, Daniel Lidar arXiv:1104.5507
IntroductionResults
Conclusions
The problemThe solutions
Weak measurement cartoon
probe
S
HS-probe
Click
Probes interact with the measured system for a finite time δ viaa weak coupling HS−probe.
Measurement strength ε ∝ δ‖HS−probe‖.
Probes are measured projectively, but S is measured “weakly".
Gerardo Paz-Silva, Ali Rezakhani, JMD, Daniel Lidar arXiv:1104.5507
IntroductionResults
Conclusions
The problemThe solutions
Measure & compute
How can we use weak-measurement QZ to protectarbitrary states and simultaneously quantumcompute/control?
Main idea:Encode into a stabilizer quantum error correction (ordetection) codeWeakly measure stabilizer elements or generators of theQECCompute/control by applying the logical operators(elements of normalizer) of the QEC as Hamiltonians.They commute with measurements!
Gerardo Paz-Silva, Ali Rezakhani, JMD, Daniel Lidar arXiv:1104.5507
IntroductionResults
Conclusions
The problemThe solutions
Measure & compute
How can we use weak-measurement QZ to protectarbitrary states and simultaneously quantumcompute/control?
Main idea:Encode into a stabilizer quantum error correction (ordetection) codeWeakly measure stabilizer elements or generators of theQECCompute/control by applying the logical operators(elements of normalizer) of the QEC as Hamiltonians.They commute with measurements!
Gerardo Paz-Silva, Ali Rezakhani, JMD, Daniel Lidar arXiv:1104.5507
Figure: Sister Celine (Mary Celine Fasenmyer). “The subject ofcomputerized proofs of identities begins with the Ph.D. thesis ofSister Celine at the University of Michigan in 1945.”† Her thesisshowed how one can find recurrence relations that are satisfied bysums of hypergeometric terms in a purely algorithmic way.
†M. Petkovšek, H. S. Wilf, and D. Zeilberger, A=B (1996)Gerardo Paz-Silva, Ali Rezakhani, JMD, Daniel Lidar arXiv:1104.5507
Cheaper option: measure only stabilizer generators.Exponentially more efficient in the number ofsimultaneous binary measurements but slowerconvergence of bound to zero.We use the fact that each error anticommutes with at leastone generator⇒ Same bounds but with q = 1.
Gerardo Paz-Silva, Ali Rezakhani, JMD, Daniel Lidar arXiv:1104.5507
Cheaper option: measure only stabilizer generators.Exponentially more efficient in the number ofsimultaneous binary measurements but slowerconvergence of bound to zero.We use the fact that each error anticommutes with at leastone generator⇒ Same bounds but with q = 1.
Gerardo Paz-Silva, Ali Rezakhani, JMD, Daniel Lidar arXiv:1104.5507
Gerardo Paz-Silva, Ali Rezakhani, JMD, Daniel Lidar arXiv:1104.5507
IntroductionResults
Conclusions
Summary and future research
Found rigorous distance bound on weak stabilizermeasurement protocol for protection of arbitrary states orsubspacesShown that in the limit of large number of measurementscan protect encoded information arbitrarily wellWorks for time-dependent Hamiltonians⇒ applications toAQCArgued that we can “compute while protecting” usinglogical operatorsWhat about selective measurements? Do the individualoutcomes exhibit a ‘concentration of measure’ about theaverage as occurs with projective measurements?
Gerardo Paz-Silva, Ali Rezakhani, JMD, Daniel Lidar arXiv:1104.5507
IntroductionResults
Conclusions
Summary and future research
Found rigorous distance bound on weak stabilizermeasurement protocol for protection of arbitrary states orsubspacesShown that in the limit of large number of measurementscan protect encoded information arbitrarily wellWorks for time-dependent Hamiltonians⇒ applications toAQCArgued that we can “compute while protecting” usinglogical operatorsWhat about selective measurements? Do the individualoutcomes exhibit a ‘concentration of measure’ about theaverage as occurs with projective measurements?
Gerardo Paz-Silva, Ali Rezakhani, JMD, Daniel Lidar arXiv:1104.5507