- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Letter
  • Open Access

Monitoring-induced entanglement entropy and sampling complexity

Mathias Van Regemortel1,*, Oles Shtanko2, Luis Pedro García-Pintos1, Abhinav Deshpande3, Hossein Dehghani1, Alexey V. Gorshkov1, and Mohammad Hafezi1

  • 1Joint Quantum Institute and Joint Center for Quantum Information and Computer Science, NIST/University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA
  • 2IBM Quantum, IBM Research – Almaden, San Jose, California 95120, USA
  • 3Institute for Quantum Information and Matter, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA

  • *mvanrege@umd.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 4, L032021 – Published 9 August, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.L032021

Abstract

The dynamics of open quantum systems is generally described by a master equation, which describes the loss of information into the environment. By using a simple model of uncoupled emitters, we illustrate how the recovery of this information depends on the monitoring scheme applied to register the decay clicks. The dissipative dynamics, in this case, is described by pure-state stochastic trajectories, and we examine different unravelings of the same master equation. More precisely, we demonstrate how registering the sequence of clicks from spontaneously emitted photons through a linear optical interferometer induces entanglement in the trajectory states. Since this model consists of an array of single-photon emitters, we show a direct equivalence with Fock-state boson sampling and link the hardness of sampling the outcomes of the quantum jumps with the scaling of trajectory entanglement.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (57)

  1. C. Gardiner and Zoller, Quantum Noise: A Handbook of Markovian and Non-Markovian Quantum Stochastic Methods with Applications to Quantum Optics (Springer, New York, 2004).
  2. J. Dalibard, Y. Castin, and K. Mølmer, Wave-Function Approach to Dissipative Processes in Quantum Optics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 580 (1992).
  3. R. Dum, A. S. Parkins, P. Zoller, and C. W. Gardiner, Monte Carlo simulation of master equations in quantum optics for vacuum, thermal, and squeezed reservoirs, Phys. Rev. A 46, 4382 (1992).
  4. H. J. Carmichael, Quantum Trajectory Theory for Cascaded Open Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2273 (1993).
  5. H. Weimer, A. Kshetrimayum, and R. Orús, Simulation methods for open quantum many-body systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 015008 (2021).
  6. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.L032021 for more details about the master equation invariance and its impact on stochastic trajectory states, the probability of observing a specific quantum jump sequence, a bound on the initial growth of entanglement and, finally, the effect of trajectory entanglement on the statistical fluctuations of sampling the density matrix.
  7. J. I. Cirac, R. Blatt, A. S. Parkins, and P. Zoller, Quantum collapse and revival in the motion of a single trapped ion, Phys. Rev. A 49, 1202 (1994).
  8. V. Bühner and C. Tamm, Resonance fluorescence spectrum of a trapped ion undergoing quantum jumps, Phys. Rev. A 61, 061801(R) (2000).
  9. H. Nha and H. J. Carmichael, Entanglement within the Quantum Trajectory Description of Open Quantum Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 120408 (2004).
  10. P. Kok, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T. C. Ralph, J. P. Dowling, and G. J. Milburn, Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 135 (2007).
  11. J. Gambetta, A. Blais, M. Boissonneault, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, and S. M. Girvin, Quantum trajectory approach to circuit QED: Quantum jumps and the Zeno effect, Phys. Rev. A 77, 012112 (2008).
  12. H. M. Wiseman and J. M. Gambetta, Are Dynamical Quantum Jumps Detector Dependent?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 220402 (2012).
  13. J. C. Bergquist, R. G. Hulet, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Observation of Quantum Jumps in a Single Atom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 1699 (1986).
  14. W. Nagourney, J. Sandberg, and H. Dehmelt, Shelved Optical Electron Amplifier: Observation of Quantum Jumps, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 2797 (1986).
  15. T. Sauter, W. Neuhauser, R. Blatt, and P. E. Toschek, Observation of Quantum Jumps, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 1696 (1986).
  16. D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland, Quantum dynamics of single trapped ions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 281 (2003).
  17. K. Murch, S. Weber, C. Macklin, and I. Siddiqi, Observing single quantum trajectories of a superconducting quantum bit, Nature (London) 502, 211 (2013).
  18. S. Weber, A. Chantasri, J. Dressel, A. N. Jordan, K. Murch, and I. Siddiqi, Mapping the optimal route between two quantum states, Nature (London) 511, 570 (2014).
  19. L. Sun, A. Petrenko, Z. Leghtas, B. Vlastakis, G. Kirchmair, K. Sliwa, A. Narla, M. Hatridge, S. Shankar, J. Blumoff, L. Frunzio, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Tracking photon jumps with repeated quantum non-demolition parity measurements, Nature (London) 511, 444 (2014).
  20. S. Hacohen-Gourgy, L. P. García-Pintos, L. S. Martin, J. Dressel, and I. Siddiqi, Incoherent Qubit Control Using the Quantum Zeno Effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 020505 (2018).
  21. Q. Ficheux, S. Jezouin, Z. Leghtas, and B. Huard, Dynamics of a qubit while simultaneously monitoring its relaxation and dephasing, Nat. Commun. 9, 1926 (2018).
  22. E. Flurin, L. S. Martin, S. Hacohen-Gourgy, and I. Siddiqi, Using a Recurrent Neural Network to Reconstruct Quantum Dynamics of a Superconducting Qubit from Physical Observations, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011006 (2020).
  23. N. Akerman, S. Kotler, Y. Glickman, and R. Ozeri, Reversal of Photon-Scattering Errors in Atomic Qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 103601 (2012).
  24. Z. K. Minev, S. O. Mundhada, S. Shankar, P. Reinhold, R. Gutiérrez-Jáuregui, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. Mirrahimi, H. J. Carmichael, and M. H. Devoret, To catch and reverse a quantum jump mid-flight, Nature (London) 570, 200 (2019).
  25. X. Cao, A. Tilloy, and A. De Luca, Entanglement in a fermion chain under continuous monitoring, SciPost Phys. 7, 024 (2019).
  26. O. Alberton, M. Buchhold, and S. Diehl, Entanglement Transition in a Monitored Free-Fermion Chain: From Extended Criticality to Area Law, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 170602 (2021).
  27. Y. Fuji and Y. Ashida, Measurement-induced quantum criticality under continuous monitoring, Phys. Rev. B 102, 054302 (2020).
  28. M. Van Regemortel, Z.-P. Cian, A. Seif, H. Dehghani, and M. Hafezi, Entanglement Entropy Scaling Transition under Competing Monitoring Protocols, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 123604 (2021).
  29. A. Nahum, J. Ruhman, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, Quantum Entanglement Growth under Random Unitary Dynamics, Phys. Rev. X 7, 031016 (2017).
  30. B. Skinner, J. Ruhman, and A. Nahum, Measurement-Induced Phase Transitions in the Dynamics of Entanglement, Phys. Rev. X 9, 031009 (2019).
  31. B. Collins and P. Śniady, Integration with respect to the Haar measure on unitary, orthogonal and symplectic group, Commun. Math. Phys. 264, 773 (2006).
  32. S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, The computational complexity of linear optics, in Proceedings of the Forty-Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 2011), pp. 333–342.
  33. K. Temme and P. Wocjan, Efficient computation of the permanent of block factorizable matrices, arXiv:1208.6589.
  34. P. Lundow and K. Markström, Efficient computation of permanents, with applications to boson sampling and random matrices, J. Comput. Phys. 455, 110990 (2022).
  35. C.-K. Hong, Z.-Y. Ou, and L. Mandel, Measurement of Subpicosecond Time Intervals Between Two Photons by Interference, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2044 (1987).
  36. T. J. Elliott, W. Kozlowski, S. F. Caballero-Benitez, and I. B. Mekhov, Multipartite Entangled Spatial Modes of Ultracold Atoms Generated and Controlled by Quantum Measurement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 113604 (2015).
  37. D. L. Moehring, P. Maunz, S. Olmschenk, K. C. Younge, D. N. Matsukevich, L.-M. Duan, and C. Monroe, Entanglement of single-atom quantum bits at a distance, Nature (London) 449, 68 (2007).
  38. R. Wiegner, S. Oppel, D. Bhatti, J. von Zanthier, and G. S. Agarwal, Simulating superradiance from higher-order-intensity-correlation measurements: Single atoms, Phys. Rev. A 92, 033832 (2015).
  39. V. Tamma and S. Laibacher, Multi-boson correlation sampling, Quantum Inf. Proc. 15, 1241 (2016).
  40. M. A. Broome, A. Fedrizzi, S. Rahimi-Keshari, J. Dove, S. Aaronson, T. C. Ralph, and A. G. White, Photonic boson sampling in a tunable circuit, Science 339, 794 (2013).
  41. M. Tillmann, B. Dakić, R. Heilmann, S. Nolte, A. Szameit, and P. Walther, Experimental boson sampling, Nat. Photonics 7, 540 (2013).
  42. J. B. Spring, B. J. Metcalf, P. C. Humphreys, W. S. Kolthammer, X.-M. Jin, M. Barbieri, A. Datta, N. Thomas-Peter, N. K. Langford, D. Kundys, J. C. Gates, B. J. Smith, P. G. R. Smith, and I. A. Walmsley, Boson sampling on a photonic chip, Science 339, 798 (2013).
  43. N. Spagnolo, C. Vitelli, M. Bentivegna, D. J. Brod, A. Crespi, F. Flamini, S. Giacomini, G. Milani, R. Ramponi, P. Mataloni, R. Osellame, E. F. Galvão, and F. Sciarrino, Experimental validation of photonic boson sampling, Nat. Photonics 8, 615 (2014).
  44. C. S. Hamilton, R. Kruse, L. Sansoni, S. Barkhofen, C. Silberhorn, and I. Jex, Gaussian Boson Sampling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 170501 (2017).
  45. H.-S. Zhong, H. Wang, Y.-H. Deng, M.-C. Chen, L.-C. Peng, Y.-H. Luo, J. Qin, D. Wu, X. Ding, Y. Hu, P. Hu, X.-Y. Yang, W.-J. Zhang, H. Li, Y. Li, X. Jiang, L. Gan, G. Yang, L. You, Z. Wang et al., Quantum computational advantage using photons, Science 370, 1460 (2020).
  46. D. Gonzalez Olivares, B. Peropadre, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. J. García-Ripoll, Quantum simulation with a boson sampling circuit, Phys. Rev. A 94, 022319 (2016).
  47. B. Peropadre, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. J. García-Ripoll, Equivalence between spin Hamiltonians and boson sampling, Phys. Rev. A 95, 032327 (2017).
  48. D. Perez-Garcia, F. Verstraete, M. Wolf, and J. Cirac, Matrix product state representations, Quantum Inf. Comput. 7, 401 (2007).
  49. D. P. DiVincenzo, C. A. Fuchs, H. Mabuchi, J. A. Smolin, A. Thapliyal, and A. Uhlmann, Entanglement of assistance, in NASA International Conference on Quantum Computing and Quantum Communications (Springer, New York, 1998), pp. 247–257.
  50. J. Emerson, E. Livine, and S. Lloyd, Convergence conditions for random quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. A 72, 060302(R) (2005).
  51. H.-L. Huang, W.-S. Bao, and C. Guo, Simulating the dynamics of single photons in boson sampling devices with matrix product states, Phys. Rev. A 100, 032305 (2019).
  52. C. Oh, K. Noh, B. Fefferman, and L. Jiang, Classical simulation of lossy boson sampling using matrix product operators, Phys. Rev. A 104, 022407 (2021).
  53. A. J. Daley, Quantum trajectories and open many-body quantum systems, Adv. Phys. 63, 77 (2014).
  54. M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, The ITensor software library for tensor network calculations, arXiv:2007.14822.
  55. D. Cifuentes and P. A. Parrilo, An efficient tree decomposition method for permanents and mixed discriminants, Linear Algebra Appl. 493, 45 (2016).
  56. T. Vovk and H. Pichler, Entanglement-Optimal Trajectories of Many-Body Quantum Markov Processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 243601 (2022).
  57. J. Towns, T. Cockerill, M. Dahan, I. Foster, K. Gaither, A. Grimshaw, V. Hazlewood, S. Lathrop, D. Lifka, G. D. Peterson, R. Roskies, J. R. Scott, and N. Wilkins-Diehr, XSEDE: Accelerating scientific discovery, Comput. Sci. Eng. 16, 62 (2014).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 4, L032021– Published 9 August, 2022
  • Received 1 February 2022
  • Accepted 12 July 2022
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation