text:
# RISQ - reduced instruction set quantum computers

## 1 Introduction

Notwithstanding dedicated theoretical and experimental efforts, progress in practical implementation of quantum computing is not advancing rapidly. Quantum computing is based on the superposition principle which, when applied to an information carrying system, suggests that parallel processing of a large number of states, e.g., to be identified with inputs to a function, is possible. Only recently it was realized that unitary evolution of superposition states followed by measurements, allowed by quantum theory, provides computational powers, exceeding the one of classical computers . Since then many strategies for practical quantum computing have been investigated. Due to the coincidence of few-qubit quantum computing and ingredients of the advanced field of optimal control , already exercised extensively in molecular magnetic resonance spectroscopy, researchers in that field have been able to rapidly implement a number of theoretical quantum computing proposals , but the molecular systems are not promising for larger scale computation. Ingredients from the past years’ successful experimental control of atoms and single quantized field modes , trapped ions , donor spin states in solids , quantum dots  and Josephson junctions  have been tailored to yield proposals for single qubit and two-qubit operations, scalable, in principle, to quantum computation with an arbitrary number of qubits.

Experimental research groups now study these proposals, and it is clear that we will see much progress in the coming years, but also that quantum computing is not going to be easy. The development of quantum computers and the progress of our research in quantum computing, is further hampered by the fact that a small quantum computer is of little practical use, and so is a large one which only “gets the answer almost right” (in contrast to one that “gets the correct answer, but only sometimes”).

We suggest in this paper to identify applications of quantum computers with reduced capabilities. We shall use the name RISQ computers (Reduced Instruction Set Quantum computers) for such devices, and we present examples of RISQ computers which may be used to solve quantum problems, much in the spirit of Feynman’s proposal for quantum computing . It was suggested by Lloyd  that the restriction of physics problems due to locality and symmetries makes such a computer potentially much less demanding to realize in practice than the general purpose quantum computer. Indeed, we shall show that the reduced capabilities of our RISQ systems may just coincide with these physical restrictions, so that they do not present obstacles to “Feynman quantum computing”. We point out that for atoms and ions, entanglement produced by RISQ mechanisms may improve spectroscopic resolution, atomic clocks, and length and frequency standards. We believe that RISQ ideas will soon lead to operative and useful devices.

We shall focus on practical proposals. In Section 2, we present a scheme for quantum gates and multi-particle entanglement in ion traps, which may be applied for full scale quantum computing, but which may also be applied in a RISQ version without experimental access to individual ions in the trap. In Section 3, we discuss quantum computing with neutral atoms in optical lattices in a RISQ version without access to the individual atoms, useful for simulations of anti-ferromagnetism and for improvement of atomic clocks beyond the fundamental projection noise limit. Section 4 concludes the paper with an optimistic view on quantum information processing as a tool in physics.

## 2 Ion trap quantum computers

### 2.1 General purpose quantum computing in ion traps

At low temperatures trapped ions freeze into a crystal where the Coulomb repulsion among the ions equilibrates the confining force from the trapping potential. The vibrations of the ions are strongly coupled due to the Coulomb interaction, and in the harmonic oscillator approximation they form a set of collective vibrational modes. One may excite one of these modes by tuning a laser to one of the upper or lower sidebands of the ions, i.e., by choosing the frequency of the laser equal to the resonance frequency of an internal transition in an ion plus or minus the vibrational frequency. The laser is then on resonance with an excitation of the internal transition and a simultaneous change in the vibrational motion. This coupling of internal and external degrees of freedom has been extensively used for precise control of the quantum state of trapped ions , and in 1995 Cirac and Zoller proposed that the ion trap can be used for quantum computing .

In the ion trap quantum computer a qubit is represented by the internal states of an ion. Long lived states, like for instance hyperfine structure states, are preferred. Single qubit rotation and two qubit gates are achieved by focusing a laser on each ion and by exploiting the collective vibrations for interaction between the ions. In the original proposal  the system is restricted to the joint motional ground state of the ions. By tuning a laser to a sideband, a vibration is excited if the ion irradiated is in a certain internal state. Upon subsequent laser irradiation of another ion, the internal state of that ion is changed only if the vibrational motion is excited. At the end of the resulting two-qubit gate the vibrational excitation is removed and additional gates may subsequently be implemented.

Under the assumptions of perfect access to the ions and complete absence of decoherence, the trapped ions can be used to compute any mathematical function, and since the ions can be initially set to a superposition of all register states, one simultaneously obtains the evaluation of all function values - the magic parallelism of quantum computing. By electron shelving , the state of each qubit can be read out very effectively at the end of the calculation, if one can distinguish fluorescence from the different ions in the trap.

### 2.2 Bichromatic excitation scheme

We now describe our proposal  for the efficient production of a two-qubit Hamiltonian like $`\sigma _{y,i}\sigma _{y,j}`$, where the Pauli matrices acting on individual ions $`i`$ and $`j`$ represent the two-level qubit systems, e.g., with $`|0_i`$ and $`|1_i`$ being the eigenstates of $`\sigma _{z,i}`$. A Hamiltonian proportional with $`\sigma _{y,i}`$ provides a rotation between the two states $`|0_i`$ and $`|1_i`$, and products of such operators provide conditional operations which suffice to build a general purpose quantum computer.

We illuminate the two ions of interest with light of two different frequencies, $`\omega _{1,2}=\omega _{eg}\pm \delta `$, where $`\omega _{eg}`$ is the internal state transition frequency, and $`\delta `$ is a detuning, not far from the trap frequency $`\nu `$. In Fig. 1, we illustrate the action of such a bichromatic laser field on the state of the two ions of interest. As shown in the figure, the initial and final states $`|ggn`$ and $`|een`$, separated by $`2\omega _{eg}=\omega _1+\omega _2`$ are resonantly coupled, and so are the degenerate states $`|egn`$ and $`|gen`$, where the first (second) letter denotes the internal state $`e`$ or $`g`$ of the $`i^{th}`$ ($`j^{th}`$) ion and $`n`$ is the quantum number for the relevant vibrational mode of the trap. These resonant couplings lead to an effective Hamiltonian of the form $`\sigma _i^+\sigma _j^++\sigma _i^{}\sigma _j^{}\sigma _i^+\sigma _j^{}\sigma _i^{}\sigma _j^+\sigma _{y,i}\sigma _{y,j}`$.

The restriction of the dynamics to the resonantly coupled states applies in two interesting limits:

#### 2.2.1 Weak fields

We can choose the fields so weak and the detuning from the sideband so large that the intermediate states with $`n\pm 1`$ photons are not populated in the process. It turns out  that as long as the ions remain in the Lamb-Dicke regime, i.e., their spatial excursions are restricted to a small fraction of the wavelength of the exciting radiation, the internal state transition is insensitive to the vibrational quantum number $`n`$. This is due to interference between the interaction paths: The transition via an upper sideband excitation $`|n+1`$, has a strength of $`n+1`$ ($`\sqrt{n+1}`$ from raising and $`\sqrt{n+1}`$ from lowering the vibrational quantum number), and the transition via $`|n1`$ yields a factor of $`n`$. Due to opposite signs of the intermediate state energy mismatch, the terms interfere destructively, and the $`n`$ dependence disappears from the coupling.

The coherent evolution of the internal atomic state is thus insensitive to the vibrational quantum numbers, and it may be observed with ions in any superposition or mixture of vibrational states, even if the ions exchange vibrational energy with a surrounding reservoir. The control of the thermal motion is of great difficulty in ion trap experiments, and the tolerance to vibrations is a major asset of our bichromatic proposal. In the RISQ section below, we show that the bichromatic gate can also be applied with interesting results without individual access to the ions in the trap, which removes another technical complication for experiments.

#### 2.2.2 Strong fields

In the Lamb-Dicke limit with lasers detuned by $`\pm \delta `$ our bichromatic interaction Hamiltonian can be written in the interaction picture with respect to the atomic and vibrational Hamiltonian

$$H_{\text{int}}=\sqrt{2}\eta \mathrm{\Omega }J_y[x\mathrm{cos}(\nu \delta )t+p\mathrm{sin}(\nu \delta )t],$$
(1)
where we have introduced the dimensionless position and momentum operators for the centre-of-mass vibrational mode $`x=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(a+a^{})`$ and $`p=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}(a^{}a)`$, and where we have introduced the collective internal state observable $`J_y=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}(\sigma _{y,i}+\sigma _{y,j})`$ of the two ions illuminated. $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the Rabi frequency of the field-atom coupling, and $`\eta `$ is the Lamb-Dicke parameter.

The exact propagator for the Hamiltonian (1) can be represented by the ansatz

$$U(t)=\mathrm{e}^{iA(t)J_y^2}\mathrm{e}^{iF(t)J_yx}\mathrm{e}^{iG(t)J_yp},$$
(2)
where the Schrödinger equation $`i\frac{d}{dt}U(t)=HU(t)`$ leads to the expressions $`F(t)=\sqrt{2}\eta \mathrm{\Omega }_0^t\mathrm{cos}((\nu \delta )t^{})𝑑t^{},G(t)=\sqrt{2}\eta \mathrm{\Omega }_0^t\mathrm{sin}((\nu \delta )t^{})𝑑t^{}`$, and $`A(t)=\sqrt{2}\eta \mathrm{\Omega }_0^tF(t^{})\mathrm{sin}((\nu \delta )t^{})𝑑t^{}`$.

If $`F(t)`$ and $`G(t)`$ both vanish after a period $`\tau `$, the propagator reduces to $`U(\tau )=\mathrm{e}^{iA(\tau )J_y^2}`$ at this instant, i.e., the vibrational motion is returned to its original state, be it the ground state or any vibrationally excited state, and we are left with an internal state evolution which is independent of the external vibrational state . Note that $`(\sigma _y)^2=1`$ implies that $`J_y^2=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4}(2+2\sigma _{y,i}\sigma _{y,j})`$, yielding precisely the interaction that we need. The timing so that $`G(\tau )`$ and $`F(\tau )`$ vanish allows faster gate operation than in Section 2.2.1, because we tolerate that the internal state is strongly entangled with the vibrational motion in the course of the the gate.

For comparison we show in Fig. 2 the accomplishments of (a) the slow gate and (b) the fast gate evolution. The slow gate is correctly described by Eq. (2), which simplifies because $`F(t)`$ and $`G(t)`$ are always small. The slow gate may be stopped when $`A(t)(\mathrm{\Omega }\eta )^2t/(\nu \delta )`$ has acquired its desired value, irrespective of the current, small values of $`F(t)`$ and $`G(t)`$. (For illustrational purposes, small but non-zero values of $`F(t)`$ and $`G(t)`$ were chosen, leading to the small fast oscillations in the figure). To implement the fast gate with a specific value of $`A(\tau )`$, one must choose parameters to fulfill $`F(\tau )=G(\tau )=0`$. In Fig. 2 (b) $`F(\tau )=G(\tau )=0`$ is achieved at the times $`\tau \nu k125`$, where $`k`$ is any integer.

### 2.3 RISQ computing in ion traps

#### 2.3.1 Feynman computing

The trapped ions or suitable subspaces of states of the ions can be used to represent other physical systems with the same Hilbert space dimension. In the spirit of Feynman’s proposal for quantum computing , the trapped ions may thus be used for simulation of such other systems.

Let us consider a specific example, where we apply Hamiltonians which are acting identically on all ions, e.g., because laser fields extend over the whole ion cloud rather than being focused down on one or two ions. It follows that a state of the system, which is initially symmetrical under exchange of different ions, will remain symmetrical. A convenient representation of such states is given by the eigenstates of a fictitious total angular momentum, $`|JM`$, the so-called Dicke states . (Every single two-level ion is generically described by $`2\times 2`$ Pauli spin matrices, and the associated fictitious spin 1/2 add up to a total $`J=N/2`$ angular momentum.)

In the Dicke representation, $`N=2J`$ is the total number of ions, and $`M`$ counts the number of excited ions, $`N_e=J+M`$. A single resonant laser field, which excites all ions with same amplitude acts as the angular momentum raising operator $`J_+`$ on the symmetrical states (and the adjoint lowering operator $`J_{}`$), and effectively it acts as a geometrical rotation of the state vector. Other operators like $`J_y^2`$ are of more interest, in particular if the interaction can be applied to the system in a pulsed fashion to yield the kicked, non-linear rotor, which is a key example of a classically chaotic system.

It is of course not sufficient to make the identification between the states of the relevant system and the states of the trapped ions. We also have to find a way to implement the collective $`J_y^2`$ Hamiltonian. In terms of individual raising and lowering operators, it is apparently necessary to introduce interactions among all the particles of the form of the single pair interaction described in the previous subsection. This, however, turns out to be easier than to carry out even a single two-qubit computation: If the trap contains a larger number of ions, which are all illuminated by the bichromatic light, any two ions can together resonantly perform the transitions illustrated in Fig, 1, and the Hamiltonian automatically involves the sum over all pairs in the trap. This sum is nothing but the collective operator $`J_y^2`$.

The interest in studying the $`J_y^2`$ Hamiltonian was recently stressed by Milburn , and it is emphasized by Haake  in this issue of J. Mod. Opt. By a simple translation of Haake’s arguments for the atom-cavity coupling to the mathematically equivalent trapped ion dynamics, we observe that if ions with more than two levels are used, interaction Hamiltonians of a more complicated structure can be tailored, to simulate, e.g., the SU(2) Lipkin model .

#### 2.3.2 Multiparticle entanglement

It turns out  that the multi-atom collective operator $`J_y^2=(\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\sigma _{y,i})^2`$ generates a maximally entangled state if it is applied to a whole ensemble of ground state ions,

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }=|gg\mathrm{}g{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi _g}|gg\mathrm{}g+\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi _e}|ee\mathrm{}e).`$ (3)
These states have several very interesting applications both in fundamental physics and technology. They are Schrödinger cat superpositions of states of mesoscopic separation, and they are ideal for spectroscopic investigations.

In current frequency standards the atoms or ions are independent, and when they are interrogated by the same field, the outcome of a measurement fluctuates as the square root of the number of atoms $`N`$. The relative frequency uncertainty in samples with many atoms thus behaves like $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}`$. If the duration of the measurement is shorter than the coherence time of the atomic coherence, which is typically the case in atomic frequency standards, by binding the ions together as in Eq. (3) we are sensitive to the Bohr frequency between $`|gg\mathrm{}g`$ and $`|ee\mathrm{}e`$ which is proportional to $`N`$, and consequently the frequency uncertainty is proportional to $`\frac{1}{N}`$ . If the duration of the frequency measurement exceeds the time scale of internal atomic decoherence $`\tau _{dec}`$, the shorter coherence time $`\tau _{dec}/N`$ of the entangled state actually leads to the same resolution for that state and for an uncorrelated ensemble of atoms .

The successful implementation of our proposal to produce the state in Eq. (3) with four ions was recently reported by the NIST group in Boulder .

## 3 Optical lattice quantum computers

### 3.1 General purpose quantum computing in optical lattices

In Refs.  two different methods to perform a coherent evolution of the joint state of pairs of atoms in an optical lattice were proposed. Both methods involve displacement of two optical lattices with respect to each other. Each lattice traps one of the two internal states $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ of the atoms. Initially, the two lattices are on top of each other and the atoms are assumed to be cooled to the vibrational ground state in the lattices. The lattice containing the $`|1`$ component of the wavefunction is now displaced so that if an atom (at the lattice site $`k`$) is in $`|1`$, it is transferred to the vicinity of the neighbouring atom (at the lattice site $`k+1`$) if this is in $`|0`$, causing an interaction between the two atoms. See Fig. 3. The atoms interact through controlled collisions or through optically induced dipole-dipole interactions. After the interaction, the lattices are returned to their initial position and the internal states of each atom may be subject to single particle unitary evolution. The displacement and the interaction with the neighbour yields a certain phase shift $`\varphi `$ on the $`|1_k|0_{k+1}`$ component of the wavefunction, i.e.,

$`|0_k|0_{k+1}`$ $`|0_k|0_{k+1}`$ $`|0_k|1_{k+1}|0_k|1_{k+1}`$
$`|1_k|0_{k+1}`$ $`e^{i\varphi }|1_k|0_{k+1}`$ $`|1_k|1_{k+1}|1_k|1_{k+1},`$ (4)
where $`|a_k`$ ($`a=0`$ or $`1`$) refers to the state of the atom at the $`k`$’th lattice site. In  it is suggested to build a general purpose quantum computer in an optical lattice based on the two-atom gates in Eq. (4) and single atom control, which is possible by directing a laser beam on each atom.

### 3.2 RISQ computing in optical lattices

Individual access to atoms in an optical lattice is not a realistic demand. The lattice sites are spaced by only a fraction of the optical wave length, and hence focusing of a light beam will not yield single site resolution. One may construct field configurations or magnetic micro-traps with periods larger than optical wavelengths  and still use the internal state selective translation and interaction to implement the two-qubit gate. In this section, however, we shall show that there may be interesting possibilities in the optical lattices, despite the lack of access to the individual atoms. We describe how atoms in an optical lattice may be manipulated to simulate spin-spin interactions which are used to describe ferro-magnetism and antiferro-magnetism in condensed matter physics . We also show that with a specific choice of interaction we may generate spin squeezed states  which may be used to enhance spectroscopic resolution, e.g., in atomic clocks.

#### 3.2.1 Feynman computing in an optical lattice

Our two level quantum systems conveniently describe spin $`1/2`$ particles with the two states $`|0_k`$ and $`|1_k`$ representing eigenstates of the $`j_{z,k}`$-operator $`j_{z,k}|m_k=m|m_k,m_z=\pm 1/2`$ ($`\mathrm{}=1`$). The phase-shifted component of the wavefunction in Eq. (4) can thus be identified with the operator $`(j_{z,k}+1/2)(j_{z,k+1}1/2)`$, and the total evolution composed of the lattice translations and the interaction induced phase shift may be described by the unitary operator $`e^{iHt}`$ with the Hamiltonian $`H=\chi (j_{z,k}+1/2)(j_{z,k+1}1/2)`$ and time $`t=\varphi /\chi `$. In a filled lattice all atoms are brought into contact with their nearest neighbour according to (4), and the evolution is described by the Hamiltonian $`H=\chi _k(j_{z,k}+1/2)(j_{z,k+1}1/2)`$.

If we neglect boundary terms this Hamiltonian reduces to

$$H_{zz}=\chi \underset{<k,l>}{}j_{z,k}j_{z,l},$$
(5)
where the sum is over nearest neighbours. By appropriately displacing the lattice we may extend the sum to nearest neighbours in two and three dimensions. $`H_{zz}`$ coincides with the Ising-model Hamiltonian  introduced to describe ferro-magnetism. Hence, by elementary lattice displacements we perform a quantum simulation of a ferro-magnet (or of an antiferro-magnet depending on the sign of $`\chi `$). This is an extraordinary example of Feynman quantum computing which is grossly simplified by the locality and the translational invariance of the physical model.

A resonant $`\pi /2`$-pulse acting simultaneously on all atoms rotates the $`j_z`$-operators into $`j_x`$-operators, $`e^{ij_{y,k}\pi /2}j_{z,k}e^{ij_{y,k}\pi /2}=j_{x,k}`$. Hence, by applying $`\pi /2`$-pulses, in conjunction with the displacement sequence, we turn $`H_{zz}`$ into $`H_{xx}`$ and $`H_{yy}`$, the second and third term in the more general Heisenberg-model Hamiltonian

$$H_f=\underset{<k,l>}{}\chi j_{z,k}j_{z,l}+\eta j_{x,k}j_{x,l}+\lambda j_{y,k}j_{y,l}.$$
(6)
By adjusting the duration of the interaction with the neighbours we may adjust the coefficients $`\chi `$, $`\eta `$ and $`\lambda `$ to any values. We cannot, however, produce $`H_f`$ by simply applying $`H_{zz}`$ for the desired time $`t`$, followed by $`H_{xx}`$ and $`H_{yy}`$, because the different Hamiltonians in Eq. (6) do not commute. Instead we choose short time steps, i.e., small phase shifts $`\varphi `$ in Eq. (4), and by repeated application of $`H_{zz}`$, $`H_{xx}`$ and $`H_{yy}`$, we approximate the action of $`H_f`$ with an error of order $`\varphi ^2`$.

A host of magnetic phenomena may now be simulated on our optical lattice: Spin waves, solitons, topological excitations, two magnon bound states, etc. Models for magnetic phenomena have interesting thermodynamic behaviour and we propose to carry out calculations for non-vanishing temperature by optically pumping a fraction of the atoms to the $`|1/2`$ state. The randomness of the pumping introduces entropy into the system and produces a micro-canonical  realization of a finite temperature.

The results of the simulation may be read out by optical diffraction of light, sensitive to the internal atomic states. Although individual atoms may not be resolved, optical detection may also be used to read out magnetic structures on a spatial scale of a few lattice periods.

For a few atoms the system may be simulated numerically on a classical computer. In Fig. 4 we show the propagation of a spin wave in a one-dimensional string of 15 atoms which are initially in the $`|1/2`$ state. For illustrational purposes we assume that the central spin is flipped at $`t=0`$. The Hamiltonian (6) which can be implemented without access to the individual atoms then causes a spin wave to propagate to the left and right.

So far we have assumed that the lattice contains one atom at each lattice site and that all atoms are cooled to the vibrational ground state. The present experimental status in optical lattices is that atoms can be cooled to the vibrational ground-state in 2D . A mean filling factor of unity in 3D is reported in , but when at most a single atom is permitted at each lattice site a mean occupation of 0.44 is achieved. The interaction in a partially filled lattice may be described by the Hamiltonian $`H=_{k,l}\chi _{k,l}h_k(j_{z,k}+1/2)h_l(j_{z,l}1/2)`$, where the stochastic variable $`h_k`$ is $`1`$ $`(0)`$ if a lattice site is filled (empty), and where the coupling constants $`\chi _{k,l}`$ between atoms $`k`$ and $`l`$ vanish unless the atoms are brought into contact by the lattice displacements. If we displace the atoms so that $`\chi _{k,l}`$ is symmetric in $`k`$ and $`l`$, we produce the Hamiltonian $`H=_{k,l}\chi _{k,l}h_kj_{x,k}h_lj_{x,l}.`$ This Hamiltonian models magnetism in random structures, and it might shed light on morphology properties, and, e.g., percolation .

#### 3.2.2 Multi-particle entanglement and spin squeezing

Polarization rotation spectroscopy and high precision atomic fountain clocks are now limited by the $`1/\sqrt{N}`$ sensitivity discussed in Sec. 2.3.2 . In  it is suggested to produce spin squeezed states which redistribute the uncertainty unevenly between collective spin components like $`J_x`$ and $`J_y`$, so that measurements, sensitive to the component with reduced uncertainty, become more precise. Spin squeezing resulting from absorption of non-classical light has been suggested  and demonstrated experimentally . Ref.  presents an analysis of squeezing obtained from the non-linear couplings $`H=\chi J_x^2`$ and $`H=\chi (J_x^2J_y^2)`$. The product $`J_x^2`$ involves terms $`j_{x,k}j_{x,l}`$ for all atoms $`k`$ and $`l`$, and this coupling may be produced by displacing the lattices several times so that the $`|1/2`$ component of each atom visits every lattice site and interacts with all other atoms. In a large lattice such multiple displacements are not desirable, they may be too difficult to control precisely, and they take too much time. We shall show, however, that substantial spin-squeezing occurs through interaction with only a few nearby atoms.

If each atom visits only its nearest neighbour, $`\chi _{k,l}=\chi \delta _{k+1,l}`$, we find that the mean spin vector is in the negative $`z`$ direction and it has the expectation value $`<J_z>=\frac{N}{2}\mathrm{cos}^2(\chi t)`$. The time dependent variance of the spin component $`J_\theta =\mathrm{cos}(\theta )J_x+\mathrm{sin}(\theta )J_y`$ with $`\theta =\pi /4`$ is obtained by a lengthy, but straightforward, calculation

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }J_{\pi /4})^2=\frac{N}{4}\left[1+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{sin}^2(\chi t)\mathrm{sin}(\chi t)\right].$$
(7)
Fig. 5 (a) shows the evolution of $`(\mathrm{\Delta }J_\theta )^2`$ when we visit 1, 2, and 3 neighbours. We assume the same phase shift for all collisions, i.e., all non-vanishing $`\chi _{k,l}`$ are identical. The squeezing angle $`\theta =\pi /4`$ is optimal for short times $`\chi t<<1`$. For longer times the optimal angle deviates from $`\pi /4`$, and we plot the variance $`(\mathrm{\Delta }J_\theta )^2`$ minimized with respect to the angle $`\theta `$. If $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\mathrm{e}^{i\theta /2}|1/2+\mathrm{e}^{i\theta /2}|1/2)`$ is rotated into $`|1/2`$, subbinomial counting statistics of the $`|1/2`$ population provides an easily accessible experimental signature of squeezing of $`J_\theta `$.

In  it is shown that if spectroscopy is performed with $`N`$ particles, the reduction in the frequency variance due to squeezing is given by the quantity

$$\xi ^2=\frac{N\mathrm{\Delta }J_\theta ^2}{J_z^2},$$
(8)
and in Fig. 5 (b) we show the minimum value of $`\xi ^2`$ as a function of the number of neighbours visited. We have performed simulations of squeezing in a partially filled one dimensional lattice. In our model each lattice site contains an atom with a probability $`p`$, and the size of the lattice is adjusted to accommodate 15 atoms. The calculations shown in Fig. 5 (b) demonstrate that considerable squeezing may be achieved by visiting just a few neighbours even in dilute lattices.

## 4 Outlook

Our examples with ion trap and optical lattice quantum computers explicitly confirm the assumption  that a quantum computer aimed at the solution of a quantum problem may be easier to realize in practice than a general purpose quantum computer, because the desired solution is governed by physical interactions which are constrained, e.g., by locality and symmetries.

The problems addressed here, the kicked non-linear rotor, the Lipkin model, and the Heisenberg model of ferromagnetism and anti-ferromagnetism, almost implement themselves in the quantum computer proposals with trapped ions and atoms. The arguments are general, and one may readily conclude that other proposals for quantum computing offer similar approaches to these models, and that a large variety of quantum physics problems may be implemented much more easily than the more mathematical algorithms of Shor  and Grover .

If a computation can be carried out with only few operations and in a very short time, the problem of errors is substantially reduced, and it seems realistic that we may soon perform interesting calculations which are really impossible to carry out on a classical computer. Extra optimism derives from the fact that small imprecisions in our manipulation of the system translates into small errors in the value of the physical parameters in the simulated problem, so that, e.g. the spin wave in Figure 4, might move at a different speed, but the essential physics is still preserved. The errors are ’normal’ and may well be below the precision required, unlike the outcome of a factoring or search algorithm, where a wrong result is useless, and where we have to rely on the exact result to appear with finite probability.

Both trapped ions and atoms in optical lattices are systems which can be used in high precision spectroscopic measurements. We have shown that collective operators for an ensemble of ions or atoms can be squeezed, yielding an improvement of the precision in such measurements. Unlike manufactured systems, like quantum dots or Josephson junctions, given isotopes of ions or atoms are identical, and they can serve as primary time standards. There will hence be a continuing demand to improve experiments on these systems, irrespective of their prospects for full scale quantum computation. Already present atomic clocks are operating at the projection noise limit , and multi-particle entanglement and spin-squeezing, in one way or another, will come in handy. Noise reduction derived from multi-particle entanglement provides a macroscopic experimental signature of the microscopic interaction between the atoms, and hence it may help to diagnose gates in an atomic proto-type quantum computer.

Quantum effects are not only subject of experimental investigation. In the hands of experimental physicists wave mechanics is used in SQUIDs and in atom interferometers for sensitive measurements of fields and inertial effects; electron tunneling is used in the scanning tunneling microscopes; the existence of discrete spectral lines is used for metrology; … . Quantum information is in use in physics, and further developments in quantum information can find applications, ranging from the use of spin-squeezed and Schrödinger cat like states to, e.g., Grover’s and Shor’s algorithms as methods to distinguish between external influences on a physical system  and to effectively estimate values of complex phase factors .

We have addressed the use of quantum information as a theorist’s computational tool, and in a recent paper , Preskill envisions the use of quantum computation for a wide range of many-body problems. A ’symbiosis’ between quantum information and these physical problems can even be imagined since, e.g., topological field theories may in turn suggest stronger models and new algorithms for quantum computing .

Quantum computing only works, if it can be implemented on a quantum system. There are good chances that RISQ implementations exist for many of the physics problems amenable to quantum computing. To identify such problems, and maybe even some mathematical problems tractable by RISQ, is both an interesting and useful challenge for quantum information theory.


format: text

text:
# A Possible Cepheid-Like Luminosity Estimator for the Long Gamma-Ray Bursts

## 1 Introduction

Since gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) were first discovered (Klebesadel, Strong, & Olson 1973), thousands of bursts have been detected by a wide variety of instruments, most notably, the Burst and Transient Source Experiment (BATSE) on the Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory (CGRO), which will have detected about 2700 bursts by the end of CGRO’s more than 9 year mission in 2000 June (see, e.g., Paciesas et al. 1999). However, the distance scale of the bursts remained uncertain until 1997, when BeppoSAX began localizing long bursts to a few arcminutes on the sky, and distributing the locations to observers within hours of the bursts. This led to the discovery of X-ray (Costa et al. 1997), optical (van Paradijs et al. 1997), and radio (Frail et al. 1997) afterglows, as well as host galaxies (Sahu et al. 1997). Subsequent observations led to the spectroscopic determination of burst redshifts, using absorption lines in the spectra of the afterglows (see, e.g., Metzger et al. 1997), and emission lines in the spectra of the host galaxies (see, e.g., Kulkarni et al. 1998a). To date, redshifts have been measured for 13 bursts.

Recently, Stern, Poutanen, & Svensson (1999; see also Stern, Svensson, & Poutanen 1997), Norris, Marani & Bonnell (2000; see also Norris, Marani & Bonnell 1999), and Fenimore & Ramirez-Ruiz (2000; see also Ramirez-Ruiz & Fenimore 1999) have proposed trends between burst luminosity and quantities that can be measured directly from burst light curves, for the long bursts. Using 1310 BATSE bursts for which peak fluxes and high resolution light curves were available, Stern, Poutanen, & Svensson (1999) have suggested that simple bursts (bursts dominated by a single, smooth pulse) are less luminous than complex bursts (bursts consisting of overlapping pulses); however, see §5. Using a sample of 7 BATSE bursts for which spectroscopic redshifts, peak fluxes, and high resolution light curves were available, Norris, Marani & Bonnell (2000) have suggested that more luminous bursts have shorter spectral lags (the interval of time between the peak of the light curve in different energy bands). Using the same 7 bursts, Fenimore & Ramirez-Ruiz (2000) have suggested that more luminous bursts have more variable light curves. These trends between luminosity and quantities that can be measured directly from light curves raise the exciting possibility that luminosities, and hence luminosity distances, might be inferred for the long bursts from their light curves alone.

In this paper, we present a possible luminosity estimator for the long bursts, the construction of which was motivated by the work of Ramirez-Ruiz & Fenimore (1999) and Fenimore & Ramirez-Ruiz (2000). We term the luminosity estimator “Cepheid-like” in that it can be used to infer luminosities and luminosity distances for the long bursts from the variabilities of their light curves alone. We apply this luminosity estimator to every long burst in the current BATSE catalog in an upcoming paper (Reichart et al. 2000).

We rigorously construct our measure $`V`$ of the variability of a burst light curve in §2. Qualitatively, $`V`$ is computed by taking the difference of the light curve and a smoothed version of the light curve, squaring this difference, summing the squared difference over time intervals, and appropriately normalizing the result. Our variability measure differs from that of Fenimore & Ramirez-Ruiz (2000) in three important ways: (1) we define the timescale over which the light curve is smoothed differently; (2) we subtract out the contribution to the variability due to Poisson noise differently; and (3) we combine variability measurements of light curves acquired in different energy bands into a single measurement of a burst’s variability differently.

We find that only smoothing timescales that are proportional to burst duration appear to lead to significant correlations between the isotropic-equivalent peak photon luminosity $`L`$ of a burst and $`V`$; in particular, smoothing timescales that are a fixed duration in the source frame do not. We take the smoothing timescale of a burst light curve, acquired in observer-frame energy band $`E`$, to be the time spanned by the brightest $`100f`$% of the total counts above background, where $`f`$ is a number between 0 and 1 that we fix using the data in §4. We schematically illustrate this measure of duration in Figures 1 and 2. In Figure 1, the 50% smoothing timescale of the light curve is given by $`T_{f=0.5}^E=T_1+T_2`$, and the 90% smoothing timescale of the light curve is given by $`T_{f=0.9}^E=T_3`$; in Figure 2, the 50% smoothing timescale of the light curve is given by $`T_{f=0.5}^E=T_4`$, and the 90% smoothing timescale of the light curve is given by $`T_{f=0.9}^E=T_5+T_6`$. We have chosen this measure of the smoothing timescale over others because it is robust: small variations in either the light curve or the value of $`f`$ result in only small variations in the value of the smoothing timescale. This is not the case with measures like $`T_{50}`$ and $`T_{90}`$ (see, e.g., Paciesas et al. 1999).

For example, consider the case of a burst with a precursor. The value of, say, $`T_{90}`$ can differ considerable if the precursor’s counts above background is $`<5`$% versus $`>5`$% of the total counts above background. Likewise, if the precursor’s counts above background is, say, 5% of the total counts above background, the duration that one measures can differ considerably if one uses $`T_{<90}`$ versus $`T_{>90}`$. The effect of using a smoothing timescale that is artificially long (short) is measuring a variability that is artificially high (low). Our measure of the smoothing timescale does not suffer from such robustness problems.

We present our measure of the isotropic-equivalent peak photon luminosity $`L`$ of a burst in §3. In §4, we expand the original Ramirez-Ruiz & Fenimore (1999) sample of 7 bursts to include a total of 20 bursts, including 13 BATSE bursts, 5 Wind/KONUS bursts, 1 Ulysses/GRB burst, and 1 NEAR/XGRS burst. Spectroscopic redshifts, peak fluxes, and high resolution light curves are available for 11 of these bursts; partial information is available for the remaining 9 bursts.

Also in §4, we construct our luminosity estimator, which differs from that of Fenimore & Ramirez-Ruiz (2000) in two important ways: (1) applying the Bayesian inference formalism developed by Reichart (2000), we fit a model to the data that accommodates both intrinsic scatter (statistical variance) in two dimensions and extrinsic scatter (sample variance) in two dimensions; and (2) again applying this Bayesian inference formalism, we determine not only the best estimate for $`L`$ as a function of $`V`$, but also the uncertainty in $`L`$ as a function of $`V`$, as well as approximate these functions with analytic expressions. We state our conclusions in §5.

## 2 The Variability Measure

We now rigorously construct a measure of the variability of a burst light curve. We require it to have the following properties: (1) we define it in terms of physical, source-frame quantities, as opposed to measured, observer-frame quantities; (2) when converted to observer-frame quantities, all strong dependences on redshift and other difficult or impossible to measure quantities cancel out; (3) it is not biased by instrumental binning of the light curve, despite cosmological time dilation and the narrowing of the light curve’s temporal substructure at higher energies (Fenimore et al. 1995); (4) it is not biased by Poisson noise, and consequently can be applied to faint bursts; and (5) it is robust; i.e., similar light curves always yield similar variabilities. We also derive an expression for the statistical uncertainty in a light curve’s measured variability. Finally, we describe how we combine variability measurements of light curves acquired in different energy bands into a single measurement of a burst’s variability.

We first define the variability of a burst light curve, acquired in observer-frame energy band $`E`$, in terms of physical, source-frame quantities:

$$V_f^E=\frac{_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}[L^{E_s}(t_s)(L^{E_s}S_f)(t_s)]^2𝑑t_s}{_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}[L^{E_s}(t_s)]^2𝑑t_s},$$
(1)
where $`L^{E_s}(t_s)`$ is the luminosity of the burst in source-frame energy band $`E_s=E(1+z)`$ as a function of source-frame time $`t_s`$, and $`(L^{E_s}S_f)(t_s)`$ is the convolution of this function and a boxcar smoothing function of area equal to 1 and width equal to the smoothing timescale of $`L^{E_s}(t_s)`$, i.e., the source-frame smoothing timescale of the light curve. Since our definition of the smoothing timescale is a robust measure of duration (§1), Equation (1) is a robust measure of variability.

Next, we convert Equation (1) to observer-frame quantities:

$$V_{f,P}^E=\frac{_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\{C^E(t_o)B^E(t_o)[(C^EB^E)S_f](t_o)\}^2[\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }D^2(z)(1+z)^\alpha ]^2(1+z)^\beta 𝑑t_o}{_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}[C^E(t_o)B^E(t_o)]^2[\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }D^2(z)(1+z)^\alpha ]^2(1+z)^\beta 𝑑t_o}.$$
(2)
Here, $`C^E(t_o)`$ and $`B^E(t_o)`$ are the total (source plus background) and background photon count rates in observer-frame energy band $`E`$ as a function of observer-frame time $`t_o`$, $`[(C^EB^E)S_f](t_o)`$ is the convolution of $`C^E(t_o)B^E(t_o)`$ and a boxcar smoothing function of area equal to 1 and width equal to the smoothing timescale of $`C^E(t_o)B^E(t_o)`$, i.e., $`T_f^E`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the effective solid angle of the emitted light, $`D(z)`$ is the comoving distance to the burst at redshift $`z`$, $`\alpha `$ is either 1 or 2 depending on whether $`L^{E_s}(t_s)`$ is a photon number or energy luminosity, and $`\beta 10.4=0.6`$: the factor of $`(1+z)^1`$ is due to cosmological time dilation, and the factor of $`(1+z)^{0.4}`$ is due to the narrowing of the light curve’s temporal substructure at higher energies (Fenimore et al. 1995). By construction, the strong dependences on $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`z`$, $`\alpha `$, and $`\beta `$, and a weak dependence on the cosmological model, cancel out. Furthermore, since $`B^E(t_o)`$ always varies over much longer timescales than $`T_f^E`$, Equation (2) simplifies to:

$$V_{f,P}^E=\frac{_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}[C^E(t_o)(C^ES_f)(t_o)]^2𝑑t_o}{_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}[C^E(t_o)B^E(t_o)]^2𝑑t_o}.$$
(3)
We distinguish Equations (2) and (3) from Equation (1) with a subscript $`P`$ because they differ in one fundamental way: unlike $`L^{E_s}(t_s)`$ in Equation (1), $`C^E(t_o)`$ suffers from Poisson noise. This additional source of variability biases Equations (2) and (3) to higher values. Although this bias is minor for bursts that are significantly brighter than the background, it cannot be ignored for faint bursts. We determine and subtract out the contribution to the variability due to Poisson noise below.

However, before we can subtract out the contribution to the variability due to Poisson noise, we must first bin the light curve, since observed light curves typically are discrete, not continuous. Consequently, we replace the integrals in Equation (3) with sums from $`i=1`$ to $`N`$, $`C^E(t_o)`$ with $`C_i^E`$, $`B^E(t_o)`$ with $`B_i^E`$, and $`(C^ES_f)(t_o)`$ with its discrete equivalent, $`S_i(C_j^E,N_f^E)`$. Here, $`C_j^E`$ is the light curve to be smoothed, $`N_f^E`$ is the smoothing timescale, i.e., $`T_f^E`$, but measured in number of bins, and

$$S_i(C_j^E,N_x)=\frac{1}{N_x}\left[\underset{j=in_x}{\overset{i+n_x}{}}C_j^E+\left(\frac{N_x1}{2}n_x\right)(C_{in_x1}^E+C_{i+n_x+1}^E)\right],$$
(4)
where $`n_x`$ is the truncated integer value of $`(N_x1)/2`$. Binning can bias the variability measure, since binning wipes out all variability on timescales shorter than the sampling timescale of the light curve, and the effective sampling timescale of the light curve in the source frame decreases with increasing burst redshift: although the sampling timescale of the light curve is fixed by the instrument in the observer frame, (1) cosmological time dilation and (2) the narrowing of the light curve’s temporal substructure at higher energies (Fenimore et al. 1995) decrease the effective sampling timescale of the light curve in the source frame. We remove this redshift bias by smoothing all light curves on a source-frame timescale of 64 ms (the shortest sampling timescale of BATSE), which corresponds to a timescale of $`64(1+z)^\beta `$ ms in the observer frame. Consequently, we replace $`C_i^E`$ with $`S_i(C_j^E,N_z)`$, where $`N_z=64(1+z)^\beta /\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is the observer-frame sampling timescale of the light curve in milliseconds. Equation (3) becomes:

$$V_{f,P}^E=\frac{_{i=1}^N[S_i(C_j^E,N_z)S_i(C_j^E,N_f^E)]^2}{_{i=1}^N[S_i(C_j^E,N_z)B_i^E]^2},$$
(5)
where we take $`C_j^E`$ and $`B_i^E`$ to be measured in counts, not counts per unit time. Although the computation of $`V_{f,P}^E`$ now depends on $`z`$ and $`\beta `$, these dependences are very weak: wide variations in the values of these parameters do not significantly change the measured variabilities of the bursts in our sample; i.e., burst light curves have very little power on such short timescales. Likewise, wide variations in the value of the effective sampling timescale of the light curve that we impose in the source frame also have little effect on the measured variabilities of these bursts.

Now, we determine and subtract out the contribution of Poisson noise to the variability, and simultaneously we derive an expression for the statistical uncertainty in a light curve’s measured variability. First, we rewrite the expressions $`S_i(C_j^E,N_z)S_i(C_j^E,N_f^E)`$ and $`S_i(C_j^E,N_z)B_i^E`$ from Equation (5) as weighted sums of the statistically independent measurements $`C_j`$:

$$V_{f,P}^E=\frac{_{i=1}^N(_{j=1}^Na_{ij}C_j)^2}{_{i=1}^N(_{j=1}^Nb_{ij}C_jB_i)^2},$$
(6)
where $`a_{ij}`$ and $`b_{ij}`$ are weights that differ for each burst, but can be computed straightforwardly using Equation (4). Since we are in the Gaussian limit, the uncertainty in each $`C_j`$ is simply $`\pm \sqrt{C_j}`$. Since each $`C_j`$ is statistically independent, their weighted uncertainties can be summed in quadrature. Hence, the sums over $`j`$ in Equation (6) and their uncertainties are: $`_{j=1}^Na_{ij}C_j\pm \sqrt{_{j=1}^Na_{ij}^2C_j}`$ and $`_{j=1}^Nb_{ij}C_jB_i\pm \sqrt{_{j=1}^Nb_{ij}^2C_j}`$.

Next, in accordance with Equation (6), we square these expressions, which yields expressions consisting of three terms: the square of the original term, a positive term due to Poisson noise, and an uncertainty term. Subtracting out the contributions to Equation (6) due to Poisson noise yields:

$$V_f^E=\frac{_{i=1}^N[(_{j=1}^Na_{ij}C_j)^2_{j=1}^Na_{ij}^2C_j]}{_{i=1}^N[(_{j=1}^Nb_{ij}C_jB_i)^2_{j=1}^Nb_{ij}^2C_j]},$$
(7)
where the uncertainty in the $`i`$th term of the numerator is $`\pm 2(_{j=1}^Na_{ij}C_j)\sqrt{_{j=1}^Na_{ij}^2C_j}`$, and the uncertainty in the $`i`$th term of the denominator is $`\pm 2(_{j=1}^Nb_{ij}C_jB_i)\sqrt{_{j=1}^Nb_{ij}^2C_j}`$. Recognizing that only $`N/N_z`$ of the terms in the sums over $`i`$ are statistically independent, since the sums over $`j`$ correspond to a convolution of the light curve and a boxcar smoothing function of width equal to $`N_z`$ bins, the uncertainties in the sums over $`i`$ are a factor of $`\sqrt{N_z}`$ larger than what would be derived if all of the terms were statistically independent. Hence, the uncertainty in the numerator is $`\pm 2\sqrt{N_z_{i=1}^N(_{j=1}^Na_{ij}C_j)^2_{j=1}^Na_{ij}^2C_j}`$, and the uncertainty in the denominator is $`\pm 2\sqrt{N_z_{i=1}^N(_{j=1}^Nb_{ij}C_jB_i)^2_{j=1}^Nb_{ij}^2C_j}`$. These uncertainties can be at most only weakly correlated. Taking them to be independent, we find that the statistical uncertainty in a light curve’s measured variability is approximately given by:

$$\sigma _{V_f^E}=V_f^E\sqrt{\frac{4N_z_{i=1}^N(_{j=1}^Na_{ij}C_j)^2_{j=1}^Na_{ij}^2C_j}{\{_{i=1}^N[(_{j=1}^Na_{ij}C_j)^2_{j=1}^Na_{ij}^2C_j]\}^2}+\frac{4N_z_{i=1}^N(_{j=1}^Nb_{ij}C_jB_i)^2_{j=1}^Nb_{ij}^2C_j}{\{_{i=1}^N[(_{j=1}^Nb_{ij}C_jB_i)^2_{j=1}^Nb_{ij}^2C_j]\}^2}}.$$
(8)
All that remains is to describe how we combine variability measurements of light curves acquired in different energy bands, $`V_f^E`$, into a single measurement of a burst’s variability: $`V_f`$. For each burst in our sample, light curves were acquired in typically 3 or 4 independent energy bands (see Table 2). We find that (1) the smoothing timescales of these bursts’ light curves decrease with energy as $`E^{0.4}`$ (Figure 3), and (2) the variabilities of these bursts’ light curves are approximately constant across energy bands (Figure 4). In hindsight, the former result is not surprising, given our definition of the smoothing timescale and the principle result of Fenimore et al. (1995); however, this does constitute an independent confirmation of their result. The latter result suggests that we can model a burst’s variability as a constant across energy bands. Applying the Bayesian inference formalism developed by Reichart (2000) for fitting models with extrinsic scatter (sample variance) to data with intrinsic scatter (statistical variance, in this case given by Equation 8), we fit this model to the typically 3 or 4 independent measurements of a burst’s variability made in independent energy bands, $`V_f^E`$, resulting in a single measurement of that burst’s variability, $`V_f`$, and the uncertainty in $`V_f`$. We plot the $`>25`$ keV light curves of the most and least variable cosmological BATSE bursts in our sample in Figure 5.

## 3 The Luminosity Measure

Let $`P`$ be the peak flux of a burst in photons cm-2 s-1 between observer-frame energies $`E_l`$ and $`E_u`$. The isotropic-equivalent peak photon luminosity of the burst in erg s-1 between source-frame energies 100 and 1000 keV is given by

$$L=4\pi D^2(z)P\frac{_{100}^{1000}E\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\frac{E}{1+z}\right)𝑑E}{_{E_l}^{E_u}\mathrm{\Phi }(E)𝑑E},$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(E)`$ is the observer-frame spectral shape, which we parameterize with the Band function (Band et al. 1993). For each burst in our sample, we compute the value of $`L`$ for each of the 54 parameterizations of the Band function in Band et al. (1993); the luminosity error bars in Figures 9 and 10 are dominated by this variation in the parameterization of the Band function, but clearly are too small to matter. Hence, $`L`$ is very insensitive to reasonable variations in the parameterization of the Band function for the bursts in our sample. The choice of source-frame energy range also is very unimportant: we chose 100 – 1000 keV to approximately match the observer-frame energy range in which BATSE measures peak fluxes, 50 – 300 keV, for redshifts that are typical of the bursts in our sample: $`z12`$.

## 4 The Luminosity Estimator

We list our sample of 20 bursts in Table 1; it consists of every burst for which redshift information is currently available. Peak fluxes are available for all 20 bursts. Spectroscopic redshifts and 64-ms or better resolution light curves are available for 11 bursts. Spectroscopic redshifts but only 1-s resolution light curves are available for 2 bursts. We compute variability lower limits for these bursts: we compute variabilities from their 1-s resolution light curves without further degrading the effective resolution of these light curves by smoothing them on the 64-ms source-frame timescale (§2); these variabilities are lower limits to the variabilities that we would compute if 64-ms or better resolution light curves were available. Redshift upper limits (1) from the non-detection of the Ly$`\alpha `$ forest in host galaxy spectroscopy in the case of 1 burst, and (2) from the non-detection of the Lyman limit in afterglow and host galaxy photometry in the case of 6 bursts, and 64-ms or better resolution light curves are available for the remaining 7 bursts. We compute luminosity upper limits for these bursts. We compute variabilities for these bursts for both $`z=0`$ and $`z`$ equal to the redshift upper limit; for all 7 bursts, both of these variabilities are nearly identical, testifying to the weakness of the computational dependence of the variability on redshift (§2). In addition to the data listed in Table 1, we used Ulysses/GRB data for GRBs 970228, 990712, and 991208 to test the consistency of our results across instruments; we find the measured variabilities and luminosities of these bursts to be fully consistent across instruments.

We now construct the luminosity estimator. First, we compute the variabilities, $`V_f`$, and the isotropic-equivalent peak luminosities, $`L`$,111We use peak fluxes measured on a 1-s timescale, and we take $`H_0=65`$ km s-1 Mpc-1, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$; the luminosity estimator is very insensitive to these choices. of the bursts in our sample. We compute the variabilities as functions of $`f`$, where we use the value of $`f`$ to compute the smoothing timescales, $`T_f^E`$, of all of the light curves in our sample (§1). We identify values of $`f`$ that lead to successful and robust luminosity estimators below. Regardless of the value of $`f`$ that we use to compute the variabilities, the distribution of our sample’s bursts in the $`\mathrm{log}L`$-$`\mathrm{log}V_f`$ plane appears to be well modeled by a normal distribution about a straight line (see, e.g., Figure 9). We parameterize the line by:

$$\mathrm{log}V_f(L)=\mathrm{log}\overline{V}_f+b+m(\mathrm{log}L\mathrm{log}\overline{L}),$$
(10)
where $`b`$ is the intercept of the line, $`m`$ is its slope, and $`\overline{V}_f`$ and $`\overline{L}`$ are the median values of $`V_f`$ and $`L`$ for the bursts in our sample for which spectroscopic redshifts, peak fluxes, and 64-ms or better resolution light curves are available. We parameterize this line as a function of $`L`$, instead of as a function of $`V_f`$, because the data do not fully rule out the possibility of $`m<0`$, whereas the data do rule out the possibility of very large values of $`m`$. We parameterize the normal distribution about this line by $`\sigma _{\mathrm{log}V_f}`$, which is half of the distribution’s 1-$`\sigma `$ width along the $`\mathrm{log}V_f`$ axis. Applying the Bayesian inference formalism developed by Reichart (2000) for fitting data with extrinsic scatter (in this case, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{log}V_f}`$) to data with intrinsic scatter (in this case, the uncertainties in the measured values of $`V_f`$ and $`L`$), we determine values and uncertainties for the model parameters ($`b`$, $`m`$, and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{log}V_f}`$) as functions of $`f`$ (Figure 6).222This Bayesian inference formalism deals only with measurements with Gaussian error distributions, not with lower or upper limits. However, this formalism can be straightforwardly generalized to deal with limits as well, using two facts: (1) a limit can be given by the convolution of a Gaussian distribution and a Heavyside function, and (2) convolution is associative. In this paper, we fit to both measurements and limits.

Of the 20 bursts in our sample, GRB 980425 is unique due to its possible association with SN 1998bw (Kulkarni et al. 1998b; Galama et al. 1998) at a redshift of $`z=0.0085`$ (Tinney et al. 1998); the 12 other bursts for which spectroscopic redshifts are available have $`0.430<z<3.418`$. Consequently, we first construct the luminosity estimator excluding GRB 980425 from the above fits; we then repeat the fits including this burst. Excluding GRB 980425 from the fits, we first identify values of $`f`$ that lead to successful and robust luminosity estimators. One measure of the success of a luminosity estimator is the probability that its slope, $`m`$, departs from $`m=0`$. Since the best-fit values of $`m`$ are positive (Figure 6), we compute and plot in Figure 7 the probability that $`m<0`$, $`P(m<0)`$, as a function of $`f`$. We find that values of $`f`$ between $`0.2`$ and $`0.5`$ lead to luminosity estimators with slopes that are positive with approximately equally probability: $`P(m<0)1.4\times 10^4`$ (3.8 $`\sigma `$). Values of $`f<0.2`$ and $`f>0.5`$ lead to luminosity estimators with slopes that are positive with increasingly less probability. In addition to having a slope that is positive (or negative) with large probability, a successful luminosity estimator also should be robust: small changes in the value of $`f`$ should lead to only small changes in the estimated values of $`L`$. Consequently, we also plot in Figure 7 the extrinsic scatter of the data along the $`\mathrm{log}L`$ axis, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{log}L}=\sigma _{\mathrm{log}V_f}/m`$, as a function of $`f`$; this function is a measure of the maximum amount that the estimated luminosities of the bursts in our sample can change as a function of $`f`$. We find that values of $`f>0.5`$ lead to increasingly less robust luminosity estimators. Taking $`f=0.45`$, which corresponds to the minimum in $`P(m<0)`$, we compute smoothing timescales, $`T_f^{E_i}`$, for each of the instrument’s available energy bands, $`E_i`$, (Table 2), and using these smoothing timescales, we find that that $`\mathrm{log}\overline{V}_f=1.088`$, $`\mathrm{log}\overline{L}=51.852`$, $`b=0.013_{0.092}^{+0.075}`$, $`m=0.302_{0.075}^{+0.112}`$, and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{log}V_f}=0.175_{0.046}^{+0.073}`$. Hence, we find that $`LV_{f=0.45}^{3.3_{0.9}^{+1.1}}`$. We plot the two-dimensional uncertainty distributions of the fitted values of the model parameters in Figure 8. We plot the data and the best-fit model of the distribution of these data in the $`\mathrm{log}L`$-$`\mathrm{log}V_f`$ plane for $`f=0.45`$ in Figure 9.

Although the solid line in Figure 9 is a good approximation to the best estimate for $`L`$ as a function of $`V_f`$, the dotted lines in Figure 9 do not correspond to the uncertainty in $`L`$ as a function of $`V_f`$. The dotted lines in Figure 9 mark the best-fit width, given by $`\sigma _{\mathrm{log}V_f}=0.175`$, of the best-fit model of the distribution of the data in the $`\mathrm{log}L`$-$`\mathrm{log}V_f`$ plane; they do not account for the uncertainties in the fitted values of the model parameters, and the uncertainties in the fitted values of $`b`$ and $`m`$ in particular. Applying the Bayesian inference formalism of Reichart (2000), we formally compute the best estimate for $`L`$ as a function of $`V_f`$, and the uncertainty in $`L`$ as a function of $`V_f`$, which we plot as the solid curves in Figure 10. The computation of this distribution in the $`\mathrm{log}L`$-$`\mathrm{log}V_f`$ plane is numerically intensive, so we also provide analytic approximations to these functions, which we plot as the dotted curves in Figure 10. The best estimate for $`L`$ as a function of $`V_f`$ can be approximated by Equation (10), using the best-fit values of the model parameters. Approximating the uncertainty distributions of the fitted values of the model parameters (Figure 8) as uncorrelated and Gaussian, the uncertainty in $`L`$ as a function of $`V_f`$ can be approximated by (Reichart 2000):

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{log}V_f}(L)=\sqrt{\sigma _{\mathrm{log}V_f}^2+\sigma _b^2+\sigma _m^2(\mathrm{log}L\mathrm{log}\overline{L})^2},$$
(11)
where $`\sigma _{\mathrm{log}V_f}(L)`$ is the 1-$`\sigma `$ uncertainty in $`V_f`$ as a function of $`L`$, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{log}V_f}=0.175`$, $`\sigma _b0.084`$ is the uncertainty in the fitted value of $`b`$, and $`\sigma _m0.094`$ is the uncertainty in the fitted value of $`m`$. At its best, the luminosity estimator constructed excluding GRB 980425 from the fits yields best-estimate luminosities that are accurate to a factor of $`4`$, or best-estimate luminosity distances that are accurate to a factor of $`2`$.

In addition to being used to estimate the luminosities of bursts for which spectroscopic redshifts are not available, and the uncertainties in these luminosities, Figure 10 also can be used to determine if other bursts for which spectroscopic redshifts are available, such as GRB 980425 or future bursts, are consistent with the above-fitted model. Consequently, we also plot GRB 980425 in Figure 10. Although its implied luminosity, $`L=5.2\pm 2.0\times 10^{46}`$ erg s-1, is $`46`$ orders of magnitude less than the 12 other measured luminosities of bursts in our sample, its variability, $`V_{f=0.45}=0.00\pm 0.01`$, also is considerably less than the $`17`$ other reasonably well-constrained variabilities of bursts in our sample, and clearly is consistent with the above-fitted model. We plot the $`>25`$ keV BATSE light curve of GRB 980425 in Figure 11. Repeating the fits including GRB 980425 yields: $`f=0.47`$, $`\mathrm{log}\overline{V}_f=1.073`$, $`\overline{L}=51.697`$, $`b=0.035_{0.089}^{+0.080}`$, $`m=0.306_{0.071}^{+0.099}`$, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{log}V_f}=0.170_{0.041}^{+0.074}`$, and $`P(m<0)=9.3\times 10^7`$ (4.9 $`\sigma `$) (Figures 6 and 7). Hence, we find that $`LV_{f=0.47}^{3.3_{0.8}^{+1.0}}`$. We also plot the two-dimensional uncertainty distributions of the fitted values of the model parameters in Figure 8. We plot the data and the best-fit model of the distribution of these data in the $`\mathrm{log}L`$-$`\mathrm{log}V_f`$ plane for $`f=0.47`$ in Figure 12. We plot the best estimate for $`L`$ as a function of $`V_f`$, the uncertainty in $`L`$ as a function of $`V_f`$, and our analytic approximations to these functions, given by Equations (10) and (11) and the fitted values of the model parameters, in Figure 13.

## 5 Discussion and Conclusions

We have presented a rigorously-constructed measure of the variability of a burst’s light curve. Using this variability measure and a sample of 20 bursts, consisting of every burst for which redshift information is currently available, we have shown that a significant correlation exists between the variability of a burst’s light curve, and the burst’s isotropic-equivalent peak photon luminosity. This correlation between variability and luminosity is in agreement with the trends found by Stern, Poutanen, & Svensson (1999) and Fenimore & Ramirez-Ruiz (1999). That is, more variable (“complex” in the terminology of Stern, Poutanen, & Svensson 1999) bursts are more luminous, while less variable (“simple” in the terminology of Stern, Poutanen, & Svensson 1999) bursts are less luminous.333However, we must draw attention to a potential disagreement between the primary conclusion of Stern, Poutanen, & Svensson (1999), and the width of the luminosity distribution of the multiply-peaked bursts with spectroscopically-measured redshifts in our sample. Stern, Poutanen, & Svensson (1999) find that the differential peak count rate distribution of their complex, or multiply-peaked BATSE bursts peaks about a factor of 4 above threshold, while the differential peak count rate distribution of their simple, or singly-peaked BATSE bursts does not have a similar peak. They interpret this to mean that their complex bursts are more luminous and at higher redshifts than their simple bursts: they argue that this peak corresponds to the peak in the star-formation history of the universe at $`z1.5`$, and that it is not a threshold effect. However, as this peak is narrow, spanning less than an order of magnitude, this could only be the case if the luminosity function of the complex bursts is similarly narrow; otherwise, this feature would be washed out. We have visually examined the light curves of the bursts with spectroscopically-measured redshifts in our sample, and find that only GRB 980425 and GRB 970508 appear to be singly-peaked. The remaining, multiply-peaked bursts span $`2.5`$ orders of magnitude, which appears to contradict their interpretation of this peak that they find in the differential peak count rate distribution of their complex bursts.

Furthermore, from the correlated variabilities and luminosities of our sample of 20 bursts, we have constructed a possible Cepheid-like luminosity estimator for the long bursts. If one excludes GRB 980425 from the fits, the luminosity estimator spans $`2.5`$ orders of magnitude in luminosity, and its slope is positive with a probability of $`11.4\times 10^4`$ (3.8 $`\sigma `$). GRB 980425, however, is consistent with the fitted model. If one includes this burst in the fits, the luminosity estimator spans $`6.3`$ orders of magnitude in luminosity, and its slope is positive with a probability of $`19.3\times 10^7`$ (4.9 $`\sigma `$).

Future bursts will either increase these probabilities, or possibly disprove the luminosity estimator. However, since the uncertainty in $`L`$ as a function of $`V_f`$ in Figures 10 and 13 is dominated by extrinsic scatter (i.e., $`\sigma _{\mathrm{log}V_f}`$), and not by the uncertainties in the fitted values of the model parameters, a larger sample of bursts is unlikely to improve the predictive power of the luminosity estimator. Currently, the luminosity estimator yields best-estimate luminosities that are accurate to a factor of $`4`$, or best-estimate luminosity distances that are accurate to a factor of $`2`$.

However, independently of whether or not the luminosity estimator is eventually disproved, the light curve of GRB 980425 is unique in that it is much less variable than the other $`17`$ light curves of bursts in our sample for which the signal-to-noise is reasonably good: $`\mathrm{log}V_{f=0.45}<1.5`$ with a probability of $`13.4\times 10^4`$ (3.4 $`\sigma `$), and $`\mathrm{log}V_{f=0.45}<1`$ with a probability of $`13.5\times 10^{23}`$ (9.9 $`\sigma `$). The argument has been made that the association of GRB 980425 with SN 1998bw at the unusually low redshift of $`z=0.0085`$ probably is accidental because the light curve of GRB 980425 is no different than the light curves of the cosmological bursts. On the contrary, we find that the light curve of GRB 980425 is different from the light curves of the cosmological bursts. Consequently, GRB 980425 may well be associated with SN 1998bw.

If GRB 980425 is associated with SN 1998bw, and if the luminosity estimator is correct, the fact that GRB 980425 is consistent with the fitted model suggests that GRB 980425 and the cosmological bursts may share a common, or at least a related, physical origin, although they cannot share a common redshift distribution and/or luminosity function (Graziani, Lamb, & Marion 1999). This conclusion is made more intriguing by the recent discoveries of supernova-like components to the late afterglows of the cosmological bursts GRB 970228 (Reichart 1999, Galama et al. 2000; Reichart, Castander, & Lamb 2000; Reichart, Lamb, & Castander 2000) and GRB 980326 (Bloom et al. 1999).

Support for this work was provided by NASA through the Hubble Fellowship grant #HST-SF-01133.01-A from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555. Support for this work was also provided by NASA contracts NASW-4690 and SCSV 464006. K. H. acknowledges Ulysses support under JPL Contract 958056. We are very grateful to Evgeny Mazets and the KONUS team for granting us the use of their data. We are also grateful to Paul Butterworth for retrieving the KONUS data, and Marc Kippen for retrieving the BATSE data for GRB 980613. We also thank Carlo Graziani for generously sharing his insights into Bayesian inference. Finally, D. E. R. thanks Bob Nichol and the Department of Physics at Carnegie Mellon University, and Dr. and Mrs. Keisler for their hospitality during the summer of 2000.