text:
# Spectral Functions of Quarks in Quark MatterWork supported by DFG.

## 1 Introduction

It is well known that short-range correlations have influence on the properties of nuclear matter and finite nuclei; a substantial amount of high-momentum processes is contained in the nucleon spectral function. There have been many theoretical approaches trying to understand the short-range correlations. Of particular interest are the self-consistent calculations for the spectral function of nucleons in nuclear matter from Lehr et al. le . The results of their simple model are in good agreement with sophisticated calculations from many-body theory. It is striking that their model is very successful in describing the influence of short-range correlations on the properties of nuclear matter using a simple pointlike nucleon interaction with a constant scattering amplitude.

Motivated by the success of this model we have taken up the concept to investigate the properties of light quarks in infinite quark matter ff . It is our basic assumption that the properties of the spectral function are dominated by phase space effects and the overall strength of the interaction just like in the case of the nucleons. The detailed structure of the interaction should be relatively unimportant as long as the relative symmetries are respected. We use relations between the spectral function and the collisional self-energies to construct a simple albeit self-consistent model. The spectral function can then be calculated in an iterative process beyond the quasiparticle approximation. The quark interactions are described by the Nambu–Jona-Lasinio (NJL) model klev . It has the same symmetries as QCD and describes an effective pointlike interaction.

As a first step the model has been applied to the simplest system, namely the chirally restored phase at zero temperature. Mean field effects were neglected, diquark condensates that arise in the color superconducting phase were not included. For the collisional self-energies only the lowest order contributions, the Born diagrams, were considered. In the numerical calculations the influence of the coupling strength and the chemical potential on the properties of the spectral function was investigated.

## 2 The Model

In this section we will briefly review our model. For more details we refer to ff . The underlying Green’s function formalism is discussed in much detail in kb ; dan . Note that current quark masses are neglected throughout this work and only systems in thermal equilibrium are considered. We use the Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model to describe the quark interactions in our approach. It is an effective interaction model that was designed to resemble the symmetries of QCD. The SU(2) Lagrangian is given by

$`_{\mathrm{NJL}}=\overline{\psi }i/\psi +G[(\overline{\psi }\psi )^2+(\overline{\psi }i\gamma _5\stackrel{}{\tau }\psi )^2],`$ (1)
where $`G`$ is the coupling strength, independent of energy and momentum, and the $`\tau _i`$ are isospin Pauli matrices. Due to the pointlike interaction this model is nonrenormalizable and a three momentum cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is introduced. Currently we do not consider any extensions to the Lagrangian that lead to color superconductivity, cf. ff .

The correlation functions

$`ig^>(1,1^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (1)\overline{\psi }(1^{}),`$
$`ig^<(1,1^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }(1^{})\psi (1)`$
are the fundamental elements of our model. In thermal equilibrium they are related to the spectral function $`𝒜`$ via the thermal Fermi distribution $`n_F(p_0)`$:

$`ig^<(p)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒜(p)n_F(p_0),`$ (2)
$`ig^>(p)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒜(p)[1n_F(p_0)].`$ (3)
Note that the Green’s functions and the spectral function are matrices in spinor space. The single particle self-energy can be decomposed into a mean-field part $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{mf}}`$ and the collisional self-energies $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. Thus the retarded self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{ret}}`$ is given by:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{ret}}(1,1^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{mf}}(1,1^{})`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(t_1t_1^{})\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }^>(1,1^{})\mathrm{\Sigma }^<(1,1^{})\right].`$
The time local mean-field self-energy corresponds to the motion of particles in a potential. It is responsible for the dynamical generation of the constituent quark masses. The collisional self-energies contain the effects of particle decays and collisions in the medium. In lowest order they are given by the Born diagrams (cf. left diagram in Fig. 1). One finds

$`\pm i\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(p)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{}G^2g^{}(p_2)g^{}(p_3)g^{}(p_4)},`$ (5)
where $`g^>`$ and $`g^<`$ are full propagators and the integrals run over $`p_2,p_2,`$ and $`p_4`$. Eqs. (5) look like total collision rates and can be used to determine the width of the spectral function:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)=2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{ret}}(p)=i[\mathrm{\Sigma }^>(p)\mathrm{\Sigma }^<(p)].`$ (6)
The real part of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{ret}}`$ is related to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by a dispersion relation. If the width is known over the full energy range $`\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{ret}}`$ can be calculated dispersively. Using $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{ret}}`$ the spectral function can be explicitly written as:

$`𝒜(p)=2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}g^{\mathrm{ret}}(p)=2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{)}p\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{ret}}+i\mathrm{\Gamma }/2}}.`$ (7)
Eqs. (2),(3), and (5)-(7) form a set of equations describing a self-consistency problem. A direct solution is not easily possible. It is possible, however, to solve the problem iteratively by starting from an initial guess for one of the quantities. In this way we can find a solution for the spectral function. The effect of self-consistency can be nicely illustrated in the language of Feynman diagrams. Using full propagators $`g^{}`$ that depend themselves on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ in eqs. (5) means that we sum nonperturbatively over a whole class of diagrams. Some examples are shown in Fig. 1.

Finally, we have to discuss the matrix structure of the spectral function in spinor space. To find the most general form $`𝒜`$ can be decomposed in terms of the 16 independent products of the $`\gamma `$ matrices. Demanding invariance under parity and time reversal symmetry we find for the rest frame of the medium (in thermal equilibrium) bd :

$`𝒜(p)=\rho _\mathrm{s}(p_0,\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})+\rho _0(p_0,\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})\gamma ^0+\rho _\mathrm{v}(p_0,\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})\widehat{\stackrel{}{p}}\stackrel{}{\gamma },`$ (8)
where $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{p}}`$ is a unit vector in the momentum direction. Note that the density of states is given by $`\rho _0`$ alone and that $`\rho _\mathrm{s}`$ has to be zero in the chirally restored phase. It follows from eqs. (2)-(7) that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ must have the same structure as $`\rho `$.

Currently we apply two simplifications to the model. First, we restore chiral symmetry ’manually’ by setting $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{mf}}`$ to zero. This can be done for any density and temperature since $`m=0`$ is always a solution of the equation for the constituent quark mass klev . However, one has to be aware that this might not be the thermodynamically favored phase when also a finite solution for $`m`$ exists. Second, we neglect the real part of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{ret}}`$ due to technical reasons ff . For nuclear matter this was a reasonable approximation le . To make sure that the effects of this violation of analyticity are not significant we have checked that $`\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{ret}}`$ is small compared to $`\overline{)}p`$, cf. eq.(7).

## 3 Results

All our calculations were performed at zero temperature and in the chirally restored phase. The calculations were initialized with a constant width, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=1\mathrm{MeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{v}=0`$. Self-consistency was achieved after two iterations. First, we chose the quark matter density such that it is comparable to regular nuclear matter, $`\rho _{\mathrm{qm}}=3\rho _{\mathrm{nm}}=30.17\mathrm{fm}^3`$. This yields a Fermi energy of $`\omega _F=0.268\mathrm{GeV}`$. The cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the coupling constant $`G`$ of the NJL model were chosen so that the model reproduces the known values klev  for the quark condensate and the pion coupling constant $`f_\pi `$ in vacuum. To investigate the influence of the coupling on the spectral function we did also calculations with two times and four times larger coupling strengths. In reality quark matter with a chemical potential of $`\omega _F=0.268\mathrm{GeV}`$ would not be in the chirally restored phase. Therefore we made additional calculations with a higher density of $`\rho _{\mathrm{qm}}=1.53\mathrm{fm}^3`$, corresponding to $`\omega _F=0.387\mathrm{GeV}`$. This chemical potential is well beyond the chiral phase transition in the NJL model klev .

Fig. 2 shows our results for the spectral function and its width at several momenta and coupling strengths using $`\omega _F=0.268\mathrm{GeV}`$. Due to the pointlike interaction the width seems to increase explosively for large $`|p_0|`$. At even higher $`|p_0|`$, however, the opening of phase space is suppressed by the NJL cutoff and the width decreases again. Physically the most interesting area lies in the energy range $`0<p_0<\omega _F`$ since that is the region of the populated quark states. All states above the Fermi energy as well as the anti-quark states at negative $`p_0`$ are unoccupied (no holes in the Dirac sea). The structure of the spectral function is dominated by the on-shell peaks of the quarks and anti-quarks at $`p_0=|\stackrel{}{p}|`$ and $`p_0=|\stackrel{}{p}|`$. The peaks get broader when the coupling is increased. Strength is distributed away from the peaks to the off-shell regions, the width of the peaks increases from $`0.11\mathrm{MeV}`$ to $`10\mathrm{MeV}`$. The width seems to scale with the coupling strength (resp. $`G^2`$, cf. eqs. (5)) while the general shape remains unchanged.

Fig. 3 shows the width and the spectral function for the two chemical potentials $`\omega _F=0.268\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\omega _F=0.387\mathrm{GeV}`$ using the regular coupling strength. The effect of the higher density is comparable to increasing the coupling. The width approximately scales with the chemical potential while the shape remains unchanged. This leads again to a broadening of the peaks of the spectral function.

In the momentum distribution of nucleons in nuclear matter a depletion of the occupation probabilites by about 10% is seen le . The resulting high energy tail is taken as a universal sign of short-range correlations. We show the momentum distribution of the quarks for the different coupling strengths in Fig. 4(a). At the lowest coupling a depletion of only 0.1% is found. For the coupling twice as large the short-range correlations increase but still the depletion effect is below 1%. Only for the largest couplings we find a high momentum tail of a few percent, comparable to the case of nucleons. In Fig. 4(b) it can be seen again that the effect of the larger chemical potential is similar to an increased coupling. The depletion for $`\omega _F=0.387\mathrm{GeV}`$ grows by almost one order of magnitude compared to $`\omega _F=0.268\mathrm{GeV}`$.

## 4 Summary and Outlook

Based on a successful model for nuclear matter we have presented a simple but fully self-consistent approach to the spectral function of quarks in quark matter. It uses a pointlike interaction and goes beyond the quasiparticle approximation. The numerical results indicate that the influence of short-range correlations is rather small compared to nuclear matter. This finding might be an artifact of the present model, the NJL model with vacuum parameters in the Born approximation. Furthermore we have not considered broken symmetries. However, the calculations have shown that the model is technically feasible and suitable for further development.

At present, the model is extended in two ways. First, a more realistic phase with broken symmetries – the chirally broken phase – is considered. In this phase large constituent quark masses must be taken into account and the analytic structure of the spectral function (8) is more complicated. Second, a new class of diagrams is incorporated into the collisional self-energies (5). This series of diagrams is shown in Fig. 5. The lowest order contribution is again the Born diagram. The full series can be interpreted as a dynamically generated meson that couples to the quarks klev ; reh . First estimates show that this extension will increase the effective quark coupling and should lead to significantly higher widths of the spectral function. In addition it will be possible to investigate the properties of the self-consistently calculated pions and sigmas.


format: text

text:
# Analysing a complementarity experiment on the quantum-classical boundary

## Abstract

The complementarity experiment reported in Bertet \[et al. (2001), Nature 411, 166.\] is discussed. The role played by entanglement in reaching the classical limit is pointed out. Dissipative and thermal effects of the cavity are calculated and a simple modification of the experiment is proposed in order to observe the progressive loss of the capacity of “quantum erasing”as a manifestation of the classical limit of quantum mechanics.

Since the early days of Quantum Theory, the differences between the so called *quantum world* and *classical world* have been noted and the problem of *the classical limit of quantum mechanics* was established. The Einstein-Bohr debate , the EPR “paradox” , and Schrödinger’s cat  are some of the first examples of the difference between quantum and classical. The so called *hidden variable theories* form one alternative to make the classical limit smooth , however Bell inequalities impose restrictions on certain hidden variable theories, which some quantum states do violate . During the evolution of quantum theory, *entanglement* has been recognized as the essential element: present in the states which violate Bell inequalities, consequently at the root of the distinction between *quantum* and *classical* worlds, entanglement is generally created by the interaction between two initially independent subsystems. The unavoidable interaction between a physical system and the degrees of freedom of its environment tends to generate entanglement, which manifests itself as loss of purity of the quantum state of the system of interest, in a *decoherence process* . For these reasons, entanglement plays this double role: on one side marking the difference between quantum and classical, on the other making it possible that this boundary be smoothly crossed . In the last decades, all this discussion has been accompanied by experiments which investigate the so called mesoscopic regime, the boundary between the microscopic quantum world and the macroscopic classical world . In this Letter we will discuss one of these experiments .

In the cited work , the authors show a pair of variations on the Ramsey interferometer, which are compared to Mach-Zehnder interferometers with one or both beam splitters passing from quantum to classical domain. In Ramsey interferometry, a two level atom initially in an eigenstate $`|e`$ passes through a *Ramsey zone*, i.e.: a region in which the atom interacts with a *classical* field, in which it is taken to be in a superposition state like $`|\psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|e+|g\right)`$. As $`|e`$ and $`|g`$ correspond to different eigenenergies, the temporal evolution of this state imposes a relative phase between this two state components: $`|\psi \left(t\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|e+e^{i\omega t}|g\right)`$. Another Ramsey zone recombine the two components in a state described by $`|\psi ^{}\left(\varphi \right)=i\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\varphi }{2}\right)|e+\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\varphi }{2}\right)|g`$, where $`\varphi `$ is the relative phase accumulated by the two state components between the two Ramsey zones. The analogy with the Mach-Zehnder interferometer is perfect: the Ramsey zones work as beam splitters and the $`\varphi `$ phase difference corresponds to the optical path difference (divided by $`\frac{\lambda }{2\pi }`$). With this idealized description, the variation of $`\varphi `$ implies interferometric fringe patterns like $`\mathrm{cos}^2\left(\frac{\varphi }{2}\right)`$ on the observation of the probability of detecting an atom in the state $`|g`$. In the experiment, the “classical limit” is approached in two distinct ways, with two different apparatus schemes. When only one “beam splitter” is varied from quantum to classical, the classical limit is attained through the mean photon number in the cavity mode used as Ramsey zone, in an example where the classical world is reached as the “large quantum numbers limit”; in case both “beam splitters” are considered, a different “classical limit” can be attained by a decoherence process. We will discuss a little bit further each case, stressing the different roles played by entanglement in each one. Anticipating the conclusion, in the first case the classical limit corresponds to the evanescence of atom-field entanglement, while in the second it is owed to the creation of field-environment entanglement.

In the first scheme, one mode of a Fabry-Perot resonator $`C`$ (photon damping time $`T_{cav}=1ms`$, with $`\nu =51.1GHz`$) is used to create the first Ramsey zone. This mode is previously fed by a pulsed microwave generator, which creates a coherent state  of complex amplitude $`\alpha `$, $`|\alpha =_nc_n|n`$, where $`c_n=\mathrm{exp}\left(\left|\alpha \right|^2/2\right)\alpha ^n/\sqrt{n!}`$, and the mean photon number is given by $`N=\left|\alpha \right|^2`$. The idealized description (i.e. given by the Jaynes-Cummings model) of the resonant interaction of an atom initially in the state $`|e`$ with the field mode initially in the coherent state $`|\alpha `$ is given by

$$|e|\alpha |e|\alpha _e+|g|\alpha _g,$$
(1)
where

$$\begin{array}{ccc}|\alpha _e& =& e^{i\nu t}_ne^{in\nu t}c_n\mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_nt_\alpha \right)|n,\hfill \\ |\alpha _g& =& ie^{i\nu t}_ne^{in\nu t}c_n\mathrm{sin}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_nt_\alpha \right)|n+1,\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n=\mathrm{\Omega }\sqrt{n+1}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is vacuum Rabi frequency, and $`t_\alpha `$ is given by the condition

$$\alpha _e|\alpha _e=\alpha _g|\alpha _g=\frac{1}{2},$$
(3)
which is the $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ pulse condition, analogous to the $`5050`$ beam splitters condition on the Mach-Zehnder interferometer. By defining two new states $`|\alpha _\pm =\frac{1}{2}\left(|\alpha _e\pm |\alpha _g\right)`$, we can rewrite the state in equation (1) as

$$|e|\alpha _e+|g|\alpha _g=\left(|e+|g\right)|\alpha _++\left(|e|g\right)|\alpha _{}.$$
(4)
It is easy to identify the degree of entanglement at the state given by equation (4), provided by the norms of the state vectors $`|\alpha _\pm `$: if $`\alpha _+|\alpha _+\alpha _{}|\alpha _{}`$ then there is much entanglement in the state, while $`\alpha _{}|\alpha _{}0`$ (resp. $`\alpha _+|\alpha _+0`$) implies that the state is very well approximated by the factorized state $`\left(|e+|g\right)|\alpha _+`$ (resp. $`\left(|e|g\right)|\alpha _{}`$).

The presence or absence of entanglement can be interpreted as *information* in the context of *“which way” interferometers* . The condition $`\alpha _{}|\alpha _{}0`$ means that the states $`|\alpha _e`$ and $`|\alpha _g`$ are very close, and in this case the field mode does not carry (a large amount of) information about the atomic state. On the contrary, if $`\alpha _+|\alpha _+\alpha _{}|\alpha _{}`$ then the states $`|\alpha _e`$ and $`|\alpha _g`$ are almost orthogonal to each other, which implies that atom and field share an EPR like correlation : knowledge on the field state implies knowledge on atomic state and vice versa. Going a little further on the Mach-Zehnder analogy, the same analysis describes the case where the first beam splitter of the apparatus is attached to a variable mass pendulum (see figure 1). In the limit case where this mass is very tiny, the momentum kick given by the reflected photon would made the movement states of the pendulum distinguishable for photon reflection and transmission, what can be interpreted as the existence of “which (photon) path” information, or more precisely, a large degree of entanglement between the photon and the pendulum. However, in the case of macroscopic pendulum mass, its movement state is practically insensitive to the photon kick, there being no entanglement or which path information.

Back to the experiment, as in the next steps only the atom will be involved, we can eliminate the field degree of freedom by taking the partial trace of the density operator which describes atom-field system. The atomic state is then described by

$$\rho _{at}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\alpha _g|\alpha _g& \alpha _e|\alpha _g\\ \alpha _g|\alpha _e& \alpha _e|\alpha _e\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}& \alpha _e|\alpha _g\\ \alpha _g|\alpha _e& \frac{1}{2}\end{array}\right],$$
(5)
where the condition (3) was used. As the $`\varphi `$ phase is accumulated, the atomic state will become

$$\rho _{at}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}& e^{i\varphi }\alpha _e|\alpha _g\\ e^{i\varphi }\alpha _g|\alpha _e& \frac{1}{2}\end{array}\right].$$
(6)
After this, the atom passes through a second Ramsey zone, where it interacts with a short lived field mode (photon decay time lower than $`10ns`$), which is sustained by a microwave generator. This kind of Ramsey zone was described in reference , where classical behaviour is obtained with low quantum numbers given by the drastic reduction of atom-filed entanglement caused by field dissipation. A pictorial description is that the atom does not have time to entangle with the photon because “it decays first”, and the interaction is just with an average field, instead of an individual photon. By adjusting the interaction time for another $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ pulse, the atomic state evolves to

$$\rho _{at}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}+\mathrm{}\left(e^{i\varphi }\alpha _e|\alpha _g\right)& i\mathrm{}\left(e^{i\varphi }\alpha _e|\alpha _g\right)\\ i\mathrm{}\left(e^{i\varphi }\alpha _e|\alpha _g\right)& \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\left(e^{i\varphi }\alpha _e|\alpha _g\right)\end{array}\right].$$
(7)
By varying the $`\varphi `$ phase, one can obtain an interference fringe pattern on the probability of detecting an atom at the $`|g`$ state. In the referred work , fringe patterns are shown for different mean photon number (i.e. different values of $`\left|\alpha \right|^2`$). Clearly, the fringe contrast grows with $`N`$. To treat this contrast in a quantitative way, one can use the pattern *visibility*, which is defined for a pattern of intensity $`I`$ by

$$𝒱=\frac{I_{max}I_{min}}{I_{max}+I_{min}}.$$
(8)
Using the state described in equation (7), we get $`𝒱=2\left|\alpha _e|\alpha _g\right|`$. But several effects tend to diminish this fringe contrast, among them we can cite: residual thermal effects, which forbid the field to be taken initially to vacuum state, consequently forbidding the creation of perfect coherent states; detector imperfections, in which the ionization curves of $`|g`$ and $`|e`$ states have a small overlap, which allow some false readings; dispersion in velocity and position of the atomic beam and imperfections in the “interaction switches”, which lead to imperfections on the $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ pulses. The authors made a one parameter fit of the data to the discussed theoretical curve and obtain the fitting constant $`\eta =0.75`$. This value of $`\eta `$ can be interpreted as the larger visibility that could be attained with all the imperfections inherent to the experimental setup. This value will be used as a parameter in further discussions.

In the next setup, the same cavity field mode is used to generate both “Ramsey zones”. The atom, initially in state $`|e`$, interacts with the field mode for the time necessary for a $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ pulse. By the Stark effect, the atomic transition is put out of resonance, and the system evolves without interaction for a time $`\tau `$ (in the experiment, $`\tau =16\mu s`$). Then, the electric field is again tuned to resonance, and another $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ pulse interaction takes place. Finally, the atom leaves the cavity and goes to the detection region. The Mach-Zehnder analog is to consider both beam splitters attached to the same pendulum (see figure 2). The intense field case, analogous to massive pendulum, will not be explored, because classical limit were already attained, and the only expected effect due to the use of the same field mode is a little attenuation caused by dissipation. In the “quantum” case, on the contrary, the entanglement created in the first interaction will play an important role on the second pulse. We will first make an idealized description of the system evolution (i.e. by considering the atom-field system isolated), and then we will consider the important effects of cavity imperfections, by coupling the field mode to a thermal reservoir.

For simplicity and to compare to the experiment, we will consider the initial field state to be the vacuum. As in equation (1), the first “Ramsey zone” dynamics, with field initial state as vacuum, can be described by

$$|e|0\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left\{|e|0i|g|1\right\}.$$
(9)
With the Stark effect accumulated phase, the state evolves to

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left\{|e|0+e^{i\varphi }|g|1\right\}.$$
(10)
As discussed in the first setup, the above state does not exhibit interference fringes. This can be interpreted as the existence of atomic state information on the field state. But now the same field which is entangled with the atom will be used for the second pulse. This interaction can be described by

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }e^{i\frac{\varphi }{2}}\left\{i\mathrm{sin}\frac{\varphi }{2}|e|0\mathrm{cos}\frac{\varphi }{2}|g|1\right\},$$
(11)
where it is made clear that the probability of detecting an atom in $`|g`$ state reexhibits interference fringes. There is a strong parallel with the so called *quantum eraser* , where the “which way” discriminator state is manipulated in order to exhibit interference fringes in the coincidence detection counts of the interferometric particle (e.g.: the atom) and the “which way” discriminator (e.g.: the field). This can be considered as a *conditional* interference pattern: *if* the discriminator is detected in some state, *then* a pattern is obtained in the interferometric particle detections; in another way, interference patterns are obtained only if both degrees of freedom are detected *in coincidence*. The phenomenon here is different: there is no need of coincidence detection; the single atom counts do exhibit interference fringes, in an effect called *unconditional quantum erasure*. One should note that the state given by equation (11) does exhibit entanglement (except for special $`\varphi `$ values), and fringe patterns are observed just because this signal is already coded at the two occupied level populations (i.e. $`|e|0`$ and $`|g|1`$). Any kind of attempt to determine a relative phase signal between these two state components by using only one part of the system (the atom *or* the field) will be subjected to $`\varphi `$value dependent restrictions imposed by entanglement. The imperfections present in the first setup should also manifestate themselves in this second one, and even the imperfections in the “interaction switches” must be more effective, as they are used also for the second pulse, so, even with this idealized description, we must expect the interference pattern’s visibilities not to exceed the $`\eta =75\%`$ value.

It can be argued that, in a certain sense, any interferometer is a realization of an unconditional “quantum” eraser. A classical Mach-Zehnder interferometer is again a good example. After the first beam splitter, the two paths are distinguishable, and the wave vector $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ is a good *which path* discriminator. No interference pattern can be observed with a detector in one of the arms in between the two beam splitters. To keep this discussion on, consider an incomplete Mach-Zehnder, where we put a detector in place of the second beam splitter. If the detector is aligned with one of the arms, only light from this arm is recorded, and no interference is obtained (figure 3a). But if the detector is balanced in a way that light from both arms reach the detector, an interference pattern can be formed by varying the detector’s position (figure 3b). This situation can be compared to the “quantum” eraser: by selecting a linear combination of the *path states* of the discriminator, one obtains a fringe pattern. To put the second beam splitter instead of a detector can be viewed as a way of “rotating the basis” of the discriminator, allowing fringe (and “anti-fringe”) patterns in both arms of the interferometer. In this sense, the Mach-Zehnder interferometer (and analogously, any interferometer) can be viewed as a “quantum” eraser. One can consider it as an unconditional eraser only to the extent that all the alignment and balance work necessary to the interferometric scheme already guaranteed all the necessary coincidences for the patterns to be observed, i.e.: to make the interferometric alternatives indistinguishable. No quantum physics is needed in this discussion! Quantum physics appear only when we realize that this can also be done with matter waves, as in Ramsey interferometry.

Now let us take into consideration the finite lifetime of the photon. To this end, we will consider the cavity field mode, with creation (annihilation) operator $`a^{}`$ ($`a`$), coupled to a thermal reservoir. This interaction can be described by the master equation

$$\frac{d}{dt}\rho _f=i[H_f,\rho _f]+𝒟\rho _f,$$
(12)
where $`H_f`$ is the field mode Hamiltonian ($`\mathrm{}=1`$), $`H_f=\nu \left(a^{}a+\frac{1}{2}\right)`$, $`\rho _f`$ is the field mode density operator and $`𝒟`$ is the *dissipator*, which takes care of the nonunitarity of the temporal evolution, due to the interaction of the field with the reservoir . We will work with the usual dissipator, which is adequate for the experimental regime in question, given by

$$𝒟\rho _f=k\left(\overline{n}+1\right)\left\{2a\rho _fa^{}a^{}a\rho _f\rho _fa^{}a\right\}+k\overline{n}\left\{2a^{}\rho _faaa^{}\rho _f\rho _faa^{}\right\},$$
(13)
where $`\overline{n}`$ is the mean photon number of the heat bath with energy $`\nu `$ and $`k=\left(2T_{cav}\right)^1`$ is the damping constant. We should note that the first term is present even at null temperature ($`\overline{n}=0`$), while the other is a purely thermal effect. It is easy to solve equation (12) in the case $`\overline{n}=0`$, and the result also has a simple interpretation: if $`\overline{n}=0`$, then the reservoir thermal state is the vacuum state. Consequently, the atom-field system can only lose excitations to the reservoir. The non-interacting atom-field system Hamiltonian spectrum,

$$H=\omega \left(|ee||gg|\right)+H_f,$$
(14)
has ground state $`|g|0`$ and equally spaced almost degenerated doublets given by $`|g|n+1`$ and $`|e|n`$. The initial state given by equation (10) is generated by the first doublet. As this system cannot gain excitations, all upper levels will remain unoccupied, and the system will effectively behave as if its space state were $`3`$-dimensional. The system state cannot be described by a state vector, due to the non-unitary evolution, but its density operator at a time $`\tau `$ after the first pulse will be given by

$$\rho \left(\tau \right)=\frac{1}{2}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1e^{2k\tau }& & & \\ & e^{2k\tau }& e^{i\varphi }e^{k\tau }& \\ & e^{i\varphi }e^{k\tau }& 1& \end{array}\right].$$
(15)
This result can be easily interpreted: the population of the $`|g|1`$ component exponentially decays to $`|g|0`$. This fed component does not have any degree of coherence with the others, while the remaining part keeps the maximum degree of coherence that it can support with the population of the $`|e|0`$ level. A new $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ pulse is applied and the system can now be described by

$$\rho _{\frac{\pi }{2}}\left(\tau \right)=\frac{1}{2}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1e^{2k\tau }& & & \\ & \frac{1}{2}\left(1+e^{2k\tau }\right)+e^{k\tau }\mathrm{sin}\varphi & e^{k\tau }\mathrm{cos}\varphi +\frac{i}{2}\left(1e^{2k\tau }\right)& \\ & e^{k\tau }\mathrm{cos}\varphi \frac{i}{2}\left(1e^{2k\tau }\right)& \frac{1}{2}\left(1+e^{2k\tau }\right)e^{k\tau }\mathrm{sin}\varphi & \end{array}\right].$$
(16)
With the above described state it is immediate to calculate the probability to obtain an atom in the $`|g`$ state by summing the two present channels:

$$P_g=\frac{1}{4}\frac{1}{4}e^{2k\tau }+\frac{1}{2}e^{k\tau }\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,$$
(17)
which represents an interference pattern with visibility

$$𝒱=\frac{2e^{k\tau }}{3e^{k\tau }}.$$
(18)
The plot of this function is represented by the upper curve in figure 4. With the data from the Bertet et al. experiment , $`T=k\tau =.008`$, this analysis gives $`𝒱=98.8\%`$. By normalizing to the maximum visibility given by the first setup, one obtains $`𝒱=74.1\%`$.

For non null temperature, the master equation (12) can also be solved, but the solution will have all doublets occupied. We have used a method which appeared in reference , which is based on the linearity of equation (12) with respect to $`\rho _f`$, and keeps some resemblance with the one adopted in reference . The detailed calculation can be found in . Using the initial state (10), evolving the non interacting atom-field system by the equation (12) for a time $`\tau `$, and then using Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian to evolve the system for a time $`\chi `$, we get the atomic state (after field partial trace):

$$\rho _{at}=P_g|gg\left|+P_e\right|ee|,$$
(19)
with $`P_g+P_e=1`$, and

$$P_g=P_g^c+P_g^o\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,$$
(20)
where the constant term $`P_g^c`$ is given by the sum of four parts:

$`P_g^{c1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{2jT}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{n}^jj\overline{n}^{j1}}{\left(1+\overline{n}\right)^{j+1}}},`$ (21)
$`P_g^{c2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{2jT}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{n}^jj\overline{n}^{j1}}{\left(1+\overline{n}\right)^{j+1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{j1}{}}}\left[\left(1+\overline{n}\right)\right]^{m1}\left(\begin{array}{c}j\\ m+1\end{array}\right)\mathrm{cos}^2\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_m\chi \right),`$ (24)
$`P_g^{c3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{2jT}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{n}^j}{\left(1+\overline{n}\right)^{j+1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{j}{}}}\left(\overline{n}\right)^l\left(\begin{array}{c}j\\ l\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \underset{m=l}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{n}}{1+\overline{n}}}\right)^m\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ l\end{array}\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_m\chi \right),`$ (29)
$`P_g^{c4}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{2jT}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{n}^jj\overline{n}^{j1}}{\left(1+\overline{n}\right)^{j+1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{j}{}}}\left(\overline{n}\right)^l\left(\begin{array}{c}j\\ l\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \underset{m=l}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{n}}{1+\overline{n}}}\right)^{m+1}\left(\begin{array}{c}m+1\\ l\end{array}\right)\mathrm{cos}^2\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_m\chi \right),`$ (34)
while the oscillatory term has the form

$$P_g^o=\frac{e^T}{2}\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{2jT}\frac{\overline{n}^j}{\left(1+\overline{n}\right)^{j+2}}\underset{l=0}{\overset{j}{}}\left(\overline{n}\right)^l\left(\begin{array}{c}j\\ l\end{array}\right)\underset{m=l}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{\overline{n}}{1+\overline{n}}\right)^m\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ l\end{array}\right)\frac{\left(j+1\right)\left(m+1\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}{l+1}\mathrm{sin}\left(2\mathrm{\Omega }_m\chi \right).$$
(35)
The condition $`\overline{n}<1`$ is sufficient to make all the above series convergent.

The fringe pattern given by equation (20) has visibility

$$𝒱=\frac{P_g^o}{P_g^c},$$
(36)
and this visibility function is represented by the lower curve in figure 4. There we used $`\overline{n}=0.7`$, which characterizes the mean photon number of the mode when thermal equilibrium is attained, according to reference . It is important to note that the “cooling” process adopted in the experiment is important to make the initial state closer to vacuum, at least in the sense of mean photon number, but this process does not affect the reservoir temperature, which is the essential data here. For the time $`T=.008`$ used in the experiment, we get $`𝒱=98.3\%`$. Renormalized by the $`\eta `$ factor from the first setup, we get $`𝒱=73.7\%`$. As we can estimate the visibility of the experimental fringe pattern of figure 2 as $`𝒱=69\%`$, we can conclude that, in the actual experiment, cavity imperfections are small sources of visibility loss. In fact, with our calculations, we can conclude that the second setup would generate a $`70.2\%`$ visibility pattern if there were no cavity losses, but with all other experimental error sources present.

We now suggest a simple modification of this part of the experiment which would allow for monitoring the progressive appearance of classicality as follows. One can enlarge the time in between the two $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ pulses and monitor the visibility loss of the patterns. This can be achieved by slowing down the atoms, which actual experimental velocity in ref.  is $`500m/s`$. If one supposes that the remaining experimental errors will not vary, for a $`200m/s`$ atomic beam one will obtain a $`67\%`$ visibility pattern; for $`50m/s`$, $`59\%`$; and for $`10m/s`$, $`31\%`$. It is interesting to interpret that in this case the classical manifestation that is being achieved is the loss of the capacity of making a “quantum eraser”; in other words, the which way information initially available in the field mode, which could be manipulated, is being irreversibly lost to the environment. While in the first setup the atom-field entanglement is suppressed by the enlarging of field amplitude (large quantum numbers), in this second modified one this entanglement is being suppressed by the concurrent field-environment entanglement creation (decoherence).

It is instructive to compare this proposed experiment with a classical analog. In a purely optical Mach-Zehnder interferometer one can vary the size of the arms and progressively lose visibility up to the *coherence length*. This marks a transition from the *wave optics* domain, dominated by interference and diffraction effects, to *geometrical optics*, characterized only by rays. In the proposed experiment one can progressively lose visibility in a Ramsey fringe pattern, up to a *decoherence time*, marking the transition from *quantum mechanics*, characterized by matter wave interference and diffraction effects, to *classical mechanics*, characterized only by trajectories. One should note that the above optical-mechanical analogy has guided Schrödinger in proposing his wave equation for the “new” mechanics , and our proposed experiment would follow this transition.

The authors would like to thank L. Davidovich, N. Zagury, R.L. de Matos Filho, J.G. Peixoto de Faria, and P. Nussenzveig for fruitful discussions on this matter. This work was partially supported by the Milleniun Institute on Quantum Information. MCN is partially supported by CNPq.

Figure captions

Figure 1: The Mach-Zehnder analog and the first experimental scheme. a, The first beam splitter, $`B_1`$, is free to oscillate coupled to a spring fixed at $`O`$. If the $`B_1`$ mass is macroscopic, the momentum kick given by the reflected photon can be neglected and the usual interference pattern is observed. In the case where $`B_1`$’s mass is microscopic, $`B_1`$ movement would contain information about the photon trajectory, and the fringes would be eliminated. b, A Rydberg atom internal eigenstate is taken to a superposition of two internal eigenstates by the interaction with the $`C`$ cavity field mode. If the field intensity is large, the effect on the field of interaction with the atom can be neglected, and Ramsey fringes are observed at the recombined “beams” atomic detection. In the low intensity field case, the mean photon number after the interaction stores information about the atomic state, and fringes are suppressed. The picture represents $`e`$ and $`g`$ levels by distinct trajectories just to improve scheme visualization. (Figure taken from reference ).

Figure 2: The Mach-Zehnder analog, the second experimental scheme, and experimental results. a, Both beam splitters, $`B_1`$ e $`B_2`$, are coupled to the same oscillator. Interaction with the second beam splitter, $`B_2`$, allows the “erasure” of the which path information created in the interaction with $`B_1`$, restoring interference fringes. b, The two atom-field interacting regions $`R_1`$ e $`R_2`$ allows the “erasure” of which way information, restoring Ramsey fringes. c, Experimental results are fitted by a $`𝒱=69\%`$ visibility interference pattern. (Figure taken from reference ).

Figure 3: The modified Mach-Zehnder interferometer used to discuss a classical analogy to “quantum” eraser. a, If the detector is aligned with one arm, only light from this arm is recorded, and no interference is obtained. b, By imposing a linear combination of wave vectors one can obtain (or restore) a fringe pattern. In this sense, all interferometers work like an “unconditional quantum eraser”, where the alignment process is made to make the alternative paths indistinguishable.

Figure 4: Pattern visibility as a function of the time between the two $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ pulses. The upper curve is for null temperature, the lower for $`\overline{n}=0.7`$. Only thermal and dissipative effects are considered; the effect of all other imperfections is estimated in the text. $`T`$ is the adimensional time $`T=k\tau `$.


text:
# Quantum Lower Bound for Recursive Fourier Sampling

## 1 Preliminaries

In ordinary Fourier sampling, we are given oracle access to a Boolean function $`A:\{0,1\}^n\{0,1\}`$, and are promised that there exists a secret string $`s\{0,1\}^n`$ such that $`A\left(x\right)=sx\left(\mathrm{mod}2\right)`$ for all $`x`$. The problem is to find $`s`$—or rather, since we need a problem with Boolean output, the problem is to return $`g\left(s\right)`$, where $`g:\{0,1\}^n\{0,1\}`$ is some known Boolean function. We can think of $`g\left(s\right)`$ as the “hard-core bit” of $`s`$, and can assume that $`g`$ itself is efficiently computable, or else that we are given access to an oracle for $`g`$.

To obtain a height-$`2`$ recursive Fourier sampling tree, we simply compose this problem. That is, we are no longer given direct access to $`A\left(x\right)`$, but instead are promised that $`A\left(x\right)=g\left(s_x\right)`$, where $`s_x\{0,1\}^n`$ is the secret string for another Fourier sampling problem. A query then takes the form $`(x,y)`$, and produces as output $`A_x\left(y\right)=s_xy\left(\mathrm{mod}2\right)`$. As before, we are promised that there exists an $`s`$ such that $`A\left(x\right)=sx\left(\mathrm{mod}2\right)`$ for all $`x`$, meaning that the $`s_x`$ strings must be chosen consistent with this promise. Again we must return $`g\left(s\right)`$.

Continuing, we can define height-$`h`$ recursive Fourier sampling, or $`\underset{h}{RFS}`$, recursively as follows. We are given oracle access to a function $`A(x_1,\mathrm{},x_h)`$ for all $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_h\{0,1\}^n`$, and are promised that

1. for each fixed $`x_1^{}`$, $`A(x_1^{},x_2,\mathrm{},x_h)`$ is an instance of $`\underset{h1}{RFS}`$ on $`x_2,\mathrm{},x_h`$, having answer bit $`b\left(x_1^{}\right)\{0,1\}`$; and
2. there exists a secret string $`s\{0,1\}^n`$ such that $`b\left(x_1^{}\right)=sx_1^{}\left(\mathrm{mod}2\right)`$ for each $`x_1^{}`$.

Again the answer bit to be returned is $`g\left(s\right)`$. Note that $`g`$ is assumed to be the same everywhere in the tree—though using the techniques in this paper, it would be straightforward to generalize to the case of different $`g`$’s. As an example that will be used later, we could take $`g\left(s\right)=g_{\mathrm{mod}3}\left(s\right)`$, where $`g_{\mathrm{mod}3}\left(s\right)=0`$ if $`\left|s\right|0\left(\mathrm{mod}3\right)`$ and $`g_{\mathrm{mod}3}\left(s\right)=1`$ otherwise, and $`\left|s\right|`$ denotes the Hamming weight of $`s`$. We do not want to take $`g`$ to be the parity of $`s`$, for if we did then $`g\left(s\right)`$ could be evaluated using a single query. To see this, observe that if $`x`$ is the all-$`1`$’s string, then $`sx\left(\mathrm{mod}2\right)`$ is the parity of $`s`$.

By an ‘input,’ I will mean a complete assignment for the $`RFS`$ oracle (that is, $`A(x_1,\mathrm{},x_h)`$ for all $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_h`$). I will sometimes refer also to an ‘$`RFS`$ tree,’ where each vertex at distance $`\mathrm{}`$ from the root has a label $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_{\mathrm{}}`$. If $`\mathrm{}=h`$ then the vertex is a leaf; otherwise it has $`2^n`$ children, each with a label $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_{\mathrm{}},x_{\mathrm{}+1}`$ for some $`x_{\mathrm{}+1}`$. The subtrees of the tree just correspond to the sub-instances of $`RFS`$.

Bernstein and Vazirani  showed that $`\underset{\mathrm{log}n}{RFS}`$, or $`RFS`$ with height $`\mathrm{log}n`$ (all logarithms are base $`2`$), is solvable on a quantum computer in time polynomial in $`n`$. I include a proof for completeness. Let $`A=\left(A_n\right)_{n0}`$ be an oracle that, for each $`n`$, encodes an instance of $`\underset{\mathrm{log}n}{RFS}`$ whose answer is $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$. Then let $`L_A`$ be the unary language $`\{0^n:\mathrm{\Psi }_n=1\}`$.

###### Lemma 1

$`L_A\mathrm{𝖤𝖰𝖯}^A\mathrm{𝖡𝖰𝖯}^A`$ for any choice of $`A.`$

Proof. $`\underset{1}{RFS}`$ can be solved exactly in four queries, with no garbage bits left over. The algorithm is as follows: first prepare the state

$$2^{n/2}\underset{x\{0,1\}^n}{}|x|A\left(x\right),$$

using one query to $`A`$. Then apply a phase flip conditioned on $`A\left(x\right)=1`$, and uncompute $`A\left(x\right)`$ using a second query, obtaining

$$2^{n/2}\underset{x\{0,1\}^n}{}\left(1\right)^{A\left(x\right)}|x.$$

Then apply a Hadamard gate to each bit of the $`|x`$ register. It can be checked that the resulting state is simply $`|s`$. One can then compute $`|s|g\left(s\right)`$ and uncompute $`|s`$ using two more queries to $`A`$, to obtain $`|g\left(s\right)`$. To solve $`RFS_{\mathrm{log}n}\left(n\right)`$, we simply apply the above algorithm recursively at each level of the tree. The total number of queries used is $`4^{\mathrm{log}n}=n^2`$.

One can further reduce the number of queries to $`2^{\mathrm{log}n}=n`$ by using the “one-call kickback trick,” described by Cleve et al. . Here one prepares the state

$$2^{n/2}\underset{x\{0,1\}^n}{}|x\frac{|1|0}{\sqrt{2}}$$

and then exclusive-$`OR`$’s $`A\left(x\right)`$ into the second register. This induces the desired phase $`\left(1\right)^{A\left(x\right)}`$ without the need to uncompute $`A\left(x\right)`$. However, one still needs to uncompute $`|s`$ after computing $`|g\left(s\right)`$.

A remark on notation: to avoid confusion with subscripts, I denote the $`i^{th}`$ bit of string $`x`$ by $`x\left[i\right]`$.

## 2 Quantum Lower Bound

In this section I prove a lower bound on the quantum query complexity of $`RFS`$. Crucially, the bound should hold for any nontrivial one-bit function of the secret strings, not just a specific function such as $`g_{\mathrm{mod}3}\left(s\right)`$ defined in Section 1. Let $`\underset{h}{\overset{g}{RFS}}`$ be height-$`h`$ recursive Fourier sampling in which the problem at each vertex is to return $`g\left(s\right)`$. The following notion turns out to be essential.

###### Definition 2

Given a Boolean function $`g:\{0,1\}^n\{0,1\}`$ (partial or total), the nonparity coefficient $`\mu \left(g\right)`$ is the largest $`\mu ^{}`$ for which there exist distributions $`D_0`$ over the $`0`$-inputs of $`g`$, and $`D_1`$ over the $`1`$-inputs, such that for all $`z\{0,1\}^n`$, all $`0`$-inputs $`\widehat{s}_0`$, and all $`1`$-inputs $`\widehat{s}_1`$, we have

$$\underset{s_0D_0,s_1D_1}{\mathrm{Pr}}\left[s_0z\widehat{s}_1z\left(\mathrm{mod}2\right)s_1z\widehat{s}_0z\left(\mathrm{mod}2\right)\right]\mu ^{}\text{.}$$

Loosely speaking, the nonparity coefficient is high if there exist distributions over $`0`$-inputs and $`1`$-inputs that make $`g`$ far from being a parity function of a subset of input bits. The following proposition develops some intuition about $`\mu \left(g\right)`$.

###### Proposition 3

1. $`\mu \left(g\right)3/4`$ for all nonconstant $`g`$.
2. $`\mu \left(g\right)=0`$ if and only if $`g`$ can be written as the parity (or the NOT of the parity) of a subset $`B`$ of input bits.

Proof.

1. Given any $`s_0\widehat{s}_1`$ and $`s_1\widehat{s}_0`$, a uniform random $`z`$ will satisfy

$$\underset{z}{\mathrm{Pr}}\left[s_0z\widehat{s}_1z\left(\mathrm{mod}2\right)s_1z\widehat{s}_0z\left(\mathrm{mod}2\right)\right]\frac{1}{4}\text{.}$$

(If $`s_0\widehat{s}_1=s_1\widehat{s}_0`$ then this probability will be $`1/2`$; otherwise it will be $`1/4`$.) So certainly there is a fixed choice of $`z`$ that works for random $`s_0`$ and $`s_1`$.
2. For the ‘if’ direction, take $`z\left[i\right]=1`$ if and only if $`iB`$, and choose $`\widehat{s}_0`$ and $`\widehat{s}_1`$ arbitrarily. This ensures that $`\mu ^{}=0`$. For the ‘only if’ direction, if $`\mu \left(g\right)=0`$, we can choose $`D_0`$ to have support on all $`0`$-inputs, and $`D_1`$ to have support on all $`1`$-inputs. Then there must be a $`z`$ such that $`s_0z`$ is constant as we range over $`0`$-inputs, and $`s_1z`$ is constant as we range over $`1`$-inputs. Take $`iB`$ if and only if $`z\left[i\right]=1`$.

If $`\mu \left(g\right)=0`$, then $`\underset{h}{\overset{g}{RFS}}`$ is easily solvable using a single classical query. Theorem 5 will show that for all $`g`$ (partial or total),

$$\underset{2}{Q}\left(\underset{h}{\overset{g}{RFS}}\right)=\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\left(\frac{1}{1\mu \left(g\right)}\right)^{h/2}\right),$$

where $`\underset{2}{Q}\left(f\right)`$ is the bounded-error quantum query complexity of $`f`$ as defined by Beals et al. . In other words, any $`RFS`$ problem with $`\mu `$ bounded away from $`0`$ requires a number of queries exponential in the tree height $`h`$.

However, there is an essential further part of the argument, which restricts the values of $`\mu \left(g\right)`$ itself. Suppose there existed a family $`\left\{g_n\right\}`$ of ‘pseudoparity’ functions: that is, $`\mu \left(g_n\right)>0`$ for all $`n`$, yet $`\mu \left(g_n\right)=O(1/\mathrm{log}n)`$. Then the best bound obtainable from Theorem 5 would be $`\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\left(1+1/\mathrm{log}n\right)^{h/2}\right)`$, suggesting that $`\underset{\mathrm{log}^2n}{\overset{g}{RFS}}`$ might still be solvable in quantum polynomial time. On the other hand, it would be unclear a priori how to solve $`\underset{\mathrm{log}^2n}{\overset{g}{RFS}}`$ classically with a logarithmic number of alternations. Theorem 7 will rule out this scenario by showing that pseudoparity functions do not exist: if $`\mu \left(g\right)<0.146`$ then $`g`$ is a parity function, and hence $`\mu \left(g\right)=0`$.

The theorem of Ambainis that we need is his “most general” lower bound from , which he introduced to show that the quantum query complexity of inverting a permutation is $`\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\sqrt{n}\right)`$. That theorem can be stated as follows.

###### Theorem 4 (Ambainis)

Let $`Xf^1\left(0\right)`$ and $`Yf^1\left(1\right)`$ be sets of inputs to function $`f`$. Let $`R(x,y)0`$ be a symmetric real-valued relation function, and for $`xX`$, $`yY`$, and index $`i`$, let

$`\theta (x,i)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{_{y^{}Y:x\left[i\right]y^{}\left[i\right]}R(x,y^{})}{_{y^{}Y}R(x,y^{})}},`$
$`\theta (y,i)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{_{x^{}X:x^{}\left[i\right]y\left[i\right]}R(x^{},y)}{_{y^{}Y}R(x^{},y)}},`$
where the denominators are all nonzero. Then $`\underset{2}{Q}\left(f\right)=O\left(1/\upsilon \right)`$ where

$$\upsilon =\underset{xX,yY,i:R(x,y)>0,x\left[i\right]y\left[i\right]}{\mathrm{max}}\sqrt{\theta (x,i)\theta (y,i)}.$$

We are now ready to prove a lower bound for $`RFS`$.

###### Theorem 5

For all $`g`$ (partial or total), $`\underset{2}{Q}\left(\underset{h}{\overset{g}{RFS}}\right)=\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\left(1\mu \left(g\right)\right)^{h/2}\right)`$.

Proof. Let $`X`$ be the set of all $`0`$-inputs to $`\underset{h}{\overset{g}{RFS}}`$, and let $`Y`$ be the set of all $`1`$-inputs. We will weight the inputs using the distributions $`D_0,D_1`$ from the definition of the nonparity coefficient $`\mu \left(g\right)`$. For all $`xX`$, let $`p\left(x\right)`$ be the product, over all vertices $`v`$ in the $`RFS`$ tree for $`x`$, of the probability of the secret string $`s`$ at $`v`$, if $`s`$ is drawn from $`D_{g\left(s\right)}`$ (where we condition on $`v`$’s output bit, $`g\left(s\right)`$). Next, say that $`xX`$ and $`yY`$ differ minimally if, for all vertices $`v`$ of the $`RFS`$ tree, the subtrees rooted at $`v`$ are identical in $`x`$ and in $`y`$ whenever the answer bit $`g\left(s\right)`$ at $`v`$ is the same in $`x`$ and in $`y`$. If $`x`$ and $`y`$ differ minimally, then we will set $`R(x,y)=p\left(x\right)p\left(y\right)`$; otherwise we will set $`R(x,y)=0`$. Clearly $`R(x,y)=R(y,x)`$ for all $`xX,yY`$. Furthermore, we claim that $`\theta (x,i)\theta (y,i)\left(1\mu \left(g\right)\right)^h`$ for all $`x,y`$ that differ minimally and all $`i`$ such that $`x\left[i\right]y\left[i\right]`$. For suppose $`y^{}Y`$ is chosen with probability proportional to $`R(x,y^{})`$, and $`x^{}X`$ is chosen with probability proportional to $`R(x^{},y)`$. Then $`\theta (x,i)\theta (y,i)`$ equals the probability that we would notice the switch from $`x`$ to $`y^{}`$ by monitoring $`i`$, times the probability that we would notice the switch from $`y`$ to $`x^{}`$.

Let $`v_j`$ be the $`j^{th}`$ vertex along the path in the $`RFS`$ tree from the root to the leaf vertex $`i`$, for all $`j\{1,\mathrm{},h\}`$. Also, let $`z_j\{0,1\}^n`$ be the label of the edge between $`v_{j1}`$ and $`v_j`$, and let $`s_{x,j}`$ and $`s_{y,j}`$ be the secret strings at $`v_j`$ in $`x`$ and $`y`$ respectively. Then since $`x`$ and $`y`$ differ minimally, we must have $`g\left(s_{x,j}\right)g\left(s_{y,j}\right)`$ for all $`j`$—for otherwise the subtrees rooted at $`v_j`$ would be identical, which contradicts the assumption $`x\left[i\right]y\left[i\right]`$. So we can think of the process of choosing $`y^{}`$ as first choosing a random $`s_{x,1}^{}`$ from $`D_1`$ so that $`1=g\left(s_{x,1}^{}\right)g\left(s_{x,1}\right)=0`$, then choosing a random $`s_{x,2}^{}`$ from $`D_{1g\left(s_{x,2}\right)}`$ so that $`g\left(s_{x,2}^{}\right)g\left(s_{x,2}\right)`$, and so on. Choosing $`x^{}`$ is analogous, except that whenever we used $`D_0`$ in choosing $`y^{}`$ we use $`D_1`$, and vice versa. Since the $`2h`$ secret strings $`s_{x,1},\mathrm{},s_{x,h},s_{y,1},\mathrm{},s_{y,h}`$ to be updated are independent of one another, it follows that

$`\mathrm{Pr}\left[y^{}\left[i\right]x\left[i\right]\right]\mathrm{Pr}\left[x^{}\left[i\right]y\left[i\right]\right]`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{h}{}}}\underset{sD_0}{\mathrm{Pr}}\left[sz_js_{x,j}z_j\right]\underset{sD_1}{\mathrm{Pr}}\left[sz_js_{y,j}z_j\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{h}{}}}\left(1\mu \left(g\right)\right)`$
$`=\left(1\mu \left(g\right)\right)^h`$
by the definition of $`\mu \left(g\right)`$. Therefore

$$\underset{2}{Q}\left(\underset{h}{\overset{g}{RFS}}\right)=\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\left(1\mu \left(g\right)\right)^{h/2}\right)$$

by Theorem 4.

Before continuing further, let me show that there is a natural, explicit choice of $`g`$—the function $`g_{\mathrm{mod}3}\left(s\right)`$ from Section 1—for which the nonparity coefficient is almost $`3/4`$. Thus, for $`g=g_{\mathrm{mod}3}`$, the algorithm of Lemma 1 is essentially optimal.

###### Proposition 6

$`\mu \left(g_{\mathrm{mod}3}\right)=3/4O\left(1/n\right)`$.

Proof. Let $`n6`$. Let $`D_0`$ be the uniform distribution over all $`s`$ with $`\left|s\right|=3n/6`$ (so $`g_{\mathrm{mod}3}\left(s\right)=0`$); likewise let $`D_1`$ be the uniform distribution over $`s`$ with $`\left|s\right|=3n/6+2`$ ($`g_{\mathrm{mod}3}\left(s\right)=1`$). We consider only the case of $`s`$ drawn from $`D_0`$; the $`D_1`$ case is analogous. We will show that for any $`z`$,

$$\left|\underset{sD_0}{\mathrm{Pr}}\left[sz0\right]\frac{1}{2}\right|=O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)$$

(all congruences are $`\mathrm{mod}2`$). The theorem then follows, since by the definition of the nonparity coefficient, given any $`z`$ the choices of $`s_0D_0`$ and $`s_1D_1`$ are independent.

Assume without loss of generality that $`1\left|z\right|n/2`$ (if $`\left|z\right|>n/2`$, then replace $`z`$ by its complement). We apply induction on $`\left|z\right|`$. If $`\left|z\right|=1`$, then clearly

$$\mathrm{Pr}\left[sz0\right]=3n/6/n=\frac{1}{2}\pm O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)\text{.}$$

For $`\left|z\right|2`$, let $`z=z_1z_2`$, where $`z_2`$ contains only the rightmost $`1`$ of $`z`$ and $`z_1`$ contains all the other $`1`$’s. Suppose the proposition holds for $`\left|z\right|1`$. Then

$`\mathrm{Pr}\left[sz0\right]=`$ $`\mathrm{Pr}\left[sz_10\right]\mathrm{Pr}\left[sz_20|sz_10\right]+`$
$`\mathrm{Pr}\left[sz_11\right]\mathrm{Pr}\left[sz_21|sz_11\right]\text{,}`$
where

$$\mathrm{Pr}\left[sz_10\right]=\frac{1}{2}+\alpha ,\mathrm{Pr}\left[sz_11\right]=\frac{1}{2}\alpha $$

for some $`\left|\alpha \right|=O\left(1/n\right)`$. Furthermore, even conditioned on $`sz_1`$, the expected number of $`1`$’s in $`s`$ outside of $`z_1`$ is $`\left(n\left|z_1\right|\right)/2\pm O\left(1\right)`$ and they are uniformly distributed. Therefore

$$\mathrm{Pr}\left[sz_2b|sz_1b\right]=\frac{1}{2}+\beta _b$$

for some $`\left|\beta _0\right|,\left|\beta _1\right|=O\left(1/n\right)`$. So

$`\mathrm{Pr}\left[sz0\right]`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _0}{2}}+\alpha \beta _0{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{2}}\alpha \beta _1`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pm O\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\right).`$
Finally it must be shown that pseudoparity functions do not exist. That is, if $`g`$ is too close to a parity function for the bound of Theorem 5 to apply, then $`g`$ actually is a parity function, from which it follows that $`RFS_h^g`$ admits an efficient classical algorithm.

###### Theorem 7

Suppose $`\mu \left(g\right)<0.146`$. Then $`g`$ is a parity function (equivalently, $`\mu \left(g\right)=0`$).

Proof. By linear programming duality, there exists a joint distribution $`𝒟`$ over $`z\{0,1\}^n`$, $`0`$-inputs $`\widehat{s}_0g^1\left(0\right)`$, and $`1`$-inputs $`\widehat{s}_1g^1\left(1\right)`$, such that for all $`s_0g^1\left(0\right)`$ and $`s_1g^1\left(1\right)`$,

$$\underset{(z,\widehat{s}_0,\widehat{s}_1)𝒟}{\mathrm{Pr}}\left[s_0z\widehat{s}_1z\left(\mathrm{mod}2\right)s_1z\widehat{s}_0z\left(\mathrm{mod}2\right)\right]<\mu \left(g\right)\text{.}$$

Furthermore $`\widehat{s}_0z\widehat{s}_1z\left(\mathrm{mod}2\right)`$, since otherwise we could violate the hypothesis by taking $`s_0=\widehat{s}_0`$ or $`s_1=\widehat{s}_1`$. It follows that there exists a joint distribution $`𝒟^{}`$ over $`z\{0,1\}^n`$ and $`b\{0,1\}`$ such that

$$\underset{(z,b)𝒟^{}}{\mathrm{Pr}}\left[szb\left(\mathrm{mod}2\right)\right]>1\mu \left(g\right)$$

for all $`sg^1\left(0\right)`$, and

$$\underset{(z,b)𝒟^{}}{\mathrm{Pr}}\left[szb\left(\mathrm{mod}2\right)\right]>1\mu \left(g\right)$$

for all $`sg^1\left(1\right)`$. But this implies that $`g`$ is a bounded-error threshold function of parity functions. More precisely, there exist probabilities $`p_z`$, summing to $`1`$, as well as $`b_z\{0,1\}`$ such that for all $`s\{0,1\}^n`$,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }\left(s\right)=\underset{z\{0,1\}^n}{}p_z\left(\left(sz\right)b_z\right)\text{ is }\{\begin{array}{cc}>1\mu \left(g\right)\hfill & \text{if }g\left(s\right)=1\hfill \\ <\mu \left(g\right)\hfill & \text{if }g\left(s\right)=0.\hfill \end{array}$$

We will consider $`var\left(\mathrm{\Psi }\right)`$, the variance of the above quantity $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(s\right)`$ if $`s`$ is drawn uniformly at random from $`\{0,1\}^n`$. First, if $`p_z1/2`$ for any $`z`$, then $`g\left(s\right)=\left(sz\right)b_z`$ is a parity function and hence $`\mu \left(g\right)=0`$. So we can assume without loss of generality that $`p_z<1/2`$ for all $`z`$. Then since $`s`$ is uniform, for each $`z_1z_2`$ we know that $`\left(sz_1\right)b_{z_1}`$ and $`\left(sz_2\right)b_{z_2}`$ are pairwise independent $`\{0,1\}`$ random variables, both with expectation $`1/2`$. So

$$var\left(\mathrm{\Psi }\right)=\frac{1}{4}_zp_z^2<\frac{1}{4}\left(\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^2+\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^2\right)=\frac{1}{8}\text{.}$$

On the other hand, since $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(s\right)`$ is always less than $`\mu `$ or greater than $`1\mu `$,

$$var\left(\mathrm{\Psi }\right)>\left(\frac{1}{2}\mu \right)^2.$$

Combining,

$$\mu >\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{4}>0.146.$$

## 3 Open Problems

An intriguing open problem is whether Theorem 5 can be proved using the polynomial method of Beals et al. , rather than the adversary method of Ambainis . It is known that one can lower-bound polynomial degree in terms of block sensitivity, or the maximum number of disjoint changes to an input that change the output value. The trouble is that the $`RFS`$ function has block sensitivity $`1`$—the “sensitive blocks” of each input tend to have small intersection, but are not disjoint. For this reason, I implicitly used the “quantum certificate complexity” as defined in  rather than block sensitivity to prove a lower bound.

I believe the constant of Theorem 7 can be improved. The smallest nonzero $`\mu \left(g\right)`$ value I know of is attained when $`n=2`$ and $`g=OR(s\left[1\right],s\left[2\right])`$:

###### Proposition 8

$`\mu (OR)=1/3`$.

Proof. First, $`\mu (OR)1/3`$, since $`D_1`$ can choose $`s\left[1\right]s\left[2\right]`$ to be $`01`$, $`10`$, or $`11`$ each with probability $`1/3`$; then for any $`z0`$ and the unique $`0`$-input $`\widehat{s}_0=00`$, we have $`s_1z\widehat{s}_0z`$ with probability at most $`2/3`$. Second, $`\mu (OR)1/3`$, since applying linear programming duality, we can let the pair $`(z,\widehat{s}_1)`$ equal $`(01,01)`$, $`(10,10)`$, or $`(11,10)`$ each with probability $`1/3`$. Then $`0s_0z\widehat{s}_1z1`$ always, and for any $`1`$-input $`s_1`$, we have $`s_1z1\widehat{s}_0z`$ with probability $`2/3`$.

Finally, I conjecture that uncomputation is unavoidable not just for $`RFS`$ but for many other recursive problems, such as game-tree evaluation. Formally, the conjecture is that the quantum query complexity of evaluating a game tree increases exponentially with depth as the number of leaves is held constant, even if there is at most one winning move per vertex (so that the tree can be evaluated with zero probability of error).

## 4 Acknowledgments

I thank Lisa Hales, Umesh Vazirani, Ronald de Wolf, and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. This work was done while I was a graduate student at UC Berkeley, supported by an NSF Graduate Fellowship.


text:
# References

Abstract

We study the imaginary part of the effective $`ac`$ conductivity as well as its distribution probability for vanishing losses in 2D composites. This investigation showed that the effective medium theory provides only informations about the average conductivity, while its fluctuations which correspond to the field energy in this limit are neglected by this theory.
Keywords: Optical properties, Percolation, Absorption, Disorder, Localization.
PACS Nos. 72.15.Gd;05.70.Jk;71.55.J

Introduction

Although metal-dielectric composites were extensively investigated during the last decade, some cases where the local field and conductivity fluctuations are strong remain not understood . The effective medium theory  relates at the percolation threshold, the effective conductivity to the metal and dielectric conductivities by

$$\sigma _{eff}=\sqrt{\sigma _m\sigma _d}$$
(1)
The indices $`m`$, $`d`$ and $`eff`$ stand respectively for the metal, dielectric and effective medium. However, this equation is not satisfied for vanishing loss, where it expects the effective $`ac`$ conductivity to be real while numerical studies showed the real part to be vanishing . Brouers et al.  explained the field behavior in this limiting case as an energy storage of the electromagnetic wave between dielectric and superconducting component. In the same sens, we have found the local field to be localized in this limit . This localization is enhanced by the dissipation for finite losses.

However, no work (to the best of our knowldge) has been devoted to the imaginary part of the effective conductivity in this limit of the loss. This is the aim of the present work where we study the loss effect on the imaginary part of the effective conductivity as well as its distribution in its vanishing limit for a 2D metal-dielectric network.

Model description

The metal-dielectric composites can be modelled as an $`RLC`$ network where the metallic grains represent the $`RL`$ branches while dielectric grains correspond to the capacitance $`C`$ . The frequency dependent conductivities behave then respectively for the metal and dielectric components as

$$\sigma _{m,d}=\frac{id\omega ϵ_{m,d}}{4\pi }$$
(2)
$$\sigma _m=\frac{1}{iL\omega +R}$$
(3)
and

$$\sigma _d=iC\omega $$
(4)
$`R`$ being the loss in the metal. We limit ourselves in this paper to the characteristic frequency $`\omega _{res}`$ where $`\left|\sigma _m\right|=\left|\sigma _d\right|`$ for vanishing loss, i.e. $`L\omega _{res}=1/C\omega _{res}`$. The inductance $`L`$ and capacitance $`C`$ being constant near the characteristic frequency, we can take without loss of generality $`L=C=\omega _{res}=1`$. For any frequency close to $`\omega _{res}`$ the frequency $`\omega `$ in these equations is expressed as $`\omega /\omega _{res}`$. Although this form simplifies the calculations, we can easily determine the true parameters of the dielectric constants of the two components .

In order to determine the effective conductivity of the resulting $`RLC`$ network, we solve exactly the sets of Kirchoff equations of the $`RLC`$ network by handling the corresponding large matrices by blocs of small matrices due to their sparce shape and arrangement in the diagonal region (see ).

Results and discussion

In a 2D square lattice, the percolation threshold is reached when the concentration of the metallic component is $`p=0.5`$ . For the rest of the paper, we restrict ourselves to this concentration. We then consider an $`RLC`$ lattice of $`256`$x$`256`$ branches in order to ensure a statistically stable system. We have previously found the real part of the effective conductivity to vanish for a vanishing loss . This result does not agree with the predictions of the effective medium theory (given by Eq. 1) where the imaginary part is expected to vanish while the real one should be finite in this limit. However, in the case of very small losses, the local field strongly fluctuates  and the distribution of real part of the effective conductivity is Poissonian and therefore, not characterized by its averaged value . Such fluctuations are not taken into account by the effective medium theory which determines only the average effective conductivity. First, we will study the effect of vanishing loss on the imaginary conductivity (which was not examined in the previous works ).

In figure 1, we show the loss dependance of the imaginary part of the effective conductivity for two sample realizations. The main feature in this figure is a transition behavior at around $`R=10^5`$ Ohm from a vanishing conductivity for large losses (expected from Eq.1) to finite one for very small losses where this conductivity saturates. This transition region (which separates the two different statistical behaviors for small and large losses) was also observed in the behavior of the real conductivity . We see also from Fig.1 that the imaginary conductivity can have either positive or negative values depending on the sample realization. Therefore the system should strongly fluctuate between metallic (inductive) and dielectric (capacitive) behavior in the limit of very small losses. This leads us to examine the statistical properties of the imaginary effective conductivity.

These statistical properties are clearly shown in figure 2 for two different sizes for comparison ($`150x150`$ and $`256`$x$`256`$) and for $`450`$ realizations with $`R=10^9`$ Ohm, where the distribution of the imaginary effective conductivity is a symmetric centered at $`0`$. The fluctuations seem to decrease much slowly with size than the square root of the size (which is characteristics of normal distributions). Therefore this distribution may have long tails like levy distributions . These results agree with the prediction of Eq. 1 regarding the average imaginary conductivity, but in this case the main information should be provided by its fluctuations and not the average since the complex conductivity vanishes. Indeed, since the real conductivity was found to vanish (its distribution tends to a delat-peak at $`0`$ when the system is very large) as well as the average imaginary conductivity (while the components conductance is finite). It seems that their fluctuations contain informations on the field energy in agreement with the previous arguments .

Conclusion

In this article we have studied the imaginary part of the effective conductivity in the limit of vanishing loss. We found it to vanish in avergage but with strong fluctuations. These results show that the average conductivity loses the informations about the field energy which can be provided by the conductivity fluctuations.

Acknowledgements

Two of us (L.Z and N.Z) would like to acknowledge the hospitality of the Abdus Salam I.C.T.P. during the progress of this work. Financial support from the Arab Fund is Ackowledged by N.Z. We thank also Professor Dykhne for drawing our attention about the imaginary effective conductivity.

Figure Captions

Fig.1  The loss dependance of the imaginary part of the effective conductance for two different realization samples.

Fig.2 The distribution of the imaginary part of the effective conductance for $`450`$ samples of two different sizes, the loss is $`10^9`$.


text:
# Complete analysis of polarization effects in 𝑒𝛾→𝑒𝛾 with REDUCE

## Appendix

$`F_{00}^{00}=F_{33}^{33}=x^3y4x^2y+4x^2+xy^3+4xy^28xy+4y^2`$
$`F_{00}^{03}=F_{03}^{00}=F_{30}^{33}=F_{33}^{30}=4v^2w^2`$
$`F_{00}^{12}=F_{12}^{00}=F_{21}^{33}=F_{33}^{21}=\left(xy2x+2y\right)\left(x+y\right)v^2`$
$`F_{00}^{22}=F_{02}^{31}=F_{11}^{33}=F_{22}^{00}=F_{31}^{02}=F_{33}^{11}=2v^3wy`$
$`F_{01}^{01}=F_{32}^{32}=2xy\left(xy2x+2y\right)`$
$`F_{01}^{32}=F_{03}^{22}=F_{11}^{30}=F_{22}^{03}=F_{30}^{11}=F_{32}^{01}=2v^3wx`$
$`F_{02}^{02}=F_{31}^{31}=\left(x^2+y^2\right)\left(xy2x+2y\right)`$
$`F_{02}^{10}=F_{10}^{02}=F_{23}^{31}=F_{31}^{23}=v^2\left(x^3y+x^2y^24x^2y+4x^2+4xy^28xy+4y^2\right)/x`$
$`F_{02}^{13}=F_{13}^{02}=F_{20}^{31}=F_{31}^{20}=4v^4w^2/x`$
$`F_{02}^{20}=F_{02}^{23}=F_{10}^{31}=F_{13}^{31}=F_{20}^{02}=F_{23}^{02}=F_{31}^{10}=F_{31}^{13}=2v^3w\left(xy+2x2y\right)/x`$
$`F_{03}^{03}=F_{30}^{30}=2\left(x^2y^22x^2y+2x^2+2xy^24xy+2y^2\right)`$
$`F_{10}^{10}=F_{23}^{23}=\left(x^4+x^2y^24x^2y+4x^2+4xy^28xy+4y^2\right)\left(xy2x+2y\right)/x^2`$
$`F_{10}^{13}=F_{13}^{10}=F_{20}^{23}=F_{23}^{20}=4v^2w^2\left(xy+2x2y\right)/x^2`$
$`F_{10}^{20}=F_{13}^{23}=F_{20}^{10}=F_{23}^{13}=2vw\left(x^3yx^2y^2+4x^2y4x^24xy^2+8xy4y^2\right)/x^2`$
$`F_{10}^{23}=F_{23}^{10}=2v^3w\left(x^2y+4xy4x+4y\right)/x^2`$
$`F_{11}^{11}=F_{22}^{22}=2\left(x^3y^22x^3y+2x^32x^2y+2xy^32xy^2+2y^3\right)/x`$
$`F_{11}^{21}=F_{12}^{22}=F_{21}^{11}=F_{22}^{12}=2\left(xy2x+2y\right)\left(x+y\right)vw/x`$
$`F_{12}^{12}=F_{21}^{21}=\left(x^4y4x^3y+4x^3+x^2y^34x^2y+4xy^34xy^2+4y^3\right)/x`$
$`F_{13}^{13}=F_{20}^{20}=2\left(x^3y2x^2y+2x^2+2xy^24xy+2y^2\right)\left(xy2x+2y\right)/x^2`$
$`F_{13}^{20}=F_{20}^{13}=2v^3w\left(x^3+4xy4x+4y\right)/x^2`$


text:
# Shot Noise in Negative-Differential-Conductance Devices

## Abstract

We have compared the shot-noise properties at T = 4.2 K of a double-barrier resonant-tunneling diode and a superlattice tunnel diode, both of which exhibit negative differential-conductance (NDC) in their current-voltage characteristics. While the noise spectral density of the former device was greatly enhanced over the Poissonian value of $`2eI`$ in the NDC region, that of the latter device remained $`2eI`$. This result implies that charge accumulation, not system instability, is responsible for shot-noise enhancement in NDC devices.

To gain a deep insight on the transport mechanisms of an electronic device it is sometimes essential to measure its shot noise. Then, the noise becomes the signal, paraphrasing Landauer.Lan1  The work described here illustrates dramatically this point, by comparing two types of semiconductor devices (a double-barrier resonant tunneling diode and a single-barrier tunneling diode with electrodes made out of doped superlattices) that exhibit similar non-linear current-voltage (I-V) characteristics and yet show very different shot-noise behavior.

In a double-barrier resonant tunneling diode, the current increases linearly with voltage once the first confined state in the well between the barriers is aligned in energy with the Fermi energy of the emitter electrode. As a consequence of parallel (to the heterostructure’s interfaces) momentum conservation, the current drops abruptly when the confined state falls in energy below the conduction band of that electrode. It is this negative differential conductance (NDC) and the concomitant instability of the system that is attractive for high-frequency oscillators and even digital electronics.Miz

The shot-noise properties of this device are well established both experimentallyZas ; Bro ; Ian ; Kuz  and theoretically.Ian ; Bla2 ; Bla1  The noise spectral density, S, is proportional to the current $`I`$, S = $`2e`$F$`I`$, where $`e`$ is the electronic charge and F is the so-called Fano factor. In the linear-current regime F is smaller than one, whereas in the NDC region it is larger than one. This suppression and enhancement of noise indicate, respectively, negative and positive correlations in the electronic motion. These departures from Poissonian noise (S = $`2eI`$) behavior are attributed to the accumulation of charge in the quantum well during the tunneling process,Ian ; Bla2  but it has been pointed out by Blanter and Büttiker that system instability, rather than charge accumulation, may be the “necessary condition” for shot noise enhancement.Bla1

To explore that suggestion, we have measured the I-V characteristics and noise properties of a semiconductor diode that shows NDC behavior similar to that of a resonant-tunneling diode but in which charge accumulation does not occur. The device, which we call *superlattice tunnel diode* and is sketched in Fig. 1, consists of a single potential barrier between two identical electrodes, each formed by a doped superlattice.Dav ; Sle  For energies below that of the single-barrier height, each superlattice has two minibands separated by a one-dimensional energy gap (or pseudo-gap); only the ground-state miniband is (partially) occupied. On the application of a bias V, tunnel current flows between the first minibands of the electrodes, as long as eV is smaller than the miniband width, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. But when the bias exceeds the critical voltage $`\mathrm{\Delta }/e`$, at low temperature, the pseudo-gap between the collector’s minibands “blocks” the tunneling electrons and the current drops abruptly. At even higher voltages, the current increases again when the collector’s second miniband becomes aligned with the emitter’s first miniband.

The superlattice tunnel diode was implemented by preparing by molecular beam epitaxy a semiconductor heterostructure with an undoped 102 Å $`\mathrm{Ga}_{0.65}\mathrm{Al}_{0.35}`$As barrier and a 50-period superlattice on each side of the barrier. Each period was a 42 Å - 23 Å GaAs-$`\mathrm{Ga}_{0.65}\mathrm{Al}_{0.35}`$As pair, doped uniformly with 1$`\times 10^{18}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ Si donors in one heterostructure (device A) and 5$`\times 10^{16}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ in a second, otherwise identical, structure (device B). Two additional heterostructures were prepared as control samples. In one, both electrodes were n<sup>+</sup> GaAs regions (device C) instead of superlattices. The second control sample was a double-barrier diode with 100 Å $`\mathrm{Ga}_{0.60}\mathrm{Al}_{0.40}`$As barriers and a 40 Å GaAs well, and with n-type GaAs electrodes (device D). In all cases, substrate and cap layers were heavily doped n-type GaAs, to which ohmic contacts were made by evaporating and annealing a AuGe-Ni alloy.

The I-V characteristic for device A at T = 4.2 K is shown in Fig. 2(a). Initially, the current increases almost linearly with increasing bias between the emitter and collector electrodes. The quasi-linear dependence is followed by a current drop at around 25 mV, which continues up to 150 mV, at which point the current increases rapidly with bias. This behavior is consistent with the transport mechanism described above for a superlattice-tunel barrier diode. Sample B (not shown) exhibited a similar characteristic, although the peak-current and valley-current voltages were larger.

For the material parameters of samples A and B, a simple Kronig-Penney calculation of the superlattice yields a 52 meV width for the ground-state miniband.Band  This number is considerably larger than the the 25 meV derived from the peak voltage in Fig. 2(a), although it agrees with the 50 meV obtained from the peak voltage for the opposite bias polarity (not shown). The asymmetry between the two bias directions is probably a consequence of an unintentional difference between the two superlattice electrodes. The larger voltages found for sample B result from light doping at the electrodes, where a significant portion of the applied voltage drops.

Control sample C exhibited a non-linear I-V characteristic at 4.2 K but, as expected, no sign of NDC. Finally, the double-barrier diode (sample D) had a sharp NDC region at 266 mV \[see Fig. 2(b)\], corresponding to the voltage at which the confined state in the well passes below the conduction band edge of the emitter.

Once the I-V characteristics of the various structures are well established, we can focus on their noise characteristics at 4.2 K. In all cases, except at the smallest voltages, the noise was proportional to the current, an indication that the typical currents flowing through the devices were large enough to make thermal noise negligible. At the same time, care was taken to restrict the currents (by a combinaton of design of the tunnel barriers and of device size) to low enough levels so that no hysteresis due to external-circuit instability was present in the NDC regions of the I-V characteristics.

Figure 2(c), which shows the Fano factor of sample A as a function of voltage, captures the essence of this work: within experimental uncertainty, F is essentially one in the entire voltage range. As also observed in sample B, there is neither suppression nor enhancement before or after the NDC region. This is in marked contrast with the Fano factor we obtained for the double-barrier diode, sample D, shown in Fig. 2(d). Here F falls significantly below 1 in the quasi-linear current region and then shoots up sharply up to 2.3 at the NDC voltage, to fall back to 1 once the NDC region disappears.

The sharp difference between the noise characteristics of the two types of NDC devices stems from the difference in their tunneling mechanisms. The partial suppresion of shot noise in the linear regime of the double-barrier diode has been explained by the charge correlation imposed by Pauli’s exclusion principle, which prevents an electron from tunneling from the emitter into the quantum well unless the confined state is unoccupied. Noise suppression is thus a consequence of charge accumulation in the well.

Theoretically, the Fano factor is F = 0.5 when the tunneling probabilities through the individual barriers are the same, and it approaches 1 when they are very different.Bla1  That in the case of Fig. 2(d) the minimum Fano factor is about 0.7 and not 0.5 implies an asymmetry between the two barriers, either intrinsic or induced by the applied voltage.

The noise enhancement in the NDC region of a double-barrier diode has been attributed to electrostatic-potential fluctuations when an electron tunnels into the well. Once the confined state falls below the electrode’s conduction-band edge and the tunneling density of states is very small, those fluctuations lead to positive feedback and charge correlations that increase shot noise.Ian ; Kuz  A semiclassical, self-consistent calculation of the I-V and S-V characteristics using a linear approximation has shown that indeed the Fano factor diverges as the NDC voltage is approached.Bla2

In contrast, in the superlattice tunnel diode of Fig. 1 there is no tunnel bottleneck and no charge accumulation. Electron tunneling is then an uncorrelated process and shot noise does not deviate from its Poissonian behavior, regardless of whether the diode is in the NDC regime or not. From the point of view of noise, the superlattice tunnel diode is not different from a conventional single-barrier heterostructure such as sample C, for which we found F=1 throughout the voltage range (V$``$140 mV).

In conclusion, we have compared two types of NDC devices and found experimentally that charge accumulation, not bistability, is what determines the non-Poissonian nature of shot noise. Early noise measurements on p-n tunnel diodes revealed full shot noise behavior,Tie  consistent with our conclusion, which we believe to be applicable to any situation in which NDC occurs.

Simple shot-noise measurements like these presented here should allow to discern between competing transport mechanisms in which charge accumulation is an issue, even as subtle as in the case of tunneling through a single barrier into a quantum well.Mor  Such measurements might also help to differentiate between sequential and coherent tunneling in double-barrier heterostructures.

We are grateful to M. Hong for providing some of the heterostructures used in this study, and to Ya. Blanter and M. Büttiker for useful discussions. This work has been supported by the National Science Foundation and the Army Research Office.