text:
# Control the entanglement of two atoms in an optical cavity via white noise

## I. INTRODUCTION

Quantum entanglement plays a crucial role in quantum information and quantum computation . Entanglement can exhibit the nature of a nonlocal correlation between quantum systems that have no classical interpretation. However, real quantum systems will unavoidably be influenced by surrounding environments. The interaction between the environment and quantum systems of interest can lead to decoherence. It is therefore of great importance to prevent or minimize the influence of environmental noise in the practical realization of quantum information processing. In order to prevent the effect of decoherence, several approaches have been proposed such as quantum error-correcting approach  or quantum error-avoiding approach .

Instead of attempting to shield the system from the environmental noise, Plenio and Huelge  use white noise to play a constructive role and generate the controllable entanglement by incoherent sources. They showed that the noise-assisted entanglement exhibits the stochastic resonance behavior. Similar work on this aspect has also been considered by other authors \[6-8\]. In this paper, we study the quantum system in which two two-level atoms within a leaky optical cavity is driven by two independent external optical white noise fields. We investigate how entanglement between two atoms arises in such a situation. It is shown that white noise exhibits dual aspects, i.e., playing either a destructive or a constructive role in quantum information processing. Recently, Clark and Parkins  proposed a scheme to controllably entangle the internal states of two atoms trapped in a high-finesse optical cavity by employing quantum-reservoir engineering. By making use of laser and cavity fields to drive two separate Raman transitions between stable atomic ground states, the two atoms is effectively coupled to a squeezed reservoir. Phase-sensitive reservoir correlations leads to entanglement between the atoms. Different from their scheme, we will focus here on the problem of generating entanglement when only incoherent sources are available and show that controllable entanglement can arise in this situation. We show that, if two atoms are simultaneous driven by two independent white noise field with the same intensity, the entanglement between them is suppressed and eventually completely destroyed by the noise. However, in another case, in which only one atom is exposed in white noise field, the steady state entanglement of the two atoms is non-monotonic function of both the intensity of noise driving field and the spontaneous decay rate. A double resonance behavior emerges. Moreover, the threshold value of the spontaneous decay rate, below which there is not any steady state entanglement, increases with the intensity of noise field.

This paper is organized as follows: In section II, we outline the experimental set up, in which two atoms are trapped in a optical cavity and driven by the thermal field. The spectral width of the thermal field is large compared to the linewidth of the atomic transition so that its effect is that of a white noise source. we model this system by a master equation and give a explicit analytical solution of the time evolution density matrix. In section III, based on the density matrix, we obtain the analytical expression of the concurrence characterizing the entanglement between two atoms. Both the entanglement during the time evolution and the steady state entanglement are investigated. A conclusion is given in section IV.

## II. THE MASTER EQUATION DESCRIBING TWO ATOMS TRAPPED IN A OPTICAL CAVITY AND DRIVEN BY NOISE FIELD

The system we consider here is two atom trapped in a optical cavity. The atoms are driven by two independent thermal fields and separated by a large enough distance that they feel no direct dipole-dipole interaction. The cavity has a field decay $`k`$ and a frequency $`\omega `$. The two eigenstates of the individual atom ($`|0,|1`$) constitute the qubit states. The master equation for the total system density operator is ($`\mathrm{}=1`$)

$$\frac{d\rho }{dt}=i[H,\rho ]+_{cav}\rho +_{at}\rho ,$$
$`(1)`$
where

$$H=\omega a^{}a+\frac{\omega _0}{2}\underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}(|1_{jj}1||0_{jj}0|)+g\underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}(a^{}|0_{jj}1|+a|1_{jj}0|),$$
$`(2)`$
where $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ are the annihilation and creation operators of the cavity field with frequency $`\omega `$, and $`\omega _0`$ is the transition frequency of the atoms and $`g`$ is the atom-cavity coupling constant. The Liouvilleans $`_{cav}\rho `$ and $`_{at}\rho `$ are given by

$$_{cav}\rho =\kappa (2a\rho a^{}a^{}a\rho \rho a^{}a),$$
$`(3)`$
and

$$_{at}\rho =\underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}(n_T^{(j)}+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(j)}(2|0_{jj}1|\rho |1_{jj}0||1_{jj}1|\rho \rho |1_{jj}1|)$$

$$+\underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}n_T^{(j)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(j)}(2|1_{jj}0|\rho |0_{jj}1||0_{jj}0|\rho \rho |0_{jj}0|)$$
$`(4)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(j)}`$ describes the coupling strength of the $`j`$th atom to the external fields and $`n_T^{(j)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(j)}`$ is the transition rate due to the thermal field. The spectral width of the thermal field is large compared to the linewidth of the atomic transition so that its effect is that of a white noise source. Here, $`n_T^{(j)}`$ can be interpreted as an effective photon number and that spontaneous decay of the atom out of the cavities is included in this scenario via the $`n_T^{(j)}+1`$ term.

In the large detuning limit, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\omega _0\omega g\sqrt{\overline{n}+1}`$ with $`\overline{n}`$ being the mean photon number of the cavity field, there is no energy exchange between the atomic system and the cavity. We can obtain the effective Hamiltonian $`H_e`$

$$H_e=\frac{g^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}[\underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}(|1_{jj}1|aa^{}|0_{jj}0|a^{}a)+|1_{11}0||0_{22}1|+|0_{11}1||1_{22}0|].$$
$`(5)`$
The first and second terms describe the photon number dependent Stark shifts, and the third term describes the dipole coupling between the first and second atoms induced by the virtual photon process. When the cavity mode is initially in the vacuum state $`|0`$, it will remain in the vacuum state throughout the procedure, the effective Hamiltonian reduces to

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_e=\frac{g^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(|1_{11}1|+|1_{22}1|+|1_{11}0||0_{22}1|+|0_{11}1||1_{22}0|).$$
$`(6)`$
As the cavity mode will then never be populated, we can disregard the cavity mode in the following. Now, the master equation (1) can be reduced to

$$\frac{d\rho _s}{dt}=i\frac{g^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(|1_{11}1|+|1_{22}1|+|1_{11}0||0_{22}1|+|0_{11}1||1_{22}0|)\rho _s$$

$$+i\frac{g^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\rho _s(|1_{11}1|+|1_{22}1|+|1_{11}0||0_{22}1|+|0_{11}1||1_{22}0|)$$

$$+\underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}(n_T^{(j)}+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(j)}(2|0_{jj}1|\rho _s|1_{jj}0||1_{jj}1|\rho _s\rho _s|1_{jj}1|)$$

$$+\underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}n_T^{(j)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(j)}(2|1_{jj}0|\rho _s|0_{jj}1||0_{jj}0|\rho _s\rho _s|0_{jj}0|),$$
$`(7)`$
where $`\rho _s`$ is the density matrix describing the subsystem containing only the two atoms. Firstly, we discuss the case with $`n_T^{(1)}=n_T^{(2)}=n_T`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, i.e., two atoms are driven by two independent thermal fields with the same intensity. We assume that the atom 1 and atom 2 are initially in the pure product state $`|1_1|0_2`$. Then, the explicit analytical solution of the master equation (7) can be obtained as follows,

$$\rho _s(t)=\rho _{11}(t)|1_{11}1||1_{22}1|+\rho _{22}(t)|1_{11}1||0_{22}0|$$

$$+\rho _{33}(t)|0_{11}0||1_{22}1|+\rho _{44}(t)|0_{11}0||0_{22}0|$$

$$+\rho _{23}(t)|1_{11}0||0_{22}1|+\rho _{32}(t)|0_{11}1||1_{22}0|$$
$`(8)`$
with

$$\rho _{11}(t)=\frac{n_T}{(2n_T+1)^2}[n_T+e^{(4n_T+2)\mathrm{\Gamma }t}(n_T+1)e^{(8n_T+4)\mathrm{\Gamma }t}],$$

$$\rho _{22}(t)=\frac{n_T^2+n_T}{(2n_T+1)^2}[1+e^{(8n_T+4)\mathrm{\Gamma }t}]+\frac{1}{2}[\frac{1}{(2n_T+1)^2}+\mathrm{cos}\frac{2g^2t}{\mathrm{\Delta }}]e^{(4n_T+2)\mathrm{\Gamma }t},$$

$$\rho _{33}(t)=\frac{n_T^2+n_T}{(2n_T+1)^2}[1+e^{(8n_T+4)\mathrm{\Gamma }t}]+\frac{1}{2}[\frac{1}{(2n_T+1)^2}\mathrm{cos}\frac{2g^2t}{\mathrm{\Delta }}]e^{(4n_T+2)\mathrm{\Gamma }t}$$

$$\rho _{44}(t)=\frac{n_T+1}{(2n_T+1)^2}[n_T+1e^{(4n_T+2)\mathrm{\Gamma }t}n_Te^{(8n_T+4)\mathrm{\Gamma }t}];$$

$$\rho _{23}(t)=\frac{i}{2}e^{(4n_T+2)\mathrm{\Gamma }t}\mathrm{sin}\frac{2g^2t}{\mathrm{\Delta }},$$

$$\rho _{32}(t)=\frac{i}{2}e^{(4n_T+2)\mathrm{\Gamma }t}\mathrm{sin}\frac{2g^2t}{\mathrm{\Delta }}.$$
$`(9)`$
In order to quantify the degree of entanglement, we adopt the concurrence $`C`$ defined by Wooters . The concurrence varies from $`C=0`$ for an unentangled state to $`C=1`$ for a maximally entangled state. For two qubits, in the ”Standard” eigenbasis: $`|1|11`$, $`|2|10`$, $`|3|01`$, $`|4|00`$, the concurrence may be calculated explicitly from the following:

$$C=\mathrm{max}\{\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4,0\},$$
$`(10)`$
where the $`\lambda _i`$($`i=1,2,3,4`$) are the square roots of the eigenvalues in decreasing order of magnitude of the ”spin-flipped” density matrix operator $`R=\rho _s(\sigma ^y\sigma ^y)\rho _s^{}(\sigma ^y\sigma ^y)`$, where the asterisk indicates complex conjugation.
It is straightforward to compute analytically the concurrence for the density matrix $`\rho _s(t)`$, and the concurrence $`C_s(t)`$ related to the density matrix $`\rho _s(t)`$ is obtained as follows

$$C_s(t)=2\mathrm{max}\{0,|\rho _{23}(t)|\sqrt{\rho _{11}(t)\rho _{44}(t)}\},$$
$`(11)`$
where $`|x|`$ gives the absolute value of $`x`$. In Fig.1, we have plotted the concurrence $`C_s(t)`$ as a function of the time $`t`$ and the intensity of the thermal field $`n_T`$ with $`g^2/\mathrm{\Delta }=0.2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.01`$. It is shown that the entanglement between two atoms decreases with $`n_T`$, and there is not any entanglement arising between two atoms during the time evolution when $`n_T`$ is beyond a threshold value depending on the coupling constant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and effective Rabi frequency $`g^2/\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In Fig.2, the concurrence $`C_s(t)`$ is plotted as the function of the time $`t`$ and the coupling constant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the atoms and the external field (Note that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is equivalent to the spontaneous emission rate if $`n_T=0`$) with two different values of effective photon number $`n_T`$ of the thermal field. In the case with $`n_T=0`$ and $`g^2/\mathrm{\Delta }=0.2`$ (see Fig.2(a)), the entanglement of two atoms always arises during the time evolution even in the presence of atomic spontaneous emission. However, in the case with $`n_T=0.3`$ and $`g^2/\mathrm{\Delta }=0.2`$ (see Fig.2(b)), a threshold value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is found, beyond which there is not any entanglement arising during time evolution. All of the above discussions indicate that the two equal intensity independent thermal fields suppress the entanglement generation. But, that is not the full aspects concerning the role of thermal field played in the entanglement of two atoms. In the following section, we consider the situation in which, only one of the atoms is driven by the external thermal field. A different aspect of the thermal field will be found.

## III. THE STEADY STATE ENTANGLEMENT OF TWO ATOMS

In the above section, we have discussed the case, in which the two atoms are simultaneously driven by an external thermal field. there is not any steady state entanglement between two atoms in that situation. In this section, we consider the situation in which, only one of the atoms is driven by the external thermal field. The master equation is given by

$$\frac{d\rho _s}{dt}=i\frac{g^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(|1_{11}1|+|1_{22}1|+|1_{11}0||0_{22}1|+|0_{11}1||1_{22}0|)\rho _s$$

$$+i\frac{g^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\rho _s(|1_{11}1|+|1_{22}1|+|1_{11}0||0_{22}1|+|0_{11}1||1_{22}0|)$$

$$+(n_T+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2|0_{11}1|\rho _s|1_{11}0||1_{11}1|\rho _s\rho _s|1_{11}1|)$$

$$+n_T\mathrm{\Gamma }(2|1_{11}0|\rho _s|0_{11}1||0_{11}0|\rho _s\rho _s|0_{11}0|)$$

$$+\eta (2|0_{22}1|\rho _s|1_{22}0||1_{22}1|\rho _s\rho _s|1_{22}1|),$$
$`(12)`$
where $`\eta `$ is the spontaneous emission rate of the atom 2. We assume that the two atoms are initially in the ground state $`|0_1|0_2`$. The explicit analytical solution of the steady state of the master equation (12) can be obtained as follows,

$$\rho _{st}=\rho _{11}^s|1_{11}1||1_{22}1|+\rho _{22}^s|1_{11}1||0_{22}0|$$

$$+\rho _{33}^s|0_{11}0||1_{22}1|+\rho _{44}^s|0_{11}0||0_{22}0|$$

$$+\rho _{23}^s|1_{11}0||0_{22}1|+\rho _{32}^s|0_{11}1||1_{22}0|$$
$`(13)`$
with

$$\rho _{11}^s=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2n_T^2}{(\mathrm{\Gamma }+\eta +2n_T\mathrm{\Gamma })^2(\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }\eta +2n_T\mathrm{\Gamma }\eta )},$$

$$\rho _{22}^s=\frac{n_T\mathrm{\Gamma }[\eta (\mathrm{\Gamma }+\eta +2n_T\mathrm{\Gamma })^2+\mathrm{\Omega }^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }+\eta +n_T\mathrm{\Gamma })]}{(\mathrm{\Gamma }+\eta +2n_T\mathrm{\Gamma })^2(\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }\eta +2n_T\mathrm{\Gamma }\eta )},$$

$$\rho _{33}^s=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2n_T\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Gamma }+\eta +n_T\mathrm{\Gamma })}{(\mathrm{\Gamma }+\eta +2n_T\mathrm{\Gamma })^2(\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }\eta +2n_T\mathrm{\Gamma }\eta )}$$

$$\rho _{44}^s=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\eta (1+n_T)(\mathrm{\Gamma }+\eta +2n_T\mathrm{\Gamma })^2+\mathrm{\Omega }^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }+\eta +n_T\mathrm{\Gamma })^2}{(\mathrm{\Gamma }+\eta +2n_T\mathrm{\Gamma })^2(\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }\eta +2n_T\mathrm{\Gamma }\eta )};$$

$$\rho _{23}^s=\frac{in_T\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Gamma }\eta }{(\mathrm{\Gamma }+\eta +2n_T\mathrm{\Gamma })(\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }\eta +2n_T\mathrm{\Gamma }\eta )},$$

$$\rho _{32}^s=\frac{in_T\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Gamma }\eta }{(\mathrm{\Gamma }+\eta +2n_T\mathrm{\Gamma })(\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }\eta +2n_T\mathrm{\Gamma }\eta )},$$
$`(14)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=g^2/\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The concurrence $`C_{st}`$ related to the steady state $`\rho _{st}`$ is obtained as follows

$$C_{st}=2\mathrm{max}\{0,|\rho _{23}^s|\sqrt{\rho _{11}^s\rho _{44}^s}\}.$$
$`(15)`$
In Fig.3, we have plotted the concurrence $`C_{st}`$ as a function of the spontaneous emission rate $`\eta `$ and the intensity of the thermal field $`n_T`$ with $`g^2/\mathrm{\Delta }=0.2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.1`$. It is shown that the steady state entanglement exhibit a double stochastic-resonance-like behavior, which is similar with the results in Ref.. The double stochastic-resonance-like behavior also emerges in Fig.4, in which $`C_{st}`$ is depicted as a function of the spontaneous emission rate $`\eta `$ and the coupling constant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with $`g^2/\mathrm{\Delta }=0.2`$ and $`n_T=2`$. In Fig.5, we plot the $`C_{st}`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the intensity of the thermal field $`n_T`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.1`$ and $`\eta =0.5`$. It is shown that the threshold value of $`n_T`$ is strongly dependent on the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

From Eq.(15), we can find the threshold values of the parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`n_T`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\eta `$, beyond which there is not entanglement in the steady state. Some simply inequalities can be derived as follows

$$0<\mathrm{\Omega }<\mathrm{\Omega }_c=\frac{(\mathrm{\Gamma }+\eta +2n_T\mathrm{\Gamma })\sqrt{\eta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }\eta n_T\mathrm{\Gamma }\eta }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }+\eta +n_T\mathrm{\Gamma }},$$
$`(16)`$
$$0<n_T<n_{Tc}=\frac{\eta }{\mathrm{\Gamma }}1.$$
$`(17)`$
The gray area in Fig.6 depicts the region where the steady state of the two atoms is entangled in the case with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.1`$ and $`\eta =0.5`$. In Fig.7, the concurrence $`C_{st}`$ is plotted as a function of the intensity of the thermal field $`n_T`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.01`$ and $`\eta =0.5`$ for four different values of $`g^2/\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In Fig.8(b), we show how two atoms initially in various different product states would eventually evolve into the entangled steady state in the presence of the external noise driving one of the atoms. Otherwise, in the absence of the intense enough external noise, two atoms firstly become entangled due to the dipole coupling induced by the virtual photon process, then, they rapidly lose the entanglement, as shown in Fig.8(a).

Finally, we attempt to discuss the nonlocality of two atoms in the steady state. The nonlocal property of two atoms can be characterized by the maximal violation of Bell inequality. The most commonly discussed Bell inequality is the CHSH inequality . The CHSH operator reads

$$\widehat{B}=\stackrel{}{a}\stackrel{}{\sigma }(\stackrel{}{b}+\stackrel{}{b^{}})\stackrel{}{\sigma }+\stackrel{}{a^{}}\stackrel{}{\sigma }(\stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{b^{}})\stackrel{}{\sigma },$$
$`(18)`$
where $`\stackrel{}{a},\stackrel{}{a^{}},\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{b^{}}`$ are unit vectors. In the above notation, the Bell inequality reads

$$|\widehat{B}|2.$$
$`(19)`$
The maximal amount of Bell violation of a state $`\rho `$ is given by

$$=2\sqrt{\lambda +\stackrel{~}{\lambda }},$$
$`(20)`$
where $`\lambda `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ are the two largest eigenvalues of $`T_\rho T_\rho ^{}`$. The matrix $`T_\rho `$ is determined completely by the correlation functions being a $`3\times 3`$ matrix whose elements are $`(T_\rho )_{nm}=\mathrm{Tr}(\rho \sigma _n\sigma _m)`$. Here, $`\sigma _1\sigma _x`$, $`\sigma _2\sigma _y`$, and $`\sigma _3\sigma _z`$ denote the usual Pauli matrices. We call the quantity $``$ the maximal violation measure, which indicates the Bell violation when $`>2`$ and the maximal violation when $`=2\sqrt{2}`$. For the density operator $`\rho _{st}`$ in Eq.(13) characterizing the steady state of two atoms, $`\lambda +\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ can be written as follows

$$\lambda +\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=4|\rho _{23}^s|^2+\mathrm{max}[4|\rho _{23}^s|^2,(\rho _{11}^s+\rho _{44}^s\rho _{22}^s\rho _{33}^s)^2].$$
$`(21)`$
Recently, Verstraete et al. investigated the relations between the violation of the CHSH inequality and the concurrence for systems of two qubits . They showed that the maximal value of $``$ for given concurrence $`C`$ is $`2\sqrt{1+C^2}`$, which can be achieved by the pure states and some Bell diagonal states. If the given concurrence $`C`$ is larger than $`\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}`$, the minimal value of $``$ is $`2\sqrt{2}C`$, which can be achieved by the maximal entangled mixed state. Furthermore, the entangled two qubits state with the concurrence $`C\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}`$ may not violate any CHSH inequality, even after all possible local filtering operations, except their Bell diagonal normal form does violate the CHSH inequalities . So, it is not difficult to understand the following results. Our calculations show that not any violation of CHSH inequality will be found in the steady state even though the steady state is entangled. Moreover, the stochastic-resonance-like behavior can not be observed in the Bell violation of two atoms during the evolution, and the stronger the noise intensity, the more rapid the Bell violation disappears, which is shown in Fig.9.

## V. CONCLUSSION

In this paper, we investigate the problem of generating entanglement when only incoherent sources are available and show that controllable entanglement can arise in this situation. We show that, if two atoms are simultaneous driven by two independent white noise field with the same intensity, the entanglement between them is suppressed and eventually completely destroyed by the noise. However, in another case, in which only one atom is exposed in white noise field, the steady state entanglement of the two atoms is non-monotonic function of both the intensity of noise driving field and the spontaneous decay rate. A double resonance behavior emerges. Moreover, the threshold value of the spontaneous decay rate, below which there is not any steady state entanglement, increases with the intensity of noise field.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This project was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project NO. 10174066).

Figure Caption

the concurrence $`C_s(t)`$ is depicted as a function of the time $`t`$ and the intensity of the thermal field $`n_T`$ with $`g^2/\mathrm{\Delta }=0.2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.01`$.

the concurrence $`C_s(t)`$ is plotted as the function of the time $`t`$ and the coupling constant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the atoms and the external field with $`g^2/\mathrm{\Delta }=0.2`$ and two different values of effective photon number $`n_T`$ of the thermal field, (a) $`n_T=0`$; (b) $`n_T=0.3`$.

the concurrence $`C_{st}`$ is plotted as a function of the spontaneous emission rate $`\eta `$ and the intensity of the thermal field $`n_T`$ with $`g^2/\mathrm{\Delta }=0.2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.1`$.

The concurrence $`C_{st}`$ depicted as a function of the spontaneous emission rate $`\eta `$ and the coupling constant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with $`g^2/\mathrm{\Delta }=0.2`$ and $`n_T=2`$.

The concurrence $`C_{st}`$ is plotted as a function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the intensity of the thermal field $`n_T`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.1`$ and $`\eta =0.5`$.

This figure depicts the region where the steady state of the two atoms is entangled in the case with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.1`$ and $`\eta =0.5`$.

The concurrence $`C_{st}`$ is plotted as a function of the intensity of the thermal field $`n_T`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.01`$ and $`\eta =0.5`$ for four different values of $`g^2/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (from top to bottom, $`g^2/\mathrm{\Delta }=0.49`$, $`g^2/\mathrm{\Delta }=0.50`$, $`g^2/\mathrm{\Delta }=0.505`$ and $`g^2/\mathrm{\Delta }=0.51`$).

The concurrence $`C`$ is plotted as a function of the time $`t`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.1`$, $`g^2/\mathrm{\Delta }=0.2`$ and $`\eta =0.5`$ for two different values $`n_T=10^6`$ (a) and $`n_T=2`$ (b) of intensity of the thermal field, and for three different initial states: (Solid line) $`|0_1|0_2`$; (Dot line) $`|1_1|0_2`$; (Dash Dot line) $`|0_1|1_2`$ (The values of the solid line in (a) is too small to be seen).

The maximal violation $``$ is plotted as a function of the time $`t`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.01`$, $`g^2/\mathrm{\Delta }=0.2`$ and $`\eta =0.01`$ for three different values of $`n_T`$, $`n_T=0`$ (Solid line), $`n_T=0.5`$ (Dot line), $`n_T=1`$ (Dash Dot line). Two atoms are initially prepared in $`|1_1|0_2`$.


format: text

text:
# Configuration space integrals and Taylor towers for spaces of knots

## 1. Introduction

In this paper we use configuration space integrals to establish a concrete connection between the study of knots and Goodwillie-Weiss calculus of the embedding functor . We do this by factoring the Bott-Taubes map, well-known to knot theorists, through a tower of spaces arising from this theory.

In more detail, fix a linear inclusion of $``$ into $`^m`$. We study *long knots*, namely embeddings of $``$ in $`^m`$ which agree with this linear map outside of a compact set. The space of such knots, with compact-open topology, is homotopy equivalent to the space of *based* knots in $`S^m`$. These can be thought of as maps of $`S^1`$ “anchored” at, say, the north pole, or, as we prefer, maps of the interval $`I`$ to $`S^m`$ which are embeddings except at the endpoints. The endpoints are mapped to the north pole with the same derivative. It is not hard to see that this space of based knots is a deformation retract of the space of based knots in the sphere which are prescribed in a neighborhood of the north pole. The latter, on the other hand, is clearly homotopy equivalent to the space of long knots. Let $`𝒦_m`$ be the space of long knots in $`^m`$ or $`S^m`$, $`m3`$. To simplify notation, we will often set $`𝒦=𝒦_3`$ when we wish to distinguish the case of classical knots from all others.

At the heart of our results are Bott-Taubes configuration space integrals  which are used for producing cohomology classes on $`𝒦_m`$. They were originally defined for ordinary knots, i.e. embeddings of $`S^1`$ in $`^3`$, but the modification to long knots is straightforward . The idea is to start with a chord diagram with $`2n`$ vertices joined by chords, evaluate a knot on as many points, and then consider $`n`$ maps to spheres given by normalized differences of pairs of those points. Which points are paired off is prescribed by the chord diagram. Pulling back the product of volume forms on the spheres via a product of these maps yields a form on the product of $`𝒦_m`$ with a suitably compactified configuration space of $`2n`$ points in $`^m`$. This form can then be pushed forward to $`𝒦_m`$. Various arguments involving Stokes’ Theorem and the combinatorics of chord diagrams in the end guarantee that the result is a cohomology class. This was first done by Altschuler and Freidel  and D. Thurston  for $`𝒦`$, and then generalized by Cattaneo, Cotta-Ramusino, and Longoni  to $`𝒦_m`$. We will recall the main features of Bott-Taubes integration in §3. We will not provide all the details since they can be found in D. Thurston’s work  or the survey paper .

The other ingredient we need is the Taylor tower for $`𝒦_m`$ arising from the calculus of the embedding functor. One considers spaces of “punctured knots,” or embeddings of the interval with some number of subintervals removed. These spaces fit into cubical diagrams whose homotopy limits define stages of the tower, or “Taylor approximations” to $`𝒦_m`$. For $`m>3`$, the tower converges (see Theorem 2.1 for the precise statement) so it represents a good substitute for $`𝒦_m`$. We review the construction of the tower in some detail in §2. Since embedding calculus is the less familiar half of the background we require, we do not assume the reader has had previous exposure to it.

In §4, we then turn our attention to extending the Bott-Taubes integrals to the tower and deduce our main result, stated more precisely as Theorem 4.5.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Bott-Taubes integrals factor through the stages of the Taylor tower for $`𝒦_m`$, $`m3`$.

One importance of this theorem is that the stages of the Taylor tower lend themselves to a geometric analysis which complements the combinatorics and integration techniques of Bott and Taubes. In particular, one might ask if *all* cohomology classes of spaces of knots arise through Bott-Taubes integration and proceed to look for the answer in the Taylor tower. Something along these lines has been done for the case of classical knots $`𝒦`$ where some, but not all, of the constructions and results presented here hold as well. In particular, Bott-Taubes integration produces knot invariants and it was shown in  that the Taylor tower for $`𝒦`$ in fact classifies finite type (Vassiliev) invariants. Theorem 1.1 plays a crucial in establishing this result. The hope is that examining the Taylor tower more closely will shed new light on finite type invariants and the slightly mysterious appearance of integration techniques in knot theory. Some more details will be given at the end.

### 1.1. Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Tom Goodwillie for the guidance he provided and knowledge he shared with me over the years. I am also endebted to Riccardo Longoni for his help with the combinatorics of chord diagrams, as well as to Dev Sinha, Pascal Lambrechts, and especially Greg Arone for comments and suggestions.

## 2. Goodwillie-Weiss construction of the Taylor tower for $`𝒦_m`$

Let $`M`$ and $`N`$ be smooth manifolds of dimensions $`m`$ and $`n`$, and let $`Emb(M,N)`$ denote the space of embeddings of $`M`$ in $`N`$. Weiss  (see also ) develops a certain tower of spaces for studying $`Emb(M,N)`$. Its stages $`T_r`$ are constructed from spaces of embeddings of some simple codimension $`0`$ submanifolds of $`M`$ in $`N`$. Each $`T_r`$ comes with a canonical map from $`Emb(M,N)`$ and to $`T_{r1}`$, and is in principle easier to understand than $`Emb(M,N)`$ itself. Goodwillie and Weiss , using work of Goodwillie and Klein , then prove the following

###### Theorem 2.1.

If $`nm>2`$, the map $`Emb(M,N)T_r`$ is $`(r(nm2)+1m)`$-connected.

Since the connectivity increases with $`r`$, the inverse limit of the tower is weakly equivalent to $`Emb(M,N)`$. Spaces $`T_r`$ are examples of “polynomial,” or “Taylor,” approximations of $`Emb(M,N)`$ in the sense of Goodwillie calculus.

The general definition of the stages of the Taylor tower can be found in \[24, Section 5\]. However, in the case of $`𝒦_m`$, the definition readily simplifies to a concrete construction which produces an equivalent tower, even for classical knots (the edge of the dimensional assumption in the above theorem) \[13, Section 5.1\]. We thus focus in some detail on the construction of the Taylor tower for spaces of knots and start with some general definitions.

###### Definition 2.2.

A *subcubical diagram* $`C_r`$ is a functor from the category of nonempty subsets $`S`$ of $`\{1,\mathrm{},r\}`$ with inclusions as morhisms to spaces, i.e. it is a diagram of $`2^r1`$ spaces $`X_S`$ so that, for every containment $`SS\{i\}`$, there is a map $`X_SX_{S\{i\}}`$ and every square

commutes.

Now let $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_r`$, be the barycentric coordinates of the standard $`(r1)`$-simplex, which we denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^{r1}`$. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^S`$ the face of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^{r1}`$ given by $`x_i=0\text{for all}iS.`$ Thus if $`TS`$, we have an inclusion $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^T\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^S`$ of a particular face of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^S`$.

###### Definition 2.3.

The *homotopy limit* of an $`r`$-subcubical diagram $`C_r`$, denoted by $`holim(C_r)`$, is a subspace of the space of smooth maps

$$\underset{\mathrm{}S\{1,\mathrm{},r\}}{}Maps(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^S,X_S)$$

consisting of collections of smooth maps $`\{\alpha _S\}`$ such that, for every map $`X_SX_{S\{i\}}`$ in the diagram, the square

commutes.

###### Remark 1.

We will want to define certain forms on our homotopy limits in §4 so we consider only smooth maps in the above definition, thereby obtaining differentiable spaces. If we had instead considered spaces of all maps from simplices, we would have obtained homotopy equivalent spaces. More on homotopy limits of diagrams in model categories can be found in .

Since $`C_r`$ contains $`C_{r1}`$, there are projections $`holim(C_r)holim(C_{r1})`$ for all $`r>1`$. Further, if $`X_{\mathrm{}}`$ fits $`C_r`$ as its initial space, i.e. it maps to all other spaces in $`C_r`$ and makes all the resulting squares commutative (and hence it maps to $`holim(C_r)`$), the diagram

(1)
commutes.

We can now define the Taylor tower for the space of knots. For $`r>1`$, let $`\{A_i\}`$, $`1ir`$, be a collection of disjoint closed subintervals of $`I`$, indexed cyclically. For each nonempty subset $`S`$ of {1, …, r}, define the space of maps

$$E_S=\text{Emb}(I\underset{iS}{}A_i,S^m)$$

which are smooth embeddings other than at the endpoints of $`I`$. The endpoints are, as usual, mapped to the north pole in $`S^m`$ with the same derivative.

The $`E_S`$ can be thought of as spaces of “punctured knots,” and are path-connected even for $`m=3`$ since any punctured knot can be isotoped to the punctured unknot by “moving strands through the holes”. If $`TS`$, there is a restriction $`E_TE_S`$ which simply sends a punctured knot to the same knot with more punctures. These restrictions clearly commute. We can thus make the following

###### Definition 2.4.

Denote by $`EC_r`$ the subcubical diagram sending $`S`$ to $`E_S`$ for all nonempty seubsets $`S`$ of $`\{1,\mathrm{},r\}`$ and sending inclusions to restrictions.

The homotopy limit of this diagram is the central object of study here so we give some details about what Definition 2.3 means in this case. Keeping in mind that a path in a space of embeddings is an isotopy, a point in $`holim(EC_r)`$ is a list of embeddings and families of isotopies:

* an embedding $`e_iE_{\{i\}}`$ for each $`i`$;
* an isotopy $`\alpha _{ij}:\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^1E_{\{i,j\}}`$ for each $`\{i,j\}`$ such that

$$\alpha _{ij}(0)=e_i|_{_{E_{\{i,j\}}}},\alpha _{ij}(1)=e_j|_{_{E_{\{i,j\}}}};$$
* a 2-parameter isotopy $`\alpha _{ijk}:\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^2E_{\{i,j,k\}}`$ for each $`\{i,j,k\}`$ whose restrictions to the faces of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^2`$ are

$$\alpha _{ij}|_{_{E_{\{i,j,k\}}\times \mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^1}},\alpha _{jk}|_{_{E_{\{i,j,k\}}\times \mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^1}},\alpha _{ik}|_{_{E_{\{i,j,k\}}\times \mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^1}};$$

and in general,
* each $`(|S|1)`$-parameter isotopy $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^{|S|1}E_S`$ is determined on the face of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^{|S|1}`$ by the restriction of a $`(|S|2)`$-parameter isotopy of a knot with $`|S|1`$ punctures to the same isotopy of a knot with one more puncture.

Since we chose a definite indexing for the subintervals $`A_i`$ of $`I`$, $`i\{1,\mathrm{},r\}`$, and thus for spaces of punctured knots $`E_S`$, $`S\{1,\mathrm{},r\}`$, there are canonical maps

$$holim(EC_r)holim(EC_{r1}),r>2.$$

Also, $`𝒦_m`$ maps to each $`E_S`$ again by restriction. Every square face in the cubical diagram obtained by adjoining $`𝒦_m`$ in the missing corner of $`EC_r`$ commutes, so that we get commutative triangles as in (1).

###### Definition 2.5.

For all $`r>0`$, let $`_r=holim(EC_{r+1})`$ be the *$`r`$th stage* of the *Taylor tower for the space of knots*,

(2)
The tower is shown here with the canonical maps from $`𝒦_m`$. Note that Theorem 2.1 implies convergence of this tower to $`𝒦_m`$ as long as $`m>3`$.

###### Remark 2.

Each point in $`EC_r`$ determines a knot as long as $`r>2`$. In fact, we only need to know what the elements of such a compatible collection are in $`E_{\{1\}},\mathrm{},E_{\{r\}}`$ in order to recover a knot. Thus $`𝒦_m`$ actually completes the subcubical diagram of punctured knots as its limit for $`r>2`$. We are therefore in some sense attempting to understand $`𝒦_m`$, a limit of a certain diagram, by instead studying its homotopy limit.

Spaces $`_r`$ are precisely what $`𝒦_m`$ will be replaced by in the Bott-Taubes construction of the next section.

## 3. Bott-Taubes configuration space integrals

### 3.1. Trivalent diagrams

Before we turn to configuration space integrals, we give a very brief introduction to a class of diagrams which turns out to best keep track of the combinatorics associated to those integrals. More details can be found in .

###### Definition 3.1.

Let *trivalent diagram of degree $`n`$* be a connected graph consisting of an oriented interval, $`2n`$ vertices, and some number of chords between them. The vertices lying on the interval are called *interval* and are connected to the rest of the graph by exactly one chord. The vertices not on the interval are *free* and have exactly three chords emanating from them.

Depending on whether we are working in $`^m`$ for $`m`$ even or odd, our configuration space integrals may change sign due to a permutation of the configuration points, a permutation in the product of certain maps to spheres, or due to a composition of one of those maps with the antipodal map. These sign changes correspond to a permutation of the vertices or chords of a trivalent diagram, or change in the orientation of a chord (see discussion following Theorem 3.8 for more details). As in §4.1 of , we thus distinguish two classes of diagrams as follows.

Label the vertices of a trivalent diagram by $`1,\mathrm{},2n`$, orient its chords, and let $`TD_n^o`$ be the set of all trivalent diagrams of degree $`n`$ with these decorations. Define $`TD_n^e`$ in the same way except also label the chords. Let $`STU_e`$ be the relation from Figure 1. The decorations on the three diagrams in the picture should be compatible: Since the diagrams are the same outside the pictured portions, the vertex labels and orientations of chords and identical there. This leaves chord labels. In the only part where diagrams $`S,T`$, and $`U`$ differ, the chords are labeled as in the figure, with $`b^{}=b`$ if $`b<a`$ and $`b^{}=b1`$ if $`b>a`$. Same for $`c^{}`$. We follow this pattern outside the pictured parts, and again note that now the chords for $`T`$ and $`U`$ are the same as those in $`S`$. Thus each chord for $`T`$ and $`U`$ is labeled as the corresponding chord in $`S`$ unless its label is greater than $`a`$, in which case it is decreased by one.

Finally let $`STU_o`$ be the same relation as $`STU_e`$ except the factor of $`(1)^{a+j+v}`$ is taken away, as are all the chord labels.

###### Definition 3.2.

Let $`𝒟_n^o`$ and $`𝒟_n^e`$ be real vector spaces generated by $`TD_n^o`$ and $`TD_n^e`$, modulo the $`STU_o`$ and $`STU_e`$ relations, respectively, with

* Diagrams containing a chord connecting two consecutive interval vertices, diagrams containing a double chord, and diagrams connecting a vertex to itself are all set to zero.
* For $`D_1,D_2𝒟_n^o`$ which differ in the orientation of chords, set $`D_1=(1)^sD_2`$, where $`s`$ is the number of chords with at least one free end vertex whose orientation is different.
* For $`D_1,D_2𝒟_n^e`$ which differ in the orientation and labels of chords, set $`D_1=(1)^sD_2`$, where $`s`$ is sum of the number of chords with at least one free end vertex whose orientation is different and the order of the permutation of the chords.

###### Remark 3.

The relation which sets a diagram containing a chord connecting two consecutive interval vertices to zero is usually called the $`1T`$ (one-term) relation, and it is taken away if one considers framed knots. It is also intimately related to the correction term $`M_DI(D_1,K)`$ appearing in Theorem 3.8 and Theorem 4.5 .

Let $`𝒟^o=_{n>0}𝒟_n^o`$ and $`𝒟^e=_{n>0}𝒟_n^e`$. Since our arguments do not depend of which space of diagrams is considered, we will just let $`𝒟`$ stand for either from now on and make some remarks on the parity where needed. Same for $`TD_n^o`$ and $`TD_n^e`$ which we will denote by $`TD_n`$.

###### Definition 3.3.

Let $`𝒲`$ be the space of *weight systems* defined as the dual of $`𝒟`$. Let $`𝒲_n`$ be the degree $`n`$ part of $`𝒲`$.

###### Theorem 3.4 (, Theorem 7).

$`𝒟`$ and $`𝒲`$ are Hopf algebras.

The product on $`𝒟`$ is given by continuing the interval of one diagram into another, and the coproduct is essentially given by breaking up the diagram into connected pieces (see Definition 3.7 of ). A consequence of the theorem is that it suffices to consider only *primitive* weight systems, as we will do from now on. These are precisely the weight systems which vanish on products of diagrams .

### 3.2. Integrals and cohomology classes

Recall that the linking number of two knots can be obtained by taking two points, one on each knot, and integrating over $`S^1\times S^1`$ the pullback of the volume form on $`S^2`$ via the map giving the direction between those two points. Bott-Taubes configuration space integrals are in a way generalizations of this procedure to the case of a single knot. However, the points could now collide, so this configuration space has to be compactified for integration to make sense. Thus given a smooth manifold $`M`$ of dimension $`m`$, let $`F(k,M)`$ be the configuration space of $`k`$ distinct points in $`M`$ and let $`F[k,M]`$ be its *Fulton-MacPherson compactification* . The standard way to define this space is through blowups of all the diagonals in $`M^k`$, but an alternative definition which does not use blowups was given by Sinha. We state it here in the relevant case of $`M=^m`$.

###### Definition 3.5 (, Definition 1.3).

Let $`F[k,^m]`$ be the closure of the image of $`F(k,^m)`$ in $`(^m)^k\times (S^{m1})^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{2}\right)}\times [0,\mathrm{}]^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{3}\right)}`$ under the map which is the inclusion on the first factor and on the second and third sends the point $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)`$ to the product of all $`\frac{x_ix_j}{|x_ix_j|}`$ and $`\frac{|x_ix_j|}{|x_ix_l|}`$, $`1i<j<lk`$, respectively.

The compactification $`F[k,^m]`$ is a smooth manifold with corners of dimension $`km`$ \[17, §3\], i.e. a space whose every point has a neighborhood homeomorphic to

$$^d\times _+^{kmd}$$

for some $`d`$ and such that each transition function extends to an embedding of a neighborhood containing its domain. It is also compact in the more general case when $`M`$ is compact. The configuration points in $`F[k,^m]`$ are allowed to come together while the directions as well as the relative rates of approach of the colliding points are kept track of. Codimension one faces (strata, screens), important for Stokes’ Theorem arguments, are given by some number of points colliding at the same time. The combinatorics of these compactifications are very interesting and deep, and have been related to Stasheff associahedra and certain spaces of trees \[18, §4\].

To make Stokes’ Theorem arguments work out, Bott and Taubes make the following definition.

###### Definition 3.6 (, page 5283).

Define $`F[k,s;𝒦_m,S^m]`$ as the pullback of

These spaces are suitable for integration, as we have

###### Proposition 3.7 (, Proposition A.3).

Spaces $`F[k,s;𝒦_m,S^m]`$ fiber over $`𝒦_m`$ and the fibers are smooth compact manifolds with corners.

Each fiber of $`F[k,s;𝒦_m,S^m]`$ over $`𝒦_m`$ can be thought of as a configuration space of $`k+s`$ points in $`S^m`$ with $`k`$ of them constrained to lie on some knot $`K𝒦_m`$. The connection to trivalent diagrams is now clearer; the configuration points which can be anywhere in $`S^m`$ can be represented by the free vertices while those which lie on a knot can be represented by the interval ones.

Since we wish to consider directions between points, we replace $`S^m`$ by $`^m\mathrm{}`$. This in turn replaces based knots in $`S^m`$ by long knots in $`^m`$, but introduces “faces at infinity” discussed after Theorem 3.8 and in Lemma 3.9.

Now suppose a labeled trivalent diagram $`DTD_n`$ with $`k`$ interval and $`s`$ free vertices is given (so $`k+s=2n`$). A chord connecting vertices $`i`$ and $`j`$ gives a map

(3) $`h_{ij}:F[k,s;𝒦_m,^m]`$ $`S^{m1}`$
$`(p_1,\mathrm{},p_i,\mathrm{},p_j,\mathrm{},p_{k+s})`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_jp_i}{|p_jp_i|}}.`$
The product of these maps over all $`(k+3s)/2`$ chords of $`D`$ can be used for pulling back the product of unit volume forms $`\omega _{ij}`$, call it $`\omega `$, from the product of spheres $`S^{m1}`$ to $`F[k,s;𝒦_m,^m]`$. We denote the resulting $`(k+3s)(m1)/2`$–form on $`F[k,s;𝒦_m,^m]`$ by $`\alpha `$. Because of Proposition 3.7, it makes sense to push this form forward to $`𝒦_m`$, i.e. integrate it along the fiber of the map

$$\pi :F[k,s;𝒦_m,^m]𝒦_m.$$

Finally let $`I(D,K)`$ stand for the pullback of $`\omega `$ followed by this pushforward $`\pi _{}\alpha `$:

Since the fiber of $`\pi `$ has dimension $`k+ms`$, the resulting form on $`𝒦_m`$ has dimension

$$\frac{k+3s}{2}(m1)(k+ms)=(m3)\frac{k+s}{2}=(m3)n.$$

This is not necessarily a closed form. However, let $`D_1`$ be the diagram consisting of two interval vertices and one chord between them. We then have

###### Theorem 3.8.

For a nontrivial primitive weight system $`W𝒲_n`$, the map $`T(W):𝒦`$ given by

$$K\frac{1}{(2n)!}\underset{DTD_n}{}W(D)(I(D,K)M_DI(D_1,K)),$$

represents a nontrivial element of $`H^{(m3)n}(𝒦_m;)`$. Here $`M_D`$ is a real number which depends only on $`D`$ and $`M_DI(D_1,K)`$ vanishes for $`m>3`$.

In the case $`m=3`$, this theorem was first proved for ordinary closed knots by Thurston  and Altschuler and Friedel  who also show the zeroth cohomology class one gets this way on $`𝒦`$ is in fact a finite type $`n`$ invariant. The generalization to $`m>3`$ is due to Cattaneo, Cotta-Ramusino, and Longoni, who also show the cohomology classes obtained this way are nontrivial \[9, Section 6\]. The proof does not depend on $`m`$ except a little care has to be taken with signs. Since a labeling of a diagram determines the labeling of configuration points in $`F[k,s;𝒦_m,^m]`$, changing the orientation of $`D`$ may affect the signs of $`I(D,K)`$ and $`M_DI(D_1,K)`$ depending on $`m`$ (orientation of the fiber might change). But the two diagram algebras $`𝒟_n^e`$ and $`𝒟_n^o`$, corresponding to $`m`$ even and odd, are defined precisely so that $`W`$ depends on the sign in the same way.

One proof of Theorem 3.8 is via Stokes’ Theorem and proceeds by checking that the integrals on the boundary of the fiber of $`\pi `$ either vanish or cancel out within the sum, so that the sum is in fact a closed form. Different arguments are used for various types of faces, which are called *principal* if exactly two points degenerate; *hidden* if more than two, but not all, points degenerate; and *faces at infinity* if one or more points approach infinity. The correction term $`M_DI(D_1,K)`$ comes from the possible contribution of the *anomalous* face corresponding to all configuration points coming together \[22, Proposition 4.8\]. While it is easy to see that the contribution is zero in case of knots in $`^m`$, $`m>3`$ \[22, Proposition 6.3\], it is a conjecture that this is also the case for $`m=3`$. D. Thurston  and Poirier  have computed it to be zero in some simple cases.

The vanishing arguments can be found in  and can be written down very concretely using explicit coordinates on compactified configuration spaces \[6, page 5286\] (see also §4.1 in ). Integrals along principal faces do not necessarily vanish, but they can be grouped according to the $`STU`$ relation (and another relation which follows from it, usually called the $`IHX`$ relation; see ). These integrals then cancel in the sum of Theorem 3.8 \[22, §4.4\]. For other faces, a key observation time and again is that the product of the maps $`h_{ij}`$ factors through a space of lower dimension than the product of the spheres which is its initial target. Therefore $`\alpha `$ must be zero. This type of argument is illustrated in Lemma 3.9 below and it immediately takes care of the vanishing of integrals along hidden faces \[22, Proposition 4.4\] and faces at infinity where one or more of the points off the knot go to infinity \[22, Proposition 4.7\]. In case of long knots, however, there is an extra case of such a face corresponding to some points on the knot going to infinity. This cannot happen in the Bott-Taubes/Thurston setup since they consider closed knots. We deal with this case in the following lemma.

###### Lemma 3.9.

The pushforward $`I(D,K)`$ vanishes on the faces of the fiber of $`\pi `$ corresponding to some or all points on the knot going to infinity.

###### Proof.

The argument is essentially that of Proposition 4.7 in . Recall that our long knots are “flat” outside a compact set, i.e. they agree with a fixed linear inclusion of $``$ in $`^m`$. Suppose a point $`p_i`$ on the knot tend to infinity. If $`p_i`$ is related to another point $`p_j`$ by a map $`h_{ij}`$ (meaning there is a chord connecting vertices $`i`$ and $`j`$ in $`D`$), then there are four cases to consider.

1. If $`p_j`$ does not go to infinity, then $`h_{ij}`$ restricts to a constant map along this face. The product of all such maps to $`(S^{m1})^{(k+3s)/2}`$ then factors through $`(S^{m1})^{((k+3s)/2)1}`$. The pullback of $`\omega `$ to $`F[k,s;𝒦_m,^m]`$ thus has to be zero as does $`I(D,K)`$.
2. If $`p_j`$ is on the knot and it also goes to infinity (regardless of whether it does so in the same direction as $`x_i`$), $`h_{ij}`$ is constant on this face.
3. If $`p_j`$ is off the knot and it also goes to infinity, but in a different direction than that of the fixed linear inclusion, $`h_{ij}`$ is again constant.
4. If $`p_j`$ is off the knot and it goes to infinity in the same direction and at the same rate as $`p_i`$, then $`p_j`$ is either connected to a point $`p_k`$ which does not, in which case $`h_{jk}`$ restricts to a constant map on this face, or it does, in which case we look at all other points $`p_k`$ is related to by maps. Since $`D`$ is connected, there must eventually be two points for which the map restricts to a constant map (if not, this means the entire configuration is translated along the knot to infinity and this is not a face).

We next modify the construction outlined in this section to the setting of the Taylor tower and generalize Theorem 3.8.

## 4. Generalization to the stages of the Taylor tower

Remember from §2 that a point $`h`$ in $`_k`$ is a collection of families of embeddings parametrized by simplices of dimensions $`0,\mathrm{},k`$. The families are compatible in the sense that a $`k`$-simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^k`$ parametrizes a family of knots with $`k+1`$ punctures, while each of its faces parametrizes a family of knots with fewer punctures (how many and which punctures depends on which barycentric coordinates of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^k`$ are 0). However, the evaluation of a punctured knot on a point in $`F[k,I]`$ may not be defined since the configuration points may land in the parts of $`I`$ that have been removed. To get around this, we will devote most of this section to the construction of a smooth map

$$F[k,I]\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^k$$

whose graph will serve the purpose of choosing a punctured knot in the family $`h_k`$ depending on where the $`k`$ points in $`I`$ may be. The interior of $`F[k,I]`$, the open configuration space $`F(k,I)`$, is given by points $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)`$ which satisfy $`0<x_1<x_2<\mathrm{}<x_k<1.`$ Thus we have a natural identification $`F(k,I)\mathrm{\Delta }^k,`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^k`$ denotes the open $`k`$-simplex. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{conf}}^k`$ be the closed simplex identified with the obvious compactification of $`F(k,I)`$, i.e. adding the faces to $`\mathrm{\Delta }^k`$. Also let $`_i\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^k`$ stand for the $`i`$th face of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^k`$ ($`i`$th barycentric coordinate is 0), and let $`A(x)`$ index the set of holes in which the configuration $`x`$ may be. In other words,

$$A(x)=\{i:x_jA_i\text{ for some }j\}.$$

###### Proposition 4.1.

There is a smooth map $`\gamma ^k:\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{conf}}^k\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^k,`$ defined inductively, which depends on the choice of the punctures $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_r`$ in $`I`$. Moreover, if $`\gamma ^i:\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{conf}}^i\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^k`$ has been defined for all $`i<n`$, then, for $`1jn1`$, $`\gamma ^n:\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{conf}}^n\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^k`$ satisfies

* $$\gamma ^n(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{j1},x_j,x_j,x_{j+2},\mathrm{},x_n)=\gamma ^{n1}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{j1},x_j,x_{j+1},\mathrm{},x_{n1}),$$

$$\gamma ^n(0,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n)=\gamma ^{n1}(x_2,\mathrm{},x_n)$$

$$\gamma ^n(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n1},1)=\gamma ^{n1}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n1});$$
* There exists an open neighborhood $`V`$ of $`x`$ and

$$\gamma ^n(x^{})\underset{iA(x)}{}_i\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^k\text{ for all }x^{}V.$$

Conditions i) and ii) are required because of the following: Let $`x=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_k),0x_1\mathrm{}x_k1`$ parametrize $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{conf}}^k`$. The image in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{conf}}^k`$ of two points coming together in $`F[k,s;𝒦_m,^m]`$ is $`x_j=x_{j+1}`$, $`1jk1`$. This situation translates into the pushforward of a certain form along a principal face and we wish for integrals like this to cancel due to the $`STU`$ and $`IHX`$ relations after considering sums over all trivalent diagrams. The cancellation will only be possible if the integrals corresponding to each triple of diagrams have the same value when two points collide. However, one of the diagrams in the $`STU`$ relation has fewer interval vertices, i.e. it is associated with the space $`F[k1,I]`$. A way to ensure the appropriate integrals over $`F[k,I]`$ and $`F[k1,I]`$ are equal is to define $`\gamma ^k`$ inductively based on the number of points in a configuration (keeping in mind that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{conf}}^0`$ is a point) and to further impose condition i). The last two equations in i) are required for the integrals along the faces given by points colliding with the basepoint in $`S^m`$ to cancel out.

As for condition ii), given $`t`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^k`$ and $`h`$ in $`_k`$, one gets a point $`h_t`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^k\times _k`$ which is an embedding of the interval with up to $`k`$ punctures. As mentioned at the beginning of this section, we want the evaluation of $`h_t`$ on a configuration to be defined for all points $`(q,t,h)\mathrm{\Gamma }_k\times _k`$. We therefore need that, whenever $`x\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{conf}}^n`$, $`t=\gamma ^n(x)`$ is a point in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^k`$ such that the corresponding embedding $`h_t`$ is defined for $`x`$. So depending on where $`x`$ is in $`I`$, $`\gamma ^n`$ will map it to the interior or a face (or intersection of faces) of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^k`$ according to whether some of the $`x_j`$ are in any of the removed subarcs $`A_i`$ for $`1ik`$. Condition ii) ensures this and more as it requires $`\gamma ^n`$ to map a *neighborhood* of every point $`x`$ to the same face as $`x`$ itself. This is needed for the resulting graph to be a smooth manifold with corners. Note that the intersection in condition ii) is nonempty since there is always at least one more hole in the interval than the number of points in a configuration (the number of configuration points is $`nk`$, while the number of holes in $`_k`$ is $`k+1`$).

###### Proof of Proposition 4.1.

Assume smooth maps $`\gamma ^0,\mathrm{},\gamma ^{n1}`$ have been defined on faces of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{conf}}^n`$ and satisfy conditions i) and ii) (smoothness is needed for Stokes’ Theorem). Then we can extend locally to a function $`\gamma ^n`$ on all of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{conf}}^n`$. However, we need to check that there are neighborhoods $`U_x`$ for every point $`x\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{conf}}^n`$ so that the local extensions $`\gamma _x^n`$ match on intersections.

Thus, given $`x=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{conf}}^n`$ with all $`x_j`$ distinct, pick a neighborhood $`U_x`$ of $`x`$ such that $`A(x^{})A(x)`$ (no $`x^{}`$ in $`U_x`$ gets into holes $`x`$ did not get into). This can be done since the $`A_i`$ are closed subintervals. Then two intersecting neighborhoods are both mapped to the same face in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^k`$, and so condition ii) is satisfied on intersections in this case. (Condition i) is vacuous here since we are in the interior of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{conf}}^n`$.)

If $`x_j=x_{j+1}`$, so that $`x`$ is on a face $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{conf}}^{n1}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{conf}}^n`$, choose a $`U_x`$ so that its boundary in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{conf}}^{n1}`$ is contained in the neighborhood $`V`$ from condition ii) for the point $`x=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_j,\mathrm{},x_{n1})\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{conf}}^{n1}`$ and the map $`\gamma _x^{n1}`$. Now $`\gamma _x^n`$, extended from $`V`$, maps the whole half-ball $`U_x`$ to the same face in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^k`$, and these match to define a function on intersections.

The preceeding easily generalizes to those $`x`$ on lower-dimensional faces of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{conf}}^n`$. If there is more than one $`j`$ for which $`x_j=x_{j+1}`$, choose $`U_x`$ such that, for each $`j`$, the part of the boundary of $`U_x`$ given by

$$U_x\{x^{}:x_j^{}=x_{j+1}^{}\}$$

equals $`V`$, where $`V`$ has been by induction determined by $`x=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_j,\mathrm{},x_{k1})\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{conf}}^{n1}`$ and the map $`\gamma _x^{n1}`$.

Thus $`\gamma ^n`$ can be defined locally. To define it as a smooth function on the whole $`n`$-simplex, let $`\{U_\alpha \}`$ be a finite open cover of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{conf}}^n`$ given by neighborhoods $`U_x`$. Similarly,

$$\gamma _\alpha ^n:U_\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^n$$

are given by the maps $`\gamma _x^n`$. Let

$$\mu _\alpha :U_\alpha I,supp(\mu _\alpha )U_\alpha ,\underset{\alpha }{}\mu _\alpha =1,\mu _\alpha >0,$$

be a partition of unity subordinate to the cover $`\{U_\alpha \}`$, and note that if two functions $`\gamma _\alpha ^n`$ and $`\gamma _\beta ^n`$ both satisfy conditions i) and ii) on $`U_\alpha U_\beta `$, so will their average, where averaging is done by the partition of unity. Thus setting

$$\gamma ^m=\underset{\alpha }{}\mu _\alpha \gamma _\alpha ^n$$

produces a smooth map from the closed simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{conf}}^n`$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^k`$ satisfying i) and ii). ∎

###### Remark 4.

Instead of using $`_k`$ in this construction, $`_j`$ could have been used, for any $`j>k`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^j`$ would parametrize a family of embeddings in $`_j`$, but we would only be interested in the subfamily parametrized by the face $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^k`$. There is no ambiguity as to which face is meant since the maps $`_j_k`$ are well-defined.

The space over which generalized Bott-Taubes integration will take place is now easy to define. Noting that there is a map

$$f:F[k,I]\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{conf}}^k$$

which is identity on the interior of $`F[k,I]`$ and forgets the extra information about the relative rates of approach of the colliding points, we have

###### Definition 4.2.

Let

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_k=\{(x,t):t=\gamma ^k(f(x))\}F[k,I]\times \mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^k$$

be the graph of the composition

$$F[k,I]\stackrel{f}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{conf}}^k\stackrel{\gamma ^k}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^k.$$

Since $`F[k,I]`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^k`$ are manifolds with corners, it follows from our construction of $`\gamma ^k`$ that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ is a manifold with corners for all $`nk`$. The generalization of the Bott-Taubes setup from the previous section is now straighforward. In analogy with Definition 3.6, we have

###### Definition 4.3.

Define $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k,s}`$ as the pullback

###### Remark 5.

Recall that for a point in the homotopy limit coming from a knot, all isotopies are constant. The manifold $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k,s}`$ in this case is therefore precisely $`F[k,s;𝒦_m,^m]`$ from the Bott-Taubes setup (and an even more special case is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k,0}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_k=F[k,I]`$).

Bott and Taubes’ proof of Proposition 3.7, which they carry out in a very general setting, applies in our case, so that we immediately get an analogous statement

###### Proposition 4.4.

Spaces $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k,s}`$ fiber over $`_{k+s}`$ and the fibers are smooth manifolds with corners.

With Remark 4 in mind, we have chosen to construct $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k,s}`$ as a bundle over $`_{k+s}`$ (see comment immediately following Theorem 4.5 for the reason why). We have also replaced $`S^m`$ by $`^m`$ as before.

The fiber of the map $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k,s}_{k+s}`$ can now thought of as follows: Recall that a point in $`_{k+s}`$ is parametrized by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^{k+s}`$. Given $`h_{k+s}`$ and depending on where the points of $`F[k,I]`$ are, a certain point $`t\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{holim}}^{k+s}`$ is chosen according to our construction. This gives a particular punctured knot $`h_t`$. A point in the fiber is then a configuration space of $`k+s`$ points in $`^m`$ with $`k`$ of them constrained to lie on some punctured knot $`h_t`$. Note that the only difference between this and Bott-Taubes setup is a genuine knot $`K𝒦_m`$ is replaced by the punctured knots $`h_t`$.

Again given a trivalent diagram $`DTD_n`$ with $`k`$ interval and $`s`$ free vertices, there is a map

(4)
$$\left(\underset{\text{chords }ij}{}h_{ij}\right):\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k,s}(S^{m1})^{(k+3s)/2}$$

given by normalized differences of those pairs of points in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k,s}`$ which correspond to pairs of vertices connected by chords in $`D`$. Each $`h_{ij}`$ pulls back the volume form $`\omega _{ij}`$ to an $`(m1)`$–form $`\alpha _{ij}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k,s}`$. The product of the $`\alpha _{ij}`$ is then a $`(k+3s)(m1)/2`$–form $`\alpha `$ which can be pushed forward along the $`(k+ms)`$–dimensional fiber to produce an $`(m3)n`$–form on $`_{k+s}`$. This time we denote the pullback followed by pushforward by $`I(D,h)`$. Let $`M_DI(D_1,h)`$ again be the correction term associated with the collision of all points in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k,s}`$, so that we may state a generalization of Theorem 3.8:

###### Theorem 4.5.

For a nontrivial primitive weight system $`W𝒲_n`$, $`n>1`$, the map $`T(W):_{2n}`$ given by

(5)
$$h\frac{1}{(2n)!}\underset{DTD_n}{}W(D)(I(D,h)M_DI(D_1,h))$$

represents a nontrival element of $`H^{(m3)n}(_{2n};)`$. The real number $`M_D`$ again depends only on $`D`$ and the correction term $`M_DI(D_1,h)`$ is zero for $`m>3`$. If $`h_{2n}`$ comes from a knot, this is the usual Bott-Taubes map from Theorem 3.8.

Note that this is a restatement of Theorem 1.1. Also note that the degree $`(m3)n`$ is in the range given by Theorem 2.1 for $`m>3`$. It should now also be clear why $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k,s}`$ was defined as a bundle over $`_{k+s}`$. Each trivalent diagram in the sum has a total of $`k+s=2n`$ vertices. The domain of $`T(W)`$ should be the same space regardless of what $`k`$ and $`s`$ are. The proper space to define $`T(W)`$ on is thus $`_{2n}`$, since $`D`$ can in the extreme case be a chord diagram with $`s=0`$ and $`k=2n`$.

The main point in Theorem 4.5 is that the Bott-Taubes map factors through the Taylor tower. Spaces $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k,s}`$ have been constructed so that this is immediate (see Remark 5). To prove that the form on $`_{2n}`$ given by the map (5) is closed, one can repeat verbatim the arguments given in  proving that the form from Theorem 3.8 is closed. Since these arguments are lengthy but straightforward, we will not repeat them here. It suffices to say that the main reason why the arguments stay the same is that one can write down coordinates on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k,s}`$ in exactly the same way Bott and Taubes do on $`F[k,s;𝒦_m,^m]`$. These coordinates are for example given in equations (12) of of . Everything in those equations stays the same except a knot $`K`$ is replaced by a punctured knot $`h_t`$, as was already hinted at in the discussion following Proposition 4.4. But all the Stokes’ Theorem arguments are based on these coordinates so that §4.2–4.6 in , where the vanishing results are proved, can now be repeated in exactly the same way. Since everything therefore immediately carries over from the setting of Theorem 3.8 to ours, it follows that the form given by (5) is closed.

To conclude, we briefly indicate how the extension of Bott-Taubes integration to the Taylor tower gives another point of view on finite type knot theory . The fact that configuration space integrals can be used to construct the universal finite type knot invariant has been known for some time .

Note that Bott-Taubes integrals produce 0-dimensional cohomology classes, or knot invariants, in case of $`𝒦`$. Also recall that the Taylor stages $`_k`$ for $`𝒦`$ is defined the same way as for $`𝒦_m`$, $`m>3`$. Let $`_k^{}`$ be an algebraic analog for the Taylor stage, obtained by replacing the spaces of punctured knots by cochains on those spaces and taking the algebraic homotopy colimit of the resulting subcubical diagram (this colimit is the total complex of a certain double complex). One then has canonical maps

$$H^0(𝒦)H^0(_{2n})H^0(_{2n}^{}),$$

neither of which is necessarily an equivalence (the first because one no longer has Theorem 2.1). However, we have

###### Theorem 4.6 (, Theorem 6.10).

$`H^0(_{2n}^{})`$ is isomorphic to the set of finite type $`n`$ knot invariants.

It is also not hard to see that one has isomorphisms between $`H^0(_{2n}^{})`$ and $`H^0(_{2n+1}^{})`$ \[23, equation (34)\] so that all the stages of the algebraic Taylor tower are accounted for. Thus its invariants are precisely the finite type invariants. Configuration space integrals and Theorem 4.5 are central to the proof of Theorem 4.6 but the isomorphism itself is given by a simple map based on evaluation of a knot on some points.

The Taylor tower is thus a potentially a rich source of information about finite type theory. One interesting question is whether the usual Taylor stages $`_{2n}`$ contain more than just the finite type invariants. This issue is very closely related to the conjecture that finite type invariants separate knots. Some further questions are posed in §6.5 of .


text:
# Critical temperature for entanglement transition in Heisenberg Models

## 1 Introduction

Entanglement plays an important role in quantum computation and quantum information processing. With appropriate coding, a system of interacting spins, such as described by a Heisenberg hamiltonian, can be used to model a solid-state quantum computer. It is therefore of some significance to study thermal entanglement in Heisenberg models. We find that for each model there is a corresponding critical temperature for transition to the entanglement regime, and the entanglement only occurs below this critical temperature.

## 2 Measures of entanglement

A pure state described by the wave function $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is non-entangled if it can be factorized as $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=|\mathrm{\Psi }_1|\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$. Otherwise, it is entangled. A typical example of an entangled state is the Bell state for a bipartite system of two qubits:

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|01|10)$$
(1)
For such a bipartite system the most popular entanglement measure is the entanglement of formation. For a pure state the entanglement of formation is defined as the reduced entropy of either subsystem.

For the two-qubit system one can use concurrence as a measure of the entanglement. Let $`\rho _{12}`$ be the density matrix of the pair which may represent either a pure or a mixed state. The concurrence corresponding to the density matrix is defined as

$$𝒞_{12}=\mathrm{max}\{\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4,0\},$$
(2)
where the quantities $`\lambda _i`$ are the square roots of the eigenvalues of the operator

$$\varrho _{12}=\rho _{12}(\sigma _1^y\sigma _2^y)\rho _{12}^{}(\sigma _1^y\sigma _2^y)$$
(3)
in descending order. The eigenvalues of $`\varrho _{12}`$ are real and non-negative even though $`\varrho _{12}`$ is not necessarily Hermitian. The entanglement of formation is a monotonic function of the concurrence, whose values range from zero, for an non-entangled state, to one, for a maximally entangled state.

## 3 Heisenberg models

The general $`N`$-qubit Heisenberg XYZ model in a magnetic field $`B`$ is described by the Hamiltonian

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\sigma _n^x\sigma _{n+1}^x+\sigma _n^y\sigma _{n+1}^y+\sigma _n^z\sigma _{n+1}^z\right)+\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}B_n\sigma _n^z$$
(4)
where we assume cyclic boundary conditions $`N+11`$. The Gibbs state of a system in thermodynamic equilibrium is represented by the density operator

$$\rho (T)=\mathrm{exp}(H/kT)/Z,$$
(5)
where $`Z=\text{tr}[\mathrm{exp}(H/kT)]`$ is the partition function, $`k`$ is Boltzmann’s constant which we henceforth take equal to 1, and $`T`$ is the temperature.

As $`\rho (T)`$ represents a thermal state, the entanglement in the state is called thermal entanglement. At $`T=0`$, $`\rho (0)`$ represents the ground state which is pure for the non-degenerate case and mixed for the degenerate case. The ground state may be entangled. At $`T=\mathrm{}`$, $`\rho (\mathrm{})`$ is a completely random mixture and cannot be entangled.

## 4 Thermal entanglement in the 2-site Heisenberg model

The density matrix can be obtained as

$$\rho (T)=A\left(\begin{array}{cccc}e^{B/T}& & & \\ & \mathrm{cosh}(J/T)& \mathrm{sinh}(J/T)& \\ & \mathrm{sinh}(J/T)& \mathrm{cosh}(J/T)& \\ & & & e^{B/T}\end{array}\right)$$
(6)
where $`A=(2\mathrm{cosh}(J/T)+2\mathrm{cosh}(B/T))^1`$, and the concurrence

$$C=\mathrm{max}\{\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(J/T)1}{\mathrm{cosh}(J/T)+\mathrm{cosh}(B/T)},0\}.$$
(7)
As the denominator is always positive, the entanglement condition is

$$\mathrm{sinh}(J/T)1>0\text{or}T<1.134J.$$
(8)
from which we conclude that

* There is a critical temperature $`T_c1.134J`$. The thermal state is entangled when $`T<T_c`$.
* The critical temperature is independent of the magnetic field $`B`$.
* Entanglement occurs only for the antiferromagnetic case ($`J>0`$).

## 5 Thermal entanglement in the 3-site Heisenberg model

We now consider pairwise entanglement in the 3-site Heisenberg model with uniform magnetic field, and also in the presence of a magnetic impurity. The reduced density matrix of two sites can be written as

$$\rho _{12}=\frac{2}{3Z}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}u& & & \\ & w& y& \\ & y& w& \\ & & & v\end{array}\right)$$
(9)
The concurrence may be readily obtained as

$$C=\frac{4}{3Z}\mathrm{max}\{|y|\sqrt{uv},0\},$$
(10)
In the case of a uniform magnetic field, the entanglement between any two sites is the same due to cyclic symmetry. We therefore need only consider the entanglement between sites 1 and 2. Then

$`u(B)`$ $`=`$ $`v(B)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}e^{3\beta B}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{\beta B}(2z+z^2)`$
$`w`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cosh}(\beta B)(2z+z^2)`$
$`y`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cosh}(\beta B)(z^2z)`$
$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{cosh}(3\beta B)+2\mathrm{cosh}(\beta B)(2z+z^2).`$ (11)
where ($`z=\mathrm{exp}(\beta J)`$).

If $`B=0`$, one can easily find that the sites 1 and 2 are entangled if and only if

$$2|z^2z|32zz^2>0$$
(12)
from which we conclude that

* There is no entanglement when $`J>0`$;
* Entanglement occurs when $`J<0`$ and $`T<T_c`$, where the critical temperature is given by $`1.27J=1.27|J|`$.
* The maximal concurrence is 1/3, which occurs for $`T0`$.

Fig.1 plots the concurrence against $`\tau `$ for different $`B`$. From these graphs we see that there exists a critical temperature above which the entanglement vanishes. It is also noteworthy that the critical temperature increases as the magnetic field $`B`$ increases.

We now consider the case of a single impurity field on the third site; thus $`B_1=B_2=0`$ and $`B_3=BJ>0`$. In this case the cyclic symmetry is violated and we have to consider the entanglement between sites 1 and 2, and between sites 1 and 3, separately.

Fig.2 plots the concurrence $`C_{12}`$ and $`C_{13}`$ against scaled temperature $`\tau =kt/|J|`$ for different magnetic fields $`B`$. From Fig.2(a) we see that when the magnetic field is located at the third site both the antiferromagnetic and ferromagnetic cases are entangled in the range $`0<\tau \tau _c`$, where the critical temperature $`\tau _c`$ depends on $`B`$. Fig.2(a) also suggests that the concurrence $`C_{12}`$ tends to 1, namely that the $`(1,2)`$ entanglement becomes maximal, when $`\tau 0`$ for large enough $`B`$, in both the antiferromagnetic and ferromagnetic cases.

In contrast to the $`(1,2)`$ case, the entanglement between sites 1 and 3 increases to a maximum with increasing $`B`$ and then decreases. The lower the $`\tau `$, the smaller the $`B`$ at which the concurrence reaches its maximum value. For smaller $`B`$, entanglement occurs only in the ferromagnetic case ($`J<0`$), while for large enough $`B`$ (e.g. $`B=10`$ in our units), weak entanglement occurs in both the antiferromagnetic and ferromagnetic cases.


text:
# Comment on “Mean First Passage Time for Anomalous Diffusion”

## Acknowledgments

This work has been partially supported by the Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología (Spain) through Grant No. BFM2001-0718 and by the Engineering Research Program of the Office of Basic Energy Sciences at the U. S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG-86ER13606.