text:
# Competing Spin-Gap Phases in a Frustrated Quantum Spin System in Two Dimensions

## 1 Introduction

Geometrical frustration plays an important role for the spin-gap formation in a certain class of antiferromagnetic quantum spin systems. Two typical spin-gap compounds found in two dimension (2D) are the transition metal oxides, $`\mathrm{SrCu}_2(\mathrm{BO}_3)_2`$$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ and $`\mathrm{CaV}_4\mathrm{O}_9`$.$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ In the former compound, the orthogonal-dimer structure of the $`\mathrm{Cu}^{2+}`$ spins stabilizes the dimer phase with the spin gap, which is properly described by the 2D Heisenberg model on the square lattice with diagonal interactions (Shastry-Sutherland model),$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ as claimed by Miyahara and Ueda.$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ For the model, it was pointed out that there should exist an intermediate phase between the dimer and the antiferromagnetic phases,$`^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{)}}`$ implying that strong frustration due to the competing interactions is quite important for understanding this model. On the other hand, the latter spin-gap compound $`\mathrm{CaV}_4\mathrm{O}_9`$ may be described by the 2D Heisenberg model on the 1/5-depleted square lattice$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ or the meta-plaquette model.$`^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{)}}`$ The spin-gap phase in this compound results from the plaquette-singlet formation, which is further stabilized by the frustration effect due to the next-nearest-neighbor interactions.

An interesting feature common to the above systems is that geometrical frustration due to the competing interactions plays an essential role to stabilize the disordered ground state. It is thus important to deal with these systems in a unified framework to clarify the role of frustration systematically. In particular, since a RVB-type spin-gap phase$`^{\text{?)}}`$ proposed for the Shastry-Sutherland model may be caused by geometrical frustration, it is desired to further clarify the nature of this spin-gap phase. This is also important from the experimental point of view, because the compound $`\mathrm{SrCu}_2(\mathrm{BO}_3)_2`$ is expected to be located around the phase boundary between the dimer and RVB-type phases.

Motivated by the above hot topics, we study the competition among the spin-gap phases as well as the magnetically ordered phases in a 2D frustrated quantum spin system on the square lattice with some diagonal couplings. The basic idea in this paper is the adiabatic continuation, which allows us to relate apparently different states which belong to the same phase at the fixed point. By using this model, we systematically describe quantum phase transitions for the orthogonal-dimer model and the Heisenberg model on the 1/5-depleted square lattice, where the ground-state phase diagram was already discussed in detail.$`^{\text{?, ?, ?, ?, }\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{)}}`$ In particular, we show that a RVB-type spin-gap phase naturally emerges in the Shastry-Sutherland model, by observing the adiabatic evolution of the spin-gap state when the competing interactions are varied.

This paper is organized as follows. In §2, we introduce a 2D frustrated spin model, which allows us to treat the above spin-gap compounds systematically. After briefly summarizing the series expansion method in §3, we investigate the first- and second-order quantum phase transitions among the spin-gap phases and the magnetically ordered phases in §4. We there determine the phase diagram and clarify the role of geometrical frustration in this class of quantum spin systems. A brief summary is given in §5.

## 2 Model Hamiltonian

We consider the Heisenberg model on the square lattice with some diagonal couplings, which is described by the Hamiltonian

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`J{\displaystyle \underset{diagonal}{}}𝐒_i𝐒_j+J^{}{\displaystyle \underset{square}{}}𝐒_i𝐒_j,`$ (2.1)
where $`𝐒_i`$ is the s = 1/2 spin operator at the i-th site, and $`J`$, $`J_1^{}`$ and $`J_2^{}`$ represent the antiferromagnetic exchange couplings. By putting $`J`$ on the orthogonal dimer bonds (dashed lines), we then distribute the other couplings $`J_1^{}`$ and $`J_2^{}`$ in two ways as shown in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b). In the case (a), there is a diagonal bond $`J`$ in each plaquette formed by the coupling $`J_1^{}`$ (bold line), while in the case (b) there is no diagonal bond in shaded plaquettes. What is interesting in this generalization is that we can discuss several different models in the same framework. Namely, both models of (a) and (b) are related to each other via the Shastry-Sutherland model with $`J_1^{}=J_2^{}`$, and moreover they are reduced to the well-known models in the limiting case of $`J_2^{}=0`$: the orthogonal-dimer chain for (a) and the spin system with a windmill structure for (b). Note that the latter is topologically equivalent to the Heisenberg model on the 1/5-depleted square lattice for the compound $`\mathrm{CaV}_4\mathrm{O}_9`$. Therefore, by using the above models we can systematically study how the geometrical frustration in the 2D model affects the generation of the spin gap. For later convenience, we introduce the ratios $`\alpha =J_1^{}/J`$ and $`k=J_2^{}/J_1^{}`$.

## 3 Series Expansion Method

In order to study quantum phase transitions, we make use of the series expansion method.$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ This method is powerful especially for quantum spin systems with frustration, where quantum Monte Carlo simulations may suffer from sign problems. In the present context, we wish to mention that this method was successfully applied to the meta-plaquette system,$`^{\text{?, ?)}}`$ the orthogonal dimer system,$`^{\text{?, ?, ?, }\text{?}\text{)}}`$ etc. To determine the phase diagram, we consider two initial configurations in the series expansion. The first one is a plaquette-singlet configuration composed of the shaded squares in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b). In this case, we parameterize the antiferromagnetic couplings labeled by the bold, thin and dashed lines as $`J_1^{},J_2^{}=\lambda kJ_1^{}`$ and $`J=\lambda J_1^{}/\alpha `$, where we have introduced an auxiliary series-expansion parameter $`\lambda `$ in addition to the dimensionless couplings $`k`$ and $`\alpha `$. The original model we are interested in is recovered by setting $`\lambda =1`$. Note that a RVB-type spin-gap phase,$`^{\text{?)}}`$ which has the spatially-extended disordered ground state, may be reached in this approach. The second one is a dimer configuration, by which we can describe the dimer phase. A convenient parameterization in the dimer expansion is $`J(=1),J_1^{}=\lambda \alpha `$ and $`J_2^{}=\lambda k\alpha `$. In this way, these two different approaches enable us to perform the series expansion starting from isolated dimer and plaquette singlets ($`\lambda =0`$).

To carry out the series expansion explicitly, the original Hamiltonian eq.(2.1) is divided into two parts,

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H_0+\lambda H_1`$ (3.1)
$`=`$ $`x\left[{\displaystyle 𝐒_i𝐒_j}+\lambda {\displaystyle \mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}𝐒_i𝐒_j}\right],`$
where $`x=J`$ $`(J_1^{})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}=\alpha `$ or $`k\alpha `$ $`(k`$ or $`\alpha ^1)`$ for the dimer (plaquette) expansion. The first term $`H_0`$ is the unperturbed Hamiltonian which stabilizes the isolated dimer or plaquette singlets, whereas the perturbed Hamiltonian $`H_1`$ labeled by $`\lambda `$ connects these isolated dimer or plaquette singlets, yielding a 2D frustrated spin system. We compute the staggered susceptibility $`\chi _{AF}`$, the spin-triplet excitation energy $`E(𝐪)`$, and the ground state energy $`E_g`$ as a power series in $`\lambda `$. To estimate the susceptibility, we introduce the Zeeman term

$`H^{}`$ $`=`$ $`h\left[{\displaystyle \underset{iA}{}}𝐒_i^z{\displaystyle \underset{iB}{}}𝐒_i^z\right],`$ (3.2)
where $`h`$ is the staggered magnetic field and $`A(B)`$ denotes one of the two sublattices.

We determine the quantum phase transition point in three ways: (i) comparison of the ground state energy, (ii) divergence of the staggered susceptibility, (iii) vanishing point of the spin gap. The latter two schemes may be applied to the second-order phase transition, while the first one is more effective to study the first-order phase transition. In order to obtain the accurate phase boundary, we further use the Dlog Pad$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}`$ approximants$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ for the calculated results up to the finite order in $`\lambda `$. We also make use of the biased Pad$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}`$ approximants,$`^{\text{?)}}`$ in which the critical exponents for our 2D quantum spin model are assumed to take those expected for the 3D classical Heisenberg model.$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ The phase-transition point, $`\lambda _c`$, is then determined by the formula $`\chi _{AF}(\lambda _c\lambda )^\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda _c\lambda )^\nu `$ with the critical exponents $`\gamma =1.4`$ and $`\nu =0.71.`$$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$

## 4 Quantum Phase Transitions

We now discuss quantum phase transitions when the competing exchange couplings are varied. There are three parameters in the perturbation term, $`\lambda ,\alpha `$ and $`k`$. We first study the model given by Fig. 1(a), which continuously connects the 2D Shastry-Sutherland model and the 1D orthogonal-dimer chain, and then move to the model (b), which includes the Heisenberg model on the 1/5 depleted square lattice.

### 4.1 Adiabatic evolution from the orthogonal-dimer chain

Let us start with the system shown in Fig. 1(a). Note that this spin system is reduced to the orthogonal-dimer chain for $`k=0`$, which was already studied in detail: when the ratio $`\alpha `$ of the competing exchange couplings is varied, the first-order quantum phase transition between the spin-gap phases with the dimer and the plaquette structures occurs at $`\alpha _{c1}=0.81900`$.$`^{\text{?}\text{, ?)}}`$ The merit to study this system is that we can check how the known spin-gap states in the chain system adiabatically evolve when the system approaches the 2D Shastry-Sutherland model.

We first discuss the effect of interchain coupling $`k`$ on the first-order phase transition between two spin-gap phases by computing the ground state energy $`E_g`$. Note that the energy for the dimer phase is unchanged even on the introduction of $`k`$ due to the orthogonal-dimer structure.$`^{\text{?)}}`$ For the plaquette phase, by choosing the isolated plaquettes shown by shaded squares in Fig. 1(a) as an initial configuration, we compute the ground state energy $`E_g`$ up to the sixth order in $`\lambda `$ with $`\alpha `$ and $`k`$ being fixed. By applying the first-order inhomogeneous differential method to the obtained series, we then estimate the ground state energy for the plaquette phase by setting $`\lambda =1`$. The energy estimated for $`k=0.1`$, 0.5 and 0.9 is shown in Fig. 2.

It is seen that the introduction of $`k`$ prefers the plaquette phase, shifting the first-order transition point $`\alpha _{c1}`$ to the left in Fig. 2. From these analyses, we determine the phase boundary between the dimer phase and the plaquette phase in the 2D parameter space, which is shown in Fig. 3. We have checked that the present estimate of the critical point for $`k=0`$ reproduces the above-mentioned value of $`\alpha _{c1}`$ fairly well. It is seen that the phase boundary is not so sensitive to $`k`$ for small $`k`$, because the energy for the plaquette phase decreases quadratically in $`k`$.

It is to be noted that these two competing spin-gap phases are continuously connected to those in the Shastry-Sutherland model $`(k=1)`$, with the nature of the first-order transition being unchanged.$`^{\text{?)}}`$ To check the validity of the obtained results, we have also performed the plaquette expansion starting from another initial configuration, where an isolated plaquette is formed by four spins shown as 1, 2, 3 and 4 in Fig. 1(a). From the ground state energy computed up to the seventh order, we confirm that the phase boundaries obtained by two distinct ways are indeed consistent within our accuracy.

To complete our discussions on this model, it is necessary to discuss whether the system is driven to the magnetically ordered phase with the increase of the interchain coupling. To this end, we calculate the staggered susceptibility $`\chi _{AF}`$ and the spin gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by means of the plaquette expansion up to the fourth and the fifth order in $`\lambda `$, respectively. We show the results obtained for $`k=0.9`$ and 0.8 in Fig. 4. It is seen that two lines determined from different quantities provide consistent values even around $`\lambda =1`$, implying that the phase boundary may be obtained rather accurately for the original model ($`\lambda =1`$) although our calculation is restricted to the lower-order series expansion. From the above analyses, we end up with the phase boundary shown in Fig. 3, which separates the plaquette phase II and the magnetically ordered phase III. Note that for large $`\alpha `$, the boundary between II and III approaches the correct asymptotic line, which was estimated as $`k_c=0.56`$.$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ This also supports that the present calculation gives the reliable results for the phase diagram.

In the obtained phase diagram shown in Fig. 3, we remark again that two competing spin-gap states in the orthogonal dimer chain$`^{\text{?, ?)}}`$ are continuously connected to those in Shastry-Sutherland model. In particular, a RVB-like intermediate spin-gap phase $`^{\text{?)}}`$ proposed for the Shastry-Sutherland model naturally emerges via the adiabatic continuation of the plaquette phase in the orthogonal-dimer chain.

### 4.2 Adiabatic evolution from the 1/5-depleted square lattice

We next deal with the spin system with a slightly different structure shown in Fig. 1 (b). Recall that when $`k=1`$ ($`k=0`$), this model with $`\lambda =1`$ is reduced to the Shastry-Sutherland model (1/5-depleted square lattice model). We here study how the spin-gap phase in the orthogonal-dimer model for $`\mathrm{SrCu}_2(\mathrm{BO}_3)_2`$ is related to that in the 1/5-depleted square-lattice model for $`\mathrm{CaV}_4\mathrm{O}_9`$, when the frustrating interaction $`k`$ is continuously varied. We carry out the dimer (plaquette) expansion for the ground-state energy, the staggered susceptibility and the spin gap. By performing similar asymptotic analyses mentioned above, the phase diagram is determined, which is shown in Fig. 5. The detail of calculation will be described below for each case.

Let us start our discussions with the case of $`k=0`$, i.e. the 1/5-depleted square lattice model, which was already studied in connection with $`\mathrm{CaV}_4\mathrm{O}_9`$.$`^{\text{?)}}`$ In this case, as the ratio of the exchange interactions $`\alpha `$ is changed, the dimer phase I first undergoes the second-order phase transition to the antiferromagnetically ordered phase IV at the critical point $`\alpha _{c2}^l=0.590(5)`$, and this ordered phase further shows the second-order phase transition to the plaquette phase II at $`\alpha _{c2}^u=1.09(1)`$. The critical points obtained by the present method agree fairly well with those of quantum Monte Carlo simulations.$`^{\text{?)}}`$ Note that the antiferromagnetically ordered phase on 1/5-depleted square lattice labeled by IV is different from that on the square lattice indicated by III.

As the coupling $`k`$ is increased, the spin-gap phases become more stable while the magnetic correlation for the phase IV is suppressed, which is mainly due to the frustrating nature of the interaction $`k`$. It is seen that the competition among three phases persists up to the multicritical point $`(\alpha ,k\alpha )(0.72,0.32)`$ beyond which the magnetically ordered phase IV disappears. Thus for larger $`k`$ the dimer state directly undergoes the first-order phase transition to the plaquette spin-gap phase. Note that the dimer phase here does not have the exact eigenstate except for the orthogonal-dimer case $`k=1`$, which is contrasted to the model (a). We thus have estimated the ground state energy both of the dimer and the plaquette phases in this case. For reference, we show in Fig. 6 the ground-state energy calculated for $`k=0.9`$, where the dimer (plaquette) expansion has been first performed up to the eighth (seventh) order in $`\lambda `$, and then the first-order inhomogeneous differential method has been used to obtain the values at $`\lambda =1`$.

To confirm the validity of our series expansion, we have also performed the exact diagonalization for the system with $`N=24`$ sites with a periodic boundary condition, which is found to be consistent with the series-expansion results. The phase boundary thus obtained between two spin-gap phases is drawn in Fig. 5. We note that our series expansion turns out to be not so accurate around the tricritical point, so that the phase boundary around there is shown as the dashed line.

When the coupling $`k`$ is further increased, the plaquette phase shows the instability to an antiferromagnetically ordered phase III on the square lattice. To study this instability from II to III, we have performed the plaquette expansion for the staggered susceptibility (spin gap) up to the fourth (fifth) order, and determined the phase boundary using the biased Padé approximants, which is shown in Fig. 5.

Consequently, we arrive at the phase diagram shown in Fig. 5, in which the parameters deduced for the spin-gap compounds $`\mathrm{CaV}_4\mathrm{O}_9`$ and $`\mathrm{SrCu}_2(\mathrm{BO}_3)_2`$ are also indicated. It is clearly seen how the 2D Heisenberg model on the 1/5-depleted square lattice is connected to the Shastry-Sutherland model. It is particularly interesting to notice that a RVB-type spin gap state proposed for the Shastry-Sutherland model is adiabatically connected to a plaquette singlet state for $`\mathrm{CaV}_4\mathrm{O}_9`$.

### 4.3 Excitation spectrum

We have seen that the spin-gap phases in the Shastry-Sutherland model are continuously connected to the spin-gap phases known for two different models. According to this relationship, it may be expected that the Shastry-Sutherland model shares some of its characteristic features with the latter models. As an example, we here show that the spin-triplet excitation spectrum for the RVB-type phase in the Shastry-Sutherland model indeed exhibits a similar behavior expected for the plaquette phase in the orthogonal-dimer chain.

In Fig. 7(a), we show the spin-triplet excitation spectrum calculated for the 2D Shastry-Sutherland model. In contrast to the dimer phase, where the lowest triplet excitation is an almost-localized triplet over the dimer ground state,$`^{\text{?)}}`$ we find that the lowest-triplet excitation in the RVB-type phase shows a more complicated feature; two triplet excitations show the level-crossing around value of $`\alpha ^{}0.76`$. It is not easy to clearly see the origin of this level-crossing because our calculation for the 2D model is restricted to lower-order perturbation. Fortunately, we can exploit the idea of the adiabatic continuation by continuously changing the system to the orthogonal-dimer chain.

In the orthogonal-dimer chain, a similar level-crossing was recently observed,$`^{\text{?)}}`$ as shown in Fig. 7(b). In this case, the nature of two different excitations in the plaquette phase is well understood. Namely, in the lowest excitation denoted by the dotted line in the region of $`\alpha >\alpha ^{}(0.87)`$ is a triplet excitation that simply breaks a plaquette singlet. On the other hand in the region $`\alpha _{c1}<\alpha <\alpha ^{}`$, the lowest-energy excited state shown by the dashed line is described by a four-fold degenerate level without dispersion,$`^{\text{?)}}`$ in which two diagonal spins on a square plaquette becomes completely free, giving rise to the four-fold degeneracy.$`^{\text{?)}}`$ The emergence of this peculiar excitation reflects the fact that the system is located closely to the first-order phase transition point. In other words, this level crossing is due to the strong frustration effect around the transition point. When the interchain coupling $`k`$ is introduced, the above two-types of excitations are continuously changed to those in the Shastry-Sutherland model, as shown in Fig. 7(a). In particular, four-fold degenerate states in the chain system split into singlet and triplet states, and the latter gives the lowest-excited state shown by the dashed line in the Shastry-Sutherland model in Fig. 7(a). In this way, the characteristic level-crossing found in the 1D system persists even for the 2D system, from which we can say that the unusual level-crossing found in the Shastry-Sutherland model reflects the strong frustration around the first-order phase transition point.

## 5 Summary

We have studied the ground-state phase diagram for a frustrated quantum spin model on the square lattice, which systematically describes the systems for the spin-gap compounds such as $`\mathrm{SrCu}_2(\mathrm{BO}_3)_2`$ and $`\mathrm{CaV}_4\mathrm{O}_9`$. By calculating the ground state energy, the staggered susceptibility and the spin gap by means of the series expansion method, we have determined the phase diagram, and clarified the nature of the associated quantum phase transitions. One of the main purpose of the present study is to uncover the origin of the intermediate spin-gap state proposed for the Shastry-Sutherland model, which has a spatially extended nature. Starting from two types of the well-studied models, we have observed how this intermediate phase emerges in the phase diagram. Namely, with the use of the simple orthogonal-dimer chain model, it has been checked that the first-order phase transition between the dimer and RVB-type phases in the Shastry-Sutherland model has the same origin as in the transition between the dimer and plaquette phases known for the chain system. Further analysis based on the second model has allowed us to show that the RVB-type intermediate state is adiabatically connected to the plaquette state known for the 1/5-depleted square lattice model, which describes the essential properties of $`\mathrm{CaV}_4\mathrm{O}_9`$. We have also shown that the level-crossing of the triplet excitations in the Shastry-Sutherland model is understood well in terms of their counterparts in the 1D orthogonal-dimer chain model.

These systematic investigations based on the adiabatic continuation support that the intermediate spin-gap phase for the Shastry-Sutherland model may be stabilized by geometrical frustration induced by the competing interactions. However, we wish to mention that there still remain unresolved problems for the phase diagram of the Shastry-Sutherland model. For example, Weihong et al. have shown by means of the Ising expansion$`^{\text{?)}}`$ that the system has the finite staggered magnetization down to $`(J^{}/J)0.71`$, which may contradict the fact that the spin gap phase is extended up to $`(J^{}/J)0.86`$. Although we have checked that the ground state energy of the present spin-gap phase for $`(J^{}/J)<0.86`$ is indeed lower than that of Weihong et al., this apparent inconsistency for the magnetization should be resolved in the future study. Also, Knetter et al. have recently claimed that the instability of the two-magnon excitation in the dimer phase may occur at $`(J^{}/J)=0.630(5)`$. $`^{\text{?)}}`$ Although it may not be clear whether this indeed triggers a first-order phase transition to some new phase,$`^{\text{?)}}`$ it is an important open problem to answer the above points for the phase diagram of the Shastry-Sutherland model. This is now under consideration.

The work is partly supported by a Grant-in-Aid from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture. A.K. is supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.


format: text

text:
# Time Variable Faraday Rotation Measures of 3C 273 & 3C 279

## 1 Introduction

The parsec-scale cores and jets of quasars have typical linear polarizations of 1-10% (Cawthorne et al., 1993) with the jets being more strongly polarized. If a change in the electric vector position angle (EVPA) of the polarized emission is seen with frequency, and can be attributed to the Faraday effect, then we can learn about the densities and magnetic fields of thermal gas along the line of sight.

High angular resolution polarimetry has shown that some quasars have Faraday Rotation Measures (RM) in excess of $`1000`$ rad m-2. In the case of the quasar 3C 279 these high RMs can change over 1.5 years by over 1000 rad m-2 (Taylor (2000) and references therein). These high RMs are present within a projected distance of $`20`$ pc from the core of the quasars. Beyond this distance the RMs decrease to $`100`$ rad m-2, a value consistent with that expected from the passage of the emission through the host galaxy and through the ISM of our own Galaxy.

In §2 we describe VLBA observations of the quasars 3C 273 and 3C 279, with the results of the rotation measure analysis presented in §3. In §4 we discuss our results in light of the unified scheme of AGNs.

We assume H$`{}_{0}{}^{}=50`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 and q0=0.5 throughout.

## 2 Observations and Data Reduction

The observations, performed on 2000 January 27 (2000.07), were carried out at ten frequencies between 8.1 and 43.2 GHz using the 10 element VLBA111The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is operated by Associated Universities, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.. Sources 3C 273, 3C 279, and calibrator J1310+3220 were observed for approximately 2.5 hours each. The calibrator OJ287 was observed for almost one hour. Right- and left-circular polarizations were recorded using 1 bit sampling across a bandwidth of 8 MHz. The VLBA correlator produced 16 frequency channels across each IF during every 2 s integration.

Amplitude calibration and fringe-fitting were performed as in Taylor (2000). Weather, in particular snow on the antenna, caused us to flag the data from Hancock at 43 GHz. We also encountered radio-frequency interference at 12 GHz on our 3C 279 scans, which we attribute to geostationary television broadcasts. This required extensive editing of the 12 GHz data on 3C 279.

Feed polarizations of the antennas were determined using 3C 279 and the AIPS task LPCAL. We assumed that the VLBA antennas had good-quality feeds with relatively pure polarizations, which allowed us to use a linearized model to fit the feed polarizations. Absolute electric vector position angle (EVPA) calibration at 8–22 GHz was determined by using the EVPA of OJ287 obtained on 2000 January 29 listed in the VLA Monitoring Program222http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/$``$smyers/calibration/ (Taylor & Myers 2000). Polarization monitoring observations of J1310+3220 on 1999 December 19 and 2000 February 18 were interpolated to the observation date and employed as a check of the OJ287 calibration (Table 1). At 43 GHz the low polarized flux density from these calibrators prevented an absolute EVPA calibration. To set the EVPA at 43 GHz we performed a linear least-squares fit to the 3C 279 component C4 EVPA data, and used this fit to set the EVPA for 3C 279 at 43 GHz. The correction applied for 3C 279 C4 was then used for the other sources (Fig 1).

Taylor (1998) suggested that C4 may be used as an absolute EVPA calibrator due to its low RM and strong polarized and total flux densities. From 1994 (Lepp$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$nen et al., 1995) through 1998 (Lister et al., 1998; Wardle et al., 1998; Denn et al., 2000; Taylor, 2000) component C4 maintained an EVPA oriented nearly parallel to the jet axis. If we define the intrinsic polarization angle (IPA) of a source as the intercept in the RM plot (Simard-Normandin et al., 1981) the IPA of 3C 279 C4 determined by our epoch 2000.07 observations is $`87.1\pm 2.2^\mathrm{o}`$. The position angle of component C4 is significantly different from the value of $`120^\mathrm{o}\pm 3^\mathrm{o}`$ found by Taylor (1998). Therefore we conclude that C4 cannot be used as an absolute EVPA calibrator, without complimentary monitoring observations.

## 3 Results

We present multifrequency radio observations, polarization properties, and rotation measure distributions for 3C 273 and 3C 279. In the rotation measure images presented in figures 2 through 5 the higher frequencies have been tapered to provide a matched restoring beam of the dimensions indicated in the captions.

### 3.1 3C 273

Figure 2 presents a time series RM mosaic for this quasar (epoch 1997.07 from Taylor 1998). Beyond 10 pc from the nuclear region the jet exhibits a relatively smooth and uniform RM distribution of $``$ +500 rad m-2. The RM of this region remains constant over a 3 year time span. This jet continues to show good agreement with the $`\lambda ^2`$ law of Faraday rotation. In contrast the nuclear region changes from an apparently smooth $``$2000 rad m-2 in 1997 to a more complex structure which varies by $`4000`$ rad m-2 across 10 pc. To investigate the structure of this complex central region we created a higher resolution RM map in Figure 3. This map consists of data from 15-43 GHz with the high frequency data tapered to the resolution of the 15 GHz data. Inserted in this figure are the data used to obtain the indicated rotation measures. All points used to calculate the RM are at least 1% polarized. The central region consists of sub-components of RM in the range $`10002000`$ rad m-2. Good agreement to a $`\lambda ^2`$ law is present except in the northeastern-most part of the source, closest to the center of activity.

### 3.2 3C 279

Figure 4 presents a multi-epoch RM map of 3C 279 (first two epochs from Taylor 1998 and Taylor 2000 respectively). The core may be ejecting a new jet component, as shown by the increasing extension of the emission to the southwest over the three epochs. Taylor (2000) previously showed that 3C 279 shows variation in its RM properties. The figure illustrates these changes as the central region of 3C 279 changes from $`1300`$ to $`>500`$ rad m-2 between the 1997.07 and 1998.5 observations. 3C 279 maintains this lower RM during our 2000.07 observation with the exception of a “bridge” of high RM which appears to connect the central region with component C4 (Lepp$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$nen et al., 1995).

The high resolution RM structure of this quasar is presented in Figure 5. The rotation measures were determined using the 12-43 GHz data tapered to the 12 GHz resolution. The bridge appearing in the low resolution data is resolved and two edges of $``$ 500 rad m-2 bordering the central region of the quasar and C4 appear. Points used to fit the RM in the center of the image and in component C4 are at least 1% polarized. Points used in the bridge range from 0.3-0.5% polarized intensity and should be interpreted with caution. The asymmetry of the central region is consistent with the emergence of a new component from the core. This high resolution image also shows the slope of the RM changing from negative at the central peak of emission to a positive slope at the proposed newly emerging component.

## 4 Discussion

Taylor (1998, 2000) showed variation in the RM structure of AGNs on small spatial scales. For 3C 279 Taylor (2000) presented time variation of the RM structure of 3C 279 over 1.5 years. Our 2000.07 observations show temporal variations in 3C 273 and demonstrate that this phenomenon is not unique to 3C 279. We find good agreement to a $`\lambda ^2`$ law except near the core of 3C 273 and the resolved bridge of 3C 279. The high RMs observed in the central regions could result from the passage of the radiation through the narrow-line region (NLR) of the quasar. If the measured RM results from a polarized component which dominates within the telescope beam then the RM of the central region should vary as new components are created and ejected. As these new components emerge from the core their radiation passes through the NLR and a high RM results. The component progresses along the jet and the RM varies as the line of sight traverses an inhomogeneous NLR Faraday screen. Eventually RMs below 100 rad m-2 should be observed, which are comparable to RMs produced by traversing the ISM of the galaxy, as the NLR is exited. With this picture the jet of 3C 273 may still probe the NLR as the RM in the jet of this quasar in the 8-15 GHz mosaic is approximately 5 times that observed in radio galaxy hosts (Feretti et al., 1999). We intend to monitor the cores of quasars for time variations in the RM created as new components are ejected and sample these regions.

A crude estimate of the magnetic field strengths in these quasars can be made by using the variance in the observed RMs (Felten, 1996). This attributes the observed RMs to a randomly ordered magnetic field embedded in cells of uniform size and field strength. From our high resolution RM images we estimate a cell size ($`l`$) of 1 pc. We estimate $`\sigma `$ in these maps as 1160 $`\mathrm{radm}^2`$ for 3C 273 and 255 $`\mathrm{radm}^2`$ for 3C 279. With an electron density $`n_e=10^4`$ $`\mathrm{cm}^3`$, a volume filling factor $`ϵ=0.01`$ and a path length $`X`$ through the NLR of 100 pc the $`B`$ field can be estimated using

$$B=(3/l)^{1/2}(\sigma /812ϵn_eX).$$
(1)
This results in a $`B`$ field of 0.3 mG in 3C 273 and 0.05 mG for 3C 279. This is less than that estimated by assuming the magnetic and thermal pressures to be in equilibrium for the same physical conditions (Udomprasert et al., 1997). This estimate is also less than that estimated for the accretion disks of other AGNs obtained by equating magnetic to thermal pressures (Jones et al., 2000). Direct $`B`$ field measurements for other galaxies may be useful in setting a scale of reasonable $`B`$ field values to use in interpreting these quasar RM results. Zeeman splitting measurements in the Seyfert galaxy NGC 4258 provide an upper limit on the $`B`$ field within 0.2 pc of the central engine of this AGN of 300 mG (Herrnstein et al., 1998). In the more benign region of the center of our own galaxy Zeeman measurements yield $`B`$ fields varying from 0.5 mG in Sgr B2 ($``$ 120 pc from the galactic center) (Crutcher et al., 1996) to 4 mG within 2.5 pc from Sgr $`\mathrm{A}^{}`$ (Plante et al., 1995). It seems reasonable that the field strengths within the NLR of a powerful quasar should be at least as strong as that in the center of our own galaxy, so the variance method of Felten may provide a lower limit on the $`B`$ field present in the NLR of these quasars.

## 5 Conclusions

Both 3C 273 and 3C 279 exhibit RM variations on spatial scales of a few parsecs and 1-3 year temporal scales. The low resolution RM structure of 3C 273 is resolved into sub-components whose general structure is visible at low resolution. Good agreement to a $`\lambda ^2`$ law is found outside of the core of this quasar. We estimate a $`B`$ field of 0.3 mG for 3C 273 and 0.05 mG for 3C 279 if the RMs result from a tangled field in 1 pc cells. Component C4 of 3C 279 is shown to have a varying absolute EVPA and thus is not suitable as a stand-alone EVPA calibrator. We find that the VLA Monitoring Program database provides a method of absolute EVPA calibration for VLBA observations (Taylor & Myers, 2000). The RM slope change from negative to positive in the new component of 3C 279 emerging from the core may also indicate that a new positive RM feature in the NLR is being sampled, and its progress will be examined in future VLBA observations.

This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Caltech, under contract with NASA. This research has made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Abstract Service. R.T.Z. gratefully acknowledges support from the NRAO Summer Graduate Student Research Program and NSF Grant HRD-9628730.

TABLE 1

Polarization Angle Calibration

| Source | $`\nu `$ | $`S_{\mathrm{VLA}}`$ | $`P_{\mathrm{VLA}}`$ | $`\chi _{\mathrm{VLA}}`$ | $`S_{\mathrm{VLBA}}`$ | $`P_{\mathrm{VLBA}}`$ | $`\chi _{\mathrm{VLBA}}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) |
| OJ287 | 8.5 | 2.6 | 148 | $``$52.5 | 2.5 | 140 | 26 |
|  | 22 | 2.5 | 100 | -53 | 1.9 | 81 | $``$61 |
|  | 43 | 2.1 | 89 | $``$37 | 1.1 | 8 | $``$88 |
| J1310+3220 | 8.5 | 1.7 | 56 | $``$20 | 1.8 | 52 | 58 |
|  | 22 | 1.2 | 59 | $``$27.7 | 1.0 | 56 | $``$26 |
|  | 43 | 1.0 | 52 | $``$29 | 1.1 | 36 | $``$14 |

Notes to Table 1

Col.(1).—Source name. Col.(2).—Observing band in GHz. Col.(3).—Integrated VLA flux density in Jy. Col.(4).—Integrated VLA polarized flux density in mJy. Col.(5).—VLA polarization angle (E-vector) in degrees. Col.(6).—Integrated VLBA flux density in Jy. Col.(7).—Integrated VLBA polarized flux density in mJy. Col.(8).—VLBA polarization angle (E-vector) in degrees.


text:
# Resource reduction via repeaters in entanglement distribution

## I Introduction

The resource of entanglement  has many useful applications in quantum information processing, such as secret key distribution , teleportation  and dense coding . Recently, there has been an intense interest in the physical implementation of these quantum communication protocols . In the future, it is conceivable that a large number of distant users would want to engage in communicating with each other through quantum protocols for purposes of security , doubled capacity , high fidelity state transfer (by teleportation ), reduced communication complexity , secret sharing , linking distant quantum computers , for distributed computation  and a host of other applications . For this to happen, any pair or group of distant users will need to share particles in any desired pure entangled state, irrespective of noise in the entanglement distribution channels. In this context, various general schemes which could directly or indirectly aid in the distribution of entanglement have been theoretically studied  and experimentally demonstrated . One of these schemes, suggested by Briegel et al. and Dür et al., is the idea of quantum repeaters . In their scheme, a number of nodes called repeaters are placed between the ends of a noisy channel. The entanglement is first distributed between neighboring nodes and concentrated by local actions  at these nodes to produce a few highly entangled pairs. Then entanglement swapping  is used to connect the highly entangled pairs in series to obtain some highly entangled pairs between the ends of the noisy channel. In this way, the exponential degradation of entanglement with channel length can be prevented at the expense of only a logarithmic increase in resources (cost) and a polynomial increase in time . In this paper, we will look at the use of repeaters from a rather different angle. We will show that if the amount of entanglement finally required between two ends of a noisy channel was fixed, it could be achieved, in certain circumstances, at a much lower cost using quantum repeaters.

Consider the following scenario. You are given $`N`$ boxes labeled $`1`$,$`2`$,…,$`N`$, each of which can be made to emit exactly one maximally entangled particle pair on demand. Your target is to distribute entanglement between two ends $`A`$ and $`B`$ of a noisy channel. You have complete freedom of placing the boxes anywhere along the length of the channel prior to distribution. Suppose you first place all the $`N`$ sources at the midpoint of the channel as shown in Fig.1 and then make them emit maximally entangled pairs. The pairs will lose part of their initial entanglement while traveling from the middle to the end of the channel. At the end of this process, a certain amount of entanglement is obtained between the ends $`A`$ and $`B`$ of the channel. You are then asked whether it is possible to devise a more effective scheme in which you distribute the same amount of entanglement between A and B using a lower number of initial sources of maximally entangled pairs. It turns out, as we will show, that the scheme shown in Fig.2 can accomplish this in certain circumstances (i.e. for certain lengths and types of the noisy channels). The basic idea is to divide the channel into two equal segments and place a repeater station at the midpoint of the channel. A lower number $`N^{^{}}`$ of sources may now be sufficient to distribute as much entanglement between $`A`$ and $`B`$ as before. We first have to place $`N^{^{}}/2`$ sources at the midpoint of each half-channel. This is shown in Fig.2 with boxes $`1`$,$`3`$,…,$`N^{^{}}1`$ having been placed at the midpoint of the left half-channel and boxes $`2`$,$`4`$,…,$`N^{^{}}`$ placed at the midpoint of the other half-channel, where $`N^{^{}}<N`$. Then they are made to emit maximally entangled pairs which are stopped at $`A`$, $`B`$ and the repeater station. After traversing a certain distance, each of the pairs would have lost part of their entanglement. An operator at the repeater station has to now act together with operators at $`A`$ and $`B`$ to locally distill two sets of maximally entangled pairs : one set between the repeater and $`A`$, and the other set between the repeater and $`B`$. The operator at the repeater then connects these maximally entangled pairs by entanglement swapping  to obtain a set of maximally entangled states between $`A`$ and $`B`$. Though the maximum number of possible (entangled or disentangled) particle pairs between $`A`$ and $`B`$ is $`N^{^{}}/2<N`$ in the case of distribution with a repeater, the degradation of entanglement of each pair is also less (as each particle now travels half the distance as before). The scheme with a repeaters saves resources when the positive effect of lower entanglement loss on traversal of the channel overrides the negative effect of having a lower number of entanglement sources to start with.

The resource reduction process described above, as we shall demonstrate, can be made more significant for certain channel lengths by dividing the channel into an even larger number of segments and placing repeater stations at the junctions of these segments. This would lead to an important cost reduction in the distribution of entanglement. The cost of distributing entanglement will become a very important issue in the future if quantum communications take off and this topic has already received serious attention (see, for example, Cirac et al. ). In this paper, we consider the cost reduction to be approximately proportional to reduction of the initial resource of entanglement (in terms of the number of sources of maximally entangled pairs used). We neglect, for example, the cost of classical communication during the entanglement distillation procedures (though this cost might not necessarily increase on using repeaters, as the number of pairs distilled in parallel is also decreased). This assumption seems reasonable, as entanglement is, generally, the most expensive of all relevant resources, while classical communications can be accomplished through a conventional telephone line.

Our investigation differs in two distinct ways from the investigations in the original proposal for quantum repeaters . Firstly, the focus is shifted from reliable distribution of entanglement to resource reduction. While in  it was shown that one could use repeaters to prevent the exponential degradation of entanglement with only logarithmic increase in cost, we show that the cost of distributing a certain fixed amount of entanglement between two ends of a channel can be reduced using repeaters. Secondly, we will take a general approach based on known values and bounds on distillable entanglement  and conjectured bounds . In this sense, our analysis will remain valid even if improved (or even optimal) entanglement distillation schemes are found and even if the future advance of technology results in completely error free quantum operations. We should mention here that for those particular cases for which we use known conjectures, rather than proven results, our results may not continue to hold true if the conjecture is shown invalid. However, exactly the same methodology as ours can still be used to investigate resource reduction via repeaters using any accepted nonzero lower bounds on distillable entanglement. We should also mention that we consider only asymptotic distillation procedures, primarily because of they give simple entropic expressions for entanglement. This, of course, provides a restriction to the amount by which resources can be reduced while still keeping our analysis valid. We would require asymptotic distillation results to remain valid even for the sets of entangled pairs being distilled between two adjacent repeaters or a repeater and an end of the channel. This lower number of entangled pairs must thus, already, be very large. So we would want the resource reduction to be not so much as to make some of the distillation procedures nonasymptotic. For this reason, we will calculate resource reduction as a ratio instead of as a difference and it will remain valid as long as the initial number $`N`$ of sources is so large, that even during the reduced resource operation with repeaters, all the asymptotic results remain applicable.

In the next section we proceed to investigate resource reduction by repeaters for those channels which result in states whose distillable entanglement is exactly known.

## II Exact results

### A Watched amplitude damping channel

We will start with the watched amplitude damping channel, as the output states of this channel are pure and we can readily use the known asymptotic distillation results for pure states . The amplitude damping channel has the following effect on states $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ of a qubit :

$`\begin{array}{ccc}|0|0_E\hfill & \hfill & |0|0_E\hfill \\ |1|0_E\hfill & \hfill & \sqrt{1p}|1|0_E+\sqrt{p}|0|1_E\hfill \end{array}`$

where $`p`$ is a parameter that is related to the length of the channel by

$`p=1e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }},`$

in which $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a quantity proportional to the length of the channel and the subscript $`E`$ stands for the environmental state. The expression for $`p`$ above has been so chosen that at infinite length of the channel, the state of the system becomes $`|0`$. When the environment is being watched, and found to be in the state $`|0_E`$, we can consider the evolution of the state to be given by

$`\begin{array}{ccc}|0\hfill & \hfill & |0\hfill \\ |1\hfill & \hfill & e^\mathrm{\Gamma }|1\hfill \end{array}`$

and this occurs for a state $`\alpha |0+\beta |1`$ with the probability $`\frac{|\alpha |^2+|\beta |^2e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{|\alpha |^2+|\beta |^2}`$. We consider sending qubits in two types of initial states down the channel, namely

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|01+|10\right)\text{ and }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|00+|11\right)`$

We consider each state separately, because the second requires purification after passing down a watched amplitude damping channel, but the first does not.

#### 1 The case $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|01+|10\right)`$

Initially, consider sending a state $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|01+|10\right)`$ down the channel with $`N`$ sources of entangled qubits at the precise midpoint of the channel as shown below:

In the above diagram, let $`1`$ and $`2`$ symbolize two qubits from one of the sources reaching opposite ends of the channel. If both the qubits pass through an amplitude damping channel on their way to the ends of the channel, the final state of the qubits and their environment is:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{12E_1E_2}\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(e^\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\right|01_{12}+|10_{12}]|00_{E_1E_2}\hfill \\ & +\hfill & \sqrt{1e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}}|00_{12}\left[\right|10+|01]_{E_1E_2})\hfill \end{array}`$

If the environment is being watched then there is probability $`e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ that the resulting state is unchanged and maximally entangled, and $`1e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ that it is a (useless) product state. In this way we will end up with

$$K_0=Ne^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}$$
(1)
surviving entangled pairs, where the subscript $`0`$ has been used to indicate that the channel has no repeaters (is undivided). Consider now splitting the channel into two and placing half of the sources at the midpoint of one half and the rest half of the sources in the midpoint of the other half in the following manner:

In the above diagram, let $`1`$ and $`2`$ stand for the qubits from any one of the sources reaching the ends of the right half-channel and $`3`$ and $`4`$ stand for similar qubits reaching the ends of the left half-channel. The place where $`2`$ and $`4`$ meet, namely the midpoint of the full-channel, is the site of a quantum repeater. If we kept the total number $`N`$ of sources of entangled pairs fixed, but still large, then $`N/2`$ pairs are now used for each half-channel. For each half, we now have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }/2`$. This means the number of maximally entangled pairs available finally in each half is the product of $`N/2`$ multiplied by the probability $`\frac{1}{2}e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }/2}`$ of getting a maximally entangled state i.e. $`\frac{N}{2}\times e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }/2}`$. Let particle pairs $`(1,2)`$ and $`(3,4)`$ in the above diagram now be taken to symbolize any two of the several maximally entangled pairs obtained in the half-channels. If joint projections are now performed on particles 2 and 4 by an operator at the repeater, a maximally entangled pair is obtained across the full channel. The number of maximally entangled pairs obtained finally across the whole channel is thus equal to the number of maximally entangled pairs obtained in each half-channel prior to the joint projections on $`2`$ and $`4`$ at the repeater. It is therefore equal to

$$K_1=\frac{N}{2}\times e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }/2},$$
(2)
where the subscript $`1`$ denotes the fact that one repeater is now being used. So, whilst the exponent of $`K_1`$ is smaller compared to that of $`K_0`$, there is an extra factor of $`1/2`$ in front of $`K_1`$ compared to $`K_0`$. So is $`K_0`$ larger or smaller than $`K_1`$? Fig.3 plots $`K_0`$ and $`K_1`$ as functions of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This shows that after a certain value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, it is better (in terms of obtaining higher final entanglement) to split the full-channel to two half-channels with a repeater in the middle.

This idea can be generalized to splitting the channel into $`m`$ sections. Eq.(2) can then be generalized to:

$$K_{m1}=\frac{N}{m}\times e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }/m}$$
(3)
In each case, after a certain value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, it becomes better to use 3 rather than 2 or 4 rather than 3 etc. sections of the channel in order to obtain maximum entanglement.

We now show how this idea can be used to achieve a resource reduction in entanglement distribution via repeaters (i.e., via splitting of a channel into several segments). We will show that we will need a smaller number of sources of entangled pairs to obtain the same amount of final entanglement across two ends of the channel. Consider relabeling $`N`$ in Eq.(3) to $`N^{}`$ and setting that expression equal to $`K_0`$. This condition demands that with $`m1`$ repeaters and $`N^{^{}}`$ sources of entanglement we produce the same number of maximally entangled pairs finally across the channel as the undivided channel with $`N`$ sources placed in the middle. We can then compare the ratio $`N/N^{}`$, that is, the ratio of input pairs (sources) required for the undivided channel to the number of input pairs (sources) required for the channel with repeater stations. Let us label this ratio $`\eta `$. Then we have

$$\eta =\frac{e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }/m}}{m\times e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}}$$
(4)
When $`\eta `$ is greater than one, it means the channel with repeaters needs fewer input pairs (sources) i.e. less resources. Graph 4 plots $`\eta `$ versus $`m`$ \- the number of sections in a channel with repeaters, for a fixed value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.5`$. At $`m=3`$ sections (or two repeaters), the resource reduction over the undivided channel is highest. Two repeaters is thus the the optimal way to distribute entanglement for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.5`$. In this case, using just $`\frac{2}{5}`$th of the amount of initial resources, we achieve the same output of entanglement as an undivided channel.

Fig.5 is a plot in 3D, extending Fig 4 over a range of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to show the variation of the optimal number of divisions of the channel with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We see that as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (which is proportional to the channel length) increases, it becomes more and more advantageous in terms of resource reduction to use repeaters.

#### 2 The case $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|00+|11\right)`$

We now consider sending two qubits in the initial state $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|00+|11\right)`$ down an amplitude-damped channel. The resulting state is:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{^{}}_{12E_1E_2}\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\sqrt{1+e^{4\mathrm{\Gamma }}}[\frac{|00+e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}|11}{\sqrt{1+e^{4\mathrm{\Gamma }}}}]_{12}|00_{E_1E_2}\hfill \\ & +\hfill & e^\mathrm{\Gamma }\sqrt{1e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}}|01_{12}|10_{E_1E_2}\hfill \\ & +\hfill & e^\mathrm{\Gamma }\sqrt{1e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}}|10_{12}|01_{E_1E_2}\hfill \\ & +\hfill & (1e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }})|00_{12}|11_{E_1E_2})\hfill \end{array}`$

Then, if the environment is being monitored, there is a probability of $`\frac{1}{2}\left(1+e^{4\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)`$ that the state observed is (corresponds to the state $`|00_{E_1E_2}`$ of the environment)

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_c^{^{}}_{12}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+e^{4\mathrm{\Gamma }}}}\left(|00+e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}|11\right)$$
(5)
where the subscript $`c`$ represents the fact that this state is a result of conditional evolution. $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_c^{^{}}_{12}`$ is not maximally entangled and must now be purified. When a large number of pure states like these are distilled, the number of maximally entangled states that can be produced is given by $`NS(\rho ^r)`$ , where $`\rho ^r`$ is the reduced density matrix of any one of the qubits and $`S(\rho )`$ is the von-Neumann entropy given by $`\text{Tr}\rho \mathrm{log}_2\rho `$.

If we began with an undivided channel and $`N`$ pairs were dispatched from $`N`$ sources, all placed at the midpoint, then $`\frac{1}{2}\left(1+e^{4\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)N`$ reach opposite ends of the channel in the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_c^{^{}}_{12}`$ and rest reach the ends disentangled. One can locally purify these states to obtain

$`K_0^{^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1+e^{4\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)S(\rho ^r)N`$

maximally entangled pairs between the two ends of the channel.

Now consider splitting this channel into two halves as before. At the midpoint of each half we place $`N/2`$ sources and make them emit maximally entangled pairs. The probability that an entangled state arrives at the ends of a half-channel is $`\frac{1}{2}(1+e^{4\mathrm{\Gamma }/2})`$. Each half then purifies its pairs (independently of the other half). So the number of maximally entangled pairs in each half, after purification is

$`K_1^{^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1+e^{4\mathrm{\Gamma }/2}\right)S(\rho _{\frac{1}{2}}^r)\times {\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}},`$

where $`\rho _{\frac{1}{2}}^r`$ is the reduced density matrix of one of the qubits in the state shared between any end and the repeater before purification. The subscript $`1/2`$ in $`\rho _{\frac{1}{2}}^r`$ has been used to indicate the fact that now each qubit has traveled half the distance it would have had to travel for an undivided channel. The disentangled pairs after purification are discarded and only the pairs in a maximally entangled state are kept. A projection by a central operator to connect up the ends of the full channel with one maximally entangled state now requires one pair from each half, so $`K_1^{^{}}`$ is also the number of maximally entangled pairs that can be produced between the two ends of the entire channel.

The number of maximally entangled states $`K_0^{^{}}`$ produced by an undivided channel and $`K_1^{^{}}`$ produced due to two half-channels is plotted in Fig.6. Analogous to the case of $`|01+|10`$, at a certain value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we get more final entanglement between the two ends of the channel if we split the channel and place repeaters. When these results are compared to distributing the state $`|01+|10`$ we see that they are not as good - i.e. using $`|01+|10`$ will give more maximally entangled states across the full channel.

As before, this idea can be generalized to splitting the channel into $`m`$ sections. Each value of $`m`$ becomes the optimal number of channel sections (for obtaining the maximum final entanglement, if the initial resources were kept constant) after a certain value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Again, as before, we can calculate $`\eta `$, the ratio of the number of initial sources required for the undivided channel to the number of initial sources required for the channel with repeaters. Fig.7 plots $`\eta `$ versus $`m`$ \- the number of sections in the channel with repeaters, for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1`$. We see that in this case, $`m=3`$ sections (two repeaters), gives the largest resource reduction over the undivided channel.

### B Bit-flip channel

We now consider sending the states through a different kind of channel - a Pauli channel where there is just one type of error. The reason for this is the fact that the final states produced on sending a pair of qubits in a maximally entangled initial state through this channel is a mixture of two Bell states. The distillable entanglement for such states is exactly known . If we take the single error in the channel to be of the ”bit-flip” type (called the bit-flip channel ), an initial state $`|\psi ^+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|01+|10)`$ transforms as

$`|\psi ^+\psi ^+|\lambda |\psi ^+\psi ^+\left|+(1\lambda )\right|\varphi ^+\varphi ^+|,`$

where $`|\varphi ^+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|00+|11)`$. We relate the parameter $`\lambda `$ to the length of the channel (which is proportional to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) by

$`\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1+e^\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}}.`$

From Ref. we know that the distillable entanglement for the state $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\lambda |\psi ^+\psi ^+\left|+(1\lambda )\right|\varphi ^+\varphi ^+|`$ is given by $`1S(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, where $`S(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ denotes the von Neumann entropy of the state $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. On using an undivided channel with $`N`$ sources placed at the midpoint, we would obtain $`K_0^{^{\prime \prime }}=N[1S(\mathrm{\Lambda }))]`$ particle pairs in a final maximally entangled state across the full length of the channel. On the other hand, if we divided the channel into $`m`$ sections, and placed $`N/m`$ sources at the midpoint of each segment, the final number of maximally entangled pairs across the full channel will be $`K_m^{^{\prime \prime }}=\frac{N}{m}[1S(\mathrm{\Lambda }_m))]`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_m=\lambda _m|\psi ^+\psi ^+\left|+(1\lambda _m)\right|\varphi ^+\varphi ^+|`$, in which $`\lambda _m=\frac{1+e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }/m}}{2}`$. In Fig.8, we have plotted $`K_0^{^{\prime \prime }}`$ and $`K_1^{^{\prime \prime }}`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. It is clear that for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ exceeding a certain value, more final entanglement between the ends of the channel for a given initial resource is obtained on dividing the channel into two parts and using a repeater at their junction.

As in the previous cases, we now consider how repeaters can be used to achieve the same final entanglement using less initial resources. The ratio of the number of initial sources required for the undivided channel to that required when the channel is split into $`m`$ sections with repeaters, is given by

$`\eta ={\displaystyle \frac{1S\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_m\right)}{m(1S(\mathrm{\Lambda }))}}`$

This ratio $`\eta `$ is plotted in Fig (9) for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.5`$ and it can be seen that use of $`1`$ repeater to $`9`$ repeaters allow a smaller initial resource to create the same final amount of entanglement between the two ends of the full channel.

Exactly the same results on resource reduction would hold for phase flip  and bit-phase flip  channels, as they all take initially maximally entangled states to final states which are mixtures of two Bell states.

## III Conjecture based results

We now consider more general channels. However, the final states produced when maximally entangled qubit pairs pass through these channels are such that their distillable entanglement is not known. For such channels we will use an established upper bound and a conjectured lower bound on distillable entanglement for comparing distribution with and without repeaters.

The well established upper bound on distillable entanglement $`E_D`$ is the entanglement of formation $`E_F`$ , which is also simple to calculate for a $`2\times 2`$ system . As a lower bound on distillable entanglement, we will use a conjecture recently made by Horodecki, Horodecki and Horodecki . This gives a lower bound on the distillable entanglement of a state $`\rho _{12}`$ of qubits $`1`$ and $`2`$ by

$`E_D\begin{array}{cc}S(\rho _1)S(\rho _{12})\hfill & \\ S(\rho _2)S(\rho _{12})\hfill & \end{array}\}\text{ whichever is lower},`$

where $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ denote the reduced density matrix of any one of the qubits. In Ref., this conjecture has been used to investigate an unified approach to quantum channel capacities and there is a significant body of evidence which lends support to this conjecture .

For each type of channel, we first find the final density matrix $`\rho (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ of two qubits for distribution through an undivided channel (with the source placed at the midpoint). We then calculate the density matrix $`\rho (\mathrm{\Gamma }/m)`$ of entangled qubits reaching adjacent repeaters from the midpoints of the corresponding sections when the channel is split into $`m`$ sections. We now compare the lower bound $`S(\rho _1)S(\rho _{12})`$ or $`S(\rho _2)S(\rho _{12})`$ on distillable entanglement for the channel with repeaters with the upper bound $`E_F`$ for an undivided channel. In this way we ensure that we are imparting no intrinsic advantage to the case of repeaters over the case of an undivided channel. As before, the resource reduction is quantified by the ratio $`\eta `$ (defined in the same manner as earlier) and this ratio is given (assuming, without loss of generality, $`S(\rho _1)`$ to be the smaller among $`S(\rho _1)`$ and $`S(\rho _2)`$) by

$`\eta ={\displaystyle \frac{S\left(\rho _1\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }/m\right)\right)S\left(\rho _{12}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }/m\right)\right)}{mE_F\left(\rho (\mathrm{\Gamma })\right)}}.`$

We consider three types of channels

* Amplitude damping channel - i.e. the ’full’ version of the watched channel
* Depolarising channel
* Phase damping channel

### A Amplitude damping channel

For the amplitude damping channel we consider sending two states down the channel, $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|01+|10)`$ and $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|00+|11)`$. This is because of the fact that the amplitude damping channel affects only the $`|1`$ state and therefore has quite different effects on the above two states. The amplitude damping channel affects states in the following way

$`\begin{array}{ccc}|0_A|0_E\hfill & \hfill & |0_A|0_E\hfill \\ |1_A|0_E\hfill & \hfill & \sqrt{1p}|1_A|0_E+\sqrt{p}|0_A|1_E\hfill \end{array}.`$

We relate $`p`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by the following

$`p=1e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$

Fig.11 shows $`\eta `$ for $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|01+|10)`$ and Fig.10 for $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|00+|11)`$.

We see that in the case of using the state $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|01+|10)`$, there could almost be a $`20`$ fold reduction of resources and in the case of the state $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|00+|11)`$, there can be nearly a $`12`$ fold reduction of resources if repeaters are used.

### B Phase damping channel

The phase damping channel affects states as

$`\begin{array}{ccc}|0_A|0_E\hfill & \hfill & \sqrt{1p}|0_A|0_E+\sqrt{p}|0_A|1_E\hfill \\ |1_A|0_E\hfill & \hfill & \sqrt{1p}|1_A|0_E+\sqrt{p}|1_A|2_E\hfill \end{array}`$

We relate $`p`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by the following:

$`p1e^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$

This dependence of $`p`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has been so chosen that the entanglement of qubits propagating in this channel completely vanishes at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}`$. Fig.12 shows $`\eta `$ for this channel.

In this case we see that the use of repeaters can lead to almost up to $`28`$ fold reduction in resources.

### C Depolarizing channel

The depolarizing channel affects states as

$`\rho \rho ^{}=(1p)\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{p}{3}}\left(\sigma _1\rho \sigma _1+\sigma _2\rho \sigma _2+\sigma _3\rho \sigma _3\right)`$

We relate $`p`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by the following:

$`p{\displaystyle \frac{3(1e^\mathrm{\Gamma })}{4}}`$

This dependence of $`p`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has been so chosen that the entanglement of qubits propagating in this channel completely vanishes at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}`$. Fig.13 shows $`\eta `$ for this channel.

In this case we see that use of repeaters can lead to, in the best case, a reduction as large as $`500600`$ fold in resources. In the case of all channels, we see that the degree of resource reduction increases at first with the number of repeater stations and then starts to decrease on further increase of the number of repeaters.

## IV Conclusions

We have shown that the amount of initial resource of entanglement needed to establish a certain final amount of entanglement between two ends of a noisy channel can be reduced, for certain lengths of the channel, by using quantum repeaters. This result has important bearing on cost minimization in entanglement distribution. We have used a variety of channels and asymptotic values and bounds on distillable entanglement to arrive at our results. While in the original papers on quantum repeaters , the emphasis was on preventing the exponential degradation of entanglement through practically motivated specific purification procedures, our emphasis is more on attempting to use general results on distillable entanglement. As such, our results are quite independent of the type of the purification procedures used. We also use asymptotic measures of entanglement  in our analysis in contrast to the earlier treatment  based on fidelity of transmission of the states. Though the field of entanglement measures is very well developed, there have not been many attempts (apart from the natural application to entanglement purification ) to link these measures to practical issues such as the cost of entanglement distribution. We regard our analysis to be a step in this direction. All our analysis has been based on asymptotic purification procedures in order to use simple entropic quantities as bounds on distillable entanglement. However, the field of local entanglement manipulations for non-asymptotic cases has developed recently . It would be interesting to explore the possibility of resource reduction by repeaters in the case when only a small number of entangled qubit pairs are transmitted through the channel at a time.

AH thanks the UK EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council) for financial support.