text:
# Sur les transformations de Schlesinger de la sixième équation de Painlevé11footnote 1 Note présentée par Yvonne Choquet-Bruhat, remise le 16 octobre 2000, acceptée le 12 février 2001. S2001/008.

## 1 Introduction

Les transformations de Schlesinger (TS) sont définies  comme des transformations discrètes qui préservent (à des signes près) la monodromie d’un système différentiel linéaire appelé système de Schlesinger.

Si l’on choisit pour système de Schlesinger l’équation du second ordre possédant quatre points fuchsiens (“singuliers-réguliers”), de birapport $`x`$, et une singularité apparente d’affixe $`u`$, ses conditions d’isomonodromie  conduisent à la contrainte que $`u(x)`$ doit vérifier l’équation maîtresse de Painlevé $`\mathrm{P6}`$

$`\mathrm{P6}:u^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ux}}\right]u^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ux}}\right]u^{}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{u(u1)(ux)}{x^2(x1)^2}}[\alpha +\beta {\displaystyle \frac{x}{u^2}}+\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{x1}{(u1)^2}}+\delta {\displaystyle \frac{x(x1)}{(ux)^2}}]`$
Aux TS de $`\mathrm{P6}`$ déjà connues  viennent de s’en ajouter deux nouvelles , et le but de cette Note est de déterminer la plus élémentaire de toutes ces TS.

Une TS de $`\mathrm{P6}`$, qui transforme donc une équation

$`E(u)\mathrm{P6}(u,x,\stackrel{}{\alpha })=0,\stackrel{}{\alpha }=(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta ),`$ (1)
en une autre équation de même forme

$`E(U)\mathrm{P6}(U,X,\stackrel{}{A})=0,\stackrel{}{A}=(A,B,\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Delta }),`$ (2)
est représentable d’au moins trois manières :

1. dans l’espace $`(u,x,U,X)`$, par une transformation birationnelle ($`u`$ rationnel en $`(U,U^{})`$, $`U`$ rationnel en $`(u,u^{})`$), accompagnée d’une éventuelle homographie entre $`x`$ et $`X`$,
2. dans l’espace des paramètres $`(\stackrel{}{\alpha },\stackrel{}{A})`$, par quatre relations algébriques,
3. dans l’espace des exposants de monodromie $`(\stackrel{}{\theta },\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Theta }})`$, définis par les relations

$`\theta _{\mathrm{}}^2=2\alpha ,\theta _0^2=2\beta ,\theta _1^2=2\gamma ,\theta _x^2=12\delta ,`$ (3)
par une transformation affine

$`\stackrel{}{\theta }=M_1\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Theta }}+M_0,\stackrel{}{\theta }=\left(\begin{array}{c}\theta _{\mathrm{}}\\ \theta _0\\ \theta _1\\ \theta _x\end{array}\right),\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Theta }}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{}}\\ \mathrm{\Theta }_0\\ \mathrm{\Theta }_1\\ \mathrm{\Theta }_x\end{array}\right),`$ (4)
$`M_1`$ et $`M_0`$ sont des matrices de nombres rationnels.

## 2 Les transformations de Schlesinger connues

Nous les énumérons dans l’ordre chronologique222 Après soumission, nous avons découvert l’antériorité de Garnier  sur les Réf. . Il a établi une formule équivalente à (7). .

En appliquant deux fois une transformation algébrique entre $`\mathrm{P6}`$ et l’équation d’ordre deux et de degré deux satisfaite par $`(q1)(qx)p`$, où $`q=u`$ et $`p`$ sont la position et l’impulsion de l’hamiltonien de $`\mathrm{P6}`$ donné par Malmquist , Fokas et Yortsos  ont obtenu une transformation entre deux équations $`\mathrm{P6}`$ représentée par

$`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{FY}}:\stackrel{}{\theta }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right)\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Theta }}+\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right),x={\displaystyle \frac{1}{X}}`$ (5)
La transformation entre $`u`$ et $`U`$, produit de deux transformations non-birationnelles, est bien birationnelle, comme le montrent les relations (7) et (22)–(23) ci-dessous.

Par l’étude des transformations canoniques de l’hamiltonien de $`\mathrm{P6}`$ , Okamoto  a obtenu la TS suivante, canonique au sens hamiltonien,

$`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{Ok}}:\stackrel{}{\theta }=\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Theta }}+\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right),x=X.`$ (6)
Son écriture birationnelle résulte des relations (7) et (22)–(23) ci-dessous.

En partant d’une paire de Lax matricielle obtenue par isomonodromie , et après résolution d’un problème de Riemann-Hilbert, Muğan et Sakka  ont obtenu une TS que nous pouvons écrire sous la forme factorisée

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(ux)(Ux)}{(x1)uU}}={\displaystyle \frac{R_n^+R_n^{}}{R_d^+R_d^{}}}\text{,}x=X,`$ (7)
$`R_n^\pm =x(1x)U^{}+\theta _{\mathrm{}}(U1)(Ux)\mathrm{\Theta }_1(Ux)+(1\pm \theta _x)x(U1),`$ (8)
$`R_d^\pm =x(1x)U^{}+\theta _{\mathrm{}}U(U1)+\mathrm{\Theta }_1(x1)U\pm \theta _0x(U1),`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{MS}}:\stackrel{}{\theta }=\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Theta }}+\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ (10)
En exploitant les propriétés d’une équation aux dérivées partielles de type “schwarzien”, Nijhoff et al.  ont trouvé une TS representée par

$`(ux)U1={\displaystyle \frac{2(\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{}}\theta _x)(u1)(ux)}{x(1x)u^{}+\theta _{\mathrm{}}(u1)(ux)\theta _1(ux)+(\theta _x+1)x(u1)}}\text{,}`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{NJH}}:\stackrel{}{\theta }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right)\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Theta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\\ 1\\ 1\end{array}\right),x1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{X1}}`$ (12)
En étendant une méthode de “troncature”, nous avons obtenu la TS

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2(\theta _{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{}})}{uU}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x(x1)U^{}}{U(U1)(Ux)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_0}{U}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_1}{U1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_x1}{Ux}}`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x(x1)u^{}}{u(u1)(ux)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _0}{u}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _1}{u1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _x1}{ux}}`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{CM}}`$ $`:`$ $`\stackrel{}{\theta }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right)\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Theta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\\ 1\\ 1\end{array}\right),x=X.`$ (15)
La transformation de Kitaev  ne figure pas dans la liste ci-dessus. C’est une application à $`\mathrm{P6}`$, supposée écrite avec une somme de quatre fonctions elliptiques , de la transformation de Landen entre fonctions elliptiques . Cependant, elle n’existe qu’au prix de deux contraintes entre les quatre paramètres de $`\mathrm{P6}`$

$`\theta _01=\theta _x,\theta _1=\theta _{\mathrm{}},`$ (16)
ce qui lui interdit de définir une TS.

## 3 La transformation de Schlesinger élémentaire de $`\mathrm{P6}`$

Pour comparer entre elles ces diverses TS, nous utilisons la représentation affine (4), de beaucoup la plus simple. Elle est donnée par les cinq relations (5), (6), (10), (12) et (15).

Deux classes de transformations banales laissent $`\mathrm{P6}`$ invariante. Il s’agit d’une part des quatre changements indépendants de signes de $`\theta _{\mathrm{}},\theta _0,\theta _1,\theta _x`$, que nous notons $`\mathrm{S}_a,\mathrm{S}_b,\mathrm{S}_c,\mathrm{S}_d`$, par exemple pour $`\theta _{\mathrm{}}`$,

$`\mathrm{S}_a:\stackrel{}{\theta }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Theta }},\theta _{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{}},x=X,u=U,`$ (17)
et d’autre part des $`24`$ éléments du groupe des permutations des quatre points singuliers de $`\mathrm{P6}`$, representés par des homographies simultanées sur $`u`$ et sur $`x`$. Le sous-groupe qui conserve $`x`$ est constitué de quatre éléments, l’identité et les trois homographies

$`\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{badc}}:\stackrel{}{\theta }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right)\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Theta }},x=X,u={\displaystyle \frac{x}{U}}\text{,}`$ (18)
$`\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{dcba}}:\stackrel{}{\theta }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Theta }},x=X,ux={\displaystyle \frac{x(x1)}{Ux}}\text{,}`$ (19)
$`\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{cdab}}:\stackrel{}{\theta }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right)\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Theta }},x=X,u1={\displaystyle \frac{1x}{U1}}\text{,}`$ (20)
$`\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{badc}}^2=\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{dcba}}^2=\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{cdab}}^2=1,\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{badc}}\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{dcba}}\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{cdab}}=1.`$ (21)
Les diverses TS obéissent aux relations

$`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{FY}}=\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{badc}}\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{acbd}}\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{MS}}\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{acbd}},\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{MS}}=\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{acbd}}\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{badc}}\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{FY}}\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{acbd}},`$ (22)
$`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{Ok}}=\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{abdc}}\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{MS}}\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{abdc}},\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{MS}}=\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{abdc}}\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{Ok}}\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{abdc}},`$ (23)
$`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{NJH}}=\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{adcb}}\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{CM}}\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{badc}},\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{CM}}=\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{adcb}}\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{NJH}}\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{badc}},`$ (24)
$`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{Ok}}=\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{dcba}}(\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{CM}}\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{badc}}\mathrm{S}_a\mathrm{S}_d)^2=\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{cbad}}\mathrm{S}_a\mathrm{S}_b(\mathrm{S}_a\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{CM}}\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{badc}})^3\mathrm{S}_c\mathrm{S}_d\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{cbad}},`$ (25)
$`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{CM}}^2=1,(\mathrm{S}_a\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{CM}})^3=1,(\mathrm{S}_a\mathrm{S}_b\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{CM}}\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{badc}})^4=1,(\mathrm{S}_a\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{CM}}\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{badc}})^6=1,`$ (26)
où les diverses transpositions agissent sur $`(u,x)`$ par

$`\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{adcb}}:x1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{X1}}\text{,}ux=(1x)U,`$ (27)
$`\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{cbad}}:x1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{X1}}\text{,}u1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{U1}}\text{,}`$ (28)
$`\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{abdc}}:x=1/X,u=xU,`$ (29)
$`\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{acbd}}:x=1X,u=1U.`$ (30)
Ces relations prouvent

1. l’équivalence entre $`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{FY}}`$, $`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{Ok}}`$ et $`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{MS}}`$ (relations (22)–(23)),
2. l’équivalence entre $`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{NJH}}`$ et $`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{CM}}`$ (relation (24)),
3. la non-élémentarité de $`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{FY}}`$, $`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{Ok}}`$, $`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{MS}}`$ (relation (25)) qui, à des signes et des homographies près, sont le carré ou le cube de $`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{CM}}`$.

Enfin, il importe d’essayer de conserver aussi la variable indépendante $`x`$, c’est par exemple indispensable pour établir une relation de contiguïté . L’unique TS qui soit élémentaire et qui conserve $`x`$ est alors $`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{CM}}`$. À des signes et des homographies près, c’est elle-même une racine de l’unité (relation (26)), d’ordre deux, trois, quatre ou six.

Remerciements. L’auteur remercie M. Musette pour de fructueuses discussions.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

The zero energy quantum information processing

Miroljub Dugić1

Department of Physics, Faculty of Science

P.O.Box 60, 34 000 Kragujevac, Yugoslavia

E-mail: dugic@knez.uis.kg.ac.yu

Abstract: In contradistinction with some plausible statements of the information theory, we point out the possibility of the zero energy quantum information processing. Particularly, we investigate the rate of the entanglement formation in the operation of the quantum ”oracles” employing ”quantum parallelism”, and we obtain that the relative maximum of the rate of the operation distinguishes the zero average energy of interaction in the composite system ”input register + output register”. This result is reducible to neither of the previously obtained bounds, and therefore represents a new bound for the nonorthogonal state transformations in the quantum information processing.

PACS: 03.67.Lx, 03.65.Ud, 03.65.Yz

1. Introduction

In the realm of computation, one of the central questions is ”what limits the laws of physics place on the power of computers?” . Physically, this question refers to the minimum time needed for execution of the logical operations, i.e. to the maximum rate of transformation of state of a physical system implementing the operation. From the fundamental point of view, this question tackles the yet-to-be-understood relation between the energy (of a system implementing the computation) on the one, and the concept of information, on the other side. Eventually, answering this question might shed new light on (e.g., might sharpen) the standard ”paradoxes” of the quantum world .

Of special interest are the rates of the reversible operations (i.e. of the reversible quantum state transformations). To this end, the two bounds for the so-called ”orthogonal transformations (OT)” are known; by OT we mean a transformation of a (initial) state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ to a (final) state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_f`$, while $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i|\mathrm{\Psi }_f=0`$. First, the minimum time needed for OT can be characterized in terms of the spread in energy, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{H}`$, of the system implementing the transformation \[3-7\]. However, recently, Margolus and Levitin  have extended this result to show that a quantum system with average energy $`\widehat{H}`$ takes time at least $`\tau =h/4\widehat{H}`$ to evolve to an orthogonal state. In a sense, the second bound is more restrictive: a system with zero average energy cannot perform a computation ever. This however stems nothing about the nonorthogonal evolution which is still of interest in quantum computation.

Actually, most of the efficient quantum algorithms \[10-12\] employ the so-called quantum ”oracles” (quantum ”black boxes”) employing the ”quantum parallelism” . These do not require orthogonality of the initial and the final states of the composite quantum system ”input register + output register ($`I+O`$)”. Rather, orthogonality of the final states of the subsystems’ (e.g. $`O`$’s) states is required, thus emphasizing a need for a new bound for the operation considered.

In this paper we show that, in general, the relative maximum of the rate of the operation of the quantum ”oracles” may point out the zero average energy of interaction in the composite system $`I+O`$. More precisely: it appears that the rate of the operation cannot be characterized in terms of the average energy of the composite system as a whole. Rather, it can be characterized in terms of the average energy of interaction Hamiltonian, still pointing out the zero average energy of interaction. Physically, in a sense, it means that as lower the average energy, the higher the rate of the operation. This result is in obvious contradistinction with the result of Margolus and Levitin . On the other side, our result is neither reducible to the previously obtained bound characterized in terms of the spread in energy \[3-7\], thus providing us with a new bound in the quantum information theory. Finally, the possibility of the zero energy quantum information processing is somewhat counterintuitive result, which, we believe might sharpen the distinction between the classical and the ”quantum information”.

2. The quantum ”oracle” operation

It is worth emphasizing: we are concerned with the bounds characterizing the rate of (or, equivalently, the minimum time needed for) the reversible transformations of a quantum system’s states. Therefore, the bounds known for the irreversible transformations are of no use here. Still, it is a plausible statement that the information processing should be faster for a system with higher (average) energy, even if–as it is the case in the reversible information processing–the system does not dissipate energy. This intuition of the classical information theory is justified by the bound obtained by Margolus and Levitin . However, this bound refers to OT, and does not necessarily applies to the nonorthogonal evolutions.

The typical nonorthogonal transformations in the quantum computing theory are the operations of the quantum ”oracles” employing ”quantum parallelism” . Actually, the operation considered is defined by the following state transformation:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_i_{IO}=\underset{x}{}C_x|x_I|0_O|\mathrm{\Psi }_f_{IO}=\underset{x}{}C_x|x_I|f(x)_O,$$
$`(1)`$
where $`\{|x_I\}`$ represents the ”computational basis” of the input register, while $`|0_O`$ represents an initial state of the output register; by ”$`f`$” we denote the oracle transformation.

The point strongly to be emphasized is that the transformation (1) does not  require the orthogonality $`{}_{IO}{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_i|\mathrm{\Psi }_f_{IO}^{}=0`$. Rather, orthogonality for the subsystem’s states is required :

$${}_{O}{}^{}f(x)|f(x^{})_{O}^{}=0,xx^{}$$
$`(2)`$
for at least some pairs $`(x,x^{})`$, which, in turn, is neither necessary nor a sufficient condition for the orthogonality $`{}_{IO}{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_i|\mathrm{\Psi }_f_{IO}^{}`$ to be fulfilled.

Physical implementation of the quantum oracles is an open question of the quantum computation theory. However (and in analogy with the quantum measurement and the decoherence process \[15-17\]), it is well understood that the implementation should rely on (at least indirect, or externally controlled) interaction in the system $`I+O`$ as presented by the following equality:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_f_{IO}=\widehat{U}(t)|\mathrm{\Psi }_i_{IO}\widehat{U}(t)\underset{x}{}C_x|x_I|0_O=\underset{x}{}C_x|x_I|f(x,t)_O,$$
$`(3)`$
where $`\widehat{U}(t)`$ represents the unitary operator of evolution in time (Schrodinger equation) for the combined system $`I+O`$; the index $`t`$ represents an instant of time, and we omit unnecessary symbol of the tensor product. Therefore, the operation (1) requires the orthogonality:

$${}_{O}{}^{}f(x,t)|f(x^{},t)_{O}^{}=0,$$
$`(4)`$
which substituites the equality (2).

Therefore, our task in this paper reads: by the use of Eq. (4), we investigate the minimum time needed for establishing of the entanglement present on the r.h.s. of both Eq. (1) and of Eq. (3).

3. The optimal bound for the quantum oracle operation

In this Section we derive the bound for the minimum time needed for the execution of the transformation (1), i.e. (3), as distinguished by the expression (4).

Actually, we consider the composite system ”input register + output register ($`I+O`$)” defined by the Hamiltonian:

$$\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_I+\widehat{H}_O+\widehat{H}_{int}$$
$`(5)`$
where the last term on the r.h.s. of (5) represents the interaction Hamiltonian. For simplicity, we introduce the following assumptions: (i) $`\widehat{H}/t=0`$, (ii)$`[\widehat{H}_I,\widehat{H}_{int}]=0`$, $`[\widehat{H}_O,\widehat{H}_{int}]=0`$, and (iii) $`\widehat{H}_{int}=C\widehat{A}_I\widehat{B}_O`$, where $`\widehat{A}_I`$ and $`\widehat{B}_O`$ represent unspecified observables of the input and of the output register, respectively, while the constant $`C`$ represents the coupling constant.

3.1 Entanglement establishing

Given the above simplifications (i)-(iii), the unitary operator $`\widehat{U}(t)`$ (cf. Eq. (3)) spectral form reads:

$$\widehat{U}(t)=\underset{x,i}{}\mathrm{exp}\{ıt(ϵ_x+E_i+C\gamma _{xi})/\mathrm{}\}\widehat{P}_{Ix}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{Oi}.$$
$`(6)`$
The quantities in Eq. (6) are defined by the following spectral forms: $`\widehat{H}_I=_xϵ_x\widehat{P}_{Ix}`$, $`\widehat{H}_O=_iE_i\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{Oi}`$, and $`\widehat{H}_{int}=C_{x,i}\gamma _{xi}\widehat{P}_{Ix}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{Oi}`$; bearing in mind that $`\widehat{A}_I=_xa_x\widehat{P}_{Ix}`$ and $`\widehat{B}_O=_ib_i\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{Oi}`$, the eigenvalues $`\gamma _{xi}=a_xb_i`$.

From now on, we take the system’s zero of energy at the ground state by the exchange $`E_{xi}E_{xi}𝐄_{}`$; $`E_{xi}ϵ_x+E_i+C\gamma _{xi}`$, $`𝐄_{}`$ is the minimum energy of the composite system–which Margolus and Levitin  have used, and Lloyd  as well. Then one easily obtains for the output-register’s states:

$$|f(x,t)_O=\underset{i}{}\mathrm{exp}\{ıt(ϵ_x+E_i+C\gamma _{xi}𝐄_{})/\mathrm{}\}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{Oi}|0_O.$$
$`(7)`$
Substitution of Eq. (7) into Eq. (4) directly gives:

$$D_{xx^{}}(t)_Of(x,t)|f(x^{},t)_O=\mathrm{exp}\{ıt(ϵ_xϵ_x^{})/\mathrm{}\}\times $$

$$\times \underset{i}{}p_i\mathrm{exp}\{ıCt(a_xa_x^{})b_i/\mathrm{}\}=0,\underset{i}{}p_i=1,$$
$`(8)`$
where $`p_i_O0|\mathrm{\Pi }_{Oi}|0_O`$. The expression (8) is the condition of the ”orthogonal evolution” for the subsystem’s ($`O`$’s) states bearing explicit time dependence, while the ground energy $`𝐄_{}`$ does not appear in (8).

But this expression is already known from, e.g., the decoherence theory \[15-17\]. Actually, one may write:

$$D_{xx^{}}(t)=\mathrm{exp}\{ıt(ϵ_xϵ_x^{})/\mathrm{}\}z_{xx^{}}(t),$$
$`(9)`$
where

$$z_{xx^{}}(t)\underset{i}{}p_i\mathrm{exp}\{ıCt(a_xa_x^{})b_i/\mathrm{}\}$$
$`(10)`$
represents the so-called ”correlation amplitude”, which appears in the off-diagonal elements of the (sub)system’s ($`O`$’s) density matrix :

$$\rho _{Oxx^{}}(t)=C_xC_x^{}^{}z_{xx^{}}(t).$$

So, we could make direct application of the general results of the decoherence theory. However, our aim is to estimate the minimum time for which $`D_{xx^{}}(t)`$ may approach zero, rather than calling for the qualitative limit of the decoherence theory :

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}|z_{xx^{}}(t)|=0,$$
$`(11)`$
or equivalently $`lim_t\mathrm{}z_{xx^{}}(t)0`$.

So, here, we will use the inequality $`\mathrm{cos}x1(2/\pi )(x+\mathrm{sin}x)`$, valid only for $`x0`$ . However, the use cannot be straightforward.

Actually, the exponent in the ”correlation amplitude” is proportional to:

$$(a_xa_x^{})b_i,$$
$`(12)`$
which need not be strictly positive. That is, for a fixed term $`a_xa_x^{}>0`$, the expression Eq. (12) can be both positive or negative, depending on the eigenvalues $`b_i`$. For this reason, we will refer to the general case of the eigenvalues of the observable $`\widehat{B}_O`$, $`\{b_i,\beta _j\}`$, where both $`b_i,\beta _j>0`$.

In general, Eq. (10) reads:

$$z_{xx^{}}(t)=z_{xx^{}}^{(1)}(t)+z_{xx^{}}^{(2)}(t),$$
$`(13a)`$
where

$$z_{xx^{}}^{(1)}=\underset{i}{}p_i\mathrm{exp}\{ıCt(a_xa_x^{})b_i/\mathrm{}\},$$
$`(13b)`$
$$z_{xx^{}}^{(2)}=\underset{j}{}p_j^{}\mathrm{exp}\{ıCt(a_xa_x^{})\beta _j/\mathrm{}\},$$
$`(13c)`$
while $`_ip_i+_jp_j^{}=1`$. Now, since both $`(a_xa_x^{})b_i>0`$, $`(a_xa_x^{})\beta _j>0,i,j`$, one may apply the above distinguished inequality.

The relaxed equality (4) (i.e. relaxed equality (11)) is equivalent with $`Rez_{xx^{}}0`$ and $`Imz_{xx^{}}0`$. Now, from Eq. (13a-c) it directly follows:

$$Rez_{xx^{}}=\underset{i}{}p_i\mathrm{cos}[C(a_xa_x^{})b_it/\mathrm{}]+\underset{j}{}p_j^{}\mathrm{cos}[C(a_xa_x^{})\beta _jt/\mathrm{}],$$
$`(14)`$
which after applying the above inequality gives:

$$Rez_{xx^{}}>1\frac{4}{h}C(a_xa_x^{})(B_1+B_2)t\frac{2}{\pi }Imz_{xx^{}}$$

$$\frac{4}{\pi }\underset{i}{}p_i\mathrm{sin}[C(a_xa_x^{})b_it/\mathrm{}],$$
$`(15)`$
where $`B_1_ip_ib_i`$, and $`B_2_jp_j^{}\beta _j`$.

Now, since $`|_ip_i\mathrm{sin}[C(a_xa_x^{})b_it/\mathrm{}]|_ip_i\alpha <1,t`$, from Eq. (11) and Eq. (15) it follows:

$$0Rez_{xx^{}}+\frac{2}{\pi }Imz_{xx^{}}>1\frac{4\alpha }{\pi }\frac{4}{h}C(a_xa_x^{})(B_1+B_2)t.$$
$`(16)`$
From (16) it is obvious that the condition Eq. (4) cannot be fulfilled in the time intervals shorter than $`\tau _{xx^{}}`$:

$$\tau _{xx^{}}>\frac{(14\alpha /\pi )h}{4C(a_xa_x^{})(B_1+B_2)},$$
$`(17)`$
which is strictly positive for $`\alpha <\pi /4`$, and which directly defines the optimal bound $`\tau _{ent}`$ as:

$$\tau _{ent}=sup\{\tau _{xx^{}}\}.$$
$`(18)`$
The assumption $`\alpha <\pi /4`$ is not very restrictive. Actually, above, we have supposed that neither $`_ip_i1`$, nor $`_jp_j^{}1`$, while the former is automatically satisfied with the condition $`\alpha <\pi /4`$.

3.2 Analysis of the results

The desired bound $`\tau _{ent}`$ is obviously determined by the minimum of the difference $`a_xa_x^{}`$. This difference however is virtually irrelevant. So, one may note that the bound Eq. (18) can be operationally decreased by increase of the coupling constant $`C`$ and/or by the increase of the sum $`B_1+B_2`$. As to the former, for certain quantum ”hardware” , the coupling constant $`C`$ can, at least in principle, be manipulated by experimenter. On the other side, similarly–as it directly follows from the above definitions of $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$–by the choice of the initial state of the output register, one could eventually increase the rate of the operation by the increase of the sum $`B_1+B_2`$.

Bearing in mind the obvious equality:

$$\widehat{H}_{int}=\widehat{A}_I\widehat{B}_O=\widehat{A}_I(B_1B_2),$$
$`(19)`$
one directly concludes that adding energy to the composite system as a whole, does not necessarily increase the rate of the operation considered. Rather, the increase of the rate of the operation is related to the average energy of interaction, $`\widehat{H}_{int}`$. For instance, if $`B_10`$ while $`B_2=0`$, from Eq. (19) it follows that the increase of $`B_1`$ coincides with the increase of $`|\widehat{H}_{int}|`$, as well as with the decrease of the bound Eq. (18). This observation is in accordance with the bound obtained by Margolus and Levitin : the increase of the average energy (of interaction) gives rise to the increase of the rate of the operation.

However, for the general initial state of the output register, both $`B_10`$ and $`B_20`$. Then, e.g., for $`B_1>B_2`$:

$$B_1+B_2=B_1(1+\kappa )2B_1,\kappa 1,$$
$`(20)`$
which obviously determines the relative maximum of the rate of the operation by the following equality:

$$B_1=B_2,\kappa =1,$$
$`(21a)`$
which, in turn (for $`\widehat{A}_I0)`$, is equivalent with:

$$\widehat{H}_{int}=0.$$
$`(21b)`$
But this result is in obvious contradistinction with the result of Margolus and Levitin . Actually, the expressions (21a,b) stem that, apart from the particular values of $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$, the relative maximum of the rate of the operation requires (mathematically: implies) the zero average energy of interaction, $`\widehat{H}_{int}=0`$.

4. Discussion

Intuitively, the speed of change of a system’s state should be directly proportional to the average energy of the system. This intuition is directly justified for the quantum ”orthogonal transformations” by the bound obtained by Margolus and Levitin . Naively, one would expect this statement to be of relevance also for the nonorthogonal evolution. Actually, in the course of the orthogonal evolution, the system’s state ”passes” through a ”set” of nonorthogonal states, thus making the nonorthogonal evolution faster than the orthogonal evolution itself.

This intuition however is obviously incorrect for the cases studied. In a sense, the expressions (21) state the opposite: as lower difference $`B_1B_2`$ (i.e. as lower the average energy of interaction), the faster the operation considered. Therefore, our the main result, Eq. (21), is in obvious contradistinction with the conclusion drawn from the bound obtained by Margolus and Levitin : the zero average energy quantum information processing is possible and, in the sense of Eq. (21), even preferable. From the operational point of view, the bound $`\tau _{ent}`$ can be decreased by manipulations of the interaction in the combined system $`I+O`$, as well as by the proper local operations (e.g., the proper state preparations increasing the sum $`B_1+B_2`$) performed on the output register.

As it can be easily shown, the increase of the sum $`B_1+B_2`$ coincides with the increase of the spread in $`\widehat{B}_O`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{B}_O`$, i.e. with the increase in the spread $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{H}_{int}`$. This observation, however, cannot be interpreted as to suggest reducibility of the bound Eq. (18) onto the bound characterized in terms of the spread in energy \[3-7\]–in the case studied, $`\widehat{H}_{int}`$. Actually, as it is rather apparent, the increase in the spread $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{H}_{int}`$ does not pose any restrictions on the average value $`\widehat{H}_{int}`$. Therefore, albeit having a common element with the previously obtained bound \[3-7\], the bound Eq. (17), i.e. Eq. (18), represents a new bound2 in the quantum information theory.

It cannot be overemphasized: the zero (average) energy quantum information processing is possible, at least in principle. Moreover, the condition $`\widehat{H}_{int}=0`$ determines the relative maximum of the operation considered. But this result challenges our classical intuition, because it is commonly believed that the efficient information processing presumes some ”energy cost”. In other words: one may wonder if ”saving energy” might allow the efficient information processing ever. Without ambition to give a definite answer to this question, we want to stress: as long as the ”energy cost” in the classical information processing (including the quantum-mechanical ”orthogonal evolution”) is surely necessary, this need not be the case with the quantum information processing, such as the entanglement establishing. Actually, the entanglement formation by no means represents acquiring the classical information about the (sub)system(s). So, without further ado, we stress that Eq. (21) exhibits the peculiar aspect of the ”quantum information” (here: of the entanglement formation), so pointing to the necessity of its closer further investigation. To this end, the expression (21) might be interpreted as to point to the boundary between the ”classical information” and the ”quantum information”.

The roles of the two registers ($`I`$ and $`O`$) are by definition asymmetric, as obvious from Eq. (1) and Eq. (3). This asymmetry is apparent also in the bound Eq. (17), which is the reason we do not discuss in detail the role of the average value $`\widehat{A}_I`$. Having in mind the told in Section 3, this discussion is really an easy task not significantly changing the above conclusions.

Finally, the simplifications (i)-(iii) of Section 2 do not prove restrictive for our considerations, as briefly discussed in Appendix I.

5. Conclusion

We show that the zero average energy quantum information processing is possible. Concretely, we show that the entanglement establishing in the course of operation of the quantum oracles employing ”quantum parallelism”, distinguishes the zero average energy of interaction in the composite system ”input register + output register”. More precisely: the zero average energy of interaction proves to be optimal for execution of the operation considered. This result challenges our classical intuition, which plausibly stems a need for the ”energy cost” in the information processing. To this end, our result, which sets a new bound for the nonorthogonal evolution in the quantum information processing, might eventually be interpreted as to point to the boundary between the ”classical information” on the one, and of the ”quantum information”–the concept yet to be properly understood–on the other side.

Literature:

 S. Lloyd, ”Ultimate physical limits to computation”. e-print arXive quant-ph 9908043

 B. d’Espagnat, ”Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics”, Benjamin, Reading, MA, 1971; J.A. Wheeler and W.H. Zurek, ”Quantum Theory and Measurement” Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1982; Cvitanović et al, eds. ”Quantum Chaos–Quantum Measurement”, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1992

 S. Braunstein, C. Caves, G. Milburn, Ann. Phys. 247, 135 (1996)

 L. Mandelstam, I. Tamm, J. Phys. (USSR) 9, 249 (1945)

 A. Peres, ”Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods”, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Hingham, MA, 1995

 P. Pfeifer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 3365 (1993)

 L. Vaidman, Am. J. Phys. 60, 182 (1992)

 N. Margolus, L.B. Levitin, in Phys.Comp96, (eds.) T. Toffoli, M. Biafore, J. Leao (NECSI, Boston) 1996

 N. Margolus, L.B. Levitin, Physica D 120, 188 (1998)

 D.R. Simon, SIAM J. Comp. 26, 1474 (1997)

 P.W. Shor, SIAM J. Comp. 26, 1484 (1997); see also Peter W. Shor, ”Introduction to Quantum Algorithms”, e-print arXive quant-ph 0005003

 M. Ohya, N. Masuda, Open Systems and Information Dynamics, 7, 33 (2000)

 A.M. Steane, Rep. Prog. Phys. 61, 117 (1998)

 D. Aharonov, in Annual Reviews of Computational Physics, vol. VI (ed. Dietrich Stauffer, World Scientific, Singapore, 1998); J. Preskill, in ”Introduction to Quantum Computation and Information”, (eds.) H.K. Lo, S. Popescu, J. Spiller, World Scientific, Singapore, 1998

 W.H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 26, 1862 (1982); Prog. Theor. Phys. 89, 281 (1993)

 D. Giulini, E. Joos, C. Kiefer, J. Kupsch, I.-O. Stamatescu and H.D. Zeh, ”Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory”, Springer, Berlin, 1996

 M. Dugić, Physica Scripta 53, 9 (1996); 56, 560 (1997)

 A. Imamoglu et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4204 (1999); D. Loss and D.P. DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. A 57, 120 (1998); G. Burkard at al, Phys. Rev. B 60, 11404 (1999)

 W.H. Zurek, Phys. Today 48, 36 (1991)

Appendix I

Relaxing the simplifications (i)-(iii) of Section 2 does not lead to the significant changes of the results obtained. This can be seen by the use of the results of Dugić , but for completeness, we will briefly outline the main points in this regard.

First, for a time dependent Hamiltonian, which is still a ”nondemolition observable”, $`[\widehat{H}(t),\widehat{H}(t^{})]=0`$, the spectral form reads :

$$\widehat{H}=\underset{x,i}{}\gamma _{xi}(t)\widehat{P}_{Ix}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{Oi}.$$
$`(I.1)`$
This is a straightforward generalization of the cases studied.

Similarly, relaxing the exact compatibilities (cf. the point (ii) in Section 2) leads to approximate separability–i.e., in Eq. (I.1) appear the terms of the small norm–which does not change the results concerning the ”correlation amplitude” $`z_{xx^{}}(t)`$ , and consequently concerning $`D_{xx^{}}(t)`$.

Finally, generalization of the form of the interaction Hamiltonian (cf. point (iii) of Section 2) does not produce any particular problem, as long as the Hamiltonian is of (at least approximately) separable kind, and also a nondemolition observable. E.g., from $`\widehat{H}_{int}=_kC_k\widehat{A}_{Ik}\widehat{B}_{Ok}`$, one obtains the term $`_kC_k(a_{kx}a_{kx^{}})b_{ki}`$, instead of the term Eq. (12).

The changes of the results may occur  if the Hamiltonian of the composite system is not of the separable kind and/or not a ”nondemolition observable”.

For completeness, let us emphasize: a composite-system observable is of the separable kind if it proves diagonalizable in a noncorrelated basis of the Hilbert state space of the composite system .

FOOTNOTES:

1E-mail: dugic@knez.uis.kg.ac.yu

2This bound is of interest also for the decoherence theory, but it does not provide us with the order of the ”decoherence time”, $`\tau _D`$. Actually, with inspection to Ref. , one may write–in terms of our notation–that $`\tau _D(a_xa_x^{})^2`$, while–cf. Eq. (17)– $`\tau _{ent}a_xa_x^{}`$, which therefore stems $`\tau _D\tau _{ent}`$. This relation is in accordance with the general results of the decoherence theory: the entanglement formation should precede the decoherence effect.


text:
# Density-Matrix Spectra of Solvable Fermionic Systems

## I Introduction

Density matrices have found an interesting new application in recent years. In the density-matrix renormalization group (DMRG) method  a quantum system is built from smaller parts and the idea is to work with basis functions in these parts which are optimal for the combined system. These are the eigenfunctions of the reduced density matrices which have the largest eigenvalues $`w_n`$. Obviously, the procedure will work well if the eigenvalue spectrum drops rapidly, such that a small number of functions practically exhausts the sum rule $`w_n=1`$. For quantum chains this is indeed the case. The numerical calculations show a roughly exponential decrease of the eigenvalues . Of course, this raises the question whether such spectra can be obtained explicitely for some solvable models. For non-critical systems this is possible by using the relation  between the density matrices of quantum chains and the corner transfer matrices (CTM’s)  of the corresponding two-dimensional classical problems. In this way, the spectra for the transverse Ising chain , the XXZ Heisenberg chain  and a chain of coupled oscillators  could be determined in the thermodynamic limit and compared with DMRG calculations. In all these cases, one finds simple analytic expressions and, apart from degeneracies, a strictly exponential behaviour. This does not hold for the chiral three-state Potts chain  or for non-integrable models , but qualitatively the spectra are similar.

Given the importance of fermionic systems in general and also for DMRG applications, one would of course like to have results for this case, too. The transverse Ising chain can be viewed as a fermionic model, but the CTM approach does not make use of this and is limited to large non-critical systems. Therefore an alternative approach is necessary by which one can treat solvable fermion systems of arbitrary size. In the present communication we show how this can be done. The systems which we consider are non-interacting, such that the Hamiltonian can be diagonalized by a Bogoliubov transformation. Using an explicit form of the state in question (usually the ground state), we show that arbitrary reduced density matrices can be calculated exactly and have the general form $`exp()`$. The operator $``$ describes a collection of new, non-interacting fermions with single-particle eigenvalues $`\epsilon _l`$. Apart from the different statistics, this is the same situation as for coupled oscillators . The $`\epsilon _l`$, which determine the properties of the spectrum, follow from the eigenvalues of an $`M\times M`$ matrix, where $`M`$ is the number of sites in the chosen subsystem. In general, they have to be calculated numerically. One should stress that the dimensionality of the system plays no essential role.

In the following Section II we sketch the general method of computation which uses coherent fermionic states for calculating the necessary partial traces. In Section III, we apply it to the transverse Ising chain and discuss the resulting spectra for a number of situations, including the critical case, the first excited state and related row transfer matrices. Section IV deals briefly with another one-dimensional problem, namely the spin one-half XY-chain in a field. This is interesting because it has a disorder point where the spectrum collapses. In Section V we turn to the physically most important case of a tight-binding model which we dicuss in two dimensions. We present spectra for systems of various sizes and shapes, as well as truncation errors showing the difficulties in this case. Section VI, finally, contains a summary and some additional remarks. Some technical details can be found in the Appendix.

## II Method

We consider Hamiltonians which are quadratic in Fermi operators and thus have the general form

$$H=\underset{ij=1}{\overset{L}{}}[c_i^{}A_{ij}c_j+\frac{1}{2}(c_i^{}B_{ij}c_j^{}+h.c.)]$$
(1)
where the $`c_i`$’s and $`c_i^{}`$’s are Fermi annihilation and creation operators. Because of the Hermiticity of $`H`$, the matrix $`𝑨`$ is Hermitian and $`𝑩`$ is antisymmetric. In the following we consider only real matrices. One can diagonalize $`H`$ through the canonical transformation

$$\eta _k=\underset{i}{}(g_{ki}c_i+h_{ki}c_i^{})$$
(2)
which leads to

$$H=\underset{k}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_k\eta _k^{}\eta _k+\text{constant}$$
(3)
The quantities $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^2`$ are the eigenvalues of the matrices ($`𝑨\mathbf{}𝑩`$)($`𝑨\mathbf{+}𝑩`$) and ($`𝑨\mathbf{+}𝑩`$)($`𝑨\mathbf{}𝑩`$), the corresponding eigenvectors being $`\varphi _{ki}=g_{ki}+h_{ki}`$ and $`\psi _{ki}=g_{ki}h_{ki}`$,respectively.

Consider now the ground state $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0>`$ of the Hamiltonian (1) for an even number of sites $`L`$. Due to the structure of $`H`$, it is a superposition of configurations with either an even or an odd number of fermions. This suggests to write it (for the even case) in the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0>=C\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{1}{2}\underset{ij}{}G_{ij}c_i^{}c_j^{}\}0>$$
(4)
where $`0>`$ is the vacuum of the $`c_i`$, i.e.

$$c_i0>=0$$
(5)
Such an exponential form is known from superconductivity, where the BCS wave function (in momentum space) can be written in this way .

One obtains $`G_{ij}`$ by applying the Fermi operators $`\eta _k`$ to the ground state

$$\eta _k\mathrm{\Phi }_0>=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}\text{for all }k$$
(6)
which leads to (see Appendix)

$$\underset{m}{}g_{km}G_{mn}+h_{kn}=0\text{for all }k,n$$
(7)
Thus $`𝑮`$ relates the two matrices $`𝒈`$ and $`𝒉`$ of the transformation (2). Using (4), one obtains the total density matrix $`\rho _0=\mathrm{\Phi }_0><\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ explicitly in an exponential form

$$\rho _0=|C|^2\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}\underset{ij}{}G_{ij}c_i^{}c_j^{})0><0\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}\underset{ij}{}G_{ij}c_ic_j)$$
(8)
One now divides the total system in two parts (system and environment in the DMRG terminology) and looks for the reduced density matrix in part 1. This is obtained by taking the trace over part 2.

$$\rho _1=Tr_2(\rho _0)$$
(9)
In order to calculate $`\rho _1`$, one uses the fermionic coherent states defined by

$$c_i\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _L>=\xi _i\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _L>$$
(10)
Such states can be built from the vacuum with operators $`c_i`$ and Grassmann variables $`\xi _i`$

$$\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _L>=\mathrm{exp}(\underset{i}{}\xi _ic_i^{})0>$$
(11)
Using this, one can write the trace of an operator $`O`$ as

$$TrO=\underset{\alpha }{}d\xi _\alpha ^{}d\xi _\alpha e^{_\alpha \xi _\alpha ^{}\xi _\alpha }<\xi O\xi >$$
(12)
After forming a general matrix element of $`\rho _0`$ with such states and taking the trace over the environment with (12), one obtains, if part 1 consists of $`M`$ sites

$`<\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _M\rho _1\xi _1^{}\mathrm{}\xi _M^{}>`$ (13)
$`=|C|^2{\displaystyle \underset{i=M+1}{\overset{L}{}}d\xi _i^{}d\xi _ie^{_i\xi _i^{}\xi _i}<\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _M\xi _{M+1}\mathrm{}\xi _L\rho _0\xi _1^{}\mathrm{}\xi _M^{}\xi _{M+1}\mathrm{}\xi _L>}`$ (14)
Inserting (8) leads to an integrand which contains only quadratic forms of Grassmann variables in the exponents. The integration can then be carried out by rotating and displacing the variables as for a Gaussian integral with complex numbers. This gives

$`<\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _M\rho _1\xi _1^{}\mathrm{}\xi _M^{}>`$ (15)
$`=|C|^2\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\alpha _{ij}\xi _i^{}\xi _j^{})\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\beta _{ij}\xi _i^{}\xi _j^{})\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\alpha _{ij}\xi _i^{}\xi _j^{});i,jM`$ (16)
The $`M\times M`$ matrices $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ appearing here are defined as follows. One divides $`𝑮`$ into four submatrices $`a^{11},a^{12},a^{21}`$ and $`a^{22}`$, according to whether the sites $`i,j`$ belong to part 1 or part 2. In terms of these

$`2\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`a^{11}+ca^{22}c^T`$ (17)
$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`cc^T`$ (18)
where $`c=a^{12}(1a^{22})^1`$ and $`c^T`$ denotes its transpose. As shown in the Appendix one can reconstruct the operator form of $`\rho _1`$ from the matrix elements (16) . This gives

$$\rho _1=|C|^2\mathrm{exp}(\underset{ij}{}\alpha _{ij}c_i^{}c_j^{})\mathrm{exp}(\underset{ij}{}(\mathrm{ln}\beta )_{ij}c_i^{}c_j)\mathrm{exp}(\underset{ij}{}\alpha _{ij}c_ic_j);i,jM$$
(19)
Finally, since the Fermi operators appear quadratic in the exponents, $`\rho _1`$ can be diagonalized with a Bogoliubov transformation as in (2). As a result,

$$\rho _1=K\mathrm{exp}(\underset{l=1}{\overset{M}{}}\epsilon _lf_l^{}f_l)$$
(20)
with new Fermi operators $`f_l^{},f_l`$ and $`K=|C|^2`$. The single-particle eigenvalues $`\epsilon _l`$ follow from the matrices $`\alpha ,\beta `$ according to Eqn. (40) of the Appendix. The normalization factor $`K`$ is fixed by the sum rule $`Tr(\rho _1)=1`$. In this way, one can calculate the density-matrix spectra numerically for an arbitary part of a finite system with Hamiltonian (1).

## III Transverse Ising Chain

As a first example,we consider in this section the transverse Ising chain with open boundaries described by

$$H=\underset{i=1}{\overset{L}{}}\sigma _i^z\lambda \underset{i=1}{\overset{L1}{}}\sigma _i^x\sigma _{i+1}^x$$
(21)
where the $`\sigma ^\alpha `$ are Pauli spin matrices and the transverse field has been set equal to one. In the thermodynamic limit, this system has a quantum critical point at $`\lambda =1`$ and long-range order in $`\sigma ^x`$ for $`\lambda >1`$. In terms of spinless fermions H reads

$$H=2\underset{i=1}{\overset{L}{}}(c_i^{}c_i1/2)\lambda \underset{i=1}{\overset{L1}{}}(c_i^{}c_i)(c_{i+1}^{}+c_{i+1})$$
(22)
and thus has the form (1). In the following we discuss the reduced density matrix $`\rho _1`$ for one half of the chain, i.e. $`M=L/2`$.

We first consider the ground state. In figure 1, the single-particle eigenvalues $`\epsilon _l`$ are plotted for $`L=20`$ and different coupling constants $`\lambda `$. For $`\lambda =0.1`$ they all lie on a straight line, which corresponds to the situation one finds in the thermodynamic limit. This is what one expects since the correlation length is much less than $`L`$ and hence boundary effects should be small. One can also check that the values are exactly those obtained analytically via corner transfer matrices . It seems to be difficult, however, to derive these results directly from our equations. For larger coupling, $`\lambda =0.5`$, only the first $`\epsilon _l`$ follow a linear law, then the curve bends upwards. This is similar to the behaviour one finds for finite-size corner transfer matrices , although the geometry there is different. At the same time, the initial slope decreases. Finally, at the critical point, the whole graph is curved. In the ordered region (not shown), a linear regime develops again.

From the $`\epsilon _l`$ one obtains the actual eigenvalues $`w_n`$ of $`\rho _1`$ by specifying the occupation numbers $`f_l^{}f_l`$ in (20). The resulting spectra are shown in figure 2 in a semi-logarithmic plot. Note that not all $`w_n`$ are shown, however they are correctly normalized to one. Similar results, but for a smaller number of $`w_n`$, were obtained in  via DMRG calculations. Due to the relatively large values of the $`\epsilon _l`$ there is a rather rapid decay (note the vertical scale) so that the system can be treated very well by DMRG . This holds even at the critical point, where the decay is slowest.

The situation there is presented in more detail in the next figures. Figure 3 shows the $`\epsilon `$-spectra for various sizes of the system. As $`L`$ increases, the number of $`\epsilon `$ increases, the curves become flatter, but the curvature remains. There is no sign of a linear region related to conformal invariance on this scale (compare ). The $`w_n`$ spectra are plotted in figure 4. Because of the form of the $`\epsilon `$, there are few degeneracies and the curves have the typical, relatively smooth shape found also for other critical systems . The finite-size effects show up essentially in the tails.

So far, we have treated the ground state, but one can also determine the density matrices for the first excited state $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1>`$. This state contains an odd number of fermions. To apply the formalism here, one can perform a particle-hole transformation at one site, e.g. $`c_1^{}c_1`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1>`$ appears in the even subspace and can be written in the form (4). With the help of the relations

$`\eta _1^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_1>`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (23)
$`\eta _k\mathrm{\Phi }_1>`$ $`=`$ $`0\text{for }k2`$ (24)
one can then derive the corresponding equation for the matrix $`G_{ij}`$. In this way, the single-particle eigenvalues $`\epsilon _l`$ shown in figure 5 were obtained. In contrast to the case of the ground state, the first eigenvalue is zero here. This reflects the fact that, in the original representation, the fermion number is odd, while the number of sites is even. The other eigenvalues are very similar to those for the ground state. In particular, one has a linear spectrum away from $`\lambda =1`$ and a curved one at the critical point. The vanishing $`\epsilon _1`$ causes all eigenvalues $`w_n`$ of $`\rho _1`$ to be at least doubly degenerate.

Finally, the closely related problem of the row-to-row transfer matrices for the two-dimensional Ising model can be studied in the same way. For a square lattice with couplings $`K_1`$ ($`K_2`$) in the vertical (horizontal) direction one can consider two symmetrized versions, namely

$$V=V_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}V_1V_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2};W=V_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}V_2V_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}$$
(25)
where $`V_1`$ ($`V_2`$) contain the vertical (horizontal) bonds. Both represent fermionic quantum chains and can be diagonalized also for open boundaries . For the thermodynamics, one needs the eigenvector with maximal eigenvalue. DMRG calculations using the operator $`V`$ have already been done . The spectrum of the $`\epsilon _l`$ in the isotropic case $`K_1=K_2`$ is very similar to that found above in figure 1. This also holds for the magnitude of the $`\epsilon _l`$ and the problem can therefore be treated equally well by DMRG. For $`W`$ the $`\epsilon `$-spectrum is strictly linear at the lower end and described by a formula containing elliptic integrals as in , while for $`V`$ the values are somewhat smaller and there is a deviation from linearity for the first $`\epsilon _l`$. This reflects the difference in the representation of $`\rho _1`$ via CTM’s in the two cases.

## IV XY-spin chain

In this section we consider briefly the spin one-half quantum chain described by the Hamiltonian

$$H=J/2\underset{i=1}{\overset{L1}{}}[(1+\gamma )\sigma _i^x\sigma _{i+1}^x+(1\gamma )\sigma _i^y\sigma _{i+1}^y+h(\sigma _i^z+\sigma _{i+1}^z)]$$
(26)
which reads in terms of fermions

$$H=J\underset{i=1}{\overset{L1}{}}[(c_i^{}c_{i+1}+\gamma c_i^{}c_{i+1}^{}+h.c.)+h(c_i^{}c_i+c_{i+1}^{}c_{i+1}1)]$$
(27)
Although similar to the transverse Ising chain, this system has a special feature. For

$$\gamma ^2+h^2=1$$
(28)
the ground state simplifies and also becomes two-fold degenerate. In the spin language, one has two simple product states . Moreover, the behaviour of correlation functions changes from monotonic to oscillatory  and thus (28) represents a ”disorder line” . On this line, $`H`$ describes also a stochastic reaction-diffusion model  equivalent to Glauber’s kinetic spin model.

The appearance of a simple ground state can be observed in the density-matrix spectrum and has already been seen in DMRG calculations for certain other models (see section 3.1 in ). For the $`XY`$-chain, it can be investigated very well in the fermionic approach.

In figure 6 we show the lowest $`\epsilon _l`$-values as a function of the parameter $`h`$ for fixed $`\gamma =1/2`$. The disorder point according to (28) is then at $`h_0=0.866`$. One can see that, coming from larger values of $`h`$, all $`\epsilon _l`$ except the lowest one diverge as one approaches $`h_0`$. For $`h<h_0`$ they become finite again. In this region, however, one has to work in another subspace since at $`h_0`$ the lowest fermionic eigenvalue $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ in $`H`$ crosses zero, which leads to the degeneracy of the ground state. This can be done as for the excited state in Section III. Then one finds the curves in the figure. As a check we also performed direct DMRG calculations and found complete agreement (dots). Such crossings appear repeatedly as one reduces $`h`$ further. The next one (for the chosen $`L`$) takes place at $`h=0.78`$. However, as seen from the figure, the higher $`\epsilon _l`$ show no effects at this point, indicating that the ground state of $`H`$ does not simplify there. At $`h_0`$, the divergence of the $`\epsilon _l`$ for $`l2`$ together with the value $`\epsilon _1=0`$ lead to the density-matrix eigenvalues $`w_1=w_2=1/2`$, while all other $`w_n`$ are zero, i.e. the spectrum collapses at this point. This effect could be a tool in the search for simple ground states by DMRG.

## V two-dimensional tight-binding model

As the last, but most important example we consider a tight-binding model with open boundaries described by

$$H=\underset{<𝐢,𝐣>}{}(c_𝐢^{}c_𝐣+c_𝐣^{}c_𝐢)$$
(29)
where the brackets $`<𝐢,𝐣>`$ denote nearest-neighbour sites. This model is critical and solvable in all dimensions. We treat it here for the case of a square lattice and we assume that the system also has the shape of a square with $`L=N^2`$ sites where $`N`$ is even. This problem has has served as a DMRG test case some time ago .

The ground state here is different from that in the previous sections. Because $`H`$ only contains hopping, $`B=0`$ in Equ.(1), the fermion number is fixed and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0>`$ does not have the form (4). However, one can perform a particle-hole transformation on $`L/2`$ sites, for example on every second one, by which the Hamiltonian acquires pair creation and annihilation terms ($`B0`$). Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0>`$, which originally contains $`L/2`$ particles, becomes a superposition of terms with particle numbers ranging from $`0`$ to $`L`$ and can again be written in the form (4). In the same way, an arbitrary $`n`$-particle eigenstate of H could be handled by exchanging particles and holes at $`n`$ sites. The density-matrix spectrum is not affected by such local transformations.

To carry out the calculation, one makes the problem formally one-dimensional by numbering the sites from 1 to $`L`$ in such a way that the desired partition into two parts arises naturally. For example, a meander-like numbering as in  permits a division of the square into two halves.

In figure 7, the single-particle eigenvalues $`\epsilon _l`$ for such a half-system and three different sizes are shown. One notices two features which are in contrast to the one-dimensional results: a ”foot” of low-lying $`\epsilon _l`$ and a much smaller slope of the curves (note the scales). Both are strongly size-dependent. The number of $`\epsilon _l`$ in the foot is equal to $`N`$, which indicates that these states are closely connected with the interface between system and environment. Figure 8 shows the first 2000 eigenvalues $`w_n`$ which result. Due to the small $`\epsilon _l`$, they decrease very slowly and the situation worsens as the system is enlarged. The tails of the curves can be described qualitatively by $`\mathrm{ln}(w_n)\mathrm{ln}^2(n)`$ as in . The effect of these tails shows up even more in the truncation error $`f_n`$, which is defined as the sum of all $`w`$’s beyond $`n`$. This quantity is given in the inset of the figure. With $`n=2000`$ it is approximately $`5\times 10^2`$, $`5\times 10^1`$ and $`10^1`$, respectively. Thus the situation is not only much worse than for one-dimensional systems, but also worse than for the two-dimensional system with a gap discussed in . Standard DMRG calculations using, say, 2000 states would be limited to sizes below $`12\times 12`$, and even then the accuracy would be much less than one is used to in quantum chains.

One can also calculate the density-matrix spectra for other shapes of the selected subsystem. As an illustration, we show in figure 9 results for one quarter of a quadratic system (for example the upper right one). Note that the sizes indicated there refer to the whole system. One sees again some small eigenvalues, but fewer than for the half-system, while there are further higher-lying plateaus and additional short steps. Obviously this reflects the particular interface with a corner. For the $`10\times 10`$ system, for example, the two lowest plateaus contain 9 states which is just the number of sites along the interface. The eigenvalues $`w_n`$ are plotted in the inset of the figure. They are similar to those for the half-system but some more steps persist for small $`n`$. In the same way, one can investigate cases where one cuts the square diagonally at various positions. Such partitions appear in a recent new DMRG algorithm . The general features of the spectra, however, do not change.

Finally, let us mention that one can also include spin in $`H`$ and thereby treat the Hubbard model in the $`U=0`$ limit. Then the operators $`f_l`$, $`f_l^{}`$ in $`\rho _1`$ acquire a spin label, too, and all single-particle levels become doubly degenerate. This makes the tails of the $`w_n`$-curves even flatter than in the spinless case. However, the curves are also pulled down by smaller normalization factors which leads to a faster initial decay. For a $`20\times 20`$ lattice, the spectrum of the first $`3000`$ states is, on the whole, rather close to that shown in figure 8.

## VI Conclusion

We have studied the reduced density matrices for non-interacting fermions on a lattice. The key ingredient for the calculation was a simple representation of the (ground) state. This led rather directly to the exponential Boltzmann-like form of the density matrices. The only really numerical step involved was the calculation of the single-fermion eigenvalues appearing in the exponent. With these, we discussed a number of cases in one and two dimensions with characteristic differences. We focused on the eigenvalues, but one can also investigate the single- fermion eigenfunctions. One then sees that they are concentrated near the interface between the two parts of the system. This explains the decisive role of the connectivity for the spectra.

One should mention that fermionic density matrices have been studied before, e.g. in quantum chemistry . However, in this case the systems are continuous and the Hilbert space is infinite. Then already the single-particle density matrices have inifinitely many eigenstates . Our systems are discrete, but we are interested in density matrices for arbitrarily large subsystems. These are non-trivial even for non-interacting fermions. From the experience with other models, one can expect that the results are roughly representative also for more complicated systems.

For this reason, the two-dimensional case is particularly important. With our formulae, we could treat the tight-binding model for arbitrary partitions of the system. This allows to make much more detailed statements than a previous, purely numerical investigation of this system . In particular, one can see the very slow decay of the spectra and of the truncation errors directly. Basically, it is connected with the existence of long boundaries between the two parts of the system. In the current DMRG procedures, these appear necessarily at some point of the calculation. Therefore it is not yet clear whether a recent new algorithm  can really overcome this problem.

## Acknowledgement

We are indebted to H. Grabert who drew our attention to fermionic coherent states. M.C.C. thanks C.T.Chan for discussions and the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD) for financial support.

## Appendix

Here we list some details concerning the steps in section (II)

(A) To derive (7), one writes the Eqn. (6) explicitly as

$$\underset{n}{}(g_{kn}c_n+h_{kn}c_n^{})e^F0>=0$$
(30)
where $`F=1/2_{ij}G_{ij}c_i^{}c_j^{}`$. Using the relation

$$[c_i,e^F]=\frac{}{c_i^{}}e^F$$
(31)
the exponential factor can be brought to the left

$$e^F\underset{n}{}\{\underset{m}{}g_{km}G_{mn}+h_{kn}\}c_n^{}0>=0$$
(32)
Since this must hold for all $`k`$, the only possibility is that the term in the bracket vanishes which gives the desired result.

(B) The explicit form of the integrand in (14) is

$$\mathrm{exp}\{\xi _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{T}\xi _2+1/2(\xi _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{T}a^{22}\xi _2^{}\xi _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{T}a^{22}\xi _2)(\xi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{T}a^{12}\xi _2^{}+\xi _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{T}a^{21}\xi _1^{})+1/2(\xi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{T}a^{11}\xi _1^{}\xi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{T}a^{11}\xi _1^{})\}$$
(33)
where $`\xi _1^{},\xi _1^{}(\xi _2^{},\xi _2)`$ are vectors composed of the variables of part 1 (part 2), respectively. Using the notation $`\xi (\xi _2,\xi _2^{})`$, this can be rewritten as

$$\mathrm{exp}\{\xi ^{}\widehat{B}\xi +\zeta ^{}\xi +\xi ^{}\eta +\widehat{K}\}$$
(34)
where $`\widehat{B}`$ is a $`2(LM)\times 2(LM)`$ matrix containing $`a^{22}`$, $`\zeta ,\eta `$ are both $`2(LM)`$ dimensional vectors constructed from $`a^{12},a^{21},\xi _1^{}`$ and $`\xi _1^{}`$ and $`\widehat{K}`$ is the last term in (33). (34) is an explicit Gaussian form which can be integrated whereby (16) is obtained.

(C) To derive the operator form for $`\rho _1`$ from Eqn. (16), one first diagonalizes the matrix $`\beta `$. This transforms (16) into a similar form with modified matrix $`\alpha `$. Using the relations

$`<\xi _i\xi _jc_i^{}c_j^{}`$ $`=`$ $`<\xi _i\xi _j\xi _i^{}\xi _j^{}`$ (35)
$`c_ic_j\xi _i^{},\xi _j^{}>`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _i^{}\xi _j^{}\xi _i^{}\xi _j^{}>`$ (36)
one can replace $`\xi _i^{}\xi _j^{}`$ with $`c_i^{}c_j^{}`$ and $`\xi _i^{}\xi _j^{}`$ with $`c_ic_j`$ in the left and right exponentials. The cross terms $`e^{\lambda _i\xi _i^{}\xi _i^{}}`$, where $`\lambda _i`$ is one of the eigenvalues of $`\beta `$, can be rewritten with the relation

$$<\xi _if(c_i^{},c_i)\xi _i^{}>=e^{\xi _i^{}\xi _i^{}}f(\xi _i^{},\xi _i^{})$$
(37)
In our case the left-hand side equals $`e^{\lambda _i\xi _i^{}\xi _i^{}}=1+\lambda _i\xi _i^{}\xi _i^{}`$ so that

$`f(c_i^{},c_i)`$ $`=`$ $`(1+(\lambda _i1)c_i^{}c_i)`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`e^{\mathrm{ln}\lambda _ic_i^{}c_i}`$ (39)
Transforming back to the original representation leads to (19).

(D) The operator $`\rho _1`$ in (19) can be diagonalized by calculating the Heisenberg operators $`\rho _1c_j\rho _1^1`$ and $`\rho _1c_j^{}\rho _1^1`$ as in . Due to the form of $`\rho _1`$, they are linear combinations of the $`c`$ and $`c^{}`$. Inserting the Bogoliubov transformation and following  one finds that the eigenvalues $`\epsilon _l`$ can be obtained from the equation

$$(\beta +\beta ^1+\beta ^1\alpha \alpha \beta ^1\alpha \beta ^1\alpha )\chi _l=2\mathrm{cosh}\epsilon _l\chi _l$$
(40)
Typically, the matix $`\beta `$ has elements which vary exponentially over a large range. This limits the size of the systems for which one can use Eqn. (40) in actual numerical calculations.