text:
# Complex Diffusion Monte-Carlo method: tests by the simulations of 2𝐷 electron in magnetic field and 2𝐷 fermions-anyons in parabolic well

## 1 Introduction

In the quantum mechanics, there are several cases where the wave function is essentially complex(has imaginary part). The examples are $`2D`$ system of electrons in the external uniform magnetic field when vector potential has a central-symmetrical form and system of anyons. The simulation of these systems is impossible by using well-known Green Function Monte Carlo (GFMC) method (see review ) because GFMC requires the reality of wave function which is considered as the probability weight during stochastic process.

There have been several attempts  to construct a Monte Carlo method for the simulation of quantum systems with complex wave function. Authors of Ref. tried to apply GFMC to this problem and met essential difficulties. Another method  has been developed recently by using an algorithm without branching that gave the increasing of the systematical statistical errors as a function of the simulation time.

The basic difficulty of numerical simulations of fermions is essentially the same as for the systems with complex wave function. Their wave function can change the sign and therefore, can not be used also as the probability weight. For the simulation of fermionic systems a widely used fixed node Monte Carlo method has been developed  (see also ). Recently the constrained path Monte Carlo method was proposed. In both methods one assumes the restriction on the random walks connected with the uncertainty in the space localization of the wave function node surface. CDMC method is very close to the fixed phase diffusion Monte Carlo method  which was applied to $`2D`$ electrons in magnetic field. In the framework of diffusion Monte Carlo method one simulates only modulus of the system wave function. The phase of this wave function is not simulated but treated to be fixed and equal to the phase of Laughlin’s wave function . Here we propose a new CDMC method including also the simulation of the phase of the system wave function . In the $`2D`$ space we have unique tool – so-called anyons, particles (bosons or fermions) with additional gauge interaction which provide required statistical properties . So, by tuning the coupling constant we may arrive to the fermions starting from the bosons. It looks very attractive to apply the anyons for the simulation of $`2D`$ fermions because statistical vector potential that gives anyonic property is relatively smooth and continuous . The remaining main problem is that the wave function of anyonic system contains an imaginary part.

The first test of CDMC reproduces the ground state energy and its degeneracy on the orbital quantum number $`m`$ of electron in magnetic field. Also the simulated wave function is in exact correspondence with analytical prediction (Fig.(1)). As the second test of CDMC, we simulate ground state energy for $`2D`$ fermions and anyons in parabolic well. The system of $`2D`$ fermions has a well-known analytical solution for this energy as a function of the number of fermions. The simulation is done for the fermionic systems with the number of particles from two to ten. We have found a good agreement of the numerical results with analytical ones for the numbers of the particles great than four (Tables (1), (2)). This observation of simulation allows us to hope that the CDMC is a good tool for the simulation of $`2D`$ fermion systems with big number of particles. The simulated ground state energy for anyons (Table (3)) we compare with variational calculation .

## 2  Ground state of $`2D`$ electron in magnetic field

Hamiltonian of the electron with $`\stackrel{}{A}=[\stackrel{}{H}\stackrel{}{r}]/2`$ (in the gauge $`\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{p}=div\stackrel{}{A}=0`$) has a form:

$$\widehat{H}=\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^2}{2M}+\frac{|e|}{Mc}\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{p}+\frac{|e|^2}{Mc^2}\stackrel{}{A}^2.$$
(1)
Here $`\stackrel{}{p}=i\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{}`$, $`\stackrel{}{}=(/x,/y)`$.

Let us introduce a complex distribution function

$$f(\stackrel{}{r},t)=\mathrm{\Psi }_T^{}(\stackrel{}{r})\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r},t).$$
(2)
Here $`\mathrm{\Psi }_T^{}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ is a complex conjugated trial wave function of electron in the magnetic field. Schrödinger equation for $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ with imaginary time ( expressed in $`\mathrm{}`$ units ) is:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r},t)}{t}=(\widehat{H}E_T)\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r},t).$$
(3)
The equation for the distribution function $`ff(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ is:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{f}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`D\mathrm{\Delta }f+D\stackrel{}{}(fRe\stackrel{}{F}_Q(\stackrel{}{r}))+i[\stackrel{}{}(DfIm\stackrel{}{F}_Q(\stackrel{}{r}))`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}|e|}{Mc}}\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{}f]+(E_L(\stackrel{}{r})E_T)f.`$
Here we have

$$\stackrel{}{F}_Q(\stackrel{}{r})=2\mathrm{\Psi }_T^1(\stackrel{}{r})\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_T^{}(\stackrel{}{r}),$$
(5)
$$E_L(\stackrel{}{r})=\mathrm{\Psi }_T^1(\stackrel{}{r})\widehat{H}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_T^{}(\stackrel{}{r}),$$
(6)
$$\widehat{H}^{}=\frac{1}{2M}(\stackrel{}{p}\frac{|e|}{c}\stackrel{}{A})^2$$
(7)
where we putted $`\stackrel{}{p}=i\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{}`$, $`D={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\stackrel{}{}^2`$ and took into account

$$\stackrel{}{F}_Q(\stackrel{}{r})=Re\stackrel{}{F}_Q(\stackrel{}{r})+iIm\stackrel{}{F}_Q(\stackrel{}{r})$$
(8)
when $`\mathrm{\Psi }_T^{}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ is complex.

Following , in the limit $`\tau 0`$ for the time step of equation (4) we assume $`\stackrel{}{F}_Q(\stackrel{}{r})\stackrel{}{F}_Q(\stackrel{}{r}^{})`$ where $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ corresponds to time point $`t+\tau `$ and $`\stackrel{}{r}^{}`$ to $`t`$.

Let us introduce a new quantity

$$\stackrel{}{A}_Q(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{r}^{})=\frac{1}{2}Im\stackrel{}{F}_Q(\stackrel{}{r}^{})\frac{\mathrm{}|e|}{2DMc}\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{r}).$$
(9)
Then at $`\tau 0`$ the Green function of equation (4) has a form:

$`G(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{r}^{};\tau )=G_1(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{r}^{};\tau )\mathrm{exp}[\tau (E_L(\stackrel{}{r})E_T)]\times `$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[i\stackrel{}{A}_Q(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{r}^{})(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}^{}D\tau Re\stackrel{}{F}_Q(\stackrel{}{r}^{}))\right]`$ (10)
where

$$G_1(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{r}^{};\tau )=\frac{\mathrm{exp}[D\tau \stackrel{}{A}_Q^2(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{r}^{})]}{4\pi D\tau }\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}^{}D\tau Re\stackrel{}{F}_Q(\stackrel{}{r}^{}))^2}{4D\tau }\right].$$
(11)
The Green function $`G(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{r}^{};\tau )`$ (10) and distribution function $`f`$ (2) are the complex functions and related by usual integral equation:

$$f(\stackrel{}{r},t+\tau )=𝑑\stackrel{}{r}^{}G(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{r}^{};\tau )f(\stackrel{}{r}^{},t).$$
(12)
From (12) the modulus and phase of $`f`$ at $`t+\tau `$ are determined by the modulus and phase of Green function and of ones of $`f`$ at $`t`$.

If $`\mathrm{\Psi }_T^{}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ is complex then the energy $`E_L(\stackrel{}{r})`$ is a complex too. Therefore, the last two exponents in (10) have a form:

$`\mathrm{exp}\left[\tau (ReE_L(\stackrel{}{r})E_T)\right]`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[i\stackrel{}{A}_Q(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{r}^{})(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}^{}D\tau Re\stackrel{}{F}_Q(\stackrel{}{r}^{}))i\tau ImE_L(\stackrel{}{r})\right].`$ (13)
CDMC algorithm  is:
1. We prepare $`N_c`$ initial configurations $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ in which the electron has the random and uniform distribution in a position.
2. We perform the quantum drift and diffusion of the particle: $`\stackrel{}{r}_k=\stackrel{}{r}_k^{}+D\tau Re\stackrel{}{F}_Q(\stackrel{}{r}_k^{})+\chi ,`$ for example, from $`k`$ -th configuration. Here $`\chi `$ is Gaussian random number having zero mean value and the dispersion $`2\sqrt{D\tau }`$.
3. The transition into new space point is accepted with probability $`P(\stackrel{}{r}^{}\stackrel{}{r},\tau )\mathrm{min}(1,W(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{r}^{}))`$ where $`W(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{r}^{})={\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Psi }_T(\stackrel{}{r})|^2G_1(\stackrel{}{r}^{},\stackrel{}{r};\tau )}{|\mathrm{\Psi }_T(\stackrel{}{r}^{})|^2G_1(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{r}^{};\tau )}}.`$ $`G_1(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{r}^{};\tau )`$ is given by (11). If the transition of electron is accepted then in accordance with (13) it has a new phase; if not then the electron keeps its old phase.
4. After changing the electron position from $`k`$-configuration into new space point, one calculate $`ReE_L(\stackrel{}{r}_k)`$, $`ImE_L(\stackrel{}{r}_k)`$ and other quantities for measurements.
5. By using the first exponential factor in (13) we calculate the multiplicity $`M_k`$ according to the formula $`M_k=\mathrm{exp}[\tau (ReE_L(\stackrel{}{r}_k)E_T)].`$ If $`M_k`$ is not integer we add an uniformly distributed random number between 0 and 1 to it and take $`M_k`$ equal to nearest integer.
6. If $`M_k0`$ then $`M_k`$ copies of new $`k`$-th configuration are put in the list of the new $`N`$ configurations which becomes the initial one at the next step $`\tau `$ in the integration of the diffusion equation. If $`M_k=0`$ then there is no $`k`$-th configuration in the list of new $`N`$ configurations for the next time step $`\tau `$. All quantities of interest such as $`ReE_L(\stackrel{}{r}_k)`$, $`ImE_L(\stackrel{}{r}_k)`$ etc. are multiplied by the factor $`M_k`$ when we calculate their mean values.
7. We repeat the steps (2) - (6) until all $`N_c`$ configurations are not overlooked and electrons on these configurations are not simulated on the displacement.
8. We calculate a mean energy and other mean quantities on the $`N`$ configurations obtained at the step (6) at the time step $`\tau `$ in accordance with formula (15).
9. We repeat the points (1) - (8) of algorithm an integer number of time steps $`\tau `$ of integration of diffusion equation. After that one determine the mean values of quantities $`Re\overline{E}`$, $`Im\overline{E}`$ and others on this integer number too. New value of $`E_T`$ is redetermined in accordance with the formula $`(E_T)_{new}=[(E_T)_{old}+Re\overline{E}]/2`$ with the assumption $`Im\overline{E}<<Re\overline{E}`$. The integer number of time steps $`\tau `$ represents one time block $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$.
10. Every time block $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ has the $`N_c`$ initial configurations. The list of these configurations is filled by randomly chosen configurations from just ended time block. The random choice of configurations consists from two steps:
a) a random choice of configuration in the every time step $`\tau `$ in the time block $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$;
b) in the case $`N_c`$ larger than number of the time steps $`\tau `$ in the time block $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, other configurations are taken randomly from the last time step $`\tau .`$
In this manner filled list of the $`N_c`$ configurations will be initial one for the next time block $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$.
11. The big number repeating of time blocks $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ essentially decreases a correlation between configurations in neighbor time blocks and provides a right calculation of mean quantities.

The calculation of the mean quantities by complex distribution function $`f(\stackrel{}{R},t)`$ at the time $`t`$ of the running process is occurred by the formula :

$`<F(t)>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\mathrm{exp}[i\alpha (\stackrel{}{R}_i(t)]F(\stackrel{}{R}_i(t))}{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\mathrm{exp}[i\alpha (\stackrel{}{R}_i(t)]}}`$ (14)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}}e^{i\alpha _G(\stackrel{}{R}_i(t),\stackrel{}{R}_j(t\tau ))}F(\stackrel{}{R}_i(t))}{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}}e^{i\alpha _G(\stackrel{}{R}_i(t),\stackrel{}{R}_j(t\tau ))}}}.`$ (15)
Here $`\stackrel{}{R}_i(t)`$ is $`\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{r}_2,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{r}_N`$, $`N`$ is the number of particles and $`M`$ is the number of configurations at time point $`t`$. The particle coordinates $`\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{r}_2,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{r}_N`$ in (14), (15) are weighted with probability $`|f(\stackrel{}{R}_i,t)|`$ and $`\alpha (\stackrel{}{R}_i(t))`$ is a phase of the distribution function $`f(\stackrel{}{R}_i,t)`$and $`\alpha _G`$ is the phase of Green function (13).

The step from Eq. (14) to Eq. (15) is rather nontrivial  and can be proved with account the properties of the phase of Green function (13) $`\alpha _G`$. Because at $`\tau 0`$ it has an asymptotic $`\alpha _G\tau ^{1/2}`$ (see ) and oscillates randomly around zero. In the following, the comparison of the results of numerical calculation of ground state energy of $`2D`$ fermions by the formula (14) (Table (2)) and by the formula (15) (Table (1)) confirms this suggestion.

The trial wave function for the ground state of $`2D`$ electron in magnetic field is:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_T^{}(\stackrel{}{r})=\frac{C}{a_c}\left(\frac{\alpha x+i\beta y}{a_c}\right)^m\mathrm{exp}\left(\gamma \frac{(x^2+y^2)}{4a_c}\right).$$
(16)
$`C`$ \- normalizing constant, $`a_c=(\mathrm{}/Mw_c)^{1/2}`$ \- magnetic length and $`w_c=|e|H/Mc`$ \- cyclotron frequency, $`x`$ and $`y`$ \- components of electron coordinate, $`m`$ is the orbital quantum number, and $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are arbitrary numerical constants. When $`\alpha =\beta =\gamma =1`$ (16) is an exact ground state wave function. We take $`a_c`$, $`\mathrm{}w_c/2`$, and $`2/\mathrm{}w_c`$ as length, energy and time units, respectively. A number of time blocks $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is ten. For every $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ the initial number of configurations $`N_c=1000`$ and number of time steps $`\tau `$ is equal 100. Everywhere $`\tau `$ was equal 0.01.

Left panel of Fig.(1) presents $`Re\overline{E}`$ as functions of number time blocks $`T`$. Right panel of Fig.(1) is the ground state spatial distribution of electron after simulation for $`m=13`$. From this Fig. we see good correspondence with exact solution  for the spatial distribution which is a ring with mean radius $`(2m+1)^{1/2}`$ and wide 1 in $`a_c`$ magnetic length units.

## 3  Ground state for $`2D`$ fermions and anyons in parabolic well

Hamiltonian of anyons in the $`2D`$ parabolic well has a form:

$$\widehat{H}=\frac{1}{2M}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}(\stackrel{}{p}_i+\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{r}_i))^2+\frac{M\omega _o^2}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\stackrel{}{r}_i^2.$$
(17)
Here $`M`$ is the mass of particle, $`\stackrel{}{p}_i=i\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{}_i`$ where $`\stackrel{}{}_i=(/x_i,/y_i)`$, $`\omega _o`$ is a characteristic frequency of free particles in parabolic well and $`\stackrel{}{r}_i`$ is radius vector of $`i`$-th particle, $`N`$ is number of particles.

Vector potential for anyons $`\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{r}_i)`$  in (17) is

$$\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{r}_i)=\mathrm{}\nu \underset{j>i}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\stackrel{}{z}\times \stackrel{}{r}_{ij}}{|\stackrel{}{r}_{ij}|^2}.$$
(18)
Here $`\stackrel{}{z}`$ is the unit vector perpendicular to $`2D`$ plane and $`\nu `$ \- anyonic fractional statistics factor (spin of the anyon). In the bosonic representation of anyons $`\nu =0`$ gives noninteracting bosons and $`\nu =1`$ gives free fermions.

We introduce a complex distribution function

$$f(\stackrel{}{R},t)=\mathrm{\Psi }_T^{}(\stackrel{}{R})\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{R},t)$$
(19)
where $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ stands for the coordinates of all particles and the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{R},t)`$ satisfies a Schrödinger equation (3) with hamiltonian (17).

For a bosonic representation of anyons we take (conjugated) trial wave function in the form:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_T^{}(\stackrel{}{R})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_T^{}(\stackrel{}{r}_i).$$
(20)
The distribution function $`ff(\stackrel{}{R},t)`$ satisfies a diffusion equation:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{f}{t}}=D{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{\Delta }_if+D{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\stackrel{}{}_i(f\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{}{F}_Q(\stackrel{}{r}_i))+`$
$`+i{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}[\stackrel{}{}_i(Df\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{}{F}_Q(\stackrel{}{r}_i)){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{M}}\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{r}_i)\stackrel{}{}_if]+(E_L(\stackrel{}{R})E_T)f.`$ (21)
Here $`D=\mathrm{}^2/2M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i=\stackrel{}{}_i^2`$. When a time step integration of diffusion equation (21) $`\tau `$ goes to zero, the Green function for this equation has a form:

$`G(\stackrel{}{R},\stackrel{}{R}^{};\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}[D\tau {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\stackrel{}{A}_Q^2(\stackrel{}{r}_i,\stackrel{}{r}_i^{})]}{(4\pi D\tau )^N}}\times `$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(\stackrel{}{r}_i\stackrel{}{r}_i^{}D\tau \mathrm{Re}\stackrel{}{F}_Q(\stackrel{}{r}_i^{}))^2}{4D\tau }}]\mathrm{exp}[\tau (E_L(\stackrel{}{R})E_T)]\times `$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[i{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\stackrel{}{A}_Q(\stackrel{}{r}_i,\stackrel{}{r}_i^{})(\stackrel{}{r}_i\stackrel{}{r}_i^{}D\tau \mathrm{Re}\stackrel{}{F}_Q(\stackrel{}{r}_i^{}))\right].`$ (22)
In the expressions (21) and (22) $`\stackrel{}{F}_Q(\stackrel{}{r}_i)`$ determines by formula (5) where radius vector and operator nabla have index $`i`$, the energy $`E_L(\stackrel{}{R})`$ determines by formula (6) with wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_T^{}(\stackrel{}{R})`$ and hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}^{}`$ (the hamiltonian (17) with changing of sign in circle brackets (see (7) for determination of $`\widehat{H}^{}`$)). $`\stackrel{}{F}_Q(\stackrel{}{r}_i)`$ for the complex wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_T^{}(\stackrel{}{r}_i)`$ has the real and imaginary parts.

In (22) we have introduced a new quantity

$$\stackrel{}{A}_Q(\stackrel{}{r}_i,\stackrel{}{r}_i^{})=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{}{F}_Q(\stackrel{}{r}_i^{})\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{r}_i).$$
(23)
In the expressions (22) and (23) vectors $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{r}_i`$ correspond to the time point $`t+\tau `$ and vectors $`\stackrel{}{R}^{}`$, $`\stackrel{}{r}^{}`$ to the time point $`t`$.

As the energy $`E_L(\stackrel{}{R})`$ is complex, so the expression for two last exponents in (22) has a form:

$`\mathrm{exp}[\tau (\mathrm{Re}E_L(\stackrel{}{R})E_T)]\times `$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[i{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\stackrel{}{A}_Q(\stackrel{}{r}_i,\stackrel{}{r}_i^{})(\stackrel{}{r}_i\stackrel{}{r}_i^{}D\tau \mathrm{Re}\stackrel{}{F}_Q(\stackrel{}{r}_i^{}))i\tau \mathrm{Im}E_L(\stackrel{}{R})\right].`$ (24)
The ground state trial wave function for one anyon in parabolic well and in the mean magnetic field  with vector potential

$$\overline{\stackrel{}{A}}(\stackrel{}{r})=\rho \pi \mathrm{}\nu (\stackrel{}{z}\times \stackrel{}{r})=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{r}$$
(25)
which is generated by the average density of particles $`\rho `$ can be chosen as:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_T^{}(\stackrel{}{r}_i)=C\mathrm{exp}\left(\alpha \frac{(x_i^2+y_i^2)}{2R_o^2}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(x_i^2+y_i^2)}{4a_H^2}\right).$$
(26)
Here $`\stackrel{}{B}=2\pi \rho \mathrm{}\nu \stackrel{}{z}`$ is fictitious uniform mean magnetic field. Constant C is for normalization and $`R_o=(\mathrm{}/M\omega _o)^{1/2}`$. Density $`\rho `$ determines by formula $`\rho =1/\pi r_o^2`$ where $`r_o`$ is the mean distance between particles. We assume (see ) that $`r_o`$ is equal to $`R_o`$. We express the energies in terms of $`\mathrm{}\omega _o`$ and the lengths in terms of $`r_o`$.

We calculate anyons ground state energy at $`\nu =0.2,0.4,0.6,0.8`$. The total simulation time $`T`$ is equal 40 time blocks $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. Anyons become fermions at $`\nu =1`$.

For every $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ $`N_c=1000`$ and the number of time steps $`\tau `$ is 30.

We take here optimal time step $`\tau _0`$ in accordance with . We find that the imaginary parts of the simulated mean quantities for all numbers fermions and anyons are essentially less than their real parts.

The results of the simulation for $`2D`$ fermions-anyons are given in tables (1) - (3). In tables (1) and (2) exact energies $`E`$ were calculated by occupying the available lowest states of $`2D`$ parabolic well while the minimization of the simulated energy over parameters $`\alpha `$ gives the $`E_{SIM}`$. The comparison of the square of module of simulated one particle ground state wave function for 6 fermions in parabolic well with the square of the same module calculated by Slater determinant is given in the figures (2). From tables (1) and (2) we see that for four and bigger numbers of $`2D`$ fermions we have good simulation results.

Good results for the simulation of ground state for the electron in magnetic field(see figures (1)) and for the systems of $`2D`$ fermions in parabolic well (tables (1), (2), figures (2)) (for the number of particles bigger than four) allows us to hope that CDMC provides the successful simulation of $`2D`$ fermionic systems with Coulomb interaction.

We are grateful to S.Fantoni, M.-P. Lombardo, G.Ortiz and G.Senatore for useful discussions. One of us (B.A.) would like to thank organizers for the support of his participation in Quantum Monte Carlo 2001 workshop in Trento.


format: text

text:
# The truncation scheme

## The truncation scheme

To make this letter self-contained we will give a short summary of the truncation scheme introduced in detail in ref. . It has turned out in previous studies , that the dressing of the three-point vertex functions does not alter the qualitative behaviour of the ghost and gluon system. We therefore restrict ourselves to bare vertices for simplicity. Furthermore all diagrams including four-gluon vertices have been dropped. A diagrammatical representation of the resulting system of equations is presented in Fig. 1. To extract the gluon dressing function the gluon equation has to be contracted with a tensor. Maintaining Lorentz invariance its general form reads

$$𝒫_{\mu \nu }^{(\zeta )}(k)=\delta _{\mu \nu }\zeta \frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{k^2}.$$
(1)
The parameter $`\zeta `$ allows to continuously interpolate from the transversal projector, $`\zeta =1`$, to the Brown-Pennington projector , $`\zeta =4`$. In a full treatment without truncation the gluon equation would be transverse and the propagators would not depend on $`\zeta `$. We will see later on to what extent transversality is violated in the present truncation scheme.

Closely connected to the subject of transversality is the appearance of unphysical quadratic divergencies in the gluon equation. For $`\zeta =4`$ the equation is projected on the longitudinal tensor $`k_\mu k_\nu /k^2`$ and no quadratic ultraviolet divergences appear . For a transverse polarization the gluon equation would be independent of $`\zeta `$, and thus no quadratic divergences would occur for all $`\zeta `$ in a full equation. In the practical case, the loss of transversality causes quadratic divergences to appear and their careful removal is essential for a numerical solution of the system. However, this procedure should not change the infrared properties of the equations. Anticipating that the ghost loop is the leading contribution to the infrared we subtract the quadratically ultraviolet divergent constant in the gluon loop.

The resulting system of equations for the ghost dressing function $`G(x)`$ and the gluon dressing function $`Z(x)`$ reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{G(x)}}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_3g^2N_c{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{K(x,y,z)}{xy}G(y)Z(z)},`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z(x)}}`$ $`=`$ $`Z_3+g^2{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{M(x,y,z)}{xy}G(y)G(z)}+Z_1g^2{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{Q(x,y,z)}{xy}Z(y)Z(z)}.`$
The symbols $`x:=k^2`$ and $`y:=q^2`$ denote squared momenta where $`z=x+y2\sqrt{xy}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }`$. The kernels ordered with respect to powers of $`z`$ have the form:

$`K(x,y,z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(xy)^2}{4}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x+y}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}},`$ (4)
$`M(x,y,z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\zeta 2}{4}}x+{\displaystyle \frac{y}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{y^2}{x}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{y}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{z}{x}},`$ (5)
$`Q(x,y,z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{x^3}{y}}+x^2{\displaystyle \frac{19\zeta }{8}}xy+{\displaystyle \frac{5\zeta }{4}}y^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{y^3}{x}}\right)`$ (6)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{15+\zeta }{4}}x{\displaystyle \frac{17\zeta }{4}}y+\zeta {\displaystyle \frac{y^2}{x}}\right)`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{19\zeta }{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{17\zeta }{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9\zeta }{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{y}{x}}\right)`$
$`+z\left({\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5\zeta }{4y}}\right)+z^2{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{8xy}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}(4\zeta ).`$
Here the last term in the gluon kernel $`Q`$ is introduced by hand to subtract all quadratic divergencies from the ghost and gluon loop, see ref. .

In order to ensure the correct one loop scaling of the dressing functions in the ultraviolet within this truncation scheme one has to violate the Slavnov–Taylor identity $`Z_1=Z_3/\stackrel{~}{Z}_3`$, similar to the treatment in . Refering the reader to the detailed derivation in , we only give the resulting momentum dependent substitution $`𝒵_1`$ for $`Z_1`$:

$$Z_1𝒵_1(x,y,z)=\frac{G(y)^{(1a/\delta 2a)}}{Z(y)^{(1+a)}}\frac{G(z)^{(1b/\delta 2b)}}{Z(z)^{(1+b)}}$$
(7)
With this substitution the logarithmic behaviour of the gluon loop in the ultraviolet is the same as the one of the ghost loop. The coefficients in the kernels then sum up to the correct anomalous dimensions, namely $`\delta =9/44`$ for the ghost and $`\gamma =13/22`$ for the gluon propagator. The parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$ can be chosen freely. In our calculations we use $`a=b=3\delta `$, which has been shown  to minimize the momentum dependence of $`𝒵_1`$. Note that $`a=b=0`$ leads to the truncation scheme of ref.  and $`a=3\delta `$, $`b=0`$ together with appropriate vertex dressings to the one of ref. .

## Infrared analysis

In the truncation schemes of refs.  the ghost loop provides the infrared leading term in the gluon equation. The only exception is given in ref. : in this scheme also the gluon loop contributes to the same order as the ghost loop. As we do not want to change the infrared behaviour by manipulations of the renormalization we choose $`a=b=3\delta `$ which is the only choice to give a constant $`𝒵_1`$ in the infrared. Then the gluon loop does not contribute to the infrared behaviour of the equations. Therefore the leading analytical solutions found in the ghost loop only truncations of  with $`\zeta =4`$ and of  with $`\zeta =1`$, are found in our case as well . In the following we will determine subleading contributions in the infrared, and judge their importance for the numerical treatment of the coupled system of equations.

We employ the ansatz

$`Z(x)`$ $`=`$ $`Ax^{2\kappa }(1+fx^\rho )`$
$`G(x)`$ $`=`$ $`Bx^\kappa (1+gx^\rho )`$ (8)
in the eqs. (2) and (LABEL:gluonbare). The left hand side and the integrands are expanded to appropriate powers of momentum. After integration (for technical details see refs. ) the coefficients of equal powers on both sides of the equations have to match for consistency. The conditions on the leading term remain unchanged. Hence for an arbitary projector the leading power $`\kappa `$ is given by

$$\frac{(2+\kappa )(1+\kappa )}{18(32\kappa )}\frac{4\kappa 2}{4\zeta \kappa 4\kappa +63\zeta }=0.$$
(9)
This equation has at least two solutions for a given $`\zeta `$ from which only one connects to the numerical solution for finite momenta . The result for the running coupling is given by

$$\alpha (0)=\frac{4\pi }{18}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(32\kappa )\mathrm{\Gamma }(3+\kappa )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\kappa )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(2\kappa )\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\kappa )}2.972,$$
(10)
where the nonperturbative definition $`\alpha (x)=\alpha (\mu ^2)Z(x)G^2(x)`$ has been used.

Matching subleading powers leads to the coupled set of homogeneous equations for $`f,g`$ and $`\rho `$:

$`\left(3\nu {\displaystyle \frac{6\kappa (\kappa 1)(3+2\kappa )}{(\kappa +\rho 2)(\kappa +\rho 1)(\kappa +\rho )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\kappa )\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\kappa +\rho )\mathrm{\Gamma }(3\kappa \rho )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(42\kappa )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\kappa \rho )\mathrm{\Gamma }(3+\kappa +\rho )}}1\right)g`$
$`+\left(3\nu {\displaystyle \frac{3(2+2\kappa +\rho )}{2(\kappa +\rho 2)(\kappa +\rho 1)(\kappa +\rho )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\kappa )\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\kappa +\rho +1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(3\kappa \rho )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(32\kappa \rho )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\kappa )\mathrm{\Gamma }(3+\kappa +\rho )}}\right)f`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\left(\nu {\displaystyle \frac{4\zeta \kappa 4\kappa +2\rho 2\zeta \rho +63\alpha }{2\kappa \rho 1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\kappa )\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\kappa \rho )\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\kappa +\rho )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\kappa )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\kappa \rho )\mathrm{\Gamma }(42\kappa +\rho )}}\right)g+f`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (11)
Here $`\nu =N_cg^2AB^2/48\pi ^2=\alpha (0)/4\pi `$. There is either the trivial solution $`f=g=0`$ or one has to set the determinant of these linear equations to zero. We then obtain the results $`\rho _{(1)}=0,\rho _{(2)}=0.58377,\rho _{(3)}=1.20300`$ and several other solutions with higher values of the power. The solution $`\rho _{(1)}=0`$ corresponds to the pure power solution. The lowest nonvanishing solution, $`\rho _{(2)}=0.58377`$, is sufficently high that we safely may neglect it in the numerical treatment of the infrared part of the equations. This will be detailed in the next section.

## Numerical Method and Results

Two of the four integrals in equations (2) and (LABEL:gluonbare) can be done trivially and yield a factor of $`4\pi `$, while the remaining angular integral and the radial integral have to be performed with the help of numerical routines. To achieve high accuracy we split the radial loop integral into three parts, $`y[0,ϵ^2]`$, $`y(ϵ^2,x]`$ and $`y(x,x_{UV}]`$. The integrals will be computed numerically, however according to the value of their argument the dressing functions $`Z`$ and $`G`$ have to be handled differently. In the infrared region, $`y,z[0,ϵ^2]`$, $`Z`$ and $`G`$ behave like powers and are replaced according to equations (8) with $`f=g=0`$. The infrared matching point is chosen to be $`ϵ^2=(0.55\text{MeV})^2`$ in our calculations. In the high momentum regime, $`y(x,x_{UV}]`$, arguments $`z`$ occur which are larger than the numerical cutoff $`x_{UV}`$. There we approximate the respective dressing functions by the expressions

$`Z(z)`$ $`=`$ $`Z(s)\left[\omega \mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{s}}\right)+1\right]^\gamma ,`$ (12)
$`G(z)`$ $`=`$ $`G(s)\left[\omega \mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{s}}\right)+1\right]^\delta .`$ (13)
according to the one loop behaviour of the solutions as has been detailed in . Here $`\omega =11N_c\alpha (s)/12\pi `$ and the squared momentum $`s`$ is a perturbative scale. We chose $`s=(174\text{GeV})^2`$ to be slightly lower than the numerical cutoff $`x_{UV}=(177\text{GeV})^2`$. To be able to perform the angular integrations for momenta $`[ϵ^2,x_{UV}]`$ we expand the dressing functions in Chebychev polynomials and solve the coupled system of equations for the expansion coefficients using a Newton iteration method. Details of this technique can be found in ref. .

We apply a MOM regularization scheme similar to the ones used previously in refs. . For numerical reasons it is favourable to subtract the ghost equation at zero momentum and the gluon equation at the scale $`s`$ introduced above. Due to this the unknown renormalization constants $`Z_3`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_3`$ drop out and instead of them one has to specify two input variables. We chose the infrared parameter $`A`$ (c.f. eq. (8)), and implement the condition $`Z(\mu ^2)G^2(\mu ^2)=1`$. Furthermore, one has to specify the coupling $`\alpha (\mu ^2)=g^2/16\pi ^2`$ entering eqs. (2,LABEL:gluonbare). Finally we have fixed the momentum scale by calculating the running coupling for the colour group SU(3), and requiring the experimental value $`\alpha (x)=0.118`$ at $`x=M_Z^2=(91.187\text{GeV})^2`$ .

In Fig. 2 we show the results for the transverse projector, $`\zeta =1`$. The gluon and ghost dressing functions behave powerlike for low momenta and obey one loop scaling in the ultraviolet as expected. Accordingly the running coupling has a fixed point in the infared and decreases logarithmically in the perturbative regime above several GeV. For intermediate momenta the behaviour of the running coupling seems to suggest a second zero of the $`\beta `$-function around $`(100\text{MeV})^2`$. However, such an extremum in $`\alpha (x)`$ would result in a double valued $`\beta `$-function, therefore we regard it as an artefact of our truncation scheme. In fact with subleading gluon contributions in the infrared and perturbative suppression of the two loop contributions in the ultraviolet it is exactly the intermediate momentum regime where the omission of the two loop diagrams should cause deficiencies in our solutions.

The asymptotic behaviour of the solutions can also be seen from the functional form of our fits. The dressing functions $`Z(x)`$ and $`G(x)`$ can be described by

$`\alpha (x)={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (0)}{\mathrm{ln}(e+a_1x^{a_2}+b_1x^{b_2})}},`$ $`R(x)={\displaystyle \frac{cx^\kappa +dx^{2\kappa }}{1+cx^\kappa +dx^{2\kappa }}},`$
$`Z(x)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (x)}{\alpha (\mu )}}\right)^{1+2\delta }R^2(x),`$ $`G(x)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (x)}{\alpha (\mu )}}\right)^\delta R^1(x),`$ (14)
with fitting parameters $`a_1,a_2,b_1,b_2`$ and $`c,d`$ for the running coupling $`\alpha (x)`$ and the auxiliary function $`R(x)`$ respectively. The values of $`\alpha (0)=2.972`$ and $`\kappa =0.5953`$ are known from the infrared analysis in the previous paragraph, whereas $`\delta =9/44`$ is the anomalous dimension of the ghost dressing function and $`\alpha (\mu ^2)=0.9676`$. The six parameters of the fit are given by $`a_1=5.292\text{GeV}^{2a_2}`$, $`a_2=2.324`$, $`b_1=0.034\text{GeV}^{2b_2}`$, $`b_2=3.169`$, $`c=1.8934\text{GeV}^{2\kappa }`$ and $`d=4.6944\text{GeV}^{4\kappa }`$. As can be seen in Fig. 2 the fit works very well and can be used as input for phenomenological calculations in future work.

Our results for different values of the parameter $`\zeta `$ (c.f. eq. (1)) are shown in Fig. 3. In accordance with the infrared analysis the power $`\kappa `$ changes from $`\kappa =0.5953`$ for $`\zeta =1`$ to $`\kappa =0.4610`$ for $`\zeta =5`$. The perturbative properties of the solutions remain unchanged. The bump in the running coupling gets smaller but does not disappear even for $`\zeta =5`$. It has already been stated above that the dressing functions would be independent of $`\zeta `$ in a complete treatment of the gluon equation. As all our solutions are very similar even on a quantitative level we conclude that transversality is lost only to a moderate extent. This is a somewhat surprising result in such a simple truncation scheme as the one at hand.

The Brown–Pennington projector, $`\zeta =4`$, is an exceptional case as can be seen from eq. (9). Here the $`\kappa `$-dependence of the second term cancels and only one solution, $`\kappa =1`$, can be found (c.f. ref. ). We found no numerical solutions for this case. However, within the limit of numerical accuracy, solutions for $`\zeta `$ slightly different from 4 can be found leading to a value for $`\kappa `$ slightly different from 1/2. E.g. in Fig. 3 the case $`\zeta =3.9`$ leading to $`\kappa =0.5038`$ is depicted.

Finally, we compare our results to recent lattice calculations for two colours . As the solutions on the lattice include all non-perturbative effects, the results shown in Fig. 4 confirm again that the omission of the two loop diagrams in our truncation scheme mostly effects the region around the bending point at $`1`$ GeV. However, in general the qualitative and partly even quantitative agreement of the two methods is remarkable. The combined evidence of the two methods points strongly towards an infrared vanishing gluon propagator and an infrared singular ghost propagator in Landau gauge.

## Conclusions

In this letter we have presented approximate non-perturbative solutions for the gluon and the ghost propagators as well as the running coupling in Landau gauge. We obtained these solutions for the Dyson–Schwinger equations in the truncation of ref. , working with bare vertices and omitting all diagrams that involve four-gluon vertices. An improvement to previous treatments has been the explicit numerical calculation of all angular integrals thus overcoming the angular approximations that have been made so far. It is interesting to note that only one solution (for a given projector) has been found. Furthermore, we could demonstrate that our truncation scheme violates transversality of the gluon equation only to a moderate extent. Previous findings on a four-torus have been checked and found to be in agreement with the flat space-time solutions up to effects of finite volume in the very infrared. Despite the simplicity of the truncation our solutions agree remarkably well with recent lattice calculations. For the infrared behaviour of Landau gauge Green’s functions circumstancial evidence points towards a weakly infrared vanishing or even finite gluon propagator, while the ghost propagator seems to rise more strongly than a simple pole.

## Acknowledgements

We thank Jacques Bloch, Hugo Reinhardt, Sebastian Schmidt, Peter Watson and Daniel Zwanziger for helpful discussions. We are especially grateful to Lorenz von Smekal for many valuable discussions and for making ref.  available to us. We are indebted to Kurt Langfeld for communicating and elucidating his lattice results, partly prior to publication.

This work has been supported by the DFG under contract Al 279/3-3 and by the European graduate school Tübingen–Basel.


text:
# Superstring representation of Hubbard model

## Abstract

The new method of investigation of strongly correlated electronic system is presented. Using this method we have derived the superstring from 2D Hubbard model. The novel expression for generalized supercoherent state has been calculated.

1. Nowadays the Hubbard model attracts considerable attention. This model is incorporated in several profound theoretical projects, proposed in  for example. These projects lead to deep interaction of ideas and methods of modern field theory and solid state physics . In this article we present the new approach to the strongly correlating electronic systems. Using the functional integral we have derived the superstring from 2-D Hubbard model. Essential ingredient of this approach is the using of the supercoherent state, which exact expression was calculated.

2. Let us recall the formalism developed in  for systems with coulomb interactions.The system under consideration is described by Hubbard model:

$$H=t\underset{<𝐫,𝐫^{}>,𝐬}{}\alpha {}_{𝐫,𝐬}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}\alpha {}_{𝐫^{},𝐬}{}^{}+U\underset{𝐫}{}n{}_{𝐫,}{}^{}n{}_{𝐫,}{}^{}=$$
(1)
$$\underset{𝐫}{}UX{}_{𝐫}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{22}+\underset{A,C,𝐫,𝐫^{}}{}t{}_{A}{}^{}{}_{C}{}^{}(𝐫𝐫^{})X{}_{𝐫}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{A}X{}_{𝐫^{}}{}^{}^C$$
(2)
where $`<r,r^{}>`$-denote the sum over the nearest neighbors. Electrons are described by $`(\alpha _{rs}^+,\alpha _{rs})`$ and live in two dimensional plane $`r=\{x,y\}`$ (for example square lattice), s - spin of the electrons. We give two different forms of this model (the first form is a standard, the second contains the Hubbard operators $`X^A`$ (in fact they are projectors $`X_r^A=pr><qr`$). These operators act in space of following states: $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}>,>=\alpha _{}^+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}>,>=\alpha _{}^+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}>,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}>=\alpha _{}^+\alpha _{}^+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}>`$ (the space of eigenfunctions of Hubbard repulsion-the main and most complicated interaction in many interesting models), $`A=(p,q);p,q=0,,,2`$. $`X^{pq}`$ has one nonzero element, sitting in p row and q coloum of $`4\times 4`$ matrix. Local state of system and the Hilbert space we describe by supercoherent state:$`G[\chi (r,t^{}),E(r,t^{}),h(r,t^{})>`$ where $`\chi =\{\chi _1,\chi _2\}`$ is dynamical two component odd valued grassmanian fields,$`E=\{E_1,E_2,E_3\}`$ and $`h=\{h_1,h_2,h_3\}`$ are three component even valued dynamical fields. $`\chi `$ describes electronic degree of fredoms, $`E`$ and $`h`$ parametrises charge density and spin density fluctuations appropreatly. According to this formulation the many particle systems are described by following effective functional:

$$L_{eff}=\frac{<G(\theta ,𝐫,t^{})\left(\frac{}{t^{}}H\right)G(\theta ,𝐫,t^{})>}{<G(\theta ,𝐫,t^{})G(\theta ,𝐫,t^{})>}$$
(3)
where $`G>`$ -is supercoherent state, which is expressed through generators of the dynamic superalgebra, $`\{𝐫,t^{},\theta \}`$ -supercoordinates of superspace. The classification of various types of (super)algebra in interactive systems was given in . H is the Hubbard hamiltonian expressed through the infinite dimensional superalgebra generators $`\{X_𝐫^\alpha \}`$: where $`U`$ on-site coulomb repulsion, $`t_{\alpha ,\beta }(𝐫𝐫^{})`$ \- ”interaction”, arisen from kinetic energy. $`G>`$ can be constructed by following way :

$$G>=e^{_{k=1}^6X{}_{}{}^{k}b{}_{}{}^{k}(𝐫,t,\theta )_{j=1}^2X{}_{}{}^{j}\chi {}_{}{}^{j}(𝐫,t,\theta )}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}>=(F\chi ,z(E)+B\chi ^2)$$
(4)
here $`0>=_r0>_r`$, $`\{b{}_{}{}^{C}\}=\{\{E_i\},\{h_i\}\}`$ $`i=1,2,3`$ and $`\{X^k\}=\{X^{02},X^{20},X^{00}X^{22},X^{},X^{},X^{}X^{}\},`$

$`\{X^1,X^2\}=\{X^0+X^2,X^0X^2\}`$\- set of the bosonic fields (even valued grassmanian fields). We have following expansion for unity:$`G><G𝑑\mu (O)=1`$ where $`\mu (O)=<GG>d^2\chi d^3Ed^3h`$ is measure of all dynamical fields $`O=\{O_s\}=\{\chi ,E,h\}`$ $`G>`$ has four component, two of them are fermionic (odd valued grassmanian nonlinear composite fields), and two are bosonic (also composite and nonlinear in $`\chi ,E,h`$). Expanding the expression (4) in the form of infinite series and then summing some definite series that are matrix element of (4) we obtain following nonlinear expression:

$$F=a^{\prime \prime }+a^{}E_z+𝐡\sigma ^𝐏(a^{}+aE_z),B=(\{0,a\}+\rho (\psi )z(\tau )E{}_{}{}^{+})$$
(5)
where the prime means differentiation with respect to $`\delta `$, $`\sigma _\mu ^P`$ -Pauli matrix.

$$z(\tau )=\{\mathrm{cos}(\tau )+\mathrm{cos}(\theta ^{})\mathrm{sin}(\tau ),e^{i\varphi ^{}}\mathrm{sin}(\tau )\mathrm{sin}(\theta ^{})\},\tau =\mathrm{arcsin}(\frac{E\psi }{\rho }),$$

$$\rho =\sqrt{E^2\psi ^2+\psi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}},\psi =\delta ^5\frac{f}{E^2},a=\frac{^2f}{E^2\delta ^2}$$

$$f=h^2+\frac{E^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}(E\delta )}{E^3}\frac{\mathrm{sin}(h\delta )}{h^3}\right)}{E^2h^2}$$
(6)
We use the spherical coordinate system $`\{E,\theta ^{},\varphi ^{}\}`$ for E. In (5,6) we put $`\delta =1`$ after calculation.

3. The partition function of the system can be written as:

$$Z_{hub}=D\chi {}_{}{}^{}D\chi D𝐄D𝐡e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle d{}_{}{}^{2}r𝑑t^{}d^2\theta e^{\theta \theta ^{}}L(𝐄,𝐡,\chi )}}$$

As usual , ,we divide the time interval into N equal parts and finally take the limit:$`N\mathrm{}`$. Turning to three dimensional lattice we obtain following representation for:

$$e^{{\scriptscriptstyle }id^2𝐫dt^{}L}=\underset{n,m,k}{}e^{iL(n,m,k)\mathrm{\Delta }}=\underset{n,m,k}{}\left(1iL(n,m,k)\mathrm{\Delta }\right)$$
(7)
where $`\{𝐫,t^{}\}=\{x,y,t^{}\}=\mathrm{\Delta }\{n,m,k\}`$. Now our intent is to show that some functional variables (for example $`\{E{}_{}{}^{+},E{}_{}{}^{}\}`$ can be exchanged by variables in space-time integral $`(x,y,t^{})`$). As a result of this transformation we will get some new functional representation for the partition function with different relations of the functional and the ordinary coordinates of integration. This representation will be the partition function of a superstring. Let us take the measure of fields component and represent this expression in following manner: $`DE{}_{}{}^{+}=_xdE_x^+`$. Combining it with the expression (7) and expanding the infinite product to sum we can obtain the expression in first order of derivative:

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{x}{}(1iL(x)\mathrm{\Delta })dE{}_{}{}^{+}=\underset{x}{}\mathrm{\Delta }(1idE{}_{}{}^{+}L(E^+(x)))=\hfill \\ \hfill DXe^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑E^+L(E^+)}}\end{array}$$
(8)
Now we consider all fields $`\{\chi ,𝐡,E_z\}`$ as functions of $`\{E^+,E^{}\}`$ only, for example: $`E_z=E_z(\theta ^{^{}},\varphi ^{})`$. In such way we get the reduction of the space-time variables.

4.Let us construct the map of two dimensional sphere parameterized by $`\{E{}_{}{}^{+},E{}_{}{}^{}\}`$ (we can as well select $`\{h^+,h^{}\}`$, instead of $`E^\pm `$ ) to three dimensional space $`R^3`$. Now we exploit the results deduced in , for the conformal immersion of two-dimensional surface that is string world sheet in $`R^3`$. We use the Gauss map in the same manner, as in . This map is defined in our case by following procedure:

i) one make takes the two-dimensional sphere to be parameterized by spinor $`z:(zz{}_{}{}^{}=1)`$. This Riemann sphere gives conformal compactification of two-dimensional plane and because of this it describes the superstring world sheet. Having the spinor $`z`$ we can construct complex null three-dimensional vector:

$$t{}_{\mu }{}^{+}=\overline{z}\sigma {}_{_\mu }{}^{}z,t_\mu ^{}=(t_\mu ^+)^{}$$
(9)
The important feature of null vector for us is that:

$$t{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+t{}_{2}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+t{}_{3}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=0$$
(10)
ii) For string, propagating in three-dimensional space, it is known that the ivolution equation takes the form:

$$\frac{^2X_\mu }{\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}}=0\left(_\pm X^\mu \right)^2=0$$
(11)
It is obvious from (11) that real vectors $`\frac{X_\mu }{\sigma ^\pm }`$ are null.

iii) From (9) we see that vector $`\frac{X_\mu }{\sigma ^\pm }`$ and $`t_\mu ^\pm `$ are tangent vectors to string world sheet. This similarities between (10) and (11) gives us the possibility to construct the mapping of $`R^2`$ to $`R^3`$ (Gauss map):

$$_\pm X^\mu =\mathrm{\Omega }t_\mu ^\pm $$

Having obtained the Gauss map the question of reconstructing of the functional variables (coordinates of string world sheet) is answered by expression: $`X{}_{\mu }{}^{}(\sigma {}_{}{}^{+},\sigma {}_{}{}^{})=\mathrm{Re}(^\sigma d\zeta \mathrm{\Omega }(\zeta )t{}_{\mu }{}^{})+X{}_{\mu }{}^{}(0,0)`$  , where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is given by equation:

$$\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Omega }){}_{\sigma }{}^{}=\frac{t{}_{}{}^{\mu }t{}_{\sigma }{}^{}^\mu }{t^2}$$

Here the $`\sigma `$ index means the derivative on $`\sigma `$. This equation is the integrability condition of the Gauss map.

5.Inserting $`t{}_{\mu }{}^{}^\pm `$ into the following lagrangian:

$$2d^2\sigma t{}_{\mu }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}t{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{\mu }{}^{}=d^2\sigma \sqrt{(t{}_{}{}^{+}t{}_{}{}^{})^2(t{}_{}{}^{+}+t{}_{}{}^{})^2}=$$

$$d^2\sigma \sqrt{\stackrel{.}{X}^2X^^2(\stackrel{.}{X}X^{})^2}$$
(12)
we see that (12) is a Namby-Goto string . For our purpose it is convenient to take this lagrangian in form given by Polyakov :

$$L{}_{NG}{}^{}=\sqrt{g}g{}_{}{}^{\alpha }{}_{}{}^{\beta }\frac{X{}_{\mu }{}^{}X_\mu }{\sigma {}_{}{}^{\alpha }\sigma ^\beta }$$
(13)
where $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ metric tensor of surface . Taking the $`\stackrel{~}{g}^\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }=\frac{X{}_{\mu }{}^{}X_\mu }{\sigma {}_{}{}^{\alpha }\sigma ^\beta }`$ we find that $`g_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ can be expressed in following manner: $`g{}_{\alpha ,\beta }{}^{}=\mathrm{C}\stackrel{~}{g}_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ where C is arbitrary constant. It is seen that we deal with the conformal gauge for $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$: $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{12}=\frac{(z_1z_2^{}+z_2z_1^{})^2}{2},\stackrel{~}{g}_{11}=\stackrel{~}{g}_{22}=0`$. Now let us show how to derive the bosonic sector of superstring. Evaluating expression ($`z_𝐫(_𝐫UX{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝑝𝑝}}{}_{𝐫}{}^{})z_𝐫^{}`$ ) we get:

$$L{}_{0}{}^{}=\kappa _1(12\mathrm{sin}(e)E{}_{}{}^{+}E{}_{}{}^{})(1+2(a^{\prime \prime }a_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}E{}_{z}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}))$$
(14)
Chemical potential $`ϵ`$ gives the additional term: $`\kappa _2`$$`npn`$ . Substituting expression of $`t_\mu ^\pm `$ to (12) we obtain any function of $`E_z(\theta ^{},\varphi )`$:

By adding the lagrangian (13) to (12) we can obtain the string lagrangian if (14)is constrained by equation: $`L_{NG}+\sqrt{g}+L_0=0`$

Returning to (2) we see that the Hubbard repulsion in continuum limit can be transformed to the string lagrangian:

$$L_{site}=\sqrt{g}+L_{NG}$$
(15)
6. Effective functional can be evaluated as a series of a grassmanian fields:

$$L_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}=L_0+L_2+L_4$$
(16)
Combining kinetic energy and (15) the following result can be obtained:

$`\begin{array}{c}L=\sqrt{g}g{}_{}{}^{\alpha }{}_{}{}^{\beta }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}X{}_{}{}^{\mu }{}_{\beta }{}^{}X{}_{}{}^{\mu }+\sqrt{g}+\mathrm{{\rm Y}}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }{}_{i}{}^{\beta }{}_{j}{}^{}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\varphi {}_{}{}^{i}{}_{\beta }{}^{}\varphi {}_{}{}^{j}+\\ \mathrm{\Psi }_e^{}(e^\alpha _\alpha +\mathrm{\Pi })\mathrm{\Psi }_e+R_{ijkl}\chi _i^{}\chi _j^{}\chi _k\chi _l\end{array}`$

where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_e=\{\chi ,\chi ^{}\}`$ is two component spinor, and $`\gamma _i`$ act in space of this components, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }{}_{i}{}^{\beta }{}_{j}{}^{}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\varphi {}_{}{}^{i}{}_{\beta }{}^{}\varphi {}_{}{}^{j}=(1npn)^2A+^2npn`$ and $`e^\alpha ,\mathrm{\Pi },R_{ijkl}`$are given in first order of coefficients of superfield ,(the full expression for them are complex and will be given in other paper).

$$\begin{array}{ccc}e^\alpha & =(e)_1+(e)_2=& [C_{12}^{12}(1\sigma ^1)\gamma ^5(C_o^{12}\gamma ^1+c.c.)]+n\gamma ^5\mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{\Pi }& =& (t\kappa _1)(e)_1+(t\kappa _2)(e)_2+\mathrm{}\\ R_{1221}& =& (t\kappa _1)C_{12}^{12}(t\kappa _2)detn+\mathrm{}\end{array}$$

where $`C_{12}^0=2t(z_1B_2)^{}det(F)+\kappa _1z^{}\gamma ^5B,C_{12}^{12}=2t(det(F))^{}z\gamma ^1B+\kappa _1B^{}\gamma ^5B+c.c,n_{12}^0=z^{}B,n_{12}^{12}=B^{}B,n=F^+F,npn=_{i,j=1}^2n_{ij,}A=z^{}\gamma ^5z,\kappa _1=U/2ϵ,\kappa _2=2ϵU/2`$.

The operator $``$ equal to $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{i=\pm }\left[_{\mu =1}^3\left(\frac{X_\mu }{\sigma _i}\right)^1\right]\frac{}{\sigma _i}`$ and acts on the right superfunction in any terms of the effective action: $`(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi })=\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$. This condition follows from correct determination of continuum limit of kinetic energy.


text:
# Efficient Transfer of Coherence through Ising Spin Chains

## 1 Introduction

According to the postulates of quantum mechanics, the evolution of the state of a closed quantum system is unitary and is governed by the time-dependent Schrödinger equation. This evolution can be controlled by systematically changing the Hamiltonian of the system. The control of quantum systems has important applications in physics and chemistry $`[1`$-$`4]`$. In particular, the ability to steer the state of a quantum system (or of an ensemble of quantum systems) from a given initial state to a desired target state forms the basis of spectroscopic techniques such as nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and electron spin resonance (ESR) spectroscopy , laser coherent control  and quantum computing . Achieving a desired unitary evolution in a quantum system in minimum time is an important practical problem in coherent spectroscopy. Developing short pulse sequences (control laws) which produce a desired unitary evolution has been a major thrust in NMR spectroscopy . For example, in the NMR spectroscopy of proteins, the transfer of coherence along spin chains is an essential step in a large number of key experiments.

A spectroscopist has at his disposal a limited set of control Hamiltonians $`\{_j\}`$ (produced by external electromagnetic fields) that can be turned on and off to modify the net Hamiltonian of the system. There is a natural coupling (interaction) between the spins and in the absence of any external control Hamiltonians, the state of spin system evolves under this interaction or coupling Hamiltonian $`_c`$. The task of the pulse designer is to find the right sequence of external pulses interspersed with evolution of the system under the coupling Hamiltonian $`_c`$ for different time periods, in order to create a net evolution or unitary transformation that transforms the state of the system from some initial to a desired final state in minimum possible time.

Even for two coupled spins 1/2, the time-optimal transfer of polarization or of coherence is not trivial . Numerous approaches have been proposed and are currently used  to transfer polarization or coherence through chains of coupled spins. Examples are the design of radio-frequency (RF) pulse trains that create an effective Hamiltonian , which makes it possible to propagate spin waves in such chains . In order to achieve the maximum possible transfer amplitude, many other approaches, that rely either on a series of selective transfer steps between adjacent spins or on concatenations of two such selective transfer steps  have been developed.

Here, we consider a novel approach to control the transfer of coherence in spin chains of arbitrary length. The approach relies on the creation of a three spin encoded state and efficient propagation of this encoded state through the spin chain. Our method is based on variational ideas as captured by the theory of optimal control . In the present context of control of nuclear spin ensembles, we are interested in finding a sequence of RF pulses that will efficiently transfer any state (known or unknown) of a given spin in a spin chain to a desired target spin. Compared to conventional experiments, this new approach makes it possible to speed up the transfer rate by up to a factor of three, which suggests applications in NMR spectroscopy and experimental quantum computation.

Without loss of generality, here we consider the problem of transferring the coherence of a spin at one end of a spin chain (label spin 1) to a spin at the opposite end of the chain (label spin n) in a spin ensemble. Consider an initial density operator $`\rho _0`$ representing coherence or polarization on the first spin, which has the general form $`\rho _0=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{𝟏}+a_1I_{1x}+a_2I_{1y}+a_3I_{1z}`$. The goal is to transfer this density operator to the operator $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{𝟏}+a_1I_{nx}+a_2I_{ny}+a_3I_{nz}`$. Note that it suffices to find a unitary transformation $`U`$ that transfers $`I_{1x}I_{nx}`$ and $`I_{1y}I_{ny}`$. The same unitary transformation will also transfer $`[I_{1x},I_{1y}][I_{nx},I_{ny}]`$, i.e. $`I_{1z}I_{nz}`$. Therefore, the transfer of the coherent state of spin $`1`$ to spin $`n`$ is equivalent to the transfer of the non-Hermitian operator $`I_1^{}=I_{1x}iI_{1y}`$ to $`I_n^{}=I_{nx}iI_{ny}`$. The transfer between such non-Hermitian operators arises naturally in coherent spectroscopy of ensembles and constitutes a fundamental step in multidimensional NMR spectroscopy of biological macro-molecules . We emphasize again that any unitary transformation that transfers $`I_1^{}`$ to $`I_n^{}`$, implies that any state of the form $`\rho _0=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{𝟏}+a_1I_{1x}+a_2I_{1y}+a_3I_{1z}`$ is transferred to spin $`n`$.

Besides applications in spectroscopy, finding optimal methods to control the dynamics of coupled spin networks is of fundamental importance for the practical implementation of quantum information processing. In recent years, many innovative proposals have come out to harness the dynamics of spins in the liquid  and solid state  for the purpose of information processing. Like many coherence transfer experiments in multidimensional NMR spectroscopy, these NMR quantum computing architectures rely on elaborate sequences of radio frequency (RF) pulses for realizing desired effective Hamiltonians. Recent proposals by Yamamoto  use a chain of nuclear spins $`\frac{1}{2}`$ in the solid state for purpose of computing. A major challenge in such architectures, which is also found in various other quantum information devices, is finding efficient ways of making qubits interact if they are not directly coupled. A prototype example of this problem is finding efficient ways to generate unitary transformations which exchange the states of spins on the two opposite ends of a spin chain. Pulse sequences presented in this paper can be used to accomplish such operations efficiently.

Control of Spin Chain Dynamics

Consider a linear chain of $`n`$ weakly interacting spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ particles placed in a static external magnetic field in the $`z`$ direction and with Ising type couplings between next neighbors . In a suitably chosen (multiple) rotating frame which rotates with each spin at its resonant frequency, the Hamiltonian that governs the free evolution of the spin system is given by the coupling Hamiltonian

$$_c=2\pi \underset{k=2}{\overset{n}{}}J_{k1,k}I_{(k1)z}I_{kz},$$

where $`J_{k1,k}`$ is the coupling constant between spin $`k1`$ and $`k`$. If the resonance frequencies of the spins are well separated, spin $`k`$ can be selectively excited (addressed) by an appropriate choice of the amplitude and phase of the RF field at its resonant frequency. The goal of the pulse designer is to make appropriate choice of the control variables comprising of the frequency, amplitude and phase of the external RF field to effect a net unitary evolution $`U(t)`$ which efficiently transfers the initial operator $`A=I_1^{}`$ to $`B=I_n^{}`$. For simplicity but without loss of generality (vide infra), we assume that all coupling constants in the spin chain are equal, i.e. $`J_{k1,k}=J`$ for $`1<kn`$.

A straight forward way of transferring the operator $`I_1^{}`$ to $`I_n^{}`$ is to perform sequential transfers, whereby $`I_k^{}`$ is transferred to $`I_{k+1}^{}`$  . Each of these sequential steps takes $`\frac{3}{2J}`$ units of time, resulting in a total time of $`\frac{3(n1)}{2J}`$ (see Fig.1). However this is far from optimal. It can be shown  that given any initial operator $`A_k`$ that represents a state involving spin $`k`$ and spins with label less than $`k`$, the minimum time required to advance this operator one step up the spin chain is $`\frac{1}{2J}`$. This suggests that an efficient approach to transferring the state $`I_1^{}`$ to $`I_n^{}`$ is to prepare an encoded state $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^{}`$ such that it is possible to go from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^{}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{k+1}^{}`$ in a time of $`\frac{1}{2J}`$. Furthermore, it is desirable that these encoded states be sufficiently localized so that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^{}`$ can be encoded and decoded in a short time. We will refer to such encoded states as effective soliton operators (see end of this section).

Now we consider the three specific effective soliton operators $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{kx}=2I_{(k2)x}I_{(k1)z}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ky}=2I_{(k1)x}I_{kz}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{kz}=4I_{(k2)x}I_{(k1)y}I_{kz}`$, which obey the commutation relations $`[\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ]=iϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma `$, where $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ is the Levi-Civita symbol which is 1 (or $`1`$) if $`\{\alpha \beta \gamma \}`$ is an even (or odd) permutation of $`\{x,y,z\}`$ and 0 if two or more of the indices $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$ are identical. Each individual soliton operator $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{k\alpha }`$ is advanced along the spin chain by one unit if the propagator

$$U_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{exp}\{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Delta }_c\}\mathrm{exp}\{\mathrm{i}\frac{\pi }{2}F_y\}$$
(1)
with $`F_y=I_{1y}+I_{2y}+\mathrm{}I_{ny}`$ is applied:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{k\alpha }\stackrel{U_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(k+1)\alpha }.$$

The propagator $`U_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be realized by applying a non-selective 90$`{}_{y}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ pulse (with negligible duration) to all spins, followed by the evolution of the spin system under the coupling Hamiltonian $`_c`$ for a duration $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(2J)^1`$.

With the help of the soliton operators $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{kx}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ky}`$, it is possible to transfer $`I_1^{}=I_{1x}\mathrm{i}I_{1y}`$ efficiently to $`I_n^{}=I_{nx}\mathrm{i}I_{ny}`$:

$$I_1^{}\stackrel{U_1}{}\stackrel{U_2}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_3^{}\underset{(n3)\mathrm{times}}{\underset{}{\stackrel{U_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\mathrm{}..\stackrel{U_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_n^{}\stackrel{U_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\stackrel{U_{n+1}}{}I_n^{}.$$

Here, the encoding of $`I_1^{}`$ as the soliton operator $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3^{}`$ is effected by the propagators

$$U_1=\mathrm{exp}\{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Delta }_c\}\mathrm{exp}\{\mathrm{i}\frac{\pi }{2}I_{1y}\}\mathrm{exp}\{\mathrm{i}\frac{\pi }{2}I_{1x}\},$$

and

$$U_2=\mathrm{exp}\{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Delta }_c\}\mathrm{exp}\{\mathrm{i}\frac{\pi }{2}(I_{1x}+I_{2y})\}.$$

Finally, the decoding of the the soliton operator $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n^{}`$ into $`I_n^{}`$ is achieved by the propagators $`U_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`U_{n+1}=\mathrm{exp}\{\mathrm{i}\frac{\pi }{2}I_{nx}\}\mathrm{exp}\{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Delta }_c\}\mathrm{exp}\{\mathrm{i}\frac{\pi }{2}(I_{nx}I_{(n1)y})\}.`$ $`U_1`$, $`U_2`$, $`U_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and $`U_{n+1}`$ require a period $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(2J)^1`$ each, resulting in the time

$$\tau _{soliton}=\frac{n+1}{2J}$$

for the complete transfer from $`I_1^{}`$ to $`I_n^{}`$.

The flow of soliton operators is summarized in Fig.2B. The panel schematically traces the evolution of the initial operators $`I_{1x},I_{1y}`$, and $`I_{1z}`$ via the soliton operators $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{kx}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ky}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{kz}`$ in the spin chain as a function of time. The operators $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{kx}`$ , $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ky}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{kz}`$ represent local correlations of spin $`k1`$ with its neighbors. Under the proposed pulse sequences, these correlations advance one step in the spin chain, every $`\tau _{step}=\frac{1}{2J}`$ units of time. Although these operators evolve to other operators under the proposed pulse sequences, if the spin system is observed stroboscopically, every $`\tau _{step}`$ units of time, the correlations maintain their shape and are just translated one step up in the spin chain. Hence the name effective soliton operators.

Efficiency of Transfer

The time $`\tau _{soliton}`$ taken by the proposed pulse sequence should be compared with the transfer time for conventional pulse sequences which transfer $`I_1^{}`$ to $`I_n^{}`$ . These pulse sequences require $`n1`$ steps of selective isotropic transfers in which the $`j^{th}`$ step transfers the operator $`I_j^{}`$ to $`I_{j+1}^{}`$. In the $`j^{th}`$ step, only spins $`j`$ and $`j+1`$ are active and the remaining spins in the chain are decoupled. This mode of transfer is depicted in panel A of Figure 1. Each such isotropic transfer step requires $`\frac{3}{2J}`$ units of time and therefore the total time is $`\frac{3(n1)}{2J}`$. In the limit of large $`n`$, the proposed soliton sequences only take $`\frac{1}{3}`$ amount of time as compared to state of the art pulse sequences. A comparison of the time taken for the coherence transfer by the conventional sequence of selective isotropic pulse sequences $`\tau _{conv}`$ and the proposed pulse sequences $`\tau _{soliton}`$ is shown in the Figure 2 for $`n10`$.

The proposed pulse sequences are also compared with the widely used concatenated INEPT pulse sequences , which transfer only one component of magnetization along a spin chain, i.e. $`I_{1x}I_{nx}`$. If all couplings are equal to $`J`$, the time required for transferring $`I_{1x}I_{nx}`$ by the concatenated INEPT pulse sequences is $`\frac{n}{2J}`$. For large $`n`$, this is approximately the same as the time required for the new soliton-based pulse sequences. However, the soliton sequences transfer the complete state of spin $`1`$ to spin $`n`$, which may result in appreciable gain of signal to noise ratio in spectroscopic applications .

The proposed pulse sequences can be used to efficiently exchange the (arbitrary) states of spins at the two ends of a spin chain with possible applications to proposed quantum computing architectures . This exchange operation between spin $`1`$ and $`n`$, in general will not preserve the state of other spins on the spin chain and hence donot represent a swap gate between spin $`1`$ and $`n`$ in the usual sense. The proposed soliton sequences can be used to transfer the state of spin 1 to spin $`n`$ and spin $`n`$ to spin $`1`$ simultaneously in $`\frac{n+1}{2J}`$ units of time. This should be compared to the approach where states of spin $`1`$ and $`n`$ are exchanged through a sequence of neighbouring swap operations . Each swap operation requires $`\frac{3}{2J}`$ units of time. Therefore the total time required to exchange states of spin $`1`$ and $`n`$ by sequential swapping is at least $`\frac{3(n1)}{2J}`$, which in the limit of large $`n`$ is three times longer than the proposed approach based on soliton operators.

Finally, we analyze the time taken by the proposed coherence transfer methodology when couplings are not equal. To produce the effect of the propagator $`U_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ acting on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{kx},\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ky},\mathrm{\Lambda }_{kz}`$ in equation 1, the only terms in the coupling Hamiltonian $`_c`$ that are instrumental are

$$2\pi (J_{k2,k1}I_{(k2)z}I_{(k1)z}+J_{k1,k}I_{(k1)z}I_{kz}+J_{k,k+1}I_{kz}I_{(k+1)z}).$$

If $`J_{k,k+1}`$ is the smallest of the coupling constants $`J_{k2,k1},J_{k1,k},J_{k,k+1}`$, i.e. if

$$J_{k,k+1}=\text{min}(J_{k2,k1},J_{k1,k},J_{k,k+1}),$$

then it will take $`\tau _k=\frac{1}{2J_{k,k+1}}`$ units of time to produce the propagator

$$\mathrm{exp}\{\mathrm{i}\pi (I_{(k2)z}I_{(k1)z}+I_{(k1)z}I_{kz}+I_{kz}I_{(k+1)z})\}.$$

This is achieved by letting the coupling $`J_{k,k+1}`$ evolve during $`\tau _k`$ while letting $`J_{k2,k1}`$ and $`J_{k1,k}`$ couplings evolve only during $`\frac{J_{k2,k1}}{J_{k,k+1}}\tau _k`$ and $`\frac{J_{k1,k}}{J_{k,k+1}}\tau _k`$ respectively and decoupling these couplings for the remaining time. This can be achieved by standard refocusing techniques . Therefore the total time required for propagation of the soliton $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3`$ to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ is

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{n3}{}}\frac{1}{2\text{min}(J_{k,k+1},J_{k+1,k+2},J_{k+2,k+3})}.$$

Similar arguments yield that the time required for preparation of soliton state from the initial state is $`\frac{1}{2J_{12}}+\frac{1}{2\text{min}(J_{12},J_{23})}`$ and finally the time required to reduce the soliton state to the final state is $`\frac{1}{2\text{min}(J_{n2,n1},J_{n1,n})}+\frac{1}{2J_{n1,n}}`$.

The proposed methods for control of spin chain dynamics may have the potential to improve the senstivity of multi-dimensional heteronuclear triple resonance experiments, used for example for sequential resonance assignments in protein NMR spectroscopy . The proposed method of manipulating dynamics of spin chains could also reduce decoherence effects in experimental realizations of quantum information devices . Although minimizing the time required to produce desired unitary evolutions in a quantum system is expected to reduce dissipation and relaxation effects, optimizing pulse sequences by incorporating a realistic relaxation model may further improve the sensitivity of experiments in coherent spectroscopy.