text:
# Constraints on the Cosmological Parameters in the Relativistic Theory of Gravitation

## Abstract

The causality principle imposes the constraints on the cosmological parameters in the relativistic theory of gravitation. As a result, X-matter causes the quite definite cosmological scenario with the alternate acceleration and deceleration and the final recollapse

thanks: This work was inspired by Prof. A.A. Logunov noted the significance of the causality principle for the cosmological models in RTG. Author appreciate him for the helpful discussion. The work was carried out in the computer algebra system Maple 6 . Author is Lise Meitner Fellow at Technical University of Vienna (Project M611)

The relativistic theory of gravitation (RTG) denies the total geometrization and is based on the traditional field approach . The gravitation is interpreted as the tensor field generated by the conserved energy-momentum tensor of the matter. There is the background spacetime of the Minkowski’s type, which can be restored in any situation. This preserves the unambiguous physical content of the gravitational phenomena and simplifies the unification of the views on the gravitation, on the one hand, and the quantum mechanics, on the other hand.

It is known , that the usual cosmological solutions in RTG do not agree with the modern observational data  because they predict the decelerated character of the cosmological expansion at the present era. The insertion of the cosmological term into field equation destroys the logical structure of the theory because this requires to insert the additional repulsing physical field, which is not affected by the matter.

The generalization of the field equation by the means of the insertion of the scalar component with uniquely defined potential allows the inflationary expanded solutions in RTG . However, there is the purely phenomenological approach resulting in the variety of the cosmological scenarios in the framework of RTG, which is based on the modification of the matter energy-momentum tensor . Such modification is produced by the so-called ”dark energy” (X-matter) term with the exotic equation of state $`p_x`$=$`w_x`$$`\rho _x`$, where $`w_x`$$`<`$0 ($`p_x`$ and $`\rho _x`$ are the pressure and the density, respectively).

However, Prof. A.A. Logunov kindly suggested , that tacking into account the causality principle imposes the constraints on the physically admissible solutions in the latter approach. This allows to choose among the physically meaningful cosmological parameters.

Here we will consider the aspects of the X-matter induced cosmological evolution in RTG, which are inspired by the causality principle. As a result, the defined class of the cosmological scenarios will be selected, and the limits of the maximal scaling factor as well as the approximated value of $`w_x`$ will be defined.

Let us begin with the usual assumption of homogeneity and isotropy of the effective Riemannian spacetime produced by the action of the gravitational field. The corresponding interval in the spherical coordinates is :

$$ds^2=d\tau ^2\alpha a(\tau )^2[dr^2+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}(\theta )^2d\varphi ^2)],$$
(1)
Here $`\tau `$ is the proper time, $`a(\tau )`$ is the scaling factor; $`\alpha `$ is the constant of integration. This form of the homogeneous and isotropic interval describing the globally flat spacetime follows from the field equations, which have the form:

$$G_n^m\frac{m^2}{2}(\delta _n^m+g^{mk}\gamma _{kn}\frac{1}{2}\delta _n^mg^{pk}\gamma _{pk})=8\pi T_n^m,$$
(2)
$$D_m\stackrel{~}{g}^{mn}=0,$$
(3)
where $`G_n^m`$ is the Einstein’s tensor defined on the effictive Riemannian spacetime with the metrics $`g^{mn}`$; $`\gamma ^{mn}`$ is the metrics of the flat background Minkowski spacetime, $`D_m`$ is the covariant derivative on the background spacetime, $`\stackrel{~}{g}^{mn}=\sqrt{g}g^{mn}`$, $`c=G=\mathrm{}=1`$, $`m`$ is the graviton’s mass (the inverse transition to the ordinary units corresponds to $`m`$$``$$`mc^2/\mathrm{}`$).

We choose the Galilean metrics as a background. The crucial departure from  is tacking into account the causality principle in the framework of RTG : ”the causality cone of the effective Riemannian spacetime should be positioned inside the causality cone of the Minkowski spacetime”. As a result, the arbitrary isotropic vector $`u^m`$ obeys:

$$\gamma _{mn}u^mu^n=0,$$
(4)
$$g_{mn}u^mu^n0,$$
(5)
From the Eqs. (1, 4, 5) we have the key condition :

$$a(\tau )^4\alpha <0,$$
(6)
which eliminates the cosmological solutions with the eternal expansion and keeps the scenario of IV type in . It is convenient to assign $`\alpha `$=$`a_{max}^4`$, where $`a_{max}`$ is the maximal value of the scaling factor. Then the cosmological equations are:

$$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=\frac{8}{3}\pi \rho (\tau )\frac{m^2}{12}\left(2+\frac{1}{a(\tau )^6}\frac{3}{a(\tau )^2a_{\mathrm{max}}^4}\right),$$
(7)
$$\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=\frac{4}{3}\pi \left(3p(\tau )+\rho (\tau )\right)\frac{1}{6}m^2\left(1\frac{1}{a^6}\right).$$
(8)
From the Eq. (7) one can obtain the expression for the minimal density of the matter corresponding to the maximal scaling factor :

$$\rho _{\mathrm{min}}=\frac{m^2}{16\pi }\left(1\frac{1}{a_{\mathrm{max}}^6}\right).$$
(9)
Let’s suppose $`a_{max}`$$``$$`a_0`$, where $`a_0`$ is the present scaling factor. This assumption is suggested by the accelerated expansion of the universe at the present era. Then the minimal density is defined by the form of the matter with the slowest decrease produced by the growing scaling factor. As $`\rho `$$``$$`a(\tau )^{3(1+w)}`$, the X-matter with $`w_x`$$`<`$0 dominates in the late universe. Hence the Eq. (9) results in:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_g}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}a_{\mathrm{max}}^{3\delta },$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_g=m^2/(6H_0^2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x=8\pi \rho _x/(3H_0^2)`$ are the density parameters for the gravitons and the X-matter, respectively, $`H_0`$ is the Hubble constant; $`\delta `$$`=`$$`1+w_x`$ is the deviation of the X-matter state parameter from that for the pure cosmological constant.

The Eq. (7) defines the modified cosmic sum rule:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_r+\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_x\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_g\left(1\frac{1}{a_{\mathrm{max}}^4}\right)=1$$
(11)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=8\pi \rho _m/(3H_0^2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r=8\pi \rho _r/(3H_0^2)`$ are the density parameters for the nonrelativistic and relativistic matter with $`w`$=0 and 1/3, respectively. One can see, that the sum of the matter densities exceeds the critical density due to the graviton’s mass contribution. Although the modern data demonstrates some exceeding $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}`$=$`\mathrm{\Omega }_x`$+$`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$+$`\mathrm{\Omega }_r`$$`1.11\pm 0.07_{0.12}^{+0.13}`$ , we suppose that the gravitons induced effect is too small to be revealed in these observations.

The parameters of the Eq. (10) can be concretized additionally by taking into account the accelerated expansion of the universe at the present era and the observational data from BOOMERANG, MAXIMA and COBE . The acceleration parameter $`q`$ = $`(d^2a/d\tau ^2)|_0`$/$`(a_0H_0^2)`$$``$0.33$`\pm `$0.17,$`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$$``$0.37 $`\pm `$ 0.07, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x`$$``$0.71 $`\pm `$ 0.05.

From the Eqs. (7,8) we have

$$q=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_x\left(1\frac{3}{2}\delta \right)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_m\mathrm{\Omega }_r}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_g}.$$
(12)
If the gravitons and the relativistic matter do not contribute in the present state, the combination of observational data and Eq. (12) results in the estimation of $`\delta `$:

$$\delta =\frac{2}{3}\left(1q\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{3\mathrm{\Omega }_x}\left(1+2q\right)0.16_{0.09}^{+0.11}.$$
(13)
Now we have to estimate the maximal value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_g`$ tacking into account the condition $`a_{min}`$$`<`$$`a_r`$, where $`a_{min}`$ is the minimal scaling factor, $`a_r`$ is the scaling factor at the end of the radiation dominating era . $`a_{\mathrm{min}}`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_g\mathrm{/}2\mathrm{\Omega }_r}`$ results in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_g`$$`<`$10<sup>-11.7</sup>. This condition in the combination with Eqs. (10, 13) gives Fig. 1. One can see, that $`log_{10}(a_{max})`$=10$`÷`$55 (with the most probable value in the vicinity of 14) and, it is natural, the approach of $`w`$ to -1 or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x`$ to 1 increases the maximal scaling factor due to growing negative pressure of the X-matter.

The regions of the accelerated (decelerated) expansion can be found from Eq. (8). The boundaries of these regions are defined by the solutions of the following equation:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_ma^2+2\mathrm{\Omega }_ra^2\left(2\delta \right)\mathrm{\Omega }_xa^{3(2\delta )}+`$ (14)
$`2\mathrm{\Omega }_g\left(a^61\right)=0.`$
The corresponding scenario has a complicated loitering character (see ): acceleration $``$ deceleration $``$ acceleration $``$ deceleration $``$ recollapse. We live at the era of the second acceleration, which began not long before the present time (see Fig. 2). A long first deceleration should have the pronounced observational consequences, for instance, in the large-scale structure formation. The second deceleration era and the recollapse turning point are too remote from us, but the estimated upper limit of the universe age is not too large in the comparison with the so-called ”dark era” representing the decay of all known physical processes .

In the conclusion, the causality principle in the relativistic theory of gravitation imposes the constraints on the cosmological parameters defining the acceleration behavior of the universe at the present time. The existence of the minimal and maximal scaling factors requires to choose the fixed scenario with complicated loitering behavior. For the observational values of the usual and X- matter densities the deviation of the X-matter state from pure vacuum one is $`0.16_{0.09}^{+0.11}`$, which results in the maximal scaling factor $``$ $`10^{10}`$$`÷`$$`10^{55}`$.


format: text

text:
# Logical network implementation for cluster states and graph codes

## I Introduction

Recently, we discussed a new construction method for quantum error correcting codes, based on graphs . The error correcting capabilities of a ”graph code” can directly be derived from the structure of the graph which also allows to tailor quantum error correcting codes systematically.

In the present paper we discuss how graph codes can be implemented on a quantum computer by a logical network. This problem has also been analyzed by several authors with respect to quantum error correcting codes being obtained by other construction methods .

The subsequent results are based on a direct relation between graph codes and the so called ”cluster states”. These states have been introduced by H.J. Briegel and R. Raussendorf for performing quantum algorithms by means of local von Neumann measurements . Besides these aspects, cluster states can also be used for studying concepts multi-particle entanglement .

A cluster state is determined by the following objects:

* A finite number of levels,
* A graph consisting of a finite number of vertices and edges, where two vertices are connected by at most one edge
* Non-zero integral numbers (weights), each of them being attached to an edge.

The number of levels is the dimension of a single elementary quantum system, which we call here a ”quantum digit”. For example, considering an atom or ion in a trap, the states of a quantum digit are density matrices on a Hilbert space spanned by finitely many energy eigenvectors, each of them belonging to an eigenvalue of multiplicity one. A two level or binary quantum digit is just a qubit.

A cluster state corresponds to a system of multiple quantum digits whose positions are labeled by the vertices of the graph. Each edge of the graph can be viewed as an interaction between the quantum digits corresponding to vertices which are connected by it. The non-zero integral number (weight) attached to the edge can be viewed as the strength of the interaction. As example, one may think of a two dimensional optical lattice structure, where each quantum digit occupy a point within a two dimensional cubic lattice with next neighbor interaction.

As far as operations on an optical lattice are concerned, the preparation of a cluster state needs only one elementary operation applied to an initial product state – each qubit is in a superposition of ”0” and ”1”. This operation acts globally on the lattice, creating entanglement between neighbored qubits. Once a cluster state is prepared, it can be used as a resource for performing any quantum algorithm by local measurements .

Procedures for preparing a cluster state can also be given in terms of one and two qubit gates. For any system of finitely many qubits on which local Hadamard gates and CNOT gates can be performed in a controlled manner, we show in Section II that a cluster state for an arbitrary graph can be prepared by applying a logical network to the initial state where each qubit is prepared in the state ”0”. For a graph with $`v`$ vertices and $`l`$ edges, the number of steps which are needed to perform the corresponding network is $`l+v`$: For each vertex there is a Hadamard gate and for each edge a CNOT gate. This network can be derived from the graph by a systematic algorithm.

This also opens the discussion for comparing complexity measures for quantum algorithms based on one- and two-qubit gates, on one hand, and globally parallel operations, on the other hand.

Graph codes  are directly related to cluster states. Consider the cluster state for a graph, we select for each quantum digit, we wish to encode, a vertex. These selected vertices are called ”input vertices”. The remaining vertices are called ”output vertices”. As we shall see in Section III, the coding operation for a graph code can be split into four main steps. For the qubit case, it works as follows:

1. The input qubits are prepared in the state we wish to protect against errors.
2. Each output qubit is prepared in the state ”0”.
3. A discrete dynamics is applied which creates entanglement between those qubits sitting at vertices connected by an edge. Here it is given by first performing a Hadamard transform on each input qubit, then applying the network which creates the cluster state and finally one operates again with a Hadamard transform on each input qubit.
4. Each input qubit is measured in the ”computational basis”, i.e. the basis given by the states ”0” and ”1”.

For a graph with $`k`$ input vertices, $`n`$ output vertices and $`l`$ edges, as we already know, the network for creating a cluster state can be realized by $`k+n+l`$ elementary gate operations. Implementing the dynamics of step 3 would cost at most $`3k+n+l`$ steps since there are two additional Hadamard gates for each input. Provided there are no edges between input vertices, the number of gates can be reduced to $`k+n+l`$ as we shall see in Section IV. The corresponding logical network can be derived systematically from the graph analogously to the network for cluster states.

Considering the case where only one input digit is present, we derive logical networks for graph codes which operate on the output digits. In comparison to the networks, described before, it makes use of less resources. We give in Section V an algorithm associating to a graph with $`n`$ output vertices and $`l`$ edges a logical network which implements the corresponding code with $`n+l1`$ elementary gate operations.

## II Logical networks for cluster states

To begin with, we briefly describe here how a cluster state is constructed from a finite number of levels $`d`$ and a weighted graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with vertices $`V`$. The classical configuration space for describing a digit is given by a cyclic group $`_d`$. The states of a single quantum digit are density operators on the Hilbert space of ”wave functions” $`l_2(_d)`$  on $`_d`$. Obviously, the quantum digit for the two elementary group $`d=2`$ is just a qubit.

In our context a quantum register consists of quantum digits labeled by a finite set $`V`$ of ”positions”. Thus the states of the quantum register are density operators on $`l_2(_d^V)`$ where $`_d^V`$ is the group of tuples $`𝐠=(g_i|iV)`$. It is convenient to introduce a basis in $`l_2(_d^V)`$, called the computational basis: $`\{|𝐠|𝐠G^V\}`$ where $`|𝐠`$ is the indicator function of the point $`𝐠`$.

A weighted graph is given by the symmetric matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(\mathrm{\Gamma }(i,j)|i,jV)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(i,j)`$ is the integral number assigned to the edge $`\{i,j\}`$ being zero if there is no edge between $`i`$ and $`j`$. The cluster state, corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, is represented by a normalized vector $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`l_2(_d^V)`$. It is given by assigning the value

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐠):=d^{\frac{1}{2}|V|}{\displaystyle \underset{\{i,j\}V}{}}\chi (g_i|g_j)^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(i,j)}`$ (1)
to a group element $`𝐠=(g_i|iV)`$ in $`_d^V`$. Here we have introduced for two group elements $`g,h_d`$ the phase

$$\chi (g|h)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi \mathrm{i}}{d}gh\right).$$
(2)
A logical network for preparing a state, represented by a vector $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in $`l_2(_d^V)`$, is given a sequence of ”quantum gates”, applied successively to a ”ground” state $`|\mathrm{𝟎}`$ ($`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is the zero in $`_d^V`$), such that the resulting vector is $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Quantum gates are elementary unitary operations, each of them acting only on a single or two quantum digits. In some cases operations on three quantum digits are also considered as elementary gates, e.g. the Toffoli gate.

As it turns out, the following elementary gate operations are needed for building a logical network for a cluster state:

* The local Fourier transform $`F_i`$ operating on the quantum digit at $`i`$

$$F_i|𝐠:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}\underset{h_d}{}\chi (g_i|h)|h,𝐠^i.$$
(3)
with $`𝐠=(g_i|iV)`$ and $`𝐠^i:=(g_i|iV\{i\})`$ and its inverse $`F_i^{}`$.
* The $`n`$-controlled shift gate $`𝐜(i,j)^n`$ with control digit at position $`i`$ and target digit at position $`j`$ is given by

$$𝐜(i,j)^n|𝐠:=|g_j+ng_i,𝐠^j$$
(4)
and its inverse $`𝐜(i,j)^n`$.

In graphical representation of a logical network the local Fourier transform as well as the $`n`$-controlled shift operation is symbolized as shown in Figure 1.

A procedure for preparing a cluster state (1) can directly be expressed in terms of local Fourier transforms and controlled phase gates whose graphical symbols are given by Figure 2. Each $`n`$-controlled phase gate is a composition of two local Fourier transforms and one $`n`$-controlled shift gate: Acting on the positions $`i,j`$, this gate is given by

$$𝐮(i,j)^n:=F_j𝐜(i,j)F_j^{}=F_i𝐜(j,i)^nF_i^{}.$$
(5)
According to the definition of the cluster state (1), the vector $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be obtained by first applying for each vertex a local Fourier transform and second operating with a controlled phase gate on the quantum digits corresponding to a pair of vertices which are connected by an edge. Introducing the cluster state creation operator

$$𝐮_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\underset{\{i,j\}V}{}𝐮(i,j)^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(i,j)}\underset{jV}{}F_j$$
(6)
the cluster state wave function is:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }=𝐮_\mathrm{\Gamma }|\mathrm{𝟎}.$$
(7)
Considering the graph in Figure 3, the corresponding logical network expressed in terms of controlled phase gates and local Fourier transforms is given by Figure 4 below.

In order to obtain a logical network in terms of controlled shift gates and local Fourier transforms, one just have to substitute the controlled phase gates $`𝐮(i,j)`$ in Equation (6) by $`F_j𝐜(i,j)F_j^{}`$. This procedure is represented by Figure 5 for the cluster state corresponding to the graph in Figure 3. As a consequence, we obtain a network implementation which uses a local Fourier transform for each vertex and a controlled shift gate for each edge.

###### Proposition II.1

For a weighted graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with $`v`$ vertices and $`l`$ edges the cluster state creation operator $`𝐮_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be decomposed into a product of $`v+l`$ unitary operations which are local Fourier transforms or controlled shift gates.

We postpone the proof of the proposition to Appendix A and describe an algorithm which associates to a weighted graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ a logical network expressing $`𝐮_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in terms of controlled shift gates and local Fourier transforms.

###### Algorithm II.2

Choose an enumeration of the vertices by $`V=\{0,\mathrm{},N\}`$ and perform step 1 for the vertex $`j=0`$:

1. Apply the Fourier transform $`F_j`$ and proceed with step 2 for the vertex $`k=j+1`$.
2. Apply the controlled shift gate $`𝐜(j,k)^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j,k)}`$.
3. Repeat step 2 for the vertex $`k^{}=k+1`$ until $`k^{}=N`$.
4. Repeat steps 1-3 by starting step 1 for the vertex $`j^{}=j+1`$ until $`j^{}=N`$.

It will directly follow from the proof of Proposition II.1 that the Algorithm II.2 yields the correct decomposition of $`𝐮_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In particular, by applying it to the graph in Figure 3, one obtains the logical network implementation presented in Figure 5.

## III From cluster states to graph codes

In this section we tackle the question, how graph codes can be realized by preparing a cluster state (a globally parallel operation) and local measurement operations.

To start with, we briefly describe here the concept of graph codes, introduced in . Consider a graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with vertices $`V`$ and choose a subset of ”input” vertices $`XV`$ which reasonably contains less elements than the set of ”output” vertices $`Y=VX`$. The quantum code, associated with this choice of input and output vertices, is given by a linear map $`𝐯_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ mapping the Hilbert space for the input register $`l_2(_d^X)`$ into the Hilbert space for the output register $`l_2(_d^Y)`$ as follows: A basis vector $`|𝐡l_2(_d^X)`$ with $`𝐡_d^X`$ is mapped to

$$𝐯_\mathrm{\Gamma }|𝐡=d^{\frac{1}{2}|X|}\underset{𝐠G^Y}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐡,𝐠)|𝐠$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }l_2(G^V)`$ is the wave function for the cluster state, associated with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (1). The range of $`𝐯_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is then a candidate for a protected subspace corresponding to a quantum error correcting code. In particular, if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a weighted graph, associated with a quantum error correcting code (See ), then $`𝐯_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is automatically an isometry, i.e. $`𝐯_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}𝐯_\mathrm{\Gamma }=1`$.

Concerning the Heisenberg picture, the isometry $`𝐯_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ implements a ”coding channel” which is the completely positive unital map, assigning to an operator (observable of the output system) $`a`$ on $`l_2(_d^Y)`$ to an observable of the input system:

$$a𝐯_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}a𝐯_\mathrm{\Gamma }.$$
(9)
For later purpose, it is convenient to introduce for a finite set $`V`$ the algebra $`𝔄(V)`$ of all bounded operators on $`l_2(_d^V)`$. For a subset $`KV`$ the algebra $`𝔄(K)`$ can be identified with the subalgebra of $`𝔄(V)`$ which consists of those operators acting nontrivially only on the tensor factors corresponding to the subset $`K`$. Moreover, we denote by $`(V)`$ the abelian algebra of function on $`_d^V`$, which can be identified with the algebra of multiplication operators in $`𝔄(V)`$.

The cluster state wave function occurs explicitly in the formula for the graph code (8). This suggests the following scheme for implementing the code by preparing a cluster state and doing local measurement operations:

1. Prepare the input digits in the state which one wish to protect against errors.
2. Prepare the output digits in the ground state corresponding to the vector $`|\mathrm{𝟎}_Y`$ (See (12) below).
3. Apply to each input digit an inverse Fourier transform. By acting on all quantum digits, apply the cluster state creation operator $`𝐮_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Operate with a Fourier transform on each input (See (11)).
4. Perform a local measurement on each input digit in the computational basis (See (14)).

Concerning the scheme above, the coding procedure depends on the outcome of the measurement of the input digits. Hence, besides the quantum output register we obtain an additional classical output. This can be modeled (in the Heisenberg picture) by the unital completely positive map $`C_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which maps the operator $`af`$ in $`𝔄(Y)(X)`$ to

$`C_\mathrm{\Gamma }(af):=d^{|X|}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐡_d^X}{}}\widehat{𝐮}(𝐡)^{}𝐯_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}a𝐯_\mathrm{\Gamma }\widehat{𝐮}(𝐡)f(𝐡)`$ (10)
where $`𝐡\widehat{𝐮}(𝐡)`$ is the representation of $`_d^X`$ by multiplier operator as given in Appendix B.

The following operations, given in terms of completely positive maps are building blocks for performing $`C_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$:

* An automorphism $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ describes a discrete dynamics of the system consisting of the input and output digits. It acts on the corresponding observable algebra by mapping an operator $`b`$ on $`l_2(_d^V)`$ to

$$\alpha _\mathrm{\Gamma }(b):=F_X𝐮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}F_X^{}bF_X𝐮_\mathrm{\Gamma }F_X^{}.$$
(11)
Here $`𝐮_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the cluster state creation operator (6).
* The ground state preparation of the output digits $`P_Y`$ is a completely positive unital map, sending an operator $`b`$, acting on all quantum digits, to the operator

$$P_Y(b)=𝐰_Y^{}b𝐰_Y$$
(12)
acting on the inputs. We introduce the isometry $`𝐰_K`$ by assigning to $`\mathrm{\Psi }l_2(_d^{VK})`$ the vector

$$𝐰_K\mathrm{\Psi }:=|\mathrm{𝟎}_K\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{𝟎}_K`$ is the zero in $`_d^K`$.
* A measurement of the input digits in the computational basis, corresponds to the unital completely positive map $`M_X`$ mapping the operator $`af`$ in $`𝔄(Y)(X)`$ to

$$M_X(af):=\underset{𝐡_d^X}{}𝐮(𝐡)𝐰_Xa𝐰_X^{}𝐮(𝐡)^{}f(𝐡).$$
(14)

The following statement, which we prove in Appendix B, justifies the suggested coding scheme, described above:

###### Proposition III.1

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a weighted graph, associated with a quantum error correcting code. By adopting the notations, given above, the isometry $`𝐯_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ fulfills the identity

$$𝐯_\mathrm{\Gamma }=d^{\frac{|X|}{2}}𝐰_X^{}F_X𝐮_\mathrm{\Gamma }F_X^{}𝐰_Y.$$
(15)
In particular, the coding operation $`C_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ satisfies

$$C_\mathrm{\Gamma }=P_Y\alpha _\mathrm{\Gamma }M_X.$$
(16)
## IV Logical networks for graph codes I

For getting the logical network, which performs step 3 of the previous section, we have to decompose the operator $`F_X𝐮_\mathrm{\Gamma }F_X^{}`$ into a product of controlled shift gates and local Fourier transforms, which is a straight forward task since we know already how to decompose the cluster state creation operator $`𝐮_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. As a result, we get with help of Proposition II.1:

###### Proposition IV.1

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a weighted graph, associated with a quantum error correcting code, having $`v`$ vertices, $`l`$ edges and no edges between input vertices. Then the operator $`F_X𝐮_\mathrm{\Gamma }F_X^{}`$ is a product of $`v+l`$ elementary gates being either controlled shift gates or local Fourier transforms.

As it is already mentioned in , links between input vertices can always be removed without affecting the error correcting capabilities of the corresponding code. Therefore, the assumptions in Proposition IV.1 (the proof can be found in Appendix C) can be made without loss of generality.

Analogously to the Algorithm II.2, we also obtain an algorithm for decomposing the operator $`F_X𝐮_\mathrm{\Gamma }F_X^{}`$:

###### Algorithm IV.2

Choose an enumeration of the input vertices by $`X=\{0,\mathrm{},k\}`$ and the output vertices $`Y=\{k+1,\mathrm{},v\}`$. Perform step 1 for the input vertices $`j=0`$ and $`i=1`$:

1. Apply the controlled shift gate $`𝐜(j,i)^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j,i)}`$.
2. Repeat step 1 for the vertices $`j`$ and $`i^{}=i+1`$ until $`i^{}=k`$.
3. Apply the Fourier transform $`F_j`$ and proceed with step 1 for the input vertices $`j^{}=j+1`$ and $`i^{}=j+2`$ if $`i^{}k`$. Otherwise, proceed with step 4.
4. Apply the Algorithm II.2, starting with the output vertex $`k+1`$.

The graph in Figure 6 yields an example for a quantum error detecting code, encoding two quantum digits $`\{0,1\}`$, into four $`\{2,\mathrm{},5\}`$ and detecting all errors which affect one quantum digit.

Performing the steps 1-3 of the Algorithm IV.2, for the graph in Figure 6, one obtains the part ”Steps 1-3” of the logical network depicted in Figure 7. The part ”Step 4” is obtained from an application of the Algorithm II.2 by starting with vertex $`\{2\}`$. This is nothing else but the logical network implementation for the cluster state associated with the subgraph which is obtained by removing the input vertices $`\{0,1\}`$.

## V Logical networks for graph codes II

In the previous section, we have given an algorithm which associates a logical network to a weighted graph implementing the corresponding quantum error correcting code. Here the network operates on the input digits as well as on the output digits. After applying the network, a local measurement of the inputs is performed which completes the coding procedure.

In this section, we discuss the construction of local networks for graph codes, which only operate on the output digits an which do not require a measurement procedure after applying the network.

We give here a practicable solution for the case that there is one input vertex. Furthermore we require that there exists an output vertex being connected with the input by an edge with weight $`1`$.

###### Proposition V.1

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a weighted graph with $`l`$ edges, input vertex $`\{0\}`$ and output vertices $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,1)=1`$, then there exists a unitary operator $`𝐳_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, acting on the output digits, such that

$$𝐯_\mathrm{\Gamma }=𝐳_\mathrm{\Gamma }𝐰_{\{2,\mathrm{},n\}}.$$
(17)
Furthermore, $`𝐳_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be decomposed into a product of $`l+n1`$ elementary gate operations which are either controlled shifts or local Fourier transforms.

We prove the proposition in Appendix D. The coding operation is performed by the following two steps:

* Prepare the output digit $`\{1\}`$ in the state one wishes to protect. The remaining output digits are prepared in the state, corresponding to the vector $`|\mathrm{𝟎}_{\{2,\mathrm{},n\}}`$.
* Apply the logical network which implements the unitary operator $`𝐳_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

The Algorithm V.2, given below, associates to each graph, which satisfies the assumptions of Proposition V.1, a decomposition of $`𝐳_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ into elementary gates.

###### Algorithm V.2

Perform step 1 for the output vertex $`i=2`$:

1. Apply the controlled shift gate $`𝐜(1,i)^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,i)}`$.
2. Repeat step 1 for the vertex $`i^{}=i+1`$ until $`i^{}=n`$.
3. Apply the Algorithm II.2, starting with the output vertex $`j=1`$.

We illustrate the statement of Proposition V.1 by considering the quantum error correcting code which corresponds to the graph in Figure 3 with input vertex $`\{0\}`$.

By Proposition III.1, the network in Figure 8 represents the coding operation in the following way: Each output digit $`y=1,\mathrm{},5`$ is prepared in the state $`|0`$, the input digit $`x=0`$ is prepared in the state $`|h`$. After applying the logical network, which implements $`F_0𝐮_\mathrm{\Gamma }F_0^{}`$, a selective measurement is performed on the input by collecting those measurement outcomes for which each input digit is in the state $`|0`$. This selection procedure yields a factor $`d^{1/2}`$ and Figure 8 represents the operator $`d^{1/2}𝐯_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Now we make use of the identity represented in Figure 9. If we replace in Figure 8 the part within the dashed frame by the network on the right hand side of Figure 9, we obtain the network depicted in Figure 10 below. Due to the identity in Figure 9, we gain a factor $`d^{1/2}`$ and Figure 10 represents the full isometry $`𝐯_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ operating on the basis vector $`|h`$, $`h_d`$.

By applying the Algorithm V.2 directly to the graph in Figure 3 (with input vertex $`\{0\}`$) one indeed obtains the network in Figure 10.

## VI Conclusion and outlook

The ability of preparing cluster states yields a resource for performing quantum algorithms , on one hand, and it provides a natural mechanism for protecting quantum information against errors, on the other hand. In the present paper we have developed the following features:

* Logical networks for preparing general cluster states can be derived from their defining graphs in a systematic manner. The number of elementary operations which is used by the network is the number of vertices plus the number of edges of the graph.
* Quantum error correcting codes can be realized by applying preparation procedure for a cluster state to a suitably prepared input state followed by a local measurement operation on the input digits. These coding schemes operates on the input and output digits and they can be expressed in terms of logical networks which uses the same amount of elementary gates as the preparation procedure of the corresponding cluster state.

In order to save resources, one wishes to construct logical networks, implementing quantum error correcting codes, by operating only on a number of digits corresponding to the length of the code (number of outputs). In fact we have given an algorithm which handle the following situation:

* Provided there is one input vertex, a logical network can be associated to a given graph which implements the corresponding graph code. This network operates directly on the output digits and its number of elementary gate operations is the number of outputs plus the number of edges minus one.

Concerning future investigations, it would be desirable to develop similar network representations also for the decoding operations. Here, one possible strategy is to look for a decoding procedure which starts from preparing a cluster state, and then performing local measurements on a suitable set of digits. This problem can be tackled by searching for a graph representation for decoding channels similar to those for the coding operations.

#### Acknowledgment:

I am grateful to R.F.Werner for supporting this investigation with many ideas. I would also like to acknowledge interesting and helpful discussions with M.Grassl, H.Briegel and R.Raussendorf. Funding by the European Union project EQUIP (contract IST-1999-11053) is gratefully acknowledged. This research project is also supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG-Schwerpunkt ”Quanteninformationsverarbeitung”).

## A Proof of Proposition II.1

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a weighted graph with vertices $`V=\{1,\mathrm{},v\}`$. By introducing the operators

$`𝐮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(j)}={\displaystyle \underset{k=j+1}{\overset{v}{}}}𝐮(j,k)^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j,k)}`$ (A1)
the cluster state creation operator (6) can be written as

$$𝐮_\mathrm{\Gamma }=𝐮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(v1)}𝐮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(v2)}\mathrm{}𝐮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}F_{\{1,\mathrm{},v\}}.$$
(A2)
We introduce for each vertex $`j`$ the block of controlled shift operations

$`𝐜_j^\mathrm{\Gamma }:={\displaystyle \underset{i=j+1}{\overset{v}{}}}𝐜(j,i)^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j,i)}.`$ (A3)
Note that $`𝐜(i,j)`$ commutes with $`𝐜(i,k)`$ which implies that the definition of $`𝐜_j^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is independent of the order of factors on the right hand side of (A3).

The local Fourier transform $`F_i`$ commutes with the controlled phase operation $`𝐮(j,k)`$ (as well as the controlled shift $`𝐜(j,k)`$) for $`ij,k`$. Thus we obtain from the definition of the controlled phase gate (5) and from (A1):

$`𝐮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(j)}`$ $`=`$ $`F_v𝐜(j,v)^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j,v)}F_v^{}`$ (A5)
$`\times 𝐮(j,v1)^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j,v1)}\mathrm{}𝐮(j,j+1)^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j,j+1)}`$
$`=`$ $`F_v𝐜(j,v)^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j,v)}F_{v1}𝐜(j,v1)^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j,v1)}F_{v1}^{}`$ (A7)
$`\times 𝐮(j,v2)^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j,v2)}\mathrm{}𝐮(j,j+1)^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j,j+1)}F_v^{}`$
$`=`$ $`F_{v1}F_v𝐜(j,v)^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j,v)}𝐜(j,v1)^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j,v1)}`$ (A9)
$`\times 𝐮(j,v2)^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j,v2)}\mathrm{}𝐮(j,j+1)^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j,j+1)}F_v^{}F_{v1}^{}`$
$`=`$ $`F_{\{j+1,\mathrm{},v\}}𝐜_j^\mathrm{\Gamma }F_{\{j+1,\mathrm{},v\}}^{}`$ (A10)
Inserting the identity (A5) into (A2) yields

$`𝐮_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`F_v𝐜_{v1}^\mathrm{\Gamma }F_{v1}\mathrm{}𝐜_2^\mathrm{\Gamma }F_2𝐜_1^\mathrm{\Gamma }F_{\{2,\mathrm{},v\}}^{}F_{\{1,\mathrm{},v\}}`$ (A11)
$`=`$ $`F_v𝐜_{v1}^\mathrm{\Gamma }F_{v1}\mathrm{}𝐜_2^\mathrm{\Gamma }F_2𝐜_1^\mathrm{\Gamma }F_1.`$ (A12)
Looking at (A3) each block $`𝐜_j^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ contains $`_{k=j+1}^n1^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j,k)}`$ controlled shift operations. Therefore, the total number of controlled shift operations in the last line of (C1) is just the number of edges $`l`$ of the graph. In addition to that, for each vertex there is a elementary Fourier transform and $`𝐮_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can indeed be decomposed into a product of $`v+l`$ elementary gate operations being either local Fourier transforms or controlled shift operations. $`\mathrm{}`$

## B Proof of Proposition III.1

### 1 Shift and multiplier

For a subset $`KV`$, the group $`_d^K`$ can naturally be identified with a subgroup in $`_d^V`$. The group $`_d^K`$ is represented on $`l_2(_d^K)`$ by shift operators according to

$$𝐮(𝐡)|𝐡^{}=|𝐡^{}+𝐡$$
(B1)
with $`𝐡_d^K`$ and $`𝐡^{}_d^V`$.

By using the Fourier transform $`F_K=_{kK}F_k`$ on the digits labeled by $`K`$, one obtains a further representation $`\widehat{𝐮}`$ of $`_d^K`$ by multiplier operators. Namely, the multiplier $`\widehat{𝐮}(𝐡)`$, $`𝐡_d^K`$, is related to the corresponding shift $`𝐮(𝐡)`$ according to

$$\widehat{𝐮}(𝐡)|𝐡^{}=F_K𝐮(𝐡)F_K^{}|𝐡^{}=\chi (𝐡|𝐡^{})|𝐡^{}.$$
(B2)
The multiplication phase is just given by $`\chi (𝐡|𝐡^{})=_{kK}\chi (h_k|h_k^{})`$.

### 2 Proof of the proposition

Let $`|𝐡`$, $`𝐡_d^X`$ be a vector of the computational basis of $`l_2(_d^X)`$. The cluster state creation operator $`𝐮_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the composition of the Fourier transform on $`F_V`$ on the full register of all quantum digits and the unitary multiplication operation $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }|𝐠:=d^{\frac{|V|}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐠)|𝐠$$
(B3)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the cluster state wave function (1) associated with the weighted graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Furthermore, we have $`𝐰[𝐡]=𝐮(𝐡)𝐰_X`$ for each $`𝐡_d^X`$. Thus, the right hand side of (15) can be written as

$$𝐰_X^{}F_X𝐮_\mathrm{\Gamma }F_X^{}𝐰_Y=𝐰_X^{}F_X\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }F_Y𝐰_Y.$$
(B4)
which implies for each $`𝐡_d^X`$.

$`𝐰_X𝐮(𝐡)^{}F_X𝐮_\mathrm{\Gamma }F_X^{}𝐰_Y`$ $`=`$ $`𝐰_X^{}𝐮(𝐡)^{}F_X\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }F_Y𝐰_Y`$ (B5)
$`=`$ $`𝐰_X^{}F_X\widehat{𝐮}(𝐡)^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }F_Y𝐰_Y`$ (B6)
$`=`$ $`𝐰_X^{}F_X\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }\widehat{𝐮}(𝐡)^{}F_Y𝐰_Y`$ (B7)
$`=`$ $`𝐰_X^{}F_X\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }F_Y𝐰_Y\widehat{𝐮}(𝐡)^{}`$ (B8)
where we have used the fact that both $`\widehat{𝐮}(𝐡)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are multiplication operators. Furthermore, $`\widehat{𝐮}(𝐡)`$ acts only on the input digits and therefore it commutes with the operator $`F_Y𝐰_Y`$, which only affects on the output digits.

Now the Fourier transform $`F_Y`$ on the output digits maps the vector $`𝐰_Y|𝐡=|𝐡,\mathrm{𝟎}_Y`$ to

$`F_Y𝐰_Y|𝐡=d^{\frac{1}{2}|Y|}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐠_d^Y}{}}|𝐡,𝐠`$ (B9)
and an application of the operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to (B9) yields the expression

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }F_Y𝐰_Y|𝐡=d^{\frac{|X|}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐠_d^Y}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐡,𝐠)|𝐡,𝐠.`$ (B10)
Acting with the Fourier transform $`F_X`$ on (B10) and applying the co-isometry $`𝐰_X^{}`$ afterwards gives

$`𝐰_X^{}F_X\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }F_Y𝐰_Y|𝐡`$ (B11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{(𝐡^{},𝐠)_d^V}{}}\chi (𝐡|𝐡^{})\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐡,𝐠)𝐰_X^{}|𝐡^{},𝐠`$ (B12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{(𝐡^{},𝐠)_d^V}{}}\chi (𝐡|𝐡^{})\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐡,𝐠)\delta (𝐡^{})|𝐠`$ (B13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐠_d^Y}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐡,𝐠)|𝐠=d^{\frac{|X|}{2}}𝐯_\mathrm{\Gamma }|𝐡.`$ (B14)
Here $`\delta `$ is the indicator function on $`_d^X`$ of the zero element $`\mathrm{𝟎}_X`$. Note that the co-isometry $`𝐰_X^{}`$ maps the vector $`|𝐡,𝐠`$ to $`\delta (𝐡)|𝐠`$ for each $`𝐡_d^X`$ and $`𝐠_d^Y`$.

Finally, the identity (16) follows directly from (15), (B5), (B11), the definition of the discrete dynamics $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (11), the preparation of the outputs $`P_Y`$ (12) and the measurement of the inputs $`M_X`$ (14):

$`P_Y\alpha _\mathrm{\Gamma }M_X(af)`$ (B15)
$`=`$ $`d^{|X|}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐡_d^X}{}}\widehat{𝐮}(𝐡)^{}𝐯_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}a𝐯_\mathrm{\Gamma }\widehat{𝐮}(𝐡)f(𝐡)`$ (B16)
$`=`$ $`C_\mathrm{\Gamma }(af)`$ (B17)
$`\mathrm{}`$

## C Proof of Proposition IV.1

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a weighted graph with input vertices $`X=\{1,\mathrm{},k\}`$ and output vertices $`\{k+1,\mathrm{},v\}`$. By (C1), the cluster state creation operator $`𝐮_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be written as

$`𝐮_\mathrm{\Gamma }=F_v𝐜_{v1}^\mathrm{\Gamma }F_{v1}\mathrm{}𝐜_2^\mathrm{\Gamma }F_2𝐜_1^\mathrm{\Gamma }F_1`$ (C1)
where the blocks of controlled shift operations $`𝐜_j^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are given by (A3). Since we assume that there are no edges between input vertices, for each input vertex $`xX`$, the operator $`𝐜_x^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is of the form

$$𝐜_x^\mathrm{\Gamma }=\underset{yY}{}𝐜(x,y)^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,y)}.$$
(C2)
As a consequence $`𝐜_x^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ commutes with all local Fourier transforms $`F_x^{}`$ on those inputs $`x^{}X`$ for which $`x^{}x`$. Furthermore, the Fourier transform on the inputs $`F_X`$ commutes with

$`F_v𝐜_{v1}^\mathrm{\Gamma }F_{v1}\mathrm{}𝐜_{k+2}^\mathrm{\Gamma }F_{k+2}𝐜_{k+1}^\mathrm{\Gamma }F_{k+1}.`$ (C3)
Hence we obtain

$`F_X𝐮_\mathrm{\Gamma }F_X^{}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\{1,\mathrm{},k\}}F_v𝐜_{v1}^\mathrm{\Gamma }F_{v1}\mathrm{}𝐜_2^\mathrm{\Gamma }F_2𝐜_1^\mathrm{\Gamma }F_1F_{\{1,\mathrm{},k\}}^{}`$ (C4)
$`=`$ $`F_v𝐜_{v1}^\mathrm{\Gamma }F_{v1}\mathrm{}𝐜_{k+2}^\mathrm{\Gamma }F_{k+2}𝐜_{k+1}^\mathrm{\Gamma }F_{k+1}`$ (C6)
$`\times F_{\{1,\mathrm{},k\}}𝐜_k^\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}𝐜_2^\mathrm{\Gamma }𝐜_1^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$
$`=`$ $`F_v𝐜_{v1}^\mathrm{\Gamma }F_{v1}\mathrm{}𝐜_{k+2}^\mathrm{\Gamma }F_{k+2}𝐜_{k+1}^\mathrm{\Gamma }F_{k+1}`$ (C8)
$`\times F_k𝐜_k^\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}F_2𝐜_2^\mathrm{\Gamma }F_1𝐜_1^\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$
Now we see from (C4) that the operator $`F_X𝐮_\mathrm{\Gamma }F_X^{}`$ is a product of $`v+l`$ elementary gates, namely a local Fourier transform for each vertex, and a controlled shift gate for each edge. $`\mathrm{}`$

## D Proof of Proposition V.1

Given a weighted graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with input vertex by $`\{0\}`$ and output vertices $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. According to Proposition III.1, the isometry $`𝐯_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acts on a basis vector $`|h`$, $`h_d`$, according to

$$𝐯_\mathrm{\Gamma }|h=d^{\frac{1}{2}}𝐰_0^{}F_0^{}𝐮_\mathrm{\Gamma }F_0|h,\mathrm{𝟎}_{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}.$$
(D1)
Making use of the identity (A11) we find

$`𝐯_\mathrm{\Gamma }|h=d^{\frac{1}{2}}F_n𝐜_{n1}^\mathrm{\Gamma }F_{n1}\mathrm{}𝐜_1^\mathrm{\Gamma }F_1𝐰_0^{}F_0𝐜_0^\mathrm{\Gamma }|h,\mathrm{𝟎}_{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}.`$ (D2)
Here we have used the fact that for any operator $`a`$, acting on the outputs $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, we have $`𝐰_0^{}(\mathrm{𝟏}a)=a𝐰_0^{}`$. Now we compute

$`d^{\frac{1}{2}}𝐰_0^{}F_0𝐜_0^\mathrm{\Gamma }|h,\mathrm{𝟎}_{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}`$ (D3)
$`=`$ $`𝐰_0^{}F_0{\displaystyle \underset{y=k+1}{\overset{k+n}{}}}𝐜(0,y)^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,y)}|h,\mathrm{𝟎}_{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}`$ (D4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{g_d}{}}\chi (h|g)\delta (g)|\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,1)h,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,n)h`$ (D5)
$`=`$ $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,1)h,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,n)h`$ (D6)
which implies by assuming $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,1)=1`$:

$`d^{\frac{1}{2}}𝐰_0^{}F_0𝐜_0^\mathrm{\Gamma }|h,\mathrm{𝟎}_{\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}`$ (D7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{y=2}{\overset{n}{}}}𝐜(1,y)^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,y)}|h,\mathrm{𝟎}_{\{2,\mathrm{},n\}}`$ (D8)
$`=`$ $`𝐛_0^\mathrm{\Gamma }𝐰_{\{2,\mathrm{},n\}}|h.`$ (D9)
Here we have introduced the operator

$$𝐛_0^\mathrm{\Gamma }:=\underset{y=2}{\overset{n}{}}𝐜(1,y)^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,y)}.$$
(D10)
As a consequence, the operator

$$𝐳_\mathrm{\Gamma }:=F_n𝐜_{n1}^\mathrm{\Gamma }F_{n1}\mathrm{}𝐜_1^\mathrm{\Gamma }F_1𝐛_0^\mathrm{\Gamma }$$
(D11)
fulfills (17). In particular, $`𝐳_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a product of $`l+n1`$ elementary gates. $`\mathrm{}`$


text:
# Antiferromagnetism in the Vortex Cores of YBa2Cu3O7-δ

## Abstract

We report spatially resolved nuclear magnetic resonance measurements on a high temperature superconductor that indicate the presence of correlated antiferromagnetic fluctuations in the vortex core. The nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rate, $`1/^{17}T_1`$, of planar $`{}_{}{}^{17}O`$, in near-optimally doped YB2Cu3O7-δ (YBCO), was measured. Outside of the core, $`(^{17}T_1T)^1`$ is independent of temperature consistent with theoretical predictions for a d-wave superconductor. In the vortex core $`(^{17}T_1T)^1`$ increases with decreasing temperature following an antiferromagnetic Curie-Weiss law.

High temperature superconductors are commonly viewed as doped Mott insulators for which the parent compound is antiferromagnetic. For these materials competition between magnetism and superconductivity is unambiguously evident in the phase diagram. Varying the composition by increasing the oxygen content increases the electronic carrier density, suppressing the Néel phase and producing superconductivity. Even for those compositions that exhibit superconductivity, the presence of antiferromagnetic (AF) fluctuations is apparent in the normal state from inelastic neutron scattering, and copper NMR relaxation. Experiments have shown that antiferromagnetic fluctuations coexist with superconductivity even in optimally doped materials (highest $`T_c`$). There have been predictions that magnetism can appear, possibly in a novel, spatially-inhomogeneous form, coexisting with vortices. Using spatially-resolved, high-field, NMR experiments we have found evidence for antiferromagnetism in the vortex cores of YBCO, lending support for these ideas.

In the mixed state, magnetic flux penetrates the sample in the form of quantized vortices, each with a core of radius the size of the superconducting coherence length, $`\xi _o=16`$ Å. According to theoretical models antiferromagnetism can appear in the vortex core, a region where superconductivity is suppressed. Zhang  has developed a theory that integrates antiferromagnetism and d-wave superconductivity based on SO(5) symmetry, predicting that the superconducting vortex can have an antiferromagnetic core. Arovas et al.  extended this work to consider the possible coexistence of superconducting vortices with antiferromagnetism as a function of doping. Demler et al.  have looked in the far field region of the vortex finding that superconducting and coupled superconducting-spin density wave (SDW) phases can appear in the presence of vortices and that there are oscillations in charge density in good agreement with STM experiment. Charge and spin density wave structures near, and inside the vortex have been explored theoretically by Zhu et al.. They also find results consistent with experiment. It has been shown by Herbut that the d-wave superconductor is unstable to the formation of SDW owing to phase disordering in the core of a vortex. These theories have a common feature; antiferromagnetism can be associated with vortex cores.

Using elastic neutron scattering Vaknin et al.  found evidence of static AF order in the mixed state of YBCO. They estimated that the upper limit of the average magnetic moment is $`\mu 0.004\mu _B`$ per flux line in a layer. Katano et al.  found enhanced static AF correlations in the vortex state of La2-xSrxCuO4 (x = 0.12). Neutron inelastic scattering experiments by Lake et al.  on the optimally doped La2-xSrxCuO4 (x = 0.163) show that the imaginary part of the magnetic susceptibility, $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }`$, at low energy below the spin-gap and at an incommensurate AF wave vector, is strongly enhanced in a magnetic field, $`H_0=7.5`$ T at temperatures below $`T=10`$ K. They interpreted their results as evidence that the vortex cores are nearly ordered antiferromagnets which polarize the intervening medium. These measurements are close to NMR relaxation experiments since both are sensitive to the same component of the susceptibility. However they do not have spatial resolution. This is possible with scanning tunneling microscopy where Hoffman et al. have found checkerboard extended states that they associate with vortices although the method is not specifically sensitive to magnetism. All of these experiments consistently indicate unusual structure near the vortex core.

Following theoretical suggestions, NMR measurements by Curro et al., Mitrović et al. and Kakuyanagi et al. as well as $`\mu `$SR lineshape measurements of Miller et al. show that it is possible to spatially resolve different regions of the vortex lattice by analyzing the internal field distribution of the corresponding resonance spectrum. However, resolution of the vortex core region is best achieved at relatively high applied fields since the fraction of the spectrum inside the core grows with increasing field. For a square vortex lattice this fraction is $`H_0\pi \xi _0^2/\varphi _0`$, where $`\varphi _0`$ is the flux quantum. In a field of 42 T vortices are $`86`$ Å apart and vortex cores occupy $`17\%`$ of the total sample.

In the present work we report on the temperature dependence of spatially-resolved measurements of the nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rate, $`1/T_1`$, in the mixed state. This relaxation requires an electronic spin flip and consequently is particularly sensitive to magnetic fluctuations. Previously we demonstrated that we could resolve the NMR rate in the vortex core at high magnetic field, above 13 T. Applying this method we have now measured the temperature dependence of $`(^{17}T_1T)^1`$ and extended our range of field. We find that $`(^{17}T_1T)^1`$ is independent of temperature outside the vortex cores, while in the vortex core region $`(^{17}T_1T)^1`$ is enhanced, increasing with decreasing temperature following a Curie-Weiss (CW) law, reminiscent of the normal state behavior of the copper resonance, $`(^{63}T_1T)^1`$. We associate this enhanced temperature dependence of $`(^{17}T_1T)^1`$ in the vortex core region with correlated antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations such as are observed in the normal state.

Our sample is a near-optimally doped, $`60\%`$ 17O-enriched, YBa2Cu3O7-δ powder sample, aligned with the crystal $`\widehat{c}`$-axis parallel to the applied magnetic field. Low-field magnetization data show a sharp transition at $`T_c(0)=92.5\text{K}`$. Our measurements were made at temperatures from 3 to 25 K and magnetic fields from 6 to 42 T. We have independently determined from spin-spin and spin-lattice relaxation that the transition region in high fields near 30 T occurs at 80 K in our samples. The (-1/2 to -3/2) 17O(2,3) quadrupolar-split NMR satellite was used exclusively since it exhibits a sharp high-field edge in the normal state that broadens owing to the distribution of local fields from vortices. The internal field variable in Fig. 1, is defined by $`H_{int}=\omega \mathrm{/}{}_{}{}^{17}\gamma H_\mathit{0}`$ where $`{}_{}{}^{17}\gamma `$ is the gyromagnetic ratio for oxygen and the spectrometer frequency, $`\omega `$, is set to resonance at the peak of the spectrum, $`H_{int}=0`$. This position corresponds to oxygen nuclei at the saddle-point of the field distribution, a spatial location half-way between neighboring vortices. Increasing $`H_{int}`$ corresponds to spatial positions that approach the vortex core. We obtained precise spectra using a field sweep technique and we measured the relaxation rate using progressive saturation. There is some overlap between the quadrupolar-split transitions. Their effect on the spectrum and on relaxation can be subtracted. In Fig. 2 we report relaxation data for $`H_{int}0.032`$ T where the small correction for the (-3/2 to -5/2) transition is less than 5%. However, the subtracted spectrum in the region near $`H_{int}=0.04`$ T in Fig. 1., should be considered to be qualitative. In the present work the main purpose of high applied field is to increase sensitivity to vortex cores since the corresponding portion of the NMR spectrum grows proportionately. This is shown for 42 T as the shaded region of the spectrum in Fig. 1.

The spin-lattice relaxation rate at 42 T, shown in Fig. 1, increases as a function of the internal field, *i.e.* on approaching the vortex cores. This is attributable to a Doppler shift of the quasiparticle excitation energies, a consequence of the supercurrent momentum that increases toward the vortex core. Here we will concentrate our discussion on the temperature dependence of the rate. Outside of the core region we observed that ($`T_1T)^1`$ is independent of temperature and at higher internal fields, in the vortex core, we observe a very different behavior.

In order to contrast the temperature dependence inside and outside the vortex cores in Fig. 1, we show ($`T_1T)^1`$ in Fig. 2 for just these two regions of the spectrum in four magnetic fields, 6, 13, 37, and 42 T. The rates outside the cores were determined by evaluating an average in a narrow region of $`\pm 0.002`$ T around $`H_{int}`$$`=0`$. Inside the cores our data are averaged over an interval of $`H_{int}`$ from the point where ($`T_1T)^1`$ is greatest to a point that is $`0.01`$ T less than the peak position which occurs for $`H_{int}0.032`$. The clear distinction between the temperature dependences of the rate inside and outside the vortex cores holds for $`H_0`$ $``$ 13 T. If the applied field is too low then the sensitivity of our NMR to the vortex core region is decreased and the enhancement in the temperature dependence of ($`T_1T)^1`$ is not discernible, or possibly does not exist, as might be the case for the 6 T data in Fig. 2.

We first discuss ($`T_1T)^1`$ outside the vortex core region and give a very simple interpretation of our observations. The rate can be viewed as an average of the product over all possible initial and final quasiparticle density of states. At low temperature the quasiparticle excitations outside of the vortex cores come exclusively from the four nodal regions. Since the density of states depends linearly on energy near the nodes of a d-wave superconductor, the rate can be expressed as the product of the initial and final quasiparticle excitation energies. The excitation energies are determined by temperature and, in a magnetic field, by two other variables: applied field through the Zeeman effect, and superflow momentum, $`𝐩_s`$ through the Doppler shift. The latter are temperature independent and so, at sufficiently low temperatures, $`T<20`$ K the product of initial and final excitation energies is non-zero at the Fermi energy and temperature independent. It follows that ($`T_1T)^1`$ is temperature independent  as we observe. Furthermore, the increase of the rate with applied field shown in Fig. 2, noted previously by Mitrović et al., is a consequence of node-to-node quasiparticle scattering indicating the presence of AF fluctuations.

Inside the core region the temperature dependence of $`(T_1T)^1`$ in Fig. 2 is quite different from outside the cores. Here we find that ($`T_1T)^1`$ increases with decreasing temperature. This temperature dependence resembles that of the relaxation at the planar copper site in the normal state, which is dominated by correlated AF fluctuations , and for which the AF correlation length increases with decreasing temperature. Thus, we suggest that the temperature dependence of $`(^{17}T_1T)^1`$ in the vortex core is also dominated by correlated AF fluctuations in a similar way. Furthermore, Moriya and Ueda’s theory  shows that the temperature dependence of the imaginary part of the dynamic spin susceptibility, and thus ($`T_1T)^1`$, for 2D antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations of an itinerant electronic system follows a Curie-Weiss law. This behavior is central to the phenomenological model of Millis et al. that successfully describes the normal state where the key parameter is the AF correlation length. Consequently, we proceed with the following analysis of the temperature dependence of ($`T_1T)^1`$.

In the vortex core we find that ($`T_1T)^1`$ consists of two parts, a temperature independent contribution, $`R_0`$, and a temperature dependent part, with the form of a Curie-Weiss law, $`\chi _{core}`$, giving ($`T_1T)^1`$ $`=R_0+\chi _{core}=R_0+C/(T\theta _{CW})`$. In Fig. 3. we plot the inverse of $`\chi _{core}`$ as a function of temperature where the lines in the figure are linear fits. The inverse of the slope of these lines and their zero temperature intercept have a phenomenological interpretation as a Curie constant, $`C`$, and Curie-Weiss temperature, $`\theta _{CW}`$. Within the accuracy of these fits the Curie-Weiss temperature is negative lying in the range -1 to -4 K for magnetic fields from 13 to 42 T and the Curie constant is field independent; consequently, magnetic fields above 13 T do not affect the low energy AF fluctuations. The dependence of antiferromagnetic fluctuations on doping of a 2D antiferromagnetic has been shown theoretically to have a quantum critical point that is observed in normal state measurements $`(^{63}T_1)^1`$ in LSCO. Similarily, the enhanced temperature dependence of $`(^{17}T_1T)^1`$, moving toward the vortex core, can be interpreted as an approach to a quantum critical point where the amplitude of the superconducting order parameter plays the role of doping. It follows from the theory that a negative $`\theta _{CW}`$ indicates a spin-gap in the vortex core, while a positive value of $`\theta _{CW}`$ would have suggested AF ordering with gapless spin-wave excitations.

In contrast to $`\chi _{core}`$ the term $`R_0`$ depends on the applied magnetic field. A natural extension of the latter term to the region outside the cores suggests that it describes relaxation that depends on thermal quasiparticles through the Zeeman and Doppler effects which are field dependent, but not temperature dependent. We note that at our highest field, 42 T, it appears that $`R_0`$ decreases, possibly from additional suppression of the superconducting order parameter at high field, reducing the Doppler term.

It might seem surprising that $`{}_{}{}^{17}T_{1}^{}`$ is sensitive to antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations at low temperatures in the superconducting state since in the normal state a geometric form factor screens the oxygen nucleus from these fluctuations. There are two reasons for this. At low temperatures the superconducting energy gap constrains possible scattering processes to the nodal regions. This severely limits the available phase space and then screening of oxygen by form factors is much less effective. Secondly, incommensurability of the susceptibility in the superconducting state increases oxygen sensitivity to antiferromagnetic fluctuations.

Our measurements show that the oxygen NMR relaxation rate, in the form $`(^{17}T_1T)^1`$, is enhanced in the vortex core. This indicates the existence in the core of correlated antiferromagnetic fluctuations near a quantum critical point with a small spin-gap. Outside the core the relaxation rate is proportional to the temperature at low temperatures, and can be attributed to the nodal quasiparticles of a d-wave superconductor.

We thank M. Eschrig, A. Chubukov, S. Sachdev and S. C. Zhang for useful discussions. The work was supported in part by the National High Magnetic Field Labratory and the National Science Foundation DMR95-27035 and the State of Florida.