text:
# 1 Two chiral states in the ground-state spin configurations of antiferromagnetically coupled three XY spins on a triangle. These two chiral states are characterized by the mutually opposite signs of the vector chirality.

Classical and Quantum Chiral Order

in Frustrated XY Magnets

Hikaru Kawamura

Department of Earth and Space Science, Faculty of Science,

Osaka University, Toyonaka 560-0043, Japan

## Abstract

Recent studies on the chiral order of regularly frustrated XY magnets are reviewed both in classical and quantum cases. In the classical case, chiral transition is a thermal one, while in the quantum case, it is a quantum phase transition. Importance of spatial dimensionality on the chiral order is clarified. Particular attention is paid to the possible “spin-chirality decoupling” phenomenon, and to the possible pure chiral phase of either thermal or quantum origin where the chirality exhibits a long-range order without the standard spin order.

1. Introduction

Magnetic ordering of geometrically frustrated antiferromagnets has attracted continual interest of researchers in magnetism and statistical physics. In geometrically frustrated antiferromagnets, spins usually sit on lattices made up of triangles as elementary units, and interact antiferromagnetically with their neighboring spins. Intrinsic inability to simultaneously satisfy all antiferromagnetic nearest-neighbor interactions on a triangle necessarily leads to macroscopic frustration. This makes the spin ordering on these lattices a highly nontrivial issue. Recent studies have revealed that frustration often gives rise to new interesting phenomena in the magnetic ordering, e.g., phase transitions of novel universality classes, exotic ordered phases with novel order parameter, and the spin-liquid phase stabilized down to extremely low temperatures, etc. In this short review, I wish to deal with both the classical and quantum “chiral” phase transitions realized in certain frustrated XY-like antiferromagnets.

One interesting consequence of spin frustration in vector spin systems is the possible appearance of “chiral” degrees of freedom . “Chirality” is a multispin quantity representing the sense or the handedness of the noncollinear spin structures induced by spin frustration. Two different types of chiralities have often been discussed in the literature: One is a vector chirality and the other a scalar chirality.

Chiral states representing the right- and left-handed configurations are illustrated in Fig.1 for an example of three antiferromagnetically coupled XY spins located at each corner of a triangle. The ground-state spin configuration is a well-known $`120^{}`$ spin structure, in which each XY spin on a plane makes an angle equal to $`\pm 120^{}`$ with the neighboring spins. Here, one may define the chirality of the first type, the vector chirality, via a vector product of the two neighboring spins, averaged over three spin pairs, by

$$\kappa =\frac{2}{3\sqrt{3}}\underset{<ij>}{}\left[\stackrel{}{S}_i\times \stackrel{}{S}_j\right]_z,$$
(1)
where the summation is taken over three pairs of sites along the sides of the triangle in a clockwise direction. Evidently, the sign of $`\kappa `$ represents each of the two chiral states, i.e., either a right-handed (clockwise) state for $`\kappa >0`$ or a left-handed (counterclockwise) state for $`\kappa <0`$. In the case of XY spins, the vector chirality $`\kappa `$ is actually a pseudoscalar from a symmetry viewpoint: It remains invariant under global $`SO(2)=U(1)`$ proper spin rotations while it changes sign under global $`Z_2`$ spin reflections. Hence, in order to transform one chiral state to the other, one needs to make a mirroring operation, i.e., a global spin reflection. The chiral order is then closely related to the spontaneous breaking of a discrete $`Z_2`$ spin-reflection symmetry.

In the case of three-component Heisenberg spins, the second type of chirality, the scalar chirality, has been discussed. It is defined for three neighboring Heisenberg spins by $`\chi =\stackrel{}{S}_1\stackrel{}{S}_2\times \stackrel{}{S}_3`$. This scalar chirality takes a nonzero value for noncoplanar spin states, its sign representing whether the noncoplanar structure is either right- or left-handed. Note that, in contrast to the vector chirality, the scalar chirality vanishes for any coplanar spin structure even when it is noncollinear. This scalar chirality is invoked in recent studies of magnetic properties of geometrically frustrated antiferromagnets  and spin glasses, but also of transposrt properties in manganites or pyrochlore magnets.

Our main concern in this article is the ordering of geometrically frustrated XY antiferromagnets. Hence, we consider in the following possible chiral order associated with the vector chirality. We also focus in this article on the chiral order in regularly frustrated systems without any quenched randomness. Historically, possible chiral order of frustrated XY antiferromagnets have been studied mainly for classical systems as a thermal ordering phenomenon. Thus, we first review in §2 the approaches performed for the antiferromagnetic XY models on various triangle-based lattices in one, two and three spatial dimensions, i.e., the one-dimensional (1D) triangular-ladder lattice, the two-dimensional (2D) triangular lattice and the three-dimensional (3D) stacked-triangular lattice. All these lattices consist of triangles as elementary units, and the antiferromagnetic XY models defined on these lattices possess nontrivial chiral degrees of freedom as illustrated in Fig.1. As is well-known in theory of critical phenomena, the spatial dimensionality is crucially important in determining the nature of phase transition. Indeed, it has turned out that chiral order largely changes its nature depending on the spatial dimensionality of the lattice.

In the last decade, quantum phase transitions and quantum critical phenomena have attracted a lot of attention in various branches of condensed-matter and statistical physics. Under such circumstances, it would be quite natural to ask what is the nature of the quantum chiral order, possibly realized in the ground state of purely quantum systems. In other words, it is possible to realize chiral order via a pure quantum phase transition with varying some parameters of the Hamiltonian at zero temperature? If yes, what is its nature in comparison with the thermal chiral order? Indeed, such studies of quantum chiral order was made extensively in these last few years. As an example of such recent studies, we wish to review in §3 theoretical studies on the chiral order of frustrated quantum spin chains. Finally in §4, we give brief summary and discussion, and conclude the review.

2. Chiral order in classical XY systems

In this section, we consider the thermal chiral order in purely classical systems. In order to clarify the important role of spatial dimensionality, we deal with the 1D, 2D and 3D triangular-lattice XY models in the following subsections §2.1-3, respectively.

2.1 One-dimensional triangular-ladder lattice

Let us begin with the 1D example. The model we consider is the classical two-component XY (plane rotator) model on the triangular ladder, a linear array of alternating upward and downward triangles. Each site has four nearest neighbors. The Hamiltonian is given by

$$=J\underset{<ij>}{}\stackrel{}{S}_i\stackrel{}{S}_j,$$
(2)
where the interaction is assumed to be antiferromagnetic ($`J>0`$) and work only between nearest-neighboring spins, while $`\stackrel{}{S}_i=(S_i^x,S_i^y)`$ is a two-component unit vector located at the $`i`$-th site on the triangular ladder. One may define the chirality at each upward triangle on the ladder by Eq.(1).

This 1D model can be solved exactly at arbitrary temperature by the standard technique, and the solution was reported by Horiguchi and Morita. The ground state of this model is the $`120^{}`$ spin structure with either right-handed ($`\kappa =1`$) or left-handed ($`\kappa =1`$) chirality. Hence, at $`T=0`$, the model exhibits a full long-range order (LRO) both in the spin and in the chiral sectors. Meawhile, since the model is a 1D one with short-range interaction, both the spin-spin and the chirality-chirality correlation functions remain short-ranged at any finite temperature without a finite-temperature transition of any type. Hence, the present model exhibits a zero-temperature phase transition both in the spin and in the chiral sectors.

The nontrivial issue is the manner how the spin and the chirality order at $`T=0`$. Horiguchi and Morita observed by exact calculations that the spin-correlation length defined via the spin-spin correlation function $`C_s(x)=<\stackrel{}{S}_0\stackrel{}{S}_x>A\mathrm{exp}(x/\xi _s)`$ ($`A`$ being some constant) diverges with decreasing temperature as a power law, characterized by the associated spin-correlation-length exponent equal to unity, $`\nu _s=1`$,

$$\xi _sT^1.$$
(3)
This divergence is common with the one observed in the unfrustrated 1D XY model. Meanwhile, the chiral-correlation length defined via the chirality-chirality correlation function $`C_\kappa (x)=<\kappa _0\kappa _x>A^{}\mathrm{exp}(x/\xi _\kappa )`$ ($`A^{}`$ being some constant) was found to diverge exponentially with temperature as

$$\xi _\kappa \mathrm{exp}(J/T),$$
(4)
which means the chiral-correlation-length exponent equal to infinity, $`\nu _\kappa =\mathrm{}`$. Such an exponential divergence happens to be common with the one observed in the standard 1D Ising model. A remarkable observation here is, though not necessarily be emphasized in Ref., that the manners how the spin and the chirality correlations grow toward the $`T=0`$ transition are mutually different, each characterized by mutually distinct correlation-length exponents, $`\nu _s=1`$ vs. $`\nu _\kappa =\mathrm{}`$. This means that there exist two distinct diverging length scales in this $`T=0`$ transition, one associated with the XY spin and the other associated with the chirality. The situation in in sharp contrast to that of the standard continuous (second-order) phase transitions characterized by only one diverging length scale (one-length-scaling hypothesis). Although the chirality is written as a product of two XY spins on short length scales of order lattice spacing, the chirality eventually outgrows the spin on long length scale, at least in an immediate vicinity of the $`T=0`$ transition point, since $`\nu _\kappa >\nu _s`$ means $`\xi _\kappa >>\xi _s`$. We note that such an unusual situation, i.e., the spin and the chirality exhibiting qualitatively different transition behaviors on long length scales, entails the “spin-chirality decoupling” or the “spin-chirality separation” on long length scale. Although both the spin and the chirality order simulataneously at $`T=0`$ reflecting the 1D character of the model, the occurrence of the spin-chirality decoupling leads to an apparent violation of the one-length-scaling hypothesis, which, in turn, enables the spin and the chirality to exhibit mutually different transition behaviors.

In 2D, both the standard (unfrustrated) XY model and the standard Ising model are known to exhibit a finite-temperature transition. It would then be interesting to see whether the spin-chirality decoupling occurs in the frustrated XY model in 2D, and if it occurs, how the both order with decreasing temperature. Indeed, this problem has been studied quite extensively in the past fifteen years, which we will now review in the next subsection.

2.2 Two-dimensional triangular lattice

Typical example of the 2D frustrated XY model is the antiferromagnetic XY model on the triangular lattice . We note that essentially similar physics is also expected to occur in some other models such as the fully-frustrated XY model on the square lattice , or its dual counterpart (the Coulomb gas), etc. While we present our discussion here in terms of the triangular-lattice XY antiferromagnet, the reader will find in cited references essentially similar results and controversy for these other models as well. The field-theoretical RG analysis was also applied to this 2D problem.

The spin and chirality ordering in the antiferromagnetic triangular-lattice XY model was first studied by means of Monte Carlo (MC) simulations by Miyashita and Shiba, and by Lee, Joannopoulos and Landau. Miyashita and Shiba suggested that the spin and the chirality ordered at two close but separate finite temperatures. With decreasing temperature, the chirality ordered first at $`T=T_\kappa `$ characterized by the onset of the chiral LRO keeping the spin paramagnetic, and then at a slightly lower temperature $`T=T_s<T_\kappa `$, the spin exhibited a Kosterlitz-Thouless(KT) transition below which the quasi-LRO of XY spins developed and coexisted with the chiral LRO already established at a higher temperature $`T=T_\kappa `$. According to their scenario, the model exhibits a pure chiral phase at an intermediate temperature range $`T_s<T<T_\kappa `$ where the chirality exhibits a true LRO not accompanying the standard spin order. Obviously, such an ordering behavior requires the spin-chirality decoupling because the spin and the chirality order at different temperatures. According to Miyashita and Shiba, the criticality at the upper chiral transition at $`T=T_\kappa `$ was that of the standard 2D Ising model, with the associated chiral exponents $`\alpha =0`$(log), $`\beta _\kappa =1/8`$, etc. Likewise, the criticality at the lower spin transition at $`T=T_s`$ was found to be of the standard KT universality, with the estimated spin-anomalous-dimension exponent $`\eta =0.25`$ in agreement with the standard KT value.

In contrast, Lee et al suggested a somewhat different scenario for the same model. According to these authors, the spin and the chirality ordered at a common finite temperature $`T=T_c(=T_s=T_\kappa `$) where both the chiral LRO and the spin qiasi-LRO set in simultaneously. Yet, Lee et al suggested qualitatively different divergent behaviors to occur at $`T=T_c`$ for the spin-correlation length and for the chiral-correlation-length, the former exhibiting a power-law divergence with an exponent $`\nu _\kappa 1`$ and the latter exhibiting the KT-like exponential divergence. This means that, in spite of the simultaneous occurrence of the spin and the chirality transitions, the model still exhibits the spin-chirality decoupling in the sense that there exist two distinct deverging length scales at the transition.

Numerous numerical works have been performed since then on the same and related models with the aim at clarifying the nature of the transition. While the controversy have continued, and this controversy has not yet been settled completely, recent numerical works tend to converge in that the spin and the chirality order at two close but separate temperatures, the chiral ordering preceding the spin ordering, $`T_\kappa >T_s`$ . The estimated $`T_\kappa `$ and $`T_s`$ are mutually close, the difference being only of order $`(T_\kappa T_s)/T_\kappa =0.3\%3\%`$, depending on the particular model and the authors. As such, it appears that frustrated 2D XY models generically possess a pure chiral phase in a narrow but finite temperature range. (It might also be worth mentioning that there exists a certain 2D model, a coupled Ising-XY-Heisenberg model invented to mimic the superfluidity transition of helium-three film, where the $`Z_2`$ and $`U(1)`$ orderings were observed to occur at widely separate temperatures, more than 8% apart .)

The issue of criticality of the spin and of the chirality, by contrast, remains more ambiguous. Some authors claim that the criticalities of the chirality and of the spin are of the standard Ising and KT ones, respectively, while others claim that they are distinct from the standard Ising and KT ones even when both order at two distinct temperatures.

2.3 Three-dimensional stacked-triangular lattice

In this subsection, we wish to briefly touch upon the spin and the chirality orderings of the 3D triangular-lattice XY antiferromagnet. There are several ways to construct a 3D lattice by stacking the 2D triangular layers. We consider here the simplest construction which preserves the chiral $`Z_2\times U(1)`$ symmetry, i.e., the 3D stacked-triangular lattice (or a simple-hexagonal lattice) in which the 2D triangular layers are stacked in register on top of each other. Since there is no frustration along the orthogonal direction in this type of stacked-triangular lattice irrespective of the sign of the interplane interaction, the ordered-state spin configuration is a three-sublattice $`120^{}`$ spin structure in each triangular layer.

In 3D, we have several experimental realizations of the model at issue. Indeed, various stacked-triangular antiferromagnets with nontrivial chiral degree of freedom have been known: Examples are ABX3-type compounds CsMnBr3 and CsVBr3. Even Ising-like ABX3-type compounds with an easy-axis-type anisotropy, such as CsNiCl3, CsNiBr3 and CsMnI3, exhibit the chiral critical behavior under external fields higher than a certain critical field. Extensive experimental measurements have been performed on these chiral XY-like antiferromagnets which have been summarized in several review articles. Recent experimental progress has made it possible even to directly observe the chirality by using the polarized neutron-scattering technique.

In sharp contrast to the 1D and 2D cases, there are good numerical and experimental evidence in 3D that the spin and the chirality ordered simultaneously in 3D via a single phase transition accompanied with the onset of the noncollinear spin LRO (120 structure). In particular, Plakhty observed by means of polarized neutron-scattering measurements on the triangular-lattice XY antiferromagnet CsMnBr3 that the spin and the chirality indeed ordered simultaneously. The next question would then be whether the simultaneous spin and chirality transition accompanies the spin-chirality decoupling or not, namely, whether $`\nu _\kappa =\nu _s`$ or $`\nu _\kappa \nu _s`$ at the transition. In fact, the values of $`\nu _s`$ and $`\nu _\kappa `$, estimated either numericallyor experimentally, turned out to be close to each other, suggesting that the equality $`\nu _\kappa =\nu _s`$ is likely to hold. Hence, in the case of the 3D stacked-triangular XY angiferromagnet, there occurs a single phase transition with a common spin- and chirality-correlation-length exponent $`\nu =\nu _\kappa =\nu _s`$ without the spin-chirality decoupling. The situation here is in sharp contrast to the 1D and 2D cases where the spin-chirality decoupling takes place. Such a difference may be understandable if one notes the following: Since the spin-chirality decoupling does not arise in the mean-field limit corresponding to an infinite dimension, higher dimensionality generally tends to suppress the spin-chirality decoupling and to recover the conventional transition behavior with a common diverging length scale occurring in both the spin and in the chiral sectors. This suggests that strong fluctuations borne by the combined effects of low dimensionality and frustration should be crucial in realizing the spin-chirality decoupling.

Even if the 3D chiral transition is conventional in the above sense, we note that the associated criticality may well be non-standard. Rather, the chiral $`Z_2\times U(1)`$ symmetry simultaneously broken at the transion might give rise to the non-standard criticality, possibly described by a new type of fixed point (chiral fixed point). Indeed, this was the proposal made some time ago by the present author: On the basis of a symmetry argument , Monte Carlo simulations  and renormalization-group (RG) calculations, possible occurrence of such new chiral universality class was suggested for the 3D chiral XY system. While various experiments performed on the 3D stacked-triangular XY antiferromagnet without lattice distortion (e.g., CsMnBr3) generally support this conjecture, several theoretical works claimed that the transition should in fact be weakly first order, and the situation remains controversial. We donot intend here to enter into further details of the controversy, nor to give a complete list of references. The reader is invited to several recent review articles. (Some of the very recent theoretical works have not been included in these reviews: Mentioning only a few of them, six-loop RG calculation favors the chiral-universality scenario, while the so-called “exact RG” calculation favors the weak first-order transition, etc.)

I wish to conclude this section by summarizing the ordering properties of the classical chiral XY systems presented in each subsection. In 1D and 2D, the spin-chirality decoupling takes place. The spin and the chirality show mutually different transition behaviors. This is in contrast to the 3D case where the spin-chirality decoupling does not occur. In 1D, both the spin and the chirality order simultaneously at $`T=0`$, but with mutually different correlation-length exponents, $`\nu _\kappa >\nu _s`$. In 3D, both the spin and the chirality order simultaneously at a finite temperature. Unlike the 1D case, there is only one diverging length scale at this transition, the spin and the chirality possessing a common correlation-length exponent $`\nu _\kappa =\nu _s`$. In 2D, recent works strongly suggest that the spin and the chirality order at two close but separate temperatures, $`T_\kappa >T_s`$. This means that in 2D there occurs a pure chiral phase at an intermediate temperature regime, $`T_s<T<T_\kappa `$, where only the chirality exhibits a LRO keeping the XY-spin paramagnetic.

3. Chiral order in quantum XY systems

It sometimes happens that the $`D`$-dimensional quantum system at zero temperature can be mapped onto the $`D+1`$-dimensional classical system at finite temperature. For example, thermodynamic properties of certain $`D+1`$-dimensional classical system at finite temperature embodied in the maximum eigenvalue of the associated transfer matrix can often be mapped onto the ground-state properties of appropriate $`D`$-dimensional quantum system. Of course, in order to substantiate the correspondence, such an analogy has to be examined carefully in each particular case. Nevertheless, one may make a first guess that various thermal chiral order identified in classical systems might have some counterparts in the corresponding quantum systems whose spatial dimension is one-dimension less than the classical ones. In view of the property of the 2D classical XY system reviewed in §2.2, one may then imagine that the 1D frustrated quantum XY spin chain might exhibit quantum chiral order at $`T=0`$ with varying a suitably defined parameter of the Hamiltonian. Motivated by such an expectation, we recently undertook a systematic numerical investigation of the frustrated quantum XY spin chain based on the exact-diagonalization and the density-matrix-renormalization-group (DMRG) methods. We have then found that the above naive expectation based on the classical-quantum analogy does indeed hold.

Since the details of the calculations have already been given in Refs. and in a recent review article, we sketch here only the gross features of the ordering properties of the model. The Hamiltonian considered is

$$=\underset{\rho =1,2}{}J_\rho \underset{l}{}\left(S_l^xS_{l+\rho }^x+S_l^yS_{l+\rho }^y\right),$$
(5)
where $`J_1>0`$ and $`J_2>0`$ are the antiferromagnetic nearest-neighbor and next-nearest-neighbor couplings along the 1D chain, while $`\stackrel{}{S}_i`$ is now the spin-$`S`$ quantum-mechanical operator. In the special case of $`J_1=J_2`$, the model can be regarded as the triangular-ladder model with the nearest-neighbor antiferromagnetic coupling as considered in §2.1. Here, we extend the triangular-ladder model, or the $`J_1=J_2`$ model on a single chain, by introducing the independent nearest- and next-nearest-neighbor interactions on a single chain. This enables us to have a free parameter $`jJ_2/J_1`$ in the Hamiltonian, which controls the extent of frustration, and eventually, drives the chiral order in the ground state. Remember we focus in this section on the ground-state properties of the model, since we are interested in pure quantum phase transition. The local chirality may be defined as a quantum-mechanical operator defined by

$$\kappa _i=S_i^xS_{i+1}^yS_i^yS_{i+1}^x.$$
(6)
We note that the possible chiral order of this model has also been studied analytically on the basis of the field-theoretical method by Nersesyan et al, by Lecheminant et al, and by Kolezhuk.

Below, we summarize the properties revealed mainly by the exact-diagonalization and DMRG methods .

i) The case of $`S=1/2`$: With increasing $`j`$ from $`j=0`$ to $`j=\mathrm{}`$, there appear three distinct phases, i.e., the spin-fluid phase, the dimer phase and the gapless chiral phase. The gapless chiral phase possesses a true chiral LRO with algebraically-decaying spin correlations. In the numerical accuracy of Ref., the possible gapped chiral phase (or the chiral dimer phase) was not identified. The two transitions associated with the spin fluid-dimer transition and with the dimer-gapless chiral transition are both continuous. Even for higher half-integer $`S3/2`$, qualitative features of the phase structure remain the same.

ii) The case of $`S=1`$: With increasing $`j`$ from $`j=0`$ to $`j=\mathrm{}`$, there appear three distinct phases, i.e., the Haldane phase, the gapped chiral phase (or the chiral Haldane phase) and the gapless chiral phase. The latter two phases are chiral ordered phases possessing a true chiral LRO. The gapped chiral phase has exponentially-decaying spin correlations, while the gapless chiral phase has algebraically-decaying spin correlations. The two transitions associated with the Haldane-gapped chiral transition and with the gapped chiral-gapless chiral transition are both continuous. We note that the phase structure observed here is quite similar to the one observed in the classical 2D frustrated XY model as reviewed in §2.2 with varying temperature: Large-, intermediate- and small-$`j`$ phases of the quantum 1D model correspond to low-, intermediate- and high-temperature phases of the classical 2D model. For higher integer $`S2`$, there appears in addition the spin-fluid phase for smaller values of $`j`$.

We note that the results of field-theoretical analyses and numerical calculations made so far are consistent with each other on most of the above points. One ambiguity still being left might be whether there exists a gapped chiral phase (chiral dimer phase) for half-odd-integer $`S`$. Field theory claims that there should exist such a phase in a narrow interval of $`j`$ between the dimer and the gapless chiral phases, while the numerical DMRG calculation could not identify such a phase within the numerical accuracy. This points needs further clarification. Quantum chiral order was now studied for more general types of anisotropy, e.g., an XXZ-type ansiotropy and a single-ion-type anisotropy. Anyway, owing to the recent analytical and numerical studies, the existence of quantum chiral order in the frustrated 1D quantum XY-spin chain has now been well established. We note in passing that a similar 1D quantum-2D classical analogy was also examined in terms of a Josephson-junction array in a magnetic field. In this case, the charging effect of superconducting grains plays the role of the quantum effect.

4. Concluding remark

A brief review has been given on the recent works on chiral order in regularly frustrated XY systems both in classical and quantum cases. In the classical case, chiral transitions of the 1D, 2D and 3D triangular-lattice antiferromagnets have been examined. In 1D and 2D, the spin-chirality decoupling phenomenon takes place at the transition, while in 3D the chiral transition satisfies the standard one-length-scaling hypothesis without the spin-chirality decoupling phenomenon, though the associated fixed point might well be novel because of the underlying chiral symmetry (a chiral fixed point). In 2D, there appears a pure chiral phase in an intermediate range of temperature where the chirality exhibits a LRO with keeping the XY spin disordered. In the quantum case, the $`T=0`$ chiral transition of the 1D spin-$`S`$ XY model ($`J_1J_2`$ or zigzag chain) has been examined. There exist two types of chiral phases, gapped and gapless chiral phases, where the chirality exhibits a LRO. The gapless chiral phase with algebraically-decaying spin correlations exists for general $`S`$, while the gapped chiral phase with exponentially-decaying spin correlations is identified only for integer-$`S`$. Analogy between the quantum chiral order in $`D`$-dimensions and the thermal chiral order in $`D+1`$-dimensions is discussed.

In view of the 1D-quantum and 2D-classical analogy, it would be natural to extend it to the systems one-dimension higher, i.e., to the 2D-quantum and 3D-classical analogy. Then, one expects that the frustrated 2D quantum system may well exhibit a magnetic phase transition of chiral universality class. In fact, such a possibility has already been examined in several 2D quantum phase transitions, including those of Josephson-junction array in a magnetic field, frustrated Heisenberg antiferromagnet, square-lattice bilayer Heisenberg model, and triangular-lattice bilayer Heisenberg model.

Although we have confined ourselves in this review to the chiral order associated with the vector chirality in XY-like systems, there also exist several examples of Heisenberg-like systems where the chiral order associated with the scalar chirality takes place. We have also confined ourselves to the regularly frustrated systems here, neglecting the effects of quenched randomness. There are several occasions, however, where the quenched randomness plays an essential role in the chiral ordering. Examples are the ordering of vector spin glasses, including both Heisenberg and XY spin glasses, and of ceramic high-$`T_c`$ superconductors. In fact, quenched randomness generally tends to enhance fluctuations and serves preferably to cause the spin-chirality decoupling and to realize the pure chiral phase (chiral-glass phase). The related works have been briefly reviewed in Ref..

Thus, the chiral order, both thermal and quantum, is likely to be realized in a rather wide class of frustrated systems, giving rise to intriguing ordering behaviors. Much needs to be done in the future to fully explore this rich field.

The author is thankful to Dr. M. Kaburagi and Dr. T. Hikihara for collaboration in the work presented in §3.


format: text

text:
# Control aspects of holonomic quantum computation

## 1 Introduction

Geometric phases have long been a source of fascination and insight into classical and quantum physical theories . In recent years, they have proven to be useful in describing the dynamics and control of certain nonholonomic mechanical systems with symmetry . Inspired by the appearance of geometric phases in biology, engineers have sought to create motion in machines via cyclic variations in shape space. These endeavors - and the characterization of optimal trajectories - remain active areas of research.

Most recently, the quantum geometric phase has been realized as a way of constructing logic gates in a quantum computer . Holonomic Quantum Computation (HQC) employs non-Abelian geometric phases (holonomies) for the purpose of quantum information processing. Here we present a unified framework for the control of quantum holonomic systems with applications to quantum computing by casting the model as a control system evolving on a principal bundle. The integration of control theoretic ideas into the HQC paradigm sharpens existing results for these systems and reveals computational techniques for solving two separate but related fundamental problems in quantum computing. First, the well known conditions for determining universal quantum computation must be translated to the holonomic framework. The determination of universality, however, is existential in nature and generally not constructive. Quantum logic gate synthesis or constructive controllability is the process of determining from the system dynamics the construction or concatenation from available transformations some desired dynamic transformation of the state. This latter task is required for executing quantum algorithms. Both of these issues have subtleties in the holonomic framework not encountered in the usual dynamical approach to quantum computing.

Since the introduction of this novel approach to quantum computing , there has been considerable interest from the research community in proposing physical systems capable of performing HQC - and exploring its mathematical foundations -. This paper draws on much of this work to provide new a characterization of the problem, introduce novel computational techniques and present new results for two classes of control architectures related to HQC. In particular, we state simple conditions for determining the holonomy group of a principal fiber bundle with connection. These conditions, well known and reported elsewhere , circumvent the difficulties in directly applying the Ambrose-Singer theorem which was originally stated as the technique for determining universality of HQC. For quantum holonomy groups of dimension greater than 3, a direct application of Ambrose-Singer essentially neglects the contribution of nested Lie brackets of horizontally lifted vector fields, however these vector fields can provide new transformations available for manipulating quantum information. From the product bundle representing single qubit rotations and two qubit interactions, conditions for universality can then be derived. Having established the decisive condition for determining universality, we explore the difficult inverse problem associated to constructing holonomies. Namely, given a desired holonomy what is the loop in parameter space that generates it ? In principal, this information is sufficient for the experimentalist to construct particular holonomies in the laboratory. For the the $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ model, holonomic logic gate synthesis has been recently addressed with a numerical optimization scheme in Refs. . Moreover, Ref.  refines the method to minimize the length of the loop in parameter space. Since the parameters must be driven sufficiently slowly for the adiabatic approximation to hold, minimizing length also minimizes the time to construct the logic gate. This criterion is perhaps relevant for combatting decoherence. Logic gate synthesis has also been treated analytically in Ref , however these loops are characterized in the Grassmann manifold and not in parameter space. Characterizations of length minimizing loops can also be found in Refs. .

We apply the theory to two well studied models of HQC. We provide a complete analysis of the so-called *Optical Holonomic Computer* . We extend the results of Ref.  by carrying out the universality analysis and explicitly characterizing a parametric loop that can be employed to construct an arbitrary two-qubit logic gate. These results surmount a negative result reported for this model . In a similar manner, we use the Cartan decomposition of the unitary group to solve the constructive controllability problem for holonomic systems involving a conditional Berry phase. To the best of our knowledge, aside from the $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ model, the two control models treated here encompass all proposed holonomic computing schemes.

This paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, following  the geometry of holonomic quantum computation is reviewed. Also in Section 2, we introduce the product bundle describing single qubit holonomies and two qubit interaction holonomies and state conditions for universal holonomic quantum computation. In Section 3, we introduce methods for solving the path ordered integral associated with logic gate synthesis in the holonomic framework. The main contributions of the paper are contained in Section 4, where we apply the theory of the previous sections.

## 2 Holonomic Quantum Computation

If a quantum state undergoes adiabatic evolution subject to a periodic Hamiltonian, it acquires a phase after one complete cycle. Berry’s surprising discovery  was that, in addition to the well known dynamical phase associated to the evolution, there is a phase of purely geometric origin. Berry’s phase was then understood as the holonomy or geometric phase corresponding to a principal bundle with connection over a parameter space . This phenomenon has been generalized in a variety of ways, most notably to non-adiabatic evolutions  and to degenerate systems possessing a non-Abelian phase factor .

### 2.1 Preliminaries

We construct a family of degenerate Hamiltonians parameterized by elements of a parameter space $`M`$ that govern the quantum dynamics. To allow for the possibility of a countably infinite dimensional Hilbert space, we consider universal classifying bundles. For further details see  .

Let $``$ be a separable (possibly infinite dimensional) Hilbert space, and define the manifolds

$`St_k()`$ $`=\{V=(|v_1,\mathrm{},|v_k)\times \mathrm{}\times |V^{}V=\mathrm{𝟏}\}`$ (1)
$`Gr_k()`$ $`=\{XB()|X^2=X,X^{}=X,\mathrm{tr}X=n\}.`$ (2)
where $`B()`$ denotes the set of bounded linear operators on $``$. These manifolds are known as the (universal) Stiefel and Grassmann manifolds respectively. The space $`Gr_k`$ is also known as a classifying space and can be defined as the union of Grassmann manifolds

$$Gr_k()\underset{n=k}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}Gr_{k,n}().$$
(3)
Denote this $`U(k)`$-bundle by $`P_k.`$ Note that when $`^n`$ and the system has a $`k`$-dimensional degeneracy, the bundle of interest is the more familiar $`U(k)`$-bundle $`St_{k,n}(^n)Gr_{k,n}(^n)`$ which can be written in terms of coset spaces as

$$\frac{U(n)}{U(nk)}\frac{U(n)}{U(nk)\times U(k)}.$$
(4)
We continue with the infinite dimensional case with the understanding that the development specializes to this case when $``$ is finite dimensional.

Let $`M`$ be a finite dimensional parameter space and suppose the classifying map $`\mathrm{\Pi }_k:MGr_k`$ (to be defined below) is given. Then form the pullback bundle $`Q_k=\mathrm{\Pi }_k^{}P_k,`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}Q_k& & St_k()\\ & & \\ M& \stackrel{\mathrm{\Pi }_k}{}& Gr_k().\end{array}$$
(5)
Let $`H_0`$ be a Hamilonian with a $`k`$-dimensional degeneracy spanned by the orthogonal basis $`\{|v_j_{j=1}^k\}`$. To simplify notation, let the degenerate eigenvalue be 0. In holonomic quantum computation, the degenerate subspaces of $`H_0`$ encode the quantum information. Suppose we have at our disposal a set of $`U(k)`$ unitary transformations

$$\{W_1(x),W_2(x),\mathrm{},W_m(x)\}$$
(6)
parametrized by the base coordinate $`x`$. These are the (exponentiated) analogues of control Hamiltonians. Setting

$$𝒰_k(x)=\underset{j}{}W_j(x)$$
(7)
we obtain the isospectral family of Hamiltonians given by

$$𝒪(H_0)𝒰_k(x)H_0𝒰_k^{}(x).$$
(8)
In the adiabatic approximation, the adjoint orbit $`𝒪(H_0)`$ forms a family of Hamiltonians that govern the system since there are no energy level crossings. The classifying map is then be defined as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_k(x)𝒰_k(x)\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}|v_jv_j|\right)𝒰_k^{}(x).$$
(9)
### 2.2 Control systems on principal fiber bundles

In general, let $`Q`$ be a principal fiber bundle with structure group $`G`$ over a base manifold $`M.`$ Recall that a connection on $`Q`$ defines a $`G`$-invariant distribution $``$ such that $`T_qQ=_q𝕍_q,`$ where $`𝕍_qT_q(𝒪(q))𝔤`$ (the Lie algebra of $`G).`$ Alternatively, a connection can be characterized by an Ad-equivariant $`𝔤`$-valued one-form $`𝒜`$ on $`Q`$ such that $`𝒜\xi _q=\xi ,`$ where $`\xi _q`$ is the infinitesimal generator of the group action and $`\xi 𝔤.`$ The horizontal subspace at a point $`qQ`$ is then defined as the kernel $`_q=\{v_q|𝒜v_q=0\}.`$ The local connection one-form, $`A`$, is defined with respect to a local section $`\sigma `$ by $`A\sigma ^{}𝒜.`$ Using Ad-equivariance and the fact that $`𝒜`$ is the identity on vertical vectors, we can obtain the local connection form in terms of the base variables only

$$𝒜\dot{q}=\mathrm{Ad}_g(g^1\dot{g}+A(x)\dot{x}).$$
(10)
We note that the term $`g^1\dot{g}`$ is in the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$, by interpreting $`g^1\dot{g}`$ as the lifted action of $`g^1`$ on $`\dot{g}T_gG.`$ Restricting the connection $`𝒜`$ to act on horizontal vectors yields an equation for the evolution of the group elements given by

$$g^1\dot{g}=A(x)\dot{x}.$$
(11)
Returning to the quantum setting, we note that the canonical connection on the bundle $`Q_k`$ is given by $`A_{wz}𝒰_k^1d𝒰_k,`$ The matrix elements of the connection form are given by

$$A_{x_\mu }^{\overline{v}v}\overline{v}|𝒰_k^{}(x)\frac{}{x_\mu }𝒰_k(x)|v.$$
(12)
This is commonly known as the Wilczek-Zee connection .

Assuming direct control over the base variables, we may interpret the quantum control system as a control system evolving on a principal bundle and write it locally as

$`g^1\dot{g}`$ $`=`$ $`A_{wz}(x)\dot{x}`$ (13)
$`\dot{x}`$ $`=`$ $`u`$
where $`u`$ is a vector of control inputs describing the controlled evolution in parameter space.

A formal solution to this system of equations corresponding to a particular path in parameter space is given by the path ordered integral

$$𝐏\mathrm{exp}_\gamma A_{wz}dx.$$
(14)
When $`\gamma `$ is a closed curve in $`M,`$ then $`𝐏\mathrm{exp}_\gamma A_{wz}dx`$ lies in $`G`$ and is known as the holonomy of $`\gamma .`$ It is well known that the set of all such group elements taken over the set of closed curves in $`M`$ is a subgroup of $`G`$ and is known as the holonomy group. In holonomic quantum computation, quantum logic gates are implemented by holonomies acting on the degenerate subspaces.

### 2.3 Universality

A control system evolving on a principal fiber bundle is said to be locally controllable if any group element can be implemented on the state of the system. In the context of quantum computing, a system with this property is said to be (exactly) universal. This property is a fundamental requirement for building a quantum processor. Loosely speaking, in the usual dynamical approach to quantum computing (as opposed to the geometric approach addressed here), the Lie algebra generated by the system Hamiltonian and the control Hamiltonians determines the universality of the system. For an $`N`$ qubit system, it is sufficient for the Lie algebra to span $`𝔰𝔲(2^N).`$ We now show how this condition translates to the holonomic framework.

Let $`X^h`$ denote the horizontal lift of a vector field $`X`$ on $`M`$. This is the unique vector on $`TQ`$ such that $`T\pi (X^h)=X`$ where $`\pi `$ is the projection $`\pi :QM.`$ Then the curvature can be defined as a $`𝔤`$-valued 2-form on $`Q`$ given by

$$𝒜([X_{i_2}^h,X_{i_1}^h])=(X_{i_2}^h,X_{i_1}^h)$$
(15)
where $`[,]`$ denotes the Lie bracket on $`TQ.`$ Thus evaluating the curvature determines the vertical component of the Lie bracket of horizontally lifted vector fields. Now let $`f:Q𝔤`$ be an Ad-equivariant function on $`Q`$, then

$`𝒜([X^h,f])`$ $`=`$ $`d𝒜(X^h,f)+X^h(𝒜(f))+f(𝒜(X^h))`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`X^hf`$ (17)
since the function $`f`$ is $`𝔤`$-valued and $`d𝒜(,)`$ is zero if either argument is vertical . Using the correspondence between covariant derivatives of the associated adjoint bundle and Lie derivatives of Ad-equivariant functions , we obtain

$$𝒜([X^h,f])=X^hf=D_{X^h}f.$$
(18)
Now, the curvature itself is an Ad-equivariant function on $`Q`$ , so setting $`=f`$ and using the previous expression (18) to evaluate iterated Lie brackets of horizontally lifted vector fields, we can obtain the corollary to the well known Chow-Rashevski theorem from control theory.

###### Theorem 1

(Ambrose-Singer-Chow-Rashevski) The system (13) is locally controllable at $`qQ`$ if the curvature $`F(X_{i_1},X_{i_2})`$ and all of its covariant derivatives $`D_{X_{i_k}}\mathrm{}D_{X_{i_3}}F(X_{i_1},X_{i_2})`$ evaluated at the point $`x=\pi (q)`$ span the entire Lie algebra of $`G`$ .

Following , we refer to the theorem as Ambrose-Singer-Chow-Rashevski since it can be considered to be a corollary to the Ambrose-Singer theorem from the theory of holonomy . We note also that we have stated the theorem in terms of base vector fields and the local curvature. All the necessary ingredients of the theorem, although not explicitly stated, can be found in . In fact, the infinitesimal holonomy algebra is spanned by elements of the form

$$X_{i_k}^hX_{i_{k1}}^h\mathrm{}X_{i_3}^h(X_{i_1}^h,X_{i_2}^h).$$
(19)
We can then use the correspondence (18) to relate this to covariant derivatives of the associated adjoint bundle. This statement is used in our applications, since in some holonomic quantum computation problems the relevant holonomy algebra does not span the entire Lie algebra. However, it does contain non-local operations which together with holonomies corresponding to local operations do indeed span the entire Lie algebra. This is the usual local/non-local analysis often encountered in quantum information science.

For the purposes of building a quantum processor, the quantum information is stored in the $`^2`$ vector bundle associated to $`Q^2`$ and single qubit rotations are performed by $`SU(2)`$ holonomies acting on the fiber $`^2.`$ Interactions among qubits are modeled as $`SU(4)`$ holonomies acting on the fibers of the vector bundle associated to $`Q^4.`$

Thus we may treat the control problems separately and form the product bundle (and its pullbacks)

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\mathrm{}& St_2(_i)& \times & St_4(\mathrm{}_i_j\mathrm{})& \times & St_2(_j)& \mathrm{}\\ & & & & & & \\ \mathrm{}& Gr_2(_i)& \times & (Gr_4)^{\mathrm{int}}(\mathrm{}_i_j\mathrm{})& \times & Gr_2(_j)& \mathrm{}.\end{array}$$
(20)
To set notation, let

$$I_x=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\\ 1\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}\end{array}\right)I_y=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \hfill i\\ i\hfill & \hfill 0\end{array}\right)I_z=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \hfill 0\\ 0\hfill & \hfill 1\end{array}\right)\mathrm{𝟏}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \hfill 0\\ 1\hfill & \hfill 0\end{array}\right).$$
(21)
We define the local algebra generated by the elements

$$I_{k1}=I_k\mathrm{𝟏}I_{k2}=\mathrm{𝟏}I_k$$
(22)
where $`k\{x,y,z\}`$ The local algebra is the Lie algebra corresponding to the local group $`SU(2)SU(2).`$

To conclude exact universality (controllability) of the system, one should compute the control Lie algebra with the constituent holonomy algebras. For example in the two-qubit system, compute the Lie algebra generated by $`𝔰𝔲(2)\mathrm{𝟏},\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}𝔰𝔲(2)`$ and the interaction holonomy algebra $`𝔥𝔬𝔩_{int}`$ associated with the bundle $`\mathrm{St}_4(_i_j)(Gr_4)^{\mathrm{int}}(_i_j).`$ In the generic case, the control Lie algebra will generate $`𝔰𝔲(4)`$ provided that $`\mathrm{Hol}_{int}`$ is not isomorphic to the local group or is trivial .

###### Theorem 2

The two-qubit holonomic system is exactly universal if the Lie algebra generated by the local algebra and $`𝔥𝔬𝔩_{int}`$ spans $`𝔰𝔲(4).`$

## 3 Constuctive Controllability

Having established conditions for determining universality in HQC, we now present various ways of solving or approximating the solution to the path ordered integral arising for the differential equation defining the group displacement

$$g^1\dot{g}=A(x)\dot{x}.$$
(23)
For control systems on principal bundles, this equation describes the group transformation obtained from a controlled cyclic variation of the parameters in the base manifold. Recall, that we assume direct access and complete controllability over the base variables. We endeavor to ascertain the desired group transformation resulting from a particular choice of loop in the base space. This is the notion of constructive controllability in the context of a control system on a principal bundle. In HQC these procedures provide explicit methods for logic gate synthesis. This requires dealing with the path ordered integral obtained from (23).

### 3.1 Path Ordered Integral

We define the path ordered integral as a product integral. Let $`\gamma `$ be a curve in the base manifold $`M`$ and let $`x^\mu `$ be local coordinates. We may express the local connection form $`A`$ in terms of coordinates as

$$A(x)=A_\mu (x)dx^\mu .$$
(24)
The curve $`\gamma `$ is parameterized by an intrinsic parameter $`s`$, which is naturally considered to be time. In terms of $`s`$, $`A`$ takes the form

$$A_\mu (x(s))dx^\mu =A(s)ds$$
(25)
where

$$A(s)A_\mu (x(s))\frac{dx^\mu (s)}{ds}.$$
(26)
Let $`[s_0,s_T]`$ be a real interval over which the curve $`\gamma `$ is defined. Consider a partition of the interval $`P=\{s_0,s_1,\mathrm{},s_n\}`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_k=s_ks_{k1}`$ and $`s_n=s_T.`$ Then path ordering operator may be defined as

$$𝐏\mathrm{exp}_\gamma A(s)ds\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{s_0}{\overset{s_n}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(A(s_k)\mathrm{\Delta }s_k\right).$$
(27)
This definition clearly shows the dependence on the ordering of the exponentials and the difficulties associated with its solution, given that we are naturally interested in the case where the relevant group is non-Abelian. When $`G`$ is Abelian, then one can directly integrate the connection coefficients and apply the usual exponential operator.

### 3.2 Abelian Substructures

A common technique in holonomic quantum computation for tackling the integral (27) is to restrict the class of loops and exploit Abelian substructures in the connection components . The strategy is briefly described as follows. Choose a particular 2-manifold of $`M`$ spanned by the coordinates $`(\sigma ,\tau )`$ such that the associated connection components commute, that is $`[A_\sigma ,A_\tau ]=0`$ but for which the local curvature form is not identically zero. For these restricted loops the path ordering in (27) can be avoided and the line integral

$$_\gamma A(x)𝑑x=_\gamma \left(A_\sigma d\sigma +A_\tau d\tau \right)$$
(28)
can be integrated directly and exponentiated.

Alternatively, one can use a non-Abelian Stokes theorem  for evaluating holonomies corresponding to curves lying in a 2-submanifold of parameter space.

### 3.3 Averaging

The exact results of the previous section were accompanied by restrictions on the set of loops available to the controller or by exploiting Abelian substructures in the connection components. Here we review local approximations that can be used for any system evolving on a principal bundle.

Approximate control algorithms have been developed for left invariant control systems on Lie groups of the form

$$g^1\dot{g}=ϵU(t)$$
(29)
where $`ϵ`$ is a (small) parameter and $`U(t)=T_\alpha u^\alpha (t)`$ for a basis $`\{T_\alpha \}`$ of $`𝔤`$ .

A Magnus expansion is employed for a representation of the solution

$$g(t)=g(0)\mathrm{exp}(\xi (t))$$
(30)
given by

$`\xi (t)=ϵ{\displaystyle _0^t}U(\tau )𝑑\tau `$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^2}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^t}[\stackrel{~}{U}(\tau ),U(\tau )]𝑑\tau `$ (31)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^3}{4}}{\displaystyle _0^t}[{\displaystyle _0^\tau }[\stackrel{~}{U}(\sigma ),U(\sigma )]𝑑\sigma ,U(\tau )]𝑑\tau +\mathrm{}`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{U}(t)`$ is the effective input “averaged” over the time period  .

This expansion has been generalized for systems evolving on principal fiber bundles $`\text{[5]}.`$ Let $`\gamma :[0,T]M`$ be a closed curve in the base space parameterized by $`xM`$ , then it is shown in  that the holonomy associated to $`\gamma `$ can be locally approximated by

$$g(T)=g(0)\mathrm{exp}(\xi (\gamma ))$$
(32)
where

$$\xi (\gamma )=\frac{1}{2}F(X_i,X_j)_\gamma 𝑑x_i𝑑x_j+\frac{1}{3}D_{X_i}(F(X_j,X_k))_\gamma 𝑑x_i𝑑x_j𝑑x_k+\mathrm{}.$$
(33)
Here $`F(X_i,X_j)`$ is the local curvature form evaluated on the base coordinate vectors $`X_i=\frac{}{_{x_i}}`$ evaluated at $`\gamma (0),D_{\frac{}{_{x_i}}}`$ is the covariant derivative of the curvature along the base coordinate vector $`\frac{}{_{x_i}}`$ and the area integrals are defined by

$$_{x_ix_jx_k}=_\gamma 𝑑x_i𝑑x_j𝑑x_k_0^T_0^{t_k}_0^{t_j}\dot{x}^i(t_i)𝑑t_i\dot{x}^j(t_j)𝑑t_j\dot{x}^k(t_k)𝑑t_k.$$
(34)
Higher order terms are given by higher order covariant derivatives of the curvature. This is plausible given expression (33) and the fact that iterated Lie brackets of horizontally lifted vector fields appear as covariant derivatives of the curvature.

## 4 Applications

In this section we apply the results of the preceding sections. We first review the $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ model of quantum holonomy. This was the original system discovered by Wilczek and Zee  and subsequently proposed as a model for HQC. We then consider two very different models of quantum holonomic systems. Holonomic quantum computation with squeezed coherent states has a rich interaction holonomy group that can be exploited to obtain contructive controllability algorithms. On the other hand, quantum computation based on the conditional phase shift has become the dominant control strategy for a wide range of holonomic quantum computing schemes.

### 4.1 The $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ Model

The $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$  model gives a concrete example illustrating how non-Abelian holonomies can occur in highly degenerate systems. In this model, we assume that the Hilbert space $``$ is finite dimensional from the outset. That is, we have the isomorphism $`^{n+1}=\{|\alpha \}_{\alpha =1}^{n+1}.`$ We further assume an $`n`$dimensional degenerate subspace with eigenvalue 0. We may write the degenerate Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ as

$$H_0=ϵ|n+1n+1|=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& \\ 0& 0& 0& ϵ\end{array}\right).$$
(35)
Let $`\{𝒯_{j,n+1}(x)\}_{j=1}^l`$ denote a basis of $`𝔲(n)`$ parameterized by $`xM`$ embedded in $`𝔲(n+1)`$ and let $`𝒰_n=_j^l\mathrm{exp}(𝒯_{j,n+1}(x)).`$ Given these control operations, it is perhaps not surprising that the holonomy group can be shown to be $`U(n)`$ by considering the curvature coefficients only (and not its covariant derivatives) . We have the isomorphism

$$𝒪(H_0)\frac{U(n+1)}{U(n)\times U(1)}\frac{SU(n+1)}{U(n)}\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n.$$
(36)
This system requires control over $`2n=\mathrm{dim}_{}\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ real parameters to control an $`n`$-level system. For high dimensional systems, this may be an unrealistic requirement.

### 4.2 Squeezed Coherent States

In this section we revisit the mathematical foundations of holonomic quantum computation with squeezed coherent states . There is considerable literature already on this model , here we exploit the methods of geometric control. Originally, this model was proposed in the context of quantum optics  with displacers and squeezers operating on coherent laser beams in a non-linear Kerr medium and thus known as the Optical Holonomic Computer. However, other physical systems have quantum states that may be displaced and squeezed. As far as the control analysis is concerned, these systems are identical. Pachos has recently adapted the model to perform trapped ion quantum computation . We, therefore, refer to this model generically as holonomic quantum computation with squeezed coherent states .

#### 4.2.1 Harmonic Oscillator

Recall that the commutation relations of the creation, annihilation and number operator $`Na^{}a,`$ are given by

$$[N,a^{}]=a^{},[N,a]=a,[a,a^{}]=\mathrm{𝟏}.$$
(37)
The underlying Hilbert space $``$ is a Fock space and takes the form

$$=\{|n,\alpha 𝐍0\}.$$
(38)
The creation and annihilation operators act on $``$ according to

$$a|n=\sqrt{n}|n1,a^{}|n=\sqrt{n+1}|n+1,a|0=0.$$
(39)
Thus $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ create and destroy quanta.

Since we are interested in the two-qubit system, we will use the subscript $`i`$ to distinguish the creation and annihilation corresponding to the $`ith`$ field of the harmonic oscillator. That is, we set $`N_i=a_i^{}a_i`$ and

$`a_1=a\mathrm{𝟏},a_1^{}=a^{}\mathrm{𝟏},`$ (40)
$`a_2=\mathrm{𝟏}a,a_2^{}=\mathrm{𝟏}a^{}.`$ (41)
To provide a concrete example, we will use the degenerate Hamiltonian

$$H^i=N_i(N_i1)$$
(42)
to encode the $`i`$-th qubit in the degenerate subspace $`\{|0_i,|1_i\}`$ and

$$H^{12}=N_1(N_11)+N_2(N_21)$$
(43)
to obtain controlled interactions on the computation basis $`\{|00,|01,|10,|11\}`$where $`|ij=|i|j.`$ In the optics context, this Hamiltonian corresponds (up to a constant) to placing lasers in a non-linear Kerr medium . However, the form of the degenerate Hamiltonian does not affect the control analysis. For our purposes, it is used only to encode the quantum information. With slight modification of some constants, the results in this section apply to the trapped ion model proposed in .

#### 4.2.2 Single Qubit

We consider first single qubit rotations. Consider the eigenvalue problem for a single creation operator. The state $`|\alpha `$ can be written in terms of the basis $`\{|n\},`$

$$|\alpha =e^{|\alpha |^2/2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\alpha ^n}{\sqrt{n!}}|n=e^{|\alpha |^2/2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\alpha ^na^n}{n!}|0.$$
(44)
Which is equal to

$$|\alpha =e^{|\alpha |^2/2}e^{\alpha a^{}}|0$$
(45)
and allows for the definition of the displacement operator

$$|\alpha =D(\alpha )=e^{|\alpha |^2/2}e^{\alpha a^{}}e^{\alpha ^{}a}|0.$$
(46)
Note that the introduction of $`e^{\alpha ^{}a}`$ does nothing since $`a|0=|0.`$ By using the Campbell-Baker-Hausdorff formula and noting that $`[\alpha a^{},\alpha ^{}a]=|\alpha |^2,`$ we may write

$$|\alpha =D(\alpha )|0=e^{\alpha a^{}\alpha ^{}a}|0.$$
(47)
We see that the displacement operator creates a coherent state $`|\alpha `$ from the vacuum state $`|0.`$ In HQC with squeezed coherent states, the displacement operator will be a control operator. The other transformation we have at our disposal is the squeezing operator, $`S(\beta ),`$ defined by

$$S(\beta )=e^{\beta \mathrm{\Lambda }_+\beta ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}}$$
(48)
where

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_+\frac{1}{2}a^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}\frac{1}{2}a^2.$$
(49)
If we define,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\frac{1}{4}(aa^{}+a^{}a)$$
(50)
then we have the commutation relations,

$$[\mathrm{\Lambda }_3,\mathrm{\Lambda }_+]=\mathrm{\Lambda }_+[\mathrm{\Lambda }_3,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}]=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}[\mathrm{\Lambda }_+,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}]=2\mathrm{\Lambda }_3.$$
(51)
These are the commutation relations for $`𝔰𝔲(1,1)`$; thus we see that the squeeze operator is a representation of the non-compact group $`SU(1,1).`$ With these two unitary transformations, we form the product

$$𝒰_2(\alpha ,\beta )=D(\alpha )S(\beta )$$
(52)
and the isospectral family of Hamiltonians

$$𝒰_2(\alpha ,\beta )H^i𝒰_2^{}(\alpha ,\beta ).$$
(53)
The holonomy group for the single qubit system has been shown to be $`U(2)`$ . Thus we have complete control over the single qubit.

#### 4.2.3 Two-qubit

To obtain universality over the entire quantum register it suffices to show non-trivial $`U(4)`$ transformations on the computational basis and check the control Lie algebra. Analogously to the single qubit case, we employ displacement and squeeze operators as our control operations. Let

$$J_+=a_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}a_2,J_{}=a_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}a_1,J_3=\frac{1}{2}(a_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}a_1a_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}a_2).$$
(54)
These generate $`SU(2)`$ with the commutation relations,

$$[J_3,J_+]=J_+,[J_3,J_{}]=J_{},[J_+,J_{}]=2J_3.$$
(55)
The two-mode displacement operator is defined as

$$N(\xi )=\mathrm{exp}(\xi a_1^{}a_2\overline{\xi }a_1a_2^{}).$$
(56)
Similarly, we may define the two-mode squeeze operator as a representation of $`SU(1,1).`$ Let

$$K_+=a_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}a_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{},K_{}=a_1a_2,K_3=\frac{1}{2}(a_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}a_1+a_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}a_2),$$
(57)
and

$$[K_3,K_+]=K_+,[K_3,K_{}]=K_{},[K_+,K_{}]=2K_3.$$
(58)
The two-mode squeeze operator is defined as

$$M(\zeta )=\mathrm{exp}(\zeta a_1^{}a_2^{}\overline{\zeta }a_1a_2)$$
(59)
where $`\xi ,\zeta 𝐂.`$ Set

$$𝒰_4=N(\xi )M(\zeta ).$$
(60)
Setting $`\zeta =r_2e^{i\theta _2}\mathrm{and}\xi =r_3e^{i\theta _3}`$ and we obtain the two-qubit connection coefficients  listed in Appendix A. The interaction holonomy algebra spans $`𝔰𝔲(2)\times 𝔰𝔲(2)\times 𝔲(1)`$  (also listed in Appendix B). Higher order covariant derivatives do not yield independent group directions. The matrices in $`𝔥𝔬𝔩_{int}`$ sit in $`𝔲(4)`$ in a manner that allows for non-local $`U(4)`$ transformations on the computational basis. By the reduction theorem for connections , the connection is reducible to a $`su(2)\times su(2)\times u(1)`$-valued connection and we may reduce the total space to $`\mathrm{St}_{2,4}(_1_2).`$ To determine the reduced base manifold, we form the quotient

$$\frac{U(4)}{SU(2)\times SU(2)\times U(1)}\frac{SU(4)}{SU(2)\times SU(2)}SGr_{2,4}(Gr_{2,4})^{\mathrm{int}}.$$
(61)
In a similar manner, we can reduce the bundles $`St_2(_i)Gr_2(_i)`$ corresponding to the single qubit rotations. The $`U(2)`$ holonomies act in the product space $`_1_2`$ as $`U(2)\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏}U(2).`$ The bundles reduce to $`St_{2,4}(_1_2)Gr_{2,4}(_1_2).`$ For the full two-qubit system, we have the reduced product bundle

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}St_{2,4}(_1_2)& \times & St_{2,4}(_1_2)& \times & St_{2,4}(_1_2)\\ & & & & \\ Gr_{2,4}(_1_2)& \times & (Gr_{2,4})^{\mathrm{int}}(_1_2)& \times & Gr_{2,4}(_1_2).\end{array}$$
(62)
#### 4.2.4 Control Algebra

To be complete, we will now demonstrate that all of $`SU(4)`$ may be obtained from the single qubit rotations and the two-qubit transformations above. Of course, as we have mentioned earlier, this is generically true provided the two-qubit holonomy group is not isomorphic to the local group. Nonetheless, it is useful to go though the computations.

From the single qubit analysis, we know that we can perform local transformations of the form $`SU(2)SU(2).`$ To simplify matters further, we use linear combinations of the the two-qubit curvature forms and covariant derivatives and consider only

$$\{F_{r_2r_3},F_{r_2\theta _3},F_{r_3\theta _3},D_{\frac{}{\theta _2}}F_{r_2\theta _2},\stackrel{~}{D}_{\frac{}{r_2}}F_{r_2\theta _2}\}$$
(63)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{D}_{\frac{}{r_2}}F_{r_2\theta _2}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& e^{i\theta _2}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ e^{i\theta _2}& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)4i\mathrm{sinh}2r_2.$$
(64)
From this set of matrices and the local algebra (22), we may build a set of holonomic transformations spanning $`𝔰𝔲(4).`$ After taking iterated brackets from these sets, we find that one choice of spanning elements is given by

$$𝔰𝔲(4)=\{𝒞_1𝒞_2𝒞_3\}$$
(65)
where $`𝒞_1=\{I_{x1},I_{y1},I_{z1},I_{x2},I_{y2},I_{z2},\}`$ and

$`𝒞_2=\{F_{r_2r_3},F_{r_2r\theta _3},D_{\frac{}{\theta _2}}F_{r_2\theta _2},\stackrel{~}{D}_{\frac{}{r_2}}F_{r_2\theta _2}\}`$
$`𝒞_3=\{[I_{x1},F_{r_2r_3}],[I_{x1},F_{r_2\theta _3}],[I_{x2},F_{r_2r_3}],[I_{x2},F_{r_2\theta _3}],[[I_{x1},F_{r_2r_3}],I_{x2}]\}.`$
Please see Appendix C for the matrix representation of these elements.

#### 4.2.5 An approximate holonomy in the Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔰𝔲(4)`$

In the preceding section, we showed that it is indeed possible to create holonomic transformations spanning the full unitary group on two qubits. This was not a constructive procedure. In this section, we show that by using a combination of the methods in the previous sections, we can solve the logic gate synthesis problem completely. We use the local expansion of the holonomy procedure to construct an element in the Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔰𝔲(4)`$ and use the Cartan decomposition of $`SU(4)`$ to obtain the result.

The Cartan decomposition of the unitary groups is a useful technique that has been used for constructing quantum control algorithms , deriving time optimal control laws for quantum spin systems  and understanding the entanglement content of 2-qubit unitaries . Here we review the decomposition for the purposes of constructing control algorithms.

Let $`K`$ denote a closed and compact subgroup of a Lie group $`G`$. Assume that $`𝔤`$ admits a vector space decomposition

$$𝔤=𝔨𝔭$$
(66)
where $`𝔨`$ is the Lie algebra of $`K`$ and $`𝔭`$ is vector space orthogonal to $`𝔨`$ with respect to a bi-invariant metric $`<,>`$ on $`𝔤`$. Further assume that $`𝔨\mathrm{and}𝔭`$ satisfy the following commutation relations

$$[𝔨,𝔨]𝔨[𝔭,𝔭]𝔨[𝔭,𝔨]𝔭.$$
(67)
We refer to a this decomposition as a Cartan decompostion of the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$.

Let $`𝔞`$ denote a maximal Abelian subalgebra contained in $`𝔭`$. The algebra $`𝔞`$ is often called the Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔤.`$ Then one can write $`G`$ as

$$G=KAK$$
(68)
where $`A=\mathrm{exp}(𝔞).`$

In a two-qubit system, interactions among the qubits are modeled by the products

$$I_{kl}=2I_kI_l$$
(69)
where $`k,l\{x,y,z\}`$ For example,

$$I_{yy}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(70)
The Cartan decomposition of $`𝔰𝔲(4)`$ is given by

$`𝔨`$ $`=`$ $`i\{I_{x1},I_{y1},I_{z1},I_{x2},I_{y2},I_{z2}\}`$ (71)
$`𝔭`$ $`=`$ $`i\{I_{xx},I_{xy},I_{xz},I_{yx},I_{yy},I_{yz},I_{zx},I_{zy},I_{zz}\}`$ (72)
$`𝔞`$ $`=`$ $`i\{I_{xx},I_{yy},I_{zz}\}.`$ (73)
Thus we can write any $`gSU(4)`$ as

$$g=K_1\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _1I_{xx}i\varphi _2I_{yy}i\varphi _3I_{zz})K_2$$
(74)
where $`\varphi _j`$ is a real parameter and $`K_jSU(2)SU(2).`$

By inspection of the two-qubit curvature forms and their covariant derivatives, it seems possible that $`I_{yy}`$ can be obtained by linear combinations the elements,

$$\{F_{r_2\theta _2},F_{r_2\theta _3},D_{\frac{}{r_2}}F_{r_2\theta _2},D_{\frac{}{r_2}}F_{r_2\theta _3}\}.$$
(75)
Equivalently, $`I_{yy}`$ is contained in the real span of

$$[\frac{^h}{x_k},[\frac{^h}{x_{k1}},\mathrm{}[\frac{^h}{x_2},\frac{^h}{x_1}]]\mathrm{}]$$
(76)
where $`x\{r_2,\theta _2,\theta _3\}.`$

We therefore choose a candidate loop, $`\gamma ^{},`$ of the form

$`\theta _2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _2(0)+\mathrm{\Theta }_2\mathrm{sin}(t)`$ (77)
$`r_2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`r_2(0)+R_2\mathrm{cos}(t)R_2`$ (78)
$`\theta _3(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _3(0)+\mathrm{\Theta }_3\mathrm{sin}(nt),n1`$ (79)
$`r_3`$ $`=`$ $`constant`$ (80)
with the parameters $`\{n,r_2(0),\theta _2(0),\theta _3(0),R_2,\mathrm{\Theta }_2,\mathrm{\Theta }_3\}`$ to be determined. We compute the integrals appearing in the expansion (33), with the period $`T=2\pi `$ and choose some parameters to yield the expressions,

$`F_{r_2\theta _2}_{r_2\theta _2}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 2\end{array}\right)2i\mathrm{sinh}2r_2(0)R_2\mathrm{\Theta }_2\pi `$ (81)
$`F_{r_2\theta _3}|_{\theta _3(0)=\pi }_{r_2\theta _3}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)i\mathrm{sin}2r_3\mathrm{sinh}2r_2(0){\displaystyle \frac{R_2\mathrm{\Theta }_3\mathrm{sin}2n\pi }{n^21}}`$ (83)
$`D_{\frac{}{r_2}}F_{\theta _3r_2}|_{\theta _3(0)=\pi }_{r_2\theta _3r_2}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)2i\mathrm{sin}2r_3\mathrm{cosh}2r_2(0){\displaystyle \frac{6R_2^2\mathrm{\Theta }_3\mathrm{sin}2n\pi }{n^45n^2+4}}`$ (84)
$`D_{\frac{}{r_2}}F_{r_2\theta _2}|_{\theta _2(0)=0}_{r_2r_2\theta _2}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)4i\mathrm{sinh}2r_2(0)2\mathrm{\Theta }_2R_2^2\pi `$
$`+\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 2\end{array}\right)4i\mathrm{cosh}2r_2(0)2\mathrm{\Theta }_2R_2^2\pi `$ (85)
We also have,

$`_{\theta _2r_2\theta _2}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (86)
$`F_{\theta _2\theta _3}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (87)
$`D_{\frac{}{\theta _3}}F_{r_2\theta _2}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (88)
$`D_{\frac{}{\theta _3}}F_{r_2\theta _3}|_{r_3(0)=\pi /4}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (89)
$`F_{r_2\theta _2}_{r_2\theta _2}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\theta _2r_2}_{\theta _2r_2}`$ (90)
$`F_{r_2\theta _3}|_{\theta _3(0)=\pi }_{r_2\theta _3}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\theta _3r_2}|_{\theta _3(0)=\pi }_{\theta _3r_2}`$ (91)
$`2D_{\frac{}{r_2}}F_{r_2\theta _3}|_{\theta _3(0)=\pi }_{r_2r_2\theta _3}`$ $`=`$ $`D_{\frac{}{r_2}}F_{\theta _3r_2}|_{\theta _3(0)=\pi }_{r_2\theta _3r_2}`$ (92)
$`2D_{\frac{}{r_2}}F_{\theta _2r_2}|_{\theta _2(0)=0}_{r_2\theta _2r_2}`$ $`=`$ $`D_{\frac{}{r_2}}F_{r_2\theta _2}|_{\theta _2(0)=0}_{r_2r_2\theta _2}.`$ (93)
The strategy now is to choose parameters so that the $`F_{r_2\theta _2}`$ terms kill the terms along the diagonal in the expressions $`D_{\frac{}{r_2}}F_{r_2\theta _2}`$ and $`D_{\frac{}{r_2}}F_{\theta _2r_2}.`$ Then, with those parameters chosen, we choose the rest of the parameters so that the remaining terms combine to yield $`i\theta I_{yy},`$ where $`\theta `$ is a free parameter. Remembering to include the coefficients in the expansion, the first objective leads to the following equation,

$$r_2(0)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{arctanh}(2R_2).$$
(94)
Setting $`\mathrm{\Theta }_2=\mathrm{\Theta }_3=\theta ,`$ and substituting the previous equation defining $`r_2(0)`$ and $`R_2`$, the second objective yields

$$R_2=\frac{\mathrm{sin}2n\pi }{4\pi (n^24)}.$$
(95)
If $`n`$ is chose to as a non-integer so that (95), the loop $`\gamma ^{}`$ determines the holonomy (up to third order)

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma ^{})=\mathrm{exp}(i\theta I_{yy})$$
(96)
where $`\theta `$ is a free parameter.

Loops generating single qubit $`SU(2)`$ holonomies can be characterized by abelianizing the dynamics . Thus with this single two-qubit holonomy, we can construct any $`SU(4)`$ transformation on the computational basis. To see this, recall that any $`SU(4)`$ transformation may be written with the Cartan decomposition

$$g=K_1\mathrm{exp}(i\theta _1I_{xx}i\theta _2I_{yy}i\theta _3I_{zz})K_2$$
(97)
where $`K_jSU(2)SU(2).`$

We may obtain the transformations $`\mathrm{exp}(i\theta _1I_{xx})`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}(i\theta _1I_{zz})`$ by noting that

$`K_z^1({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})\mathrm{exp}(i\theta I_{yy})K_z({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})=\mathrm{exp}(i\theta I_{xx})`$ (98)
$`K_x({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})\mathrm{exp}(i\theta I_{yy})K_x^1({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})=\mathrm{exp}(i\theta I_{zz})`$ (99)
where

$`K_z(\theta )=\mathrm{exp}(i\theta I_{z1})\mathrm{exp}(i\theta I_{z2})`$ (100)
$`K_x(\theta )=\mathrm{exp}(i\theta I_{x1})\mathrm{exp}(i\theta I_{x1}).`$ (101)
Thus any $`gSU(4)`$ can be approximated up to third order by,

$$g=K_1K_z^1(\frac{\pi }{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma ^{})K_z(\frac{\pi }{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma ^{})K_x(\frac{\pi }{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma ^{})K_x^1(\frac{\pi }{2})K_2$$
(102)
One can also use the abelianization procedure of the previous section to construct a holonomy of the form

$$\stackrel{~}{U}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\sqrt{2}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& i& 0\\ 0& i& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \sqrt{2}\end{array}\right).$$
(103)
One can then show that the Lie algebra element $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }`$ such that $`\mathrm{exp}(\stackrel{~}{\xi })=\stackrel{~}{U}`$ along with the local algebra generates $`𝔰𝔲(4)`$ under repeated bracketing. Thus $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ is a so called universal logic gate. However, this procedure does not give a prescription for building an arbitrary $`SU(4)`$ transformation.

### 4.3 Conditional Berry Phases

An interesting hybrid scheme to quantum computing involving dynamical $`SU(2)`$ rotations and conditional Berry phases has been realized as a universal set of gates for several physical systems proposed for quantum computing. To date, there have been HQC implementations using this control paradigm with NMR , trapped ions , neutral atoms , semiconductor nanostructures , and Josephson junction networks . We refer the reader to the literature for a description of the physical systems underlying these proposed quantum computing schemes.

Here we are interested in the control strategy of the experimentalist with the gates available in systems of this type. Namely, how does one build an arbitrary unitary transformation on two coupled qubits given only single qubit rotations and the conditional phase shift ? It is perhaps surprising that indeed this is possible and one can entangle qubits with only the conditional phase shift as the non-local operation. For this model we do not concentrate on the generation of the fundamental logic gates since the $`SU(2)`$ transformations are typically not holonomic and the Abelian Berry phase contributing to the conditional phase gate can be computed with Stokes theorem.

Since the conditional phase gate is not an element of $`SU(4),`$ we employ a Cartan decomposition of $`U(4).`$ To this end, recall the notation of the previous section and note that the real span of the sets

$`𝔨=i\{I_{x1},I_{y1},I_{z1},I_{x2},I_{y2},I_{z2}\}`$ (104)
$`𝔭=i\{\mathrm{𝟏}_4,I_{xx},I_{yy},I_{zz},I_{xy},I_{xz},I_{yx},I_{yz},I_{zx},I_{zy}\}`$ (105)
form a basis of $`𝔲(4)`$ in the tensor product representation. Moreover, one can check the commutation relations (67) to confirm that the set forms a Cartan decomposition of $`𝔲(4)`$ where $`𝔲(4)=𝔨𝔭.`$ Since the maximal Abelian subalgebra $`𝔞`$ contained in $`𝔭`$ is just

$$𝔞=i\{\mathrm{𝟏}_4,I_{xx},I_{yy},I_{zz}\},$$
(106)
we obtain the decomposition for any $`GU(4)`$

$$G=K_1\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _0\mathrm{𝟏}_4i\varphi _1I_{xx}i\varphi _2I_{yy}i\varphi _3I_{zz})K_2$$
(107)
where $`\varphi _i`$ and $`K_jK=SU(2)SU(2).`$

#### 4.3.1 Control Algorithms

Proceeding along the lines of , we develop control algorithms with single qubit rotations and the conditional phase shift. The action of the conditional phase shift of the the computational basis is as follows,

$`U_\varphi |00=|00,U_\varphi |01=|01`$ (108)
$`U_\varphi |10=|10,U_\varphi |11=e^{i\varphi }|11.`$ (109)
Under the isomorphism $`C^2C^2C^4`$, the conditional phase shift can be written as

$$U_\varphi =\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& e^{i\varphi }\end{array}\right).$$
(110)
In terms of the basis (104) we can write

$$U_\varphi =\mathrm{exp}(i\frac{\varphi }{2}(2\mathrm{𝟏}_4+I_{zz}(I_{z1}+I_{z2}))).$$
(111)
Let

$$\stackrel{~}{K}_z=\mathrm{exp}(i\frac{\varphi }{4}(I_{z1}+I_{z2})),$$
(112)
since

$$[2\mathrm{𝟏}_4,I_{zi}]=[I_{zz},I_{zi}]=0$$
(113)
we have

$`\stackrel{~}{K}_zU_{\varphi /2}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(i{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{4}}(I_{z1}+I_{z2}))\mathrm{exp}(i{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{4}}(2\mathrm{𝟏}_4+I_{zz}(I_{z1}+I_{z2})))`$ (114)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(i{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{4}}(2\mathrm{𝟏}_4+I_{zz})).`$
Let

$$K_j(\theta )=\mathrm{exp}(i\theta I_{j1})\mathrm{exp}(i\theta I_{j2})K$$
(115)
for $`j\{x,y\}`$ and $`\theta `$ is a real parameter. We have the commutation relations,

$$[i(I_{z1}+I_{z2}),i(2\mathrm{𝟏}_4+I_{zz})]=[i(I_{z1}+I_{z2}),iI_{zz}]$$
(116)
and

$$[iI_{zz},[i(I_{j1}+I_{j2}),iI_{zz}]]=i(I_{j1}+I_{j2}).$$
(117)
Thus by the Campbell-Baker-Hausdorff formula, we obtain,

$`K_j(\theta )\stackrel{~}{K}_zU_{\varphi /2}K_j^1(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`K_j(\theta )\mathrm{exp}(i{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{4}}(2\mathrm{𝟏}_4+I_{zz}))K_j^1(\theta )`$ (118)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(i{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{4}}(2\mathrm{𝟏}_4+I_{zz}\mathrm{cos}(\theta )+[(iI_{j1}iI_{j2}),iI_{zz}]\mathrm{sin}(\theta ))).`$ (119)
We employ a $`\pi `$-rotation to achieve the necessary decoupling. Using the preceding expression we get,

$`K_j(\pi )\stackrel{~}{K}_zU_{\varphi /2}K_j^1(\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`K_j(\pi )\mathrm{exp}(i{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{4}}(2\mathrm{𝟏}_4+I_{zz}))K_j^1(\pi )`$ (120)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(i{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{4}}(2\mathrm{𝟏}_4I_{zz})).`$ (121)
So we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{K}_zU_{\varphi /2}K_j(\pi )\stackrel{~}{K}_zU_{\varphi /2}K_j^1(\pi )=\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi \mathrm{𝟏}_4).$$
(122)
Similarly,

$$\stackrel{~}{K}_z^{}U_\varphi K_j(\pi )\stackrel{~}{K}_z^{}U_\varphi K_j^1(\pi )=\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi I_{zz})$$
(123)
where $`\stackrel{~}{K}_z^{}=\mathrm{exp}(i\frac{\varphi }{2}(I_{z1}+I_{z2})).`$

Finally, by noting that for

$`K_x(\theta )=\mathrm{exp}(i\theta I_{x1})\mathrm{exp}(i\theta I_{x2})`$ (124)
$`K_y(\theta )=\mathrm{exp}(i\theta I_{y1})\mathrm{exp}(i\theta I_{y1})`$ (125)
we have

$`K_y({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi I_{zz})K_y^1({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})=\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi I_{xx})`$ (126)
$`K_x^1({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi I_{zz})K_x({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})=\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi I_{yy}).`$ (127)
Using (126)and (127), we can construct the desired decomposition for any $`GU(4),`$

$`G`$ $`=`$ $`K_1\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _0\mathrm{𝟏}_4i\varphi _1I_{xx}i\varphi _2I_{yy}i\varphi _3I_{zz})K_2`$ (128)
$`=`$ $`K_1\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _0\mathrm{𝟏}_4)K_y({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _1I_{zz})K_y^1({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})K_x^1({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _2I_{zz})K_x({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})`$
$`\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _3I_{zz})K_2.`$
This can now be written in terms of just elements of $`SU(2)SU(2)`$ and the conditional phase shift $`U_\varphi ,`$

$`G`$ $`=K_1\stackrel{~}{K}_zU_{\varphi _0/2}K_j(\pi )\stackrel{~}{K}_zU_{\varphi _0/2}K_j^1(\pi )K_y({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})\stackrel{~}{K}_z^{}U_{\varphi _1}K_j(\pi )\stackrel{~}{K}_z^{}U_{\varphi _1}K_j^1(\pi )K_y^1({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})K_x^1({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})`$ (130)
$`\stackrel{~}{K}_z^{}U_{\varphi _2}K_j(\pi )\stackrel{~}{K}_z^{}U_{\varphi _2}K_j^1(\pi )K_x({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})\stackrel{~}{K}_z^{}U_{\varphi _3}K_j(\pi )\stackrel{~}{K}_z^{}U_{\varphi _3}K_j^1(\pi )K_2.`$
Given the freedom of choosing $`j`$ in $`K_j`$ this sequence can be simplified $`\mathrm{somewhat}.`$ For example, choose $`j=y`$ in the product $`K_j^1(\pi )K_y(\frac{\pi }{2})`$ to obtain $`K_j^1(\pi )K_y(\frac{\pi }{2})=K_y(\pi )K_y(\frac{\pi }{2})=K_y(\frac{\pi }{2}).`$ Using this substitution and two others, the decomposition simplifies to

$`G`$ $`=K_1\stackrel{~}{K}_zU_{\varphi _0/2}K_j(\pi )\stackrel{~}{K}_zU_{\varphi _0/2}K_y({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})\stackrel{~}{K}_z^{}U_{\varphi _1}K_j(\pi )\stackrel{~}{K}_z^{}U_{\varphi _1}K_y({\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{2}})K_x^1({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})\stackrel{~}{K}_z^{}U_{\varphi _2}K_j(\pi )\stackrel{~}{K}_z^{}U_{\varphi _2}`$ (131)
$`K_x({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})\stackrel{~}{K}_z^{}U_{\varphi _3}K_j(\pi )\stackrel{~}{K}_z^{}U_{\varphi _3}K_j^1(\pi )K_2.`$
Finally, absorbing $`\stackrel{~}{K}_z`$ and $`K_j^1(\pi )`$ into $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ respectively, we get

$`G`$ $`=K_1U_{\varphi _0/2}K_j(\pi )\stackrel{~}{K}_zU_{\varphi _0/2}K_y({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})\stackrel{~}{K}_z^{}U_{\varphi _1}K_j(\pi )\stackrel{~}{K}_z^{}U_{\varphi _1}K_y({\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{2}})K_x^1({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})\stackrel{~}{K}_z^{}U_{\varphi _2}K_j(\pi )\stackrel{~}{K}_z^{}U_{\varphi _2}`$ (132)
$`K_x({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})\stackrel{~}{K}_z^{}U_{\varphi _3}K_j(\pi )\stackrel{~}{K}_z^{}U_{\varphi _3}K_2.`$
Some remarks are appropriate. This sequence of unitary transformations is exact and a precise prescription for building any $`U(4)`$ logic gate with just local operations and the conditional phase shift. We make no claim that this decomposition is optimal with respect to number of elements nor time. In the holonomic framework, time optimality is constrained by the adiabatic requirement. In this case, one should then focus primarily on minimizing the number of loops necessary to build an arbitrary gate.

## 5 Conclusion

In this paper, we have considered holonomic quantum computation from a control theoretic point of view. A general framework for the control analysis is obtained by casting the relevant problems as control systems evolving on principal fiber bundles. We have applied this framework to two well established models of the computing scheme. To the best of our knowledge, all holonomic computing schemes proposed thus far fall into one of the two models considered here. From a control perspective, an interesting avenue for future work would be extending these ideas to the control of molecular systems in the Born-Oppenheimer approximation (as mentioned in ). Holonomies can be realized in this regime  and it is reasonable to expect that a similar analysis can be carried out for these systems. However, a direct application of the methods proposed here will not suffice since the control parameters themselves are quantum degrees of freedom and therefore possess a non-trivial uncontrolled evolution of their own. In other words, the state equations analogous to those considered here (13) will be coupled quantum control problems.

## 6 Acknowledgments

The author thanks Professors T. J. Tarn and John Clark for their guidance and support. The author gratefully acknowledges the financial support of Washington University in St. Louis where the majority of this research was conducted. The completion of this work was supported in part by JHU/APL part-time study funds.

Appendix

## Appendix A Two-Qubit Connection Components

$`A_{r_2}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& e^{i\theta _2}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ e^{i\theta _2}& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$
$`A_{r_3}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& e^{i\theta _3}& 0\\ 0& e^{i\theta _3}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)(2\mathrm{cosh}^2r_21)`$
$`A_{\theta _2}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& e^{i\theta _2}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ e^{i\theta _2}& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{sinh}2r_2+\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 2& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 2& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 3\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\mathrm{cosh}2r_21)`$
$`A_{\theta _3}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& e^{i\theta _3}& 0\\ 0& e^{i\theta 3}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{cosh}2r_2\mathrm{sin}2r_3+\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)i\mathrm{sin}^2r_3.`$
## Appendix B Interaction Holonomy Algebra

$`F_{r_2r_3}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& e^{i\theta _3}& 0\\ 0& e^{i\theta _3}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)2\mathrm{sinh}2r_2`$
$`F_{r_2\theta _2}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 2\end{array}\right)2i\mathrm{sinh}2r_2`$
$`F_{r_2\theta _3}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& e^{i\theta _3}& 0\\ 0& e^{i\theta _3}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)i\mathrm{sin}2r_3\mathrm{sinh}2r_2`$
$$F_{r_3\theta _3}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)i\mathrm{sin}2r_3\mathrm{sinh}^22r_2,$$

$`D_{\frac{}{\theta _2}}F_{r_2\theta _2}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& e^{i\theta _2}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ e^{i\theta _2}& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)2\mathrm{sinh}^22r_2`$
$`D_{\frac{}{r_2}}F_{r_2\theta _2}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& e^{i\theta _2}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ e^{i\theta _2}& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)4i\mathrm{sinh}2r_2+\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 2\end{array}\right)4i\mathrm{cosh}2r_2,`$
$`D_{\frac{}{\theta _2}}D_{\frac{}{\theta _2}}F_{r_2\theta _2}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)2i\mathrm{sinh}^3r_2+\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& e^{i\theta _2}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ e^{i\theta _2}& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}i\mathrm{sinh}^22r_2\mathrm{cosh}2r_2`$
## Appendix C Higher Order Brackets

$`[I_{x1},F_{r_2r_3}]`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& e^{i\theta _3}& 0& 0\\ e^{i\theta _3}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& e^{i\theta _3}\\ 0& 0& e^{i\theta _3}& 0\end{array}\right)i\mathrm{sinh}2r_2`$
$`[I_{x1},F_{r_2\theta _3}]`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& e^{i\theta _3}& 0& 0\\ e^{i\theta _3}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& e^{i\theta _3}\\ 0& 0& e^{i\theta _3}& 0\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}2r_2\mathrm{sinh}2r_2`$
$`[I_{x2},F_{r_2r_3}]`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& e^{i\theta _3}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& e^{i\theta _3}\\ e^{i\theta _3}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{i\theta _3}& 0& \end{array}\right)i\mathrm{sinh}2r_2`$
$`[I_{x2},F_{r_2\theta _3}]`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& e^{i\theta _3}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& e^{i\theta _3}\\ e^{i\theta _3}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{i\theta _3}& 0& \end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}2r_2\mathrm{sinh}2r_2`$
$`[[I_{x1},F_{r_2r_3}],I_{x2}]`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& \\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)i\mathrm{sin}\theta _3\mathrm{sinh}2r_2`$