text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The results of long–awaited lattice measurements of gauge-invariant nonlocal quark condensates have been published recently in . These data provide a possibility to examine directly the models of nonlocal–condensate coordinate behaviour. Different models have been suggested in the framework of QCD sum rules (SR) for dynamic properties of light mesons . We used an extended QCD SR approach with nonlocal condensates  as a bridge to connect meson properties, form factors, and distribution amplitudes with the structure of QCD vacuum. For light meson phenomenology, the value of short–distance correlation length $`l`$ in QCD vacuum, $`l{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _q}}`$, has a paramount significance, while the details of a particular condensate model are of next-to-leading importance. We demonstrate that the original lattice data in  allow one to extract a reasonable value of the correlation scale $`\lambda _q^2`$ being in agreement with our vacuum condensate models. At the very end, the lattice data support our conclusion on the shape of the pion distribution amplitude , and vice versa, the CLEO experimental data  on pion photoproduction confirm our suggestion about the range of the correlation scale values in an independent way .

## 2 Models of nonlocal quark condensates

Small $`x^2`$ behavior. Let us start with the general properties of gauge-invariant nonlocal quark condensates (NLCs) $`F_{S,V}(x^2)`$ following from their definitions

$`:\overline{q}_\sigma (0)E(0,x)q_\rho (x):={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}q}{4}}[F_S(x^2){\displaystyle \frac{i\widehat{x}}{4}}F_V(x^2)]_{\rho \sigma },E(0,x)=P\mathrm{exp}(i{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{x}{}}}A_\mu (y)dy^\mu ),`$ (1)
where $`\sigma ,\rho `$ are spinor indices, the integral in the Fock–Schwinger string $`E(0,x)`$ is taken along a straight-line path. First of all, the condensates $`F_{S,V}(x^2),\mathrm{}`$ should be analytic functions around the origin, and their derivatives at zero are related to condensates of the corresponding dimension. Expanding $`F_{S,V}(x^2)`$ in the Taylor series at the origin in the fixed-point gauge $`A_\mu (y)y^\mu =0`$ (hence $`E(0,x)=1`$), one can obtain :

$`F_S(x^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}(0)q(x)}{\overline{q}q}}={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}\left(1+\frac{1}{2!}(xD)^2+\frac{1}{4!}(xD)^4+\mathrm{}\right)q}{\overline{q}q}}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^5}{2!2Q^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_q^2}{2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{4}}\right)+2{\displaystyle \frac{Q_{(0)}^7m_qQ_{(m_q)}^6}{4!3Q^3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{4}}\right)^2+O(x^6),`$
$`F_V(x^2)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{4\overline{q}(0)\widehat{x}q(x)}{\overline{q}qx^2}}=i{\displaystyle \frac{4\overline{q}\widehat{x}\left((xD)+\frac{1}{3!}(xD)^3+\frac{1}{5!}(xD)^5+\mathrm{}\right)q}{\overline{q}qx^2}}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`m_q+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^6+m_q\left(3Q^56m_q^2Q^3\right)}{3!3Q^3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{4}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{Q_{(0)}^8m_qQ_{(m_q)}^7}{5!3Q^3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{4}}\right)^2+O(x^6).`$
Here $`D_\mu =_\mu igA_\mu ^at^a`$ is a covariant derivative; $`m_q`$, the quark mass; $`J_\mu ^a`$, quark vector current; and the expansion coefficients $`Q^i`$ appearing in (2)-(3) are vacuum expectation values (VEVs) of quark-gluon operators $`O_i`$ of dimension $`i`$, $`Q^i=O_i`$. These expansions with the explicit expressions for the condensates $`Q^i`$ have been derived in , (see Appendix A). Condensates of lowest dimensions

$$Q^3=\overline{q}q,Q^5=ig\overline{q}\left(G_{\mu \nu }\sigma _{\mu \nu }\right)qm_0^2Q^3,Q^6=t^aJ_\mu ^at^bJ_\mu ^b,$$
(4)
form the basis of standard QCD SR  and have been estimated, while the higher-dimensional VEVs, $`Q_{(0)}^7,Q_{(m_q)}^7,Q_{(0)}^8\mathrm{}`$ are yet unknown. Note here that the matrix element of the 4-quark condensate $`Q^6`$ is not known independently. Instead, it is usually evaluated in the “factorization approximation”, the accuracy is estimated to be about 20% ,

$$\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1q\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2q\frac{\text{Tr}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\right)}{144}\overline{q}q^2.$$
(5)
The “mixed” condensate $`Q^5`$ is expressed in the chiral limit as $`m_0^2Q^3`$ or $`2\lambda _q^2Q^3`$

$$4\frac{dF_S(x^2)}{dx^2}|_{x=0}=\frac{Q^5}{4Q^3}\frac{m_0^2}{4}=\frac{\lambda _q^2}{2},$$
(6)
and the parameter $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _q^2}{2}}`$ fixes the width of $`F_S(x^2)`$ around the origin. This important quantity has been estimated within the QCD sum-rule approach

$$\lambda _q^2=\{\begin{array}{cc}0.4\pm 0.1\text{GeV}^2\hfill & \text{[13]},\hfill \\ 0.5\pm 0.05\text{GeV}^2\hfill & \text{[14]}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
Estimates of $`\lambda _q^2`$ from instanton approaches  are somewhat larger: $`\lambda _q^22/\rho _c^20.6\text{GeV}^2`$ where $`\rho _c1.72`$ GeV-1 is an average characteristic size of the instanton fluctuation in the QCD vacuum. Taking into account all these estimates, in the following, we put a rather wide window $`0.6\lambda _q^20.4\text{GeV}^2`$ for its value (“QCD Range” in Figs.23).

Large $`x^2`$ asymptotics from HQET. The large-$`|x|`$ properties of the NLC $`F_S(x^2)`$ have been analyzed in detail in  in the framework of QCD SRs for heavy–quark effective theory (HQET) of heavy-light mesons. It was demonstrated that for a large Euclidean $`x`$, NLC is dominated by the contribution of the lowest state of a heavy-light meson with energy $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(M_Qm_Q)|_{m_Q\mathrm{}}`$, and $`F_S(x^2)\mathrm{exp}\{|x|\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$ (numerically, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is around 0.45 $`GeV`$). In the following, we shall take this asymptotic behavior for NLC at large $`|x|`$

$$F_{S,V}e^{|x|\mathrm{\Lambda }_{S,V}}.$$
(8)
Hints from QCD SRs, Gaussian Ansatz. To relate the NLC behaviour with the properties of mesons via QCD SR, it is convenient to parameterize the $`x^2`$-dependence of (2)-(3) by the distribution functions $`f_X(\alpha )`$ a’la $`\alpha `$-representation for a propagator

$$F_{S,V}(x^2)=_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{\alpha x^2/4}f_{S,V}(\alpha )𝑑\alpha ,\text{where }_0^{\mathrm{}}f_{S,V}(\alpha )𝑑\alpha =\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & \text{S-case};\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{V-case, chiral limit.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
Here we use the Euclidean interval $`x^2=x_E^2>0`$, and the subscript $`E`$ will be omitted below for simplicity. The representation (9) allows one (i) to involve smoothly NLCs into diagrammatic techniques, and (ii) to clarify the physical properties of NLCs. Indeed, functions $`f_{S,V,\mathrm{}}(\alpha )`$ introduced in  describe the distribution of quarks over virtuality $`\alpha `$ in nonperturbative vacuum. The moments of $`f_{S,V,\mathrm{}}`$ coincide with Taylor expansion coefficients in (2)-(3). For example, we have in $`S`$ case in the chiral limit

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\alpha f_S(\alpha )𝑑\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{:\overline{q}D^2q:}{:\overline{q}q:}}\lambda _q^2),{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\alpha ^2f_S(\alpha )𝑑\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{Q_{(0)}^7}{18Q^3}},\mathrm{}`$ (10)
with $`\lambda _q^2`$ meaning the average virtuality of vacuum quarks. Higher moments of $`f_S(\alpha )`$ are connected with higher–dimensional VEVs. The difference between the Ansatzes for $`F_S(x^2)`$ looks more pronounced just for its $`f_S(\alpha )`$-images. It is evident that distributions extremely concentrated at the origin $`f_S(\alpha )\delta (\alpha )`$, $`\delta ^{(1)}(\alpha ),\mathrm{}`$ correspond to separate terms of the Taylor expansion (2)-(3). At the same time, $`f_S(\alpha )=\text{const}`$ simulates a free propagation with zero mass: $`F(x^2)\text{const}/x^2`$. The Gaussian Ansatz

$$F_S^G(x^2)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\lambda _q^2}{8}x^2\right),$$
(11)
takes account of a single scale – “inverse width” $`\lambda _q`$ of the coordinate distribution and corresponds to the virtuality distribution $`f_S=\delta (\alpha \lambda _q^2/2)`$. It fixes only one main property of the nonperturbative vacuum — quarks can flow through the vacuum with a nonzero momentum $`k`$, and the average virtuality of vacuum quarks is $`k^2=\lambda _q^2/2`$. The Gaussian behavior at very large $`|x|`$ does not correspond to the expected NLC asymptotics (8). But for the moment QCD SRs, that deal with the smearing quantities – moments of distribution amplitudes , form factors , the incorrect asymptotics of NLC as well as subtle details of the Ansatz shape are expected to be not so important. It is interesting that the Gaussian behaviour is supported by a model of the nonperturbative propagator, , based on simple “local–duality” arguments. Namely, Eq.(16) in  demonstrates a behaviour rather close to Eq.(11) within a physically important region 1 Fm. Unfortunately, corresponding $`F_S(x^2)`$ decays too quickly beyond this region, it becomes negative and oscillating, which is physically unclear.

Certainly, a more realistic model of $`f(\alpha )`$ should possess a finite width: we expect that it is a continuous function concentrated around a certain value $`\lambda _q^2/2`$ and rapidly decaying to zero as $`\alpha `$ goes to $`0`$ or $`\mathrm{}`$. Moreover, the continuous distribution $`f_S(\alpha )`$ over virtuality is directly related to the pion distribution amplitude $`\phi _\pi (x)`$ (for details, see sect.4), as it was demonstrated with the help of the “nondiagonal” correlator in .

“Advanced Ansatz”. To construct models of nonlocal condensates, one should satisfy some constraints. For instance, if we assume vacuum matrix elements $`:\overline{q}(D^2)^mq:`$ to exist, then the function $`f(\alpha )`$ should decay faster than $`1/\alpha ^{m+1}`$ as $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$. If for all $`m`$, all such matrix elements exist, a possible choice could be a function $`f(\alpha )\alpha ^n\mathrm{exp}(\alpha \sigma )`$, $`etc.`$ at large $`\alpha `$. The opposite, small-$`\alpha `$, limit of $`f(\alpha )`$ is determined by the large-$`|x|`$ asymptotics (8) of the function $`F_S(x^2)`$. This means that $`f(\alpha )\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/\alpha )`$ in the small-$`\alpha `$ region. By the simplest composition of both the asymptotics , we arrive at the class of Ansatzes

$$f_S(\alpha ;n)\alpha ^{n1}e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/\alpha \sigma ^2\alpha }$$
(12)
that gives a coordinate behavior

$$F_S(x^2;n)=\frac{K_n\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{4\sigma ^2+|x^2|}\right)}{K_n\left(2\mathrm{\Lambda }\sigma \right)}\left(\frac{2\sigma }{\sqrt{4\sigma ^2+|x^2|}}\right)^n.$$
(13)
where $`K_n(z)`$ is the modified Bessel function. The distribution $`f_S^A(\alpha )f_S(\alpha ;n=1)`$ with the parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_q0.45\text{GeV}`$ and $`\sigma _q^210`$ GeV-2 is presented in Fig.1 in comparison with the distribution $`f_S(\alpha ;n=5)`$. In this case, the behavior of $`F_S^A(x^2)F_S(x^2;1)`$ is similar to that of the massive scalar propagator with a shifted argument:

$$F_S^A(x^2)=\frac{K_1\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{4\sigma ^2+|x^2|}\right)}{K_1\left(2\mathrm{\Lambda }\sigma \right)}\frac{2\sigma }{\sqrt{4\sigma ^2+|x^2|}},\lambda _q^2=2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\sigma }\frac{K_2\left(2\mathrm{\Lambda }\sigma \right)}{K_1\left(2\mathrm{\Lambda }\sigma \right)}.$$
(14)
The short-distance correlation scale $`\lambda _q^2`$ in (14) appears to be equal to $`2/\sigma ^2`$ at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\sigma 1`$, reproducing the single instanton–like result  where the parameter $`\sigma `$ imitates the instanton size $`\rho _c`$. In the opposite case at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\sigma 1`$, $`\lambda _q^2`$ is proportional to $`2\mathrm{\Lambda }/\sigma `$. The asymptotics of $`F_S^A(x^2)`$ at large $`|x|2\sigma `$ §§§The asymptotics starts with $`x^22`$ Fm2 at the mentioned value of $`\sigma `$-parameter. is determined by the parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$,

$$F_S^A(x^2)_{x^2\mathrm{}}\sigma \sqrt{\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{\Lambda }|x|^3}}e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }x},$$
(15)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ plays the role of an effective mass. This interpretation is transparent in the momentum representation of the NLC: $`\stackrel{~}{F}_S^A(p^2)`$ tends to the usual propagator form at small values of all the arguments

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_S^A(p^2)\frac{K_1\left(\sigma \sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+|p^2|}\right)}{K_1\left(2\mathrm{\Lambda }\sigma \right)}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+|p^2|}}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+p^2}.$$

“Advanced” Ansatz has been successfully applied in the nondiagonal QCD SR approach to the pion and its radial excitations , and the main features of the pion have been described: the mass spectrum of pion radial excitations $`\pi ^{}`$ and $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }`$ in close agreement with experimental data.

## 3 Vacuum correlation length from lattice data

Here we consider the results of fitting the lattice simulation data for both the kinds of Ansatz $`F_S^{G,A}(x^2)`$ introduced previously for the nonperturbative part of a correlator.

Processing the Pisa lattice data. The correlator $`C_0(x)=_{f=1}^{N_f}\text{Tr }[\overline{q}^f(0)E(0,x)q^f(x)]`$ was measured on an Euclidean lattice  at four points, $`x=2a`$, $`4a`$, $`6a`$, $`8a`$, inside 1 Fm, where $`a0.1`$ Fm is the lattice spacing. The simulation was performed with four flavors ($`N_f=4`$) of staggered fermions with the same mass $`m_q`$ for every flavor and $`SU(3)`$ Wilson action for the pure gauge sector. Both the full QCD case (f-QCD), i.e. , including the effects of “loop” fermions with the flavour masses $`m_qa=0.01,0.02`$ and the quenched case (q-QCD where the effects coming from loops of dynamical fermions are neglected) with a set of flavour masses $`m_qa=0.01`$, $`0.02`$, $`0.05`$, $`0.10`$ were considered, see Appendix B and  for details.

The correlator can be written as a sum of a perturbative-like term, $`BF_S^{\text{pt}}(x^2)`$, proportional to $`m_q/x^2`$ at very short distances, and a nonperturbative part, $`AF_S^{\text{npt}}(x^2)`$. Parameters of the latter are the main goal of the fit. For the perturbative part, the authors of  have used just the short-distance asymptotics; whereas for the nonperturbative one, an exponential Ansatz $`F_S^{\text{npt}}(x^2)=\mathrm{exp}(\mu _0|x|)`$ that corresponds to the asymptotics of very large distances $`x^21`$ Fm2. In other words, these two approximations, involved in the fit simultaneously, are adapted for different regions of $`x`$. It seems more dangerously that the exponential Ansatz is a non-analytic function of $`x^2`$ at the origin: it depends on $`|x|=\sqrt{x^2}`$ and its derivatives with respect to $`x^2`$ do not exist at the origin. Therefore one loses any connection with local VEVs appearing in the OPE and with the corresponding interpretation of the correlation length, see section 2. Nevertheless, the fit of the lattice data has been performed  and demonstrated very small $`\chi ^2`$. Note, the values of $`\chi ^2/N_{d.o.f.}`$ in the Tables below should be considered as purely indicative of the best fit quality. One could not interpret these values in a standard statistical sense, because their true norm is unknown, see brief discussion in . The extracted quantities, $`A,\mu _0,B`$Note here that the authors of  used the dimensional coefficient $`B_0`$ related to our dimensionless parameter, $`B_0=m_qB`$. are presented in Table 1 (for every run) for a comparison with our results.

Table 1: ModifiedIn the original table , the dimensionless combination $`aB_0`$ has been shown. Due to the previous footnote we recalculate the corresponding $`B`$ parameter for their fits. fit $`F_S^{npt}(x)=\mathrm{exp}\left(|x|\mu _0\right)`$

$`\beta ,\mathrm{theory}`$ $`am_q`$ $`a^3A_0\times 10^2`$ $`a\mu _0`$ $`B`$ $`\chi ^2/N_{d.o.f.}`$     $`5.35,\text{f}`$ $`0.01`$ $`0.49(13)`$ $`0.16(4)`$ $`1.3(3)`$ $`1.310^2`$  $`5.35,\text{f}`$ $`0.02`$ $`1.7(5)`$ $`0.26(4)`$ $`0.95(5)`$ $`6.410^3`$  $`6.00,\text{q}`$ $`0.01`$ $`1.6(5)`$ $`0.16(4)`$ $`0.9(1)`$ $`7.610^2`$  $`5.91,\text{q}`$ $`0.02`$ $`2.3(7)`$ $`0.26(3)`$ $`1.25(7)`$ $`5.210^2`$  $`6.00,\text{q}`$ $`0.05`$ $`1.8(4)`$ $`0.34(2)`$ $`1.4(2)`$ $`0.2`$  $`6.00,\text{q}`$ $`0.10`$ $`5.6(5)`$ $`0.55(1)`$ $`1.0(1)`$ $`1.310^2`$

We test different NLC Ansatzes and extract the parameters of the correlator using three-step procedure. At the first step, we fit rearranged formulas for the correlator. Note that the masses of light flavors appear unnaturally large in the lattice simulation and cannot be considered small (for the values of masses in MeV, have a look at the axes of Fig.3). For this reason, one should take account of all possible mass terms in both parts of $`C_0`$:

$`C_0(x)=BF_S^{\text{pt}}(x^2)+AF_S^{\text{npt}}(x^2),`$ (16)
$`B{\displaystyle \frac{N_fN_c}{\pi ^2}};F_S^{\text{pt}}(x^2)=m_q\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_q}{x}}K_1(m_qx)\right);F_S^{\text{npt}}(x^2)=F_S^{G,A}(x^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}m_q^2x^2+\mathrm{}.`$ (17)
Following , we fix the perturbative-like part in the form of free propagation $`F^{\text{pt}}=\frac{m_q}{x}K_1(m_qx)`$ with mass $`m_q`$. For nonperturbative part, we keep all the known mass-terms from the expansion (2), see the expression for $`Q_{(m_q)}^6`$ in Appendix A.

Table 2: Fit for the Gaussian Ansatz, $`F_S^G(x)=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^2\lambda _L^2}{8}}\right)`$

$`\beta ,\mathrm{theory}`$ $`am_q`$ $`a^3A_0\times 10^2`$ $`(a\lambda _L)^2`$ $`B`$ $`\chi ^2/N_{d.o.f.}`$     $`5.35,\text{f}`$ $`0.01`$ $`0.28(4)`$ $`0.10(3)`$ $`1.67(14)`$ $`0.075`$  $`5.35,\text{f}`$ $`0.02`$ $`0.69(12)`$ $`0.18(3)`$ $`1.67(21)`$ $`0.125`$  $`6.00,\text{q}`$ $`0.01`$ $`0.93(14)`$ $`0.10(3)`$ $`2.19(65)`$ $`0.01`$  $`5.91,\text{q}`$ $`0.02`$ $`0.92(14)`$ $`0.16(3)`$ $`2.31(27)`$ $`0.65`$  $`6.00,\text{q}`$ $`0.05`$ $`0.60(7)`$ $`0.23(2)`$ $`1.7(6)`$ $`1.78`$  $`6.00,\text{q}`$ $`0.10`$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $`2.7`$

Table 3: Fit for the “Advanced” Ansatz, $`F_S^A(x),\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.5`$ GeV

$`\beta ,\mathrm{theory}`$ $`am_q`$ $`a^3A_0\times 10^2`$ $`(a\lambda _L)^2`$ $`B`$ $`\chi ^2/N_{d.o.f.}`$     $`5.35,\text{f}`$ $`0.01`$ $`0.29(5)`$ $`0.11(3)`$ $`1.63(19)`$ $`0.03`$  $`5.35,\text{f}`$ $`0.02`$ $`0.76(16)`$ $`0.23(5)`$ $`1.57(30)`$ $`0.05`$  $`6.00,\text{q}`$ $`0.01`$ $`0.97(17)`$ $`0.12(3)`$ $`1.95(63)`$ $`510^4`$  $`5.91,\text{q}`$ $`0.02`$ $`1.04(20)`$ $`0.21(5)`$ $`2.12(40)`$ $`0.3`$  $`6.00,\text{q}`$ $`0.05`$ $`0.79(14)`$ $`0.38(6)`$ $`1.59(9)`$ $`0.6`$  $`6.00,\text{q}`$ $`0.10`$ $`2.72(32)`$ $`1.41(7)`$ $`1.13(6)`$ $`0.3`$

As a result of the fit, we extract, from lattice data, an intermediate correlation scale $`\lambda _L`$ that parameterizes $`F_S^{G,A}(x^2)`$ in (17) instead of $`\lambda _q`$,

$$\lambda _L^2=8\frac{dF_S^{G,A}(x^2)}{dx^2}|_{x=0},$$

and depends on lattice conditions, namely $`m_q`$, $`a`$, and $`\beta `$. We expect that this quantity coincides in the chiral limit with $`\lambda _q^2`$, determined in (6) within the massless QCD, i.e. , $`\lambda _L^2(m_q)_{m_q0}\lambda _0^2=\lambda _q^2(\mu _L^2)`$ on the lattice normalization scale $`\mu _L^2`$. The results for $`A,B`$ and $`\lambda _L^2(m_q)`$, obtained in various cases\**\**\**The Gaussian Ansatz has been tested in a lattice in  (after our suggestion in a private communication) without any mass corrections. The fit-result, $`\lambda _L^2(m_qa=0.01)=0.46(5)`$, appears somewhat larger than our fit-result in Fig.2(a). are collected in Tables 2 and 3; let us outline the main features:

(i) The $`\chi ^2`$ for the cases of both Ansatzes look higher than in Table 1, but still sufficiently small, especially for f-lattice. An exception is the last run for the q-lattice with the largest mass $`m_qa=0.10`$ that corresponds to $`m_q200`$ MeV . To process the data with so a huge mass, one should involve a lot of mass-terms into the fit formula (17). For this reason, we exclude this run results from subsequent analysis.

(ii) The extracted coefficient B that fixes the perturbative-like contribution should not change significantly from one run to another for both Ansatzes and for both kinds of lattices. This property can signal about a good quality of the fits, it confirms the reliability of the fit at least for the f-lattice case, see Tables 1 and 2.

(iii) The fitted parameter $`\lambda _L^2(m_q)`$ that fixes the behavior of the nonperturbative part has a strong and monotonic dependence on $`m_q`$, in contrast with the parameter $`B`$, see item (ii).

Extrapolation to the chiral limit. At the second step, we extrapolate the intermediate $`\lambda _L^2(m_q)`$ to the chiral limit, suggesting a simple linear dependence on $`m_q0`$. The linear law seems to be rather naive, but the observed strong dependence of $`\lambda _L^2(m_q)`$ on the quark mass is well supported by the data, see graphics in Fig.23. Really, the linear extrapolation of the first three run results for the q-lattice is self-consistent for both Ansatzes (Fig.2(b), 3(b)), and the results are in a reasonable agreement with the corresponding f-lattice results (Fig.2(a), 3(a)).

The explicit results for $`\lambda _0^2`$ are presented in the first line of Table 4: note, $`\lambda _0^2`$ for the q-lattice is not smaller than for the f-one for both Ansatzes; the large error bars for $`\lambda _0^2`$ appear due to the roughness of the chiral extrapolation procedure.

To clarify the reliability of the approximation, we repeat the same extrapolation procedure with the dimensionless “lattice quantities”, $`L^2=(a\lambda _L)^2`$ and $`M=am_q`$. Lattice spacing $`a`$ involved into this extrapolation is different for different runs (see Appendix B, Eqs.(B.1)-(B.2)). To return to “physical” quantity $`\lambda _0`$ at the very end, we adapt an average spacing $`a_q`$ corresponding to the q-lattice case, and a similar average one $`a_f`$ – to the f-lattice case (see Appendix B). It is clear, that this procedure is even more crude than the previous one. Nevertheless, the corresponding $`\lambda _0`$ well agree with the previous “three-point” q-lattice result, compare the first and third lines in Table 4. But the procedure falls down for f-lattice data, the results appear too small.

At the third step, we perform an evolution to continuum normalization scale. To compare the results for the shape of NLC $`F_S(x^2,\mu ^2)`$ (or distribution $`f(\alpha ,\mu ^2)`$ at scale $`\mu ^2`$) with the same quantity taken on another scale $`Q^2`$, the corresponding evolution law in $`\mu ^2`$ is required. For a general case it looks as ambitious and rather complicated problem that is yet unsolved. But in our partial case if we fix how $`\lambda _q^2(\mu ^2)`$ evolves with $`\mu ^2`$, then the evolution law for both Ansatze is also fixed. Therefore, we shall consider the evolution of single characteristic of the shape – $`\lambda _q^2(\mu ^2)`$, setting the equivalence $`\lambda _q^2(\mu _L^2)=\lambda _0^2`$ in a lattice. We live not in a lattice, but, instead, in a continuum. Therefore we need a procedure to relate lattice measurements with our observables in continuum, the corresponding one-loop evolution law for this kind of a lattice presented, e.g. , in ,

$$\lambda _q^2(\mu ^2)\left[\mathrm{ln}(\mu /\mathrm{\Lambda }_{MS})\right]^{{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _\lambda }{b_0}}}=\lambda _0^2\left[\frac{4\pi ^2}{b_0}\beta +\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_L/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{MS})+6.54\right]^{{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _\lambda }{b_0}}}.$$
(18)
The continuum quantities enter into the l.h.s. of Eq.(18); while the lattice quantities, into the r.h.s.. Here $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{MS}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L=76.44`$, $`b_0=11/3C_A4/3T_RN_f`$ – first coefficient of the $`\beta `$-function, and $`\gamma _\lambda =(2C_A8C_F)=14/3`$ – one-loop anomalous dimension for $`\lambda _q^2(\mu ^2)`$, calculated in . So, using formula (18) to return to continuum $`\lambda _q^2(\mu ^2=1\text{GeV}^2)`$, we obtain the final results for $`\lambda _q^2`$ appearing just in the “QCD range”, see Figs.23. Let us consider these evolved results, presented in Table 4, in more detail.

(i) The Gaussian Ansatz. The mean values of $`\lambda _q^2`$ for f\- and q-lattices become closer to one another after the evolution starting from the corresponding different values of $`\lambda _0^2`$. This “focusing” effect is due to a difference of the evolution in both the cases: for the f-lattice ($`\beta =5.35;b_0=25/3,N_f=4`$) the transition factor from Eq.(18) is $`2.88`$, while for q-lattice ($`\beta 6;b_0=11,N_f=0`$) – $`2.11`$. Note here that if one attempts to exchange, by hand, these evolution laws (q for f and vice versa), then the final numbers diverge out of the QCD range. The observed focusing may demonstrate a complementarity of the chiral limit results to the evolution law.

(ii) The Advanced Ansatz. The value of $`\lambda _q^2`$ for f-lattice, $`0.5\text{GeV}^2`$, appears to be very close to an average $`\lambda _q^2`$ for the Gaussian Ansatz in the left side of Table 4. The result for the q-lattice is less than this average estimate and located near the low boundary of the QCD range. But, in virtue of huge error bars, the latter result does not contradict the f-lattice result.

Finally we can conclude that Pisa lattice data reported in  really “feel” the short distance correlation scale in the QCD vacuum. The data processing explicitly demonstrates that the extracted mean values of $`\lambda _q^2`$ are in agreement with the estimates from the QCD SR approach (7) for all the considered cases. Moreover, the results are in agreement with the old lattice result, $`\lambda _q^20.55`$ GeV2 , obtained in  on a q-lattice. Huge errors bar are the problem of these estimates, and this does not allow one to confirm the agreement with the “QCD range” once and for all. The main uncertainty follows from the chiral limit procedure (“second step”). To reduce the uncertainty, one should improve the theoretical part in (17) as well as the “lattice” part of the fit. Namely, we need more numbers of the lattice runs with a moderate/small quark masses $`M=am_q`$ for a reliable extrapolation; to process all existing results, we should include the most important subset of mass-terms into the nonperturbative part of the fitted formula (17).

Table 4: On the analysis of different approaches to the chiral limit

|  | Full QCD | Quenched QCD | Full QCD | Quenched QCD |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`{}_{\left|}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\right|}`$ $`\lambda _q^2`$ \[GeV2\] , Gauss-Ansatz | | $`\lambda _q^2`$ \[GeV2\] , Advanced-Ansatz | |
| Dimensional Chiral Limit $`(\lambda _0^2)`$ | $`0.19\pm 0.10`$ | $`0.23\pm 0.16`$ | $`0.175\pm 0.1`$ | $`0.175\pm 0.26`$ |
| Evolution to $`\mu _0^2=1`$ GeV$`^2`$ | $`\mathbf{0.55}\pm \mathbf{0.28}`$ | $`\mathbf{0.48}\pm \mathbf{0.33}`$ | $`\mathbf{0.50}\pm \mathbf{0.27}`$ | $`\mathbf{0.37}\pm \mathbf{0.54}`$ |
| Dimensionless Chiral Limit $`(\lambda _0^2)`$ | $`\times `$ | $`0.24\pm 0.15`$ | $`\times `$ | $`0.19\pm 0.23`$ |
| Evolution to $`\mu _0^2=1`$ GeV$`^2`$ | $`\times `$ | $`\mathbf{0.50}\pm \mathbf{0.31}`$ | $`\times `$ | $`\mathbf{0.40}\pm \mathbf{0.50}`$ |

Results of extrapolation to $`m_q0`$ are evolved to the standard normalization scale $`\mu _0^2=1`$ GeV2. Crosses in full QCD columns mean the breakdown of chiral limit procedure.

Another problem is to extract the quark condensate value $`|\overline{q}q|`$ from the lattice QCD data. In the fit it is just the coefficient $`A`$ divided by the number of flavors $`N_f=4`$. But the three-step procedure fails for this data††††††The authors of  also did not obtain reasonable estimates for $`\overline{q}q`$ using this kind of data, therefore they have performed an individual measurement of the quantity, see Eq.(3.3-3.5) in  providing too small values for the quark condensate.

Another possibility is to construct the RG-invariant quantity $`m_q(\mu ^2)\overline{q}q(\mu ^2)`$ in the lattice to avoid both the chiral limit and the renormalization effects. In this way, we obtained different estimates for every run in full the lattice QCD; the estimate region is

$$|2m_q\overline{q}q|=(25)10^4\text{GeV}^4,$$
(19)
that should be compared with the well-known value fixed by the current algebra

$`|m_u\overline{u}u+m_d\overline{d}d|={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f_\pi ^2m_\pi ^2(1+O(m_\pi ^2))1.710^4\text{GeV}^4.`$ (20)
The estimate (19) produces for real QCD case with the current masses $`m_{u,d}5.5`$ MeV

$$\left|\overline{q}q(1\text{GeV}^2)\right|^{1/3}=265358\text{MeV}\text{vs the standard value}250\text{MeV},\text{[12]}.$$
(21)
The values are overestimated, although the lowest one corresponding to the run with $`m_qa=0.01`$ looks reasonable.

## 4 Nonlocal quark condensates and pion distribution
amplitude

The pion distribution amplitude (DA) of twist-2, $`\phi _\pi (x,\mu ^2)`$, is a gauge- and process-independent characteristic of the pion that universally specifies the longitudinal momentum $`xP`$ distribution of valence quarks in the pion with momentum $`P`$ (see, e.g.,  for a review),

$$0\overline{d}(0)\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5E(0,z)u(z)\pi (P)|_{z^2=0}=if_\pi P^\mu _0^1𝑑xe^{ix(zP)}\phi _\pi (x,\mu ^2).$$
(22)
Due to factorization theorems , it enters as the central input of various QCD calculations of hard exclusive processes. Here we illustrate how a value of the correlation scale $`\lambda _q^2`$ ($`1/l^2`$) can affect the shape of the pion DA. First, we consider NLC QCD SR for DA moments that provides the smearing quantities, moments $`\xi ^N_\pi ={\displaystyle _0^1}(2x1)^N\phi _\pi (x)𝑑x`$, to restore a profile $`\phi _\pi (x)`$ of the pion DA. The NLC QCD SR are based on different kinds of Gaussian Ansatzes  for NLCs that naturally appear in the theoretical (r.h.s.) part of the SR.

Pion DA from NLC QCD SR for pion DA moments. The Gaussian Ansatz. The SR involves 5 different kinds of nonlocal condensates in addition to the scalar condensate contribution, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }_S(x;M^2)`$, for details see .

The scalar NLC contribution results from the “factorization approximation” to the nonlocal four-quarks condensate, and its accuracy is yet unknown, compare with the approximation, Eq.(5). But in any case the contribution $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }_S(x;M^2)`$ is numerically the largest one for not too high moments. Therefore, the main features of the shape of $`\phi _\pi (x)`$ in Fig.4 is, roughly speaking, the net result of the interplay between the perturbative contribution and the nonperturbative term $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }_S(x;M^2)`$ that dominates the r.h.s. of the SR.

The QCD SR predicts the values of moments $`\xi ^N_\pi (\mu ^21\text{GeV}^2`$) within their error bars. For this reason, one obtains, after restoration a “bunch” of admissible DA profiles  corresponding to the moment error bars, rather than a single sample of profile. These profiles are shown in Fig.4 by dashed lines, in addition to the optimal one (thick solid line) that corresponds to the best fit at $`\chi _{opt}^210^3`$. Comparing DA profiles at different values of $`\lambda _q^2`$ in Fig.4(a) and (b), one can conclude that the larger is the correlation scale the smaller is the concavity in the middle of the profiles, and their shape becomes closer to the shape of “asymptotic” DA $`\phi _{as}(x)=6x(1x)`$. Therefore, a trial bunch (is not shown here) corresponding to the value $`\lambda _q^2=0.6\text{GeV}^2`$ at the boundary of the introduced QCD range contains mainly convex in the mid-point profiles that are close to the asymptotic one.

We have established in  that a two-parameter model $`\phi _\pi (x;a_2,a_4)`$, the parameters being the Gegenbauer coefficients $`a_2`$ and $`a_4`$ (as also used in ), enable one to fit all the moment constraints for $`\xi ^N_\pi `$. For completeness we write explicit formulae for the optimal DA models

$`\phi _{1,2}^{\text{opt}}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\phi ^{\mathrm{as}}(x)\left[1+a_2^{\text{opt1,2}}C_2^{3/2}(2x1)+a_4^{\text{opt1,2}}C_4^{3/2}(2x1)\right],`$ (23)
$`a_2^{\text{opt1}}(\mu ^2)`$ $`=`$ $`+0.188,a_4^{\text{opt1}}(\mu ^2)=0.130,\text{at}\lambda _q^2=0.4\text{GeV}^2;`$
$`a_2^{\text{opt2}}(\mu ^2)`$ $`=`$ $`+0.126,a_4^{\text{opt2}}(\mu ^2)=0.090,\text{at}\lambda _q^2=0.5\text{GeV}^2,`$
at $`\mu ^21\text{GeV}^2`$. In this way, the admissible bunches of profiles can be mapped into the $`a_2(\mu ^2),a_4(\mu ^2)`$ plot and then can be evolved to a new normalization point , $`\mu _{S\&Y}`$, see slanted rectangles in Fig.5.

Pion DA vs CLEO data. Recently, the CLEO collaboration  measured the $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi ^0`$ form factor with a high accuracy. These data sets were processed by Schmedding and Yakovlev (S&Y)  using a NLO light-cone QCD SR analysis.

They obtained the constraints to $`(a_2,a_4)`$ coefficients in the form of 95% ($`2\sigma `$-deviation criterium) and 68% ($`1\sigma `$-deviation criterium) confidence regions, see ellipse-like contours in Fig. 5 with the central point $`a_2^{}=0.190,a_2^{}=0.140`$ that (approximately) corresponds to an average normalization point of $`\mu _{S\&Y}=2.4`$ GeV.

The regions enclosed by the slanted rectangles bounded by the short-dashed line and solid line in Fig.5 correspond to the bunches of DA displayed in Fig.4(a) and (b). The central point $`a_2=0.142,a_4=0.087`$ corresponding to the optimum profile of the $`\phi _1(x)`$–bunch ($`\lambda _q^2=0.4\text{GeV}^2`$ Fig.3(a)) at $`\mu _{S\&Y}^2`$ definitively belongs to the central S&Y region. The $`\phi _2(x)`$–bunch is, however, mostly outside the central $`68\%`$ region though still within the $`95\%`$ confidence region. Finally, the third slanted rectangle limited by the long-dashed contour and shifted to the upper left corner of the figure in Fig.5 corresponds to the trial bunch of NLC-DA with $`\lambda _q^2=0.6\text{GeV}^2`$. This value falls actually outside the standard QCD NLC-SR bounds in Eq.(7) for $`\lambda _q^2`$. Remarkably, the image of this region in Fig.5 lies completely outside the central region as a whole. Therefore, we may conclude that the CLEO data prefer the values $`\lambda _q^2=0.4,0.5\text{GeV}^2`$ and probably do not prefer the value $`\lambda _q^2=0.6\text{GeV}^2`$, in full agreement with previous QCD SR estimates. Now the conclusion is supported by the lattice results presented in section 3. The quantitative details of the above qualitative discussion can be found in .

Pion DA from nondiagonal correlator. The “Advanced” Ansatz. An approach to obtain directly the forms of the pion and its first resonance DAs, by using the available smooth Ansatz for the correlation functions $`f(\alpha )`$ of the nonlocal condensates, was suggested in papers . The sum rule for these DAs $`\phi _\pi ^{\mathrm{}}(x)`$ based on the nondiagonal correlator of the axial and pseudoscalar currents has the vanishing perturbative density,

$`\phi _\pi (x)+\phi _\pi ^{}(x)e^{m_\pi ^{}^2/M^2}+\phi _{\pi ^{\prime \prime }}(x)e^{m_{\pi ^{\prime \prime }}^2/M^2}+\mathrm{}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{2}}\left[\left(1x+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _q^2}{2M^2}}\right)f_S(xM^2)+\left(x+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _q^2}{2M^2}}\right)f_S((1x)M^2)\right]`$ (24)
only quark and mixed condensates appear in the theoretical part of the SR . The SR results in the elegant Eq.(24) from the approximations both in the theoretical (for a detailed discussion, see ) and the phenomenological parts (see ). In virtue of the approximations, a single correlation function $`f_S(\alpha )`$ appears in the r.h.s. of Eq.(24) that determines the profile of $`\phi _\pi (x)`$.

Equation (24) demonstrates, in the most explicit manner, an important relation: the distribution $`\phi _\pi (x)`$ of quarks inside the pion over the longitudinal momentum fraction $`x`$ (on the l.h.s.) is directly related to the distribution $`f_S(\alpha )`$ over the virtuality $`\alpha `$ of the vacuum quarks on the r.h.s.. Note that a similar relation was obtained in an instanton-induced model .

The approaches to extract $`\phi _\pi (x)`$ with the help of SR (24) were discussed in detail in , here we concentrate on the final result for the profile in the case of the Advanced ansatz (12). Note only that these approaches do not provide the behaviour of the profile in the vicinity of the end points, the reliable predictions are expected around the mid-region.

The shape of $`\phi _\pi (x)`$ strongly depends on the spectrum of the resonances in the l.h.s. of Eq.(24) and weaker – on the value of $`\lambda _q^2`$. For the model of equidistant, infinite number of narrow excitations like the “Dirac comb” we have obtained the profile, very close to the asymptotic DA . If we choose the spectral density in accordance with the current knowledgeOnly $`\pi ^{}`$ and $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }`$ are well established, while the mass of $`\pi ^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ is fixed in analogy with other light meson spectra., i.e. , containing only 3 radial $`\pi `$-excitations with the masses $`m_\pi ^{}^21.3^2`$ GeV2 , $`m_{\pi ^{\prime \prime }}^21.8^2`$ GeV2 , $`m_{\pi ^{\prime \prime \prime }}^24.7`$ GeV2 , then we obtain the set of admissible profiles presented in Fig.6. It is naturally to suggest that $`\phi _\pi (x)`$ is situated between these two possibilities. This result qualitatively agrees with the profile behaviour for the bunches $`\phi _1(x)`$ and $`\phi _2(x)`$ in Fig.4.

## 5 Conclusion

We consider the admissible Ansatzes for the coordinate behaviour of the scalar quark nonlocal condensate being of importance in QCD SRs. These Ansatzes depend on the parameter $`\lambda _q^2`$ — the short-distance correlation scale in the QCD vacuum that controls the corresponding coordinate behaviour. We analyse the lattice simulation data for the scalar NLC from  and test two different Ansatzes. The correlation scales are extracted following the procedure that includes a fit of lattice data, an extrapolation to the chiral limit, and an evolution of the obtained lattice results to the characteristic scale $`\mu ^2=1\text{GeV}^2`$ of a continuum QCD.

The scale $`\lambda _q^2`$ thus extracted does not visibly depend on the kind of a lattice (full or quenched) QCD, as well as on the kind of the Ansatz. The value of the scale appears in a good agreement with the QCD range $`\lambda _q^2(1\text{GeV}^2)=(0.40.55)\text{GeV}^2`$, see Figs.2–3 and Table 4 in section 3. The agreement looks unexpectedly good in view of a roughness of the mentioned procedure.

The scalar condensate and the scale $`\lambda _q^2`$ substantially determine the shape of the pion distribution amplitude by means of QCD SRs. Both kinds of the considered Ansatzes lead to similar shapes of the pion DA. The pion DA following from QCD SR for the moments  is rather sensitive to the value of $`\lambda _q^2`$. The bunches of DA profiles corresponding to the $`\lambda _q^2`$ values from the QCD range do just agree with the constraints that follow from the CLEO experimental data .

This and previous  considerations demonstrate a close link between the correlation scale in the QCD vacuum and the shape of the pion DA.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported in part by the Russian Foundation for Fundamental Research (contract 00-02-16696), INTAS-CALL 2000 N 587, the Heisenberg–Landau Program (grants 2000-15 and 2001-11), and the INFN–JINR Cooperation Program. We are grateful to A. Di Giacomo, A. Dorokhov, M. D’Elia, E. Meggiolaro and O. Teryaev for discussions. We are indebted to Prof. A. Di Giacomo for the warm hospitality at Pisa University where this work was completed.

Appendix

## Appendix A Basic set of local condensates

Here we write down the explicit expressions  for the condensates $`Q^i`$ that determine the first and second Taylor expansion coefficients in (2),

$`Q_{(0)}^7`$ $`=`$ $`3Q_1^7{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}Q_2^73Q_3^7+Q_4^7,`$ (A.1)
$`Q_{(m)}^6`$ $`=`$ $`2Q^6+3mQ^53m^3Q^3,`$ (A.2)
$`Q_{(0)}^8`$ $`=`$ $`5A\frac{5}{2}Q_2^8+\frac{1}{4}Q_3^8\frac{1}{2}Q_4^83Q_5^8+5Q_6^8,`$ (A.3)
$`Q_{(m)}^7`$ $`=`$ $`5(3Q_1^7Q_2^73Q_3^7+Q_4^7)15m(Q^6+mQ^5m^3Q^3),`$ (A.4)
where the quark condensate basis was chosen in the form

$$Q^3=\overline{q}q,Q^5=ig\overline{q}\left(G_{\mu \nu }\sigma _{\mu \nu }\right)q,Q^6=t^aJ_\mu ^at^bJ_\mu ^b,$$
(A.5)
for the condensates of lowest dimensions, and

$`Q_1^7`$ $`=`$ $`<\overline{q}G_{\mu \nu }G_{\mu \nu }q>,Q_2^7=i<\overline{q}G_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }\gamma _5q>,`$ (A.6)
$`Q_3^7`$ $`=`$ $`<\overline{q}G_{\mu \lambda }G_{\lambda \nu }\sigma _{\mu \nu }q>,Q_4^7=i<\overline{q}D_\mu J_\nu \sigma _{\mu \nu }q>,`$
for the condensates of dimensions 7. The basis elements of dimension 8, $`Q_i^8`$ and $`A`$, enter into the expansion only of the vector NLC (3) that is not analyzed here. For this reason, we do not show it here and refer the reader to article , Eqs.(3.10-3.11).

## Appendix B Details of Pisa lattice simulations

For the full QCD case (with dynamical fermions), the nonlocal condensates were measured on a $`16^3\times 24`$ lattice at $`\beta =5.35`$ ($`\beta =6/g^2`$, where $`g`$ is the coupling constant) and two different values of the dynamic quark mass: $`am_q=0.01`$ and $`am_q=0.02`$ with the following values for the lattice spacing:

$`a(\beta =5.35)`$ $``$ $`0.101\text{fm},\text{for}am_q=0.01;`$
$`a(\beta =5.35)`$ $``$ $`0.120\text{fm},\text{for}am_q=0.02.`$ (B.1)
For the quenched QCD case the measurement was performed on a $`16^4`$ lattice at $`\beta =6.00`$, with the quark mass $`am_q=0.01`$ for constructing the external–field quark propagator, and also at $`\beta =5.91`$, with the quark mass $`am_q=0.02`$. In both the cases, the value of $`\beta `$ was chosen in order to have the same physical scale as in full QCD at the corresponding quark masses, thus allowing a direct comparison between the quenched and the full theory. In the quenched case, the lattice spacing is approximately :

$`a^{(YM)}(\beta =6.00)`$ $``$ $`0.103\text{fm},\text{for}am_q=0.01,0.05,0.1;`$
$`a^{(YM)}(\beta =5.91)`$ $``$ $`0.120\text{fm},\text{for}am_q=0.02.`$ (B.2)


format: text

text:
# Temporal Interferometry: A Mechanism for Controlling Qubit Transitions During Twisted Rapid Passage with Possible Application to Quantum Computing

## I Introduction

Adiabatic rapid passage (ARP) is a well-known procedure for inverting the Bloch vector of a two-level system (qubit) arp . This is accomplished by inverting an external field $`𝐅(t)`$ which couples to the qubit, and along which the qubit is initially aligned. The field inversion is done on a time-scale that is large compared to the inverse Rabi frequency $`\omega _0^1`$ (viz. adiabatic), though small compared to the thermal relaxation time $`\tau `$ (viz. rapid). In the usual case, $`𝐅(t)`$ remains within a plane that includes the origin: $`𝐅(t)=b\widehat{𝐱}+at\widehat{𝐳}`$, with $`T_0/2<t<T_0/2`$, and $`\omega _0^1T_0\tau `$.

ARP can be used to implement a NOT gate on the quantum state of a qubit. If one identifies the computational basis states $`|0`$ and $`|1`$, respectively, with the spin-up and spin-down eigenstates along the initial direction of the external field $`𝐅(T_0/2)`$, then ARP maps $`|0|1`$ which is the defining operation of a NOT gate. Occurrence of a transition during ARP corresponds to an error in the NOT gate since the Bloch vector is not inverted, and thus $`|i|i`$, ($`i=0,1`$). Thus we can identify the ARP transition probability with the NOT gate error probability. For ARP, the adiabatic nature of the inversion ensures that the error probability is exponentially small. The price paid for this reliability, however, is an extremely slow NOT gate.

In twisted adiabatic rapid passage, the external field is allowed to twist around its initial direction with azimuthal angle $`\varphi (t)`$ at the same time that it is adiabatically inverted: $`𝐅(t)=b\mathrm{cos}\varphi (t)\widehat{𝐱}+b\mathrm{sin}\varphi (t)\widehat{𝐲}+at\widehat{𝐳}`$. Reference bry,  showed that for twisted ARP, the exponentially small transition probability contains a factor $`\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_g]`$ of purely geometric origin. The simplest case where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g0`$ corresponds to quadratic twist: $`\varphi (t)=Bt^2`$. Zwanziger et. al. zwa  were able to experimentally realize ARP with quadratic twist and obtained results in agreement with the predictions of Reference bry, .

In this paper we will consider twisted rapid passage with polynomial twist, $`\varphi (t)Bt^n`$, and we will focus exclusively on qubit inversions done at non-adiabatic rates. Although we will briefly consider quadratic twist in Section II as a test case for our numerical simulations, our interest will not be the geometric effect of Reference bry, . Instead, our primary focus will be on establishing the existence of multiple avoided crossings during twisted rapid passage when $`n3`$, and with exploring some of their consequences. After general considerations (Section II), we will explicitly examine cubic ($`n=3`$) and quartic ($`n=4`$) twist, and will provide clear evidence that the multiple avoided crossings produce strong interference effects in the qubit transition probability. The transition probability is shown to be a function of the twist strength $`B`$, which can be used to control the time-separation of the avoided crossings, and hence the character of the interference (constructive or destructive). Cubic and quartic twist are examined in Sections III and IV, respectively. We shall see that interference between the multiple avoided crossings can greatly enhance or suppress qubit transitions. The interference effects are a direct consequence of the temporal phase coherence of the wavefunction. The ability to vary this coherence by varying the temporal separation of the avoided crossings renders twisted rapid passage with adjustable twist strength into a temporal interferometer through which qubit transitions can be controlled. It will be shown that quartic twist can implement qubit inversion non-adiabatically while operating at a fidelity that exceeds the threshold for fault tolerant operation. Finally, in Section V, we summarize our results and discuss possible application of this interference mechanism to quantum computing. In particular, we describe how one might use non-adiabatic rapid passage with quartic twist to construct a fast fault-tolerant quantum CNOT gate.

It is worth noting that experimental confirmation of the work described in this paper has recently been carried out by Zwanziger et. al. jwz . They have realized non-adiabatic rapid passage with both cubic and quartic twist, and have observed clear evidence of constructive and destructive interference in the qubit transition probability due to interference between the avoided crossings, with excellent agreement between the experimental data and our numerical simulations. This experimental work provides clear proof-of-principle for our thesis that controllable quantum interference exists during twisted rapid passage. With this thesis now experimentally confirmed, future research can focus on applying this interference to the task of constructing fast fault tolerant quantum CNOT and NOT gates.

After this paper was submitted, previous work was brought to our attention which also examined models of rapid passage in which more than one avoided crossing is possible, and in which interference effects were also considered lim ; suo ; joy . These papers focused solely on the adiabatic limit. Application of this adiabatic theory to the Zwanziger experiment yields predictions that are in poor agreement with the experimental results jwz . This failing is no doubt a consequence of the non-adiabatic character of this experiment whose results thus lies beyond the scope of the adiabatic theory developed in these papers. In contrast, the work we present below is principally interested in the non-adiabatic limit, and our simulation results are in full agreement with experiment jwz . We also consider possible application of these interference effects to the construction of fast fault-tolerant quantum CNOT and NOT gates. Ref. lim ; suo ; joy  do not consider such applications.

## II Twisted Rapid Passage

We begin by briefly summarizing the essential features of rapid passage in the absence of twist. Twistless rapid passage describes a wide variety of phenomena, ranging from magnetization reversal in NMR, to electronic transition during a slow atomic collision. The essential situation is that of a qubit which is Zeeman-coupled to a background field $`𝐅(t)`$,

$$H(t)=𝝈𝐅(t)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}at& b\\ b& at\end{array}\right),$$
(1)
with $`𝐅(t)=b\widehat{𝐱}+at\widehat{𝐳}`$. This particular form for $`𝐅(t)`$ describes inversion of the background field in such a way that it remains in the x-z plane throughout the inversion. For simplicity, we assume $`a,b>0`$ throughout this paper. The instantaneous energies $`E_\pm (t)`$ are:

$$E_\pm (t)=\pm \sqrt{b^2+(at)^2},$$
(2)
and an avoided crossing is seen to occur at $`t=0`$ where the energy gap is minimum. The Schrodinger dynamics for twistless rapid passage can be solved exactly for arbitrary values of $`a`$ and $`b`$ lan ; zen , and yields the Landau-Zener expression for the transition probability $`P_{LZ}`$:

$$P_{LZ}=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\pi b^2}{\mathrm{}|a|}\right].$$
(3)
### II.1 Twisted Rapid Passage and Multiple Avoided Crossings

In twisted rapid passage, the background field $`𝐅(t)`$ is allowed to twist around its initial direction during the course of its inversion: $`𝐅(t)=b\mathrm{cos}\varphi (t)\widehat{𝐱}+b\mathrm{sin}\varphi (t)\widehat{𝐲}+at\widehat{𝐳}`$. It proves convenient to transform to the rotating frame in which the x-y component of the background field is instantaneously at rest. This is accomplished via the unitary transformation $`U(t)=\mathrm{exp}[(i/2)\varphi (t)\sigma _z]`$. The Hamiltonian $`\overline{H}(t)`$ in this frame is:

$$\overline{H}(t)=𝝈\overline{𝐅}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\left(at\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\dot{\varphi }\right)& b\\ b& \left(at\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\dot{\varphi }\right)\end{array}\right),$$
(4)
where $`\overline{𝐅}(t)=b\widehat{𝐱}+(at\mathrm{}\dot{\varphi }/2)\widehat{𝐳}`$ is the background field as seen in the rotating frame, and a dot over a symbol represents the time derivative of that symbol. The instantaneous energy eigenvalues are $`\overline{E}_\pm (t)=\pm \sqrt{\left(at(\mathrm{}\dot{\varphi })/2\right)^2+b^2}`$. Avoided crossings occur when the energy gap is minimum, corresponding to when

$$at\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\frac{d\varphi }{dt}=0.$$
(5)
For polynomial twist: $`\varphi _n(t)=c_nBt^n`$, where $`B`$ is the twist strength. The dimensionless constant $`c_n`$ has been introduced to simplify some of the formulas below. For later convenience, we chose $`c_n=2/n`$. For polynomial twist, it is easily checked that eqn. (5) always has the root:

$$t=0,$$
(6)
and that for $`n3`$, eqn. (5) also has the $`n2`$ roots:

$$t=\left(\mathrm{sgn}B\right)^{\frac{1}{n2}}\left(\frac{a}{\mathrm{}|B|}\right)^{\frac{1}{n2}}.$$
(7)
All together, equation (5) has $`n1`$ roots, though only the real roots correspond to avoided crossings. For quadratic twist ($`n=2`$), only eqn. (6) arises. Thus, for this case, only the avoided crossing at $`t=0`$ is possible. For $`n3`$, along with the avoided crossing at $`t=0`$, real solutions to eqn. (7) also occur. The different possibilities for this situation are summarized in Table 1.

We see that for polynomial twist with $`n3`$, multiple avoided crossings always occur for positive twist strength $`B`$, while for negative twist strength, multiple avoided crossings only occur when $`n`$ is odd. Note that the time separating the multiple avoided crossings can be adjusted by variation of the twist strength $`B`$ and/or the inversion rate $`a`$.

### II.2 Brief Detour: Background on Quadratic Twist

As mentioned earlier, quadratic twist has already been examined in the literature bry . It is of interest here only because its dynamics can be solved exactly, and thus allows us to test our numerical simulations before proceeding to unexplored cases of twisted rapid passage. For quadratic twist, $`\dot{\varphi }_2=2Bt`$. Inserting this into eqn. (4) gives $`\overline{𝐅}(t)=b\widehat{𝐱}+\overline{a}t\widehat{𝐳}`$, with $`\overline{a}=a\mathrm{}|B|(\mathrm{sgn}B)`$. Thus rapid passage with quadratic twist maps onto twistless rapid passage with $`a\overline{a}`$. This allows us to obtain an exact result for the transition probability $`P_2`$ for arbitrary values of $`a`$ and $`b`$ from eqn. (3) with $`a\overline{a}`$:

$$P_2=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\pi b^2}{\mathrm{}|a\mathrm{}|B|(\mathrm{sgn}B)|}\right].$$
(8)
In the adiabatic limit, this reduces to $`P_2=P_{LZ}\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_g]`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g=\pi Bb^2/a^2`$ is the geometric exponent discovered in Ref. bry . Eqn. (8) makes the interesting prediction that a complete quenching of transitions will occur when $`\mathrm{sgn}B=+1`$ and $`a=\mathrm{}B`$, while no such quenching is possible for $`\mathrm{sgn}B=1`$. Zwanziger et. al. zwa  were able to realize rapid passage with quadratic twist experimentally and confirmed the existence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$, and the twist-dependent quenching of transitions. We now show that our numerical simulation also reproduces these effects.

### II.3 Simulation Details

The equations that drive the numerical simulation follow from the Schrodinger equation in the non-rotating frame:

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}|\psi =H(t)|\psi ,$$
(9)
where $`H(t)=𝝈𝐅(t)`$, and $`𝐅(t)=b\mathrm{cos}\varphi (t)\widehat{𝐱}+b\mathrm{sin}\varphi (t)\widehat{𝐲}+at\widehat{𝐳}`$. To obtain these equations in the adiabatic representation, we expand $`|\psi (t)`$ in the instantaneous eigenstates $`|E_\pm (t)`$ of $`H(t)`$:

$$|\psi (t)=S(t)e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}_{T_0/2}^t𝑑\theta \left(E_{}\mathrm{}\dot{\gamma }_{}\right)}|E_{}(t)I(t)e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}_{T_0/2}^t𝑑\theta \left(E_+\mathrm{}\dot{\gamma }_+\right)}|E_+(t).$$
(10)
Here $`\gamma _\pm (t)`$ are the geometric phases geo  associated with the energy-levels $`E_\pm (t)`$, respectively, and

$$\dot{\gamma }_\pm (t)=iE_\pm (t)|\frac{d}{dt}|E_\pm (t)=iE_\pm (t)|\dot{E}_\pm (t).$$
(11)
Substituting eqn. (10) into (9), and using the orthonormality of the instantaneous eigenstates, one obtains the equations of motion for the expansion coefficients $`S(t)`$ and $`I(t)`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dS}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(t)e^{i_{T_0/2}^t𝑑\theta \delta (\theta )}I(t),`$ (12a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dI}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)e^{i_{T_0/2}^t𝑑\theta \delta (\theta )}S(t).`$ (12b)
Here,

$`\delta (t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E_+(t)E_{}(t)}{\mathrm{}}}\left(\dot{\gamma }_+(t)\dot{\gamma }_{}(t)\right),`$ (13)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`E_+(t)|\dot{E}_{}(t),`$ (14)
and one can show that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(t)=E_{}(t)|\dot{E}_+(t)`$. Eqns. (12) are the qubit equations of motion in the adiabatic representation and include the influence of the geometric phase on the dynamics through $`\delta (t)`$. In the case of twistless rapid passage, the geometric phase vanishes, and eqns. (12) reduce to the well-known equations of motion for a two-level system found in Ref. thr . Eqns. (12) can be put in dimensionless form if we introduce the dimensionless variables: $`\tau =(a/b)t`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=(b/a)\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and $`\overline{\delta }=(b/a)\delta `$. Here $`a`$ and $`b`$ are the parameters that appear in the background field $`𝐅(t)`$. One obtains:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dS}{d\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{}e^{i_{\tau _0/2}^\tau 𝑑\theta \overline{\delta }(\theta )}I(\tau ),`$ (15a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dI}{d\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}e^{i_{\tau _0/2}^\tau 𝑑\theta \overline{\delta }(\theta )}S(\tau ),`$ (15b)
where $`\tau _0=(a/b)T_0`$ is the (dimensionless) time over which the qubit evolves. For rapid passage, the qubit is initially in the negative energy level $`|E_{}(\tau _0/2)`$. This corresponds to the initial condition:

$`S(\tau _0/2)`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (16a)
$`I(\tau _0/2)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (16b)
Our numerical simulation integrates eqns. (15) over the time-interval $`[\tau _0/2,\tau _0/2]`$ subject to initial condition (16). From this we determine the asymptotic transition probability $`P`$:

$$P=|I(\tau _0/2)|^2,$$
(17)
for $`\tau _01`$. Later, we will need the $`\tau `$-values corresponding to the avoided crossings. These are determined by rewriting eqns. (6) and (7) in dimensionless form. To this end, we introduce

$$\eta _n=\frac{\mathrm{}Bb^{n2}}{a^{n1}},$$
(18)
and recalling that $`\tau =(a/b)t`$, one easily obtains:

$$\tau =0,$$
(19)
and

$$\tau =\left(sgn\eta _n\right)^{\frac{1}{n2}}\left[\frac{1}{|\eta _n|}\right]^{\frac{1}{n2}}.$$
(20)
The avoided crossings correspond to $`\tau =0`$ and also, for $`n3`$, the real solutions of eqn. (20).

### II.4 Simulation Test Case: Quadratic Twist

For quadratic twist $`\varphi _2(t)=Bt^2`$. The instantaneous eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $`H(t)`$ are easily found to be $`E_\pm (t)=\pm E(t)`$, where $`E(t)=\sqrt{b^2+(at)^2}`$, and

$$|E_+(t)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}\\ \mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}e^{i\varphi _2}\end{array}\right);|E_{}(t)=(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\\ \mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}e^{i\varphi _2}\end{array}),$$
(21)
with $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =at/E`$. From the eigenstates one obtains:

$`\dot{\gamma }_\pm (t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\varphi }_2}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{cos}\theta \right);`$ (22a)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\theta }}{2}}i{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\varphi }_2}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta ;`$ (22b)
$`\delta (t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2E}{\mathrm{}}}\dot{\varphi }_2\mathrm{cos}\theta .`$ (22c)
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\tau )`$ and $`\overline{\delta }(\tau )`$ are then determined from eqns. (22b) and (22c) and are found to depend parametrically on the dimensionless “inversion rate” $`\lambda =\mathrm{}a/b^2`$ and the dimensionless “twist strength” $`\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=\mathrm{}B/a`$. “Inversion rate” and “twist strength” are placed in quotes as $`\lambda `$ does not depend solely on the inversion rate $`a`$, nor $`\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ solely on the twist strength $`B`$. Crudely speaking, $`\lambda =1`$ can be thought of as the boundary separating adiabatic and non-adiabatic inversion rates, with $`\lambda >1`$ corresponding to non-adiabatic inversion. Having determined $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\tau )`$ and $`\overline{\delta }(\tau )`$, eqns. (15) are integrated numerically using an adjustable step-size fourth-order Runge-Kutta algorithm. To simplify comparison of the numerical result for the transition probability with the exact result $`P_2`$, we re-write eqn. (8) in terms of $`\lambda `$ and $`\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$. One finds:

$$P_2=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\pi }{\lambda }\frac{1}{\left|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\right|}\right].$$
(23)
Figure 1 shows a representative plot of the transition probability $`P(\tau )=|I(\tau )|^2`$ versus $`\tau `$.

It is clear for the Figure that the transition occurs in the vicinity of the avoided crossing at $`\tau =0`$. Note also that $`P(\tau )`$ has a small oscillation about its asymptotic value $`P=lim_\tau \mathrm{}P(\tau )`$. To average out the oscillation, $`P(\tau )`$ (for given $`\lambda `$ and $`\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$) was calculated for 10 different values of $`\tau 1`$, and $`P`$ was identified with the average. Figures 2 and 3 show our numerical results for $`P`$ for various values of $`\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ for $`\lambda =10.0`$ and $`\lambda =3.0`$, respectively. Also plotted in each of these Figures is the exact result $`P_2`$ (eqn. (23)).

Figures 2 and 3 show that our numerical results are in excellent agreement with the exact result $`P_2`$, and clearly show the quenching of transitions at $`\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=1`$, and the absence of quenching for negative $`\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$. The $`\lambda `$ values shown are purposely highly non-adiabatic. We see that the twist-induced quenching clearly persists into the non-adiabatic regime, although the width of the quench decreases with increasing $`\lambda `$. The agreement of our simulations with eqn. (23) at small $`\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ indicates that our simulations also account for the geometric factor $`\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_g\right]`$ in $`P_2`$. Having established that our numerical algorithm correctly reproduces the essential results of rapid passage with quadratic twist, we go on to consider the unexplored areas of rapid passage with higher order twist. Referring to Table 1, we see that all cases with odd $`n`$ have 2 avoided crossings. Cubic ($`n=3`$) twist corresponds to the simplest example of odd-order twist, and it is examined in the following Section. Similarly, quartic ($`n=4`$) twist is the simplest example of even-order twist, and we examine it in Section IV.

## III Cubic Twist

Having successfully tested our numerical algorithm against the exact results for quadratic twist, we go on to consider cubic twist for which $`\varphi _3(t)=(2/3)Bt^3`$, and $`\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}=\mathrm{}Bb/a^2`$ (see eqn. (18)). As in Section II, the instantaneous eigenvalues of $`H(t)`$ are $`E_\pm (t)=\pm E(t)`$, and the instantaneous eigenstates are given by eqn. (21) with $`\varphi _2(t)\varphi _3(t)`$. Eqns. (22) again apply, however $`\dot{\varphi }_2(t)\dot{\varphi }_3(t)`$, and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\tau )`$ and $`\overline{\delta }(\tau )`$ are determined from eqns. (22b) and (22c). Having determined $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\tau )`$ and $`\overline{\delta }(\tau )`$, eqns. (15) can be numerically integrated subject to the initial condition specified in eqns. (16). Before examining results of that integration, we show in Figure 4 a plot of the numerical results for the transition probability $`P(\tau )`$ for $`\lambda =5.0`$ and $`\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}=0`$.

This corresponds to twistless non-adiabatic rapid passage, and we include this plot for later comparison with related plots for cubic and quartic twist. The asymptotic transition probability for this case is $`P=0.533`$. Thus, if we were to use this example of twistless non-adiabatic rapid passage to implement a fast NOT-operation on a qubit, the operation would be slightly more likely to produce an inversion (bit-flip) error than not. We will show below that if a small amount of cubic twist is included, the bit-flip error probability can be reduced by 2 orders of magnitude while still maintaining the non-adiabatic inversion rate $`\lambda =5.0`$. This substantial reduction in error probability is due to destructive interference between the two avoided crossings that occur during rapid passage with cubic twist.

### III.1 Demonstration of Quantum Interference

From eqns. (19) and (20), we see that cubic twist is expected to have 2 avoided crossings at $`\tau _1=0`$ and $`\tau _2=sgn\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}/|\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}|`$. Figures 5 and 6 show $`P(\tau )`$ for $`\lambda =5.0`$ and $`\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}=0.02`$ and $`\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}=0.02`$, respectively.

Figure 5 (6) clearly shows the expected avoided crossings at $`\tau =0`$ and $`\tau =50`$ ($`50`$). It is also clear from these Figures, and comparison with Figure 4, that the avoided crossings are constructively interfering, leading to an asymptotic transition probability of $`P=0.997`$. Figures 7 and 8 show $`P(\tau )`$ for $`\lambda =5.0`$ and $`\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}=0.05`$ and $`0.05`$, respectively.

The avoided crossings in Figure 7 (8) clearly occur at $`\tau =0`$ and $`\tau =20`$ ($`20`$) as expected. Here the avoided crossings interfere destructively, with $`P=0.270`$. Summarizing, we see that: (1) two avoided crossings do occur during rapid passage with cubic twist as predicted in Table 1; (2) the avoided crossings produce interference effects in the asymptotic transition probability $`P`$ which can be controlled through variation of their separation; and (3) the separation of the avoided crossings $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{ac}=|\tau _2\tau _1|=1/|\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}|`$ can be altered by varying $`\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}=\mathrm{}Bb/a^2`$. We now consider two possible applications of this interference effect.

### III.2 Non-Resonant Pump

First, consider twistless adiabatic rapid passage with $`\lambda =0.5`$ and $`\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}=0`$. Figure 9 show the transition probability $`P(\tau )`$ for this case. The asymptotic transition probability is $`P=1.87\times 10^3`$.

Figure 10 shows $`P(\tau )`$ for adiabatic rapid passage with cubic twist with $`\lambda =0.5`$ and $`\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}=0.04`$.

The asymptotic transition probability in this case is $`P=0.996`$! Thus, by introducing a small amount of cubic twist, constructive interference between the avoided crossings transforms adiabatic rapid passage into a non-resonant pump for the qubit energy levels. Figures 5 and 6 indicate that, should it be desired, equally large transition probabilities are also possible at faster inversion rates $`\lambda `$. It is worth pointing out that to produce such a large transition probability using twistless non-adiabatic rapid passage would require $`\lambda =784`$ (see eqn. (23) with $`\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=0`$) as opposed to $`\lambda 0.55.0`$ when cubic twist is exploited.

### III.3 Transition Quenching

We now show that one can utilize the interference between avoided crossings to strongly suppress qubit transitions during non-adiabatic rapid passage with cubic twist. Figure 11 shows $`P(\tau )`$ for $`\lambda =5.0`$ and $`\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}=4.577\times 10^2`$.

The asymptotic transition probability for this case is $`P=3.44\times 10^3`$. This is to be compared with twistless rapid passage with $`\lambda =5.0`$ (Figure 4) for which $`P=0.533`$. Destructive interference between the two avoided crossings has reduced the transition probability $`P`$ by 2 orders of magnitude relative to the twistless case shown in Figure 4. Thus if we were to implement a fast NOT-operation using non-adiabatic rapid passage with cubic twist at $`\lambda =5.0`$ and $`\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}=4.577\times 10^2`$, we would obtain (on average) 1 bit-flip error per 291 NOT-operations. By comparison, twistless rapid passage with $`\lambda =5.0`$ would produce (on average) 1 bit-flip error for every 2 NOT-operations. This result strongly suggest the value of exploring whether this destructive interference between avoided crossings during twisted rapid passage could be exploited to produce fast reliable quantum NOT and CNOT logic gates. As striking as this result for cubic twist is, we shall see in the following Section that quartic twist can reduce the bit-flip error probability even more dramatically.

## IV Quartic Twist

For quartic twist $`\varphi _4(t)=(1/2)Bt^4`$ and $`\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}=\mathrm{}Bb^2/a^3`$. Avoided crossings are expected to occur at $`\tau _1=0`$, and at $`\tau _2=\pm 1/\sqrt{\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}}`$ (when $`sgn\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}=+1`$; see eqn. (20) and Table 1). Formally, the analysis of quartic twist parallels that of quadratic and cubic twist. With the substitution $`\varphi _2(t)\varphi _4(t)`$, eqns. (21) and (22) continue to apply, and one determines $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\tau )`$ and $`\overline{\delta }(\tau )`$ from eqns. (22b) and (22c). Once $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\tau )`$ and $`\overline{\delta }(\tau )`$ are known, eqns. (15) can be integrated numerically subject to the initial condition specified in eqns. (16).

### IV.1 Demonstration of Quantum Interference

In Figure 12 we plot the transition probability $`P(\tau )`$ for $`\lambda =5.0`$ and $`\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}=4.6\times 10^4`$.

The expected avoided crossings at $`\tau _1=0`$ and $`\tau _2=\pm 46.63`$ are clearly visible. The asymptotic transition probability for this case is $`P=0.88`$. For twistless rapid passage with $`\lambda =5.0`$ (see Figure 4), $`P=0.533`$. Thus the avoided crossings in Figure 12 are constructively interfering, leading to an enhancement of the transition probability $`P`$. Figure 13 shows $`P(\tau )`$ for quartic twist with $`\lambda =5.0`$ and $`\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}=4.6\times 10^4`$.

This Figure clearly shows only one avoided crossing at $`\tau _1=0`$, as expected for $`sgn\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}=1`$ (see Table 1). The asymptotic transition probability in this case is $`P=0.533`$ which equals the result for twistless rapid passage with $`\lambda =5.0`$ (Figure 4) to the level of precision obtained in our calculation.

Figure 14 plots $`P(\tau )`$ for $`\lambda =5.0`$ and $`\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}=1.6\times 10^3`$.

The Figure clearly shows the expected crossings at $`\tau _1=0`$ and $`\tau _2=\pm 25.0`$. The asymptotic transition probability is $`P=6.93\times 10^4`$ and corresponds to destructive interference relative to twistless rapid passage with $`\lambda =5.0`$ (Figure 4). We do not include a plot of $`P(\tau )`$ for $`\lambda =5.0`$ and $`\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}=1.6\times 10^3`$ as it is similar to Figure 13: one avoided crossing at $`\tau _1=0`$ and $`P=0.533`$.

Summarizing these results, we see that: (i) three (one) avoided crossings (crossing) occur(s) as predicted in Table 1 when $`sgn\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}=+1(1)`$; (ii) the avoided crossings produce interference effects in the transition probability, with the character of the interference (constructive or destructive) determined by the separation of the avoided crossings; and (iii) the separation of adjacent avoided crossings is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{ac}=|\tau _2\tau _1|=1/\sqrt{\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}}`$ ($`sgn\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}=+1`$), and it is controllable through variation of $`\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}=\mathrm{}Bb^2/a^3`$.

### IV.2 Non-Resonant Pump

Quartic twist does not appear to be as effective at pumping the qubit energy-levels as cubic twist. Figure 15 shows $`P(\tau )`$ for $`\lambda =0.5`$ and $`\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}=6.45\times 10^3`$.

The expected avoided crossings at $`\tau _1=0`$ and $`\tau _2=\pm 12.45`$ are clearly visible, and the asymptotic transition probability is $`P=0.20`$. Although this is a 2 order of magnitude improvement over twistless adiabatic rapid passage with $`\lambda =0.5`$ (Figure 9), it falls well short of the transition probability $`P=0.996`$ easily obtainable with cubic twist. In fact, for $`\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}<1`$, $`P0.20`$ was among the largest $`P`$-values we could find. If larger values of twist strength are allowed, the largest transition probability we could find was $`P=0.64`$ at $`\eta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}=3.00`$.

### IV.3 Transition Quenching

Quartic twist proves to be much more effective at quenching transitions during non-adiabatic rapid passage than cubic twist. Table 2 gives the transition probabilities for quartic twist pulses for which $`\lambda =5.00`$ and $`\eta _4`$ lies in the interval \[$`3.95\times 10^3`$, $`4.04\times 10^3`$\].

The essential thing to notice in Table 2 is that for $`\eta _4=4.00\times 10^3`$, the transition probability $`P=4\times 10^5`$. This is significant for the following reason. It has been shown that a quantum computation of arbitrarily long duration becomes possible if the quantum logic gates used to implement the computation all have error probabilities (per gate operation) which lie below the threshold $`P_{ft}`$ for fault tolerant operation pre . This threshold has been estimated to be $`P_{ft}10^410^5`$ flt . In terms of the gate fidelity $`F=1P`$, the more optimistic estimate for $`P_{ft}`$ gives $`F_{ft}=0.9999`$. We see that for $`\lambda =5.00`$ and $`\eta _4=4.00\times 10^3`$, twisted rapid passage with quartic twist gives a gate fidelity of $`F=0.99996`$ which exceeds the best case estimate for fault tolerant operation $`F_{ft}=0.9999`$. This fault tolerant performance is achieved while inverting the qubit at a non-adiabatic rate. The reader should note that the values $`\lambda =5.00`$ and $`\eta _4=4.0\times 10^3`$ can be realized with existing NMR technology (see Section V.4). Our analysis raises the exciting possibility that non-adiabatic rapid passage with quartic twist might provide a means of realizing fast fault-tolerant NOT and CNOT gates. The novelty of this prospect is the marriage of operational speed with fault-tolerance. This marriage of speed and reliability is a direct consequence of the destructive interference which is possible between the 3 avoided crossings that arise during rapid passage with quartic twist. Quantum CNOT gates are ubiquitous in quantum computing and quantum error correction uni ; bar ; qec . Thus, determining how to implement them in a fast fault tolerant manner is a potentially significant development for the field.

## V Discussion

### V.1 Summary

It has been our aim in this paper to show that multiple avoided crossings can arise during twisted rapid passage, and that by varying their time-separation, interference effects are produced which allow for a direct control over qubit transitions. This time-separation is controlled through the (dimensionless) twist strength $`\eta `$, and the resulting interference can be constructive (enhancing transitions) or destructive (reducing transitions). For nth-order polynomial twist, $`\eta _n=\mathrm{}Bb^{n2}/a^{n1}`$, where $`B`$ is the (dimensionful) twist strength, $`2b`$ is the energy-gap separating the qubit energy-levels at an avoided crossing, and $`a`$ is the inversion rate of the external field $`𝐅(t)`$ (see Section II). The interference effects are a consequence of the temporal phase coherence of the wavefunction. The ability to vary this coherence by varying the temporal separation of the avoided crossings renders twisted rapid passge with adjustable twist strength into a temporal interferometer through which qubit transitions can be greatly enhanced or suppressed. Cubic and quartic twist were explicitly considered in this paper as they are, respectively, the simplest examples of odd-order and even-order polynomial twist in which these interference effects are expected to occur. Although we have focused on these two cases, we do not mean to suggest that these pulses are the best of all possible twisted rapid passage pulses. A search is currently underway for other twisted rapid passage pulses that might produce stronger destructive interference, and hence, faster, more fault tolerant quantum CNOT and NOT gates (see below for further discussion). We have seen that this interference mechanism can be used to pump qubit energy-levels, as well as to strongly quench qubit transitions during non-adiabatic twisted rapid passage. Although cubic twist proved to be more effective at pumping than quartic twist, quartic twist was found to be much more effective at quenching qubit transitions. We have seen that quartic twist allows qubit inversion to be done both non-adiabatically and at fidelities that exceed the threshold for fault tolerant operation. The marriage of operational speed with reliability is a direct consequence of the destructive interference that is possible between the 3 avoided crossings that can arise during rapid passage with quartic twist.

### V.2 Implementing Quantum CNOT Gate

We now describe a procedure for implementing a quantum CNOT gate using twisted rapid passage in the context of liquid state NMR. If the liquid has low viscosity, one can ignore dipolar coupling between the qubits, and if the remaining Heisenberg interaction between the qubits is weak compared to the individual qubit Zeeman energies, it can be well-approximated by an Ising interaction chu . Under these conditions, the Hamiltonian (in frequency units) for the control ($`c`$) and target ($`t`$) qubits is:

$$\frac{H_{ct}}{\mathrm{}}=\omega _cI_z^c\omega _tI_z^t+2\pi JI_z^cI_z^t.$$
(24)
Here $`\omega _c`$ ($`\omega _t`$) is the resonance frequency of the isolated control (target) qubit; $`J`$ is the Ising coupling constant; and $`\omega _c>\omega _t>\pi J`$. We choose the single qubit computational basis states (CBS) to be $`|0=|`$ and $`|1=|`$. Thus the two-qubit CBS are: $`|00=|`$; $`|01=|`$; $`|10=|`$; and $`|11=|`$, and they are the eigenstates of $`H_{ct}`$. The energy-levels (in frequency units) are shown in Figure 16, where

$$\omega _\pm =\omega _t\pm \pi J.$$
(25)
Given this energy-level structure, we can implement a quantum CNOT operation on the two qubits by sweeping through the $`\omega _+`$ resonance using twisted rapid passage. Decoupling ch2  is used to switch off the dynamics of the control qubit so that only the target qubit responds to the rapid passage pulse. Since the two states $`|00`$ and $`|01`$ are not resonant, they do not respond to the twisted rapid passage pulse. Thus,

$$\begin{array}{c}|00|00\hfill \\ |01|01.\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
On the other hand, for the $`|10`$ and $`|11`$ states, the combination of decoupling and sweeping through the $`\omega _+`$ resonance means that only the target qubit has its spin flipped. Thus,

$$\begin{array}{c}|10|11\hfill \\ |11|10,\hfill \end{array}$$
(27)
and we see that this procedure implements a quantum CNOT operation on the two qubits.

### V.3 Experimental Realization

Because of the fundamental significance of quantum CNOT gates to quantum computing and quantum error correction uni ; bar ; qec , it is hoped that the feasibility of using rapid passage with quartic twist to implement this gate might be tested experimentally (see penultimate paragraph of Section I). Experimental realization of polynomial twist $`\varphi _n(t)=(2/n)Bt^n`$ should be possible through an adaptation of the procedure used by Zwanziger et. al. zwa  to realize quadratic twist. Thus: (1) the driving rf-field is linearly polarized along the x-axis in the lab-frame with $`F_x(t)=2b\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{rf}(t)`$; (2) the resonance offset $`at`$ (see eqn. (1)) is produced by linearly sweeping the detector frequency $`\omega _{det}(t)`$ through the resonance at the Larmor frequency $`\omega _0`$ such that $`\omega _{det}(t)=\omega _0+(2at/\mathrm{})`$; and (3) twist is introduced by sweeping the rf-frequency $`\omega _{rf}(t)=\dot{\varphi }_{rf}`$ through the resonance at $`\omega _0`$ in such a way that $`\omega _{rf}(t)=\omega _{det}\dot{\varphi }_n`$. It is worth noting that the resonance condition $`\omega _{rf}(t)=\omega _0`$ is identical to our existence condition for avoided crossings, eqn. (5). Note that in our paper the external field inversion takes place over the time-interval ($`T_0/2`$, $`T_0/2`$); the external field crosses the x-y plane at $`t=0`$ and is initially aligned along the $`\widehat{𝐳}`$ direction. The Appendix provides a translation key which relates the theoretical parameters of this paper to the experimental parameters of the Zwanziger experiments jwz ; zwa .

Before leaving the subject of experimental realization of rapid passage with quartic twist, two further remarks are in order. First, to insure that all qubits are inverted when a spread of resonance frequencies occurs, it is necessary to require that the frequency sweep cover a large enough interval that the entire spread of resonance frequencies is included in it. This gaurantees that all qubits will have passed through resonance by the end of the frequency sweep. Second, a range of rf field strengths can also be accomodated so long as $`aT/2b_{max}`$. This condition insures that the frequency sweep begins far from resonance for all rf field strengths, and that transitions will continue to occur only near the avoided crossings. One therefore anticipates that in this case also, the interference effects will continue to occur as predicted. For reasonably good samples, magnets, and rf sources these constraints can be satisfied, and the interference effects presented above should be readily observable. This is in fact what is found experimentally jwz .

### V.4 Other Pulses

Having introduced twisted rapid passage with polynomial twist, and pointed out the possible advantages of quartic twist for quantum computing, it is natural to ask how quartic twist compares with the more familiar $`\pi `$-pulse which can also be used to implement quantum CNOT and NOT gates. We begin by comparing the inversion time for quartic twist with that of a comparable $`\pi `$-pulse. We focus on quartic twist with $`\lambda =5.00`$ and $`\eta _4=4.00\times 10^3`$ as this choice of parameters yields a gate fidelity $`F=0.99996`$ (see Section IV.3) which exceeds the threshold for fault tolerant gate operation $`F_{ft}0.9999`$. We now show that this case achieves fault tolerant operation while simultaneously matching the inversion speed of a $`\pi `$-pulse. In the notation of Ref. zwa , the basic experimental parameters for twisted rapid passage are $`A`$, $`B`$, $`\omega _1`$, and $`T`$, and they are related to our theoretical parameters by eqns. (35) and (30). $`T`$ continues to denote the duration of the twisted rapid passage pulse. Because a twisted rapid passage sweep must begin far from the avoided crossings, $`A`$ and $`\omega _1`$ cannot be chosen independently. In the rf-frame, the asymptotic effective magnetic field must lie near the z-axis so that $`\mathrm{tan}\theta =\omega _1/A0.1`$. Choosing $`\omega _1=4000`$ Hz gives $`A=4\times 10^4`$ Hz. Both of these values can be achieved with existing NMR technology. Writing $`f=\omega _1/A`$, eqn. (36) gives

$$T_4=\frac{4}{f\omega _1\lambda }.$$

With $`\lambda =5.00`$, this gives

$$T_4=2\text{msec}.$$

By comparison, the inversion time for a $`\pi `$-pulse with rf-amplitude $`\omega _1=4000`$ Hz is $`T_\pi =\pi /\omega _1=0.8`$ msec. Thus, twisted rapid passage with quartic twist is clearly capable of matching the inversion speed of a comparable $`\pi `$-pulse while still exceeding the threshold for fault tolerant operation. On the other hand, the error probability for a typical $`\pi `$-pulse is $`P10^3`$ due to, for example, inhomogenities in the rf field amplitude. This corresponds to a fidelity $`F0.999`$ so that, unlike the equally fast quartic twist pulse which acts fault tolerantly, the $`\pi `$-pulse falls short of the threshold for fault tolerant operation $`F_{th}0.9999`$.

We hope in the future to examine higher order versions of polynomial twist to determine whether they have more effective quenching and/or robustness properties than cubic and quartic twist. We have also done preliminary work on the interesting case of periodic twist: $`\varphi (t)=\pi \rho \mathrm{sin}\omega t`$. As we have seen, polynomial twist only allows 1–3 avoided crossings to occur during rapid passage. One can show that periodic twist allows the number of avoided crossings that occur during rapid passage to be modified through variation of the twist amplitude $`\rho `$ and frequency $`\omega `$. We intend to explore how the interference effects considered here are modified when more than 3 avoided crossings can occur.

###### Acknowledgements.

I would like to thank: (1) T. Howell III for continued support; and (2) the National Science Foundation for support provided through grant number NSF-PHY-0112335.

## Appendix A Connection Between Theory and Experiment

For ease of comparison with Refs. zwa  and jwz , we choose $`𝐅(t)=b\mathrm{cos}\varphi _n(t)\widehat{𝐱}b\mathrm{sin}\varphi _n(t)\widehat{𝐲}+at\widehat{𝐳}`$ in eqn. (1). The Hamiltonian in the detector frame is then

$$\frac{H(t)}{\mathrm{}}=\frac{at}{\mathrm{}}\sigma _z\frac{b}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _n(t)\sigma _x\frac{b}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _n(t)\sigma _y.$$

Here $`\varphi _n(t)=(2/n)t^n`$, and to avoid confusion with the notation of Ref. zwa , we have switched the symbol used for the twist strength in the main body of this paper: $`B`$. Transformation to the rf-frame is done using the unitary operator $`U(t)=\mathrm{exp}[(i/2)\varphi _n(t)\sigma _z]`$ so that $`H(t)\overline{H}(t)`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{H}(t)}{\mathrm{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{at}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\varphi }_n}{2}}\right)\sigma _z{\displaystyle \frac{b}{\mathrm{}}}\sigma _x`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2at}{\mathrm{}}}\dot{\varphi }_n\right)I_z{\displaystyle \frac{2b}{\mathrm{}}}I_x,`$
and $`𝐈=\sigma /2`$.

The experimental Hamiltonian in the rf-frame appears in eqn. (12) of Ref. zwa :

$$\frac{\overline{H}_{ex}(t)}{\mathrm{}}=\left(\dot{\varphi }_{rf}\omega _0\right)I_z\omega _1I_x.$$
(29)
Comparing eqns. (28) and (29) gives

$$\omega _1=\frac{2b}{\mathrm{}}$$
(30)
and

$$\dot{\varphi }_{rf}\omega _0=\frac{2at}{\mathrm{}}\dot{\varphi }_n.$$
(31)
Integrating eqn. (31) gives

$$\varphi _{rf}(t^{\prime \prime })=_{T/2}^{t^{\prime \prime }}𝑑t^{\prime \prime \prime }\left[\omega _0+\frac{2aT}{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{t^{\prime \prime \prime }}{T}\right)2T^{n1}\left(\frac{t^{\prime \prime \prime }}{T}\right)^{n1}\right].$$
(32)
In this paper, we have parameterized time such that $`t^{\prime \prime \prime }[T/2,T/2]`$, and $`T`$ is the duration of the twisted rapid passage pulse. Defining

$$\tau =\frac{t^{\prime \prime \prime }}{T}+\frac{1}{2},$$

it follows that $`\tau [0,1]`$. Introducing $`t^{}=t^{\prime \prime \prime }+T/2`$ and $`t=t^{\prime \prime }+T/2`$, eqn. (32) becomes

$$\varphi _{rf}(t)=_0^t𝑑t^{}\left[\omega _0+\left(\frac{2aT}{\mathrm{}}\right)\left(\tau \frac{1}{2}\right)\frac{2T^n}{T}\left(\tau \frac{1}{2}\right)^{n1}\right].$$
(33)
As explained in the caption of Figure 2 of Ref. zwa , $`\dot{\varphi }_{rf}=\dot{\varphi }_{det}\dot{\varphi }_n`$; with $`\dot{\varphi }_{det}=\omega _0+2A(\tau 1/2)`$; and generalizing to polynomial twist, $`\dot{\varphi }_n=nB(\tau 1/2)^{n1}/T`$, where $`B`$ is the symbol used in Ref. zwa  for the twist strength. Plugging these expressions for $`\dot{\varphi }_{det}`$ and $`\dot{\varphi }_n`$ into $`\dot{\varphi }_{rf}=\dot{\varphi }_{det}\dot{\varphi }_n`$, and integrating gives

$$\varphi _{rf}(t)=_0^t𝑑t^{}\left[\omega _0+2A\left(\tau \frac{1}{2}\right)\frac{nB}{T}\left(\tau \frac{1}{2}\right)^{n1}\right].$$
(34)
Equating eqns. (33) and (34) gives

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{aT}{\mathrm{}}}`$ (35a)
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{n}}T^n.`$ (35b)
Using eqns. (30) and (35) in the definition of $`\lambda `$ (see discussion following eqns. (22)) gives

$$\lambda =\frac{4|A|}{\omega _1^2T}.$$
(36)
Using eqns. (30), (35) and eqn. (18) with $`n=3`$ and $`4`$ gives

$$\eta _3=\frac{3}{4}\frac{B\omega _1}{A^2T}$$
(37)
and

$$\eta _4=\frac{B\omega _1^2}{2A^3T},$$
(38)
respectively. The results of this Appendix give the connection between our theoretical parameters and the experimental parameters $`A`$, $`B`$, $`\omega _1`$, and $`T`$ of the Zwanziger experiments jwz ; zwa . In Section V, these formulas are used to calculate the inversion time for a twisted rapid passage pulse with quartic twist.