text:
# Inhibiting decoherence via ancilla processes

## I Introduction

The physical quantity coherence is a measure of the coupling between quantum mechanical states and represents an elementary phenomenon in the microscopic and macroscopic world DiVincenzo (1995); Myatt (2000). It is associated with the well defined superposition of quantum mechanical states and thus with fundamental properties of quantum mechanics. The coherence of a state is generally defined for a closed system, i.e. without the inclusion of external influences. However, in virtually all cases an environment will act on the system of interest and modify, i.e. generally reduce its coherence. The infinite-mode state of the environment will become entangled with the superposition state of the system and, subsequently, will deteriorate the coherence of the system Shorzurek (1995), a process called decoherence.

Decoherence has been studied as an essential characteristic of quantum superposition systems in many fundamental works Unruh (1995); Zurek (1981); Haba (1998); Gisin (1984); Agarwal (1999) while in fact it plays a crucial role in virtually all applications in modern quantum optics, quantum information and quantum mechanics. Usually, decoherence is viewed as passive, leading unintendedly to the leakage of information from the system. In particular couplings between quantum states and interference effects are very vulnerable to actions of the deteriorating influence of the environment. For example in quantum information processing errors are introduced by the environment to a serious degree. Equally atomic coherence effects such as lasing without inversion and spontaneous emission control sec  and also laser cooling lascool  are limited by the influence of the environment. These examples are just a few of a long list and are only meant to show the importance of finding means of controlling decoherence.

In order to prevent decoherence two representative approaches have been proposed in quantum information theory. One of them is the quantum error correction approach Shor (1995); Steane (1996); Plenio (1997), which is employed to detect and/or correct the errors induced by the environment. The second one is the quantum error avoiding approach Zanardi (1997); Duan (1997); Lidar (1998), which is employed to avoid the errors induced by decoherence or any kinds of noise. This approach constructs a decoupled subspace which is called decoherence-free subspace (DFS) for the system with the consequence that errors can be avoided if the system is placed in the DFS. Physically, the DFS is a subspace of the system’s Hilbert space, where the evolution is decoupled from the environment. Several approaches have been proposed to construct such a DFS Alber (2001); Viola (1997); Poyatos (1996), employing various means to decouple the system from the environment. While all approaches are aimed to establish a DFS in the total space of the Liouvillian evolution of the system state, there should be a united and general condition for constructing the DFS and to inhibit decoherence.

In this article a general condition is derived to construct a DFS for a two state quantum system in a thermal bath with the aid of a weak assistant system. Emphasis is also placed on relating those conditions to realistic physical situations, especially on applying them to present-day problems in quantum information processing. The assistant systems considered to inhibit decoherence may be extra ensembles of qubits, extra classical fields or combinations of them. The additional systems are shown in particular to allow for decoherence-free quantum memories or quantum operations. The general conditions are in agreement with previously proven means of inhibiting decoherence while further examples are presented as up-to-date unexplored means. In particular the decoherence of qubits may be eliminated by placing them into the center of a sphere with additional qubits surrounding it on the surface.

In Sect. II, our investigations begin with the description of general aspects of decoherence of a two state system $`𝒮`$ in a thermal bath $``$. DFS are introduced in Sect. III followed by the derivation of a general condition for the construction of a DFS with a weak but otherwise general auxiliary system. A particular auxiliary system built from extra qubits and extra fields is employed in Sect. IV and in separate subsections applied to decoherence-free quantum memories and operations. The article concludes in Sect. V.

## II Dynamics with decoherence

Before showing how to prevent decoherence in the following sections we first investigate its origin and the dynamics it imposes on a quantum system. A fully coherent superposition of quantum systems $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=_ic_i|i`$ is generally considered at the onset of the interaction with a bath which induces the decoherence. With time this interaction transforms the wave function into a state which need be described by a density operator rather than a wave function, i.e.

$`\rho =\rho _m+{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}c_ic_j|ij|,`$ (1)
where $`\rho _m=_i|c_i|^2|ij|`$ describes a classical mixture, i.e. a density operator with purely diagonal terms. When the second term in the above expression decays to zero the coherent superposition state becomes a fully mixed state, indicating that the coherence has completely decayed. The decoherence is associated with the decay of the off-diagonal terms in the density matrix, which in system-reservoir interactions may often be described via the simple law Braun (2001)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i|\rho |j}{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{ij}}{t}}=f(t)\rho _{ij},`$ (2)
where $`f(t)=D(t)+i\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$, and $`D(t)`$ is the decoherence rate.

For simplicity, we here investigate decoherence of a two-state system $`𝒮`$ in a thermal bath $``$. The bath is modeled by oscillators with infinite degrees of freedom being described by annihilation (and creation) operators $`b_\lambda `$ (and $`b_\lambda ^{}`$) and density distributed frequencies $`\omega _\lambda `$. The two state system is modeled by a superposition of an excited state $`|2`$ and a ground state $`|1`$, i.e. $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=c_1|1+c_2|2`$, with a resonant transition frequency $`\omega `$ (basic qubit). In such a situation the interaction Hamiltonian of the total system has the following form in the interaction picture within the rotating wave approximation and the dipole approximation,

$$_{sb}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^{}\sigma ^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^{}\sigma _z+H.c.,$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^{}`$ are the bath operators and may be expressed as sums over all modes of the baths (parametrised by $`\lambda `$)

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^{}=\underset{\lambda }{}g_{a\lambda }b_\lambda ^{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^{}=\underset{\lambda }{}g_{p\lambda }b_\lambda ^{},$$
(4)
and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_a=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^{})^{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_p=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^{})^{}.$$
(5)
$`g_{\alpha \lambda }`$ and $`g_{\alpha \lambda }^{}(\alpha \{a,p\})`$ are the corresponding coupling coefficients between the system and the bath. $`\sigma ^+,\sigma ^{}`$ and $`\sigma _z`$ are the atomic operators defined via

$$\sigma ^+=|21|,\sigma _z=|22||11|,$$
(6)
and

$$\sigma ^{}=(\sigma ^+)^{}=|12|.$$
(7)
Employing the Markov approximation, the corresponding master equation of the two-state system in the interaction picture may be written as Walls (1995)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`_0\rho `$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{}}{2}}(N+1)\left([\sigma ^{}\rho ,\sigma ^+]+[\sigma ^{},\rho \sigma ^+]\right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{}}{2}}N\left([\sigma ^+\rho ,\sigma ^{}]+[\sigma ^+,\rho \sigma ^{}]\right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _p}{4}}\left([\sigma _z\rho ,\sigma _z]+[\sigma _z,\rho \sigma _z]\right),`$
where $`_0`$ is the Liouvillian operator, $`\gamma _{}`$ and $`\gamma _p`$ describe the amplitude and phase decay rates described by the following forms,

$$\gamma _\alpha =2\pi \underset{\lambda }{}g_{\alpha \lambda }^2\delta (\omega _\lambda \omega ).$$
(9)
Under the condition of a thermal equilibrium, $`N`$ has the following form

$$N=\left[e^{\mathrm{}\omega /k_BT}1\right],$$
(10)
with $`T`$ being the temperature of the environment, and $`k_B`$ the Boltzmann constant.

Formulating Eq. (8) in terms of the matrix elements yields

$$\frac{\rho _{11}}{t}=\gamma \rho _{11}+\theta ,$$
(11)
and

$$\frac{\rho _{12}}{t}=D\rho _{12},$$
(12)
where

$$\gamma =\gamma _{}(2N+1),$$
(13)
and

$$\theta =\gamma _{}(N+1).$$
(14)
Consequently, the off-diagonal term $`\rho _{12}`$ evolves with the following decoherence rate

$$D=\frac{\gamma _{}}{2}(2N+1)+\gamma _p.$$
(15)
Furthermore Eq.(12) can be solved easily to give

$$\rho _{12}=e^{Dt}\rho _{12}^0,$$
(16)
where $`\rho _{12}^0`$ indicates the initial value of the coherence at time $`t=0`$.

We note that the decoherence rate $`D`$ depends on the coupling coefficients $`g_{\alpha \lambda }`$. In addition, $`g_{\alpha \lambda }0`$ leads to $`D0`$, and consequently $`\rho _{12}=\rho _{12}^0`$, i.e. the coherence of the system is preserved. Accordingly, the decoherence is generated by the coupling between the system and the environment. This kind of coupling establishes an entanglement between the system and environment, however induces decoherence of the system. In order to prevent decoherence, the system must be decoupled from the environment. As we see later this can be implemented by a further interaction which compensates for the interaction with the bath.

Eq.(15) also shows that the decoherence rate $`D`$ is associated with the temperature of the environment. In the low temperature case the decoherence parameter $`D`$ satisfies the condition

$$D_1=N\gamma _{}+\gamma _p.$$
(17)
In the high temperature case the decoherence parameter $`D`$ becomes

$$D_2=\frac{\gamma _{}}{2}+\gamma _p=\gamma _{}.$$
(18)
We note that the decoherence is only dependent on the transverse coupling coefficient $`\gamma _{}`$. In a general situation, the decoherence rate decreases exponentially with the environmental temperature.

## III Inhibition of Decoherence

In this section we present how to obtain decoherent free subspaces in principle and then derive working equations which display the precise conditions on the auxiliary system to be fulfilled to inhibit the decoherence.

### III.1 Decoherence-free subspaces

In previous section we have shown decoherence to arise from the entanglement between the system and the environment. In additional $`D0`$ was associated with coherence being preserved. In what follows we will derive conditions to obtain $`D0`$. This will have to be with the aid of an addition interaction because Eq.(15) excludes any other possibility.

In the complete manifold of quantum states $`_s`$, a submanifold $`_s`$ of fixed points (stationary states) of the Liouvillian evolution was shown to exist. Consequently the coherence is preserved in $`_s`$, or in other words the dynamics in $`_s`$ is a fortiori unitary Zanardi (1997). Since decoherence is absent in such a submanifold $`_s`$, it has been called decoherence free subspace (DFS) Lidar (1998). Although DFS have been proven to exist, a general condition for the existence of DFS and the corresponding practical implications remain a key problem in practice. Obviously, in Eqs. (11, 12) the stationary state are,

$$\rho _{11}=\frac{\theta }{\gamma },\rho _{12}=0,$$
(19)
which can not construct a DFS since the off-diagonal terms are vanishing. Thus, to prevent decoherence or build a DFS, the construction of the Hamiltonian of the total system ($`𝒮+`$) must be modified by an additional physical process or an assistant system $`𝒜`$.

For the sake of generality we consider here a general assistant system $`𝒜`$, which may be associated with any possible physical process. For example, assistant systems $`𝒜`$ which may be employed to modify the environment, drive the total system by an electric field or change the distribution of the system of qubits, are all possible in the proposed model. From the point of view of practical application, a weak additional system is more advantageous than a strong additional system, because a weak additional interaction can be more easily controlled and implemented experimentally, often also with a reduced cost. We here employ a weak additional system $`𝒜`$ to control the decoherence. In this situation the contribution of the assistant system can be modeled as a perturbation $`_p`$ with respect to the system ($`𝒮`$) to be placed in a DFS.

To build a DFS we start with the master equation with a perturbation $`_p`$. Then the reduced density of the system $`𝒮`$ in the interaction picture $`\rho ^s`$ can be written as

$$\frac{\rho ^s}{t}=_0\rho ^s\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}[\stackrel{~}{}_I,\rho ^s]=\rho ^s,$$
(20)
where $`=_0i/\mathrm{}[\stackrel{~}{H}_I,]`$, $`_0`$ is defined in Eq.(8), and

$$\stackrel{~}{}_I=e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}_st}_pe^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}_st},$$
(21)
with $`_s`$ being the free Hamiltonian of the system $`𝒮`$. According to the definition of the DFS, the sufficient and necessary condition for building a DFS is

$$\frac{\rho ^s}{t}=\rho ^s=0,$$
(22)
or,

$$[\stackrel{~}{H}_I,\rho ^s]=i\mathrm{}_0\rho ^s.$$
(23)
Above expression shows the existence of stationary states of the system when the assistant system is chosen appropriately. Therefore, the modified Liouvillian operator $``$ constructs a DFS at the condition of Eq. (23).

Obviously the constructed DFS depends on the parameters of the additional system. Choosing an appropriate assistant system the coherence can be preserved in the constructed DFS. In this situation the decoherence time is

$$\tau _d=\underset{i}{}\tau _i,$$
(24)
where the $`i^{th}`$ order decoherence time can be denoted as Lidar (1998),

$$\tau _i=\left\{Tr\left(\rho (t_0)()^i\rho (t_0)\right)\right\}^{1/i},$$
(25)
with $`t_0`$ being a time in the stationary regime of the dynamics. From Eqs. (22) and (25) one can easily infer that $`\tau _1\mathrm{}`$, while $`1/\tau _i0`$ for $`i2`$. This means that coherence can be preserved in the DFS only to the first order. With the decoherence time $`\tau _d`$ being larger than the first order decoherence time $`\tau _1`$ however, it is sufficient to reach a DFS, i.e. $`\tau _1\mathrm{}`$, to avoid any decoherence, i.e. reach $`\tau \mathrm{}`$.

### III.2 General conditions for preserving coherence

In the previous subsection III.1 we showed that it is possible in principle to construct a DFS by introducing an appropriate additional interacting system. In this subsection we consider the features of the additional system, i.e., the construction of the additional Hamiltonian $`_p`$ in some more detail. Eq. (20) may be written in terms of the matrix elements of the density operator of our two-state system $`\rho ^s`$

$$\frac{\rho _{12}^s}{t}=D\rho _{12}^s\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Delta }H\rho _{12}^s\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}H_{12}(12\rho _{11}^s).$$
(26)
and

$$\frac{\rho _{11}^s}{t}=\gamma \rho _{11}^s+\theta \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left(H_{12}\rho _{21}^sH_{21}\rho _{12}^s\right),$$
(27)
where $`H_{ij}=i|\stackrel{~}{}_I|j,`$ with $`\{i,j\}\{1,2\}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }H=H_{11}H_{22}`$. Combining Eq. (22) and Eq. (26) gives

$$H_{12}=\frac{\rho _{12}^s}{12\rho _{11}^s}\left(i\mathrm{}D\mathrm{\Delta }H\right)$$
(28)
with $`H_{21}=H_{12}^{}`$.

Inserting Eqs.(28) and the corresponding one for its complex conjugate into Eq.(27), one obtains

$$\frac{\rho _{11}^s}{t}=\gamma \rho _{11}^s+\theta \frac{|\rho _{12}^s|^2}{12\rho _{11}^s}\left(\kappa 2D\right),$$
(29)
where

$$\kappa =\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Delta }H^{}\mathrm{\Delta }H).$$
(30)
Since $`\rho _{11}^s,|\rho _{12}^s|^2`$ and the parameters $`D,\gamma ,\theta `$ are real numbers, Eq. (29) demands the parameter $`\kappa `$ to be a real number as well. Combining Eqs. (22) and (29) yields,

$$2\gamma (\rho _{11}^s)^2(\gamma +2\theta )\rho _{11}^s+\theta (\kappa 2D)|\rho _{12}^s|^2=0.$$
(31)
This is a quadratic equation for $`\rho _{11}^s`$ with 0, 1 or 2 solutions. We requite only one solution for $`\rho _{11}^s`$ and thus impose

$$(\gamma +2\theta )^28\gamma [\theta (k2D)|\rho _{12}^s|^2]=0.$$
(32)
Then Eqs.(28), (31) and (32) yield

$$H_{12}=\sqrt{\frac{\gamma }{2(2D\kappa )}}\left|i\mathrm{}D\mathrm{\Delta }H\right|e^{i\phi },$$
(33)
where $`\phi `$ is the phase of $`H_{12}`$.

In order to inhibit decoherence, we thus need impose conditions only on the diagonal elements $`H_{21}`$ and $`H_{12}`$ of the additional Hamilton operator $`\stackrel{~}{}_I`$. We note that the additional Hamiltonian is arbitrary in the sense that its diagonal elements $`H_{11}`$ and $`H_{22}`$ as well as the phase $`\phi `$ of $`H_{12}`$ are not determined. We will thus not restrict them; they do not play any role in the further investigations in the following section on applications.

Thus Eq. (33) represents a sufficient general condition for the preservation of the coherence of a two-state system in a thermal reservoir. The assistant system $`𝒜`$ with corresponding Hamiltonian $`_p`$ has not been associated so far with a concrete physical process or system and in principle of course one may choose not to do so. However, $`𝒜`$ may be a concrete realistic physical system, e.g. for modulating the environment. It may be associated with an electromagnetic field driving the system $`𝒮`$, an ensemble of several other qubits or any combination of these systems. In addition to fulfill Eq. (33) we require $`_p`$ to be a perturbation only which shall be useful in realizing it in practice. To some degree we may also restrict ourselves to the additional system $`𝒜`$ to prevent the decoherence, such as e.g. an external field $``$ and an extra system of qubits $`𝒬`$. Then we need choose at least the number of the additional qubits appropriately to fulfill Eq. (33) and in addition the parameters of the additional fields, such as the frequency and the intensity of the laser field to control the system. Thus all we need is that the perturbation Hamiltonian of the additional system $`𝒜`$ and the information system $`𝒮`$ satisfy jointly Eq. (33). Then the decoherence can be controlled. i.e. the coherence can be preserved. The special model involving coherent fields and extra qubits will be discussed in the next section in detail.

In the following we consider the special situation of an ancilla system with $`\mathrm{\Delta }H=0`$. Then Eq.(33) can be simplified to give

$$H_{12}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\sqrt{D\gamma }e^{i\phi }.$$
(34)
Thus the Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ in the interaction picture can be written as,

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_I=\left(\begin{array}{cc}H_{11}& \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\sqrt{D\gamma }e^{i\phi }\\ \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\sqrt{D\gamma }e^{i\phi }& H_{22}\end{array}\right).$$
(35)
In a high temperature environment we have $`k_BT\mathrm{}\omega _0`$, which means $`N0`$. Then Eqs. (13), (15) and (34) yield

$$H_{12}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\sqrt{\gamma _{}\gamma _{}}e^{i\phi },$$
(36)
which means that $`H_{12}`$ involves a coupling of the parallel and transverse decays. This reminds us of interference effects in the spontaneous emission of a doublet of quantum states which are closely spaced with regard to their line width so that they couple to the same vacuum modes sec . In the low temperature case we obtain $`N1`$. Then Eqs. (13) (15) and (34) lead to

$$H_{12}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\sqrt{2N\gamma _{}(N\gamma _{}+\gamma _{})}e^{i\phi }.$$
(37)
In the following section we will connect the more formal conditions presented so far for the ancilla interaction Hamiltonians with concrete realistic physical situations where decoherence can be inhibited.

## IV Applications in quantum information processing

The investigations on decoherence presented so far may be applied to the understanding of the basic conception of quantum mechanics or to the large number of novel effects in modern quantum optics and quantum information where decoherence is a serious problem. We here concentrate on applications in quantum information processing. Currently, two key problems in this field associated with decoherence appear to be information storage and operations on information. In order to keep the qubit unaltered in a quantum memory or to transform it in a quantum operation without information loss, the decoherence time $`\tau _d(\tau _1)`$ should be longer than the time $`\tau _c`$ of the qubits interacting with the environment, i.e, $`\tau _d\tau _c`$. It has been shown so far that this relationship can be implemented by two major approaches, which are the quantum error correction approach and the quantum error avoiding technologies as mentioned in the introduction.

Physically, the quantum error correction approach controls decoherence employing the entanglement of involved quantum states. In particular, the information qubits are entangled employing especially prepared qubits such as $`|0`$ or $`|1`$ in addition to quantum operations with the effect that the errors arrising due to decoherence are transfered to the additional qubits. The decoherence in the quantum error avoiding approach is controlled by constructing a DFS. Usual ways for the generation of a DFS are the employment of an external field, the change of the arrangement of qubits, or the engineering of the environment as mentioned in the introduction. All these approaches can be described by a general model, i.e., an assistant system $`𝒜`$. In the above section, we have obtained a general condition (see Eq. (33)) for building a DFS. In this section, we discuss how to apply the resulting condition in quantum information and quantum computation. We will rederive known results with our approach and put forward new mechanisms based on our formalism.

### IV.1 The employed ansatz for the ancilla system

Most applications for decoherence inhibition, including the ones presented in the two following subsections, involve extra qubits, extra fields or extra quantum operations. We thus consider in this subsection the restricted though still rather general model, in which the additional system is assumed to consist of an ensemble of additional qubits denoted by $`𝒬`$, a system of fields denoted by $``$ and diverse quantum operations $`𝒪`$, such as quantum gates $`𝒢`$. Then the perturbation $`_p`$ can be written as

$$_p=_{qs}+_{fs}+ϵ_g,$$
(38)
where $`_{qs},_{fs}`$ and $`_g`$ denote respectively the perturbation Hamiltonian induced by the system $`𝒬`$, the fields $``$ and quantum gate operations $`𝒢`$; the parameter $`ϵ`$ may take the value $`0`$ or $`1`$, so that we may also exclude gate operators as done in the first subsection to follow. $`_{qs}`$ can be expressed as follows in the interaction picture

$$_{qs}^I=\underset{k=1}{\overset{K}{}}\left(g_{sk}\sigma ^+\sigma _k^{}e^{i\delta _k}+g_{sk}^{}\sigma ^{}\sigma _k^+e^{i\delta _k}\right),$$
(39)
where $`\sigma _k^{+()}`$ are the atomic operators of the $`k^{th}(k\{1,2,\mathrm{},K\})`$ qubit in the system $`𝒬`$, $`\delta _k=\omega _k\omega `$, $`\omega _k`$ is the resonant transition frequency of the $`k^{th}`$ qubit in $`𝒬`$, $`g_{sk}`$ are the coupling coefficients between the system $`𝒮`$ and the k<sup>th</sup> qubits in $`𝒬`$ and $`K`$ is the number of qubits in the system $`𝒬`$. In matrix form, Eq. (39) can be rewritten as

$$_{qs}^I=\underset{k=1}{\overset{K}{}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}g_{sk}e^{i\delta _k}& 0\\ 0& g_{sk}^{}e^{i\delta _k}\end{array}\right).$$
(40)
For convenience, we suppose the total external field $``$ to be classical, so that in the interaction picture $`H_{fs}`$ may be written as

$$_{fs}^I=\underset{l=1}{\overset{L}{}}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_l\sigma ^+e^{i\delta _l}+\mathrm{\Omega }_l^{}\sigma ^{}e^{i\delta _l}\right),$$
(41)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_l`$ denote the Rabi frequencies of the $`l^{th}(l\{1,2,\mathrm{},L\})`$ field in $``$, $`\delta _l=\omega _l\omega `$, $`\omega _l`$ is the frequency of the $`l^{th}`$ external field in $``$ and $`L`$ denotes the number of the external fields.

Combining Eqs. (21), (38), (40) and (41) yields

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}H_{11}_k\stackrel{~}{g}_{sk}& H_{12}_l\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_l\\ H_{21}_l\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_l^{}& H_{22}_k\stackrel{~}{g}_{sk}^{}\end{array}\right)=ϵ_g^I,$$
(42)
where $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{sk}=g_{sk}e^{i\delta _k}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_l=\omega _le^{i\delta _l}`$. In the resonant case, i.e., $`\delta _k=0`$ and $`\delta _l=0`$, Eq. (42) can be rewritten as

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}H_{11}_kg_{sk}& H_{12}_l\mathrm{\Omega }_l\\ H_{21}_l\mathrm{\Omega }_l^{}& H_{22}_kg_{sk}^{}\end{array}\right)=ϵ_g^I.$$
(43)
Thus Eqs.(42) and (43) represent respectively a relationship in the non-resonant and the resonant cases among $`H_{qs},H_{fs}`$ and $`H_g`$, i.e., the relationship among the additional qubits $`𝒬`$, the additional fields $``$ and the quantum operations $`𝒪`$. By means of this relationship one can determine how to choose the additional system of qubits $`𝒬`$ and the driving fields $``$ for the decoherence preventation.

### IV.2 Decoherence-free quantum memories

We begin by considering the problem of storing qubits for long times in a quantum memory in an unaltered state. The quantum memory can be viewed as an environment to the system $`𝒮`$ to be stored. As a consequence, the quantum memory will decohere the qubits and induce the information carried by the qubits to be lost. In the following we will show how to preserve the coherence of the qubits according to our proposed approach, i.e. by introducing an appropriate new interaction.

For a quantum memory, there is no quantum operation, i.e., $`ϵ=0`$. Then Eq. (42) leads to

$$H_{11}\underset{k=1}{\overset{K}{}}\stackrel{~}{g}_{sk}=0,H_{22}=H_{11}^{},$$
(44)
and

$$H_{12}\underset{l=1}{\overset{L}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_l=0,H_{21}=H_{12}^{}.$$
(45)
Eqs.(44) yield

$$\mathrm{\Delta }H=2i\underset{k}{\overset{K}{}}\mathrm{}(\stackrel{~}{g}_{sk}),$$
(46)
and

$$\kappa =\frac{4}{\mathrm{}}\underset{k}{\overset{K}{}}\mathrm{}(\stackrel{~}{g}_{sk}),$$
(47)
where $`\mathrm{}(\stackrel{~}{g}_{sk})=|\stackrel{~}{g}_{sk}\stackrel{~}{g}_{sk}^{}|`$. Inserting Eqs. (45), (46) and (47) into Eq. (33), we obtain

$$\left|\underset{l}{\overset{L}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_l\right|=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}^2\gamma \mu }{8}},$$
(48)
where $`\mu =2D\kappa `$. By choosing an appropriate assistant system $`𝒜`$ containing of an additional system of qubits $`𝒬`$ and/or a system of external fields $``$, Eq.(48) shows that the coherence of the qubit stored in quantum memory can be preserved by realistic means. In this situation, the qubit can be stored in principle in the quantum memory for any requested time because the equation is equivalent to the first-order decoherence time satisfying $`\tau _1\mathrm{}`$.

In what follows we consider three special situations. At first we would like to show that our approach is able to reproduce well established results. Therefore we analyze the situation $`K=1`$ and $`L=1`$ in Eq. (48) , which turn out to be associated with the well-known particle-pairing approach Duan (1997) for coherence preservation. In this situation, Eq.(48) gives,

$$|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}|=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}\gamma }{4}|\mathrm{}D2\mathrm{}(\stackrel{~}{g})|},$$
(49)
where $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ denotes the coupling coefficient between the qubit of the system and the qubit of the added particle. Above equation shows that the coherence can be preserved by using a single extra qubit and a single extra field (i.e. the particle-pairing approach Duan (1997)) if the Rabi frequency of the driving field satisfies the above condition Eq. (49).

As a second example one may also store a qubit by employing a sequence of pulses to drive the system as demonstrated in Viola (1997). In this case, the Hamiltonian $`H_{fs}`$ in the Schrödinger picture is expressed as

$$H_{fs}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{n_p}{}}V^{(n)}(t)e^{i\omega (tt_p^{(n)})}\sigma ^++H.c.,$$
(50)
where $`n_p`$ is the number of pulses, $`t_p^{(n)}=(n1)(\tau _p+\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ for $`n\{1,2,\mathrm{},n_p\}`$ and

$$V^{(n)}(t)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill V& \hfill t_p^{(n)}tt_p^{(n)}+\tau _p\\ \hfill 0& \hfill elsewhere,\end{array}$$
(51)
which means that a pulse is applied at each instant $`t=t_p^{(n)}`$ with pulse duration $`\tau _p`$ and separation $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ between pulses. Transferring Eq.(50) into the interaction picture gives

$`H_{fs}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{n_p}{}}}V^{(n)}(t)e^{i\omega (\sigma _z/2)t_p^{(n)}}\sigma _ze^{i\omega (\sigma _z/2)t_p^{(n)}}`$ (52)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{n_p}{}}}V^{(n)}(t)e^{i\omega t_p^{(n)}}\sigma ^++H.c..`$
Then the Rabi frequency has the following form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=V\underset{n=1}{\overset{n_p}{}}e^{i\omega (n1)(\tau _p+\mathrm{\Delta }t)}.$$
(53)
Since $`K=0`$ and $`L=1`$ in this case, Eq. (48) and the above equation give

$$V\left|\underset{n=1}{\overset{n_p}{}}e^{i\omega (n1)(\tau _p+\mathrm{\Delta }t)}\right|=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}^2D\gamma }{4}},$$
(54)
which means that for driving field amplitudes satisfying Eq. (54) a DFS, i.e. coherence preservation, can be guaranteed. When $`n_p\mathrm{}`$, we obtain the simplified expression

$$V=\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2D\gamma \mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\omega }{2}(\tau _p+\mathrm{\Delta }t)}.$$
(55)
We note that in the particular case $`\tau _p+\mathrm{\Delta }t=n2\pi /\omega =nT(n=0,1,\mathrm{},)`$ the pulse amplitude satisfies $`V=0`$. However, since the high order terms in the master equation (20), which are very small contrast to the linear term, have been omitted, accordingly one should have actually $`V0`$. Thus coherence preservation can be guaranteed by a very small pulse amplitude in this situation.

Based on Eq. (48) we shall now present a third example which has not been explored in the literature before. We consider the situation $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{sk}=\stackrel{~}{g}_0(k\{1,2,\mathrm{},K\}`$ and $`L=0`$, which means that the information qubit is surrounded by $`K`$ additional qubits with identical coupling strengths. We thus may imagine the information qubit to be in the center of a sphere being surrounded by the $`K`$ additional qubits situated on the surface of this sphere. The sphere will certainly modify the effective Hamiltonian of the information system and subsequently turn out to cancel the passive effects from the bath $``$. Alternatively we may regard this sphere to form an auxiliary part of the environment which engineers the bath $``$. At an appropriate condition, the coherence of the information system may be preserved. This condition can be obtained from Eq. (48). With $`L=0`$ and the coupling coefficients between the information qubit and the additional qubits being $`g_0`$, we obtain

$$2K\mathrm{}(\stackrel{~}{g}_0)=\mathrm{}D.$$
(56)
In general $`D`$ is a constant, so that above equation represents a relationship between the number of the additional qubits and the coupling strength of the additional qubits and the information qubit. Eq. (56) also shows that a driving field is not necessary to inhibit decoherence in quantum memories.

### IV.3 Decoherence-free quantum operations

Up to now we have put forward means to refrain a system from evolving at all and this in spite of a surrounding bath. Now we do want a system to evolve, however, under a well defined precise operation. The inhibition of decoherence during a quantum gate operation is governed again by Eq. (42) however only if $`ϵ=1`$. Then the additional Hamiltonian $`_p`$ is associated with the Hamiltonian $`_g`$, decribing the gate operation. We now pursue by deriving a practical condition for inhibiting decoherence during a gate operation with the help of extra qubits and extra fields.

We consider a single qubit quantum gate, which can be described by a 2-dimensional unitary matrix. In general, an arbitrary single qubit quantum gate can be expressed as Nielsen (2000),

$$𝒰=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i(\alpha \beta /2\delta /2)}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\vartheta }{2}& e^{i(\alpha \beta /2+\delta /2)}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\vartheta }{2}\\ e^{i(\alpha +\beta /2\delta /2)}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\vartheta }{2}& e^{i(\alpha +\beta /2+\delta /2)}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\vartheta }{2}\end{array}\right).$$
(57)
where the real numbers $`\alpha ,\beta ,\delta `$ and $`\vartheta `$ are the characteristic parameters of the quantum logic gate. Then $`H_g`$ can be expressed as

$$H_g=\frac{𝒰\mathrm{cos}(\frac{\tau }{\mathrm{}})}{i\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\tau }{\mathrm{}})},$$
(58)
where $``$ is the 2-dimensional unity matrix and $`\tau `$ is the time during the action of the quantum gate on the qubit. Then Eq. (43) gives,

$$H_{11}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{K}{}}\stackrel{~}{g}_{sk}+\frac{e^{i(\alpha \beta /2\delta /2)}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\vartheta }{2}}{i\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\tau }{\mathrm{}})}\frac{\mathrm{cos}(\frac{\tau }{\mathrm{}})}{i\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\tau }{\mathrm{}})},$$
(59)
$$H_{22}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{K}{}}\stackrel{~}{g}_{sk}+\frac{e^{i(\alpha \beta /2\delta /2)}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\vartheta }{2}}{i\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\tau }{\mathrm{}})}\frac{\mathrm{cos}(\frac{\tau }{\mathrm{}})}{i\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\tau }{\mathrm{}})},$$
(60)
$$H_{12}=\underset{l=1}{\overset{L}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_le^{i(\alpha \beta /2+\delta /2)}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\vartheta }{2},$$
(61)
and

$$H_{21}=H_{12}^{}.$$
(62)
Eqs. (59) and (60) lead to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }H=2i\underset{k=1}{\overset{K}{}}\mathrm{}(g_{sk})+\nu ,\kappa =\frac{4}{\mathrm{}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{K}{}}\mathrm{}(g_{sk}),$$
(63)
where $`\nu =2\mathrm{cos}\frac{\vartheta }{2}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }/\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }t}{\mathrm{}})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\alpha \beta /2\delta /2`$. Using the same treatment as in the previous subsection for quantum memories, we finally obtain

$$\left|\underset{l}{\overset{L}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_l\right|=\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }^{}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\vartheta }{2}+\sqrt{\frac{\gamma (\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4}\mu ^2+\nu ^2)}{2\mu }},$$
(64)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{}=\alpha \beta /2+\delta /2`$. Obviously, the quantum gate will influence the choice of the additional system $`𝒬`$ and $``$ aimed to inhibit the decoherence.

As an example, we consider the case of the quantum gate being the Hadamard gate

$$=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(65)
In this situation, one can easily calculate the characteristic parameters of the quantum gate through Eq. (57), i.e., $`\alpha =\pi /2,\beta =0,\delta =\pi `$ and $`\vartheta =\pi /2`$, subsequently $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0,\mathrm{\Theta }^{}=\pi `$. Then the parameters of the additional systems $`𝒬`$ and $``$ obey the following relationship

$$\left|\underset{l}{\overset{L}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_l\right|=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}^2\gamma \mu }{8}}\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}.$$
(66)
Comparing the above equation with Eq. (48), one can find easily that the difference is only an additional constant. In the case $`K=1,L=1`$, i.e., the particle-pairing approach, we have

$$|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}|=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}\gamma (\mathrm{}D2\mathrm{}(\stackrel{~}{g}))}{4}}\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}.$$
(67)
In the case if the system is driven by a sequence of pusles as described in Eq. (53), one has the following condition

$$V\left|\underset{n=1}{\overset{n_p}{}}e^{i\omega (n1)(\tau _p+\mathrm{\Delta }t)}\right|=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\sqrt{D\gamma }\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2},$$
(68)
where the parameters are the same as in Eq. (51).

Finally we consider the model proposed in the last paragraph of Sect. IV.2. Since in this situation $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{sk}=\stackrel{~}{g}_0`$ and $`L=0`$, one can easily obtain the following equation

$$2K\mathrm{}(\stackrel{~}{g}_0)=\mathrm{}D\frac{2}{\mathrm{}\gamma }.$$
(69)
Comparing this condition to Eq.(56) we find that there is a modification term which is induced by the quantum operation. Thus also a quantum operation may be decoherence-free solely due to placing an ensemble of qubits around the information qubit to be prevented from decoherence.

## V Conclusions

The phenomena of coherence and decoherence have been investigated in detail for a two-state quantum system (information system) in a thermal bath modeled by an infinite-mode harmonic oscillator. In Sect. II we confirmed the general notion that decoherence arises from the coupling between the information system and the environment, i.e., the entanglement between the single mode of the system and the infinite number of modes of the bath. The entanglement, if not compensated, leads the irreversible loss of coherence.

In order to prevent the loss of coherence of the system an assistant system (or process) was introduced in Sect. III as a means of generating a DFS for the information system. We derived general conditions which the corresponding extra Hamilton operator has to fulfill in order to decouple the information system from the environment and thus to inhibit decoherence. The assistant Hamilton operator was assumed general up to the only restriction of inducing a weak coupling to the system and at this stage it may be associated with either physical or unphysical situations.

Finally in Sect. IV we investigate possible applications of the obtained condition in quantum information processing. In this case we restricted ourselves to assistant Hamilton operators being described by an additional set of qubits and an additional set of classical fields. In the two important examples of quantum information storing and quantum gates, our general condition showed various situations where those processes can be prevented from decoherence by rather practical means. Precise conditions on the free external system parameters are derived involving the situations where extra qubits or extra fields are employed alone and where combinations are used. This way previous results on decoherence-free quantum information processing were confirmed and a previously unexplored mechanism was put forward. This involves the placement of the information qubit into the center of a sphere with additional identical qubits on its surface. The coupling constants of the extra qubits can be adapted to the interaction of the bath on the information qubit such that its decoherence is inhibited.

## Acknowledgements

We have benefited from useful discussions with Jörg Evers and Michael Fleischhauer. This work is supported by the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung foundation (Grant Nr. IV CHN 1069575 STP) and the German Science Foundation (Nachwuchsgruppe within SFB276).