text:
# A best fit evolution scenario for the SCUBA galaxies

## 1. Introduction

Sub-mm luminous, extragalactic sources are now routinely detected with the SCUBA/JCMT and MAMBO/IRAM instruments, and over 100 blank field sources are now known (Smail et al. 2002, Hughes et al. 1998, Barger et al. 1999, Chapman et al. 2002a, Eales et al. 2000, Webb et al. 2002, Borys et al. 2002, Scott et al. 2002, Dannerbauer et al. 2002). However, the population continues to be poorly understood, largely as a result of two observational difficulties. Firstly, obtaining large samples of objects from sub-mm mapping is a time consuming process, whereby one source is uncovered in a night worth of blank sky integration. Secondly, identifying secure detections at other wavelengths is difficult due to the positional uncertainty and large beam sizes ($``$15 arcsec), and the intrinsic faintness of most sources at all other wavelengths.

The tight correlation observed locally between thermal far-IR emission and synchrotron radio emission (Helou et al. 1985, Condon 1992) suggests a possibility for identifying the sub-mm sources. The positional accuracy and small beam sizes of large radio interferometers like the VLA can act as a surrogate to the sub-mm, allowing precise identifications at other wavelengths. Smail et al. (2000) demonstrated that a significant fraction of their sub-mm sources could be detected in the radio. Radio surveys, however, do not benefit from the negative K-correction inherent in sub-mm surveys, and galaxies with luminosities similar to the local ULIG, Arp220, will likely be missed by $`z3`$ in the radio. Barger, Cowie & Richards (2000) and Chapman et al. (2001) have demonstrated that selecting the optically fainter tail of the microjansky radio sources can be used to rapidly uncover a large portion of the blank field sub-mm population ($``$70% of the bright counts). Chapman et al. (2002b – hereafter C02) have presented the results of a large campaign using the radio pre-selection technique to uncover sub-mm sources.

In this contribution, we continue to investigate the evolutionary behavior of the sub-mm population of galaxies, expanding on the models presented in C02. The key addition is an explicit model of the dust temperature distribution found locally. We use these models to better understand the range in properties sampled by the radio pre-selected sub-mm galaxy population. Our calculations are done in a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.3`$, h=0.65 cosmology.

## 2. Fitting the evolution model

We anchor our model to the local FIR luminosity function (LF), constructed from the 1.2 Jy sample of IRAS galaxies (Fisher et al. 1995). Recent work has emphasized the variation in dust temperature found in luminous infrared galaxies (Chapman et al. 2002c). We therefore form an LF which represents the distribution in dust temperatures found in the 1.2 Jy sample, parametrized by the 60$`\mu `$m/100$`\mu `$m color (a full characterization of this LF will be presented in Chapman et al., in preparation).

We evolve this local bivariate LF using pure luminosity evolution of the form $`\mathrm{\Phi }(L,\nu )=\mathrm{\Phi }_0(L/g(z),\nu (1+z))`$. Our evolution function has a power law peak, $`g(z)=(1+z)^4`$ out to a break redshift, and drops thereafter as $`g(z)=(1+z)^4`$. This power-law index is chosen based on evolutionary models fit to both optical and sub-mm wavelength data (Blain et al. 1999a,b). The 60$`\mu `$m/100$`\mu `$m color distribution does not evolve, but rather continues to scale with FIR luminosity as found locally. The model therefore has only one free parameter, the $`g(z)`$ break redshift. We then adopt a Monte Carlo approach, drawing luminous infrared galaxies randomly from the evolving distribution function. A galaxy thus selected is then assigned a template spectral energy distribution from the catalog of Dale et al. (2001, 2002), parameterized by the 60$`\mu `$m/100$`\mu `$m color. This model scenario does not incorporate the intrinsic scatter in the far-IR/radio correlation, as was done in C02. Rather we concentrate on the properties of the intrinsic dust temperature distribution.

In Fig. 1, we plot the distribution of measured sub-mm sources from C02 in the sub-mm/radio color-magnitude diagram (CMD), along with similar CMDs from our model for three peak redshifts, $`z=2.0`$, $`2.5`$, and $`3.0`$. Objects which are detectable in a 30$`\mu `$Jy radio survey are shown as larger symbols.

We then fit the model galaxy distributions in the CMD to the C02 dataset, parameterizing only by the $`z_{\mathrm{break}}`$ redshift of the peak evolution function. We minimize the residuals between the real and modeled galaxy distributions over the range S$`{}_{850}{}^{}=520`$ mJy. A best fitting evolution is found for a peak redshift of $`z=2.6`$.

## 3. Discussion

The addition of the 60$`\mu `$m/100$`\mu `$m color distribution to our adopted FIR luminosity function results in a fraction of cold luminous galaxies which are preferentially selected with SCUBA at 850$`\mu `$m(e.g., Blain 1999, Eales et al. 1999). As expected (see also the discussion in C02), the peak evolution redshift must be lower if a population of luminous colder sources exist at high redshifts. By comparison, in C02, a reasonable fit to the data was found for a peak evolution redshift of $`z=3`$, when all objects were assumed to be as hot as Arp220 ($`50`$ K).

Note also that in this model, there are very few bright sub-mm sources missed by the 30$`\mu `$Jy radio threshold. Any model with a peak in the luminosity evolution function will exhibit similar behavior. No bright blank field sub-mm sources have yet been identified with galaxies at $`z>3`$. Our model fit to the existing radio/sub-mm data suggests a paradigm where this may remain largely true even with complete identifications. As redshifts are obtained for the radio/sub-mm sources, tighter constraints on the form of the evolution will be possible, breaking the degeneracy of dust temperature versus redshift.

## Acknowledgements

We thank all our collaborators on the various aspects of this project for a stimulating romp through the enigmatic field of sub-mm galaxies. SCC gratefully acknowledges support from NASA through HST grant 9174.1. GFL thanks the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization (ANSTO) for financial support.

## references

Barger, A., Cowie, L., Richards, E., 2000a, AJ 119, 2092 (BCR)

Barger, A., et al., 1999, AJ 117, 2656

Blain, A., et al., 1999a, MNRAS 302, 632

Blain, A., et al., 1999b, MNRAS, 309, 715

Blain, A., 1999, MNRAS, 309, 955

Borys, C., Chapman, S.C., Scott, D., Halpern, M., 2001, MNRAS, in press

Chapman, S.C., Richards, E., Lewis, G.F., et al., 2001, ApJL, 548, 147

Chapman, S.C., Scott, D., Borys, C., Fahlman, G., 2002a, MNRAS, 330, 92

Chapman, S.C., et al. 2002b, ApJ, in press, (astro-ph/0111157) – C02

Chapman, S.C., Smail, I., Ivison, R., et al., 2002c, ApJ, in press, (astro-ph/0203068)

Condon, J., 1992, ARA&A, 30, 575

Dale, D., et al., 2001, ApJ, 549, 215

Dale, D., et al., 2002, ApJ, in press

Dannerbauer, G., et al., 2002, A&A, in press

Eales, S., et al., 2000, AJ, 120, 2244

Eales, S., et al., 1999, ApJ 515, 518

Fisher, K., et al., 1995, ApJS, 100, 69

Helou, G., et al., 1985, ApJ 440, 35

Hughes, D., et al., Nature, 1998, 394, 241

Scott, S., et al., 2002, MNRAS, in press

Smail, I., Ivison, R., Blain, A., Kneib, J.-P., 2002, MNRAS, in press

Smail, I., et al., 2000, ApJ 528, 612

Webb, T., et al., 2002, ApJ, submitted


format: text

text:
# Muon anomalous magnetic moment from effective supersymmetry

(March 26, 2002)

## Abstract

We present a detailed analysis on the possible maximal value of the muon $`(g2)_\mu 2a_\mu `$ within the context of effective SUSY models with $`R`$ parity conservation. First of all, the mixing among the second and the third family sleptons can contribute at one loop level to the $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ and $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ simultaneously. One finds that the $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ can be as large as $`(1020)\times 10^{10}`$ for any $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, imposing the upper limit on the $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ branching ratio. Furthermore, the two-loop Barr-Zee type contributions to $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ can be significant for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, if a stop is light and $`\mu `$ and $`A_t`$ are large enough ($`O(1)`$ TeV). In this case, it is possible to have $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ upto $`O(10)\times 10^{10}`$ without conflicting with $`\tau l\gamma `$. We conclude that the possible maximal value for $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ is about $`20\times 10^{10}`$ for any $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Therefore the BNL experiment on the muon $`a_\mu `$ can exclude the effective SUSY models only if the measured deviation is larger than $`30\times 10^{10}`$.

preprint:     March, 2002 KIAS-P02007  hep-ph/0203251 KAIST-TH 2002/07

The anomalous magnetic dipole moment (MDM) of a muon, $`a_\mu (g_\mu 2)/2`$, is one of the best measured quantities. Recently, the Brookhaven E821 collaboration announced a new data on anomalous magnetic moment $`a_\mu `$ Brown:2001mg  :

$$a_\mu ^{\mathrm{exp}}=(11659202\pm 14\pm 6)\times 10^{10}.$$
(1)
On the other hand, the SM prediction for this quantity has been calculated through five loops in QED and two loops in the electroweak interactions Czarnecki:2001pv . Using the corrected light–light scattering contribution to the $`a_\mu `$ through pion exchanegs kinoshita , the difference between the data and the SM prediction is

$$\delta a_\mu a_\mu ^{\mathrm{exp}}a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}=(26\pm 16)\times 10^{10},$$
(2)
which is only $`1.6\sigma `$ deviation. Therefore, the present data does not indicate any indirect evidence of new physics at electroweak scale. However, since the ultimate goal of the BNL experiment is to reduce the experimental error down to $`4\times 10^{10}`$, the $`\delta a_\mu `$ may provide a useful constraint on various new physics scenarios just around the electroweak scale.

The most promising new physics beyond the SM is the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) and its various extensions, and the muon $`(g2)_\mu `$ was one of the basic observables one considered in various SUSY models susyamu1 . After the BNL data was announced in the year of 2001, there appeared a lot of works on the muon $`(g2)`$ in the context of SUSY models within the general MSSM (even with $`R`$ parity violation), minimal SUGRA, gauge mediation, anomaly mediation and gaugino mediation scenarios susyamu2 . The conclusions of these works can be summarized as follows in a model independent manner : it is rather easy to accommodate $`\delta a_\mu (1070)\times 10^{10}`$ in SUSY models, if $`\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is relatively large and SUSY particles are not too heavy. Also the sign of the $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ is correlated with the sign of the $`\mu `$ parameter.

This general conclusion seems to allude that the so-called effective (or decoupling) SUSY models effective , which is an attractive way to solve the SUSY flavor and CP problems, have serious troubles if it eventually turns out $`\delta a_\mu >10^{10}`$, since the 1st/2nd generation sfermions have to be very heavy ($`O(20)`$ TeV) and almost degenerate for squark sector. One way to evade this conclusion within the effective SUSY models is simply to invoke $`R`$ parity violations in order to explain the muon $`(g2)`$ within the effective SUSY models Kim:2001se . However, the mixing between the staus and the smuons were ignored in Ref. Kim:2001se , which is not a valid assumption in generic effective SUSY models. This mixing arises from mismatches between lepton and slepton mass matrices in the flavor space. The effects of such a mixing among the down squarks and its effects on $`B`$ physics were diuscussed in Ref. cohen  sometime ago. Our present work is an anology of these works within the lepton sector (see also Ref. Cho:2001hx ). The flavor mixing between the staus and the smuons that contribute to the $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ can also enhance the decay $`\tau \mu \gamma `$, for which there exists a new strong bound from BELLE belle  :

$$B(\tau \mu \gamma )<1.0\times 10^6.$$

Thus one has to consider the $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ and $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ simultaneously.

In this letter, we present a detailed analysis on the muon $`(g2)_\mu `$ in the effective SUSY models with $`R`$ parity conservation, especially the possible maximal value of $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ in view of the expected new BNL data. Lacking definite effective SUSY models, we will basically preform a numerical analysis in a model independent way, imposing the constraint from the unobserved decay $`\tau \mu \gamma `$. This constraint turns out to be especially strong in the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region. For relatively small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (up to $`10`$), the slepton mixing allows $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ to be as large as $`20\times 10^{10}`$ without having too large $`\tau \mu \gamma `$, if there are large mixing between the staus and smuons in both chirality sectors (namley, $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_L\stackrel{~}{\tau }_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R\stackrel{~}{\tau }_R`$ mixings). For larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >30`$, the constraint from $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ becomes very strong. Still the $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ can be as large as $`9\times 10^{10}`$ at one loop level. Furthermore, the Barr–Zee type two loop contribution can enhance the $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ up to $`(1020)\times 10^{10}`$, if $`A_t`$ and $`\mu `$ are of size $`O(1)`$ TeV and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is large. In short, it is not impossible to have $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ as large as $`20\times 10^{10}`$ regardless of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in effective SUSY models. Therefore the BNL experiment on the muon $`(g2)_\mu `$ can exclude the effective SUSY models without any ambiguities only if $`\delta a_\mu >30\times 10^{10}`$ within the errors.

Let us first define the $`l_il_j\gamma `$ form factors $`L_{ji}`$ and $`R_{ji}`$ as follows :

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}(l_il_j\gamma )=e\frac{m_{l_i}}{2}\overline{l}_j\sigma ^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }\left(L_{ji}P_L+R_{ji}P_R\right)l_i.$$
(3)
Then, the muon $`(g2)`$ or $`a_\mu `$ is related with $`L(R)_{22}`$ by

$$a_\mu =\frac{1}{2}(g_\mu 2)=m_\mu ^2\left(L_{22}+R_{22}\right),$$
(4)
whereas the decay rate for $`l_il_{ji}+\gamma `$ is given by

$$\frac{Br(l_il_{ji}+\gamma )}{Br(l_il_{ji}+\nu _i\overline{\nu }_j)}=\frac{48\pi ^3\alpha }{G_F^2}\left(|L_{ji}|^2+|R_{ji}|^2\right)$$
(5)
We will calculate $`L,R`$’s relevant to $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ and $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ in the framework of effective SUSY models. Our notations and conventions follow those of Ref. Misiak:1997ei .

The slepton mass matrix in the super-CKM basis is given by

$$M_{\stackrel{~}{l}}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}V_L^EM_L^2V_L^E+m_l^2+\frac{\mathrm{cos}2\beta }{2}(M_Z^22M_W^2)\mathrm{𝟏}& m_l(\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta \mathrm{𝟏}+A_l^{})\\ m_l(\mu ^{}\mathrm{tan}\beta \mathrm{𝟏}+A_l)& V_R^EM_E^{2T}V_R^E+m_l^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta M_Z^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right).$$
(6)
This matrix is taken to be of the following form (neglecting the trilinear couplings for charged leptons for the time being) :

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}\stackrel{~}{m}_{LL11}^2& & & m_e\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta & & \\ & \stackrel{~}{m}_{LL22}^2& \stackrel{~}{m}_{LL23}^2& & m_\mu \mu \mathrm{tan}\beta & \\ & \stackrel{~}{m}_{LL32}^2& \stackrel{~}{m}_{LL33}^2& & & m_\tau \mu \mathrm{tan}\beta \\ & & & & & \\ m_e\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta & & & \stackrel{~}{m}_{RR11}^2& & \\ & m_\mu \mu \mathrm{tan}\beta & & & \stackrel{~}{m}_{RR22}^2& \stackrel{~}{m}_{RR23}^2\\ & & m_\tau \mu \mathrm{tan}\beta & & \stackrel{~}{m}_{RR32}^2& \stackrel{~}{m}_{RR33}^2\end{array}\right).$$
(7)
Since we are looking at a $`CP`$-conserving effect, all these mass parameters are assumed to be real. The origin of this kind of mixing may be the form of $`M_{L,E}^2`$, the soft mass matrices in the flavor basis, or $`V_{L,R}^E`$, the lepton mixing matrices. We can diagonalize the 2-3 submatrix of the $`LL`$ sector into a mixing angle $`\theta _L`$ and two mass eigenvalues $`\stackrel{~}{M}_L^2,\stackrel{~}{m}_L^2`$ in the limit of no $`LR`$ mixing:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{m}_{LL22}^2& \stackrel{~}{m}_{LL23}^2\\ \stackrel{~}{m}_{LL32}^2& \stackrel{~}{m}_{LL33}^2\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta _L& \mathrm{sin}\theta _L\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _L& \mathrm{cos}\theta _L\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{M}_L^2& \\ & \stackrel{~}{m}_L^2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta _L& \mathrm{sin}\theta _L\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _L& \mathrm{cos}\theta _L\end{array}\right),$$
(8)
and likewise for the $`RR`$ sector. The sneutrino mass matrix with the neutrino masses neglected is

$$M_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2=V_L^\nu M_L^2V_L^\nu +\frac{\mathrm{cos}2\beta }{2}M_Z^2\mathrm{𝟏},$$
(9)
and the lightest sneutrino mass is

$$m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_3}^2=\stackrel{~}{m}_L^2+\mathrm{cos}2\beta M_W^2,$$
(10)
when we also ignore the lepton masses. If $`V_L^\nu `$ is different from $`V_L^E`$, $`M_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2`$ is diagonalized by a different unitary matrix than the $`LL`$ sector of $`M_{\stackrel{~}{l}}^2`$. However, this misalignment is compensated by the MNS matrix at the chargino-lepton-sneutrino vertex, and the chargino amplitudes can be expressed in terms of the slepton mixing angles, $`\theta _L`$ and $`\theta _R`$, if we ignore neutrino and lepton masses in $`M_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2`$ and $`M_{\stackrel{~}{l}}^2`$.

The question about the sizes of $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{AA33}^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{AA23}^2`$ (with $`A=L,R`$) is highly model dependent one, depending on the details of the underlying model and may be closely related with understanding flavor structures in the MSSM. Note that the SUSY flavor problem is stated in the super-CKM basis as follows : the sfermion mass matrices should be flavor diagonal in this basis and/or the sfermion masses should be almost degenerate. Most effective SUSY models in the literature have hierarchical sfermion mass structures (which are almost diagonal with small mixing angles among different generations) in the flavor basis, namely $`M_L^2`$ and $`M_E^2`$ effective . However, it’d not be impossible to construct a model of large flavor mixings in the second and third generation sfermions, especially considering the large mixings in the neutrino sector. In the super-CKM basis, the slepton mass matrices $`M_L^2`$ and $`M_E^2`$ are multiplied by $`V_L^E`$, $`V_R^E`$ and $`V_L^\nu `$ with $`V_{MNS}V_L^EV_L^\nu `$. Because of the large mixings among three light neutrinos, the resulting slepton mass matrices can have large and comparable elements. (A similar argument may be true for the righthanded slepton sector as well.) This is a source of the large mixings among the sleptons, which can enhance the $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ in the effective SUSY models.

The heavier mass eigenstates decoupling, it is straightforward to show that the $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}=a_\mu ^C+a_\mu ^N`$ is given by

$`a_\mu ^C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_3}^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left[g_2^2|Z_{1j}^+|^2f_1(x_j){\displaystyle \frac{m_{C_j}}{v\mathrm{cos}\beta }}g_2Z_{2j}^{}Z_{1j}^+f_2(x_j)\right]\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _L,`$
$`a_\mu ^N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2m_\mu ^2}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}[`$ (11)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(g_1Z_N^{1j}+g_2Z_N^{2j}){\displaystyle \frac{m_{N_j}}{v\mathrm{cos}\beta }}Z_N^{3j}f_4(x_{jL}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|g_1Z_N^{1j}+g_2Z_N^{2j}|^2f_3(x_{jL})\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _L}{\stackrel{~}{m}_L^2}}`$
$`\left(\sqrt{2}g_1{\displaystyle \frac{m_{N_j}}{v\mathrm{cos}\beta }}Z_N^{1j}Z_N^{3j}f_4(x_{jR})+2g_1^2|Z_N^{1j}|^2f_3(x_{jR})\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _R}{\stackrel{~}{m}_R^2}}`$
$`g_1Z_N^{1j}(g_1Z_N^{1j}+g_2Z_N^{2j}){\displaystyle \frac{m_{N_j}\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta }{\stackrel{~}{m}_L^2\stackrel{~}{m}_R^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{f_4(x_{jL})}{\stackrel{~}{m}_L^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_4(x_{jR})}{\stackrel{~}{m}_R^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau }{m_\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _L\mathrm{sin}2\theta _R}{4}}],`$
where $`x_jm_{C_j}^2/m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_3}^2`$, $`x_{jL(R)}m_{N_j}^2/\stackrel{~}{m}_{L(R)}^2`$, and $`v^2=2m_Z^2/(g_1^2+g_2^2)`$. The loop functions are defined as follows:

$`f_1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12(x1)^4}}(2+3x6x^2+x^3+6x\mathrm{log}x),`$ (12)
$`f_2(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(x1)^3}}(34x+x^2+2\mathrm{log}x),`$ (13)
$`f_3(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12(x1)^4}}(16x+3x^2+2x^36x^2\mathrm{log}x),`$ (14)
$`f_4(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(x1)^3}}(1+x^22x\mathrm{log}x).`$ (15)
In the limit of no slepton flavor mixing ($`\theta _L=\theta _R=\pi /2`$), we have checked that our results reduce to the previous results in the MSSM. Let us note that the neutralino-stau loop contribution to the $`a_\mu `$ can be enhanced by $`m_\tau /m_\mu `$ if both $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_L\stackrel{~}{\tau }_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R\stackrel{~}{\tau }_R`$ mixing are (near) maximal. On the other hand, if the mixing is significant only in one chirality sector (namely, if $`\theta _L=0`$ or $`\theta _R=0`$), there is no such an enhancement factor, and the resulting $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ will be less than the case $`\theta _L=\theta _R=\pi /4`$. This was also noticed in Ref. Cho:2001hx .

One can also calculate the amplitude for the decay $`\tau \mu \gamma `$. The coefficients relevant to this process read as

$`L_{23}^C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_3}^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left[g_2^2|Z_{1j}^+|^2f_1(x_j){\displaystyle \frac{m_{C_j}}{v\mathrm{cos}\beta }}g_2Z_{2j}^{}Z_{1j}^+f_2(x_j)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{m_\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _L}{2}},`$ (16)
$`L_{23}^N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}[`$ (17)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(g_1Z_N^{1j}+g_2Z_N^{2j}){\displaystyle \frac{m_{N_j}}{v\mathrm{cos}\beta }}Z_N^{3j}f_4(x_{jL}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|g_1Z_N^{1j}+g_2Z_N^{2j}|^2f_3(x_{jL})\right){\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{m_\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _L}{2\stackrel{~}{m}_L^2}}`$
$`\left(\sqrt{2}g_1{\displaystyle \frac{m_{N_j}}{v\mathrm{cos}\beta }}Z_N^{1j}Z_N^{3j}f_4(x_{jR})+2g_1^2|Z_N^{1j}|^2f_3(x_{jR})\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _R}{2\stackrel{~}{m}_R^2}}`$
$`g_1Z_N^{1j}(g_1Z_N^{1j}+g_2Z_N^{2j}){\displaystyle \frac{m_{N_j}\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta }{\stackrel{~}{m}_L^2\stackrel{~}{m}_R^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{f_4(x_{jL})}{\stackrel{~}{m}_L^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_4(x_{jR})}{\stackrel{~}{m}_R^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _L\mathrm{sin}2\theta _R}{2}}]`$
$`R_{23}^C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_3}^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left[g_2^2|Z_{1j}^+|^2f_1(x_j){\displaystyle \frac{m_{C_j}}{v\mathrm{cos}\beta }}g_2Z_{2j}^{}Z_{1j}^+f_2(x_j)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _L}{2}},`$ (18)
$`R_{23}^N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}[`$ (19)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(g_1Z_N^{1j}+g_2Z_N^{2j}){\displaystyle \frac{m_{N_j}}{v\mathrm{cos}\beta }}Z_N^{3j}f_4(x_{jL}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|g_1Z_N^{1j}+g_2Z_N^{2j}|^2f_3(x_{jL})\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _L}{2\stackrel{~}{m}_L^2}}`$
$`\left(\sqrt{2}g_1{\displaystyle \frac{m_{N_j}}{v\mathrm{cos}\beta }}Z_N^{1j}Z_N^{3j}f_4(x_{jR})+2g_1^2|Z_N^{1j}|^2f_3(x_{jR})\right){\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{m_\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _R}{2\stackrel{~}{m}_R^2}}`$
$`g_1Z_N^{1j}(g_1Z_N^{1j}+g_2Z_N^{2j}){\displaystyle \frac{m_{N_j}\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta }{\stackrel{~}{m}_L^2\stackrel{~}{m}_R^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{f_4(x_{jL})}{\stackrel{~}{m}_L^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_4(x_{jR})}{\stackrel{~}{m}_R^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _R\mathrm{sin}2\theta _L}{2}}]`$
In order that our numerical analysis be as model independent as possible, we fixed $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{LL22}=\stackrel{~}{m}_{RR22}=10`$ TeV, and scanned the following parameter range :

$`2\mathrm{tan}\beta 50,0.2\text{ TeV}\mu `$ $`,M_21\text{ TeV},`$
$`(0.1\text{ TeV})^2\stackrel{~}{m}_{LL33}^2,\stackrel{~}{m}_{RR33}^2`$ $`(10\text{ TeV})^2,`$ (20)
$`(10\text{ TeV})^2\stackrel{~}{m}_{LL23}^2,\stackrel{~}{m}_{RR23}^2`$ $`+(10\text{ TeV})^2.`$
Note that the effective SUSY models do not necessarily imply that the slepton mass parameters $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{LL33}^2`$ and/or $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{RR33}^2`$ should be (electroweak scale)2. Since slepton Yukawa couplings are small, their effects on the one loop corrected Higgs mass are negligible. Therefore staus and tau sneutrinos need not be light in the effective SUSY models. However the resulting $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ will be very small for very heavy staus and tau sneutrinos. Then we selected parameter sets yielding positive slepton (mass)2 and satisfying the direct search bounds : $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}85`$ GeV, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_3}>44.7`$ GeV and $`m_{\chi ^+}>103.5`$ GeV sparticles:limit . We used the GUT relation $`M_1/M_2=5\alpha _1/3\alpha _2`$ to fix $`M_1`$ for a given $`M_2`$. The trilinear couplings for the charged leptons are set to zero. For large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the trilinear couplings are almost irrelevant. For small and moderate $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, it changes the $`LR`$ mixing parameters, and we have checked the constrained maximal $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ can change upto $`\pm 2\times 10^{10}`$ when we varied the $`A_l`$’s from $`1`$ TeV to $`+1`$ TeV.

In Fig. 1, we show the possible maximal value of $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ (at one loop level) as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ with and without the $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ constraint in solid and dotted curves, respectively. If $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is not too large, the $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ constraint does not overkill the $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$. For large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the one loop contribution to $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ can be much larger, but is strongly constrained by $`\tau \mu \gamma `$. Still the resulting $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ can be as large as $`9\times 10^{10}`$. This point is also illustrated by Figs. 2 (a) and (b), where we show the region plots for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$ (a) and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$ (b). In Fig. 2 (a), $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ can reach $`O(20\times 10^{10})`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$, still satisfying the $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ constraint. For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$, we have $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}10\times 10^{10}`$ \[Fig. 2 (b)\]. This behavior can be easily understood, since $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ whereas $`B(\tau \mu \gamma )\mathrm{tan}^2\beta `$. Therefore the constraint becomes much more severe when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is large, in which the one loop $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ is essentially smaller than $`10\times 10^{10}`$. The possible maximal value for $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ will decrease as the upper limit on $`B(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ gets improved.

In the effective SUSY models, the two-loop contributions to the EDM’s and MDM’s through a third (s)fermion loop could be substantial for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ Chen:2001kn ; Arhrib:2001xx . Since previous discussion implies that the one loop contribution to $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ cannot be larger than $`10\times 10^{10}`$ for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in the effective SUSY models, it is important to estimate these two loop contributions which may dominate in the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region. The basic formulae for these contributions have been derived both for the neutral and the charged Higgs exchanges with (s)top and/or (s)bottom loops :

$$a_\mu ^{2\mathrm{loop}}=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }\left(\frac{G_Fm_\mu ^2}{4\sqrt{2}\pi ^2}\right)\lambda _\mu ^S\underset{\stackrel{~}{f}}{}N_c^{\stackrel{~}{f}}Q_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2\frac{\lambda _{\stackrel{~}{f}}}{m_S^2}(m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2/m_S^2)$$
(21)
where $`N_c^{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$, $`Q_{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$ are the number of colors, the electric charge and the mass of the internal sfermion in the loop, and $`m_S`$ (with $`S=h^0`$ or $`H^0`$) is the mass of the exchanged scalar Higgs $`h^0`$ or $`H^0`$. $`\lambda _\mu ^{(h^0,H^0)}=(\mathrm{sin}\alpha ,\mathrm{cos}\alpha )/\mathrm{cos}\beta `$, where $`\alpha `$ is the mixing angle of neutral CP-even Higgs bosons. The explicit form of the loop function $`(z)`$ can be found in Ref. Arhrib:2001xx . Note that the expression in the parenthesis,

$$\frac{G_Fm_\mu ^2}{4\sqrt{2}\pi ^2}=23.3\times 10^{10}$$

is the size of the SM electroweak corrections to the muon $`(g2)_\mu `$, and thus the above two-loop Barr-Zee type contributions to the muon $`(g2)_\mu `$ can be substantial for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and the large positive $`\mu `$ or the large negative $`A_f`$. The larger the trilinear coupling $`A_t`$ is, the larger $`(g2)_\mu `$ one can afford.

In Fig. 1, we also show the two-loop Barr-Zee type contribution to $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ for three different $`\mu =0.5,1`$ and 2 TeV’s (the long dashed, the dot-dashed and the short dashed curves, respectively). We have assumed the maximal mixing angle for neutral Higgs bosons, and set $`m_S=100`$ GeV (just above the current lower limit on the CP-even heavier neutral Higgs boson $`H`$) in order to maximize the desired effect. There is a clear evidence that this two-loop effects becomes important as $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ grows. Adding the two-loop Barr-Zee type contribution to the one loop effects, the possible maximal value for $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ can easily extend to $`(2030)\times 10^{10}`$ even for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Therefore it’d not be possible to completely rule out the effective SUSY models from the BNL experiment on the muon MDM, unless the deviation between the SM prediction and the data is larger than, say, $`30\times 10^{10}`$.

We also plot the dependence of the possible maximal value of $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ on the SUSY breaking parameter $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{LL33}=\stackrel{~}{m}_{RR33}=\stackrel{~}{m}_{33}`$ in Fig. 3 for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3,10`$ and 40, respectively. The lower (the upper) curves are with (without) $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ constraint. A larger value of $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ is possible, if $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{33}`$ becomes larger. The reason lies in that in this case one needs a large mixings $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{LL23}^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{RR23}^2`$ in order to have light stops at the electroweak scale if $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{33}`$ becomes large. (Note that we had fixed $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{LL22}=\stackrel{~}{m}_{RR22}=10`$ TeV and we need light stops around a few hundred GeV’s in order to have a significant effect on the muon $`(g2)`$.) Therefore the $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ in the effective SUSY models can be $`20\times 10^{10}`$ at one loop level, if $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is not too large and the slepton mass parameters involving the 3rd generations are also very large (upto $`O(\mathrm{few}10)`$ TeV) so that one can have light slepton spectra and large mixings. On the other hand, if one naively apply the idea of light staus directly to the mass parameters $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{LL33}^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{RR33}^2`$ (and necessarily with small flavor mixings $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{LL23}^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{RR23}^2`$ in order to have light but non-tachyonic stops), the resulting $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ cannot be large : $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}3\times 10^{10}`$ if $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{LL33}=\stackrel{~}{m}_{RR33}<O(1)`$ TeV, for example (see Fig. 3).

Note that the maximum of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$ curve in Fig. 3 is lower than the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$ point of Fig. 1 about $`10\times 10^{10}`$. This is because $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{LL33}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{RR33}`$ were assumed to be equal in Fig. 3, but not in Fig. 1. It turns out that in small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ case, $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ gets maximized when $`\stackrel{~}{m}_L^2\stackrel{~}{m}_R^2`$ and $`\theta _L\theta _R\pi /4`$, while in large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ case, $`\stackrel{~}{m}_L^2/\stackrel{~}{m}_R^260`$ and $`\theta _L0.18,\theta _R\pi /4`$. Let us note another point here. The result that $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ reaches $`9\times 10^{10}`$ when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$, was obtained from Eqs. (1119). If we treat the $`LR`$ mixing by fully diagonalizing the $`4\times 4`$ mass matrix, this maximal number gets reduced to $`6\times 10^{10}`$.

In conclusion, we considered the muon $`(g2)_\mu `$ within the effective SUSY models. In this case, the smuon and the muon sneutrino loop contributions to the muon $`(g2)_\mu `$ is negligible. However, the staus can contribute to the muon $`(g2)_\mu `$ through the flavor mixing in the slepton sector. Including the current constraint from $`\tau \mu \gamma `$, we find that $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ in the effective SUSY model can be as large as $`20\times 10^{10}`$ in a reasonable region of parameter space. This bound is fairly model independent witin the effective SUSY models, and will become smaller once the upper bounds on $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ is improved. Our study shows that the $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ can be as large as $`20\times 10^{10}`$ in the effective SUSY models for all $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ if there is a large mixing between the second and third generation sfermions. For large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the constraint from $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ is very strong but $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ can be as large as $`9\times 10^{10}`$. Also it can receive additional contributions from two-loop Barr-Zee type contributions of the similar size. Overall, the possible maximal value for $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ is about $`20\times 10^{10}`$ so that the BNL experiment on the muon $`(g2)_\mu `$ can exclude the effective SUSY models only if the measured deviation is larger than $`30\times 10^{10}`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Kiwoon Choi and Wan Young Song for useful discussions. This work is supported in part by BK21 Core program of the Ministry of Education (MOE), and by the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) through Center for High Energy Physics (CHEP) at Kyungpook National University.


text:
# Abstract

## Abstract

We offer a plausible resolution of the paradox (first formulated by Jevicki and Rodriguez in Phys. Lett. B 146, 55 (1984)) that the two shifted harmonic oscillator potentials $`V(q)=q^2+G/q^2+const`$ may, in spite of their exact solvability in a non-empty interval of the couplings $`G`$, become supersymmetric partners if and only if $`G`$ vanishes. We show that and how their $`G0`$ SUSY may be re-established via a regularization provided by pseudo-Hermitian quantum mechanics.

PACS 03.65.Fd; 03.65.Ca; 03.65.Ge; 11.30.Pb; 12.90.Jv

## 1 Motivation

A suitable algebraic background of the theoretical construction of multiplets which would unify some experimentally observable bosons with fermions is provided by the graded Lie algebras, so called superalgebras. In such a setting, an exceptional role is played by the linear harmonic oscillator in one dimension, $`D=1`$. Indeed, its Hamiltonian may be factorized and, subsequently, shifted to the left or to the right,

$$H^{(LHO)}=p^2+q^2=AB1=BA+1,A=q+ip,B=qip$$

$$H_{(L)}=H^{(LHO)}1=BA,H_{(R)}=H^{(LHO)}+1=AB.$$

According to Witten  one may then introduce a “super-Hamiltonian” and two “supercharges”,

$$=\left[\begin{array}{cc}H_{(L)}& 0\\ 0& H_{(R)}\end{array}\right],𝒬=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ A& 0\end{array}\right],\stackrel{~}{𝒬}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& B\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right]$$

and notice that they generate a representation of Lie superalgebra sl(1/1),

$$\{𝒬,\stackrel{~}{𝒬}\}=,\{𝒬,𝒬\}=\{\stackrel{~}{𝒬},\stackrel{~}{𝒬}\}=0,[,𝒬]=[,\stackrel{~}{𝒬}]=0.$$

In the language of physics, one can speak about the bosonic and fermionic vacuum annihilated by both the supercharges,

$$q|0,0=\left[\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{exp}(q^2/2)/\sqrt{\pi }\\ 0\end{array}\right],𝒬|0,0=\stackrel{~}{𝒬}|0,0=0.$$

The “bosons” themselves may be then introduced as created and/or annihilated by the first-order differential operators $`𝐚^{}B`$ and/or $`𝐚A`$, respectively. The parallel creation, annihilation and occupation-number operators are also easily defined for “fermions”,

$$^{}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right],=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right],𝒩_{}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right].$$

The supercharges become factorized as well, $`𝒬𝐚^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒬}𝐚^{}`$. In terms of the harmonic-oscillator eigenstates $`|n`$ the Fock space will be spanned by the states $`|n_b,n_f`$ characterized by the presence of $`n_b`$ bosons and $`n_f`$ fermions where $`n_f`$ is equal to zero or one,

$$|n,0=\left[\begin{array}{c}|n\\ 0\end{array}\right],|n,1=\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ |n\end{array}\right].$$

In this way the harmonic oscillator may be understood as a next-to-trivial superymmetric field theory in a one-dimensional space-time which unifies the bosons with fermions. More details may be found, e.g., in the concise review paper .

In what follows, we shall analyze what happens if we replace the one-dimensional $`H^{(LHO)}`$ by its radial, $`D`$dimensional generalization with any real $`D>2`$,

$$H^{(\alpha )}=\frac{d^2}{dq^2}+\frac{\alpha ^21/4}{q^2}+q^2,\alpha =(D2)/2+\mathrm{},\mathrm{}=0,1,\mathrm{}.$$

We shall be guided by the Witten’s supersymmetric quantum mechanics where the use of the operators $`A=_q+W`$ and $`B=_q+W`$ with arbitrary superpotentials $`W`$ leads to the same supersymmetric pattern as above, forming the superHamiltonian from the two partner operators

$$H_{(L)}=BA=\widehat{p}^2+W^2W^{},H_{(R)}=AB=\widehat{p}^2+W^2+W^{}.$$

In the spirit of our recent letter  we shall admit that these operators are pseudo-Hermitian .

## 2 Bound states in the pseudo-Hermitian setting

Beyond the elementary harmonic oscillator let us now contemplate a generalized superpotential

$$W^{(\gamma )}(r)=r\frac{\gamma +1/2}{r}r=r(x)=xi\epsilon .$$
(1)
In the other words, we assume that we start from the choice of a real parameter $`\gamma `$ and define the pair $`H_{(L,R)}`$ of non-Hermitian operators. Such a recipe gives the partner Hamiltonians in the above $`D`$dimensional harmonic oscillator form where $`D_LD_R`$ in general,

$$H_{(L)}^{(\gamma )}=H^{(\alpha )}2\gamma 2,H_{(R)}^{(\gamma )}=H^{(\beta )}2\gamma ,\alpha =|\gamma |,\beta =|\gamma +1|.$$
(2)
In the light of ref.  the complexified line of coordinates $`r=xi\epsilon `$ circumvents the singularity in the origin so that the bound state wavefunctions are regular and expressible in terms of the Laguerre polynomials,

$$\psi (r)=\frac{N!}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N+\varrho +1)}r^{\varrho +1/2}\mathrm{exp}(r^2/2)L_N^{(\varrho )}(r^2).$$

Together with their energies

$$E=E_N^{(\varrho )}=4N+2\varrho +2,\varrho =Q\alpha ,Q=\pm 1,N=0,1,\mathrm{}$$

these states are numbered by the integer $`N`$ and by the so called quasi-parity $`Q`$.

## 3 Supersymmetry, pseudo-Hermitian way

For reasons explained in ref.  we must assume that $`\gamma 0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. Up to that constraint, we may visualize the above construction as one of the regularizations recommended in the recent literature . Here we intend to summarize and discuss the subject in more detail.

In the first step we notice that the quasi-parity $`Q`$ coincides with the ordinary spatial parity $`P`$ in the limit $`\alpha 1/2`$. In such a limit the basis states are well known (cf. Appendix A). Once we move to $`\alpha 1/2`$ we notice that the quasi-even states $`\psi (r)r^{1/2\alpha }`$ still lie below their quasi-odd complements $`\psi (r)r^{1/2+\alpha }`$ at any fixed $`N`$.

Whenever we choose $`\alpha 1`$, the limiting transition $`\epsilon 0`$ moves the quasi-even solutions out of the Hilbert space completely. Otherwise, these states remain normalizable in a way depicted in Figure 1 where the following ordering is obtained for the $`N`$th bunch of the energy levels,

$$E_{(L)}^{(\alpha )}[a(N)]E_{(R)}^{(\beta )}[b(N)]E_{(L)}^{(+\alpha )}[c(N)]E_{(R)}^{(+\beta )}[d(N)].$$
(3)
This ordering is preserved along all their $`\gamma `$dependent variation. Each of these four curves is just a once broken straight line but, in our picture, our eyes are guided by an infinitesimal shift of the levels in such a way that their shape may be easily followed (one should only recollect that the system remains undefined at all the integers $`\gamma IN`$).

In the Figure the physical, Hermitian limiting transition $`\epsilon 0`$ has been performed. The general, $`\epsilon 0`$ has been discussed elsewhere . We may only note here that in contrast to the latter and manifestly non-Hermitian, $`\epsilon 0`$ scheme of ref. , all our present states belong to the Hilbert space of the ordinary quantum mechanics. Thus, our new scheme may be interpreted as a result of a pseudo-Hermitian regularization recipe studied, in more detail, elsewhere  (cf. also Appendix B for some more details).

The inspection of Figure 1 reveals a certain generalized supersymmetry (SUSY) where the standard requirements of quadratic integrability tolerate the quasi-odd levels at all $`\gamma `$ but confine the existence of the levels $`a(n)`$ to the very short interval of $`\gamma (1,1)`$ and the existence of the levels $`b(n)`$ to the interval of $`\gamma (2,0)`$. As a consequence, one has to distinguish between the following five mutually significantly different regimes.

1. “Far left” with $`\gamma (\mathrm{},2)`$ and with the complete degeneracy

$$E_{(L)}^{(+\alpha )}[c(N)]=E_{(R)}^{(+\beta )}[d(N)]$$

where the Witten’s index vanishes  and where SUSY itself is broken because the ground state energy remains positive. All the spectrum is equidistant.
2. “Near left” with $`\gamma (2,1)`$ and with the mere partial degeneracy which survives from the preceding interval. There emerges the new series of energies $`E_{(R)}^{(\beta )}[b(N)]`$ without any left partners; this possibility represents just a weaker form (and/or a more singular analogue) of the Jevicki-Rodriguez breakdown of SUSY  as mentioned above in Abstract.
3. “Central domain” with $`\gamma (1,0)`$. This is the most interesting domain where the properties of the well known linear special case $`H^{(LHO)}`$ (which has $`\gamma =1/2`$) appear generalized to the whole neighboring interval. Up to the exceptional (and newly emerging) ground state $`a(0)`$ we may spot here the well known pattern of degeneracy,

$$E_{(L)}^{(\alpha )}[a(N)]<E_{(R)}^{(\beta )}[b(N)]=E_{(L)}^{(+\alpha )}[c(N)]<$$

$$<E_{(R)}^{(+\beta )}[d(N)]=a(N+1)<\mathrm{}$$

so that SUSY becomes unbroken even for the spectrum which ceased to be equidistant at $`\gamma 1/2`$.
4. “Near right” with $`\gamma (0,1)`$ and with the properties which “mirror” the far left (the series of energies $`E_{(R)}^{(\beta )}[b(N)]`$ ceases to exist, etc).
5. “Far right” with $`\gamma (1,\mathrm{})`$, degeneracy

$$E_{(L)}^{(+\alpha )}[c(N)]=d(N1),N>0$$

and with the characteristic $`\gamma `$independence of the almost completely degenerate unbroken SUSY spectrum.

We may summarize that the resulting SUSY pattern is fairly unusual. It may be characterized by several above-listed appealing properties but one should re-emphasize, first of all, that near $`\gamma =1/2`$ a nice non-equidistant generalization of the textbook $`D=1`$ SUSY oscillators is obtained.

## Acknowledgement

Work partially supported by the grant Nr. A 1048004 of GA AS CR.

## Figure captions

Figure 1. SUSY and the $`\gamma `$dependence of the spectrum which is generated by the superpotential (1).

Figure 2. Graphical solution of the selfconsistency condition $`E(\varrho )=\varrho `$ in the schematic example of Appendix B. 3. with $`g_{Nk}=1`$ and $`f_k=3`$.

(A) curve (11) at $`a_k=0.7`$ in the Hermitian regime.

(B) curve (11) at $`a_k=0.7`$ in the non-Hermitian regime (both energies are real),

(C) curve (11) at $`a_k=1.4`$ in the non-Hermitian regime (no real root, both energies are complex),

(D) selfconsistency line $`E(\varrho )=\varrho `$.

## Appendix A: The standard harmonic oscillator basis on $`L_2(IR)`$

Eigenstates of a Hamiltonian $`H(g)`$ which commutes with the parity $`𝒫`$ may be numbered by an integer $`n`$ and by the superscript <sup>±</sup> which characterizes the spatial parity of the state,

$$H(g)|n^{(\pm )}(g)=E_n^{(\pm )}(g)|n^{(\pm )}(g)$$
(4)
These eigenstates form a complete basis in the Hilbert space $`L_2(IR)`$,

$$\underset{\sigma =\pm }{}\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|m^{(\sigma )}(g)m^{(\sigma )}(g)|=I.$$
(5)
The usual condition of their orthonormalization reads

$$n^{(\tau )}(g)|m^{(\sigma )}(g)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}n^{(\tau )}(g)|xx|m^{(\sigma )}(g)𝑑x=\delta _{mn}\delta _{\sigma ,\tau }.$$

For the particular and exceptional harmonic oscillator $`H(0)H^{(LHO)}`$ these eigenstates are proportional to the well known Hermite polynomials,

$$\begin{array}{c}x|n^{(+)}(0)=𝒩_{2n}_{2n}(x)\mathrm{exp}(x^2/2)x|s_n,\\ x|n^{()}(0)=𝒩_{2n+1}_{2n+1}(x)\mathrm{exp}(x^2/2)x|t_n,\\ xIR,𝒩_n=\left(\sqrt{2^nn!\sqrt{\pi }}\right)^1,n=0,1,\mathrm{}.\end{array}$$
(6)
At each particular subscript $`n=m`$ the pairs of the latter harmonic-oscillator basis states have an opposite parity, $`𝒫|s=+|s,𝒫|t=|t`$. They may be transformed into the unitarily equivalent pairs of states

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}|S\\ |T\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& i\\ i& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}|s\\ |t\end{array}\right)$$

with the real $`𝒫𝒯`$ parities, $`𝒫𝒯|S=+|S,𝒫𝒯|T=|T`$ where the complex conjugation $`𝒯`$ defined by the simple rule $`𝒯i𝒯=i`$ mimics the usual antilinear time reversal.

## Appendix B: Main differences between the Hermitian and non-Hermitian Hamiltonians

### B. 1: $`𝒫`$symmetric models and the bases on $`L_2(IR^+)`$

Any eigenstate $`|\psi `$ of $`H=H^{}=𝒫H𝒫`$ satisfies its Schrödinger equation even after a pre-multiplication by the parity $`𝒫`$. Both the old and new eigenstates belong to the same real eigenvalue $`E`$ which cannot be degenerate due to the Sturm-Liouville oscillation theorems. One of the superpositions $`|\psi \pm 𝒫|\psi `$ must vanish while the other one acquires a definite parity. This is the essence of the mathematical proof that the $`𝒫`$ symmetry of wave functions cannot be spontaneously broken, $`𝒫|n^{(\pm )}(g)=\pm |n^{(\pm )}(g)`$.

The knowledge of the spatial symmetry of the Hermitian Hamiltonian $`H(g)`$ enables us to simplify many considerations and calculations by choosing and fixing the parity of the solutions in advance,

$$x|n^{(\pm )}(g)=\pm (x)|n^{(\pm )}(g).$$

This permits us to live, conveniently, on the semi-axis of $`x(0,\mathrm{})=IR^+`$. In such a setting we rarely imagine that we are tacitly changing the Hilbert space from $`L_2(IR)`$ to $`L_2(IR^+)`$. We feel that this is a technicality which deserves a separate remark.

On the new space (or, if you wish, in the old space equipped by the projector or singular metric $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$) the inner product changes its meaning since we have to integrate over the mere semi-axis (symbolically, $`\psi |\psi ^{}\psi |\mathrm{\Pi }|\psi ^{}`$). This re-scales the orthogonality relations,

$$n^{(\sigma )}(g)|\mathrm{\Pi }|m^{(\sigma )}(g)=_0^{\mathrm{}}n^{(\sigma )}(g)|xx|m^{(\sigma )}(g)𝑑x=\frac{1}{2}\delta _{mn}.$$

Alternatively, we may omit the symbols $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and switch to the two re-normalized bases

$$\begin{array}{c}x|\sigma _n=_{2n}_{2n}(x)\mathrm{exp}(x^2/2),\\ x|\tau _n=_{2n+1}_{2n+1}(x)\mathrm{exp}(x^2/2),\\ xIR^+,_n=\left(\sqrt{2^{n1}n!\sqrt{\pi }}\right)^1,n=0,1,\mathrm{}\end{array}$$

which are both orthonormal on the half-line. In parallel, condition (5) splits in the two independent completeness relations

$$\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|\sigma _m\sigma _m|=I,\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|\tau _n\tau _n|=I.$$

The overlaps of the states with different superscripts do not vanish and form a unitary matrix which changes the basis in $`L_2(IR^+)`$. Its elements

$$𝒰_{n,m}=2_0^{\mathrm{}}n^{(+)}(0)|xx|m^{()}(0)𝑑x=2s_n|\mathrm{\Pi }|t_m=\sigma _n|\tau _m$$
(7)
may be computed by the direct symbolic integration in MAPLE giving the exact values sampled in Table 1 from which one may extract some closed formulae, e.g.,

$$s_n|\mathrm{\Pi }|t_n=\frac{(2n)!\sqrt{4n+2}}{2^{2n+1}(n!)^2\sqrt{\pi }}=\frac{\sqrt{n+\frac{1}{2}}}{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+\frac{1}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+1)}.$$

This means that the original vectors (6) form an over-complete set and we may make a choice between the two alternative basis sets $`\{|\sigma \}`$ and $`\{|\tau \}`$. They are both complete on the new Hilbert space $`L_2(IR^+)`$.

### B. 2: $`𝒫𝒯`$symmetric models

The above-mentioned rigidity of the conservation of parity is lost during the transition to the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric models $`H=H^{}=𝒫𝒯H𝒫𝒯`$ where any quantity $`\mathrm{exp}(i\phi )`$ is an admissible eigenvalue of the operator $`𝒫𝒯`$ since its component $`𝒯`$ is defined as anti-linear, $`𝒯i=i`$. In more detail, every rule $`𝒫𝒯|\psi =\mathrm{exp}(i\phi )|\psi `$ implies that we have

$$𝒫𝒯𝒫𝒯|\psi =\mathrm{exp}(i\phi )𝒫𝒯|\psi =|\psi $$

as required. The Schur’s lemma ceases to be applicable. In the basis of Appendix A with the properties $`𝒫𝒯|S=|S`$ and $`𝒫𝒯|L=|L`$, the general expansion formula

$$H=\underset{m,n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(|S_m_{m,n}S_n|+|L_m𝒢_{m,n}L_n|+i|S_m𝒞_{m,n}L_n|+i|L_m𝒟_{m,n}S_n|\right)$$

contains four separate complex matrices of coefficients. Once it is subdued to the requirement $`H=𝒫𝒯H𝒫𝒯`$, we get the necessary and sufficient condition demanding that all the above matrix elements of $`H=H^{}`$ must be real,

$$_{m,n}=_{m,n}^{},𝒢_{m,n}=𝒢_{m,n}^{},𝒞_{m,n}=𝒞_{m,n}^{},𝒟_{m,n}=𝒟_{m,n}^{}.$$
(8)
As long as the similar trick has led to the superselection rules for the spatially symmetric Hamiltonians, we may conclude that the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric analogue of the direct-sum decompositions and superselection rule is just the much weaker constraint (8).

### B. 3: Schematic finite-dimensional matrix model with and without $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry

Let us contemplate the partitioned matrix Schrödinger equation

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}FEI& \alpha A\\ A^{}& GEI\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{u}\\ \stackrel{}{w}\end{array}\right)=0$$
(9)
where $`F=F^dagger`$, $`G=G^{}`$ and either $`\alpha =1`$ (Hermitian case) or $`\alpha =1`$ ($`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric case). Schrödinger equations with the matrix representation (9) generalize the models with $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry . Their spectrum may happen to be real and discrete, at least in the limit $`A0`$, or containing the complex conjugate pairs. Let us now descibe their nontrivial, non-perturbative solvable example.

Preliminarily, both the Hermitian submatrices $`F`$ and $`G`$ of the Hamiltonian should be diagonalized via a pair of some suitable unitary transformations, $`F\widehat{f}`$, $`G\widehat{g}`$. Their respective spectra $`\{f_n\}`$ and $`\{g_n\}`$ will be assumed real and discrete.

Secondly, we shall ignore all the small elements of the coupling matrix $`𝒜`$ in our pre-diagonalized effective Schrödinger equation (9),

$$\left(\widehat{f}EI\alpha 𝒜\frac{1}{\widehat{g}EI}𝒜^{}\right)\stackrel{}{y}=0.$$
(10)
Here, $`\alpha =\pm 1`$ “remembers” its respective Hermitian and non-Hermitian origin and all the small elements in $`𝒜`$ are irrelevant causing just a perturbative, small deformation of the decoupled spectrum $`\{f_n\}+\{g_n\}`$.

Thirdly, let us choose the latter coupling matrix in the form dominated by the transposed diagonal,

$$𝒜=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& a_0\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& a_1& 0\\ \mathrm{}& & & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& a_{N1}& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ a_N& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$

Quite unexpectedly, this choice makes the problem exactly solvable since the secular equation $`det(H_{eff}(\varrho )EI)=0`$ can be immediately factorized,

$$0=\left(f_0E\alpha \frac{|a_0|^2}{g_N\varrho }\right)\left(f_1E\alpha \frac{|a_1|^2}{g_{N1}\varrho }\right)\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\left(f_NE\alpha \frac{|a_N|^2}{g_0\varrho }\right).$$

The explicit evaluation of zeros of the $`k`$th factor is trivial,

$$E(\varrho )=f_k\alpha a_k\frac{1}{g_{Nk}\varrho }a_k^{}.$$
(11)
The implementation of the selfconsistency $`\varrho =E(\varrho )`$ gives the sequence of the mere quadratic algebraic equations

$$f_kE\alpha a_k\frac{1}{g_{Nk}E}a_k^{}=0.$$

All their roots are available in closed form,

$$E_{k^\pm }=\frac{1}{2}\left(f_k+g_{Nk}\pm \sqrt{(f_kg_{Nk})^2+4\alpha |a_k|^2}\right).$$

This confirms our a priori expectations since the Hermitian energies with $`\alpha =1`$ are always real while, at $`\alpha =1`$, we get the real spectrum if and only if

$$|a_k|<|f_kg_{Nk}|/2,k=0,1,\mathrm{},N.$$
(12)
Vice versa, we get a complex conjugate pair $`E_{k^\pm }`$ whenever we move to the strongly non-Hermitian regime and encounter a large and strong off-diagonality or coupling of modes in $`𝒜`$. This is an independent linear-algebraic re-confirmation of the similar observations made during the explicit computations using differential equations.

Table 1. Overlaps $`\sqrt{\pi }s_n|\mathrm{\Pi }|t_m`$ defined by eq. (7). Rows are numbered by $`n=0,1,\mathrm{},6`$, columns by $`m=0,1,\mathrm{},4`$.

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & & & \\ & & & & \\ 1/2\sqrt{2}& 1/6\sqrt{3}& 1/20\sqrt{15}& \frac{1}{56}\sqrt{70}& 1/48\sqrt{35}\\ & & & & \\ 1/2& 1/4\sqrt{3}\sqrt{2}& 1/24\sqrt{15}\sqrt{2}& \frac{1}{80}\sqrt{70}\sqrt{2}& \frac{3}{224}\sqrt{35}\sqrt{2}\\ & & & & \\ 1/24\sqrt{2}\sqrt{6}& 1/8\sqrt{3}\sqrt{6}& 1/16\sqrt{15}\sqrt{6}& \frac{1}{96}\sqrt{70}\sqrt{6}& \frac{3}{320}\sqrt{35}\sqrt{6}\\ & & & & \\ 1/40\sqrt{2}\sqrt{5}& 1/24\sqrt{3}\sqrt{5}& 1/16\sqrt{15}\sqrt{5}& 1/32\sqrt{70}\sqrt{5}& \frac{1}{64}\sqrt{35}\sqrt{5}\\ & & & & \\ \frac{1}{224}\sqrt{70}\sqrt{2}& \frac{1}{160}\sqrt{3}\sqrt{70}& \frac{1}{192}\sqrt{15}\sqrt{70}& \frac{35}{64}& \frac{3}{256}\sqrt{35}\sqrt{70}\\ & & & & \\ \frac{1}{96}\sqrt{2}\sqrt{7}& \frac{3}{224}\sqrt{3}\sqrt{7}& \frac{3}{320}\sqrt{15}\sqrt{7}& \frac{1}{128}\sqrt{70}\sqrt{7}& \frac{9}{256}\sqrt{35}\sqrt{7}\\ & & & & \\ \frac{1}{704}\sqrt{2}\sqrt{231}& \frac{1}{576}\sqrt{3}\sqrt{231}& \frac{1}{896}\sqrt{15}\sqrt{231}& \frac{1}{1280}\sqrt{70}\sqrt{231}& \frac{1}{512}\sqrt{35}\sqrt{231}\\ & & & & \end{array}$$


text:
# On the generation of sequential unitary gates from continuous time Schrödinger equations driven by external fields

## I Introduction

In quantum information, the “computing” with quantum states is accomplished by applying sequences of discrete unitary gates, i.e. predetermined elements of the transformation group that acts on the state of the quantum system and determines its dynamical properties. Such set of unitary transformations is normally specified in terms of the corresponding infinitesimal generators and, in order to guarantee arbitrary manipulation of the quantum states, it should be enough rich to generate the whole transformation group.

In quantum computing, this property is called universality of the gates Deutsch1  and in Lloyd1  it is shown that “almost all gates are universal”, see also Ramakrishna4 ; Weaver1  for a control theoretic reformulation of the same idea. The problem is treated also in DAlessandro4  by recollecting results on the uniform generation of the rotation groups. The main result is the following: arbitrary state transfer is achievable by means of a number of unitary gates equal to the dimension of the transformation group (henceforth $`SU(N)`$ of dimension $`N^21`$). Such unitary gates do not have to correspond to linearly independent infinitesimal generators: in fact, owing to the semisimple nature of $`SU(N)`$, almost all pairs of infinitesimal generators in the Lie algebra $`𝔰𝔲(N)`$ allows to achieve arbitrary state transfer by cascading $`N^21`$ exponentials of the two generators in alternate sequence. For the single qbit, this is the idea behind for example the ZYZ parameterization of rotations of the corresponding group of transformations $`SU(2)`$. For $`N`$qbit systems, parameterizations aiming at the same scope are proposed for instance in Murnaghan1 ; Reck1 . From a technological viewpoint, this is a great simplification as it means that in practice arbitrary manipulation can be done by sequencing control pulses applied along (almost) any pair of laboratory fixed axes. 2D NMR spectroscopy is one field where such techniques of sequencing pulses from two different directions has reached the level of a very sophisticated science Ernst1 ; Mehring1 . The cascade of unitary transformations obtained in this way is a product of exponentials, each exponential containing a parameter expressing the time duration of the pulse (scaled by a constant depending on the “strength” of the applied field). By varying these $`N^21`$ parameters, every quantum state is reached.

In general, the philosophy of control synthesis for states that evolve in continuous time governed by differential equations (like the Schrödinger equation) is to look for input-parameterized solutions of the dynamics and then to select the control inputs in order to accomplish the given tasks (for example state transfer). As mentioned above, in the sequential model for quantum computing it is normally expected that the elementary gates that constitute the “quantum circuits” will be made of discrete sets of unitary operators corresponding to fixed values of the $`N^21`$ parameters mentioned above, applied in a fixed order. In other words, what in a different context would be simply a parameterization of a group manifold, like a set of Euler angles, in the context of quantum computing becomes the “hardware” basis for the construction of quantum circuits. This “mimicking” the behavior of classical circuits is motivated by the need to simplify as much as possible the influence of the dynamics in the logic of the circuits and of the “hardware” requirements of the circuits, but it is complicated by the continuum of values in which the quantum state can exist, as opposed to its classical counterpart (i.e. the bit).

The main scope of this paper is to provide a framework for reconciliating the continuous time forced Schrödinger equation with the “discrete dynamics” of quantum computers. The formalism used is that of the Wei-Norman formula, which relates the Magnus expansion (suitable to represent the continuous time evolution of the Schrödinger equation) with the product of exponentials expansion corresponding to complete sets of elementary gates. Essentially, both expansions define local coordinate charts on the group of unitary transformations by means of a basis of the corresponding Lie algebra and via the exponential map. That is why these are sometimes referred to as exponential coordinates (or, in some cases, canonical coordinates). For compact groups, the two corresponding parameter spaces are different: one is a solid sphere and the other a cube, and the two sets of coordinates are related by nonlinear differential equations. An algorithm for the explicit computation of such differential equations (i.e. of the Wei-Norman formula) in terms of the structure constant of the Lie algebra was recently proposed in Cla-param-diff1 . As for all series expansions on semisimple Lie groups, existence is not a global property, see Wei2 . In fact also the Wei-Norman formula has a singular locus which is an algebraic set of the parameter space.

Another control-theoretically sound way to design inputs that resemble elementary quantum gates is to use piecewise constant controls Ramakrishna2 ; Schirmer4 . The methods proposed here could be seen as the differential version of the control design obtained via piecewise constant controls. In fact, also the flow induced by piecewise constant controls looks like a product of exponentials which resembles a cascade of elementary gates.

For sake of comprehension, a parallel with what happens in the control of robotic chains Craig1  is useful to understand this relation: while at each time instant one can express the position of the end-effector of a robot in terms of joint angles and topology of the robot via a static map, called forward kinematics, (in quantum control: a map constructed from the Lie group decompositions of the unitary propagator, i.e. from products of exponentials), in order to describe dynamic changes it is convenient to pass to the differential forward kinematics i.e. to the Jacobian map obtained by differentiating the static map mentioned above. In Robotics, the use of differential maps is crucial whenever a closed form expression of the inverse of the forward kinematics (giving the values of the joint angles in terms of the end effector position) is not available. The Wei-Norman formula is exactly the Jacobian of the change of coordinates between single exponential and product of exponentials. Furthermore, as we will see, it automatically allows to bypass what is the main problem of the piecewise constant control methods, that is to say finding an explicit value of the $`N^21`$ parameters that constitute a decomposition of an element in $`SU(N)`$ for $`N>2`$ (in the robotic case this would correspond to the inversion of the forward kinematic map). Lastly, while the Lie group decompositions used in piecewise constant control methods Ramakrishna3 ; Schirmer5  are not directly related to the positioning of the laboratory equipement that produces the control fields on the quantum system, this factor is implicitely considered in the product of exponentials we will use here.

## II Exponential coordinates on $`SU(N)`$

Consider a closed finite level quantum system described by a state $`|\psi `$ evolving according to the time dependent Schrödinger equation

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill i\mathrm{}|\dot{\psi }(t)& =H(t)|\psi =\left(H_0+H_i(t)\right)|\psi (t)\hfill \\ \hfill |\psi (0)& =|\psi _0\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
where the state of the $`N`$-level quantum system $`|\psi `$ lives on the sphere in $`N`$-dimensional complex Hilbert space $`𝕊^{N1}=\left\{|\psi ^N\text{ s.t. }\psi |\psi =1\right\}`$, and the traceless Hermitian matrices $`H_0`$ and $`H_1(t)`$ are respectively the constant internal Hamiltonian and the external time-varying Hamiltonian, this last representing the interaction of the system with the control fields. The solution of (1) is normally written in terms of the unitary propagator $`U(t)SU(N)`$:

$$|\psi =U(t)|\psi _0$$

with $`U(t)`$ satisfying an equation similar to (1) but lifted from the sphere $`𝕊^{N1}`$ to the special unitary group $`SU(N)`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill i\mathrm{}\dot{U}(t)& =H(t)U(t)=\left(H_0+H_i(t)\right)U(t)\hfill \\ \hfill U(0)& =I\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
From now on, we shall use atomic units $`\mathrm{}=1`$. Assume $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_n`$, $`n=N^21`$, are skew-hermitian matrices forming a basis of the Lie algebra $`𝔰𝔲(N)`$ and that the Hamiltonian $`H(t)`$ can be written in this basis as

$$iH(t)=i\left(H_0+H_i\right)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_jA_j+\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}u_jA_j$$

where $`a_j`$ and $`u_j=u_j(t)`$ are respectively the (constant) components of the free Hamiltonian along the basis directions and the (time-varying) control parameters of the interaction part, some of which might be zero if the control along the corresponding direction is missing.

If $`T`$ is the Dyson time ordering operator, the solution of (2) is formally written in terms of the exponential map as

$$U(t)=T\mathrm{exp}\left(i_0^tH(\tau )𝑑\tau \right)=T\mathrm{exp}\left(i_0^t\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(a_j+u_j(t))A_j\right)$$
(3)
normally referred to as Magnus expansion Magnus1 . Alternatively, instead of (3), the solution of (2) locally admits an expression in terms of product of exponentials, first due to Wei-Norman

$$U(t)=\mathrm{exp}(\gamma _1A_1)\mathrm{}\mathrm{exp}(\gamma _nA_n)$$
(4)
with generally time dependent parameters $`\gamma _i=\gamma _i(t)`$. The relation between the two expansions (3) and (4) is given by the so-called Wei-Norman formula, which expresses the functions $`\gamma _i(t)`$ in terms of the $`a_i+u_i(t)`$ via a system of differential equations:

$$\mathrm{\Xi }(\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _n)\left[\begin{array}{c}\dot{\gamma }_1\\ \mathrm{}\\ \dot{\gamma }_n\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}a_1+u_1\\ \mathrm{}\\ a_n+u_n\end{array}\right]\gamma _i(0)=0$$
(5)
with the $`n\times n`$ matrix $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ analytic in the variables $`\gamma _i`$. Since the adjoint maps can all be written as (summation convention over repeated greek indexes):

$$e^{\gamma _j\mathrm{ad}_{A_j}}A_i=e^{\gamma _jA_j}A_ie^{\gamma _jA_j}=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(\gamma _j)^l}{l!}\mathrm{ad}_{A_j}^lA_i=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(\gamma _j)^l}{l!}c_{ij}^{\mu _1}c_{i\mu _1}^{\mu _2}\mathrm{}c_{i\mu _{l1}}^{\mu _l}A_{\mu _l}$$
(6)
the matrix $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ of elements $`(\mathrm{\Xi })_{ki}=\xi _i^k`$ is defined in terms of the $`\gamma _i`$ and of the structure constants as:

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}e^{\gamma _j\mathrm{ad}_{A_j}}A_i=\xi _i^\mu A_\mu m=1,\mathrm{},n$$
(7)
When the cardinality of the basis ordering is followed in (4), the matrix $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ assumes also the meaning of map between canonical coordinates of the first kind and canonical coordinates of the second kind, see Varadarajan1 . In this case, since $`\gamma _i(0)=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }(0)=I`$ and thus $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is locally invertible. However, any fundamental parameterization of $`SU(N)`$ could be used: various possible sets of Euler-like angles for $`SU(N)`$ are discussed in Murnaghan1 ; Reck1 ; Nemoto1 . For example, we will concentrate on the ZYZ parameterization of $`SU(2)`$ in the example of Section IV. Because of the semisimplicity of $`SU(N)`$, all parameterizations lead to a Wei-Norman formula that is subject to singularities and as such $`\mathrm{\Xi }^1`$ has only a local validity. Call $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the singular set of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$. By inverting $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ when possible, equation (5) assumes the more traditional aspect of a system of first order differential equations in the $`\gamma _i`$ variables:

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}\dot{\gamma }_1\\ \mathrm{}\\ \dot{\gamma }_n\end{array}\right]=\mathrm{\Xi }(\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _n)^1\left[\begin{array}{c}a_1+u_1\\ \mathrm{}\\ a_n+u_n\end{array}\right]\gamma _i(0)=0$$
(8)
If the time evolution of one of the two vectors of coordinates $`\gamma _i(t)`$ or $`a_i+u_i(t)`$ is known, the formulæ (5) or (8) can be used to obtain the other one. A method for the explicit closed-form calculation of the Wei-Norman formula is proposed in Cla-param-diff1  and will not be repeated here.

### II.1 Analysis of the parameter space of the two expansions

While (5) is global, (8) is valid only as long as $`\mathrm{det}(\mathrm{\Xi })0`$, and thus the nonsingularity of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ needs to be checked at the point of application. In general the exponential map does not posses any good property globally: for example for semisimple Lie groups it is surjective but not injective. The Lie algebra $`𝔰𝔲(N)`$ being “compact” implies that the parameter space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^n`$ of the coordinates corresponding to the exponential map, i.e. the set of values of the real coefficients needed to cover the whole Lie group under the exponential map, is a bounded domain, corresponding to the principal values of the logarithm map. For the single exponential representation and the basis $`A_i`$ chosen above, the parameter space is a solid sphere of radius $`2\pi `$. $`2\pi `$ is a conventional choice, see Gilmore1 , p. 127, which originates from the standard choice of a factor $`\frac{1}{2}`$ in the exponentiation of the Pauli matrices, convention that we also follow in the example of Section IV. The radius could obviously be rescaled by any real normalization factor. In fact, given any vector $`A𝔰𝔲(N)`$, the straight line through the origin $`\gamma A`$, $`\gamma `$, is mapped to a one-parameter subgroup (a geodesic curve if the metric is obtained from the Killing form) of $`SU(N)`$. Because of compactness, $`\mathrm{exp}`$ is periodic and for such straight line it holds that $`e^{(\gamma +4\pi r)A}=e^{\gamma A}`$ for some real constant $`r`$ depending on the norm of $`A`$. Since this is true for all $`A=_{j=1}^n\alpha _jA_j`$, the principal values of the logarithm map will correspond to a solid ellipsoid in general, and to a solid sphere in $`^n`$ of radius $`2\pi `$ when the $`A_j`$ are suitably normalized and the $`\alpha _j`$ are such that $`_{j=1}^n\alpha _j^2=1`$.

The lack of global properties of the exponential map is amplified in the products of exponentials such as (4). Call $`\mathrm{pexp}`$ the homomorphism

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{pexp}:\mathrm{\Gamma }& SU(N)\hfill \\ \hfill \gamma & \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}e^{\gamma _kA_{\rho (k)}}\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
where $`\rho (k)`$ represents the ordering of the basis elements corresponding to the parameterization chosen for $`SU(N)`$ (in (4) $`\rho (k)=k`$, in the ZYZ parameterization of $`SU(2)`$ used below $`\rho (1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3})=3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}`$). Although we have $`\gamma _k`$, also in this case the parameter space, i.e. the subset of $`^n`$ containing the principal values of $`\mathrm{pexp}^1`$, is a bounded domain in $``$. However, since each $`\gamma _k`$ enters into $`\mathrm{pexp}(\gamma )`$ independently from $`\gamma _j`$, $`kj`$, this time the parameter space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{p}^n`$ corresponds to a cube in $`^n`$ centered in the origin and with sides of length $`4\pi `$ for the same basis $`A_j`$ for which the logarithm has domain of principal values equal to the sphere of radius $`2\pi `$.

## III Elementary quantum gates as output of a system of differential equations

Calling $`\gamma =[\gamma _1\mathrm{}\gamma _n]^T`$, $`a=[a_1\mathrm{}a_n]^T`$ and $`u=[u_1\mathrm{}u_n]^T`$, from (8) and (4) the state of the quantum system can be thought of as the output of the following system of first order nonlinear differential equations:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\dot{\gamma }\hfill & =\mathrm{\Xi }^1(\gamma )\left(a+u\right)\gamma (0)=0\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{p}\mathrm{\Sigma }\hfill \\ |\psi \hfill & =\mathrm{pexp}(\gamma )|\psi _0\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
While the differential equation (2) was linear in $`U(t)`$ and affine in the controls, the differential equation (10) is still affine in control but it is highly nonlinear in the variables $`\gamma `$.

The study of systems of nonlinear differential equations like (10) is quite common in systems theory, provided we call $`\gamma `$ the “state vector” and $`|\psi `$ the “output”. As they are quite confusing in the present context, these (and other) systems theory notations will always be recalled between quotes.

### III.1 Coherent states and $`\gamma `$-coherent states

In the whole paper we will always neglect global phase factors $`e^{i\varphi }`$ as they are irrelevant for our purposes: $`|\psi =e^{i\varphi }|\psi `$.

In general, an action of a Lie group on a manifold is said transitive if each pair of elements of the manifold can be joined by an element of the Lie group. On $`𝕊^{N1}`$, the Lie group $`SU(N)`$ acts transitively: $`|\psi ,|\psi _0𝕊^{N1}`$ there exists a unitary transformation $`USU(N)`$ such that $`|\psi =U|\psi _0`$. The manifold in this case is a homogeneous space of the Lie group.

The following definitions are standard for a quantum mechanical system (see Zhang1 ; Perelomov1 ). The maximal isotropy subgroup of $`|\psi _0`$ is given by

$$H_{|\psi _0}=\left\{hSU(N)\text{ s.t. }h|\psi _0=|\psi _0\right\}$$

Since the action is transitive, $`H_{|\psi _0}`$ is a subgroup. In fact, if $`h_1,h_2H_{|\psi _0}`$, then $`h_2h_1|\psi _0=h_2|\psi _0=|\psi _0`$ and $`h_1^1|\psi _0=|\psi _0`$. States that differ by an element $`H_{|\psi _0}`$ are indistinguishable from $`|\psi _0`$: if $`UH_{|\psi _0}`$ then $`|\psi =U|\psi _0=|\psi _0`$, again (and always) up to an irrelevant global phase factor. Calling $`C_{|\psi _0}`$ the coset space of $`|\psi _0`$ in $`SU(N)`$, i.e. the space of equivalence classes determined by the isotropy subgroup,

$$C_{|\psi _0}=SU(N)/H_{|\psi _0}$$
(11)
each $`USU(N)`$ can be decomposed into $`U=\mathrm{\Omega }h`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }C_{|\psi _0}`$ and $`hH_{|\psi _0}`$. The “effective” change in $`|\psi _0`$ given by a unitary transformation $`U=\mathrm{\Omega }h`$ corresponds to the coset component alone:

$$|\psi =U|\psi _0=\mathrm{\Omega }h|\psi _0=\mathrm{\Omega }|\psi _0$$

The set

$$\left\{\mathrm{\Omega }|\psi _0\text{ s.t. }\mathrm{\Omega }C_{|\psi _0}\right\}=C_{|\psi _0}|\psi _0$$
(12)
is called the set of coherent states of $`|\psi _0`$. As can be seen from (12), the coherent states of $`|\psi _0`$ are obviously in 1-1 correspondence with the elements of the coset space $`C_{|\psi _0}`$.

For the product of exponentials map (9), the preimage $`\mathrm{pexp}^1(U)`$ may vary from point to point. In particular, $`\mathrm{pexp}^1(I)`$ varies according to the order $`\rho (k)`$ selected. For example, in the canonical coordinates of the second kind ($`\rho (k)=k`$) $`\mathrm{pexp}^1(I)=\left\{0\right\}`$, but in general it might be a nontrivial set. Call such set $`H_\gamma (U)`$, the $`\gamma `$-isotropy subgroup at $`U`$ of the map $`\mathrm{pexp}`$ at $`USU(N)`$

$$H_\gamma (U)=\left\{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{p}\text{ s.t. }\mathrm{pexp}(\gamma )=U\right\}=\mathrm{pexp}^1(U)$$

For example, $`H_\gamma (I)`$ is the set of all coordinates $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{p}`$ that certainly do not produce any effect on $`|\psi `$ because their corresponding unitary operator is the identity. More generally, all $`\gamma `$ such that $`\mathrm{pexp}(\gamma )H_{|\psi _0}`$ will produce no effect on an initial quantum state $`|\psi _0`$. We indicate the composition of the two types of isotropy subgroups as

$$H_\gamma (|\psi _0)=\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}H_\gamma H_{|\psi _0}\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}=\{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{p}\text{ s.t. }\mathrm{pexp}(\gamma )=h,\text{ with }hH_{|\psi _0}\}$$
(13)
and call $`H_\gamma (|\psi _0)`$ the $`\gamma `$-isotropy subgroup at $`|\psi _0`$.

In system theory terminology, $`H_\gamma (|\psi _0)`$ should be called the “unobservable subspace” of the “state space”, because “states” $`\gamma H_\gamma (|\psi _0)`$ are indistinguishable when looked from the “output” $`|\psi `$.

Similarly to (11), one can define the $`\gamma `$-coset space $`C_\gamma (|\psi _0)`$ as

$$C_\gamma (|\psi _0)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{p}/H_\gamma (|\psi _0)$$

and call the $`\gamma `$-coherent states the values assumed by $`|\psi `$ for $`\gamma `$ varying in $`C_\gamma (|\psi _0)`$.

### III.2 Universality of the gates for products of exponentials coordinates

The universality of the gates property mentioned in the introduction corresponds to $`C_\gamma (|\psi _0)`$ being all of $`𝕊^{N1}`$. It holds almost everywhere and depends on the free Hamiltonian (i.e. on the parameters $`a_i`$) being nondegenerate, see Cla-contr-root1 . Notice that in the present framework the correct system theoretic concept to use is “output” controllability, not “state” controllability. Notice, furthermore, that whenever $`\mathrm{\Sigma }H_\gamma (|\psi _0)`$, the singular points of the “state” space representation (10) are ininfluent in the quantum state manipulation, i.e. they are not seen from the “output” $`|\psi `$ of (10). Thus we have the following result:

###### Proposition 1

Assume that the system (1) is controllable and that a fixed order of infinitesimal generators is chosen in (9). For a quantum state $`|\psi _0`$,

* if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }H_\gamma (|\psi _0)`$, then the gates in (9) are universal;
* if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }H_\gamma (|\psi _0)`$, then the gates in (9) may not be universal. In this case the analysis of the singular locus $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is required in order to establish universality of the gates.

While the value of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ depends only on the order chosen in (9), $`H_\gamma (|\psi _0)`$ varies also with the initial condition $`|\psi _0`$. Thus the previous sufficient condition for universality of the gates may hold only for some values of $`|\psi _0`$. Notice that, provided that (1) is controllable, the sufficient conditions above does not depend on the control authority available (i.e. on how many $`u_j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$ are different from $`0`$). However, when $`\mathrm{\Sigma }H_\gamma (|\psi _0)`$ and the singular points of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are investigated, universality depends essentially on which control fields are available.

All the constructions and characterizations discussed so far are easily clarified by means of a concrete example.

## IV Application to a single qbit

The most elementary quantum state of interest here is the single qbit, defined on the sphere $`𝕊^1`$. In the computational basis $`|0`$, $`|1`$, the state is $`|\psi \left[\begin{array}{cc}y_1& y_2\end{array}\right]^T`$ with $`|y_1|^2+|y_2|^2=1`$, thus the complex sphere in $`^2`$ is expressed in the computational basis coordinates as

$$𝕊^1=\left\{\left[\begin{array}{c}y_1\\ y_2\end{array}\right]^2\text{ s.t. }|y_1|^2+|y_2|^2=1\right\}$$

$`SU(2)`$ acts transitively on $`𝕊^1`$ and we shall concentrate on $`SU(2)`$ unitary transformations as elementary gates for $`|\psi `$. A skew-symmetric basis for $`𝔰𝔲(2)`$ is obtained from the Pauli matrices

$$\sigma _1=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right]\sigma _2=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right]\sigma _3=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right]$$

for example by taking $`A_j=\frac{i}{2}\sigma _j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}`$, i.e.

$$A_1=\frac{1}{2}\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right]A_2=\frac{1}{2}\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right]A_3=\frac{1}{2}\left[\begin{array}{cc}i& 0\\ 0& i\end{array}\right]$$
(14)
and it corresponds to all real structure constants $`c_{12}^3=c_{23}^1=c_{31}^2=1`$. The corresponding adjoint matrices are

$$\mathrm{ad}_{A_1}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right]\mathrm{ad}_{A_2}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right]\mathrm{ad}_{A_3}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right]$$

whose exponentials are already known from the literature to be:

$$e^{\gamma _1\mathrm{ad}_{A_1}}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{cos}\gamma _1& \mathrm{sin}\gamma _1\\ 0& \mathrm{sin}\gamma _1& \mathrm{cos}\gamma _1\end{array}\right]e^{\gamma _2\mathrm{ad}_{A_2}}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}\gamma _2& 0& \mathrm{sin}\gamma _2\\ 0& 1& 0\\ \mathrm{sin}\gamma _2& 0& \mathrm{cos}\gamma _2\end{array}\right]e^{\gamma _3\mathrm{ad}_{A_3}}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}\gamma _3& \mathrm{sin}\gamma _3& 0\\ \mathrm{sin}\gamma _3& \mathrm{cos}\gamma _3& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right]$$

The parameter space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ i.e. the portion of the Lie algebra that is needed to parameterize the group under the single exponential is a solid sphere of radius $`2\pi `$ and with all the points on the surface identified (they all correspond to $`I`$, see Gilmore1 , p. 123).

### IV.1 ZYZ quantum logic gates

Probably the most common set of gates for the single qbit is given by the ZYZ Euler angles. Choosing such a parameterization for $`SU(2)`$, the ZYZ-operations on $`|\psi _0`$ are described by the following product of exponentials

$$|\psi =U(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\gamma _3)|\psi _0=e^{i\gamma _1\frac{\sigma _3}{2}}e^{i\gamma _2\frac{\sigma _2}{2}}e^{i\gamma _3\frac{\sigma _3}{2}}|\psi _0=e^{\gamma _1A_3}e^{\gamma _2A_2}e^{\gamma _3A_3}|\psi _0$$
(15)
where $`\gamma =\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\gamma _1& \gamma _2& \gamma _3\end{array}\right]^T`$ is defined in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{p}=(2\pi ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi ]^3`$ and $`\gamma _i=\gamma _i(t)`$.

From the expressions for the exponentials of the Pauli matrices:

$`e^{\gamma _1A_1}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _1}{2}}I+i\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _1}{2}}\sigma _1=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\gamma _1}{2}& i\mathrm{sin}\frac{\gamma _1}{2}\\ i\mathrm{sin}\frac{\gamma _1}{2}& \mathrm{cos}\frac{\gamma _1}{2}\end{array}\right]`$
$`e^{\gamma _2A_2}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _2}{2}}I+i\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _2}{2}}\sigma _2=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\gamma _2}{2}& \mathrm{sin}\frac{\gamma _2}{2}\\ \mathrm{sin}\frac{\gamma _2}{2}& \mathrm{cos}\frac{\gamma _2}{2}\end{array}\right]`$
$`e^{\gamma _3A_3}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _3}{2}}I+i\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _3}{2}}\sigma _3=\left[\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\frac{\gamma _3}{2}}& 0\\ 0& e^{i\frac{\gamma _3}{2}}\end{array}\right]`$
the ZYZ product of exponentials is

$$U(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\gamma _3)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}e^{i(\frac{\gamma _1}{2}+\frac{\gamma _3}{2})}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\gamma _2}{2}& e^{i(\frac{\gamma _1}{2}\frac{\gamma _3}{2})}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\gamma _2}{2}\\ e^{i(\frac{\gamma _1}{2}+\frac{\gamma _3}{2})}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\gamma _2}{2}& e^{i(\frac{\gamma _1}{2}+\frac{\gamma _3}{2})}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\gamma _2}{2}\end{array}\right]$$
(16)
### IV.2 Wei-Norman formula for the $`ZYZ`$ Euler angles

The Wei-Norman formula corresponding to the ZYZ ordered product (15) is (see Cla-param-diff1 ):

$$\mathrm{\Xi }=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& \mathrm{sin}\gamma _1& \mathrm{cos}\gamma _1\mathrm{sin}\gamma _2\\ 0& \mathrm{cos}\gamma _1& \mathrm{sin}\gamma _1\mathrm{sin}\gamma _2\\ 1& 0& \mathrm{cos}\gamma _2\end{array}\right]$$
(17)
and its inverse

$$\mathrm{\Xi }^1=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}\gamma _1\mathrm{cot}\gamma _2& \mathrm{sin}\gamma _1\mathrm{cot}\gamma _2& 1\\ \mathrm{sin}\gamma _1& \mathrm{cos}\gamma _1& 0\\ \mathrm{cos}\gamma _1\mathrm{csc}\gamma _2& \mathrm{sin}\gamma _1\mathrm{csc}\gamma _2& 0\end{array}\right]$$
(18)
Since

$$det(\mathrm{\Xi })=\mathrm{sin}\gamma _2$$

the singular points correspond to $`\gamma _2=k\pi `$, $`k`$, as is well-known for such a parameterization. Thus, in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{p}`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^1`$ can be used everywhere except in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{p}\text{s.t.}\gamma _2=\pi ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\pi ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi \}`$.

It is worth emphasizing that it is a fundamental topological fact that singularities cannot be avoided in a minimal parameterization of a semisimple Lie group. One possible way to get around the problem is obviously to use “redundant” parameterizations like quaternions, another to choose two different local charts i.e. two sets of of exponential coordinates corresponding for example to a different ordering in (15).

### IV.3 Example: nuclear spin qbit

In (10), some of the $`a_j`$ and/or $`u_j`$ might be zero. If for example the free Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ is diagonal then $`a_1=a_2=0`$. In this case, most likely $`u_3=0`$ if the dipole approximation for the coupling with the control fields is considered. Assume that independent fields along both X and Y directions are available. Using (18), (10) reads as

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\left[\begin{array}{c}\dot{\gamma }_1\\ \dot{\gamma }_2\\ \dot{\gamma }_3\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}a_3\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right]+\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\gamma _1\mathrm{cot}\gamma _2& \mathrm{sin}\gamma _1\mathrm{cot}\gamma _2\\ \mathrm{sin}\gamma _1& \mathrm{cos}\gamma _1\\ \mathrm{cos}\gamma _1\mathrm{csc}\gamma _2& \mathrm{sin}\gamma _1\mathrm{csc}\gamma _2\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}u_1\\ u_2\end{array}\right]\hfill & \\ & \\ |\psi \left[\begin{array}{c}y_1\\ y_2\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}e^{i(\frac{\gamma _1}{2}+\frac{\gamma _3}{2})}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\gamma _2}{2}& e^{i(\frac{\gamma _1}{2}\frac{\gamma _3}{2})}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\gamma _2}{2}\\ e^{i(\frac{\gamma _1}{2}+\frac{\gamma _3}{2})}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\gamma _2}{2}& e^{i(\frac{\gamma _1}{2}+\frac{\gamma _3}{2})}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\gamma _2}{2}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}y_{1_0}\\ y_{2_0}\end{array}\right]\hfill & \end{array}$$
(19)
The model (19) corresponds to the well-known example of a single nuclear spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ system immersed in a magnetic field which is constant along the Z axis and varying in the X and Y directions.

### IV.4 Coherent states for $`SU(2)`$

The isotropy subgroup of a generic state $`|\psi `$ can be obtained by solving the algebraic equation

$$|\psi =U(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\gamma _3)|\psi $$
(20)
The ZYZ representation is convenient is this respect since it is easy to notice that (20) is solved for all $`|\psi _0`$ at least by the submanifold $`\gamma _2=0`$ and $`\gamma _3=\gamma _1`$. In fact $`U(\gamma _1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\gamma _1)=I`$ and therefore $`H_\gamma (|\psi _0)H_\gamma (I)=\{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{p}\text{s.t.}\gamma _2=0,\gamma _3=\gamma _1\}`$. A complete computation of the $`H_\gamma (|\psi _0)`$ depends on the value of $`|\psi _0`$. For example, for $`|0[\mathrm{1\hspace{0.33em}0}]^T`$ (20) is solved by all $`\gamma `$ such that $`\gamma _2=0`$ or $`\gamma _2=2\pi `$, since in this case $`e^{i(\frac{\gamma _1}{2}+\frac{\gamma _3}{2})}`$ becomes an ininfluent global phase factor: $`|0=\pm e^{i(\frac{\gamma _1}{2}+\frac{\gamma _3}{2})}|0`$. Thus $`H_\gamma (|0)=\{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{p}\text{ s.t. }\gamma _2=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi \}`$. For $`\gamma _2=0`$ and $`\frac{\gamma _1}{2}+\frac{\gamma _3}{2}=\frac{\pi }{4}`$, this corresponds to the so-called “Z gate”: $`U(\gamma _1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\frac{\pi }{2}\gamma _1)=e^{\gamma _1A_3}e^{(\frac{\pi }{2}\gamma _1)A_3}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right]`$. In fact $`|0`$ is a highest weight state in $`𝕊^1`$, for which the computation of coherent states is easier Zhang1 . If instead $`|\psi _0`$ is a superposition ($`y_{1_0}0`$ and $`y_{2_0}0`$), then the $`\gamma `$-isotropy subgroup contains $`H_\gamma (I)`$ but may also contain other points, according to the value of $`|\psi _0`$. We are in the case ii) of Proposition 1: $`\mathrm{\Sigma }H_\gamma (|\psi _0)`$ for some $`|\psi _0`$ (other than $`|0`$ and $`|1`$).

### IV.5 Analysis of the singularity of the Wei-Norman formula

In $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the Wei-Norman formula (18) is not valid anymore. However, in this case (17) becomes:

$$\mathrm{\Xi }(\gamma _1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\gamma _3)=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& \mathrm{sin}\gamma _1& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{cos}\gamma _1& 0\\ 1& 0& 1\end{array}\right]$$
(21)
Since in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\mathrm{rank}\mathrm{\Xi }(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\gamma _3)=2`$, varying $`u`$ at most two of the $`\dot{\gamma }_i`$ can be varied independently. From (21) and (10) we get

$`\dot{\gamma }_1+\dot{\gamma }_3`$ $`=`$ $`a_3+u_3`$ (22)
$`\dot{\gamma }_2`$ $`=`$ $`(a_1+u_1)\mathrm{sin}\gamma _1+(a_2+u_2)\mathrm{cos}\gamma _1`$ (23)
i.e. it is still possible to obtain a well-defined expression for the dynamics at which $`\gamma _2`$ obeys.

In particular, in the example of (19), the system in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ reduces to

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\left[\begin{array}{c}\dot{\gamma }_1+\dot{\gamma }_3\\ \dot{\gamma }_2\end{array}\right]\hfill & =\left[\begin{array}{c}a_3\\ u_1\mathrm{sin}\gamma _1+u_2\mathrm{cos}\gamma _1\end{array}\right]\hfill \\ & \\ \left[\begin{array}{c}y_1\\ y_2\end{array}\right]\hfill & =\left[\begin{array}{c}e^{i(\frac{\gamma _1+\gamma _3}{2})}y_{1_0}\\ e^{i(\frac{\gamma _1+\gamma _3}{2})}y_{2_0}\end{array}\right]\hfill \end{array}$$

from which it is easy to observe that the free Hamiltonian only induces a relative phase transformation on a superposition state $`|\psi _0`$ (as expected, $`H_0`$ being diagonal), while the actuated system can always be steered out of the “unobservable subspace” $`H_\gamma (|\psi _0)`$ (and also of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) by means of the available control authority $`u_1`$ and $`u_2`$.

In summary: almost all the singular points of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ are “unobservable” for $`|\psi `$, i.e. they produce no influence on the quantum state. Some care is required in the algebraic set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ because the exponential coordinates are not defined. The problem is analogous to the lack of global coordinates on a manifold. Even if $`\mathrm{\Xi }^1`$ is not defined in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the implicit equation (5) still governs the dynamics and can be used to pull $`\gamma `$ out of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

## V Conclusion and outlook

The aim of this work is to build the differential equations of a driven quantum dynamics in the formalism best suited for quantum computation, where a predefined set of quantum gates can be expressed directly in terms of the physical control parameters via exponential coordinates on the group of transformation. Beside the general remark that choosing coordinates on a manifold is always necessary when one wants to do computations, in the present context it is worth stressing that coordinates (here exponential coordinates) have the appealing interpretation of “gains” in the logic gates of the quantum hardware.

We would like to emphasize that the method presented here is by no means the only way to relate the continuous and discrete dynamics. Indeed each implementation proposal for quantum computers has its own method to generate gates, relying on the already existing techniques for state manipulation. See Nielsen1  for a survey of the different methods. The practice on NMR spectroscopy for example, bypasses the synthesis of the control fields in continuous time by applying strong pulses of predetermined time width and by checking the overall effect on the Hamiltonian via coherent averaging and syncronous stroboscopic measurements Ernst1 . The use of piecewise constant controls mentioned in the Introduction is indeed another possible solution. On the contrary, notice that the well-established formalism of sampled (bilinear) control systems, which one could think of using in the present context, is actually not suited, as the potential power of quantum computing resides in the continuous superposition of quantum states which is destroyed by sampling.

The method we are proposing here not only enable to analytically describe the unitary transformations in terms of the available control inputs, but it also gives the possibility of monitoring their variations due to dynamical perturbations or uncertainties in the external fields. Since we choose to work with exponential coordinates for the unitary group $`SU(N)`$ of the $`N`$qbit, non unitary disturbances like decoherence phenomena cannot be represented. We plan to extend the method to open quantum systems in the future.