format: text

text:
# Contents

## 1 Introduction

This paper is devoted to the issue of QCD invariant (effective) coupling function $`\overline{\alpha }`$ behavior in the infrared (IR) region.

The notion of invariant coupling is the central one in current practice of quantum–field applications of the renormalization group (RG) method. In QFT, the very existence of RG is generically connected with Dyson’s finite renormalization transformations. The invariant coupling (IC) — or invariant charge — has been introduced (see pioneer papers , as well as ) via a product of finite Dyson’s renormalization factors $`z_i,`$ the product that is invariant with respect to the mentioned transformations, without any reference to weak coupling or ultraviolet (UV) limits.

By expressing $`z_i`$ via values of renormalized QFT functions one usually obtains an expression for IC $`\overline{\alpha }(Q^2)`$ as a function of one argument $`Q=\sqrt{Q^2=𝐐^\mathrm{𝟐}Q_0^2}`$ — momentum transfer (or reference momentum) — in terms of a product of the coupling constant, and the vertex and propagator Lorentz–invariant amplitudes taken in the momentum representation111See, e.g., , eqs.(1), (2) and (3) below. in some particular renormalization scheme.

Such definitions have been introduced and then used in the perturbation case for the UV and IR asymptotics in the mid-50s. In current practice, $`\overline{\alpha }(Q^2)`$ is usually employed in the UV limit only. The massless minimal subtraction renormalization scheme $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ turns out to be the most convenient one and, hence, more popular in the UV analysis.

Meanwhile, the mentioned definitions are valid in a more general, mass dependent, case — see refs.. In the gauge QFT models containing several vertices with the same coupling constant this mass dependence, in turn, yields a specific vertex dependence, i.e., the dependence on a particular dressed vertex chosen for the IC defining. In QCD, for instance, one can use three–gluon, gluon–ghost, four–gluon and various gluon–quark vertices. In the massless $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme, all ICs constructed with the use of different vertices are the same. However, in the massive case, they could differ essentially  in the $`Qm`$ region.

Here, the comment on the difference between massless and mass–dependent subtraction schemes and related RG solutions is in order. For example, there exist two variants of the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme. In the common one, for the QFT model with one coupling constant $`g,`$ with the help of massless counter–terms one constructs a beta–function $`\beta (g),`$ the function of one argument. The RG equation solving for IC results in expression $`\overline{g}=f(\mathrm{},g)`$ depending on the logarithm $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/\mu ^2)`$ and describing the UV asymptotic behavior. Meanwhile, in a more general formalism, the RG generators (beta and gamma functions) are defined with the help of the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ renormalized, mass–dependent approximate expressions. They are functions of two dimensionless arguments $`Q^2/m^2`$ and $`g.`$ The RG equations solving produces expressions with the additional “massive” argument $`m^2/\mu ^2.`$ The general expression for IC is now of the form $`\overline{g}(Q^2/\mu ^2,m^2/\mu ^2,g).`$ The mass dependence is essential in the IR domain. This algorithm was used in QED for describing the IR singularity of the electron propagator.

This mass dependence, in our opinion, reveals itself in the current analysis of the IR properties in QCD, in particular, at lattice calculation of the functional integral and in solving the truncated Dyson–Schwinger equations (DSE). Various groups of researchers use different definitions of coupling constants and IC in the IR region. For instance, in the IC defining the Tübingen group uses the gluon–ghost vertex, the Paris group  — three–gluon one, while the “Transoceanic team”  — the gluon–quark vertex.

Section 2 contains a short overview of different groups’ results for $`\overline{\alpha }_s`$ obtained by solution of truncated DSE as well as by lattice simulations in the IR region. This summary reveals a rather wide variety of IR behaviors.

In Section 3, we remind the origin of the IC $`\overline{\alpha }_s(Q^2)`$ notion and note that it is free of any relation with the weak coupling or UV massless limits. Then, we consider the item of nonuniqueness of the $`\overline{\alpha }_s(Q^2)`$ definition, and the related question of coupling constant and IC transformations. We discuss this issue in terms of coupling transformations similar to the renormalization–scheme ones in the weak coupling limit, but, generally, more involved and mass dependent. Here, the important feature is the vertex dependence  that is typical of QFT models with gauge symmetry.

Further on, in Section 4, we return to the item of correspondence between different IR behavior of $`\overline{\alpha }_s(Q^2)`$ . In particular, we give few examples of transformations that are singular in the IR region and, in some cases, results in the $`\overline{\alpha }_s(Q^2)`$ behavior in a similar way to the ones discussed in Section 2.

Our conclusion is that the question of the IR behavior of the effective QCD coupling $`\overline{\alpha }_s(Q^2)`$ (and of propagators) is not a well–defined one. The results of different groups, formulated in the momentum representation, should not be compared directly with each other. Calculation of hadronic characteristics remains as a reasonable criterion for comparison of different lattice simulation schemes.

## 2 Nonperturbative results in the IR region

Here, we give a short overview of nonperturbative results obtained by different groups in calculating the effective coupling $`\overline{\alpha }_s(Q^2)`$ behavior in the IR region by numerical simulation on lattice and by approximate solution of the truncated Dyson–Schwinger equations (DSEs).

Each of these groups uses its own definition for $`\overline{\alpha }_s(Q^2)`$ , compatible with the asymptotic freedom regime in the UV region, and obtains its own result in the IR domain.

### 2.1 Tübingen: gluons and ghosts

We start with a description of recent results obtained by the Tübingen group. This group activity (for a review see paper ) proceeds in parallel along two lines: solving the truncated Dyson–Schwinger equations and the lattice simulation of Euclidean 4-dimensional functional integral for quantum gluodynamics. Thus, this group limits itself to the gluon–ghost sector of QCD that turns out to be convenient for the DSEs truncation in the Landau gauge. Here, the gluon–ghost vertex renormalization function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ due to the Ward–Slavnov identities can be represented via analogous functions of the gluon $`Z`$ and ghost $`G`$ propagators. At the same time, in this gauge, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ drops out from the invariant coupling defined as

$$\overline{\alpha }_{Tu}(Q^2)=\alpha _sZ(Q^2)G^2(Q^2).$$
(1)
Due to this, only two propagators enter into the properly truncated DSEs.

Lattice simulations for propagators reveal  a rather specific IR behavior. The gluon function $`Z(Q^2)`$ — the transverse amplitude of the gluon propagator — passes through maximum at $`Q=\sqrt{Q^2}1\mathrm{GeV}`$ and then goes to zero approximately as $`Q,`$ the ghost one $`G(Q^2)`$ is monotonous and has a power IR singularity close to $`Q^{1/2},`$ while the product (1) tends to a finite value. This picture is supported by

DSEs solving that yields the power IR behavior for the propagators

$$G(Q^2)(Q)^\kappa ;Z(Q^2)(Q^2)^\kappa \text{with}\kappa =0.595$$

and finite limiting value for the invariant coupling

$$\overline{\alpha }_{Tu}(0)2.97(=8.92/N_c).$$

### 2.2 Paris group, 3– gluon vertex

Here, the invariant QCD coupling function is constructed on the basis of the three–gluon vertex with the nonsymmetric MOM subtraction in the Landau gauge for the QCD model with two quark flavors. In this particular MOM scheme the invariant coupling

$$\overline{\alpha }_P(Q^2)=\alpha _s\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^2(Q^2)Z^3(Q^2);\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(Q^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{3gl}(Q^2,0,Q^2),$$
(2)
according to lattice simulations, obeys a very peculiar behavior in the IR region. It passes through the maximum at $`Q11.5\mathrm{GeV}`$ and then quickly approaches zero at $`Q0.5\mathrm{GeV}`$ – see Fig.3 from .

The data here are not sufficient to define the IR limiting regime. Nevertheless, in our opinion, the power decreasing $`(Q^2)^\nu ;\nu 2`$ is not excluded.

### 2.3 “Transoceanic team”, gluon–quark vertex

This team222The group includes the authors from various centers from Australia, Great Britain and continental Europe. considers (for a recent review see ) the QCD model with two massive quarks. It defines its invariant coupling $`\overline{g}_{\mathrm{TO}}`$ on the basis of the gluon–quark vertex in the particular MOM scheme with gluon momentum equal to zero. It reads

$$\overline{g}_{TO}(Q^2)=\alpha _s\mathrm{\Gamma }_{TO}(Q^2)Z^{1/2}(Q^2)S(Q^2);\mathrm{\Gamma }_{TO}(Q^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{qgl}(0;Q^2,Q^2),$$
(3)
with $`S,`$ the quark propagator amplitude. The results for $`\overline{g}_{\mathrm{TO}}`$ obtained by lattice simulation, qualitatively, are close to the “Paris group” ones – see Fig. 4 in paper  or Figs. 8 and 9 in . However, the IR asymptotics of IC, evidently, has a different power

$$\overline{g}(Q)(Q^2)^{\mu /2};\overline{\alpha }(Q^2)^\mu ;\mu 1.$$

### 2.4 “ALPHA” — The Schrödinger functional

The “ALPHA” group considers the QCD model with two massless flavors. It uses the Schrödinger functional (SF) defined in the Euclidean space–time manifold in a specific way: all three space dimensions are subject to periodic boundary conditions, while the “time” one is singled out — the gauge field values on the “upper” and “bottom” edges differ by some phase factor $`\mathrm{exp}(\eta )`$. Then, the renormalized coupling is defined via the derivative $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }/\eta `$ of the leading part of the effective action

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\alpha ^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\alpha _s\mathrm{\Gamma }_2+\mathrm{}$$

as (cf. eq.(2.43) in ref. and (8.3) in ref.) a function in the coordinate representation

$$\overline{\alpha }_{\mathrm{SF}}(L)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{}/\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}$$
(4)
with $`L`$ being the spatial size of the above–mentioned manifold.

To follow the $`\overline{\alpha }_{\mathrm{SF}}(L)`$ evolution, a special trick was used . The “step scaling function”

$$\sigma (\overline{\alpha }_{\mathrm{SF}}(L))=\overline{\alpha }_{\mathrm{SF}}(2L)$$

has been introduced. For explicit implementation of $`\sigma ,`$ the beta–function is necessary. On the other hand, numerically, this function can be defined from lattice simulations by comparing the results for lattice $`L`$ with $`2L`$ — see Fig.16 in ref.. Meanwhile, fresh results  reveal the steep rise of the SF running coupling in the region $`\overline{\alpha }_{\mathrm{SF}}1`$ and $`L\mathrm{}.`$ Here, the analytic fit for the numerically calculated behavior of $`\overline{\alpha }_{\mathrm{SF}}`$ has an exponential form

$$\overline{\alpha }_{\mathrm{SF}}(L)e^{mL}\text{with}m2.3/L_{\mathrm{max}}$$
(5)
and $`L_{\mathrm{max}},`$ a reference point in the region of sufficiently weak coupling, indirectly defined via the condition $`\overline{\alpha }_{\mathrm{SF}}(L_{\mathrm{max}})=0.275.`$ For a physical discussion of the IR (i.e., at $`Q^20`$) QCD behavior, in the papers of ALPHA group the “usual quantum–mechanical correspondence” $`L=1/Q`$ is used.

## 3 Mass–dependent coupling function

Renormalization schemes with scale parameter $`\mu `$ coinciding with subtraction momentum — the so–called MOM schemes — are singled out from a formal point of view. For these schemes the condition of the invariant coupling normalization is of a simple form

$$\overline{g}|_{Q^2=\mu ^2}=g_\mu .$$
(6)
In a more general case333In this section we shall use a general notation $`g`$ for a coupling constant along with a more specific one $`\alpha =g^2/4\pi `$ commonly adopted in gauge theories., that is relevant to minimal subtraction schemes, in particular to the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ one, this condition contains the “normalization function”

$$\overline{g}|_{Q^2=\mu ^2}=N(g),$$
(7)
that can be dependent on mass(es).

The normalization (6) corresponds to the simplest functional equation (FE) for the invariant coupling, that in the massless case is of the form

$$\overline{g}(x;g_\mu )=\overline{g}(\frac{x}{t};\overline{g}(t;g_\mu )),x=\frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}.$$
(8)
Here, the condition (6) follows from the RG functional equation (8). We shall refer to (6) as to the “canonical” normalization condition. Meanwhile, for the case (7), the FE is of a more involved form — see below eq.(14) depending on the mass argument $`m`$ as well.

### 3.1 Massive case

Now, we consider a more general case that takes into account an important generalization: the $`\overline{g}`$ dependence of mass(es) of particle(s). Here, an invariant coupling acquires one more argument that can be chosen (see, e.g., ref.) as a ratio $`m^2/\mu ^2=y,`$ and the normalization condition for an invariant coupling

$$\overline{g}_N(1,y;g)=N(y,g)$$
(9)
generally differs from the simplest, “canonical”, form (6). It contains a function $`N`$ depending on two arguments.

Note here that we have introduced a new special notation $`\overline{g}_N`$ for the coupling function with the general normalization condition (9) to distinguish it from a coupling function normalized to $`g.`$ In what follows, we use the term “invariant coupling” (IC) for the function $`\overline{g}_N`$ with the nontrivial normalization function $`Ng`$ and the term “effective coupling” (EC) for the function $`\overline{g}`$ with (6).

The effective massive coupling satisfies a rather simple functional

$$\overline{g}(x,y;g)=\overline{g}(\frac{x}{t},\frac{y}{t},\overline{g}(t,y;g));x=\frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2},y=\frac{m^2}{\mu ^2},$$
(10)
and differential equations

$$x\frac{\overline{g}(x,y;g)}{x}=\beta (\frac{x}{y},\overline{g}),𝒳_\beta \overline{g}(x,y;g)=0$$
(11)
with

$$𝒳_\beta \left\{x\frac{}{x}+y\frac{}{y}\beta (y,g)\frac{}{g}\right\};\beta (y,g)\frac{\overline{g}(\xi ,y;g)}{\xi }|_{\xi =1}.$$
(12)
The last two equations (11) and (12) are generalizations of massless equations, and turn to the latter in the limit $`y0.`$ We define a special notation $`𝒳_\beta `$ for the particular infinitesimal (Lie) group operator (that in the given context was first introduced by Ovsyannikov in 1956). Its superscript refers to the coordinate of the last term. In what follows we shall refer to $`𝒳`$ as to the Lie–Ovsyannikov (LO) operator.

The effective coupling $`\overline{g}`$ by definition satisfies the canonical normalization condition

$$\overline{g}(1,y;g)=g,$$
(13)
while other RG one-argument functions, like propagator amplitudes, at $`Q^2=\mu ^2`$ are normalized to unity.

At the same time, the functional equation for the IC is of a more involved form

$$\overline{g}_N(x,y;g)=\overline{g}_N\{\frac{x}{t},\frac{y}{t};n[\frac{y}{t},\overline{g}_N(t,y;g)]\}$$
(14)
that reflects the group composition property and corresponds to the normalization condition (9). Here, $`n`$ is the function reverse to $`N`$ with respect to the second argument.

By differentiating (14) in two various ways one obtains the differential equations

$$\frac{\overline{g}_N(x,y;g)}{\mathrm{ln}x}=B(\frac{y}{x},\overline{g}_N(x,y;g)),𝒳_\beta \overline{g}_N(x,y;g)=0$$
(15)
with

$$B(y,g)=\frac{}{\xi }\overline{g}_N\{\xi ,y;n(y,g)\}|_{\xi =1};\beta (y,g)=\left\{B(y,\gamma )\frac{}{\gamma }y\frac{}{y}\right\}n(y,\gamma )|_{\gamma =N(y,g)}.$$
(16)
Note here that for IC we have two different beta–functions $`B`$ and $`\beta `$ entering into eqs.(15) and related by the second of equations (16).

Meanwhile, it turns out to be possible to treat invariant coupling $`\overline{g}_N`$ as an effective coupling function corresponding to some other coupling constant $`\gamma N(y,g).`$ Indeed, by introducing a new coupling function

$$\overline{\gamma }(x,y;\gamma )=\overline{g}_N\{x,y;n(y,\gamma )\},$$
(17)
we find that it satisfies the group functional equation of a simple type (10), the differential eqs. analogous to (11) with the LO operator $`𝒳_B`$ with the same generator $`B(y,\gamma )`$ and can be considered as EC corresponding to the coupling constant $`\gamma .`$

On the other hand, if we define a new auxiliary function $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ by the relation

$$\stackrel{~}{g}(x,y;g)=n\{\frac{y}{x},\overline{g}_N(x,y;g)\}=n\{\frac{y}{x},\overline{\gamma }(x,y;N(y,g))\},$$
(18)
it will also satisfy the simple functional equation (10) and can be treated on the equal footing with EC $`\overline{\gamma }`$. Both group differential eqs. for $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ contain the same generator $`\beta .`$ We shall refer to it as to the “group effective coupling” to stress that, generally, it is not related to IC by the Dyson transformation.

### 3.2 Mass dependent transformations

Consider now, in the general mass dependent case, the transformation from the coupling constant $`\gamma `$ and IC $`\overline{\gamma }`$ to the new coupling constant $`g`$ and EC $`\overline{g}`$ . The transition from popular massless $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ to the above–mentioned massive $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ can be represented as a sequence of such transformations. Let, without loss of generality, coupling constants $`g`$ and $`\gamma `$ be connected by $`\gamma =N(y,g),g=n(y,\gamma ).`$ Then, according to eq.(18), the effective couplings will be related by

$$\overline{\gamma }(x,y;\gamma )=N\{y/x,\overline{g}(x,y;g)\}$$
(19)
and the corresponding group generators by (16).

In other words, it is possible to consider the transition

$$g\gamma =N(y,g)$$
(20)
as a coupling constant transformation related to the change of the renormalization prescription. That is, starting with the set $`\{g,\overline{g}(x,y;g),\beta (y,g)\}`$ we can move to another one $`\{\gamma ,\overline{\gamma }(x,y;\gamma ),B(y,\gamma )\}`$ by the transformations (20) and also by (19) represented in the form

$$\overline{g}\overline{\gamma }(x,y;\gamma )=N\{\frac{y}{x},\overline{g}[x,y;n(\frac{y}{x},\gamma )]\}$$
(21)
that is a composition of (17) and (18) with the generators $`\beta `$ and $`B`$ related by Eq.(16).

Correspondingly, in the group FEq., for an RG covariant function $`s(x,y;g)`$ (like, e.g., , propagator amplitude) it is necessary not only to take into account relation (18) between IC $`\overline{g}_N`$ and EC $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$

$$s(x,y;g)=\frac{s(t,y;g)}{s(1,y,\stackrel{~}{g}(t,y;g))}s(\frac{x}{t},\frac{y}{t};\stackrel{~}{g}(t,y;g))$$
(22)
but also normalization of $`s`$ itself

$$s(1,y;g)=S(y,g)1.$$

The related differential equations are of the form

$$\frac{\mathrm{ln}s(x,y;g)}{\mathrm{ln}x}=\gamma [\frac{y}{x},\stackrel{~}{g}(x,y,g)];𝒳_\beta \mathrm{ln}s(x,y;g)=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(\frac{y}{x},g)$$
(23)
with

$$\gamma (y,g)=\frac{}{t}\mathrm{ln}s(t,y;g)|_{t=1}\text{and}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(y,g)=\gamma (y,g)+\left\{y\frac{}{y}\beta (y,g)\frac{}{g}\right\}\mathrm{ln}S(y,g).$$
(24)
In a given gauge QFT model with one coupling, both EC and IC, besides the renormalization scheme, are specified by the choice of the vertex and the way of its subtraction.

### 3.3 The “vertex” dependence

In the gauge theories for the mass dependent case in the definition of effective coupling there appears a new specific degree of freedom related to the existence of several Lagrangian structures with the same coupling constant. Here, in defining IC, different vertices can be used. This means that in such a case we have various possibilities for defining IC in the same RS. The transition between diverse ICs is described by transformations just considered.

To illustrate, take, e.g., a few dressed QCD vertices, the 3–gluons $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{3gl},`$ the gluon–ghost $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{glgh}`$ and the gluon–quark $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{glq}`$ ones.

Generally, each of them could be used for the QCD invariant coupling defining, e.g.,

$$\overline{\alpha }_{3gl}=\alpha _s\mathrm{\Gamma }_{3gl}^2Z^3,\overline{\alpha }_{glgh}=\alpha _s\mathrm{\Gamma }_{glgh}^2ZG^2,\overline{\alpha }_{glq}=\alpha _s\mathrm{\Gamma }_{glq}^2ZS^2$$
(25)
with $`Z,G`$ and $`S`$ — gluon, ghost and quark propagator scalar amplitudes.

In the UV massless limit, all definitions are, in a sense, equivalent: they coincide in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme and could be “slightly different” in MOM schemes due to various definitions of the “reduced” vertex functions presented as functions of one space–like argument $`Q^2.`$

However, in the massive case they could be drastically different in the IR region due to diverse dependence on the light quark masses. As it is well known, the quark (fermionic) propagator as well as the gluon–quark vertex are singular on the quark mass shell. For the light quarks this leads to the singular IR behavior.

The gluon–ghost vertex and related coupling $`\overline{\alpha }_{glgh}`$ seems to be less sensitive to the mass effects. Indeed, at the one–loop level, quark mass effects can contribute to it only via the gluon propagator factor $`Z.`$ Meanwhile, the polarization loop is free of afore–mentioned singularity. Two others ICs, $`\overline{\alpha }_{3gl}`$ and $`\overline{\alpha }_{glq}`$ are more sensitive. In each of them, besides three propagator amplitudes, the mass effects come also via the vertices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{3gl}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{glq}.`$

Quite probably, just to this there corresponds a more “quiet” variant of the IR behavior for $`\overline{\alpha }(Q^2)`$ obtained by the Tübingen group.

## 4 The model coupling transformations

Here, we present some model transformations of the coupling constant and related IC transformations, including the mass–dependent ones. It is shown that an appropriate $`\alpha _s`$ transformation could drastically change the properties of the corresponding running coupling as a function of $`Q^2`$ in the IR region.

### 4.1 Examples from APT of massless transformations

Let us start with examples induced by the Analytic Perturbation Theory (APT) that has been devised recently  to clean out the perturbative QCD (in a “bloodless” way — by imposing the Källen–Lehmann analyticity) of unphysical singularities like the Landau ghost pole.

In the APT, the transition from the usual invariant $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$ to the Minkowskian $`\alpha _M`$ and Euclidean $`\alpha _E`$ ones can be treated  as a coupling transformations similar to a change of the renormalization scheme (RS). At the one–loop case

$$\alpha _s\alpha _M(\alpha _s)=\frac{1}{\pi \beta _0}\mathrm{arccos}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\pi ^2\beta _0^2\alpha _s^2}}=\frac{1}{\pi \beta _0}\mathrm{arctan}(\pi \beta _0\alpha _s),$$
(26)
$$\alpha _s\alpha _E(\alpha _s)=\alpha _s+\frac{1}{\beta _0}\left(1e^{1/\beta _0\alpha _s}\right)^1,$$
(27)
Here, the first transition “looks quite usual”444The same function of the initial coupling constant $`F(g)\mathrm{arctan}(g)`$ appeared  in the exact solution of the two–dimensional Thirring model. as $`\alpha _M`$ can be expanded in powers of $`\alpha _s`$ (like in the usual RS transformation), while the second one in the weak coupling case is close to the identity transformation as far as the nonperturbative term $`e^{1/\beta _0\alpha _s}`$ leaves no “footsteps” in the power expansion.

If one starts with the common one–loop $`\overline{\alpha }_s(Q^2)1/\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)`$ with its first order pole at $`Q^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2,`$ then, as a result of substitution of (26) and (27) into the RG differential equation and its integration, one arrives at the ghost–free expressions

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(Q^2)=\frac{1}{\pi \beta _0}\mathrm{arccos}\frac{L}{\sqrt{L^2+\pi ^2}}|_{L>0}=\frac{\mathrm{arctan}(\pi /L)}{\pi \beta _0};L=\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2},$$
(28)
$$\alpha _{\mathrm{an}}(Q^2)=\frac{1}{\beta _0}\left[\frac{1}{L}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{Q^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right]$$
(29)
that are well known in the APT.

The transformation functions $`\alpha _M(\alpha _s)`$ and $`\alpha _E(\alpha _s)`$ obey important properties. They tend to $`\alpha _s`$ in the weak coupling limit

$$\alpha _i\alpha _s\text{at}\alpha _s1$$
$`[AF]`$
and

are finite at $`\alpha _s=\mathrm{}.`$ \[GhF\]

Besides, they are finite

$$\alpha _i1/\beta _0\text{in the limit}\alpha _s0.$$
$`[IRf]`$
The first property \[AF\] provides a correspondence with the weak coupling limit with its asymptotic freedom property. The second one \[GhF\] reflects the absence of ghosts and the \[IRf\] one relates to the finite IR limit.

This last feature is absent in the transformation

$$\alpha _s\alpha _\mathrm{N}=\alpha _s\left(1e^{1/\beta _0\alpha _s}\right)$$
(30)
that is equivalent to the one obtained  in the modified APT.

Just due to the \[AF\], \[GhF\] and \[IRf\] properties, both APT ICs (28) and (29)555 For both $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{an}}`$ the corresponding beta–functions have zero at $`\alpha =1/\beta _0`$ and are symmetric under the reflection $`\left[\alpha 1/2\beta _0\right]\left[\alpha 1/2\beta _0\right].`$ Meanwhile, the beta–function for $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(s)`$ turns out to be equal to the spectral function for $`\alpha _{\mathrm{an}}(Q^2).`$ This last property, that provides a peculiar realization of the Schwinger hypothesis, is valid  outside the one–loop approximation.

(x) enjoy the Asymptotic Freedom,

(xx) are free of ghost singularities at $`Q^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2;`$

(xxx) have a finite IR limit at $`Q^2=0.`$

At the same time, the last transformation (30) satisfying only \[AF\] and \[Ghf\], yields an expression obeying the singular IR behaviour

$$\overline{\alpha }_\mathrm{N}(Q^2)=\frac{Q^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\beta _0Q^2\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}.$$
(31)
It has an “extra $`Q^2`$ factor” that, as some people believe, relates to the linear growth of the interquark potential.

Consider one more massless transformation

$$\alpha _s\alpha _{\mathrm{SF}}=\alpha _s\frac{e^b\mathrm{exp}\left\{be^{1/2\beta _0\alpha _s}\right\}}{e^b1};b=\frac{m}{\mathrm{\Lambda }},$$
(32)
leading to the expression

$$\overline{\alpha }_{\mathrm{SF}}(Q^2)=\frac{1}{\beta _0\mathrm{ln}(\frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2})}\frac{e^be^{b\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{Q}}}{e^b1}$$
(33)
with the exponential singularity $`\alpha _{SF}e^{M/Q}`$ as $`Q0.`$ It reminds an analytic approximation (5) of recent ALPHA group numerical results transposed (see, e.g., Fig.3 in Ref.) to the IR momentum region with the help of “quantum–mechanical correspondence” $`L1/Q.`$ Such an essential singularity contradicts the Källen–Lehmann representation. Note also that expression (32), in turn, obeys an essential singularity at $`\alpha _s+0.`$

From the given examples, there follows a simple “rule of correspondence” between transformations (26) — (32) and resulting expressions (28) — (33) for invariant couplings:

> under the coupling constant transition $`\alpha _s\alpha _i=f_i(\alpha _s)`$ the invariant coupling function transformation is
>
> $$\overline{\alpha }_s(Q^2)\overline{\alpha }_i(Q^2)=f_i(\overline{\alpha }_s(Q^2))$$
> (34)

### 4.2 Massive transformation

Consider now the mass–dependent transformation of a coupling constant. Generally, according to (20), it involves a function of two variables

$$\alpha _s\alpha ^{}=N(y,\alpha _s).$$
(35)
Here, the IC transformation looks like

$$\overline{\alpha }_s\overline{\alpha }^{}(x,y;\alpha ^{})=N\{\frac{y}{x},\overline{\alpha }_s[x,y;n(\frac{y}{x},\alpha _s)]\}.$$
(36)
The r.h.s. of the last relation, in distinction to (34), contains the variable $`y/x=m^2/Q^2`$ that can influence the IR behavior.

To illustrate, take a model expression

$$N(y,\alpha )=\alpha _M(\alpha _s)\left(\frac{1y}{1+y}\right)^{c\alpha _M(\alpha _s)},$$
(37)
that yields

$$\overline{\alpha }^{}(Q^2)=\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(Q^2)\left(\frac{Q^2m^2}{Q^2+m^2}\right)^{c\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(Q^2)}.$$
(38)
Here, the coupling constant $`\alpha _M(\alpha _s)`$ and EC $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(Q^2)`$ are defined by expressions of the type (26) and (28), or by their more involved two– or three–loop counterparts — see, e.g., . Here, it is essential that $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(Q^2)`$ is free of unphysical singularities and monotonically increases to a finite IR limit $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(0)1.`$ The structure of mass singularity in (38) resembles the well–known IR one (see, ) of the QED vertex on the mass shell.

For positive $`c1`$ and small quark mass $`m\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ values the function $`\overline{\alpha }^{}(Q^2),`$ defined by (38), can be very close to the numerical results for $`\overline{\alpha }_s`$ , obtained by the Paris group (see subsection 2.2) and by the “Transoceanic team” (subsection 2.3).

## 5 Discussion

As it has been mentioned above in Section 2, the results of various groups for the QCD invariant coupling in the momentum representation — obtained by lattice simulations of the Euclidean functional integral as well as by approximate solving of truncated SDEs — turn out to be quite different in the IR region. At the same time, their “physical” results for hadronic properties of matter seem to be more correlated.

Our “model constructions” of Section 4 demonstrate that the IR properties essentially depend on a precise way of the IC defining. We used a class of ICs that in the UV region correlates with the perturbative QCD $`\overline{\alpha }_s`$ coupling in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme. Just this correspondence is usually considered to be essential in lattice simulations and analysis of SDEs solutions.

In practice, these “admissible” ICs, satisfying the condition \[AF\], can correspond to diverse lattice calculations. As far as these calculations satisfactorily describe confinement and hadronic physics, it is reasonable to consider them as “physical” ones.

Special attention should be paid to EC $`\overline{g}^2(L)`$ of the ALPHA group with its exponential growth $`e^{ML}`$ with lattice spatial size $`L.`$ To interpret this result in the momentum transfer representation, one needs to be very cautious with performing the Fourier transformation as far as the usual Tauber criterion is not valid. This issue will be considered in more detail elsewhere.

To conclude, we believe that there is no direct physical sense in attempts to establish some “correct IR behavior” of the perturbative QCD invariant coupling. Any “infrared QCD physics” like hadronic and $`\tau `$ decay ones, cannot be described in terms of only pQCD notions. Either pQCD description has to be supplemented by some additional semiphenomenological parameters like “effective parton masses” (of order of pion mass) and anomalous vacuum averages, or some other, intrinsically nonperturbative, means, like lattice simulations or the Dyson–Schwinger equations, should be used.

Acknowledgements

The author is indebted to R. Alkofer, G. Altarelli, B.A. Arbuzov, V.S. Vladimirov, M. Lüsher, I.L. Solovtsov, and R. Stora for useful discussions and comments. This investigation has been started in the CERN Theory Division. The hospitality of its administration is greatly acknowledged. The work was partially supported by grants of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR projects Nos 02-01-00601 and 00-15-96691), by INTAS grant No 96-0842 and by CERN–INTAS grant No 99-0377.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Simultaneous X-ray and infrared light curves of the microquasar GRS 1915+105 were obtained on August 14, 1997 , one of the first observations showing the disk-jet interaction in this source (Figure 1). GRS 1915+105 exhibited quasi-regular flaring behavior in the infrared during the course of these observations (interpreted as synchrotron emission from ejected plasma), and the flares were seen to correlate with changes in the X-ray emission (interpreted as emptying and refilling of the system’s inner accretion disk).
Smaller amplitude variability, on faster timescales, was also observed in some of the infrared flares. In this contribution, we have reanalyzed the original data (obtaining higher signal-to-noise photometry than previously presented) and identified all such “sub-flares” above a given detection threshold, in an attempt to characterize this previously unknown phenomenon.

## 2 Data Analysis

The infrared data presented here consist of observations of GRS 1915+105 and a nearby field star, which we used for calibration purposes. We detected sub-flares using the following procedure:

* At each time step, we added a $`2\%`$ systematic error to the measurement errors from the photometry. This was chosen in order to make the errors for the calibration star roughly match those determined from the variability in its light curve.
* We then ran the GRS 1915+105 and calibration star light curves through a high pass filter to remove all frequencies lower than $``$ 1/(500 sec).
* We searched for sub-flares centered at each point in the light curve on timescales ranging from 25 to 200 seconds and identified those with reduced chi-squared above a threshold value. The threshold was chosen to make the probability of obtaining one false detection across the entire light curve $`<1\%`$, and also to ensure that any atmospheric variability too weak to observe in the (fainter) calibration star did not lead to any false detections of sub-flares in GRS 1915+105.
* We eliminated GRS 1915+105 sub-flares that correlated in time with calibration star flares, assuming these were due to atmospheric variability.

## 3 Discussion

The sub-flares we detected are shown in Figure 2. They have typical rise times of 40 to 100 seconds (with a few longer) and typical amplitudes of 25 to 70 mJy. The most important point about the sub-flares is that they are all superimposed on larger flares, indicating a possible relationship to the jet. Some of the large flares are multiple-peaked (2,3), with several strong sub-flares superimposed on them, while other large flares only have one peak (1,6), but it is sharp enough to be detected as a sub-flare by our algorithm.
There is no obvious correlation between the properties of the main flare and the number and strength of sub-flares superimposed on it. The X-ray coverage of the sub-flare detections is poor, but in one case for which they overlap (4), a faint sub-flare is detected at the beginning of the main flare, indicating a possible connection to the X-ray “spike” which marks the beginning of the jet ejection. Two other flares (2,3) also show evidence for a faint sub-flare near the beginning of the main flare. Taken together, this suggests that these sub-flares originate near the accretion disk and might be associated with the jet formation process.

## Acknowledgments

DMR is supported in part by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship. SSE and DMR are supported in part by an NSF CAREER award (NSF-9983830).


text:
# Inferring superposition and entanglement in evolving systems from measurements in a single basis

## I Introduction

It is well known from tomography that given many copies of a quantum state, measuring enough observables allows reconstruction of the state tomography . However, the relevant quantum tomographic schemes generally require measurements in more than one basis. In many systems this doesn’t present any difficulties, for example polarisation measurements on photons are easily carried out in any basis. However for many condensed matter qubit systems, there is usually just one natural measurement basis, often defined to be the computational basis or, in spin-1/2 notation, the $`z`$-basis: $`|0=|_z`$ and $`|1=|_z`$. This is the motivation for this paper. We would like to know what, if anything, can be inferred about the evolution of a one or two qubit system if measurements on each qubit are restricted to a single basis, but can be made at different times. Specifically, we are interested in the problems of demonstrating coherent oscillations between $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ in an experimental arrangement that is meant to function as a quantum NOT gate, and between $`|0|1`$ and $`|1|0`$ in an arrangement that is meant to function as a quantum SWAP gate. Our goal is thus less ambitious than full quantum state tomography. However, the experimental simplicity of our approach could be used to infer evidence for the fundamental quantum phenomena of superposition and entanglement in new candidate qubit systems, which are currently not amenable to full tomography colls . Other approaches such as ”entanglement witnesses” have been proposed to test whether a system is entangled or nowlewenstein ; guhne . These generally however require measurements outside the computational basis that we wish to restrict our attention too.

Consider first the NOT gate. The standard coherent oscillation scenario is ideally realised by arranging for the spin qubit Hamiltonian to be of the form $`H=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}\sigma _x`$, with $`\mathrm{}`$ set to $`1`$. Inputting either computational basis state ($`\sigma _z`$ eigenstate), the probabilities of finding the system in these basis states oscillate coherently with period $`2\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$. With a dimensionless time $`T\mathrm{\Gamma }t`$, a single oscillation is complete at $`T=2\pi `$. A NOT gate is effected by the action of $`H`$ for a time $`T=\pi `$ and a root NOT by acting for $`T=\pi /2`$.

The usual approach to inferring that a superposition $`|0+|1`$ really was created at $`T=\pi /2`$ in an experiment is to plot out the sinusoidal oscillations of the computational basis measurement probabilities in detail. This is done by preparing, evolving for a small fraction of $`T=2\pi `$, measuring in the computational basis, repeating many times to build up statistics of $`p(0)`$ and $`p(1)`$ for this value of $`T`$, then incrementing $`T`$ and repeating the whole procedure until one reaches $`T=2\pi `$.

Coherent oscillation of the quantum state appears much the simplest and likeliest explanation of a sinusoidal oscillation in the measurement probabilities. One might worry, though, that some other evolutions could also be consistent with the data. For example, measurement probabilities $`p(0)=p(1)=1/2`$ at $`\pi /2`$ would also be obtained if the system generated a mixed state $`|00|+|11|`$, rather than the desired pure state $`|0+|1`$, at this point. Conversely, one might wonder whether carrying out measurements at many evolution times is necessary or even helpful for inferring the state at $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$.

A further issue in inferring superposition is that real world plots will at best only be approximately consistent with ideal coherent oscillation: for example, the experimental oscillation amplitudes will decay over time. Moreover, the relevant quantum system may only be an approximate qubit. Textbook discussions of quantum computing often assume the qubits are exact, in that they correspond to two-dimensional quantum systems such as the polarisation states of a single photon. However, real world qubits may be approximate, corresponding to systems which live in a larger Hilbert space but have parameters set so that two of the states have very small transition probabilities to any of the rest. One would ideally like to be able to estimate how close the state generated under these conditions is to the superposition obtained by an ideal evolution.

In this paper we show that, in fact, the existence of coherent superpositions can be inferred simply by carrying out computational basis measurements every quarter-period, without a full sinusoidal oscillation plot. This is true for both the NOT and SWAP gate evolutions, and even for approximate qubits and imperfect evolutions. In all cases a reasonably simple bound on the fidelity to an ideal superposition state can be obtained. Our arguments require physically reasonable and fairly minimal assumptions, which are necessary to infer coherent superposition even if measurements are made at many different evolution times. Our procedure thus simplifies the experimenter’s task considerably, while providing evidence for the results inferred.

The experimental motivation for considering approximate as well as exact qubits comes from condensed matter systems where the qubits are often not exact. Two interesting condensed matter approximate qubits are based on superconductivity. The computational basis states can either be two charge states of a microscopic superconducting island (or box) differing by a single Cooper pair shni , or two flux states of a closed superconducting ring bocko ; mooji .

Such systems are particularly interesting because they form one of a number of promising routes towards realising condensed matter qubits for quantum computing. Coherent oscillations have already been seen with an approximate charge qubit nakamura , similar results have been seen with related charge-phase systems vion ; yu ; martinis  and very recently two charge qubits have been coupled pashkin , leading to the possibility of entanglement. Flux systems may also be useful qubits and, in addition, these are very interesting from the fundamental quantum physics viewpoint. Two flux states of a superconducting ring, differing by the flux quantum $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=h/2e`$, correspond to macroscopically distinct circulating currents in the ring, so a superposition of two such states would be a real analogue of Schrödinger’s cat. Flux experiments friedman ; wal  have provided evidence for flux superpositions in the frequency domain, in effect through spectroscopy, although these experiments did not exhibit time domain oscillations. Various experiments to demonstrate coherent flux oscillations are underway, and the first results are emerging chior . Flux or current oscillations will be recognised as clear evidence for Schrödinger cat superpositions (in the same way that charge oscillations nakamura  have been recognised as showing clear evidence for charge superpositions). The single approximate qubit results we present here are particularly relevant for the ongoing flux oscillation experiments.

For two qubit systems there are a number of potential gates that can be investigated. Here however we restrict our attention to the SWAP and root SWAP gates. These are useful gates to consider, because as is well known, universal quantum computations can be carried out by combining root SWAP with single qubit gates. A swapping evolution (involving just two of the four basis states of a two qubit system) is a natural one for various superconducting systems pashkin ; strauch ; example . For a system of two spins, $`a`$ and $`b`$, a swapping evolution can be realised with an interaction Hamiltonian of the Heisenberg form $`H=\frac{J}{4}\underset{¯}{\sigma }_a.\underset{¯}{\sigma }_b`$. This interaction is relevant for electron spins in coupled quantum dots div1  and other spin realisations of qubits in condensed matter systems. The computational basis states $`|0|1`$ and $`|1|0`$ swap after a dimensionless time $`JtT=\pi `$. After a time $`T=\pi /2`$ a root SWAP gate is effected div1 . Approximate implementations of root SWAP have also been proposed for other condensed matter qubit systems, electron on helium lea  and Coulomb coupled quantum dots jefferson  where the approximate qubits are fictitious spins, so the swapping evolution is relevant for numerous qubit realisations.

## II Physical assumptions

Our fundamental assumption is that, in any experiment we consider, we can characterize the Hilbert space corresponding to the quantum system(s) of interest, and distinguish system degrees of freedom from those corresponding to the rest of the experimental apparatus, thermal radiation, and the rest of the outside world, all of which we collectively refer to as the environment. So the total Hilbert space $`_{\mathrm{total}}`$ can be factored as

$$_{\mathrm{total}}=_S_E\mathrm{or}_{S_1}_{S_2}_E,$$

for a one or two qubit system respectively. Exact qubits correspond to two dimensional spaces $`_S`$ and $`_{S_i}`$ with an orthonormal basis $`|0,|1`$. For approximate qubits we can without loss of generality consider countably infinite dimensional spaces with a basis $`|0,|1,|2,\mathrm{}`$, with the two distinguished states $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ defining the qubit computational basis.

We assume that the system-environment interactions are such that we can initialize the system in any computational basis state without materially affecting the environment and can treat the environment as effectively constant during subsequent evolutions. More precisely:

(i) the state of the experiment at any time can be characterized by a density matrix $`\rho _S`$ or $`\rho _{S_1S_2}`$ describing (only) the system state.

(ii) the evolution of the system between any times $`t`$ and $`t^{}>t`$ is described by a quantum operation $`_{t,t^{}}`$ which is trace-preserving, convex linear on density matrices and completely positive.

(iii) the operations $`_{t,t^{}}`$ is independent of the initial state of the system and is the same in each experimental run.

We turn now to the detailed analyzes of the various qubit evolutions and what may be inferred about superposition and entanglement from measurements.

## III An exact qubit

There is a particularly simple strategy for inferring superpositions in the case of an experiment testing a prototype NOT gate by attempting to produce coherent oscillations of a single exact qubit. We run the experiment setting the initial system state to be either of the two computational basis states $`\rho _0=|00|`$ and $`\rho _1=|11|`$. Assume that we have identified, either theoretically or empirically, a time $`t`$ such that $`_t_{0,t}`$ implements an approximate NOT operation. We can quantify the degree of approximation by carrying out a series of experiments in which computational basis measurements are performed at time $`t`$ and estimating the probabilities of obtaining $`0`$ and $`1`$ from the states evolved from $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _0`$. We write

$`p_i^j`$ $`=`$ $`i|_t(\rho _j)|i.`$ (1)
To proceed we need the following definitions and resultsncninetwo . The trace distance between states $`\rho `$ and $`\rho ^{}`$ is defined as $`D(\rho ,\rho ^{})=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}|\rho \rho ^{}|,`$ where $`|A|=(A^{}A)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ is the positive square root of $`A^{}A`$. It has the following properties. First, $`D`$ is a metric: $`D(\rho ,\rho ^{})=0`$ if and only if $`\rho =\rho ^{}`$, $`D(\rho ,\rho ^{})=D(\rho ^{},\rho )`$ and $`D(\rho ,\rho ^{\prime \prime })D(\rho ,\rho ^{})+D(\rho ^{},\rho ^{\prime \prime })`$. Second, $`D`$ is non-increasing under trace-preserving quantum operations: $`D((\rho ),(\rho ^{}))D(\rho ,\rho ^{})`$. Third, the fidelity $`F(\rho ,\rho ^{})=\mathrm{Tr}(\rho ^{\frac{1}{2}}\rho ^{}\rho ^{\frac{1}{2}})`$ and $`D`$ obey

$`1F^2(\rho ,\rho ^{})D(\rho ,\rho ^{})(1F(\rho ,\rho ^{}))^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ (2)
When $`\rho `$ is a pure state we have a stronger lower bound:

$`1F(\rho ,\rho ^{})D(\rho ,\rho ^{}).`$ (3)
We will need a further result which is that when $`\rho `$ is a given pure state, $`F(\rho ,\rho ^{})`$ is the same for all $`\rho ^{}`$ lying on a disc orthogonal to the radius joining the centre of the Bloch sphere to $`\rho `$.

This can be seen by considering $`\rho =|00|`$. The pure states on a given disc are $`\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}|0+e^{i\varphi }sin\frac{\theta }{2}|1`$. The fidelities of all these states to $`|00|`$ are $`\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}`$. Since all mixed states on the disc are mixtures of these pure states and fidelity between a mixed and pure state is linear in the mixed state, all states on the disc have fidelity $`\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}`$ to $`|0`$.

If our system really is an exact qubit, we find that $`p_0^1+p_1^1=1=p_0^0+p_1^0`$. Geometrically, $`_t(\rho _1)`$ lies in the intersection of the Bloch sphere with a plane at height $`2p_0^11`$ above the equator and parallel to it, while $`_t(\rho _0)`$ lies in the intersection of the sphere with a parallel plane $`2p_1^01`$ below the equator. Since the trace distance is half the Euclidean distance within the Bloch sphere, we have that

$`D(_t(\rho _1),_t(\rho _0))(p_0^1+p_1^01).`$ (4)
As the trace distance is non-increasing during quantum evolution, the two qubits evolved from $`\rho _0`$ and $`\rho _1`$ must always have been separated by at least this distance before time $`t`$. We can picture the qubit evolution as defining that of a perhaps contracting rod (whose endpoints are the qubits) moving inside the Bloch sphere. At some time before $`t`$ during the evolution, this ’rod’ must be parallel to the equatorial plane. The condition (4) defines a cylinder of Euclidean radius $`p_0^1+p_1^01`$ outside which at least one of the qubits must lie at this time. The state most distant from any pure state on the equator must therefore enter a volume bounded by the Bloch sphere and a disc normal to the radius to some equatorial point and subtended by a geometric angle defined by $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =p_0^1+p_1^01`$. Using equation (3) and the above result that all $`\rho ^{}`$ lying on a disc orthogonal to the relevant radius will have the same fidelity, we can see that the fidelity of this qubit to a maximally superposed state of the form $`|0+e^{i\varphi }|1`$ must be no less than $`(\frac{p_0^1+p_1^0}{2})`$. Hence we can infer the creation of a near-maximally superposed state during the experiment — though note that this argument does not identify which superposed state was approximated, or when.

## IV An approximate qubit

Now suppose our system is only approximately characterized by a qubit. Clearly, any argument for coherent oscillations will need some measure of how closely the evolved state resembles a qubit. For any given state $`\rho `$ that can be repeatedly prepared, we can obtain a good measure as follows. Define $`P`$ to be the projection onto the two-dimensional qubit space, and note that if $`p_0^\rho `$ and $`p_1^\rho `$ are the probabilities of getting outcomes $`0`$ and $`1`$ when measuring in the computational basis, we can obtain $`\mathrm{Tr}(P\rho )=p_0^\rho +p_1^\rho `$. Let $`\rho _P=P\rho P/\mathrm{Tr}(\rho P)`$ be the normalized density matrix given by projecting $`\rho `$ into the qubit space. Then $`F(\rho _P,\rho )=(\mathrm{Tr}(P\rho ))=(p_0^\rho +p_1^\rho )`$ and so we have

$$D(\rho _P,\rho )(1p_0^\rho p_1^\rho )^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$

We can now proceed as previously and obtain estimates for the probabilities (1) associated with an approximate NOT evolution, giving us that

$`D(_t(\rho _1),_t(\rho _0))`$ $``$ $`D(_t(\rho _1)_P,_t(\rho _0)_P)D(_t(\rho _0),_t(\rho _0)_P)D(_t(\rho _1),_t(\rho _1)_P)`$
$``$ $`(q_0^1+q_1^01)(1p_0^0p_1^0)^{\frac{1}{2}}(1p_0^1p_1^1)^{\frac{1}{2}},`$
where $`q_0^1=p_0^1/(p_0^1+p_1^1)`$ and $`q_1^0=p_1^0/(p_0^0+p_1^0)`$.

To complete the argument, we need some way of bounding the possible deviation from an exact qubit at a point when we expect a near-maximally superposed state to have been created. A general bound of the form $`\mathrm{Tr}(P_t^{}(\rho _i))1\delta `$ for all times $`t^{}<t`$ and for $`i=0,1`$ would suffice. However, getting good empirical evidence for such a bound would require carrying out a series of measurements at many times between $`0`$ and $`t`$, which would require the same amount of experimental labour as plotting sinusoidal oscillations, and would still leave the worry that the deviation might have been greater at some unmeasured intervening point.

A more watertight procedure is to identify empirically a time $`t_{1/2}<t`$ (for coherent oscillations we expect $`t_{1/2}t/2`$) such that, if we write $`r_i^j=i|_{t_{1/2}}(\rho _j)|i,`$ we have $`r_0^0,r_1^0,r_0^1,r_1^11/2.`$ We can then directly argue that the evolution came close to a maximally superposed state at $`t_{1/2}`$ as follows.

Writing $`\sigma _i=_{t_{1/2}}(\rho _i)`$ and $`\sigma _i^P=P\sigma _iP/\mathrm{Tr}(\sigma _iP)`$ for $`i=0,1`$ we have $`F(\sigma _i^P,\sigma _i)=(\mathrm{Tr}(P\sigma _i))=(r_0^i+r_1^i)`$ and

$`D(\sigma _0^P,\sigma _1^P)`$ $``$ $`D(\sigma _0,\sigma _1)D(\sigma _0,\sigma _0^P)D(\sigma _1,\sigma _1^P)`$
$``$ $`(q_0^1+q_1^01)(1p_0^0p_1^0)^{\frac{1}{2}}(1p_0^1p_1^1)^{\frac{1}{2}}(1r_0^0r_1^0)^{\frac{1}{2}}(1r_0^1r_1^1)^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$
We will write the right hand side of this last inequality as $`1ϵ^{}`$ and let $`s_j^i=r_j^i/(r_0^i+r_1^i)`$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_j^i=s_j^i1/2`$. A little Bloch sphere trigonometry shows that at least one of the states $`\sigma _i^P`$ must lie in a cap, centred on a maximally superposed state, whose Euclidean height is no more than

$$\delta =1\sqrt{(1ϵ^{})^2(\mathrm{\Delta }s_0^1+\mathrm{\Delta }s_1^1)^2}.$$

The relevant $`\sigma _i^P`$ is separated from the maximally superposed state $`|\psi _M`$ by trace distance no more than $`(\frac{\delta ^2}{4}+(\mathrm{\Delta }s_0^i)^2)^{\frac{1}{2}},`$ and thus we have

$`D(\sigma _i,|\psi _M)`$ $``$ $`D(\sigma _i,\sigma _i^P)+D(\sigma _i^P,|\psi _M)`$
$``$ $`(1r_0^ir_1^i)^{\frac{1}{2}}+({\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{4}}+(\mathrm{\Delta }s_0^i)^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
$``$ $`\underset{j}{\mathrm{max}}\{(1r_0^jr_1^j)^{\frac{1}{2}}+({\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{4}}+(\mathrm{\Delta }s_0^j)^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}\}.`$
This last expression is experimentally measurable and bounds the separation between one of the evolved states and a maximally superposed state, although the argument does not identify either state.

## V Entanglement generation via candidate SWAP gates

Consider now an experiment implementing a candidate SWAP gate on a system of two exact or approximate qubits. If we initialize the system in the state $`|0|1`$, an exact exchange interaction would evolve the system to $`|1|0`$ via a maximally entangled state of the form
$`|\psi _M=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0|1+e^{i\varphi }|1|0)`$. We can consider the two qubits as defining a single effective qubit in the two dimensional space with computational basis $`|0|1`$ and $`|1|0`$. If the system state is initially in this space, it will, to good approximation, remain there provided that the evolution is well approximated by an exchange interaction. Our results for the NOT evolution of approximate qubits thus apply directly.

Moreover, by carrying out appropriate measurements, we can verify that an entangled state is generated during the candidate SWAP evolution and give figures of merit for the entanglement. Define the projection $`Q`$ to be on the four dimensional space defined by the two qubits. A measurement of $`Q`$ on the state $`\sigma _i`$ would produce the exact qubit state $`\sigma _i^Q=Q\sigma _iQ/\mathrm{Tr}(Q\sigma _i)`$ with probability $`p_Q=_{l=0,1;m=0,1}p_{lm}^i`$, where $`p_{lm}^i=l|m|\sigma _i|l|m`$. For any maximally entangled state $`|\psi _M`$ we have

$`\underset{i}{\mathrm{max}}\psi _M|\sigma _i^Q\psi _M`$ $``$ $`\underset{j}{\mathrm{min}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{p_{01}^j+p_{10}^j}{p_{00}^j+p_{10}^j+p_{01}^j+p_{11}^j}}\}\times `$ (8)
$`\underset{k}{\mathrm{max}}\{\psi _M|\sigma _k^P|\psi _M\}.`$
As we can calculate both expressions on the right hand side, we have a lower bound on the fidelity of a $`\sigma _i^Q`$ to a maximally entangled state. If this is greater than one half, the relevant $`\sigma _i^Q`$ is entangled, and as $`\sigma _i^Q`$ can be obtained from $`\sigma _i`$ by local measurements, $`\sigma _i`$ is also entangled. The advantage of this procedure over more efficient ways of measuring entanglementlewenstein ; guhne ; enttom ; fiurasek  is that it requires no gates other than the one being tested.

## VI Discussion

We have shown that, if a candidate NOT gate acts on an exact qubit, the qubit must pass close to an equal weight superposition of $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ if the NOT operation is demonstrated to work accurately on both basis states as inputs. For an approximate qubit measurements are also needed half way through the NOT operation, to check that the system has not wandered far out of the qubit subspace. However, in both cases superposition can be inferred without plotting oscillations in detail, given reasonable physical assumptions.

These physical assumptions should hold true in the types of experiment we consider. However, it should be stressed that they could in principle be violated given sufficient pathologies. To take an extreme example, one could imagine a single qubit experiment in which, unknown to the experimenter, the environment happened to contain a second qubit, coupled to the first by a fast but only infrequently acting swap gate. The initially prepared computational basis state in the first qubit could then be exchanged with a maximally mixed state in the second, rotated via a fortuitous NOT operation in the second qubit, and then exchanged back into the first. Applying our inequalities would lead to the incorrect conclusion that the first qubit evolves through a near-maximal superposition state. In fact, in this case, such a state is indeed created, but in the second qubit lurking in the environment. Of course, it is very unlikely indeed that any experiment will accidentally incorporate a hidden qubit or anything similar.

The arguments used to infer a superposition in a single qubit from computational basis measurements can also be used to infer entanglement in certain multi-qubit systems. For a two qubit system arranged to effect a SWAP operation, demonstration that this works well for the two inputs $`|0|1`$ and $`|1|0`$ and measurements at the half way point (root SWAP) showing that the system hasn’t wandered far out of the subspace spanned by these states are sufficient to infer that the system passed close to a maximally entangled state. Fidelities can be bounded and the existence of entanglement established, even for states well away from being maximally entangled. Once again, all this works whether the qubits are exact or approximate.

Clearly, for candidate condensed matter systems to be feasible qubits for quantum computation, reliable single qubit gates will eventually need to be constructed. This would remove the need to restrict to measurements in the computational basis, and would make tomography much simpler. However, state of the art is currently well short of this goal. At present, experimenters are trying to realise approximate one and two condensed matter qubit gates and test them. In particular, recent superconducting experiments pashkin  show that the coupling of two condensed matter qubits and investigations of entanglement are now becoming possible. We believe that the results presented here should be extremely useful during the present investigative period. Our technique achieves less than full quantum state tomography would, but requires considerably less experimental effort, while providing a simple way of inferring essential quantum behaviour in new candidate qubit experiments. Even in the longer term, our results should be relevant for fundamental investigations such as creating multi-qubit GHZ states or entangling two Schrödinger cats, which may well be carried out on systems where our measurement restrictions apply.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the European project EQUIP, IST-1999-11053. We thank Simon Benjamin, Lucien Hardy, Brendon Lovett and Martin Plenio for valuable discussions.