Incoherent noise is manifest in measurements of expectation values when the underlying ensemble evolves under a classical distribution of unitary processes. While many incoherent processes appear decoherent, there are important differences. The distribution functions underlying incoherent processes are either static or slowly varying with respect to control operations and so the errors introduced by these distributions are refocusable. The observation and control of incoherence in small Hilbert spaces is well known. Here we explore incoherence during an entangling operation, such as is relevant in quantum information processing. As expected, it is more difficult to separate incoherence and decoherence over such processes. However, by studying the fidelity decay under a cyclic entangling map we are able to identify distinctive experimental signatures of incoherence. This is demonstrated both through numerical simulations and experimentally in a three qubit nuclear magnetic resonance implementation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Pravia M.A., Boulant N., Emerson J., Farid A., Fortunato E.M., Havel T.F., Martinez R., and Cory D.G. (2003). J. Chem. Phys. 119: 9993
Boulant N., Emerson J., Havel T.F., Cory D.G., and Furuta S. (2004). J. Chem. Phys. 121: 2955
Havel T.F. (2003). J. Math. Phys. 44: 534
Weinstein Y.S., Havel T.F., Emerson J., Boulant N., Saraceno M., Lloyd S., and Cory D.G. (2004). J. Chem. Phys. 121: 6117
Dahleh M., Peirce A.P., and Rabitz H. (1990). Phys. Rev. A 42:1065
Peirce A.P., Dahleh M.A., and Rabitz H. (1988). Phys. Rev. A 37: 4950
Viola L. and Lloyd S. (1998). Phys. Rev. A 58: 2733
Viola L., Knill E., and Lloyd S. (1999). Phys. Rev. Lett. 82: 2417
Viola L., Lloyd S., and Knill E. (1999). Phys. Rev. Lett. 83: 4888
Viola L. (2002). Phys. Rev. A 66: 012307
Levitt M. (1986). Prog. Nucl. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc. 18: 61
Zanardi P. and Rasetti M. (1997). Phys. Rev. Lett. 79: 3306
Lidar D.A., Chuang I.L., and Whaley K.B. (1998). Phys. Rev. Lett. 81: 2594
Duan L.-M. and Guo G.-C. (1997). Phys. Rev. Lett. 79: 1953
Knill E., Laflamme R., and Viola L. (2000). Phys. Rev. Lett. 84: 2525
Shor P.W. (1995). Phys. Rev. A 52: R2493
Steane A.M. (1996). Phys. Rev. Lett. 77: 793
Rhim W.-K. and Kessemeier H. (1971). Phys. Rev. B 3: 3655
Kessemeier H. and Rhim W.-K. (1972). Phys. Rev. B 5: 761
Hahn E.L. (1950). Phys. Rev. 80: 580
Carr H.Y. and Purcell E.M. (1954). Phys. Rev. 94: 630
Meiboom S. and Gill D. (1958). Rev. Sci. Instrum. 29: 688
Peres A. (1984). Phys. Rev. A 30: 1610
Jacquod P., Silvestrov P., and Beenakker C. (2001). Phys. Rev. E 64: 055203
Emerson J., Weinstein Y.S., Lloyd S., and Cory D.G. (2002). Phys. Rev. Lett. 89: 284102
Haeberlen U. and Waugh J.S. (1968). Phys. Rev. 175: 453
R. Alicki and K. Lendi, Lecture Notes Phys. 286 (1987).
A. Abragam, Principles of Nuclear Magnetism (Oxford University Press, 1961), chap. 8.
Cory D.G., Fahmy A.F., and Havel T.F. (1997). Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 94: 1634
Teklemariam G., Fortunato E.M., Pravia M.A., Havel T.F., and Cory D.G. (2001). Phys. Rev. Lett. 86: 5845
Fortunato E.M., Pravia M.A., Boulant N., Teklemariam G., Havel T.F., and Cory D.G. (2002). J. Chem. Phys. 116: 7599
Ernst R.R., Bodenhausen G., and Wokaun A. (1987). Principles of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance in One and Two Dimensions. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Henry, M.K., Gorshkov, A.V., Weinstein, Y.S. et al. Signatures of Incoherence in a Quantum Information Processor. Quantum Inf Process 6, 431–444 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-007-0063-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-007-0063-4