Research PapersNo Access

AN OPTIMIZED DYNAMICAL DECOUPLING STRATEGY TO SUPPRESS DECOHERENCE

SHUANG CONG

Department of Automation, University of Science and Technology of China (USTC), Hefei, Anhui 230027, China

Key Laboratory of Quantum Information, USTC, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hefei, Anhui 230026, China

Search for more papers by this author

LINPING CHAN

Department of Automation, USTC, Hefei, Anhui 230027, China

Search for more papers by this author

, and

JIANXIU LIU

Department of Automation, USTC, Hefei, Anhui 230027, China

Search for more papers by this author

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219749911008428Cited by:1 (Source: Crossref)

Abstract

In this paper, we first present a brief derivation of the dynamical decoupling condition by means of designing control Hamiltonians, which is used to preserve arbitrary quantum states in the case of interactions with environment. According to different time intervals between the adjacent pulses, two important dynamical decoupling schemes: periodic dynamical decoupling (PDD) and Uhrig dynamical decoupling (UDD) are analyzed. Based on the comparison between PDD and UDD, we propose our optimized dynamical decoupling scheme with different time intervals between adjacent pulses which follow a normal distribution. At last numerical simulations are carried out in a three-level atom in Ξ -configuration, we select the non-diagonal element of density matrix as a reference index to compare the performances of suppressing the decoherence of these three strategies, and the results indicate that dynamical decoupling strategy proposed has better performances than that of PDD and UDD have under some low range of the loss of the quantum coherence.

Keywords:

References

W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. A 51, 992 (1995). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
S. S. Liet al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America98 (2001) p. 11847. Google Scholar
G. L. Longet al., Phys. Rev. A 61, 042305 (2000). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
Q. Ai, Y. S. Li and G. L. Long, J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 21, 927 (2006). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
J. Niwa, K. Matsumoto and H. Imai, Phys. Rev. A 66, 062317 (2002). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
W. Y. Huo and G. L. Long, Progr. Nat. Sci. 16, 594 (2006). Web of Science, Google Scholar
L. Viola and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. A 58, 2733 (1998). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
L. Viola, E. Knill and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2417 (1999). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
L. M. Duan and G. C. Guo, Phys. Rev. A 261, 139 (1999). Google Scholar
P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. A 258, 77 (1999). Google Scholar
L. Viola, E. Knill and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2417 (1999). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
D. Vitali and P. Tombesi, Phys. Rev. A 59, 4178 (1999). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
U. Haeberlen and J. S, Phys. Rev. 175, 453 (1968). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
H. Y. Carr and E. M. Purcell, Phys. Rev. 94, 630 (1954). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
S. Meiboom and D. Gill, Rev. Sci. Inst. 29, 688 (1958). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
G. S. Uhrig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 100504 (2007). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
M. J. Biercuket al., Nature 458, 996 (2009). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
H. Uys, M. J. Biercuk and J. J. Bollinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 040501 (2009). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
K. Khodjasteh, T. Erdelyi and L. Viola, Phys. Rev. A 83, 020305(R) (2011). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
K. Khodjasteh and D. A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 180501 (2005). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
G. S. Uhrig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 120502 (2009). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
J. R. West, B. H. Fong and D. A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 130501 (2010). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
M. Mukhtaret al., Phys. Rev. A 82, 052338 (2010). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
W. Magnus, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 7, 649 (1954). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
M. S. Byrd and D. A. Lidar, Quant. Inf. Proc. 1, 19 (2002). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
L. P. Pryadko and P. Sengupta, Phys. Rev. B 73, 085321 (2006). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
P. Facchi, D. A. Lidar and S. Pascazio, Phys. Rev. A 69, 032314 (2004). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
L. Viola and E. Knill, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 060502 (2005). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
L. Viola, S. Lloyd and E. Knill, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4888 (1999). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
Y. H. Wanget al., Theor. Phys. (Beijing, China) 49, 1432 (2008). Web of Science, Google Scholar
Y. H. Wanget al., Optics Communications 281, 4793 (2008). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
A. J. Leggettet al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 59, 1 (1987). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
G. M. Palma, K. A. Suominen and A. K. Ekert, Proc. Royal Soc. (1996) pp. 567–569. Google Scholar
B. L. Hu, J. P. Paz and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 45, 2843 (1992). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
D. Mozyrsky and V. Provman, J. Stat. Phys. 91, 787 (1998). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar