New Quantum Scrambling Formalism

By Skyla BailyMay 18 2022

Quantum dynamics can rapidly disseminate information stored in some physical degrees of freedom into a larger number of degrees of freedom, delocalizing quantum information and allowing extremely non-local connections to be generated. This article explores a review published online in the journal Quantum.

Study: Quantum Scrambling of Observable Algebras. Image Credit: vs148/Shutterstock.com

In the area of quantum chaos and quantum computing, this so-called quantum scrambling has recieved a lot of attention in the last few years. Out of Time Order Correlation functions (OTOCs) are one of the most frequently used approaches for analyzing scrambling quantitatively.

The purpose of this research is to develop a new quantum scrambling formalism. Researchers will define scrambling in terms of how far a set of distinct degrees of freedom deviates from itself as a result of unitary evolution.

Discussion

GAAC has the disadvantage of depending on superoperator projections, which makes it appear abstract and far, removed from real calculations. Researchers further like to re-express the GAAC at the more common operator level before proceeding to physical demonstrations and implementations of the formalism. All the (Hilbert-Schmidt) scalar products and norms are ordinary operators.

Another benefit of the formulation is that it demonstrates that the GAAC can be calculated using 2-point correlation functions. This expression shows that the GAAC might be measured using process tomography for U. It is also worth noting that operational protocols for measuring the GAAC have already been explored.

Consider a few physically motivated situations where the GAAC may be fully computed analytically to further clarify the concept. The first two examples demonstrate how the GAAC formalism enables a single vantage point to grasp two seemingly unrelated physical phenomena - operator entanglement, and coherence generating power (CGP).

When A is a factor, the first (second) notion emerges (maximal abelian). This implies that the GAAC can be viewed as either an expansion of operator entanglement to non-factor algebras or an expansion of coherence generating power to non-maximal abelian subalgebras. The third and fourth instances are “dual” versions of one another.

Finally, the fifth shows how the GAAC affects the concept of Loschmidt echo, which is an important instrument in the study of quantum chaos.

The CGP algorithm has been used to identify localization transitions in many-body systems, as well as quantum chaos in open and closed systems.

The greatest infinite-time averaged GAAC corresponds to Hamiltonians whose eigenstates are entirely jumbled by the two algebra projections. This appears to be a natural way of describing chaoticity in relation to the distinct algebra of observables from a conceptual standpoint.

The suppression of CGP temporal variance has been seen for the same type of physical systems. These results led to the conclusion that the bi-partite averaged OTOC and CGP can both be employed as diagnostic tools for detecting quantum chaotic behavior. The above results demonstrate how this concept can be extended to the more general algebraic framework described in this paper.

This condition, in fact, would allow one to verify the “equilibration” conclusion for the GAAC in the collinear situation. The idea behind this formulation is straightforward: if Equation 17 holds, the GAAC’s long-term behavior becomes indistinguishable from that of a standard Haar random unitary as the system dimension rises.

Conclusion

Researchers offer a new approach to quantum scrambling based on observable algebras in this study. The anti-correlation between the complete commutant algebra and its (unitarily) developed picture is used to add a quantitative measure of scrambling.

The distance between the two algebras, or equivalently the degree of self-orthogonalization produced by the dynamics, is described by this number, which researchers named the Geometric Algebra Anti Correlator (GAAC).

For various physically driven scenarios, researchers directly computed the GAAC and defined its behavior in terms of usual values, upper bounds, and temporal fluctuations.

The GAAC formalism has been proven to give a mathematical and conceptual context for notions such as operator entanglement averaged bipartite OTOC, coherence generating energy, and Loschmidt echo.

Finally, researchers proposed a quantum chaotic approach based on the behavior of the GAAC’s infinite-time average for large systems. One of the problems of additional research will be to evaluate the effectiveness of such a strategy.

Journal Reference

Zanardi, P., et al. (2022) Quantum Scrambling of Observable Algebras. Quantum, 6, p. 666. Available Online: https://quantum-journal.org/papers/q-2022-03-11-666/pdf/

References and Further Reading

1. Larkin, A & Ovchinnikov, Y N (1969) Quasiclassical Method in the Theory of Superconductivity. Soviet Physics JETP, 28, p. 1200.
2. Kitaev, A (2015) A simple model of quantum holography. In: Caltech & KITP. Available at: http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/entangled15/kitaev/
3. Maldacena, J., et al. (2015) A bound on chaos. Journal of High Energy Physics, 106. doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2016)106.
4. Roberts, D A &Stanford, D (2015) Diagnosing Chaos Using Four-Point Functions in Two-Dimensional Conformal Field Theory. Physical Review Letters, 115(13), p. 131603. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.131603.
5. Polchinski, J &Rosenhaus, V (2016) The spectrum in the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model. Journal of High Energy Physics, 1, doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2016)001.
6. Mezei, M & Stanford, D (2017) On entanglement spreading in chaotic systems. Journal of High Energy Physics, 65. doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2017)065.
7. Roberts, D A & Yoshida, B (2017) Chaos and complexity by design. Journal of High Energy Physics, 121. doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2017)121.
8. Zanardi, P (2001) Virtual Quantum Subsystems. Physical Review Letters, 87(7), p. 077901. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.077901.
9. Zanardi, P., et al. (2004) Quantum Tensor Product Structures are Observable Induced. Physical Review Letters, 92(6), p. 060402. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.060402.
10. Kabernik, O., et al. (2018) Quantum coarse graining, symmetries, and reducibility of dynamics. Physical Review A, 97(5), p. 052130. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.97.052130.
11. Kabernik, O., et al. (2020) Quantum state reduction: Generalized bipartitions from algebras of observables. Physical Review A, 101(3), p. 032303. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.101.032303.
12. Carroll, S M & Singh, A (2021) Quantum mereology: Factorizing Hilbert space into subsystems with quasi classical dynamics. Physical Review A, 103(2), p. 022213. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.103.022213.
13. Zanardi, P (2001) Entanglement of quantum evolutions. Physical Review A, 63(4), p. 040304. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.63.040304.
14. Prosen, P & Pižorn, I (2007) Operator space entanglement entropy in a transverse Ising chain. Physical Review A, 76(3), p. 032316. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.76.032316.
15. Yan, B., et al. (2020) Information Scrambling and Loschmidt Echo. Physical Review Letters, 124(16), p. 160603 (2020).
16. Styliaris, G., et al. (2021) Information Scrambling over Bipartitions: Equilibration, Entropy Production, and Typicality. Physical Review Letters,126(3), p. 030601. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.030601.
17. Zanardi, p., et al. (2017) Coherence-generating power of quantum unitary maps and beyond. Physical Review A, 95(5), p. 052306. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.95.052306.
18. Zanardi, P., et al. (2017) Measures of coherence-generating power for quantum unital operations. Physical Review A, 95(5), p. 95.052307. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.95.052307.
19. Styliaris, G., et al. (2018) Coherence-generating power of quantum dephasing processes. Physical Review A, 97(3), p. 032304. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.97.032304.
20. Jalabert, R A & Pastawski, H M (2001) Environment-Independent Decoherence Rate in Classically Chaotic Systems. Physical Review Letters, 86(12), p. 2490. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.2490.
21. Goussev, A., et al. (2012) Loschmidt echo.Scholarpedia, 7(8), p. 11687. doi.org/10.4249/scholarpedia.11687.
22. Zanardi, P & Rasetti, M (1997) Noiseless Quantum Codes. Physical Review Letters,79(17), p. 3306. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.3306.
23. Lidar, D.A., et al. (1998) Decoherence-Free Subspaces for Quantum Computation. Physical Review Letters, 81(12), p. 2594. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.2594.
24. Knill, E., et al. (2000) Theory of Quantum Error Correction for General Noise. Physical Review Letters, 84(11), p. 2525. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.2525.
25. Zanardi, P (2000) Stabilizing quantum information. Physical Review A, 63(1), p. 012301. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.63.012301.
26. Streltsov, A., et al. (2017) Colloquium: Quantum coherence as a resource. Reviews of Modern Physics, 89(4), p. 041003. doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.89.041003.
27. Zanardi, P &Campos Venuti, L (2018) Quantum coherence generating power, maximally abelian subalgebras, and Grassmannian geometry. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 59(1), p. 012203. doi.org/10.1063/1.4997146.
28. Zanardi, P., et al. (2017) Measures of coherence-generating power for quantum unital operations. Physical Review A, 95(5), p. 052307. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.95.052307.
29. Peres, A (1984) Stability of quantum motion in chaotic and regular systems. Physical Review A, 30(4), p. 1610. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.30.1610.
30. Jalabert, R A & Pastawski, H M (2001) Environment-Independent Decoherence Rate in Classically Chaotic Systems. Physical Review Letters, 86(12), p. 2490. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.2490.
31. Goussev, A., et al. (2012) Loschmidt echo.Scholarpedia, 7(8), p. 11687, revision #127578. doi.org/10.4249/scholarpedia.11687.
32. Gorin, T., et al. (2006) Dynamics of Loschmidt echoes and fidelity decay. Quantum Physics, Physics Reports, 435, pp. 033–156. doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2006.09.003
33. Wang, X & Zanardi, P (2002) Quantum entanglement of unitary operators on bipartite systems. Physical Review A, 66(4), p. 044303. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.66.044303.
34. Chen, X & Zhou, T (2018) Operator scrambling and quantum chaos. Condensed Matter, Strongly Correlated Electrons, doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1804.08655.
35. Alba, V., et al. (2019) Operator Entanglement in Interacting Integrable Quantum Systems: The Case of the Rule 54 Chain. Physical Review Letters,122(25), p. 250603. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.250603.
36. Bertini, B., et al. (2020) Operator Entanglement in Local Quantum Circuits I: Chaotic Dual-Unitary Circuits. SciPost Physics, 8, p. 067. doi.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys.8.4.067.
37. Bertini, B., et al. (2020) Operator Entanglement in Local Quantum Circuits II: Solitons in Chains of Qubits. SciPost Physics, 8, p. 068. doi.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys.8.4.068.
38. Mi, X.,et al. (2021) Information scrambling in quantum circuits. Science, 374(6574), pp. 1479–1483. doi.org/10.1126/science.abg5029.
39. Styliaris, G., et al. (2019) Quantum coherence and the localization transition. Physical Review B, 100(22), p. 224204 .doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.100.224204.
40. Anand, N., et al. (2021) Quantum coherence as a signature of chaos. Physical Review Research, 3(2), p. 023214. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.023214.
41. Venuti, L C & Zanardi, P (2010) Unitary equilibrations: Probability distribution of the Loschmidt echo. Physical Review A, 81(2), p. 022113. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.81.022113.
42. Reimann, P (2008) Foundation of Statistical Mechanics under Experimentally Realistic Conditions. Physical Review Letters, 101(19), p. 190403. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.190403.