High-dimensional quantum state transfer in a noisy network environment*
Qin Weia),b),c),d), Li Jun-Linb),c),d), Long Gui-Lub),c),d)†
School of Physics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China
State Key Laboratory of Low-Dimensional Quantum Physics and Department of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
Collaborative Innovation Center of Quantum Matter, Beijing 100084, China
Tsinghua National Laboratory for Information Science and Technology, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China

Corresponding author. E-mail: gllong@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn

*Project supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 11175094 and 91221205) and the National Basic Research Program of China (Grant No. 2011CB9216002). Long Gui-Lu also thanks the support of Center of Atomic and Molecular Nanoscience of Tsinghua University, China.

Abstract

We propose and analyze an efficient high-dimensional quantum state transfer protocol in an XX coupling spin network with a hypercube structure or chain structure. Under free spin wave approximation, unitary evolution results in a perfect high-dimensional quantum swap operation requiring neither external manipulation nor weak coupling. Evolution time is independent of either distance between registers or dimensions of sent states, which can improve the computational efficiency. In the low temperature regime and thermodynamic limit, the decoherence caused by a noisy environment is studied with a model of an antiferromagnetic spin bath coupled to quantum channels via an Ising-type interaction. It is found that while the decoherence reduces the fidelity of state transfer, increasing intra-channel coupling can strongly suppress such an effect. These observations demonstrate the robustness of the proposed scheme.

Keyword: 03.67.HK; 75.10.Pq; 03.65.Ud; quantum state transfer; quantum spin; hypercubes; spin wave
1. Introduction

Quantum state transfer (QST) between two remote parties is an essential ingredient of scalable quantum information processing. Quantum channels enabling universal operations between two physically separated registers have been proposed in a variety of quantum systems, including superconducting transmission lines, [1] Coulomb coupling trapped ions, [2] and optical photons.[3, 4] Multi-mode entangled photon states, which are useful for quantum networks, can be generated efficiently using an integrated photonic circuit.[5] In particular, coupled quantum spin systems have attracted much attention for short distance quantum communication in recent decades.[616] Such coupled-spin quantum channels provide an interesting alternative to direct register interactions and interfacing with photonic flying qubits. For this reason, most of the feasible proposals have been proposed for perfect QST, in which the quantum channels commonly rely upon engineered couplings entailing suitable dispersion relations, [1720] weak couplings undergoing an effective Rabi oscillation or a ballistic regime, [2124] and dynamical manipulation.[2528]

In contrast to two-dimensional quantum systems, high-dimensional quantum systems serving as qudits have been extensively studied due to their key advantages in large capacity and high security. While such advantages have been explored in quantum communications ranging from quantum key distribution to quantum teleportation, [2939] qudit systems are also candidates for quantum computation ranging from universal quantum simulations and asymptotically optimal quantum circuits to one-way quantum computation and fault-tolerant quantum computation.[4053] Indeed, several high-dimensional QST protocols have been presented in coupled-spin chains.[5457]

Similar to classical supercomputers involving parallel processing, [58] hypercube topology can potentially allow diverse applications in QST, [17, 5961] quantum random walks[6265] and quantum search algorithms.[6669] A hypercube is a generalization from a three-dimensional cube to a high-dimensional configuration, and it possesses many appealing topological features, e.g., node-symmetry, good balance between nodes and edges.[58] Prior state transfer schemes in hypercubes have focused on qubits using either spins, [17] single-photons, [60] or multiphoton states.[61] In this article, we propose an efficient high-dimensional QST in XX coupling spin hypercube networks. The hypercubes are multiple Cartesian products of a chain of either two or three spins, which works as building blocks of these topologies.[70] Upon performing free spin wave approximation, unitary evolution for a specific time results in a perfect high-dimensional swap gate and evolution time is independent of either the distance between two registers or the dimension of the sent state.[61] It require neither weak coupling nor projective measurement nor external modulation nor coupling engineering. In addition, utilizing the Schwinger picture yields a perfect mirror high-dimensional swap operation in a coupled-spin chain of arbitrary length. Numerical results confirm that the spin-wave interaction leads to the leakage of quantum information, and under the free spin wave approximation, the perfect high-dimensional QST is achieved.

The proposed efficient high-dimensional QST occurs in a closed quantum channel. However, a quantum channel can rarely be isolated from its surrounding environment, especially the spin bath. Thus it is necessary to discuss the decoherence effects on such protocols. The considered decoherence is characterized by a pure dephasing model for quantum channels coupled to an antiferromagnetic (AFM) spin bath via a typical Ising interaction, [7176] allowing for the conservation of channel energy. In a low temperature regime, unitary evolution analytically gives a swap gate experiencing decoherence. To be specific, we perform numerical simulations when the spin bath is in a thermal equilibrium state. We find that while increasing either the spin bath temperature or the bath-channel coupling enhances the irreversible leakage of quantum information into the spin bath, strong intrachannel coupling can depress the decoherence effects to ensure the high fidelity of state transfer. Observing these can help us to understand the decoherence effects on quantum communication in coupled quantum spin systems.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we calculate the Hamiltonian and the operator evolution under free spin wave approximation. In Section 3, we study the high-dimensional QST in hypercubes and chains, respectively. In Section 4, specifically, the decoherence of the spin bath in the thermal equilibrium state is studied. The last section is devoted to a summary.

2. Model and calculation

The composite system under consideration consists of a quantum spin-S0 network which acts as a quantum channel, and an AFM spin-S bath whose lattice is divided into two identical sublattices a and b. The network Hamiltonian with spins coupled to their nearest neighbors on a finite lattice of site N0 is of XX coupling

where K is an N0 × N0 coupling matrix and Kuv represents the coupling strength between sites u and v, S± = Sx ± iSy are two ladder operators and Sμ (μ = x, y, z) is the μ component of a spin operator S. The AFM spin bath Hamiltonian is described by a Heisenberg model

where J > 0 is the exchange interaction, δ is a vector joining a site to its nearest neighbor, Sa and Sb are spin operators in the sublattices a and b, respectively. The interaction Hamiltonian between the network and the spin bath is characterized by a typical Ising model[73]

with the coupling strength J0 and the number of spins N in each magnetic sublattice. The dynamics of a composite system is governed by the total Hamiltonian H = HS + HB + HI, and upon introducing the Holstein– Primakoff (HP) transformation, [77] we have

the total Hamiltonian can be expressed in terms of boson operators, wherein the conservation of total spin z projection of channel, , becomes conservation of the boson number, .

The network is initialized to a simple ferromagnetic order with spins aligning in a parallel way. The low-lying level states of a sender, ranging from |0〉 to |d – 1〉 , are employed to encode quantum information as an input state, and we assume that the dimension d of the sent state is much smaller than 2S0, d ≪ 2S0. The conservation law ensures that , and the HP transformation is simplified into , which leads to

The subsequent diagonalization of this tight-binding Hamiltonian is realized through an orthogonal transformation Q, such that Λ = QKQ with Λ qq′ = λ qδ qq′ . This transformation results in , where and ε q = 2S0λ q.

The spin bath surrounding the quantum channel is in the low-temperature and low-excitation limit such that the spin operators can be approximated as and .[78] Working with Fourier transformation and Bogoliubov transformation yields

where α k and β k are two degenerate AFM mangnon branches, and E0 = – z0JNS(S + 1). The spin-wave elementary excitation spectrum (EES) is

wherein z0 is the number of the nearest neighbors, and is the structure factor. In the low-energy regime, corresponding to long wavelengths, kl, the EES is linear: ω k = (2z0)1/2JSkl, with the lattice constant l. The interaction Hamiltonian is likewise transformed to

The Heisenberg equation drives an operator evolution in the Heisenberg picture, . By using this equation and the commutation relation [HI, H] = 0, we have

Here, the quantum noise operator Y (t) reads

which arises from the AFM spin bath, and is the free evolution of the network. Owing to , and

turns out to be

and the free evolution of the network is determined by its coupling matrix.

3. Perfect high-dimensional quantum state transfer

In this section, high-dimensional QST protocols with high fidelity in hypercubes and chains are proposed, respectively. We begin with the case of hypercubes, which are multiple Cartesian products of either two-spin chain G1 or three-spin chain G2 working as basic building blocks to build such coupled-spin hypercubes. The coupling matrix of a hypercube network G in Eq. (1) is K = κ A (G), and κ is the coupling strength between two spins in the network, which is characterized by its adjacency matrix A (G).[70]

After g-fold Cartesian products of either of the two simple chains, A (G) is given by

where I is an identity matrix, and A (Gθ ) is an adjacency matrix of Gθ for θ = 1, 2. As a consequence,

and it results in

at the following evolution time

Substituting Eq. (15) into Eq. (12) leads to

Upon absorbing a phase factor of iθ g into , unitary evolution under HS for a time τ θ results in , which allows the realization of a swap operation between two spins m and N + 1 – m. It is determined by the natural dynamics of the Hamiltonian and requires neither external modulation nor inter-spin coupling strength engineering. Moreover, the evolution time is independent of the distance between the two remote spins, and the speedup of perfect high-dimensional QST is possible. For simplicity, we take the square and cube networks for example, as shown in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b), which are the two-fold and three-fold Cartesian products of G1, respectively; the time evolution builds a swap gate between two spins along each main diagonal at the optimal time.

Fig. 1. Schematic configurations for two-fold (a) and three-fold (b) Cartesian products of a two-spin chain with uniform coupling strength κ . Unitary evolution for a time τ 1 = π /(4S0κ ) results in a high-dimensional swap operation between two spins along each main diagonal. In a coupled-spin chain of length N (c), unitary evolution for a time τ ′ = π /(2S0g0) enables a mirror-like high-dimensional swap operation with respect to its center through engineering inter-spin coupling strengths .

While the case of a multi-dimensional hypercube has been chosen to focus on, we extend such results to a one-dimensional coupled-spin system. By choosing

in the Hamiltonian of Eq. (1), such that it provides a Hamiltonian of a coupled-spin chain with coupling strengths κ u between two spins u and u + 1 as shown in Fig. 1(c). The coupling matrix is identical to a pseudo Hamiltonian H′ = g0Lx, where Lx is the x component of a fictitious spin L = (N0 – 1)/2, and g0 is a coupling parameter. In the Schwinger picture, Lx can be rewritten in terms of two boson operators as[79]

and hence, H′ is the Hamiltonian governing two bosons with coupling strength g0/2. Unitary evolution under 2S0H′ for a time τ ′ = π /(2S0g0) gives and , yielding

Therefore, is evaluated to be

Upon absorbing a factor of iN0 − 1 into as desired, it enables a swap operation between spins m and N0 + 1 – m, , and a mirror inversion of quantum states with respect to the center of the chain is implemented.

To confirm the perfect high-dimensional QST, we perform a numerical calculation, as shown in Fig. 2. The initial state of the network is assumed to be

where

is the sent state at the spin m, and represents that all spins are in the vacuum state apart from just one spin at the site m. The normalized coefficients Cν can be measured by the Hurwitz parametrization with d – 1 polar angles χ p and d – 1 azimuthal angles ϑ p as[80, 81]

where 0 ≤ ϑ pπ /2 and 0 ≤ χ p < 2π for p = 1, 2, … , d – 1. The average fidelity over the whole manifold of such states is

Here, F (t) is defined as F (t) = 1φ | ρ m (t) | φ 1 with ρ m (t) being the reduced density matrix of spin m at the evolution time t. The volume element on the generalized Bloch sphere of Eq. (23) in the complex space CPd– 1 is

and the total volume of the 2(d – 1)-dimensional manifold of pure states is Vd = π d – 1/(d – 1).

The average fidelity varies with spin number S0 as shown in Fig. 2. The infidelity, ε = 1 – 〈 F〉 , results from the leakage of quantum information into the spin wave interaction found in nonlinear terms of HP transformation. In such a regime 2S0d, the evolution of the quantum channel is dominated by the spin wave interaction suppressing the average fidelity. By ensuring 2S0/d ≪ 1, the spin wave interaction is negligible and the evolution is governed by the free spin wave found in linear terms of HP transformation, enabling a perfect high-dimensional QST.

Fig. 2. Variations of average fidelity 〈 F〉 with quantum spin number for either d = 3 (solid lines), d = 4 (dashed lines), or d = 5 (dotted– dashed lines). (a) Coupled-spin cube; (b) coupled-spin chain of length N = 8. Here, the evolution time is the optimal time for the two different configurations.

4. Spin bath in the thermal equilibrium state

To be specific, we consider a spin bath in a thermal equilibrium state, wherein its variables are distributed in an uncorrelated thermal equilibrium mixture of states, and the density matrix satisfies the Boltzmann distribution

where Z = Tr(eHB/T) is a partial function and T represents the temperature. The combination of Eq. (26) and Eq. (22) yields the initial state of the composite system, including quantum channel and spin bath, as a direct product

Evolution for time τ ′ drives the state to

and the reduced density matrix of the quantum channel is ρ S (τ ′ ) = TrB [ρ (τ ′ )]. Without loss of generality, we choose a couple-spin chain, which is directly analogous to the hypercube quantum channel. Upon utilizing and e− ic(0) ei = c (− τ ′ ), the finial state of spin N0 + 1 – m is calculated as

with , and a decoherence factor Dvv′ (T) given by

which turns out to be . Therein,

and

where . Upon introducing quantities

and

with x = kl, the decoherence factor is transformed to

where the summation over k has been replaced by an integral

with N = V/l3. In the thermodynamic limit, N → ∞ , which leads to ξ 0 = ξ ± , and

Thus the decoherence factor becomes

with a decoherence time

The combination of the fidelities of spins m and N0 + 1 – m is

To illustrate the decoherence effects of spin bath on the quantum channels, we perform the numerical simulation as shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3. Decoherence effects on the high-dimensional QST proposal in a coupled-spin chain with either d = 3 (solid lines), or d = 5 (dotted– dashed lines). The average fidelity as functions of (a) J0 with g0 = J and T = 0.05TN, (b) T with g0 = J and S = 1/2, and (c) g0 with J0 = 5000J and S = 1/2.

Under the random phase approximation, the Né el temperature of an AFM system reads[78]

with ζ = N− 1k(1 − γ k)− 1. The summation over k is restricted in the first Brillouin zone of the sublattice, such that it has half the volume of an atomic Brillouin zone, yielding ζ = 1.51638 for a simple cubic lattice and ζ = 1.39320 for a body-center cubic lattice. Owing to the validity of spin wave theory only in the low temperature regime, the spin bath temperature is restricted below 0.1TN, T ≤ 0.1TN. The average fidelity varies with either coupling strength, J0, or spin bath temperature, T, as shown in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b). The infidelity, ε , results from the leakage of quantum information into the spin bath. Increasing either J0 or T enhances such an irreversible process. Figure 3(c) shows the variations of average fidelity with coupling parameter, g0. A strong coupling parameter can partly counteract the thermal effects to prevent the quantum information from leaking into the spin bath and ensure the high fidelity.

5. Summary

In this paper, we study a high-dimensional QST protocol in spin networks of either hypercubes or chains coupled to an antiferromagentic spin bath. Under the free spin wave approximation and in ideal conditions without decoherence, the time evolution presents a perfect high-dimensional QST between two registers of arbitrary distance for both of the two configurations, requiring neither weak coupling nor external modulation nor projective measurement. The essence of our method is that a perfect swap operation is allowable for a chain of either two or three bosons. One of its direct applications is that it can potentially provide the high-dimensional entanglement distribution for quantum computation. Moreover, the state transfer independent of either the distance between two registers or the dimension of sent state enables the enhancement of computational efficiency. In the low temperature regime and thermodynamic limit, the decoherence induced by the AFM spin bath is also investigated in this work. Increasing either the spin bath temperature or the channel-bath coupling, the decoherence becomes more serious. However, strong intrachannel coupling can partly counteract the decoherence effects, and ensure the high fidelity to demonstrate robustness against external noise. Observing these will deepen our understanding of the decoherence effects on quantum communication in the coupled quantum spin systems.

While we have focused on the specific case of a hypercube topology, the conceptual framework can be used in a wide range of topologies by means of the free spin wave approximation to yield the tight-binding Hamiltonian described in Eq. (5). By ensuring (ei2S0)um = δ u, N0+ 1− m for a specific evolution time τ , the achievement of a perfect high-dimensional QST is possible.

Reference
1 Sillanpää M A, Park J I and Simmonds R W 2007 Nature 449 438 DOI:10.1038/nature06124 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 38.597]
2 Schmidt-Kaler F, Häffner H, Riebe M, Gulde S, Lancaster G P T, Deuschle T, Becher C, Roos C F, Eschner J and Blatt R 2003 Nature 422 408 DOI:10.1038/nature01494 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 38.597]
3 Blinov B B, Moehring D L, Duan L M and Monroe C 2004 Nature 428 153 DOI:10.1038/nature02377 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 38.597]
4 Dong H, Xu D Z, Huang J F and Sun C P 2012 Light Sci. Appl. 1 e2 DOI:10.1038/lsa.2012.2 [Cited within:1]
5 Heilmann R, Gräfe M, Nolte S and Szameit A 2015 Sci. Bull. 60 96 DOI:10.1007/s11434-014-0688-5 [Cited within:1] [CJCR: 0.3902]
6 Bose S 2003 Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 207901 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.207901 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 7.943]
7 Cubitt T S and Cirac J I 2008 Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 180406 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.180406 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 7.943]
8 Godsil C, Kirkland S, Severini S and Smith J 2012 Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 050502 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.050502 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 7.943]
9 Yao N Y, Laumann C R, Gorshkov A V, Weimer H, Jiang L, Cirac J I, Zoller P and Lukin M D 2013 Nat. Commun. 4 1585 DOI:10.1038/ncomms2531 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 10.015]
10 Ping Y, Lovett B W, Benjamin S C and Gauger E M 2013 Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 100503 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.100503 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 7.943]
11 Wu N, Nand uri A and Rabitz H 2014 Phys. Rev. A 89 062105 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.89.062105 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
12 Korzekwa K, Machnikowski P and Horodecki P 2014 Phys. Rev. A 89 062301 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.89.062301 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
13 Xiang J D, Qin L G and Tian L J 2014 Chin. Phys. B 23 110305 DOI:10.1088/1674-1056/23/11/110305 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 1.148] [CJCR: 1.2429]
14 Zhang A P and Li F L 2013 Chin. Phys. B 22 030308 DOI:10.1088/1674-1056/22/3/030308 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 1.148] [CJCR: 1.2429]
15 Wang T J, Lu Y and Long G L 2012 Phys Rev A 86 042337 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.86.042337 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
16 Hong C H, Heo J, Lim J I and Yang H J 2014 Chin. Phys. B 23 090309 DOI:10.1088/1674-1056/23/9/090309 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 1.148] [CJCR: 1.2429]
17 Christand l M, Datta N, Ekert A and Land ahl A J 2004 Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 187902 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.187902 [Cited within:3] [JCR: 7.943]
18 Zhang J, Long G L, Zhang W, Deng Z, Liu W and Lu Z 2005 Phys. Rev. A 72 012331 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.72.012331 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
19 Vinet L and Zhedanov A 2012 Phys. Rev. A 85 012323 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.85.012323 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
20 Ajoy A and Cappellaro P 2013 Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 220503 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.220503 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 7.943]
21 Wójcik A, Łuczak T, Kurzyński P, Grudka A, Gdala T and Bednarska M 2005 Phys. Rev. A 72 034303 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.72.034303 [Cited within:1]
22 Banchi L, Apollparo T J G, Cuccoli A, Vaia R and Verrucchi P 2010 Phys. Rev. A 82 052321 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.82.052321 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
23 Apollparo T J G, Banchi L, Cuccoli A, Vaia R and Verrucchi P 2012 Phys. Rev. A 85 052319 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.85.052319 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
24 Yao N Y, Jiang L, Gorshkov A V, Gong Z X, Zhai A, Duan L M and Lukin M D 2011 Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 040505 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.040505 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 7.943]
25 Shi T, Li Y, Song Z and Sun C P 2005 Phys. Rev. A 71 032309 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.71.032309 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
26 Fitzsimons J and Twamley J 2006 Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 090502 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.090502 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 7.943]
27 Cappellaro P, Ramanathan C and Cory D G 2007 Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 250506 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.250506 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 7.943]
28 Giorgi G L and Busch T 2013 Phys. Rev. A 88 062309 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.88.062309 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
29 Bechmann-Pasquinucci H and Tittel W 2000 Phys. Rev. A 61 062308 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.61.062308 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
30 Karimipour V, Bahraminasab A and Bagherinezhad S 2002 Phys. Rev. A 65 052331 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.65.052331 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
31 Mafu M, Dudley A, Goyal S, Giovannini D, McLaren M, Padgett M J, Konrad T, Petruccione F, Lütkenhaus N and Forbes A 2013 Phys. Rev. A. 88 032305 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.88.032305 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
32 Molina-Terriza G, Vaziri A, Ursin R and Zeilinger A 2005 Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 040501 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.040501 [Cited within:1]
33 Goyal S K, Boukama-Dzoussi P E, Ghosh S and Roux F S Konrad T 2014 Sci. Rep. 4 4543 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 15.333]
34 Wang C, Deng F G, Li Y S, Liu X S and Long G L 2005 Phys. Rev. A 71 044305 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.71.044305 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
35 Jiang M, Huang X, Zhou L L, Zhou Y M and Zeng J 2012 Chin. Sci. Bull. 57 2247 DOI:10.1007/s11434-012-5163-6 [Cited within:1] [CJCR: 0.95]
36 Zou X F and Qiu D W 2014 Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron. 57 1696 DOI:10.1007/s11433-014-5542-x [Cited within:1]
37 Zheng C and Long G F 2014 Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron. 57 1238 DOI:10.1007/s11433-014-5461-x [Cited within:1]
38 Wang W Y, Wang C, Zhang G Y and Long G L 2009 Chin. Sci. Bull. 54 158 DOI:10.1007/s11434-008-0581-1 [Cited within:1] [CJCR: 0.95]
39 Deng F G, Zhou H Y and Long G L 2006 J. Phys. A: Math Gen. 39 14089 DOI:10.1088/0305-4470/39/45/018 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 1.577]
40 Lu Y, Feng G R, Li Y S and Long G L 2015 Sci. Bull. 60 241 DOI:10.1007/s11434-014-0712-9 [Cited within:1] [CJCR: 0.3902]
41 Zhang C, Li C F and Guo G C 2015 Sci. Bull. 60 249 DOI:10.1007/s11434-014-0710-y [Cited within:1] [CJCR: 0.3902]
42 Gottesman D 1999 Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 10 1749 DOI:10.1016/S0960-0779(98)00218-5 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 1.246]
43 Cafaro C, Maiolini F and Mancini S 2012 Phys. Rev. A 86 022308 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.86.022308 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
44 Nielsen M A, Bremner M J, Dodd J L, Childs A M and Dawson C M 2002 Phys. Rev. A 66 022317 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.66.022317 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
45 Klimov A B, Guzmán R, Retamal J C and Saavedra C 2003 Phys. Rev. A 67 062313 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.67.062313 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
46 Hugh D M and Twamley J 2005 New J. Phys. 7 174 DOI:10.1088/1367-2630/7/1/174 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 4.063]
47 Bullock S S O Leary D P Brennen G K 2005 Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 230502 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.230502 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 7.943]
48 Bishop C A and Byrd M S 2008 Phys. Rev. A 77 012314 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.77.012314 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
49 Paz-Silva G A, Rebić S, Twamley J and Duty T 2009 Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 020503 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.020503 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 7.943]
50 Strauch F W 2011 Phys. Rev. A 84 052313 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.84.052313 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
51 Rousseaux B, Guérin S and Vitanov N V 2013 Phys. Rev. A 87 032328 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.87.032328 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
52 Cao Y, Peng S G, Zheng C and Long G L 2011 Commun. Theor. Phys. 55 790 DOI:10.1088/0253-6102/55/5/11 [Cited within:1]
53 Luo M X and Wang X J 2014 Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron. 57 1712 DOI:10.1007/s11433-014-5551-9 [Cited within:1]
54 Bayat A and Karimipour V 2007 Phys. Rev. A 75 022321 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.75.022321 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
55 Bayat A 2014 Phys. Rev. A 89 062302 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.89.062302 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
56 Romero-Isart O, Eckert K and Sanpera A 2007 Phys. Rev. A 75 050303 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.75.050303 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
57 Qin W, Wang C and Long G L 2013 Phys. Rev. A 87 012339 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.87.012339 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
58 Hayes J P and Mudge T 1989 Proc. IEEE 77 1829 DOI:10.1109/5.48826 [Cited within:2] [JCR: 3.368]
59 Feder D L 2006 Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 180502 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.180502 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 7.943]
60 Chudzicki C and Strauch F W 2010 Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 260501 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.260501 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 7.943]
61 Qin W, Wang C, Cao Y and Long G L 2014 Phys. Rev. A 89 062314 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.89.062314 [Cited within:3] [JCR: 3.042]
62 Moore C and Russell A 2002 Lecture Notes in Computer Science Berlin Springer-Verlag [Cited within:1] [JCR: 0.402]
63 Košĺk J and Bužek V 2005 Phys. Rev. A 71 012306 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.71.012306 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
64 Krovi H and Brun T A 2006 Phys. Rev. A 73 032341 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.73.032341 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
65 Marquezino F L, Portugal R, Abal G and Donangelo R 2008 Phys. Rev. A 77 042312 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.77.042312 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
66 Shenvi N, Kempe J and Whaley K B 2003 Phys. Rev. A 67 052307 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.67.052307 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
67 Hein B and Tanner G 2009 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 42 085303 DOI:10.1088/1751-8113/42/8/085303 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 1.766]
68 Patel A and Rahaman Md A 2010 Phys. Rev. A 82 032330 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.82.032330 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
69 Patel A, Raghunathan K S and Rahaman Md A 2010 Phys. Rev. A 82 032331 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.82.032331 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
70 Beineke L W and Wilson R J (eds. ) 1978 Selected Topics in Graph Theory London Academic [Cited within:2]
71 Cucchietti F M, Paz J P and Zurek W H 2005 Phys. Rev. A 72 052113 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.72.052113 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
72 Cai J M, Zhou Z W and Guo G C 2006 Phys. Rev. A 74 022328 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.74.022328 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
73 Paganelli S, de Pasquale F and Giampaolo S M 2002 Phys. Rev. A 66 052317 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.66.052317 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
74 Lucamarini M, Paganelli S and Mancini S 2004 Phys. Rev. A 69 062308 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.69.062308 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 3.042]
75 Yuan X Z, Goan H S and Zhu K D 2007 New J. Phys. 9 219 DOI:10.1088/1367-2630/9/7/219 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 4.063]
76 Yuan X Z, Goan H S and Zhu K D 2011 New J. Phys. 13 023018 DOI:10.1088/1367-2630/13/2/023018 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 4.063]
77 Holstein T and Primakoff H 1940 Phys. Rev. 58 1098 DOI:10.1103/PhysRev.58.1098 [Cited within:1] [JCR: 6.583]
78 Majlis N 2000 The Quantum Theory of Magnetism Singapore World Scientific [Cited within:2]
79 Schwinger J 1965 Quantum Theory of Angular Momentum New York Academic [Cited within:1]
80 Życzkowski K and Sommers H 2001 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 34 7111 DOI:10.1088/0305-4470/34/35/335 [Cited within:1]
81 Li H, Li Y S, Wang S H and Long G L 2014 Commun. Theor. Phys. 61 273 DOI:10.1088/0253-6102/61/3/01 [Cited within:1]