Abstract
This paper aims to define the set of unital positive maps on by means of quantum Lotka–Volterra operators which are quantum analogues of the classical Lotka–Volterra operators. Furthermore, a quantum control problem within the class of quantum Lotka–Volterra operators are studied. The proposed approach will lead to the understanding of the behavior of the classical Lotka–Volterra systems within a quantum framework.
MSC:
46L35; 46L55; 46A37
1. Introduction
The present paper is closely related to the problem of controlling a two-level quantum system [1,2]. Let us consider a system for which the influence of the environment does not affect it [3,4]. Then, its dynamics under the action of the control is governed by
where and , V are Hermitian matrices in . In many physical systems, it appears several problems of maximizing of an objective functional of the form
which presents the quantum average of an observable A at a fixed time . Here , where is the initial density matrix. By defining a mapping , then (1) can be rewritten as follows
Notice that the potential of unitary control to find extremum values of the target operator are limited, since such operators can only connect states with the same spectrum (see, for example, [5,6]). Therefore, the dynamics may be extended to non-unitary evolution by involving the set of unital positive maps. Afterwards, a more general problem can be observed: assume that a set of unital positive maps from to itself is given, say . Consider the objective functional:
The control goal is to find, for given and A, optimal map in which maximize the objective functional J. The formulated problem is a common goal in quantum control [7,8]. In [9,10], the most general physically allowed transformations of states of quantum open systems are investigated where is taken as the set of all completely positive trace preserving maps. General mathematical definitions for the controlled Markov dynamics can be found in [11].
In the present paper, the set is considered consisting of unital positive maps of associated with quantum Lotka–Volterra operators. Such types of maps have been introduced in [12] as a quantum analogue of the classical Lotka–Volterra operators [13]. Notice that set of positive maps (defined on some matrix algebra) has certain applications in quantum information theory [14,15,16,17] and entanglement witnesses [18,19,20].
In this paper, we define a class of quantum Lotka–Volterra operators which contains as a particular case those that were studied in [12]. We point out that construction of such types of operators are highly non-trivial, since they map into , and checking their positivity condition is tricky. By considering conditional expectations (depending on states) from to , and using the quantum Lotka–Volterra operators, a family of unital positive maps is introduced which depends on several parameters. If the state is taken as a trace, then the family is reduced to earlier studied maps in [12]. However, the presence of non-trivial states in the expectation makes the family very complicated for checking its positivity. For this family of positive maps, in the last section, a quantum control problem is explored. Although the investigated problem does not have physical application, the proposed approach will lead to the understanding of behavior of the classical Lotka–Volterra systems within a quantum framework.
2. Preliminaries
This section is devoted to recalling necessary definitions which will be used later on.
An algebra of matrices over the complex field is denoted as . Furthermore, denotes the tensor product of into itself. The symbol stands for an identity matrix. In the sequel, by we denote the set of all positive functionals defined on . The set of all states (i.e., linear positive functionals which take value 1 at ) defined on is denoted by .
It is well known that the identity and Pauli matrices form a basis for , where
Therefore, any can be written as with , , where .
By , we denote a commutative subalgebra of generated by . In this setting, every element can be written as follows: , where .
Lemma 1
([21]). Let . Then the following assertions hold:
- (a)
- x is self-adjoint iff are real;
- (b)
- iff , where ;
- (c)
- A linear functional φ on is a state iff it can be represented bywhere such that . Here as before stands for the scalar product in .
Notice that a basis of is formed by the system
A linear operator such that for all is called a flipped operator.
Definition 1
([22]). A linear mapping is said to be
- (a)
- A quasi quantum quadratic operator (quasi q.q.o) if it is unital (i.e., ), *-preserving (i.e., ) and
- (b)
- A quantum quadratic operator (q.q.o.) if it is unital and positive (i.e., whenever );
- (c)
- Symmetric if one has .
It is evident that if is q.q.o., then it is a quasi q.q.o. Moreover, the unitality of implies any quasi q.q.o. maps into itself.
Remark 1.
We notice that symmetric q.q.o.s have been studied in [23], which were called quantum quadratic stochastic operators. We refer the reader to [24] for recent reviews on quadratic operators.
We mention that quasi quadratic quantum operators have been studied in [25]. In this regard, there is a natural question: for what sort of operators do the quasiness and the positivity coincide? This question is related to providing simpler examples of block-positive operators which have potential applications in detection of entangled witness [26].
Any unital linear map can be represented as follows:
where , , and , are real for every . Here as before stands for the standard dot product in .
3. Quantum Lotka–Volterra Operators on
In this section, we define a quantum analogue of Lotka–Volterra operators on . Recall that the Lotka–Volterra operator on is defined as follows [12,27]:
where . One can see that maps to .
By , we denote the standard projection defined by
Denote .
Definition 2.
A symmetric q.q.o. is called Quantum Lotka–Volterra operator, if
for some .
In what follows, we will need the following auxiliary fact.
Lemma 2.
Consider the function where Then
- 1.
- The minimum value of f is ;
- 2.
- The maximum value of f is .
Lemma 3
([12]). Let . Then the following conditions are equivalent
- (i)
- for all ;
- (ii)
- , and one of the following conditions is satisfied:
- I.
- ,
- (a)
- ;
- (b)
- ;
- (c)
- ;
- II.
- .
The next theorem is the main result of this section.
Theorem 1.
Let be given as follows:
where and . Then the following statements hold true:
- (i)
- is a quantum Lotka–Volterra operator if
- (ii)
- is a quasi quantum quadratic operator if
Proof.
- (i)
- Let , i.e., . Without loss of generality we may assume that . The positivity of x implies . From (8), one findswhereTo check the positivity of the above matrix, we use the Silvester criterion, i.e., , , whereClearly,On the other hand, we can compute that is an eigenvalue of Therefore, should be non-negative, i.e.,Using Lemma 2, we infer that the maximum value of the left hand side of (11) is So,Now, let us consider then the positivity is satisfied if and only if This holds ifwhere , then If , then the left hand side of the last inequality has its minimum value at . Using the same argument for the case , we arrive atNow, let us check the positivity of Keeping in mind , the positivity of is satisfied if which is equivalent toIf , by Lemma 2 the minimum value of the left hand side of the last inequality is Hence, Therefore,Finally, we have to check the positivity of , i.e., we need to show thatRewriting the last inequality, one hasBy Lemma 2, we infer that ,Hence, from (13) it follows thatDefineover the region It is clear that the critical point is Thus, the maximum value will be at the boundary, i.e., Hence, the maximum value of is Therefore,Due to , one hasByone obtains the positivity of , which implies the positivity of as well.
- (ii)
- From (8), for every state (which corresponds to the vector ), one findsHence, the quasiness condition for is equivalent toRewriting the last inequality, we findThis inequality is satisfied ifwhich is equivalent toThenSo, by Lemma 3Hence,
This completes the proof. ☐
Remark 2.
We stress that if , then from the proved theorem we infer that the quasiness implies the positivity of . This type of results was established in [12].
4. A Class of Positive Operators Corresponding to
In this section, we define a class of positive operators associated with . To do so, given a state on , let us define a mapping by
It is known that is a conditional expectation.
By means of , let us define a mapping by
By (8) we find
We stress that if is taken as the normalized trace, i.e., , then the mapping reduces to
which was investigated in [12]. Clearly, from (19) one sees that the structure of is much complex than (20).
Theorem 2.
Proof.
Let be as in Theorem 1. Then, the matrix form of is given by
where
The eigenvalues of are
To show the positivity of it is enough to establish the positivity of . So,
which is equivalent to
Therefore, we have to find the absolute minimum value of F subject to the constrain Using Lagrange multiplier one obtains
Then
Thus, Plugging these values into , one finds
substituting these value into , we obtain
Hence, by (22), one has
Now, if then
If then
This completes the proof. ☐
5. Controlling a Two-Level Quantum System
In this section, we investigate the problem of controlling a qubit, i.e., a two-level quantum system associated with .
By we denote the set of all which is positive. One can check that is a convex set. Denote Define
where
The main aim of this section is to maximize Let us first observe that any Hermitian operator can be diagonalized as
where For the sake of simplicity, we choose Now, substituting and into (23) one finds
here is the initial density matrix with The next theorem is the main result of this section.
Theorem 3.
- (i)
- If thenwhere
- (ii)
- If then
- (iii)
- If then
- (iv)
- If then
Proof.
Let us first denote by Therefore, we have to find the maximum value of
where and subject to the constrain
Using Lagrange multiplier, one has
Then we obtain the following system of equations:
Now, we analyze the system (27). Suppose that then, from the fifth equation of (27), one has and, inserting this value into the third equation of (27), we arrive at , but it contradicts the constrain (26). Therefore, Consequently, our problem is reduced to
subject to the constrain
Now, we consider the following cases with respect to values of A and C.
- (i)
- Assume that then from the first and the last equation of (27) we obtain that Next, assume that then we have critical points at Plugging it into F, we obtain Now, let us suppose then from the second equation of (27) one finds , then inserting this value into the first equation, we obtain Then plugging the obtained ones into G yieldsRewriting the last expression givesNow, plugging the value into F yieldsLet thenNow, let us find the maximum value of over the interval The last function’s critical points are:One can easily check that the maximum value reaches at Y, and its value isSimplifying the last expression, we arrive at the required assertion.
- (ii)
- Let , Then, and So, one has that the critical points at Hence, the maximum value is
- (iii)
- Assume that , Then and Similarly, the maximum value of F is
- (iv)
- Let , In this case So, the maximum value is 0. This completes the proof.
☐
6. Conclusions
In the present paper, we have introduced a class of quantum Lotka–Volterra operators which contains as a particular case those that were studied in [12]. The provided construction of such types of maps is highly non-trivial, since they map into , and checking their positivity condition is tricky. Moreover, considering conditional expectations (depending on states) from to , and using the introduced class of maps, a family of unital positive maps is defined which depends on several parameters. We stress that if the state is taken as a trace, then the family is reduced to earlier studied maps in [12]. However, the presence of non-trivial states makes the family very complicated for checking its positivity, which has been done in Section 4. Within such a family of positive maps, in the last section, a quantum control problem is explored. The proposed approach will lead to the understanding of the behavior of the classical Lotka–Volterra systems within a quantum framework. The constructed unital positive maps will also serve to be entangled witnesses. Moreover, it would be interesting to find conditions on the parameters for which the considered family satisfies the Kadison–Schwarz property, which has certain applications in the approximation of positive maps [28].
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, F.M.; methodology, F.M. and I.Q.; validation, F.M. and I.Q.; investigation, F.M. and I.Q.; writing—original draft preparation, I.Q.; writing—review and editing, F.M.; supervision, F.M.; project administration, F.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by UAEU UPAR Grant No. G00003447.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees whose useful suggestions allowed to improve the presentation of the present paper.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Pechen, A.N. Some mathematical problems of control of quantum systems. J. Math. Sci. 2019, 241, 185–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pechen, A.N.; Il’in, N. On extrema of the objective functional for short-time generation of single qubit quantum gates. Izv. Math. 2016, 80, 1200–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Accardi, L.; Lu, Y.G.; Volovich, I. Quantum Theory and Its Stochastic Limit; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Trushechkin, A.S.; Volovich, I.V. Perturbative treatment of inter-site couplings in the local description of open quantum networks. EPL 2016, 113, 30005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mandilara, A.; Clark, J.W. Probabilistic quantum control via indirect measurement. Phys. Rev. A 2005, 71, 013406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mendes, R.V.; Man’ko, V.I. Quantum control and the Strocchi map. Phys. Rev. A 2003, 67, 053404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butkovskiy, A.G.; Samoilenko, Y.I. Control of Quantum-Mechanical Processes and Systems; Kluwer Academic: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- D’Alessandro, D. Introduction to Quantum Control and Dynamics; Chapman and Hall: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Pechen, A.N.; Il’in, N.B. Coherent control of a qubit is trap-free. Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. 2014, 285, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pechen, A.; Prokhorenko, D.; Wu, R.; Rabitz, H. Control landscapes for two-level open quantum systems. J. Phys. A Math. Theor. 2008, 41, 045205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belavkin, V.P. Towards the theory of control in observable quantum systems. Autom. Remote. Control. 1983, 44, 178–188. [Google Scholar]
- Mukhamedov, F.; Syam, S.M.; Almarzoui, S. Few remarks on quasi quantum quadratic operators on M2(C). Open Syst. Inform. Dyn. 2020, 27, 2050006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edelstein–Keshet, L. Mathematical Models in Biology; SIAM: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Bengtsson, I.; Zyczkowski, K. Geometry of Quantum States; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Chruscinski, D.; Mukhamedov, F. Dissipative generators, divisible dynamical maps and Kadison-Schwarz inequality. Phys. Rev. A 2019, 100, 052120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chruscinski, D. Dynamical maps beyond Markovian regime. Phys. Rep. 2022, 992, 1–85. [Google Scholar]
- Nielsen, M.A.; Chuang, I.L. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Chruscinski, D. A class of symmetric Bell diagonal entanglement witnesses—A geometric perspective. J. Phys. A Math. Theor. 2014, 47, 424033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chruscinski, D.; Kossakowski, A.; Mlodawski, K.; Matsuoka, T. A class of Bell diagonal states and entanglement witnesses. Open Syst. Infor. Dyn. 2010, 17, 213–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horodecki, R.; Horodecki, P.; Horodecki, M.; Horodecki, K. Quantum entanglement. Rev. Mod. Phys. 2009, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruskai, M.B.; Szarek, S.; Werner, E. An analysis of completely positive trace-preserving maps on M2. Lin. Alg. Appl. 2002, 347, 159–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mukhamedov, F.; Abduganiev, A. On pure quasi-quantum quadratic operators of M2(C). Open Syst. Infor. Dyn. 2013, 20, 1350018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ganikhodzhaev, N.N.; Mukhamedov, F.M. Ergodic properties of quantum quadratic stochastic processes. Izv. Math. 2000, 65, 873–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mukhamedov, F.; Ganikhodjaev, N. Quantum Quadratic Operators and Processes; Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 2133; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Mukhamedov, F. On circle preserving quadratic operators. Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc. 2017, 40, 765–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chruscinski, D.; Sarbicki, G. Entanglement witnesses: Construction, analysis and classification. J. Phys. A Math. Theor. 2014, 47, 483001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ganikhodzhaev, R.N. Quadratic stochastic operators, Lyapunov functions and tournaments. Russian Acad. Sci. Sb. Math. 1993, 76, 489–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chruscinski, D.; Mukhamedov, F.; Hajji, M.A. On Kadison-Schwarz approximation to positive maps. Open Syst. Inform. Dyn. 2020, 27, 2050016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).