This paper studies the stochastic differential equation (SDE) associated with a two-level quantum system (qubit) subject to Hamiltonian evolution as well as unmonitored and monitored decoherence channels. The latter imply a stochastic evolution of the quantum state (density operator), whose associated probability distribution we characterize. We first show that for two sets of typical experimental settings, corresponding either to weak quantum non-demolition measurements or to weak fluorescence measurements, the three Bloch coordinates of the qubit remain confined to a deterministically evolving surface or curve inside the Bloch sphere. We explicitly solve the deterministic evolution, and we provide a closed-form expression for the probability distribution on this surface or curve. Then we relate the existence in general of such deterministically evolving submanifolds to an accessibility question of control theory, which can be answered with an explicit algebraic criterion on the SDE. This allows us to show that, for a qubit, the above two sets of weak measurements are essentially the only ones featuring deterministic surfaces or curves.

1.
Barchielli
,
A.
and
Gregoratti
,
M.
,
Quantum Trajectories and Measurements in Continuous Time: The Diffusive Case
(
Springer
,
2009
).
2.
Belavkin
,
V.
, “
Quantum stochastic calculus and quantum nonlinear filtering
,”
J. Multivar. Anal.
42
(
2
),
171
201
(
1992
).
3.
Campagne-Ibarcq
,
P.
,
Six
,
P.
,
Bretheau
,
L.
et al., “
Observing quantum state diffusion by heterodyne detection of fluorescence
,”
Phys. Rev. X
6
,
011002
(
2016
).
4.
Chaleyat-Maurel
,
M.
and
Michel
,
D.
, “
The support of the density of a filter in the uncorrelated case
,” in
Stochastic Partial Differential Equations and Applications II
, Springer Lecture Notes in Mathematics (
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
,
1989
), Vol. 1390, pp.
33
41
.
5.
Haroche
,
S.
and
Raimond
,
J.-M.
, in
Exploring the Quantum
(
Oxford University Press
,
2006
), Chap. 6.
6.
Hatridge
,
M.
et al., “
Quantum back-action of an individual variable-strength measurement
,”
Science
339
(
6116
),
178
181
(
2013
).
7.
Hörmander
,
L.
, “
Hypoelliptic second order differential equations
,”
Acta Math.
119
(
1
),
147
171
(
1967
);
see also
Nualar
,
D.
,
The Malliavin Calculus and Related Topics
(
Springer
,
Berlin
2006
), p.
128
.
8.
Isidori
,
A.
,
Nonlinear Control Systems: An Introduction
(
Springer
,
Berlin
,
1985
), see Th.1.8.10;
Sontag
,
E. D.
, “
Kalman’s controllability rank condition: From linear to nonlinear
,” in
Mathematical System Theory
(
Springer
,
1991
), Chap. 7;
Jurdjevic
,
V.
,
Geometric Control Theory
(
Cambridge University Press
,
1997
).
9.
Lewis
,
H. R.
and
Riesenfeld
,
W. B.
, “
An exact quantum theory of the time-dependent harmonic oscillator and of a charged particle in a time-dependent electromagnetic field
,”
J. Math. Phys.
10
(
8
),
1458
1473
(
1969
).
10.
Lindblad
,
G.
, “
On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups
,”
Commun. Math. Phys.
48
(
2
),
119
130
(
1976
).
11.
Murch
,
K. W.
et al., “
Observing single quantum trajectories of a superconducting quantum bit
,”
Nature
502
(
7470
),
211
214
(
2013
).
12.
Nielsen
,
M.
and
Chuang
,
I.
,
Quantum Computation and Quantum Information
(
Cambridge University Press
,
2000
).
13.
Six
,
P.
 et al., “
Parameter estimation from measurements along quantum trajectories
,” in
Proceedings of the 54th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control
,
2015
.
14.
Stroock
,
D. W.
and
Varadhan
,
S. R. S.
, “
On the support of diffusion processes with applications to the strong maximum principle
,” in
Proceedings of the 6th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability
(
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
,
1972
), Vol. 3, pp.
333
359
.
15.
Wiseman
,
H. M.
,
Mancini
,
S.
, and
Wang
,
J.
, “
Bayesian feedback versus Markovian feedback in a two-level atom
,”
Phys. Rev. A
66
(
1
),
013807
(
2002
).
16.
Yamamoto
,
N.
et al., “
Local reachability of stochastic quantum dynamics with application to feedback control of single-spin systems
,” in
Proceedings of the 44th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control
(
IEEE
,
2005
), pp.
8209
8214
.
17.

We only need the following Itô rule. Let X be a vector of components (X)j and evolving according to (dXt)j=Fj(Xt)dt+kGj,k(Xt)dWtk, with normalized independent Wiener processes dWtk. Consider the change of coordinates (X)j = Hj(X). Then we have (dXt)j=lHjXlFldt+l,kHjXlGl,kdWk+12l,m,k2HjXlXmGl,kGm,kdt. The last term is the Itô correction term, with respect to the standard (i.e., non-stochastic) calculus.

18.

For instance, if F = 0, m = 1, it is clear that GF=span{G1}, i.e., the controlled system (A2) would move in one dimension, and the control only determines the speed of evolution in time. The same would be true for the Stratonovich setting (A1), with the Wiener process just randomly varying the speed of evolution. However if this F = 0 and G1 were associated with an Itô setting, then the associated Stratonovich equation might imply motion in several dimensions. Indeed, take, e.g., (G1)k = (xk)2, one computes that [D1,G1]k(xk)4. For almost all xRN, this vector field is not parallel to G1.

You do not currently have access to this content.