Multiple Joint Weak Measurements as a Way to Suppress the Decoherence

Authors

  • O.M. Konovalenko O.Ya. Usikov Institute for Radiophysics and Electronics, Nat. Acad. of Sci. of Ukraine
  • Z.A. Maizelis O.Ya. Usikov Institute for Radiophysics and Electronics, Nat. Acad. of Sci. of Ukraine, V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15407/ujpe70.8.516

Keywords:

joint weak measurements, decoherence suppression, Quantum Zeno Effect, Lindblad evolution

Abstract

We apply the multiple, equally spaced in time, weak measurements, to the two-qubit entangled system to decrease the rate of its decoherence, i.e., to prevent the decrease of the off-diagonal elements. The scheme is similar to the Quantum Zeno Effect, but differs by the frequency of the measurements. While the conventional Quantum Zeno Effect assumes rapid measurements which mitigates the Hamiltonian dynamics, the proposed method makes use of entanglement between the qubits to decrease the decoherence rate. We will show that it allows us to partially suppress the decoherence in the case of Lindblad evolution.

References

1. M. Schlosshauer. Quantum Decoherence. Phys. Rep. 831, 1 (2019).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2019.10.001

2. G. Barenboim, A.M. Gago. Quantum decoherence effects: A complete treatment. Phys. Rev. D 110, 095005 (2024).

https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.095005

3. J. Bordes, J.R. Brown, D.P. Watts, M. Bashkanov, K. Gibson, R. Newton, N. Zachariou. First detailed study of the quantum decoherence of entangled gamma photons. Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 132502 (2024).

https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.132502

4. L. Colmen'arez, Z.-M. Huang, S. Diehl, M. M¨uller. Accurate optimal quantum error correction thresholds from coherent information. Phys. Rev. Research 6, L042014 (2024).

https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.L042014

5. K.J. Mei, W.R. Borrelli, A. Vong, B.J. Schwartz. Using machine learning to understand the causes of quantum decoherence in solution phase bond-breaking reactions. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 15 (4), 903 (2024).

https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.3c03474

6. T. Neidig, J. Rais, M. Bleicher, H. van Hees, C. Greiner. Open quantum systems with Kadanoff-Baym equations. Phys. Lett. B 851, 138589 (2024).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138589

7. Z. Ding, X. Li, L. Lin. Simulating open quantum systems using Hamiltonian simulations. PRX Quantum 5, 020332 (2024).

https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.020332

8. D. Manzano. A short introduction to the Lindblad master equation. AIP Adv. 10 (2), 025106 (2020).

https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5115323

9. K. Kraus. General state changes in quantum theory. Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 64, 311 (1971).

https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(71)90108-4

10. B.M. Terhal. Quantum error correction for quantum memories. Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 307 (2015).

https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.87.307

11. F.R.F. Pereira, S. Mancini, G.G. La Guardia. Stabilizer codes for open quantum systems. Sci. Rep. 13, 10540 (2023).

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-37434-0

12. B. Pokharel, N. Anand, B. Fortman, D.A. Lidar. Demonstration of fidelity improvement using dynamical decoupling with superconducting qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 220502 (2018).

https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.220502

13. C. Read, E. Serrano-Ens'astiga, J. Martin. Platonic dynamical decoupling sequences for interacting spin systems. Quantum 9, 1661 (2025).

https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2025-03-12-1661

14. N. Ezzell, B. Pokharel, L. Tewala, G. Quiroz, D.A. Lidar. Dynamical decoupling for superconducting qubits: A performance survey. Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 064027 (2023).

https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.20.064027

15. S. D¨orscher, A. Al-Masoudi, M. Bober, R. Schwarz, R. Hobson, U. Sterr, C. Lisdat. Dynamical decoupling of laser phase noise in compound atomic clocks. Commun. Phys. 3, 185 (2020).

https://doi.org/10.1038/s42005-020-00452-9

16. I. Nodurft, A. Rodriguez Perez, N. Naimipour, G.C. Shaw. Suppressing polarization mode dispersion with the Quantum Zeno Effect. Entropy 27 (1), 27 (2025).

https://doi.org/10.3390/e27010027

17. A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, M.B. Plenio. Colloquium: Quantum coherence as a resource. Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 041003 (2017).

https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.89.041003

18. C. Radhakrishnan, M. Parthasarathy, S. Jambulingam, T. Byrnes. Quantum coherence of the Heisenberg spin models with Dzyaloshinsky-Moriya interactions. Sci. Rep. 7, 13865 (2017).

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-13871-6

19. T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, M. B. Plenio. Quantifying coherence. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 140401 (2014).

https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.140401

20. R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, K. Horodecki. Quantum entanglement. Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009).

https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.81.865

21. G. Vidal, R.F. Werner. Computable measure of entanglement. Phys. Rev. A 65, 032314 (2002).

https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.65.032314

22. W.K. Wootters. Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2245 (1998).

https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.2245

Published

2025-08-11

Issue

Section

General physics

How to Cite

Multiple Joint Weak Measurements as a Way to Suppress the Decoherence. (2025). Ukrainian Journal of Physics, 70(8), 516. https://doi.org/10.15407/ujpe70.8.516