This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Braiding and fusion of Majorana fermions in minimal Kitaev spin liquid
on a single hexagon with 55 qubits

Motohiko Ezawa Department of Applied Physics, University of Tokyo, Hongo 7-3-1, 113-8656, Japan
Abstract

We investigate the minimal Kitaev spin liquid on a single hexagon with three Ising-type exchange interactions proportional to KxK_{x}, KyK_{y} and KzK_{z}. In the limit Kz=0K_{z}=0, we find 32-fold zero-energy states, leading to 10 free Majorana fermions, and hence, 5 qubits are constructed. These qubits are protected by particle-hole symmetry even for Kz0K_{z}\neq 0. Braiding of these Majorana fermions is possible by temporally controlling a spin-correlation Hamiltonian. In addition, the fusion is possible by measuring the spin correlation. By switching on the Heisenberg interaction together with magnetic field, only one zero-energy state persists, which can be used as an initialization of qubits. Furthermore, it is shown that 3L+23L+2 qubits are constructed on the Kitaev spin liquid model on connected LL hexagons. All the processes of initialization, operation and readout of qubits are executable in terms of spin operators.

Introduction: A quantum computer is expected to be a most promising next generation computer[1, 2, 3], which can store 2N2^{N} information in NN qubit systems. A topological quantum computation based on Majorana fermions[4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11] is attractive, where NN qubits are constructed from 2N2N Majorana fermions. Majorana fermions are theoretically proposed to emerge in fractional quantum Hall effects[12, 13, 9, 14], topological superconductors[15, 16, 17, 18] and Kitaev spin liquids[19, 20, 21, 22]. The Kitaev topological superconductor model is the simplest fermionic model that hosts Majorana fermions[6]. Recently, the Minimal Kitaev model consisting of only two sites is realized in double quantum dots[23, 24]. In the view point of quantum computation, it is desirable to construct a model hosting many Majorana fermions with the use of smaller number of sites.

The Kitaev spin liquid is one of the prominent exactly solvable models on the honeycomb lattice realizing spin liquid with the emergence of Majorana zero modes[19]. It is defined on the honeycomb lattice, where there are three Ising-type exchange interactions (Kx,Ky,Kz\varpropto K_{x},K_{y},K_{z}) depending on the directions of bonds as shown in Fig.1(a). By representing the spin operator by a combination of Majorana fermion operators, the system turns into a free Majorana fermion model on the honeycomb lattice[19]. The theoretical proposal on the Kitaev spin liquid based on perovskite materials[20] evokes an intensive researches[25, 26, 27]. Experimental signature of Majorana fermions is observed by measuring a half quantization of thermal conductivity[27, 28]. Brading of Majorana states at vortices in the Kitaev spin liquid is theoretically proposed[29]. In addition to perovskite material realization, there are several proposals on the realization of the Kitaev spin liquid model in artificial systems such as qubits[30, 31], trapped ions[32], cold atoms[33, 34] and quantum dots[35]. One of the merit of these systems is that it is possible to construct an extremely small-size system and control model parameters temporally. The simplest system is a single hexagon. It is an interesting problem to study whether the Kitaev spin liquid model hosts Majorana fermions on a single hexagon.

In this paper, we investigate the minimal Kitaev spin liquid on a single hexagon. When Kz=0K_{z}=0, there are 32=25 zero-energy states, which leads to 5 qubits. These qubits are protected by particle-hole symmetry even for Kz0K_{z}\neq 0. Then, we construct braiding operators in terms of spin operators. A readout process of qubits is performed by the fusion protocol which measures the local spin correlation. An initialization is executed by switching on the Heisenberg interaction and magnetic field term, where only one zero-energy state is present.

Refer to caption

Figure 1: Kitaev spin liquid model on a single hexagon. (a) Illustration of the Kitaev spin liquid model on a single hexagon, where there are three-types of Ising interactions. (b) Energy spectrum with Kz=0K_{z}=0. There are 32-fold degenerate zero-energy states. (c) Energy spectrum as a function of Kz/KK_{z}/K. There are 24-fold degenerate zero-energy states and 8 nonzero energy states near the zero energy. (d) Energy spectrum with Kz=K/4K_{z}=K/4. We have set Kx=Ky=KK_{x}=K_{y}=K. The horizontal axes in (b) and (d) are eigenindices in the increasing order of the eigenenergy.

Minimal Kitaev spin liquid model: We study the Kitaev spin liquid model in an artificial system. Especially, we analyze the spin 1/21/2 system on the single hexagon based on the Kitaev model,

H^K=α=12H^Kα+H^Kz,\hat{H}_{\text{K}}=\sum_{\alpha=1}^{2}\hat{H}_{\text{K}\alpha}+\hat{H}_{\text{K}z}, (1)

with

H^Kα\displaystyle\hat{H}_{\text{K}\alpha} =Kxσ3α2xσ3α1xKyσ3α1yσ3αy,\displaystyle=-K_{x}\sigma_{3\alpha-2}^{x}\sigma_{3\alpha-1}^{x}-K_{y}\sigma_{3\alpha-1}^{y}\sigma_{3\alpha}^{y}, (2)
H^Kz\displaystyle\hat{H}_{\text{K}z} =Kz(σ3zσ4z+σ6zσ1z),\displaystyle=-K_{z}\left(\sigma_{3}^{z}\sigma_{4}^{z}+\sigma_{6}^{z}\sigma_{1}^{z}\right), (3)

where σiγ\sigma_{i}^{\gamma} is the Pauli matrix at the site ii with γ=x,y,z\gamma=x,y,z. The Ising-type exchange interaction KγσiγσjγK_{\gamma}\sigma_{i}^{\gamma}\sigma_{j}^{\gamma} is anisotropic depending on the direction of the link γ\gamma as illustrated in Fig.1(a). It contains 66 spins, and hence, there are 262^{6} states in total.

The Hamiltonian for the Kitaev quantum spin liquid is rewritten in terms of Majorana fermions by way of the Jordan Wigner transformation[36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41]. We number the site from 1 to 6 as shown in Fig.1(a). There are relations between the spin operators and the fermion operators: σj=Ωjcj\sigma_{j}^{-}=\Omega_{j}c_{j}, σj+=Ωjcj\sigma_{j}^{+}=\Omega_{j}c_{j}^{\dagger}, σjz=cjcj1/2\sigma_{j}^{z}=c_{j}^{\dagger}c_{j}-1/2 with Ωj=1j1exp[iπcc]\Omega_{j}\equiv\prod\limits_{\ell=1}^{j-1}\exp[i\pi c_{\ell}^{\dagger}c_{\ell}] and σj+12(σjx+iσjy)\sigma_{j}^{+}\equiv\frac{1}{2}(\sigma_{j}^{x}+i\sigma_{j}^{y}) and σj12(σjxiσjy)\sigma_{j}^{-}\equiv\frac{1}{2}(\sigma_{j}^{x}-i\sigma_{j}^{y}). Here, cjc_{j} and cjc_{j}^{\dagger} satisfy the anti-commutation relations, {ci,c}={ci,c}=0\{c_{i},c_{\ell}\}=\{c_{i}^{\dagger},c_{\ell}^{\dagger}\}=0, {ci,c}=δi\{c_{i},c_{\ell}^{\dagger}\}=\delta_{i\ell}. Furthermore, we introduce Majorana operators as γ2jA=c2j+c2j\gamma_{2j}^{A}=c_{2j}+c_{2j}^{\dagger}, γ2jB=(c2jc2j)/i\gamma_{2j}^{B}=(c_{2j}-c_{2j}^{\dagger})/i, γ2j+1A=(c2j+1c2j+1)/i\gamma_{2j+1}^{A}=(c_{2j+1}-c_{2j+1}^{\dagger})/i, γ2j+1B=c2j+1+c2j+1\gamma_{2j+1}^{B}=c_{2j+1}+c_{2j+1}^{\dagger} for j=1,2,3j=1,2,3. Then, the Hamiltonians (2) and (3) read

H^Kα\displaystyle\hat{H}_{\text{K}\alpha} =i(Kxγ3α2Aγ3α1AKyγ3α1Aγ3αA),\displaystyle=-i\left(K_{x}\gamma_{3\alpha-2}^{A}\gamma_{3\alpha-1}^{A}-K_{y}\gamma_{3\alpha-1}^{A}\gamma_{3\alpha}^{A}\right), (4)
H^Kz\displaystyle\hat{H}_{\text{K}z} =Kz4(γ3Aγ3Bγ4Aγ4B+γ6Aγ6Bγ1Aγ1B),\displaystyle=-\frac{K_{z}}{4}(\gamma_{3}^{A}\gamma_{3}^{B}\gamma_{4}^{A}\gamma_{4}^{B}+\gamma_{6}^{A}\gamma_{6}^{B}\gamma_{1}^{A}\gamma_{1}^{B}), (5)

in the Majorana form.

Particle-hole symmetry: The zero-energy states of the Hamiltonian with particle-hole symmetry are Majorana fermions[15, 16, 17, 18]. We discuss particle-hole symmetry in the Kitaev spin liquid. Particle-hole symmetry acts as P1γjAP=γjAP^{-1}\gamma_{j}^{A}P=\gamma_{j}^{A} and P1γjBP=γjBP^{-1}\gamma_{j}^{B}P=\gamma_{j}^{B} in terms of Majorana fermion operators, or P1cjP=cjP^{-1}c_{j}P=c_{j}^{\dagger} and P1cjP=cjP^{-1}c_{j}^{\dagger}P=c_{j} in terms of fermion operators. In terms of the spin operators, it acts as

P1σjxP\displaystyle P^{-1}\sigma_{j}^{x}P =(1)j1σjx,P1σjyP=(1)jσjy,\displaystyle=\left(-1\right)^{j-1}\sigma_{j}^{x},\qquad P^{-1}\sigma_{j}^{y}P=\left(-1\right)^{j}\sigma_{j}^{y},
P1σjzP\displaystyle P^{-1}\sigma_{j}^{z}P =σjz,\displaystyle=-\sigma_{j}^{z}, (6)

where we have used the relation P1ΩjP=(1)j1ΩjP^{-1}\Omega_{j}P=\left(-1\right)^{j-1}\Omega_{j}.

Under the particle-hole symmetry transformation, the Hamiltonian (1) is mapped to P1H^K(Kx,Ky,Kz)P=H^K(Kx,Ky,Kz)P^{-1}\hat{H}_{\text{K}}\left(K_{x},K_{y},K_{z}\right)P=-\hat{H}_{\text{K}}\left(K_{x},K_{y},-K_{z}\right). Hence, the Hamiltonian has particle-hole symmetry for Kz=0K_{z}=0. We later show that particle-hole symmetry is present even for Kz0K_{z}\neq 0 in the present model, as is consistant with Fig.1(d).

Minimal Kitaev spin chain models: We analyze the minimal Kitaev spin liquid model where KzK_{z} is much smaller than KxK_{x} and KyK_{y}. We first consider the limit Kz=0K_{z}=0 and later include the effect due to Kz0K_{z}\neq 0.

When we set Kz=0K_{z}=0 in Hamiltonian (1), it is decomposed[8, 37, 41] into two independent Kitaev spin chain models H^Kα\hat{H}_{\text{K}\alpha}. There are 232^{3} states because there are 3 spins for each α\alpha. By exactly diagonalizing H^Kα\hat{H}_{\text{K}\alpha} for each α\alpha, we find that there are 4-fold degenerate states with EK1=EK2=±Kx2+Ky2E_{\text{K1}}=E_{\text{K2}}=\pm\sqrt{K_{x}^{2}+K_{y}^{2}}. Note that there are no zero-energy states in each minimal Kitaev spin chain model.

However, the combined system has 8×8=648\times 8=64 states made of 32 zero-energy states and 32 nonzero-energy states irrespective of KxK_{x} and KyK_{y}. The Hamiltonian (4) is rewritten in the form

α=12H^Kα=Kx2+Ky2(iγ2Aγ¯1Aiγ5Aγ¯4A),\sum_{\alpha=1}^{2}\hat{H}_{\text{K}\alpha}=\sqrt{K_{x}^{2}+K_{y}^{2}}\left(i\gamma_{2}^{A}\bar{\gamma}_{1}^{A}-i\gamma_{5}^{A}\bar{\gamma}_{4}^{A}\right), (7)

where we have defined new Majorana operators

γ¯1A=Kxγ1A+Kyγ3AKx2+Ky2,γ¯4A=Kxγ4A+Kyγ6AKx2+Ky2.\bar{\gamma}_{1}^{A}=\frac{K_{x}\gamma_{1}^{A}+K_{y}\gamma_{3}^{A}}{\sqrt{K_{x}^{2}+K_{y}^{2}}},\qquad\ \bar{\gamma}_{4}^{A}=\frac{K_{x}\gamma_{4}^{A}+K_{y}\gamma_{6}^{A}}{\sqrt{K_{x}^{2}+K_{y}^{2}}}. (8)

Since the Hamiltonian (7) does not contain Majorana operators γ3A\gamma_{3}^{A}, γ6A\gamma_{6}^{A}, γjB\gamma_{j}^{B} with j=1,2,,6j=1,2,\cdots,6, we have [H^K,γ3A]=[H^K,γ6A]=0\left[\hat{H}_{\text{K}},\gamma_{3}^{A}\right]=\left[\hat{H}_{\text{K}},\gamma_{6}^{A}\right]=0 and [H^K,γjB]=0\left[\hat{H}_{\text{K}},\gamma_{j}^{B}\right]=0. Hence, there are 8 free Majorana fermions, from which we construct 4 fermion operators as f1A(γ3Aiγ6A)/2f_{1}^{A}\equiv\left(\gamma_{3}^{A}-i\gamma_{6}^{A}\right)/2 and fjB=(γ2j1Biγ2jB)/2f_{j}^{B}=\left(\gamma_{2j-1}^{B}-i\gamma_{2j}^{B}\right)/2 with j=1,2,3j=1,2,3. In addition, we introduce 2 fermion operators f2A(γ¯1Aiγ2A)/2f_{2}^{A}\equiv\left(\bar{\gamma}_{1}^{A}-i\gamma_{2}^{A}\right)/2 and f3A(γ¯4Aiγ5A)/2f_{3}^{A}\equiv\left(\bar{\gamma}_{4}^{A}-i\gamma_{5}^{A}\right)/2. The Hamiltonian (7) is rewritten in terms of these fermion operators as

α=12H^Kα=2Kx2+Ky2(n^2An^3A),\sum_{\alpha=1}^{2}\hat{H}_{\text{K}\alpha}=2\sqrt{K_{x}^{2}+K_{y}^{2}}\left(\hat{n}_{2}^{A}-\hat{n}_{3}^{A}\right), (9)

where we have defined the number operators n^2Af2Af2A=(iγ2Aγ¯1A+1)/2\hat{n}_{2}^{A}\equiv f_{2}^{A\dagger}f_{2}^{A}=\left(i\gamma_{2}^{A}\bar{\gamma}_{1}^{A}+1\right)/2 and n^3Af3Af3A=(iγ5Aγ¯4A+1)/2\hat{n}_{3}^{A}\equiv f_{3}^{A\dagger}f_{3}^{A}=\left(i\gamma_{5}^{A}\bar{\gamma}_{4}^{A}+1\right)/2. In the similar way, we define n^jA=fjAfjA\hat{n}_{j}^{A}=f_{j}^{A\dagger}f_{j}^{A} and n^jB=fjBfjB\hat{n}_{j}^{B}=f_{j}^{B\dagger}f_{j}^{B} with j=13j=1\sim 3. We consider the Hilbert space where n^jA\hat{n}_{j}^{A} and n^jB\hat{n}_{j}^{B} take the eigenvalues 0 and 11. We take f2Af_{2}^{A} to be a free fermion. Then, f3Af_{3}^{A} is determined by the zero-energy condition of the Hamiltonian (9). As a result, the Kitaev spin liquid model on the single hexagon contains 10 free Majorana fermions, or 5 qubits defined by |n2An1An3Bn2Bn1B\left|n_{2}^{A}n_{1}^{A}n_{3}^{B}n_{2}^{B}n_{1}^{B}\right\rangle.

Braiding: The basic operation on qubits is braiding defined[5] by αβ=exp[π4γβγα]\mathcal{B}_{\alpha\beta}=\exp\left[\frac{\pi}{4}\gamma_{\beta}\gamma_{\alpha}\right]. It is generalized[11] to an arbitrary angle such that αβ(θ)=exp[θγβγα]\mathcal{B}_{\alpha\beta}\left(\theta\right)=\exp\left[\theta\gamma_{\beta}\gamma_{\alpha}\right]. The unitary dynamics under the Hamiltonian HH reads U=exp[iHt/]U=\exp\left[-iHt/\hbar\right]. The generalized brading is executed by setting iHt/=θγβγα-iHt/\hbar=\theta\gamma_{\beta}\gamma_{\alpha}. Generalized braiding operators for BB Majorana fermions are rewritten in terms of spin operators as exp[θγ2j1Bγ2jB]=exp[iθσ2j1yσ2jy]\exp\left[\theta\gamma_{2j-1}^{B}\gamma_{2j}^{B}\right]=\exp\left[i\theta\sigma_{2j-1}^{y}\sigma_{2j}^{y}\right] for j=1,2,3j=1,2,3, and exp[θγ2jBγ2j+1B]=exp[iθσ2jxσ2j+1x]\exp\left[\theta\gamma_{2j}^{B}\gamma_{2j+1}^{B}\right]=\exp\left[i\theta\sigma_{2j}^{x}\sigma_{2j+1}^{x}\right] for j=1,2j=1,2. Generalized braiding operators for AA Majorana fermions are rewritten in terms of spin operators as

exp[θγ¯3j2Aγ3j1A]\displaystyle\exp\left[\theta\bar{\gamma}_{3j-2}^{A}\gamma_{3j-1}^{A}\right]
=exp[θKx2+Ky2(Kxγ3j2Aγ3j1AKyγ3j1Aγ3jA)]\displaystyle=\exp\left[\frac{\theta}{\sqrt{K_{x}^{2}+K_{y}^{2}}}\left(K_{x}\gamma_{3j-2}^{A}\gamma_{3j-1}^{A}-K_{y}\gamma_{3j-1}^{A}\gamma_{3j}^{A}\right)\right]
=exp[iθKx2+Ky2(Kxσ3j2xσ3j1xKyσ3j1yσ3jy)]\displaystyle=\exp\left[\frac{i\theta}{\sqrt{K_{x}^{2}+K_{y}^{2}}}\left(K_{x}\sigma_{3j-2}^{x}\sigma_{3j-1}^{x}-K_{y}\sigma_{3j-1}^{y}\sigma_{3j}^{y}\right)\right] (10)

for j=1,2j=1,2. Generalized braiding operators consisting of AA and BB Majorana fermions are rewritten in terms of spin operators as

exp[θγ2j1Aγ2j1B]\displaystyle\exp\left[\theta\gamma_{2j-1}^{A}\gamma_{2j-1}^{B}\right] =exp[2iθσ2j1z],\displaystyle=\exp\left[-2i\theta\sigma_{2j-1}^{z}\right], (11)
exp[θγ2jAγ2jB]\displaystyle\exp\left[\theta\gamma_{2j}^{A}\gamma_{2j}^{B}\right] =exp[2iθσ2jz].\displaystyle=\exp\left[-2i\theta\sigma_{2j}^{z}\right]. (12)

Hence, it is possible to execute braiding by temporally controlling the spin Hamiltonian.

Fusion: In order to readout the information of qubits based on Majorana fermions, the fusion protocol is used, where the fermion number constructed from Majorana fermions are observed. The fusion is a pair annihilation process of two Majorana fermions, which results in a single fermion (nj=1n_{j}=1) or a vacuum (nj=0n_{j}=0), and hence, the qubit njn_{j} can be readout. The fermion numbers of Majorana fermions are expressed in terms of spin operators as

n^jB\displaystyle\hat{n}_{j}^{B} fjBfjB=iγ2j1Bγ2jB/2=σ2j1yσ2jy,j=1,2,3,\displaystyle\equiv f_{j}^{B\dagger}f_{j}^{B}=-i\gamma_{2j-1}^{B}\gamma_{2j}^{B}/2=-\sigma_{2j-1}^{y}\sigma_{2j}^{y},\quad j=1,2,3,
n^2A\displaystyle\hat{n}_{2}^{A} f2Af2A=iγ¯1Aγ2A=iKxγ1A+Kyγ3AKx2+Ky2γ2A\displaystyle\equiv f_{2}^{A\dagger}f_{2}^{A}=-i\bar{\gamma}_{1}^{A}\gamma_{2}^{A}=-i\frac{K_{x}\gamma_{1}^{A}+K_{y}\gamma_{3}^{A}}{\sqrt{K_{x}^{2}+K_{y}^{2}}}\gamma_{2}^{A}
=KxKx2+Ky2σ1xσ2x+KyKx2+Ky2σ2yσ3y.\displaystyle=-\frac{K_{x}}{\sqrt{K_{x}^{2}+K_{y}^{2}}}\sigma_{1}^{x}\sigma_{2}^{x}+\frac{K_{y}}{\sqrt{K_{x}^{2}+K_{y}^{2}}}\sigma_{2}^{y}\sigma_{3}^{y}. (13)

Hence, the fusion is executed by measuring the local spin correlation σjxσj+1x\sigma_{j}^{x}\sigma_{j+1}^{x} and σjyσj+1y\sigma_{j}^{y}\sigma_{j+1}^{y}. On the other hand, it is difficult to readout n^1A\hat{n}_{1}^{A} because the number operator n^1A=iγ3Aγ6A\hat{n}_{1}^{A}=-i\gamma_{3}^{A}\gamma_{6}^{A} cannot be represented by a local spin correlation operator.

Nonzero KzK_{z}: We next consider the realistic case with Kz0K_{z}\neq 0. There are conserved quantities[36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41] known as the Z2Z_{2} gauge fields in the Hamiltonian (1). They are real variables u^34iγ3Bγ4B\hat{u}_{34}\equiv i\gamma_{3}^{B}\gamma_{4}^{B} and u^61iγ6Bγ1B\hat{u}_{61}\equiv i\gamma_{6}^{B}\gamma_{1}^{B}, satisfying [H^K,u^34]=[H^K,u^61]=0\left[\hat{H}_{\text{K}},\hat{u}_{34}\right]=\left[\hat{H}_{\text{K}},\hat{u}_{61}\right]=0 and u^342=u^612=1\hat{u}_{34}^{2}=\hat{u}_{61}^{2}=1. The Hilbert space is decomposed into the subspaces, where u^34\hat{u}_{34} and u^61\hat{u}_{61} take eigenvalues ±1\pm 1. In these subspaces, because the Hamiltonian (5) becomes in terms of Majorana fermions as in

H^Kz=iKz4(u^34γ3Aγ4A+u^61γ6Aγ1A),\hat{H}_{\text{K}z}=-i\frac{K_{z}}{4}(\hat{u}_{34}\gamma_{3}^{A}\gamma_{4}^{A}+\hat{u}_{61}\gamma_{6}^{A}\gamma_{1}^{A}), (14)

particle-hole symmetry is present. Hence, the Majorana states are particle-hole symmetry protected even for Kz0K_{z}\neq 0. Furthermore, it is possible to diagonalize exactly the Hamiltonian.

We show the energy spectrum as a function of Kz/KK_{z}/K with Kx=Ky=KK_{x}=K_{y}=K in Fig.1(c). There are 24 zero-energy states, 8 states with E=±Kx2+Ky2+Kz2E=\pm\sqrt{K_{x}^{2}+K_{y}^{2}+K_{z}^{2}} and other 24 states as shown in Fig.1(d). The energy spectrum is symmetric with respect to E=0E=0 as shown in Fig.1(c). For |Kz/K|1\left|K_{z}/K\right|\ll 1, 32 states are almost degenerate and it is possible to use 5 qubits even for Kz0K_{z}\neq 0.

Initialization: In quantum computation, it is necessary to prepare one unique quantum state as an initial state. For this purpose, we introduce the Heisenberg interaction[42, 43, 44] together with the magnetic field BzB_{z} along zz direction at the initial stage,

H^J=Ji,jγ=x,y,zσiγσjγBzj=16σjz,\hat{H}_{J}=J\sum_{\left\langle i,j\right\rangle}\sum_{\gamma=x,y,z}\sigma_{i}^{\gamma}\sigma_{j}^{\gamma}-B_{z}\sum_{j=1}^{6}\sigma_{j}^{z}, (15)

where we have set Kx=Ky=KzKK_{x}=K_{y}=K_{z}\equiv K. The Hamiltonian H^=H^K+H^J\hat{H}=\hat{H}_{\text{K}}+\hat{H}_{J} with Eq.(1) is analytically diagonalizable for the zero-energy state, and we find it given by

|ψ0\displaystyle\left|\psi_{0}\right\rangle\propto |010010+|010101+|011001+|110001\displaystyle\left|010010\right\rangle+\left|010101\right\rangle+\left|011001\right\rangle+\left|110001\right\rangle
(|001100+|100100+|101000+|101011).\displaystyle-(\left|001100\right\rangle+\left|100100\right\rangle+\left|101000\right\rangle+\left|101011\right\rangle). (16)

The state |ψ0\left|\psi_{0}\right\rangle is used for the initialization process of the qubits.

Refer to caption

Figure 2: Kitaev spin liquid model on double hexagons and triple hexagons. (a) Illustration of the Kitaev spin liquid model on double hexagons. Its energy spectrum with (b) Kz=0K_{z}=0 and (c) Kz=K/8K_{z}=K/8. (d) Illustration for the Kitaev spin liquid model on triple hexagons. Its energy spectrum with (e) Kz=0K_{z}=0 and (f) Kz=K/8K_{z}=K/8. Insets in (c) and (f) show the enlarged figures around the zero-energy states. We have set Kx=Ky=KK_{x}=K_{y}=K.

Kitaev spin liquid on connected hexagons: It is possible to generalize the Kitaev spin liquid model on a single hexagon to that on connected LL hexagons, where there are 4L+24L+2 spins. It is illustrated in the case of L=2L=2 and 33 in Fig.2(a) and (d). The Hamiltonian reads

H^K\displaystyle\hat{H}_{\text{K}} =j=1L(Kxσ2j1xσ2jx+Kyσ2jyσ2j+1y)\displaystyle=-\sum_{j=1}^{L}(K_{x}\sigma_{2j-1}^{x}\sigma_{2j}^{x}+K_{y}\sigma_{2j}^{y}\sigma_{2j+1}^{y})
j=1L(Kxσ2j1+2L+1xσ2j+2L+1x+Kyσ2j+2L+1yσ2j+1+2L+1y)\displaystyle-\sum_{j=1}^{L}(K_{x}\sigma_{2j-1+2L+1}^{x}\sigma_{2j+2L+1}^{x}+K_{y}\sigma_{2j+2L+1}^{y}\sigma_{2j+1+2L+1}^{y})
Kzj=1L+1σ2j1zσ4L+42jz.\displaystyle-K_{z}\sum_{j=1}^{L+1}\sigma_{2j-1}^{z}\sigma_{4L+4-2j}^{z}. (17)

It is rewritten in terms of Majorana fermions as

H^K=\displaystyle\hat{H}_{\text{K}}= ij=1L(Kxγ2j1Aγ2jAKyγ2jAγ2j+1A)\displaystyle-i\sum_{j=1}^{L}\left(K_{x}\gamma_{2j-1}^{A}\gamma_{2j}^{A}-K_{y}\gamma_{2j}^{A}\gamma_{2j+1}^{A}\right)
ij=1L(Kxγ2j1+2L+1Aγ2j+2L+1A\displaystyle-i\sum_{j=1}^{L}(K_{x}\gamma_{2j-1+2L+1}^{A}\gamma_{2j+2L+1}^{A}
Kyγ2j+2L+1Aγ2j+1+2L+1A)\displaystyle\qquad\qquad-K_{y}\gamma_{2j+2L+1}^{A}\gamma_{2j+1+2L+1}^{A})
ij=1L+1Kz4u2j1,4L+42jγ2j1Aγ4L+42jA,\displaystyle-i\sum_{j=1}^{L+1}\frac{K_{z}}{4}u_{2j-1,4L+4-2j}\gamma_{2j-1}^{A}\gamma_{4L+4-2j}^{A}, (18)

where the 2\mathbb{Z}_{2} gauge fields are given by

u2j1,4L+42jiγ2j1Bγ4L+42jB,j=1,,L+1.u_{2j-1,4L+4-2j}\equiv i\gamma_{2j-1}^{B}\gamma_{4L+4-2j}^{B},\quad j=1,\cdots,L+1. (19)

We first consider the case Kz=0K_{z}=0, where the system of hexagons is decomposed into two chains. The system is particle-hole symmetric. The energy spectrum is shown in Fig.2(b) and (e) for the case of L=2L=2 and 33. There are 23L+22^{3L+2}-fold degenerate zero-energy states. It is understood as follows. There are 2L+12L+1 free BB Majorana fermions because γjB\gamma_{j}^{B} does not appear in the Hamiltonian of each chain. On the other hand, there is one free AA Majorana fermion according to the Lieb theorem dictating the number of the zero-energy states in the bipartite system (18). Accordingly, the number of one type of sites is L+1L+1, while that of the other type of sites is LL. Hence, the difference is 11 in each chain, implying the presence of one free AA Majorana fermion in Hamiltonian (18). Hence, the number of free Majorana fermions is 2L+22L+2 in total, which results in the 2L+12^{L+1}-fold degeneracy in the energy spectrum. In addition, the diagonalization of the quadratic Hamiltonian (18) for γjA\gamma_{j}^{A} gives different eigenenergies each other. Hence, one Kitaev spin chain model with length LL has 2L2^{L} different states with 2L+12^{L+1}-fold degeneracy. They produces 23L+2=2L×2L+1×2L+12^{3L+2}=2^{L}\times 2^{L+1}\times 2^{L+1}-fold degenerate zero energy states in total. There emerge 23L+22^{3L+2} zero-energy states, and hence, 3L+23L+2 qubits are constructed.

We next consider the case Kz0K_{z}\neq 0. The energy spectrum is shown in Fig.2(c) and (f) for the case of L=2L=2 and 33, where particle-hole symmetry holds manifestly. This can be shown with the aid of the Z2Z_{2} gauge fields (19) as in the case of the single hexagon. Hence, the Majorana states are particle-hole symmetry protected even for Kz0K_{z}\neq 0.

Conclusion: In this paper, we have shown that the Kitaev spin liquid model on a single hexagon acts as a 5-qubit system. It is possible to prepare a unique initial state by introducing the Heisenberg interaction together with magnetic field and to execute braiding by controlling the local spin correlation Hamiltonian, while qubits are readout with the use of the fusion protocol by observing local spin correlators. In addition, an arbitrary number of qubits is constructed by using connected hexagons. Our results are more efficient comparing previous results on the emergence of Majorana fermions at in the Kitaev spin liquid model.

This work is supported by CREST, JST (Grants No. JPMJCR20T2) and Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from MEXT KAKENHI (Grant No. 23H00171).

References

  • [1] R. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 467 (1982).
  • [2] D. P. DiVincenzo, Quantum Computation, Science 270, 255 (1995).
  • [3] M. Nielsen and I. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cambridge University Press, (2016); ISBN 978-1-107-00217-3.
  • [4] S. B. Bravyi and A. Yu. Kitaev, Fermionic Quantum Computation, Annals of Physics 298, 210 (2002).
  • [5] D. A. Ivanov, Non-Abelian statistics of half-quantum vortices in p-wave superconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 268 (2001).
  • [6] A. Yu Kitaev, Unpaired Majorana fermions in quantum wires, Phys.-Usp. 44 131 (2001).
  • [7] A. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Ann. Phys. 303, 2 (2003).
  • [8] A. Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond, Ann. Phys. 321, 2 (2006).
  • [9] S. Das Sarma, M. Freedman, and C. Nayak, Topologically protected qubits from a possible non-Abelian fractional quantum Hall state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 166802 (2005).
  • [10] C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, and S. Das Sarma, Non-Abelian anyons and topological quantum computation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1083 (2008).
  • [11] M. Ezawa, Systematic construction of topological-nontopological hybrid universal quantum gates based on many-body Majorana fermion interactions arXiv:2304.06260.
  • [12] N. Read and D. Green, Paired states of fermions in two dimensions with breaking of parity and time-reversal symmetries and the fractional quantum Hall effect, Phys. Rev. B 61, 10267 (2000).
  • [13] N. Read, Non-Abelian braid statistics versus projective permutation statistics, J. Math. Phys. 44, 558 (2003).
  • [14] M. Freedman, C. Nayak and K. Walker, Towards universal topological quantum computation in the ν=5/2\nu=5/2 fractional quantum Hall state, Phys. Rev. B 73, 245307 (2006).
  • [15] X.-L. Qi, S.-C. Zhang, Topological insulators and superconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1057 (2011).
  • [16] J. Alicea, New directions in the pursuit of Majorana fermions in solid state systems, Rep. Prog. Phys. 75, 076501 (2012).
  • [17] M. Sato and Y. Ando, Topological superconductors: a review, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 076501 (2017).
  • [18] J. Alicea, Y. Oreg, G. Refael, F. von Oppen and M.P.A. Fisher, Non-Abelian statistics and topological quantum information processing in 1D wire networks, Nat. Phys. 7, 412 (2011).
  • [19] A. Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond, Annals of Physics 321, 2 (2006).
  • [20] G. Jackeli and G. Khaliullin, Mott Insulators in the Strong Spin-Orbit Coupling Limit: From Heisenberg to a Quantum Compass and Kitaev Models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 017205 (2009).
  • [21] Yukitoshi Motome and Joji Nasu, Hunting Majorana Fermions in Kitaev Magnets, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 89, 012002 (2020).
  • [22] Simon Trebst and Ciaran Hickey, Kitaev materials, Phys. Rep. 9501 (2022).
  • [23] Tom Dvir, Guanzhong Wang, Nick van Loo, Chun-Xiao Liu, Grzegorz P. Mazur, Alberto Bordin, Sebastiaan L. D. ten Haaf, Ji-Yin Wang, David van Driel, Francesco Zatelli, Xiang Li, Filip K. Malinowski, Sasa Gazibegovic, Ghada Badawy, Erik P. A. M. Bakkers, Michael Wimmer and Leo P. Kouwenhoven, Realization of a minimal Kitaev chain in coupled quantum dots, Nature 614, 445 (2023).
  • [24] Alberto Bordin, Xiang Li, David van Driel, Jan Cornelis Wolff, Qingzhen Wang, Crossed Andreev reflection and elastic co-tunneling in a three-site Kitaev chain nanowire device, arXiv:2306.07696.
  • [25] A. Banerjee, C. A. Bridges, J.-Q. Yan, A. A. Aczel, L. Li, M. B. Stone, G. E. Granroth, M. D. Lumsden, Y. Yiu, J. Knolle, S. Bhattacharjee, D. L. Kovrizhin, R. Moessner, D. A. Tennant, D. G. Mandrus and S. E. Nagler, Proximate Kitaev quantum spin liquid behaviour in a honeycomb magnet, Nature Materials 15, 733 (2016).
  • [26] Seung-Hwan Do, Sang-Youn Park, Junki Yoshitake, Joji Nasu, Yukitoshi Motome, Yong Seung Kwon, D. T. Adroja, D. J. Voneshen, Kyoo Kim, T.-H. Jang, J.-H. Park, Kwang-Yong Choi & Sungdae Ji Majorana fermions in the Kitaev quantum spin system α\alpha-RuCl3, Nature Physics 13, 1079 (2017).
  • [27] Y. Kasahara, T. Ohnishi, Y. Mizukami, O. Tanaka, Sixiao Ma, K. Sugii, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, J. Nasu, Y. Motome, T. Shibauchi, Y. Matsuda, Majorana quantization and half-integer thermal quantum Hall effect in a Kitaev spin liquid, Nature 559, 227 (2018).
  • [28] T. Yokoi, S. Ma, Y. Kasahara , S. Kasahara, T. Shibauchi, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, J. Nasu, Y. Motome, X, C. Hickey, S. Trebst and Y. Matsuda, Half-integer quantized anomalous thermal Hall effect in the Kitaev material candidate α\alpha-RuCl3, Science 373, 6554 (2021).
  • [29] Seong-Hoon Jang, Yasuyuki Kato and Yukitoshi Motome, Vortex creation and control in the Kitaev spin liquid by local bond modulations, Phys. Rev. B 104, 085142 (2021).
  • [30] X. Xiao, J. K. Freericks, and A. F. Kemper, Determining quantum phase diagrams of topological kitaev-inspired models on nisq quantum hardware, Quantum 5, 553 (2021).
  • [31] T. A. Bespalova and O. Kyriienko, Quantum simulationand ground state preparation for the honeycomb kitaev model, arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.13883 (2021).
  • [32] R. Schmied, J. H. Wesenberg, and D. Leibfried, Quantum simulation of the hexagonal kitaev model with trapped ions, New Journal of Physics 13, 115011 (2011).
  • [33] L.-M. Duan, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Controlling Spin Exchange Interactions of Ultracold Atoms in Optical Lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 090402 (2003).
  • [34] B.-Y. Sun, N. Goldman, M. Aidelsburger, and M. Bukov, Engineering and probing non-abelian chiral spin liquids using periodically driven ultracold atoms, PRX Quantum 4, 020329 (2023).
  • [35] Tessa Cookmeyer and Sankar Das Sarma, Engineering the Kitaev spin liquid in a quantum dot system, arXiv:2310.18393.
  • [36] H.-D. Chen and J. Hu, Exact mapping between classical and topological orders in two-dimensional spin systems, Phys. Rev. B 76, 193101 (2007).
  • [37] X.-Y. Feng, G.-M. Zhang, and T. Xiang, Topological Characterization of Quantum Phase Transitions in a Spin-1/2 Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 087204 (2007).
  • [38] H.-D. Chen, and Z. Nussinov, Exact results of the Kitaev model on a hexagonal lattice: spin states, string and brane correlators, and anyonic excitations, J. Phys. A Math. Theor. 41, 075001 (2008).
  • [39] J. Nasu, M. Udagawa, and Y. Motome, Vaporization of Kitaev Spin Liquids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 197205 (2014).
  • [40] J. Nasu, M. Udagawa, and Y. Motome, Thermal fractionalization of quantum spins in a Kitaev model: Temperature-linear specific heat and coherent transport of Majorana fermions, Phys. Rev. B 92, 115122 (2015).
  • [41] Karyn Le Hur, Ariane Soret and Fan Yang, Majorana spin liquids, topology, and superconductivity in ladders, Phys. Rev. B 96, 205109 (2017).
  • [42] J. Chaloupka, G. Jackeli, and G. Khaliullin, Kitaev-Heisenberg Model on a Honeycomb Lattice: Possible Exotic Phases in Iridium Oxides A2IrO3, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 , 027204 (2010).
  • [43] Yogesh Singh, S. Manni, J. Reuther, T. Berlijn, R. Thomale, W. Ku, S. Trebst, and P. Gegenwart, Relevance of the Heisenberg-Kitaev Model for the Honeycomb Lattice Iridates A2IrO3, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 127203 (2012).
  • [44] J. Chaloupka, G. Jackeli, and G. Khaliullin, Zigzag Magnetic Order in the Iridium Oxide Na2IrO3, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 , 097204 (2013).