Quantum Information & Computation
Volume 25, Issue 3
RESEARCH ARTICLE Open access

Quantum Entanglement Dynamics and Concurrence Preservation in a Noisy Two-Qubit System with External Control Field

Karim Ghorbani, Reza Rezaee

Author affiliations
  1. Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Arak University, Arak, Iran

pp. 290-298 · 10.2478/qic-2025-0015

Read PDF View on Reference Global
On this page

Abstract

Entanglement is an essential resource for quantum information processing; however, it is highly susceptible to decoherence induced by environmental interactions. In this work, we investigate the entanglement dynamics of a two-qubit system subjected to Markovian noise and explore the effectiveness of external control fields in preserving quantum correlations. Using the Lindblad master equation, we model the evolution of the system under two decoherence channels, namely, amplitude damping (spontaneous emission) and phase damping (dephasing). We introduce periodic driving and optimal control protocols to mitigate entanglement loss and analyze their impact using concurrence as a quantifier of two-qubit entanglement. Our numerical results reveal certain conditions under which sudden death of entanglement can be delayed or even prevented. Additionally, in the case of the initial state being a mixed state, we identify time regimes where entanglement revival occurs, providing insights into quantum error correction strategies. The results contribute to the broader understanding of quantum coherence preservation and have implications for quantum computing, secure quantum communication, and quantum memory design.
Open accessCC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Keywords

  • quantum entanglement
  • two-qubit system
  • external control field
  • concurrence

Suggested citation

Karim Ghorbani, Reza Rezaee (2025). Quantum Entanglement Dynamics and Concurrence Preservation in a Noisy Two-Qubit System with External Control Field. Quantum Information & Computation, 25(3), 290-298. https://doi.org/10.2478/qic-2025-0015

Download BibTeX

References (28)

  1. R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki (2009). “Quantum entanglement”. Reviews of Modern Physics 81, 865–942, arXiv:quant-ph/0702225.DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.81.865Google Scholar
  2. C. G. Timpson (2013). Quantum Information Theory and the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford University Press.DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199296460.001.0001Google Scholar
  3. G. Vidal and R. F. Werner (2002). “Computable measure of entanglement”. Physical Review A 65, 032314.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.65.032314Google Scholar
  4. N.J. Cerf and C. Adami (1998). “Quantum information theory of entanglement”. Physica D 120, 62–81, arXiv:quant-ph/9605039.DOI: 10.1016/S0167-2789(98)00045-1Google Scholar
  5. J. Emerson, D. Gottesman, S. A. H. Mousavian, and V. Veitch (2014). “The resource theory of stabilizer quantum computation”. New Journal of Physics 16: 1, 013009, arXiv:1307.7171 [quant-ph].DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/16/1/013009Google Scholar
  6. S. Pirandola et al. (2020). “Advances in quantum cryptography”. Advances in Optics and Photonics 12: 4, 1012–1236, arXiv:1906.01645 [quant-ph].DOI: 10.1364/AOP.361502Google Scholar
  7. N. Laflorencie (2016). “Quantum entanglement in condensed matter systems”. Physics Reports 646, 1–59, arXiv:1512.03388 [cond-mat.str-el].DOI: 10.1016/j.physrep.2016.06.008Google Scholar
  8. L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral (2008). “Entanglement in many-body systems”. Reviews of Modern Physics 80, 517–576, arXiv:quant-ph/0703044.DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.80.517Google Scholar
  9. A. Streltsov, U. Singh, H. S. Dhar, M. N. Bera, and G. Adesso (2015). “Measuring Quantum Coherence with Entangle-ment”. Physical Review Letters 115: 2, 020403, arXiv:1502.05876 [quant-ph].DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.020403Google Scholar
  10. P. V. Klimov et al. (2024). “Optimizing quantum gates towards the scale of logical qubits”. Nature Communications 15: 1, 2442, arXiv:2308.02321 [quant-ph].DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-46623-yGoogle Scholar
  11. M.-H. Hsieh, I. Devetak, and T. Brun (2007). “General entanglement-assisted quantum error-correcting codes”. Physical Review A 76, 062313.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.76.062313Google Scholar
  12. M.-L. Hu, X.-Q. Xi, and H.-L. Lian (2009). “Thermal and phase decoherence effects on entanglement dynamics of the quantum spin systems”. Physica B: Condensed Matter 404: 20, 3499–3506.DOI: 10.1016/j.physb.2009.05.041Google Scholar
  13. J. Zhang (2013). “Entanglement dynamics of two-qubit pure state”. Quantum Information Processing 12, 1627–166.DOI: 10.1007/s11128-012-0411-xGoogle Scholar
  14. J. Feng-Jian, S. Ming-Jun, and D. Jiang-Feng (2011). “Entanglement dynamics of arbitrary two-qubit pure states under amplitude and phase damping channels”. Chinese Physics Letters 28: 2, 020308–020308.DOI: 10.1088/0256-307X/28/2/020308Google Scholar
  15. L. S. Silveira and R. M. Angelo (2017). “Classical-hidden-variable description for entanglement dynamics of two-qubit pure states”. Physical Review A 95, 062105.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.95.062105Google Scholar
  16. M. A. Nielsen, I. L. Chuang (1992). Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner (1992). “Communication via one-and two-particle operators on einstein-podolsky-rosen states”. Physical Review Letters 69, 2881–2884.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.2881Google Scholar
  18. C. H. Bennett (1992). “Quantum cryptography using any two nonorthogonal states”. Physical Review Letters 68, 3121–3124.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.3121Google Scholar
  19. C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters (1993). “Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels”. Physical Review Letters 70, 1895–1899.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.1895Google Scholar
  20. G. Lindblad (1976). “On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups”. Communications in Mathematical Physics 48, 119–130.DOI: 10.1007/BF01608499Google Scholar
  21. K.-T. Guo, M.-C. Liang, H.-Y. Xu, and C.-B. Zhu (2011). “Entanglement in a two-spin (1/2, 3/2) mixed-spin Heisenberg XX chain with an inhomogeneous external magnetic field”. Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy 54, 491–495.DOI: 10.1007/s11433-011-4257-5Google Scholar
  22. V. Eisler and Z. Zimborás (2005). “Entanglement in the xx spin chain with an energy current”. Physical Review A 71, 042318.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.71.042318Google Scholar
  23. X. S. Ma (2008). “Thermal entanglement of a two-qutrit xx spin chain with dzialoshinski–moriya interaction”. Optics Communications 281: 3, 484–488.DOI: 10.1016/j.optcom.2007.09.047Google Scholar
  24. S. Hill and W. K. Wootters (1997). “Entanglement of a pair of quantum bits”. Physical Review Letters 78, 5022–5025, arXiv:quant-ph/9703041.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.5022Google Scholar
  25. W. K. Wootters (1998). “Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits”. Physical Review Letters 80, 2245–2248, arXiv:quant-ph/9709029.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.2245Google Scholar
  26. K. S. A. R. Conn and L. N. Vicente (2009). “Introduction to derivative-free optimization”. MPS-SIAM Book Series on Optimization.DOI: 10.1137/1.9780898718768Google Scholar
  27. H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione (2002). The Theory of Open Quantum Systems. Oxford University Press.DOI: 10.1007/3-540-44874-8_4Google Scholar
  28. H.-h. Miao and W.-s. Li (2025). “Entanglement and quantum discord in the cavity QED models”. Heliyon 11, 41194, arXiv:2307.07352 [quant-ph].DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e41194Google Scholar