abstract: Plasma jets are widely investigated both in the laboratory and in nature. Astrophysical objects such as black holes, active galactic nuclei, and young stellar objects commonly emit plasma jets in various forms. With the availability of data from plasma jet experiments resembling astrophysical plasma jets, classification of such data would potentially aid in investigating not only the underlying physics of the experiments but the study of astrophysical jets. In this work we use deep learning to process all of the laboratory plasma images from the Caltech Spheromak Experiment spanning two decades. We found that cosine similarity can aid in feature selection, classify images through comparison of feature vector direction, and be used as a loss function for the training of AlexNet for plasma image classification. We also develop a simple vector direction comparison algorithm for binary and multi-class classification. Using our algorithm we demonstrate 93% accurate binary classification to distinguish unstable columns from stable columns and 92% accurate five-way classification of a small, labeled data set which includes three classes corresponding to varying levels of kink instability.
author: Michael J. Falato, Bradley T. Wolfe, Tali M. Natan, Xinhua Zhang, Ryan S. Marshall, Yi Zhou, Paul M. Bellan; Zhehui Wang
bibliography: cs.bib
title: Plasma Image Classification Using Cosine Similarity Constrained CNN

# Introduction

Big data and machine learning are monumental to the furthering of science. With many existing large image data sets , machine learning and deep learning have become extremely effective at classifying such data . Data sets for classification consist of different object types, or classes, and the true class labels for the images are known as the "ground truth". The task of classifying images given the ground truth of a training data set is known as supervised classification. In this study we perform classification of greyscale images from the Caltech Spheromak Experiment , where plasma jets and spheromaks are created and photographed in a vacuum chamber. Initial classification of data from this experiment is desirable in that it provides a starting point for further investigation into machine recognition of the underlying physics in the experiment from optical images, as well as extrapolation from laboratory plasma jets to our understanding of astrophysical plasma jets.

Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are known to excel at supervised image classification , where they achieve state of the art accuracy on benchmarks such as the Imagenet benchmark . Feature engineering is another common practice in machine learning and classification, where hand-defined, or engineered, features of images are often used in classification tasks to differentiate between images. The values of these features are organized into an array, which is used as a feature vector representing an image in the feature space. This study classifies both engineered feature vectors and output feature vectors from CNNs through the angle between feature vectors or similarly, the cosine of the angle between feature vectors known as the cosine similarity. Figure 1 displays a mock example of how this is done.

Cosine similarity has been used in face verification , it can replace the dot product between output layers and weight vectors before activation layers in multi-layer networks , and it has been used to select robust feature subsets in genomic data analysis . Cosine similarity has also been used to adaptively refine clustering results in a pair-wise binary classification scheme , and it is used in natural language processing to compare word embeddings . Cosine similarity has not yet been used to classify laboratory plasma images, and an algorithm that performs well using it to classify feature vectors is desirable given its simplicity. In this work we describe laboratory plasma image classification using cosine similarity.

In addition, this study uses AlexNet , one of the most well known CNNs, to achieve notably accurate transfer learning. Furthermore, we use cosine similarity of image feature vectors as a loss function for our instance of AlexNet, to select relevant features, and to classify images directly. If cosine similarity shows reasonable results in the ability to characterize similarity/difference between vectors in different classes based on specific features, then it should also be able to perform in a simple classification algorithm using vector direction comparison akin to the mock example from Figure 1. This work validates this idea by selecting features that distinguish the feature vector directions for images in a specific class from others. We train an instance of AlexNet to increase the cosine similarity of output feature vectors of images in the same class while attempting to orthogonalize feature vectors of images in different classes. We find that using a simple direction comparison algorithm with the output vectors from this instance of AlexNet achieves classification accuracies notably higher than traditional transfer learning with cross entropy.

The remainder of this work is organized as: Methods and Results, where we give the details of the algorithms and image processing procedures while noting results obtained in using cosine similarity for feature selection and classification with AlexNet, Discussion, where the results and implications are assessed and future avenues are discussed, and Summary, where the key ideas from the paper are summarized.

# Methods and Results

## Data Sets

Our goal is to classify plasma jet images from the Caltech Spheromak Experiment , where laboratory plasma jets are created and rich phenomena including kink instabilities are observed. Thus, our data sets consist of images sorted from this experiment. We create two data sets, one small data set (about 1000 images) with ground truth labels and one large data set (about 45000 images) with no ground truth labels.

For our small data set we sort the data into five classes, pertaining to five types of images that appear frequently in the experiment. Figure 2 shows a representative image from each class as an example, with a false colour map on each greyscale image. The classes are as follows: Haze, which corresponds to a general diffuse and spread-out plasma configuration, Spider, which corresponds to an initial eight plasma arcs tracing a background poloidal magnetic field occurring near the inception of a plasma jet, Column, a straight plasma jet showing little kink instability, Kink, an unstable column showing kink instability akin to a corkscrew shape, and Sphere, corresponding to anomalous spherical arrangements of pixels and plasma columns breaking off of the jet to form spheromaks. The number of images in each class for this small data set is 226, 111, 130, 295, and 390 for Haze, Spider, Column, Kink, and Sphere, respectively. We split each class in this set with a randomly distributed fractional split of 0.5, 0.25, and 0.25 and compile the corresponding splits of each class for training, validation, and test sets, respectively.

For our large data set, we separate images from the total data of about 300000 raw images using an instance of ResNet152 to distinguish between images based on quality. We select 45000 high quality images for our large, unlabeled data set. We set aside this large data set without labels for use in section 2.6 at the end of this work. For a thorough introduction to the experiment yielding these images and the theory involved, see .

## Feature Selection Using Cosine Similarity

To classify our small data set, we first turn to statistical and information theoretic features of images. We conduct feature extraction on our data set, inspired by the ability to view a greyscale image as a two dimensional intensity distribution. We transform each image into four statistical distributions, $P(x,y)$, $P(x)$, $P(y)$, and $P(v)$, for the collection of features from these distributions. An example of these distributions obtained from an image can be seen in Figure 3, which displays an image, projections to the three distributions, $P(x,y)$, $P(x)$, and $P(y)$, and an example of the $P(v)$ distribution retrieved from the image. The quantitative description of each distribution is expressed in Appendix A. In order to obtain $P(x,y)$, the greyscale image matrix is normalized by dividing by the full intensity value of the image. $P(x)$ and $P(y)$ are obtained by summing along the y-axis and x-axis of the image, respectively, then normalizing by the total intensity of the image. $P(v)$ is obtained by taking a histogram of pixel values of an image.

With four distributions, we extract nineteen basic features from statistical and information theoretic quantities of the distributions, and we also include the total intensity value of each image as a feature. The quantitative description of each feature is expressed in Appendix A. The features are quite natural and easily calculable from an image and its distributions. They are as follows: the total intensity of the image (one feature), the raw mean and central variance of the $P(x)$, $P(y)$, and $P(v)$ distributions (six features), the third and fourth standardized moments of the $P(x)$, $P(y)$, and $P(v)$ distributions (six features), the entropy of each distribution (four features), the conditional entropies of the $P(x,y)$ distribution (two features), and the mutual information between the $P(x)$ and $P(y)$ distributions (one feature). These features can be computed on different pixel value ranges, allowing more features to be computed. We opt to compute the features on pixels valued from 200-300.

In order to search for features that can distinguish classes, we create "cosine similarity matrices" which display the pair-wise average cosine similarity of classes. Generally, for each pair of two classes, we compute the cosine similarity ($c.s. = \hat{u}\cdot\hat{v}$) for each pair of vectors between the classes and calculate the average. We then display the results in a cosine similarity matrix, where the cross sections display the average cosine similarity value obtained between classes. It is expected that a proper feature set will have a matrix with diagonals, which include the similarity of each class with itself, with higher values compared to the off-diagonals, such that a matrix with diagonals of one and off-diagonals of negative one would be the perfect result.

Specifically, we compute cosine similarity matrices yielded from all subsets of two features from the original twenty features and exhaustively search for a well behaved cosine similarity matrix indicating features geared towards a specific classification task. In Figure 4 we show a selection of a cosine similarity matrix from this search, with the mutual information of the $P(x)$ and $P(y)$ distributions, $I(x,y)$, and the mean of the $P(y)$ distribution for the features. From the cosine similarity of class one (spider) with itself compared to the cosine similarity of class one with the other four classes, these two features show potential for a binary, class one vs. non class one (spider vs non-spider) classification simply using comparison of feature vectors to a representative sample of class one vectors. Unfortunately, we do not see any matrices optimized for a full five-way classification of the data set from cosine similarity matrices of all possible feature vectors of length two, three, and four from our list of twenty features. Thus we conclude that these features are not good choices for our five-way plasma image classification goal.

## A Binary Classification Algorithm Using Cosine Similarity of Feature Vectors

We opt to construct a simple classifier using feature vector direction comparison for the following two reasons: one, to demonstrate the uses of cosine similarity for feature extraction by using the algorithm on the feature vectors that yielded Figure 4, and two, for the potential of the algorithm to be used with vectors that yield a more well behaved cosine similarity matrix and potential for multi-class classification.

Our binary classification algorithm is diagrammed in Figure 5 and outlined in the Algorithm 1 block. It is essentially a vector direction comparison algorithm. We first "train" the algorithm by selecting a representative sample of training images from the class. We extract feature vectors from each image in the training sample, and we compute the average cosine similarity of a large number of random pairs of feature vectors within the sample. Here the algorithm "learns" the similarity of images belonging to that class. The cosine similarity values calculated from "training" have a distribution with a training mean, $\mu$, and training standard deviation, $\sigma$. A test image, to be classified as in the class or not, is introduced to the algorithm, where its features are extracted and its cosine similarity is calculated with a satisfactory number (usually all) of the training samples. These new cosine similarity values have a test mean, $\mu^{*}$, which can be compared to the training mean. The training mean is representative of the average similarity an image in the class should have with its members, and the test mean represents the average similarity of the test image with the class. Classification is reduced to a threshold function, $\tau(\mu,\mu^{*},\sigma)$, which simply decides an image is in the class if $\mu^{*}$, the test mean, is greater than $\mu - \gamma\sigma$. $\gamma$ is the only parameter featured in the algorithm.

This binary classification method is used on the small data set with the same features from Figure 4 as a feature vector of length two for each image. We implement the method with fifty training samples from the spider class and fifty test samples from each class totalling 250 images to be classified. We choose to sample 1000 random pairs in the training set for the computation of $\mu$, and every vector in the training set is compared with the test images for the computation of $\mu^*$. $\gamma$ is chosen to be $0.01$ for optimal results. The results of spider versus non-spider binary classification using these presets are shown through an extended confusion matrix in Figure 6, where the algorithm performs surprisingly well despite its simplicity. Given a spider image, the algorithm classifies it as a spider with 80% accuracy. For the remaining classes, the algorithm correctly classifies images as non-spider with 87.5% average accuracy. In order to test the need for large amounts of training data, the same confusion matrix is calculated using 100 training pairs instead of 1000 with which the algorithm correctly classifies spiders and non-spiders with 94% and 83% accuracy, respectively.

## Transfer Learning Using Cosine Embedding and Cross Entropy Loss

The results of the binary classification algorithm motivated us to conduct transfer learning on our plasma data set using both the cosine embedding loss function and the cross entropy loss function. This was done to attempt the full five-way classification of our data set and to probe how the training on our data set with different loss functions, specifically one related to cosine similarity, would allow for a well behaved cosine similarity matrix from output vectors of the network.

We start AlexNet with the pretrained weights from pytorch , which pertain to weights obtained upon the training of AlexNet on the Imagnet dataset . The training, validation, and testing fractional split of our data is 0.5, 0.25, and 0.25. We use Amazon Web Service's Sagemaker for training along with hyperparameter optimization. We choose to optimize the learning rate (0.001 to 0.2), epoch number (5 to 100), and batch size (10 to 60) for cross entropy training and achieve five-way classification accuracies of 88% for validation and 84% for testing. For cosine similarity trained AlexNet, we choose the cosine embedding loss function, which works to maximize cosine similarity for objects in the same class and orthogonalizing objects in different classes. We implement the cosine embedding loss by using a hyperparameter, $\lambda$. In our classification, image labels are conventionally one-hot vectors, such as (0 0 1 0 0) corresponding to an image in class three from one to five. We then take predictions of the same form, where we simply take the maximum input in a vector, set it to one, and set the remaining inputs to zero. However, the cosine embedding loss between one-hot vectors results in gradients of one when the prediction is correct and zero when the prediction is incorrect. By setting all of the zeros in one-hot vectors to equal $\lambda$, we achieve the ability to conduct gradient descent, and thus, minimize the loss while also adding a parameter that tunes the direction of output vectors. If we set $\lambda$ to a constant negative one, we can perform gradient descent, but we heavily weight the direction of vectors through the inputs of negative one. We implement $\lambda$ with a range of -0.4 to -0.05 while using the same hyperparameter ranges from cross entropy training for all other hyperparameters, and we achieve five-way classification accuracies of 89% for validation and 82% for testing.

For a visualization of the activation differences between the trained versions of AlexNet, we employ the Gradient-Weighted Class Activation Mapping method . The method highlights key areas of an image that allow the network to recognize a class by using the incoming gradients to the last convolutional layer of a network. Since the last convolutional layer contains the last instance of spatial information before being flattened in the fully connected layers, it ideally contains the most relevant class-specific feature activations which contribute to the fully connected layers and classification. The method is implemented using readily available code, with results shown in Figure 7. We note that the cross entropy trained model prioritized less of the total shapes for recognition of the column and kink images opposed to the cosine similarity trained model, which uses the majority of the kink and column shapes for their recognition.

In addition to training using the cross entropy and cosine embedding losses, we also perform gradient descent using the cosine embedding loss on the final 4096 dimensional ReLU layer of AlexNet, with the aim of yielding a model that retrieves outputs with a well-behaved cosine similarity matrix of embedded vectors for use with our classification algorithm. The general training process is shown in Figure 8.

We perform gradient descent with no classification results due to the final layer of the network no longer being a fully connected layer with outputs corresponding to classification.

We then use the three trained models and compute cosine similarity matrices on output vectors from the final ReLU layer to display the differences in the cosine similarity of the final vectors before classification. Note that we perform this using the images from the test set only. Figure 9 shows these results, which demonstrate that conventional transfer learning of AlexNet does not necessarily include an optimization of cosine similarity between the final ReLU layer for images in the same class. Training by performing gradient descent on the embeddings themselves potentially gives the model the ability to perform with our vector direction comparison algorithm, so much so that vector direction comparison using cosine similarity could potentially be used to conduct full five-way classification of the test data set.

## Binary and Five-Way Classification Using Our Algorithm

Since mere vector direction comparison seemed to work effectively with binary classification based on a cosine similarity matrix optimized towards one class (i.e. Figure 4), we expand the algorithm to include multi-class classification to use with the output vectors of AlexNet when trained on embeddings. Given Figure 9c, which shows the cosine similarity matrix obtained from the output vectors from this instance of AlexNet on the test set, the results should be notably better than the binary results for the engineered features (Figure 6). Now vectors in the same class, on average, are relatively aligned compared to vectors in different classes which have a comparably large angle between them.

From our previous cosine similarity matrices obtained with engineered feature vectors and the traditionally trained cross entropy and cosine similarity models, there had yet to be a cosine similarity matrix indicating a strong distinction between kink and column images. Figure 9c displays a strong distinction of kink and column images. This is important since there is a key physical distinction between kinks and columns which depends on the ratio of the current in the plasma divided by the flux of the background poloidal magnetic field through the an inner plasma gun electrode . As an example of how the algorithm should perform better given a more well behaved set of vectors, we perform kink versus non-kink classification using the binary algorithm from section 2.3 with $\gamma$ set to $100$ for optimal results and 1000 randomly sampled training pairs. We display the results via confusion matrix in the left of Figure 10. Given a kink image, the algorithm notably classifies it as a kink with 92% accuracy. For the remaining classes, the algorithm correctly classifies images in our test set as non-kink with 96% average accuracy. It should also be noted that in distinguishing between stable columns and columns exhibiting kink instability, the algorithm is 93% accurate. With ten training samples instead of 1000, the accuracies are robust at 92% and 97% for kink and non-kinks, respectively.

Since a binary classification of vectors with well behaved cosine similarity achieved notable results, we modify the binary classification algorithm to perform multi-class classification based on an image being classified to the class it is most similar with. The modified algorithm is shown in the Algorithm 2 block. To change the algorithm for multi-class classification, we compute the average cosine similarity of one image with 50 samples from the training sets of each class to get five corresponding test means, $\mu_i$. We classify an image in the test set by assigning it to the class with the highest $\mu_i$. The results for full five-way classification of the test data (total of 285 images classified) are displayed in the right half of Figure 10 through a confusion matrix. The average accuracy for full, five-way classification of our test set is 92%, roughly 10% greater than our traditional transfer learning results of 82% and 84%. The results are identical when we compute the test means $\mu_i$ with 10 training samples from each class instead of 50.

## Applying Previous Methods to the Large Data Set

Our large data set from section 2.1 contains about 45000 unlabeled images. The instance of AlexNet trained using the cosine embedding loss on the final ReLU layer from section 2.4 is used to obtain feature vectors for each image in the large data set, and we classify the data set using the multi-class algorithm from section 2.5. We note the split of the data as 8% haze, 15% spider, 10% column, 24% kink, and 43% sphere after classification is performed.

With feature vectors for each image, we represent a significant portion of the data in two dimensions using T-distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding (tSNE) , which is shown in Figure 11. We note that the classes are joined in a common center point which could be representative of the fact each class is almost orthogonal to each other class in the feature space, and by using the vectors alone we do not get a representation based on the actual purpose of the network. Thus, we also perform tSNE on the normalized feature vectors in order to give a better idea of the grouping based on direction alone, which is shown in Figure 11.

In order to investigate the distribution of data from each class, we plot the distribution of vectors about the average vector for a given number of samples in each class. An example of this can be seen in left half of Figure 12, for the kink class. We note that the distributions all heavily skew towards an angle of zero degrees, meaning the vectors for each class mostly populate a small angular region, with few outliers relatively misaligned with the class. In order to get an idea for the quality of accuracy for a class, despite not having ground truth, we display the closest images to the average vector, randomly sampled images from zero degrees to ten degrees, and randomly sampled images from forty five to fifty five degrees in the right half of Figure 12 for the kink class. Given the network was trained to align vectors in the same class, these qualitative results suggest the images with vectors further away from the average vector should become more frequently classified incorrectly or be images that fall outside of the five predefined class.

# Discussion

This study is motivated by the goal of classifying a data set of plasma images from the Caltech Spheromak Experiment through feature extraction, transfer learning, and a vector direction comparison algorithm. We demonstrate the use of cosine similarity to select relevant features for binary classification with a well behaved cosine similarity matrix, which displays a representative average cosine similarity of vectors between each pair of classes. While the engineered features did not yield cosine similarity matrices indicating distinction among all five classes in our data set, simple vector direction comparison with no gradient descent based training was able to perform sufficiently well in the spider versus non-spider binary classification case. The idea of an extremely well behaved cosine similarity matrix inspired the use of AlexNet to train and yield one itself. We then use the embedding-trained model to conduct binary classification more accurately than the use of engineered features by 10% from 86% to 96% simply because the feature vectors from this version of AlexNet were more well behaved. Based on the cosine similarity matrix in Figure 9c, when AlexNet is trained by the using the cosine embedding loss on the ReLU layer embeddings rather than the output layer, it seemingly groups image vectors in the same class together in the output space, so much so that representative average cosine similarity between test images in the same class is on average 0.84, corresponding to a relatively thin grouping for each class. Meanwhile the classes are separated enough for no class to share a similarity greater than 0.15 with another class. Thus, the image vectors from the final ReLU layer are divided into classes where each class is greatly separated by an angle relatively large compared to the angle between vectors in the class. This was exploited to expand our binary classification algorithm to a multi-class algorithm, and the five-way classification results are better than our traditional transfer learning results by about 10 percent from 82% and 84% to 92%. When applying this uniquely trained version of AlexNet to the unlabeled data set, we can still see a propensity of the network to organize classes in thin groupings. In the ideal case with ground truth labels for a larger data set, the certainty an object belongs in the class as a function of angle away from the average vector can be probed quantitatively. This can potentially be used in the future to probe for sub-classes and outlier groupings corresponding to dense areas outside of the peak of a distribution. Preliminary developments of this idea are summarized in Fig. 11.

While the method has been tested by our data sets, a possible new direction could be changing activation functions at the end of AlexNet to allow the outputs to access a larger domain, the use with more CNNs and different truncations of them, and the extension of the method for testing with more than five classes (and larger data sets in general). In our case using AlexNet and the final ReLU layer was sufficient for five classes.

# Summary

The work performed in this study focuses on the classification of images from the Caltech Spheromak Experiment using a feature vector direction comparison algorithm and a modification of traditional transfer learning with AlexNet. With two engineered features, we demonstrate the vector direction comparison algorithm to perform binary classification with 86% accuracy. We improve the accuracy of the algorithm to 96% by using vectors from an instance of Alexnet trained to align vector embeddings in the same class while separating vector embeddings among different classes. Full five-way classification of the data set is performed with the output vectors from the embedding-trained AlexNet and a modification to the binary algorithm, which achieves a test accuracy of 92%. This was larger than our test accuracies with transfer learning using the cross entropy loss (84%) and the cosine embedding loss (82%) on the final layer of the network for traditional five-way classification.

# Funding

M. F. was supported in part by a U.S. DoE Science Undergraduate Laboratory Internships (SULI) award. This work was also supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy through the Los Alamos National Laboratory (ICF program). Los Alamos National Laboratory is operated by Triad National Security, LLC, for the National Nuclear Security Administration of U.S. Department of Energy (Contract No. 89233218CNA000001).

# Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#

Section 2.2 uses engineered features, which are defined in the table below.

| Given $G(x,y)$, the pixel value at $x, y$ and $g(v)$, the number of pixels with value $v$ |  |
|:---|:---|
| **Feature or Distribution** | **Equation** |
| Intensity, $V$ | $V = \sum\limits_{x = 1}^{}{\sum\limits_{y = 1}^{}{G(x,y)}}$ |
| $P(x,y)$ Distribution | $P(x,y) = \frac{1}{V}G(x,y)$ |
| $P(x)$ Distribution | $P(x) = \frac{1}{V}\sum\limits_{y = 1}^{}G(x,y)$ |
| $P(y)$ Distribution | $P(y) = \frac{1}{V}\sum\limits_{x = 1}^{}G(x,y)$ |
| $P(v)$ Distribution | $P(v) = \frac{g(v)}{\sum\limits_{v = 1}^{}g(v)}$ |
| Raw Mean, $\mu_1$ | $\mu_1 = \sum\limits_{x = 1}^{}x P(x)$ |
| Central Variance, $\mu_2$ | $\mu_2 = \sum\limits_{x = 1}^{}(x-\mu_1)^2 P(x)$ |
| nth Standardized Moment, $\mu_n$ | $\mu_n = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu_2}}\sum\limits_{x = 1}^{}(x-\mu_1)^n P(x)$ |
| Entropy, $H(x,y)$ | $H(x,y) = \sum\limits_{x = 1}^{}\sum\limits_{y = 1}^{} -P(x,y) log_2(P(x,y))$ |
| Conditional Entropy, $H(x|y)$ | $H(x|y) = H(x,y) - H(y)$ |
| Mutual Information, $I(x,y)$ | $I(x,y) = H(x) + H(y) - H(x,y)$ |

Equations to obtain features from section 2.2


abstract: Quantum information processing requires a high degree of isolation from the detrimental effects of the environment as well as an extremely precise level of control on the way quantum dynamics unfolds in the information-processing system. In this paper, we show how these two goals can be ideally achieved by hybridizing the concepts of noiseless subsystems and of holonomic quantum computation. An all-geometric universal computation scheme based on non-adiabatic and non-Abelian quantum holonomies embedded in a four-qubit noiseless subsystem for general collective decoherence is proposed. The implementation details of this synergistic scheme along with the analysis of its stability against symmetry-breaking imperfections are presented.
author: J. Zhang; L.-C. Kwek; Erik Sjöqvist; D. M. Tong; P. Zanardi
date: 2024-09-29
title: Quantum Computation in Noiseless Subsystems with Fast Non-Abelian Holonomies

# Introduction

Implementation of quantum information processing (QIP) poses daunting challenges. In the first place, for most of the QIP protocols, quantum coherence has to be maintained throughout the whole computational process in spite of the decoherence induced by the unavoidable coupling with environmental degrees of freedom. Secondly, one has to achieve an unprecedented level of control to enact quantum gates within the required high accuracy.

To the aim of accomplishing these, somewhat contradictory, tasks several theoretical schemes have been devised since the early days of QIP. Broadly speaking, all the information-stabilizing strategies developed to date fall in three categories: active techniques like quantum error correcting codes , symmetry-aided passive ones like decoherence-free subspaces and subsystems , and geometrical and topological ones .

Geometric QIP exploits different types of quantum holonomies, e.g., Berry phases, to implement quantum gates. Following the first non-Abelian and Abelian adiabatic proposals, many others have been considered, see, e.g., Refs. . The motivating idea is that the geometric nature of the proposed quantum gates endows them with some degree of inherent robustness against control imprecisions as well as against environment-induced decoherence . One of the drawbacks of the original holonomic quantum computation (HQC) is its relative slowness due to the adiabaticity constraint. This potential limitation can be circumvented by resorting to non-adiabatic Abelian and non-Abelian quantum holonomies.

The idea of noiseless subsystem (NS) was first introduced in Ref. and experimentally demonstrated in Ref. . NSs are a natural generalization of the concept of noiseless quantum code or decoherence-free subspace (DFS) and are effective when the decohering interactions possess some non-trivial algebra of symmetries. On general theoretical grounds, NSs have been argued to provide the unified algebraic structure underlying all the known quantum-information protection schemes including topological quantum computation .

The goal of this paper is to merge synergistically ideas from geometric QIP and NSs in order to take advantage of the appealing features of both. More specifically, we will hybridize non-adiabatic HQC , with the powerful theory of NSs . The possibility of achieving robust quantum control on NSs by non-Abelian quantum holonomies was first envisioned in Refs. , universal HQC schemes embedded in DFSs and NSs were proposed in Refs. and (for a strongly dissipative case) in Ref. .

In this paper, we extend significantly the results of Ref. by showing how a universal non-Abelian and nonadiabatic holonomic processor can be embedded within a NS for general collective decoherence. In this way a universal computational scheme protected against general collective decoherence and featuring at the same time the robustness of HQC against imprecisions in gate control can be ideally achieved.

# Noiseless Subsystem

We start by briefly recalling the basic notions concerning NSs. Let $\mathcal H$ be the Hilbert space of a quantum system $S$ coupled to its environment through a set of "error" operators $\{E_\alpha\}_\alpha\subset {\mathcal B}({\mathcal H})$ . The key object is provided by the interaction algebra ${\mathcal A}\subset {\mathcal B}({\mathcal H})$, i.e., the $C^*$-algebra generated by the error operators. The state space of the system decomposes into the different $d_J$-dimensional irreducible representations (irreps) of $\mathcal A$ (labeled by $J$ and with multiplicity $n_J$) as ${\mathcal H} \cong \oplus_J {\mathbb{C}}^{n_J} \otimes
{\mathbb{C}}^{d_J}$. The corresponding orthogonal decomposition of $\mathcal A$ is given by $${\mathcal A} \cong \oplus_J  {\mathbf{1}}_{n_J}\otimes M_{d_J} ,
\label{split}$$ where $M_{d_J}$ denotes the full matrix algebra of $d_J\times d_J$ complex matrices . When $d_J=1$, one recovers the concept of DFS . The interaction algebra $\cal A$ acts irreducibly on the ${\mathbb{C}}^{d_J}$ factors of $\mathcal H,$ whereas Eq. () shows that the error algebra elements, responsible for decoherence, have a *trivial* action on the ${\mathbb{C}}^{n_J}$ factors. It follows that quantum information can be protected by encoding in these virtual subsystems that are then termed *noiseless subsystems* (NS) . In order to perform manipulations of the NS-encoded information, one has to resort to a non-trivial set of operations that belong to the commutant algebra ${\mathcal A}^\prime :=
\{ X\in {\mathcal B}({\mathcal H})\,/\, [X,\,A]=0, \forall A\in{\mathcal A}\}$. This crucial fact follows from the dual irreps decomposition ${\mathcal A}^{\prime} \cong \oplus_J  M_{n_J}
\otimes {\mathbf{1}}_{d_J}$ for which one sees that of ${\mathcal A}^\prime$ has irreducible action on the NSs and trivial one on the ${\mathbb{C}}^{d_J}$ factors, now playing the role of multiplicity spaces. These constructions are useful if at least one of the $n_J$'s is larger than or equal to two, which in turn gives a lower bound on the dimension of the commutant ${\mathcal A}^\prime$. In other words, the existence of a NS encoding relies on the existence of a sufficiently large number of symmetries of the interaction algebra, i.e., of the noise.

The prototypical symmetric noise is provided by collective decoherence whose experimental relevance has been demonstrated in Refs. . This is also the model that will be considered in this paper. In this collective case the interaction algebra $\mathcal A$ is given by the algebra of totally symmetric operators on the state space of $N$ qubits, i.e., ${\mathcal H}\cong ({\mathbb{C}}^2)^{\otimes\,N}$ and its commutant ${\mathcal A}^\prime$ is the $C^*$-algebra generated by permutations $\sigma\in{\cal S}_N$ acting on ${\mathcal H}$ according to the natural representation, i.e., $\sigma\colon \otimes_{p=1}^N |
\alpha_p \rangle\rightarrow \otimes_{p=1}^N |\alpha_{\sigma(p)} \rangle$. In the following, we show how to enact a universal set of operators in ${\mathcal A}^\prime$ using non-adiabatic quantum holonomies only.

# Non-adiabatic Holonomic Quantum Computation

Non-adiabatic HQC, proposed in Ref. and experimentally implemented in Ref. , is based on the concept of non-adiabatic non-Abelian geometric phases . The key idea is to implement a suitably designed Hamiltonian that induces cyclic evolution of a quantum computational system encoded in a subspace $\mathcal{M}(0)$ in such a way that all dynamical phases vanish. The primitive structure is of $\Lambda$ type, where an excited state $\ket{e}$ is coupled by a pair of simultaneous laser pulses to ground state levels $\ket{g_0},\ket{g_1}$ according to ($\hbar = 1$ from now on) $$\begin{aligned}
H(t) = \Omega (t) \left( \omega_0 \ket{e} \bra{g_0} + \omega_1 \ket{e} \bra{g_1} +
\textrm{h.c.} \right) .
\label{eq:lambda}
\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\Omega (t)$ is the Rabi frequency and $\omega_0,\omega_1$ are complex-valued time-independent driving frequencies satisfying $|\omega_0|^2 + |\omega_1|^2 = 1$. The generic Hamiltonian $H(t)$ describes transitions between energy levels induced by oscillating laser fields in the rotating wave approximation and can be implemented in a wide range of different physical systems.

The subspace spanned by $\ket{\psi_j (t)} = e^{-i\int_0^t H(t') dt'} \ket{g_j} = U(t,0) \ket{g_j}$, $j=0,1$, undergoes a cyclic evolution if the Rabi frequency satisfies $\int_0^{\tau} \Omega (t') dt'
= \pi$. The resulting time evolution operator $U(\tau,0)$, projected onto the computational subspace $\mathcal{M}(0)=\textrm{Span} \{ \ket{g_0},\ket{g_1} \}$, defines the traceless Hermitian gate $U(C_{\bf n}) = {\bf n} \cdot \boldsymbol{\sigma}$, where ${\bf n} = (\sin \theta \cos \phi,
\sin \theta \sin \phi , \cos \theta)$ with $\omega_0/\omega_1 = -\tan (\theta /2) e^{i\phi}$, and $\boldsymbol{\sigma}$ are the standard Pauli operators acting on $\mathcal M(0)$. An arbitrary SU(2) can be realized by sequentially applying two such gates with different ${\bf n}$. The evolution is purely geometric since $\bra{\psi_j (t)} H(t) \ket{\psi_k (t)}$, $j,k=0,1$, vanish for $t\in [0,\tau]$. Thus, $U(C_{\bf n})$ is fully determined by the path $C_{\bf n}$ of $\mathcal M(t)$ in the space of all two-dimensional subspaces of the three-dimensional Hilbert space, i.e., in the complex-valued Grassmannian $G(3;2)$. Together with an entangling holonomic two-qubit gate, $U(C_{\bf n})$ constitutes a universal all-geometric set of quantum gates .

# Quantum holonomy in noiseless subsystems

The collective decoherence on a quantum system $S$ consisting of $N$ physical qubits is characterized by the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ error operators $E_{\alpha}=\sum_{p=1}^{N}\sigma_p^{\alpha}$, $\alpha=\pm,z$. For a fixed total spin $J$, the dimension of the noiseful (NF) part is $d_{J}=2J+1$. By using angular momentum addition rules, one can prove that $$n_{J}=\frac{(2J+1)N!}{(N/2+1+J)!(N/2-J)!} .$$ This $n_{J}$, which is the dimension of the NS part, provides the possibility of performing HQC.

Quantum holonomy appears when the subspace $\mathcal{M} (t)$ returns to the original one after a non-trivial cyclic transformation. The NS spans the total space, which is the total Hilbert space of a HQC. In general, the NS should be larger than the computational space in order to admit non-trivial holonomies. A subspace of NS emerges as $\mathcal{M} (0)$ and the effective Hamiltonian of NS acts as the Hamiltonian that generates the non-trivial loop relating to the unitary transformation. Since NS theory guarantees that the states in $\mathcal{M} (0)$ are never evolved out of the NS, the subspace of NS can return to the original one and that assures that HQC can be conducted.

## One-qubit gate

Non-adiabatic one-qubit holonomic gate can be implemented in a NS provided there exists a $J$ for which $n_J \geq 3$. Four physical qubits, which contains a $\mathbb{C}^{3} \otimes \mathbb{C}^{3}$ subspace, provides the smallest possible realization of such a gate. Here, we demonstrate how noiseless holonomic one-qubit gates can be implemented in this $\mathbb{C}^{3} \otimes \mathbb{C}^{3}$ subspace of the four-qubit code.

First, note that the $E_{\alpha}$'s act on the $\mathbb{C}^{3} \otimes \mathbb{C}^{3}$ subspace in the following way, $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\alpha} = I_{\textrm{NS}} \otimes S_{\alpha}, \ \alpha = \pm,z,
\end{aligned}$$ where $S_{\alpha}$ are spin$-1$ representation of the angular momentum operators. An important observation here is that the inherent symmetry in the action of the decoherence operators $E_{\alpha}$ on the basis states $\ket{i}\ket{j}_{4}$'s affects only the second part of the basis and leaves the first part unchanged (see the Appendix for more details on the four-qubit code). Moreover, the basis changed by the error operators stays within $\ket{i}\ket{j}_4$'s. Thus, the information being stored in this subspace depends only on the first index – it is therefore not spoilt by the interaction between the system and the environment.

To perform holonomic one-qubit gates with the four-qubit code, a set of operators is needed to achieve the appropriate transitions so that the computation stays within the subspace. To this end, the operators that we seek should commute with the $E_{\alpha}$'s. Let us consider the permutation operator $P_{pq}=\frac{1}{2}(I_{pq} + \boldsymbol{\sigma}_p \cdot
\boldsymbol{\sigma}_q)$ of qubits $p$ and $q$ such that $P_{pq}\ket{x}_{p}\ket{y}_{q} =
\ket{y}_{p}\ket{x}_{q}$ for $x,y\in\{0,1\}$. Here, $I_{pq}$ is the identity and $\boldsymbol{\sigma}_p,
\boldsymbol{\sigma}_q$ are the Pauli operators acting on this qubit pair. It is straightforward to check that $[P_{pq},E_{\alpha}]=0$. Three- and four-body permutation operators emerge as a product of two-body ones. Thus, if the Hamiltonian is constructed using a combination of the permutation operators, it will not destroy the subspace. Explicitly, we may take the Hamiltonian that generates the holonomic one-qubit gates to be

where the first tensor factor corresponding to the NS is identical to the Hamiltonian in Eq. () by identifying $\ket{1} = \ket{g_0}$, $\ket{2} = \ket{g_1}$, and $\ket{3} =
\ket{e}$; $I_{\textrm{NF}}$ is the identity operator acting on the noiseful subsystem. The Hamiltonian vanishes on the noiseless qubit subspace $\mathcal{M}^{(1)} (0) = \textrm{Span} \{ \ket{1},
\ket{2} \}$, which guarantees the geometric nature of the evolution. By putting $(J_1-iJ_2)/J_4 = -\tan (\theta /2) e^{i\phi}$ and defining the unit vector ${\bf n} = (\sin \theta \cos \phi ,\sin \theta \sin \phi ,\cos \theta )$, a traceless one-qubit holonomic gate $$\begin{aligned}
U^{(1)} (C) = {\bf n} \cdot \boldsymbol{\sigma} \otimes I_{\textrm{NS}}
\end{aligned}$$ acting non-trivially on the two-dimensional subspace of the NS can thus be implemented by choosing $\int_0^{\tau} \Omega (t) dt = \pi$. By combining two such gates, an arbitrary SU(2) operation acting on the noiseless qubit subspace $\mathcal{M}^{(1)} (0)$ can be realized.

## Two-qubit gate

It is well-known that universal quantum computation can be achieved as long as all one-qubit gates and a single non-trivial two-qubit (entangling) gate is possible . Since all single qubit gates are possible, it remains to demonstrate that we could construct a non-trivial two-qubit gate.

To guarantee the holonomic scheme to be scalable, we encode each qubit in a two-dimensional subspace of a three-level NS by using four physical qubits. In this scheme, a two-qubit gate requires an eight-qubit code where two noiseless qubits are represented by two sets $L,L'$ of four physical qubits. By choosing an appropriate Hamiltonian for the eight physical qubits, we demonstrate a holonomic CNOT gate that can entangle these noiseless qubits.

Consider the eight-qubit Hamiltonian expressed in terms of permutation operators as $$\begin{aligned}
H^{(2)} (t) &= &\frac{\Omega(t)}{12}(P_{13}-P_{23}-3P_{14}+3P_{24})_{L}
\nonumber \\
 & &  \mbox{\hspace{-1cm}} \otimes[P_{23}-P_{13}-\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}
(P_{13}-P_{23}-3P_{14}+3P_{24})]_{L'} .
\end{aligned}$$ By re-expressing the two factors in terms of the NS+NF basis for each four-qubit set, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
H^{(2)} (t) &= & \Omega (t) \left( H_0 + H_1\right) \otimes I_{\textrm{NF}} ,
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
H_0 & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \ket{33} \bra{21} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \ket{33} \bra{22} + \textrm{h.c.},
\nonumber \\
H_1 & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \ket{31} \bra{23} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \ket{32} \bra{23} + \textrm{h.c.},
\end{aligned}$$ and $I_{\textrm{NF}}$ is now the identity on the nine-dimensional noiseful subsystem of the eight qubits. The two time-independent operators $H_0$ and $H_1$ vanish on the computational two-qubit subspace $\mathcal{M}^{(2)}(0)=\textrm{Span} \{ \ket{11},\ket{12},\ket{21},\ket{22} \}$ of the NS, which assures the geometric nature of the evolution. Furthermore, $H_0$ and $H_1$ commute, which implies that $$\begin{aligned}
e^{-i\int_0^{\tau} H^{(2)} (t') dt'} = e^{-i \pi H_0}  e^{-i \pi H_1} \otimes I_{\textrm{NF}},
\end{aligned}$$ by choosing $\int_0^{\tau} \Omega (t') dt' = \pi$. The second factor $e^{-i \pi H_1}$ acts trivially on $\mathcal{M}^{(2)}(0)$ and can therefore be ignored. The holonomic gate $U^{(2)}(C)$ is the projection of the first factor $e^{-i \pi H_0}$ onto $\mathcal{M}^{(2)}(0)$ and reads $$\begin{aligned}
U^{(2)}(C) & = & \left( \ket{11} \bra{11} + \ket{12} \bra{12} \right.
\nonumber \\
 & & \left. + \ket{21} \bra{22} + \ket{22} \bra{21}
\right) \otimes I_{\textrm{NF}} .
\end{aligned}$$ We see that $U^{(2)} (C)$ is a CNOT gate acting on $\mathcal{M}^{(2)}(0)$ which completes the universal set of non-adiabatic holonomic gates in NSs.

# Robustness of gates

Our NS encoding allows for perfect protection in the ideal collective decoherence case where the system-bath interactions are fully invariant under arbitrary permutations of the physical qubits. However, in realistic situations symmetry-breaking interactions will be unavoidably present and spoil the ideal behavior. In order to investigate the robustness of our scheme against such unwanted interactions we introduce a simple decoherence model with a single parameter $g$ that controls the degree of symmetry breaking. The noise Lindblad operators are given by: $E_{\alpha}^{'} =
\sum_{p=1}^{4}e^{-p g}\sigma_{\alpha}^{p}$; clearly when $g=0$ one recovers the permutational invariant collective decoherence. Within the usual Born-Markov approximation the system evolution is dictated by the Lindblad master equation $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\rho}(t)&=&-i[H_{s}(t),\rho]+\Gamma(E_{z}^{'}\rho E_{z}^{'} -
\frac{1}{2}\{E_{z}^{'}E_{z}^{'},\rho\})
\nonumber \\
 & &+\gamma(\bar{n}+1)(E_{-}^{'}\rho E_{+}^{'}-\frac{1}{2}\{E_{+}^{'}E_{-}^{'},\rho\})
\nonumber \\
 & &+\gamma\bar{n}(E_{+}^{'}\rho E_{-}^{'}-\frac{1}{2}\{E_{-}^{'}E_{+}^{'},\rho\}),
\label{ME}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{n}$ is the temperature-dependent average number of quanta in the environment ($\bar{n} = 0$ at zero temperature), $\Gamma$ and $\gamma$ are the dephasing rate and dissipation rate, respectively. Here, $H_{s}(t)$ is the qubit system Hamiltonian, which is generated by linear combination of the permutation operators as described above. A square pulse with magnitude $\Omega$ and duration $\pi / \Omega$ is used.

As a figure of merit to quantify the robustness of our logical gates, we adopt the gate fidelity $F$ defined as the Bures-Uhlmann fidelity $F(\rho_{id},\rho_f) := {\mathrm{Tr}} \sqrt{\rho_f^{1/2} \rho_{id}
\rho_f^{1/2}}$ averaged over initial conditions. Here, $\rho_{id}$ is the NS state obtained by the ideal holonomic gate, i.e., the actual one in presence of collective decoherence only, and $\rho_f$ is the corresponding faulty one obtained by solving Eq. () and tracing over the noiseful degrees of freedom.

We solved numerically Eq. () and examined the gate fidelity as a function of $g$ for a one-qubit holonomic gate. In Fig. it is shown that gate fidelity, both at zero temperature (solid line; $\bar{n} = 0$) and non-zero temperature (dashed line; $\bar{n} = 1$), decreases with increasing $g$ as expected. However, the inset in Fig. also shows that in the physically relevant regime of small $g$, the gate fidelity behaves as $F\approx 1-g^{a}$, where $a\approx 2$. This demonstrates that holonomic manipulations of the NS have some degree of resilience against slight violations of the collective symmetry assumption. We would like to stress that Eq. (12) is just a way to describe the system-bath coupling that allows one to interpolate, in a simple phenomenological fashion, between the fully permutational symmetric ($g=0)$ and increasingly non-symmetric and unprotected regimes (large $g$). However, we expect the conclusions drawn from our simulations to be generic for mild violations of permutational symmetry. Namely, gate robustness should be independent of the details of the specific decoherence model, e.g., Markovianity.

# Conclusions

In this paper, we have shown how to implement a universal set of one- and two-qubit gates by non-adiabatic and non-Abelian quantum holonomies acting entirely within a noiseless subsystem for general collective decoherence. Each noiseless qubit can be encoded using four physical qubits and geometrically manipulated by Heisenberg-like two- and four-body interactions. The requested ability to enact four-body-interactions certainly presents a major challenge to the realization of our scheme with current experimental techniques. In order to overcome this limitation one may think of resorting to geometric techniques to simulate many-body interactions in terms of simpler interactions or to the so-called perturbation gadgets . In both cases ancillary degrees of freedom are needed. Finally, by numerical simulations, we have provided evidence of the robustness of the proposed hybrid scheme against symmetry-breaking interactions with the environment.

# Acknowledgments

The work was financially supported by the National Research Foundation & Ministry of Education, Singapore. P.Z. is supported by the ARO MURI grant W911NF-11-1-0268 and by NSF grant PHY- 969969. J. Z. and D. M. T. acknowledge support from NSF China with No.11175105 and the Taishan Scholarship Project of Shandong Province. E.S. acknowledges financial support from the Swedish Research Council.

# Appendix

The Hilbert space of a four-qubit system can be decomposed as $$(\mathbb{C}^{2})^{\otimes4} = \mathbb{C}^2 \otimes \mathbb{C} \bigoplus \mathbb{C}^3 \otimes \mathbb{C}^3 \bigoplus \mathbb{C} \otimes \mathbb{C}^5 .
\nonumber$$ By using the notation $$\begin{aligned}
\ket{0} = \ket{1/2,1/2}, \ \ket{1} = \ket{1/2,-1/2},
\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ we find the $\mathbb{C}^3 \otimes \mathbb{C}^3$ basis states $$\begin{aligned}
 & & \left\{\begin{array}{lll}
\ket{1}\ket{1}_{4} = \ket{1,1} & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(2\ket{0010}-\ket{0100}-\ket{1000}), \\
\ket{1}\ket{2}_{4} = \ket{1,0} & = & \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}(2\ket{0011}-\ket{0101}-\ket{1001} \\
 & & + \ket{0110}+\ket{1010}-2\ket{1100}), \\
\ket{1}\ket{3}_{4} = \ket{1,-1} & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(\ket{0111}+\ket{1011}-2\ket{1101}),
\end{array} \right. \\
\\
 & & \left\{ \begin{array}{lll}
\ket{2}\ket{1}_{4} = \ket{1,1} & = & \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}(3\ket{0001}-\ket{0010}-\ket{0100} \\
 & & -\ket{1000}), \\
\ket{2}\ket{2}_{4} = \ket{1,0} & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(\ket{0011}+\ket{0101}+\ket{1001} \\
 & & - \ket{0110} - \ket{1010} - \ket{1100}), \\
\ket{2}\ket{3}_{4}=\ket{1,-1} & = & \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}(\ket{0111}+\ket{1011}+\ket{1101} \\
 & & -3\ket{1110}).
\end{array}\right. \\
\\
& &\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\ket{3}\ket{1}_4 = \ket{1,1} & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{0100}-\ket{1000}), \\
\ket{3}\ket{2}_4 =\ket{1,0} & = & \frac{1}{2}(\ket{0101}-\ket{1001}+\ket{0110} \\
 & & -\ket{1010}), \\
\ket{3}\ket{3}_4 = \ket{1,-1} & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{0111}-\ket{1011}),
\end{array} \right.
\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ The NS holonomies are realized in the first tensor factor of these $\ket{i}\ket{j}_{4}$ states.

The Gell-Mann matrices $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_8$ on the NS in the $\mathbb{C}^3
\otimes \mathbb{C}^3$ subspace can be expressed in terms of qubit permutation operators as $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{1}\otimes I_{\textrm{NF}} & = &
\left( \ket{3} \bra{1} + \textrm{h.c.} \right) \otimes I_{\textrm{NF}}
                                 =\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(P_{23}-P_{13}), \\
\lambda_{2}\otimes I_{\textrm{NF}} & = &
\left( -i \ket{3} \bra{1} + \textrm{h.c.} \right) \otimes I_{\textrm{NF}},
                                 =i\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(P_{23}P_{13}-P_{13}P_{23}), \\
\lambda_{3}\otimes I_{\textrm{NF}} & = &
\left( \ket{3} \bra{3} - \ket{1} \bra{1} \right) \otimes I_{\textrm{NF}}
                                 =\frac{1}{3}(P_{13}+P_{23}-2P_{12}), \\
\lambda_{4}\otimes I_{\textrm{NF}} & = &
\left( \ket{3} \bra{2} + \textrm{h.c.} \right) \otimes I_{\textrm{NF}}
                                 =\frac{1}{2\sqrt{6}}(P_{13}-P_{23}-3P_{14}+3P_{24}), \\
\lambda_{5}\otimes I_{\textrm{NF}} & = &
\left( -i \ket{3} \bra{2} + \textrm{h.c.} \right) \otimes I_{\textrm{NF}}
                                =  i\frac{1}{2\sqrt{6}} (2P_{321}-2P_{231}+P_{342} \\
 & & -P_{432}-P_{341}+P_{431}+4P_{241}-4P_{421}), \\
\lambda_{6}\otimes I_{\textrm{NF}} & = &
\left( \ket{1} \bra{2} + \textrm{h.c.} \right) \otimes I_{\textrm{NF}}
                               = -\frac{1}{6\sqrt{2}}(2P_{13}+2P_{23}-4P_{12} \\
 & & +3P_{2341}+3P_{3421}+3P_{4321}+3P_{2431}-6P_{3241}-6P_{4231}), \\
\lambda_{7}\otimes I_{\textrm{NF}} & = &
\left( -i \ket{1} \bra{2} + \textrm{h.c.} \right) \otimes I_{\textrm{NF}} \\
                               & = & i\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}(P_{341}+P_{342}-P_{432}-P_{431}), \\
\lambda_{8}\otimes I_{\textrm{NF}} & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}
\left( \ket{3} \bra{3} + \ket{1} \bra{1} -2 \ket{2} \bra{2} \right) \otimes I_{\textrm{NF}} \\
               & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(I-P_{12}-P_{13}-P_{23}).
\end{aligned}$$ Note that the realization of some of the Gell-Mann matrices ($\lambda_{2},\lambda_{5},\lambda_{6},\lambda_{7}$) requires higher than two-body interaction.


abstract: These instructions give you guidelines for preparing papers for IEEE Signal Processing Letters. Use this document as a template if you are using Microsoft Word 6.0 or later. Otherwise, use this document as an instruction set. The electronic file of your paper will be formatted further at IEEE. Paper titles should be written in uppercase and lowercase letters, not all uppercase. Do not write "(Invited)" in the title. Full names of authors are preferred in the author field, but are not required. Put a space between authors' initials. The abstract must be a concise yet comprehensive reflection of what is in your article. In particular, the abstract must be self-contained, without abbreviations, footnotes, or references. It should be a microcosm of the full article. The abstract is typically between 100–175 words. The abstract must be written as one paragraph, and should not contain displayed mathematical equations or tabular material. The abstract should include three or four different keywords or phrases, as this will help readers to find it. It is important to avoid over-repetition of such phrases as this can result in a page being rejected by search engines. Ensure that your abstract reads well and is grammatically correct.
author: First A. Author, , Second B. Author, and Third C. Author, Jr., [^1] [^2] [^3]
title: Preparation of Papers for IEEE Signal Processing Letters (5-page limit)

Shell *et al.*: Bare Demo of IEEEtran.cls for IEEE Journals

# Introduction

document is a template for Microsoft Word versions 6.0 or later. If you are reading a paper or PDF version of this document, please download the electronic file, trans_jour.docx, from the IEEE Web site at www.ieee.org/authortools so you can use it to prepare your manuscript. If you would prefer to use LaTeX, download IEEE's LaTeX style and sample files from the same Web page. You can also explore using the Overleaf editor at https://www.overleaf.com/blog/278-how-to-use-overleaf-with-ieee-collabratec-your-quick-guide-to-getting-started#.Vp6tpPkrKM9

If your paper is intended for a conference, please contact your conference editor concerning acceptable word processor formats for your particular conference.

# Guidelines For Manuscript Preparation

When you open trans_jour.docx, select "Page Layout" from the "View" menu in the menu bar (View Page Layout), (these instructions assume MS 6.0. Some versions may have alternate ways to access the same functionalities noted here). Then, type over sections of trans_jour.docx or cut and paste from another document and use markup styles. The pull-down style menu is at the left of the Formatting Toolbar at the top of your *Word* window (for example, the style at this point in the document is "Text"). Highlight a section that you want to designate with a certain style, and then select the appropriate name on the style menu. The style will adjust your fonts and line spacing. Do not change the font sizes or line spacing to squeeze more text into a limited number of pages. Use italics for emphasis; do not underline.

To insert images in *Word*, position the cursor at the insertion point and either use Insert $\mid$ Picture $\mid$ From File or copy the image to the Windows clipboard and then Edit $\mid$ Paste Special $\mid$ Picture (with "float over text" unchecked).

IEEE will do the final formatting of your paper. If your paper is intended for a conference, please observe the conference page limits.

## Information for Authors

*IEEE Signal Processing Letters* allows only four-page articles. A fifth page is allowed for "References" only, though "References" may begin before the fifth page. Author biographies or photographs are not allowed in Signal Processing Letters. Please review the Information for Authors at for *IEEE Signal Processing Letters:* https://signalprocessingsociety.org/publications-resources/ieee-signal-processing-letters/information-authors-spl

Units for Magnetic Properties

Symbol
Quantity

Conversion from Gaussian and

CGS EMU to SIa

Φ
Magnetic flux
1 Mx  → 10−8 Wb  = 10−8 V ⋅ s

B

Magnetic flux density,

magnetic induction

1 G  → 10−4 T  = 10−4 Wb/m2

H
Magnetic field strength
1 Oe  → 10−3/(4π) A/m

m
Magnetic moment

1 erg/G = 1 emu

 → 10−3 A ⋅ m2 = 10−3 J/T

M
Magnetization

1 erg/(G ⋅ cm3)= 1 emu/cm3

 → 10−3 A/m

4πM
Magnetization
1 G  → 10−3/(4π) A/m

σ
Specific magnetization
1 erg/(G ⋅ g) = 1 emu/g → 1 A ⋅ m2/kg

j

Magnetic dipole

moment

1 erg/G = 1 emu

 → 4π × 10−10 Wb ⋅ m

J
Magnetic polarization

1 erg/(G ⋅ cm3)= 1 emu/cm3

 → 4π × 10−4 T

χ, κ
Susceptibility
1  → 4π

χρ
Mass susceptibility
1 cm3/g  → 4π × 10−3 m3/kg

μ
Permeability

1  → 4π × 10−7 H/m

 = 4π × 10−7 Wb/(A ⋅ m)

μr
Relative permeability
μ → μr

w, W
Energy density
1 erg/cm3 → 10−1 J/m3

N, D
Demagnetizing factor
1  → 1/(4π)

Vertical lines are optional in tables. Statements that serve as captions for the entire table do not need footnote letters.

aGaussian units are the same as cg emu for magnetostatics; Mx = maxwell, G = gauss, Oe = oersted; Wb = weber, V = volt, s = second, T = tesla, m = meter, A = ampere, J = joule, kg = kilogram, H = henry.

# Guidelines for Graphics Preparation and Submission

## Types of Graphics

1.  *Color/Grayscale figures:* Figures that are meant to appear in color, or shades of black/gray. Such figures may include photographs, illustrations, multicolor graphs, and flowcharts.

2.  *Line Art figures:* Figures that are composed of only black lines and shapes. These figures should have no shades or half-tones of gray, only black and white.

3.  *Tables:* Data charts are typically black and white but sometimes include color.

## Multipart Figures

Figures compiled of more than one sub-figure presented side-by-side, or stacked. If a multipart figure is made up of multiple figure types (one part is lineart, and another is grayscale or color) the figure should meet the stricter guidelines.

## File Formats for Graphics

Format and save your graphics using a suitable graphics processing program that will allow you to create the images as PostScript (PS), Encapsulated PostScript (.EPS), Tagged Image File Format (.TIFF), Portable Document Format (.PDF), or Portable Network Graphics (.PNG); sizes them; and adjusts the resolution settings. If you created your source files in one of the following programs you will be able to submit the graphics without converting to a PS, EPS, TIFF, PDF, or PNG file: Microsoft Word, Microsoft PowerPoint, or Microsoft Excel. Though it is not required, it is strongly recommended that these files be saved in PDF format rather than DOC, XLS, or PPT. Doing so will protect your figures from common font and arrow stroke issues that occur when working on the files across multiple platforms. When submitting your final paper, your graphics should all be submitted individually in one of these formats along with the manuscript.

## Sizing of Graphics

Most charts, graphs, and tables are one column wide (3.5 inches / 88 millimeters / 21 picas) or page wide (7.16 inches / 181 millimeters / 43 picas). The maximum height a graphic can be is 8.5 inches (216 millimeters / 54 picas). When choosing the height of a graphic, please allow space for a caption. Figures can be sized between column and page widths if the author chooses, however it is recommended that figures are not sized less than column width unless absolutely necessary.

## Resolution

The proper resolution of your figures will depend on the type of figure it is as defined in the "Types of Figures" section. Author photographs, color, and grayscale figures should be at least 300 dpi. Line art, including tables should be a minimum of 600 dpi.

## Vector Art

In order to preserve the figures' integrity across multiple computer platforms, we accept files in the following formats: .EPS/.PDF/.PS. All fonts must be embedded or text converted to outlines in order to achieve the best-quality results.

## Accepted Fonts Within Figures

When preparing your graphics, IEEE suggests that you use of one of the following Open Type fonts: Times New Roman, Helvetica, Arial, Cambria, and Symbol. If you are supplying EPS, PS, or PDF files all fonts must be embedded. Some fonts may only be native to your operating system; without the fonts embedded, parts of the graphic may be distorted or missing.

A safe option when finalizing your figures is to strip out the fonts before you save the files, creating "outline" type. This converts fonts to artwork what will appear uniformly on any screen.

## Using Labels Within Figures

### Figure Axis labels

Figure axis labels are often a source of confusion. Use words rather than symbols. As an example, write the quantity "Magnetization," or "Magnetization *M*," not just "*M*." Put units in parentheses. Do not label axes only with units. As in Fig. 1, for example, write "Magnetization (A/m)" or "Magnetization (A$\cdot$m$^{-1}$)," not just "A/m." Do not label axes with a ratio of quantities and units. For example, write "Temperature (K)," not "Temperature/K."

Multipliers can be especially confusing. Write "Magnetization (kA/m)" or "Magnetization (10$^{3}$ A/m)." Do not write "Magnetization (A/m) $\times$ 1000" because the reader would not know whether the top axis label in Fig. 1 meant 16000 A/m or 0.016 A/m. Figure labels should be legible, approximately 8 to 10 point type.

### Subfigure Labels in Multipart Figures and Tables

Multipart figures should be combined and labeled before final submission. Labels should appear centered below each subfigure in 8 point Times New Roman font in the format of (a), (b), (c).

## File Naming

Figures (line artwork or photographs) should be named starting with the first 5 letters of the author's last name. The next characters in the filename should be the number that represents the sequential location of this image in your article. For example, in author "Anderson's" paper, the first three figures would be named ander1.tif, ander2.tif, and ander3.ps.

Tables should contain only the body of the table (not the caption) and should be named similarly to figures, except that '.t' is inserted in-between the author's name and the table number. For example, author Anderson's first three tables would be named ander.t1.tif, ander.t2.ps, ander.t3.eps.

## Referencing a Figure or Table Within Your Paper

When referencing your figures and tables within your paper, use the abbreviation "Fig." even at the beginning of a sentence. Do not abbreviate "Table." Tables should be numbered with Roman Numerals.

## Checking Your Figures: The IEEE Graphics Analyzer

The IEEE Graphics Analyzer enables authors to pre-screen their graphics for compliance with IEEE Transactions and Journals standards before submission. The online tool, located at http://graphicsqc.ieee.org/, allows authors to upload their graphics in order to check that each file is the correct file format, resolution, size and colorspace; that no fonts are missing or corrupt; that figures are not compiled in layers or have transparency, and that they are named according to the IEEE Transactions and Journals naming convention. At the end of this automated process, authors are provided with a detailed report on each graphic within the web applet, as well as by email.

For more information on using the Graphics Analyzer or any other graphics related topic, contact the IEEE Graphics Help Desk by e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.com.

## Submitting Your Graphics

Because IEEE will do the final formatting of your paper, you do not need to position figures and tables at the top and bottom of each column. In fact, all figures, figure captions, and tables can be placed at the end of your paper. In addition to, or even in lieu of submitting figures within your final manuscript, figures should be submitted individually, separate from the manuscript in one of the file formats listed above in Section VI-J. Place figure captions below the figures; place table titles above the tables. Please do not include captions as part of the figures, or put them in "text boxes" linked to the figures. Also, do not place borders around the outside of your figures.

# Conclusion

A conclusion section is not required. Although a conclusion may review the main points of the paper, do not replicate the abstract as the conclusion. A conclusion might elaborate on the importance of the work or suggest applications and extensions.

# Acknowledgment

The preferred spelling of the word "acknowledgment" in American English is without an "e" after the "g." Use the singular heading even if you have many acknowledgments. Avoid expressions such as "One of us (S.B.A.) would like to thank . . . ." Instead, write "F. A. Author thanks ... ." In most cases, sponsor and financial support acknowledgments are placed in the unnumbered footnote on the first page, not here.

# References and Footnotes

## References

References need not be cited in text. When they are, they appear on the line, in square brackets, inside the punctuation. Multiple references are each numbered with separate brackets. When citing a section in a book, please give the relevant page numbers. In text, refer simply to the reference number. Do not use "Ref." or "reference" except at the beginning of a sentence: "Reference \[3\] shows . . . ." Please do not use automatic endnotes in *Word*, rather, type the reference list at the end of the paper using the "References" style.

Reference numbers are set flush left and form a column of their own, hanging out beyond the body of the reference. The reference numbers are on the line, enclosed in square brackets. In all references, the given name of the author or editor is abbreviated to the initial only and precedes the last name. Use them all; use *et al.* only if names are not given. Use commas around Jr., Sr., and III in names. Abbreviate conference titles. When citing IEEE transactions, provide the issue number, page range, volume number, year, and/or month if available. When referencing a patent, provide the day and the month of issue, or application. References may not include all information; please obtain and include relevant information. Do not combine references. There must be only one reference with each number. If there is a URL included with the print reference, it can be included at the end of the reference.

Other than books, capitalize only the first word in a paper title, except for proper nouns and element symbols. For papers published in translation journals, please give the English citation first, followed by the original foreign-language citation. See the end of this document for formats and examples of common references. For a complete discussion of references and their formats, see the IEEE style manual at www.ieee.org/authortools.

## Footnotes

Number footnotes separately in superscripts (Insert $\mid$ Footnote).[^4] Place the actual footnote at the bottom of the column in which it is cited; do not put footnotes in the reference list (endnotes). Use letters for table footnotes (see Table I).

# References

## Basic format for books:

J. K. Author, "Title of chapter in the book," in *Title of His Published Book*, xth ed. City of Publisher, (only U.S. State), Country: Abbrev. of Publisher, year, ch. x, sec. x, pp. xxx–xxx.

## Examples:

## Basic format for periodicals:

J. K. Author, "Name of paper," Abbrev. Title of Periodical, vol. x, no. x, pp. xxx–xxx, Abbrev. Month, year, DOI. 10.1109.XXX.123–456.

## Examples:

## Basic format for reports:

J. K. Author, "Title of report," Abbrev. Name of Co., City of Co., Abbrev. State, Country, Rep. xxx, year.

## Examples:

## Basic format for handbooks:

*Name of Manual/Handbook*, x ed., Abbrev. Name of Co., City of Co., Abbrev. State, Country, year, pp. xxx–xxx.

## Examples:

## Basic format for books (when available online):

J. K. Author, "Title of chapter in the book," in *Title of Published Book*, xth ed. City of Publisher, State, Country: Abbrev. of Publisher, year, ch. x, sec. x, pp. xxx xxx. \[Online\]. Available: http://www.web.com

## Examples:

## Basic format for journals (when available online):

J. K. Author, "Name of paper," *Abbrev. Title of Periodical*, vol. x, no. x, pp. xxx–xxx, Abbrev. Month, year. Accessed on: Month, Day, year, doi: 10.1109.XXX.123456, \[Online\].

## Examples:

## Basic format for papers presented at conferences (when available online):

J.K. Author. (year, month). Title. presented at abbrev. conference title. \[Type of Medium\]. Available: site/path/file

## Example:

## Basic format for reports and handbooks (when available online):

J. K. Author. "Title of report," Company. City, State, Country. Rep. no., (optional: vol./issue), Date. \[Online\] Available: site/path/file

## Examples:

## Basic format for computer programs and electronic documents (when available online):

Legislative body. Number of Congress, Session. (year, month day). *Number of bill or resolution, Title*. \[Type of medium\]. Available: site/path/file *NOTE:* ISO recommends that capitalization follow the accepted practice for the language or script in which the information is given.

## Example:

## Basic format for patents (when available online):

Name of the invention, by inventor's name. (year, month day). Patent Number \[Type of medium\]. Available:site/path/file

## Example:

## Basic format for conference proceedings (published):

J. K. Author, "Title of paper," in *Abbreviated Name of Conf.*, City of Conf., Abbrev. State (if given), Country, year, pp. xxx–xxx.

## Example:

## Example for papers presented at conferences (unpublished):

## Basic formatfor patents:

J. K. Author, "Title of patent," U. S. Patent x xxx xxx, Abbrev. Month, day, year.

## Example:

## Basic format for theses (M.S.) and dissertations (Ph.D.):

a\) J. K. Author, "Title of thesis," M. S. thesis, Abbrev. Dept., Abbrev. Univ., City of Univ., Abbrev. State, year.

b\) J. K. Author, "Title of dissertation," Ph.D. dissertation, Abbrev. Dept., Abbrev. Univ., City of Univ., Abbrev. State, year.

## Examples:

## Basic format for the most common types of unpublished references:

a\) J. K. Author, private communication, Abbrev. Month, year.

b\) J. K. Author, "Title of paper," unpublished.

c\) J. K. Author, "Title of paper," to be published.

## Examples:

## Basic formats for standards:

a\) *Title of Standard*, Standard number, date.

b\) *Title of Standard*, Standard number, Corporate author, location, date.

## Examples:

## Article number in reference examples:

## Example when using et al.:

[^1]: This paragraph of the first footnote will contain the date on which you submitted your paper for review. It will also contain support information, including sponsor and financial support acknowledgment. For example, "This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Commerce under Grant BS123456."

[^2]: The next few paragraphs should contain the authors' current affiliations, including current address and e-mail. For example, F. A. Author is with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Boulder, CO 80305 USA (e-mail: email@example.com).

[^3]: S. B. Author, Jr., was with Rice University, Houston, TX 77005 USA. He is now with the Department of Physics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 USA (e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com).

[^4]: It is recommended that footnotes be avoided (except for the unnumbered footnote with the receipt date on the first page). Instead, try to integrate the footnote information into the text.