many quantum algorithms have been developed under the presumption that the hardware upon which they will run is effectively error - free : the error rate is so low the entire algorithm can be executed successfully without a single error .
it is now known that such hardware can , in principle , be created using components that have far higher error rates .
_ fault - tolerant _ quantum computing can be achieved by encoding qubits in non - abelian anyons in topological materials  @xcite or using the quantum error correction codes  @xcite . while the former is still in the early stages of its development , for the latter approach sub - threshold quantum operations
have been demonstrated in ion - trap and superconducting systems  @xcite .
however , quantum error correction involves a substantial multiplication of resources ; the number of physical qubits required may be orders of magnitude greater than the number error - free logical qubits seen by the algorithm .
a recent study audited the cost of implementing shor s algorithm to solve a classically - infeasible task , and found that even with state - of - the - art techniques for magic state distillation the machine would need over six million of today s highest quality qubits  @xcite .
the need for millions of qubits contrasts starkly with the fact that only fifty qubits are needed to achieve so - called ` quantum supremacy ' , i.e. to create a quantum processor that is so complex that conventional supercomputers  @xcite can not predict its behaviour .
machines involving this many qubits , under good but imperfect control , are expected to emerge in the next few years .
the challenge for researchers is to identify useful functions for such devices , in order to motivate further investment and continue the evolution toward the longer - term goal of fully fault tolerant systems .
recently some hybrid quantum / classical algorithms have been developed which are promising for near future quantum applications  @xcite .
a common feature of these algorithms is that the quantum computer is only in charge of carrying out a subroutine , acting as a ` coprocessor ' while the larger scale algorithm is governed by a classical computer .
the task of the quantum computer is thus simplified and may be accomplished with relatively few quantum operations
. a higher error rate per operation is therefore tolerable ; in a fault - tolerant machine this would imply a more modest resource overhead for the code , but it may even be possible to implement such quantum algorithms without quantum error correction .
hybrid approaches are very relevant to quantum simulation , i.e. feynman s vision  @xcite of using a controlled quantum processor to model another quantum system .
such a technology would be highly advantageous for the investigation of various large quantum systems , e.g.  simulating quantum chemistry systems  @xcite , or novel materials and other condensed - matter systems  @xcite .
a powerful tool that has been exploited in several hybrid protocols is the variational method  @xcite .
typically the state of the target system is to be found by writing a trial quantum state with a large but tractable number of real parameters , and then discovering the optimal value of these parameters .
implicitly this requires the scientist to use their understanding of the target system ( the novel molecule , or material ) to select a set of parameters that , while large , is far smaller than the total number of parameters needed to specify an arbitrary quantum state .
the latter is of course exponential in the number of particles composing the target system .    .
variational parameters are determined by the classical computer according to the schrdinger equation .
the quantum computer is used to implement a subroutine : inputs are parameters @xmath0 , and outputs are values of certain derivatives required by the main program in the classical computer .
( b ) variational parameters are determined iteratively given their initial values .
parameters at the time @xmath1 are sent to the quantum computer , which evaluates the quantities required by the classical computer .
then , the classical computer can work out parameters at the time @xmath2 , where @xmath3 is a short time .
note that the curves here represent the actual evolution of parameters in the example described in appendix  [ sec : model ] . ]    in this paper , we propose a hybrid quantum algorithm for simulating the dynamics of a quantum system .
the conventional approach for simulating quantum dynamics employs trotterisation  @xcite , which usually requires many quantum operations therefore seems likely to necessitate the full machinery of fault - tolerant quantum computing  @xcite .
our approach is based on the variational method and our hope is that it could be implemented using small - size quantum circuits , i.e.  quantum circuits with a small number of quantum operations and suffering significant noise compared with fault - tolerant quantum computers .
a novel feature of our algorithm is that it compensates for errors through classical inference and without encoding : if the noise in the quantum computer mainly results in stochastic errors and the rate of errors can be amplified in a controllable way , then we find that errors can be approximately corrected .
the condition that noise is stochastic can be met by engineering for many systems : if , for example , single qubit gates have relatively high fidelity  @xcite and their noise is statistical , then arbitrary two - qubit gate errors can be made statistical though a twirling - like technique which we presently discuss .
moreover , the severity of the such errors can be deliberately _ increased _ artificially , allowing one to create curves which the classical algorithm can extrapolate to estimate the zero - error limit .
we performed numerical emulations of the process on small systems , finding that this technique does indeed lead to robustness : the impact of physical errors on the simulator s performance far lower than in an ( optimised ) trotterisation protocol , and moreover this impact does not worsen with the duration of the simulation .
the remainder of this paper is organised as the following . in sec .
[ sec : review ] , we review the trotterisation algorithm and variational methods . in sec .  [
sec : algorithm ] , our hybrid algorithm is introduced . in sec .
[ sec : principle ] , the variational theory is discussed . in sec .
[ sec : hybrid ] , the task for the quantum computer and the overall program are described in detail .
errors in our algorithm are analysed in sec .
[ sec : analysis ] . the method for reducing errors
is given in sec .
[ sec : noise ] , in which we also discuss how to convert non - stochastic errors into stochastic errors and how to tune the rate of errors .
numerical results are presented in sec .
[ sec : numerics ] .
a summary is given in sec .
[ sec : summary ] .
the trotterisation approach to simulation , which we will use as a basis for comparison with our protocol , exploits the fact that time evolution under a general hamiltonian @xmath4 can be approximated according to the trotter - suzuki decomposition  @xcite @xmath5 here , each term @xmath6 corresponds to the evolution driven by the term @xmath7 for a short time @xmath8 , which can be realised by a quantum gate or a combination of quantum gates .
usually , the short time is taken uniformly as @xmath9 , where @xmath10 is the time of the simulated evolution . when @xmath11 is larger , the approximation is better , and errors in the approximation scales with the simulated time and the number of quantum gates as @xmath12  @xcite .
our approach is based on a variational approach .
variational methods have numerous applications in the numerical study of many - body quantum systems , for examples , density functional theory  @xcite , the matrix product state method  @xcite , and simulating molecular dynamics using the variational principle  @xcite . in these methods ,
typically a trial sate is used to approximate the true state of the system .
the trial state must of course be specified by some tractable number of parameters .
but since existing realisations are entirely classical , there is a stronger condition on the trial function : it must be possible to efficiently evaluate its fit to the true quantum state using only a classical algorithm .
this requirement limits the application of variational methods .
sometimes it may be impossible to evaluate a trial state that provides a good approximation to the true state in a classical computer .
in such a case , a quantum computer could be helpful , because we may be able to complete tasks difficult for a classical computer using a quantum computer .
an example is the unitary coupled cluster method  @xcite , in which the energy of the trial state can be evaluated using a quantum computer when it is hard for a classical computer .
the protocol we describe here is another example .
the purpose of our hybrid algorithm is to solve the schrdinger equation @xmath13 ( @xmath14 ) , assuming that the state @xmath15 can be approximated by a trial state @xmath16 , where @xmath0 are variational parameters . as shown in fig .
[ fig : hybrid](a ) , the hybrid algorithm is implemented on both of a quantum computer and a classical computer .
the task of the classical computer is to determine variational parameters according to the schrdinger equation , and this proceed requires as input certain derivatives associated with the state @xmath17 which the quantum computer provides .
the hybrid algorithm works out variational parameters iteratively as shown in fig .
[ fig : hybrid](b ) .
parameters at the time @xmath1 ( @xmath0 ) are sent to the quantum computer , with which the quantum computer finds the values required by the classical computer .
based on results from the quantum computer , the classical computer can determine parameters at the time @xmath2 ( @xmath18 ) , where @xmath3 is a short time .
then , these new parameters are sent back to the quantum computer . in this way ,
given parameters of the initial state ( @xmath19 ) , parameters at the time @xmath10 ( @xmath20 ) are systematically inferred by iterating the process carried out by two computers .
the simulation is successful if the state @xmath21 is a good approximation of the state @xmath22 .    using the variational method ,
the degrees of freedom provided by variational parameters allow us to use quantum circuits with a size much smaller than the circuit of the trotterisation algorithm to simulate the time evolution of a quantum system .
note that this is an ` apples to oranges ' comparison because our algorithm only simulates the time evolution of a given initial state while the trotterisation algorithm simulates the time evolution of arbitrary initial states , i.e.  the time evolution operator .
thus our algorithm aims at an easier problem than the trotterisation algorithm .
tracking the evolution from a specific initial state is the main goal in many simulations , and other more general tasks can also be reexpressed this way .
for example the determination of the fixed ground state of a quantum system can made via an adiabatic time evolution  @xcite , thus our algorithm is relevant to that task . in other hybrid algorithms for determining the ground state of a quantum system  @xcite , one may need to find the global minimum of the energy in the parameter space to maximise the fidelity . however , finding the global minimum in a high - dimensional parameter space is usually a non - trivial computing task . in our algorithm ,
parameters are worked out iteratively , therefore the global minimisation is not required .
we remark that trotterisation is used in some hybrid algorithms  @xcite . in principle
our algorithm can be used to replace the trotterisation method in these instances , to further simplify the task of the quantum computer .
the time - dependent variational principle corresponding to the schrdinger equation reads @xmath23 , where the lagrangian  @xcite @xmath24 assuming that the state @xmath17 is determined by a set of real parameters @xmath25 , i.e.  @xmath16 , the lagrangian can be rewritten as @xmath26 which is a function of @xmath27 and their time derivatives @xmath28 . according to @xmath29 , the euler - lagrange equation describing the evolution of parameters ( hence the state @xmath30 ) is @xmath31 where @xmath32 here , @xmath33 ,
both @xmath34 and @xmath35 are real , and @xmath34 is antisymmetric .
there are other variational principles for the quantum time evolution  @xcite .
for example , mclachlan s variational principle reads @xmath36  @xcite , which leads to the same equation as eq .
( [ eq : difeq ] ) but @xmath37 . here , the norm @xmath38 . in the following ,
we will focus on the time - dependent variational principle , but the hybrid algorithm can be adapted to mclachlan s variational principle .
recall that we can always express a state as @xmath39 , where @xmath40 and @xmath41 are real , and @xmath42 are orthonormal basis states .
taking parameters @xmath43 , eq .  ( [ eq : difeq ] ) leads to the schrdinger equation ; but of course we will require a parameterisation such that the number of parameters remains tractable for the sizes of target system that we are interested in .
thus our variational approach , in common with others , is relevant when the scientist can make an educated guess as to the general form of the quantum state  there can be a large number of free parameters @xmath44 , but typically far fewer than would be needed to specify an arbitrary state .
we consider trial states that can be directly prepared in the quantum computer , i.e.  states can be expressed as @xmath45 , where @xmath46 is an initial state of the quantum computer , and @xmath47 is a sequence of quantum gates determined by parameters @xmath27 , i.e.   @xmath48 here , @xmath49 is a unitary operator describing a quantum gate , and the total number of gates ( i.e.  parameters ) is @xmath50 .
if @xmath50 is smaller than the dimension of the hilbert space ( @xmath51 to be exact ) , @xmath30 only spans a subset of the hilbert space . in this restricted trial - state space ,
( [ eq : difeq ] ) approximates the exact evolution if the exact state is close to the trial - state space .    in the following analysis
, we describe each @xmath49 gate as dependent on only one parameter @xmath52 .
however it is worth noting that the trial state can be generalised to the case where each gate @xmath49 depends on multiple parameters , including parameters that vary in a pre - defined way with time , and that both the trotter - suzuki decomposition  @xcite and the unitary coupled cluster ansatz  @xcite can be expressed in this form .
indeed , one can even vary the number of gates @xmath50 depending on the simulated time , providing that we understand how to re - express the trial state using the new gates ( adding gates to the set is of course trivially possible ) .
our point is that the set of gates with which we create our trial state , can itself evolve over the simulated time .
we are interested in the case that evaluating coefficients @xmath34 and @xmath35 in eq .
( [ eq : difeq ] ) is intractable in a classical computer , therefore these coefficients are obtained using the quantum computer .
each parameter is determined in turn , by appropriately configuring a quantum circuit involving @xmath53 gates and a single measurement outcome ; this fixed circuit is run repeatedly until the expected measurement outcome is known to a given precision .
note that this implies the overall protocol is trivially parallelisable over a large number of quantum processors with no quantum link between them .
we express the hamiltonian in the form @xmath54 where @xmath55 are unitary operators . in many quantum systems ,
the number of terms in this expression scales with the size of the system polynomially .
similarly , we write @xmath56 where @xmath57 are also unitary operators . for many frequently used single - qubit gates and two - qubit gates ( @xmath58 ) , there is only one term in this expression , and @xmath57 is also a one - qubit or two - qubit gate . because any operator can be expressed using pauli operators , we can choose unitary operators @xmath55 and @xmath57 as ( single - qubit and multi - qubit ) pauli operators .    using the expression ( [ eq : drk ] ) , we rewrite the derivative of the state as @xmath59 where @xmath60 then , differential equation coefficients can be expressed as @xmath61 and @xmath62 where we have used the expression ( [ eq : ham ] ) .    in eqs .
( [ eq : m ] )  and  ( [ eq : v ] ) , each term is in the from @xmath63 where the amplitude @xmath64 and phase @xmath65 are determined by either @xmath66 or @xmath67  @xcite , and @xmath68 is a unitary operator either @xmath69 or @xmath70 .
such a term can be evaluated using the quantum circuit shown in fig .
[ fig : circuit ] .
this circuit needs an ancillary qubit initialised in the state @xmath71 and a register initialised in the state @xmath46 .
the ancillary qubit is measured in the @xmath72 basis after a sequence of quantum gates on the register and two controlled gates , in which the ancillary qubit is the control qubit .
the value of each term is given by @xmath73 , where @xmath74 is the final state of the quantum computer , and @xmath75 is the x - direction pauli operator of the ancillary qubit .
the overall flow of the algorithm is as follows : firstly , we select initial parameters @xmath76 .
secondly , we solve the differential equation  ( [ eq : difeq ] ) numerically using the classical computer , in which process the matrix @xmath34 and the vector @xmath35 in the equation are evaluated using the quantum coprocessor .
the solution permits us to project our parameters forward by a small time increment , and repeat the second step .
eventually we reach the parameters @xmath77 which allow us to prepare the final state in the quantum computer .
there are many different numerical methods for solving a differential equation , and the choice of specific numerical method determines the details of the information exchange loop between quantum and classical processors . in the following ,
we take the euler method as an example , but the algorithm can be adapted to other numerical methods , e.g.  runge - kutta methods  @xcite .
time is discretised as @xmath78 , where @xmath79 is the initial time , and @xmath80 is the simulated evolution time .
firstly , @xmath34 and @xmath35 corresponding to parameters @xmath81 are evaluated using the quantum computer .
then , the following process is repeated .
given @xmath34 and @xmath35 corresponding to the time @xmath82 , eq .
( [ eq : difeq ] ) is solved numerically on the classical computer to obtain values of @xmath83 . as parameters
@xmath84 have been obtained from previous calculations , one can approximately calculate parameters of the time @xmath85 using @xmath86 . repeating the process until @xmath87 , we can work out parameters @xmath77 of the final state .
, respectively . @xmath88 denotes the exact time evolution during the time from @xmath89 to @xmath82 .
gray circles denote trial wavefunctions , and each empty circle with a dashed edge is the wavefunction at the time @xmath90 given by the exact time evolution @xmath88 and taking the trial wavefunction at the time @xmath89 as the initial state .
distances are marked by red double lines .
@xmath91 and @xmath92 .
the distance between @xmath93 and @xmath94 is not larger than the sum of all these red double lines in the main figure . ]
there are four types of errors that can result in infidelity in the variational quantum simulation ; they are i ) errors due to limited generality of the trial wavefunction , which may be only able to describe the simulated system approximately ; ii ) errors in the numerical integration obtained by solving equation  ( [ eq : difeq ] ) , which is always approximate due to the finite discretisation of time ; iii ) shot noise in measuring equation coefficients @xmath34 and @xmath35 ; and iv ) errors due to noise in the quantum machine , e.g.  decoherence , quantum gate infidelity .
a good trial wavefunction allows us to not only reduce trial - wavefunction errors but also minimise the difficulty of implementing the algorithm , e.g.  only use small - size quantum circuits . whether a good trial wavefunction can be found depends on the simulated system and our understanding of the physics in that system .
however , a trial wavefunction that contains a polynomial number of parameters and is a high - fidelity approximation to the true wavefunction always exists
. one can set the trial wavefunction as a wavefunction in the trotter - suzuki form , i.e.  take the sequence of gate operations @xmath47 in the form of eq .
( [ eq : decomposition ] ) , and choose the evolution time of each term as a parameter ( @xmath95 )  @xcite . using the trotter - suzuki - form trial wavefunction , we know that the probability of trial - wavefunction errors decreases with the number of trotterisation slices @xmath11 as ` @xmath96 '  @xcite in the worst case .
integration errors depend on the numerical method for solving the differential equation  ( [ eq : difeq ] ) .
we take the euler method as an example . in the euler method ,
the probability of error is proportional to the size of each step @xmath3  @xcite .
therefore , by choosing a small step size , integration errors can be suppressed .
shot noise and machine noise occur in the implementation of the algorithm while trial - wavefunction errors and integration errors are due to the imperfection of the algorithm itself .
the effect of implementation errors in the integration process is that coefficients @xmath34 and @xmath35 evaluated using the quantum computer are inaccurate , i.e.  their values are different from their true values @xmath97 and @xmath98 given by eqs .
( [ eq : m ] )  and  ( [ eq : v ] ) ( that is , the values given by a quantum computer without shot noise and machine noise ) . if coefficients @xmath34 and @xmath35 are inaccurate , time derivatives @xmath99 obtained from @xmath34 and @xmath35 [ see eq .
( [ eq : difeq ] ) ] are different from their true values @xmath100 obtained from @xmath97 and @xmath98 . using @xmath101 , @xmath102 and @xmath103 to denote deviations from true values and using @xmath104 to denote the solution of eq .
( [ eq : difeq ] ) , we have @xmath105 . when the matrix is invertible in the vicinity of @xmath97 , @xmath106 .
to analyse errors in the hybrid algorithm , we use the trace distance @xmath107  @xcite as the measure of error severity .
the degree of error in the overall process is given by @xmath108 .
here , @xmath109 denotes the true wavefunction , @xmath110 denotes the trial wavefunction , and @xmath94 is the state prepared in the quantum computer according to the state @xmath111 .
these two states @xmath94 and @xmath111 are different because of the machine noise .
the triangle inequality holds for the trace distance , i.e.  @xmath112 .
therefore , an upper bound of @xmath113 is given by ( see fig .  [
fig : distance ] ) @xmath114 here , @xmath88 is the exact evolution during the time from @xmath89 to @xmath82 ( @xmath115 if the hamiltonian is time - independent ) , therefore @xmath116 . to obtain the upper bound ,
we have used @xmath117 .    to distinguish algorithm errors and implementation errors
, we use the inequality @xmath118 . here
, the state @xmath119 is a trial state corresponding to parameters @xmath120 , i.e.  assuming that the quantum computer reports accurate values of @xmath34 and @xmath35 at the time @xmath89 .
then , the upper bound can be rewritten as @xmath121 where @xmath122 here , @xmath123 corresponds to algorithm errors , and @xmath124 corresponds to implementation errors .
algorithm errors in each time step can be expressed as @xmath125 where @xmath126 @xmath127 and @xmath128 here , we have used taylor expansions of @xmath129 and @xmath119 , i.e.  @xmath130 and @xmath131 , where @xmath132 .
the matrix norm is induced by the vector norm , therefore @xmath133 .
implementation errors in each time step are due to the difference between time derivatives obtained from the real quantum computer and their true values , i.e.  @xmath134 , which can be expressed as @xmath135 where @xmath136 is a positive semi - definite matrix and @xmath137 here , we have used the taylor expansion of @xmath138 , which is the same as @xmath119 but @xmath100 are replaced by @xmath99 .      using @xmath139 to denote the maximum value of the quantity @xmath140 for all @xmath82
, we have @xmath141 the first term of @xmath123 and the second term of @xmath124 are due to imperfections in approximating the initial state using the trial wavefunction and preparing the final state in the quantum computer with machine noise , respectively .
note that these two terms are not @xmath10 dependent ; for simulations over a substantial time @xmath10 we may expect them to make relatively small contributions . in the following , we analyse the other three terms one by one .
the second term of @xmath123 is the accumulation of trial - wavefunction imperfections in each time step . using the circuit in fig .
[ fig : circuit ] , every term in @xmath142 can be measured by a method analogous to that used for obtaining @xmath34 and @xmath35 .
the accuracy is again limited by the shot noise and machine noise .
therefore , algorithm errors due to the trial wavefunction can be continually estimated during the execution of the the hybrid quantum computation .
the third term of @xmath123 is caused by the finite integration step size , which can be reduced by decreasing @xmath3 . in order to limit this term to be @xmath143
, we need to choose a step size @xmath144 , i.e.  the number of time steps @xmath145 .
when the trial wavefunction is a good approximation to the exact state , we can expect that @xmath146 , which implies @xmath147 in the subspace of the problem , and in this case @xmath148 .
the first term of @xmath124 is due to the difference between @xmath99 and their true values @xmath100 .
the difference @xmath149 .
@xmath34 and @xmath35 are evaluated as required by the algorithm .
similar to @xmath142 , each element of @xmath136 can also be measured using the circuit in fig .
[ fig : circuit ] . therefore ,
the susceptibility to shot noise and machine noise in the integration process can be estimated during the execution of the hybrid quantum computation .
the algorithm is susceptible to implementation errors when @xmath97 is singular , which should be avoided when choosing the trial wavefunction . as a worst case ,
implementation errors accumulate linearly with the simulated time
. however , it can be far less severe : in sec .
[ sec : numerics ] , we will explore an example in which the accumulation of errors due to the machine noise is almost negligible compared with errors in a quantum simulation based on the conventional trotter - suzuki decomposition .    shot noise can be suppressed by repeating quantum circuits for measuring @xmath34 and @xmath35 for many times . to measure the quantity @xmath150 , the deviation due to the shot noise decreases with the the number of repetitions @xmath151 as @xmath152 .
therefore , if there is only short noise , @xmath153 , where @xmath154 , where @xmath155^{1/2}$ ] and @xmath156^{1/2}$ ] . in order to limit the overall effect of shot noise to be @xmath157 , we need to choose @xmath158 .    the number of distinct circuits @xmath159 required for finding the @xmath34 and @xmath35 parameters depends on the number @xmath160 of terms in the hamiltonian @xmath161 [ see eq .
( [ eq : ham ] ) ] , the number @xmath162 of terms in each time derivative of @xmath49 [ see eq .
( [ eq : drk ] ) ] , and @xmath50 .
@xmath163 , where the first term corresponds to @xmath34 , and the second term corresponds to @xmath35 .
if each @xmath49 is realised by @xmath164 gates , and each term @xmath165 or @xmath57 in the hamilton or the time derivative of @xmath49 is a pauli operator of less than @xmath166 qubits , each circuit includes at most @xmath167 gates .
here , we have assumed that each controlled-@xmath68 gate in the circuit ( fig .
[ fig : circuit ] ) is realised by @xmath166 two - qubit controlled-@xmath168 gates , where @xmath168 is a single - qubit pauli operator . to complete the circuit ,
other operations include preparing initial states of the ancillary qubit and the register and measuring the ancillary qubit .
the overall computation includes @xmath169 times steps , in each time step , @xmath159 circuits are implemented , each circuit contains @xmath170 gates and is repeated for @xmath151 times .
therefore , the overall number of gates is @xmath171.\end{aligned}\ ] ] from this expression , we see that the cost is a polynomial function with respect to the integration error @xmath143 , the shot - noise error @xmath157 and the simulated time @xmath10 .
factors @xmath172 , @xmath173 and @xmath174 depend on the form of the trial wavefunction .
however , during the actual execution of the hybrid computation , it will be possible to estimate @xmath172 and @xmath173 .
moreover @xmath148 when the trial wavefunction is a good approximation to the true state .
it is important to remember that while the overall gate count will be a large ( albeit polynomially - scaling ) total , the complete calculation is formed of many small quantum calculations of depth @xmath170 .
each small computation is isolated from the others , i.e. there is no shared or persistent quantum resource , and indeed @xmath175 such circuits could be performed in parallel using that many separate small quantum computers .
is inferred by measuring @xmath150 for a set of error factors @xmath176 and fitting data using the function @xmath177 .
( b ) error twirling and simulation .
non - stochastic errors in a controlled - phase gate can be converted into stochastic errors by performing pauli gates before and after the gate , and error probabilities can be tuned by applying pauli gates after the gate . ]    of the implementation errors , machine noise is the more problematic .
shot noise can be suppressed merely by repeating each quantum circuit for many times , and the repeating number scales polynomially with the accuracy .
machine noise is less easily dismissed , and we focus on it in this section .
machine noise need not necessarily result in computing errors .
the task of the quantum computer is to work out coefficients @xmath34 and @xmath35 , so that the classical computer can work out time derivatives @xmath99 according to eq .
( [ eq : difeq ] ) . machine noise ( as well as shot noise )
can potentially cause computing errors by changing these time derivatives from their true values @xmath100 .
however , sometimes machine noise does not change values of @xmath99 . for example , consider the case that the effect of machine noise is to depolarise the ancillary qubit at a fixed level , i.e.  the output of the quantum computer becomes @xmath178 , where @xmath179 is a constant independent of the quantum circuit . in this case , all equation coefficients are scaled as @xmath180 and @xmath181 . as long as @xmath179 is non - zero , the solution @xmath99 of eq .
( [ eq : difeq ] ) is the same for any value of @xmath179 .
therefore , only an inhomogeneous scaling of quantum outputs @xmath150 results in computing errors .
an example of the homogeneous scaling is the case of balanced measurement errors .
errors in the measurement on the ancillary qubit ( see fig .  [
fig : circuit ] ) can be modelled as the following : if the state of the qubit is @xmath182 ( @xmath183 ) , the measurement outcome is correct , i.e.  @xmath184 ( @xmath185 ) , with the probability @xmath186 ( @xmath187 ) , and the outcome is incorrect , i.e.  @xmath185 ( @xmath184 ) , with the probability @xmath188 ( @xmath189 ) .
if there are no other implementation errors , quantum outputs are changed from @xmath190 to @xmath191 . if measurement errors are balanced , i.e.  @xmath192 , the effect of measurement errors is a fixed scaling factor @xmath193 , which does not result in computing errors .
therefore , our hybrid algorithm is inherently insensitive to measurement errors on the ancillary qubit if these errors are balanced .
we remark that if single - qubit gates are reliable , one can flip the qubit before the measurement , so that measurement errors are effectively balanced .
measurement errors can be corrected even if they are not balanced .
if @xmath194 and @xmath195 can be evaluated by benchmarking measurement operations , one can easily work out the true value @xmath190 using the value obtained from the real machine : @xmath196 / ( 1-p_0-p_1)$ ] .
next , we will show that a similar procedure can be applied to any machine noise if errors due to the machine noise are stochastic with tunable probabilities .
we will also show how to convert errors in two - qubit entangling gates , which are expected to be the main sources of errors , into stochastic errors if they are not stochastic , and how to simulate stochastic errors to tune error probabilities .
errors in an operation are stochastic if the operation is described by a superoperator @xmath197 and @xmath198 has the form @xmath199 . here
, @xmath200 is the ideal operation without errors , @xmath198 is the superoperator describing the effect of the noise , @xmath201 is an identity operation , and errors @xmath202 occurs with the probability @xmath203 .
@xmath202 is a valid quantum operation , i.e.  trace - preserving completely positive map .
given an initial state @xmath46 , after a sequence of operations , the final state of the quantum computer is @xmath204 where @xmath205 denotes the @xmath206th operation . taking account that errors are stochastic , the quantum outcome can be rewritten in the form @xmath207 here , @xmath208 , @xmath209 is the value without errors , @xmath210 @xmath211 , and @xmath212 the @xmath213 term of @xmath214 corresponds to the case that only the @xmath213 operation causes errors and all other operations are ideal .
note that in these equations we have replaced error probabilities @xmath215 with @xmath216 , where @xmath176 is a convenient scale factor allowing us to write @xmath217 as a function of @xmath176 , and @xmath218 .
if probabilities of errors are tunable , we can infer the value of @xmath219 by measuring values of @xmath217 of a set of different factors @xmath176 [ see fig .  [
fig : error](a ) ] .
clearly @xmath176 can never be zero for our machine , as this would imply that we have the ability to fully switch off the machine noise , making it perfect .
if @xmath220 are the minimum error probabilities allowed by the machine , the minimum value of @xmath176 achievable by the machine is @xmath185 . to infer the value of @xmath219 , firstly
, we take @xmath221 values of @xmath176 as @xmath222 and measure @xmath223 using the quantum computer , where we can take @xmath224 ; secondly , we fit quantum outputs using the function @xmath225 , where @xmath226 . in this way , the first - order contribution of machine noise can be corrected .
similarly , considering second - order terms in the expansion  ( [ eq : expansion ] ) , one can fit data using a function with second - order terms ( i.e.  @xmath227 terms ) to correct the second - order contribution of machine noise .
the error reduction protocol only works for small - size circuits , which are used in the hybrid algorithm while the trotterisation algorithm usually needs large - size circuits .
the true value @xmath190 can be inferred because the contribution of high - order terms is much smaller than the contribution of lower - order terms , i.e.  @xmath228 .
the total rate of errors in the quantum circuit with @xmath170 gates is @xmath229 .
the first term in the expansion corresponds to the first order contribution @xmath230 , and so on .
therefore , high - order terms can not be neglected if @xmath231 .
when there are too many gates in the circuit or the error rate is too high , the quantum state will be populated with errors and one can not retrieve the true value @xmath190 even if we consider high - order terms in the interpolation . the best experiments to date  @xcite have reduced two - qubit gate infidelity to the range @xmath232 to @xmath233 .
with hardware of that kind , our protocol could support hundreds of gates .
thus a simulation of a quantum system with a @xmath234 dimensional hilbert space , using a trial wavefunction with hundred(s ) of parameters , may be feasible .
implementing the error reduction protocol requires knowledge of the inherent machine noise .
therefore , quantum operations need to be benchmarked , e.g.  using quantum process tomography  @xcite , before the quantum coprocessor is used , and the nature of the machine noise should not vary significantly during the simulation .
alternatively , one can monitor the machine noise in the process by stopping the protocol and benchmarking operations , because in the hybrid algorithm the quantum computer only performs small - size circuits and can be stopped at any stage .
non - stochastic errors can be converted into stochastic pauli errors using some redundant pauli gates  @xcite .
it has been seen as a common feature of quantum computing systems that two - qubit gates are the main sources of errors , i.e.  probabilities of errors in two - qubit gates are much higher than probabilities of errors in single - qubit gates  @xcite . in this case ,
arbitrary errors in two - qubit gates can be converted into stochastic errors though the use of redundant pauli gates , without introducing significant additional noise .
we consider the controlled - phase gate @xmath235 as an example , and it is similar for other two - qubit gates , e.g.  the controlled - not gate . here
c and t denote the control qubit and the target qubit , respectively .
the controlled - phase gate with noise is @xmath236 , where @xmath237 .
the noise may not be in the stochastic - error form , so that we express the noise operation in the kraus form , i.e.  @xmath238 , where @xmath239 , and each two - qubit matrix can be written as @xmath240  @xcite . here
@xmath241 correspond to pauli operators @xmath242 , @xmath243 , @xmath244 and @xmath245 , respectively .    in order to convert errors , pauli gates @xmath246 are randomly chosen and applied on each qubit before and after the controlled - phase gate . if the gate before the controlled - phase gate is @xmath68 , the gate after the controlled - phase gate is restricted to be @xmath247 to let random pauli gates cancel with each other
. here , @xmath68 and @xmath247 are both two - qubit pauli gates . the circuit is shown in fig .
[ fig : error](b ) , in which we take @xmath248 and @xmath249 , so that @xmath250 up to a phase factor . as a result ,
the overall operation is @xmath251 , where @xmath252 is the superoperator describing the effective noise after applying random pauli gates .
the effective noise superoperator is in the stochastic form  @xcite ( see appendix  [ sec : twirling ] ) , i.e. @xmath253 + \sum _ { ( a , b ) \neq ( 0,0 ) } \epsilon_{a , b } [ { \sigma^{a}_{\rm c } } { \sigma^{b}_{\rm t } } ] , \label{eq : effective}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where the fidelity is @xmath254 , and error probabilities are @xmath255 .
@xmath256 $ ] is a superoperator , and @xmath256\rho = u\rho u^\dag$ ] .
we have assumed that pauli gates are ideal for simplification . in the case
that errors in pauli gates are much less than errors in the controlled - phase gate , noise of pauli gates will be a perturbation to the effective noise of the controlled - phase gate .
error severity in the controlled - phase gate will effectively increase by four units of the single - qubit pauli gate error rate , and the effective noise of the controlled - phase gate may not be fully stochastic if pauli - gate errors are non - stochastic .    to tune probabilities of errors , we can randomly perform pauli gates after the controlled - phase gate according to desired error probabilities [ see fig .  [
fig : error](b ) ] .
assuming that we want to tune error probabilities from @xmath257 to @xmath258 , we can perform the pauli gate @xmath259 [ @xmath260 with the probability @xmath261 . because we are only interested in the case that @xmath262 , overall error probabilities are approximately @xmath263 where the first term is due to the raw controlled - phase gate ( with noise ) , and the second term is due to simulated errors using single - qubit pauli gates .
to demonstrate the hybrid algorithm , we numerically simulate a small quantum computer using classical computers .
we take the quantum ising model  @xcite as an example .
the hamiltonian of the model reads @xmath264 , where @xmath265 and @xmath266 . here , @xmath267 is the number of spins , and @xmath268 . in our numerical simulations ,
we take @xmath269 and @xmath270 , therefore we need at least four qubits in the quantum computer to implement the hybrid algorithm .
the trial state is chosen to be @xmath271 where the initial state @xmath272 is a one - dimensional cluster state . in the cluster state , qubits are in the eigenstate state of stabilisers @xmath273 ( @xmath274 ) with the same eigenvalue @xmath275 , which is prepared by performing the controlled - phase gate on each pair of nearest neighbouring qubits initialised in the state @xmath276  @xcite .
the evolution of the true state is @xmath277 . in this example
, the trial state is capable of exactly matching the true state given the correct values of the parameters .
we consider a quantum computer that can initialise qubits in the state @xmath182 , measure a qubit in the @xmath278 basis , and perform single - qubit and two - qubit quantum gates .
quantum gates include the hadamard gate , pauli gates , phase gates @xmath279 , flip gates @xmath280 , two - qubit gates @xmath281 , the controlled - phase gate and the controlled - not gate . with one of three types of two - qubit gates ,
the other two can be efficient realised , e.g.  the gate @xmath282 can be realised using two controlled - phase gates and three single - qubit gates . here , @xmath283 is the hadamard gate on qubit-1 .
we assume all three types of two - qubit gates can be directly implemented for simplification .
the state @xmath276 is prepared by initialising the qubit in the state @xmath182 and performing a hadamard gate ; the measurement in the @xmath72 basis is done by performing a hadamard gate before measuring the qubit in the @xmath278 basis .
we model the machine noise in the quantum computer as depolarising errors .
a qubit may be initialised in the incorrect state ( @xmath183 ) with the probability @xmath284 .
the measurement outcome is incorrect with the probability @xmath285 . for single - qubit gates , the noise superoperator is @xmath286 + \frac{\epsilon^{(1)}}{3}\sum_{a=0}^{3}[{\sigma^{(a)}_{}}].\ ] ] for two - qubit gates , the noise superoperator is @xmath287 + \frac{\epsilon^{(2)}}{15}\sum_{a=0}^{3}\sum_{b=0}^{3}[{\sigma^{(a)}_{1}}{\sigma^{(b)}_{2}}].\ ] ] here , @xmath288 and @xmath289 are rates of errors per gate .
we assume that error rates of all single - qubit gates are the same , error rates of all two - qubit gates are the same , and error rates of single - qubit operations are only one tenth of error rates of two - qubit gates , i.e.  @xmath290 . because the size of quantum circuits for implementing the hybrid algorithm is small , we neglect memory errors . in this model of the machine noise , errors in quantum operations are all stochastic , and error rates can be tuned by simulating errors using single - qubit pauli gates .
numerical simulations are performed to find the trace distance @xmath291 between the true state @xmath15 and the state @xmath292 prepared in the quantum computer according to the trial state @xmath17 [ see fig .  [
fig : plot](a ) ] .
because of the machine noise , @xmath292 is different from @xmath17 . the average values of stabilisers can be used to describe the quality of a cluster state . the performance of quantum algorithms in estimating the average values of stabilisers is shown in fig .  [ fig : plot](b ) . in our numerical simulations , we have taken @xmath293 , which is the state - of - the - art error rate  @xcite . see appendix  [ sec : detnum ] for some details of our numerical simulations .
we observe that in this simulation the hybrid algorithm proves to be far more reliable than the trotterisation algorithm .
the distance in the hybrid algorithm is about ten times lower than the distance in the trotterisation algorithm , and moreover the increase of the distance as a function of time can be largely suppressed in the hybrid algorithm by using the error reduction scheme [ fig .
[ fig : plot](a ) ] . as a result , the hybrid algorithm can provide a much better estimation of the average values of stabilisers [ fig .
[ fig : plot](b ) ] .
we would like to stress that in order to make the comparison fair , the time interval selected for the trotterisation algorithm has been optimised to minimise errors ( in practice
this would be possibly only if the distance from the true state can be measured in the quantum computer , an ability that would probably negate the need for simulation ! ) . in the hybrid algorithm , we have used the fourth - order runge - kutta method and taken @xmath294 to eliminate errors due to the numerical integration ; and we have neglected the effect of shot noise , therefore all errors are due to machine noise .    given a finite time cost of implementing the hybrid algorithm , we need to consider the effect of errors in the numerical integration and shot noise .
taking into account the effect of these two types of imperfections , we find that the distance in the hybrid algorithm may be increased but still much lower than the distance in the trotterisation algorithm [ blue and red bands in fig .  [
fig : plot](a ) ] : we take @xmath295 and assume that each circuit is repeated for @xmath296 ( @xmath297 ) times to measure @xmath150 in the hybrid algorithm ( with the error reduction ) .
the increasing of the distance only slightly changes the estimation of average values of stabilisers [ fig .
[ fig : plot](b ) ] .
we have proposed a quantum algorithm for simulating the time evolution of a quantum system . in this algorithm , both a classical processor and a quantum coprocessor are tightly integrated .
because of the assistance of the classical computer , the algorithm can be implemented with quantum circuits of much less depth ( i.e. fewer quantum operations ) compared with the canonical trotterisation algorithm .
we discussed the robustness of the algorithm to noise , and we found that the algorithm can automatically correct some errors induced by the noise in the quantum computer .
moreover , by deliberately amplifying stochastic noise in a controllable way , the zero - error limit can be estimated ; consequently , the effect of errors can be significantly suppressed without the need for code - based quantum error correction and its concomitant resource overheads .
this quantum algorithm can also be parallelised easily .
the task of the quantum coprocessor is to repeatedly implement a set of small - size quantum circuits , therefore the computing speed can be accelerated by using a cluster of quantum coprocessors , in which each works independently and there are not quantum channels linking them .    in view of these various merits , we believe that our algorithm provides a promising candidate application of early - stage non - fault - tolerant quantum computers .    this work was supported by the epsrc national quantum technology hub in networked quantum information technology .
the authors would like to acknowledge the use of the university of oxford advanced research computing ( arc ) facility in carrying out this work .
http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22558 .
* note added for second arxiv submission : * shortly after we posted the first version of this paper , a highly relevant paper was also posted by authors temme , bravyi , and gambetta ( arxiv:1612.02058 ) , which we commend to the reader s attention .
in fig .  [ fig : hybrid](b ) , the time evolution of a qubit is simulated .
the time evolution is driven by the hamiltonian @xmath298 .
the trial state is in the form @xmath299 .
the initial state is given by @xmath300 and @xmath301 , and @xmath302 .
demonstrating this example needs a quantum computer of two qubits .
the twirled controlled - phase gate on a state @xmath74 reads @xmath303 \mathcal{n}_\lambda \mathcal{u}_\lambda [ { \sigma^{a}_{\rm c } } { \sigma^{b}_{\rm t } } ] \rho = \bar{\mathcal{n}}_\lambda \mathcal{u}_\lambda \rho\end{aligned}\ ] ] the effective noise superoperator is @xmath304 \mathcal{n}_\lambda [ { \sigma^{a}_{\rm c } } { \sigma^{b}_{\rm t}}].\end{aligned}\ ] ] using @xmath305{\sigma^{b}_{}}$ ] , we can find that the effective noise is in the stochastic form of eq .
( [ eq : effective ] ) .
in the hybrid algorithm with the error reduction , we take @xmath224 and @xmath306 and fit the function @xmath177 to infer the value of @xmath190 . to simulate shot noise
, we use the normal distribution to approximate the binomial distribution , i.e.  the value of @xmath150 taking into account the shot noise is given by @xmath307 , where @xmath308 is given by a normal distribution with the mean @xmath309 and the standard deviation @xmath310 .    in the trotterisation algorithm ,
the time evolution is simulated using eq .
( [ eq : decomposition ] ) . for the quantum ising model , the hamiltonian is decomposed into two terms @xmath311 and @xmath312 . in our numerical simulations ,
we take @xmath313 , @xmath314 if @xmath315 , and @xmath316 .
such a method of determining trotterisation parameters coincides with the optimal choice of the number @xmath11 to minimise errors  @xcite .
the state @xmath292 is given by replacing @xmath10 with @xmath1 and determining @xmath11 and @xmath8 using the method we just described .    to find the optimal @xmath3 , we consider the average trace distance @xmath317 , where @xmath318 is the true state , and @xmath74 is the state prepared in the quantum computer according to the trotterisation algorithm . the average trace distance is plotted in fig .
[ fig : plot](a ) , taking @xmath319 in the average . to obtain other results in fig .
[ fig : plot ] , we take @xmath320 in the trotterisation algorithm , which minimises the average distance .
r. barends , j. kelly , a. megrant , a. veitia , d. sank , e. jeffrey , t. c. white , j. mutus , a. g. fowler , b. campbell , y. chen , z. chen , b. chiaro , a. dunsworth , c. neill , p. omalley , p. roushan , a. vainsencher , j. wenner , a. n. korotkov , a. n. cleland , and j. m. martinis , _ superconducting quantum circuits at the surface code threshold for fault tolerance _ , nature * 508 * , 500 ( 2014 ) .
t. p. harty , d. t. c. allcock , c. j. ballance , l. guidoni , h. a. janacek , n. m. linke , d. n. stacey , and d. m. lucas , _ high - fidelity preparation , gates , memory and readout of a trapped - ion quantum bit _
lett . * 113 * , 220501 ( 2014 ) .
j. p. gaebler , t. r. tan , y. lin , y. wan , r. bowler , a. c. keith , s. glancy , k. coakley , e. knill , d. leibfried , and d. j. wineland , _ high - fidelity universal gate set for @xmath321be@xmath322 ion qubits _ , phys .
lett . * 117 * , 060505 ( 2016 ) .
a. peruzzo , j. mcclean , p. shadbolt , m .- h .
yung , x .- q .
zhou , p. j. love , a. aspuru - guzik , and j. l. obrien , _ a variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor _ , nat .
commun . * 5 * , 4213 ( 2014 ) .
j. m. kreula , l. garca - lvarez , l. lamata , s. r. clark , e. solano , and d. jaksch , _ few - qubit quantum - classical simulation of strongly correlated lattice fermions _ , epj quantum technology * 3 * , 11 ( 2016 ) .      p. j. j. omalley , r. babbush , i. d. kivlichan , j. romero , j. r. mcclean , r. barends , j. kelly , p. roushan , a. tranter , n. ding , b. campbell , y. chen , z. chen , b. chiaro , a. dunsworth , a. g. fowler , e. jeffrey , e. lucero , a. megrant , j. y. mutus , m. neeley , c. neill , c. quintana , d. sank , a. vainsencher , j. wenner , t. c. white , p. v. coveney , p. j. love , h. neven , a. aspuru - guzik , and j. m. martinis , _ scalable quantum simulation of molecular energies _ , phys .
x * 6 * , 031007 ( 2016 ) .
b. p. lanyon , c. hempel , d. nigg , m. mller , r. gerritsma , f. zhringer , p. schindler , j. t. barreiro , m. rambach , g. kirchmair , m. hennrich , p. zoller , r. blatt , and c. f. roos , _ universal digital quantum simulation with trapped ions _ , science * 334 * , 57 ( 2011 ) .
r. barends , l. lamata , j. kelly , l. garca - lvarez , a. g. fowler , a. megrant , e. jeffrey , t. c. white , d. sank , j. y. mutus , b. campbell , y. chen , z. chen , b. chiaro , a. dunsworth , i .-
c . hoi , c. neill , p. j. j. omalley , c. quintana , p. roushan , a. vainsencher , j. wenner , e. solano , and j. m. martinis , _ digital quantum simulation of fermionic models with a superconducting circuit _ , nat
* 6 * , 7654 ( 2015 ) .
r. c. bialczak , m. ansmann , m. hofheinz , e. lucero , m. neeley , a. d. oconnell , d. sank , h. wang , j. wenner , m. steffen , a. n. cleland , and j. m. martinis , _ quantum process tomography of a universal entangling gate implemented with josephson phase qubits _
, nat . phys .
* 6 * , 409 ( 2010 ) .


the study of the infrared problem in quantum gravity goes mainly back to the work of weinberg @xcite who has investigated the infrared behaviour of virtual and real soft graviton emission processes .
the transition amplitude for a process in which an emission of a single graviton occurs is logarithmically divergent . in the sum over an infinite number of soft gravitons emitted he
claims that infrared divergencies in the transition amplitude cancel to every order of perturbation theory . in his treatment
he considers virtual and real bremsstrahlung
seperately . for the _ virtual _ ones he obtained in the sum over an infinte number of bremsstrahlungs processes a transition amplitude which is proportional to some power of the lower cutoff parameter @xmath0 .
so this rate will vanish in the limit @xmath1 .
for an infinite number of _ real _ processes he obtained a transition amplitude which is proportional to the same negative power in @xmath0 .
so the cutoff disappears if virtual and real processes are combined . from our point of view
we think that the problem can not be treated in this rather simple way for the following reasons .
the structure of the problem is the same as in quantum electrodynamics ( qed ) .
here it is well known that the infrared divergencies cancel in lowest order but in higher orders one has to deal with subdivergences in an arbitrary feynman diagram .
the question of wheather or not these divergencies cancel to every order of perturbation theory is a topic which had long been investigated , see @xcite , but is still under discussion @xcite . as far as we know the cancellation of these divergencies is not at all clear .
so we think that one has to investigate these processes carefully order by order .    in this article we will reinvestigate the infrared problem in quantum gravity in the framework of causal perturbation theory .
especially we consider the emission of a real soft graviton in two particle scattering .
we use the method of adiabatic switching with a testfunction from the schwartz space which cuts off the interaction at large distances in spacetime .
this makes all expressions well defined during the calculation and it turns out to be a natural infrared cutoff .
we therefore avoid the introduction of a graviton mass .
the latter , although widely used in the literature , is less satisfactory on physical grounds because it modifies the interaction at short distances , too .
it is not at all clear that the different infrared regularizations give the same result for observable quantities . to study this question we want to calculate the differential cross section for bremsstrahlung from first principles .
causal perturbation theory goes back to ideas of bogoliubov @xcite and was carefully developed by epstein and glaser @xcite in the seventies . later scharf @xcite applied it successfully to qed .
the idea is to fix the first order interaction and then to construct higher orders of the scattering - matrix @xmath2 by induction using free fields only .
since the free quantum fields as basic objects are operator valued distributions the scattering - matrix will be constructed as an operator valued functional on some testfunction space .
the most important ingredient for the inductive construction is the causality requirement , which roughly states that the scattering - matrix of a sum of two testfunctions factorizes if the supports of the testfunctions can be separated in time . as testfunction space one considers for convenience the schwartz space of functions of rapid decrease , since this space is invariant under fourier transformation .
then all expressions are well defined tempered distributions . in doing this
we cut off the interaction at large but finite distances which is unphysical in most cases and has to be removed at the end .
this is the so called adiabatic limit where we take the limit that the testfunction goes to a constant . in this way
we investigate the long range behaviour of the theory .
we consider a symmetric second rank tensor field @xmath3 , which is a solution to the wave equation , i.e. @xmath4 . all tensor indices are raised and lowered with the minkowski metric @xmath5 with components @xmath6 .
we denote by @xmath7 the minkowski scalar product of two four vectors . throughout the paper equal indizes in one expression
are always be properly contracted with the minkowski metric irrespective of their position .
we quantize the graviton field @xmath3 by imposing the lorentz covariant commutation relations @xmath8=-ib^{{\alpha}{\beta}\mu\nu}d_0(x - y ) \label{hh}\ ] ] where the tensor @xmath9 is defined by @xmath10 and @xmath11 is the massless pauli - jordan distribution .
we can write down the fourier - representation of the field @xmath12 .
it is given by @xmath13 here @xmath14 and @xmath15 , @xmath16 are annihilation and creation operators on a bosonic fock - space . from ( [ hh ] ) we find that they have the following commutation relations @xmath17=b^{{\alpha}{\beta}\mu\nu}\delta^{(3)}(\vec{k}-\vec{k}^{\prime } ) \label{h - com}\ ] ] it should be emphasized that this quantization procedure is only formal in the sense that we do nt describe physical gravitons , since our @xmath12 contains too many degrees of freedom for a real gravitational field .
there must be imposed further conditions like a specific gauge condition , etc . in order to obtain physical gravitons .
this was done in @xcite .
the massive scalar field @xmath18 obeys the klein - gordan equation @xmath19 .
it has the following representation in terms of annihilation- and creation - operators : @xmath20 the energy @xmath21 is as usual given by @xmath22 .
the operator @xmath23 annihilates a particle with momentum @xmath24 whereas @xmath25 creates an antiparticle with momentum @xmath24 .
these operators obey the following commutation relations @xmath26 & = \delta^{(3)}(\vec{p}-\vec{p_{}}^{\prime } ) \\
\bigl[{\tilde{a}}(\vec{p}),{{\tilde{a}}(\vec{p_{}}^{\prime})}^{{\dagger}}\bigr ] & = \delta^{(3)}(\vec{p}-\vec{p_{}}^{\prime } ) \\
\end{split } \label{phi - com}\ ] ] and all the other commutators vanish .
the energy - momentum tensor of @xmath18 is given by @xmath27 the interaction with the gravitational field will be described through the following first order coupling @xcite @xmath28 where @xmath29 with newton s constant @xmath30 .
this leads to the following explicit form of the first order interaction @xmath31    \label{t1}\ ] ] where we have introduced the trace of the graviton field @xmath32 .
for the calculation of the bremsstrahlung process we need to know the explicit form of the @xmath2-matrix up to third order in the coupling constant @xmath33 .
this means that we have to construct the time - ordered product @xmath34 .
according to the inductive construction of epstein and glaser we proceed by first calculating @xmath35 which will be done in the first subsection and after that we calculate the relevant terms , i.e. terms with four external scalar field operators and one graviton field operator , in the next subsection .      for the construction of the time - ordered product @xmath35
we start with the first order term([t1 ] ) and apply the inductive construction due to epstein - glaser as in scharf s book @xcite .
first of all we have to build the two distributions @xmath36 and @xmath37 since @xmath38 and @xmath39 are products of normally ordered field operators we apply wick s theorem to obtain a normally ordered expression .
we are interested in scattering processes so we have to concentrate on terms with zero or one contraction only .
the contraction of the free field operators are defined by @xmath40{.3pt}{.3em}\hrulefill            \rule[-.27em]{.3pt}{.3em}\!\ , } }         { \rule{0pt}{0.75em}h^{{\alpha}{\beta}}(x_1)h^{\mu\nu}}}(x_2 ) : = & -ib^{{\alpha}{\beta}\mu\nu}d^{(+)}_0(x_1-x_2)\\      { \overset{\makebox           { \ , \rule[-.27em]{.3pt}{.3em}\hrulefill            \rule[-.27em]{.3pt}{.3em}\!\ , } }         { \rule{0pt}{0.75em}{\varphi}(x_1){\varphi}}}(x_2 ) : = & -id^{(+)}_m(x_1-x_2)\\    \end{split}\ ] ] where @xmath41 is the positive frequency part of the massive pauli - jordan distribution . for the splitting operation
we need the difference @xmath42    this distribution has causal support and it is given by @xmath43 \\
\end{split}\ ] ] to obtain the time - ordered product @xmath44 we have to split the numerical distribution in @xmath45 according to it s singular order ( see the appendix for the definition of the singular order ) .
the singular order of the pauli - jordan distribution is @xmath46 , so the splitting is trivial and we can use the formula @xmath47 the retarded distribution @xmath48 is then given by @xmath49 if we replace all pauli - jordan distributions by the retarded ones @xmath50 . finally the time - ordered distribution @xmath35 is given by @xmath51 for later reference we give here the explicit expression @xmath52 \\
\end{split } \label{t2}\ ] ] this result will be needed in the next subsection for the calculation of @xmath53 .      in the previous subsection we have calculated the distribution @xmath44([t2 ] ) from the given first order coupling @xmath54([t1 ] ) . now to obtain the time - ordered product to third order we proceed in much the same way as in the calculation of @xmath44 .
we calculate the distributions @xmath55 and @xmath56 which are given by @xmath57 and @xmath58 where @xmath59 and @xmath60 are defined by @xmath61 and @xmath62 it should be noticed that we only collect those terms which have two contractions involving all the spacetime points @xmath63 and @xmath64 , i.e. there is no product of contraction functions with the same argument .
after we have built the causal difference @xmath65 we split the numerical part into @xmath66 with support in the backward light cone and @xmath67 with support in the forward light cone .
the time - ordered distribution @xmath53 is then given by @xmath68 because the calculation is staightforward and not very enlightning we give only the result @xmath69\\                          & \
\times b^{{\alpha}{\beta}{\gamma}{\varepsilon}}d^f_0(x_{\pi(2)}-x_{\pi(3)})\partial^{x_{\pi(3)}}_{{\beta}}\partial^{x_{\pi(1)}}_{{\rho}}d^f_m(x_{\pi(1)}-x_{\pi(3)})\\                         & \
+ 4m^2\bigl[:h^{{\rho}{\sigma}}(x_{\pi(1)}){\varphi}(x_{\pi(1)})^{{\dagger}}_{{{^{\scriptstyle{,}}\!\rho}}}{\varphi}(x_{\pi(2)})^{{\dagger}}{\varphi}(x_{\pi(2)}){\varphi}(x_{\pi(3)})_{{{^{\scriptstyle{,}}\!\alpha}}}:\\                         & \ + : h^{{\rho}{\sigma}}(x_{\pi(1)}){\varphi}(x_{\pi(1)})_{{{^{\scriptstyle{,}}\!\rho}}}{\varphi}(x_{\pi(2)})^{{\dagger}}{\varphi}(x_{\pi(2)}){\varphi}(x_{\pi(3)})^{{\dagger}}_{{{^{\scriptstyle{,}}\!\alpha}}}:\bigr]\\                         & \
\times d^f_0(x_{\pi(2)}-x_{\pi(3)})\partial^{x_{\pi(3)}}_{{\alpha}}\partial^{x_{\pi(1)}}_{{\sigma}}d^f_m(x_{\pi(1)}-x_{\pi(3)})\\                         & \ + 4m^2\bigl[:h^{{\rho}{\sigma}}(x_{\pi(1)}){\varphi}(x_{\pi(1)})^{{\dagger}}_{{{^{\scriptstyle{,}}\!\rho}}}{\varphi}(x_{\pi(2)})^{{\dagger}}_{{{^{\scriptstyle{,}}\!\varepsilon}}}{\varphi}(x_{\pi(2)})_{{{^{\scriptstyle{,}}\!\varepsilon}}}{\varphi}(x_{\pi(3)}):\\                         & \ + : h^{{\rho}{\sigma}}(x_{\pi(1)}){\varphi}(x_{\pi(1)})_{{{^{\scriptstyle{,}}\!\rho}}}{\varphi}(x_{\pi(2)})^{{\dagger}}_{{{^{\scriptstyle{,}}\!\varepsilon}}}{\varphi}(x_{\pi(2)})_{{{^{\scriptstyle{,}}\!\varepsilon}}}{\varphi}(x_{\pi(3)})^{{\dagger}}:\bigr]\\                         & \
\times d^f_0(x_{\pi(3)}-x_{\pi(2)})\partial^{x_{\pi(1)}}_{{\sigma}}d^f_m(x_{\pi(1)}-x_{\pi(3)})\\                         & \ + 4m^2\bigl[:h(x_{\pi(1)}){\varphi}(x_{\pi(1)})^{{\dagger}}{\varphi}(x_{\pi(2)})^{{\dagger}}_{{{^{\scriptstyle{,}}\!\gamma}}}{\varphi}(x_{\pi(2)})_{{{^{\scriptstyle{,}}\!\varepsilon}}}{\varphi}(x_{\pi(3)})_{{{^{\scriptstyle{,}}\!\beta}}}:\\                         & \ + : h(x_{\pi(1)}){\varphi}(x_{\pi(1)}){\varphi}(x_{\pi(2)})^{{\dagger}}_{{{^{\scriptstyle{,}}\!\gamma}}}{\varphi}(x_{\pi(2)})_{{{^{\scriptstyle{,}}\!\varepsilon}}}{\varphi}(x_{\pi(3)})^{{\dagger}}_{{{^{\scriptstyle{,}}\!\beta}}}:\bigr]\\                         & \ \times b^{{\alpha}{\beta}{\gamma}{\varepsilon}}d^f_0(x_{\pi(3)}-x_{\pi(2)})\partial^{x_{\pi(3)}}_{{\alpha}}d^f_m(x_{\pi(1)}-x_{\pi(3)})\\                         & \ + 2m^4\bigl[:h(x_{\pi(1)}){\varphi}(x_{\pi(1)})^{{\dagger}}{\varphi}(x_{\pi(2)})^{{\dagger}}_{{{^{\scriptstyle{,}}\!\gamma}}}{\varphi}(x_{\pi(2)})_{{{^{\scriptstyle{,}}\!\gamma}}}{\varphi}(x_{\pi(3)}):\\                         & \ + : h(x_{\pi(1)}){\varphi}(x_{\pi(1)}){\varphi}(x_{\pi(2)})^{{\dagger}}_{{{^{\scriptstyle{,}}\!\gamma}}}{\varphi}(x_{\pi(2)})_{{{^{\scriptstyle{,}}\!\gamma}}}{\varphi}(x_{\pi(3)})^{{\dagger}}:\bigr]\\                         & \
\times d^f_0(x_{\pi(3)}-x_{\pi(2)})d^f_m(x_{\pi(1)}-x_{\pi(3)})\\                         & \ + 2m^4\bigl[:h(x_{\pi(1)}){\varphi}(x_{\pi(1)})^{{\dagger}}{\varphi}(x_{\pi(2)})^{{\dagger}}{\varphi}(x_{\pi(2)}){\varphi}(x_{\pi(3)})_{{{^{\scriptstyle{,}}\!\beta}}}:\\                         & \ + : h(x_{\pi(1)}){\varphi}(x_{\pi(1)}){\varphi}(x_{\pi(2)})^{{\dagger}}{\varphi}(x_{\pi(2)}){\varphi}(x_{\pi(3)})^{{\dagger}}_{{{^{\scriptstyle{,}}\!\beta}}}:\bigr]\\                         & \
\times d^f_0(x_{\pi(3)}-x_{\pi(2)})\partial^{x_{\pi(3)}}_{{\beta}}d^f_m(x_{\pi(1)}-x_{\pi(3)})\\                         & \ + 8m^4\bigl[:h^{{\rho}{\sigma}}(x_{\pi(1)}){\varphi}(x_{\pi(1)})^{{\dagger}}_{{{^{\scriptstyle{,}}\!\rho}}}{\varphi}(x_{\pi(2)})^{{\dagger}}{\varphi}(x_{\pi(2)}){\varphi}(x_{\pi(3)}):\\                         & \ + : h^{{\rho}{\sigma}}(x_{\pi(1)}){\varphi}(x_{\pi(1)})_{{{^{\scriptstyle{,}}\!\rho}}}{\varphi}(x_{\pi(2)})^{{\dagger}}{\varphi}(x_{\pi(2)}){\varphi}(x_{\pi(3)})^{{\dagger}}:\bigr]\\                         & \
\times d^f_0(x_{\pi(3)}-x_{\pi(2)})\partial^{x_{\pi(1)}}_{{\sigma}}d^f_m(x_{\pi(1)}-x_{\pi(3)})\\                         & \ + 4m^6\bigl[:h(x_{\pi(1)}){\varphi}(x_{\pi(1)})^{{\dagger}}{\varphi}(x_{\pi(2)})^{{\dagger}}{\varphi}(x_{\pi(2)}){\varphi}(x_{\pi(3)}):\\                         & \ + : h(x_{\pi(1)}){\varphi}(x_{\pi(1)}){\varphi}(x_{\pi(2)})^{{\dagger}}{\varphi}(x_{\pi(2)}){\varphi}(x_{\pi(3)})^{{\dagger}}:\bigr]\\                         & \
\times d^f_0(x_{\pi(3)}-x_{\pi(2)})d^f_m(x_{\pi(1)}-x_{\pi(3)})\biggr]\\    \end{split } \label{t3}\ ] ] due to the sum over all permutations of the indices this expression for @xmath53 is obviously symmetric in it s arguments as it is required by the definition of the time - ordered product .
the third order @xmath2-matrix for the bremsstrahlungs processes is then given by @xmath70
in the preceeding section we have shown explicitly the construction of the time - ordered product to second and to third order . the @xmath2-matrix to third order
was given by ( [ s - matrix ] ) .
now we consider the scattering process of two massive scalar particles in which a bremsstrahlungs graviton is emited in the final state .
that is we want to calculate the expectation value of @xmath71 between the following initial and final states @xmath72 these are wave packets in momentum space where @xmath73 are one particle wave functions from @xmath74 , @xmath75 is a two particle wave function from @xmath76 and @xmath77 is a tensor - valued square integrable wave function on @xmath78 .
the vector @xmath79 is the vacuum vector in the asymptotic fock - hilbert space .
we want to calculate the following @xmath2-matrix element : @xmath80 to show the details of the calculation we restrict ourself to the following term from the above computed @xmath53 ( [ t3 ] ) @xmath81 where the @xmath82 refers to this particular term of @xmath53 .
the @xmath2-matrix element corresponding to this contribution is then given by @xmath83 then we have to compute the vacuum expectation value @xmath84 this can easily be evaluated by inserting the fourier representations of the free field operators ( [ h - field ] ) and ( [ phi - field ] ) and the use of the commutation relations in momentum space ( [ h - com]),([phi - com ] ) .
the result is given by @xmath85\,p_1^{{\beta}}\,q_2^{{\rho}}\,p_2^{{\gamma}}\,q_1^{{\varepsilon } } \\                                         & + \exp\bigl[+i(kx_1-q_1x_3+q_2x_1+p_2x_2-p_1x_2)\bigr]\,q_1^{{\beta}}\,q_2^{{\rho}}\,p_2^{{\gamma}}\,p_1^{{\varepsilon}}\\                                         & + \exp\bigl[+i(kx_1-p_1x_3+p_2x_1+q_2x_2-q_1x_2)\bigr]\,p_1^{{\beta}}\,p_2^{{\rho}}\,q_2^{{\gamma}}\,q_1^{{\varepsilon}}\\                                         & + \exp\bigl[+i(kx_1-q_1x_3+p_2x_1+q_2x_2-p_1x_2)\bigr]\,q_1^{{\beta}}\,p_2^{{\rho}}\,q_2^{{\gamma}}\,p_1^{{\varepsilon}}\bigr]\\    \end{split}\ ] ] the @xmath2-matrix element then reads @xmath86\,p_1^{{\beta}}\,q_2^{{\rho}}\,p_2^{{\gamma}}\,q_1^{{\varepsilon } } \\                     & + \exp\bigl[+i(kx_1-q_1x_3+q_2x_1+p_2x_2-p_1x_2)\bigr]\,q_1^{{\beta}}\,q_2^{{\rho}}\,p_2^{{\gamma}}\,p_1^{{\varepsilon}}\\                     & + \exp\bigl[+i(kx_1-p_1x_3+p_2x_1+q_2x_2-q_1x_2)\bigr]\,p_1^{{\beta}}\,p_2^{{\rho}}\,q_2^{{\gamma}}\,q_1^{{\varepsilon}}\\                     & + \exp\bigl[+i(kx_1-q_1x_3+p_2x_1+q_2x_2-p_1x_2)\bigr]\,q_1^{{\beta}}\,p_2^{{\rho}}\,q_2^{{\gamma}}\,p_1^{{\varepsilon}}\bigr]\\    \end{split } \label{sfi3}\ ] ] we introduce the abbreviations @xmath87 for the four parts of @xmath88 .
then we consider the spatial integrations in @xmath89 .
they can be carried out by inserting the fourier transforms of the testfunctions as well as the feynman propagators : @xmath90\\          = & \ ( 2\pi)^{-10}\int d^4x_1\ldots d^4x_3d^4l_1\ldots d^4l_5\hat{g}(l_1)\ldots\hat{g}(l_3)\exp\bigl[-i(l_1x_1+l_2x_2+l_3x_3)\bigr ] \\            & \ \hat{d}^f_0(l_4)\exp\bigl[-il_4(x_2-x_3)\bigr]\partial^{x_3}_{{\alpha}}\partial^{x_1}_{{\sigma}}\hat{d}^f_m(l_5)\exp\bigl[-il_5(x_1-x_3)\bigr ] \\            & \
\exp\bigl[+i(kx_1-p_1x_3+q_2x_1+p_2x_2-q_1x_2)\bigr]\\          = & \
( 2\pi)^{-10}\int d^4x_1\ldots d^4x_3d^4l_1\ldots d^4l_5\hat{g}(l_1)\ldots\hat{g}(l_3)\exp\bigl[-i(l_1x_1+l_2x_2+l_3x_3)\bigr ] \\            & \ \exp\bigl[-il_4(x_2-x_3)\bigr]l_5^{{\alpha}}l_5^{{\sigma}}\hat{d}^f_m(l_5)\exp\bigl[-il_5(x_1-x_3)\bigr ] \\            & \
\exp\bigl[+i(kx_1-p_1x_3+q_2x_1+p_2x_2-q_1x_2)\bigr]\\          = & \ ( 2\pi)^2\int d^4l_1\ldots d^4l_5\hat{g}(l_1)\ldots\hat{g}(l_3)\hat{d}^f_0(l_4)l_5^{{\alpha}}l_5^{{\sigma}}\hat{d}^f_m(l_5)\delta^{(4)}(l_1+l_5-k - q_2 ) \\            & \ \delta^{(4)}(l_2+l_4-p_2+q_1)\delta^{(4)}(l_3-l_4-l_5+p_1)\\    \end{split } \label{i1}\ ] ] we can do the integrations w.r.t . @xmath91 and @xmath92 immediately and get @xmath93[-l_1^{{\sigma}}-p_1^{{\sigma}}+k^{{\sigma}}+q_2^{{\sigma}}]\hat{d}^f_m(-l_1+k+q_2)\\            & \
\delta^{(4)}(l_1+l_2+l_3+p_1+q_1-q_2-p_2-k)\\    \end{split}\ ] ] then the first term of @xmath94 becomes @xmath95[-l_1^{{\sigma}}-p_1^{{\sigma}}+k^{{\sigma}}+q_2^{{\sigma}}]\hat{d}^f_m(-l_1+k+q_2)\\                         & \
b^{\mu\nu{\rho}{\sigma}}p_1^{{\beta}}q_2^{{\rho}}p_2^{{\gamma}}q_1^{{\varepsilon}}\bigl(32\omega(\vec{k})\omega(\vec{p}_1)\omega(\vec{p}_2)\omega(\vec{q}_1 )                           \omega(\vec{q_2})\bigr)^{-1/2}\\                         & \ \delta^{(4)}(l_1+l_2+l_3+p_1+q_1-q_2-p_2-k)\\                       = & \
( 2\pi)^{-15/2}i\kappa^3\int d^3\vec{p}_1d^3\vec{q_1}d^3\vec{k}d^3\vec{p}_2d^3\vec{q}_2\hat{\psi}_1(\vec{p}_1)\hat{\psi}_2(\vec{q}_1 )                           \hat{\psi}(\vec{p}_2,\vec{q}_2)\hat{\phi}^{\mu\nu}(\vec{k})\\                         & \ \int d^4l_1\ldots d^4l_3\hat{g}(l_1)\ldots\hat{g}(l_3)b^{{\alpha}{\beta}{\gamma}{\varepsilon}}\frac{-l_1^{{\alpha}}-p_1^{{\alpha}}+k^{{\alpha}}+q_2^{{\alpha}}}{(l_1+l_3+p_1-k - q_2)^2+i0 }                           b^{\mu\nu{\rho}{\sigma}}\\                         & \ \frac{-l_1^{{\sigma}}-p_1^{{\sigma}}+k^{{\sigma}}+q_2^{{\sigma}}}{m^2-(-l_1+k+q_2)^2-i0}p_1^{{\beta}}q_2^{{\rho}}p_2^{{\gamma}}q_1^{{\varepsilon}}\bigl(32\omega(\vec{k } )                           \omega(\vec{p}_1)\omega(\vec{p}_2)\omega(\vec{q}_1)\omega(\vec{q_2})\bigr)^{-1/2}\\                         & \
\delta^{(4)}(l_1+l_2+l_3+p_1+q_1-q_2-p_2-k)\\     \end{split } \label{sfi4}\ ] ] where we have inserted the propagators explicitely . in this expression
we can carry out the adiabatic limit in the variable @xmath96 since it does nt appear in the argument of the propagators .
we do this in the following way .
first of all we choose a fixed testfunction @xmath97 with the property @xmath98 .
then a new testfunction is defined by @xmath99 the adiabatic limit @xmath100 is then equivalent to the limit @xmath101 .
the fourier transform of @xmath102 is given by @xmath103 then we have @xmath104 using this in ( [ sfi4 ] ) the integration w.r.t .
@xmath96 gives just the factor @xmath105 .
we are interested in the @xmath2-matrix element in the limit where only gravitons at low momenta ( soft gravitons ) are emited .
so we omit all small quantities in the numerators , and we take only the leading singularities in the denominators .
this is known as the eikonal approximation in the literature , see e.g. @xcite . with this approximation
we obtain for the argument of the massless propagator @xmath106 where @xmath107 is the scaling parameter from the adiabatic limit .
the argument of the massive propagator becomes @xmath108 since the momentum @xmath109 is on the mass shell .
then the @xmath2-matrix element becomes @xmath110 now the adiabatic limit in @xmath111 can be done as above and we arrive at the result for the @xmath2-matrix element @xmath112 there remains to calculate the other three parts @xmath113 .
the calculations are similiar to the one above so we only present the results @xmath114 now we are ready to consider the differential cross section .
this will be done in detail in the next subsection .
we have to calculate the absolute square of the @xmath2-matrix element @xmath94 .
we do this again separately for the four parts @xmath116 . for the first part we start with ( [ sfi6 ] ) and write @xmath117 where a @xmath118 indicates complex conjugation .
we use the completeness relations of the final states , i.e. @xmath119 where the sum is taken over all final states .
then we have @xmath120 now we assume that the wavefunctions @xmath121 and @xmath122 are sharply concentrated around the initial momenta @xmath123 and @xmath124 , so that we can replace the momenta in the propagators by these initial momenta . then the expression can be simplified to @xmath125^{-1}\\                                                    & \ \int d^3\vec{p}_1d^3\vec{q}_1d^3\vec{p_1}^{\prime}d^3\vec{q_1}^{\prime}\hat{\psi}_1(\vec{p}_1)\hat{\psi}_2(\vec{q_1 } )                                                      \hat{\psi}_1(\vec{p_1}^{\prime})^{\ast}\hat{\psi}_2(\vec{q_1}^{\prime})^{\ast}\\                                                    & \
\delta^{(4)}(l_1+p_1+q_1-q_2-p_2-k)\delta^{(4)}(l_2+p_1^{\prime}+q_1^{\prime}-q_2-p_2-k)\\    \end{split } \label{sigma3}\ ] ] we observe that the last integral herein depends on the initial state only .
we denote it by @xmath126 , where we have introduced @xmath127 .
we have @xmath128\exp\bigl[+i(l_2+p_1^{\prime}+q_1^{\prime}-p)y_2\bigr]\\                   = & \ \int d^4y_1d^4y_2\psi_1(y_1)\psi_2(y_1)\psi_1(y_2)^{\ast}\psi_2(y_2)^{\ast}\exp[-il_1y_1]\exp[+il_2y_2]\\                     & \
\exp\bigl[-i(y_1-y_2)p\bigr]\\    \end{split}\ ] ] the function @xmath129 is normalized according to @xmath130\ ] ] and it is concentrated around @xmath131 . in the limit of infintely sharp wave packets we may represent it by @xmath132\ ] ] this will be inserted in ( [ sigma3 ] ) and we obtain @xmath133^{-1}\\                                                    & \ \delta^{(4)}(p_2+q_2+k - p_i - q_i)\int d^4y|\psi_1(y)|^2|\psi_2(y)|^2\exp\bigl[-i(l_1-l_2)y\bigr]\\    \end{split } \label{sigma4}\ ] ] for the definition of the cross section we follow sect .
3.4 of @xcite .
we can set @xmath134 in the last integral because we neglect all contributions @xmath135 in the numerator , see the remarks after ( [ sfi4 ] ) . with the notation as in @xcite
we define the cross section as @xmath136 where @xmath137 is the radius of the beam of incoming particles .
then we restrict ourself again to ( [ t3term1 ] ) of @xmath53 and furthermore to the first integral @xmath89 ( [ i1 ] ) of @xmath138 .
if we denote the integration variables @xmath139 and @xmath109 by @xmath140 and @xmath141 , respectively , then we obtain for the cross section @xmath142^{-1}\frac{\omega(\vec{p_i})\omega(\vec{q_i})}{\sqrt{\bigl((p_iq_i)^2-m^4\bigr)}}\int                  d^4l_1d^4l_2\hat{g}(l_1)\hat{g}(l_2)^{\ast}\\               & \
\int\frac{d^3\vec{k}}{2\omega(\vec{k})}\frac{d^3\vec{q_f}}{2\omega(\vec{q_f})}\frac{d^3\vec{p_f}}{2\omega(\vec{p_f})}b^{{\alpha}{\beta}{\gamma}{\varepsilon}}\frac{(q_f^{{\alpha}}-                 p_i^{{\alpha}})}{(q_f - p_i)^2}\frac{(q_f^{{\rho}}-p_i^{{\rho}})}{2q_f(l_1-k)}p_i^{{\beta}}q_f^{{\rho}}p_f^{{\gamma}}q_i^{{\varepsilon}}b^{{\alpha}^{\prime}{\beta}^{\prime}{\gamma}^{\prime}{\varepsilon}^{\prime}}\\               & \ \frac{(q_f^{{\alpha}^{\prime}}-p_i^{{\alpha}^{\prime}})}{(q_f - p_i)^2}\frac{(q_f^{{\rho}^{\prime}}-p_i^{{\rho}^{\prime}})}{2q_f(l_2-k)}p_i^{{\beta}^{\prime}}q_f^{{\rho}^{\prime } }                 p_f^{{\gamma}^{\prime}}q_i^{{\varepsilon}^{\prime}}\delta^{(3)}(\vec{p_f}+\vec{q_f}+\vec{k}-\vec{p_i}-\vec{q_i})\\               & \
\delta(\omega(\vec{p_f})+\omega(\vec{q_f})+\omega(\vec{k})-\omega(\vec{p_i})-\omega(\vec{q_i}))\\    \end{split}\ ] ] to carry out the remainig integrations we have to know the integrand explicitely .
so at this point of the calculation the tensor structure of the integrand becomes important and we have to write down the various contractions between the four - vectors @xmath143 . with the tensor @xmath144 ( [ b - tensor ] ) we get for the cross section @xmath145\bigl({\omega}(\vec{q_f})^2                 -\vec{q_f}^2\bigr)\\               & -\bigl[\bigl({\omega}(\vec{q_f}){\omega}(\vec{p_f})-\vec{q_f}\vec{p_f}\bigr)(p_iq_i)-\bigl({\omega}(\vec{q_f}){\omega}(\vec{q_i})-\vec{q_f}\vec{q_i}\bigr)\bigl({\omega}(\vec{p_i } )                 { \omega}(\vec{p_f})-\vec{p_i}\vec{p_f}\bigr)\\               & + \bigl({\omega}(\vec{q_f}){\omega}(\vec{p_i})-\vec{q_f}\vec{p_i}\bigr)\bigl({\omega}(\vec{p_f}){\omega}(\vec{q_i})-\vec{p_f}\vec{q_i}\bigr)+\bigl({\omega}(\vec{p_i}){\omega}(\vec{p_f})-                 \vec{p_i}\vec{p_f}\bigr)(p_iq_i)\\               & + ( p_iq_i)\bigl({\omega}(\vec{p_i}){\omega}(\vec{p_f})-\vec{p_i}\vec{p_f}\bigr)-p_i^2\bigl({\omega}(\vec{p_f}){\omega}(\vec{q_i})-\vec{p_f}\vec{q_i}\bigr)\bigr]\bigl({\omega}(\vec{q_f } )                 { \omega}(\vec{p_i})-\vec{q_f}\vec{p_i}\bigr)\biggr]^2\\               & \ \frac{\delta^{(3)}(\vec{p_f}+\vec{q_f}+\vec{k}-\vec{p_i}-\vec{q_i})\delta(\omega(\vec{p_f})+\omega(\vec{q_f})+\omega(\vec{k})-\omega(\vec{p_i } )                 -\omega(\vec{q_i}))}{(q_f - p_i)^22q_f(l_1-k)(q_f - p_i)^22q_f(l_2-k)}\\    \end{split}\ ] ] it is convenient to choose the center - of - mass system , defined by @xmath146 .
we can easily do the integration w.r.t .
@xmath147 : @xmath148\bigl({\omega}(\vec{q_f})^2-\vec{q_f}^2\bigr )                 -\bigl[\bigl({\omega}(\vec{q_f}){\omega}(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k})\\               & + \vec{q_f}(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k})\bigr)(p_iq_i)-\bigl({\omega}(\vec{q_f}){\omega}(\vec{q_i})-\vec{q_f}\vec{q_i}\bigr)\bigl({\omega}(\vec{p_i}){\omega}(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k } )                 + \vec{p_i}(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k})\bigr)\\               & + \bigl({\omega}(\vec{q_f}){\omega}(\vec{p_i})-\vec{q_f}\vec{p_i}\bigr)\bigl({\omega}(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k}){\omega}(\vec{q_i})+(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k})\vec{q_i}\bigr)+\bigl({\omega}(\vec{p_i } )                 { \omega}(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k})\\               & + \vec{p_i}(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k})\bigr)(p_iq_i)+(p_iq_i)\bigl({\omega}(\vec{p_i}){\omega}(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k})+\vec{p_i}(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k})\bigr)\\               & -p_i^2\bigl({\omega}(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k}){\omega}(\vec{q_i})+(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k})\vec{q_i}\bigr)\bigr]\bigl({\omega}(\vec{q_f}){\omega}(\vec{p_i})-\vec{q_f}\vec{p_i}\bigr)\biggr]^2\\               & \ \frac{\delta({\omega}(\vec{q_f})+{\omega}(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k})+{\omega}(\vec{k})-2{\omega}(\vec{p_i}))}{(q_f - p_i)^22q_f(l_1-k)(q_f - p_i)^22q_f(l_2-k)}\\    \end{split}\ ] ] now we are left with the integration w.r.t .
@xmath149 . in order to be able to do this we have to rewrite the argument of the delta distribution showing the dependence on @xmath150 explicitely .
we want to use the formula @xmath151 where the @xmath152 are simple zeros of the function @xmath153 . for that purpose
we define @xmath154 where @xmath155 and we have used the notation @xmath156 . in order to simplify the notation in the following formulas we write @xmath157 .
the zeros of the function @xmath153 are given by @xmath158 where we have introduced @xmath159 clearly these solutions are itself functions of the momentum @xmath160 and the angle @xmath161 .
if we consider the limit of these functions ( [ zeros ] ) as @xmath160 goes to zero we obtain @xmath162 where @xmath163 .
the derivative of @xmath153 with respect to @xmath164 is given by @xmath165 by inserting the two zeros of @xmath153 into ( [ fprime ] ) we observe that , by taking the limit @xmath166 , we get a finite result , namely @xmath167 now we can rewrite the cross section as @xmath168\bigl({\omega}(\vec{q_f})^2-\vec{q_f}^2\bigr )                 -\bigl[\bigl({\omega}(\vec{q_f}){\omega}(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k})\\               & + \vec{q_f}(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k})\bigr)(p_iq_i)-\bigl({\omega}(\vec{q_f}){\omega}(\vec{q_i})-\vec{q_f}\vec{q_i}\bigr)\bigl({\omega}(\vec{p_i}){\omega}(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k } )                 + \vec{p_i}(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k})\bigr)\\               & + \bigl({\omega}(\vec{q_f}){\omega}(\vec{p_i})-\vec{q_f}\vec{p_i}\bigr)\bigl({\omega}(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k}){\omega}(\vec{q_i})+(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k})\vec{q_i}\bigr)+\bigl({\omega}(\vec{p_i } )                 { \omega}(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k})\\               & + \vec{p_i}(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k})\bigr)(p_iq_i)+(p_iq_i)\bigl({\omega}(\vec{p_i}){\omega}(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k})+\vec{p_i}(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k})\bigr)\\               & -p_i^2\bigl({\omega}(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k}){\omega}(\vec{q_i})+(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k})\vec{q_i}\bigr)\bigr]\bigl({\omega}(\vec{q_f}){\omega}(\vec{p_i})-\vec{q_f}\vec{p_i}\bigr)\biggr]^2\\                & \ \frac{1}{(q_f - p_i)^22q_f(l_1-k)(q_f - p_i)^22q_f(l_2-k)}\sum_{j=1}^{2}\frac{1}{\lvert f^{\prime}({\mathsf{q_f}})\rvert_{{\mathsf{q_f}}={\mathsf{q_f}}^{(j)}}\rvert }                 \delta({\mathsf{q_f}}-{\mathsf{q_f}}^{(j)})\\    \end{split}\ ] ] before we do the integration w.r.t .
@xmath164 let us denote by @xmath169 the expression which comes from the tensor part in the numerator , i.e. @xmath170\\                                                 & \
\bigl({\omega}(\vec{q_f})^2-\vec{q_f}^2\bigr)-\bigl[\bigl({\omega}(\vec{q_f}){\omega}(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k})+\vec{q_f}(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k})\bigr )                                                   \ ( p_iq_i)-\bigl({\omega}(\vec{q_f})\\                                                 & \ { \omega}(\vec{q_i})-\vec{q_f}\vec{q_i}\bigr)\bigl({\omega}(\vec{p_i}){\omega}(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k})+\vec{p_i}(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k})\bigr )                                                   + \bigl({\omega}(\vec{q_f}){\omega}(\vec{p_i})-\vec{q_f}\vec{p_i}\bigr)\\                                                 & \ \bigl({\omega}(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k}){\omega}(\vec{q_i})+(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k})\vec{q_i}\bigr)+\bigl({\omega}(\vec{p_i}){\omega}(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k } )                                                   + \vec{p_i}(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k})\bigr)\\                                                 & \
( p_iq_i)+(p_iq_i)\bigl({\omega}(\vec{p_i}){\omega}(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k})+\vec{p_i}(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k})\bigr)-p_i^2\bigl({\omega}(\vec{q_f }                                                   + \vec{k})\\                                                 & \ { \omega}(\vec{q_i})+(\vec{q_f}+\vec{k})\vec{q_i}\bigr)\bigr]\bigl({\omega}(\vec{q_f}){\omega}(\vec{p_i})-\vec{q_f}\vec{p_i}\bigr)\biggr]^2\\    \end{split}\ ] ] then the expression for the cross section is given by @xmath171 from this expression we can identify the differential cross section @xmath172 .
we do the @xmath164-integration and obtain @xmath173}\\                                &   \
\frac{1}{2\bigl[\sqrt{({\mathsf{q_f}}^{(j)})^2+m^2}l_2 ^ 0-{\mathsf{q_f}}^{(j)}{\mathsf{l_2}}\cos{\gamma}-\sqrt{({\mathsf{q_f}}^{(j)})^2+m^2}{\mathsf{k}}+{\mathsf{q_f}}^{(j ) }                                  { \mathsf{k}}\cos\theta\bigr]}\\    \end{split}\ ] ] where we have introduced @xmath174 in the next step we omit all small quantities in the numerator , and we set @xmath175 in the denominators if there occur no singularities .
then the expression can be simplified to @xmath176}\\                                & \
\frac{1}{2\bigl[{\omega}(\vec{p_i})l_2 ^ 0-{\mathsf{q_f}}^{(j)}|_{{\mathsf{k}}=0}{\mathsf{l_2}}\cos{\gamma}-{\omega}(\vec{p_i}){\mathsf{k}}+{\mathsf{q_f}}^{(j)}|_{{\mathsf{k}}=0}{\mathsf{k } }                                  \cos\theta\bigr]}\\    \end{split}\ ] ] now one observes that the function @xmath177 is independent of @xmath178 and depends only on the initial momenta @xmath123 and @xmath124 so we can take it outside the integral .
then we get @xmath179}\\                                & \
\frac{1}{2\bigl[{\omega}(\vec{p_i})(l_2 ^ 0-{\mathsf{k}})-{\mathsf{q_f}}^{(j)}|_{{\mathsf{k}}=0}({\mathsf{l_2}}\cos{\gamma}-{\mathsf{k } }                                  \cos\theta)\bigr]}\\    \end{split } \label{dsdo}\ ] ] where the function @xmath180 is given by @xmath181 if we use ( [ limitqf ] ) we can write the differential cross section in the form @xmath182\bigl[{\omega}(\vec{p_i})(l_2 ^ 0                                  -{\mathsf{k}})-{\mathsf{p_i}}({\mathsf{l_2}}\cos{\gamma}-{\mathsf{k}}\cos\theta)\bigr]}\\                                & + f_2(-{\mathsf{p_i}})\int\frac{d^3\vec{k}}{2{\omega}(\vec{k})}\\                                 & \ \frac{1}{\bigl[{\omega}(\vec{p_i})(l_1 ^ 0-{\mathsf{k}})+{\mathsf{p_i}}({\mathsf{l_1}}\cos{\beta}-{\mathsf{k}}\cos\theta)\bigr]\bigl[{\omega}(\vec{p_i})(l_2 ^ 0                                  -{\mathsf{k}})+{\mathsf{p_i}}({\mathsf{l_2}}\cos{\gamma}-{\mathsf{k}}\cos\theta)\bigr]}\biggr]\\    \end{split } \label{diffcrosssec}\ ] ] in order to do the integration w.r.t .
@xmath183 we use an identity due to feynman @xmath184 ^ 2},\ a , b\in \mathbb{c}\ ] ] we consider the first term in ( [ diffcrosssec ] ) .
then we define the functions @xmath185 and @xmath186 by @xmath187 \\
\bigl[{\omega}(\vec{p_i})(l_2 ^ 0-{\mathsf{k}})-{\mathsf{p_i}}({\mathsf{l_2}}\cos{\gamma}-{\mathsf{k}}\cos\theta)\bigr ] \\    \end{split } \label{ab}\ ] ] the integral becomes @xmath188 ^ 2}\\                                                       = & \
\frac{2\pi}{2}\int{\mathsf{k}}d{\mathsf{k}}\int_0 ^ 1dx\int_{-1}^{+1}\frac{d\cos\theta}{\bigl[ax+b(1-x)\bigr]^2}\\    \end{split}\ ] ] we insert @xmath185 and @xmath186 and obtain @xmath189 ^ 2}\\    \end{split } \label{theta - int}\ ] ] we set @xmath190 and we observe that the integral w.r.t .
@xmath191 is of the form @xmath192 see @xcite , where we ve set @xmath193 then we obtain for ( [ theta - int ] ) @xmath194 where @xmath195 and @xmath196 are given by @xmath197\\      b(l_1,l_2,x ) = & \
\bigl[\bigl({\omega}(\vec{p_i})l_1 ^ 0-{\mathsf{p_i}}{\mathsf{l_1}}\cos{\beta}\bigr)x+\bigl({\omega}(\vec{p_i})l_2 ^ 0-{\mathsf{p_i}}{\mathsf{l_2}}\cos{\gamma}\bigr)(1-x)\bigr]^2\\    \end{split}\ ] ] then this integral w.r.t .
@xmath160 is of the form @xmath198 where the constants @xmath199 are given by @xmath200 in our case the discriminant @xmath201 is given by @xmath202 ^ 2\\               & -4{\omega}(\vec{p_i})^2\bigl[\bigl({\omega}(\vec{p_i})l_1 ^ 0-{\mathsf{p_i}}{\mathsf{l_1}}\cos{\beta}\bigr)x+\bigl({\omega}(\vec{p_i})l_2 ^ 0-{\mathsf{p_i}}{\mathsf{l_2}}\cos{\gamma}\bigr)(1-x)\bigr]^2\\             = & \
-4{\mathsf{p_i}}^2\bigl[\bigl({\omega}(\vec{p_i})l_1 ^ 0-{\mathsf{p_i}}{\mathsf{l_1}}\cos{\beta}\bigr)x+\bigl({\omega}(\vec{p_i})l_2 ^ 0-{\mathsf{p_i}}{\mathsf{l_2}}\cos{\gamma}\bigr)(1-x)\bigr]^2\\    \end{split}\ ] ] so we see that @xmath203
. then the integral ( [ bs44 ] ) is given by @xmath204\ ] ] here we consider gravitons up to an energy @xmath205 which is much smaller than the energy of the incident particles . since every real detector has a finite energy resolution below which he can not detect any particles we have to integrate over all these contributions up to the value @xmath205 .
then the final result of the @xmath160-integration is given by the following expression @xmath206\\    \end{split}\ ] ] the second term in ( [ diffcrosssec ] ) can be treated in the same way .
the only difference is the sign of @xmath207 in the definition of the functions @xmath185 and @xmath186 , see ( [ ab ] ) , which has no consequences for the calculation of the integrals ( [ bs1 ] ) and ( [ bs44 ] ) .      in the preceeding subsection we ve found the differential cross section for bremsstrahlung in a scattering process of two massive scalar particles .
now we want to discuss the adiabatic limit . for the differential cross section we ve found @xmath208\\    \end{split } \label{diffcrosssec1}\ ] ] where @xmath209 and @xmath210 .
this expression , as it stands , is well defined and finite due to the presence of the testfunctions . to obtain a physically relevant result we have to remove this cutoff and therefore test the infrared behaviour of ( [ diffcrosssec1 ] ) .
we will show below that part of this expression becomes singular in the adiabatic limit . in the adiabatic limit in momentum space
we let the testfunctions tend to a delta distribution in it s argument .
this will be done in the same way as in subsection 5.1 , see ( [ adia ] ) .
we scale the argument of the testfunctions with a parameter @xmath107 in the integrals of ( [ diffcrosssec1 ] ) and consider the limit @xmath101 .
the functions @xmath211 and @xmath212 are homogeneous of degree 2 in the variables @xmath213 and @xmath96 , i.e. @xmath214 while the function @xmath215 is homogeneous of degree 1 , i.e. @xmath216 . with this in mind let us now look at the various logarithms in ( [ diffcrosssec1 ] ) .
the argument of the first logarithm contains the constant @xmath217 so it stays finite if @xmath107 goes to zero .
the constant in front of the second and the fourth logarithm has equal powers of @xmath107 in the numerator as well as in the denominator so it tends to a constant .
the argument of the second logarithm goes to one , so the logarithm itself goes to zero and the fourth goes to another constant .
it remains to consider the third logarithm .
this one becomes singular in the adiabatic limit .
this can be seen as follows : @xmath218 ^ 2\biggr)\\                                & + \text{finite terms}\\    \end{split}\ ] ] if we concentrate on the singular part only we obtain by inserting the scaled testfunctions @xmath219 where we ve introduced @xmath220 .
so we get a logarithmic divergence if @xmath107 tends to zero .
the origin of this singularity is the massless graviton propagator as can be clearly seen from the above calculation . since all the other terms in ( [ t3 ] ) have the same structure of propagators we would get the same logarihmic divergence as in our example .
furthermore there can be no cancellation between these terms since they all have a positive sign .
so we can omit the discussion of the other terms .
this result is similar to the case of quantum electrodynamics @xcite where a logarithmic divergence in the differential cross section was obtained as well in the bremsstrahlung contribution to the scattering of an electron due to an external classical source .
as is well known from qed , the infrared divergence in the bremsstrahlung must cancel against contributions from radiative corrections , otherwise scattering theory would break down .
in this appendix we give the definition of the singular order @xmath221 of a numerical distribution @xmath222 .
the singular order measures the singularity of the distribution @xmath223 at the origin @xcite .
let @xmath222 be given .
then the distribution @xmath223 has scaling degree @xmath224 at @xmath225 , if @xmath226 the singular order is then defined by @xmath227 - 4 $ ] , where @xmath228 $ ] is the greatest integer less or equal to @xmath224 .
it s an easy excercise to see that differentiation increases the singular order of a distribution , i.e. @xmath229 where @xmath230 for every multi - index @xmath231 with @xmath232 .