\section{ Introduction}
One of the major issues in the present quantum information technology is the protection of quantum systems from external noise.
The noise can be due to imprecise control or undesired interaction with the environment.
To eliminate some errors of the first kind, geometric quantum computing (GQC) has been proposed \cite{zanardi99, jones00,falci00,ekert00}.
The idea behind it is to use the so-called geometric phases \cite{berry84} to manipulate the quantum state.
Usually the appearance of a geometric phase is associated with a cyclic and adiabatic manipulation of the system.
The advantage is twofold: the adiabatic evolution eliminates the problem of fine-tuning of the evolution time and the geometric operators can be intrinsically robust against fluctuations of the imprecise control field \cite{dechiara03}.

It is not possible to realize universal quantum computing only by means of the Abelian Berry phase \cite{berry84}. Therefore, utilizing the non-Abelian geometric phases \cite{wilczek84}, the geometric quantum computing was proposed in 1999 \cite{zanardi99}.
In this case, the logical states are encoded in a degenerate subspace of the full Hilbert space and they can be manipulated by means of purely geometric non-Abelian operators.
The first proposals of the physical implementations were based on trapped ions and exploited the so-called tripod Hamiltonian to build a doubly degenerate logical subspace \cite{unanyan99, duan01}.
Subsequently, the same Hamiltonian has been used in many quantum systems providing means for possible implementation for neutral atoms, superconducting circuits, quantum dots, and Bose-Einstein condensates \cite{fuentes02,recati02,faoro03,solinas03,zangh05}.
In conjunction with these proposals, various studies have been carried out to test the stability of geometric gates against different types of noise. Here, GQC has proven robust against fast adiabatic fluctuations of control fields \cite{solinas04} and certain type of environmental noise \cite{parodi07, florio06}.

Despite the theoretical efforts, we are still far from a full GQC, the experimental observations of non-Abelian phases remain very limited and still under discussion \cite{morton2005}.
One possible reason behind the absence of experimental verification is the decoherence due to the interaction of the quantum system with the environment.
In fact, because of the condition of adiabatic evolution, it is challenging to protect the system for long enough time to implement geometric operations.
This is the case for all of the above proposals based on tripod-like Hamiltonians in which the evolution does not occur in the lowest-energy eigenspace.
In general, one expects that decoherence such as relaxation can be avoided if the evolution occurs in the ground-state manifold.
The possibility to exploit this robustness in large systems to perform adiabatic quantum computation is still under discussion \cite{ashhab06}.
However, the robustness of ground state evolution has been recently confirmed for a driven two-level system in the adiabatic limit~\cite{pekola09,solinas10,salmilehto10}.
In the same studies, it was shown that relaxation induced by the environment can help to keep the system in the ground state potentially leading to an improved robustness of the ground-state evolution.

These results suggest that GQC which exploits a degenerate ground-state eigenspace can be experimentally feasible.
The first step in this direction has been taken in Ref.~\cite{pirkkalainen10} in which a way to detect non-Abelian phases in superconducting Josephson devices was proposed.
However, the work mainly focused on observing the geometric non-Abelian effects and only a particular unitary transformation was discussed.

The extension to a universal set of transformations is non-trivial and is the main result of this paper.
Starting from a general Hamiltonian, we show how to obtain the basic logical gates in an abstract context.
Then, using the same system as in Ref.~\cite{pirkkalainen10}, we show how these gates can be implemented in a physical set-up.
We build all the logical gates needed for quantum computing: a complete set of single-qubit gates and a two-qubit gate exploiting the mutual inductance between two circuits next to each other.
Together these gates form an universal set allowing full geometric quantum computing.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~\ref{sec:model}, we introduce a model Hamiltonian with a doubly degenerate ground state which can produce universal single-qubit transformations.
In Sec.~\ref{sec:Hphys}, we present the physical system and show how to map the abstract model into the physical Hamiltonian.
In Sec.~\ref{sec:single_qubit}, we show how to manipulate the quantum system in order to obtain two fundamental single-qubit gates.
Section~\ref{sec:two_qubit} is devoted to the implementation of a geometric two-qubit gate.
In Sec.~\ref{sec:measurement}, the readout measure is discussed and Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusions}  concludes the paper.

\section{Model}
\label{sec:model}

We consider a quantum system with a two-fold degenerate ground-state eigenspace and an excited state.
The system is steered adiabatically along a loop by external control fields.
If the evolution is adiabatic and occurring in time $T_{ad}$, the dynamics can be accurately determined by instantaneous diagonalization of the system Hamiltonian since the system follows approximately the evolution of the eigenstates.
It is convenient to fix the logical basis in order to have the initial Hamiltonian in a diagonal form: in particular, the two degenerate ground-states used as logical states are denoted as $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$, and the excited one representing an auxiliary state is denoted as $|a\rangle$.
Taking the ground and excited state energies equal to $ \eta$ and $\eta+\alpha$, respectively, we have
$\hat{H}(t=0)=  \eta \openone + \alpha |a\rangle \langle a|$, where $\openone= |0\rangle \langle 0|+|1\rangle \langle 1|+|a\rangle \langle a|$.
The basis  $\{ |a\rangle , |0\rangle, |1\rangle \}$ is time-independent and corresponds to the eigenbasis only if the Hamiltonian is in the above form.

We require that the Hamiltonian has always a doubly degenerate ground state during the control cycle.
Thus we can formally write it as $\hat{H}(t)=  \eta \openone +\alpha |v_1\rangle \langle v_1|$ where $|v_1\rangle$ is a linear combination of the time-independent $\{ |a\rangle , |0\rangle, |1\rangle \}$ states.
Throughout the paper we adopt the convention to denote with the operators with hat symbol (e.g., $\hat{H}$) and their representation in the basis $\{ |a\rangle , |0\rangle, |1\rangle \}$ with the tilde (e.g., $\tilde{H}$).
Following Ref.~\cite{niskanen02}, the most general representation with the spectrum of $\hat{H}$ in the basis  $\{ |a\rangle , |0\rangle, |1\rangle \}$ reads
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
\tilde{H}=  \left(\begin{array}{lll}
  \eta+\alpha \cos ^2\theta _1\ \cos ^2\theta_2 & - \alpha e^{-i \phi _1} \cos
   \theta_1 \cos ^2\theta_2 \sin \theta_1 &
   -\alpha e^{-i \phi _2} \cos \theta_1 \cos \theta_2 \sin \theta_2 \\
 -\alpha e^{i \phi _1} \cos \theta_1 \cos ^2 \theta_2 \sin \theta_1 &  \eta + \alpha \cos ^2\theta_2 \sin ^2\theta _1
   & \alpha e^{i (\phi _1-\phi_2)} \cos \theta_2 \sin \theta_1 \sin \theta_2 \\
 -\alpha e^{i \phi _2} \cos \theta_1 \cos \theta_2 \sin
   \theta_2 & \alpha e^{-i (\phi _1-\phi_2)} \cos \theta
  _2 \sin \theta_1 \sin \theta_2 &  \eta+ \alpha \sin^2\theta_2
\end{array}
\right),
\label{eq:H_general}
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
where $\phi_1$, $\phi _2$, $\theta_1$, and $ \theta_2$ are experimentally modulated parameters.
In the following we will assume that $\phi _1=0$.
The parameters  $ \theta_1$, $ \theta_2$, and $ \phi_2$ describe effectively the time evolution of the Hamiltonian.
The instantaneous eigenvectors of $\hat{H}$ can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
  |v_1 \rangle &=& -e^{-i \phi_2} \cos \theta_1 \cos \theta_2 |a\rangle +e^{-i \phi_2}\cos \theta_2 \sin \theta_1 |0\rangle \nonumber \\
  &&+  \sin \theta_2 |1\rangle ,  \nonumber \\
  | v_2 \rangle &=& \sin \theta_1 |a \rangle +\cos \theta_1 |0 \rangle \nonumber,  \\
   | v_3 \rangle&=& e^{-i \phi_2}\cos \theta_1 \sin \theta_2 |a \rangle  - e^{-i \phi_2}\sin \theta_1 \sin \theta_2 |0 \rangle\nonumber \\
   &&+ \cos \theta_2 |1 \rangle,
     \label{eq:eigenvectors}
\end{eqnarray}
where $| v_2 \rangle$ and $| v_3 \rangle$ are the degenerate time-dependent ground states.

The restriction to adiabatic evolution, i.e., $\alpha T_{ad}/ \hbar \gg 1$, assures that no transitions to the excited state occurs; the evolution is restricted to the ground-state eigenspace.
The final unitary transformation depends only on the geometric features, i.e.,  on the loop $\gamma$ covered in the parameter space $\{ \theta_1, \theta_2 , \phi_2\}$, and it reads  \cite{wilczek84,zanardi99,niskanen02}
\begin{equation}
  \hat{U}_{\gamma} =\mathcal{P} \mathrm{exp} \Big [- \oint_\gamma (\hat{A}_{\theta_1} d \theta_1+\hat{A}_{\theta_2} d \theta_2+\hat{A}_{ \phi_2} d  \phi_2) \Big],
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{P}$ denotes the path ordering operator.
The $\hat{A}_{x} $ are the so-called connections and, restricted to the degenerate eigenspace, they are defined by $\tilde{A}_{x,j-1,i-1}= \langle v_j| \partial_x |v_i\rangle$ ($i,j=2,3$).
In our case, restricted to the degenerate eigenspace, they assume a simple form
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{A}_{\theta_1}&=&\left(
\begin{array}{ll}
 0 & e^{i \phi_2} \sin \theta_2 \\
 -e^{-i \phi_2} \sin \theta_2 & 0
\end{array}
\right),
 \nonumber \\
\tilde{A}_{\theta_2}&=&
\left(
\begin{array}{ll}
 0 & 0 \\
 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right),
 \nonumber \\
\tilde{A}_{\phi_2}&=&
\left(
\begin{array}{ll}
 0 & 0 \\
 0 & - i \sin^2 \theta_2
\end{array}
\right).
\label{eq:connections}
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\hat{A}_{\theta_2}$ gives no contribution,
the unitary transformation associated with a loop $\gamma$ in the parameter space $\{ \theta_1, \theta_2 , \phi_2\}$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
  \hat{U}_{\gamma} =\mathcal{P} \mathrm{exp} \Big [- \oint_\gamma (\hat{A}_{\theta_1} d \theta_1 +\hat{A}_{ \phi_2} d  \phi_2) \Big].
  \label{eq:U_gamma}
\end{equation}

\begin{figure*}
    \begin{center}

    \includegraphics[height=5cm]{CircuitFig_label.eps}
     \hspace{1cm}
    \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{FinalLoopFig_label.eps}
    \end{center}
\caption{(Color online) (a) Scheme for the superconducting geometric qubit. The gate voltage and the capacitance of the $i$th island are denoted by $V_{g_i} $ and $C_{g_i}$, respectively. The $i$th SQUID is described by Josephson energy $E_i$, capacitance $C_i$, and flux $\Phi_i$. The phase across the device is $\varphi$. (b)
The hexagonal (honeycomb) stability diagram in the $n_{gs}-n_{gd}$ plane with all the SQUIDs closed ($E_i=0$). In the inset, the loops that generate the logical gates are provided.
The trapezoidal loop (solid line $1  \rightarrow 2  \rightarrow 3 \rightarrow 4 \rightarrow 1$) generates the Hadamard gate and triangular loop  (dashed line $1  \rightarrow 4  \rightarrow 5 \rightarrow 1$) generates the $U_2$ tranformation.
	The circle represents the point in which the SQUIDs are closed and the phase across the device is reversed from $\varphi$ to $-\varphi$ in the implementation of the $U_2$ tranformation.
	Notice that away from the degeneracy lines  the SQUIDs are open ($E_i \neq 0$) and the loops represent the projection on the $n_{gs}-n_{gd}$ plane of the degeneracy curves in the whole $\{n_{gs}, n_{gd}, E_i \}$ space.
Here, we have chosen $k=1/3$ and a big energy gap $\alpha=\tilde{E}_C$ to visualize better the loop.
 }
	\label{fig:scheme}
\end{figure*}

\section{Physical Realization}
\label{sec:Hphys}

The physical set-up considered for the implementation of GQC is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:scheme}(a).
It is composed of three superconducting quantum interference devices (SQUIDs) in series with two superconducting islands between them \cite{pirkkalainen10}. The SQUIDs are operated as tunable Josephson junctions which can be closed (Josephson energy $E_i=0$) and opened ($E_i \neq 0$) by controlling the magnetic flux through them. The phase difference of the order parameter across the whole device, $\varphi=\phi_R-\phi_L$, is controlled by the magnetic flux $\Phi$ through the outer-most loop.
A slightly simpler device has been already used to measure  experimentally the Berry phase \cite{mottonen08}.

The total Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_{\mathrm{phys}}$ is composed of the charging Hamiltonian, $\hat{H}_{\mathrm{ch}} $, and the Josephson Hamiltonian, $\hat{H}_J$. The first one reads
\begin{align}
\hat{H}_{\mathrm{ch}} = & E_{C_1} (\hat{n}_1 - n_{g_1})^2 + E_{C_2} (\hat{n}_2 - n_{g_2})^2 \nonumber \\ + & E_m (\hat{n}_1 - n_{g_1}) (\hat{n}_2 - n_{g_2}),
\label{eq:H_charge1}
\end{align}
where $\hat{n}_i$ is the operator for the excess number of Cooper pairs on the island $i$ and $n_{g_i}= C_{g_i} V_{g_i} /(2e)$ is the corresponding gate charge. The charging energies are $E_{C_1} = 2 e^2 C_{\small{\sum}_2}/C^2$, $E_{C_2} = 2 e^2 C_{\small{\sum}_1}/C^2$, and $E_m = 4 e^2 C_m/C^2$. Here, $C_{\small{\sum}_i}$ is the total capacitance of the island  $i$, namely, $C_{\small{\sum}_1} = C_L+C_m+C_{g_1}+C_1^0$ and $C_{\small{\sum}_2} = C_R+C_m+C_{g_2}+C_2^0$, and $C^2 = C_{\small{\sum}_1} C_{\small{\sum}_2} - C_m^2$. Above, the $C_k^0$ is the self-capacitance of island $k$.

The Josephson Hamiltonian is given by
\begin{align}
\hat{H}_J =-\frac{1}{2} &\sum_{n_1,n_2=-\infty}^{\infty} \Big(  E_L(\Phi_L) e^{i \varphi/2} |n_1+1,n_2 \rangle \langle n_1,n_2| \nonumber \\
+ & E_m(\Phi_m)  |n_1+1,n_2-1 \rangle \langle n_1,n_2| \nonumber \\
+ & E_R(\Phi_R) e^{-i \varphi/2}   |n_1,n_2+1 \rangle \langle n_1,n_2| + \mathrm{h.c.}  \Big),
\label{eq:H_J1}
\end{align}
where $|n_1,n_2 \rangle$ denotes the eigenstate of $\hat{n}_1$ and $\hat{n}_2$ and $\{ E_i(\Phi_i) \}$ are the tunable Josephson energies which are controlled by the fluxes through the SQUIDs $\{ \Phi_i \}$.
Above we have neglected the contributions arising from the finite loop inductance and suppose that the SQUIDs are perfectly symmetric.

It is convenient to use the total charge on the two islands, $\hat{n}=\hat{n}_1+\hat{n}_2$, and the charge asymmetry, $\hat{m}=\hat{n}_1-\hat{n}_2$ as quantum numbers. Thus, the quantum state of the system is denoted by $|n,m\rangle$ and the new gate parameters are $n_{gs}=n_{g_1}+n_{g_2}$ and $n_{gd}=n_{g_1}-n_{g_2}$.
If the charging energies of the islands are equal $E_{C}=E_{C_1}=E_{C_2}$,  the charging Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:H_charge1}) with the new notation reads~\cite{leone08}
\begin{align}
\hat{H}_{\mathrm{ch}} =  \frac{2 E_C+E_m }{4} \left[(\hat{n}-n_{gs})^2 +  \frac{2 E_C-E_m }{2 E_C+E_m} (\hat{m}-n_{gd})^2 \right],
\label{eq:H_charge}
\end{align}
and the Josephson Hamiltonian can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{H}_J &=& -\frac{1}{2}  \sum_{n,m=-\infty}^{\infty} \Big(  E_L(\Phi_L) e^{i \varphi/2}  |n+1,m+1 \rangle \langle n, m| \nonumber \\
&+ & E_m(\Phi_m)  |n,m+2 \rangle \langle n,m| \nonumber \\
&+ & E_R(\Phi_R) e^{-i \varphi/2} |n+1,m-1 \rangle \langle n,m| + \mathrm{h.c.}  \Big).
\label{eq:H_J}
\end{eqnarray}

If all the SQUIDs are closed, i.e., $E_L=E_m=E_R=0$, the conventional stability diagram with a hexagonal lattice structure in the $n_{gs}-n_{gd}$ plane is recovered as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:scheme}(b)~\cite{leone08}.  Hexagonal cells of the lattice are denoted by $h_{n,m}$ and inside the cell the state $|n, m\rangle$ is the non-degenerate ground state.
The edges of the cells represent lines of double degeneracy and the intersection points of three cells are associated with triple degeneracies.

In the following, we restrict the evolution to the vicinity of the triple degeneracy point $\{n_{gs},n_{gd} \} = \{(3-k)/2 , 0 \}$ with $k=(2 E_C-E_m)/(2 E_C+E_m)$ at which the states $|n=1,m=1\rangle \equiv |a\rangle$, $|n=1,m=-1\rangle \equiv |0\rangle$ and $|n=2,m=0 \rangle \equiv |1\rangle$ have the same charging energy.
They correspond to $1$ excess charge on the first island and no charge on the second, no charge on the first island and $1$ in the second, and $1$ charge on the first and second island, respectively.
\begin{figure*}
    \begin{center}
    \includegraphics[scale=0.65]{TimeLoop1.eps}
    \includegraphics[scale=0.65]{TimeLoop2.eps}
    \end{center}
\caption{(Color online) Time evolution (normalized by the adiabatic time $T_{\rm ad}$) of the physical parameters to implement the $U_2$ transformation. (a) The gate parameters $n_{gs}$ (solid line) and $n_{gd}$ (dashed line) and (b) the SQUID parameters $|E_m|$ (solid line), $|E_L|$ (dashed line), and $|E_R|$ (dot-dashed line) in units of $\tilde{E}_C$. The blue dot denotes the point, in which the SQUIDs are closed and the phase across the device is reversed $\varphi \rightarrow -\varphi$. In all the plots the energy gap is constant $\alpha=0.1\times \tilde{E}_C$ and $k=1/3$.}
	\label{fig:loops}
\end{figure*}
For small Josephson coupling, $E_i \ll E_C$, and in the vicinity of the triple degeneracy point, the system evolution is restricted to the basis $\{ |a\rangle, |0\rangle, |1\rangle  \}$. Thus we can truncate the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_{\mathrm{phys}}$ into this basis with the representation
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
\tilde{H}_{\mathrm{phys}}=\left(
\begin{array}{lll}
  \tilde{E}_C[(1-n_{gs})^2+k (1-n_{gd})^2] & -\frac{1}{2} E_m(\Phi_m)  & -\frac{1}{2} E_R(\Phi_R) e^{\frac{i \varphi}{2}} \\
  -\frac{1}{2} E_m(\Phi_m) & \tilde{E}_C[(1-n_{gs})^2+k (1+n_{gd})^2] & -\frac{1}{2} E_L(\Phi_L) e^{-\frac{i \varphi}{2}} \\
  -\frac{1}{2} E_R(\Phi_R) e^{-\frac{i \varphi}{2}} & -\frac{1}{2} E_L(\Phi_L) e^{\frac{i \varphi}{2}} & \tilde{E}_C[(2 - n_{gs})^2 + k n_{gd}^2]
\end{array}
\right),
\label{eq:H_phys}
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
where $\tilde{E}_C=(2 E_C+E_m)/4$.

The mapping between the matrices $ \tilde{H}$ and $\tilde{H}_{\rm phys}$  is straightforward for the diagonal elements and the absolute values of the off-diagonal terms.
For example, we can solve the system of equations for the diagonal terms $\tilde{H}_{ii}= \tilde{H}_{\mathrm{phys},ii}$. From the first equation we obtain $ \eta=\tilde{E}_C[(1-n_{gs})^2+k (1- n_{gd})^2] -\alpha  \cos^2\theta_1 \cos^2 \theta _2$, and we solve the remaining equations to have
\begin{equation}
\left \{
\begin{array}{lll}
  n_{gs} &= & \alpha \frac{ 3 \cos^2 \theta_2 -2}{4 \tilde{E}_C}+2 (3-k)   \\
   n_{gd}&=& -\alpha  \frac{ \cos \left(2 \theta _1\right)\cos ^2 \theta _2}{4 k \tilde{E}_C}.
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq:n_mapping}
\end{equation}

Mapping the absolute values of the off-diagonal terms as a function of $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ results in
\begin{equation}
\left \{
\begin{array}{lll}
  |E_L(\Phi_L)| &=& 2 \alpha  \cos \theta_2 \sin \theta_1 \sin \theta_2 \\
  |E_m(\Phi_m)| &=&  2 \alpha  \cos \theta_1 \cos ^2\theta_2 \sin \theta_1  \\
  |E_R(\Phi_R)| &=& 2 \alpha \cos \theta_1 \cos \theta_2 \sin \theta_2 .
  \label{eq:off-diag_mapping1}
  \end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
The parameter $\alpha$ is the energy gap of the system but it has no general  simple expression in terms of the physical parameters.
In the following, we impose that $\alpha$ is constant during the evolution and determine the corresponding evolution of the physical parameters by Eqs.~(\ref{eq:n_mapping}) and~(\ref{eq:off-diag_mapping1}).
However, the value of $\alpha$ and even its time-independence are not important for the model since the geometric operator does not depend on the value of the energy gap.
This further degree of freedom can be utilized to design a time-dependent $\alpha$ leading to ease the control of the physical parameters for the experimental implementation.

Even if Eqs.~(\ref{eq:n_mapping}) and~(\ref{eq:off-diag_mapping1}) are satisfied, comparison between Eqs.~(\ref{eq:H_general}) and (\ref{eq:H_phys}) reveals that it is not possible to match  the phases of the off-diagonal terms, and thus, a global bijective mapping does not exist.
In fact, if all the SQUIDs are open, it turns out that the two Hamiltonians have different spectra and the physical Hamiltonian has a degenerate ground state only for particular choices of the phase across the device: $\varphi=0,\pi$ (see also \cite{leone08}).
However, there is still the possibility to map the two Hamiltonians locally  if we assume that it is possible to close the SQUIDs perfectly.

\section{Single-qubit logical gates}
\label{sec:single_qubit}

Since the calculation of  the geometric unitary transformation is simpler using the model Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$, we use the following approach: first determine the loop for $\hat{H}$ which produces the desired geometric transformation and then map it into the physical parameter space.

Along a single loop it is convenient to keep $\phi_2$ constant thus restricting the curve to the $\theta_1-\theta_2$ plane.
It follows from Eqs.~(\ref{eq:connections}) and~(\ref{eq:U_gamma}) that a rectangular loop in the $\theta_1-\theta_2$ plane produces the final transformation (in the logical $\{|0\rangle,  |1\rangle\}$ basis)
\begin{equation}
  U_{\gamma} = {\rm exp} \Big [\Big (
		\begin{array}{ll}
		 0 & e^{i \phi_2} g \\
 		-e^{-i \phi_2} g  & 0
	 \end{array}
	 \Big )	\Big ],
  \label{eq:U_single_qub}
\end{equation}
where $g= (\sin  \theta_2^M -\sin  \theta_2^m)(\theta_1^M-\theta_1^m)$, and $\theta_i^M$ ($\theta_i^m$) is the maximum (minimum) value of $\theta_i$.

\subsection{Hadamard gate}

We set $\phi_2=0$ and perform the loop
\begin{eqnarray}
(\theta_1,\theta_2)&:& (0,0) \rightarrow (0,\pi/6)    \rightarrow (\pi/2,\pi/6)  \nonumber \\ & & \rightarrow (\pi/2,0) \rightarrow  (0, 0),
\label{eq:Had_loop}
\end{eqnarray}
which corresponds to  $\theta_1^M=\pi/2$, $\theta_2^M=\pi/6$, and $\theta_i^m=0$.

The corresponding transformation using Eq.~(\ref{eq:U_single_qub}) is the Hadamard gate (apart from an irrelevant global phase),
\begin{equation}
U_1=
 \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
 1 & -1 \\
 1 & 1
\end{array}
\right).
\label{eq:Hadamard}
\end{equation}

In this case, the mapping to the physical Hamiltonian is simple. If we set the phase $\varphi$ across the device to zero,
the Hamiltonian corresponding to Eq.~(\ref{eq:H_phys}) can be globally mapped into the one in Eq.~(\ref{eq:H_general}) with the help of Eqs. (\ref{eq:n_mapping}) and (\ref{eq:off-diag_mapping1}).
The corresponding loop in the $n_{gs}-n_{gd}$ plane is shown in the inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:scheme}(b).

\subsection{Phase gate}
\label{sec:swap-phase}

Let us consider the case in which the model Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:H_general}) undergoes a loop with  time-independent $\phi_2 \neq 0 $.
We choose $\theta_i^M=\pi/2$, $\theta_i^M=\pi/2$ and the loop
\begin{eqnarray}
(\theta_1,\theta_2):&& (0,0) \rightarrow (\pi/2,0) \rightarrow (\pi/2,\pi/2) \nonumber \\ &&\rightarrow  (0,\pi/2) \rightarrow (0,0),
\label{eq:swap_loop}
\end{eqnarray}
which produces the transformation
\begin{equation}
U_{2}(\phi_2)=
 \left(
\begin{array}{ll}
 0 & -e^{i \phi_2} \\
 e^{-i \phi_2} & 0
\end{array}
\right).
\label{eq:U_swap}
\end{equation}

The choice of this particular loop is due to the simplicity in calculating the unitary operator.
In fact, the path $(\pi/2,\pi/2) \rightarrow  (0,\pi/2)$ is not necessary since all the SQUIDs are closed ($E_j=0$) and the $n_{gs}$ and $n_{gd}$ are constant.
The Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:H_general}) does not change along this path [see Eqs.~(\ref{eq:n_mapping}) and~(\ref{eq:off-diag_mapping1})] which therefore is physically irrelevant.

To locally map the physical Hamiltonian $\tilde{H}_{\mathrm{phys}}$ to $\tilde{H}$  along the loop in Eq.~(\ref{eq:swap_loop}), the physically irrelevant step $(\pi/2,\pi/2) \rightarrow  (0,\pi/2)$ can be neglected.
The physical evolution can be obtained from Eqs.~(\ref{eq:n_mapping}) and~(\ref{eq:off-diag_mapping1}) and it is shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:scheme}(b) and~\ref{fig:loops}.
The sequential opening of SQUIDs $R$, $L$, and $m$ in Fig. \ref{fig:loops}(b) corresponds to the three edges of the triangular loop in Fig.~\ref{fig:scheme}(b).
However, particular attention must be paid to the choice of the phase across the device $\varphi$ for the correct mapping between the Hamiltonians.

In the beginning of the loop all the SQUIDs are closed and we fix the phase to $\varphi=2 \phi_2$.
At point $(\theta_1,\theta_2)=(\pi/2,\pi/2)$, again all the SQUIDs are closed, both the Hamiltonians are diagonal and the mapping between them is trivial.
At this point [marked with a dot in Figs.~\ref{fig:scheme}(b) and \ref{fig:loops}(b)],
no information about the phase is present, and hence we can adiabatically reverse the phase across the device $\varphi$ to $-2 \phi_2$.
During this process, an additional diagonal contribution proportional to  $\dot{\varphi}$ arises in the physical Hamiltonian due to the ac Josephson relation. It appears in the Hamiltonian as a finite bias voltage and can be treated as an effective shift in the gate charges $\delta n_{g_i}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:H_charge1}), and hence, it can be eliminated by an proper choice of $n_{g_i}$ allowing to restore the desired degeneracy.
After this procedure, the right SQUID is open but, since the phase through the system has been changed, it is possible to map the Hamiltonians along the third path. The final result is a mapping between the physical Hamiltonian and the model Hamiltonian with constant phase $\phi_2$. Thus, this generates the $U_{2} \left(\phi_2\right)$ transformation.

Having established the loop to build a logical $U_2$ gate, we can obtain a phase gate if we perform two sequential loops with opposite phases $\phi_2$ and $-\phi_2$. The final transformation is
\begin{equation}
U_{\rm ph}(\phi_2)=U_{2} \left(-\phi_2\right) U_{2}\left(\phi_2\right)=
- \left(
\begin{array}{ll}
 e^{-i  2 \phi_2} & 0 \\
 0 & e^{i 2 \phi_2}
\end{array}
\right),
\label{eq:U_phase}
\end{equation}
which allows us to control the relative phase between the logical states.

\subsection{Sequential application of logical gates}

To obtain the logical transformation $U_1$ and $U_{2} \left(\phi_2 \right)$ we have assumed that $\phi_2$ is constant.
However, in a sequential application of different logical gates we must change $\phi_2$ from one loop to the other.
These changes have no effect on the dynamics of the system.
In fact, they are performed when the SQUIDs are closed, $\theta_1=\theta_2=0$ and thus, from Eq.~(\ref{eq:connections}) even if $\phi_2$ changes the associated connection vanishes.

\section{Two-qubit logical gate}
\label{sec:two_qubit}

To complete the set of gates for universal geometric quantum computing we need a non-trivial two-qubit gate \cite{nielsen}.
To this end, we use two superconducting qubits as described above.
To couple the qubits, the mutual inductance between the two circuits is exploited as the key physical phenomenon as depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:2qubs_circuit}.
If a current is flowing through one circuit, the flux and the overall phase across the other one are changed allowing us to implement controlled logical operations.
In the following we use the first circuit as a control qubit and the second one as a target qubit. Thus, we let the current flow through the first circuit and apply to the second qubit a geometric transformation which depends on the flux induced by mutual inductance.

\subsection{Current through the first circuit}

To couple the qubits, a stationary current is induced through the first circuit whose direction depends on the logical state of the qubit.

Denoting the Hamiltonian associated with the first circuit as $\hat{H}_{\mathrm{phys,1}}$ and the relative phase across it as   $\varphi_1$, the current operator through the first circuit is defined as $\hat{I}_1=(2 e /\hbar )\partial_{\varphi_1} \hat{H}_{\mathrm{phys,1}}$ \cite{pirkkalainen10}.
To calculate the current at $\varphi_1=0$, we consider the variation of  the Hamiltonian for $\varphi_1\ll 1$: $\hat{H}_{\mathrm{phys},1}(0) + \delta \hat{H}_{\mathrm{phys},1}(\varphi_1)$.
The Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_{\mathrm{phys},1}(0)$ is the  dominant contribution and $\delta \hat{H}_{\mathrm{phys},1}(\varphi_1)$ is a perturbation that can be obtained as linear contribution in  $\varphi_1$.
The dominant part  $\hat{H}_{\mathrm{phys},1}(0)$ can be mapped into $\hat{H}$ and analytically diagonalized. Thus, the eigenbasis in Eq.~(\ref{eq:eigenvectors}) represent the preferred basis for our calculation.
Using the degenerate-state perturbation theory, it is possible to diagonalize  $\delta \hat{H}_{\mathrm{phys},1}(\varphi_1)$ in the degenerate subspace. The eigenstates are $|v^\prime_2\rangle = (  i |v_2\rangle +| v_3\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ and $|v^\prime_3  \rangle= ( - i |v_2\rangle + |v_3\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ and, in the new basis $\{ |v_1\rangle ,|v^\prime_2\rangle ,|v^\prime_3\rangle \}$, using Eq.~(\ref{eq:n_mapping}) and~(\ref{eq:off-diag_mapping1}), $\hat{H}_{\mathrm{phys},1}(\varphi_1)$ can be written as
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
\tilde{H}_{\mathrm{phys},1}(\varphi_1) =\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
 \eta+\alpha &  -f^* \varphi _1 &
   f \varphi _1  \\
  -f \varphi _1 & \eta - \alpha \cos ^2 \theta _2 \sin \left(2 \theta _1\right) \sin  \theta _2  \varphi _1 & 0 \\
 f^* \varphi _1 & 0 & \eta + \alpha  \cos ^2 \theta _2  \sin \left(2 \theta _1\right) \sin  \theta _2  \varphi _1
\end{array}
\right),
\label{eq:diagonal_H1}
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
where $f = \alpha  \left[i \cos \left(2 \theta _1\right)+\sin \left(2 \theta_1\right) \sin \theta _2 \right ] \sin \left(2 \theta_2\right)/(2 \sqrt{2}) $.

Using Eq.~(\ref{eq:diagonal_H1}), the current operator $\hat{I}_1$ for $\varphi_1=0$ can be calculated and the average current associated with the degenerate eigenstates reads $I_{1,i}=\langle v^\prime_i |\hat{I}|v^\prime_i \rangle= (-1)^{i+1}(2e \alpha /\hbar) \sin \left(2 \theta _1\right) \sin \theta _2\cos ^2\theta _2$ (with $i=2,3$).
Thus, the current flows in opposite direction depending on the system state.

However, this is not sufficient. In fact, if initially the SQUIDs are closed, the current states $|v^\prime_2\rangle=1/\sqrt{2}(i |0\rangle+ |1\rangle)$ and $|v^\prime_3\rangle=1/\sqrt{2}(-i |0\rangle+ |1\rangle)$ do not coincide with the logical states.
Since we want the logical states to be associated with the flowing current, we must rotate the logical basis into the current state basis before opening the SQUIDs using the geometric operators $U_{\rm ph}(\pi/2)U_1$.
After this rotation, the opening of the SQUIDs could itself produce a mixing of the $|v^\prime_2\rangle$ and $|v^\prime_3\rangle$ states.
To avoid this we open the SQUIDs following the path $(\theta_1, \theta_2): (0, 0) \rightarrow (0, \pi/4) \rightarrow (\pi/4, \pi/4)$.
Using equation similar to Eq.~(\ref{eq:U_gamma}), by direct calculation, it can be verified that the current states $|v^\prime_2\rangle$ and $|v^\prime_3\rangle$ are not mixed along this path \cite{currentnote}.
Thus, the SQUIDs are open, the current flowing through the first  circuit is $I_1= \pm e \alpha /(\hbar \sqrt{2})$ depending on the initial logical state $|0\rangle$ or $|1\rangle$.

Equation~(\ref{eq:diagonal_H1}) allows us to estimate the effect of self-inductance $L$ on the system.
Even if the phase across the device is initially set to zero, the current $I_1$ flowing in the circuit induces a change $\delta \Phi_1$ in the magnetic flux. Thus, the system experiences a small additional phase $\delta \varphi_1 = \pi \delta \Phi_1/\Phi_0 = \pm \pi L |I_1| /\Phi_0$ associated with the eigenstates  $|v^\prime_2\rangle$ and $|v^\prime_3\rangle$.
As observed from Eq.~(\ref{eq:diagonal_H1}), because of the different sign of the phase shift, both the degenerate eigenstates have the same energy and the degeneracy is preserved up to the linear order in $\delta \varphi_1$.

\subsection{Two-qubit interaction Hamiltonian}

Let us assume for simplicity that the phase across the second circuit, $\varphi_2$, is initially fixed to zero. Due to the current through the first circuit, the second one experiences an additional flux through the outermost loop $\delta \Phi_2=\pm M I_1$, where $M$ is the mutual inductance between the loops.
This induces a phase increment $\delta \varphi_2= \pi \delta \Phi_2/\Phi_0 = \pm \pi M |I_1| /\Phi_0 $ depending on the initial logical state of the first qubit.

The total Hamiltonian is $\hat{H}_{\mathrm{tot}}= \hat{H}_{\mathrm{phys},1}(\varphi_1=0) + \hat{H}_{\mathrm{phys},2}(\delta \varphi_2)$.
We suppose that the quantum state of the first circuit is a combination of the degenerate states $|v_2^\prime \rangle$ and $ |v_3^\prime \rangle  $. In this subspace, the current operator $\hat{I}_1$ is diagonal and we can write the phase operator $\delta \hat{\varphi}_2$ as
\begin{equation}
 \delta \hat{\varphi}_2= -\frac{\pi M |I_1|}{\Phi_0} (|v_2^\prime\rangle \langle v_2^\prime |-|v_3^\prime\rangle \langle v_3^\prime |).
\end{equation}

In the second circuit we suppose to have always at least one SQUID closed and thus, no current flows through it and the first circuit does not experience an additional mutual flux.
The charging Hamiltonian of the second circuit does not depend on the phase operator $\delta \hat{\varphi}_2$.
For this reason, the interaction between the two circuits occurs through the Josephson Hamiltonian of the second circuit $\hat{H}_{J,2}^{\mathrm{int}}(\delta \hat{\varphi}_2)$. Using Eq.~(\ref{eq:H_J}) it can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{H}_{J,2}^{\mathrm{int}}(\delta \hat{\varphi}_2)& =& -\frac{1}{2}  \sum_{n,m} \Big(  E_{L,2}(\Phi_{L,2}) e^{i \frac{\delta \hat{\varphi}_2}{2}}  \otimes |n+1,m+1 \rangle \langle n, m| \nonumber \\
& &+ E_{m,2}(\Phi_{m,2}) \openone \otimes |n,m+2 \rangle \langle n,m| \nonumber \\
& &+ E_{R,2}(\Phi_{R,2}) e^{-i \frac{\delta \hat{\varphi}_2}{2}} \otimes |n+1,m-1 \rangle \langle n,m|  \nonumber \\
& &+ \mathrm{h.c.}  \Big),
\label{eq:H_J_2qubs}
\end{eqnarray}
where $E_{k,2}$ and $\Phi_{k,2}$ indicate the Josephson energy and the flux of the $k$th SQUID of the second circuit, respectively, and $\delta \hat{\varphi}_2$ acts on the Hilbert space associated with the first circuit.

Writing the Hamiltonian in the degenerate subspace $\{ |v_2^\prime\rangle, |v_3^\prime\rangle \}$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{H}_{J,2}^{\mathrm{int}}(\delta \varphi_2) &=& |v_2^\prime\rangle \langle v_2^\prime | \otimes \hat{H}_{J,2}(\delta \varphi_2)  \\ \nonumber
	&+&|v_3^\prime\rangle \langle v_3^\prime | \otimes \hat{H}_{J,2}(-\delta \varphi_2),
\label{eq:H_J_2qubs_final}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\hat{H}_{J,2}(\pm \delta \varphi_2)$ is now in the form of Eq.~(\ref{eq:H_J}).
This Hamiltonian allows us to perform an operation on the second qubit depending on the state of the first one.
In fact, if the first qubit is in the state $|v_2^\prime\rangle$ ($|v_3^\prime\rangle$), we act on the second by the Hamiltonian $ \hat{H}_{J,2}(\delta \varphi_2)$ [$ \hat{H}_{J,2}(-\delta \varphi_2)$].

  \begin{figure}
    \begin{center}
         \includegraphics[scale=.5]{TwoQubits2.eps}
     \end{center}
\caption{(Color online) Circuit scheme for two qubit gate implementation. The circuits are coupled by mutual inductance, $M$.
A current $\pm I_1$ circulating in the first circuit corresponds to an additional magnetic flux $\delta \Phi_2= \pm M I_1$  through the second. }
	\label{fig:2qubs_circuit}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Two-qubit logical gate}

To be more specific, we choose to implement a particular controlled phase gate on the second qubit.
The SQUIDs are initially closed and the degenerate space is spanned by the logical states $\{ |00\rangle, |01 \rangle,|10 \rangle,|11 \rangle \}$.
We rotate the states of the first qubit by the transformation $U_{\rm ph}(\pi/2)U_1$.
In this way, when the SQUIDs are open the current flows through circuit depending on the initial logical state (for example, for $|0 \rangle$ we have current $I_1$ and for $|1 \rangle$ we have current $-I_1$).
The total phase across the second circuit is $\pm \delta \varphi_2$ and we apply a phase gate discussed in Sec. \ref{sec:swap-phase}. Then, we close the SQUIDs of the first circuit and apply a transformation $[U_{\rm ph}(\pi/2)U_1]^\dagger$ back to the logical basis.
At the end of this procedure, the logical states acquire a phase proportional to  $\delta \varphi_2$
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{ccr}
  |00\rangle & \rightarrow   & e^{i  \delta \varphi_2} |00\rangle  ,\\
  |10\rangle & \rightarrow   & e^{-i  \delta \varphi_2} |10\rangle  ,\\
  |01\rangle & \rightarrow   & e^{-i   \delta \varphi_2}  |01\rangle , \\
  |11\rangle & \rightarrow   & e^{i \delta \varphi_2} |11\rangle.
\end{array}
\end{equation}

The total transformation can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
 U_{2 {\rm qubs}} &=& e^{ i \delta \varphi_2 \sigma_z} \otimes |0\rangle \langle 0| + e^{-i \delta \varphi_2 \sigma_z} \otimes |1\rangle \langle 1| \nonumber\\
 &=& (e^{ i \delta \varphi_2 \sigma_z} \otimes \openone )  \nonumber\\
&& \times(\openone \otimes |0\rangle \langle 0| + e^{-2 i \delta \varphi_2 \sigma_z} \otimes |1\rangle \langle 1|),
\label{eq:two-qubsU}
\end{eqnarray}
where $ \sigma_z = |0\rangle \langle 0|- |1\rangle \langle 1|$.

From the last line in Eq.~(\ref{eq:two-qubsU}), we observe that the operator represents a controlled phase operation.
An arbitrary controlled phase gate can be produced increasing the current $I_1$ in the first circuit or by iterative application of the presented logical gate. The additional single qubit $\sigma_z$ rotation can be compensated after the iteration.

\section{Measurement scheme}
\label{sec:measurement}

The logic information is encoded in the charge degree of freedom of the two islands and the logical states correspond to $|n_1 =0 , n_2=1 \rangle = |0\rangle$ and  $|n_1 =1 , n_2=1 \rangle = |1\rangle$.
Thus the measurement of the charge on the left island is sufficient to distinguish between the two logical states.
This measurement can be done in several ways, for example, by using a radio frequency single-electron transistor (rf-SET) \cite{schoelkopf98, aassime01, bylander05} that is capacitevely coupled to the left island. The SET is embedded in a tank circuit and the readout of the charge state is performed by monitoring the reflected radio frequency signal from the circuit sensitive to the charge state on the island.

This measurement scheme has been proved to be fast and sensitive~\cite{aassime01}.
An additional advantage is that the measurement apparatus is switched off when no radio frequency signal is induced in the resonant circuit.
This point is critically important in our case since the interaction between the system and an external measurement apparatus can lead to the breaking of  the ground state degeneracy.
The effect of the additional measurement circuit on the island increases its total capacitance and it can be taken into account by a compensation in the gate voltages.

\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}

In this paper, we have presented means to implement ground-state geometric quantum computing in superconducting systems.
We have shown how to build all the logical gates necessary for a geometric quantum computing by manipulation of a few experimental parameters.
The main advantage with respect to the previous proposals  for geometric quantum computing is that the evolution occurs completely in the ground state.
This feature renders the implementation robust against low-temperature environments which motivates for an experimental verification.
In fact, the physical system discussed here can be potentially built and similar measurements on a simpler system have been already carried out~\cite{mottonen08}.

Although we focused on the implementation in superconducting circuits, it is possible that similar Hamiltonians
can be found in other physical systems as happened for the first experimental proposal in Refs.~\cite{unanyan99,duan01}.

The future challenge is to study in detail the robustness of our scheme against environmental effects.
In this context, the results of Ref.~\cite{pekola09, solinas10,salmilehto10} seem promising since the non-degenerate ground state evolution has proven to be robust against low-temperature environmental noise.
If similar results are obtained for the present model, it could become a new paradigm for the implementation of robust
geometric quantum computing.

We acknowledge Academy of Finland and Emil Aaltonen Foundation for financial support. We have received funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme under Grant Agreement No. 238345 (GEOMDISS).


\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}

The nature of human consciousness and its relation to the physical reality is arguably the most puzzling issue regarding the fundamental questions about ourselves and the interaction with the world that we live in. An interesting proposal has been put forward of a link between the seemingly distant quantum mechanics and consciousness, leading to a direct, yet bizarre bridge between the mental and the physical. It all started with the measurement problem in quantum mechanics, which can be formulated as follows:
According to quantum mechanics, the states of any physical system can be described fully by a wave function (state vector) that characterizes various system\textquoteright s variables such as its position, momentum, energy or spin. Schr\"{o}dinger\textquoteright s famous equation describes how these variables evolve over time \citep{Schrodinger_undulatory_1926}. According to most interpretations for the formalism of quantum mechanics (with the exception of the hidden variable theory, e.g., \citealp{bohm_suggested_1952}), the system described by the wave function does not have specific values (e.g., does not have a specific position), but is in a superposition state defined as the weighted sum of all states that the system may possibly assume following a measurement (known also as a set of eigenstates). This superposition can be verified experimentally, for example through interference phenomena \citep{zeilinger_experiment_1999}. However, for each single measurement, that is, whenever a macroscopic measuring device is used to detect the state of a particular system, the result always indicates a single eigenstate, e.g., a single photon always has a specific location in space. Importantly, the probabilities for observing the specific states, i.e. their distributions, are predicted most accurately by the wave functions, which describe the system as a superposition of multiple states prior to the measurement. This led physicists to conclude that a quantum system can evolve in two, very different, forms: one is continuous, deterministic and reversible, described by a wave function and occurs prior to the measurement. The other form is discontinuous but stochastic, as, during the measurement, the system \textquotedblleft jumps" suddenly from a superposition state into a single randomly chosen eigenstate. According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, this jump is an irreversible event that occurs during the measurement process, and is usually referred to as the collapse of wave function or reduction of state vector. The measurement problem in quantum mechanics refers to understanding the nature of this \textquotedblleft collapse", both at the explanatory level, such as: \textquotedblleft Which other, more fundamental processes cause the collapse?", and the ontological level, such as: \textquotedblleft Is the collapse physically real or it is just an artifact of the theoretical system?". This measurement problem is a major topic of discussion in quantum physics and has been a source of disagreements among theoretical physicists for many years as there is a number of different ways in which one can interpret this set of theoretically very unsettling but empirically indisputable properties of quantum mechanics.

Von Neumann \citeyearpar{von_neumann_mathematical_1932} was probably the first person that addressed the problem of quantum measurement systematically and gave hints of its possible relation to human consciousness (for related reviews, see \citealp{primas_critical_1997,esfeld_wigners_1999,thaheld_does_2005,rosenblum_quantum_2008}). According to him, the measurement process consists of three main components: the system to be observed ($S$), the measuring instruments ($M$) and the observer ($O$). In order to measure the state of $S$, a physical device is needed. Let us denote it as $M_1$. This device has also its own states (e.g., the positions of the hand of a gauge) but these are sensitive to, and interact with $S$. The problem becomes more interesting when one realizes that, as $S$ and $M_1$ interact they form a combined system ($S^{\prime}$), which also needs to be observed. This observation can be made only by another measuring device ($M_2$), but then again $S^{\prime}$ in combination with $M_2$ forms $S^{\prime\prime}$, which needs yet another measuring device $M_3$, and the chain can go on up to the infinity. According to von Neumann, any measuring instrument, $M$, although a macroscopic object, should obey the fundamental rules of quantum mechanics, much like $S$. Thus, before the state of a device $M$ has been measured, the device must be in a superposition state, and this holds for every device in the chain, e.g., $M_1$, $M_2$, etc. This property postpones iteratively the collapse of the wave function to an ever later measuring device positioned higher and higher on the hierarchy, rendering thus the problem unsolvable. Von Neumann reasoned that in order to break this infinite chain of measurements and to give to the whole process a superposition-free, definite end, something with a very distinct property\textthreequartersemdash that cannot be described by the above procedure and hence, by the quantum mechanics\textthreequartersemdash needs to be involved. He also provided a formal proof that the formalism of quantum mechanics does not restrict the choice of the point at which such a \textquotedblleft cut" could be inserted and suggested, although only implicitly, that the \textquotedblleft subjective perception" of the human observer, $O$, or its
\textquotedblleft abstract ‘ego’" plays this important chain-braking role \citep{von_neumann_mathematical_1932}. Shortly after, London and Bauer \citeyearpar{london_la_1939} suggested explicitly that the collapse of the wave function and thus, the measurement of a quantum process, cannot occur without the registration of the results in the observer\textquoteright s consciousness. This new role of human consciousness in theoretical physics was defended by pointing out that consciousness has a \textquotedblleft completely special character", which is \textquotedblleft the faculty of introspection", and which in turn allows a person to be aware of the status of its own awareness \citep{london_la_1939}, corresponding to the measurement of itself and abrogating thus the need for any additional measurement devices. Therefore, the registration of a result in consciousness brings ultimately the initial system of the measurement into a new form\textthreequartersemdash taking a single eigenstate. Later, Wigner popularized this link between consciousness and collapse of wave function passionately \citep{esfeld_wigners_1999}. Wigner suggested that \textquotedblleft It is the entering of an impression into our consciousness which alters the wave function." and \textquotedblleft It is at this point that consciousness enters the theory unavoidably and unalterably."(cited from \citealp{shimony_role_1963}). Importantly, however, Wigner dropped this opinion completely at his final years \citep{esfeld_wigners_1999}.

Critical evaluation and heated debate on this hypothesis has not been absent (e.g., \citealp{putnam_commentspaper_1961, margenau_commentsprofessor_1962, shimony_role_1963, putnam_commentscommentscomments:reply_1964, cramer_transactional_1986, chalmers_conscious_1997, primas_critical_1997, mandel_quantum_1999, esfeld_wigners_1999, menskii_quantum_2000, brukner_youngs_2002, french_phenomenological_2002, thaheld_does_2005, koch_quantum_2006, penrose_road_2007, nauenberg_critique_2007, stapp_mindful_2007, rosenblum_quantum_2008}). Many of them address this issue from the philosophical point of view. Although they went to deep and interesting levels and brought up exciting ideas about fundamental aspects of the relationship between the mind and the physical world, those profound analyses failed to reach a simple and clear conclusion that would be widely accepted. Partly due to this reason, the hypothesis that consciousness causes (or is necessary for) the collapse of the wave function and, therefore, plays an important role in quantum mechanics remained a theoretical possibility for the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Although not preferred by most physicists, this solution to measurement problem is still strongly suggested even in some recent theoretical works (e.g., \citealp{menskii_quantum_2000, stapp_mindful_2007, rosenblum_quantum_2008}).

In the present paper, we do not aim to provide another philosophical argument. Instead, we attempt to address this issue from an empirical perspective. We re-formulate von Neumann\textquoteright s hypothesis as an empirically testable problem. We then attempt to falsify the hypothesis on the basis of the existing empirical evidence, as already suggested elsewhere \citep{mandel_quantum_1999, zeilinger_experiment_1999, brukner_youngs_2002}. In addition, we identify the experiments that need to be made in order to rule out alternative explanations and thus, to test the hypothesis more thoroughly.
This analysis is also informative for the study of consciousness itself, a phenomenon that is by no means easier to understand than the measurement problem \citep{chalmers_conscious_1997}. Following the hypothetical role of consciousness in the collapse of wave function, a \textquotedblleft symmetrical" proposal has been made, namely, that the collapse of wave function explains the emergence of consciousness. The most straightforward approach is to equate the consciousness with the collapse of the wave function. Therefore, through a bidirectional relationship, the two deep mysteries explain each other. This view has been explicitly expressed by e.g., \citet{mensky_reality_2007} but it is arguably an implicit assumption made by many other authors suggesting consciousness as a solution to the measurement problem (e.g. \citealp{von_neumann_mathematical_1932}; Wigner, as cited above; \citealp{london_la_1939, lockwood_many_1996}). Therefore, if the role of consciousness in the collapse of wave function can be falsified by empirical evidence, these suggestions of using quantum mechanics to explain consciousness will also become if not unwarranted, then considerably less attractive.

\section{Experimental design}
\label{sec:Experimental design}

First, let us formulate the hypothesis to be tested:
\vspace*{0.3cm}

{\it Proposition:} The event of forming an explicit phenomenal representation of
a result of quantum measurement in an individual observer\textquoteright s mind is necessary for the wave function (superposition state) of the system to collapse into a single eigenstate.

\vspace*{0.3cm}

By using logic symbols of implication ($\Rightarrow$) we can write this statement formally as:

\begin{equation}
CWF \Rightarrow PR,
\label{eqn:CWF}
\end{equation}

\noindent where CWF stands for \textquotedblleft collapse of wave function" and PR for \textquotedblleft phenomenal representation", meaning that the collapse of wave function should be always associated with a corresponding event of registering the results of measurement in consciousness. Or, by using logical negation ($\neg$) we can express this proposition equivalently as contraposition of (1):

\begin{equation}
\neg PR \Rightarrow \neg CWF,
\label{eqn:CWF}
\end{equation}

\noindent meaning that the collapse of wave function should never occur if the corresponding result of measurement has not been registered by a conscious observer.

There are multiple definitions of consciousness. Here we adopt a definition that can be operationalized. Therefore, the registration of a stimulus in the observer‘s consciousness means that the stimulus (i.e., the results of measurement) is perceived at the level of subjective experience and that the observer is aware of its presence such that he/she can produce an appropriate verbal report stating its identity. For example, one may state: \textquotedblleft The light beam hit the screen on the left side.", \textquotedblleft The oscilloscope showed 1 MHz signal." or \textquotedblleft The gauge pointed to 5 mV." We think that this definition is fundamentally consistent with the issues described in the introduction and is sufficient for the current analysis.

It is clear that this proposition can be never proven true, much like any other theoretical statement in science cannot ever be proven true \citep{popper_logic_1963}. However, propositions can be proven untrue, and in the present case this can be made simply by finding a counter example, that is, by finding an experimental setup in which the collapse of wave function is dissociated from consciousness about the outcome of the measurement. Thus, the first goal is to find an experimental setup that would allow one to assess both the state of consciousness, and, independently, the state of the wave function. To this end, we consider an adapted version \citep{kim_delayed_2000} of the experimental setup originally proposed by Scully and Dr\"{u}hl \citeyearpar{scully_quantum_1982} and designed to acquire \textquotedblleft which-path" information in a so-called double-slit experiment without interference (see Figure \ref{figure1}).

\begin{figure}
  \centering
      \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figure1}
     \caption{The proposed experimental setup that can be used to test whether collapse of wave function and consciousness about the outcome of the measurement are dissociated. This double-slit experiment is a modification of an actual experiment that has been carried out \citep{kim_delayed_2000} and is similar in principle to the setup proposed by \citet{scully_quantum_1982}. See main text for the detail. }
      \label{figure1}
\end{figure}

First, one photon from the pump travels through the double-slit and can hit either region A or B located on the nonlinear optical crystal to produce an entangled pair of photons. In the resulting pair, one photon (the signal) travels through the lens LS and is detected by the detector, $D_0$, positioned at the focal plane of LS. The other photon (the idler) is routed the other direction and travels through a prism to be diverted\textthreequartersemdash depending on the region in which it has been produced (A or B)\textthreequartersemdash either towards $D_1$ or $D_2$. Thus, by knowing which of the two detectors has registered a photon, we know which path the signal photon has taken.

Next, we analyze the system more closely. Assume first that the laser emits only one photon at a time. The state of the photon, $\Psi$ , can be described as:

\begin{equation}
\Psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \big( |L \rangle + |R \rangle \big),
\label{eqn:CWF}
\end{equation}

where $|L \rangle$ and $|R \rangle$ indicate the photon's states, i.e., whether photon passed through the left or right slit, respectively. As a result, after the generation of a photon pair in the optical crystal, the signal photon may take either both paths 1 and 2 simultaneously (if it is in a superposition state, $|1,1' \rangle + |2,2' \rangle$ , and hence the wave function did not collapse) or through only one of the two (if it is in single state, $|1,1' \rangle$ or $|2,2' \rangle$ due to a collapse of the wave function). If the photons are always in a superposition state, after sufficient number of photons have been registered at $D_0$, the distribution of the registering location along the x-direction will exhibit standard Young's double-slit interference pattern, manifested by the distribution consisting of a series of peaks and troughs \citep{kim_delayed_2000}. In contrast, the photons that assume a single state will not produce such an interference pattern but will instead form a single-peak distribution \citep{kim_delayed_2000}. Thus, the presence of the interference pattern at $D_0$ indicates whether the wave function of signal photon collapsed or not \footnotemark. Thus, regarding the collapse discussed here, the relevant information (corresponding results of measurement) is which path the photons took. Now, we can derive the predictions for this experimental setup that follow form previously formulated {\it Proposition}:

\footnotetext {Interference pattern is not necessarily obvious from the entire distribution. So proper separation of sub-populations of registered photons may be needed \citep{kim_delayed_2000}.}

\vspace*{0.3cm}
The interference pattern should be visible if \textquotedblleft which-path" information has not been registered in consciousness of the observer (e.g., the experimenter).
\vspace*{0.3cm}

If the above is true, we expected to find the interference pattern at $D_0$ in the following conditions:

1) No actual attempt to measure the \textquotedblleft which-path" information was made, that is, $D_1$ and $D_2$ are not implemented at all.

2) The \textquotedblleft which-path" information was measured as $D_1$ and $D_2$ are implemented in order to interact with the incoming photons. However, no results were recorded by any macroscopic device and are not visible or in any way accessible to a human observer.

3) The \textquotedblleft which-path" information was measured by a macroscopic device such as $D_1$ and $D_2$. The results were not recorded but were instead presented to a human observer directly such that the relevant information entered the sensory system but, at the same time, the observer was distracted in order to prevent conscious detection of this event. In other words, the information necessary to achieve phenomenal representation was available in the nervous system, but conscious phenomenal experience was actually not realized. Thus, there were only non-phenomenal mental representations. The relevant information can be presented by using a memory-less device (e.g., an old fashion gauge-based instrument) or by feeding the idle photons (or after amplification) directly into the retina and, thus, having human eyes serve directly the function of $D_1$ and $D_2$ (see \citealp{brunner_possible_2008,thaheld_modified_2008,thaheld_mechanical_2009}). A distraction that prevents one from consciously detecting a stimulus is made routinely in psychological studies and can be achieved by various means, such as the visual masking \citep{lachter_disappearing_2000}, attentional blink \citep{raymond_temporary_1992}, binocular rivalry \citep{koch_quantum_2006}, change blindness \citep{rensink_to_1997}, execution of a concurrent tasks \citep{kahneman_perceptual_1967} , or by simply cluttering the visual scene \citep{treisman_feature-integration_1980}. The interference with conscious perception can be made even more directly by using trans-cranial magnetic stimulation. One could apply a magnetic pulse above e.g., visual cortex, in order to interrupt the information processing in this brain region, preventing hence conscious perception of the visual stimuli \citep{ silvanto_striate_2005}.

Moreover, one can manipulate gradually the level of subjective certainty of the presence of this information. This should then, according to the proposition, affect the contrast of the interference pattern accordingly\textthreequartersemdash as it has been shown in physical experiments by manipulating the extent to which the \textquotedblleft which-path" information was available, e.g., by changing the position of photon detector \citep{zeilinger_experiment_1999} or by attenuating the optical transmission \citep{mandel_quantum_1999}.

Verifying these three predictions through empirical tests we propose to be a necessary requirement to warrant the hypothesis that consciousness of the outcome of a measurement is necessary for the wave function to collapse. By formulating these predictions and requirement, we make this hypothesis empirically testable and hence, falsifiable.

\section{Existing evidence}
\label{sec:Existing evidence}

The experimental results necessary to falsify the predictions 1 and 2 already exist. First, as described by \citet{mandel_quantum_1999} and \citet{zeilinger_experiment_1999}, in experiments similar to that proposed here, if \textquotedblleft which-path" information was in principle obtainable, then even though no actual attempt was made to extract this information (i.e., to measure it), no interference pattern was found. Thus, the first prediction of consciousness hypothesis is false. In other set of experiments \citep{ eichmann_youngs_1993, durr_origin_1998}, \textquotedblleft which-path"
information was measured but was not recorded by any macroscopic device (for example, this information was stored only in the state of single atom or photon) and, therefore, was not accessible to a conscious observer. Under such condition, also no interference pattern was found. Therefore, the existing evidence indicates that the second prediction is also false.

To the best of our knowledge, no direct attempt was made to test the third prediction. However, the expectations for this experiment are clearly set by the evidence related to predictions 1 and 2. That is, if no interference pattern was obtained when the \textquotedblleft which-path" information was not fed into the eye of the observer (e.g., carried by the idler photon as illustrated in Fig.1), the same is expected to occur if the photon reached the observer\textquoteright s retina but the person was distracted as not to be able to detect the event.

\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:Discussion}

We first derived a proposition about the relationship between the collapse of the wave function and conscious perception. Our subsequent analysis lead to the conclusion that this proposition is already disproved by the existing empirical results, which forces us to conclude tentatively the following: Conscious access to the information about the outcome of a measurement of a quantum state is not necessary for the collapse of wave function\textthreequartersemdash conclusion similar to those suggested elsewhere \citep{mandel_quantum_1999,zeilinger_experiment_1999, brukner_youngs_2002}.

Does the present analysis really tell us something about the relation between consciousness and quantum mechanics? One may argue that with the current experimental set up (shown in Figure 1), quantum mechanics as we known can predict, correctly, no interference pattern in $D_0$, irrespective of what happen with the idler photons (except for \textquotedblleft erasing\textquotedblright \ the \textquotedblleft which-path\textquotedblright \  information that is carried by those photons, see \citealp {kim_delayed_2000}), and certainly irrespective of whether a conscious observer is involved and where the attention of this observer is directed. Therefore, this setup cannot tell us anything new about the relation between consciousness and quantum mechanics that we did not know before. So, did we just provide a circular argument?

To answer this question, let us consider the type of experiments that can be proposed in principle. According to the opinion mentioned above, a really interesting test would involve some observables not determined by the current quantum theory. Only in that case, consciousness of the observer would be given a chance to affect the results and only in that case we would be searching empirically for novel discoveries. But, given the known properties of quantum mechanics, is it possible ever to conceptualize such an experiment?  Designing such an experiment would mean finding a situation in which the quantum mechanics is either incomplete (e.g., the current theory does not predict whether interference will be observed) or inconsistent (e.g., theoretically, presence or absence of interference are both possible).

In the early years of quantum mechanics (see for example \citealp{einstein_can_1935}) doubts have been raised about the correctness of this theory\textthreequartersemdash which was a natural component of the scientific process. But by now, more than seven decades later, quantum theory has been proven to be one of the most accurate theories in the whole science. Not a single prediction of quantum mechanics has been empirically disproved. This casts doubts on the possibility of designing a novel experiment in which an observable is not completely constrained by the known theory and would be still open to the influences from the side of the consciousness of the observer. Such an attempt would be equivalent to posing a challenge to the firmly established formulations of quantum theory. The odds of something like this to succeed seem too small to warrant pursuing. Therefore, we argue that the kind of experiment proposed and discussed in the present paper, for which the results are completely predictable by the known properties of quantum mechanics, is the only kind of experiment that can be in principle proposed. The results we described can be considered as mere derivation of the quantum theory.  The reason it is important for us here is that it manifests a perspective important for the current discussion\textthreequartersemdash quantum mechanics may have not left any space for the observer's consciousness to manipulate the experimental results.

This conclusion suggests constraints for understanding the measurement problem and the mental-physical relationship. Firstly, it is necessary to discuss what constitutes a measurement, if we use the collapse of wave function as a defining characteristic of it. Clearly, measurement can be carried out without a macroscopic measuring device. For example, the idler photon, that carries the \textquotedblleft which-path" information, can serve as the measuring device. In similar experiments, atoms with intrinsic states carrying \textquotedblleft which-path" information can also work as measuring devices and hence can cause the interference pattern to disappear \citep{scully_quantum_1982}. Therefore, the suggestion that the measurement is completed when the results are registered in consciousness or when the results are recorded macroscopically (for example, see \citealp{ primas_critical_1997}) does not seem to hold. It appears that neither the conscious registration nor the macroscopic recording is necessary for the collapse of the wave function. Even the interaction with the environment, as suggested by decoherence theory, is not a sufficient ingredient for measurement and collapsing the wave function. Because as long as the \textquotedblleft which-path" is in principle unobtainable, the wave function does not collapse, regardless of the interaction of the system with the environment (e.g., see \citealp{kim_delayed_2000} and other \textquotedblleft quantum eraser" experiments). One alternative is to conceptualize the quantum mechanics as being based on a structure of information \citep{ zeilinger_foundational_1999, brukner_youngs_2002, brukner_quantum_2005}.

Secondly, our argument about the existence of collapse without conscious registration of corresponding results casts strong doubt on those interpretations of quantum mechanics that place the observer's mind in a special position (e.g., many-minds interpretation, \citealp{ lockwood_many_1996}). In such interpretations, the wave function is assumed to be the only and complete description of physical reality. There is no objective \textquotedblleft collapse" occurring outside the mind of the observer. Hence, according to these interpretations, the effect of a measurement is \textquotedblleft to create an entanglement between the state of the system being measured, the measuring apparatus, and the mind of the observer" \citep{ lockwood_many_1996}. Hence, the single state revealed after the measurement is only perceived by the mind and does not reflect any physical event outside this particular mind. However, as we argued, empirical evidence suggests that collapse occurs without the involvement of the mind. This renders the no-collapse-outside-the-mind interpretations untenable. Importantly, the implicit assumption in these interpretations that the mind has a special property and can, through collapse, perceive a single state has led to a symmetrical completion of the relations by proposing that the collapse of the wave function\textthreequartersemdash within the brain\textthreequartersemdash is responsible for the emergence of consciousness (e.g., see \citealp{mensky_reality_2007}). The present analysis provides strong reasons for refuting the underlying arguments: If the former need to be rejected by empirical evidence, the latter loses its foundations.

Thirdly, if consciousness does not play a special role in the measuring procedure, the role of the observer in quantum mechanics would be much less unique or mysterious. The observer would play a role no more special than that in the classical theory, for example, in Einstein's special theory of relativity \citep{shimony_role_1963} or in Darwin's theory of evolution. Some authors suggested that, if consciousness is irrelevant, the role of observer is special in the sense that he/she can choose the quantum reality that will be created. For example, the experimenter may decide whether to realize the interference pattern or not by deciding whether to make the \textquotedblleft which-path" information available or not \citep{brukner_youngs_2002, brukner_quantum_2005}. However, to make such choices special in comparison to other choices made by a mechanically deterministic systems (e.g., a robot) or random number generators (e.g., by playing a quantum dice), one needs to assume that the human observer makes decisions in a qualitatively different way, perhaps through \textquotedblleft free will". Neither theoretical analyses nor the empirical data support the idea that humans make decisions free of the physical processes or of the influences from the environment \citep{ wegner_minds_2003,baum_what_2004, haggard_conscious_2005, haggard_human_2008}. Therefore, we do not see how the fact that the experimenter has a choice could endow him or her with any more special role in the quantum than in the classical theory. Moreover, the conclusion that the observer plays no more a special role in the quantum than in the classical mechanics would hold even if we assumed the existence of \textquotedblleft free will". This is simply because we would then \textquotedblleft create" physical reality routinely, outside the physics experiments, though each individual's actions resulting from our daily interactions with the (mostly non-quantum) world. Therefore, \textquotedblleft free will" cannot save the consciousness hypothesis for the explanation of the measurement problem, nor can it put the human observer at a more special place in quantum theory than it has been assigned in the classical theory.

Finally, it is helpful to note that the current analysis is aimed to clarify a specific relationship between the mind and the physical world, namely the hypothetical necessity of conscious registration of a measurement result to collapse the wave function. We do not try to draw any general conclusions about the relation between physical reality and phenomenal representations. One may argue that, even if we show that the conscious
registration of \textquotedblleft which-path" information is not necessary to collapse the wave function, we cannot exclude the possibility that the consciousness remains nevertheless responsible for the happening of the physical events. For instance, one possibility is that the single-peaked distribution at $D_0$ would never occur without a conscious perception of this distribution. To address this question, it is helpful to clarify the present assumption about physical reality. We used the criteria suggested by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen \citeyearpar{einstein_can_1935}, stating that if one can predict the physical quantity with certainty and without disturbing the system, one can consider this quantity as a physical reality. In our case, we can consider the distribution at $D_0$ as the physical quantity of interest and we demonstrated that if the \textquotedblleft which-path" information is obtainable, the distribution is always single-peaked (i.e., without interference patterns). That is, in this particular case, we can predict the physical quantity with certainty and without disturbing it. Therefore, we consider the distribution in $D_0$ as physically real. With this clarified, we can infer that the question about the possibility that conscious perception of $D_0$ distribution causes the collapse of all the wave functions simultaneously and creates hence the distribution itself, is an equivalent of asking whether the conscious perception creates the reality of the world in general. According to this latter idea, the universe would not exist if all its conscious creatures close their
eyes and shut their ears. This is a non-trivial question\textthreequartersemdash known as solipsism\textthreequartersemdash that has challenged human intellect for a long time. It is important to point out that this assertion is beyond the scope of scientific enquiry as it is not empirically testable. In other words, there is no conceivable experimental setup by which this statement could be falsified.
Solely for that reason this assertion does not constitute a scientific statement \citep{ popper_logic_1963}.

In conclusion, the available evidence does not indicate that the observer's explicit phenomenal representation about the outcome of a measurement plays a role in collapsing the wave function. We also suggest that the observer does not serve a more fundamental function in quantum mechanics than that in the classical theory. Thus, the idea that by mere observation the experimenter creates physical reality is not viable. This supports Wigner's opinion in his later years and promises to fulfill his hopes\textthreequartersemdash that we \textquotedblleft will not embrace solipsism" and \textquotedblleft will let us admit that the world really exists" (cited from \citealp{ primas_critical_1997}). Perhaps equally importantly, we can add our own hope that the rejection of the role of consciousness in quantum mechanics will also lead us to re-evaluate the proposals that quantum mechanics is vital for explaining the consciousness. Having these two deep mysteries disentangled one from the other might be an important step forward towards understanding better either of them.

\section*{Acknowledgement}
\label{sec:Acknowledgement}
We thank Hrvoje Nikoli\'{c}, Thomas Metzinger, Markus Arndt, Anton Zeilinger, Rajarshi Roy and Nick Herbert for helpful comments.

\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-harv}


\section{Introduction}

Classification of Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs) is certainly a difficult task.
Bursts are divided into long and short classes, based upon the bimodal duration
histogram of bursts \citep{Kouveliotou} observed by the Burst And Transient Source
Experiment (BATSE), which was on board the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory. One parameter,
the split time of 2 seconds on the $t_{90}$ durations plot \citep{Koshut}, was sufficient to classify
bursts.  Bursts from the two classes have another discriminator, spectral hardness as determined
by the ratio of two broad energy channels.  This hardness ratio, when used in
conjunction with the duration, provides a means for classification, as shown by \citet{Kouveliotou}.
In addition, another classification scheme uses the scatter plot of the fluence and duration fitted
with two 2D Gaussians \citep{Balazs}. Some have indicated there are more than two clusters
\citep{Mukherjee, Horvath}, while \citet{Hakkila} maintain that the reported third cluster is simply the
result of a selection bias.  Furthermore, significant overlap is present in the duration comparison of
short and long bursts, complicating a clear distinction between two classes as has been discussed
by the authors cited above.  In any case, there are difficulties with all aforementioned classification
measures in that the $t_{90}$ duration is somewhat subjective in the necessary selections of
background regions, while a hardness ratio based upon counts is strongly detector dependent.

The observation that some classically short bursts are extended in duration, when observed in
an energy band (BATSE 20-50 keV) different from that of the natural BATSE 50-300 keV band,
was reported by \citet{Lazzati}.  The dedicated GRB mission, Swift \citep{Barthelmy}, has
introduced additional issues, while reinforcing the extended emission of short GRBs at lower
energies.  \citet{Norris} have introduced the time lag between broad energy channels (`spectral
lag') as a classifier: `short' GRBs have approximately zero lag, while the `long' events have
a lag that is significantly different from zero. Indeed, having a near-zero lag is the
basis for claiming that some bursts observed by the Swift BAT that are significantly longer than 2
seconds belong in the `short' class \citep{longShorts, Zhang}.

Following on the analysis of \citet{NakarPiran} on the Amati relation \citep{Amati02},
\citet{BandPreece} investigated the implications of combinations of several observable
GRB parameters, derived from an extensive data set of GRBs observed
by BATSE. The BATSE data set used was a partial spectral catalog of the peak flux
and fluence spectral parameters \citep{Mallozzi}, complete up to the end of the BATSE 4B
Catalog \citep{Paciesas}. The BATSE 5B Spectral Catalog has now been completed
\citep{5BCatalog}, which includes all BATSE bursts with sufficient counts
in the spectral data that they could be analyzed. Based on this comprehensive data set, we
present a new GRB classification measure that is as diagnostic as the $t_{90}$ duration for
classification, but does not rely on the subjective choices required for the durations calculation
\citep{Koshut}.

\section{Motivation}
BATSE data has been used to study the $E_{\rm peak}$ distributions of GRBs
\citep{Kaneko}, and the time-integrated $E_{\rm peak}$ distribution for all bursts shows no
evidence of discrimination between short and long bursts.  Fluence hardness distributions
\citep{Kouveliotou} show some evidence of bimodality \citep{Balazs}, but there is only
moderate significance with much overlap \citep{Nakar}.  Using the BATSE 5B Spectral Catalog, we
support previous observations on the distributions of $E_{\rm peak}$ and fluence.  In addition, we
split the distributions into long and short duration GRB distributions, following the $t_{90}$
classification of two seconds.  The $E_{\rm peak}$ distribution for short bursts is completely
overlapped by that of long bursts.  Although the $E_{\rm peak}$ values for long bursts are centered
around 150 keV, short burst $E_{\rm peak}$ values are shifted to higher energies around 300 keV.
This is consistent with previous findings of \citet{Paciesas2} and \citet{Ghirlanda2}.
Approximately 65\% of the fluence distribution for short bursts overlaps that of the fluence
distribution for long bursts, with the position of the peak of the short GRB fluence distribution being an order of
magnitude less than that for long GRBs.

\citet{LloydPetrosian} have shown there to be a significant correlation between
$E_{\rm peak}$ and the total fluence in gamma-rays, and it is desirable to investigate this
correlation for both long and short GRBs.  For this reason, we investigate the $E_{\rm peak}$--
fluence distribution for all BATSE bursts with good spectral fits and devise a discriminator between
long and short bursts based on the difference in correlation between $E_{\rm peak}$ and fluence
for long and short bursts.  A choice formulation for a discriminator is based on the hardness
of a burst.  \citet{Kouveliotou} used a hardness ratio based on the ratio of calculated fluence in
different energy bands to compare to duration estimates.  Instead, we propose to use a hardness
measure represented by $E_{\rm peak}$/fluence.  This so-called energy ratio is in units of area and
should prove to be a good discriminator between long and short bursts if there is a
strong correlation between $E_{\rm peak}$ and fluence.

\section{Observations}
From the 5B spectral catalog (Goldstein, Preece \& Mallozzi, in prep.),
we extract bursts with a good model fit as determined by a 3-sigma
confidence limit, with the time-integrated $E_{\rm peak}$ and fluence errors for each burst
required to be no more than 40\% of their respective fitted values.  A total of 1121 long bursts
and 168 short bursts, classified according to the classical $t_{90}$ cut of two seconds
\citep{Kouveliotou}, satisfied these criteria.  We then calculated the $E_{\rm peak}$/fluence energy
ratio for each of these bursts and plot a histogram of these values, as in Fig. 1.  By using a standard
nonlinear least-squares fitting algorithm, we fit a single lognormal function to the distribution with the
resulting chi-square goodness-of-fit statistic 111 for 32 degrees of freedom.  We then fit two lognormal
functions to the distribution with the resulting chi-square statistic of 32 for 29 degrees of freedom.
Since the two models are nested, we use Pearson's chi-square test to show that the large change
in chi-square per degree of freedom results in a chance probability of $5 \times 10^{-17}$  and that the
two lognormals are statistically preferred with a high degree of significance .

From this bimodal distribution an obvious distinction between long and short bursts emerges.  In Fig. 2
we plot two histograms corresponding to long and short bursts as identified by their respective $t_{90}$
estimations to show that the bimodal distribution of the energy ratio is correlated to that of the duration
distribution.  A K-S test comparing the long and short burst distributions in Fig.~2 to the best fit lognormal
functions in Fig.~1, however, finds the correlations to be statistically marginal with 2\% and 0.6\% respective
probabilities that each distribution in Fig.~2 is drawn from their respective best fit lognormal functions in Fig.~1.  The
energy ratio distribution for short bursts is narrower compared to that of long bursts and
is shifted to higher energies, resulting from the fact that short bursts are generally harder than long bursts.
It appears the energy ratio values are a good discriminator between the classical definition of long and short
bursts by merging two known discriminators into one quantity, and their relative overlap can be well
estimated.  Only 4\% of long GRBs overlap the 1-sigma core of the short burst distribution, and 2\% of short bursts
overlap the the 1-sigma core of the long burst distribution.  Similarly, the overlap for the 2-sigma cores is
11\% and 23\%, respectively.  Comparatively, for our sample, the classical $t_{90}$ overlap of long
bursts onto the 1-sigma (2-sigma) core of short bursts is 4\% (23\%), and and there is no overlap of
short bursts onto either the 1-sigma or 2-sigma core of long bursts.  The central value for the long
burst energy ratio distribution is $\sim$0.06 while the central value for the short burst distribution is $\sim$1.5.

\citet{BandPreece} showed that the Amati relation \citep{Amati02},
\begin{equation}
E^{\rm rest}_{\rm peak} = C_{\rm A} \ \Biggl( \frac{E_{\rm iso}} {10^{52} \ \rm{erg}} \Biggr)^{\eta_{\rm A}}
\end{equation}
and the Ghirlanda relation \citep{Ghirlanda},
\begin{equation}
E^{\rm rest}_{\rm peak} = C_{\rm G} \ \Biggl( \frac{E_{\rm iso} \ f_{\rm B}} {10^{51} \ \rm{erg}} \Biggr)^{\eta_{\rm G}},
\end{equation}
could be converted into a similar energy ratio
\begin{equation}
\frac{E^{1/\eta_i}_{\rm peak, obs}}{S_\gamma} \propto F(z),
\end{equation}
where the $C_{\rm i}$ in the previous equations are the respective normalization coefficients and
$f_{\rm B}$ is the beaming fraction relevant for the Ghirlanda relation.
Here, $S_\gamma$ is the fluence in gamma-rays, and $\eta_i$ are the best fit power law indices for
the respective models.  These energy ratios can be represented as functions of redshift, $F(z)$, and the
upper limit of the ratios could be determined for any redshift.  The energy ratio upper limit of the
Amati relation, as well as the energy ratio upper limit of the Ghirlanda relation, can be projected
into the $E_{\rm peak}$ -- fluence plane where they become lower limits.  Using the bursts
described above, the $E_{\rm peak}$ values and fluences can be plotted in this plane.  Fig. 3
shows the distribution of long bursts in the upper plot and the distribution of short bursts in the
bottom plot.  The lines denote the lower limits of the Amati and Ghirlanda relations in this plane.
Note that the beaming fraction for the Ghirlanda relation, $f_{\rm B}$ = 1.0, which is related to the jet
opening angle, $\theta$, by $f_{\rm B} = 1- \cos{\theta}$.  This represents the energy radiated by the
burst equalling $E_{\rm iso}$.  It can easily be seen there are two separate distributions in the
$E_{\rm peak}$ -- $E_{\rm iso}$ plane.  Long bursts appear to be clumped between the Amati and
Ghirlanda limits, while the short bursts appear to distribute along the Ghirlanda lower limit.

\section{Conclusions}
The energy ratio shows a clear distinction between two different types of GRBs.  The fluence encodes
the duration of the burst without deriving a subjective $t_{90}$ estimate, and $E_{\rm peak}$/fluence
physically represents a ratio of the energy at which most of the gamma-rays are emitted to the total
energy emitted in gamma-rays.  This quantity effectively serves as a spectral hardness ratio and
shows an increased hardness for short bursts compared to long bursts, consistent with \citet{Kouveliotou}.
The distribution of short bursts is narrower, its 1-sigma width covering less than one order of magnitude in
energy, while the long bursts 1-sigma width covers slightly more than an order of magnitude.
This bimodal distribution heavily supports the original distinction between long and short bursts
\citep{Kouveliotou} and suggests further investigation is desirable.  The correlation between
$E_{\rm peak}$ and the total fluence in gamma-rays is of particular interest, as the energy ratio
removes the cosmological dependence for the energies involved since its value is merely proportional
to the square of the luminosity distance.  Because of this reason, the energy ratio could be considered
physically superior to the duration classifier for GRBs.  The low degree of correlation between the $t_{90}$
distribution and the energy ratio distribution may be attributed to the fact that the former is a an observed
quantity in the observer's frame, while the latter is a quantity that contains spectral information from the
rest frame of the GRB.  In addition, when comparing the difference in overlap between the energy ratio distributions
and the $t_{90}$ distributions, the overlap for the $t_{90}$ distributions is marginally less pronounced, but
gives little insight to the physical processes in the rest frame of the GRB.   Note that there may be
a truncation effect with the energy ratio associated with short bursts, due to the inability of BATSE to trigger
on very low fluence events and bursts with $E_{\rm peak}$ outside the BATSE energy range.  It is expected
that Fermi/GBM will assist in discovering GRBs with $E_{\rm peak}$ values greater than 1 MeV, alleviating
possible truncation effects due to the energy cutoff at the high end of the detector energy band.

While a majority of BATSE bursts ($\sim$87 percent) fail the lower limit test for the Amati relation
in the $E_{\rm peak}$ -- fluence plane, very few BATSE bursts violate the lower limit for the
Ghirlanda relation with $f_{\rm B}$ = 1.0.  Especially intriguing is the fact that short GRBs fall close to the
lower limit where the energy radiated is isotropic.  Decreasing the beaming fraction shifts the lower
limit to higher fluences, causing an increasing number of bursts to violate the Ghirlanda relation.
In addition, only a few jet breaks have been discovered for short GRBs \citep{Soderberg}, and
\citet{Watson} caution those discoveries may be misleading due to the flaring activities of short
GRB decay.  Thus, the Ghirlanda relation, as well as the lack
of reliable observed jet breaks for short bursts, suggests that short bursts release energy
isotropically (or near isotropically), while longer bursts tend to have a much smaller beaming
fraction and consequently have small opening angles.   Clearly the Ghirlanda relation, if accurate,
requires short bursts to release energy isotropically, as opposed to beamed radiation release in
long bursts \citep{Frail, Nakar}.  In addition, if short GRBs are isotropic emitters, then virtually all
short GRBs should be detectable within a given volume of space.  Long GRBs, in general, have a
small measured opening angle, and therefore only a small fraction are detectable \citep{Paradijs}.
Since short GRBs are detected far less frequently than long GRBs \citep{Paciesas} this is indicative
of a relatively rare and independent cause for short GRBs.