My question is highly related to this topic

It is about defining logical operation on a Stabilizer code.

I call $S$ the stabilizer group of a code space $C$, and I assumed it is generated by a family $S=\langle s_1,...,s_p \rangle$. I call $G_n$ the $n$-Pauli matrix group ($n$ being the dimension of the full Hilbert space).

A definition of logical operation is as follow:

$U_L$ is a logical operation if $\forall |\psi \rangle \in C$, $U_L | \psi \rangle \in C$

And, we realize that if $|\psi \rangle$ is stabilized by $g$, $U_L |\psi \rangle$ will be stabilized by $U_L g U_L^{\dagger}$.

Questions: which condition to ensure $U_L$ is a logical operation

A sufficient condition is to have $U_L S U_L^{\dagger} = S$, which means that $U_L \in N(S)$ (where $N(S)$ is the normalizer of $S$).

Indeed, this way we would be certain that $U_L |\psi\rangle$ will be stabilized by $S$ and thus be in the codespace.

What disturbs me is that according to the comments here (and some of the sources attached), the logical operation are actually exactly elements of $N(S)$. I see the sufficient condition but not the necessary one.

For instance, if $U_L$ is non clifford, for $s \in S$, $U_L s U_L^{\dagger}$ might not even be an n-Pauli matrix, thus $U_L S U_L^{\dagger} \neq S$ as $S \subset G_n$. In this case obviously $U_L$ wouldn't be in the normalizer of $S$. But wouldn't it be possible to have a non n-Pauli matrix that still stabilize appropriately $C$ ?

So my question is: Why is it sufficient and necessary to have $U_L \in N(S)$ so that $U_L$ is a logical operation ?


1 Answer 1


You are correct that there are logical operators (i.e. ones that preserve $C$) outside $N(S)$. Also, your argument is sound and can be stated rigorously as follows. Let $U \in N(S)$. Then for any $s \in S$ we have $UsU^\dagger \in S$. Now, diagonalize $s$

$$ s = VdV^\dagger $$

and define

$$ V(\theta) = V \, \mathrm{diag}(1, \dots, 1, e^{i\theta}) \, V^\dagger. $$

Note that $V(\theta)$ commutes with $s$. Now, define

$$ U(\theta) = U V(\theta) $$

and note that

$$ U(\theta) s U(\theta)^\dagger = UV(\theta)sV(\theta)^\dagger U^\dagger = UsU^\dagger. $$

Thus, we found a continuous, one-parameter group of operators that preserve $C$. It cannot be a subset of $N(S)$ because $N(S)$ is discrete.

The requirement that $U\in N(S)$ is sufficient, but not necessary for $U$ to be a logical operator. However, when one restricts their consideration to the Pauli group $G_n$ the requirement is both necessary and sufficient.

In quantum error correction one sometimes restricts consideration to $G_n$, because of discretization of quantum errors. This result says that if an error correction operation $\mathcal{R}$ recovers from errors in a set $\{E_i\}$ then it recovers from errors $\{F_j\}$ which are linear combinations of $\{E_i\}$. Thus, for the purposes of establishing whether an error is a logical operator (and thus uncorrectable) it is sufficient to consider errors in $G_n$ since every operator can be written as a linear combination of elements of $G_n$.

See for example theorem 10.2 on p.438 in section 10.3.1 of Nielsen & Chuang and the discussion following the proof. A good summary is also section IX "Digitization of quantum errors" in https://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2794.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much. So in the end is there an "easy" necessary and sufficient condition equivalent to the definition to know if the operation is a logical one "in general" or this is something not so easy to find out ? (I mean if we do not assume $U \in G_n$, in this case the equivalent property based on the normalizer is clear). $\endgroup$ Dec 30, 2020 at 16:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, there is! Mathematically, a unitary $U$ preserves a subspace $C$ if and only if it can be written as a direct sum $U = V \oplus U_L$ where $U_L$ is a unitary on $C$. In terms of matrices this means that in any basis of $\mathcal{H}$ that extends a basis of $C$, $U$ is block diagonal with blocks $V$ and $U_L$. In practice, you can verify that $U$ preserves $C$ by checking whether it commutes with the projector $P_C$ onto $C$. Consequently, $U$ is a logical operator if and only if $P_C = U P_C U^\dagger$. $\endgroup$ Dec 30, 2020 at 19:06
  • $\begingroup$ Interesting. I will probably dig into this when I will have more time. Thanks ! $\endgroup$ Dec 30, 2020 at 19:11

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.