2
$\begingroup$

Overview

I am analyzing the output state of a Clifford circuit for various stabilizer state inputs. My circuit has midcircuit computational-basis measurements. I am curious if it is possible to save myself time on these computations by using algebraic relations between my stabilizer state inputs.

To be concrete, suppose I have $n$ qubit stabilizers states which differ only in one of the generators as $\vert\psi\rangle = \langle g_1, g_2, \dots, g_n\rangle$, $\vert\phi\rangle = \langle g_1', g_2, \dots g_n\rangle$, and $\vert\chi\rangle = \langle i g_1 g_1', g_2, \dots, g_n\rangle$. To ensure the problem is both well-defined and nontrivial, let's take $g_1$ and $g_1'$ anti commuting and $i g_1 g_1'$ independent of $g_2, \dots, g_n$. Perhaps $g_1$ and $g_1'$ are the $X$ and $Z$ paulis on the first qubit, for instance, and $g_2, \dots g_n$ have identity on this qubit. Given that I've calculated the action of a Clifford circuit $C$ on $\vert\psi\rangle$ and $\vert\phi\rangle$, is there a shortcut to computing the output of $C$ on $\vert\chi\rangle$?

My thoughts

If $C$ is a unitary Clifford circuit, and I've computed $U g_1 U^\dagger$ and $U g_1' U^\dagger$, computing $U(i g_1 g_1') U^\dagger$ is straightforward. It is less clear to me whether there is an analogous strategy when the circuit $C$ has stabilizer measurements. By the principle of delayed measurement, we could push measurements to the end, but at the expense of additional qubits. As the case of $g_1 = X$, $g_1' = Z$ illustrates, the measurement properties of $\vert \chi\rangle$ could be quite different than either $\vert\psi\rangle$ or $\vert\phi\rangle$.

I am also thinking about using linear dependence, as I would outside the stabilizer formalism. But I am more curious about using relations "within the group theory" rather than the linear algebra.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

Circuits with measurements still have "stabilizer flows" $A \rightarrow B$ where $A$ and $B$ are Pauli products. You can interpret $A \rightarrow B$ as saying "if you knew $\langle A \rangle=c$ where $c \in \{-1,+1\}$ before the operation, then you will know $\langle B\rangle=c$ once the operation's done". The flows of a Clifford operation $C$ are $P \rightarrow C^{-1}PC$, for all Pauli products $P$. But non-Clifford operations also have flows.

For example, consider the two-qubit $X \otimes X$ measurement $M_{XX}$. It has the flows $X_1 \rightarrow X_1$ and $X_2 \rightarrow X_2$. It doesn't have the flow $Z_1 \rightarrow Z_1$, since $Z_1$ anticommutes with the measurement meaning you can't know it afterwards. But it does have the flow $Z_1 Z_2 \rightarrow Z_1 Z_2$. And also it has a flow for the measurement result: $X_1 X_2 \rightarrow (-1)^{m} I_1 I_2$ where $m$ is the 0-or-1 measurement result. For example, if you knew $\langle X_1 X_2\rangle=+1$ before the measurement, then you know $\langle (-1)^m I_1 I_2\rangle = +1$ (i.e. $m=\text{False}$) afterwards.

Flows form a group. They have generators, they can be multiplied, there's an identity, etc. They can be chained and concatenated and all kinds of things. A stabilizer circuit with $n$ qubit inputs and $m$ qubit outputs will have $n+m$ flow generators, by the state channel duality and the fact that an $n+m$ qubit stabilizer state has $n+m$ stabilizer generators.

Note this concept has a variety of names in papers. For example, in https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08829 it's called "pauli webs". I've also heard "pauli flows".

See Appendix A of https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.02192 for more examples of stabilizer flows for basic operations. That appendix also explains how you can test if a given operation has a given flow using a small circuit.

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the information. In the case where there is no flow at a certain stage of the computation (meaning I'm in a stabilizer state in which one of the generators has no flow with respect to the next operation) can anything meaningful be done? Sounds like the lesson is: flows allow for the shortcuts I'm after, provided they exist for the states I'm interested in. $\endgroup$
    – Jacob
    Oct 25, 2023 at 2:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Jacob Usually if there's no flow it means information is lost (e.g. anticommutes with a measurement) or you're dealing with more general effects like T gates. $\endgroup$ Oct 25, 2023 at 3:23
  • $\begingroup$ I can see how this is true in the context of error correction. I have simple quantum teleportation in mind (a Clifford circuit), with stabilizer state inputs. The measurements can anticommute w/ the stabilizer, but operations controlled on the results can produce the desired teleportation. $\endgroup$
    – Jacob
    Oct 25, 2023 at 13:28
  • $\begingroup$ @Jacob teleportation will give you an X->X flow and a Z->Z flow, so it doesn't anti commute with anything. $\endgroup$ Oct 25, 2023 at 18:18

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.