4
$\begingroup$

I was thinking about this problem of identifying a set of unitary operations (other than the identity operation) that commute with local pauli $\sigma_X$ and $\sigma_Z$ matrices, i.e. find $U$ such that $[U, \sigma_{X, i}] = [U, \sigma_{Z, i}] = 0 ~ \forall i \in [1, n]$. When considering only $\sigma_{X, i}$ or $\sigma_{Z, i}$, the problem is easy. However, when considering both operators, the problem gets increasingly hard, and I'm even wondering if that $U$ ever exists. If anyone could point me to right references or give me any insights, I'd be much appreciated!

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

8
$\begingroup$

TL;DR: The only $U$ that commutes with all $\sigma_{X,i}$ and all $\sigma_{Z,i}$ is a scalar multiple of identity. This follows from the Schur's lemma, but can also be shown using elementary linear algebra.

The set of $n$-fold tensor products of Pauli operators $\sigma_{P_1,1}\otimes\dots\otimes\sigma_{P_n,n}$ forms a basis $\mathcal{P}_n$ of the vector space of $2^n\times 2^n$ complex matrices, so any $n$-qubit unitary may be written as $$ U=\sum_{\sigma_k\in\mathcal{P}_n}a_k\sigma_k.\tag1 $$ We can use fact that the basis is orthogonal with respect to the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product to compute the coefficients in $(1)$ using $$ a_k=\frac{\mathrm{tr}(\sigma_kU)}{2^n}\tag2 $$ which can be checked by hitting $(1)$ with $\sigma_k$ and taking the trace.

Now, suppose that $\sigma_k$ anticommutes with $\sigma_{X,i}$ for some $i\in[1,n]$. Then $$ \begin{align} a_k&=\frac{\mathrm{tr}(\sigma_kU)}{2^n}\tag3\\ &=\frac{\mathrm{tr}(\sigma_k\sigma_{X,i}U\sigma_{X,i})}{2^n}\tag4\\ &=-\frac{\mathrm{tr}(\sigma_{X,i}\sigma_kU\sigma_{X,i})}{2^n}\tag5\\ &=-\frac{\mathrm{tr}(\sigma_kU)}{2^n}\tag6\\ &=-a_k\tag7 \end{align} $$ which means that $a_k=0$. The same is true for $\sigma_{Z,i}$. However, every non-identity Pauli operator $\sigma_k$ anticommutes with at least one operator of the form $\sigma_{X,i}$ or $\sigma_{Z,i}$. Therefore, all coefficients $a_k$ in $(1)$ other than the one corresponding to identity are zero and we conclude that $U=aI$ for some $a\in\mathbb{C}$ which by unitarity has $|a|=1$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Nice answer, but OP was asking for unitary, so maybe add that $a=e^{i\theta}$ to ensure that. I'm going to remove my sloppy answer :) $\endgroup$ Feb 8 at 3:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you, Balint! :-) I added a remark about the coefficient. $\endgroup$ Feb 8 at 3:37
1
$\begingroup$

If $P$ commutes with $U$, that means $U$ conjugates $P$ into $P$.

$$ \begin{aligned} &([P, U] = 0) \\\equiv& (P U = U P) \\\equiv& (U^\dagger P U = P) \end{aligned}$$

In the stabilizer formalism, operations are defined by how they conjugate generators of the Pauli group. Typically these generators are chosen to be $X_q$ and $Z_q$ for each $q$ the operator acts on:

import stim
t = stim.Tableau.from_named_gate("CZ")
print(repr(t))
# stim.Tableau.from_conjugated_generators(
#     xs=[
#         stim.PauliString("+XZ"),
#         stim.PauliString("+ZX"),
#     ],
#     zs=[
#         stim.PauliString("+Z_"),
#         stim.PauliString("+_Z"),
#     ],
# )

The fact operations are defined this way betrays the answer to your question. If you tell me how $U$ conjugates $X_q$ and $Z_q$ for each $q$, you've told me the exact operation (up to global phase). The operation that conjugates every $X_q$ into $X_q$, and every $Z_q$ into $Z_q$, is the identity operation:

import stim
t = stim.Tableau.from_conjugated_generators(
    xs=[
        stim.PauliString("+X_"),
        stim.PauliString("+_X"),
    ],
    zs=[
        stim.PauliString("+Z_"),
        stim.PauliString("+_Z"),
    ],
)
print(t.to_unitary_matrix(endian='little'))
# [[1.+0.j 0.+0.j 0.+0.j 0.+0.j]
#  [0.+0.j 1.+0.j 0.+0.j 0.+0.j]
#  [0.+0.j 0.+0.j 1.+0.j 0.+0.j]
#  [0.+0.j 0.+0.j 0.+0.j 1.+0.j]]

If you want a "proper" proof, I'd start by proving it for the single qubit case. Knowing $UX = XU$ and $UZ = ZU$ forces $U = \begin{bmatrix}a&0\\0&a\end{bmatrix}$. In the multi-qubit case this constraint broadcasts over the tensor product structure of the matrix; for example in the two qubit case you get this constraint:

$$\begin{bmatrix} a_1&0&\ast&\ast\\ 0&a_1&\ast&\ast\\ \ast&\ast&\ast&\ast\\ \ast&\ast&\ast&\ast\\ \end{bmatrix}$$

as well as this one:

$$\begin{bmatrix} \ast&\ast&\ast&\ast\\ \ast&\ast&\ast&\ast\\ \ast&\ast&a_2&0\\ \ast&\ast&0&a_2\\ \end{bmatrix}$$

and this one:

$$\begin{bmatrix} a_3&\ast&0&\ast\\ \ast&\ast&\ast&\ast\\ 0&\ast&a_3&\ast\\ \ast&\ast&\ast&\ast\\ \end{bmatrix}$$

and even ones like this one:

$$\begin{bmatrix} a_4&\ast&\ast&0\\ \ast&\ast&\ast&\ast\\ \ast&\ast&\ast&\ast\\ 0&\ast&\ast&a_4\\ \end{bmatrix}$$

The combination of all the constraints you can derive by broadcasting will force the whole operation to be the identity up to a scalar factor.

$\endgroup$

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.