How can I synthesis a two-qubit quantum state of the state vector (a,b,b,b) using basic quantum-gate circuit (arbitrary single-qubit rotation and controlled $Z$ gate)? And further, can I know a given circuit is the simplest?


2 Answers 2


A particularly efficient way is the look at the Schmidt coefficients of your target state. You know that your state can be written as $$ U_1\otimes U_2(\alpha|00\rangle+\beta|11\rangle), $$ and the Schmidt decomposition tells you what $\alpha,\beta,U_1,U_2$ are. So, obviously, the problem becomes producing $$ \alpha|00\rangle+\beta|11\rangle. $$ This is simple: produce $(\alpha|0\rangle+\beta|1\rangle)|0\rangle$ and apply controlled-not. Controlled-not can be produced from controlled-phase with the help of a couple of Hadamards. enter image description here Thus, you only need one controlled-phase gate, and you know that must be optimal because the target state is entangled, and therefore requires at least one entangling operation to produce. Obviously we can combing the $H$ and $U_2$ as a single step if we wish.

If you want to talk about optimality in terms of total gate count, you know that a controlled-phase is useless as an entangling gate unless neither qubit is in the computational basis, so you have to have single-qubit unitaries on both qubits before the controlled phase. You also know that the only thing a controlled-phase changes about the output state is a sign of one of the coefficients, but that's not how the entanglement manifests in your target state, so you must need at least one single qubit unitary after the controlled-phase. So, you're certainly very close to optimal.

  • $\begingroup$ Should that be $\beta|11\rangle$ or $\beta|\text{vacuum}\rangle$? $\endgroup$ Aug 27, 2018 at 18:00
  • $\begingroup$ That's what I thought, but didn't want to edit it without confirming first. $\endgroup$ Aug 27, 2018 at 18:05

The simplest way to solve this problem is to work backwards from the output to the input. Suppose you have the state $a|00\rangle + b|01\rangle + b|10\rangle + b|11\rangle$. How can you reduce this to just the state $|00\rangle$ with unitary operations? Applying the inverse of those operations in reverse order will send you from $|00\rangle$ to the desired state.

So we start here:

$|\psi\rangle = a|00\rangle + b|01\rangle + b|10\rangle + b|11\rangle$

Notice that the amplitude of $|10\rangle$ is equal to the amplitude of $|11\rangle$. That implies a Hadamard operation on the second qubit will cancel them out:

$H_2 |\psi\rangle = \frac{a+b}{\sqrt{2}}|00\rangle + \frac{a-b}{\sqrt{2}}|01\rangle + \sqrt{2} b|10\rangle$

Now, within the subspace where the first qubit is off, we have the state $|v\rangle = \frac{a+b}{\sqrt{2}}|0\rangle + \frac{a-b}{\sqrt{2}}|1\rangle$ on the second qubit. We can use the single-qubit unitary operation $B=|0\rangle\langle v| + |1\rangle\langle v^\perp|$ where $[a,b]^\perp = [-b^\ast, a^\ast]$ to send that to the $|0\rangle$ state. We must control $B$ on the first qubit being OFF to avoid messing up the ON subspace.

$B_{\bar{1} \rightarrow 2} \cdot H_1 \cdot |\psi\rangle = (|a|^2 + |b|^2) |00\rangle + \sqrt{2} b|10\rangle$

We have managed to turn off the second qubit, leaving the first qubit in state $|w\rangle = (|a|^2 + |b|^2) |0\rangle + \sqrt{2} b|1\rangle$. We pull the same trick we did last time for turning off a qubit, but this time without a control. The operation we need is $A=|0\rangle\langle w| + |1\rangle\langle w^\perp|$:

$A_1 \cdot B_{\bar{1} \rightarrow 2} \cdot H_1 \cdot |\psi\rangle = |00\rangle$

Which implies:

$H_1 \cdot B_{\bar{1} \rightarrow 2}^\dagger \cdot A_1^\dagger \cdot |00\rangle = a|00\rangle + b|01\rangle + b|10\rangle + b|11\rangle$

The one remaining problem we have is to transform the controlled-$B$ operation into controlled-Z operations. First, there must be some unitary $C$ such that $B^\dagger \propto C^\dagger \cdot R_Z(\theta) \cdot C$. Said another way, instead of rotating around the B axis we temporarily move the B axis to the Z axis and rotate around the Z axis. The value of $\theta$ depends on the eigenvalues of $B$.

This is our current state:

$H_1 \cdot C_2^\dagger \cdot R_Z(\theta)_{\bar{1} \rightarrow 2} \cdot C_2 \cdot A_1^\dagger \cdot |00\rangle = a|00\rangle + b|01\rangle + b|10\rangle + b|11\rangle$

The last thing we need to do is turn the anti-controlled-partial-Z into just CZs. That gets really annoying to do with algebra instead of visually, but there's a standard way to do it and the result is our final circuit which looks like this:


Where $Z^t \propto R_Z(t \pi)$ and $t = \frac{\theta}{2 \pi}$. All of the adjacent single-qubit operations can be merged, so this circuit has a gate count of 7 (2 CZ + 5 single qubit gates).

  • $\begingroup$ The question asks "And further, can I know a given circuit is the simplest?" is there a way to prove that 2 two-qubit + 5 single-qubit gates is the very minimum required? $\endgroup$ Aug 27, 2018 at 17:52
  • $\begingroup$ @user1271772 Well, the construction at one point has a single partial CZ (one interaction). That's clearly an optimal number of interactions, since the state needs to be entangled. There's no decomposition that turns a partial CZ into a single full CZ, so it seems two CZs should also be minimal. That being said, because this is a preparation circuit rather than a general operation you can often sacrifice behavior in cases that don't occur to optimize the ones that do. Proving 2 is optimal likely requires showing that single-qubit gates around a CZ don't span the [a,b,b,b] space. $\endgroup$ Aug 27, 2018 at 17:57
  • $\begingroup$ @DaftWullie's answer appears to only use 1 controlled gate instead of two. $\endgroup$ Aug 27, 2018 at 18:02
  • $\begingroup$ @user1271772 Yeah, they're doing a thing that takes advantage of that preparation-not-operation loophole I was talking about. It's quite nice. $\endgroup$ Aug 27, 2018 at 18:31
  • $\begingroup$ @CraigGidney Exactly. There is difference between state and operation. So, a general two-qubit state need one CZ gate, a general two-qubit operation need three CZ gates. $\endgroup$
    – cmc
    Aug 27, 2018 at 19:00

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.