3
$\begingroup$

On page 1 of this paper it states that the QFI (Quantum Fisher Information) for pure states $\psi$ is $$\mathcal{Q}(\psi) = \sum_{i,j=1}^n\text{Tr}(X_iX_j\psi)-\text{Tr}(X_i \psi)\text{Tr}(X_j \psi)~~~~~~~~~~(3)$$ Further down it states:

It is clear from Eq. (3) that if the generators are chosen from the Pauli group such that there are no stabilizers of the form $\pm X_i$ or $-X_iX_j$, then the QFI of the stabilizer state is equal to the number of stabilizers of the form $X_iX_j$.

How does this conclusion follows from equation (3)? What I get as a start is that if $X_iX_j$ are stabilizers then $$\sum_{i,j=1}^n[\text{Tr}(X_iX_j\psi)-\text{Tr}(X_i \psi)\text{Tr}(X_j \psi)] = \sum_{i,j=1}^n[1-\text{Tr}(X_i \psi)\text{Tr}(X_j \psi)]$$

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

The state $\psi$ (this is denoting the density matrix, even though it's a pure state) can be described as a sum of all the products of the stabilizers. We are promised that $X_i$ is not in the stabilizer, so every term in the sum of $\psi$, when multiplied by $X_i$, returns a tensor product of terms that is not just identity. Hence, it has zero trace. Thus, $\text{Tr}(X_i\psi)=0$, and you are just left with $\sum 1$, where the sum is taken over all stabilizers of the form $X_iX_j$.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your response. Could you maybe elaborate on the reasoning behind your conclusion "Hence, it has zero trace". Are you stating that $X_i\psi \neq I \implies \text{Tr}(X_i \psi) = 0$? $\endgroup$ – John Doe Oct 18 '19 at 13:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JohnDoe Not exactly - I'm saying that since $X_i\psi$ does not have an $I$ term in its sum, that implies that trace is 0. $\endgroup$ – DaftWullie Oct 18 '19 at 14:35
  • $\begingroup$ Okay thanks, I'm just trying to find out what mathematical result you are using to come to the final conclusion. Are you stating the following: We can write $X_i\psi$ as $$X_i\psi = X_i\bigg[2^{-n}\sum_{s \in \mathcal{S}}s\bigg] = 2^{-n}\sum_{s \in \mathcal{S}}X_is,$$where $\mathcal{S}$ is the stabilizer group, then since $X_is \neq I~~\forall s \in \mathcal{S} \implies \text{Tr}[X_i\psi] = 0?$ $\endgroup$ – John Doe Oct 18 '19 at 16:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JohnDoe yes, coupled with the fact that all members of the Pauli group, except I, are traceless $\endgroup$ – DaftWullie Oct 19 '19 at 5:34
  • $\begingroup$ Is it clear to you why it is assumed that there are no stabilizers of the form $-X_iX_j$, it doesn't seem to be required for the statement that the QFI of the stabilizer state is equal to the number of stabilizers of the form $X_iX_j$. It seems that we only need the assumption that there are no stabilizers of the form $\pm X_i$. $\endgroup$ – John Doe Jan 18 '20 at 10:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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