0% found this document useful (0 votes)
21 views6 pages

Assignment 2 Solution

The document contains solutions to an assignment on advanced quantum computing topics, specifically focusing on fidelity between quantum states, worst-case fidelity, dual-rail codes, and conditions for error correction and detection. It discusses mathematical proofs and derivations related to quantum states, error-correcting codes, and the impact of noise on qubit states. The document also outlines the necessary conditions for quantum error correction in the stabilizer framework.

Uploaded by

Bhushan Waghade
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
21 views6 pages

Assignment 2 Solution

The document contains solutions to an assignment on advanced quantum computing topics, specifically focusing on fidelity between quantum states, worst-case fidelity, dual-rail codes, and conditions for error correction and detection. It discusses mathematical proofs and derivations related to quantum states, error-correcting codes, and the impact of noise on qubit states. The document also outlines the necessary conditions for quantum error correction in the stabilizer framework.

Uploaded by

Bhushan Waghade
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

Department of Physics Indian Institute of Technology Madras

PH5842: Adv. QCQI 2025 — Assignment 2 Solutions

Q1: Fidelity

(i) F(ρ, σ) = 1 when ρ = σ


If ρ = σ, we can express both states in their eigenbasis. Let’s assume ρ is diago-
nalized as: X
ρ= λi |i⟩⟨i|
i

Then, since ρ = σ:
√ √
q p
F (ρ, σ) = Tr ρρ ρ = Tr ρ2 = Tr ρ = 1

This is because ρ is a density matrix, and its trace is 1.


F(ρ, σ) = 0 when ρ and σ are Orthogonal
If ρ and σ have support on orthogonal vector spaces, we can choose a basis where
both are diagonal, but their supports do not overlap. Let’s denote the eigenvectors
of ρ as |i⟩ and those of σ as |j⟩, with ⟨i|j⟩ = 0 for all i, j.
In this basis: X X
ρ= λi |i⟩⟨i|, σ= µj |j⟩⟨j|
i j

Since ⟨i|j⟩ = 0, we have:


√ √ Xp p
ρσ ρ = λi λi λi µj |i⟩⟨i|j⟩⟨j| = 0
i,j


Thus: F (ρ, σ) = Tr 0=0

(ii) To show that the fidelity between two quantum states ρ and σ is symmetric, we
use the definition:
√ √
q
F (ρ, σ) = Tr ρσ ρ

We can express this in terms of the trace norm:


q √

F (ρ, σ) = ∥ σ ρ∥1

However, to show symmetry directly, we need to prove that:


√ √ √ √
∥ σ ρ∥1 = ∥ ρ σ∥1

1
This follows from the property of the trace norm that: ∥AB∥1 = ∥BA∥1
Thus, we have:
q √
√ √ √
q
F (ρ, σ) = ∥ σ ρ∥1 = ∥ ρ σ∥1 = F (σ, ρ)

This shows that the fidelity is symmetric in its arguments.

(iii) For a pair of qubit state ρ, σ withp√corresponding Bloch vectors ⃗r, ⃗s the fidelity
2 √ 2
square is given by F (ρ, σ) = (T r ρσ ρ)
√ √
Here, ρσ ρ = M > 0 and, eigenvalues of M be λ1 and λ2

T r(M ) = T r(ρσ) = λ1 + λ2
det(M ) = det(ρ) det(σ) = λ1 λ2
q
√ √ √ p p p p
∴ F 2 (ρ, σ) = (T r ρσ ρ)2 = (T r M )2 = ( λ1 + λ2 )2 = λ1 + λ2 + 2 λ1 λ2
p p
= T r(M ) + 2 det(M ) = T r(ρσ) + 2 det(ρ)det(σ)

I + ⃗r · ⃗σ I + ⃗s · ⃗σ
Now, ρ = and σ =
2 2
1
ρσ = (I + (⃗r + ⃗s) · ⃗σ + (⃗r · ⃗σ )(⃗s · ⃗σ ))
4
1 1
∴ T r(ρσ) = (2 + 0 + ⃗r · ⃗s) = (1 + ⃗r · ⃗s)
4 2
1 − |⃗r|2 1 − |⃗s|2
det(ρ) = and det(σ) =
4 4
p 1p
∴ 2 det(ρ)det(σ) = (1 − |⃗r|2 )(1 − |⃗s|2 )
2
1 p
F 2 (ρ, σ) = (1 + ⃗r · ⃗s + (1 − |⃗r|2 )(1 − |⃗s|2 )) ✓
2

Q2: Worst-case fidelity

(i) The state of the qubit after being sent through the channel without using the
error-correcting code is given by: ρ = (1 − p)|ψ⟩⟨ψ| + pX|ψ⟩⟨ψ|X.
p p
The fidelity is given by: F = ⟨ψ|ρ|ψ⟩ = (1 − p) + p⟨ψ|X|ψ⟩⟨ψ|X|ψ⟩.
The second term under the square root is non-negative and equals zero when

|ψ⟩ = |0⟩, so the minimum fidelity is: F = 1 − p.
Suppose the three-qubit error-correcting code is used to protect the state |ψ⟩ =
a|0L ⟩ + b|1L ⟩. The quantum state after both noise and error correction is:

ρ = [(1 − p)3 + 3p(1 − p)2 ]|ψ⟩⟨ψ| + · · · .

2
The omitted terms represent contributions from bit flips on two or three qubits.
All omitted terms are positive operators, so the fidelity we calculate will be a lower
bound on the true fidelity. We see that:
p p
F = ⟨ψ|ρ|ψ⟩ ≥ (1 − p)3 + 3p(1 − p)2 .

That is, the fidelity is at least:


p
F = 1 − 3p2 + 2p3 ,

so the fidelity of storage for the quantum state is improved provided p < 1/2,
which is the same conclusion we came to earlier based on a much cruder analysis.

(ii) The state of the qubit after being sent through the channel without using the
error-correcting code is given by: ρ = (1 − p)|ψ⟩⟨ψ| + pI/2.
p p p
The fidelity is given by: F = ⟨ψ|ρ|ψ⟩ = (1 − p) + p/2 = 1 − p/2.
Suppose the three-qubit error-correcting code is used to protect the state |ψ⟩ =
a|0L ⟩ + b|1L ⟩. The quantum state after both noise and error correction is:

ρ = [(1 − p)9 + 9p(1 − p)8 ]|ψ⟩⟨ψ| + · · · .

The omitted terms represent contributions from bit flips on two or three qubits.
All omitted terms are positive operators, so the fidelity we calculate will be a lower
bound on the true fidelity. We see that:
p p
F = ⟨ψ|ρ|ψ⟩ ≥ (1 − p)9 + 9p(1 − p)8 .

That is, the fidelity is at least:


p
F = 1 − 36p2 + 168p3 + ... + 8p9 ,

so the fidelity of storage for the quantum state is improved provided p < 1/2,
which is the same conclusion we came to earlier based on a much cruder analysis.

Q3: Dual-rail code:


Consider a two-qubit state of the form, |ψ⟩ = a|01⟩ + b|10⟩, with |a|2 + |b|2 = 1. We
need to show that the action of the two-qubit amplitude damping channel on this state
can be represented by two Kraus operators, of the form:
p √ √
Ẽ0 = 1 − γI; Ẽ1 = γ(|00⟩⟨01|); Ẽ2 = γ(|00⟩⟨10|).

To derive these operators, we consider how the amplitude damping channel affects
the two-qubit state. The channel causes transitions from |1⟩ to |0⟩ with probability p,
but does not affect |0⟩. Thus, for a two-qubit system, we can simplify the action of the
channel as follows:

3
- Ẽ0 represents no damping occurring on either qubit, which is equivalent to the

identity operator I scaled by 1 − γ, where γ is related to the damping probability p.
- Ẽ1 and Ẽ2 represent damping occurring on the first and second qubits, respectively,
causing transitions from |01⟩ and |10⟩ to |00⟩.
The action of these operators on |ψ⟩ results in:
p √ √
Ẽ0 |ψ⟩ = 1 − γ|ψ⟩, Ẽ1 |ψ⟩ = γa|00⟩, Ẽ2 |ψ⟩ = γb|00⟩.

Both Ẽ1 |ψ⟩ and Ẽ2 |ψ⟩ result in states that are orthogonal to the original states |01⟩
and |10⟩ since |00⟩ is orthogonal to both |01⟩ and |10⟩. Therefore, any error caused by
amplitude damping can be detected by measuring whether the state has collapsed to
|00⟩, which is outside the original codespace.
This demonstrates that the span of {|01⟩, |10⟩} forms an error detection code for
amplitude-damping noise.

Q4: Conditions for error correction and error detection


ε ∼ {Ea }N
a=1 is correctable by code C with PC

(i) for, m-dim QEC code C with codewords {|iL ⟩}m−1 i=0 , then QEC conditions are sat-
isfied
iff ⟨iL |Ea† Eb |jL ⟩ = cab δij ∀ i,j ∈ [o, m − 1] (1)
Proof: X
PC = |kL ⟩⟨kL | ,where |kL ⟩ ∈ C
k

PC Ea† Eb PC = cab PC
X X
|kL ⟩⟨kL |Ea† Eb |lL ⟩⟨lL | = cab |mL ⟩⟨mL |
k,l m
! !
X X
⟨iL | |kL ⟩⟨kL |Ea† Eb |lL ⟩⟨lL | |jL ⟩ = ⟨iL | cab |mL ⟩⟨mL | |jL ⟩
k,l m
X X
⟨iL |kL ⟩⟨kL |Ea† Eb |lL ⟩⟨lL |jL ⟩ = cab ⟨iL |mL ⟩⟨mL |jL ⟩ = cab ⟨iL |jL ⟩
k,l m

⟨iL |Ea† Eb |jL ⟩ = cab δij ✓

Here, action of Ea on |iL ⟩ leads to a subspace say, C1 and action of Eb on |jL ⟩ leads
to a subspace say, C2 , (s.t) C1 and C2 are non-overlapping subspaces.

(ii) Ea is correctable by code C if the action of the error leads to a state in a subspace
orthogonal to the codespace. {Ea }N a=1 are detectable by code C with codewords
{|iL ⟩} if they satisfy

⟨iL |Ea |jL ⟩ = αa δij ∀ i, j ∈ [0, m − 1] (2)

4
Proof: Using eq (1), let Eb = I, i.e., the action of Eb on |iL ⟩ identity, remains
in codespace. The action of Ea on |jL ⟩ leads to a subspace orthogonal to the
codespace.
∴ eq(1) → ⟨iL |Ea |jL ⟩ = αa δij ∀ i, j ∈ [0, m − 1]

(iii) Using eq. (1) we say that QEC code can correct t errors if the set of ε ∼ {Ea }N
a=1
of weight upto t, provided that d ≥ 2t + 1
∴ QEC code with distance d = 2t + 1 can correct for errors on at most t qubits.
d =min(weight of Ea ) s.t ⟨iL |Ea |jL ⟩ ≠ αa δij
Using eq(2), ⟨iL |Ea |jL ⟩ = αa δij ∀ Ea of weight upto t
The action of Ea on |iL ⟩: Ea |iL ⟩ = αa |iL ⟩ + |ϕ⊥
ai ⟩
the first term is the same codeword on codespace, and the second term is an
unnormalized orthogonal vector to codespace.
Therefore, the action on a |ϕ⟩ in the codespace of an error Ea with support on ε
!
X X
|ψ⟩ ⊗ |0⟩A → Ea |ψ⟩ ⊗ |ea ⟩A = |ψ⟩ ⊗ Ca |ea ⟩A + |orthog⟩
Ea ∈ε Ea ∈ε

where, |0⟩A is ancilla and {|ea ⟩A } basis states of ancilla after error. |orthog⟩ denotes
a vector orthogonal to the codespace.
Now, we can perform an orthogonal measurement on the ancilla, with two out-
comes: the state is projected onto either the code subspace or the |orthog⟩ sub-
spaces. if the first outcome is obtained, the undamaged state |ψ⟩ is recovered
(correctable and detectable). If the second outcome is found, an error has been
detected.
We conclude that our QECC that can correct t errors can detect 2t errors since
correctable is detectable too.

Q5: QEC conditions in the stabilizer framework:


Single-Qubit Errors The single-qubit Pauli errors are: - Ii : Identity (no error), - Xi :
Bit-flip error on qubit i, - Zi : Phase-flip error on qubit i, - Yi = iXZi : Combined bit-flip
and phase-flip error on qubit i.
For each error operator Ea ∈ {Ii , Xi , Yi , Zi }, we need to check whether the QEC
conditions are satisfied.
(i) We are tasked with showing that the [5, 1, 3] stabilizer code, defined by the stabi-
lizer generators:
⟨XZZXI, IXZZX, XIXZZ, ZXIXZ⟩,
satisfies the quantum error correction (QEC) conditions for the set of single-qubit
error operators {I, Xi , Yi , Zi }, where i = 1, 2, . . . , 5 labels the five encoding qubits.
These generators satisfy the following properties: 1. They commute with one
another: [Si , Sj ] = 0 ∀i, j, 2. They define a codespace as the simultaneous +1
eigenspace of all stabilizers.

5
The logical operators for this code are: X̄ = XXXXX, Z̄ = ZZZZZ.
The distance of this code is d = 3, meaning it can correct any single-qubit error
(t = ⌊(d − 1)/2⌋ = 1).
Conclusion: The [5, 1, 3] stabilizer code satisfies the QEC conditions for single-
qubit errors because: - The stabilizers either commute or anticommute with all
single-qubit Pauli errors. - Each single-qubit error produces a unique syndrome
that allows for its detection and correction.
Thus, the code can correct arbitrary single-qubit errors as required.

4. Verifying QEC Conditions


1. Error Detection: - For any pair of errors Ea , Eb ∈ {Ii , Xi , Yi , Zi }, their product
Ea† Eb : - Either commutes or anticommutes with the stabilizers. - If it commutes with
all stabilizers (Ea† Eb ∈ S), it acts trivially on the codespace. - If it anticommutes with
at least one stabilizer (Ea† Eb ∈/ S), it maps the codespace to an orthogonal subspace. -
This ensures that errors can be detected.
2. Error Correction: - For any single-qubit error Ea , measuring the stabilizers produces
a unique syndrome (pattern of +1/ − 1 eigenvalues). - The syndrome identifies both the
type and location of the error. - Since there are four independent stabilizers and each
acts on five qubits, they provide sufficient information to correct any single-qubit error.
Error Correction Conditions: To show that this code satisfies the error correction
conditions, we need to verify that for any pair of errors Ea and Eb , the product Ea† Eb
either commutes with all generators of the stabilizer or anticommutes with at least one
generator.

(i) The single-qubit error operators commutes with S2 , S3 , and S4 , but anticommutes
with S1 . Thus, the syndrome measurement can detect this error. We consider how
each single-qubit error affects the stabilizers.

(ii)

Q6: Measuring a stabilizer

H⊗I C−G 1 H⊗I 1


|0⟩⊗|ψ⟩ −−−→ |+⟩⊗|ψ⟩ −−−→ √ (|0⟩⊗|ψ⟩+|1⟩⊗G|ψ⟩) −−−→ √ (|+⟩⊗|ψ⟩+|−⟩⊗G|ψ⟩)
2 2
 
1 1 1 1
Simplify, √ (|+⟩⊗|ψ⟩+|−⟩⊗G|ψ⟩) = √ |0⟩ ⊗ √ (|ψ⟩ + G|ψ⟩) + |1⟩ ⊗ √ (|ψ⟩ − G|ψ⟩)
2 2 2 2
Eigen decomposition: G = |g+ ⟩⟨g+ |−|g− ⟩⟨g− |, |ψ⟩ in eigen basis of G: |ψ⟩ = α|g+ ⟩+β|g− ⟩
1
|0⟩ measurement: √ (|ψ⟩ + G|ψ⟩) ∝ |g+ ⟩
2
1
|1⟩ measurement: √ (|ψ⟩ − G|ψ⟩) ∝ |g− ⟩
2

You might also like