In quantum computing, a graph state is a special type of multi-qubit state that can be represented by a graph. Each qubit is represented by a vertex of the graph, and there is an edge between every interacting pair of qubits. In particular, they are a convenient way of representing certain types of entangled states.

Graph states are useful in quantum error-correcting codes, entanglement measurement and purification and for characterization of computational resources in measurement based quantum computing models. A graph state is a particular case of a stabilizer state as well as a 2-uniform hypergraph state, a generalization where the edges have cardinality between 1 and N.

Formal definition

edit

Quantum graph states can be defined in two equivalent ways: through the notion of quantum circuits and stabilizer formalism.

Quantum circuit definition

edit

Given a graph  , with the set of vertices   and the set of edges  , the corresponding graph state is defined as

 

where   and the operator   is the controlled-Z interaction between the two vertices (corresponding to two qubits)   and  

 

Stabilizer formalism definition

edit

An alternative and equivalent definition is the following, which makes use of the stabilizer formalism.

Define an operator   for each vertex   of  :

 

where   are the Pauli matrices and   is the set of vertices adjacent to  . The   operators commute. The graph state   is defined as the simultaneous  -eigenvalue eigenstate of the   operators  :

 

and thus every graph state is a stabilizer state.

Equivalence between the two definitions

edit

A proof of the equivalence of the two definitions can be found in.[1][2]

Examples

edit
  • If   is a three-vertex path, then the   stabilizers are
 

The corresponding quantum state is

 
  • If   is a triangle on three vertices, then the   stabilizers are
 

The corresponding quantum state is

 

Observe that   and   are locally equivalent to each other, i.e., can be mapped to each other by applying one-qubit unitary transformations. Indeed, switching   and   on the first and last qubits, while switching   and   on the middle qubit, maps the stabilizer group of one into that of the other.

Local Equivalence

edit

Two graph states are called locally equivalent if one can be converted into the other by local unitary gates. If the conversion from one state to the other can be performed by local gates from the Clifford group, the two states are called locally Clifford equivalent. If and only if two graph states are locally Clifford equivalent, one graph can be converted into the other by a sequence of so-called "local complementations".[3] This gives a useful tool for studying local Clifford equivalence by a simple graph-manipulation rule and corresponding equivalence classes of graph states have been studied in Refs.[1][4][5] However, local Clifford equivalence of graph states only coincides with local unitary equivalence for small graph states[1] and is generally not identical.[6]

Entanglement criteria and Bell inequalities for graph states

edit

After a graph state was created in an experiment, it is important to verify that indeed, an entangled quantum state has been created. The fidelity with respect to a  -qubit graph state   is given by

 

It has been shown that if   for a nontrivial graph state corresponding to a connected graph, then the state   has genuine multiparticle entanglement.[7] [8] Thus, one can obtain an entanglement witness detecting entanglement close the graph states as

 

where   signals genuine multiparticle entanglement.

Such a witness cannot be measured directly. It has to be decomposed to a sum of correlations terms, which can then be measured. However, for large systems this approach can be difficult.

There are also entanglement witnesses that work in very large systems, and they also detect genuine multipartite entanglement close to graph states. Here, the graph state itself has to be genuine multipartite entangled, that is, it has to correspond to a connected graph. The witnesses need only the minimal two local measurement settings for graph states corresponding to two-colorable graphs.[7] [8] Similar conditions can also be used to put a lower bound on the fidelity with respect to an ideal graph state.[8] These criteria have been used first in an experiment realizing four-qubit cluster states with photons.[9] These approaches have also been used to propose methods for detecting entanglement in a smaller part of a large cluster state or graph state realized in optical lattices.[10]

Bell inequalities have also been developed for cluster states.[11] [12] [13] All these entanglement conditions and Bell inequalities are based on the stabilizer formalism.[14]

See also

edit

References

edit
  • M. Hein; J. Eisert; H. J. Briegel (2004). "Multiparty entanglement in graph states". Physical Review A. 69 (6): 062311. arXiv:quant-ph/0307130. Bibcode:2004PhRvA..69f2311H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.69.062311. S2CID 108290803.
  • S. Anders; H. J. Briegel (2006). "Fast simulation of stabilizer circuits using a graph-state representation". Physical Review A. 73 (2): 022334. arXiv:quant-ph/0504117. Bibcode:2006PhRvA..73b2334A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.73.022334. S2CID 12763101.
  • M. Van den Nest; J. Dehaene; B. De Moor (2005). "Local unitary versus local Clifford equivalence of stabilizer states". Physical Review A. 71 (6): 062323. arXiv:quant-ph/0411115. Bibcode:2005PhRvA..71f2323V. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.71.062323. S2CID 119466090.
  1. ^ a b c Hein M.; Dür W.; Eisert J.; Raussendorf R.; Van den Nest M.; Briegel H.-J. (2006). "Entanglement in graph states and its applications". Proceedings of the International School of Physics "Enrico Fermi". 162 (Quantum Computers, Algorithms and Chaos): 115–218. arXiv:quant-ph/0602096. Bibcode:2006quant.ph..2096H. doi:10.3254/978-1-61499-018-5-115. ISSN 0074-784X.
  2. ^ Looi, Shiang Yong; Yu, Li; Gheorghiu, Vlad; Griffiths, Robert B. (2008-10-07). "Quantum-error-correcting codes using qudit graph states". Physical Review A. 78 (4). American Physical Society (APS). arXiv:0712.1979. doi:10.1103/physreva.78.042303. ISSN 1050-2947.
  3. ^ Van den Nest, Maarten; Dehaene, Jeroen; De Moor, Bart (2004-09-17). "Efficient algorithm to recognize the local Clifford equivalence of graph states". Physical Review A. 70 (3): 034302. arXiv:quant-ph/0405023. Bibcode:2004PhRvA..70c4302V. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.70.034302. ISSN 1050-2947. S2CID 35190821.
  4. ^ Cabello, Adán; López-Tarrida, Antonio J.; Moreno, Pilar; Portillo, José R. (2009). "Entanglement in eight-qubit graph states". Physics Letters A. 373 (26). Elsevier BV: 2219–2225. arXiv:0812.4625. doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2009.04.055. ISSN 0375-9601.
  5. ^ Adcock, Jeremy C.; Morley-Short, Sam; Dahlberg, Axel; Silverstone, Joshua W. (2020-08-07). "Mapping graph state orbits under local complementation". Quantum. 4. Verein zur Forderung des Open Access Publizierens in den Quantenwissenschaften: 305. arXiv:1910.03969. doi:10.22331/q-2020-08-07-305. ISSN 2521-327X.
  6. ^ Ji, Z.-F.; Chen, J.-X.; Wei, Z.-H.; Ying, M.-S. (2010). "The LU-LC conjecture is false". Quantum Information and Computation. 10 (1&2). Rinton Press: 97–108. doi:10.26421/qic10.1-2-8. ISSN 1533-7146.
  7. ^ a b Tóth, Géza; Gühne, Otfried (17 February 2005). "Detecting Genuine Multipartite Entanglement with Two Local Measurements". Physical Review Letters. 94 (6): 060501. arXiv:quant-ph/0405165. Bibcode:2005PhRvL..94f0501T. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.060501. PMID 15783712. S2CID 13371901.
  8. ^ a b c Tóth, Géza; Gühne, Otfried (29 August 2005). "Entanglement detection in the stabilizer formalism". Physical Review A. 72 (2): 022340. arXiv:quant-ph/0501020. Bibcode:2005PhRvA..72b2340T. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.72.022340. S2CID 56269409.
  9. ^ Kiesel, Nikolai; Schmid, Christian; Weber, Ulrich; Tóth, Géza; Gühne, Otfried; Ursin, Rupert; Weinfurter, Harald (16 November 2005). "Experimental Analysis of a Four-Qubit Photon Cluster State". Physical Review Letters. 95 (21). arXiv:quant-ph/0508128. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.210502.
  10. ^ Alba, Emilio; Tóth, Géza; García-Ripoll, Juan José (21 December 2010). "Mapping the spatial distribution of entanglement in optical lattices". Physical Review A. 82 (6). arXiv:1007.0985. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.82.062321.
  11. ^ Scarani, Valerio; Acín, Antonio; Schenck, Emmanuel; Aspelmeyer, Markus (18 April 2005). "Nonlocality of cluster states of qubits". Physical Review A. 71 (4): 042325. arXiv:quant-ph/0405119. Bibcode:2005PhRvA..71d2325S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.71.042325. S2CID 4805039.
  12. ^ Gühne, Otfried; Tóth, Géza; Hyllus, Philipp; Briegel, Hans J. (14 September 2005). "Bell Inequalities for Graph States". Physical Review Letters. 95 (12): 120405. arXiv:quant-ph/0410059. Bibcode:2005PhRvL..95l0405G. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.120405. PMID 16197057. S2CID 5973814.
  13. ^ Tóth, Géza; Gühne, Otfried; Briegel, Hans J. (2 February 2006). "Two-setting Bell inequalities for graph states". Physical Review A. 73 (2): 022303. arXiv:quant-ph/0510007. Bibcode:2006PhRvA..73b2303T. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.73.022303. S2CID 108291031.
  14. ^ Gottesman, Daniel (1 September 1996). "Class of quantum error-correcting codes saturating the quantum Hamming bound". Physical Review A. 54 (3): 1862–1868. arXiv:quant-ph/9604038. Bibcode:1996PhRvA..54.1862G. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.54.1862. PMID 9913672. S2CID 16407184.
edit