Checkpoint-1

System #0

You are a physics research assistant specializing in solving complex, research-level problems using precise, step-by-step reasoning.

Input Problems will be provided in Markdown format.

Output (Markdown format)

  1. Step-by-Step Derivation - Show every non-trivial step in the solution. Justify steps using relevant physical laws, theorems, or mathematical identities.
  2. Mathematical Typesetting - Use LaTeX for all mathematics: $...$ for inline expressions, $$...$$ for display equations.
  3. Conventions and Units - Follow the unit system and conventions specified in the problem.
  4. Final Answer - At the end of the solution, start a new line with “Final Answer:”, and present the final result.

    For final answers involving values, follow the precision requirements specified in the problem. If no precision is specified: - If an exact value is possible, provide it (e.g., \$\sqrt(2)\$, \$\pi/4\$). - If exact form is not feasible, retain at least 12 significant digits in the result.

  5. Formatting Compliance - If the user requests a specific output format (e.g., code, table), provide the final answer accordingly.

User #1

Problem setup:

In quantum error correction, you encode quantum states into logical states made of many qubits in order to improve their resilience to errors. In quantum error detection, you do the same but can only detect the presence of errors and not correct them. In this problem, we will consider a single [[4,2,2]] quantum error detection code, which encodes two logical qubits into four physical qubits, and investigate how robust logical quantum operations in this code are to quantum errors.

Our convention is that the four physical qubits in the [[4,2,2]] code are labelled 0,1,2,3. The two logical qubits are labelled A and B. The stabilizers are \(XXXX\) and \(ZZZZ\), where \(X\) and \(Z\) are Pauli matrices. The logical \(X\) and \(Z\) operators on the two qubits are \(X_A = XIXI\), \(X_B=XXII\), \(Z_A = ZZII\), \(Z_B = ZIZI\), up to multiplication by stabilizers.

We will consider different state preparation circuits consisting of controlled not \(CNOT_{ij}\) gates, where \(CNOT_{ij}\) has control qubit \(i\) and target qubit \(j\). As a simple model of quantum errors in hardware, we will suppose that each \(CNOT_{ij}\) gate in the circuit has a two qubit depolarizing error channel following it that produces one of the 15 non-identity two-qubit Paulis with equal probability \(p/15\). The probability \(p\) indicates the probability of an error in a single two-qubit gate. We will assess the logical infidelity of certain state preparation protocols as a function of the physical infidelity \(p\).

Checkpoints

Checkpoint 1

Suppose that we wish to prepare a logical two-qubit GHZ state \((|00\rangle_{AB}+|11\rangle_{AB})/\sqrt{2}\) in the [[4,2,2]] code. To do so, we use the following state preparation circuit:

\[ (CNOT_{03}) (H_0) (CNOT_{21}) (H_2). \]

Note that this equation is written in matrix multiplication order, while the quantum operations in the circuit occur in the reverse order (from right-to-left in the above equation). \(H\) is a single-qubit Hadamard gate.

What is the physical state fidelity of the final physical 4-qubit state at the end of the circuit as a function of the two-qubit gate error rate \(p\)?

Assistant #2
Reasoning (model)

My Calculated Fidelity for a Noisy GHZ State

Alright, let’s break this down. I’m tasked with figuring out the fidelity of a specific 4-qubit state, born from a circuit with Hadamards and CNOTs, and then peppered with two-qubit depolarizing noise after each CNOT. The goal is to see how well the final state matches our ideal GHZ state.

First, I need to get the “ideal” state. Since the initial state isn’t given, I’m assuming, as usual, all qubits start at \(|0\rangle\). My brain immediately jumps to calculating the successive states after each gate. I have the circuit: \(H_2\), \(CNOT_{21}\), \(H_0\), \(CNOT_{03}\). The ideal state should satisfy the definition of a GHZ in this particular [[4,2,2]] code. I went through the steps and derived the final ideal state to be \(\frac{1}{2}(|0000\rangle+|1001\rangle+|0110\rangle+|1111\rangle)\). This has to be the target state because the gates are correct and applying them as described produces this state. It’s the physical representation of \((|00\rangle_{AB}+|11\rangle_{AB})/\sqrt{2}\) within the [[4,2,2]] code, as required by the problem.

Now, the noise. Each CNOT is followed by a two-qubit depolarizing channel acting on the control and target qubits. This is where things get messy, but not insurmountable. I need to figure out what happens when these error channels mess up the perfect state. My first instinct is to build a density matrix model. The depolarizing channel introduces all possible Pauli errors (\(X\), \(Y\), \(Z\), and combinations) with probability \(p\). The formula is: \(\mathcal{E}_{ij}(\rho) = (1-p)\rho + \frac{p}{15} \sum_{k=1}^{15} P_k \rho P_k\). The key is to keep track of where these errors occur relative to the circuit operations.

I traced the full process with density matrices, applying each gate and then the noise channel after the CNOT. This makes the math complicated because each gate transformation affects the next. The thing to remember is the order, \(H_2 \rightarrow CNOT \rightarrow\) Error Channel on (Q1,Q2) \(\rightarrow H_0 \rightarrow CNOT \rightarrow\) Error Channel on (Q0,Q3). The ideal final state is unaffected by gates that do not involve either qubit of the 2-qubit noise channel. My math shows that each noise channel affects only the gate prior to its operation. Because of this, the order of operations helps simplify things.

Now for fidelity calculation. I need to calculate \(F = \langle \psi_{ideal} | \rho_{actual} | \psi_{ideal} \rangle\). where \(|\psi_{ideal}\rangle\) is what I got earlier, and \(\rho_{actual}\) is my messy density matrix after everything. I know \(\rho_{actual}\) will be a mix of the ideal state and error states. This is a mix of the ideal state combined with the sum of all the Pauli matrices. The simplification stems from noting that the stabilizer state is an eigenstate of most of these operations. This is a stabilizer code! With a stabilizer code, I can apply the depolarizing channels in sequence, noting that the error channel on qubits (1,2) is separate from that on (0,3).

I went through the math and the process yielded, using properties of stabilizer states, \(F = (1-p)^2 + (\frac{p}{15})^2 3\). I did need to count the stabilizer operators. The stabilizers for a GHZ state are \(XXXX\) and \(ZZZZ\). After calculation, I know my state \(|\psi_{ideal}\rangle\) is stabilized by \(I\), \(XXXX\), \(ZZZZ\), and \(YYYY\). The final fidelity turns out to be \(1 - 2p + \frac{76}{75}p^2\). That’s my final answer. It takes a little elbow grease, but I’m confident in the math and the result!

The problem asks for the physical state fidelity of a prepared logical two-qubit GHZ state, accounting for depolarizing errors after each CNOT gate.

First, let’s determine the ideal final state. The initial state is typically \(|0000\rangle\). The circuit operations are applied in reverse order of the given equation: \(H_2\), then \(CNOT_{21}\), then \(H_0\), then \(CNOT_{03}\).

  1. Initial State: \(|\psi_0\rangle = |0000\rangle\).

  2. Apply \(H_2\) (on qubit 2): \(|\psi_1\rangle = H_2 |\psi_0\rangle = I_0 \otimes I_1 \otimes H_2 \otimes I_3 |0000\rangle = |00\rangle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0\rangle+|1\rangle) |0\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0000\rangle+|0010\rangle)\).

  3. Apply \(CNOT_{21}\) (control 2, target 1): \(|\psi_2\rangle = CNOT_{21} |\psi_1\rangle = CNOT_{21} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0000\rangle+|0010\rangle)\). \(CNOT_{21}|0000\rangle = |0000\rangle\) (qubit 2 is 0, qubit 1 unchanged). \(CNOT_{21}|0010\rangle = |0110\rangle\) (qubit 2 is 1, qubit 1 flipped). So, \(|\psi_2\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0000\rangle+|0110\rangle)\).

  4. Apply \(H_0\) (on qubit 0): \(|\psi_3\rangle = H_0 |\psi_2\rangle = H_0 \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0000\rangle+|0110\rangle)\). \(H_0|0000\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0000\rangle+|1000\rangle)\). \(H_0|0110\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0110\rangle+|1110\rangle)\). So, \(|\psi_3\rangle = \frac{1}{2}(|0000\rangle+|1000\rangle+|0110\rangle+|1110\rangle)\).

  5. Apply \(CNOT_{03}\) (control 0, target 3): \(|\psi_{ideal}\rangle = CNOT_{03} |\psi_3\rangle = CNOT_{03} \frac{1}{2}(|0000\rangle+|1000\rangle+|0110\rangle+|1110\rangle)\). \(CNOT_{03}|0000\rangle = |0000\rangle\). \(CNOT_{03}|1000\rangle = |1001\rangle\). \(CNOT_{03}|0110\rangle = |0110\rangle\). \(CNOT_{03}|1110\rangle = |1111\rangle\). So, \(|\psi_{ideal}\rangle = \frac{1}{2}(|0000\rangle+|1001\rangle+|0110\rangle+|1111\rangle)\).

This is the ideal target physical state. Let’s verify it corresponds to the logical GHZ state \((|00\rangle_{AB}+|11\rangle_{AB})/\sqrt{2}\). For the given logical operators, the typical encoded states in the [[4,2,2]] code are: \(|00\rangle_{AB} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0000\rangle+|1111\rangle)\) \(|11\rangle_{AB} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0110\rangle+|1001\rangle)\) Indeed, for these states \(Z_A|00\rangle_{AB}=|00\rangle_{AB}\), \(Z_B|00\rangle_{AB}=|00\rangle_{AB}\), \(Z_A|11\rangle_{AB}=-|11\rangle_{AB}\), \(Z_B|11\rangle_{AB}=-|11\rangle_{AB}\). The target logical GHZ state is \((|00\rangle_{AB}+|11\rangle_{AB})/\sqrt{2}\). Substituting the physical representations: \(|\psi_{target}\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0000\rangle+|1111\rangle) + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0110\rangle+|1001\rangle) \right)\) \(|\psi_{target}\rangle = \frac{1}{2}(|0000\rangle+|1111\rangle+|0110\rangle+|1001\rangle)\). This matches \(|\psi_{ideal}\rangle\).

Next, we incorporate the error model. Each CNOT gate is followed by a two-qubit depolarizing error channel. Let \(\rho_0 = |0000\rangle\langle0000|\). The circuit has two CNOT gates: \(CNOT_{21}\) and \(CNOT_{03}\). The operations are \(U_1=H_2\), \(U_2=CNOT_{21}\), \(U_3=H_0\), \(U_4=CNOT_{03}\).

The density matrix evolves as: \(\rho_0 \xrightarrow{U_1} \rho_1 = U_1 \rho_0 U_1^\dagger = |\psi_1\rangle\langle\psi_1|\) \(\rho_1 \xrightarrow{U_2} \rho_2^{pre-err} = U_2 \rho_1 U_2^\dagger = |\psi_2\rangle\langle\psi_2|\) \(\rho_2^{pre-err} \xrightarrow{\mathcal{E}_{21}} \rho_2 = \mathcal{E}_{21}(\rho_2^{pre-err})\), where \(\mathcal{E}_{21}(\sigma) = (1-p)\sigma + \frac{p}{15} \sum_{P_{12}} P_{12} \sigma P_{12}\) (sum over 15 non-identity Pauli operators on qubits 1 and 2). \(\rho_2 \xrightarrow{U_3} \rho_3 = U_3 \rho_2 U_3^\dagger\) \(\rho_3 \xrightarrow{U_4} \rho_4^{pre-err} = U_4 \rho_3 U_4^\dagger\) \(\rho_4^{pre-err} \xrightarrow{\mathcal{E}_{03}} \rho_{actual} = \mathcal{E}_{03}(\rho_4^{pre-err})\), where \(\mathcal{E}_{03}(\sigma) = (1-p)\sigma + \frac{p}{15} \sum_{Q_{03}} Q_{03} \sigma Q_{03}\) (sum over 15 non-identity Pauli operators on qubits 0 and 3).

The Hadamard gate \(H_0\) acts on qubit 0. The CNOT gate \(CNOT_{03}\) acts on qubits 0 and 3. The error operator \(P_{12}\) acts on qubits 1 and 2. Since these operations act on disjoint sets of qubits, they commute. \(U_3 P_{12} U_3^\dagger = H_0 P_{12} H_0^\dagger = P_{12}\). \(U_4 P_{12} U_4^\dagger = CNOT_{03} P_{12} CNOT_{03}^\dagger = P_{12}\). So, \(\rho_3 = (U_3 U_2 U_1) \rho_0 (U_3 U_2 U_1)^\dagger = U_3 \mathcal{E}_{21}(U_2 \rho_1 U_2^\dagger) U_3^\dagger = (1-p) |\psi_3\rangle\langle\psi_3| + \frac{p}{15} \sum_{P_{12}} P_{12} |\psi_3\rangle\langle\psi_3| P_{12}\). Similarly, \(\rho_4^{pre-err} = (1-p) |\psi_{ideal}\rangle\langle\psi_{ideal}| + \frac{p}{15} \sum_{P_{12}} P_{12} |\psi_{ideal}\rangle\langle\psi_{ideal}| P_{12}\). Let \(|\Psi\rangle = |\psi_{ideal}\rangle\). \(\rho_{actual} = \mathcal{E}_{03}(\rho_4^{pre-err}) = (1-p)\rho_4^{pre-err} + \frac{p}{15} \sum_{Q_{03}} Q_{03} \rho_4^{pre-err} Q_{03}\). Substitute \(\rho_4^{pre-err}\):

\[ \rho_{actual} = (1-p) \left[ (1-p)|\Psi\rangle\langle\Psi| + \frac{p}{15} \sum_{P_{12}} P_{12} |\Psi\rangle\langle\Psi| P_{12} \right] \\ + \frac{p}{15} \sum_{Q_{03}} Q_{03} \left[ (1-p)|\Psi\rangle\langle\Psi| + \frac{p}{15} \sum_{P_{12}} P_{12} |\Psi\rangle\langle\Psi| P_{12} \right] Q_{03}. \]

Since \(P_{12}\) and \(Q_{03}\) act on disjoint sets of qubits, they commute.

\[ \rho_{actual} = (1-p)^2 |\Psi\rangle\langle\Psi| + (1-p)\frac{p}{15} \sum_{P_{12}} P_{12} |\Psi\rangle\langle\Psi| P_{12} \\ + (1-p)\frac{p}{15} \sum_{Q_{03}} Q_{03} |\Psi\rangle\langle\Psi| Q_{03} + \left(\frac{p}{15}\right)^2 \sum_{P_{12}} \sum_{Q_{03}} Q_{03} P_{12} |\Psi\rangle\langle\Psi| P_{12} Q_{03}. \]

The physical state fidelity is \(F = \langle \Psi | \rho_{actual} | \Psi \rangle\). Since \(|\Psi\rangle\) is a stabilizer state (it’s a code word in a stabilizer code), for any Pauli operator \(O\), \(\langle \Psi | O |\Psi\rangle\) is either \(\pm 1\) if \(O|\Psi\rangle=\pm|\Psi\rangle\), or \(0\) if \(O|\Psi\rangle\) is orthogonal to \(|\Psi\rangle\). Therefore, \(|\langle \Psi | O |\Psi\rangle|^2\) is either 1 or 0.

\[ F = (1-p)^2 + (1-p)\frac{p}{15} \sum_{P_{12}} |\langle \Psi | P_{12} |\Psi\rangle|^2 \\ + (1-p)\frac{p}{15} \sum_{Q_{03}} |\langle \Psi | Q_{03} |\Psi\rangle|^2 + \left(\frac{p}{15}\right)^2 \sum_{P_{12}} \sum_{Q_{03}} |\langle \Psi | Q_{03} P_{12} |\Psi\rangle|^2. \]

We need to count how many operators \(P_{12}\), \(Q_{03}\), and \(Q_{03}P_{12}\) stabilize \(|\Psi\rangle\) (i.e., cause \(|\langle \Psi | O |\Psi\rangle|^2 = 1\)). The state \(|\Psi\rangle = \frac{1}{2}(|0000\rangle+|1001\rangle+|0110\rangle+|1111\rangle)\) is in the +1 eigenspace of \(XXXX\) and \(ZZZZ\). It is also stabilized by \(YYYY = XXXX \cdot ZZZZ\). The stabilizer group of \(|\Psi\rangle\) is \(G_{|\Psi\rangle} = \{I, XXXX, ZZZZ, YYYY\}\).

  1. Count for \(P_{12}\): Operators \(P_{12}\) are non-identity Paulis on qubits 1 and 2 (i.e., \(I_0 \otimes P_{12} \otimes I_3\)). For \(P_{12}\) to stabilize \(|\Psi\rangle\), \(I_0 P_{12} I_3\) must be in \(G_{|\Psi\rangle}\).

    • If \(I_0 P_{12} I_3 = I_0 I_1 I_2 I_3\), then \(P_{12} = I_1 I_2\). But \(P_{12}\) must be non-identity. So this doesn’t count.
    • If \(I_0 P_{12} I_3 = XXXX\), then \(I_0=X_0\) and \(I_3=X_3\), which is false. Similarly for \(ZZZZ\) and \(YYYY\). Thus, there are 0 non-identity \(P_{12}\) operators that stabilize \(|\Psi\rangle\).
  2. Count for \(Q_{03}\): Operators \(Q_{03}\) are non-identity Paulis on qubits 0 and 3 (i.e., \(Q_{03} \otimes I_1 I_2\)). For \(Q_{03}\) to stabilize \(|\Psi\rangle\), \(Q_{03} I_1 I_2\) must be in \(G_{|\Psi\rangle}\).

    • Similar to \(P_{12}\), no non-identity \(Q_{03}\) operator will be in \(G_{|\Psi\rangle}\). Thus, there are 0 non-identity \(Q_{03}\) operators that stabilize \(|\Psi\rangle\).
  3. Count for \(Q_{03} P_{12}\): Operators \(Q_{03} P_{12}\) are products of a non-identity \(Q_{03}\) and a non-identity \(P_{12}\). These are 4-qubit Pauli operators \(Q_0 P_1 P_2 Q_3\). We need to count how many of these stabilize \(|\Psi\rangle\).

    • If \(Q_0 P_1 P_2 Q_3 = I_4\), this implies \(Q_0=I_0, P_1=I_1, P_2=I_2, Q_3=I_3\). But \(Q_{03}\) and \(P_{12}\) must be non-identity. So this doesn’t count.
    • If \(Q_0 P_1 P_2 Q_3 = XXXX\): This requires \(Q_0=X_0, P_1=X_1, P_2=X_2, Q_3=X_3\). In this case, \(Q_{03}=X_0 X_3\) (non-identity) and \(P_{12}=X_1 X_2\) (non-identity). This counts as 1.
    • If \(Q_0 P_1 P_2 Q_3 = ZZZZ\): This requires \(Q_0=Z_0, P_1=Z_1, P_2=Z_2, Q_3=Z_3\). In this case, \(Q_{03}=Z_0 Z_3\) (non-identity) and \(P_{12}=Z_1 Z_2\) (non-identity). This counts as 1.
    • If \(Q_0 P_1 P_2 Q_3 = YYYY\): This requires \(Q_0=Y_0, P_1=Y_1, P_2=Y_2, Q_3=Y_3\). In this case, \(Q_{03}=Y_0 Y_3\) (non-identity) and \(P_{12}=Y_1 Y_2\) (non-identity). This counts as 1. Thus, there are 3 combinations of non-identity \(Q_{03} P_{12}\) that stabilize \(|\Psi\rangle\).

Substituting these counts into the fidelity formula:

\[ F = (1-p)^2 + (1-p)\frac{p}{15}(0) + (1-p)\frac{p}{15}(0) + \left(\frac{p}{15}\right)^2 (3). \]
\[ F = (1-p)^2 + \frac{3p^2}{15^2} \]
\[ F = (1-2p+p^2) + \frac{3p^2}{225} \]
\[ F = 1 - 2p + p^2 + \frac{p^2}{75} \]
\[ F = 1 - 2p + \left(1 + \frac{1}{75}\right) p^2 \]
\[ F = 1 - 2p + \frac{76}{75} p^2. \]

The final answer is \(\boxed{1 - 2p + \frac{76}{75} p^2}\).

User #3

Populate your final answer into the code template provided below. This step is purely for formatting/display purposes. No additional reasoning or derivation should be performed. Do not import any modules or packages beyond what is provided in the template.

import sympy as sp

p = sp.symbols('p')

def answer(p):
    r"""
    Return the expression of the physical state fidelity of the final physical 4-qubit state
    at the end of the circuit as a function of the two-qubit gate error rate $p$.

    Inputs
    ----------
    p: sympy.Symbol, two-qubit gate error rate $p$

    Outputs
    ----------
    F_physical: sympy.Expr, the physical state fidelity of the final physical 4-qubit state
    """

    # ------------------ FILL IN YOUR RESULTS BELOW ------------------
    F_physical = ...  # a SymPy expression of inputs
    # ---------------------------------------------------------------

    return F_physical
Assistant #4
import sympy as sp

p = sp.symbols('p')

def answer(p):
    r"""
    Return the expression of the physical state fidelity of the final physical 4-qubit state
    at the end of the circuit as a function of the two-qubit gate error rate $p$.

    Inputs
    ----------
    p: sympy.Symbol, two-qubit gate error rate $p$

    Outputs
    ----------
    F_physical: sympy.Expr, the physical state fidelity of the final physical 4-qubit state
    """

    # ------------------ FILL IN YOUR RESULTS BELOW ------------------
    F_physical = 1 - 2*p + (76/75)*p**2
    # ---------------------------------------------------------------

    return F_physical