1: \documentclass[pra,twocolumn,superscriptaddress,floatfix,showpacs,10pt,letterpaper]{revtex4}

2: \usepackage{graphicx}

3: \usepackage{subfigure}

4: \usepackage{amssymb}

5: \usepackage{verbatim}

6: \usepackage{amsmath}

7: \usepackage{amscd}

8: \usepackage{amssymb}

9: 

10: \DeclareMathOperator{\tr}{tr} \DeclareMathOperator{\supp}{supp}

11: \DeclareMathOperator{\wt}{wt} \DeclareMathOperator{\aut}{aut}

12: 

13: \newcommand{\G}{{\cal G}}

14: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{|{#1}\rangle}

15: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\langle{#1}|}

16: \newcommand{\X}{\sigma_x}

17: \newcommand{\Z}{\sigma_z}

18: \newcommand{\Y}{\sigma_y}

19: \newcommand{\Xs}[1]{\sigma_{x{#1}}}

20: \newcommand{\Ys}[1]{\sigma_{y{#1}}}

21: \newcommand{\Zs}[1]{\sigma_{z{#1}}}

22: \newcommand{\Xbar}{\overline{X}}

23: \newcommand{\Ybar}{\overline{Y}}

24: \newcommand{\Zbar}{\overline{Z}}

25: \newcommand{\A}{{\cal A}}

26: \newcommand{\ptj}[1]{p_{Tof}^{({#1})}}

27: \newcommand{\pgj}[1]{p_g^{({#1})}}

28: \newcommand{\psj}[1]{p_{stor}^{({#1})}}

29: \newcommand{\ppj}[1]{p_{prep}^{({#1})}}

30: \newcommand{\pmj}[1]{p_{meas}^{({#1})}}

31: \newcommand{\ttj}[1]{t_{Tof}^{({#1})}}

32: \newcommand{\tpj}[1]{t_{prep}^{({#1})}}

33: \newcommand{\tmj}[1]{t_{meas}^{({#1})}}

34: \newcommand{\Sum}{\sum}

35: \newcommand{\low}[1]{\raisebox{-0.3ex}{{#1}}}

36: \newcommand{\im}{{\rm i}}

37: \newcommand{\etal}{\mbox{{\em et al}}}

38: \newcommand{\abs}[1]{|#1|}

39: %\newcommand{\iden}{\bm{1}}% Change this!

40: %\newcommand{\iden}{\mbox$1 \hspace{-1.0mm}  {\bf l}$}}

41: \newcommand{\iden}{1 \hspace{-1.0mm}  {\bf l}}

42: 

43: \newcommand{\ncd}{\newcommand}

44: \ncd{\QC}{$\mbox{QC}_{\cal{C}}\;$}

45: \ncd{\QCpr}{${\mbox{QC}_{\cal{C}}}^\prime\;$}

46: \ncd{\QCns}{$\mbox{QC}_{\cal{C}}$}

47: \ncd{\QCprns}{${\mbox{QC}_{\cal{C}}}^\prime$}

48: \ncd{\cskN}{{|\phi_{\{\kappa\} } \rangle}_{{\cal{C}}_N}}

49: \ncd{\cskNpr}{{|\phi_{\{\kappa^\prime\} } \rangle}_{{\cal{C}}_N}}

50: \ncd{\cskNtil}{{|\phi_{\{\tilde{\kappa} \} } \rangle}_{{\cal{C}}_N}}

51: \ncd{\csk}{{|\phi_{\{\kappa\} } \rangle}_{\cal{C}}}

52: \ncd{\csktil}{{|\phi_{\{\tilde{\kappa} \} } \rangle}_{\cal{C}}}

53: \ncd{\cskf}{|\phi_{\{\kappa\} } \rangle_{\cal{C}}}

54: \ncd{\csktilf}{|\phi_{\{\tilde{\kappa} \} } \rangle_{\cal{C}}}

55: \ncd{\bracsk}{\mbox{}_{\cal{C}}\langle\phi_{\{\kappa\} }|}

56: \ncd{\bracsktil}{\mbox{}_{\cal{C}}\langle\phi_{\{\tilde{\kappa} \}

57: }|} \ncd{\nbracsk}{\mbox{}_{\cal{C}}\langle\phi_{\{\kappa\} }}

58: \ncd{\nbracsktil}{\mbox{}_{\cal{C}}\langle\phi_{\{\tilde{\kappa} \}

59: }} \ncd{\cs}{|\phi \rangle_{\cal{C}}\;} \ncd{\csns}{|\phi

60: \rangle_{\cal{C}}} \ncd{\nbgh}{\text{nbgh}} \ncd{\Sab}{S^{ab}}

61: \ncd{\Sba}{S^{ba}} \ncd{\ds}{\displaystyle} \ncd{\ovl}{\overline}

62: 

63: \newtheorem{conjecture}{Conjecture}

64: \newtheorem{fact}{Fact}

65: \newtheorem{definition}{Definition}

66: \newtheorem{example}{Example}

67: \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}

68: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}

69: \newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}

70: \newtheorem{remark}{Remark}

71: \newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}

72: \newtheorem{procedure}{Procedure}

73: \newtheorem{scheme}{Scheme}

74: \newtheorem{errmod}{Error model}

75: 

76: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

77: 

78: \begin{document}

79: 

80: \title{Semi-Clifford operations, structure of $\mathcal{C}_k$ hierarchy, and \\ gate complexity for fault-tolerant quantum computation}

81: 

82: \author{Bei Zeng} \affiliation{Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA}

83: 

84: \author{Xie Chen} \affiliation{Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA}

85: 

86: \author{Isaac L. Chuang} \affiliation{Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA}

87: 

88: \date{\today}

89: 

90: \begin{abstract}

91: 

92: Teleportation is a crucial element in fault-tolerant quantum

93: computation and a complete understanding of its capacity is very

94: important for the practical implementation of optimal fault-tolerant

95: architectures. It is known that stabilizer codes support a natural

96: set of gates that can be more easily implemented by teleportation

97: than any other gates. These gates belong to the so called

98: $\mathcal{C}_k$ hierarchy introduced by Gottesman and Chuang (Nature

99: \textbf{402}, 390). Moreover, a subset of $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates,

100: called semi-Clifford operations, can be implemented by an even

101: simpler architecture than the traditional teleportation setup (Phys.

102: Rev. \textbf{A62}, 052316). However, the precise set of gates in

103: $\mathcal{C}_k$ remains unknown, even for a fixed number of qubits

104: $n$, which prevents us from knowing exactly what teleportation is

105: capable of. In this paper we study the structure of $\mathcal{C}_k$

106: in terms of semi-Clifford operations, which send by conjugation at least one maximal 

107: abelian subgroup of the $n$-qubit Pauli group into another one.

108: We show that for $n=1,2$, all

109: the $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates are semi-Clifford, which is also true for

110: $\{n=3,k=3\}$. However, this is no longer true for $\{n>2,k>3\}$. To

111: measure the capability of this teleportation primitive, we introduce

112: a quantity called `teleportation depth', which characterizes how

113: many teleportation steps are necessary, on average, to implement a

114: given gate. We calculate upper bounds for teleportation depth by

115: decomposing gates into both semi-Clifford $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates and

116: those $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates beyond semi-Clifford operations, and

117: compare their efficiency.

118: 

119: \end{abstract}

120: 

121: \pacs{03.67.Pp, 03.67.Lx} \maketitle %\narrowtext

122: 

123: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

124: 

125: \section{Introduction}

126: 

127: The discovery of quantum error-correcting codes and the theory of

128: fault-tolerant quantum computation have greatly improved the

129: long-term prospects for quantum computing technology

130: \cite{Nielsen,Preskill}. To implement fault-tolerant quantum

131: computation for a given quantum error-correcting code, protocols for

132: performing fault-tolerant operations are needed. The basic design

133: principle of a fault-tolerant operation protocol is that if only one

134: component in the procedure fails, then the failure causes at most

135: one error in each encoded block of qubits output from the procedure.

136: 

137: The most straightforward protocol is to use transversal gates

138: whenever possible. A transversal operation has the virtue that an

139: error occurring on the $k$th qubit in a block can only ever

140: propagate to the $k$th qubit of other blocks of the code, no matter

141: what other sequence of gates we perform before a complete

142: error-correction procedure \cite{Shor,Gottesman}. Unfortunately, it

143: is widely believed in the quantum information science community that

144: there does not exist a quantum error correcting code, upon which we

145: can perform universal quantum computations using just transversal

146: gates \cite{Gottesman}, and recently this belief is proved

147: \cite{ZCC}.

148: 

149: We therefore have to resort to other techniques, for instance

150: quantum teleportation \cite{Got} or state distillation

151: \cite{BravyiDistill}. The $\mathcal{C}_k$ hierarchy is introduced by

152: Gottesman and Chuang to implement fault-tolerant quantum computation

153: via teleportation \cite{Got}. The starting point is, if we can

154: perform the Pauli operations and measurements fault-tolerantly, we

155: can then perform all Clifford group operations fault-tolerantly by

156: teleportation. We can then use a similar technique to boot-strap the

157: way to universal fault-tolerant computation, using teleportation,

158: which gives a $\mathcal{C}_k$ hierarchy of quantum teleportation, as

159: defined below:

160: 

161: \begin{definition}

162: The sets $\mathcal{C}_k$ are defined in a recursive way as sets of

163: unitary operations $U$ that satisfy:

164: \begin{equation}

165: \mathcal{C}_{k+1}=\{U|U\mathcal{C}_1U^{\dagger}\subseteq\mathcal{C}_k\},

166: \end{equation}

167: where $\mathcal{C}_1$ is the Pauli group. We call a unitary

168: operation an $n$-qubit $\mathcal{C}_k$ gate if it belongs to the set

169: $\mathcal{C}_k$ and acts nontrivially on at most $n$ qubits.

170: \end{definition}

171: 

172: Note by definition $\mathcal{C}_2$ is the Clifford group, which

173: takes the Pauli group into itself. And

174: $\mathcal{C}_{k}\supset\mathcal{C}_{k-1}$, but $\mathcal{C}_k$ for

175: $k\geq 3$ is no longer a group.

176: 

177: \begin{figure}[htbp]

178: \includegraphics[width=3.00in]{2bit_teleportation.eps}\caption{Two-bit teleportation scheme. $<$ denotes an \textbf{EPR}

179: pair, $B$ represents Bell-basis measurement, $R_{xy}' = U R_{xy}

180: U^{\dagger}$, where $R_{xy}$ is a Pauli operator. The double wires

181: carry classical bits and single wire carries qubits. Any gate in the

182: $\mathcal{C}_k$ hierarchy can be implemented fault-tolerantly using

183: this teleporation scheme.}\label{2bit}

184: \end{figure}

185: 

186: \begin{figure}[htbp]

187: \includegraphics[width=3.00in]{1bit_teleportation.eps}

188: \caption{One-bit teleportation scheme. For $Z$-teleportation, $A=I$,

189: $B=H$, $D=Z$, and $E$ is a CNOT gate with the first qubit as its

190: target. For $X$-teleportation, $A=H$, $B=I$, $D=X$, and $E$ is a

191: CNOT gate with the first qubit as its control. All semi-Clifford

192: $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates can be implemented fault-tolerantly using this

193: scheme.}\label{1bit}

194: \end{figure}

195: 

196: 

197: All the gates in $\mathcal{C}_k$ can be performed with the two-bit

198: teleportation scheme (FIG. \ref{2bit}) in a fault-tolerant manner.

199: Because, as proved in \cite{Gottesman}, it is possible to

200: fault-tolerantly prepare the ancilla state $|\Psi_U^n\rangle$, apply the

201: classically controlled correction operation $R_{xy}^{'\dagger}$, and

202: measure in Bell basis on a stabilizer code. However the precise set

203: of gates which form $\mathcal{C}_k$ is unknown, even for a fixed

204: number of qubits. It is demonstrated in \cite{Xinlan} that a subset

205: of $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates could be implemented by a different

206: architecture than the standard teleportation, called one-bit

207: teleportation, as shown in FIG. \ref{1bit}. Those gates adopt the

208: form $L_1VL_2$, where $V$ is a diagonal gate in $\mathcal{C}_k$ and

209: $L_1,L_2$ are two Clifford operations. Gates of this form are

210: recently studied in literature and are called the semi-Clifford

211: operations \cite{Gross}. In the following we will denote the

212: $n$-qubit Pauli group as $\mathcal{P}_n$ and a semi-Clifford

213: operation is defined to be a gate which sends at least one maximal

214: abelian subgroup of $\mathcal{P}_n$ to another maximal abelian one

215: under conjugation.

216: 

217: Due to the fact that one-bit teleportation needs only half the

218: number of ancilla qubits per teleportation than the standard two-bit

219: teleportation, it is important to understand the difference of

220: capabilities between one and two-bit teleportation for the practical

221: implementations of fault-tolerant architecture. It is conjectured in

222: \cite{Xinlan} that those two capabilities coincide for

223: $\{n=2,k=3\}$, which means that all the $\mathcal{C}_3$ gates for

224: two qubits are semi-Clifford operations.

225: 

226: In this paper, we prove this conjecture for a more general situation

227: where $\{n=1,2,\forall k\}$, and $\{n=3,k=3\}$. We then disprove it

228: for parameters $\{n>2,k>3\}$ by explicit construction of

229: counterexamples. We leave open the question for the parameters

230: $\{n>2,k=3\}$, and a more general problem of fully characterizing

231: the structure of $\mathcal{C}_k$: we conjecture that all gates in

232: $\mathcal{C}_k$ are something we refer to as generalized

233: semi-Clifford operations, i.e. a natural generalization of the

234: concept of semi-Clifford operation to the case including classical

235: permutations. Our results about this semi-Clifford operations versus

236: $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates relation can be visualized in FIG.

237: \ref{Cksemi}.

238: 

239: \begin{figure}[htbp]

240: \includegraphics[width=3.00in]{gates.eps}

241: \caption{Semi-Clifford operations versus $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates. A:

242: all gates; B: generalized semi-Clifford gates; C: semi-Clifford

243: gates; D: $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates; E: $\mathcal{C}_3$ gates. C is

244: strictly contained in B and E is strictly contained in D. The two

245: question marks indicate two open problems we have: whether $D$ is a

246: subset of $B$; and whether $E$ is a subset of $C$.} \label{Cksemi}

247: \end{figure}

248: 

249: Just as in the usual circuit model, different gates are implemented

250: with different levels of complexity using this teleportation scheme.

251: It is then natural to ask the questions, how to characterize this

252: concept of gate complexity with concrete physical quantities, how

253: does this measure based on teleportation schemes compare with the

254: usual circuit depth, and what it implies for the practical

255: construction of quantum computation architecture. To answer these

256: questions, we introduce a quantity as a measure of gate complexity

257: for fault-tolerant quantum computation based on the $\mathcal{C}_k$

258: hierarchy, called the teleportation depth, which characterizes how

259: many teleportation steps are necessary, on average, to implement a

260: given gate. We demonstrate the effect of the existence of non

261: semi-Clifford operations in $\mathcal{C}_k$ on the estimation of the

262: upper bound for the teleportation depth, as well as some

263: quantitative difference between the capabilities of one and two-bit

264: teleportation.

265: 

266: The paper is organized as follows: Section II gives definition and

267: basic properties of semi-Clifford operations and generalized

268: semi-Clifford operations; in Section III we study the structure of

269: $\mathcal{C}_k$ hierarchy in terms of semi-Clifford and generalized

270: semi-Clifford operations; Section IV is devoted to the discussion of

271: teleportation depth and how it depends on the structure of

272: $\mathcal{C}_k$; and with Section V, we conclude our paper.

273: 

274: \section{Semi-Clifford operations and its generalization}

275: 

276: The concept of semi-Clifford operations was first introduced in

277: \cite{Gross}, to characterize the property of gates transforming

278: Pauli matrices acting on a single qubit. Here we generalize it to

279: the $n$-qubit case, through the following definition.

280: 

281: \begin{definition}

282: An $n$-qubit unitary operation is called semi-Clifford if it sends

283: by conjugation at least one maximal abelian subgroup of

284: $\mathcal{P}_n$ to another maximal abelian subgroup of

285: $\mathcal{P}_n$.

286: 

287: That is, if $U$ is an $n$-qubit semi-Clifford operation, then there

288: must exist at least one maximal abelian subgroup $G$ of

289: $\mathcal{P}_n$, such that $UGU^{\dagger}$ is another maximal

290: abelian subgroup of $\mathcal{P}_n$.

291: \end{definition}

292: 

293: The most basic property of a semi-Clifford operation is,

294: \begin{proposition}

295: If $R$ is a semi-Clifford operation, then there exist Clifford

296: operations $L_1,L_2$ such that $L_1RL_2$ is diagonal.

297: \end{proposition}

298: \textbf{Proof}: $Z_i$ represents the Pauli $Z$ operation on the

299: $i^{th}$ qubit. If  $R$ is an $n$-qubit semi-Clifford operation,

300: then there must exist $n$-qubit operations $L_1,L_2\in\mathcal{C}_2$

301: such that $RL_2Z_iL_2^{\dagger}R^{\dagger}=L_1^{\dagger}Z_iL_1$,

302: \cite{Gotthesis}, i.e.

303: $L_1RL_2Z_iL_2^{\dagger}R^{\dagger}L_1^{\dagger}=Z_i$ holds for any

304: $i=1...n$. Therefore, $(L_1RL_2)Z_i=Z_i(L_1RL_2)$, i.e. the

305: $n$-qubit gate $L_1RL_2$ is diagonal.$\square$

306: 

307: In other words, semi-Clifford operations are those gates

308: diagonalizable `up to Clifford multiplications'. Thus the structure

309: problem of the whole set of semi-Clifford operations is reduced to

310: that of the diagonal subset within it.

311: 

312: As we shall see later, the notion of semi-Clifford operations is

313: useful in characterizing some but not all gates in the

314: $\mathcal{C}_k$ hierarchy. More generally, we might also consider

315: those gates with properties of transforming the span, or in other

316: words the group algebra over the complex field, of a maximal abelian

317: subgroup of $\mathcal{P}_n$.

318: 

319: \begin{definition}

320: A generalized semi-Clifford operation on $n$ qubits is defined to

321: send by conjugation the span of at least one maximal abelian

322: subgroup of $\mathcal{P}_n$ to the span of another maximal abelian

323: subgroup of $\mathcal{P}_n$.

324: \end{definition}

325: 

326: Denote $\langle S_i\rangle$ the group generated by a set of operators $\{S_i\}$, and denote 

327: the span of the group $\langle S_i\rangle$ as

328: $\mathfrak{C}(\langle S_i\rangle)$. Then in a more mathmatical form we can write

329: the above definition as:

330: 

331: If $U$ is a generalized semi-Clifford operation on $n$ qubits, then

332: there must exist at least one maximal abelian subgroup $G=\langle g_i\rangle$ of

333: $\mathcal{P}_n$, such that for all $s\in \mathfrak{C}(\langle g_i\rangle)$, 

334: $UsU^{\dagger}\in\mathfrak{C}(U\langle g_i\rangle U^{\dagger})$, where $UGU^{\dagger}$ is another maximal abelian subgroup of $\mathcal{P}_n$.

335: 

336: Then the basic property of a generalized semi-Clifford operation is,

337: \begin{proposition}

338: If $R$ is a generalized semi-Clifford operation, then there exist

339: Clifford operations $L_1,L_2$, and a classical permutation operator

340: $P$ such that $PL_1RL_2$ is diagonal.

341: \end{proposition}

342: \textbf{Proof}: If  $R$ is a generalized semi-Clifford operation,

343: then there must exist $L_1,L_2\in\mathcal{C}_2$ such that

344: $RL_2\mathfrak{C}(\langle

345: Z_i\rangle_{i=1}^n)L_2^{\dagger}R^{\dagger}=L_1^{\dagger}\mathfrak{C}(\langle

346: Z_i\rangle_{i=1}^n)L_1$, i.e. $L_1RL_2\mathfrak{C}(\langle

347: Z_i\rangle_{i=1}^n)L_2^{\dagger}R^{\dagger}L_1^{\dagger}=\mathfrak{C}(\langle

348: Z_i\rangle_{i=1}^n)$. That is, $L_1RL_2$ maps all the diagonal

349: matrices to diagonal matrices, therefore $L_1RL_2$ must be a

350: monomial matrices, i.e. there exist a permutation matrix $P$ and a

351: diagonal matrix $V$, such that $L_1RL_2=P^{\dagger}V\Rightarrow

352: PL_1RL_2$ is diagonal.$\square$

353: 

354: Note for the single qubit case, i.e. $n=1$, the concepts of

355: semi-Clifford operation and generalized semi-Clifford operation

356: coincide.

357: 

358: \section{The structure of $\mathcal{C}_k$}

359: 

360: In this section we study the structure of gates in $\mathcal{C}_k$.

361: To begin with, we study some basic properties of $\mathcal{C}_k$

362: gates. Then we give our main results as structure theorems, which

363: state that all the $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates are semi-Clifford when

364: $\{n=1,2,\forall k\}$ and $\{n=3,k=3\}$, but for $\{n>2,k>3\}$ there

365: are examples of $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates which are non-semi-Clifford.

366: We then discuss the open question for the parameters $\{n>2,k=3\}$,

367: and based on the constructed counterexamples we conjecture that all

368: $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates are generalized semi-Clifford operations.

369: 

370: It should be noted that the set of $n$-qubit $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates

371: is always strictly contained in the set of $n$-qubit

372: $\mathcal{C}_{k+1}$ gates. In \cite{Got}, explicit examples are

373: given to support this statement. If we denote as $\Lambda_{n-1}(U)$

374: the $n$-qubit gate which applies $U$ to the $n$th qubit only if the

375: first $n-1$ qubits are all in the state $\ket{1}$, then

376: $\Lambda_{n-1}(\text{diag}(1,e^{2\pi/2^m}))$ is in

377: $\mathcal{C}_{m+n-1}\setminus\mathcal{C}_{m+n-2}$.

378: 

379: \subsection{Basic properties}

380: 

381: We first state an important property of gates in $\mathcal{C}_k$,

382: which reduce the problem of characterizing the structure of

383: $\mathcal{C}_k$ into a problem of characterizing a certain subset of

384: gates in $\mathcal{C}_k$.

385: 

386: \begin{proposition}

387: If $R\in \mathcal{C}_k$, then $L_1RL_2\in \mathcal{C}_k$, where

388: $L_1,L_2\in \mathcal{C}_2$, $k\geq 2$.

389: \end{proposition}

390: \textbf{Proof}: We prove this proposition by induction.

391: 

392: i) It is obviously true for $k=2$;

393: 

394: ii) Assume it is true for $k$;

395: 

396: iii) For $k+1$, $R\in \mathcal{C}_{k+1}$ implies $RAR^{\dagger}\in

397: \mathcal{C}_{k}$, where $A\in \mathcal{C}_{1}$. If we conjugate $A$

398: by $L_1RL_2$, we get

399: \begin{equation}

400: L_1RL_2A(L_1RL_2)^{\dagger}=L_1R(L_2AL_2^{\dagger})R^{\dagger}L_1^{\dagger}.

401: \end{equation}

402: 

403: Since $L_1,L_2\in \mathcal{C}_2$, $L_1^{\dagger},L_2^{\dagger}$ are

404: in $\mathcal{C}_2$ also. And because $L_2AL_2^{\dagger} \in

405: \mathcal{C}_1$, $R(L_2AL_2^{\dagger})R^{\dagger} \in \mathcal{C}_k$.

406: According to assumption ii),

407: $L_1R(L_2AL_2^{\dagger})R^{\dagger}L_1^{\dagger} \in \mathcal{C}_k$.

408: Finally as we can see from Eqn (2), $L_1RL_2 \in

409: \mathcal{C}_{k+1}$.$\square$

410: 

411: According to Proposition 3, in order to characterize the full

412: structure of $\mathcal{C}_k$, we only need to characterize the

413: structure of a subset of it which generates the whole set with

414: Clifford multiplications.

415: 

416: It is known that $\mathcal{C}_k$ is not a group for $k>2$ and its

417: structure is in general hard to characterize. However, if we denote

418: all the diagonal gates in $\mathcal{C}_k$ as $\mathcal{F}_k$, then

419: we have the following:

420: \begin{proposition}

421: $\mathcal{F}_{k}$ is a group.

422: \end{proposition}

423: 

424: If we can characterize the group structure of $\mathcal{F}_k$, then

425: the structure of the $\mathcal{C}_k$ subset $\{L_1F_kL_2\}$ is known

426: to us ($L_1, L_2 \in \mathcal{C}_2$, $F_k \in \mathcal{F}_k$).

427: According to Proposition 1, this is just the set of all

428: semi-Clifford operations in $\mathcal{C}_k$. In the next section, we

429: will repeatedly use this fact to gain knowledge about semi-Clifford

430: $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates from the group structure of $\mathcal{F}_k$

431: and for now we will give a brief proof of the above proposition.

432: 

433: \textbf{Proof}: We prove by induction.

434: 

435: i) It is of course true for $k=2$;

436: 

437: ii) Assume it is true for $k$, i.e. $\mathcal{F}_{k}$ is group;

438: 

439: iii) Then for $k+1$, note for any $F_{k+1} \in\mathcal{F}_{k+1}$,

440: $F_{k+1}MF_{k+1}^{\dagger}=F_{k}M=MF'_{k}$, for non-diagonal

441: $M\in\mathcal{C}_1$, where $F_{k}, F'_{k}\in \mathcal{F}_{k}$.

442: 

443: a) If $F_{k+1} \in\mathcal{F}_{k+1}$, then $F_{k+1}^{\dagger}

444: \in\mathcal{F}_{k+1}$, since

445: $F_{k+1}^{\dagger}MF_{k+1}=F_{k}^{\dagger}M=MF^{'\dagger}_{k}$,

446: which is in $\mathcal{F}_{k}$ by assumption ii).

447: 

448: b) If $F_{1k},F_{2k}\in\mathcal{F}_k$, then

449: $F_{1k}F_{2k}\in\mathcal{F}_k$, since

450: $F_{1k-1}F_{2k-1}\in\mathcal{F}_{k-1}$.$\square$

451: 

452: According to this proposition, all semi-Clifford $\mathcal{C}_k$

453: gates can be characterized by the group structure of diagonal

454: $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates.

455: 

456: \subsection{Structure theorems}

457: 

458: Our main results about the structure of $\mathcal{C}_k$ are the

459: following three theorems, which state that all the $\mathcal{C}_k$

460: gates are semi-Clifford when $\{n=1,2,\forall k\}$ and

461: $\{n=3,k=3\}$, but it is no longer true for $\{n>2,k>3\}$.

462: 

463: \begin{theorem}

464: All gates in $\mathcal{C}_k$ are semi-Clifford operations for

465: $(n=1,2,\forall k)$.

466: \end{theorem}

467: \textbf{Proof}: Here we prove the case of $n=2$. The proof of the

468: $n=1$ case is similar but can also be checked by direct calculation

469: and lead to a complete classification of all 1-qubit $\mathcal{C}_k$

470: gates according to the group structure of diagonal 1-qubit

471: $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates. We give details for the $n=1$ case in

472: appendix.

473: 

474: For $n=2$, we prove this theorem by induction:

475: 

476: i) It is obviously true for $k=1,2$;

477: 

478: ii) Assume it is true for $k$;

479: 

480: iii) For $k+1$:

481: 

482: a) We calculate the set $S_1=\{L_1V\}$ for all

483: $L_1\in\mathcal{C}_2$, where $V\in\mathcal{F}_k$. Note by assumption

484: ii), $S_1$ gives us all the elements in $\mathcal{C}_k$ up to

485: Clifford conjugation.

486: 

487: b) Note in general

488: $V=\text{diag}\{e^{i\alpha},e^{i\beta},e^{i\gamma},e^{i\delta}\}$

489: for some angles $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$ and $\delta$. By exhaustive

490: calculation with all $L_1\in\mathcal{C}_2$ we show that if there

491: exists an element $V_s\in S_1$ such that $V_s$ is trace zero and

492: Hermitian, then

493: $V=\text{diag}\{e^{-i\theta_1},e^{-i\theta_2},e^{i\theta_2},e^{i\theta_1}\}$

494: for some $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$. Furthermore, we can again show

495: by  exhaustive calculation with all $L_1\in\mathcal{C}_2$ that the

496: only trace zero and Hermitian $V_s\in S_1$ is of the following form

497: up to Clifford conjugation:

498: \begin{equation}

499: V_s=\left(\begin{matrix}

500: 0 & 0 & 0 &e^{-i\theta_1} \\

501: 0 & 0 &e^{-i\theta_2} & 0\\

502: 0 & e^{i\theta_2} & 0 & 0\\

503: e^{i\theta_1} & 0 & 0 & 0

504: \end{matrix}\right).

505: \end{equation}

506: 

507: c) We calculate the set $S_2=\{L_1V_sL_1^{\dagger}\}$ for all

508: $L_1\in\mathcal{C}_2$, which by assumption ii) and fact b) gives all

509: the elements in $\mathcal{C}_k$ which are trace zero and Hermitian.

510: 

511: d) We show that for any two-qubit gate $U$ such that

512: $UV_sU^{\dagger}=Z_1$ and $\{U\mathcal{P}_2U^{\dagger}\}\subseteq

513: S_2$, there exist $L_1,L_2\in\mathcal{C}_2$ such that $L_1UL_2$ is

514: diagonal. This can be started from studying the eigenvectors of

515: $V_s$, which can be chosen of the form

516: 

517: \begin{equation}

518: U=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{matrix}

519: 1 & 0 & 0 &1 \\

520: 0 & 1 &1 & 0\\

521: 0 & e^{i\theta_2} & -e^{i\theta_2} & 0\\

522: e^{i\theta_1} & 0 & 0 & -e^{i\theta_1}

523: \end{matrix}\right),

524: \end{equation}

525: and carefully considering the possible phase of each eigenvector and

526: the possible superposition of the eigenvectors due to the degeneracy

527: of the eigenvalues, similar to the process shown in Appendix

528: A.$\square$

529: 

530: \begin{theorem}

531: All gates in $\mathcal{C}_k$ are semi-Clifford operations for

532: $\{n=3,k=3\}$.

533: \end{theorem}

534: \textbf{Proof}: We prove this theorem exhaustively using the

535: following proposition:

536: \begin{proposition}

537: An $n$-qubit $\mathcal{C}_k$ gate $U$ is semi-Clifford if and only

538: if the group $\{U\mathcal{P}_nU^{\dagger}\}\cap\mathcal{P}_n$

539: contains a maximally abelian subgroup of $\mathcal{P}_n$.

540: \end{proposition}

541: \textbf{Proof}: Suppose $U=L_1VL_2$, then

542: $U\mathcal{P}_nU^{\dagger}=L_1VL_2\mathcal{P}_nL_1^{\dagger}V^{\dagger}L_1^{\dagger}=L_1V\mathcal{P}_nV^{\dagger}L_1^{\dagger}\supset\{L_1Z_iL_1^{\dagger}\}_{i=1}^n$.

543: 

544: On the contrary, if $\{U\mathcal{P}_nU^{\dagger}\}\cap\mathcal{P}_n$

545: contains a maximal abelian subgroup of $\mathcal{P}_n$, then there

546: must exist $L_1,L_2 \in \mathcal{C}_2$ such that

547: $UL_1^{\dagger}Z_iL_1U^{\dagger}=L_2Z_iL_2^{\dagger}$, i.e.

548: $L_2^{\dagger}UL_1^{\dagger}Z_iL_1U^{\dagger}L_2=Z_i$ holds for any

549: $i=1...n$. Therefore,

550: $(L_2^{\dagger}UL_1^{\dagger})Z_i=Z_i(L_2^{\dagger}UL_1^{\dagger})$,

551: $\Rightarrow L_2^{\dagger}UL_1^{\dagger}$ is diagonal. If we denote

552: this diagonal gate as $V$, $L_2^{\dagger}UL_1^{\dagger}=V\Rightarrow

553: U=L_1VL_2$.

554: 

555: Therefore, by exhaustive study with the subgroups of the three-qubit

556: Clifford group which are isomorphic to $\mathcal{P}_3$, we complete

557: the proof of this theorem. More detailed analysis about this is

558: given in Appendix B. The calculation is done using GAP

559: \cite{GAP}.$\square$

560: 

561: \begin{theorem}

562: Not all gates in $\mathcal{C}_k$ are semi-Clifford operations for

563: $(n>2, k>3)$.

564: \end{theorem}

565: \textbf{Proof}: Actually we only need to prove this theorem for

566: $n=3,k=4$ then it naturally holds for all the other parameters of

567: $\{n>2,k>3\}$. However we would like to explicitly construct

568: examples for all $\{n=3,k>4\}$. Define $W_{k}$ as in FIG. \ref{fig4}.

569: 

570: \begin{figure}[htbp]

571: \includegraphics[width=2.00in]{Wk.eps}

572: \caption{A non-Clifford-diagonalizable $\mathcal{C}_k$ gate $W_k$.

573: $V_{k}=diag(1,e^{i\pi/2^{k-1}})$.}\label{fig4}

574: \end{figure}

575: 

576: 

577: \begin{proposition}

578: The gate

579: \begin{equation}

580: W_k=T(c_1, c_2, t_3) \otimes V_{3,k}

581: \end{equation}

582: is a $\mathcal{C}_{k+1}$ operation but not a semi-Clifford

583: operation, where $T(c_1, c_2, t_3)$ is Toffoli gate with the 1st and

584: 2nd qubit as its control and the 3rd qubit as its target, $V_{3,k}$

585: is single qubit operator $diag(1,exp(i\pi/2^{k-1}))$ on the 3rd

586: qubit.

587: \end{proposition}

588: \textbf{Proof}:

589: 

590: To prove that $W_k$ is in $\mathcal{C}_{k+1}$,

591: 

592: i) When $k=2$, $V_{k} = diag\{1, i\} \in \mathcal{C}_2$. $W_2$ is of

593: the form $LR$, where $L$ is a Clifford operation and $R$ is the

594: Toffoli gate. According to Proposition 3, $W_2$ and the Toffoli gate

595: are both in $\mathcal{C}_3$.

596: 

597: ii) For $k > 2$, direct calculation shows that

598: $\{W_kZ_iW_k^{\dagger}\} \subset \mathcal{C}_2$, $i = 1, 2, 3$.

599: $W_kX_1W_k^{\dagger} \in \mathcal{C}_k$, $W_kX_2W_k^{\dagger} \in

600: \mathcal{C}_k$, $W_kX_3W_k^{\dagger} \in \mathcal{C}_{k-1}$. The

601: images of $X_i$'s under the conjugation of $W_k$ can all be written

602: in the form $W_kX_iW_k^{\dagger} = X_i F_{ki} = F'_{ki} X_i$, where

603: $F_{k1}$, $F'_{k1}$, $F_{k2}$, $F'_{k2}$ are diagonal gates in

604: $\mathcal{C}_k$ and $F_{k3}$, $F'_{k3}$ are diagonal single qubit

605: gates in $\mathcal{C}_{k-1}$ acting on the third qubit.

606: 

607: The image of the whole 3-qubit Pauli group $\{W_k\mathcal{P}_3

608: W_k^{\dagger}\}$ is generated by the six elements shown above. As

609: multiplication by Clifford gates preserves the $\mathcal{C}_k$

610: hierarchy, we only need to check the images of Pauli operations

611: which are composed of two or more $X_i$'s and see if their images

612: are still in $\mathcal{C}_k$.

613: 

614: This is obviously true considering the special form of

615: $\{W_kX_iW_k^{\dagger}\}$. Multiplication of any two of them is of

616: the form $W_kX_iX_jW_k^{\dagger} = X_i F_{ki} F'_{kj} X_j$. This is

617: in $\mathcal{C}_k$ as the diagonal $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates form a

618: group. Further more, multiplication of all of them takes the form

619: $W_kX_1X_2X_3W_k^{\dagger} = X_1 F_{ki} F'_{kj} X_2 F'_{k3} X_3$. As

620: $F'_{k3}$ is a single qubit operation on the third qubit,

621: $W_kX_1X_2X_3W_k^{\dagger} =X_1 F_{ki} F'_{kj} F'_{k3} X_2 X_3$.

622: This is again a $\mathcal{C}_k$ gate because of the group structure

623: of diagonal $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates.

624: 

625: Therefore, we have checked explicitly that $W_k \in

626: \mathcal{C}_{k+1}$.

627: 

628: To prove that $W_k$ is not semi-Clifford, we can exhaustively

629: calcultate $\{W_k\mathcal{P}_3W_k^{\dagger}\}$ and find its

630: intersection with $\mathcal{P}_3$. The fact that

631: $\{W_k\mathcal{P}_3W_k^{\dagger}\} \cap \mathcal{P}_3$ does not

632: contain a maximally abelian subgroup of $\mathcal{P}_3$ implies that

633: $W_k$ is not semi-Clifford, due to Proposition 5.

634: 

635: With this example we have directly proved Theorem 3. $\square$

636: 

637: 

638: \subsection{Open problems}

639: 

640: Let us try to understand more about the structure theorems we have

641: in the previous section.

642: 

643: First recall from \cite{Xinlan} that the controlled-Hadamard gate

644: $\Lambda_1(H)$, which is a $\mathcal{C}_3$ gate, is explicitly shown

645: to be semi-Clifford. We can also view this from the perspective of

646: Proposition 5, by noting that

647: $\Lambda_1(H)Z_1\Lambda_1(H)^{\dagger}=Z_1$,

648: $\Lambda_1(H)Y_2\Lambda_1(H)^{\dagger}=Z_1\otimes -Y_2$, which means

649: that the maximal abelian subgroup of the Pauli group generated by

650: $\langle Z_1,Y_2\rangle\times\langle\pm 1,\pm i\rangle$ is in the

651: image of $\Lambda_1(H)$. However, if we consider $W_3$ from the

652: perspective of Proposition 5, we get $W_3Z_1W_3^{\dagger}=Z_1$,

653: $W_3Z_2W_3^{\dagger}=Z_2$,

654: $W_3Z_3W_3^{\dagger}=\Lambda_1(Z_2)\otimes Z_3$. Note this do not

655: give us a maximal abelian subgroup of the Pauli group

656: $\langle Z_1,Z_2,Z_3\rangle\times\langle\pm 1,\pm i\rangle$, 

657: due to the effect of $\Lambda_1(Z_2)$ caused by

658: conjugating through the Toffoli gate. This intuitively explains why

659: Theorem 3 could be true, but no counterexample to Theorem 2 exists.

660: 

661: Note that $W_k$ is actually a generalized semi-Clifford operation,

662: which is apparent from its form. Also, the construction of the

663: series of gates $W_k$, as well as their extensions to $n>3$ qubits,

664: cannot give any non-semi-Clifford $\mathcal{C}_3$ gate. We then have

665: the following conjectures on the open problem of the structure of

666: $\mathcal{C}_k$ hierarchy in general.

667: 

668: \begin{conjecture}

669: All gates in $\mathcal{C}_3$ are semi-Clifford operations.

670: \end{conjecture}

671: 

672: \begin{conjecture}

673: All gates in $\mathcal{C}_k$ are generalized semi-Clifford operations.

674: \end{conjecture}

675: 

676: \section{The teleportation depth}

677: 

678: Teleportation, as a computational primitive, is a crucial element

679: providing universal quantum computation to fault-tolerant schemes

680: based on stabilizer codes. However, not all gates are of equal

681: complexity in this scheme. To actually incorporate this technique in

682: the construction of practical computational architecture, it is

683: useful to know which gates are easier to implement and which are

684: harder, so that we could achieve optimal efficiency in performing a

685: computational task. In the circuit model of quantum computation, we

686: face the same problem and in that case `circuit depth'

687: was introduced \cite{Yao} to characterize the number of simple one

688: and two-qubit gates needed to implement an operation. While this

689: provides a good measure of gate complexity, it does not take into

690: consideration of fault-tolerance. It is interesting to have measures

691: quantifying fault-tolerant gate complexity to be compared with

692: `circuit depth' to give us a better understanding of the

693: computational tasks at hand.

694: 

695: Based on the $\mathcal{C}_k$ hierarchy introduced in \cite{Got} and

696: the knowledge of its structure gained in previous section, we define

697: a measure of gate complexity for the teleportation protocol, called

698: the teleportation depth, which characterizes how many teleportation

699: steps are necessary, on average, to implement a given gate. Since

700: any teleportation unavoidably causes randomness, we need to figure

701: out a certain point to start with, i.e. we should assume in advance

702: that some kind of gates can be performed fault-tolerantly. We know

703: that a fault-tolerant protocol is usually associated with some

704: quantum error-correcting codes. Self-dual CSS codes, such as the

705: $7$-qubit Steane code, admit all gates in the Clifford group to be

706: transversal \cite{Gotthesis}. In such a situation, we only need to

707: teleport the gate outside the Clifford group, and in the following,

708: we will assume this as a starting point. The advantage of doing

709: this, in practice, is that due to Proposition 1, we have the freedom

710: of preparing the ancilla states up to some Clifford multiplications.

711: 

712: \subsection{Definition of the teleportation depth}

713: 

714: With the standard two-bit teleportation scheme (FIG. \ref{2bit}) in

715: mind, it is easy to see that all gates in the $\mathcal{C}_k$

716: hierarchy can be teleported fault-tolerantly as a whole in a

717: recursive manner. Suppose $U$ is an $n$-qubit $\mathcal{C}_k$ gate.

718: The ancilla state can be fault-tolerantly prepared and all the

719: elements in the teleportation circuit of $U$ are in $\mathcal{C}_2$

720: and can be performed fault-tolerantly, except the classically

721: controlled operation $U_1 = R_{xy}' = U R_{xy} U^{\dagger}$, where

722: $R_{xy}$ is an operator in $\mathcal{C}_1$ which depends on the

723: (random) Bell-basis measurement outcomes $xy$. However, as $U$ is in

724: $\mathcal{C}_k$, $U_1$ is in general a $\mathcal{C}_{k-1}$ operation

725: and can be implemented again by teleportation. In this way, after

726: each teleportation step, a $\mathcal{C}_k$ gate is mapped to another

727: gate one level lower. This recursive procedure terminates when $U_i$

728: is in $\mathcal{C}_2$.

729: 

730: Based on the above picture we give a more formal definition of

731: teleportation, which characterizes its randomness nature.

732: 

733: \begin{definition}

734: The teleportation map $f$ takes an $n$-qubit operator $A$ to a set

735: of operators via the following manner:

736: \begin{equation}

737: f: A\rightarrow \{AP_{j_1}A^{\dagger}\}_{j_1=1}^{4^{n+1}},

738: \end{equation}

739: where $P_i$ are elements of the $n$-qubit Pauli group

740: $\mathcal{P}_n$.

741: \end{definition}

742: 

743: Note

744: \begin{equation}

745: f\circ f: A\rightarrow

746: \{(AP_{j_1}A^{\dagger})P_{j_2}(AP_{j_1}A^{\dagger})^{\dagger}\}_{j_1,j_2=1}^{4^{n+1}},

747: \end{equation}

748: and

749: \begin{eqnarray}

750: f\circ f\circ f: A\rightarrow \nonumber\\

751: \{((AP_{j_1}A^{\dagger})P_{j_2}(AP_{j_1}A^{\dagger})^{\dagger})P_{j_3}((AP_{j_1}A^{\dagger})P_{j_2} \nonumber\\

752: (AP_{j_1}A^{\dagger})^{\dagger})^{\dagger}\}_{j_1,j_2,j_3=1}^{4^{n+1}},

753: \cdots

754: \end{eqnarray}

755: 

756: Each element of image of the map $f^{\circ m}$ on $A$ is associated

757: with a set

758: \begin{equation}

759: S=\{j_1,j_2\ldots,j_m\}.

760: \end{equation}

761: 

762: Denote $f^{\circ m}_S(A)$ as the element in image of the map

763: $f^{\circ m}$ on $A$ associated with the set $S$. Each element in

764: the image occurs with equal probability.

765: 

766: \begin{definition}

767: $f^{\circ m}_S(A)$ terminates if $f^{\circ m}_S(A)\in

768: \mathcal{C}_2$.

769: \end{definition}

770: 

771: If $f^{\circ m_1}_S(A)$ terminates, then $f^{\circ m_2}_{S'}(A)$

772: terminates for any $m_2\geq m_1$, and

773: $S'=\{j_1,j_2\ldots,j_{m_1},\ldots,j_{m_2}\}$. Therefore, for each

774: $f^{\circ m}_S(A)$ that terminates, there must exist a set $S_{min}$

775: with the minimal size such that $f^{\circ |S_{min}|}_{S_{min}}(A)$

776: terminates, where $S_{min}=\{j_1,j_2\ldots,j_{m'}\}$

777: ($m'=|S_{min}|$). In our following discussions, we will only

778: consider sets $S$ which are minimal in this sense.

779: 

780: This mapping procedure works directly on $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates. If

781: $W$ is an $n$-qubit $\mathcal{C}_k$ gate, then there is no need to

782: decompose it into consecutive application of several other gates and

783: we say we can `direct teleport' $W$. $W$ is in $\mathcal{C}_k$ iff

784: $\forall S$, $f^{\circ (k-2)}_S(A) \in \mathcal{C}_2$, and $\exists

785: S'$, s.t. $f^{\circ (k-3)}_{S'}(A) \notin \mathcal{C}_2$.

786: 

787: Among all $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates, the set of semi-Clifford operations

788: have the special property that they can be teleported with only half

789: the ancilla resources as in a standard teleportation scheme. This

790: `one-bit teleportation scheme' is illustrated in FIG. \ref{1bit}.

791: This scheme also complies with the mapping description given above.

792: Instead of Bell basis measurement, randomness in one-bit

793: teleportation scheme comes from single qubit measurement and $P_j$

794: belongs to a maximal abelian subgroup of the whole $n$-qubit Pauli

795: group in general.

796: 

797: To teleport an arbitrary $n$-qubit gate $A$, we can first decompose

798: $A$ into the $\mathcal{C}_k$ hierarchy, $A = A_1 A_2 \dots A_r$,

799: where $A_i \in \mathcal{C}_{k_i}$, because we only know how to

800: teleport $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates fault-tolerantly. We call this

801: procedure `decomposition of $A$  into $\mathcal{C}_{\infty}$'.

802: Suppose that to teleport each gate $A_i$, $m_i$ maps are needed on

803: average, with average taken over all possible set $S = \{j_1,

804: j_2\dots, j_m\}$. Then the teleportation depth of $A$ is defined as

805: follows.

806: 

807: \begin{definition}

808: The teleportation depth of a gate $A$, denoted as $T$, is the

809: minimal sum of all $m_i$--the average number of teleportation steps

810: needed to implement each component gate of $A$--where the minimum is

811: taken over all possible decompositions of $A$ into

812: $\mathcal{C}_{\infty}$.\label{depth}

813: \end{definition}

814: 

815: Due to Definition \ref{depth}, in order to calculate the teleportation

816: depth of a given gate $A$, one needs to find all possible

817: decompositions of $A$ into $\mathcal{C}_{\infty}$ gates and

818: calculate the corresponding depth, then minimize over all of them.

819: This is generally intractable, but one may expect to upper bound the

820: depth with some particular decomposition of $A$ into

821: $\mathcal{C}_{\infty}$ gates.

822: 

823: Let us first consider the case of an $n$-qubit $\mathcal{C}_k$ gate.

824: 

825: \begin{definition}

826: $T(n,k)$ is the teleportation depth of an $n$-qubit $\mathcal{C}_k$

827: gate.

828: \end{definition}

829: 

830: As such a gate can be teleported directly, $T(n,k)$ is upper bounded

831: by the average number of steps needed in this direct teleportation

832: scheme to terminate the teleportation procedure.

833: 

834: \begin{equation}

835: T(n,k) \leq \frac{1}{N} \sum_S |S|

836: \end{equation}where the summation is over all possible (minimal) sets $S$ and $N$

837: is the number of such sets.

838: 

839: However, when $k\rightarrow\infty$, it is not obvious that the above

840: summation will converge. We will show that this is true. Then for an

841: arbitratry gate $A$, by decomposing $A$ into a finite series of

842: $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates, we can see that the teleportation depth of

843: $A$ turns out to be finite. Then we do not actually require the

844: procedure to terminate within a finite number of steps.

845: 

846: Different teleportation schemes, for example one-bit and two-bit

847: teleportation, give different upper bounds on teleportation depth

848: for a certain circuit. While for some circuits one scheme is

849: obviously more efficient than others, the comparison among different

850: schemes in other case may not be so straightforward and may depend

851: sensitively on various parameters in the circuit. In the following

852: sections, we study such dependence and present surprising results

853: beyond our usual expectation with examples from important quantum

854: circuits.

855: 

856: \subsection{Teleportation depth of semi-Clifford $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates}

857: 

858: We first calculate explicitly an upper bound for the teleportation

859: depth of semi-Clifford $n$-qubit $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates. We know from

860: \cite{Xinlan} that this kind of gate can be teleported directly with

861: the architecture of one-bit teleporation and we denote the upper

862: bound calculated with this `\textbf{one-bit}' `\textbf{direct}'

863: teleportation procedure as $T_1(n,k)$. For a general $n$-qubit gate,

864: if it is possible to decompose it into a series of semi-Clifford

865: $\mathcal{C}_k$ operations, the upper bound of teleportation depth

866: obtained by teleporting each part separately using one-bit

867: teleportation scheme is in general denoted as $T_1$.

868: 

869: \begin{definition}

870: $T_1$ is the average total number of teleportation steps needed to

871: teleport separately each semi-Clifford $\mathcal{C}_k$ component of

872: a quantum circuit using the one-bit teleportation scheme, if such a

873: decomposition is possible.

874: 

875: More specifically, $T_1(n,k)$ is the average number of teleportation

876: steps needed to teleport an $n$-qubit semi-Clifford $\mathcal{C}_k$

877: gate directly (i.e. without decomposition) using the one-bit

878: teleportation scheme.

879: \end{definition}

880: 

881: Apparently we have $T(n,k) \leq T_1(n,k)$ in general.

882: 

883: The probability that the teleportation process terminates

884: immediately after one teleportation step equals the percentage

885: weight of a maximal abelian subgroup in the whole Pauli group, which

886: is $\frac{1}{2^n}$ for an $n$-qubit Pauli group. Now each

887: teleportation step may have two possible endings: i) with

888: probability $p=\frac{1}{2^n}$, $\{U\mathcal{P}_nU^{\dagger}\} \in

889: \mathcal{P}_n$ and the process terminates; ii) with probability

890: $1-p$, $\{U\mathcal{P}_nU^{\dagger}\}$ is a general $n$-qubit

891: $\mathcal{C}_{k-1}$ gate and the process goes on. The upper bound of

892: teleportation depth calculated with this process is then

893: 

894: \begin{eqnarray}

895: T_1(n,k) &=& p\sum\limits_{s=1}^{k-3} s(1-p)^{s-1}+(k-2)(1-p)^{k-3}\nonumber\\

896: &=&2^n\left(1-(1-\frac{1}{2^n})^{k-2}\right).\label{depthck}

897: \end{eqnarray}

898: 

899: It is clearly seen from Eq. (\ref{depthck}) that $T_1(n,k)$

900: converges to $2^n$ when $k\rightarrow\infty$, which means that

901: $T(n,k)$ is in general bounded. For instance, when $n=2$, Eq.

902: (\ref{depthck}) tells us $T(2,k) \leq T_1(2,k) = 4(1-(3/4)^{k-2})$.

903: The behavior of $T_1(2,k)$ is shown in FIG. \ref{depthtwoqubits}.

904: However, since $T_1(2,k) = 4(1-(3/4)^{k-2}) \leq 4(1-(1/2)^{k-2}) =

905: 2T_1(1,k)$, we find that teleporting two single-qubit semi-Clifford

906: $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates together using the one-bit teleportation

907: scheme needs fewer teleportation steps than to teleport each of them

908: separately.

909: 

910: \begin{figure}[htbp]

911: \includegraphics[width=3.00in]{T12k.eps}

912: \caption{The behavior of

913: $T_1(2,k)=4(1-(3/4)^{k-2})$}\label{depthtwoqubits}

914: \end{figure}

915: 

916: Since $1-\frac{1}{2^n}<1$, $T_1(n,k)$ quickly reaches $2^n$ as $k$

917: grows. Therefore, generally, the upper bound of the teleportation

918: depth of a $\mathcal{C}_k$ gate given by `direct teleportation' is

919: not determined by $k$, but by the number of qubits $n$ it actually

920: acts on. Moreover, since $T_1(n,\infty)=2^n$, i.e. the upper bound

921: of teleportation depth increases exponentially with $n$, in

922: generally, when $n,k$ are large, it is better to decompose an

923: $n$-qubit $\mathcal{C}_k$ gate into some one and two-qubits gates to

924: get a lower upper bound.

925: 

926: However, if $k\sim P(n)$, where $P(n)$ is a polynomial in $n$, then

927: $T_1(n,k)$ scales as $P(n)$.

928: 

929: Now we give two examples as applications of the above upper bounds,

930: through which we obtain some idea about the order of teleportation

931: depth in comparison with the usual circuit depth.

932: 

933: \subsubsection{Teleportation depth of the $n$-qubit QFT}

934: 

935: \begin{figure}[htbp]

936: \includegraphics[width=3.40in]{QFT.eps}

937: \caption{Circuit for $n$-qubit Quantum Fourier Transform}\label{QFT}

938: \end{figure}

939: 

940: The first example is the $n$-qubit Quantum Fourier Transform (QFT)

941: circuit, as shown in FIG. \ref{QFT}. $R_k$ denotes the unitary

942: transformation $R_k=\text{diag}(1,e^{2\pi i/2^k})$. The circuit

943: depth of $n$-qubit QFT goes as $n^2$ and we will soon find that the

944: teleportation depth of this circuit is of the same order.

945: 

946: Each block of gates within a single dashed box (Hadamard plus

947: controlled $z$-rotations on the $k^{th}$ qubit)is a semi-Clifford

948: $(n-k+1)$-qubit $\mathcal{C}_{n-k+2}$ gate, $k = 1, \dots, n-1$ and

949: can be teleported directly using the one-bit scheme. Therefore the

950: whole circuit can be teleported piece by piece by one-bit

951: teleportation. Note that

952: \begin{eqnarray}

953: T(n,k=n+1) &\leq& T_1(n,k=n+1)\\&=&

954: 2^n\left(1-(1-\frac{1}{2^n})^{n-1}\right)\\

955: &\sim& n-1

956: \end{eqnarray}

957: for large $n$. Actually,  numerical data shows that even when $n$ is

958: small, $T_1(n,k=n+1)\sim n-1$ is almost also true.

959: 

960: Therefore, the teleportation depth of the $n$-qubit QFT is

961: upper-bounded by

962: \begin{eqnarray}

963: \sum_{j=2}^{n} T(j,k=j+1)&\leq& \sum_{j=2}^{n} T_1(j,k=j+1)\\

964: & \leq & \sum_{j=1}^n (j-1)\nonumber\\

965: &=&\frac{1}{2}n(n-1)\sim\mathcal{O}(n^2).

966: \end{eqnarray}

967: 

968: Numerial calculation shows that $\sum_{j=2}^{n} T_1(j,k=j+1)$ is

969: almost $\frac{1}{2}n(n-1)-1$.

970: 

971: Note the probability for the teleportation process to terminate is

972: $1$ for teleporting an $n$-qubit $\mathcal{C}_{k = n+1}$ gate

973: $n-1=k-2$ times. This means that the upper bound we got for this

974: block teleportation scheme of QFT is just slightly lower than

975: naively assuming that we need $k-2$ teleportation steps to teleport

976: a $\mathcal{C}_k$ gate. The reason we do not benefit from the

977: avarage is that for QFT, $k$ is generally comparable with $n$.

978: 

979: \subsubsection{Uniformly Controlled rotation}

980: 

981: \begin{figure}[htbp]

982: \includegraphics[width=3.00in]{Uniformlycontrol.eps}

983: \caption{Definition of the $n-1$-fold uniformly controlled rotation

984: of a qubit about the axis $\vec{a}$}\label{fig3}

985: \end{figure}

986: 

987: Now we consider another example, the uniformly controlled rotations,

988: which are widely used in analyzing the circuit complexity of an

989: arbitrary $n$-qubit quantum gate \cite{Mott} \cite{Vivek}. This

990: circuit in general needs $2^{n+2}-4n-4$ CNOT gates and $2^{n+2}-5$

991: one-qubit elementary rotations to implement. For complexity analysis

992: of this circuit see for example \cite{Mott}.

993: 

994: The teleportation depth of this rotation is in general upper bounded

995: by $2^n$. However, if each $(n-1)$-qubit-controlled gate is in

996: $\mathcal{C}_k$, we might expect to do better. For instance, when

997: $k=cn$, for any positive constant $n$, the teleportation depth

998: scales as $cn$, i.e. linear in $n$. Moreover, if $k\sim P(n)$, where

999: $P(n)$ is a polynomial in $n$, then the teleportation depth scales

1000: as $P(n)$.

1001: 

1002: \subsection{Teleportation depth beyond semi-Clifford $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates}

1003: 

1004: Now recall our series of examples of non-semi-Clifford

1005: $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates given in FIG. \ref{fig4}. We know that if

1006: $V_k\in\mathcal{C}_k$, then $W_k\in\mathcal{C}_{k+1}$. And the group

1007: $W_k\mathcal{P}_3W_k^{\dagger}$ does not contain a maximally abelian

1008: subgroup of $\mathcal{P}_3$, i.e. $W_k\in\mathcal{C}_{k+1}$ is not

1009: directly one-bit teleportable.

1010: 

1011: Therefore, we know that there are some $W_k$ gates in the

1012: $\mathcal{C}_k$ hierarchy which can only be teleported directly by

1013: the standard two-bit teleportation scheme. Using this scheme, we can

1014: calculate another upper bound for teleportation depth, which we

1015: denote as $T_2(n,k)$.

1016: 

1017: \begin{definition}

1018: $T_2$ is the average total number of teleportation steps needed to

1019: teleport separately each $\mathcal{C}_k$ component of a quantum

1020: circuit using two-bit teleportation scheme, if such a decomposition

1021: is possible.

1022: 

1023: More specifically, $T_2(n,k)$ is the average number of teleportation

1024: steps needed to teleport an $n$-qubit $\mathcal{C}_k$ gate directly

1025: (i.e. without decomposition) using the two-bit teleportation scheme.

1026: \end{definition}

1027: 

1028: 

1029: For a general $n$-qubit $\mathcal{C}_k$ gate, $T_2(n,k)$ can be

1030: calculated by replacing $p$ with $\frac{1}{4^n}$ in Eq.

1031: (\ref{depthck})

1032: \begin{eqnarray}

1033: T_2(n,k) &=& p\sum\limits_{s=1}^{k-3} s(1-p)^{s-1}+(k-2)(1-p)^{k-3}\nonumber\\

1034: &=&4^n\left(1-(1-\frac{1}{4^n})^{k-2}\right)\label{depthck2}

1035: \end{eqnarray}which then converges to $4^n$ when $k\rightarrow\infty$.

1036: 

1037: One may guess that in general to teleport $W_k$ directly using the

1038: two-bit scheme will give a lower bound for teleportation depth than

1039: to teleport the Toffoli gate and $V_k=diag(1,e^{i\pi/2^{k-1}})$

1040: separately using the one-bit scheme. Surprisingly, this is not

1041: generally true.

1042: 

1043: When $V_k\in\mathcal{C}_3$, this is indeed true. Teleporting $W_k$

1044: directly gives a bound of $T_2(3,4)=1.875$, which is less than

1045: $T_1(3,4)=2$, i.e. the bound given by teleporting the Toffoli gate

1046: and $V_k$ separately with the one-bit scheme.

1047: 

1048: However, when $k\rightarrow\infty$, teleporting $W_k$ directly gives

1049: a bound of $T_2(3,4)=5.25$, which is greater than $T_1(3,4)=3$, i.e.

1050: the bound given by teleporting the Toffoli gate and $V_k$

1051: separately.

1052: 

1053: This means that there exists a critical value $k$ that determines

1054: which way is more efficient for teleporting $W_k$, directly or

1055: separately.

1056: 

1057: Note if $V_k\in\mathcal{C}_k$, we also have

1058: $W_k^{\dagger}\in\mathcal{C}_{k+1}$. Calculating the bounds of

1059: teleportation depth for $W_k^{\dagger}$ shows a similar behavior as

1060: that of $W_k$, however of a slightly different value. For instance,

1061: when $V_k\in\mathcal{C}_3$, teleporting $W_k^{\dagger}$ directly

1062: gives a bound of $1.5$, which is less than 2, the bound given by

1063: teleporting separately. However when $k\rightarrow\infty$,

1064: teleporting $W_k^{\dagger}$ directly gives a bound of $5.5$, but

1065: teleporting separately gives only a bound of $3$.

1066: 

1067: Up to now, our discussion is entirely based on the $\mathcal{C}_k$

1068: hierarchy. To summarize the capacity of $\mathcal{C}_k$ for

1069: fault-tolerant quantum computation and provide basis for comparison

1070: with non-$\mathcal{C}_k$ schemes discussed below, we introduce

1071: another notion of $T_k$.

1072: 

1073: \begin{definition}

1074: $T_k$ is the minimum number of total teleportation steps needed to

1075: teleport separately each $\mathcal{C}_k$ component of a quantum

1076: circuit using either one-bit or two-bit teleportation scheme.

1077: \end{definition}

1078: 

1079: $T_k$ is defined in a way that represents the maximum capacity of

1080: teleportation based on $\mathcal{C}_k$ hierarchy. In general $T_1

1081: \geq T_k$, $T_2 \geq T_k$. To understand exactly how they compare

1082: for a given circuit, a full characterization of the structure of

1083: $\mathcal{C}_k$ is necessary. Here based on the structure theorems

1084: given in Section III, we gave a simple example where $T_1$ or $T_2$

1085: could be strictly larger than $T_k$. The next question to ask is

1086: then whether we can go beyond $\mathcal{C}_k$ and this will be

1087: discussed in the following section.

1088: 

1089: \subsection{Teleportation beyond $\mathcal{C}_k$}

1090: 

1091: In the definition of teleportation depth, we require that $A$ be

1092: decomposed into a set of $\mathcal{C}_{\infty}$ gates. This is due

1093: to the fact that $\mathcal{C}_{\infty}$ are the only gates that we

1094: know so far how to perform fault-tolerantly by teleportation. In

1095: general, if we do not require the decomposition to be in

1096: $\mathcal{C}_{\infty}$, then we might get a better upper bound on

1097: teleportation depth than the one defined previously, i.e. there

1098: might exist upper bound $T^*$ of teleportation depth that is

1099: strictly less than $T_k$. We give two such examples below. We leave

1100: open the problem of how to implement teleportations fault-tolerantly

1101: for a general $n$-qubit gate.

1102: \\

1103: 

1104: \textbf{Example 1} For a general one-qubit gate $U$, we know that

1105: $U$ can be decomposed into three $\mathcal{C}_{\infty}$ gates, each

1106: of which has $T_1 < 2$. Hence through the decomposition we can bound

1107: its total teleportation depth by $6$.

1108: 

1109: However, to teleport $U$ directly without decomposition via two-bit

1110: teleportation gives a bound of $T_2 < 4^1 = 4$ less than $T_k$.

1111: \\

1112: 

1113: \textbf{Example 2} Consider a classical reversible circuit given in

1114: FIG. \ref{fig5}. We denote this series of three Toffoli gates as

1115: $R_{c3}$.

1116: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1117: \includegraphics[width=1.00in]{Threetoffoli.eps}

1118: \caption{The $R_{c3}$ gate--Three Toffoli gates in

1119: series}\label{fig5}

1120: \end{figure}

1121: 

1122: This gate $R_{c3}$ is not in $\mathcal{C}_k$ hierarchy as can be

1123: shown below:

1124: 

1125: Suppose that $R_{c3} \in \mathcal{C}_k$ is at certain level of the

1126: hierarchy, $R_{c3} X_1 R_{c3}^{\dagger}$ must be a gate in

1127: $\mathcal{C}_{k-1}$. Calculating explicitly as in FIG. \ref{fig6} we

1128: have

1129: 

1130: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1131: \includegraphics[width=3.50in]{TcXTc.eps}

1132: \caption{Conjugating $X_1$ by $R_{c3}$}\label{fig6}

1133: \end{figure}

1134: 

1135: The non-Clifford part of the right hand side of the equation is a

1136: series of two Toffoli gates, and we denote it as $R_{c2}$. Due to

1137: Proposition 3, $R_{c2}$ is also in $\mathcal{C}_{k-1}$.

1138: 

1139: As shown in FIG. \ref{fig7}, conjugating $X_1$ by $R_{c2}$ results in

1140: $L R_{c2}^{\dagger}$, where $L$ is a Clifford operation. However, by

1141: exchanging the second and third qubit in FIG. \ref{fig7}, we find

1142: that $R_{c2}^{\dagger} X_1 R_{c2} = L' R_{c2}$, i.e. conjugating

1143: $X_1$ by $R_{c2}^{\dagger}$ gives back $R_{c2}$. Therefore, $R_{c2}$

1144: cannot be in the $\mathcal{C}_k$ hierarchy and we can conclude that

1145: $R_{c3}$ is not a $\mathcal{C}_k$ gate either. $\square$

1146: 

1147: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1148: \includegraphics[width=3.00in]{Tc2XTc2.eps}

1149: \caption{Conjugating $X_1$ by $R_{c2}$}\label{fig7}

1150: \end{figure}

1151: 

1152: If we leave aside the problem of how to teleport gates beyond

1153: $\mathcal{C}_k$ fault-tolerantly, we can teleport $R_{c3}$ directly

1154: and obtain an upper bound of $2.75$, which is less than $T_k = 3$,

1155: the bound given by teleporting the three Toffoli gates separately.

1156: 

1157: 

1158: \section{Conclusion and Discussion}

1159: 

1160: In this paper we address the following questions: what is the

1161: capacity of the teleportation scheme in practical implementation of

1162: fault-tolerant quantum computation and what is the most efficient

1163: way to make use of the teleportation protocol. To answer these

1164: questions we first notice that  one-bit and two-bit teleportation

1165: schemes require different resources to implement and are of

1166: different capabilities. To understand what kind of gates can be

1167: teleported fault-tolerantly with these two schemes respectively, we

1168: study the structure of $\mathcal{C}_k$ hierarchy and its

1169: relationship with semi-Clifford operations.  We show for $n=1,2$,

1170: all the $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates are semi-Clifford operations, which is

1171: also true for $\{n=3,k=3\}$. However, this is no longer true for

1172: parameters $\{n>2,k>3\}$. Based on the counterexamples we

1173: constructed for $\{n=3,k \geq 3\}$, we conjecture that all

1174: $\mathcal{C}_3$ gates are semi-Clifford and all $\mathcal{C}_k$

1175: gates are generalized semi-Clifford.

1176: 

1177: Such an understanding of the $\mathcal{C}_k$ structure has great

1178: implications on the optimal design of fault-tolerant architectures.

1179: While all $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates can be teleported fault-tolerantly,

1180: the semi-Clifford subset of it requires less resources to implement

1181: than others. To quantify this notion of gate complexity in

1182: fault-tolerant quantum computation based on the $\mathcal{C}_k$

1183: hierarchy, we introduce a measure called the teleportation depth

1184: $T$, which characterizes how many teleportation steps are necessary,

1185: on average, to implement a given gate.  Using different

1186: teleportation schemes, we can give different upper bounds on $T$,

1187: for example $T_1$, $T_2$ and $T_k$. General assumption was that $T_1

1188: = T_2 = T_k = T$. However we showed in this work that, surprisingly

1189: for certain series of gates $T_1$ could be strictly greater than

1190: $T_k$ and $T_k$ could also be strictly greater than $T$.

1191: 

1192: The ultimate understanding of the structure of $\mathcal{C}_k$ will

1193: provide a clearer clue on how to teleport circuits most efficiently.

1194: To achieve this goal, some results from other branches of

1195: mathematics might be helpful. It is noted that the Barnes-Wall

1196: lattices, whose isometry group is a subgroup of index 2 in the real

1197: Clifford group, have been extensively studied and recently their

1198: involutions have been classified \cite{Griess}. It is our hope that

1199: the $\mathcal{C}_3$ structure might be further understood once we

1200: have a better understanding of the Clifford group.

1201: 

1202: For $n=1$, we fully characterize the structure of $\mathcal{C}_k$ by

1203: further study on the diagonal gates in $\mathcal{C}_k$, which form a

1204: group. It is interesting to note some evidence that $\mathcal{C}_k$

1205: gates might be the only non-Clifford gates which could be

1206: transversally implemented on a stabilizer code \cite{ZCC}. We also

1207: fully characterize the structure of $\mathcal{C}_3$ for $n=3$, but

1208: this seems not directly related to allowable transversal

1209: non-Clifford gates on stabilizer codes. It is shown that those

1210: transversal non-Clifford gates are allowed only if they are

1211: generalized semi-Clifford \cite{Xie}, therefore we might expect some

1212: generalized semi-Clifford $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates transversally

1213: implementable on some stabilizer codes. We believe such kind of

1214: exploration on the relationship between transversally implementable

1215: gates and teleportable gates will shed some light on further

1216: understanding of practical implementation of fault-tolerant

1217: architectures.

1218: 

1219: \section*{Acknowledgments}

1220: 

1221: We thank Daniel Gottesman, Debbie Leung, and Carlos Mochon for comments.

1222: 

1223: \section*{Appendix A: Single qubit $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates}

1224: 

1225: \subsection*{1. Single qubit gates with eigenvalues $\pm 1$}

1226: 

1227: In this section we discuss what kind of single qubit unitary gates

1228: could have eigenvalues $\pm 1$ apart from an overall phase factor,

1229: i.e. if $\lambda_+,\lambda_-$ denote the two eigenvalues of a single

1230: qubit unitary $U$, then what is the condition under which

1231: $\lambda_++\lambda_-=0$. This information is useful since only the

1232: unitary of this kind can be transformed into elements in Pauli group

1233: under conjugation, i.e. there exits a unitary operator $R$, such

1234: that $RAR^{\dag}=e^{i\theta}U$, where $A\in \mathcal{C}_{1}$. We'll

1235: see that those kind of unitary has very restricted form which is

1236: given by the following proposition.

1237: 

1238: \begin{proposition}:

1239: The single qubit unitary gates which have eigenvalues $\pm 1$ apart

1240: from an overall phase factor could only be of the following two

1241: forms:

1242: \begin{center}

1243: $\Gamma_1(\varphi)=\left[

1244: \begin{array}{cc}

1245: 0 & 1 \\

1246: e^{i\varphi} & 0

1247: \end{array}

1248: \right]$

1249: \end{center}

1250: or

1251: \begin{center}

1252: $\Gamma_2(\phi,\xi)=\left[

1253: \begin{array}{cc}

1254: \cos{\phi}& \sin{\phi}e^{i\xi} \\

1255: \sin{\phi}e^{-i\xi} & -\cos{\phi}

1256: \end{array}

1257: \right]$

1258: \end{center}

1259: \end{proposition}

1260: \textbf{Proof}: We begin to prove this proposition by writing down a

1261: general form of single qubit unitary gate as the following:

1262: \begin{equation}

1263: \Gamma=\left[

1264: \begin{array}{cc}

1265: \cos{\phi}e^{i\theta} & \sin{\phi}e^{i\xi} \\

1266: \sin{\phi}e^{-i\xi} & -\cos{\phi}e^{-i\theta}

1267: \end{array}

1268: \right]

1269: \end{equation}

1270: Direct calculation gives

1271: \begin{align}

1272: \lambda_{\pm}&=

1273: \frac{1}{2}\cos{\phi}e^{i\theta}-\frac{1}{2}\cos{\phi}e^{-i\theta}\nonumber\\

1274: &\pm\frac{1}{2} e^{-i\theta}(\cos{\phi}^2 e^{4i\theta}-2\cos{\phi}^2

1275: e^{2i\theta} +\cos{\phi}^2+4 e^{2i\theta})^{1/2}

1276: \end{align}

1277: Therefore $\lambda_++\lambda_-=0$ gives

1278: \begin{equation}

1279: \cos{\phi}\sin{\theta}=0

1280: \end{equation}

1281: If $\cos{\phi}=0$, the unitary must adopt the form of

1282: $\Gamma_1(\varphi)$; if $\sin{\theta}=0$, then apart from an overall

1283: phase, we can simply choose $\theta=0$ which leads to the form of

1284: $\Gamma_2(\phi,\xi)$.$\square$

1285: 

1286: Note $\Gamma_1$ could be viewed as a special situation of $\Gamma_2$

1287: for the case $\cos{\phi}=0$. However, we list $\Gamma_1$ separately

1288: for future convenience.

1289: 

1290: \subsection*{2. Gate series associated with $\Gamma_1(\varphi)$ and

1291: $\Gamma_2(\phi,\xi)$}

1292: 

1293: In this section we investigate the gate seises associated with

1294: $\Gamma_1(\varphi)$ and $\Gamma_2(\phi,\xi)$. It is obvious that if

1295: $\Gamma_1(\varphi), \Gamma_2(\phi,\xi) \in \mathcal{C}_{k}$, then

1296: the unitary $U(\varphi)$ whose columns are the eigenvectors of

1297: $\Gamma_1(\varphi)$ or $\Gamma_2(\phi,\xi)$ might be in

1298: $\mathcal{C}_{k+1}$, given that

1299: $U(\varphi)ZU(\varphi)^{\dag}=\Gamma_1(\varphi)$.

1300: 

1301: For $\Gamma_1(\varphi)$, the two normalized eigenvectors can be

1302: chosen as

1303: \begin{align}

1304: |\Gamma_1(\varphi)\rangle_+&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0\rangle+e^{i\varphi/2}|1\rangle)\nonumber\\

1305: |\Gamma_1(\varphi)\rangle_-&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0\rangle-e^{i\varphi/2}|1\rangle)

1306: \end{align}

1307: we now want a unitary whose columns is are eigenvectors of

1308: $\Gamma_1(\varphi)$ apart from an overall factor of each

1309: eigenvector, i.e.

1310: \begin{align}

1311: U(\varphi,\alpha)&=(e^{i\alpha}|\Gamma_1(\varphi)\rangle_+,

1312: |\Gamma_1(\varphi)\rangle_-)\nonumber\\

1313: &=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[

1314: \begin{array}{cc}

1315: e^{i\alpha} & 1 \\

1316: e^{i\alpha}e^{i\varphi/2} & -e^{i\varphi/2}

1317: \end{array}

1318: \right].

1319: \end{align}

1320: If $U(\varphi,\alpha)\in \mathcal{C}_{k+1}$, then

1321: $U'=L_1U(\varphi,\alpha)L_2$ is also in $\mathcal{C}_{k+1}$. What is

1322: important for us is to find $U'$ which is either of the form

1323: $\Gamma_1$ or $\Gamma_2$, then from its eigenvectors we can generate

1324: gates in $\mathcal{C}_{k+1}$. It is noticed that if we choose

1325: $\alpha=0$, then

1326: \begin{align}

1327: U(\varphi,0)&=(|\Gamma_1(\varphi)\rangle_+,

1328: |\Gamma_1(\varphi)\rangle_-)\nonumber\\

1329: &=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[

1330: \begin{array}{cc}

1331: 1 & 1 \\

1332: e^{i\varphi/2} & -e^{i\varphi/2}

1333: \end{array}

1334: \right],

1335: \end{align}

1336: and

1337: \begin{align}

1338: U(\varphi,0)HX=\left[

1339: \begin{array}{cc}

1340: 0 & 1 \\

1341: e^{i\varphi/2} & 0

1342: \end{array}

1343: \right]=\Gamma_1(\varphi/2).

1344: \end{align}

1345: Later we will show that for all the allowed value of $\alpha$, there

1346: exist $L_1,L_2 \in \mathcal{C}_2$, such that

1347: $L_1U(\varphi,0)L_2=U(\varphi,\alpha)$, so it is sufficient to

1348: consider the case of $\alpha=0$.

1349: 

1350: Therefore we get a set of unitary given by

1351: \begin{equation}

1352: V_k(\varphi)=\Gamma_1(\varphi/2^{k}),

1353: \end{equation}

1354: if $\Gamma_1(\varphi) \in \mathcal{C}_2$ then

1355: $\Gamma_1(\varphi/2^{k})$ could be in $\mathcal{C}_k$. We already

1356: know that $\Gamma_(\pi/2)$ is in $\mathcal{C}_2$, then we have

1357: \begin{equation}

1358: V_k=\Gamma_1(2\pi/2^{k})

1359: \end{equation}

1360: is in $\mathcal{C}_k$.

1361: 

1362: Note

1363: \begin{equation}

1364: S_kX=V_k,

1365: \end{equation}

1366: and we already know that $S_k \in \mathcal{C}_k$. Therefore by

1367: deriving $V_k$ we get nothing new due to proposition 1.

1368: 

1369: Now we come to the $\Gamma_2(\phi,\xi)$ case. Similarly, we begin

1370: from the two normalized eigenvectors of $\Gamma_2(\phi,\xi)$, which

1371: can be chosen as

1372: \begin{eqnarray}

1373: |\Gamma_2(\phi,\xi)\rangle_+&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\cos{\frac{\phi}{2}}|0\rangle+\sin{\frac{\phi}{2}}e^{-i\xi}|1\rangle)\nonumber\\

1374: |\Gamma_2(\phi,\xi)\rangle_-&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\sin{\frac{\phi}{2}}e^{i\xi}|0\rangle-\cos{\frac{\phi}{2}}|1\rangle)

1375: \end{eqnarray}

1376: we now construct a unitary whose columns are eigenvectors of

1377: $\Gamma_2(\varphi)$ apart from an overall factor of each

1378: eigenvector, i.e.

1379: \begin{align}

1380: U(\phi,\xi,\beta)&=(e^{i\beta}|\Gamma_2(\phi,\xi)\rangle_+,

1381: |\Gamma_2(\phi,\xi)\rangle_-)\nonumber\\

1382: &=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[

1383: \begin{array}{cc}

1384: e^{i\beta}\cos{\frac{\phi}{2}} & \sin{\frac{\phi}{2}}e^{i\xi} \\

1385: e^{i\beta}\sin{\frac{\phi}{2}}e^{-i\xi} & -\cos{\frac{\phi}{2}}

1386: \end{array}

1387: \right].

1388: \end{align}

1389: If $U(\phi,\xi,\beta)\in \mathcal{C}_{k+1}$, then

1390: $U'=L_1U(\phi,\xi,\beta)L_2$ is also in $\mathcal{C}_{k+1}$. It is

1391: noticed that if we choose $\beta=0$, then

1392: \begin{align}

1393: U(\phi,\xi,0)&=(|\Gamma_2(\phi,\xi)\rangle_+,

1394: |\Gamma_2(\phi,\xi)\rangle_-)\nonumber\\

1395: &=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[

1396: \begin{array}{cc}

1397: \cos{\frac{\phi}{2}} & \sin{\frac{\phi}{2}}e^{i\xi} \\

1398: \sin{\frac{\phi}{2}}e^{-i\xi} & -\cos{\frac{\phi}{2}}

1399: \end{array}

1400: \right].

1401: \end{align}

1402: Also later we will show that for all the allowed value of $\alpha$,

1403: there exist $L_1,L_2 \in \mathcal{C}_2$, such that

1404: $L_1U(\phi,\xi,0)L_2=U(\phi,\xi,\beta)$, so it is sufficient to

1405: consider the case of $\beta=0$.

1406: 

1407: Therefore we get a set of unitary given by

1408: \begin{equation}

1409: W_k(\phi,\xi)=\Gamma_2(\phi/2^{k-1},\xi),

1410: \end{equation}

1411: if $\Gamma_2(\phi,\xi) \in \mathcal{C}_2$ then

1412: $\Gamma_1(\phi/2^{k-1},\xi)$ could be in $\mathcal{C}_k$. We already

1413: know that only for $\Gamma_2(\pi/4,0)$ is in $\mathcal{C}_2$, then

1414: we have

1415: \begin{equation}

1416: W_k=\Gamma_2(\pi/2^{k},0)

1417: \end{equation}

1418: is in $\mathcal{C}_k$.

1419: 

1420: Note for other possible values of $\phi$ and $\xi$, it is

1421: straightforward to show that there exist $L_1,L_2 \in

1422: \mathcal{C}_2$, such that

1423: $L_1\Gamma_2(\pi/4,0)L_2=\Gamma_2(\phi,\xi)$, so it is sufficient to

1424: consider the case of $\phi=\pi/4$ and $\xi=0$.

1425: 

1426: Note

1427: \begin{equation}

1428: HPW_kPX \sim S_k,

1429: \end{equation}

1430: where $\sim$ means up to an overall phase, and we already know that

1431: $S_k \in \mathcal{C}_k$. Therefore again by deriving $W_k$ we get

1432: nothing new due to proposition 1.

1433: 

1434: \subsection*{3. Gates in $\mathcal{C}_k \setminus \mathcal{C}_{k-1}$ for single qubit}

1435: 

1436: We conclude this section by presenting the following proposition,

1437: which gives the structure of Gates in $\mathcal{C}_k \setminus

1438: \mathcal{C}_{k-1}$ for single qubit.

1439: 

1440: \begin{proposition}

1441: The set $\mathcal{C}_k \setminus \mathcal{C}_{k-1}$ for single qubit

1442: is given by

1443: \begin{equation}

1444: L_1S_kL_2\in \mathcal{C}_k

1445: \end{equation}

1446: where $L_1,L_2\in \mathcal{C}_2$, $k\geq 2$.

1447: \end{proposition}

1448: \textbf{Proof}: We almost reached the proof of this proposition by

1449: considering the results in subsections A and B. The only left we

1450: need to clarify is

1451: 

1452: 1. What happens when $\mathcal{C}_k$ is diagonal, which can not be

1453: directly obtained by considering the eigenvectors of $V_{k-1}$ and

1454: $W_{k-1}$. The answer is already known, since $S_k$ is the only

1455: diagonal gate in $\mathcal{C}_k \setminus \mathcal{C}_{k-1}$.

1456: 

1457: 2. The values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$. This can be answered by

1458: noting the fact the equations

1459: \begin{eqnarray}

1460: UZU^{\dag}&=&G_1\nonumber\\

1461: UXU^{\dag}&=&G_2

1462: \end{eqnarray}

1463: with $G_1,G_2$ known totally determines $U$ up to an overall phase.

1464: Let's start from

1465: \begin{equation}

1466: U(\varphi,\alpha)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[

1467: \begin{array}{cc}

1468: e^{i\alpha} & 1 \\

1469: e^{i\alpha}e^{i\varphi/2} & -e^{i\varphi/2}

1470: \end{array}

1471: \right].

1472: \end{equation}

1473: Note $U(\varphi,\alpha)ZU(\varphi,\alpha)^{\dag}\sim

1474: \Gamma_1(2\phi)$, and

1475: \begin{align}

1476: &U(\varphi,\alpha)XU(\varphi,\alpha)^{\dag}\nonumber\\

1477: =&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[

1478: \begin{array}{cc}

1479: \cos{\alpha} & \sin{\alpha}e^{-i2\varphi}\\

1480: \sin{\alpha}e^{i2\varphi} & -\cos{\alpha}

1481: \end{array}

1482: \right].\square

1483: \end{align}

1484: 

1485: \section*{Appendix B: Detailed analysis about $\mathcal{C}_3$}

1486: 

1487: \subsection*{1. Notations}

1488: 

1489: Let's first define some notations.

1490: 

1491: Recall $\mathcal{P}_n$ is the Pauli group for $n$ qubit with order

1492: $4^{n+1}$. Now let $\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_n$ be the quotient group

1493: $\mathcal{P}_n/Z(\mathcal{P}_n)$ with order $4^n$.

1494: 

1495: Let $\mathcal{C}_2(n)$ denote the Clifford group for $n$ qubit.

1496: Define the quotient group

1497: $\widetilde{\mathcal{C}}_2(n)=\mathcal{C}_2(n)/Z(\mathcal{C}_2(n))$.

1498: Since $\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_n$ is a normal subgroup of

1499: $\widetilde{\mathcal{C}}_2(n)$, we could further define a quotient

1500: group

1501: $\widehat{\mathcal{C}}_2(n)=\widetilde{\mathcal{C}}_2(n)/\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_n\cong

1502: Sp(2n,2)$. Note $Sp(2,2)\cong S_3$ and $Sp(4,2)\cong S_6$. Denote

1503: the set $\mathcal{K}(n)=\{A|A\in Sp(2n,2), A^2=1\}$, i.e.

1504: $\mathcal{K}(n)$ are the set of all involutions of the symplectic

1505: group $Sp(2n,2)$.

1506: 

1507: Denote the order of maximal Abelian subgroup of $\mathcal{K}(n)$ by

1508: $a(n)$. Hence $a(1)=2,a(2)=8,a(n)\leq 2^{\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}$

1509: \cite{Barry}.

1510: 

1511: Define the set $\mathcal{M}(n)=\{U|U\in

1512: \widetilde{\mathcal{C}}_2(n)\setminus\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_n\cup\{I\}\}$.

1513: 

1514: Now recall the definition for $\mathcal{C}_k(n)$:

1515: \begin{equation}

1516: \mathcal{C}_k(n)=\{U|UP_nU^{\dag}\in \mathcal{C}_{k-1}(n)\}

1517: \end{equation}

1518: 

1519: For any $n$-qubit $U \in \mathcal{C}_k(n)$, the group $G_U(n)$ is

1520: defined by $G_U(n)=U\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_nU^{\dag}$.

1521: 

1522: Define the set $\mathcal{R}_k(n)=\{U|U\in

1523: \widetilde{\mathcal{C}}_k(n),W^{\dag}=W,Tr(W)=0\}$.

1524: 

1525: And the set $\mathcal{F}_k(n)=\{U|U\in

1526: \widetilde{\mathcal{C}}_k(n)$,$U$ is diagonal$\}$.

1527: 

1528: Denote the group generated by $\{A_i\}_{i=1}^{n}$ by $\langle

1529: \{A_i\}_{i=1}^{n}\rangle$ for any set of operators $A_i$.

1530: 

1531: \subsection*{2. Some facts for calculating $\mathcal{C}_3$ structure}

1532: 

1533: We state some simple facts about $\mathcal{C}_3$ structure which we

1534: use to verify Theorem 3 numerically.

1535: 

1536: \begin{fact}

1537: We could always choose $G_U(n)\subset\mathcal{R}_{k-1}(n)$ for any

1538: $U$ in $\mathcal{C}_k(n)$.

1539: \end{fact}

1540: 

1541: Because we can always choose Hermitian and trace zero elements in

1542: ${\mathcal{P}}_n$ as the representative element for each element in

1543: $\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_n$.

1544: 

1545: \begin{fact}

1546: If all $n-1$-qubit $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates are semi-Clifford, and if

1547: $G_U(n)\supset \langle \{B_i\}_{i=1}^{n}\rangle$, where $B_i\in

1548: \widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_n$ and $B_i\neq B_j, B_iB_j\neq B_k$ for

1549: $i\neq j\neq k$, then $G_U(n)\cap \widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_n \subset

1550: K_Z(n)$.

1551: \end{fact}

1552: 

1553: Because if $\langle \{B_i\}_{i=1}^{n}\rangle\neq K_Z(n)$, then

1554: $U(n)$ could be reduced to $U(1)\otimes U(n-1)$ via Clifford

1555: operation.

1556: 

1557: \begin{fact}

1558: If $A,B\in \mathcal{M}(n)\cap \mathcal{R}_2(n)$, and $A,B$

1559: correspond to the same element in $\widehat{\mathcal{C}}_2(n)$, then

1560: $AB\in \mathcal{P}_n$.

1561: \end{fact}

1562: 

1563: Because if $A,B$ correspond to the same element in

1564: $\widehat{\mathcal{C}}_2(n)$, then there exists $\alpha\in

1565: \widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_n$ such that $A=\alpha B$.

1566: 

1567: \begin{fact}

1568: For any $n$-qubit $\mathcal{C}_3$ gate $U$, if

1569: $G_U(n)\supseteq\langle \{Z_i\}_{i=1}^{m}\rangle$, where $m\leq n$,

1570: then the quotient group $G_U(n)/\langle \{Z_i\}_{i=1}^{m}\rangle\in

1571: \mathcal{K}(n)$ is Abelian.

1572: \end{fact}

1573: 

1574: For any $n$-qubit $\mathcal{C}_3$ gate $U$, if

1575: $G_U(n)\supseteq\langle \{Z_i\}_{i=1}^{m}\rangle$, where $m\leq n$,

1576: then the quotient group $G_U(n)/\langle \{Z_i\}_{i=1}^{m}\rangle\in

1577: \mathcal{K}(n)$ is Abelian. Because elements of $G_U(n)\in

1578: \widetilde{\mathcal{C}}_2(n)$ are either commute or anticommute, the

1579: corresponding elements in $\widehat{\mathcal{C}}_2(n)$ should

1580: commute.

1581: 

1582: \subsection*{3. $n=1$ case}

1583: 

1584: Since $Sp(2,2)\cong S_3$, $a(1)=2<4$. Hence $G_U(2)\cap

1585: \widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_2$ contains at least one element in

1586: $\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_1$, i.e. $G_U(1)\cap

1587: \widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_1 \supseteq K_Z(1)$ holds for any single

1588: qubit $\mathcal{C}_3$ gate.

1589: 

1590: Furthermore, it is noted that any $U\in\mathcal{R}_k(1)$ can be

1591: parameterized by

1592: \begin{center}

1593: $U(\theta,\varphi)=\left[

1594: \begin{array}{cc}

1595: \cos{\theta} & \sin{\theta}e^{i\varphi} \\

1596: \sin{\theta}e^{-i\varphi} & -\cos{\theta}

1597: \end{array}

1598: \right]$,

1599: \end{center}

1600: and starting from elements in $\mathcal{R}_2(1)$ and calculate their

1601: eigenvectors, we understand that $\varphi$ can only be of the values

1602: $0,\frac{\pi}{2},\pi,\frac{3\pi}{2}$ for $\cos{\theta}\neq 0$. This

1603: directly leads to the fact that the conjecture is true for any $k$

1604: when $n=1$. See ck.pdf for the details of this.

1605: 

1606: \subsection*{4. $n=2$ case}

1607: 

1608: Since $Sp(4,2)\cong S_6$, $a(2)=8<16$. Hence $G_U(2)\cap

1609: \widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_2$ contains at least one element in

1610: $\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_2$. However, this is not enough to claim

1611: $G_U(2)\cap \widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_2$ holds for any two-qubit $U$.

1612: We need to examine the structure of $G_U(2)\cap

1613: \widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_2$ in more detail.

1614: 

1615: Consider the maximal Abelian subgroup in $\mathcal{K}(2)$ of order

1616: $8$, and its corresponding elements in

1617: $\widetilde{\mathcal{C}}_2(n)$, direct calculation shows it does not

1618: contain a subgroup of structure $\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_1\times

1619: Z_2$. Hence we need to further consider Abelian subgroup in

1620: $\mathcal{K}(2)$ of order $4$. Due to lemma 3, we result in

1621: $G_U(2)\cap \widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_2 \supseteq K_Z(2)$ holds for

1622: any two-qubit $\mathcal{C}_3$ gate.

1623: 

1624: Then using Lemma 1 and 2, we could calculate $\mathcal{C}_4(2)$

1625: numerically. The result then shows that all the $\mathcal{C}_3(2)$

1626: gates are semi-Clifford.

1627: 

1628: \subsection*{5. $n=3$ case}

1629: 

1630: Since a(3)=64, and direct calculation of this group shows that not

1631: all the elements could be in $\mathcal{R}_2(3)$, hence $G_U(3)\cap

1632: \widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_3$ contains at least one element in

1633: $\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_3$. Again, this is not enough to claim

1634: $G_U(3)\cap \widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_3 \supseteq K_Z(3)$ holds for

1635: any three-qubit $U$. We need to examine the structure of $G_U(3)\cap

1636: \widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_3$ in more detail to dig out 2 more elements

1637: in $\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_3$.

1638: 

1639: Using Facts 1, 2 and 3, we could calculate $\mathcal{C}_3(3)$

1640: numerically. The result shows that the conjecture is also true in

1641: this case. See next subsection for more about $\mathcal{C}_3(3)$.

1642: 

1643: \subsection*{6. Diagonal gates in $\mathcal{C}_3$}

1644: 

1645: Define a diagonal Matrix  $A$ by $A_{jk}=\delta_{jk}e^{i\theta_j}$,

1646: where $j=1,...,N,\ N=2^n$ , for $n$-qubit case.

1647: 

1648: We now prove the following

1649: 

1650: \begin{lemma}

1651: If  $A\in\mathcal{C}_3$, if we choose $A_{11}=1$, then

1652: $A_{jj}=e^{im_j\pi/4}$  for any $j\neq 1$ , where $m_j$  are some

1653: integers.

1654: \end{lemma}

1655: \textbf{Proof}: We first prove for $j=N$ . Note we choose $A_{11}=1$

1656: to get rid of the overall phase of  $A$. Denote  $A'=X^{\otimes

1657: n}AX^{\otimes n}A^{\dagger}$, and  $A''=X^{\otimes n}A'X^{\otimes

1658: n}A'^{\dagger}$. Note  $A'$, $A''$ are also diagonal. Since

1659: $A\in\mathcal{C}_3$,  $A''$ must be in Pauli apart from an overall

1660: phase. And we also have  $A''_{11}=e^{2i\theta_N}$,

1661: $A''_{NN}=e^{-2i\theta_N}$. Hence we must have

1662: $\frac{A''_{11}}{A''_{NN}}=e^{4i\theta_N}=\pm 1$ , i.e.

1663: $\theta=\frac{m_N\pi}{4}$  for some integer  $m_N$.

1664: 

1665: For $j\neq N$ , there always exists a Clifford group operation which

1666: keeps $\ket{j}$ invariant but maps

1667: $\ket{1}\leftrightarrow\ket{N+1-j}$. Hence the above procedure

1668: applies to any  $j\neq N$. $\square$

1669: 

1670: Note the similar idea applies to the diagonal $\mathcal{C}_k$ gates,

1671: i.e. if $A\in\mathcal{C}_k$ , if we choose $A_{11}=1$ ,

1672: $A_{jj}=e^{im_j\pi/2^{k-1}}$ for any $j\neq 1$, where $m_j$  are

1673: some integers.

1674: 

1675: Now we consider some concrete gates:

1676: 

1677: \begin{proposition}

1678: For  $n=3$,  the three qubit diagonal $\mathcal{C}_3$  gates are

1679: given by a group generated by  $\pi/8$ gate, control-phase gate and

1680: control-control-Z gate.

1681: \end{proposition}

1682: 

1683: \textbf{Proof}: The proof is directly given by numerical

1684: calculation, based on Lemma 1.$\square$

1685: 

1686: \begin{references}

1687: 

1688: \bibitem{Nielsen} M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, {\it Quantum Computation and Quantum Information}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, (2000).

1689: 

1690: \bibitem{Preskill} J. Preskill, in {\it Introduction to Quantum Computation and Information}, eds. H. K. Lo, S. Popescu, and T. Spiller, pp. 213-269, World Scientific Publishing Company, (2001).

1691: 

1692: \bibitem{Shor} P. Shor, {\it 37th Symposium on Foundations of Computing}, IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 56-65, (1996).

1693: 

1694: \bibitem{Gottesman} D. Gottesman, in {\it Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics}, eds. J.-P. Francoise, G. L. Naber and S. T. Tsou, vol. 4, pp. 196-201, Oxford: Elsevier, (2006).

1695: 

1696: \bibitem{ZCC} B. Zeng, A. W. Cross, and I. L. Chuang, arXiv: 0706.1382.

1697: 

1698: \bibitem{Got} D. Gottesman, and I. L. Chuang, Nature \textbf{402}, 390, (1999).

1699: 

1700: \bibitem{BravyiDistill} Sergei Bravyi and Alexei Kitaev, Phys. Rev. \textbf{A71}, 022316, (2005).

1701: 

1702: \bibitem{Xinlan} X. Zhou, D. W. Leung, and I. L. Chuang, Phys. Rev. \textbf{A62}, 052316, (2000).

1703: 

1704: \bibitem{Gross} D. Gross, M. Van den Nest, arXiv: 0707.4000.

1705: 

1706: \bibitem{Gotthesis} D. Gottesman, Ph.D. thesis, arXiv:quant-ph/9705052.

1707: 

1708: \bibitem{GAP} GAP - Groups, Algorithms, Programming -

1709: a System for Computational Discrete Algebra,

1710: http://www.gap-system.org/.

1711: 

1712: \bibitem{Yao} A. Yao, {\it Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science}, pg. 352, (1993).

1713: 

1714: \bibitem{Mott} M. Mottonen, J. J. Vartiainen, V. Bergholm, and M. M. Salomaa, Quant. Inf. Comp. \textbf{5}, 467 (2005).

1715: 

1716: \bibitem{Vivek} V. V. Shende, S. S. Bullock, I. L. Markov, IEEE Trans. on Computer-Aided Design, vol. 25, no. 6, pp.1000 - 1010, (2006).

1717: 

1718: \bibitem{Griess} R. L. Griess Jr, arXiv:math/0511084.

1719: 

1720: \bibitem{Xie} X. Chen, H. Chuang, A. W. Cross, B. Zeng, and I. L. Chuang, arXiv: 0801.2360.

1721: 

1722: \bibitem{Barry} M. J. J. Barry, J. Austral. Math. Soc. \textbf{A27}, 59, (1979).

1723: 

1724: \end{references}

1725: 

1726: \end{document}

1727: