1: % Andrew Childs    <amchilds@mit.edu>

2: % Henry Haselgrove <hlh@physics.uq.edu.au>

3: % Michael Nielsen  <nielsen@physics.uq.edu.au>

4: 

5: \documentclass[aps,twocolumn,nofootinbib,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}

6: 

7: \usepackage{amsfonts,amsthm}

8: 

9: \setlength{\textheight}{9.35in}

10: 

11: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

12: % Definitions

13: 

14: \newcommand{\<}{\langle}

15: \renewcommand{\>}{\rangle}

16: 

17: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

18: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

19: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

20: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

21: 

22: \newcommand{\tr}{\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits}

23: \newcommand{\tp}{\otimes}

24: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber\\}

25: 

26: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}

27: \newtheorem{cor}[theorem]{Corollary}

28: \newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}

29: 

30: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

31: % Title

32: 

33: \begin{document}

34: 

35: \title{Lower bounds on the complexity of simulating quantum gates}

36: 

37: \author{Andrew M. Childs}

38: \email[]{amchilds@mit.edu}

39: \affiliation{Center for Theoretical Physics,

40:              Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

41:              Cambridge, MA 02139, USA}

42: 

43: \author{Henry L. Haselgrove}

44: \email[]{hlh@physics.uq.edu.au}

45: \affiliation{School of Physical Sciences,

46:              The University of Queensland,

47:              Brisbane QLD 4072, Australia}

48: \affiliation{Information Sciences Laboratory,

49:              Defence Science and Technology Organisation,

50:              Edinburgh 5111, Australia}

51: 

52: \author{Michael A. Nielsen}

53: \email[]{nielsen@physics.uq.edu.au}

54: \homepage[]{www.qinfo.org/people/nielsen}

55: \affiliation{School of Physical Sciences,

56:              The University of Queensland,

57:              Brisbane QLD 4072, Australia}

58: \affiliation{School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering,

59:              The University of Queensland,

60:              Brisbane QLD 4072, Australia}

61: \affiliation{Institute for Quantum Information,

62:              California Institute of Technology,

63:              Pasadena CA 91125, USA}

64: 

65: 

66: \date[]{25 July 2003}

67: 

68: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

69: % Abstract

70: 

71: \begin{abstract}

72:   We give a simple proof of a formula for the minimal time required to

73:   simulate a two-qubit unitary operation using a fixed two-qubit

74:   Hamiltonian together with fast local unitaries.  We also note that a

75:   related lower bound holds for arbitrary $n$-qubit gates.

76: \end{abstract}

77: 

78: \maketitle

79: 

80: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

81: \section{Introduction}

82: 

83: %

84: % motivation

85: %

86: Understanding quantum dynamics is at the heart of quantum physics.

87: Recent ideas from quantum computation have stimulated interest in

88: studying the physical resources needed to implement quantum

89: operations.  In addition to a qualitative understanding of what

90: resources are necessary, we would like to quantify the resource

91: requirements for universal quantum computation and other information

92: processing tasks.  Ultimately, we would like to understand the minimal

93: resources that are necessary and sufficient to implement particular

94: quantum dynamics.

95: 

96: As a first step towards answering these questions, it has been shown

97: that there is a sense in which all entangling dynamics are

98: qualitatively equivalent.  In particular, it has been shown that any

99: $n$-qudit two-body Hamiltonian capable of creating entanglement

100: between any pair of qudits is, in principle, universal for quantum

101: computation, when assisted by arbitrary single-qudit unitaries

102: \cite{Jones99a,Leung00a,Dodd02a,Wocjan02a,Dur01a,Bennett01a,Nielsen02f,Vidal01b}.

103: Thus, any particular entangling two-qudit Hamiltonian can be used to

104: simulate any other, provided local unitaries are available.  This

105: suggests that such dynamics are a fungible physical resource.

106: 

107: Having established the qualitative equivalence of all entangling

108: dynamics, we would like to quantify their information processing

109: power.  In particular, it is interesting to consider the minimal time

110: required to implement a unitary operation, $U$, on a two-qubit system,

111: using a fixed Hamiltonian, $H$, and the ability to intersperse fast

112: local unitary operations on the two qubits.  This problem was studied

113: by Khaneja, Brockett and Glaser~\cite{Khaneja01a}, who found a

114: solution using the theory of Lie groups.  Their results, although

115: giving a solution in principle, are neither explicit about the form of

116: the minimal time, nor do they explain how to construct all elements of

117: the time-optimal simulation.  Further work by Vidal, Hammerer, and

118: Cirac \cite{Vidal02a}, from a different point of view, resulted in an

119: explicit formula for the minimal time, and gave a constructive

120: procedure for minimizing that time (see also~\cite{Hammerer02a}, where

121: an alternate proof is given by the same authors).

122: 

123: %

124: % purpose

125: %

126: The purpose of the present paper is to give a simplified proof that

127: the formula of Vidal, Hammerer and Cirac is, in fact, a lower bound on

128: the simulation time.  Note that the difficult part

129: of~\cite{Vidal02a,Hammerer02a} was proving the lower bound; finding a

130: protocol to meet the lower bound was comparatively easy.

131: 

132: %

133: % interest

134: %

135: The main advantages of our proof are its simplicity and conceptual

136: clarity, as compared to the ingenious, but rather complex, arguments

137: in~\cite{Khaneja01a,Vidal02a,Hammerer02a}.  This simplicity is

138: achieved by making use of a powerful result from linear algebra,

139: Thompson's theorem.  We expect that Thompson's theorem might be useful

140: for many other problems in quantum information theory.  A second

141: advantage of using Thompson's theorem is that it does not rely on

142: special properties of two-qubit unitary operators.  Therefore,

143: essentially the same arguments give a lower bound on the time required

144: to implement an $n$-qubit unitary operation using a fixed $n$-qubit

145: interaction Hamiltonian, and fast local unitary operations.

146: 

147: %

148: % approach

149: %

150: Our approach to the proof of the lower bound has its roots in the

151: framework of \emph{dynamic strength measures} for quantum

152: operations~\cite{Nielsen03a}.  The dynamic strength framework is an

153: attempt to develop a quantitative theory of the power of dynamical

154: operations for information processing.  The idea is to associate with

155: a quantum dynamical operation, such as a unitary operation $U$, a

156: quantitative measure of its ``strength.'' In~\cite{Nielsen03a} it was

157: shown that such strength measures can be used to analyze the minimal

158: time required for the implementation of a quantum operation.  The

159: present paper takes a similar approach, but instead of using a single

160: real number to quantify dynamic strength, we use a vector-valued

161: measure.  This can also be compared to the analysis of optimal

162: simulation of Hamiltonian dynamics using a set of several strength

163: measures \cite{Childs03b}.

164: 

165: %

166: % structure

167: %

168: Our paper is structured as follows.  Section~\ref{sec:background}

169: reviews some background material on majorization, Thompson's theorem,

170: and the structure of the two-qubit unitary matrices.  The main result,

171: the lower bound on optimal simulation, is proved in

172: Section~\ref{sec:two-qubit}.  We conclude in Section~\ref{sec:conc} by

173: presenting our generalization of the lower bound to $n$ qubits and

174: suggesting some directions for future work.  In addition, an appendix

175: gives a procedure for calculating a canonical decomposition of

176: two-qubit unitary gates.

177: 

178: 

179: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

180: \section{Background}

181: \label{sec:background}

182: 

183: This section reviews the relevant background needed for our proof.

184: Section~\ref{subsec:majorization} reviews the basic notions of

185: majorization, introduces Thompson's theorem, and explains how to use

186: Thompson's theorem and majorization to relate properties of a product

187: of unitary operators to properties of the individual unitaries.

188: Section~\ref{subsec:canonical} introduces the \emph{canonical

189: decomposition}, a useful representation theorem for two-qubit unitary

190: operators, and Section~\ref{subsec:canonicalham} presents an analogous

191: decomposition for Hamiltonians.

192: 

193: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

194: \subsection{Majorization and Thompson's theorem}

195: \label{subsec:majorization}

196: 

197: %

198: % intro

199: %

200: Our analysis uses the theory of majorization together with Thompson's

201: theorem.  More detailed introductions to majorization may be found in

202: \cite{Nielsen01b}, Chapter~2 and~3 of~\cite{Bhatia97a}, and

203: in~\cite{Marshall79a,Alberti82a}.

204: 

205: %

206: % basic defn

207: %

208: Suppose $x = (x_1,\ldots,x_D)$ and $y = (y_1,\ldots,y_D)$ are two

209: $D$-dimensional real vectors.  The relation \emph{$x$ is majorized by

210: $y$}, written $x \prec y$, is intended to capture the intuitive notion

211: that $x$ is \emph{less ordered} (i.e., more disordered) than $y$.  To

212: make the formal definition we introduce the notation $\downarrow$ to

213: denote the components of a vector rearranged into non-increasing

214: order, so $x^{\downarrow} =

215: (x^{\downarrow}_1,\ldots,x^{\downarrow}_D)$, where $x^{\downarrow}_1

216: \geq x^{\downarrow}_2 \geq \ldots \geq x^{\downarrow}_D$.  Then $x$ is

217: majorized by $y$, that is, $x \prec y$, if

218: \be

219:   \sum_{j=1}^k x^{\downarrow}_j \leq \sum_{j=1}^k y^{\downarrow}_j

220: \ee

221: for $k = 1,\ldots,D-1$, and the inequality holds with equality when $k

222: = D$.

223: 

224: %

225: % Thompson's theorem

226: %

227: To connect majorization to Hamiltonian simulation, we use a result of

228: Thompson relating a product of two unitary operators to the individual

229: unitary operators.  Recall that an arbitrary pair of unitary operators can

230: be written in the form $e^{iH}$ and $e^{iK}$, for some Hermitian $H$ and

231: $K$.  Thompson's theorem provides a representation for the product

232: $e^{iH}e^{iK}$ in terms of $H$ and $K$:

233: \begin{theorem}[Thompson~\cite{Thompson86a}]\label{thm:thompson} Let $H,K$

234: be Hermitian matrices.  Then there exist unitary matrices $U,V$ such that

235: \be

236:   e^{i H} e^{i K} = e^{i(U H U^\dag + V K V^\dag)}.

237: \ee

238: \end{theorem}

239: 

240: %

241: % history

242: %

243: The proof of Thompson's theorem in~\cite{Thompson86a} depends on a

244: result conjectured earlier by Horn~\cite{Horn62a}.  A proof of this

245: conjecture had been announced and outlined by

246: Lidskii~\cite{Lidskii82a} at the time of Thompson's paper.  However,

247: remarks in~\cite{Thompson86a} suggest that~\cite{Lidskii82a} did not

248: contain enough detail to be considered a fully rigorous proof.

249: Fortunately, a proof of Horn's conjecture has recently been fully

250: completed and published.  See, for

251: example,~\cite{Fulton00a,Knutson00a} for reviews and references.

252: 

253: %

254: % relating Thompson's theorem and majorization

255: %

256: Thompson's theorem may be related to majorization using the following

257: theorem of Ky Fan:

258: \begin{theorem}[Ky Fan \cite{Fan49a,Bhatia97a}]\label{thm:fan}

259:   Let $H,K$ be Hermitian matrices.  Then $\lambda(H+K) \prec

260:   \lambda(H)+\lambda(K)$, where $\lambda(A)$ denotes the vector whose

261:   entries are the eigenvalues of the Hermitian matrix $A$, arranged

262:   into non-increasing order.

263: \end{theorem}

264: Combining the results of Ky Fan and Thompson, we have the

265: following:

266: \begin{cor} \label{cor:Thompson-Fan}

267:   Let $H,K$ be Hermitian matrices.  Then there exists a Hermitian

268:   matrix $L$ such that

269: \be

270:   e^{i H} e^{i K} = e^{iL}; \,\,\,\,

271:   \lambda(L) \prec \lambda(H)+\lambda(K).

272: \ee

273: \end{cor}

274: \noindent

275: We will not apply this corollary directly, but we have included it

276: here because it captures the spirit of our later argument, combining

277: the Thompson and Ky Fan theorems to relate the properties of a product

278: of unitaries to the individual unitaries themselves.

279: Corollary~\ref{cor:Thompson-Fan} can be regarded as a vector-valued

280: analogue of the chaining property for dynamic strength measures used

281: in \cite{Nielsen03a} to establish lower bounds on computational

282: complexity.

283: 

284: 

285: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

286: \subsection{The canonical decomposition of a two-qubit gate}

287: \label{subsec:canonical}

288: 

289: %

290: % what the canonical decomposition says

291: %

292: The \emph{canonical decomposition} is a useful representation theorem

293: characterizing the non-local properties of a two-qubit unitary operator.

294: It was proved by Khaneja, Brockett, and Glaser~\cite{Khaneja01a} using

295: ideas from Lie theory.  Kraus and Cirac~\cite{Kraus01a} have given a

296: constructive proof using elementary notions, while Zhang \emph{et

297: al.}~\cite{Zhang02b} have discussed the decomposition in detail from the

298: point of view of Lie theory.  The decomposition states that any two-qubit

299: unitary $U$ may be written in the form

300: \begin{equation} \label{eq:can-decomp}

301:   U=(A_1\tp B_1)e^{i(\theta_x X\tp X+\theta_y Y\tp Y+\theta_z Z\tp Z)}

302:     (A_2\tp B_2),

303: \end{equation}

304: where $A_1$, $A_2$, $B_1$, $B_2$ are single-qubit unitaries, and the

305: three parameters, $\theta_x$, $\theta_y$, and $\theta_z$ characterize

306: the non-local properties of $U$.\footnote{Prior to~\cite{Khaneja01a},

307:   Makhlin~\cite{Makhlin00a} gave a proof that the non-local properties of

308:   $U$ are completely characterized by $\theta_x$, $\theta_y$ and

309:   $\theta_z$, but did not write down the canonical decomposition

310:   explicitly.}

311: Without loss of generality, we may choose the local unitaries to ensure

312: that

313: \begin{equation}

314:   \frac{\pi}{4} \ge \theta_x \ge \theta_y \ge |\theta_z|, \label{eq:order}

315: \end{equation}

316: and we refer to the set of parameters chosen in this way as the

317: \emph{canonical parameters} for $U$.  We will see below that these

318: parameters are unique. We define the {\em canonical form} of $U$ to be

319: \be

320:   U_c := (A_1^\dag\tp B_1^\dag)U(A_2^\dag\tp B_2^\dag);

321: \ee

322: up to local unitaries, $U_c$ is equivalent to $U$.  It will be

323: convenient to assume through the remainder of this section that $U$

324: has unit determinant.  This is equivalent to requiring that $A_1, A_2,

325: B_1, B_2$ can all be chosen to have unit determinant.

326: 

327: %

328: % nonlocal content

329: %

330: The canonical parameters turn out to be crucial to results about

331: simulation of two-qubit gates.  If

332: \be

333:   U_c = e^{i(\theta_x X\tp X + \theta_y Y\tp Y + \theta_z Z\tp Z)}

334: \ee

335: is the canonical form of $U$, then we define the \emph{non-local

336: content}, $\phi(U)$, of $U$ by $\phi(U) := \lambda(H_U)$, where

337: \be

338:   H_U := \theta_x \, X\tp X + \theta_y \, Y\tp Y + \theta_z \, Z\tp Z.

339: \ee

340: Explicitly, the components of $\phi(U)$ are

341: \begin{eqnarray}

342: \phi_1 &=&  \theta_x+\theta_y-\theta_z \label{eq:phi1} \\

343: \phi_2 &=&  \theta_x-\theta_y+\theta_z \label{eq:phi2} \\

344: \phi_3 &=& -\theta_x+\theta_y+\theta_z \label{eq:phi3} \\

345: \phi_4 &=& -\theta_x-\theta_y-\theta_z. \label{eq:phi4}

346: \end{eqnarray}

347: 

348: %

349: % how to determine the canonical decomposition?

350: %

351: We now outline a simple procedure to determine the canonical

352: parameters of a two-qubit unitary operator.  Our explanation initially

353: follows~\cite{Hammerer02a} and~\cite{Leifer02a}.  However, as

354: explained below, there is an ambiguity in the procedure described in

355: those papers, related to the fact that the logarithm function has many

356: branches.  Our procedure resolves this ambiguity.

357: 

358: %

359: % explanation

360: %

361: To explain the procedure, we need to introduce a piece of

362: notation, and explain a simple observation about single-qubit unitary

363: matrices.  The \emph{spin flip} operation on an arbitrary two-qubit

364: operator is defined as

365: \be

366:   \tilde M := (Y \tp Y) M^T (Y \tp Y),

367: \ee

368: where $Y$ is the Pauli sigma $y$ matrix, and the transpose operation

369: is taken with respect to the computational basis.  Note that the spin

370: flip operation may also be written as $\tilde M = M^T$, where the

371: transpose is taken with respect to a different basis, the \emph{magic

372: basis}~\cite{Hill97a},

373: \begin{eqnarray}

374:  \frac{|00\>+|11\>}{\sqrt{2}}; & &

375: i\frac{|00\>-|11\>}{\sqrt{2}}; \nonumber \\

376: i\frac{|01\>+|10\>}{\sqrt{2}}; & &

377:  \frac{|01\>-|10\>}{\sqrt{2}}.

378: \end{eqnarray}

379: The observation about single-qubit unitary matrices that we need is

380: the following.  Let $U$ be any single-qubit unitary matrix with unit

381: determinant.  Then

382: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:single-qubit-identity}

383:   U Y U^T = Y,

384: \end{eqnarray}

385: where the transpose is taken in the computational basis.  This simple

386: identity is easily verified.

387: 

388: %

389: % calculating the canonical decomposition

390: %

391: Now suppose $U$ is an arbitrary two-qubit unitary with unit determinant.

392: By definition of the spin flip, and substituting the canonical

393: decomposition, we have

394: \begin{eqnarray}

395:   U \tilde U & = & (A_1\tp B_1) U_c (A_2\tp B_2) (Y \tp Y)  \nn

396:          && \times (A_2^T \tp B_2^T) U_c (A_1^T \tp B_1^T) (Y \tp Y).

397: \end{eqnarray}

398: By the identity Eq.~(\ref{eq:single-qubit-identity}) we see that

399: \begin{eqnarray}

400:   U \tilde U = (A_1\tp B_1) U_c (Y \tp Y) U_c (A_1^T \tp B_1^T) (Y \tp Y).

401: \end{eqnarray}

402: Using the fact that $Y \tp Y$ commutes with $X \tp X$, $Y \tp Y$, and $Z

403: \tp Z$, we see that $Y \tp Y$ commutes with $U_c$, and thus

404: \begin{eqnarray}

405:   U \tilde U = (A_1\tp B_1) U_c^2 (Y \tp Y)(A_1^T \tp B_1^T) (Y \tp Y).

406: \end{eqnarray}

407: Finally, applying Eq.~(\ref{eq:single-qubit-identity}) again gives

408: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:almost-can-decomp}

409:   U \tilde U = (A_1\tp B_1) U_c^2 (A_1^\dagger \tp B_1^\dagger)

410: \end{eqnarray}

411: Eq.~(\ref{eq:almost-can-decomp}) suggests a procedure to determine the

412: canonical parameters for $U$, based on the observation that \be

413: \label{eq:can-eig-decomp} \lambda(U \tilde U) = \lambda(U_c^2) =

414: (e^{2i \phi_1}, e^{2i \phi_2}, e^{2i\phi_3},e^{2i\phi_4}), \ee where

415: the $\phi_j$ are related to the canonical parameters

416: $\theta_x,\theta_y$ and $\theta_z$ by

417: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:phi1})--(\ref{eq:phi4}).  It is tempting to conclude

418: that one can determine $\theta_x,\theta_y,\theta_z$ from the

419: eigenvalues of $U \tilde U$, simply by taking logarithms and inverting

420: the resulting linear equations.  Indeed, such a conclusion is reached

421: in~\cite{Hammerer02a} and~\cite{Leifer02a}, using arguments similar to

422: those just described.  Unfortunately, determining the canonical

423: parameters is not quite as simple as this, because $z \rightarrow

424: e^{iz}$ is not a uniquely invertible function.  In particular, $e^{iz}

425: = e^{i(z+2\pi m)}$, where $m$ is any integer, so there is some

426: ambiguity about which branch of the logarithm function to use in

427: calculating the canonical parameters.  In fact, we prove later that no

428: one branch of the logarithm function can be used.  However, these

429: considerations do allow us to reach the following conclusion:

430: \begin{lemma}

431: \label{lemma:can-formula}

432:   Let $U$ be a two-qubit unitary.  Then there exists a Hermitian $H$

433:   such that

434:   \begin{eqnarray}

435:     U \tilde U = e^{2iH}, \,\,\,\, \lambda(H) = \phi(U).

436:   \end{eqnarray}

437:   Moreover, if $H$ is any Hermitian matrix such that $\lambda(U \tilde

438:   U) = \lambda(e^{2iH})$ then it follows that $\lambda(H) = \phi(U) +

439:   \pi \vec m$, where $\vec m$ is some vector of integers.

440: \end{lemma}

441: Although this lemma is sufficient to prove our later results, there is

442: in fact a simple method for exactly calculating the canonical

443: parameters.  Because there are many applications of the canonical

444: decomposition, we describe this method in the appendix.  The method

445: will not be needed elsewhere in the paper.

446: 

447: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

448: \subsection{The canonical form of a two-qubit Hamiltonian}

449: \label{subsec:canonicalham}

450: 

451: Finally, we introduce one additional concept, the \emph{canonical

452:   form} of a two-qubit Hamiltonian, $H$ \cite{Dur01a}.  Any two-qubit

453: Hamiltonian $H$ can be expanded as

454: \be

455:   H = \sum_{j,k=0}^3 h_{jk} \, \sigma_j \tp \sigma_k.

456: \ee

457: Then let

458: \be

459:   H' := {H+\tilde H \over 2}

460:       = \sum_{j,k \neq 0} h_{jk} \, \sigma_j \tp \sigma_k.

461: \ee

462: That is, $H'$ is just the Hamiltonian that results when the local

463: terms in $H$ are removed.  It is not difficult to show that $H$ and

464: $H'$ are interchangeable resources for simulation in the sense that,

465: given fast local unitaries, evolution according to $H$ for a time $t$

466: can be simulated by evolution according to $H_c$ for a time $t$, and

467: vice versa.  Furthermore, by doing appropriate local unitaries, it can

468: be shown~\cite{Dur01a} that simulating $H'$ (and thus $H$) is

469: equivalent to simulating the canonical form of $H$,

470: \begin{eqnarray}

471:   H_c = h_x \, X\tp X + h_y \, Y\tp Y + h_z \, Z\tp Z,

472: \end{eqnarray}

473: where $h_x \geq h_y \geq |h_z|$.  Once again, $H$ and $H_c$ are

474: interchangeable resources for simulation.

475: 

476: Note that the three parameters $h_x,h_y,h_z$ are completely

477: characterized by the three degrees of freedom in

478: $\lambda(H_c)=\lambda(H+\tilde H)/2$, just as the three canonical

479: parameters $\theta_x,\theta_y,\theta_z$ are completely characterized

480: by the three degrees of freedom in $\lambda(U_c^2)=\lambda(U \tilde

481: U)$.

482: 

483: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

484: \section{Simulation of two-qubit gates}

485: \label{sec:two-qubit}

486: 

487: %

488: % state the problem

489: %

490: We now return to the main purpose of the paper, proving results about

491: the time to simulate a unitary gate using entangling Hamiltonians and

492: fast local gates.  We aim to prove the following result:

493: \begin{theorem}[Vidal, Hammerer, Cirac \cite{Vidal02a,Hammerer02a},

494: cf. Khaneja, Brockett and Glaser~\cite{Khaneja01a}]

495: \label{thm:VHC}

496:   Let $U$ be a two-qubit unitary operator, and let $H$ be a two-qubit

497:   entangling Hamiltonian.  Then the minimal time required to simulate

498:   $U$ using $H$ and fast local unitaries is the minimal value of $t$

499:   such that there exists a vector of integers $\vec m$ satisfying

500:   \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:2-constraint}

501:     \phi(U) + \pi \vec m \prec \frac{\lambda(H+\tilde H)}{2} \, t.

502:   \end{eqnarray}

503: \end{theorem}

504: \noindent

505: Note further that only two vectors of integers need to be checked,

506: $\vec m = (0,0,0,0)$ and $\vec m = (1,1,-1,-1)$, since all the other

507: possibilities give rise to weaker constraints on the minimal time, $t$

508: \cite{Vidal02a,Hammerer02a}.  The difficult part of the proof of

509: Theorem~\ref{thm:VHC} is the proof that Eq.~(\ref{eq:2-constraint}) is

510: a lower bound on the simulation time, $t$, and it is this part of the

511: proof that we focus on simplifying.  The proof that this lower bound

512: may be achieved follows from standard results on majorization, and we

513: refer the interested reader to~\cite{Vidal02a,Hammerer02a} for

514: details.

515: 

516: %

517: % getting started

518: %

519: To prove that Eq.~(\ref{eq:2-constraint}) constrains the minimal time

520: for simulation, we begin by characterizing the canonical decomposition

521: of a product of unitary matrices.  Let $\Lambda(U) := \lambda(U\tilde

522: U)$, and define the equivalence relation $A \sim B$ for Hermitian

523: matrices $A$ and $B$ iff $\lambda(A) = \lambda(B)$.  Then we have:

524: \begin{lemma}

525: \label{lemma:2-proof}

526:   Let $U_j$ be unitary matrices, and let $H_j$ be Hermitian matrices such

527:   that $U_j \tilde U_j = e^{2iH_j}$.  Then there exist Hermitian

528:   matrices $K_j$ such that $H_j \sim K_j$, and

529: \be

530:   \Lambda(U_N \ldots U_1) = \lambda(e^{2i(K_1+\cdots+K_N)}).

531: \label{eq:2-proof}

532: \ee

533: \end{lemma}

534: 

535: \begin{proof}

536: We induct on $N$.  The result is trivial for $N = 1$, so we need only

537: consider the inductive step.

538: %

539: Using the fact $\lambda(AB) = \lambda(BA)$, we have

540: \be

541:   \Lambda(U_{N+1}\ldots U_1) =

542:   \lambda(\tilde U_{N+1} U_{N+1} \, U_N \ldots U_1 \tilde U_1 \ldots

543:   \tilde U_N).

544: \ee

545: By the inductive hypothesis there exist Hermitian $K_j'$ such that

546: $H_j \sim K_j'$ and

547: \be

548:   \lambda(U_N \ldots U_1 \tilde U_1 \ldots \tilde U_N) =

549:   \lambda(e^{2i(K_1'+\cdots+K_N')}).

550: \ee

551: Therefore, $U_N \ldots U_1 \tilde U_1 \ldots \tilde U_N

552:   = e^{2i(K_1''+\cdots+K_N'')}$,

553: for some $K_j'' \sim H_j$.  Observe also that

554: \be

555:   \tilde U_{N+1}U_{N+1} \sim U_{N+1}\tilde U_{N+1}

556:                            = e^{2iH_{N+1}},

557: \ee

558: and thus

559: $\tilde U_{N+1}U_{N+1} = e^{2iK_{N+1}''}$

560: for some $K_{N+1}'' \sim H_{N+1}$.  It follows by substitution that

561: \be

562:   \Lambda(U_{N+1}\ldots U_1) =

563:   \lambda(e^{2i K_{N+1}''} e^{2i(K_1''+\cdots+K_N'')}).

564: \ee

565: Applying Thompson's theorem gives

566: \be

567:   \Lambda(U_{N+1}\ldots U_1) = \lambda(e^{2i (K_1+\cdots+K_{N+1})})

568: \ee

569: for some $K_j \sim K_j'' \sim H_j$,

570: which completes the inductive step of the proof.

571: \end{proof}

572: 

573: Given this result, it is straightforward to complete the proof of

574: Eq.~(\ref{eq:2-constraint}).

575: 

576: \begin{proof}

577: Write $U$ in the form

578: \begin{eqnarray}

579:   U = e^{-i H t_1} V_1 e^{-i H t_2} V_2 \ldots V_{k-1} e^{-iH t_k},

580: \end{eqnarray}

581: where $t_1,\ldots,t_k$ are times of evolution, $t = t_1 + \ldots +

582: t_k$ is the total time for simulation, and $V_j$ are local unitaries.

583: Without loss of generality, we may assume $H$ is in canonical form.

584: Applying Lemma~\ref{lemma:2-proof}, we obtain

585: \begin{eqnarray}

586:   \Lambda(U) = \lambda(e^{2i(H_1 t_1+\ldots + H_k t_k)})

587: \label{eq:Lambdau}

588: \end{eqnarray}

589: where $H_j \sim H$ for each $j$.  Here we have used the observation $V_j

590: \tilde V_j = 1$, so all the contributions from local unitaries vanish.  It

591: follows from Lemma~\ref{lemma:can-formula} that

592: \begin{eqnarray}

593:   \phi(U)+\pi \vec m = \lambda(H_1 t_1+\ldots + H_m t_m),

594: \end{eqnarray}

595: and using Ky Fan's theorem gives

596: \begin{eqnarray}

597:   \phi(U)+\pi \vec m \prec \lambda(H)(t_1+\ldots +t_m),

598: \end{eqnarray}

599: which is Eq.~(\ref{eq:2-constraint}), as desired.

600: \end{proof}

601: 

602: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

603: \section{Discussion}

604: \label{sec:conc}

605: 

606: In this paper, we have provided a simplified proof of a lower bound on

607: the time required to simulate a two-qubit unitary gate using a given

608: two-qubit interaction Hamiltonian and local unitaries.  The bound

609: follows easily from standard results on majorization together with

610: Thompson's theorem on products of unitary operators.

611: 

612: Although we have described canonical decompositions of two-qubit gates

613: in some detail, we note that our proof does not actually require

614: properties of the decomposition unique to two qubits.  In fact, it is

615: straightforward to prove an analogue of Eq.~(\ref{eq:2-constraint})

616: for an $n$-qubit system.  For an $n$-qubit operator $M$, suppose we

617: define a generalized spin flip $M \rightarrow \tilde M$, where $\tilde

618: M$ is the transpose operation in a basis such that, whenever $M$ is

619: local, $M$ is orthogonal, i.e., $M\tilde M = I$.  It is not difficult

620: to construct examples of such bases, at least when $n$ is even.  An

621: example is the basis obtained by rotating the computational basis

622: using the transformation $(I-iY^{\otimes n})/\sqrt 2$, for $n$ even.

623: This basis change gives $\tilde M = Y^{\otimes n} M^T Y^{\otimes n}$,

624: where the transpose is taken in the computational basis, and thus this

625: operation generalizes the transpose in the magic basis.  In this

626: general setting the following lower bound on the time required to

627: implement an $n$-qubit gate holds:

628: \begin{cor}

629:   Let $U$ be an $n$-qubit unitary operator, and let $H$ be an

630:   $n$-qubit Hamiltonian.  Then the time required to simulate $U$ using

631:   $H$ and fast local unitaries satisfies

632:   \begin{eqnarray}

633:     {1 \over 2} \arg \lambda(U \tilde U) + \pi \vec m

634:     \prec \frac{\lambda(H+\tilde H)}{2} \, t.

635:   \label{eq:n-constraint}

636:   \end{eqnarray}

637:   for some vector of integers $\vec m$.

638: \end{cor}

639: \noindent

640: The proof follows simply by taking the arguments of both sides of

641: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Lambdau}) and applying Ky Fan's theorem.  All steps leading

642: up to Eq.~(\ref{eq:Lambdau}) remain valid for $n$-qubit systems using the

643: above definition of the generalized spin flip.

644: 

645: Unfortunately, we have not found any interesting examples with $n>2$

646: for which Eq.~(\ref{eq:n-constraint}) provides a nontrivial lower

647: bound on the time required to implement some quantum gate.  It would

648: be interesting to construct cases where Eq.~(\ref{eq:n-constraint})

649: (or some similar condition) does give a nontrivial constraint on

650: multipartite gate simulation.  One might imagine that such techniques

651: could be used to prove circuit lower bounds on certain quantum

652: computations, although it does not seem likely that such bounds would

653: be especially strong, given the well-known difficulty of this problem.

654: 

655: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

656: \acknowledgments

657: 

658: We thank Aram Harrow and Tobias Osborne for helpful discussions, and

659: Andrew Doherty for an informative seminar on related problems.

660: %

661: AMC received support from the Fannie and John Hertz Foundation, and

662: thanks the University of Queensland node of the Centre for Quantum

663: Computer Technology for its hospitality.  AMC was also supported in

664: part by the Cambridge--MIT Institute, by the Department of Energy

665: under cooperative research agreement DE-FC02-94ER40818, and by the

666: National Security Agency and Advanced Research and Development

667: Activity under Army Research Office contract DAAD19-01-1-0656.

668: %

669: Finally, we acknowledge the hospitality of the Caltech Institute for

670: Quantum Information, where this work was completed.  This work was

671: supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grant

672: EIA-0086038.

673: 

674: \appendix

675: \section*{Appendix: A method for computing the canonical parameters

676:           of a two-qubit unitary gate}

677: 

678: In this appendix, we describe a method for computing the canonical

679: parameters of a two-qubit unitary, based on the discussion in

680: Section~\ref{subsec:canonical}.  The key is to take logarithms in just

681: the right way.  From Eqs.~(\ref{eq:order})

682: and~(\ref{eq:phi1})--(\ref{eq:phi4}), we see that

683: \begin{equation}

684:   \frac{3\pi}{2} \ge 2\phi_1 \ge 2\phi_2 \ge 2\phi_3 \ge 2\phi_4

685:                  \ge -\frac{3\pi}{2}.

686: \label{eq:phiorder}

687: \end{equation}

688: It is not difficult to find examples where the first or last

689: inequality is saturated, so no single fixed branch of the logarithm

690: function can be used to determine the $\phi_j$.  One might hope

691: instead that there exists a method for choosing a different branch for

692: each particular $U$, so that the corresponding $2\phi_j$ lie within

693: that branch.  However, even this is not possible in general. To

694: understand this, note that

695: \begin{equation}

696: 2\phi_1-2\phi_4=4(\theta_x+\theta_y).  \label{eq:thetaxthetay}

697: \end{equation}

698: In cases where $\theta_x=\theta_y=\pi/4$, we have $2\phi_1-2\phi_4=2\pi$,

699: in which case the values $2\phi_j$ do not lie in {\em any} one branch.

700: 

701: We now show how to compute the $\phi_j$.  The idea is that we can first

702: take the argument of the eigenvalues in Eq.~(\ref{eq:can-eig-decomp}) over

703: some fixed branch.  Then we can systematically determine which of the

704: resulting values have been shifted by $2\pi$ from the value $2\phi_j$ (due

705: to an incorrect branch) and correct these values accordingly.

706: 

707: Let $S_j$, $j=1,\dots,4$ be defined as follows:

708: \begin{equation}

709:   2S_j=\arg (e^{2i\phi_j}).

710: \end{equation}

711: That is, $2S_j$ are the arguments of the eigenvalues of $U\tilde U$,

712: where we take the argument over the branch $(-\frac{\pi}{2},

713: \frac{3\pi}{2}]$, so that the $S_j$ are contained in the interval

714: $(-\frac{\pi}{4}, \frac{3\pi}{4}]$.  Considering the range of values

715: that $\phi_j$ may take, from Eq.~(\ref{eq:phiorder}), and the

716: particular branch we are using, it is clear that:

717: \begin{equation}

718:   S_j= \left\{

719:   \begin{array}{lcl}

720:   \phi_j+\pi &\hspace{0.5cm}&

721:   \mbox{if } \phi_j\le-\frac{\pi}{4} \\

722:   \phi_j & & \mbox{otherwise.}

723:   \end{array}

724:   \right. \label{eq:sj}

725: \end{equation}

726: {}From Eqs.~(\ref{eq:phi1})--(\ref{eq:phi4}) we have

727: \begin{equation}

728:   \phi_1+\phi_2+\phi_3+\phi_4=0. \label{eq:sumphi}

729: \end{equation}

730: Combining Eqs.~(\ref{eq:sj}) and~(\ref{eq:sumphi}), we see

731: that

732: \begin{equation}

733:   S_1+S_2+S_3+S_4=\pi n,

734: \end{equation}

735: where $n$ is the number of $\phi_j$ that are less than or equal to

736: $-\frac{\pi}{4}$. Possible values for $n$ are $0, 1, 2$ and $3$ (all

737: four $\phi_j$ cannot simultaneously be $\le-\frac{\pi}{4}$, since that

738: would contradict Eq.~(\ref{eq:sumphi})). Since the $\phi_j$ obey the

739: ordering in Eq.~(\ref{eq:phiorder}), then the $n$ values of $\phi_j$

740: that are less than or equal to $-\frac{\pi}{4}$ are

741: $\phi_4,\dots,\phi_{4-n+1}$, and the remaining $4-n$ values greater

742: than $\frac{\pi}{4}$ are $\phi_1,\dots,\phi_{4-n}$.  Thus, using

743: Eq.~(\ref{eq:sj}), we see that the set of values $S_j$ consist of $n$

744: ``shifted'' $\phi_j$ values

745: \begin{equation}

746:   \phi_4+\pi,\dots,\phi_{4-n+1}+\pi, \label{eq:shifted}

747: \end{equation}

748: and $4-n$ ``non-shifted'' values of $\phi_j$

749: \begin{equation}

750:   \phi_1,\dots,\phi_{4-n}.  \label{eq:nonshifted}

751: \end{equation}

752: Furthermore, all of the shifted values in (\ref{eq:shifted}) are no

753: less than any of the non-shifted values in (\ref{eq:nonshifted}).

754: This is shown by combining Eq.~(\ref{eq:order}) with

755: Eq.~(\ref{eq:thetaxthetay}), giving $\phi_1-\phi_4 \le \pi$, which

756: when combined with Eq.~(\ref{eq:phiorder}) implies that $\phi_j \le

757: \phi_k + \pi$ for all $j,k$, as required. Therefore, the largest $n$

758: values of $S_j$ are guaranteed to be the values in (\ref{eq:shifted}).

759: Thus subtracting $\pi$ from the largest $n$ values of $S_j$, gives us

760: $\phi_4,\dots,\phi_{4-n+1}$, and the the remaining $4-n$ values of

761: $S_j$ give us $\phi_1,\dots,\phi_{4-n}$.

762: 

763: In summary, the nonlocal parameters $\theta_x, \theta_y$ and

764: $\theta_z$ may be computed as follows. Find the arguments of the

765: eigenvalues of $U\tilde U$ over the branch $(-\frac{\pi}{2},

766: \frac{3\pi}{2}]$. Call these values $2S_j$. Calculate

767: $n=(S_1+S_2+S_3+S_4)/\pi$.  Replace the $n$ largest values of $S_j$ by

768: those values minus $\pi$.  The resulting values, when placed in

769: nonincreasing order, are equal to $(\phi_1,\phi_2,\phi_3,\phi_4)$. The

770: parameters $\theta_x,\theta_y$ and $\theta_z$ are then found by

771: inverting Eqs.~(\ref{eq:phi1})--(\ref{eq:phi4}).

772: 

773: \bibliography{mybib}

774: 

775: \end{document}

776: