Graduate Expectation Value of a Stabilizer

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the expectation value of a stabilizer operator ##S_M##, composed of ##Y## and ##Z## Pauli operators, in the context of a graph state ##G##. It references a paper that presents the expectation value as a trace involving a unitary transformation of the graph state. The author explores the implications of working in the Heisenberg picture and questions the assumption of Hermiticity for the expression involving ##S_M## and a unitary operator. Clarification is provided regarding the nature of the Pauli operators, specifically how the commutation and anti-commutation relations between ##S_M## and the sum of ##X_i## operators affect the calculations. The discussion concludes with an understanding of the behavior of the stabilizer under these transformations.
Johny Boy
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
Interested in the form of the expectation value of a stabilizer operator used in a quantum information paper on graph states.
Given that operator ##S_M##, which consists entirely of ##Y## and ##Z## Pauli operators, is a stabilizer of some graph state ##G## i.e. the eigenvalue equation is given as ##S_MG = G## (eigenvalue ##1##).

In the paper 'Graph States as a Resource for Quantum Metrology' (page 3) it states that the expectation value is given by

\begin{align*}
\langle S_M \rangle &= \text{Tr}(e^{i\frac{\theta}{2}\sum_{i=0}^{n}X_i}S_M e^{-i\frac{\theta}{2}\sum_{i=0}^{n}X_i}G) \\
&= \text{Tr}(e^{i \theta \sum_{i=0}^{n}X_i}G).
\end{align*}

It seems that they are working in the Heisenberg picture and the above equations imply that
$$
S_M e^{-i\frac{\theta}{2}\sum_{i=0}^{n}X_i} = (S_M e^{-i\frac{\theta}{2}\sum_{i=0}^{n}X_i})^{\dagger} = e^{i\frac{\theta}{2}\sum_{i=0}^{n}X_i^\dagger}S_{M}^{\dagger} = e^{i\frac{\theta}{2}\sum_{i=0}^{n}X_i}S_{M},
$$
but in order to do this I assumed that ##S_M e^{-i\frac{\theta}{2}\sum_{i=0}^{n}X_i}## is Hermitian. We only know that ##S_M## is Hermitian and unitary (being Pauli operators) and ##e^{-i\frac{\theta}{2}\sum_{i=0}^{n}X_i}## is unitary. What am I missing that allows the above simplification?

Thanks for any assistance.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
This was giving fits until I realized that ##X_i## is meant to be a Pauli ##X## operator. With that it's easy: ##YX = -XY## and ##ZX = -ZY##. Assuming that "##S_M## is entirely ##Y## and ##Z## operators" means
$$S_M = \sum_{i=0}^{n}W_i$$
where ##W_i## is ##X_i## or ##Z_i##, then
$$S_Me^{-i\frac{\theta}{2}\sum_{i=0}^{n}X_i}\
=S_M \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \big(-i\frac{\theta}{2}\sum_{i=0}^{n}X_i\big)^k$$
For even values of ##k##, ##(\sum_{i=0}^{n}X_i)^k## is the identity operator. So ##S_M## and ##(\sum_{i=0}^{n}X_i)^k## commute for even values of ##k## and anti-commute for odd values.
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
940
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
815
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
15K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K