7.3 Single stabiliser states

Given nn independent generators of a stabiliser group S\mathcal{S} on a Hilbert space of nn-qubits, we end up specifying a 11-dimensional subspace, meaning it is spanned by a single basis vector, namely the stabiliser state. We have already talked about the single-qubit stabiliser states determined by all possible stabilisers in P1\mathcal{P}_1, namely 0|0\rangle and 1|1\rangle for ±Z\langle \pm Z\rangle, ±|\pm\rangle for ±X\langle \pm X\rangle, and ±i|\pm i\rangle for ±Y\langle \pm Y\rangle. We have also mentioned some of the two-qubit stabilisers states, some of which are highly entangled, such as the Bell states, and some of which are separable, such as the computational basis states (whose stabilisers groups we described by block matrices with ZZ on the diagonal, 1\mathbf{1} everywhere else, and signs labelling each row depending on the binary description of the state).

Here’s another two-qubit example: that of the maximally entangled state 00+11|00\rangle+|11\rangle. This is stabilised by XX,ZZ\langle XX,ZZ\rangle, but let’s explain how we can see this. If we look first at the operator XXXX, we see that it splits the 44-dimensional Hilbert space into two 22-dimensional subspaces, corresponding to eigenvalues ±1\pm1; by definition, it stabilises the one corresponding to eigenvalue +1+1, which is spanned by 00+11|00\rangle+|11\rangle and 01+10|01\rangle+|10\rangle. Now the operator ZZZZ also splits the 44-dimensional Hilbert space into two 22-dimensional subspaces, again corresponding to eigenvalues ±1\pm1; it stabilises the one corresponding to eigenvalue +1+1, which is spanned by 00+11|00\rangle+|11\rangle and 0011|00\rangle-|11\rangle. Note that 01+10|01\rangle+|10\rangle is in the 1-1-eigenspace of ZZZZ, even though it is in the +1+1-eigenspace of XXXX (and vice versa for 0011|00\rangle-|11\rangle). So the simultaneous +1+1-eigenspace of XXXX and ZZZZ is exactly the state 00+11|00\rangle+|11\rangle. 00+11+XX+ZZ0011XX+ZZ01+10+XXZZ0110XXZZ \begin{aligned} |00\rangle+|11\rangle \longleftrightarrow \begin{array}{c|cc|} +&X&X \\+&Z&Z \end{array} \quad&\quad |00\rangle-|11\rangle \longleftrightarrow \begin{array}{c|cc|} -&X&X \\+&Z&Z \end{array} \\|01\rangle+|10\rangle \longleftrightarrow \begin{array}{c|cc|} +&X&X \\-&Z&Z \end{array} \quad&\quad |01\rangle-|10\rangle \longleftrightarrow \begin{array}{c|cc|} -&X&X \\-&Z&Z \end{array} \end{aligned}

As we have already mentioned when discussing presentations of a stabiliser group, there can be multiple different generating sets, which corresponds to the fact that there are multiple different ways of bisecting the Hilbert space. For example, the stabiliser state 00+11|00\rangle+|11\rangle is completely specified by XX,ZZ\langle XX,ZZ\rangle, as shown above, but also by XX,YY\langle XX,-YY\rangle or YY,ZZ\langle -YY,ZZ\rangle. But, as we should expect, these three generating sets all generate the same group, namely S={11,XX,YY,ZZ}\mathcal{S}=\{\mathbf{1}\mathbf{1},XX,-YY,ZZ\}.

How many nn-qubit stabiliser states do we have? The answer is 2nk=0n1(2nk+1) 2^n\prod_{k=0}^{n-1}(2^{n-k}+1) as we can show with a counting argument: we will count the number of generating sets with nn generators (since this is exactly the right number of generators to specify a 11-dimensional stabiliser subspace) and then divide by the number of presentations for any given stabiliser.149 There are 4n14^{n-1} choices for the first generator G1G_1 (ignoring overall sign), since it can be any nn-fold tensor product of the four Pauli matrices, excluding the identity 1111\mathbf{1}\mathbf{1}\mathbf{1}\mathbf{1}. For the second generator G2G_2, we have (4n/2)2(4^n/2)-2 possibilities, since it must commute with the first generator (and we know that exactly half of the operators commute with any given operator, as shown in Exercise 7.8.3, whence 4n/24^n/2) and it cannot be 1111\mathbf{1}\mathbf{1}\mathbf{1}\mathbf{1} or G1G_1 (whence 2-2). Similarly, G3G_3 must commute with both G1G_1 and G2G_2, but it cannot be in the group generated by them, so there are (4n/4)4(4^n/4)-4 possible choices, and so on. This means that we have 2n(4n1)(4n22)(4n44)(4n2n12n1) 2^n(4^n-1)\left(\frac{4^n}{2}-2\right)\left(\frac{4^n}{4}-4\right)\ldots\left(\frac{4^n}{2^{n-1}}-2^{n-1}\right) possible generating sets in total. Now we need to divide by the number of presentations, but we have already calculated this in Section 7.2: it’s exactly (2n1)(2n2)(2n22)(2n2n1). (2^n-1)(2^n-2)(2^n-2^2)\ldots(2^n-2^{n-1}). It is a fun algebra exercise to show that this division indeed gives the number we claimed.

As we will see, stabiliser states are ubiquitous in quantum information theory due to their versatility and relative simplicity. They play a crucial role in areas such as quantum error correction, measurement-based quantum computation, and entanglement classification.


  1. This is a common technique in combinatorial arguments: first overcount, and then fix your answer by accounting for this.↩︎