arxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 2 Jan 2013

Transcription

1 Global Quantum Crcut Optmaton R. Das da Slva 1, E. Pus 2, and E. Kashef 2 arxv: v1 [quant-ph] 2 an Insttuto de Físca, Unversdade Federal Flumnense, Av. Gal. Mlton Tavares de Soua s/n, Gragoatá, Nteró, R, , Bral 2 School of Informatcs, Unversty of Ednburgh, 10 Crchton Street, Ednburgh EH8 9AB, UK anuary 4, 2013 Abstract One of the man goals n quantum crcut optmsaton s to reduce the number of ancllary qubts and the depth of computaton, to obtan robust computaton. However, most of nown technques, based on local rewrtng rules, for parallelsng quantum crcuts wll requre the addton of anclla qubts, leadng to an undesred space-tme tradeoff. Recently several novel approaches based on measurement-based quantum computaton (MBQC) technques attempted to resolve ths problem. The ey element s to explore the global structure of a gven crcut, defned va translaton nto a correspondng MBQC pattern. It s nown that the parallel power of MBQC s superor to the quantum crcut model, and hence n these approaches one could apply the MBQC depth optmsaton technques to acheve a lower depth. However, currently, once the obtaned parallel pattern s translated bac to a quantum crcut, one should ether ncrease the depth or add anclla qubts. In ths paper we characterse those computatons where both optmsaton could be acheved together. In dong so we present a new connecton between two MBQC depth optmsaton procedures, nown as the maxmally delayed generalsed flow and sgnal shftng. Ths structural ln wll allow us to apply an MBQC qubt optmsaton procedure nown as compactfcaton to a large class of pattern ncludng all those obtaned from any arbtrary quantum crcut. We also present a more effcent algorthm (compared to the exstng one) for fndng the maxmally delayed generalsed flow for graph states wth flow. The frst two authors have contrbuted equally to ths wor. 1

2 Contents 1 Introducton and bacground materal The MBQC Model Determnsm n MBQC Depth optmsaton tools for MBQC Sgnal shfted flow Influencng paths Optmalty of sgnal shftng The last two layers Reducng the open graph Movng bac Proof of the optmalty theorem Compact crcuts from sgnal shfted flow Extended translaton Compactfcaton procedures Obtanng optmsed compact crcuts Complexty analyss 46 5 Dscusson and summary of results 48 2

3 1 Introducton and bacground materal We are slowly reachng the classcal lmt of current technology n decreasng the se of computer chps. Hence to avod quantum effect and also to reduce heat generaton parallel computng has become the domnant paradgm n computer archtecture. On the other hand n the quantum doman reducng the depth would be essental for eepng the computaton coherent to avod classcal effect. In both scenaros desgnng parallel crcut remans a challengng tas. Hence one attempts to rewrte locally a gven crcut to reduce the depth of the computaton. Usually such an approach wll add anclla regsters to acheve the parallelsaton, ths beng an undesred effect n the quantum settng as addton of anclla qubts could ncrease the decoherence, breachng the ntal purpose of parallelsaton. In ths paper we present a general optmsaton technques for quantum crcut that explots the global structure of a gven computaton to acheve parallelsaton wth no anclla addton. Our technque s based on the translaton of a gven quantum crcut [1, 2] nto a measurementbased quantum computaton (MBQC) [3, 4]. These two models utlse remarably dfferent nformaton processng tools: whle the former s based on untary evoluton of an ntally non-entangled set of qubts, the latter needs an ntal hghly-entangled mult-qubt state, where the nformaton processng s drven by measurements only. Naturally snce the two aforementoned models use dfferent nformaton processng tools, hence each model has ts own optmsaton technques. In the MBQC model, for nstance, most of the optmaton technques are based on the dentfcaton of a more effcent correcton structure that s drectly lned to the geometry of the underlyng global entanglement structure. Examples of these technques are the sgnal shftng [4] and the generalsed flow [5], both dscussed n followng sectons. The so-called standardsaton procedure [4] can also reduce the number of computatonal steps by rearrangng the MBQC operatons nto a normal form. Moreover, all Paul measurements n ths model can be performed n the begnnng of the computaton [6], whch s a surprsng dfference from the quantum crcut model. On the other hand, most optmaton technques for quantum crcuts are based on template dentfcaton and substtuton. For nstance n [7], some crcut denttes are used to modfy the teleportaton and dense codng protocols, wth the purpose of gvng a more ntutve understandng of those protocols. Smlarly n [8] and [9] a set of crcut denttes for reducng the number of gates n the crcut for se optmaton was gven. In contrast to that, n [10] a useful set of technques for crcut parallelsaton was provded, where the number of computatonal steps s reduced by usng addtonal resources. However, as noted n [8], all the aforementoned crcut optmaton technques are bascally exchangng a sequence of gates for a dfferent one wthout any consderaton on the structure of the complete crcut beng optmsed. The translaton nto MBQC would allow us to explore the global structure of a gven crcut. The frst such a scheme by bac and forth translaton between the two models was presented n [11]. However the bacward translaton nto the crcut requred the addton of many anclla qubts. On the other hand several recent wors presented an optmsed translaton scheme from MBQC nto the crcut where all the non-nput qubts are removed, referred herenafter as compact translaton [4, 12, 13, 28]. The prce for dong that happened to be the loss of the optmal depth of the orgnal MBQC. The ey result of our paper s a new scheme for the parallelsaton where the obtaned MBQC pattern could be translated compactly. Our scheme s based on a new theoretcal connecton between two MBQC depth optmsaton procedures, nown as the maxmally delayed generalsed flow [14] and sgnal shftng, whch could lead to other nterestng observaton about MBQC, beyond the purpose of ths paper as we dscuss later. Also our result hghlghts the fundamental role of the MBQC Paul optmsaton n obtanng MBQC parallel structure beyond anythng obtanable n the quantum crcut model, descrbed later. We prove how our proposed scheme s more optmal n both 3

4 depth and space compare to the scheme n [11]. We conclude wth a new algorthm for fndng the maxmally delayed generalsed flow for graphs wth flow wth O(n 3 ) steps compared to the exctng algorthm n [14], where n s the number of the nodes n the graph. 1.1 The MBQC Model We revew the basc deas behnd the measurement-based quantum computaton, wth specal attenton to ts descrpton n terms of the formal language nown as Measurement Calculus [4], and the flow theorems [15, 5]. In 1999 Chuang and Gottesman descrbed how one could apply arbtrary quantum gates usng an adaptaton of the quantum teleportaton model [16]. Ths approach was further developed by other researchers [17, 18, 19, 20], enablng one n prncple to perform arbtrary computatons gven a few prmtves: preparaton of maxmally entangled systems of fxed, small dmenson; mult-qubt measurements on arbtrary set of qubts; and the possblty of adaptng the measurement bases dependng on earler measurement outcomes. These models of computaton draw on measurements to mplement the dynamcs, and as such named collectvely the measurement-based model of quantum computaton (MBQC), for an overvew see the paper by osa [21]. An MBQC model usng only sngle qubt measurements was proposed by Raussendorf and Bregel n 2001, whch became nown as the one-way model [6]. The one-way model acheves unversalty through the preparaton of a specal type of entangled states, the so-called cluster states [22]. These states are created wth the CZ gate actng on qubts prepared n the state + = 1 2 ( ) arranged n a regular lattce, usually the two-dmensonal ones. Ths can be relaxed to create more general states wth the same nteracton over general graphs, creatng the so-called graph states [23]. Both cluster and graph states can be represented graphcally, usng vertces denotng the qubts and edges for the two-qubt entanglng gate CZ. Therefore, the entangled resource for the one-way model can be fully represented as graphs. Although two-dmensonal cluster states can be used as resource for unversal quantum computaton n the one-way model, arbtrary graph states may, or may not, serve for the same purpose; nvestgatng whch nds of entangled states are useful resources for MBQC s an actve area of research [24, 25, 26, 27]. A formal language to descrbe n a compact way the operatons needed for the one-way model was proposed n [4]. The language could be easly adapted to any other type of measurement-based model hence n the rest of ths paper we refer to the general MBQC term nstead of the specfc one-way model as our scheme could be applcable to any MBQC models. In ths framewor every MBQC algorthm (usually referred to as an MBQC pattern) nvolves a sequence of operatons such as entanglng gates, measurements and feed-forwardng of outcome results to determne further measurement bases. A measurement pattern, or smply a pattern, s defned by a choce of a set of worng qubts V, a subset of nput qubts (I), another subset of output qubts (O), and a fnte sequence of commands actng on qubts n V. Therefore, we consder patterns assocated to the so-called open graphs: Defnton 1 (open graph). An open graph s a trplet (G, I, O), where G = (V, E) s a undrected graph, and I, O V are respectvely called nput and output vertces. An example of an open graph s shown n Fgure 3. There are four types of commands, the frst s the qubt ntalsaton command N that prepares qubt n the state +. The nput qubts are already gven as a prepared state. The entanglng command E j CZ j corresponds to the CZ gate 4

5 between qubts and j, where Z The sngle-qubt measurement command M θ corresponds to a measurement of qubt n the bass ± θ 1 2 ( 0 ± e θ 1 ), wth outcome s = 0 assocated wth + θ, and outcome 1 wth θ. The measurement outcomes are usually referred as sgnals. Fnally, the correctons may be of two types, ether Paul X or Paul Z, and they may depend on any pror measurement results, denoted by s = j V s j (s j = 0 or 1 and the summaton s done modulo two). Ths dependency can be summarsed as correcton commands: X s and Z s denotng a Paul X and Z correctons on qubt whch must be appled only when the party of the measurement outcomes on qubts j V equals one (as Z 0 = X 0 = I). A characterstc of the MBQC model s that the choce of measurement bases may depend on earler measurement outcomes. These dependent measurements can be convenently wrtten as t [M θ]s, where t[m θ ] s M θ X s Z t = M ( 1)s θ+tπ, (1) where t s understood that the operatons are performed n the order from rght to left n the sequence. The left (t) and rght (s) dependences of the measurement M are called ts Z and X dependences, respectvely. A pattern s runnable, that s, corresponds to a physcally sound sequence of operatons, f t satsfes the followng requrements: (R0) no command depends on outcomes not yet measured; (R1) no command acts on a qubt already measured or not yet prepared, wth the obvous excepton of the preparaton commands; (R2) a qubt undergoes measurement (preparaton) ff t s not an output (nput) qubt. As an example, tae the pattern consstng of the choces V = {1, 2}, I = {1}, O = {2} and the sequence of commands: X s 1 2 M 1 θ E 12N2 0. (2) Ths sequence of operatons does the followng: frst t ntalses the output qubt 2 n the state + ; then t apples Z on qubts 1 and 2; followed by a measurement of nput qubt 1 onto the bass {1/ 2( 0 + e θ 1 ), 1/ 2( 0 e θ 1 )}. If the result s the latter vector then the one-bt outcome s s 1 = 1 and there s a correcton on the second qubt (X2 1 = X 2), otherwse no correcton s necessary. A smple calculaton shows that ths pattern mplements the untary θ on the state prepared n qubt 1, outputtng the result on qubt 2, where θ 1 ( 1 e θ 2 1 e θ ). (3) The smple sequence above s a convenent buldng bloc of more complcated computatons n the MBQC model. Ths s because the set of sngle qubt θ ( θ) together wth CZ on arbtrary pars of qubts can be shown to be a unversal set of gates for quantum computaton [2]. The followng rewrte rules ([4]) put the command sequence n the standard form, where preparaton s done frst followed by the entanglement, measurements and correctons: E j X s X s Z s j E j (4) E j Z s Z s E j (5) t[m θ ] s X r t [M θ ] s+r (6) t[m θ ] s Z r r+t [M θ ] s (7) 5

6 Ths procedure s called standardsaton and can drectly change the dependences structure commands, possbly reducng the computatonal depth, wthout breang the causalty orderng [11]. 1.2 Determnsm n MBQC Due to the probablstc nature of quantum measurement, not every measurement pattern mplements a determnstc computaton a completely postve, trace-preservng (cptp) map that sends pure states to pure states. We wll refer to the collecton of possble measurement outcomes as a branch of the computaton. In ths paper, we consder determnstc patterns whch satsfes three condtons: (1) the probablty of obtanng each branch s the same, called strong determnsm; (2) for any measurement angle we have determnsm, called unform determnsm; and (3) whch are determnstc after each sngle measurement, called stepwse determnsm. We wll call those patterns smply determnstc patterns. Here snce we are only worng wth quantum crcuts we don t need to be concerned wth other stronger notons of determnsm defned for MBQC pattern such as n [29]. In [15] condtons over a graph (nows as flow) are presented n order to dentfy a dependency structure for the measurement sequence assocated to open graph to obtan determnsm. In what follows, we call non-nput vertces as I C (complement of I n the graph) and non-output vertces as O C (complement of O n the graph). Defnton 2 (Flow [15]). We say that an open graph (G, I, O) has flow ff there exsts a map f : O C I C and a strct partal order f over all vertces n the graph such that for all O C (F1) f f(); (F2) f j N(f()), then j = or f j, where N(v) s the neghbourhood of v; (F3) N(f()); Effcent algorthms for fndng flow (f t exst) can be found n [31, 14]. The flow functon f s a one-to-one functon. The proof s trval, but as ths property s extensvely used n ths wor we wll present the proof n ths paper. Lemma 1. Let (f, f ) be a flow on an open graph (G, I, O). The functon f s an njectve functon,.e. for every O C, f() s unque. Proof. Let us assume that for some O C, f() s not unque,.e. there exsts j O C such that j but f() = f(j). Then accordng to the flow defnton: j N(f()) f j, N(f(j)) j f, and we arrve to a contradcton because f j and j f cannot be true at the same tme. Hence f() has to be unque. In the case where I = O, the flow functon nduces a crcut-le structure n a graph, n the sense that for each nput qubt I, there exsts a number n such that f n () O and the vertex sequence {, f(), f[f()], f[f[f()]]},..., f n ()}, (8) can be translated to a sngle wre n the crcut model. A smple example can be seen n Fgure 1.2. Ths crcut-le structure s an nterestng feature of the flow functon, snce t allows a very smple translaton procedure called star decomposton ntroduced n [15]. 6

7 (a) (b) Fgure 1: Example of graphs satsfyng the condtons of (a) flow and (b) gflow. Each vertex represent a qubt, where the blac vertces represent measured qubts and the whte ones are unmeasured qubts. The nput qubts are represented by boxed vertces and the arrows hghlght the dependency structure, snce t ponts to vertces belongng to the correctng set of the measured qubt from where t came from. The dashed lne wth an arrow represent the case where the vertex from the correctng set s a non-neghbourng vertex (vertces not lned by an edge). Flow provdes only a suffcent condton for determnsm but one can generalse the above defnton to obtan a condton that s both necessary and suffcent. Ths generalsaton allows correctng sets wth more than one element. In those cases, we say that the graph has generalsed flow (or smply gflow). In what follows we defne Odd(K) = {, N G () K = 1 mod 2} to be the set of vertces where each element s connected wth the set K by an odd number of edges. Defnton 3 (Generalsed flow [5]). We say (G, I, O) has generalsed flow f there exsts a map g : O C P IC (the set of all subsets of non-nput qubts) and a partal order g over all vertces n the graph such that for all O C, (G1) f j g() then g j; (G2) f j Odd(g()) then j = or g j; (G3) Odd(g()); The set g() s often referred to as the correctng set for qubt. It s mportant to note that flow s a specal case of gflow, where g() contans only one element. Ths s a ey dfference regardng the translaton of measurement patterns to quantum crcuts. An example of a graph wth gflow (but no flow) s shown n Fgure 1.2. The gflow partal oder leads to an arrangement of the vertces nto layers (see below), n whch all the correspondng measurements can be performed smultaneously. The number of layers corresponds to the number of parallel steps n whch a computaton could be fnshed, nown as the depth of the pattern. Defnton 4 (Depth of a gflow [14]). For a gven open graph (G, I, O) and a gflow (g, g ) of (G, I, O), let { max g (V (G)) f = 0 V g = max g (V (G) \ ( < V g )) f > 0 7

8 where max(x) g = {u X s.t. v X, (u g v)} s the set of maxmal elements of X accordng to g. The depth d g of the gflow s the smallest d such that V g d+1 =, (V ) =0...d g s a partton of V (G) nto d g + 1 layers. We defne the layerng functon of a gflow based on the above dstrbuton of vertces nto layers. Defnton 5 (Layerng functon). Gven a gflow (g, g ) on an open graph (G, I, O) we defne ts layerng functon L g : V (G) N to be the natural number such that V g. There s another useful way to understand the depth of a gflow. A gflow can be represented as a drected graph on top of an open graph as shown n Fgure 1.2. The longest path from nputs to outputs over those drected edges corresponds to the depth of the gflow. In [14] t was shown, that a specal type of gflow, called a maxmally delayed gflow, has mnmal depth. Defnton 6 (Maxmally delayed gflow [14]). For a gven open graph (G, I, O) and two gven gflows (g, g ) and (g, g ) of (G, I, O), (g, g ) s more delayed than (g, g ) f, =0... V g =0... V g and there exsts a such that the nequalty s strct. A gflow (g, g ) s maxmally delayed f there exsts no gflow of the same graph that s more delayed. We wll smply refer to the maxmally delayed gflow as the optmal gflow. Note that n [14] t was proven that the layerng of the vertces mposed by an optmal gflow (g, g ) s always unque, however the gflow tself mght not be unque. Ths s an mportant property together wth the followng lemmas that we wll explot later for our man result on lnng gflow to other nown structures for MBQC. Lemma 2 (Lemma 1 from [14]). If (g, ) s a maxmally delayed gflow of (G, I, O) then V 0 = O. Lemma 3 (Lemma 2 from [14]). If (g, ) s a maxmally delayed gflow of (G, I, O) then ( g, g ) s a maxmally delayed gflow of (G, I, O V1 ) where g s the restrcton of g to V (G) \ (V1 V 0 ) and g = \V1 V 0. 2 Depth optmsaton tools for MBQC Th parallel power of MBQC s proven to be equvalent to quantum crcut augmented wth free unbounded fanout [30]. Ths motvates to use MBQC as an automated tool for crcut parallelsaton as t was frst presented n [11]. Another way to obtan parallel MBQC structure s to extract the entanglement graph of the pattern and obtan the optmal gflow of the graph [14]. Then one performs the requred correctons accordng to ths structure. Our frst man result s to show the equvalence between these two seemngly very dfferent technque for the patterns obtaned from a quantum crcut, that s those wth flow. More precsely we show how the effect of performng sgnal shftng optmsaton (that s the core dea n [11]) result n a maxmally delayed gflow. Ths structural ln shed further lghts on the complcated structure of maxmally delayed gflow and permt us to fnd a new effcent algorthm for fndng t for the large class of patterns obtaned form a crcut. 2.1 Sgnal shfted flow We proceed wth revewng the rules for sgnal shftng defned n [4]: t[m α ] s S t [M α ] s (9) X s j S t S t X s[(t+s )/s ] j (10) Z s j S t S t Z s[(t+s )/s ] j (11) 8

9 where S t s the sgnal shftng command (addng t to s ) and s[t/s ] denotes the substtuton of s wth t n s. Sgnal shftng, can be utlsed to parallelse MBQC patterns and quantum crcuts [11]. The rest of ths secton s focused on varous structural propertes of the sgnal shftng. As can be seen from the above rules, sgnal shftng rewrtes the X- and Z-correctons of a measurement pattern n a well defned manner. In partcular, t wll move all the Z-correctons to the end of the pattern, thereby ntroducng new X-correctons when Rule 10 s appled. It s proven n [11] that sgnal shftng wll never ncrease the depth of an MBQC pattern, although t can decrease t. In the case when the depth decreases, t s the consequence of the removal of the Z-correctons on the measured qubts by applyng Rule 9. The Rules 9-11 can be nterpreted n the followng way. Sgnal shftng taes a sgnal from a Z-correcton on a measured qubt (Rule 9) and adds t to the correctons that depend on the outcome of the measurement of (Rules 10-11). When the sgnal moves to an X-correcton command, then t won t propagate any further. If the sgnal was added to another Z-correcton of a measured vertex, then sgnal shftng can be appled agan untl no Z-correctons are left on non-output vertces. Therefore sgnals move along a path created by the Z-correctons. The propagaton of sgnals n an MBQC pattern can be descrbed by a Z-path as defned below. Defnton 7. Let M be a measurement pattern on an open graph (G, I, O). Then we defne a drected acyclc graph, called G Z, on the vertces of G such that there exsts a drected edge from to j ff there exsts a correcton command Z s j n M. A path n G Z between two vertces v and u s called a Z-path. The above defnton allows us to state a smple observaton about connectvty of a graph wth flow. Lemma 4. If (f, f ) s a flow on an open graph (G, I, O), and there exsts a Z-path from vertex to vertex j, then the vertces and f(j) cannot be connected. Proof. The exstence of a Z-path from to j mples that f j. The Z dependency graph s an acyclc graph, thus j. If would be connected to f(j), then accordng to the flow property (F2): N(f(j)) j j f Now we have two contradctng strct partal order relatons f j and j f. Therefore cannot be connected to f(j). Recall that the addton of sgnals s done modulo 2, therefore, f an even number of sgnals from a measured vertex s added to a correcton command on vertex j, the sgnals wll cancel out (snce Z 2 = X 2 = I). Furthermore, t s evdent from the rewrte Rules of 9-11 that after sgnal shftng, the measurement result of vertex wll create a new X-correcton over vertex j f there exst an odd number of Z-paths from to a vertex that j s X-dependent on drectly before sgnal shftng. Smlarly a new Z-correcton from to j wll be created f there exsts an odd number of Z-paths from to j. Ether way, the number of Z-paths from a vertex to another vertex j, denoted as ζ (j), can be used to determne f the sgnal from should be added to a correcton. We defne ζ () to be 1 to smplfy further calculatons and defntons n ths paper. The mportance of the number of Z-paths wll manfest tself n the next subsecton, when the relaton between sgnal shftng and gflows s studed. We defne a new structure called the sgnal shfted flow (SSF), and show that t satsfes the three gflow propertes n Defnton 3. Before constructng the SSF, some defntons and lemmas are needed to justfy our defnton. Note that f an open graph (G, I, O) has a flow (f, f ), then we can wrte the MBQC pattern of a determnstc computatons on ths open graph as [15]: 9

10 P = f O C ( ) X s f() Zs N(f())\{} M α E G N I C (12) where the product follows the strct partal order f of the flow (f, f ). From Equaton 12 we see that a Z-correcton on a vertex j dependng on the measurement outcome of another vertex appears only f j s a neghbour of f(). Ths s formally stated n the next corollary as we wll refer to t several tmes. Corollary 1. If (G, I, O) s an open graph wth a flow (f, f ), then there exsts a Z-correcton from vertex to another vertex j ff j N(f()) \ {}. We defne Z-dependency neghbourhood of a vertex j to be the set of vertces from whch j s recevng a Z-correcton from. Ths set has an explct form gven as N Z (j) = { O C f() N(j)\{f(j)}}, ths s due to the followng facts: for all vertces O C, from flow defnton f() exsts also snce f() / {f(j)} hence cannot be equal to j and moreover snce f() N(j) j N(f()) therefore accordng to Corollary 1 there exsts a Z-correcton from to j. It s easy to see, that ζ (j) can be wrtten as: ζ (j) = ζ () (13) N Z (j) There exsts a Z-correcton from every N Z (j) to j. These Z-correctons can be used to extend every such Z-path to to reach j. If s n the sum, then because ζ () = 1 the correct number of Z-paths s obtaned wth Equaton 13. We now present the complete algorthm (Algorthm 1) for sgnal shftng a flow pattern shown n Equaton 12. We eep n mnd that the order n whch we apply the sgnal shftng rules does not matter [15]. Proposton 1. Gven the measurement pattern P of a flow (f, f ) as defned n Equaton 12 as nput to Algorthm 1, the output wll be the sgnal shfted measurement pattern of P. Proof. We wll prove ths proposton by showng that: Algorthm 1 termnates. Every step n Algorthm 1 that modfes the pattern P s a vald applcaton of a sgnal shftng rewrte rule. The output of Algorthm 1, the pattern P, s sgnal shfted. We begn by showng that Algorthm 1 wll termnate. The frst whle loop wll obvously termnate, as we decrease the number of elements on each loop teraton and never add anythng to the set B. The second whle loop wll not termnate only f some Z s command wll be added to the pattern an nfnte number of tmes. As the underlyng graph s fnte and a Z s command represents a drected edge n the Z-correcton graph, ths mples the exstence of a cycle n the graph, however ths s mpossble accordng to the flow defnton. The for loop n the algorthm termnates because the graph tself s fnte, hence Algorthm 1 has to termnate. For Algorthm 1 to actually perform the sgnal shftng, ts operatons have to be ether trval commutng rules or the three sgnal shftng Rules As can be easly seen from the algorthm, 10

11 Algorthm 1: SgnalShf t Input: A measurement pattern P wth flow (f, f ) as defned n Equaton 12. Output: The sgnal shfted pattern P of P. 1 begn 2 B = O C ; 3 P = P ; 4 whle B do 5 select any vertex B whch s smallest accordng to f ; 6 B = B \ {}; 7 whle B s.t. Z s P do 8 Move the Z s command next to the M α command; 9 Use Rule 9 on P to create the sgnal command S s 10 // Removes the Z s command from P ; 11 Use Rule 10 on P to create a new X s f() command; 12 for j N(f()) \ {} do 13 Use Rule 11 on P to create a new Z s j 14 Move S s ; command. to the end of the pattern and remove t. the operatons done are ndeed the sgnal shftng rewrte Rules We stll need to prove, that these rules can be appled n the order shown n the algorthm. Obvously we can use Rule 9 on lne 8 to create the sgnal command due to the fact that B O C and that every non-output qubt s measured. Hence we have the measurement requred for the creaton of the sgnal command n the pattern. We now that Z s has to be n the pattern after the command M α and before M α. The entanglement and creaton commands are the frst commands n the pattern and we do not need to move the Z s command past them. Hence we only need to move Zs past measurement commands on qubts that are not and and other correcton commands. These can be done trvally and hence we can always move the Z s command next to M α to apply Rule 9. Next we want to move the newly created S command to the end of the measurement pattern. To do that we need to commute t past the commands that appear after t. The only commands S commutes non-trvally wth are the ones that depend on the measurement of qubt as can be seen from Rules Those are the X- and Z-correctons dependng on the measurement outcome of qubt. Accordng to Equaton 12 there s exactly one such X-correcton n the pattern P, namely Xf(). Also the prevous steps of the algorthm could not have created any dependences from qubt. The Z-correcton commands have only been created dependng on vertces that we already moved from B. Therefore we need to create exactly one new X-correcton command usng Rule 10. We also loo at the Z-correctons dependng on and from Equaton 12 we see that n the orgnal pattern these are on vertces from the set N(f()) \ {}. As for the X-correctons we also have not created any new Z-correctons from n the prevous steps of the algorthm. Hence ths s exactly the set of correctons we need to commute wth and apply Rule 11. We are only left wth commands after S n the pattern that commute trvally wth S. We can move the command at the end of the pattern. The sgnal command at the end of the pattern does not nfluence the computaton and we wll not add any new commands to the end of the pattern. Hence we can remove the S command from the pattern. Fnally we show that no more sgnal shftng rules can be appled after the completon of Algorthm 1,.e. the pattern P s sgnal shfted. We elmnate all Z-correctons actng on a non-output qubt 11

12 dependng on a vertex after removng t from the set B and wll afterwards never create any new Z-correctons dependng on that vertex. At the end of the algorthm the set B s empty, hence there cannot exst any non-output qubt that has a Z-correcton actng on t and Rule 9 cannot be appled anymore. Moreover, snce every sgnal command s at the end of the pattern, we cannot apply the Rules 10 and 11 nether, that completes the proof. We consder any trval commutaton of a pattern commands resultng to an equvalent pattern. Therefore the above algorthm defnes the unque pattern obtaned after sgnal shftng. Note that Algorthm 1 wors almost le a drected graph traversal, where there s a drected edge from vertex to ff there exsts the command Z s n the measurement pattern. The only dfference from a classcal drected graph traversal s that we allow vstng of a vertex more than only once. Hence we wll traverse through every dfferent path n the graph however we do that exactly once. As mentoned before, the evenness of the number of Z-paths can be used to determne f a sgnal s added to a correcton command. Let party(n) be the functon that determnes the oddness or evenness of the nteger n,.e. party(n) = n mod 2. Then f an open graph has a flow, the oddness of ζ (j) can be found as descrbed n the followng lemma. Lemma 5. For every two vertces and j n an open graph (G, I, O) wth flow (f, f ) party(ζ (j)) = {N Z (j) party(ζ ()) = 1} mod 2.e. party(ζ (j)) depends only on the number of vertces n the Z-dependency neghbourhood whch have odd number of Z-paths from. Proof. The oddness of ζ (j) can be wrtten as party(ζ (j)) = ζ () mod 2 = = = N Z (j) N Z (j) (ζ () mod 2) mod 2 = { N Z (j) 1=ζ () mod 2} (ζ () mod 2) mod 2 = = { N Z (j) 1 = ζ () mod 2} mod 2 = = { N Z (j) party(ζ ()) = 1} mod 2 All these notons wll allow us to defne the structure of the pattern after sgnal shftng s beng performed. Proposton 2. Gven a flow (f, f ) on an open graph (G, I, O), let s be a functon from O C P IC such that j s() ff party(ζ (f 1 (j))) = 1. Also defne L s to be a layerng functon from V (G) nto a natural number: L s () = 0 L s () = max j s() (L s(j) + 1) O / O 12

13 Defne the strct partal order s wth: s j L s () > L s (j) Then, the applcaton of sgnal shftng Rules 9-11 over an MBQC pattern wth flow (f, f ) wll lead to the followng pattern: P = Z s.party(ζ(j)) j j O, I C s O C ( ) X s s() M α E G N I C (14) Proof. The proof s dvded nto three parts. Frst we wll show that sgnal shftng creates exactly the pattern commands shown n Equaton 14. We proceed by showng, that the layerng functon L s s defned for every V (G). Lastly, we need to prove that usng the partal order s derved from L s for orderng the commands as n Equaton 14 gves a vald measurement pattern. Note that the preparaton commands (NI C), entanglement commands (E G) and measurement commands (M α ) are the same for Equatons 12 and 14. Because sgnal shftng would not change these commands (Rules 9-11) these are as requred for a sgnal shfted pattern. Hence we need only to consder the correcton commands. We wll loo at the correcton commands that would appear n a sgnal shfted pattern. We do ths by examnng the sgnal shftng algorthm (Algorthm 1). As mentoned before, the algorthm wors as a drected graph traversal, n a way that every dstnct path s traversed o. As seen n the algorthm every Z s correcton actng on a non-output qubt s removed from the pattern. Ths s n accordance wth the proposed pattern n Equaton 14. Let us examne whch new correctons are created. The number of newly created X s j depends on the number of tmes we enter the frst loop wth command Z s. As the algorthm s a drected graph traversal algorthm, ths happens as many f 1 (j) tmes as there are dfferent paths over the Z-dependency graph from to f 1 (j). Because the same two X s l correctons cancel each other, hence a new X-correcton appears n a sgnal shfted pattern only f party(ζ (f 1 (j))) = 1. We also note that no new X ( f()) s correcton s created snce there exst no Z-path between and f 1 (f()). On the other hand Algorthm 1 leaves the already exsted X correctons unchanged and moreover snce we have defned ζ () = 1 therefore f() s(). Ths mples that the set s() does ndeed contan all the vertces that have an X-correcton dependng on s after sgnal shftng s performed. The number of newly created Z-correctons on an output vertex j dependng on a vertex appearng n the sgnal shfted pattern s equal to the number of dfferent paths from to j. The dfference wth non-output qubts s that these wll not be removed through the process of sgnal shftng. As wth X-correctons, two Z-correcton commands on the same qubt wll cancel each other out and hence the exstence of a Z s j n the fnal pattern depends on the party of the number of paths from to j. Ths can be wrtten n short as: Z s party(ζ (j)) j Hence the measurement pattern n Equaton 14 has exactly the same commands as the sgnal shfted pattern n Equaton 12. Another thng we need to proof s that the layerng functon L s s defned for every V (G). As proven above, the X-correctons dependng on the measurement of qubt v correspond to the set s(v). Hence we can nterpret the defnton of L s (v) as fndng the maxmum value of L s for every vertex that has an X-correcton from v and addng 1 to t. The recursve defnton of L s (v) s well defned, f for every non-output qubt we can fnd a path over X-correctons endng at an output 13

14 qubt. We now that sgnal shftng of a vald pattern creates another vald pattern. Ths mples that the X-correctons cannot create a cyclc dependency structure and hence every path over the X-correctons has an endpont. Moreover such a path cannot end on a non-output qubt snce f() s() and one could always extend that path wth f(). Therefore L s (v) s well defned. Fnally, t s easy to show that the partal order s as used n Equaton 14 gves a vald orderng of the commands. Every vertex j that has an X-correcton dependng on the measurement of qubt has a smaller L s number and hence s j. Ths way no X-correcton command acts on an already measured qubt and because the Z-correctons are appled only on output qubts, the correcton orderng s vald. Every other command s appled before the measurement command and hence the pattern n Equaton 14 s a vald measurement pattern. Gven an open graph wth a flow, we refer to the constructon of the above proposton as ts correspondng sgnal shfted flow (SSF). The man theorem of ths secton states that every SSF s actually a specal case of a gflow. Corollary 2. If (G, I, O) s an open graph wth flow (f, f ) and SSF (s, s ) then for every vertex and j such that f(j) s() \ {f()}, we can fnd another vertex, such that f() s() N(j). Proof. If f(j) s(), then from the Proposton 2 of SSF we can conclude that party(ζ (j)) = 1. We now that j from the assumptons. Lemma 5 says, that there must exst at least one other vertex from whch j has a Z-correcton, such that party(ζ ()) = 1. The flow defnton says that j must therefore be a neghbour of f(). Defnton 2 of SSF states that f() must therefore be n s(), hence f() s() N(j). Theorem 1. Gven any open graph (G, I, O) wth flow (f, f ), the correspondng sgnal shfted flow (s, s ) s a gflow. The proof s based on the followng lemmas, demonstratng that s s a gflow by satsfyng all the propertes of Defnton 3. The frst property of gflow (property G1) s satsfed by SFF mplctly from Defnton 2,.e. for every V (G) t holds that s j f j s(). Consder the second gflow property (G2),.e. f j Odd(g()) then j = or s j. We wll show that every vertex wth odd many connectons to s() has to be ether tself or an output qubt. Ths s a stronger condton than s needed to show G2, but as shown n Secton 3, necessary for creatng compact crcuts from SSF. Lemma 6. If (s, s ) s an SSF then every non-output vertex v connected to s() has an even number of connectons to s(),.e., v N(s()) \ O v v / Odd(s()) Proof. Let v be a vertex connected to s(), we show the followng two sets have the same number of elements. { N Z (v) party(ζ ()) = 1} and s() N(v) \ {f(v)} For every j s() N(v) \ {f(v)}, we prove f 1 (j) s the unque element n { N Z (v) party(ζ ()) = 1} Because j s() from Proposton 2 there must exst f 1 (j). Also snce j N(v) therefore v N(j) = N(f(f 1 (j))). Moreover snce j f(v), Corollary 1 mples the exstence of a Z- correcton from f 1 (j) to v,.e. f 1 (j) N Z (v). Proposton 2 says that because j s(), t must hold that party(ζ (f 1 (j))) = 1. Therefore f 1 (j) { N Z (v) party(ζ ()) = 1}. 14

15 On the other hand, for every vertex u { N Z (v) party(ζ ()) = 1}, as party(ζ (u)) = 1 then from Proposton 2 we havef(u) s(). Also f(u) N(v) because of Corollary 1 and fnally, f(u) f(v) because v cannot have a Z-correcton from tself,.e. v / N Z. Hence t holds that f(u) s() N(v) \ {f(v)}. Therefore s() N(v) \ {f(v)} = { N Z (v) party(ζ ()) = 1} Accordng to Lemma 5 party(ζ (v)) = { N Z (v) party(ζ ()) = 1} mod 2. If party(ζ (v)) = 0 then s() N(v)\{f(v)} must have an even number of elements. Proposton 2 says that f(v) cannot be n s() and therefore v can have only even number of connectons to s(). If party(ζ (v)) = 1 then we now that s() N(v) \ {f(v)} must have an odd number of elements. If f(v) exsts t must be n s() because of Proposton 2. In the case of f(v) s(), we can conclude that party( s() N(v) ) = 0 and v has even many connectons to s(). On the other hand f f(v) does not exst, v has to be an output qubt because the flow functon f s defned for every non-output vertex. The only possblty of havng odd many connectons to s() s therefore f s an output vertex, whch proves the lemma. The next lemma drectly proves that an SSF also satsfes the last gflow property (G3) whch states that Odd(s()). Lemma 7. If (s, s ) s an SSF, then for every O C t holds that Odd(s()). Proof. Frst we show that, performng sgnal shftng creates new X-correctons only between unconnected vertces. Recall that sgnal shftng creates a new X-correcton between vertces and j ff there exsts a Z-path from to f 1 (j) and an X correcton from f 1 (j) to j therefore from the Flow defnton we have: f f 1 (j) f j Let us assume that there exsts an edge between and j. Accordng to the Flow defnton we have that } N(j) j = f(f 1 N(f(f 1 (j))) f 1 (j) f (j)) Ths contradcts the partal order f f 1 (j) f j of the Flow (f, f ) and therefore there cannot be an edge between vertces and j. Next we clam that there s exactly one edge between and s(). Accordng to Defnton 2 of SSF, the set s() conssts only of the vertex f() and the vertces to whch sgnal shftng created a new X dependency from. We showed that sgnal shftng does not create X dependences between connected edges. Hence, f() s the only vertex n s() that can be connected to, and there must be an edge between and f() because of the flow property (F3) ( N(f())). Proof. Now to obtan the proof of Theorem 1, we note that the defnton of SSF mples the gflow property (1.). Lemma 6 mples that every SSF satsfes the gflow condton (2.). As the thrd and last gflow condton s satsfed by SSF accordng to Lemma 7, SSF s ndeed a gflow and Theorem 1 holds. The above theorem for the frst tme presents an structural ln between two seemngly dfferent approach for parallelsaton, gflow and sgnal shftng, for those patterns havng already flow. As mentoned n the ntroducton ths s the ey step n obtanng our smultaneous depth and space optmsaton. The next secton explores further the ln wth gflow, showng optmalty of SSF n parallelsaton. 15

16 2.2 Influencng paths The notons of nfluencng wals and partal nfluencng wals on open graphs wth flow was ntroduced n [11] to descrbe the set of all vertces that a measurement depends on. An nfluencng wal starts wth an nput and ends wth an output vertex, a partal nfluencng wal starts wth an nput vertex but can end wth a non-output vertex. We wll use a modfed defnton of nfluencng wals that can start from any non-output vertex and end at any vertex j s() and call t a stepwse nfluencng path. Ths wll allow us to convenently explore the dependency structure of a pattern wth SSF. Defnton 8. Let (s, s ) be an SSF that s obtaned from a flow (f, f ) of an open graph (G, I, O) and vertces and j n V (G) such that j s(). We say that a path between vertces and j s an stepwse nfluencng path, noted as (j), ff The path s over the edges of G. The frst two elements on the path are and f(). Every even-placed vertex on the path (j), startng from f(), s n s(). Every odd-placed vertex on the path (j) s the unque vertex f 1 () of some s() such that s the next vertex on the path (j). It s easy to see that every second edge, n partcular the edges between f 1 () and s(), n the stepwse nfluencng path s a flow edge. Hence the path contans no consecutve non-flow edges. If we restrct the frst vertces of the stepwse nfluencng path to be nput vertces, the stepwse nfluencng path would be a partal nfluencng path, but not vce versa. Stepwse nfluencng paths are useful because of ther appearance n the SSF as proven by the followng lemma. Lemma 8. Let (s, s ) be an SSF obtaned from a flow (f, f ) of an open graph (G, I, O) and vertces and j n V (G) such that j s(). Then there always exsts a stepwse nfluencng path (j). Proof. We start by constructng such a path bacward from j to. We select j and f 1 (j) as the last two vertces on the path and apply Corollary 2 to fnd the vertces on the path, untl we reach. The formaton of cycles s mpossble, as ths would mply a cyclc dependency structure, mpossble for a flow. We have to reach as the set of vertces we choose from s fnte. The above lemma wll be used n Secton 3 to obtan compact crcuts from SSF. Note that there mght be more than one stepwse nfluencng path from to j. We conclude the secton about nfluencng paths wth the followng two lemmas whch wll be used to prove the optmalty of SSF. Frst, the structure of stepwse nfluencng paths mposes a strct restrcton on the way a vertex on the stepwse nfluencng path can be connected. Lemma 9. Let (j) be a stepwse nfluencng path from to j n an open graph (G, I, O) wth flow (f, f ) and correspondng SSF (s, s ). Then f 1 (j) s the only odd-placed vertex n (j) that j s connected to. Proof. Accordng to the defnton of stepwse nfluencng path, for every three consecutve vertces v 1, v 2, v 3 n (j) such that v 1 and v 3 are odd-placed we have that v 2 = f(v 1 ) and v 3 N(v 2 ) = N(f(v 1 )). Accordng to Corollary 1 there must exst a Z-correcton from v 1 to v 3. Therefore the odd-placed vertces n (j) are on a Z-path from to f 1 (j) and obvously from every odd-placed vertex n (j) there exsts a Z-path to f 1 (j). Lemma 4 says that j cannot be connected to any of the odd-placed vertces n (j). 16

17 The prevous lemma shows, that the stepwse nfluencng paths can be used to descrbe some propertes of the connectvty n open graphs wth SSF. The next lemma (llustrated n Fgure 2) wll explan how a stepwse nfluencng path can be extended. Lemma 10. Let (G, I, O) be an open graph wth flow (f, f ) and correspondng SSF (s, s ) and let and j be two non-output vertces of the open graph such that f(j) s(). If v N(j) s() \ {f(j)} then every stepwse nfluencng path (v) can be extended by the vertces j and f(j) to create another stepwse nfluencng path (f(j)). Proof. Addng j and f(j) to (v) satsfes the condtons for stepwse nfluencng paths. There exsts an edge between vertces j and v and vertces j and f(j), hence t s a vald path. Moreover, f(j) s() would be an even-placed vertex on the extended path, and j would be the unque oddly-placed vertex wth f(j) s(). s() s() f() f() ntal stepwse nfluencng path Odd many connectons extendng the stepwse nfluencng path v S j f(j) v f(v) Fgure 2: Extendng a stepwse nfluencng path endng at vertex v accordng to Lemma 10. Fgure 3: For every strct subset S of s() contanng f() we can fnd a vertex v n the odd neghbourhood of S such that f(v) s not contaned n S. Ths s proven n Lemma Optmalty of sgnal shftng Gven an MBQC pattern wth gflow, fndng the maxmally delayed gflow of ts underlyng graph could potentally further reduce the depth of the computaton [14]. A natural queston that arses s how SSF s lned wth the optmal gflow. In ths secton, we prove that f the nput and output ses of the pattern are equal, then SSF s ndeed the optmal gflow. Hence we can conclude the most optmal parallelsaton that one could obtan va translaton of a quantum crcut nto an MBQC pattern s acheved by the smple rewrtng rules of SSF. Ths wll also lead to a more effcent algorthm than the one presented n [14] for fndng the maxmally delayed gflow of a graph as we dscuss later. Theorem 2. Let (G, I, O) be an open graph wth flow (f, f ) such that I = O. Let (s, s ) be the SSF obtaned from (f, f ). Then (s, s ) s the optmal gflow of (G, I, O). 17

18 The proof of the theorem s rather long, an outlne s presented below. A general reader could omt the next subsectons, however varous novel constructons has been ntroduced n the proof that could be explored for other MBQC results and hence could be valuable for an MBQC expert. In Secton we show that the penultmate layers of an optmal gflow and an SSF of an open graph where I = O, are equal. Next we ntroduce the concept of a reduced open graph n Secton We prove two ey propertes of the optmal gflow and SSF of the reduced open graph. Ths hghlghts the recursve structures of the gflow and SSF leadng to the possblty of extendng these notons to new domans 1. In Secton we put the peces together, by showng that the prevous propertes mply that reduced gflow (mplctly also optmal gflow and SSF) layers are equal to the orgnal gflow layers from layer 1 onward. Ths allows us to construct a recursve proof for Theorem 2, whch we present n Secton The last two layers The equalty of the last layers of an SSF and optmal gflow follows from Lemma 2 and Proposton 2 the last layer of an optmal gflow and an SSF s always the set of output vertces. What s left to prove s that the penultmate layers are also equal, for dong so we need the followng propertes of open graphs wth SSF. An llustraton of the property proven n the frst of the two lemmas s shown n Fgure 3. Lemma 11. Let (G, I, O) be an open graph wth flow (f, f ) and correspondng SSF (s, s ). If O C then for every strct subset S of s() contanng f() there must exst a non-output vertex v that s oddly connected to S such that f(v) s() \ S,.e. O C S s() s.t. f() S v Odd(S) s.t. f(v) s() \ S Proof. If s() = {f()} the lemma holds trvally, as there does not exst any nonempty strct subsets of s(). Consder the case where s() contans more than one element and S s a strct subset of s(). Then we select any vertex j / S from s() and loo at the stepwse nfluencng paths from to j. Note that there mght be more than one such path. We move bacwards from j towards over the stepwse nfluencng paths n the followng way: 1. Move by two vertces 1.1 If possble, choose any stepwse nfluencng path where the prevous even-placed element s not n S and move to that element. 1.2 If the prevous even-placed elements n all the stepwse nfluencng paths from to j are n S, then stop. 2. Repeat step 1. Let u be the vertex to where we moved usng the above process, u has to exst because of the way we ntally selected j. There are a couple of other observatons that we can mae about u. Frst, u s() \ S, because of the selecton of j and the way we moved on the paths. Second, u cannot be the frst even placed vertex on a stepwse nfluencng path from to u because the frst element s f() S (accordng to Defnton 8). Thrd, for every stepwse nfluencng path endng n u, the prevous even-placed vertex has to be n S as otherwse we could have moved one more step towards. 1 For example, the authors are currently explorng ths structure to defne the concept of partal flow, for patterns wth no determnstc computaton. 18

19 Consderng the prevous three observatons we can show that the vertex v = f 1 (u) must be oddly connected to S. We begn by notng that v cannot be connected to any vertex s() \ (S {f(v)}. Otherwse, accordng to Lemma 10, we could extend any stepwse nfluencng path endng at wth v and f(v). Hence / S {f(v)} would then be an even-placed vertex on a stepwse nfluencng path from to f(v). In partcular, would be the second to last even-placed vertex on a stepwse nfluencng path from to f(v) = u Every such vertex, except f(v) tself, s n S as mentoned before. Because, accordng to Lemma 6, v has to be evenly connected to s(), t has to be oddly connected to S and Lemma 11 holds. Next we need to show that every non-nput vertex has a correspondng unque vertex f 1 (), ths s only true for those graphs wth I = O. Lemma 12. If (f, f ) s a flow on an open graph (G,I,O), then I = O ff for every j I C there exsts f 1 (j). Proof. Frst, f I = O then also I C = O C. The flow defnton unquely defnes f() for every O C and therefore f 1 (j) s unquely defned for some, but not necessarly for all, vertces j I C. The number of vertces for whch f s defned must equal the number of vertces for whch f 1 s defned and because I C = O C, f 1 must be defned for every element n I C. Second, Let us consder the case when for every j I C there exsts f 1 (j). The number of elements for whch f 1 s defned equals the number of elements f s defned for. f s by Defnton 2 defned for every element n O C. Hence I C = O C whch mples that I = O. Note that the above requrement,.e. the exstence of f 1 (), s the only reason why our proof of Theorem 2 fals f I O. We conjecture that by paddng the nput wth necessary anclla qubts wthout changng the underlyng computaton we could extend the above theorem to the general graphs. However the proof of such result s outsde of the scope of ths paper and not relevant for the optmsaton of quantum crcut. Note that because of Defnton 6 f a gflow s not optmal, ts penultmate layer has to ether be equal to the penultmate layer of the optmal gflow or there exsts a vertex n the penultmate layer of optmal gflow that s not ncluded n the penultmate layer of the other gflow. In the proof of the man result we assume that the penultmate layers are not equal, hence we could choose a vertex wth partcular propertes (descrbed n the next two lemmas) to derve a contradcton. V V g 0 = O = V0 s g 1 V1 s f() f(b 0 ) s() b 0 g() O odd number of connectons Fgure 4: The ntal condtons requred for Lemma 13. Fgure 5: Lemma 13. The fnal condtons proved n Lemma 13. Let (G, I, O) be an open graph where I = O wth flow (f, f ), correspondng SSF (s, s ) and a gflow (g, g ) such that V g 0 = O. Assume there exsts a vertex V g 1 \ V1 s, then 19