8

An answer to this question shows how to calculate the average fidelity of a depolarizing channel. How would one go about calculating this for an amplitude dampening channel? I tried working out the math myself but had no luck. The tricks used in the previous answer can't be applied in this new scenario it seems...

Adam Zalcman
  • 22,278
  • 3
  • 34
  • 83
Quantum Guy 123
  • 1,371
  • 5
  • 18

1 Answers1

12

An elementary method is to simply carry out the integration

$$ \begin{align} \overline{F} &= \int\langle\psi|\mathcal{N_\gamma}(|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|)|\psi\rangle d\psi\\ &=\int\langle\psi|K_0|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|K_0^\dagger|\psi\rangle + \langle\psi|K_1|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|K_1^\dagger|\psi\rangle d\psi\\ & =\frac{1}{4\pi}\int_0^\pi\int_0^{2\pi}\left|\begin{pmatrix}\cos\frac{\theta}{2}&e^{-i\phi}\sin\frac{\theta}{2}\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 \\0 & \sqrt{1 - \gamma}\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}\cos\frac{\theta}{2}\\e^{i\phi}\sin\frac{\theta}{2}\end{pmatrix}\right|^2\sin\theta \\ & + \left|\begin{pmatrix}\cos\frac{\theta}{2}&e^{-i\phi}\sin\frac{\theta}{2}\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}0 & \sqrt{\gamma} \\0 & 0\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}\cos\frac{\theta}{2}\\e^{i\phi}\sin\frac{\theta}{2}\end{pmatrix}\right|^2\sin\theta d\phi d\theta \\ &=\frac{1}{4\pi}\int_0^\pi\int_0^{2\pi}\left|\cos^2\frac{\theta}{2}+\sqrt{1-\gamma}\sin^2\frac{\theta}{2}\right|^2\sin\theta + \left|\sqrt{\gamma}e^{i\phi}\sin\frac{\theta}{2}\cos\frac{\theta}{2}\right|^2\sin\theta d\phi d\theta \\ &=\frac{1}{2}\int_0^\pi\left(\cos^4\frac{\theta}{2}+(1-\gamma)\sin^4\frac{\theta}{2}+\frac{\sqrt{1-\gamma}}{2}\sin^2\theta + \frac{\gamma}{4}\sin^2\theta\right)\sin\theta d\theta \\ &=\frac{1}{2}\int_0^\pi\sin\theta\cos^4\frac{\theta}{2}+(1-\gamma)\sin\theta\sin^4\frac{\theta}{2}+\frac{\gamma+2\sqrt{1-\gamma}}{4}\sin^3\theta d\theta \\ &=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{2}{3} + (1-\gamma)\frac{2}{3} + \frac{\gamma+2\sqrt{1-\gamma}}{4}\frac{4}{3}\right) \\ &=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{4}{3} - \frac{\gamma}{3} + \frac{2\sqrt{1-\gamma}}{3}\right) \\ &=\frac{2}{3}-\frac{\gamma}{6} + \frac{\sqrt{1-\gamma}}{3}. \end{align} $$


A computationally easier, but conceptually more sophisticated approach is based on the fact that the eigenstates of the Pauli operators, i.e. $S=\{|0\rangle, |1\rangle, |+\rangle, |-\rangle, |{+i}\rangle, |{-i}\rangle\}$ form a spherical $2$-design and thus averaging any expression of the form $\langle\psi|A|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|B|\psi\rangle$ over the six states gives the same result as averaging it over the Haar measure (see e.g. this paper). Therefore,

$$ \begin{align} \overline{F} &= \int\langle\psi|\mathcal{N_\gamma}(|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|)|\psi\rangle d\psi \\ &=\frac{1}{|S|}\sum_{\psi\in S}\langle\psi|\mathcal{N_\gamma}(|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|)|\psi\rangle \\ &=\frac{1}{6}\left[1 + 1 - \gamma + 4 \cdot \left(\frac{1}{2} + \frac{\sqrt{1-\gamma}}{2}\right)\right] \\ &= \frac{2}{3} - \frac{\gamma}{6} + \frac{\sqrt{1-\gamma}}{3} \end{align} $$

where individual fidelities

$$ \begin{align} \langle 0|\mathcal{N_\gamma}(|0\rangle\langle 0|)|0\rangle &= 1 \\ \langle 1|\mathcal{N_\gamma}(|1\rangle\langle 1|)|1\rangle &= 1 - \gamma \\ \langle +|\mathcal{N_\gamma}(|+\rangle\langle +|)|+\rangle &= \frac{1}{2} + \frac{\sqrt{1-\gamma}}{2} \\ \langle -|\mathcal{N_\gamma}(|-\rangle\langle -|)|-\rangle &= \frac{1}{2} + \frac{\sqrt{1-\gamma}}{2} \\ \langle {+i}|\mathcal{N_\gamma}(|{+i}\rangle\langle {+i}|)|{+i}\rangle &= \frac{1}{2} + \frac{\sqrt{1-\gamma}}{2} \\ \langle {-i}|\mathcal{N_\gamma}(|{-i}\rangle\langle {-i}|)|{-i}\rangle &= \frac{1}{2} + \frac{\sqrt{1-\gamma}}{2} \\ \end{align} $$

are easily computed using

$$ \mathcal{N_\gamma}\left(\begin{pmatrix}a & b \\ c & d\end{pmatrix}\right) = \begin{pmatrix} a+d\gamma & b\sqrt{1-\gamma} \\ c\sqrt{1-\gamma} & d(1-\gamma) \end{pmatrix}. $$

Adam Zalcman
  • 22,278
  • 3
  • 34
  • 83
  • 2
    I really admire the details and rigorousness you put in all your answers! – KAJ226 Feb 17 '21 at 17:28
  • Thank you, @KAJ226! I do enjoy doing such calculations :-) – Adam Zalcman Feb 17 '21 at 18:32
  • awesome, thanks again :) why did you choose the 6 eigenvectors of the pauli operators as a spherical 2-design? The paper you referenced doesn't mention the pauli eigenvectors as a 2-design. it says you only need $d^2 = 4$ vectors for a 2-design. did you find the 2-design you mentioned from another paper? – Quantum Guy 123 Feb 17 '21 at 19:50
  • also another question: in the first solution you provided why did you add a sin theta to each term in the first integration step? is this because you are integrating using states evenly distributed along the surface of the bloch sphere representation? is this a Haar measure distribution? I have thought about this before actually, but i've never been able to prove it. again, thanks for all the help. you seem to really know this topic well! :P – Quantum Guy 123 Feb 17 '21 at 19:55
  • Yeah, I don't remember where I found out that octahedron is a 2-design (BTW, IIRC it's actually a 3-design, but we don't need that here). You're also correct that it is not the smallest 2-design. Tetrahedron is smaller. However, it's easier to compute fidelity for the 6 Pauli eigenstates than for the vertices of a tetrahedron. – Adam Zalcman Feb 17 '21 at 20:09
  • The $\sin\theta$ is a quantitative way of expressing the fact that "constant latitude" circles shrink as you get closer to the poles of the sphere. In calculus, it is part of the solid angle element $d\Omega = \sin\theta d\phi d\theta$, see e.g. here. You can derive it as the Jacobian of the change of basis transformation from Cartesian to spherical coordinates. – Adam Zalcman Feb 17 '21 at 20:14
  • I see. here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_t-design it says a 2-design can only be used instead of the Haar measure for polynomial functions degree t or less. How would you reason that the function you are integrating is a polynomial of degree less than or equal to 2? if you fully expand the matrix multiplication there are some terms in the result such as: $(\bar{|\psi\rangle_1} |\psi\rangle_1)^{2}$ where $|\psi\rangle_1$ is the first element in the state vector $|\psi\rangle$ – Quantum Guy 123 Feb 17 '21 at 21:51
  • 1
    This is a good question! After all, polynomials are not usually defined as acting on kets! I did try to clarify this matter somewhat in my answer by suggesting a specific form of the expression to be averaged $\langle\psi|A|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|B|\psi\rangle$, though I did not go into an explanation on how this relates to polynomials and their degree. See text around equation $(9)$ on p.3 of the paper I cited. – Adam Zalcman Feb 17 '21 at 22:52