Cited by 183Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum Information and CryptographyQuantum Mechanics and Applications

Clifford group, stabilizer states, and linear and quadratic operations over GF(2)

Open access
Dehaene, Jeroen, De Moor, Bart·2003·Physical Review A

Abstract

We describe stabilizer states and Clifford group operations using linear operations and quadratic forms over binary vector spaces. We show how the n-qubit Clifford group is isomorphic to a group with an operation that is defined in terms of a $(2n+1)\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}(2n+1)$ binary matrix product and binary quadratic forms. As an application we give two schemes to efficiently decompose Clifford group operations into one- and two-qubit operations. We also show how the coefficients of stabilizer states and Clifford group operations in a standard basis expansion can be described by binary quadratic forms. Our results are useful for quantum error correction, entanglement distillation, and possibly quantum computing.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physreva.68.042318

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • For generalized Pauli channels E1 and E2, the diamond norm distance is given by Eq. (5.4).

    “To prove Eq. (5.4) using the semidefinite program in [49] first note that Φ = E 1 -E 2 has action,”

    From Characterizing quantum gates via randomized benchmarking (2012) · cites this paper as [49]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [1]D. Gottesman, Ph.D. thesis, Caltech (1997), quantph/9705052.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dehaene, J., & De Moor, B.
Affiliations
KU Leuven (BE)
Venue
Physical Review A
Published
2003-10-20
Volume
68
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 0556-2791 (ISSN-L)
  • 1050-2947
  • 1094-1622
OpenAlex
W2009169733
Cited by
183
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 5
FWCI
5.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical Review A (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
Keywords
Clifford group, stabilizer states, binary quadratic forms, binary vector spaces, GF(2), group isomorphism, quantum error correction, entanglement distillation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review