Computation by measurements: a unifying picture

Panos Aliferis and Debbie W. Leung

arXiv:quant-ph/0404082v2 16 Apr 2004

Institute for Quantum Information, Caltech, MC 107-81, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA

(Dated: February 1, 2008)
The ability to perform a universal set of quantum operations based solely on static resources and
measurements presents us with a strikingly novel viewpoint for thinking about quantum computation
and its powers. We consider the two major models for doing quantum computation by measurements
that have hitherto appeared in the literature and show that they are conceptually closely related
by demonstrating a systematic local mapping between them. This way we eectively unify the
two models, showing that they make use of interchangeable primitives. With the tools developed
for this mapping, we then construct more resource-eective methods for performing computation
within both models and propose schemes for the construction of arbitrary graph states employing
two-qubit measurements alone.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Faced with the question of describing a quantum computation in terms of elementary operations, one is almost
invariably tempted to answer by drawing lines signifying
qubits and little boxes signifying unitary operators performed on them. Thus quantum computation is usually
viewed as some more or less complicated manipulation
of the initial quantum state, the sum total and ultimate
goal of which is to apply a certain unitary operator on
it. Measurement naturally appears at the very end of the
computation, and is generally considered harmful for the
coherence if it is included in the main body of the computation, due to its inherent irreversibility. In this respect,
the computational power bestowed on us by quantum
computers appears to depend vastly on our ability to perform unitary operations on our qubits, postponing any
measurements until the very end when the result of the
computation is ready to be read o. In fact, the standard
model of quantum computation [1] consists of preparing
a standard initial state |0 n , applying an arbitrary unitary transformation and performing measurements in the
very end.
The rst indication that measurements can be an integral part of the main body of our quantum computation
was given by the fault-tolerant constructions for the /8
and the Tooli gates [2, 3, 4]. Both of these make use of
measurements and special ancillary states for the faulttolerant implementation of the gates, with the ancillary
states in turn prepared by measurements. But trully, the
ability to perform universal quantum computation based
on measurements alone was not fully realized until recently. Two explicit models for doing computation by

email:
email:

panos@caltech.edu
wcleung@caltech.edu

measurements will be considered: the rst one based on

one-qubit measurements on a cluster state (1WQC) [5],
and the second one based on two-qubit measurements
alone (TQC) [6, 7, 8]. Proofs for the universality of both
of these models were obtained by reduction to the standard model: preparation of a standard initial state, the
ability to perform any unitary operation with arbitrary
accuracy and the ability to perform measurement, which
is a natural constituent of them both. The ability to realize any unitary transformation was in turn reduced to
proving that all gates from a universal set of gates (typically taken to be the one consisting of all one-qubit gates
and the cnot [9]) can be realized within each model.
A.

One-way quantum computer (1WQC)

In the 1WQC model, quantum computation is performed on qubits arranged in a regular lattice and prepared initially in a specic entangled state, known as the
cluster state. Any desired computation is then encoded
as a sequence of projective one-qubit measurements of
these lattice qubits along certain bases. Although the
intermediate measurement results are random, by monitoring the measurement outcomes one is able to exploit
the quantum correlations and readapt the future measurement bases in order to eectively steer forward the
desired computation. Thus an arbitrary trajectory in the
Hilbert space of the input state can be achieved, as quantum information is made to travel within the lattice from
the measured qubits to their neighboring ones and thereover until the completion of the measurement sequence.
Conceptually, the easiest way to describe the cluster
state is by giving its stabilizer generators. For each qubit,
viewed as a lattice site in a lattice L, the stabilizer consists of generators of the form
K (i) = X (i)
jnbhd(i)

Z (j) , i L,

2
where nbhd(i) is the set of qubits in the neighborhood of
the qubit i L and {I, X x , Y y , Z z } is a
notation that will be used in this paper alternatively with
the notation {0 , 1 , 2 , 3 } for the Pauli matrices. The
cluster state is a particular example of a family of states
known as graph states, which have stabilizer generators
of the same form as the cluster state, with the exception
that the vertices are not necessarily viewed as points on a
lattice and the neighboring relations are generally given
by an adjacency matrix.
Operationally, any graph state can be prepared by
various methods. A simple realization is obtained by
examining the stabilizer: all lattice qubits need to be
initialized in the state |+ , creating iL |+ , and then
a controlled-phase gate needs to be applied between all
pairs of neighboring qubits. The controlled-phase, (Z),
in the computational basis takes the simple diagonal form

1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0

(Z) =
0 0 1 0 .
0 0 0 1
These controlled-phase gates have the convenient properties that each acts symmetrically between the two
qubits on which it is applied and also they all commute
with one another. Physically, the preparation of the
graph state can be accomplished by applying the nearestneighbor homogeneous Ising z z interaction on the
state
iL |+ for the appropriate period of time and
then correcting the resulting state with local unitary operations.
Returning to the issue of how an arbitrary unitary
operation can be realized on an already prepared cluster
state, we recall that the requirement has been relaxed to
just being able to realize all operators from a universal
gate set. To this direction, one way to prove the universality of the 1WQC model is to consider disjoint regions
of the cluster and use each such region for simulating
a certain quantum gate from our selected universal set.
Identifying the input qubits of one such region with the
output qubits of the previous, an arbitrarily large succession of quantum operations can then be realized.
Disjoining lattice regions can be accomplished by selectively disentangling qubits from the cluster state, thus
eectively deleting them from the initial lattice. A quick
inspection of the stabilizer in fact shows that measuring a
qubit in the computational basis is sucient for this deletion. Indeed, a measurement of the ith qubit in the computational basis corresponds to a measurement of the operator Z (i) , which commutes with all stabilizer generators
except for that one having the measured qubit as the correlation center, namely X (i) jnbhd(i) Z (j) . Thus measuring Z (i) removes the generator X (i) jnbhd(i) Z (j)

from the stabilizer, while leaving all other stabilizer generators unaltered up to the removal of the measured
qubit.
To complete the proof that performing one-qubit measurements on the cluster state is universal for quantum
computation, in Fig. 1 we explicitly show how certain elementary operations can be realized by one-qubit measurements on the appropriate qubit congurations [10].
As already stated, universality then follows from our ability to simulate any operator from the universal set of
one-qubit rotations and cnot.

(a) Ux () = ei 2 x

(b) Uz () = ei 2 z

control
(c) cnot
target
in

target
out

FIG. 1:

Measurement patterns that realize (a) a rotation of

about the x-axis, (b) a rotation of about the z-axis, (c)
the cnot41 [5]. A general rotation with Euler decomposition
Uz ()Ux ()Uz () can be built by composing x- and z-rotations
using a total of ve qubits [10]. Boxed circles indicate the input
qubits. The measurement bases are shown as X, for measurements
of the observable x corresponding to a projection along the xaxis, or as the appropriate angle, , with respect to the x-axis in
the equator of the Bloch sphere for measurements of the observable cos()x + sin()y . The choice between positive or negative
angles is made based on the outcomes of previous measurements.

At this point it should be noted that computation

is done up to local Pauli corrections, meaning that the
quantum state of the qubits at the output will be of the
(i)
N
general form i=1 j U | , where U is the unitary to be
(i)

applied to the input state | and j , j = 0, . . . , 3 is one

of the Pauli operators applied to the ith of the N output
qubits. Additionally, it is important to emphasize that
the operation of the 1WQC always starts with a cluster
state, and no other input states or ancillae are being used.

B.

Teleportation-based quantum computer (TQC)

The core idea of this scheme lies in the realization

that we can modify the basic teleportation protocol [11]
in order to also aect a unitary transformation while teleporting a quantum state from one qubit to another. In

3
the context of the TQC, teleportation is therefore viewed
as a way of aecting unitary transformations, with its
function as simulating a quantum communication channel becoming irrelevant in the absence of distant communicating parties.
In Fig. 2 we describe two alternative ways for applying
an arbitrary one-qubit unitary U to the input quantum
state | using only two-qubit measurements: either apply the unitary to the state after it has been teleported,
which can equivalently be viewed as absorbing U directly
into the special ancilla (I U )|0 before performing the
Bell measurement [6, 7], or apply the unitary to the input
state before teleporting and combine it with the measurement to form a generalized Bell measurement in the basis
{(U I)|j }j [8, 12]. A Bell measurement is conventionally dened as the complete two-qubit measurement
along the basis {|j }j , with j = 0, . . . , 3, where
|0,3 =

|01 |10
|00 |11

, |1,2 =
.
2
2

(a)

U j |

|
(b)

j U |
FIG. 2: To apply the single-qubit unitary U , we either (a) prepare
the ancilla (I U )|0 and measure in the Bell basis {|j }j or (b)
use a Bell state |0 and perform the generalized Bell measurement
in the basis {(U I)|j }j . Lines joined on one end indicate a
Bell pair |0 throughout this paper.

In order to form a universal set of operators we need to

augment our set containing all one-qubit rotations with
one more two-qubit operator, the cnot. The cnot (as
well as any other two-qubit unitary) can also be simulated in the TQC model by doubling the number of ancillary qubits and Bell measurements. The construction,
employing the ancilla |acnot , is shown in Fig. 3.
Although both circuits in Fig. 2 were presented as extensions to the basic teleportation scheme, an important
trade-o between them should be stressed [12]. When the
unitary to be realized is not in the Cliord group (dened

j1

j2

|acnot
(j j )CNOT|
1

FIG. 3: The ancilla |acnot is prepared separately using two-qubit

measurements alone [8]. Subsequently two Bell measurements are
performed, one for each input qubit. cnot being in the Cliord
group allows us to commute the Pauli corrections through it and
write cnot(j1 j2 ) = (j j )cnot.
1

as the normalizer of the Pauli group [13]), the circuit of

Fig. 2a implements U non-deterministically: commuting
the Pauli correction j through U can, for certain values
of j, result in realizing a totally dierent unitary. Extra
teleportation steps would be needed (each to undo the
faulty gate and reattempt the intended unitary gate U )
until the outcome of the Bell measurement is zero, indicating the successful application of the gate. Hence, the
complication of a nondeterministic number of teleportation steps and the additional complexity of the ancillae
are traded for the simplicity of the same Bell measurement for any unitary. On the other hand, the circuit of
Fig. 2b realizes any U deterministically (the Pauli corrections appearing to the left of U ) with the additional complication of a generalized Bell measurement that must
be adapted each time according to which operator is to
be implemented. Because of this tradeo, the circuit of
Fig. 2b will be used for all single-qubit operations and
that of Fig. 3 for the cnot, to ensure that the Pauli corrections occur to the left of the applied gate in both cases.
Thus in the TQC, just as in the 1WQC, we can deterministically perform the quantum computation up to
local Pauli corrections. This is sucient, since it will just
translate into left propagating the Pauli errors in the case
when the next applied unitary is in the Cliord group,
or appropriately modifying the subsequent measurement
bases to compensate for the accumulated Pauli errors up
a given point in the case of a non-Cliord single-qubit
gate.
In section II we explicitly demonstrate how the two
models can be mapped to one another based on the universal set of one-qubit rotations and cnot. Using the
tools developed for this mapping, in section III we derive
a useful circuit that implements the remote-(Z) gate
and utilize it to propose more resource-eective methods for performing computation in both the TQC and

4
1WQC models and also to develop schemes for the construction of arbitrary graph states employing a combination of complete and incomplete two-qubit measurements. Graph states have emerged as the natural generalization of the cluster state and are of fundamental importance in the operation of the 1WQC, as they provide
the starting point for embarking upon error-correction
and fault-tolerance [14, 15].

j1
X

(a)

|+

j2
X

|+

j1
X

II.

MAPPING BETWEEN THE 1WQC AND

THE TQC

To gain some insight into how to establish an equivalence, we will begin by showing how teleportation is realized in the two models. We will then proceed to explicitly
show the mapping for arbitrary x- and z-rotations and
for the cnot.

A.

Teleportation

In the 1WQC model, a wire for teleporting a quantum

state is formed by three qubits connected in the pattern
sketched in Fig. 4. The rst two qubits are measured in
the X-basis, resulting in the teleportation of the input
state from the rst to the third qubit.
1

FIG. 4: The quantum wire in the 1WQC.

In all our 1WQC gate diagrams, the eective input qubits

(carrying the quantum state from the previous part of
the computation) will be distinguished by being drawn
boxed. As already explained in the introduction, all other
qubits in the lattice are initialized in the |+ state, while
the nearest-neighbor interaction that was used to create
the cluster state can be viewed as aecting a controlledphase gate between all pairs of neighboring qubits. An
equivalent circuit representation of the quantum wire is
therefore that of Fig. 5a.
The circuit of Fig. 5b can now be obtained from the
one of Fig. 5a by inserting the identity H 2 = I. In Fig. 5b,
the stabilizer of the second and third qubits is initially
XI, IX. After conjugation with (H I)(Z) it becomes
XI
IX

(Z)

XZ
ZX

HI

ZZ
XX

|+

|+

(b)

j2

FIG. 5:

In this paper, the controlled-phase gate is denoted by a

line segment connecting two qubits, with xs drawn on both ends to
emphasize that it acts symmetrically between them. Measurement
boxes are labelled on their lower right corner by the corresponding
measurement basis. To go from (a) to (b) we insert the identity in
the form H 2 = I. Then we identify box 1 as preparing a Bell state
|0 and box 2 as performing a Bell measurement.

This is the stabilizer of the state |0 , proving that

box 1 prepares a Bell pair. Similarly, in order to interpret box 2, we begin with the stabilizer generators of the
output (1)j1 X (1)j2 X, where j1 , j2 {0, 1} are the
outcomes of the X-measurements on the rst two qubits.
Conjugating it backwards through (I H)(Z) we obtain
(1)j1 XI
(1)j2 IX

(Z)

(1)j1 XZ
(1)j2 ZX

IH

(1)j1 XX
(1)j2 ZZ

Box 2 can therefore be viewed as realizing a Bell measurement in the basis {|j }j , with j {0, 1, 2, 3} now
given in binary as j = (j1 , j1 j2 ).
Naturally, the above derivation can also be carried out
by working explicitly with states and without any use of
the stabilizer formalism. For that purpose, the identities
of Fig. 6 provide a quick way to visualize the operation of
boxes 1 and 2. Indeed, using the identity of Fig. 6c, box
1 is transformed into the Bell state preparation circuit of
Fig. 6a and similarly, box 2 is transformed into the Bell
measurement of Fig. 6b.
Boxes 1 and 2 then establish the equivalence of the
circuit of Fig. 5b and the teleportation circuit of Fig. 2 for
U = I. Overall, the transition from Fig. 4 to the circuits
of Fig. 5 exhibits the mapping from the 1WQC pattern
to the well-known teleportation circuit in the TQC. All
steps can equally well be traced backwards, proving also
the mapping from the TQC to the 1WQC.

5
(a) Bell state preparation

(b) Bell measurement

j1
X

|0

j1

(a)

|0

|+

2
n

j2

j2

|+

|+

| 1

(c)

j1
X

H
(b)

FIG. 6:
(a) Simple circuit preparation of the Bell state |0 ,
(b) Bell measurement in the basis {|j }j , with j = (j1 , j1 j2 )
in binary, and (c) a circuit representation of the identity (Z) =
(I H)CNOT12 (I H).

|+ 2

Uz ((1)j1 )

j2
X

3
|+ 3

FIG. 7:
B.

Rotation about the x-axis

In Fig. 1a we sketched the pattern that realizes a rotation by an angle about the x-axis in the 1WQC
model. The rst qubit is initially measured along the
x-axis, and then the second is projected along the axis
n = {cos((1)j1 +1 ), sin((1)j1 +1 ), 0} on the equator

of the Bloch sphere, conditioned on the outcome j1 of the

measurement of the rst qubit. This is a typical example in the 1WQC of a measurement performed in a basis
adapted according to previous measurement results. A
circuit representation is given in Fig. 7a.
The transition from Fig. 7a to Fig. 7b is made again
by inserting the identity H 2 = I and noticing that the
measurement along the n-axis can be replaced by the

rotation Uz ((1)j1 ) followed by a measurement in the

X-basis. In order to interpret the generalized measurement performed by box 3, we would like to translate it
into a measurement in the basis {(U I)|j }j , where U
is the unitary to be applied to the input state, to match
the TQC operation (Fig. 2b). We rst note that, starting
with the Bell state |0 , the other three Bell states can
be created by applying Z j1 X j2 on the rst qubit

In (a) we directly translate the measurement pattern

shown in Fig. 1a. In (b), inserting the identity in the form H 2 = I
we identify box 1 as preparing a Bell state |0 and box 3 as performing a generalized Bell measurement. Replacing the measurement along n with a rotation by (1)j1 about the z-axis followed

by an measurement in the X-basis we complete the mapping from

(a) to (b).

(U I)|0 = (I U T )|0 ,
which is true for any operator U . Then Ux ((1)j1 )
can be commuted to the right of the Hadamard giving
Uz ((1)j1 ), which commutes with the controlled-phase.

Shifting Ux () on the rst qubit to the left into the Bell

state preparation and with Uz ((1)j1 ) now inside the
Bell measurement on the second qubit, we nally obtain
an interpretation of box 3 as shown by the identity circuit

Z j1 X j2

(a)

j2
X

j1

Z j1 X j2 Ux ()

|j = (Z j1 X j2 I)|0 , j = (j1 , j1 j2 ).
The identity of the Bell state can subsequently be revealed by the Bell measurement performed by the circuit
of Fig. 6b or equivalently box 2 of Fig. 5b. Before attaching the Bell state |j to the Bell measurement, we

insert the identity in the form Ux ()Ux () = I to the rst

qubit as shown in Fig. 8a. Commuting Ux () to the left
through Z j1 it becomes Ux ((1)j1 ), which can equivalently be applied to the second qubit. Here we made use
of the useful symmetry property of the Bell state |0

j1

Ux () Ux ()

(b)

Uz ((1)j1 )

j2
X

FIG. 8:

(a) Starting with the identity circuit that prepares the

Bell state |j and then performs a Bell measurement, we insert the

identity Ux ()Ux () = I. (b) Commute Ux () to the left, then use

the symmetry of |0 in order to apply the rotation to the second
qubit. Finally commute it to the right through the Hadamard to
end up with box 3 of Fig. 7b.

of Fig. 8b: the state (Ux () I)|j is rst prepared and

then measured.
Hence box 3 in Fig. 7b indeed performes a measure
ment in the basis {(Ux () I)|j }j . This completes the
mapping for Ux () from the 1WQC to the TQC. Again,
the reverse mapping is easily obtained by tracing all steps
backwards.

C.

(a)

|+ 2

|+ 2

j2

|+ 3

Since box 2 realizes a measurement in the Bell basis

{|j }j , box 4 is a measurement in the basis {(Uz () I)|j }j

according to Fig. 2b.

A rotation by an angle about the z-axis is realized in the 1WQC model by the qubit pattern of
Fig. 1b. The rst qubit is projected along the direction

k = {cos(), sin(), 0} in the Bloch sphere, whereas

the second is projected along the x-axis. This time no
special time ordering is necessary, so both measurements
can be done simultaneously. An equivalent circuit representation is given by Fig. 9a. The measurement along the

k-axis can be replaced by the rotation Uz ((1)j1 ) followed by a measurement in the X-basis. Inserting once
more the identity H 2 = I, we obtain the circuit of Fig. 9b.

j1

Uz ()

FIG. 10:

Rotation about the z-axis

| 1

| 1

j1

This completes the mapping for Uz () from the

1WQC to the TLC, which again can equally well be
traced in the opposite direction.

D.

The controlled-NOT

To construct the mapping between the two models for the cnot gate, it is easiest to begin with the
teleportation-based circuit given in Fig. 3. We then replace the ancillary Bell states |0 and the Bell measurements by boxes 1 and 2 of Fig. 5b respectively. Thus we
directly obtain the equivalent circuit of Fig. 11.

j2
X

|+ 3

j1
X

j2
X

| 1

|+ 2

j2

H
X

1
(b)

j1

Uz ()

|+ 3

j3

|+ 3

j4

|+ 4
|+ 5

(i i )CNOT|
1
2

|+ 6
1

FIG. 9:

In (a) we translate the 1WQC pattern shown in Fig. 1b.

Replacing the measurement along k with a rotation by around

the z-axis followed by an X-measurement we obtain the mapping
from (a) to (b).

FIG. 11:

The cnot of Fig. 3, substituting boxes 1 and 2 from

Fig. 5b. The Pauli corrections i i are given in terms of the
1
2
measurement outcomes by the commutation relations cnot(i1
i2 ) = (i i )cnot, where i1 = (j1 , j1 j3 ), i2 = (j2 , j2 j4 ).
1

In order to interpret the measurement performed by

box 4 in Fig. 9b, we note that Uz () commutes with the
controlled-phase gate and therefore can be taken out of
the measurement box as sketched in Fig. 10. Hence,
box 4 can be thought of as a rotation Uz () applied
to the input, followed by a Bell measurement. This
is precisely equivalent to a measurement in the basis

{(Uz () I)|j }j .

We immediately note that the Hadamards cancel each

other out on the third and fourth qubit, so that the circuit
contains only controlled-phase gates and the cnot56 .
Since in the 1WQC the only unitary that acts between
the cluster qubits is the controlled-phase, (Z), we seek a
way to replace the cnot56 with a controlled-phase gate
applied between some other pair of qubits. Inspecting the

7
lower part of the circuit, we observe that the cnot can
be commuted through the (Z)(4,6) leaving behind a factor that multiplies the state with 1 whenever both the
fourth and the fth qubit are in the state |1 . This is exactly how a (Z)(4,5) gate would act. Fig. 12 summarizes
the argument.
(a)

(b)

|+

|+

|+

|+

|+

|+

|+

|+

since it allows the explicit separation of the input from

the output qubits and therefore enables the identication
of the input (output) qubits of cnot with the output
(input) qubits of the gate preceeding (following) it in
the computation. This is particularly important when
computation is performed on a two-dimensional cluster,
where the geometry of the lattice imposes restrictions on
how patterns, corresponding to dierent gates, can be
composed in a sequence. An example of how the cnot
can be combined with the quantum wire of Fig. 4 to give
a square-shaped pattern in a two-dimensional cluster is
shown in Fig. 14.

control
in

(c)

|+

|+

|+

(d)

|+

control
out

|+
|+

|+
|+

5
6

FIG. 12:

Successively commuting the cnot56 to the left we

obtain an equivalent circuit that uses only controlled-phase gates.
In (c) note that cnot|+ |+ = |+ |+ , hence (d).

target
in

target
out

Therefore the circuit of Fig. 11 can be transformed

into an equivalent circuit that makes use of qubits prepared in the |+ state, controlled-phase gates and onequbit measurements in the X-basis. Hence it can directly be mapped into the pattern of the 1WQC drawn
in Fig. 13.
1

control
in

control
out

target
in

target
out

FIG. 13:

The realization of cnot in the 1WQC. The control

qubit is teleported from 1 to 5 by the three-qubit wire pattern of
Fig. 4. The rest of the circuit is exactly the pattern for cnot in
Fig. 1c.

We note that the resulting 1WQC construction for

the cnot rst teleports the control state from the rst
to the fth qubit before the cnot is applied. In fact,
using extra teleportation steps for the control qubit is
necessary for such a cnot construction in the 1WQC [5],

10

FIG. 14:

The control is teleported from qubit 1 to 3 before

the cnot, marked by the dashed line, is applied. The control is
then teleported again from site 3 to 5. The pattern from qubit
3 to 9 realizes a controlled-phase between those two qubits, as is
explained in the following section. Empty circles indicate qubits
removed from the cluster after being measured in the Z-basis.

Thus, we have completed the mapping from the TQC

to the 1WQC for the cnot, which again can be worked
backwards as long as the extra teleportation step is included.
At this point, we have reached our goal of demonstrating a systematic mapping between the two models
for the universal set of one-qubit rotations and cnot.
The two models are therefore shown to make use of interchangeable primitives in order to implement computation by measurement alone. Depending on which model
we consider as more fundamental, or conceptually easier
to understand, we can group in boxes operations performed in the 1WQC to obtain primitive operations of
the TQC (Bell pairs and complete two-qubit measurements), or alternatively we can decompose the primitive
operations of the TQC into the primitives of the 1WQC
(controlled-phase gates and one-qubit measurements).

8
III.

A SIMPLE REMOTE-(Z) CIRCUIT AND

ITS APPLICATIONS

In this section, we describe a simple method of implementing the remote-(Z) gate that applies to both the
1WQC and the TQC models. As will subsequently be
shown, this construction leads to signicant simplications in the basic operations in both models and can also
be applied for the preparation of arbitrary graph states
using two-qubit measurements alone. The key observation that leads to these simplications is that given the
ability to perform single qubit gates, both the cnot and
the (Z) can equally well be used to complete universality.
In the TQC, we recall that the cnot is realized by the
circuit of Fig. 3, using a special ancillary state, |acnot ,
and two Bell measurements. Considering that the preparation of |acnot requires three two-qubit measurements
[8], the total number of two-qubit measurements needed
for this procedure is ve. Here we will employ twoqubit incomplete measurements in order to implement
the controlled-phase gate in a signicantly more resourceeective way. Our starting point will be the remote-cnot
gate that has appeared in the literature [19], shown in
Fig. 15.
control

2
Z

X
X

target

control

|+ 2

(a)

|+ 3
X

1
target

C
1111111111111111
0000000000000000
11111111
00000000
control 1
Zj
1111111111111111
0000000000000000
11111111
00000000
1111111111111111
0000000000000000
11111111
00000000
1111111111111111
0000000000000000 A
11111111
00000000
1111111111111111
0000000000000000
2 00000000 j
11111111
|+
1111111111111111
0000000000000000 2
11111111
00000000
X
1111111111111111
0000000000000000
11111111
00000000
1111111111111111
0000000000000000
1111111111111111
0000000000000000
11111111
00000000
1111111111111111
0000000000000000 j3
11111111
00000000
|+ 3
1111111111111111
0000000000000000
11111111
00000000
X
11111111
00000000
11111111
B00000000
4 00000000
11111111
target
Zj
11111111
00000000
11111111
00000000

(b)

2
(c)

FIG. 16:

(a) The remote-(Z), (b) an equivalent circuit that

uses only controlled-phase gates and one-qubit measurements and
(c) its direct translation in the 1WQC which realizes (Z)(1,4) after
qubits are measured in the X-basis.

being cancelled out and the one on its right turning the
measurement of the second qubit into a measurement in
the X-basis. Thus we obtain the circuit of Fig. 16b, which
can be directly translated into a four qubit pattern that
realizes the controlled-phase gate between the rst and
fourth qubit in the 1WQC as shown in Fig. 16c.

X
A.

Simplifying the 1WQC model

FIG. 15:

The remote-cnot: We perform cnot gates from the

control qubit to one half of a Bell pair and also from the other Bell
pair qubit to the target qubit. By subsequently measuring the Bell
pair qubits, the cnot14 gate is realized (up to Pauli corrections)
without qubits 1 and 4 having directly interacted.

Starting from Fig. 15, one can obtain a method of performing the remote-(Z) as shown in Fig. 16a: conjugating the fourth qubit with Hadamards, the cnot34 is replaced by (Z)(3,4) , according to the identity of Fig. 6c,
with the correction being switched from x to z . Furthermore, in Fig. 16a we have used box 1 of Fig. 5b that
provides an equivalent way to prepare the Bell state |0 .
Surprisingly enough, the resulting circuit can be transformed to consist only of controlled-phase gates and onequbit measurements in the X-basis. Indeed, using the
identity of Fig. 6c once more, the cnot12 can be replaced by (Z)(1,2) with the Hadamard on its left side

The rst application of the remote-(Z) circuits of

Fig. 16 is a more economic way of doing computation in
the 1WQC model using a two-dimensional cluster state.
In that case, either a cnot pattern using extra teleportation steps for the control state (Fig. 14) can be used or
alternatively, a pattern with fteen qubits (Fig. 17a) has
been proposed. Again, we can use the (Z) instead of the
cnot, replacing the known qubit-costly cnot realizations with the remote-(Z) pattern derived in Fig. 16c,
without sacricing our ability to do universal quantum
computation.
The economy in qubits is apparent if we consider a
typical computation block consisting of one-qubit unitaries applied to two logical qubits, which then interact
through the cnot or alternatively the (Z). These onequbit unitaries can in general be decomposed in terms

9
of the Euler angles (, , ) as Uz ()Ux ()Uz (). But,
since the rotations around the z-axis commute with the
controlled-phase gates, it is sucient to realize one-qubit
unitaries of the form Ux ()Uz () followed by a remote(Z) gate at each repeated unit of the computation.
Composing the patterns of Fig. 1a,b and eliminating the
intermediate consecutive measurements in the X-basis
(which realize a redundant quantum wire according to
Fig. 4), two measured qubits are needed to realize a
Ux ()Uz () rotation, in contrast to the four measured
qubits needed to realize a general one-qubit rotation used
originally in the 1WQC constructions.
Comparing rst the contruction of Fig. 17a with the
one of Fig. 17b, the latter uses less than a third of the
total number of qubits and a fth of the computation
length, with an increase of the computation width by
one. Computation is performed in a linear fashion from
left to right, with the logical qubits separated by regions
of qubits measured in the Z-basis. The comparison is
done by considering the repeated computation units per
logical qubit in each case, denoted by the shaded regions
in Fig. 17. The comparison with the cnot pattern of
Fig. 14 can also immediately be made, if we observe that
the remote-(Z) pattern already forms part of the former in the connection between the third and the ninth
qubit. Thus, using the remote-(Z) in place of the cnot
proves more qubit-ecient for both these dierent cnot
realizations.
(a)
A
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

(b)

D
11111111111111111
00000000000000000
11111111111111111
00000000000000000
11111111111111111
00000000000000000
11111111111111111
00000000000000000
11111111111111111
00000000000000000
11111111111111111
00000000000000000
11111111111111111
00000000000000000
11111111111111111
00000000000000000
11111111111111111
00000000000000000
11111111111111111
00000000000000000
11111111111111111
00000000000000000
11111111111111111
00000000000000000
11111111111111111
00000000000000000
11111111111111111
00000000000000000
11111111111111111
00000000000000000
11111111111111111
00000000000000000
11111111111111111
00000000000000000
11111111111111111
00000000000000000
11111111111111111
00000000000000000
11111111111111111
00000000000000000
11111111111111111
00000000000000000
11111111111111111
00000000000000000
11111111111111111
00000000000000000
11111111111111111
00000000000000000
11111111111111111
00000000000000000
F
E

FIG. 17:

Dashed boxes A,B realize general one-qubit unitaries

and D,E one-qubit unitaries with decomposition Ux ()Uz (). C
is a fteen-qubit realization for the CNOT found in [10] and F is
the remote controlled-phase. Arrows indicate measurements in a
general direction on the equator of the Bloch sphere. The shaded
regions denote the repeated computation units per logical qubit.
Here again, empty circles indicate qubits measured in the Z-basis.

B.

Simplifying the TQC model

Secondly, the remote-(Z) circuit of Fig. 16 suggests a

method of aecting a controlled-phase gate between two
qubits using measurements of operators of weight at most
two. This provides an alternative and greatly simplied
proof of the universality of two-qubit measurements in
the TQC model, without the need for the preparation of
the ancillary state |acnot .
Two dierent measurement procedures are implicit in
Fig. 16b. The rst one, although not minimal in the number of two-qubit measurements used to aect the (Z)
gate, will be useful as a method for constructing graph
states in the following section. Starting with the circuit
of Fig. 16b, we can interpret each of the boxes A and B
as performing an incomplete two-qubit measurement on
one half of the entangled state
| = (z)|+ |+ =

|+ |0 + | |1

and the control and target qubits respectively. The state

| can also be prepared by a complete two-qubit measurement, giving a total of three two-qubit measurements to aect the controlled-phase gate according to
this method.
To elaborate on the exact measurements that will be
needed, box A of Fig. 16b can be viewed as realizing a
measurement of Z (1) X (2) followed by a measurement of
the second qubit in the Z-basis and similarly for box B.
Starting with the state | , the subsequent measurement
procedure should therefore be: (1) measure ZXII and
IIXZ, then (2) measure IZII and IIZI. The analysis
for the evolution of the stabilizer generators under the
proposed measurement sequence is given in table I. To
prove that the controlled-phase gate between the rst
and the fourth qubit is in fact realized, we also follow the
evolution of the initial (or logical) X,Z operators on those

qubits, denoted by X, Z, keeping in mind that (Z) after
conjugation takes X I to X Z and Z I to itself.
The measurement procedure with the minimal number of two-qubit measurements is obtained if we interpret
the measurement of the second qubit as a measurement of
Z (1) Z (3) (box C) and then the measurement on the third
qubit as a measurement of X (3) Z (4) (box B) as before.
Eliminating the second qubit altogether and renumbering the rest, the measurement procedure is: (1) measure
ZZI, (2) measure IXZ and (3) measure IZI. The last
operator to be measured is chosen so that it anticommutes with the previously measured operator and therefore projects out the ancillary second qubit. Although
the two measurements ZZI and IXZ do not commute,
we note that if the measurements are performed in the
opposite order, then the gate is still applied if the ancil-

10
to the ve two-qubit measurements needed to perform
cnot in the method illustrated in Fig. 3. Moreover, this
is the minimal number of two-qubit measurements possible, since in order to simulate a two-qubit gate with
measurements each one of the two qubits need to interact at least once with the ancillary state.

At start
S: I
I

X1 : X

Z1 : Z

X4 : I

Z4 : I

X
Z
I
I
I
I

Z
X
I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I
X
Z

1a) Measure ZXII

1b) Measure IIXZ

S: I
Z

X1 : X

Z1 : Z

X4 : I

Z4 : I

S: I
Z

X1 : X

Z1 : Z

X4 : I

Z4 : I

X
X
Z
I
I
I

Z
I
X
I
I
I

I
I
I
I
X
Z

I
X
Z
I
X
I

X
I
X
I
Z
I

Z
I
I
I
X
Z

2a) Measure IZII

2b) Measure IIZI

S: I
I

X1 : X

Z1 : Z
4 : Z
X

Z4 : I

S: I
I

X1 : X

Z1 : Z
4 : Z
X

Z4 : I

I X Z
Z I I
Z X I
I I I
I Z X
I I Z

I Z I
Z I I
I I Z
I I I
I I X
I I Z

TABLE I: Verifying that the proposed measurement procedure realizes (Z)(1,4) . S is the set of stabilizer generators at


each step. X1 , Z1 and X4 , Z4 indicate the logical X,Z operators on the rst and fourth qubit respectively.

lary qubit is initialized in the |0 instead of the |+ state

and nally projected on the x-axis instead of the z-axis.
In case the cnot is to be realized instead of the
controlled-phase, the measurement procedure above can
be straightforwardly modied by conjugating the third
qubit with a Hadamard, thereby changing the measured
operator IXZ to IXX. In fact, a method for realizing the cnot using just two two-qubit measurements,
essentially identical to the one we just presented, has
already appeared in the literature in the context of faulttolerance in higher-dimensional systems [17], but its relevance to the TQC model had not been hitherto appreciated. A surprising feature of our result in this section
is that we have explicitly drawn a connection between
the remote-cnot circuit of Fig. 15 and the seemingly
unrelated method for aecting the cnot according to
the measurement sequence IXX, ZZI and IXI, both of
which have been proposed for the realization of the cnot
gate in very dierent contexts and without reference to
one another.
It is interesting to note that only two two-qubit measurements are required to perform the (Z) gate according to this second measurement procedure, in contrast

C.

Constructing graph states with two-qubit

measurements

As discussed in the introduction, the cluster state

forms a substrate for universal quantum computation
within the 1WQC model. The essense of its universality lies in the observation that, by appropriately deleting qubits, an arbitrary sequence of gates taken from a
universal gate set can be imprinted and then executed
on it. But, as has been repeatedly hinted on in the literature [10], this is not necessarily the most benecial
way of thinking about doing computation in the 1WQC
model. A powerful indication towards this comes from
the surprising fact that all the computational task that
lies within the Cliord group can be executed simultaneously in the 1WQC, resulting in a transformation of the
initial cluster state to a general graph state (up to local
Pauli operators).
Due to this fact and in cases when an applicationspecic quantum computer would be desirable (we think
of factoring, for example) the computation can equally
well be performed by circumventing the Cliord part
measurements and starting directly with a specic graph
state. In addition, this may practically even prove preferable for reasons pertaining to the robustness of the computation: removing altogether the Cliord part measurements will signicantly reduce the total number of qubits
involved in the computation, thus decreasing the possible
locations of error. Such application-specic graph states
will then have to be constructed and veried (using graph
purication protocols [16]) before the computation initiates [18].
Since operationally any graph state can be realized
by selectively applying the controlled-phase gate between
pairs of adjacent qubits initialized in the |+ state, it is
interesting to investigate how a given graph state can
be constructed within a measurement-based model for
performing quantum computation. In particular, in this
section we will discuss how the two measurement procedures for aecting the controlled-phase gate, that were
inspired by the circuit of Fig. 16b, give rise to explicit
methods for constructing an arbitrary graph state.
The rst measurement procedure of the previous section can be used to aect the controlled-phase gate between the qubits in our graph, using as ancillae a number

11
of copies of the state | equal to the number of edges created. Implementing the two-qubit measurements needed
will require a number of measurement steps at least equal
to the vertex degree of the graph under construction,
since all measurements with support on a common qubit
will have to be realized at dierent times. Considering
that all one-qubit measurements on the ancillary qubits
can be performed simultaneously in the nal step, the
actual logical depth of the graph preparation will equal
one plus the maximum vertex degree of the graph to be
constructed. An example of the graph state preparation
is shown schematically in Fig. 18a. In order to create all
edges connected to the striped qubit of this graph, three
two-qubit incomplete measurements, each represented by
a dashed triangle, must be done consecutively followed by
three one-qubit projections performed simultaneously in
the fourth and last step.
At this point, it is intriguing to consider the similarities of this method for constructing graph states to the
valence bond solid model for doing quantum computation [20]. In fact, if the distinction between the qubits
of the graph (denoted by lled circles in Fig. 18) and the
qubits in the entangled state | (dark dots) is lifted and
they are all viewed as physical qubits residing on dierent
sites of a solid, then the correlations between the qubits
in the entangled states can be interpreted as arising from
valence bonds formed between qubits on neighbouring
sites. In such a valence bond model, our viewpoint for
constructing the graph state is retained by identifying in
each site one of these physical qubits as the logical one
and performing appropriate measurements locally on the
sites in order to form the desired graph state. The subsequent computation can then be performed by one-qubit
measurements, in accordance to the 1WQC model.
Naturally, the graph state can be constructed even in
the absence of the ancillary entangled pairs, according to
our second measurement procedure proposed in the previous section. In this case, a number of ancillary qubits
equal to the number of edges of the graph will be needed.
For each edge, the measurement procedure then consists
of two two-qubit measurements each performed between
an ancillary qubit and one of the two vertices incident on
this edge, followed by a projective measurement on the
ancillary qubit.
As with our previous method for constructing the
graph state, we would like to inquire into the extent
to which this measurement sequence can be parallelized,
calculating its logical depth. Due to the fact that the
number of two-qubit measurements with support on a
given graph qubit equals its degree in the graph, the logical depth of this measurement procedure is at least equal
to one plus the maximum vertex degree of the graph under construction. Recall that although the two measure-

(a)

1111
0000
1111
0000
1111
0000

(b)

1111
0000
1111
0000
1111
0000

: XZ
: ZZ
FIG. 18:

Creating an arbitrary graph with two-qubit measurements. For clarity only the measurements needed to create the
edges incident on the central striped qubit are shown. Filled circles represent qubits of the graph initialized in the |+ state, and
empty circles represent the extra ancillary qubits. The dark dots
connected with a bar indicate two qubits in the entangled state | .
Dashed triangles represent measurements of XZ and rhombuses of
ZZ. All ancillary qubits are simultaneously measured in the nal
step in appropriate bases.

ments ZZI and IXZ do not commute, the controlledphase gate is still applied even if they are performed in
the opposite order, provided the ancillary qubit is initialized in the |0 instead of the |+ state and nally measured in the X-basis instead of the Z-basis. With this observation in mind, the two-qubit measurement sequence
for the construction of the graph G can be thought of
as an edge-coloring of the larger graph G constructed by
adding the ancillary qubits to the vertex set and dividing
each edge of the graph G into two, each between the originally adjacent vertices and the corresponding ancilla. In
the new graph G , edges represent the two-qubit measurements to be performed and the requirement that all
two-qubit measurements with support on a given qubit
need to be executed in dierent time steps translates into
the requirement that edges incident on a given vertex are

12
colored dierently. As a consequence, the logical depth
of the measurement procedure will be given by the minimum number of colors to realize the edge-coloring of the
graph G . Letting V (G), E(G) denote respectively the
vertex and edge set of the graph G, the graph G will
then be given by
V (G ) = V (G) {a1 , a2 , . . . , a|E(G)| }

E(G ) = {(i, ak ), (ak , j) : (i, j) E(G)},

where k {1, 2, . . . , |E(G)|} enumerates the edges of G

and ak is used as a label for the k th ancillary qubit. The
minimum number of colors necessary to color each edge
of G so that no two edges incident on the same vertex
have the same color is dened as its edge-chromatic number (G ). As we already remarked, (G ) (G ),
where (G ) is the maximum vertex degree of G . For
graphs with no multiple edges between the same pair
of vertices, a remarkable theorem [21, 22] states that
(G ) (G ) + 1 and for bipartite graphs (also called
two-colorable) in particular, the equality (G ) = (G )
has been proven [23]. But in our case G is always bipartite by virtue of the fact that the qubits of the graph
G are adjacent to ancillary qubits only. Hence, the logical depth for the construction of the graph G equals its
maximum vertex degree [24] plus one (to account for the
one-qubit projections of the ancillary qubits done simultaneously in the last step). An example for the use of
this measurement procedure is given in Fig. 18b.
In both measurement procedures mentioned above,
the desired graph state is realized up to Pauli operators
that depend on all measurement outcomes. However,
preparing the graph state up to local Pauli corrections
will not jeopardize the computation later performed on
it, since these corrections can be absorbed in the initialization of the classical registers that will be used to buer
the subsequent measurement outcomes [10].
IV.

CONCLUSION

The mapping that we derived between the two models

for doing computation by measurement is eloquent of the
deep structural similarities between them. In fact, the
1WQC model can be thought of as naturally emerging
from the TQC once the restriction to one-qubit measurements is imposed. In such a case, the mapping reveals
that the interaction between qubits will have to be mediated by a two-qubit unitary, which in the case of the
1WQC is taken to be the controlled-phase. In this respect, our mapping sheds light on the inner workings
of the 1WQC, helping us understand its operation on
a more intuitive level. Moreover, our mapping explicitly demonstrates the correspondence between the local

Pauli corrections in the TQC and 1WQC models, which

had been strongly suggestive of an underlying connection between them since the time both models were developed. The mapping thus signicantly simplies the
proofs for the operation of the 1WQC circuits that so
far always allude to theorems based on the stabilizer formalism [10]. If you would concede that the operation
of either one of the 1WQC or TQC is more transparent, then this mapping facilitates the understanding of
the other model. In particular, the less familiar model
of the 1WQC is thus rendered less enigmatic and more
apt for adaptation towards the ultimate goal of achieving
fault-tolerance within this model with a realistically low
threshold.
In the last section two methods were proposed for the
direct construction of an arbitrary graph state making
use of two-qubit measurements, one of which is strongly
reminiscent of the valence bond model for quantum computation. Apart from the inherent merit of the simplicity of the remote-(Z) gate construction itself, this also
led us to propose a new scheme for realizing a universal
set of operators within the 1WQC which is more qubiteective than the known ones, as well as to considerably
simplify the proof of the universality of two-qubit measurements in the TQC model. The basic construction
emerging within only a few logical steps from the wellknown remote-cnot circuit is another evidence that the
mapping occupying the main body of this paper can be
viewed as an attractive mental tool when thinking within
the two models that perform computation by measurements for swiftly translating useful structures back and
forth between them.

Acknowledgments

We note that alternative but similar explanations of

the workings of the 1WQC have been given by Michael
Nielsen in unpublished notes [25]. Peter Shor has also
independently developed explanations for the 1WQC operation along similar lines. A systematic construction
of one-way quantum computer models starting with the
one-bit teleportation scheme [4], that complements the
current work, is investigated by Andrew Childs, Michael
Nielsen, and one of us [26]. During the nal preparation of this work, a paper by Simon Perdrix that uses
the one-bit teleportation scheme to further simplify the
requirements of the TQC model has also come to our
attention [27].
We are grateful to Robert Raussendorf for numerous
insightful discussions on the workings of the 1WQC and
to Ben Toner for many helpful comments and corrections. P.A. and D.L are supported by the US NSF under

13
grant no. EIA-0086038, and D.L. is also supported by the

Richard Tolman Foundation.

[1] D. P. DiVincenzo, Quantum computation, Science

270, 255, (1995), quant-ph/9503016.
[2] P. Shor, Fault-tolerant quantum computation, in Proc.
37th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer
Science (IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos,
CA, 1996), p. 56, quant-ph/9605011.
[3] P. O. Boykin et al., in Proc. 40th Annual Symposium on
Foundations of Computer Science, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, (1999), quant-ph/9906054.
[4] X. Zhou, D. Leung, and I. Chuang, Methodology for
quantum logic gate construction, Phys. Rev. A 62,
052316 (2000), quant-ph/0002039.
[5] R. Raussendorf, H. J. Briegel, A one-way quantum
computer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5188 (2001), quantph/0010033.
[6] D. Gottesman and I. Chuang, Demostrating the viability of universal quantum computation using teleportation
and single-qubit operations, Nature 402, 390 (1999),
quant-ph/9908010.
[7] M. A. Nielsen, Universal quantum computation using
only projective measurement, quantum memory, and
preparation of the 0 state, quant-ph/0108020.
[8] D. W. Leung, Two-qubit Projective Measurements
are Universal for Quantum Computation, quantph/0111122.
[9] A. Barenco, C. Bennett, R. Cleve, D. DiVincenzo, N.
Margolus, P. Shor, T. Sleator, J. Smolin, and H. Weinfurter, Elementary gates for quantum computation,
Phys. Rev. A 52, 3457 (1995), quant-ph/9503016.
[10] R. Raussendorf, D. E. Browne, H. J. Briegel,
Measurement-based computation on cluster states,
Phys. Rev. A 68, 022312, (2003).
[11] C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crpeau, R. Jozsa,
e
A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Teleporting an unknown
quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-PodolskyRosen channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (1993).
[12] D. W. Leung, Quantum computation by measure-

ments, quant-ph/0310189.
[13] M. Nielsen, I. Chuang, Quantum computation and
quantum information, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, (2000) (see p.461).
[14] M. Hein, J. Eisert, H.J. Briegel, Multi-party entanglement in graph states, quant-ph/0307130.
[15] M. Van den Nest, J. Dehaene, B. de Moor, The evolution of graph states under local Cliord operations as
graph transformations, quant-ph/0308151.
[16] W. D r, H. Aschauer, H. J. Briegel, Multiparticle entanu
glement purication for graph states, Phys. Rev. Lett.
91, 107903, (2003), quant-ph/0303087
[17] D. Gottesman, Fault-tolerant quantum computation
with higher-dimensional systems quant-ph/9802007
[18] H.J. Briegel, R. Raussendorf, private communication.
[19] D. Gottesman, The Heisenberg representation of quantum computers, quant-ph/9807006.
[20] F. Verstraete, J.I. Cirac, Valence bond solids for quantum computation, quant-ph/0311130.
[21] V.G. Vizing, On an Estimate of the Chromatic Class of
a p-Graph, Diskret. Analiz 3, 23-30, (1964) [in Russian].
[22] R. P. Gupta, The Chromatic Index and the Degree of a
Graph, Not. Amer. Math. Soc. 13, 719, (1966).

[23] D. Knig, Uber graphen und ihre anwendung auf deo

terminantentheorie und mengenlehre, Math. Ann. 77,
453-465, (1916).
[24] Note that (G ) = (G) and so (G ) = (G) for the
bipartite G .
[25] M. Nielsen, Journal club notes on the cluster-state
model of quantum computation, unpublished.
[26] A. Childs, D.W. Leung, M. Nielsen, Unied derivations
of measurement-based schemes for quantum computation, in preparation.
[27] S. Perdrix, State transfer instead of teleportation
in measurement-based quantum computation, quantph/0402204