Stabilizer Cut Rank Is Not A Graph Cut Function¶
Claim/Theorem¶
Exact guest-graph packaging of intrinsic cut rank can fail even for a four-qubit stabilizer space.
Let
on qubit set \(Q=\{1,2,3,4\}\). Then for every nonempty proper subset \(L\subset Q\),
Indeed, the only nonzero stabilizer has support on all four qubits, so for every proper nontrivial cut one has \(\mathcal S_L=\mathcal S_{L^c}=\{0\}\) and therefore
Now suppose there were a nonnegative weighted graph \(T\) on the same vertex set \(Q\) whose cut function matched intrinsic cut rank:
Write \(d_i=w(\delta_T(\{i\}))\) for the weighted degree of vertex \(i\). Singleton cuts force
For any pair \(\{i,j\}\), the graph cut identity gives
Since every pair cut also has value 1, we obtain
for every \(i\neq j\). But then each weighted degree is
contradicting \(d_i=1\).
Therefore \(\chi_L(\mathcal S)\) need not be the cut function of any weighted graph on the qubit set. So the service theorem in [[cross-cut-gate-service-lower-bounds-stabilizer-cut-rank.md]] cannot, in general, be packaged exactly by an ordinary guest graph whose edge cuts reproduce intrinsic cut rank on all hardware cuts.
The remaining packaging frontier must therefore use a richer object than a graph cut on the original qubit coordinates, such as a presentation-dependent hypergraph, an auxiliary-vertex construction, or a directly submodular demand functional.
Dependencies¶
- [[cross-cut-stabilizer-rank.md]]
- [[cross-cut-gate-service-lower-bounds-stabilizer-cut-rank.md]]
- [[swap-only-compiler-extraction-reduces-cd-to-stabilizer-cut-rank.md]]
Conflicts/Gaps¶
- This rules out only exact representation by a weighted graph on the original qubit set.
- It does not rule out approximate graph representations, graphs with auxiliary vertices, hypergraph cut models, or directly submodular
CDobjects. - The example is small and nonexpanding; it isolates the representation-theoretic obstruction, not the asymptotic lower bound for Conjecture 3.
Sources¶
10.48550/arXiv.2109.1459910.48550/arXiv.0805.2199