1: \documentclass{article}
2: \usepackage{latexsym}
3: \usepackage{amssymb}
4: \usepackage[dvips]{graphics}
5: \begin{document}
6: \title{Quantum codes on high-genus surfaces}
7: \author{Eric Dennis}
8: \maketitle
9:
10: \begin{abstract}
11:
12: An economy of scale is found when storing many qubits in one highly
13: entangled block of a topological quantum code. The code is defined by
14: construction of a topologically convoluted 2-d surface and does \emph{not}
15: work by compressing redundancy in the encoded information.
16:
17: \end{abstract}
18:
19: The distinguishing property of a quantum computer is its ability to hold
20: an amount of data that grows exponentially with the size of the computer.
21: Entanglement is the main tool for generating and manipulating this data.
22: And quantum error correcting codes are how we make sure all this goes
23: according to plan, given finite control over physical components of the
24: computer. An unexpected connection has been made between quantum codes and
25: the geometry of 2-d surfaces, rooted in a shared notion of locality
26: \cite{1}. The resulting geometrical intuition here enables definition of a
27: code storing many qubits in one large entangled state that exhibits a
28: novel economy of scale. Each encoded qubit becomes more resistant to
29: errors as we increase the number of encoded qubits at fixed information
30: rate (number of encoded qubits per physical qubit).
31:
32: In one version of the so-called ``topological'' or ``lattice'' quantum
33: codes, two qubits are encoded in a set of physical qubits identified as
34: the edges of a $L \times L$ square lattice on the surface of a torus
35: \cite{1}. The encoded $Z$ operation for qubit number one (two) is given by
36: any non-contractible loop of $\sigma^z$ operators winding around the torus
37: in the ``vertical'' (``horizontal'') direction. The encoded $X$ for qubit
38: one (two) is given by a co-loop (``train-track'') of $\sigma^x$ operators
39: in the horizontal (vertical) direction; see Fig.\ \ref{torus}. It is known
40: how to perform an encoded Hadamard transformation and $\pi/2$ phase gate
41: with these codes. Also, a method exists for performing a Toffoli (C-C-NOT)
42: gate although with certain complications if very large blocks $\gtrsim
43: 10^9$ are involved \cite{2}.
44:
45: Errors to physical qubits in a toric code are periodically detected by
46: ``syndrome'' measurements that happen to involve operations which are all
47: local on the lattice. One performs error correction based on these
48: measurements, aiming to prevent errors from joining together into long
49: error chains that might encircle the torus and result in an encoded $X$ or
50: $Z$ operation being applied unbeknownst to us.
51:
52: What determines the code's fidelity $1-\epsilon$ in maintaining encoded
53: information is the length of (number of edges contained in) the shortest
54: possible non-contractible loops on the lattice, in this case $L$ \cite{3}.
55: In particular
56: \begin{equation} \label{epsilon}
57: \epsilon \sim (p/p_c)^{KL^\beta}
58: \end{equation}
59: where $p$ is an error probability for physical qubits, and $p_c$, $\beta$,
60: and $K$ are parameters depending on the particular error correction
61: algorithm used.
62:
63: $2N$ qubits may be encoded in $N$ separate lattices, each with fidelity
64: given above. The main result of this paper is that, if instead of $N$
65: separate lattices we combine them into one large lattice on a high
66: genus surface constructed by a certain method, the information rate and/or
67: fidelity may be improved as the number of encoded qubits increases.
68:
69: As a motivating example, consider joining two $L^\prime \times L^\prime$
70: toric lattices by removing a $L^\prime/2 \times L^\prime/2$ square from
71: each and sewing together the perimeters of the resulting square holes; it
72: is straightforward to define a code on this new lattice preserving the
73: total number, four, of encoded qubits. Taking $L^{\prime 2} \approx
74: 4L^2/3$, the number of physical qubits is nearly the same as for two
75: separate $L \times L$ lattices, but the minimum length of non-contractible
76: loops is now $\approx 2L/\sqrt{3}$, improving the code's fidelity.
77:
78: This suggests, given $N$ separate $L \times L$ toric lattices, we combine
79: the $2 L^2 N$ physical qubits into one large high-genus surface on which
80: each torus becomes one handle. We can increase the code's fidelity by the
81: following construction. Cut each handle through its width, along a
82: ``w-loop'' (see Fig.\ \ref{loops}), giving two loose ends per handle. Then
83: randomly re-pair the set of $2N$ loose ends and rejoin each pair.
84:
85: Before cutting and rejoining w-loops, the lengths of length-wise
86: ``l-loops'' had been as small as $L$; now the shortest simple l-loops for
87: a typical handle will have length $\sim LN$. If each handle is made to
88: encode a qubit with $Z$ operator given by an l-loop, it appears the
89: chances of a $Z$ error to these encoded qubits has been markedly
90: diminished. One might like to say this error probability is now
91: exponentially small in $(LN)^\beta$. But there are more complicated l-type
92: loops with lengths much smaller than $LN$; each such loop involves many
93: handles. The minimal l-loops of this kind determine the encoded $Z$ error
94: probability of a lattice code based on this large surface. Let us first
95: determine the lengths of minimal l-loops, then symmetrize the construction
96: of our surface to handle encoded $X$ errors as well.
97:
98: To characterize the minimal l-loops we will calculate some geometrical
99: properties of our high-genus surface, on which it will be convenient to
100: recall the square lattice of qubits. If each handle connects to the
101: surface through a square patch, the lattice will be locally identical to a
102: simple square lattice except at the corners of a square patch. Each corner
103: vertex has valence (number of edges containing it) equal to five not four,
104: giving five quadrants of 2-d space (see Fig.\ \ref{kink}). The corner
105: constitutes a kink of negative curvature on the otherwise flat lattice.
106:
107: Around some vertex $P$ draw a small ``circle,'' \emph{i.e.} a
108: diamond-shaped locus of vertices equidistant from $P$. As its radius $r$
109: increases, the circle will encounter handles over which it must climb,
110: extending out to new places on the surface. From an intrinsic
111: perspective, the circle merely sees an occasional kink, from which
112: emanates an extra quadrant of space. Having passed over a kink and
113: encroached into its extra quadrant, the circle's perimeter will become
114: larger than it would be apart from the kink. It is not hard to see the
115: perimeter will contain an additional $r-r_\mathrm{k}$ vertices, where
116: $r_\mathrm{k}$ is the distance from $P$ to the kink.
117:
118: As the circle expands, it encounters more kinks and its perimeter grows
119: even faster. Moreover, all kinks contribute independently to the
120: perimeter. Assuming a constant density, $8/L^2$ per vertex, of kinks on
121: the lattice, the perimeter $c(r)$ approximately satisfies the recursion
122: relation
123: \begin{equation} \label{rec}
124: c(r) = 4r + \frac{8}{L^2} \sum_{r_\mathrm{k}=0}^r
125: c(r_\mathrm{k}) \cdot (r-r_\mathrm{k}),
126: \end{equation}
127: obtained by adding independent contributions from all kinks within the
128: circle; $c(r)=4r$ would be the result in flat space. The above relation
129: can be cast as a second order finite difference equation, with initial
130: conditions, whose solution is approximately
131: \begin{equation} \label{c(r)}
132: c(r) = L \sqrt{2} \sinh \left( \sqrt{8} \, r/L \right).
133: \end{equation}
134:
135: To obtain the minimal l-loop length for a given handle $H$, consider the
136: set of open paths of length $r$ and starting at some vertex $P$ around the
137: base of $H$. As $r$ increases, the circle forming the outer boundary of
138: this set will be pushed across various handles to random new places on the
139: surface, gradually filling it up. Once a path encounters the other end of
140: $H$, it can be closed across $H$ to form an l-loop. The chances there will
141: be such a path become significant only when the area of our $r$-circle
142: approaches a significant fraction of the total surface area, $L^2 N$.
143: Obtaining the circle's area by summing (\ref{c(r)}), this condition is
144: found to be $r \sim L \log N/\sqrt{8}$, which thus gives the minimal
145: l-loop length for almost all handles on the surface. As for the other
146: handles, one can either attempt to re-pair them or simply discard them.
147:
148: The probability of encoded $Z$ errors associated with l-loops is thus
149: exponentially small in $(L \log N)^\beta$; however no improvement has been
150: achieved for $X$ error correction. To symmetrize the above construction,
151: we simply add an additional cut-and-pair step. Previously we had cut along
152: a w-loop on each handle and then re-paired all the cuts. Now we cut along
153: an l-loop, which may be as short as $\sim L \log N$, and randomly re-pair
154: as before. There is no longer a simple w-loop that can be drawn encircling
155: a given handle. A w-loop must proceed across many of these cuts before it
156: can close on itself non-contractibly. Topologically, this new step is
157: identical to the previous one but with the surface turned inside-out. The
158: effect of these new cuts and joins is just a doubling of the kink density
159: to $16/L^2$ in (\ref{rec}), giving the minimal loop length---now for
160: l-loops and w-loops---as $\sim L \log N / 4$.
161:
162: This result can be applied either as an improvement to the
163: $L,N$-dependence of the lattice code's fidelity at fixed information rate,
164: an improvement to the information rate at fixed fidelity, or as a
165: simultaneous improvement to both. But there is another parameter to be
166: considered: the accuracy threshold $p_c$. Indeed, this convoluted surface
167: topology suggests a greater variety of possible catastrophic error
168: processes (long error chains) which would tend to worsen the threshold.
169:
170: Nevertheless, as $L$ is increased at fixed $N$ the error processes
171: affected by the convoluted topology will only be those involving longer
172: and longer, hence less and less probable, error chains. For large $L$ the
173: threshold will then tend back to its original value. Based on analysis
174: of one quasi-local error correction algorithm \cite{3} with $\beta =
175: \log_3 2$, it is found that the effect of convoluted topology is to
176: multiply a bound on the threshold by
177: \[
178: \sim \prod_{k=1}^{\log_3(L \log N)}
179: \left[ \frac{2 (3^k)^2}{a(3^k)} \right]^{(1/3^k)^\beta}
180: \approx 8 e^{-12(\log N)^{1-\beta}/L^\beta}
181: \]
182: where $a(r)$ is the circular area obtained by summing (\ref{c(r)}). This
183: means that $N$ should not be increased faster than $\log N \sim
184: L^{\beta/(1-\beta)}$ or else the code's accuracy threshold may be greatly
185: diminished. Thus the fidelity $1-\epsilon$ from (\ref{epsilon}) will scale
186: as
187: \[
188: -\log\epsilon \sim (L \log N)^\beta \sim L^{\beta/(1-\beta)}
189: \]
190:
191: This calculation applies only to the one particular error correction
192: algorithm for which $\beta$ is fixed as $\log_3 2$; however if we naively
193: use $\beta = 1$ above, we find there is no restriction on how $N$ scales
194: with $L$---unbounded gains can be had by increasing $N$ at fixed $L$
195: without serious damage to the accuracy threshold. In fact one error
196: correction algorithm has $\beta = 1$, and
197: explicit consideration of its performance under convoluted topology
198: corroborates this result. Bounds on the threshold are obtained here by
199: counting certain classes of paths on the lattice \cite{4}. For instance,
200: the number of length $r$ paths with given starting point on a flat square
201: lattice is $4^r$. On our curved lattice, some vertices (the kinks) have
202: valence 5, so the number of walks is bounded by $v^r$ with $4<v<5$. The
203: effect of convoluted topology on a threshold bound based on this counting
204: would be to multiply it by the near-unity factor $4/v$.
205:
206: It has been shown how to achieve gains in the fidelity and/or efficiency
207: of storing quantum information by encoding many qubits in one block of a
208: topological quantum code. The code involves a lattice of qubits on a 2-d
209: surface of highly convoluted topology. As more encoded qubits are added,
210: keeping fixed the number of physical qubits per encoded qubit,
211: asymptotically significant gains are obtained in the code's fidelity. This
212: is an economy of scale in the error correction hardware independent of any
213: software gains achieved by compressing redundancy within the encoded
214: information itself, as in Shannon's coding theorems and their quantum
215: equivalents \cite{5}, which rely on the encoded qubits' occupation of
216: ``typical'' subspaces in the many-qubit Hilbert space.
217:
218: One nice feature of the original topological codes is that error
219: correction operations are local on the lattice; however, this is also a
220: limitation. The convoluted topology of the above construction, which
221: effectively destroys the codes' locality, is a way of overcoming this
222: limitation.
223:
224: Thanks to U. Madhow and R. Q. Epstein.
225:
226: \begin{thebibliography}{4}
227: \bibitem{1} A. Kitaev, ``Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons,''
228: quant-ph/9707021 (1997).
229: \bibitem{2} E. Dennis, ``Toward fault-tolerant quantum computation
230: without concatenation,'' quant-ph/9905027 (1999).
231: \bibitem{3} E. Dennis, J. Preskill, unpublished.
232: \bibitem{4} A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, J. Preskill, unpublished.
233: \bibitem{5} H. Barnum \emph{et al.}, Phys. Rev. A \textbf{57}, 4153
234: (1998).
235: \end{thebibliography}
236:
237: \newpage
238:
239: \begin{figure}[!hp]
240: \centering
241: \scalebox{.7}{\includegraphics{torus.eps}}
242: \caption{Opposite ends of the lattice are identified to form a torus. The
243: encoded $Z$ and $X$ operators for qubit one are shown (thick edges).}
244: \label{torus}
245: \end{figure}
246:
247: \begin{figure}[!hp]
248: \centering
249: \scalebox{.7}{\includegraphics{loops.eps}}
250: \caption{A simple w-loop and simple l-loop are shown on two different
251: handles.}
252: \label{loops}
253: \end{figure}
254:
255: \begin{figure}[!hp]
256: \centering
257: \scalebox{.7}{\includegraphics{kink.eps}}
258: \caption{The kink $K$ appears at the base of a handle. A ``circle''
259: (dashed line) centered at $P$ and containing $K$ is shown.}
260: \label{kink}
261: \end{figure}
262:
263: \end{document}
264: