1: %\documentstyle[fullpage,doublespace,12pt]{article}
2: \documentstyle[12pt]{article}
3: \input psfig
4: \pagestyle{plain}
5: \long\def\comment#1{}
6: \begin{document}
7: \title{General Qubit Errors Cannot Be Corrected}
8: \author{Subhash Kak}
9: %Department of Electrical \& Computer Engineering\\
10: %Louisiana State University\\
11: %Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA}
12: % {\tt kak@ece.lsu.edu}}
13: \date{June27, 2002}
14: \maketitle
15:
16: \begin{abstract}
17: Error correction in the standard meaning of the term
18: implies the ability to correct all small analog errors
19: and some large errors.
20: Examining assumptions at the basis of
21: the recently proposed quantum error-correcting codes,
22: it is pointed out that these codes can correct only
23: a subset of errors, and are unable to
24: correct small phase errors which can have disastrous
25: consequences for a quantum computation. This shortcomings
26: will restrict their
27: usefulness in real applications.
28:
29:
30:
31: \end{abstract}
32:
33: \thispagestyle{empty}
34: \begin{quote}
35: {\small {\it Colours seen by candle-light\\
36: Will not look the same by day.}\\
37: \hspace*{2in} -Robert Browning}
38: \end{quote}
39:
40:
41: \section{Introduction}
42:
43: Since the work of Calderbank, Shor, and Steane\cite{Ca95,St96,Go00} (CSS),
44: the question of error-correction coding for quantum computing
45: has attracted much attention and several codes have
46: been proposed.
47: But these codes have been devised to work under very restrictive conditions and
48: they can potentially correct only bit flips and phase flips
49: and some combinations thereof,
50: which errors represent a small
51: subset of all the errors that can corrupt a quantum state.
52: This would not be an issue if phase errors were not important in
53: a quantum computation. But they are, since we manipulate the phases
54: to drive a quantum computation to a useful conclusion.
55: Many quantum algorithms require the computation begin
56: with no phase errors in the start of the computation.
57: CSS codes cannot correct for errors such as a
58: $\frac{1}{\sqrt 2} ( | 0\rangle + | 1\rangle$ changing into a
59: $\frac{1}{\sqrt 2} ( | 0\rangle + e^{i 0.002} | 1\rangle$,
60: without assuming that there is some part of the code
61: that does not suffer any error at all, no matter
62: how small.
63:
64: It might appear odd for anyone to question quantum error
65: correction when researchers have been working in this area
66: for several years.
67: Actually, the ability of
68: quantum error correction methods to eliminate
69: analog quantum noise has been questioned before\cite{Ka99}.
70: Analog errors in the analog domain (which is like the
71: quantum information situation) can simply not be
72: completely eliminated. Using redundancy could, at best,
73: reduce errors under appropriate conditions.
74: Therefore, the claim that analog quantum errors could somehow be
75: eliminated has been found puzzling, especially because
76: the No-Cloning theorem makes it impossible to copy
77: quantum states.
78: But the proponents of quantum
79: error correction codes felt that ``quantum errors could be
80: fixed with quantum tricks\cite{Go00}.''
81: These tricks seem to work because
82: the term ``error correction''
83: in quantum computing has been used in a non-standard manner.
84: But we wish to stress that this is not just a semantic
85: problem.
86:
87: Error correction, intuitively and in classical theory,
88: implies that if
89: \[ y = x + n,\]
90: where $x$ is the discrete codeword, $n$ is analog noise, and
91: $y$ is the analog noisy codeword, one can
92: recover $x$ {\it completely and fully} so long as the
93: analog noise function $n$ is less than a certain
94: threshold.
95: If it exceeds this threshold, then also there is full
96: correction so long as this does not happen more than
97: a certain number of times (the
98: Hamming distance for which the code is designed) at the
99: places the analog signal $y$ is sampled.
100:
101: In other words, the hallmark of
102: classical error-correcting codes is {\it the correction of
103: all possible small analog errors} and many others which
104: exceed the thresholds associated with the code alphabet.
105: This full correction of all possible small analog errors is
106: beyond the capability of the proposed quantum error-correcting codes.
107:
108: This definition of error correction in classical theory
109: is not merely a matter of convention or intuition.
110: In classical information science, errors are
111: analog and, therefore, all the possible small errors
112: must be corrected by error-correcting codes.
113: To someone who looks at this field from the outside, it might
114: appear that one only needs to fix bit flips.
115: In reality, small analog errors, occurring on
116: all the bits, are first removed by the use
117: of clamping and hard-limiting.
118:
119:
120: Since the definition of a qubit includes arbitrary phase,
121: it is necessary to consider errors from the perspective
122: of the quantum state and not just from that of final measurement.
123: As mentioned above, in the classical theory, it is implicitly accepted
124: that all possible small analog errors have already been
125: corrected by means of an appropriate thresholding operation.
126: Therefore, we must define correction of small analog
127: phase errors as a requirement for quantum error correction.
128:
129: This paper reviews assumptions behind the CSS quantum
130: error-correcting codes.
131: The construction of these codes requires precise knowledge
132: of
133: the state of the coded qubit, in which no phase
134: uncertainties are conceded.
135: This precisely known coded qubit state helps to determine
136: a standard
137: against which errors are measured.
138: This precision will not be available in practice.
139:
140: The paper is organized as follows:
141: Section 2 briefly reviews the CSS model,
142: Section 3 presents the qubit sphere to highlight
143: the difficulty posed by unknown phase, and
144: Section 4 considers the question of what errors
145: can be corrected, which is followed by conclusions.
146: \section{The quantum error correction model}
147:
148: A quantum error-correcting code is defined to be a unitary
149: mapping of $k$ qubits into a subspace of the quantum state
150: space of $n$ qubits such that if any $t$ of the qubits
151: undergo arbitrary decoherence, not necessarily independently,
152: the resulting $n$ qubits can be used to faithfully reconstruct
153: the original quantum state of the $k$ encoded qubits\cite{Ca95}.
154: The assumptions in the quantum error correction model are\cite{St96}:
155: Arbitrary errors of qubits are divided into
156: `amplitude errors', that is, changes of the form
157: $|0\rangle \leftrightarrow |1\rangle$, and `phase errors',
158: that is, changes of the form
159: $|0\rangle + |1\rangle \leftrightarrow |0\rangle - |1\rangle$.
160:
161: These assumptions seem to have been made with the final
162: measurement in mind, where the objective is to
163: get a binary sequence from the measurement apparatus.
164: The idea here is that if $0$s have been converted into
165: $1$s and vice versa, the redundancy of the error-correction
166: code will be able to tell us where the error has occurred,
167: allowing us to reconstruct the correct sequence.
168:
169: A quantum system is correctly viewed as being apart from the
170: observer, who enters the picture only when the measurement is
171: made. This means that one can speak of two perspectives as
172: far as errors are concerned: (A), errors relative to the
173: quantum state itself; and (B), errors relative to the
174: observer who will make the measurement. Since the
175: transformation between the quantum state and the
176: measurement is {\it many-to-one}, the two perspectives
177: are not identical.
178: The CSS model considers the second perspective only, without
179: relating it to the errors in the quantum state.
180: By doing so, the model misses out on errors that can have
181: a catastrophic effect on the computing process.
182:
183:
184: Note that classical error correction theory does not
185: bother about such a dual perspective because of two
186: reasons: first,
187: the absence of
188: anything analogous to state collapse; second, the small
189: analog errors are assumed to have been corrected by
190: a hard-limiting operation prior to converting the
191: received analog $y$ signal by sampling into the
192: discrete, binary codeword.
193: In classical theory, all the useful information within the system
194: is accessible, which is not the case in a quantum system.
195:
196:
197: The perspective B is described elsewhere by the
198: author\cite{Ka99,Ka00,Ka01a,Ka02}, where it
199: is argued that random, small errors in phase as well
200: as admixture of unwanted states can be
201: problematic for the implementation of quantum algorithms.
202:
203: \paragraph{Phase errors in the codeword}
204:
205: In one well known one qubit error-correcting
206: code, each qubit is represented by seven
207: qubits.
208: The seven qubit system is interpreted as a
209: pair of abstract particles: the abstract
210: qubit, and the syndrome space.
211: The idea behind the method is that the error will
212: leave the state component unchanged, and by measuring
213: the syndrome one would know the unitary transformation
214: to be applied to correct the error.
215: The code for $| 0 \rangle$ has an even number of
216: $1$s and the code for $|1 \rangle$ has an odd number
217: of $1$s. In reality, the coded qubits should be:
218:
219: \[| 0\rangle_{code} = \frac{1}{\sqrt8} (|0000000\rangle + e^{i \theta_{01}} |0001111\rangle+ e^{i \theta_{02}}
220: |0110011\rangle + e^{i \theta_{03}} |0111100\rangle\\\]
221:
222: \begin{equation}
223: + e^{i \theta_{04}} |1010101\rangle
224: +e^{i \theta_{05}} |1011010\rangle +e^{i \theta_{06}} | 1100110\rangle + e^{i \theta_{07}} |1101001\rangle),
225: \end{equation}
226:
227: \[|1\rangle_{code} = \frac{1}{\sqrt8} (|1111111\rangle + e^{i \theta_{11}} |1110000\rangle+e^{i \theta_{12}}
228: |1001100\rangle + e^{i \theta_{13}} |1000011\rangle \\\]
229:
230: \begin{equation}
231: + e^{i \theta_{14}} |0101010\rangle
232: +e^{i \theta_{15}} |0100101\rangle +e^{i \theta_{16}} | 0011001\rangle +e^{i \theta_{17}} |0010110\rangle).
233: \end{equation}
234: where $\theta_{ij}$ are random phase errors.
235: But in the theory, the uncertainties related to $\theta_{ij}$
236: are taken to be zero.
237: This makes it possible to use the codewords as the standard against
238: which other errors can be checked. In a realistic theory
239: the $\theta_{ij}$ cannot be taken to be zero.
240:
241: Similarly, in the 9-cubit code, the codewords should be:
242:
243: \begin{equation}
244: |0\rangle_{code} = (|000\rangle + e^{i \theta_{1}} |111\rangle)
245: (|000\rangle + e^{i \theta_{2}} |111\rangle)
246: (|000\rangle + e^{i \theta_{3}} |111\rangle)
247: \end{equation}
248:
249:
250: \begin{equation}
251: |1\rangle_{code} = (|000\rangle - e^{i \theta_{4}} |111\rangle)
252: (|000\rangle - e^{i \theta_{5}} |111\rangle)
253: (|000\rangle - e^{i \theta_{6}} |111\rangle)
254: \end{equation}
255: where $\theta_i$ are small phase errors.
256: But, again, it is assumed that the $\theta{i}$s are zero.
257:
258: Computing the overlap of the codewords (3) and (4) with
259: error states shows clearly that there would be a large
260: probability that small errors will not be corrected.
261: Neither the small random phase errors in the codewords,
262: nor those that occur later,
263: will be eliminated.
264:
265:
266: \paragraph{Ancilla qubits}
267: We refer the reader to the CSS constructions where ancilla bits
268: are used to obtain the noise free state of the quantum
269: code\cite{St97,Go00}.
270: The ancilla bits are assumed to be in the precise
271: all zero state, with no phase errors, whatsoever!
272: Steane acknowledges\cite{St97}\footnote{Page 39} that for quantum error
273: correction to work the assumption that the ancilla be
274: noise free needs to be dropped.
275: He suggests that fault-tolerant quantum computation\cite{Sh96}
276: will help alleviate this difficulty.
277: But the fault-tolerant system only shifts the burden
278: by assuming zero phase errors elsewhere in the
279: constructions.
280:
281: Even for the correction of a single qubit, there is
282: circularity of argument.
283: One needs perfect ancilla bits, and {\it even if} we had
284: them, one can allow for only one error in a 9-qubit code.
285: How can one guarantee that there will be {\it absolutely
286: no phase error} -- no matter how small -- in the rest of the 9
287: qubits?
288:
289: \section{The qubit sphere}
290:
291: To examine the perspective A, which is with respect to the
292: quantum state,
293: it's useful to
294: begin with the representation of a qubit
295: as the superposition
296: $| \phi\rangle = \alpha e^{i \theta_1} | 0\rangle + \beta e^{i \theta_2}| 1\rangle,$
297: where $ \alpha, \beta \in R$ and $\alpha^2 + \beta^2 = 1$,
298: as a
299: four-dimensional sphere.
300: To simplify matters, we consider only the difference
301: in phases and reduce the qubit to
302: $| \phi\rangle = \alpha | 0\rangle + \beta e^{i \theta}| 1\rangle.$
303: The qubit is now a triple $(\alpha, \beta, \theta)$ and it
304: can be represented by a three-dimensional sphere of
305: Figure 1.
306:
307:
308: \vspace{2mm}
309: \begin{figure}
310: \hspace*{0.5in}\centering{
311: \psfig{file=circ3.eps,width=12cm}}
312: \caption{The qubit sphere $( \alpha, \beta, \theta)$.
313: The vertical circles represent $|1\rangle$ and its phase
314: shifts.
315: The circle on the right represents
316: $ 1/2^{1/2}(|0\rangle + e^{i \theta} |1\rangle ) $, which are
317: various combinations of $|0\rangle$ with phase shifted $|1\rangle$
318: (i.e. $45^o$ polarized photons, for example).
319: The point A is
320: $ e^{i \pi /2} | 1\rangle$; B is
321: $ 1/2^{1/2}(|0\rangle + i |1\rangle ) $; C is
322: $ 1/2^{1/2}(|0\rangle + |1\rangle ) $.
323: }
324: \end{figure}
325:
326: \vspace{2mm}
327:
328: Parenthetically, let it be noted that
329: our qubit sphere
330: is drawn differently from the qubit sphere of Tittel and Weihs\cite{Ti01},
331: who show $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$ as opposite points on the same
332: circle on the sphere.
333:
334:
335: In the qubit sphere of Figure 1, the motion counterclockwise is taken to
336: be positive. The point of intersection of the two spheres at the front
337: end will be the state
338: $i | 1\rangle$.
339:
340: Assuming, for example, that we are speaking of polarized photons,
341: we see that with respect to $|0\rangle$ the $45^o$ polarized photons
342: are points anywhere on the circle to the right.
343: Also, if there is unknown phase associated with $|0\rangle$, the
344: $45^o$ photons can be anywhere on the sphere surface\cite{Ka00}.
345:
346: CSS considers just four points
347: $|0\rangle$, $|1\rangle$, and their sums and differences
348: on the qubit sphere, because doing this reduces the
349: quantum problem to two separate classes of classical
350: error correction.
351: These four points represent a small subset of
352: all the points on the qubit sphere.
353: Furthermore, the location of these four points will
354: be characterized by small errors.
355:
356:
357: \section{What errors can be corrected?}
358:
359: Error correction is possible only for discrete quantities.
360: In classical information theory, error correction of
361: a single bit is possible because there is a separation in
362: amplitude between 0 and 1.
363: When bit flips between these two values
364: are considered, one can, by introducing
365: redundancy, increase distance between codewords,
366: ensuring the capacity to correct certain errors.
367: The CSS method appears to do the same thing ensuring that
368: under the assumed noise model
369: it will work fine as long as the qubits suffer only bit and
370: phase flips and their combinations.
371: But these errors are a small subset of all the errors that
372: are possible.
373:
374: The idea of using bit flips and phase flips comes from the
375: fact that the
376: Pauli group consists of four operators: identity ($I$), bit flip
377: ($X$),
378: phase flip ($Z$), and bit-and-phase flip ($Y$).
379: These four matrices:
380:
381: $I =
382: \left( \begin{array}{cc}
383: 1 & 0 \\
384: 0 & 1\\
385: \end{array} \right)$,
386: $X =
387: \left( \begin{array}{cc}
388: 0 & 1 \\
389: 1 & 0\\
390: \end{array} \right)$,
391: $Z =
392: \left( \begin{array}{cc}
393: 1 & 0 \\
394: 0 & -1\\
395: \end{array} \right)$,
396: $Y =
397: \left( \begin{array}{cc}
398: 0 & -i \\
399: i & 0\\
400: \end{array} \right)$\\
401: span the space of $2\times 2$ matrices, and the n-qubit
402: Pauli group spans the space of $2^n \times 2^n$
403: matrices. A general phase error will then be represented
404: by a linear combination of bit and phase errors.
405:
406: However, to correct an analog phase error one still needs
407: perfectly error-free ancilla qubits which is impossible to
408: guarantee and, therefore, we are
409: unable to proceed further.
410:
411:
412:
413:
414:
415: The CSS noise model is restrictive
416: from a
417: practical point of view. It ignores
418: that each qubit,
419: being a triple $(\alpha, \beta, \theta)$, will have small, unknown values
420: initially,
421: even when the strategy of using atom cooling is employed to
422: generate a coherent state.
423:
424: Furthermore, the application of quantum algorithms
425: by means of electric and magnetic fields, and decoherence, will introduce
426: additional
427: phase uncertainty.
428: Small phase errors will become large as unitary transformations are
429: applied repeatedly in the execution of a quantum algorithm.
430: Since quantum calculations
431: are sensitive to the phase values, they will have
432: uncontrollable effects.
433:
434: In fact, the starting
435: states will not only have small random phase errors,
436: but also an admixture of all other states, albeit
437: with small complex amplitudes.
438: This introduces an additional complicating factor which the
439: CSS model ignores.
440:
441: Just as classical error models assume the same type
442: of analog error corrupting each bit, one needs to
443: accept that analog error will corrupt {\it each}
444: qubit.
445: But an
446: analysis of such a situation, given further that
447: the initial state is correctly seen as
448: an admixture, will be difficult.
449: As a start,
450: it may be useful to determine the influence on performance
451: of random phase errors in the qubit state and those
452: in the measurement of the syndrome state.
453:
454:
455:
456: Only discrete quantities to which small values of noise are
457: added can be corrected;
458: noise added to an analog variable cannot be removed, and
459: quantum phase is an analog variable.
460: Analog quantities (such as
461: qubit phases) cannot be corrected unconditionally.
462:
463: One can measure analog variables with respect to a
464: standard, and then correct any deviations from the
465: standard. This is what appears to be happening in the
466: disregarding of
467: random phases in the coded qubit. But
468: that is tantamount to a backdoor
469: discretization of the problem.
470:
471:
472:
473: \section{Conclusions}
474: Error correction requires correction of all small
475: errors and some large errors.
476: This the CSS
477: quantum error correction model
478: is unable to do.
479:
480:
481: The error model used by CSS is not realistic. It assumes
482: zero phase errors in many of its constructions,
483: which precision will be absent in
484: the real world.
485: There can never be any guarantee of
486: zero phase error in the qubits.
487: Unlike classical error models where each bit
488: is corrupted by noise, the CSS model assumes that
489: most qubits are perfectly precise.
490: This only shifts the task from error correction
491: to initialization, without indicating how that
492: might be done\cite{Ka02}.
493: As far as
494: the constructions of quantum error correcting codes refer to
495: physical reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain,
496: they do not refer to physical reality.
497: A realistic error model must assume that all qubits,
498: including the ancilla bits, have the same type
499: of errors.
500:
501:
502: Because qubits are arbitrary combinations of
503: $|0\rangle$s and $|1\rangle$s
504: $(\alpha, \beta, \theta)$,
505: lack of knowledge of the relative phase
506: can send the qubit to any point on the sphere.
507: The CSS model is a less than successful joining
508: of the classical error-control theory to quantum information.
509: It violates the basic premise of
510: error correction, that {\it it should be possible to
511: correct all possible small errors}, and some large errors.
512:
513: The CSS model may be called a method of error reduction,
514: under narrow conditions of some of the qubits escaping
515: all error.
516: But if there are perfect, error-free qubits, why not
517: use them in the first place?
518: Error reduction, even if there was a
519: way of estimating it in the presence of unknown
520: small phase errors,
521: may not be of use in quantum
522: computing techniques where absolutely no error
523: is
524: permitted for useful computation to take place.
525:
526: We cannot be hopeful for other methods of
527: qubit error correction either, since the
528: difficulty arises out of the analog
529: nature of the error process.
530:
531:
532:
533: \paragraph{Acknowledgement}
534: I would like to thank Daniel Gottesman
535: and Andreas Klappenecker for their comments on
536: an earlier version of this paper.
537: I am especially grateful to
538: Michel Dyakonov
539: for criticism and sage advice.
540:
541:
542: \subsection*{References}
543: \begin{enumerate}
544:
545: \bibitem{Ca95}
546: A.R. Calderbank and P.W. Shor, ``Good quantum error-correcting
547: codes exist.''
548: LANL Archive quant-ph/9512032.
549:
550:
551: %\bibitem{Ek96}
552: %A. Ekert and R. Jozsa, ``Quantum computation and Shor's
553: %factoring algorithm,'' {\it Reviews of Modern Physics}
554: %68, 733 (1996).
555:
556: %\bibitem{Gr97}
557: %L.K. Grover, ``Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a needle
558: %in a haystack,''
559: %{\it Physical Review Letters}
560: %79, 325 (1997).
561:
562: \bibitem{Go00}
563: D. Gottesman, ``An introduction to quantum error correction,''
564: LANL Archive quant-ph/0004072.
565:
566:
567:
568: %\bibitem{Ka98}
569: %S. Kak, ``Quantum information in a distributed apparatus,''
570: %{\it Foundations of Physics} 28, 1005 (1998).
571: %LANL Archive quant-ph/9804047.
572:
573:
574: \bibitem{Ka99}
575: S. Kak, ``The initialization problem in quantum computing,'' {\it Foundations
576: of Physics} 29, 267 (1999).
577: LANL Archive
578: quant-ph/9805002.
579:
580:
581: \bibitem{Ka00}
582: S. Kak, ``Rotating a qubit,'' {\it Information
583: Sciences} 128, 149 (2000).
584: LANL Archive
585: quant-ph/9910107.
586:
587: \bibitem{Ka01a}
588: S. Kak, ``Statistical constraints on state preparation for
589: a quantum computer,'' {\it Pramana} 57, 683 (2001).
590: LANL Archive
591: quant-ph/0010109.
592:
593:
594: %\bibitem{Ka01b}
595: %S. Kak, ``Are quantum computing models realistic?''
596: %LANL Archive quant-ph/0110040.
597:
598: \bibitem{Ka02}
599: S. Kak, ``Uncertainty in quantum computation,''
600: LANL Archive quant-ph/0206006.
601:
602:
603: \bibitem{Sh96}
604: P.W. Shor, ``Fault-tolerant quantum computation,''
605: LANL Archive quant-ph/9605011.
606:
607:
608: \bibitem{St96}
609: A.M. Steane, ``Simple quantum error correcting codes,''
610: LANL Archive quant-ph/9605021.
611:
612:
613: \bibitem{St97}
614: A.M. Steane, ``Quantum computing,''
615: {\it Rept.Prog.Phys.} 61, 117 (1998).
616: LANL Archive quant-ph/9708022.
617:
618: \bibitem{Ti01}
619: W. Tittel and G. Weihs, ``Photonic entanglement for
620: fundamental tests and quantum communication,''
621: {\it Quantum Information and Communication} 1, 3 (2001).
622: %\bibitem{Ze70}
623: %H.D. Zeh, ``On the interpretation of measurement in quantum
624: %theory,'' {\it Foundations of Physics} 1, 69 (1970).
625:
626:
627:
628: \end{enumerate}
629:
630: \end{document}
631: