1: \chapter{5-qubit QEC on an LNN QC}
2: \label{5QEC}
3:
4: The question has been raised as to how well quantum error
5: correction (QEC) can be implemented on a linear nearest neighbor
6: (LNN) quantum computer \cite{Gott00} due to the expectation that
7: numerous swap gates will be required. Working out a way around
8: this is important due to the large number of LNN architectures
9: currently under investigation
10: \cite{Kane98,Loss98,Vrij00,Gold03,Holl03,Tian03,Feng03,Pach03,Vand02,Soli03,Jeff02,Petr02,Ladd02,Vyur00,Kame03}.
11: In this chapter, a quantum circuit implementing 5-qubit QEC on an
12: LNN architecture is described. Our goal is to keep the error
13: correction scheme as simple as possible to facilitate physical
14: realization. In particular, fault-tolerance has not been built
15: into the circuit to minimize its complexity and the required
16: number of qubits. Despite the lack of fault-tolerance, we show
17: that, for both a discrete and continuous error model, a threshold
18: physical error rate exists below which the circuit reduces the
19: probability of error in the protected logical qubit. We also
20: determine the required physical error rate for the logical qubit
21: to be 10 times and 100 times as reliable as a single unprotected
22: qubit.
23:
24: This chapter is organized as follows. Firstly, explicit examples
25: of canonically decomposed compound gates incorporating the swap
26: gates required on an LNN architecture are given in
27: Section~\ref{5QEC:section:compound}. In
28: Section~\ref{5QEC:section:5qecLNN}, the non-fault-tolerant 5-qubit
29: QEC scheme is described and the LNN circuit presented. Simulations
30: of the performance of the LNN scheme when subjected to both
31: discrete and continuous errors are discussed in
32: Section~\ref{5QEC:section:sims}. Section~\ref{5QEC:section:conc}
33: concludes with a summary of all results and a description of
34: further work.
35:
36: \section{Compound gates}
37: \label{5QEC:section:compound}
38:
39: As discussed in detail in Chapter~\ref{canonical}, the canonical
40: decomposition enables any 2-qubit gate $G$ to be expressed
41: (non-uniquely) in the form
42: \begin{equation}
43: (G_{2A}\otimes G_{2B})G_{\vec{\theta}}(G_{1A}\otimes G_{1B})
44: \end{equation}
45: where $G_{1A}, G_{1B}, G_{2A}, G_{2B} \in U(2)$ and
46: \begin{equation}
47: G_{\vec{\theta}}=e^{i(\theta_{1}X\otimes X+\theta_{2}Y\otimes
48: Y+\theta_{3}Z\otimes Z)}.
49: \end{equation}
50: Provided a quantum computer allows qubits to be isolated, and has
51: a 2-qubit evolution operator $U(t)$ admitting a canonical
52: decomposition with 2-qubit term $U_{\vec{\phi}t}$, an
53: implementation of $G$ exists using at most three periods of free
54: evolution of $U(t)$ and eight single-qubit gates.
55:
56: Fig.~\ref{5QEC:figure:cnot-hcnots3}a shows the form of a
57: canonically decomposed \CNOT\ on a Kane quantum computer
58: \cite{Kane98,Hill03}. $Z$-rotations have been represented by
59: quarter, half and three-quarter circles corresponding to
60: $R_{z}(\pi/2)$, $R_{z}(\pi)$, and $R_{z}(3\pi/2)$ respectively,
61: where
62: \begin{equation}
63: R_{z} = e^{i\theta Z/2}.
64: \end{equation}
65: Full circles represent $Z$-rotations of angle dependent on the
66: physical construction of the computer (static magnetic field,
67: phosphorus donor placement etc). The details of obtaining the
68: canonical decomposition of the Kane 2-qubit evolution operator
69: contained in \cite{Hill03}. Up to a couple of $Z$-rotations, the
70: 2-qubit interaction corresponds to $\phi_{1} = \phi_{2} = \pi/n$,
71: and $\phi_{3} = 0$. Square gates 1 and 2 correspond to X-rotations
72: $R_{x}(\pi)$ and $R_{x}(\pi/2)$.
73: Fig.~\ref{5QEC:figure:cnot-hcnots3}b shows an implementation of
74: the composite gate Hadamard followed by \CNOT\ followed by swap.
75: Note that the total time of the compound gate is significantly
76: less than the \CNOT\ on its own. This fact has been used to
77: minimize the total execution time of the LNN circuit of
78: Fig.~\ref{5QEC:figure:5qecboth2}b.
79:
80: \begin{figure*}
81: \begin{center}
82: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{cnot-hcnots3.eps}
83: \end{center}
84: \caption{Decomposition into physical operations of (a) \CNOT\ and
85: (b) Hadamard, \CNOT\ then swap. Note that the Kane architecture
86: has been used for illustrative purposes.}
87: \label{5QEC:figure:cnot-hcnots3}
88: \end{figure*}
89:
90: The above implies that the swaps inevitably required in an LNN
91: architecture to bring qubits together to be interacted can, in
92: some cases, be incorporated into other gates without additional
93: cost. On any architecture, canonically decomposed compound gates
94: should be used whenever multiple single and 2-qubit gates are
95: applied to the same two qubits.
96:
97: \section{5-qubit LNN QEC}
98: \label{5QEC:section:5qecLNN}
99:
100: 5-qubit QEC schemes are designed to correct a single arbitrary
101: error. No QEC scheme designed to correct a single arbitrary error
102: can use less than five qubits \cite{Niel00}. A number of 5-qubit
103: QEC proposals exist \cite{Brau97,Knil01,Lafl96,Niwa02,Benn96}.
104: Fig.~\ref{5QEC:figure:5qecboth2}b shows a non-fault-tolerant
105: circuit appropriate for an LNN architecture implementing the
106: encode stage of the QEC scheme proposed in \cite{Brau97}. For
107: reference, the original circuit is shown in
108: Fig.~\ref{5QEC:figure:5qecboth2}a. Note that the LNN circuit uses
109: exactly the same number of \CNOT s and achieves minimal depth
110: since the \CNOT\ gates numbered 1--6 in
111: Fig.~\ref{5QEC:figure:5qecboth2}a must be performed sequentially
112: on any architecture that can only interact pairs of qubits (not
113: three or more at once). The two extra ``naked'' swaps in
114: Fig.~\ref{5QEC:figure:5qecboth2}b do not significantly add to the
115: total time of the circuit. Fig.~\ref{5QEC:figure:qec5dec} shows an
116: equivalent circuit broken into physical operations for a Kane
117: quantum computer. Note that this circuit uses the fact that if two
118: 2-qubit gates share a qubit then two single-qubit unitaries can be
119: combined as shown in Fig.~\ref{5QEC:figure:equiv}. The decode
120: circuit is simply the encode circuit run backwards. 5-qubit QEC
121: schemes are primarily useful for data storage due to the
122: impossibility of fault-tolerantly interacting two logical qubits
123: \cite{Gott98}, though with some effort it is possible to
124: nontrivially interact three logical qubits.
125: Fig.~\ref{5QEC:figure:cycle} shows a full
126: encode-wait-decode-measure-correct data storage cycle.
127: Table~\ref{5QEC:table:one} shows the range of possible
128: measurements and the action required in each case.
129:
130: \begin{figure*}
131: \begin{center}
132: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{5qecboth2.eps}
133: \end{center}
134: \caption{(a) 5-qubit encoding circuit for general architecture,
135: (b) equivalent circuit for linear nearest neighbor architecture
136: with dashed boxes indicating compound gates. \CNOT\ gates that
137: must be performed sequentially are numbered.}
138: \label{5QEC:figure:5qecboth2}
139: \end{figure*}
140:
141: \begin{figure*}
142: \begin{center}
143: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{qec5dec.eps}
144: \end{center}
145: \caption{A sequence of physical gates implementing the circuit of
146: Fig.~\ref{5QEC:figure:5qecboth2}b. Note the Kane architecture has
147: been used for illustrative purposes.} \label{5QEC:figure:qec5dec}
148: \end{figure*}
149:
150: \begin{figure*}
151: \begin{center}
152: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{equiv.eps}
153: \end{center}
154: \caption{Circuit equivalence used to reduce the number of physical
155: gates in Fig.~\ref{5QEC:figure:qec5dec}. $W=U_{A_{2}}V_{B_{1}}$}
156: \label{5QEC:figure:equiv}
157: \end{figure*}
158:
159: \begin{figure*}
160: \begin{center}
161: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{cycle.eps}
162: \end{center}
163: \caption{A complete encode-wait-decode-measure-correct QEC cycle.}
164: \label{5QEC:figure:cycle}
165: \end{figure*}
166:
167: \begin{table}
168: \begin{center}
169: \begin{tabular}{c|c}
170: Measurement & Action \\
171: \hline
172: \rule[-1ex]{0pt}{3.7ex}%
173: $\Psi'\otimes$0000 & \texttt{I$\otimes$IIII} \\
174: $\Psi'\otimes$0001 & \texttt{I$\otimes$IIIX} \\
175: $\Psi'\otimes$0010 & \texttt{I$\otimes$IIXI} \\
176: $\Psi'\otimes$0011 & \texttt{Z$\otimes$IIXX} \\
177: $\Psi'\otimes$0100 & \texttt{I$\otimes$IXII} \\
178: $\Psi'\otimes$0101 & \texttt{X$\otimes$IXIX} \\
179: $\Psi'\otimes$0110 & \texttt{Z$\otimes$IXXI} \\
180: $\Psi'\otimes$0111 & \texttt{X$\otimes$IXXX} \\
181: $\Psi'\otimes$1000 & \texttt{Z$\otimes$XIII} \\
182: $\Psi'\otimes$1001 & \texttt{I$\otimes$XIIX} \\
183: $\Psi'\otimes$1010 & \texttt{X$\otimes$XIXI} \\
184: $\Psi'\otimes$1011 & \texttt{X$\otimes$XIXX} \\
185: $\Psi'\otimes$1100 & \texttt{Z$\otimes$XXII} \\
186: $\Psi'\otimes$1101 & \texttt{X$\otimes$XXIX} \\
187: $\Psi'\otimes$1110 & \texttt{XZ$\otimes$XXXI} \\
188: $\Psi'\otimes$1111 & \texttt{Z$\otimes$XXXX}
189: \end{tabular}
190: \caption{Action required to correct the data qubit $\Psi'$ vs
191: measured value of ancilla qubits. Note that the X-operations
192: simply reset the ancilla.} \label{5QEC:table:one}
193: \end{center}
194: \end{table}
195:
196: \section{Simulation of performance}
197: \label{5QEC:section:sims}
198:
199: When simulating the QEC cycle, the LNN circuit of
200: Fig.~\ref{5QEC:figure:5qecboth2}b was used to keep the analysis
201: independent of the specific architecture used. Each compound gate
202: was modelled as taking the same time, allowing the time $T$ to be
203: made an integer such that each gate takes one time step. Gates
204: were furthermore simulated as though perfectly reliable and errors
205: applied to each qubit (including idle qubits) at the end of each
206: time step. The rationale for including idle qubits is that, in an
207: LNN architecture, active physical manipulation of some description
208: is frequently required to decouple neighboring qubits. Both the
209: manipulation itself and the degree of decoupling are likely to be
210: imperfect, leading to errors. Furthermore, in schemes utilizing
211: global electromagnetic fields to manipulate active qubits,
212: supposedly idle qubits may not be sufficiently off resonant.
213:
214: Two error models were used --- discrete and continuous. In the
215: discrete model, a qubit can suffer either a bit-flip (X),
216: phase-flip (Z) or both simultaneously (XZ). Each type of error is
217: equally likely with total probability of error $p$ per qubit per
218: time step. The continuous error model involves applying
219: single-qubit unitary operations of the form
220: \begin{equation}
221: \label{5QEC:eq:continuous} U_{\sigma} =\left(
222: \begin{array}{cc}
223: \cos(\theta/2)e^{i(\alpha+\beta)/2} & \sin(\theta/2)e^{i(\alpha-\beta)/2} \\
224: -\sin(\theta/2)e^{i(-\alpha+\beta)/2} &
225: \cos(\theta/2)e^{i(-\alpha-\beta)/2}
226: \end{array} \right)
227: \end{equation}
228: where $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\theta$ are normally distributed
229: about 0 with standard deviation $\sigma$.
230:
231: Both the single-qubit and single logical qubit (five qubit)
232: systems were simulated. The initial state
233: \begin{equation}
234: \label{5QEC:eq:state}
235: |\Psi\rangle=\sin(\pi/8)|0\rangle+\cos(\pi/8)|1\rangle
236: \end{equation}
237: was used in both cases since $|\langle\Psi|X|\Psi\rangle|^{2} =
238: 0.5$, $|\langle\Psi|Z|\Psi\rangle|^{2} = 0.5$, and
239: $|\langle\Psi|XZ|\Psi\rangle|^{2}= 0$ thus allowing each type of
240: error to be detected (but not necessarily distinguished). Simpler
241: states such as $|0\rangle$, $|1\rangle$,
242: $(|0\rangle+|1\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$, and
243: $(|0\rangle-|1\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ do not have this property. For
244: example, the states $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$ are insensitive to
245: phase errors, whereas the other two states are insensitive to bit
246: flip errors.
247:
248: Let $T_{wait}$ denote the duration of the wait stage. Note that
249: the total duration of the encode, decode, measure and correct
250: stages is 14. In the QEC case the total time $T=T_{wait}+14$ of
251: one QEC cycle was varied to determine the time that minimizes the
252: error per time step
253: \begin{equation}
254: \label{5QEC:eq:step error}
255: \epsilon_{step}=1-\sqrt[T]{1-\epsilon_{final}}
256: \end{equation}
257: where $\epsilon_{final}=1-|\langle\Psi'|\Psi\rangle|^{2}$ and
258: $|\Psi'\rangle$ is the final data qubit state. An optimal time
259: $T_{opt}$ exists since the logical qubit is only protected during
260: the wait stage and the correction process can only cope with one
261: error. If the wait time is zero, extra complexity has been added
262: but no corrective ability. Similarly, if the wait time is very
263: large, it is almost certain that more than one error will occur,
264: resulting in the qubit being destroyed during the correction
265: process. Somewhere between these two extremes is a wait time that
266: minimizes $\epsilon_{step}$. This property of non-fault-tolerant
267: QEC has been noted previously \cite{Bare97}.
268:
269: Table~\ref{5QEC:table:two} shows $T_{opt}$, $\epsilon_{step}$ and
270: the reduction in error $\epsilon_{step}/p$ versus $p$ for discrete
271: errors. Table~\ref{5QEC:table:three} shows the corresponding data
272: for continuous errors. Note that, in the continuous case, the
273: single qubit $p$ has been obtained via 1-qubit simulations using
274: the indicated $\sigma$ and wait time $T=T_{opt}+14$ and a 1-qubit
275: version of Eq.~(\ref{5QEC:eq:step error})
276: \begin{equation}
277: \label{5QEC:eq:step error_1}
278: p=1-\sqrt[T]{1-\epsilon_{final}}
279: \end{equation}
280: where $\epsilon_{final}=1-|\langle\Psi'|\Psi\rangle|^{2}$ and
281: $|\Psi'\rangle$ is the final single-qubit state. In this context,
282: $p$ is the discrete error rate yielding the same final error
283: probability as the corresponding $\sigma$ over time $T$.
284:
285: \begin{table} \begin{center}
286: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c}
287: $p$ & $T_{opt}$ & $\epsilon_{step}$ & $\epsilon_{step}/p$ \\
288: \hline
289: \rule[-1ex]{0pt}{3.7ex}%
290: $10^{-2}$ & 25 & $1.7\times 10^{-2}$ & $1.7\times 10^{0}$ \\
291: $1.6\times 10^{-3}$ & 40 & $1.6\times 10^{-3}$ & $1.0\times 10^{0}$ \\
292: $10^{-3}$ & 50 & $8.4\times 10^{-4}$ & $8.4\times 10^{-1}$ \\
293: $10^{-4}$ & 150 & $3.1\times 10^{-5}$ & $3.1\times 10^{-1}$ \\
294: $10^{-5}$ & 500 & $1.0\times 10^{-6}$ & $1.0\times 10^{-1}$ \\
295: $10^{-6}$ & 1500 & $3.2\times 10^{-8}$ & $3.2\times 10^{-2}$ \\
296: $10^{-7}$ & 5000 & $1.0\times 10^{-9}$ & $1.0\times 10^{-2}$ \\
297: $10^{-8}$ & 10000 & $2.0\times 10^{-11}$ & $2.0\times 10^{-3}$
298: \end{tabular}
299: \caption{Probability per time step $\epsilon_{step}$ of the
300: logical qubit being destroyed when using 5-qubit QEC vs physical
301: probability $p$ per qubit per time step of a discrete error.}
302: \label{5QEC:table:two}
303: \end{center} \end{table}
304:
305: \begin{table} \begin{center}
306: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c}
307: $\sigma$ & $T_{opt}$ & $p$ & $\epsilon_{step}$ & $\epsilon_{step}/p$ \\
308: \hline
309: \rule[-1ex]{0pt}{3.7ex}%
310: $10^{-1}$ & $2.5\times 10^{1}$ & $4.4\times 10^{-3}$ & $6.9\times 10^{-3}$ & $1.6\times 10^{0}$ \\
311: $4.7\times 10^{-2}$ & $5.5\times 10^{1}$ & $1.1\times 10^{-3}$ & $1.1\times 10^{-3}$ & $1.0\times 10^{0}$ \\
312: $10^{-2}$ & $2.5\times 10^{2}$ & $4.9\times 10^{-5}$ & $1.4\times 10^{-5}$ & $2.9\times 10^{-1}$ \\
313: $3.6\times 10^{-3}$ & $5.5\times 10^{2}$ & $6.4\times 10^{-6}$ & $6.4\times 10^{-7}$ & $1.0\times 10^{-1}$ \\
314: $10^{-3}$ & $2.5\times 10^{3}$ & $5.0\times 10^{-7}$ & $1.3\times 10^{-8}$ & $2.6\times 10^{-2}$ \\
315: $4.0\times 10^{-4}$ & $5.0\times 10^{3}$ & $8.0\times 10^{-8}$ & $8.0\times 10^{-10}$ & $1.0\times 10^{-2}$ \\
316: $10^{-4}$ & $2.5\times 10^{4}$ & $5.0\times 10^{-9}$ & $1.0\times 10^{-11}$ & $2.0\times 10^{-3}$ \\
317: $10^{-5}$ & $2.5\times 10^{5}$ & $5.0\times 10^{-11}$ & $7.2\times 10^{-15}$ & $1.4\times 10^{-4}$
318: \end{tabular}
319: \caption{Probability per time step $\epsilon_{step}$ of the
320: logical qubit being destroyed when using 5-qubit QEC vs standard
321: deviation $\sigma$ of continuous errors.} \label{5QEC:table:three}
322: \end{center} \end{table}
323:
324: The threshold $p = 1.6\times 10^{-3}$ shown in
325: Table~\ref{5QEC:table:two} is comparable to some of the highest
326: thresholds of fault-tolerant quantum computation described in
327: Chapter~\ref{intro}, which were obtained using weaker noise models
328: and architectures able to interact arbitrary pairs of qubits. If
329: an error rate improvement of a factor of 10 or 100 is desired when
330: using our scheme, then $p = 10^{-5}$ or $p = 10^{-7}$ is required
331: respectively. Note that unlike fault-tolerant schemes, the error
332: rate of the logical qubit does not scale as $cp^{2}$.
333:
334: For continuous errors, the threshold standard deviation is $\sigma
335: = 4.7\times 10^{-2}$. The logical qubit is a factor of 10 more
336: reliable than a single physical qubit for $\sigma = 3.6\times
337: 10^{-3}$. A factor of 100 improvement is achieved when $\sigma =
338: 4.0\times 10^{-4}$.
339:
340: \section{Conclusion}
341: \label{5QEC:section:conc}
342:
343: To summarize, we have presented a non-fault-tolerant circuit
344: implementing 5-qubit QEC on an LNN architecture that achieves the
345: same depth as the current least depth circuit \cite{Brau97}, and
346: simulated its effectiveness against both discrete and continuous
347: errors. For the discrete error model, if error correction is to
348: provide an error rate reduction of a factor of 10 or 100, the
349: physical error rate $p$ must be $10^{-5}$ or $10^{-7}$
350: respectively. The corresponding figures for the continuous error
351: model are $\sigma = 3.6\times 10^{-3}$ and $4.0\times 10^{-4}$.
352:
353: Further work is required to determine whether the discrete or
354: continuous error model or some other model best describes errors
355: in physical quantum computers. The relationship between the two
356: error models also warrants further investigation. Further
357: simulation is required to determine the error thresholds and
358: scaling associated with single and 2-qubit LNN QEC protected
359: gates.
360: