1: \documentclass[twoside]{article}
2: \usepackage{qic}
3:
4: \pagestyle{headings}
5: \usepackage{amsmath}
6: \usepackage{subfigure}
7:
8: \newcommand\myell{\ell}
9: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{|#1\rangle}
10: \newcommand{\braket}[2]{\langle #1\,|\,#2\rangle}
11: \newcommand{\ketbra}[1]{|\, #1\rangle\langle #1\,|}
12: \newcommand\beq{\begin{equation}}
13: \newcommand\eeq{\end{equation}}
14: \newcommand\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
15: \newcommand\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
16: \renewcommand{\det}[1]{\mbox{\sf det}\left(#1\right)} % %
17:
18: \begin{document}
19:
20: \setlength{\textheight}{8.0truein}
21:
22: \runninghead{A flow-map model for analyzing pseudothresholds $\ldots$}{ K.~M. Svore, A.~W. Cross, I.~L. Chuang, and A.~V. Aho}
23:
24: \normalsize\textlineskip
25: \thispagestyle{empty}
26: \setcounter{page}{1}
27:
28: \copyrightheading{0}{0}{2005}{000--000}
29:
30: \vspace*{0.88truein}
31:
32: \alphfootnote
33:
34: \fpage{1}
35:
36: \centerline{\bf A flow-map model for analyzing}
37: \centerline{\bf pseudothresholds in fault-tolerant quantum computing}
38: \baselineskip=10pt
39: \vspace*{0.37truein}
40: \centerline{\footnotesize
41: Krysta M. Svore}
42: \vspace*{0.015truein}
43: \centerline{\footnotesize\it Columbia University, Dept. of Computer Science,
44: 1214 Amsterdam Ave. MC:0401}
45: \baselineskip=10pt
46: \centerline{\footnotesize\it New York, NY 10027}
47: \vspace*{10pt}
48: \centerline{\footnotesize
49: Andrew W. Cross}
50: \vspace*{0.015truein}
51: \centerline{\footnotesize\it Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of
52: Electrical Engineering, 77 Massachusetts Ave.}
53: \baselineskip=10pt
54: \centerline{\footnotesize\it Cambridge, MA 02139}
55: \vspace*{10pt}
56: \centerline{\footnotesize
57: Isaac L. Chuang}
58: \vspace*{0.015truein}
59: \centerline{\footnotesize\it Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of
60: Electrical Engineering, 77 Massachusetts Ave.}
61: \baselineskip=10pt
62: \centerline{\footnotesize\it Cambridge, MA 02139}
63: \vspace*{10pt}
64: \centerline{\footnotesize
65: Alfred V. Aho}
66: \vspace*{0.015truein}
67: \centerline{\footnotesize\it Columbia University, Dept. of Computer Science,
68: 1214 Amsterdam Ave. MC:0401}
69: \baselineskip=10pt
70: \centerline{\footnotesize\it New York, NY 10027}
71: \vspace*{0.225truein}
72: \publisher{(received date)}{(revised date)}
73:
74: \vspace*{0.21truein}
75:
76: \abstracts{
77: An arbitrarily reliable quantum computer can be efficiently constructed from noisy components using
78: a recursive simulation procedure, provided that those components fail with probability less than the
79: fault-tolerance threshold. Recent estimates of the threshold are near some experimentally achieved
80: gate fidelities. However, the landscape of threshold estimates includes pseudothresholds, threshold
81: estimates based on a subset of components and a low level of the recursion.
82: In this paper, we observe that pseudothresholds are a generic phenomenon in fault-tolerant computation.
83: We define pseudothresholds and present classical and quantum fault-tolerant circuits exhibiting
84: pseudothresholds that differ by a factor of $4$ from fault-tolerance thresholds for typical relationships between component failure rates.
85: We develop tools for visualizing how reliability is influenced by recursive simulation in order to
86: determine the asymptotic threshold. Finally, we conjecture that refinements of these methods may
87: establish upper bounds on the fault-tolerance threshold for particular codes and noise models.
88: }{}{}
89:
90: \vspace*{10pt}
91:
92: \keywords{Fault-Tolerance}
93: \vspace*{3pt}
94: \communicate{to be filled in by the Editorial}
95:
96: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
97: \noindent
98:
99: A quantum computer can potentially solve certain problems more efficiently
100: than a classical computer \cite{shor94,grover97,hallgren02}.
101: However, quantum computers are likely to be engineered from inherently noisy
102: components, so any scalable quantum computer system will require quantum error
103: correction and fault-tolerant methods of computation.
104: As candidate quantum device technologies mature, we need to determine
105: component failure probabilities necessary to achieve scalability.
106: The fault-tolerance threshold for gate and memory components is particularly
107: interesting because arbitrarily reliable computations are possible if the
108: circuit components have failure rates below the threshold. Given detailed knowledge
109: of the fault-tolerance threshold and its associated trade-offs, proposals
110: for fault-tolerant quantum computation can be critically evaluated.
111:
112: The concept of a fault-tolerance threshold has its origins in the classical theory of
113: computation. In the 1950's, von Neumann showed that it is possible to achieve a reliable
114: classical computation with faulty components provided that the failure
115: probability of each component is below some constant threshold probability
116: that is independent of the circuit size and the desired noise rate
117: \cite{vonneumann56}.
118: Similarly, concatenated coding and recursive error correction can be used to achieve
119: reliable quantum computation.
120: Concatenation is the process of encoding physical bits of one code as logical bits of another code.
121: It is now well-known that using a
122: single-error-correcting concatenated coding scheme with $L$ levels of recursion,
123: the maximum failure probability $\gamma_{circuit}$ of a fault-tolerant circuit
124: can be estimated as a function of the maximum failure probability $\gamma$
125: of a basic component using the {\it fault-tolerance threshold inequality}
126: \beq
127: \frac{\gamma_{circuit}(\gamma)}{\gamma_{th}} \leq \left(\frac{\gamma}{\gamma_{th}}\right)^{2^L},
128: \label{eqn:thresh}
129: \eeq
130: where $\gamma_{th}$ is the asymptotic threshold \cite{preskill97}.
131: When Eq~(\ref{eqn:thresh}) holds with equality, we call it the
132: {\it fault-tolerance threshold equation}. The final circuit failure probability
133: $\gamma_{circuit}$ decreases as a doubly exponential function of $L$ if $\gamma<\gamma_{th}$.
134:
135: \begin{figure}[htbp]
136: \vspace*{13pt} \centerline{\psfig{file=figure01.eps,width=8.2cm}}
137: \vspace*{13pt} \fcaption{Plots of quantum threshold estimates for
138: stochastic noise models between the years 1996 and 2004
139: \cite{preskill97,svore04local,aharonov99, dennis01, gottesmanthesis, knill97, knill04,ohno04,reichardt04,steane02overhead,zalka96}.
140: Stars denote numerical estimates and circles denote all others.
141: Most of these
142: estimates apply to the $[[7,1,3]]$ code, though the pair of thresholds at and
143: above $10^{-2}$ apply to surface code memories and post-selected quantum
144: computation. The networks vary over unitary networks,
145: nearest-neighbor networks, and various optimized networks. Some estimates apply only when
146: there are no memory errors, and others apply only for the Clifford-group gates.
147: The dark swath designates the large interval that contains all of these
148: estimates.}
149: \label{fig:thresh}
150: \end{figure}
151:
152: One branch of fault-tolerant quantum computing research has focused on
153: estimating the fault-tolerance threshold in the fault-tolerance threshold
154: inequality.
155: Figure~\ref{fig:thresh} shows the range of quantum threshold estimates
156: reported in
157: \cite{preskill97,svore04local,aharonov99, dennis01, gottesmanthesis, knill97, knill04,ohno04,reichardt04,steane02overhead,zalka96}.
158: The estimates, which vary between $10^{-6}$ and $10^{-2}$,
159: include numerical and analytical results for varying networks for the $[[7,1,3]]$ code, such as optimized networks, unitary networks, and nearest-neighbor networks. They also include
160: results for surface code memories and post-selected quantum computing
161: models that yield thresholds above $10^{-2}$. Numerical estimates tend
162: to be more optimistic than their analytical counterparts.
163:
164: \begin{figure}[htbp]
165: \vspace*{13pt} \centerline{ \subfigure{
166: \psfig{file=figure02a.eps,width=5cm} \label{fig:trp:a} } \hspace{1cm}
167: \subfigure{ \psfig{file=figure02b.eps,width=5cm} \label{fig:trpb:b} }}
168: \fcaption{(a) An ideal threshold reliability information plot (TRIP)
169: follows Eq~(\protect{\ref{eqn:thresh}}). The crossing point between
170: the $L=0$ line and the $L=1$ curve, marked by the asterisk on the thick
171: vertical line, is the fault-tolerance threshold. All of the curves
172: cross at the same point. (b) A real TRIP does not follow
173: Eq~(\protect{\ref{eqn:thresh}}). The crossing points between the
174: $L=0$ line and the other curves are all different. These points,
175: marked by circles, correspond to a sequence of pseudothresholds that
176: converges to the real fault-tolerance threshold marked by the
177: asterisk on the thick vertical line.}
178: \end{figure}
179:
180: If there is a single type of component that is replaced using the same rule each time, the fault-tolerance threshold inequality,
181: Eq~(\ref{eqn:thresh}), becomes an equality. This leads to a very simple prediction
182: shown in Figure~\ref{fig:trp:a}: if $\gamma=\gamma_{th}$, then $\gamma_{circuit}=\gamma_{th}$.
183: This fact is taken as the basis of several numerical analyses of the fault-tolerance threshold today.
184: Specifically, this simplification is attractive for computationally expensive numerical simulations
185: because it implies that the threshold can be determined by finding the smallest nonzero value of
186: $\gamma$ that solves $\gamma_{circuit}(\gamma)=\gamma$.
187:
188: Realistically, however, there are multiple types of components that are each replaced using
189: different rules, so the first crossing point does not
190: accurately indicate the fault-tolerance threshold. Figure \ref{fig:trpb:b} more accurately
191: portrays the effect of recursive simulation. As the recursion level increases, for example, an exponentially
192: growing number of wires must be introduced between gates. When these wires are unreliable, as they likely
193: will be in quantum circuits, successive recursion levels can cause errors to increase even though
194: $\gamma$ is beneath the apparent threshold. Thus, recursive simulation changes the relative proportions
195: of each type of component and what appears to be the threshold at one level of recursion may be far from
196: the asymptotic threshold. This sequence of crossing points cannot be used to describe the proper conditions
197: under which a system is scalable. Rather, these crossing points are pseudothresholds \cite{svore04local}.
198:
199: When multiple types of components are replaced using different rules, each component type must be
200: parameterized by a separate failure probability. Hence, opportunity exists for
201: engineering trade-offs that still preserve scalability. These trade-offs can be quantified given
202: the asymptotic threshold, families of pseudothresholds, and their relation to the shape of the set of
203: subthreshold component parameters.
204:
205: In this paper, we present practical methods for distinguishing pseudothresholds from
206: asymptotic thresholds. In particular, we explore the conditions under which pseudothresholds exist
207: and clarify their meaning. We embark on this exploration carrying two tools. The first tool is a generalization of Figure~\ref{fig:trpb:b},
208: which we call the {\it threshold reliability information plot} (TRIP). In a TRIP, each curve represents the
209: failure probability of a particular component at concatenation level $L$ and crosses the $L=0$ line once. The crossing of a level-$L$ curve and the level-($L=0$) line yields the rightmost edge of an interval on the $\gamma$--axis below which
210: reliability is improved by concatenation. The crossing point is a level-$L$ pseudothreshold.
211:
212: \begin{figure}[htbp]
213: \vspace*{13pt} \centerline{ \psfig{file=figure03.eps,width=8.2cm}}
214: \vspace*{13pt} \fcaption{ Threshold information flow diagram (TIFD)
215: corresponding to the following recursive simulation procedure: gates
216: $u$ and $v$ at level-$(L-1)$ are both replaced by fault-tolerant
217: gates at level $L$ that can withstand a single level-$(L-1)$ gate
218: failure. However, $u$ and $v$ compute different functions, so their
219: fault-tolerant implementations are different. In this example, the
220: fault-tolerant $u$ contains two $u$ gates and two $v$ gates, and the
221: fault-tolerant $v$ contains three $u$ gates and three $v$ gates.
222: Arrows on this TIFD indicate how the recursive simulation procedure
223: changes the effective failure probabilities of $u$ and $v$. For some
224: failure probabilities, recursive simulation has no effect. These
225: fixed points are marked by circles, and one of them determines the
226: fault-tolerance threshold, indicated by a thick black line. Sample
227: trajectories begin at the squares and flow along the thick dashed
228: lines, where the diamonds mark the sequence of points for each level
229: $L$ of concatenation. } \label{fig:tifd}
230: \end{figure}
231:
232: The second tool is a {\it threshold information flow diagram} (TIFD) that shows how
233: recursive simulation can change the reliability of a particular set of noisy components.
234: A {\it flow} is a normalized vector field that can be visualized as a collection of arrows.
235: Each arrow's base is anchored to a point that represents the current failure probability of
236: the (composite) components. The direction of each arrow indicates the direction the anchor point moves
237: at the next level of recursion. In contrast to the TRIP, the TIFD exposes how all of the
238: component failure probabilities change in a recursive simulation. If the recursive
239: simulation is self-similar, i.e., if the failure probability of a level-$L$ component can
240: be expressed in terms of the failure probabilities of level-$(L-1)$ components, particularly
241: with respect to the noise model, then the TIFD indicates whether or not recursive simulation
242: increases or decreases each component's failure probability, allowing us to compute and
243: visualize the fault-tolerance threshold.
244:
245: For example, Figure~\ref{fig:tifd} shows a TIFD for a hypothetical pair of faulty basic gates $u$ and
246: $v$. Because $u$ and $v$ compute different functions,
247: their fault-tolerant implementations use different numbers of basic $u$ and $v$ gates. In this
248: example, the fault-tolerant $u$ contains two $u$ gates and two $v$ gates, connected in some
249: fashion so that the fault-tolerant $u$ can withstand one internal gate failure and still produce
250: a ``good'' output. If basic gates $u$ and $v$ fail independently with probabilities
251: $\gamma_u$ and $\gamma_v$, respectively, then the failure probability of the fault-tolerant $u$
252: gate is
253: \begin{equation}
254: 1 - (1-\gamma_u)^2(1-\gamma_v)^2 - 2\gamma_u(1-\gamma_u)(1-\gamma_v)^2 - 2\gamma_v(1-\gamma_v)(1-\gamma_u)^2.
255: \end{equation}
256: Similarly, the fault-tolerant $v$ gate contains three $u$ gates and three $v$ gates
257: and can withstand any single failure, giving
258: \begin{equation}
259: 1 - (1-\gamma_u)^3(1-\gamma_v)^3 - 3\gamma_u(1-\gamma_u)^2(1-\gamma_v)^3 - 3\gamma_v(1-\gamma_v)^2(1-\gamma_u)^3.
260: \end{equation}
261: There are many such hypothetical examples. In Section~\ref{sec:classical}, we give a more realistic
262: example that demonstrates how a TIFD is calculated based on an actual circuit.
263:
264: Continuing with this example, the effective failure probabilities of $u$ and $v$
265: after level-$1$ recursive simulation both
266: depend on the initial failure probabilities $\gamma_u^0$ and $\gamma_v^0$ of $u$ and $v$,
267: shown on the horizontal and vertical axes of the TIFD. Consider the following scenario.
268: The $v$ gate initially fails with probability $0.2$ and the $u$ gate does not fail at all.
269: A square marks this point on the TIFD. The arrow at this point on the TIFD points down
270: and to the right, indicating that a level-$1$ recursive simulation will improve $v$ but
271: make $u$ worse. The dashed line connects the initial failure probabilities to the
272: failure probabilities of the level-$1$ simulated gates (at about $(0.04,0.1)$). The dashed
273: path shows that subsequent recursive simulation makes $u$ and $v$ arbitrarily reliable.
274:
275: The TIFD in Figure~\ref{fig:tifd} also indicates the set of initial failure probabilities that
276: is below threshold. The boundary of this set is determined by a fixed point of the recursive
277: simulation procedure. This fixed point is marked with a circle, and the thick dark line
278: passing through this circle is the invariant set that indicates the fault-tolerance threshold.
279: For example, an ideal $v$ gate and a $u$ gate that initially fails with probability $0.28$
280: (marked by a square) is above threshold. This point flows nearly parallel to the invariant
281: line at first, but ultimately escapes from the boundary of the TIFD after about $7$
282: levels of recursive simulation.
283:
284: We organize the paper as follows. In Section \ref{sec:defs}, we first
285: define the fault-tolerance threshold for concatenated flow maps, then
286: we define pseudothresholds and describe their importance. We calculate,
287: in Section~\ref{sec:classical}, a family of pseudothresholds and distinguish them from the
288: fault-tolerance threshold estimate for the classical repetition code.
289: In Section~\ref{sec:quantum}, we study the $[[7,1,3]]$ CSS code, again comparing
290: the fault-tolerance threshold against families of pseudothresholds.
291: We suggest techniques for finding the threshold in Section~\ref{sec:technique}
292: that expand upon our use of the TIFD. We conclude in
293: Section~\ref{sec:conclusion} with open questions.
294:
295: \section{Pseudothresholds}\label{sec:defs}
296: \noindent
297:
298: In Section~\ref{sec:intro}, we discussed the phenomenon of pseudothresholds
299: without introducing many mathematical concepts. In this section, we clarify
300: what we mean by defining both the fault-tolerance threshold and the
301: pseudothreshold sequences for a set of flow maps.
302:
303: \subsection{The fault-tolerance threshold}
304: \noindent
305:
306: The threshold is related to the number of ``bad'' fault paths
307: through a circuit. Assume faults occur at discrete locations and times with probability dependent on
308: the location type. The failure probability of the circuit can then be determined
309: as a function of failure probabilities of types of locations. For a code correcting $t$
310: errors, the probability that one of these bad fault paths occurs is no more than $C\gamma^{t+1}$,
311: where $\gamma$ is the largest failure probability of any type of location in the circuit
312: and $C$ is the number of ways to choose $t+1$ failed locations out of $N$ total locations.
313: The fault-tolerance threshold satisfies
314: \beq
315: \label{eq:tbound}
316: \gamma_{th}\geq \left(\frac{1}{C}\right)^{1/(t+1)},
317: \eeq
318: since $\gamma_{th}$ is the fixed point of the map $\gamma_{circuit}(\gamma)=C\gamma^{t+1}$.
319:
320: However, we must recognize that the fault-tolerant implementations of each
321: location type differ, so we must express the failure probability of each
322: fault-tolerant location type as a function of the location types it contains.
323: In other words,
324: we construct (approximations to) the {\it flow maps} for the given fault-tolerant implementations and
325: noise model \cite{svore04local,gottesmanthesis}. In particular, if each type of location $\myell$ is assigned
326: an initial failure probability $\gamma_\myell^0$ and if there are $n$ different types of locations, the approximate
327: failure probability of location type $\myell$ after one level of recursive simulation is a function $\Gamma_\myell^1$
328: of all $n$ of the initial failure probabilities.
329: Therefore, $\Gamma_\myell^1$ is called the {\it flow map for location type $\myell$}.
330:
331: Considering all types of locations $l$, the functions $\Gamma_\myell^1$ are the coordinates of a {\it flow map} $\Gamma^1$.
332: The flow map takes the failure probabilities of the $n$ location types to their new values
333: after one level of recursive simulation. The failure probabilities of the $L$-simulated location
334: types are (approximately) related to the initial failure probabilities $\gamma_\myell^0$ by the
335: composed flow map,
336: \begin{equation}\label{eq:selfsim}
337: \Gamma^L \approx \underset{\hbox{{\it L} times}}{\underbrace{\Gamma^1\circ\dots\circ\Gamma^1}}.
338: \end{equation}
339: Ideally, the replacements can be constructed so that Eq~(\ref{eq:selfsim}) is an
340: equality. This is the case for the example in Section~\ref{sec:classical} but not in Section~\ref{sec:quantum}.
341: Let $\Gamma^L_\myell$ denote the coordinate function of $\Gamma^L$ associated with
342: location $\myell$, and let $\Gamma^0_\myell$ be the initial function that selects the $\myell$
343: coordinate. In other words, $\Gamma^L_\myell$ is the failure probability
344: of location $\myell$ after $L$ levels of recursive simulation.
345: The function $\Gamma^L_\myell$ is a {\it concatenated flow map for location type $\myell$} because we can use
346: Eq~(\ref{eq:selfsim}) to derive (an approximation to) $\Gamma_\myell^L$. The map $\Gamma^L$
347: is the {\it concatenated flow map}.
348:
349: A vector of failure probabilities $\vec{\gamma}$ for the $n$ location types is
350: {\it below threshold} if all $n$ of the failure probabilities approach zero
351: as the concatenation level approaches infinity,
352: \begin{equation}
353: \lim_{L\rightarrow\infty} \Gamma^L(\vec{\gamma})=\vec{0}.
354: \end{equation}
355: Let $T$ be the set of these vectors that are below threshold, and let $C_\epsilon$
356: be the $n$-dimensional cube of edge length $\epsilon$ with one corner at the origin,
357: \beq
358: C_\epsilon\equiv \{\vec{\gamma}\in [0,1]^n\ |\ \gamma_\myell<\epsilon\ \ \forall \myell, \epsilon\in (0,1]\}
359: \eeq
360: The cube contains all of the vectors whose worst failure probability is less than
361: $\epsilon$. The {\it fault-tolerance threshold} or {\it asymptotic threshold} is the
362: size of the largest cube contained in $T$, i.e.,
363: \begin{equation}
364: \gamma_{th} \equiv \sup \{ \epsilon\geq 0\ |\ C_\epsilon\subseteq T\}.
365: \end{equation}
366: If all component failure probabilities are beneath this probability, then
367: composing the flow maps reduces the failure probability arbitrarily
368: close to zero.
369:
370: \subsection{Definition of pseudothresholds}
371: \noindent
372:
373: Before we define pseudothresholds, we introduce the concept of a {\it setting}.
374: Settings parameterize a set of location failure probabilities by a single
375: parameter so that we can think of $\Gamma^L_{\myell}$ as a function of
376: this parameter. A setting is a function from a single failure probability
377: parameter to a vector of $n$ failure probabilities, one for each location.
378: For example, the {\it diagonal setting} $g(\gamma) = (\gamma,\dots,\gamma)$
379: is used in analyses that assign each location the same initial failure probability.
380: The {\it Steane setting} $g(\gamma)$ is another setting that sets all location
381: failure probabilities to $\gamma$ except for a waiting bit which is assigned $\gamma/10$
382: \cite{steane02overhead} (in this reference, a waiting bit is assigned a
383: failure probability of $\gamma/100$).
384:
385: Suppose there are $n$ types of locations. We define a pseudothreshold
386: $\gamma_{\myell,g}^L$ for a
387: fixed level of recursion $L>0$, a location $\myell$, and a setting $g$ as the
388: least nonzero solution to
389: \beq
390: \Gamma^L_{\myell}(g(\gamma)) = \gamma,
391: \label{eq:pseudodef}
392: \eeq
393: This definition presents the $(L,\myell,g)$-pseudothreshold as a fixed-point
394: calculation for a function derived from the flow map $\Gamma$. The left-hand size of
395: Eq~(\ref{eq:pseudodef}) can be viewed as one of the curves plotted in
396: Figure~\ref{fig:trp:a}, and the right hand size can be viewed as the $L=0$
397: line. The point where these curves intersect is a pseudothreshold.
398:
399: For fixed location $\myell$ and setting $g$, the sequence $\gamma^L_{\myell,g}$
400: is not necessarily constant as a function of $L$. In fact, the sequence is
401: typically not constant, meaning that pseudothresholds are a generic phenomenon.
402: More specifically, let $\gamma_0$ be any pseudothreshold of the flow map
403: $\Gamma$ for a setting $g$, and let $\vec{\gamma_0}$ be the constant vector
404: $(\gamma_0,\dots,\gamma_0)$. The pseudothreshold $\gamma_0$ is independent
405: of location type and recursion level only if the setting satisfies
406: $\Gamma(g(\gamma_0))=\vec{\gamma}_0$ and $\vec{\gamma}_0$ is a fixed
407: point of $\Gamma$.
408:
409: Despite the fact that pseudothresholds are not thresholds, pseudothresholds
410: are interesting because only a fixed level of recursive simulation will be
411: used in practice. If the goal is to construct a reliable fault-tolerant
412: location type $\myell$, and all of the location types have the same initial reliability
413: (i.e., $g(\gamma)=(\gamma,\dots,\gamma)$), then choosing $\gamma$ to
414: be less than the $(L,\myell,g)$-pseudothreshold makes the $L$-simulated gate
415: location type $\myell$ more reliable than the initial gate. However, some caution must
416: be applied to pseudothresholds as well because the $(1,\myell,g)$-pseudothreshold and
417: the $(2,\myell,g)$-pseudothreshold can be substantially different.
418:
419: In the following sections, we present an illustrative example of classical
420: pseudothresholds followed by a more detailed example of quantum
421: pseudothresholds. We show by means of these examples that pseudothresholds
422: are generic to all multiparameter maps. In addition, we highlight that
423: threshold estimates should account for multiple location types and higher levels
424: of code concatenation to achieve more realistic threshold results.
425:
426: \section{Classical Pseudothresholds for the $[3,1,3]$ Code}\label{sec:classical}
427: \noindent
428:
429: In this section, we analyze a classical example to build intuition about the
430: differences between pseudothresholds and thresholds.
431: We study pseudothresholds for classical fault-tolerant
432: components based on the $[3,1,3]$ repetition code. We use the threshold
433: reliability information plot (TRIP) of the $[3,1,3]$ code to identify
434: pseudothresholds. We then characterize the flow map for this example
435: using a threshold information flow diagram (TIFD).
436:
437: \subsection{The $[3,1,3]$ code and its failure probability map}
438: \noindent
439:
440: In this example, the classical single-error-correcting $[3,1,3]$ repetition code, also
441: called triple modular rendundancy (TMR), is used to encode a single bit in three bits
442: by copying it three times. To make a fault-tolerant classical wire using this
443: code, three location types $\Omega = \{w,v,f\}$ are required, where
444: \begin{itemize}
445: \item $w:\{0,1\}\rightarrow\{0,1\}$ defined by $w(a)=a$ is a {\it wire}.
446: \item $v:\{0,1\}^3\rightarrow\{0,1\}$ defined by $v(a,b,c)=ab\oplus bc\oplus ca$ is a {\it voter}.
447: \item $f:\{0,1\}\rightarrow\{0,1\}^3$ defined by $f(a)=(a,a,a)$ is a {\it fanout}.
448: \end{itemize}
449: The superscripts above indicate the Cartesian product.
450: The wire $w$ is analogous to a waiting bit in a quantum fault-tolerance
451: analysis, and the voter $v$ and fanout $f$ perform error correction.
452:
453: A noisy version of each location type is defined as follows. A noisy wire flips the
454: output bit with probability $\gamma_w$. A noisy voter incorrectly indicates
455: the output bit with probability $\gamma_v$. For simplicity, we choose to model
456: the fanout gate to be noiseless.
457:
458: To recursively construct a fault-tolerant wire, {\it replacement rules} are used.
459: A replacement rule is a pair $(b,R(b))$ where $b\in \Omega$ and $R(b)$ is a
460: circuit over $\Omega$ that specifies how to replace a level-($L-1$) location at
461: level $L$. $R(b)$ is called the {\it replacement} of $b$ and must preserve the
462: functionality of the original location $b$. We construct the replacement rules to
463: mirror replacement rules for quantum circuits, in which a circuit location is replaced
464: by error correction followed by a fault-tolerant implementation of the location.
465:
466: The following steps suggest how to ensure proper component connectivity for a code
467: encoding a single bit. First, replace $b$ directly by
468: $D^{\otimes n_o} \circ R(b) \circ E^{\otimes n_i}$ where $D$ and $E$
469: are an ideal decoder and encoder. We must have $D\circ E$ equal to the identity gate on
470: a single bit, where the open circle $\circ$ denotes function composition. The numbers
471: $n_i$ and $n_o$ are the number of input and output bits of $b$, respectively.
472: After replacing each component in this manner, make a second pass over the circuit
473: and replace all pairs $D\circ E$ by bundles of wires. Finally, replace the remaining
474: encoders and decoders by respective fault-tolerant implementations of input preparation
475: and output readout. The resulting circuit components will be properly connected, and
476: the circuit will not contain decoding and re-encoding components since these components
477: are not typically fault-tolerant.
478:
479: For this example, a wire $w$ is replaced by error correction
480: followed by a transversal implementation of the wire, i.e., a wire is applied
481: to each bit of the encoded input, shown in Figure~\ref{fig:wire}. Note the
482: first dashed box indicates the classical error correction, which involves
483: $w,v,$ and $f$ location types, and the second dashed box indicates the
484: fault-tolerant implementation of the original location. Similarly, Figures
485: \ref{fig:voter:a} and \ref{fig:fanout:b} show the fault-tolerant replacement
486: of $v$ and $f$, respectively.
487:
488: \begin{figure}[htbp]
489: \vspace*{13pt} \centerline{
490: \psfig{file=figure04.eps,width=8.2cm}}\vspace*{13pt}
491: \fcaption{Replacement rule for a wire $w$. The fanouts $f$ and
492: voters $v$ perform error correction. The first dashed box indicates
493: classical error correction using fanouts $f$ and voters $v$. The
494: second dashed box indicates the fault-tolerant implementation of the
495: wire $w$.} \label{fig:wire}
496: \end{figure}
497:
498: \begin{figure}[htbp]
499: \vspace*{13pt}\centerline{ \subfigure{
500: \psfig{file=figure05a.eps,width=4.1cm} \label{fig:voter:a} }
501: \hspace{1cm} \subfigure{ \psfig{file=figure05b.eps,width=4.1cm}
502: \label{fig:fanout:b} }}\vspace*{13pt} \fcaption{(a) Replacement rule
503: for a voter $v$. The first dashed box indicates classical error
504: correction using fanouts $f$ and voters $v$. The second dashed box
505: indicates the fault-tolerant implementation of the voter $v$. (b)
506: Replacement rule for a fanout $f$. Because we assume fanouts are
507: noiseless, the replacement is just three fanout gates $f$.
508: }
509: \end{figure}
510:
511: Using the replacements $R(w)$ and $R(v)$, the failure probabilities $\Gamma_w^1(\vec{\gamma})$
512: and $\Gamma_v^1(\vec{\gamma})$ can be found, where the initial vector of failure probabilities
513: is $\vec{\gamma} = (\gamma_w^0,\gamma_v^0)$. Failure is defined to occur when the component's
514: output does not decode to the correct value. The wire failure probability is
515: easily calculated by counting the number of ways each configuration of errors
516: occurs. For example, three voters fail in one way, three voters and one wire
517: fail in three ways, two voters fail in three ways, etc. Rewriting the resulting
518: polynomial in distributed form gives
519: \begin{align}
520: \Gamma_w^1(\vec{\gamma}) & = 6\gamma_v\gamma_w + 3\gamma_v^2 + 3\gamma_w^2 - 2\gamma_v^3 - 18\gamma_v^2\gamma_w
521: + 12\gamma_v^3\gamma_w - 18\gamma_v\gamma_w^2 \nonumber \\
522: & + 36\gamma_v^2\gamma_w^2 - 24\gamma_v^3\gamma_w^2 - 2\gamma_w^3
523: + 12\gamma_v\gamma_w^3 - 24\gamma_v^2\gamma_w^3 + 16\gamma_v^3\gamma_w^3,
524: \label{eqn:wire}
525: \end{align}
526: where the superscript $0$ has been dropped for notational convenience.
527:
528: Replacing the wire failure probability $\gamma_w^0$ by $\gamma_v^0$ and
529: the voter failure probability $\gamma_v^0$ by the probability of error
530: correction failure $3(\gamma_v^0)^2(1-\gamma_v^0)+(\gamma_v^0)^3$ gives
531: \begin{align}
532: \Gamma_v^1(\vec{\gamma}) & = 3\gamma_v^2 + 16\gamma_v^3 - 39\gamma_v^4 - 126\gamma_v^5 + 474\gamma_v^6
533: - 288\gamma_v^7 - 936\gamma_v^8 \nonumber \\
534: & + 2080\gamma_v^9 - 1824\gamma_v^{10} + 768\gamma_v^{11} - 128\gamma_v^{12},
535: \label{eqn:voter}
536: \end{align}
537: where the superscript has been dropped again in the last expression.
538:
539: The flow maps Eq~(\ref{eqn:wire}) and Eq~(\ref{eqn:voter}) are
540: exact and satisfy Eq~(\ref{eq:selfsim}) with equality, so they contain
541: enough information to determine the asymptotic threshold. They can also
542: be used to determine a bound on the number of ``bad'' fault paths, as
543: discussed in Section~\ref{sec:defs}, by considering only the low-order
544: terms in the flow maps:
545: \begin{align}
546: \Gamma_w^1(\vec{\gamma}) & \leq 3\gamma_w^2 + 3\gamma_v^2 + 6\gamma_w\gamma_v \\
547: \Gamma_v^1(\vec{\gamma}) & \leq 3\gamma_v^2 + 16\gamma_v^3 = (3 + 16\gamma_v)\gamma_v^2.
548: \end{align}
549: These bounds clarify the relative contribution each component makes to the
550: failure probability of a fault-tolerant component. They also suggest a
551: conservative bound of $1/12$ on $\gamma_{th}$. This can be calculated
552: by assuming that $\gamma_v=\gamma_w$, solving for the fixed point
553: of the right hand side of each inequality, and taking the least such
554: fixed point.
555:
556: \subsection{TRIPs for the $[3,1,3]$ code}
557: \noindent
558:
559: What is the behavior of the wire and voter failure probabilities as the
560: concatenation level $L$ increases?
561: TRIPs based on Eqs~(\ref{eqn:wire})--(\ref{eqn:voter}) provide a visualization of each level crossing point for the two types of locations.
562:
563: \begin{figure}
564: \vspace*{13pt}
565: \centerline{\psfig{file=figure06.eps,width=8.2cm}}
566: \vspace*{13pt} \fcaption{TRIP for a voter location for the $[3,1,3]$
567: code for $L=0,1,2,3,\infty$. Because $\Gamma_v^L$ is a function of only
568: $\gamma_v^0$ constructed by recursive application of $R(v)$, all of
569: the curves $\Gamma_v^L$ intersect at the same point. This point is
570: the fixed-point $\gamma_{th}\approx 0.246$ of the map and is
571: indicated by an asterisk.} \label{fig:votercurves}
572: \end{figure}
573:
574: Figures \ref{fig:votercurves} and \ref{fig:wirecurves}
575: are TRIPs for the voter and wire locations, respectively.
576: From
577: Figure~\ref{fig:votercurves}, it is clear the voter probability
578: $\Gamma_v^1(\vec{\gamma})$ is a one-parameter map, and thus should
579: resemble the TRIP for the fault-tolerance threshold equation
580: (Figure~\ref{fig:trp:a}). Since $\Gamma_v^1(\vec{\gamma})$ is a function of only
581: $\gamma_v^0$ for all $L$, each $\Gamma_v^L(\vec{\gamma})$ intersects at the
582: same fixed-point of the map. This fixed point $\gamma_{th}$, indicated by
583: a thick vertical line, is the $L=\infty$ pseudothreshold and the asymptotic threshold.
584: It occurs at approximately $0.246$. Note that the $L=\infty$ pseudothreshold for a
585: particular location and the asymptotic threshold are not always equal, but they
586: happen to be in this example.
587:
588: \begin{figure}
589: \vspace*{13pt}
590: \centerline{\psfig{file=figure07.eps,width=8.2cm}}\vspace*{13pt}
591: \fcaption{TRIP for a wire location for the $[3,1,3]$ code for
592: $L=0,1,2,3,\infty$ using the diagonal setting
593: $\gamma_w^0=\gamma_v^0$. Because $\Gamma_w^L$ is a function of both
594: $\gamma_w^0$ and $\gamma_v^0$ constructed by recursive composition,
595: the curves $\Gamma_w^L$ cross the $L=0$ line at different points.
596: Each of these points is a level-$L$ pseudothreshold indicated by a
597: circle, and the sequence of pseudothresholds $\gamma_w^1$,
598: $\gamma_w^2$, \dots, converges to the fault-tolerance threshold
599: $\gamma_{th}\approx 0.246$ indicated by an asterisk.}
600: \label{fig:wirecurves}
601: \end{figure}
602:
603: Even for a classical setting, there is a difference between
604: pseudothresholds and the asymptotic threshold $\gamma_{th}$.
605: Figure~\ref{fig:wirecurves} shows the TRIP for the wire location at levels
606: $L=0,1,2,3,\infty$. Here, unlike in the TRIP for the voter location, pseudothresholds
607: appear in addition to an asymptotic threshold. This is because the
608: replacement $R(w)$ for a wire includes locations of type $w,v,$ and $f$,
609: creating a two-parameter map (fanouts are noiseless) that exhibits changing
610: behavior with each concatenation level $L$. The curves now cross the $L=0$
611: line at different points. Each of these crossing points in the TRIP is a
612: level-$L$ pseudothreshold. As we repeatedly replace the wire using $R(w)$,
613: the number of voter locations begins to dominate, so the crossing point
614: approaches the voter threshold, which corresponds to the asymptotic threshold.
615: The difference between the asymptotic threshold $\gamma_{th} \approx 0.246$ and the
616: level-1 wire location pseudothreshold $\gamma_{w}^1 \approx 0.129$
617: is $0.117$, or $\gamma_{th}\approx 1.9 \times \gamma_{w}^1$.
618:
619: \subsection{TIFDs for the $[3,1,3]$ code}
620: \noindent
621:
622: Given that pseudothresholds can be so different from $\gamma_{th}$, can $\gamma_{th}$ be determined
623: from just one application of the flow map?
624: In Section~\ref{sec:intro}, it was suggested that a TIFD provides an informative
625: view of the effect of recursive simulation.
626: Although a TRIP provides a visualization of the asymptotic behavior, it hides the fact that
627: $\Gamma^1$ acts on a multidimensional space. When $\Gamma^1$ is chosen
628: such that Eq~(\ref{eq:selfsim}) is an equality, $\Gamma^1$ contains all of the information
629: about the flow since $\Gamma^L$ can be expressed in terms of $\Gamma^1$.
630: A TIFD shows where each point flows under repeated application of $\Gamma^1$
631: without iterating the map explicitly.
632:
633: \begin{figure}
634: \vspace*{13pt}\centerline{
635: \psfig{file=figure08.eps,width=8.2cm}}\vspace*{13pt}
636: \fcaption{TIFD for $\gamma_w$ and $\gamma_v$ for the $[3,1,3]$ code.
637: The fixed points are indicated by circles. The region $[0,1/2)\times
638: [0,\gamma_{th})$ enclosed by a thick line is the set of points below
639: threshold, where $\gamma_{th}\approx 0.246$. Two sample trajectories
640: begin at the squares and flow along the thick dashed lines, where
641: the diamonds indicate the sequence of points as $L$ increases,
642: toward $(0,0)$ and $(1/2,1/2)$. } \label{fig:tmrvectorfield}
643: \end{figure}
644:
645: In Figure~\ref{fig:tmrvectorfield}, a TIFD for wire and voter
646: failure probabilities on the unit half square is shown.
647: The arrows represent the vectors
648: $\Gamma^1(\vec{\gamma}) - \vec{\gamma}$, which give the probability flow under
649: recursive simulation. There are five fixed points of the map: $(0,0)$,
650: $(1/2,0)$, $(1/2,\gamma_{th})$, $(1/2,1/2)$, and $(1,0)$, where
651: $\gamma_{th}\approx 0.246$ cannot be expressed in radicals. Circles mark four
652: of these fixed points. The subthreshold
653: region $T$ is $[0,1/2)\times [0,\gamma_{th})$, indicated by the thick black
654: box. Three corners of the subthreshold region are fixed points of the map.
655: The fault-tolerance threshold $\gamma_{th}$ is the size of the largest
656: ``cube'', a square in this case, that is contained in the subthreshold
657: region.
658:
659: First, if $\gamma_w^0=0$ and $\gamma_v^0>0$, then the flow draws these points
660: off of the $\gamma_v^0$--axis. This occurs because the wire replacement
661: rule $R(w)$ contains both voter and wire locations, so the failure
662: probabilities ``mix''. Second, if $\gamma_v^0=0$, then any point
663: $\gamma_w^0<1/2$ flows to the origin because the voters amplify any bias
664: toward success. Third, the voter failure probability $\Gamma_v^1(\vec{\gamma})$ is
665: independent of $\gamma_w^0$, so the voter probability is a simple
666: one-parameter map under replacement. If $\gamma_v^0<\gamma_{th}$,
667: the map's fixed point, then the voter probability flows toward the
668: $\gamma_w^0$--axis. Finally, if $\gamma_v^0<\gamma_{th}$ and $\gamma_w^0<1/2$,
669: then initially the wire failure probability may increase because the
670: voters are not reliably correcting errors. However, the voters improve
671: with each iteration, so eventually this trend reverses. The voters
672: begin correcting more errors than they introduce, and all of these
673: points flow toward the origin.
674:
675: For the classical $[3,1,3]$ code, the TIFD fully characterizes the threshold
676: set $T$ for three reasons. First, deviated inputs, i.e., inputs that are not
677: codewords, are corrected before faults are introduced by the simulated gate
678: locations. Second, the flow maps are the precise component failure
679: probabilities. Third, there is no phase noise in classical fault-tolerance,
680: so the parameters of the noise channel only change in the trivial way.
681: Furthermore, the entire flow is easily visualized since the TIFD is
682: two-dimensional. Under these conditions, the TIFD is an ideal tool for
683: understanding and visualizing the process by which recursive simulation
684: improves reliability and exhibits a threshold.
685:
686: \section{Quantum Pseudothresholds}
687: \label{sec:quantum}
688: \noindent
689:
690: We have seen that pseudothresholds exist even in a simple classical fault-tolerance
691: scheme. In a quantum fault-tolerance scheme, the tools we have developed can now
692: be applied to determine sequences of quantum pseudothresholds. In this section,
693: we study thresholds for quantum fault-tolerance using the $[[7,1,3]]$ CSS code.
694: We follow the circuit construction given in \cite{steane02overhead}.
695: As in the classical example, TRIPs are again used to identify pseudothresholds
696: for the given location types using particular settings, allowing us to determine
697: the reliability achieved with each level of concatenation. In addition, we
698: characterize the failure probability map using TIFDs.
699:
700: \subsection{The $[[7,1,3]]$ code and its flow map}
701: \noindent
702:
703: The $[[7,1,3]]$ quantum code encodes a single qubit in 7 qubits
704: with distance 3, meaning it corrects a general quantum error on a
705: single qubit. The set of location types $\myell$ involved in the error
706: correction routine is $\Omega = \{1,2,w,1m,p\}$:
707: \begin{itemize}
708: \item $\myell=1$: one-qubit gate
709: \item $\myell=2$: two-qubit gate
710: \item $\myell=w$: wait (memory) location
711: \item $\myell=1m$: one-qubit gate followed by a measurement \cite{svore04local}, since the replacement rule for a measurement contains no error correction and since measurements in the networks for the 7-qubit code only appear after one-qubit gates
712: \item $\myell=p$: ancilla preparation location, which we model as a one-qubit
713: gate for simplicity \cite{svore04local}
714: \end{itemize}
715:
716: We consider the depolarizing error model, where a location $\myell$ fails independently with
717: probability $\gamma_{\myell}$.
718: In our probabilistic error model, we assume for a location
719: failure $\gamma_\myell$ on a single qubit, a $X$,$Y$, or $Z$ error occurs with
720: probability $\gamma_\myell/3$. The distinction between $X$,$Y$, and $Z$ errors
721: is used in the approximation analysis.
722:
723: As in the classical case, we define a replacement rule for each type of location. We
724: use the same replacement rules as given in \cite{svore04local}, where we replace
725: each location by error correction followed by a fault-tolerant implementation of
726: the location. For example, a one-qubit gate is replaced by error correction and
727: a transversal one-qubit gate, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:1replace}.
728:
729: \begin{figure}[htbp]
730: \vspace*{13pt}\centerline{\psfig{file=figure09.eps,width=8.2cm}}\vspace*{13pt}
731: \fcaption{Replacement rule for a one-qubit gate $U$. The replacement
732: includes error correction ($EC$) followed by a fault-tolerant
733: implementation of the one-qubit gate $U$, indicated by a dashed
734: box.} \label{fig:1replace}
735: \end{figure}
736:
737: We use the same approach to derive the failure probability map as in the classical example,
738: with the caveat that we do approximate counting of the ways in which two or more errors occur
739: on the data qubits during the execution of the concatenated circuit.
740: The composition of this map approximates the behavior of the concatenated circuit.
741: This means that threshold results derived from this map are also approximate.
742: The map does not account for incoming errors since when failure probabilities
743: are below threshold, the probability of incoming errors should typically be
744: small, and thus should not greatly affect the probability of two or more errors
745: on the data qubits.
746: The details of the failure probability map are given in
747: Section IV B of \cite{svore04local}.
748:
749: \subsection{TRIPs for the $[[7,1,3]]$ code}
750: \noindent
751:
752: To determine pseudothresholds, we plot the reliability of each
753: component at each level of concatenation using the flow maps.
754: Figures~\ref{fig:qw}--\ref{fig:q2} show TRIPs for wait, one-qubit, and
755: two-qubit locations for the Steane setting
756: $g(\gamma) = (\gamma,\gamma,\ldots,\gamma,\gamma/10)$, where the last
757: component is the wait location failure probability.
758:
759: These results in this section are obtained using a flow map, but they
760: are verified using a Monte-Carlo simulation for one level of code
761: concatenation. The Monte-Carlo simulation method randomly generates faults
762: within the fault-tolerant circuit representing the original location according
763: to the failure probabilities $\gamma_\myell$. These faults create errors
764: that propagate to the output of the circuit. A particular set of faults
765: may or may not create too many errors at the circuit's output. By running
766: on the order of one million simulations, we can estimate the failure
767: probability of the original location. The particular Monte-Carlo
768: simulation includes the ancilla preparation networks but does not model
769: input errors so as to agree with the assumptions under which the flow map
770: is derived.
771:
772: Figure~\ref{fig:qw} shows the TRIP for a wait location at
773: levels $L=0,1,2,3,\infty$.
774: Since the flow map is a multi-parameter map,
775: the crossing points no longer cross the line $L=0$ at the same point and
776: thus pseudothresholds appear at each level.
777: As $L$ increases, the level-$L$
778: pseudothreshold approaches an asymptotic threshold that depends on the
779: location and setting. Note that the region between the $L=1$ curve and the
780: $L=0$ line is quite small for these initial conditions, smaller than
781: the region considered to be below the asymptotic threshold. This is similar
782: to the behavior of the classical wait location. The behavior is largely due
783: to the Steane setting -- the level-1 simulation of the wait location includes
784: other location types that have been set to fail with probability $10 \times \gamma_w^0$.
785: However, as the level of concatenation of the wait location increases, the trade-offs
786: between the failure probabilities of the location types begins to stabilize causing the
787: level-4 pseudothreshold, for example, to be much larger and closer to the asymptotic
788: threshold. The level-$1$ pseudothreshold as calculated from the flow map
789: is $2.2\times 10^{-5}$ and the corresponding value from Monte-Carlo simulation
790: is approximately $2.4\times 10^{-5}$.
791:
792: \begin{figure}
793: \vspace*{13pt}\centerline{
794: \psfig{file=figure10.eps,width=8.2cm}}\vspace*{13pt}\fcaption{TRIP
795: for a wait location for $L=0,1,2,3,\infty$ for the initial setting
796: $\gamma_w^0 = 1/10(\gamma_i^0)$, where $i$ indicates all location
797: types except for a wait location. Circles indicate pseudothresholds
798: and an asterisk marks the threshold for this gate and setting.
799: The pseudothresholds occur at probabilities $2.2\times 10^{-5}$,
800: $3.0\times 10^{-5}$, and $3.4\times 10^{-5}$. The wait threshold
801: for this setting is $3.6\times 10^{-5}$. This corresponds to
802: $\gamma=3.6\times 10^{-4}$ in the Steane setting.
803: } \label{fig:qw}
804: \end{figure}
805:
806: Figure~\ref{fig:q1} shows the TRIP for the one-qubit location type for levels
807: $L=0,1,2,3,\infty$. The level-1 pseudothreshold is about $4.6$ times greater
808: than the asymptotic one-qubit gate threshold since the replacement $R(1)$
809: includes many wait locations, whose initial setting is one-tenth of the
810: initial one-qubit gate failure probability. The Monte-Carlo simulation
811: gives a level-$1$ pseudothreshold of approximately $1.3\times 10^{-3}$ versus
812: an estimate of $1.4\times 10^{-3}$ from the flow map.
813:
814: \begin{figure}
815: \vspace*{13pt}\centerline{
816: \psfig{file=figure11.eps,width=8.2cm}}\vspace*{13pt}
817: \fcaption{TRIP for a one-qubit gate location for $L=0,1,2,3,\infty$
818: for the initial setting $\gamma_w^0 = 1/10(\gamma_i^0)$, where $i$
819: indicates all location types except for a wait location. Circles
820: indicate pseudothresholds and an asterisk marks the threshold for
821: this gate and setting. The pseudothresholds occur at probabilities
822: $1.4\times 10^{-3}$, $6\times 10^{-4}$, and $5\times 10^{-4}$. The
823: one-qubit gate threshold for this setting is $3\times 10^{-4}$.
824: } \label{fig:q1}
825: \end{figure}
826:
827: Similarly, for a two-qubit gate location, the level-1 pseudothreshold is a
828: factor of $2$ larger than the asymptotic two-qubit gate threshold
829: (Figure \ref{fig:q2}). Note that
830: the level-1 two-qubit gate pseudothreshold is about half the size of the level-1 one-qubit
831: gate pseudothreshold. This is because error correction is required on two logical
832: qubits and thus there are twice the number of locations in a one-qubit gate
833: replacement. The level-$1$ pseudothreshold here is about $7.3\times 10^{-4}$
834: versus a Monte-Carlo estimate of about $6.4\times 10^{-4}$.
835:
836: \begin{figure}
837: \vspace*{13pt}\centerline{
838: \psfig{file=figure12.eps,width=8.2cm}}\vspace*{13pt}
839: \fcaption{TRIP for a two-qubit gate location for $L=0,1,2,3,\infty$
840: for the initial setting $\gamma_w^0 = 1/10(\gamma_i^0)$, where $i$
841: indicates all location types except for a wait location. Circles
842: indicate pseudothresholds and an asterisk marks the threshold for
843: this gate and setting. The pseudothresholds occur at probabilities
844: $7.3\times 10^{-4}$, $4.9\times 10^{-4}$, and $4.2\times 10^{-4}$.
845: The two-qubit gate threshold for this setting is $3.4\times 10^{-4}$.
846: } \label{fig:q2}
847: \end{figure}
848:
849: From the threshold reliability information plots (TRIPs), it is apparent that
850: multi-parameter maps and higher levels of concatenation are required to
851: determine a threshold result. Across location types, the largest level-$1$
852: pseudothreshold is approximately $40$ times larger than the smallest
853: asymptotic gate threshold. The smallest asymptotic gate threshold is
854: the memory threshold, so it is appropriate to scale this gate threshold
855: by $10$ to eliminate artifacts from the setting. The pseudothreshold-threshold
856: factor then becomes $4.6$ for this example.
857:
858: \subsection{TIFDs for the $[[7,1,3]]$ code}
859: \noindent
860:
861: We use the TIFD to characterize the flow of the maps based on the
862: semi-analytical methods of \cite{svore04local}. By using a TIFD instead of the
863: TRIP, the flow of the failure probabilities as well as pseudothresholds can be
864: visualized. In the quantum case, however, the TIFD is a 4-dimensional
865: flow that is challenging to visualize. Instead, we take 2-dimensional
866: projections to determine the flow.
867:
868: Figures~\ref{fig:qflow1w}--\ref{fig:qflow12} show TIFDs involving location types
869: $l=1,2,w$. Figure \ref{fig:qflow1w} shows the vector field
870: $\Gamma^1(\vec{\gamma}) - \vec{\gamma}$ projected onto the
871: $\gamma_1$--$\gamma_w$ plane. Note that the flows are partitioned by separatrices
872: shown by the thick black lines. The map is independent
873: of concatenation level in our approximation, so this flow fully characterizes the
874: behavior of the map. The $\gamma_w$ threshold found by the horizontal separatrix
875: appears around $1.1\times 10^{-4}$. The asymptotic threshold for the map restricted
876: to the $\gamma_w$--axis is indicated by an asterisk on the $\gamma_w$--axis.
877: Note the separatrix indicates a wait location pseudothreshold.
878:
879: \begin{figure}
880: \vspace*{13pt}\centerline{
881: \psfig{file=figure13.eps,width=8.2cm}}\vspace*{13pt} \fcaption{TIFD
882: projected onto the $\gamma_1$--$\gamma_w$ plane, where $\gamma_l^0 =
883: 0$ for all $l$ except $\gamma_w^0$ and $\gamma_1^0$. The arrows
884: represent the vector field flow $\Gamma^1(\vec{\gamma}) -
885: \vec{\gamma}$. The thick lines illustrate the
886: separatrices. The horizontal separatrix appears to have zero slope, but
887: it intersects the $\gamma_1^0$-axis at about $10^{-2}$. The asterisk
888: marks the wait gate asymptotic threshold for the setting
889: in which $\gamma_w=\gamma$ and $\gamma_i=0$ for all other location types.}
890: \label{fig:qflow1w}
891: \end{figure}
892:
893: Figure~\ref{fig:qflow12} is the TIFD projected onto the
894: $\gamma_1$--$\gamma_2$ plane. Again, the flows form a separatrix around
895: $\gamma_2=2 \times \gamma_1$. This is because there are two error correction
896: routines in a two-qubit gate replacement, compared to only one error
897: correction routine in the replacement for a one-qubit gate. The $\gamma_2$
898: threshold appears along the other separatrix around $2.3 \times 10^{-3}$.
899: The asymptotic threshold restricted to the $\gamma_2$--axis, indicated by the
900: asterisk, is a factor of $3.8$ below the pseudothreshold.
901:
902: \begin{figure}
903: \vspace*{13pt}\centerline{
904: \psfig{file=figure14.eps,width=8.2cm}}\vspace*{13pt} \fcaption{TIFD
905: projected onto the $\gamma_1$--$\gamma_2$ plane, where $\gamma_l^0 =
906: 0$ for all $l$ except $\gamma_1^0$ and $\gamma_2^0$. The arrows
907: represent the vector field flow $\Gamma^1(\vec{\gamma}) -
908: \vec{\gamma}$. The thick lines illustrate the
909: separatrices. The horizontal separatrix appears to have zero slope,
910: but it intersects the $\gamma_1^0$-axis at about $10^{-2}$. We do
911: not show this intersection because the intersection with the
912: $\gamma_2^0$-axis at about $2.3\times 10^{-3}$ has a more
913: significant role in determining the threshold. The asterisk marks
914: the two-qubit gate threshold for the setting in which $\gamma_2=\gamma$
915: and $\gamma_i=0$ for all other location types.} \label{fig:qflow12}
916: \end{figure}
917:
918: In the classical setting, the TIFD indicated the asymptotic threshold, since the map was exact and only two-dimensional.
919: However, it is evident from the TIFDs for the $[[7,1,3]]$ code that 2-dimensional projections of the flow are
920: insufficient to determine the quantum fault-tolerance threshold set $T$. Since the threshold set is a multi-dimensional
921: surface, the two-dimensional projection fails to indicate flow in the other dimensions. Although it appears the
922: separatrices indicate a separation between points that flow to zero and those that flow to one, it cannot be used to
923: determine the threshold, but it may be used to determine an upper bound on the threshold for this example.
924:
925:
926: \section{Techniques for Determining the Asymptotic Threshold}
927: \label{sec:technique}
928: \noindent
929:
930: In Section~\ref{sec:quantum}, low-dimensional projections of the flow using a TIFD were used
931: to establish pseudothresholds. However, the TIFD could not be used to determine the
932: asymptotic threshold $\gamma_{th}$. It may be possible, though, to bound $\gamma_{th}$ for a particular map by
933: restricting the map $\Gamma$ to the axes. In this section, we describe a possible
934: technique for upper bounding the fault-tolerance threshold $\gamma_{th}$.
935:
936: Consider the following setting, the {\it axis setting}, where every initial failure
937: probability is $0$, except for the axis of interest, i.e., $g(\gamma) = (\gamma,0,0,\ldots,0)$, and
938: $\gamma$ is assigned to the location axis of interest. We conjecture that the level-$1$
939: pseudothreshold for this setting upper bounds $\gamma_{th}$.
940:
941: \begin{figure}
942: \vspace*{13pt}\centerline{
943: \psfig{file=figure15.eps,width=8.2cm}}\vspace*{13pt}\fcaption{TRIP
944: for a wait location for $L=0,1,2,3,4,\infty$ for the axis setting.
945: The pseudothresholds are $1.1\times 10^{-4}$, $9.6\times 10^{-5}$,
946: $9.2\times 10^{-5}$, and $9.0\times 10^{-5}$. The threshold for
947: the wait location for this setting is $8.8\times 10^{-5}$.
948: }
949: \label{fig:SCCAgw}
950: \end{figure}
951:
952: Consider the plot shown in Figure~\ref{fig:SCCAgw} of the approximated
953: $\gamma_w$ pseudothresholds of the $[[7,1,3]]$ code for the axis setting. Note that the
954: pseudothresholds for the wait location for the axis setting are strictly
955: decreasing toward a threshold. We find similar behavior for the other location types as well.
956: These pseudothresholds and the threshold found for the wait location
957: are lower than the pseudothresholds and thresholds for the other location types
958: in the axis setting. This suggests that the $L=1$ wait location pseudothreshold for the
959: axis setting, the smallest level-$1$ axis pseudothreshold, is an upper bound on $\gamma_{th}$.
960:
961: \begin{figure}
962: \vspace*{13pt}\centerline{
963: \psfig{file=figure16.eps,width=8.2cm}}\vspace*{13pt} \fcaption{The set
964: $T$ for the $[[7,1,3]]$ code together with a slice of the convex
965: hull of the level-$1$ axis pseudothresholds. The level-$1$ axis
966: pseudothresholds are plotted with open circles and connected with
967: lines to illustrate their convex hull. The other three hulls are
968: schematic representations of the numerically computed boundary of
969: the set $T$ for varying values of $\gamma_{1m}^0$. All points
970: beneath a given hull are below threshold. The largest cube contained
971: in $T$ has edge length $\gamma_{th}\approx 8.8\times 10^{-5}$.
972: Note that this does not contradict the wait location threshold in
973: Figure~\ref{fig:qw} because the other locations are $10$ times
974: less reliable in that calculation.}
975: \label{fig:basin}
976: \end{figure}
977:
978: This conclusion that pseudothresholds with the axis setting provide an upper bound on the fault-tolerance threshold is supported by numerical evaluation of the threshold set $T$ in
979: Figure~\ref{fig:basin}. This figure shows four convex hulls: one pseudothreshold hull and three threshold hulls.
980: The pseudothreshold hull is determined by the $\gamma_1^1$, $\gamma_2^1$, and $\gamma_w^1$ axis pseudothresholds,
981: which are plotted as circles, while the threshold hulls were determined numerically from the flow map for a
982: grid of parameters. The region of parameter space above the pseudothreshold hull is strictly above threshold for any value of $\gamma_{1m}$.
983: The largest threshold hull corresponds to $\gamma_{1m}^0=0$ and all points beneath it are below threshold.
984: Similarly, the other two threshold hulls correspond to $\gamma_{1m}^0=1.5\times 10^{-3}$ and
985: $\gamma_{1m}^0=3.5\times 10^{-3}$.
986:
987: Interestingly, as our choice of language indicates, $T$ appears to be a convex set equal to the convex hull of the axes
988: thresholds and the origin. The edge length of the largest cube in $T$ is approximately $\gamma_{th}\approx 8.8\times 10^{-5}$.
989: Furthermore, $T$ appears to be contained in the convex hull of the axes pseudothresholds and the origin. These pseudothresholds
990: are $\gamma_1^1\approx 4.4\times 10^{-2}$, $\gamma_2^1\approx 2.3\times 10^{-3}$, and $\gamma_w^1\approx 1.1\times 10^{-4}$ for the corresponding axes
991: settings.
992: The $\gamma_{1m}^1$ pseudothreshold is comparable to $\gamma_1^1$. The smallest level-$1$ pseudothreshold is
993: $\gamma_w^1\approx 1.1\times 10^{-4}$, so this is an upper bound on $\gamma_{th}$ for this example. Though the error correction
994: networks are slightly different, this upper bound does not contradict a rigorous lower bound of $2.73\times 10^{-5}$ for the
995: same code \cite{aliferis05}.
996:
997: To further confirm the results found using the semi-analytical map,
998: we use a Monte-Carlo simulation to determine
999: pseudothresholds for the [[7,1,3]] code.
1000: We find the following pseudothresholds with the axis setting by fitting a
1001: quadratic to the numerical TRIPS: $\gamma_1^1\approx 8.0\times 10^{-2}$,
1002: $\gamma_2^1\approx 1.7\times 10^{-3}$, and $\gamma_w^1\approx 1.5\times 10^{-4}$.
1003: The $\gamma_1^1$ pseudothreshold differs by a factor of $1.81$ from the $\gamma_1^1$ pseudothreshold found using the flow map.
1004: The $\gamma_2^1$ and $\gamma_w^1$ pseudothresholds found using
1005: the flow map differ by a factor of $0.73$ and a factor of $1.36$, respectively,
1006: from numerical calculations based on a Monte-Carlo simulation.
1007: These differences could be reduced by revisiting
1008: some of the approximations in the flow map derivation.
1009:
1010: While we do not prove our conjecture, we offer two supporting observations. The first is an observation that follows
1011: from the fact that the flow map has a threshold. There are positive integers $A$ and $t$ such that
1012: $\Gamma_{\myell}^1(\vec{\gamma})\leq A\gamma_{max}^{t+1}$ for all $\myell$,
1013: where $\gamma_{max}\equiv \hbox{max}\ \gamma_{\myell}$.
1014: These integers determine the well-known lower bound $A^{-1/(t+1)}\equiv \gamma_{th}^{min}\leq\gamma_{th}$
1015: on the threshold.
1016:
1017: The next observation is that if $\Gamma$ causes all components of $\vec{\gamma}$ to increase or remain
1018: unchanged, then $\vec{\gamma}$ is above the established lower bound $\gamma_{th}^{min}$. More precisely,
1019: if $\Gamma_{\myell}^1(\vec{\gamma})\geq\gamma_{\myell}$ for all $\myell$, then $\gamma_{\myell}\geq\gamma_{th}^{min}$
1020: for at least one $\myell$. This is true because if $\gamma_{\myell}<\gamma_{th}^{min}$ for all $\myell$, then
1021: $\gamma_{max}<\gamma_{th}^{min}$. In particular,
1022: $\Gamma_{\myell}^1((\gamma_{max},\gamma_{max},\dots,\gamma_{max}))\leq A\gamma_{max}^{t+1}<\gamma_{max}$.
1023:
1024: A $\vec{\gamma}$ satisfying the second observation is not necessarily above
1025: threshold, but we conjecture that this second observation remains true
1026: when $\gamma_{th}^{min}$ is replaced by $\gamma_{th}$ for maps $\Gamma$
1027: describing failure probabilities under independent stochastic error models.
1028: We know this to be the case for one-dimensional maps. If the conjecture is true
1029: in general, then the level-$1$ pseudothreshold for the axis setting upper
1030: bounds $\gamma_{th}$ for a particular map.
1031:
1032: \section{Conclusions and Future Work}\label{sec:conclusion}
1033: \noindent
1034:
1035: Pseudothresholds are the failure probabilities below which recursive simulation
1036: improves the reliability of a particular component. Yet, pseudothresholds
1037: have been shown to be up to a factor of $4$ greater than the asymptotic
1038: threshold for the Steane setting and more than a factor of $10$ different
1039: for the axes settings. This behavior is a generic phenomenon in both classical
1040: and quantum fault-tolerance. The tools we have presented provide a way to
1041: visualize pseudothresholds and thresholds, and we conjecture that for a
1042: given setting, they may provide an upper bound on the fault-tolerance threshold
1043: for a particular map.
1044:
1045: Pseudothreshold behavior also influences the accuracy of some
1046: quantum threshold estimates. If some of the reported threshold estimates are
1047: actually pseudothresholds, the examples we have given suggest that these
1048: estimates may be inaccurate by a factor of $4$ or more. These observations
1049: apply, in particular, to some numerical threshold estimates.
1050: However, other factors such as the noise model and circuit construction more
1051: greatly influence the threshold value and by making a judicious choice of
1052: concatenation level and setting, the difference between estimates and an
1053: asymptotic threshold can be reduced.
1054:
1055: Although a fault-tolerance threshold for infinite scalability cannot be determined by low-level pseudothresholds, pseudothresholds will become important design parameters in engineering a quantum computer. In practice, quantum computers may operate very close to threshold and require only a few levels of recursive simulation. If this is the case, then pseudothresholds can help determine design trade-offs and the required relative reliability of circuit components. In addition, the difference between pseudothresholds can be used to determine an appropriate level of concatenation that is within current physical capabilities.
1056:
1057: It is important to note that pseudothresholds can also be used to determine the frequency of error correction required for certain location types.
1058: If, for example, a level-1 pseudothreshold for a wait location shows the failure probability worsens upon concatenation, then it may be beneficial to not error correct each wait location, or to only error correct a wait location at higher levels of concatenation. This scheme will still demonstrate a threshold; however the failure probability map will have to take into account the differences between the replacement rules for each type of location at different levels of concatenation.
1059: By optimizing the frequency of error correction at different levels of concatenation and for different location types, the fault-tolerance threshold can be improved.
1060:
1061: This work can be extended in several directions. First, we have put forward
1062: a conjecture that pseudothresholds may lead to upper bounds on $\gamma_{th}$.
1063: If this conjecture is true, then it would be interesting to determine how the concatenated flow map formalism could be modified to give rigorous bounds.
1064: It would also be useful to determine how much a pseudothreshold can differ from the fault-tolerance threshold.
1065:
1066: Second, the analyses presented here only account for Clifford-group gates. We did not analyze a Toffoli, $\pi/8$, or other nontrivial
1067: gate needed for computational universality. It is still possible to apply the methods in this paper to those gates, but the corresponding
1068: flow map component is more difficult to estimate well.
1069: To determine a quantum fault-tolerance threshold, it is necessary to evaluate a computationally universal basis.
1070: With a universal basis, how much does the fault-tolerance threshold and sequence of pseudothresholds change?
1071:
1072: \section{Acknowledgements}
1073: \noindent
1074:
1075: We would like to thank one of our referees for suggesting the relationship
1076: between pseudothresholds and the frequency of error-correction operations.
1077: Krysta Svore acknowledges support from an NPSC fellowship, and
1078: Andrew Cross was supported by an NDSEG fellowship.
1079:
1080: \nonumsection{References}
1081: \noindent
1082:
1083: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
1084:
1085: \bibitem{shor94}
1086: P.~W. Shor (1994), {\it Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete
1087: logarithms and factoring}, In the 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations
1088: of Computer Science, pp. 124--134.
1089:
1090: \bibitem{grover97}
1091: L.~K. Grover (1997), {\it Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a
1092: needle in a haystack}, Phys. Rev. Let., 79:325.
1093:
1094: \bibitem{hallgren02}
1095: S.~Hallgren (2002), {\it Polynomial-time quantum algorithms for Pell's
1096: equation and the principal ideal problem}, In Proceedings of the
1097: Thirty-Fourth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 653--658.
1098:
1099: \bibitem{vonneumann56}
1100: J.~{von Neumann} (1956), {\it Probabilistic logics and the synthesis of
1101: reliable organisms from unreliable components}, In Automata Studies,
1102: pp. 328--378, Princeton University Press.
1103:
1104: \bibitem{preskill97}
1105: J.~Preskill (2001), {\it Fault-tolerant quantum computation},
1106: In H.~Lo, S.~Popsecu, and T.~Spiller, editors, Introduction to
1107: quantum computation and information, World Scientific Publishing
1108: Company.
1109:
1110: \bibitem{svore04local}
1111: K.~Svore, B.~Terhal, and D.~DiVincenzo (2005),
1112: {\it Local fault-tolerant quantum computation},
1113: Phys. Rev. A, 72:022317.
1114:
1115: \bibitem{aharonov99}
1116: D.~Aharonov and M.~Ben-Or (1997),
1117: {\it Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant error},
1118: Proceedings of the 29th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computation,
1119: pp. 176--188.
1120:
1121: \bibitem{dennis01}
1122: E.~Dennis, A.~Kitaev, A.~Landahl, and J.~Preskill (2002),
1123: {\it Topological quantum memory}, J. Math. Phys 43, pp. 4452--4505.
1124:
1125: \bibitem{gottesmanthesis}
1126: D.~Gottesman (1997),
1127: {\it Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction}, Doctoral dissertation,
1128: Caltech.
1129:
1130: \bibitem{knill97}
1131: E.~Knill, R.~Laflamme, and W.~Zurek (1998), {\it Resilient quantum
1132: computation: error models and thresholds}, Science 279(5349).
1133:
1134: \bibitem{knill04}
1135: E.~Knill (2005), {\it Quantum computing with realistically noisy
1136: devices}, Nature 434, pp. 39--44.
1137:
1138: \bibitem{ohno04}
1139: T.~Ohno, G.~Arakawa, I.~Ichinose, and T.~Matsui (2004), {\it Phase
1140: structure of the random-plaquette {$Z_2$} gauge model: accuracy
1141: threshold for a toric quantum memory}, Nuc. Phys. B 697, pp.
1142: 462--480.
1143:
1144: \bibitem{reichardt04}
1145: B.~Reichardt (2004), {\it Improved ancilla preparation scheme
1146: increases fault-tolerant threshold}, quant-ph/0406025.
1147:
1148: \bibitem{steane02overhead}
1149: A.~M. Steane (2003), {\it Overhead and noise threshold of
1150: fault-tolerant quantum error correction}, Phys. Rev. A 68(042322).
1151:
1152: \bibitem{zalka96}
1153: C.~Zalka (1996), {\it Threshold estimate for fault tolerant quantum
1154: computing}, quant-ph/9612028.
1155:
1156: \bibitem{aliferis05}
1157: P.~Aliferis, D.~Gottesman, and J.~Preskill (2005), {\it Quantum
1158: accuracy threshold for concatenated distance-3 codes},
1159: To appear in Quantum Information and Computation.
1160:
1161: \end{thebibliography}
1162:
1163: \end{document}
1164: