An efficient, concatenated, bosonic code for additive Gaussian noise

Kosuke Fukui1 and Nicolas C. Menicucci2 1Department of Applied Physics, School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan 2Centre for Quantum Computation & Communication Technology, School of Science, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia Bosonic codes offer noise resilience for quantum information processing. A common type of noise in this setting is additive Gaussian noise, and a long-standing open problem is to design a concatenated code that achieves the hashing bound for this noise channel. Here we achieve this goal using a Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill (GKP) code to detect and discard error-prone qubits, concatenated with a quantum parity code to handle the residual errors. Our method employs a linear-time decoder and has applications in a wide range of quantum computation and communication scenarios.

Introduction.—Quantum-error-correcting codes known merous proposals exist to produce these states in optics, as bosonic codes [1] protect discrete quantum information as well (see Ref. [28] and references therein). Further- encoded in one or more bosonic modes. The infinite- more, the GKP qubit performs well for quantum commu- dimensional nature of the bosonic Hilbert space allows nication [29–31] thanks to the robustness against photon for more sophisticated encodings than the more com- loss [1]. In fact, recent results show that using GKP mon single-photon encoding [2–4] or that of a material qubits may greatly enhance long-distance quantum com- qubit like a transmon [5–7]. The variety of codes al- munication [32, 33]. lows for multiple ways to protect the encoded quantum A common type of noise in bosonic systems is modelled information against decoherence at the physical level, by the Gaussian quantum channel (GQC) [19, 34], also with better than break-even performance demonstrated known as additive Gaussian noise. While the landscape recently [8, 9]. Based on the ubiquitous quantum har- of Gaussian operations includes other types of chan- monic oscillator, these versatile codes find applications nels [35, 36], the GQC is a particularly common one [37], in optical, solid-state, and vibrational systems. We call and it is the one that we focus on for this work. The GQC qubits encoded in a bosonic code bosonic qubits. is a simple, canonical type of noise for analyzing bosonic While quantum supremacy has been demonstrated in code performance [19, 34]. Buoyed by the fact that dis- both solid-state qubits [10] and optics [11], the ultimate placements form an operator basis, protecting against the goal of a large-scale, fault-tolerant quantum computer GQC allows some level of protection against all types of will require additional innovations, and its ultimate ar- bosonic noise [19]. In fact, the GKP encoding is specif- chitecture remains an open question. Such a device’s ically designed to protect against the GQC (and thus requirements [12] can be broadly classified into scalabil- against bosonic noise in general), but despite this, its ity (many qubits) and fault tolerance (of good quality), performance “out of the box” as a single-mode code is and architectures designed to use bosonic qubits as the suboptimal against the GQC [19, 34]. information carriers have recently demonstrated promi- A long-standing open problem in CV quantum in- nent advances in both areas. formation is to design a simple and efficient concate- Progress on scalability has been most significant in op- nated code that achieves the hashing bound (discussed tics through demonstrations of computationally universal below) of the GQC [34]. This bound can be achieved continuous-variable (CV) cluster states [13, 14] compris- by GKP-type codes based on high-dimensional sphere ing ∼ 104 modes [15, 16] and measurement-based imple- packing [34], but the authors of that work were unsat- mentation of CV quantum gates [17, 18]. When used isfied with this because such a code is not concatenated arXiv:2102.01374v1 [quant-ph] 2 Feb 2021 to process the bosonic qubits proposed by Gottesman, and thus offers no obvious structure that might be ex- Kitaev, and Preskill (GKP) [19]—and with high enough ploited [38, 39] to further improve its performance. squeezing—these architectures can be made fault toler- Analog quantum error correction (QEC) [40] makes ant [20, 21]. strides toward achieving the goal of Ref. [34] by using The GKP qubit [19] has emerged as a promising the real-valued syndrome of a GKP qubit to improve er- bosonic qubit for fault tolerance due to its excellent ror recovery in a concatenated code. Likelihoods of the performance against common types of noise when com- error patterns obtained from the error syndrome are com- pared with other known codes [1]. Experiments involving pared, and the most likely error pattern is selected. In trapped ions [22] and superconducting circuits [23] have fact, when used with a suitable qubit code, analog QEC demonstrated a GKP qubit, with the latter boasting a can achieve the hashing bound of the GQC [24, 40]. This squeezing level close to 10 dB. This level is sufficient for would seem to be the end of the story, except for one fault tolerance in some proposed architectures [24, 25] major drawback: The decoder for analog QEC employs and is approaching that required by others [26, 27]. Nu- a type of belief propagation [41] that becomes unwieldy 2 as the qubit-level code gets bigger. This is because one in the probability for the measurement outcome, but it must model the entire probability distribution of the mul- increases the variance of each spike by ξ2 in both quadra- timode code to select the most likely CV error pattern. tures. What we would like instead is a simple CV-level de- Hashing bound.—The hashing bound, first introduced coder that generates discrete outcomes that can be fed for qubit Pauli channels [46–49], may be generalised to directly into a qubit-level code at the next level of con- the GQC by maximising the one-shot coherent informa- catenation. This is the key innovation that makes further tion over Gaussian states [34, 50]. The hashing bound improvements feasible since more complicated codes or is a lower bound on the quantum communication rate additional layers of concatenation do not require mod- through a channel having a set level of noise. It is only ifying the CV-level decoding scheme, thus keeping the known to be a tight lower bound for some channels [51], decoder simple and efficient. and the GQC is not one of them [36]. Conversely, by In this work, we achieve this goal. Our innovation uses fixing the rate, the hashing bound gives a level of noise the CV-level measurement outcome from GKP error cor- that should still allow for quantum communication at the rection to decide whether to keep the qubit or discard it chosen rate using some quantum-error-correcting code. entirely and treat it as a located erasure error. This is a When choosing a rate of zero, the (zero-rate) hashing simple, local decoding step and doesn’t require compli- bound represents a threshold level of noise below which cated modelling of CV-level errors. The quantum parity finite-rate quantum communication should be possible— code (QPC) [42] is well suited to dealing with the missing that is, it represents a target for a minimum error thresh- qubits [43–45], and we numerically show that concate- old when designing codes for a specific class of channels. nating the GKP code with a QPC achieves the hashing When a code displays an error threshold that matches bound of the GQC with a small code and straightforward the hashing bound, we say the code “achieves the hashing decoding in linear time. bound” for the channel. In fact, concatenated qubit codes GKP qubit.—The GKP code encodes a qubit in an exist that exceed the hashing bound for certain qubit oscillator in a way that protects against errors caused channels [38, 39]—that is, they have an error threshold by small displacements in the q (position) and p (mo- that is strictly larger than that prescribed by the hash- mentum)√ quadratures [19]. (We use conventions a = ing bound—leading to hopes that similar results may be (q + ip)/ 2, [q, p] = i, ~ = 1, vacuum variance = 1/2.) true for concatenated codes applied to the GQC [34]. The ideal code states of the GKP code are Dirac combs The (zero-rate) hashing bound for the GQC Gξ, is the in q and in p. Physical states are finitely squeezed ap- standard deviation [34, 50] proximations to these and are often modelled as a comb 1 of Gaussian peaks of width (i.e., standard deviation) σ ξ := √ ≈ 0.607 . (2) √ HB e with separation π modulated by a larger Gaussian en- velope of width 1/σ. Since these approximate states are Noise model.—GKP error correction, in both its origi- not orthogonal, there is a probability of misidentifying nal [19] (Steane-style [53]) form and in its teleportation- |0i as |1i (and vice versa) in a measurement of logical-Z, based [54] (Knill-style [55]) form, involve measuring the which is implemented by a q measurement and binning to √ deviation of the state’s support in each√ quadrature (q, p) the nearest integer multiple of π. Similarly, |+i and |−i away from an integer multiple of π.√ These measure- may be misidentified when measuring logical-X with a p ment outcomes—each of the√ form sm = n π+∆m, where measurement. A qubit-level measurement error√ occurs n is an integer and |∆m| ≤ π/2—together form the syn- when the measured outcome is more than π/2 away drome. Normally, each value of ∆m locally determines from the correct outcome. the displacement to apply in order to correct the error— Gaussian quantum channel.—The GKP code is tai- either snapping back to grid in the original method [19] lored to combat the GQC, which randomly displaces the or applying a logical Pauli in the teleportation-based state in phase space according to a Gaussian distribu- method [54]. Analog QEC [24, 40] instead feeds all these tion [19, 34]. The GQC is described by the superoperator real-valued syndrome data sm directly to a higher-level Gξ acting on density operator ρ as decoder, which makes a global decision. Our proposal keeps aspects of both approaches. We use ∆ to locally Z m 1 2 −|α|2/ξ2 † decide whether to try to correct the error or to give up ρ → Gξ(ρ) = d α e D(α)ρD(α) , (1) πξ2 and report the qubit as lost to the next-level decoder. We model a damaged GKP codeword as an ideal † ∗ where D(α) = eαa −α a is the phase-space displacement one [19] that has been displaced by a definite (but un- operator. With α = √1 (u + iv), the position q and mo- 2 known) amount in each quadrature. This approximately mentum p are displaced independently as q → q + u, models the errors due to both coherent and incoherent p → p + v, where u and v are real Gaussian random noise [20, 24, 40, 52] and simplifies the analysis. Due 2 √ variables with mean zero and variance ξ . Therefore, to the 2 π-periodicity of all GKP codewords,√ displace- the GQC maintains the locations of the Gaussian peaks ments by u are equivalent to those by u + 2k π for any 3 √ liable any displacement√ u (mod 2 π) that falls within δ of a crossover point ± π/2, as shown in Fig. 1(b). When the HRM flags a result sm as unreliable, the correspond- ing qubit is discarded and treated as a located erasure error (sm → E), while otherwise the result is kept and binned as usual (sm → ±1) [19]. The HRM is thus a ternary (3-outcome) decoder for GKP qubits that maps each raw CV outcome s from → {±1,E}. m R √ √ Given a definite displacement u ∈ [− π, π), we define probabilities for three cases: the measurement (c) √ result is correct, P = Pr(|u| < √π/2 − δ); the re- sult is incorrect, P (i) = Pr(|u| > π/2 + δ); or the (d) result is unreliable√ and the qubit discarded, P = Pr(−δ < |u| − π/2 < δ). We further define the suc- cess probability, 1 − P (d), as the probability the qubit was not discarded and the postselected error probability, (i) (i) (d) Ppost = P /(1 − P ), as the probability of getting an incorrect outcome within the sample of qubits that are not discarded. Decreasing the postselected error prob- ability (by increasing δ) reduces the success probabil- ity [24], as shown in Fig. 1(c,d). Trading errors for loss—The HRM is the key to achiev- ing the hashing bound of the GQC without the compu- tational overhead of analog QEC. Analog QEC requires FIG. 1. Effect of additive Gaussian noise [52] on√ meassur- modelling the joint likelihood of real-valued outcomes ing a GKP qubit. (a) Effect of shift by u (mod 2 π), dis- over multi-mode codewords, while the HRM maps lo- tributed according to p(u) [Eq. (3)], on an ordinary measure- cally detected unreliable results to lost qubits at known ment of a GKP qubit [19]. (b) The highly reliable measure- locations. ment (HRM) [24] flags outcomes in the 2δ-wide “danger zone” (yellow) as unreliable. (c) Postselected error probability of the Loss-tolerant QEC codes were originally proposed to HRM for several values of δ. (d) Corresponding success prob- overcome loss of individual photons—the main hurdle in 2 2 ability. Note: (Squeezing level in dB) = −10 log10(σ /σvac), QC based on a photonic qubit. Here, concatenating GKP 2 1 where the vacuum variance σvac = 2 . qubits with one of these codes compensates for the dis- carded (“lost”) qubits due to using the HRM. This trade- off of (unlocated) errors for (located) erasure makes the integer k. Thus, given any initial distribution p0(u) of the logical qubit more robust. In the following, we concate- unknown displacement u in a single quadrature, its effect nate GKP qubits with the QPC proposed by Ralph et on a GKP codeword is captured by folding p0(u) into the al. [42] and implement teleportation-based QEC as pro- P √ wrapped distribution p(u) = p0(u + 2k π), whose √ √ k∈Z posed by Muralidharan et al. [43]. domain is [− π, π). When p0 is a zero-mean Gaussian The (n, m)-QPC [43] is an nm-qubit code built from of variance σ2, it wraps into n blocks of m qubits. Logical basis states are |±iL = −n/2 ⊗m ⊗m
⊗n 1  u iσ2  2 |0i ± |1i . In our code, the physical qubit p(u) = √ ϑ − √ , , (3) 2 π 2 π 2 states are square-lattice GKP states [19] of a single bosonic mode—i.e., |0i = |0GKPi, and |1i = |1GKPi. where ϑ(z, τ) = P exp2πi 1 m2τ + mz
 is a Ja- We implement syndrome measurements by adapting m∈Z 2 cobi theta function of the third kind. Figure 1(a) the teleportation-based protocol of Ref. [43] to this set- shows this distribution√ and the logical effect of a shift ting, as shown in Fig. 2(a). Using teleportation to do the by u (mod 2 π) on measuring a GKP codeword. correction guarantees that the output state is already in Highly-reliable measurement.—Logical errors result the logical subspace, and only logical corrections are re- when√ the GKP syndrome value s√m, which is wrapped quired at the end [55]. We use HRMs to implement the mod π, misidentifies u as u ± π [19]. The highly- base-level qubit measurements, so we get (after postse- reliable measurement (HRM) [24] buffers against this lection) either a qubit value (±1) or a located erasure (E) possibility√ by introducing a “danger zone” of out- for every measured qubit. These outcomes are processed comes 0 ≤ π/2−|∆m| < δ for some δ > 0. Outcomes in into logical outcomes using the method of Ref. [43], which this zone are flagged as unreliable, with δ → 0 recovering is described briefly in Fig. 2(b,c). These logical outcomes the usual case [19]. This corresponds to flagging as unre- determine the logical correction to apply at the end. In 4

FIG. 2. Trading errors for loss to improve error correction. (a) Teleportation-based QEC using GKP qubits [19] concate- nated with the quantum parity code (QPC) [42, 43]. All gates are shown at the logical level. The feedforward op- erations Dp and Dq implement logical-level X and Z opera- tions via physical-level displacements [19]. The outcomes of FIG. 3. failure probabilities using the (n, m)-QPC, as shown the logical Bell measurement decide what feedforward is re- in Fig. 2, for (a) δ = 0 (conventional GKP√ error correc- quired [43]. (b) Encoded measurement with the (n, m)-QPC tion [19]) and (b) an optimized value of δ = 0.223 π. The for- in the X basis (n = 5, m = 4 shown). Performing the HRM mer (a) has a threshold ξ ≈ 0.555 (identified by the crossover in p at the physical level [Fig. 1(b)] gives, for each qubit, ei- point), which matches previous work [19, 34]. The latter (b) ther a binary outcome (±1) or a located erasure error (E). has a threshold ξ ≈ 0.607, which numerically achieves the The latter is indicated in red (with the unreliable binary out- hashing bound of the GQC [Eq. (2)]. come underneath) and occurs when the CV-level outcome is in the “danger zone” (see Fig. 1) and therefore unreliable. A horizontal block is ignored if it has any discarded outcomes. All remaining blocks have their parity (product) taken, after previous results [19, 24, 34, 40]. We consider two cases: which a majority vote of those parities determines the log- (a) the conventional case, which corresponds to choos-√ ical outcome—with heralded failure if there is no majority. ing δ = 0, and (b) an optimized choice of δ = 0.223 π (c) Encoded measurement with the (5, 4)-QPC in the Z ba- (explained below). sis. This is similar to (b), but this time the HRM is done in q, and majority voting within a block precedes taking the parity A logical-X (-Z) error occurs when the decoding pro- of the blocks’ voting outcomes—with heralded failure if any cedure leads to either (1) the wrong value for XL (ZL) or block has no majority. See Ref. [43] for more details. Without (2) heralded failure of that measurement—see Fig. 2(b,c), postselection, both logical outcomes would have been flipped caption. While one could treat the heralded failures (likely due to uncorrected errors in the discarded values). in a more sophisticated fashion (concatenating with a higher-level code, for instance), in our simulations we simply treat these as logical errors on that outcome. the example shown, XL = −1 and ZL = −1, so we per- The probability of a logical-X (-Z) error is denoted form logical bit- and phase-flip operations on the output EX (EZ), and the overall logical error probability pE is qubit to correct it. At the physical level,√ these occur via 1−(1−EX)(1−EZ), which we call the failure probability displacements by integer multiples of π [19]. of the QEC. Numerical simulation.—We evaluate our proposed Figure 3 shows the performance of both methods as a QEC method using a Monte Carlo simulation of the function of the standard deviation of the GKP qubit for circuit in Fig. 2(a). The input state passes through a several sizes (n, m) of the QPC. These sizes are chosen GQC [Eq. (1)]. Our model simulates code-capacity noise to ensure approximately symmetric noise at the output (i.e., assuming no errors aside from the channel noise it- (i.e., EX ∼ EZ). The conventional method (a), which self [56, 57]) in order to evaluate the best possible perfor- uses δ = 0, gives a threshold of ξ ≈ 0.555, matching mance of our code under the GQC and to compare with previous work with concatenated codes and simple de- 5 coding [19, 34]. For our new method (b), we optimize Oliver, Superconducting qubits: Current state of play, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 11, 369 the value of δ to maximize the threshold√ value of the standard deviation, giving δ = 0.223 π, which gives a (2020). loss probability ∼ 38% at threshold. Importantly, the [6] J. Koch, M. Y. Terri, J. Gambetta, A. A. Houck, D. Schuster, J. Majer, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. corresponding threshold numerically achieves the hash- Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Charge-insensitive qubit ing bound of the GQC: ξ ≈ 0.607 [Cf. Eq. (2)]. design derived from the cooper pair box, Physical Re- Conclusion.—The key insight of this work is that view A 76, 042319 (2007). one does not need to model the full likelihood func- [7] J. Schreier, A. A. Houck, J. Koch, D. I. Schuster, B. John- tion [24, 40] to correctly interpret GKP syndrome infor- son, J. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, J. Majer, L. Frunzio, mation [19] within a concatenated code. Instead, the M. H. Devoret, et al., Suppressing charge noise decoher- ence in superconducting charge qubits, Physical Review real-valued outcomes can be coarse grained to one of B 77, 180502 (2008). three qubit-level outcomes through the HRM mapping [8] N. Ofek, A. Petrenko, R. Heeres, P. Reinhold, Z. Leghtas, R → {±1,E}, where E represents an untrustworthy B. Vlastakis, Y. Liu, L. Frunzio, S. Girvin, L. Jiang, value. These ternary outcomes suffice to achieve the et al., Extending the lifetime of a quantum bit with error hashing bound of the GQC by treating E outcomes as correction in superconducting circuits, Nature 536, 441 erasure errors and concatenating with a qubit-level code (2016). designed to handle such errors [42–45]. [9] L. Hu, Y. Ma, W. Cai, X. Mu, Y. Xu, W. Wang, Y. Wu, H. Wang, Y. Song, C.-L. Zou, et al., Quantum error cor- The innovation of this work over previous hashing- rection and universal gate set operation on a binomial bound-achieving methods [24, 40] lies in the efficiency bosonic logical qubit, Nature Physics 15, 503 (2019). and versatility of the decoder. Respectively, (1) decod- [10] F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, ing happens in linear time since the CV-level decoding is R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. Brandao, D. A. entirely local; and (2) the HRM wraps each GKP qubit Buell, et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature 574, 505 (2019). in a simple error-detecting code, so concatenating with [11] H.-S. Zhong, H. Wang, Y.-H. Deng, M.-C. Chen, L.-C. any qubit-level code designed to handle erasures [58–60] Peng, Y.-H. Luo, J. Qin, D. Wu, X. Ding, Y. Hu, et al., should benefit from this type of outcome mapping. Fur- Quantum computational advantage using photons, Sci- ther applications and extensions include improved decod- ence 370, 1460 (2020). ing in GKP-based architectures (e.g., [26, 27]) and in [12] D. P. DiVincenzo, The physical implementation of quan- codes that exploit biased noise (e.g., [57, 61, 62]). tum computation, Fortschritte der Physik: Progress of Physics 48, 771 (2000). Acknowledgments.—We thank Joe Fitzsimons, Tim [13] N. C. Menicucci, P. Van Loock, M. Gu, C. Weedbrook, Ralph, Ben Baragiola, and Giacomo Pantaleoni for dis- T. C. Ralph, and M. A. Nielsen, Universal quantum com- cussions. We acknowledge the organizers of the BBQ putation with continuous-variable cluster states, Physical 2019 workshop, where early results of this work were review letters 97, 110501 (2006). presented. This work is supported by the Australian Re- [14] N. C. Menicucci, Temporal-mode continuous-variable search Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence for Quantum cluster states using linear optics, Physical Review A 83, Computation and Communication Technology (Project 062314 (2011). [15] W. Asavanant, Y. Shiozawa, S. Yokoyama, B. Charoen- No. CE170100012). K.F. acknowledges financial support sombutamon, H. Emura, R. N. Alexander, S. Takeda, from donations from Nichia Corporation. J.-i. Yoshikawa, N. C. Menicucci, H. Yonezawa, et al., Generation of time-domain-multiplexed two-dimensional cluster state, Science 366, 373 (2019). [16] M. V. Larsen, X. Guo, C. R. Breum, J. S. Neergaard- Nielsen, and U. L. Andersen, Deterministic generation of [1] V. V. Albert, K. Noh, K. Duivenvoorden, D. J. Young, a two-dimensional cluster state, Science 366, 369 (2019). R. Brierley, P. Reinhold, C. Vuillot, L. Li, C. Shen, [17] W. Asavanant, B. Charoensombutamon, S. Yokoyama, S. Girvin, et al., Performance and structure of single- T. Ebihara, T. Nakamura, R. N. Alexander, M. Endo, mode bosonic codes, Physical Review A 97, 032346 J.-i. Yoshikawa, N. C. Menicucci, H. Yonezawa, et al., (2018). One-hundred step measurement-based quantum compu- [2] E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, A scheme for tation multiplexed in the time domain with 25 mhz clock efficient quantum computation with linear optics, nature frequency, arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.11537 (2020). 409, 46 (2001). [18] M. V. Larsen, X. Guo, C. R. Breum, J. S. Neergaard- [3] P. Kok, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T. C. Ralph, J. P. Nielsen, and U. L. Andersen, Deterministic multi-mode Dowling, and G. J. Milburn, Linear optical quantum gates on a scalable photonic quantum computing plat- computing with photonic qubits, Reviews of modern form, arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.14422 (2020). physics 79, 135 (2007). [19] D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Encoding a [4] T. Rudolph, Why i am optimistic about the silicon- qubit in an oscillator, Physical Review A 64, 012310 photonic route to quantum computing, APL Photonics (2001). 2, 030901 (2017). [20] N. C. Menicucci, Fault-tolerant measurement-based [5] M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braumüller, quantum computing with continuous-variable cluster P. Krantz, J. I.-J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. states, Physical review letters 112, 120504 (2014). 6

[21] B. W. Walshe, L. J. Mensen, B. Q. Baragiola, and N. C. [38] P. W. Shor and J. A. Smolin, Quantum error-correcting Menicucci, Robust fault tolerance for continuous-variable codes need not completely reveal the error syndrome, cluster states with excess antisqueezing, Physical Review arXiv preprint quant-ph/9604006 (1996). A 100, 010301 (2019). [39] D. P. DiVincenzo, P. W. Shor, and J. A. Smolin, [22] C. Flühmann, T. L. Nguyen, M. Marinelli, V. Negnevit- Quantum-channel capacity of very noisy channels, Phys- sky, K. Mehta, and J. P. Home, Encoding a qubit in ical Review A 57, 830 (1998). a trapped-ion mechanical oscillator, Nature 566, 513 [40] K. Fukui, A. Tomita, and A. Okamoto, Analog quantum (2019). error correction with encoding a qubit into an oscillator, [23] P. Campagne-Ibarcq, A. Eickbusch, S. Touzard, E. Zalys- Physical review letters 119, 180507 (2017). Geller, N. E. Frattini, V. V. Sivak, P. Reinhold, S. Puri, [41] D. Poulin, Optimal and efficient decoding of concate- S. Shankar, R. J. Schoelkopf, et al., Quantum error cor- nated quantum block codes, Physical Review A 74, rection of a qubit encoded in grid states of an oscillator, 052333 (2006). Nature 584, 368 (2020). [42] T. C. Ralph, A. Hayes, and A. Gilchrist, Loss-tolerant [24] K. Fukui, A. Tomita, A. Okamoto, and K. Fujii, High- optical qubits, Physical review letters 95, 100501 (2005). threshold fault-tolerant quantum computation with ana- [43] S. Muralidharan, J. Kim, N. Lütkenhaus, M. D. Lukin, log quantum error correction, Physical review X 8, and L. Jiang, Ultrafast and fault-tolerant quantum com- 021054 (2018). munication across long distances, Physical review letters [25] K. Fukui, High-threshold fault-tolerant quantum compu- 112, 250501 (2014). tation with the gkp qubit and realistically noisy devices, [44] W. J. Munro, A. M. Stephens, S. J. Devitt, K. A. Harri- arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.09767 (2019). son, and K. Nemoto, Quantum communication without [26] J. E. Bourassa, R. N. Alexander, M. Vasmer, A. Patil, the necessity of quantum memories, Nature Photonics 6, I. Tzitrin, T. Matsuura, D. Su, B. Q. Baragiola, S. Guha, 777 (2012). G. Dauphinais, et al., Blueprint for a scalable pho- [45] F. Ewert, M. Bergmann, and P. van Loock, Ultrafast tonic fault-tolerant quantum computer, arXiv preprint long-distance quantum communication with static linear arXiv:2010.02905 (2020). optics, Physical review letters 117, 210501 (2016). [27] M. V. Larsen, C. Chamberland, K. Noh, J. S. Neergaard- [46] M. Wilde, Quantum Information Theory, second edition Nielsen, and U. L. Andersen, A fault-tolerant continuous- ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK ; New variable measurement-based quantum computation ar- York, 2017). chitecture, arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.03014 (2021). [47] S. Lloyd, Capacity of the noisy quantum channel, Phys- [28] I. Tzitrin, J. E. Bourassa, N. C. Menicucci, and K. K. ical Review A 55, 1613 (1997). Sabapathy, Progress towards practical qubit computa- [48] P. Shor, The quantum channel capacity and coherent in- tion using approximate gottesman-kitaev-preskill codes, formation (2002). Physical Review A 101, 032315 (2020). [49] I. Devetak, The private classical capacity and quantum [29] C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptography: capacity of a quantum channel, IEEE Transactions on Public key distribution and coin tossing, in Proceedings of Information Theory 51, 44 (2005). IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems [50] A. S. Holevo and R. F. Werner, Evaluating capacities of and Signal Processing, Vol. 175 (New York, 1984) p. 8. bosonic gaussian channels, Physical Review A 63, 032312 [30] H.-J. Briegel, W. Dür, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Quantum (2001). repeaters: the role of imperfect local operations in quan- [51] I. Devetak and P. W. Shor, The capacity of a quantum tum communication, Physical Review Letters 81, 5932 channel for simultaneous transmission of classical and (1998). quantum information, Communications in Mathematical [31] H. J. Kimble, The quantum internet, Nature 453, 1023 Physics 256, 287 (2005). (2008). [52] S. Glancy and E. Knill, Error analysis for encoding a [32] K. Fukui, R. N. Alexander, and P. van Loock, All-optical qubit in an oscillator, Physical Review A 73, 012325 long-distance quantum communication with gottesman- (2006). kitaev-preskill qubits, arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.14876 [53] A. M. Steane, Active stabilization, quantum computa- (2020). tion, and quantum state synthesis, Physical Review Let- [33] F. Rozpędek, K. Noh, Q. Xu, S. Guha, and L. Jiang, ters 78, 2252 (1997). Quantum repeaters based on concatenated bosonic [54] B. W. Walshe, B. Q. Baragiola, R. N. Alexander, and and discrete-variable quantum codes, arXiv preprint N. C. Menicucci, Continuous-variable gate teleportation arXiv:2011.15076 (2020). and bosonic-code error correction, Physical Review A [34] J. Harrington and J. Preskill, Achievable rates for 102, 062411 (2020). the gaussian quantum channel, Physical Review A 64, [55] E. Knill, Scalable quantum computing in the presence of 062301 (2001). large detected-error rates, Physical Review A 71, 042322 [35] F. Caruso, V. Giovannetti, and A. S. Holevo, One-mode (2005). bosonic gaussian channels: a full weak-degradability clas- [56] C. Chamberland and T. Jochym-O’Connor, Error sup- sification, New Journal of Physics 8, 310 (2006). pression via complementary gauge choices in reed-muller [36] A. S. Holevo, One-mode quantum gaussian channels: codes, Quantum Science and Technology 2, 035008 Structure and quantum capacity, Problems of Informa- (2017). tion Transmission 43, 1 (2007). [57] D. K. Tuckett, Tailoring surface codes: Improvements in [37] J. Eisert and M. M. Wolf, Gaussian Quantum Channels, quantum error correction with biased noise, (2020). in Quantum Information with Continuous Variables of [58] M. Varnava, D. E. Browne, and T. Rudolph, Loss tol- Atoms and Light (World Scientific, London, 2007) pp. erance in one-way quantum computation via counterfac- 23–42. tual error correction, Physical review letters 97, 120501 7

(2006). Information Theory 60, 1193 (2013). [59] S. D. Barrett and T. M. Stace, Fault tolerant quantum [61] J. P. Bonilla-Ataides, D. K. Tuckett, S. D. Bartlett, S. T. computation with very high threshold for loss errors, Flammia, and B. J. Brown, The xzzx surface code, arXiv Physical review letters 105, 200502 (2010). preprint arXiv:2009.07851 (2020). [60] J.-P. Tillich and G. Zémor, Quantum ldpc codes with [62] L. Hänggli, M. Heinze, and R. König, Enhanced noise positive rate and minimum distance proportional to the resilience of the surface–gottesman-kitaev-preskill code square root of the blocklength, IEEE Transactions on via designed bias, Physical Review A 102, 052408 (2020).