Arxiv:2102.01374V1 [Quant-Ph] 2 Feb 2021
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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)p 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 := p ≈ 0:607 : (2) p 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- j0i as j1i (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 p deviation of the state’s support in eachp quadrature (q; p) the nearest integer multiple of π. Similarly, j+i and |−i away from an integer multiple of π.p These measure- may be misidentified when measuring logical-X with a p ment outcomes—each of thep form sm = n π+∆m, where measurement. A qubit-level measurement errorp occurs n is an integer and j∆mj ≤ π=2—together form the syn- when the measured outcome is more than π=2 away drome.