Arxiv:1610.03632V1 [Quant-Ph]

arXiv:1610.03632v1 [quant-ph] 12 Oct 2016 hw hti h upto hs nemdaemodels poly- the intermediate computer, these classical a of by output efficiently been sampled the has are it if Specifically, that ensem- shown [23]. NMR computation and quantum 36], ble [35, dy- interactions quench motivated Ising [26], well with computations experimentally namics quantum are optical them linear of as All examples are those. [23–25] of compu- (DQC1) qubit quantum one-clean deterministic with tation mixed cir- highly depth-four [22]), also cuits (see [16–21] circuits instantaneous com- quantum with muting [3], comput- (IQP) bosons computation classical which free polynomial-time by quantum with outputs, efficiently BosonSampling simulated nontrivial ers. be provide com- not They still quantum could universal but perform quantum to settings. putation, show enough rich feasible to not experimentally are attention in much supremacy attracting are tion [9–15]. realizations correction experimental error for quantum fault-tolerant paid of mas- been have Therefore, efforts to [5–8]. sive subject imperfections constructed being realistic be devices physically physical can quantum computer realistic from quantum for an universal theorem that ideal threshold guarantees super- computation the a quantum clas- Moreover, fault-tolerant demonstrate known best to algorithms. the sical over us speedup allows quantum factoriza- polynomial [4] Shor’s have a algorithm we computer, by quantum if tion universal simulated example, ideal For efficiently an real- be machine. a Turing can by probabilistic device computation quantum physical efficient any namely istic that Church-Turing saying algorithms, extended the thesis, disproof classical to speedup [1–3] best supremacy quantum demonstrate the to over is processing mation eetyitreit oeso unu computa- quantum of models intermediate Recently infor- quantum of goals important most the of One la;tetrsodi eemndprl ytetrsodo threshold the by advantage. purely quantum a determined suprema gain is quantum to of essential threshold origin the the clear; threshold, circuit- noise same standard the the with computation quantum fault-tolerant hst al-oeatqatmcmuainwt h surfac the with computation 2 quantum fault-tolerant to non-coll effici i.e., this simulated conjecture, theoretical be complexity the cannot stable that show postselection) we to region, (without us a allows circuits such This in even postselection. that, by show correction We pre-threshold directly. the work deve in not we circuits does quant Here quantum universal noisy processing. with less supremacy information using quantum by for algorithms milestone classical best the . 4 o unu urmc,wihi uhhge hntestan the than higher much is which supremacy, quantum for 84% eosrtn unu urmc,acomplexity-guarantee a supremacy, quantum Demonstrating .INTRODUCTION I. h nvriyo oy,21-6Yyi ukok,Tko11 Tokyo Bunkyo-ku, Yayoi, 2-11-16 Tokyo, of University The 2 S,PET,418Hnh,Kwgci atm,3201,J 332-0012, Saitama, Kawaguchi, Honcho, 4-1-8 PRESTO, JST, os hehl fQatmSupremacy Quantum of Threshold Noise 1 htnSineCne,Gaut colo Engineering, of School Graduate Center, Science Photon Dtd pi 9 2018) 19, April (Dated: esk Fujii Keisuke enpromdaray[27–34]. already this on performed inter- Based havebeen the experiments hard. BosonSampling of be several to simulation understanding, thought classical also is hence models and collapse mediate complete implausi- PH), a highly the that be implies of to P=NP thought example, 17]. is (for [3, PH ble level the [25]) of second collapse (or The third the ma- (nonde- to oracle collapses NP chines, to of computation) generalization polynomial-time a terministic (PH), hierarchy nomial roso h xsigitreit oesrqiethe hardness with constant require The or errors (ii) models errors additive multiplicative intermediate time. constant existing with long sampling a the work, for of not open does proofs fully correction been where error has region, fault- quantum pre-threshold universal standard intermediate of character- the the threshold The of the [39–41]. ization to computation gap quantum there large tolerant or a 38], [37, be operations still stabilizer ideal assuming they However, are exactly. simulatable quantum classically noisy been are such have circuits which There above (i) thresholds noise threefold. mo- several is The question quan- circuits. this surviving quantum of directly. still tivation noisy is such there correction in not supremacy or tum error whether quantum ask we Then employ Hence, of cannot threshold computation. standard we quantum the fault-tolerant than noise universal higher the where much region, is pre-threshold strength the in circuits tum ti eoigpsil ooeaesaal unu de- standard quantum the scalable around qubits operate superconducting as to such vices possible Nowadays, im- (iii) becoming an is [19]). Ref. it been also (see has problem supremacy open them- portant quantum circuits exhibit quantum noisy can strength such directly.selves noise not achieved or constant be whether noise. cannot a Thus, criteria to of these sensitive employed, circuits are quantum quite noisy are If approximation of notions peo h oyoilheacy yapplying By hierarchy. polynomial the of apse eew osdrqatmspeayo os quan- noisy of supremacy quantum consider we Here ,2 1, nl ycasclcmuesbsdo a on based computers classical by ently ee os oe.Mroe,cnrs to contrast Moreover, model. noise level uptsmldfo h os quantum noisy the from sampled output mdvcs sa motn near-term important an is devices, um ein hr unu ro correction error quantum where region, oe,w bantetrsodvalue threshold the obtain we codes, e o hehl hoe o quantum for theorem threshold a lop yi os unu icisi quite is circuits quantum noisy in cy a ital iuaeqatmerror quantum simulate virtually can ai tt itlain hc is which distillation, state magic f unu datg gis over against advantage quantum d adtrsod0 threshold dard -66 Japan 3-8656, l 1 nr 3 7 8 0 1.These 21]. 20, 18, 17, [3, -norm apan . 5 o universal for 75% 2 threshold of universal fault-tolerant quantum computa- 49]. In the case of quantum supremacy, we can employ tion [9–15]. Therefore, a complexity-guaranteed criterion error detection for both Clifford gates and magic state of quantum supremacy for such noisy quantum devices distillation, and hence distillability of the magic state in the pre-threshold region is highly demanded in the determines the threshold of quantum supremacy. This experiments [42]. is quite reasonable, since magic state distillation for non- To address these issues, we derive a threshold theorem Clifford gates is essential for make quantum computation for quantum supremacy with noisy quantum circuits: if classically intractable [37, 38, 40, 50]. Finally, we calcu- the noise strength is lower than a certain threshold value, late the threshold value of fault-tolerant quantum com- the output of such noisy quantum circuits cannot be sim- putation using the surface code on the two-dimensional ulated efficiently by classical computers unless the PH array of qubits [48, 49] to obtain a practically meaning- hierarchy collapses to the third level. Contrast to the ex- ful threshold of quantum supremacy. While we cannot isting intermediate models [3, 16–21, 24, 25], in this work simulate postselected events numerically and hence em- we employ quantum circuits generated from a universal ploy an analytical treatment, which underestimates the set of gates, but being subject to rather strong noise, threshold, the resultant threshold value 2.84% is rather which makes the system less universal. To show hard- high compared to the standard threshold 0.75% [46, 47] ness of classical simulation, we employ the postselection under the same circuit-based depolarizing noise model. argument [17, 43]. That is, we show that noisy quantum This level of noise is within reach of current state-of-the- circuits can solve a postBQP-complete, or equivalently art experiments in scalable superconducting qubit sys- PP-complete problem under postselection. To this end, tems [9–15], and hence it would be possible to observe we first show that simulation of an arbitrary two-qubit complexity-guaranteed quantum supremacy with noisy output of universal quantum computation with an ex- quantum circuits in the near future. ponentially small additive error is enough to obtain the The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, hardness result by postselection. Then, we show that we briefly review the standard threshold theorem of uni- noisy quantum circuits can achieve it by virtue of posts- versal fault-tolerant quantum computation. In Sec. III, election, where any outcomes of syndrome measurements we construct the postselected threshold theorem of quan- suggesting existence of errors are discarded by postselec- tum supremacy with noisy quantum circuits. In Sec. IV, tion. This allows us to simulate universal quantum com- we perform a case study for concatenated quantum computation with an exponentially small additive error even putation. In Sec. V, we apply the postselected threshold in the pre-threshold region, where the standard quantum theorem to topological fault-tolerant quantum computa- error correction is not available. As a technical point of tion with the surface codes to derive the practical thresh- view, the standard threshold theorem for universal fault- old value of quantum supremacy with the circuit-level tolerant quantum computation cannot be employed in noise. Section VI is devoted to conclusion and discus- the above argument. This is because, in the postselec- sion. tion argument, we have to treat a conditional probability distribution conditioned on an exponentially rare postselection event. Therefore we derive a postselected version II. STANDARD THRESHOLD THEOREM of the threshold theorem. The important implications of the postselected version Let us briefly review the standard threshold theorem of the threshold theorem are as follows. First, while the of fault-tolerant quantum computation [8, 51]. The ideal raw outputs of noisy quantum circuits cannot satisfy the unitary gates in a fault-tolerant universal quantum com- criteria for quantum supremacy directly, the logical out- putation is denoted by put after an appropriate classical processing can exhibit = , (1) quantum supremacy by virtue of quantum error correc- U Uk tion, which is virtually simulated by using postselection. Yk Second, the threshold value for quantum supremacy is where k is the kth unitary gate and is chosen from a uni- much higher than that of universal fault-tolerant quan- versalU set of gates. Quantum error correction employs tum computation. This is because, we can discard any both projective measurements and adaptive operations erroneous events suggested by the non-zero error syn- based on the measurement outcomes. Here, for simplic- dromes. Therefore the threshold is given not by the er- ity, all these operations including classical processing are ror correction property of quantum error correction codes denoted by unitary gates coherently and included in . but by the error detection property. Third, by virtue Then, the probability distribution of the final outputU of of the above effect, the origin of quantum supremacy in quantum computation is denoted in terms of a projective noisy quantum circuits is quite clear; it is determined by operator P (x 0, 1 ) of the final readout as distillability of the magic state [44, 45]. More precisely, x ∈{ } in the standard construction of fault-tolerant quantum p(x) = Tr[Px (ρini)], (2) computation, error correction for Clifford gates limits the U threshold, while the threshold of magic state distillation, where ρini is the initial state. In order to take noise where error detection is employed, is much higher [46– into account, each ideal unitary gate is replace with Uk 3 a noisy one k k, where k is a completely-positive- Since trace-preservingN U (CPTP) mapN representing the imperfec- 1= Tr[P noisy(ρ )] (12) tion. Here we assume the noise is local and Markovian. xU ini Xx We define a noise strength ǫk k ⋄ for each k, ≡kI−N k N = α + Tr[ρfaulty], (13) where ⋄ is the diamond norm for super-operators [52]. Then thek·k noisy version of the unitary gates is given by we have 1 α = Tr[ρfaulty]. Therefore, the error is noisy ( ). Note that imperfections on the − U ≡ k NkUk bounded by initial state ρini and the final measurement Px are also Q noisy taken as imperfections on unitary gates at certain lo- p(x) p (x) l1 (1 α) p(x) l1 + Tr[Pxρfaulty] l1 , k − k ≤ − k k k k cations (this is always possible since we can insert an (14) identity gate after the state preparation and before the 2 ρfaulty 1 (15) measurement). Note also that the unitary gates corre- ≤ k k ηk sponding to the classical processing are assumed to be 2ǫk 2 (1 ǫk) , noise-free, since they are introduced just to simplify the ≤ − 1 ǫk Yk {ηkX}|faulty − argument. They are implicitly omitted in the following argument. The probability distribution of the final out- (16) put under the noise is given by where indicates the operator 1-norm, and we used k·k1 noisy noisy that k ⋄ < 2ǫk and k ⋄ = 1. If the system is de- p (x) = Tr[Px (ρini)]. (3) kE k kU k U signed fault-tolerantly, and if the noise strength ǫk is To argue fault-tolerance, we decompose the noise map smaller than a certain threshold value, then the r.h.s. k into ideal and noisy parts as follows: of Eq. (16) is upper-bounded by an arbitrarily exponen- N tially small value, which we call the standard threshold k = (1 ǫk) + k (4) theorem. N − I E where we should note that the noisy part k (with ⋄ E kEknoisy≤ 2ǫk) is not always a CPTP map. Then we expand III. POSTSELECTED THRESHOLD THEOREM as a summation over possible paths U

noisy Next we consider the case with postselection. In this = [(1 ǫk) + k] k (5) U { − I E U } case, we introduce another two measurement ports cor- Yk responding to y and z ( 0, 1 ). The variable y is em- 1−ηk ηk ∈ { } = [(1 ǫk) ] k , (6) ployed as a postselection register for postBQP=PP argu- − I Ek U {Xηk } Yk n o ment [43]. The variable z is used to postselect the events where no syndrome measurement suggests an occurrence where η 0, 1 and is taken over all paths. Now k ∈{ } {ηk} of an error. Then we have we decompose these pathsP into sparse and faulty set of paths in such a way that the operator in the sparse set p(x,y,z) = Tr[Px,yQz (ρini)], (17) U never change the final probability distribution: pnoisy(x,y,z) = Tr[P Q nosiy(ρ )], (18) x,y zU ini where Px,y and Qz are projectors corresponding to (x, y) 1−ηk ηk p(x) Tr Px [(1 ǫk) ] k ρini and z, respectively. Since, in the ideal case with , z is ∝ − I E U U {ηk }|Xsparse Yk n o always zero, we have p(x, y, 0) p¯(x, y) and p(x, y, 1) =   ≡ (7) 0. Now our goal here is to simulatep ¯(x, y) by using postselected noisy quantum computation pnoisy(x, y z = αp(x). (8) | ≡ 0) with an exponentially small additive error. Similarly The faulty set is defined as the complement of the sparse to the standard threshold theorem, we evaluate the error ∆ betweenp ¯(x, y) and pnoisy(x, y z = 0): set. The sparse and faulty operators (not a density op- | erator) are defined as follows: noisy ∆ p¯(x, y) p (x, y z = 0) 1 (19) ≡k − | kl ρ [(1 ǫ ) ]1−ηk ηk ρ ,(9) = p¯(x, y) Tr[Px,yQz(ρsparse + ρfaulty)]/qz=0] l1 , faulty ≡ − k I E Uk ini k − k {ηkX}|faulty Yk n o (20)

1−ηk ηk ρ [(1 ǫ ) ] ρ (10). where qz=0 Tr[Qz(ρsparse +ρfaulty)] is the probability to sparse ≡ − k I E Uk ini ≡ {ηk }|Xsparse Yk n o postselect the null syndrome measurements. Moreover, the sparse and faulty sets are redeﬁned such that under The error of the probability distribution of the ﬁnal out- the postselection of z = 0 the operators in the sparse set put is measured by l1-norm, results in the correct probability distribution: noisy p(x) p (x) 1 = (1 α)p(x) + Tr[P ρ ] 1 . p¯(x, y) Tr[P Q ρ ]/q (21) k − kl k − x faulty kl ∝ x,y z sparse z=0 (11) βp¯(x, y). (22) ≡ 4

Since we have then weak classical simulation i.e., sampling according to p(x,y,z) with the multiplicative error c< √2 is impossi- 1= Tr[P Q ρ ]/q (23) x,z z sparse z=0 ble unless the PH collapses to the third level. Xx,y

= β + Tr[QzρsparseQz]/qz=0, (24) Here weak classical simulation with a multiplicative error c means that the classical sampling of (x, y, ...) ac- we obtain 1 β = Tr[Q ρ Q ]/q . Then we obtain z sparse z z=0 cording to the probability distribution psamp(x, y, ...) that a similar bound− on the error between the ideal proba- satisﬁes bility distribution and the postselected noisy probability distribution: (1/c)p(x, y, ...)

∆= (1 β)¯p(x, y) Tr[P Q ρ ]/q ] 1 (25) k − − x,y z faulty z=0 kl (1 β)+ Q ρ Q /q (26) ≤ − k z faulty zk1 z=0 Proof: A language L is in the class postBQP iﬀ there 2 ρfaulty 1/qz=0. exists a uniform family of postselected quantum circuits ≤ k k (27) Cω with a decision port x and a postselection port y {such} that To proceed further calculation, we assume that is a Ek CPTP map, i.e., the noise k is a stochastic noise. In this if ω L,p (x y = 0) 1/2+ δ (34) N ∈ ω | ≥ case, we have k = ǫk. Moreover, since both ρsparse and kE k if ω / L,pω(x y = 0) 1/2 δ, (35) ρfaulty are density matrices, the postselection probability ∈ | ≤ − qz=0 is lower-bounded: where δ can be chosen arbitrary such that 0 <δ< 1/2. Note that without loss of generality we can assume the qz=0 > Tr[QzρsparseQz] (28) probability to obtain y = 0 is bounded, pω(y = 0) > −6n−4 > Tr[Qz (1 ǫk) (ρini)] (29) 2 as shown in Ref. [19]. Now we have − U Yk p(x y =0,z = 0) pw(x y = 0) (36) = (1 ǫk). (30) | | − | | − 1 1 Yk < p(x, y z = 0) | p(y =0 z = 0) − p (y = 0) Thus the error ∆ is again upper bounded as follows: | ω p(x, y z = 0) pω(x, y) ǫ ηk + | − (37) k p (y = 0) ∆ < 2 . (31) ω 1 ǫk −κ −κ {ηkX}|faulty − 2e e < + (38) If the system is designed fault-tolerantly and if ǫ is p(y =0 z = 0)pω(z = 0) pω(z = 0) k | smaller than a certain constant value, the r.h.s. of 2e−κ e−κ < + . (39) Eq. (31) is upper-bounded by an exponentially small −κ (pω(y = 0) e )pω(y = 0) pω(y = 0) value. Therefore we have the following postselected − −6n−4 threshold theorem: Since pω(y = 0) > 2 , we can choose κ = poly(n) such that p(x y =0,z = 0) p (x y = 0) < 1/2. The Theorem 1 (postselected threshold theorem) ω 1 resultant size| of| the noisy quantum− | circuit| is still poly- Suppose noise is given as a stochastic one nomial in n. From the deﬁnition (robustness against the = (1 ǫ ) + . If the noise strength ǫ is k k k k bounded error) of the class postBQP (as same as post- smallerN than− a certainI E threshold value, we can simulate a BQP), the postselected noisy quantum circuit can de- probability distribution p¯(x, y) of an arbitrary universal cide problems in postBQP=PP (recall that we can freely quantum computation (uniformly generated polynomial- choose 0 <δ< 1/2). Thus postselected quantum com- time quantum circuits) with an exponentially small putation of such noisy quantum circuits is as hard as PP, additive error by using postselected noisy probability and hence cannot be weakly simulated with the multi- distribution p(x, y z = 0). | plicative error c < √2 unless the PH collapses to the (The proof has been shown already in the above.) third level. Furthermore, we can also show that simulation of p¯(x, y) with an exponentially small additive error is ac- We have considered an approximated sampling with tually enough to show hardness of a sampling according an multiplicative error c in Lemma 1. Approximation to pnoisy(x,y,z) (see also Ref. [19]): with the constant multiplicative error imposes a stronger requirement on classical computers than the constant ad- Lemma 1 Let C and p (x, y) be a uniformly generated ω w ditive error with l -norm [20, 21]. However, all imperfec- polynomial-time quantum circuit and its probability dis- 1 tions including measurements are taken into on uni- tribution, respectively. If there exists a noisy quantum k tary gates . Since here we are interested whetherN or circuit noisy of the size N = poly(n,κ) with n being the k not the outputsU of the actual noisy experimental device size of UC such that w possess quantum supremacy or not, an exact sampling, p (x, y) p(x, y z = 0)

The above theorem indicates that even noisy sam- Next we will consider topologically protected fault- pling using noisy quantum circuits can have a power to tolerant quantum computation with the surface code [46– exhibit quantum supremacy against a classical simula- 49, 53] to obtain a practical threshold value for quantum tion of them. One of the main benefit to employ the supremacy. Quantum error correction using the surface threshold theorem of quantum supremacy is that we can code with imperfect syndrome measurements is governed show quantum supremacy experimentally in a very noisy on primal and dual cubic lattices (see Ref. [53] for a de- region where the noise strength is above the standard tailed review). Below we consider the primal cubic lat- threshold, which we call a pre-threshold region. In the tice only, by assuming error correction is done on primal following, we apply the above theorem for two prototyp- and dual cubic lattices independently, which results in ical cases: concatenated fault-tolerant quantum compu- an underestimate of the threshold. Then, errors are as- tation [5–8] and topological fault-tolerant quantum com- signed on edges of the cubic lattice as an error chain, putation with the surface codes [46–48]. and the errors are detected at the boundary of the error chain. If the error and recovery chains result in a topologically nontrivial cycle, the error correction fails. In IV. CASE I: CONCATENATED QUANTUM the topologically protected region, the defects represent- COMPUTATION ing logical qubits are designed such that the nontrivial cycle consists of a connected chain of length longer than To obtain a further insight, we first consider a con- d. Around the singular qubit for non-Clifford operations, catenated fault-tolerant quantum computation. Suppose we have to take into account nontrivial cycles of length each fault-tolerant logical gate at the concatenation level shorter than d too. l consists of at most M logical gates of the level (l 1). If Let us first consider the phenomenological noise model, − we employ a quantum error correction code of a distance where the errors are distributed independently and iden- d, any of at most t d 1/2 errors never causes a log- tically on each edge with probability ǫ. Now ρ is di- ≡⌊ − ⌋ fail ical error. At a concatenation level l, the faulty operator vided into two parts ρtop and ρsin, which correspond to is bounded by the errors in the topologically protected region and oth-

M ers originated from the errors around the singular qubits, M ǫ(l) (ǫ(l−1))r(1 ǫ(l−1))M−r (40) respectively. Since we can postselect the null syndrome ≡ r − measurements, ρ is attributed from the errors on the r=Xt+1 top connected chain of length longer than d (the error chain of C(ǫ(l−1))t+1. (41) ≤ length shorter than d always results in an erroneous syndrome in the topologically protected region, and hence is By considering the concatenation, ρ is bounded fauly 1 postselected). Therefore, we have in terms of ǫ max ǫ as follows: k k ≡ k k l l 1/t (t+1) 1/t ǫ ρfauly 1 < (C ǫ) /C , (42) ρ poly(n) C , (44) k k k topk1 ≤ l 1 ǫ Xl=d where l is the number of concatenation levels and chosen − to be logarithm in the size of computation. The threshold where n is the size of the quantum computation, and 1/t l value is given roughly by 1/C . On the other hand if we Cl < (6/5)5 is the number of self-avoiding walks [54] of apply the threshold theorem for quantum supremacy, the length l. Apparently, this converges to zero if ǫ/(1 ǫ) < − 6

0.3 q1,q2 q3 q1,2 0.25 q2,3,q3,1 ε(ν, µ):full 54pe/15 0.2 46pe/15 6pe/5 8pe/15 0.134 0.15 ε(ν, µ):leading

0.1

0.05

0 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04

FIG. 2. The parameters for the error distribution, q1, q2, FIG. 1. The depth-8 circuit for syndrome measurements of q3, q1,2 , q2,3, and q3,1, and the eﬀective single-qubit error the surface code. The top view is also shown right. An er- probability ǫ(ν, µ) are shown in the leading order (lines) and ror is assigned on each edge with probabilities q1, q2, and to all orders (points) as functions of pe. The dashed line q3 independently. In addition, correlated errors occur with shows the threshold 13.4% for the eﬀective single-qubit error probabilities q1,2, q2,3, and q3,1 on the two connected edges. probability.

for single- and two-qubit gates: 1/5. Note that while the resultant threshold ǫ =0.167 is somehow underestimated by the above analytical treat- (1) = [I]+ (p /3)[A] (46) N 1 ment, it is much higher than the standard threshold A=XX,Y,Z 0.0293 0.033 [54–56] in the topologically protected re- − (2) = [I]+ (p /15)[A B](47), gion calculated from numerical simulations. Therefore, N 2 ⊗ the protection around singular qubit becomes important. A,B=X,Y,ZX\(A,B)=(I,I) Around the singular qubits, the logical error is bounded † by where we use the notation [W ]ρ W ρW . The state preparations and measurements are≡ followed and pre- ceded by flipping the states in their bases with probabili- d l ǫ ties pp and pm, respectively. Then, the error distribution C′ , (45) l 1 ǫ on the cubic lattice is characterized by single-qubit er- Xl=1 − ror probabilities q1, q2, and q3, and two-qubit correlated error probabilities q1,2, q2,3, and q3,1, where the labels ′ where Cl is the number of the self-avoiding walks that re- 1, 2 and 3 correspond to two space-like and one time-like sult in the logical errors of length shorter than d around axes. In the leading order, they are given by the singular qubits (the error of length longer than d is ′ 4p2 2p1 taken in ρtopo). In Ref. [19] (Tab. 1), Cl is counted rigor- q1 = q2 =6 +3 , (48) ously up to l = 14. This tells us that if ǫ/(1 ǫ) < 0.134 15 3 − 4p2 (ǫ < 0.118) the amount of errors on each singular qubit q3 =4 + pp + pm, (49) becomes smaller than 0.146 = (1 √2/2)/2, the thresh- 15 − 4p2 old of the magic state distillation [44, 45]. Therefore q1,2 =2 , (50) ρsim 1 converges to zero if ǫ < 0.118. Accordingly, we 15 havek k the threshold ǫ = 0.118 for quantum supremacy 4p2 2p1 q2,3 = q3,1 =2 + . (51) with the surface code under the stochastic phenomeno- 15 3 logical noise model, which is much higher than the stan- We also numerically evaluated q1, q2, q3 and q1,2, q2,3, q3,1 dard threshold 2.93% 3.3% for universal fault-tolerant − to all orders as shown in Fig. 2, which are in good quantum computation. agreement with the leading order evaluations but be- Finally, we derive a noise threshold of quantum come slightly smaller than them by increasing pe. Note supremacy in the circuit-based noise model. Specifically, that at the boundary and inside the defects a part of we employ a circuit shown in Fig. 1 for the syndrome the gates for the syndrome measurements are not per- measurements of the surface code. (Contrast to the cir- formed, and hence the actual error probabilities are cuit in Ref. [48], this circuit is not the lowest depth one. smaller there. Let us define ν = max q , q , q and { 1 2 3} However, this setup is convenient to model the corre- µ = max q1,2, q2,3, q3,1 . Since we have a correlated er- lated errors.) We take the standard depolarizing noise ror on the{ connected two} edges with probability at most 7

µ, the probability of an error chain of the length l (in VI. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION Eqs. (44) and (45)) is now replaced by Here we have derived the threshold theorem of quan- ⌊l/2⌋ l−k k tum supremacy with noisy quantum circuits in the pre- l/2 k ν µ threshold region. While we employed noisy but universal Cl ⌊ ⌋ 2 (52) k 1 ν 1 µ set of gates here, it would be interesting to apply the kX=0 − − theorem for non-universal quantum computational mod- ν l−⌊l/2⌋ ν 2µ ⌊l/2⌋ < Cl + (53). els such as BosonSampling, IQP, and DQC1 (see Ref. [19] 1 ν 1 ν 1 µ in the case of noisy commuting circuits). In the case of − − − BosonSampling, if we want to show universality under Equation (52) reads as follows. The edges on the chain of postselection, we have to take non-deterministic gates the length l are labeled from 1 to l. For k =0, 1, ..., l/2 , into account. Fault-tolerant linear optical quantum com- k correlated errors are chosen from the l/2 edges⌊ la-⌋ putation [26, 57–61] would be employed even in this case. beled by odd numbers. Then, each of the⌊ chosen⌋ edges On the other hand, in the case of DQC1 [24, 25], the can correlate two neighboring even number edges. number of measurement ports seems to be too small to perform fault-tolerant quantum computation. This prob- Equation (53) can be viewed as a stochastic phe- lem might be avoided by employing polynomially many nomenological noise model with an eﬀective single-qubit measurements, but still it is quite nontrivial to construct error probability ǫ(ν,µ), a fault-tolerant circuit by using completely randomized ancilla states and postselection. Contrast to BosonSam- ν 1/2 ν 2µ 1/2 pling and IQP, the output of DQC1, the normalized trace ǫ(ν,µ) + .(54) of a unitary operator, appears ubiquitously in physics ≡ 1 ν 1 ν 1 µ − − − and has a lot of applications, such as spectral density estimation [23], testing integrability [62], calculation of Therefore, similarly to the previous argument, if ǫ(ν,µ) < ﬁdelity decay [63], and approximation of the Jones and 0.134, ρfaulty 1 decreases exponentially. By setting pe = HOMFLY polynomials [64–66]. Fault-tolerance of quan- k k p1 = p2 = pp = pm, ν = 54pe/15 and µ = 6pe/5 in the tum supremacy in DQC1 is an important open problem. leading order, which results in the threshold pe =2.64%. We have considered hardness of an exact (or a con- If employ the all-order evaluations as shown in Fig. 2, stant multiplicative approximation) weak classical simu- the threshold is slightly improved to pe =2.84%. The ob- lation of the noisy quantum circuits to know whether or tained thresholds for quantum supremacy are again much not the outputs of the actual experimental device pos- higher than the standard threshold 0.75% for universal sess quantum supremacy. It would be interesting to see fault-tolerant quantum computation. Note that here the how noise tolerance changes if we change the notion of ap- errors on the singular qubits are far overestimate. Some proximation to the additive one with l1-norm [20, 21, 42], errors on the singular qubits have correlation with the which provides an advantage to classical computers mak- errors on the dual cubic lattice, and hence can be posts- ing their quantum targets relaxed. Is there still surviving elected. If we consider the correlation between the errors quantum supremacy of pre-threshold noisy quantum cir- on the primal and dual cubic lattices, the threshold of cuits even in such a setting? quantum supremacy would be further improved. While the standard threshold 0.75% is limited by the threshold in the topologically protected region, the post- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS selected threshold of quantum supremacy 2.84% is determined purely from the limitation of magic state distilla- KF is supported by KAKENHI No.16H02211 and tion. Namely, quantum supremacy in the noisy quantum PRESTO, JST. This work is supported by CREST, JST circuits is originated from distillability of the magic state. and ERATO, JST.

[1] Yao, Andrew Chi-Chih. Journal of the ACM 50, 100 [5] A. Yu. Kitaev, Russ. Math. Surv. 52, 1191 (1997). (2003). [6] J. Preskill, Proc. R. Soc. London A 454, 385 (1998). [2] J. Preskill, the 25th Solvay Conference (2012); [7] E. Knill, R. Laﬂamme, and W. H. Zurek, Proc. R. Soc. arXiv:1203.5813 (2012). London A 454, 365 (1998); Science 279, 342 (1998). [3] S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, Proceedings of the forty- [8] D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, in Proceedings of the 29th third annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing. Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computation (2011). (ACM Press, NY, 1998), p. 176. [4] P. W. Shor, in Proceedings of the 37th Annual Sympo- [9] R. Barends et al., Nature 508, 500 (2014). sium on Foundations of Computer Science (IEEE Com- [10] J. Kelly et al., Nature 519, 66 (2015). puter Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1996), p. 56. [11] J. M. Martinis, arXiv:1510.01406 (2015). 8

[12] J. M. Chow et al., Nature Communications 5, 4015 [39] S. Virmani, S.F. Huelga, and M.B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. A (2014). 71, 042328 (2005). [13] J. M. Gambetta, J. M. Chow, and M. Steffen, [40] M. B. Plenio and S. Virmani, New J. Phys. 12 033012 arXiv:1510.04375. (2010). [14] M. Takita et al., arXiv:1605.01351. [41] S. D. Barrett et al., Phys. Rev. A 80, 062328 (2009). [15] D. Risté et al., Nature communications 6, 6938 (2015). [42] S. Boixo et al., arXiv:1608.00263 (2016). [16] D. Shepherd and M. J. Bremner, Proceedings of the [43] S. Aaronson, Proc. R. A 461, 34733482 (2005). Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineer- [44] S. Bravyi, and A. Kitaev, Phy. Rev. A 71, 022316 (2005). ing Science 465, 1413 (2009). [45] B. W. Reichardt, Quant. Inf. Proc. 4, 251264 (2005). [17] M. J. Bremner, R. Jozsa, and D. J. Shepherd, Proceed- [46] R. Raussendorf, J. Harrington, and K. Goyal, Ann. of ings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Phys. 321, 2242 (2006). Engineering Science 467, 459 (2011). [47] R. Raussendorf, J. Harrington, and K. Goyal, New J. [18] K. Fujii and T. Morimae, arXiv:1311.2128. Phys. 9, 199 (2007). [19] K. Fujii and S. Tamate, Scientific Reports 6, 25598 [48] R. Raussendorf and J. Harrington, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, (2016). 190504 (2007). [20] M. J. Bremner, A. Montanaro, and D. J. Shepherd, Phys. [49] A. G. Fowler, A. M. Stephens, and P Groszkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 080501 (2016). Rev. A 80, 052312 (2009). [21] M. J. Bremner, A. Montanaro, and D. J. Shepherd, [50] M. Howard et al., Nature 510, 351 (2014). arXiv:1610.01808. [51] P. Aliferis, In Quantum Error Correction, p. 127 (Cam- [22] B. M. Terhal and P. DiVincenzo, Quant. Inf. Comp. 4, bridge University Press, 2013). 134 (2004). [52] D. Aharonov, A. Kitaev, and N. Nisan, In Proceedings [23] E. Knill, and R. Laflamme, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5672 of the 30th STOC, p. 20 (ACM, 1998). (1998). [53] K. Fujii, Quantum Computation with Topological Codes [24] T. Morimae, K. Fujii, and J. Fitzsimons, Phys. Rev. Lett. -From Qubit to Topological Fault- Tolerance-. Springer- 112, 130502 (2014). Briefs in Mathematical Physics vol. 8 (Springer-Verlag [25] K. Fujii et al., arXiv:1509.07276. 2015). [26] E. Knill, L. Raymond, and G. J. Milburn, Nature 409, [54] E. Dennis, A. Yu. Kitaev, A. Landahl and J. Preskill, J. 46 (2001). Math. Phys. 43, 4452 (2002). [27] M. A. Broome et al., Ralph, and A. G. White, Science [55] C. Wang, J. Harrington, and J. Preskill, Annals of 339, 794 (2013). Physics 303, 31 (2003). [28] J. B. Spring et al., Science 339, 798 (2013). [56] T. Ohno, et al., Nuclear physics B 697, 462 (2004). [29] M. Tillmann et al., Nature Photonics 7, 540 (2013). [57] M. A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 040503 (2004). [30] A. Crespi et al., Nature Photonics 7, 545 (2013). [58] C. M. Dawson, H. L. Haselgrove, and M. A. Nielsen, [31] J. Carolan et al., Nature Photonics 8, 621 (2014). Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 020501 (2006). [32] N. Spagnolo et al., Nature Photonics 8, 615 (2014). [59] P. Kok et al, Rev. of Mod. Phys. 79, 135 (2007). [33] M. Bentivegna et al., Science advances 1, e1400255 [60] K. Fujii and Y. Tokunaga, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 250503 (2015). (2010). [34] J. Carolan et al., Science 349, 711 (2015). [61] Y. Li and S.Benjamin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 250502 [35] X. Gao, S.-T. Wang, and L.-M. Duan, arXiv:1607.04947 (2010). (2016). [62] D. Poulin, R. Laflamme, G. J. Milburn, and J. P. Paz, [36] E. Farhi and A. W. Harrow, arXiv:1602.07674 (2016). Phys. Rev. A 68, 022302 (2003). [37] H. Buhrman et al., In Proceedings of the 47th Annual [63] D. Poulin, R. Blume-Kohout, R. Laflamme, and H. Ol- IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science livier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 177906 (2004). p. 411. [64] P. W. Shor and S. P. Jordan, Quantum Inf. Comput. 8, [38] W. van Dam, and M. Howard. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 681 (2008). 170504 (2009). [65] G. Passante, O. Moussa, C. A. Ryan, and R. Laflamme, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 250501 (2009). [66] S. P. Jordan and P. Wocjan, Quantum Inf. Comput. 9, 264 (2009).