Arxiv:1711.02999V3 [Quant-Ph] 31 Jul 2018 Lowing

Home , Michel Devoret

Implementation-independent sufﬁcient condition of the Knill-Laﬂamme type for the autonomous protection of logical qudits by strong engineered dissipation

Jae-Mo Lihm,1 Kyungjoo Noh,2 and Uwe R. Fischer3 1Department of Physics and Astronomy, Seoul National University, Center for Theoretical Physics, 08826 Seoul, Korea 2Yale Quantum Institute, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, USA 3Center for Theoretical Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Seoul National University, 08826 Seoul, Korea Autonomous quantum error correction utilizes the engineered coupling of a quantum system to a dissipative ancilla to protect quantum logical states from decoherence. We show that the Knill-Laﬂamme condition, stating that the environmental error operators should act trivially on a subspace, which then becomes the code subspace, is sufﬁcient for logical qudits to be protected against Markovian noise. It is proven that the error caused by the total Lindbladian evolution in the code subspace can be suppressed up to very long times in the limit of large engineered dissipation, by explicitly deriving how the error scales with both time and engineered dissipation strength. To demonstrate the potential of our approach for applications, we implement our general theory with binomial codes, a class of bosonic error-correcting codes, and outline how they can be implemented in a fully autonomous manner to protect against photon loss in a microwave cavity.

I. INTRODUCTION deriving a rigorous upper bound of logical error probability in terms of the engineered dissipation strength. In addition, we In the majority of practically realized experiments, the un- do not assume any structure of the error-correcting codes, and avoidable coupling to an environment leads to non-unitary thus our theory also applies to the codes which are beyond the evolution and introduces noise and dissipation into the sys- paradigm of stabilizer-based qubit codes. We illustrate this by tem [1]. This is often regarded as detrimental and hindering proposing a fully autonomous implementation of the recently the control of the experiment. In the last two decades how- proposed binomial codes [40], which protects encoded infor- ever, the at first sight counterintuitive fact has been established mation against photon loss in a microwave cavity. that dissipation can in fact support various quantum information processing tasks, such as quantum computation [2–5], entanglement generation [6–9], and the preparation of quantum II. AUTOQEC THEOREM many-body states [10, 11]. Quantum error correction (QEC) is a method of correct- Consider an open quantum system evolving according to a ing for effects of noise in quantum computers [12] by quan- Markovian master equation: tum control [13–19]. Conventional measurement-based QEC ∂ρ utilizes periodic measurement of error syndromes and an ap- = L[ρ] = −i[H + H , ρ] ∂t eng sys propriate unitary evolution that eliminates the error. This L N measurement-based QEC scheme can correct errors iff en- X X + M D(F )ρ + D(F )ρ, (1) coded logical quantum states satisfy the Knill-Laflamme con- eng,i sys,k dition [20, 21], which predicates that errors can be corrected i=1 k=1 iff an environment causing the error does not gain any infor- † 1 † † where D(A)ρ := AρA − (A Aρ + ρA A). Hsys and Fsys, mation about the encoded states [22]. 2 and Heng and Feng are Hamiltonian and Lindbladian opera- Autonomous QEC (AutoQEC) avoids the use of active tors that are intrinsic to the system and imposed by dissipa- syndrome measurements and real-time feedback control to tive engineering, respectively; we set ~ = 1. We omit the achieve QEC, and instead takes advantage of passive strong subscript sys from the intrinsic Lindblad operators in the fol- engineered dissipation, which restores the system into the arXiv:1711.02999v3 [quant-ph] 31 Jul 2018 lowing. We assume that intrinsic dissipation is uncontrollable, original code subspace manifold. Pioneering works [23–25] while engineered dissipation, in Markovian form, can be arti- mostly focused on autonomous implementation of the 3-bit ficially generated and increased at will. In the limit M 1 repetition code against single bit-flip error, and then were we consider, the engineered dissipation strength parametrized generalized to all stabilizer codes [26] in [27, 28]. Be- by M is much larger than its intrinsic counterpart. We discuss sides the stabilizer-based qubit codes, many specific Auto- the practical feasibility of strong Markovian dissipation for a QEC schemes tailored to certain experimental platforms were concrete implementation below. proposed [29–37]. Notably, the simplest version of the cat We seek a condition for the code space C ⊂ H (dim H = code proposals [31, 32, 36] was recently realized experimen- n < ∞, with H the total Hilbert space), under which there tally in circuit QED systems [38, 39]. exist an engineered Hamiltonian Heng and Lindblad jump op- In what follows, we identify an implementation inde- erators {Feng,i}i=1,··· ,L which autonomously protect the code pendent, sufficient condition for AutoQEC, of the Knill- space against the Markovian error generated by the intrinsic Laflamme type. In particular, we prove its sufficiency by pro- jump operators {Fk}k=1,··· ,N . That a code space is protected viding an explicit Markovian engineered dissipation and by means that for sufficiently strong engineered dissipation, any 2 logical states in the d-dimensional code subspace C are left invariant until a given time T and up to an arbitrarily small error |W 〉〈W | F |W 〉〈W | F , which is defined in Eq. (3) below. 0 0 eng 0 d-1 eng We find that the Knill-Laflamme condition [20, 21], when applied to the set of intrinsic error operators E = ···

{1,Fk}k=1,...,N , is sufﬁcient for the autonomous protection of the qudit code subspace C = span{|Wµi}µ=0,··· ,d−1. The † † 𝑓𝑓 U U 𝑓𝑓 U U condition states that 0 0,st 0 0 0,st d-1 ··· ··· 𝑓𝑓̃ † ρ ρ ΠCEl0 ElΠC = cl0lΠC, (2)

0 |Wd-1〉〈W0| Feng |Wd-1〉〈Wd-1| F for all El,El0 ∈ E and l, l ∈ {0, ..., N}, where hWµ|Wµ0 i = eng Pd−1 δµµ0 , ΠC := µ=0 |WµihWµ| and ck0k are constants. Our main technical result, then, is as follows: ···

† Theorem (AutoQEC condition). If a code space C satis- 𝑓𝑓 U U 𝑓𝑓 U U † fies the Knill-Laflamme condition for the error set E = d-1 0,st 0 d-1 0,st d-1 1 { ,Fk}k=1,...,N (see Eq. (2)), there exists a set of engineered ρ C Sccs-C ρ dissipative jump operators Feng,i such that, for any initial density matrix ρ in the code space, C FIG. 1: Schematic of density matrix , Lindblad T L jump operators, and noiseless subsystem symmetry. The total (T ; ρC) :=ke ρC − ρC k≤ O (γT /M) , (3) Hilbert space is divided into d × d arrays of d2 large blocks. PN 2 The logical code space C is formed by the cross-striped ar- where γ := k=1 kFk k denotes the measure of intrinsic dissipation strength. Throughout, we use kX k:= sup k eas. The arrows represent dissipative jump operators, and kvk=1 the gray-shaded areas represent the space of corrupted states, Xvk as the norm of an operator X, where v are Hilbert space connected via Lindblad operator f (green dashed, Eq. (A1)) vectors, while superoperators have norm k Y k:= sup k kXk=1 to the code states. Engineered dissipation F (blue dou- Y(X)k. eng ble line, Eq. (5)) pumps the corrupted states back to the code space, and in consequence each large block supports a steady Summary of the proof. We first note that the intrinsic Hamil- † state Uµρ0,stUν , and Sccs forms a noiseless subsystem. Uµ H H = −H tonian sys can be eliminated by setting eng sys. intertwines between S0 and Sµ, and is defined in Eq. (A4). Consider a code space C satisfying the AutoQEC condition The remaining intrinsic dissipation fe (red-dotted, Eq. (A1), in Eq. (2). The density matrix generated by this code space is for clarity only one such process is shown) breaks this noise- represented by the cross-striped areas in Fig. 1. The intrinsic less subsystem symmetry and induces an undesired error. jump operators Fk corrupt the states in C and move them into the corrupted code space Sccs (cf. green dashed line in Fig. 1). We explicitly construct a set of engineered jump opera- III. DESIGN OF ENGINEERED DISSIPATION tors Feng,i (see Eq.(5)) which pump the corrupted states back into the code space C without loss of coherence (blue double line in Fig. 1). We then show that the d × d blocks of gray- Suppose that we are given a code space C = shaded and cross-striped areas in Fig. 1 form a noiseless sub- span{|Wµi}µ=0,··· ,d−1, satisfying the Knill-Laflamme condi- system [21, 41–44], if the intrinsic dissipation operator is lim- tion for the error set E = {1,Fk}k=1,...,N (cf. Eq. (2)). Then, ited to act on the code subspace, cf. Appendix A. Finally, we we define d subspaces Sµ for each µ ∈ {0, ··· , d − 1}: show that the remaining dissipation increases the error only to O(γT/M), as indicated on the right-hand side of Eq. (3). For Sµ = span{{|Wµi} ∪ {Fk|Wµi : k = 1, ..., N}}. (4) details on the proof, we refer the reader to Appendix B. All Sµ are disjoint and have the same dimension, as follows from the Knill-Laflamme condition. We define |Wµ; ii We observe that the relation (3) implies protection of a log- such that {|Wµi, |Wµ; ii} is an orthonormal basis set for Sµ ical qudit, since one can choose M γT/ to obtain any (µ = 0, ··· , d − 1), where i = 1, ··· , m − 1 so that the Sµ desired error less than . Also, we remark that Eq. (2) was are m-dimensional (m ≤ N +1). This basis should be chosen previously identified as the necessary and sufficient condition such that hWµ; i|Fk|Wµi is µ-independent (cf. the discussion for the elimination of the first order error contribution at short around Eq. (A5) below) which, due to the Knill-Laflamme times in [45]. Although related, our approach notably differs condition Eq. (2), can be realized by, e.g., Gram-Schmidt or- from the earlier one in that we construct an explicit recovery thonormalization [46] with Fk|Wµi of the same iteration or- d−1 of the Lindbladian form to achieve AutoQEC (see Eq. (5) be- der for all µ ∈ {0, ··· , d − 1}. We denote Sccs = ∪µ=0Sµ a low), and consider the limit of arbitrarily long times relevant corrupted code space. Also, let {|φpi}p=0,··· ,n−md−1 repre- for quantum computing applications. sent an orthonormal basis of H − Sccs. 3

i=1,2,3 We design the engineered dissipation as follows: {|Wµi, |Wµ; ii}µ=0,1 spans the entire Hilbert space (i.e., H = S ). ( Pd−1 ccs µ=0 |WµihWµ; i| (1 ≤ i ≤ m − 1) Feng,i = (5) |Φi−mihφi−m| (m ≤ i ≤ L). B. Binomial code against photon loss error where L = n−m(d−1)−1 and |Φpi (p = 0, ··· , n−md−1) can be any state in S . We term the first m − 1 jump op- ccs In order to exhibit the generality of our approach, we dis- erators corrective jumps because they pump erroneous states cuss the autonomous protection of the binomial code |W0i = |Wµ; ii back into the code state |Wµi coherently, similarly to √ (|0i + |4i)/ 2 , |W1i = |2i (a recently proposed bosonic measurement-based QEC. The remaining jumps (i.e., Feng,i with m ≤ i ≤ L) we term preventive jump operators: They code; see [40]) against the error caused by photon loss, i.e., we consider force states in H − Sccs to decay into Sccs, preventing further uncorrectable errors. 3 dρ(t) X X The necessity of corrective jump operators is clear from the = Mγ D(F )ρ(t) + γ D(a)ρ(t), (8) dt eng,i perspective of measurement-based QEC. However, it might i k=1 not be immediately obvious whether the preventive jump operators are essential for a successful AutoQEC. In this regard, where a is the annihilation operator of the single bosonic we emphasize that the preventive jump operators are indeed mode. In this case, the AutoQEC error set is given by E = crucial to achieve the desired error scaling in Eq. (3) since {I, a}, and the binomial code satisfies the Knill-Laflamme otherwise any leakage to H − Sccs cannot be recovered (see condition for this error set. Fig. 2 (a) and the discussion in subsection IV B for an illus- Upon a single photon loss, logical√ states of the binomial√ tration). code are corrupted as a|W0i = 2 |3i and a|W1i = 2 |1i, In addition, while it is essential that the corrective jumps and thus we have |W0; 1i = |3i and |W1; 1i = |1i. The four are given by the first line of Eq. (5), preventive jump oper- states {|Wµi, |Wµ; 1i}µ=0,1 however do not span the entire H = {|0i, ··· , |4i} ators can be chosen arbitrarily as long as im(Feng,i) ⊆ Sccs Hilbert space 4 span √ due to the residual PL † basis vector |φ1i = (|0i − |4i)/ 2 . Then, we get the follow- ∀i ∈ {m, ··· ,L} and ker( i=m Feng,iFeng,i) = Sccs hold, where im(A) and ker(A) represent image space and null space ing engineered jump operators from Eq. (5): (kernel) of A, respectively (cf. subsection IV C). 1 Feng,1 = √ (|0i + |4i)h3| + |2ih1|, 2 IV. EXAMPLES FOR ENGINEERING JUMPS Feng,2 = |Φih0| − |Φih4|, (9)

where |Φi can be any state in H4 orthogonal to |0i − |4i. A. 3-bit repetition code against bit-ﬂip error Note that Feng,1 is a corrective jump operator while Feng,2 is a preventive jump operator. In order to show that earlier results can be recovered from We stress that the binomial code is not described by a set our general design, we consider the 3-bit repetition code of stabilizers, and the proposed engineered jump operators in |W0i = |000i, |W1i = |111i in the presence of bit ﬂip er- Eq. (9)and, in particular, the preventive jump operator Feng,2, ror: are not derivable from the earlier framework laid down, e.g., in

3 [27, 28]. To illustrate that the preventive jump operator indeed dρ(t) X X plays a crucial role, we plot in Fig. 2 the average fidelity of = Mγ D(F )ρ(t) + γ D(X )ρ(t), (6) dt eng,i k 6 representative logical states of the autonomously protected i k=1 binomial code with and without the preventive jump operator. Lt where Xk represents the Pauli operator X (the bit flip by The fidelity is defined as hψin|e (|ψinihψin|)|ψini, for an input th σx) acting on the k qubit (e.g., X1 = XII, where I is state |ψini. the identity operator). In this case, the AutoQEC error set As can be seen from Fig. 2 (a), the autonomously protected is given by E = {III,XII,IXI,IIX}, and the 3-bit repeti- binomial code without the preventive jump operator Feng,2 tion code satisfies the Knill-Laflamme condition for this error (or |Φi = 0) can barely perform comparably to the unpro- phys set. Then, following our jump operator design principle, we tected physical qubit with the least energy (i.e., |W0 i = |0i, find |Wµ; ii = Xi|Wµi (i = 1, 2, 3), and thus phys |W1 i = |1i possessing the longest physical qubit lifetime), even in the M → ∞ limit. On the other hand, if we add√ a Feng,1 = |000ih100| + |111ih011|, preventive jump operator (Fig. 2 (b); |Φi = (|0i + |4i)/ 2 ), Feng,2 = |000ih010| + |111ih101|, the autonomously protected binomial code begins to perform Feng,3 = |000ih001| + |111ih110|, (7) comparably to the physical qubit at M ' 10 (i.e., at the break-even point; see [18, 19]), and allows for logical qubit which are consistent with the earlier designs in [23–25, lifetimes much longer than those of the physical qubit if 35]. Note that all these jump operators are corrective, M & 100, as guaranteed by the AutoQEC Theorem in sec- and we do not need any preventive jump operators because tion II. Thus, the preventive jump operator Feng,2 is essential 4

1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4 Average Fidelity Average Fidelity Average Fidelity

0.2 0.2 0.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time (1/γ) Time (1/γ) Time (1/γ)

FIG. 2: Averaged fidelity √ for various choices of |√Φi in (9). Fidelity is averaged over 6 initial input logical states |ψini = |W0i, |W1i, (|W0i ± |W1i)/ 2 and (|W0i ± i|W1i)/ 2 . The solid gray line represents the fidelity of the lowest energy uncorrected physical qubit (i.e., phys phys |W0 i = |0i, |W1 i = |1i) for single photon loss D(a) with decay rate γ. The other data shows fidelities of the autonomously corrected binomial code with engineered dissipation strength 0 ≤ M ≤ 1000 under the same loss√ rate γ. The engineered jump operators are given in Eq. (9) and |Φi was chosen to be (a) |Φi = 0, (b) |Φi = (|0i + |4i)/ 2 and (c) |Φi = |2i. for the superior performance of the binomial code. We also tion remark that this superior performance (in particular, the scal- 1 ing (T ) = O(γT/M)) does not depend on the choice of |Φi U1 = √ |0i + |4i h3| + |2ih1| + h.c. as long as hΦ|Φi = O(1) (cf. Fig. 2 (b,c)). 2 1 + |0i − |4ih0| − h4|, (10) 2

C. Comparison with measurement-based QEC cf. the text below Eq. (2) in [40]. On the other hand, if the measured parity is even, we infer that no loss error has hap- The Lindbladian generator D(A) consists of the jump term pened. In this case, in order to counter the undesired√ accu- † 1 † mulation of coherence between |W0i = (|0i + |4i)/ 2 and A • A and the no-jump evolution term − 2 {A A, •}. We √ identify that the corrective jump operators suppress the ad- |φ1i = (|0i−|4i)/ 2 (caused by the no-jump evolution), we verse effects of jump-type errors, while the preventive jump need to apply the following corrective unitary rotation operators suppress the effects of the no-jump evolution. Since U = cos(γ∆t)|W ihW | + |φ ihφ | the jump-type error induces population transfer from a code 2 0 0 1 1 res state |Wµi to a corrupted state |Wµ; ii, it is essential to have + sin(γ∆t) |W0ihφ1| − |φ1ihW0| + U2 , (11) the corrective jump operators in the exact form as given in the first line of Eq. (5). On the other hand, since the no-jump evo- where ∆t is the waiting time between the syndrome measure- res lution only accumulates an undesirable coherence between a ments and U2 is an arbitrary unitary operator on the sub- code state |Wµi and a residual state |φpi without direct popu- space span{|1i, |3i} (see Eqs. (16),(17) in [40]). lation transfer, any preventive jump operators emptying such The corrective unitary operator U1 corresponds to the cor- coherence is sufficient. Thus, we are presented with a flexi- rective jump operator Feng,1 in Eq.(9), and U2 corresponds to bility in choosing |Φpi for preventive jump operators, which the preventive jump operator Feng,2. Notably, the corrective may be exploited for practical experimental implementation unitary operator U2 should have the definite form above in the (see, for example, the discussion below Eq. (15)). subspace span{|0i, |2i, |4i}. (Especially, the rotation angle In measurement-based QEC, on the other hand, the unde- γ∆t needs to be fine-tuned.) By contrast, for the preventive sired coherence caused by no-jump evolution is fixed by a uni- jump operator Feng,2, we can choose any |Φi of order unity tary rotation conditioned on not detecting the jump-type er- norm orthogonal to |φ1i. rors. The rotation angle should however be fine-tuned to pre- cisely counter the accumulation of the undesired coherence. To make our discussion more concrete, let us briefly review V. IMPLEMENTATION OF LARGE ENGINEERED the measurement-based QEC of the binomial code outlined DISSIPATION in [40], and compare it with the AutoQEC scheme presented above. In measurement-based QEC of the binomial code, the A. Physical Requirements error syndrome is extracted by a photon-number parity measurement [47, 48]. If the measured parity is odd, we infer that We now discuss the practical feasibility of the M → ∞ photon loss occurred, and apply the corrective unitary opera- limit. In principle, any desired Markovian engineered dissi- 5 pation can be realized by modulating the Hamiltonian cou- B. Implementation of binomial code AutoQEC pling between the system and fast decaying ancillary qubits [3, 49, 50]. Consider to this end the master equation The engineered dissipation given in Eq. (9) fully protects L the binomial code space against the photon loss error in the dρT (t) X = κ D(|g ihe |)ρ (t) − i[H , ρ (t)], (12) M → ∞ limit (see Fig. 2). In principle, such an engineered dt i i i T coupl T i=1 dissipation can be realized by coupling a high-Q cavity mode to two fast-decaying transmon qubits [51, 52] or low-Q cavity PL modes via the interaction with Hcoupl = i=1 λi(Feng,i ⊗ |eiihgi| + h.c.). Then, in the weak coupling and fast decay limit (i.e., λi κi), the L 1 entire system approximately evolves as ρ (t) = ρ(t) ⊗ H1 = λ1 √ (|0i + |4i)h3| + |2ih1| ⊗ |e1ihg1| + h.c., T i=1 2 |giihgi|, and the system density matrix ρ(t) obeys the desired Lindbladian master equation H2 = λ2(|Φih0| − |Φih4|) ⊗ |e2ihg2| + h.c., (15)

th L 2 where |g i and |e i are the ground and excited states of the i ∂ρ X 4λ i i = i D(F )ρ (13) qubit (or low-Q cavity mode) for i = 1, 2 (cf. Eqs. (12),(13)), ∂t κ eng,i i=1 i respectively. (see Proposition 3 in [50]; for the bound of deviation from the The ineraction H1 requires selective two-quanta exchanges, approximation, see Proposition 1 therein). The dimensionless |4ih3| ⊗ |e1ihg1| and |2ih1| ⊗ |e1ihg1|, and a four-quanta ex- engineered dissipation strength M then scales as change |0ih3| ⊗ |e1ihg1|. Also, H2 requires selective three- quanta exchanges |2ih0| ⊗ |e2ihg2| and |2ih4| ⊗ |e2ihg2| if λ2 we choose |Φi = |2i. (Note that |Φi = |2i allows the low- M = O i , (14) κ γ est order interaction, and other choices for |Φi lead us to at i least four-quanta exchanges.) In comparison, variations of where γ is the strength of intrinsic dissipation. Thus, the the cat code require an engineered four-photon dissipation √ 4 4 2 2 4 M → ∞ limit can be achieved if κiγ λi κi for D(a − α ) (four-component cat code [32]) or D(a1a2 − γ ) all 1 ≤ i ≤ L, which is feasible if γ min1≤i≤L κi, i.e., (two-mode cat code [37]), hence at least a five-quanta ex- 4 † 2 2 † when the ancillary qubits’ decay rate is much larger than the change with an ancillary mode b, i.e., a b or a1a2b . How- intrinsic one of the system. ever, these interactions are not selective with regard to the photon number present, whereas the binomial code requires exactly these photon-number-selective quanta exchanges. AutoQEC by engineered dissipation was experimentally Generating higher (than second) order interaction between realized in circuit QED systems [38, 39]. In both experi- a cavity mode and a qubit (or another cavity mode) is a chal- ments, quantum information was encoded in the photon mode lenging task (especially at strong coupling), both in the photon of a microwave cavity, using the two-component cat states number selective and non-selective cases. We however remark ± that photon-number non-selective three quanta exchange a2b† |Cα i ∝ |αi ± | − αi as the logical qubit basis. Stabiliza- tion of the two-component cat code (in a high-Q cavity mode) was realized in two previous experiments [38, 39], and there was achieved by an engineered dissipation D(a2 −α2), which is a concrete theoretical proposal for the photon number non- 4 †2 was implemented by coupling the high-Q cavity mode (decay selective six-quanta exchange a b [53]. rate γ) to a fast-decaying low-Q cavity mode (decay rate κ) 2 2 † via interaction Hcoupl = λ((a − α )b + h.c.). In the earlier experiment [38], λ ' 700 kHz, κ ' 40 MHz, γ ' 50 kHz, and thus M ' 1 was achieved, and more recently λ ' 900 kHz, VI. CONCLUSION κ ' 3 MHz, γ ' 10 kHz, and thus M ' 100 was realized [39]. In summary, we have provided a sufficient condition of the Knill-Laflamme type, under which the code space manifold can be autonomously protected against intrinsic errors in the We note that the realized two-component cat code is not ro- limit of large engineered dissipation. We have constructed bust against photon loss (a dominant error source in a high-Q explicit engineered jump operators to achieve AutoQEC, and cavity mode), since a single loss causes an irreversible logical derived the temporal error bounds up to which the information ± ∓ bit-flip: a|Cα i ' α|Cα i. There have been many proposals initially stored in the code space can be preserved. We have to leverage the capability of the cat code, either based on vari- briefly compared AutoQEC with measurement-based QEC, ations [32, 37] or concatenation [36] of the two-component and clarified the difference between them as regards the pro- cat code, such that the logical information is protected against tection against no-jump evolution. Based on our general the- the photon loss errors. Below, we propose an alternative Au- ory of AutoQEC, we have proposed an autonomous imple- toQEC scheme, tailored to the same physical platform, based mentation of the binomial code, which may allow for signif- on the binomial code discussed above and briefly compare it icantly longer logical qubit lifetimes than those of the most with the cat code schemes. stable uncorrected physical qubits. 6

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS d × d qudit density matrix ω,

d−1 X † We gratefully acknowledge Julien M. E. Fra¨ısse for a crit- Ωst = ωµν Uµρ0,stUν ↔ ω ⊗ ρ0,st (A5) ical reading and the corresponding comments. KN thanks µ,ν=0 Liang Jiang, Steven M. Girvin, Michel Devoret, Steven T. are left invariant under the Lindbladian dynamics generated d−1 Flammia, Victor V. Albert, Shruti Puri, Shantanu Mund- by the jumps in F. Thus Sccs = ∪µ=0Sµ forms a noiseless hada, Connor Hann and Salvatore Elder for fruitful discus- subsystem [21, 41–44] if the intrinsic dissipation operator is sions. The research of JML and URF was supported by limited to act on the code subspace. Note that states outside the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), , Grant the corrupted code space are omitted in Fig. 1 and Eq. (A5), No. 2017R1A2A2A05001422. KN acknowledges support since they are not occupied in the steady states. through the Korea Foundation for Advanced Studies (KFAS).

Appendix B: Long-time limit for large engineered dissipation

Given the noiseless subsystem symmetry derived in Ap- pendix A, it is natural to divide the Lindbladian L in (1) into Appendix A: Decomposition of dissipative evolution and three parts as follows noiseless subsystem symmetry L N X X ML0[ρ] = M D(Feng,i)ρ, L1[ρ] = D(fk)ρ, Let the code space C = span{|Wµi}µ=0,··· ,d−1 satisfy the i=1 k=1 Knill-Laflamme condition Eq. (2). N X In the intrinsic dissipation operator, we identify two sepa- L2[ρ] = D(Fk) − D(fk) . (B1) k=1 rate parts by using the projection operator ΠC: In the above, L is the engineered part while L is the intrin- ˜ 0 1 Fk = FkΠC + Fk(1 − ΠC) = fk + fk. (A1) sic dissipation that follows the noiseless subsystem symmetry and leaves ω ⊗ ρst invariant: (ML0 + L1)[ω ⊗ ρst] = The part fk = FkΠC is the component of Fk that is applied 0. Finally, L breaks this noiseless subsystem symmetry on the code subspace. We first show that, if the remaining 2 ˜ and brings about evolution for the otherwise steady state, term fk is absent, all Sµ are collecting subspaces: For each L2[ω ⊗ ρst] 6= 0. Following the decomposition in (B1), we µ ∈ {0, ··· , d − 1}, an arbitrary initial state in Sµ ⊆ H never define new Lindbladians, with properly chosen scaling factors leaves Sµ during the time evolution. This holds because for each Lindblad operator Fˆ ∈ {f ,F } := F, the following 1 1 1 1 k eng,i L = L + L + L := L + L , (B2) general conditions hold (see Lemmas 9 and 11 of [54]) M 0 M 1 M 2 e M 2 and derive the main result Eq. (3) by proving an equiva- FˆΠS = ΠS FˆΠS , (A2) µ µ µ lent statement that a time evolution generated by the rescaled X ˆ† ˆ ΠSµ iH − F F (1 − ΠSµ ) = 0, (A3) Lindbladian L/M leaves states in C approximately invariant Fˆ∈F in the same sense up to time MT . We use the perturbation theory of Lindbladian superoperators [55], which has found where ΠSµ is the projection operator onto Sµ and H = 0 applications so far when the magnitude of a weakly unitary in our case since we set Heng = −Hsys. It then follows that or dissipative operator is the small parameter of the perturba- each Sµ supports a unique steady state, ρµ,st for each µ ∈ tion series [4, 50, 56, 57]. In our approach, on the other hand, {0, ··· , d − 1}. the inverse of the magnitude of strong engineered dissipation, In addition to these d steady states, there exist d2 − d sta- 1/M, is the small parameter. Formally, we establish the following bound of the error (t) in the interval 0 ≤ t ≤ MT , tionary phase relations between all Sµ and Sν with µ 6= ν: Note that the following unitary intertwiner for states projected to the code subspace C: tL/M m−1 (t) ≤ ke PC − PC k (B3) X X Uµ = |WµihW0| + |Wµ; iihW0; i| + h.c. + |φpihφp|, T 2 1 ≤ O(kL2 k) + O(τ kL2 k ) + O(τ kL2 k), i=1 p M M (A4) tL0 2 1 where PC := limt→∞ e is the superoperator projection to satisfies UµΠS0 = ΠSµ Uµ, Uµ = . It commutes with all the code space C and τ = O(M 0) is of order the inverse of Fˆ ∈ F, due to µ-independence of hWµ; i|Fk|Wµi. Then, the smallest real part of nonzero eigenvalue of Le/M, as dis- Proposition 16 of [54] implies that all steady states ρµ,st are † cussed below. The above bound (B3) leads to our AutoQEC unitarily connected by Uµ, i.e., ρµ,st = Uµρ0,stUµ, and fur- † Theorem as represented by Eq. (3). thermore Uµρ0,stUν establishes a stationary phase coherence We now proceed to prove the bound in the second line of between Sµ and Sν for µ 6= ν – cf. Fig. 1. Therefore, for any Eq. (B3). First, we denote the rescaled Lindbladian superoperator as L = L/M and, similarly, L2 and Le. The error (t) as defined in Eq. (B3) satisfies the following inequalities: 7

tL (t) = k e PC − PC k tPLP tL tPLP tL ≤ k e Pe − Pe k + k (e − e )Pe k + ke k +1 kPC − Pe k

tPLP tL tPLP tL ≤ k e Pe − Pe k +(ke k + ke k) k P − Pe k + ke k +1 kPC − Pe k . (B4)

The triangle inequalities k A + B k≤k A k + k B k and dimensional noiseless subsystem. Let P be the direct sum (etL − etPLP )P = 0 were used. of the projection onto eigenspaces of L, which perturbatively originate from the kernel of the unperturbed superoperator Le. 2 The kernel of Le is d -dimensional because we have a d- Then, from the perturbation theory of linear operators [55],

2 P − Pe = − PeL2S − SL2Pe + O(k L2 k ), (B5) 2 3 PLP = PeL2Pe − PeL2SL2Pe − PeL2PeL2S − SL2PeL2Pe + O(τ kL2 k ) (B6)

holds. Here, S is the pseudo-inverse of Le, which satisfies angle inequality kA + B k≤kAk + kB k, we get SLe = LeS = 1 − Pe. Then, τ =k S k is of the order of kP L2P k ≤ k(P − PC ) L2P k the inverse of the smallest nonzero eigenvalue of Le and is of e e e e 0 1 order O(M ). This is proven as follows: PC, Pe denote pro- + kP L (P − P )k + kP L P k = O( ). (B8) jection superoperators that project the linear operators of the C 2 e C C 2 C M Hilbert space H onto the kernel of the superoperators L0, Le, From Eqs. (B8),(B5),(B6), we obtain two scaling equations respectively. For example, PC projects operators onto the ker- for the norm of the operators therein, nel ker L0 = {ρ : L0[ρ] = 0}, which is indeed the code d−1 subspace. Since ∪µ=0Sµ forms a noiseless subsystem of Le, k P − Pe k = O(τ kL2 k), (B9) Appendix A, ker Le is a projection onto the subspace com- 1 2 kPLP k = O(kL2 k) + O(τ kL2 k ). (B10) posed by metastable states, ω ⊗ ρst. Using the perturbation M theory of linear operators viewing L1/M as a perturbation to Since L by definition generates a completely positive trace the Lindbladian Le = L0 + L1/M, one finds [55] preserving evolution, k etL k≤ 1. Furthermore, because 1 1 2 time is bounded by t ≤ MT , we have t k PLP k≤ Pe − PC = − (PC L1S0 − S0L1PC ) + 2 O(k L1 k ), T 2 M M M O(kL2 k) + O(τ kL2 k ) . Note that here the overline (B7) has been removed. Then, t k PLP k vanishes for sufficiently where S0 denotes the pseudo-inverse of L0, which satisfies large M, hence k etPLP k= O(1). Using this bound and S0L0 = L0S0 = 1 − PC . This implies k PC − Pe k= keX − 1k≤kX kkeX k with X = tPLP, it follows that O(1/M). T ketPLP P − P k≤ O(kL k) + O(τ kL k2) . e e M 2 2 (B11) Substituting Eqs. (B9), (B10), (B11) into Eq. (B4), the bound on the error reads as follows: T 1 (t) ≤ O(kL k) + O(τ kL k2) + O(τ kL k). Now, by the definition of fek: fekΠC = 0, it follows M 2 2 M 2 that PC L2PC [ρ] = ΠCL2[ΠCρΠC]ΠC = 0. This entails (B12) k PC L2PC k= 0. Putting the results together using the tri- This completes our proof of Eq. (B3).

[1] H. P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum [3] Frank Verstraete, Michael M. Wolf, and J. Ignacio Cirac, Systems (Oxford University Press, 2002). “Quantum computation and quantum-state engineering driven [2] Almut Beige, Daniel Braun, Ben Tregenna, and Peter L. by dissipation,” Nat. Phys. 5, 633 (2009). Knight, “Quantum Computing Using Dissipation to Remain in [4] Paolo Zanardi and Lorenzo Campos Venuti, “Coherent Quan- a Decoherence-Free Subspace,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1762–1765 tum Dynamics in Steady-State Manifolds of Strongly Dissipa- (2000). tive Systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 240406 (2014). 8

[5] Jeffrey Marshall, Lorenzo Campos Venuti, and Paolo Za- Approximate Quantum Error Correction and Near-Optimal Re- nardi, “Modular quantum-information processing by dissipa- covery Channels,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 120501 (2010). tion,” Phys. Rev. A 94, 052339 (2016). [23] Juan Pablo Paz and Wojciech Hubert Zurek, “Continuous er- [6] B. Kraus, H. P. Buchler,¨ S. Diehl, A. Kantian, A. Micheli, and ror correction,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London P. Zoller, “Preparation of entangled states by quantum Markov A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 454, 355– processes,” Phys. Rev. A 78, 042307 (2008). 364 (1998). [7] Hanna Krauter, Christine A. Muschik, Kasper Jensen, Wojciech [24] Charlene Ahn, Andrew C. Doherty, and Andrew J. Landahl, Wasilewski, Jonas M. Petersen, J. Ignacio Cirac, and Eugene S. “Continuous quantum error correction via quantum feedback Polzik, “Entanglement Generated by Dissipation and Steady control,” Phys. Rev. A 65, 042301 (2002). State Entanglement of Two Macroscopic Objects,” Phys. Rev. [25] Mohan Sarovar and G. J. Milburn, “Continuous quantum error Lett. 107, 080503 (2011). correction by cooling,” Phys. Rev. A 72, 012306 (2005). [8] Y. Lin, J. P. Gaebler, F. Reiter, T. R. Tan, R. Bowler, A. S. [26] D. Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction, Sørensen, D. Leibfried, and D. J. Wineland, “Dissipative pro- Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology (1997). duction of a maximally entangled steady state of two quantum [27] O. Oreshkov, “Continuous-time quantum error correction,” in bits,” Nature (London) 504, 415–418 (2013). Quantum Error Correction, edited by D. A. Lidar and T. A. [9] S. Shankar, M. Hatridge, Z. Leghtas, K. M. Sliwa, A. Narla, Brun (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2013) U. Vool, S. M. Girvin, L. Frunzio, M. Mirrahimi, and M. H. Chap. 8, pp. 201–228. Devoret, “Autonomously stabilized entanglement between two [28] Kung-Chuan Hsu and Todd A. Brun, “Method for quantum- superconducting quantum bits,” Nature (London) 504, 419–422 jump continuous-time quantum error correction,” Phys. Rev. A (2013). 93, 022321 (2016). [10] S. Diehl, A. Micheli, A. Kantian, B. Kraus, H. P. Buchler,¨ and [29] Joseph Kerckhoff, Hendra I. Nurdin, Dmitri S. Pavlichin, and P. Zoller, “Quantum states and phases in driven open quantum Hideo Mabuchi, “Designing Quantum Memories with Embed- systems with cold atoms,” Nat. Phys. 4, 878–883 (2008). ded Control: Photonic Circuits for Autonomous Quantum Error [11] Sebastian Diehl, Enrique Rico, Mikhail A. Baranov, and Pe- Correction,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 040502 (2010). ter Zoller, “Topology by dissipation in atomic quantum wires,” [30] J. Kerckhoff, D. S. Pavlichin, H. Chalabi, and H. Mabuchi, Nat. Phys. 7, 971 (2011). “Design of nanophotonic circuits for autonomous subsystem [12] W. G. Unruh, “Maintaining coherence in quantum computers,” quantum error correction,” New Journal of Physics 13, 055022 Phys. Rev. A 51, 992–997 (1995). (2011). [13] Peter W. Shor, “Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum [31] Zaki Leghtas, Gerhard Kirchmair, Brian Vlastakis, Robert J. computer memory,” Phys. Rev. A 52, R2493–R2496 (1995). Schoelkopf, Michel H. Devoret, and Mazyar Mirrahimi, [14] D. G. Cory, M. D. Price, W. Maas, E. Knill, R. Laflamme, W. H. “Hardware-Efficient Autonomous Quantum Memory Protec- Zurek, T. F. Havel, and S. S. Somaroo, “Experimental Quantum tion,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 120501 (2013). Error Correction,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2152–2155 (1998). [32] M. Mirrahimi, Z. Leghtas, V. V. Albert, S. Touzard, R. J. [15] J. Chiaverini, D. Leibfried, T. Schaetz, M. D. Barrett, R. B. Schoelkopf, L. Jiang, and M. H. Devoret, “Dynamically pro- Blakestad, J. Britton, W. M. Itano, J. D. Jost, E. Knill, tected cat-qubits: a new paradigm for universal quantum com- C. Langer, R. Ozeri, and D. J. Wineland, “Realization of quan- putation,” New Journal of Physics 16, 045014 (2014). tum error correction,” Nature 432, 602 (2004). [33] Eliot Kapit, John T. Chalker, and Steven H. Simon, “Passive [16] Philipp Schindler, Julio T. Barreiro, Thomas Monz, Volckmar correction of quantum logical errors in a driven, dissipative sys- Nebendahl, Daniel Nigg, Michael Chwalla, Markus Hennrich, tem: A blueprint for an analog quantum code fabric,” Phys. Rev. and Rainer Blatt, “Experimental Repetitive Quantum Error Cor- A 91, 062324 (2015). rection,” Science 332, 1059–1061 (2011). [34] Eliot Kapit, “Hardware-Efficient and Fully Autonomous Quan- [17] J. Kelly, R. Barends, A. G. Fowler, A. Megrant, E. Jeffrey, T. C. tum Error Correction in Superconducting Circuits,” Phys. Rev. White, D. Sank, J. Y. Mutus, B. Campbell, Yu Chen, Z. Chen, Lett. 116, 150501 (2016). B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, I. C. Hoi, C. Neill, P. J. J. O’Malley, [35] F. Reiter, A. S. Sørensen, P. Zoller, and C. A. Muschik, “Dis- C. Quintana, P. Roushan, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, A. N. Cle- sipative quantum error correction and application to quantum land, and John M. Martinis, “State preservation by repetitive sensing with trapped ions,” Nature Communications 8, 1822 error detection in a superconducting quantum circuit,” Nature (2017). 519, 66 (2015). [36] Joachim Cohen, Autonomous quantum error correction with su- [18] Nissim Ofek, Andrei Petrenko, Reinier Heeres, Philip Rein- perconducting qubits, Theses, PSL Research University (2017). hold, Zaki Leghtas, Brian Vlastakis, Yehan Liu, Luigi Frunzio, [37] V. V. Albert, S. O. Mundhada, A. Grimm, S. Touzard, M. H. De- S. M. Girvin, L. Jiang, Mazyar Mirrahimi, M. H. Devoret, and voret, and L. Jiang, “Multimode cat codes,” arXiv:1801.05897 R. J. Schoelkopf, “Extending the lifetime of a quantum bit with [quant-ph]. error correction in superconducting circuits,” Nature 536, 441 [38] Z. Leghtas, S. Touzard, I. M. Pop, A. Kou, B. Vlastakis, A. Pe- (2016). trenko, K. M. Sliwa, A. Narla, S. Shankar, M. J. Hatridge, [19] Norbert M. Linke, Mauricio Gutierrez, Kevin A. Landsman, M. Reagor, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. Mirrahimi, and Caroline Figgatt, Shantanu Debnath, Kenneth R. Brown, and M. H. Devoret, “Confining the state of light to a quantum man- Christopher Monroe, “Fault-tolerant quantum error detection,” ifold by engineered two-photon loss,” Science 347, 853–857 Science Advances 3, e1701074 (2017). (2015). [20] Emanuel Knill and Raymond Laflamme, “Theory of quantum [39] S. Touzard, A. Grimm, Z. Leghtas, S. O. Mundhada, P. Rein- error-correcting codes,” Phys. Rev. A 55, 900–911 (1997). hold, C. Axline, M. Reagor, K. Chou, J. Blumoff, K. M. Sliwa, [21] Emanuel Knill, Raymond Laflamme, and Lorenza Viola, “The- S. Shankar, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. Mirrahimi, and ory of Quantum Error Correction for General Noise,” Phys. M. H. Devoret, “Coherent oscillations inside a quantum mani- Rev. Lett. 84, 2525–2528 (2000). fold stabilized by dissipation,” Phys. Rev. X 8, 021005 (2018). [22]C edric´ Beny´ and Ognyan Oreshkov, “General Conditions for [40] Marios H. Michael, Matti Silveri, R. T. Brierley, Victor V. 9

Albert, Juha Salmilehto, Liang Jiang, and S. M. Girvin, (2012). “New Class of Quantum Error-Correcting Codes for a Bosonic [50] Paolo Zanardi, Jeffrey Marshall, and Lorenzo Campos Venuti, Mode,” Phys. Rev. X 6, 031006 (2016). “Dissipative universal Lindbladian simulation,” Phys. Rev. A [41] P. Zanardi and M. Rasetti, “Noiseless Quantum Codes,” Phys. 93, 022312 (2016). Rev. Lett. 79, 3306–3309 (1997). [51] Jens Koch, Terri M. Yu, Jay Gambetta, A. A. Houck, D. I. [42] D. A. Lidar, I. L. Chuang, and K. B. Whaley, “Decoherence- Schuster, J. Majer, Alexandre Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Free Subspaces for Quantum Computation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, “Charge-insensitive qubit design 81, 2594–2597 (1998). derived from the cooper pair box,” Phys. Rev. A 76, 042319 [43] J. Kempe, D. Bacon, D. A. Lidar, and K. B. Whaley, “Theory (2007). of decoherence-free fault-tolerant universal quantum computa- [52] J. A. Schreier, A. A. Houck, Jens Koch, D. I. Schuster, B. R. tion,” Phys. Rev. A 63, 042307 (2001). Johnson, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, J. Majer, L. Frunzio, [44] Daniel A. Lidar, “Review of Decoherence-Free Subspaces, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, “Sup- Noiseless Subsystems, and Dynamical Decoupling,” in Quan- pressing charge noise decoherence in superconducting charge tum Information and Computation for Chemistry (John Wiley qubits,” Phys. Rev. B 77, 180502 (2008). & Sons, Inc., 2014) pp. 295–354. [53] S. O. Mundhada, A. Grimm, S. Touzard, U. Vool, S. Shankar, [45]C edric´ Beny,´ “Perturbative Quantum Error Correction,” Phys. M. H. Devoret, and M Mirrahimi, “Generating higher-order Rev. Lett. 107, 080501 (2011). quantum dissipation from lower-order parametric processes,” [46] S. H. Friedberg, A. J. Insel, and L. E. Spence, Linear Algebra, Quantum Science and Technology 2, 024005 (2017). Featured Titles for Linear Algebra (Advanced) Series (Pearson [54] Bernhard Baumgartner and Heide Narnhofer, “Analysis of Education, 2003). quantum semigroups with GKS–Lindblad generators II. Gen- [47] L. Sun, A. Petrenko, Z. Leghtas, B. Vlastakis, G. Kirchmair, eral,” J. Phys. A 41, 395303 (2008). K. M. Sliwa, A. Narla, M. Hatridge, S. Shankar, J. Blumoff, [55] Tosio Kato, Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators L. Frunzio, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, (Springer, 1995). “Tracking photon jumps with repeated quantum non-demolition [56] Paolo Zanardi and Lorenzo Campos Venuti, “Geometry, robust- parity measurements,” Nature 511, 444 (2014). ness, and emerging unitarity in dissipation-projected dynam- [48] S. Rosenblum, P. Reinhold, M. Mirrahimi, L. Jiang, L. Frunzio, ics,” Phys. Rev. A 91, 052324 (2015). and R. J. Schoelkopf, “Fault-tolerant measurement of a quan- [57] Katarzyna Macieszczak, Mad˘ alin˘ Gut¸a,˘ Igor Lesanovsky, and tum error syndrome,” arXiv:1803.00102 [quant-ph]. Juan P. Garrahan, “Towards a Theory of Metastability in Open [49] Florentin Reiter and Anders S. Sørensen, “Effective operator Quantum Dynamics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 240404 (2016). formalism for open quantum systems,” Phys. Rev. A 85, 032111