Permutation-invariant quantum codes

Yingkai Ouyang University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada and Singapore University of Technology and Design, Singapore∗

A quantum code is a subspace of a Hilbert space of a physical system chosen to be correctable against a given class of errors, where information can be encoded. Ideally, the quantum code lies within the ground space of the physical system. When the physical model is the Heisenberg ferromagnet in the absence of an external magnetic field, the corresponding ground-space contains all permutation-invariant states. We use techniques from combinatorics and operator theory to construct families of permutation-invariant quantum codes. These codes have length proportional to t2; one family of codes perfectly corrects arbitrary weight t errors, while the other family of codes approximately correct t spontaneous decay errors. The analysis of our codes’ performance with respect to spontaneous decay errors utilizes elementary matrix analysis, where we revisit and extend the criterion of Knill and Laflamme, and Leung, Chuang, Nielsen and Yamamoto.

PACS numbers: 03.65.Aa,03.67.Pp,05.30.-d,75.10.Pq

I. INTRODUCTION label the particles in the system, and e = {i, j} labels the exchange interactions in the system. Here Je and A quantum bit () is a fundamental resource Si denote the exchange constants and the vector of required in many theoretic tasks, operators respectively. Since exchange operators such as in quantum cryptographic protocols [1] and in essentially swap particles (see ex. 1.9 of Ref. [12] quantum computers [2]. To combat decoherence, a two- or Ref. [11]), the Heisenberg Hamiltonian H can be level system (qubit) may be encoded as a quantum code, expressed in terms of the swap operators πe that swap 1 a subspace of the Hilbert space of a physical system. the spin- 2 particles i and j. We consider ferromagnetic Ideally, the quantum code lies within the ground space Heisenberg models (all non-zero exchange constants are 1 of the physical system. A well studied example of such positive) of spin- 2 particles, where every pair of particles families of quantum codes are Kitaev’s and interacts at least indirectly via a connected chain of surface codes [3, 4], where the underlying Hamiltonian interactions. of the physical system has 4-particle interactions or The ground space of Heisenberg ferromagnets requires the use of Majorana fermions. Kitaev’s physical necessarily contains the space of all permutation- model [3] would be easy to implement, if not for the invariant states. To see this, note that any permutation- difficulties in realizing Majorana fermions [3–5] or four- invariant state |ψi is invariant under swap, in the sense P way interactions in nature. One might then wonder, that for all interactions e, πe|ψi = |ψi. Let J = e Je, P J if simple pairwise interactions can be used directly to so that H = − e Jeπe + 2 1. Then we have design quantum codes. Indeed, many such models have J been studied extensively in the context of topological (H − 1)|ψi = −J|ψi. codes [6–10], and in this paper, we pay special attention 2

to the ferromagnetic Heisenberg model. The non-negativity of the exchange constants Je implies The exchange interaction, arising from the inherent that J is an upper bound on the spectral norm of H − indistinguishability of identical particles and mainly J 2 1, and it follows from the above eigenvalue equation Coulomb interactions [11, 12], is a naturally abundant J that −J is the smallest eigenvalue of H − 2 1. Hence arXiv:1302.3247v5 [quant-ph] 10 Dec 2014 pairwise interaction. Heisenberg models [12, 13] describe any permutation-invariant state |ψi is a ground-state of physical systems with dynamics dominated by exchange H. This motivates our study of permutation-invariant interactions, such as many electron systems. In the (PI) codes, since such codes are necessarily in the ground absence of external magnetic fields, Heisenberg models space of any Heisenberg ferromagnet. have Hamiltonians of the form Previously Ruskai and Pollatsek studied several [15, X X 1 16] PI codes using the Knill-Laflamme error correction H = −2 J S · S = − J (π − 1), e i j e e 2 conditions [17]. Of special note is Ruskai’s 9-qubit PI e={i,j} e code that corrects exactly one arbitrary error [15], which i

II, we introduce notations related to our gnu codes, B∈KΦ including quantum channels, quantum codes, worst case errors, and t-sparse channels. In Section III, we introduce where Tr is the matrix trace operator. If Φ = R ◦ A, our combinatorial lemmas that are crucial in our analysis where R is a recovery channel designed to undo the noisy of gnu codes, the most important of which is Lemma 1. channel A, we may interpret In Section IV, we prove that (2t + 1, 2t + 1, 1)-PI codes EA,C(R) := max (1 − F (ρ, R ◦ A)) (8) can correct arbitrary t qubit errors (we call these t- ρ∈D(C) sparse errors) in Theorem 4. In Section V, we review the as the corresponding worst case error of a code C after truncated recovery map of Leung, Nielsen, Chuang and implementing the recovery R. Here, D(C) denotes the Yamamoto [25] and basic definitions and results in matrix set of all density matrices ρ such that analysis that are required in this paper. In Section VI, we introduce our deviation matrices from which simple X hβ|ρ|βi = 1, upper bounds on the worst case error can be derived (see Theorem 10). In Section VII, we prove that gnu codes |βi∈B can be used to correct multiple spontaneous decay errors where B is any orthonormal basis of C. For example, in Theorem 16. Finally in Section VIII, we discuss the the worst case error is always an upper bound on the implications of our findings. The reader that wishes to probability of a logical bit or phase flip. skip our analysis on spontaneous decay errors may omit Consider the set of Pauli errors on m qubits, which reading Sections V, VI, and VII. 1 0 we denote as {I, X, Y, Z}⊗m, where I = , X = 0 1 0 1 1 0  II. QUANTIFYING CODE PERFORMANCE , Z = , and Y = iXZ are the usual Pauli 1 0 0 −1 matrices. Given a Pauli error P, we define its weight Here our density matrices are always finite wt(P) to be the number of qubits it acts non-trivially dimensional. Let a channel A be a linear map on. We say a linear combination of Pauli errors is t- from density matrices to density matrices admitting a sparse if each of the constituent Pauli operators with a (non-unique) Kraus decomposition [2] non-zero coefficient has a weight no greater than t. We X † say a is t-sparse if each of its Kraus A(ρ) = AρA , (6) operator is also t-sparse. We prove in Theorem 4 that A∈KA given any t-sparse channel A that acts on a single qubit where P A†A evaluates to the identity operator 1. encoded in our (2t + 1, 2t + 1, u)-PI code C for all feasible A∈KA scaling factors u ≥ 1, there exists a recovery channel R We call KA, a set of complex matrices, a Kraus set of A. Elements of a Kraus set are called Kraus operators or for which the worst case error is exactly zero, that is effects [35], and we call any strict subset of K a truncated A E (R) = 0. (9) Kraus set of A [36]. Truncating the Kraus set in Eq. (6) A,C may cause A to no longer preserve trace. In this case, In general, the problem of error correction is also the operator 1−P A†A is positive semidefinite and A∈KA equivalent to the ‘min-max’ problem need not evaluate to zero. Such truncated maps are also called quantum operations [2]. If the equality inf EA,C(R) = inf max (1 − F (ρ, R ◦ A)), R R ρ∈D(C) X ∗ wA,FwA,E = δE,F where we choose the best recovery channel R for the A∈Ω worst case density matrix ρ in our codespace. P A phenomenological model for the spontaneous decay holds for all E, F ∈ Ω, we call f(A) := F∈Ω wA,FF a transformed Kraus operator because for all ρ, of ‘probability’ γ on a two-level system is the amplitude damping (AD) channel Aγ , with Kraus operators X † X † AρA = f(A)ρf(A) . (7) p √ A∈Ω A∈Ω A0 = |0ih0| + 1 − γ|1ih1|, A1 = γ|0ih1|. (10)

Eq. (7) explains the non-uniqueness of the Kraus If the channel Aγ accurately describes experimentally representation of channels in Eq. (6). observed decoherence, the equation 1 − γ = e−τ/T1 4 implicitly quantifies γ in terms of an experimentally Lemma 2. Let a, c, m and w be non-negative integers observed spin-lattice relaxation time (T1) after a time such that a ≤ w ≤ m − c. Then τ elapse of τ. A Taylor approximation for small T yields τ 1 m−(a+c)   γ ≈ . w−a w a!(m − w)(c) T1 = . When there is no encoding of the qubit, the code is just m w a m(a+c) C2 and hence the error which corresponds to no recovery 2 Proof. Let s = m − (a + c). Then, is EAγ ,C (I) = γ, where I is the identity channel on a qubit. If one encodes a qubit into a quantum code s    over multiple qubits, it might be possible to mitigate the w−a s(w−a)w!a! w a!s(w−a) = = . effects of amplitude damping erros, in the sense that for m w m(w)(w − a)!a! a m(w) some positive integer t, our min-max problem for error correction has for all γ ∈ [0, γ0] the upper bound We can rewrite the above equation using the identity

t+1 s(w−a) (m − a − c)(w−a) (m − w)(c) inf E ⊗m (R) ≤ Cγ , (11) = = R Aγ ,C m(w) m(w) m(a+c) for some positive constants C and γ0. Codes for which to get Eq. (11) hold are called t-amplitude damping codes, s    or t-AD codes for short. By definition, a t-AD code w−a w a!(m − w)(c) suppresses the error probability γ by t-folds in the m = . a m(a+c) exponent. We prove in Theorem 16 that a gnu code with w t g = t + 1, n > 3t, and u ≥ 1 + gn is a t-AD code for all positive integers t (see Fig. 1). To study the correction of spontaneous decay errors, we consider the following.

III. COMBINATORICS Lemma 3. Let a, c, m and w be non-negative integers as (m−(a+c)) given by Lemma 2. Then γa(1 − γ)w−a w−a has the (m) In this section we introduce the key combinatorial w Taylor series results that we use to prove our gnu codes’ utility in combating both amplitude damping and sparse errors. m y   X (−1) k(a) w n n(`) k Denote the binomial coefficient as := where (m − w)(c) γ . (13) ` `! m k the falling factorial is k=a (a+c)

` Proof. Using Lemma 2, the binomial expansion Y n(`) := (n − k). w−a X w − a k=0 (1 − γ)w−a = (−1)yγy, y y=0 Our main combinatorial tool is the following lemma. and the identity Lemma 1. Let n be a positive integer. Then for all       integers x such that 0 ≤ x ≤ n − 1, w − a w w(a)(w − a)(y) w a + y = = , y a a!y! a + y a n X n `x(−1)` = 0. (12) and setting k = a + y yields the result. ` `=0

The above lemma can be proved trivially using linear IV. CORRECTING SPARSE ERRORS combinations of the binomial identity (Eq. (11) in Page 609 of [38]) In this section, we consider gnu codes with gap g =

n 2t + 1, occupation number n = 2t + 1, and scaling factor X n ` (−1)` = 0, u ≥ 1, for all positive integers t. We investigate the ` (x) utility of our PI codes in protecting an encoded qubit `=0 from t-sparse errors. which holds for all 0 ≤ x < n, and can be proved by Let A be a t-sparse channel with Kraus set Ω. Note † considering the derivatives of the binomial generating that for all A, B ∈ Ω, the matrix A B has a maximum function and using induction. weight of 2t. Hence for our code analysis, it suffices to The lemma below represents a fraction of binomial evaluate inner products of the form m−(a+c) ( w−a ) † † † coefficients m as a polynomial in w. h0L|A B|0Li, h1L|A B|1Li, and h0L|A B|1Li. (w) 5

† Clearly the cross-term h0L|A B|1Li is zero for all A, B ∈ Then it follows that Ω, because our gap g = 2t + 1 is strictly greater than the maximum weight of A†B. Indeed, if m X hDm|P|Dmi = hx|P|yi w w w † † x,y∈Bm h0L|A B|0Li − h1L|A B|1Li (14) w wt(P) X X m − wt(P) equals to zero for all A, B ∈ Ω, the Knill and Laflamme = ha|E|bi . w − a quantum error correction conditions [17] will hold, and a=0 wt(P) a,b∈Ba perfect correctibility will follow. In this section we prove that our (g, n, u)-PI code corrects perfectly with respect To simplify the expression on the right hand side of the to all t-sparse noisy channels. above equation, define the function

Theorem 4. Let t be a positive integer and Ω be the X Kraus set of any t-sparse channel. Then the worst case f(E, a, wt(P)) := ha|E|bi. wt(P) error is exactly zero with respect to a gnu code where a,b∈Ba g = n = 2t + 1, and u ≥ 1. Hence As a first step to prove Theorem 4, observe that (14) simplifies to X n (−1)` hDm|P|Dmi   ` g` g` n−1 X ` n m † m 0≤`≤n 2 (−1) hDg`|A B|Dg`i. ` wt(P) m−wt(P) 0≤`≤n    X n X g`−a = (−1)` f(E, a, wt(P)) . (15) ` m Lemma 5. Let g, n and u be as defined in Theorem 0≤`≤n a=0 g` 4, and let m = gnu. For any Pauli error P in {I, X, Y, Z}⊗m of weight strictly less than n, we have Exchanging the order of summation in (15) and noting that f(E, a, wt(P)) does not depend on `, we get h0L|P|0Li − h1L|P|1Li     X ` n m m wt(P)  m−wt(P) = (−1) hD |P|D i = 0. X X ` n g`−a ` g` g` f(E, a, wt(P))  (−1)  . 0≤`≤n ` m a=0 0≤`≤n g` Proof. The first equality in the lemma is obvious by (16) definition. The permutation invariance of the Dicke states allows us to assume without any loss of generality Using Lemma 2, the ratio of binomial coefficients in (16) that is a polynomial in ` of order wt(P) given by

⊗m−(x+y+z) P = E ⊗ I m−wt(P)   g`−a g` a!(m − wt(P))(wt(P)−a) m = . where g` a m(wt(P))

⊗x ⊗y ⊗z E = X ⊗ Y ⊗ Z , Hence Lemma 1 and the inequality n > wt(P) imply that the bracketed term in (16) is zero, which proves the and x, y and z are non-negative integers such that result. x + y + z = wt(P). The above lemma implies that the expression in (14) m For w = g`, let Bw be the set of all binary vectors of is always zero for all Pauli errors A and B of both of length m and weight w. Consider the set analogue of the weight no more than t, and hence Theorem 4 follows Vandermonde identity from the Knill-Laflamme error correction criterion. For completeness, we prove Theorem 4 formally in the last wt(P) m X wt(P)m − wt(P) part of Section VI. = , w a w − a We remark that our (3, 3, 1)-PI code on 9 qubits is a=0 precisely Ruskai’s 9-qubit PI code [15] that corrects an which decomposes a set of constant weight vectors into arbitrary single qubit error. This (3, 3, 1)-PI code is in the following union of Cartesian products of sets: fact, a completely symmetrized version of the Shor code [18], as noted by Ruskai [15]. Similarly our (2t + 1, 2t + wt(P) 1, 1)-PI codes are just completely symmetrized versions m [ wt(P) m−wt(P) Bw = Ba × Bw−a . of the Bacon-Shor codes [19, 39] that are capable of a=0 correcting arbitrary t-sparse errors. 6

V. A REVIEW OF TRUNCATED RECOVERY If G is a positive semidefinite matrix, its operator 2-norm MAPS AND MATRIX ANALYSIS is just its spectral radius (and maximum eigenvalue), and

n n A. Truncated recovery maps kG k2 = (kGk2) (17)

for all positive integers n. We now review the recovery map of Leung, Nielsen, When the off-diagonal elements of a square complex Chuang and Yamamoto [25]. Given a basis B of a code matrix G are vanishingly small, Gerˇsgorin’sclassic result C, let Π = P |βihβ| be a projector of states into the |βi∈B [33, 34] approximates the eigenvalues of G using its codespace C. For all A in the truncated Kraus set Ω, diagonal entries. define Π := U ΠU †, Theorem 7 (Gerˇsgorincircle theorem [33, 34]). Let gi,j A A A be the matrix elements of a d × d matrix G, with row where UA√is the unitary in the polar decomposition index i and column index j chosen from [d]. Then every † AΠ = UA ΠA AΠ. Also define the recovery operator eigenvalue of G lies within the union of the the Gerˇsgorin discs D , where † i RA := UAΠA. X One might hope to use the truncated recovery map of Di := {x ∈ C : |x − gi,i| ≤ |gi,j|}. Leung et al. j6=i

X † RΩ,C(µ) := RAµRA, A∈Ω VI. DEVIATION MATRICES AND QUANTUM ERROR CORRECTION for code recovery, because it can be implemented by performing a projective measurement followed by Given a channel with a truncated Kraus set Ω, and a applying a unitary which depends on the previous code with orthonormal basis B, for each A and B in Ω measurement outcome. Non-orthogonal projectors Π A we may evaluate the code-averaged expectations however cause RΩ,C to increase trace and not be a quantum operation. 1 X † Regardless of whether R is a quantum operation, gA,B := hβ|A B|βi. Ω,C |B| using Schumacher’s formula for the entanglement fidelity |βi∈B (equation (43) of [37]) and omitting terms of the form 2 We rearrange the code-averaged expectations g into | Tr(RABρ)| for distinct A, B ∈ Ω formally gives A,B a matrix G and its corresponding (A, B)-deviation X 2 Fe(ρ, RΩ,C ◦ A) ≥ | Tr(RAAρ)| . matrices defined respectively by A∈Ω X G := g |AihB|, (18a) The expression on the right hand side of the above A,B inequality admits the following lower bound: A,B∈Ω X G := (hα|A†B|βi − g δ )|αihβ|, (18b) Lemma 6 (Leung, Chuang, Nielsen, Yamamoto [25]). A,B A,B |αi,|βi |αi,|βi∈B X 2 X † |Tr(RAAρ)| ≥ λmin(A A) A∈Ω A∈Ω where the orthonormal basis {|Ei : E ∈ Ω} labels the Kraus operators in Ω. Each deviation matrix GA,B has a diagonal and an off-diagonal matrix element of B. Matrix Analysis maximal magnitude, which we denote as θA,B and σA,B respectively. Define the total deviation

For a d-dimensional complex vector v = {v1, . . . , vd}  := max θA,B + (|B| − 1) max σA,B. (19) and real number p such that p ≥ 1, define the vector A,B A,B p-norm of v as The total deviation , Tr G, and the minimum eigenvalue  1/p d of G are the only ingredients of Theorem 10. X p kvkp :=  vj  . We give a lower bound on the magnitude of the j=1 rescaling factor η for which our truncated recovery map 1 RΩ,C,η := RΩ,C is a valid quantum operation: Let G : Cd → Cd be a finite dimensional linear map. The 1+η linear map G can be represented as a finite dimensional Lemma 8. Let η be a non-negative real number such that square matrix, and we define its operator p-norm as P † η ≥ A6=B∈Ω ΠUAUBΠ . Then the map RΩ,C,η is a d 2 kGkp := sup{kGvkp : v ∈ C , kvkp = 1}. quantum operation. 7

Proof. It suffices to show that where λmin,C(·) denotes the minimum eigenvalue of a matrix restricted to a subspace C. The bound in (22) 1 X † follows from trivial application of Lemma 6 and Lemma RARA ≤ 1. 1 + η 8, and with the definition of the worst case error given A∈Ω 2 by (8). † † † When the projectors ΠA are orthogonal, we may First note that R RA = (Π UA)(U ΠA) = ΠA. Since A A A set η = 0 in the bound (22) to recover the result of the projectors ΠA may not be orthogonal, Leung, Nielsen, Chuang, and Yamamoto regarding an !2 approximate quantum error correction criterion [25]. X †  X  X  RARA = ΠA ΠB Motivated by Knill and Laflamme’s methodology [17], A∈Ω A∈Ω B∈Ω we consider the spectral decomposition of the Hermitian X X = Π + U ΠU† U ΠU† . matrix G; there exists a unitary matrix V such that A A A B B D := VGV† is diagonal. We use the decompositions A∈Ω A6=B∈Ω (20) X X V = vE,F|EihF|, D = dE|EihE|. (23) Since the left hand side of the above equation is a positive E,F∈Ω E∈Ω semidefinite matrix, we use (17) to get For all Kraus operators A ∈ Ω, let A := P v F  2 2 e F∈Ω A,F X † X † RARA = RARA . denote transformed Kraus operators. Repeatedly using 2 2 A∈Ω A∈Ω the Gerˇsgorincircle theorem yields the deviation bounds:

Applying the operator 2-norm on both sides of (20), using Lemma 9. For all distinct A, B ∈ Ω, the triangle inequality for operator norms with the above inequality, and applying the unitary invariance of the † † kΠAe Ae Πk2 ≥ dA, kΠAe Be Πk2 ≤ |Ω| (24a) operator 2-norm then gives X † 2 λmin,C(Ae Ae ) ≥ Tr G − |Ω| . (24b) 2 A∈Ω X † X X † RARA ≤ ΠA + kΠUAUBΠk2 A∈Ω 2 A∈Ω 2 A6=B∈Ω Proof. The decompositions in (23) imply that for all A, B ∈ Ω, X ≤ ΠA + η. (21) X ∗ A∈Ω 2 vB,FgF,F0 vA,F0 = dAδA,B. (25) F,F0∈Ω Define θ to be a real number such that

Substituting (18b) and (25) into X ΠA = 1 + θ. A∈Ω † X † 0 ∗ 2 hα|Ae Be |βi = hα|F F |βivA,FvB,F0 F,F0∈Ω Since the operator 2-norm of each of the projectors ΠA is at least one, the real number θ has to be non-negative. gives our version of the ‘diagonalized and perturbed’ Now the inequality (21) is equivalent to Knill-Laflamme conditions [17] (1 + θ)2 ≤ (1 + θ) + η. † hα|Ae Be |βi =dAδA,Bδ|αi,|βi The above inequality is equivalent to X ∗ + (vA,F0 vB,F)hα|GF0,F|βi. (26) 2 1 + θ + θ ≤ 1 + η. F,F0∈Ω

Hence it follows that (1 + θ) ≤ (1 + η). Applying the To obtain the first inequality in (24a), observe that definition of θ then gives † 1 X † kΠAe Ae Πk2 ≥ hα|Ae Ae |αi. X † |B| RARA ≤ 1 + η, |αi∈B A∈Ω 2 X and the result follows. Clearly hα|GA,B|αi = 0, and its substitution into |αi∈B The code’s error using the rescaled recovery RΩ,C,η is (26) summed over |αi with |βi = |αi gives

† X λmin,C(A A) E (R ) ≤ 1 − , (22) 1 X † A,C Ω,C,η hα|Ae Ae |αi = dA ≥ λmin(G). 1 + η |B| A∈Ω |αi∈B 8

2 To prove the second inequality in (24a), define the vector |Ω| (|Ω|−1) Hence if η ≥ λ (G) , Lemma 8 holds, implying that v := (v ) . Note that min A A,F F∈Ω RΩ,C,η is a quantum operation. The upper bound (29) X ∗ comes by substituting A with Ae and applying (24b) in |v 0 v | = kv k kv k . A,F B,F A 1 B 1 (22). F,F0∈Ω Now the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality implies that If the total deviation  is zero, Theorem 10 is equivalent to Knill and Laflamme’s result on perfect quantum error p kvAk1 ≤ |Ω|hvA, vAi. correction [17]. We now prove Theorem 4 by invoking a special case of Moreover vA is a column vector in the unitary matrix V our main technical result Theorem 10. This illustrates with hvA, vAi = 1. Hence applying H¨older’sinequality concretely the reduction of Theorem 10 to the Knill- gives Laflamme quantum error correction conditons [17] when all the deviation matrices G are exactly zero. A,B † X ∗ 0 hα|Ae Be |βi = vA,F0 vB,Fhα|GF ,F|βi Proof of Theorem 4. Using Lemma 5 with the expression

F,F0∈Ω in (14), it follows that for all A, B ∈ Ω, the deviation  matrices G are identically zero. Hence it follows from |Ω||σA,B| , |αi= 6 |βi A,B ≤ |Ω| max |hα|GF0,F|βi| ≤ . Theorem 10 that the worst case error is at most F,F0∈Ω |Ω||θA,B| , |αi = |βi (27) 1 − Tr(G) P † P † Applying the Gerˇsgorincircle theorem on h0L| A A|0Li + h1L| A A|1Li =1 − A∈Ω A∈Ω . X † 2 |αihβ|hα|Ae Be |βi (28) (31) |αi,|βi∈B P † using (26) and (27) yields the bound. Using the completeness relation A∈Ω A A = 1, the To prove (24b), we can similarly apply the Gerˇsgorin expression (31) simplifies to yield circle theorem on (28) with Be = Ae to get a lower bound h0L|0Li + h1L|1Li † 1 − = 0. on λmin,C(Ae Ae ) which when summed over A ∈ Ω yields 2 the required lower bound. This implies that noise induced by the channel A can be Theorem 10. Let Ω be a truncated Kraus set, C be a perfectly reversed using our gnu code. code with orthonormal basis B, and let G and  be as 2 given by Eqs. (18a) and (19). If η = (|Ω|−1)|Ω|  , then λmin(G) VII. CORRECTING SPONTANEOUS DECAY Tr G − |Ω|2 ERRORS inf EA,C(R) ≤ 1 − . (29) R 1 + η In this section, we consider gnu codes (1) of length To prove Theorem 10, we could use recovery maps m = gnu with a gap g = t + 1, occupancy number guaranteed to be nearly optimal [40–43], but we set n > 3t, and scaling factor u ≥ 1+ t for positive integers R = RΩ,C,η because RΩ,C,η possibly quantifies the gn performance of a recovery implemented by Leung et al.’s t. We consider the amplitude damping channel on m ⊗m recovery circuit [25]. qubits Aγ , which models m spontaneous decays on m qubits; each spontaneous decay occurs independently p ⊗m Proof. The polar decompositions Ae Π = U ΠAe †Ae Π with probability γ, and each Kraus effect of Aγ has the p Ae form and BΠ = U ΠB†BΠ for distinct A, B ∈ Ω imply e Be e e that K = K1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Km, p † p ΠAe †Be Π = ΠAe †Ae Π(ΠU U Π) ΠBe †Be Π. Ae Be where each Ki is either A0 or A1 as defined in Eq. (10). We define supp(K), the support of K, to be the set of all Sub-multiplicativity of norms implies that indices i where Ki = A1, and wt(K), the weight of K, to † be the cardinality of its support. In this section, let our † kΠAe Be Πk2 kΠU UBΠk2 ≤ . (30) truncated Kraus set be the set of all Kraus effects with Ae e p † p † k ΠAe Ae Πk2k ΠBe Be Πk2 weights at most t, given by Using (24a), the upper bound in (30) is at most Ω := {K ∈ K ⊗m : wt(K) ≤ t} ⊂ K ⊗m . (32) Aγ Aγ † kΠAe Be Πk2 |Ω| ≤ . The following lemma gives a lower bound for the trace of † λ (G) minF∈{A,B} λmax(ΠFe FeΠ) min our G-matrix. 9

Lemma 11. and  m  † Tr G ≥ 1 − γt+1. h1L|GA,B|1Li = h1L|A B|1Li − gA,B t + 1 h1 |A†B|1 i − h0 |A†B|0 i = L L L L Proof. Applying the definition of gA,A and exchanging 2 † the order of summation, we get = −h+L|A B|−Li. X X 1 X Tr G = g = hα| A†A|αi. A,A |B| A∈Ω |αi∈B A∈Ω To complete analyzing our deviation matrices GA,B, m † m Since evaluating the inner products hDg`|A B|Dg`i for 0 ≤ ` ≤ n is essential. We evaluate these inner products by X † X † hα| A A|αi ≥ λmin( A A), counting set cardinalities. A∈Ω A∈Ω Lemma 13. Let w be a non-negative integer no greater hence than m, and define the inequality

t X X m wt(A) ≤ w ≤ m − | supp(A) ∪ supp(B)| + wt(A). (34) Tr G ≥ λ ( A†A) = γk(1 − γ)m−k. min k A∈Ω k=0 m † m For all A, B ∈ Ω, hDw |A B|Dw i is Thus for γ ≥ 0, the inequality m−| supp(A)∪supp(B)| wt(A) w−wt(A) w−wt(A) ∞ γ (1 − γ) δ . X m m wt(A),wt(B) Tr G ≥ 1 − γk, w k (35) k=t+1

m m † m and Taylor’s theorem with remainder on (1 + γ) gives if (34) holds, and hDw |A B|Dw i = 0 otherwise. Tr G ≥ 1 − m γt+1. t+1 Proof. For non-negative integers x, † The inner product h+L|A B|−Li plays a central role B (A) := {x ∈ {0, 1}m : x = 0 ∀i ∈ supp(A), wt(x) = x}. in our analysis of the properties of our deviation matrices x i GA,B for all A, B ∈ Ω. Since the gap g is strictly greater Now let x = w − wt(A) and y = w − wt(B). Then than the weight of any Kraus effect from Ω, we have −1/2 m X n   A|Dmi = (1 − γ)x/2γwt(A)/2 |xi, † −n X ` n m † m w w h+L|A B|−Li = 2 (−1) hDg`|A B|Dg`i. ` x∈Bx(A) `=0 −1/2 (33) m X B|Dmi = (1 − γ)y/2γwt(B)/2 |yi. w w Indeed, the absolute value of the inner product y∈By (B) † h+L|A B|−Li is equal to the spectral radius of the It follows that hDm|A†B|Dmi is equal to deviation matrix GA,B for all A, B ∈ Ω. w w −1 Lemma 12. For all A, B ∈ Ω, q m X (1 − γ)x+yγwt(A)+wt(B) hx|yi † w GA,B = h+L|A B|−Li (|0Lih0L| − |1Lih1L|) . x∈Bx(A) y∈By (B) Proof. Since the code has gap g = t + 1, for all distinct j m−1 and k in {0, 1}, the states |jLi and |kLi are supported on = |Bx(A) ∩ By(B)| . (37) Dicke states with excitations spaced t+1 apart, it follows w that The expression in (37) is zero when Bx(A) ∩ By(B) = ∅, † which happens when any one of the following is true: hjL|A B|kLi = 0. 1. Case wt(A) 6= wt(B): Then x 6= y. Hence the off-diagonal entries of GA,B, given by h0L|GA,B|1Li and h1L|GA,B|0Li, are zero. The 2. Case w < wt(A): Then x < 0, and Bx(A) = ∅. sufficiently large gap g of our code also gives the equalities 3. Case x > m − | supp(A) ∪ supp(B)|: All vectors † h0L|GA,B|0Li = h0L|A B|0Li − gA,B from the set Bx(A) ∩ By(B) are necessarily zero h0 |A†B|0 i − h1 |A†B|1 i on | supp(A) ∪ supp(B)| indices. Hence vectors = L L L L from B (A) ∩ B (B) have a weight of at most 2 x y † m − | supp(A) ∪ supp(B)|. But these vectors must = h+L|A B|−Li, also have a weight of x – an impossibility. 10

When the set Bx(A)∩By(B) is non-empty, its cardinality where c is as given by (41). In Eq. (42), we m−| supp(A)∪supp(B)| interchange the order of the summations, which is valid is x , from which the result follows. because the Taylor series (40) is a finite sum. Hence k † [γ] h+L|A B|−Li is equal to † The inner product h+L|A B|−Li admits a Taylor n series expansion with respect to the noise parameter γ, X n 2−n (−1)`(−1)k−ah (`). (43) from which we can obtain an upper bound on the total ` k,a,c deviation . The relevant constants are `=1

X k † k−(n−t) Now the polynomials hk,a,c satisfy the equality KA,B := [γ ]h+L|A B|−Li γ1 , (38a) hk,a,c(0) = 0 for all non-negative integers k, a, c. Hence k≥n−t the expression (43) is equivalent to the expression K := max KA,B. (38b) A,B∈Ω n X n 2−n(−1)k−a (−1)`h (`). (44) where γ1 is some real number in the open unit ` k,a,c interval. Indeed, the  ≤ Kγn−t if the coefficients `=0 [γk]h+ |A†B|− i are zero for all 0 ≤ k ≤ n−(t+1). This L L Since the polynomials hk,a,c are of order k+c with respect is the content of Lemma 14, and in its proof we represent to the parameter ` and c ≤ t, their maximum order is the Taylor series expansions with respect of γ of the Dicke n − 1 for all 0 ≤ k ≤ n − (t + 1). Lemma 1 then implies m † m inner products hDg`|A B|Dg`i using polynomials in `. that all the bracketed terms in the right hand side of Motivated by Lemma 3, for non-negative integers a, c, k Eq. (42) are zero when k ≤ n − (t + 1). and ` we define the polynomials with respect to ` as †   Let us denote hjL|A A|jLi explicitly as a function of k(a) `g hk,a,c(`) := (m − `g)(c) . (39) the noise parameter γ using the function fj,A(γ). From m(a+c) k this function’s decomposition as given by Lemma 13, it is clear that for non-negative γ ≤ 1 and t ≤ m , the function These polynomials are defined so that we have 2 2 fj,A is monotone increasing with respect to γ. Hence for g` γ smaller than min{γ , 1 }, the minimum eigenvalue of X 1 2 m † m k L hDg`|A B|Dg`i = hk,a,c(`)γ , (40) t our G-matrix is 2 γ , where L is defined as k=0 L := min fj,A(γ1). (45) where A∈Ω j∈{0,1} c := | supp(A) ∪ supp(B)| − wt(A), (41) This is the content of the following lemma. A and B have equal weights that are positive, and ` is 1 also positive. Lemma 15. Let γ1 be a real number no greater than 2 , and let L be as defined in (45). Let Lemma 14. Let γ1 be a real number in the open unit interval (0, 1). Then for all non-negative reals γ no  L 1/(n−2t) γ = m−t/(n−2t) , greater than γ1, 0 2K † n−t  ≤ max |h+L|A B|−Li| ≤ Kγ , A,B∈Ω and suppose that γ0 ≤ γ1. Then for all non-negative reals no greater than γ0, we have the lower bound where K is given by (38b). L t Proof. The first inequality of this lemma follows directly λmin(G) ≥ γ . from Lemma 12. First note the inner product 2 † t h+L|A B|−Li is zero when (i) wt(A) = wt(B) = 0, and Proof. Clearly min gA,A ≥ Lγ . Each row in G has at A∈Ω when (ii) wt(A) 6= wt(B). Hence we focus on Kraus m most t non-zero entries, each entry with magnitude at effects A and B of equal weight a where 1 ≤ a ≤ t. n−t Using Lemma 3 and Lemma 13 on the decomposition most Kγ . Since γ < γ0, the Gerˇsgorincircle theorem given by Eq. (33), for non-negative integers k, the Taylor implies that series (40) holds.   t m t n−2t Since these Taylor series are finite, we have that λmin(G) ≥ Lγ − Kγ γ . † t h+L|A B|−Li is equal to 1 n Since γ is the minimum of the set {γ , γ , }, it follows X n 0 0 1 2 2−n (−1)`hDm|A†B|Dmi that ` g` g` `=1  L  L n ! λ (G) ≥ Lγt − mtKγt m−t = γt. X X n min =2−n (−1)`(−1)k−ah (`)γk , (42) 2K 2 ` k,a,c k≥0 `=1 11

Piecing our results together, we can quantify the error the standard framework of fault-tolerant quantum after using our gnu codes to correct spontaneous decay computing [44] does not apply directly to non-stabilizer errors: codes. Also the relationship between our work and other results on implementation of permutation-invariant Theorem 16. Suppose that the non-negative reals γ0 and quantum circuits [21, 45, 46] remains to be more γ1 are such that the assumption of Lemma 15 holds. Let thoroughly investigated. We leave these challenges K and L be given by (38b) and (45) respectively. Then amongst many others for future study. for all γ ≤ γ0, a gnu code with gap g = t + 1, occupancy t number n > 3t, scaling factor u ≥ 1 + gn , and a length Error plor for (2, 4, 1+1/8)-PI code for m = gnu has a worst case error with respect to the noisy spontaneous decays ⊗m e channel Aγ at most s

a 0.01 c

t

s 0.001 m  t+1 2 n−t r 1 − t+1 γ − |Ω| Kγ o w 0.0001 1 − (46) r 2(|Ω|−1)|Ω|2K n o n−2t o

1e−05 1 + γ r r L d e n 1e−06 u o b

Proof. From the above we have the upper bound  ≤ 1e−07 r

n−t L t e Kγ , and the lower bounds λmin(G) ≥ γ and p 1e−08 2 p

m  t+1 U Tr(G) ≥ 1 − γ . Using Theorem 10, and by 1e−09 t+1 −6 −5 −4 −3 −2 choosing the rescaling factor Log of the probability of spontaneous decay per mode (γ) (|Ω| − 1)|Ω|2Kγn−t 2(|Ω| − 1)|Ω|2K Amplification of T using a (2, 4, 1+1/8)-PI code η = = γn−2t, 1 L t L 1,000 2 γ 1 T we get the result. f 100 o

n o i t

Note that the upper bound on the error in the above a

c 10 fi i

theorem converges to zero at the appropriate rate in the l p

limit as γ approaches zero. Thus Eq. (1) gives a family m of t-AD PI codes. A 1 We depict the performance of our (2, 4, 1+1/8)-PI code on 9 qubits in terms of error rates and amplifications of −6 −5 −4 −3 −2 Log of the probability of spontaneous decay per mode (log γ) the of effective T1 times in Fig. 1. 10

FIG. 1: The performance of a (2, 4, 1 + 1/8)-PI code on 9 VIII. DISCUSSIONS qubits is quantified, both in terms of upper bounds of the worst case error (Top) and lower bounds on amplification of In this paper, we construct t-AD codes and codes the effective T1 (Bottom). correcting arbitrary t-sparse errors from our gnu code family. Since gnu codes lie within the ground state of ferromagnetic Heisenberg models without an external magnetic field, one might hope that such codes are viable candidates in realizing a viable quantum memory [23]. IX. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To determine whether gnu codes are suitable for practical use, many difficulties remain to be overcome. Easily implementable encoding and decoding protocols Y. Ouyang is especially grateful for discussions with for these gnu codes have to be devised, and the explicit Joseph Fitzsimons, Tommaso Demarie and Jon Tyson, quantum circuits for the error correction procedure also and comments from Debbie Leung and Ashwin Nayak. remain to be determined. The possibility of having fault- The author acknowledges support from the Ministry of tolerant PI codes remains to be investigated, because Education, Singapore.

[1] C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, “: second ed., 2000. Public key distribution and coin tossing,” in Proceedings [3] A. Kitaev, “Fault-tolerant quantum computation by of IEEE International Conference on Computers, anyons,” Annals of Physics, vol. 303, no. 1, pp. 2–30, Systems and Signal Processing, vol. 175, New York, 1984. 2003. [2] M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation [4] S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, “Fermionic Quantum and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, Computation,” Annals of Physics, vol. 298, no. 1, 12

pp. 210–226, 2002. Y. Yamamoto, “Approximate quantum error correction [5] A. Y. Kitaev, “Unpaired majorana fermions in quantum can lead to better codes,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 56, p. 2567, wires,” Physics-Uspekhi, vol. 44, no. 10S, p. 131, 2001. 1997. [6] A. Kitaev, “Anyons in an exactly solved model and [26] R. L. Kosut, A. Shabani, and D. A. Lidar, “Robust beyond,” Annals of Physics, vol. 321, no. 1, pp. 2 – 111, Quantum Error Correction via Convex Optimization,” 2006. January Special Issue. Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 100, no. 2, p. 020502, 2008. [7] H. Bombin, “Topological subsystem codes,” Phys. Rev. [27] A. S. Fletcher, P. W. Shor, and M. Z. Win, “Channel- A, vol. 81, p. 032301, Mar 2010. Adapted Quantum Error Correction for the Amplitude [8] H. Bombin, M. Kargarian, and M. A. Martin-Delgado, Damping Channel,” IEEE Transactions on Information “Interacting anyonic fermions in a two-body color code Theory, vol. 54, pp. 5705–5718, Dec. 2008. model,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 80, p. 075111, Aug 2009. [28] N. Yamamoto, “Exact solution for the max-min quantum [9] C. G. Brell, S. T. Flammia, S. D. Bartlett, and A. C. error recovery problem,” in Decision and Control, Doherty, “Toric codes and quantum doubles from two- 2009 held jointly with the 2009 28th Chinese Control body Hamiltonians,” New Journal of Physics, vol. 13, Conference. CDC/CCC 2009. Proceedings of the 48th no. 5, p. 053039, 2011. IEEE Conference on, pp. 1433–1438, Dec. 2009. [10] S. A. Ocko and B. Yoshida, “Nonperturbative gadget for [29] S. Taghavi, R. L. Kosut, and D. A. Lidar, “Channel- topological quantum codes,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 107, Optimized Quantum Error Correction,” IEEE p. 250502, Dec 2011. Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 56, pp. 1461– [11] P. A. M. Dirac, “Quantum Mechanics of Many-Electron 1473, Mar. 2010. Systems,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. [30] R. Lang and P. W. Shor, “Nonadditive quantum error Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and correcting codes adapted to the ampltitude damping Physical Character, vol. 123, no. 792, pp. pp. 714–733, channel,” 2007. 1929. [31] P. W. Shor, G. Smith, J. A. Smolin, and B. Zeng, [12] S. Blundell, Magnetism in Condensed Matter. Great “High Performance Single-Error-Correcting Quantum Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP: Oxford master Codes for Amplitude Damping,” IEEE Transactions on series in condensed matter physics, first reprint ed., 2003. Information Theory, vol. 57, pp. 7180–7188, Oct. 2011. [13] W. Heisenberg, “Zur Theorie des Ferromagnetismus,” [32] R. Duan, M. G. Z. Ji, and B. Zeng, “Multi-Error Zeitschrift f¨urPhysik, vol. 49, no. 9-10, pp. 619–636, Correcting Amplitude Damping Codes,” ISIT, 2010. 1928. [33] S. Gerˇsgorin,“Uber¨ die Abgrenzung der Eigenwerte einer [14] D. Gottesman, Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Matrix,” Bulletin de l’Acad´emiedes Sciences de l’URSS. Correction. PhD thesis, California Institute of Classe des sciences math´ematiqueset na, no. 6, pp. 749– Technology, 1997. 754, 1931. [15] M. B. Ruskai, “Pauli Exchange Errors in Quantum [34] R. S. Varga, Gerˇsgorinand his circles. Springer-Verlag, Computation,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 85, pp. 194–197, first ed., 2004. July 2000. [35] K. Kraus, Lecture Notes in Physics 190 : States, Effects, [16] H. Pollatsek and M. B. Ruskai, “Permutationally and Operations Fundamental Notions of Quantum invariant codes for quantum error correction,” Linear Theory. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, first ed., 1983. Algebra and its Applications, vol. 392, no. 0, pp. 255– [36] Y. Ouyang and W. H. Ng, “Truncated quantum channel 288, 2004. representations for coupled harmonic oscillators,” [17] E. Knill and R. Laflamme, “Theory of quantum error- Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, correcting codes,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 55, pp. 900–911, vol. 46, no. 20, p. 205301, 2013. Feb. 1997. [37] B. Schumacher, “Sending entanglement through noisy [18] P. W. Shor, “Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum channels,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 54, no. 4, quantum computer memory,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 52, pp. 2614–2628, 1996. pp. R2493—-R2496, Oct. 1995. [38] A. Prudnikov, Y. A. Brychkov, and O. Marichev, [19] D. Bacon, “Operator quantum error-correcting Integrals and Series, Volume 1, Elementary Functions. subsystems for self-correcting quantum memories,” Gordon and Breach, 1986. Phys. Rev. A, vol. 73, no. 1, p. 012340, 2006. [39] P. Aliferis and A. W. Cross, “Subsystem fault tolerance [20] M. Bergmann and O. G¨uhne,“Entanglement criteria for with the Bacon-Shor code,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 98, Dicke states,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and p. 220502, 2007. Theoretical, vol. 46, no. 38, p. 385304, 2013. [40] H. Barnum and E. Knill, “Reversing quantum dynamics [21] T. Moroder, P. Hyllus, G. T´oth, C. Schwemmer, with near-optimal quantum and classical fidelity,” A. Niggebaum, S. Gaile, O. G¨uhne,and H. Weinfurter, Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 43, p. 2097, Jan. “Permutationally invariant state reconstruction,” New 2002. Journal of Physics, vol. 14, no. 10, p. 105001, 2012. [41] J. Tyson, “Two-sided bounds on minimum-error [22] G. T´oth and O. G¨uhne, “Entanglement and quantum measurement, on the reversibility of quantum Permutational Symmetry,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 102, dynamics, and on maximum overlap using directional p. 170503, May 2009. iterates,” Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 51, [23] Y. Ouyang, J. Fitzsimons, “A long-lived qubit using p. 92204, June 2010. ferromagnetic Heisenberg models” in preparation. [42] C. B´eny and O. Oreshkov, “General Conditions for [24] D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, “Encoding a Approximate Quantum Error Correction and Near- qubit in an oscillator,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 64, p. 012310, Optimal Recovery Channels,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 104, Jun 2001. p. 120501, Mar. 2010. [25] D. W. Leung, M. A. Nielsen, I. L. Chuang, and [43] C. B´eny and O. Oreshkov, “Approximate simulation of 13

quantum channels,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 84, p. 022333, Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, vol. 44, no. 11, Aug. 2011. p. 115301, 2011. [44] P. Aliferis, D. Gottesman, and J. Preskill, “Quantum [46] A. B. Klimov, G. Bj¨ork, and L. L. S´anchez-Soto, accuracy threshold for concatenated distance-3 codes,” “Optimal quantum tomography of permutationally Quant. Inf. Comput., vol. 6, pp. 97–165, 2006. invariant qubits,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 87, no. 1, p. 012109, [45] A. Hentschel and B. C. Sanders, “Ordered measurements 2013. of permutationally-symmetric qubit strings,” Journal of