We compare the effect of single qubit incoherent and coherent errors on the logical error rate of the Steane [[7,1,3]] quantum error correction code by performing an exact full-density-matrix simulation of an error correction step. We find that the effective 1-qubit process matrix at the logical level reveals the key differences between the error models and provides insight into why the Pauli twirling approximation is a good approximation for incoherent errors and a poor approximation for coherent ones. Approximate channels composed of Clifford operations and Pauli measurement operators that are pessimistic at the physical level result in pessimistic error rates at the logical level. In addition, we observe that the pseudothreshold can differ by a factor of 5 depending on whether the error is calculated using the fidelity or the distance.
We compare the effect of single qubit incoherent and coherent errors on the logical error rate of the Steane [[7,1,3]] quantum error correction code by performing an exact full-density-matrix simulation of an error correction step. We find that the effective 1-qubit process matrix at the logical level reveals the key differences between the error models and provides insight into why the Pauli twirling approximation is a good approximation for incoherent errors and a poor approximation for coherent ones. Approximate channels composed of Clifford operations and Pauli measurement operators that are pessimistic at the physical level result in pessimistic error rates at the logical level. In addition, we observe that the pseudothreshold can differ by a factor of 5 depending on whether the error is calculated using the fidelity or the distance.
Classical simulations of noisy stabilizer circuits are often used to estimate the threshold of a quantum error-correcting code. Physical noise sources are efficiently approximated by random insertions of Pauli operators. For a single qubit, more accurate approximations that still allow for efficient simulation can be obtained by including Clifford operators and Pauli operators conditional on measurement. We examine the feasibility of employing these expanded error approximations to obtain better threshold estimates. We calculate the level-1 pseudothreshold for the Steane [[7,1,3]] code for amplitude damping and dephasing along a non-Clifford axis. The expanded channels estimate the actual channel action more accurately than the Pauli channels before error correction. However, after error correction, the Pauli twirling approximation yields very accurate estimates of the performance of quantum error-correcting protocols in the presence of the actual noise channel.
A universal, scalable quantum computer will require the use of quantum error correction in order to achieve fault tolerance. The assessment and comparison of error-correcting strategies is performed by classical simulation. However, due to the prohibitive exponential scaling of general quantum circuits, simulations are restrained to specific subsets of quantum operations. This creates a gap between accuracy and efficiency which is particularly problematic when modeling noise, because most realistic noise models are not efficiently simulable on a classical computer. We have introduced extensions to the Pauli channel, the traditional error channel employed to model noise in simulations of quantum circuits. These expanded error channels are still computationally tractable to simulate, but result in more accurate approximations to realistic error channels at the single qubit level. Using the Steane [[7,1,3]] code, we have also investigated the behavior of these expanded channels at the logical error-corrected level. We have found that it depends strongly on whether the error is incoherent or coherent. In general, the Pauli channel will be an excellent approximation to incoherent channels, but an unsatisfactory one for coherent channels, especially because it severely underestimates the magnitude of the error. Finally, we also studied the honesty and accuracy of the expanded channels at the logical level. Our results suggest that these measures can be employed to generate lower and upper bounds to a quantum code's threshold under the influence of a specific error channel.
We compare the performance of quantum error correcting codes when memory errors are unitary with the more familiar case of dephasing noise. For a wide range of codes, we analytically compute the effective logical channel that results when the error correction steps are performed noiselessly. Our examples include the entire family of repetition codes, the five-qubit, Steane, Shor, and surface codes. When errors are measured in terms of the diamond norm, we find that the error correction is typically much more effective for unitary errors than for dephasing. We observe this behavior for a wide range of codes after a single level of encoding, and in the thresholds of concatenated codes using hard decoders. We show that this holds with great generality by proving a bound on the performance of any stabilizer code when the noise at the physical level is unitary. By comparing the diamond norm error ${D}_{\ensuremath{\diamond}}^{\ensuremath{'}}$ of the logical qubit with the same quantity at the physical level ${D}_{\ensuremath{\diamond}}$, we show that ${D}_{\ensuremath{\diamond}}^{\ensuremath{'}}\ensuremath{\le}c{D}_{\ensuremath{\diamond}}^{d}$ where d is the distance of the code and c is a constant that depends on the code but not on the error. This bound compares very favorably to the performance of error correction for dephasing noise and other Pauli channels, where an error correcting code of odd distance d will exhibit a scaling ${D}_{\ensuremath{\diamond}}^{\ensuremath{'}}\ensuremath{\sim}{D}_{\ensuremath{\diamond}}^{(d+1)/2}$.
Analysis of quantum error correcting codes is typically done using a stochastic, Pauli channel error model for describing the noise on physical qubits. However, it was recently found that coherent errors (systematic rotations) on physical data qubits result in both physical and logical error rates that differ significantly from those predicted by a Pauli model. Here we examine the accuracy of the Pauli approximation for noise containing coherent errors (characterized by a rotation angle ) under the repetition code. We derive an analytic expression for the logical error channel as a function of arbitrary code distance d and concatenation level n , in the small error limit. We find that coherent physical errors result in logical errors that are partially coherent and therefore non-Pauli. However, the coherent part of the logical error is negligible at fewer than error correction cycles when the decoder is optimized for independent Pauli errors, thus providing a regime of validity for the Pauli approximation. Above this number of correction cycles, the persistent coherent logical error will cause logical failure more quickly than the Pauli model would predict, and this may need to be combated with coherent suppression methods at the physical level or larger codes.
Abstract Coherent noise can be much more damaging than incoherent (probabilistic) noise in the context of quantum error correction. One solution is to use twirling to turn coherent noise into incoherent Pauli channels. In this Article, we show that some of the coherence of the noise channel can actually be used to improve its logical fidelity by simply sandwiching the noise with a chosen pair of Pauli gates, which we call Pauli conjugation. Using the optimal Pauli conjugation, we can achieve a higher logical fidelity than using twirling and doing nothing. We devise a way to search for the optimal Pauli conjugation scheme and apply it to Steane code, 9-qubit Shor code and distance-3 surface code under global coherent Z Z noise. The optimal conjugation schemes show improvement in logical fidelity over twirling while the weights of the conjugation gates we need to apply are lower than the average weight of the twirling gates. In our example noise and codes, the concatenated threshold obtained using conjugation is consistently higher than the twirling threshold and can be up to 1.5 times higher than the original threshold where no mitigation is applied. Our simulations show that Pauli conjugation can be robust against gate errors. With the help of logical twirling, the undesirable coherence in the noise channel can be removed and the advantages of conjugation over twirling can persist as we go to multiple rounds of quantum error correction.
The performance of a given quantum error correction (QEC) code depends upon the noise model that is assumed. Independent Pauli noise, applied after each quantum operation, is a simplistic noise model that is easy to simulate and understand in the context of stabilizer codes. Although such a noise model is artificial, it is equivalent to independent, random, unbiased qubit rotations. What about spatially or temporally correlated qubit rotations? Such a noise model is applicable to global operations (e.g., NMR or ESR), common control sources (e.g., lasers), or slow drift (e.g., charge or magnetic noise) in various qubit technologies. In the worst case, such errors can combine constructively and result in a post-correction failure rate that increases with the number of error correction cycles. However, we show that this worst case does not generally arise unless taking active corrective actions while performing QEC. That is, by employing virtual Pauli frame updates ("passive" error correction) rather than physical corrections ("active" error correction), coherent errors do not compound appreciably. Starting in a random Pauli frame is also advantageous. In fact, through perturbation theory arguments and supporting numerical simulations, we show that the logical qubit performance beyond distance 3 for correlated single-qubit Hamiltonian noise models (i.e., global errant qubit rotations), when employing these "lazy" strategies, essentially matches the performance of Pauli noise model with the same process fidelity (fidelity after one application). In a more general circuit model of noise, correlations may add constructively within syndrome extraction rounds but Pauli frame randomization from passive error correction mitigates this effect across multiple rounds.