- Library Home /
- Search Collections /
- Open Collections /
- Browse Collections /
- Workshop on Quantum Algorithms, Computational Models and Foundations of Quantum Mechanics /
- For How Long Is It Possible To Quantum Compute?
Open Collections
Workshop on Quantum Algorithms, Computational Models and Foundations of Quantum Mechanics
For How Long Is It Possible To Quantum Compute? 2011
Page Metadata
Item Metadata
Title | For How Long Is It Possible To Quantum Compute? |
Creator |
Mucciolo, Eduardo |
Date Created | 2011-01-28T19:39:11Z |
Date Issued | 2010-07-25 |
Description | One of the key problems in quantum information processing is to understand the physical limits to quantum computation. Several strategies have been proposed to attenuate errors caused by the interaction of the computer with its surrounding environment and quantum error correction (QEC) is likely the most versatile. A large effort has been devoted to proving that resilience can be achieved by concatenating QEC codes in logical structures. In our work we look into this question at a different angle: we provide an upper bound on the time available to computation given a certain computer, a QEC code, and a decohering environment. We consider a broad class of environments, including those where correlation effects can be induced by gapless modes. Our approach is based on a Hamiltonian formulation where we use coarse graining in time to derive an explicit quantum evolution operator for the logical qubits, taking into account the QEC code. We show that this evolution operator has the same form as that for the original physical qubits, except for a reduced coupling to the environment which can be evaluated systematically for a given geometry and QEC code structure. To quantify the effectiveness of QEC, we compute the trace distance between the real and ideal states of a logical qubit after an arbitrary number of QEC cycles. We derive expressions for the long-time trace distance for several for super-ohmic-, ohmic-, and sub-ohmic-like baths. Given a confidence threshold for the trace distance, we establish the maximum time available for computation in those three cases. This maximum time is controlled by an exponent related to the spatial dimensions and other characteristics of the computer and the environment. For the super-ohmic regime, we find that computation can continue indefinitely, while in the other regimes the maximum time depends strongly on the QEC code, on the number of logical qubits, and on the original environment-computer strength interaction. |
Subject |
Quantum Error Correction Fault-tolerant Quantum Computation Critical Environments |
Type |
Moving Image Other |
Language | Eng |
Collection |
Workshop on Quantum Algorithms, Computational Models and Foundations of Quantum Mechanics |
Date Available | 2011-01-28T19:39:11Z |
DOI | 10.14288/1.0103169 |
Affiliation |
Non UBC |
Peer Review Status | Reviewed |
Scholarly Level | Faculty |
URI | http://hdl.handle.net/2429/30933 |
Aggregated Source Repository | DSpace |
Digital Resource Original Record | https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/29986/items/1.0103169/source |
Download
- Media
- mucciolo_talk.pdf [ 3.41MB ]
- WS Jul 25 Mucciolo.mp4 [ 102.68MB ]
- Metadata
- JSON: 1.0103169.json
- JSON-LD: 1.0103169+ld.json
- RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0103169.xml
- RDF/JSON: 1.0103169+rdf.json
- Turtle: 1.0103169+rdf-turtle.txt
- N-Triples: 1.0103169+rdf-ntriples.txt
- Citation
- 1.0103169.ris
Full Text
For How Long is it Possible to Quantum Compute? QAMF WORKSHOP Vancouver, UBC - July 23-25, 2010 1/19 Eduardo Mucciolo (University of Central Florida, USA) Harold Baranger (Duke University, USA) Eduardo Novais (University of ABC, Brazil) Sunday, July 25, 2010 Overview ● Motivation and previous work ● Hamiltonian formulation of a fault-tolerant quantum processor ● Results 2/19 Sunday, July 25, 2010 Motivation: Protect Quantum Information from Decoherence Major result: The “threshold theorem” resilient QC (”low-T” regime) noisy QC (”high-T” regime) ε εc (= single-qubit error probability) likely the most versatile and universal approach - encode information - measure ancilla qubits - correct for errors 3/19 Provided that the noise level is below a certain critical value, quantum information can be protected indefinitely Provided that the noise level is below a certain critical value, quantum computation can be proceed “indefinitely” Some standard strategies: 1) Decoherence free-subspaces 3) Dynamical decoupling 4) Quantum error correction 2) Topological systems Sunday, July 25, 2010 Possible Pitfalls of the Standard Fault-Tolerant QEC Theory: 1) The theorem is derived using stochastic error models (not Hamiltonians). 2) It implicitly assumes that perturbation theory works and converges. 3) Correlated environments and memory effects are not considered. 4/19 We avoided some of these problems in our previous work: - Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 040501 (2006); 98, 040501 (2007). - Phys. Rev. A 78, 012314 (2008). - Hamiltonian, microscopic error models. - Probabilistic calculations taking into account correlations. - Description of how correlated environments affect the threshold theorem. Sunday, July 25, 2010 Quick review: Correlated environments and the Threshold Theorem environmentʼs “free” Hamiltonian (gapless) qubit-bath interaction: V = ∑ x,α λα fα(x)σα(x) environmental degrees of freedom qubits H = Hcomputer +Hbath + V Hamiltonian 5/19 Three important parameters (critical environment) • spatial dimension D • bath mode velocity c • dynamical exponent z 〈fα(x1, t1) fα(x2, t2)〉env ∼ O ( 1 |x1 − x2|2δα , 1 |t1 − t2|2δα/z ) - defines a single-qubit error probability - maps into an impurity problem for short times. ! Main hypothesis only one qubit per hypercube ∆ ξ = (c∆)1/z time space ∆ = period of QEC cycle Novais, EM, Baranger [PRL 98, 040501 (2007); PRA 78 012314 (2008)] Sunday, July 25, 2010 6/19 (efficiently simulated by a Turing machine) D+z 2 noisy quantum computer δ "upper critical dimension" "lower critical dimension" ( ε ) l o c a l e r r o r p r o b a b i l i t y threshold theoremneeds ( unkown ) new derivation threshold theorem to compute not possible traditional “temperature” “correlations” weak strong Main result of previous work: the effect of long-range correlations are small; QEC and resilient quantum computing are ok. D + z < 2δα correlations grow unbounded; threshold theorem derivation breaks down. D + z > 2δα qubits + environment strongly entangled qubits + environment weakly entangled; strong entanglement among qubits qubits + environment strongly entangled; w ak entanglement among qubits ✓ ✓ ✓ ? ? Novais, EM, Baranger [PRL 98, 040501 (2007); PRA 78 012314 (2008)] Sunday, July 25, 2010 7/19 Current Work: 1) Change the question: Given a certain desired error tolerance, for long can we compute using QEC? Novais, EM, Baranger [arXiv: 1004.3247] 2) Avoid the hypercube assumption. “friendly” assumptions - standard quantum error correction code (circuit model QC). - state preparation, gates, measurements all done perfectly. - quantum evolution with only non-error syndromes. “unfriendly” assumptions - gapless bath: power-law correlations (non exponential) (phonons, EM fluctuations, etc.) Sunday, July 25, 2010 8/19Time-Evolution under QEC: QEC 0 Δ 2Δ 3Δ 4Δ (Ν−2)Δ (Ν−1)Δ ΝΔ t QEC QEC QEC QEC QEC start end bosonic bath syndrome extraction s1 s2 s3 s4 sN-2 sN-1 sN non-error syndrome path Syndrome history tree Sunday, July 25, 2010 Taking into account the QEC code structure: logical qubit Example: 5-qubit code (corrects for one-qubit errors) |0̄〉 = 1 4 [|00000〉+ |10010〉+ |01001〉+ |10100〉+ |01010〉 − |11011〉 − |00110〉 − |11000〉 −|11101〉 − |00011〉 − |11110〉 − |01111〉 − |10001〉 − |01100〉 − |10111〉+ |00101〉] |1̄〉 = 1 4 [|11111〉+ |01101〉+ |10110〉+ |01011〉+ |10101〉 − |00100〉 − |11001〉 − |00111〉 −|00010〉 − |11100〉 − |00001〉 − |10000〉 − |01110〉 − |10011〉 − |01000〉+ |11010〉] g1 = xzzx1 g2 = 1xzzx g3 = x1xzz g4 = zx1xz X̄ = xxxxx Ȳ = yyyyy Z̄ = zzzzz stabilizers and logical operations 45 = 1024 error operators 16 possible syndromes but only 64 error operators can lead to a non-error syndrome 1̄ X̄ Ȳ Z̄ 1̄ 11111 xxxxx yyyyy zzzzz g1 xzzx1 1yy1x zxxzy y11yz g2 1xzzx x1yy1 yzxxz zy11y g3 x1xzz 1x1yy zyzxx yzy11 g4 zx1xz y1x1y xzyzx 1yzy1 h1 xy1yx 1zxz1 z1y1z yxzxy h2 1zyyz xyzzy yx11x z1xx1 h3 yyz1z zzyxy 11xyx xx1z1 h4 xxy1y 11zxz zz1y1 yyxzx h5 z1zyy yxyzz xyx11 1z1xx h6 yxxy1 z11zx 1zz1y xyyxz h7 1yxxy xz11z y1zz1 zxyyx h8 zyyz1 yzzyx x11xy 1xx1z h9 y1yxx zxz11 1y1zz xzxyy h10 yz1zy zyxyz 1xyx1 x1z1x h11 zzx1x yy1x1 xxzyz 11yzy 9/19 Sunday, July 25, 2010 10/19Model for the critical environment: bosonic bath qubit-bath interaction physical qubits HI = ∑ x ∑ α={x,z} λα f α(x)σα(x) [ aα,k, a † β,k′ ] = δαβ δk,k′ fα(x) = ∑ k!=0 ( gα,|k|eik·xa † α,k + g ∗ α,|k|e −ik·xaα,k ) bosonic bath HB = ∑ α={x,z} ∑ k!=0 ωα,|k| a † α,kaα,k |gα,|k||2 ∼ |k|2sαform factor: dispersion relation: ωα,|k| ∼ |k|zα spectral function J(ω) = ∑ k |gk|2 δ(ω − ωk) Jα(ω) ∼ λ2α ω(D+2sα−zα)/zα Sunday, July 25, 2010 U(∆, 0) = Tt e−i R∆ 0 dtHI(t) = 1− i ∫ ∆ 0 dtHI(t)− 12 ∫ ∆ 0 dt ∫ t 0 dt′HI(t)HI(t′) + . . . system+bath evolution operator 11/19Time evolution: First QEC cycle U(∆, 0) ≈ 1− i ∑ α=x,z ∑ x λα∆ fα(x, 0)σαx lowest order perturbation theory (short times / small coupling) λα∆! 1 expansionparameter syndrome extraction and error correction operation: U(∆, 0) −→ vs(∆, 0) numerical coefficients O(λ2) renormalization dropped evolution operator for logical qubits after a non-error syndrome v̄0(∆, 0) ≈ 1̄ + i∆3 ∑ x ∑ α,β={x,z} ∑ i,j,k ηαβijk λαλ 2 β f α(xi, 0) fβ(xj , 0) fβ(xk, 0) σ̄αx +O(λ 5) Sunday, July 25, 2010 Determining the expansion coefficients: 1̄ X̄ Ȳ Z̄ 1̄ 11111 xxxxx yyyyy zzzzz g1 xzzx1 1yy1x zxxzy y11yz g2 1xzzx x1yy1 yzxxz zy11y g3 x1xzz 1x1yy zyzxx yzy11 g4 zx1xz y1x1y xzyzx 1yzy1 h1 xy1yx 1zxz1 z1y1z yxzxy h2 1zyyz xyzzy yx11x z1xx1 h3 yyz1z zzyxy 11xyx xx1z1 h4 xxy1y 11zxz zz1y1 yyxzx h5 z1zyy yxyzz xyx11 1z1xx h6 yxxy1 z11zx 1zz1y xyyxz h7 1yxxy xz11z y1zz1 zxyyx h8 zyyz1 yzzyx x11xy 1xx1z h9 y1yxx zxz11 1y1zz xzxyy h10 yz1zy zyxyz 1xyx1 x1z1x h11 zzx1x yy1x1 xxzyz 11yzy operators leading to a non-error syndrome Notice: 3 or 5 insertions of the interaction only (one per physical qubit, at most) ηxy1524 = η xy 1235 = η xy 2314 = η xy 3425 = η xy 4513 = 1 ηxz1423 = η xz 2534 = η xz 1345 = η xz 2415 = η xz 3512 = 1 ηyz3425 = η yz 1235 = η yz 4513 = η yz 2314 = η yz 1524 = 1 (all other coefficients vanish) 12/19 Sunday, July 25, 2010 13/19 Same functional form as for physical (unprotected) qubits! Main effect of QEC: renormalization of coupling constant repeat for subsequent cycles Ū(N∆, 0) = v̄0(N∆, (N − 1)∆) v̄0((N − 1)∆, (N − 2)∆) . . . v̄0(∆, 0) rearrangement (separating intra versus inter logical qubit correlations) λ∗α = λα ∑ x ∑ β={x,z} ∑ i,j,k ηαβijk (λβ∆) 2 ∑ k"=0 |gα,|k||2 e−ik·(xi−xj)effective coupling constant v̄0(∆, 0) ≈ 1̄ + i∆ ∑ x ∑ α={x,z} (λ∗α + Γα)f β(x, 0) σ̄αx quantum evolution of logical qubit after N QEC cycles: Ū(T = N∆, 0) ≈ Tt ei R T 0 dt P x P α={x,z} λ ∗ α f α(x,t) σ̄αx Δ 2Δ 3Δ Time evolution (Cont.): Sunday, July 25, 2010 Upper bound to computation time - Information lost by a single logical qubit D ( ρR(T )− ρideal ) = √ |δσ+(T )|2 + 1 4 [δσz(T )]2 δσα(T ) = 〈σα(T )〉 − 〈σα〉 - Trace distance as a measure of information degradation D ( ρR(T )− ρideal ) = 1 2 Tr ‖ρR(T )− ρideal‖ ‖A‖ = √ A†A - Given a certain Dthresh, one can compute the available time Tmax by solving D ( ρR(Tmax)− ρideal ) = Dthresh 14/19 Sunday, July 25, 2010 Example: isolated logical qubit, no transversal coupling (λx =0) z Tmax Dthresh Dc t 1 0 ζ > 0 ζ = 0 ζ < 0 z z D(t) 15/19 ζz ≡ 2(zz − sz)−D bath spatial dimension Long-time behavior controlled by the exponent “superohmic” “ohmic” “subohmic” Tmax ≈ ∆ ∞ ζz < 0 exp [ C Dthresh ( ω0 λ∗z )2] ζz = 0 Dzz/ζzthresh ω0∆ ( ω0 λ∗z )2zz/ζz 0 < ζz < 2zz ( 2pi k0L )(ζz−2zz) √Dthresh λ∗z∆ ζz > 2zz Sunday, July 25, 2010 Another example: logical qubit array (M qubits, array dimension Dq) 16/19 Notice: Different layers of concatenation only alter λα* (higher power in the bare λα) ζα ≡ 2(zα − sα)−D ζα ≡ 2(zα − sα)−D+Dq if intra-logical qubit correlations dominate if inter-logical qubit correlations dominate (sparse array) (dense array) compromise between array size, code effectiveness, and amplitude of coupling to environment M large ⇔ λ* small best case worst case marginal case Tmax ≈ ∆× ∞ ζα < 0 exp [ B DthreshM(λ∗α/ω0) ] ζα = 0 1 ω0∆ [ Dthresh M(λ∗α/ω) ]zα/ζα 0 < ζα < zα ( 2pi k0L )ζα−zα Dthresh M(λ∗α∆) ζα > zα Sunday, July 25, 2010 Case 1: 2D sparse logical qubit array; level-0 concatenation GaAs double-quantum dot charge physical qubits bath: piezoelectric acoustic phonons (3D) Case 2: 1D dense logical qubit array; level-0 concatenation superconductor charge qubits bath: electromagnetic (gate voltage) fluctuations (effectively 1D) zz = 1 “bad” case sz = 1/2 Dq = 1 D = 1 ζz = 1 Tmax ≈ ω0 [ Dthresh M(λ∗z/ω0) ] J(ω) ∼ ω 17/19 zz = 1 D = 3 ζz = 0 marginal case J(ω) ∼ ω3 Tmax ≈ ∆ exp [ B Dthresh M(λ∗z/ω0) ]sz = 1/2 Sunday, July 25, 2010 Summary 18/19 ● We developed a Hamiltonian formulation of QEC in the presence of critical environments. Details of error code and concatenation level are incorporated. The non-Markovian dynamics of the bath is taken into account. ● The effective, long-time evolution operator of the logical qubits has the same functional form of the original operator for physical qubits, but with a renormalized coupling constant. ● Given a certain final state tolerance, we developed an estimate of the maximum computational time for a non-error syndrome history; it is straightforward to estimate for other histories (will yield shorter computational times). Sunday, July 25, 2010 Resources: - Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 040501 (2006); 98, 040501 (2007). - Phys. Rev. A 78, 012314 (2008). - arXiv:1004.3247 - links to publications in http://www.physics.ucf.edu/~mucciolo/ THANKS! 19/19 Funding: Sunday, July 25, 2010
Cite
Citation Scheme:
Usage Statistics
Country | Views | Downloads |
---|---|---|
Canada | 3 | 0 |
China | 2 | 0 |
City | Views | Downloads |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 3 | 0 |
Beijing | 2 | 0 |
{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} | {[{ month[type] }]} | {[{ tData[type] }]} |
Share
Share to: