arxiv:quant-ph/ v2 12 Jan 2006

Transcription

1 Quantum Inormation and Computation, Vol., No. (25) c Rinton Press A low-map model or analyzing pseudothresholds in ault-tolerant quantum computing arxiv:quant-ph/58176v2 12 Jan 26 Krysta M. Svore Columbia University, Dept. o Computer Science, 1214 Amsterdam Ave. MC:41 New York, NY 127 Andrew W. Cross Massachusetts Institute o Technology, Dept. o Electrical Engineering, 77 Massachusetts Ave. Cambridge, MA 2139 Isaac L. Chuang Massachusetts Institute o Technology, Dept. o Electrical Engineering, 77 Massachusetts Ave. Cambridge, MA 2139 Alred V. Aho Columbia University, Dept. o Computer Science, 1214 Amsterdam Ave. MC:41 New York, NY 127 Received (received date) Revised (revised date) An arbitrarily reliable quantum computer can be eiciently constructed rom noisy components using a recursive simulation procedure, provided that those components ail with probability less than the ault-tolerance threshold. Recent estimates o the threshold are near some experimentally achieved gate idelities. However, the landscape o threshold estimates includes pseudothresholds, threshold estimates based on a subset o components and a low level o the recursion. In this paper, we observe that pseudothresholds are a generic phenomenon in ault-tolerant computation. We deine pseudothresholds and present classical and quantum ault-tolerant circuits exhibiting pseudothresholds that dier by a actor o 4 rom ault-tolerance thresholds or typical relationships between component ailure rates. We develop tools or visualizing how reliability is inluenced by recursive simulation in order to determine the asymptotic threshold. Finally, we conjecture that reinements o these methods may establish upper bounds on the ault-tolerance threshold or particular codes and noise models. Keywords: Fault-Tolerance Communicated by: to be illed in by the Editorial 1 Introduction A quantum computer can potentially solve certain problems more eiciently than a classical computer [1, 2, 3]. However, quantum computers are likely to be engineered rom inherently noisy components, so any scalable quantum computer system will require quantum error correction and ault-tolerant methods o computation. As candidate quantum device technologies mature, we need to determine component ailure probabilities necessary to achieve scalability. The ault-tolerance threshold or gate and memory components is particularly interesting because arbitrarily reliable computations are possible i the circuit components have ailure rates below the threshold. Given detailed knowledge o the ault-tolerance thresh- 1

2 2 A low-map model or analyzing pseudothresholds... old and its associated trade-os, proposals or ault-tolerant quantum computation can be critically evaluated. The concept o a ault-tolerance threshold has its origins in the classical theory o computation. In the 195 s, von Neumann showed that it is possible to achieve a reliable classical computation with aulty components provided that the ailure probability o each component is below some constant threshold probability that is independent o the circuit size and the desired noise rate [4]. Similarly, concatenated coding and recursive error correction can be used to achieve reliable quantum computation. Concatenation is the process o encoding physical bits o one code as logical bits o another code. It is now well-known that using a single-error-correcting concatenated coding scheme with L levels o recursion, the maximum ailure probability γ circuit o a ault-tolerant circuit can be estimated as a unction o the maximum ailure probability γ o a basic component using the ault-tolerance threshold inequality γ circuit (γ) γ th ( γ γ th ) 2 L, (1) where γ th is the asymptotic threshold [5]. When Eq (1) holds with equality, we call it the ault-tolerance threshold equation. The inal circuit ailure probability γ circuit decreases as a doubly exponential unction o L i γ < γ th Estimate Year Fig. 1. Plots o quantum threshold estimates or stochastic noise models between the years 1996 and 24 [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15]. Stars denote numerical estimates and circles denote all others. Most o these estimates apply to the [[7,1, 3]] code, though the pair o thresholds at and above 1 2 apply to surace code memories and post-selected quantum computation. The networks vary over unitary networks, nearest-neighbor networks, and various optimized networks. Some estimates apply only when there are no memory errors, and others apply only or the Cliordgroup gates. The dark swath designates the large interval that contains all o these estimates. One branch o ault-tolerant quantum computing research has ocused on estimating the ault-tolerance threshold in the ault-tolerance threshold inequality. Figure 1 shows the range o quantum threshold estimates reported in [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15]. The estimates, which vary between 1 6 and 1 2, include numerical and analytical results or varying networks or the [[7, 1, 3]] code, such as optimized networks, unitary networks, and nearestneighbor networks. They also include results or surace code memories and post-selected quantum computing models that yield thresholds above 1 2. Numerical estimates tend to be more optimistic than their analytical counterparts.

3 K. M. Svore, A. W. Cross, I. L. Chuang, and A. V. Aho 3 γ circuit γ circuit γ L = L = 1 L = 2 L = 3 L γ L = L = 1 L = 2 L = 3 L Fig. 2. (a) An ideal threshold reliability inormation plot (TRIP) ollows Eq (1). The crossing point between the L = line and the L = 1 curve, marked by the asterisk on the thick vertical line, is the ault-tolerance threshold. All o the curves cross at the same point. (b) A real TRIP does not ollow Eq (1). The crossing points between the L = line and the other curves are all dierent. These points, marked by circles, correspond to a sequence o pseudothresholds that converges to the real ault-tolerance threshold marked by the asterisk on the thick vertical line. I there is a single type o component that is replaced using the same rule each time, the ault-tolerance threshold inequality, Eq (1), becomes an equality. This leads to a very simple prediction shown in Figure 2(a): i γ = γ th, then γ circuit = γ th. This act is taken as the basis o several numerical analyses o the ault-tolerance threshold today. Speciically, this simpliication is attractive or computationally expensive numerical simulations because it implies that the threshold can be determined by inding the smallest nonzero value o γ that solves γ circuit (γ) = γ. Realistically, however, there are multiple types o components that are each replaced using dierent rules, so the irst crossing point does not accurately indicate the ault-tolerance threshold. Figure 2(b) more accurately portrays the eect o recursive simulation. As the recursion level increases, or example, an exponentially growing number o wires must be introduced between gates. When these wires are unreliable, as they likely will be in quantum circuits, successive recursion levels can cause errors to increase even though γ is beneath the apparent threshold. Thus, recursive simulation changes the relative proportions o each type o component and what appears to be the threshold at one level o recursion may be ar rom the asymptotic threshold. This sequence o crossing points cannot be used to describe the proper conditions under which a system is scalable. Rather, these crossing points are pseudothresholds [6]. When multiple types o components are replaced using dierent rules, each component type must be parameterized by a separate ailure probability. Hence, opportunity exists or engineering trade-os that still preserve scalability. These trade-os can be quantiied given the asymptotic threshold, amilies o pseudothresholds, and their relation to the shape o the set o subthreshold component parameters. In this paper, we present practical methods or distinguishing pseudothresholds rom asymptotic thresholds. In particular, we explore the conditions under which pseudothresholds exist and clariy their meaning. We embark on this exploration carrying two tools. The irst tool is a generalization o Figure 2(b), which we call the threshold reliability inormation plot (TRIP). In a TRIP, each curve represents the ailure probability o a particular component at concatenation level L and crosses the L = line once. The crossing o a level-l curve and the level-(l = ) line yields the rightmost edge o an interval on the γ axis below which reliability is improved by concatenation. The crossing point is a level-l pseudothreshold. The second tool is a threshold inormation low diagram (TIFD) that shows how recursive simulation can change the reliability o a particular set o noisy components. A low is a normalized vector ield that can be visualized as a collection o arrows. Each arrow s base is anchored to a point that represents the current ailure probability o the (composite)

4 4 A low-map model or analyzing pseudothresholds γ v γ u Fig. 3. Threshold inormation low diagram (TIFD) corresponding to the ollowing recursive simulation procedure: gates u and v at level-(l 1) are both replaced by ault-tolerant gates at level L that can withstand a single level-(l 1) gate ailure. However, u and v compute dierent unctions, so their ault-tolerant implementations are dierent. In this example, the ault-tolerant u contains two u gates and two v gates, and the ault-tolerant v contains three u gates and three v gates. Arrows on this TIFD indicate how the recursive simulation procedure changes the eective ailure probabilities o u and v. For some ailure probabilities, recursive simulation has no eect. These ixed points are marked by circles, and one o them determines the ault-tolerance threshold, indicated by a thick black line. Sample trajectories begin at the squares and low along the thick dashed lines, where the diamonds mark the sequence o points or each level L o concatenation.

5 K. M. Svore, A. W. Cross, I. L. Chuang, and A. V. Aho 5 components. The direction o each arrow indicates the direction the anchor point moves at the next level o recursion. In contrast to the TRIP, the TIFD exposes how all o the component ailure probabilities change in a recursive simulation. I the recursive simulation is sel-similar, i.e., i the ailure probability o a level-l component can be expressed in terms o the ailure probabilities o level-(l 1) components, particularly with respect to the noise model, then the TIFD indicates whether or not recursive simulation increases or decreases each component s ailure probability, allowing us to compute and visualize the ault-tolerance threshold. For example, Figure 3 shows a TIFD or a hypothetical pair o aulty basic gates u and v. Because u and v compute dierent unctions, their ault-tolerant implementations use dierent numbers o basic u and v gates. In this example, the ault-tolerant u contains two u gates and two v gates, connected in some ashion so that the ault-tolerant u can withstand one internal gate ailure and still produce a good output. I basic gates u and v ail independently with probabilities γ u and γ v, respectively, then the ailure probability o the ault-tolerant u gate is 1 (1 γ u ) 2 (1 γ v ) 2 2γ u (1 γ u )(1 γ v ) 2 2γ v (1 γ v )(1 γ u ) 2. (2) Similarly, the ault-tolerant v gate contains three u gates and three v gates and can withstand any single ailure, giving 1 (1 γ u ) 3 (1 γ v ) 3 3γ u (1 γ u ) 2 (1 γ v ) 3 3γ v (1 γ v ) 2 (1 γ u ) 3. (3) There are many such hypothetical examples. In Section 3, we give a more realistic example that demonstrates how a TIFD is calculated based on an actual circuit. Continuing with this example, the eective ailure probabilities o u and v ater level- 1 recursive simulation both depend on the initial ailure probabilities γu and γ v o u and v, shown on the horizontal and vertical axes o the TIFD. Consider the ollowing scenario. The v gate initially ails with probability.2 and the u gate does not ail at all. A square marks this point on the TIFD. The arrow at this point on the TIFD points down and to the right, indicating that a level-1 recursive simulation will improve v but make u worse. The dashed line connects the initial ailure probabilities to the ailure probabilities o the level- 1 simulated gates (at about (.4,.1)). The dashed path shows that subsequent recursive simulation makes u and v arbitrarily reliable. The TIFD in Figure 3 also indicates the set o initial ailure probabilities that is below threshold. The boundary o this set is determined by a ixed point o the recursive simulation procedure. This ixed point is marked with a circle, and the thick dark line passing through this circle is the invariant set that indicates the ault-tolerance threshold. For example, an ideal v gate and a u gate that initially ails with probability.28 (marked by a square) is above threshold. This point lows nearly parallel to the invariant line at irst, but ultimately escapes rom the boundary o the TIFD ater about 7 levels o recursive simulation. We organize the paper as ollows. In Section 2, we irst deine the ault-tolerance threshold or concatenated low maps, then we deine pseudothresholds and describe their importance. We calculate, in Section 3, a amily o pseudothresholds and distinguish them rom the aulttolerance threshold estimate or the classical repetition code. In Section 4, we study the [[7, 1, 3]] CSS code, again comparing the ault-tolerance threshold against amilies o pseudothresholds. We suggest techniques or inding the threshold in Section 5 that expand upon our use o the TIFD. We conclude in Section 6 with open questions. 2 Pseudothresholds In Section 1, we discussed the phenomenon o pseudothresholds without introducing many mathematical concepts. In this section, we clariy what we mean by deining both the aulttolerance threshold and the pseudothreshold sequences or a set o low maps. 2.1 The ault-tolerance threshold The threshold is related to the number o bad ault paths through a circuit. Assume aults occur at discrete locations and times with probability dependent on the location type. The ailure probability o the circuit can then be determined as a unction o ailure probabilities o types o locations. For a code correcting t errors, the probability that one o these

6 6 A low-map model or analyzing pseudothresholds... bad ault paths occurs is no more than Cγ t+1, where γ is the largest ailure probability o any type o location in the circuit and C is the number o ways to choose t+1 ailed locations out o N total locations. The ault-tolerance threshold satisies ( ) 1/(t+1) 1 γ th, (4) C since γ th is the ixed point o the map γ circuit (γ) = Cγ t+1. However, we must recognize that the ault-tolerant implementations o each location type dier, so we must express the ailure probability o each ault-tolerant location type as a unction o the location types it contains. In other words, we construct (approximations to) the low maps or the given ault-tolerant implementations and noise model [6, 9]. In particular, i each type o location l is assigned an initial ailure probability γl and i there are n dierent types o locations, the approximate ailure probability o location type l ater one level o recursive simulation is a unction Γ 1 l o all n o the initial ailure probabilities. Thereore, Γ 1 l is called the low map or location type l. Considering all types o locations l, the unctions Γ 1 l are the coordinates o a low map Γ1. The low map takes the ailure probabilities o the n location types to their new values ater one level o recursive simulation. The ailure probabilities o the L-simulated location types are (approximately) related to the initial ailure probabilities γl by the composed low map, Γ L Γ } 1 {{ Γ 1 }. (5) L times Ideally, the replacements can be constructed so that Eq (5) is an equality. This is the case or the example in Section 3 but not in Section 4. Let Γ L l denote the coordinate unction o ΓL associated with location l, and let Γ l be the initial unction that selects the l coordinate. In other words, Γ L l is the ailure probability o location l ater L levels o recursive simulation. The unction Γ L l is a concatenated low map or location type l because we can use Eq (5) to derive (an approximation to) Γ L l. The map ΓL is the concatenated low map. A vector o ailure probabilities γ or the n location types is below threshold i all n o the ailure probabilities approach zero as the concatenation level approaches ininity, lim L ΓL ( γ) =. (6) Let T be the set o these vectors that are below threshold, and let C ǫ be the n-dimensional cube o edge length ǫ with one corner at the origin, C ǫ { γ [, 1] n γ l < ǫ l, ǫ (, 1]} (7) The cube contains all o the vectors whose worst ailure probability is less than ǫ. The aulttolerance threshold or asymptotic threshold is the size o the largest cube contained in T, i.e., γ th sup{ǫ C ǫ T }. (8) I all component ailure probabilities are beneath this probability, then composing the low maps reduces the ailure probability arbitrarily close to zero. 2.2 Deinition o pseudothresholds Beore we deine pseudothresholds, we introduce the concept o a setting. Settings parameterize a set o location ailure probabilities by a single parameter so that we can think o Γ L l as a unction o this parameter. A setting is a unction rom a single ailure probability parameter to a vector o n ailure probabilities, one or each location. For example, the diagonal setting g(γ) = (γ,...,γ) is used in analyses that assign each location the same initial

7 K. M. Svore, A. W. Cross, I. L. Chuang, and A. V. Aho 7 ailure probability. The Steane setting g(γ) is another setting that sets all location ailure probabilities to γ except or a waiting bit which is assigned γ/1 [14] (in this reerence, a waiting bit is assigned a ailure probability o γ/1). Suppose there are n types o locations. We deine a pseudothreshold γl,g L or a ixed level o recursion L >, a location l, and a setting g as the least nonzero solution to Γ L l (g(γ)) = γ, (9) This deinition presents the (L, l, g)-pseudothreshold as a ixed-point calculation or a unction derived rom the low map Γ. The let-hand size o Eq (9) can be viewed as one o the curves plotted in Figure 2(a), and the right hand size can be viewed as the L = line. The point where these curves intersect is a pseudothreshold. For ixed location l and setting g, the sequence γl,g L is not necessarily constant as a unction o L. In act, the sequence is typically not constant, meaning that pseudothresholds are a generic phenomenon. More speciically, let γ be any pseudothreshold o the low map Γ or a setting g, and let γ be the constant vector (γ,...,γ ). The pseudothreshold γ is independent o location type and recursion level only i the setting satisies Γ(g(γ )) = γ and γ is a ixed point o Γ. Despite the act that pseudothresholds are not thresholds, pseudothresholds are interesting because only a ixed level o recursive simulation will be used in practice. I the goal is to construct a reliable ault-tolerant location type l, and all o the location types have the same initial reliability (i.e., g(γ) = (γ,...,γ)), then choosing γ to be less than the (L, l, g)- pseudothreshold makes the L-simulated gate location type l more reliable than the initial gate. However, some caution must be applied to pseudothresholds as well because the (1, l, g)- pseudothreshold and the (2, l, g)-pseudothreshold can be substantially dierent. In the ollowing sections, we present an illustrative example o classical pseudothresholds ollowed by a more detailed example o quantum pseudothresholds. We show by means o these examples that pseudothresholds are generic to all multiparameter maps. In addition, we highlight that threshold estimates should account or multiple location types and higher levels o code concatenation to achieve more realistic threshold results. 3 Classical Pseudothresholds or the [3, 1, 3] Code In this section, we analyze a classical example to build intuition about the dierences between pseudothresholds and thresholds. We study pseudothresholds or classical ault-tolerant components based on the [3, 1, 3] repetition code. We use the threshold reliability inormation plot (TRIP) o the [3, 1, 3] code to identiy pseudothresholds. We then characterize the low map or this example using a threshold inormation low diagram (TIFD). 3.1 The [3, 1, 3] code and its ailure probability map In this example, the classical single-error-correcting [3, 1, 3] repetition code, also called triple modular rendundancy (TMR), is used to encode a single bit in three bits by copying it three times. To make a ault-tolerant classical wire using this code, three location types Ω = {w, v, } are required, where w : {, 1} {, 1} deined by w(a) = a is a wire. v : {, 1} 3 {, 1} deined by v(a, b, c) = ab bc ca is a voter. : {, 1} {, 1} 3 deined by (a) = (a, a, a) is a anout. The superscripts above indicate the Cartesian product. The wire w is analogous to a waiting bit in a quantum ault-tolerance analysis, and the voter v and anout perorm error correction. A noisy version o each location type is deined as ollows. A noisy wire lips the output bit with probability γ w. A noisy voter incorrectly indicates the output bit with probability γ v. For simplicity, we choose to model the anout gate to be noiseless.

8 8 A low-map model or analyzing pseudothresholds... To recursively construct a ault-tolerant wire, replacement rules are used. A replacement rule is a pair (b, R(b)) where b Ω and R(b) is a circuit over Ω that speciies how to replace a level-(l 1) location at level L. R(b) is called the replacement o b and must preserve the unctionality o the original location b. We construct the replacement rules to mirror replacement rules or quantum circuits, in which a circuit location is replaced by error correction ollowed by a ault-tolerant implementation o the location. The ollowing steps suggest how to ensure proper component connectivity or a code encoding a single bit. First, replace b directly by D no R(b) E ni where D and E are an ideal decoder and encoder. We must have D E equal to the identity gate on a single bit, where the open circle denotes unction composition. The numbers n i and n o are the number o input and output bits o b, respectively. Ater replacing each component in this manner, make a second pass over the circuit and replace all pairs D E by bundles o wires. Finally, replace the remaining encoders and decoders by respective ault-tolerant implementations o input preparation and output readout. The resulting circuit components will be properly connected, and the circuit will not contain decoding and re-encoding components since these components are not typically ault-tolerant. For this example, a wire w is replaced by error correction ollowed by a transversal implementation o the wire, i.e., a wire is applied to each bit o the encoded input, shown in Figure 4. Note the irst dashed box indicates the classical error correction, which involves w, v, and location types, and the second dashed box indicates the ault-tolerant implementation o the original location. Similarly, Figures 5(a) and 5(b) show the ault-tolerant replacement o v and, respectively. v w w v w v w Fig. 4. Replacement rule or a wire w. The anouts and voters v perorm error correction. The irst dashed box indicates classical error correction using anouts and voters v. The second dashed box indicates the ault-tolerant implementation o the wire w. Using the replacements R(w) and R(v), the ailure probabilities Γ 1 w ( γ) and Γ1 v ( γ) can be ound, where the initial vector o ailure probabilities is γ = (γw, γv). Failure is deined to occur when the component s output does not decode to the correct value. The wire ailure probability is easily calculated by counting the number o ways each coniguration o errors occurs. For example, three voters ail in one way, three voters and one wire ail in three ways, two voters ail in three ways, etc. Rewriting the resulting polynomial in distributed orm gives Γ 1 w ( γ) = 6γ vγ w + 3γ 2 v + 3γ2 w 2γ3 v 18γ2 v γ w + 12γ 3 v γ w 18γ v γ 2 w + 36γ 2 v γ2 w 24γ3 v γ2 w 2γ3 w + 12γ vγ 3 w 24γ2 v γ3 w + 16γ3 v γ3 w, (1) where the superscript has been dropped or notational convenience. Replacing the wire ailure probability γw by γ v and the voter ailure probability γ v by the probability o error correction ailure 3(γv) 2 (1 γv) + (γv) 3 gives Γ 1 v( γ) = 3γv γv 3 39γv 4 126γv γv 6 288γv 7 936γv γv γv γv γv 12, (11) where the superscript has been dropped again in the last expression.

9 K. M. Svore, A. W. Cross, I. L. Chuang, and A. V. Aho 9 v v v v v v v v v v v v v Fig. 5. (a) Replacement rule or a voter v. The irst dashed box indicates classical error correction using anouts and voters v. The second dashed box indicates the ault-tolerant implementation o the voter v. (b) Replacement rule or a anout. Because we assume anouts are noiseless, the replacement is just three anout gates. The low maps Eq (1) and Eq (11) are exact and satisy Eq (5) with equality, so they contain enough inormation to determine the asymptotic threshold. They can also be used to determine a bound on the number o bad ault paths, as discussed in Section 2, by considering only the low-order terms in the low maps: Γ 1 w ( γ) 3γ2 w + 3γ2 v + 6γ wγ v (12) Γ 1 v ( γ) 3γ2 v + 16γ3 v = (3 + 16γ v)γ 2 v. (13) These bounds clariy the relative contribution each component makes to the ailure probability o a ault-tolerant component. They also suggest a conservative bound o 1/12 on γ th. This can be calculated by assuming that γ v = γ w, solving or the ixed point o the right hand side o each inequality, and taking the least such ixed point. 3.2 TRIPs or the [3, 1, 3] code What is the behavior o the wire and voter ailure probabilities as the concatenation level L increases? TRIPs based on Eqs (1) (11) provide a visualization o each level crossing point or the two types o locations. Figures 6 and 7 are TRIPs or the voter and wire locations, respectively. From Figure 6, it is clear the voter probability Γ 1 v ( γ) is a one-parameter map, and thus should resemble the TRIP or the ault-tolerance threshold equation (Figure 2(a)). Since Γ 1 v( γ) is a unction o only γ v or all L, each Γ L v ( γ) intersects at the same ixed-point o the map. This ixed point γ th, indicated by a thick vertical line, is the L = pseudothreshold and the asymptotic threshold. It occurs at approximately.246. Note that the L = pseudothreshold or a particular location and the asymptotic threshold are not always equal, but they happen to be in this example. Even or a classical setting, there is a dierence between pseudothresholds and the asymptotic threshold γ th. Figure 7 shows the TRIP or the wire location at levels L =, 1, 2, 3,. Here, unlike in the TRIP or the voter location, pseudothresholds appear in addition to an asymptotic threshold. This is because the replacement R(w) or a wire includes locations o type w, v, and, creating a two-parameter map (anouts are noiseless) that exhibits changing behavior with each concatenation level L. The curves now cross the L = line at dierent points. Each o these crossing points in the TRIP is a level-l pseudothreshold. As we

10 1 A low-map model or analyzing pseudothresholds Γ v L.2 L =.1 L = 1 L = 2 L = 3 L Γ v Fig. 6. TRIP or a voter location or the [3,1, 3] code or L =,1, 2, 3,. Because Γ L v is a unction o only γv constructed by recursive application o R(v), all o the curves ΓL v intersect at the same point. This point is the ixed-point γ th.246 o the map and is indicated by an asterisk Γ w L.2 L =.1 L = 1 L = 2 L = 3 L Γ w Fig. 7. TRIP or a wire location or the [3,1, 3] code or L =, 1, 2,3, using the diagonal setting γ w = γ v. Because Γ L w is a unction o both γ w and γ v constructed by recursive composition, the curves Γ L w cross the L = line at dierent points. Each o these points is a level-l pseudothreshold indicated by a circle, and the sequence o pseudothresholds γ 1 w, γ 2 w,..., converges to the aulttolerance threshold γ th.246 indicated by an asterisk.

11 K. M. Svore, A. W. Cross, I. L. Chuang, and A. V. Aho γ v γ w Fig. 8. TIFD or γ w and γ v or the [3,1, 3] code. The ixed points are indicated by circles. The region [,1/2) [, γ th ) enclosed by a thick line is the set o points below threshold, where γ th.246. Two sample trajectories begin at the squares and low along the thick dashed lines, where the diamonds indicate the sequence o points as L increases, toward (, ) and (1/2, 1/2). repeatedly replace the wire using R(w), the number o voter locations begins to dominate, so the crossing point approaches the voter threshold, which corresponds to the asymptotic threshold. The dierence between the asymptotic threshold γ th.246 and the level-1 wire location pseudothreshold γ 1 w.129 is.117, or γ th 1.9 γ 1 w. 3.3 TIFDs or the [3, 1, 3] code Given that pseudothresholds can be so dierent rom γ th, can γ th be determined rom just one application o the low map? In Section 1, it was suggested that a TIFD provides an inormative view o the eect o recursive simulation. Although a TRIP provides a visualization o the asymptotic behavior, it hides the act that Γ 1 acts on a multidimensional space. When Γ 1 is chosen such that Eq (5) is an equality, Γ 1 contains all o the inormation about the low since Γ L can be expressed in terms o Γ 1. A TIFD shows where each point lows under repeated application o Γ 1 without iterating the map explicitly. In Figure 8, a TIFD or wire and voter ailure probabilities on the unit hal square is shown. The arrows represent the vectors Γ 1 ( γ) γ, which give the probability low under recursive simulation. There are ive ixed points o the map: (, ), (1/2, ), (1/2, γ th ), (1/2, 1/2), and (1, ), where γ th.246 cannot be expressed in radicals. Circles mark our o these ixed points. The subthreshold region T is [, 1/2) [, γ th ), indicated by the thick black box. Three corners o the subthreshold region are ixed points o the map. The ault-tolerance threshold γ th is the size o the largest cube, a square in this case, that is contained in the subthreshold region. First, i γw = and γ v >, then the low draws these points o o the γ v axis. This occurs because the wire replacement rule R(w) contains both voter and wire locations, so the ailure probabilities mix. Second, i γv =, then any point γw < 1/2 lows to the origin because the voters ampliy any bias toward success. Third, the voter ailure probability Γ 1 v( γ) is independent o γw, so the voter probability is a simple one-parameter map under replacement. I γv < γ th, the map s ixed point, then the voter probability lows toward the γw axis. Finally, i γ v < γ th and γw < 1/2, then initially the wire ailure probability may

12 12 A low-map model or analyzing pseudothresholds... increase because the voters are not reliably correcting errors. However, the voters improve with each iteration, so eventually this trend reverses. The voters begin correcting more errors than they introduce, and all o these points low toward the origin. For the classical [3, 1, 3] code, the TIFD ully characterizes the threshold set T or three reasons. First, deviated inputs, i.e., inputs that are not codewords, are corrected beore aults are introduced by the simulated gate locations. Second, the low maps are the precise component ailure probabilities. Third, there is no phase noise in classical ault-tolerance, so the parameters o the noise channel only change in the trivial way. Furthermore, the entire low is easily visualized since the TIFD is two-dimensional. Under these conditions, the TIFD is an ideal tool or understanding and visualizing the process by which recursive simulation improves reliability and exhibits a threshold. 4 Quantum Pseudothresholds We have seen that pseudothresholds exist even in a simple classical ault-tolerance scheme. In a quantum ault-tolerance scheme, the tools we have developed can now be applied to determine sequences o quantum pseudothresholds. In this section, we study thresholds or quantum ault-tolerance using the [[7, 1, 3]] CSS code. We ollow the circuit construction given in [14]. As in the classical example, TRIPs are again used to identiy pseudothresholds or the given location types using particular settings, allowing us to determine the reliability achieved with each level o concatenation. In addition, we characterize the ailure probability map using TIFDs. 4.1 The [[7, 1, 3]] code and its low map The [[7, 1, 3]] quantum code encodes a single qubit in 7 qubits with distance 3, meaning it corrects a general quantum error on a single qubit. The set o location types l involved in the error correction routine is Ω = {1, 2, w, 1m, p}: l = 1: one-qubit gate l = 2: two-qubit gate l = w: wait (memory) location l = 1m: one-qubit gate ollowed by a measurement [6], since the replacement rule or a measurement contains no error correction and since measurements in the networks or the 7-qubit code only appear ater one-qubit gates l = p: ancilla preparation location, which we model as a one-qubit gate or simplicity [6] We consider the depolarizing error model, where a location l ails independently with probability γ l. In our probabilistic error model, we assume or a location ailure γ l on a single qubit, a X,Y, or Z error occurs with probability γ l /3. The distinction between X,Y, and Z errors is used in the approximation analysis. As in the classical case, we deine a replacement rule or each type o location. We use the same replacement rules as given in [6], where we replace each location by error correction ollowed by a ault-tolerant implementation o the location. For example, a one-qubit gate is replaced by error correction and a transversal one-qubit gate, as shown in Figure 9. We use the same approach to derive the ailure probability map as in the classical example, with the caveat that we do approximate counting o the ways in which two or more errors occur on the data qubits during the execution o the concatenated circuit. The composition o this map approximates the behavior o the concatenated circuit. This means that threshold results derived rom this map are also approximate. The map does not account or incoming errors since when ailure probabilities are below threshold, the probability o incoming errors should typically be small, and thus should not greatly aect the probability o two or more errors on the data qubits. The details o the ailure probability map are given in Section IV B o [6].

13 K. M. Svore, A. W. Cross, I. L. Chuang, and A. V. Aho 13 U U U U EC U U U U Fig. 9. Replacement rule or a one-qubit gate U. The replacement includes error correction (EC) ollowed by a ault-tolerant implementation o the one-qubit gate U, indicated by a dashed box. 4.2 TRIPs or the [[7, 1, 3]] code To determine pseudothresholds, we plot the reliability o each component at each level o concatenation using the low maps. Figures 1 12 show TRIPs or wait, one-qubit, and twoqubit locations or the Steane setting g(γ) = (γ, γ,..., γ, γ/1), where the last component is the wait location ailure probability. These results in this section are obtained using a low map, but they are veriied using a Monte-Carlo simulation or one level o code concatenation. The Monte-Carlo simulation method randomly generates aults within the ault-tolerant circuit representing the original location according to the ailure probabilities γ l. These aults create errors that propagate to the output o the circuit. A particular set o aults may or may not create too many errors at the circuit s output. By running on the order o one million simulations, we can estimate the ailure probability o the original location. The particular Monte-Carlo simulation includes the ancilla preparation networks but does not model input errors so as to agree with the assumptions under which the low map is derived. Figure 1 shows the TRIP or a wait location at levels L =, 1, 2, 3,. Since the low map is a multi-parameter map, the crossing points no longer cross the line L = at the same point and thus pseudothresholds appear at each level. As L increases, the level-l pseudothreshold approaches an asymptotic threshold that depends on the location and setting. Note that the region between the L = 1 curve and the L = line is quite small or these initial conditions, smaller than the region considered to be below the asymptotic threshold. This is similar to the behavior o the classical wait location. The behavior is largely due to the Steane setting the level-1 simulation o the wait location includes other location types that have been set to ail with probability 1 γ w. However, as the level o concatenation o the wait location increases, the trade-os between the ailure probabilities o the location types begins to stabilize causing the level-4 pseudothreshold, or example, to be much larger and closer to the asymptotic threshold. The level-1 pseudothreshold as calculated rom the low map is and the corresponding value rom Monte-Carlo simulation is approximately

14 14 A low-map model or analyzing pseudothresholds x L = L = 1 L = 2 L = 3 L 2.5 Γ L w Γ w x 1 5 Fig. 1. TRIP or a wait location or L =, 1,2, 3, or the initial setting γw = 1/1(γi ), where i indicates all location types except or a wait location. Circles indicate pseudothresholds and an asterisk marks the threshold or this gate and setting. The pseudothresholds occur at probabilities , , and The wait threshold or this setting is This corresponds to γ = in the Steane setting Figure 11 shows the TRIP or the one-qubit location type or levels L =, 1, 2, 3,. The level-1 pseudothreshold is about 4.6 times greater than the asymptotic one-qubit gate threshold since the replacement R(1) includes many wait locations, whose initial setting is one-tenth o the initial one-qubit gate ailure probability. The Monte-Carlo simulation gives a level-1 pseudothreshold o approximately versus an estimate o rom the low map. Similarly, or a two-qubit gate location, the level-1 pseudothreshold is a actor o 2 larger than the asymptotic two-qubit gate threshold (Figure 12). Note that the level-1 two-qubit gate pseudothreshold is about hal the size o the level-1 one-qubit gate pseudothreshold. This is because error correction is required on two logical qubits and thus there are twice the number o locations in a one-qubit gate replacement. The level-1 pseudothreshold here is about versus a Monte-Carlo estimate o about From the threshold reliability inormation plots (TRIPs), it is apparent that multi-parameter maps and higher levels o concatenation are required to determine a threshold result. Across location types, the largest level-1 pseudothreshold is approximately 4 times larger than the smallest asymptotic gate threshold. The smallest asymptotic gate threshold is the memory threshold, so it is appropriate to scale this gate threshold by 1 to eliminate artiacts rom the setting. The pseudothreshold-threshold actor then becomes 4.6 or this example. 4.3 TIFDs or the [[7, 1, 3]] code We use the TIFD to characterize the low o the maps based on the semi-analytical methods o [6]. By using a TIFD instead o the TRIP, the low o the ailure probabilities as well as pseudothresholds can be visualized. In the quantum case, however, the TIFD is a 4- dimensional low that is challenging to visualize. Instead, we take 2-dimensional projections to determine the low. Figures show TIFDs involving location types l = 1, 2, w. Figure 13 shows the vector ield Γ 1 ( γ) γ projected onto the γ 1 γ w plane. Note that the lows are partitioned by

15 K. M. Svore, A. W. Cross, I. L. Chuang, and A. V. Aho x Γ L 1.5 L = L = 1 L = 2 L = 3 L Γ x Fig. 11. TRIP or a one-qubit gate location or L =,1, 2, 3, or the initial setting γw = 1/1(γi ), where i indicates all location types except or a wait location. Circles indicate pseudothresholds and an asterisk marks the threshold or this gate and setting. The pseudothresholds occur at probabilities , 6 1 4, and The one-qubit gate threshold or this setting is x Γ L L = L = 1 1 L = 2 L = 3 L Γ 2 x 1 4 Fig. 12. TRIP or a two-qubit gate location or L =, 1,2, 3, or the initial setting γw = 1/1(γi ), where i indicates all location types except or a wait location. Circles indicate pseudothresholds and an asterisk marks the threshold or this gate and setting. The pseudothresholds occur at probabilities , , and The two-qubit gate threshold or this setting is

16 16 A low-map model or analyzing pseudothresholds... 2 x 1 4 γ w γ 1 x 1 4 Fig. 13. TIFD projected onto the γ 1 γ w plane, where γ l = or all l except γ w and γ 1. The arrows represent the vector ield low Γ 1 ( γ) γ. The thick lines illustrate the separatrices. The horizontal separatrix appears to have zero slope, but it intersects the γ 1 -axis at about 1 2. The asterisk marks the wait gate asymptotic threshold or the setting in which γ w = γ and γ i = or all other location types. separatrices shown by the thick black lines. The map is independent o concatenation level in our approximation, so this low ully characterizes the behavior o the map. The γ w threshold ound by the horizontal separatrix appears around The asymptotic threshold or the map restricted to the γ w axis is indicated by an asterisk on the γ w axis. Note the separatrix indicates a wait location pseudothreshold. Figure 14 is the TIFD projected onto the γ 1 γ 2 plane. Again, the lows orm a separatrix around γ 2 = 2 γ 1. This is because there are two error correction routines in a two-qubit gate replacement, compared to only one error correction routine in the replacement or a one-qubit gate. The γ 2 threshold appears along the other separatrix around The asymptotic threshold restricted to the γ 2 axis, indicated by the asterisk, is a actor o 3.8 below the pseudothreshold. In the classical setting, the TIFD indicated the asymptotic threshold, since the map was exact and only two-dimensional. However, it is evident rom the TIFDs or the [[7, 1, 3]] code that 2-dimensional projections o the low are insuicient to determine the quantum ault-tolerance threshold set T. Since the threshold set is a multi-dimensional surace, the two-dimensional projection ails to indicate low in the other dimensions. Although it appears the separatrices indicate a separation between points that low to zero and those that low to one, it cannot be used to determine the threshold, but it may be used to determine an upper bound on the threshold or this example. 5 Techniques or Determining the Asymptotic Threshold In Section 4, low-dimensional projections o the low using a TIFD were used to establish pseudothresholds. However, the TIFD could not be used to determine the asymptotic threshold γ th. It may be possible, though, to bound γ th or a particular map by restricting the map Γ to the axes. In this section, we describe a possible technique or upper bounding the ault-tolerance threshold γ th. Consider the ollowing setting, the axis setting, where every initial ailure probability is

17 K. M. Svore, A. W. Cross, I. L. Chuang, and A. V. Aho x γ γ 1 x 1 3 Fig. 14. TIFD projected onto the γ 1 γ 2 plane, where γl = or all l except γ 1 and γ 2. The arrows represent the vector ield low Γ 1 ( γ) γ. The thick lines illustrate the separatrices. The horizontal separatrix appears to have zero slope, but it intersects the γ1 -axis at about 1 2. We do not show this intersection because the intersection with the γ2 -axis at about has a more signiicant role in determining the threshold. The asterisk marks the two-qubit gate threshold or the setting in which γ 2 = γ and γ i = or all other location types., except or the axis o interest, i.e., g(γ) = (γ,,,..., ), and γ is assigned to the location axis o interest. We conjecture that the level-1 pseudothreshold or this setting upper bounds γ th. Consider the plot shown in Figure 15 o the approximated γ w pseudothresholds o the [[7, 1, 3]] code or the axis setting. Note that the pseudothresholds or the wait location or the axis setting are strictly decreasing toward a threshold. We ind similar behavior or the other location types as well. These pseudothresholds and the threshold ound or the wait location are lower than the pseudothresholds and thresholds or the other location types in the axis setting. This suggests that the L = 1 wait location pseudothreshold or the axis setting, the smallest level-1 axis pseudothreshold, is an upper bound on γ th. This conclusion that pseudothresholds with the axis setting provide an upper bound on the ault-tolerance threshold is supported by numerical evaluation o the threshold set T in Figure 16. This igure shows our convex hulls: one pseudothreshold hull and three threshold hulls. The pseudothreshold hull is determined by the γ1 1, γ1 2, and γ1 w axis pseudothresholds, which are plotted as circles, while the threshold hulls were determined numerically rom the low map or a grid o parameters. The region o parameter space above the pseudothreshold hull is strictly above threshold or any value o γ 1m. The largest threshold hull corresponds to γ1m = and all points beneath it are below threshold. Similarly, the other two threshold hulls correspond to γ1m = and γ1m = Interestingly, as our choice o language indicates, T appears to be a convex set equal to the convex hull o the axes thresholds and the origin. The edge length o the largest cube in T is approximately γ th Furthermore, T appears to be contained in the convex hull o the axes pseudothresholds and the origin. These pseudothresholds are γ , γ , and γw or the corresponding axes settings. The γ1m 1 pseudothreshold is comparable to γ1. 1 The smallest level-1 pseudothreshold is γw , so this is an upper bound on γ th or this example. Though the error

18 18 A low-map model or analyzing pseudothresholds x Γ L w.6.4 L = L = 1.2 L = 2 L = 3 L = 4 L Γ x 1 4 w Fig. 15. TRIP or a wait location or L =, 1,2, 3, 4, or the axis setting. The pseudothresholds are , , , and The threshold or the wait location or this setting is x 1 4 γ = 1m 1 γ 1m = 1.5e 3 γ w.6 γ = 3.5e 3 1m.3.5 x pseudo γ γ Fig. 16. The set T or the [[7,1,3]] code together with a slice o the convex hull o the level-1 axis pseudothresholds. The level-1 axis pseudothresholds are plotted with open circles and connected with lines to illustrate their convex hull. The other three hulls are schematic representations o the numerically computed boundary o the set T or varying values o γ1m. All points beneath a given hull are below threshold. The largest cube contained in T has edge length γ th Note that this does not contradict the wait location threshold in Figure 1 because the other locations are 1 times less reliable in that calculation.

19 K. M. Svore, A. W. Cross, I. L. Chuang, and A. V. Aho 19 correction networks are slightly dierent, this upper bound does not contradict a rigorous lower bound o or the same code [16]. To urther conirm the results ound using the semi-analytical map, we use a Monte- Carlo simulation to determine pseudothresholds or the [[7,1,3]] code. We ind the ollowing pseudothresholds with the axis setting by itting a quadratic to the numerical TRIPS: γ , γ , and γw The γ1 1 pseudothreshold diers by a actor o 1.81 rom the γ1 1 pseudothreshold ound using the low map. The γ1 2 and γ1 w ound using the low map dier by a actor o.73 and a actor o 1.36, respectively, pseudothresholds rom numerical calculations based on a Monte-Carlo simulation. These dierences could be reduced by revisiting some o the approximations in the low map derivation. While we do not prove our conjecture, we oer two supporting observations. The irst is an observation that ollows rom the act that the low map has a threshold. There are positive integers A and t such that Γ 1 l ( γ) Aγt+1 max or all l, where γ max max γ l. These integers determine the well-known lower bound A 1/(t+1) γth min γ th on the threshold. The next observation is that i Γ causes all components o γ to increase or remain unchanged, then γ is above the established lower bound γth min. More precisely, i Γ1 l ( γ) γ l or all l, then γ l γth min or at least one l. This is true because i γ l < γth min or all l, then γ max < γth min. In particular, Γ1 l ((γ max, γ max,...,γ max )) Aγmax t+1 < γ max. A γ satisying the second observation is not necessarily above threshold, but we conjecture that this second observation remains true when γth min is replaced by γ th or maps Γ describing ailure probabilities under independent stochastic error models. We know this to be the case or one-dimensional maps. I the conjecture is true in general, then the level-1 pseudothreshold or the axis setting upper bounds γ th or a particular map. 6 Conclusions and Future Work Pseudothresholds are the ailure probabilities below which recursive simulation improves the reliability o a particular component. Yet, pseudothresholds have been shown to be up to a actor o 4 greater than the asymptotic threshold or the Steane setting and more than a actor o 1 dierent or the axes settings. This behavior is a generic phenomenon in both classical and quantum ault-tolerance. The tools we have presented provide a way to visualize pseudothresholds and thresholds, and we conjecture that or a given setting, they may provide an upper bound on the ault-tolerance threshold or a particular map. Pseudothreshold behavior also inluences the accuracy o some quantum threshold estimates. I some o the reported threshold estimates are actually pseudothresholds, the examples we have given suggest that these estimates may be inaccurate by a actor o 4 or more. These observations apply, in particular, to some numerical threshold estimates. However, other actors such as the noise model and circuit construction more greatly inluence the threshold value and by making a judicious choice o concatenation level and setting, the dierence between estimates and an asymptotic threshold can be reduced. Although a ault-tolerance threshold or ininite scalability cannot be determined by lowlevel pseudothresholds, pseudothresholds will become important design parameters in engineering a quantum computer. In practice, quantum computers may operate very close to threshold and require only a ew levels o recursive simulation. I this is the case, then pseudothresholds can help determine design trade-os and the required relative reliability o circuit components. In addition, the dierence between pseudothresholds can be used to determine an appropriate level o concatenation that is within current physical capabilities. It is important to note that pseudothresholds can also be used to determine the requency o error correction required or certain location types. I, or example, a level-1 pseudothreshold or a wait location shows the ailure probability worsens upon concatenation, then it may be beneicial to not error correct each wait location, or to only error correct a wait location at higher levels o concatenation. This scheme will still demonstrate a threshold; however the ailure probability map will have to take into account the dierences between the replacement rules or each type o location at dierent levels o concatenation. By optimizing the requency o error correction at dierent levels o concatenation and or dierent location types, the ault-tolerance threshold can be improved.