CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 50Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum Information and CryptographyQuantum many-body systems

QVECTOR: an algorithm for device-tailored quantum error correction

Open access
Johnson, Peter D., Romero, Jonathan, Olson, Jonathan, Cao, Yudong, Aspuru-Guzik, Alán·2017·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1711.02249arXiv 1711.02249
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Current approaches to fault-tolerant quantum computation will not enable useful quantum computation on near-term devices of 50 to 100 qubits. Leading proposals, such as the color code and surface code schemes, must devote a large fraction of their physical quantum bits to quantum error correction. Building from recent quantum machine learning techniques, we propose an alternative approach to quantum error correction aimed at reducing this overhead, which can be implemented in existing quantum hardware and on a myriad of quantum computing architectures. This method aims to optimize the average fidelity of encoding and recovery circuits with respect to the actual noise in the device, as opposed to that of an artificial or approximate noise model. The quantum variational error corrector (QVECTOR) algorithm employs a quantum circuit with parameters that are variationally-optimized according to processed data originating from quantum sampling of the device, so as to learn encoding and error-recovery gate sequences. We develop this approach for the task of preserving quantum memory and analyze its performance with simulations. We find that, subject to phase damping noise, the simulated QVECTOR algorithm learns a three-qubit encoding and recovery which extend the effective T2 of a quantum memory six-fold. Subject to a continuous-time amplitude- plus phase-damping noise model on five qubits, the simulated QVECTOR algorithm learns encoding and decoding circuits which exploit the coherence among Pauli errors in the noise model to outperform the five-qubit stabilizer code and any other scheme that does not leverage such coherence. Both of these schemes can be implemented with existing hardware.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1711.02249

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Several VQAs have been introduced that can potentially be used to accelerate quantum compiling.

    “Hence, several VQAs have been introduced that can potentially be used to accelerate this task [124, 148-151].”

    From Variational quantum algorithms (2021) · cites this paper as [150]

    The paper describes QVECTOR as a variational algorithm that optimizes encoding and recovery circuits using a device-native gate set (p. 2). That supports citing it as an example of variational gate-sequence optimization, but the paper addresses quantum error correction, not acceleration of quantum compiling generally. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Both FUMC and FISC exhibit resilience to hardware noise, in that the global minimum of the cost landscape is unaffected by various types of noise.

    “Finally, it is worth noting that both FUMC and FISC exhibit resilience to hardware noise, in that the global minimum of the cost landscape is unaffected by various types of noise [150].”

    From Variational quantum algorithms (2021) · cites this paper as [150]

    The Outlook (p. 7) discusses how noise and circuit structure may affect the cost-function landscape, but does not say its global minimum remains unchanged. The Simulation results (p. 4) model noise while treating circuit gates as ideal. Searches for FUMC, FISC, and an unaffected global minimum found no passage addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The connection with VQE was generalized to FUMC in Ref [150], showing that variational quantum compiling in general is a special kind of VQE problem.

    “The connection with VQE was also generalized to FUMC [150], showing that variational quantum compiling, in general, is a special kind of VQE problem.”

    From Variational quantum algorithms (2021) · cites this paper as [150]

    The introduction (p. 2) identifies VQE as a variational hybrid algorithm, while the QVECTOR training description (p. 3) concerns fidelity optimization for error correction. Searches for FUMC, variational quantum compiling, and compiling as a VQE problem found no passage addressing the claimed generalization. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 54

  1. [2][2] Emanuel Knill and Raymond Laflamme. Theory of quantum error-correcting codes. Physical Review A , 55(2):900, 1997. -
  2. [3][3] Daniel Gottesman. Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction. arXiv preprint quant-ph/9705052 , 1997. - · arXiv
  3. [4][4] Eric Dennis, Alexei Kitaev, Andrew Landahl, and John Preskill. Topological quantum memory. Journal of Mathematical Physics , 43(9):4452-4505, 2002. -
  4. [5][5] Dorit Aharonov and Michael Ben-Or. Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant error rate. SIAM Journal on Computing , 38(4):1207-1282, 2008. -
  5. [6][6] Hector Bombin and Miguel Angel Martin-Delgado. Topological quantum distillation. Physical Review Letters , 97(18):180501, 2006. -
  6. [8][8] H´ ector Bomb´ ın. Gauge color codes: optimal transversal gates and gauge fixing in topological stabilizer codes. New Journal of Physics , 17(8):083002, 2015. -
  7. [10][10] Charles D Hill, Eldad Peretz, Samuel J Hile, Matthew G House, Martin Fuechsle, Sven Rogge, Michelle Y Simmons, and Lloyd CL Hollenberg. A surface code quantum computer in silicon. Science advances , 1(9):e1500707, 2015. -
  8. [11][11] Daniel Nigg, Markus Mueller, Esteban A Martinez, Philipp Schindler, Markus Hennrich, Thomas Monz, Miguel A Martin-Delgado, and Rainer Blatt. Quantum computations on a topologically encoded qubit. Science , 345(6194):302-305, 2014. -
  9. [13][13] Debbie W Leung, Michael A Nielsen, Isaac L Chuang, and Yoshihisa Yamamoto. Approximate quantum error correction can lead to better codes. Physical Review A , 56(4):2567, 1997. -
  10. [14][14] Isaac L Chuang and Yoshihisa Yamamoto. Quantum bit regeneration. Physical Review Letters , 76(22):4281, 1996. -
  11. [15][15] Juan Ignacio Cirac, Thomas Pellizzari, and Peter Zoller. Enforcing coherent evolution in dissipative quantum dynamics. Science , 273(5279):1207, 1996. -
  12. [16][16] Michael Reimpell and Reinhard F Werner. Iterative optimization of quantum error correcting codes. Physical Review Letters , 94(8):080501, 2005. -
  13. [17][17] Carlo Cafaro and Peter van Loock. Approximate quantum error correction for generalized amplitudedamping errors. Physical Review A , 89(2):022316, 2014. -
  14. [18][18] Andrew S Fletcher, Peter W Shor, and Moe Z Win. Channel-adapted quantum error correction for the amplitude damping channel. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 54(12):5705-5718, 2008. -
  15. [19][19] Andrew S Fletcher, Peter W Shor, and Moe Z Win. Structured near-optimal channel-adapted quantum error correction. Physical Review A , 77(1):012320, 2008. -
  16. [20][20] Robert L Kosut, Alireza Shabani, and Daniel A Lidar. Robust quantum error correction via convex optimization. Physical Review Letters , 100(2):020502, 2008. -
  17. [21][21] Robert L Kosut and Daniel A Lidar. Quantum error correction via convex optimization. Quantum Information Processing , 8(5):443-459, 2009. -
  18. [22][22] Soraya Taghavi, Robert L Kosut, and Daniel A Lidar. Channel-optimized quantum error correction. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 56(3):1461-1473, 2010. -
  19. [23][23] Jens Koch, M Yu Terri, Jay Gambetta, Andrew A Houck, David I Schuster, Johannes Majer, Alexandre Blais, Michel H Devoret, Steven M Girvin, and Robert J Schoelkopf. Charge-insensitive qubit design derived from the cooper pair box. Physical Review A , 76(4):042319, 2007. -
  20. [24][24] Jonas Bylander, Simon Gustavsson, Fei Yan, Fumiki Yoshihara, Khalil Harrabi, George Fitch, David G Cory, Yasunobu Nakamura, Jaw-Shen Tsai, and William D Oliver. Noise spectroscopy through dynamical decoupling with a superconducting flux qubit. Nature Physics , 7(7):565-570, 2011. -
  21. [25][25] Michael J Peterer, Samuel J Bader, Xiaoyue Jin, Fei Yan, Archana Kamal, Theodore J Gudmundsen, Peter J Leek, Terry P Orlando, William D Oliver, and Simon Gustavsson. Coherence and decay of higher energy levels of a superconducting transmon qubit. Physical Review Letters , 114(1):010501, 2015. -
  22. [26][26] Martin Laforest, Damien Simon, Jean-Christian Boileau, Jonathan Baugh, Michael J Ditty, and Raymond Laflamme. Using error correction to determine the noise model. Physical Review A , 75(1):012331, 2007. -
  23. [27][27] Amara Katabarwa. A dynamical interpretation of the pauli twirling approximation and quantum error correction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.03708 , 2017. - · arXiv
  24. [28][28] Sergio Boixo, Sergei V Isakov, Vadim N Smelyanskiy, Ryan Babbush, Nan Ding, Zhang Jiang, John M Martinis, and Hartmut Neven. Characterizing quantum supremacy in near-term devices. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.00263 , 2016. - · arXiv
  25. [30][30] Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. A quantum approximate optimization algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028 , 2014. - · arXiv
  26. [31][31] Yangchao Shen, Xiang Zhang, Shuaining Zhang, JingNing Zhang, Man-Hong Yung, and Kihwan Kim. Quantum implementation of the unitary coupled cluster for simulating molecular electronic structure. Physical Review A , 95(2):020501, 2017. -
  27. [36][36] Jianwei Wang, Stefano Paesani, Raffaele Santagati, Sebastian Knauer, Antonio A Gentile, Nathan Wiebe, Maurangelo Petruzzella, Jeremy L O'Brien, John G Rarity, Anthony Laing, et al. Experimental quantum hamiltonian learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.05402 , 2017. - · arXiv
  28. [37][37] Gian Giacomo Guerreschi and Mikhail Smelyanskiy. Practical optimization for hybrid quantum-classical algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.01450 , 2017. - · arXiv
  29. [38][38] Jarrod R McClean, Mollie E Kimchi-Schwartz, Jonathan Carter, and Wibe A de Jong. Hybrid quantum-classical hierarchy for mitigation of decoherence and determination of excited states. Physical Review A , 95(4):042308, 2017. -
  30. [41][41] Emanuel Knill. Protected realizations of quantum information. Physical Review A , 74(4):042301, 2006. -
  31. [42][42] Paolo Zanardi. Virtual quantum subsystems. Physical Review Letters , 87(7):077901, 2001. -
  32. [43][43] David Poulin. Stabilizer formalism for operator quantum error correction. Physical Review Letters , 95(23):230504, 2005. -
  33. [44][44] Christoph Dankert, Richard Cleve, Joseph Emerson, and Etera Livine. Exact and approximate unitary 2-designs and their application to fidelity estimation. Physical Review A , 80(1):012304, 2009. -
  34. [45][45] Joseph Emerson, Robert Alicki, and Karol ˙ Zyczkowski. Scalable noise estimation with random unitary operators. Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics , 7(10):S347, 2005. -
  35. [47][47] Yoshifumi Nakata, Christoph Hirche, Ciara Morgan, and Andreas Winter. Unitary 2-designs from random x-and z-diagonal unitaries. Journal of Mathematical Physics , 58(5):052203, 2017. -
  36. [48][48] Stephen J Wright and Jorge Nocedal. Numerical optimization. Springer Science , 35(67-68):7, 1999. -
  37. [50][50] Michael R Geller and Zhongyuan Zhou. Efficient error models for fault-tolerant architectures and the pauli twirling approximation. Physical Review A , 88(1):012314, 2013. -
  38. [51][51] David J Wales and Jonathan PK Doye. Global optimization by basin-hopping and the lowest energy structures of lennard-jones clusters containing up to 110 atoms. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A , 101(28):5111-5116, 1997. -
  39. [52][52] Jonas Mockus. Bayesian approach to global optimization: theory and applications , volume 37. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012. -
  40. [53][53] Yu Tomita and Krysta M Svore. Low-distance surface codes under realistic quantum noise. Physical Review A , 90(6):062320, 2014. -
  41. [54][54] Mauricio Guti´ errez and Kenneth R Brown. Comparison of a quantum error-correction threshold for exact and approximate errors. Physical Review A , 91(2):022335, 2015. -
  42. [56][56] David Layden and Paola Cappellaro. Error-corrected quantum sensing with parallel signal and noise. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.06729 , 2017. - · arXiv
  43. [57][57] Easwar Magesan, Jay M Gambetta, Blake R Johnson, Colm A Ryan, Jerry M Chow, Seth T Merkel, Marcus P da Silva, George A Keefe, Mary B Rothwell, Thomas A Ohki, et al. Efficient measurement of quantum gate error by interleaved randomized benchmarking. Physical Review Letters , 109(8):080505, 2012. -
  44. [58][58] Yuval R Sanders, Joel J Wallman, and Barry C Sanders. Bounding quantum gate error rate based on reported average fidelity. New Journal of Physics , 18(1):012002, 2015. -
  45. [59][59] Joel J Wallman and Steven T Flammia. Randomized benchmarking with confidence. New Journal of Physics , 16(10):103032, 2014. -
  46. [60][60] Dennis Willsch, Madita Nocon, Fengping Jin, Hans De Raedt, and Kristel Michielsen. Gate error analysis in simulations of quantum computers with transmon qubits. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.06600 , 2017. - · arXiv
  47. [61][61] Rami Barends, Julian Kelly, Anthony Megrant, Daniel Sank, Evan Jeffrey, Yu Chen, Yi Yin, Ben Chiaro, Josh Mutus, Charles Neill, et al. Coherent josephson qubit suitable for scalable quantum integrated circuits. Physical Review Letters , 111(8):080502, 2013. -
  48. [62][62] J Robert Johansson, Paul D Nation, and Franco Nori. Qutip: An open-source python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems. Computer Physics Communications , 183(8):1760-1772, 2012. -
  49. [63][63] J Robert Johansson, Paul D Nation, and Franco Nori. Qutip 2: A python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems. Computer Physics Communications , 184(4):1234-1240, 2013. -
  50. [64][64] Paulo BM Sousa and Rubens V Ramos. Universal quantum circuit for n-qubit quantum gate: A programmable quantum gate. Quantum Information and Computation , 7(3):228-242, March 2007. -
  51. [65][65] Anmer Daskin, Ananth Grama, Giorgos Kollias, and Sabre Kais. Universal programmable quantum circuit schemes to emulate an operator. Journal of Chemical Physics , 137(23):234112, 2012. -
  52. [66][66] Nikolaj Moll, Panagiotis Barkoutsos, Lev S Bishop, Jerry M Chow, Andrew Cross, Daniel J Egger, Stefan Filipp, Andreas Fuhrer, Jay M Gambetta, Marc Ganzhorn, et al. Quantum optimization using variational algorithms on near-term quantum devices. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.01022 , 2017. - · arXiv
  53. [67][67] Richard H Byrd, Peihuang Lu, Jorge Nocedal, and Ciyou Zhu. A limited memory algorithm for bound constrained optimization. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computation , 16(5):1190-1208, 1995. -
  54. [69][69] Michael Grant and Stephen Boyd. Graph implementations for nonsmooth convex programs. Recent Advances in Learning and Control , pages 95-110, 2008.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Johnson, P. D., Romero, J., Olson, J., Cao, Y., & Aspuru-Guzik, A.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2017
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1711.02249
arXiv
1711.02249
OpenAlex
W2767328092
Cited by
50
References
11
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1655187)
  • Office of Naval Research (N00014‐16‐1‐2008, FA9550, N00014)
  • Division of Chemistry
  • Army Research Office (W911NF-15-1-0256, W911NF-15-1-, W911NF, W911NF-15)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum many-body systems
Keywords
quantum error correction, quantum machine learning, variational optimization, phase damping noise, amplitude damping noise, fault-tolerant quantum computing, near-term quantum devices

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review