Concatenated quantum code[1] 

Description

A combination of two quantum codes, an inner code \(C\) and an outer code \(C^\prime\), where the physical subspace used for the inner code consists of the logical subspace of the outer code. In other words, first one encodes in the inner code \(C^\prime\), and then one encodes each of the physical registers of \(C^\prime\) in an outer code \(C\). An inner \(C = ((n_1,K,d_1))_{q_1}\) and outer \(C^\prime = ((n_2,q_1,d_2))\) block quantum code yield an \(((n_1 n_2, K, d \geq d_1d_2))_{q_2}\) concatenated quantum code [2].

Concatenating an \(((n,q,d))_q\) block quantum code can be done recursively, with the \(r\)th level of concatenation yielding an \(n^r,q,d^r))_q\) code.

A generalization of concatenation exists [3].

Protection

Concatenating stabilizer codes can help protect against carastrophic errors such as cosmic rays [4].

Decoding

The effective channel for a concatenation of codes is the composition of the codes' effective channels [5].Message passing algorithm for concatenated codes can be equivalent to ML decoding [6].

Threshold

The first methods to achieve a fault-tolerant computational threshold use concatenated stabilizer codes [713]. Such methods require constant-space and polylogarithmic time overhead, but concatentions using quantum Hamming codes improve this to quasi-polylogarithmic time [14].

Notes

See the book [2] for an introduction.

Parent

  • Quantum Lego code — Encoders for a concatenated codes correspond to tree tensor networks.

Children

Cousins

  • Gauss' law code — The Gauss' law code can be concatenated to form a stabilizer code for fault-tolerant quantum simulation of the underlying gauge theory [15,16].
  • Concatenated code
  • Concatenated c-q code
  • Rotor GKP code — The rotor GKP code can be thought of as a concatenation of a homological rotor code and a modular-qudit GKP code [17; Fig. 3].
  • \([[4,2,2]]_{G}\) four group-qudit code — The \(|\overline{g_1=1,g_2}\rangle\) \([[4,1,2]]_{G}\) subcode is the smallest group-based QPC, i.e., a concatenation of a two-qubit bit-flip with a two-qubit phase-flip group-based repetition code for that group.
  • Dual-rail quantum code — The KLM protocol, one of the first protocols for fault-tolerant quantum computation, utilizes concatenations of the dual-rail with a stabilizer code [18]. Concatenating the dual-rail code with an \([[n,k,d]]\) stabilizer code yields an \([[2n,k,d]]\) constant-excitation code [19] that protects against \(d-1\) AD errors [20].
  • Two-mode binomial code — Two-mode binomial codes can be concatenated with repetition codes to yield bosonic analogues of QPCs [21].
  • Amplitude-damping (AD) code — Concatenated quantum codes can protect against AD [22].
  • EA qubit stabilizer code — EA concatenated codes have been studied [23,24].
  • \(((n,1,2))\) Bravyi-Lee-Li-Yoshida PI code — The Bravyi-Lee-Li-Yoshida PI code can be concatenated to yield codes that have higher distance and that admit codewords with vanishing entanglement [25; Appx. D].
  • \([[2^D,D,2]]\) hypercube code — The hypercube code can be concatenated with a two-qubit quantum repetition code to yield a \([[2^{D+1},D,4]]\) error-detecting code family [26]. It can also be concatenated with a distance-two \(D\)-dimensional surface code to yield a \([[2^D(2^D+1),D,4]]\) error-correcting code family that admits a transversal implementation of the logical \(C^{D-1}Z\) gate [26].
  • \([[9,1,3]]\) Shor code — The Shor code is a concatenation of a three-qubit bit-flip with a three-qubit phase-flip repetition code.
  • \([[4,2,2]]\) Four-qubit code — The \(\{|\overline{00}\rangle,|\overline{01}\rangle\}\) \([[4,1,2]]\) subcode is the smallest QPC, i.e., a concatenation of a two-qubit bit-flip with a two-qubit phase-flip repetition code. Concatenations of \([[4,2,2]]\) and \([[6,2,2]]\) \(C_6\) codes yield fault-tolerant quantum computation schemes [27]. Concatenations of quantum Hamming codes with the \([[4,2,2]]\) and \([[6,2,2]]\) \(C_6\) codes yield fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant space and quasi-polylogarithmic time overheads [14,28].' Concatenating the \([[4,2,2]]\) code with the surface code is equivalent to removing stabilizer generators from the 4.8.8 color code [29]. The \([[4,2,2]]\) code can be concatenated with two copies of the surface code to yield the 4.6.12 color code [29]. An \([[8,1,2]]\) QPC correcting a single AD error is equivalent to a concatenation of the \(\{|\overline{01}\rangle,|\overline{11}\rangle\}\) (constant-excitation) subcode of the \([[4,2,2]]\) code with the dual-rail code [19,30,31]. More generally, an \([[m^2,1,m]]\) QPC corrects \(m-1\) AD errors [20].
  • Five-qubit perfect code — The concatenated five-qubit code has a measurement threshold of one [32]. Code performance against general Pauli channels has been worked out [5,33].
  • \([[6,2,2]]\) \(C_6\) code — Concatenations of \([[4,2,2]]\) and \([[6,2,2]]\) \(C_6\) codes yield fault-tolerant quantum computation schemes [27] and the Meier-Eastin-Knill (MEK) magic-state distillation protocols [34]. Concatenations of quantum Hamming codes with the \([[4,2,2]]\) and \([[6,2,2]]\) \(C_6\) codes yield fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant space and quasi-polylogarithmic time overheads [14,28].
  • \([[6,4,2]]\) error-detecting code — Concatenations of this code with itself yield the level-\(r\) \([[6^r,4^r,2^r]]\) many-hypercube code [35]. The \([[6,4,2]]\) code can be concatenated with the surface code to yield the 6.6.6 color code [29; Appx. A].
  • \([[8,3,2]]\) CSS code — The \([[8,3,2]]\) code can be concatenated with a 3D surface code to yield a \([[O(d^3),3,2d]]\) code family that admits a transversal implementation of the logical \(CCZ\) gate [26].
  • Layer code — Each pair of surface-code squares in a layer code are fused (or quasi-concatenated) with perpendicular surface-code squares via lattice surgery.
  • Quantum divisible code — A fault-tolerant \(T\) gate on the five-qubit or Steane code can be obtained by concatenating with particular quantum divisible codes [36].
  • Raussendorf-Bravyi-Harrington (RBH) cluster-state code — Concatenation of the RBH code with small codes such as the \([[2,1,1]]\) repetition code, \([[4,1,1,2]]\) subsystem code, or Steane code can improve thresholds [37].
  • \([[2^r-1, 2^r-2r-1, 3]]\) quantum Hamming code — Concatenations of quantum Hamming codes with the \([[4,2,2]]\) and \([[6,2,2]]\) \(C_6\) codes yield fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant space and quasi-polylogarithmic time overheads [14].
  • 3D color code — The 3D color code is equivalent to multiple decoupled copies of the 3D surface code via a local constant-depth Clifford circuit [3840]. This process can be viewed as an ungauging [4143,43] of certain symmetries. This mapping can also be done via code concatenation [44].
  • \([[15,1,3]]\) quantum Reed-Muller code — The concatenated \([[15,1,3]]\) code has a measurement threshold less than one [32].
  • Subsystem homological product code — Concatenated CSS stabilizer codes are gauge-fixed SP codes [45; Thm. 4].
  • Modular-qudit CWS code — Generalized concatenatenations of modular-qudit CWS codes yield a family of codes that have larger logical dimension than stabilizer codes and that asymptotically approach the modular-qudit Hamming bound [3].
  • \([[9,1,3]]_{\mathbb{Z}_q}\) modular-qudit code — The \([[9,1,3]]_{\mathbb{Z}_q}\) modular-qudit code is a concatenation of a two-group-qudit bit-flip with a two-qubit phase-flip group repetition code for \(G=\mathbb{Z}_q\).
  • Galois-qudit GRS code — Concatenations of quantum GRS codes and random stabilizer codes can achieve the quantum Gilbert-Varshamov bound [46].

References

[1]
E. Knill and R. Laflamme, “Concatenated Quantum Codes”, (1996) arXiv:quant-ph/9608012
[2]
D. Gottesman. Surviving as a quantum computer in a classical world (2024) URL
[3]
M. Grassl et al., “Generalized concatenated quantum codes”, Physical Review A 79, (2009) arXiv:0901.1319 DOI
[4]
Q. Xu et al., “Distributed Quantum Error Correction for Chip-Level Catastrophic Errors”, Physical Review Letters 129, (2022) arXiv:2203.16488 DOI
[5]
B. Rahn, A. C. Doherty, and H. Mabuchi, “Exact performance of concatenated quantum codes”, Physical Review A 66, (2002) arXiv:quant-ph/0206061 DOI
[6]
D. Poulin, “Optimal and efficient decoding of concatenated quantum block codes”, Physical Review A 74, (2006) arXiv:quant-ph/0606126 DOI
[7]
E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and W. H. Zurek, “Resilient quantum computation: error models and thresholds”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 454, 365 (1998) arXiv:quant-ph/9702058 DOI
[8]
J. Preskill, “Reliable quantum computers”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 454, 385 (1998) arXiv:quant-ph/9705031 DOI
[9]
D. Gottesman, “Fault-tolerant quantum computation with local gates”, Journal of Modern Optics 47, 333 (2000) arXiv:quant-ph/9903099 DOI
[10]
D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, “Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation With Constant Error Rate”, (1999) arXiv:quant-ph/9906129
[11]
K. M. Svore, B. M. Terhal, and D. P. DiVincenzo, “Local fault-tolerant quantum computation”, Physical Review A 72, (2005) arXiv:quant-ph/0410047 DOI
[12]
P. Aliferis, D. Gottesman, and J. Preskill, “Quantum accuracy threshold for concatenated distance-3 codes”, (2005) arXiv:quant-ph/0504218
[13]
K. M. Svore, D. P. DiVincenzo, and B. M. Terhal, “Noise Threshold for a Fault-Tolerant Two-Dimensional Lattice Architecture”, (2006) arXiv:quant-ph/0604090
[14]
H. Yamasaki and M. Koashi, “Time-Efficient Constant-Space-Overhead Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation”, Nature Physics 20, 247 (2024) arXiv:2207.08826 DOI
[15]
A. Rajput, A. Roggero, and N. Wiebe, “Quantum Error Correction with Gauge Symmetries”, (2022) arXiv:2112.05186
[16]
L. Spagnoli, A. Roggero, and N. Wiebe, “Fault-tolerant simulation of Lattice Gauge Theories with gauge covariant codes”, (2024) arXiv:2405.19293
[17]
Y. Xu, Y. Wang, and V. V. Albert, “Clifford operations and homological codes for rotors and oscillators”, (2024) arXiv:2311.07679
[18]
E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, “A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics”, Nature 409, 46 (2001) DOI
[19]
Y. Ouyang, “Avoiding coherent errors with rotated concatenated stabilizer codes”, npj Quantum Information 7, (2021) arXiv:2010.00538 DOI
[20]
R. Duan et al., “Multi-error-correcting amplitude damping codes”, 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (2010) arXiv:1001.2356 DOI
[21]
M. Bergmann and P. van Loock, “Quantum error correction against photon loss using NOON states”, Physical Review A 94, (2016) arXiv:1512.07605 DOI
[22]
T. Jackson, M. Grassl, and B. Zeng, “Concatenated codes for amplitude damping”, 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) (2016) arXiv:1601.07423 DOI
[23]
J. Fan et al., “Entanglement-assisted concatenated quantum codes”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, (2022) arXiv:2202.08084 DOI
[24]
T. Sidana and N. Kashyap, “Entanglement-Assisted Quantum Error-Correcting Codes over Local Frobenius Rings”, (2023) arXiv:2202.00248
[25]
S. Bravyi et al., “How much entanglement is needed for quantum error correction?”, (2024) arXiv:2405.01332
[26]
D. Hangleiter et al., “Fault-tolerant compiling of classically hard IQP circuits on hypercubes”, (2024) arXiv:2404.19005
[27]
E. Knill, “Quantum computing with realistically noisy devices”, Nature 434, 39 (2005) arXiv:quant-ph/0410199 DOI
[28]
S. Yoshida, S. Tamiya, and H. Yamasaki, “Concatenate codes, save qubits”, (2024) arXiv:2402.09606
[29]
B. Criger and B. Terhal, “Noise thresholds for the [4,2,2]-concatenated toric code”, Quantum Information and Computation 16, 1261 (2016) arXiv:1604.04062 DOI
[30]
G. Alber et al., “Stabilizing Distinguishable Qubits against Spontaneous Decay by Detected-Jump Correcting Quantum Codes”, Physical Review Letters 86, 4402 (2001) arXiv:quant-ph/0103042 DOI
[31]
T. C. Ralph, A. J. F. Hayes, and A. Gilchrist, “Loss-Tolerant Optical Qubits”, Physical Review Letters 95, (2005) arXiv:quant-ph/0501184 DOI
[32]
D. Lee and B. Yoshida, “Randomly Monitored Quantum Codes”, (2024) arXiv:2402.00145
[33]
B. Rahn, A. C. Doherty, and H. Mabuchi, “Exact and Approximate Performance of Concatenated Quantum Codes”, (2001) arXiv:quant-ph/0111003
[34]
A. M. Meier, B. Eastin, and E. Knill, “Magic-state distillation with the four-qubit code”, (2012) arXiv:1204.4221
[35]
H. Goto, “Many-hypercube codes: High-rate quantum error-correcting codes for high-performance fault-tolerant quantum computation”, (2024) arXiv:2403.16054
[36]
J. Hu, Q. Liang, and R. Calderbank, “Divisible Codes for Quantum Computation”, (2022) arXiv:2204.13176
[37]
Z. Li, I. Kim, and P. Hayden, “Concatenation Schemes for Topological Fault-tolerant Quantum Error Correction”, Quantum 7, 1089 (2023) arXiv:2209.09390 DOI
[38]
B. Yoshida, “Classification of quantum phases and topology of logical operators in an exactly solved model of quantum codes”, Annals of Physics 326, 15 (2011) arXiv:1007.4601 DOI
[39]
A. Kubica, B. Yoshida, and F. Pastawski, “Unfolding the color code”, New Journal of Physics 17, 083026 (2015) arXiv:1503.02065 DOI
[40]
A. B. Aloshious, A. N. Bhagoji, and P. K. Sarvepalli, “On the Local Equivalence of 2D Color Codes and Surface Codes with Applications”, (2018) arXiv:1804.00866
[41]
M. Levin and Z.-C. Gu, “Braiding statistics approach to symmetry-protected topological phases”, Physical Review B 86, (2012) arXiv:1202.3120 DOI
[42]
L. Bhardwaj, D. Gaiotto, and A. Kapustin, “State sum constructions of spin-TFTs and string net constructions of fermionic phases of matter”, Journal of High Energy Physics 2017, (2017) arXiv:1605.01640 DOI
[43]
W. Shirley, K. Slagle, and X. Chen, “Foliated fracton order from gauging subsystem symmetries”, SciPost Physics 6, (2019) arXiv:1806.08679 DOI
[44]
M. Vasmer and D. E. Browne, “Three-dimensional surface codes: Transversal gates and fault-tolerant architectures”, Physical Review A 100, (2019) arXiv:1801.04255 DOI
[45]
W. Zeng and L. P. Pryadko, “Minimal distances for certain quantum product codes and tensor products of chain complexes”, Physical Review A 102, (2020) arXiv:2007.12152 DOI
[46]
Y. Ouyang, “Concatenated Quantum Codes Can Attain the Quantum Gilbert–Varshamov Bound”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 60, 3117 (2014) arXiv:1004.1127 DOI
Page edit log

Your contribution is welcome!

on github.com (edit & pull request)— see instructions

edit on this site

Zoo Code ID: quantum_concatenated

Cite as:
“Concatenated quantum code”, The Error Correction Zoo (V. V. Albert & P. Faist, eds.), 2022. https://errorcorrectionzoo.org/c/quantum_concatenated
BibTeX:
@incollection{eczoo_quantum_concatenated, title={Concatenated quantum code}, booktitle={The Error Correction Zoo}, year={2022}, editor={Albert, Victor V. and Faist, Philippe}, url={https://errorcorrectionzoo.org/c/quantum_concatenated} }
Share via:
Twitter | Mastodon |  | E-mail
Permanent link:
https://errorcorrectionzoo.org/c/quantum_concatenated

Cite as:

“Concatenated quantum code”, The Error Correction Zoo (V. V. Albert & P. Faist, eds.), 2022. https://errorcorrectionzoo.org/c/quantum_concatenated

Github: https://github.com/errorcorrectionzoo/eczoo_data/edit/main/codes/quantum/properties/quantum_concatenated.yml.