\([[4,2,2]]\) Four-qubit code[1,2] 

Also known as \(C_4\) code.

Description

Four-qubit CSS stabilizer code is the smallest qubit stabilizer code to detect a single-qubit error.

Admits generators \(\{XXXX, ZZZZ\} \) and codewords \begin{align} \begin{split} |\overline{00}\rangle = (|0000\rangle + |1111\rangle)/\sqrt{2}~{\phantom{.}}\\ |\overline{01}\rangle = (|0011\rangle + |1100\rangle)/\sqrt{2}~{\phantom{.}}\\ |\overline{10}\rangle = (|0101\rangle + |1010\rangle)/\sqrt{2}~{\phantom{.}}\\ |\overline{11}\rangle = (|0110\rangle + |1001\rangle)/\sqrt{2}~. \end{split} \tag*{(1)}\end{align} This code is the smallest instance of the toric code, and its various single-qubit subcodes are small planar surface codes. It is the unique code for its parameters, up to local equivalence [3; Thm. 8].

The subcode \(\{|\overline{00}\rangle,|\overline{01}\rangle\}\) is a \([[4,1,2]]\) code [4], whose \(\pm\)-basis codewords can be written as \begin{align} |\overline{\pm}\rangle = \frac{1}{2}(|00\rangle \pm |11\rangle)^{\otimes 2}~.\tag*{(2)}\\ \end{align} This code can be thought of as a concatenation of a two-qubit bit-flip with a two-qubit phase-flip code.

Protection

Detects a single-qubit error [1] or single erasure [2]. Not able to correct arbitrary single-qubit errors because \( \lfloor \frac{d-1}{2} \rfloor =0 \).

The \([[4,1,2]]\) subcodes \(\{|\overline{00}\rangle,|\overline{10}\rangle\}\) [4] and \(\{|\overline{01}\rangle,|\overline{11}\rangle\}\) [5] approximately correct a single AD error, with the latter being a constant excitation code.

Magic

Various magic-state distillation protocols exist for the \([[4,2,2]]\) qubit code and the \([[6,2,2]]\) \(C_6\) code in what are known as Meier-Eastin-Knill (MEK) protocols [6]. For example, the magic-state yield parameter is \(\gamma = \log_2 5 \approx 2.322\) for a protocol using the \([[10,2,2]]\) code [7; Box 2]; see also [8; Table IV].

Transversal Gates

Transversal Pauli, Hadamard, and two-qubit \(S=\sqrt{Z}\) [9] (see also [10]).A transversal \(CZ\) gate is realized by the rotation \(\sqrt{Z}\otimes\sqrt{Z}^{\dagger}\otimes\sqrt{Z}^{\dagger}\otimes\sqrt{Z}\).Adding \(XYZI\) to the stabilizer group produces a \([[4,1,2]]\) subcode that admits weight-two transversal logical Pauli operations [11].

Fault Tolerance

Preparation of certain states, both magic and non-magic, along with transversal gates can be performed fault-tolerantly, but requires post-selection because the code cannot correct errors [9]. Magic states can be injected into surface and color codes since the code is a small instance of both [12].Concatenations of \([[4,2,2]]\) and \([[6,2,2]]\) \(C_6\) codes yield fault-tolerant quantum computation schemes [13] (see also Ref. [14]).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 [15,16].

Realizations

\([[4,1,2]]\) subcode implemented using four-qubit graph state of photons [17].Trapped-ion device by IonQ [18].Logical state preparation and flag-qubit error correction realized in superconducting-circuit devices by IBM [19–22].The subcode \(\{|\overline{00}\rangle,|\overline{10}\rangle\}\) [23] and \(\{|\overline{00}\rangle,|\overline{01}\rangle\}\) [24], treated as a planar surface code, has been realized in superconducting-circuit devices.Logical gates between two copies of the subcode \(\{|\overline{10}\rangle,|\overline{11}\rangle\}\), interpreted as lattice surgery between planar surface codes, realized in superconducting circuits [25].Logical gates for the \(\{|\overline{00}\rangle,|\overline{11}\rangle\}\) subcode, treated as a planar code, realized in superconducting circuits [26].The CZ magic state has been realized on an IBM heavy-hex superconducting circuit device [12].Logical Clifford gates for a twist-defect surface code that is single-qubit Clifford equivalent to a \([[4,1,2]]\) realized in a trapped ion device by Quantinuum [27].CPC gadgets for the \([[4,2,2]]\) code have been implemented on the IBM 5Q superconducting device [28].

Parents

  • Toric code — The \([[4,2,2]]\) code is the smallest toric code. Concatenating the \([[4,2,2]]\) code with the surface code is equivalent to removing stabilizer generators from the 4.8.8 color code [29].
  • 2D color code — The \([[4,2,2]]\) code can be interpreted as a 2D color code on a square of the 4.8.8 or 4.6.12 tilings, or on a trapezoidal patch that makes up two-thirds of a hexagon of the 6.6.6 tiling [12,30]. Concatenating the \([[4,2,2]]\) code with the surface code is equivalent to removing stabilizer generators from the 4.8.8 color code [29]. Concatenating the \([[4,2,2]]\) code with two copies of the surface code yields the 4.6.12 color code [29]. A small 6.6.6 color code is a \([[4,1,2]]\) subcode with three weight-three stabilizer generators [31; Fig. 7]; this code is equivalent to a twist-defect surface code on a tetrahedron inscribed in a sphere [27] via a single-qubit Clifford circuit.
  • Twist-defect surface code — A small 6.6.6 color code is a \([[4,1,2]]\) subcode with three weight-three stabilizer generators [31; Fig. 7]; this code is equivalent to a twist-defect surface code on a tetrahedron inscribed in a sphere [27] via a single-qubit Clifford circuit.
  • \([[2^D,D,2]]\) hypercube quantum code — The \([[4,2,2]]\) code is a hypercube code for \(D=2\).
  • \([[2m,2m-2,2]]\) error-detecting code — The \([[2m,2m-2,2]]\) error-detecting code for \(m=2\) reduces to the \([[4,2,2]]\) code.
  • \([[4,2,2]]_{G}\) four group-qudit code — The four group-qudit code reduces to the four-rotor code for \(G= \mathbb{Z}_2\).
  • Quantum polar code — \([[4,2,2]]\) code is a small quantum polar code [32].

Cousins

  • Rotated surface code — The subcodes \(\{|\overline{10}\rangle,|\overline{11}\rangle\}\) [25], \(\{|\overline{00}\rangle,|\overline{10}\rangle\}\) [23], \(\{|\overline{00}\rangle,|\overline{01}\rangle\}\) [24], and \(\{|\overline{00}\rangle,|\overline{11}\rangle\}\) [26] of the \([[4,2,2]]\) code are small planar rotated surface codes.
  • Quantum parity code (QPC) — 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. 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 [5,33,34].
  • Five-qubit perfect code — The \([[4,2,2]]\) code can be derived from the five-qubit code using a protocol that converts an \([[n,k,d]]\) code into an \([[n-1, k+1, d-1]]\) code [35; Sec. 3.5].
  • Amplitude-damping (AD) code — The \([[4,1,2]]\) subcode \(\{|\overline{00}\rangle,|\overline{10}\rangle\}\) (approximately) corrects a single AD error [4].
  • Binomial code — \([[4,1,2]]\) subcode consisting of \(|\overline{00}\rangle\) and any other codeword reduces to the \(0,2,4\) binomial code when the basis labels in each codeword are written as in base-ten. Such a mapping can be generalized [36].
  • Heavy-hexagon code — Magic states prepared using the \([[4,1,2]]\) subcode can be injected into the heavy-hex code [12,22].
  • Concatenated 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 [13] (see also Ref. [14]). 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 [15,16].' 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 [5,33,34]. More generally, an \([[m^2,1,m]]\) QPC corrects \(m-1\) AD errors [37].
  • Codeword stabilized (CWS) code — A \([[4,1,2]]\) subcode can be thought of as a CWS code [38].
  • \([[7,1,3]]\) Steane code — The Steane code can be built from two \([[4,2,2]]\) codes in the quantum Lego code framework [39].
  • \([[6,2,2]]\) \(C_6\) code — The \([[6,4,2]]\) error-detecting code can be constructed out of two \([[4,2,2]]\) codes in the quantum Lego code framework.
  • Coherent-parity-check (CPC) code — CPC gadgets for the \([[4,2,2]]\) code have been implemented on the IBM 5Q superconducting device [28].
  • Dual-rail quantum code — 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 [5,33,34]. More generally, an \([[m^2,1,m]]\) QPC corrects \(m-1\) AD errors [37].
  • Concatenated GKP code — Recursively concatenating the \([[6,2,2]]\) and \([[4,2,2]]\) codes with GKP codes achieves the hashing bound of the displacement channel [40].
  • Quantum Lego code — The Steane and \([[6,4,2]]\) error-detecting codes can be built from two \([[4,2,2]]\) codes in the quantum Lego code framework [39].
  • Ladder Floquet code — The smallest example of the ladder Floquet code is a dynamical version of the \([[4,2,2]]\) code [41].
  • Jump code — The subcode \(\{|\overline{01}\rangle,|\overline{11}\rangle\}\) [5] is a \(((4,2,1))_2\) jump code correcting a single AD error. This code can be extended to a \(((4,3,1))_2\) jump code \(\{|\overline{01}\rangle,|\overline{10}\rangle,|\overline{11}\rangle\}\) [42].
  • Hybrid stabilizer code — The \([[4,2,2]]\) codewords can be modified by signs to yield a \([[4,1:1,2]]\) hybrid stabilizer code [43].
  • Four-qubit single-deletion code — A basis of codewords for the four-qubit single-deletion code consists of the \(|\overline{00}\rangle\) and \(|\overline{01}\rangle+|\overline{10}\rangle+|\overline{11}\rangle\)states of the four-qubit code.
  • \([[6,2,2]]\) \(C_6\) code — Concatenations of \([[4,2,2]]\) and \([[6,2,2]]\) \(C_6\) codes yield fault-tolerant quantum computation schemes [13] (see also Ref. [14]) and the Meier-Eastin-Knill (MEK) magic-state distillation protocols [6]. 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 [15,16].
  • \([[2^r-1, 2^r-2r-1, 3]]\) 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 [15].
  • \([[4,1,1,2]]\) Four-qubit subsystem code — The \([[4,1,1,2]]\) code can be obtained by picking one of the logical qubits of the \([[4,2,2]]\) four-qubit code to be a gauge qubit; e.g., see Ref. [41]. One particular gauge configuration has gauge operators \(\{XXII,IIXX,ZIZI,IZIZ\}\).
  • Heavy-hexagon code — The \(d=2\) heavy-hexagonal code is closely related to the \([[4,1,2]]\) subcode.

References

[1]
L. Vaidman, L. Goldenberg, and S. Wiesner, “Error prevention scheme with four particles”, Physical Review A 54, R1745 (1996) arXiv:quant-ph/9603031 DOI
[2]
M. Grassl, Th. Beth, and T. Pellizzari, “Codes for the quantum erasure channel”, Physical Review A 56, 33 (1997) arXiv:quant-ph/9610042 DOI
[3]
E. M. Rains, “Quantum codes of minimum distance two”, (1997) arXiv:quant-ph/9704043
[4]
D. W. Leung et al., “Approximate quantum error correction can lead to better codes”, Physical Review A 56, 2567 (1997) arXiv:quant-ph/9704002 DOI
[5]
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
[6]
A. M. Meier, B. Eastin, and E. Knill, “Magic-state distillation with the four-qubit code”, (2012) arXiv:1204.4221
[7]
E. T. Campbell, B. M. Terhal, and C. Vuillot, “Roads towards fault-tolerant universal quantum computation”, Nature 549, 172 (2017) arXiv:1612.07330 DOI
[8]
Quantum Information and Computation 18, (2018) arXiv:1709.02789 DOI
[9]
D. Gottesman, “Quantum fault tolerance in small experiments”, (2016) arXiv:1610.03507
[10]
H. Chen et al., “Automated discovery of logical gates for quantum error correction (with Supplementary (153 pages))”, Quantum Information and Computation 22, 947 (2022) arXiv:1912.10063 DOI
[11]
S. P. Jordan, E. Farhi, and P. W. Shor, “Error-correcting codes for adiabatic quantum computation”, Physical Review A 74, (2006) arXiv:quant-ph/0512170 DOI
[12]
R. S. Gupta et al., “Encoding a magic state with beyond break-even fidelity”, Nature 625, 259 (2024) arXiv:2305.13581 DOI
[13]
E. Knill, “Quantum computing with realistically noisy devices”, Nature 434, 39 (2005) arXiv:quant-ph/0410199 DOI
[14]
J. Cho, “Fault-tolerant linear optics quantum computation by error-detecting quantum state transfer”, Physical Review A 76, (2007) arXiv:quant-ph/0612073 DOI
[15]
H. Yamasaki and M. Koashi, “Time-Efficient Constant-Space-Overhead Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation”, Nature Physics 20, 247 (2024) arXiv:2207.08826 DOI
[16]
S. Yoshida, S. Tamiya, and H. Yamasaki, “Concatenate codes, save qubits”, (2024) arXiv:2402.09606
[17]
B. A. Bell et al., “Experimental demonstration of a graph state quantum error-correction code”, Nature Communications 5, (2014) arXiv:1404.5498 DOI
[18]
N. M. Linke et al., “Fault-tolerant quantum error detection”, Science Advances 3, (2017) arXiv:1611.06946 DOI
[19]
M. Takita et al., “Experimental Demonstration of Fault-Tolerant State Preparation with Superconducting Qubits”, Physical Review Letters 119, (2017) arXiv:1705.09259 DOI
[20]
Quantum Information and Computation 18, (2018) arXiv:1705.08957 DOI
[21]
R. Harper and S. T. Flammia, “Fault-Tolerant Logical Gates in the IBM Quantum Experience”, Physical Review Letters 122, (2019) arXiv:1806.02359 DOI
[22]
E. H. Chen et al., “Calibrated Decoders for Experimental Quantum Error Correction”, Physical Review Letters 128, (2022) arXiv:2110.04285 DOI
[23]
C. K. Andersen et al., “Repeated quantum error detection in a surface code”, Nature Physics 16, 875 (2020) arXiv:1912.09410 DOI
[24]
“Exponential suppression of bit or phase errors with cyclic error correction”, Nature 595, 383 (2021) arXiv:2102.06132 DOI
[25]
A. Erhard et al., “Entangling logical qubits with lattice surgery”, Nature 589, 220 (2021) arXiv:2006.03071 DOI
[26]
J. F. Marques et al., “Logical-qubit operations in an error-detecting surface code”, Nature Physics 18, 80 (2021) arXiv:2102.13071 DOI
[27]
S. Burton, E. Durso-Sabina, and N. C. Brown, “Genons, Double Covers and Fault-tolerant Clifford Gates”, (2024) arXiv:2406.09951
[28]
J. Roffe et al., “Protecting quantum memories using coherent parity check codes”, Quantum Science and Technology 3, 035010 (2018) arXiv:1709.01866 DOI
[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]
M. S. Kesselring et al., “Anyon Condensation and the Color Code”, PRX Quantum 5, (2024) arXiv:2212.00042 DOI
[31]
M. S. Kesselring et al., “The boundaries and twist defects of the color code and their applications to topological quantum computation”, Quantum 2, 101 (2018) arXiv:1806.02820 DOI
[32]
Kyungjoo Noh, Leung code as quantum polar code, 2017.
[33]
T. C. Ralph, A. J. F. Hayes, and A. Gilchrist, “Loss-Tolerant Optical Qubits”, Physical Review Letters 95, (2005) arXiv:quant-ph/0501184 DOI
[34]
Y. Ouyang, “Avoiding coherent errors with rotated concatenated stabilizer codes”, npj Quantum Information 7, (2021) arXiv:2010.00538 DOI
[35]
D. Gottesman, “Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction”, (1997) arXiv:quant-ph/9705052
[36]
Linshu Li, private communication, 2018
[37]
R. Duan et al., “Multi-error-correcting amplitude damping codes”, 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (2010) arXiv:1001.2356 DOI
[38]
C. Cafaro, D. Markham, and P. van Loock, “Scheme for constructing graphs associated with stabilizer quantum codes”, (2014) arXiv:1407.2777
[39]
C. Cao and B. Lackey, “Quantum Lego: Building Quantum Error Correction Codes from Tensor Networks”, PRX Quantum 3, (2022) arXiv:2109.08158 DOI
[40]
K. Fukui et al., “High-Threshold Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation with Analog Quantum Error Correction”, Physical Review X 8, (2018) arXiv:1712.00294 DOI
[41]
V. V. Albert, Boulder School 2023 Lecture notes
[42]
G. Alber et al., “Detected-jump-error-correcting quantum codes, quantum error designs, and quantum computation”, Physical Review A 68, (2003) arXiv:quant-ph/0208140 DOI
[43]
S. Majidy, “A Unification of the Coding Theory and OAQEC Perspectives on Hybrid Codes”, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 62, (2023) arXiv:1806.03702 DOI
Page edit log

Your contribution is welcome!

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

edit on this site

Zoo Code ID: stab_4_2_2

Cite as:
“\([[4,2,2]]\) Four-qubit code”, The Error Correction Zoo (V. V. Albert & P. Faist, eds.), 2024. https://errorcorrectionzoo.org/c/stab_4_2_2
BibTeX:
@incollection{eczoo_stab_4_2_2, title={\([[4,2,2]]\) Four-qubit code}, booktitle={The Error Correction Zoo}, year={2024}, editor={Albert, Victor V. and Faist, Philippe}, url={https://errorcorrectionzoo.org/c/stab_4_2_2} }
Share via:
Twitter | Mastodon |  | E-mail
Permanent link:
https://errorcorrectionzoo.org/c/stab_4_2_2

Cite as:

“\([[4,2,2]]\) Four-qubit code”, The Error Correction Zoo (V. V. Albert & P. Faist, eds.), 2024. https://errorcorrectionzoo.org/c/stab_4_2_2

Github: https://github.com/errorcorrectionzoo/eczoo_data/edit/main/codes/quantum/qubits/small_distance/small/stab_4_2_2.yml.