Write BB code paragraph
This commit is contained in:
@@ -38,6 +38,11 @@
|
||||
long=low-density parity-check
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
\DeclareAcronym{qldpc}{
|
||||
short=QLDPC,
|
||||
long=quantum low-density parity-check
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
\DeclareAcronym{ml}{
|
||||
short=ML,
|
||||
long=maximum likelihood
|
||||
@@ -82,3 +87,8 @@
|
||||
short=PDF,
|
||||
long=probability density function
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
\DeclareAcronym{bb}{
|
||||
short=BB,
|
||||
long=bivariate bicycle
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1400,23 +1400,47 @@ corresponding physical qubit, the rest to the $Z$ operators.
|
||||
\label{fig:sec}
|
||||
\end{figure}
|
||||
|
||||
% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||
% \subsection{Decoding Stabilizer Codes}
|
||||
% \label{subsec:Decoding Stabilizer Codes}
|
||||
%
|
||||
%
|
||||
%
|
||||
% \noindent\indent\red{[The QEC decoding problem
|
||||
% \cite[Sec.~2.3]{yao_belief_2024}]} \\
|
||||
% \indent\red{[+ Degeneracy]} \\
|
||||
% \indent\red{[``The task of decoding is therefore to infer, from a
|
||||
% measured syndrome, the most likely error coset rather than the exact
|
||||
% physical error.''
|
||||
% % tex-fmt: off
|
||||
% \cite[Sec.~II~B)]{koutsioumpas_colour_2025}%
|
||||
% % tex-fmt: on
|
||||
% ]} \\
|
||||
% \indent\red{[Fixing the error after finding it
|
||||
% \cite[Sec.~10.5.5]{nielsen_quantum_2010} -> This
|
||||
% may require introducing the gates as unitary]}
|
||||
|
||||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||
\subsection{Calderbank-Shor-Steane Codes}
|
||||
\label{subsec:Calderbank-Shor-Steane Codes}
|
||||
|
||||
% Intro
|
||||
|
||||
Stabilizer codes are especially practical to work with when they can
|
||||
handle $X$- and $Z$-type errors independently.
|
||||
handle $X$ and $Z$ type errors independently.
|
||||
As $Z$ errors anti-commute with $X$ operators in the stabilizers and
|
||||
vice versa, this property translates into being able to split the
|
||||
stabilizers into some being made up of only $X$
|
||||
operators and some only of $Z$ operators.
|
||||
We call such codes \ac{css} codes.
|
||||
We can see this property in \autoref{eq:steane}, in the check matrix
|
||||
We can see this property in \autoref{eq:steane} in the check matrix
|
||||
of the Steane code.
|
||||
|
||||
% Construction
|
||||
|
||||
We can exploit this separate consideration of $X$ and $Z$ errors in
|
||||
the construction of \ac{css} codes.
|
||||
We can combine two binary linear codes $\mathcal{C}_1$ and
|
||||
We combine two binary linear codes $\mathcal{C}_1$ and
|
||||
$\mathcal{C}_2$, each responsible for correcting one type of error
|
||||
\cite[Sec.~10.5.6]{nielsen_quantum_2010}.
|
||||
Using the dual code of $\mathcal{C}_2$ \cite[Eq.~3.4]{ryan_channel_2009}
|
||||
@@ -1437,10 +1461,11 @@ we can construct the check matrix as
|
||||
\end{align*}
|
||||
In order to yield a valid stabilizer code, $\mathcal{C}_1$ and
|
||||
$\mathcal{C}_2$ must satisfy the commutativity condition
|
||||
\begin{align*}
|
||||
\begin{align}
|
||||
\label{eq:css_condition}
|
||||
\bm{H}(\mathcal{C}_2^\perp) \bm{H}(\mathcal{C}_1)^\text{T} = \bm{0}
|
||||
.%
|
||||
\end{align*}
|
||||
\end{align}
|
||||
We can ensure this is the case by choosing them such that
|
||||
$\mathcal{C}_2 \subset \mathcal{C}_1$.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1448,29 +1473,63 @@ $\mathcal{C}_2 \subset \mathcal{C}_1$.
|
||||
\subsection{Quantum Low-Density Parity-Check Codes}
|
||||
\label{subsec:Quantum Low-Density Parity-Check Codes}
|
||||
|
||||
\noindent\red{[(?) Mention color and surface codes]} \\
|
||||
\noindent\red{[Constant overhead scaling]} \\
|
||||
\noindent\red{[Scaling of minimum distance with code length]} \\
|
||||
\noindent\red{[Bivariate Bicycle codes]} \\
|
||||
\noindent\red{[Decoding QLDPC codes (syndrome-based BP)]} \\
|
||||
\noindent\red{[Degeneracy -> BP+OSD, BPGD]} \\
|
||||
\noindent\red{[``The task of decoding is therefore to infer, from a
|
||||
measured syndrome, the most likely error coset rather than the exact
|
||||
physical error.''
|
||||
% tex-fmt: off
|
||||
\cite[Sec.~II~B)]{koutsioumpas_colour_2025}%
|
||||
% tex-fmt: on
|
||||
]} \\
|
||||
% Intro
|
||||
|
||||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||
\subsection{Decoding Quantum Codes}
|
||||
\label{subsec:Decoding Quantum Codes}
|
||||
Various methods of constructing \ac{qec} codes exist
|
||||
\cite{swierkowska_eccentric_2025}.
|
||||
\red{[topological codes]}
|
||||
\red{[(?) Mention color and surface codes]}.
|
||||
A more recent development is that of quantum \ac{ldpc} (\acs{qldpc}) codes.
|
||||
|
||||
\noindent\indent\red{[The QEC decoding problem
|
||||
\cite[Sec.~2.3]{yao_belief_2024}]} \\
|
||||
\indent\red{[+ Degeneracy]} \\
|
||||
\indent\red{[+ Short cycles]} \\
|
||||
\indent\red{[Fixing the error after finding it
|
||||
\cite[Sec.~10.5.5]{nielsen_quantum_2010} -> This
|
||||
may require introducing the gates as unitary]}
|
||||
% Why QLDPC codes are interesting
|
||||
|
||||
\indent\red{[Constant overhead scaling]} \\
|
||||
\indent\red{[Scaling of minimum distance with code length]} \\
|
||||
|
||||
% Bivariate Bicycle codes
|
||||
|
||||
% TODO: Introduce H_X and H_Z above
|
||||
A recent addition to the class of \ac{qldpc} codes is that of \ac{bb}
|
||||
codes \cite[Sec.~3]{bravyi_high-threshold_2024}.
|
||||
These are a special type of \ac{css} code, where $\bm{H}_X$ and
|
||||
$\bm{H}_Z$ are constructed from two matrices $\bm{A}$ and $\bm{B}$ as
|
||||
\begin{align*}
|
||||
\bm{H}_X = [\bm{A} \vert \bm{B}]
|
||||
\hspace*{5mm} \text{and} \hspace*{5mm}
|
||||
\bm{H}_Z = [\bm{B}^\text{T} \vert \bm{A}^\text{T}]
|
||||
.%
|
||||
\end{align*}
|
||||
This way, we can guarantee the satisfaction of the commutativity
|
||||
condition (\autoref{eq:css_condition}).
|
||||
To define $\bm{A}$ and $\bm{B}$ we first introduce some additional notation.
|
||||
We denote the identity matrix as $\bm{I_l} \in \mathbb{F}^{l\times l}$ and
|
||||
the \emph{cyclic shift matrix} as $\bm{S_l} \in \mathbb{F}^{l\times
|
||||
l},~S_{l,i,j}= \delta_{i+1,j}$, with $l \in \mathbb{N}$.
|
||||
We further define
|
||||
\begin{align*}
|
||||
x = \bm{S}_l \otimes \bm{I}_m
|
||||
\hspace*{5mm} \text{and} \hspace*{5mm}
|
||||
y = \bm{I}_l \otimes \bm{S}_m
|
||||
.%
|
||||
\end{align*}
|
||||
We can then construct $\bm{A}$ and $\bm{B}$ as bivariate polynomials
|
||||
\begin{align*}
|
||||
\bm{A} = \bm{A}_1 + \bm{A}_2 + \bm{A}_3
|
||||
\hspace*{5mm} \text{and} \hspace*{5mm}
|
||||
\bm{B} = \bm{B}_1 + \bm{B}_2 + \bm{B}_3
|
||||
,%
|
||||
\end{align*}
|
||||
where $\bm{A}_i$ and $\bm{B}_i$ are powers of $\bm{x}$ or $\bm{y}$.
|
||||
\ac{bb} codes have large minimum distance $d_\text{min}$ and high rate,
|
||||
offering a more than 10-time reduction of encoding overhead over the
|
||||
surface code.
|
||||
Additionally, they posess short-depth syndrome measurement circuits,
|
||||
leading to lower time requirements for the syndrome extraction
|
||||
and thus lower error rates \cite[Sec.~1]{bravyi_high-threshold_2024}.
|
||||
|
||||
% Decoding QLDPC codes
|
||||
|
||||
\indent\red{[Decoding QLDPC codes (syndrome-based BP)]} \\
|
||||
\indent\red{[Short cycles]} \\
|
||||
\indent\red{[Degeneracy + short cycles -> BP+OSD, BPGD]} \\
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -10,9 +10,5 @@
|
||||
\subsection{Detector Error Models}
|
||||
\section{Practical Considerations}
|
||||
\subsection{Practical Methodology}
|
||||
|
||||
\indent\red{[(?) Figure from presentation, showing where the LER
|
||||
calculation takes place]} \\
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Stim}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user