板栗什么时候成熟

Large-scale quantum applications might require millions of physical qubits, due to the large overhead of quantum error correction and fault-tolerance?[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. Modular designs are appealing because they simplify the manufacture, testing and characterization of large-scale quantum chips. Modularity circumvents issues specific to certain implementation modalities as well: the spectral crowding of collective motional modes for trapped ions?[6, 7], the dropping yield of superconducting chips?[8, 9], the laser power limitation of neutral atoms?[10], and cryogenic scaling requirements?[11]. However, it also gives rise to two critical challenges: connecting the modules and designing a distributed architecture for fault-tolerant quantum computing.

A popular approach to distributed quantum computing is based on small modules connected through noisy links?[12, 13, 14, 15], with entanglement distillation?[16] used to extract high-fidelity gates from these links. Work on distributed surface codes?[17, 18] and Floquet codes?[19] shows that these codes perform well even when a small fraction of the gates are implemented through very noisy links without distillation. However, this approach seems challenging for general quantum low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes?[20] because the qubit connectivity they require is typically an expander graph, meaning that it cannot be easily partitioned into modules with few connections between the modules?[21].

In the present work, the module connection is established by physically moving the qubits. The ability to reliably transport qubits was identified by DiVicenzo as an essential requirement for qubits used for quantum computation and communication and he named them flying qubits?[22]. They include photonic qubits?[23], spin qubits?[24], electron on liquid helium?[25], trapped ions?[26] and neutral atoms?[27]. Here, we propose a distributed quantum error correction scheme supported on a $2\times L$ array of modules connected through a cyclic shift of the modules implemented using flying qubits. We simulated the performance of distributed bivariate bicycle codes?[28] for this architecture where the modules are with long ion chains and when modules are one-dimensional arrays of ions. The results show that our modular quantum memory can reach the low logical error rates required for large-scale applications.

In the remainder of this paper, Section?II proposes an abstract model for a $2\times L$ modules array. Section?III introduces the cyclic layout which allows for the implementation of the syndrome extraction circuit of any stabilizer code. A sparse cyclic layout, producing a constant-depth syndrome extraction circuit for BB codes is proposed in Section?IV. Potential physical implementations and numerical simulations are discussed in Section?V and Appendix?A.

We consider a $2\times L$ array equipped with a cyclic shift where each cell may contain a register of qubits that we call a module. This generalizes the $2\times L$ array of qubits introduced in?[29]. We refer to this generalization as a $2\times L$ module array and we use the term $2\times L$ qubit array for the original model which corresponds to single-qubit modules.

The cells of the array are labeled $(b,i)\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{2}\times{\mathbb{Z}}_{L}$, where cells $(0,i),i\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{L}$ form the fixed row and cells $(1,i),i\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{L}$ form the moving row. Each cell is either empty or it contains an $n$-qubit module. For simplicity, we assume that all the modules are identical $n$-qubit registers.

The qubit operations available are preparation or reset of a qubit in a single-qubit state, measurement of a qubit, single-qubit unitary gates, and two-qubit unitary gates supported inside a module or in a pair of aligned modules, that is acting on qubits in cells $(0,i)$ and $(1,i)$.

A cyclic shift with size $s$, or $s$-shift, moves all the modules of the moving row by $s$ steps to the right in a cyclic way, where $s$ is any integer. The module in cell $i$ of the moving row is transported to the cell $(i+s)\mod L$.

We assume that operations acting on different cells can be performed simultaneously. Moreover, the measurement and a reset of a qubit can be performed in a single step. Any cyclic shift has depth one, independently of the shift size $s$. That is, the shift operation duration is independent of the physical distance of the shift. Depending on the details of the gate operations, transport speeds, and other modality-specific physical details, this assumption may break down. We discuss its validity further in ?Section?V.

In Sections?III, LABEL: and?IV, we assume that each module or pair of aligned modules forms a fully connected and fully parallel qubit register, meaning that any set of two-qubit gates with disjoint supports can be executed in depth one. We study other cases in Section?V and Appendix?A.

The cyclic layout, described in Algorithm?1, performs the measurement of any sequence of Pauli operators on a $2\times L$ module array. It implements the syndrome extraction circuit of any stabilizer code by providing as an input the code’s stabilizer generators (repeated $T$ times to perform $T$ rounds of syndrome extraction).

Consider an $N$-qubit Pauli operator $Q=Q_{1}\times\dots\otimes Q_{N}$ where $Q_{j}$ is a Pauli matrix and refer to the $N$ qubits supporting $Q$ as the data qubits. One can perform the measurement of $Q$ in three steps as follows: (i) prepare an ancilla qubit in the state $|+\rangle$, (ii) apply a sequence of controlled-$Q_{j}$ gates controlled on the ancilla qubit and targeting the $j$ th data qubit for $1\leq j\leq N$, (iii) measure the ancilla qubit in the $X$ basis.

Algorithm?1 measures simultaneously Pauli operators supported on the fixed row of a $2\times L$ module array using ancilla qubits placed on the moving row. The main challenge is to design a sequence of cyclic shifts that allows for the implementation of the two-qubit gates required for the measurement of all the Pauli operators without swapping gates associated to different operators because these gates generally do not commute. To obtain this property, the loop of step 10 is always executed in the same order.

The main advantage of Algorithm?1 is that it applies to any stabilizer code. It is practically relevant for small codes. However, when the number of stabilizer generators $s\rightarrow+\infty$, the syndrome extraction depth becomes too large, degrading the code performance. Indeed, the bound on the depth per round tends to $\frac{(n+1)}{n}s$.

The sparse cyclic layout produces a short-depth syndrome extraction circuit for BB codes?[28, 30].

Denote by $S_{\ell}$ the $\ell\times\ell$ circulant matrix with first row $(010\dots 0)$ and let $x=S_{\ell}\otimes I_{m}$ and $y=I_{\ell}\otimes S_{m}$. The BB code associated with the polynomials ${\cal A},{\cal B}\in{\mathbb{F}}_{2}[x,y]$ is defined to be the CSS code?[31, 32] with parity-check matrices ${\bf{H}}_{X}=[{\cal A}|{\cal B}]$ and ${\bf{H}}_{Z}=[{\cal B}^{T}|{\cal A}^{T}]$. Therein, ${\cal A}$ and ${\cal B}$ are sums of matrices of the form $x^{i}y^{j}$. In?[28], these polynomials are constrained to have exactly three terms, and each term is a power of either $x$ or $y$. Here, we allow for any polynomial, which allows one to reach better code parameters?[33, 34].

Given a polynomial ${\cal P}(x,y)=x^{i_{1}}y^{j_{1}}+\dots+x^{i_{t}}y^{j_{t}}$ define $I({\cal P}):=\{i_{1},i_{2},\dots,i_{t}\}$ and $J({\cal P}):=\{j_{1},j_{2},\dots,j_{t}\}$ to be the set of distinct exponents of $x$ and $y$ in ${\cal P}$. Based on $\left(x^{i}z^{j}\right)^{T}=x^{-i}y^{-j}$, the set $I({\cal P}^{T})$ and $J({\cal P}^{T})$ are obtained by replacing the elements of $I({\cal P})$ and $J({\cal P})$ by their opposite.

Any $k\in\{0,1,\dots\ell m-1\}$ can be mapped onto the element $\left(\lfloor k/m\rfloor,k\mod m\right)$ of $G_{\ell,m}:={\mathbb{Z}}_{\ell}\times{\mathbb{Z}}_{m}$. This bijection allows us to label rows and columns of a matrix $x^{i}y^{j}$ with elements of $G_{\ell,m}$. Examining the matrix $x^{i}y^{j}$, we obtain the following lemma where $\oplus$ denotes the addition modulo $\ell$ or modulo $m$. The modulus is clear from the context.

Extending the previous bijection, we label the code’s data qubits with $G_{2,\ell,m}:={\mathbb{Z}}_{2}\times{\mathbb{Z}}_{\ell}\times{\mathbb{Z}}_{m}$. The triple $(u,v,w)$ corresponds to the data qubit with index $u\ell m+vm+w$. The ancilla qubits, which correspond to the rows of ${\bf{H}}_{X}$ and ${\bf{H}}_{Z}$, are labeled respectively as $(X,v,w)$ and $(Z,v,w)$ with $(v,w)\in G_{\ell,m}$.

Define the data modules $M^{d}_{w}:={\mathbb{Z}}_{2}\times{\mathbb{Z}}_{\ell}\times\{w\}$ indexed by $w\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{m}$, which we interpret as sets of data qubits. Define the ancilla modules $M^{a}_{w}:=\{X,Z\}\times{\mathbb{Z}}_{\ell}\times\{w\},$ also indexed by $w\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{m}$.

These modules form a $2\times m$ array with $2\ell$-qubit modules. Modules $M^{d}_{w}$ and $M^{a}_{w}$ are initially placed in cell $w$ of the fixed row and the moving row respectively.

Algorithm?2 only describes $X$ stabilizer measurements because $Z$ measurements can be performed similarly.

By symmetry one can swap the roles of $\ell$ and $m$ in Algorithm?2. In this case, the depth in Theorem?1 becomes $|I({\cal A})\cup I({\cal B})|+\omega+2$, which may be smaller than $|J({\cal A})\cup J({\cal B})|+\omega+2$.

Applying Theorem?1, we obtain an $X$ or $Z$ syndrome extraction circuit with depth $12$ for all the BB codes of?[28].

Appendix?C discusses a variant of Algorithm?2 with interleaved $X$ and $Z$ measurements achieving a shorter depth.

Here, we describe a quasi one-dimensional implementation of a $2\times L$ module array and its cyclic shift using flying qubits which could be photons, electrons, ions or neutral atoms.

A $2\times L$ array with $n$-qubit modules is formed using $2Ln$ flying qubits arranged within a line and split into groups of $n$ qubits as shown in Fig.?1. The modules are alternating between modules of the fixed row and the moving row. We assume that one can perform two-qubit gates between neighboring modules as shown by the dashed boxes in Fig.?1. In practice, this might require bringing the qubits of these two modules closer together, which is not an issue for flying qubits.

We refer to the one-dimensional region holding the modules as the primary zone. To facilitate cyclic shifts, we use a parallel secondary zone, represented in Fig.?2, for temporary storage of the modules.

A $s$-shift is realized in three moves as illustrated in Fig.?2: (i) Move the last $s$ modules of the moving row to the secondary zone. (ii) Move the first $L-s$ modules of the moving row forward by $2s$ positions in the primary zone. (iii) Move the modules present in the secondary zone to the first $s$ cells of the moving row in the primary zone.

Step (ii) is accomplished by moving the relevant modules into the secondary zone, moving them forward, and returning them to the primary zone. This is more efficient than swapping qubits which requires a number of swaps growing with $s$. To accommodate size-$s$ shifts, the secondary zone must be physically longer by an extra $s-1$ module cells than what is strictly needed to hold a length-$L$ module array.

Within any of these three steps, all the moves can be performed simultaneously while keeping the modules sufficiently far from each other to avoid unwanted interactions. Even though qubits must physically be transported across distances proportional to $s$, in practice for modest distances spanning hundreds of $\mu$m, overall transport times and noise remain dominated by fixed-duration processes that are independent of $s$, such as acceleration, deceleration and cooling in the case of ions. This justifies our assumption that any cyclic shift is implemented in depth one, independently of the shift size $s$.

To assess the performance of this architecture, we performed circuit-level simulations of BB codes with Algorithm?2 using this implementation of the $2\times L$ module array and its cyclic shift where each module is a long chain of trapped ions. We used the chain model of?[34] to simulate qubit operations inside modules. Two-qubit gates are sequential inside a module but gates acting on distinct modules can be performed simultaneously. Two-qubit gates have a noise rate $p$, single-qubit operations have a noise rate $p/10$, and idle qubits have a noise rate $p/100$. We assume $\tau_{m}=30$, meaning that unmeasured qubits undergo $30$ rounds of idle noise during a measurement. Finally, a cyclic shift is followed by depolarizing noise on all the qubits with rate $\tau_{s}p/100$ with $\tau_{s}=30$, which means that all qubits suffer from $\tau_{s}$ rounds of idle noise.

Fig.?3 shows that the BB code with length 144 distributed across 12 ion-chain modules achieves a logical error rate below $2\cdot 10^{-6}$ for a physical error rate of $10^{-3}$. A different implementation based on flat modules which are one-dimensional array of qubits is proposed and simulated in Appendix?A.

In Appendix?B, we analyze the impact of distributing the codes over several modules on the code performance and we observe that it comparable to increase on the physical error rate $p$ by less than $2\times$. In Appendix?D, we provide a fitting formula for the logical error rate of BB codes under the sparse cyclic layout.

We proposed a design for a distributed quantum memory implemented with flying qubits. Although we use DiVicenzo’s concept of flying qubits, our architecture only requires a planar motion of the qubits, which we may call movable qubits, making it well-suited to electrons, ions and neutral atoms. It would be valuable these notions of transports to distinguish different types of flying qubits such as ions, atoms, electrons, photons or even qubits loaded on a cargo ship?[35] and to identify more precise requirements for our architecture.

It would be interesting to generalize this layout to other classes of quantum codes. For qubit arrays, [29] layouts surface codes and generalized bicycle codes. The flat implementation of the sparse cyclic layout, discussed in Appendix?A, is related to this generalized bicycle layout, with the difference that they use left and right moves instead of a cyclic shift. An alternative implementation of BB codes in a qubit array, relying on Shor-style error correction which consumes more ancilla qubits, is optimized in [36].

As explained in the introduction, quantum LDPC codes are generally hard to partition because of their expansion. A related result is the following. Using a finite dimensional grid of qubits with local gates without the cyclic shift, a constant depth syndrome extraction circuit cannot exist if the code’s Tanner graph is locally expanding?[37]. Graph expansion is also used to establish bounds on LDPC codes’ parameters?[38]. It would be interesting to understand the impact of the ability to perform a cyclic shift, and more generally the impact of flying qubits, on these bounds and other bounds on codes and logical operations?[39, 40, 41, 42].

We thank Jeremy Sage, Dave Wecker, Matthew Parrott, Jason Amini for their insightful discussions and for their comments on a preliminary version of this work.