2
$\begingroup$

Quantum error-correction conditions in Nielsen and Chuang, 10th-anniversary edition (Theorem 10.1) state that the error operation $\mathcal{E}$ with operation elements $\{E_i\}$ is correctable if and only if $PE^\dagger_iE_jP=\alpha_{ij}P$, where $P$ is a projector onto the code space $C$ and $\alpha$ is a Hermitian matrix. Here $C$ is understood as a subspace of the full Hilbert space that contains the states that need to be protected against noise. The proof of the theorem relies on properties of the projection operator $P$ among other things.

The basic example that illustrates how error correction works uses either the repetition code or the Shor code.In the repetition code, the original 1 qubit state (that needs to be protected) $|\psi\rangle=a|0\rangle+b|1\rangle$ is mapped into $a|000\rangle+b|111\rangle$. Then bit-flip error occurs on one of the 3 qubits and it is demonstrated how this bit-flip can be corrected. If the bit-flip operation is $\mathcal{E}$, then encoding of the original state must be $P$, ie projection of the full Hilbert space onto the code space, but neither repetition code, nor Shor code is a projection operator, they're just combinations of standard unitary gates.

I'm trying to understand how theorem 10.1 is related to the actual error-correction codes, and how is projection operators required by Theorem 10.1 implemented in practice.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2
$\begingroup$

A quantum error correcting code always defines a codespace, that is a subspace of the Hilbert space on $n$ qubits. For example the 3-qubit bitflip code's codespace is that spanned by the vectors $|000\rangle$ and $|111\rangle$.

Given a QEC with a set of basis vectors $|c_i\rangle$ its projector is just given by $$ P = \sum_i |c_i\rangle\langle c_i| $$ So $P = |000\rangle\langle 000| + |111\rangle\langle 111|$ for the bitflip code.

An error $E$ has the effect of transforming the codespace within the larger Hilbert space. All theorem 10.1 is saying is that for a set of errors $E_i$ to be correctable, the corresponding transformed codespaces must not overlap. If they did overlap, then it would not be possible to tell which error had moved a codeword out of the original codespace, and therefore not possible to correct it.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, it does make sense to me, but if you look at the implementation of the 3-qubit bit flip example, the encoding of the original state (=projection onto the codespace?) is just a repetition of the state of the original qubit (i.e. CNOT(q0,q1)CNOT(q0,q2)) which if I am not mistaken can be expressed as $C = |0\rangle\langle 0|\otimes I\otimes I + |1\rangle\langle 1|\otimes X\otimes X$, and as such $C$ is not a projection operator $P$. That's what I'm trying to understand how does the implementation of the bit flip error correction correspond to the condition of Theorem 10.1. $\endgroup$
    – EugeneB
    Apr 21 at 14:33
  • $\begingroup$ The theorem doesn't say anything about implementations, it's just a mathematical condition for a code to be able to correct a set of errors. For the 3-bit repetition code it will tell you the set of all single-qubit bitflip errors is correctable. Or that the set of all two-qubit bitflip errors is correctable. But a set containing both $X_1$ and $X_2 X_3$ is not. Once you know a set of errors is correctable, you can then figure out how to actually correct them. $\endgroup$
    – ChrisD
    Apr 21 at 19:13
  • $\begingroup$ It doesn't say about implementation, but the sufficiency of the condition is proved by constructing explicit error-correction operation $\mathcal{R}(\sigma)=\sum_kU^\dagger_kP_k\sigma P_kU_k$. It's my understanding that as any other quantum operation $\mathcal{R}$ has some corresponding system-environment interaction model and that model can be implemented as a quantum circuit. Is this assumption incorrect? $\endgroup$
    – EugeneB
    Apr 22 at 12:44
  • $\begingroup$ No your assumption is not incorrect, this is known as the dilation theorem. What is incorrect is the statement in your original question that "neither repetition code, nor Shor code is a projection operator, they're just combinations of standard unitary gates". All QECs have a corresponding projector defined as above. $\endgroup$
    – ChrisD
    Apr 23 at 1:17
0
$\begingroup$

To correct errors using an error-correction you do measurements (of an ancilla or of the data qubits), which are projections.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.