We introduce fault-tolerant (FT) architectures for error correction with the XZZX cluster state based on performing measurements of two-qubit Pauli operators $Z\otimes Z$ and $X\otimes X$, or fusions, on a collection of few-body entangled resource states. Our construction is tailored to be effective against noise that predominantly causes faulty $X\otimes X$ measurements during fusions. This feature offers practical advantage in linear optical quantum computing with dual-rail photonic qubits, where failed fusions only erase $X\otimes X$ measurement outcomes. By applying our construction to this platform, we find a record high FT threshold to fusion failures exceeding $25\%$ in the experimentally relevant regime of non-zero loss rate per photon, considerably simplifying hardware requirements.
Submitted 30 Dec 2022 to Quantum Physics [quant-ph] Published 03 Jan 2023 Updated 24 Sep 2023
Very interesting work! May I ask you a small question? I think the idea to confine erasure errors caused by failed fusions on 2D planes also can be applied to the normal Raussendorf's lattice. In other words, we can freely choose the fusion basis (two distinguishable Bell states) for each fusion so that errors exist only on 2D planes. If then, are there any specific reasons to use the XZZX cluster state instead of the Raussendorf's lattice?
I think this is a fair question! We were guided to our construction by considering the XZZX cluster state, but that doesn't mean this is the only way to understand our construction.
Certainly, in the case of the 4-star construction, there *are* no qubits that correspond to the RHG/XZZX cluster state--you only have the RHG/XZZX qubits tracked in software. So once you reach that point, you can interpret this construction as generating either cluster state with equal validity.
In the case of the 6-ring construction, you actually are building an effective XZZX cluster state. But this effective cluster state lives in a space where we're calling the two-qubit XX operator an effective X operator, and a two-qubit ZZ operator an effective Z operator. I think this labeling is the most straightforward, but it's not "wrong" to call the two-qubit ZZ operator an "effective X operator," in which case you could argue I've just constructed the RHG lattice.
Ultimately the upshot of our paper is "there exists a set of resource states and fusion networks that lead to 2D decoding graphs to fusion failures. These resource states and fusion networks require the same number of linear-optical components as the previous fusion-based paper, but have higher thresholds." We could have presented this entire paper in terms of fusion networks and stabilizers, without making contact with previous results on cluster states. However, the fusion network constructions (in particular the 6-ring construction) seem kind of "magic" without deriving them from an underlying cluster state. The XZZX cluster state was the most natural cluster state to explain our construction (and was how we originally derived our fusion networks).
Braneshop, and
the US National Science Foundation.
SciRate
Very interesting work! May I ask you a small question? I think the idea to confine erasure errors caused by failed fusions on 2D planes also can be applied to the normal Raussendorf's lattice. In other words, we can freely choose the fusion basis (two distinguishable Bell states) for each fusion so that errors exist only on 2D planes. If then, are there any specific reasons to use the XZZX cluster state instead of the Raussendorf's lattice?
Edited Jan 08 2023 08:45 UTC by Seok-Hyung Lee
I think this is a fair question! We were guided to our construction by considering the XZZX cluster state, but that doesn't mean this is the only way to understand our construction.
Certainly, in the case of the 4-star construction, there *are* no qubits that correspond to the RHG/XZZX cluster state--you only have the RHG/XZZX qubits tracked in software. So once you reach that point, you can interpret this construction as generating either cluster state with equal validity.
In the case of the 6-ring construction, you actually are building an effective XZZX cluster state. But this effective cluster state lives in a space where we're calling the two-qubit XX operator an effective X operator, and a two-qubit ZZ operator an effective Z operator. I think this labeling is the most straightforward, but it's not "wrong" to call the two-qubit ZZ operator an "effective X operator," in which case you could argue I've just constructed the RHG lattice.
Ultimately the upshot of our paper is "there exists a set of resource states and fusion networks that lead to 2D decoding graphs to fusion failures. These resource states and fusion networks require the same number of linear-optical components as the previous fusion-based paper, but have higher thresholds." We could have presented this entire paper in terms of fusion networks and stabilizers, without making contact with previous results on cluster states. However, the fusion network constructions (in particular the 6-ring construction) seem kind of "magic" without deriving them from an underlying cluster state. The XZZX cluster state was the most natural cluster state to explain our construction (and was how we originally derived our fusion networks).
Edited Jan 26 2023 01:28 UTC by Jahan Claes
Thank you for your kind and detailed reply!