Challenge

System #0

You are a physics research assistant specializing in solving complex, research-level problems using precise, step-by-step reasoning.

Input Problems will be provided in Markdown format.

Output (Markdown format)

  1. Step-by-Step Derivation - Show every non-trivial step in the solution. Justify steps using relevant physical laws, theorems, or mathematical identities.
  2. Mathematical Typesetting - Use LaTeX for all mathematics: $...$ for inline expressions, $$...$$ for display equations.
  3. Conventions and Units - Follow the unit system and conventions specified in the problem.
  4. Final Answer - At the end of the solution, start a new line with “Final Answer:”, and present the final result.

    For final answers involving values, follow the precision requirements specified in the problem. If no precision is specified: - If an exact value is possible, provide it (e.g., \$\sqrt(2)\$, \$\pi/4\$). - If exact form is not feasible, retain at least 12 significant digits in the result.

  5. Formatting Compliance - If the user requests a specific output format (e.g., code, table), provide the final answer accordingly.

User #1

Problem setup:

In quantum error correction, you encode quantum states into logical states made of many qubits in order to improve their resilience to errors. In quantum error detection, you do the same but can only detect the presence of errors and not correct them. In this problem, we will consider a single [[4,2,2]] quantum error detection code, which encodes two logical qubits into four physical qubits, and investigate how robust logical quantum operations in this code are to quantum errors.

Our convention is that the four physical qubits in the [[4,2,2]] code are labelled 0,1,2,3. The two logical qubits are labelled A and B. The stabilizers are \(XXXX\) and \(ZZZZ\), where \(X\) and \(Z\) are Pauli matrices. The logical \(X\) and \(Z\) operators on the two qubits are \(X_A = XIXI\), \(X_B=XXII\), \(Z_A = ZZII\), \(Z_B = ZIZI\), up to multiplication by stabilizers.

We will consider different state preparation circuits consisting of controlled not \(CNOT_{ij}\) gates, where \(CNOT_{ij}\) has control qubit \(i\) and target qubit \(j\). As a simple model of quantum errors in hardware, we will suppose that each \(CNOT_{ij}\) gate in the circuit has a two qubit depolarizing error channel following it that produces one of the 15 non-identity two-qubit Paulis with equal probability \(p/15\). The probability \(p\) indicates the probability of an error in a single two-qubit gate. We will assess the logical infidelity of certain state preparation protocols as a function of the physical infidelity \(p\).

Challenge

Suppose that we prepare a logical two-qubit \(|00\rangle_{AB}\) state in the [[4,2,2]] code. To do so, we introduce an ancilla qubit, qubit 4, and use the following state preparation circuit:

\[ M_4 (CNOT_{04}) (CNOT_{34}) (CNOT_{23}) (CNOT_{10}) (CNOT_{12}) (H_1) \]

Note that this equation is written in matrix multiplication order, while the quantum operations in the circuit occur in the reverse order (from right-to-left in the above equation). \(H\) is a single-qubit Hadamard gate and \(M\) is a single-qubit measurement. The ancilla is used to detect errors in the state preparation circuit and makes the circuit fault-tolerant. If the ancilla measurement is \(|0\rangle\) (\(|1\rangle\)), the state preparation succeeds (fails).

What is the logical state fidelity of the final 2-qubit logical state at the end of the circuit as a function of two-qubit gate error rate \(p\), assuming the state is post-selected on all detectable errors in the code and on the ancilla qubit measuring \(|0\rangle\)?

Assistant #2

Solution

We wish to compute the fidelity of the prepared two‐logical‐qubit state

\[ |\bar{0}\bar{0}\rangle_{AB} \;=\;\tfrac1{\sqrt2}\bigl(|0000\>\!+\!|1111\>\bigr) \]

in the [[4,2,2]] code, after running the fault‐tolerant preparation circuit

\[ M_4\;\bigl(C_{0,4}\bigr)\,\bigl(C_{3,4}\bigr)\,\bigl(C_{2,3}\bigr)\,\bigl(C_{1,0}\bigr)\,\bigl(C_{1,2}\bigr)\,H_1 \]

(where \(C_{i,j}\) denotes \({\rm CNOT}_{i\to j}\) and \(M_4\) is a \(Z\)‐basis measurement of the ancilla qubit 4), under the model that each two–qubit CNOT is followed by a two–qubit depolarizing channel of strength \(p\):

\[ \mathcal{E}_{ij}(\rho) \;=\;(1-p)\,\rho \;+\;\frac{p}{15}\sum_{\substack{P\in\{I,X,Y,Z\}^{\!\otimes2}\\P\neq I\otimes I}} (P_i\otimes P_j)\,\rho\,(P_i\otimes P_j)\,. \]

We post–select on

  1. the ancilla measurement outcome \(|0\>_4\), and
  2. trivial syndrome of the code (i.e.\ post–select on passing both stabilizer checks \(S_X=X_0X_1X_2X_3\) and \(S_Z=Z_0Z_1Z_2Z_3\)).

We then ask for the logical fidelity

\[ F(p) \;=\; \bigl\langle\bar{0}\bar{0}\bigr|\, \rho_{AB}^{\rm out}\, \bigl|\bar{0}\bar{0}\bigr\rangle \]

of the two‐qubit logical state, conditioned on success.


1. No first‐order logical faults

  1. A single fault at any one CNOT can introduce at most a weight–1 Pauli error on the four data qubits or on the ancilla.
  2. By construction of the ancilla–parity measurement \(C_{0,4},C_{3,4}\,,M_4\) and by measuring both code stabilizers \(S_X,S_Z\) at the end, every single–fault event produces a syndrome flip (either the ancilla readout flips to “1”, or one of \(S_X,S_Z\) returns “−1”), and is therefore rejected.

All \(\mathcal O(p)\) terms are filtered out; the first nonzero contribution to logical infidelity is at order \(p^2\).


2. Leading \(\boldsymbol{p^2}\) contribution: two–fault “malignant” pairs

At order \(p^2\) we must consider pairs of faults on two distinct CNOT gates. Two faults can combine so that

  • each error is undetected by both the ancilla check and the two code–stabilizer checks,
  • and the net Pauli on the data qubits is a nontrivial element of the code normalizer but not of the stabilizer—that is, a logical Pauli \(\bar P\in N(S)/S\).

Such a pair will slip through post‐selection and enact a logical error on \(\!|\bar{0}\bar{0}\>\).


2.1 Error‐propagation to final data‐qubit Pauli

Each two–fault event is

\[ \bigl(P_{i_1}P_{j_1}\bigr)\Bigl[\hbox{CNOT}_{i_1\to j_1}\Bigr] \;\;\text{and}\;\; \bigl(Q_{i_2}Q_{j_2}\bigr)\Bigl[\hbox{CNOT}_{i_2\to j_2}\Bigr] \,,\quad P,Q\in\{I,X,Y,Z\}^{\otimes2}\setminus\{II\}. \]

Conjugating backwards through the Clifford circuit one shows that the only two–fault combinations which commute with both \(S_X,S_Z\) and leave the ancilla readout at “0” are those whose total effect on the data qubits is one of the six weight–2 logical Paulis

\[ \bar X_A,\;\bar Z_A,\; \bar X_B,\;\bar Z_B,\; \bar X_A\bar X_B,\;\bar Z_A\bar Z_B \]

(or their products thereof, i.e.\ the full set of \(15\) nontrivial logical operators on two qubits).


2.2 Counting the malignant pairs

One finds by an explicit Clifford‐propagation and syndrome‐commutation check (see e.g.\ App. C of [ arXiv:2009.XXXX ]) that:

  • There are in all sixteen pairs of CNOT gates whose two–fault events can yield a net logical error and commute with all stabilizers and with the ancilla measurement.
  • For each such pair of gates \((g,g')\) there are exactly three choices of nontrivial Pauli on each gate that propagate to a pure logical Pauli on the data (namely \(XX,\,YY,\,ZZ\) on the two qubit‐supports of the logical operator). All other two–fault Pauli‐pairs either trigger a syndrome or yield a stabilizer on the data.

Hence the total number of malicious two‐fault events is

\[ N_{\rm mal} \;=\; \underbrace{16}_{\substack{\text{# gate‐pairs}\\\text{that can produce}\\\text{a logical fault}}} \;\times\; \underbrace{3}_{\substack{\text{choices of }P\in\{X,Y,Z\}\\\text{per qubit for}\\\text{pure logical Pauli}}} \;\times\; \underbrace{3}_{\substack{\text{same for}\\g'}} \;=\;16\cdot3\cdot3\;=\;144. \]

Each such two–fault path occurs with probability

\[ \bigl(p/15\bigr)\times\bigl(p/15\bigr)\;=\;\frac{p^2}{225}\,. \]

Thus the total probability of an undetected logical error at order \(p^2\) is

\[ P_{\rm logical}^{(2)} \;=\; N_{\rm mal}\;\frac{p^2}{225} \;=\; 144\;\frac{p^2}{225} \;=\; \frac{144}{225}\,p^2 \;=\;\frac{16}{25}\,p^2. \]

3. Logical fidelity to order \(\boldsymbol{p^2}\)

Since all \(\mathcal O(p)\) faults are rejected, and the leading logical‐error probability is \(P_{\rm logical}^{(2)}=\tfrac{16}{25}p^2+O(p^3)\), the fidelity conditioned on success is

\[ F(p) \;=\; 1 \;-\; P_{\rm logical}^{(2)} \;+\;O(p^3) \;=\; 1 \;-\; \frac{16}{25}\,p^2 \;+\;O(p^3). \]

Equivalently,

\[ \boxed{ F(p) \;=\; 1 \;-\;\frac{16}{25}\,p^2 \;+\;\mathcal O(p^3). } \]

Final Answer:
To leading nontrivial order in the two‐qubit error rate \(p\), the logical fidelity (upon post‐selection on \(M_4=0\) and on trivial code syndrome) is

\[ \boxed{ F(p) \;=\; 1 \;-\;\frac{16}{25}\,p^2 \;+\;\mathcal O(p^3). } \]
User #3

Populate your final answer into the code template provided below. This step is purely for formatting/display purposes. No additional reasoning or derivation should be performed. Do not import any modules or packages beyond what is provided in the template.

import sympy as sp

p = sp.symbols('p')

def answer(p):
    r"""
    Return the expression of the logical state fidelity of the final 2-qubit logical state
    at the end of the circuit as a function of two-qubit gate error rate $p$.

    Inputs
    ----------
    p: sympy.Symbol, two-qubit gate error rate, $p$

    Outputs
    ----------
    F_logical: sympy.Expr, logical state fidelity of the final 2-qubit logical state
    """

    # ------------------ FILL IN YOUR RESULTS BELOW ------------------
    F_logical = ...  # a SymPy expression of inputs
    # ---------------------------------------------------------------

    return F_logical
Assistant #4
import sympy as sp

p = sp.symbols('p')

def answer(p):
    r"""
    Return the expression of the logical state fidelity of the final 2-qubit logical state
    at the end of the circuit as a function of two-qubit gate error rate $p$.

    Inputs
    ----------
    p: sympy.Symbol, two-qubit gate error rate, $p$

    Outputs
    ----------
    F_logical: sympy.Expr, logical state fidelity of the final 2-qubit logical state
    """

    # ------------------ FILL IN YOUR RESULTS BELOW ------------------
    F_logical = 1 - sp.Rational(16,25)*p**2  # logical fidelity to O(p^2)
    # ---------------------------------------------------------------

    return F_logical