Correcting coherent quantum errors by going with the flow

The performance of a given quantum error correction (QEC) code depends upon the noise model that is assumed. Independent Pauli noise, applied after each quantum operation, is a simplistic noise model that is easy to simulate and understand in the context of stabilizer codes. Although such a noise model is artificial, it is equivalent to independent, random, unbiased qubit rotations. What about spatially or temporally correlated qubit rotations? Such a noise model is applicable to global operations (e.g., NMR or ESR), common control sources (e.g., lasers), or slow drift (e.g., charge or magnetic noise) in various qubit technologies. In the worst case, such errors can combine constructively and result in a post-correction failure rate that increases with the number of error correction cycles. However, we show that this worst case does not generally arise unless taking active corrective actions while performing QEC. That is, by employing virtual Pauli frame updates ("passive" error correction) rather than physical corrections ("active" error correction), coherent errors do not compound appreciably. Starting in a random Pauli frame is also advantageous. In fact, through perturbation theory arguments and supporting numerical simulations, we show that the logical qubit performance beyond distance 3 for correlated single-qubit Hamiltonian noise models (i.e., global errant qubit rotations), when employing these "lazy" strategies, essentially matches the performance of Pauli noise model with the same process fidelity (fidelity after one application). In a more general circuit model of noise, correlations may add constructively within syndrome extraction rounds but Pauli frame randomization from passive error correction mitigates this effect across multiple rounds.

Source: arXiv:2602.21076v1 - http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.21076v1 PDF: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2602.21076v1 Original Link: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.21076v1