Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Chasing shadows with Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill codes

Published 31 Oct 2024 in quant-ph | (2411.00235v2)

Abstract: In this work, we consider the task of performing shadow tomography of a logical subsystem defined via the Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill (GKP) error correcting code. We construct a logical shadow tomography protocol via twirling of continuous variable POVMs by displacement operators and Gaussian unitaries. In the special case of heterodyne measurement, the shadow tomography protocol yields a probabilistic decomposition of any input state into Gaussian states that simulate the encoded logical information of the input relative to a fixed GKP code and we prove bounds on the Gaussian compressibility of states in this setting. For photon parity measurements, logical GKP shadow tomography is equivalent to a Wigner sampling protocol for which we develop the appropriate sampling schemes and finally we derive a Wigner sampling scheme via random GKP codes. This protocol establishes how Wigner samples of any input state relative to a random GKP codes can be used to estimate any sufficiently bounded observable on CV space. This construction shows how a description of the physical state of the system can be reconstructed from encoded logical information relative to a random code and further highlights the power of performing idealized GKP error correction as a tomographic resource.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (29)
  1. S. Aaronson, “Shadow tomography of quantum states,”  (2018), arXiv:1711.01053 .
  2. D. E. Koh and S. Grewal, Quantum 6, 776 (2022).
  3. J. T. Iosue, K. Sharma, M. J. Gullans,  and V. V. Albert, “Continuous-variable quantum state designs: theory and applications,”  (2022), arXiv:2211.05127 .
  4. S. Gandhari, V. V. Albert, T. Gerrits, J. M. Taylor,  and M. J. Gullans, “Continuous-variable shadow tomography,”  (2022), arXiv:2211.05149 .
  5. The Weyl relations are actually a way of rigorously capturing the canonical commutation relations without having to resort to unbounded operators.
  6. J. Eisert and M. B. Plenio, Int. J. Quant. Inf. 1, 479 (2003).
  7. J. Conrad, A. G. Burchards,  and S. T. Flammia, “Lattices, gates, and curves: GKP codes as a Rosetta stone,”  (2024a), arXiv:2407.03270 .
  8. A. G. Burchards, S. T. Flammia,  and J. Conrad, “Fiber bundle fault tolerance of GKP codes,”  (2024), arXiv:2410.07332 .
  9. J. Conrad, Phys. Rev. A 103, 022404 (2021).
  10. R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A 40, 4277 (1989).
  11. S. Flammia, “scirate.com/arxiv/quant-ph/0611002”, see comment section.
  12. E. Onorati, J. Kitzinger, J. Helsen, M. Ioannou, A. H. Werner, I. Roth,  and J. Eisert, “Noise-mitigated randomized measurements and self-calibrating shadow estimation,”  (2024), arXiv:2403.04751 [quant-ph] .
  13. Except perhaps for error mitigation methods where tunable noise is desired as in zero-noise extrapolation [50, 51].
  14. S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Phys. Rev. A 71, 022316 (2005).
  15. P. P. Varjú, Doc. Math. 18, 1137 (2012).
  16. P. Diaconis and M. Shahshahani, J. Appl. Prob. 31, 49 (1994).
  17. K. Banaszek and K. Wódkiewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 4344 (1996).
  18. Hence, this is not necessarily finite dimensional.
  19. P. Sarnak and P. Buser, Inv. Math. 117, 27 (1994).
  20. D. Kelmer and S. Yu, Int. Math. Res. Not. 2021, 5825–5859 (2019).
  21. F. A. Mele, A. A. Mele, L. Bittel, J. Eisert, V. Giovannetti, L. Lami, L. Leone,  and S. F. E. Oliviero, “Learning quantum states of continuous variable systems,”  (2024), arXiv:2405.01431 .
  22. N. C. Menicucci, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 120504 (2014).
  23. D. Lachance-Quirion, M.-A. Lemonde, J. O. Simoneau, L. St-Jean, P. Lemieux, S. Turcotte, W. Wright, A. Lacroix, J. Fréchette-Viens, R. Shillito, F. Hopfmueller, M. Tremblay, N. E. Frattini, J. C. Lemyre,  and P. St-Jean, “Autonomous quantum error correction of Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill states,”  (2023), arXiv:2310.11400 .
  24. Y. Li and S. C. Benjamin, Phys. Rev. X 7, 021050 (2017).
  25. S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Phys. Rev. A 70, 052328 (2004).
  26. F. M. Dopico and C. R. Johnson, SIAM J. Matrix Ana. Appl. 31, 650 (2009).
  27. M. Mosca, A. Tapp,  and R. de Wolf, “Private quantum channels and the cost of randomizing quantum information,”  (2000), arXiv:quant-ph/0003101 .
  28. A. M. Childs, Quant. Inf. Comp. 5, 456 (2005).
  29. E. H. Lieb, Comm. Math. Phys. 31, 327–340 (1973).

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 2 tweets with 1 like about this paper.