Managing Classical Processing Requirements for Quantum Error Correction

Quantum Error Correction (QEC) improves the reliability of a system by utilizing many physical qubits to encode a single logical qubit (Shor1995, ; Knill1997, ). Most QEC codes can be categorized as stabilizer codes (Terhal2015, ) – some promising stabilizer codes include quantum Low Distance Parity Check (qLDPC) codes (Bravyi2024, ) and Surface Codes (Fowler2012, ). Owing to their relatively relaxed connectivity requirements that can be realized with hardware available today, we focus specifically on the Surface Code. Note that this work can be extended to other QEC codes apart from the Surface Code.

A single rotated Surface Code patch of distance $d=3$ is shown in Fig. 2(a) (Horsman2012, ). Black circles denote data qubits and each data qubit is connected to $X$ and $Z$ parity qubits. The Surface Code works by repeatedly measuring syndromes, which correspond to the measurements performed on all $X$ and $Z$ measure qubits in a patch after performing the sequence of gates shown in Fig. 2(b). By repeatedly measuring these syndromes, both bit-flip and phase-flip errors occurring within a patch can be detected by the decoder.

Fig. 2(c) shows the general procedure of how any generic QEC code works – syndromes are constantly being generated, which are then fed to a decoder. Syndromes contain information about which qubits have flipped in every round of syndrome measurements, and these flips allow the decoder to determine what errors on the data qubits caused those flips. Since errors can always be expressed in the form of Pauli gate, they can be corrected in software without executing any physical operations on the logical qubits. This is achieved by updating the Pauli frames for all data qubits that make up that logical qubit, which adjusts the interpretation of future measurements by accounting for the error that was detected (Terhal2015, ). For the Surface Code, the decoding problem is commonly formulated as a Minimum Weight Perfect Matching (MWPM) problem, which leverages a graph representation of the syndrome measurements (Fowler2015, ; Wu2022, ).

On a Surface Code error-corrected quantum computer, all Clifford gates can be performed reliably either in software or via logical operations performed via Braiding (Fowler2012, ) or Lattice Surgery (Horsman2012, ). However, non-Clifford gates such as the $T$ gate cannot be applied in a fault-tolerant manner directly. This is because logical qubits initialized with the $T$ gate will have an error probability equal to the underlying physical error rate of the system, $p$, thus making them impure (Litinski2019magic, ). However, multiple impure states can be used to distill fewer, purer logical qubits with a $T$ state (known as a magic state $|m\rangle$) – this process is known as magic state distillation (Bravyi2012, ; Gupta2024, ).

Fig. 3 shows how a $T$ gate can be applied to a logical qubit $P$ in a fault-tolerant manner by using Lattice Surgery (LS) (Litinski2019, ). The magic state $|m\rangle$ is a purified $T$-state. Since a non-Clifford gate is being applied, all prior errors that affected $P$ must be known before $|m\rangle$ is applied to prevent errors from spreading (Terhal2015, ). Lattice Surgery can be used to perform a $Z\otimes Z$ operation on $P$ and $|m\rangle$ to apply the magic state (Litinski2019, ; Litinski2019magic, ). Once the $Z\otimes Z$ operation is performed, the decoding result of $P$ prior to Lattice Surgery is combined with the decoding result of Lattice Surgery multi-body measurement and the measurement of the patch containing the magic state $|m\rangle$ to determine an appropriate Clifford correction¹¹1The auto-corrected $\pi/8$ gate in (Litinski2019, ; Litinski2019magic, ) uses an additional ancillary qubit that has not been shown.. This correction needs to be known before the next logical operation involving a non-Clifford gate.

For a logical qubit that is only executing Clifford gates, errors can be decoded at any point of time (even after the experiment has ended). This is because all Clifford corrections can be commuted to the end of the circuit, essentially allowing the syndromes to be post-processed rather than decoded in real-time (Terhal2015, ). However, universal fault-tolerant quantum computer require non-Clifford gates such as the $T$-gate – this makes real-time decoding a necessity since syndromes for a patch must be decoded before the application of a non-Clifford gate. We call decodes that must happen before the application of a non-Clifford gate critical decodes since all syndromes generated up to that point for that logical qubit must be decoded before computation can proceed.

As discussed in Section 2, applying non-Clifford gates requires decoders to be up-to date with the latest syndrome for a logical qubit before computation can proceed. As shown by Terhal (Terhal2015, , p. 20), if the rate at which syndromes are generated $r_{gen}$ is faster than the rate at which they are processed $r_{proc}$, the memory required for storing syndromes that are yet to be decoded increases exponentially (referred to as the backlog problem). This exponential increase in the memory required also leads to an exponential increase in the runtime of the workload. Fig. 4(a) shows the exponential increase in the memory required to store undecoded syndromes for the wstate-60 benchmark with the number of rounds for various numbers of available decoders. For larger and longer running workloads, the memory requirements will be much higher. By reducing the number of available decoders, $r_{proc}$ is effectively reduced, leading to the exponential growth in memory. Decoding is necessary at runtime when consuming $T$-states, as discussed in Section 2, and Fig. 4(b) shows that it will be a frequent operation for most workloads.

This requirement for syndromes to be processed faster than they are generated has motivated research to build fast and accurate hardware decoders for the Surface Code (Smith2023, ; Ravi2023, ; Riverlane2023, ; Vittal2023, ; Alavisamani2024, ), especially for systems using superconducting qubit architectures due to their fast gate times. While the syndrome processing rates achieved by these decoders are far higher than typical syndrome generation rates achieved today (Google2023, ; Bluvstein2023, ), leaving syndromes undecoded for many successive rounds can be problematic. Fig. 4(c) shows how the decoder latency normalized to the number of rounds (latency per round) processed by the decoder can increase exponentially with the number of rounds of undecoded syndromes, especially for $d=7,9$²²2Note that the worst-case increase in decoding latencies for parallel window decoders (Skoric2023, ) in this scenario would be similar (best-case would be a linear slowdown while slowing down the logical clock). (circuit-level noise $p=10^{-4}$). The number of rounds was chosen as a multiple of $d$ since it represents the shortest period required for executing a logical operation (Horsman2012, ). This slowdown is easily explainable by the fact that errors will accumulate the longer a logical qubit remains undecoded, thus requiring more corrections to be performed. This can result in a significant slowdown, and hence a decrease in $r_{proc}$ leading to higher memory requirements to store undecoded syndromes. However, note that the slowdown in $r_{proc}$ will result in more rounds of error correction required to complete the computation. Fig. 4(d) shows how the logical error rate grows slowly with the number of rounds for $p=10^{-3}$, $p=10^{-4}$ respectively. Code distances are selected to achieve a target logical error rate after the $N$ rounds it takes to complete a program (Beverland2022, ; Blunt2024, ) – critical decodes delayed exponentially due to a slow $r_{proc}$ will exacerbate the logical error rate, since more rounds would be needed to complete the computation.

Critical decodes must be serviced during the execution of a program to avoid the increase in memory requirements and processing times discussed above. If there are many concurrent critical decodes that occur frequently during the execution of a program, an appropriate number of decoders will be needed to process these critical decodes. The level of concurrency depends entirely on the layout used to build the quantum computer – layouts such as the Compact (Litinski2019, , p. 7), Fast (Litinski2019, , p. 9), and the Edge-Disjoint Path (EDPC) (Beverland2022edpc, ) are some proposed layouts that can be used to build fault-tolerant quantum computers using the Surface Code. Layouts determine the number of physical qubits required – for example, the Compact layout requires the fewest physical qubits since there is a single routing lane at the cost of completely serializing operations. The Fast and EDPC layouts allow more concurrency at the cost of more physical qubits.

What is the average level of concurrency when executing a quantum program on a fault-tolerant quantum computer? Fig. 4(e) shows a histogram of the number of critical decodes³³3For the Surface Code, we assume every logical qubit requires two decoders – one each for the $X$ and $Z$ observables. for select workloads generated by the Lattice Surgery Compiler (watkins2023high, ). This histogram shows that the peak concurrency is attained very infrequently. This implies that most logical qubits function as memory qubits or execute Clifford gates more often than $T$-gates, and this can allow some qubits to not be decoded in real-time.

Provisioning a hardware decoder for every logical qubit in the system can be resource intensive – Fig. 4(f) shows an estimate of the number of FPGAs required just for decoding when (i) a single distillation factory is used, and (ii) an optimal number of distillation factories are used for different workloads ($\sim$10% FPGA LUTs/decoder (Vittal2023, ; Riverlane2023, )). This estimation was done using the Azure QRE (Beverland2022, ) that uses the Fast layout. Note that the total hardware requirement will be significantly higher because of control and readout components. Having shown how the syndrome processing rate is crucial in ensuring that computation does not require excessive memory and time and how quantum programs are inherently serial in terms of critical decodes, the question we seek to answer in this work is–

Reducing the number of available decoders implies that qubits will share hardware resources, resulting in time-division multiplexing of decoder instances among logical qubits. Fig. 5 shows how compared to a system with decoders for every logical qubit in the system ($N$ qubits, $N$ decoders), a system with fewer ($M$, $N>M$) decoders will require resources to be shared with time.

Time-division multiplexing of hardware resources will require the following considerations: (i) If the number of critical decodes at a given time step exceed the number of hardware decoders, the overflowing critical decodes will have to be deferred to the next available time step, and (ii) Qubits cannot be left undecoded for extended periods of time. For the first consideration, deferring critical decodes will increase serialization in the program – this offsets all benefits offered by the Fast and EDPC layouts. For the second consideration, leaving a qubit undecoded for too long will result in an exponential increase in the syndrome processing latency and memory required to store undecoded syndromes.

Since not all qubits will be involved in critical decodes at every time step, there will be some decoders available at a given point of time which will not be decoding a logical qubit involved in the consumption of a $T$-state. Allocating these free hardware decoders to logical qubits at every time thus becomes a scheduling problem.

Before we discuss different decoder scheduling policies, it is important to understand the time granularity at which any scheduling policy will operate on. Since logical operations (Clifford or non-Clifford) in a Surface Code error-corrected quantum computer will require at least $d$ rounds before the next operations, we define a slice (watkins2023high, ) as the smallest time step between logical operations that a decoder scheduling policy can work on. Every slice consists of $d$ rounds of syndrome measurements, thus making the scheduling policy agnostic of the actual code distance used.

Static decoder scheduling refers to decoder scheduling that can be performed at compile time. Since most quantum programs do not have any control-flow instructions, scheduling can be performed statically. Scheduling decoders is similar to CPU scheduling performed by all operating systems today, where the number of processes is more than the number of available processor cores (Liu1973, ).

Consider an arbitrary time slice $t$ in the execution of a quantum program. There are $N$ logical qubits and $M$ hardware decoders ($N>M$). All decoding scheduling policies will have two components: The first will assign the decoders necessary for all critical decodes $C$ in the time slice $t$. The second will assign all the remaining $M-C$ hardware decoders to the $N-C$ qubits based on the scheduling policy used. We now discuss three decoder scheduling policies (all policies are illustrated in Fig. 6(b) – Fig. 6(d)):

While control-flow instructions would necessitate runtime scheduling of decoders, events such as cosmic rays (McEwen2021, ) and leakage (Miao2023, ) can result in a temporary burst of errors for some physical qubits in the lattice that can impact some logical qubits. Scheduling after a control-flow instruction can be performed using any static scheduling policies for the program after the control-flow instruction. However, since the static scheduling policies do not account for the error-rate, spikes in errors due to cosmic rays and leakage cannot be factored at runtime without hardware support.

Detecting a spike in the physical error rate will either require errors to be decoded or additional hardware modules to detect the spike. While error-correcting codes can tolerate temporary increases in the error-rate (Google2023, ), the increase in errors can result in longer decoding latencies since the decoding task becomes harder with more errors. If a logical qubit affected by these events is not scheduled for decoding immediately after the event, decoding it before applying a non-Clifford gate could take longer, thus delaying the operation and causing a slowdown. As shown in Fig. 7(a), an increase in the physical error rate results in a higher number of bit-flips (especially for larger code distances), which can be detected with simple components in the control hardware. Fig. 7(b) shows how additional flips can be detected and used to dynamically prioritize the decoding of an arbitrary patch $P$, which suffers from a temporary burst of errors. Note that the detection is different from decoding – we are merely predicting that there are more errors due to higher bit-flips in the syndromes.

Software decoders are slow and also have a higher variance in decoding latencies (Delfosse2023, ). However, when scheduling decoding tasks for logical qubits, software decoders can be leveraged to further reduce the undecoded sequence lengths. As shown in Fig. 7(c), some syndromes for a logical qubit can be offloaded to software while the hardware decoders are busy elsewhere. To prevent scheduled hardware decoding from being delayed, a buffer (three slices in this example) must be used to ensure that the software offloading completes before the next hardware decode.

Magic state distillation factories generate few low-error logical qubits with non-Clifford states from many high-error logical qubits. Distillation factories run for very short periods at a time – this allows for smaller code distances to be used for creating the logical qubits for distillation (Litinski2019magic, ). As shown in Fig. 8, the error probability of a magic state is low enough to be useful even with $d=7$ ($d$ refers to $d_{X}$ in (Litinski2019magic, )).

Smaller code distances for distillation factories provide two main benefits: the number of physical qubits required are much lower, and more importantly, both hardware (Vittal2023, ; Smith2023, ; Delfosse2020, ; Caune2023, ) and software (Delfosse2023, ) decoders are faster and less complex. For example, LUT based decoders (Das2022lilliput, ) have been shown to be effective up to $d=5$ without requiring significant hardware resources. Predecoders (Delfosse2020, ; Ravi2023, ; Smith2023, ) reduce the complexity and decoding effort required for lower code distances as well. Compared to algorithmic logical qubits, which require a large code distance to survive millions of error correction cycles (Beverland2022, ; Blunt2024, ), the decoding requirements of distillation factories are far more relaxed, which reduces the hardware resource requirements as well.

We use the Lattice Surgery Compiler (LSC) (watkins2023high, ) to generate Intermediate Representations (IR) of workloads that can be executed on an error-corrected quantum computer using the Surface Code with lattice Surgery. LSC can generate IR that denote Lattice Surgery instructions from the QASM (qasm, ) representation of a workload. LSC handles mapping and routing based on the layout provided to the compiler. We configure LSC to use a ‘wave’ scheduling that maximizes the number of concurrent instructions executed in every time slice. LSC also uses Gridsynth (gridsynth, ) to deal with arbitrary rotations. However, since it is still under development, LSC has some limitations:

• •

  LSC is limited to multi-body measurements between only two logical qubits.

• •

  LSC abstracts away distillation factories, only magic state storage sites are considered.

• •

  LSC works for a limited set of layouts and is extremely slow for large workloads like shor.

Using the IR generated by LSC, we build a framework that can parse the IR and determine the critical decodes in every slice, generate a timeline of all operations, and assign decoders to all logical qubits depending on the scheduling policy. In case the number of critical decodes in a particular slice are more than the number of hardware decoders configured, decoder-resources can rewrite the IR to defer critical decodes to the next slice (potentially increasing the execution time of the program).

We aim to answer the following questions:

1. (1)

   How many decoders can we virtualize in the system without affecting performance?

2. (2)

   How long do qubits go undecoded when using different scheduling policies?

3. (3)

   How do scheduling policies affect memory usage when using virtualized decoders?

We consider the baseline to have decoders for every logical qubit in the system. Fig. 9(a) shows the maximum number of critical decodes that occur during the execution of different workloads for all selected layouts. The Compact layout has a maximum of two critical decode per slice between two logical qubits. Fig. 9(b) shows the total time required to finish all workloads⁵⁵5shor-15 was stopped after 100,000$d$ code cycles. – the EDPC and Fast layouts are significantly faster than Compact, and the EDPC layout has a very slight advantage over Fast for most workloads and also uses fewer qubits 9(c) (only algorithmic logical qubits are considered). Due to these advantages, we consider only the EDPC layout for all further evaluations.

Fig. 10 shows the three decoder configurations selected for this work.

• •

  The All Qubits configuration denotes the baseline where all qubits have a decoder.

• •

  Max. Concurrency refers to the configuration where the number of hardware decoders in the system corresponds to the peak concurrent critical decodes for every workload shown in Fig. 9(a).

• •

  Midpoint refers to a configuration where the number of hardware decoders is the midpoint between the max. and min. concurrent critical decodes ($=\frac{Max.+Min.}{2}$).

The minimum concurrent critical decodes corresponds to two critical decodes between two logical qubits. All evaluations are for algorithmic logical qubits, logical qubits required for distillation are not considered. For the All Qubits configuration, the longest undecoded sequence length will be zero, since every logical qubit has an assigned decoder.

The results shown in previous sections show that VQD reduces the number of hardware decoders for algorithmic logical qubits by nearly one order of magnitude for most workloads with the Midpoint configuration, which, when combined with the MLS scheduling policy, results in significantly reduced memory requirements and low undecoded sequence lengths. Memory requirements and undecoded sequence lengths can be further reduced by offloading some non-critical decodes to software.