How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Logical error and leakage add under code-preserving gate approximation
Statement
Let be a code projection on a finite-dimensional Hilbert space . Let be ideal unitaries preserving , and let be physical unitaries with . If and , then, with empty products equal to and empty sums equal to , Consequently the logical block error and leakage amplitude relative to the code action of are each at most .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The code projection, the two finite lists of unitaries, and the individual bounds .
If preserves the code, the logical block error and leakage amplitude are the compression and off-diagonal block norms. Logical block error and leakage amplitude
A full-space operator approximation of size bounds both compressed logical error and leakage by . Block-target approximation bounds logical error and leakage
Proof
If , both products are the empty product and the sum of errors is , so the full-space error is ; [F2] then gives zero logical block error and zero leakage.
For , insert and subtract the mixed products to obtain the exact telescoping identity It follows by expanding the sum: consecutive terms cancel, leaving only . Every outer product is unitary, so its operator norm is one and each summand has norm at most . The triangle inequality proves the displayed sum bound.
The product preserves the code because each factor does. Apply [F2] with ; step 1.1 bounds this by using step 1.2 when and step 1.1 when . This gives the claimed logical error and leakage bounds, including on arbitrary ambient states before projection.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
4 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Ronald de Wolf, Quantum Computing: Lecture Notes (standard reference, not scraped)
- Chetan Nayak, Steven H. Simon, Ady Stern, Michael Freedman, and Sankar Das Sarma, Non-Abelian Anyons and Topological Quantum Computation (standard reference, not scraped)