GFlowQEC: Generative Flow Networks that Learn to Sample Quantum LDPC Codes
Organizations: Department of Informatics Engineering, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal · Instituto de Telecomunicações, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal · New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates · University of Coimbra, CISUC/LASI – Centre for Informatics and Systems of the University of Coimbra, Department of Informatics Engineering
Abstract
Choosing a quantum error-correcting code for a real device means scoring candidates with circuit-level simulations so slow that only a few hundred can be run. So every evaluation counts, and a search is judged by how many good codes it finds per paid evaluation. Quantum LDPC codes built from a few group elements protect many logical qubits, but good ones are rare in a huge space. We introduce GFlowQEC, to our knowledge the first generative flow network (GFlowNet) for quantum code design. It builds a code one group element at a time and learns to propose codes in proportion to a power of their score. We train it once on scores from earlier searches, freeze it, and let it propose lifted-product codes with 180 physical qubits, scored by their distances. Ranking ten of its draws per paid call, it finds more than twice as many new top-scoring codes (inequivalent to any it was trained on) as tuned parallel tempering, even when tempering starts from GFlowQEC's training codes. It finds more than three and a half times as many as a supervised screen ranking ten random candidates per call. When both rank a hundred, the screen beats GFlowQEC, and does best ranking GFlowQEC's draws. Soft Q-learning, which shares the GFlowNet's optimal policy, does as well at one noise bias and better at the other, so the gain does not depend on the GFlowNet's training loss. Trained proposers can make a budget of expensive evaluations go further when good codes are rare.
Figures & tables
| Work | Family | Score | Returns | Matched budget | Exact distances |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chengyu et al. [ 10 ] , Bayesian optimisation | BB, any weight | Rate and error rate | one code per weighting | yes | no |
| Cruz-Benito et al. [ 11 ] , LLM | BB | a catalogue | partly | some | |
| Liu and Marquardt [ 24 ] , LLM | LP | Rate and error rate | an archive | no | no |
| Bhardwaj et al. [ 4 ] , filtered sampling | LP, non-abelian | Distance upper bounds | one code per group | no | some |
| Sella et al. [ 34 ] , reinforcement learning | BB as defined by Bravyi et al. [ 5 ] | Decoder success rate | best code so far | no | no |
| Freire et al. [ 13 ] , three searches | Hypergraph product | Erasure failure rate | one best code | yes | not stated |
| Certified top-scoring codes | Inequivalent | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | ||||
| Trained on, or started from, the stored forms | ||||
| GFlowQEC | ||||
| Supervised screen | ||||
| Soft Q-learning, trained offline | ||||
| Tuned PT from the stored forms | ||||
Quantum Error Correction
Quantum error correction detects and corrects qubit noise so quantum information and computations remain reliable.
See all 35 papers