4.2 Article

Tailored XZZX codes for biased noise

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW RESEARCH
卷 5, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.013035

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quantum error correction (QEC) for generic errors is challenging, but when physical noise is biased, tailored QEC schemes can improve performance. In this study, we explored XZZX codes that are highly efficient if tailored to biased noise. By using the notion of effective distance, we found that the XZZX codes achieve favorable resource scaling and remarkably high thresholds, while also being efficiently decoded. Additionally, these codes can realize fault-tolerant QEC with a large effective distance by adding only one flag qubit.
Quantum error correction (QEC) for generic errors is challenging due to the demanding threshold and resource requirements. Interestingly, when physical noise is biased, we can tailor our QEC schemes to the noise to improve performance. Here we study a family of codes having XZZX-type stabilizer generators, including a set of cyclic codes generalized from the five-qubit code and a set of topological codes that we call generalized toric codes (GTCs). We show that these XZZX codes are highly qubit efficient if tailored to biased noise. To characterize the code performance, we use the notion of effective distance, which generalizes code distance to the case of biased noise and constitutes a proxy for the logical failure rate. We find that the XZZX codes can achieve a favorable resource scaling by this metric under biased noise. We also show that the XZZX codes have remarkably high thresholds that reach what is achievable by random codes, and furthermore they can be efficiently decoded using matching decoders. Finally, by adding only one flag qubit, the XZZX codes can realize fault-tolerant QEC while preserving their large effective distance. In combination, our results show that tailored XZZX codes give a resource-efficient scheme for fault-tolerant QEC against biased noise.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据