You're viewing papers too quickly. Please wait a moment.<br>This helps keep the archive available for everyone.

Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Error Correction Fault Tolerance

Towards local testability for quantum coding

arXiv
Authors: Anthony Leverrier, Vivien Londe, Gilles Zémor

Year

2019

Paper ID

14952

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

180

Citations

N/A

Abstract

We introduce the hemicubic codes, a family of quantum codes obtained by associating qubits with the $p$-faces of the $n$-cube (for $n>p$) and stabilizer constraints with faces of dimension $\(p\pm1\)$. The quantum code obtained by identifying antipodal faces of the resulting complex encodes one logical qubit into $N = 2^{n-p-1} \tbinom{n}{p}$ physical qubits and displays local testability with a soundness of $Ω\(1/\log(N\))$ beating the current state-of-the-art of $1/\log^{2}(N)$ due to Hastings. We exploit this local testability to devise an efficient decoding algorithm that corrects arbitrary errors of size less than the minimum distance, up to polylog factors. We then extend this code family by considering the quotient of the $n$-cube by arbitrary linear classical codes of length $n$. We establish the parameters of these generalized hemicubic codes. Interestingly, if the soundness of the hemicubic code could be shown to be constant, similarly to the ordinary $n$-cube, then the generalized hemicubic codes could yield quantum locally testable codes of length not exceeding an exponential or even polynomial function of the code dimension.

Paper Tools

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Compare Add to Reading List

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #14952 #35400 Building a spin quantum bit reg... #35396 Fault tolerance with noisy and ... #35393 Topological quantum hashing wit... #35390 Clustered error correction of c...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.