Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Error Correction Fault Tolerance
Stabilizer Slicing: Coherent Error Cancellations in LDPC Codes
arXiv
Authors: Dripto Debroy, Muyuan Li, Michael Newman, Kenneth R. Brown
Year
2018
Paper ID
24304
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
201
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Coherent errors are a dominant noise process in many quantum computing architectures. Unlike stochastic errors, these errors can combine constructively and grow into highly detrimental overrotations. To combat this, we introduce a simple technique for suppressing systematic coherent errors in low-density parity-check (LDPC) stabilizer codes, which we call stabilizer slicing. The essential idea is to slice low-weight stabilizers into two equally-weighted Pauli operators and then apply them by rotating in opposite directions, causing their overrotations to interfere destructively on the logical subspace. With access to native gates generated by 3-body Hamiltonians, we can completely eliminate purely coherent overrotation errors, and for overrotation noise of 0.99 unitarity we achieve a 135-fold improvement in the logical error rate of Surface-17. For more conventional 2-body ion trap gates, we observe an 89-fold improvement for Bacon-Shor-13 with purely coherent errors which should be testable in near-term fault-tolerance experiments. This second scheme takes advantage of the prepared gauge degrees of freedom, and to our knowledge is the first example in which the state of the gauge directly affects the robustness of a code's memory. This work demonstrates that coherent noise is preferable to stochastic noise within certain code and gate implementations when the coherence is utilized effectively.
Paper Tools
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
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.