Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Error Correction Fault Tolerance

LUCI in the Surface Code with Dropouts

arXiv
Authors: Dripto M. Debroy, Matt McEwen, Craig Gidney, Noah Shutty, Adam Zalcman

Year

2024

Paper ID

37924

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

195

Citations

N/A

Abstract

Recently, usage of detecting regions facilitated the discovery of new circuits for fault-tolerantly implementing the surface code. Building on these ideas, we present LUCI, a framework for constructing fault-tolerant circuits flexible enough to construct aperiodic and anisotropic circuits, making it a clear step towards quantum error correction beyond static codes. We show that LUCI can be used to adapt surface code circuits to lattices with imperfect qubit and coupler yield, a key challenge for fault-tolerant quantum computers using solid-state architectures. These circuits preserve spacelike distance for isolated broken couplers or isolated broken measure qubits in exchange for halving timelike distance, substantially reducing the penalty for dropout compared to the state of the art and creating opportunities in device architecture design. For qubit and coupler dropout rates of 1% and a patch diameter of 15, LUCI achieves an average spacelike distance of 13.1, compared to 9.1 for the best method in the literature. For a SI1000(0.001) circuit noise model, this translates to a 36x improvement in median logical error rate per round, a factor which increases with device performance. At these dropout and error rates, LUCI requires roughly 25% fewer physical qubits to reach algorithmically relevant one-in-a-trillion logical codeblock error rates.

Paper Tools

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Compare Add to Reading List

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #37924 #38466 Entanglement-assisted Quantum E...

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.