Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Optimization Quantum Error Correction Fault Tolerance

Geometry-induced correlated noise in qLDPC syndrome extraction

arXiv
Authors: Angelo Di Bella

Year

2026

Paper ID

38751

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

152

Citations

N/A

Abstract

With code and syndrome-extraction schedule fixed, can routed geometry alone change the correlated fault model enough to impact logical performance? Starting from a geometry-conditioned same-tick interaction Hamiltonian, we derive a controlled retained single-and-pair data-fault model for bivariate-bicycle (BB) layouts. Two geometry metrics emerge in two kernel regimes: under a crossing-local diagnostic kernel, a matching argument reduces the support-level effective fault weight; when every support pair appears in at least one retained round with finite same-round separation, strictly positive kernels saturate the support graph, and weighted exposure becomes the discriminating quantity. Circuit-level Monte Carlo on the $[\![72, 12, 6]\!]$ and $[\![144, 12, 12]\!]$ benchmarks confirms that a biplanar bounded-thickness layout suppresses the monomial single-layer embedding penalty, with weighted exposure tracking logical error rate across 101 operating points (Spearman correlation 0.893). A single-layer logical-family optimization on BB72 reduces worst-case exposure by 26.11% and lowers logical error rate in the tested power-law window. Routed geometry should be optimized together with code, schedule, and decoder.

Paper Tools

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Compare Add to Reading List

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #38751 #39153 Measurement-Free Ancilla Recycl... #39128 Decoder Dependence in Surface-C... #39126 QHap: Quantum-Inspired Haplotyp... #39099 ParaQAOA: Efficient Parallel Di...

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.