Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Error Correction Fault Tolerance
The XYZ$^2$ hexagonal stabilizer code
arXiv
Authors: Basudha Srivastava, Anton Frisk Kockum, Mats Granath
Year
2021
Paper ID
40757
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
204
Citations
N/A
Abstract
We consider a topological stabilizer code on a honeycomb grid, the "XYZ$^2$" code. The code is inspired by the Kitaev honeycomb model and is a simple realization of a "matching code" discussed by Wootton [J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 48, 215302 (2015)], with a specific implementation of the boundary. It utilizes weight-six ($XYZXYZ$) plaquette stabilizers and weight-two ($XX$) link stabilizers on a planar hexagonal grid composed of $2d^2$ qubits for code distance $d$, with weight-three stabilizers at the boundary, stabilizing one logical qubit. We study the properties of the code using maximum-likelihood decoding, assuming perfect stabilizer measurements. For pure $X$, $Y$, or $Z$ noise, we can solve for the logical failure rate analytically, giving a threshold of 50%. In contrast to the rotated surface code and the XZZX code, which have code distance $d^2$ only for pure $Y$ noise, here the code distance is $2d^2$ for both pure $Z$ and pure $Y$ noise. Thresholds for noise with finite $Z$ bias are similar to the XZZX code, but with markedly lower sub-threshold logical failure rates. The code possesses distinctive syndrome properties with unidirectional pairs of plaquette defects along the three directions of the triangular lattice for isolated errors, which may be useful for efficient matching-based or other approximate decoding.
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.