Quick Navigation

Topics

Trapped Ion Quantum Computing

Finding good quantum codes using the Cartan form

arXiv
Authors: Akshaya Jayashankar, Anjala M Babu, Hui Khoon Ng, Prabha Mandayam

Year

2019

Paper ID

14963

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

132

Citations

N/A

Abstract

We present a simple and fast numerical procedure to search for good quantum codes for storing logical qubits in the presence of independent per-qubit noise. In a key departure from past work, we use the worst-case fidelity as the figure of merit for quantifying code performance, a much better indicator of code quality than, say, entanglement fidelity. Yet, our algorithm does not suffer from inefficiencies usually associated with the use of worst-case fidelity. Specifically, using a near-optimal recovery map, we are able to reduce the triple numerical optimization needed for the search to a single optimization over the encoding map. We can further reduce the search space using the Cartan decomposition, focusing our search over the nonlocal degrees of freedom resilient against independent per-qubit noise, while not suffering much in code performance.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Trapped-Ion Quantum Computing research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2019 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • We present a simple and fast numerical procedure to search for good quantum codes for storing logical qubits in the presence of independent per-qubit noise.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #14963

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.