Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Error Correction Fault Tolerance
Enhanced Fault-tolerance in Photonic Quantum Computing: Comparing the Honeycomb Floquet Code and the Surface Code in Tailored Architecture
arXiv
Authors: Théo Dessertaine, Boris Bourdoncle, Aurélie Denys, Grégoire de Gliniasty, Pierre Colonna d'Istria, Gerard Valentí-Rojas, Shane Mansfield, Paul Hilaire
Year
2024
Paper ID
38311
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
176
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Fault-tolerant quantum computing is crucial for realizing large-scale quantum computation, and the interplay between hardware architecture and quantum error-correcting codes is a key consideration. We present a comparative study of two quantum error-correcting codes - the surface code and the honeycomb Floquet code - implemented on the spin-optical quantum computing architecture, either with controlled-Z operations or with direct parity measurements. This allows for a direct comparison of the codes using consistent noise models. Notably, we achieve a loss threshold of 6.3% with the honeycomb Floquet code implemented on our tailored architecture, almost twice as high as the loss threshold obtained with the surface code on the previous architecture, all the while requiring less physical qubits. This finding is particularly significant given that photon loss is the primary source of errors in photon-mediated quantum computing. Moreover, we benchmark the general performances of the two codes in a multi-error setting by computing the volume of the fault-tolerant region, and show that the fault-tolerant region of the honeycomb code is over twice as large as that of the surface code.
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.