Quick Navigation

Overview Topics Abstract Importance Paper Tools References Reactions Discussion Publication

Topics

Trapped Ion Quantum Computing

Quantum error correction with dissipatively stabilized squeezed cat qubits

arXiv
Authors: Timo Hillmann, Fernando Quijandría

Year

2022

Paper ID

58088

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

98

Citations

N/A

Abstract

Noise-biased qubits are a promising route toward significantly reducing the hardware overhead associated with quantum error correction. The squeezed cat code, a non-local encoding in phase space based on squeezed coherent states, is an example of a noise-biased (bosonic) qubit with exponential error bias. Here we propose and analyze the error correction performance of a dissipatively stabilized squeezed cat qubit. We find that for moderate squeezing the bit-flip error rate gets significantly reduced in comparison with the ordinary cat qubit while leaving the phase flip rate unchanged. Additionally, we find that the squeezing enables faster and higher-fidelity gates.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Trapped-Ion Quantum Computing research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2022 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • Noise-biased qubits are a promising route toward significantly reducing the hardware overhead associated with quantum error correction.

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.

Become a member Sign in
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

[1] DOI https://doi.org/arXiv:2210.13359 [2] arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.13359 [3] Publisher https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.13359

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #58088

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.