Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Error Correction Fault Tolerance

Optimization of decoder priors for accurate quantum error correction

arXiv
Authors: Volodymyr Sivak, Michael Newman, Paul Klimov

Year

2024

Paper ID

66914

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

104

Citations

N/A

Abstract

Accurate decoding of quantum error-correcting codes is a crucial ingredient in protecting quantum information from decoherence. It requires characterizing the error channels corrupting the logical quantum state and providing this information as a prior to the decoder. We introduce a reinforcement learning inspired method for calibrating these priors that aims to minimize the logical error rate. Our method significantly improves the decoding accuracy in repetition and surface code memory experiments executed on Google's Sycamore processor, outperforming the leading decoder-agnostic method by 16% and 3.3% respectively. This calibration approach will serve as an important tool for maximizing the performance of both near-term and future error-corrected quantum devices.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Error Correction & Fault Tolerance research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2024 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • Accurate decoding of quantum error-correcting codes is a crucial ingredient in protecting quantum information from decoherence.

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 #66914

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.