arXiv.wiki

A Fault-Tolerant Honeycomb Memory

Craig Gidney, Michael Newman, Austin Fowler, Michael Broughton

https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.10457 (or view on SciRate)


Main idea

We checked how well the honeycomb code (a quantum error correcting code) works by using simulations with controllable noise.

Results

We tried a few different ways of building the honeycomb code and putting noise into it. The most interesting one involved having a native operation for “tell me if these two qubits are the same or different” (an “entangling measurement”).

We found the maximum amount of noise where the honeycomb code is helpful instead of harmful (its “threshold”). The honeycomb code helps as long as there’s less than a 2% chance of error per operation, when using entangling measurements.

We estimated how big the honeycombed code has to be, depending on the starting noise, to reduce that noise down to a 1 in a trillion chance of error per operation. With a starting noise of 0.1% chance of error per operation, when using entangling measurements, you need a honeycomb code made up of 600 qubits to hit the 1 in a trillion goal. That’s an impressively small number of qubits.

Background

Wikipedia article on quantum error correction

The preprint that introduced the honeycomb code

A paper describing the surface code, which is what we compared the honeycomb code to



tags: error-correction