MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Constant-Overhead Quantum Error Correction with Thin Planar Connectivity

2022· article· en· W3204653979 on OpenAlexaff
Maxime Tremblay, Nicolas Delfosse, Michael E. Beverland

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQubitLow-density parity-check codeQuantum convolutional codeComputer scienceError detection and correctionQuantum computerQuantum error correctionParity bitPlanarQuantumTopology (electrical circuits)AlgorithmDiscrete mathematicsPhysicsMathematicsQuantum mechanicsDecoding methodsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantum low density parity check (LDPC) codes may provide a path to build low-overhead fault-tolerant quantum computers. However, as general LDPC codes lack geometric constraints, naïve layouts couple many distant qubits with crossing connections which could be hard to build in hardware and could result in performance-degrading crosstalk. We propose a 2D layout for quantum LDPC codes by decomposing their Tanner graphs into a small number of planar layers. Each layer contains long-range connections which do not cross. For any Calderbank-Shor-Steane code with a degree-δ Tanner graph, we design stabilizer measurement circuits with depth at most (2δ+2) using at most ⌈δ/2⌉ layers. We observe a circuit-noise threshold of 0.28% for a positive-rate code family using 49 physical qubits per logical qubit. For a physical error rate of 10^{-4}, this family reaches a logical error rate of 10^{-15} using fourteen times fewer physical qubits than the surface code.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations78
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207