Optimal Thresholds for Fracton Codes and Random Spin Models with Subsystem Symmetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fracton models provide examples of novel gapped quantum phases of matter that host intrinsically immobile excitations and therefore lie beyond the conventional notion of topological order. Here, we calculate optimal error thresholds for quantum error correcting codes based on fracton models. By mapping the error-correction process for bit-flip and phase-flip noises into novel statistical models with Ising variables and random multibody couplings, we obtain models that exhibit an unconventional subsystem symmetry instead of a more usual global symmetry. We perform large-scale parallel tempering Monte Carlo simulations to obtain disorder-temperature phase diagrams, which are then used to predict optimal error thresholds for the corresponding fracton code. Remarkably, we found that the X-cube fracton code displays a minimum error threshold (7.5%) that is much higher than 3D topological codes such as the toric code (3.3%), or the color code (1.9%). This result, together with the predicted absence of glass order at the Nishimori line, shows great potential for fracton phases to be used as quantum memory platforms.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".