MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320561180 · doi:10.3929/ethz-b-000592781

Tailoring Three-Dimensional Topological Codes for Biased Noise

2022· preprint· en· W4320561180 on OpenAlexaff
Eric J. Huang, Arthur Pesah, Christopher T. Chubb, Michael Vasmer, Arpit Dua

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeUniversity of WaterlooPerimeter Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTopology (electrical circuits)QubitToric codeDecoding methodsLattice (music)Pauli exclusion principlePhysicsAlgorithmMathematicsQuantum mechanicsTopological orderCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tailored topological stabilizer codes in two dimensions have been shown to exhibit high storage threshold error rates and improved subthreshold performance under biased Pauli noise. Three-dimensional (3D) topological codes can allow for several advantages including a transversal implementation of non-Clifford logical gates, single-shot decoding strategies, parallelized decoding in the case of fracton codes as well as construction of fractal lattice codes. Motivated by this, we tailor 3D topological codes for enhanced storage performance under biased Pauli noise. We present Clifford deformations of various 3D topological codes, such that they exhibit a threshold error rate of $50\%$ under infinitely biased Pauli noise. Our examples include the 3D surface code on the cubic lattice, the 3D surface code on a checkerboard lattice that lends itself to a subsystem code with a single-shot decoder, the 3D color code, as well as fracton models such as the X-cube model, the Sierpinski model and the Haah code. We use the belief propagation with ordered statistics decoder (BP-OSD) to study threshold error rates at finite bias. We also present a rotated layout for the 3D surface code, which uses roughly half the number of physical qubits for the same code distance under appropriate boundary conditions. Imposing coprime periodic dimensions on this rotated layout leads to logical operators of weight $O(n)$ at infinite bias and a corresponding $\exp[-O(n)]$ subthreshold scaling of the logical failure rate, where $n$ is the number of physical qubits in the code. Even though this scaling is unstable due to the existence of logical representations with $O(1)$ low-rate Pauli errors, the number of such representations scales only polynomially for the Clifford-deformed code, leading to an enhanced effective distance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.137 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207