Improved quantum error correction with randomized compiling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current hardware for quantum computing suffers from high levels of noise, and so to achieve practical fault-tolerant quantum computing will require powerful and efficient methods to correct for errors in quantum circuits. Here, we explore the role and effectiveness of using noise tailoring techniques to improve the performance of error correcting codes. Noise tailoring methods such as randomized compiling (RC) convert complex coherent noise processes to effective stochastic noise. While it is known that this can be leveraged to design efficient diagnostic tools, we explore its impact on the performance of error correcting codes. Of particular interest is the important class of coherent errors, arising from control errors, where RC has the maximum effect---converting these into purely stochastic errors. For these errors, we show here that RC delivers an improvement in performance of the concatenated Steane code by several orders of magnitude. We also show that below a threshold rotation angle, the gains in logical fidelity can be arbitrarily magnified by increasing the size of the codes. These results suggest that using randomized compiling can lead to a significant reduction in the resource overhead required to achieve fault tolerance.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".