Weight-Reduced Stabilizer Codes with Lower Overhead
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stabilizer codes are the most widely studied class of quantum error-correcting codes and form the basis of most proposals for a fault-tolerant quantum computer. A stabilizer code is defined by a set of parity-check operators, which are measured in order to infer information about errors that may have occurred. In typical settings, measuring these operators is itself a noisy process and the noise strength scales with the number of qubits involved in a given parity check, or its weight. Hastings has proposed a method for reducing the weights of the parity checks of a stabilizer code, though it has previously only been studied in the asymptotic regime. Here, we instead focus on the regime of small to medium-size codes suitable for quantum computing hardware. We both provide a fully explicit description of Hastings’s method and propose a substantially simplified weight-reduction method that is applicable to the class of quantum product codes. Our simplified method allows us to reduce the check weights of hypergraph- and lifted-product codes to at most six, while preserving the number of logical qubits and at least retaining (in fact, often increasing) the code distance. The price we pay is an increase in the number of physical qubits by a constant factor but we find that our method is much more efficient than Hastings’s method in this regard. We benchmark the performance of our codes on a simulated photonic quantum computing architecture based on Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill qubits and passive linear optics, finding that our weight-reduction method substantially improves code performance. Published by the American Physical Society 2024
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".