Do you want to publish a course? Click here

2-D Compass Codes

300   0   0.0 ( 0 )
 Added by Michael Newman
 Publication date 2018
  fields Physics
and research's language is English




Ask ChatGPT about the research

The compass model on a square lattice provides a natural template for building subsystem stabilizer codes. The surface code and the Bacon-Shor code represent two extremes of possible codes depending on how many gauge qubits are fixed. We explore threshold behavior in this broad class of local codes by trading locality for asymmetry and gauge degrees of freedom for stabilizer syndrome information. We analyze these codes with asymmetric and spatially inhomogeneous Pauli noise in the code capacity and phenomenological models. In these idealized settings, we observe considerably higher thresholds against asymmetric noise. At the circuit level, these codes inherit the bare-ancilla fault-tolerance of the Bacon-Shor code.



rate research

Read More

We simulate four quantum error correcting codes under error models inspired by realistic noise sources in near-term ion trap quantum computers: $T_2$ dephasing, gate overrotation, and crosstalk. We use this data to find preferred codes for given error parameters along with logical error biases and a pseudothreshold which compares the physical and logical gate failure rates for a CNOT gate. Using these results we conclude that Bacon-Shor-13 is the most promising near term candidate as long as the impact of crosstalk can be mitigated through other means.
We present a quantum LDPC code family that has distance $Omega(N^{3/5}/operatorname{polylog}(N))$ and $tildeTheta(N^{3/5})$ logical qubits. This is the first quantum LDPC code construction which achieves distance greater than $N^{1/2} operatorname{polylog}(N)$. The construction is based on generalizing the homological product of codes to a fiber bundle.
348 - M. Stefanak , B. Kollar , T. Kiss 2010
Recurrence of a random walk is described by the Polya number. For quantum walks, recurrence is understood as the return of the walker to the origin, rather than the full-revival of its quantum state. Localization for two dimensional quantum walks is known to exist in the sense of non-vanishing probability distribution in the asymptotic limit. We show on the example of the 2-D Grover walk that one can exploit the effect of localization to construct stationary solutions. Moreover, we find full-revivals of a quantum state with a period of two steps. We prove that there cannot be longer cycles for a four-state quantum walk. Stationary states and revivals result from interference which has no counterpart in classical random walks.
189 - James R. Wootton 2015
We study and generalize the class of qubit topological stabilizer codes that arise in the Abelian phase of the honeycomb lattice model. The resulting family of codes, which we call `matching codes realize the same anyon model as the surface codes, and so may be similarly used in proposals for quantum computation. We show that these codes are particularly well suited to engineering twist defects that behave as Majorana modes. A proof of principle system that demonstrates the braiding properties of the Majoranas is discussed that requires only three qubits.
There is an interesting property about multipartite entanglement, called the monogamy of entanglement. The property can be shown by the monogamy inequality, called the Coffman-Kundu-Wootters inequality [Phys. Rev. A {bf 61}, 052306 (2000); Phys. Rev. Lett. {bf 96}, 220503 (2006)], and more explicitly by the monogamy equality in terms of the concurrence and the concurrence of assistance, $mathcal{C}_{A(BC)}^2=mathcal{C}_{AB}^2+(mathcal{C}_{AC}^a)^2$, in the three-qubit system. In this paper, we consider the monogamy equality in $2otimes 2 otimes d$ quantum systems. We show that $mathcal{C}_{A(BC)}=mathcal{C}_{AB}$ if and only if $mathcal{C}_{AC}^a=0$, and also show that if $mathcal{C}_{A(BC)}=mathcal{C}_{AC}^a$ then $mathcal{C}_{AB}=0$, while there exists a state in a $2otimes 2 otimes d$ system such that $mathcal{C}_{AB}=0$ but $mathcal{C}_{A(BC)}>mathcal{C}_{AC}^a$.
comments
Fetching comments Fetching comments
mircosoft-partner

هل ترغب بارسال اشعارات عن اخر التحديثات في شمرا-اكاديميا