REVIEW 1 cited by
Constructions and performance of hyperbolic and semi-hyperbolic Floquet codes
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
abstract
We construct families of Floquet codes derived from colour code tilings of closed hyperbolic surfaces. These codes have weight-two check operators, a finite encoding rate and can be decoded efficiently with minimum-weight perfect matching. We also construct semi-hyperbolic Floquet codes, which have improved distance scaling, and are obtained via a fine-graining procedure. Using a circuit-based noise model that assumes direct two-qubit measurements, we show that semi-hyperbolic Floquet codes can be $48\times$ more efficient than planar honeycomb codes and therefore over $100\times$ more efficient than alternative compilations of the surface code to two-qubit measurements, even at physical error rates of $0.3\%$ to $1\%$. We further demonstrate that semi-hyperbolic Floquet codes can have a teraquop footprint of only 32 physical qubits per logical qubit at a noise strength of $0.1\%$. For standard circuit-level depolarising noise at $p=0.1\%$, we find a $30\times$ improvement over planar honeycomb codes and a $5.6\times$ improvement over surface codes. Finally, we analyse small instances that are amenable to near-term experiments, including a Floquet code derived from the Bolza surface that encodes four logical qubits into 16 physical qubits.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Generalized Bicycle Codes with Low Connectivity: Minimum Distance Bounds and Hook Errors
New minimum-distance bounds for generalized bicycle codes are used to construct two degree-4 check families, [[d^2+1,2,d]] and [[d^2,2,d]], with surface-code-comparable simulated thresholds and a logical CNOT via relabeling.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.