REVIEW 1 cited by
High-rate quantum LDPC codes for long-range-connected neutral atom registers
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
High-rate quantum error correcting (QEC) codes with moderate overheads in qubit number and control complexity are highly desirable for achieving fault-tolerant quantum computing. Recently, quantum error correction has experienced significant progress both in code development and experimental realizations, with neutral atom qubit architecture rapidly establishing itself as a leading platform in the field. Scalable quantum computing will require processing with QEC codes that have low qubit overhead and large error suppression, and while such codes do exist, they involve a degree of non-locality that has yet to be integrated into experimental platforms. In this work, we analyze a family of high-rate Low-Density Parity-Check (LDPC) codes with limited long-range interactions and outline a near-term implementation in neutral atom registers. By means of circuit-level simulations, we find that these codes outperform surface codes in all respects when the two-qubit nearest neighbour gate error probability is below $\sim 0.1\%$. By using multiple laser colors, we show how these codes can be natively integrated in two-dimensional static neutral atom qubit architectures with open boundaries, where the desired long-range connectivity can be targeted via the Rydberg blockade interaction.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Native Non-Clifford Gates in Quantum LDPC Codes: Conditions, Synthesis, and Scaling Limits
The main theorem claiming constant-depth logical CCZ gates exist from many 'magic-friendly triples' has mutually inconsistent hypotheses, and its key local-implementation step is unproved.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.