1Google Quantum AI, Santa Barbara, California 93117, USA
2University of California, Santa Barbara, 93106, USA
Find this paper interesting or want to discuss? Scite or leave a comment on SciRate.
Abstract
We improve the planar honeycomb code by describing boundaries that need no additional physical connectivity, and by optimizing the shape of the qubit patch. We then benchmark the code using Monte Carlo sampling to estimate logical error rates and derive metrics including thresholds, lambdas, and teraquop qubit counts. We determine that the planar honeycomb code can create a logical qubit with one-in-a-trillion logical error rates using 7000 physical qubits at a 0.1% gate-level error rate (or 900 physical qubits given native two-qubit parity measurements). Our results cement the honeycomb code as a promising candidate for two-dimensional qubit architectures with sparse connectivity.
Featured image: The cycle of measurements that defines the planar honeycomb code, and the locations of logical observables throughout this cycle. Uses XYZ=RGB color coding to map Pauli operators to colors.
Estimating overheads for quantum fault-tolerance in the honeycomb code (Talk by Mike Newman)
[embedded content]
A short history of the honeycomb code (Talk by Craig Gidney)
[embedded content]
Popular summary
► BibTeX data
► References
[1] Google Quantum AI. Exponential suppression of bit or phase errors with cyclic error correction. Nature, 595 (7867): 383, 2021. 10.1038/s41586-021-03588-y.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03588-y
[2] Dave Bacon. Operator quantum error-correcting subsystems for self-correcting quantum memories. Physical Review A, 73 (1): 012340, 2006. 10.1103/PhysRevA.73.012340.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.73.012340
[3] Héctor Bombín and Miguel A Martin-Delgado. Optimal resources for topological two-dimensional stabilizer codes: Comparative study. Physical Review A, 76 (1): 012305, 2007. 10.1103/PhysRevA.76.012305.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.76.012305
[4] Christopher Chamberland, Guanyu Zhu, Theodore J Yoder, Jared B Hertzberg, and Andrew W Cross. Topological and subsystem codes on low-degree graphs with flag qubits. Physical Review X, 10 (1): 011022, 2020. 10.1103/PhysRevX.10.011022.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.10.011022
[5] Rui Chao, Michael E Beverland, Nicolas Delfosse, and Jeongwan Haah. Optimization of the surface code design for majorana-based qubits. Quantum, 4: 352, 2020. 10.22331/q-2020-10-28-352.
https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2020-10-28-352
[6] Austin G Fowler. Optimal complexity correction of correlated errors in the surface code. arXiv preprint arXiv:1310.0863, 2013. 10.48550/arXiv.1310.0863.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1310.0863
arXiv:1310.0863
[7] Craig Gidney. Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator. Quantum, 5: 497, July 2021a. ISSN 2521-327X. 10.22331/q-2021-07-06-497.
https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2021-07-06-497
[8] Craig Gidney. The stim circuit file format (.stim). https://github.com/quantumlib/Stim/blob/main/doc/file_format_stim_circuit.md, 2021b. Accessed: 2021-08-16.
https://github.com/quantumlib/Stim/blob/main/doc/file_format_stim_circuit.md
[9] Craig Gidney, Michael Newman, Austin Fowler, and Michael Broughton. A fault-tolerant honeycomb memory. Quantum, 5: 605, 2021. 10.22331/q-2021-12-20-605.
https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2021-12-20-605
[10] Craig Gidney, Michael Newman, and Matt Mcewen. Data for “Benchmarking the Planar Honeycomb Code”. Zenodo, September 2022. 10.5281/zenodo.7072889.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7072889
[11] Jeongwan Haah and Matthew B Hastings. Boundaries for the honeycomb code. Quantum, 6: 693, 2022. 10.22331/q-2022-04-21-693.
https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2022-04-21-693
[12] Matthew B Hastings and Jeongwan Haah. Dynamically generated logical qubits. Quantum, 5: 564, 2021. 10.22331/q-2021-10-19-564.
https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2021-10-19-564
[13] Alexei Kitaev. Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond. Annals of Physics, 321 (1): 2–111, 2006. 10.1016/j.aop.2005.10.005.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2005.10.005
[14] Yi-Chan Lee, Courtney G Brell, and Steven T Flammia. Topological quantum error correction in the kitaev honeycomb model. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2017 (8): 083106, 2017. 10.1088/1742-5468/aa7ee2.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/aa7ee2
[15] Muyuan Li, Daniel Miller, Michael Newman, Yukai Wu, and Kenneth R. Brown. 2d compass codes. Physical Review X, 9 (2), may 2019. 10.1103/physrevx.9.021041.
https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevx.9.021041
[16] Martin Suchara, Sergey Bravyi, and Barbara Terhal. Constructions and noise threshold of topological subsystem codes. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 44 (15): 155301, 2011. 10.1088/1751-8113/44/15/155301.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/44/15/155301
[17] James R Wootton. Hexagonal matching codes with two-body measurements. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 55 (29): 295302, jul 2022. 10.1088/1751-8121/ac7a75.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/ac7a75
Cited by
[1] Craig Gidney, “A Pair Measurement Surface Code on Pentagons”, arXiv:2206.12780.
[2] Craig Gidney, “Stability Experiments: The Overlooked Dual of Memory Experiments”, arXiv:2204.13834.
The above citations are from SAO/NASA ADS (last updated successfully 2022-09-22 00:04:16). The list may be incomplete as not all publishers provide suitable and complete citation data.
On Crossref’s cited-by service no data on citing works was found (last attempt 2022-09-22 00:04:14).
This Paper is published in Quantum under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. Copyright remains with the original copyright holders such as the authors or their institutions.
