Surface code with decoherence: An analysis of three superconducting architectures
Joydip Ghosh, Austin G. Fowler, Michael R. Geller
DOI 10.1103/PhysRevA.86.062318 · Physical Review A
Active bibliographic source — not scientific approval
Bibliographic access preserves source history; it does not approve extracted materials or validate reported claims. Review warnings on each occurrence separately.
Abstract
We consider realistic, multiparameter error models and investigate the performance of the surface code for three possible fault-tolerant superconducting quantum computer architectures. We map amplitude and phase damping to a diagonal Pauli “depolarization” channel via the Pauli twirl approximation, and obtain the logical error rate as a function of the qubit T1,2 and state preparation, gate, and readout errors. A numerical Monte Carlo simulation is performed to obtain the logical error rates, and a leading-order analytic formula is derived to estimate their behavior below threshold. Our results suggest that scalable fault-tolerant quantum computation should be possible with existing superconducting devices.
Similar papers
Surface code with decoherence: An analysis of three superconducting architectures
similarity 0.91Joydip Ghosh et al. · 2012 · arXiv:1210.5799
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Measuring and Suppressing Quantum State Leakage in a Superconducting Qubit
similarity 0.89Zijun Chen et al.
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Fast Flux-Activated Leakage Reduction for Superconducting Quantum Circuits
similarity 0.88Nathan Lacroix et al.
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Robust and Fast Holonomic Quantum Gates with Encoding on Superconducting Circuits
similarity 0.88Tao Chen et al.
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Implementation of the three-qubit phase-flip error correction code with superconducting qubits
similarity 0.87L. Tornberg et al. · 2008 · arXiv:0803.1747
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Resource-Efficient Cross-Platform Verification with Modular Superconducting Devices
similarity 0.87Kieran Dalton et al.
Source status unknown — claims are unverified