Cited by 38Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum Information and CryptographyError Correcting Code Techniques

Leakage suppression in the toric code

Suchara, Martin, Cross, Andrew W., Gambetta, Jay M.·2015·2015 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT)

Abstract

Quantum codes excel at correcting local noise but fail to correct leakage faults that excite qubits to states outside the computational space. Aliferis and Terhal have shown that an accuracy threshold exists for leakage faults using gadgets called leakage reduction units (LRUs). However, these gadgets reduce the threshold and increase experimental complexity, and the costs have not been thoroughly understood. We explore a variety of techniques for leakage resilience in topological codes. Our contributions are threefold. First, we develop a leakage model that is physically motivated and efficient to simulate. Second, we use Monte-Carlo simulations to survey several syndrome extraction circuits. Third, given the capability to perform 3-outcome measurements, we present a dramatically improved syndrome processing algorithm. Our simulations show that simple circuits with one extra CNOT per qubit reduce the accuracy threshold by less than a factor of 4 when leakage and depolarizing noise rates are comparable compared to a scenario without leakage. This becomes a factor of 2 when the decoder uses 3-outcome measurements. Finally, we make the surprising observation that for physical error rates less than 2 × 10-4, placing LRUs after every gate may achieve the lowest logical error rate. We expect that the ideas may generalize to other topological codes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/isit.2015.7282629

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The rise in detection probabilities is attributed to data qubits leaking into non-computational excited states.

    “We attribute this rise to data qubits leaking into non-computational excited states and anticipate that the inclusion of leakage-removal techniques on data qubits would help to mitigate this rise42,46–48.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 37 · Cited by 38

Authors
Suchara, M., Cross, A. W., & Gambetta, J. M.
Affiliations
IBM Research - Thomas J. Watson Research Center (US)
Venue
2015 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2015-06
Pages
1119-1123
OpenAlex
W1695374769
Cited by
38
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4
FWCI
1.31
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) (publishedVersion)
Funders
Army Research Office
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Error Correcting Code Techniques
Keywords
leakage control, toric code, topological quantum codes, accuracy threshold, leakage faults, logical error rate, depolarizing noise, Monte Carlo simulation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review