CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 58Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum many-body systemsQuantum Information and Cryptography

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Subsystem surface codes with three-qubit check operators

Open access
Bravyi, Sergey, Duclos-Cianci, Guillaume, Poulin, David, Suchara, Martin·2012·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1207.1443arXiv 1207.1443
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We propose a simplified version of the Kitaev's surface code in which error correction requires only three-qubit parity measurements for Pauli operators XXX and ZZZ. The new code belongs to the class of subsystem stabilizer codes. It inherits many favorable properties of the standard surface code such as encoding of multiple logical qubits on a planar lattice with punctured holes, efficient decoding by either minimum-weight matching or renormalization group methods, and high error threshold. The new subsystem surface code (SSC) gives rise to an exactly solvable Hamiltonian with 3-qubit interactions, topologically ordered ground state, and a constant energy gap. We construct a local unitary transformation mapping the SSC Hamiltonian to the one of the ordinary surface code thus showing that the two Hamiltonians belong to the same topological class. We describe error correction protocols for the SSC and determine its error thresholds under several natural error models. In particular, we show that the SSC has error threshold approximately 0.6% for the standard circuit-based error model studied in the literature. We also consider a model in which three-qubit parity operators can be measured directly. We show that the SSC has error threshold approximately 0.97% in this setting.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1207.1443

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 subsystem surface code on an M×M lattice is defined similarly to the subsystem toric code, but with open boundary conditions.

    “The subsystem surface code [111] on an M ×M lattice9 is defined similarly to the subsystem toric code, but with open boundary conditions.”

    From Quantum error correction and fault tolerance: A comprehensive tutorial (2026) · cites this paper as [111]

  • The subsystem toric code is defined on a lattice of size M×M with periodic boundary conditions and uses triangular checks of weight 3.

    “Defined on a lattice of size8 M×M with periodic boundary conditions, the subsystem toric code [111] uses a layout involving triangular checks of weight 3.”

    From Quantum error correction and fault tolerance: A comprehensive tutorial (2026) · cites this paper as [111]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. A. Y. Kitaev, Annals of Physics 303, 2 (2003).
  2. S. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, ArXiv quant-ph/9811052 (1998). · arXiv
  3. E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, J. Math. Phys. 43, 4452 (2002).
  4. D. P. DiVincenzo, Physica Scripta Volume T 137, 014020 (2009).
  5. A. Fowler, A. Whiteside, and L. Hollenberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 180501 (2012).
  6. H. Bombin and M. A. Martin-Delgado, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 42, 095302 (2009).
  7. R. Raussendorf and J. Harrington, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 190504 (2007).
  8. A. G. Fowler, A. M. Stephens, and P. Groszkowski, Phys. Rev. A 80, 052312 (2009).
  9. R. Raussendorf, J. Harrington, and K. Goyal, New J. Phys. 9, 199 (2007), arXiv:quant-ph/0703143. · arXiv
  10. A. G. Fowler, A. C. Whiteside, and L. C. Hollenberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 180501 (2012).
  11. G. Duclos-Cianci and D. Poulin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 050504 (2010).
  12. G. Duclos-Cianci and D. Poulin, Information Theory Workshop (ITW), 2010 IEEE pp. 1-5 (2010).
  13. S. Bravyi and J. Haah, arXiv:1112.3252 (2011). · arXiv
  14. D. Bacon, Phys. Rev. A 73, 012340 (2006).
  15. D. Poulin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 230504 (2005).
  16. S. Bravyi, Phys. Rev. A 83, 012320 (2011).
  17. M. Suchara, S. Bravyi, and B. M. Terhal, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 44, 155301 (2011).
  18. H. Bombin, G. Duclos-Cianci, and D. Poulin, arXiv:1103.4606 (2010). · arXiv
  19. D. P. DiVincenzo and F. Solgun, arXiv:1205.1910 (2012). · arXiv
  20. D. Aharonov and L. Eldar, arXiv:1102.0770 (2011). · arXiv
  21. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, 2000).
  22. X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 82, 155138 (2010).
  23. H. Bombin, arXiv:1107.2707 (2011). · arXiv
  24. S. de Queiroz, Phys. Rev. B 73, 064410 (2006).
  25. J. Chow, L. DiCarlo, J. Gambetta, A. Nunnenkamp, L. Bishop, L. Frunzio, M. Devoret, S. Girvin, and R. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. A 81, 062325 (2010).
  26. S. Filipp, P. Maurer, P. Leek, M. Baur, R. Bianchetti, J. Fink, M. Goeppl, L. Steffen, J. Gambetta, A. Blais, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 200402 (2009).
  27. L. DiCarlo, J. Chow, J. Gambetta, L. Bishop, B. John- son, D. Schuster, J. Majer, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, S. Girvin, et al., Nature 460, 240 (2009).
  28. D. Riste, J. van Leeuwen, H.-S. Ku, W. Lehnert, and L. DiCarlo, arXiv:1204.2479 (2012). · arXiv
  29. A. B. K. Lalumière, J.M. Gambetta, Phys. Rev. A 81, 040301 (2010).
  30. E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, B. R. Johnson, C. A. Ryan, J. M. Chow, S. T. Merkel, M. P. da Silva, G. A. Keefe, M. B. Rothwell, T. A. Ohki, et al., arXiv:1203.4550 (2012). · arXiv
  31. B. R. Johnson, M. D. Reed, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, L. S. Bishop, E. Ginossar, J. M. Gambetta, L. DiCarlo, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, et al., Nature Phys. 6, 663 (2010).
  32. D. Poulin and Y. Chung, Quant. Inf. and Comp. 8, 986 (2008).
  33. A. J. Landahl, J. T. Anderson, and P. R. Rice, arXiv:1108.5738 (2011). · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Bravyi, S., Duclos-Cianci, G., Poulin, D., & Suchara, M.
Affiliations
  • IBM Research - Thomas J. Watson Research Center (US)
  • Université de Sherbrooke (CA)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2012
Volume
13
Issue
11&12
Pages
963-985
ISSN
1533-7146 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1207.1443
arXiv
1207.1443
OpenAlex
W1535391183
Cited by
58
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
FWCI
4.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • Quantum Information and Computation (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (HR0011-09-C-0047, HR0011)
  • Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum many-body systems
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Information and Cryptography
Keywords
stabilizer codes, topological quantum error correction, error threshold, exactly solvable Hamiltonian, topological order, local unitary transformations, logical qubits

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