Honeycomb Memory

26 August 2021

Additional Info

  • Paper Title:

    A Fault-Tolerant Honeycomb Memory

  • Paper Authors:

    Craig Gidney, Michael Newman, Austin Fowler, Michael Broughton (Google)

When designing fault-tolerant quantum memories, geometrical codes have shown significant success. A frequently used geometrical code is the surface code, mainly because it has proven higher circuit-level thresholds among other quantum codes, requiring only 4-body measurements. However, adding more locality, therefore decreasing the number of n-body measurements, can simplify quantum error-correction circuits, either through making the physical layout more sparse or making the syndrome circuit more compact. This can be achieved by decomposing the parity constraints into non-commuting measurements of unprotected degrees of freedom. The crucial limitation of adding more locality is that it often compromises the quality of error-correction, resulting in less information collected about the errors.

One of the potential candidates for building quantum codes is Kitaev's honeycomb model, which requires only 2-body measurements. In the Kitaev’s honeycomb model, the commuting operators serve as low-weight parity constraints, hence the resulting subsystem code from these constraints encodes no protected logical qubits. Based on that model, Hastings and Haah defined a static subsystem code, which they termed honeycomb code, that manifests ‘dynamic’ logical qubits instead of a static subsystem code. These qubits are encoded into pairs of macroscopic anticommuting observables changing in time, which when combined with fault-tolerant initialization and measurement, can lead to the design of a robust error-corrected quantum memory.

In this work, the authors quantify the robustness of logical qubits preserved by the honeycomb code using a correlated minimum-weight perfect-matching decoder. Using Monte Carlo sampling, the work estimates both thresholds and qubit counts required for finite-sized calculations at scale using the honeycomb memory, along with comparisons with the surface code. The authors consider three noisy gate sets: Noisy Gateset, Measurement Ancillae, and Honeycomb Cycle Length, each with an associated circuit-level error model controlled by a single error parameter p. For each of these error models, three figures of merit are considered, namely: the threshold, the lambda factor, and the teraquop qubit count, each one of them depending on the code, decoder, and error model. The notion of the teraquop qubit count is introduced as a good quantification of a code’s overall finite-size performance.

The honeycomb code was simulated using two pieces of software: i) Stim and ii) in-house minimum-weight perfect-matching decoder. For each code and error model, Stim generates a circuit file describing the stabilizer circuit and analyzes each error mechanism in the circuit, determining which detectors the error violates and which logical observables the error flips. A “graph-like” error model is obtained for the decoder which converts it into a weighted matching graph. The decoder optionally notes how errors with more than two symptoms have been decomposed into multiple graph-like (edge-like) errors, and derives reweighting rules between the edges corresponding to the graph-like pieces. These reweighting rules are used for correlated decoding and estimating the logical observable measurement outcome based on the detection event data provided.

When entanglement is generated using two-qubit unitary gates, the numerical results demonstrate a threshold of 0.2% − 0.3% for the honeycomb code compared to a threshold of 0.5% − 0.7% for the surface code in a controlled-not circuit model. It is evident that in this scenario, the 2-body measurements of the honeycomb model are not advantageous in the error correction scheme. The honeycomb memory requires between a 5-10 times qubit overhead to reach the teraquop regime compared to the surface code at 10^-3 error rates.

However, entanglement is instead generated using native two-body measurements (which is advantageous for quantum hardware due to less crosstalk), the honeycomb code achieves a threshold of 1.5% < p < 2.0%, where p is the collective error rate of the two-body measurement gate, including both readout errors and depolarizing noise. The comparative physical qubit savings of a teraquop honeycomb memory at a 10^−3 error rate is several orders of magnitude, because of the proximity to the surface code’s threshold.

The two-body locality of the honeycomb code allows to jointly measure the data qubits directly. This reduces the number of noisy operations in a syndrome cycle compared to decomposing the four-body measurements of the surface code, and eliminates the need for ancilla qubits. As a result, with two-body measurements at a physical error rate of 10^−3, a teraquop honeycomb memory requires only 600 qubits. An important direction to explore is whether the honeycomb code can be embedded naturally in a planar geometry. The main issue would be the proper introduction of boundaries, in a way that does not compromise certain properties of the code, similarly to the surface code. Finally, explicit constructions of the application of logical gates can be another challenging target problem.

What's Interesting?

How can we help you?

Invalid Input

Invalid Input

Invalid Input

Invalid Input

Invalid Input

Invalid Input

Copyright © Qu & Co BV
close