Skip to main content
Quantum Computing

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

4
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the answer! In principle, the pseudo-threshold should correspond to the threshold you get for EC-Gate-EC (extended Rectangle), where EC are syndrome extraction and Gate the logical gate performed. Here, it seems you are doing something a little bit different. I would like to understand how you exactly find your threshold. Is it that you "somehow" estimate some threshold for a logical identity. Your injected state has a probability $p$ to have an error on one of its physical qubit, and you do the simulation where each gate has a probability $p$ to fail as well. $\endgroup$
    – Marco Fellous-Asiani
    Commented Jul 1, 2023 at 15:52
  • $\begingroup$ Then you compute the logical fidelity of the output state and you find the $p$ such that this logical fidelity is higher than the fidelity of doing a single physical identity on a physical qubit. Am I correct? If not could you explain a bit more the exact protocol? Thanks a lot! $\endgroup$
    – Marco Fellous-Asiani
    Commented Jul 1, 2023 at 15:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't calculate the pseudo threshold for performing EC-Gate-EC. I compute the pseudo threshold in the same way as done in the paper you reference in your question, so by inserting errors with a probability $p$ and comparing to a bare physical qubit. $\endgroup$
    – Peter-Jan
    Commented Jul 6, 2023 at 16:49
  • $\begingroup$ I see, thanks! So it seems that your threshold is about 10x worse than theirs (because they considered noiseless identity, but the circuits are also a bit different) $\endgroup$
    – Marco Fellous-Asiani
    Commented Jul 6, 2023 at 18:31