Timeline for Threshold estimate for 7-qubit code with flag-qubit syndrome extraction
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 6, 2023 at 18:31 | comment | added | Marco Fellous-Asiani | 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) | |
| Jul 6, 2023 at 16:49 | comment | added | Peter-Jan | 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. | |
| Jul 3, 2023 at 17:03 | history | bounty ended | Marco Fellous-Asiani | ||
| Jul 1, 2023 at 15:53 | comment | added | Marco Fellous-Asiani | 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! | |
| Jul 1, 2023 at 15:52 | comment | added | Marco Fellous-Asiani | 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. | |
| Jun 28, 2023 at 10:23 | history | answered | Peter-Jan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |