Boundaries of Acceptable Defectiveness: Redefining Surface Code Robustness under Heterogeneous Noise
Jacob S. Palmer, Kaitlin N. Smith

TL;DR
This paper introduces a simulation framework to determine the boundaries of acceptable defectiveness in superconducting qubits for surface code quantum error correction, emphasizing the importance of heterogeneity in noise modeling.
Contribution
It presents a novel simulation tool and analysis that define the thresholds of defectiveness for qubits, considering heterogeneous noise, to improve quantum hardware design and error correction strategies.
Findings
Qubits with physical error rate ≤ 0.75 can be tolerated with negligible logical error impact.
Logical error rate is minimally affected by noise deviation when modeled as a uniform distribution with σ ≤ μ.
Heterogeneity in qubit noise should be viewed as a spectrum rather than a binary condition.
Abstract
A variety of past research on superconducting qubits shows that these devices exhibit considerable variation and thus cannot be accurately depicted by a uniform noise model. To combat this often unrealistic picture of homogeneous noise in quantum processors during runtime, our work aims to define the boundaries of acceptable defectiveness (BADs), or the upper boundary of a qubit's physical error, past which this defective qubit entirely degrades the logical computation and should be considered faulty and removed from the surface code mapping. Here, we present a simulation framework based on the stabilizer simulation package STIM, that allows for rapid experimentation of quantum error correction (QEC) performance under any arbitrary and unique noise model. Using this tool, QEC circuits using rotated surface codes were generated, sampled, and analyzed from distances 3 to 17, with various…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
