Timeline for Decoding the Steane Code
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 28 at 12:56 | vote | accept | Eric Kubischta | ||
| Mar 2 at 1:38 | comment | added | ChrisD | In response to your edit, the answer depends entirely on the error model. In the case where $Y$ errors are more likely than $X$ ones you might decode the $Z$ syndrome differently depending on what the $X$ syndrome is. Tailoring decoders (and codes) to noise models is certainly worthwhile | |
| Mar 2 at 1:31 | comment | added | ChrisD | Good question. Take a look at the parity check matrices that define the Shor code (as a CSS code). The Z checks are actually 3 separate repetition codes that are decoded independently, so it is able to identify many two-qubit and three-qubit X errors. Moreover the single-qubit $Z$ errors only produce $4$ unique syndromes. | |
| Mar 1 at 21:20 | comment | added | Ian Gershon Teixeira | This is very interesting. What about for the Shor code (which is also a CSS code). Then correcting X and Z separately accounts for decoding (9+1)(9+1)=100 of the $ 2^8=256 $ error spaces. When decoding the Shor code how do people decode the other $ 156 $ error spaces? | |
| Mar 1 at 6:00 | history | edited | ChrisD | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
[Edit removed during grace period]
|
| Feb 29 at 3:42 | history | answered | ChrisD | CC BY-SA 4.0 |