pith. sign in

arxiv: 2411.04664 · v5 · submitted 2024-11-07 · 🪐 quant-ph

Taming Rydberg Decay with Measurement-based Quantum Computation

Cheng-Cheng Yu , Zi-Han Chen , Yu-Hao Deng , Ming-Cheng Chen , Chao-Yang Lu , Jian-Wei Pan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 18:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords rydberg decaymeasurement-based quantum computationneutral atom arraystopological cluster statesfault-tolerant quantum computingleakage errorserror correction
0
0 comments X

The pith

Measurement-based quantum computation locates Rydberg decay errors in neutral atom arrays using only final leakage detection.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes a method to manage Rydberg decay errors, a dominant leakage source during two-qubit gates on neutral atom platforms, by shifting to measurement-based quantum computation on topological cluster states. It uses the states' geometric layout to identify all propagated errors from final leakage detection alone, removing the need for mid-circuit measurements that are complex and platform-specific. This yields a 3.65 percent error threshold per CZ gate for pure Rydberg decay and keeps the effective error distance close to the code distance. The scheme reports logical error rates comparable to erasure-conversion methods while cutting experimental overhead and extending applicability to established atom species such as rubidium.

Core claim

Our scheme strategically exploits the inherent geometric structure of topological cluster states and only uses final leakage detection information to locate propagated errors originating from Rydberg decay. This eliminates the need for complex and atom-species-specific mid-circuit leakage detection, offering broader applicability, e.g., to the well-established Rb atom platform. We demonstrate a high error threshold of 3.65% per CZ gate for pure Rydberg decay and achieve a favorable error distance d_e ≈ d.

What carries the argument

Topological cluster states in measurement-based quantum computation, whose geometry permits locating all propagated Rydberg-decay errors from final leakage detection information alone.

If this is right

  • The protocol reaches a 3.65 percent threshold per CZ gate under pure Rydberg decay.
  • Error distance remains close to the physical code distance d.
  • Logical error rates stay comparable to or only marginally above those of erasure-conversion methods.
  • Experimental overhead drops because mid-circuit leakage detection is no longer required.
  • The approach applies directly to rubidium platforms that lack convenient mid-circuit readout.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same final-detection principle may extend to other leakage mechanisms beyond Rydberg decay.
  • Hardware simplification could accelerate scaling of fault-tolerant neutral-atom processors.
  • Integration with surface-code variants or other MBQC resource states offers a route to test further overhead reduction.

Load-bearing premise

The geometric structure of topological cluster states permits reliable location of all propagated Rydberg-decay errors using only final leakage detection information, without any mid-circuit measurements.

What would settle it

An experiment or simulation in which the logical error rate rises sharply or the effective distance d_e falls well below d when the scheme is applied to realistic Rydberg decay rates on a neutral-atom array.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.04664 by Chao-Yang Lu, Cheng-Cheng Yu, Jian-Wei Pan, Ming-Cheng Chen, Yu-Hao Deng, Zi-Han Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: PTA in the presence of leaked state. Different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Decoding protocol for Rydberg decay error (a) 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Numerical results for pure Rydberg decay error model (a) Logical error rate for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fig.5. For each threshold point we sample 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Sub-threshold performance of our method with a mixture of pauli error and Rydberg decay error. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Programmable neutral atom arrays show great promise for fault-tolerant quantum computing. A dominant physical error on this platform is qubit leakage and loss, notably decay errors from the Rydberg state during two-qubit gates. Such leakage events are particularly detrimental as they propagate, generating correlated errors that severely degrade the effective error distance of quantum error correction codes. Here, we present a novel approach to address Rydberg decay errors leveraging measurement-based quantum computation (MBQC). Our scheme strategically exploits the inherent geometric structure of topological cluster states and only uses final leakage detection information to locate propagated errors originating from Rydberg decay. This eliminates the need for complex and atom-species-specific mid-circuit leakage detection, offering broader applicability, e.g., to the well-established Rb atom platform. We demonstrate a high error threshold of 3.65\% per CZ gate for pure Rydberg decay and achieve a favorable error distance $d_e \approx d$. Our method compares favorably with state-of-the-art erasure conversion protocols in the sub-threshold performance, offering comparable or marginally larger logical error rates while significantly reducing experimental overhead.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes using measurement-based quantum computation on topological cluster states to handle Rydberg decay errors during CZ gates in neutral-atom arrays. By relying solely on final leakage detection to locate and correct propagated errors, the authors report a 3.65% error threshold per CZ gate for pure Rydberg decay, an effective error distance d_e ≈ d, and sub-threshold logical error rates comparable to erasure-conversion protocols but with reduced experimental overhead (no mid-circuit measurements).

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work offers a practical route to fault tolerance on established platforms such as Rb atoms by removing the need for atom-species-specific mid-circuit leakage detection. The reported threshold is competitive and the preservation of code distance is a notable strength; the explicit comparison of logical error rates versus overhead provides concrete, falsifiable benchmarks.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / scheme description] Abstract and the scheme description: the claim that the geometric structure of the topological cluster state permits reliable location of every propagated Rydberg-decay error using only final leakage detection is load-bearing for both the 3.65% threshold and the d_e ≈ d result. The manuscript must explicitly verify (via enumeration, figure, or proof) that the propagation map through the MBQC measurement pattern is injective; any pair of distinct decay events producing identical final leakage patterns would be indistinguishable and would either introduce an uncorrectable logical error or reduce the effective distance.
  2. [Numerical results / threshold section] Numerical results section (threshold and distance scaling): the reported threshold of 3.65% and the statement d_e ≈ d rest on the assumption that the final-detection decoder always restores the logical state. The simulation details must include the precise error model for Rydberg decay during CZ, the decoder implementation, and confirmation that no logical errors occur below threshold due to pattern collisions; without this, the distance claim cannot be assessed.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods / error model] Clarify the precise definition of 'per CZ gate' error rate used in the threshold plot and whether it includes only decay or also other error channels.
  2. [Discussion] Add a short table or paragraph comparing the experimental overhead (number of mid-circuit operations avoided) against the cited erasure-conversion protocols.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive major comments. The points raised concern the explicit verification of error-pattern uniqueness and the transparency of simulation details, both of which are important for assessing the central claims. We respond point by point below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested clarifications and supporting material.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / scheme description] Abstract and the scheme description: the claim that the geometric structure of the topological cluster state permits reliable location of every propagated Rydberg-decay error using only final leakage detection is load-bearing for both the 3.65% threshold and the d_e ≈ d result. The manuscript must explicitly verify (via enumeration, figure, or proof) that the propagation map through the MBQC measurement pattern is injective; any pair of distinct decay events producing identical final leakage patterns would be indistinguishable and would either introduce an uncorrectable logical error or reduce the effective distance.

    Authors: We agree that explicit verification of injectivity is necessary to substantiate the claims. The topological cluster state geometry combined with the MBQC measurement pattern causes each Rydberg decay to propagate along a unique set of edges, producing a distinct final leakage signature detectable at the end of the computation. To make this rigorous, the revised manuscript will include a supplementary enumeration (or figure) for representative lattice sizes showing that distinct decay locations map to unique leakage patterns, with no collisions that would create logical errors or reduce effective distance. This addition directly addresses the load-bearing aspect of the scheme. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Numerical results / threshold section] Numerical results section (threshold and distance scaling): the reported threshold of 3.65% and the statement d_e ≈ d rest on the assumption that the final-detection decoder always restores the logical state. The simulation details must include the precise error model for Rydberg decay during CZ, the decoder implementation, and confirmation that no logical errors occur below threshold due to pattern collisions; without this, the distance claim cannot be assessed.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current manuscript provides only a high-level description of the numerics. In the revision we will expand the Numerical results and Methods sections with: (i) the precise error model (Rydberg decay during each CZ modeled as leakage to a non-computational state with probability p per gate, with subsequent propagation determined by the cluster-state stabilizers); (ii) the decoder implementation (a graph-based minimum-weight matching algorithm whose vertices correspond to possible decay locations and whose edges encode the unique leakage patterns); and (iii) explicit confirmation from the Monte Carlo data that, below the reported 3.65 % threshold, logical errors arise only from the usual statistical fluctuations and not from pattern collisions. These additions will allow independent assessment of the d_e ≈ d claim. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; threshold from independent simulation

full rationale

The reported 3.65% threshold and d_e ≈ d are presented as outcomes of numerical simulation on the MBQC scheme with final leakage detection. The abstract and description frame these as direct results of the geometric error-location property of topological cluster states, without any reduction to fitted parameters, self-citations, or definitional equivalence. No load-bearing step equates the claimed performance to its own inputs by construction. This matches the default expectation of a non-circular simulation study.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Ledger constructed from abstract only; no explicit free parameters or invented entities are named.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The geometric structure of topological cluster states permits reliable localization of propagated Rydberg-decay errors from final leakage detection information alone.
    This premise is invoked as the central enabler of the scheme in the abstract description.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5732 in / 1215 out tokens · 33824 ms · 2026-05-23T18:06:28.973177+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Achieving Optimal-Distance Atom-Loss Correction via Pauli Envelope

    quant-ph 2026-03 conditional novelty 8.0

    Pauli Envelope framework enables optimal loss-distance correction (d_loss ~ d) for rotated surface codes via Mid-SWAP circuits and Envelope-MLE decoder, with simulations showing up to 40% higher thresholds.

  2. Shor's algorithm is possible with as few as 10,000 reconfigurable atomic qubits

    quant-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Shor's algorithm for cryptographically relevant problems becomes feasible on neutral-atom systems with as few as 10,000 reconfigurable physical qubits via high-rate quantum error correction.

  3. Correlated Atom Loss as a Resource for Quantum Error Correction

    quant-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A new decoder exploiting correlated atom loss in surface codes raises the loss threshold from 3.2% to 4% and cuts logical errors by up to 10x for neutral-atom processors.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Saffman, T

    M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Mølmer. Quan- tum information with rydberg atoms. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 82:2313–2363, Aug 2010

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Quantum simulation and computing with rydberg-interacting qubits

    M Morgado and S Whitlock. Quantum simulation and computing with rydberg-interacting qubits. A VS Quan- tum Science, 3(2), 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Quantum sci- ence with optical tweezer arrays of ultracold atoms and molecules

    Adam M Kaufman and Kang-Kuen Ni. Quantum sci- ence with optical tweezer arrays of ultracold atoms and molecules. Nature Physics, 17(12):1324–1333, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    A concise review of rydberg atom based quantum computation and quantum simulation, 2021

    Xiaoling Wu, Xinhui Liang, Yaoqi Tian, Fan Yang, Cheng Chen, Yong-Chun Liu, Meng Khoon Tey, and Li You. A concise review of rydberg atom based quantum computation and quantum simulation, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    High-fidelity parallel entangling gates on a neutral- atom quantum computer

    Simon J Evered, Dolev Bluvstein, Marcin Kalinowski, Sepehr Ebadi, Tom Manovitz, Hengyun Zhou, Sophie H Li, Alexandra A Geim, Tout T Wang, Nishad Maskara, et al. High-fidelity parallel entangling gates on a neutral- atom quantum computer. Nature, 622(7982):268–272, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Era- sure conversion in a high-fidelity rydberg quantum sim- ulator

    Pascal Scholl, Adam L Shaw, Richard Bing-Shiun Tsai, Ran Finkelstein, Joonhee Choi, and Manuel Endres. Era- sure conversion in a high-fidelity rydberg quantum sim- ulator. Nature, 622(7982):273–278, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    High-fidelity gates and mid-circuit erasure conversion in an atomic qubit

    Shuo Ma, Genyue Liu, Pai Peng, Bichen Zhang, Sven Jandura, Jahan Claes, Alex P Burgers, Guido Pupillo, Shruti Puri, and Jeff D Thompson. High-fidelity gates and mid-circuit erasure conversion in an atomic qubit. Nature, 622(7982):279–284, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Knapp, Mila Bileska, Shuo Ma, Genyue Liu, Pai Peng, Bichen Zhang, Sebas- tian P

    Michael Peper, Yiyi Li, Daniel Y. Knapp, Mila Bileska, Shuo Ma, Genyue Liu, Pai Peng, Bichen Zhang, Sebas- tian P. Horvath, Alex P. Burgers, and Jeff D. Thompson. Spectroscopy and modeling of 171yb rydberg states for high-fidelity two-qubit gates, 2024

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays

    Dolev Bluvstein, Simon J Evered, Alexandra A Geim, So- phie H Li, Hengyun Zhou, Tom Manovitz, Sepehr Ebadi, Madelyn Cain, Marcin Kalinowski, Dominik Hangleiter, et al. Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays. Nature, 626(7997):58–65, 2024

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    Hardware-efficient, fault-tolerant quantum computation with rydberg atoms

    Iris Cong, Harry Levine, Alexander Keesling, Dolev Bluvstein, Sheng-Tao Wang, and Mikhail D Lukin. Hardware-efficient, fault-tolerant quantum computation with rydberg atoms. Physical Review X , 12(2):021049, 2022

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Matthew N. H. Chow, Vikas Buchemmavari, Sivaprasad Omanakuttan, Bethany J. Little, Saurabh Pandey, Ivan H. Deutsch, and Yuan-Yu Jau. Circuit-based leakage-to-erasure conversion in a neutral atom quantum processor, 2024

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Austin G. Fowler. Coping with qubit leakage in topolog- ical codes. Phys. Rev. A , 88:042308, Oct 2013

    work page 2013

  13. [13]

    Leakage suppression in the toric code

    Martin Suchara, Andrew W Cross, and Jay M Gambetta. Leakage suppression in the toric code. In 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) , pages 1119–1123. IEEE, 2015

    work page 2015

  14. [14]

    Critical faults of leakage errors on the surface code

    Natalie C Brown, Andrew Cross, and Kenneth R Brown. Critical faults of leakage errors on the surface code. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Com- puting and Engineering (QCE) , pages 286–294. IEEE, 2020

    work page 2020

  15. [15]

    Surface code stabilizer measurements for rydberg atoms, 2024

    Sven Jandura and Guido Pupillo. Surface code stabilizer measurements for rydberg atoms, 2024

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Erasure conversion for fault-tolerant quan- tum computing in alkaline earth rydberg atom arrays

    Yue Wu, Shimon Kolkowitz, Shruti Puri, and Jeff D Thompson. Erasure conversion for fault-tolerant quan- tum computing in alkaline earth rydberg atom arrays. Nature communications, 13(1):4657, 2022

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    Quantum error correction with metastable states of trapped ions using erasure conversion

    Mingyu Kang, Wesley C Campbell, and Kenneth R Brown. Quantum error correction with metastable states of trapped ions using erasure conversion. PRX Quantum, 4(2):020358, 2023

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    High-threshold codes for neutral- atom qubits with biased erasure errors

    Kaavya Sahay, Junlan Jin, Jahan Claes, Jeff D Thomp- son, and Shruti Puri. High-threshold codes for neutral- atom qubits with biased erasure errors. Physical Review X, 13(4):041013, 2023

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    Martin, and Ivan H Deutsch

    Sivaprasad Omanakuttan, Vikas Buchemmavari, Michael J. Martin, and Ivan H Deutsch. Coherence preserving leakage detection and cooling in alkaline earth atoms, 2024

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    Robert Raussendorf and Hans J. Briegel. A one-way 9 quantum computer. Phys. Rev. Lett., 86:5188–5191, May 2001

    work page 2001

  21. [21]

    Browne, and Hans J

    Robert Raussendorf, Daniel E. Browne, and Hans J. Briegel. Measurement-based quantum computation on cluster states. Phys. Rev. A , 68:022312, Aug 2003

    work page 2003

  22. [22]

    Measurement- based quantum computation

    Hans J Briegel, David E Browne, Wolfgang D¨ ur, Robert Raussendorf, and Maarten Van den Nest. Measurement- based quantum computation. Nature Physics , 5(1):19– 26, 2009

    work page 2009

  23. [23]

    A fault-tolerant one-way quantum computer

    Robert Raussendorf, Jim Harrington, and Kovid Goyal. A fault-tolerant one-way quantum computer. Annals of physics, 321(9):2242–2270, 2006

    work page 2006

  24. [24]

    Topological fault-tolerance in cluster state quantum com- putation

    Robert Raussendorf, Jim Harrington, and Kovid Goyal. Topological fault-tolerance in cluster state quantum com- putation. New Journal of Physics , 9(6):199, 2007

    work page 2007

  25. [25]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computation with high threshold in two dimen- sions

    Robert Raussendorf and Jim Harrington. Fault-tolerant quantum computation with high threshold in two dimen- sions. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 98:190504, May 2007

    work page 2007

  26. [26]

    A 3d lattice defect and efficient computations in topological mbqc, 2024

    Gabrielle Tournaire, Marvin Schwiering, Robert Raussendorf, and Sven Bachmann. A 3d lattice defect and efficient computations in topological mbqc, 2024

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    A. Bolt, G. Duclos-Cianci, D. Poulin, and T. M. Stace. Foliated quantum error-correcting codes. Phys. Rev. Lett., 117:070501, Aug 2016

    work page 2016

  28. [28]

    Brown and Sam Roberts

    Benjamin J. Brown and Sam Roberts. Universal fault-tolerant measurement-based quantum computa- tion. Phys. Rev. Res. , 2:033305, Aug 2020

    work page 2020

  29. [29]

    Pablo Bonilla Ataides, Dolev Bluvstein, Josiah Sinclair, Vladan Vuletic, Hengyun Zhou, and Mikhail D

    Gefen Baranes, Madelyn Cain, J. Pablo Bonilla Ataides, Dolev Bluvstein, Josiah Sinclair, Vladan Vuletic, Hengyun Zhou, and Mikhail D. Lukin. Leveraging atom loss errors in fault tolerant quantum algorithms, 2025

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    Whiteside and Austin G

    Adam C. Whiteside and Austin G. Fowler. Upper bound for loss in practical topological-cluster-state quantum computing. Phys. Rev. A , 90:052316, Nov 2014

    work page 2014

  31. [31]

    Sparse blossom: cor- recting a million errors per core second with minimum- weight matching

    Oscar Higgott and Craig Gidney. Sparse blossom: cor- recting a million errors per core second with minimum- weight matching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15933, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator

    Craig Gidney. Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator. Quantum, 5:497, July 2021

    work page 2021

  33. [33]

    Sepehr Ebadi, Tout T. Wang, Harry Levine, Alexander Keesling, Giulia Semeghini, Ahmed Omran, Dolev Blu- vstein, Rhine Samajdar, Hannes Pichler, Wen Wei Ho, Soonwon Choi, Subir Sachdev, Markus Greiner, Vladan Vuleti´ c, and Mikhail D. Lukin. Quantum phases of mat- ter on a 256-atom programmable quantum simulator.Na- ture, 595(7866):227–232, July 2021

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    Achieving fault tolerance against amplitude-damping noise

    Akshaya Jayashankar, My Duy Hoang Long, Hui Khoon Ng, and Prabha Mandayam. Achieving fault tolerance against amplitude-damping noise. Physical Review Re- search, 4(2):023034, 2022

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    T. M. Graham, L. Phuttitarn, R. Chinnarasu, Y. Song, C. Poole, K. Jooya, J. Scott, A. Scott, P. Eichler, and M. Saffman. Midcircuit measurements on a single-species neutral alkali atom quantum processor. Phys. Rev. X , 13:041051, Dec 2023

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    Brown and Kenneth R

    Natalie C. Brown and Kenneth R. Brown. Leakage miti- gation for quantum error correction using a mixed qubit scheme. Phys. Rev. A , 100:032325, Sep 2019

    work page 2019

  37. [37]

    Correcting coherent errors with surface codes

    Sergey Bravyi, Matthias Englbrecht, Robert K¨ onig, and Nolan Peard. Correcting coherent errors with surface codes. npj Quantum Information , 4(1), October 2018

    work page 2018

  38. [38]

    Darmawan and David Poulin

    Andrew S. Darmawan and David Poulin. Tensor-network simulations of the surface code under realistic noise. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 119:040502, Jul 2017

    work page 2017

  39. [39]

    Wallman and Joseph Emerson

    Joel J. Wallman and Joseph Emerson. Noise tailoring for scalable quantum computation via randomized com- piling. Physical Review A , 94(5), November 2016

    work page 2016

  40. [40]

    Nickerson

    Nicolas Delfosse and Naomi H. Nickerson. Almost-linear time decoding algorithm for topological codes. Quantum, 5:595, December 2021

    work page 2021

  41. [41]

    Crespo, and Josu Etxezarreta Martinez

    Antonio deMarti iOlius, Patricio Fuentes, Rom´ an Or´ us, Pedro M. Crespo, and Josu Etxezarreta Martinez. De- coding algorithms for surface codes. Quantum, 8:1498, October 2024

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    Quan- tum error correction resilient against atom loss, 2024

    Hugo Perrin, Sven Jandura, and Guido Pupillo. Quan- tum error correction resilient against atom loss, 2024

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    Hengyun Zhou, Chen Zhao, Madelyn Cain, Dolev Blu- vstein, Casey Duckering, Hong-Ye Hu, Sheng-Tao Wang, Aleksander Kubica, and Mikhail D. Lukin. Algorithmic fault tolerance for fast quantum computing, 2024

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    Surface code with imperfect erasure checks, 2024

    Kathleen Chang, Shraddha Singh, Jahan Claes, Kaavya Sahay, James Teoh, and Shruti Puri. Surface code with imperfect erasure checks, 2024

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    In another word, this suggests that once a qubit is sam- pled to be leaked, we ignore subsequent instance suggest- ing its leakage again

    work page

  46. [46]

    Compare the pair: Rotated vs

    Anthony Ryan O’Rourke and Simon Devitt. Compare the pair: Rotated vs. unrotated surface codes at equal logical error rates, 2024

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    Fowler, Matteo Mariantoni, John M

    Austin G. Fowler, Matteo Mariantoni, John M. Martinis, and Andrew N. Cleland. Surface codes: Towards prac- tical large-scale quantum computation. Phys. Rev. A , 86:032324, Sep 2012

    work page 2012

  48. [48]

    Logical error rate scaling of the toric code

    Fern H E Watson and Sean D Barrett. Logical error rate scaling of the toric code. New Journal of Physics , 16(9):093045, September 2014

    work page 2014

  49. [49]

    Nielsen and Isaac L

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang. Quantum Com- putation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge University Press, 2010

    work page 2010

  50. [50]

    Yu Tomita and Krysta M. Svore. Low-distance surface codes under realistic quantum noise. Physical Review A , 90(6), December 2014

    work page 2014

  51. [51]

    Optimizing quantum error correction protocols with erasure qubits, 2024

    Shouzhen Gu, Yotam Vaknin, Alex Retzker, and Alek- sander Kubica. Optimizing quantum error correction protocols with erasure qubits, 2024

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    Topological cluster state quantum computing

    Austin G Fowler and Kovid Goyal. Topological cluster state quantum computing. arXiv preprint arXiv:0805.3202, 2008

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  53. [53]

    Topological quantum memory

    Eric Dennis, Alexei Kitaev, Andrew Landahl, and John Preskill. Topological quantum memory. Journal of Math- ematical Physics, 43(9):4452–4505, 2002

    work page 2002

  54. [54]

    Stace, Sean D

    Thomas M. Stace, Sean D. Barrett, and Andrew C. Do- herty. Thresholds for topological codes in the presence of loss. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 102:200501, May 2009

    work page 2009

  55. [55]

    From decoding perspective, the former is easier to decode compared to the latter, with detector error model [32]

    From the entropy of noise,{Z1Z2, I1I2} has lower entropy than {Z1, I1} ⊗ {Z2, I2}. From decoding perspective, the former is easier to decode compared to the latter, with detector error model [32]

    work page

  56. [56]

    Bohdanowicz, Aleksander Ku- bica, Steven T

    Oscar Higgott, Thomas C. Bohdanowicz, Aleksander Ku- bica, Steven T. Flammia, and Earl T. Campbell. Im- proved decoding of circuit noise and fragile boundaries of tailored surface codes, 2023

    work page 2023

  57. [57]

    Pablo Bonilla Ataides, Arthur Jaffe, Dolev Blu- vstein, and Mikhail D

    Madelyn Cain, Chen Zhao, Hengyun Zhou, Nadine Meis- ter, J. Pablo Bonilla Ataides, Arthur Jaffe, Dolev Blu- vstein, and Mikhail D. Lukin. Correlated decoding of logical algorithms with transversal gates, 2024

    work page 2024

  58. [58]

    Linear-time maximum likelihood decoding of surface codes over the quantum 10 erasure channel

    Nicolas Delfosse and Gilles Z´ emor. Linear-time maximum likelihood decoding of surface codes over the quantum 10 erasure channel. Physical Review Research , 2(3), July 2020. 11 Appendix A: Gate operations and PT A in the presence of Leakage subspace To study quantum operation in the presence of leaked state, we expand the qubit system ( |0⟩ , |1⟩) to a q...

    work page 2020

  59. [59]

    uses a most-likely error (MLE) decoder. MLE decoder is the most accurate decoder but finding the most-likely error itself is a NP-hard problem and it is difficult to extend the decoder to large scale even with approximate MLE [29, 57]. However, different from the results in [57], MLE threshold for non-interacting loss model is only 2% larger than our matc...

    work page