pith. sign in

arxiv: 2503.01649 · v3 · submitted 2025-03-03 · 🪐 quant-ph

Locating Rydberg Decay Error in SWAP-Leakage Reduction Circuit Protocol

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

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 01:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords Rydberg decayleakage reductionneutral atom arraysSWAP-LRC protocolquantum error correctionfault toleranceerror decoderscorrelated errors
0
0 comments X

The pith

The SWAP-LRC protocol locates Rydberg decay errors via ancilla swaps and achieves a 2.33% threshold with specialized decoders in neutral-atom arrays.

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

The paper introduces the SWAP-Leakage Reduction Circuit protocol to handle Rydberg-induced leakage and loss during two-qubit gates in neutral atom quantum computers. It uses swaps between data and ancilla qubits to mitigate errors inline without requiring extra ancillary qubits or atom-species-specific mid-circuit measurements. For atoms where leakage is detectable, such as 171Yb, a Located Decoder reaches a 2.33% threshold per CNOT gate and preserves better code distance than standard Pauli models. For cases like 87Rb where only loss is detectable, a Critical Decoder focuses on the worst correlated faults to keep error distance comparable to Pauli performance. This targets the propagation of non-Pauli errors that otherwise degrade fault tolerance.

Core claim

The SWAP-LRC protocol uses ancilla-data qubit swaps for in-line leakage mitigation during Rydberg gates. Based on experimental detection capabilities, the Located Decoder for fully detectable leakage achieves a 2.33% threshold per CNOT gate and improved error distance over Pauli models, while the Critical Decoder for partial detection mitigates the most detrimental correlated faults to maintain error distance comparable to standard Pauli errors.

What carries the argument

The SWAP-Leakage Reduction Circuit (SWAP-LRC) protocol, which performs in-line leakage mitigation through ancilla-data swaps and applies either a Located Decoder or Critical Decoder depending on detection capabilities.

If this is right

  • The protocol removes the requirement for additional ancillary qubits or species-specific mid-circuit detection hardware.
  • Rydberg decay errors are located and prevented from spreading into correlated faults across the code.
  • The Located Decoder yields a 2.33% threshold per CNOT and larger effective code distance for detectable leakage cases.
  • The Critical Decoder preserves error distance comparable to Pauli models when only one error type is detectable.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar swap-based localization could be tested on other leakage mechanisms such as spontaneous emission in superconducting qubits.
  • Adopting the protocol might allow surface-code implementations in neutral atoms to operate at lower overhead than current Pauli-only estimates suggest.
  • The distinction between Located and Critical decoders provides a template for handling other partially detectable non-Pauli errors in quantum error correction.

Load-bearing premise

SWAP operations between ancilla and data qubits can be performed with high fidelity without introducing new dominant errors, and the modeled detection capabilities match actual experimental conditions for the atoms considered.

What would settle it

Measure the logical error rate versus physical error rate in a distance-3 or distance-5 surface code implementation of the SWAP-LRC with the Located Decoder on 171Yb atoms and check whether the threshold exceeds 2% per CNOT while outperforming a Pauli-only decoder.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2503.01649 by Chao-Yang Lu, Cheng-Cheng Yu, Jian-Wei Pan, Ming-Cheng Chen, Yu-Hao Deng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Fig.1. In a standard syndrome measurement circuit, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Comparison in threshold between located [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Comparison in performance of mixed error. Error distance is derived from the slope of linear regression for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Comparison between three decoders when only [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Qubit leakage and loss, particularly Rydberg-induced decay during two-qubit gates, pose significant challenges to fault-tolerant quantum computing with neutral atom arrays, as they propagate to correlated errors and degrade code distance. Here, we present a hardware-efficient scheme for addressing Rydberg decay using the SWAP-Leakage Reduction Circuit (SWAP-LRC) protocol, which leverages ancilla-data qubit swaps for in-line leakage mitigation. This strategy eliminates the need for atom-species-specific mid-circuit detection or additional ancillary qubits. Based on experimental detection capabilities, we present two specialized decoders. For detectable leakage/loss (e.g., in $^{171}$Yb), our Located Decoder achieves a high threshold of 2.33\% per CNOT gate and an improved error distance, significantly outperforming conventional Pauli error models. More interestingly, for scenarios where only one error type is detectable (e.g., atom loss for $^{87}$Rb), our Critical Decoder specifically targets and mitigates the most detrimental critical faults caused by correlated leakage, achieving an error distance comparable to standard Pauli errors. Our findings offer insights for handling complex non-Pauli errors for neutral atom quantum computation.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes the SWAP-Leakage Reduction Circuit (SWAP-LRC) protocol, which uses ancilla-data qubit swaps to mitigate Rydberg decay leakage and loss errors in neutral-atom arrays without requiring species-specific mid-circuit detection or extra ancillas. It introduces two decoders: the Located Decoder, which for detectable leakage/loss (e.g., 171Yb) achieves a claimed 2.33% threshold per CNOT gate and improved error distance over Pauli models, and the Critical Decoder, which for partial detection (e.g., 87Rb atom loss) targets critical correlated faults to recover error distance comparable to standard Pauli decoding.

Significance. If the reported thresholds and distance improvements are substantiated, the work supplies a hardware-efficient strategy for converting leakage into detectable or mitigable errors in neutral-atom platforms, addressing a key obstacle to fault tolerance in Rydberg-based systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central numerical claim of a 2.33% per-CNOT threshold for the Located Decoder is presented with no description of the underlying error model, Monte Carlo simulation parameters, SWAP-gate infidelity budget, or decoder implementation, rendering the result impossible to assess or reproduce.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract and protocol description: the performance claims rest on the unverified modeling assumption that ancilla-data SWAP operations can be executed at sufficiently high fidelity that they do not become the dominant error source; no quantitative error budget or comparison to measured SWAP infidelities for the cited species is supplied.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'based on experimental detection capabilities' is used without citing the specific detection efficiencies or experimental references for 171Yb and 87Rb.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and positive assessment of the potential significance of the SWAP-LRC protocol. We address the major comments point by point below. We agree that the abstract requires additional context to make the numerical claims assessable and will revise it. We also agree to expand the discussion of the SWAP fidelity assumption with a quantitative error budget in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central numerical claim of a 2.33% per-CNOT threshold for the Located Decoder is presented with no description of the underlying error model, Monte Carlo simulation parameters, SWAP-gate infidelity budget, or decoder implementation, rendering the result impossible to assess or reproduce.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract alone does not provide these details. The underlying error model (Rydberg decay leakage during CNOT gates modeled as leakage to a detectable state for 171Yb), Monte Carlo parameters (including code distances up to d=11, 10^5 shots per point, and surface code lattice), decoder implementation (Located Decoder that identifies and corrects leakage positions via syndrome matching), and SWAP infidelity budget are described in Sections III and IV of the manuscript. To improve accessibility, we will revise the abstract to include a concise description of the error model and simulation framework while referring readers to the main text for full parameters. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and protocol description: the performance claims rest on the unverified modeling assumption that ancilla-data SWAP operations can be executed at sufficiently high fidelity that they do not become the dominant error source; no quantitative error budget or comparison to measured SWAP infidelities for the cited species is supplied.

    Authors: This is a fair observation. Our simulations assume SWAP gates with infidelity at or below the CNOT level (consistent with the protocol's integration of swaps), but we did not include an explicit error budget or direct comparison to experimental SWAP fidelities reported for 171Yb and 87Rb. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph in the protocol description section providing a quantitative error budget, referencing recent neutral-atom SWAP demonstrations, and including a sensitivity analysis of the threshold with respect to SWAP infidelity. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: thresholds derived from independent simulation model

full rationale

The paper computes decoder thresholds (e.g., 2.33% per CNOT) via numerical simulation of the SWAP-LRC protocol under stated error models for Rydberg decay and leakage detection. No equations or claims reduce the reported threshold to a fitted parameter or self-citation by construction; the result follows from the modeled error rates and decoder logic rather than tautological re-expression of inputs. The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks and does not invoke load-bearing self-citations or ansatzes smuggled from prior author work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The protocol builds on standard assumptions in quantum error correction for neutral atoms regarding error types and detection, with the main addition being the SWAP-LRC circuit design.

free parameters (1)
  • CNOT gate error rate threshold = 2.33%
    Presented as achieved threshold, likely determined through numerical simulation of the error model.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Rydberg decay leads to leakage that propagates as correlated errors degrading code distance.
    Stated directly in the abstract as the motivation for the work.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5746 in / 1384 out tokens · 40496 ms · 2026-05-23T01:30:01.765140+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 2 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. 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

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Z Z /gid00013 /gid00013 data 2 data 1 (next round) data 1 data 2 (next round) 50%X FIG

    [31]. Z Z /gid00013 /gid00013 data 2 data 1 (next round) data 1 data 2 (next round) 50%X FIG. 2: The leakage&leakage instance in the first CNOT gate degrades distance: The leaked ancilla qubit becomes a leaked data qubit in the next round and the leaked data qubit propagates to a 50% X error to ancilla qubit in this round, namely data qubit in the next ro...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Our simulation accounts for two-qubit gate er- ror

    and radiative decay is difficult to detect for alkali metal atoms because of the difficulty to distinguish different hyperfine levels [5]. Our simulation accounts for two-qubit gate er- ror. For each CNOT gate, we assume it has pe probability to have Rydberg decay error and pp probability to have two-qubit depolarization error. The ratio of erasure (Rydbe...

    work page

  3. [3]

    We define a shot as d rounds of syndrome measurement of toric code for distance d, with SWAP-LRU

    is shown in Fig.3. We define a shot as d rounds of syndrome measurement of toric code for distance d, with SWAP-LRU. Both type of circuits are considered here and circuit with feed-forward gate achieves higher threshold because this circuit has fewer CNOT gates. The generated error and the error sites need to be ac- counted are fewer. We sampled 10 5 shot...

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    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

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    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

  9. [9]

    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

  10. [10]

    Pro- cessing and decoding rydberg leakage error with mbqc, 2024

    Cheng-Cheng Yu, Zi-Han Chen, Yu-Hao Deng, Ming- Cheng Chen, Chao-Yang Lu, and Jian-Wei Pan. Pro- cessing and decoding rydberg leakage error with mbqc, 2024

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    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

  12. [12]

    Surface code stabilizer measurements for rydberg atoms, 2024

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

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

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

    work page 2013

  14. [14]

    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

  15. [15]

    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

  16. [16]

    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

  17. [17]

    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

  18. [18]

    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

  19. [19]

    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

  20. [20]

    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

  21. [21]

    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

  22. [22]

    Sometimes this is also refered to SWAP- LRC(LeakageReductionCircuit) or Quick-LRU/LRC

    work page

  23. [23]

    Relax- ing hardware requirements for surface code circuits using time-dynamics

    Matt McEwen, Dave Bacon, and Craig Gidney. Relax- ing hardware requirements for surface code circuits using time-dynamics. Quantum, 7:1172, November 2023

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Demonstrating dynamic surface codes, 2024

    Google Quantum AI. Demonstrating dynamic surface codes, 2024

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Following the terminology in [12] we refer to certain error that degrades the distance as critical fault

    work page

  26. [26]

    Evered, Marcin Kalinowski, Alexandra A

    Simon J. Evered, Marcin Kalinowski, Alexandra A. Geim, Tom Manovitz, Dolev Bluvstein, Sophie H. Li, Nishad Maskara, Hengyun Zhou, Sepehr Ebadi, Muqing Xu, Joseph Campo, Madelyn Cain, Stefan Ostermann, Susanne F. Yelin, Subir Sachdev, Markus Greiner, Vladan Vuleti´ c, and Mikhail D. Lukin. Probing topo- logical matter and fermion dynamics on a neutral-atom...

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    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

  28. [28]

    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

  29. [29]

    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

  30. [30]

    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

  31. [31]

    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

  32. [32]

    temporal

    What is a “temporal” or “timelike” logi- cal error in the surface code? https: //quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/ 16057/what-is-a-temporal-or-timelike-logical-/ error-in-the-surface-code

    work page

  33. [33]

    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

  34. [34]

    You can check such critical fault can not be eliminated by changing the gate sequence easily

    work page

  35. [35]

    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

  36. [36]

    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

  37. [37]

    Yu Tomita and Krysta M. Svore. Low-distance surface codes under realistic quantum noise. Physical Review A , 90(6), December 2014. 10

    work page 2014

  38. [38]

    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

  39. [39]

    Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator

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

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    Fusion blossom: Fast mwpm decoders for qec, 2023

    Yue Wu and Lin Zhong. Fusion blossom: Fast mwpm decoders for qec, 2023

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    Pymatching: A python package for decoding quantum codes with minimum-weight perfect matching, 2021

    Oscar Higgott. Pymatching: A python package for decoding quantum codes with minimum-weight perfect matching, 2021

    work page 2021

  42. [42]

    Estimated for result in Supplementary Information S4 in [8], the ratio η = leakage&leakage leakage&leakage+single−leakage ≈ PBR PBR+PQB+PQR ≈ ΓRR11 3(ΓR+ΓB)+ΓQ(R11+R′ 11)/2 = 0.0755

    work page

  43. [43]

    https: //github.com/yuchengcheng720/ Located-decoder-for-Rydberg-decay

    Available code for this work. https: //github.com/yuchengcheng720/ Located-decoder-for-Rydberg-decay

    work page

  44. [44]

    Confinement-higgs transition in a disordered gauge the- ory and the accuracy threshold for quantum memory.An- nals of Physics , 303(1):31–58, January 2003

    Chenyang Wang, Jim Harrington, and John Preskill. Confinement-higgs transition in a disordered gauge the- ory and the accuracy threshold for quantum memory.An- nals of Physics , 303(1):31–58, January 2003

    work page 2003

  45. [45]

    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

  46. [46]

    For d = 7, three critical faults are needed to introduce a logical error while two critical faults are enough to introduce logical error

    For d = 3 , 5, one or two critical faults are enough to introduce logical error for both trivial decoder and lo- cated decoder. For d = 7, three critical faults are needed to introduce a logical error while two critical faults are enough to introduce logical error. For all conditions, the error distance is lower than de = d+1 2

    work page

  47. [47]

    The xzzx surface code

    J Pablo Bonilla Ataides, David K Tuckett, Stephen D Bartlett, Steven T Flammia, and Benjamin J Brown. The xzzx surface code. Nature communications, 12(1):2172, 2021

    work page 2021

  48. [48]

    Erasure qubits: Overcoming the T1 limit in superconducting cir- cuits

    Aleksander Kubica, Arbel Haim, Yotam Vaknin, Harry Levine, Fernando Brand˜ ao, and Alex Retzker. Erasure qubits: Overcoming the T1 limit in superconducting cir- cuits. Phys. Rev. X , 13:041022, Nov 2023

    work page 2023

  49. [49]

    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. 11 Appendix A: Derivation of Error Propagation Property In this appendix we derive the error propagation property of Rydberg decay. First, we briefly review how we ...

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    In the equation, we have make use of KiLρK † iL = pe 2 ρii |L⟩ ⟨L| (i = 0, 1)

    ⊗ |L⟩ ⟨L| (A6) In the first right arrow, we have dropped all non-diagonal term because of pauli twirling in qubit 1,2,3. In the equation, we have make use of KiLρK † iL = pe 2 ρii |L⟩ ⟨L| (i = 0, 1). ρii is dependent on the density matrix before its leakage. During randomized compiling the ensemble is a completely mixed state so ρ00 = ρ11 = 1

    work page

  51. [51]

    So the leaked qubit propagates to independent 50% X or Z error to corresponding qubits, namely a kind of tailored pauli propagation. 1 2 3 structure-perserving 0LK 1LK I I I 0 1 2 3LK I I I⊗ (a) 1 2 3 non-structure-perserving 0LK 1LK (b) 1 1 2 3LK X X X⊗ 2X 1X 3X 0 1,L LK K 0 1,L LK K I 1X 0 1,L LK K 0 1,L LK K| L〉 | L〉 { , }z I Zξ ∈ { , }x I Xξ ∈ { , }x ...

    work page