pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.05008 · v3 · submitted 2025-10-06 · 🪐 quant-ph

Correcting quantum errors using a classical code and one additional qubit

Tenzan Araki , Joseph F. Goodwin , Zhenyu Cai This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 09:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum error correctionclassical codesrepetition codePauli noiseHadamard gatesvirtual correctionhybrid quantum-classical
0
0 comments X

The pith

A single extra qubit and classical post-processing turn the repetition code into a quantum error corrector that suppresses Pauli noise exponentially better than the original classical version.

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

The paper presents a method to make classical bit-flip codes work against quantum Pauli noise by adding one control qubit and two layers of controlled-Hadamard gates. Classical post-processing then filters the effective noise channel down to pure Y errors that the existing classical decoder can fix. When applied to the repetition code this yields full protection for quantum data under code-capacity noise, with error rates falling exponentially in distance rather than linearly. The approach uses far fewer qubits and simpler operations than the surface code while keeping decoding straightforward. The protocol also includes a fault-tolerant version that can cut qubit needs for certain surface-code tasks.

Core claim

H-VEC applied to the classical repetition code provides full quantum protection and achieves an exponentially stronger error suppression in distance than the original classical code under a code-capacity noise model, while using far fewer qubits and simpler checks than the surface code. Under circuit-level noise the same framework yields a quadratic reduction in qubits for long-range surface code lattice surgery.

What carries the argument

Hadamard-based Virtual Error Correction (H-VEC), a protocol that adds one control qubit, applies controlled-Hadamard layers, and uses post-processing to project the noise channel onto pure Y-type errors for correction by a classical decoder.

If this is right

  • The repetition code plus H-VEC corrects both bit-flip and phase-flip errors on quantum data using only the classical decoder.
  • Error suppression scales exponentially with code distance instead of linearly as in the bare classical code.
  • The protocol requires substantially fewer qubits and simpler parity checks than the surface code for comparable protection under code-capacity noise.
  • A fault-tolerant circuit-level version quadratically reduces the number of qubits needed for long-range surface-code lattice surgery.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same projection technique could be tested on other classical bit-flip codes to see whether the exponential gain generalizes beyond the repetition code.
  • The sampling overhead from post-processing creates a direct trade-off between classical compute time and quantum hardware size that future implementations could optimize.
  • Small-scale experiments measuring the actual Y-projection fidelity under realistic gate noise would clarify how far the code-capacity results extend to circuit-level settings.

Load-bearing premise

The post-processing step can perfectly project arbitrary Pauli noise onto pure Y-type errors that the classical decoder then corrects with no residual uncorrectable components.

What would settle it

Running the protocol on a small repetition code under depolarizing noise and measuring a logical error rate that fails to show the predicted exponential improvement with distance would disprove the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.05008 by Joseph F. Goodwin, Tenzan Araki, Zhenyu Cai.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Logical error rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Conventional EPP and our virtual EPP viewed as error detection followed by post-selection (PS). +→ H E H Z PS H Z PS |!+→ H E H Z PS H Z PS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A conventional EPPFigure 3: A conventional EPP state rather than the noise channel. Only a single round is re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A conventional EPP 2 (b) H-VEC projection (a) Conventional projection X X |+→ |+→ X Z PS X Z X X |+→ |+→ |!+→ H E H Z PS H H Z = X X |+→ |+→ H Z PS H Z [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Quantum circuit involved in the general VEC fram FIG5Quantum circuit involved in the general VEC fram FIG. 5. Quantum circuit involved in the general VEC frame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Sampling overhead [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Quantum circuit for the virtual EPP proposed in this rects the errors on the virtual state. Note hhf f h X X [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: By increasing the sampling cost by a factor of 4, we can use the generalised Hadamard test to the (b) Virtual EPP based on HVEC eane (CSS) codes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Classical error-correcting codes are powerful but incompatible with quantum noise, which includes both bit-flips and phase-flips. We introduce Hadamard-based Virtual Error Correction (H-VEC), a protocol that empowers any classical bit-flip code to correct Pauli noise with the addition of only a single control qubit and two layers of controlled-Hadamard gates. Through classical post-processing, H-VEC virtually filters the error channel, projecting the noise into pure Y-type errors that are subsequently corrected using the classical code's native decoding algorithm. We demonstrate this by applying H-VEC to the classical repetition code. Under a code-capacity noise model, the resulting protocol not only provides full quantum protection but also achieves an exponentially stronger error suppression (in distance) than the original classical code. The improvements over the surface code are even more pronounced, while using far fewer qubits, simpler checks, and straightforward decoding. Considering circuit-level noise, we present a fault-tolerant protocol in which H-VEC can quadratically reduce the qubits needed for long-range surface code lattice surgery. There are some limitations to the technique, most notably that H-VEC introduces a sampling overhead due to its post-processing nature. Nonetheless, it represents a fundamentally novel hybrid quantum error correction and mitigation framework that redefines the trade-offs between physical hardware requirements and classical processing for error suppression.

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 paper introduces Hadamard-based Virtual Error Correction (H-VEC), a hybrid protocol that augments any classical bit-flip code with one ancilla qubit and two layers of controlled-Hadamard gates. Classical post-processing virtually projects the effective Pauli noise channel onto pure Y-type errors, which the classical decoder then corrects. Applied to the repetition code under code-capacity noise, the authors claim this yields full quantum protection with exponentially stronger suppression in distance than the bare classical code, while using fewer qubits and simpler checks than the surface code. A fault-tolerant variant for long-range surface-code lattice surgery is also outlined, subject to sampling overhead from post-processing.

Significance. If the projection step is shown to be exact, the approach could meaningfully lower qubit overhead for quantum error correction by repurposing classical codes, offering a concrete trade-off between physical resources and classical sampling. The explicit resource comparisons and lattice-surgery application strengthen the practical relevance.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (protocol definition): the assertion that the controlled-Hadamard layers plus post-processing exactly filter an arbitrary Pauli channel to a mixture of pure Y errors must be accompanied by an explicit channel calculation. Without it, it remains unclear whether residual X or Z components survive and produce logical errors outside the repetition code's correction capability.
  2. [§4] §4 (repetition-code analysis): the claimed exponential suppression in distance under code-capacity noise is load-bearing for the central claim yet rests on the unverified projection; a direct derivation of the logical error rate (showing scaling strictly better than the classical p^{d/2} or equivalent) is required to confirm the improvement holds after accounting for any non-Y residuals.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that H-VEC 'provides full quantum protection'; this phrasing should be qualified to the code-capacity model and the specific repetition-code construction, as circuit-level noise is treated separately.
  2. [Discussion] Sampling overhead is mentioned as a limitation; explicit scaling (e.g., number of shots versus distance or error rate) should appear in the main text or a dedicated subsection.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments. We address the major comments point by point below. Where the manuscript requires additional explicit derivations to strengthen the presentation, we have revised accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (protocol definition): the assertion that the controlled-Hadamard layers plus post-processing exactly filter an arbitrary Pauli channel to a mixture of pure Y errors must be accompanied by an explicit channel calculation. Without it, it remains unclear whether residual X or Z components survive and produce logical errors outside the repetition code's correction capability.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. While Section 3 describes the protocol and states that the post-processing projects onto Y-errors, we agree that an explicit channel calculation was not provided. In the revised manuscript we have inserted a full derivation of the effective noise channel after the two controlled-Hadamard layers and the classical post-selection on the ancilla. The calculation shows that the virtual projection eliminates all X and Z components, leaving only a mixture of Y-errors that lie within the correction capability of the classical repetition code. No residual Pauli components survive that would produce uncorrectable logical errors. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (repetition-code analysis): the claimed exponential suppression in distance under code-capacity noise is load-bearing for the central claim yet rests on the unverified projection; a direct derivation of the logical error rate (showing scaling strictly better than the classical p^{d/2} or equivalent) is required to confirm the improvement holds after accounting for any non-Y residuals.

    Authors: We agree that a direct derivation of the logical error rate is necessary to substantiate the central claim. In the revised Section 4 we now include an explicit calculation of the logical error probability under code-capacity noise. After the H-VEC projection (whose exactness is established in the new Section 3 derivation), the logical error rate for a distance-d repetition code scales as O(p^d). This is exponentially stronger than the classical repetition code's O(p^{d/2}) scaling for bit-flip noise. The derivation accounts for the post-processing acceptance probability and confirms that the improvement persists once only Y-errors remain. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

H-VEC protocol is self-contained; no derivation reduces to its inputs by construction

full rationale

The paper defines H-VEC via explicit circuit elements (one ancilla, two layers of controlled-Hadamard gates) plus classical post-processing that is stated to project the effective channel onto Y errors, then applies the classical repetition code decoder. This construction is presented as a new hybrid protocol whose performance claims (exponential suppression under code-capacity noise) follow from the stated filtering property and standard repetition-code analysis rather than from any fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, self-citation load-bearing uniqueness theorem, or ansatz smuggled from prior work. No equation or step is shown to be equivalent to its own input by definition; the protocol is externally falsifiable via simulation or experiment on the described circuit. The central claim therefore remains independent of the inputs it is derived from.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The protocol relies on the assumption that controlled-Hadamard operations combined with post-selection can isolate Y-errors without introducing new uncorrectable components, plus standard assumptions about code-capacity noise models.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The effective noise channel after the two layers of controlled-Hadamard gates and classical post-processing is exactly equivalent to a pure Y-error channel that the classical decoder can correct.
    This is the key modeling step that allows the classical code to handle quantum noise; it is invoked in the description of how H-VEC virtually filters the error channel.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5771 in / 1348 out tokens · 20617 ms · 2026-05-18T09:50:10.370189+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Phase-Stable Hologram Updates for Large-Scale Neutral-Atom Array Reconfiguration

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    WPGS algorithm enforces inter-frame phase continuity in holographic tweezers to suppress refresh-induced atom loss and speed up updates for large neutral-atom arrays.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Thus, at smallp, we have pL,rep,Z ≈ 2dp 3

    Bit-Flip Repetition Code The probability of logical phase-flip errors is given by pL,rep,Z = dX w=1 d w 1− 2p 3 d−w 2p 3 w = 1− 1− 2p 3 d , which is simply 1 minus the probability of pureXerrors. Thus, at smallp, we have pL,rep,Z ≈ 2dp 3 . The probability of logical bit-flip errors is given by: pL,rep,X = dX w=(d+1)/2 d w 1− 2p 3 d−w 2p 3 w . At smallp, o...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Thus, the set of logical operators for the repetition code isX={ ⃗0,⃗1}

    Virtual Quantum Repetition Code There is just oneXlogical operator for the repetition code, which isX ⃗1. Thus, the set of logical operators for the repetition code isX={ ⃗0,⃗1}. Following arguments in Appendix B, the full magni- tude of the remaining terms after H-VEC is Pfull = X ⃗ v∈{⃗0,⃗1} X ⃗k p⃗k,⃗k⊕⃗ v = X ⃗k p⃗k,⃗k + X ⃗k p⃗k,⃗k⊕⃗1 Recall thatp ⃗ ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The code can correct all errors up to weight (d−1)/2, so we will focus on the leading order weight-(d+1)/2 errors

    Surface Code We will focus on the unrotated surface code ofodd distancedhere. The code can correct all errors up to weight (d−1)/2, so we will focus on the leading order weight-(d+1)/2 errors. However, not all weight-(d+1)/2 errors lead to logical errors. They lead to logical errors in the following two cases: •Weight-(d+ 1)/2 errors live on the support o...

    work page

  4. [4]

    (17) one can show that the output immedi- ately after the controlled-U † (C-U †) gate in Fig

    Derivation From Eq. (17) one can show that the output immedi- ately after the controlled-U † (C-U †) gate in Fig. 5 is 1 2 X i,j pi,j |0⟩ ⟨0| ⊗EiFjρF † j E† i +β ∗ ij |0⟩ ⟨1| ⊗EiFjρF † i E† j +βij |1⟩ ⟨0| ⊗EjFiρF † j E† i +|β ij|2 |1⟩ ⟨1| ⊗EjFiρF † i E† j for any input stateρ. After post-processing with anX measurement of the ancilla qubit, we have the ef...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Possible Ways to Find the Transformation Unitary One way for Eq. (17) to be true is by having{F i}and {Ei}connected via the conjugation of some unitaryU † (note that both sides in the formula below areU †): Fi =U †EiU † ∀i,(E4) and also if{E i}and{F j}further satisfy FiEj =β ijEjFi ∀i, j(E5) for some complex numberβ ij. Note that this equation trivially h...

    work page

  6. [6]

    2 We consider a quantum memory experiment whereby each physical qubit is subject to a single-qubit depolar- ising error channel with a variable physical error rate p∈[0.01,0.75)

    Fig. 2 We consider a quantum memory experiment whereby each physical qubit is subject to a single-qubit depolar- ising error channel with a variable physical error rate p∈[0.01,0.75). The goal is to compare the error sup- pression strengths between a logical qubit encoded in the repetition code, the virtual quantum repetition code, and the unrotated surfa...

    work page

  7. [7]

    7 The setting of the numerical simulation corresponding to Fig

    Fig. 7 The setting of the numerical simulation corresponding to Fig. 7 is the same as that of Fig. 2. The difference is that, in this case, we restrict ourselves to theZ-basis case where the bit-flip repetition code is able to correct errors, and show the correspondence between the simulated re- sults and the leading-order analytical expressions given in ...

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Fig. 8 Fig. 8 shows the sampling overheadCY as a function of the physical error ratep∈[0.01,0.5) of the virtual quan- tum repetition code, again with all physical qubits expe- riencing the same local depolarising error channel under a code-capacity error model. The plot compares between the leading-order analytical expression given in Eq. (10) and the num...

    work page

  9. [9]

    Fig. 11 Both subfigures consider a variable level of noisep∈ (0.00,0.75] acting upon otherwise ideal Bell states|Ψ +⟩ via a single-qubit depolarising channelD p applied to ei- ther branch of the two-qubit state. While the plot on the right assumes that all input Bell states are noisy, the plot on the left keeps the Bell pair used to per- form theZ⊗Zparity...

    work page

  10. [10]

    A. R. Calderbank and Peter W. Shor. Good quantum error-correcting codes exist.Phys. Rev. A, 54:1098–1105, Aug 1996

    work page 1996

  11. [11]

    Multiple-particle interference and quan- tum error correction.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    Andrew Steane. Multiple-particle interference and quan- tum error correction.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineer- ing Sciences, 452(1954):2551–2577, 1996

    work page 1954

  12. [12]

    Breuckmann and Jens Niklas Eberhardt

    Nikolas P. Breuckmann and Jens Niklas Eberhardt. 20 Bell state error probability (#) Fidelity (%) 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.70.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 pBell Fidelity Raw EPP(1 round) EPP(2 rounds) VEPP(Unsymmetrised H-VEC) VEPP(Y-VEC) VEPP(Symmetrised H-VEC) 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.70.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 pBell Fidelity Raw EPP VEPP Ideal checksNoisy che...

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Jean-Pierre Tillich and Gilles Z´ emor. Quantum LDPC codes with positive rate and minimum distance propor- tional to the square root of the blocklength.IEEE Trans- actions on Information Theory, 60(2):1193–1202, Febru- ary 2014

    work page 2014

  14. [14]

    Breuckmann and Barbara M

    Nikolas P. Breuckmann and Barbara M. Terhal. Con- structions and noise threshold of hyperbolic surface codes.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 62(6):3731–3744, June 2016

    work page 2016

  15. [15]

    Quantum LDPC codes with almost linear minimum distance.IEEE Trans- actions on Information Theory, 68(1):213–229, January 2022

    Pavel Panteleev and Gleb Kalachev. Quantum LDPC codes with almost linear minimum distance.IEEE Trans- actions on Information Theory, 68(1):213–229, January 2022

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    Asymptotically good quantum and locally testable classical LDPC codes

    Pavel Panteleev and Gleb Kalachev. Asymptotically good quantum and locally testable classical LDPC codes. InProceedings of the 54th Annual ACM SIGACT Sympo- sium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2022, pages 375– 388, New York, NY, USA, June 2022. Association for Computing Machinery

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    Locally testable codes with constant rate, distance, and locality

    Irit Dinur, Shai Evra, Ron Livne, Alexander Lubotzky, and Shahar Mozes. Locally testable codes with constant rate, distance, and locality. InProceedings of the 54th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Com- puting, STOC 2022, pages 357–374, New York, NY, USA, June 2022. Association for Computing Machinery

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    Virtual channel purification.PRX Quan- tum, 6:020325, May 2025

    Zhenhuan Liu, Xingjian Zhang, Yue-Yang Fei, and Zhenyu Cai. Virtual channel purification.PRX Quan- tum, 6:020325, May 2025

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Benjamin, Suguru Endo, William J

    Zhenyu Cai, Ryan Babbush, Simon C. Benjamin, Suguru Endo, William J. Huggins, Ying Li, Jarrod R. McClean, and Thomas E. O’Brien. Quantum error mitigation.Rev. Mod. Phys., 95:045005, Dec 2023

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    Quantum error mitigation for sampling algorithms, 2025

    Kecheng Liu and Zhenyu Cai. Quantum error mitigation for sampling algorithms, 2025

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    Theory of quan- tum error-correcting codes.Phys

    Emanuel Knill and Raymond Laflamme. Theory of quan- tum error-correcting codes.Phys. Rev. A, 55:900–911, Feb 1997

    work page 1997

  22. [22]

    Exponential error suppression for near- term quantum devices.Phys

    B´ alint Koczor. Exponential error suppression for near- term quantum devices.Phys. Rev. X, 11:031057, Sep 2021

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    Huggins, Sam McArdle, Thomas E

    William J. Huggins, Sam McArdle, Thomas E. O’Brien, Joonho Lee, Nicholas C. Rubin, Sergio Boixo, K. Birgitta Whaley, Ryan Babbush, and Jarrod R. McClean. Virtual distillation for quantum error mitigation.Phys. Rev. X, 11:041036, Nov 2021

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    A practical framework for quantum error mitigation.arXiv, (arXiv:2110.05389 [quant-ph]), Octo- ber 2021

    Zhenyu Cai. A practical framework for quantum error mitigation.arXiv, (arXiv:2110.05389 [quant-ph]), Octo- ber 2021

    work page arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Fault-tolerant gates on hypergraph product codes.Physical Review X, 11(1):11023, February 2021

    Anirudh Krishna and David Poulin. Fault-tolerant gates on hypergraph product codes.Physical Review X, 11(1):11023, February 2021

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    Error-mitigated quan- tum metrology via probabilistic virtual purification

    Xiaodie Lin and Haidong Yuan. Error-mitigated quan- tum metrology via probabilistic virtual purification. arXiv, (arXiv:2506.07618), June 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Magic state cultivation: growing T states as cheap as CNOT gates, 2024

    Craig Gidney, Noah Shutty, and Cody Jones. Magic state cultivation: growing T states as cheap as CNOT gates, 2024

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    Langer, R

    C. Langer, R. Ozeri, J. D. Jost, J. Chiaverini, B. De- Marco, A. Ben-Kish, R. B. Blakestad, J. Britton, D. B. Hume, W. M. Itano, D. Leibfried, R. Reichle, T. Rosen- band, T. Schaetz, P. O. Schmidt, and D. J. Wineland. Long-lived qubit memory using atomic ions.Phys. Rev. Lett., 95:060502, Aug 2005

    work page 2005

  29. [29]

    M. A. Sepiol, A. C. Hughes, J. E. Tarlton, D. P. Nadlinger, T. G. Ballance, C. J. Ballance, T. P. Harty, A. M. Steane, J. F. Goodwin, and D. M. Lucas. Probing qubit memory errors at the part-per-million level.Phys. Rev. Lett., 123:110503, Sep 2019

    work page 2019

  30. [30]

    Brown, Anders S

    Yannick Seis, Benjamin J. Brown, Anders S. Sørensen, and Joseph F. Goodwin. Improving trapped-ion-qubit memories via code-mediated error-channel balancing. Phys. Rev. A, 107:052417, May 2023

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    Steiger, Torsten Hoefler, and Matthias Troyer

    Thomas H¨ aner, Damian S. Steiger, Torsten Hoefler, and Matthias Troyer. Distributed quantum computing with QMPI. InProceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, SC ’21, New York, NY, USA, 2021. Association for Computing Machinery

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    Efficient magic state distillation by zero- level distillation.PRX Quantum, 6:020356, Jun 2025

    Tomohiro Itogawa, Yugo Takada, Yutaka Hirano, and Keisuke Fujii. Efficient magic state distillation by zero- level distillation.PRX Quantum, 6:020356, Jun 2025

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    J. M. Pino, J. M. Dreiling, C. Figgatt, J. P. Gaebler, S. A. Moses, M. S. Allman, C. H. Baldwin, M. Foss-Feig, D. Hayes, K. Mayer, C. Ryan-Anderson, and B. Neyen- huis. Demonstration of the trapped-ion quantum ccd computer architecture.Nature, 592(7853):209–213, Apr 21 2021

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    Nickerson, Ying Li, and Simon C

    Naomi H. Nickerson, Ying Li, and Simon C. Benjamin. Topological quantum computing with a very noisy net- work and local error rates approaching one percent.Na- ture Communications, 4(1):1756, Apr 2013

    work page 2013

  35. [35]

    Nickerson, Joseph F

    Naomi H. Nickerson, Joseph F. Fitzsimons, and Simon C. Benjamin. Freely scalable quantum technologies using cells of 5-to-50 qubits with very lossy and noisy photonic links.Phys. Rev. X, 4:041041, Dec 2014

    work page 2014

  36. [36]

    Stabilizer entanglement distillation and efficient fault-tolerant en- coders.PRX Quantum, 6:010339, Mar 2025

    Yu Shi, Ashlesha Patil, and Saikat Guha. Stabilizer entanglement distillation and efficient fault-tolerant en- coders.PRX Quantum, 6:010339, Mar 2025

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    Entanglement purification and quantum error correction.Reports on Progress in Physics, 70(8):1381, jul 2007

    W D¨ ur and H J Briegel. Entanglement purification and quantum error correction.Reports on Progress in Physics, 70(8):1381, jul 2007

    work page 2007

  38. [38]

    Bennett, Gilles Brassard, Sandu Popescu, Benjamin Schumacher, John A

    Charles H. Bennett, Gilles Brassard, Sandu Popescu, Benjamin Schumacher, John A. Smolin, and William K. Wootters. Purification of noisy entanglement and faith- ful teleportation via noisy channels.Phys. Rev. Lett., 76:722–725, Jan 1996

    work page 1996

  39. [39]

    Quantum privacy amplification and the security of quantum cryp- tography over noisy channels.Phys

    David Deutsch, Artur Ekert, Richard Jozsa, Chiara Mac- chiavello, Sandu Popescu, and Anna Sanpera. Quantum privacy amplification and the security of quantum cryp- tography over noisy channels.Phys. Rev. Lett., 77:2818– 2821, Sep 1996

    work page 1996

  40. [40]

    Virtual quantum resource distillation.Phys

    Xiao Yuan, Bartosz Regula, Ryuji Takagi, and Mile Gu. Virtual quantum resource distillation.Phys. Rev. Lett., 132:050203, Feb 2024

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    Virtual entangle- ment purification via noisy entanglement, 2024

    Kaoru Yamamoto, Yuichiro Matsuzaki, Yasunari Suzuki, Yuuki Tokunaga, and Suguru Endo. Virtual entangle- ment purification via noisy entanglement, 2024

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    Very low overhead fault-tolerant magic state preparation using re- dundant ancilla encoding and flag qubits.npj Quantum Information, 6(1):91, Oct 2020

    Christopher Chamberland and Kyungjoo Noh. Very low overhead fault-tolerant magic state preparation using re- dundant ancilla encoding and flag qubits.npj Quantum Information, 6(1):91, Oct 2020

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    Ben- jamin

    Tyson Jones, Anna Brown, Ian Bush, and Simon C. Ben- jamin. QuEST and high performance simulation of quan- tum computers.Scientific Reports, 9(1):10736, Jul 2019

    work page 2019

  44. [44]

    QuESTlink—Mathematica embiggened by a hardware- optimised quantum emulator.Quantum Science and Technology, 5(3):034012, may 2020

    Tyson Jones and Simon Benjamin. QuESTlink—Mathematica embiggened by a hardware- optimised quantum emulator.Quantum Science and Technology, 5(3):034012, may 2020

    work page 2020

  45. [45]

    Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator

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

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    Tutorial on the Quantikz package, 2023

    Alastair Kay. Tutorial on the Quantikz package, 2023

    work page 2023

  47. [47]

    Virtual quantum error detection.Phys

    Kento Tsubouchi, Yasunari Suzuki, Yuuki Tokunaga, Nobuyuki Yoshioka, and Suguru Endo. Virtual quantum error detection.Phys. Rev. A, 108:042426, Oct 2023

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    Bennett, David P

    Charles H. Bennett, David P. DiVincenzo, John A. Smolin, and William K. Wootters. Mixed-state entan- glement and quantum error correction.Phys. Rev. A, 54:3824–3851, Nov 1996

    work page 1996