Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 76 references

Magic state distillation without measurements and post-selection

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the 15-to-1 magic state distillation protocol can be made deterministic and fully measurement-free by replacing syndrome measurement and post-selection with a coherent feedback network, at the cost of reducing…

desk verdict A genuine, simulation-backed coherent feedback construction for 15-to-1 MSD, but the 'without measurements' claim depends on unverified fault-tolerant multi-controlled gates or an undefined reset primitive. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17509 v2 pith:PSR3GQRG submitted 2025-04-24 quant-ph

Sascha Heu{ss}en This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords magicstatedistillationmeasurement-freequantumerrorcorrectioncoherentfeedbacknetwork15-to-1protocol[[1513]]codepost-selectionfault-tolerantcomputationtransversalTgate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that the standard 15-to-1 magic state distillation protocol can be run deterministically, with no individual qubit measurements and no post-selection, by replacing the syndrome measurement and classically conditioned correction with a coherent feedback network built from unitary encoding and decoding circuits. Magic state distillation is the standard way to produce the high-fidelity non-Clifford resource states needed for fault-tolerant universal quantum computing, so removing the measurement bottleneck makes the subroutine available on platforms where fast mid-circuit measurement and feed-forward are slow or unavailable. The cost is that one round suppresses noise from $\mathcal{O}(p)$ to $\mathcal{O}(p^2)$ rather than $\mathcal{O}(p^3)$, but repeated rounds still suppress noise exponentially below a threshold near $p \approx 1\%$. If correct, this gives a measurement-free, synchronized distillation routine whose runtime is fixed in advance, and the same construction applies to any distillation protocol that succeeds with probability 1 when noise-free.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the coherent feedback network (CFN): a sequence of multi-qubit-controlled gates whose controls are wired to the syndrome qubits emerging from the unitary decoding circuit and whose target is the output message qubit. Pauli propagation rules are used to compile a syndrome look-up table for every single-qubit Pauli error, and the CFN is then crafted so that the message qubit is flipped exactly for syndromes that would otherwise corrupt it, and left alone for syndromes that are harmless or impossible. This converts the classical feed-forward step of magic state distillation into a purely coherent operation, which is what eliminates measurement and post-selection. In a simplified variant, the multi-qubit-controlled gates are replaced by coherently-controlled-reset operations.

What would settle it

Simulate one round of the noisy circuit under the twirled noise model and check the leading behavior: if the output error rate does not follow $105p^2 + O(p^3)$ for small $p$, for instance if it shows a $p^3$ floor from the feedback gates themselves, then the deterministic correction is not achieving the claimed suppression. A hardware test would count the total error contribution of the correction network implemented fault-tolerantly and compare the end-to-end output fidelity against measurement-based 15-to-1 distillation at the same physical error rate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that rejection is not necessary: a [[15,1,3]] code whose decoding circuit leaves syndrome information on 14 ancillary qubits can, instead of post-selecting on the trivial syndrome, feed that syndrome coherently into a network of multi-qubit-controlled gates that flip the message qubit exactly when a harmful error has occurred. Because every single-qubit Pauli error is either corrected or harmless, the output state is accepted every round; the leading uncorrectable errors are the weight-2 Z errors, giving a per-round output error rate $105p^2 + O(p^3)$ under twirled noise. The paper shows analytically and by simulation that repeated rounds give exponential suppression, with three rounds taking $p=10^{-3}$ input noise to about $10^{-10}$ output noise. The author presents this as a deterministic alternative to textbook measurement-based magic state distillation, at the price of a lower suppression order per round.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme is measurement-free only if the special multi-qubit-controlled gates used to apply corrections can themselves be built fault-tolerantly without measurements; the paper points to existing constructions but does not show they are measurement-free or practical on any specific machine.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Deterministic rounds make distillation time a priori fixed, so magic state production can be synchronized with logical clock cycles.
  • Platforms without fast mid-circuit measurement and feed-forward can still run magic state distillation, using only unitary gates and reset operations.
  • Noise suppression per round drops from $\mathcal{O}(p^3)$ to $\mathcal{O}(p^2)$, but concatenating rounds suppresses errors exponentially below threshold $p \lesssim 1\%$.
  • The construction transfers to any magic state distillation protocol with acceptance rate 1 in the noiseless limit, not just the 15-to-1 scheme.
  • It removes the overhead of waiting for accepted rounds and re-initializing failed rounds during routing of magic states.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the coherent feedback network's multi-qubit-controlled gates are implemented by measurement-based gadgets on a given architecture, the advertised advantage is lost; the fair comparison is end-to-end physical resource cost, not just the absence of explicit measurements.
  • A fully measurement-free pipeline (quantum error correction plus distillation) may accumulate coherent errors that would otherwise be reset by mid-circuit measurements; the paper's own suspicion is that in-situ randomized compiling would then be needed, which is a testable design requirement.
  • The same unitary-decoding-plus-correction idea could be applied to entanglement distillation, where deterministic acceptance would remove similar post-selection bottlenecks.
  • The manual syndrome-table compilation could be automated and extended to larger codes or other magic state protocols, which would likely be necessary before the method competes with optimized measurement-based factories.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a deterministic, measurement-free version of the 15-to-1 magic state distillation protocol. The standard syndrome measurement and post-selection are replaced by a unitary decoding circuit E15^† of the [[15,1,3]] code followed by a coherent feedback network (CFN) that applies syndrome-dependent corrections to the output magic state. The author derives a single-round output error rate p_L = 105p^2 + O(p^3) for twirled Z noise, reports statevector and stabilizer simulations confirming this scaling, and shows that repeated rounds give exponential suppression for input error rates below about 1%. The claimed trade-off is a reduction from O(p^3) to O(p^2) per round in exchange for eliminating measurements and post-selection, with the advantage that distillation becomes deterministic and synchronous with logical clock cycles.

Significance. If the implementation gap is closed, this is a valuable contribution to magic state distillation: it shows that the syndrome-measurement step of a standard 15-to-1 protocol can be replaced by coherent feedback, making distillation deterministic and potentially compatible with architectures where mid-circuit measurements are slow or disruptive. The paper's strengths include explicit checkable circuits (Fig. 3), a combinatorial count of 105 uncorrectable weight-2 Z errors, and numerical verification by independent statevector and stabilizer methods whose agreement supports the simplified stabilizer model. The analytic prediction is not fitted to data, so the comparison between theory and simulation is not circular. The main caveat is that the practical 'without measurements' advantage is conditional on an unverified fault-tolerant implementation of the CFN gates or of the reset primitive used in Fig. 4.

major comments (3)
  1. [Coherent feedback network / Fig. 4] The title and abstract claim distillation 'without measurements', but the only bridges to a fault-tolerant implementation are citations to Refs. [17,59] and an undefined 'coherently-controlled-reset' operation in Fig. 4. The multi-qubit-controlled gates in the CFN are not Clifford for two or more controls, so they cannot be assumed noiseless under the paper's assumption that only logical Clifford gates are free; a cost analysis or an explicit fault-tolerant, measurement-free construction of these gates is missing. Please either provide the Kraus-operator/channel description of the R operation and a resource comparison with the measurement-based baseline, or revise the no-measurement claim to state precisely the hardware assumptions under which it holds.
  2. [Appendix A / Table I] Table I and the CFN gate sequence are described as 'manually crafted' and found by Pauli propagation, but no formal proof or exhaustive machine check is provided that the circuit in Fig. 3 realizes every row of Table I and no spurious corrections. Because the leading-order coefficient 105p^2 depends on exactly which single-qubit errors are corrected, an incomplete syndrome table would change the central quantitative claim. I request an automated exhaustive verification of the table and the CFN circuit (for example, Clifford-tableau propagation of all single-qubit Pauli errors), or an explicit algebraic proof that the circuit implements exactly the listed feedback conditions.
  3. [Measurement-free distillation circuit analysis] The resource comparison that would justify the scheme's practical advantage is absent. The paper states that the CFN may be desirable if it can be executed faster and more reliably than measurements, but no estimate is given for the qubit count, gate count, or time overhead of the CFN relative to a measurement-based 15-to-1 protocol, and the effect of noise in the non-Clifford CFN gates on the output error rate is not modeled. Without such an analysis, the practical significance of replacing O(p^3) with O(p^2) suppression per round is not established, even though the abstract-level scaling claim itself is credible.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Coherent noise discussion] There is a typo in the coherent-noise paragraph: 'finize-size QEC' should be 'finite-size QEC'.
  2. [Footnote 1] Footnote 1 writes t = floor(d - 1/2); the floor should be applied to (d-1)/2, i.e. floor((d-1)/2).
  3. [Introduction] The term 'class A' is used without definition; please state the defining property from Ref. [41] or replace it with an explicit description.
  4. [Fig. 3] Figure 3 is dense and difficult to read at print size; larger fonts for qubit labels and clearer highlighting of the CFN controls would improve checkability.
  5. [Fig. 4] The sentence that multi-qubit-controlled-X gates can be left out for the noise model of Eq. (1) is slightly confusing in relation to Fig. 4, which also removes CNOT gates; please clarify that the two simplifications apply independently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the O(p^2) scaling is derived analytically from the [[15,1,3]] code and validated by simulation, not fitted or defined into existence.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained and non-circular. The claimed O(p^2) suppression is obtained analytically from the distance-3 [[15,1,3]] code and from Pauli propagation through the inverse encoding circuit: after the coherent feedback network corrects all weight-1 errors, there are C(15,2)=105 uncorrectable weight-2 Z errors, giving pL = 105p^2 + O(p^3). The numerical simulations are validations, not calibrations; no free parameter is fitted to the data. The CFN itself is explicitly constructed in Appendix A and Table I by Pauli propagation rather than imported as a black box. The citations to Refs. [14,15] for the CFN concept and Refs. [17,59] for fault-tolerant multi-qubit-controlled gates are supporting framework or hardware assumptions; they are not used to define the target result and do not reduce the derivation to its own inputs. The unverified 'coherently-controlled-reset' primitive is a feasibility concern about measurement-free implementation, not a circularity in the analytical derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central construction uses only the known [[15,1,3]] code, Pauli propagation, and the standard MSD assumption that logical Clifford gates are noiseless. No numerical parameters are fitted to data; the 105 p^2 scaling follows from counting weight-2 input error configurations. The main unstated burden is the availability of fault-tolerant coherent multi-qubit-controlled gates or a coherently-controlled-reset primitive, without which the 'measurement-free' claim is not realizable in practice.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Logical Clifford gates used in the distillation circuit are noise-free, corresponding to the large-distance limit of the underlying logical qubit code.
    Stated in the introduction and in 'Measurement-free distillation circuit analysis': 'Gates are assumed to be noise-free as the result of employing MSD on logical qubits that are encoded in an [[N,K,D]] QEC code in the limit D to infinity.' This is standard for MSD but is an idealization.
  • domain assumption Input magic states follow the twirled noise model of Eq. (1): each state is either the ideal |A> state or the flipped Z|A> state with probability p.
    Used to derive the 105 p^2 scaling and to run stabilizer simulations. Coherent rotations are only discussed qualitatively, and the paper acknowledges that in-situ randomized compiling may be needed in practice.
  • standard math The [[15,1,3]] Reed-Muller code has distance 3 and a transversal T gate, as described in Refs. [55,56].
    This code is the basis of the 15-to-1 protocol, and its error-correction properties determine the syndrome table and the p^2 scaling.
  • domain assumption Fault-tolerant coherent multi-qubit-controlled gates or a coherently-controlled-reset operation are available on the target architecture.
    The coherent feedback network in Fig. 3 uses multi-qubit-controlled gates, and the simplified version in Fig. 4 uses coherently-controlled-reset. The paper cites FT CkZ constructions in Refs. [17,59] but does not demonstrate them on a specific platform, so this is a load-bearing external assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper The manually constructed syndrome table (Tab. I) is complete and correctly maps every relevant single-qubit error to the appropriate feedback operation.
    The table is the basis of the coherent feedback network design. It is validated by numerical simulation, but no formal proof of completeness is given in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magic state distillation without measurements and post-selection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PSR3GQRG

@misc{pith2026250417509,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magic state distillation without measurements and post-selection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PSR3GQRG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17509}
}
abstract

Magic state distillation (MSD) is a quantum algorithm that enables performing logical non-Clifford gates with in principle arbitrarily low noise level. It is herein typically assumed that logical Clifford gates can be executed without noise. Therefore, MSD is a standard subroutine to obtain a fault-tolerant universal set of quantum gate operations on error-corrected logical qubits. Well-known schemes conventionally rely on performing operator measurements and post-selection on the measurement result, which makes distillation protocols non-deterministic in the presence of noise. In this work, we adapt the 15-to-1 MSD protocol such that it deterministically suppresses noise by using a coherent feedback network on the output states without the need to perform individual qubit measurements. These advantages over textbook MSD come at the price of reducing the noise suppression per round from $\mathcal{O}(p^3)$ to $\mathcal{O}(p^2)$. Our technique can be applied to any MSD protocol with an acceptance rate of 1 in the absence of noise. It may be desirable to use our scheme if the coherent feedback network can be executed faster and more reliably than the measurements and/or if logical clock cycles in the quantum processor should be kept synchronous at all times. Our result broadens the path of potential experimental realizations of MSD in near-term devices and advances the development of fault-tolerant quantum computers with practical use.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17509 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Magic state distillation (MSD) of the state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Output error rate of measurement-free 15-to-1 MSD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Explicit circuit to perform 15-to-1 MSD (see Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Simplified distillation circuit to correct [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    I and have been found by Pauli propagation of every single-qubit Pauli-X and -Z opera- tor through E†

    These conditions are given in Tab. I and have been found by Pauli propagation of every single-qubit Pauli-X and -Z opera- tor through E†

    work page

  2. [2]

    R. M. Solovay, Lie groups and quantum circuits (2000), Pre- sentation at Mathematics of Quantum computation, Mathemat- ical Sciences Research Institute, https://www.slmath.org/ workshops/189/schedules/12826

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    S. J. Devitt, W. J. Munro, and K. Nemoto, Quantum error correction for beginners , Reports on Progress in Physics 76, 076001 (2013)

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    If qubit 14 is flipped OR no X-syndrome qubits are flipped, apply no Z-flip to qubit 0

    Removing these CNOT leaves us with the same correction conditions for the CFN as before: Apply a Z-flip to qubit 0 if qubit 1 OR 2 OR 8 are flipped AND qubit 14 is not flipped. If qubit 14 is flipped OR no X-syndrome qubits are flipped, apply no Z-flip to qubit 0. In Fig. 4, we avoid usage of multi- qubit-controlled gates and instead show an implementatio...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Conditioned on qubit 14, the other three syndrome qubits 1, 2 and 8 are reset

    The CFN can be implemented without multi-qubit-controlled gates if a coherently-controlled-reset (R) operation is available. Conditioned on qubit 14, the other three syndrome qubits 1, 2 and 8 are reset. The first controlled- Z operation therefore only corrects qubit 0 in case that syndrome qubits 1 ,{1,2},{1,8} or{1,2,8} are flipped and then qubits 2 and...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Kitaev, Quantum computations: Algorithms and error cor- rection, Russian Mathematical Surveys 52, 1191 (1997)

    A. Kitaev, Quantum computations: Algorithms and error cor- rection, Russian Mathematical Surveys 52, 1191 (1997)

    work page 1997

  7. [7]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computation with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas , Physical Review A 71, 022316 (2005)

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Goto, Minimizing resource overheads for fault-tolerant preparation of encoded states of the Steane code, Scientific re- ports 6, 19578 (2016)

    H. Goto, Minimizing resource overheads for fault-tolerant preparation of encoded states of the Steane code, Scientific re- ports 6, 19578 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    Preskill, Reliable quantum computers , Proceedings of the Royal Society A 454, 385 (1998)

    J. Preskill, Reliable quantum computers , Proceedings of the Royal Society A 454, 385 (1998)

    1998

  2. [10]

    E. T. Campbell, B. M. Terhal, and C. Vuillot, Roads towards fault-tolerant universal quantum computation, Nature 549, 172 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    Eastin and E

    B. Eastin and E. Knill, Restrictions on transversal encoded quantum gate sets , Physical Review Letters 102, 110502 (2009)

    2009

  4. [12]

    Gidney, N

    C. Gidney, N. Shutty, and C. Jones, Magic state cultiva- tion: growing T states as cheap as CNOT gates (2024), arXiv:2409.17595 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    G. A. Paz-Silva, G. K. Brennen, and J. Twamley, Fault toler- ance with noisy and slow measurements and preparation, Phys- ical Review Letters 105, 100501 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    3 implements these syndrome-conditioned flips while respecting the "no flip" con- ditions

    The coherent feedback network in Fig. 3 implements these syndrome-conditioned flips while respecting the "no flip" con- ditions. No feedback can be applied when all syndrome qubits are in the|0⟩ state. We note that some CNOT gates in Fig. 3, while mapping stabilizers back to t...

  7. [15]

    As an example, propagation of the error Z1 is shown in Fig. 3. After E† 15, the error has propagated toZ0X1X8 indicating that the message qubit suffers a Z-flip. Combined with a 0-control on qubit 14, which is compiled with an ad- ditional X-gate to conventional control-connec...

  8. [16]

    Chamberland and K

    C. Chamberland and K. Noh, Very low overhead fault-tolerant magic state preparation using redundant ancilla encoding and flag qubits, npj Quantum Information 6, 91 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    F. Butt, S. Heußen, M. Rispler, and M. Müller, Fault-tolerant code-switching protocols for near-term quantum processors , PRX Quantum 5, 020345 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Heußen and J

    S. Heußen and J. Hilder, Efficient fault-tolerant code switching via one-way transversal CNOT gates(2024), arXiv:2409.13465 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Heußen, D

    S. Heußen, D. F. Locher, and M. Müller, Measurement-free fault-tolerant quantum error correction in near-term devices , PRX Quantum 5, 010333 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Veroni, M

    S. Veroni, M. Müller, and G. Giudice, Optimized measurement- free and fault-tolerant quantum error correction for neutral atoms, Physical Review Research 6, 043253 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    F. Butt, D. F. Locher, K. Brechtelsbauer, H. P. Büchler, and M. Müller, Measurement-free, scalable and fault-tolerant uni- versal quantum computing (2024), arXiv:2410.13568 [quant- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Veroni, A

    S. Veroni, A. Paler, and G. Giudice,Universal quantum compu- tation via scalable measurement-free error correction (2025), arXiv:2412.15187 [quant-ph]

    2025

  15. [23]

    N. C. Brown, et al., Advances in compilation for quantum hard- ware – A demonstration of magic state distillation and repeat- until-success protocols (2023), arXiv:2310.12106 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    P. S. Rodriguez, et al., Experimental demonstration of logical magic state distillation (2024), arXiv:2412.15165 [quant-ph]

    2024

  17. [25]

    B. W. Reichardt, Quantum universality from magic states distil- lation applied to CSS codes , Quantum Information Processing 4, 251 (2005)

    2005

  18. [26]

    E. T. Campbell and D. E. Browne, inTheory of quantum compu- tation, communication, and cryptography(Springer Berlin Hei- delberg, 2009) p. 20

    2009

  19. [27]

    E. T. Campbell and D. E. Browne, Bound states for magic state distillation in fault-tolerant quantum computation, Physical Re- view Letters 104, 030503 (2010)

    2010

  20. [28]

    A. M. Meier, B. Eastin, and E. Knill, Magic-state distillation with the four-qubit code (2012), arXiv:1204.4221 [quant-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Jochym-O’Connor, Y

    T. Jochym-O’Connor, Y . Yu, B. Helou, and R. Laflamme, The robustness of magic state distillation against errors in Clifford gates (2012), arXiv:1205.6715 [quant-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Bravyi and J

    S. Bravyi and J. Haah, Magic-state distillation with low over- head, Physical Review A 86, 052329 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    Jones, Multilevel distillation of magic states for quantum computing, Physical Review A 87, 042305 (2013)

    C. Jones, Multilevel distillation of magic states for quantum computing, Physical Review A 87, 042305 (2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    Eastin, Distilling one-qubit magic states into Toffoli states , Physical Review A 87, 032321 (2013)

    B. Eastin, Distilling one-qubit magic states into Toffoli states , Physical Review A 87, 032321 (2013)

    2013

  25. [33]

    E. T. Campbell and M. Howard, Unified framework for magic state distillation and multiqubit gate synthesis with reduced re- source cost, Physical Review A 95, 022316 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    J. Haah, M. B. Hastings, D. Poulin, and D. Wecker,Magic state distillation with low space overhead and optimal asymptotic in- put count, Quantum 1, 31 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    O’Gorman and E

    J. O’Gorman and E. T. Campbell, Quantum computation with realistic magic-state factories, Physical Review A 95, 032338 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    Howard and E

    M. Howard and E. Campbell, Application of a resource theory for magic states to fault-tolerant quantum computing, Physical Review Letters 118, 090501 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    Haah and M

    J. Haah and M. B. Hastings, Codes and protocols for distilling T , controlled-S, and Toffoli gates, Quantum 2, 71 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    M. B. Hastings and J. Haah, Distillation with sublogarithmic overhead, Physical Review Letters 120, 050504 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    Litinski, Magic state distillation: Not as costly as you think, Quantum 3, 205 (2019)

    D. Litinski, Magic state distillation: Not as costly as you think, Quantum 3, 205 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Gidney and A

    C. Gidney and A. G. Fowler, Efficient magic state factories with a catalyzed |CCZ⟩ to 2|T⟩ transformation, Quantum 3, 135 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Haah and M

    J. Haah and M. B. Hastings, Measurement sequences for magic state distillation, Quantum 5, 383 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    N. Bao, C. Cao, and V . P. Su, Magic state distillation from en- tangled states, Physical Review A 105, 022602 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    S.-H. Lee, F. Thomsen, N. Fazio, B. J. Brown, and S. D. Bartlett, Low-overhead magic state distillation with color codes (2025), arXiv:2409.07707 [quant-ph]

    2025

  36. [44]

    A. R. Kalra and S. Prakash, Invariant theory and magic state distillation (2025), arXiv:2501.10163 [quant-ph]

    2025

  37. [45]

    Fazio, M

    N. Fazio, M. Webster, and Z. Cai, Low-overhead magic state circuits with transversal CNOTs (2025), arXiv:2501.10291 [quant-ph]

    2025

  38. [46]

    M. E. Beverland, A. Kubica, and K. M. Svore, Cost of univer- sality: A comparative study of the overhead of state distillation and code switching with color codes, PRX Quantum 2, 020341 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    A. M. Kaufman and K.-K. Ni, Quantum science with opti- cal tweezer arrays of ultracold atoms and molecules , Nature Physics 17, 1324 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    T. M. Graham, et al., Multi-qubit entanglement and algorithms on a neutral-atom quantum computer, Nature 604, 457 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Scholl, et al., Erasure conversion in a high-fidelity Rydberg quantum simulator, Nature 622, 273 (2023)

    P. Scholl, et al., Erasure conversion in a high-fidelity Rydberg quantum simulator, Nature 622, 273 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Ma, et al., High-fidelity gates and mid-circuit erasure con- version in an atomic qubit, Nature 622, 279 (2023)

    S. Ma, et al., High-fidelity gates and mid-circuit erasure con- version in an atomic qubit, Nature 622, 279 (2023). 8

    2023

  43. [51]

    Bluvstein, et al., Logical quantum processor based on recon- figurable atom arrays, Nature 626, 58 (2024)

    D. Bluvstein, et al., Logical quantum processor based on recon- figurable atom arrays, Nature 626, 58 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Lekitsch, et al., Blueprint for a microwave trapped ion quan- tum computer, Science Advances 3, e1601540 (2017)

    B. Lekitsch, et al., Blueprint for a microwave trapped ion quan- tum computer, Science Advances 3, e1601540 (2017)

    2017

  45. [53]

    Kaushal, et al., Shuttling-based trapped-ion quantum infor- mation processing, A VS Quantum Science2, 014101 (2020)

    V . Kaushal, et al., Shuttling-based trapped-ion quantum infor- mation processing, A VS Quantum Science2, 014101 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    Pogorelov, et al., Compact ion-trap quantum computing demonstrator, PRX Quantum 2, 020343 (2021)

    I. Pogorelov, et al., Compact ion-trap quantum computing demonstrator, PRX Quantum 2, 020343 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    Monroe and J

    C. Monroe and J. Kim, Scaling the ion trap quantum processor, Science 339, 1164 (2013)

    2013

  48. [56]

    S. A. Moses, et al., A Race-Track Trapped-Ion Quantum Pro- cessor, Physical Review X 13, 041052 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    Yu, et al., In-situ mid-circuit qubit measurement and re- set in a single-species trapped-ion quantum computing system (2025), arXiv:2504.12544 [quant-ph]

    Y . Yu, et al., In-situ mid-circuit qubit measurement and re- set in a single-species trapped-ion quantum computing system (2025), arXiv:2504.12544 [quant-ph]

    2025

  50. [58]

    Chen, et al., Non-invasive mid-circuit measurement and reset on atomic qubits (2025), arXiv:2504.12538 [quant-ph]

    Z.-Y . Chen, et al., Non-invasive mid-circuit measurement and reset on atomic qubits (2025), arXiv:2504.12538 [quant-ph]

    2025

  51. [59]

    Kissinger, Phase-free ZX diagrams are CSS codes (...or how to graphically grok the surface code)(2022), arXiv:2204.14038 [quant-ph]

    A. Kissinger, Phase-free ZX diagrams are CSS codes (...or how to graphically grok the surface code)(2022), arXiv:2204.14038 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  52. [60]

    A. M. Steane, Quantum Reed-Muller codes, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 45, 1701 (1999)

    1999

  53. [61]

    Bombín, Gauge color codes: Optimal transversal gates and gauge fixing in topological stabilizer codes , New Journal of Physics 17, 083002 (2015)

    H. Bombín, Gauge color codes: Optimal transversal gates and gauge fixing in topological stabilizer codes , New Journal of Physics 17, 083002 (2015)

    2015

  54. [62]

    Gottesman, The Heisenberg representation of quantum com- puters (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9807006 [quant-ph]

    D. Gottesman, The Heisenberg representation of quantum com- puters (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9807006 [quant-ph]

    1998 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Chao and B

    R. Chao and B. W. Reichardt, Fault-tolerant quantum compu- tation with few qubits, npj Quantum Information 4, 42 (2018)

    2018

  56. [64]

    T. J. Yoder, Universal fault-tolerant quantum computation with Bacon-Shor codes (2017), arXiv:1705.01686 [quant-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Ryan-Anderson, PECOS: Performance estimator of codes on surfaces , https://github.com/PECOS-packages/ PECOS (2019)

    C. Ryan-Anderson, PECOS: Performance estimator of codes on surfaces , https://github.com/PECOS-packages/ PECOS (2019)

    2019

  58. [66]

    Katabarwa and M

    A. Katabarwa and M. R. Geller, Logical error rate in the Pauli twirling approximation, Scientific Reports 5, 1 (2015)

    2015

  59. [67]

    Gutiérrez, C

    M. Gutiérrez, C. Smith, L. Lulushi, S. Janardan, and K. R. Brown, Errors and pseudothresholds for incoherent and coher- ent noise, Physical Review A 94, 042338 (2016)

    2016

  60. [68]

    S. J. Beale, J. J. Wallman, M. Gutiérrez, K. R. Brown, and R. Laflamme, Quantum error correction decoheres noise, Phys- ical Review Letters 121, 190501 (2018)

    2018

  61. [69]

    Huang, A

    E. Huang, A. C. Doherty, and S. Flammia, Performance of quantum error correction with coherent errors , Physical Re- view A 99, 022313 (2019)

    2019

  62. [70]

    J. K. Iverson and J. Preskill, Coherence in logical quantum channels, New Journal of Physics 22, 073066 (2020)

    2020

  63. [71]

    A. Jain, P. Iyer, S. D. Bartlett, and J. Emerson, Improved quan- tum error correction with randomized compiling, Physical Re- view Research 5, 033049 (2023)

    2023

  64. [72]

    Berent, L

    L. Berent, L. Burgholzer, P.-J. H. Derks, J. Eisert, and R. Wille, Decoding quantum color codes with MaxSAT, Quantum 8, 1506 (2024)

    2024

  65. [73]

    Wills, M.-H

    A. Wills, M.-H. Hsieh, and H. Yamasaki, Constant-overhead magic state distillation (2024), arXiv:2408.07764 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  66. [74]

    C. H. Bennett, et al., Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels, Physical Review Let- ters 76, 722 (1996)

    1996

  67. [75]

    C. A. Pattison, G. Baranes, J. P. B. Ataides, M. D. Lukin, and H. Zhou, Fast quantum interconnects via constant-rate entan- glement distillation (2024), arXiv:2408.15936 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  68. [76]

    J. P. B. Ataides, et al., Constant-overhead fault-tolerant Bell-pair distillation using high-rate codes (2025), arXiv:2502.09542 [quant-ph]

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.