Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 50 references

Non-Clifford gates between stabilizer codes via non-Abelian topological order

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A sliding protocol that gauges two surface codes into the $S_3$ quantum double implements a logical controlled-charge-conjugation gate, with the qubit as control and qutrit charge conjugation as the target.

desk verdict A detailed and genuinely new protocol for a non-Clifford logical gate via D(S3), but the central boundary condensation claim contradicts the paper's own boundary assignment, leaving the main result unproven. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18265 v1 pith:UECOGF2L submitted 2025-05-23 quant-ph cond-mat.str-el

Rohith Sajith , Zijian Song , Brenden Roberts , Varun Menon , Yabo Li This is my paper
classification quant-phcond-mat.str-el MSC 81P6881P7081T45 PACS 03.67.Lx03.67.Pp
keywords non-CliffordgatessurfacecodesquantumdoubleofS3gaugingmaptopologicalorderanyoncondensationcontrolledchargeconjugationfault-tolerantcomputation
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

The paper aims to show that non-Clifford logical gates between stabilizer codes can be made by passing logical information through a non-Abelian topological order, instead of by braiding non-Abelian anyons. The concrete protocol slides a two-level (qubit) surface code over a three-level (qutrit) surface code; in the overlap region the two codes are gauged into the quantum double of $S_3$, whose excitations include a charge-conjugation symmetry. After the qubit layer is measured out and corrected by feedforward, the two surface codes reappear with logical operators transformed exactly as under a controlled charge-conjugation gate $\mathcal{CC}$, whose target operation swaps the two nonzero qutrit basis states. The same framework is claimed to give controlled-automorphism gates from any non-Abelian group that is a split extension of cyclic groups, including a Fredkin gate from the $D_4$ quantum double, and the $\mathcal{CC}$ gate is shown to yield magic states for the qubit surface code. The practical point is that this route needs only finite-depth circuits with measurement and feedforward, and the surface codes stay in their ground states throughout.

What carries the argument

The central object is the quantum double of the symmetric group $S_3$, realized on a hybrid lattice of qubits and qutrits as a commuting projector model with stabilizers $A_v$, $B_p$, $\tilde A_v$, and $\tilde B_p$: the qubit operators are order two, the qutrit operators are order three, and the qutrit operators commute only in the subspace where the neighboring qubit plaquette stabilizer equals one. The mechanism that carries the argument is the charge-conjugation gauging map: a column of local $\mathcal{CC}$ gates entangles ancilla qubits with the qutrit surface code, a cluster-state entangler and $X$ measurements create the $S_3$ topological order, and the same map run in reverse with $Z$ measurements and charge-conjugation feedforward ungauges it. Logical information travels as anyon-line deformation across gapped domain walls, and the nonlocal string $\gamma_Z$ must terminate on the right boundary of the $S_3$ code because $B$ anyons do not condense at the left domain wall. That anchoring is what lets the qubit logical $\bar X$ emerge dressed by a charge-conjugation membrane on the qutrit code.

What would settle it

A direct gate-level simulation of the complete sliding protocol on the paper's own hybrid lattice would settle the claim: prepare known logical states in both codes, run the injection-and-ejection circuit, and process-tomograph the logical map; if the final map differs from $\bar X \to \bar X \bar C$, $\bar X \to \bar X^{\bar Z}$, and $\bar Z \to \bar Z^{\bar Z}$ for any input, the protocol fails. A second, more targeted check is to compute the condensation of B anyons at the left $\mathcal{D}(S_3)$--$\mathbb{Z}_2$ domain wall in the explicit lattice model; if a B string can close on the left, the nonlocal anchoring that the logical-operator argument relies on is absent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the claim is that sliding a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ surface code across a $\mathbb{Z}_3$ surface code through an intermediate $S_3$ quantum double executes a logical $\mathcal{CC}$ gate between arbitrary logical states of the two codes. During injection, the logical operators of both Abelian codes are deformed across gapped domain walls into non-Abelian anyon lines of $\mathcal{D}(S_3)$: the qubit $\bar X$ becomes a membrane of charge-conjugation operators (a $D$ anyon line) and the qutrit logical operators become ribbon operators dressed by nonlocal strings anchored on the right boundary. During ejection, $Z$-basis measurement of the qubit layer and charge-conjugation feedforward convert the measurement record into charge-conjugation domain walls that are corrected away, and the logical operators truncate back onto the two surface codes with the $\mathcal{CC}$ action. The paper further claims that the same protocol, with charge conjugation replaced by any automorphism $\psi : \mathbb{Z}_m \to \mathrm{Aut}(\mathbb{Z}_n)$, produces logical gates $\mathcal{C}_\psi$ for every split extension $G = \mathbb{Z}_n \rtimes_\psi \mathbb{Z}_m$, and that the $\mathcal{CC}$ gate is a source of magic states for the qubit surface code.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the anyon-condensation data at the gapped domain wall between the S3 quantum double and the Z2 surface code, taken from Ref. [25]: specifically, that B anyons do not condense at the left wall, which forces the logical string to anchor on the right boundary and makes the injected logical operators deform the way the protocol needs; if that condensation rule were different, the final logical transformation would not be a controlled charge-conjugation gate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A $\mathcal{CC}$ gate between a qubit and a qutrit surface code is realized without anyon braiding or fusion, using only finite-depth circuits, measurement, and feedforward.
  • Combining this $\mathcal{CC}$ gate with the Clifford group makes the qubit surface code universal, since the protocol explicitly produces magic states for the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ code.
  • The same protocol generates a Fredkin, or controlled-SWAP, gate between three qubit surface codes by gauging the $D_4 = \mathbb{Z}_2^2 \rtimes \mathbb{Z}_2$ quantum double.
  • During the whole procedure the qubit and qutrit surface codes remain in their ground states, so decoding only has to handle the $S_3$ bulk and the usual Abelian boundary syndromes.
  • The heralded decoder for $\mathcal{D}(S_3)$ reduces non-Abelian error correction to Abelian $B$-anyon correction by clearing $B_p$ syndromes first and then eliminating $\tilde A_v$ and $\tilde B_p$ syndromes with sequential adaptive circuits.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The sliding mechanism appears to generalize beyond cyclic groups to any finite group that is a split extension of Abelian groups, since only the split-extension structure and the automorphism action are used in the construction.
  • A concrete next step the paper leaves implicit is to determine whether the qutrit state produced in its Appendix F is a usable magic state for universal qutrit computation; the paper proves magic for the qubit output but leaves the qutrit output's power open.
  • The protocol's finite-depth, measurement-based form suggests a direct near-term experiment: prepare the two surface-code ground states on a neutral-atom or trapped-ion processor and process-tomograph the logical $\mathcal{CC}$ map, with the main missing input being a circuit-level threshold analysis that the paper leaves for future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes measurement-and-feedforward protocols that implement non-Clifford logical gates between qudit surface codes by routing logical information through a non-Abelian D(S3) quantum-double code. The central construction is a controlled-charge-conjugation (C C) gate between a qubit and a qutrit surface code: the two logical states are injected into an S3 quantum double by symmetry-enriching and then gauging the Z2 charge-conjugation symmetry of the Z3 code, and are ejected by column-wise Z-basis measurement with feedforward. The paper tracks every logical operator through the injection and ejection steps and claims final transformations X -> X C, Z -> Z on the qubit control and X -> X^Z, Z -> Z^Z on the qutrit target, which is the action of C C. It also sketches a D(G) generalization for split extensions, proposes a heralded decoding strategy for D(S3), and gives a magic-state construction in Appendix F.

Significance. If the operator-transfer claim is correct, this is a valuable result: it uses non-Abelian topological order as an intermediate entangling resource rather than through braiding, and it provides an explicit, stabilizer-level route from finite-depth circuits to a non-Clifford logical gate. The strengths of the paper are its concreteness: the commuting-projector model for D(S3) is written out, the logical operators are tracked through each step, the protocol is summarized as an explicit column-by-column algorithm in Section III.E, and the magic-state construction in Appendix F is explicit. The main limitation is that the central gate action rests on a boundary-condensation assertion that appears inconsistent with the paper's own boundary assignments, as detailed below.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III.B, after Eq. (24); Fig. 1(c); Appendix C] The assertion that the nonlocal string gamma_Z must end on the right boundary because "B anyons do not condense at the lefthand domain wall" appears to contradict the boundary conditions stated elsewhere in the paper. Figure 1(c) and Appendix C assign the left boundary of the D(S3) slab the rough Lagrangian algebra A+B+2C, and a rough boundary with Lagrangian algebra A+B+2C condenses the B anyon. Across the D(Z2)/D(S3) interface, the pair (B on the S3 side, e on the Z2 side) therefore condenses, so gamma_Z, the e/B anyon line, may terminate on the left domain wall. If that is the case, the truncation of gamma_Z to the logical Z of the right Z2 code in Eqs. (30)-(31) is not justified: gamma_Z would instead collapse to a measurement-record-dependent quantity, and the claimed logical transformations X -> X^Z and Z -> Z^Z would not follow. The parenthetical comment about "extra vertex qubits" is asserted, not derived, and is not reconciled with the interface stabilizers of Appendix C. This is a load-bearing step for the central C C claim, so it must be resolved by correcting the boundary assignment or by proving the non-condensation directly from the interface stabilizers and the gauging circuit.
  2. [Section III.D] The treatment of non-contractible Z = -1 lines in the logical-operator bookkeeping is under-derived. The protocol applies an \bar{X} correction when a non-contractible line is observed (Section III.C), while the strings gamma_i are eventually identified with \bar{Z} of the right Z2 code (Eq. (31)). The paper does not explicitly show how the \bar{X} correction and the sign of gamma_i transform under this correction, so the conclusion that the overall sign of each gamma_i is invariant is asserted rather than established. This is secondary to the first comment, but it is part of the logical-operator tracking that is supposed to justify X -> X^{\bar{Z}} and Z -> Z^{\bar{Z}}.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1(c) and Section III.A] Figure 1(c) says the S3 quantum double is prepared "after applying the gauging map to the entire Z3 code," while the protocol in Section III.A and the algorithm in Section III.E prepare the S3 code column by column; please align the wording so the figure does not suggest a single global gauging step.
  2. [Section V and Appendix E] The paper claims fault tolerance to local stochastic Pauli noise, but the described decoder is a strategy with heuristic path-pairing choices, and the threshold analysis is explicitly deferred. It would be more accurate to present this part as an error-correction proposal with supporting syndrome statistics rather than as an established fault-tolerance result.
  3. [Eqs. (24) and (30)] The definitions of gamma_i and \tilde{\gamma}_i are not fully consistent: Eq. (24) uses j \le i, while Eq. (30) uses j < i. Please standardize the definitions and state explicitly how the representative is chosen.
  4. [Eqs. (16)-(19)] The stabilizer diagrams in Eqs. (16)-(19) are difficult to read in the current rendering; since the modified stabilizer algebra is central to the construction, please redraw these operators with legible labeling.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the logical CC action is derived by explicit operator tracking through the gauging/ejection circuit; self-references and cited boundary rules are non-load-bearing inputs.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The CC action is not assumed as input; it is obtained by explicit tracking of the logical operators through the protocol. Section III.A constructs the S3 stabilizers from the CC-enriched gauging circuit (Eqs. (13)-(19)); Section III.B tracks the Z2 logical Z by direct extension (Eq. (21)), the Z2 logical X as a C-membrane (Eq. (22)), and the Z3 logical X and Z as nonlocal-string-conditioned operators (Eqs. (23)-(25)). Section III.D derives the final transformations by truncating those strings using the measurement record and the prescribed feedforward corrections (Eqs. (30)-(31)), rather than by imposing X -> X^Z and Z -> Z^Z as the target. The interface anyon-condensation rule (B anyons not condensing at the left domain wall) is an input taken from external Ref. [25]; the self-references [21] and [32] only identify representation conventions for ribbon operators and do not carry the load of the derivation. Even if the condensation rule were inconsistent with Appendix C, that would be a correctness defect, not circularity. No parameter is fitted to the target gate, no normalization forces the logical action, and the protocol is benchmarked against explicit stabilizer and logical-operator bookkeeping.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The protocol has no fitted parameters and introduces no new physical entities. It relies on established gauging constructions and boundary condensation rules from prior work, plus a proposed error correction strategy whose completeness is not fully proven. These are listed as domain assumptions or ad hoc assumptions.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Z2 gauging map can be implemented by a finite-depth circuit with measurement and feedforward, and it maps Z2-symmetric states to Z2 gauge theory ground states.
    Used throughout Section III.A for state preparation; cited from Refs. [16,28], not re-derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Applying the charge-conjugation gauging map to the symmetry-enriched Z3 surface code produces the S3 quantum double with the stated commuting projector model.
    The core preparation step, relying on Refs. [17,21] and the local stabilizer calculations in Section III.A; the equivalence to Kitaev's model is shown in Appendix B.
  • domain assumption Gapped domain walls between D(S3) and the Z2/Z3 surface codes have the specified anyon condensation rules, including that B anyons do not condense at the left D(S3)/D(Z2) domain wall.
    Used in Section III.B to justify deformation of logical operators; taken from Ref. [25].
  • ad hoc to paper Local stochastic Pauli errors after state preparation can be corrected by measuring the commuting projectors and applying the proposed sequential adaptive circuits.
    The decoder is described at a high level but the precise algorithm and threshold are left to future work (Section V.B, Appendix E).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-Clifford gates between stabilizer codes via non-Abelian topological order." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UECOGF2L

@misc{pith2026250518265,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-Clifford gates between stabilizer codes via non-Abelian topological order},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UECOGF2L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18265}
}
abstract

We propose protocols to implement non-Clifford logical gates between stabilizer codes by entangling into a non-Abelian topological order as an intermediate step. Generalizing previous approaches, we provide a framework that generates a large class of non-Clifford and non-diagonal logical gates between qudit surface codes by gauging the topological symmetry of symmetry-enriched topological orders. As our main example, we concretely detail a protocol that utilizes the quantum double of $S_3$ to generate a controlled-charge conjugation ($C\mathcal{C}$) gate between a qubit and qutrit surface code. Both the preparation of non-Abelian states and logical state injection between the Abelian and non-Abelian codes are executed via finite-depth quantum circuits with measurement and feedforward. We discuss aspects of the fault-tolerance of our protocol, presenting insights on how to construct a heralded decoder for the quantum double of $S_3.$ We also outline how analogous protocols can be used to obtain logical gates between qudit surface codes by entangling into $\mathcal{D}(G),$ where $G$ is a semidirect product of Abelian groups. This work serves as a step towards classifying the computational power of non-Abelian quantum phases beyond the paradigm of anyon braiding on near-term quantum devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18265 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Implementation of logical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. We schematically show the states in the superposition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1(a) with the Z2 code to the left of the Z3 code

    Initialize codes as in Fig. 1(a) with the Z2 code to the left of the Z3 code. Initialize a square lattice of ancilla vertex qubits in the |+⟩ state and ancilla edge qubits in the |0⟩ state

    work page

  2. [2]

    (a) If and only if c contains both qubits and qutrits, apply UCC on c

    We next perform code extension by a single column c at the right edge of the current qubit code state. (a) If and only if c contains both qubits and qutrits, apply UCC on c. (b) Apply UCX on c. (c) Measure Xv for all vertices v in c obtaining measurement outcomes xv. (d) If xv = −1, then apply Ze on the edge e di- rectly to the right of v

    work page

  3. [3]

    (a) Measure Ze for all edges e in c obtaining mea- surement outcomes ze and append {ze} to the measurement record

    We next perform code shrinkage by a single column c at the left edge of the current qubit code state. (a) Measure Ze for all edges e in c obtaining mea- surement outcomes ze and append {ze} to the measurement record. (b) If the measurement record now contains a new contractible loop ∂R, apply Q e Ce to the por- tion of R that contains qutrits. (c) If the ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    (a) In the bulk of Abelian codes, measure ver- tex and plaquette syndromes and apply stan- dard decoders for the qubit and qutrit surface codes

    We now describe the error correction step, which is performed after each execution of steps 2 and 3 for each column c. (a) In the bulk of Abelian codes, measure ver- tex and plaquette syndromes and apply stan- dard decoders for the qubit and qutrit surface codes. (b) In the bulk of S3 code, apply the S3 non- Abelian decoder (discussed in Section V). IV. C...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Wen, Topological orders in rigid states, Interna- tional Journal of Modern Physics B 4, 239 (1990)

    X.-G. Wen, Topological orders in rigid states, Interna- tional Journal of Modern Physics B 4, 239 (1990)

    1990

  6. [6]

    Wen and Q

    X.-G. Wen and Q. Niu, Ground-state degeneracy of the 14 fractional quantum hall states in the presence of a ran- dom potential and on high-genus riemann surfaces, Phys- ical Review B 41, 9377 (1990)

    work page 1990

  7. [7]

    Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Annals of Physics 303, 2–30 (2003)

    A. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Annals of Physics 303, 2–30 (2003)

    2003

  8. [8]

    Dennis, A

    E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, Topological quantum memory, Journal of Mathematical Physics 43, 4452 (2002)

    2002

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kali- nowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lu...

    2023

  2. [10]

    S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, S. Ebadi, T. Manovitz, H. Zhou, S. H. Li, A. A. Geim, T. T. Wang, N. Maskara, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, High-fidelity parallel entan- gling gates on a neutral-atom quantum computer, Nature 622...

    2023

  3. [11]

    Moses, C

    S. Moses, C. Baldwin, et al. , A race-track trapped- ion quantum processor, Physical Review X 13, 10.1103/physrevx.13.041052 (2023)

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Acharya, D

    R. Acharya, D. A. Abanin, et al. , Quantum error cor- rection below the surface code threshold, Nature 638, 920–926 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Iqbal, A

    M. Iqbal, A. Lyons, C. F. B. Lo, N. Tantivasadakarn, J. Dreiling, C. Foltz, T. M. Gatterman, D. Gresh, N. He- witt, C. A. Holliman, J. Johansen, B. Neyenhuis, Y. Mat- suoka, M. Mills, S. A. Moses, P. Siegfried, A. Vishwanath, R. Verresen, and H. Dreyer, Qutrit toric code and p...

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Iqbal, N

    M. Iqbal, N. Tantivasadakarn, R. Verresen, S. L. Camp- bell, J. M. Dreiling, C. Figgatt, J. P. Gaebler, J. Jo- hansen, M. Mills, S. A. Moses, J. M. Pino, A. Rans- ford, M. Rowe, P. Siegfried, R. P. Stutz, M. Foss-Feig, A. Vishwanath, and H. Dreyer, Non-abelian topologi- cal or...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Mochon, Anyons from nonsolvable finite groups are sufficient for universal quantum computation, Physical Review A 67, 022315 (2003)

    C. Mochon, Anyons from nonsolvable finite groups are sufficient for universal quantum computation, Physical Review A 67, 022315 (2003)

    2003

  8. [16]

    Mochon, Anyon computers with smaller groups, Phys- ical Review A 69, 032306 (2004)

    C. Mochon, Anyon computers with smaller groups, Phys- ical Review A 69, 032306 (2004)

    2004

  9. [17]

    S. X. Cui, S.-M. Hong, and Z. Wang, Universal quan- tum computation with weakly integral anyons, Quantum Information Processing 14, 2687 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    Freedman, A

    M. Freedman, A. Kitaev, M. Larsen, and Z. Wang, Topo- logical quantum computation, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 40, 31 (2003)

    2003

  11. [19]

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, Fermionic quantum com- putation, Annals of Physics 298, 210 (2002)

    2002

  12. [20]

    Bravyi, I

    S. Bravyi, I. Kim, A. Kliesch, and R. Koenig, Adap- tive constant-depth circuits for manipulating non-abelian anyons, arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01933 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Verresen, N

    R. Verresen, N. Tantivasadakarn, and A. Vishwanath, Efficiently preparing schr¨ odinger’s cat, fractons and non-abelian topological order in quantum devices, arXiv:2112.03061 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Tantivasadakarn, A

    N. Tantivasadakarn, A. Vishwanath, and R. Verresen, A hierarchy of topological order from finite-depth unitaries, measurement and feedforward, arXiv:2209.06202 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Tantivasadakarn, R

    N. Tantivasadakarn, R. Verresen, and A. Vishwanath, The shortest route to non-abelian topological order on a quantum processor, arXiv:2209.03964 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Y. Ren, N. Tantivasadakarn, and D. J. Williamson, Effi- cient preparation of solvable anyons with adaptive quan- tum circuits, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04985 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Y. Li, H. Sukeno, A. P. Mana, H. P. Nautrup, and T.- C. Wei, Symmetry-enriched topological order from par- tially gauging symmetry-protected topologically ordered states assisted by measurements, Physical Review B108, 10.1103/physrevb.108.115144 (2023)

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    L. Chen, Y. Ren, R. Fan, and A. Jaffe, A univer- sal circuit set using the s3 quantum double (2025), arXiv:2411.09697 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Huang and Y

    S.-J. Huang and Y. Chen, Generating logical magic states with the aid of non-abelian topological order, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.00998 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Davydova, A

    M. Davydova, A. Bauer, J. C. M. de la Fuente, M. Web- ster, D. J. Williamson, and B. J. Brown, Universal fault tolerant quantum computation in 2d without getting tied in knots (2025), arXiv:2503.15751 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Ren and P

    Y. Ren and P. Shor, Topological quantum compu- tation assisted by phase transitions, arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.00103 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Kubica and B

    A. Kubica and B. Yoshida, Ungauging quantum error-correcting codes, arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.01836 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Tantivasadakarn, R

    N. Tantivasadakarn, R. Thorngren, A. Vishwanath, and R. Verresen, Long-range entanglement from measuring symmetry-protected topological phases, arXiv:2112.01519 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Y. Li, M. Litvinov, and T.-C. Wei, Measuring topological field theories: Lattice models and field-theoretic descrip- tion (2023), arXiv:2310.17740 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [34]

    X.-G. Wen, Classifying gauge anomalies through symmetry-protected trivial orders and classifying grav- itational anomalies through topological orders, Physical Review D 88, 10.1103/physrevd.88.045013 (2013)

    2013 doi

  26. [35]

    Lyons, C

    A. Lyons, C. F. B. Lo, N. Tantivasadakarn, A. Vish- wanath, and R. Verresen, Protocols for creating anyons and defects via gauging (2025), arXiv:2411.04181 [quant- ph]

    2025

  27. [36]

    Y. Li, Z. Song, A. Kubica, and I. H. Kim, Domain walls from spt-sewing (2024), arXiv:2411.11967 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [37]

    F. H. E. Watson, H. Anwar, and D. E. Browne, Fast fault- tolerant decoder for qubit and qudit surface codes, Phys- ical Review A 92, 10.1103/physreva.92.032309 (2015)

    2015 doi

  29. [38]

    J. R. Wootton, J. Burri, S. Iblisdir, and D. Loss, Error correction for non-abelian topological quantum compu- tation, Physical Review X 4, 10.1103/physrevx.4.011051 (2014)

    2014 doi

  30. [39]

    Barkeshli, Y.-A

    M. Barkeshli, Y.-A. Chen, S.-J. Huang, R. Kobayashi, N. Tantivasadakarn, and G. Zhu, Codimension-2 defects and higher symmetries in (3+1)d topological phases, Sci- Post Physics 14, 10.21468/scipostphys.14.4.065 (2023)

    2023 doi

  31. [40]

    Barkeshli, P

    M. Barkeshli, P. Bonderson, M. Cheng, and Z. Wang, Symmetry fractionalization, defects, and gaug- ing of topological phases, Physical Review B 100, 10.1103/physrevb.100.115147 (2019)

    2019 doi

  32. [41]

    Bulmash and M

    D. Bulmash and M. Barkeshli, Gauging fractons: Im- mobile non-abelian quasiparticles, fractals, and position- 15 dependent degeneracies, Physical Review B 100, 10.1103/physrevb.100.155146 (2019)

    2019 doi

  33. [42]

    Laubscher, D

    K. Laubscher, D. Loss, and J. R. Wootton, Universal quantum computation in the surface code using non- abelian islands, Physical Review A 100, 10.1103/phys- reva.100.012338 (2019)

    2019 doi

  34. [43]

    L. M. Adleman, J. DeMarrais, and M.-D. A. Huang, Quantum computability, SIAM Journal on Computing 26, 1524 (1997)

    1997

  35. [44]

    Barenco, A universal two-bit gate for quantum com- putation, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    A. Barenco, A universal two-bit gate for quantum com- putation, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences 449, 679 (1995)

    1995

  36. [45]

    Barenco, C

    A. Barenco, C. H. Bennett, R. Cleve, D. P. DiVincenzo, N. Margolus, P. Shor, T. Sleator, J. A. Smolin, and H. Weinfurter, Elementary gates for quantum computa- tion, Physical review A 52, 3457 (1995)

    1995

  37. [46]

    Bernstein and U

    E. Bernstein and U. Vazirani, Quantum complexity the- ory, in Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual ACM sym- posium on Theory of computing (1993) pp. 1411–1473

    1993

  38. [47]

    D. E. Deutsch, Quantum computational networks, Pro- ceedings of the royal society of London. A. mathematical and physical sciences 425, 73 (1989)

    1989

  39. [48]

    P. O. Boykin, T. Mor, M. Pulver, V. Roychowdhury, and F. Vatan, On universal and fault-tolerant quantum com- puting, arXiv preprint quant-ph/9906054 (1999). 16 Appendix A: Review of the S3 Quantum Double In this section, we review the quantum double of S3 and its categorical d...

    1999 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Correspondence between anyon data for the Z3 toric code with gauged charge conjugation symmetry and D(S3)

    S3 2 2 C [˜e] [s] Z2 1 3 D σ [s] Z2 s 3 E ϕσ [r] Z3 1 2 F [ ˜m] [r] Z3 ω 2 G [˜e ˜m] [r] Z3 ¯ω 2 H [˜e ˜m2] TABLE I. Correspondence between anyon data for the Z3 toric code with gauged charge conjugation symmetry and D(S3). ϕ and σ correspond to the gauge charge and gauge flux...

  41. [50]

    We now demonstrate how to fuse such a syndrome configuration into either vacuum or a single C anyon on vertex v4

    Sequential Adaptive Circuit for C Anyons To illustrate our procedure, we analyze the case of ˜Av syndromes along a chain of 4 sites: ω 1 1 ω2 v1 v2 v3 v4 e1 e2 e3 (E1) 22 As an example, we have shown a chain of 4 sites with syndromes ˜Av1 = ω, ˜Av2 = 1, ˜Av3 = 1, ˜Av4 = ω2, me...

  42. [51]

    As described in the main text, an analogous circuit exists for correcting paths of X and X † errors by measuring ˜Bp syndromes

    Correction of Local Z/Z † errors We consider the correction a path Z and Z † errors acting on the S3 ground state to demonstrate how the circuit from the previous section can fuse a chain of local errors to up to the presence of Abelian B anyons. As described in the main text,...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.