Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 6 cited by

Transversal non-Clifford gates on qLDPC codes breaking the $\sqrt{N}$ distance barrier and quantum-inspired geometry with $\mathbb{Z}_2$ systolic freedom

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Quantum LDPC codes achieve distance Ω(N^{2/3}) with transversal non-Clifford gates: a constant-depth triple cup product on the product manifold implements Θ(N) logical CCZ gates and injects Θ(N^{1/3}) magic states in one shot.

desk verdict A real advance in the transversal-CCZ distance race, but the paper's central distance and systolic claims rest on an unproved weight bound that an editor should send to a careful referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15056 v1 pith:GFVN5B45 submitted 2025-07-20 quant-ph cond-mat.str-elcs.IThep-thmath.GTmath.IT

Guanyu Zhu This is my paper
classification quant-phcond-mat.str-elcs.IThep-thmath.GTmath.IT PACS 03.67.Pp03.67.Lx
keywords transversalnon-CliffordgatesquantumLDPCcodestriplecupproductlogicalCCZmagicstatefountainsystolicfreedomcode-to-manifoldmappinghomological
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 sets out to show that the long-standing distance barrier for quantum low-density parity-check (qLDPC) codes with transversal non-Clifford gates can be broken: it constructs codes whose distance is $\Omega(N^{2/3})$ (with linear $X$-distance $\Theta(N)$) and whose dimension is $\Theta(N^{2/3})$, passing the previous $\sqrt{N}$ barrier. The construction takes three good qLDPC codes, maps each to a triangulated 11-manifold through the Freedman–Hastings code-to-manifold construction, and forms the product manifold with qubits on 11-simplices; a triple cup product of operator-valued cochains produces a constant-depth circuit of physical CCZ gates that acts as $\Theta(N)$ logical CCZ gates. A subsystem encoding that demotes the logical qubits living on short cycles to gauge qubits preserves the large distance, and a variant built from three manifolds of dimensions summing to $3q$ (starting at $q = 31$) gives subspace CSS codes with the same parameters. The point of the distance gain is practical: if the construction is right, it enables fault-tolerant preparation of $\Theta(N^{1/3})$ independent logical CCZ magic states in a single shot, without distillation, a scheme the paper calls a magic state fountain. As a byproduct, the same geometry supplies a family of $3q$-manifolds with power-law $\mathbb{Z}_2$-systolic freedom and, simultaneously, $\Theta(N)$ triple intersection points.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the triple cup product of operator-valued cochains, $U = (-1)^{\int_L \hat{a}^{(1)}_{q_1} \cup \hat{a}^{(2)}_{q_2} \cup \hat{a}^{(3)}_{q_3}}$ with $q_1 + q_2 + q_3 = \dim L$: the same expression is a constant-depth circuit of physical CCZ gates, a cohomology operation, and a counter of $\mathbb{Z}_2$ triple intersections of the Poincaré-dual cycles that support logical-$X$ operators. Its geometric input is the Freedman–Hastings code-to-manifold mapping (Theorem 1), which turns a good qLDPC code into a triangulated 11-manifold with bounded local geometry, $\Theta(n)$ Betti numbers and $\Theta(n)$ systoles. Two bookkeeping devices complete the argument: Lemma 2 converts the code into a subsystem code by demoting logical qubits on short cycles to gauge qubits, and for the subspace version an exhaustive search over parameter sets $\{p_i, s_i\}$ avoids the 'bad dimensions' (the set $B_1 \cup B_2$ of degrees that could carry short cycles), the minimal valid choice being $\{\{9,16\},\{12,22\},\{15,19\}\}$ with $q = 31$.

What would settle it

Build the cell complex of the product of the three Freedman–Hastings manifolds at a finite code size and solve for the shortest non-trivial $\mathbb{Z}_2$ cycle in the $\alpha^{11}$-logical class, and likewise for the $q$- and $2q$-systoles of the smallest subspace manifold ($q = 31$, parameter set $\{\{9,16\},\{12,22\},\{15,19\}\}$); finding any non-trivial cycle shorter than the product of the three factor systoles, or any non-trivial $q$- or $2q$-cycle of weight $o(N^{2/3})$, would falsify Theorems 2 and 3.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a homological product of three good qLDPC codes supports non-Clifford logic and large distance at the same time. Each input code becomes, via the Freedman–Hastings mapping, an 11-manifold with bounded local geometry, $\Theta(n)$ Betti numbers and $\Theta(n)$ systoles; the product $M^{33} = M^{11} \times M'^{11} \times M''^{11}$ carries an LDPC CSS code with qubits on 11-simplices, and the operator-valued cochain formula $U = (-1)^{\int_{M^{33}} \hat{a}^{(1)}_{11} \cup \hat{a}^{(2)}_{11} \cup \hat{a}^{(3)}_{11}}$ is a constant-depth circuit of physical CCZ gates that implements logical CCZ gates (Lemma 1), one for each triple of 11-cocycles whose Künneth components $a_4 \otimes a^{*\prime}_7 \otimes c''_0$, $c_0 \otimes a'_4 \otimes a^{*\prime\prime}_7$ and $a^{*}_7 \otimes c'_0 \otimes a''_4$ have odd triple intersection. There are $\Theta(n^3) = \Theta(N)$ such triples, giving $\Theta(N)$ logical CCZ gates; the subsystem version (Theorem 2) keeps $Z$-distance $\Omega(N^{2/3})$ and $X$-distance $\Theta(N)$ by demoting short-cycle logical qubits to gauge qubits. The subspace version (Theorem 3 and Corollary 3.1) instead chooses three Freedman–Hastings manifolds of different dimensions so that degrees $q$ and $2q$ fall in gaps of the 'bad dimension' set $B_1 \cup B_2$, and for $q \geq 31$ the resulting $3q$-manifolds have $q$- and $2q$-systoles of size $\Omega(N^{2/3})$, yielding the claimed power-law $\mathbb{Z}_2$-systolic freedom together with $\Theta(N)$ triple intersection points.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the shortest non-trivial cycle representing a Künneth product class in the product manifold is at least the product of the shortest non-trivial cycles in its three factors; the paper asserts this bound in Eqs. (57) and (60) without proof, and the $\Omega(N^{2/3})$ distance and the systolic-freedom conclusions stand or fall with it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A family of qLDPC codes exists with distance $\Omega(N^{2/3})$, linear $X$-distance $\Theta(N)$, dimension $\Theta(N^{2/3})$, and constant stabilizer weight, on which transversal (constant-depth) logical CCZ gates act.
  • The codes prepare $\Theta(N^{1/3})$ independent logical CCZ magic states in a single shot without distillation, a 'magic state fountain' that removes distillation rounds from state preparation.
  • The 33-manifold used for the subsystem code breaks the $\sqrt{N}$ distance barrier for homological codes while retaining non-Clifford transversality, extending the earlier fibre-bundle achievement to the gate setting.
  • The associated family of $3q$-manifolds exhibits power-law $\mathbb{Z}_2$-$ (q,2q)$-systolic freedom and simultaneously $\Theta(\mathrm{vol})$ triple intersection points of $2q$-cycles, a coexistence absent from earlier systolic-freedom manifolds.
  • Because the stabilizer weight is bounded, syndrome extraction is a constant-depth circuit and the codes are expected to have a fault-tolerance threshold under circuit-level noise; the linear $X$-distance is particularly suited to biased-noise systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Following the same blueprint with input codes whose factor systoles are both $\Theta(n)$ would plausibly lift both $d_X$ and $d_Z$ to $\Theta(N)$; the paper leaves the push to genuinely linear distance with transversal non-Clifford gates as future work.
  • The 'bad dimension' gap condition is a transferable design rule for products of manifolds with controlled cohomology: choose factor dimensions so the desired cycle degrees fall in gaps of the short-cycle spectrum, a principle that could guide other homological or foliated code constructions.
  • A finite-size numerical instantiation, for instance with bivariate-bicycle input codes as the paper suggests, would give the first concrete test of the product-of-systoles bound and of whether the $\Theta(N)$ logical CCZ count appears at practical sizes.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a construction of qLDPC codes with transversal non-Clifford gates. It takes the homological product M^11 × M'^11 × M''^11 of three 11-manifolds built from good qLDPC codes via the Freedman–Hastings mapping, places qubits on 11-simplices, and uses the triple cup product to realize logical CCZ gates. A subsystem encoding is introduced to remove short 11-cycles, yielding a claimed [[N, Θ(N^{2/3}), Ω(N^{2/3})]] code with X-distance Θ(N) (Theorem 2). For subspace codes, the paper constructs 3q-dimensional product manifolds with q ≥ 31 and claims a power-law Z2-(q,2q)-systolic freedom together with Θ(N) triple intersection points, leading to a subspace qLDPC code with the same distance and dimension (Theorem 3, Corollary 3.1). The final section applies the gates to prepare Θ(N^{1/3}) logical CCZ magic states in a single shot.

Significance. If correct, the claimed result would be a substantial advance: it would give the first qLDPC construction with transversal non-Clifford gates exceeding the sqrt(N) distance barrier, and the first manifold family combining power-law Z2-systolic freedom with nontrivial triple intersections of large cycles. The construction is explicit and combinatorial; there is no fitting of parameters to the target claims. Lemma 1 gives a self-contained proof of the logical CCZ action via cup products, and the exhaustive parameter search for q = 31 is a concrete algorithmic check. The main weakness is that the distance lower bounds rest on an unproved multiplicative weight inequality for Künneth representatives and on a subsystem-distance argument that is not fully justified; these issues must be repaired before the central claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Eqs. (57) and (60)] The lower bound min|x⊗y⊗z| ≥ min|x|·min|y|·min|z| for Künneth product classes is asserted without proof and is used to derive d_Z = Ω(N^{2/3}) in Theorem 2 and the systole lower bounds in Theorem 3. The Künneth theorem provides only an isomorphism of homology groups; it gives no direct control of Hamming weight in the product cellulation. Boundary cancellations could in principle produce a representative of a product class whose weight is smaller than the product of the minimal weights of its factors. Since this inequality is the step that converts the Ω(n) distances of the constituent good codes into Ω(N^{2/3}) code distance, it is load-bearing. The manuscript should either supply a proof or a precise reference for this weighted Künneth estimate, or the distance claims must be weakened accordingly.
  2. [Section IV, Eq. (77) and the 'bad dimensions' argument] The definition of the sets B1 and B2 rests on the same unproved multiplicative weight bound, together with the assertion that any cohomology class involving at least two large p_i/s_i factors has size Ω(n^2). Even if the multiplicative bound were true for a single tensor product of cocycles, the argument does not rule out short representatives for a class that is a sum of several Künneth components; possible cancellations between summands after adding coboundaries are not discussed. Because this is the mechanism that places q and 2q in the 'good' gaps for the q = 31 example and gives property 4 of Theorem 3, a complete proof of the lower bound on all classes in those dimensions is needed.
  3. [Section III, Lemma 2 and Appendix A] The subsystem-code distance is claimed to be d = min(min{|α_i|}, min{|β*_{k-i}|}) over the selected basis cycles. In a subsystem code, a logical operator is defined modulo the gauge group, so a representative for a selected logical qubit may be of the form l + g, where l is a selected basis cycle and g is a gauge-cycle representative. The lemma's proof does not rule out the possibility that adding g cancels some cells of l and produces a logical operator of weight strictly smaller than min{|α_i|}. Since Theorem 2's d = Ω(N^{2/3}) depends on this distance formula, the proof of Lemma 2 needs to be strengthened to address representatives modulo the gauge group, or the distance definition must be revised.
  4. [Section III, footnote 7 (statement of Theorem 1)] The footnote asserts an 'optimal-parameter' version of the Freedman–Hastings mapping without the polylog(m) reduction, citing the proof in [21] as clarified in [40]. This variant is load-bearing because Theorem 1 supplies the Θ(n) Betti numbers and Θ(n) systoles that all subsequent Θ(N) countings rely on. The manuscript should either state and prove this variant explicitly or quote the exact theorem from the literature; a brief footnote is not sufficient for a result with these quantitative parameters.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II.B, Definition 5, Eq. (45)] The notation for the cosystole is confusing: the line 'sysq(M^r;Z2) = sys_{r-q}(M^r;Z2)' appears to use a superscript on the left and a subscript on the right, and the definition should consistently distinguish sys^q from sys_q.
  2. [Theorem 3, property 5] Property 5 states 'There exist Θ(N) triple intersection points for any chosen basis of 2q-cycles', but the proof constructs triple intersections for a specific Künneth basis. The wording 'for any chosen basis' is stronger than what is shown and should be clarified or weakened.
  3. [Section IV, after Eq. (77)] The sentence 'most of the dimensions (possibly all) in q ≥ 31 will admit one or more valid parameter sets' is speculative and is not needed for the main theorem; it should be removed or replaced by a precise statement about the finite search actually performed.
  4. [Section V.B, magic state fountain] The text says that initializing Θ(n) logical qubits in |+> and the rest in |0> 'effectively turn[s] off all the hyperedges that connect to |0>' and preserves Θ(n) hyperedges. Since each initialized qubit can participate in many hyperedges, the argument needs to specify that a matching of Θ(n) pairwise disjoint hyperedges is selected; otherwise the number of active logical CCZ gates is not controlled.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the Omega(N^{2/3}) distance claim rests on an unproved product-weight inequality, not on fitting or on a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a mathematical construction: take good qLDPC codes [7], map each to an 11-manifold via Freedman-Hastings [21] (Theorem 1), form a triple product, and compute code parameters via the Kunneth isomorphism and triple cup products. No parameter is fitted to a target data set; the claimed parameters are derived from dimension counts and weight estimates. Lemma 1 (triple-cup circuit implements logical CCZ) is proved in the main text, and Lemma 2 (subsystem-code distance) is proved in Appendix A, so the reuse of the author's earlier works [2] and [10] is not the sole support for the central claims. However, the central distance claims in Theorem 2, Corollary 3.1 and Theorem 3 all rely on the multiplicative weight lower bound min|a otimes b otimes c| >= min|a| * min|b| * min|c| stated in Eqs. (57) and (60), and re-used in the 'bad dimensions' analysis of Section IV. This inequality is asserted without proof and is not a consequence of the Kunneth isomorphism alone; if it fails, the Omega(N^{2/3}) distance and the systolic-freedom conclusion collapse. That is an internal gap or correctness risk, not a circular reduction: the conclusion does not equal the input by construction. Footnote 7 also asserts, without proof, an optimal-parameter strengthening of the Freedman-Hastings mapping; this is load-bearing but again not circular. Self-citations are present but not load-bearing. Score 2 reflects the minor self-citation and the unproved strengthening, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The construction rests on the Freedman-Hastings mapping, the existence of good qLDPC codes, and unproved lower bounds on cycle sizes in product complexes. No continuous parameters are fitted to data; the discrete dimension choices are search parameters.

free parameters (2)
  • Integer dimension parameters (p_i, s_i) for q>=31 subspace code = q=31: (p,s) = (9,16),(12,22),(15,19)
    Selected by exhaustive search so that q and 2q avoid bad dimensions B1 and B2; the subspace code and systolic freedom properties depend on this choice.
  • Subsystem code factor dimensions (p=4, r=11) = Three 11-manifolds from FH(4,7)
    Lowest-dimensional choice enabling the triple product; the distance and gate claims in Theorem 2 use this parameter choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Freedman-Hastings mapping produces a manifold from a good qLDPC code with volume Theta(n), homology Theta(n), and all systoles and cosystoles Theta(n), without polylog loss when simple-connectivity is not required.
    Stated as Theorem 1 and attributed to [21] with a clarification from [40]; the optimal-parameter form is not proved in the paper and is load-bearing for all distance claims.
  • domain assumption For FH manifolds, the Betti number vanishes except possibly in dimensions 0,1,2,p,s,r,r-1,r-2, with spurious cycles of small size.
    Used to define bad dimensions B1 and B2 in Theorem 3; asserted from the handlebody construction without a proof in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The size of a minimal representative of a Künneth product class is at least the product of the minimal sizes of the factor classes.
    Invoked in Eqs. (57), (60) and in the systole argument in Sec. IV; no proof is given and the statement is not generally obvious for bounded-geometry triangulations.
  • standard math Asymptotically good qLDPC codes exist with parameters [[n, Theta(n), Theta(n)]].
    Proved by Panteleev and Kalachev [7]; used as the input to the FH mapping.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Transversal non-Clifford gates on qLDPC codes breaking the $\sqrt{N}$ distance barrier and quantum-inspired geometry with $\mathbb{Z}_2$ systolic freedom." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GFVN5B45

@misc{pith2026250715056,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Transversal non-Clifford gates on qLDPC codes breaking the $\sqrtN$ distance barrier and quantum-inspired geometry with $\mathbbZ_2$ systolic freedom},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GFVN5B45}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15056}
}
abstract

Historically, a $\sqrt{N}log^{1/2}(N)$ distance barrier for quantum low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes with $N$ qubits persisted for nearly two decades, until the recent discovery of the fibre-bundle code. An open question is whether such a distance barrier can be broken while preserving the ability to perform transversal non-Clifford gates. In this direction, another long-standing distance barrier of $N^{1/3}$ for LDPC stabilizer codes -- present since the discovery of the 3D color code -- was only recently overcome by a construction achieving an $\Omega(\sqrt{N})$ distance (arXiv:2501.19375). The present work further breaks the $\sqrt{N}$ distance barrier by taking a homological product of three good qLDPC codes, combined with the Freedman-Hastings code-to-manifold mapping and the triple cup product to implement transversal CCZ gates. The resulting code achieves an $\Omega(N^{2/3})$ distance (a linear $X$-distance of $\Theta(N)$) and a dimension of $\Theta(N^{2/3})$, which enables fault-tolerant preparation of $\Theta(N^{1/3})$ independent logical CCZ magic states in a single shot, without distillation (`magic state fountain'). This new quantum code also inspires the discovery of a family of exotic $3q$-dimensional manifolds $\mathcal{M}$, which exhibit both a power-law $\mathbb{Z}_2$-($q$, $2q$)-systolic freedom and $\Theta(vol(\mathcal{M}))$ triple intersection points of $2q$-dimensional submanifolds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15056 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (b)], and HZ and HX are the parity check matrices associated with the Z- and X-stabilizers respectively. Now we also introduce the dual description with a Z2 cochain group C q . A Z2-valued q-cochain c q ∈ C q is a function from the set of q-simplices to Z2 [see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Illustration of the rule of evaluating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An illustration of the subsystem encoding for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) The logical gate structure represented by the interaction hypergrpah. Each vertex (circle) with red, green or blue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

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

    quant-ph 2026-03 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

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

  2. Transversal non-Clifford gates on almost-good quantum LDPC and quantum locally testable codes

    quant-ph 2026-04 conditional novelty 7.5 of 10

    Almost-good qLDPC and qLTC codes admit nontrivial transversal logical multi-controlled-Z gates via cohomological cup products and two-way product-expanding punctured Reed–Solomon local codes.

  3. Clifford Hierarchy Stabilizer Codes: Transversal Non-Clifford Gates and Magic

    quant-ph 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Extends n-dimensional topological stabilizer codes to Clifford hierarchy versions corresponding to non-Abelian gauge theories and constructs transversal gates at the (n+1)th Clifford level.

  4. Magic tricycles: Efficient magic state generation with finite block-length quantum LDPC codes

    quant-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Tricycle codes generalize bicycle codes to three homological dimensions, enabling constant-depth CCZ circuits and single-shot magic state generation with circuit-level thresholds above 0.5% and low error rates at bloc...

  5. Automorphism in Gauge Theories: Higher Symmetries and Transversal Non-Clifford Logical Gates

    cond-mat.str-el 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Automorphisms of gauge groups extend to higher or non-invertible symmetries in topological gauge theories and enable transversal non-Clifford gates in 2+1d Z_N qudit Clifford stabilizer models for N greater than or eq...

  6. Multivariate Multicycle Codes for Complete Single-Shot Decoding

    quant-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Koszul complexes built from four polynomial generators over cyclic group rings yield CSS codes with both X and Z metachecks, giving small, high-confinement, single-shot-decodable quantum codes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [21]

    Swaroop, T

    E. Swaroop, T. Jochym-O’Connor, and T. J. Yoder, Universal adapters between quantum ldpc codes, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03628 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  2. [40]

    Collapsibility and vanishing of top homology in random simplicial complexes

    L. Aronshtam, N. Linial, T. Luczak, and R. Meshulam, Collapsibility and vanishing of top homology in random simplicial complexes, arXiv 10.48550/arxiv.1010.1400 (2010), 1010.1400

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1010.1400 2010

  3. [1]

    [2, 10, 37, 38] applicable to more general stabilizer codes including non-Pauli stabilizer models

    Note that the proof in this paper is more specifically based on the Calderbank–Shor–Steane (CSS) codes [39] to facilitate the understanding for computer scientists, which is different from the more general stabilizer ap- proach in Refs. [2, 10, 37, 38] applicable to more general stabilizer codes including non-Pauli stabilizer models. In Sec. II B, we revi...

    work page 1949

  4. [2]

    G. Zhu, A topological theory for qldpc: non-clifford gates and magic state fountain on homological product codes with constant rate and beyond then 1/3 distance barrier, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.19375 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  5. [3]

    4.sys q( fM;Z 2) =sys 2q( fM;Z 2) = Ω(N 2 3 ), sysq( fM;Z 2) =sys 2q( fM;Z 2) = Ω(N 2 3 )

    ˜bq =dim(H q( fM;Z 2)) = Θ(N 2 3 ). 4.sys q( fM;Z 2) =sys 2q( fM;Z 2) = Ω(N 2 3 ), sysq( fM;Z 2) =sys 2q( fM;Z 2) = Ω(N 2 3 )

    work page

  6. [4]

    2.vol( fM) = Θ(N)

    The triangulation has bounded geometry i.e., each vertex is adjacent toO(1)simplices. 2.vol( fM) = Θ(N)

    work page

  7. [5]

    bad dimensions

    There existΘ(N)triple intersection points for any chosen basis of2q-cycles. Proof.According to Theorem 1, for any two integersp andswithp≥4 ands≥p+ 3, we can construct a trian- gulatedr-dimensional manifoldF H(p, s) of bounded ge- ometry withnvertices [21], wherer=p+s. Recall that this manifold is constructed by modeling a good quantum LDPC code [7] with ...

    work page

  8. [6]

    N. P. Breuckmann and J. N. Eberhardt, Balanced Prod- uct Quantum Codes, arXiv:2012.09271 (2020)

    arXiv 2020

Show all 51 references
  1. [7]

    Similarly,a ∗7 is the Poincar´ e dual cocycle of the cycle a4

    Their support on the manifold is essentially the same, with one in the original trian- gulationLand the other in the dual triangulationL ∗. Similarly,a ∗7 is the Poincar´ e dual cocycle of the cycle a4. We also saya ∗7 anda 4 are a pair of dual cocycles with complementary dime...

  2. [8]

    Hastings, J

    M. Hastings, J. Haah, and R. O’Donnell, Fiber bundle codes: breaking then 1/2polylog(n) barrier for quantum ldpc codes, in Proc. ACM STOC (Association for Com- puting Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2021) pp. 1276– 1288

    2021

  3. [9]

    M. H. Freedman, D. A. Meyer, and F. Luo, Z2-systolic freedom and quantum codes, in Mathematics of quantum computation (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2002) pp. 303–338

    2002

  4. [10]

    Gromov, Systoles and intersystolic inequalities, Actes de la Table Ronde de G´ eom´ etrie Diff´ erentielle (Luminy, 1992), 291—362, S´ emin

    M. Gromov, Systoles and intersystolic inequalities, Actes de la Table Ronde de G´ eom´ etrie Diff´ erentielle (Luminy, 1992), 291—362, S´ emin. Congr., 1, Soc. Math. France, Paris (1996)

    1996

  5. [11]

    Panteleev and G

    P. Panteleev and G. Kalachev, Quantum ldpc codes with almost linear minimum distance, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theo. 68, 213 (2022)

    2022

  6. [12]

    Cross, Z

    A. Cross, Z. He, P. Rall, and T. Yoder, Improved qldpc surgery: Logical measurements and bridging codes, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.18393 (2024)

    2024

  7. [13]

    Panteleev and G

    P. Panteleev and G. Kalachev, Asymptotically good quantum and locally testable classical ldpc codes, in Proc. ACM STOC (Association for Computing Machin- ery, New York, NY, USA, 2022) pp. 375—388

    2022

  8. [14]

    Cohen, I

    L. Cohen, I. Kim, S. Bartlett, and B. Brown, Low- overhead fault-tolerant quantum computing using long- range connectivity, Sci. Adv.8(2022)

    2022

  9. [15]

    Huang, T

    S. Huang, T. Jochym-O’Connor, and T. J. Yoder, Homo- morphic logical measurements, PRX Quantum4, 030301 (2023)

    2023

  10. [16]

    G. Zhu, S. Sikander, E. Portnoy, A. W. Cross, and B. J. Brown, Non-clifford and parallelizable fault-tolerant logical gates on constant and almost-constant rate ho- mological quantum ldpc codes via higher symmetries, arXiv:2310.16982 (2023)

    2023

  11. [17]

    Q. Xu, H. Zhou, G. Zheng, D. Bluvstein, J. Ataides, M. D. Lukin, and L. Jiang, Fast and parallelizable logi- cal computation with homological product codes, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.18490 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Kubica, B

    A. Kubica, B. Yoshida, and F. Pastawski, Unfolding the color code, New Journal of Physics17, 083026 (2015)

    2015

  13. [19]

    D. J. Williamson and T. J. Yoder, Low-overhead fault- tolerant quantum computation by gauging logical opera- tors, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02213 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  14. [20]

    For instance, in a 3D torus (with zero curvature), the distance is determined by the minimal length of the logical string operator, which scales asO(N 1 3 )

    1, which states that in order to get a logical gate at the 3rd level of Clifford hierarchy, one needs to define the code on the cellulation of a manifold of dimension at least 3. For instance, in a 3D torus (with zero curvature), the distance is determined by the minimal lengt...

  15. [22]

    Golowich and T.-C

    L. Golowich and T.-C. Lin, Quantum ldpc codes with transversal non-clifford gates via products of algebraic codes, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14662 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Lin, Transversal non-clifford gates for quantum ldpc codes on sheaves, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14631 (2024)

    T.-C. Lin, Transversal non-clifford gates for quantum ldpc codes on sheaves, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14631 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Bombin, Gauge color codes: optimal transversal gates and gauge fixing in topological stabilizer codes, New Journal of Physics17, 083002 (2015)

    H. Bombin, Gauge color codes: optimal transversal gates and gauge fixing in topological stabilizer codes, New Journal of Physics17, 083002 (2015)

    2015

  18. [25]

    Vasmer and D

    M. Vasmer and D. E. Browne, Three-dimensional surface codes: Transversal gates and fault-tolerant architectures, Phys. Rev. A100, 012312 (2019)

    2019

  19. [26]

    Bravyi and R

    S. Bravyi and R. K¨ onig, Classification of Topologically Protected Gates for Local Stabilizer Codes, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 170503 (2013)

    2013

  20. [27]

    Freedman and M

    M. Freedman and M. B. Hastings, Building manifolds from quantum codes, arXiv:2012.02249 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  21. [28]

    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, SciPost Physics14, 065 (2023)

    2023

  22. [29]

    Barkeshli, Y.-A

    M. Barkeshli, Y.-A. Chen, P.-S. Hsin, and R. Kobayashi, Higher-group symmetry in finite gauge theory and stabi- lizer codes, SciPost Physics16, 089 (2024)

    2024

  23. [30]

    Yoshida, Topological color code and symmetry- 18 protected topological phases, Phys

    B. Yoshida, Topological color code and symmetry- 18 protected topological phases, Phys. Rev. B91, 245131 (2015)

    2015

  24. [31]

    Yoshida, Topological phases with generalized global symmetries, Phys

    B. Yoshida, Topological phases with generalized global symmetries, Phys. Rev. B93, 155131 (2016)

    2016

  25. [32]

    Yoshida, Gapped boundaries, group cohomology and fault-tolerant logical gates, Annals of Physics377, 387 (2017)

    B. Yoshida, Gapped boundaries, group cohomology and fault-tolerant logical gates, Annals of Physics377, 387 (2017)

    2017

  26. [33]

    G. Zhu, M. Hafezi, and M. Barkeshli, Quantum origami: Transversal gates for quantum computation and mea- surement of topological order, Phys. Rev. Research2, 013285 (2020)

    2020

  27. [34]

    G. Zhu, T. Jochym-O’Connor, and A. Dua, Topologi- cal order, quantum codes, and quantum computation on fractal geometries, PRX Quantum3, 030338 (2022)

    2022

  28. [35]

    T. R. Scruby, A. Pesah, and M. Webster, Quantum rain- bow codes, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13130 (2024)

    2024

  29. [36]

    Meshulam, Graph codes and local systems, arXiv 10.48550/arxiv.1803.05643 (2018), 1803.05643

    R. Meshulam, Graph codes and local systems, arXiv 10.48550/arxiv.1803.05643 (2018), 1803.05643

    2018 doi arXiv

  30. [37]

    N. P. Breuckmann, M. Davydova, J. N. Eberhardt, and N. Tantivasadakarn, Cups and gates i: Cohomology in- variants and logical quantum operations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.16250 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  31. [38]

    McCullough and H

    J. McCullough and H. Newman, Asymptotically good homological error correcting codes, Journal of Algebra Combinatorics Discrete Structures and Applications6, 135 (2019)

    2019

  32. [39]

    Dotterrer, L

    D. Dotterrer, L. Guth, and M. Kahle, 2-Complexes with Large 2-Girth, Discrete & Computational Geometry59, 383 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    Linial* and R

    N. Linial* and R. Meshulam*, Homological Connectivity Of Random 2-Complexes, Combinatorica26, 475 (2006)

    2006

  34. [42]

    Meshulam and N

    R. Meshulam and N. Wallach, Homological con- nectivity of random k-dimensional complexes, arXiv 10.48550/arxiv.math/0609773 (2006), math/0609773

    2006 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    P.-S. Hsin, R. Kobayashi, and G. Zhu, Classifying Logical Gates in Quantum Codes via Cohomology Operations and Symmetry, arXiv 10.48550/arxiv.2411.15848 (2024), 2411.15848

    2024 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    P.-S. Hsin, R. Kobayashi, and G. Zhu, Non-Abelian Self-Correcting Quantum Memory, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2405.11719 (2024), arXiv:2405.11719 [quant-ph]

    2024

  37. [45]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  38. [46]

    Portnoy, Local quantum codes from subdivided man- ifolds, arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.06755 (2023)

    E. Portnoy, Local quantum codes from subdivided man- ifolds, arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.06755 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Bacon, Operator quantum error-correcting subsys- tems for self-correcting quantum memories, Physical Re- view A73, 012340 (2006)

    D. Bacon, Operator quantum error-correcting subsys- tems for self-correcting quantum memories, Physical Re- view A73, 012340 (2006)

    2006

  40. [48]

    Hatcher, Algebraic Topology (CUP, Cambridge; New York, 2001)

    A. Hatcher, Algebraic Topology (CUP, Cambridge; New York, 2001)

    2001

  41. [49]

    M. G. Katz and A. I. Suciu, Volume of Riemannian manifolds, geometric inequalities, and homotopy the- ory, arXiv Mathematics e-prints , math/9810172 (1998), arXiv:math/9810172 [math.DG]

    1998 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Guemard, Lifting a css code via its handlebody real- ization, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.14327 (2025)

    V. Guemard, Lifting a css code via its handlebody real- ization, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.14327 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Bravyi, A

    S. Bravyi, A. W. Cross, J. M. Gambetta, D. Maslov, P. Rall, and T. J. Yoder, High-threshold and low- overhead fault-tolerant quantum memory, Nature627, 778 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.