Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Interleaved SWAP-test purifications could make a quantum computer tolerate 75% depolarizing noise by consuming extra copies of the state instead of relying on codewords.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 18:23 UTC pith:3APWXAGQ

load-bearing objection The math is a workable virtual-distillation estimator, but the paper's own Eq. (8) contradicts the 'physical purification without postselection' framing; the thresholds are for a map that never runs on a physical state. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2603.11568 v2 pith:3APWXAGQ submitted 2026-03-12 quant-ph

Hybrid Quantum Error Correction and Mitigation by Purification

Jonathan Raghoonanan , Tim Byrnes This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6881P70 PACS 03.67.Pp
keywords quantum error correctionSWAP testpurificationerror mitigationerror thresholddepolarizing noisedephasing noiseno postselection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that the SWAP test, a standard primitive for comparing two quantum states, can be promoted into a general error-correction layer for unknown states. The protocol takes multiple noisy copies of the same state, recursively merges them with SWAP tests, and — rather than postselecting on symmetric outcomes — averages over the full record with parity weights, isolating the purified component of the state. Because the purification step commutes with identical gates applied to all copies, it can be interleaved throughout a computation rather than applied only at the final readout. The claimed payoff is a logical error rate that can be driven to zero below thresholds of 75% for local depolarizing noise (independent of register size) and 50% for local dephasing, with twirling recovering 75%, at a qubit cost that grows only logarithmically in the number of copies. If correct, this offers an error-correction route based on copy redundancy rather than codeword redundancy, with unusually high tolerance to depolarizing noise.

Core claim

The central claim is that a parity-weighted average over all SWAP-test outcomes gives access to the power-purified state ρ^N without postselection. Averaging the two SWAP outcomes with signs rather than plain addition cancels the unpurified component and leaves ρ^2 after one round; repeating the binary tree yields ρ^{2^ℓ}, and normalizing gives the purification map P_ℓ(ρ) = ρ^N/Tr(ρ^N). Since the SWAP projectors commute with bilateral unitaries, these purification steps can be commuted past algorithm gates and applied mid-circuit. Analyzing repeated purify-and-noise cycles, the paper finds thresholds p_th = 3/4 for local depolarizing noise for any register size (for the studied symmetric pro

What carries the argument

The key object is the SWAP-test purification gadget built from the projector Π_+ = (I + SWAP)/2 onto the symmetric subspace of two registers. Applied to two copies of a noisy state and followed by tracing out one register, it produces a conditional state proportional to ρ plus ρ^2, with the ρ^2 term corresponding to a purified version of the state. The no-postselection trick is the parity weighting: each full measurement-outcome string σ⃗ is multiplied by the total parity Ω = ∏ σ_i when averaged, so that the purified component ρ^N is extracted with unit coefficient while all lower powers cancel. The commuting identity [Π_±, U⊗U] = 0 lets purification layers slide through a quantum circuit, a

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the no-postselection procedure outputs a physical purified state that can be used as input to subsequent unitary blocks, but the paper only derives a parity-weighted estimator of Tr(Oρ^N)/Tr(ρ^N), not a physical ρ^N state after tracing branches.

What would settle it

Prepare a single qubit in a state with depolarizing error p = 0.5, run one no-postselection PQEC cycle with ℓ = 1, and perform full quantum state tomography on the output register using all SWAP-outcome records; if the reconstructed density matrix matches the original mixture ρ rather than the purified state ρ^2/Tr(ρ^2), then no physical purification has occurred and the claimed mid-circuit error suppression cannot hold as stated.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Logical error rates fall exponentially in the number of copies N = 2^ℓ, giving scaling comparable to distance-based quantum codes while avoiding syndrome extraction and decoding.
  • No postselection is needed: every SWAP-test branch contributes through its parity weight, removing the exponential success-probability penalty that normally limits purification protocols.
  • Purification can be applied between gates, not only at measurement, so errors accumulated during a computation can be suppressed as long as fresh copies of the intermediate state are available.
  • The quoted thresholds far exceed those of conventional codes: up to 75% physical local depolarizing error and 50% dephasing (75% after full twirling) are correctable for the studied state family.
  • The qubit-efficient form of the protocol uses only O(M log N) coherent data qubits, making it practical for settings where many identical noisy copies arrive over time, such as repeated state preparation or streaming inputs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The parity-averaging estimator carries a sampling overhead that scales as 1/(Tr ρ^N)^2, so as the input state becomes more mixed the number of shots needed to read out the purified expectation may grow substantially; this practical overhead could dominate long before the high threshold is reached.
  • The paper rigorously establishes a parity-weighted estimator of Tr(Oρ^N)/Tr(ρ^N), but the physical state left after tracing out ancillas and averaging over branches is the original mixture ρ, so whether the purified component can be fed forward as a coherent state is an open question; a direct tomography experiment comparing the output register to ρ^N would resolve whether the protocol functions a
  • Exact dephasing-to-depolarizing twirling requires averaging over all 3^M Clifford frames, which is expensive for large M; the partial-twirling results suggest there may be a much smaller twirling set that already pushes the threshold above 1/2, and finding the minimal such set is a natural extension.
  • The threshold analysis is carried out for the symmetric product-state family and small-error expansions for general states; if the mechanism generalizes, one would expect similar purification thresholds for other dominant-eigenvector families, but the general-state threshold behavior remains to be established.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a scheme called purification quantum error correction (PQEC), also referred to as purification quantum error suppression (PQES), based on SWAP-test purification of multiple noisy copies of an unknown state. The claimed advance is that, by using the full measurement record and parity weighting, the protocol accesses the purified component ρ^N without postselection, so that purification can be interleaved with unitary circuit blocks and act as a general-purpose QEC primitive. The paper derives observable-extraction formulas (Eqs. (20)–(24)), gives a qubit-efficient implementation using O(M log N) coherent registers (Sec. IV), and analyzes error thresholds under global depolarizing, local depolarizing, and local dephasing noise, reporting thresholds p_th=3/4 for local depolarizing noise and p_th=1/2 for local dephasing, with twirling restoring the depolarizing threshold. The core estimator identities are internally consistent and reduce to virtual distillation, but the central claim that a physical, postselection-free purified state is produced and can be fed into subsequent unitary steps is not established by the equations in the paper.

Significance. If the central claim were correct, the paper would describe a striking new QEC primitive with remarkably high thresholds and logarithmic coherent-memory overhead. The analytical derivations in Secs. V–VIII and Appendix D are careful: the threshold values follow from the noise channel sending the product state to the maximally mixed state, with no fitted parameters or post hoc exclusions, and the fixed-point analysis of Appendix D is self-contained. The sampling-overhead estimate in Appendix A is also a useful addition to the virtual-distillation literature. However, the paper's main title and conclusions claim a physical error-correction primitive, whereas the mathematical content establishes only an observable-estimation protocol equivalent to virtual distillation. The paper itself acknowledges this equivalence in Sec. III.B, and Eq. (18) shows the outcome-averaged physical state is unchanged; Eq. (24) is an estimator of Tr(Oρ^N)/Tr(ρ^N), not a physical state output. Thus the claimed mid-circuit purification and the threshold analysis based on applying the nonlinear map P_ℓ(ρ)=ρ^N/Tr(ρ^N) as a physical channel are unsupported. The contribution is best assessed as a resource analys

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III.C, Eqs. (18) and (24)] The central 'no-postselection purification' is not a physical state transformation. Eq. (18) shows that averaging conditional states over all SWAP outcomes returns exactly the original ρ, and Eq. (24) constructs hOi_ℓ as a ratio of parity-weighted sample means. The object ρ^N appearing in Eq. (24) is a signed linear combination of conditional density matrices and is accessible only through expectation values; it is not an output density operator. This is precisely virtual distillation, as the text notes in Sec. III.B. Consequently, the abstract's claim that SWAP tests 'physically reduce errors by purification' is not supported: without postselecting on the symmetric outcome, no physical purified state is produced.
  2. [Secs. IV.B and V.D, Eqs. (42) and (31)] The interleaved-QEC picture applies the nonlinear map P_ℓ(ρ)=ρ^N/Tr(ρ^N) from Eq. (22) as if it were a physical channel, and the threshold procedure in Eq. (42) updates ρ→E(ρ)→P_ℓ(ρ). But P_ℓ is not a CPTP map. The circuit identity [Π_±,U⊗U]=0 in Eq. (31) commutes only the postselected projector with bilateral unitaries. When the SWAP ancilla is measured and one register is discarded without conditioning, the induced channel on the remaining register is the identity (Eq. (8)); after interleaving a unitary, the next stage acts on UρU†, not on any purified state. Therefore Figs. 1, 3, 5–8 do not establish physical mid-circuit error suppression, and the claimed thresholds at p_th=3/4 and p_th=1/2 are thresholds for an estimator map, not for a physical QEC code.
  3. [Sec. IV.A, Fig. 2] The qubit-efficient construction describes P_ℓ as a circuit that 'outputs a purified state |ψ^(ℓ)>' and 'successfully passed through ℓ rounds of SWAP purification.' This language presupposes a physical purified output. Since the no-postselection protocol yields no such state, the recursive reuse of registers cannot supply a purified physical state to the next level; it only produces data for the parity-weighted estimator. The claimed O(M log N) coherent-data footprint and the comparison with streaming-purification lower bounds [27,31] therefore apply at most to a postselected variant and are not justified for the protocol as presented.
  4. [Sec. V.D and Appendix A, Eqs. (26)–(27)] Even under the estimator interpretation, the threshold analysis omits the sampling cost. The denominator in Eq. (24) has expectation Tr(ρ^N), and Eq. (27) gives N_samp ≲ 1/(ε^2 Tr(ρ^N)^2). For error rates near the reported thresholds, Tr(ρ^N) becomes exponentially small in the number of purification rounds ℓ, so the no-postselection scheme still incurs an exponential sampling overhead. The logical-error-rate curves in Figs. 5, 8, 11, and 12 do not include this overhead, so the comparison with standard QEC thresholds is incomplete.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title/Abstract/Body] The terminology is inconsistent: the title and abstract use 'Purification Quantum Error Suppression' (PQES) and 'hybrid error correction and mitigation,' while the body uses 'purification quantum error correction' (PQEC). Please unify.
  2. [Sec. II, Eq. (7)] The notation P(ρ) for the purified density matrix conflicts with the outcome probabilities P_± used throughout. Consider using a different symbol, e.g., P̂(ρ) or ρ_pur.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption states that P_ℓ outputs a state that 'successfully passed through ℓ rounds,' which suggests postselection and contradicts the paper's no-postselection claim. This should be clarified or reworded.
  4. [Sec. IV.A, Ref. [31]] The text attributes the optimality result to 'Grier, Schaeffer, and co-workers,' but the cited paper [31] is by Grier, Leung, Li, Pashayan, and Schaeffer. The claim that the protocol realizes 'the minimal O(M log N) number of coherent qubits' is asserted without proof and should be either proved or softened.
  5. [Sec. VIII.D] For approximate twirling with M=5, the text quotes '0.7 < p_th ≲ 0.8' as the threshold. This is too imprecise; the numerical estimation procedure and the reported uncertainty should be specified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: thresholds follow analytically from the spectral purification map and the noise channel; the only self-citations are confirmatory notes, not load-bearing.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: the SWAP-gadget identities (Eqs. 4-9), the multi-round parity identities (Eqs. 15-20), and the observable estimator (Eq. 24) are re-derived in-line from the projector Π±=(I±SWAP)/2; they are not imported from the paper's conclusions. The thresholds p_th=3/4 and p_th=1/2 are not fitted parameters disguised as predictions: for local depolarizing noise, at p=3/4 each single-qubit channel maps every input to I/2 (Eq. 55), and the fixed-point analysis of Pℓ (Appendix D, Eq. 48) shows convergence to fidelity 1 whenever F>1/D; for dephasing, the transverse Bloch components vanish at p=1/2 (Eq. 64), giving the crossover. These are analytic consequences of the spectral map Pℓ(ρ)=ρ^N/Tr(ρ^N), not of any input data or fitted values. The self-citations are not load-bearing: Ref. [32] is used only to note that the same threshold appeared in a different code, and Ref. [19] is a background citation for multipartite purification. The paper's principal weakness is a correctness gap rather than circularity: Sec. III.D and IV.B treat Pℓ as a physical state emitted without postselection, whereas Eq. (8)/(18) show the unconditioned output is ρ and Eq. (24) is a parity-weighted estimator. Because this is an unsupported identification rather than a derivation that reduces to its own input by construction, it does not raise the circularity score beyond the minor-self-citation range.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The protocol introduces no new physical entities; 'ρ^N' is a mathematical auxiliary object inherited from virtual distillation. The main unstated inputs are: noiseless purification operations, identical independent copies, product-state dominance for the threshold claims, and an operational identification of the parity estimator with physical purification. The only hand-chosen numerical example is the 20% twirling fraction, which is not load-bearing for the main full-twirling threshold.

free parameters (1)
  • twirling_fraction = 20% of the 3^M Clifford gate set
    The approximate-twirling threshold in Sec. VIII D is computed for a hand-chosen 20% of twirling gates; the reported range 0.7 < p_th ≲ 0.8 depends on this choice. It does not affect the full-twirling or no-twirling central thresholds.
axioms (8)
  • standard math SWAP-test projection formulas (Eqs. 3-5) are correct
    The projectors Π±=(I±SWAP)/2 and the outcome probabilities P±=1/2(1±Tr[ρρ']) are standard quantum information background.
  • domain assumption The parity-weighted estimator in Eq. (24) is an unbiased estimator of Tr(Oρ^N)/Tr(ρ^N)
    This is the virtual-distillation identity; the paper relies on it as the operational meaning of 'accessing' ρ^N, but this is an estimator identity, not a physical-state transformation.
  • ad hoc to paper All purification operations (CSWAP gates, ancilla measurements, register reinitialization) are noiseless
    The threshold procedure in Sec. V.D applies the error channel only to the copies before purification; noise in the SWAP tests and reinitialization is omitted, which is essential for the quoted thresholds.
  • domain assumption Copies of the unknown state are identical and independently noised, so the global input is ρ⊗N
    The recursive purification equations (e.g., Eq. 14) assume the same ρ for all registers at each merge; correlated errors or non-identical preparations are not modeled.
  • domain assumption The product-state family (e.g., |+>⊗M) remains in a form where the ideal component is the dominant eigenvector for p below the threshold
    The threshold result p_th=3/4 for local depolarizing is derived numerically for symmetric product states; for general entangled states the dominant eigenvector of the noisy state need not be the original state.
  • domain assumption Twirling unitaries (I,H,HS) can be applied without additional noise and exactly convert dephasing to depolarizing
    The twirling conversion in Eq. (65) is treated as an exact channel identity, but physical twirling gates would themselves be noisy; this is not included in the threshold analysis.
  • domain assumption The error-threshold definition in Definition 1, using the crossing of initial fidelity-decay rates γ_L, is a faithful criterion for asymptotic correctability
    The paper defines the threshold operationally via γ_L crossover rather than proving that ℓ→∞ drives logical error to zero for all p<p_th; the equivalence of these criteria is assumed.
  • standard math In the recursive formulas, P_σi are conditional probabilities whose product equals the joint probability of the full outcome string
    Eq. (19) writes the joint probability as a product; this is only correct if each P_σi is understood as the conditional probability of that SWAP outcome given prior outcomes.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 27012 in / 27132 out tokens · 252415 ms · 2026-08-02T18:23:19.363522+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Quantum error correction physically removes errors from a quantum state, while quantum error mitigation improves observable estimates by processing noisy measurement data. We introduce \emph{purification quantum error suppression} (PQES), a hybrid approach that uses multiple noisy copies of an unknown state to combine these two ideas. The protocol uses SWAP tests to physically reduce errors by purification, while the full outcome record is used to combine all branches without postselection. In this way, PQES avoids the fixed-success-outcome requirement of standard SWAP-test purification while still accessing the power-purified state $\rho^N$. The SWAP identities allow purification steps to be interleaved with unitary circuit blocks, so errors can be suppressed during a computation rather than only at the final measurement. We provide both a parallel binary-tree implementation and a more compact register-recycled implementation using $O(M\ell)$ coherent data qubits for an $M$-qubit register and $N=2^\ell$ input copies. We analyze the resulting error thresholds under representative noise models. For local depolarizing noise on the product-state family studied here, the threshold is $p_{\mathrm{th}}=3/4$ for any register size, while local dephasing of $|+\rangle^{\otimes M}$ has a threshold of $p_{\mathrm{th}}=1/2$. Local Clifford twirling can be used to convert dephasing into a depolarization channel and restore the higher threshold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.11568 by Jonathan Raghoonanan, Tim Byrnes.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Then add the unitary sequence for the desired quantum circuit after the purification circuit, such as that shown on the left side of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the fidelity after ℓ purification rounds and various physical error probabilities p. The local de￾polarization noise model is applied only to the initial state, and successive purification rounds are applied to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a)(b) shows the fidelity evolution as a func￾tion of error and purification cycles for M = 5. Similarly to the global depolarizing channel (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: shows results for local dephasing without twirling for M = 1 and M = 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (c)(d) shows the logical error rate γL as a function of the physical error rate p. For M = 1, ap￾proximate twirling here does not change anything from the untwirled case, as it corresponds to only applying a single Clifford gate; this simply rotates the dephas￾ing axis but does not make the noise channel any less anisotropic. Hence, the crossover is pth = 0.5, identical to pure dephasing without twirling … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Catalytic Quantum Error Correction: Theory, Efficient Catalyst Preparation, and Numerical Benchmarks

    quant-ph 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0

    Catalytic Quantum Error Correction recovers known target states from noisy copies with F > 0.96 using only eight copies by preserving coherent modes and applying a CPMG-Clifford-swap-test pipeline, bypassing magnitude...

  2. Catalytic Quantum Error Correction: Theory, Efficient Catalyst Preparation, and Numerical Benchmarks

    quant-ph 2026-03 reject novelty 5.0

    The authors propose a catalytic coherence-amplification protocol claimed to recover known quantum states from noisy copies without an error threshold, using 8-32 copies in numerical benchmarks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

    The highest power of ρ can be extracted using P2(ρ) := X σ1σ2σ3 Pσ1Pσ2Pσ3σ1σ2σ3ρσ1σ2σ3 =ρ4

    We may extract the higher powers of ρ by multiplying by suitable factors of σi and using the fact that σ2 i = 1 . The highest power of ρ can be extracted using P2(ρ) := X σ1σ2σ3 Pσ1Pσ2Pσ3σ1σ2σ3ρσ1σ2σ3 =ρ4. (17) This is the same logic as that formulated with ancilla qubits, as given in ( 9). Here, the sign rule when perform- ing the average is the total pa...

  2. [2]

    Set the cycle number t = 0

    Initialize the state in a suitable pure state ρ = jψ0ihψ0j. Set the cycle number t = 0

  3. [3]

    Apply the error channel ρ ! E (ρ). (41)

  4. [4]

    Performℓ rounds of purification ρ ! P ℓ(ρ). (42)

  5. [5]

    Measure the fidelity F = hψ0jρjψ0i

  6. [6]

    Update t !t + 1 and go to step 1. To extract γL, we assume that the fidelity F follows an exponential decay with the number of cycles and evalu- ate: γL = dF dt t=0 F (t = 0) F (t = 1), (43) where t is the number of cycles. This gives the decay rate of the fidelity with ℓ rounds PQEC, which should be lower than the bare error channel if the error correction...

  7. [7]

    Symmetric product states We first show the effect of PQEC applied to the M - qubit symmetric product state, subjected to local depo- larization. For concreteness, we choose jψ0i = j+i⊗M ; however, due to the isotropic nature of the local depolar- izing channel, the same results hold for any completely symmetric product state jϕi⊗M . While local depolariza- ...

  8. [8]

    In order to see the performance of PQEC on more general states, we per- form a small error expansion under the local depolarizing channel

    Small error expansion The results of the previous section was limited to per- mutationally symmetric product states. In order to see the performance of PQEC on more general states, we per- form a small error expansion under the local depolarizing channel. For an arbitrary pure state jψ0i, we may expand the density matrix in the M -qubit Pauli basis as jψ0...

  9. [9]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computa- tion and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edi- tion (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  10. [10]

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

    2013

  11. [11]

    Watrous, The Theory of Quantum Information (Cam- bridge University Press, 2018)

    J. Watrous, The Theory of Quantum Information (Cam- bridge University Press, 2018)

    2018

  12. [12]

    C. J. Wood and J. M. Gambetta, Quantification and characterization of leakage errors, Physical Review A 97, 10.1103/physreva.97.032306 (2018)

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.97.032306 2018

  13. [13]

    Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error cor- rection (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9705052 [quant-ph]

    D. Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error cor- rection (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9705052 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  14. [14]

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Surface codes: Towards practical large- scale quantum computation, Physical Review A 86, 10.1103/physreva.86.032324 (2012)

    doi:10.1103/physreva.86.032324 2012

  15. [15]

    Magesan, J

    E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, and J. Emerson, Scal- able and robust randomized benchmarking of quantum processes, Physical Review Letters 106, 10.1103/phys- revlett.106.180504 (2011). 17

    doi:10.1103/phys- 2011

  16. [16]

    J. J. Wallman and J. Emerson, Noise tailoring for scalable quantum computation via randomized compiling, Physi- cal Review A 94, 10.1103/physreva.94.052325 (2016)

    doi:10.1103/physreva.94.052325 2016

  17. [17]

    Lidar, Quantum Information and Computation for Chemistry (Wiley, 2014)

    D. Lidar, Quantum Information and Computation for Chemistry (Wiley, 2014)

    2014

  18. [18]

    Dankert, R

    C. Dankert, R. Cleve, J. Emerson, and E. Livine, Ex- act and approximate unitary 2-designs and their ap- plication to fidelity estimation, Physical Review A 80, 10.1103/physreva.80.012304 (2009)

    doi:10.1103/physreva.80.012304 2009

  19. [19]

    Viola, E

    L. Viola, E. Knill, and S. Lloyd, Dynamical decoupling of open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2417 (1999)

    1999

  20. [20]

    Temme, S

    K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, Error miti- gation for short-depth quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 180509 (2017)

    2017

  21. [21]

    Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Hug- gins, Y. Li, J. R. McClean, and T. E. OBrien, Quan- tum error mitigation, Reviews of Modern Physics 95, 10.1103/revmodphys.95.045005 (2023)

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.95.045005 2023

  22. [22]

    Dür and H

    W. Dür and H. J. Briegel, Entanglement purification and quantum error correction, Reports on Progress in Physics 70, 13811424 (2007)

    2007

  23. [23]

    P.-S. Yan, L. Zhou, W. Zhong, and Y.-B. Sheng, Ad- vances in quantum entanglement purification, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy 66, 250301 (2023)

    2023

  24. [24]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy chan- nels, Physical Review Letters 76, 722725 (1996)

    1996

  25. [25]

    Deutsch, A

    D. Deutsch, A. Ekert, R. Jozsa, C. Macchiavello, S. Popescu, and A. Sanpera, Quantum privacy amplifi- cation and the security of quantum cryptography over noisy channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2818 (1996)

    1996

  26. [26]

    Murao, M

    M. Murao, M. B. Plenio, S. Popescu, V. Vedral, and P. L. Knight, Multiparticle entanglement purification pro- tocols, Phys. Rev. A 57, R4075 (1998)

    1998

  27. [27]

    Ahmad, S

    S. Ahmad, S. Li, J. Raghoonanan, K. Zhou, V. Ivannikov, and T. Byrnes, Distillation of supersinglet states (2025), arXiv:2509.20962 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    J.-W. Pan, C. Simon, C. Brukner, and A. Zeilinger, En- tanglement purification for quantum communication, Na- ture 410, 10671070 (2001)

    2001

  29. [29]

    Briegel, W

    H.-J. Briegel, W. Dür, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Quantum repeaters: The role of imperfect local operations in quan- tum communication, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5932 (1998)

    1998

  30. [30]

    H. J. Kimble, The quantum internet, Nature 453, 10231030 (2008)

    2008

  31. [31]

    Mauricio Torres, J

    J. Mauricio Torres, J. Zsolt Bernád, and R. Gómez-Rosas, Performance of entanglement purification including max- imally entangled mixed states, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 57, 315302 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    Illiano, M

    J. Illiano, M. Caleffi, A. Manzalini, and A. S. Cacciapuoti, Quantum internet protocol stack: A comprehensive sur- vey, Computer Networks 213, 109092 (2022)

    2022

  33. [33]

    J. I. Cirac, A. K. Ekert, and C. Macchiavello, Optimal purification of single qubits, Physical Review Letters 82, 43444347 (1999)

    1999

  34. [34]

    Keyl and R

    M. Keyl and R. F. Werner, The rate of optimal purifica- tion procedures (1999), arXiv:quant-ph/9910124 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  35. [35]

    A. M. Childs, H. Fu, D. Leung, Z. Li, M. Ozols, and V. Vyas, Streaming quantum state purification, Quantum 9, 1603 (2025)

    2025

  36. [36]

    Buhrman, R

    H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, J. Watrous, and R. de Wolf, Quan- tum fingerprinting, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 167902 (2001)

    2001

  37. [37]

    W. J. Huggins, S. McArdle, T. E. OBrien, J. Lee, N. C. Rubin, S. Boixo, K. B. Whaley, R. Babbush, and J. R. McClean, Virtual distillation for quantum error mitiga- tion, Physical Review X 11, 041036 (2021)

    2021

  38. [38]

    T. E. OBrien, G. Anselmetti, F. Gkritsis, V. E. Elfv- ing, S. Polla, W. J. Huggins, O. Oumarou, K. Kechedzhi, D. Abanin, R. Acharya, I. Aleiner, R. Allen, T. I. An- dersen, K. Anderson, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, J. Atalaya, J. C. Bardin, A. Bengtsson, G. Bor- toli, A. Bourassa, J. Bovaird, L. Brill, M. Broughton, B. Buckley, D. A. Buell, T....

    2023

  39. [39]

    Grier, D

    D. Grier, D. Leung, Z. Li, H. Pashayan, and L. Schaeffer, Streaming quantum state purification for general mixed states (2025), arXiv:2503.22644 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Grafe, K

    M. Grafe, K. Zhou, Z. Tekin, Z. Lin, S. Li, F. Zhang, V. Ivannikov, and T. Byrnes, Ultrahigh threshold non- stabilizer nonlinear quantum error correcting code (2025), arXiv:2506.10445 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    A. G. Fowler, A. M. Stephens, and P. Groszkowski, High- threshold universal quantum computation on the surface code, Physical Review AAtomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 80, 052312 (2009)

    2009

  42. [42]

    Eastin and E

    B. Eastin and E. Knill, Restrictions on transversal en- coded quantum gate sets, Physical review letters 102, 110502 (2009). 18

    2009

  43. [43]

    Eldredge, M

    Z. Eldredge, M. Foss-Feig, J. A. Gross, S. L. Rolston, and A. V. Gorshkov, Optimal and secure measurement protocols for quantum sensor networks, Phys. Rev. A 97, 042337 (2018)

    2018

  44. [44]

    D. J. Wineland, J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, F. L. Moore, and D. J. Heinzen, Spin squeezing and reduced quantum noise in spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. A 46, R6797 (1992)

    1992

  45. [45]

    globally

    J. Ma, Y. Shen, J. Huang, and C. Lee, Quantum metrol- ogy via floquet-engineered two-axis twisting and turn dy- namics (2025), arXiv:2409.08524 [quant-ph] . 19 Appendix A: PQEC Overhead Eq. ( 24) is evaluated using experimental shots k 2 f1,...,N sampg. From each shot, we obtain (i) a SW AP- outcome string ⃗ σ(k) ℓ and hence a parity weight Ωk := Ω⃗ σ(k) ℓ...

    arXiv 2025