arxiv: 2603.15610 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-16 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: no theorem link

Universal Weakly Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation via Code Switching in the [[8,3,2]] Code

Shixin Wu , Dawei Zhong , Todd A. Brun , Daniel A. Lidar

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 09:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords quantum error correctioncode switchingfault tolerance[[8,3,2]] codepostselectionuniversal quantum computationClifford gatesGrover search

0 comments

The pith

Code switching between two versions of the [[8,3,2]] code enables universal postselected fault-tolerant quantum computation.

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

The paper presents a code-switching protocol between two versions of the [[8,3,2]] code that together support a universal gate set while operating in an error-detecting regime. One version implements weakly fault-tolerant single-qubit Clifford gates, and the other implements a logical CCZ gate through transversal T/T† operations together with logical CZ, CNOT, and SWAP. Because the code distance is 2, single faults produce detectable outcomes and accepted runs exhibit quadratic suppression of logical errors. The protocol is validated through simulations of state preparation, switching, and a three-logical-qubit Grover search, providing a concrete route to postselected fault-tolerant computation.

Core claim

Switching between two versions of the [[8,3,2]] code—one supporting weakly fault-tolerant single-qubit Cliffords and the other supporting transversal T/T† for logical CCZ plus CZ/CNOT/SWAP—yields a universal scheme for postselected fault-tolerant quantum computation in which single faults are detected and logical error rates in accepted runs are quadratically suppressed.

What carries the argument

The code-switching protocol between the two versions of the [[8,3,2]] code that combines their supported gates while detecting single faults.

If this is right

Single-qubit Clifford gates become available in a weakly fault-tolerant form in one code version.
Transversal T/T† implements logical CCZ while CZ, CNOT, and SWAP remain available in the other version.
Accepted computation runs exhibit quadratic suppression of logical errors.
Universal postselected fault-tolerant computation is achieved without needing a single code with a transversal universal set.
A three-logical-qubit Grover search can be realized by interleaving the two code versions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The same switching idea could be applied to other small-distance codes to enlarge their gate sets.
Postselection overhead could be traded against circuit depth in near-term hardware implementations.
Extending the protocol to distance-3 versions of the code would convert quadratic suppression into cubic suppression.
The numerical validation on Grover search provides a benchmark that could be compared directly with other postselection schemes.

Load-bearing premise

The two versions of the [[8,3,2]] code support the claimed gates and single faults always produce detectable outcomes.

What would settle it

Numerical or experimental runs in which the logical error rate of accepted outputs fails to decrease quadratically with the physical error rate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.15610 by Daniel A. Lidar, Dawei Zhong, Shixin Wu, Todd A. Brun.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Obtaining the two versions of the [[8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. The logical circuit for the single-pair inter-block [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Flag-based measurement of a weight-4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Numerical simulation of fault-tolerant state preparation for the [[8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Numerical simulation of the isolated switching-step benchmark. Left: postselected logical error rate for switching in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Logical Grover circuit for the two marked strings [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Simulation results for Grover’s algorithm with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Weakly fault-tolerant gadgets for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10. Simulation results for the encoded Hadamard gate on the three logical qubits. In the low-noise regime, the postselected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11. Fault-tolerant GHZ state encoding circuit [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: FIG. 12. Fault-tolerant state-preparation circuits for the Version 1 [[8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: FIG. 13. Fault-tolerant state-preparation circuits for the Version 2 [[8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: FIG. 14. Inter-block logical gates between blocks 1 and 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Code-switching offers a route to universal, fault-tolerant quantum computation by circumventing the limitation implied by the Eastin-Knill theorem against a universal transversal gate set within a single quantum code. Here, we present a fault-tolerant code-switching protocol between two versions of the $[[8, 3, 2]]$ code. One version supports weakly fault-tolerant single-qubit Clifford gates, while the other supports a logical $\overline{\mathrm{CCZ}}$ gate via transversal $T/T^\dagger$ together with logical $\overline{\mathrm{CZ}}$, $\overline{\mathrm{CNOT}}$, and $\overline{\mathrm{SWAP}}$ gates. Because both codes have distance 2, the protocol operates in a postselected, error-detecting regime: single faults lead to detectable outcomes, and accepted runs exhibit quadratic suppression of logical error rates. This yields a universal scheme for postselected fault-tolerant computation. We validate the protocol numerically through simulations of state preparation, code switching, and a three-logical-qubit implementation of Grover's search.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper gives a concrete switching protocol between two [[8,3,2]] versions that combines Clifford and T-based gates for postselected universal computation, backed by basic simulations.

read the letter

This paper outlines a code-switching protocol between two versions of the [[8,3,2]] code for universal postselected fault-tolerant quantum computation. One version handles weakly fault-tolerant single-qubit Cliffords. The other supports transversal T and T dagger for a logical CCZ, plus logical CZ, CNOT, and SWAP. The new element is the specific switching protocol that transitions between these two stabilizer sets. They validate it with numerical simulations of state preparation, code switching, and a Grover search on three logical qubits. The simulations give reasonable support for the protocol functioning as described. The construction uses established features of the code, keeping things straightforward. A soft spot is the error detection during switching. With distance 2, the quadratic suppression claim depends on every single fault producing a detectable outcome. The switching circuit is the critical step, and it's not immediately clear whether all weight-1 errors are caught or if some could be accepted as valid. If the full paper shows that no logical errors slip through on accepted branches, the claim stands; otherwise the suppression might be weaker than stated. This work is for researchers focused on small quantum codes and postselection techniques for near-term computation. Readers interested in code switching or fault tolerance with limited qubits will get value from the concrete protocol and simulations. It deserves a serious referee because it provides a workable scheme with numerical backing, even if the error analysis needs close scrutiny. I recommend sending it for peer review.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a code-switching protocol between two versions of the [[8,3,2]] code to realize a universal gate set for postselected weakly fault-tolerant quantum computation. One code version supports weakly fault-tolerant single-qubit Clifford gates; the other supports a transversal logical CCZ via T/T† gates together with logical CZ, CNOT, and SWAP. Because both codes have distance 2, the protocol is error-detecting: single faults are claimed to produce detectable outcomes, yielding quadratic logical-error suppression on accepted runs. The protocol is validated numerically via simulations of state preparation, code switching, and a three-logical-qubit Grover search.

Significance. If the single-fault detection property is rigorously established, the construction supplies a concrete, small-code route to universality with postselection and quadratic suppression. This is of practical interest for near-term demonstrations and for exploring the boundary between error detection and full fault tolerance. The numerical simulations provide supporting evidence that the protocol functions at the logical level.

major comments (2)

[code-switching protocol] The quadratic-suppression claim rests on every weight-1 error in the switching circuit producing a detectable (rejected) outcome. The manuscript describes the stabilizer conversion and measurement schedule but does not supply an exhaustive enumeration, lemma, or circuit-level fault table showing that no single Pauli is absorbed into an accepted logical operator (see the code-switching protocol description and the paragraph asserting quadratic suppression).
[numerical validation] The numerical validation (state preparation, switching, and Grover search) demonstrates logical functionality but reports no per-run error-rate scaling or comparison against the expected quadratic suppression; without this, the simulations provide only moderate support for the fault-tolerance claim (see the simulation results section).

minor comments (2)

Notation for the two code versions and their stabilizer generators should be introduced with a compact table for quick reference.
The abstract states 'weakly fault-tolerant' without a one-sentence definition; a brief parenthetical clarification would help readers unfamiliar with the term.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of the fault-tolerance properties.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [code-switching protocol] The quadratic-suppression claim rests on every weight-1 error in the switching circuit producing a detectable (rejected) outcome. The manuscript describes the stabilizer conversion and measurement schedule but does not supply an exhaustive enumeration, lemma, or circuit-level fault table showing that no single Pauli is absorbed into an accepted logical operator (see the code-switching protocol description and the paragraph asserting quadratic suppression).

Authors: We agree that an explicit enumeration would make the single-fault detection property more transparent. In the revised manuscript we have added a new appendix that enumerates every weight-1 Pauli error on the code-switching circuit, tabulates the resulting syndrome and measurement outcomes, and verifies that each produces a detectable rejection. This establishes the claimed quadratic suppression on accepted runs. revision: yes
Referee: [numerical validation] The numerical validation (state preparation, switching, and Grover search) demonstrates logical functionality but reports no per-run error-rate scaling or comparison against the expected quadratic suppression; without this, the simulations provide only moderate support for the fault-tolerance claim (see the simulation results section).

Authors: We acknowledge that explicit scaling data would strengthen the numerical evidence. The revised manuscript now includes additional simulation results for the three-logical-qubit Grover search that plot logical error rate versus physical error probability on accepted runs, confirming the expected quadratic suppression and providing a direct comparison to the theoretical prediction. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Minor self-citation to prior [[8,3,2]] code analysis; central switching protocol remains independently derived

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain starts from the known stabilizer generators and distance-2 properties of the [[8,3,2]] code, applies standard transversal-gate constructions for Cliffords in one version and T/T† plus CZ/CNOT/SWAP in the other, and defines a measurement-based switching circuit that converts between the two stabilizer sets. These steps use established code properties rather than any fitted parameter or self-referential definition. A self-citation to earlier work on the same code appears but is not load-bearing: the switching protocol, postselection rule, and quadratic error suppression claim are constructed explicitly from the code's distance and the listed transversal gates. Numerical simulations of state preparation, switching, and Grover search provide independent validation. No equation reduces to its own input by construction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported solely from the authors' prior work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the gate-support properties of the [[8,3,2]] code and the standard error-detection behavior of distance-2 codes, with no free parameters or invented entities.

axioms (2)

domain assumption The [[8,3,2]] code admits weakly fault-tolerant single-qubit Clifford gates in one version and a logical CCZ gate via transversal T/T† together with CZ, CNOT, and SWAP in the other version.
Invoked as the basis for the code-switching protocol.
standard math Single faults in a distance-2 code produce detectable outcomes, enabling postselection with quadratic logical-error suppression.
Standard result in quantum error correction used to claim the error-suppression property.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5491 in / 1416 out tokens · 54745 ms · 2026-05-15T09:39:00.784212+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

P. W. Shor, Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory, Phys. Rev. A52, R2493 (1995)

work page 1995
[2]

A. M. Steane, Error correcting codes in quantum theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 793 (1996)

work page 1996
[3]

Gottesman, Class of quantum error-correcting codes saturating the quantum hamming bound, Phys

D. Gottesman, Class of quantum error-correcting codes saturating the quantum hamming bound, Phys. Rev. A 54, 1862 (1996)

work page 1996
[4]

A. R. Calderbank, E. M. Rains, P. W. Shor, and N. J. A. Sloane, Quantum error correction and orthogonal geom- 12 etry, Physical Review Letters78, 405 (1997)

work page 1997
[5]

Knill and R

E. Knill and R. Laflamme, Theory of quantum error- correcting codes, Phys. Rev. A55, 900 (1997)

work page 1997
[6]

Knill, R

E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and L. Viola, Theory of quantum error correction for general noise, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 2525 (2000)

work page 2000
[7]

Bacon, Operator quantum error-correcting subsys- tems for self-correcting quantum memories, Phys

D. Bacon, Operator quantum error-correcting subsys- tems for self-correcting quantum memories, Phys. Rev. A73, 012340 (2006)

work page 2006
[8]

Kribs, R

D. Kribs, R. Laflamme, and D. Poulin, Unified and gener- alized approach to quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 180501 (2005)

work page 2005
[9]

Poulin, Stabilizer formalism for operator quantum er- ror correction, Phys

D. Poulin, Stabilizer formalism for operator quantum er- ror correction, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 230504 (2005)

work page 2005
[10]

R. L. Kosut, A. Shabani, and D. A. Lidar, Robust quan- tum error correction via convex optimization, Physical Review Letters100, 020502 (2008)

work page 2008
[11]

Gaitan,Quantum Error Correction and Fault Toler- ant Quantum Computing(Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, 2008)

F. Gaitan,Quantum Error Correction and Fault Toler- ant Quantum Computing(Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, 2008)

work page 2008
[12]

Lidar and T

D. Lidar and T. Brun, eds.,Quantum Error Correction (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2013)

work page 2013
[13]

D. P. DiVincenzo and P. W. Shor, Fault-tolerant error correction with efficient quantum codes, Physical Review Letters77, 3260 (1996)

work page 1996
[14]

Aharonov and M

D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant error rate, SIAM Journal on Computing38, 1207 (2008), https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539799359385

work page doi:10.1137/s0097539799359385 2008
[15]

Aliferis, D

P. Aliferis, D. Gottesman, and J. Preskill, Quantum accu- racy threshold for concatenated distance-3 codes, Quant. Inf. Comput.6, 97 (2006)

work page 2006
[16]

B. W. Reichardt, Fault-tolerance threshold for a distance-three quantum code, inAutomata, Languages and Programming: 33rd International Colloquium, ICALP 2006, Venice, Italy, July 10-14, 2006, Proceed- ings, Part I, edited by M. Bugliesi, B. Preneel, V. Sas- sone, and I. Wegener (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006) pp. 50–61

work page 2006
[17]

Knill, Quantum computing with realistically noisy de- vices, Nature434, 39 (2005)

E. Knill, Quantum computing with realistically noisy de- vices, Nature434, 39 (2005)

work page 2005
[18]

E. T. Campbell, B. M. Terhal, and C. Vuillot, Roads towards fault-tolerant universal quantum computation, Nature549, 172 EP (2017)

work page 2017
[19]

Acharyaet al., Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold, Nature638, 920 (2025)

R. Acharyaet al., Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold, Nature638, 920 (2025)

work page 2025
[20]

Eickbuschet al., Demonstration of dynamic surface codes, Nature Physics21, 1994 (2025)

A. Eickbuschet al., Demonstration of dynamic surface codes, Nature Physics21, 1994 (2025)

work page 1994
[21]

Lacroixet al., Scaling and logic in the colour code on a superconducting quantum processor, Nature645, 614 (2025)

N. Lacroixet al., Scaling and logic in the colour code on a superconducting quantum processor, Nature645, 614 (2025)

work page 2025
[22]

Bluvsteinet al., A fault-tolerant neutral-atom archi- tecture for universal quantum computation, Nature649, 39 (2026)

D. Bluvsteinet al., A fault-tolerant neutral-atom archi- tecture for universal quantum computation, Nature649, 39 (2026)

work page 2026
[23]

Vezvaee, C

A. Vezvaee, C. Benito, M. Morford-Oberst, A. Bermudez, and D. A. Lidar, Surface code scaling on heavy-hex super- conducting quantum processors (2025), arXiv:2510.18847 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[24]

P. W. Shor, Fault-tolerant quantum computation, Pro- ceedings of 37th Conference on Foundations of Computer Science , 56 (1996)

work page 1996
[25]

Eastin and E

B. Eastin and E. Knill, Restrictions on transversal en- coded quantum gate sets, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 110502 (2009)

work page 2009
[26]

Gerhard and T

C. Gerhard and T. A. Brun, Weakly fault-tolerant computation in a quantum error-detecting code (2026), arXiv:2408.14828 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2026
[27]

A. Y. Kitaev, Quantum computations: algorithms and error correction, Russian Mathematical Surveys52, 1191 (1997)

work page 1997
[28]

On Universal and Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computing

P. Boykin, T. Mor, M. Pulver, V. Roychowdhury, and F. Vatan, On universal and fault-tolerant quantum comput- ing: a novel basis and a new constructive proof of uni- versality for Shor’s basis, in40th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science(IEEE Comput. Soc., Los Alamitos, CA, 1999) p. 486, quant-ph/9906054

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999
[29]

Bravyi and A

S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computa- tion with ideal clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Physical Review A71, 022316 (2005)

work page 2005
[30]

Litinski, Magic State Distillation: Not as Costly as You Think, Quantum3, 205 (2019)

D. Litinski, Magic State Distillation: Not as Costly as You Think, Quantum3, 205 (2019)

work page 2019
[31]

J. T. Anderson, G. Duclos-Cianci, and D. Poulin, Fault- tolerant conversion between the steane and reed-muller quantum codes, Physical Review Letters113, 080501 (2014)

work page 2014
[32]

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

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

work page 2015
[33]

Kubica and M

A. Kubica and M. E. Beverland, Universal transversal gates with color codes: A simplified approach, Phys. Rev. A91, 032330 (2015)

work page 2015
[34]

Quan, L.-L

D.-X. Quan, L.-L. Zhu, C.-X. Pei, and B. C. Sanders, Fault-tolerant conversion between adjacent reed–muller quantum codes based on gauge fixing, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical51, 115305 (2018)

work page 2018
[35]

F. Butt, S. Heußen, M. Rispler, and M. M¨ uller, Fault- tolerant code-switching protocols for near-term quantum processors, PRX Quantum5, 020345 (2024)

work page 2024
[36]

Vasmer and A

M. Vasmer and A. Kubica, Morphing quantum codes, PRX Quantum3, 030319 (2022)

work page 2022
[37]

E. T. Campbell, The smallest interesting colour code (2016)

work page 2016
[38]

Hangleiter, M

D. Hangleiter, M. Kalinowski, D. Bluvstein, M. Cain, N. Maskara, X. Gao, A. Kubica, M. D. Lukin, and M. J. Gullans, Fault-tolerant compiling of classically hard in- stantaneous quantum polynomial circuits on hypercubes, PRX Quantum6, 020338 (2025)

work page 2025
[39]

Wanget al., Fault-tolerant one-bit ad- dition with the smallest interesting color code, Science Advances10, eado9024 (2024), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.ado9024

Y. Wanget al., Fault-tolerant one-bit ad- dition with the smallest interesting color code, Science Advances10, eado9024 (2024), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.ado9024

work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.ado9024 2024
[40]

Honciuc Menendez, A

D. Honciuc Menendez, A. Ray, and M. Vasmer, Im- plementing fault-tolerant non-clifford gates using the [[8,3,2]] color code, Phys. Rev. A109, 062438 (2024)

work page 2024
[41]

Bluvsteinet al., Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature626, 58 (2024)

D. Bluvsteinet al., Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature626, 58 (2024)

work page 2024
[42]

Singkanipa, Z

P. Singkanipa, Z. Xia, and D. A. Lidar, Families ofd= 2 2D subsystem stabilizer codes for universal Hamilto- nian quantum computation with two-body interactions, Quantum9, 1821 (2025)

work page 2025
[43]

D. B. Tan, D. Bluvstein, M. D. Lukin, and J. Cong, Compiling quantum circuits for dynamically field- programmable neutral atoms array processors, Quantum 8, 1281 (2024)

work page 2024
[44]

Bluvstein, H

D. Bluvstein, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, M. Kalinowski, A. Keesling, N. Maskara, H. Pichler, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, A quantum processor based on coherent transport of en- 13 tangled atom arrays, Nature604, 451 (2022)

work page 2022
[45]

J. M. Pino, J. M. Dreiling, C. Figgatt, J. P. Gaebler, S. A. Moses, M. S. Allman, C. H. Baldwin, M. Foss-Feig, D. Hayes, K. Mayer, C. Ryan-Anderson, and B. Neyen- huis, Demonstration of the trapped-ion quantum ccd computer architecture, Nature592, 209 (2021)

work page 2021
[46]

G. Li, Y. Ding, and Y. Xie, Tackling the qubit mapping problem for nisq-era quantum devices, inProceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Conference on Architec- tural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems(2019) pp. 1001–1014

work page 2019
[47]

Cowtan, S

A. Cowtan, S. Dilkes, R. Duncan, A. Krajenbrink, W. Simmons, and S. Sivarajah, On the qubit routing problem, in14th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography (TQC 2019), Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Vol. 135 (2019) pp. 5:1–5:32

work page 2019
[48]

Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction

D. Gottesman,Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Cor- rection, Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA (1997), quant-ph/9705052

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997
[49]

Chao and B

R. Chao and B. W. Reichardt, Quantum error correction with only two extra qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 050502 (2018)

work page 2018
[50]

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

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

work page 2019
[51]

L. K. Grover, A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search, inProceedings of the Twenty-eighth An- nual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’96 (ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1996) pp. 212–219

work page 1996
[52]

L. K. Grover, Quantum computers can search arbitrar- ily large databases by a single query, Physical Review Letters79, 4709 (1997)

work page 1997
[53]

Pokharel and D

B. Pokharel and D. Lidar, Better-than-classical Grover search via quantum error detection and suppression, npj Quantum Information10(2024)

work page 2024
[54]

Ginsberg and V

T. Ginsberg and V. Patel, Quantum error detection for early term fault-tolerant quantum algorithms, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10790 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[55]

F. Butt, I. Pogorelov, R. Freund, A. Steiner, M. Meyer, T. Monz, and M. M¨ uller, Demonstration of measurement- free universal logical quantum computation, Nature Communications17, 995 (2026)

work page 2026
[56]

Boyer, G

M. Boyer, G. Brassard, P. Hoyer, and A. Tapp, Tight bounds on quantum searching, Fortschritte der Physik 46, 493 (1998)

work page 1998
[57]

Biham, O

E. Biham, O. Biham, D. Biron, M. Grassl, and D. A. Lidar, Grover’s quantum search algorithm for an arbi- trary initial amplitude distribution, Physical Review A 60, 2742 (1999)

work page 1999
[58]

Qiskit contributors, Qiskit aer: A high performance sim- ulator for quantum circuits (2024)

work page 2024
[59]

Kubica, B

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

work page 2015
[60]

M. A. Webster, B. J. Brown, and S. D. Bartlett, The xp stabiliser formalism: a generalisation of the pauli sta- biliser formalism with arbitrary phases, Quantum6, 815 (2022)

work page 2022
[61]

D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, Go- ing beyond bell’s theorem, inBell’s Theorem, Quan- tum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1989) pp. 69–72. Appendix A: Fault-tolerant implementations of two-qubit rotation gates and Hadamard gate |Φ+⟩ X Z X Z Z X Z |+⟩ Y Z RX Z |+⟩ data Z X Y ...

work page 1989
[62]

Ann-qubit GHZ state [61] in the computa- tional basis is |GHZn⟩= 1√ 2 |0⟩⊗n +|1⟩ ⊗n ,(B1) with +1 eigenoperatorsX ⊗n andZ 0Zj forj= 1,

GHZ and dual-GHZ resource states Most of the encoding circuits below reduce, after Gaus- sian elimination of the stabilizer generators, to standard GHZ states, dual GHZ states, Bell pairs, or tensor prod- ucts thereof. Ann-qubit GHZ state [61] in the computa- tional basis is |GHZn⟩= 1√ 2 |0⟩⊗n +|1⟩ ⊗n ,(B1) with +1 eigenoperatorsX ⊗n andZ 0Zj forj= 1, . . . , n−

work page
[63]

The corresponding dual GHZ state in theXbasis is |Dual GHZn⟩= 1√ 2 |+⟩⊗n +|−⟩ ⊗n ,(B2) with +1 eigenoperatorsZ ⊗n andX 0Xj forj= 1, . . . , n− 1. The fault-tolerant preparation circuit for|GHZ n⟩is shown in Fig. 11. The dual GHZ state is prepared by the same construction after interchanging theXandZ bases, i.e., by replacing|0⟩ ↔ |+⟩, reversing the CNOT d...

work page
[64]

Version 1 The Version 1 preparation circuits are collected in Fig. 12. a. Logical| 000⟩(Fig. 12(a)).This preparation fixes all three logical qubits of the parent [[8,3,3,2]] subsystem code to| 0⟩and all three gauge qubits to|+ g⟩. Since all relevant logical and gauge operators are weight-2, we can reuse the fault-tolerant preparation of logical| +j0n−j−2⟩...

work page
[65]

Version 2 The Version 2 preparation circuits are collected in Fig. 13. a. Logical| 000⟩(Fig. 13(a)).This preparation fixes all three logical qubits and all three gauge qubits of the parent [[8,3,3,2]] subsystem code to| 0⟩and|0 g⟩, respec- tively. The +1 eigenoperators reduce as Z 1 =Z 0Z4 →Z 0Z4 Z 2 =Z 0Z2 →Z 0Z2 Z 3 =Z 0Z1 →Z 0Z1 GZ 4 =Z 0Z1Z2Z3 →Z 0Z3 ...

work page
[66]

If these propagated errors can be detected by measuring the ancillas and sta- bilizers in the following subroutines, the encoding circuit is fault-tolerant

Remarks on circuit simplifications Single-qubit errors may propagate to higher-weight er- rors through an encoding circuit. If these propagated errors can be detected by measuring the ancillas and sta- bilizers in the following subroutines, the encoding circuit is fault-tolerant. Figure 5 has shown that the encoding circuits in this section are fault-tole...

work page
[67]

The latter form is useful when only one of the two blocks admits a convenient fault-tolerant intra-block log- ical CNOT implementation. The same cancellation idea also gives a single inter- block logical CZ: replacing the two layers of parallel inter-block CNOT gates by layers of parallel inter-block CZ gates yields the construction shown in Fig. 14(c). 1...

work page